professornana (professornana) wrote,

  • Location:
  • Mood:

Pigeonholes are for pigeons

They are at it again. The people who are obsessed wig standards (you know who they are) now want to control the definitions of terms. This week, an administrator declared that literary nonfiction (and more about that term in a moment) as being comprised of biography, autobiography, and memoir only. First, what exactly is "literary" nonfiction (as opposed to nonfiction that is nonliterary?)? Ditto the use of the term "creative" nonfiction. And who decides what types of books might be sub genres, categories, types? Apparently, in this case, an administrator did (and I know this person got the info from a document within CCSS.

Later this week I learned that there is a new program that will develop a taxonomy for all books published so that each and every one is tied to the standards.

I feel as though I have been punched in the gut. This need to standardize everything, to define terms to suit standards, to develop more ways to kill the love of reading. And then I pick up a non-standardized book, one that has not been pigeonholed according to the standards it covers. I read. I read and forget the idiocy of taxonomies and instead explore the role of insects in history. And I do not wonder at all is this nonfiction is literay or creative or expository or persuasive. It IS. I read.
Tags: idiocy
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.