So PC it Hurts

[hippoiathanatoi]

I already wrote some about the complaints regarding supposed sexism and racism in Game of Thrones, but with more and more commentary along those lines cropping up -- not the least from, alas, overly PC commentators in Sweden -- I find I have more to get off my chest.

Take this little gem, for example. Of course, its in Swedish, which makes it a

Comments

[terraprime]

I get really annoyed with the argument that because its fantasy, you can toss the gender-roles of whatever period that inspired you out the window. Or rather, not that you can but that you _should_, that is the part that annoys me. Because if you don't do it, you're supporting old-fashioned gender roles and you are a bad person. I think fantasy is great for turning the tables on expectations if that is what you want to do, but a lot of them commentators seem to feel that what you write is only valid if you do that.

Just so.

So, no, I don't see a need for asking that question if its clear that is not what the author wanted to explore. Or at the very least, if you ask the question, you should be satisfied if the answer is "that was not what I wanted to do".

Let me quibble more.

There are many books, fantasy or otherwise, that do regurgitate the gender biases. In their thoughtless regurgitation, they do serve to reinforce those conceptions. The absence of challenges within the story to those gender biases is indeed a form of approval, even if it's born out of lack of awareness of the issue. So, I do think that it is legitimate for readers who are sensitized to that type of work to examine each book with that question in mind: is the depiction of sexist culture and practice in this work a thoughtful placement, or is it a thoughtless parroting of our reality? If it is a thoughtful placement, then what is the ostensible purpose?

I don't think one has to set out to write a whole book addressing gender issues, like Melanie Rawn's Sunrunner series, to tackle some aspects of the sexism in our past history. Just as Martin's story is not an entire thesis on classism, the overall story still touches on the issue in meaningful and poignant ways, and classism remains a detectable theme in the series. A good series is by default quite complex, and amongst this complex weave of plots and characters, some of them can serve as pieces aimed at tackling sexism and gender roles. This is not to say that authors should craft characters explicitly to address these issues, but that when they do craft female characters that their actions, reactions, and decisions should end up exposing the underlying sexism of the world setting.

In ASOIAF, Martin did include such elements. The most notable ones being Daenerys, Brienne and Asha. He has also done a wonderful job in setting up Arya and Sansa as foibles to each other. We also see women's path to power in various ways, in Cat, Cercei, Ashara, Dany, and Oleanna. So in the series, we do examine gender issues and confront the biases through the characters. In this, I agree strongly with you that the critics that call the book series sexist have rather missed the mark. Now, if they're talking about just 3 episodes of the TV show, then they may be excused. The full series (so far) is filled with confrontations and challenges to the sexism that exist in this fictional world.

[hippoiathanatoi]

I'll continue to quibble that a lack of explicit markers that you are aware of gender biases should be interpreted as either thoughtless regurgitation or a form of approval. It may just as well signal a decision not place signposts at such issues, something which personally turns me off on books in most cases. Simply writing good, fully-realized characters of either gender is generally enough for me to determine that an author does not place one gender over the other.

But, I am admittedly, pretty anti-feminist when it comes to the brand of feminism I generally encounter from my generation. I see a lot of commentators -- in particular Swedish women of my age -- who simply refuse to accept anything that doesn't clearly acknowledge the superiority of their PC world-view and who simply seem incapable of reading something without their feminist glasses on.

I'll note I am, for the most part, just as annoyed by any other -ism being applied to everything someone reads. This is why I don't get along very well with my Literature studies; I enjoy analyzing how texts are constructed and how they work, but I dislike the idea of specific literary theories being applied across the board. Try as I might, I can't see the validity of doing a feminist reading or a marxist reading of something that wasn't written to explore feminism or marxism. For me, its like deciding you are going to cook with a hammer because that's the tool you've learnt and dammit, it can be used for any task.

[terraprime]

I get what you're saying.

I have 2 responses to that.

1. For some, the filter is not something that we can turn off. It's like that background noise. Once you notice it, it's hard NOT to notice it any more. For some people, myself included, once I begin to realize what the telltale signs for sexism and racism and heterocentrism look like, it's hard not to see it. In part, it is because these things are so pervasive that in order to perceive and catalog them, you have to constantly pinch yourself to stop yourself from falling into complacency. And that becomes reflexive and second-nature, like blinking. So when you say that you don't want to read a text with a marxist or a feminist analysis, to some of us, we often can't read a text without seeing signs of classism and sexism. For the most part, I just notice them and move on, unless there's a reason to draw attention to it or discuss it.

And there's no right or wrong about it, either way. It's a simple difference that some people can compartmentalize better than others.

2. I know Linda and i disagree on this, and perhaps you and I disagree on this topic, as well, and that's the role of the reader's experience in interpreting text and other artworks. I'm of the view that author's intent is only valid in dissecting the motivation of the author. When it comes to interpretation and analysis, the reader's take is more germane. The way that I read Renly and Loras' relationship, for instance, is going to be different than a heterosexual man's reading of the same, for the most part, because I bring with me my own experience of trying to hide a relationship. The short descriptions that Martin devoted to that relationship evokes a whole sector of my life experience that a large sector of the heterosexual population does not have. Similarly, when Jordan described the carnage of at Dumais Well, it hit military people a lot harder than it does me. To me, those are just words. Descriptive words, for sure, but I pretty much just register as "ok, lots of dead people, got it." To those who experienced combat, their experience is triggered by those descriptions and it adds to their reading. They recall the smell of charred flesh, the view of mass graves, etc.

So, given that our individual life experience colors how we read the text, I don't think it's out of bounds to analyze the text through lenses that focus on aspects of those life experience, e.g. racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, etc.

[hippoiathanatoi]

1) I get what you're saying about the filters. I've got my own, no doubt. But a lot of commentators don't make the effort to indicate the subjective nature of their opinions. They push them as gospel or at least they appear to do so.

Mind you, I am the person whose biggest flaw -- well, one of them, anyway -- when writing any papers is that I constantly hedge my bets rather than say things with absolute conviction.

2) While I agree that each reader will have a unique experience of a text and will see things in a very specific light, I am not sure the experience of a particular reader is very relevant for the purpose of discussing the merits of a text. Its relevant if you're studying and comparing reader responses in particular, but if you're trying to look at just the text (and its intertexts), I prefer finding a more neutral ground. So, I guess I do lean towards placing authorial intent over reader response when it comes to interpreting and analysing a text. Not a fan of Barthes, I admit.