ePluribus Media Community || citizen journalism, for the people, by the people

Jane Smiley's Divell Theorie -- Discussion

Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 10:12:17 AM EST

Rodger Cunningham's article Jane Smiley's Divell Theorie is a cooperative venture between ePluribus Media and Appalachian Heritage, "A Literary Quarterly of the Appalachian South" published by Berea College in Kentucky. In addition to appearing here, this essay will be part of the Spring 2007 edition of Appalachian Heritage.

Cunningham takes on Jane Smiley's "trashing" of Americans of Scots-Irish ancestory.

One of the latest and ugliest examples of the mainstream media's endless trashing of Appalachian people is a blog by Jane Smiley -- a novelist whose books I used to enjoy -- on the Huffington Post for December 29, 2006. Smiley wants us all to read the "most informative book of 2006," one that, ostensibly, explains America for her.

After reading Smiley's post on Huffington Post, ePluribus Media's Aaron Barlow, himself of Scots-Irish descent, wrote several diaries in response, one of which Cunningham read.

Here's how Cunningham himself explains it:

Which is where I come in. I happen to be a scholar of Appalachia and the Scots-Irish. And I reviewed Albion's Seed for Appalachian Journal and then debated Fischer face-to-face, with three other Appalachian and Scottish scholars (Gordon McKinney, Edward J. Cowan, and Altina Waller) at the 1991 Appalachian Studies Conference. I'm also a seventh-generation Appalachian, whose family arrived in West Virginia in 1752 from Ireland. I was moved to write a letter to Barlow and to one of his Daily Kos commenters, and that letter has become this essay, which will appear both in Appalachian Heritage and here on ePluribus Media Journal. What I'm going to say here has largely been said in print before by others and by me, but since no one but Appalachian scholars reads Appalachian scholarship, I hope I'll be pardoned for repeating myself.

Read his entire essay here: Jane Smiley's Divell Theorie.

If you like what ePMedia's been doing with research, reviews and interviews, please consider donating to help with our efforts.

commentary :: :: :: buzz-it!

Jane Smiley's Divell Theorie -- Discussion | 5 comments (5 topical, 0 hidden)

Off topic... (5.00 / 2) (#1)

but that's a beautiful photo of the Smokey Mountains.

by Cho on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 12:53:45 PM EST

Scots-Irish (5.00 / 1) (#2)

There was no mention of the highland clearances in describing the Scots-Irish so I wondered, why?

by susie dow on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 03:17:34 PM EST

: The Scots-Irish and the Highland Scots... (5.00 / 1) (#3)

...were distinct groups, and their experiences differ greatly. The lowland Scots were not of the clans, for one thing. Many of them, in fact, were descendents of Irish Gaels who had gone to the north of England and south (and west) of Scotland centuries earlier. In other words, the Scots-Irish and the Scots, for all the similarity of names, are not the same--and it was the Scots-Irish, many moving from the Ulster Plantation, who populated Appalachia (not they alone, of course, but it large numbers).

by Aaron Barlow on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 06:21:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Jim Webb, Jane Smiley, Daivd Fischer (none / 0) (#4)

Senator Webb has written on this subject ("Born Fighting") and been applauded for his efforts. Maybe Fischer wasn't being "historical" enough and Smiley was bottom-feeding on a poor source, but Webb seems to run with Fischer and Smiley and been no worse for the wear. My thinking on the controversy discussed here is very undeveloped, but to me it appears to be much ado about nothing. Apologies to all whom that offends, but really, Webb's a true patriot and I don't think he'd be that upset by what Smiley wrote. Maybe I'm wrong. Probably am. What the fuck.

by paleodude on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 12:50:34 AM EST

Gotta admit, I love this passage (none / 0) (#5)

Of course there's a lot to hate about that decorticated cactus in the White House, the crew of thugs and rattlesnakes he fronts for, and the troop of baboons that tout their counterfeit virtues on the Faux News. But what I mean is, she' s a divider and a demonizer, just like the other side. She was already convinced of "the unteachable ignorance of the red states," and now, in a vulgarized reading of a flawed book, she thinks she' s found a historical explanation for that total depravity, and can latch it onto one particular group of her fellow Americans.

Anyone who can get in decorticated cactus as an appelate for shrub ('cuz he ain't even enough of a man to be a bush...apologies to Ms. Ivins), gets points.

by Cho on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 11:04:56 AM EST

Jane Smiley's Divell Theorie -- Discussion | 5 comments (5 topical, 0 hidden)

Support ePluribus Media -- Support Citizen Powered Journalism!