(1) VALUE OF SPECIAL THEME ISSUES. Neil Clarke has written a blog post, “Specials”, to discuss what he learned from a discussion he launched yesterday on Twitter.
So yesterday I took to Twitter to get an answer to a question I had about the value of special theme issues as a tool in addressing representation. It was driven in part by an incomplete editorial sitting on my desktop for a couple of months now…..
Here’s where I made a few mistakes:
- Assuming that the primary goal for these projects was long-term (as in taking a long time) or that there ever was just one. In fact, it appears as though in many of these cases, a goal was to spotlight a specific community or provide a safe entry point, not necessarily to focus on altering the landscape for the field or attract a permanent change in the slush pile for the magazine. Yes, some of these already had existing policies in place to monitor and maintain that specific branch of diversity. They were a celebration rather than a corrective measure, but hasn’t been the norm across the years….
What I learned:
-
That there is a serious and demonstrable benefit to the theme projects, but not necessarily in direct service of the results I hoped for. I heard from a wide variety of people who had career-changing moments from their involvement in projects as ranging from anthologies, to Helix, to Escape Artists, and Lightspeed’s Destroy series. A common refrain was that it encouraged them to try, gave them a confidence boost when they needed it, made them feel like they belonged, and served as a stepping stone. That last one is a long-term thing. It might not be to the big scale of the long-term goal I was talking about, but it was certainly step in the right direction. There is something to be said to the qualitative safety element of these projects even if it doesn’t specifically raise to the level of changing the playing field on a bigger scale….
(2) VERBOSE VERISIMILITUDE. After these introductory paragraphs I found her stylistic demonstration to be deeply intriguing – Sarah A. Hoyt’s “The Quality of Description Should not be Strained” at Mad Genius Club. I enjoyed it quite a bit.
The Quality of Description Should not be Strained, a Dialogue with Bill and Mike.
“Hey there buddy,” Mike said, as he came into the office, slamming the door behind him and making for the coffee maker like it was on fire and he had the only firehose on the planet. “Why so glum?”
Bill blinked from where he sat at his desk, looking across him at the red spires dotting the desert landscape outside the office window. “My writer’s group said I needed more description and sense of place,” he said. “But then when I put in description, they told me I had stopped the action and given them indigestible infodumps.”
(3) INTERNET ANTIQUITY. While rhapsodizing yesterday about the 10-year anniversary of bacon cat and the 18th anniversary of Whatever, John Scalzi said:
It’s an interesting time to be doing a blog, still, because I think it’s safe to declare the Age of Blogging well and truly over, inasmuch as personal blogging as been superseded in nearly every way by social media, including Twitter (my favorite), Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat and so on and so forth. I’m not planning on mourning blogs in general — as a phenomenon they had their moment and it was a relatively good one — but it is interesting to watch the blog tide recede, with just a few die-hards left to do them old-school, like I do.
Reading that, I thought no wonder I’ve really been in the swing of blogging this past year. I’m one of the great late-adopters, and seem to have timed my entry into the field perfectly. Had I waited a few moments longer blogs would have been extinct…
(4) OF COURSE NOBODY’S HAPPY. Aaron has penned a long and thoughtful post about slates and this year’s Hugos in “Biased Opinion: 2016 Hugo Awards Post-Mortem” at Dreaming of Other Worlds. This includes a category-by-category breakdown of the results. Filers actually started discussing this yesterday. I want to point even more people at it by including the link in today’s Scroll.
But why have the Pups erupted in paroxysms of rage when their candidates generally did so well in the final Hugo voting? The first reason is that, despite their claims that they were merely nominating and supporting what they felt were the “best” works, it seems that what they really wanted was for their political allies and personal cronies to win. The Puppy picks that won in 2016 were Nnedi Okorafor, Hao Jingfang, Neil Gaiman, Andy Weir, Abigail Larson, Mike Glyer, none of whom are beholden to the Pups in any way. In fact, one of the things that seems to have enraged the Pups is that Gaiman was insufficiently grateful to them for their support, calling them out on their bad behavior over the last couple of years with his acceptance speech. If supporting quality works was the primary goal of the Pups, then Gaiman’s stance wouldn’t matter to them one way or the other – they would be extolling the victory of The Sandman: Overture as a triumph of what they regard as good work.
(5) NEW BUNDLE. Now’s the time to pick up the New StoryBundle: Extreme Sci-Fi:
For three weeks only, from September 14 through October 6, you can get five or ten DRM-free ebooks (your choice) ready for loading on any e-reading device you like. You decide what you want to pay. After that, this bundle will disappear forever.
