So here’s a question for you. How much leeway do you allow books, especially those from earlier times, when they are sexist, racist, classist, condescendingly colonial, etc? It’s been rattling around my brain a bit since I finished Foundation. Given Asimov wrote the stories in the 1940s, I can forgive him a little for his lack of inclusiveness when it comes to women. But only a little because part of me thinks he should have known better. And when I read H. Rider Haggard’s She, the whole thing was so absurd and the book so terrible on so many fronts that I could only laugh. But the misogyny and anti-immigrant sentiments in Dracula horrified me in a way that I could not find funny. I could laugh off Haggard, get away with being annoyed at Asimov, but Stoker made me angry. I could probably pinpoint why if I sat and thought about it for awhile but my brain is tired and doesn’t want to expend that much effort at the moment.
Instead, it just knows that there are some books I can forgive their moral transgressions and some I cannot. Do you find that to be the case too? And if so, do you know why you can forgive some but not others?
I’m not talking about the authors themselves. If I had to like the authors in order to enjoy the books then there would be a lot fewer books on my TBR pile. I try to keep an author’s personal leanings, whether they be grade-A jerk or heavenly angel, out of my opinions of their books. Of course if an author whose books I like turns out to be a really nice person that makes me happy, but it is not a requirement.
I like to think when it comes to books I can be generous and understanding, but truth be told, I sometimes can’t make the effort. I’d like to say there is a definite line and if the book crosses it then it’s all over between us. But it’s actually a line in the sand that keeps shifting. Where the line ends up depends on my mood, what kind of story it is (adventure, romance, mystery, drama), when it was written, whether the issues (sexism, racism, etc) appear to be deliberate or unconscious (don’t ask me how to tell, I don’t know, but I still make the judgment), how much a part of the story it is (a page, a scene, a chapter, the whole book), and probably a few other things that aren’t coming to me at the moment. It’s probably not entirely fair to change the standards all the time but I also don’t think it’s fair to have one blanket standard either. It’s case-by-case.
My brain is running out of gas so I will leave my thoughts there for now. I’d really love to hear your thoughts on the matter.
i’ve thought a little about this, and ended the argument with myself, settling on just ignoring a big part of it. it just cannot be helped (with books from th past) and sometimes over analyzing that aspect can mar the experience.
for ex., on the last two months i read and reviewed a few books with jewish characters or jewish references:
– in The 39 Steps the basis of the plot is a world wide anarchist scheme by “the jews” (in general) in the air of the “elders of zion” myth. i did not take it very seriously, it was a cheap low quality book at the time of its release… but while looking up more reviews on it, i run into one hosted on a webpage with strong nazi content… that was harsh!
– in Miss Pettigrew lives for a Day, miss Pettigrew dislikes one of Delysia LaFosse’s suitors specifically because “he is part jew somewhere in his ancestry”, and “it is better to look for a partner in ones own nationality”. probably that was quite coherent to the English character of the 1930s, maybe long after that as well… today a line like that would distort th entire light and cute tone of the rest of the book, it would set a different mood, and that’s why i chose to just ignore it.
– then there are Edith Wharton’s books, in The Custom of the Country and House of Mirth there are plain stereotypical characters of “the economic jew”, one that is successfull in bussiness and/or a merchant of some sort. in this case there is no direct negative personal flaws, but these characters are usually specifically described as outcasts. here it is not that the author was racist or discriminatory necessarily, probably it is an accurate description of high society’s views at the time.
LikeLike
Jaie, you’re right. With older books we can’t be so very harsh because there will very likely always be something that’s a problem as your good examples reveal. There would be nothing to read if we couldn’t offer at least some forgiveness. I suspect people of the future will be having the very same conversations about books written during our own time.
LikeLike
Humph. Funnily enough, I’ve just written about my literary prejudices…..
LikeLike
Di, what timing we have! 😀
LikeLike
Here it is: http://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2015/02/literary-prejudices.html
What are your literary prejudices?
