I. D. Effin'. K.

[fiction_theory]

After reading Charles Tan's essay "No Foreigners Allowed", I'm left trying to figure out how anyone thinks it would be a positive if we were to encourage writers to pen more works like Heart of Darkness. In fact, I can't say how the world would be worse off without that particular book.

I have read it, as part of a literature class in high school

Comments

[fiction_theory]

(because that ALWAYS comes up, as if minority groups had the power to actually censor the privileged

But, but, making white writers feel uncomfortable is EXACTLY like oppression and censorship. Don't you know that reasonably, respectfully criticizing someone's works or views is exactly like banning books from libraries or burning them or *gasp* governments criminalizing certain works? They're the same thing! [/sarcasm]

I don't know why it's so necessary to hold on to problematic/privileged views

As one of those privileged people? The most terrifying thing, sometimes, is to imagine having to live/act the way your privilege makes other people live/act which is to say, as though you are not automatically more important. Because privilege teaches you that your very existence relies on being privileged and that if you don't have it, you won't exist anymore.

Which is not at all true, you'll actually be a LESS HARMFUL PERSON without privilege, but that's one of the other nifty tricks of privilege. Its logic is not everyone else's Earth logic.

like nice white women writers who won't give up the use of the word 'exotic' to describe people because...they are being complimentary! and want to be exotic themselves! or something

Spoken like people who have no idea what it actually feels like to be "exotic" or "Other" in reality and what that entails. If they gave it up? Then being white wouldn't be special, and thus, part of them wouldn't be special anymore, at least not more special than anyone else. I get beyond frustrated with my fellow white ladies doing that shit in books, describing anyone who is (or might even look a little) non-Causcasian as "exotic". Because it basically is a way to make sure that no matter how complimentary of that character or person they are, that they don't get uppity and forget the hierarchy. "Sure, you're good looking, but you're not white people good looking, not normal good looking" seems to be the message.

I didn't respond, but in my head I was wondering if the person didn't get the basic(?) concept of why Achebe might have a different reaction to HoD than two white people. (And why, regarding race/racism, I think I'd rather trust Achebe's words.)

I agree first off with not engaging there, doesn't sound like a place where productive conversation could happen or that would be worth the spoons that it would cost you.

I'm also with you in that I'd much rather trust and take Achebe's words as a more valid source than two white writers speaking about HoD. I think failing to understand (or acknowledge) why Achebe's response to HoD would be different and why it should be considered above certain others is more defensive flailing, if you ask me.

I really don't like the "I don't see anything wrong with it, thus nothing is wrong with it" fallacy that seems to crop up. It's bad, circular reasoning and it automatically centers the person arguing and derails the conversation so it's about them. And it's annoying as hell to deal with when you want to talk about something that's much larger than any one person.