Unintentional Prejudice in Fiction

[Mark_Lawrence]

I get that. I'm not stupid and you've been very clear across two threads.

What I'm saying is I'd struggle to be convinced by a POV that went against everything I knew about people and their actions ( and in this example, in my experience, a rational mind rarely carries out such an act. They might feel rational - an outside observer rarely feels it is, IN MY EXPERIENCE.) If unconvinced I'd suspect the author was leading it and not the pov.
I hope that's clear enough: the pov isn't the problem if I believe it, but it is if I don't.

Anyway, I don't intend to get into a tit-for-tat about it. I've said my (valid) thoughts about the thread's premise.

Well of course the author is leading it. But ascribing the views of the PoV to the author just because the PoV is 'unconvincing' (which seems synonymous with 'badly written') does not seem reasonable behaviour to me.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Well of course the author is leading it. But ascribing the views of the PoV to the author just because the PoV is 'unconvincing' (which seems synonymous with 'badly written') does not seem reasonable behaviour to me.

And a reader should be reasonable? Don't we bring our own agenda to reading a book as much as the author does, even if we don't know it?

Bowing out now.

 

[Mark_Lawrence]

And a reader should be reasonable? Don't we bring our own agenda to reading a book as much as the author does, even if we don't know it?

Bowing out now.

I would hope someone defending a point of view might at least try to be reasonable, or admitting to their own lack of reason might cede the other party's case. But if bowing out works for you ... go to it.

 

[TheDustyZebra]

Related question:

What happens when an author says something in public that you feel is highly prejudicial, but it's not in his/her books? Does that recontextualize the books for you, or is art separable from life?

This is something I've found perplexing in the Ender's Game controversy. To me, it makes absolutely no difference what an author or director thinks about anything that isn't in the book or the movie. I couldn't possibly be bothered to try and find out everything a person believes, just to be sure that they agreed with me in totality before I would read their books or see their movies. And, assuming that I did in fact have the time and inclination to do that, it would immediately cut me off from all books and movies in perpetuity, because nobody believes exactly the way anyone else does on everything. It's simply impossible.

I don't limit myself to reading only books that I agree with, so I certainly couldn't limit myself to reading only books by people I agree with, and especially not if it included eliminating their books that don't even contain any of the things I don't agree with.

 

[Kissmequick]

I would hope someone defending a point of view might at least try to be reasonable, or admitting to their own lack of reason might cede the other party's case. But if bowing out works for you ... go to it.

Or mayhap if you didn't go for the jugular and were more reasonable yourself....


I'm sorry, it's late and I'm tired and the clock is set to go off at 4am. But you go for the jugular when people state their own valid and perfectly reasonable opinions instead of discussing in a reasonable manner, and then, when they've had enough, berate them for not wanting to engage you further because you just browbeat them down. And who likes that? Hitting people over the head with your opinion is NOT discussion.

You might want to reconsider that as a social technique.Because frankly, it's not working.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

This is something I've found perplexing in the Ender's Game controversy. To me, it makes absolutely no difference what an author or director thinks about anything that isn't in the book or the movie. I couldn't possibly be bothered to try and find out everything a person believes, just to be sure that they agreed with me in totality before I would read their books or see their movies. And, assuming that I did in fact have the time and inclination to do that, it would immediately cut me off from all books and movies in perpetuity, because nobody believes exactly the way anyone else does on everything. It's simply impossible.

I don't limit myself to reading only books that I agree with, so I certainly couldn't limit myself to reading only books by people I agree with, and especially not if it included eliminating their books that don't even contain any of the things I don't agree with.

I agree with you, TDZ. With Card, some of his work is definitely carrying a Mormon agenda - The Folk of the Fringe, for instance - and he clearly stated it, there. I still read Card, I love his stuff, I find his characters very real. I don't like his views but that's true of other authors I could name. I don't ascribe my liking of his work to my supporting of his views.

Mark, I'm not a fan of circular arguments, and I've said all I really want to say on the matter. My PM/email inbox indicates pretty strongly my view was clear to others, and I'd prefer to leave it at that.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Well, there you and I fundamentally diverge. I would never assume an author was advocating psycho murder just because all the characters in a book did.

