Did I say that? LOL Did I say anything that wasn’t true? For example, Uncle Remus stories…who actually was the author/publisher made money vs who the stories came from. We can’t deny who had more access to publishing.
You didn’t have to say it explicitly, but what if I told you: “An uncomfortable truth is that early childhood education is dominated by Latina women”? Would that framing strike you negatively or positively?
The point is, pointing out demographics alone doesn’t explain endurance, influence, or universality. Classics survive because readers keep returning to them, not just because of who was in charge of curricula or publishing. Why do they keep returning to them?
You highlight that it’s “uncomfortable” because the arena was dominated by white men, yet discount marginalized authors who benefited and endured within these institutions, like Alexandre Dumas, Langston Hughes, Zora Neale Hurston, or the Harlem Renaissance. Your frame here ends up sounding cheap and doesn’t address the real reason or reasons some works, even those of marginalized creators, endure outside of curricula and why people keep coming back to them.
Karen’s point in listing the perspectives wasn’t directed at why they “ endure “ 🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️ But at was AVAILABLE and being published at that time and that point . Wow - why don’t you have an issue with the fact it usually wealthy people that wrote ? Why was it that only the mention of white men set you off when she listed FIVE characteristics ?????
My issue flew way over your head apparently. And I was the one who asked the initial question that prompted this article…I was hoping for some more depth about prose, characters, etc and why classics become classics out of the entire pool of publications in their time. This felt like a cheap out and landed flat, plus everything these days categorizes white males as “uncomfortable” or otherwise negative. That was my schtick, so relax.
“ relax “ ? Were you relaxed when you hyper-fixated on one parameter out of many and then outright lied about what she wrote ? What a weird way for you to relax with your eyes rolling into your head 🤷🏻♀️
lol Isabel, you’re nothing more than a hammer looking for a nail and cannot understand what I’ve been saying. I will not engage further. Have a good evening
Did you read what she wrote about ALL the characteristic that she listed ? Here’s the DIRECT QUOTE :
Most "classics" are:
• Written by dead white men
• About experiences of privileged people
• Published when certain voices were systematically excluded
• Canonized by institutions that valued some perspectives over others
Does that mean they're bad books? No.
Does that mean they're the ONLY
“Does that mean they're bad books? No.”
See the world “ no “ ?
She listed FOUR things as you hyper fixated and became twisted over ONLY the men comment ?
It’s an objective fact that white men ( usually wealthy or had patrons ) were the ones that were published. It’s inarguable . One of the Brontë sisters’ works was eviscerates by a critic because he suspected the author wasn’t male after all .
That is why ALL three of the Brontë sisters had MALE pen names . In fact , we still TODAY refer to the author of the brilliant Middlemarch as George Eliot - HER name is Mary Jane Evans . It’s important to note that .
But let’s be fair - name western great works that were written by known women prior to the 1900s and / or people of color .
Also as a side note : Oscar Wilde was jailed for being gay . And several male authors were also arrested for their works ..: mainly for how they portrayed women ( independent, cheating , working ) - Flaubert for one .
The pint is that these were a narrow perspective of society at that time. It’s not a bad thing just n ACTUALLY assessment.
I’m not disputing unequal access or historical exclusion at all…I’m pointing out that those facts explain who got published, not *why* certain works continue to be read, loved, and returned to across generations once institutions and social conditions have changed.
My issue isn’t that white men were mentioned, it’s that labeling that fact an “uncomfortable truth” shifts the conversation from historical explanation to moral framing, without actually accounting, again, for *why* some works endure.
You’re not disputing anything - you’re hurt over one parameter that clearly and actually defines a lot of classic lit . Then you took a swipe at Latina writers as being overrepresented in YA fiction ( which is patently false ) .
You completely ( and in purpose ?) misrepresented what Karen wrote . YOU kicked off your comment and chose white men from all the parameters she wrote about
lol I did no such thing, please read closer. I didnt take a swipe at anything, I used an analogy to expose the framing of why it’s bothersome and exhausting and cheap.
It’s also interesting and a point of reflection that in your coming after me for hyperfocusing on an element and accusing me of misrepresentation, you’ve failed to observe you’re doing the exact same thing. Picking one part of what I’ve said out of the whole dialogue (yes it was a part that irritated me), ignoring what I’ve clearly emphasized, and demonstrably misrepresenting what I’ve said. Hypocrite.
Nice…gotta sneak in that “white man bad” injection somewhere 🙄
Did I say that? LOL Did I say anything that wasn’t true? For example, Uncle Remus stories…who actually was the author/publisher made money vs who the stories came from. We can’t deny who had more access to publishing.
