Prachi Gupta, an Assistant News Editor for Salon, wrote an article condemning David Gilmour for not teaching writers that don't appeal to him, claiming that is "extreme point of view". (source)
Really? Does he say no-one else should enjoy them? That they have no value for others? That's what you insinuate, you slur, you strawman, but it's just not there, is it?
If I enjoy sausages, and not steak, and tell you that I will cook sausages, but not steak, am I a sausagist? If I am very good at sausages and run a sausage shop, will you have me condemned and replaced with someone who sells the correct foods, correctly - and blandly - prepared?
" But I can only teach stuff I love. I can’t teach stuff that I don’t, and I haven’t encountered any Canadian writers yet that I love enough to teach."
Well, that's not good enough, is it, Ms Gupta? He needs to teach stuff he doesn't love, stuff he has no passion for. Stuff he will teach badly. It's not enough that he teaches the things in his range well; he needs to teach the correct things, because they are correct.
In fact perhaps he could be forced to only teach Chinese women's writing? I can see no flaw. For that would be correct.
Nice hatchet job on his character. How vain he must be, to assume he is good enough to teach, just because he was hired to teach, despite lacking the usual qualifications. How terrible he must be to assume he knows anything about writing, just because he is a successful writer.
Replace him with someone who has never published.
Someone who only thinks correct things.
like you, perhaps?