Censorship: What is it, and who's got it?

[Arthmail]

First off, why are you bringing this up here?

I don't think I ever flip-flopped on my position there, but I'll reiterate - the most problematic part for me was that Terez was made to be a lesbian and then put into a very stereotypical situation that is fairly badly represented as a trope. I gave multiple examples of ways that her being a lesbian wasn't necessary for the scene or the book if you had to have that happen, and also gave indicators of how you could have made it significantly better by changing her character. There was never any flip-flopping, and I don't really get why you say that except for a very bad reading on your part.

The child rape part was an example of making it extra grim and gritty (or visceral, I think the word was used) while not having Terez be a lesbian. That was all it was, one way or another. I wouldn't like that much either, but it would absolutely be a way to instantly demonize Glokta. And hey, isn't the argument that lesbians shouldn't be exempt from things sucking? Same goes for kids, I'd imagine.

I didn't have as much a problem with the rape itself as others did. If you think that's me flip-flopping, I guess that's you simply reading a bunch of different people and assuming we all have the same thoughts and opinions. that's on you.

Well, it's a good thing that I'm not a professional writer. Though I have no idea what you mean by 'hold a candle for this subject'. I confess, my ideas were not thought out for months and months, and it's a good chance that my fanfic of Abercrombie's lesbian characters will not get picked up by a major publisher. I am sad. I guess it's good that I can make criticisms without having to be published and sell lots of copies then, huh?

What assertions did I not back up? There are two different threads about the subject and 3 spinoff threads, all of which I've been pretty active in. What precisely did I fail to assert? I said there were other ways the scene could have worked without her being a lesbian, and gave examples - and Abercrombie agreed with me. I said that it was a representation of a lesbian stereotype and backed up how, and that was also agreed on by the author. Now, if I didn't prove it 100% to your satisfaction I'm sorry, but saying I didn't do it at all? That's complete shit.

Next time, take your problems with me to PM.

First off, why are you bringing this up here

Because this topic is tied in so intricately with the last, it is dishonest to try and seperate them but still continue as if there had not been some sort of organic flow to the entire thing.

I don't think I ever flip-flopped on my position there, but I'll reiterate - the most problematic part for me was that Terez was made to be a lesbian and then put into a very stereotypical situation that is fairly badly represented as a trope. I gave multiple examples of ways that her being a lesbian wasn't necessary for the scene or the book if you had to have that happen, and also gave indicators of how you could have made it significantly better by changing her character. There was never any flip-flopping, and I don't really get why you say that except for a very bad reading on your part.

The child rape part was an example of making it extra grim and gritty (or visceral, I think the word was used) while not having Terez be a lesbian. That was all it was, one way or another. I wouldn't like that much either, but it would absolutely be a way to instantly demonize Glokta. And hey, isn't the argument that lesbians shouldn't be exempt from things sucking? Same goes for kids, I'd imagine.

Sorry, i probably should have said double standard over flip flop, i had a headache at the time, which is no excuse. I see, as i have mentioned before, no distinction between rape of a woman or the rape of a homosexual woman. None. There were a number of people that pointed out to you that all of your arguments held no water. Raping a cousin, or threatening a loved one, or Terez having another love made absolutely no sense in light of any of the story line. She could not have held a secret lover in a kingdom not her own, etc, etc. As for the kid example, it would completely remove Jezal's story arc. He is, at no point, an asshole. For him to have sex with a child would remove that.

Well, it's a good thing that I'm not a professional writer. Though I have no idea what you mean by 'hold a candle for this subject'. I confess, my ideas were not thought out for months and months, and it's a good chance that my fanfic of Abercrombie's lesbian characters will not get picked up by a major publisher. I am sad. I guess it's good that I can make criticisms without having to be published and sell lots of copies then, huh? What assertions did I not back up? There are two different threads about the subject and 3 spinoff threads, all of which I've been pretty active in. What precisely did I fail to assert? I said there were other ways the scene could have worked without her being a lesbian, and gave examples - and Abercrombie agreed with me. I said that it was a representation of a lesbian stereotype and backed up how, and that was also agreed on by the author. Now, if I didn't prove it 100% to your satisfaction I'm sorry, but saying I didn't do it at all? That's complete shit.

You failed to assert an argument that held water, your examples did not work, and so far as i remember at this point you did nothing to address those problems again. Cousins, male lovers, and children were options you presented but they really did not work at all. But you stuck to your guns and left it as it was.

As for Abercrombie agreeing with you, that's fine. But from what i read he didn't agree that the character should not have been a lesbian, but rather that Terez was by his own estimation a badly drawn character. Not as a lesbian, but as an irrational bitch who didn't get much screen time. That being said, his feelings on that are pretty irrelevant to the conversation at hand. Others felt it was fine, that there are people that act irrationally, and that an over priveledged princess marrying someone who is by her estimation a commoner and a bastard might act like an asshole towards him. Really no different than the typical portrayal of nobility, or the actions of their historical counterparts.

Next time, take your problems with me to PM.

I don't have a problem with you. I think your arguments from the beginning have been poor, and like a few here, completely built on a foundation of emotion. This can be evidenced by the anger being displayed in these threads. And don't make the mistake that because i swear alot in these threads that i am angry. It is nearly impossible to portray emtion through just words, the context of a person is missing. I am not angry, nor do i have a problem with you. But i do not agree with you on most any of the points you have raised.

Exactly. I have been lurking this thread, not wanting to deal with all the vitriol by some people, but I just had to quote that because it so perfectly captures my feelings on this subject. Not all criticism is equal and sometimes criticism that is completely over the top and hateful does quite a bit of harm and makes it less likely that authors in the future will want to even approach or deal with the subject. How is this even under dispute? Also it amuses me to no end that in a thread on censorship and what it is, we aren't allowed to talk about the original criticism that started the discussion.

Also, the splitting of the original thread into multiple others I think just obscures rather than helps. Maybe instead of wanting to change the subject "because they are privileged", whatever the heck that is supposed to imply, they believe in good faith the issues are tied together? Nah, can't be, it probably is because they are privileged.

My thoughts as well, especially the point about the threads being tied together.

And some of you need to get over this notion that criticism is the problem we are having. There has been no indication that there is no place for criticism. But there is bad criticism, such as that other site, and there is forced criticism that is predicated more on emotion than an actual and coherent argument.

So far as i have seen, Shryke and Callan and othes are not the ones losing their shit.

[Sci-2]

So we have some good rules:

Little Valkyrie noted that a person should display some facility for the genre. I also agree, and I also like to see critics having a larger reading pool beyond genre works. A lot of times I've been surprised when an author lifted ideas or even plot arcs from other works outside SFF or comics.

Callan mentioned considering, as a mental exercise, a cost function to your words. I think this is interesting, and it does speak to the fact that I do agree free speech + Internet has allowed people to think of opinion as having the same level of "truthiness" as actual, verifiable fact.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Arthmail,

I'm supporting the rights of critics to criticise, even if I disagree with the crticism, am I "losing my shit?"

[sologdin]

not the ones losing their shit.

not seeing anyone becoming manifestly angry, except for whoever it was that had the fuck you kalbear meltdown a few threads back.

[Sci-2]

Sorta related, Google's policy on Underage Accounts.

ETA: I think of the most interesting questions is how to handle criticism where disagreement is rampant. Callan makes a good suggestion with 'My reaction to the text was' but the challenge to that is if you feel that something is problematic in an objective sense you're not likely to want to diffuse your words that way as it then becomes a suggestion of aesthetics rather than a moral objection.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Sciborg,

The problem is that, to one degree or another, everything is subjective.

[Sci-2]

Oh yeah, I agree. I'm more curious on people's personal code. Admittedly I find myself often just saying "Wow, this book sucked" without giving enough context or examples. I also try to read (edit: at least) one good Amazon review and one bad one before I decide not to buy a book, but of course by then I am following an author that's been recommend or I've been drawn in by a cover I like.

[Verboten]

Sciborg,

The problem is that, to one degree or another, everything is subjective.

Yes but some things, such as Dany's 'white saviour of the barbaric brown mongol horde' and the complete and total exclusion of coloured people within Westeros (except for possibly the Dornish, I am becoming increasingly convinced that the mountains are also a supernatural barrier that seperates Anglo-Saxon land from the Hispanics, there is no in-between) are almost guaranteed to offend some and make others uneasy, and they will have very good reasons. I mean I can rationalize the ethnic makeup of Westeros but the over-the-top savage slaving rapist culture of the Dothraki surrounded by slavers so evil they're almost caricatures is bad enough on its own, but when you add in the unquestionably white saviour who tames the savages and decides to conquer and rule over them because her moral code is better than theirs and must be imparted through force, it brings up unpleasant reminders of colonialism and western attitudes of superiority. Should someone be offended by this and explain why they are (I actually borrowed the description of Dany from them) I'm not going to tell them that they're wrong because they aren't, the ugly stereotypes and disturbing message are still there, I was just incapable of seeing it until someone pointed it out to me. Just like if I find something that I think reeks of horrible gay stereotypes and sexism, I will point it out to someone else and explain why I have a problem.