The initial titles in the Extreme Sci-Fi Bundle (minimum $5 to purchase) are:
- The Me and Elsie Chronicles by M. L. Buchman
- Climbing Olympus by Kevin J. Anderson
- Orphan – Giant Robot Planetary Competition: Book 1 by J.R. Murdock
- Suave Rob’s Double-X Derring Do by J. Daniel Sawyer
- Star Fall by Dean Wesley Smith
If you pay more than the bonus price of just $15, you get all five of the regular titles, plus five more:
- Away Games by Mike Resnick
- Extremes by Kristine Kathryn Rusch
- Hadrian’s Flight by J. Daniel Sawyer
- Risk Takers by Fiction River
- Fairchild by Blaze Ward
We’ve got a classics, best-sellers, and four brand new books written especially for this bundle celebrating the human spirit. Inside, you’ll find dark tales of murder and intrigue, high-comic farce, young adult adventure, awe and wonder, rapture and redemption.
(6) JACK VANCE. Paul Weimer analyzes one of Jack Vance’s richly inventive fictional worlds in “Robinson Crusoe of Tschai: Jack Vance’s Planet of Adventure Tetralogy”, posted at Tor.com.
Strange customs and societies, a hallmark of Vance’s fiction, populate (and almost overcrowd) the world. What is near-mandatory in one region of Tschai will get you killed in another. Anyone who despairs of planets in SF which feature all the same terrain and the same people have never visited Tschai. This variety and diversity is such that most people who encounter Reith and hear his story just think he’s from some corner of Tschai that they are unaware of, and probably crazy to boot.
(7) PASSENGER. NPR reports what it’s like to ride along in a self-driving Uber car.
Fourteen self-driving Ford Fusions idle in front of Uber’s Advanced Technologies Center in Pittsburgh.
On each vehicle, dozens of stationary and spinning cameras collect 1.4 million distance measurements per second, guiding the car on its journey.
Beginning Wednesday, the cars will be deployed on Pittsburgh’s streets in a striking experiment by Uber to introduce self-driving technology to its passengers.
“For me this is really important,” says Anthony Levandowski, the head of Uber’s self-driving car team, “because I really believe that the most important things that computers are going to do in the next 10 years is drive cars.”
(8) LICENSE TO WRITE. Larry Correia says don’t be bullied: “Writers should be Cultural Appropriating all the Awesome Stuff”.
I’ve talked about Cultural Appropriation before, and why it is one of the most appallingly stupid ideas every foisted on the gullible in general, and even worse when used as a bludgeon against fiction authors.
First off, what is “Cultural Appropriation”? From the linked talk:
The author of Who Owns Culture? Appropriation and Authenticity in American Law, Susan Scafidi, a law professor at Fordham University who for the record is white, defines cultural appropriation as “taking intellectual property, traditional knowledge, cultural expressions, or artifacts from someone else’s culture without permission. This can include unauthorised use of another culture’s dance, dress, music, language, folklore, cuisine, traditional medicine, religious symbols, etc.”
The part that got left out of that definition is that engaging in Cultural Appropriation is a grievous mortal sin that self-righteous busy bodies can then use to shame anyone they don’t like.
Look at that definition. Basically anything you use that comes from another culture is stealing. That is so patently absurd right out the gate that it is laughable. Anybody who has two working brain cells to rub together, who hasn’t been fully indoctrinated in the cult of social justice immediately realizes that sounds like utter bullshit.
If you know anything about the history of the world, you would know that it has been one long session of borrowing and stealing ideas from other people, going back to the dawn of civilization. Man, that cuneiform thing is pretty sweet. I’m going to steal writing. NOT OKAY! CULTURAL APPROPRIATION!
Everything was invented by somebody, and if it was awesome, it got used by somebody else. At some point in time thousands of years ago some sharp dude got sick of girding up his loins and invented pants. We’re all stealing from that guy. Damn you racists and your slacks.
In his customary swashbuckling style, he treats anyone’s concern about this issue as an absurd failure to comprehend how culture and the sharing of ideas works. That tone naturally makes people want to fire back on the same terms – whereas I wonder what everyone might say if he had expressed the same views in a persuasive structured argument.
One of Correia’s commenters implied that would look like Moshe Feder’s recent comment on Facebook.
MOSHE FEDER: I’ve always found “cultural appropriation” a weird concept. To me, it’s usually a progressive step toward a future in which humanity realizes that from a galactic point of view, we all share ONE culture — albeit a complex and varied one — the planetary culture developed by homo sapiens over tens of thousands of years. It was by this very so-called “appropriation” that fire, animal husbandry, agriculture, the wheel, and other crucial advances were spread to the benefit of all. Of course, there _are_ cases where CA is rude or inappropriate, as when you use it to mock or misrepresent other groups, and people of good will try to avoid those. But even those uses are protected by our free speech rights. (As are the protestations of those who resent such uses.) But all too often, complaints about cultural appropriation are another example of political correctness carried to the point of absurdity, the point at which it gives unscrupulous demagogues like Trump something they can look sensible for complaining about.
(9) TODAY’S BIRTHDAY BOYS
- Born September 14, 1914 — Clayton Moore, TV’s The Lone Ranger.
- Born September 14, 1936 — Walter Koenig (age 80). He was 31 when he started Star Trek.
