Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[XXSockXX]

I read a series of books by Orson Scott Card when I was a kid. What I didn't know was, they were a sci-fi/fantasy retelling of the book of Mormon. I also didn't know all that much about mormonism, I thought it was just another weird american thing like the Amish or something. Some time into the first or second book, the plot began to take weird turns, that really rubbed me in the wrong way, and transformed a relatively progressive society into a stone age thing where the women were suddenly reduced to be breeding machines and the gay character "came to his senses" and got married so he could have kids. This was of course all "the right thing to do" for these characters. I was really baffled at these turns in what had looked like a promising sci-fi/fantasy tale and I wasn't really motivated to read that to the end. That's something that really puts me off about books, when I feel like I'm being lectured about something I totally disagree with.

As for Lovecraft - I read that stuff as a kid and didn't really notice the racist implications until later. The racism isn't the point of these stories and I find it possible to ignore it. The area I grew up in used to be pretty ethnically homogenous and it really blew my mind when I first saw as a kid how in big cities like Berlin, Paris or Brussels some quarters look like they are on another continent. I can on some level understand how someone who never left his hometown and knew all about the world from books and letter correspondence must have felt in New York. It also helps to read a Lovecraft biography, with his life, he could have turned out much weirder. His masssive correspondence and his scientific mind eventually helped him recognize how wrong some of views were towards the end of his life and his latest stories don't actually use any racist stereotypes anymore.

[Neonivek]

where the women were suddenly reduced to be breeding machines

Dear GOODNESS this is a common theme. I cannot remember the name of the author who was obsessed with it though. Margaret Atwood... There we go!

[XXSockXX]

Dear GOODNESS this is a common theme. I cannot remember the name of the author who was obsessed with it though.

Nah, in this case it was pretty specific. The whole thing started out with a city that was run by women. Also some major characters were women. Then all the characters had to flee into the desert. Suddenly they decided they needed children and the formerly major female characters were reduced to popping out babies every year.

Actually the really funny part is that I got these books as a gift from a really liberal uncle, who had probably not read them.

[Neonivek]

Oddly enough I only seen one fiction where a sudden need to desperately breed actually caused the society for form into a Matriarchical one.

Too bad George Orwell's rampant hatred of all women stops me from enjoying completely unrelated works. If only he didn't write soo many essays on why beating women is for their own good.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Card has been getting more and more reactionary with his books as the years go by, probably mirroring how reactionary the LDS Church has gotten. It's a shame, because he's a good writer outside of the crazy.

[XXSockXX]

Oddly enough I only seen one fiction where a sudden need to desperately breed actually caused the society for form into a Matriarchical one.

That Star Trek TNG episode? Where they don't have enough female survivors in that colony they were rescuing?

[Neonivek]

Oddly enough I only seen one fiction where a sudden need to desperately breed actually caused the society for form into a Matriarchical one.

That Star Trek TNG episode? Where they don't have enough female survivors in that colony they were rescuing?

No.

Mind you that gives me flashbacks of the evil Mormons... (Not "Mormons are evil" a "These specific mormons are evil" thing... Just put Women and desperate and Mormon together and you will know what I am refering to)

[MetalSlimeHunt]

....Dune?

[Neonivek]

....Dune?

I am going to back out of answering it since I'll just get shot down.

Shot down almost as hard as Orwell shot his best friend for supporting homeless shelters.

[Scoops Novel]

Neovinek, your point is...

[Neonivek]

Neovinek, your point is...

That Orwell is pure evil and thus you should entirely change your view of his books because he incorperated his evil into it.

You know... EXACTLY your point Novel.

Also before you claim "Arguementium Absurdum" I should state that this is exactly not one of those cases.

[Scoops Novel]

I thought i made it obvious. I said so i can judge them for what they are. Not as monsters, not as angels, just not with blind faith. I simply don't want any further surprises. It doesn't render their works invalid, it doesn't make them any less skilled, but i will adjust my opinion of them and when relevant, their works. Then again, this is the internet. Updating OP.

[Neonivek]

I thought i made it obvious. I said so i can judge them for what they are. Not as monsters, not as angels, just not with blind faith. I simply don't want any further surprises. It doesn't render their works invalid, it doesn't make them any less skilled, but i will adjust my opinion of them and when relevant, their works. Then again, this is the internet. Updating OP.

But those are intangibles outside the book itself. Remember you are saying you SHOULD know this about the author.

So what does Orwell's books mean now that you know he is purist evil?

My issue isn't about interpreting authors that isn't the issue. My issue is interpreting books outside the books themselves and the enforcement that it should be that way.

This isn't a thread about exposing anything new from a book, this is about intentionally coloring a book based on something outside the book itself and how this is how it "should" be.

---

But you didn't WANT to say anything Novel did you?

Thus you created an outright offensive thread.

[Flying Dice]

Personally I don't subscribe to the ideas behind New Criticism; biographical information on the author is an important part of understanding their work. That's not to say that you should dismiss their work out-of-hand because of what they thought, but that you should be informed enough to account for their prejudices, etc. when examining it. After you've read the book with this information in mind, you're better able to process it, at which point you can then choose to reject it, possibly in part because of the author's ideas. Obviously this only applies to works where the author put some of their personal issues into the book. As the saying goes, Atlas Shrugged is not a book which should be set aside lightly; it should be thrown with great force. But only after giving it at least a cursory overview. Though of course it's usually better to do a blind read, then read something again after doing research on it. That, and you may have problems if you can't partition your thoughts and think about things without allowing external influences (such as knowledge of an author's bigotry) to sway you.


tl;dr: This isn't offensive unless you want it to be, and biographical knowledge won't color your view of a book unless you allow it to.

[Scoops Novel]

As someone who is directly affected by their bigotry, i could get away with much and more and  be met with understanding on this extremely liberal board Neovinek, and given reasons (say, it wont let me enjoy the book, or it will negatively color my childhood, or simply make my day worse when i find it out, and that's before i get to offending others by obliviously calling them good people) which would have been accepted by many. I did not.