The definition of racism is having the power to enforce one's prejudices that ultimately are negative to the person or population against which the attitude is directed. ~ Eleanora Tate
Several years ago I had the privilege of listening to a lecture by a published author. Her name was Eleanora Tate, and I was so impressed not only with her lecture (that particular conference had a few lectures I felt wasted my time), but also with her kindness in talking with attendees afterward. I had heard stories of arrogance and condescension from editors and published authors, but found Eleanora to be very friendly and helpful to all of us attendees totally new to the world of publishing. Eleanora's speciality is historical fiction, specifically about African-Americans. I found it commendable that instead of bemoaning her childhood and the lack of books dealing with her culture, she is researching and writing to fill that gap for today's children. There's no self-aggrandment nor self-pity in her presentations for her books or when asked about her childhood. And I not only respect but also appreciate that.
So imagine my surprise this morning when I opened up an article where she was interviewed, only to find the above statement. By her definition, Democrats are racist against Republicans, every nation is racist against others, Christians are racists against sinners, and atheists are racists against Christians, and the list goes on and on and on. Basically, every single person who belongs to any kind of group or thought is a racist. I am so totally flabbergasted and blown away by such nonsense. Perhaps she was simply trying to be diplomatic in explaining how many people are racists, but she basically took a broad brush and painted every single social human being as a racist, including herself.
Another newsworthy item coming from the children's lit world is the newly arriving Winnie The Pooh book. I'm not totally sure how I feel about this. I was angrily horrified when the group owning the rights to L.M.Montgomery's writings made a second series of movies about Anne that TOTALLY contradicted the written series. In my mind that was outright sacrilege. But this is a little bit different. Yes, Milne is dead, but the Return to the Hundred Acre Wood is supposed to be about Christopher Robin's return from school, with a new character to boot. The old characters aren't supposed to change any, nor contradict Milne's original writings. But that's what gets me. How can anyone know what Milne would or would not have done with his characters? I have never liked the thought that I might write a book and 50 to 100 years after I'm gone someone could acquire the rights and come back and rewrite it, or edit or modify it (like they've done with Daniel Defoe's Robinson Crusoe, etc) and give it a totally new meaning or slant.
I suppose ultimately I have to agree with Solomon's writing that "All is vanity." and "Increasing knowledge increaseth sorrow." The more I learn about the history and background of the world of children's literature (or literature in general) the less inclined I am to read or write anything. Perhaps it is that yearning for eternity that God has placed in our hearts, and such follies and brokenness only serve to remind us of the depraved world we live in.
And now that I've written a really dreary post, I'm going to find something else to do that will cheer me up.
Comments