A new moralism is gripping the literary world(persuasion.community)
persuasion.community
A new moralism is gripping the literary world
https://www.persuasion.community/p/beware-of-books
288 comments
What bugged me about that blog post is that if we go by her logic, she shouldn’t be writing about Mexicans either. She’s an American with Mexican heritage. She should only write about chicanos and that’s it.
It’s like how only Americans identify as latinx.
It’s like how only Americans identify as latinx.
You may be right about Gurba, but you're dead wrong if you're trying to imply that the criticism of even just that book (to say nothing of the others mentioned in the article) was based only on the grounds of 'bad writing'. From the article:
“I was sure I was the wrong person to review this book,” Groff wrote, noting that neither she nor the author were Mexican migrants. “In contemporary literary circles, there is a serious and legitimate sensitivity to people writing about heritages that are not their own because, at its worst, this practice perpetuates the evils of colonization, stealing the stories of oppressed people for the profit of the dominant.”
“I was sure I was the wrong person to review this book,” Groff wrote, noting that neither she nor the author were Mexican migrants. “In contemporary literary circles, there is a serious and legitimate sensitivity to people writing about heritages that are not their own because, at its worst, this practice perpetuates the evils of colonization, stealing the stories of oppressed people for the profit of the dominant.”
So if I'm a white male, I'm only allowed to write about white males? That means that if I write a book, it will be full of white males. How does that help the oppressed? It just removes them from the dominant narrative entirely.
(I mean, maybe it makes books by white males so bland that nobody wants to read them, and so books by white males stop being the dominant narrative...)
(I mean, maybe it makes books by white males so bland that nobody wants to read them, and so books by white males stop being the dominant narrative...)
I think you have to read a lot of books to understand what they mean. And i don't think this woke crowd is right btw.
If you're writing fantasy or fiction in anothertime book, be my guest and write about any character (although if it is supposed to be based on history and you're completely off about the culture at the time, i don't want to read your junk, really). If you're writing about a character in modern time, either you do some really good research, or you'll be off, and if your book/movie is bad, the woke crowd will drop on you. I mean, even if "The Wire" or "Treme" was ran today, nobody would drop on it.
And i will take another example for people in the US. Books about the so-called "white trash"/"trailer trash" or who depict people in this population are mostly wrong. Sometime its hilarious, sometime you just stop reading because the book is so bad. For me it was books about Appalachians hillbillies. Since its the american crowd i know the most, i was quite exited to read about them. I've found on good book, one. The rest is complete trash. Honestly if my grandfather or any of his friends found those books, those would burn.
If you're writing fantasy or fiction in anothertime book, be my guest and write about any character (although if it is supposed to be based on history and you're completely off about the culture at the time, i don't want to read your junk, really). If you're writing about a character in modern time, either you do some really good research, or you'll be off, and if your book/movie is bad, the woke crowd will drop on you. I mean, even if "The Wire" or "Treme" was ran today, nobody would drop on it.
And i will take another example for people in the US. Books about the so-called "white trash"/"trailer trash" or who depict people in this population are mostly wrong. Sometime its hilarious, sometime you just stop reading because the book is so bad. For me it was books about Appalachians hillbillies. Since its the american crowd i know the most, i was quite exited to read about them. I've found on good book, one. The rest is complete trash. Honestly if my grandfather or any of his friends found those books, those would burn.
Maybe the idea is to stop having white males being given such a strong ownership of the market?
I read sci-fi. The idea that you only "write what you are/know" is laughable. Sure, if you write a book with such offensive ideas about another culture or race, you're a terrible person. But if you research, interview, try to understand, and come at it for a work of fiction, that is what large swathes of fiction is!
I read books about spaceships, about robots, about humanity that's split off into different evolutionary groups.
I credit part of my immediate acceptance of LBGT+ and people on the sci-fi books I read as a kid, where changing your sex/gender was as simple as a 15 min visit to a shop (or similar), and the protagonists switched genders or sexs regularly. Hell, or some where neutral (in one case, they were neutral, because they used to be a warship, and the author used the female pronouns to describe all characters, even men! Great book series, by the way. Ancillary Justice was the first one).
Or with two characters fall in love, when they're not human, or not male and female or whatever.
One of my favorite authors (two of them, they're sisters, SK Dunstall) wrote some amazing male protagonists (and female ones). Not once while reading their linesman series did i ever stop and go "they shouldn't write about a male protagonist". Hell, at times their male protagonist was better written as a male protagonist than books I've read written by men!
There's a book on my reading list now, (to be taught, if fortunate) about humans genetically modified for specific environments, like space!
The discussions these books generate is important, in many cases. Some are meant to, others meant to just be enjoyed. Intent is important as is accurate research and characterization, when possible. Sure, if someone writes a book that's purposely harmful, or accidentally (but with a huge, disproportionate impact) harmful, then the book should be reviewed and maybe issues addressed to the author or by those who sell it. But only when its extremely harmful as a whole.
But the important thing is, these are all fiction. There's good fiction, bad fiction, and 90% of it is subjective. Fiction gives you the license to go beyond who you are, what you know, what ties you to the real world. And invites those discussions, invites people to learn more.
I read books about spaceships, about robots, about humanity that's split off into different evolutionary groups.
I credit part of my immediate acceptance of LBGT+ and people on the sci-fi books I read as a kid, where changing your sex/gender was as simple as a 15 min visit to a shop (or similar), and the protagonists switched genders or sexs regularly. Hell, or some where neutral (in one case, they were neutral, because they used to be a warship, and the author used the female pronouns to describe all characters, even men! Great book series, by the way. Ancillary Justice was the first one).
Or with two characters fall in love, when they're not human, or not male and female or whatever.
One of my favorite authors (two of them, they're sisters, SK Dunstall) wrote some amazing male protagonists (and female ones). Not once while reading their linesman series did i ever stop and go "they shouldn't write about a male protagonist". Hell, at times their male protagonist was better written as a male protagonist than books I've read written by men!
There's a book on my reading list now, (to be taught, if fortunate) about humans genetically modified for specific environments, like space!
The discussions these books generate is important, in many cases. Some are meant to, others meant to just be enjoyed. Intent is important as is accurate research and characterization, when possible. Sure, if someone writes a book that's purposely harmful, or accidentally (but with a huge, disproportionate impact) harmful, then the book should be reviewed and maybe issues addressed to the author or by those who sell it. But only when its extremely harmful as a whole.
But the important thing is, these are all fiction. There's good fiction, bad fiction, and 90% of it is subjective. Fiction gives you the license to go beyond who you are, what you know, what ties you to the real world. And invites those discussions, invites people to learn more.
I think there’s going to be some serious lash back to this, it’s going way too far for the mainstream leftist.
What do we do with William Burroughs then?
One thing I have noticed is maybe Jesus had it right with the forgiveness thing. But the woke crowd would probably condemn him too
What do we do with William Burroughs then?
One thing I have noticed is maybe Jesus had it right with the forgiveness thing. But the woke crowd would probably condemn him too
Why is this "flagged"?
Edit: And please tell me the admins of HN aren't engaging in wrongthink censorship.
Edit: And please tell me the admins of HN aren't engaging in wrongthink censorship.
And of course - flagged.
Alarmism over cancel culture is weird because cancel culture, which has always existed in one form or another, from one side or another, is what creates something to transgress against. The great, transgressive works of yesterday are so just because they caused controversy and challenge.
If transgressive works dropped without a squeek, they wouldn't be transgressive, would they? It's nonsensical to to try to preserve a space for challenging works by removing the challenge to them.
If transgressive works dropped without a squeek, they wouldn't be transgressive, would they? It's nonsensical to to try to preserve a space for challenging works by removing the challenge to them.
Much of the reaction is people who want to be transgressive but don't truly have the stomach for it. Especially if twitter chatter can break their spirit.
There are new conventions forming. Writers who want to break them need to learn how to put up their fists. And writing a medium article complaining about cancel culture is not how that is done.
There are new conventions forming. Writers who want to break them need to learn how to put up their fists. And writing a medium article complaining about cancel culture is not how that is done.
If anything, such controversies make me want to get a copy of said literature and read it at the first possible instance. Can I call it the Streisand effect? Maybe.
I have an unsubstantiated theory that this moral compassing at the institutional level (like the article mentions) has gathered more steam after the internet went into our phones and thus became highly accessible to the general public.
I have an unsubstantiated theory that this moral compassing at the institutional level (like the article mentions) has gathered more steam after the internet went into our phones and thus became highly accessible to the general public.
That is exactly the Streisand effect.
My local libraries used to have day/week events specifically to read banned books. I wonder if that's still a thing? If not, publishers/libraries should bring it back as it's a win/win for them.
My local libraries used to have day/week events specifically to read banned books. I wonder if that's still a thing? If not, publishers/libraries should bring it back as it's a win/win for them.
Social media being in everyone's pocket certainly fueled the fire.
ramraj07(4)
So no more Sci-fi Books from the alien point of view?
A Bugs Life is an abominable appropriation of insect culture. You're not an ant so you lack the authority to write or read anything that represents ant culture.
come to think of it, Hobbits and dwarfs have also been grossly caricatured. As have goblins and those "swarthy men" from South (or whatever). Tolkien's in big trouble. He is alienating us from the whole of Middle Earth, no doubt.
There is "The Last Ringbearer" [1] for an alternative view.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Ringbearer
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Ringbearer
Oh wow. Genius. It's a shame that the tolkien estate is being so stubborn.
I know you are being sarcastic but if ants could communicate this is exactly what they will say. The movie represents nothing from their culture and makes shit up.
The difference is minority people can fight back.
The difference is minority people can fight back.
non-ants would get outraged on behalf of the ants.
Who cares. If someone misappropriated my culture for an entire movie I'll be pretty mad, who cares if someone else also took offence.
I feel like this kind of argument only serves as distraction (not implying that's your intent). Do you not think ant culture would be absolutely offended by someone doing this?
I feel like this kind of argument only serves as distraction (not implying that's your intent). Do you not think ant culture would be absolutely offended by someone doing this?
I think that getting "pretty mad" over something that that is kinda nuts. It would be on the same level as somebody "stealing" my hair style.
You people make mountains out of molehills.
You people make mountains out of molehills.
If it meant an alien race living among us can’t write about themselves, then yes.
It's sad that the people at Star Trek couldn't find any Klingon, Vulcan, or Romulon actors to speak with honesty. Pretty much every episode is filled with earth-born actors portraying some other planet's residents.
And it's not limited to the aliens. James Doohan pretended to be a native scotsman even though he was born in Canada. Canada!!
And it's not limited to the aliens. James Doohan pretended to be a native scotsman even though he was born in Canada. Canada!!
> In March 2020, staff at the publishing house Hachette in New York, including employees of Little Brown and Grand Central Publishing, walked out over the planned publication of Woody Allen’s memoir, Apropos of Nothing, because the film director was the subject in the early 1990s of a molestation allegation, for which he was twice investigated without charge. Hachette caved to employees’ demands and canceled the release, which Allen later published elsewhere.
I don't really think defending Woody Allen is a good example of any of the purity politics that was first opened up with, and its use makes me suspicious of the entire essay's goodwill otherwise. It's super weird to rope in "these people don't like white people writing brown protagonists" and "the employees of this company do not want to participate in publishing the nonfiction of a credibly accused child molester".
I think the essay is significantly weakened by conflating the two in any respect.
I don't really think defending Woody Allen is a good example of any of the purity politics that was first opened up with, and its use makes me suspicious of the entire essay's goodwill otherwise. It's super weird to rope in "these people don't like white people writing brown protagonists" and "the employees of this company do not want to participate in publishing the nonfiction of a credibly accused child molester".
I think the essay is significantly weakened by conflating the two in any respect.
I disagree. Living in a free and open society means defending everyone's right to have a voice, and that means defending the free speech rights of those we despise.
The point is the essay conflates allowing all voices to be heard with being ok with credibly accused sexual offenders. More generally though free speech goes both ways. Are you arguing that you should be forced to amplify positions you find repellent?
WTF does it even mean to be "credibly accused"? It doesn't matter how one is accused if at the end they are not convicted. This is the whole principle behind a nation of law.
But like other people, say publishing house employees, also have freedom. Not actually familiar with this particular case, but also not sure that it’s particularly relevant. Plenty of things are not illegal or not provable while still painting someone in a pretty awful light and what your arguing is that the only moral thing to do in that position is to stand back
So I guess you think OJ Simpson is a swell guy then?
Wake me up when people are being arrested for speech, or laws are being passed to restrict free speech. I see neither of these things happening (in the USA) beyond the most extreme cases.
