Ray McCarthy
Sentient Marmite: The Truth may make you fret.
What?
Logically then people can only then write about their own LOCAL contempory culture. It's racism.
Skinwalkers
- Thread starter psychotick
- Start date
Logically then people can only then write about their own LOCAL contempory culture. It's racism.
At the risk of opening up all the cans of all the worms... what's racist?
That doesn't follow logically from what @DG Jones said. "No reason to feel the need" does not imply a prohibition. Anyway, you can make a culture up.
Logic aside, it can seem a bit of a minefield. After all, weren't we supposed to be trying to get away from Medieval-Europe-centric fantasy? But now it seems (or can seem) that by trying to draw inspiration from elsewhere we're opening ourselves to charges of cultural appropriation. But there are plenty of posts in this thread and elsewhere that show a fairly walkable path through that "minefield". It really isn't that hard.
Not me!* In fact I got inspiration a couple of days ago for my next unwritten novel whilst on business in Ljubljana; and that's what I love about Europe - endless new places to explore and dig into, and for the most part, the locals are (in the main) only too happy to talk.
Indeed, for most sensible people that holds true. Key word being 'sensible'.
*Just being a tad flippant
psychotick
Dangerously confused
Hi DG,
Thought about your post for a bit and then started cringing uncontrollably. Can't tell if you're playing devils advocate or not. But you do realise that what you've just said amounts to, people shouldn't write about things they aren't part of. But it isn't a law - just a sort of voluntary code of practice!
My view is that this is bull. Sorry to be blunt. Yes there is plenty of European stuff writers can write about. But why should they be limited to it? Especially fiction writers where everyone who reads it understands that it is - well - fiction? Why should any writer of fiction be limited at all, in this way?
Look there are things that writers do need to do. And basically it comes down to the Hippocratic oath - first do no harm. I think writers need to be sensitive to the impacts their work can have on others. But they have to be real impacts. Just causing offence to sensitive people is not enough. And I'm struggling to find in any of the complaints about JK's work, anything that seems to amount to more than that.
Did she fail to do her research? Maybe - I don't know. But is that a reason to cry foul? No. She's writing fiction. She can do all the research she wants, understand the mythology inside out and then still write exactly the same book word for word - because it's the story she wants to tell. And that's key. Writers should be able to write about what they want to write. And if they can't well that's a denial of freedom of speech. It's censorship. It's even a form of thought control.
Was she insensitive? Possibly - again I don't know. But was she deliberately insensitive? I doubt it. She didn't go out of her way to paint a culture / mythology / religion in unflattering, misleading and insulting terms as far as I know. And can you be sensitive to every cultural nuance and still actually write anything? Grief every time you write a name - eg Greg - and paint this character in a horrible light, are you being insensitive to us Greg's of the world? And is the answer that only Greg's can write about Greg's? How about groups like the Freemasons? How many books are there out there that paint them as either silly ritual following buffoons or else as Machiavellian groups trying to take over the world? And yes this stuff is often deliberately insensitive and offensive to them. How many more are trying to make money by writing about the super secrets of the organization? Are we no longer allowed to write about them unless we ourselves are Freemasons?
Has this work caused some actual harm to the north American tribe concerned? Actually I think it's done the opposite. It's a given a great many people more interest in their culture, even if what she wrote was innacurate. Used properly that could be translated into things like tourism, research papers and greater public awareness of the culture within the dominent cultural hegemony (oh grief! All those damned sociology papers are coming back to me!). Complaining about it isn't doing that. (But again I think that some of those complaining are using it to massage their own egos and garner respect / readership for their own work. That's why they ignored all those other less well known authors who wrote about skinwalkers and just went after JK when she did exactly the same thing. And it's why they went to the press instead of to the author herself.)
To me this whole mess strikes hard at the concept of freedom of speech and freedom of expression. And I think we surrender those things at a far greater cost than we can possibly understand.
Je suis Charlie Hebdo.
Cheers, Greg.
Thought about your post for a bit and then started cringing uncontrollably. Can't tell if you're playing devils advocate or not. But you do realise that what you've just said amounts to, people shouldn't write about things they aren't part of. But it isn't a law - just a sort of voluntary code of practice!
My view is that this is bull. Sorry to be blunt. Yes there is plenty of European stuff writers can write about. But why should they be limited to it? Especially fiction writers where everyone who reads it understands that it is - well - fiction? Why should any writer of fiction be limited at all, in this way?
Look there are things that writers do need to do. And basically it comes down to the Hippocratic oath - first do no harm. I think writers need to be sensitive to the impacts their work can have on others. But they have to be real impacts. Just causing offence to sensitive people is not enough. And I'm struggling to find in any of the complaints about JK's work, anything that seems to amount to more than that.
Did she fail to do her research? Maybe - I don't know. But is that a reason to cry foul? No. She's writing fiction. She can do all the research she wants, understand the mythology inside out and then still write exactly the same book word for word - because it's the story she wants to tell. And that's key. Writers should be able to write about what they want to write. And if they can't well that's a denial of freedom of speech. It's censorship. It's even a form of thought control.
Was she insensitive? Possibly - again I don't know. But was she deliberately insensitive? I doubt it. She didn't go out of her way to paint a culture / mythology / religion in unflattering, misleading and insulting terms as far as I know. And can you be sensitive to every cultural nuance and still actually write anything? Grief every time you write a name - eg Greg - and paint this character in a horrible light, are you being insensitive to us Greg's of the world? And is the answer that only Greg's can write about Greg's? How about groups like the Freemasons? How many books are there out there that paint them as either silly ritual following buffoons or else as Machiavellian groups trying to take over the world? And yes this stuff is often deliberately insensitive and offensive to them. How many more are trying to make money by writing about the super secrets of the organization? Are we no longer allowed to write about them unless we ourselves are Freemasons?
Has this work caused some actual harm to the north American tribe concerned? Actually I think it's done the opposite. It's a given a great many people more interest in their culture, even if what she wrote was innacurate. Used properly that could be translated into things like tourism, research papers and greater public awareness of the culture within the dominent cultural hegemony (oh grief! All those damned sociology papers are coming back to me!). Complaining about it isn't doing that. (But again I think that some of those complaining are using it to massage their own egos and garner respect / readership for their own work. That's why they ignored all those other less well known authors who wrote about skinwalkers and just went after JK when she did exactly the same thing. And it's why they went to the press instead of to the author herself.)
To me this whole mess strikes hard at the concept of freedom of speech and freedom of expression. And I think we surrender those things at a far greater cost than we can possibly understand.
Je suis Charlie Hebdo.
Cheers, Greg.
It's not about whether someone intends harm, or is writing fiction. We have to be mindful of the cumulative effects of our writing fiction.
To reiterate, it's not within our ability to know or contradict if someone has been offended by something, basing it on our own standards and values, because those standards and values are particular to us. Not the aggrieved. It's also unreasonable to assume that the publicity has done them 'a bit of good' when all evidence would suggest they were quite happy with their own thing, and certainly not in need of a pseudo white saviour bringing awareness to their plight because of her perceived lack of research and/or sensitivity.
pH
To reiterate, it's not within our ability to know or contradict if someone has been offended by something, basing it on our own standards and values, because those standards and values are particular to us. Not the aggrieved. It's also unreasonable to assume that the publicity has done them 'a bit of good' when all evidence would suggest they were quite happy with their own thing, and certainly not in need of a pseudo white saviour bringing awareness to their plight because of her perceived lack of research and/or sensitivity.
pH
Before I started jumping up and down at the latest "outrage", I thought I'd ask a simple question: Is there a new J.K.Rowling book about skinwalkers? I'm not so sure that there is.
What there is, according the LA Times (the first link my search engine found), is a "four-part" story on Rowling's Pottermore website that "will provide the background for Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, the film adaptation of Rowling's "Harry Potter" prequel book, which is scheduled for release in November."
Wiki's article about the book starts by saying:
What there is, according the LA Times (the first link my search engine found), is a "four-part" story on Rowling's Pottermore website that "will provide the background for Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, the film adaptation of Rowling's "Harry Potter" prequel book, which is scheduled for release in November."
Wiki's article about the book starts by saying:
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is a 2001 book written by British author J. K. Rowling (under the pseudonym of the fictitious author Newt Scamander) about the magical creatures in the Harry Potter universe. It purports to be Harry Potter's copy of the textbook of the same name mentioned in Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (published as Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in the US), the first novel of the Harry Potter series. It includes several notes inside it supposedly handwritten by Harry, Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger, detailing their own experiences with some of the beasts described.
In a 2001 interview with publisher Scholastic, Rowling stated that she chose the subject of magical creatures because it was a fun topic for which she had already developed a lot of information in earlier books. Rowling's name does not appear on the cover of the book, the work being credited under the pseudonym "Newt Scamander", who, in the books, wrote this textbook as seen on Harry's supply list for his first year.
The book benefits the charity Comic Relief. Over 80% of the cover price of each book sold goes directly to poor children in various places around the world. According to Comic Relief, sales from this book and its companion Quidditch Through the Ages have raised over £17 million.
In a 2001 interview with publisher Scholastic, Rowling stated that she chose the subject of magical creatures because it was a fun topic for which she had already developed a lot of information in earlier books. Rowling's name does not appear on the cover of the book, the work being credited under the pseudonym "Newt Scamander", who, in the books, wrote this textbook as seen on Harry's supply list for his first year.
The book benefits the charity Comic Relief. Over 80% of the cover price of each book sold goes directly to poor children in various places around the world. According to Comic Relief, sales from this book and its companion Quidditch Through the Ages have raised over £17 million.
Ihe
Forum Revolutionary
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2015
- Messages
- 1,119
Cultural appropriation in fiction is a wild fire. If you give it wiggle room and stand to consider it, it will go out of control. Where does it stop? Next we won't be able to include any character in a story that doesn't share the author's passport; then we won't be able to include anyone we don't personally know, and your following books will be about that nosy neighbour in 2C you had as a child. Maybe we won't be able to write about war anymore, lest a veteran feels offended as well, etc. The whole thing is silly. Fiction means "made-up stories". It is implied in the name that whatever it is, it is not real, not exact, and coming out of the imagination. So any argument against it, no matter how "justified" you feel it is, will be a silly one.
I'm not a white westerner, I wasn't born "privileged", and I come from a culture with sad history. That still gives me no right to speak out against a fiction writer. I can feel offended, of course, but to attack freedom of expression for the sake of my cultural sensibilities? This freedom is the ultimate gift the whole world should share, be you Westerner, Asian, Native American, or Atlantean. This freedom is the highest achievement we should strive for, and it should trump cultural appropriation every time, no matter the argument. To be honest, it doesn't matter even if you do have a point, even if you are right and a certain writer is purposefully going after your history and sodomizing your ancestry in his/her writing. Don't you dare attack the method by which that writer was allowed to write, or you might set precedent and destroy something far greater than your little parcel of cultural pride. Native Americans can say JK is a dunce, that she is trash if they so choose, but they absolutely do not have the right to say "you cannot write about this unless it is on our terms". That is selfish and childish. Stomp that fire out right now. I'd rather have my whole heritage slurred than have a world where I can't write what I want, about who I want, whenever I want. Being silenced/controlled is worse than being disrespected, every time. And yes, respect in fiction is important, but even that needs limits, and writers should be unapologetic about venturing into the literary beyond. Political correctness is fiction's greatest enemy, one that can--and will--kill it if common sense fails. Stomp it out. All cultures belong to our world's history, and that is by everyone, for everyone--how anyone could dare think they own any part of it in exclusive fashion is insulting (I will draw the line at Martians writing about Earthling affairs. That is just plain wrong and they should be ashamed of themselves).
Complaints need to distinguish between the author and the art. And the art is pure and untouchable.
I'm not a white westerner, I wasn't born "privileged", and I come from a culture with sad history. That still gives me no right to speak out against a fiction writer. I can feel offended, of course, but to attack freedom of expression for the sake of my cultural sensibilities? This freedom is the ultimate gift the whole world should share, be you Westerner, Asian, Native American, or Atlantean. This freedom is the highest achievement we should strive for, and it should trump cultural appropriation every time, no matter the argument. To be honest, it doesn't matter even if you do have a point, even if you are right and a certain writer is purposefully going after your history and sodomizing your ancestry in his/her writing. Don't you dare attack the method by which that writer was allowed to write, or you might set precedent and destroy something far greater than your little parcel of cultural pride. Native Americans can say JK is a dunce, that she is trash if they so choose, but they absolutely do not have the right to say "you cannot write about this unless it is on our terms". That is selfish and childish. Stomp that fire out right now. I'd rather have my whole heritage slurred than have a world where I can't write what I want, about who I want, whenever I want. Being silenced/controlled is worse than being disrespected, every time. And yes, respect in fiction is important, but even that needs limits, and writers should be unapologetic about venturing into the literary beyond. Political correctness is fiction's greatest enemy, one that can--and will--kill it if common sense fails. Stomp it out. All cultures belong to our world's history, and that is by everyone, for everyone--how anyone could dare think they own any part of it in exclusive fashion is insulting (I will draw the line at Martians writing about Earthling affairs. That is just plain wrong and they should be ashamed of themselves).
Complaints need to distinguish between the author and the art. And the art is pure and untouchable.
Quite a few posters seem to be raising this issue of "permission". We can't do this, we'll only be allowed to do that.
Who's stopping you writing whatever you want?
It's as if there's a fear that a few extreme identity politics academics will be able to introduce new international laws that determine what you're allowed to write.
All we have to consider is that if our writing is called out as causing some offence, we'll have to deal with it. And that can mean ignoring it, if we've considered it and found it not worth responding to.
Is it a fear that agents and publishers will take on these new "rules" and apply them strictly? Or is it a fear of attacks by a Twitter mob? (Are any of us really expecting to get so well-known that the latter will be a consideration?) Or that it will turn the book-buying public as a whole into a bunch of hyper-critical political correctness activists? I really don't think that's a danger.
@HareBrain so long as said chippy academic generates effortless publicity for certain books, why would publishers go out of their way to shun controversy? I'm not exactly a fan but I hadn't even heard of JKR's new books until this latest reaction.
I posted elsewhere (amazing how frequently this subject pops up these days, or maybe it's a case of plus ca change...) that so long as you don't go out of your way to insult, humiliate or denigrate most readers are actually likely to be extremely forgiving, and just want to be entertained. The majority of folks don't have an axe to grind against authors/artists, but the ones that do invariably tend to have the loudest voices.
Actually, just as an addendum, I maintain that you can write in order to insult and denigrate if you like, but you'll only be marking yourself out as an ar**hole.
I posted elsewhere (amazing how frequently this subject pops up these days, or maybe it's a case of plus ca change...) that so long as you don't go out of your way to insult, humiliate or denigrate most readers are actually likely to be extremely forgiving, and just want to be entertained. The majority of folks don't have an axe to grind against authors/artists, but the ones that do invariably tend to have the loudest voices.
Actually, just as an addendum, I maintain that you can write in order to insult and denigrate if you like, but you'll only be marking yourself out as an ar**hole.
Ray McCarthy
Sentient Marmite: The Truth may make you fret.
Well, unless you are Ethnic Irish, have majority Celtic Gene, you shouldn't write about Leprechauns, St. Patrick, The Ulster Cycle, Tuatha De Dannan, Pooka, Aes Sidhe etc.
There are many diverse European traditions. There is no such thing really as a European person (that's a modern political aspiration), are we to have permission from Bavarians before we can write about mythic creatures in the Black Forest? Should Irishmen be allowed to write about Morris dancers?
Yes we should be sensitive about what people believe and not deliberately set out to create offence. We aren't writing documentaries, but fiction. The very idea we need "permission" (from who?) or shouldn't write about someone else's ethnic group is just a different form of racism. We are one interconnected planetary culture and species. No group ought to have the authority or right to tell people (in factual or fiction) what they can write about. If it's evil and wrong people can bring a civil case, or in some countries a criminal case if a "hate law" has been broken.
Of course we should be sensible and sensitive.
Bringing the discussion back to JK Rowling - while the issue of "windwalkers" was picked up in the original post, IIRC she was also criticised for misappropriating white American history - something I doubt anyone would argue as a cultural minority.
