Becca Mills said:
An interesting topic. It's useful to consider how our own books might weather changing cultural norms, IMO.
I think some see this change with Ingalls Wilder's books as not worth the attention it's gotten, but based on the coverage I've seen, for others it prompts strong feelings. Let's continue to keep it civil.
I'm glad that you see value in it. I, too, saw value in it. How will readers' changing opinions and views affect the books we create? How will our stories be viewed in 50 years or more? Will they be championed? Seen as cautionary tales? Or will we be reviled and jeered at for our "backwards" way of thinking and experiences?
AlecHutson said:
Personally, I'm a bit concerned by this trend of judging the work or actions of people who lived in radically different historical times through the lens of the present...Look, I understand that this is a slippery slope argument, and most mainstream folks aren't advocating for removing classic literature that doesn't sit well with modern sensibilities. But I feel this is a step down that path. And I'd much rather keep these important books and people in the curriculum and discuss their books and the context of their views rather than trying to shove them out of sight.
I agree with all of this. It wasn't terribly long ago the people burned books because they didn't fit "the criteria of the world" someone wanted to create. The fact is, the past is ugly at times, and written as ugly. Some books contain racist/sexist/etc themes, things that some people wouldn't want to see. But does that mean it's OK to chip away at an author for portraying those themes? I don't think so.
Paranormal Kitty said:
I had to google to see what the deal was, but apparently they just changed the name of an award that was named after her. I don't see the big deal? Whatever organization that gives out an award has the right to name it after whomever they want or change the name whenever they want to. If someone else wants to foot the bill for an award to be given out, they are free to do the same. It's a decision made by a nonprofit because for whatever reasons they thought it would benefit them and their cause, not a court ruling for crying out loud. Nobody forced them to do it. Times, they change.
The big deal is this: she wrote herself into the story. It's largely autobiographical. The themes that made the book as popular and controversial as it is were from her own experience growing up. It may not be how historians see it, but it's how
she saw it. And for that, the award that was named after her has now been renamed. They crossed out the name of a self-made, hard-working female author and replaced it in the name of being "sensitive to the change in cultural views."
Personally, I see that as wrong. She earned that award and her right to have it named after her. And while they didn't drag her name through the mud like some of the books' detractors, they ultimately decided that, because of the issues that came with her experiences in a different time, and the modern-day reaction to those issues, her name wasn't worth defending. If it could happen to her, it could happen to any author. I think that is worth worrying about, if you care at all about how your story will fare in the changing climate of the future.
JRTomlin said:
Native American children who read it, particularly passages such as "The only good Indian is a dead Indian" might disagree. But I expect many people will continue to read them. Maybe parents might decide to discuss some of the unpleasant factors though.
As stated before by others, the author didn't share that view. But it wasn't an inaccurate view. History has shown that themes like this ran rampant through older cultures, and still reside to this day. Did Laura deserve to have her name struck off an award she earned because she chose to include the ugly side of what she saw in her life? I think not. Perhaps you think differently, and you're entitled to.