tip off
13

Love in the Time of Cholera and won’t somebody please think of the children

When Christopher Bantick’s opinion piece appeared in The Age on Thursday, criticising the inclusion of Gabriel García Márquez’s classic Love in the Time of Cholera on the VCE syllabus, it was easy enough to laugh off as the opinion of a senior Literature teacher demonstrating why they should perhaps retire.

The article garnered much attention, and I had initially thought it was harmless (though admittedly depressing) clickbait, disappearing as quickly as it had reared its ugly head in the pages of my newspaper. Passages such as this:

Any teacher abrogating their duty of care and who is misguided enough to teach the book will face this question from a student: ‘What is your view on sex with a child?’ If they say it is unacceptable, then a student can surely ask, ‘Why is the book on the course?’ There is no defence.

So ostentatiously absurd that they require little more in the way of rebuttal than to be reproduced with one of many appropriate gifs.

But with the news on Friday that the Victorian Curriculum Assessment Authority has decided to review its decision to include the novel on the curriculum, the issue becomes more serious, and I find myself wanting to respond.

Bantick’s piece was provocatively titled ‘Sex with a child is not the stuff of the school curriculum,’ and 3AW followed it up with their own rousing effort: ‘Book with Paedophilia, Incest & Suicide on VCE Reading List’ — both titles as ludicrously reductive as that old mock-summary of The Wizard of Oz:

A young girl travels to a psychedelic landscape where she kills the first person she meets, then teams up with three complete strangers to kill again.

The reduction of a complex, beautiful, intricate novel (by a Nobel prize winning author no less) to a crude summary of its plot is not worth arguing over. It devalues the power of a text that is fundamentally about, amongst many other things, the forms of love, desire and devotion. The motives of its older male protagonist are as tangled, inescapable and unsettling as that of Lolita’s Humbert Humbert – and like Nabokov’s classic novel, anyone coming away from Love in the Time of Cholera with a belief that it is little more than descriptions of paedophilia reveals more about themselves than Márquez’s text.

Bantick suggests that teenage boys will thumb through the book looking for smutty passages: “the novel is likely to be a bit of a perve for pimply faced adolescent boys to show their mates what the dirty old man gets up to with a year-9 student.” Sorry Bantick, but no teenage boy has to resort to scanning through 400-odd pages of magical realism in order to masturbate. There are torrents of pornography far more effective and freely available. Youporn is a thing now.

But I wanted to examine the wider issues and allegations raised in Bantick’s piece.

Bantick’s outraged objection to Márquez’s work is on the basis that the novel “explores an incestuous sexual relationship between a septuagenarian man and a 14-year-old girl,” and, therefore, “promotes carnality, [and] excuses illegal under-age sexual contact.” The problem, of course, is that Bantick is conflating representation with advocacy. Simply because a text represents a wrong – and I feel as though I’m in Literature 101 here – doesn’t mean it advocates it. Surely this is something even primary school students learn to differentiate between.

To rule out those texts that include transgressive acts would be to eliminate almost the entire history of classic fiction. Literature has always been provocative, always teetering on the edge of acceptability. Some of the greatest literary works have been banned, or brought their authors to trial. The reason they endure is precisely because they challenge acceptable standards. Like all great art, they are a way of imaginatively exploring the limits of experience. To deny high school students the opportunity to examine these texts is to fundamentally misunderstand the point of literary studies. It would leave nothing but the most anaemic of books, and obliterate everything from Shakespeare to Capote and beyond.

In my time as a postgrad I’ve tutored a Melbourne University subject Art/Porn/Blasphemy/Propaganda. Because of the sexily illicit promise of the title it is a notoriously popular subject, always gaining some of the highest enrolments in the School. We look at banned or censored literature with texts such as Story of O, Picture of Dorian Grey, Lady Chatterley’s Lover, American Psycho, The Satanic Verses and The Unbearable Lightness of Being. Yes, they are older, tertiary students, but they are still made to analyse often highly confronting material. In each class, I’m always astounded by the level of maturity and insight students bring to these texts. I can offer Bantick my reassurances that my students understood I was not suggesting they go on a Manhattan killing spree or have affairs with their gardener.

What these novels allowed us to explore were questions such as: Should we set limits for fictional characters? Should they be subject to the moral standards of real life? Do novels need to be moral in order to be valuable? Should a work be censored simply because of the uses to which it might be put?

Perhaps the most offensive aspect of Bantick’s piece, however, is his utterly condescending assumption that students uncritically absorb everything they read and automatically reproduce it in their own lives:

And for girls, it sends a perhaps more damaging message still. This is that it is OK to lose your virginity at 14 to an older and experienced man who will make you feel a woman. Oh, your grades will suffer along the way and you’ll probably kill yourself when he dumps you.

If teenagers really were such mindless receptacles enacting fiction, then every single boy in my year 12 literature class would’ve stolen an African American slave and set forth on a raft.

My argument against the removal of Love in the Time of Cholera from the VCE syllabus, and claim that it will not have a negative affect on year 12 students is not to suggest that the novel itself – and literature more generally – has no power over its readers. It is precisely because it is potent, that we do become intertwined in the lives of its characters, analysing their motives and actions, that it shouldn’t be banned.

Bantick concludes by arguing that the book is offensive because “it says repeatedly that screwing – yes, it’s an ugly word – a child is for art’s sake, well excusable [sic]. Is it? You decide.” I can’t help but feel that it is Bantick’s words – especially in his position as a ‘senior literature teacher’ – that are ultimately more offensive and ugly than those of Márquez.

