Patrick’s answer to “Is the use of "mankind" a hint of what will be women's and LGBTQ+'s place in the book?” > Likes and Comments
161 likes · Like
I did not condemned it Patrick. I asked a legitimate contemporary question on a contemporary book.
It's a sci-fi adventure book. Is it really relevant? Do sci-fi novels now have to represent current political sensibilities just to be good reads? And is one word (which, btw, is a simple, non-political word in the English language and not a value statement) really a cause for concern already? Your question seemed to want to make a political point, which - unless I misinterpreted it, which is possible - I find wholly inappropriate.
The question is, good read for who Patrick. Representation matters.
To some extent, sure. Important in politics, democracy, the law, and yes, in literature as well, e.g. books where people feel they need to identify with characters.
That should not be an absolute requirement for books to be good though.
Anyway, my actual point was more about whether or not it is reasonable to pre-judge a book by a single word in the description, which your question was obviously implying - whether or not the word is seen by some people as controversial.
Many people decide if they want to read a book or not based on the description. A lot of readers likewise would be anxious to know what happened to all the men if you replace the word mankind with womankind, so it doesn't necessarily have to be just about politics. When reading fantasy or scifi (if the world-building is good) many readers often think about or imagine themselves in the context of that particular world, which is difficult to do if there is no place for your kind there, and also reduces the fun of the book.
Absolutely, I don't deny that. But that's not what the question was aimed at. And if the description wrote "womankind", we all know that the tone and storyline of the book would be quite different, which would have a whole different appeal and sets very different expectations about the story (not even its characters). Whereas "mankind" is (currently) a standard word used for all human beings, so nothing unusual about it, nor does it provide any insight whatsoever into the story. So my point was that focusing on that one word as some sort of indicator of a possibly sexist or male-focused story seemed ridiculous to me, just based on the normal and accepted definition of the word, and wholly unwarranted.
Otherwise, no objection whatsoever to look for representation when picking a book. Just let's not throw a book out based on the use of a common and non-controversial word.
This is getting ridiculous. And no, this isn't a relevant question or a pertinent one. It's not intelligent or deep either. It just shows the level at which our society has devolved. Nowadays, anger for the sake of anger is the norm. It's peak first-world problem. People don't need to struggle to eat, live and survive the way they had to in the past, so they create makeshift problems and oppression.
Mankind is a standard word which is used everywhere. If you're not happy about its use perhaps don't read the book. Representation does not matter more than common sense. Also, not all representation is good, especially if it's based on someone's schizophrenic sense of reality or this person's delusion.
Idk about you, folks, but sometimes people just want to read something they can relate to, so I don't see how this question could be dumb or superficial... Everyone has their ways to choose what to read... Maybe you're a bit oversensitive...
@Rachele A good point and for my part I happily grant it.
But looking at the way the question was phrased, it does not sound like "Does this book have female or queer empowerment in it?".
Instead, it was phrased rather as "Look at the use of this clearly sexist and uninclusive word, is the whole book like this?"
The sentiments are quite different.
That said, I agree, certainly, I am more sensitive to these prejudices than I used to be.
Representation matters, and if I have to read one more cis white male POV book where his penis goes into someone's vagina I'm going to scream. Am I being dramatic? Of course. Was your comment incredibly dismissive of everyone who's not straight? Yes, yes it was. How long have novels been written? 1000 year approximately? And how many of those stories do you think center around and only involve straight white cis people. Hmmmm wonder why we're so fucking bored with straight fiction.
Imagine believing the existence of anyone other than cishet white men is "contemporary politics."
'~Imagine believing the existence of anyone other than cishet white men is "contemporary politics."~' - this, so much - it's mind-boggling really.
Has nothing to do with "existence" of anyone. That's motivated reasoning if I've ever seen it. I've never said anything along those lines. The fact that the representation debate around sexual and identitarian politics is fairly recent is surely clear to everyone who is older than 10 years. And the questioning of single common words like "mankind" is definitely a very very recent trend. It's mind-boggling to me that people feel the need to attack books based on single, non-controversial words in the description, which I don't think has been a thing in past decades.