Woody Allen has every right to write a book, but he's not entitled to a publisher publishing it. He could easily self-publish it using any one of dozens of self-publishing platforms, or just put it on the web if he wants. Nobody can really stop him unless there's something civilly actionable in there.
All I see is private companies refusing to provide a platform to content that they don't want to support (often because it offends or just turns off large numbers of customers) or violates their terms. That's not censorship in the legal sense. You aren't entitled to someone else's platform.
Carte blanche access to platforms has never been a thing. Can you imagine walking into a newspaper office in the 1980s and demanding to publish a full page classified ad with any content you want in their newspaper and then screaming "censorship!" and "cancel culture!" when they said no? They'd send you to the psychiatric emergency ward.
The right historically defends the rights of businesses to act freely and would be defending platforms and publishers if it were not far-right content that were being dropped. Since it's far-right content, now the right has suddenly decided that access to large scale platforms is an entitlement that needs to be guaranteed by the state. The right has also done a complete 180 on the anti-trust issue... both only for tech companies that operate content platforms.
It's just so transparently partisan. They wouldn't give a crap if left-wing speech were being deplatformed.
There's one last WTF here. The right was always critical of the sexual revolution going all the way back to the 1950s. This #metoo stuff would be a golden opportunity for conservatives to sling a bit of "we told you so" shade at sexual libertines, pointing out that some sexual taboos may have existed to protect people from sexual predation.
Instead the right sides with accused sex abusers and even pedophiles, but only when the accusers are "libs." It's no longer even remotely about ideas. It's about winning for the sake of winning.
Woody Allen has every right to write a book, but he's not entitled to a publisher publishing it. He could easily self-publish it using any one of dozens of self-publishing platforms, or just put it on the web if he wants. Nobody can really stop him unless there's something civilly actionable in there.
All I see is private companies refusing to provide a platform to content that they don't want to support (often because it offends or just turns off large numbers of customers) or violates their terms. That's not censorship in the legal sense. You aren't entitled to someone else's platform.
Carte blanche access to platforms has never been a thing. Can you imagine walking into a newspaper office in the 1980s and demanding to publish a full page classified ad with any content you want in their newspaper and then screaming "censorship!" and "cancel culture!" when they said no? They'd send you to the psychiatric emergency ward.
The right historically defends the rights of businesses to act freely and would be defending platforms and publishers if it were not far-right content that were being dropped. Since it's far-right content, now the right has suddenly decided that access to large scale platforms is an entitlement that needs to be guaranteed by the state. The right has also done a complete 180 on the anti-trust issue... both only for tech companies that operate content platforms.
It's just so transparently partisan. They wouldn't give a crap if left-wing speech were being deplatformed.
There's one last WTF here. The right was always critical of the sexual revolution going all the way back to the 1950s. This #metoo stuff would be a golden opportunity for conservatives to sling a bit of "we told you so" shade at sexual libertines, pointing out that some sexual taboos may have existed to protect people from sexual predation.
Instead the right sides with accused sex abusers and even pedophiles, but only when the accusers are "libs." It's no longer even remotely about ideas. It's about winning for the sake of winning.
There's some conflation going on. "Being ok with" is not the same thing as "allowing to speak." What you do with credibly accused criminals of any kind is, you punish them to the full extent of the law. If they want to write a book or something, they can still do that.
Lots of other peoples voices go into writing a book. You are in essence saying that they should all be forced to lend their voices and help someone they feel has merely dogged responsibility. Laws are not the same as justice and never will be
>Laws are not the same as justice and never will be
If the laws in a democratic country aren't on the side of justice, then neither are the people, and if the people aren't on the side of justice, an auxiliary prosecution system formed of the people won't be either.
If the laws in a democratic country aren't on the side of justice, then neither are the people, and if the people aren't on the side of justice, an auxiliary prosecution system formed of the people won't be either.
This is incredibly reductionist. The US alone has about 330 million people. There are many poorly worded or enforced laws, and not every single person is in a unified agreement about them. And the legal/justice system itself isn't perfect.
There are the legal courts, and then there are is the court of public opinion. Is it always -fair-? No. But you can't force a private publisher to publish someone's material either.
We have a strong solution available to each of us: a wallet. Don't support publishers that cave to the court of public opinion.. or do! I'm not your parent.
There are the legal courts, and then there are is the court of public opinion. Is it always -fair-? No. But you can't force a private publisher to publish someone's material either.
We have a strong solution available to each of us: a wallet. Don't support publishers that cave to the court of public opinion.. or do! I'm not your parent.
Nobody owes you a megaphone. You can write what you want but a publishing house doesn't need to be involved in selling a product that they and their customers may consider abhorrent (like defending Woody Allen).
No one is saying Woody Allen shouldn't produce his own memoir. I am saying its weird to conflate not desiring to purchase the nonfiction rights of a credibly accused child molester and then profit off of selling that same nonfiction to otherwise significantly more niche issues such as whether or not a white author should be writing black protagonists.
The end of the essay even focuses on the race aspect! I just completely do not understand trying to conflate the purchasing of a credibly accused child molester's work to excessive purity on writing brown/black people in fiction.
The end of the essay even focuses on the race aspect! I just completely do not understand trying to conflate the purchasing of a credibly accused child molester's work to excessive purity on writing brown/black people in fiction.
> whether or not a white author should be writing black protagonists
Shouldn't be a question. Anyone should be able to write whatever they want without involving identity politics/purity tests.
Shouldn't be a question. Anyone should be able to write whatever they want without involving identity politics/purity tests.
I know it shouldn't be a question. That's why I'm baffled that they're being conflated here.
The "conflating" is addressed just a couple of paragraphs later:
>The above cases are each distinct. You may agree with how the book world responded in some instances, and disagree in others. But what these cases convey is how much the literary establishment is struggling with a dread of “harm,” related both to content and authors. It speaks to the spreading sense that it thinks of itself as carrying out a moral mission, whose standards are those of progressive activism.
>The above cases are each distinct. You may agree with how the book world responded in some instances, and disagree in others. But what these cases convey is how much the literary establishment is struggling with a dread of “harm,” related both to content and authors. It speaks to the spreading sense that it thinks of itself as carrying out a moral mission, whose standards are those of progressive activism.
I think saying that it's a "progressive activism" struggle to protest giving a credibly accused child molester money by purchasing his nonfiction is extremely weird, especially when it's being compared to something so innocuous.
It's about cancelling an author even without conviction.
Innocent until proven was once a progressive achievement but it got replaced by innocent until flame war. We are back to the of witch hunting where an accusation was tantamount to a conviction.
Credibly accused is not a thing. You're either guilty or not guilty and he hasn't been found guilty.
Anyone who gets to the point of a criminal trial has been credibly accused. If the accusations weren't credible, the prosecutor would not bring the case. The standard for a criminal conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt" which is a higher bar than "credibly accused" (and rightly so).
"Not Guilty" does not imply "Innocent"
"Not Guilty" does not imply "Innocent"
Yes, the world is black and white. Definitely no grey areas in the legal system. Certainly no guilty people get off on technicalities.
We live in an imperfect world and justice is imperfectly applied, but for all of us to have a shot at being treated fairly when it's our turn to sit in front of a jury, it's pretty important that we let the system do it's job.
You have to get convicted in order to be punished, anything else is mob justice.
Doesn't really fit, but still interesting especially if you have read what Moses Farrow has to say about it
http://mosesfarrow.blogspot.com/2018/05/a-son-speaks-out-by-...
It would be “super weird” if what you put in quotes was a fair account of the stance of the author. In fact, the accusations against Allen are not credible, and that was part of the point.
It's gripping the entire world.
When things are judged, not by how the author intended, but by the readers interpretation, it's a bad situation.
When things are judged, not by how the author intended, but by the readers interpretation, it's a bad situation.
> When things are judged, not by how the author intended, but by the readers interpretation, it’s a bad situation.
I don’t know, I think there’s a very good reason to give significant priority in judgement of acts to their consequences, especially forseeable ones, not just their intentions. That’s as true of acts of artistic creation as any other action.
That’s on top of the fact that forseeable consequences are often a better indicator of actual intent than convenient and otherwise unsupported post hoc statements of intent when an action is criticized for its actual consequences.
I don’t know, I think there’s a very good reason to give significant priority in judgement of acts to their consequences, especially forseeable ones, not just their intentions. That’s as true of acts of artistic creation as any other action.
That’s on top of the fact that forseeable consequences are often a better indicator of actual intent than convenient and otherwise unsupported post hoc statements of intent when an action is criticized for its actual consequences.
I've been reading Alice Miller's book "For Your Own Good" this last week.
Big chunks of her book excerpt "Mein Kampf", which I previous hadn't read at all.
I have very little problem reading Hitler's text through my own critical lens, without adopting the authors intent. I have a very different view on the world than Hitler, and I have no problem at all saying that my views are less pathological than his and further, I feel like history has judged the dude rightly and quite harshly.
Is that a bad situation? And if not, how is this different than what you're describing?
Big chunks of her book excerpt "Mein Kampf", which I previous hadn't read at all.
I have very little problem reading Hitler's text through my own critical lens, without adopting the authors intent. I have a very different view on the world than Hitler, and I have no problem at all saying that my views are less pathological than his and further, I feel like history has judged the dude rightly and quite harshly.
Is that a bad situation? And if not, how is this different than what you're describing?
You both raise some good points, but in your case you may at least understand what Hitler was trying to communicate when you decide not to adopt his view.
To answer your question, a bad situation in my mind would be something like this example: a few years ago a relatively bright friend who had worked for a famous national politician got into a disagreement with me when I referred to The Colbert Report as satire. He did not think there was satire or that Colbert was putting on another character for the show at all. I was a big fan of the show, but it was alarming to me how many people might not understand subtlety like satire in novels and movies.
Maybe there was never a golden area when everybody got it. In Voltaire's day, did the majority of the populace comprehend his meaning? Were the majority even aware of his messages?
I have always loved reading novels from an early age, and find them superior in understanding other people's ways of thinking. As advanced and educated as many people enjoy being in the 21st century, I fear too many might still not bother to dig deeper into the intentions of a writer to truly understand what they were hinting at. It's an excellent skill applicable to other areas in life, and with controversial topics it can really help to bridge the gap in a polarized debate. Hitler is an extreme, and I personally don't believe all writing is fundamentally good and edifying to your soul, but I do think effort should be made to understand an author, especially when the writing clashes with contemporary norms. You can still discard it after carefully weighing it, but if you discard it without giving credit to what the author was trying to say because you don't even understand it, that's a loss.
These zealous critics could apply their same logic to cancel my beloved Huckleberry Finn, a book that shed light on injustice more effectively than most even though the author did not come from the same ethnic background as Jim.
To answer your question, a bad situation in my mind would be something like this example: a few years ago a relatively bright friend who had worked for a famous national politician got into a disagreement with me when I referred to The Colbert Report as satire. He did not think there was satire or that Colbert was putting on another character for the show at all. I was a big fan of the show, but it was alarming to me how many people might not understand subtlety like satire in novels and movies.
Maybe there was never a golden area when everybody got it. In Voltaire's day, did the majority of the populace comprehend his meaning? Were the majority even aware of his messages?
I have always loved reading novels from an early age, and find them superior in understanding other people's ways of thinking. As advanced and educated as many people enjoy being in the 21st century, I fear too many might still not bother to dig deeper into the intentions of a writer to truly understand what they were hinting at. It's an excellent skill applicable to other areas in life, and with controversial topics it can really help to bridge the gap in a polarized debate. Hitler is an extreme, and I personally don't believe all writing is fundamentally good and edifying to your soul, but I do think effort should be made to understand an author, especially when the writing clashes with contemporary norms. You can still discard it after carefully weighing it, but if you discard it without giving credit to what the author was trying to say because you don't even understand it, that's a loss.
These zealous critics could apply their same logic to cancel my beloved Huckleberry Finn, a book that shed light on injustice more effectively than most even though the author did not come from the same ethnic background as Jim.
> I fear too many might still not bother to dig deeper into the intentions of a writer to truly understand what they were hinting at.
Of course, how can you do this when people's experience with writing is mostly 120-character tweets that are read and reacted to on first emotional impulse.
Of course, how can you do this when people's experience with writing is mostly 120-character tweets that are read and reacted to on first emotional impulse.
Actually my point is a tautological fallacy.
You can never know what the author intended when writing. And every reader has a different subjective experience of a piece of literature or a work of art.
So it's actually fucking impossible to even judge a work of art or writing based on the authors or readers perspective or in any thing beyond the aesthetic.
Because what you think about something may not be what someone else thinks about it.
