Coming across objectionable content in older books

[Mason]

I just saw a link to an interesting discussion on io9 (http://io9.com/5894639/what-do-you-do...), and I was wondering if the topic had been discussed here. I didn't see it in a search of previous forum posts, and since I'm relatively new to this forum, I was wondering what you all thought and how you react when you come across instances of bigotry or racism in older books. I've generally been hesitant to condemn a writer across the board for references that, however objectionable today, would have been considered more "normal" at the time the piece was written; but some of those overt references do tend to trip me up as I read them and have to sort of re-translate them through the lens of the day. How much do these archaic portrayals influence how we feel about these works today?

[Gordon]

It's hard to remain unaffected by references like that, but I do my best since we are wearing 'modern glasses' in our outlooks. I do what I can to remind myself of that, and to try and see it as a sort of literary archaeology, examining the outlook of the past.

[Mark]

I took a class in University that was titled "Sex and Race in Science Fiction." We read several short stories whose titles I can't recall from every time period in the genre then discussed how the sexual tones or the racism of the time was handled.

One of the more interesting aspects of Sci-Fi through the ages is that it seems most writers were working to break the racism or sexism of their time. Many worked to rewrite the future without the racism but fell short.

We also read some memos between writers, editors, and other staff that walked along the lines of the DS9 episodes that also dealt with this topic. Many editors wanted to publish more forward thinking works, but were stopped by upper management. I'd love to get my hands on some of the more forward thinkers' works, but I fear they've been lost to history.

[Phil On The Hill]

I think it is important to maintain perspective. I would say enjoy the story, but you do not have to like the views portrayed in it. Indeed I think it is important to remind ourselves that many attitudes have changed and continue to change for the better.

I think Jack Kerouac's On The Road is a great example of changing attitudes. I disliked the book, but I understood it. I would recommend it to people on the basis that it is important and you may like it, even though I did not.

I think the same of objectionable attitudes or language. Read the book and know your enemy.

[Warren]

Burn the book. Then burn the library and tar and feather the author.
Or accept that there are books that you many not agree with.
About half the "classics" are objectionable to someone.

[Casey]

It sounds like pretty much everyone is on the same page with this subject. I think we must recognize that we are reading from a distance in time and normative societal standards. For example, there is a real argument that
Charles Dickens was a racist from a modern-day perspective. While objectionable content may make us uncomfortable, we should keep in mind our basis for comparison is our relative point of view with respect to social behavior and identifying subjective moral values.

[Rob]

The mention of DS9 has me thinking too of the shift that Trek made with it from using allegory to using direct commentary. So much in TNG they would tackle an issue with "stand ins". Rather than make a comment on homosexuality, they encountered a race of Gender neutral people. Rather than dealing with issues of the elderly, they encountered a race that had ritual life endings.

But then DS9 went after it head on and gave the characters dialogue that directly commented on the eras.

That said, I think all art has to be kept in historical perspective. Looking at themes alone can tell a lot about a society. Perhaps the rise in Post Apocalytic fiction right now is because people are feeling that dread, that maybe the end days are upon us. Or maybe they want to read about success stories in that after-world, to know when the power goes out they'll survive.

I'm rambling.

Bad thoughts by old writers. I do think that these are most excusable when the creators recant on them later. It says a lot when someone says "I wrote this back in the 1950's and while I'm proud it was successful I regret that it contains themes I was wrong to support."

[Warren]

Yep. Final note- One of the silliest things I run cross are old scifi books that refer to people smoking cigarettes. That really dates a story.
To make it futuristic they point out that the cigarettes are matchless.
Then have people wearing hats with fins and shoulder pads.
It's not as objectionable as it it silly.
~I bet you get a soup bowl with one of these.
Oh but on you it looks good~
;-)

[Micah]

Rob wrote: "The mention of DS9 has me thinking too of the shift that Trek made with it from using allegory to using direct commentary. So much in TNG they would tackle an issue with "stand ins". Rather than dealing with issues of the elderly, they encountered a race that had ritual life endings.

But then DS9 went after it head on and gave the characters dialogue that directly commented on the eras."

I have noticed that too. I am watching DS9 on Netflix now and just watched all the TNG episodes throughout last year. I was thinking that it had a lot to do with lazy writing and Gene Roddenberry's death. I know he had a lot of say and influence in TNG. DS9 feels like the studios and writers left that behind and decided to ignore a lot of what he had said and recommended.

[Joe Informatico]

The best way to learn about the prejudices of an earlier time, is through the pen of someone from an earlier time. Otherwise, like far too many people on the internet, your understanding of history might be shaped entirely by sanitized and bowdlerized films and History Channel documentaries.

There's also the quandary of things we consider horribly racist by today's standards, but in their own time were seen as almost radically progressive.

[Jason]

It's been discussed here before (and on the podcast), but China Mieville's reaction to winning a Lovecraft award seems on-topic:

http://nnedi.blogspot.com/2011/12/lov...

When reading older sci-fi (as I do frequently) I do my best to remember the time in which it was written. Modern sensibilities should not prevent people from reading great works of art. But that also doesn't mean they should overlook or forget the attitudes that are present in those works.

[Mason]

Jason wrote: "It's been discussed here before (and on the podcast), but China Mieville's reaction to winning a Lovecraft award seems on-topic:

Thanks for sharing that, Jason! We have to maintain a duality in our heads when we encounter something we like that contains something we dislike. That duality takes a lot of energy, I'd guess, so I can see how some folks would rather just pick one aspect and paint the whole work over with that impression. I'm heartened to see that most (all?) of the responses here indicate that S&Lers are willing to take the extra effort.

[Tim]

Sometimes the book doesn't even have to be that old. I recently read the second Wild Cards book (a shared world that's edited in part by George RR Martin) which came out in '87 (am I showing my age by calling that "not that old"??).

Towards the end of the book one of the characters kept using a homophobic slur, and it really took me aback reading it being so casually dropped. I'm still not sure if it was intended to be a commentary or it's use was straightforward. The book does seem to be trying to deal with some issues of discrimination during that time, so I kinda gave it the benefit of the doubt, but it was weird looking at it with today's eyes (it also seemed totally out of character for the person making the comment, which I think was another reason it struck me so much). I think if you want to do that sort of thing you have to be very much clearer on your character or story motivations

[Garrett]

This isn't about making an extra effort, it's about the fact that racist bullshit was just as wrong 80 years ago as it is today. Lovecraft was a horrible, vile racist. If you buy and support his work you are support horrible vile racism.

[Casey]

Garrett wrote: "This isn't about making an extra effort, it's about the fact that racist bullshit was just as wrong 80 years ago as it is today. Lovecraft was a horrible, vile racist. If you buy and support his wo..."


Wow, really?
I must respectfully disagree. I think we can derive enjoyment from an artist's work while maintaining a division or separation in politics or belief system.

Edited due to forgotten apostrophe.