Apr
22
Remolding Culture One “Classic” at a Time
“The exercise seems aimed primarily at avoiding contact with antiquated beliefs, racist language, and sexist assumptions.” — Thomas D. Williams, PhD
I confess, I’m not really a “classic lit” sort of guy. Although, I have read a few of the usual entries in whole (e.g., The Holy Bible, The Hobbit, Mere Christianity) or in part (e.g., The Canterbury Tales, Gulliver’s Travels, a little Shakespeare). So my concern here is much more from a cultural standpoint than a literary one.
The issue? The editors and contributors of Gentleman’s Quarterly have taken it upon themselves to advise against reading various literary “classics” they find boring and/or offensive and replace them with more contemporary and politically-correct options. They reject such books as McMurtry’s Lonesome Dove (“rigid masculine emotional landscape, glorification of guns and destruction, and misogynistic gender roles”), Salinger’s Catcher in the Rye (“totally silly, without any literary merit”), Hemingway’s A Farewell to Arms (filled with “masculine bluster”), Twain’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (“tedious… ham-fisted”; also, “Mark Twain was a racist.”), Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings (“barely readable”), Heller’s Catch-22 (“fails to capture the absurdities and impossible conflicts of war”), and Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels (“dreary”).
Of course, the Bible is panned as “certainly not the finest thing that man has ever produced. It is repetitive, self-contradictory, sententious, foolish, and even at times ill-intentioned.” My response would be that, while there is indeed some repetition, there is good reason for it (even if it does bug me at times). I object to the rest of the characterization, but I can’t say I’m surprised by the claims and attitude, given the source. Also, the proposed replacement is ridiculous:
“If the thing you heard was good about the Bible was the nasty bits, then I propose Agota Kristof’s The Notebook, a marvelous tale of two brothers who have to get along when things get rough.”
To be fair, the ostensible purpose of GQ‘s piece is to assure readers that they don’t have to read boring, dated, and/or offensive old “classics” to be “well-read”. (I certainly hope so, ‘cuz some of the older stuff in particular sounds really boring to me, too.) And a few of the contributors actually admit to enjoying — at least, at one time — the “classic” they are criticizing, or perhaps some other works by the same author. A few of their critical comments may be accurate (e.g., re Slaughterhouse-Five), and a couple of the works they recommend instead don’t sound too bad (e.g., Destiny of the Republic).
But, it seems to me that many of the objections are akin to those that incite certain people to tear down statues/monuments and otherwise remove the images and names of unsavory figures and symbols from history. (Somewhat ironic when some of the same people refuse to move beyond historic wrongs and insist that we “never forget!”) What I am referring to is the apparent inability to read and “accept” things in their historical context, even if they make one uncomfortable, without getting all riled up and “offended”. As referenced in the quote at the top, this includes certain attitudes toward women that today would be considered sexist or misogynist, as well as racism and other forms of bigotry. They also seem to object to a generally masculine bravado as typically encountered in western and military contexts. (Note that roughly half the replacement authors are female.) While my unfamiliarity with the recommended books means I can’t be sure, I suspect anything that smacks of traditional, Judeo-Christian values and those that hold to them would be portrayed in a negative light. (Not that all “classics” present Jews or Christians positively, either, of course.)
On top of this, the replacement works they recommend include Olivia (a lesbian coming-of-age story) and The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman (a “masterpiece of bawdy humour and rich satire [that] defies any attempt to categorize it, with a rich metafictional narrative that might classify it as the first ‘postmodern’ novel” (Amazon)). If that weren’t bad enough, Dr. Thomas Williams makes the following assessment in his Breitbart article:
“Of course, different strokes for different folks. Everyone interested in literature has his own list of favorites that merit wider circulation as well as a similar list of “highly acclaimed” works that could just as well be forgotten. The core of the GQ proposal, however, is the surgical excision of books that serve to keep traditional values alive.
As simple as it is straightforward, GQ‘s plan follows the tried-and-true political strategy of Antonio Gramsci, the Italian communist mastermind who explained in great detail how to overcome a “cultural hegemony” by replacing it with a new one (counter-hegemony).
According to Gramsci, society can only be changed by changing culture, and this can only be accomplished by developing a new cultural hegemony, which is necessarily rooted in folklore, popular culture, and religion.
The brave new world that the cultural left wishes to establish cannot come about as long as “folklore” (which includes art, literature, history, and other sources of national identity) remains rooted in the ideas and values of the Judeo-Christian West.
Only when a new set of values has been adopted and assimilated as a “commonsensical world view” to which any thinking person is expected to spontaneously adhere, can we say that the cultural hegemony has been successfully changed.”
If Williams is right, then this is indeed troubling. GQ‘s effort may seem relatively insignificant, but they have a fair-sized, global audience and influence on the thinking of single men in particular. They certainly aren’t the only ones working to gradually reshape Western culture in this way, either. Have you looked at the New York Times “bestseller” lists lately?
I may have to (re-)read a few of GQ‘s rejects just in protest.
P.S. Incidentally, I’m surprised GQ hasn’t rechristened itself Gentleperson’s Quarterly already. Or, maybe just Metrosexual Quarterly? But, I do find some of the complaints of sexism and misogyny leveled against the “classics” a bit ironic, even two-faced, given some of GQ‘s content and reputation. (I can’t even show you an example of one of their racy covers.) But, that’s part-and-parcel of the Left’s inconsistency, I suppose.
