quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: "BUT it is very cowardly of her to [announce Dumbledore's homosexuality after book 7 had already been released for a while]. "
Pfft.
I agree that JKR behaved cowardly.
But most of us who think JKR to have been cowardly about the "gay" thing tended to have seen her as a coward already for not having *any* gay characters in the books.
posted
Here's the thing, there are characters in the books who have or give off an underlying gay vibe, but why would the books identify those characters as Gay?
How does that fact come into play in the story at all? It doesn't.
Second, while JKR said Dumbledore was gay, that was a very brief condensed statement of the overall circumstance. It seems in his youth Dumbledore had an infatuation with Grindelwald, an infatuation that cost him dearly, but many youth have infatuations that they simply don't recognize as such, and that infatuation doesn't necessarily mean they are gay. Though, in Dumbledore's case, and based on JKR's statement, it seems in this case it does.
Further, JKR said that after that point, Dumbledore lead a mostly celibate academic life, and that seems consistent with my vision of Dumbledore.
Next, when we meet Dumbledore, he is well over 100 years old. When was the last time you discussed sex and sexuality with anyone over 100? My point is, that Dumbledore's previous sex life, whatever it may have been, is simply not relevant to this story. However, the implied infatuation with Grindelwald is, but it is only seen and understood from Harry's perspective, so I really don't see the sorted details coming out.
Saying Dumbledore was 'gay' is a very shorthand statement, and I have no doubt that there are a lot of subtle details that moderate that condensed statement.
Finally, what do we know about McGonagall's sex life? What do we know about Filch's sex life? What do we know about the intimate relationship and/or sex lives of any of the adult characters? Nothing? Why? Because it has nothing to do with the story.
We also don't see anyone brush their teeth or go to the bath room, or for that matter, take a shower or bath. It might be very indirectly hinted at once or twice in the entire series, but certainly in 7 years, people must have gone to the bathroom, taken a shower or bath, or brushed their teeth. So, why isn't that in the story? Why don't we get those 'all important' details? Why? Because those details aren't important. McGonagall's sex life doesn't matter, and it would be pointless and distracting to put it in there. Dumbledore's alleged sex life doesn't matter to Harry's story, so it serves no story purpose to put it in there, other than what we have been told in the books.
This is a piece of information that came about because a reader specifically asked if Dumbledore had every been in love. This was asked in the context of a book signing in which about 1,000 people participated. With 1,000 books to sign and 1,000 questions to answer, the best you can hope for, as I have pointed out, is an extremely condensed version of events. So, JKR gave the short version in answer to the question. But I suspect, if this was Dumbledore's story, and not Harry's, there would be a lot of subtle and complex aspects to that brief statement 'Dumbledore's gay' that would lend a lot more detailed context and understanding to it.
I don't think this was never something JKR intended to volunteer. She was asked a question, and she answered it. Simple as that.
Dumbledore's sexual history or personal feelings, are no more relevant than any other characters sexual history or personal inclinations. Further, this is not a book about anyone sexual feeling or personal inclinations, so why would we expect this information on any character much less specifically Dumbledore?
It is a nice little backstory bit of information and insight into a character, but it really has nothing to do with the story at hand.
I don't understand why people are making such a big deal out of this.
posted
I am writing a novel in which there are no gay characters.
If that makes me a coward, then I suppose I'll have to live with it.
Seriously, though, including gay characters in a book meant for young people is going to alienate certain parts of your readership. On the flip side, there will be some groups of people who applaud it and commend you for it and you may therefore GAIN some readers. Either way, you have to accept the consequences for choosing to do it or not.
My feeling is exactly like Steve's - if a character's sexuality is relevant to the story, then fine, include it. If it isn't relevant - then don't discuss it! There's no reason for it. I happen to think Tamora Pierce's inclusion of a lesbian relationship in her book for young people was a mistake - it didn't really add anything to the story, felt rather forced, and definitely turned off a large number of her readers. My daughter included, who will no longer read anything by Pierce simply because lesbian love stories are not her preferred form of entertainment.
As for whether Rowling is a coward for including/not including his sexuality in the book or coming out with it afterwards - I have no real opinion. She can say whatever she wants about her characters. It doesn't necessarily affect how I read those characters myself when I read the book. I'm not saying I complete discount an author's vision, but at the same time I don't consider myself ruled by it when I read their work and interpret it for myself.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:My daughter included, who will no longer read anything by Pierce simply because lesbian love stories are not her preferred form of entertainment.
There are lots of things included in a book that aren't my preferred form of entertainment. Does your daughter really only read things that consist entirely of her preferred forms of entertainment?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Does your daughter really only read things that consist entirely of her preferred forms of entertainment?
Umm...since she's reading for fun, then yes, she's going to read primarily that stuff that she likes. When a major part of the book hinges on a lesbian love affair, and she is a heterosexual young female who has no interest in reading about two women's sex life (not that it was terribly explicit, but it was explicit enough) then why read it, when there are lots of other options out there?
There are certain things that are deal-breakers for me with authors. Regardless of how good the story is, it it includes violent scenes of torture, I'm not going to read it, or I'll stop reading it when I get to that point.
For some people, descriptions of sex that bothers them is a deal breaker. I don't think that's a bad thing - there are lots of other authors out there for her to read, and she doesn't seem to be suffering any great mental anguish from no longer reading Tamora Pierce's books.
You mean there aren't certain things that you just don't want to read about, and if you encounter them you aren't turned off by it? I guess I should applaud you for being so open-minded. Myself, since reading is entertainment for me (excepting the reading I do for school), I only want to read those things that I enjoy. I have too little time for recreational reading to waste it on things I don't want to read about.
My daughter feels the same way. She doesn't want to read about two girls falling in love. She shouldn't have to. No one is forcing her to, so she votes with her wallet (or mine ) and chooses not to buy books by that author. That's the way the system works, and that's all I wanted to point out. There are some people who love Pierce's stories, and buy them because they contain homosexual relationships, or just don't care either way about the character's sex life. Good for them, good for Pierce - I'm not saying the author did anything wrong - she wrote the story she intended to write. But neither does my daughter do anything wrong when she chooses not to read it.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:When a major part of the book hinges on a lesbian love affair, and she is a heterosexual young female who has no interest in reading about two women's sex life (not that it was terribly explicit, but it was explicit enough) then why read it, when there are lots of other options out there.
Ah. That's different, to my mind, than simply not preferring a form of entertainment; it's actively disliking that type of entertainment. I don't prefer to read descriptions of green hills, but I won't avoid a book simply because it includes hilly passages. I dislike books about cancer victims, though, and thus avoid them.
It's not that your daughter doesn't prefer it; it's that she actively dislikes it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
If it isn't my preferred form of entertainment, then I don't have time to do it. I am trying to get a phd, so full time research plus in theory working on thesis and I have a young daughter and my husband works part time, school full time and we can't afford daycare and live away from family. So, I would not choose to read anything that wasn't a first tier entertainment at this point in my life. Which mean no lesbian love affairs, no dead babies, pretty much no real life.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Which mean no lesbian love affairs, no dead babies, pretty much no real life.
That's me too. I'm not big on books that hinge on love affairs, period. I'm not any more bothered by homosexual sex scenes than I am sex scenes in general - I pretty much don't find any explicit sex to be my favorite parts of books. I usually read sci-fi and fantasy to escape and not think about my real life for a while, and I don't want to read about babies dying either. Or any type of torture or really gory violence.
My daughter is on the same page with me on all that - she can't stand explicit violence either. Of course, she is a typical teenager and loves reading romances (she's a big Twilight fan, which I can't say I am), but while she likes romance, she doesn't like homosexual romance.
And I should note this is her choice - I didn't say she could no longer read them, she herself came to me, told me about the book, and said she didn't care for it and didn't want any more of them. I had bought one of the books in the series for her birthday. We haven't bought any others because we don't know if the story line continues in it and why waste money on a book if you don't think you'll like it? There are tons of other authors out there, after all.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have every Tamara Pierce book ever published (I think) and I really had to search my memory to figure out what on earth your daughter could have been refering to. Then I finally remembered that there is a lesbian relationship, but it's in a book that is a sort of sequel to two series, not part of a series on its own. (And to say that a "major part of the book hinges on" it would be a stretch.) As far as I know there is no book that comes after it, so if your daughter liked the writing otherwise, she could certainly read any of Pierce's other work without worrying about it.
Although the book that I'm thinking of does reveal that two of the adult women in the earlier books are also in love, much like the Dumbledore situtation you would not know that from reading the books in question, since the sexuality of the teachers is never mentioned. But I suppose if you'd already read the later book you might read the earlier ones differently.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I was in the same boat as DKW, thinking to myself, "I know I've read all of Tamora Pierce's books more than one, and I really can't think which one Belle could be referring to." Then I remembered Daja in Will of the Empress, which is the last book in the series. (Though to my mind, it was kind of a disappointing read because of the endless bickering between the characters.)
Posts: 1751 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: "BUT it is very cowardly of her to [announce Dumbledore's homosexuality after book 7 had already been released for a while]. "
Pfft.
I agree that JKR behaved cowardly.
But most of us who think JKR to have been cowardly about the "gay" thing tended to have seen her as a coward already for not having *any* gay characters in the books.
I disagree with the idea that unless an author specifically addresses X topic, she is a coward.
I agree with you, Scott. Beyond that, I disagree with OSC's assertion that it was cowardly of Rowling to mention it afterward. I don't think bravery and cowardice enters into the picture at all. I have extensive notes on my characters. In the case of my current protagonist, I could tell you what size clothes he wears, when his birthday is, where hi grandparents live . . . all of which are things I have not thus far gotten around to using in the story, and which I have no expectation of mentioning in the story. I know some writers are far more seat-of-the-pants than I am, but I also know that quite a few writers like to develop the crap out of their characters as well, so they feel like they know them better than they need to, like they are just scratching the surface with their characterization.
In my case, it's something I take from my philosophy as a teacher: teach from the overflow. As a teacher, the knowledge I'm expected to impart should be the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the knowledge I possess, so that I'm always ready to make connections, to answer unexpected questions, etc. I've adopted this same approach a writer: know more than I expect to need, so that when I find myself writing about a character, I don't need to reach for an easy cliche because I don't already have something planned.
So I can very easily imagine Rowling having decided long ago that Dumbledore happened to be gay, and having it never come up in all the books because, well, why would it? It seems very plausible to me.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
In my opinion, since whether or not Daja was going to return with her friends hinged on whether or not she stayed with this lesbian love interest, and the book was rather a lot about whether or not they were going to return, it's not a stretch to call it a major part of the book.
And yes, they did refer to other characters as being gay, which does affect how you read the other books.
But again, everyone will look at books differently. My daughter found it uncomfortable to read about and didn't like it. It's turned her off all Pierce books since. That's the risk the author takes when they introduce objectionable material into a series.
quote:So I can very easily imagine Rowling having decided long ago that Dumbledore happened to be gay, and having it never come up in all the books because, well, why would it? It seems very plausible to me.
I agree with you in that I find it plausible. And I agree that she made the right decision to leave it out, since his sexuality is never important to the story.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, I would not call a portrayal of a homosexual relationship "objectionable material." It might be objectionable to some. I suspect I would find a lot of the religious things in your life highly objectionable, but I doubt you'd appreciate me calling it that without a qualifier.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it's cowardly to say it after the fact. It's neither brave, nor cowardly, it's just a thing. And it's worth saying in this particular setting, because Harry Potter is in many ways far more than just the books, it's sort of an entity unto itself and so these 'extra details' are of use and interest to the audience.
Belle: Tamora Pierce has always 'challenged' her readers. I remember someone somewhere commenting about Alanna's use of (magical) contraceptives and teenage sex. I read these books when I was perhaps eight or nine years old, but it wasn't anything I hadn't heard before from my mother, at least in vague terms. I do not believe that Pierce thinks she is being "brave", I believe she thinks she is accurately representing the various realities of young people in the world today- and she is.
I agree that some authors set out to be "brave" and others avoid certain topics out of fear. I think most simply write what they want to write about, and their world reflects what they're thinking about. Harry Potter does not deal specifically with the issue of homosexuality (or indeed, race), but it does deal extensively with the difficulty of being something different in a suspicious society- a werewolf, a half-giant, a hero, a suspected-convict, a muggle-born. It is concerned very much with personal identity. Much of fantasy- from The Faerie Queene, to The Lord of the Rings, to Harry Potter- examines the issues of our world in this way, through the lens of a different world.
In this way, JKR does take on difficult issues. It's up the reader to take what they learn in fantasy land and apply it to real life.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's really sad is that if any of the characters were openly gay, particularly any of the male teachers, the books would probably have been denounced and protested by an even larger number of people than already had a problem with the "witchcraft."
