Dealing with values dissonance

[Sci-2]

Is it really that big of a deal? I think some people can be whiny and preachy about shit and it's not even that important.

I think it depends on how worthless or worthwhile you think narrative is in shaping RL decision making and value judgements.

If society was laughing about the "aggressive black male" stereotype and how it was long behind us, then it is more about acknowledging something as problematic and hurtful to people.

Sadly, I don't see us there yet.

There's also [edit: possible] tacit agreement via silence - why it annoys me when people forget to mention how prejudiced some creators were in the same way we "forget" the homosexuality of someone like Turing.

But then I find the whiny comes in more with the rabid fans leaping to defend even the most obvious charges of prejudice, screeching shrilly "it's just a book! it's just fiction" all the while foaming at the mouth.

[Howdyphillip]

Some seem to dismiss Card for his views and how they show up in his writing too. I read and enjoyed Ender's Game without having any idea about Card's views.

Try reading any of the following novels without feeling that you were hit over the head with a stack of Mormon propaganda

[PhoenixFlame]

Eh, this sounds weird but for me it depends on the quality of the work. Lovecraft was an unstable racist but his work was so good that it didn't collide with my enjoyment of it. Goodkind's books suck so all I'm thinking about is his Ayn Rand fanboydom.

Though I admit, I'm biased when it comes to Lovecraft. I did a massive term paper on him and learned a ton about his life. Poor dude -- there was so much mindfuckery going on with him. Both his parents went insane and he was constantly worried he would to. His wife was Jewish too (though he did disparage her ancestry). His racism was awful but it was only a piece of who he was.

[Shryke]

I don't think it's weird to say it depends on quality.

A good work of art is worth overlooking things like it being sexist because it was written 100 years ago.

[felice]

like Terry Goodkind and the academic left want it to be.

Now that's an unlikely alliance! 8)

[MattL86]

Tolkien got another mention for being racist in this thread, big surprise there.

Orcs =/= black people. They're never even really described in detail. Mostly they're described in the loosest of terms, in terms of evil and filth, not actual appearance. The movies gave them a popularly recognized look, but I'm sure it isn't what Tolkien envisioned. Being dark skinned in movies doesn't mean a thing.

Easterlings may approximate a culture similar to earth's own eastern cultures, but even then the similarity is only vaguely loose. So little is written about the easterlings they can hardly be considered more than a perfunctory nod to middle eastern civs. The most Tolkien can really be blamed for is dividing good and evil into West and East, and honestly, if you lived through the world wars that division might be impossible to avoid. Anyone who lived in England was bound to feel that west was allies and east was the enemy. The fact that so many readers have seen Nazi Germany (white supremacy in the extreme) parallels in Mordor only further makes racist claims silly. And really, there are endless evil white people in LOTR and the Silmarillion: the hillmen, Grima, even Numenor goes evil. Saruman the White is evil for goodness sake. I get the sense most people who claim Tolkien was racist either never read the book or read it long ago and are thinking of the films which are fresher in their minds.

Or sometimes, maybe, people just need something to bitch about, and they will invent something if they have to.

[unJon]

Not just a leap; an actual fallacy. Presumably Ent finds the two positions mutually exclusive when they're not. Even so, I am curious as to whether you're advocated a sort of nihilistic relativism, Ent?

Happy Ent is not committing a fallacy. He's pointing out some staggeringly awesome irony (in an ironical way).

[Happy Ent]

Now that's an unlikely alliance! 8)

I don’t think so at all.

Both sides think that literature should be educational. Literature should support values, by showing positive examples of these values, showing how their values triumph, and how other values falter or don’t even exist.

They just disagree about what these values are. But both are authoritarian and dishonest. In fact, they’re proud of their dishonesty, they find dishonesty virtuous.

[Happy Ent]

Even so, I am curious as to whether you're advocated a sort of nihilistic relativism, Ent?

I don’t know where that came from, but just for the record: No. I am absolutely not a relativist of any type.

[thistlepong]

For the record, my question arose when you decried ideological purity. A popular alternative, and also quite liberal, position states that all viewpoints are equally valid: nihilistic relativism. And to be honest, I would have considered you nearly unreachable and dismissed you, if I'm being honest. Thanks for responding.

But you write of preference, so I'll write of mine. I like having my sensibilities challenged as well, but I prefer when it's done deliberately. It's fine when it's an artifact of another time as well, but in that case I'm not gonna tell folks it's challenging and insightful, and depending on the folks, I might have to tell them they're poorly served by the text.

And of course, your conclusion is still fallacious. You can value the physical being of all people and think they're sensibilites are bulshytt without being a hypocrite. And your position on either neither invalidates or reflects in any way on the other.

UnJon: Uh-huh.

[Happy Ent]

For the record, my question arose when you decried ideological purity. A popular alternative, and also quite liberal, position states that all viewpoints are equally valid: nihilistic relativism.

Thanks for the clarification. I have strong opinions about most things. So do others. I want to live in a society where I, and others, are considered virtuous for expressing them.

I like having my sensibilities challenged as well, but I prefer when it's done deliberately.

