I am thinking over some of the thoughts proposed by Jonathan Hunt about who has a right to claim insensitivity. Since I'm working on a project about how reviewers considered the accuracy of books with American Indian content that went on to win the Newbery or Newbery Honor, it's been on my mind this week in a different way. I'm surprised how readily the reviewers accepted author's claims regarding research and tribal affiliation-maybe I come from a more skeptical era. Is that to say I would catch every error in a book myself? Of course not-that's why the reviewing community needs experts who can make these arguments rather than give the general impression of "it seems right" that was the case with many Newbery winners now deemed offensive.
Where I take issue with this post (besides the bringing in of Hitler Youth and the Shoah...I'm not going there although I want to...off topic and ranty...) is when he extends the argument to criticize Reese for not evaluating for content outside of her own area of expertise. No one reviewer can respond to every possible offensive thing in a work-does that mean they lack credibility, then? The Internet has given those seeking reviews such a wonderful chance to gain multiple perspectives-so let those who have objections voice them, provided they can make a well-substantiated argument.
Book of the Week: Lately, we've gotten more works from the Emily Post Etiquette series for toddlers than on American Indians....I wish I was joking......
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment