The Sword and Laser discussion
Should we read books that others find offensive?
date
newest »
newest »
To kill a mockingbird offends a lot of people, but it's still an outstanding book. If people can only write about their own "race" then nobody should read "The 3 musketeers" or any book that has a female main charter written by a male or vice versa. A good book is a good book, a bad book is a bad book regardless of the race or gender of the author. It almost feels like people are LOOKING for a reason to get upset about things these days.
It’s possible people are just looking for reasons to be offended these days, or and hear me out on this, we’re finally at a place where people feel comfortable speaking up about the portrayals of their cultures and experiences in the media with some hope that people will actually listen to them.
I haven’t yet read The Tiger’s Daughter, but in this case I’m confused by people getting offended because it’s set in a fantasy world, not our own, so the experiences of the characters and their culture could only be inspired by our world’s cultures, not ever be an exact telling of their histories...
Should we read them? Should implies some binary. I don't think it's a yes/no question. I do think it's important that we each examine what our moral obligations are, and to attempt to adhere to them. For me, that involves listening to the groups impacted and at the very least learning what the issue is.
We have to be able to have conversations about what it is that makes people unhappy, because, as Christopher says, we're starting to hear new voices. And including new people in the circle will mean some parts of the game have to change. That's not "politically correct snowflake" territory, that's progress and respect.
But as with all things, there are extremes that aren't intended to be the real path forward so much as reactionary moments in time.
Essentially I'm for examining the criticism, weighing it against my moral obligations, and making an informed, personal opinion that does not necessarily condemn others for a different opinion, but which does provide a guide for myself about what I'm willing to tolerate and forgive.
I say we should still read whatever and form our opinion afterwards. I can argue both sides of this. There are plenty of times where people will say that X isn't written by Y culture so it's not accurate, at the same time, we have plenty examples of something written by the same culture and the views are horribly slanted. E.G. Historic events as recorded by Christians vs Historic events recorded by Muslims to give this one face. At the same time, there are Muslim's who have degrees in Christianity and have written papers on historic events. So should those be stricken because they don't line up with what the masses believe should be allowable? With the above said, if something is written simply to rile up negativity towards an ethnic group, that should be taken into consideration, however, I honestly feel that if a white female wants to write about black culture from male standpoint. She should and if I read said book, I should form my own opinions based off what I read. But then again, I'm considered extremely liberal in that sense and I know most people do not see eye to eye with me on that.
I think what I'm saying is that, would it be wrong for a ex Nazi to write about Anne Frank?
One of my issues with some reviews is complaints about portrayals of racism. There's a difference between a racist book and a book that portrays instances of racism, and the inability to differentiate the two says more about the reader than the book.I'm also a little unsure of where the line on cultural appropriation should be drawn in secondary fantasy. I'm all for more #OwnVoices books, but I'm also pretty tired of the standard European/medieval fantasy tropes, so I want to support authors that try something new, regardless of their personal cultural heritage.
Anthony wrote: "I haven’t yet read The Tiger’s Daughter, but in this case I’m confused by people getting offended because it’s set in a fantasy world, not our own, so the experiences of the characters and their cu..."Anthony I was curious (and as mentioned it's my method to see what the issue is to see if it's something I find morally repugnant or just bad taste).
It looks like it's not really a fantasy world--that, sort of like "Poppy War" it uses different words but it's really just an analog for the real world, and has things that at least one reviewer found to be not just culturally insensitive but that contained slurs and touched on deep-seated trauma among Chinese, Japanese and Mongolian people. So that's the issue. It's not that it's sort of vaguely flavored, it's that it's straight up using words and events from those cultures and using them in ways that don't make sense and/or are slurs.
I'm not sure this will keep me from reading it (the word "infodump" is killing my desire more in the reviews lol) but now I feel like I understand the concern and can consider it carefully as I read--if I read!
Allison wrote: "Should we read them? Should implies some binary. I don't think it's a yes/no question. I do think it's important that we each examine what our moral obligations are, and to attempt to adhere to t..."
Great answer and one I agree with. I've been thinking about this question since the thread was posted. It's important to listen to the voices of marginalized communities about issues like this. If they are hurt or harmed by something, I don't want to partake in it and do further damage. Each case is unique and I personally approach each one as such.
I'm not on Twitter and don't read reviews so I honestly rarely even hear about backlash. i would still read the book regardless though to make my own decision and then check out what the issues were after.
Mod
Mark wrote: "I understand that reviews are meant to inform, but I begin to feel unreasonably irritated when a review seems to be suggesting that I shouldn't read a book because it offends the reviewer. As ignorant as I am about other people and cultures, I feel like I should make my own decisions about a book."In general I completely agree with this sentiment. That said...
In the case of this particular book, the vast majority of people of Japanese and Chinese descent reviewing the book seem to have been offended by it. I could only find one positive review from someone who was Asian-American. When you get so many people of any specific group lining up on the same side, I think it behooves us outsiders to pay attention to it.
This is not analogous to Trail of Lightning, where the naysayers seem to be a distinct minority. For every negative review from Navajo readers, there appears to be two positive reviews from within that same group. Also, Roanhorse is married to a Navajo, their daughter and her in-laws are Navajo, and she lives and works in the area.
That is decidedly not the case with The Tiger's Daughter, written by someone who is not affiliated with the culture she’s writing about in any way. She appears to be a twenty-something American from Puerto Rico, so she doesn’t even have the cover of living in association with her subject. All of the rave reviews I looked at are from white people, who presumably don’t know any better.
Ever since Trevor Noah articulated it as “offended versus affected”, I’ve been looking at this issue differently. If someone writes a book that perpetuates negative stereotypes, people will normalize that *because* they don’t know any better, thus making the lives of those marginalized, ostracized and bullied groups even more difficult on a day-to-day basis.
I appreciate learning more about this, and I am definitely curious to read the book — and then the reviews — to see what I can learn from both things.
Ok, so I actually have read The Tiger's Daughter. I'm also not Asian. I wasn't aware of the issues when I picked it up, I read it for the lgbt book blog I run because the main characters are lesbians. The book has racial issues that go past "the author isn't Asian." The book relies on stereotypes and cliches that are at best outdated and ill-considered. For example, one of the groups of people in the book is literally referred to as "rice eaters" throughout it. The issue goes beyond the author writing "out of their lane." The issue is that they didn't seem to consider the implications of what they were writing and how they were writing it.
Emily wrote: "The issue is that they didn't seem to consider the implications of what they were writing and how they were writing it."I’m curious as to why you would give it 3 stars then. That description sounds like a 1 star at best.
Trike wrote: "Emily wrote: "The issue is that they didn't seem to consider the implications of what they were writing and how they were writing it."I’m curious as to why you would give it 3 stars then. That de..."
More my own ranking system than anything, I guess. The 3 is probably generous and a 2.5 is more accurate, but I reserve 1 star for books that I don't think have any redeeming qualities, are actively harmful, are poorly written, and I would talk people out of reading if they were interested in them. I think I've given three books total 1 star reviews, and I don't think this books problems are that extreme.
There are things about the Tiger's Daughter that I liked. For instance, I liked the lesbian romance, and I happened to be reading it specifically for that reason. Under certain circumstances I might suggest it to someone, though I would definitely mention the racial insensitivities and point the person at some reviews that explain those better than I could.
The racism in the book isn't "active." Like, I don't think the author was trying to portray Asian cultures negatively and might have even intended the opposite. The issues seem to be stemmed from carelessness more than ill intent, which still doesn't make them ok, but I don't think it's inspiring racist views so much as its reinforcing stereotypes.
Thank you for that comment, because it picks up on the Thing I am also interested in. Is the writing perpetuating negative stereotypes that could be harmful if normalized. E.g., if hypothetical fans of the book start spouting racial offensive language because they think "It's just Fantasy".
That is why I like People to speak up, and ideally they Point out the Errors and misconceptions of the book. That way, you can read it (if you still want) with open eyes and judge the Errors accordingly.
I like to compare it to People reading Huckleberry Finn without being Aware that the n-word is really offensive. If you go in uninformed, you risk hurting People by unintentionally spreading the use of stereotypes and language. Once you are Aware, you can enjoy the book for its merits and avoid the pitfalls.
I think you also have to consider when a book was written. I know the discussion here is mostly about fantasy and sf, but there are many older classic books that could be seen as offensive now. To name a few, the Little House books by Laura Ingalls Wilder offer a very real view of how the settlers of that time viewed the native Americans. That view is accurate to that era and the culture the author grew up in, but many object to it today and arennot sure if it's appropriate for kids to read. Go back quite a ways to Robinson Crusoe and consider his Man Friday. Huckleberry Finn has already been mentioned. Let's add Heinlein's Farnhams Freehold. Ivanhoe, for what it says about Jews. For that matter, Arabian Nights doesn't have much good to say about Jews. Even P L Travers has a Mary Poppins story about a magic compass that isn't one I'd choose for read aloud these days. And what about Tarzan? And the Gor books?So, how much slack do we cut for writers who are the product of their era? I certainly don't favor banning older books (or any books, really)
Can we trust ourselves to read with our eyes open? I think we can.
When I was a kid, the rule in our house was that we could read any books we wanted, but had to be prepared to discuss them at the dinner table. I think that rule still works.
Robin
Short answer: Hell, yes!Longer answer: First there's the age factor that Robin mentions immediately above. If something written by an ancient Greek offends anyone or everyone I am in no way going to let that factor into whether I read the 50 year old copy on my parents' shelf.
That age factor is obviously a sliding scale but similarly I'm in no way concerned if something written in 1850 deals poorly with the subject of race.
If it's 5 years old, or 1 week … that would be different.
Secondly … almost everything offends someone. So it would really be a case of considering who it offends, and whether I care. I'm sure many books featuring a diverse cast offend certain Nazis or religious extremists. I don't care. So it's a balance between who is offended about it, whether I care, and whether the book might be saying something important. If it off handedly offends someone of concern while offering me simple entertainment then maybe I could choose an alternative. If it by necessity offends someone of concern in the process of examining a difficult topic … maybe it's worth it.
I’m not in favor of banning or censoring books at all, by any means. I am, however, in favor of not spending money on the books of authors whose known views are particularly racist, homophobic, misogynist, imperialist, etc. And I think it’s a little generous to say that those qualities could be written off as being a product of their respective times. After all, for every slave-owning racist in America in the 1800’s, there were plenty of abolitionists...
Mark Lawrence wrote: "Secondly … almost everything offends someone."Ooh, I know that guy. He is absolutely no fun at parties.
Yeah, this is not a well thought out question. As Mark notes, you can find someone who is offended by almost any work you care to name. I'm not going to be bound by someone else's sensitivity, either. Will I read a work if reviews are that it's patently racist, misogynist, etc? Almost certainly not unless I was being asked to read it in a class doing a survey of, say, important American novels of the 1850s.
Basically, I need to know WHY a book is considered offensive and by whom. Bringing this back to the issue of The Tiger's Daughter, I think there are a few issues... some seem to be a shallow understanding or a misunderstanding of the culture being used as a basis for the world (Japan). Others are truly offensive to Japanese people and this is a more subtle issue. If I don't get that these things are offensive to Japanese people because I don't have the background to know that and I read them, I risk perpetuating the offense unwittingly; saying "Did you know X?" when X is not only not accurate but offensive.
It seems to me that the corrective for that is to read reviews and learn but not everyone will read reviews of the books they read. In this specific case, I don't have a good answer except to say that no one should take something presented in a fictional work as being true about the society on which that work is based.
What I also see often is that people- confuse what offensive *characters* say with something the author would say and believes in
- confuse a dystopian setting (e.g. an alternative, dictatorial Wild West without any American Indians - which is supposed to prompt the reader to ask "wait - what!? where are they? what happened?!") with what the author would consider a beautiful utopia and would wish for.
So many offended reviews are based on such misunderstandings, and they then misinform countless other people who in turn avoid the book and tell other people to avoid the book until nobody has read the book, but everyone "knows" it's offensive and should be shunned. Since the internet is SO full of gossip and hearsay, and memes spread like wildfire, I try to be very careful with my judgment.
Regarding Huckleberry Finn, anyone who knew Mark Twain’s views would know that he was an abolitionist, and therefore the use of the n-word in his novel was not a demonstration of his fondness for that word. On the other hand, I can certainly understand that the presence of that word in print, and said in the manner that it is spoken in the novel, is painful for many. I think it’s meant to be painful; there’s no question in my mind as to what that novel is saying about the evils of slavery and of racism.
Yes, we should. How is this even a discussion?
Anthony wrote: "Regarding Huckleberry Finn, anyone who knew Mark Twain’s views would know that he was an abolitionist,No, at the time of the Civil War, he joined the Confederate army. He went AWOL once he realized war was serious business, and later came to denounce slavery, but at the time when Abolition was a national issue, he was not an Abolitionist.