I'm not saying that she intentionally left sexuality out of the book for sales numbers, but lots of books and movies change their content to get a different rating or appeal to a different audience.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think she did intentionally left sexuality out of the book for sales numbers....but I also don't see what it would have added to the story, at least for the most part.
She was able to tell a compelling story about young people that didn't include sex or sexual orientation.....and that is a problem how?
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be absolutely fair, most children's books do not contain sexuality beyond what Rowling included. It's partially what makes it children's fiction.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would call any overt sexuality in a young adult book objectionable material, regardless of the orientation.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Does your daughter really only read things that consist entirely of her preferred forms of entertainment?
To read OSC and some of his anti-"literature" lackies.. that's probably exactly right.
It's endlessly befuddling how OSC scoffs and turns his nose up at the pretensions of others without recognizing the terrible irony of his own pretensions. There's something so horribly rigid and stifling about a whole group of people who claim that everything outside their wheel-house is rigid and stifling. If you read, for instance, editorials from IGMS, you'll get a sense of the wonderful obtuseness and bullheadedness that OSC seems to foster among his colleagues.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: I would call any overt sexuality in a young adult book objectionable material, regardless of the orientation.
So references to "shuddering in extacy" while "penetrating" the larval queen in Ender's Game is objectionable? Is that overtly sexual?
Or what about Bonzo calling Ender a "catamite?"
Good little boys and girls surely looked that word up when they read the book. I did- although I knew pretty much what it meant.
And let us please not forget the brave alteration of Ender's Game, to exclude the use of the word "nigger," (let's be grown ups), in later editions. Osc claimed that this decision was one he made independent of financial concerns (I believe he claimed this)... but it's rather convenient that this and other changes, despite being unnecessary from the standpoint of anyone who reads and understands the point of the offending passages (as OSC admits himself), ensure that Ender's Game remains on children's reading lists in school, church, and bookstores.
So who's a coward? And who has good reasons for making their own editorial choices? And who's a mind reader now, if Puppy is reading this thread?
I suppose if you go to a convention and ask Card if Ender would ever use the "N-word," he'd say yes. But wait... it's not in the book. How can this be?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: If you read, for instance, editorials from IGMS, you'll get a sense of the wonderful obtuseness and bullheadedness that OSC seems to foster among his colleagues.
Which editorials from the Intergalactic Medicine Show do you take umbrage with, Orincoro? Please link.
(I wonder if you're confusing IGMS with the Rhino Times?)
quote:There's something so horribly rigid and stifling about a whole group of people who claim that everything outside their wheel-house is rigid and stifling.
I'm not sure that I understand this comment. Can you explain what you're trying to get across?
quote:So references to "shuddering in extacy" while "penetrating" the larval queen in Ender's Game is objectionable? Is that overtly sexual?
Or what about Bonzo calling Ender a "catamite?"
EG has only recently been specifically targeted at young adults. I never considered it a YA book; it certainly wasn't published as a YA book, and it didn't win both the Hugo and Nebula awards as a YA book.
quote:And let us please not forget the brave alteration of Ender's Game, to exclude the use of the word "nigger," (let's be grown ups), in later editions. Osc claimed that this decision was one he made independent of financial concerns (I believe he claimed this)... but it's rather convenient that this and other changes, despite being unnecessary from the standpoint of anyone who reads and understands the point of the offending passages (as OSC admits himself), ensure that Ender's Game remains on children's reading lists in school, church, and bookstores.
Neither is it cowardice to remove a non-essential passage from a book that will impede that book's coverage. Alai and Ender's friendship is preserved even without that conversation; there is still Salaam.
What did that passage contain that you feel was so important to the story that removing it constitutes cowardice?
To be clear, I'm not exactly sure what you're arguing for here, Orincoro. Can you explain?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Belle, I would not call a portrayal of a homosexual relationship "objectionable material." It might be objectionable to some. I suspect I would find a lot of the religious things in your life highly objectionable, but I doubt you'd appreciate me calling it that without a qualifier.
By "objectionable" I mean something that people may object to. Which makes it an extremely broad term, I agree.
I also would call excessive violence, profanity, racial slurs, sexual content (including heterosexual content) and sexist language "objectionable."
Doesn't mean that everybody will object to it - but it means that a portion of the population will. I'm not using "objectionable" as a term to denounce homosexual relationships - and I must repeat I don't have a problem with Pierce writing about them, because there is an audience out there for them, obviously. My daughter just isn't in that audience.
