Violence! Rape! Agency! The rapiness that comes before

[Sci-2]

From this statement I take it you are not a fan of Voltaire's maxim, "I may disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it"? And for the record I would apply that defense to the works criticized and to the criticism offered of those works.

I take that on a legal standpoint. For example, a few years back there was a similar discussion elsewhere about the use of sexual assault of children in any medium. Valerie of Occasional Superheroine wanted a legal ban against anything that might be a positive depiction, I and others said it was better to rely on market forces.

ETA:

EDIT: That said, I think there is one aspect to violence (sexual and otherwise) that I think kind of gets ignored a bit, and that's the "trying to deal with something scary in a relatively safe way" aspect.

The Room does this. The five year old in the closet doesn't know what is going on, just hears creaks of the bed every time his kidnapped mother is raped. The excerpts are heartbreaking and subtle and far, far more poignant than "I fell in a briar patch and now I make rape queues for fun" and the like.

Should have the book soon, went over budget in books for myself and then the Xmas gift budget so have to wait a bit.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Sciborg,

So, what is your opinion? Should such speech be legally banned or not?

[Sci-2]

No. No speech should be legally banned, save for something that causes direct harm (Yelling fire in a crowd, conspiracy to commit a terrorist attack, and the like).

I apologize if my prior statements were unclear.

[TerraPrime]

So, what is your opinion? Should wuch speech be legally banned or not?

It might have confused you, but throughout this debate, over 1.5 threads now, the only people suggesting a legal banning of authors are the people like Richard and Contrarius in their attempt to portray criticism of literary work as a form of active censorship. You should (or according to Contrarius, you shall, since should and shall mean the same thing) be directing your questions at them on why they're so eager to silence criticisms of art instead of asking us why we would advocate censorship when, you know, we don't want legal censorship, or hell, even repression of the artists' ability to write what they want. Far as I can tell, we're not the enemy of artistic expression or free speech, because the only thing we've been advocating as a response to novels that we don't like is to vote with our wallets and to share our opinions to hopefully sway others to do the same. That, apparently, is almost a fatwa. If I were you, I would/should/shall be asking them how much inanity is involved in the drafting of that line of reasoning.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Sciborg,

Given my spelling I have no room to talk.

TP,

I don't think either side in this debate should be censored. I would hope my post on the prior page made that clear.

[Happy Ent]

[…] That, apparently, is almost a fatwa. If I were you, I would/should/shall be asking them how much inanity is involved in the drafting of that line of reasoning.

I share that sentiment, so thank for spelling it out.

The idea that criticism entails, or is in any way similar to, censorship is indeed inane. Slippery slopes are rhetorical crutches, easily kicked away.

But make no mistake: It is equally inane to think that stereotypical portrayal of women, slander, ridicule, or even (I shudder to even type it) lack of agency, is in any way or form even remotely similar to sexism. Because sexism, like racism, or censure, describes an institutionalised policy with real, legal repercussions.

[Sci-2]

But make no mistake: It is equally inane to think that stereotypical portrayal of women, slander, ridicule, or even (I shudder to even type it) lack of agency, is in any way or form even remotely similar to sexism. Because sexism, like racism, or censure, describes an institutionalized policy with real, legal repercussions.

I think you are ignoring a few things there HE:

-Internalized prejudice and self loathing

-That fiction has power to support or dismantle power structures and cultural norms. I use myself as an example -> It was wasn't until I saw Philadelphia that I groked Gay Rights.

I mean, without the latter, isn't fiction worthless?

[Arthmail]

It might have confused you, but throughout this debate, over 1.5 threads now, the only people suggesting a legal banning of authors are the people like Richard and Contrarius in their attempt to portray criticism of literary work as a form of active censorship. You should (or according to Contrarius, you shall, since should and shall mean the same thing) be directing your questions at them on why they're so eager to silence criticisms of art instead of asking us why we would advocate censorship when, you know, we don't want legal censorship, or hell, even repression of the artists' ability to write what they want. Far as I can tell, we're not the enemy of artistic expression or free speech, because the only thing we've been advocating as a response to novels that we don't like is to vote with our wallets and to share our opinions to hopefully sway others to do the same. That, apparently, is almost a fatwa. If I were you, I would/should/shall be asking them how much inanity is involved in the drafting of that line of reasoning.

Uh, no. There were others that were confused by the wishy-washy stance as well. But i'm glad you guys are here to keep flogging at the mule. I'm sure it'll be the same three people kicking its corpse after christmas.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Sciborg,

"groked"?

[Sci-2]

Sorry, means "understood". It's a computer nerd thing.

ETA: Does the World Need Zombie Rape Scenes?

[Kalbear]

GROK is a Heinlein thing, you illiterate dumbasses. :)

[TerraPrime]

Uh, no. There were others that were confused by the wishy-washy stance as well. But i'm glad you guys are here to keep flogging at the mule. I'm sure it'll be the same three people kicking its corpse after christmas.

Yes, I apologize for my wishy washy-ness on this topic. I will try to do better in the future.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Kalbear,

*hangs head in shame*

I've never read Heinlein.

[TerraPrime]

I've never read Heilein.