"and therefore the use of the n-word in his novel was not a demonstration of his fondness for that word"
This is a common myth. The reason Huck Finn is considered racist isn't merely that characters use the n-word. It's because the comedic interactions between Huck and Jim are based upon racist minstrel show routines of the time.
I’m sorry, Huck Finn was published in 1884. Are you telling me its anti-slavery content wasn’t an example of his anti-slavery views?
Anthony wrote: "I’m sorry, Huck Finn was published in 1884. Are you telling me its anti-slavery content wasn’t an example of his anti-slavery views?"You called him an Abolitionist, which would mean Twain was actively opposed to slavery while it existed in the United States. That is not the case. He opposed it after the Civil War. That doesn't make him an Abolitionist any more than you and I are.
The fact is, there were very few actual Abolitionists in the United States until late in the Civil War. Even Abraham Lincoln didn't become one until 1862. Before that, Republicans simply wanted to curb the power of the slave states and stop the expansion of slavery into the Territories. The idea of ending slavery entirely was a fringe position reserved for third parties.
Moreover, even once Abolition became the consensus position in the North, it didn't erase racism. Most Americans, North and South, still believed in white supremacy.
I understand the distinction. However, are you arguing an idea that Mark Twain was racist in 1884? And that Huckleberry Finn is not an anti-slavery text?
Anthony wrote: "I understand the distinction. However, are you arguing an idea that Mark Twain was racist in 1884? And that Huckleberry Finn is not an anti-slavery text?"Of course he was racist. It was baked into the culture he grew up in. He may've fought against it, but there's no doubt it was ingrained in him from his earliest childhood, and it shows through at times in his work, including Huckleberry Finn. We can recognize that the book is a genuine attempt by a white man from a slave state to come to terms with the horrors of his culture, but we also need to acknowledge that the book falls short in many areas.
And this doesn't just apply to Twain, or even people of the 19th Century. American society is still racist, and everyone who participates in it has been exposed to racist ideas through the media and our peers. It affects our way of thinking whether we want it to or not. The challenge is to recognize that and avoid acting on it -- and if you slip up and someone calls you on it, try to understand their point of view and don't do it again.
Just to clarify, Sean: are you advocating that we should boycott Twain (as well as any other American author because all of them are racist)? Because that's the context of this discussion: determining which books are okay to read despite of controversial content and which aren't and should be boycotted. Anthony was using HF as an example of a book that is permissible to read despite containing eg. offensive terms. You seemed to be arguing against that position, so this is where my question is coming from.
Eva wrote: "Just to clarify, Sean: are you advocating that we should boycott Twain (as well as any other American author because all of them are racist)? Because that's the context of this discussion: determin..."I take Anthony's position to be that there's a difference between books that depict racism and those that are racist, with Huck Finn being in the former category. I'm saying that's a misinterpretation of the argument critics put forth -- that Twain was both portraying racism, but also letting his own racism slip into the work.
Should we read Huck Finn anyway? That depends on the purpose of the reading group.
If you're taking an academic approach to look at 19th Century society, including the ways in which otherwise liberal-minded folk held racist ideas, it's great.
If you're trying to imbue a bunch of ninth graders with appreciation for the greatness of American literature, then it's better to find a black author like Frederick Douglass who experience slavery personally, rather than a white guy who signed up with the Confederacy before getting cold feet.
If you're in a recreational book group where everyone's looking for entertainment, it's probably best to skip Twain.
Eva wrote: "Just to clarify, Sean: are you advocating that we should boycott Twain (as well as any other American author because all of them are racist)? Because that's the context of this discussion: determin..."Someone pointing out that the context and reasons for a book being problematic is a very different thing from them suggesting a boycott of the book (also what would be the point of a "boycott" of Twain, the guy is dead and not profiting off of his book sales).
Honestly, this discussion started because apparently reviewers of a book insinuated that a book shouldn't be read because its offensive. Isn't that just what reviews are for? To help you figure out if you should read a book or not?
If the book was flawed in some way that had to do with character or structure or plot and the reviewer said that you shouldn't read it for those reasons, would anyone be this bothered by it? Maybe if they read the book and didn't agree with the criticism. Regardless of what the reviewer said or what they were critiquing, you can just ignore them and read the book if you really wanted. Strangers on the internet can't stop you from reading it, for whatever reason you decide to.
