(no subject)

[skygiants]

Several months ago, right before RaceFail v.1.1 (though it's not really 1.1, of course, it never is) broke out, I checked Elizabeth Bear's Whiskey and Water out of the library to read.

A week or two later, Elizabeth Bear and a great many other people said things publicly that ranged from 'just oblivious' to 'incredibly hurtful and damaging', the internet erupted, and the book sat on my shelf while I absently hit 'renew' on the library website. I really hate returning books to the library unread, for the same reason I hate not finishing books, even really terrible ones - it kicks my Readerly Pride, and feels like admitting defeat. At the same time -

- well, okay, here's the thing. I don't actually feel much of an emotional difficulty in reading books by authors who exhibit awful behavior as people. This is not to say that I would not be devastated if someone told me that Diana Wynne Jones wakes up every morning and hunts down puppies to kick (please, nobody tell me this!), but - I don't know, there is a level on which I kind of expect authors to be jerks. For this, I suspect I have my mother to thank. My mother loves posing her children with ethical dilemmas - seriously, it is one of her main forms of entertainment - so one day when I was around ten or eleven she decided to tell me all about Roald Dahl's anti-Semitism and other unpleasant behaviors and poke at the Is It Okay To Read The Works Of Awful And Prejudiced People question for the next hour or so. My answer, as far as I can remember, has always been 'yes', and this is only partly because unfortunately, once you take away the awful people, there are not all that many great authors left. Roald Dahl was a pretty blatant anti-Semite, but that doesn't mean Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is a bad book. T.S. Eliot was the protegee of Ezra Pound, who literally hung out with Nazis (did I just Godwin's Law myself? I am sorry, it is historical fact!) but The Hollow Men is still an amazing poem. For me - I am not saying this for anyone else, because everyone absolutely has the right to be outraged and hurt enough by author conduct not to read their books, and I know my own privilege in having the option not to be - I don't want to stop reading their books because I know these things. I want to read their books, knowing these things, and be more aware of the subtext of what I've been missing before, and learn from the good and the bad. I don't think there's a book that doesn't have something to teach you, as long as you read it thinking.

(ETA: bravecows rightly points out that it looks a bit as if I am lauding myself here for Knowing How To Rise Above It All, and by implication putting down the people who do intend to make this a reason not to read the books of authors whose words and actions have been hurtful. I really don't want to do that, and I very much apologize if it comes off that way.)

But there is definitely a difference between dead authors who no longer have the capability to learn from their mistakes, and living ones who are still in the process of making them. There is a definite problem with financially endorsing the problematic authors, rather than the ones who far too often get crowded out from the shelves, as nextian recently pointed out (I am sure she has not been the only one to do so, but it was a good post on my flist, so I link it). I am a cheapskate and get the vast majority of my books out of the library, so for me it is not so much the question of financial endorsement, but the thing is - I write about books in a public space. And while it is a very small-scale public space, and I am not self-important enough to think that what I post about matters to more than a handful of people, there is still a very weird feeling that what I read is not just for me anymore. It's a public statement, and one that could be read as approval of things I very much don't wish to approve.

I could have read Whiskey and Water and just not mentioned it - no one was stopping me - but that feels very much like cheating. Eventually I did decide to read it, and to post on it, and to make sure as I did both to keep a sharp eye out for all the issues that were brought up, that I didn't notice in reading the first book of the duology, that I want to make sure I notice now. And I'll be honest and say that part of the reason I'm doing it now is because of recent events, and because I do plan to continue the Vorkosigan reread I just started on, and I'd rather put this whole screed before an Elizabeth Bear book than a Bujold book, because I like her work quite a bit more and consider her offenses to be significantly less. But I just want to say one thing before I actually launch into talking about the book, and that is this - as I said, I get almost all my books out of the library. And I don't think I should feel guilty for checking any book, no matter who the author is, out of the library - or for enjoying it either. But I do want to make sure I know who my money is supporting, and going forward, I am going to try to make sure that instead of checking everything out of the library, or buying super-cheap through discount sellers on amazon, I actually put my money where my mouth is when it comes to the books and the authors I actually want to support first-hand and encourage publishers to keep printing and bookstores to start stocking. The ones who aren't on the shelves, and deserve to be.