11

Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :



  • 1
    Wombat
    Posted December 10, 2012 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

    Wholeheartedly agree. Literature is not reality.

    I’m currently reading The Kindly Ones, which is narrative from the point-of-view of an unrepentant Holocaust perpetrator on the Eastern front in WW2. It’s frightening and obscene, but I don’t read it assuming the author wants me to believe that atrocities like the Holocaust can be justified.

  • 2
    Posted December 10, 2012 at 4:41 pm | Permalink

    How depressing that society has to have this discussion every few years when another old toff gets offended by the subject matter of a book or film for the VCE/HSC. Usually however, the conversation is limited to a brief exposé on A Current Affair or similar, replete with interviews of indignant octogenarian prudes taking umbrage at the lack of Shakespeare and the presence of modern trashy literature.

    How degrading that academics have to point out such self-evident truths as ‘representation is not advocacy’.

    I pity the poor Trinity Grammar students who will be going through the VCE with Bantick as their teacher next year, as they will surely only be taught what to think, not how to think.

  • 3
    Hindrum Cameron
    Posted December 10, 2012 at 5:05 pm | Permalink

    Bantick’s piece was simply dishonest. He was patronising and offensive. I remain unclear as to his intentions in trying to mount such a thin, unsubstantiated, narrow-minded argument, but so far it has only succeeded in making him look foolish. How can a ‘senior teacher of literature’ so completely misunderstand literature?

  • 4
    Ccasey
    Posted December 10, 2012 at 5:39 pm | Permalink

    Great points. A teacher might ask their students to interrogate the narrator instead of just accepting that the author is promoting “child sex” (Interesting Bantick chose that term anyway). BTW, quick, Bethany. Change that “Gabrielle” to “Gabriel” before all the pendants (sic) make a strike for their fifteen minutes. Unfortunately they are out there, whole jewellery stores of ‘em.

  • 5
    Ccasey
    Posted December 10, 2012 at 5:40 pm | Permalink

    Er, change that Bethany to Bethanie will you? Okay, bye now.

  • 6
    Bethanie Blanchard
    Posted December 10, 2012 at 8:23 pm | Permalink

    Ha it happens to the best of us, clearly! Thanks Casey, I’ve changed that instance in the text.

  • 7
    HB
    Posted December 11, 2012 at 11:44 am | Permalink

    Thank you for this post. I must admit that, as I read the Bantick piece, I felt that he was somewhat missing the point of teaching literature. I missed the 3AW flurry, thankfully, and can only conclude that it was a slow news day for them.

  • 8
    Baudinette Jarna
    Posted December 12, 2012 at 3:12 pm | Permalink

    Okay, Mr Bantick – and Toni Morrison’s Beloved says it’s all right for mothers to just kill their children at whim, right? There couldn’t possibly be any deeper analysis of what it means to be a human being going on in there. We must protect the children (who are really almost adults, and may have already turned 18 given this is VCE?) from the idea that sometimes unspeakable things happen in the world.

    And yet happen they do, and we are forced to speak about them and understand them, because that is what life is.

    I studied American Psycho and The Satanic Verses as an undergrad. A good deal of the criticism seems to come from people who haven’t actually read the books, or who don’t have the basic understanding of literature Bethanie is talking about here, which would allow them to engage with the text in a meaningful way. So I think it’s very sad this particular accusation comes from a senior English teacher, who is supposed to be imparting these skills onto the next generation of readers.

    I think one of the greatest strengths of contemporary literature is that it forces you to question your understanding of the world you actually inhabit. As a third-year I had to take an introductory course I’d missed, and the first assigned text was Disgrace. It was fascinating to watch a new group of students discover that a book wasn’t “bad” just because it made them deeply uncomfortable, and that this perhaps said more about them than it did about the book, and that the ability to cause such discomfort might actually be a sign of the text’s value. You do not have the right to go through life unoffended, but the ability to evaluate why you feel the way you do, and to search for empathy and understanding in the most frightening or upsetting of circumstances, is invaluable.

    (Also invaluable was the gentle but hilarious reminder from our tutor that one does not win a Nobel Prize for Literature for having written “bad” books.)

  • 9
    Peter
    Posted December 14, 2012 at 12:58 pm | Permalink

    This is the same Christopher Bantick who wrote a piece dissecting his wife’s menopause. He really shouldn’t be teaching impressionable young people.

  • 10
    moonkid
    Posted December 14, 2012 at 2:55 pm | Permalink

    Christopher Bantick should be banned from the VCE syllabus. He contains warped ideas that will corrupt the minds of impressionable youth.

  • 11
    pritu
    Posted February 19, 2013 at 10:48 am | Permalink

    I am shocked and dispirited to discover that people with attitudes like Bantick’s are still are still in the classrooms of Australia.

2 Trackbacks

  1. By The 39 books of 2012: 11-20 | COOL BEANS on January 8, 2013 at 1:03 am

    ...] that a womanizing paedophile eventually achieves his ends? It’s problematic, certainly, but this piece does a good (and witty) job breaking down the problems of condemning works of art for portraying [...

  2. By On banning Macbeth | Teacher in the Rye on February 2, 2013 at 4:20 pm

    ...] course has been shuffled off the stage, after elegant if bewildered responses from critics like Bethanie Blanchard and Danielle Binks. (Binks calls out a central confusion in Bantick’s piece: that it applauds [...

Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :



Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...