hope I don't break my arm falling out of the treehouse

[intertribal]

Fantasy fans frustrate me sometimes.

Alison Flood (who I often disagree with) writes at The Guardian about her experience reading Conan stories and how turned off she is by the way different races are described, and the way women are described, and the way intersectionality brings the two together into a horrible union: The more lily-white a woman's skin, the more prized she is, says Flood.  So she wonders: "Is it ridiculous to criticise Robert E Howard's enjoyably pulpy Conan stories for their 1930s attitudes to women and race?"

The resounding response to this question: of course it is!  (And of course Flood responds to all this hysterical defensiveness of Conan with "but I really did enjoy a lot of it, I swear!  I promise!"  Ugh.)

- so what...take it in context. Do you critique sub-Saharan African or Oriental literature for its focus on particular races?
personally, as soon as you say Oriental you are docked like 1,000 points in my book.
- attempting to over-analyse them is the wrong way to approach them.
- its like dissing Harlequin romance novels for heaving breasts, wimpy heroines saved by manly men, and schmaltz writing.* Conan was always the romance novels for teenage boys.
- Oh, on the matter of political correctness or whatever you want to call it, I don't think it's all that bad. It's reconstructed, perhaps, and there's some stuff sitting between noble savage paternalism and popular xenophobia, but they are by no means Nazi screeds or something. I'm a pretty wishy-washy PC sort of a guy, but I don't see that as a big failing in the Conan stories, particularly if you consider the times and - more so - the men's adventure writing genre.
- No, you couldn't get away with writing like that today but so what? They're still good tales. The racism jarred? Just as well you didn't read the Del Ray editions which are the definitive texts, unlike your edition which was based on texts edited in the 1970's to make them more politically correct.

Man, it is SO AWESOME when "politically correct" is used like this.  Geez, thinking that women who are not porcelain white can be attractive is so PC, geez.  Gosh, if we were just BEING HONEST... /sarcasm

I get "taking things in context."  I really do.  I let a lot of classic lit take a pass because of this, and because there are redeeming values in the book.  Obviously I am a fan of the Mythos (though one of the lovely things about that is that it is constantly reinvented today without Lovecraft's B.S.), but that doesn't mean I just say "so what" to Lovecraft's racism (and hey, what interesting implications for horror as it pertains to changing social values, eh?).  Heart of Darkness is one of my all-time favorite books, although I also think that Achebe's criticisms of the way it depicts Africans are totally valid.  I have never read Conan and I don't want to (because epic barbarianism is not my genre), but I suspect if I did I would probably think it was funny in a pathetic way, remember that it is a product of its time, put it back on the shelf, and point and laugh at people who read it.  This isn't even about Conan.  You can replace Conan with any number of things that now come with the warning, "product of its time."

It's the responses that really get to me, the "who cares if it has that because I had fun reading it when I was an adolescent boy" thing.  Does that mean they'd give it to their sons?  Probably, yeah.  After all, so what?  Why not?  So Conan lives on, Conan with his lily-white women, Conan who ironically cannot be criticized because he is not to be taken seriously.  Whereas classic lit, which is actually, you know, meaningful and interesting and not the equivalent of a Michael Bay movie with half the intelligence, is constantly called out for its outdated bullshit.  Which is good, interesting, and ultimately necessary, because we are people living TODAY, analyzing it TODAY.  Like my Colonial Encounters class, talking about the way Tin Tin and Babar have been changed over the years, to get rid of the horrific racist cartoons in one and the weird-ass imperialist mindset in the other.  Nobody said let's go out and burn all copies of Rin Tin Tin.  It's saying, "hey, let's talk about this, look at how norms change over time, look at how embedded colonial narratives were, even in ads for detergent and coffee, did any of you pick up on this as kids?"  I wrote a paper on how Peter Pan is an iteration of the Noble Savage myth.  I love Peter Pan, but hey, it was an interesting idea.  Like this awesome thing I found on Victorian Chromatic Anxiety in Jane Eyre (i.e. "Jane's all white"). 

And some of the comments on that site did engage with what Flood brought up, suggest other works to try, explain things in a more in-depth way, etc, while still liking Conan stories.  There are, of course, Tolkien fights.  Which is fine.  Engagement and discussion, that's what you want!

But when the response to the idea of a discussion of these issues is a defensive "so what"... damn, it makes me want to break stuff.  This is the same thing that people say to defend Enid Blyton, another product of her time - "it doesn't matter, it's just for fun" or "it doesn't matter, it's just for kids". 

What the he-ell does that imply, exactly? 

I'm not saying no one is allowed to read Conan or what the hell have you.  You can even read Enid fucking Blyton for all I care - I don't even want to ban Mein Kampf, so far be it for me to try to disallow literature with psycho ideas and norms.  I'm saying this sort of response to criticisms that a book has racist/sexist imagery is really frustrating.  Nasty little tidbits tucked in books - especially books for adolescents, especially books for entertainment - do not mean nothing. 
 
ETA: As Lindsey says below, media does not in and of itself cause people to be prejudiced - not in the olden days, not now.  If it wasn't a problem in society, it wouldn't be a problem in a book.  Obviously it is a problem in society, however.

* Just to note, I don't let romance novels off this hook either.

Comments

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

Also, I know this will sound incredible, but some people honestly don't even know what connotations the word 'Oriental' has. It is, for them, synonymous with Asian. My students likewise (but less incredibly) don't know the connotations and use it all the time.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

And to be honest, that's why words like that change in history. They start out as the denotational, objective-sounding term for a marginalized racial or ethnic group, then over time as whatever dominant racial/ethnic group uses them, they get associated with whatever stereotypes said majority has, and then they have bad connotations, and then people think of a new word. That happens for taboo words, too. It's all kind of meaningless when it comes down to it.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

should probably say: stereotypes, usage, associated actions, etc.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

should also say dominant rather than majority. especially if you're going to talk about colonialism or the like. this is me attempting to translate my thoughts from national to international. :P

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

I don't disagree with that, but I guess I'm ok with moving "with the times" in this context. It is meaningless in the long-term but right now it does have bad connotations.

[(Anonymous)]

yeah, and it's good to be aware of them, and choose to represent yourself/not offend others by them. but in terms of understanding what other people mean by it, sometimes it's good not to jump to conclusions.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

um, this is me

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

lol, I figured.

Yeah, I shouldn't jump to conclusions. But I tend to do that on the internet. I feel like, "why are you choosing to use that word? that word is not used in the news." Even though sure, some people really do think that's fine. It's harder to not jump to conclusions with things that offend me. Maybe I should actually say something to my boss when she says it again.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

I guess my point is, it's just a word. It's not worth getting upset over connotations, connotations of viewpoints or attitudes that a speaker may or may not hold. It's more worth getting upset over the actual viewpoints/attitudes, and there are probably more reliable indicators of that.

...which is also why I don't mind when Alex calls me a cunt.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

'course, when you get to the issue of racial slurs or something, it's a little different, because putting down somebody is also an act, not just a connotation

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

*putting somebody down

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

What kind of definition of "upset" we're working with here? Obviously docking people 1,000 points is hyperbolic, since people have no points and even if they did I would have no power to dock them. It's more accurate to say I read/hear people described as Oriental and I think, "whoa, did you just say that? Huh, that's a little discombobulating. Don't you know that's a loaded term? I wonder what you have to say about these 'Oriental' people, and I will take it with a grain of salt." It's not the kind of thing that makes vomit crawl up my throat - it's more like a warning light that gets turned on. In the case of my boss, I don't think the opinions she holds justifies any concern, so the warning light goes off.

It is of course more worth getting upset over actual demonstrated viewpoints/attitudes, but people can still choose words "poorly" and reflect a sort of bull-in-china-shop ignorance or outright dismissal of other people/society.

Yeah, see, that would annoy me, but you are free not to be annoyed.

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

*are we
in the first sentence
instead of
we're

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

I dunno, you can say that ignorance of these things is a sort of privilege certain people get to have and get mad at privilege, or something, but I don't see getting mad at people. As for warning lights, I don't think that's what i meant by 'upset'.

It's not annoying because he means absolutely nothing derogatory by it. To him it's just a word and thus to me it is too.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

For him it borders on some sort of strange term of endearment, actually.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

'Course, we're both INTP types, and INTPS are notorious for disregarding social norms in favor of whatever interests them. Words are just sounds people make when it comes down to it. They are only ever connected to anything by convention (even if it's a convention btwn. you and yourself, but that's stretching things). I don't care about words, but I do care what people think and feel (if I care about them at all, anyway). And words get in the way of what people mean as much as they help convey it. And people who are jerks really don't deserve my caring about them and what they think of me. That gives them more power over my life than they deserve to have.

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

This is kind of interesting to read given how precise you want words to be, but it also kind of makes sense - you want the path to meaning to be as clear as possible, yes?

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

sounds about right

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

Warning lights is what I get, though. So I don't think that I get "upset."

I think you can end up being mad at privilege for a lot of things, but where does personal responsibility come in? With ignorance, yeah, it makes sense. But it's not always ignorance.

Right, and you know that about him. I don't argue that you must constantly be offended by someone's use of a word if you know it's not meant maliciously.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

I guess I don't really read docking 1000 points as warning lights, but I guess that only goes to show that interpretation is a shaky thing.

I just think it's more productive to be angry at the system, because that's something you can do something about (theoretically at least), whereas getting offended by people only hurts you. I think people will only do their part to be personally responsible on about the same average that they do for anything else, and the most you can do is get the word out, try to change the circumstances that cause the problems in the first place, etc.

It's not something I just 'know' about him--it's clear from what he says, his attitude, etc. But I'm not really offended if other people use it either. Maybe I would be if my boyfriend or friend called me that in all seriousness. But I guess to me, it's about on par with calling me a fucking asshole. If I think I'm right, then whoever calls me that is clearly mistaken. ;) If I'm insecure, though...

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

(which isn't to say you shouldn't argue w/ people or get them to recognize their personal responsibility--i just wouldn't waste too much time on it. 'It is not your lot to be a swatter of flies' and all that.)

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

You know I talk in hyperbole. If I was upset by something I would devote a lot more space and profanity to it.

Interesting! You think you can do something about the system now (and it's not composed of just the sum total of daily interactions with actual people)? I think getting the word out is important, though. Especially when what you're dealing with is ignorance. And I think it's possible for people to become more conscientious of these things.

Well, yeah, that's what I mean about "you know that about him." Obviously I'm not implying that you're psychic. And I think that's a good attitude to have. It's interesting that you give the whole thing about it being gendered no attention. A lot of times that's part of the objection to "cunt." Or is that something you can choose to ignore/disregard?

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

Also, to the thing about Alex, I was responding to you saying it would annoy you, not to an argument that you should be constantly offended by words...

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

Well, and my honest reaction is that my gut-reaction would be annoyance. That doesn't mean I would "defriend" - I might actually ask for an explanation.

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

Yeah, the noodles we buy (from a Japanese noodle company? I'm not sure about their ownership) is also labeled "oriental." My boss says "Oriental people," and she taught English in S.K. (a long time ago).

The word bothered me before I heard about Said and all of that - I think because it was always said with some racist thing attached.