LikeLike
At the risk of sounding shallow, the issues you raise in your opening paragraph are, generally speaking, not much considered in my reading. I want to read a well written story, with good plot, reasonably likeable characters. It isn’t life. It’s a novel. So I don’t worry too much about whether it comports with my philosophical ideals. I guess I just don’t get that worked up over those issues. I just switch reading material.
LikeLike
Grad, I don’t think you sound shallow at all. Your blood pressure and teeth/jaw are probably better off than mine! 🙂
LikeLike
Great post! I know you made the the distinction between author and book, but I still feel like this lends itself to Wayne Booth’s ethical criticism. It sounds like the ethos of Asimov might be easier to live with through the extended amount of time it takes to finish a novel than the ethos of Stoker. I’ve noticed that I tend to instinctively split books between those I respond to as a critic and those I respond to more as a follower or a devotee. When encountering problematic elements, I tend to want to keep myself more separate from the text.
LikeLike
Christopher, thanks! Yes, I hear you on wanting to keep yourself more separate from the text when encountering problematic elements. I can keep reading, and I can appreciate the text on an intellectual level but the emotional engagement becomes diminished (unless it’s a negative emotional reaction like with Stoker!)
LikeLike
I can’t draw a hard-and-fast line either. Some kinds of offensiveness annoy me more than others–sometimes it depends on how significant it is to the plot and how much it feels like a conscious prejudice. Which, as you say, is difficult to pin down, but I think certain kinds of characterizations, for example, are really embedded in particular cultures, and writers might not be conscious of how they’re parroting terrible stereotypes.
But, to be honest, I’ll forgive more if a book is good. I suppose if it were a really skillfully done piece of propaganda (like Birth of a Nation), I wouldn’t be able to stomach it, but quality covers up a lot for me. Something over-the-top silly, like She, probably wouldn’t bother me much either.
My mood makes a difference, too. I went through a period last year where I simply could not stomach yet another story centered on a brilliant but beloved jackass. Ordinarily, I really enjoy these kinds of characters (think Sherlock, Dr. Who, House), but I just hit a limit and couldn’t even stomach stories that I’d previously enjoyed. It was just a phase, though. Sometimes books are like that, too.
I’m pretty comfortable with keeping it case-by-case. Art is too complex for hard-and-fast rules.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Teresa, it is easier to forgive a book if it is good. Though like you I think my mood plays into it more than anything. Lately I’ve been more sensitive than usual in regards to how women are portrayed and treated and my threshhold for forgiveness on that front is very low. But, yeah, I’m comfortable with case-by-case. I think it is important to understand why I might let a similar issue slide in one book but not in another.
LikeLike
If I have a line, it’s not been crossed that I can remember. A lot of times I don’t notice racism, sexism, etc. in something I’m reading because I’m used to immersing myself in the historical perspective, and my specialty is the 18th century. I do remember a sense of being less immersed when I read some of Samuel Johnson’s pronouncements about women.
LikeLike
Jeanne, that’s very interesting. It seems because of your background you kind of expect certain things and so you are not surprised or bothered by them when they turn up.
LikeLike
I waver on this one and it seems to depend on my mood but I general I try to put the book in the context of the time and place the author was writing from. If I don’t look at it this way, I end up eliminating some good books that have things to teach me. If nothing else they serve as a stark reminder of how things were in the past and how far or not so far we have come.
LikeLiked by 1 person
boarding, placing a book in context is definitely important. Even when I do that though I sometimes can’t forgive it. But it keeps things interesting!
LikeLike
IN SO FAR AS I HAVE SEEN THE MOVIE VERSION OF AYN RAND’S “ATLAS SHRUGGED”, I MUST SAY THAT THE MOVIE IS GOOD! I HAVE YET TO READ THE BOOK, BUT I LOOK FORWARD TO IT. HAVE YOU READ THE STORY AND DO YOU SEE ANY OF THE THINGS SHE IS PORTRAYING IN OUR SOCIETY TODAY?
