Requires only that you continue to read this thread: Benjanungate II

[Crixus]

Sorry if I assumed you were mad, then. I'm new to genchat. :)

Re Hollwyood: fair enough. I mentioned Africa etc. in my earlier post because these places are depicted far more frequently than Pakistan. I can now see how such depictions may have been excessively simplistic or one-note. I also expect a lot more of Hollywood focus on Pakistan in future, given our current status as the world's terror-mongers. Guess I should get used to it :)

I think besides research, the challenge is approaching the specific culture with empathy, with an intent to draw three dimensional characters and scenarios, rather than basing ideas or people on stereotypes (we all do this). It can also be enlightening, reading about your world from an outsider's POV. I think the trouble comes when you sense a certain... condescension on the part of the creator. Which may well be entirely subjective, I realize.

I'm now wracking my brain for a book written on India by a Western author, that I liked!

[Eponine]

As a non-Thai fake-Asian, there are aspects of the wind-up girl that make me cringe. In a this-is-how-people-view-Asian-women way where IMO the author was a perpetrator not an observer or reporter. I've had many discussions with white male readers (not generally here on this forum) where I've been instantly dismissed. (As I've said before I wasn't associated in any way with RH or any community she was part of.) It does make me want to beat some people over the head with the book (in a non permanently damaging way). I don't do this because I'm a decentish person. It's hard to feel like no one including you has a voice in expressing how damaged books like this make some people feel. I don't sympathize with what RH did or how she did it, but I can sympathize with the people who felt like their choices were getting behind an angry overly-aggressive voice vs having their voice go unheard.

[Castel]

Re white people writing about POC: I agree with what someone up-thread said: it's a conundrum because if white people write only about white people/places, they are accused of not being inclusive. When they do, they are called out for appropriation. It's a difficult line to balance. Personally, if I feel the author has taken time to do proper research, I'd be willing to forgive mistakes or misrepresentations to a great degree.

Also, the tired old narrative of the great white man saving the pitiful third world is beyond dull and also, very offensive. I think Wind up Girl has shades of the same. I'd love to see/read something where the White Master isn't the cure for all evils, ranging from ignorance to superstition to religious extremism and beyond. In fact, I think there is still a tendency for white writers to either write in a white protagonist, or to approach the culture from a clearly foreign aspect (that's where accusations of exoticism come in).

It's when you get that smug, agenda-driven presentation ala Homeland that you find it offensive and vomit-worthy, if we're being honest.

I feel like this is being taken for granted and I'm not convinced. Sure, if everyone is white you'll get shit. But the majority of the works written by white people/Westerners fall within their comfort zone and I don't know how many people go out of their way to shit on them.

When they CHOOSE to write about non-Western stuff then insist (or have it imposed on them) to then do stuff like cast the white guys as the heroes is when they get shit. Now, part of this may be that westerners consider something like...Ancient Egypt (see the whole Moses controversy) as part of their comfort zone AND SFF writers often act as if they're creating a whole world (which perhaps opens them to this criticism more) but it's not the same thing at all. Often they're the ones that then choose to draw clear connections between real cultures and their magic lands.

And no amount of research is going to make it ok for a white/privileged author to tell a story about another's culture. You feel too connected to it, and he could never get it truly correct.

There's no space between telling a problematic story and telling a story while being an outsider?

[Larry.]

Here's an interesting perspective on this affair.

[Crixus]

As a non-Thai fake-Asian, there are aspects of the wind-up girl that make me cringe. In a this-is-how-people-view-Asian-women way where IMO the author was a perpetrator not an observer or reporter. I've had many discussions with white male readers (not generally here on this forum) where I've been instantly dismissed. (As I've said before I wasn't associated in any way with RH or any community she was part of.) It does make me want to beat some people over the head with the book (in a non permanently damaging way). I don't do this because I'm a decentish person. It's hard to feel like no one including you has a voice in expressing how damaged books like this make some people feel. I don't sympathize with what RH did or how she did it, but I can sympathize with the people who felt like their choices were getting behind an angry overly-aggressive voice vs having their voice go unheard.