Neither would I assume that, Mark, and it's not what I said.

But I assume, since you quoted what I did say, you know that already.

There seems to be an intention on your part to take issue with everything I say ... even if I didn't say it.

So I am going to bow out of the conversation, too. Why waste my time writing my own comments when you feel capable of writing them for me?

 

[Nerds_feather]

This is something I've found perplexing in the Ender's Game controversy. To me, it makes absolutely no difference what an author or director thinks about anything that isn't in the book or the movie. I couldn't possibly be bothered to try and find out everything a person believes, just to be sure that they agreed with me in totality before I would read their books or see their movies. And, assuming that I did in fact have the time and inclination to do that, it would immediately cut me off from all books and movies in perpetuity, because nobody believes exactly the way anyone else does on everything. It's simply impossible.

I don't limit myself to reading only books that I agree with, so I certainly couldn't limit myself to reading only books by people I agree with, and especially not if it included eliminating their books that don't even contain any of the things I don't agree with.

I'm glad you brought this up. I'm going to just speak for myself here, and not claim that others should feel the same way...actually, we did a thing at the blog before the film came out and, as you can see, we voiced quite different opinions on the topic.

But as far as I'm concerned, I have not and have no intention of ever seeing the Ender's Game film. I do not to give my money to someone who become a spokesperson, patron and fundraiser for the movement to keep a class of citizens from enjoying the same legal rights as everyone else.

While I do not really care for the Ender novels, if I did, then I would not judge them by the views Card now publicly espouses. They were written quite a while ago and, if anything, seem to espouses the opposite values. I'd probably still refrain from purchasing them, but I'd judge them on other criteria.

 

[Nerds_feather]

Oh, crikey, this hits all sorts of levels. In Victorian Britain, there was the argument that the English were the "13th tribe of Israel", hence "explaining" British political superiority around the globe as ordained by the Christian god.

Then there was the rationalism of science with Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, first postulating the useful of eugenics, that the National Socialists of Germany would later use.

Another inspiration for the Nazis came from occult theories, not least from Madame Blatvatsky, who founded the Theosophy movement, which sought to describe humanity in terms of "races", and decided that the Jewish "race" didn't fit anywhere, while lauding the ethnic superiority of the blond-hair+blue-eyed phenotypes.

The pseudosciences of the 19th century and early 20th are quite fascinating, if often deeply disturbing. And you're right--they are all linked.

 

[Mark_Lawrence]

Or mayhap if you didn't go for the jugular and were more reasonable yourself....


I'm sorry, it's late and I'm tired and the clock is set to go off at 4am. But you go for the jugular when people state their own valid and perfectly reasonable opinions instead of discussing in a reasonable manner, and then, when they've had enough, berate them for not wanting to engage you further because you just browbeat them down. And who likes that? Hitting people over the head with your opinion is NOT discussion.

You might want to reconsider that as a social technique.Because frankly, it's not working.

If 'going for the jugular' means pointing out the logical inconsistencies in what they're saying then it's a method I choose to stick with.

Social technique? Sorry? You think I'm here to make friends?

 

[Mark_Lawrence]

Mark, I'm not a fan of circular arguments, and I've said all I really want to say on the matter. My PM/email inbox indicates pretty strongly my view was clear to others, and I'd prefer to leave it at that.

And yet here you are again, replying to me, and now with 'other people think I'm right ... so I must be' ... hmmm.

 

[Mark_Lawrence]

Neither would I assume that, Mark, and it's not what I said.

But I assume, since you quoted what I did say, you know that already.

There seems to be an intention on your part to take issue with everything I say ... even if I didn't say it.

So I am going to bow out of the conversation, too. Why waste my time writing my own comments when you feel capable of writing them for me?

You took what I said, changed it into something else and then disagreed with it. I took your disagreement, focused it back on what I did say, and then asked you if it still stood.

I don't have an intention to take issue with everything you say - just the things I don't agree with. I don't agree with your stated views on projecting characters' opinions onto the author. You seem over keen to do it rather than take the sensible default that it's a story and the views are given to the characters to make it interesting/exciting.

 

[Mark_Lawrence]

There really do seem to be a lot of delicate sensibilities on here tonight.

