As a Gilroy High School graduate, I have followed the debate
over the formation of the high school reading list with some
interest.
As a Gilroy High School graduate, I have followed the debate over the formation of the high school reading list with some interest.
Although it seems that much of the debate has been centered on the inclusion, or exclusion of Rain of Gold, I believe that the issue is not nearly as simple as it appears. I am not the only person to believe this, as evidenced by the passionate and wide ranging remarks made two school board meetings ago and on the pages of The Dispatch Op-ed section.
There are two main issues: one is the suitability of Rain of Gold and the other is the lack of diversity on the list in general. They are not directly linked – keeping Rain of Gold on the list would not have erased the need for diversity – but they are related.
“Literary merit” was a phrase employed by both sides of the debate over this book. The troubling part of this phrase is its fluidity. Literary merit is not merely how high a book scores on a vocabulary index or how fun it is to read. It has many aspects, like difficulty, that can be quantified but ultimately determining “literary merit” often comes down to an intangible, subjective decision about a book.
This fluidity was the greatest challenge to both the proponents and opponents of this book. It is fair to criticize some of the writing in Rain of Gold as awkward or in some instances blatantly grammatically incorrect. It is also fair to point out that it has highly imaginative and colorful character descriptions, that the emotions and experiences of the characters are well developed and captivating, and that the fantastic elements to the story are effectively drawn.
I am not an ardent defender of its place on the core curriculum but I think that removing it, without expanding the list to include a significantly more diverse group of authors, would have exacerbated an already wretched situation. The school board clearly recognized this when they voted to pilot 10 new books by diverse authors in the coming year.
The intangible aspect we discern in what we consider literature is too often influenced by our personal prejudices and our willingness (or lack thereof) to entertain unfamiliar concepts and ideas. Literature seeks to illuminate our world rather than cover it up. It opens us to stories and experiences that may be beyond the scope of familiarity but are still comprehensible because they are connected to the human experience and the greater human struggle.
Most importantly, it does not EVER exist in a sociopolitical vacuum. There is no “pure” work of literature devoid of “culture,” by which we can judge every other work. This is true simply because every single author who has ever lived has been surrounded and permeated by the traditions and mores of his or her time and society. That societal force as a molding influence is inescapable, even if the chosen response by the author is rebellion and rejection.
Thus, diversity of viewpoint, of experience, is crucial in any list that purports to be of educational value. The disturbing implication that underlies the comments of the opponents of a more diverse list is that diversity and quality are mutually exclusive. That diversity, of gender, ethnicity, race, and religion is being sought for its own sake and not because the books chosen are also of equal educational and literary value as the ones already considered “traditional cannon” literature.
Unfortunately, I feel that I could point to the critical, public, and academic acclaim that authors like Toni Morrison and Gabriel Garcia-Marquez have won, and it would mean nothing to the most ardent opponents of their inclusion on the list.
Ultimately, I feel that they are not necessarily in favor of having the broadest selection of the best literature on the list but with having the RIGHT selection of literature containing certain moral and cultural values that they deem acceptable. Literature is not intended to only teach moral lessons.
If parents choose to discuss their family values in relation to the literature that their child is reading, that is completely appropriate. But, literature’s function is to enable people to think about and see the world critically; it is not meant to enforce the tidy boundaries of our individual comfort zones.
P.S. To suggest Don Quixote as an example of Chicano literature is like saying Chaucer belongs in an American Literature class.
Guest columnist Bernadette Arellano is a Gilroy native and a graduate of Princeton University.