LikeLike
waddlebluhealer, I have read one Rand book and I can’t remember which one it was, it may have been Atlas Shrugged. I did not like it at all. I do recall thinking the writing was terrible and its philosophy cut throat and unrealistic. Ultra-conservatives love Rand’s books but I don’t think they would actually like the world very much if that sort of philosophy predominated.
LikeLike
“I don’t think they would actually like the world very much if that sort of philosophy predominated” YES, well said Stefanie. They certainly wouldn’t like it if they weren’t the lucky ones at the top. I’ve read Fountainhead. Was glad to have read it but the philosophy is antithetical to my world view. Those who believe in philosophies like this have, I think, a fundamental lack of understanding about the complexity of opportunity. They seem to think anyone can make it if they work hard, but the world is not a level playing field. (At least, this is as I recollect the philosophy from having read it over 20 years ago!)
LikeLike
Thanks WG! People who think a Rand kind of world would be great also tend to think they themselves would be among the those on the top of the pyramid. It’s quite the assumption. And you are right, the world is not a level playing field, we see evidence of that pretty much every day.
LikeLike
It is quite an assumption. Reminds me of a friend who said she wished she lived in the days of maidens and castles, and I asked her how did she know she wouldn’t be a scullery maid. Her romantic imagination of course hadn’t given that idea a thought!
LikeLike
Heh, it’s nice to dream of being the princess but most of us women would end up being scullery maids, prostitutes, or short-lived peasants dying in childbirth!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, this is an issue I think about a lot too and fear also that I’m sometimes inconsistent. However, I do try to see it in the context of the times AND/OR in terms of what I think the author her/him self is saying. I would be uncomfortable for example if a contemporary writer had characters who were racist AND it felt like the author wanted us to agree with that/those characters. But, if it was written in a different time when certain values were more commonly held, then I’d be more flexible but I would be disappointed, because, rightly or wrongly, I like to think authors (novelists) are the thinkers, the ones who hold us up to ourselves and say “is this who we are?”
At my Jane Austen group last weekend we were talking about Emma. Emma, as you know, is quite a snob. I asked the group whether they thought Austen was agreeing with Emma’s views about class and hierarchy? This resulted in a discussion about whether authors HAVE to have a view about their characters. We got, needless to say, quite bogged down!
LikeLike
I would not all the time but I think that readers have to be prepared to grapple with writers whose world views are perhaps very different. Celine and Hamsun were writers who were anti-Semitic and pro Nazi – it would be wrong to simply never read them or assume that they simply have no value.DH Lawrence… so often an appalling sexist and racist but again it would be a pity to just not read him. The Dracula/HP Lovecraft/Sapper type of objectionable book are easier to just ignore or to just not take too seriously.
LikeLike
Totally agree Ian … I agree that it would be wrong to avoid writers because I didn’t agree with them. It’s important to know how other people think, for a start. I do find it harder though to read writers from my own time/place who are out of step with our current social justice viewpoints, but writers from the past I can accept as being misguided, says she pompously, like others of their times. In other words, I can cope with historical misguidedness more than contemporary!!
LikeLike
Ian, you make a very good point. A book with views that are no longer acceptable shouldn’t be tossed in the trash, there is still much to learn from them and examining the different values of that time can be useful.
LikeLike
whisperinggums, oh you make a good point. I am quite fine with a contemporary author having a racist (other other offensive) character in the book if it is intended to make a bigger point and that character is not acting as a mouthpiece for for any kind of hateful views the author might have. As you say, different times, different values. I try to keep those in mind but it doesn’t always work!
Oh, Emma is such a snob. I didn’t realize it until my last reread. Would have loved to be a fly on the wall in your group discussion!
LikeLike
There’s still time to be here for volume 2 on 21 March … And I can almost guarantee lovely warm weather!
LikeLike
I’ll have to start getting my wings in shape 😉
LikeLike
I think you’d better — start by flapping around the garden and then build up to around your city and work out from there. You should make it by March 21!