And every persons thinking is influenced by so many different experiences: cultural, personal, moral, etc.
So to attempt to create a concrete narrative about the intentions of a specific work of art or literature is impossible.
This applies to reality as well.
I've never read Mein Kampf, but I assume Hitle has good intentions for his country and wants peace and prosperity for the particular ingroup of people he identifies with. This is the same that everyone wants for their particular ingroup. Hitler did terrible things to accomplish that.
So your perspective on Hitlers work is affected by the genocide that he commited.
However, history is written by the winners and the present reality is merely one narrative, that the winners create.
AMERICANS and every single other country in the world have commited genocide and other horrible atrocities.(see Native Americans during settler times and 400k innocent civilians killed in the middle east during the past decade)
However, they won.
If Hitler had won WW2 I can't help but wonder if the Jewish Holocaust would have been as minimized as the Native American Holocaust, and pushed under the rug.
And Hitler would have gone down in history as a hero based on the news media spinning that narrative and nationalistic exuberance.
Narratives are the most powerful thing in the world but also the most untrue.
You can never know what the author intended when writing. And every reader has a different subjective experience of a piece of literature or a work of art.
So it's actually fucking impossible to even judge a work of art or writing based on the authors or readers perspective or in any thing beyond the aesthetic.
Because what you think about something may not be what someone else thinks about it.
And every persons thinking is influenced by so many different experiences: cultural, personal, moral, etc.
So to attempt to create a concrete narrative about the intentions of a specific work of art or literature is impossible.
This applies to reality as well.
I've never read Mein Kampf, but I assume Hitle has good intentions for his country and wants peace and prosperity for the particular ingroup of people he identifies with. This is the same that everyone wants for their particular ingroup. Hitler did terrible things to accomplish that.
So your perspective on Hitlers work is affected by the genocide that he commited.
However, history is written by the winners and the present reality is merely one narrative, that the winners create.
AMERICANS and every single other country in the world have commited genocide and other horrible atrocities.(see Native Americans during settler times and 400k innocent civilians killed in the middle east during the past decade)
However, they won.
If Hitler had won WW2 I can't help but wonder if the Jewish Holocaust would have been as minimized as the Native American Holocaust, and pushed under the rug.
And Hitler would have gone down in history as a hero based on the news media spinning that narrative and nationalistic exuberance.
Narratives are the most powerful thing in the world but also the most untrue.
Everyone thinks that they're right (or on the right side of history, as it were). Things like book burning only become an issue when someone that they don't agree with is doing it.
Oscar Wilde has something to say about censorship (and he knew a little bit about being attacked for writing):
> There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all.
In today’s highly polarized and tribal world, books must also be a way to signal virtue and tribe membership.
> There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all.
In today’s highly polarized and tribal world, books must also be a way to signal virtue and tribe membership.
That was exactly Nabokov's point in writing Lolita.
This also applies to art in general.
Marcel Duchamps Fountain was one of my favorite pieces of art because it called out the art world for judging art based on the fact that it was made by a member of the accepted 'art world' but it was a frickin urinal.
Marcel Duchamps Fountain was one of my favorite pieces of art because it called out the art world for judging art based on the fact that it was made by a member of the accepted 'art world' but it was a frickin urinal.
I didn't think that was the point. I thought that the point was that, within certain flavors of philosophy, there is no such thing as beauty (that is, beauty has no objective reality), and therefore that anything could be regarded as being art. Duchamps' point was that this urinal was as good as the Mona Lisa; that is, Duchamps really agreed with this viewpoint (if I understand correctly). He got upset when critics called it "pretty", because that meant that they had completely missed the point.
It beggers the question of 'what is art'?
What actually MADE that urinal art was that it was made by a member of the artistic ingroup.
If I go hang a urinal in a museum as a web developer I will get arrested and it will be thrown out.
What actually MADE that urinal art was that it was made by a member of the artistic ingroup.
If I go hang a urinal in a museum as a web developer I will get arrested and it will be thrown out.
This article is ridiculous. The current wave of book burning, censorship and denunciation is completely different from previous ones, because I support the positions of the mob. I know that this wave of book burnings, censorship and denunciation will lead to a brighter tomorrow.
I should point out that I don't support 100% of the positions of the mob, but I won't say which ones I disagree with because I don't want to be next. The differences I have are minor, and I'm willing to change them immediately if necessary.
I should point out that I don't support 100% of the positions of the mob, but I won't say which ones I disagree with because I don't want to be next. The differences I have are minor, and I'm willing to change them immediately if necessary.
This line of thinking has me gravely concerned for the future of liberal democracy.
I don't know where parent lives in the world, but from my perspective in the United States, I deeply fear that there are many Americans who would support an anti-democratic coup (or mob) in a heartbeat so long as it aligned with enough of their political sentiments.
Edit: maybe parent is a little too-secretly sarcastic, but even so I suspect many others think like this unironically.
I don't know where parent lives in the world, but from my perspective in the United States, I deeply fear that there are many Americans who would support an anti-democratic coup (or mob) in a heartbeat so long as it aligned with enough of their political sentiments.
Edit: maybe parent is a little too-secretly sarcastic, but even so I suspect many others think like this unironically.
Friendly reminder: It’s typically a good time to do some self-reflection when you find yourself saying “I support the positions of the mob”
I'm guessing the post you're replying to is sarcasm, or trolling, because it seems too perfectly absurd.
There is no instance of irony that won’t be taken literally by some tone-deaf reader.
> This article is ridiculous. The current wave of book burning, censorship and denunciation is completely different from previous ones, because I support the positions of the mob. I know that this wave of book burnings, censorship and denunciation will lead to a brighter tomorrow.
> I should point out that I don't support 100% of the positions of the mob, but I won't say which ones I disagree with because I don't want to be next. The differences I have are minor, and I'm willing to change them immediately if necessary.
My tired brain can't figure out if this is a joke or not?
My tired brain can't figure out if this is a joke or not?
I see other's have answered my question!
Haha, this is excellent sarcasm. Bravo!
[deleted]
The point is not to be right. The actual assertions made by the "woke" hivemind do not actually matter.
The point is to demonstrate utter obedience and submissiveness to the hivemind.
Imagine that you are 6 years old and your mom is a psychotic, occasionally violent, control freak. It's a bit like that.
What drove our society to this height of neurosis?
The point is to demonstrate utter obedience and submissiveness to the hivemind.
Imagine that you are 6 years old and your mom is a psychotic, occasionally violent, control freak. It's a bit like that.
What drove our society to this height of neurosis?
None of this will stop until people stop listening to these puritanical prigs and their endless pronouncements. People have to stop ceding the public square to the most shrill.
Unfortunately, shrill lunacy drives "engagement", so media and social media alike swarm around it.
Unfortunately, shrill lunacy drives "engagement", so media and social media alike swarm around it.
[deleted]
I've noticed this too. The recommendations I'm now getting from my audible account are full of newly-published titles promoting wokism and other morally and intellectually bankrupt junk rather than the classic titles I typically go for.
Why is anything classifiable as "wokism" automatically morally and intellectually bankrupt junk? That sounds an awful lot like simply dismissing a broad category of opinions that may contain a reasonably moral/intellectual subset, much like the thing that wokism is being accused of right now.
Fair observation. But consider that proponents of "wokism" have busily engaged in censorship of thought and speech - showing no interest in a fair and open debate - while simultaneously demanding unquestioning fealty to its principles. For me, that speaks to an intrinsic and inherent moral and intellectual bankruptcy.
Scott Alexander has an interesting post called Conflict vs Mistake which makes the point that fair and open debate might actually be a consequence of certain world views but not others.
There is a more vicious form of cancellation going on.
- For example, only in 2003 was gay sex legal throughout the US. Is that a form of cancelling?
- It’s still legal to fire or not hire gay people. Is that a form of cancelling?
- US conservatives also fight for the right of any public official to follow the calling of Jesus by refusing to sign marriage licenses. Or the constitutional right to refuse business.
- Does one not remember the Bush Jr presidential race where a US constitution ban on gay marriage was the get out to vote issue for Christian evangelicals?
- We have doctors who cannot follow the prescriptions of their professional societies, such as the American Pediatric Society, because they are banned by law from advising youths on transgender treatment.
- There is a race around the country to make it harder for those over 65 to vote, or to reduce voting locations.
What is Cancellation? At the core of cancellation is the freedom of association. But freedom of association doesn’t make it so TX can prosecute gay men for having sex in a bedroom. Freedom of association means people either like you or don’t like you, and they will either associate with you or they won’t.
Any discussion of harmony must account for a history of cruelty.
- For example, only in 2003 was gay sex legal throughout the US. Is that a form of cancelling?
- It’s still legal to fire or not hire gay people. Is that a form of cancelling?
- US conservatives also fight for the right of any public official to follow the calling of Jesus by refusing to sign marriage licenses. Or the constitutional right to refuse business.
- Does one not remember the Bush Jr presidential race where a US constitution ban on gay marriage was the get out to vote issue for Christian evangelicals?
- We have doctors who cannot follow the prescriptions of their professional societies, such as the American Pediatric Society, because they are banned by law from advising youths on transgender treatment.
- There is a race around the country to make it harder for those over 65 to vote, or to reduce voting locations.
What is Cancellation? At the core of cancellation is the freedom of association. But freedom of association doesn’t make it so TX can prosecute gay men for having sex in a bedroom. Freedom of association means people either like you or don’t like you, and they will either associate with you or they won’t.
Any discussion of harmony must account for a history of cruelty.
Sturgeon's Law: "90% of everything is crap". Classics are, at least in theory, better than that - they're the 10% that have proven over time to not be crap.
But of the "wokism" stuff, 90% of it will be crap - morally and intellectually bankrupt junk.
But of the "wokism" stuff, 90% of it will be crap - morally and intellectually bankrupt junk.
I have yet to see the wisdom in anything recent.
Possible after a time something enduring will precipitate out of recent thought.
There is no shame in confessing having sold "wokism" short, should it prove other than so much folly.
Possible after a time something enduring will precipitate out of recent thought.
There is no shame in confessing having sold "wokism" short, should it prove other than so much folly.
> Why is anything classifiable as "wokism" automatically morally and intellectually bankrupt junk?
Because any one with minimum education in history can recognize wokism as the new cultural revolution being adapted for americans. It is not only junk it is also a vile ideology.
Because any one with minimum education in history can recognize wokism as the new cultural revolution being adapted for americans. It is not only junk it is also a vile ideology.
Have you tried Downpour? Their customer service is excellent. Their selection is smaller, but if you're mostly interested in classics the two catalogs are probably more comparable.
it's like if Spotify suddenly started recommending Christian Rock.
Spotify is doing stuff like that. I kept getting a bunch of podcast recommendations for things like "stop asian hate" and "navigating the workplace as a person of color". Over the summer I was getting recommendations for albums and songs called "Black Lives Matter" by no name artists. I ended up cancelling my subscription and switching to amazon music because the amount of space used to push woke political podcasts and music meant that new releases from artists I follow wasn't showing up.
Is it that, or are people suddenly becoming aware of these specific podcasts/groups due to current events? Which is more likely: spotify pushing specific agendas, or spotify employing a recommendation engine that recommends things that see a surge in listening activity?
Regarding your example of "stop asian hate"- the asian instagram community has been talking about it a lot in wake of current events. It is entirely unsurprising that people would be checking it out after being previously unaware.
Regarding your example of "stop asian hate"- the asian instagram community has been talking about it a lot in wake of current events. It is entirely unsurprising that people would be checking it out after being previously unaware.
It is spotify pushing an agenda. These aren't algorithmic pseudo randomness, because they're clearly labeled in manually described groups. Much of the black content was for black history month, and labeled as such, which isn't too different from google putting up a black history search page, imo. I would rate it as mildly annoying. I'm 100% for black lives matter, but I don't have much of an interest in mainstream black music channels that they were trying to promote.
A service, promoting hot selling products? Outrageous.
It's amazing to me, and my long-gone 18 year old activist self, that vocally supporting Freedom to Read week in 2021 would get me branded a right-wing bigot (if anybody cared to brand me at all, which they wouldn't.)
It's a depressingly common pattern for an oppressed group which begins to break its chains to be co-opted and weaponized by people who are more interested in revenge than justice and equality.
It's a depressingly common pattern for an oppressed group which begins to break its chains to be co-opted and weaponized by people who are more interested in revenge than justice and equality.
This is queen Victoria’s dream finally realized. We have come full circle.
