[ SECRET POST #3547 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3547 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 32 secrets from Secret Submission Post #507.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

04. https://66.media.tumblr.com/035c64530f8a5a3a4095def88037fe98/tumblr_odgdn7XAd21sivacmo1_1280.png

[kallanda_lee]

And this is, in a nutshell, my problem with social justice as it is. It's okay to like "problematic" things. Really, it is.

[(Anonymous)]

You have to take it into account, though. Liking something problematic without engaging with the problematic aspects is IMO a flawed attitude. Like, I don't think you should be out here reading Ezra Pound without engaging with Ezra Pound's politics, you know?

So I think the underlying idea - that the problematicness of a thing complicates your relationship to it as a reader - is pretty coherent, even if the conclusion isn't necessarily that you have to stop liking it immediately.

[sparrow_lately]

It's a delicate balance--art or humanity? Can I say John Lennon was a piece of trash? Of course. Is "Strawberry Fields Forever" (or Lennon composition of your choice) still one hell of a song? Yes. But I can't lionize Lennon without acknowledging the harm he did.

Of COURSE it's okay to like problematic things, but it's imperative to name them for what they are as well. If that makes sense.

[(Anonymous)]

Eh, and on the other hand, whenever someone criticizes a thing, some people come along and insist that THEY are being attacked for liking it, and they must be EVIL and "not allowed" to like the thing... some people are really stupidly oversensitive about things they liked being criticized.

[thelesbianfuturist]

I can agree with that but only up to a point. George R.R. Martin has less than enlightened views on women - you can still like, support, and buy ASoIaF. That's fine. However, anyone who gives money to Orson Scott Card for Ender's Game or any of his other works is doing actual harm just because they like problematic things.

[(Anonymous)]

The best writers are usually problematic. Just ignore the social justice shitheads.

[(Anonymous)]

I feel you.

I wonder if people are ever going to get tired of all this sanctimonious bullshit.

[(Anonymous)]

MZB?

The fact that she was a terrible person doesn't change the other fact that her writing was important to you. Terrible people can still make great art that touches lives.

[(Anonymous)]

My guess would be either MZB or OSC.

It could also be Goodkind but I only say that because we had a secret about Wizard's First Rule last week.

[(Anonymous)]

I think that you gotta think seriously about your relationship with the books, and what they mean to you, and how those things interact with the other issues that interact with the books. the important thing here is to be able to own your choice - not to others, but to yourself. If you don't think you can own your choice, you have to do something about it.

[(Anonymous)]

If you have good reasons for liking them and don't defend the reprehensible aspects, there's no reason to feel ashamed. Everyone likes stuff with terrible elements--it's all about recognizing it and keeping a balance between "you can NEVER like ~problematic stuff!!!" and "fuck those sensitive SJW violets it's FINE to like awful things!!!!"

[(Anonymous)]

Not exactly the sort of thing, but I have a couple friends who honestly believe the Rabid Puppies are innocent victims of a liberal smear campaign.

I get sad when I see some hilarious Puppy news and then realize I can't share it with them because we normally can snark about most things together.

[(Anonymous)]

As someone who sits firmly in the Sad Puppy camp, I think the Rabids can frankly go fuck themselves.

That being said, WorldCon can also go fuck itself. After this year's trainwreck, I'm done.

[(Anonymous)]

Ha! Yes, a vicious liberal smear campaign that consists of pointing out the shitty things the Puppies have said/done. That's one hell of a devious strategy. Damn those tricksy liberals! *shakes fist*

[feotakahari]

I don't believe in Death of the Author, but I do believe in strangling the bastard. I take it upon myself to take the things that were once good about Orson Scott Card's ideas and values and apply them to my writing in ways nu-Card wouldn't approve of. If your faves are problematic, then solve the problems, making them building blocks for better writing.

[(Anonymous)]

The problem with OSC's works are not the blatant homophobia, but they are held as anthems for the self-appointed moody teen genius. They are how-to manuals for wannabe sociopaths. I'd advise any parent who sees their child reading them to take them off them, and check the child into therapy to restore the sense of empathy his writings deliberately strip away.

[arcadiaego]

This is a great way of putting it.

[(Anonymous)]

I think that even though you like the author, you acknowledged they are problematic shows self-awareness. I'm pretty sure what you enjoy from their books is the unproblematic parts or perhaps at the time you weren't aware the author was problematic.