I think this is a fine point. Still, I find it interesting to read about times and people where casual racism (or sexism, or fascism, or even communism) were de rigeur.

And of course, your conclusion is still fallacious. You can value the physical being of all people and think they're sensibilites are bulshytt without being a hypocrite.

The strong reaction against I’m fine with. (Even though the exercise of engaging a decomposing author in a debate defined by today’s mainstream values strikes me as both facile and useless. To each his own, I suppose.)

The censorial attitude I’m not fine with. I can parse the sentence “shunning is not censure censorship,” but it smells. The hypocrisy is fully exposed in the text when Howard’s description of “mongrel races” is discussed: After all, Howard could truthfully say “I’m not advocating forced breeding programmes. I just want to express my distaste for racial admixture and suppress the positive promotion of this vile idea.”

See? Genetic admixture is so vile, that the any negative description of genetically impure individuals is detestable. Even if Howard does not actively support Lebensborn. Yet advocacy of memetic, ideological purity is completely within the link article’s moral hemisphere. After all, we’re not advocating censure. Nothing of that sort! It’s close to midnight, Double Standard time.

[Sci-2]

Or sometimes, maybe, people just need something to bitch about, and they will invent something if they have to.

I thought the case for his having prejudices was pretty strong. It was definitely weird being Indian and reading about the Indians invading the West.

I place more weight on "we don't know what threats led this guy far from home" bit than others, but I can't fault others for being insulted by Tolkien's elephant riding baddies.

Other people don't worry about it too much - one Indian girl I saw the movie with was too busy drooling over Legolas to care. ;-P

I don't think this necessarily detracts from the other aspects of his work though. The important thing is to recognize it and move on.

[Galactus]

“shunning is not censure,”

This is a linguistic thing, but no. Shunning is censure. It's not, however, censorship. (and yes, this is confusing because in swedish censur=censorship)

To censure something is to condemn it, to censor something is to prevent it from being published.

The two aren't remotely the same.

[Lummel]

See? Genetic admixture is so vile, that the any negative description of genetically impure individuals is detestable. Even if Howard does not actively support Lebensborn. Yet advocacy of memetic, ideological purity is completely within the link article’s moral hemisphere. After all, we’re not advocating censure. Nothing of that sort! It’s close to midnight, Double Standard time.

Dunno. Support for breeding programes would ahve been redundant for Howard seeing as he was writing in a time and place when black/white marriage was illegal and if his entire world is set up on the premise that your cimmerians are corrupted and dengrated through racial admixture in the mythical past then that supports the legal reality of his present doesn't it.

The author's ideological purity amounts to being opposed to racism and sexism which is probably as socially normative for his milieu as Howard's views where back in the day for his audience.

[Happy Ent]

This is a linguistic thing, but no. Shunning is censure. It's not, however, censorship. (and yes, this is confusing because in swedish censur=censorship)

Thank you, I did not know that. My point stands, of course, since Arthur B wrote censorship.

[Mr. E]

I thought the case for his having prejudices was pretty strong. It was definitely weird being Indian and reading about the Indians invading the West.

I place more weight on "we don't know what threats led this guy far from home" bit than others, but I can't fault others for being insulted by Tolkien's elephant riding baddies.

Other people don't worry about it too much - one Indian girl I saw the movie with was too busy drooling over Legolas to care. ;-P

I don't think this necessarily detracts from the other aspects of his work though. The important thing is to recognize it and move on.

The problem here, to me, is that there is a bit of grasping going on. I simply don't think there's anything to recognize...if Tokien had said the, what?, Haradrim, were from the South, I'm sure there someone in Africa would have been offended. Maybe he could have said the north. Then Tokien would be underfire from Scandanavians. Well, maybe he could have said the West? But then I'm sure Americans would have gotten all up in arms.

My point is anybody can make anything racist if they want to, and I think that's really unfair to authors and creators, who literally cannot say anything without somebody decrying them as prejudiced.

I mean, look at the very book series this site is built upon. Apparently the "East" is populated by vicious warring savages and unscrupulous money-hungry slavers. So obviously Martin is prejudiced against Eastern cultures, right? Well, no, because there's nothing outside of the text to back that up. I would say it's along the same lines as Tolkien.

[Kalbear]

There is actually quite a bit backing up GRRM being prejudiced against non western cultures, including his own admission that he likely is. And GRRMs handling of non westeros is pretty bad for the most part. Maybe not quite as bad as Tolkien, but bad.

[Sci-2]

I was thinking more that he said the dwarves are based on the Jews as an example of his likely personal prejudices, but the depiction of the East is still prejudiced even if he personally didn't hold any prejudices against brown skinned peoples.

I should have separated the issues of the man from the issues in his works, apologies for conflating the two.

[Talleyrand]

I generally try not to make a deal out of it if the values are a bit off when compared to today and usually succeed. However I remember having to watch The Birth of a Nation in history in school and it freaked the crap out of me. Though IIRC it was more than a tad racist even for its own time.

[Wulfram]

Tolkien gets a pass from me because I generally get the impression his heart is in the right place, even if there are some unfortunate implications in there.