I'd be fine with you calling religious content in a book objectionable, by the way, because it is - religious content by its very nature is going to be objectionable to people who do not share that faith.
quote:Belle: Tamora Pierce has always 'challenged' her readers. I remember someone somewhere commenting about Alanna's use of (magical) contraceptives and teenage sex. I read these books when I was perhaps eight or nine years old, but it wasn't anything I hadn't heard before from my mother, at least in vague terms. I do not believe that Pierce thinks she is being "brave", I believe she thinks she is accurately representing the various realities of young people in the world today- and she is.
She can challenge her readers all she wants to - and by the way, it was me who brought up that here, when I started a thread asking what people thought was appropriate in young adult lit. OSC posted in it, IIRC.
I had a slight issue with that in the book, but it didn't stop me from letting my daughter read it. She actually enjoyed the Trickster's series, and that was why I bought the Will of the Empress, for her birthday, which she returned to me and said she didn't like.
Once more, to be clear, I have no problem with Pierce putting such content in her books - certainly she can write what she wants. But, when an author does include objectionable material (as in the list I posted above, and including OSC use of the n-word), they must accept the consequences, which can mean an alienation of possible readers.
If you want to do that, then you as an author make that choice. OSC chose to change his book, and make it more widely available because he felt the racial slur added nothing tangible to the story. Personally, I applaud that move - I think it was not only a sound business move but showed sensitivity to a large portion of his reading audience who find that word highly offensive.
I think Pierce could have left the both the premarital sex out of the Trickster series, and the lesbian affair out of the Empress one and still had a fine story. That's not what she did, however, and for my daughter, the latter one was a deal-breaker for her. I don't mind that Pierce pushes the envelope with her readers, but you have to remember when you push people, there can come a point where you push too far. She reached that point with my daughter.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Good post, Belle, although I do see the irony of OSC belittling Rowling for a similar choice in HP. I bet she felt it wouldn't add to the story, and might take something away.
Just like the N-word.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: But I want them with a beginning, a middle, and an end. I want them filled with interesting people (if you're thinking of them as characters you're already two steps in the wrong direction; make them think and move and talk and act like people and then you'll have something). I want stories that make me feel something inside, so that when I'm done I'm glad I read them. And I don't care whose name is on them when they show up on my computer, all I care about is what's in the story.
If that's your approach to reading, too, you're in the right place. If not, well, I think the point needs no further explanation.
Now there is nothing inherently wrong with this... except it belies an anti-academic, anti-stylistic bias that in fact discourages a diverse and creative literary atmosphere- essentially making the cure exactly the same thing as the disease.
quote: quote:There's something so horribly rigid and stifling about a whole group of people who claim that everything outside their wheel-house is rigid and stifling.
I'm not sure that I understand this comment. Can you explain what you're trying to get across?
I refer to OSC and his ilk's agressive, passionate, often incoherent rantings against liberals, intellectuals, and "literary academic types." They assume first that there is an ounce of solidarity among the vast swatches of people mentioned, and second that these people are themselves guilty of all the wrongheaded, anti-creative, illogical machinations that OSC and others display in their tirades. Everything about OSC's politics screams from the deepest well of hypocrisy- I hate you for disagreeing with me, and I don't need you to agree with me, and you shouldn't judge me just as I sit and load a mountain of judgment upon you.
quote: Neither is it cowardice to remove a non-essential passage from a book that will impede that book's coverage. Alai and Ender's friendship is preserved even without that conversation; there is still Salaam.
What did that passage contain that you feel was so important to the story that removing it constitutes cowardice?
The circumstances of the boys' initial alliance are changed by the edit. The question is, do I feel the change is a substantive one, or merely a surface rearrangement of the same conflict that brought them together? I feel that the removal of Alai's racist comment about Shen, and Ender's reproach, and the subsequent changes do present a fundamental reordering of priorities. Where the first edition acknowledges conflict between the two, and a conscious acknowledgment and dismissal of their ethnic "baggage" in order to form an alliance, the removal of that material changes that relationship. The racial stuff was presented in a light so as to expose its absurdity and lack of weight between the two boys, and the situation showed both of them learning and teaching each other how to overcome the cultural images and stereotypes that would have crippled their interactions in the past- it gives us hope for people to reach a greater interpersonal understanding.