Some people can separate author from their works and some can't. It just comes to personal preference on the matter.

A lot of things society consumes is problematic, So I think it's good that these issues are addressed since these issues should be reduced. Although I oppose the idea that enjoying something that contains problematic content or problematic creators makes you 'evil' or whatever, personally I wouldn't support them.

[(Anonymous)]

It's almost like media being problematic is directly proportional to media being entertaining or something....

[(Anonymous)]

Any work of fiction is either going to have problematic elements or be so bland as to be completely unreadable. Even if a book was published tomorrow that was both engaging and celebrated by SJWs as completely and totally progressive, in fifty years society will have shifted and the book will become retroactively problematic.

There is nothing wrong in liking what you like. Contrary to what Tumblr would have you believe, enjoying a problematic book is not the equivalent of endorsing white supremacy/ the patriarchy/ cannibalism/ whatever.

[(Anonymous)]

The only extend to which recognizing "problematic" artists really matters is if you don't want your money supporting them. With HPL, obviously that's less of an issue. For someone who's still alive, obviously it's a conflicting situation. Though there are plenty of ways (especially in the case of authors) you can legally obtain their work without feeling morally questionable (buy second-hand, give an equal or greater amount than the cost of what you're purchasing to a relevant charity).

NO ONE should be policing your thoughts and feelings about an author, ESPECIALLY because those feelings objectively just don't matter to the outside world.

Learning or knowing about an artist's "problematic" aspects can and should be something for each person to place their own value on. Some people just don't care; they're in it for the art. Some will place absolute value on an artist's merit as derived from how "problematic" or not they are. Most people fall in the middle. Some will just like having that more in-depth awareness of the author as a person. (And how/if that colors an author's work is a debate I'll save for another time)

Everyone's moral compass is different, and it's absolutely a worthwhile (but complicated) effort to judge where yours lies, but for me, the most important thing morally is to do no harm. That can mean abstaining from certain things (I don't buy Chik-fil-a's food) or recognizing the importance of offsetting supporting someone like OSC's work (which is great, and absolutely has value independent of its creator) by supporting charities who seek to help LGBT+ individuals. But 'do no harm' includes harm to yourself. Do not let the love and respect you have for HPL's work be diminished because someone tells you he's "problematic," and you should feel "x" way about problematic authors. If that's the conclusion you come to on your own, one that you feel and know is right, great. But it sounds more like you're worried you're not doing the "correct" thing, and that's bullshit.

The discussion of authors as people is one that each person places their own values on. Please don't listen to anyone saying otherwise. Including me, if you happen to disagree. ;P

[(Anonymous)]

The one problem I have is that frequently "Problematic" works attract "problematic" fans. Like I am not in the fandom, but I know friends reported that 'She Walks in Shadows' has been very VERY badly received by fan groups.

How Lucasfilm was very homophobic, no doubt afraid the early Star Trek slash fans would infect their property, and now there's a very strong homophobic current in Star Wars fandom. (No, not getting into the Aftermath thing, more how most major forums banned discussion of anything gay related until a couple years ago. No speculation on gay characters, no fanworks, nothing. )

Or in my own observation, it's only within the past 5 years that there were a noticeable number of black people going to sci-fi cons (and then mainly in the superhero genres), but anime and cartoon-friendly cons have had a large black fanbase for ten years before that.

Basically take the most obvious moral messages that don't have anything to do with forgiveness and getting along, magnify them by a thousand, and that's what fandoms will run with. So Tolkein panels end up where Manu Bennett is the darkest guy in the room and Homestuck fans troll a poor artist through MLP fandom to SU fandom and bully her to suicide attempt because Homestucks are awful. And meanwhile everyone else in SU fandom is perfectly fine being awful to everyone as long as they believe they're the hero.

So tl;dr if you think something in a property is problematic, there's a decent chance the fanbase thinks it's awesome or at least excusable.

[arcadiaego]

If you are aware of the context and disagree with it, it's still ok to like the material. Think of it as taking something good from a bad situation. Issues like whether you're still paying money to the creator can complicate things but just liking something? That's ok, really. There are going to be people who disagree and it will get uncomfortable but if you're confident that you personally don't agree with whatever bad thing this author has done then you will get used to it.

[(Anonymous)]

Like what you like. You know there are problems & it's not perfect. Ignore the people who try to tell you you're WRONG for liking something PROBLEMATIC. Fuck those people. You don't have time for that shit.