I couldn't agree more. There's also a feeling of being almost apologetic while pointing out such problematic tropes/areas, sometimes. Why should I apologize if an author misrepresented my culture offensively, blatantly and worse, lazily? The onus should be on them, as individuals earning money from what they write, to do the work.

This isn't confined to other cultures depicted by foreign authors either. I remember an American friend going batshit over the (admittedly beyond loathsome) series Twilight. She wasn't mad about the horrible story telling, the vapid characters, or the dangerous messages therein (well, she was, but this was something different); she was mad because the author apparently hadn't even bothered to Google the Seattle WA area; her descriptions and assertions about the place made that clear to my friend.

So a lack of research is fucking amateur hour, especially while writing about something real.

Of course, cultural appropriation is far more complex, and not possible to avoid just by knowing facts about something. That is but one aspect.

[Crixus]

Castel: I'm not sure I follow. My point was about white authors writing about a foreign culture, not so much white authors including white and POC characters in their writing, if that makes sense.

[Castel]

Castel: I'm not sure I follow. My point was about white authors writing about a foreign culture, not so much white authors including white and POC characters in their writing, if that makes sense.

Yeah,I'm aware.And I'm saying that they can get slammed for not having PoCs or homosexual characters (though, depending on the genre, it's not that big an issue) but not writing foreign cultures doesn't really put much pressure on them. They generally choose to write foreign cultures and then do it in the sort of way that invites the sorts of criticisms RoH would make. So one arm of the "damned if you do" dilemma just falls apart. They're not damned either way.It's a convenient out for them to suggest that they can't please everyone and will be slammed either way, as if they're being pulled helplessly along the river of abuse.

[Crixus]

Hmm. I see your point. Writing about a foreign culture isn't the same as including 'diverse' characters in a novel (even there stuff like tokenism can be an issue).

Perhaps the author's agenda is also in the mix then. Does one write about a foreign culture out of a genuine interest/fascination, or because one wants to be 'exotic'? Does one write about another country to reinforce the 'great white master' aspect, or because one wants to explore that society for what it is? I'm not accusing any specific author of this (though give me a minute and I will! :D), merely pointing out that this can and does happen.

For example, I was reading an article about Dawkins' memoirs, where he describes his childhood in colonial Kenya/Malawi. The fact that the chief virtue of the local people seems to be their deference, the fact that he clearly never bothered to learn a single thing about the country, the people or the culture, the fact that for him, the 'natives' seemed to blend into one indistinct mass of servitude... well, that illustrates the point perfectly.

[Gormenghast]

I'm going through the other thread, but this thing needs to be underlined:

If the protagonist engages in genocide and the world is "better" for it how is genocide not being portrayed as a positive thing in this story?

Even though Benjanun never gave that benefit of the doubt to any other author. But hell, she deserves the sort of artistic protection she didn't give other artists, right?

So what you're saying is that we should all act as she acted (behavior which has been roundly condemned) because she acted that way?

This is amusing in its own way.

Nope, if she was doing that mistake doesn't mean *we* should repeat that mistake, BUT if she were coherent she would apply it to herself as a writer too.

It was a fundamental point of her reviews that a text speak for itself. If she thought a text was racist then the writer was UNEQUIVOCALLY racist too, and so deserved the namecalling and worse. She actually went further than that, claiming that even if the writer was explaining that a book was written with a different intention, then it was because said writer was UNCONSCIOUSLY racist, and his deeper instincts where showing through beyond explicit intentions, in the book. So she read the book as if she read the writer's soul. And then she sentenced for guilt.

There was no appeal, again, because the text speak for itself, regardless of the opinions or intent of the author.

The point is that one expects her to be at least coherent. So if she could pull all that, as a reader. Then a reader is enabled to do that too, with her stuff as a writer.

[Peadar]

The way they've used Urdu is beyond laughable; it's pitiful. Straight from Google translate, really. When someone's family gets killed, his neighbour says the Urdu equivalent of 'forgive me' as though she was responsible (because the term for 'I'm sorry' is similar to 'forgive me', whereas a different term is used for condolence). Again, I find it a bit hard to believe that a huge show with substantial funds at their disposal couldn't find a Pakistani American to help; after all, there are such few Pakis out there, amirite?

