That's What She Said

So, as I'm reading this week's material in preparation for class, I can't help feeling like my words in class are being echoed by Aronson's article. He says over and over again that the Coretta Scott King award in fact may hinder the "quality" of African American literature that is out there because of its awarding credentials. This argument that he is making is one that I brought up when we were reading the Nikki Giovanni poem at the beginning of the semester. Who is to say that I haven't had the same/similar experiences as you, even though my skin color is different?

Here are some of the particularly strong quotes from that reading that have got me a little bit revved back up on this insider/outsider debate. It brings a whole different view to the dichotomy that we've been given, really.

"The creator's biography--ethnic credentials, if you will--predetermines the book's validity...It is the wrong way to bring more kinds of books to more kinds of reasers; it is wrong in that it does not evaluate literature in its own terms but by extraneous standards; it is wrong because it is a very slippery slope down which we are already tumbling; and finally it is wrong because even as ALA sponsors more and more such awards, we have not openly discussed and debated their merits" [Aronson, Marc Slippery Slopes and Proliferating Prizes The Horn Book Magazine; May/Jun 2001]**Note, all following quotes are from the same article

"By insisting on testing the racial identity of its winners, the CSK shifts its focus from literature to biography. Who you are, which box or boxes you check on the census form, comes first. Your community, your ethnicity, comes before your talent."

"If you have to be black to win the award, do you have to be black to appreciate the winning book? The imlication that only blacks can write well about blacks sets up the implication that only they can read well about them, too."

"We should do everything in our power to encourage growth of a more diverse literature, not by predefining who will create it. We should do our best to encourage all readers to be receptive to every brand of literature. Which also means that we must be open to great art, no matter who creates it."

The article goes on and on reiterating the same points listed here... quality literature should be determined by its content, not by the person writing it. If the person is an "insider" and has poor quality literature, that is reflecting poorly on the awards that are given to the book, and on the community. I do like how Aronson points out two awards that are given to the "identity" of the book, not the identity of the author. This, to me, is what we should consider to be quality literature--those books that represent the identity of the culture they are trying to portray, not necessarily the identity of the author.

Lastly, from the article, a quote to sum up the argument made there, and here in this oh so scholarly blog, "My suggestion is this: keep the CSK, Belpré, and Asian-American awards, but honor content alone, not identity" [of the author].

The next article we read is from Andrea Davis Pinkney--directly combating Aronson's ideas listed in his article. She says "...these awards provide a solid ground upon which authors and illustrators of color and the library and publishing companies can stand." I may be mistaken, but I don't believe Aronson said that NO books by African American authors could receive these awards. Instead, he was arguing that the literary quality of the books were not being judged. I think that his ideas had been misinterpreted. Or, maybe the way I feel about this is slightly different than both authors here. While Aronson is saying that awards should be given if the literature is quality--not necessarily if the author's identity is the same as the characters in the book, Pinkney is saying that the quality of the book shouldn't matter, and anyone who writes a book should be able to be honored, because of their ethnic identity. So, is that saying then that I should be able to win any type of literary award for something I write about a white middle class girl? I don't necessarily think so.

I also do not think that Aronson was "attacking these awards", nor insulting "the creative talents of those who have won these prizes and the committiees who work so ahrd to select the winners". I think he was simply pointing out that to have an award, it should be judged on the quality of the literature--not on the biography of the author, and I believe that it's fair to say. While literature that is written by someone of the same ethnic background as some characters in the story may be more "authentic" or "quality" to some members of some cultures--there are people who can attest to the fact that "insiders" may be just as misinformed as "outsiders" sometimes. Thus continues our debate of exactly what an insider or outsider really is... and whether or not books should be written by insiders or outsiders. Hmm.