In the last few days, Michael Gove has decided to withdraw 20th Century American literature from the GCSE Literature syllabus. There has been much comment, from all sides of the debate, over what this means.
Look, there is an argument that the same texts have been used for far too long and that it is time to freshen things up. On the other hand, in the light of UKIP's successes this past week, it could be argued that a nice bit of pro-British grandstanding is just what the Conservative Party requires. So what is the truth?
I don't think it actually matters which side of the argument you take but I don't see why there should be a wholesale ban (for want of a better word) on an entire class of literature. In view of this debate, and being 'between books' as it were, I took it upon myself to read 'To Kill A Mockingbird' - I saw the film years back but never read the book until now. Thirty million readers are not wrong: it really is an amazing book. I'm not going to undertake a book review here but the story, from a young tomboy's perspective, of life in 1930s southern America and the town's reactions to her father defending a black man accused of raping a white girl is eye-opening, (very) funny in parts and heart-warming. It is about class, gender and intolerance. Written when racial segregation was still widely practiced, it addresses on-going matters such as racism head-on.
"Ni**er-lover is just one of
those terms that don't mean anything—like snot-nose. It's hard to
explain—ignorant, trashy people use it when they think somebody's favouring
Negroes over and above themselves. It's slipped into usage with some people
like ourselves, when they want a common, ugly term to label somebody."
So simply explained.
I haven't read 'Of Mice and Men' (I did read 'Grapes of Wrath' some years back) but I understand that some 90% of GCSE students have had it foisted on them since GCSEs came into being. Clearly, this will affect teaching (I mean how bloody tedious must it be to teach the same book year after year?) but is this an argument to withdraw from the whole genre? Like it or not, recent American history has had a big influence on current life and books which explain life during the Depression surely have a place in learning. And without getting into a ridiculous debate over Shakespeare's place in modern life, I can see more relevance in Steinbeck than in the works of the Bard himself.
My natural antipathy of Michael Gove aside, I just don't think he is right to withdraw from 20th Century US Literature at GCSE level. And I don't see the writings of Meera Syal (who I like tremendously as a comedienne) as an adequate replacement for the likes of Harper Lee.
My natural antipathy of Michael Gove aside, I just don't think he is right to withdraw from 20th Century US Literature at GCSE level. And I don't see the writings of Meera Syal (who I like tremendously as a comedienne) as an adequate replacement for the likes of Harper Lee.