But maybe I'm wrong, open to be corrected, of course.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Gabrielle
(new)
Jul 09, 2021 03:48PM
I did not condemned it Patrick. I asked a legitimate contemporary question on a contemporary book.
reply
|
flag
It's a sci-fi adventure book. Is it really relevant? Do sci-fi novels now have to represent current political sensibilities just to be good reads? And is one word (which, btw, is a simple, non-political word in the English language and not a value statement) really a cause for concern already? Your question seemed to want to make a political point, which - unless I misinterpreted it, which is possible - I find wholly inappropriate.
The question is, good read for who Patrick. Representation matters.
To some extent, sure. Important in politics, democracy, the law, and yes, in literature as well, e.g. books where people feel they need to identify with characters.That should not be an absolute requirement for books to be good though.
Anyway, my actual point was more about whether or not it is reasonable to pre-judge a book by a single word in the description, which your question was obviously implying - whether or not the word is seen by some people as controversial.
Many people decide if they want to read a book or not based on the description. A lot of readers likewise would be anxious to know what happened to all the men if you replace the word mankind with womankind, so it doesn't necessarily have to be just about politics. When reading fantasy or scifi (if the world-building is good) many readers often think about or imagine themselves in the context of that particular world, which is difficult to do if there is no place for your kind there, and also reduces the fun of the book.
Absolutely, I don't deny that. But that's not what the question was aimed at. And if the description wrote "womankind", we all know that the tone and storyline of the book would be quite different, which would have a whole different appeal and sets very different expectations about the story (not even its characters). Whereas "mankind" is (currently) a standard word used for all human beings, so nothing unusual about it, nor does it provide any insight whatsoever into the story. So my point was that focusing on that one word as some sort of indicator of a possibly sexist or male-focused story seemed ridiculous to me, just based on the normal and accepted definition of the word, and wholly unwarranted.Otherwise, no objection whatsoever to look for representation when picking a book. Just let's not throw a book out based on the use of a common and non-controversial word.
This is getting ridiculous. And no, this isn't a relevant question or a pertinent one. It's not intelligent or deep either. It just shows the level at which our society has devolved. Nowadays, anger for the sake of anger is the norm. It's peak first-world problem. People don't need to struggle to eat, live and survive the way they had to in the past, so they create makeshift problems and oppression. Mankind is a standard word which is used everywhere. If you're not happy about its use perhaps don't read the book. Representation does not matter more than common sense. Also, not all representation is good, especially if it's based on someone's schizophrenic sense of reality or this person's delusion.
Idk about you, folks, but sometimes people just want to read something they can relate to, so I don't see how this question could be dumb or superficial... Everyone has their ways to choose what to read... Maybe you're a bit oversensitive...
@Rachele A good point and for my part I happily grant it.But looking at the way the question was phrased, it does not sound like "Does this book have female or queer empowerment in it?".
Instead, it was phrased rather as "Look at the use of this clearly sexist and uninclusive word, is the whole book like this?"
The sentiments are quite different.
That said, I agree, certainly, I am more sensitive to these prejudices than I used to be.
Representation matters, and if I have to read one more cis white male POV book where his penis goes into someone's vagina I'm going to scream. Am I being dramatic? Of course. Was your comment incredibly dismissive of everyone who's not straight? Yes, yes it was. How long have novels been written? 1000 year approximately? And how many of those stories do you think center around and only involve straight white cis people. Hmmmm wonder why we're so fucking bored with straight fiction.
Imagine believing the existence of anyone other than cishet white men is "contemporary politics."
'~Imagine believing the existence of anyone other than cishet white men is "contemporary politics."~' - this, so much - it's mind-boggling really.
Has nothing to do with "existence" of anyone. That's motivated reasoning if I've ever seen it. I've never said anything along those lines. The fact that the representation debate around sexual and identitarian politics is fairly recent is surely clear to everyone who is older than 10 years. And the questioning of single common words like "mankind" is definitely a very very recent trend. It's mind-boggling to me that people feel the need to attack books based on single, non-controversial words in the description, which I don't think has been a thing in past decades. But maybe I'm wrong, open to be corrected, of course.
