Social Justice in SF&F

GERGE · 08-31-2015, 03:05 PM

I am in awe of the authoress. She read the 100 best SF&F list in two years and wrote down how terrible they were.

Such dedication... Awe inspiring, really.

http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/...ngly-offensive

I don't understand some people.

DiapDealer · 08-31-2015, 04:02 PM

Its not that she doesn't have a point. It's just that using today's social moires to disqualify works that became people's favorites yesterday is fairly futile. There's no need to try and convince people that past things they loved are unworthy in order to bring about a change. Sff is already changing. Be happy. There's something for everyone.

And for what it's worth: I had many an all-male, completely unsexist adventure when I was a lad. Tallying up characters' genders in books is silly. Lack or inclusion of one gender is not, in and of itself, a reliable indicator of "sexism." So leave it out of any bechdel test.

HarryT · 08-31-2015, 04:07 PM

I find terms like "shockingly offensive" used to refer to old books very silly. The world of 50 years ago was not the same as the world we live in today, and authors, like everyone else, are a product of the society in which they grew up, so naturally they're going to reflect the values of that society.

fjtorres · 08-31-2015, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

I find terms like "shockingly offensive" used to refer to old books very silly. The world of 50 years ago was not the same as the world we live in today, and authors, like everyone else, are a product of the society in which they grew up, so naturally they're going to reflect the values of that society.

As nicely demonstrated in John Birmingham 's AXIS OF TIME SF stories.
Unfortunately, other writers and a lot of critics don't get that.
I recently ran into a rant from somebody who found that NPR, of all places, wasn't sensitive enough and talked about setting a litmus test for what titles were worthy of even being talked about.

HarryT · 08-31-2015, 04:41 PM

It doesn't only apply to SF and fantasy, of course. One of my favourite authors is Sir Henry Rider Haggard, who wrote over 60 novels in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, mainly of African adventure. Many of these would be considered shockingly racist by modern standards, which is ironic, considering that Rider Haggard was condemned by the press in his own lifetime for his shockingly "liberal" attitudes in advocating that African nations should be self-governing rather than under the (commonly regarded at the time) "benevolent" yoke of European colonial rule. Sometimes you just can't win either way.

Rizla · 08-31-2015, 04:46 PM

I tried reading King Solomon's Mines. At one point the protagonist slaughters a large number of elephants for the sake of a meal. The waste and gratuitous carnage was repulsive to me and I believe would be repulsive to any reader of any age sensitive to the suffering of other creatures.

HarryT · 08-31-2015, 04:51 PM

But that's very much a modern attitude. Nobody condemned big game hunting in 1885 when the book was written. That's precisely what I mean when I said that authors (and their books) reflect the social attitudes of the societies in which they lived.

eschwartz · 08-31-2015, 04:52 PM

This bit surprised me:

Quote:

The absolute worst offender was Final Empire, which was like an unpleasant caricature of Dragonflight. The world was supposed to be gritty - but to an unrealistic and ultimately unbelievable extent. Normal people had no rights, women were killed by the nobles if they slept with them (to prevent half-breeds), ash literally rained from the sky and the nobility had super powers with the ultimate bad guy seemingly immortal.

Now, the main character of that book is a woman. And she singlehandedly saves the world. And if you progress on from the point in time where the entire world was falling apart, and civilization had been flash-frozen by the Lord Ruler, you will find a far more cheerful place for women --and men for that matter -- to live in.

Quite frankly, peasant (skaa) women were not treated any worse than the men (except you won't see a noble woman raping a man, dunno why

) and there was a very strong theme of "this is exactly why the world is such a messed up place".
And there were several noblewomen who were mistings/mistborn and significantly major characters.

I also wonder why it mattered how weird the world is -- what with ash falling from the sky, the immortal Lord Ruler and superpowered nobility (as long as you forget the superpowered peasants, who are not really less common than the very much minority of superpowered nobility) -- when this was supposed to be a rant about sexism.

HarryT · 08-31-2015, 05:03 PM

I thought the "Mistborn" trilogy was excellent, personally.

eschwartz · 08-31-2015, 05:18 PM

So did I.

And having read many of Sanderson's books, I am quite confused at the the article's aspersions.

