The distasteful trade-off of classic books
Art by Sara Polster
The vast majority of books deemed “classics” by literary critics are plagued with subtle to blatant racism. While these works usually contain sophisticated and near-revolutionary writing, it is morally wrong to excuse, justify or ignore comments made or stereotypes reinforced by authors. I have never been one to argue against reading, and that’s not what I’m doing. Plenty of older books have real value in reading, even if they are shadowed by judgements that add no quality to the writing. What is inexcusable, though, is to pretend that older works don’t sell blatant offenses to their audience. Books should be read critically, no matter how they’re regarded by historians or litterateurs.
For generations, schools have treated canonical literature as untouchable. Students are told that these novels are foundational, that they shaped literary movements and influenced culture in profound ways. All of that may be true, but acknowledging literary merit does not require ignoring moral failure. A book can be stylistically brilliant and ethically flawed at the same time.
The novel “The Bell Jar” by Sylvia Plath, published in 1963, is a perfect example of a piece of literature that is afflicted with racist ideology. The work is regarded widely as one of the most powerful pieces of feminist writing of that time, and speaks in depth about mental health struggles women faced through the period. However, the book is filled with comments targeting Asian and Black Americans. Esther at one point demeaningly claims her reflection looks like that of a Chinese woman, and at another refers to a Black worker as a derogatory term. “The Bell Jar” is filled with amazing remarks that certainly were revolutionary for their time and have a rippling effect on society today. However, it’s important to remember that part of that “ripple” is the advancement of racist stereotypes that are still incredibly hurtful today. Another classic, “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn”, is frequently praised for its satire and for its critique of slavery through Huck’s evolving relationship with Jim, an enslaved man seeking freedom. Yet the text repeatedly uses racial slurs and relies at times on minstrel-like stereotypes that reduce Black characters to caricatures, even as it attempts to humanize Jim. Defenders often argue that Twain was exposing the hypocrisy of the antebellum society, and that language reflects only the historical setting. That context is essential for understanding the novel, but it does not erase the way certain scenes lean on exaggerated dialect and comic framing that can undermine the dignity the novel seeks to grant. As with “The Bell Jar”, literary importance and racial harm coexist on the page, and pretending otherwise does a disservice to anyone asked to grapple with both.
When racist language, caricatures or dehumanizing portrayals appear on the page, they don’t become harmless simply because the author is celebrated. Context matters, but context is not a shield. Saying “it was a different time” explains prejudice; it doesn’t erase its impact. For students who belong to the communities being stereotyped, those passages are not abstract historical artifacts. They are reminders that respected voices once treated people who look like them as inferior.
The solution is not censorship. Removing difficult texts from classrooms would flatten literary education and erase opportunities for critical discussion. Instead, schools should teach these books honestly. Teachers should frame them with clear acknowledgement of their biases and lead conversations about how racism operates in literature. Students should be encouraged to interrogate the text, not read through it uncritically.
For decades, too, the list of “must-read” classics has centered largely on white, Western authors. There is no shortage of powerful reads written by authors of color whose works explore identity, injustice and humanity with equal quality and skill. Including those voices does not diminish traditional classics; it provides balance and a fuller picture of literary history.
Critics sometimes argue that focusing on racism distracts from artistic appreciation. In reality, the opposite is true. Understanding the social and historical forces shaping a text deepens analysis. Examining how prejudice appears in a novel reveals not only the author’s worldview but also the cultural structures of the era. That awareness strengthens good text, and if it weakens others’ arguments, they should be weakened.