Okay, so there is no question but that Elizabeth Bear is a talented writer. That said, totally regardless of other issues, I'm not sure that I will be reading any more of her work. Some of the characters are very cool and the combinations of different myths and legends is very interesting, and all this was enough to get me reading Whiskey and Water after I read Blood and Iron (and oh man, I am looking at the comments on that post and feeling decidedly rueful; DAYS OF INNOCENCE), but there's something - maybe the word I want is 'flashy' about the whole universe that makes it hard for me to connect to. Harder in this one, I think, than in the last one, though I don't know how much of that is the book itself and how much I have been influenced by recent events. The duology is set in New York City, and while I can only call myself a sort-of native New Yorker, her New York doesn't feel like a home I recognize. It feels like a punk-rock stage set. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing depending on your style, but the kind of magic-writing that most appeals to me is the kind that feels ordinary and real and human, and while Bear does have moments of 'look, these are ordinary people! Look, they are having a nice cup of tea!' they feel almost tacked-on and obligatory - like she's trying too hard at them before she plunges back into the glamor.

Also I had no idea what was going on with any of the political factions in the last third of the book, but possibly I am just dim.

As for the hot-button issues - okay. Once again, I don't know if it's actually worse in this book, or if I did not just pick up on it last time, but . . . yeah, the treatment of Whiskey is really really problematic. I thought, going into this, that because he was in the title he would have more agency and focus this time around, but no. He's a slave who is in love with his mistress and shirking his duties for her, and he is deliberately coded black, and he is also deliberately coded as an animal, and I was wincing the whole way through as regards that. Of the four other chromatic characters in the book, two of them - Kadiska and Bunyip - are also coded as animal-like, but to be fair, several of the white characters are as well (wolves, swans, etc.) The bigger problem as regards Bunyip is the token addition of what I believe is Australian Aboriginal myth, and then having it be completely superceded by all the white European fairy Arthur dragons etc. mythology.

I will say in fairness, however, that in Carel and Don Bear has two very important characters of color that I liked a lot and that seemed to me to be relatively well-handled, although I am far from an authority on the subject. Carel, especially, was very cool as a lesbian Pacific Islander with agency and power who got her happy ending, and also got lots of viewpoint time. And Don I just liked as a character. He was so comparatively sane!

Good lord, this is a massive post. I'm sorry, guys. Obviously, anyone is free to comment and tell me if I've said something idiotic, as I know it is very likely I have.

Comments

[sdelmonte]

I have the ability to distinguish between a writer (or actor or director) and the work. For example, I can still point at Ender's Game and say "this is a great book" even though I think Orson Scott Card is anti-Semitic, homophobic and intolerant of everyone who doesn't agree with him. I am not going to punish anyone by depriving them of the pleasure of this book to punish OSC. Though I will add that you can find it in libraries and in used book stores.

[skygiants]

The Ender's Game thing is actually the other strong memory I have of having this discussion in my family, after the Roald Dahl discussion - there was a point in my teens during which everyone in my family (me, father, brother, cousin, uncle, etc.) was raving about the book, and my aunt said, "Yes, BUT," and pointed out all of the many and varied Orson Scott Card Issues.

It didn't stop us from raving about the book, but I think it definitely did help reconcile my cousin to getting dragged away from the book signing after OSC (according to family lore) said, "oh man, kid, you look JUST LIKE my mental Ender, can we give you a screen test!"

[shati.livejournal.com]

Well, I think most people do. In fact, judging from my childhood, at least some people have to learn to believe that authors exist and books don't just sort of appear out of thin air ...

But just because I can tell that a book is not actually OSC doesn't mean I want to devote time and money to hanging out with a product of his brain. I don't doubt that it's great, but there are a lot of great books out there. And I might feel differently if I read and loved his books before I learned anything about him, but ... I didn't. And I don't think this is because I lack an ability to distinguish.

[daniidebrabant.livejournal.com]

I actually prefer New Amsterdam because I felt like she was more comfortable working with a world that was her own. It's also in NY, but it's in an NY that's her creation due to AU stuff. I agree with you, though; her NYC is not my NYC.

Also, I think part of the 'do not read authors who are ____' has more to do with 'do not financially support things you don't like' than 'you cannot read things by these people'. At least, that's how it works in my head.

Then again, the only author I actually actively boycott is one who doesn't believe in fanwork of her own books even though SHE writes and has published Dracula fanfiction. The hypocrisy BURNS.

[skygiants]

That makes sense! New Amsterdam just never terribly appealed to me on premise - I have a limited tolerance for angsty vampires, unless the angst is hilarious.

Well, I understand feelings like "this author is a jerk and I don't want to read the things that come out of their head", or "I still like the words but I can't stop thinking about their jerkiness," or "I am fairly sure this book will have racist/sexist/anti-Semitic/etc. tropes, so why should I read it and get hurt?" These are all valid reactions! And again, I count myself privileged that there are so many things I can read without feeling hurt.

- aheh. Would this author's name start with the initials A.R.?

[daniidebrabant.livejournal.com]

Nope. Her Initials are P.N.E. And I object because I've actually seen her IN FANDOM writing fic, dressing in costume, BUILDING A TARDIS. Srsly, lady, when you've written a Stargate guide and a Dracula fanfiction, you need to be shuttin' up about that.

I don't really get the 'don't want to read things that come out of their head' thing, but I'm kind of weird. That's also what I saw the most often during RF: don't support these people if you don't support what they say.

And actually, Sebastien isn't really angsty. Or rather, his minor notes of angst are lost in the midst of fun pseudo-history mystery stories. ...also, his angst is utterly offset by Jack Priest, who is tiny and blond and UTTERLY RULES HIM. He tries to be angsty and Jack's just like 'stop wangsting and kiss me already'.

[skygiants]

. . . gosh. That is a bit pot-kettle-ish!

I think everyone sort of grapples with the feelings that an author has failed them in their own way. And definitely if someone's first experience with that author was running into them during RF or some other unpleasant association, I get having no desire to pursue their work in future - I haven't read anything by Charles Stross or Will Shetterly before, and now I don't think I will ever feel a need.

[blacksheep91.livejournal.com]

Ohoho, yes, well, while we're at it lets talk about Wagner's anti-semitism, or Lewis Carroll's pedophilia? (Which, mind you, I only found out about from my Lit. prof. a month ago, who wrote a paper on him and took great delight in telling us all about it >_>;)

[skygiants]

Well yes, exactly. Wagner is the big one that often came up in my community, because . . . you know, very Jewish community, favorite composer of Hitler, etc. There's a reason Godwin's Law is a law! (As for Carroll, I actually believe the debate still rages on that, but it does seem unfortunately likely.)

[emmaco.livejournal.com]

I'm afraid I can't add to the Bear discussion (I'm sure I have read some of her books, but can't at all pin down which...) but I have a not-very-well-developed thought to add to the buying books from people we don't like discussion.

I feel a bit ethically dubious about it being OK to like a book but not wanting to financially support it - I mean, it may not have been published at all if no one supported the author. It kind of feels like a way of having your cake and eating it too. I think I'd rather just buy books that I like/think I'd like rather (well, as I can afford them) or avoid the authors totally. But as I said, I just thought of this - shall ponder further as I cook dinner...

[skygiants]

I see what you're saying, definitely - and I am certainly not saying no one should buy those books ever, or even that I will never buy those books ever (or trying to set down guidelines for anyone other than me, come to that.) But I think the thing is, most people have limited book-buying budgets - I know I certainly do - so when it comes to a choice of buying Book A. by an author I enjoy but whose views I don't support, or Book B. by an author who I know needs and deserves the support, I am going to go with Book B. Here is an example of the kind of thing I mean; nextian's post that I linked above is another.

[emmaco.livejournal.com]

I didn't think of you as setting down guidelines but more as a fellow traveller on the ethical rocky road of life :)

Although talk about ethical trickery, I know you shouldn't pick someone based on material wealth but the idea of people with no book buying budgets would be a wee bit tempting!

The budget imposed prioritisation was one of the aspects that occurred to me while cooking but it still feels like a bit of a cop out, like I can only say I don't fincially support particular authors due to a small budget rahter than it really being a matter of principle. But pragmatically, yeah, I get what you're saying.

[ceitfianna]

I'm glad you read that and I agree with all of what you said here since I feel rather uncomfortable about all of Racefail due to my white priviledge, gah how do you spell that word? But also since I learned from studying a period in history where women weren't fully seen as people, that diocotomy just exists. Today is apparently Kate fails at spelling day too.

Also I'm like you that I don't buy a lot of books or when I buy them they tend to be rarely full price, I instead find them at used bookstores and such, but when I take the time to buy a book full price, its to add to my collection.

In terms of the book, I enjoy some of Bear's characters and ideas but she has this way of things get so intricate and confusing that its hard to follow and then care about the endgame. I think if she just focused on one or two myths as opposed to let's do all of them but not do all of them well she'd succeed better.

Charles De Lint is good at exploring various myths at the same time and showing how they conflict. Widdershins is an amazing take on the conflict between Native myth/Fae and immigrant ones in Canada and she could learn a lot from him.

[skygiants]

I don't think feeling uncomfortable about it is a bad thing at all - so long as it's not the kind of discomfort that makes one plug one's ears and cover one's eyes and pretend it doesn't exist, which is unfortunately an all-too-common reaction. (And one I definitely understand the temptation for, and that I know I do too often myself, much as I try not to.)

And yes - I usually only buy a book full price if I am desperately in need of reading material and have no other way to get it. I think one of the things I am going to try to do is buy more full-priced books, for the things I want to support, and do want to have in my collection.

I do understand the temptation to throw in everything and the kitchen sink - hey, I love wacky crossovers as much or more than the next girl! - but it can definitely be overwhelming when not carefully done!

[ceitfianna]

Oh yeah, I'm not hiding from it, its much more than I'm participating much in the discussion since I'm not sure I have anything to add.

So I read everyone's responses and think about how do I want to act and I think supporting people worth supporting is a good start.

Yeah, I think Bear sometimes makes it work but at least in those two books, she really nears the kitchen sink feeling.

[skygiants]

"Shut up, listen and learn" is often a good response I think! It tends to be mine the vast majority of the time too.

[ryanitenebrae.livejournal.com]

^^;; My position is simply that whatever a writer says. . .just doesn't matter. If I hate it or disagree with it or it's awful or stupid or prejudiced. . .I need to ignore it when it comes to the actual work - unless these beliefs are reflected in their work - living or not. I can hate the person's words, but I refuse to hate a work or dislike a work or abstain from a work because of the person, as I feel they exist separately.

[skygiants]

Well, I don't feel a need to hate or dislike a work or abstain from it because of a dislike for the author, obviously - but I don't really want to ignore it either. Because the thing is, sometimes when you know something about an author, you do see things in their work that you would have missed otherwise, and things that might be important to make note of.

(I know I am an English major because I am having to repress a desire to go into a long discussion of New Criticism vs. more recent critical models right now. REPRESSING.)

[wickedtrue.livejournal.com]

(I do this often, too!!! It sometimes makes life HARD D:!!)

[agonistes]

(SRS SRS)

[ryanitenebrae.livejournal.com]

Having taken a nap and come back to read my comment. . . .I was a tad overzealous. ^^; I'm sorry. I was also, just for the record, not talking about you or your actions, really, just stating my own position on the general issue.

And you're right, sometimes that occurs. . .but I kind of hate when it does, especially when I'm reading the book for the first time, unless it's something like little historical endnotes that say things like, "This event that is mentioned by Character A in passing actually happened and was covered by Author A's newspaper.) But. . .when it occurs with racism. . .yeah, I understand that it then becomes a hell of a lot more difficult to turn your head from the issue.

[bravecows.livejournal.com]

I am not feeling great about this post. It is less because I disagree with anything you have said about whether one should read authors who are not good people -- I think this is a personal decision and would not especially care if a friend told me they were reading Elizabeth Bear's works and loving them, provided they did not make me read her books -- but because what this

I don't know, there is a level on which I kind of expect authors to be jerks. For this, I suspect I have my mother to thank.

and the rest of that paragraph imply to me is that you are able to rise above all this outrage and hurt because of your parents' good training. Those of us who plan not to read the works of the authors who have shown their asses in RaceFail and Mammothfail presumably do so because we were not given the chance to grapple with ethical dilemmas from a young age. How sad: it would have been so good for our development.

I don't think that that is what you intend to say, and I should note that I am currently very raw and oversensitive due to fall-out from Mammothfail. So I am probably overreacting. But I thought I should let you know, because I guess I'm not the only one who's been feeling raw.

[skygiants]

Thanks for pointing this out - seriously, I very much appreciate it. That's not at all what I meant to imply - I don't really think it's a good thing in myself, not to expect good behavior from people I am in theory looking up to - but I do not think in the least you are overreacting. And the last thing I want to do is rub more, through carelessness or sheer idiocy on my part, at anything that is already sore.

[bravecows.livejournal.com]

*nods* Thanks for being cool about this.

[tevriel.livejournal.com]

Wait, she wanted a token Aboriginal myth representative, and chose the bunyip?

That, right there, is major fail.

[skygiants]

I know! That, and then she had a brief conversation after about Alternate Names for the Dragon and how they are All Really the Same, but . . . then she went right back on to dragon dragon dragon, so not so much with the better, there.

Hey!

[rahkan.livejournal.com]

I have absolutely nothing to say about most of the content of this post, but I will say that you absolutely cannot hate on artists for the racism of their mentors.

For instance, Ricard Strauss was the disciple of Wagner, the latter of whom was all like "Jews Suck". And Hitler loved Wagner. But, later on, when Hitler was all like, "Hey Strauss, I think you should be our super-nazi official composer," Strauss was all, "Nuh-uh" and fled.

