Quote:
Originally Posted by meeera
Seeking clarity and common ground here: what the author (plus or minus editing) wrote was "However, groundbreaking 30, 40, 50 or 100 years ago can now seem horribly out of date and shockingly offensive." That's the only time "offensive" appears in the article. Headlines are not written by the authors of the articles, and are typically designed to be as clickbaity as possible.
I like it that she has applied the Bechdel-Wallace test as it is meant to be applied, to highlight the existence of gender imbalance in a collection of different works, rather than as a single 'litmus test' to decide whether a single work is or isn't sexist.
|
The author decided to read this particular list. Then:
"What I hated, and dreaded the most as I continued to read through the list, was the continued and pervasive sexism - even in seemingly progressive books for their time. I devoured science fiction and fantasy when I was younger - the idea that I was also devouring patriarchal and sexist ideas made me deeply uncomfortable. The fact that these were all supposed to be the best of the genre, was even more shocking."
It seems that works of the type she had enjoyed when younger now offended her. It seems she is angry because she now feels that these works were indoctrinating her with "patriarchal and sexist ideas".
Enter the B-W test, as modified by the author for books:
"In anger, after I read the first 10 books or so, I made my version of the Bechdel test, adapted for books. I thought I could ask for a bit more than films because there is more time for exposition and exploring complex ideas."
Why bother? Society was very different at the time most of these books were written, which is of course reflected in their content. Though she attempts to draw a conclusion about Science Fiction and Fantasy in particular, I wonder if the results would be any different if applied to a general list of similarly aged books.
I also found many of her complaints when discussing individual books, and there were a lot of such complaints, often totally misconceived. Whether she planned this "hit piece" from the beginning or worked herself up to such a state of anger during her reading that it degenerated into the state in which it was published I do not know.
She then refers briefly to the Puppies controversy, characterising the Puppies as defenders of the status quo "when its so obviously awful", apparently confusing the past with the present.
Then, again ignoring the age of the books and the social conditions at the time that they were written, she concludes:
"After reading so many of these books, you can readily see that there is a problem with science fiction and fantasy novels when it comes to representation of women and minorities. What those people defending the lack of women or minorities are doing is advocating for a genre to remain stagnant. They are defending nostalgia. They’re trying to ingrain a conservative strain in a genre that was radical when it started. They’re arguing on the side of repetition, terrible storytelling and awful characterisation."
Unfortunately I can only conclude that the Headline, despite probably not being written by the author, is representative of this hit piece. As clickbaity as possible.
I still love some of these old works, and i class myself as fortunate that those I have re-read since childhood I still enjoy. I too can sometimes have my enjoyment of a book ruined by some element I find incongruous. I recently read a very good mystery which was somewhat spoiled for me by an element of the plot which I found totally unbelievable and thought did not fit well into the story. Or, to use an example from the Cinema, I never liked the movie of One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest because after reading and loving the book I could just not see Jack Nicholson as McMurphy. These incidents are peculiar to me. Others may or may not see things the same.
I can accept that the author of this article can no longer enjoy these books, for reasons peculiar to her. Some others certainly feel the same. Others are able to continue to enjoy these books even though aspects may conflict with their adult ideals. The author has in my opinion confused her own feelings with objective fact, and then sought attention for her very flawed views in this article. She has every right to not read something she is offended by. It would be better if she had left it at that.
Fortunately, one of the really great things about self-publishing is that there really will be something for everybody. Now the gatekeepers have been overthrown diversity and different views and voices are exploding into e-ink (and POD books etc). Personally, I applaud this. The more choice the better.