I think the author here misrepresented the JK Rowling thing quite a bit. The idea is not to "scour" her texts for hidden anti-trans sentiment. The idea is that Rowling makes money off of selling her books and has built an empire, and the resultant power is now used by her as a platform to propagate anti-trans speech. Quite a different issue and also quite novel (pun unintended). Death of the Author is a concurrently operating, but in my opinion separate, question.
I think that society has become so complicated that people have become detached with reality and started inventing useless solutions to rather minor problems. Now, if you so much as touch something that is problematic, you automatically become problematic, and the solution for this is just to complain about it as loudly as possible.
Correct or not, JK Rowling's thoughts about femininity are likely shared by the vast majority of the world. Exaggerating her beliefs by calling her transphobic and radical isn't going to progress trans rights in any way.
Note that this attitude is entirely monopolized by "woke culture." It happens in other spaces as well (e.g. encouragement to name and shame a company you had a bad interviewing experience with).
Correct or not, JK Rowling's thoughts about femininity are likely shared by the vast majority of the world. Exaggerating her beliefs by calling her transphobic and radical isn't going to progress trans rights in any way.
Note that this attitude is entirely monopolized by "woke culture." It happens in other spaces as well (e.g. encouragement to name and shame a company you had a bad interviewing experience with).
I simply do not understand the furor over the JK Rowling affair. I read what she wrote, and I did not see "hate", or "transphobia", and many other very extreme adjectives. When she seeked to clarify her statements she was accused of "doubling down". Fans of Life of Brian will remember the Roman amphitheatre scene when Stan wants to become Loretta:
https://www.mit.edu/afs.new/sipb/user/ayshames/Python/LORETT...
I thought and still think it's funny, "Where's the fetus going to gestate Stan, are you going to keep it in a box?" But now I'm afraid to laugh or reference it in public. The movie is probably going to end up on a list, and its fans made to feel bad for being horrible people. I think I can both laugh at Stan, who's not real, and accept and support misgendered people, who are.
https://www.mit.edu/afs.new/sipb/user/ayshames/Python/LORETT...
I thought and still think it's funny, "Where's the fetus going to gestate Stan, are you going to keep it in a box?" But now I'm afraid to laugh or reference it in public. The movie is probably going to end up on a list, and its fans made to feel bad for being horrible people. I think I can both laugh at Stan, who's not real, and accept and support misgendered people, who are.
But why is it considered anti-trans speech, when a villain is "a male serial killer known to have worn a dress"?
Surely, in many other books the serial killer is a straight male. Why are their authors not accused of anti-heterosexual speech? Are we promoting some sort of discrimination against straight males? Are they the only ones allowed to be evil?
Surely, in many other books the serial killer is a straight male. Why are their authors not accused of anti-heterosexual speech? Are we promoting some sort of discrimination against straight males? Are they the only ones allowed to be evil?
> why is it considered anti-trans speech, when a villain is "a male serial killer known to have worn a dress"
That's not what OP is referring to. Go read her Twitter feed and blog.
That's not what OP is referring to. Go read her Twitter feed and blog.
If you're really curious about this matter, film analysis YouTuber Lindsay Ellis has an excellent video on the history of depictions of trans people (primarily in film) and puts Rowling's work into that context, tracing it back to Psycho and beyond.
https://youtu.be/cHTMidTLO60
Basically, there's a long and sordid history of the Cross Dressing Predator as a literary and film trope and this has been used against trans people heavily.
https://youtu.be/cHTMidTLO60
Basically, there's a long and sordid history of the Cross Dressing Predator as a literary and film trope and this has been used against trans people heavily.
So it's not what she did, it's what other people did before her. Now, finally, we can call someone to task for it. Ah, this has so many parallels now with so many other things going on.
Yes, bigotry involves history.
> But why is it considered anti-trans speech, when a villain is "a male serial killer known to have worn a dress"?
Mostly the cultural effects of the Hays code and decades of queer-coding villains as evil or sexually depraved in fiction and popular culture. A fictional male serial killer tends not to simply "have worn a dress," that specific detail, like all details in fiction, is intended to communicate something to the reader/viewer, and most of the time it's to present the character's non-heteronormative behavior as a symptom of their moral evil.
Technically speaking there's nothing wrong with depicting a Black person eating a watermelon and fried chicken but there's context behind the tendency to interpret it other than purely literal terms.
Mostly the cultural effects of the Hays code and decades of queer-coding villains as evil or sexually depraved in fiction and popular culture. A fictional male serial killer tends not to simply "have worn a dress," that specific detail, like all details in fiction, is intended to communicate something to the reader/viewer, and most of the time it's to present the character's non-heteronormative behavior as a symptom of their moral evil.
Technically speaking there's nothing wrong with depicting a Black person eating a watermelon and fried chicken but there's context behind the tendency to interpret it other than purely literal terms.
> that specific detail, like all details in fiction, is intended to communicate something to the reader/viewer
Except the details of being white or male - those are not intended to communicate anything?
Except the details of being white or male - those are not intended to communicate anything?
>Except the details of being white or male - those are not intended to communicate anything?
Not typically. Being white and male (and straight, and Christian) is considered so normative in Western society and culture that it's basically a blank slate, "default human." How often is a white character's race specifically mentioned, unless it's to form a contrast with some other non-white character's race?
It almost never happens, because white male characters are often just there. Every deviation from that norm has to be specifically mentioned and pointed out, and unless the author is part of the group or culture being portrayed, is usually done through stereotype.
Not typically. Being white and male (and straight, and Christian) is considered so normative in Western society and culture that it's basically a blank slate, "default human." How often is a white character's race specifically mentioned, unless it's to form a contrast with some other non-white character's race?
It almost never happens, because white male characters are often just there. Every deviation from that norm has to be specifically mentioned and pointed out, and unless the author is part of the group or culture being portrayed, is usually done through stereotype.
it's not true that JK Rowling was or is doing that. that's a misrepresentation.
I think this comment exemplifies the core of the issue. It’s not that many people actually have a problem with society holding famous people to account for their misdeeds. It’s that they simply don’t think they are misdeeds. They don’t find a problem with the things JK says and they feel like Woody Allen is probably a nice guy unfairly being attacked. Which like actually fine, that’s a legitimate position you can take which might actually be right, but it doesn’t really say anything about it being ok or not for the larger culture to sanction people
but it doesn’t really say anything about it being ok or not for the larger culture to sanction people
You can sanction Rowling, don't buy her books. You can criticize Rowling, you can publish books hating on Rowling, those are all great ways in a free society to show opposition. The problem is that activists want to destroy Rowling, erase her from public space, and deny others the right to buy and read her books. Rowling has enough power and stature where she isn't really threatened, but smaller authors are being "disappeared".
You can sanction Rowling, don't buy her books. You can criticize Rowling, you can publish books hating on Rowling, those are all great ways in a free society to show opposition. The problem is that activists want to destroy Rowling, erase her from public space, and deny others the right to buy and read her books. Rowling has enough power and stature where she isn't really threatened, but smaller authors are being "disappeared".
I mean I’m actually in a camp that this stuff can and has gone too far sometimes, but implicitly this is still almost always an argument about how bad the things said really are, because actually I’m pretty sure most people are fine with some ideas and people being “canceled”. They just think these particular ideas go too far. But the problem is that people then turn around and try to argue that really they’re just arguing for the free flow of ideas or some such
I think you're mostly right, but there are actually people who believe in the free flow of ideas. The liberals and libertarians believed it before the current spat of censorship started, and many people who just disagree with the censors this time are flocking to their banners in an alliance of convenience.
That is to say, I think there are actual true believers when it comes to free speech.
Edit: I just reread your comment and there's a "most" I missed the first time. Leaving this comment up, but safe to say I agree.
That is to say, I think there are actual true believers when it comes to free speech.
Edit: I just reread your comment and there's a "most" I missed the first time. Leaving this comment up, but safe to say I agree.
[deleted]
The other problem with this claim is that even if you do believe that J K Rowling's personal views are transphobic (and honestly, they probably are), she really doesn't seem to have been using her power to push them. The woke establishment that's been going after her, on the other hand, absolutely used their power to push transphobia in ways that actually mattered, including into UK law.
I mean we wouldn’t even be talking about this if she wasn’t you know a famous well respected author. I haven’t read her latest book, but my understanding is it has a character who is pretty close to the terf idea of what a trans person is which would seem like it’s using her writing to perpetuate her view
The concept that it is perpetuating her view seems very questionable to me.
Is it influenced by her view? Of course.
Does it perpetuate it? Surely that depends on how readers react to it. We are free to interpret works as we like.
My own view on this is complex.
The problems JK Rowling outlines are clearly real, but of course so are the problems of trans people in gaining acceptance in society. Both TERFs and Trans people are groups that face gendered violence.
If the mere writing of a character that holds a view ‘perpetuates it’, then don’t we need to burn all books written before the 1990s?
Is it influenced by her view? Of course.
Does it perpetuate it? Surely that depends on how readers react to it. We are free to interpret works as we like.
My own view on this is complex.
The problems JK Rowling outlines are clearly real, but of course so are the problems of trans people in gaining acceptance in society. Both TERFs and Trans people are groups that face gendered violence.
If the mere writing of a character that holds a view ‘perpetuates it’, then don’t we need to burn all books written before the 1990s?
Being against the existence of trans people and criticizing the claims or actions of people that happen to be trans are two different things.
But the online trans community is extremely aggressive against any criticism, trying to slander whoever they consider their opponents and performing character assassinations.
Anti-trans speech may be perfectly fine. They're not saints and they're not perfect, why should they be beyond critique?
But the online trans community is extremely aggressive against any criticism, trying to slander whoever they consider their opponents and performing character assassinations.
Anti-trans speech may be perfectly fine. They're not saints and they're not perfect, why should they be beyond critique?
i’m not familiar with JKR’s anti-trans speech. got a quote?
Might be this is the kind of thing you’re looking for: https://www.glamour.com/story/a-complete-breakdown-of-the-jk...
> On June 6, 2020, Rowling retweeted an op-ed piece that discussed “people who menstruate,” apparently taking issue with the fact that the story did not use the word women. “‘People who menstruate.’ I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?
I'm still not convinced this is anti-trans. I mean it's reality so for people to want to cancel her over this is ridiculous (which sums up the woke-ideology pretty much).
I'm still not convinced this is anti-trans. I mean it's reality so for people to want to cancel her over this is ridiculous (which sums up the woke-ideology pretty much).
This pulled quote, in isolation, might not be, sure. The question about this particular complaint is whether its meant exclusively or inclusively. Does a woman who has stopped menstruating stop being a woman? Is a woman who has never menstruated and never will, in fact, not a woman? What if these people feel in their person like women? How one reads Rowling's comment in light of these questions informs one's sense of her intent.
If you read Rowling's comment inclusively then it's a clumsy, ambiguous complaint about shifting language norms that is harmless and warrants a clarification. If you read the comment exclusively -- which I think is fair given Rowling's other statements over the years -- then I find it hard to read in a charitable light. It is, I admit, entirely possible that Rowling doesn't hold trans-exclusionary views and has merely, accidentally chosen ambiguous wording over the years and is pig-headed enough to be unwilling to clarify but I do find this _unlikely_ considering that she's a famously clear author who is willing to clarify (and extend) her body of work for years after the fact.
If you read Rowling's comment inclusively then it's a clumsy, ambiguous complaint about shifting language norms that is harmless and warrants a clarification. If you read the comment exclusively -- which I think is fair given Rowling's other statements over the years -- then I find it hard to read in a charitable light. It is, I admit, entirely possible that Rowling doesn't hold trans-exclusionary views and has merely, accidentally chosen ambiguous wording over the years and is pig-headed enough to be unwilling to clarify but I do find this _unlikely_ considering that she's a famously clear author who is willing to clarify (and extend) her body of work for years after the fact.
> Does a woman who has stopped menstruating stop being a woman?
Equally does a man who wears women's clothes make them a woman? I'm happy for them to call themselves a trans-woman, and "she", but we have to have language that separates the sexes at the biological level.
> What if these people feel in their person like women?
The word "feel" in this context is extremely woolly. This is how we have gotten ourselves into this ridiculous situation where no-one can agree on anything to do with gender / sexes.
> If you read Rowling's comment inclusively then it's a clumsy, ambiguous complaint about shifting language norms that is harmless and warrants a clarification. If you read the comment exclusively -- which I think is fair given Rowling's other statements over the years -- then I find it hard to read in a charitable light. It is, I admit, entirely possible that Rowling doesn't hold trans-exclusionary views and has merely, accidentally chosen ambiguous wording over the years and is pig-headed enough to be unwilling to clarify but I do find this _unlikely_ considering that she's a famously clear author who is willing to clarify (and extend) her body of work for years after the fact.
