Free Speech and Creepy Liberalism

(this is a ridiculous conversation)

Big part of the ridiculousness being my failure to think on about how there might be trans people who post on ilx and talk 'about' rather than 'to' and who this stuff might affect in a way it doesn't affect me. Sorry.

lol i didn't mean to single you out specifically cardamon, you're fine

https://www.autostraddle.com/in-conversation-with-sarah-schulman-theyre-being-taught-that-control-is-freedom-376920/?all=1

Conflict Is Not Abuse [: Overstating Harm, Community Responsibility, and the Duty of Repair ] is a discussion of how inflated accusations of harm are used to avoid accountability, and she traces this phenomenon as it applies from interpersonal relationships to global politics. For the latter, she looks specifically at HIV criminalization in Canada and the occupation of Palestine. The book opens with the example of the police officers who saw Michael Brown and Eric Garner as “threatening” when they were doing literally nothing, and how any kind of difference, resistance or anxiety can be seen as an attack when it’s not. The book has generated heaps of conversation online and off, is blurbed by bell hooks and Claudia Rankine, is the winner of the Judy Grahn Award for Lesbian Non-Fiction and a nominee for a Lambda Literary Award.

Of course, it was the interpersonal and local community focused sections at the front that really drew me in, because I am basic like that. Her investigation of shunning and group dynamics, especially within groups heavily populated by those who’ve experienced personal trauma or inherited generational trauma, is particularly interesting from the perspective of a queer community organizer.

long interview w/ the author

For the latter, she looks specifically at HIV criminalization in Canada and the occupation of Palestine.

What, like, the hidden link between or

item a, item b

Slightly disappointed but happy to acknowledge that this is no fair lens through which the work itself ought to be viewed

they are verrry much more sinned against than sinning

TBH, Chelsea (née Charlie) has sinned against every well-meaning Facebook friend since going on the estradiol.

https://m.chicagoreader.com/chicago/michael-bonesteel-resignation-saic-henry-darger-comics/Content?oid=27428790

According to Bonesteel, the first incident occurred on December 12 in his course the Present and Future of Outsider Art. During discussion of a theory that connects the most striking feature of Darger's work—the prevalence in it of little girls with penises—with possible childhood sexual abuse, a transgender student objected.

"The student said there was no proof that Darger was sexually abused, and therefore I was wrong in proposing the theory," Bonesteel says, adding that he agreed that there was no proof, but said many scholars thought it likely.

old-timer mistake, any 'childhood abuse' explanations are a big red flag

Child abuse is a major theme in Darger's work, if not the major theme. A personal history of abuse might not explain the anatomy of his figures but it still seems likely.

http://peterlevine.ws/?p=18714

on our old friend, microaggressions. it's been so long!

http://peterlevine.ws/?p=18714🕸

on our old friend, microaggressions. it's been so long!

That was fun to read and I learned some stuff!

Also this sentence was in it

Jürgen Habermas laments the tendency to “juridify” or “judicialize” what he calls the “Lifeworld.”

Campus administrators are judicializing the Lifeworld and only you can stop them

http://www.thedailybeast.com/protesters-demand-emmett-till-artist-dana-schutz-be-banned-in-boston

Wow all these people are completely up their own ass

Respini noted that these subjects are “bigger than one artist or one painting—I would say they are the biggest topics of our times.”

No, that would be our continued survival on earth and the future of democracy

Today, some of us follow up with you. We recognize that you took notes; but we want to ensure that you are clear on the essential points that we shared with you on July 20.

http://www.vulture.com/2017/08/the-toxic-drama-of-ya-twitter.html

I just read that, all the outrage (over things that not only have people not read but are insisting no one else should ever read either) is so exhausting. I'd like to think the guy who says this is an ugly but necessary cultural phase is right, and that we'll eventually move to some more reasonable phase, but who knows.

Curious about the "necessary" part.

This is the part I meant:

Another agent, who describes himself as devoted to diversity in publishing since before it became a mainstream concern, is ambivalent about the current state of affairs.

“I think we’re in a really ugly part of the process,” he says. “But as we’re trying to encourage a greater diversity of readers and writers, we need to be held accountable for our mistakes. Those books do need to get criticized, so that books which are written more mindfully, respectfully, and diligently become the norm.”

As history has proved, when you criticize books people stop writing bad ones.

if POC YA authors are underrepresented then that is a problem worth addressing, but if the worst thing you can say about a novel written by a white person is that it propagates the white-savior narrative then just call the thing trash and move on. Like, that movie The Help was some bullshit but I don't remember anyone saying it shouldn't even be allowed to exist.

That was 6 years ago, tho -- the outrage cycle has sped up a lot since then. But probably big-budget Hollywood vehicles are less likely to be destabilized. And even all of the stuff in this article apparently hasn't hurt the book in sales or reviews. YA authors are just much softer targets than Hollywood producers.

so just from that article it sounds like the book is actually anti-racism and the critical review took excerpts out of context where racist characters were sharing their opinions - something the book challenges. it's not just a free speech issue here - it's also an idiot reader issue.

some people still have a problem, amazingly, distinguishing representation from endorsement.

some of the tweets linked to in that article refer to 'sensitivity readers', which is a term I'd never heard of before, but there seem to have been a flurry of articles about them earlier this year:

These advising angels—part fact-checkers, part cultural ambassadors—are new additions to the book publishing ecosystem. Either hired by individual authors or by publishing houses, sensitivity readers are members of a minority group tasked specifically with examining manuscripts for hurtful, inaccurate, or inappropriate depictions of that group.

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2017/02/how_sensitivity_readers_from_minority_groups_are_changing_the_book_publishing.html

the index of sensitivity readers on that 'Writing in the Margins' website the Slate article mentions makes it look like this is almost exclusively a YA thing, idk if sensitivity readers exist in any other genre of literature in this formalised way?

I think the main takeaway for me, after skimming that "review," is that it doesn't really make the case for their stance despite the fact it's nine thousand words and spends way too much time explaining the entire set-up for the book without actually addressing how it fails. The excerpts don't really bear out the point, in that they read as bad people saying things that are undeniably bad.

Maybe the blogger is a trusted opinion in the circles they trade in, but I don't think I'd come away from that overview with a strong opinion either way. I think the backlash to the Vulture article I've seen misses the point that no one really comes out on top in this situation. There's no endorsement of the book, there's no one saying that the criticism is unnecessary, there's just the recognition this churn of criticism based on a single point of reference is not helping.

I mean, if several people previewing the book had come out with the same conclusion, it'd make sense. But as far as I can tell, one person saw the book, and a million comments were born

That's the thing, to me -- a single, rambling blog post doesn't deserve a concerted effort to blackball a writer. On the other hand, writing a rant like that doesn't mean the reviewer needs to be pilloried, either. That was their take, and it's not their fault other people ran with it, although I'd bet someone is crafting a takedown of the reviewer to keep the churn running

Probably not. They kind of make sense for YA honestly. Kids are impressionable and YA is in theory somewhat educative so representation matters more.

It's good to consider all of this stuff, discuss, critique, etc. But I can't help but be disturbed by these social media public shaming spectacles, where people are raked through the coals for -- at best, in this case -- accidental transgressions like rehashing a kind of white savior dynamic in a book about elves.

Sorry xp soref

I just keep thinking about things like that horrifying series about Pearls that got shitcanned almost immediately after it was announced and comparing that horrifying thing to this and sighing about the premature death of nuance.

the index of sensitivity readers on that 'Writing in the Margins' website the Slate article mentions makes it look like this is almost exclusively a YA thing, idk if sensitivity readers exist in any other genre of literature in this formalised way?

I'd figure YA is the only part of publishing that makes enough money to be able to hire anyone to do anything

Lol

tbf I'd be all about a really obvious book where people say things that are very racist and sexist, in language that mirrors the dumb things people actually say, and those characters are portrayed as racist and sexist

kids need that kind of thing so they have a reference guide for when adults say things in real life. "ah yes, this is exactly like what Professor Jerkass said about dragons, and he was being a complete racist! I bet my uncle's a racist and what he's saying is wrong"

Yeah. I think the author of the review knows that too and was being wilfully obtuse. Sometimes you need to do that to make an argument pointed enough to have an impact. I've done it. Y'all have done it.

