Editorial: Season of Silly?
We tend not to run negative stories at the World SF Blog, focusing mostly on trying to bring to people’s attention all the cool things being written and done around the world in SF/F (and horror, and comics, and genre films). But this has been going on the blogosphere for a while, starting with a review of the Requires That You Hate blog of author R. Scott Bakker. The blog, run by a Thai fan, has come under extraordinary attack. Here she summarises some of it:
You will have heard of the Bakker brouhaha, if you are here. Let’s have a chronology:
- Requires Only That You Hate – R. Scott Bakker: Prince of Misogyny – dated 16 August 2011
- R. Scott Bakker – Sweet Manna - dated 16 August 2011
- R. Scott Bakker - Misanthropology 101 – dated 1 February 2012
- R. Scott Bakker - Requires Only Haidt – dated 6 February 2012
- R. Scott Bakker - The Halftime Show – dated 10 February 2012
- R. Scott Bakker - That Empty Place – dated 16 February 2012
- Peter Watts – In Vicarious Defense of R. Scott Bakker – dated 16 February 2012
- R. Scott Bakker – Um, does anybody got a mint? – dated 18 February 2012
You may be thinking I’ve willfully obscured something. Surely, surely no grown adult man could go on about that one post from August 2011… six months later? Surely not? I must have consistently attacked him! Blogged about him! Many times! Perhaps I may even have personally harassed him! Such is the way of bitchy, angry feminists: we hound offensive men to the end of the earth. So much so that their sales figures suffer and their family goes poor. (For your perusal and pleasure, try this bit of flash fiction by Elodie.)
Alas, no. I made but that one post. Ever after any mention of Bakker on this blog has been peripheral, because I didn’t care about him all that much, and wouldn’t especially want to read his books. But there it is: Bakker stewed over this, apparently, for six entire months. Peter Watts, who is a magical friend of Bakker’s, proceeded to call me “a rabid animal.” Something which even a person who finds me “toxic” recognizes as a loaded term. Not that Peter Watts would admit there’s any problem with him saying that because even if I’d been a fellow nerdy white boy he’d have called me the same, though even after having been told I’m a woman of color it did not stop him from graduating to “foul, rabid animal” which tells you all you need to know. You can go through the rest of that exchange, but I’m more interested in the larger picture of this. Which is: why is it that these people are so deathly afraid of being called sexist, racist, or any such thing… to that froth-at-the-mouth point where they go on to compound the offense by actively being sexist or racist?
In opposition, here are two other writers – Mark Charan Newton writes about Things He Got Wrong, while he and Jesse Bullington have a measured, fascinating conversation about the pitfalls of writing about race and gender. They are a masterclass in how to address the issues with humility and consideration. Here is Bullington:
I went through a similar sort of Palomarian lizard-gazing with my last novel, as I knew from inception I wanted an African woman protagonist. That I figured out early on that she was also going to be a lesbian didn’t exactly make the process any less fraught with doubts over whether or not I was shitting the bed at any given point in the story. Now that the book is the better part of a year out in the wild, I’m quite a bit more confident in my work–not because I think I did such a great job and aren’t I just the awesomest for writing about GBLT PoC, but because I know I did the very best that I could, and I thought very, very carefully about what I was doing. Which, dahoy, is what we should be doing as writers any way, all the time, but I imagine for some authors who shall remain nameless, potentially difficult subjects are an afterthought rather than a starting point.
That said, I know from an amazon review of Enterprise that for at least one reader who identified as a woman of color I did an awful, offensive job of it, which is about the worst feeling in the world. Compounding matters, the particulars that she took issue with were all things I did intentionally to subvert racial stereotypes–rather than being a tall, light-skinned, “exotically” hawt sex-interest for a white dude, my protagonist Awa is short, very dark-skinned, uninterested in men, and not exactly attractive to the white, European characters she encounters.
For this reader, however, rather than it being refreshing to see a black protagonist who didn’t fit into the popular genre parameters for women of color, it was odious–she thought I was objectively implying darker-skinned Africans are less attractive than lighter-skinned individuals, when I was actively trying to recreate the cultural climate of Renaissance Europe–a climate with standards of beauty that are all-too easily mirrored in our own problematic times (then there’s my general antipathy to the idea that protagonists have to be physically beautiful…). Furthermore, Awa’s being a lesbian was seen, I gather, as my relegating her to a non-sexual “mammy role” for the novel’s white male protagonist, rather than an attempt on my part to actively portray a lesbian that didn’t exist solely to titillate straight male readers.
It wasn’t my intention to offend, and the source of the offense was in the (attempted) service of writing something that played against stereotypes of what a black heroine could be…but that doesn’t invalidate said reader’s emotional reaction to what I wrote. The bottom line is I’ll never be able to undo the hurt that I caused her, however inadvertently, which, yeah, is a shitty feeling,
and one that I have to own–and acknowledge that my having my widdle progressive author feelings hurt is a good deal less sucky than encountering awful stereotypes about yourself on the page, the screen, etc. on a regular basis.
In contrast to that, here is a rather extraordinary post from Patrick Rothfuss, adding to the whole sense that we’ve somehow entered the silly month in sci fi, on that geek girl from school, who became a porn star. Because, you know, that’s what happens to geek girls.
You know that it’s going to be like? It’s going to be like wandering onto an internet porn site and seeing a video of a girl I had a crush on in high school. You probably knew someone like her. The smart girl. The shy girl. The one who wore glasses and was a little socially awkward. The one who screwed up the curve in chemistry so you got an A- instead of an A.
She was a geek girl before anybody knew what a geek girl was. And that was kinda awesome, because you were a geek boy before being a geek was culturally acceptable.
You liked her because she was funny. And she was smart. And you could actually talk to her. And she read books.
And sure, she was girl-shaped, and that was cool. And she was cute, in an understated, freckly way. And sometimes you’d stare at her breasts when you were supposed to be paying attention in biology. But you were 16. You stared at everyone’s breasts back then.
And yeah, you had some fantasies about her, because, again, you were 16. But they were fairly modest fantasies about making out in the back of a car. Maybe you’d get to second base. Maybe you could steal third if you were lucky.
And maybe, just maybe, something delightful and terrifying might happen. And yeah, it would probably be awkward and fumbling at times, but that’s okay because she’d be doing half the fumbling too. Because the only experience either one of you had was from books. And afterwards, if you make a Star Wars joke, you know she’ll get it, and she’ll laugh….
That’s the girl you fell in love with in high school. You didn’t have a crush on her because she was some simmering pool of molten sex. You loved her because she was subtle and sweet and smart and special.
So you stroll onto this porn site, and there she is. Except now she’s wearing a thong and a black leather halter top. She’s wearing fuck-me red lipstick and a lot of dark eye makeup. Her breasts are amazing now, proud and perfectly round.
Someone’s taught her to dance, and she does it well. She’s flexible and tan. She has a flat midriff and walks like a high-class Vegas stripper. Her eyes are dark and smouldering. She has a riding crop, and she likes to be tied up, and her too-red mouth forms a perfect circle as she sighs and moans, and tosses her head in a performance designed to win any number of academy awards….
And what’s the problem with this? Well… in some ways, nothing. What you’ve found is perfectly good porn. Maybe even great porn.
But in other ways the problem is blindingly obvious. This girl has nothing in common with your high-school crush except for her social security number. Everything you loved about her is gone.
We loved the sweet, shy, freckly girl. We still remember her name, and after all these years she lives close to our heart. Seeing her in lipstick and stiletto heels dancing on a pole is like watching Winnie the Pooh do heroin and then glass someone in a bar fight.
It just isn’t something that I look forward to seeing….
It also has the added benefit of being quite offensive to actual geek pornstars (Sasha Grey, for instance, is a well-known gamer). What do we learn from this? That geek girls are “rabid animals”? Or that they’re lifeless porn stars who rob men of their innocent childhood crushes? All we know is, we would have preferred to run a different story altogether but that, somehow, one simply can’t ignore the silly things some writers say…
Comments, as always, welcome – we’ll be back to regular service tomorrow with some cool stuff from Russian fandom.
75 Comments »
Leave a Reply
The Apex Book of World SF
Recent Comments
The Bookman Histories
Get OSAMA on your Kindle!
The Shining Girls
The Other Half of the Sky
Obsidian and Blood
Moscow But Dreaming
Turbulence
A Wolf at the Door
Mindjammer
It’s easier to pay attention to the feces-flinging than the cool stuff.
Of course, this is said by someone who tries to put out positive content, be it well-formed reviews, Mind Melds, or just pictures of the day.
It’s the car wrecks which draw the eyeballs. Or the content that appears to be provocative for the sake of provocation (The Rothfuss).
Silly Season.
Re the ‘rabid animal’ comment. It’s already been pointed out that the commenter didn’t know the race or gender of who who he was referring to when he made it. And not wanting to stir things up but this comment from an old message board says pretty much the same thing but everyone’s just let it go – “….Pretty much, yup. Attacks any and all situations — whether justified or not — with the tenacity of a rabid chihuahua, loves to accuse anyone not agreeing with them of “you’re white, right?” which has backfired more than once, has expressed opinion that JKR is a rascist and homophobe, and on and on.”
http://www.journalfen.net/community/unfunny_fandom/14193.html?thread=1198961
Re the ‘rabid animal’ comment. It’s already been pointed out that the commenter didn’t know the race or gender of who who he was referring to when he made it.
I call bullshit on this, especially wrt to gender, which iirc was made apparent from Bakker’s posts rather than just in the comments. I don’t think race was mentioned in Bakker’s posts, but it was definitely in the comments.
has expressed opinion that JKR is a rascist and homophobe, and on and on.
But Rowling’s portrayals of race and homosexuality (among other things) are full of fail, so I’m not sure why you’re raising this point against Requires Hate.
It’s as good time as any to remind kind audience that strictly speaking, we know neither race nor gender of ‘cracked person. We know only what claims said person made.
Oh, I like Bullington even more (and this after already loving how he wrote about real medieval Europe with women in it, rather than the faux medieval Europe of epic fantasy which is apparently a penis-only zone).
Did you see Ekaterina Sedia’s recent interview with Maurice Broaddus? I particularly liked this bit, which is also about recognising that not everyone will like the way an outsider writes about them:
That Rothfuss blog had slightly weird timing for me, seeming I just put down the Wise Man’s Fear in disgust last night after reaching the whole Felurian scene. There’s just something very off about all of the women in Name of the Wind and Wise Man’s Fear. At first, I was annoyed by the fact that they were all pedestal woman, either Beautiful Woman type (Denna, Fela, Devi, unnamed barmaids etc – all of whom seem to fancy Kvothe), or Innocent Girl type (Auri), and completely paper thin. Although, to be fair, I think that’s a problem with all the characters – none of them exist in their own right. I couldn’t imagine any of them going off and doing stuff … they only exist to react to Kvothe.
And then after my irritation I started to get troubled. There’s a very odd scene (Spoilers!) after Kvothe gets dosed with plum bob (by a preeettty lady), in which, despite losing all his inhibitions and offering one of his female friends money to undress for him, sweet Kvothe, bless his heart, simply wouldn’t rape her. “What does that mean?” wonders his friend (I’m paraphrasing from memory here…). “I think I know,” answers Sex Object, with adoration in her eyes … no matter what, he’s not a rapist. Ah, bless.
Later: “I’m as nervous as a new whore!”, exclaims Kvothe. Oh, those funny whores, with their silly fears of rape and violence!
And a weird scene where the female characters (who of course have the freaky sisterhood bonding thing that all women have, right?) advise Fela how to dress so that Ambrose doesn’t get too carried away, or something. I can’t remember, but it was weird.
And then he argues with Denna, and nearly calls her a whore. But he doesn’t quite, because he’s nice like that.
And then there’s the barmaid who never offers sex to anyone, but immediately does to 16 year old skinny virgin Kvothe, because, obviously he’s irresistable. “But I’m a virgin!” blushes sweet Kvothe. “Really? But you looked so mature and sexy!” says the bosoms. I mean barmaid.
And then there’s Felurian. And that’s just so very, very wrong in so many ways it made me feel queasy. I didn’t read on after that … but from a review I’ve read it sounds like that was a good decision.
I find the whole thing odd. I enjoyed Name of the Wind. It wasn’t great, but it was fairly mindless entertainment, though the portrayal of the female characters did start to irritate me. I’ve read Rothfuss’ blog in the past. He seems funny, intelligent. He does cool stuff for charity. Though I don’t think bringing in the ad hom is relevant here anyway. But I do find it very, very odd that this book received such glowing widespread praise (when it has several other issues too).
Sorry, probably just adding to the silly season with this rant …
Excuse moi and pardon my french, but how do allegations of being Thai and/or lesbian do affect the fact that “acrackedmoon” is, well, uncontrollably offensive and her outrageously hostile and offensive review was crafted after reading, per her own admission in the very post in question, a few pages?
Excuse me, but in my very humble opinion, if you 1) write reviews of stuff you did not bother to read (reading only a portion does not count as “read”) 2) use language that would probably be appropriate for a very drunk sailor, and even that is not a given nowadays 3) Do not provide citations and definitions in very complex, multifaceted discussions like those about gender (quick, how many possible distinct feminist ways of reading the same text can you think of, from the top of your head ?) you don’t get to complain when people start saying mean words about you. Full stop.
Also, I can’t help but laugh at a perfectly anonymous entity trying to play the race and minority status cards in a discussion. Sorry, but the veil of internet anonymity renders one’s claims of gender status and ethnicity null and void. Acrackedmoon’s alleged Thai heritage and alleged sexuality and alleged gender are just-so-stories. With same degree of veracity, I can claim to be a persona adopted by a bunch of ravens pecking on the keyboard of an abandoned notebook (or whatever is the correct marketing lingo for a MacBook)
[...] the subject of giving thought to serious issues (or not, as the case may be), the World SF blog talks about some of the recent idiocy on the part of Bakker, Watts and Rothfuss, and also quotes Jesse Bullington being thoughtful and [...]
Pingback by Links | Tales and Foreign Markets | February 22, 2012 |
Hey, ohone, you’re commenting on the internet anonymously. There’s a word for your post, starting with “h”. On what basis are you alleging that acrackedmoon isn’t Thai, or a woman, or a lesbian? Because you don’t want her to be? Because some racist on Pat’s blog said so? Or do you actually have some data on that point? Be curious to read it if so. Otherwise, be quiet.
“Hey, ohone, you’re commenting on the internet anonymously”
Indeed Eddie, I am, exactly that’s why I make attempts to frame my position as that of a member of a particular gender or ethnicity. It would be highly problematic to demonstrate that I am not akin to the Infamous Iranian Blogger
“There’s a word for your post, starting with “h”.”
since English just-so-happens to be not my native language, I am rather poor at English word games
“On what basis are you alleging that acrackedmoon isn’t Thai, or a woman, or a lesbian? Because you don’t want her to be?”
On the basis of not being a kind of person who would trust background claims of anonymous (technically more like strongly pseudonymous) posters on the internet, be they of ethnic background or Massive PHDs or being Ex-SWAT.
On what basis are you alleging that I am not a flock of ravens that has achieved human communication ability, by the way ?
“Otherwise, be quiet.”
Sorry Ed, you are in no position to command other people on the internet as to what they should do.
Ooops, should be “exactly why I don’t make attempts to frame my position as that of a member of a particular gender or ethnicity.”
Typing with beaks be hard on me
Ah, the self-labeled progressives made in their deities’ image (and hence infallible). Plus ça change…
“…what we have here are people so embedded in their privilege that pointing it out to them instantly strips away the progressive veneer and elicits poop-flinging that would make a baboon blush. Women and other Others are still furniture – and though furniture is useful and can be decorative, it’s not supposed to move, dammit!”
In shorter words, “What about me?! You’re mean to meeee! My daddy says I’m the bestest!” Which may explain why SF/F is in such a sorry state.
I’ve followed the Requires Hate blog for a while. She eviscerates bad books, brutally, and so when she praises a book (Tanith Lee, Kij Johnson, Angela Carter) those books move up my endless “to read” pile quite quickly.
I’m not sure when it happened exactly, and some of this is the reactions of others rather than the original posts, but these latest rounds of Daily Hate (Bakker, Abercrombie, Butcher, Bacigalupi, etc.) push further away from ruthless criticism of a work and more into the area of “performance hate” for me. I think it’s healthy to raise issues, and to emphasize that even in fiction, and even when it’s done by “the bad guys”, even when “hey, it’s a medieval, male-dominated world playing out”, we should take care in our writing and reading. For me, Requires Hate helps me step back a minute and consider — however in the cases of Bakker and Abercrombie at least, I find the critiques to be a step over-reading. (That said, Watt’s “rabid animal” response isn’t exactly any kind of high road I know of.)
On Rothfuss: In the past, I’ve read in his writing and interviews a fairly healthy approach to “everyone have fun having sex” that while I found the analogy pretty weird and a bit creepy for other reasons, I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he isn’t intending either “slut shaming” or that “geek girls can’t like sex, and sexy girls can’t be geeks”.
Sam, perhaps Rothfuss isn’t slut-shaming (I think he is doing a classical madonna/whore distinction, but to each their own interpretation) but, even so, the post is all about him. This is in line with the standard scenarios in real life and literature, where violations to women are considered not to be about them, but to be defining emotional events for men: from “my angel is a centerfold” to the rapes that cause the hero to become a vigilante.
Bakker wrote six logodiarrheal self-congratulatory posts (and counting) about the perceived insult to his honor. You don’t consider that over-reading?
I didn’t especially want to engage here because poor Lavie Tidhar, he never knew what hit him, but there’s a certain school of responses to my posts that take a dim view when I eviscerate say Abercrombie or Bacigalupi, but don’t at all give a shit when I eviscerate say Anne Bishop and Charlaine Harris. They are precisely the same kinds of posts, only the former two are about works by men, the latter two are about works by women. Do you notice something about that? Butcher is hardly “latest rounds of daily hate” in any case, seeing that I posted that such a long time ago, and–I’m sorry–you seem to be most critical toward my rage-posts directed at straight white men.
I also take a very dim view of insistence that I’m “over-reading” Abercrombie specifically. You may even have noticed that Abercrombie actually admitted he didn’t think the lesbian rape dreck through–that, yes, “shrill man-hating lesbian who exists only to be raped” is heinously sexist. I will also gently point out that men have a great deal more luxury to not “over-read” or “give the benefit of the doubt” when it comes to issues of gender than women. For much the same reason that men will often say they want feminism to be “reconciliatory” rather than being “vengeful.”
Wait, vengeful feminism is actually a thing ?
Do tell more.
It is a thing in the head of precious man-children. “Feminazis.”
Ah. Thought so.
I admit to not having read either Bishop’s or Harris’s books, and while I did read your “almost but not quite” review of Hobb’s latest, I haven’t yet started that series and so (like with Bishop or Harris) I would have no point of reference with which to contrast your reviews. If for example you reviewed Octavia Butler’s Parable of the Sower, or Okorafor’s Who Fears Death, quite negatively (though I wouldn’t think you would) I’d disagree there as well. Not at all that “I am always right! My opinion is truth!” At least I hope not.
And yes, you’re right about Abercrombie’s response of course. Thanks for the reminder. Likely “over-read” is the wrong word, as the text is what it is. It is the link between the text and the character of the author that is the more tenuously bridged for me.
On reconciliation vs. vengeance, I would say that I subscribe to “justice”, which tends to take parts from both, where each is due.
Let’s have a recap. From my post on the lesbian rape thing:
Now do I believe Joe Abercrombie in real life endorses the rape of lesbians? Well nope, fucking duh. But in his rush to masturbate to his own gritty grim darkness he’s contributing to a narrative where women–and gay women especially–must suffer. If they aren’t angsting they are being raped, blackmailed into marital rape, or being punished in some way because oh my god she doesn’t want cock and we can’t have that, can we? Lesbians must be put in their places most of all for the crime of not wanting sex with men. It’s a damaging narrative. It’s a bloody fucking awful narrative that reinforces a greater trend and which, moreover, is something Abercrombie will never be hurt by.
[...]
And this, more than anything, pins down Abercrombie very much as a neckbeard writer writing for other neckbeards. People can praise him to high heavens for his astoundingly clever “inversion” of fantasy tropes, of his depthful handling of violence and characterization or… whatever it is that neckbeards think he does, or whatever it is that Abercrombie thinks he’s doing. But at the end of the day it’s still the kind of narrative where a lesbian woman is threatened with rape, another is forced into marital rape, and the person responsible for both gets away scott-free because Abercrombie is more interested in emphasizing how broken Glokta is and how abloo blooooo what a poor man, what with his Nice Guy antics around the love of his life, Ardee West–another woman who’s been abused, by the way!
Which part of the author’s character did I malign; which part did you find tenuous? Are you reacting from an imagined memory of having read a post where I said “ABERCROMBIE WANTS TO RAPE LESBIANS”?
Hm… “JOE ABERCROMBIE YOU PATHETIC EXCUSE FOR A HUMAN BEING … YOU FUCKING WASTE OF OXYGEN … But in his rush to masturbate to his own gritty grim darkness … pins down Abercrombie very much as a neckbeard writer”.
That said, I think Abercrombie’s response on the Westeros forum is an enlightening outcome, and one which other authors could learn from. Instead of reacting to (paraphrased combining) “PATHETIC FUCKING WASTE OF A MASTURBATORY HUMAN BEING” with a lockjawed “rabid animal”, some contemplation and thought and (perhaps to be seen in The Red Country when it is published) change.
Yes, but it’s not a maligning of his moral character; I would find a person an utter waste of oxygen who would write that kind of dreck. And, you will be glad to know, I do find this kind of narrative really fucking enraging for obvious reasons. I’m not inclined to moderate my tone because I don’t have the luxury of not finding this enraging, nor am I inclined to grant “the benefit of the doubt” in the face of a narrative that directly affects and damages me. “Neckbeard” isn’t an especially deathly insult, and I daresay that at the time when Abercrombie was writing his first trilogy, he fit the description to a tee: something he, again, acknowledged as being embarrassing.
Ultimately I’m not sure why I’m even trying to defend this particular thing to you, but I suppose even I do grit my teeth and attempt to get past YOUR TONE, PLEASE, YOUR TONE once in a while.
Hm, damaging narrative, you say… You know, I kind of find the concept of damaging narrative fascinating, possibly due to living in a country that, at a certain point, took the concept too far and too seriously as far as political narratives were concerned (people are free to disbelieve or, alternatively, try to guess)
Now, I am aware of objective studies that show RMA (Rape Myth Acceptance) correlation with various PTR derivatives (I am also aware of the fact that there is surprisingly little RMA difference between convicted rapists and non-offenders, but that is a huge hole to jump in), but that is pretty much it. Anything new happened in the field since 90′s ?
@ohnone – yes, but claims of a PhD or being ex-swat are exceptional claims which require some sort of backing (incidentally, I’m studying for a PhD, feel free to disbelieve me
). Everyone has a gender, a birthplace, and a sexuality. These are not exceptional claims. And why would she lie? So she could make whitey authors on the internet feel bad about themselves? Seriously? It’s a lot of effort to go to for not much reward. To retreat to tired old occam’s razor, the simplest explanation is often the best. The simplest explanation for acrackedmoon claiming to be a thai-chinese lesbian residing in Thailand? Because she is and does.
If you have EVIDENCE that she may be lying, then obviously that assessment would have to be changed. But you don’t. Do you?
“yes, but claims of a PhD or being ex-swat are exceptional claims which require some sort of backing (incidentally, I’m studying for a PhD, feel free to disbelieve me
).”
Dear Eddie, there is nothing particularly extraordinary about having a PhD (though what constitutes an “extraordinary” claim about a background on the internet is,of course, a matter of opinion, so you are free to keep feeling extraordinary about your work
, assuming you are indeed are studying for a PhD)
“Everyone has a gender, a birthplace, and a sexuality. These are not exceptional claims.”
Any specific claim about any specific ethnicity, gender, and birthplace can be considered extraordinary, around here in the anonymous bowels of the net. I can, for instance, claim to be a Jewish gay dude, or an English lord (okay, my English isn’t up for the task. But I can claim to be his “problematic” daughter or something)
“And why would she lie?”
For fun ?
)
To gain an upper hand in a discussion where ‘cracked clearly acted as a rude brute and killed opportunity for a very interesting discussion ?
For whatever obscure reasons an American dude roleplayed an Iranian lesbian online (google it)? (Which, by the way, was an extraordinary acting effort for no tangible reward. Welcome to mankind, Eddie
“To retreat to tired old occam’s razor, the simplest explanation is often the best.”
Occam’s razor is not a fundamental law of logic, Eddie. It is, at best, a shortcut. A person going for a PhD should know that, unless the PhD is in something very very soft
In absence of evidence, it is prudent to consider the matter unresolved, while treating all attempts to get moral high ground or any other “advantage” via unverified (and, largely unverifiable) background claims as extremely suspicious.
D’awww, it followed Lavie home.
Welcome to the internet, alleged friend
Is it me, or my comments are not getting through ?
Okay, since my comment must have been eaten or something, I was replying to Athena, and saying that well, both sides are not being very stellar around here (acrackedmoon seems to take things very personal and uses language so foul I can’t help but cringe, but then Watts succumbed to a similar “disease” and started using insults instead of discussing the issue in strictly academic terms… maybe we have the first case of blogging-transmitted rabies. Hope it’s not fatal)
Dear fellow human beings of all genders (also raven-flocks-that-type, I am so stealing this thingie for my book)!
We will achieve nothing and arrive nowhere by name-calling and behaving like god-damned kindergarteners! Can we please start discussing issues (rather important issues, mind you) as educated grown ups ?
kthxbye
Please. Suggesting that Watts et al becomes shrill and testerical due to some kind of transmission from me conveniently absolves them of responsibility. Not unlike how Watts went into a fit when people started calling him out on that outing thing, blaming it all on “acrackedmoon was pissing me off!” Men should be made accountable to their stupidity and wrongs, friend. I also personally take more issue with racist and sexist language, however mildly expressed, than with “language so foul” it makes you cringe. Consider the Rothfuss thing. Very mildly expressed, isn’t it? No foul language. And yet, the substance of it is foul.
You seem to be suggesting that everyone ought to join hands and sing kumbaya. Which, sorry, no. It would be nice if you didn’t try and police how other women (or minorities in general) react to rank -ism and privilege-flaunting. You do your thing, everyone else will do theirs. Isn’t that nice?
Funny, I thought I discussed issues — which, furthermore, are neither trivial nor recent (nor, for that matter, symmetric). I also venture to suggest that “kthxbye” is not particularly adult. Last but very much not least: “blog-transmitted rabies” sounds suspiciously like name-calling.
I hereby grant you (and everyone reading this text) the non-exclusive rights to use my background as typing-capable murder of ravens for whatever creative needs you have, with no requirement for any kind of attribution (though it would be welcome, of course)
And again my comments are getting eaten. Well, so much for browsing through an obscure hotspot, I guess… Anyway…
Re: acrackedmoon
).
Well, for starters I don’t believe in the concept of responsibility (Yeah, feel free to turn it into a huge offtop if you feel like
As to the whole “mild language/foul subject”, I am a firm believer in basic human civility, and believe that people who tend to express their opinion in a civilized language can be engaged as fellow human beings who, well, happen to harbor some abhorrent, or at least very odd, beliefs. I happen to think that is more productive than behaving like a bad-mannered boy who received a wrong sort of action figure for birthday.
Nobody is trying to police you here, but, you know, I happen to have my own tastes and opinions, and happen to think that I have no obligation to share your disgusting attitude and odd mannerisms even if we happen to share some ideological leanings.
P.S.:
Also, at the risk of being identified at a later date, I intend to steal the word “testerical”.
Just few hours into the morning and I’ve already “borrowed” two clever things for later use. What a great way to start a day!
Re: Athena Andreadis
Well, both the rabies thing and kthxbye were intentional.
Heh, hoped to be coy and ironic on the internets… didn’t work out that well, did it?
And of course, my point regarding being civil was not directed at you, but at our two dear “opponents”, your attitude is as far as I can judge, quite civil
As to the whole “mild language/foul subject”, I am a firm believer in basic human civility, and believe that people who tend to express their opinion in a civilized language can be engaged as fellow human beings who, well, happen to harbor some abhorrent, or at least very odd, beliefs.
Hmm, there we go again with the dehumanizing thing. So you think that if someone is a bigot but expresses his bigotry nicely, he is more “human” and worthier of being regarded as such than someone who reacts to bigotry with “foul language”?
Must be nice to be able to value superficial niceness/politesse over actual substance. Or rather, thanks but no thanks. As far as disgusting attitudes go, yours is a fairly repulsive one.
I happen to think that is more productive than behaving like a bad-mannered boy who received a wrong sort of action figure for birthday.
That’s not dismissive or anything.
Oh, someone who responds with foul language is of course a fellow human being (no way around that one), but not one that can be meaningfully engaged in a polite and organized discussion, thus not a very good partner in any social interactions. Yes, I tend to ostracize fellow human beings who profusely employ foul language. My right, isn’t it ?
“That’s not dismissive or anything.”
As to my dismissiveness, don’t get me wrong, I not dismissive of you…merely disrespectful
I would really really like to feel better about you, but can’t, because of how you structure some of your arguments and because of the language you employ.
Again, it’s not like I am obliged to equally respect every human being I encounter. And it just so happens that to me, you’re somewhere between Gilad Erdan and Tom Kratman
Goodness, you seem almost regretful to have to grant the status of “fellow human being” to someone whose language you disapprove.
Yes, I tend to ostracize fellow human beings who profusely employ foul language. My right, isn’t it ?
Yes, just as it’s anyone’s right to question your priorities in prizing “niceness” above everything else.
Oh, feel free to question my priorities.
(but feel free to point me to a good book or peer-reviewed article which prove otherwise)
As far as I can tell, there isn’t an agreed-upon framework for assessing those
Malcolm X was as important as Martin Luther King in the civil rights movement. Nor do I recall slaves gaining freedom or women gaining citizenship rights anywhere in the world by asking politely with pinkies properly crooked.
May I ask if you have engaged people whose beliefs you find abhorrent at the length you have engaged commenters here, with whom you state to share ideological leanings? Or are you indulging in the narcissism of small differences?
Why, I had.
I tend to terminate communications when people can no longer argue calmly and provide accurate, peer-reviewed sources (and of course, my aversion to rudeness or violence prohibits me from “engaging” large groups of ideologically different people, who tend to be preemptively rude and hostile, but hey, I never enjoy such people anyway)
Also, as far as I know, “narcissism of small differences” is quite often believed to be a crucial and unavoidable part of human condition (not that I love psychoanalysis and related psych schools)
Ah damn this thing, there both replies are, appeared as they should. Dear moderator, feel free to remove the redundant material.
I am just wandering by and wondering about…
How can there be a serious discussion about rape and maltreatment of women in general without noting:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/dec/09/rape-us-military
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/virginia-ultrasound-bill-hits-nerve-15767455
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/02/16/426850/democratic-women-boycott-issas-contraception-hearing-for-preventing-women-from-testifying/
I mean there we have solid evidence of intent to deprive women of their rights, don’t we? I understand the desire to see a change in culture from a fictional narrative perspective, but isn’t it a bit like complaining about a *picture* of abuse while the abuse is *actively happening* not that far away?
Because…this is a blog about world SF, and not CNN?
Because the posters in question wanted to talk about this and can do so while talking about the other stuff as well?
Because if people noted every single thing that is demonstrating rape and mistreatment of women, human rights, suffering and ugliness every time they wanted to bring anything else up they’d never bring up anything new?
Because it’s a bit more illuminating to talk about the things that people don’t think about that are bad instead of the things that most people agree are bad?
Because it’s easier to complain against some writer’s (in some places) protected speech than actually try to change anything?
Because it’s intellectual laziness?
Because they don’t really care about doing anything about the issue, but are more interested in being hurtful?
Because there is nothing “new” about literary criticism (and it’s possible that I’m being overly generous in referring to some of this as being that useful) and therfore it is not “more illuminating”?
Because if it’s true that “most people agree” that these things are bad, why are they happening? (And why doesn’t CNN cover it? SFF does.)
Because a report about an epidemic of rape in the US military is not even close to “every single thing” to do with rape much less “every single thing” to do with human rights? Not by a longshot.
Because a vote in Virginia forcing women to get probed should not reasonably be trivial to someone who genuinely cares about these issues?
Because not allowing women to have a voice regarding their own bodies in real life is more important than someone who, ironically, wanted to point out that this is the attitude that prevails and he did so through fiction?
You’re so right! The fact that there are other problems in the world makes any attempt to address this one absolutely foolish and futile! Especially since it’s not like the attitudes that contribute to the items you link to also turn up in fiction. It’s totally separate, and trying to change the attitudes can’t possibly affect the behavior anywhere else. The only proper way to address the oppression of women is by focusing on the particular events you point to.
I am so grateful to have been enlightened on that point!
Though, now I think of it, aren’t those things you link to above trivial compared with the existence of war and disease and death throughout the world? And aren’t all of them more important than the topic of this blog post? So why are you even here, when you ought to be working towards world peace?
Just wondering!
In other words: “Why are women in the US complaining of feeling unsafe while walking at night, when Muslim women are still being stoned and infibulated?” (aka the Dawkins gambit) It’s like people who think they’re radical if they vote for Labor but who believe it’s still ok to beat their wives.
What you seem not (want to) grasp is that the attitudes are all of a piece: the laws of invasive ultrasound/inaccessible contraception/miscarriage as murder, the rape-default depictions of faux-medieval fantasy, the acceptance of abuse in fraternities that include the military, the systematic disenfranchisement of women among radical fundamentalists of all stripes (including governments).
