Social Justice in SF&F

[davidfor]

Originally Posted by covingtoncat73

Maybe my memory of Forever War is fuzzy but I thought everyone was eager to orgy because of their new bodies. How did I skip that it was forced on the women?

My memory had that it was mandatory for both sexes and that was explained earlier in the book. But, I had a quick look, and apart from comments about bed rosters, there wasn't anything. I still feel it is for both sexes, just commented on for the women in that scene as they were the ones being affected.

[DrNefario]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

Stranger is probably my favourite Heinlein book

When did you first read it? And have you read it recently?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

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.

Sorry, I made a typo in my original post which completely changed the meaning of it . I intended to say "there are books that people love to hate, such as Heinlein's Starship Troopers...", not "love to have" .

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by darryl

Labels, archetypes, stereotypes. All can be useful devices, but of course are very easily abused. The term SJW is useful. Like all labels, it lacks precision. It is not a term of art. But what it does allow is, for instance, for someone to post here to make a particular point or points without having to include an almost certainly lengthy definition. Yes, it does carry a pejorative taint but I think many posters here use it chiefly for convenience (or out of laziness if you must). And let's face it, all sides of the Hugo debate use labels, many more offensive and inaccurate than SJW. Am I the only one who finds it a little ironic that SJW has been singled out when labels like racist, misogynist, sexist, homophobe and stereotypes like old straight white men are being bandied around. And other collective smears like haters of diversity and change. Social Justice itself is hardly a term of art.

SJW is here to stay, like it or not. Wear it with pride if you like, though like the other terms I have quoted here, it is not usually used as praise. Only for denoting a class of people (without real precision) or in a pejorative sense or both.

Social Justice is, of course, a term that was real popular in the 60's. The issue is whose social justice are we talking about? People believe different things are just.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Sorry, I made a typo in my original post which completely changed the meaning of it . I intended to say "there are books that people love to hate, such as Heinlein's Starship Troopers...", not "love to have" .

That's the truth, most of whom have never actually read the book. Atlas Shrugged is another book like that, well hated by people who have never read it (I've never read it, but then again, I don't have an opinion on if it's a good book or not).

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

When did you first read it? And have you read it recently?

Must admit that it's 30+ years since I last read "Stranger". I remember that I enjoyed it at the time. Time for a re-read to see if my opinion of it as a 50-something is different to that of a teenager.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

That's the truth, most of whom have never actually read the book. Atlas Shrugged is another book like that, well hated by people who have never read it (I've never read it, but then again, I don't have an opinion on if it's a good book or not).

I do not believe that. Every person I know that hates Atlas Shrugged (including me) have read it or have tried to really finish the book.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

When did you first read it? And have you read it recently?

It's on a very small list of books I've re-read multiple times over the years. But I came late to the game. I'm guessing I first read it in the late '80's and last re-read it sometime in this decade. It never lost its luster for me. I'm probably overdue to enjoy it again soon. It's one of those books that I was shocked to find out wasn't universally loved (I got over that, of course).

[gmw]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Must admit that it's 30+ years since I last read "Stranger". I remember that I enjoyed it at the time. Time for a re-read to see if my opinion of it as a 50-something is different to that of a teenager.

Yes, I remember really enjoying it when I first read it 30+ years ago. But when I revisited Heinlein 10 years ago the only books that got a 4/5 were his shorter space operas. With "Stranger in a Strange Land" I enjoyed the first half, the second half got bogged down with Heinlein's hobby-horses of sex and religion (it makes me wonder what I was thinking 30+ years ago ... then again, maybe it's obvious ).

[fjtorres]

There's two editions of STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND; the original version Heinlein wrote and the "nurtured" edition that was published in the 60's. Heinlein himself preferred the uncut edition, for obvious reasons.

