A follow-on to this: it's also fair to note that the "you definitely don't have to read everything," while meant to liberate folks from feeling like they must, is also advice that applies more to some folks than it does to others. https://twitter.com/LeeFlower/status/1290372899828883457

Folks who look and write like the folks who wrote the "classic" fiction we're all meant to read? They've never had to read all of it. People don't quiz them. People just assume they've done the reading, because they Obviously Belong.

Meanwhile I'm writing a story about a telepathic detective right now, and I'm on here saying "you don't have to read the classics" but you bet your ass I've read The Demolished Man, multiple times, because I know I will be held to a different standard.

People will assume I haven't read "the classics." They will assume I'm a Fake Geek Girl acting like I invented telepaths. Or else they'll assume on ripping off The Demolished Man because I couldn't possibly have an original idea of my own.

What's actually happening is, I'm intentionally writing a response to it. I'm critically engaging with it. I'm critically engaging with Babylon 5's references to it.

But I know people won't assume that. They'll assume I haven't done the reading. I'll be quizzed.

So it might be more accurate to say that we *shouldn't* have to read all the old stuff. But the reality is that for some of us, if we're engaging with ideas that dead white guys got to first? We're gonna be quizzed.

Declining to take that quiz is absolutely an option. We should all have the right to say "Hey, Campbell is dead--carry his water if you want but I won't."

But studying so hard for that quiz that your self-appointed proctor looks ridiculous for even asking you is also an option.

It shouldn't be *necessary.* We shouldn't have to prove our legitimacy. But I do want to acknowledge that it's easier to say "you don't have to read the classics" than it is to build a community where that double standard doesn't exist.