The attitude that women are inferior beings permeates everything we do and think. Literature is not context- or repercussion-free; it’s an integral part of the culture that creates it, and it shapes mindsets in its turn. I wrote this in my book, nearly 15 years ago — and, to my grief and frustration, it’s far truer now than it was then, when things were a bit less punitive:
“I personally believe that our societal problems will persist as long as women are not treated as fully human. Women are not better than men, nor are they different in any way that truly matters; they are as eager to soar, and as entitled. The various attempts to improve women’s status, ever subject to setbacks and backlashes, are our marks of successful struggle against the old stereotypes. If we cannot solve this thorny and persistent problem, we’ll still survive — we have thus far. However, I doubt that we’ll ever truly thrive, no matter what technological levels we achieve.”
This, and also because while we can’t go back in time and prevent the current real world bad things from happening, we can both fight the real world things and push for voices in fiction which help prevent more real world bad things from happening in future as more and more people encounter narratives which … oh never mind.
I can’t say I disagree with the quote from your book.
And I acknowledge that culture, entertainment, does influence what happens in real life.
What I think all of this to-do boils down to, though, is that Bakker wanted men to feel uncomfortable with their own desires to dominate (whether it’s women, animals, or the earth). That he was, it seems to me, coming at the same thing that must have been the point of your book, from a different angle.
It’s like the two ways of making a kid stop smoking. You can admonish, search his room and locker for cigerettes, smell his clothes every chance you get…
Or you can do the old thing of making him smoke the whole darn pack until he vomits.
Now, I’m not saying that the latter is better. Just different. That’s what Bakker was doing. It’s not glorifying it if it makes you ill.
(And, please, anyone else, let’s not turn this to tobacco. It’s an allegory and I am not recommending it at home.
).
mccoyote, what many are trying to point out to Bakker (and others) is that if your goal is to stop everyone from smoking, making people smoke even more is not often productive. And when so many people missed the message that Bakker had apparently intended or intends – one can reasonably argue that the end result was the same as essentially every other sexist misogynistic fantasy book except it has even more of all that stuff.
That he seems to also alienate most feminists and women in fairly stereotypical misogynistic bingo ways while talking to them doesn’t help matters.
But really – Bakker doesn’t need more rope to hang himself. Newton and Bullington rocked hard in that conversation. More applause for them!
To McCoyote (the site doesn’t allow further comment threading): there are ways of making a kid stop a bad habit that don’t involve violence of the kind you describe. Also, the smoke-till-sick equivalent cure for the male desire for domination is not reading retreads, but spending a week (hell, a day) in Afghanistan. In a burqa, so that one’s gender cannot be instantly assigned by visual inspection.
Bakker is not treading unbroken ground here; this stuff was covered — and covered well — by Margaret Atwood, Sherri Tepper, Joanna Russ, Ursula Le Guin… to name only the most prominent names. Finally, Bakker’s own blog entries have mostly vitiated the excuse you advance. When someone says (just as one example) “I spent about a half an hour last night, laying in bed and pondering sexism and what I was attempting in my books, worrying all the different angles. Then I fell asleep disgusted because the Leafs had lost to the Jets. What a pisser that was.” it gives a good sense of their overall thought process.
(Yeah, I see, about the threading)
kalbear:
I am distrusting of phrases like “most feminists” and “fairly stereotypical.” Just sayin’.
I also don’t know that more is bad when it’s in *fiction*. But I’m not really talking about real-world smoking either, I’m talking about semi-conscious/conscious/unconscious violent tendencies that there are only so many ways to deal with and surely we can agree that there just might be something about trying sensitivity training on the very insensitive that might not be working. That is, the beauty of fiction is that we can (in free societies, wherever those are) say and “do” things that we would not be allowed in the real world. Yes, that can be used to teach neofascists to build bombs, but it can also be used to point out what a douche a person, a group of people, or all people are being.
And I think it’s probably just as fair to say that most of Bakker’s readers aren’t serial rapists. If they were, I think we’d have seen many members of something like a “Bakker Supports Our Right to Rape” websites arguing here on the Interwebs anonymously for more violence. Where are these people who love rape and Bakker is giving them what they want? I’m thinking that none or few of the people doing that in the Army consider Bakker their “patron of rape”.
As for people missing the point, good gawd… Doesn’t that describe (and I’m not trying to compare Bakker to any of these people–merely make a point that isn’t too difficult to grasp because that’s how I roll) Galileo? Susan B. Anthony? Roberto Benigni giving his Oscar speech? How does majority interpretation of a thing (if we even have that in this case) make it right?
Is it fair to say, “I didn’t get what you intended”? Yes. How is that at all what happened here? Originally? Sounds like the man was attacked, not his work. That’s not the same as literary criticism.
Well, that’s another Bakker point, isn’t it? That the reason those things I linked to are happening is because not enough people are willing to say that it isn’t ok, that the reasons for not allowing them apparently are not compelling enough for the authorities and legislators in question to be shamed into doing something constructive about it, and that’s all because we’re hardwired to be something other than kind to our fellow human (in theory… not saying I agree with the theory in whole).
Also, the majority speaks thing… In theory, if rape is allowed by authority and it increases due to a majority of people being “ok” with it, then it is by that definition “correct” and “normal”. (And then we devolve into what and where the moral compass is if it isn’t a majority-rules decision).
The sad thing, the part that is hard to accept, I think, is that Bakker is also acknowledging his “dark side.” He’s about as apologetic and indulging of criticism (to a point) as anyone I’ve ever seen. It’s practically pathological.
Since he’s willing to admit that he (along with the rest of us, and why shouldn’t he have that qualification?) is the result of evolution and has a dark side that he is willing to confront in fiction, that, in my book puts him miles above a real-world rapist who thinks nothing of what he has done. That Bakker also seems to be the one being punished (and, according to that report, many who actually do such things are not), it bothers me. Strikes me as sort of injustice piled on top of injustice. Bakker is a real person. The people on paper in his books are not (even when they are based on or inspired by real people).
Athena:
Good idea. A week in a burka. Why not?
Problem is, who in the real world can make that happen? That’s what’s great about fiction, it can be used to deal with real-world things in a virtual way where there is no actual rape, torture, etc.
As for not treading unbroken ground, bravo! I think we have a legitimate criticism of Mr. Bakker’s work!
Mr. Bakker, you derivative so-and-so, you!
(I actually mean that. Good point. Good criticism. That’s what he should be thinking about if he so desires to consider it–and the Leafs don’t lose).
See Abercrombie, Newton, Bullington for what effective, useful apology in the face of criticism looks like. Or Abraham. It’s great to see such engagement and self-awareness. It’s not perfect, but boy is it a good step forward.
Even GRRM was more gracious in his explanations and speaking with fans.
I suppose saying that a writer is not good at skillfully dealing with criticism is also a fine criticism. But let’s not conflate that with being a bad person, which again seems to be the core, original complaint. That perhaps there were people willing to come and do someone’s homework for her after the fact doesn’t mean she dealt with it correctly either. Contrast Athena’s link below with… well, you know.
Being forced to smoke till one is sick is a real physical thing, not equivalent to the second-hand emotions evoked by reading. It’s actually closer to torture.