The edit, iirc, might as well not be there, it's merely a transition into the two boys working together- and for what? Mutual respect and understanding are the result of the race tension being diminished, and how and why should that be replaced with something more "acceptable?" The point of the scene was to show that the racism they were both playing at would have to be dismissed, and replaced with mutual respect. It was a symbol of their ability to reason and react beyond the constraints of their given backgrounds, and form deeper bonds. The edit assumes that relationship is pretty much already there, and requires no thought or effort- which defeats the point in my reading of it.
So finally, why is that cowardice? Because from his explanation of the change, I believe that OSC felt the same way, and I believe the edit was done for financial and political purposes, and I believe it was damaging to the text.
Edit: If he had truly believed that the edit made the text stronger, then why did he initially defend the passage in just the way I am doing? Why did he, even in his decision to change the passage, reserve the right to say that the change hadn't seemed necessary. Why, above all, does he have the right to change the book once it has been published. I understand he has the right to do what he wants with his book, but I believe that once something is published, it's out there, and it has a life of its own.
Han Shot First. Basically.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now there is nothing inherently wrong with this... except it belies an anti-academic, anti-stylistic bias that in fact discourages a diverse and creative literary atmosphere- essentially making the cure exactly the same thing as the disease.
Hmm. Well, I won't disagree that Edmund Schubert (who wrote that editorial and who is the editor of the magazine) hasn't included much in the way of stylistic explorations in IGMS.
But I don't think that paragraph intends what you conclude from it.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
I think you're giving weight to a two-paragraph snippet that doesn't merit the kind of consideration you seem to be imposing upon it.
quote:If he had truly believed that the edit made the text stronger, then why did he initially defend the passage in just the way I am doing?
Has OSC maintained that the text is stronger because of the deletion of the n-word?
Or that it's merely more palatable to a wide audience?
quote: Why, above all, does he have the right to change the book once it has been published. I understand he has the right to do what he wants with his book, but I believe that once something is published, it's out there, and it has a life of its own.
Han Shot First. Basically.
Again-- I think you're giving weight to this that I don't think is merited.
Changing the story so that Han shot after Greedo changed Han's character. Omitting the n-word from Ender's Game changes...no one, really.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now there is nothing inherently wrong with this... except it belies an anti-academic, anti-stylistic bias that in fact discourages a diverse and creative literary atmosphere- essentially making the cure exactly the same thing as the disease.
Hmm. Well, I won't disagree that Edmund Schubert (who wrote that editorial and who is the editor of the magazine) hasn't included much in the way of stylistic explorations in IGMS.
But I don't think that paragraph intends what you conclude from it.
I take the two together. You're right to say that that particular quote is not him sitting there waxing his anti-academic mustache, but it comes from the same small minded thinking.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If he had truly believed that the edit made the text stronger, then why did he initially defend the passage in just the way I am doing?
Has OSC maintained that the text is stronger because of the deletion of the n-word?
Or that it's merely more palatable to a wide audience?
Iirc, he has said that it makes the text either "better" or "stronger" or something along those lines. In his defense of the change, though I cannot remember where it is published, (I think somewhere on this site) I believe he states that the use of foul language weakened the book more than it was worth for character development. I think it weakened one thing more than anything else, and that was the profit margin.
Maybe I'm getting entirely the wrong impression about the man, but it would be hard to believe he has the same qualms about artistic integrity than some writers. I site his "translation" of Romeo and Juliet, his latest novel, his long and fruitless attempts to make a Hollywood blockbuster out of a book, even though he has said there is little reason to do so, artistically, and to round it out, week after week of reviews about "everything" that are more often than not devoted to shopping and preferred methods of material consumption.
So yeah, the "Han Shot First" thing rings true to me because Card seems to be on a trajectory similar to that of Lucas- where the "vision" that was once about creating an epic masterpiece or a body of challenging work becomes about something quite different- an empire of merchandise and multi-platform marketing of the same material over and over again.
quote: Changing the story so that Han shot after Greedo changed Han's character. Omitting the n-word from Ender's Game changes...no one, really.
You say this as if it is inarguable. But I've pointed out why I think it's significant. The problem is that having both of us read and reread the book (probably in the original), neither of us is detached enough to say. OSC would be my least trusted observer of effect at this point, followed by big fans.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"cowardly" was too strong an expression by me -- if I was writing it now I'd probably revise it to merely "timidly".
