Unintentional Prejudice in Fiction

[Ice fyre]

I have read some authors who's work has made me question their beliefs, it hasnt stopped me reading their work, just makes me wince when they insert a political point into their work which I disagree with.

Recently I read a fantasy book in which one of the main protagisnsts was gay, it didnt bother him all that much, didnt bother me all that much. If someones writing style bothers you, just put the book down and go read something else.

If an author makes derogatory comments, then to me thats different. Free speech works both ways, you can say what you like but you have to be prepared for criticism. The right to reply is fundamental in free speech. As someone once said I dont like what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

I'm not going to accuse anyone of being racist or homophobic, it's up to you to decide if you are or not. If you hate some one for some percived flaw then the only one losing out is you, no one else.

As to Larry Niven, his work is funny and quirky, there are no assupmtions about race from what I saw, the ringworld series more or less says by the time the books is set race is irrelvant as everyone is a sorta similar skin tone.

I loved maps in the mirror by Orson Scott Card, they were different to almost all the fantasy I have read, his views on homosexuality are in line with his religon which I disagree with.

I really dont care if you are Black, red, green, blue be nice to me I'll be nice to you. Simples! Now can we keep the screaming matches down kiddies I have headache....

This forum is about fun, not hitting each other over the head with our opnions. If we were a bit more polite to one another life would be nicer. This applies to all walks of life, and forum life.

 

[Brian G Turner]

This discussion had the unfortunate problem of digressing into an area Mark might be sensitive about.

After all, in the thread An Astonishing Essay on Prince of Thorns the original article linked to directly accused Mark Lawrence of being Jorg. The distinction between author and character POV was ignored, and its a criticism that I suspect has been bandied about for a few years.

But this wasn't a discussion about him personally, or his work, and it didn't accuse him of anything.

IMO this is a classic case of wires being crossed. But that's the internet for you.

These discussions end up dominated by White Knights, people who take offense on behalf of others, who want to be more pious than the pope. People who will find any and every possible offense in even the most innocent piece. Approach everything with extreme confirmation bias and then report your findings to the public, and being a white knight, those findings will always be the same: "this is racist, this is sexist, this is some other ism that pretty much only exists online and on tumblr."

Eventually the people who don't want to play the game, or go to the extremist views expressed by White Knights and professional offense-takers, get driven out, or chased away, and what you're left with is an echo-chamber. An echo-chamber filled with people who get angrier and angrier, and see more and more problems with the world, to the point where they will end up eating each other over minor stuff. People just lose all sense of perspective in their quest to produce -rather demand- something that isn't "problematic", because there is nothing that could possibly meet all the demands set forth.

Spooky, truly spooky. You're not writing, by any chance?

 

[Mirannan]

Yes, definitely intentional. He was genuinely horrified by the idea that black and white people might procreate. But my point of bringing him up was just to say we shouldn't ignore the possibility something does, in fact, reflect racist views.

But again, I tend to think most prejudice or problematic depictions that make their way into fiction are unintentional.

I think that regretting the loss of racial diversity is a legitimate point of view, whether one agrees with it or not.

However, another thread about procreation in general, in Lovecraft's works, is his emphasis on inbreeding as a way of producing people who are distinctly inferior. Which happens, at least in the genetic sense, to be true. People from cultures or groups in which ingroup marriages (first cousins, for example) are common have a far higher likelihood of genetic defects. I won't mention which cultures are included in this list, for fear of being accused of racism.

And it has nothing to do with social class; the royal families of Europe have this problem.

Breeding between close relatives is a good way of improving genetic stock, actually - but only if one is allowed to cull the defectives, not (hopefully!) an option with people.

 

[Ursa major]

I'm no geneticist, but I can't help thinking that opposing mixed marriages hasn't much to do with discouraging inbreeding.

 

[Toby Frost]

I don't have anything really to add to this discussion except "Just Write A Good Book".

However, End of Time makes a good point about the way this kind of thing works on the Internet, and if the option existed, I'd give EoT's post a "like". Sensible discussions often get hijacked by zealots and people condoning crazy talk by saying that it's "raised our awareness". A sort of arms race of self-righteousness then occurs, and nothing improves.

Anyhow, write well and edit better. That should cover it.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

Kinda a vicious and virtuous circle at the same time.

 

[Coolhand]

Kinda a vicious and virtuous circle at the same time.

I think that's a very succinct and accurate way of putting it.

 

[Kissmequick]

Intentional and unintentional -- I think there's a case to be had that authors often use both.

In Fade to Black, my MC is, hmm, not a misogynist because he doesn't hate women, but he's certainly not the most enlightened guy around. This was intentional -- I wanted to have a bit of subtle fun with his character arc as he bumps up against the notion that he's a neanderthal, and I made absolutely sure he never benefited from it (all the women in the book either hate him or laugh at him). And 2/3 of the way through book one, he does have the first epiphany -- he realises that he's not much different to the Bad Dude except in a matter of degree. And (minor spoilers whited out) I gendeflipped the whole "Man must get revenge for the rape of his woman" by having the woman's motivation be the revenge of the rape of her guy, at least partly. However, I never made that rape explicit, sooo...