You may have noticed that much contemporary fantasy uses violence as titillation, conflating it with “adult” treatment (something that Newton pointed out in his self-critique; of course, mainstream literature is directed towards adults and generally manages without torture porn). This is a failure across all three orthogonal axes: craft, imagination and empathy. There’s nothing “fresh” or “edgy” about it; it has become the chewing gum of hacks. As for the fact that such crap seems to come mostly from men who think they’re telling everyone something new and that this didn’t exist before they noticed it: A Plague on Both Your Houses
I’m just throwing this out there, not really sure how I feel/think about it. I can only think of one example where I actually had to deal with it (and I doubt how I did would be much approved), but…
Sex sells. I’ve known a lot of people who hung up Frazetta and Vallejo posters, for example, and were not the least bit shy about pointing out that it was not all about the heroic fantasy theme. They like looking at images of what they considered to be attractive women.
Is that in itself degrading? Does that perpetuate subjugation? If so, then there’s a much larger uphill battle when it comes to ironing out interpretations and strict vs. loose adherence to The Bible. With my nerdy friends, they could out-grow the posters, or be told by a longterm partner why it’s troublesome, etc. Compare that with someone who thinks the creator of the universe wants him to be… can I type dickish on this blog?
If the success of the Saw franchise (and those other spinoffs… Hostel, etc.) mean anything, it’s that there is an audience for the “torture porn” as well. I’ve only read chapter one of *Neuropath*, but the image of those electrodes in the woman’s head put me in a place not unlike the protagonist’s (except, of course, I knew *that* was fiction and therefore did not jump up, scream, curse, and accuse the FBI of being untrustworthy. Not all of those things, anyway
). It was intentionally horrific and I can’t see how it could be interpreted as condoning in the sense that he was trying to say, “Go out and do this.”
That it’s not fresh or edgy anymore, another fine criticism of the work.
As I pointed out in my one and only post on Bakker’s blog, I was once tricked by a female writer. She set me up perfectly. It was not at all far into the book that she described a doctor (maybe even surgeon general or something). She described her age, what she was wearing, and some other details but she left out gender. Then, I read, “she” (or “ma’am” or some other indicator that the character I had pictured should not have been portrayed by Richard Crenna or whoever it was I was imagining).
I thought, “Wow. That was cool. She made me think. In this very mainstream, pop culture book. Hm. Something to think about.”
I went on. Not even thirty pages later (as I recall dimly), she did it again. This time it was the main protagonist’s drinking buddy, roommate or similar. A female drinking buddy? What?!? Not a human in this case, so I got an even clearer picture of what she should look like, but not the gender until I got punched again a page or three later with a pronoun.
“Oh, I’m on to you now! Yeah, you got me again. Tricky, tricky. Bet you can’t do it a third time. I’ll be looking for it!”
A hundred or more pages later she got me again. I got drawn into her story and was not conscious of the two “lessons” previous and did not see it coming the third time.
Now, some people might take that as a criticism. She made me think about *me* and my presumptions instead of the story. She threw me out of the fictional world and drew me back into this one.
Personally, I thought it was pretty cool. I think that was nearly twenty years ago and I still remember it. Must mean something.
Now, take that and go dark instead of gender identity. May not be new to a lot of people, but maybe it is to a few. Maybe one problem is how some of this is perhaps at last going mainstream. Took Le Guin long enough to get on television.
(And I would comment on what appears to be an excellent overview of fantasy authors at your link, Athena, but I haven’t read most of them.
Love that title though. I very often feel myself wanting to say the same about two unpleasant choices that are the only ones being offered. Neither takes care of what they should, answers the questions they ought).
I don’t want to offend anyone, but none of the participants gathered here, including me, can make a decent claim to actually physically engaging with perpetrators of atrocities like live burials, or aiding the survivors in any meaningful way (well, I’d like to think that people at least contribute to relevant charities, but we don’t know such details about each other here…)
Suggesting someone to go and tackle those people (physically, I assume, since I suspect violent religious orthodoxes and terrorists are immune to internet criticism) seem a bit odd, perhaps even extreme.
(And right now I am wishing I had used “terd” instead of “douche”. Mea culpa. Sorry).
Figured bringing in the Abraham reply was worth it too; I hadn’t seen it before Newton mentioned it in his comments and I thought it was well done.
And I forgot to mention, I knew some people who refused to read anything of Donaldson’s after “the rape.” (Same with *The Fountainhead*, now I think about it).
Ayn Rand is toxic as far as women’s issues are concerned. She’s toxic in other ways as well. Her books are essentially bodice rippers of the submissive variety (aka female character learns to love her abuser/rapist because he’s special and therefore entitled to everything, by Conan/Nietzsche morality) with a silly veneer of bootstrap self-help purporting to pass as philosophy. Women like that attract devoted male followings (see: Paglia, Roiphe, Coulter, Schafly), because they tell men exactly what they want to hear — namely, they confirm “innate” male superiority and, in particular, the existence of the mythical but oh-so-enticing alpha male.
Consider rethinking most of the statements you made in this thread after you’ve read works by some of the names in my list — or any list compiled by an unusual suspect, rather than the standard stuff. You, like Bakker, are retreading arguments that are textbook “derailing for dummies” fodder. By the by, Le Guin’s Earthsea trilogy was horrifically distorted in both its animé and live film incarnations.
Athena, we certainly see eye-to-eye on Rand (on both issues). And now I see what you meant about R.E.Howard/the Sons/Nietzche, Thanks for that.
However, I remain unconvinced that when this:
http://www.wanttoknow.info/mkcourtcase
happened in the real world (note that is a fair use version of a London Sunday Times article at the bottom, written by a female journalist about, for one, a 19-year old woman who had electrodes attached to her head in *real life* and was reportedly reduced to a toddler as a result. Funded by the CIA and Department of Defense, conducted in Canada by the very first president of the World Psychiatric Association, a male!) that it’s bad/wrong/etc. to show similar in fiction. It’s very similar to what happens in the first chapter of *Neuropath*.
(It’s not about going back in time and changing it, it’s about reminding those who did such things and might again that it is not acceptable and that we remember. About holding people accountable for the past so that there is no excuse in the present).
I refuse to agree (even though I see the point) that it’s always bad to show these things in all their ugliness. Demanding censorship I suppose happens in real life. People complain about something on a show, in a movie and the creators change it to please an audience, to sell it. It’s editorial control by being loud, my thinking is if you don’t like it, you don’t have to read it, but it happens and it works.
But contrast that with character assassination….”I didn’t like the first five minutes of Star Wars and George Lucas is an anti-semite because I read that other people on the Internet who have met him said so!”
