91–100 of 293 posts
So no more Sci-fi Books from the alien point of view?
A Bugs Life is an abominable appropriation of insect culture. You're not an ant so you lack the authority to write or read anything that represents ant culture.
I think the author here misrepresented the JK Rowling thing quite a bit. The idea is not to "scour" her texts for hidden anti-trans sentiment. The idea is that Rowling makes money off of selling her books and has built an empire, and the resultant power is now used by her as a platform to propagate anti-trans speech. Quite a different issue and also quite novel (pun unintended). Death of the Author is a concurrently…
But why is it considered anti-trans speech, when a villain is "a male serial killer known to have worn a dress"? Surely, in many other books the serial killer is a straight male. Why are their authors not accused of anti-heterosexual speech? Are we promoting some sort of discrimination against straight males? Are they the only ones allowed to be evil?
That's not what OP is referring to. Go read her Twitter feed and blog.
I think the author here misrepresented the JK Rowling thing quite a bit. The idea is not to "scour" her texts for hidden anti-trans sentiment. The idea is that Rowling makes money off of selling her books and has built an empire, and the resultant power is now used by her as a platform to propagate anti-trans speech. Quite a different issue and also quite novel (pun unintended). Death of the Author is a concurrently…
> The idea is that Rowling makes money off of selling her books and has built an empire, and the resultant power is now used by her as a platform to propagate anti-trans speech. Quite a different issue and also quite novel People building fame in art and using that fame to advocate for causes, including the cause of preserving the marginalization of particular marginalized communities, is not novel.
Famous people are still people, and they still have opinions. Opinions you might not even agree with. Are we to exclude the famous from speaking their opinions? I would love to see how that would work, both legally and as kind of a sci-fi premise. Actors interviewed on late night shows offering only the blandest of reactions to what is said. No longer are musicians able to fund charities with their wealth, since donations are speech, as per the Supreme Court. Court battles are waged over how wealthy must be or how many Google hits are found for their name before someone is too famous to have opinions.
It lacks laser-guns and aliens, but as a very dry, Burgess-like exploration of government policy as a near-future sci-fi, it might be workable.
I'm surprised more writers don't advertise with slogans like "read the dangerous book they don't want you to read." It's also possible that the most interesting writing is happening in the self-published world, or the near-self-published world. That's where current classics like Lolita or Ulysses came from. Or much of D.H. Lawrence.
I hate this kind of anti-woke reactionary stuff. ... but for aspiring writers, there is a problem. On the one hand, writers should write what they know. They shouldn't try to assume they know some minority's lived experiences. On the other hand, literature should be inclusive. That means including minorities, and not just as peripheral characters. We don't need more My Magical Gay Friend stories. I haven't heard a go…
Bullshit. It still is.
It has also always been a place where doing that provoked backlash, and the path of least resistance has been to avoid doing that and follow conventional morality; that, too, has not changed.
What has changed is that particular ideas which until recently have themselves been extremely transgressive have moved their way into conventional morality, at least in substantial sectors of society, so that the backlash once associated with transgressive ideas and approaches is now being experienced with what were fairly recently conventional, safe ideas and manners of expression.
I hate this kind of anti-woke reactionary stuff. ... but for aspiring writers, there is a problem. On the one hand, writers should write what they know. They shouldn't try to assume they know some minority's lived experiences. On the other hand, literature should be inclusive. That means including minorities, and not just as peripheral characters. We don't need more My Magical Gay Friend stories. I haven't heard a go…
Both books should be able to exist simultaneously.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this comment exemplifies the core of the issue. It’s not that many people actually have a problem with society holding famous people to account for their misdeeds. It’s that they simply don’t think they are misdeeds. They don’t find a problem with the things JK says and they feel like Woody Allen is probably a nice guy unfairly being attacked. Which like actually fine, that’s a legitimate position you can tak…
but it doesn’t really say anything about it being ok or not for the larger culture to sanction people You can sanction Rowling, don't buy her books. You can criticize Rowling, you can publish books hating on Rowling, those are all great ways in a free society to show opposition. The problem is that activists want to destroy Rowling, erase her from public space, and deny others the right to buy and read her books. Row…
Pay attention, this is how the book-burnings and the witch-hunts start. "Wokism" is the new Right Wing Authoritarianism of this age.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mostly agree with what you wrote, but "Capitalism is not a moral force (except unto itself)" isn't right. It absolutely is a moral force that has passed judgment on lazy , poor , and uneducated rubes who don't toil endlessly and retire unhappy to die early and not drain the system. Our society constantly shames people who don't buy the propaganda about our moral overlords, the Bezoses, Gateses, and Musks of the wor…
That is what I meant by 'unto itself'. The only type of morality it allows for is what can be deployed as a defense of and perpetuation of itself. (Those whom God has blessed with riches, as the ancient tautology goes, are favored by God. Is there much distinction between the invisible hand of the market and the invisible hand of God? Did we finally invent a God that moves on its own?)