Bastard&#39;s Notebook

The Lord of the Rings was written a while back, and we're supposed to have learned from the mistakes of the past. That author is dead, and you can't expect him to write the next book better.

I'm interested in why you're calling vito_excalibur a hypocrite.

I think that politics and entertainment aren't completely separate entities that never infringe upon each other, and I'm not sure that trying to keep them completely apart is a good idea. Have you ever heard this quote?

“Watch your thoughts, for they become words.
Watch your words, for they become actions.
Watch your actions, for they become habits.
Watch your habits, for they become character.
Watch your character, for it becomes your destiny.”

In other terms, the things that you consume as entertainment are in your head. If you consume a lot of it, it's in your head a lot. There is some risk, I feel, of some problematic ways of interaction becoming more normative than they might otherwise if you didn't consume so much.

I wouldn't judge you for it, but I'm not altogether sure I want Harry Dresden around in my head. I mean, you didn't actually answer my question. He seems like an ass of a character. I don't actually care that he rides zombie dinosaurs. The books seem sexist, and that's a problem for me. I don't care that it's "just entertainment."

And I don't regard this as importing my politics into my entertainment, or making myself feel better about my life choices. Being female isn't really a life choice.

I have looked at these books, and decided they might be too problematic to bother with reading. And now I have another male friend telling me that critics are "oversensitive." So if I go read one, and decide the critics are right, I am going to be so seriously fucking pissed you will not believe it.

From:

kadath.livejournal.com

+1 on this. Somehow it's never a problem when I mention I haven't been able to get into something because I'm an aerospace engineer and I can't manage to suspend my disbelief over the physics, but if I don't want to read something because I find the politics or some set of social assumptions on the part of the characters or author objectionable (unless it's trendy to hate it, like Twilight), I suddenly become "oversensitive." Unless there are a bunch of equations on the page (sometimes even then), I'm reading for fun. Not wanting to spend my leisure time pissed off is not some crime against auctorial freedom.

Also, people do point out the racism and sexism in LotR. David Brin's essay about it is a classic.

Edited Date: 2010-05-05 07:20 pm (UTC)

From:

loopback.livejournal.com

Without going into any particular spoilers, the problems'the character has with his attitudes towards women, which are often very 'old fashioned' (ie, sexist) and often clearly wrong in the face of reality:

* get him nearly killed when people take advantage of his prejudices.
* cause him to take idiotic risks that he is effectively punished for as a result, though (being our protagonist) he does emerge alive, though often not unscathed.
* get challenged by the various women in the story. (who, yes, are by and large all written as being extremely attractive. So are all the men. That is one point, at least, where he's quite consistent.
* over time, he changes his attitude towards some-women-in-specific, but acknowledges he's still a Goddamn Caveman in a lot of ways.

The character doesn't think he's RIGHT for behaving that way, it's that he was raised a certain way, and still has those beliefs and attitudes.

I can certainly understand not wanting to read a flawed main character who embodies a lot of the prevailing crap attitudes that can be seen in various places. And I can understand being pissy about the poor chicago geography in the books if you are a chicago resident. But when the 'hero' of a series is, more often than not, fucked over by his own prejudices and assumptions, and frequently saved from Painful Terrible Death by the women who are more competent, powerful, organized, aware, or experienced than he is, I think it's a grave mistake to say the books themselves are sexist.

Are they terrible writing? quite possibly. I don't personally think so. Are they sexist? I think the main character is, but I think his sexism is written as a weakness and flaw in who he is as a person. Does his 'chivalry' occasionally net him a moment of a woman thinking it's charming? sometimes. More often, he gets eyes rolled at him at about 2,000 rpm for being a sexist dork.

but in short: if you don't wanna read it, don't read it.

From:

loopback.livejournal.com

oh and I have a penis or two.

From:

That's all well and good, and more or less what I was asking in the first place: do you think the criticism of the books is fair.

Obviously the answer is "no."

From:

loopback.livejournal.com

'fair' has nothing to do with it. The criticism is simply off base and incorrect. Or failing that, it's an essay on someone's personal taste, and not criticism in any sense of the word that I would use.

From:

It looks valid to me.

It's not written formally, but that doesn't mean it isn't critical writing. A formal essay would have examples and citations, yes. But that lack of them does not mean it isn't valid criticism.

You don't agree with the critic. So you say she's off base. That much is fair.

However, you can't say she's incorrect, because there is no single correct reading of any given text. I have never subscribed to New Criticism, and I don't necessarily think that the author is dead, and I do think that some readings are more valid than others--but saying someone's wrong doesn't make it true.

I was listening when you countered the critique. Don't oversell it.

From:

Shit, I may have replied to the wrong person, but I have a reply to you in here somewhere.

From:

It read like it was intended for me, so it's all good.

I am in love with your icon. One of my dissertation chapters is on Mary Shelley.

From:

"because there is no single correct reading of any given text."

The fuck there isn't.

"The sky is blue." has a single correct reading. If you think I meant that the sky is green, you are wrong. If you think I meant the sea is blue, you are wrong. If you think I meant gravity doesn't exist, you are wrong. Please go tell a physicist and a mathematician that there is "no single correct reading of any given text." And then duck behind something because blood is gonna shoot from their eyes.

Are there many writings which are open to interpretation? Absolutely. Is ALL text open for whatever interpretation a person wants to put on it? No. Your sweeping over-generalization kills your argument. And more importantly, just because someone decides to put their interpretation down on paper doesn't make them right. "Saying someone's wrong doesn't make it true"...neither does "saying someone is right." You seem to think this author is correct...and yet, you've never actually read the source material. How can you POSSIBLY judge whether or not her critique is valid by reading someone's out of context and conclusion driven summary? At least Loopback has actually read both the source material and the critique, which puts him in a far better spot than you for making a call on whether or not that critique is incorrect or not. You seem to be content with simply reading the critique and accepting the author's take as "right."

~Aramada

From:

You are confusing physics and literature. I'm not going to say that to a physicist because it would be stupid. Go to an English department and present this argument. I'll wait.

The sky isn't a damned text.

And NO, I am not content to simply accept the critique to which I linked as "right." Do you forget why I came here in the first place? It was to ask a question, and that question was " Do you think this criticism is valid?" And I was asking Dmitri because I value his penis-having opinion.

I judge the critic's opinion to be valid *as criticism* pending my reading of the source texts because it has all of the earmarks of reasonable criticism, and people I trust vouch for the critic--that would be the equivalent of finding known critics among the bibliography.

From:

"You are confusing physics and literature."

No, I'm pointing out that you made a gross overstatement. Did you say "because there is no single correct reading of any literature text"? No, you didn't. What you said was "any given text."

"The sky isn't a damned text."

And that isn't even an actual grammatically correct sentence. "The sky is blue." IS text. It is, in fact, "any given text." Which is what you said.

If what you meant was literature, then that is what you should have said. Of course, simply inserting literature doesn't make the statement any less of an over-generalization, just less of a gross one.

"Go to an English department and present this argument. I'll wait."

::grins:: I did. In 2007 at the University of Washington. Given that I walked away with my degree, I'm gonna say it went over fairly well. No waiting involved.

"And I was asking Dmitri because I value his penis-having opinion."

And thus you show you once again are missing the point to why people are chafed by your statements. IT SHOULDN'T MATTER WHAT HIS GENITALIA IS. You keep parsing things in terms of "well, you're a guy" and it has zero relevance to whether or not his opinion is good, bad or indifferent. It isn't a "penis-having opinion", it's just an opinion. You are so doggedly determined to view things in terms of gender bias that you have locked yourself into the sexism you claim to abhor.

~Aramada

From:

I don't care that Dmitri is a guy. I am reacting to the fact that he made a post about it.

I'm not defaulting back to it, that's not the point to me, it's not WHY I asked him--I asked him because he posted about the Butcher books, not because he's male.

I mentioned that because HE mentioned it. Seriously, don't you get that?

Re: hoo boy, this opens up a can of worms....

From:

faerieburst.livejournal.com - Date: 2010-05-06 12:20 am (UTC) - Expand

Re: hoo boy, this opens up a can of worms....

From:

esmeraldus-neo.livejournal.com - Date: 2010-05-06 12:32 am (UTC) - Expand

Re: hoo boy, this opens up a can of worms....

From:

faerieburst.livejournal.com - Date: 2010-05-06 12:54 am (UTC) - Expand

Re: hoo boy, this opens up a can of worms....

From:

winneganfake.livejournal.com - Date: 2010-05-06 05:47 am (UTC) - Expand

From:

Yes, I missed a word.

You realize that "The sky is blue" as a text is so simple that a misreading is almost impossible.

You are accusing me of gross over-generalization, but I'll assume you have heard of reducing something to absurdity.

I did not think it was necessary to specify that I meant literature when we were discussing literature. We were discussing fantasy novels, not literature in general--but we were engaged in a discussion of literature. There seemed to be no need.

There are schools of thought that hold that there IS no single correct reading of a given text. You may disagree. In fact, I disagree. Umberto Eco said that novels are machines for generating interpretations. I think that some of these interpretations are more valid than others; however, we don't really have a basis for saying any of them are *wrong* other than the quality of our arguments for the ones we believe to be more valid.

As to my grammar: I know the difference between prescriptive and descriptive grammar, thanks. "The sky isn't a damned text" is a perfectly grammatical sentence, even though I misread you. Perhaps not in freshman composition, but it's perfectly fine for adults.

I've answered the other charges. I'm reacting to Dmitri. His gender is not my priority. I mentioned it the first time in misguided shorthand. He followed up with what I feel are genuinely problematic answers. He posted about his penis and its opinions. I referred to the penis's opinion in frustration.

Re: hoo boy, this opens up a can of worms....

From:

faerieburst.livejournal.com - Date: 2010-05-06 12:40 am (UTC) - Expand

Re: hoo boy, this opens up a can of worms....

From:

esmeraldus-neo.livejournal.com - Date: 2010-05-06 12:54 am (UTC) - Expand

Re: hoo boy, this opens up a can of worms....

