Quote:
Originally Posted by hildea
Some clarifications to my last post: - The slavery novel in my example was about Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson. If it had taken place in ancient Rome or among the Dohtrakis, my opinion would have been different.
- I don't wish that publishing these novels were illegal, and I don't wish that they had been stopped from publication because of "twitter mobs" (also known as "grassroot movements"). I wish that the author, agent, and the editor who picked up this manuscript from the slush pile -- everybody who decided that "yes, this concept is worthy of my time and creativity" had had the wits and moral sense to see that these ideas are harmful, and had chosen some other concept instead.
- I think the main harm stories like these cause isn't because some readers are offended or hurt. The main harm is those readers who don't get offended, who read and like the books, sympathise with the protagonists (because that's what we usually do, if the book is competently written), and whose ideas about that part of history gets influenced, just a little bit, by what they have read. I think the world would be better if noone had read those books.
And a question to those of you who don't see a problem with these books: Can you really say, with a straight face, that stories which romanticise nazis, trivialise the horror of slavery in the US, and make light of racism and antisemitism, don't hurt people? Truly? |
Ok on your first exmple: would you bat an eye if it was just 2 random people in love that couldn't be together because of whatever reason?
What may I ask is the difference between 2 real people and 2 fictional characters based on the same premise? Or even ancient times?
How is slavery any different despite the times?
As to the romantizing: well Sally and Thomas were lovers. I think they would have been anyway. Where I would have a problem is where they idolize the oppressors.