This is the one that really bothers me because it’s irresponsible and easy to hide on the Internet. In moon’s own words above as I read them: “vengeful” not “reconciliatory”. And intentionally so. It does nothing to protect women’s free speech. I would argue it does the opposite, but “vengeful” to me means there is no intent to make things better just to pick an easy target. It seems to me that moon just wants revenge. That has nothing at all to do with literary criticism of the work such as you are and have been doing. I’m afraid we are conflating what you legitimately believe to be true (bad taste on Bakker’s part?) with poor judgment on the part of one person who got called out on attacking the man by not only two men but a female author as well (I see that Ms. Sweet’s link…
caitlinsweet.com/?p=478
…is not included at top–her work has been compared with Le Guin’s, by the way).
But the excuse that it’s okay to attack *the man* instead of *the work* because his work *causes* rape is just a bridge too far for me. I don’t agree. The kind of violent outlet some sick individuals enjoy seeks out and if necessary dreams up things to do and then turns around and uses someone’s video game or book to say “the creator made me do it”. It’s refusing to accept responsibility for one’s actions. Which is kind of the point, that if it’s brain chemistry and evolution responsible for it, then shouldn’t we be thinking about how to deal with the root problem rather than just jailing people when we can after the fact?
Anyway, I get that many male writers are often unintentionally insensitive to a female POV. (I did it myself in this thread (but fortunately realized before it became an issue itself).
And that is a legitimate problem if any given author wants to reach a wider audience. (In the case I referenced above, I had editorial control over a comic book cover. I decided not to fight the artist on a very over-drawn picture of a female because he and I had agreed that our audience was largely college-age males. I can understand anyone, any feminist complaining about that and they would be correct in stating that they don’t like it. They would be wrong, however, in saying that it wouldn’t help to sell it. Not something I’d be proud to show mom, but then she wouldn’t be paying for it).
But the excuse that it’s okay to attack *the man* instead of *the work* because his work *causes* rape is just a bridge too far for me.
Here, ladies, gentlemen, and other kind citizens
, lies a fascinating question, one which was more or less glossed over in the massive hatefest.
Is there a solid, objective, scientific reason to believe that Mr. Bakker’s works, or for that matter works less ambiguous and of lower recognition, have any measurable effect on occurrence of rape, let alone a “socially negative” one ?
Or, perhaps, to contemplate a mite weaker claim, would one be justified in claiming with any certainty that preference for this general type of works encourages the reader to become measurably more misogynistic ?
Personally, I see no evidence for making such outstanding claims…
Funny you should bring up Star Wars. I consider it toxic as well — and it has an enormous influence on boys of all ages. Here’s my critique thereof: We Must Love One Another or Die. Also, it’s noteworthy that Lucas not only portrays women in cringe-inducing fashion in his opus, but he also cannot find a woman “good enough” to raise his children.
Again, the points you and Ohone keep bringing up have been dealt with repeatedly, here and elsewhere, so I won’t go into them again. Life is finite, etc. However, your point about censorship also applies to Crackedmoon’s opinion of Bakker and the other testericals: if you don’t like what she has to say, don’t read her blog or blogs that feature her views.
With all due respect, as far as I can tell, none of the participants have proposed “expunging” crackedmoon from the internet. That would be unspeakably ugly (not to mention impossible).
Now that’s a non-sequitur if I ever saw one.
Oh, merely following up on implication in “point about censorship also applies to Crackedmoon’s opinion of Bakker and the other testericals: if you don’t like what she has to say, don’t read her blog or blogs that feature her views”
It should be noted however, that the dichotomy between censorship and avoidance is a false one.
In fact, I find it quite reasonable for people to acquaintance themselves with opinions of other people and express those of their own without resorting to avoidance or some weird hypothetical censorship efforts.
More than that, I have this hunch that people can even be respectful and civilized about disagreements they might have, but that’s probably just a flight of fancy.
If you want to “respectfully disagree” with someone like Anders Breivik, the Anatolian father who buried his daughter alive for “looking at boys” or the haredi and wahhabi men who spit/throw acid on schoolgirls (or forbid them to leave a burning building) because they are “immodestly dressed”, by all means be my guest. Better use of your time, for one, than pontificating without fear of any concrete repercussions on a blog.
Also, you are being disigenuous at best, since the equation of critique=censorship has come from people like Bakker and his supporters, not from people like me.
Well, I don’t think that a comparison between people gathered herein and any of the unkind people you bring up can be really made, unless you wish to imply that some of the kind participants are secretly terrorists or violent assailants of women (If you have information to that effect, please notify law enforcement as soon as possible).
Also, Mr. Brevik is most certainly not respectful to the extreme in his disagreements with people like me, to the point of murdering people (same true for various religious radicals you bring up), which of course limits my capacity to respect the people in question (not utterly though – for instance, the idea of executing Brevik is unacceptable to me)
Ayn Rand is toxic, but
a) was toxic under her real name, in public
b) did not use language that would make a Navy Seal wince, and hope to hell he may get a chance to beat up the originator of said language to a pulp. No matter the gender. Because, I, a heartless guy with a fondness for violence and creative profanity felt ill reading acrackedmoons blog. Probably because I do not hate much.
c) she stole a few good ideas. acrackedmoon has nothing, just some feminist rants no one who amounts to anything cares about.
d) acrackedmoon targeted women. Personally. Women who are far more vulnerable than men to abuse.
So, even though she started a worldwide cult for narcy cretins, I consider Ayn Rand more sympathetic person and would love to tear her apart in a debate.
acrackedmoon. Deserves to go insane and spend the rest of her days dosed up to her tits on antipsychotics, drooling in corner while her minds shrivels until nothing is left of her than a gibbering wreck…
Buttmad that I banned you, eh? :’)
P.S.: I don’t recall directly ascribing critique=censorship equation to you (on the other hand, I don’t think that something that is self-admittedly based on “several pages” is hardly a critique. Not sure I know the right word though)
It was a critique of Bakker’s interview. Not his books. I’m not sure why this is so difficult to understand. Somewhere on this thread it went from “I read 6 pages of Bakker and an interview and several internet posts and didn’t like him’ to “I read 6 pages of his books and his books are horrible’ to ‘I read 6 pages of his books and Bakker must die a horrible death’. Get a grip.
It was also not a call for Bakker’s censorship. It was not a statement that Bakker was encouraging rape or was a rapist. It was not a call to kill Bakker or stone him at sunrise. It was not talking about Neuropath as something to horrify in the first 6 pages; it was talking about the rape of a child – and as it turned out something that was completely unimportant to the plot and only barely important as a theme.
What a shock that Lanius is an objectivist.
I don’t exactly recall someone claiming that ‘cracked person has called for Bakker to die a horrible death in the review proper (though it might have happened somewhere later). Everything else has been already covered multiple times.
Ah, there I made a mess… should have been “I don’t think that something that is self-admittedly based on “several pages” is a critique.”
Ah well, my English skills are so rusty…
[...] Tidhar also covered this wank, among other more optimistic things, over at the World SF blog. Share this:PrintEmailFacebookRedditDiggStumbleUponTwitterLike this:LikeBe the first to like this [...]
Pingback by links of interest because I don’t read fast enough to review :( « Requires Only That You Hate | February 28, 2012 |