'How to be a fan of problematic things'

[Annie Roonie]

For the gamers out there, there's a series known as "Extra Credits" which is basically Moff's Law as applied to video games, particularly this episode "Art is Not the Opposite of Fun": http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode...pposite-of-fun

One thing that is noted throughout the series is that games aren't really given the same consideration as books or film (after all, it's "just a game").



Speaking of Avatar, I'll confess I liked the movie because I thought the banshee were cool and the Na'vi are, well, blue-skinned smurfy cat space Pagans (or Native Americans, I suppose would be more accurate) but there are lots of people who (rightly) call it out for being "Mighty Whitey" and ableist (although, as a disabled person myself, I would trade my legs for Na'vi legs, not being able to walk very far, stand for more than fifteen minutes, and having crappy balance SUCKS) but I'll still go see the sequel (even though I was like: "A trilogy? Really?!")

The Moff's law and the video were excellent explanations I am so going to use in class. Invariably when we dip into a novel, we are accused of ruining it. These is PERFECT to answer that. And the kids will love it! Score!

Ty Sunflower and you for the links!

[Lokabrenna]

The Moff's law and the video were excellent explanations I am so going to use in class. Invariably when we dip into a novel, we are accused of ruining it. These is PERFECT to answer that. And the kids will love it! Score!

Ty Sunflower and you for the links!

No problem!

Although, it's ironic, because I remember being in high school and declaring that English class RUINED LITERATURE FOREVER due to over-analysis. Now I tend not to analyze things until after I've finished consuming them. The first time through is "immerse yourself in the story/world, think about what it's saying about the state of humanity later (unless it's GLARINGLY OBVIOUS)".

[LiminalAuggie]

Although, it's ironic, because I remember being in high school and declaring that English class RUINED LITERATURE FOREVER due to over-analysis. Now I tend not to analyze things until after I've finished consuming them. The first time through is "immerse yourself in the story/world, think about what it's saying about the state of humanity later (unless it's GLARINGLY OBVIOUS)".

I think I had that exact same experience with something like...Brave New World or something, it was just RUINED FOREVER GOSH and I developed this deep divide between things read for school and things read for fun and how I thought about them.

It wasn't until a college Lit class where we really really went in depth with I think Eliot's "The Waste Land" that I realized how beautiful and revelatory some things can become when you sit down and think about them really critically.
Eliot is one of my problematic loves. Yes there's some anti-Semitism going on, but I definitely find it easier to acknowledge that because it's from a different time. The themes in the work are a symptom of the problem in society, not the cause.

It's much more guilt-inducing in modern stuff, though.

[Melamphoros]

Eliot is one of my problematic loves. Yes there's some anti-Semitism going on, but I definitely find it easier to acknowledge that because it's from a different time. The themes in the work are a symptom of the problem in society, not the cause.

It's much more guilt-inducing in modern stuff, though.

This is pretty much where I stand on the issue. Writers like Eliot, Heinlein, and Lovecraft were very much products of their times. Heck, I sometimes like to look at problematic-due-to-age things as time capsules into the time they were written.

Modern writers (i.e., Card) really don't have much of an excuse in my book.

[Annie Roonie]

Now I tend not to analyze things until after I've finished consuming them. The first time through is "immerse yourself in the story/world, think about what it's saying about the state of humanity later (unless it's GLARINGLY OBVIOUS)".

I completely agree. Independent digestion is crucial and I loathed when I was forced fed a teacher's perspective instead of being able to find my own unless, like you said, there is something glaringly obvious that needs to be pointed out.

This idea of accepting that there will be problematic aspects to works, but leaving them be until after a digestion of the material is very appealing. Very frequently critical thinking translates to "remember what somebody else thought for the test" instead of actually involving some independent criticism and examining it.

I feel less guilty about simply reading a story out loud with classes these last few days rather than stopping every few paragraphs to gawk at it.

[cigfran]

This is pretty much where I stand on the issue. Writers like Eliot, Heinlein, and Lovecraft were very much products of their times. Heck, I sometimes like to look at problematic-due-to-age things as time capsules into the time they were written.