Ha! There was a scene in a recent episode of Boardwalk Empire where two Irish characters exchange a few lines in "Gaelic". In that case, they didn't even use Google Translate, let along asking anybody. Each of the actors invented a line of gibberish and that was that :)

[Crixus]

Are you serious? Lol.

I recently watched Outlander, which also had a lot of Gaelic. Have you watched the show? I'd love to know whether they used authentic Gaelic, or just invented it! :rolleyes:

[Gormenghast]

Another thing.

It's worthwhile to go back and read this 2 years old passionate defense of RH by Valente: http://catvalente.livejournal.com/675153.html

Where she compares RH to Christopher Priest (!), her point being that we take Priest seriously BECAUSE HE'S A MAN, while we don't take seriously RH because she's a woman.

Yeah, sure. And not because putting Priest next to RH is ludicrous, regardless of genre.

And then this is quite amusing:

while I do think that harsh criticism goes down better when it’s not the authors in the field at hand who do it, both Sady and Requires are not SF authors of any stripe

[Crixus]

Well, she didn't know RH was an aspiring author then, I assume.

Second, I think there is merit in exploring how male criticism is greeted, vs. female criticism. I remember Sady Doyle's referenced piece clearly, as well as the vitriolic comments under it. The sexualized nature of the berating, the ranting etc. is definitely markedly different from comments levelled at a male writer. So as far as that goes, I agree with Valente.

I don't, however, agree that RH should be magically excused from all the shit she's said about authors either, something Valente seems to be inferring (while ignoring the personal nature of the taunts and threats made by RH to many).

[Richard]

Shit like that happens in the entertainment industry. Getting pissed about that kind of shit is ridiculous.

Dunno, I'm still pretty pissed off about U-571, and that was a decade and a half ago. And I'm not the only one.

@ Peterbound - have to say, I think you're showing alarming signs of exactly the dynamic we were talking about earlier. POC comes in and makes polite and cogent points; you immediately get all huffy and defensive, start snapping and snarling (and missing the points said POC is making). It's a completely disproportionate response, and might lead anyone spectating to think that the "loud and belligerent" advocates might, y'know, have a point.......

It's certainly giving me food for thought.

[Richard]

For example, I was reading an article about Dawkins' memoirs, where he describes his childhood in colonial Kenya/Malawi.

Hmm...... I read that article too; it was pretty much an unmitigated hatchet job. I haven't read the memoirs yet, so I'm reserving judgement, but nothing else I've read by Dawkins gives me any reason to suppose a white/colonial superiority in his general outlook.

You could probably accuse him of having had the standard attitudes of a privileged British expat child of the times at that time, but since he left Africa before he was ten years old, it's a bit harsh to apportion any blame for that. The writer of the article (John Gray - grumpy old git who has had a knife into Dawkins on occasion before) seemed to me to be scouring the book for ad hominem ammunition and scraping the bottom of the barrel a bit to find it.

[Crixus]

Dunno, I'm still pretty pissed off about U-571, and that was a decade and a half ago. And I'm not the only one.

@ Peterbound - have to say, I think you're showing alarming signs of exactly the dynamic we were talking about earlier. POC comes in and makes polite and cogent points; you immediately get all huffy and defensive, start snapping and snarling (and missing the points said POC is making). It's a completely disproportionate response, and might lead anyone spectating to think that the "loud and belligerent" advocates might, y'know, have a point.......

It's certainly giving me food for thought.

peterbound's first post directed at me made me feel that a little (especially the sarcasm inherent in his use of the word 'shockingly'). However, subsequent exchanges had me thinking that's just how he communicates (which he stated).

Some context: I work in a British multinational, mostly with white British men. I've formed a few close friendships and I am extremely candid with them on a number of topics, especially our legacy of colonialism. I have to say, being in this environment (Pakiland) makes them much more open to my ideas, even when negative. They generally display a willingness to hear my side. Several times, they act patronizingly (likely unconsciously) and I always call them on it. For example, saying shit like 'your English is even better than ours'. Or, when they make fun of Pakistan being backward/under-developed etc. Also, when they comment on how they like me because I'm 'like them': English speaking, 'liberal', partial to alcohol/partying, don't 'look like a typical Pakistani': genuinely offensive shit.