It's hard not to feel that there's another dimension at play here - the name JK Rowling.
Is it possible that the phenomenal success of the Harry Potters books - across at least a generation - means that there's a sense of ownership by some readers over whatever JK Rowling writes? Additionally, she wrote children's books, consumed by children worldwide - so is it also possible that at least some of her readers are re-evaluating her work from an adult perspective, only to be disappointed it does not match their far younger perspective?
It's hard not to feel that there's another dimension at play here - the name JK Rowling.
Is it possible that the phenomenal success of the Harry Potters books - across at least a generation - means that there's a sense of ownership by some readers over whatever JK Rowling writes? Additionally, she wrote children's books, consumed by children worldwide - so is it also possible that at least some of her readers are re-evaluating her work from an adult perspective, only to be disappointed it does not match their far younger perspective?
Kith
Chronic Lurker
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2008
- Messages
- 117
@Toby Frost - Yep, I agree with you. Good research is the difference between acknowledging diversity and inadvertently homogenising it. You don't have to represent everyone just for the sake of it.
I think we're all in agreement on that.
I'm curious as to what you define as "real impact"?
If JK did her research and still choose to write what she did, then I would say that shows intent to offend (or at least that she doesn't care about what the people she's writing about might think, or how it might portray them in popular culture). Of course, as others have said, we don't know what research the author did or didn't do, and as far as I know JK hasn't yet responded, so we don't know her opinion or intention either.
By the way, I haven't seen the programme that started this discussion, but I can see that the attitudes that were expressed on it have riled you up. Most of the criticism I have seen online amounts to dislike of the way in which JK handled the subject, as opposed to that she chose to write about it at all (as a western white woman). So, in the main I agree with you (especially the point quoted above). But I think we disagree on impact and whether the reaction was overly-sensitive.
But what if the culture in question doesn't want that scrutiny? What if it isn't interested in sharing its tradition and beliefs or opening itself up to tourism?
"Ignored" isn't necessarily true, or fair; it implies that "they" are actively seeking out stuff to be offended by. My assumption (and it may be equally biased) would be that that's just the nature of popular culture - it transcends the normal spheres and is more accessible to a wider range of people (some of whom may not have ordinarily been aware of it), thus comes under greater scrutiny. We don't know what other works of fiction may have been criticised, but by the same logic that they were lesser known pieces/authors, we may just not be aware of it.
And perhaps it is the fact JK is such a world-wide phenomenon that makes this such an issue, whereas "lesser known" authors are "allowed" to get away with it. That's not fair, maybe, but it's fact. The things JK writes have a phenomenally wide audience, so if she (intentionally or inadvertently) chooses to perpetuate stereotype, or deal with sensitive issues carelessly, then that is going to have a wide impact on the people in question just by virtue of her sheer popularity.
Yes that brings things into debate - as we're doing in this thread - and yes that's positive. But not everyone gives things such thought.
@Ursa major - There isn't a new book on Skinwalkers. The controversy is about the content of the new history, specifically related to Magic in North America, the Fourteenth Century - Seventeenth Century entry. (Which as you've pointed out is extra content in the run up to the film later this year).
You can find it here: Pottermore - History of Magic in North America
psychotick said:
I think we're all in agreement on that.
I'm curious as to what you define as "real impact"?
If JK did her research and still choose to write what she did, then I would say that shows intent to offend (or at least that she doesn't care about what the people she's writing about might think, or how it might portray them in popular culture). Of course, as others have said, we don't know what research the author did or didn't do, and as far as I know JK hasn't yet responded, so we don't know her opinion or intention either.
By the way, I haven't seen the programme that started this discussion, but I can see that the attitudes that were expressed on it have riled you up. Most of the criticism I have seen online amounts to dislike of the way in which JK handled the subject, as opposed to that she chose to write about it at all (as a western white woman). So, in the main I agree with you (especially the point quoted above). But I think we disagree on impact and whether the reaction was overly-sensitive.
psychotick said:
But what if the culture in question doesn't want that scrutiny? What if it isn't interested in sharing its tradition and beliefs or opening itself up to tourism?
psychotick said:
"Ignored" isn't necessarily true, or fair; it implies that "they" are actively seeking out stuff to be offended by. My assumption (and it may be equally biased) would be that that's just the nature of popular culture - it transcends the normal spheres and is more accessible to a wider range of people (some of whom may not have ordinarily been aware of it), thus comes under greater scrutiny. We don't know what other works of fiction may have been criticised, but by the same logic that they were lesser known pieces/authors, we may just not be aware of it.
And perhaps it is the fact JK is such a world-wide phenomenon that makes this such an issue, whereas "lesser known" authors are "allowed" to get away with it. That's not fair, maybe, but it's fact. The things JK writes have a phenomenally wide audience, so if she (intentionally or inadvertently) chooses to perpetuate stereotype, or deal with sensitive issues carelessly, then that is going to have a wide impact on the people in question just by virtue of her sheer popularity.
Yes that brings things into debate - as we're doing in this thread - and yes that's positive. But not everyone gives things such thought.
@Ursa major - There isn't a new book on Skinwalkers. The controversy is about the content of the new history, specifically related to Magic in North America, the Fourteenth Century - Seventeenth Century entry. (Which as you've pointed out is extra content in the run up to the film later this year).
You can find it here: Pottermore - History of Magic in North America
WaylanderToo
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2015
- Messages
- 2,070
The problem with twitter mobs and other such like morons is that you don't have to be well known to be affected by these - there was a case last year (IIRC) where some anti McCann troll ended up committing suicide due to (ironically) being trolled on twitter. Social Justice Warriors are no respecter of rich or poor - indeed the argument could be made that poor is better since then you can't fight back
they better not give permission as it's nowt to do with them
Ray McCarthy
Sentient Marmite: The Truth may make you fret.
The Twilight series has shape changing Native Americans. Are people objecting because Rowlings is a bigger target?
Re: Cultural Appropriation.
I absolutely hate the American take on St. Patrick's Day, started by people in Boston and now since 1960s or 1970s imported to Ireland.
I absolutely hate the Americanisation and commercialisation of the Celtic festival known as Halloween, reimported to Ireland in last 20 years so Pumpkins now replace turnips.
I get annoyed by all the Hollywood corruption of Irish Legend, (esp. Leprechauns, which I thought started with Disney, but actually really got off the ground in 19th C. England based on late 17th peasant folklore rather than the old legends in MSS.)
But I'm not going to call for boycotts or campaign. I might occasionally complain.
Or the 19th neo-pagan appropriation of Celtic Druidism, which has almost no basis in fact.
The fact is that so called "Cultural Appropriation" can be annoying, or tacky commercialism. Or enrich all cultures. Tolkien used the Irish Aes Sidhe as models for his Elves, (not Scandinavian ones, which are like Dwarves), he seems to have only made up the Hobbits. Everything else is based on "Cultural Appropriation" from all over Europe. We'd be poorer without properly done "Cultural Appropriation".
A Point of View: When does borrowing from other cultures become 'appropriation'? - BBC News
Yes, we need to be sensitive. But that applies to Child Abuse, Rape, Anorexia, Obesity, sex, Gender issues, religion. There was a book banned in Ireland lately (very rare these days) due to the way child abuse / rape is portrayed. Maybe some of G R R Martin (Rape) and Terry Goodkind (explicit child torture) got past the censor because it's "only" fantasy?
I think the media blows up stuff out of proportion. I think Twitter and Facebook are unrepresentative and the Media should stop promoting and quoting them.
Re: Cultural Appropriation.
I absolutely hate the American take on St. Patrick's Day, started by people in Boston and now since 1960s or 1970s imported to Ireland.
I absolutely hate the Americanisation and commercialisation of the Celtic festival known as Halloween, reimported to Ireland in last 20 years so Pumpkins now replace turnips.
I get annoyed by all the Hollywood corruption of Irish Legend, (esp. Leprechauns, which I thought started with Disney, but actually really got off the ground in 19th C. England based on late 17th peasant folklore rather than the old legends in MSS.)
But I'm not going to call for boycotts or campaign. I might occasionally complain.
Or the 19th neo-pagan appropriation of Celtic Druidism, which has almost no basis in fact.
The fact is that so called "Cultural Appropriation" can be annoying, or tacky commercialism. Or enrich all cultures. Tolkien used the Irish Aes Sidhe as models for his Elves, (not Scandinavian ones, which are like Dwarves), he seems to have only made up the Hobbits. Everything else is based on "Cultural Appropriation" from all over Europe. We'd be poorer without properly done "Cultural Appropriation".
A Point of View: When does borrowing from other cultures become 'appropriation'? - BBC News
Yes, we need to be sensitive. But that applies to Child Abuse, Rape, Anorexia, Obesity, sex, Gender issues, religion. There was a book banned in Ireland lately (very rare these days) due to the way child abuse / rape is portrayed. Maybe some of G R R Martin (Rape) and Terry Goodkind (explicit child torture) got past the censor because it's "only" fantasy?
I think the media blows up stuff out of proportion. I think Twitter and Facebook are unrepresentative and the Media should stop promoting and quoting them.
Last edited:
I know: Pottermore was one of my first ports of call. There are a whole 36 paragraphs -- just over 2800 words -- all set in the Harry Potter universe.
As for skinwalkers, there's only one word in the whole piece that even contains the character string, skin. Here's the paragraph in which it occurs:
(Note: No-Maj is the North American equivalent of Muggle.)
The word, Animagi, appears only three times, twice in the paragraph quoted above, the third time a couple of paragraphs later:
I must admit that I've not read the piece -- life's too short, and I'm not a reader of Rowling's works -- but dipping in and out, the "story" comes across, to me (others may pay more attention and come to a different conclusion), as one of Europeans letting rip, and not always in a pleasant way, on a new continent (so very much like many current-day views of European migration and colonisation, give or take the inclusion of people with actual magical powers).
So: Storm. Meet teacup.
Ray McCarthy
Sentient Marmite: The Truth may make you fret.
Indeed.
Is this proof of a different sort of cultural appropriation... by the Bavarians...? The Black Forest isn't in Bavaria, but in the neighbouring Land, Baden-Württemberg. (It isn't even near Baden-Württemberg's border with Bayern, but in the west, near the Rhine.)
Ray McCarthy
Sentient Marmite: The Truth may make you fret.
Rats.
I've written to the wrong mayor. Such a mine field.
[Actually IRL, I have a German friend that lives in the Black Forest, but part of the year in Kerry, Ireland. My daughter-in-law is German too. Nevertheless my German Geography is very basic.]
I think people look at political correctness in completely the wrong way. People who complain about it can't take criticism. That is my opinion. People also do not differentiate between opinion and fact.
Hypothetical situation. You have written from the perspective of a real culture that is not your own. You may believe that you have a responsibility to represent this culture fairly, or you may not.
Fact. People from that culture may be offended by what you have written. Perhaps you did not research properly, perhaps you didn't try or care. Perhaps you wanted to offend them. This does not impact your rights to write whatever you like.
Opinion. That people being offended is oppressing your creativity.
Fact. People being offended is simply them voicing an opinion. This is free speech. Unless they actively try to ban your work or prevent its distribution THEY ARE NOT RESTRICTING YOUR CREATIVITY. Even if they try, they may not succeed.
Opinion. If you don't care about trying to represent other cultures and groups fairly, stop whining when somebody who knows about the culture in question better than you tells you that you have done a poor job of it.
Hypothetical situation. You have written from the perspective of a real culture that is not your own. You may believe that you have a responsibility to represent this culture fairly, or you may not.
Fact. People from that culture may be offended by what you have written. Perhaps you did not research properly, perhaps you didn't try or care. Perhaps you wanted to offend them. This does not impact your rights to write whatever you like.
Opinion. That people being offended is oppressing your creativity.
Fact. People being offended is simply them voicing an opinion. This is free speech. Unless they actively try to ban your work or prevent its distribution THEY ARE NOT RESTRICTING YOUR CREATIVITY. Even if they try, they may not succeed.
Opinion. If you don't care about trying to represent other cultures and groups fairly, stop whining when somebody who knows about the culture in question better than you tells you that you have done a poor job of it.