From:

faerieburst.livejournal.com - Date: 2010-05-06 01:07 am (UTC) - Expand

Re: hoo boy, this opens up a can of worms....

From:

esmeraldus-neo.livejournal.com - Date: 2010-05-06 01:17 am (UTC) - Expand

Re: hoo boy, this opens up a can of worms....

From:

faerieburst.livejournal.com - Date: 2010-05-06 01:34 am (UTC) - Expand

Ok, that's it.

From:

winneganfake.livejournal.com - Date: 2010-05-06 05:47 am (UTC) - Expand

Re: Ok, that's it.

From:

faerieburst.livejournal.com - Date: 2010-05-06 05:52 am (UTC) - Expand

From:

I'm going to chime in as the owner of both tits AND a vagina, lifelong feminist and purveyor of a geek blog that focuses on sexism in Geek media.

I like the Dresden books a lot.

As at least a couple people have pointed out, yes, Harry Dresden is sexist, and it bites him in the ass. Repeatedly.

However, Jim Butcher does not appear to be nearly so sexist as his creation, and Harry's sexism is used as a flaw (which kind of infers that Butcher thinks it's "bad" or at least stupid).

Harry's sexism makes him a more interesting character and it is a flaw he does manage, on occasion, to defeat. He also acknowledges pretty frequently he's one of a dying breed in that department.

I also find the rest of Vito's review to be, well, less than good. While I can't argue the Chicago geography thing, as I've only driven through or sprinted the airport, I can say that I cannot believe that compared with the Anita Blake* books he finds Butcher MORE sexist. Good fucking grief. Just because they're written by a woman doesn't make them A. lousy and B. pretty fucking sexist.

As to the eye thing... it affects EVERYONE like that, not just women.

*I have REAMS to say on the suckiness and internalized misogyny of Anita Blake.

From:

Aaaaaaand that would be fair. Aaaaand that would have been the answer to my original question.

Aaaand it would not be an ad homenim attack. AND it is not a knee-jerk "you're too sensitive" response.

NONE of which I mind in the slightist.

And I'm an Anita Blake fan. And when you say you have reams to say about the flaws, you know what my response is? "Oh, tell me more."

From:

Ah ha! I did reply to the right person.

Ugh... Ok, later. But I remind you, you asked for it.

From:

Sure.

But if I *do* read the Butcher books, and I *don't* like them, I might be back. With an essay. A long essay.

From:

I'm not gonna say you won't find Harry's sexism problematic, but remember as you're reading that Butcher views it as problematic too, and something Harry would be well to rid himself of, if he could quit being so damned stubborn about it.

From:

Butcher "seems" to find it problematic as well...

From:

"And I'm an Anita Blake fan."

Wait...wait. WHAT?

You, who is hopping up and down upset about Harry Dresden sexism, which is portrayed in the books as a FLAW of Harry's, and is NOT something that is glorified or portrayed as a positive attribute, YOU are a fan of a character who has had unwilling sex with MULTIPLE male characters in the series, INCLUDING a SIXTEEN year old boy?!?

Sooooooo, a main male character who has an old fashioned chauvinist attitude that is painted as a flaw and pointed out to him repeatedly as such is "too problematic" and you won't read them. But a book that has a main female character who takes away men's self control, their ability to say no and fucks them, including a minor boy, THAT'S fine. Rape isn't rape when it's a woman doing it?

"The books seem sexist, and that's a problem for me. I don't care that it's "just entertainment."

It seems, then that what you mean is that the books are sexist against women, and that's a problem for you. When a book is sexist against men, that's no problem at all.

~Aramada

From:

You're making a hell of a lot of assumptions.

I didn't say I have no problems with the Anita Blake books. YOU are saying I have no problems with the books. YOU are saying this stuff, you are in fact saying very specific things about what I don't have problems with.

It's kind of offensive.

From:

YOU said you were an Anita Blake fan.

Anita Blake is a rapist.

You are an Anita Blake fan.

Anita Blake has raped a teenager.

You are an Anita Blake FAN.

By your own statements, you are a FAN of a character who rapes men. Rapes a minor. Has raped MULTIPLE people through multiple books. And you STILL call yourself a fan.

You are a self-proclaimed fan of a serial female rapist, and you have no problem declaring yourself as such.

But by god, don't read a book that has a contextually flawed chauvinistic male character. That would be wrong.

Be a fan of a serial female rapist. That's MUCH more politically correct.

~Aramada

From:

I read them, I criticize them. Fan is a loaded word. Critic is a better word. Would that word be better, if I said I liked to write about them from a psychoanalytic perspective? Because there are some knotty problems there.

And I came here originally to ask a balancing opinion for a critical opinion of the Dresden novels, in order to be fair. I didn't come here and say, "Oh, boy, never gonna read THOSE suckers."

I said I had heard they might be problematic and what did Dmitri think of those problems.

And I did think that maybe the Dresden books and their problems would take up too much time if they weren't worth the effort, but I was troubling to get a second opinion.

From: