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]

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]

Actually, I don't know. I really don't understand you sometimes. Sorry!

Well, I mean that if you're dealing with something systemic, you have to deal with it as a systemic thing. Sure, you can have conversations about it as such, but what's not productive is women getting offended at men and blaming things on men and so on--because men aren't the problem for feminism, patriarchy is. So I'm not saying anything against 'getting the word out', though I do think arguing with some people is beyond hope. It'd be better, if possible, to have something more organized than individual interactions, too, but every little bit helps, or something. I think things can always change, even if we've got this defeatist mindset now, but it's not easy.

I mean that it's not that I already know that about him (I mean, now I do, but I didn't always). Words like that have never really affected me. I never got the impact of a 'fuck', or 'cunt', or anything like that. Racial slurs I didn't even know till I was older, except for 'nigger', but somehow they seem more loaded to me. Maybe 'cause I don't identify with women or feel insulted if someone puts me down as a woman, but I'm conscious of my status as a white person? I don't know. To me words that are insults directed at women just seem like insults for everybody that happen to be used on women, and if they're used in a sexist way, then so much the worse for the person using them, I guess. Because I do recognize that calling a woman a bitch when she does something any man could do is sexist, but there's nothing about the word itself that seems sexist to me, only its use in that context. It would be just as sexist to call her an asshole for doing what any man could do in the same situation, you know? Or to call her nothing at all but discriminate against her.

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

Well, for future reference, "docking someone 100 points" should be taken lightly. Like I said, when something really upsets me I tend to devote much more time and profanity to it. I probably could have said "docked 1 point" to communicate the whole "warning light" thing (I probably shouldn't consider people to be earning/losing points, but whatever), but it's like saying one movie is 48 million times better than another movie, it's sort of manic hyperbole.

I agree totally that patriarchy is the problem (and that patriarchy is bad for everyone). And hell, I'd also argue that colonialism and all the shit that went with that was also bad for everyone in the long-run (this is part of what I wrote my thesis on). I think if a woman gets offended by something a man says and just kind of rolls her eyes/stews silently, that's not productive. A lot of my problem with debates about race in the sf community on lj is that there's a lot of "talk to the hand" stuff, and then the offended person runs back to their home turf to bitch about the person doing the offense, when the person doing the offense often doesn't even know what the hell they did. That shit will not change anything. I'm a fan of being direct and being willing to discuss, although yeah, there are some people that it is hopeless with. But at least you will have tried. Nothing wrong with organized interactions, although sometimes I think what makes the difference for individual people is a personal interaction, not something that comes from the top down. I think top down stuff affects the next generation a lot more. But I don't know, I'm just kind of saying things.

Yeah, I see that, and to a certain extent I do see racial slurs as being more loaded (esp. certain slurs in America) because of the historical context of slavery and Jim Crow (like extremely systematic oppression) et al. I guess the only thing I would say is that if a man calls another man a cunt as a really, really big insult (not a term of endearment)(and same with "bitch"), is that implying "but for a boy to [act] like a girl is degrading, because you think that being a girl is degrading"? Cuz I'm not sure how useful that is, in terms of society and discrimination and all.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

I think there's probably another step in here. It's not that being a girl is degrading. It's that being a girl is weak (and all the things that come with weakness, whether it's using manipulation instead of force to get your way or submission), and being weak is degrading. And a step further from that, even--feminized insults in English stop being about "women" or "girls" at all and only about what that femininity means. And until femininity changes from being subordinate and inferior, they won't stop meaning that, and it's useless to point to the language to try to create that change, because language doesn't change anything.

[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.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

And he'd probably tell you you're a cuntface for thinking words can hurt you.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

(I don't mean to call you that, but he'd probably say something along those lines--he likes pushing people's buttons, to the point where people realize that that's all he's doing and has no real malice or the point where they get fed up and leave)

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

Oh, well, thanks. /sarcasm

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

But words CAN be hurtful. I really don't believe in the whole "sticks and stones" thing. It's true that some people have a thicker skin than others (and arguably we should all get thicker skins), but you can't just take a loaded word, erase all its negative connotations, and then use it as a term of endearment on someone you don't know and expect to get a positive response. That's just not rational. It's like a white person saying, "Okay, nigger now means someone I really care about, because I said so," and then calling a black person that.

I mean, it's kind of like, "that's nice for you, but other people may not feel the same way."