About Renaming Awards: Laura Ingalls Wilder

via GIPHY

I didn't plan on writing about the ALA controversy, but it was mentioned in this week's Sell More Books Show episode, even becoming the focus of the Question of the Week.  

My first response to this issue was that as an educator and someone with a PhD in American Literature that we should all read critically. I used to teach Huckleberry Finn, for instance, and we looked at the evolution of Huck's character as he begins to know Jim as a man, not just as a slave. I argue that the Little House books are no different. We should examine the racism, sexism, classism, and all other -isms in those books.

Below is my answer to the QotW over at The Sell More Books Show.

A couple of key points from someone whose old job was as a lit prof who specialized in 19th century American literature:

1. They aren't stripping the award from the author--she'll still be listed as the first winner and as the namesake of the award for the first 64 years the award existed.

2. No one is saying the book should be banned and never taught or discussed--even the Native American scholar suggested it as being appropriate in educational settings for older readers.

3. Times change, and an award named for LIW is restrictive. In other words, an award named for a writer who is so iconic can lead to the award feeling "stale" and as if those up for that award have to mirror the genre, the tone, the values, etc. of the writer.

 So, ultimately I would argue that renaming the award in 2018 is the best option--even if we ignore the racism present in the texts. Renaming the award in 2018 shows that the field is far more diverse and it makes it possible to value a wider array of authors. All literature that enters the "canon" should be examined critically--that includes looking at it within its historical and cultural contexts, seeing the flaws of the characters and the writers, as well as considering where those biases and attitudes come from.