But my main point holds: that one could choose to perhaps bash JKR as a coward for the heteronormativity of the Harry Potter universe in the books - but that heteronormativity existed before her revelation about Dumbledore, it wasn't made by it.
quote:My feeling is exactly like Steve's - if a character's sexuality is relevant to the story, then fine, include it. If it isn't relevant - then don't discuss it! There's no reason for it.
This is a situation like Ged's skin-color in Earthsea. It's nice to say "we're casting him as white because we are color-blind and his race doesn't play a role in the story anyway", but in reality it's only white people who tend to have the luxury of color-blindness and the above sentence really translates to "we're casting him as white because we want all our protagonists to be white, unless there's a explicit need for them not to be".
Likewise you can say that a character's sexuality shouldn't be discussed unless it plays a role in the story -- but frankly I only ever see that attitude in regards to *homosexuality*, never to heterosexuality.
For example, I didn't see OSC (or anyone else) object to the outside-the-books revelation that Neville Longbottom eventually married Hannah Abbott, thus indicating that the two characters were straight. They were simply assumed to be: Heteronormativity.
Anyway just like Ged's non-white race, same deal with the homosexuality. All too well to say "not discuss sexuality unless it's needed", all too well to say "we're colorblind in our casting"... except reality shows that this attitude isn't real, it simply means "we want the Others to be either invisible or in the spotlight, never allowed in the crowd".
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: This is a situation like Ged's skin-color in Earthsea. It's nice to say "we're casting him as white because we are color-blind and his race doesn't play a role in the story anyway", but in reality it's only white people who tend to have the luxury of color-blindness and the above sentence really translates to "we're casting him as white because we want all our protagonists to be white, unless there's a explicit need for them not to be".
This is, if it is completely serious, deeply ignorant on your part. There is no one with the luxury of color-blindness, unless you mean "luxury" and "color-blindness" with a deep sense of irony, which you give no hint of.
Your "translation" is an oversimplification. The idea that you can infer that there is a stated and explicit "preference" as opposed to, say, a shared cultural image, ignores the complexity of cultural imagery. The fact is that there is a deep culture among most white people that a "god" persona is attached to the image of a white bearded man of their same features. This goes back to before Christianity, and before the modern (flawed) concept of race.
This is the very reason why the casting of blacks such as Morgan Freeman as "God" in a mainstream American film is so effective. People are aware of the shared image, and the palatable alteration of that image is interesting to them, and artistic.
If we did everything according to what we somehow knew we "preferred" then we would probably never do anything interesting. So it's quite right to point out that people should think about the images, but assigning this motivation to it is wrong.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aris, why wouldn't most of the characters be straight? The numbers that come up in these threads are that 1-3% of the population is exclusively gay and up to 10% have tried it at some time.
After that, it's just simple math. How many characters are there? How much is one percent? You need to have a hundred characters before someone statistically "has" to be gay.
Personally, I don't feel fiction necessarily needs to be represnetative. Usually, the author is telling a particular story or making a point. If they don't really have anything to say about what it means or feels like to be gay in a straight world, why bother? My attitude would be either address it in a way that it means something or don't bother. Otherwise you're just pandering.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now there is nothing inherently wrong with this... except it belies an anti-academic, anti-stylistic bias that in fact discourages a diverse and creative literary atmosphere- essentially making the cure exactly the same thing as the disease.
Hmm. Well, I won't disagree that Edmund Schubert (who wrote that editorial and who is the editor of the magazine) hasn't included much in the way of stylistic explorations in IGMS.
But I don't think that paragraph intends what you conclude from it.
I take the two together. You're right to say that that particular quote is not him sitting there waxing his anti-academic mustache, but it comes from the same small minded thinking.
You know, when someone criticizes OSC for rabid anti-academic polemic, I can kind of understand where they're coming from.
But criticizing Edmund Schubert as being engaged "small-minded thinking" for saying:
quote: But I want them with a beginning, a middle, and an end. I want them filled with interesting people (if you're thinking of them as characters you're already two steps in the wrong direction; make them think and move and talk and act like people and then you'll have something). I want stories that make me feel something inside, so that when I'm done I'm glad I read them. And I don't care whose name is on them when they show up on my computer, all I care about is what's in the story.
If that's your approach to reading, too, you're in the right place. If not, well, I think the point needs no further explanation.
I don't understand how you get to "small minded thinking" from what Edmund wrote.
