I think it's very important to take into account that they were very much of their time, as any creative or artistic piece is. And they should be viewed within that context, because they portray the mores and experiences at that time. To try to make everything PC means whitewashing the past and sets a dangerous precedent.

I completely divorce the author from the work, or artist from the art, so I find the person's actual views irrelevant. I'm a little perplexed at how many people cannot do this. Art should stand and fall on its own.

I try to cut authors from earlier, more ignorant times a little bit of slack. Todays authors, not so much.

No, no and um, no.

Anyone - including authors - should be judged by the standards of the time.

To approach literary work - written at any time or place - from a 2018 perspective and expect it to comply with current social norms is just silly and wrong.

I don't see why other than lazy reading, and this preference to give into the knee-jerk reaction of offense to borderline ludicrous levels.

Surprised they haven't banned Romeo and Juliet for encouraging suicide yet. Oh no! I've given them an idea!

I wonder how the future will look back on us all the time though.

Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain uses a racial epithet to refer to Jim at the beginning of the book. As they go along, Huck begins to see Jim differently, moving from viewing him as chattel, to viewing Jim as an equal human being, dropping the epithet & calling him by his name. I find it disheartening that this & books like "To Kill A Mocking Bird" are being banned in schools or conveniently dropped to avoid "disruption", which, in my opinion, the schools are avoiding actual teaching of both parents & students.

That is an example of being overly politically correct. She was merely writing about what happened to her, and how things were at the time. If you are going to deconstruct all literature, NOTHING would be bland enough to pass the PC police.

Folks, you should follow the thread from her daughter (who ghostwrote much of the material in the books) through Ayn Rand, to the Libertarian Party and the philosophy that Paul Ryan and a host of Republicans espouse. THAT is the dangerous part. Laugh if you will, but this urge to chip away at social programs that started with Roosevelt continues today (Laura Wilder was anti-Roosevelt by the way). While I do not want to see her 'punished', folks need to know that such thinking still permeates many people here in the USA.

I remember reading a short story about a native father walking in the rain along the highway with his feverish baby in his arms and nobody would stop and give him a ride into town so he could take his baby to the white doctor. At the end of the story the baby is dead in the father's arms at the clinic which is now closed, the father is left sitting in the rain at the side of the road in the cold rain. It was tragic and it was a short story you didn't see very often in the 1970's, white people just didn't have a clue about our past as invaders and conquerors of the New World.

I never read the books. However, we are all products of our times and, unless we have committed acts of violence, should not be tried and convicted after our deaths. Older editions of Nancy Drew have cringe worthy passages in them as do Shakespeare's plays. (I could list writers in every age and genre.) There is more to any book than outdated sentiments or expressions.

I need to reread them. I don't recall putting down any of her books and having any special negativity toward indigenous people. Keep the award. Leave her on the reading lists and use it as a teaching tool about the bias if that is needed