(10) SQUARE DEAL FOR NUMBER ONE FAN. Although the neighbors didn’t succeed in having Forry Ackerman’s last home designated a cultural landmark, the city may agree to name a Los Feliz neighborhood intersection in his honor. The Los Feliz Ledger has the story:
“Sci-Fi” Square: Beloved Local, Ackerman, Up for Honor.
The intersection of Franklin and Vermont avenues may soon be known as “Forrest J Ackerman Square,” thanks to an August motion by Los Angeles City Councilmember David Ryu (CD 4).
The square would honor Ackerman, a lifetime Angeleno best known for coining the term “sci-fi.”….
The notion of honoring Ackerman with a city square was first brought up at a March meeting of the city’s Cultural Heritage Commission, where a group called “Concerned Citizens of Los Feliz” tried and failed to gain historic status for a bungalow on Russell Avenue, which Ackerman called home for the final six years of his life.
Ackerman referred to the bungalow as his “Acker-Mini-Mansion,” in reference to the “Ackermansion,” his former home on Glendower Avenue in the Hollywood Hills.
(11) GEAR. Vox Day is thinking of doing some Dread Ilk merchandise. Here are the initial ideas.
I’m interested in knowing which designs are of most interest to the Ilk. So, here are a few random ideas; let me know which would be of the most interest to you, assuming that the designs are well-executed. Or if you have any other ideas, feel free to throw them out.
- Evil Legion of Evil (member’s edition)
- Evil Legion of Evil (Red Meat cartoon)
- Vile Faceless Minion
- Dread Ilk
- Rabid Puppies 2015
- Rabid Puppies 2016
- Vox Day Che
- Just Say N20 (Psykosonik lyrics on back)
- Spacebunny (cartoon logo)
- Supreme Dark Lord (Altar of Hate mask logo)
- SJWAL cover
- Cuckservative cover with 1790 law quote
- That Red Dot On Your Chest Means My Daddy Is Watching
- Castalia House logo “Restoring Science Fiction Since 2014”
- There Will Be War
- The Missionaries
(12) GAME SHOW. Steven H Silver is back with another stfnal Jeopardy! question:
A daily double in Awards. She bet $2400 and got it right on a total guess.
I’m sure all you Filers would have cashed that in.
(13) THE HONOR OF THE THING. John Scalzi confessed on Twitter:
Someone on Facebook is asking pals if she should name a new gecko after me or Douglas Adams and I've never felt more competitive in my life.
— John Scalzi (@scalzi) September 14, 2016
[Thanks to John King Tarpinian, Steven H Silver, and Chip Hitchcock for some of these stories. Title credit goes to File 770 contributing editor of the day Daniel Dern.]
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
Going out for the weekend, so . . .
/culture-stalk! (just looking, not [mis]appropriating 😉 )
Greg Hullender:
Sorry, but my base is not the English-speaking world. It is the Swedish-speaking world. And in the swedish language, we don’t use the expression “People of Colour” as no human is transparent. We say “raceified” to show exactly that racism is based on social constructs where the victim of racism varies with time and it also varies who is seen as white and who is not.
What are you trying to imply by that statement? That you think I have lost my mind? Really?
@kendall re MJ-12: Before I read it, I too did think it was going to be Hiroshima=superpowers (like GURPS TECHNOMANCER). The actual truth is nicely more complicated.
Oh, lots of anime and manga appropriates Christian imagery, especially using the Catholic hierarchy to be a shadowy, exotic mysterious organization. Or how about this one with Jesus and Buddha hanging out together in the present day? (Not to be confused with Jesus and Mo.)
Of course skin color is inherited–it just isn’t a very significant trait, and isn’t very indicative of overall relatedness. You could pick two random “black” people of roughly the same shade from two different villages 100 miles apart in Africa and compare their complete genomes, and they may very well be less genetically similar to each other than you and Jackie Chan. That is what it means that there is no “black race.” African populations have a greater genetic diversity than everyone who isn’t African put together.
One thing that interests me about banknote art is who the government chooses to feature on their money. Some money of course features political leaders (hereditary, elected, or dictators) or influential figures (artists, scientists, military leaders.) But some governments (especially the more oppressive ones) like to show “ordinary people” in their daily lives—working, going to school, training for the military) in idealized ways.
Here is a composite image of some “slice of life” scenes from banknotes in my collection. (I began scanning in some of my best banknotes a while back, never finished because the scanner slipped a belt midway through.) Here is a zip file containing lowish resolution copies of the scans of some of the notes those details were cropped from, plus others. (I’ve never used that file sharing site before–hopefully it works correctly.)
Cultural appropriation: I think I have a solution–those who have a problem with “cultural appropriation” by people with a European heritage should give up using all things invented or developed by people with a European heritage, including the internal combustion engine, controlled use of electricity, antibiotics, and vaccines. In return, those who have a problem with people with an African heritage should give up using all things invented or developed by Africans, including language, tool use, the controlled use of fire, and clothing.