LikeLiked by 1 person
The farther back in time a book was written, or the time in which it was set will see me giving it more leeway.
LikeLike
bybee, yes, I generally fell the same way.
LikeLike
The more I read–not just books, but journalism, opinion pieces, Twitter, online columnists, and so on–the more I start to notice prejudice in books, especially older ones, and yes, it does make me uncomfortable. Somewhere (I can’t recall where) I found a writer who said that she can simultaneously enjoy a book or piece of music or film while acknowledging that parts of it are problematic, and that the acknowledgment is the important thing. It’s a good point, but I think it rather depends on the subject matter and the extent to which those attitudes appear in the book. For instance, I expect a Dickens novel to have simpering, infantile heroines, so while I dislike that choice I can also pass over it and it doesn’t affect the reading experience too deeply, whereas the letters of Lord Chesterfield (which I just read) contain passages of such extraordinary, almost Lear-like vitriolic dismissal of female capabilities that it’s very difficult to read them without either wanting to laugh out loud or becoming angry. I think it is very important not to feel as though you have to defend your anger to anyone, though. If a book–even a classic and/or clearly well-written and intelligent book–makes you uncomfortable, there is nothing wrong with that, and no one should badger you into feeling that you are a philistine simply because you are tired of reading racist/anti-Semitic/misogynist/classist literature.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Elle, a very good point! Acknowledgment is important though sometimes I think it is not really enough and become concerned about perpetuating stereotypes, etc. It’s so hard! Like you say, it all rather depends on a bunch of different elements. I appreciate your comment’s conclusion: “If a book–even a classic and/or clearly well-written and intelligent book–makes you uncomfortable, there is nothing wrong with that, and no one should badger you into feeling that you are a philistine simply because you are tired of reading racist/anti-Semitic/misogynist/classist literature.” I agree 100%! 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have less tolerance for Racism/imperialism than I do for Sexism….
In reading books like Robinson Crusoe or the Tarzan books, I come away with the impression that it was an uncouncious bias of the author that “white people are better than the lowly native”. Even when the Tarzan books tell about the “proud African Natives” who were better suited to the Jungle than anyone else, it was still a case in point that Tarzan was better 1) because he knew his way through the jungle better than anyone and, more importantly 2) made his way through the western society much better than any Jungle dweller. .
Crusoe fails to recognise he would have been dead within a week without Friday, though could never consider that Friday was perhaps the better man (not only because he could do, but also because he shared)
As for Sexism, I’m reading a lot of books that could be reclassed as “feminism literature”. You know, those books that at the time were written to show how badly treated women were (no education even for higher class women, considered only for breeding and making the best marriage possible, having no property of her own, even her children, and occasionally her body)….and yet women survive and even break the bonds…
LikeLike
Nordie, racism/imperialism is definitely hard to stomach especially in the examples you provide. It always saddens me to think there was a time when that was perfectly normal and okay. I wonder what people 50 or 100 years from now will look back on us and wonder, how could they think that was fine?
LikeLike
The whole line-crossing thing is intriguing, isn’t it? For instance, I’m reading a book on creativity by Milaly Csikszentmihalyi (you have no idea how long it took me to type that) and it’s REALLY annoying me because it’s too science-oriented. The model for creativity he works with fits well with the way science is organised, but it doesn’t sit well at all in the arts – it becomes ridiculous in fact. But he keeps blathering away about how all this is scientifically proven and I am quite ready to smack him. It’s not that I’m against scientific methodology at all; it works extremely well for science. But it’s the authority with which he misplaces it, his smugness about misusing examples (you can see he’s got up my nose!). Which all makes me think about Jon Kabat-Zinn’s mantra that there’s the problem and there’s how you feel about it. I think a lot of sexist/racist viewpoints etc are very instructive – it’s good to wince and remember how things used to be. Might keep us a tiny bit more aware of our own prejudices. But when the wrong emotional tone comes into the representation, then I’m ready to spit fire, it seems!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Litlove, it is indeed. So interesting what you say about Csikszentmihalyi! His book is so very popular, I keep thinking I should read it sometime but now perhaps I will just let that go. I hope you write about the book, I want to know more of your thoughts on it! You’re right, sexist/racist, etc viewpoints can be instructive as can emotional tone both in the book and our reaction to it 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am not entirely consistent in my reactions. I admit that I recently stopped reading a book by Angela Thirkell because of the snobbishness of the central character, particularly in her treatment of another character who was both lower class and Irish. In other books I tolerate racist comments such in Oliver Twist where Fagin is often referred to as “the Jew”. As Teresa mentions above I will forgive a good book.
