Katherine Kersten's Extra Strength Idiocy

Gather round, kiddies, it's Sunday, and we all know what that means--it's time for our weekly dose of Katherine Kersten's Extra Strength Idiocy. This week, Kersten tells us what our childrens should be learning in school and thinks that the only literature that schoolchildren should be reading is "classic" literature. As a writer, I have nothing but contempt for this sentiment; the notion that the only books worth reading were published before the twentieth century is entirely reductive and, frankly, ignorant. To say that there are no contemporary titles that are worthwhile is to make clear that one has not read very many contemporary titles.

I don't think Katherine Kersten has read very many recently published books--in fact, I don't think she's read very much at all. It also seems that she didn't really read the article she refers to in her column. The original New York Times piece, "The Future of Reading-'Reading Workshop' Lets Students Pick the Books'", gave this example of a student who chose a book based on pop culture and went on to read more challenging books:

"Many students began the year choosing books [teacher Ms. McNeill] regarded as too simple, and she prodded them to a higher level. After Khristian Howard, an earnest seventh grader, read “Chaka! Through the Fire,” a memoir by the R&B star Chaka Khan, Ms. McNeill suggested that she try Maya Angelou’s autobiography, “I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings.”
Khristian, who found the book tough at first, ended up writing an enthusiastic six-page entry in her journal. Ms. McNeill went on to suggest “The Bell Jar” by Sylvia Plath and “A Tree Grows in Brooklyn” by Betty Smith, a book, Khristian wrote, that she “really didn’t want to come to an end.“"

Kersten twists the above passage thusly: "McNeill no longer teaches 'To Kill a Mockingbird' or 'Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl'. Instead, her students are reading chick-lit books, the Captain Underpants comic-book-style novels, or pop literature such as 'Chaka! Through the Fire,' a memoir by R&B star Chaka Khan. Though some students have chosen more challenging books, all are contemporary titles."

So, there's something wrong with "A Tree Grows in Brooklyn", even though it was published in 1943, four years before "The Diary of Anne Frank"? "To Kill a Mockingbird" was published in 1960--merely three years before "The Bell Jar", and nine before "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings". Why is “To Kill a Mockingbird” any less “contemporary” than two books that were published in the same decade? And why does Kersten bemoan the fact that McNeill no longer teaches “To Kill a Mockingbird”? Kersten makes it pretty clear that we should only read “classic” titles, like “The Iliad” (which she doesn’t refer to by name) or “Oliver Twist”. Charles Dickens and Harper Lee didn’t exactly meet for coffee at Homer’s house, so I can’t decide whether Kersten is being inconsistent or can’t be bothered to check copyright dates.

The most infuriating thing in this article, though, is Kersten’s dismissal of books from the canon of African American literature, namely, “The Color Purple”. She writes: “In the 1960s, the cry for ‘relevance’ led some to trade Hamlet for the adolescent angst of Holden Caulfield in ‘The Cather in the Rye’. Later, obsessions with multiculturalism, racism and sexism made politically correct books like Alice Walker’s ‘The Color Purple’ de rigueur.”

What she’s saying here is that the only reason a teacher would choose a book written by a non-white author is to indoctrinate students against racism, sexism or ethnocentrism. This statement implies that books written by non-white authors can’t be great literature, they can only be chosen for their “political correctness”.

I don’t think Kersten has read “The Color Purple,” and I don’t think she realizes that Alice Walker won a Pulitzer for it. I’m sure Kersten would accuse the Pulitzer Prize committee for being politically correct when they chose the book, but she would be wrong. “The Color Purple” is an amazing book, and I’m not just saying that because Alice Walker and I share an alma mater. “The Color Purple” is as beautifully written as it is innovative, and is decidedly not politically correct—“The Color Purple” is number 17 on American Library Association’s list of the 100 Most Frequently Challenged Books. Do you know what else is on that list? There it is, at number 40: “To Kill a Mockingbird”.

This list isn’t the only thing these novels have in common. They both take place in the South, they both feature racism as a common theme, they’re both “coming of age” stories”, and they both include rape in their plots. What they don’t have in common is the race of the protagonists--and authors. In other words, a book that features a white girl and her white father as crusaders against racism is heroic, while a book that features a young black woman who survives incest, domestic violence and racism is “politically correct”.

Well, here’s a bit of political incorrectness for you: Fuck you, Katherine Kersten. Your racism is so thinly veiled it’s pathetic, and what’s equally pathetic is your inconsistency. Instead of perpetuating a list of books you think people should read, you ought to let other people make a reading list for you…and you should start with “The Color Purple”.