Problematic authors?

[SomeRandom]

So in the "booktube/booknet community" lately there's been a surge of discussions and arguments about problematic books and authors.
Hot on the heels of the "Diversathon" (a reading event where you essentially read a wide array of perspectives, from intersexed to transgendered people to disabled people etc which I do support just not participating, at least not today) and the Carve the Mark "scandal" (basically a book with savage vs civilized people was released and everyone called it racist. To which the author responded, the conclusions based on hearsay of my work kind of make you peeps look racist) the discussion about problematic authors has arisen with greater frequency than ever before.

It seems as though, especially among socially sensitive younger readers, it's a lot harder to reconcile enjoying a book or author who is problematic (commonly called "problematic faves") than with older readers, particularly those who ascribe to the "death of the author" philosophy. Also, not to sound snooty or dismissive, but I have seen a trend of young readers who read classic fiction at least part of the time seem to have an easier time reconciling problematic faves than those who typically don't. Again, just an observation, not making any statement or judgement on anyone's reading taste. Like y'all can read Dr Seuss and/or Little Golden Books if that's what makes you happy. Doesn't say anything about one's intellect whatsoever. Disclaimer disclaimer.

So what's your take on this as feminists? Do you have any problematic faves? Can you separate the art from the artist or do you think we shouldn't do it at all? Do you notice certain trends among readership? Or even among other communities like fans of various TV shows/movies/games etc?

Personally mine is Roald Dahl. His adult fiction is kind of racist, replete with 50's style gender roles, often chauvinistic and filthy. And I realize that I don't really care.

 

[Sunstone]

I believe we as a society or culture are increasingly these days seeing everything -- and everyone -- in childish black and white terms. It has become the fashion to demand that people be all good, or to condemn them as demons.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I agree with Sunstroke's post. Writing is a way to express ideas to people, but it is also a way to stand in other people's shoes. I like a writer who is honest about their biases both with themselves and with me, but when I get around to reading I also like writers with one way of viewing things. I would probably skim them rather than read them, but I enjoy judging them and pondering what they say. For example I might skim Art of the Deal to learn a little, laugh a little etc.

 

[David T]

Authors Are Employing ‘Sensitivity Readers’ To Problematic-Proof Their Novels

The Article is on authors employing sensitive readers to proof read their texts. It's all about the money baby!! I DIDN'T mean you were a baby or even remotely implying you were. I was using it as a euphemism in a pseudo quote from Jerry McGuire. So sorry.

 

[SomeRandom]

Authors Are Employing ‘Sensitivity Readers’ To Problematic-Proof Their Novels

The Article is on authors employing sensitive readers to proof read their texts. It's all about the money baby!! I DIDN'T mean you were a baby or even remotely implying you were. I was using it as a euphemism in a pseudo quote from Jerry McGuire. So sorry.

That brings me to my next question I've been thinking about. (I'm not trying to start a debate on PC or anything like that.)
What happens when we remove the teeth from art?
I agree with the ideals of not wanting to offend or hurt anyone. And I agree that freedom of speech will not absolve anyone of the consequences of their expressed views.
But in art, are we cleaning it too much? Will this affect the critical analysis skills of future generations?
By highlighting "problematic" things in fiction, could we be stifling discussion?

 

[dust1n]

"It seems as though, especially among socially sensitive younger readers, it's a lot harder to reconcile enjoying a book or author who is problematic."

Ignoring the fact that books and ideas, and the preceding vocal narratives have always been controversial and likely always will be, I'd say, compared to the majority of history where supporting or suggesting a treasonous or heretical thing could have the consequence of one's death, that we live a comfortable age where people have a good ability to tackle and consider incredibly complex thoughts, even discomforting ones. People's taste also have the potential to broaden over time as well, as opposed to just narrow.

 

[SomeRandom]

"It seems as though, especially among socially sensitive younger readers, it's a lot harder to reconcile enjoying a book or author who is problematic."

Ignoring the fact that books and ideas, and the preceding vocal narratives have always been controversial and likely always will be, I'd say, compared to the majority of history where supporting or suggesting a treasonous or heretical thing could have the consequence of one's death, that we live a comfortable age where people have a good ability to tackle and consider incredibly complex thoughts, even discomforting ones. People's taste also have the potential to broaden over time as well, as opposed to just narrow.

