![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
morgan_dhuDoes 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.)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
I am only responding from my limited experience...
Date: 2009-01-19 08:56 pm (UTC)I think intent in anything we write has a lot to do with it, at least for me. I'm not one of those people who believe in writing only what you know...but rather, know what you write and if it's a sensitive subject to do it with respect, conscientiousness, and for the right reasons. After that, you can't control how other people react to things, you are just left with if your own conscience is clear.
I've had people claim they threw my books against the wall because they found how I handled things to be profoundly disgusting. That's fine. I didn't write my books to please everybody, surprise surprise, and I took what I wrote very seriously and gave it much, much thought...likely more thought than most people in this genre give to those issues, if I can go out on a limb. And considering the people who have responded to me in a positive manner are/were people with experience in some of the issues I wrote about (I have never gotten a negative response from anyone who has even a passing experience with violent trauma), I'm more willing to accept their criticism than that of someone who is going at it from a different (purely academic) angle.
Then there are the other issues, like that of sexuality in my work. I've had one, maybe two, negative responses about it, and an overwhelming positive. I'm not one that thinks the majority rules all the time either, but I looked to the reasons people said they liked or didn't like what I did. I can be pretty detached from my work, so the reasons people stated were always interesting... because the ones who tended to be offended were people who took a rather narrow view of the issue and it came down to people's individual experiences and it was less about my work and more about their lives. Which isn't to say they didn't have valid emotions or reactions...they were just reactions that actually had very little to do with the work itself.
Over time I have found that some readers believe that if they were in my character's situation, they would react differently and therefore their reaction would be more realistic (and my characters are not). This, of course, isn't reality...as people are different and respond to things differently depending on their psychological makeup. But we do identify or not identify with characters (whether in books or dramatic works) and the great test as an audience is to put yourself in someone else's shoes and try to understand someone who may or may not be vastly different from you. That's where a lot of controversy comes in when those issues involve sensitive subject matter.
I've experienced pretty blatant racism in my life, from a very young age. Naturally if I was reading about a character experiencing racism I would have a strong gut reaction to it, but the test for me, as the reader/audience, would be to set aside my personal experience as much as possible and read the book in the context of the character. This is the great gift and communication of books and films, I think. It's how I approach my work, at any rate. They are supposed to test our points of view and allow us to question them in a safe environment, and hopefully give us something new and worthwhile to consider.
Re: I am only responding from my limited experience...
Date: 2009-01-19 09:41 pm (UTC)I don't know how closely, if at all, you've been following the series of posts and the comments on them that provoked this from me, but my intent here is to say that a person has a right to throw a book against the wall if it ventures into territory that is, in their experience, likely to be painful, if not hateful, and that even if it is done with good intent, is going to be grating at a time when they just can't take that any more.
What happens tomorrow is another story. Some people might pick the book up again and, as you say, set aside personal experience and see what the book has to offer. Some might decide that for them, there is no interior space safe enough to explore that particular issue in that particular way with that particular book.
What galvanized me was the way that so many (white) people decided that the person (of colour) who had this reaction was, variously, attention-seeking, manipulative, not intelligent enough to engage with the text rationally or critically, just another loud-mouthed person of colour, exaggerating and over-emotional, and a host of other things that I've heard said over and over again, to people of marginalised and Othered groups, who protest against cultural representations that continue to marginalise or Other them. When as far as I could see, the person was saying "Oh, no, not again!" and going on to explain just what it was they did not want to see again.
One of the sad things here is that, given different responses, the person who threw the book in the first place might have decided to pick it up later and see what the text has to offer - but it is, I suspect, highly unlikely that they would ever want to do so now. And one of the (to me) most angering things is that a lot of other (white) people are patting themselves on the back for defending a book (that is good enough to stand on its own) and a writer (who has dealt with the issues raised in a far more sensitive manner than many of her defenders have) from an overwrought and not very bright or well-mannered person (of colour) who was making a nasty scene.
Which detracts from the importance of making safe spaces where we can both enjoy and share, again as you so well described it, the great gift of communication in books and films. And that is a tragedy.
Re: I am only responding from my limited experience...
Date: 2009-01-20 10:20 pm (UTC)Years later, when I picked it up because it was assigned in a class, I read it all the way through and adored it (writing my paper on it! greatest novel ever written!).
Reading experiences can be varied over our lifetimes (works I once loved, I no longer read--in a few cases CAN no longer read--Heinlein, I'm looking at YOU--works that I could not read the first time I tried, I now love).
So it's sad that this round of debates has set up not only the original author but a number of her published friends as people that a number of people (fans of color and white allies) do not want to read, and will recommend against reading: it's sad not because of any economic issues, but just what you say here--the lack of communication.
Re: I am only responding from my limited experience...
Date: 2009-01-20 11:21 pm (UTC)Yes, this. Both in general, and in the particular instance you mention. ;-)
It can even change with my mood. There are texts I can't engage with when I am in some moods - I just know that they won;t work for me at that time and place, so I don't bother. Change the circumstances, and the books magically become readable.
Re: I am only responding from my limited experience...
Date: 2009-01-23 02:25 am (UTC)The worst part is, when I was 16, one of my teachers tried to explain to me some of the issues in his work and I just didn't want to hear. Then a few years later, when I was on a rereading binge, I saw those and a million more besides. These days I'm rather sad that this guy's still considered one of the founding fathers of SF (that term really says it all!)
Re: I am only responding from my limited experience...
Date: 2009-01-23 08:57 pm (UTC)What's also interesting is which writers don't now strike me as so problematical that I really don't feel like reading them.
For instance, I've been re-reading a lot of John Wyndham novels lately, and it's really quite interesting to see how much individual agency he gave his female characters.