In essence something may be subjective but that doesn't make it wrong. People have a right to hold their own opinions and telling someone they are wrong will not help anyone, it will just obscure attempts to highlight what was offensive about the text/show/whatever.

[Larry.]

Seems the discussion has shifted more toward the constituent parts of a "good" review. Reviewers and critics (the two are akin to rectangles and squares) take a variety of approaches to examining and discussing the merits and deficiencies of books. Sometimes, the personal "I" marches in to give a stronger, person-specific reaction to elements of the story (such as the just-posted bit about the problematic feature in SOIAF of racial analogues doing stereotypical behavior), while others may tact more toward a broader, less directly personal approach (although I use "I" on occasion in my reviews, I prefer the latter method).

For sake of illustration, I re-read a few of the reviews I've written this year of works that I loved, had mixed-to-positive, mixed, and mixed-to-negative commentaries. The approaches vary to some extent:

There is No Year (Blake Butler)

Stories for Nighttime and Some for the Day (Ben Loory)

Embassytown (China Miéville)

Child of God (Cormac McCarthy)

Each book is considerably different from the others (the Loory is a collection). For the Butler, the review focuses on relating the strangeness, the weirdness of the fractured narrative and how adroitly (at least to me) Butler manages to craft something that is unsettling due to its structure. Since the plot is not the main focus of the narrative, I examined what Butler appeared to be doing and how well that vision was realized in the finished narrative. The Loory I mostly praise, but for a writer who is trying to catch those moments where the mundane spins on a dime and becomes something else, the structure down at the sentence level becomes a key component, so noting the sameness in several such passages is a worthy criticism, because it dampens slightly the intended effect. Sure, such could be considered "subjective," but the problem people who make the "it's all subjective" argument run into is that despite the different reactions people may have to an event, there are also more similarities to be found. If this weren't the case, then there would be no common grounds for communication of ideas, symbols, or expressions.

The Miéville review I link to provide evidence of a reviewer taking his previous experience and field awareness into account when reviewing the efficacy of a novelist attempting to explore these ideas. It is a decidedly mixed-to-negative review because the focus of the review is on the mechanics of the novel's central conceit, that of the language construction of the aliens there.

The McCarthy review I think is the one that deserves some discussion in debate threads such as this and the Rape/Violence thread. It is a very "dark" novel (the quoted passages are representative of the novel as a whole). Lester Ballard is not a "likeable" protagonist; his actions are worse than most being discussed in these interminable threads lately. Yet what makes the McCarthy a notable novel in comparison to the "gritty fantasies" is how the violence is portrayed in its effects on the protagonist. For some, the horror may some in the revulsion experienced when in a few paragraphs, Ballard's mating with the dead (sometimes murdered) girls is described. For myself, it was in the quoted passage on the dress buying, because there the dehumanization of Ballard, something largely caused by those around him who drove him away into the metaphorical and literal wilderness, is shown to be something that is as pitiable as it is revolting. McCarthy trods a very thin line there; that he manages to create something more than violence for violence's sake without showing the deleterious effects of it makes it a disturbing but yet compelling piece of literature. Ballard's misogyny (and general misanthropy) is not revealed through cheap scenes that merely shock readers; instead, McCarthy goes deeper to turn that narrative mirror on readers and force them to see just how depraved we can be to one another. A fine distinction, yes, but one that has to be made.

Now in critiquing these works, it does behoove the erstwhile reviewer/critic to engage in more than just surface, volatile reactions. It would be best if said reviewer/critic did have a general grounding in the field being discussed (as then s/he would have more to discuss at a greater depth than just "the plot was slow, the pacing was odd, and the characterizations were confusing"), but being able to be reflective is a major plus in the field. After all, when I essay to compose a review essay (the wordplay is intentional), what I attempt to do is create something that goes beyond a personal, subjective experience to become a part of a wide-spanning conversation that would allow readers to consider (and possibly reject, question, or add to) what was said and to respond in their own fashion. Doing such is the farthest thing from coercive control of textual examination.

[Kalbear]

Because this topic is tied in so intricately with the last, it is dishonest to try and seperate them but still continue as if there had not been some sort of organic flow to the entire thing.

You could have easily brought up the issues you had with my analysis about the rape in the actual rape thread instead of a topic about censorship. Since you hadn't participated in this thread until this point and we hadn't been talking about that at all until you brought it up again, the notion that it was organic to bring it up here makes no sense at all.

