Dear Andy

Thank you for your reply.  I shall answer the first part of your question by
sending a brief email to you at Liverpool.  For the Mailbase I shall look at
the second part - with some trepidation as there's so much demand to stop
the discussion.  I disagree with the critics of this discussion, but I too
am willing to move on.

I don't quite agree with your observation that political correctness [we'll
stick with the term for convenience] has not played a role in the neglect of
Kipling.   The term 'Kiplingesque' is used as an insult by 'liberals' who
wish to display 'anti-imperialist' or 'anti-racist' credentials, although
such people are in practice often far less sensitive to cultural differences
than was Kipling.  Kipling's work was on the library shelves at my school
(as, incidentally, were more controversial modern works such as 'The Naked
Lunch'.  I have checked with friends of mine who went to state schools
(grammar and comprehensive) and they have told me that his works weren't
available and were never mentioned in a positive light.  In an earlier
email, I gave the example of Trevor Phillips' entry to the Twentieth Century
Lives exhibition at the National Portrait Gallery.  I am not saying that
Phillips is politically correct and think he would make a good Deputy Mayor
for London.  But his portrayal of Kipling as a poet and ideologist of
imperial subjection is symptomatic of a mentality that politicises
literature and reduces it to what is considered 'acceptable' or unacceptable
by the middle-class left.  It was with this in mind that I contributed to
the discussion of 'political correctness', and why I disagree with those who
say that the issue is not relevant.

My doctorate was in politics and I have not studied English Literature since
A Level, when the approach was traditional and quite rigorous.  However I
notice that in Literary Studies and academic arts faculties today
'politically correct' attitudes seem to be very prevalent, indeed almost
monolithic.  Among these attitudes I include feminism, support for 'gay
rights', pacifism/'anti-militarism' and a strident, reductionist hostility
to any aspect of our colonial past, failing to acknowledge that many
colonial administrators were humane, civilised men who took an interest in
the cultures where they found themselves.  There is also the widespread
belief that writers should be judged in some way for their politics - a view
which you quite rightly reject.  Because of your work, you might be in a
position to tell me why such attitudes are so prevalent in the world of
literary studies, as I would be genuinely interested to know.

Best Wishes.


Aidan


-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Sawyer <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Friday, January 07, 2000 06:08
Subject: PC/RK


>
>Yes all right, but what on earth IS "political
>correctness"? And what did it have to do with Kipling - did
>I miss something when I unsubscribed over Christmas?
>
>"Political correctness" is nothing to do with left-wing
>ideologues but is the invention of people who actually want
>to *avoid* political discussion. It's easy enough to sneer
>at someone for being "pc" - harder to take on the argument
>on a point-by-point basis. Unfortunately it does have its
>appeal to the humourless and confused - within weeks
>of the story about the nursery rhyme "Baa Baa Black Sheep"
>being banned in a London playgroup (invented by the Daily
>Mail) it was cited as a "fact" all over the place,
>including some liberal sources who seemed to think that
>because it was part of an attack on the left they ought to
>defend it. Meanwhile whose who attacked racist jibes got
>accused of being "politically correct". Yes, we have mildly
>amusing jokes about short people being "vertically
>challenged" but does anyone apart from people who tell
>those jokes to each other actually use such terms?
>
>Personally I have no problem with the fact that Kipling had
>political viewpoints I am opposed to. It doesn't stop him
>being one of the best writers of the century. In my
>experience the lack of attention given to him has virtually
>nothing to do with political correctness and more to do
>with the fact that people - especially in America - find
>him a "difficult" writer writing about times and places of
>which they know little. To me, his allusiveness is one of
>his most attractive qualities, but sadly, other people
>don't seem to be prepared to put the work into
>understanding an author. But don't get me onto peoples'
>reading habits . . .
>
>Though I really don't understand why one should NOT
>politically disagree with a writer one admires for other
>reasons. True, there's a certain political "air" about
>Kipling which can get in the way of appreciating him, but
>it has been created by people who admire him as much as
>those who oppose him. Some of it's true, some if it isn't.
>Or am I missing the point of this discussion which suddenly
>appeared as what I could only describe as a political rant.
>----------------------
>Andy Sawyer Science Fiction
>Librarian Special Collections and Archives
>University of Liverpool Library
>PO Box 123, Liverpool L69
>3DA, UK.
>
>Reviews Editor: Foundation: The International Review of
>Science Fiction [log in to unmask]
>The Science Fiction Foundation Collection webpage:
>http://www.liv.ac.uk/~asawyer/sffchome.html
>
>"... there is no higher life form than a librarian."
>THE SCIENCE OF DISCWORLD: Terry Pratchett, Jack Cohen,
>and Ian Stewart, p. 10.
>



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%