[ 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

[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.

[(Anonymous)]

Because being aware is not good enough and having fun despite the existence of something problematic is bad!

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

I really don't see what that has to do with my comment, or with the secret generally. Or, I guess, what you're driving at in general.

[(Anonymous)]

You are exactly the sort of sanctimonious asshole that's ruined fandom for many of us.

No, we really don't have to take it into account. We really don't.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, I'm sorry to hear that I've ruined fandom for you, obviously. Obviously you don't have to do anything - I misspoke when I said that. I think that you should take it into account, but of course you are the master of your own destiny.

I also don't think being aware and thoughtful about these things means you can never enjoy a thing. But we probably have different standards there, I guess, one way or another.

[(Anonymous)]

No. I can enjoy art for art's sake and go blissfully on with my life without knowing every "problematic" thing the artist said or did.

[(Anonymous)]

You can. I don't think you should do, though.

I mean, there are degrees here. I don't think that, because the writer of one episode of Babylon 5 jaywalked one time, you can never watch Babylon 5, or whatever. And as I said above, reaction doesn't have to be black and white. Being aware of something doesn't mean dropping it immediately.

But where you have something where, like with Ezra Pound, his views are both deeply disagreeable, and really closely tied to what he's doing artistically - or where you have something where someone has done something really heinous - I don't really see how you can avoid having that impact what you think of their work. I don't understand how you could not react to knowing things like that.

[(Anonymous)]

Why on Earth should that ever be the case? You are not endorsing any viewpoint merely by taking in and enjoying a work.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't really think works can be evaluated in purely aesthetic terms? I mean, a work always has content and context, doesn't it? It is not just one thing. It still doesn't mean that you're endorsing the work, of course. But say you have something where, for instance, the aesthetic experience of the work is being used to promote the values of fascism. I think that the way that you react to the work is going to be different on that account. I think that you would be incorrect in reacting to it in the same way that you would react to it if it weren't promoting fascism. You would be viewing the work in a way that was incomplete.

Now obviously, again, that doesn't mean that you have to splatter paint all over it and loudly proclaim that you despise everything about it. But one of the things about Triumph Of The Will is that it's Nazi propaganda, you know? That is part of the work.

[feotakahari]

There's a disconnect I often run into with this argument, in that it seems like the people who're making it don't consume a lot of media where the author directly lectures the reader about what to believe. As a reader of science fiction and fantasy novels, I get directly lectured all the time, often about things that are morally repulsive, so I can't really set aside the "problematic" stuff unless I set aside actual parts of the text. If what's "problematic" is the creator's personal life, but that isn't a part of their fiction, it's much easier to just enjoy the fiction.

Maybe this is the difference between writers and actors. If an actor beats his wife, that doesn't mean his character will endorse wife-beating, because the actor doesn't write the script. A writer might come out with something about how you have to beat the broads to keep them in line.

[kallanda_lee]

But OP IS taking it into account. Honestly, you can't being current fandom without knowing it's problematic. You can still love something that is offensive/sexist/racist/insert your ism, which acknowledging those flaws.

To give an example: you can acknowledge that the early issues of TinTin were terribly racist but still enjoy the comic.

And I sort of disagree you HAVE to engage in the politics, as long as you're vaguely aware of historical and/or cultural context.

[(Anonymous)]

Sure, I was disagreeing with the broader idea that seeing a complexity in problematic things is what's wrong with social justice, not so much criticizing OP.

[(Anonymous)]

Although to be fair to Tin Tin in the Congo, the region has gotten markedly worse without the steadying hand of Europe on the tiller.

[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)]

No, it's actually not imperative.

[(Anonymous)]

Serious question here: why is it imperative? Does it change anything he did? Does it actively help anyone that was harmed? Or is it just preaching to utterly unconnected people about something that has nothing to do with them?

In my experience, people only get defensive and dig their heels in further when someone comes in with the "well actually--"

[sparrow_lately]

ETA: This is a cultural imperative as much as an individual one.

It's imperative because in uncritically supporting, to use my above example, John Lennon, I am supporting his wifebeating, his racism, his shitty treatment of his family, his nasty jokes about the mentally disabled, etc., etc.

Take someone whose reach was more extensive than John Lennon. Thomas Jefferson was one hell of a writer, and many of his endeavors ultimately honorable--for example, I'm a big fan of public education, which was a cause he championed. But he was also an unrepentant racist, justifying chattel slavery with everything from pseudoscience to his own inertia, and he almost certainly (really, there is exceptionally little doubt, and rumors about this date as far back at the 1780/90s) raped his slave(s). So if I uncritically hold up Jefferson as a hero, I tell the world--everyone--that being a rich man, a good politician, and a bang-up writer renders appalling human rights abuses a nonissue. That's not just a historical shrug; that's participating in a system of dehumanization (of blacks and other racial minorities, of women, etc.) that has dominated for centuries.

So the short version is that it is, in fact, imperative, because historically injustice prevails when people ignore this impetus to critically examine creators and celebrities and people in power, and to draw attention to their flaws. This isn't passive; it's how injustice happens. This is on a big scale (Jefferson) and small ones--take a look at how many known sexual abusers of children continue to get jobs in Hollywood, and a million other examples.

I'm okay calling it imperative, even if it's just because one woman whose husband beat her doesn't have to see another abuser treated like like a king.

tw: for orson scott card and sick stuff that happens in his novel

[esteefee]

I don't think it's imperative. I do find it helpful to me personally to be a little wary when approaching the works of someone I know has views I think don't match my own for whatever reason. Like a water filter or something. So my brain doesn't get lead poisoning.

Again: trigger warning here for Orson Scott Card: I read OSC when I was too young to understand what I was drinking. I'm thinking specifically of The Songmaster, a story in which a perfectly awesome, brilliant prodigy of a child singer is chemically castrated for having same-sex desires during his first, burgeoning sexual encounter. Oh, and even worse stuff happens to his older teen boyfriend.

The first time I read it my heart was torn up. I didn't understand why Ansset had to be permanently damaged for such an innocent, sweet encounter. The punishment was...forgive me, but it was biblical, and nothing in universe supported it as a sin, at least in Ansset's mind.

Later, when I came to understand what a homophobe OSC is, it all became very clear. If I'd known before I approached the book, I could have read it through that critical lens. But I didn't.

Another example is Frank Sinatra. I adore Frank Sinatra. He had strong attachments to the mob, but it didn't really seem to affect his musical selections, more his venues and the whole casino angle, which happened long before I was born. He also was a supporter of racial equality, and that did affect his musical choices and whom he worked with and the careers he helped. He was also kind of a sexist, but so were a lot of people back then.

I love his music. I filter my enjoyment through the fact back then everybody sang songs about dames and even though the mob started up his career, his payback didn't appear to affect the message of his artistry. I still listen to, purchase, and enjoy his stuff.

Anyway, that's my own philosophy. Nobody else's.

Sorry for the screed. :)

[kallanda_lee]

I don't actually see it that way. If you specifically idolize him as a person - then I'd tend to agree.

But I think you can appreciate and admire the song without even knowing anything about the Beatles at all.

[(Anonymous)]

Not really? For one thing, I'm not going to look for the social justice receipts of the creator of every single piece of media I consume.

[(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.

[kallanda_lee]

I think that depends? If you're criticizing the thing itself- fair enough. If your criticizing their love and excitement for it, i can get why they're pissed off.

[(Anonymous)]

Everyone is sensitive about things they like 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.