So all I'm saying is....you're TS Eliot Example is bad.

Re: Hey!

[fifi-bonsai.livejournal.com]

This.


That felt like padding on the argument bra.

Re: Hey!

[skygiants]

Hey, padded bras are very comfortable . . . which I guess just adds to your metaphorical point, really. Thanks for pointing it out!

Re: Hey!

[skygiants]

That is a fair comment! I will admit that I put that in mostly because I remember hearing that TS Eliot was also pretty anti-Semitic, but I was too lazy to look it up at the time. That does not however make it a good example.

Re: Hey!

[nextian.livejournal.com]

... no, he was anti-Semitic.

My house is a decayed house,/ and the jew squats on the window sill, the owner,/Spawned in some estaminet of Antwerp,/Blistered in Brussels, patched and peeled in London.

The rats are underneath the piles./The jew is underneath the lot.

In a series of lectures given at the University of Virginia in 1933 and later published under the title "After Strange Gods" (1934), Eliot said, regarding a homogeneity of culture (and implying a traditional Christian community), "What is still more important is unity of religious background, and reasons of race and religion combine to make any large number of free-thinking Jews undesirable."[51] The philosopher George Boas, who had previously been on friendly terms with Eliot, wrote to him that, "I can at least rid you of the company of one." Eliot did not reply. In later years Eliot disavowed the book, and refused to allow any part to be reprinted.

He was friends with some Jews. So was Dorothy Sayers. That doesn't mean I don't flip my shit when finding her casually toss off lines about how her characters shouldn't ever hang out with Jews or "what this country needs is a Hitler."

Re: Hey!

[skygiants]

. . . yeah. That is what I thought I recalled, but could not remember enough specifics on to be sure of. :-/

I don't think I knew about Dorothy Sayers, however. That's kind of especially depressing considering the whole Rachel/Freddy subplot in the Wimsey books, which never pinged me as particularly problematic when I read them, but . . .

Re: Hey!

[nextian.livejournal.com]

I figured. :P I just didn't want you to think you were wrong on the internet when you didn't have to be.

I haven't read the Rachel/Freddy book(s?) yet nor have I heard any complaints? It was just in Gaudy Night. Brief but thoroughly upsetting, though I loved the rest of the book.

Re: Hey!

[skygiants]

Thanks - it is a good thing to know. *grins* Goodness knows I am likely to be wrong on the internet about enough other things!

I thiiink Rachel and the Levy family first show up in Whose Body, the very first Wimsey book; her father is a murder victim and iirc the family is portrayed very sympathetically - at least, I don't remember anything hitting me the wrong way at the time. Of course, I was also a lot less aware of such things when I read it . . . and I seem to have blocked out whatever the bit was in Gaudy Night, so I could easily be forgetting. :/

[fifi-bonsai.livejournal.com]

I understand this.

I have a slightly different take on it. I always feel that the asshattery of the writer must be proportional to the genius of the writing. If you're a twuntface then you better make it worth my while. Mediocre putas of all possible genders, get no quarter from me.

I also will not read twuntfaces who are alive, not unless I suffer by not reading them. I don't have to suffer the consequences of Bujold's actions, she does. If not reading her work robs you of enjoyment, then don't sacrifice to make a point. Just don't pay her for it and read her with a more fail-sensitive eye.

In my house that's the price authors pay for showing their asses. That I've grown to expect the worst in authors doesn't neutralize me. In other words, I think I agree.

[skygiants]

Yeah. It's the reading with a more sensitive eye, I think, that's the most important thing for me - I want to make sure that reading what I enjoy, even if is a work of True Genius, doesn't make me willfully blind to the flaws.

(And there are way too many really good books out there to spend time on mediocrities.)

[ethelflaed.livejournal.com]

I tried to write several comments but people had already said them; then the computer ate the satisfactory product, so perhaps this time is go - I lurk here, and like reading this journal very much, and find this post very interesting, so would you mind if I friended you? (There is no need to friend me back if you don't want to - though on the other hand, if you want to, that is also a good thing.)

This is something I struggle with a lot, but I think you said everything I could say up there.

[skygiants]

. . . gosh, I have a lurker? Um, hi! I am very glad you find my babblings interesting, and I am happy to be friended/friend you back. :D

(I am also glad you thought the post made some kind of sense - I know it is something I will keep struggling with, too.)

[ethelflaed.livejournal.com]

Hah, yeah, we have a mutual friend and I ended up wandering over here from there and then I found myself wandering over more frequently. ^^; Pleased to meet you!

[skygiants]

Nice to meet you too!