fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #6050 ]

[ SECRET POST #6050 ]

⌈ Secret Post #6050 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 24 secrets from Secret Submission Post #865.
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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I was reading through some old livejournal posts a few weeks ago, and for some reason way back then, I had the biggest fandom-grudge against Margaret Atwood. I have no recollection why though. Does anybody else know what she might have done about fifteen years back to piss of fantasy fans?

Was about to do a cursory Internet search for "Margaret Atwood + 2000" before I realized 15 years ago was, in fact, 2008 not 2000. D:

She once said she didn't consider The Handmaid's Tale science fiction, but I don't know what year she said that.

Is the Handmaid's Tale supposed to be science fiction? I thought it was depressing dystopia...

Science fiction is a huge genre that covers anything set on another world, in the future, or with tech we don't have now. Dystopias are a subgenre of scifi (also a subgenre of other overarching genres as well).

Huh, TIL, thank you. I would never have never considered THT's dystopia sci-fi because it's brought about politically (from what I recall, it's been a loooong time since I read it).

I'll take the background bits about massive pollution causing widespread infertility + birth defects as a "just sciencey enough" part to qualify--YMMV on that of course (and I agree that the political part is the important one anyway.)

Sociology is also a science. Political science is also science. Just because they are not hardware based sciences does not make them stop being science.

And she was prophetically correct.

Unfortunately, this is turning out to be coming true.

There was one popular post on tumblr that said she was racist because her dystopia excluded POC by a brief mention that they were killed or shipped off to camps, and it was triggering for the OP to have to read the book in English class so they should stop teaching it in English class, and OP was a mindreader who knew Atwood wrote it that way because she hated POC (not, you know, because she wanted to show dystopic her dystopia was toward groups that are already marginalized in the real world).

I do think there is a conversation to be had around using marginalized groups as essentially cannon fodder to prove a point, and the side-effect that it results in, which is that they don't get to have stories of their own in the world the author created. On the other hand, Atwood had no obligation to go into detail and the specific struggles WOC would have faced if they had been permitted to live in that world. (And if she had, she surely would have been torn into for "getting it wrong" somehow.) It's a story from the perspective of one woman, who is white, and that's valid.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #6050 ]

Re: Secrets you don't want to make...

Re: Secrets you don't want to make...

Re: Secrets you don't want to make...

Re: Secrets you don't want to make...

Re: Secrets you don't want to make...

Re: Secrets you don't want to make...

Re: Secrets you don't want to make...

Re: Secrets you don't want to make...

Re: Secrets you don't want to make...

Re: Secrets you don't want to make...

Re: Secrets you don't want to make...