So you might be partly right on this - but given her contribution to literacy and the arts and woman's rights we know she is a thoughtful, intelligent, compassionate person. Given all her positive contributions to society the hostile reaction from the trans-side is telling really.
Equally does a man who wears women's clothes make them a woman? I'm happy for them to call themselves a trans-woman, and "she", but we have to have language that separates the sexes at the biological level.
> What if these people feel in their person like women?
The word "feel" in this context is extremely woolly. This is how we have gotten ourselves into this ridiculous situation where no-one can agree on anything to do with gender / sexes.
> If you read Rowling's comment inclusively then it's a clumsy, ambiguous complaint about shifting language norms that is harmless and warrants a clarification. If you read the comment exclusively -- which I think is fair given Rowling's other statements over the years -- then I find it hard to read in a charitable light. It is, I admit, entirely possible that Rowling doesn't hold trans-exclusionary views and has merely, accidentally chosen ambiguous wording over the years and is pig-headed enough to be unwilling to clarify but I do find this _unlikely_ considering that she's a famously clear author who is willing to clarify (and extend) her body of work for years after the fact.
So you might be partly right on this - but given her contribution to literacy and the arts and woman's rights we know she is a thoughtful, intelligent, compassionate person. Given all her positive contributions to society the hostile reaction from the trans-side is telling really.
Do you know of any other group of people who are menstruating and are not women?
Some trans men and non binary people. And many women don't menstruate.
>Some trans men and non binary people.
Those are biological females (women).
>And many women don't menstruate.
What is your point here?
Those are biological females (women).
>And many women don't menstruate.
What is your point here?
Woman most commonly refers to gender. Very few people know the sex of most people they meet.
The point is women isn't a synonym for people who menstruate even if you ignore trans people.
What sort of answer to your original question did you expect?
The point is women isn't a synonym for people who menstruate even if you ignore trans people.
What sort of answer to your original question did you expect?
>Woman most commonly refers to gender. Very few people know the sex of most people they meet.
If one would do a general survey, most ordinary people would consider sex and gender the same thing. Most of them would also say that they know the sex of somebody they see for the first time. Which is statistically true, because people whose sex and gender don't match are truly a small minority.
>The point is women isn't a synonym for people who menstruate even if you ignore trans people.
For the pedantic I guess she should have said: women who are in their fertile age without health problems or taking medications which prevent menstruation.
>What sort of answer to your original question did you expect?
A possible medical breakthrough.
If one would do a general survey, most ordinary people would consider sex and gender the same thing. Most of them would also say that they know the sex of somebody they see for the first time. Which is statistically true, because people whose sex and gender don't match are truly a small minority.
>The point is women isn't a synonym for people who menstruate even if you ignore trans people.
For the pedantic I guess she should have said: women who are in their fertile age without health problems or taking medications which prevent menstruation.
>What sort of answer to your original question did you expect?
A possible medical breakthrough.
Guessing right most of the time isn't knowing. And people not knowing how sex and gender differ doesn't change the fact that they rely on gender markers lots and chromosomes never.
People who menstruate is much shorter than your suggestion.
People who menstruate is much shorter than your suggestion.
>Guessing right most of the time isn't knowing. And people not knowing how sex and gender differ doesn't change the fact that they rely on gender markers lots and chromosomes never.
"gender markers" and "chromosomes" are the same thing for 99% of the population. So guessing really is knowing.
> People who menstruate is much shorter than your suggestion.
Women is even shorter and everybody in the whole world understands it.
"gender markers" and "chromosomes" are the same thing for 99% of the population. So guessing really is knowing.
> People who menstruate is much shorter than your suggestion.
Women is even shorter and everybody in the whole world understands it.
> Very few people know the sex of most people they meet.
This is false.
> The point is women isn't a synonym for people who menstruate even if you ignore trans people.
It was until it was high jacked.
This is false.
> The point is women isn't a synonym for people who menstruate even if you ignore trans people.
It was until it was high jacked.
The tl;dr of it is that she's commented about biological femininity as a real experience distinct from trans-females. That offends the ideological extreme of the trans movement which has labelled her a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist).
Weird. The trans people I know and speak to have no problem with the acknowledgement of biological femininity. Actually they mostly factor that fact of world into part of what defines their identity..
JKR is much more clearly TE than RF.
why is it TE to have an opinion?
That’s like asking “why is it racist to have an opinion?”
It’s not. Its TE (or racist, or whatever) to have a TE (or racist, or whatever) opinion.
It’s not. Its TE (or racist, or whatever) to have a TE (or racist, or whatever) opinion.
Is it in some absolute sense for all time?
Or is it only ‘TE’ within the theoretical framework of Trans activists?
Or is it only ‘TE’ within the theoretical framework of Trans activists?
Excluding people is exclusionary. It doesn't mean justified or unjustified.
Excluding people from a category is just a way of thinking about something.
Trans people exclude CIS people from the category of Trans.
Do we call them CIS exclusionary?
Just saying someone else is exclusionary is meaningless.
Trans people exclude CIS people from the category of Trans.
Do we call them CIS exclusionary?
Just saying someone else is exclusionary is meaningless.
Excluding someone from a domestic violence shelter isn't just a way of thinking about something. Imprisoning people more likely to be raped with people more likely to rape them isn't just a way of thinking about something.
Cis and trans are opposites by definition. They existed long before they were applied to gender.
Cis and trans are opposites by definition. They existed long before they were applied to gender.
> Excluding someone from a domestic violence shelter isn't just a way of thinking about something. Imprisoning people more likely to be raped with people more likely to rape them isn't just a way of thinking about something.
True, but the relevance is not obvious because these aren’t problems caused by so called TERFs.
It’s also not true that censoring JK Rowling is required as part of solving them, either.
> Cis and trans are opposites by definition. They existed long before they were applied to gender.
Does that mean that you think that cisgender women are not in the same category as transgender women?
True, but the relevance is not obvious because these aren’t problems caused by so called TERFs.
It’s also not true that censoring JK Rowling is required as part of solving them, either.
> Cis and trans are opposites by definition. They existed long before they were applied to gender.
Does that mean that you think that cisgender women are not in the same category as transgender women?
TE people advocate policies that create those outcomes. I've seen none support creation of separate but equal facilities for trans people. It's too costly for such a small minority they say.
Rowling hasn't been censored.
Cis women and trans women are in the category of women.
Rowling hasn't been censored.
Cis women and trans women are in the category of women.
> The idea is that Rowling makes money off of selling her books and has built an empire, and the resultant power is now used by her as a platform to propagate anti-trans speech. Quite a different issue and also quite novel
People building fame in art and using that fame to advocate for causes, including the cause of preserving the marginalization of particular marginalized communities, is not novel.
People building fame in art and using that fame to advocate for causes, including the cause of preserving the marginalization of particular marginalized communities, is not novel.
This take sounds like Rowling had written Harry Potter to fulfill her dream of one day being famous and crushing transsexuals beneath her expensive heels. "When I am a billionaire author," she cackled, "I will show them all!"
Famous people are still people, and they still have opinions. Opinions you might not even agree with. Are we to exclude the famous from speaking their opinions? I would love to see how that would work, both legally and as kind of a sci-fi premise. Actors interviewed on late night shows offering only the blandest of reactions to what is said. No longer are musicians able to fund charities with their wealth, since donations are speech, as per the Supreme Court. Court battles are waged over how wealthy must be or how many Google hits are found for their name before someone is too famous to have opinions.
It lacks laser-guns and aliens, but as a very dry, Burgess-like exploration of government policy as a near-future sci-fi, it might be workable.
Famous people are still people, and they still have opinions. Opinions you might not even agree with. Are we to exclude the famous from speaking their opinions? I would love to see how that would work, both legally and as kind of a sci-fi premise. Actors interviewed on late night shows offering only the blandest of reactions to what is said. No longer are musicians able to fund charities with their wealth, since donations are speech, as per the Supreme Court. Court battles are waged over how wealthy must be or how many Google hits are found for their name before someone is too famous to have opinions.
It lacks laser-guns and aliens, but as a very dry, Burgess-like exploration of government policy as a near-future sci-fi, it might be workable.
> This take sounds like Rowling had written Harry Potter to fulfill her dream of one day being famous and crushing transsexuals beneath her expensive heels.
First, my response was denying that the description was of a phenomenon which was in any way novel as the upthread poster claimed, it wasn’t my description.
Second, I don’t read it that way: it was simply describing that, Rowling achieved fame and then, having achieved it, used it to sell certain ideas. There was no suggestion that it was planned in advance as a strategy, or even that that use was especially prominent among her uses of the fame.
First, my response was denying that the description was of a phenomenon which was in any way novel as the upthread poster claimed, it wasn’t my description.
Second, I don’t read it that way: it was simply describing that, Rowling achieved fame and then, having achieved it, used it to sell certain ideas. There was no suggestion that it was planned in advance as a strategy, or even that that use was especially prominent among her uses of the fame.
and you can’t let people decide whether to give her money or not because you are an elitist.
Yeah, I used to think the JK Rowling thing was just another example of Twitter activists blowing a celebrity's words out of proportion, then I watched the Contrapoints video on JK Rowling. Now I'm convinced she's not only a transphobe, but is intentionally manipulating a public which is largely ignorant of trans issues into thinking she's the victim. As you can see from plenty of the other comments, it's working.
> a platform to propagate anti-trans speech
This kind of response is precisely the thing that irks me to no end and it's something nobody will ever discuss. They'll just shun you or hurl a slogan at you as if you said something utterly ridiculous.
Let's broaden our time horizons a bit to something longer than the time it takes to read a tweet. When did you start to stand up for "trans" and oppose "anti-trans"? I'm asking a serious question, if only rhetorically. When did this become the obvious thing to do, the right thing to do, a matter of fact, and beyond discussion? Was there ever a discussion? Because all I can remember is that one day we were calling this gender dysphoria, a mental disorder, and the next day, a bunch of aggressive campus demonstrators were making demands and hurling accusations and trying to silence and bully people into going along. Then, all of a sudden, a new generation of college graduates started entering the workplace repeating these stock slogans verbatim. What are they, agents of the Komsomol?
What horrifies me is how easily people go along without question. It is truly horrifying. It horrifies me that they don't even seem to realize that that's what they're doing, floating downstream, wherever the current takes them. Milgram was crude child's play by comparison!
So when you condemn JK Rowling for disagreeing as if she had committed some crime against humanity, in light of how things actually transpired, in light of how viciously this program has been and is being implemented, I really makes me wonder.
This kind of response is precisely the thing that irks me to no end and it's something nobody will ever discuss. They'll just shun you or hurl a slogan at you as if you said something utterly ridiculous.
Let's broaden our time horizons a bit to something longer than the time it takes to read a tweet. When did you start to stand up for "trans" and oppose "anti-trans"? I'm asking a serious question, if only rhetorically. When did this become the obvious thing to do, the right thing to do, a matter of fact, and beyond discussion? Was there ever a discussion? Because all I can remember is that one day we were calling this gender dysphoria, a mental disorder, and the next day, a bunch of aggressive campus demonstrators were making demands and hurling accusations and trying to silence and bully people into going along. Then, all of a sudden, a new generation of college graduates started entering the workplace repeating these stock slogans verbatim. What are they, agents of the Komsomol?
What horrifies me is how easily people go along without question. It is truly horrifying. It horrifies me that they don't even seem to realize that that's what they're doing, floating downstream, wherever the current takes them. Milgram was crude child's play by comparison!
So when you condemn JK Rowling for disagreeing as if she had committed some crime against humanity, in light of how things actually transpired, in light of how viciously this program has been and is being implemented, I really makes me wonder.
>https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/mar/10/not-suitable-c...
This extends beyond the contents of the book. Here a "white" (but really Catalan) man was fired from translating a poem because his identity didn't mirror the poet's.
This extends beyond the contents of the book. Here a "white" (but really Catalan) man was fired from translating a poem because his identity didn't mirror the poet's.
When will the insanity end?
Educating others, communicating events, and discussing these cultural touchstones is the beginning of the end for such things. It's a process (I think), and we're all collectively part of it. The end of this particular cycle may not have a definitive date though.
I want to stress that honest and open communication about opinions and a commitment to truth and the long process of fact-checking seems to be the best way forward, if not necessarily the easiest.
I want to stress that honest and open communication about opinions and a commitment to truth and the long process of fact-checking seems to be the best way forward, if not necessarily the easiest.
Funny you would mention Catalan when Catalonian public schools are trying to extinguish the use of Spanish on the basis that 60 years ago it was "the language of Franco and fascism". The amount of moral crusading in Catalonia against the use of the Spanish language is appalling.