You didn’t have to say it explicitly, but what if I told you: “An uncomfortable truth is that early childhood education is dominated by Latina women”? Would that framing strike you negatively or positively?
The point is, pointing out demographics alone doesn’t explain endurance, influence, or universality. Classics survive because readers keep returning to them, not just because of who was in charge of curricula or publishing. Why do they keep returning to them?
You highlight that it’s “uncomfortable” because the arena was dominated by white men, yet discount marginalized authors who benefited and endured within these institutions, like Alexandre Dumas, Langston Hughes, Zora Neale Hurston, or the Harlem Renaissance. Your frame here ends up sounding cheap and doesn’t address the real reason or reasons some works, even those of marginalized creators, endure outside of curricula and why people keep coming back to them.
I tried to do that in the whole context of the post. I won’t argue with you, you bring up good points.
“Uncomfortable “ ? who is it uncomfortable to ?
Karen’s point in listing the perspectives wasn’t directed at why they “ endure “ 🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️ But at was AVAILABLE and being published at that time and that point . Wow - why don’t you have an issue with the fact it usually wealthy people that wrote ? Why was it that only the mention of white men set you off when she listed FIVE characteristics ?????
My issue flew way over your head apparently. And I was the one who asked the initial question that prompted this article…I was hoping for some more depth about prose, characters, etc and why classics become classics out of the entire pool of publications in their time. This felt like a cheap out and landed flat, plus everything these days categorizes white males as “uncomfortable” or otherwise negative. That was my schtick, so relax.
“ relax “ ? Were you relaxed when you hyper-fixated on one parameter out of many and then outright lied about what she wrote ? What a weird way for you to relax with your eyes rolling into your head 🤷🏻♀️
https://substack.com/@kbbond/note/c-210481518?r=3uhk1l&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
lol Isabel, you’re nothing more than a hammer looking for a nail and cannot understand what I’ve been saying. I will not engage further. Have a good evening
Facts shouldn’t be spoken about “ explicitly “ ????????
Did you read what she wrote about ALL the characteristic that she listed ? Here’s the DIRECT QUOTE :
Most "classics" are:
• Written by dead white men
• About experiences of privileged people
• Published when certain voices were systematically excluded
• Canonized by institutions that valued some perspectives over others
Does that mean they're bad books? No.
Does that mean they're the ONLY
“Does that mean they're bad books? No.”
See the world “ no “ ?
She listed FOUR things as you hyper fixated and became twisted over ONLY the men comment ?
It’s an objective fact that white men ( usually wealthy or had patrons ) were the ones that were published. It’s inarguable . One of the Brontë sisters’ works was eviscerates by a critic because he suspected the author wasn’t male after all .
That is why ALL three of the Brontë sisters had MALE pen names . In fact , we still TODAY refer to the author of the brilliant Middlemarch as George Eliot - HER name is Mary Jane Evans . It’s important to note that .
But let’s be fair - name western great works that were written by known women prior to the 1900s and / or people of color .
Also as a side note : Oscar Wilde was jailed for being gay . And several male authors were also arrested for their works ..: mainly for how they portrayed women ( independent, cheating , working ) - Flaubert for one .
The pint is that these were a narrow perspective of society at that time. It’s not a bad thing just n ACTUALLY assessment.
Thank you, Isabel!
I’m not disputing unequal access or historical exclusion at all…I’m pointing out that those facts explain who got published, not *why* certain works continue to be read, loved, and returned to across generations once institutions and social conditions have changed.
My issue isn’t that white men were mentioned, it’s that labeling that fact an “uncomfortable truth” shifts the conversation from historical explanation to moral framing, without actually accounting, again, for *why* some works endure.
You’re not disputing anything - you’re hurt over one parameter that clearly and actually defines a lot of classic lit . Then you took a swipe at Latina writers as being overrepresented in YA fiction ( which is patently false ) .
You completely ( and in purpose ?) misrepresented what Karen wrote . YOU kicked off your comment and chose white men from all the parameters she wrote about
. YOU did that . Not her not anyone else .
https://substack.com/@kbbond/note/c-210481518?r=3uhk1l&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
lol I did no such thing, please read closer. I didnt take a swipe at anything, I used an analogy to expose the framing of why it’s bothersome and exhausting and cheap.
It’s also interesting and a point of reflection that in your coming after me for hyperfocusing on an element and accusing me of misrepresentation, you’ve failed to observe you’re doing the exact same thing. Picking one part of what I’ve said out of the whole dialogue (yes it was a part that irritated me), ignoring what I’ve clearly emphasized, and demonstrably misrepresenting what I’ve said. Hypocrite.