morgan_dhu (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
morgan_dhu) wrote2009-01-18 11:02 pm
morgan_dhu) wrote2009-01-18 11:02 pm
Entry tags:
On throwing books at the wall and standing on people's feet
Does it really need to be said that one valid response to reading something that you find profoundly angering in exactly the same way as the last fifty, or a hundred, or a thousand times you read it somewhere else, is throwing the book against the wall and writing about why that thing you read, in the book you threw against the wall, and in all the other books that you didn't throw against the wall because you hadn't reached your limit yet, made you so profoundly angry?
And even if someone comes to you and says, "that book you threw against the wall, it's written by someone who wanted to explore those issues that make you angry and try to expose them as what they are," it's perfectly reasonable to say "Just seeing it makes me angry and I don't want to see it, even in the context of trying to expose it for what it is, BECAUSE I ALREADY KNOW WHAT IT IS."
And I say this even though this particular book is one that I enjoyed, and that made me think about some of these things, because I am one of the people who doesn't know enough about those issues and hasn't been hurt by them and I wanted to see how they were dealt with and I had the privilege of knowing that anything that writer wrote about that issue could not hurt me. Plus, it had a lot of other stuff in it that was really interesting to me. So thanks to my privilege on this issue, I could read this book and not want to throw it against the wall.
But, you know, there was once this TV show that I loved. It said some wonderful things about female power, and it was lots of fun to watch. And then this TV show did something that made me profoundly angry in exactly the same way as the last fifty, or a hundred, or a thousand times I read/saw it in other places, and I didn't want to watch that show anymore. Because a lot of people seem to think that rape is such a wonderful dramatic vehicle, and getting raped by a god is even more dramatic, and they can give me all sorts of reasons why this rape was exactly the right thing to have in this TV show. But just because everyone and his metaphorical dog has used rape as a dramatic device, and sometimes they do it to show how nasty rape is and how surviving it can make a woman so strong, that doesn't mean that as a woman who has been raped, I'm not entitled to be profoundly angry and just say no to rape as a character development McGuffin.
And then there was this other TV show that I loved. It said some wonderful things about female power, and it was lots of fun to watch. And then this TV show also did something that made me profoundly angry in exactly the same way as the last fifty, or a hundred, or a thousand times I read/saw it in other places, and I didn't want to watch that show anymore either. Because there's only so many times a queer girl can read/watch things that written by people who think that it's the height of great drama to kill off the lesbians or turn them into insane and evil murderers, until she just doesn't want to see that anymore. Even if some people assure her that it's just because that writer never lets anyone be happy in a relationship, it's not like he's picking on the lesbians. Because lots of stories let straight people have happy endings, but they always kill the lesbians, or drive them mad.
So, yeah, I know something about lacking some kinds of privilege and getting so angry when privileged people use me and people like me in hurtful ways in books and movies and TV shows and cultural stuff in general. And I know that it's the right of anyone in that situation to throw the book against the wall, and write about why it hurt, and be as loud and angry as they want to be, because it is valid to get hurt and angry when someone is standing on your foot and not only won't get off, but tells you that they're standing on your foot so that people will see how bad it is to stand on someone's foot.
And it's the right of anyone in that situation to get even more profoundly angry when people tell you that you can't see that there's a good reason for that person to stand on your foot so people can see what it's like and learn from it because you're too emotional and not a good reader and haven't the critical tools to properly analyse what's happening in this brilliant piece of performance art in which someone is STANDING ON YOUR FOOT AND WON'T GET OFF. Or that you're being manipulative and abusive when you use strong and angry language to tell people that you're tired of people STANDING ON YOUR FOOT AND NOT GETTING OFF and you aren't going to smile, and take it, or maybe ask them politely if they wouldn't mind moving a little further away any more.
And I say this knowing that I may well be standing on someone's foot all unknowing myself, and can only ask that please, if I am, and am so stupid that I don't see it, then I would be grateful if you would tell me so I can try to do better at not standing on people's feet, because I know I don't like having my foot stood on, and I so don't want to stand on anyone else's foot either.
(If you need it, you can find context for this post here.)
no subject
However, the metaphor as I'm using it is in reference to the responses to the original post, and to all the posts by other people of colour that followed, in which they argued that there was something hurtful and angering to them in the book in question.
Anyone can accidentally step on someone's toes - it's not a personal act, it's not intentional, sometimes it's not even something that the person who steps is aware of. In my mind, a close although not a perfect analogy to how a book sent out to the world might affect a reader.
However, once the person whose toes have been stepped on says "excuse me, you're steeping on my toes" and has been answered with, not "I'm sorry, I didn't mean that" but with a dizzying variety of excuses as to why, having accidentally ended up standing on someone else's foot, there was no reason to move, then the metaphor fits - although of course, I would say that, considering that I chose the metaphor.
Initially, I would not have included Bear as one of the people doing the standing on feet and refusing to get off - she responded to Seeking Avalon's Willow with courtesy, acknowledging that there was an issue worthy of discussion in how people of colour are represented in her work.
Unfortunately, Elizabeth Bear has now said, in effect, "no, I didn't step on your foot, but I pretended to agree that you had so I could graciously use the incident to share my deep understanding of sore feet with the world." Which only makes matters worse, in my opinion. Because now she really is standing on the feet of people who are trying to point out that despite her good intentions, there are still issues of racial representation worthy of discussion with her work, and refusing not just to get off, but to acknowledge that she stepped on those feet in the first place.
Thank you for engaging with the issues before making a critical analysis of my use of metaphor.
no subject
It wouldn't have fit writing or publishing the book, as I thought you meant, at all well. We live in a world where readers have to make an active choice to purchase or borrow and read a book; they don't fly off the shelves and force themselves on us (although that's a nifty idea for a fantasy novel).