Of course we are relatively safer than other gens with controversial ideas and opinions. At least in the Western world.
It just surprises me that the "Helen Lovejoys" are often kids themselves. I know the pendulum thing will affect that, but a lot of my peers don't seem to like uncomfortable fiction. Even as they age and "grow up."
Of course this is not the end of the world as we know it or anything like that.
But more and more authors are caving to demands for what essentially amounts to walking on eggshells. Will this cause a rebellion or soften fiction, even if it's only in a single category?
And what does that do for debate? Especially these types of topics.
For example I know more about Carve the Mark (a book I'm not even interested in reading) through word of mouth decrying its alleged racism than I do actual diverse and inclusive books, because people just say how "progressive" it is and leave it at that.
The discussions about these issues already seems so skewed. The harsh knee jerk reactions are being seen as more and more favourable to actual discourse. At least it sometimes seems that way.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Experience, and assuming a corresponding level of wisdom, entails an ability to not only see and appreciate, nuance, but also perspective which acknowledges context and truths not limited by current social and cultural views. Seeing things in black and white, and being absolute has always been a part of being young. I think that the difference now may be that the voice of youth is not only over represented, but also more unselfconscious of its naivete. More experienced people would be well served to remember what being young is like and not be overly critical of their simplistic and reactive views, as that is a natural phase of being sure by knowing some things, but not enough to know that you know very little.

 

[David T]

That brings me to my next question I've been thinking about. (I'm not trying to start a debate on PC or anything like that.)
What happens when we remove the teeth from art?
I agree with the ideals of not wanting to offend or hurt anyone. And I agree that freedom of speech will not absolve anyone of the consequences of their expressed views.
But in art, are we cleaning it too much? Will this affect the critical analysis skills of future generations?
By highlighting "problematic" things in fiction, could we be stifling discussion?

First awesome thread. Art is a tricky thing. My whole thing is really about art, and nature. So from that perspective I dont think you can literally De tooth so to speak and attempting to is only reflective of the individual (s) who try. In regards to critical analysis I don't think it actually exists in culture and in particular at the university level. My degree is in a very real sense was the first degree of the modern university theology. A group of people, who built a religion around a book, with experts each generation informing the community what it wrote. If critical analysis actually did exist at the university there would be but one church. So critical analysis as we understand it is purely subjective. I referred to my degree and the church. Critical analysis might interpret that in a particular way as to how I understand which would be probably 99%wrong. I tend to be hyper critical of literacy. And oh boy, now that is the really the sacred cow in contemporary universities. I actually don't think the university or education is capable of teaching critical thinking. It may be the reason that the platonists opted for a free university as opposed to a pay university. Btw being critical of the very fabric into which we communicate and find out sense of individual and collective reality is critical thinking. Artists challenge this all the time and we can see it in movies a lot. Good luck stopping them. The more we try as a culture is only reflective of the culture. You can kill the heretic artist hang him up on a cross, but you can't kill his spirit, it reincarnates each in each and every generation and he is always the heritic to the larger culture even hiding That truth at times in the open, and That is art. Oh I got a bit poetic sorry!!!

 

[dust1n]

Of course we are relatively safer than other gens with controversial ideas and opinions. At least in the Western world.
It just surprises me that the "Helen Lovejoys" are often kids themselves. I know the pendulum thing will affect that, but a lot of my peers don't seem to like uncomfortable fiction. Even as they age and "grow up."
Of course this is not the end of the world as we know it or anything like that.
But more and more authors are caving to demands for what essentially amounts to walking on eggshells. Will this cause a rebellion or soften fiction, even if it's only in a single category?

I guess I just have difficulty to seeing it, because most people I know don't read anyways; the ones that do are still reading a few books a year so, you know, as they have time. I've only been friends with a couple of avid readers... 100+ books a year sort of stuff. I've never personally witnessed someone pick up a book, start reading it, not really enjoy the subject matte or overarching narrative, and be like, "I simply don't like the argument put worth and I refuse to read or understand further." How do I distinguish between myself simply not liking a book and thus not wanting to finish it from myself purposefully avoiding a book I don't like because I don't like the topics?

And what does that do for debate? Especially these types of topics.

Well, if people are avoiding the debate entirely, I'd say it narrows the debate. But this "Debate" is sort of abstraction about what collectively people are doing and talking about at a given time. I don't feel too confident claiming what it is or what will happen to it.

For example I know more about Carve the Mark (a book I'm not even interested in reading) through word of mouth decrying its alleged racism than I do actual diverse and inclusive books, because people just say how "progressive" it is and leave it at that.

I don't really do book clubs, but if I ever do, I certainly hope we are beyond teen-based sci-fi novels. I haven't heard of it, but I wouldn't read it solely just because it doesn't seem like my cup of tea.

I'm still reading Suicide Note by Mitchell Heisenberg, and it's a literal 1900 page suicide note filled with all kinds of uncomfortable things, from insane to rational. But, it's just more of my taste I guess. I need extra stimulating literature.

The discussions about these issues already seems so skewed. The harsh knee jerk reactions are being seen as more and more favourable to actual discourse. At least it sometimes seems that way.

Well, that might a symptom of a much larger anti-intellectualism that plagues the nation.