In all of these criticism cases, the critics failed to produce evidence beyond their own personal surface readings to justify a ban. A true read of the text renders all their arguments not only biased, but laughable.
In my book "America 'Toons In", I wrote about several persons who criticized television animation programs based on the same flimsy logic. Unfortunately, people took them and not the producers of the shows seriously...
Peter Rabbit and Brer Rabbitt are two of my very favorite and most treasured storied characters. Two rabbits from different parts of the world speaking different dialects… but they are both rabbits. 🧐
Imagine my discomfort when the six-year-old I'm tutoring questions how the big, bad wolf can actually eat grandma. Does he swallow her whole? Does he chew her? Provoked a wonderful conversation about living things and what they do to survive. Life is everything and books should be about everything. Book banning from a left or right perspective is plain wrong.
Oh, I agree. I might ask the kid what she thought! After all, Grandma pops right out when the hunter hacks her open, so she appears not to have been chewed. By the way, there's a for-grownups parody that I love: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politically_Correct_Bedtime_Stories
I don't think you are being fair to most of these critics. Neither Stuart Jeffries (who seems to have his tongue firmly in his cheek) nor Kathryn Hughes nor Blake Harper are arguing one should ban Peter Rabbit or other Beatrix Potter books - on the contrary, they all seem to like and approve of them. What they are all doing in different ways is noting that Beatrix Potter's Peter Rabbit has darker undertones than one would know from the decontextualized prettified merchandizing and the saccharine filming - which is surely true! And they all seem to think that's a good thing (and I would agree).
You ask what Blake Harper would think of Bugs Bunny - well, he actually tells you!
"Like Bugs Bunny, his [Peter's] charm is derivative of his ability to wriggle out of a bad situation not his intentions. He’s more Artful Dodger than he is Oliver, which means that he’s not a goody-two-shoes or a bore, but also that he’s not exactly admirable either."
So it isn't fair to list them as if they were supporters of book banning. The whole "cultural appropriation" thing of Dr. Marshall is another matter - it's kind of ridiculous, for the reasons you point out, though even Dr. Marshall doesn't seem to suggest the book should be banned: just that the (alleged) debt should be acknowledged (how? an editor's note at the beginning? A cover acknowledgement? Or just a ritualistic obeisance before we settle down to read it?).
There’s an element of tongue in cheek in both, I agree, but they do both insist on a darker message than the text supports. Both Peter and Bugs strike me as boys-will-be-boys types, clever, spirited pushing their luck types. Which I would see as admirable. Jeffries and Harper seem to me to be saying that what they regard as darker is best appreciated by adults. And I take your point but still say naah, not that dark. Dr. Marshall—a party pooper. Hope she develops a sense of humor one of these years. Thanks for your very thoughtful comment!
In all of these criticism cases, the critics failed to produce evidence beyond their own personal surface readings to justify a ban. A true read of the text renders all their arguments not only biased, but laughable.
Exactly.
In my book "America 'Toons In", I wrote about several persons who criticized television animation programs based on the same flimsy logic. Unfortunately, people took them and not the producers of the shows seriously...
It is like that, sometimes!
Peter Rabbit and Brer Rabbitt are two of my very favorite and most treasured storied characters. Two rabbits from different parts of the world speaking different dialects… but they are both rabbits. 🧐
Imagine my discomfort when the six-year-old I'm tutoring questions how the big, bad wolf can actually eat grandma. Does he swallow her whole? Does he chew her? Provoked a wonderful conversation about living things and what they do to survive. Life is everything and books should be about everything. Book banning from a left or right perspective is plain wrong.
Oh, I agree. I might ask the kid what she thought! After all, Grandma pops right out when the hunter hacks her open, so she appears not to have been chewed. By the way, there's a for-grownups parody that I love: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politically_Correct_Bedtime_Stories
Peter Rabbit banned and in his stead the “ book” , “Genderqueer” put on shelves !
Here's my take on Genderqueer and a similar book: https://melissaknox.substack.com/p/the-banned-and-the-banal
Interested in what you think.
I don't think you are being fair to most of these critics. Neither Stuart Jeffries (who seems to have his tongue firmly in his cheek) nor Kathryn Hughes nor Blake Harper are arguing one should ban Peter Rabbit or other Beatrix Potter books - on the contrary, they all seem to like and approve of them. What they are all doing in different ways is noting that Beatrix Potter's Peter Rabbit has darker undertones than one would know from the decontextualized prettified merchandizing and the saccharine filming - which is surely true! And they all seem to think that's a good thing (and I would agree).
You ask what Blake Harper would think of Bugs Bunny - well, he actually tells you!
"Like Bugs Bunny, his [Peter's] charm is derivative of his ability to wriggle out of a bad situation not his intentions. He’s more Artful Dodger than he is Oliver, which means that he’s not a goody-two-shoes or a bore, but also that he’s not exactly admirable either."
So it isn't fair to list them as if they were supporters of book banning. The whole "cultural appropriation" thing of Dr. Marshall is another matter - it's kind of ridiculous, for the reasons you point out, though even Dr. Marshall doesn't seem to suggest the book should be banned: just that the (alleged) debt should be acknowledged (how? an editor's note at the beginning? A cover acknowledgement? Or just a ritualistic obeisance before we settle down to read it?).
There’s an element of tongue in cheek in both, I agree, but they do both insist on a darker message than the text supports. Both Peter and Bugs strike me as boys-will-be-boys types, clever, spirited pushing their luck types. Which I would see as admirable. Jeffries and Harper seem to me to be saying that what they regard as darker is best appreciated by adults. And I take your point but still say naah, not that dark. Dr. Marshall—a party pooper. Hope she develops a sense of humor one of these years. Thanks for your very thoughtful comment!