Hilarious Self-Censorship by Karen Miller

[jordan179]

Karen Miller, who to my astonishment I found was actually a published fantasy writer, penned the following astonishing comment, as karenmiller, (http://jaylake.livejournal.com/1692287.html?view=15231359#t15231359) onto lakeshore's journal.

... the thing for us

Comments

[stryck]

On the one hand, I understand respecting other people's boundaries. I admire those who do so.

On the other hand, anybody who uses terms like "cultural appropriation", "unseemly insensitivity", and "distasteful priviledge" all in the same sentence is probably full of hot air. It sounds less like she feels like she ought to respect their boundaries because it's the right thing to do and more that other people ought to notice how good she is at respecting "native people" boundaries.

[stryck]

I think that a writer has a moral obligation to himself and his readers to be accurate and logical -- which is to say, to handle real-world matters, including the culture and mythology of a people, with as much truth as possible; and to ensure that his invented matters are logically-consistent with each other and to whatever real-world matters he refers. For instance, if I wrote a story involving Greek mythology, and I had Athena be the mother of Zeus, with no even hint as to why I was going against the actual legends in which she is his daughter, this would be inaccurate. Likewise, if I decided that the Olympians could be hurt by spitballs but were invulnerable to nuclear explosions, with no even hint as to why, this would be illogical

[jordan179]

This was me. Jordan.

[stryck]

If a large group of people, or a culturally powerful person within such a group, were to ask me not to write about them, I'd give it some serious consideration. Of course, if their reason is "because we said so", then it won't be very long consideration. If I don't have a particular reason to write about something and was politely asked not to, I wouldn't mind not writing about it.

Of course, few groups are so cohesive as to have somebody who can speak for the whole of them the way that, say, the Pope can speak for Catholics. This also presumes that everybody involved is polite and courteous. Here in the real world, these are rarely the case. So, the polite thing to do as a writer is to get the facts right and try not to slander a whole people with careless prose.

And as others have pointed out, writers who are oh-so-conscientious about Australian natives would bristle and react as if insulted if the Pope were to write them a kind letter asking for them to please not write about Catholics for a while.

[melvin_udall]

Such people are already enslaved in their own minds.

Indeed.

I might write her and tell her that as a man I find it offensive that she might have male characters, given that she has never lived as a man.

But then I realize that as a white male I am likely the lowest form of life in the mind of someone like her, and I have no rights being the evil oppressing oppressor I am.

[jordan179]

Why not post onto the other entry? AFAIK it's open to all.

[melvin_udall]

By all means have at.

I'm not going to change that kind of mind.

[x_eleven]

I considered it, but it's a total waste of time trying to talk sense to a moonbat.

[kokorognosis]

Of course, if I as a Christian were to ask that writers not write dreck about Christ, they'd laugh in my face.

[jordan179]

Indeed. Why does this mysterious right against cultural appropriation only protect "other" cultures?

[banner]

Because they are incompetent idiots and morons who are not capable of dealing with today's modern and complex world as they are little more than ignorant savages. And so by protecting them from the evil white men of the world, we show them that not only are we benevolent and 'good' people, but that we are more powerful and better than them.

In short: We're gods, you're shit, worship us or else.

[kalance]

Because "other cultures" tend to mean "minority cultures", which makes them the underdog. And, as we all know, in writing, the underdog is always the "good guy". Doesn't matter who or what they represent, they're the underdog, so they're oppressed and need to be protected because they are far more noble than the majority.

Didn't you know?

[polaris93]

Her attitude is also that of a prissy adolescent. A great many liberals -- and I'd call her one -- are simply people who never grew up and are never likely to. What is responsible for the fact that so many people today who, in terms of their ability to earn a living and generally function well on a day-to-day basis otherwise are so developmentally backward when it comes to assessing the real world and the rights and responsibilities of adults?

Re: Drive-by comment

[jordan179]

I would call it nasty and rude -- if done maliciously. But a writer has the moral right to write about whatever he or she chooses to write. It is arrogant and silly for people of certain cultures to claim that the ideas of their culture may be touched by no foreign hands.

Re: Drive-by comment

[banner]

I don't know, Muslims get away with it all the time.

Of course they have a nasty habit of killing you if you don't listen to them, and for the left, that's a good enough reason to leave them alone.