Gangsta Lit/Urban Lit/Street Lit
UPDATE: Please see comments below from my brother, Andrew. He’s right that I’ve been unfair to Scott Drawe. The story by CBS2, however, is still crap.
Check out this recent news story from a CBS affiliate in Chicago:
http://cbs2chicago.com/video/?id=25152@wbbm.dayport.com
The basic story is that there’s a sub-genre of literature called “Street Lit”, “Urban Lit”, or “Gansta Lit” that is marketed to young black adults. The story seems to try to make it SCARY that such books are available in bookstores and (*gasp!*) LIBRARIES.
About halfway through the video, Scott Drawe of the Chicago Public Library says he has concerns about “the influence it could have.”
Drawe:
“The street problems, the prostitution….um…some of the glamorousness that these books try to promote.”
For pete’s sake! There are thousands of books in the Chicago Public Library that glamorize unhealthy/illegal behaviors! Why pick on this sub-genre?
Is anyone else annoyed with Scott Drawe?
Like this post? Subscribe to the RSS feed!
August 31st, 2006 at 2:16 pm
> Is anyone else annoyed with Scott Drawe?
No, not at all. Let’s do a little media analysis:
CBS2 may have interviewed the nice man for half an hour, for all we know. They used two discontiguous sentences.
It’s entirely possible that Drawe spoke long and eloquently about the positive value of bringing an underserved demographic into the library.
The reporter may have asked, “But isn’t there anything that concerns you about these books?”
Drawe’s inflection on “only” supoports this hypothesis:
Drawe: “My only concern would be the influence it could have.”
At this point the video shifts to a book cover, then back to Drawe. Why? To hide a cut. You can tell: The pause between sentences sounds wrong. And what follows is clearly a sentence fragment.
Drawe: “The street problems, the prostitution….um…some of the glamorousness that these books try to promote.”
The newsies came to the library with the story already written. They then sat the librarian down and kept him talking until he uttered a few words that could be strung together to support that story.
Andrew Rothman
Cynical Journalism Graduate
August 31st, 2006 at 4:21 pm
I should clarify that that a) I am cynical and b) I have a degree in journalism.
I didn’t mean to imply that I had a degree in cynical journalism, although I am doing some independent study (okay, I’m watching The Daily Show).
September 7th, 2006 at 12:30 am
Andrew —
I think you might even qualify as a doctor of cynical journalism, which is, what, a D.C.J.? Or a doctor of philosophy in cynical journalism — Ph.D. in C.J.? The important point is lots of extraneous letters after your name.
Liz