I feel like there's a twitter intersection here between people who have a stake in YA literature (educators, librarians, teachers, parents, writers, actual young adults) and people who have a stake in YA lit on the internet (adults who read mostly YA, fan fiction writers, twitter arguing specialists) leading to a perfect shitstorm

really feels like we have given up on critical thinking, worst part of all this is people saying "I haven't (and won't!) read this book" and then judge it as hateful. peddling some kind of anti-intellectualism in the name of safety

I read a couple Amazon reviews of the book in question and, I have to say, the bad review that complained that it took the protagonist half of the book to start to realize that people are individuals and not reducible to simple racist stereotypes... ah yes, deeply-ingrained racism, you figure it out immediately because you're the protagonist? I feel like there's a lot of arguing at cross-purposes here

tbh if someone calls a ya fantasy novel "the most dangerous, offensive book I have ever read" my feeling is they probably haven't read that many books

That's a huge fuckup of a basic misreading (in the original critical review of the book).

It looks a lot like an idiot reader problem, as Mordy said. I mean, I dunno. I've never read a 'YA fiction' book. I don't know what they're normally like. If the person who wrote that original review had only ever read YA fiction stuff, is it possible that they might genuinely not be familiar with the principle of novels showing us bad characters without telling us they are bad? Like would a YA novel usually explicitly say that so and so was bad - so the reviewer is expecting this 'telling' to happen, only gets 'showing', and misreads the whole thing?

xp - me and J.D. have had the same thought

This professor is really the only person to be blunt with her. She takes home a stack of history books written by non-Gardnerians so she can read non-Gardnerian biased accounts. She occasionally does do something right, but it's always overshadowed by the casual microaggressions that never cease.

I've read the review now. Scrub the 'ignorance' idea, the reviewer just is a nasty piece of work. Goodness me, it's like she thinks that the fictional protagonist is a real person that has been imposing themselves on the reviewer's life, and also that all fictional characters must be held to some sort of twitter/subreddit/forum moderator community standards the transgression of which is an outrage

Obtaining a liberal arts degree must have been a lot more fun during the psychoanalysis era.

As history has proved, when you criticize books people stop writing bad ones.

― President Keyes, Monday, August 7, 2017 12:45 PM (seven hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i mean, i think the purpose of criticism is kind of to enhance the quality of art created at some level, that you can elevate the conversation around it. its not entirely crazy

Like claiming the purpose of an arsehole is dangleberries

People like the author of that review seem to lack tolerance and openness. They are strident and dogmatic. Which is fine! Another way to be. But maybe literary criticism is not for them.

so just from that article it sounds like the book is actually anti-racism and the critical review took excerpts out of context where racist characters were sharing their opinions - something the book challenges. it's not just a free speech issue here - it's also an idiot reader issue.

― Mordy, Monday, August 7, 2017 1:42 PM (six hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

im willing to believe there's more wrong w/ it from a quick skim, i mean good intentions are 100% not a sign that something is safe from *coughs* problematic writing. i mean, any book that is "about racism" & some of the "races" are animals is probably gonna have some eyebrow-raising moments

i think many of the ppl complaining about this stuff seem more invested in the high school level power dynamics of it, but i think its prolly a bit much to assume that the book is thoughtfully written

i mean the real problem is ppl have no faith in criticism as an art, its too bad the original 9000 word blog post is so poorly written as criticism because if true theres a way to make these points via PERSUASION

Like everything that drew me to studying Englisj is the opposite of how these people are. They don't analyze or explore racism in literature as much as they just try to enforce certain rules of conduct with an aim to minimizing "harm" the texts might cause. They see literature as a species of propaganda and they are afraid of it. They don't really believe in literature because they don't believe that anything can transcend ideology.

Not that this YA book transcends anything but there is probably some ambiguity there, even some failures that can be instructive. But again that's criticism. What's going on in that review is condemnation.