Looks like this modern moralism really does extend much farther than publishing books.
https://www.elconfidencial.com/espana/2020-11-05/la-comision...
Looks like this modern moralism really does extend much farther than publishing books.
https://www.elconfidencial.com/espana/2020-11-05/la-comision...
I'm surprised more writers don't advertise with slogans like "read the dangerous book they don't want you to read."
It's also possible that the most interesting writing is happening in the self-published world, or the near-self-published world. That's where current classics like Lolita or Ulysses came from. Or much of D.H. Lawrence.
It's also possible that the most interesting writing is happening in the self-published world, or the near-self-published world. That's where current classics like Lolita or Ulysses came from. Or much of D.H. Lawrence.
I read a rambling self-published screed by what I can only assume is an alt-right man in his 20s called Harassment Architecture. It was really bizarre and like nothing I’d ever read. I couldn’t put it down, it felt almost pornographic him saying things that just aren’t allowed to be said. Like listening to circa 2000 Eminem in 2021. I’m honestly not even sure how I got the book, I think I was drunk and ordered it off of Amazon.
I wouldn’t say I recommend the book, but I think you’re right that there’s a lot of self published stuff now that is really off the wall.
I wouldn’t say I recommend the book, but I think you’re right that there’s a lot of self published stuff now that is really off the wall.
That's been the primary manner of marketing a whole genre of books for decades. Therefore you can't use that slogan unless you're OK with being mistaken for that genre.
Neither of those novels was self-published, or “near”ly so.
I suppose the OP meant choosing (or being forced) to eschew mainstream publishers when publishing one’s book. Lolita and Ulysses both had to be put out by small presses in Paris where there was no censorship, though indeed this isn’t quite self-publishing because there was a publisher who took on the risk.
Letting a small publisher that was not your first choice publish your book isn’t just not “quite” self-publishing, it has nothing to do with self-publishing.
In practice, the concepts overlap more than you seem willing to admit, especially today. As a literary translator, I see this often: authors have a book they want to get out in a foreign language, but a mainstream publisher won’t touch it (due to the belief it won’t sell enough), so instead the author has to turn to a small press specializing in that kind of literature.
But here’s the thing: many of those small presses also double as vanity presses. Some of the manuscripts they publish they think are deserving literature and they take on the risk, but for other books they put out they simply accept the manuscript because the author is willing to pay them a few thousand euro (and in internal discussions with me as the translator, the publisher’s staff even admit that the book is author-funded crap). The ordinary consumer actually has no way of knowing which of the small press's books were published on literary merit, and which ones are vanity press. Also, due to the pressure on small presses to cut costs, both merit-published and vanity-press titles get the same lax proofreading and editing and poor typesetting.
But here’s the thing: many of those small presses also double as vanity presses. Some of the manuscripts they publish they think are deserving literature and they take on the risk, but for other books they put out they simply accept the manuscript because the author is willing to pay them a few thousand euro (and in internal discussions with me as the translator, the publisher’s staff even admit that the book is author-funded crap). The ordinary consumer actually has no way of knowing which of the small press's books were published on literary merit, and which ones are vanity press. Also, due to the pressure on small presses to cut costs, both merit-published and vanity-press titles get the same lax proofreading and editing and poor typesetting.
I know about everything you say here, and it’s all true. But it has nothing to do with the two novels under discussion.
That’s what’s happening. Publications like Substack are letting authors escape the censors. Others still like Quillette, Aero, Spiked and more traditional ones like the Spectator have an anti woke consensus mission - and they represent the entire political spectrum.
I’m not sure about book publishers but the change is happening across media more widely. The progressive left keeps getting hammered in elections in Europe at least, but it seems certain institutions are going the other way, not least media.
I’m not sure about book publishers but the change is happening across media more widely. The progressive left keeps getting hammered in elections in Europe at least, but it seems certain institutions are going the other way, not least media.
What's actually happening: society is justifiably deciding that some things that used to pass without notice, because people were very racist or sexist or homophobic or whatever, are now recognisably and irreparably awful. And we should probably stop doing them because they are hurting people. Both directly, by being the constant micro-aggression wallpaper of marginalised lives, and indirectly, by sustaining a cultural environment that comforts bigots in their bigotry.
I don't expect HN to understand this. But it is fundamentally different from the various tirades of the Moral Majority and friends. This is not an attempt to impose a religious set of restraints. This is an attempt to make the world kinder and less awful. And it is a good thing.
I don't expect HN to understand this. But it is fundamentally different from the various tirades of the Moral Majority and friends. This is not an attempt to impose a religious set of restraints. This is an attempt to make the world kinder and less awful. And it is a good thing.
> I don't expect HN to understand this. But it is fundamentally different from the various tirades of the Moral Majority and friends. This is not an attempt to impose a religious set of restraints. This is an attempt to make the world kinder and less awful. And it is a good thing.
But the Moral Majority was also an attempt to make the world kinder and less awful. They just had different definitions of "kinder" and "awful" than you do.
If you don't like having it done to you (or viewpoints you like), then don't do it to others.
But the Moral Majority was also an attempt to make the world kinder and less awful. They just had different definitions of "kinder" and "awful" than you do.
If you don't like having it done to you (or viewpoints you like), then don't do it to others.
Who decides what is ok and what isn't? In a free society people are allowed to express views, even if it offends someone.
I really don't expect the woke communists to accept a free society though.
I really don't expect the woke communists to accept a free society though.
[deleted]
> society
No. It’s an ideology of the elites.
No. It’s an ideology of the elites.
Look at many of our popular online comics for examples of this. What do we call this, "populist fascism"?
I'm really out of the loop, what is going on in online comics?
A vast carefulness is occurring. A ubiquitous attempt to stay on the right side of the twitter mob.
[deleted]
Every major publisher is a capitalist enterprise. Editors, et al., are merely devices to operate such enterprise in order to deliver monetary value to board members and shareholders. All decisions, one way or another, are toward that aim, regardless of surface appearance. Those who have a problem with the current situation actually, then, have a problem with capitalism but don't know or can't admit it. Capitalism is not a moral force (except unto itself) and just senses the wind and responds to it to perpetuate itself. The 'woke' stuff Disney used to make was Song of the South. Now it's (whatever they do these days).
I mostly agree with what you wrote, but "Capitalism is not a moral force (except unto itself)" isn't right. It absolutely is a moral force that has passed judgment on lazy, poor, and uneducated rubes who don't toil endlessly and retire unhappy to die early and not drain the system. Our society constantly shames people who don't buy the propaganda about our moral overlords, the Bezoses, Gateses, and Musks of the world.
That is what I meant by 'unto itself'. The only type of morality it allows for is what can be deployed as a defense of and perpetuation of itself. (Those whom God has blessed with riches, as the ancient tautology goes, are favored by God. Is there much distinction between the invisible hand of the market and the invisible hand of God? Did we finally invent a God that moves on its own?)
I wish the woke arbiters of what is allowed would come out with a handy color wheel that you could compare to your skin and it would tell you what you're allowed to write about.
I hate this kind of anti-woke reactionary stuff.
... but for aspiring writers, there is a problem. On the one hand, writers should write what they know. They shouldn't try to assume they know some minority's lived experiences.
On the other hand, literature should be inclusive. That means including minorities, and not just as peripheral characters. We don't need more My Magical Gay Friend stories.
I haven't heard a good discussion on how to reconcile this contradiction. The only avenue that leaves is for straight white people to stop writing, and, y'know: No.
The outrage does seem selective. I mean, one of the seminal classics of science-fiction literature on the subject of gender - and a very popular book among feminist readers - is The Left Hand of Darkness, by Ursula K. LeGuin. And I've never heard anyone complain that she wrote a black protagonist, despite not having black experiences. But on the other hand, The Left Hand of Darkness isn't much about the black experience. It's more of a travelogue of a genderless society.
So maybe that's the distinction?
American Dirt isn't just about a Mexican, it's a story of the Mexican-American immigration experience. And maybe it's right that stories like that should be written by people who're closer to them?
... but for aspiring writers, there is a problem. On the one hand, writers should write what they know. They shouldn't try to assume they know some minority's lived experiences.
On the other hand, literature should be inclusive. That means including minorities, and not just as peripheral characters. We don't need more My Magical Gay Friend stories.
I haven't heard a good discussion on how to reconcile this contradiction. The only avenue that leaves is for straight white people to stop writing, and, y'know: No.
The outrage does seem selective. I mean, one of the seminal classics of science-fiction literature on the subject of gender - and a very popular book among feminist readers - is The Left Hand of Darkness, by Ursula K. LeGuin. And I've never heard anyone complain that she wrote a black protagonist, despite not having black experiences. But on the other hand, The Left Hand of Darkness isn't much about the black experience. It's more of a travelogue of a genderless society.
So maybe that's the distinction?
American Dirt isn't just about a Mexican, it's a story of the Mexican-American immigration experience. And maybe it's right that stories like that should be written by people who're closer to them?
> I haven’t heard a good discussion on how to reconcile this contradiction.
The best way to reconcile it is to stop engaging in the fallacy of division.
Literature should be inclusive. Not every individual work of literature needs to be inclusive of every identity. Yes, a cis-het-male-Euro-American writer writing about unique experiences of cis-het-male-Euro-Americans (where characters of other backgrounds are seen only through the perspective of cit-het-male-Euro-Americans) might not speak to lots of people who aren’t cis-het-male-Euro-Americans. So what? It’s not a problem that such works exist, it is a problem when such works dominate available literature to the near-exclusion of other viewpoints.
The best way to reconcile it is to stop engaging in the fallacy of division.
Literature should be inclusive. Not every individual work of literature needs to be inclusive of every identity. Yes, a cis-het-male-Euro-American writer writing about unique experiences of cis-het-male-Euro-Americans (where characters of other backgrounds are seen only through the perspective of cit-het-male-Euro-Americans) might not speak to lots of people who aren’t cis-het-male-Euro-Americans. So what? It’s not a problem that such works exist, it is a problem when such works dominate available literature to the near-exclusion of other viewpoints.
Yes, but what do you tell a straight, white writer? Not the publishing industry as a whole that has been rightly lambasted as being too homogeneous historically.
What do you tell a single writer? Should they contribute to the problem by telling more stories about white guys? Exclusively focus on their own experiences?
Or should they try to learn from people around them and include those people in their stories to create more diversity? And if so, where's the line between diversity and tokenism? Between inclusion and appropriation?
What do you tell a single writer? Should they contribute to the problem by telling more stories about white guys? Exclusively focus on their own experiences?
Or should they try to learn from people around them and include those people in their stories to create more diversity? And if so, where's the line between diversity and tokenism? Between inclusion and appropriation?
> Yes, but what do you tell a straight, white writer?
“Do what thou wilt”
I'm not really into telling artists how to art, and the problem is not one that straight white artists are particularly poised to meaningfully contribute to solving through their art in any case.
> Or should they try to learn from people around them
I think this is a good thing for people to do as people, and if they happen to be artists it will inevitably have some effect on their art, but the solution to the problem of the world of any particular art being insufficiently inclusive of marginalized viewpoints isn't for artists from nonmarginalized communities to get to know marginalized communities so that the nonmarginalized artists art can speak for the marginalized communities.
“Do what thou wilt”
I'm not really into telling artists how to art, and the problem is not one that straight white artists are particularly poised to meaningfully contribute to solving through their art in any case.
> Or should they try to learn from people around them
I think this is a good thing for people to do as people, and if they happen to be artists it will inevitably have some effect on their art, but the solution to the problem of the world of any particular art being insufficiently inclusive of marginalized viewpoints isn't for artists from nonmarginalized communities to get to know marginalized communities so that the nonmarginalized artists art can speak for the marginalized communities.
Or mind your own business and let other people write whatever they well please. It's fiction not science. Don't let the intellectual midgets bully you about what you can or can't write about.
Great literature transcends culture. Take Fiddler On The Roof, for example. People in... I forget, Japan maybe?... were saying "We understand why it's popular here, but why do they like it in America?" If you can reach to that level, it doesn't matter that you're a cis-het-male-Euro-American, or that you're a trans-gay-female-black-African. It won't matter if you set your story in America or Nigeria. Your literature will speak to lots of people in lots of different cultures and situations.
But if you're just a run-of-the-mill writer, your stuff won't transcend anything. Still, you should try to include the real variety of people that your setting really has, and to do so with as much understanding of those people as you can.
But if you're just a run-of-the-mill writer, your stuff won't transcend anything. Still, you should try to include the real variety of people that your setting really has, and to do so with as much understanding of those people as you can.
> On the one hand, writers should write what they know. They shouldn't try to assume they know some minority's lived experiences.
To be a bit cynical, here's a quote from Goethe:
> No one has ever properly understood me, I have never fully understood anyone; and no one understands anyone else
Just because you're the same ethnicity/gender/whatever as someone else, does it mean you're "entitled" to claim you understand them? Or is it just some assumption that you can only write from experience and everything else should be disregarded?
Many great works of literature contain a large breadth of characters coming from different environments, classes, genders etc. - should they be discounted automatically because the author could not have been "authentic" when writing them?
To be a bit cynical, here's a quote from Goethe:
> No one has ever properly understood me, I have never fully understood anyone; and no one understands anyone else
Just because you're the same ethnicity/gender/whatever as someone else, does it mean you're "entitled" to claim you understand them? Or is it just some assumption that you can only write from experience and everything else should be disregarded?
Many great works of literature contain a large breadth of characters coming from different environments, classes, genders etc. - should they be discounted automatically because the author could not have been "authentic" when writing them?
> I haven't heard a good discussion on how to reconcile this contradiction.
Both arguments are pushed by the woke on purpose, to both be able to complain if no minorities are in a story and to complain if there are.
The way to reconcile it is that no one should feel forced to be inclusive (this is how you get forced token characters) and "write what you know" is not a rule set in stone. Plus it's a terrible argument because minorities are not some hivemind. For example, I'm trans and just a trans person wrote a book, stars in a movie, etc, doesn't mean I'll agree with them and how they portray trans people. In fact in the current political climate we are far more likely to disagree (I don't believe in a hundred genders, I believe you need dysphoria to be trans, etc), and I often feel any representation is making a complete mockery of my condition.
And as someone else has already pointed out, both types of books can co-exist. Lets take the extreme case that someone writes a shitty portrayal of some minority, it's bad, filled with cliches (or my reality where I feel these are actually hurtful to how we're represented, etc). So what? I'd rather have the right to critique and ridicule them then not, while also retaining my right to write whatever the hell I want. The other side's argument against my views are after all, very similar, that my view is hurtful. Who's right? Who's to judge? Currently it's only the side complaining the loudest.
And let's go further. I'm not out except to close family. I'm also bi and not out due to the culture where I live. To anyone on the street/internet I look like a "straight white man". Were I to write a book with a character modeled after me probably no one would want to publish it because it's not pc, and if it was published many would try to cancel me. Another example, I might write something historically accurate with a minority character, but history is not pretty, it's racist and cruel, and whatever I wrote would probably have the same problem because context no longer matters. Is this really the world we want to live in?
Both arguments are pushed by the woke on purpose, to both be able to complain if no minorities are in a story and to complain if there are.
The way to reconcile it is that no one should feel forced to be inclusive (this is how you get forced token characters) and "write what you know" is not a rule set in stone. Plus it's a terrible argument because minorities are not some hivemind. For example, I'm trans and just a trans person wrote a book, stars in a movie, etc, doesn't mean I'll agree with them and how they portray trans people. In fact in the current political climate we are far more likely to disagree (I don't believe in a hundred genders, I believe you need dysphoria to be trans, etc), and I often feel any representation is making a complete mockery of my condition.
And as someone else has already pointed out, both types of books can co-exist. Lets take the extreme case that someone writes a shitty portrayal of some minority, it's bad, filled with cliches (or my reality where I feel these are actually hurtful to how we're represented, etc). So what? I'd rather have the right to critique and ridicule them then not, while also retaining my right to write whatever the hell I want. The other side's argument against my views are after all, very similar, that my view is hurtful. Who's right? Who's to judge? Currently it's only the side complaining the loudest.
And let's go further. I'm not out except to close family. I'm also bi and not out due to the culture where I live. To anyone on the street/internet I look like a "straight white man". Were I to write a book with a character modeled after me probably no one would want to publish it because it's not pc, and if it was published many would try to cancel me. Another example, I might write something historically accurate with a minority character, but history is not pretty, it's racist and cruel, and whatever I wrote would probably have the same problem because context no longer matters. Is this really the world we want to live in?
It's a tricky dichotomy.
Part of the resolution is to make characters' identities peripheral. The problem with the Magical Gay Friend story isn't that they're gay, but that they're in the story to be gay. What if you took some other character and just randomly decided, "The person he's married to happens to be named Tom". That's it.
Another part is to collect characters. This is something every writer is supposed to do. They meet interesting people and build their characters using the pieces of real humans. So instead of this being "the gay character", it's based on Mike, the drone flying, amaretto-sipping, former gas station manager who went into security consulting, and really hates San Diego but has to go there all the time because his stepmom lives there. Oh, and he met his husband Tom when he needed help pumping gas because he was wearing a tuxedo on his way to a friend's wedding and didn't want to pump it himself.
Your story about Mike could be anything. He uncovers a spy ring. He's unhappy with his new job and can't figure out what to do next. He tried heroin and really, really liked it. He and Tom don't have to be gay in this story. All they have to do is be people.
Part of the resolution is to make characters' identities peripheral. The problem with the Magical Gay Friend story isn't that they're gay, but that they're in the story to be gay. What if you took some other character and just randomly decided, "The person he's married to happens to be named Tom". That's it.
Another part is to collect characters. This is something every writer is supposed to do. They meet interesting people and build their characters using the pieces of real humans. So instead of this being "the gay character", it's based on Mike, the drone flying, amaretto-sipping, former gas station manager who went into security consulting, and really hates San Diego but has to go there all the time because his stepmom lives there. Oh, and he met his husband Tom when he needed help pumping gas because he was wearing a tuxedo on his way to a friend's wedding and didn't want to pump it himself.
Your story about Mike could be anything. He uncovers a spy ring. He's unhappy with his new job and can't figure out what to do next. He tried heroin and really, really liked it. He and Tom don't have to be gay in this story. All they have to do is be people.
My response to this is: why should anyone care? Write a book about whatever you want. If people want a “more authentic rendition” then read the story by the Mexican American immigrant author. If the white author has a flair to the story you enjoy, then read that. There can be annoyance and criticism as well of course. The author shouldn’t be “punished” by institutions though. Simply don’t buy the book.
I'm pretty sure, having seen some interviews with Ursula K. LeGuin, that something as transgressive towards our society's assumptions about gender as The Left Hand of Darkness would not have been written or published today, and certainly not by her or anyone who had the same influences and social circles as she did.
>And maybe it's right that stories like that should be written by people who're closer to them?
Both books should be able to exist simultaneously.
Both books should be able to exist simultaneously.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Le Guin is tolerated because so many people assume, on the basis of other female authors from mid-century who wrote similar gender-questioning books, that Le Guin was a lesbian. As both a woman and a member of the LGBT community, she would therefore represent intersectionality, and in the current climate much can be forgiven such a person. (In actual fact, Le Guin was happily married to a man for decades, it just doesn’t get talked about that much because her career flourished independently of him.)
AFAICT Le Guin was criticized by feminists of her day for her decisions to be a home maker and - until later in her career - telling mostly stories of young men doing heroic things. She was "tolerated," lauded even, by the greater SciFi and Fantasy community _because_ she told stories that matched the tastes of young men back in the 60s and 70s.
It was only later that she reconciled with feminism and began writing from the feminine perspective, and received a lot of criticism from her life long fans for it!
There are valid criticisms of Left Hand of Darkness from an LGBTQ perspective, but it's also viewed as revolutionary for its time. Today, she's viewed as a complex person who contributed greatly to feminist literature - despite not being perfect - based on her merits, not because of some mistaken identity.
It was only later that she reconciled with feminism and began writing from the feminine perspective, and received a lot of criticism from her life long fans for it!
There are valid criticisms of Left Hand of Darkness from an LGBTQ perspective, but it's also viewed as revolutionary for its time. Today, she's viewed as a complex person who contributed greatly to feminist literature - despite not being perfect - based on her merits, not because of some mistaken identity.
Uh, this is definitely going to be a "more heat than light" thread.
I've been trying to figure out why this topic in particular triggers exceptionally passionate discussion on HN.
I have some pet theories, but they're really speculative, and I'm not very confident in them.
I have some pet theories, but they're really speculative, and I'm not very confident in them.
I have the feeling that this movement has the potential of destroying our public discourse culture, to undermine free thinking and remold our societies to be more unfair, capricious and despotic.
We're seeing the modern equivalents of witch hunts and book burnings.
We're seeing the modern equivalents of witch hunts and book burnings.
There's passion, and then there's dirty fighting. Name calling and dismissiveness. A veritable army of straw men. Unwillingness to even attempt to understand an opposing viewpoint.
Let's call that what it is. It ain't "passion."
Let's call that what it is. It ain't "passion."
I don't disagree. But isn't calling anybody who disagrees even slightly with you a racist, or a bigot, or a xenophobe, or a hate monger, or any of a thousand other things, the very height of "unwillingness to even attempt to understand an opposing viewpoint." I don't hear critics of CRT and wokism calling their opponents the most reprehensible and odious names they can imagine. I see plenty of CRT advocates doing just that. Why is this okay?
I always have trouble with stuff like this, because my inner teenage hacker is cheering that "information wants to be free!" while at the same time I'm cognizant of the fact that we have to treat information with a certain level of care.
Here's a take I don't necessarily believe, but is about as generous to the new left as I can make it: Ideas can be powerfully virulent, and we're especially susceptible to them when they support something we already suspect (confirmation bias). Under complete deregulation, people seek out information that confirms their biases, and our societal inertia continues unrestricted. The naive solution to me is something like we have now: introduce a friction factor. People are generally lazy, and if they don't have immediate access to something, they won't seek it out. If we make problematic media difficult to find but nevertheless available, we change the general cultural milieu without outright banning difficult texts.
This obviously falls apart when it comes to introducing new texts and ideas into the mainstream - if people are disincentivized to print anything that isn't playing by the rules, it's terrible for innovation and creates a whole new brand of inertia. It's also terrible in that it's an unstable equilibrium: if people care enough to keep their foot on the gas in terms of narrowing access to virulent media, it doesn't take much to convince them to go pedal-to-the-metal and start banning everything.
Here's a take I don't necessarily believe, but is about as generous to the new left as I can make it: Ideas can be powerfully virulent, and we're especially susceptible to them when they support something we already suspect (confirmation bias). Under complete deregulation, people seek out information that confirms their biases, and our societal inertia continues unrestricted. The naive solution to me is something like we have now: introduce a friction factor. People are generally lazy, and if they don't have immediate access to something, they won't seek it out. If we make problematic media difficult to find but nevertheless available, we change the general cultural milieu without outright banning difficult texts.
This obviously falls apart when it comes to introducing new texts and ideas into the mainstream - if people are disincentivized to print anything that isn't playing by the rules, it's terrible for innovation and creates a whole new brand of inertia. It's also terrible in that it's an unstable equilibrium: if people care enough to keep their foot on the gas in terms of narrowing access to virulent media, it doesn't take much to convince them to go pedal-to-the-metal and start banning everything.
The "virulent" media these days is 280 chr tweets, videos of guys talking into their phone in their car, and Facebook groups. The idea that anyone today is radicalized by long-form prose is pretty out there. Instead, banning problematic books creates the perfect rallying cry for our generation's ideologues to recruit more followers on social media platforms and Youtube. Of the people talking about the recently discontinued Seuss books, how many have ever even read them? I know I haven't.
This is true, and another reason why I have problems with my "generous" take. However, I'd also suggest that the notion of a friction factor applies to new media as well: if Twitter makes it difficult to be casually racist on their platform, but there still exist sites which allow you to be casually racist, it spares the average individual from having their mental namespace polluted with those "virulent ideas" without eliminating free speech entirely. Whether this is a positive thing, or even an acceptable course of action is something I'm very dubious of, however.
This is all just my initial take on the topic though: I always have difficulty engaging with stuff like this and forming opinions constructively since it's just an exhausting concept to try to be productive with people on.
edit: I realize now that I misunderstood your point: I thought you were saying "new media can have a radicalizing effect" to which this comment was responding to by saying "light regulation works for new media as well". I now understand you said that "old media doesn't radicalize a significant number of people" which has the obvious endpoint "light regulation of old media isn't necessary". On balance, I definitely agree with that.
This is all just my initial take on the topic though: I always have difficulty engaging with stuff like this and forming opinions constructively since it's just an exhausting concept to try to be productive with people on.
edit: I realize now that I misunderstood your point: I thought you were saying "new media can have a radicalizing effect" to which this comment was responding to by saying "light regulation works for new media as well". I now understand you said that "old media doesn't radicalize a significant number of people" which has the obvious endpoint "light regulation of old media isn't necessary". On balance, I definitely agree with that.
> Literature used to be a place for transgressive ideas, a place to question taboos, and seek naked insights into humanity. It no longer is.
Bullshit. It still is.
It has also always been a place where doing that provoked backlash, and the path of least resistance has been to avoid doing that and follow conventional morality; that, too, has not changed.
What has changed is that particular ideas which until recently have themselves been extremely transgressive have moved their way into conventional morality, at least in substantial sectors of society, so that the backlash once associated with transgressive ideas and approaches is now being experienced with what were fairly recently conventional, safe ideas and manners of expression.
Bullshit. It still is.
It has also always been a place where doing that provoked backlash, and the path of least resistance has been to avoid doing that and follow conventional morality; that, too, has not changed.
What has changed is that particular ideas which until recently have themselves been extremely transgressive have moved their way into conventional morality, at least in substantial sectors of society, so that the backlash once associated with transgressive ideas and approaches is now being experienced with what were fairly recently conventional, safe ideas and manners of expression.
> Critics, writers and publishers are today enforcing a new vision that treats books less as a vehicle for artistic expression than as a product to be inspected for safety and wholesomeness. In the past few years, this has only gained momentum, with much of what is written about literature, old and new, becoming a series of moral pronouncements.
Pay attention, this is how the book-burnings and the witch-hunts start. "Wokism" is the new Right Wing Authoritarianism of this age.
Pay attention, this is how the book-burnings and the witch-hunts start. "Wokism" is the new Right Wing Authoritarianism of this age.
It’s just neo-Puritanism. Treat it the same way crazy religious people used to be treated and we’ll all be fine :)
When the right wanted to ban media, a quire reasonable counter argument was "you don't have to buy, or read, the things you don't like".
Where's that argument today? Why is anything "problematic" an assault against society as a whole, automatically, as well as whatever underprivileged group its offensive to?
Have humans lost the ability to tolerate the knowledge that someone, somewhere, may disagree with them? Or is it just the attention elite that think this way?
Where's that argument today? Why is anything "problematic" an assault against society as a whole, automatically, as well as whatever underprivileged group its offensive to?
Have humans lost the ability to tolerate the knowledge that someone, somewhere, may disagree with them? Or is it just the attention elite that think this way?
> When the right wanted to ban media, a quire reasonable counter argument was "you don't have to buy, or read, the things you don't like".
I don't actually think the situation is all that different. I think it's still a perfectly reasonable counter-argument, which the other side will ignore, just as it did back then!
This is all a proxy for tribal, cultural warfare. It's never been about the books themselves, their potential for hurting people or anything else. It's about destroying the other side. The books and their authors and their readers are a means to to that end. There's no room for compromise under that framework. It's a ridiculous and unproductive situation.
I don't actually think the situation is all that different. I think it's still a perfectly reasonable counter-argument, which the other side will ignore, just as it did back then!
This is all a proxy for tribal, cultural warfare. It's never been about the books themselves, their potential for hurting people or anything else. It's about destroying the other side. The books and their authors and their readers are a means to to that end. There's no room for compromise under that framework. It's a ridiculous and unproductive situation.
> Have humans lost the ability to tolerate the knowledge that someone, somewhere, may disagree with them?
Maybe the majority never had it. That's what I've been thinking recently. In the past, a person could mold themselves to a much more static community. A person that grew up in a Presbytarian community would not much interact with a Muslim family and vice versa. It's also much easier for a person so sensitive of disagreement to delude themselves that all their friends and neighbors were basically of the same mind on serious political/moral issues in meat space. Essentially, the past had naturally occurring filter bubbles.
The Christian social conservatism you recall of the 80s and earlier were people that were pissed about control of mass culture dominated by cosmopolitan urbanites, but they had their own parallel culture to an extent. With smartphones, everyone is suddenly in each others face and I think it's broken the brains of some of the people that never comprehended that level of social friction and disunity.
Maybe the majority never had it. That's what I've been thinking recently. In the past, a person could mold themselves to a much more static community. A person that grew up in a Presbytarian community would not much interact with a Muslim family and vice versa. It's also much easier for a person so sensitive of disagreement to delude themselves that all their friends and neighbors were basically of the same mind on serious political/moral issues in meat space. Essentially, the past had naturally occurring filter bubbles.
The Christian social conservatism you recall of the 80s and earlier were people that were pissed about control of mass culture dominated by cosmopolitan urbanites, but they had their own parallel culture to an extent. With smartphones, everyone is suddenly in each others face and I think it's broken the brains of some of the people that never comprehended that level of social friction and disunity.
There is a more vicious form of cancellation going on.
- For example, only in 2003 was gay sex legal throughout the US. Is that a form of cancelling?
- It’s still legal to fire or not hire gay people. Is that a form of cancelling?
- US conservatives also fight for the right of any public official to follow the calling of Jesus by refusing to sign marriage licenses. Or the constitutional right to refuse business.
- Does one not remember the Bush Jr presidential race where a US constitution ban on gay marriage was the get out to vote issue for Christian evangelicals?
- We have doctors who cannot follow the prescriptions of their professional societies, such as the American Pediatric Society, because they are banned by law from advising youths on transgender treatment.
- There is a race around the country to make it harder for those over 65 to vote, or to reduce voting locations.
What is Cancellation? At the core of cancellation is the freedom of association. But freedom of association doesn’t make it so TX can prosecute gay men for having sex in a bedroom. Freedom of association means people either like you or don’t like you, and they will either associate with you or they won’t.
Any discussion of harmony must account for a history of cruelty.
- For example, only in 2003 was gay sex legal throughout the US. Is that a form of cancelling?
- It’s still legal to fire or not hire gay people. Is that a form of cancelling?
- US conservatives also fight for the right of any public official to follow the calling of Jesus by refusing to sign marriage licenses. Or the constitutional right to refuse business.
- Does one not remember the Bush Jr presidential race where a US constitution ban on gay marriage was the get out to vote issue for Christian evangelicals?
- We have doctors who cannot follow the prescriptions of their professional societies, such as the American Pediatric Society, because they are banned by law from advising youths on transgender treatment.
- There is a race around the country to make it harder for those over 65 to vote, or to reduce voting locations.
What is Cancellation? At the core of cancellation is the freedom of association. But freedom of association doesn’t make it so TX can prosecute gay men for having sex in a bedroom. Freedom of association means people either like you or don’t like you, and they will either associate with you or they won’t.
Any discussion of harmony must account for a history of cruelty.
There isn't a discussion about this where I'm not reminded of South Park's "In my safe space":
> We can face almost anything
> But Reality we can do without
> We can face almost anything
> But Reality we can do without
I was genuinely disturbed to discover that some publishers are asking agents about the sexuality of the writers they represent.
Right and left seem to have turned the culture wars into different flavours of tribal lifestyle branding - engaging and marketable, but also superficial and substance-free.
Right and left seem to have turned the culture wars into different flavours of tribal lifestyle branding - engaging and marketable, but also superficial and substance-free.
This is just sparkling consequences, nothing more. Relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1357/
This is hilarious: https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=persuasion.community
It seems like they only publish articles concerning new moralism/cancel culture. These inevitably descend into flame wars and such.
[deleted]
I always notice that when someone is upset about 'moralism' and 'cancel culture' against a text, they rarely engage with the actual criticism against said text.
Has anyone actually looked at the drawings in Dr. Seuss' books? His political cartoons? Has anyone actually read American Dirt?
I agree that we shouldn't be outright censoring books, but that hasn't happened yet. You can still read JK Rowling, you can still find the six discontinued Dr. Seuss books quite easily. And no doubt, some of the imagery is slightly offensive at best, to overtly racist at worst.
The next time someone decries the 'cancellation' of something. Look at their reasoning instead of knee jerk reacting.
Has anyone actually looked at the drawings in Dr. Seuss' books? His political cartoons? Has anyone actually read American Dirt?
I agree that we shouldn't be outright censoring books, but that hasn't happened yet. You can still read JK Rowling, you can still find the six discontinued Dr. Seuss books quite easily. And no doubt, some of the imagery is slightly offensive at best, to overtly racist at worst.
The next time someone decries the 'cancellation' of something. Look at their reasoning instead of knee jerk reacting.
> you can still find the six discontinued Dr. Seuss books quite easily
Can you? Even used copies are now banned even on eBay. Where do you ‘easily’ find them?
Can you? Even used copies are now banned even on eBay. Where do you ‘easily’ find them?
Scans are widely available online, which is what most people have been using to discuss the works.
It also turns out that used bookstores still exist and that eBay is not the only site on the internet where you can buy things.
It also turns out that used bookstores still exist and that eBay is not the only site on the internet where you can buy things.
The online scans are illegal. The fact that your first recommendation is to advocate breaking the law just so you can discuss a book, shows quite how totalitarian the situation has become.
That’d be an interesting fair-use case: criticism is a very solid exemption (i.e. I’d be very surprised if showing the offending images for review wasn’t upheld by the courts) but even if you look at the whole book the other factors are things like whether your use is educational, non-profit, or impacts commercial prospects for the rights holder. That last point seems especially relevant since they’ve very clearly told the world that they do not intend to sell these books any more.
It would be an interesting case, but doesn’t change the situation.
You can’t distribute the book for people to read and criticize.
It really is censored.
You can’t distribute the book for people to read and criticize.
It really is censored.
They're still available on eBay in the larger anthologies like Six By Seuss. It's only the standalone that were removed and as I understand it that was because of the crazy bids they were getting.
I assume they wouldn't have bothered if the reaction hadn't been so extreme.
I assume they wouldn't have bothered if the reaction hadn't been so extreme.
What’s ‘extreme’ about people bidding high amounts for a now rare book?
So the book isn’t available, and the only sources are illegal?
I also found it at my local library in physical and download form. It was a little harder to find but, you know, more ethical I guess.
Ironically, this post is flagged.
It's been removed from the front page too.
Yep, it's messed up.
Yep, it's messed up.
I'm a bit of an HN neophyte, having recently left FB for a place where thoughtful discussion was still welcome. I'm not being rhetorical when I ask, what is going on? Are some highly-rated users just abusing their power to flag, or is this something else? Is HN on its way to being more concerned with virtue signaling than open discussion?
"If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it."[1]
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
"Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon."
It's hard to argue that thoughtful articles like this one don't pertain to an interesting new phenomenon. This concept is, of course, highly subjective. But I've seen countless articles on HN that existed in this space without being flagged. Why should this article, which garnered such high volume of feedback - without flaming - be treated differently?
It's hard to argue that thoughtful articles like this one don't pertain to an interesting new phenomenon. This concept is, of course, highly subjective. But I've seen countless articles on HN that existed in this space without being flagged. Why should this article, which garnered such high volume of feedback - without flaming - be treated differently?
Articles rise and fall because of luck partly. And having more comments than points works against them. It's programmed in as a sign the discussion has more heat than light. Which it does.
You think the article is thoughtful because you agree with it. The article itself said the phenomenon isn't new. And interest declines when we get several articles a week about the same thing.
You think the article is thoughtful because you agree with it. The article itself said the phenomenon isn't new. And interest declines when we get several articles a week about the same thing.
Fair enough, except for the assertion that I think it’s thoughtful because I agree with it. I’ve read plenty of articles that I didn’t agree with that I would call thoughtful. Frankly, that is supposed to be the draw of articles on HN - that they’re culled such that the ones you might not agree with still provoke thought and engage the subject meaningfully. I think it’s a bit presumptuous to make “thoughtful” and “agrees with” synonymous.
Some flag that which they find disagreeable too, of course.
Ooh, I just read Gurba's blog.
Her argument in essence: a white author's inexperience with a culture leads to bad writing.
Example from her blog: Mexican protagonist described by her husband as the smartest women he knows. But Mexican protagonist is continually shocked by occurrences that would not shock a Mexican, but would shock an outsider. Bad writing.
There are other points made in the blog. In fact there are some other accusations that stop short of plagiarism, but no examples are given which is pretty unprofessional IMO.
Regardless, Gurba is clearly and strongly asserting that the book is a piece of shit from a literary standpoint, and that the author's inexperience with the culture and people is the reason for that shittiness.
There's already a certain kind of click-baitiness to publishing a rejected piece that "dunks" on a popular book like this, ok, I get that. But the "New Moralism" author is downsampling that to a completely substance-free pure click-bait of "white people don't belong here" meme.
That is sneaky, sneaky, sneaky. If you got sucked in further to the article from that sentence you just got played by the author and possibly by HN's blackbox sorting algo, too.