It is more important the meaning the reader takes away from the words, the experience they receive from reading the text. As Hooks puts it, "Even if it was noted that we should give special attention to Langston Hughes’s work because he was writing about a world we knew intimately, we also knew that shared racial identity and even common experience would not lead one to produce great writing. To become a great writer one had to be able to move deep into experience, into emotion, into life. Dickinson’s field of vision made contemplation of metaphysics, of religion and nature the space where she experienced life to the fullest" (10). While personal experience can be valuable and enhancing, it is not always the key to great writing with powerful words. This is the importance of differentiating between the author and the speaker in literary analysis. Sometimes the identity of the speaker and the author are not always the same, though they can be. I agree with Hooks that knowing the race, class, and gender of the author is not always important. Hooks emphasizes this point when she says, "It was the emotional state that was the place where the imagination would find its treasures, not concrete experience. This is the reason I did not focus too intently on race, gender, or class" (11). The reason I agree with Hooks on this notion is because when we initially read a passage, we can already be moved alone by the words without knowing any information about the author.
Another reason race and gender should not be the first mentioned identities when it comes to writing is because these categorizations act as labels that limit the potential and respect minority authors receive from mainstream media. For example, Hooks explains, "Race and gender are made to come first in the world outside, where if one is from a marginalized group anything about you that does not conform to white male norms is acknowledged first and foremost" (14). The desire for the media to know the race, class, gender, and sexual practices of the author initially before reading their work makes it difficult for multiple writers from minority groups to receive the attention they deserve. It sets up for discrimination, as well as. Hooks also leaves a powerful statement when she says, "If long-standing structures of hierarchy and domination were not still in place and daily reinscribed, calling attention to a writer’s race, gender, class, or sexual practice would illuminate work, expand awareness and understanding" (21). Today, attention to calls to the identity of the writer work in the reverse way, setting up platforms for bias and discrimination. Hooks is also careful to note that while there shouldn't necessarily be a disconnect from the author's identity, the author's identity should not be used to manipulate how people view the work. The work is what's most important, and while knowing who the person is can help enhance the magic that is produced, the focus is on the words and how they have the ability to unite the audience. Knowing the writer's background is meant to be inspiring and enhancing, but not for means of prejudice, attention, or even advertising, as Hooks mentions.
Another reason race and gender should not be the first mentioned identities when it comes to writing is because these categorizations act as labels that limit the potential and respect minority authors receive from mainstream media. For example, Hooks explains, "Race and gender are made to come first in the world outside, where if one is from a marginalized group anything about you that does not conform to white male norms is acknowledged first and foremost" (14). The desire for the media to know the race, class, gender, and sexual practices of the author initially before reading their work makes it difficult for multiple writers from minority groups to receive the attention they deserve. It sets up for discrimination, as well as. Hooks also leaves a powerful statement when she says, "If long-standing structures of hierarchy and domination were not still in place and daily reinscribed, calling attention to a writer’s race, gender, class, or sexual practice would illuminate work, expand awareness and understanding" (21). Today, attention to calls to the identity of the writer work in the reverse way, setting up platforms for bias and discrimination. Hooks is also careful to note that while there shouldn't necessarily be a disconnect from the author's identity, the author's identity should not be used to manipulate how people view the work. The work is what's most important, and while knowing who the person is can help enhance the magic that is produced, the focus is on the words and how they have the ability to unite the audience. Knowing the writer's background is meant to be inspiring and enhancing, but not for means of prejudice, attention, or even advertising, as Hooks mentions.
Comments
Post a Comment