Lis Carey said:
That individuals cannot do something does not mean there is no system involved. That system is cultural imperialism. Individual New Zealanders also cannot do much about it either until American Empire is no longer dominant.
(Perhaps I should say that any end of the American Empire is not likely to be good, and when there is empire then cultural imperialism is natural, but still it seems to me those words have meaning.)
I find that puzzling, since mostly Christmas in Japan is following a True Commercial Spirit of Christmas.
There are some with some very strange ideas (others have already posted screenshots) but that is not what most people see.
Of course Japan does have some Christian population. But Christmas is not an official celebration because it is not a Christan country. So Christmas is just up to whatever people want to do, and most are not encumbered by much actual knowledge of Christian tradition. But shops love the idea of Christmas…
Dawn Incognito said:
Yes, iconography (whatever that really is), but themes, names, images.
Petréa Mitchell on September 15, 2016 at 6:56 pm said:
These two things are not alike. NGE contains literally no depiction of Western religion and belief. Those things are just not present at all.
It does contain many appropriated ideas, themes, images, names. Like many SF and Fantasy stories written by Western writers, though Western stories appropriation is more “true to life”. (If not more real, there is something wrong.) Though guessing from Church reactions, not much more acceptable. Anime might sometimes be more acceptable if it is far enough from religion inspiration to avoid charge of blasphemy. But probably not.
In my opinion NGE is a poor cultural appropriator. Better to filed off serial numbers, or at least changed names. But I remember no bad depiction of Western religion, just bad ripoff of Western religious ideas etc.
@Darren Garrison: Not to mention the “one-drop rule” still pretty much determines if someone is black in America.
My take on cultural appropriation and cultural imperialism (which are flip sides of the same dynamic) is that, while a bagpiper and a harpist may play duets, nobody will know how well the harpist played.
Any analysis that doesn’t center the question of who has the power (cultural, political, economic) to represent a culture to other people is not really talking about cultural appropriation/imperialism.
“taking intellectual property, traditional knowledge, cultural expressions, or artifacts from someone else’s culture without permission. This can include unauthorised use of another culture’s dance, dress, music, language, folklore, cuisine, traditional medicine, religious symbols, etc.”
—Without permission. But who in the stolen-from culture is authorized to give that permission?
Again, I strongly feel that “permission” is a dubious construct that clouds the real issue. It’s not permission that matters, it’s respect and fair use. If I write a brilliantly-researched book about magic among the Kanuri people of Africa that takes into account their language, traditions, religion, and presents them as individuals who share a rich common heritage, that’s not cultural appropriation. If I write a book where my heroes fight a demon named “Shango” because I think the name sounds really freakin’ metal, that’s cultural appropriation. I didn’t do the work, I didn’t respect the culture, and I appropriated their culture for my own selfish use. (Which is why it’s called “cultural appropriation”.)
Likewise, nobody is saying that Elvis can’t sing rock and roll, or that he needs permission from black artists to sing rock and roll. (Assuming he’s not dead. Still some questions there.) But when he makes millions while conspicuously failing to credit the sources of his inspiration, using a style associated with artists from other cultures–inextricably associated at the time he got his start, in fact–while failing to do anything to help them profit from their own music, he’s exploiting their cultural icons for fame and fortune while preventing them from seeing any of that fame and fortune. He is appropriating their culture for profit. That’s why it’s called, again, cultural appropriation.
Getting hung up in “permission”, or in figuring out which cultures shared ideas in the past, misses the point. Respect. Fairness. That’s the point. Follow those two rules, and only the fringiest of liberals will get mad. Don’t follow those rules, and Larry Correia will pretend he doesn’t understand them in order to defend you. 🙂
@IanP
The Guards regiments are not solely ceremonial, they’ve got battle honours up the wazoo.
Likewise, the soldiers who guard the Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington National Cemetery (the sentinels of the “Old Guard”, 3rd U.S. Infantry Reg.).
@Shao Ping
Not to mention the “one-drop rule” still pretty much determines if someone is black in America.
Eh, not so much. I think that most Americans would be surprised to find out that Rashida Jones is the daughter of Quincy Jones.
On the whole “permission” aspect of cultural borrowing, it keeps reminding me of a phenomenon I encountered as a Subject Matter Expert in the Society for Creative Anachronism. Bear with me because the two threads don’t really cross until the end.
I got quite a reputation for research into Welsh topics, but when it comes to everyday material culture of the medieval period, it’s a subject with a lot of enormous gaps that need to be covered by extrapolation. Pretty much every artifact–material and non-material–that I created in support of my SCA persona was about 10% culture-specific data and 90% filling in from other contemporary sources, or from data taken from other time periods, or by creative iconography taken from literature. And I would explain (at excruciating length) how I arrived at my decisions to construct something in a particular way, if asked.
But when people came to me we research questions, they didn’t want to be told, “Here’s the 10% factual information; go and create a framework in which to use it.” They would ask, “Is it ok if I…[insert creative plans here]?”
And I hated that. Because it erased all the nuance and the uncertainty and the need to take responsibility for one’s guesswork, and the constant awareness of just how much was guesswork, and the distinction between historic reconstruction and theatrical iconography, and all the other hard work that went into the research. They didn’t want that. They wanted someone to lay hands on their project and bless it and give permission. And then if anyone ever questioned the choices they made, they could reply, “But Tangwystyl* said it was ok!”
[* my SCA name]
Getting “permission” for how you use another cultures themes, motifs, and artifacts is the same process. It erases all the nuance and uncertainty and responsibility. It distills the whole creative process down to, “Is it ok if I… yes/no?”
I’ve mentioned before the story of two dudes and a donkey. The only way that you can avoid doing or saying something that isn’t going to Righteously Offend! someone, somewhere is to not say anything to anyone, ever. So write about whatever you damn well please however you damn well please, and if some people don’t like it, to hell with them.
To be honest, this comment mostly echo of a lack of social competence. At least if a person would really act like that.
Yeah I read that as “how dare people complain about grossly offensive depictions of their culture/traditions?” Which I find a very depressing attitude.
Darren Garrison said: “The only way that you can avoid doing or saying something that isn’t going to Righteously Offend! someone, somewhere is to not say anything to anyone, ever. So write about whatever you damn well please however you damn well please, and if some people don’t like it, to hell with them.”
No. Don’t do that. Really. Unless you are a space alien who has just today learned the English language by meticulously translating a dictionary (and if you are, then welcome! We will take you to our leaders just as soon as we’re sure the one we get won’t embarrass us) then you should have a reasonable understanding of how context and nuance play into the use of language. Meaning that you should know the difference between “there’s no way to avoid offending anyone” and “there’s no way to avoid offending everyone”. Just because the former isn’t possible doesn’t mean you shouldn’t at least care about the latter.
@Bill
(On a completely unrelated note:) … though probably not as surprised as they would be if they found out that Norah Jones is the daughter of Ravi Shankar.
You should never offend people on accident if you can avoid it.
@ Darren Garrison
Thank you for that excellent example of “erasing all the nuance”.
Bill: I think that most Americans would be surprised to find out that Rashida Jones is the daughter of Quincy Jones.
microtherion: … though probably not as surprised as they would be if they found out that Norah Jones is the daughter of Ravi Shankar.
Actually, I think that both of those are pretty well-publicized and known. Entertainment sites rarely fail to mention that in stories.
The problem is that a lot of people under a certain age will have no idea who Quincy Jones or Ravi Shankar are.
Then let me rephrase —
I think most Americans would be surprised to find out that Rashida Jones has a black father.
Am I being really clueless? Because Rashida Jones having a black father is both unsurprising and unexceptional to me.
I bring her up only as a public example of someone to whom the “one drop” theory does not seem to apply. Despite having many drops, she is often thought of as white, or her race doesn’t come up at all.
And that’s pretty much my perception of the “one drop” theory in general — I can’t think of any contemporary examples of mixed race people being treated as if they were wholly black, unless they claimed blackness. If Shao Ping knows something specific that caused him (or her? I don’t know . . ) to say that it still is relevant in America, I’d be interested in hearing it.
IIRC, there was a rather hilarious red carpet interview where a reporter complimented Rashida Jones as having a great tan. It got very awkward when she clued him in.
I would note that that seems more an artifact of a fairly clueless journo, rather than a greater lack of awareness as to her background
There are still genuinely unreconstructed open racists for whom the one drop rule still applies. I overheard one such fifteen years ago, a sorority girl addressing a black guy among a table of college students in Birmingham, telling him that their blood was literally different on the basis of race. I’m sure she’s still alive, as there is no justice in this world beyond that which people impose upon it, and one does not impose on a white southern sorority girl. It’s just not done among the better people. Everyone who matters knows this.
Less bigoted racists acknowledge that biracial people aren’t black. They just understand them to not be white and thus The Other. The more progressive among them are willing to pretend that sufficiently light-skinned people who obey white cultural norms are white enough to pass without comment.
Does my weariness with this viciousness require a sarcasm tag to be clear? I finished Passing and moved on to The Marrow of Tradition, which has lain half-finished the last week. I know how it ends, in the book and in the history it relates, and know not nothing at all.
They can complain all they want. They can call for boycotts. They can demand the end of your career. But you still have the right to write whatever you damn well please. If you don’t want to see a “grossly offensive of their culture” piece of fiction, don’t watch/read it. Nobody is holding a gun to your head. What I find very depressing is people trying to tell other people what they are or are not “permitted” to write/create. (The complaining is already starting for Moana, BTW–an example.)
That’s kind of a contradiction in terms–you can’t avoid accidentally offending someone if you don’t know you are offending them (hence, the “accident” part.)