Shunnnn. Shunnnnnnnnnn the non-believer.

(okay, I've only read 3.5 of his books, but still.)

[Shryke]

It might have confused you, but throughout this debate, over 1.5 threads now, the only people suggesting a legal banning of authors are the people like Richard and Contrarius in their attempt to portray criticism of literary work as a form of active censorship. You should (or according to Contrarius, you shall, since should and shall mean the same thing) be directing your questions at them on why they're so eager to silence criticisms of art instead of asking us why we would advocate censorship when, you know, we don't want legal censorship, or hell, even repression of the artists' ability to write what they want. Far as I can tell, we're not the enemy of artistic expression or free speech, because the only thing we've been advocating as a response to novels that we don't like is to vote with our wallets and to share our opinions to hopefully sway others to do the same. That, apparently, is almost a fatwa. If I were you, I would/should/shall be asking them how much inanity is involved in the drafting of that line of reasoning.

Neither Richard nor Contrarius mentioned legal censorship as far as I saw.

Of course, it would be silly to just confine censorship to legal means. It's quite effective to just, how did sciborg2 put it, "rely on market forces".

It has certainly been effective at marginalizing gays, blacks, women and a host of other minorities over the years.

[Datepalm]

GROK is a Heinlein thing, you illiterate dumbasses. :)

And the verb should be grokked. (Gets twice as many hits as groked on google.)

Hm, good artistic representation as a force in political struggle....I gotta say, i'm agnostic here. While, as in the example Sciborg gave, a specific work can, undoubtedly, shift an opinion and a mass of works create a culture (of rape. of racism. etc) I think attempting to change that mass - certainly via consumer means - is impossible and, excuse the pun, immaterial. While women are less that equal, there will be depictions of them that are less than equal. When women achieve full equality - financially, legally, politically - then their representations in art will have all the range, complexity and neutrality of men. Its not going to happen the other way round.

[Sci-2]

Got sent this on Facebook, not going to read all the stories at once but I think this is, IMO, a strong reason to have more focus on the realities of the subject so as to combat the culture of silence.

This reminded me of the Millennium episode "The Well Worn Lock" about a man molesting his daughters. I think the episode was incredibly powerful, entertaining, and also eye opening as it presented various issues involved with sexual abuse. The show concludes with the daughter on the stand, just beginning to talk about what her father did to her, at which point the mom screams for her to shut up over and over.

At the end, the daughter throws the lock on her old bedroom door into a river

Reminds me of another RL situation where the mom finally believed her husband was molesting her sons (his stepsons) because he video taped it and she found the tapes.

The opening quote, "The cruelest lies are often told in silence", stayed with me the whole episode and for days afterward.

[TerraPrime]

Neither Richard nor Contrarius mentioned legal censorship as far as I saw.

You sure? Didn't we just have like a dozen back-and-forth between Contrarius and sologdin where she argued that even though we are saying should, really, the end result will be a legal censure because "should" is the gateway verb to "shall?" Like every kiss begins with Kay, every law begins with should, apparently. I suppose technically she didn't say that the people she's arguing against are clamoring for legal censorship - she just painted a picture to show that when someone says that an author "should" do something it will inevitably lead to laws being enacted. This distinction you're trying to draw is rather meaningless, far as I can tell.

Of course, it would be silly to just confine censorship to legal means. It's quite effective to just, how did sciborg2 put it, "rely on market forces".

But that has been the central argument here all along - the distinction between a group of readers exercising their purchasing power and censorship, where the latter implies and is originally derived from the use of force to enact speech restriction. Conflating the two, as has happened in this discussion when defenders of the Terez-this-is-not-a-rape-because-the-penis-is-not-seen-on-screen-scene, is neither accurate nor helpful.

It has certainly been effective at marginalizing gays, blacks, women and a host of other minorities over the years.

:blink:

Wait a minute. What's the "it" referring to, here?

[Callan S.]

I realize many will disagree with me, but I do think what Bakker is writing is gritty and literature. It has its issues, even failures IMHO, but the levels of prose and insight into characters moves his work into higher and higher realms of quality.

I'd like to high five with you over him writing literature, but 'literature' is too vague and non emperical a term to make any measurement by. Whilst the unpleasantness of the issues depicted (to put it mildly) will keep pressing for some sort of measure of what is exploitation, I think (and that's at best - at worst, people will 'just know'). So I'm still stuck in my thinker pose, rather than high five pose!

To reference the Books you can't read thread, I think a better example of "raped until you like it" would be Jamie, who was physically aroused while being raped and as a result hated his rapist and himself all the more.

I've actually heard an RL account of this - the poor guy, doubly betrayed by both his species and his own physiology.

[Callan S.]

Far as I can tell, we're not the enemy of artistic expression or free speech, because the only thing we've been advocating as a response to novels that we don't like is to vote with our wallets and to share our opinions to hopefully sway others to do the same.

Sway others before they hear that speach to not hear it?

If you meant sway them to find the book for free somewhere and read some of it in consideration that it might not deserve money, before paying anything for a hard copy? I'd kinda get that approach as being viable. Otherwise your not the enemy of free speach when your objective is to sway people to cover their ears/eyes?