Sorry, i probably should have said double standard over flip flop, i had a headache at the time, which is no excuse. I see, as i have mentioned before, no distinction between rape of a woman or the rape of a homosexual woman. None. There were a number of people that pointed out to you that all of your arguments held no water. Raping a cousin, or threatening a loved one, or Terez having another love made absolutely no sense in light of any of the story line. She could not have held a secret lover in a kingdom not her own, etc, etc. As for the kid example, it would completely remove Jezal's story arc. He is, at no point, an asshole. For him to have sex with a child would remove that.

And I addressed those things too, but at the end of the day it doesn't matter because we simply disagreed. For as many people who indicated I didn't hold any water with my arguments, many others did. And ultimately it came down to me not coming up with an idea that they liked more. That's not a big deal to me, and it's certainly not a sign that I didn't address the points. I just didn't agree with them.

I'm glad you don't see any distinction between the rape of a woman or a rape of a lesbian. That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It just means you're ignorant of the meaning.

You failed to assert an argument that held water, your examples did not work, and so far as i remember at this point you did nothing to address those problems again. Cousins, male lovers, and children were options you presented but they really did not work at all. But you stuck to your guns and left it as it was.

Yep. Again, that's called not agreeing with you. Others agreed with me. It's a shame you ignore all of them as well. And I did address them for multiple pages until it was obvious that there was no convincing anyone and I was not having a conversation because of selective reading - exactly like what you've been doing - so I stopped bothering to do so. especially when Abercrombie agreed with me.

As for Abercrombie agreeing with you, that's fine. But from what i read he didn't agree that the character should not have been a lesbian, but rather that Terez was by his own estimation a badly drawn character. Not as a lesbian, but as an irrational bitch who didn't get much screen time. That being said, his feelings on that are pretty irrelevant to the conversation at hand. Others felt it was fine, that there are people that act irrationally, and that an over priveledged princess marrying someone who is by her estimation a commoner and a bastard might act like an asshole towards him. Really no different than the typical portrayal of nobility, or the actions of their historical counterparts.

I started arguing that it was a problematiic portrayal because Terez was a one note character whose primary definition was that she was a lesbian and then he tied into that stereotypes that were problematic. One of the solutions I suggested was that she would not be a lesbian. Another one early on was that she be a better-written character. (people argued that she was awesomely written, which is funny now).

To me, the only relevant person that I could convince is Abercrombie. He's certainly more relevant than you are on the subject, unless you end up being a widely-read author that puts misogyny and racism into your text and calls it edgy.

I don't have a problem with you. I think your arguments from the beginning have been poor, and like a few here, completely built on a foundation of emotion. This can be evidenced by the anger being displayed in these threads. And don't make the mistake that because i swear alot in these threads that i am angry. It is nearly impossible to portray emtion through just words, the context of a person is missing. I am not angry, nor do i have a problem with you. But i do not agree with you on most any of the points you have raised.

Okay, then why not do the same to me? I like how you assume I'm angry with you because of my tone (and TP is angry because of his) but I shouldn't assume that of you. What complete shit that is.

And some of you need to get over this notion that criticism is the problem we are having. There has been no indication that there is no place for criticism. But there is bad criticism, such as that other site, and there is forced criticism that is predicated more on emotion than an actual and coherent argument.

When you make that coherent argument, could you let us know? Because so far you've said that I flip flopped when you didn't mean to, you said that my assertions were unchallenged when you really meant that the rebuttals against my arguments were unanswered, and you've been all around the world in using language that doesn't mean what you think it means while adding a nice sprinkling of fucks and shits in there.

If you've been arguing that bad criticism can damage a work, so be it. That wasn't what Richard stated or what Contrarius stated. If you thought that's what they meant, good on you, but they weren't arguing that for pages and pages. they were arguing that criticism - of any kind - can be censorship regardless of its validity.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Verboten,

My point is not that subjectivity means opinions are "wrong" just that they are subjective and necessarily filtered through individual's personal experiences.

[Kalbear]

Yes, and that's a good thing Scott. It means that we can figure out if that reviewer is more or less likely to jive with our own values and interests and if we'll enjoy it or not. If Glenn Beck tells me that a book is shitty because it's full of left-wing idealism, chances are I'll not be too swayed by his review.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Kalbear,

Good point.

[Little Valkyrie]

Yes, and that's a good thing Scott. It means that we can figure out if that reviewer is more or less likely to jive with our own values and interests and if we'll enjoy it or not. If Glenn Beck tells me that a book is shitty because it's full of left-wing idealism, chances are I'll not be too swayed by his review.