But beyond that, I really, really, really have a problem with the idea that creating something is “wrong” because one group will be offended by it. Should Salman Rushdie have not written The Satanic Verses because it was sure to offend some Muslims? Should Nikos Kazantzakis not have written The Last Temptation of Christ (and Martin Scorsese directed the movie) because it was sure to offend some Christians? Should Mario Puzo and Francis Ford Coppola avoided The Godfather because it was offensive to some Italians? Should FFC’s daughter Sophia have avoided Lost In Translation because it could offend some Japanese? Should Paul Feig have avoided the Ghostbusters remake because it offended some original Ghostbusters fans and some sexists?
Just because one person holds a certain set of ideas sacred does not mean that everyone else is required to treat them with kid gloves. One person’s sacred cow is another person’s lunch.
@Darren Garrison:
More of a Yogi-Berraism (and what is the right word for that? Koan American Style?) is what I was going for. It’s one thing to offend people on accident because you didn’t know. It’s another thing to offend people on accident because you don’t care. So only offend people you intend to offend.
Darren Garrison:
Yes, we know that assholes and bigots may write whatever offensive stuff they want. Apart from here in Sweden where we gladly send them to jail when they go to far.
That doesn’t mean that they should. That doesn’t mean that they should wish everyone who complains to go to hell. And that doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t suffer reprercusions for their assholish behaviour.
Again, I do think that attitude is a matter of lack of social competence. And most likely off a moral compass.
There are absolutely some stuff that would have been better not written. Like “Mein Kampf”. For some reason I don’t see that among your examples. Why not? There are a lot of tweets that should never have been written. There are a lot of speeches by Trump that never should have been said. Because they are lies, racism and misogyny.
Wow. A genuine Godwining of a thread. You don’t see many of those here.
We had in our community, just a few weeks ago, an event for only men (not necesserily gay, only open for play with others). Beause how the event description, many in the trans community got offended. We now had to ways to act:
1) The Darren Garrison way and tell the offended people to go to hell.
2) Learn why they were offended and what they did wrong.
We choose way two, got in contact with the trans community, rewrote the description together with them and got a lot of good cred because of that. We now have much more knowledge and the next time we will write a description, we know what traps to avoid. We also know who to ask before.
That is social competence. Wishing people to go to hell because they didn’t like what you wrote is more sheer stupidity.
Next time I will use David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan as an example instead. So you can tell that they are right to write what they want and all who complain should go to hell.
Learn why they were offended and what they did wrong.
Here’s where you and I can part ways–there is no right to not be offended. Those who are offended to not automatically merit an apology, and those who offend are not automatically wrong. In my examples, the writers/directors of The Satanic Verses, The Last Temptation of Christ, The Godfather, Lost In Translation, and Ghostbusters did nothing wrong, have nothing that they need to apologize for, nothing that they need to change, and the people complaining (and in some cases making death threats) deserve nothing more than a reply of “tough shit.”
ETA (As for Duke and the KKK, I firmly believe that you do not really support freedom of speech if you don’t support the free speech of people who disgust you. Yes, it is different in your country. I think my way is better.)
I say Trump and the rampant racism (yes, I should go to hell for complaining about that) is proving that your way is much, much worse.
You cherrypick examples to say that some people did nothing wrong. Well, that is true. But some people did something wrong. Milo did a lot of wrong by setting troll armies against people. Beales writing to on purpose denigrate women and people of colour are clearly wrong. But with your blanket statement, they should just tell everyone to go to hell.
I propose that you shouldn’t do that at all. You should instead listen to their arguments. See if they have merit. And if they have, you should react to that. You could apologize, you could think more of how you write, you could modify what you have written. And if they are wrong, you could ignore them or answer why you think they are wrong.
But wishing them to go to hell? Stupidity.
I don’t really care if there is a right to not be offended by others’ abuse of their culture and its heritage. I want people not to offend others through ignorance, hatefulness, and/or apathy; I want people who’ve been exploited in the past not to be exploited again.
I did not want to add more entries to my kill file, but it’s grown a little this morning anyway.
1.) We are talking at cross-purposes– I “cherrypick examples to say that some people did nothing wrong” because I have been talking about depictions of culture in works of fiction that some people find religiously/culturally offensive and always have been, not about “real life” and non-fiction, which is what you are talking about.
2.) You seem really, really fixated with my use of the phrase “to hell with” and take it literally–I am an atheist–I don’t believe that “hell” exists. “To hell with” is a common English phrase meaning “I do not care about”, “I don’t give a damn about”, or something similar.
3.) My statement number 2 contains a segment that millions would find culturally insensitive and offensive–not believing in deitys or places of eternal damnation. I’m not going to apologize to those millions.
1. It is the same there. If you write and find out that you have offended people, just wishing people to go to hell shows a lack of social competence. Listening and from what is said, decide if people are right or wrong and then decide from that how to go on is far more sensible. Not caring at all if you offend people is just stupid.