Tell you what. If three people don't pipe up to the effect that they value my contributions on this board - I'll never post here again. It's no skin off my nose.

I don't have any great expectations of a wave of approval, I'm packing my backs already. No drama. I'm just not prepared to change my style and not that bothered about moving on.

Not a problem.

 

[Phyrebrat]

My work involves working with challenging racism and I work almost exclusively with children of Afro-Caribbean heritage in London.

This is a thread in which I would have loved to contribute and enjoyed the interrogation of the initial stimulus in the spirit that I believe Nerds Feather had intended.

However, the hostile and mean-spirited way it is going, along with the disingenuous co-opting of 'this is just my opinion' has scared me off.

Perhaps if it becomes less hostile, I'll voice my take on the subject.

This is a side of Chrons I've not seen until today.

pH

 

[J-Sun]

In the US, though, the word has no negative connotations, and would be purely descriptive of a certain shade of red in the works of an American author (who would probably have no idea that there is prejudice against redheads in the UK, and would be utterly baffled by it if they did know).

I'll agree that "ginger" is a UKism that has no real meaning in the US other than as a shade of reddish color but a prejudice against red haired people is not UK/Anglo-Saxon-specific or baffling to many Americans.

Red-headed stepchild
Origin of “Red-Haired Stepchild”

 

[J-Sun]

However, the hostile and mean-spirited way it is going, along with the disingenuous co-opting of 'this is just my opinion' has scared me off.

Perhaps if it becomes less hostile, I'll voice my take on the subject.

This is a side of Chrons I've not seen until today.

That's the way these threads go. No surprise to me and I have seen it before, many times.

(Which, BTW, is why I wasn't going to post, but the red-haired tangent struck me as peculiar - it's very common phrase (at least in my neck of the woods) portraying a very common attitude (everywhere).)

 

[Nerds_feather]

I'll agree that "ginger" is a UKism that has no real meaning in the US other than as a shade of reddish color but a prejudice against red haired people is not UK/Anglo-Saxon-specific or baffling to many Americans.

Red-headed stepchild
Origin of “Red-Haired Stepchild”

Yeah, there's definitely a history there (as the article notes, deeply intertwined with anti-Irish sentiment, which was quite strong in the 19th century).

But I don't think this has remained socially relevant here the way it has in the UK. I'm guessing most Americans either heard the phrase "red-headed stepchild," or at the least would have no clue what it's supposed to mean.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

My work involves working with challenging racism and I work almost exclusively with children of Afro-Caribbean heritage in London.

This is a thread in which I would have loved to contribute and enjoyed the interrogation of the initial stimulus in the spirit that I believe Nerds Feather had intended.

However, the hostile and mean-spirited way it is going, along with the disingenuous co-opting of 'this is just my opinion' has scared me off.

Perhaps if it becomes less hostile, I'll voice my take on the subject.

This is a side of Chrons I've not seen until today.

pH

Me neither, Phrye. I hope it's one that ends, I don't like feeling uncomfortable posting on the Chrons, and I never have before. Contrary to my (perhaps?) mouthiness, I'm pretty uncomfortable with confrontation, especially online, and seek to avoid it when I can.

 

[J-Sun]

Yeah, there's definitely a history there (as the article notes, deeply intertwined with anti-Irish sentiment, which was quite strong in the 19th century).

But I don't think this has remained socially relevant here the way it has in the UK. I'm guessing most Americans either heard the phrase "red-headed stepchild," or at the least would have no clue what it's supposed to mean.

I have no idea of the intensity in the UK but I suspect you're right that it's much more intense there and mostly a lingering linguistic artifact here, but it's still got some reality to it. There are still "drunk mick cops" and such portrayed in unflattering ways and, however diverse and intermixed the US is, there's still vestiges of the Anglo-Saxon/Celtic divide.

 

[Nerds_feather]

I have no idea of the intensity in the UK but I suspect you're right that it's much more intense there and mostly a lingering linguistic artifact here, but it's still got some reality to it. There are still "drunk mick cops" and such portrayed in unflattering ways and, however diverse and intermixed the US is, there's still vestiges of the Anglo-Saxon/Celtic divide.

Yeah, though probably also very localized. (I doubt if anyone in LA has any clue who is Irish or not.)