Now, in RL I am known as a fairly aggressive person. Being a woman living here, being conscious of shit like sexism etc. has made me determined to take a stand, and I don't care if people think I'm 'mad/emotional' etc. A few blokes in the office call me 'dragon lady' and not because I like Danaerys. In fact, I quite enjoy my rep (perversely) at times, because I know such people are scared of spouting sexist shit in front of me.

So I completely see the value of being belligerent. When your position is perceived as inferior or disadvantaged, sometimes it's useful and cathartic to shout. I find it amusing that 'privileged' people (whether living in the developed world, or male, etc.) seem to be overly sensitive to a woman/POC getting strident while making a point. It always makes me think of 'uppity', and not in a good way.

This isn't directed at you, peterbound. It was more a response to Richard, as his post got me thinking.

[Crixus]

Hmm...... I read that article too; it was pretty much an unmitigated hatchet job. I haven't read the memoirs yet, so I'm reserving judgement, but nothing else I've read by Dawkins gives me any reason to suppose a white/colonial superiority in his general outlook.

You could probably accuse him of having had the standard attitudes of a privileged British expat child of the times at that time, but since he left Africa before he was ten years old, it's a bit harsh to apportion any blame for that. The writer of the article (John Gray - grumpy old git who has had a knife into Dawkins on occasion before) seemed to me to be scouring the book for ad hominem ammunition and scraping the bottom of the barrel a bit to find it.

Fair enough. The only Dawkins' I've read was the God Delusion, and that had a profound impact on me.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Larry,

I read your link and I did say long ago that, but for the vitriol, RH did say thought provoking things. Tessa's post seems like an effort to shift the narrative away from the damage done by RH/BS and her cohorts to focus on RH/BS as a victim.

Even her RH/BS's apologies were qualified and came with RH/BS attempting to claim the worst of her actions were not her and after scrub efforts were completed. Tessa says over and over again that a victim can be a bully. While true it seems an effort at whitewashing (pardon the ironic idiom) the entire sorid affair.

I just don't see RH/BS's efforts to rewrite what has taken place as the actions of a victim they are the actions of someone trying very hard to prevent others from seeing what has been done. As such focusing on RH/BS as a victim seems like adding to RH/BS's efforts to cover up her very bad acts.

[edited to change "paint" to focus; "paint" states that RH/BS is in no way a victim that may not be the case]

[peterbound]

Dunno, I'm still pretty pissed off about U-571, and that was a decade and a half ago. And I'm not the only one.

@ Peterbound - have to say, I think you're showing alarming signs of exactly the dynamic we were talking about earlier. POC comes in and makes polite and cogent points; you immediately get all huffy and defensive, start snapping and snarling (and missing the points said POC is making). It's a completely disproportionate response, and might lead anyone spectating to think that the "loud and belligerent" advocates might, y'know, have a point.......

It's certainly giving me food for thought.

Ha. Keep reaching, Dick (you know, Cus of Richard and all), just because you disagree with someone sarcastically (or in any way) doesn't put you in the realm of Bh/acm/hate.

If that's the case, that accusation is going to be thrown around here a lot.

I missed none of her points, responded the the ones concerning me, and engaged in debate. At no point did I tell her I was going to ruin her life, throw acid in her face, or that she should kill herself. It's not that acm disagreeing with people that I take issue with, it's her trying to ruin lives, telling people to kill, and harm folks, and her persistent fucking anger that bothers me. People are allowed to disagree. You know that, right?

Keep trying though.

ETA: I can see this becoming a trend. If someone disagrees with you in a fashion you don't like, 'Boom' you are just like RH. That shit will get old. There is a huge difference between the way I engage, and the way she does. Go back and read that fucking exchange. You're off on that one.

[Richard]

Yeah, you missed my point as well. Sigh.

I didn't say you were like RH - I said that your reaction to a PoC making polite and cogent comments was to snap and snarl and miss the thrust of what she was saying; hence lending credence to the idea that PoC need to be loud and belligerent if they're to get a decent hearing.

Got that?