SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion
Members' Chat
>
Questions to Ask When Beloved Books Haven't Aged Well
But I have to say I agree with whoever said something like (major paraphrasing here as I can't seem to find it) "if I can't recommend a homophobic book to my gay friend, I can't recommend it to anyone." It's kinda of like saying 'women's rights' instead of 'human rights.' We *all* benefit from more diverse perspectives.
Allison wrote: "Oleksandr, that sounds like exactly the sort of comment that would be appropriate for the "problematic fave" post!"Pardon me, do you mean "Questions to ask about problematic classics" o another thread I've missed?
Mod
Pardon me, do you mean "Questions to ask about problematic class..."
This one:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
I agree that some books aged worse than others. However, more appropriate IMHO not to use word 'classics' to describe all that multitude. For me classics it 'an obligatory reading' and as far as I know not a single SFF book is in school level required literature across the globe; instead they are in 'recommended reading'I have to admit, I came from a different culture, growing up in the USSR, where the state actually decided what to publish, and SF was in a low priority and fantasy was absent altogether. instead there was Russian XIX century Classics (even despite I was not in the Russian Federation, it was required reading for all), which is quite chauvinist and then Soviet period works, of which are most are forgotten (for good in most cases, for there were often just propaganda).
So, after all this required stuff, when I've got my first Heinlein, which his libertarian ideas, sexual liberation and other anti-statist stuff (yes, the author of Starship Troopers) - I was awed. Now I see quite a lot of questionable issues in his work, but when I look at it in comparison with alternatives, which were present, he was head and shoulders above most of the book then available. Therefore, I still can recommend him to people of my generation and upbringing but to anyone - not so sure
Mod
That's a really good thing to bring up, Oleksandr, that culture, laws in our various areas would mean that some things mean different things to us, or have connotations that are better or worse than in others. Do you ever recommend things to people who are way more...patriotic, perhaps is the word from the old USSR or do you have to watch out with things that sound less statist?
Allison wrote: "patriotic, perhaps is the word from the old USSR or do you have to watch out with things that sound less statist? "You see, usually USSR patriots are people like alt right in the US, they usually deny any evil done by the regime and praise its successes (real or imaginative). for example they are proud (!) that if needed the USSR was able to 'turn the US to radioactive dust'. The strange thing [maybe] is that there are USSR-praisers, who were born after its fall. However, that's an offtopic, I guess.
There was good literature in the USSR, my earlier post maybe gave a one-sided picture... and in other socialist countries too. However, such works if not actively suppressed (some books were taken from public libraries and destroyed) were just published in such minuscule numbers that they were hard to get.
I can still recommend works of such Soviet authors as Arkady Strugatsky and Boris Strugatsky, Polish Stanisław Lem. Their stories are kind old high quality philosophical SF, not easy yarns.
Allison wrote: "Oleksandr wrote: "I agree that some books aged worse than others. However, more appropriate IMHO not to use word 'classics' to describe all that multitude. For me classics it 'an obligatory reading..."That’s the sort of thing I was referring to when I mentioned situational ethics. Not just adjusted for era but also area.
Mod
Yeah, I can see that now. One of those things that makes sense as soon as someone else mentions it.
Cheryl wrote: "Maybe this would be a good thing? I mean, yes, the world is slowly getting to be a better place for most people, but sometimes it does seem like radical change (a metaphorical fire, you see, not book burning!) would be a good thing."Yes, as an initial, knee-jerk reaction I can see this, but the problem with book burning is that it's a form of censorship and who decides? I was just a kid at the time and oblivious because I didn't listen to pop music until they'd broken up, but remember when people wanted to destroy the Beatle's music because it disagreed with their religion? It might not seem like the same issue on the surface, but underneath it is.
History is continually being rewritten, and I personally think we need those reminders. After all, it was the Roman Catholic Church who destroyed all records of groups who disagreed with them prior to a certain time during the Reformation. What if they'd also managed to erase all copies of the Greek and Roman classics, too? Then where would our still skewed history be? I say this, because, for just one example, while we all grew up learning about Egyptian and Roman engineering, how many of us grew up learning about the Aryan (NOT the same as Hitler's "race") engineering in India significantly earlier than that?
