JSWolf brought up that there have been reports that Jules Verne held antisemitic views. I am not familiar with those reports, nor do I recall seeing overt demonstration of it in Verne's work, but that's largely beside the point (the book is already selected by two rounds of voting, which makes it seems like a pretty firm choice). The point is...
In the brief conversation that followed, JSWolf suggested that he would rather that the club chose books from authors that are not problematic in regard to racism, sexism and so on:
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSWolf
[...] There is a certain level of these issues that's too much. The Dorthy Sayer, ERB, and H. Rider Haggard are three examples of too much (IMHO). Can we try to go for books that while not perfect, are not so out there?
|
I largely agree with what issybird said on that thread, that such restrictions would bind the club to mostly very modern works, as authors of old works that held views compatible with modern sensibilities are few and far between. And you don't even have to go very far back to run into trouble, the 1970s was another world as far as a lot of this stuff is concerned.
Nor do I feel that I need to be protected from instances of historical prejudice, particularly where it may be subtle; I'd rather learn to recognise it. If Verne's stories have prejudices that I've missed in the past then I'd like them pointed out. I think it worth reviewing and reflecting on where we have been compared to where we are now.
But there are limits, and it gets complicated because each of us is likely to draw the line in a different place and for different reasons. I certainly don't want to push people into reading material that they might find personally upsetting. (What seems mere politics to one person may be deeply personal to another.)
All in all, I think the current system still covers this well enough. If a participant has problems with a book or author then this can be raised during the nomination process -
not by deriding someone else's nomination, but simply by pointing to reports of whatever the issue might be so others can make up their own mind. Then it becomes just something else we each consider while voting.
We do have the rule/strong-guideline/request that people should only vote if they intend to read whatever the selection, however we do understand that circumstances may change to prevent this. I suggest we also consider that finding a book or author to be personally offensive is sufficient reason to back out. (I doubt if any of us would have objected to this anyway, I'm just saying it out loud.)