Now, granted-- I happen to like Edmund. We got a chance a year or so ago to sit down and talk at length about writing, writers, and IGMS. Maybe my personal feelings about the guy-- that he is keenly intelligent, generous, funny, and a pretty fine human being-- are coloring my perception of what that paragraph actually means.
Thus, I don't find your argument as nearly convincing, Orincoro. Specifically, you said that his attitude:
quote:discourages a diverse and creative literary atmosphere
How does requiring that a story have "a beginning, middle, and end" and characters who speak, think, and act in realistic ways discourage literary diversity?
And in what way does favoring these elements make one small-minded?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:How does requiring that a story have "a beginning, middle, and end" and characters who speak, think, and act in realistic ways discourage literary diversity?
Because quite a lot of modern literature is experimenting with the assumptive need for these things.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fact that other markets are experimenting with it does not imply that because this market is NOT, it is necessarily discouraging that experimentation.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think he's saying that because this specific individual is discouraging that experimentation, this specific individual is discouraging it in the portion of the market he "controls."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, if that's the case, then I guess that Orincoro is right.
But the argument then becomes useless, as most magazines have some sort of submission guideline. Are all of those editors ALSO discouraging literary diversity?
Shall we call them small-minded as well?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not going to defend Orincoro for being inconsistently elitist. That particular tendency of his annoys me. As far as I'm concerned, Schubert has every right to say "I want only the kinds of stories I like," and that's fine by me.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: For example, I didn't see OSC (or anyone else) object to the outside-the-books revelation that Neville Longbottom eventually married Hannah Abbott, thus indicating that the two characters were straight. They were simply assumed to be: Heteronormativity.
But I did object to Ron, Hermione and Harry's future career choices as revealed in later interviews And perhaps if I knew who Hannah Abbott was, I might object to this revelation as well. Of course, my issue with Dumbledore being gay is more tied with who his infatuation was with then him being gay.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: [QB] Aris, why wouldn't most of the characters be straight?
You're misunderstanding my point. The problem isn't with most of the characters being straight.
The problem is with people saying "ALL THE CHARACTER SHOULD BE STRAIGHT, UNLESS THERE'S A DAMN GOOD REASON THEY AREN'T".
People argued that if Dumbledore's sexuality wasn't significant enough to include in the book, then it wasn't significant enough to mention AT ALL.
But they only said that about the *gay* character. They never said about the characters that were *straight*. They never argued that Neville Longbottom's sexuality shouldn't have been revealed because it wasn't significant to the story. They didn't call Rowling a coward for revealing Hannah Abbott to be straight.
They did all those things for the gay character instead.
See the difference? See the point of asymmetry?
quote:If they don't really have anything to say about what it means or feels like to be gay in a straight world, why bother?
That's exactly what I mean about heteronormativity, and if you don't get the wrongness of the dilemma between "invisibility" and "pandering" then you never will.
What did it mean that Dean Thomas and Lee Jordan and Angelica Johnson and Kingley were black in a mostly white world?
I guess JKR shouldn't have included any black characters either. But I guess she's pandering.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: they only said that about the *gay* character. They never said about the characters that were *straight*. They never argued that Neville Longbottom's sexuality shouldn't have been revealed because it wasn't significant to the story. They didn't call Rowling a coward for revealing Hannah Abbott to be gay.
They did all those things for the gay character instead.
See the difference? See the point of asymmetry?
Do you retract the idea that Rowling was " a coward already for not having *any* gay characters in the books?"
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you retract the idea that Rowling was " a coward already for not having *any* gay characters in the books?"
I already said in a previous post that I had worded that too strongly, and that I ought have probably merely used "timid" instead.
But other than that, no I don't retract it. And I don't see how exactly the part you quote relates to this point. (I gather you see some point of inconsistency or hypocrisy, but can you explain your point more clearly, please? As it stands I don't get it.)
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
) and chooses not to buy books by that author. That's the way the system works, and that's all I wanted to point out. There are some people who love Pierce's stories, and buy them because they contain homosexual relationships, or just don't care either way about the character's sex life. Good for them, good for Pierce - I'm not saying the author did anything wrong - she wrote the story she intended to write. But neither does my daughter do anything wrong when she chooses not to read it.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
As far as I'm concerned, Schubert has every right to say "I want only the kinds of stories I like," and that's fine by me.