[fjtorres]

Waylander just pointed out these two pieces by L.E. Modesitt on the Hugo catfight and the underlying (non-political) issues:
Trust to L.E. Modesitt to shed some thoughtful clarity on the whole mess.

http://www.lemodesittjr.com/2015/09/...nt-understand/

http://www.lemodesittjr.com/2015/09/...the-unobvious/

The first points out the insider/outsider clique dynamic of the catfight. As I said before it is about entrenched orthodoxy creating its own opposition through overeach.

The second is directly applicable to the "SJW" issue with the trigger post.
Most especially this pasage:

That doesn’t mean that every good or excellent F&SF story needs to be about diversity, or gender, or multi-culturalism, although not including a diverse cast of characters, given the makeup of our world today, strikes me a highly unrealistic. Nor should a novel be elevated unduly or praised merely because it features diversity, but a novel that has a good plot, and good characters, with diversity as well, should rate higher, in terms of literary value, than one that is simply a rip-roaring adventure story.
All of which underscores what I’ve been trying to point out for months – it should be the totality of the story or book, not the current flavor du jour [or decade] of what’s on readers’ social agendas, that determines the value of a book.

Good finds, Waylander, wherever you are.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by tompe

I do not believe that. Every person I know that hates Atlas Shrugged (including me) have read it or have tried to really finish the book.

Most expensive e-book I ever bought. I am on chapter 45. I can manage a chapter every once in a while.

[hildea]

I was thinking about answering here a few days ago, and suddenly the thread had grown with half a dozen pages...

You're right, escwharts, I should have been more specific than "you people" when I accused people of not reading the article. I was thinking of comments such as this from HarryT and this from haydnfan, which seem to address easy strawmen instead of what the article actually says.

Originally Posted by CWatkinsNash

I've had favorite books / movies / etc that were "products of their time", so to speak. The fact that times have changed doesn't reduce their value to me. Should I stop loving old tv shows and movies that portray the expectation that women should be stay-at-home wives just because we've moved away from that?

Um, no? Of course not? You should love, or dislike, books, for any reason you want. So should I. So should Lutgendorff. But just because a work is loved doesn't mean it should be immune from criticism.

I used to love Gone With the Wind when I was a teenager, and still have a soft spot for it, despite its huge problems. It definitively belongs on a list of my 100 favourite historical novels -- maybe even in my top ten. But if lots of people voted for their favourite historical novel, and blatantly racist apologies for slavery like Gone With the Wind dominated the list, I'd hardly be surprised if somebody wrote that they were disappointed in the results, and took the time to mention problems with some of the winners.

(And now I'll catch up with the thread and maybe comment on some of the newer posts.)

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by hildea

You're right, escwharts, I should have been more specific than "you people" when I accused people of not reading the article. I was thinking of comments such as this from HarryT and this from haydnfan, which seem to address easy strawmen instead of what the article actually says.

With the very greatest respect, hildea, I was addressing what the article actually said. It said that its author found the books on the list "shockingly offensive". That is the issue I addressed in the post you kindly referenced.

The article says, and I quote:

I read the 100 “best” fantasy and sci-fi novels - and they were shockingly offensive

I was making the point that to called a book "offensive" simply because it reflects the social attitudes of its time, which differ from those of today, is silly. Do you disagree?

[dickloraine]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

As I said before it is about entrenched orthodoxy creating its own opposition through overeach.

That would mean, buying the puppies narrative of a secret sect controlling the awards. I don't buy it. It is not an "entrenched orthodoxy", but most of society. Like in your Modesitt quote:

Nor should a novel be elevated unduly or praised merely because it features diversity, but a novel that has a good plot, and good characters, with diversity as well, should rate higher, in terms of literary value, than one that is simply a rip-roaring adventure story.

People do simply this. No conspiracy, just a silent majority. Of course extrems exist, like in this article, but that is not who or why books were awarded. Puppies seem to just put anybody under the SWJ label who disagrees with them. But on the other hand, bad puppies don't want to be associated with rabbid puppies, which is done on the other side.