Personally, I have always suspected that authors tend to write main characters who are the same sex as they are, I am not sure why people are always ranting about "not enough female main characters".
Go read books written by women. Then complain about the lack of male main characters.
Take your pick.

Other than usually having male leads, I don't see Sanderson as particularly "sexist".

Sirtel · 08-31-2015, 06:08 PM

What a load of rubbish (the article, I mean).

Why must one of the main characters be a female? Isn't it for the author to decide what gender his/her characters should be? There are plenty of SF/F books with women as the main characters.

I've read books with all-male protagonists which I've enjoyed immensely, and books with female protagonists which I've disliked. And vice versa. There are enough good books out there to satisfy everyone's taste.

I don't understand the author of this rant either, and I'm a woman. Well, I get what she means, but I don't get how she can mean it.

I suppose I can write a similar rant about Jane Austen, for example, and carry on how most of her female characters' main purpose is to marry. How dare Ms. Austen be so archaic!

Fbone · 08-31-2015, 07:43 PM

She also has a strong dislike of Jim Butcher's Furies of Calderon. She says every woman is raped or threatened with it.

I remember there being a good number of strong female characters.

fjtorres · 08-31-2015, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sirtel

What a load of rubbish (the article, I mean).

Why must one of the main characters be a female? Isn't it for the author to decide what gender his/her characters should be? There are plenty of SF/F books with women as the main characters.

I've read books with all-male protagonists which I've enjoyed immensely, and books with female protagonists which I've disliked. And vice versa. There are enough good books out there to satisfy everyone's taste.

I don't understand the author of this rant either, and I'm a woman. Well, I get what she means, but I don't get how she can mean it.

I suppose I can write a similar rant about Jane Austen, for example, and carry on how most of her female characters' main purpose is to marry. How dare Ms. Austen be so archaic!

One of the best SF&F adventure SF writers of the 50's, James H. Schmitz focused primarily on two female action heroes; Trigger Argee and Telzey Amberdon. In contrast, one of the best female SF adventure writers of all focused primarily on male characters.

(Most SF writers these days go with whatever best fits the story regardless of their gender.)

Cinisajoy · 08-31-2015, 07:50 PM

Fj, do you mean gender? I think SF&F is the genre.
Perfect typo.
Oh and there are not enough chihuahua main characters.

Sirtel · 08-31-2015, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Oh and there are not enough chihuahua main characters.

Male chihuahua or female chihuahua?

08-31-2015, 03:05 PM	#1
GERGE Guru Posts: 733 Karma: 5797160 Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Istanbul Device: Kobo Libra	Social Justice in SF&F I am in awe of the authoress. She read the 100 best SF&F list in two years and wrote down how terrible they were. Such dedication... Awe inspiring, really. http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/...ngly-offensive I don't understand some people.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Action & Adventure ~ DUST BOWL JUSTICE ~ Texas, 1934	DreamWriter	Self-Promotions by Authors and Publishers	34	04-11-2017 10:57 AM
Final Justice (sequel to Impeding Justice)	Mel Comley	Self-Promotions by Authors and Publishers	4	09-09-2013 10:28 AM
Cruel Justice the prequel to Impeding Justice	Mel Comley	Self-Promotions by Authors and Publishers	17	07-26-2013 10:53 AM
U.S. Justice Dept. moves to block AT&T, T-Mobile merger	afa	News	3	09-01-2011 10:34 AM
Free novel (B&N / Kindle / Sony) - The Justice Game	Susan Crealock	Deals and Resources (No Self-Promotion or Affiliate Links)	5	12-28-2010 01:58 PM

08-31-2015, 04:02 PM	#2
DiapDealer Grand Sorcerer Posts: 28,570 Karma: 204127028 Join Date: Jan 2010 Device: Nexus 7, Kindle Fire HD	Its not that she doesn't have a point. It's just that using today's social moires to disqualify works that became people's favorites yesterday is fairly futile. There's no need to try and convince people that past things they loved are unworthy in order to bring about a change. Sff is already changing. Be happy. There's something for everyone. And for what it's worth: I had many an all-male, completely unsexist adventure when I was a lad. Tallying up characters' genders in books is silly. Lack or inclusion of one gender is not, in and of itself, a reliable indicator of "sexism." So leave it out of any bechdel test.

08-31-2015, 04:07 PM	#3
HarryT eBook Enthusiast Posts: 85,544 Karma: 93383099 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: UK Device: Kindle Oasis 2, iPad Pro 10.5", iPhone 6	I find terms like "shockingly offensive" used to refer to old books very silly. The world of 50 years ago was not the same as the world we live in today, and authors, like everyone else, are a product of the society in which they grew up, so naturally they're going to reflect the values of that society.

08-31-2015, 04:41 PM	#5
HarryT eBook Enthusiast Posts: 85,544 Karma: 93383099 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: UK Device: Kindle Oasis 2, iPad Pro 10.5", iPhone 6	It doesn't only apply to SF and fantasy, of course. One of my favourite authors is Sir Henry Rider Haggard, who wrote over 60 novels in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, mainly of African adventure. Many of these would be considered shockingly racist by modern standards, which is ironic, considering that Rider Haggard was condemned by the press in his own lifetime for his shockingly "liberal" attitudes in advocating that African nations should be self-governing rather than under the (commonly regarded at the time) "benevolent" yoke of European colonial rule. Sometimes you just can't win either way.

08-31-2015, 04:46 PM	#6
Rizla Member Retired Posts: 3,183 Karma: 11721895 Join Date: Nov 2010 Device: Nook STR (rooted) & Sony T2	I tried reading King Solomon's Mines. At one point the protagonist slaughters a large number of elephants for the sake of a meal. The waste and gratuitous carnage was repulsive to me and I believe would be repulsive to any reader of any age sensitive to the suffering of other creatures.

08-31-2015, 04:51 PM	#7
HarryT eBook Enthusiast Posts: 85,544 Karma: 93383099 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: UK Device: Kindle Oasis 2, iPad Pro 10.5", iPhone 6	But that's very much a modern attitude. Nobody condemned big game hunting in 1885 when the book was written. That's precisely what I mean when I said that authors (and their books) reflect the social attitudes of the societies in which they lived.

08-31-2015, 05:03 PM	#9
HarryT eBook Enthusiast Posts: 85,544 Karma: 93383099 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: UK Device: Kindle Oasis 2, iPad Pro 10.5", iPhone 6	I thought the "Mistborn" trilogy was excellent, personally.

08-31-2015, 05:18 PM	#10
eschwartz Ex-Helpdesk Junkie Posts: 19,421 Karma: 85400180 Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: The Beaten Path, USA, Roundworld, This Side of Infinity Device: Kindle Touch fw5.3.7 (Wifi only)	So did I. And having read many of Sanderson's books, I am quite confused at the the article's aspersions. Personally, I have always suspected that authors tend to write main characters who are the same sex as they are, I am not sure why people are always ranting about "not enough female main characters". Go read books written by women. Then complain about the lack of male main characters. Take your pick. Other than usually having male leads, I don't see Sanderson as particularly "sexist".

08-31-2015, 06:08 PM	#11
Sirtel Grand Sorcerer Posts: 13,473 Karma: 239219543 Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Estonia Device: Kobo Sage & Libra 2	What a load of rubbish (the article, I mean). Why must one of the main characters be a female? Isn't it for the author to decide what gender his/her characters should be? There are plenty of SF/F books with women as the main characters. I've read books with all-male protagonists which I've enjoyed immensely, and books with female protagonists which I've disliked. And vice versa. There are enough good books out there to satisfy everyone's taste. I don't understand the author of this rant either, and I'm a woman. Well, I get what she means, but I don't get how she can mean it. I suppose I can write a similar rant about Jane Austen, for example, and carry on how most of her female characters' main purpose is to marry. How dare Ms. Austen be so archaic!

08-31-2015, 07:43 PM	#12
Fbone Is that a sandwich? Posts: 8,290 Karma: 101697116 Join Date: Jun 2010 Device: Nook Glowlight Plus	She also has a strong dislike of Jim Butcher's Furies of Calderon. She says every woman is raped or threatened with it. I remember there being a good number of strong female characters.

08-31-2015, 07:50 PM	#14
Cinisajoy Just a Yellow Smiley. Posts: 19,161 Karma: 83862859 Join Date: Jul 2015 Location: Texas Device: K4, K5, fire, kobo, galaxy	Fj, do you mean gender? I think SF&F is the genre. Perfect typo. Oh and there are not enough chihuahua main characters.

Advert

Advert