The reviews are there to help you save time, and yes, some people would very much not like to waste their times reading books that they might find offensive or troubling. I review lgbt fantasy books specifically so that other people don't have to spend time and energy on books that portray lgbt characters in overused or negative tropes. And yes I do occasionally suggest that people shouldn't read specific books because I don't want them to waste time. Whether they do or not is their decision. I'm not going after authors or burning copies of the books when I do this, I'm just aiming to help save time for other readers.
Trike already pointed out that the book that prompted this discussion (The Tiger's Daughter) was called offensive by pretty much everyone who reviewed it on goodreads and identified themselves as being of Japanese or Chinese descent. Many of those reviewers have explained in thorough detail exactly why and how its offensive, and many of those same reviewers went on to review the next book if you're curious as how that might get better or worse. Morbid curiosity is a thing, and we've all read and watched things that we knew were bad, just because we wanted to see HOW bad it really is. I know, I once read Dianetics. But the good thing about these reviewers is that they have explained in detail exactly why and how that book is offensive, so we don't have to waste our time on it if that's the only thing we're curious about. That work has been done already.
"Honestly, this discussion started because apparently reviewers of a book insinuated that a book shouldn't be read because its offensive. Isn't that just what reviews are for? To help you figure out if you should read a book or not? "Just because a book offends one person or group of people does NOT mean it should not be read by anyone. It might mean that for a given person, but I disagree that simply because most of the people of Japanese descent who reviewed The Tiger's Daughter were offended, that I (not of any Asian descent) shouldn't read it.
It DOES mean I should read it with the awareness that the author seems to have done a poor job of understanding the culture used as the basis for the world and that I shouldn't take any of the world building as accurate reflections of the Japanese culture.
And no, reviews aren't there to tell me to read something or not. They're there to tell me about the book and let me decide whether the faults found by others are the kind of thing that I dislike.
Rick wrote: "And no, reviews aren't there to tell me to read something or not. They're there to tell me about the book and let me decide whether the faults found by others are the kind of thing that I dislike."So in other words....they're there to help you figure out if you should read a book or not? I don't think anyone is actually giving orders on what books you should or shouldn't read here. Saying that someone should or shouldn't read the book is just the TL;DR version of a review.
Interestingly enough I think this topic Has a lot of parallels to the reread one. The quote about the book being static, yet we are different on each reread, seems to apply to this topic as well. Both society and individuals change as time goes on, and can bring new perspectives to older work.I haven’t watched “Lost in Translation” in a long time, but recently went down a bit of a rat hole involving it, and came upon some info on the Japanese reviews of it. It was dismissed as not a good movie for some of the same reasons brought up regarding this book, basically portraying the Japanese in the movie with broad stereotypes. I didn’t remember hearing this at the time, and do remember enjoying the movie, but if/ when I watch it again, I’m going to have this in mind. Will it affect my enjoyment of the film, I don’t know, but it might.
Relevant to this topic, Vulture posted Who Gave You the Right to Tell That Story? Ten authors on the most divisive question in fiction, and the times they wrote outside their own identities.
Interesting article and author takes. Some of the takes I found more convincing than others but it's good that authors (at least those 10) are thinking about the issue.
Dara wrote: "Relevant to this topic, Vulture posted Who Gave You the Right to Tell That Story? Ten authors on the most divisive question in fiction, and the times they wrote outside their own identities."Ah cool, a nice followup to our Roanhorse discussion, thanks for sharing that.
The Sword and Laser
Books mentioned in this topic
Trail of Lightning (other topics)The Tiger’s Daughter (other topics)
The Tiger’s Daughter (other topics)
The Tiger’s Daughter (other topics)
Trail of Lightning (other topics)
Authors mentioned in this topic
Trevor Noah (other topics)Rebecca Roanhorse (other topics)
K. Arsenault Rivera (other topics)
The latest Tor free ebook is The Tiger's Daughter by K. Arsenault Rivera. The book has garnered good, indifferent, and bad reviews. The bad reviews focus on the fact that the book features Asian characters in a world which mirrors real Asian history, but Rivera is not Asian. Some of the complaints wonder why Tor editors didn't use sensitivity readers to review the book. Who knows if they did or didn't?
We recently had similar discussions about Trail of Lightning by Rebecca Roanhorse who wrote about Navajo society and religion, but is only married to a Navajo.
I understand that reviews are meant to inform, but I begin to feel unreasonably irritated when a review seems to be suggesting that I shouldn't read a book because it offends the reviewer. As ignorant as I am about other people and cultures, I feel like I should make my own decisions about a book.