LikeLike
Ed, I think consistency in the matter is impossible for all sorts of reasons and some ugly slurs are easier to forgive than others. It sounds so wishy-washy to say it depends but it does! 🙂
LikeLike
I guess for me, I take it on a case by case basis, as you describe doing with your examples. Each person has to weigh a whole bunch of variables, including when the work was written, how offensive it is, whether there are redeeming qualities (such as excellent writing), and one’s own personal history. Different people care more or less about different things. So — yeah. No answers here 🙂
LikeLike
Rebecca, LOL, spoken like a true reader and literature professor! 😉
LikeLike
Funny, I was offended by “She” but excused it for being a product of its time and place due to it’s fun factor. Never even paid attention to anything in Dracula because I so love the scary parts. I think about this a lot, though. A psychologist could have a heyday with me. I will forgive any author writing pre-1970 for blatant sexism but not post-1990. However, I bristle, no matter when a book was written, at anti-Semitism and racism. I will forgive if I love the story, but it can be tough-going. For instance, all the references in Moby Dick to “savages” are a bit hard to take, despite how enjoyably philosophical the book is.
LikeLike
Emily, our very different reactions to She and Dracula are so interesting! I suppose it all depends on expectations and personal hot-button issues? I don’t bristle so much at the use of savages in Moby Dick mostly because of the relationship between Ishmael and Queequeg is so nicely done.
LikeLike
Wrote a reply but (sigh!) it seems to have disappeared into the mouth of the Internet Monster (who is neither a “broad” nor a “savage” nor a “Jew”, “Wop”, etc.). It is, however, an equal opportunity monster.
LikeLike
I think it got sent to the moderation holding queue 🙂
LikeLike
I just finished To Kill A Mockingbird, and the n-word was used in it several times. Did I stop reading? Nope. I read on and am glad that I did. I watched the movie as a teen and enjoyed it, but never had read the book. I found it just as, if not more, engaging and the inclusion of the n-word and her commentary and her character’s commentary on its use a nice addition to what wasn’t included in the movie, to my recollection. That said, I did read A Little House in The Big Woods within the last year as part of a Little House reading challenge. I didn’t continue because I found Laura’s parents and some of the other characters to be quite racist toward the Native Americans. I do know it was a different time and that wasn’t the focus of the story. However, for me, I chose not to continue to reading it. As always, Stephanie, good questions here and never the easy answers.
LikeLike
Bryan, given the subject of To Kill a Mockingbird that particular word is pretty easy to forgive. When it pops up in Huckleberry Finn though, it’s a bit harder as all the controversy over it in schools reveals. Ah the Little House books! I read them as a kid and was entirely oblivious. If I should reread them I am sure there’d be all sorts of things that nettle. Never an easy answer but always interesting to talk about!
LikeLike
What a fascinating post! Yes, I struggle too. And like everyone else, it often depends on the moment and my mood. We do all seem to react a little differently to different things too – like emily above I was irritated by ‘She’ much more than ‘Dracula’, I don’t know why, perhaps because the sexism and racism are more blatant?
I am more forgiving of sexism than racism. Is this because I’m female but white and therefore accustomed to the one more than the other, or able to forgive more on my account but less than on others’? (And by forgiving, I don’t mean that I give them some sort of absolution, I’m not qualified to do that, but I mean continue reading the book without being too affected.)
