First email I've actually taken the time to read from anyone in forever. I 100% agree with the ideas and sentiment presented in your article, indeed I teach middle-school English in Australia and dedicate several lessons a year to discussing and accessing older texts and authors whose work is being re-written and opening dialogue with my class in regards to it. I firmly think a book is written and reflects the values of its time, ground-breaking novels becoming removed because they no-longer meet our current societal values and understandings is nothing short of a travesty and disservice to authors who completely went against things to get their work published. What we are viewing now is in essence a rewriting of history, which has the aim of making things easier for all, but actually runs the risk of erasing the struggles of minority groups and oppressed people of the past. Well meaning people, sometimes make mistakes. Rewriting books is one I will always fight against.
It's easy to forget that as recently as 1974, a married woman (who was, of course, married to a man) couldn't open a checking account or get a credit card in her name without her husband's permission (he had to co-sign). I'm working right now on a novel that takes place in the late 1980s. One of the characters is a trans girl. Or that's how we'd refer to her today. The social, medical, and psychological view of the 1980s was different. I'm anticipating having to explain things in my front pages.
It's a great observation and reminds me of things that have also irked me in movies set in the past. It often feels lazy too, and as you said, misses out extra interesting layers and nuance of that time.
Yes! It drives me bonkers when historical characters don't seem to be immersed in the actual mindset of their times, with the very real risks and prejudices and pressures and so forth. Which isn't to say they can't break new ground, but doing so shouldn't have this simplistic "of course" ease and inevitability.
The TV series "Hacks" addressed this more realistically, I think ... where a young comedy writer is teamed with a veteran female comedian who had to make the kinds of compromises you talked about. And they open each other's eyes as well as pointing out each other's stumbling blocks. While the older comedian is now, under the influence of the younger, willing to take new risks with the kind of material she wouldn't have been able to do 30 years ago, the show doesn't present it as "now she's seen the light" but more "this is what's possible now."
An excellent book about women in comedy--from Phyllis Diller/Moms Mabley/Lucille Ball/Elaine May up through the present day--is Yael Kohen's WE KILLED. It's an oral history, based on interviews with the performers and writers themselves, and you can really see how both comedy and women's rights evolved through the past 80 years.
What a terrific perspective! You've covered multiple aspects of this issue, and one I'd like to expound on is about how those who got out too far ahead of their audiences paid a terrible price. Pee Wee Herman comes to mind, and let's not forget how recently he was pilloried and discarded. Perhaps the truth is in how much like the past the present really is. The recent movie, Zone of Interest, demonstrates the grotesque, timeless capacity of people to see only what they want to see.
First email I've actually taken the time to read from anyone in forever. I 100% agree with the ideas and sentiment presented in your article, indeed I teach middle-school English in Australia and dedicate several lessons a year to discussing and accessing older texts and authors whose work is being re-written and opening dialogue with my class in regards to it. I firmly think a book is written and reflects the values of its time, ground-breaking novels becoming removed because they no-longer meet our current societal values and understandings is nothing short of a travesty and disservice to authors who completely went against things to get their work published. What we are viewing now is in essence a rewriting of history, which has the aim of making things easier for all, but actually runs the risk of erasing the struggles of minority groups and oppressed people of the past. Well meaning people, sometimes make mistakes. Rewriting books is one I will always fight against.
It's easy to forget that as recently as 1974, a married woman (who was, of course, married to a man) couldn't open a checking account or get a credit card in her name without her husband's permission (he had to co-sign). I'm working right now on a novel that takes place in the late 1980s. One of the characters is a trans girl. Or that's how we'd refer to her today. The social, medical, and psychological view of the 1980s was different. I'm anticipating having to explain things in my front pages.
It's a great observation and reminds me of things that have also irked me in movies set in the past. It often feels lazy too, and as you said, misses out extra interesting layers and nuance of that time.
Yes! It drives me bonkers when historical characters don't seem to be immersed in the actual mindset of their times, with the very real risks and prejudices and pressures and so forth. Which isn't to say they can't break new ground, but doing so shouldn't have this simplistic "of course" ease and inevitability.
The TV series "Hacks" addressed this more realistically, I think ... where a young comedy writer is teamed with a veteran female comedian who had to make the kinds of compromises you talked about. And they open each other's eyes as well as pointing out each other's stumbling blocks. While the older comedian is now, under the influence of the younger, willing to take new risks with the kind of material she wouldn't have been able to do 30 years ago, the show doesn't present it as "now she's seen the light" but more "this is what's possible now."
An excellent book about women in comedy--from Phyllis Diller/Moms Mabley/Lucille Ball/Elaine May up through the present day--is Yael Kohen's WE KILLED. It's an oral history, based on interviews with the performers and writers themselves, and you can really see how both comedy and women's rights evolved through the past 80 years.
What a terrific perspective! You've covered multiple aspects of this issue, and one I'd like to expound on is about how those who got out too far ahead of their audiences paid a terrible price. Pee Wee Herman comes to mind, and let's not forget how recently he was pilloried and discarded. Perhaps the truth is in how much like the past the present really is. The recent movie, Zone of Interest, demonstrates the grotesque, timeless capacity of people to see only what they want to see.