On 31 October 2018, I finished my blog on political correctness with the words, "I do not doubt that the original intention of political correctness was good. Unfortunately, I would argue that effect of political correctness has been to make everyone avoid sensitive topics altogether and that political correctness has become a bigger problem than the problem it was intended to address."
Do you think that political correctness has gone to far? Are words like "racist" or "sexist" hurled thoughtlessly at some individuals and damaging or even destructive of reputations and careers? Would it not be better if we were all free to discuss everything without fear of being labelled in such a negative fashion? Words can motivate and inspire, and books can help us think in different ways. Reading can help the development of empathy because the reader can hear stories from multiple perspectives and break out of the limits of his/her own experiences. My question, however, is: should we allow ourselves to be entertained by the work of people whose views and/or sexual orientation are, apparently, suspect?
That national treasure Philip Larkin was, they say, a racist, and wrote some rather unpleasant things about staff of colour in the NHS. Composer, Percy Grainger, was, by all accounts, a supporter of the Nazis, and hated Jews. He also had ideas about race that would, at best, be described as unenlightened today.
The composer, Benjamin Britten, apparently liked underage boys and, it is said, even took them to bed and kissed them. Did he stop there? Britten was also a great composer. Can we accept the whole man for what he was and simply enjoy his music. If the answer is "yes," can we not allow military historians to enjoy the exploits of Robert E Lee without removing his statues in the ex-confederate states of America? Can we not bring back Kevin Spacey and reinstate Harvey Weinstein? If the answer is "no," then we had better rethink what we teach in schools and universities. Leonardo da Vinci, for example, was almost certainly a paedophile and it is possible that Shakespeare was, too. Should we not, therefore, rethink his place in the classroom? While we are on this topic, I would suggest that readers look closely at the lives of Byron, L.S. Lowry, William Golding and many others, in order to see whether we should allow them near our schools. Lowry painted some weird pictures that the public rarely see. Another painter, Eric Gill, apparently had sex with his dog. Should we not burn the works of these writers and painters?
For writers of course, this topic is both fascinating and inspiring. Should our characters be wholly good or wholly bad or a mix of both. Doesn't the latter reflect reality? In other words, aren't we all a mix of good and bad? I can perform a selfless act, combine it with a morally dubious thought and finish off with a selfish act and a pious thought within seconds of one another. Does that mean that I am bad or that I am simply human?
Comments I have inserted in a book I am currently proofreading on the politically correct alternate use of 'she'/ 'her' / hers and 'he' 'his' 'him' or 'his/her':
'N 17 yellow – ‘their’ (and variants) for ‘he/she’ is ok and has a long pedigree of use (e.g. Geoffrey Chaucer, William Shakespeare, Jane Austen) – see also later comments on this point'...
'This style of writing is as unnecessary as it is inelegant, even grotesque, as Chaucer, Shakespeare & Austen would agree – see my comment on p. 170 It is not true that in EN we do not have the equivalent of, e.g., ‘man’ (DE) and ‘on’ (FR)…'...
'This asexual (i.e. non-sexist) form of the ‘singular plural’ works very nicely, as indeed it worked very nicely for Geoffrey Chaucer, William Shakespeare and Jane Austen, as noted earlier'
Posted by: Christopher Anthony GODDARD | 08/16/2020 at 06:13 AM