Two things converged in my head recently.
I didn’t comment about the whole Game of Thrones rape kerfuffle last month. Mostly because I don’t watch Game of Thrones. But the controversy about it seemed (to me) to spring from a deep conflict between the contemporary ethos of sexual morality and a fiction portraying a world that does not share that ethos. (In my mind, such arguments tend to sound similar to those who wish to ban or censor Huckleberry Finn because Twain wrote “nigger” too much.) I won’t argue the particulars here when others have done so much better and are familiar with the source material.
But today I read a post about children’s author Enid Blyton that referenced a post about gender roles in SF by John C. Wright (in addition to Eric Raymond’s post about “Literary Status Envy,” which is outside the point of this post, but of interest to understand the current puppyish Hugo divisions.)
Now Mr. Wright is very Catholic. He is also persona non grata in much of fandom for reasons that should be clear upon reading the above link, reasons largely similar to the reasons many folks in fandom despise Orson Scott Card. Both are shunned and derided because they do not share the same ethos of sexual morality as those doing the shunning. Some might argue that this is not why they dislike Mr. Card, or Mr. Wright. They’d argue that their dislike stems from the “hate” ascribed to such views. That, I think, is simply rebranding the source of the disagreement, since those who call the views of Wright and Card hateful would feel likewise about any moral framework that defined homosexuality as wrong.
Mr. Wright has a religious view of sexual morality that historically was developed around procreation and preservation of the family unit. The exemplar sin here would be homosexuality, the epitome of the non-procreative sexual act.
Those that dislike Mr. Wright have a secular view of sexual morality that is based on mutual consent. The exemplar sin here would be rape, the epitome of the non-consensual sexual act.
Circling back to Game of Thrones then. The current secular western view of sexual morality is a relatively recent invention. If one writes about different times and places, the sexual mores of that time and place will not duplicate those of the current era. It strikes me then that those who cannot understand John C. Wright’s point of view on these matters (not share them, mind you, simply understand them) will not be able to convincingly imagine a society significantly different then the one they happen to inhabit. It also strikes me that those responding so viscerally to the Game of Thrones might be having the same internal moral panic that John C. Wright experienced watching Legend of Koraa
4 Comments
John C Wright · June 3, 2015 at 11:55 am
Sir, your remarks are wise and sound up until the last sentence. I wonder how anyone can describe the umbrage of a man who feels betrayed when writers he had trusted, whose work he admired and even loved, turned that work stealthily and hurriedly into propaganda aimed at his children via a children’s cartoon — I wonder how this umbrage at this treason can be described as suffering ‘moral panic.’ That wording indicates a collision or confusion of the moral sense.
If I may borrow the term you use above, you perhaps are rebranding the state of mind you ascribe to me. Like those who pretend hatred is the only possible motive to support the virtue of self control of the sexual passions, you pretend my mental state was other than what I testify it to be, but voice no reason for doubting the testimony.
S Andrew Swann · June 3, 2015 at 1:52 pm
Recognition that someone can have a consistent and rational moral view does not imply one’s agreement on first principles. Given my own world-view is based on fundamentally libertarian principles, rather than religious ones, our views of sexual morality by necessity must differ. So that last line is an admission that the author does have, in fact, a point of view. It is also intended to provoke at least some thought by making a comparison that either side might find discomforting.
Heather Barton · June 3, 2015 at 12:52 pm
Well said. But a note…. part of the loud vocalization of these groups against rape, racism & discrimination is the notion that if we say nothing it is condoned. Do they really misunderstand it is another world with other ethics or are they over-worried that silence on the subject means a backslide into previous intolerances. The truly difficult task of those who scream for acceptance for all is to include those who do not accept others into that “all” grouping. To demand no one judge me I must also demand it of myself, including NOT judging those who are judging me. So they salve that dilemma by focusing on a “just making sure you know I still think its bad” action.
S Andrew Swann · June 3, 2015 at 2:11 pm
That is, of course, the justification for censure by all whom would cast moral condemnation upon art: allowing the depiction of sin is tacit acceptance of sin.
(And I do mean censure, which is acceptable practice in a pluralistic society, rather than censor, which is problematic at best.)
Comments are closed.