But there were a couple of things that were unintentional as well, and I was called on them. Quite rightly. But how is the reviewer to know which were intentional and which were not? They can't. All they can do is break down the problems they saw. Some people got it, and some didn't and that is absolutely natural - because we ALL bring our experiences and expectations to the book. But none of the professional reviewers said that I was a misogynist (one or two regular readers did, but I don't expect the same professionalism tbh). They said the book had these problems, to them. And that is not, nor ever will be, the same as an attack on me (even if it stings like jimmeny)

What the author intended is almost irrelevant. If the majority of people read a book and get Impression A, then that is what counts (I'm discounting people who have a knee jerk reaction to X, or who are very extreme in their views one way or another. The majority, the regular reader). It could be the author didn't write it well enough, or failed to see an implication that most of us would spot or...

In one book, you know what? Fair enough. If it's across a body of work (John Norman, I'm looking at you) then is it any wonder when people start to wonder? Human nature.

And for the rest -- there's a fine line to walk between writing what you want, and having your audience in mind. If I wanted to write a book glorifying racism, well then, I can. No one is going to stop me. But I shouldn't then be surprised if I or my work gets called racist. You can't have it both ways. And some authors are racist, and some of those authors do write racist books. And I have every right to call them on it if they do. And they have the right to defend themselves.

A book is a contract between author and reader. They both get to have input. The author is not God. In fact, once the book is published, the author is dead and so are their intentions. All that matters are the words on the page, not the words they meant to write.

 

[Randy M.]

Intentional and unintentional -- I think there's a case to be had that authors often use both.

[...]
What the author intended is almost irrelevant. If the majority of people read a book and get Impression A, then that is what counts (I'm discounting people who have a knee jerk reaction to X, or who are very extreme in their views one way or another. The majority, the regular reader). It could be the author didn't write it well enough, or failed to see an implication that most of us would spot or...

In one book, you know what? Fair enough. If it's across a body of work (John Norman, I'm looking at you) then is it any wonder when people start to wonder? Human nature.

And for the rest -- there's a fine line to walk between writing what you want, and having your audience in mind. If I wanted to write a book glorifying racism, well then, I can. No one is going to stop me. But I shouldn't then be surprised if I or my work gets called racist. You can't have it both ways. And some authors are racist, and some of those authors do write racist books. And I have every right to call them on it if they do. And they have the right to defend themselves.

A book is a contract between author and reader. They both get to have input. The author is not God. In fact, once the book is published, the author is dead and so are their intentions. All that matters are the words on the page, not the words they meant to write.

I don't know whether to be frustrated or relieved. Twice today on different threads I've found someone saying what I was trying to say only better.

Anyway, just to offer up an example: A woman I know who loves sf/f/h and is an irregular but, I feel, perceptive reviewer once told me Fritz Leiber's work was sexist. At the time, I hadn't read much of his work in years and I was skeptical from my memory of it. But I've been sporadically re/reading his work over the last few years and I think she could make the case if she choose. But let's be clear, to me it looks like a relatively mild sexism, the kind that patronizes rather than declares a war between the sexes. Possibly that's my bias and another reader would view it as more pernicious.

And, again, that's where review, critique, criticism and general discussion come into play. Fiction, to me, is just another form of the long discussion humanity has with itself about what it is to be human. Discussion about that discussion is generally healthy.


Randy M.

 

[Nerds_feather]

Free speech works both ways, you can say what you like but you have to be prepared for criticism. The right to reply is fundamental in free speech.

This is a major tangent, but YES.

There are a subset of people who seem to think free speech covers the right to offend but not the right to express that you are offended by it. (Yet, somehow, it does cover the right to express that you are scandalized by the expression of being offended?)

Free speech is a legal right, which means one will face no legal penalties for speech. It does not mean one is free of social consequences of speech or free from the possibility of censure in private forums.

One is still responsible for what one says, and how one says it.

 

[Nerds_feather]

I think that regretting the loss of racial diversity is a legitimate point of view, whether one agrees with it or not.

Er...think it's a bit more than that. Take, for example:

"Of the complete biological inferiority of the negro there can be no question he has anatomical features consistently varying from those of other stocks, and always in the direction of the lower primates... Equally inferior and perhaps even more so is the Australian black stock, which differs widely from the real negro. In dealing with these two black races, there is only one sound attitude for any other race (be it white, Indian, Malay, Polynesian, or Mongolian) to take and that is to prevent admixture as completely and determinedly as it can be prevented, through the establishment of a colour line and the rigid forcing of all mixed offspring below that line."

Or

"Therefore it is wise to discourage all mixtures of sharply differentiated races - though the color line does not need to be drawn as strictly as in the case of the negro, since we know that a dash or two of Mongolian or Indian or Hindoo or some such blood will not actually injure a white stock biologically."