A few weeks ago I reread ‘Mary Poppins’. My copy belonged to my mother when she was a little girl. Thus it is from before P.L. Travers’ revision of the 1970s. One of the original chapters contains some quite jaw-dropping racial stereotypes. I had forgotten about this chapter, and when I reached it my jaw duly dropped. But they were also presented with a certain amount of charm and affection, so I felt forgiving. On the other hand, I recently read one of the Grimms’ tales, I forget which one, and the portrayal of a Jewish character in it was actually viciously done, and that I really couldn’t stomach, even factoring in the different times.
In conclusion to this lengthy ramble, I’m sorry but that’s what comes of writing intriguing posts Stefanie :), I think what I feel is the author’s attitude behind the opinion which dictates how I react to a great extent, by which I mean, is it an unreflecting attitude of the time, or is it actually inspired by hostility or contempt? But I’m not sure I’m consistent in this…
LikeLike
Helen, thanks! I loved your lengthy ramble so no apology needed! I agree with you that the author’s opinion behind the attitude makes a huge difference. It’s not always easy to tell what that is, but generally real contempt and hostility do show through. If the author is just part of his/her time we can’t really fault them for parroting cultural beliefs no matter how much we might wish authors were somehow above it all and better than their time. Sometimes it’s easier to forgive them than others. I cringe to think what people of the future will find so disagreeable about us.
LikeLike
Very thought provoking post! But I must admit that I belong to that part of the population for whom art in any form, writing, painting, music is intrinsic and deeply personal. Therefore I cannot quite accept the fact that an indecent human being could be a great artist. An indecent human being may be a brilliant engineer but where creativity, imagination and soul is at play, I do not think the lines between personal and professional can be so well drawn! Of course there are exceptions to everything, but when I look back, most of my greats have been extremely humanitarian in their personal lives! On a different tangent, the authors that you mention may be all the “ists” but I do not think they knew they were being “ists” when they wrote their works; they were simply writing per the conventions of their times. Maybe thats why they are not considered truly great because they lacked vision and sensitivity, but I think they believed that the ultimate purpose of the fiction, especially the kind they wrote was simply to entertain.
LikeLike
cirtnecce, that’s a very optimistic philosophy you have! There are plenty of artists of various stripes that have murdered people or beaten their wives or were genuine all around jerks that make me too cynical to be able agree with you. But I am always glad not everyone thinks the same! 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
We must not forget writers are creatures (trying to find a more gender neutral term) of their times. The ancient Greek city states, despite introducing western civilization and democracy, were male-dominated, ruled by men, voted by men only, slaves were everywhere. As a matter of fact, slavery was not abolished until the 19th C. and sadly still exists even today, and the women suffrage movement merely found its place in our human history within the last century. The Holocaust in Europe took place less than eighty years ago… you can see how ‘civilized’ we are as a species. Shakespeare has been criticized for his anti-semitic views in the character Shylock, and, Jane Austen for writing about Sir Thomas Bertram’s Antigua plantation in Mansfield Park, even Thomas Jefferson had kept slaves, hundreds of them. I think as modern day readers, we ought to read literature with an historic awareness and give the author and characters a leeway, give them some slack so to speak, not that we condone injustices, but that we see them from afar, with contemporary eyes, and look into their lives with non-judgemental detachment, always holding a view that even our ‘enlightenment’ has its limitations and we just might be ‘wrong’ in our views and practices when looked upon by future readers. Just sayin’.
LikeLike
Arti, you are so kind and moderate! A good, realistic approach you have 🙂
LikeLike
Oh good question… I think sometimes I try not to think about this so I will enjoy the story. I wonder though if it’s something that is so overt if I could get past it. Will have to give this more thought!
LikeLike
Iliana, thanks! I try to be forgiving but sometimes I just can’t and it’s not always for the same reasons.
LikeLike