2. I am also an atheist, I know what the expression means. It is a common enough swedish expression.
Darren, you are inspiring me to feel that I don’t give a flying fuck what you think, either.
But usually you are smarter than that, so I’ll hope you’ll recover your senses.
If you think that I am “smarter” than thinking that people very much ought to be free to write any story that they want, any way that they want, without having to “ask permission” first, you are very much mistaken. If supporting people’s rights to tell their stories in any way they choose makes me “stupid” and “insensitive”–well, I wear your scorn as a badge of honor.
Darren, I apologize for not responding you you, but I am unable to put my thoughts in order.
I am out of spoons after spending a week with people who love me, and probably even like me, but who I don’t believe respect me and sure as fuck don’t understand me.
Except my 8-year-old nephew, who after the hug and kiss goodbye stuck out his hand to shake with the words “nerd-bros?” That was pretty neat.
@Dawn – Hooray for nerd-bro nephews!
And there came the strawman. This the part of what you wrote that people have reacted to:
To accept someones right to offend people is not the same as thinking they should offend people and wish the offended to hell. And it is you saying the latter that people don’t agree with you with.
More nerd-bros ftw!
@Dawn Incognito – Except my 8-year-old nephew, who after the hug and kiss goodbye stuck out his hand to shake with the words “nerd-bros?” That was pretty neat.
That was pretty neat. I’m really glad the two of you have each other. 😉
@Darren Garrison, you mentioned The Last Temptation of Christ, a book I love by an author I love above almost all others. The book probably did offend people and I recall the movie (which I haven’t seen) called forth a lot of voices in opposition. Kazantzakis knew it would be controversial when he wrote it, but that didn’t stop him from writing a beautiful, respectful, loving alternative history of Jesus as part of his nearly lifelong exploration of the spiritual. That’s way different from the shit show that is Mein Kampf.
Yes, indeed, write what you want in the way you want to write it. If it causes controversy, evaluate the reasons for it. If it’s specious nonsense by fringe folks (like the sort who want books banned because they have sex or they’re “trashy”), it doesn’t need to be addressed. If it’s because you’ve offended people who aren’t like you because you’ve gotten a portrayal of women, LGBTQ, or Native Americans or whatever really, really wrong, you (the writer you) probably want to take that criticism to heart. Maybe even apologize and learn to do better.
In other words, you can fight for your right to tell your stories without being a crass, rude, insensitive mf about the process.
Not a problem, I was too busy arguing with Hampus to notice. 🙂
But to elaborate:
Everyone has the right to complain–they just don’t have the automatic right to be capitulated to. And everyone has a different definition of what is “grossly offensive.” Such as my above book and movie examples, all of which had large numbers of people complaining about how “gross and insulting” they were to their various cultures and religions. But should any of those films/books be bowdlerized to appease the complainers? (I argue a strong “no.”)
This isn’t to say that people should be required to be given platforms for “offensive” fiction–for example the publisher of the recent children’s book about happy slaves baking a birthday cake for George Washington had every right to pull it from the market. But if the writer wanted to make it a free PDF on her website, she would have every right to do so. If she wanted to write a sequel where the happy slaves are joined by a wendigo, Ganesha, zombie Buddha, Harriet Tubman, and a time-traveling Ted Bundy and put on a musical adaptation of Lysistrata for kindergartners, she would also have every right to do so. She would probably make few friends in doing it, but it would be her right. As it should be.
I’m the opposite–I haven’t read the book, but I have the Criterion DVD of the movie. (It wasn’t just a few voices of opposition–there were groups carrying signs protesting at theaters all around the US and several other countries, and one fire-bombing.)
Except Catholics (well, at least some, but prominent ones, not to mention other Christian groups) found it “morally offensive” and “unfit for all ages.”
ETA see also this
http://www.moviemoviesite.com/articles/films/specific/last_temptation_of_christ_controversy/the_protests.htm
and this
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/11/09/world/religious-war-ignites-anew-in-france.html
Yes, Catholics, some at least, including prominent Church figures, were offended, and vocal about it.
Other prominent Catholic figures were somewhat bemused by that reaction, pointing out that the book is, or at least has been, used in Catholic seminaries to explore s9me theological ideas
The bishops and archbishops that I heard from were clear about wanting to persuade people to choose not to see it, not to block access to it.
Firebombing is not a legitimate means of protest.
Really sick of your straw men.
One commonly cited difference between the Last Temptation and what Rowling did is that the Catholic Church is a world power, and other Christians mainstream religion which, if anything, means they are likely to be the bagpipe in Heather’s earlier duet. They can handle some odd or outre reimaginings. What Rowling did was done to people who are virtually never, ever, depicted accurately by outsiders, and added to a load. What she wrote was a big steaming heap of White Perspective with a couple of token hints at Cherokee existance wafted by. In effect, she looked at the duet, and decided to give an amp to the bagpipe.
(she wasn’t any better with US history in general, which many have noted, but you’ll note the protests on that are fewer and more eyerolly. because America is not exactly unrepresented on the world stage.)