This topic was touched on in another group recently with Colleen McCullough who defended a Polynesian culture of raping 12 year olds to break them in. I won't read another book by her because this is an issue I just can't get past even if she hasn't actually written it into her novels (I've only ever read The Thorn Birds back when I was quite young.)
Trike wrote: "A problematic work is one which may have been progressive for its time but has been passed by as the culture has moved on.."Yes! Also, during the nineteenth century, for example, authors could only introduce so much into a novel and have it actually be read to promote their point. Also, they would have to make their protagonist unbelievably virtuous. Two examples are the woman in The Tenant of Wildfell Hall (in the original uncut edition it portrayed an abusive upper class husband) and Tom in Uncle Tom's Cabin, to support abolitionism.
Karin wrote: "Cheryl wrote: "Maybe this would be a good thing? I mean, yes, the world is slowly getting to be a better place for most people, but sometimes it does seem like radical change (a metaphorical fire, ..."I did say 'metaphorical.'
I don't know how you misunderstood me so completely, but I'll try to clarify.
I don't mean book-burning or censorship of any sort. I pretty much mean the opposite, actually. I want ppl to get radical about more freedoms, more questioning of authority, more acceptance of self-expression.
Absolutely we need to learn from history, of course.
What an interesting discussion, which I have come to a little late. So many good points!I think old books shouldn't be changed to take out things that are now considered inappropriate as otherwise how do we see how things used to be, I think it sort of hides things under the rug and can rather skew our view if it happens.
That being said I would say if it is really not a key part of a story and something casual, particularly in children's books, better to simply update it. Otherwise we will lose great works for the sake of language change and improvements in our world view.
On Brandon Sanderson I actually listen to his podcast Writing Excuses, and recently there was a great episode about how as a writer to treat minorities, prejudiced groups and difficult topics sensitively and so as writers improve world view rather than fall into tropes and prejudices without even noticing.
Karin wrote: "This topic was touched on in another group recently with Colleen McCullough who defended a Polynesian culture of raping 12 year olds to break them in. "The question is were is a border between allowing diverse culture to exist and not imposing ours [rapidly changing] mores and things that shouldn't be allowed due to personal human rights. It is quite a hard question for me actually. In the example above my answer would depend on what those "broken in" say about the practice, not what our arbitrary norms say
Societal norms are really what this conversation is all about. I didn’t know that about Colleen McCullogh, but it wouldn’t stop me from buying and reading her books. Defence of a cultural practice that - from our standpoint - is dreadful, but from the standpoint of those “broken in” is normal and natural and unworrisome is not reason enough to stop me reading her. Of course, if I discovered that the girls were traumatised or damaged as a result, that would change my opinion. But that’s just one case.
The writer of Ender’s Game is vocally against LGBTQ - but he is entitled to his opinion. (Whether I agree with him or not is a separate question.) I don’t think an opinion is reason enough to abandon a person’s works - I read the stories.
But in the case where the profit from the works is going toward something nefarious (like proven child molesters), then I would reconsider purchase. Note: proven. Evidence, people.
Older works that speak to casual racism or misogyny - I take them as a slice of the culture of the time. Not necessarily an example of the culture, but merely a slice. Casual racism and misogyny exists - as a female, living right now, I still experience it. To find it in a book (in any age) does not preclude me from reading that book, or that author, if I find them amusing.
Plato’s acceptance of young men engaging in homosexuality with older men - also a product of the age. It was common occurrence, not unlawful and the young men were not damaged or traumatised by the experience. Indeed, on long campaigns in the Greek armies of the time, men would turn to each other for comfort, but when they returned to their homes, would return to the arms of their wives.
Each case has to be considered on its own merits, and by each reader. My tolerance will be different to yours. WHolesale book burning (or condemnation) is not the answer. We don’t want to whitewash (for want of a better word) the past. We want to learn from it, engage in discussion about it, decide that we will be better people.
@Bree just a couple of things I’d like to address in what you said. I do consider OSC actively campaigning to harm the lives of LGBT folks to be far more than having an opinion to which he is entitled. I consider it, to use your word, nefarious. He is advocating a kind of violence against a group of fellow human beings. How much more nefarious can you get?
Also, as for your point about young men (or more often, boys) not being traumatized in the time of Plato, we just have no way of knowing for sure whether or not that was the case. After all, those boys were not the ones telling the story of what happened to them. To be fair, our collective understanding of trauma and its causes and effects is something that has deepened a great deal in recent history. So those boys may not have had any language or context to discuss (had they been given the opportunity to discuss, which was unlikely) the traumatic effects that being taken as a sexual companion by a more powerful, older man may have had on them.
@Anthony - active campaigning is, in fact, more than an opinion. I will agree with you there. And you are entitled to react as you see fit.However, you cement my point by what you said about the Greeks - we have no way of knowing. So sanitising the world of those texts would be pushing our own societal norms on to that literature.
In the case of Colleen McCullogh, we have the tools to discover the effect on the “broken in” girls. If it is shown to have negative effect on them, and Ms McCullogh doesn’t change her opinion, then it is something further to consider.
However, I thought the point of the discussion was a broader stroke - if a book hasn’t aged well, what do you do with it? My answer is: each book and each author have to be considered separately, with the understanding of their time and situation.
@Bree I realize I may not have been clear regarding my point about not knowing about the possible trauma experienced by young men in Plato’s era. I didn’t mean to suggest anything about altering the text; I simply was trying to address your statement that those young men weren’t negatively affected by their experiences. I just believe it’s very presumptive to make any such statements about people’s experiences being traumatic or not if they are not the ones telling their stories. And I believe it’s a point you basically agree with, since you are interested in hearing about the experiences of the young women alluded to by McCollough. I would just respectfully urge you to be a bit more careful in making statements like the one you made about those young men. I hope that’s understandable.
@Anthony - point taken. I should have said that we have no way of knowing if or how they were traumatised by the experience.
@Bree I appreciate that. Thank you for engaging so openly with me around some very sensitive subjects.
re: Plato I guess the very notion of trauma is imposition of our norms and views. As a counter-example, I know quite enough people who didn't want to go to school and after finishing it describe is as a part-time prison. In our society it is deemed okay to force children to go to school. It is possible than in a future we will be described as barbarians, who traumatized kids that way.For Greeks we have quite a few written sources, which originated from men, who were sexual partners of older men [for this was a normal, not shameful practice]. I know none that condemn the practice based on personal experience. At the same time I know cases were such men were grieved by the death of their older partner.
Mod
Thank you all for engaging so thoughtfully. However, once again, this thread is what we do once we see a problem in the text.
This is not a space to tell people not to find problems with works they use to explore a point they'd like to make. I'm not sure we have any spaces for that, frankly, but if we did, it'd be in the problematic fave thread, which presently has a conversation going about how we determine what is and is not problematic.
As a further note, while I appreciate the attempt at rational argument, please recall that the reason we call this "problematic" and not "obvious trauma in text" or the like is because individual reactions are often idiosyncratic, personal, and above all else perfectly acceptable. So please recall that the things we can overlook no problem may be in fact the barb that pierces another's armor directly, and do me a favor by engaging like you're talking to someone you don't want to hurt. Thanks!!
Allison wrote: "Ahem.Thank you all for engaging so thoughtfully. However, once again, this thread is what we do once we see a problem in the text."
Yes, let's go back to books!
I must apologize if my comparison has been seen as an attempt to add levity to a serious and real problem of psychological traumas. They are real and significantly affect people's lives. My point was that there can be other traumas that we, as current society do not see.
Mod
Mod
I think old books shouldn't be changed to take out things that are now considered inappropriate as otherwis..."
Mark, thanks for bringing up Writing Excuses! That's lovely to hear. I really admire Sanderson's work, and am always pleased to hear when people who clearly work hard in their craft also work hard to make themselves and the literary world a bit better.
Back to books. My view is such that:1. we cannot blame authors, who had blindspots due to the society they grew up at. For most likely we have such blindspots too. This includes using words now deemed un-PC.
2. we can choose to read what we want and there is no need to heed to someone 'list of necessary works' as a gospel truth. If you don't like it, don't read it.
3. modern authors may have views with which I disagree but I still may enjoy their works. I can pass a work of a writer about whom I heard something bad, but usually because his/her work is not much better than others, so I don't lose enjoyment-wise
I’ve been reading stories from The Big Book of Science Fiction and it’s been a very interesting travel through time. In one of the stories, written in the 1920’s, there was an unfortunate allusion made by the author of Native Americans being “savages.” I recognize that at the time it was probably not shocking to see such terms being used to refer to fellow human beings, and I can allow for that having been the case. I would never suggest that the piece be rewritten or removed, necessarily. At the same time, in a modern reading of it, I think it’s important and valid to call out such language and understand the impact such language has had over the centuries.
Bree wrote: "Societal norms are really what this conversation is all about. I didn’t know that about Colleen McCullogh, but it wouldn’t stop me from buying and reading her books. Defence of a cultural practice ..."what a brilliant comment, thank you. You summed up exactly what I was thinking
After further browsing later comments I have to add that no book should be removed because the content is no longer acceptable. Old books can be enjoyed because of the story line and you just skim the old style attitudes. Everyone has a different line in the sand , I for one couldn't read the handmaiden's tale, yet will happily read about fights with people being beheaded. Maybe because to me one book is too realistic ?
I have a friend who cant read a book that is not grammatically correct at all times, this to her is more important than the story line. I have been known to plough through some really awful writing because I like the story concept
Being a gender equality person from the 60's onwards, doing the marches, lecturering at various adult venues, I can happily read a male dominated , misogynistic book if the story line is interesting
Kateb wrote: "I have a friend who cant read a book that is not grammatically correct at all times, this to her is more important than the story line. I have been known to plough through some really awful writing because I like the story concept ..."
To reject a book solely because it is not grammatically perfect sounds a bit obtuse to me. For me, the attraction of a book is in how interesting the plot, characters and world building are. By concentrating primarily on the grammar in a book, you will lose much of the fun reading is supposed to bring you. If I wanted a grammatically perfect book, I would go sign for a college book.
To reject a book solely because it is not grammatically perfect sounds a bit obtuse to me. For me, the attraction of a book is in how interesting the plot, characters and world building are. By concentrating primarily on the grammar in a book, you will lose much of the fun reading is supposed to bring you. If I wanted a grammatically perfect book, I would go sign for a college book.
Michel wrote: "To reject a book solely because it is not grammatically perfect sounds a bit obtuse to me. "I saw people grumble over mistakes because they distract such a reader from a plot. Everyone's reading habits are different
I embrace books, actually seek out books that haven't aged well. Historical context is really fascinating to me. Yesterday's "perfectly acceptable" is Today's "Offensive". How did this happen? Why did this happen? Those are questions I ask. I then do a little research to find the evolution of the problem.I feel it can only benefit me to learn this. I do not seek to sweep it under the rug and ignore it. Of course, I would not advocate people to display the confederate flag on their clothes, car, etc, But to simply seek to abolish its very image is damaging. Much like banning books or editing out offensive sections is damaging. The old Winston Churchill quote comes to mind.
Oleksandr wrote: "Michel wrote: "To reject a book solely because it is not grammatically perfect sounds a bit obtuse to me. "
I saw people grumble over mistakes because they distract such a reader from a plot. Ever..."
Then, I believe that those people concentrating on the grammar rather than the story are missing out on a lot of good books, and this for a rather shallow reason. Authors are human, thus not perfect. Even professional editors let pass mistakes from time to time. Furthermore, writing a book is a lot more than just collecting words in a grammatically impeccable manner: it is the expression of the author's imagination and talent at story-telling. I won't mind the occasional mistake, typo or grammatical imperfection, as long as the story itself captures my interest and imagination.
Now, to return to the thread's subject, I can excuse the use of some terms that are now considered inappropriate by past authors, as long as they don't reflect truly bad character traits or conduct in the author. We simply can't judge a mindset belonging to the Antiquities or the Middle-Ages on the lines of what is politically correct today, unless that mindset shows a real streak of cruelty, abusiveness and lack of care towards others.
I saw people grumble over mistakes because they distract such a reader from a plot. Ever..."
Then, I believe that those people concentrating on the grammar rather than the story are missing out on a lot of good books, and this for a rather shallow reason. Authors are human, thus not perfect. Even professional editors let pass mistakes from time to time. Furthermore, writing a book is a lot more than just collecting words in a grammatically impeccable manner: it is the expression of the author's imagination and talent at story-telling. I won't mind the occasional mistake, typo or grammatical imperfection, as long as the story itself captures my interest and imagination.
Now, to return to the thread's subject, I can excuse the use of some terms that are now considered inappropriate by past authors, as long as they don't reflect truly bad character traits or conduct in the author. We simply can't judge a mindset belonging to the Antiquities or the Middle-Ages on the lines of what is politically correct today, unless that mindset shows a real streak of cruelty, abusiveness and lack of care towards others.
I've been following along on this thread, because I find it really interesting, but I wanted to respond to the idea that avoiding "classics" with ignorant/bigoted language and depictions is the same thing as whitewashing history. (This is sort of a response to OldSchoolScholar, but I've been pondering some of these ideas since reading the original article.) There's a difference between books that simply repeat bigotry, whether out of ignorance or intentional prejudice, and those that analyze or critique it. A reader can choose not to read or recommend the former, while still keeping the latter, and never run the risk of forgetting or ignoring the reality of the problem.And as was previously discussed, we can learn a lot about historical oppression from what is said by the victims of a particular practice. I wish the author of the original piece had suggested more specifically in question 3 to look for other literature written at the same time as the "problematic" book by the people who were the victims of bigotry, especially because this literature is often less well known.
So read what you want, but no one needs to read old books with bigoted language written from the socially dominant viewpoint in order to learn about historical racism and sexism. Personally, my reading time is limited, so I prefer to look for books that are from a different viewpoint, or offer a more critical lens, or, best yet, think constructively about how to change these things.
Michel wrote: "Kateb wrote: "I have a friend who cant read a book that is not grammatically correct at all times, this to her is more important than the story line. I have been known to plough through some really..."I fully agree but my friend falls back on the line that she has been an English teacher for 30 years. I feel she is missing out on so many good story lines, concepts etc
Re: "problematic" as a word, Merriam-Webster offers the following:"a : posing a problem : difficult to solve or decide
b : not definite or settled : uncertain their future remains problematic
c : open to question or debate : questionable"
None of those in particular relate to offensive or objectionable material, especially because solutions are generally immediately presented, hence there is ostensibly little difficulty in determining how to solve whatever the "problem" is.
In direct response to the question of what I do when I read a book I find objectionable, the answer is nothing in particular. I may point out the issues, but my comments about them are no different in substance than my comments about any other feature of the book, from style to plotting. I read books that have been expressly written to convince others that my own beliefs are wrong. It never occurred to me not to read them. In fact, I cannot understand that someone would intellectually -- rather than emotionally, which is easier for me to grasp -- decide not to read a particular book because of its content, especially if that book can be acquired at no cost.
Mod
Allison wrote: "I bet if you think about it, Baelor, you could think of lots of valid, rational reasons people might be made upset or conflicted about certain things in books :-) But not having that issue is, I th..."You are completely misrepresenting my statement. I stated that I cannot understand that someone would intellectually decide not to read a book because of objectionable content (based solely on moral opposition to that content), not that a person would have no intellectual reason to find some contain objectionable.
Also, I am assuming goodwill on your part here, so I will chalk the following up to a difference between intent and impact, but the use of phrases like "I bet if you think about it" (followed by a straw man statement) and smiley faces is extraordinarily -- and totally unjustifiably for the aforementioned reason of misrepresentation -- condescending.
Mod
Baelor wrote: "...In fact, I cannot understand that someone would intellectually -- rather than emotionally, which is easier for me to grasp -- decide not to read a particular book because of its content, especially if that book can be acquired at no cost. ..."Because time is a resource, too?
Kaa's post above is terrific, and also points this out.
Mod
I really like how you worded that, Kaa!
OldSchoolScholar wrote: "I embrace books, actually seek out books that haven't aged well. Historical context is really fascinating to me. Yesterday's "perfectly acceptable" is Today's "Offensive". How did this happen? Why ...""Perfectly acceptable" to some... look into who those were who thought it (whatever 'it' was) was acceptable. And also explore voices from those who thought it offensive even then.
"Offensive" to some... apparently not to the author or speaker who expressed that view, so what's going on there?
Iow, I agree that looking into context and lines of history are Good Things. But don't forget to explore laterally, divergently, as you go along.
Cheryl wrote: Because time is a resource, too?I agree completely. The question is to what extent objectionable content, say, bigotry, can be sequestered from the literary merit of a work overall. If it can, does the literary merit or the objectionable content take priority? Julius Caesar's commentaries on the Gallic War are biased and bigoted, but there are no real contemporary alternatives. Should they then be read or discarded?
I’m not sure historical documents can be analyzed the same way a work of fiction is whether or not it is historical. The Analects ate read for different reason and a different way than The Moon is a Harsh Mistress
Rachel wrote: "I’m not sure historical documents can be analyzed the same way a work of fiction is whether or not it is historical. The Analects ate read for different reason and a different way than The Moon is ..."Out of curiosity, what would be the substantive intellectual basis for the distinction in the context of objectionable content?
Mod
If folks have more thoughts on the article or their own considerations after a problem is observed, please, let's hear it!
Allison wrote: "I'm beginning to think this thread can't stay on topic, and I don't think a thread about what is and is not problematic is really a valuable discussion-- we'll likely have roughly 21,000 different ..."I think it is absolutely on topic. The two posts before this one were on whether there is a material distinction between non-fiction and fiction regarding what actions would need to be taken. Pretty much every post on this last page has been related to actions taken as a result of objectionable content, and no one has seemed particularly preoccupied with debating whether particular content in a particular book is problematic.
Forgive my assumption, but most of the time, it seems like mods are scared of edifying debate and therefore quash any expressed disagreement instead of letting those conversations actually run their course. Moreover, you are depriving all respondents of the opportunity to refine their thinking by actually being held accountable to explain and justify it. This is a discussion forum, which at least suggests that discussion is actually permitted. What you want seems to be a series of blog posts.
Why start a discussion at all if no exchange that in any way attempts to work through disagreement is not permitted?
but this topic is about specific books - there's another thread based on problematic authors. That thread is ore of a free-flowing expression/discussion and some of the posts here belong there more than in a thread dedicated to specific books
Mod
I am all for on topic, compassionate discussion. This format is actually awful for debate, but I'm happy for people to make a go of it if it can be respectful and on topic, per our group harassment policy.
Here, the topic is the article and our own personal ways of handling content that we personally have found problematic. As you point out, Baelor, we've been off topic for more than ten posts, despite my and Anna's reminders. I try to allow room for people to go on tangents and come back. I believe we're now past that point.
We are not going to have a conversation in this group about what literature is more important than anyone's hurts, traumas, preferences or feelings, even. I know that's not what you said, but that's what "whether particular content in a particular book is problematic" amounts to. We will not have that conversation, not only here, where it is tangential at best, but nowhere in this group, as long as Anna and I are moderators.
SciFi and Fantasy Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
The Big Book of Science Fiction (other topics)The Tenant of Wildfell Hall (other topics)
Starship Troopers (other topics)
Earth Abides (other topics)
The Other Half of the Sky (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Colleen McCullough (other topics)Colleen McCullough (other topics)
Stanisław Lem (other topics)
Arkady Strugatsky (other topics)
Boris Strugatsky (other topics)
More...
Excellent point Amanda. I think it was in the article the writer mentioned that he hadn't even noticed the bad stuff in some of his rereads. Like, for example, I didn't notice the Christianity in the Narnia books, but saw just this unspecific nobility and love, etc. If we didn't notice the issues, it's fairly likely we weren't influenced by them. Ah... I'll shut up, you said it better.