Modern writers (i.e., Card) really don't have much of an excuse in my book.

By way of contrast, everything I've read so far by or about China Mieville makes me really dislike him. But I'm about to read my first actual Mieville novel (Kraken), and whether or not I read any more will be completely determined by my feelings about the fiction itself.

I have many "problematic" tastes. Like Randall, I have an affection for pulp adventure of a certain period. I enjoy a wide range of cinema, including militant fantasy. I appreciate the art of reprobates, bastards and chauvinists. And I'm constantly reminded that my preferences in music expose me to severe moral hazard.

But I trust myself. I know my mind and my heart. I test myself constantly, and some days I'm just not a good person and others I make a small breakthrough and become a little better.

I wish that some social evangelists (referring to no one here) would recognize that very human process and have some faith in it.

[LiminalAuggie]

By way of contrast, everything I've read so far by or about China Mieville makes me really dislike him. But I'm about to read my first actual Mieville novel (Kraken), and whether or not I read any more will be completely determined by my feelings about the fiction itself.

Would you mind if I ask what you've heard? I have a few friends IRL who rave about Mieville's work and I didn't know there was anything potentially problematic about him. I've tried getting into Kraken and Un Lun Dun but so far the writing seems to defy my ability to press on and get immersed in the story.

[cigfran]

Would you mind if I ask what you've heard? I have a few friends IRL who rave about Mieville's work and I didn't know there was anything potentially problematic about him. I've tried getting into Kraken and Un Lun Dun but so far the writing seems to defy my ability to press on and get immersed in the story.

I brought up Mieville specifically by way of contrast. I'm sure that most people wouldn't find him "problematic" at all... I certainly don't, in the sense being used here.

I find him pretentious and sanctimonious, and his fans sycophantic. But I will read his work and consider it on its own merits.

[Nachtigall]

Would you mind if I ask what you've heard? I have a few friends IRL who rave about Mieville's work and I didn't know there was anything potentially problematic about him. I've tried getting into Kraken and Un Lun Dun but so far the writing seems to defy my ability to press on and get immersed in the story.

He is a Marxist sympathizer, I believe. Which, of course, wouldn't even be "problematic" for many of his readers...

[Jabberwocky]

He is a Marxist sympathizer, I believe. Which, of course, wouldn't even be "problematic" for many of his readers...

More than that, he's a Trotskyist activist- he's active in the Socialist Workers Party (Confusingly for US posters, an entirely different tradition than the US SWP. The US equivalent is the International Socialist Organization I believe).

I'm sympathetic to Marx myself (although anti Leninist), so this may simply be a case of me not noticing, but I think that Mieville's politics tend to be more background to his work than to feel like they're being thrust upon you. That said, I'm not keen on his writing, simply because I find it way too slow and his prose overly dense.

Cigfran's point about artist's personalities and public persona is an interesting one though. I tend to not worry about that too much, simply because it would stop me enjoying so much stuff. I'm pretty sure a good deal of my music collection is created by people who weren't very nice people to be around. Syd Barrett for one. (While I'm not a big Beatles fan myself, it's certainly the case for anyone who likes John Lennon as a musician). Ditto many of my comics, although apparently Neil Gaiman is lovely, which is nice.

Going back to the OP, I do like a fair bit of stuff where the art itself does contain problematic elements. Certainly, that's the case with a good deal of the computer games I play (Tropico is incredibly sexist and arguably makes light of humans right abuses, Grand Theft Auto has too many problems to mention etc.) And with a lot of the music I listen to. I listen to a lot of punk (including some oi), some rap and a bit of metal. Lyrically, a significant proportion of those bands are sexist and a smaller number are overtly homophobic as well. There are limits for me- I wouldn't listen to someone like Skrewdriver. On top of that, you have the bands I don't find problematic ideologically but some people certainly would- Oi Polloi and Blaggers ITA both overtly advocate violence against the far right.

Really, I think this is the kind of decision everyone ends up making for themselves in terms of limits etc.