Note, nobody has demanded Rowling go go jail, or stop writing, or wear a hairshirt. Some people have said they respect her less for first creating Ilvermorny without real research and secondly for not responding at all to critique on the topic.
Contrast that with Diane Duane. When told A Wizard Alone contained a depiction of autism that was, at best, at odds with how the autistic saw themselves, she talked to the community, did more research and rewrote the next edition of the book . you can still buy the original -it’s the only copy I have – it hasn’t been deleted. in fact, since the new edition is, AFAIK, only an ebook, the original might be easier to find. but she got kudos and praise and respect for listening and responding.
Thing is, Rowling’s attitude seems to not only be one you are saying is *allowed*(which it patently is), you seem to be saying it’s *preferable*. which is where everyone disagrees. Some of us strongly.
@Darren Garrison – (It wasn’t just a few voices of opposition–there were groups carrying signs protesting at theaters all around the US and several other countries, and one fire-bombing.)
I remember a lot of opposition to the film, which, honestly, I thought was silly but predictable. There are multiple strains of faith and practice in Catholicism and one that has been prominent is the Banned in Boston sort. It’s not the only strain, though. I probably would have gotten around to it anyway, because I eventually read everything he wrote, but the reason I read Last Temptation when I did was because I’d enthused over Kazantzakis’s Report to Greco to a Franciscan brother and he did the hey, if you loved that, then you’ll really love… thing.
In other words, @Lis Carey is correct about this: Other prominent Catholic figures were somewhat bemused by that reaction, pointing out that the book is, or at least has been, used in Catholic seminaries to explore s9me theological ideas.
What I meant to get to, though, is the Last Temptation wasn’t controversial because it was clueless or somehow needlessly offensive and every part of the book was the culmination of deep thoughtfulness. That’s different from some dumbass tromping all over someone else’s culture because they can’t be bothered to do research or even be minimally polite.
But that isn’t even what I’m trying to defend. Poor research is hard to defend. What I’m defending is knowing the details of another culture fully well, then tromping all over it because you want to. Like re imagining the last days of the life of Jesus Christ. Or saying that Norse gods and an African trickster hang around in modern day America (Neil Gaiman’s American Gods.) Or that Coyote and Anubis are brothers (Christopher Moore’s Coyote Blue.) Or the Wendigo likes to run around the woods in Canada chanting “wen-di-go!” and fighting large green guys with anger management issues (Marvel Comics.) Or any other example of writers using characters from myths and fairy tales where there are still people who actually believe that those myths and fairy tales are true.
What I’m saying that nobody should feel obligated to pretend that fairy tales are really true even though there may be a number of people that honestly do believe that the fairy tales are true, and will be offended if you play around with them. It is one thing to be offended by people getting facts wrong, it is another to be offended by people not pretending to believe in fictions.
@Darren Garrison – What I’m defending is knowing the details of another culture fully well, then tromping all over it because you want to. Like re imagining the last days of the life of Jesus Christ.
and: It is one thing to be offended by people getting facts wrong, it is another to be offended by people not pretending to believe in fictions.
So, you’re defending artistic license and an individual’s right to reject myth as fact? If so, I’m not going to disagree. I think there is real value in being knowledgeable about something and then putting it to use in service of art. I probably would stop short of blanket agreement, because I can see ways in which your stance of intellectual and artistic freedom could be weaponized and that’s not a line I want to cross without exception. But thinking people should not feel obligated to pretend to believe any- and everything merely to avoid giving offense? Sure.
A movie theater in nearby Hot Springs was burned in a mysterious act of arson shortly before it was to show The Last Temptation of Christ. The church I now attend in Little Rock showed it in their place. They were so much older then, they’re younger than that now.
While that was going on, I pushed a resolution through student senate up in Fayetteville asking that it be shown on campus. The scumbag Dean of Student Services, who serviced the students like a bull services a cow, waited till debate was over to rise and say his piece. I objected and was sustained by the president pro tem, which may have been the last time our eventual blue dog Democratic senator and now business lobbyist Mark Pryor committed an act of principle. It was probably getting the gay and lesbian students their funding that cost me my financial aid, but this didn’t help any.
I’ve got a record on behalf of freedom of expression that I’ll put up against anyone’s without shame. And I’ve been offensive on purpose sometimes. I don’t regret it, mostly. I like taunting the tauntable. I’d take back a little, but I’m mostly proud of it.
So I agree. Write what you want to write, tell the truth as you see it. Don’t worry about the consequences while you’re writing. Go for it!
But listen to your friends or your editor or your writers group or your partner or whoever it is that watches in your blind spots when they tell you that you might’ve screwed up. You don’t have to believe them. They might be wrong. Just think about it.
And if the consequences arrive, don’t assume the people you’ve offended are wrong. Maybe they are, maybe they aren’t. Think about it.
And if you decide it was worth offending people, live with the consequences.