Definitely another addition to make to the criticism pile: as a critic, be upfront about your positions, your goals, your aims. Everyone has a worldview, and discussions always go smoother when objectives are laid out, such as whether the critic is interested in persuasion or is just personally venting.

There's an interesting and influential article by Janet Levy entitled "Covert and Casual Values in Recent Writings About Music" (1987; it's on JSTOR, if you want to read it drop me a line and I'll do some minor copyright violation for the sake of sharing knowledge) where she unpacks the values inherent in common musical analytical language. A lot of it is also applicable to literature: 'organic', 'connected', and a whole host of other words. Recognizing that they're not neutral and they have the weight of a particular aesthetics attached to them helps a critic go a long way in reaching an audience.

As a critic, I want to persuade other people to read the text in the way that I did. Examples help a lot, trying to lead the reader through the story of what this text and my reactions to it ended up combining into.

Now, is anyone up for a discussion of the depiction vs. endorsement showdown, and how critics frame things as being inherent in a text and the responsibility of an author vs. one possible reading? :)

ETA: I think Larry has made a very good go at depiction vs. endorsement in his discussion of the Cormac McCarthy passage. That level of detail makes his perspective understandable, on such a delicate question where individual taste is very influential.

ETA2: Can bad criticism hurt a work? I think it can spread misleading secondhand memes about works, which can be annoying when it's not clear, for instance, that one person has read the work in question and another person hasn't but won't because of said criticism. Polite disengagement is the only option then, I think.

[Kalbear]

ETA2: Can bad criticism hurt a work? I think it can spread misleading secondhand memes about works, which can be annoying when it's not clear, for instance, that one person has read the work in question and another person hasn't but won't because of said criticism. Polite disengagement is the only option then, I think.

Sure, it can. I don't think that's a reason not to criticize though. It's a reason to take criticism with a reasonable grain of salt and be a thoughtful customer, because humans do make mistakes. The loss of criticism - badly formed or not - is worse than the loss of sales for a given author.

[Sci-2]

After all, when I essay to compose a review essay (the wordplay is intentional), what I attempt to do is create something that goes beyond a personal, subjective experience to become a part of a wide-spanning conversation that would allow readers to consider (and possibly reject, question, or add to) what was said and to respond in their own fashion. Doing such is the farthest thing from coercive control of textual examination.

I think this is something that is important.

I do recognize Callan's point that one can form a tribal mentality with regards to works, how many of us will slog through something we feel is bad because we're "supposed" to like while reading one paragraph of, say, Twilight and then gleefully announcing how we are so *in* because we gave up earlier than others? How much worse if we decide we won't be reading the "sexist" book?

At the same time, a lot of times a conversation does need to be had, especially as we as a society move toward tackling prejudice that occurs in things less overt that outright bigotry. Books written from a prejudiced POV are, as Larry points, important because I think we all harbor prejudices that we need to excise.

Perhaps the challenge is the critic realizing they are having a reaction to a book and the author realizing that reactions do need to be considered and not dismissed out of hand. Of course, in such a dialogue a critic has to give the author something work with.

Meh, I feel like I'm repeating what y'all said better before me so I'll stop.

ETA: Larry, I was wondering if you could clarify this:

Reviewers and critics (the two are akin to rectangles and squares)

Color me interested.

[Arthmail]

Arthmail,

I'm supporting the rights of critics to criticise, even if I disagree with the crticism, am I "losing my shit?"

Have i addressed or mentioned you at any point in this thread? Kalbear has gotten upset, for which Shryke has mentioned and called him out, and Terra Prime...though now there are so many threads going on that i'm starting to lose track for lack of caring.

[Kalbear]

Arthmail, I think that you're getting too upset and emotional to continue. You're clearly seeing things that aren't there and just getting worked up. Maybe you should relax a bit.

(is that how to do the dismissal based on tone argument?)

[Sci-2]

(is that how to do the dismissal based on tone argument?)

heh, that sounds about right.

ETA: In case it isn't clear, Kalbear was ribbing me rather than mocking someone else. We seem to be moving in an interesting direction on criticism and don't want to derail.

[The Kassi (mark two)]

This is a cop out answer, indeed? And what am I supposed to do in terms of that phrase - start towing the line?

No, I would say you should endeavor to being accurate. A person is not ostracized by a minor and temporary loss of face. Expressing a negative impression isn't censorship. Heck, the definition of censorship you are advancing defines a form of expression as censorship. Any persuasive discussion is censorship, regardless of the method, as it endeavors to alter opinions, which means some viewpoint is being suppressed.

I do not think, by your definition, it is possible for a form of expression to exist without being tied to the term censorship, which kind of makes the term censorship superfluous.