Or

The only thing that makes life endurable where Blacks abound is the Jim Crow principle, and I wish they'd apply it in New York both to N**gers and to the more Asiatic types of puffy, ratfaced Jews!"

 

[Nerds_feather]

I'm no geneticist, but I can't help thinking that opposing mixed marriages hasn't much to do with discouraging inbreeding.

You might even argue that interracial coupling is the opposite of in-breeding.

 

[Toby Frost]

Off topic, and I did promise not to go back to this, but...

Why are all abstract "theory" critics French?

 

[Kissmequick]

Something to do with coffee, wine and cigarettes most likely

 

[Nerds_feather]

This discussion had the unfortunate problem of digressing into an area Mark might be sensitive about.

After all, in the thread An Astonishing Essay on Prince of Thorns the original article linked to directly accused Mark Lawrence of being Jorg. The distinction between author and character POV was ignored, and its a criticism that I suspect has been bandied about for a few years.

But this wasn't a discussion about him personally, or his work, and it didn't accuse him of anything.

I've avoid the meta-discussion up to now, but I want to point out that this was in fact written in the original post:

So the general question is, how do we deal with unintentional prejudice in SF/F--as authors, critics and readers/fans? And what other sorts of meaningful distinctions can or should we draw, e.g. the difference between an author's POV and a character's?

There are multiple, valid ways to look at this element of the overall set of issues, but I think that I was clear that I think it is meaningful to not conflate a character's POV with an author's, unless you have reason to believe the character is being used as a vehicle for the author's POV.

That reason can come from external information, or from how the character is handled. It's pretty obvious, for example, that John Galt is a voicebox for Ayn Rand. But, to use an example from crime fiction, it's equally obvious that Parker is not a voicebox for Richard Stark/Donald Westlake.

As far as I can tell, every single person who has weighed in on this has either said the same thing, or made the stronger statement that you cannot/should not ever conflate the two.

Crucially, not one single person has said that a character does or usually does reflect the author's POV. Let me repeat that: not one single person in this thread has made that argument.

This is why it is important to read for what's actually been written, not for what one wants to rail against.

 

[Nerds_feather]

Off topic, and I did promise not to go back to this, but...

Why are all abstract "theory" critics French?

Something to do with coffee, wine and cigarettes most likely

The structure of academic life in France, which does I believe, run on coffee, wine and cigarettes.

(Though there are more a few of these types in the US and UK as well.)

 

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

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

Then I don't think you have been in the WA threads much...

I pretty well feel the same way here. I tend to shy away from posting to threads like this one. But it isn't the first time I have seen the scales of war nearly tipped here, and unfortunately, despite the fact that Chrons is indeed the most laid back, accepting, and easygoing online communities I have been a part of, this thread will not be the last.


As far as certain things go, this brings up some thought about my own style of writing. I realize that with myself, I don't really like to portray certain...issues...that many others seem to, which is perhaps one reason my work is lacking, to be honest.

And strangely enough, I seem to be one of the few Americans who actually does feel uncomfortable with using the term "ginger." I never do use it, simply because I instinctively feel that it smacks of negative prejudice.


As far as reading other authors, it is best to keep in mind that writing reflects the feelings of the author in some form or fashion. The examples of Stephen King being brought up, for example. I suspect that he wouldn't advocate mass murder, but rather, he would be opposed. We all have our thoughts and views on all kinds of humanitarian issues. The challenge lies, I believe, in not assuming that when an author brings up situations or topics that are uncomfortable, in calling him out on advocating those negative views, but rather to question if their mindset is, indeed, the exact opposite.

 

[Coolhand]

The structure of academic life in France, which does I believe, run on coffee, wine and cigarettes.

If someone can make it run on coffee, wine and whiskey I'm moving to France

 

[ratsy]

If someone can make it run on coffee, wine and whiskey I'm moving to France

I run on 2/3 of those...must be because Canada has two official languages, one of them french

 

[Mirannan]

Er...think it's a bit more than that. Take, for example:

Or

Or

Quite. However, there are two trains of thought being conflated here. Not liking loss of racial diversity (it might be a shame if everyone looked much the same) and thinking of another race than yours as inferior. The two are not the same.

As for the thing about mixed-race couplings being the opposite of inbreeding; well, most of the racial groups are big enough for inbreeding not to be much of a problem.

Note that I said "most". A counter-example is that of Iceland, which has a potential problem with inbreeding because it has a very small population (currently about 320,000) and almost no immigration. They have dealt with this in a rather clever and totally non-judgmental way.

A central register has been set up, and is accessible by smartphone app (with appropriate privacy safeguards). It's quite common, apparently, according to a TV programme I saw recently, for two people thinking of beginning to get serious to check the degree of consanguinity to see if it's OK. It's as simple as a Bluetooth file exchange, apparently.

I believe some groups of Jews have something similar in operation; I don't know in detail how it works. I have no reason to, not being Jewish either by race or religion.