piranha: red origami crane (Default)
from a discussion elsejournal comes this statement:

"The Internet is uniquely un-suited to emotional content."

agree, or disagree? why?

discuss if you would be so kind.

[crossposted to LJ/DW, comments welcome in both places.]
piranha: red origami crane (Default)
some people on my dreamroll are angry because they see others describe the death of george tiller as ironic.

umm. i don't want to say this in response in their journals, but i don't quite understand. how is it _not_ ironic? a self-defined christian shot another christian at a christian place of worship. that's extremely ironic: an event in relevant and incisive contradiction to what one might normally expect. me, i don't think that christians go around murdering one another in this society, and especially not in church, so it comes as a bit of a shock. is this usage of the term uncommon?

yes, the incident is also a hate crime, and an act of terrorism, and no, of course christianity as a whole shouldn't be blamed for an extremist act of a few whose reading of the bible is apparently limited to leviticus, while disregarding matthew. ("an eye for an eye".)

those are not mutually exclusive with irony, are they?
piranha: red origami crane (Default)
one thing that continues to annoy me is the outcry on how critics of the thirteenth child haven't even read the book!, and this one just will not die.

and it just flabbergasts me, this notion that i have to have read a book before i can decide whether i actually want to buy and read it. (though hey, it argues for illegal downloading!)

if i read a book a day, and granted myself a lifespan of 100 years and reading ability from the time i popped out of the womb, i'd still only be able to read 36,500 books, which is a tiny fraction of all the books in the world. isn't it obvious that i have to have some method to pre-sort those millions of books somehow? and shouldn't it be up to me how i do that?

certainly, i cannot made a thorough critical analysis without having read a book; i cannot analyze the plot, or talk about whether the characters are fully realized. but that's not what people are doing! they are saying that the premise makes them uncomfortable, that they are unlikely to want to read a book with that premise. and they're saying that not in response to a hostile review that distorts the facts, they're saying it in response to a friendly review, by a person who thought this might be the author's best book yet. and other people who have read the book have chimed in and said, yes, that is the premise on which the book is built, yes, these are the assumptions, and no, the author doesn't throw in a surprising twist to show us that the natives left a giant hole, megafauna falls, everyone dies.

you can't judge the entirety of a book by its cover. but i can certainly decide whether to buy it, or push it hastily back onto the shelf if the cover features a swarthy, loincloth-clad native in war paint, with feathers in his hair, and in his arms a swooning women in a ballroom gown with her creamy, alabaster bosom half-exposed, blond curls streaming in the wind. if covers didn't matter at all, publishers could just use kraft paper.

if reviews didn't matter at all, if people can't decide based on them whether a book might speak to them, why does every book seller worth their salt offer them? in reality reviews can make or break a book.
the facts of the premise, and it being followed through in this book are not in dispute at all.

heck, even those who'd argue that we need to take authorial intent into account (she's a nice person, and she didn't MEAN it!)(*sigh*, cf. path to hell, paved with), are easy to counter by simply quoting patricia wrede herself, from a discussion of her ideas for the book in rec.arts.sf.composition:

The *plan* is for it to be a "settling the frontier" book, only without Indians (because I really hate both the older Indians-as-savages viewpoint that was common in that sort of book, *and* the modern Indians-as-gentle-ecologists viewpoint that seems to be so popular lately, and this seems the best way of eliminating the problem, plus it'll let me play with all sorts of cool megafauna). I'm not looking for wildly divergent history, because if it goes too far afield I won't get the right feel.

this is pretty much the death knell. no, a PoC doesn't need to read a book about which its author has said this, to judge it as lacking. it is perfectly clear that:

a. wrede felt the easiest way to deal with stereotypes was to... erase the stereotyped people entirely.

b. she's unaware that the quarternary extinction might've not been due to prehistoric overkill; there are equally likely (if not more so) hypotheses.

c. she spent more time discussing the choice of an alternative name for england than she thought about real-world effects on the people she was so handily erasing. no, really. go read the entire thread. it's ever so geeky, but oh, it reeks of white privilege, and i am ashamed. one person made the mildest suggestion to have the natives be "reluctant shamans" instead of writing them out, and she brushed that off with "Well, that's your book. This one's mine, and I'm doing mammoths and wooly rhinos and no Indians.".

d. she was not looking for wildly divergent history, and yet she thought nothing of completely erasing the existing peoples of america. this, if nothing else, proves just how successful the actual erasure has been -- she acts as if natives did nothing more than name some landscape features, and oh yeah, hunt the megafauna to extinction.

so go away with your but you haven't read the book. it's just another distraction from the callousness of this book's premise, and the white privilege cluelessness of its author and those of us who knew but didn't say anything. there are native people in minnesota, you know? some of them have been long-time science fiction and fantasy fans. even before the internet! there are PoC SFF fans all over the world, even if most of them don't go to SF cons. but ms wrede as well as ms bujold don't know any, except maybe octavia butler.

if you're a PoC, do let them know you exist, and you count, and you matter. if you're a PoP (person of pallor), go look, because it might give you more perspective next time the question of "why is SFF so white" comes up.
piranha: red origami crane (Default)
i wasn't going to get sucked into racefail II, the thirteenth child, but it happened anyway, so i might as well write about it.

i don't like to call what always happens in such discussion summarily "derailment", because hey, i cut my teeth on usenet, where thread drift was both an inherent bug and a feature, and i know from my own intentions at the time that i didn't mean to derail anything, i was just focussed on a subset of the issue, and especially when facts were in dispute, OMG SOMEBODY IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET, and i must set them straight. *rolls eyes at self*.

but it is of course derailment, intent or not. it distracts people from the main point of the thread, and quite often takes over completely. i know this too, because many a thread i would have liked to continue died under a load of fluff, or some side issue that was unimportant to the main points. and i think this is much more destructive in "flat" discussion (sites that don't offer threaded discussion irk me something fierce).

this has been something important for me to learn, and it so happens to be closely associated with GAS (geek answer syndrome): if i am ever so eager to make a small side point in a discussion about something vastly more important -- such as race -- i might want to restrain myself and not post it right then and there. if i think it's semi-important to the main argument (because bad facts undercut it), i must at the very least also contribute something to the main point.

i'm also thinking about how to narrow down the possibility for derailment from the start (my previous post got totally derailed immediately, and i know why). i think i might try and only talk about one subject at a time instead of letting loose half brain salad that's being tossed together as i speak.


piranha: red origami crane (Default)
renaissance poisson

July 2015

   123 4

Most Popular Tags

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags


RSS Atom