Social Justice in SF&F

[gmw]

The article linked in the OP is nothing like I thought it was going to be, given the nature and volume of the posts here.

We can discard the title: "shockingly offensive", it's obviously only to grab your attention. The author of the article admits to having read some of these books previously, so they knew what was coming. There was nothing shocking about it. There is also tendency to go looking for offence: the author of the article seems to think Thomas Covenant was a character the reader was supposed to like, which misses the point of the character and the story.

But there is at least some aspects of the article I can relate to, although I found the choice of references a bit puzzling: picking on fantasy worlds - more often than not in some semblance of medieval times - where the society and norms must be adhered to for the story work.

Having re-read quite a lot of science fiction lately, it was disappointing to realise how little thought went into the social elements of some of the stories. A recent re-read, "Lucifer's Hammer", I found particularly obvious in this regard: within hours of the disaster the women are all looking for the strongest male to protect them. That's a 1977 book, it doesn't have the excuses we might give some of the older ones. Indeed some of the older ones handle it better, if only by omission.

I think the biggest mistake the author of the article makes is to suggest that a look through the 100 best fantasy books is indicative of what was written. It's not. It's only indicative of what became popular; it doesn't tell us what was available. If there is offence to be had, it is to realise that the audience still prefers the books that author of the article finds offensive.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by gmw

I think the biggest mistake the author of the article makes is to suggest that a look through the 100 best fantasy books is indicative of what was written. It's not. It's only indicative of what became popular; it doesn't tell us what was available. If there is offence to be had, it is to realise that the audience still prefers the books that author of the article finds offensive.

The list in question was compiled by NPR, a pretty PC outfit to start with.
But, yes, in SF&F and fantasy most list of historical "best" titles will lean towards the memorable (for a variety of reasons) and thus towards popularity rather than literary or political merit.

As to LUCIFER'S HAMMER, if you look at the structure of the narrative, it really isn't a hard SF title or even Space Opera. It is more representative of bestseller thriller/soapers of the day than the SF of the times. Think of it as Niven & Pournelle trolling for social readers.

Still a fun read but like many bestsellers it was dated within two years.

[DrNefario]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

The list in question was compiled by NPR, a pretty PC outfit to start with.

I believe it was a poll, though, so as usual it's us in the general public who are to blame.

There is quite a bit of ropy old garbage in there, but I guess people were voting for the books they remember enjoying decades ago. The suck fairies have been at them since then.

I think the original project is kind of forgivable if you take it as data rather than as a conclusion. If I'm measuring the heights of the students at a school, it doesn't really matter how good the education is. The two might turn out to be linked, but that's a separate step.

I do wonder if fantasy is a bit of a write-off by definition. The Hero Rescues Princess archetype is pretty strongly bound into the genre. I blame Homer.

The author of the Iliad, not Simpson.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

I do wonder if fantasy is a bit of a write-off by definition. The Hero Rescues Princess archetype is pretty strongly bound into the genre. I blame Homer.

The author of the Iliad, not Simpson.

Does the fact that you felt the need to clarify that say more about you or us?


I'm not so sure, actually. I suppose you could equally convert it to Heroine Rescues Prince. (For some reason I now have a mental image of Lancelot in that scene from Monty Python. Not entirely sure why.)
Unless you are going strictly by the oldies.
But excellent point, there is a lot of motive force there.

[HarryT]

There'll probably always be SF classics that some people love to hate for political reasons, such as Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" (which, even though I'm diametrically opposed to the political philosophy it espouses, I think personally is a great book!).

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by dickloraine

I think it is a little bit strange and offensive using the term Social Justice Warriors. It is a stupid label given by people who are offended by the ideas of some people.

Yeah. When I see a cliche like "Political Correctness" or, now, "Social Justice Warriors," I usually discount everything else they say. If they're that lazy, it's probably not worth the effort of paying attention.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

Yeah. When I see a cliche like "Political Correctness" or, now, "Social Justice Warriors," I usually discount everything else they say. If they're that lazy, it's probably not worth the effort of paying attention.

What is cliched or lazy about it?

It is a term used to describe a concept.

The purpose of language is to communicate. I fail to see why you object to that.

[HarryT]

I think the point being made was that if you attach a "label" to the viewpoint of somebody with whom you disagree, it can lead to simply dismissing their argument without actually stopping to consider whether or not it has any validity.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

What is cliched or lazy about it?

It is a term used to describe a concept.

The purpose of language is to communicate. I fail to see why you object to that.

Because "Social Justice Warrior" is no different from "Liberal" or "Conservative". It's a label with no concrete meaning. If I were to say that it would be nice to see more strong women characters in science fiction, or maybe a gay couple in a story with other couples in it, would you say that I'm a SJW?

What if I were to tell you that a lot of the books I read come from Baen, and Orson Scott Card and Heinlein are two of my favorite authors? Would I still be considered a SJW?

Shari

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I think the point being made was that if you attach a "label" to the viewpoint of somebody with whom you disagree, it can lead to simply dismissing their argument without actually stopping to consider whether or not it has any validity.

The use of a label does not preclude the existence of other words.

Someone can use a label, e.g. "SJW", "PC", "liberal", "conservative"...

...and go on to define that, say something about it, etc. etc.


The only person who seems to be advocating slapping a label on people by cherry-picking what they say and then resolving to simply ignore everything they say... is arjaybe.
Which, given the justification, would be extremely ironic if it weren't so typical of the general mindset (getting offended over labels).

People who want to make blanket generalizations will manage to do so, regardless of labels. You can generalize using labels, or you can generalize about labels, bu it is still generalizing.

[dickloraine]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

What is cliched or lazy about it?

It is a term used to describe a concept.

Sorry, but who coined it? It is in no way just a neutral term "to describe a concept". A judgment about the concept is inherent to the term.

And lazy: Instead of discussing different and surly controversial ideas, it is very easy to just dismiss it under a term.

Please ask yourself, would you in a face to face discussion, use such a term?

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by dickloraine

Sorry, but who coined it? It is in no way just a neutral term "to describe a concept". A judgment about the concept is inherent to the term.

And lazy: Instead of discussing different and surly controversial ideas, it is very easy to just dismiss it under a term.

Please ask yourself, would you in a face to face discussion, use such a term?

In answer to your question, it would depend on who I am talking to.
A label is just a way to define whatever/whoever you are talking about.
So yes, it is nothing more than someone's opinion of themselves or others.
Sometimes it is nothing more than a stereotype.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by dickloraine

Sorry, but who coined it? It is in no way just a neutral term "to describe a concept". A judgment about the concept is inherent to the term.

Counterexample: "murder". Very judgmental word there, laden with emotional buttons.

I guarantee, given sufficient motivation, you could find judgmentalism, from someone's perspective, about most words.

Words describe ideas. Ideas are used to label things and people. Usually we try to avoid falsely labeling people, but attempting to go wholly without labels is... idiotic. Two labels I can slap on you right here and now: you're "German" and you "read books".
Pretty much anything is bound to be offensive to someone out there -- it's a big world.


I *could* react in a highly illogical, devoid-of-facts manner to those labels, and associate your location with Nazis and progress from there to calling you an Anti-Semite (I am a religious Jew, BTW)... but that would be downright retarded, not least because I have no logical backing.

It is nevertheless true that both Nazis and Anti-Semites exist... however much of a label those words may be...

And lazy: Instead of discussing different and surly controversial ideas, it is very easy to just dismiss it under a term.

Well, that is why I suggested people not be so quick to "just dismiss" people for utilizing a term, but rather to consider their argument/statement/whatever, and determine whether or not they are indeed being dismissive.

Please ask yourself, would you in a face to face discussion, use such a term?

No one here has yet put forth an even slightly convincing reason why not.

Instead, you have engaged in the slippery slope fallacy, by suggesting that anyone who utilizes a term you don't like to hear will automatically fail to provide any sort of reasoning.

[DrNefario]

Originally Posted by HarryT

There'll probably always be SF classics that some people love to have for political reasons, such as Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" (which, even though I'm diametrically opposed to the political philosophy it espouses, I think personally is a great book!).

I enjoyed Starship Troopers. It was Stranger in a Strange Land that I really choked on when I was reading all the Hugo winners. I'd put it in my bottom three.

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

The only person who seems to be advocating slapping a label on people by cherry-picking what they say and then resolving to simply ignore everything they say... is arjaybe.
Which, given the justification, would be extremely ironic if it weren't so typical of the general mindset (getting offended over labels).

What label did I slap on? Lazy? But you're right. We do often accuse others of our own crimes. Don't we?-)