Patrick Ness has a problem.
What’s his problem, you ask? Why, being a white man who must shut the fuck up occasionally. We can all appreciate and sympathize with that, can’t we?
No? Didn’t think so.
Lest you claim I’m making shit up or taking shit out of context, here is Ness’ risible first paragraph.
I had intended to open this polemic with some version of this true story: earlier this summer, I was having dinner with friends and our conversation turned to the role of the veil in Islam, starting with how to explain a burkha to a son raised to believe that men and women are equal, before leading into the veil’s potential as a form of oppression against women.
Imagine this man’s skull. Imagine how very, very thick it must be to make him this terrible, this oblivious, this self-absorbed. Or maybe it’s just a lifetime of insulation, of being mollycoddled, through no merit, charm or intelligence of his own–but through the simple fact that he’s white, male, and a westerner. He’s never been said no to all his life. He’s lived however many years of it a spoiled little shit. His opinions are welcomed, valued, validated in all venues (such as, aha, The Guardian–which I incidentally find difficult to distinguish from The Daily Mail).
Then suddenly he’s told (or imagines that he might be told) that no, his opinions aren’t welcome all the time–that he might consider shutting the fuck up once in a while on issues of which he knows fuck-all about (and there are a great many of those. Like the hijab/burka, for example). That must be so tough. Oh, poor baby. Let me just hug him better with a machine gun.
Part of my hesitation is of course my own genuine impulse not to be in any way racist, a truly held wish to accommodate cultures and views not my own. There is also my desire not to have this polemic be just another tediously calculated controversy, like the ones Martin Amis seems to pull out every time he’s got a new paperback on the way.
But if I’m honest, isn’t part of it also fear? Fear of having whatever I’d say about the Islamic veil – no matter how thoughtfully I’d said it – misappropriated, misquoted or badly paraphrased in the inevitable tweeting that’s going on right this very second? Fear of having my words turned into something they aren’t, and having to suffer the consequences.
How do I put it. Ah, let a Malaysian Muslim man deal with this one.
And here, and here, and there.
Despite Ness’ flailing, weepy hand-wringing over the horrible things that might just happen to him if he dares to utter a word about “the Islamic veil,” the reality is that Ness got this published on The Guardian which, though of little objective worth, happens to be a national newspaper (admittedly, in a white supremacist nation). Now The Guardian will publish any dreck, but the fact that Ness is a commercially viable author who just happens to be white, male, and a US citizen might just have helped things along.
The only censorship exists in Ness’ bizarro dimension not unlike Victoria Foyt’s dystopia, where the white western man is a protected class, surrounded on all sides by uppity minorities who just don’t want him to speak his mind, and if he does speak it–well, we’re just going to misquote him, take him out of context, distort his words and otherwise damage his reputation. He has genuine impulses not to be racist, you know? Uppity minorities just shouldn’t be so harsh on him. Give him a fucking break, eh?
What I’ve done, though, by being so careful, by even perhaps keeping silent on this or any issue, is disallowed myself a real voice in the conversation. I who consider myself a brave writer, one unafraid to push boundaries, to speak truth to power, I who believe these things about myself as much as any of you, I have in this instance self-censored. In a polemic about self-censorship.
Oh you big hero you. Again, how do you become this self-absorbed? How do you dress up this image of yourself as a brave, brave writer–a fearless Mighty Whitey, here to save Muslim women from the “veil”! A man with Real Opinions! A man who’d tell it like it is, totes, if only the world hadn’t gone mad with political correctness.
Fifty years later, she’s still right. I could easily have given an impassioned 15-minute talk about China’s censorship of the internet, for example. Or how book-banning in schools remains a persistent problem in the US, even in 2012. I could have spoken of the hate tweets to Tom Daley or Louise Mensch or Fabrice Muamba. Or the disgrace of the Pussy Riot trial in Moscow. Or Great Britain’s own problems with censorship: its outdated libel laws, its alarming flair for super-injunctions, its plans for secret courts, and on and on.
Censorship has not left the world. It only finds new avenues.
[...]
Because this is the kind of risk you run by saying something like that opinion about abortion. We here would almost certainly argue for your right to hold it, but in this sectarian, connected world, we’d then maybe stop listening to you. In a way, you’d be suddenly free of censorship because you’d be able to say whatever you like, you’d just be saying it to fewer and fewer people. And importantly, you’d be left out of conversations you’d like to be having.
No, you insipid, ridiculous fungal infection. What you’re doing is that you wish you could talk about things you don’t understand, things you have no experience with, things that don’t affect you. You want to do all that and be taken seriously, because your opinion–Mighty Whitey! White Man’s Burden!–is meant to be sacrosanct.
There’s no censorship involved, Patrick Ness. What there is though is consequences. People will call you out. People will think less of you. Your “opinions on other topics be ignored” but that’s not because you’re some brave messiah; it’s because your opinions–such as your example about anti-abortion (and shut the fuck up about that, you miserable subhuman–you don’t have a uterus!)–may be shitty. They will earn scorn not necessarily due to any petty schoolyard politics (they might, but given all your examples thus far…) but because your opinions expose you as a terrible human being.
For example, if you’re a writer who wants to affect the world and engage with a large audience, would you risk being marginalised in the US by talking about your atheism? Would you risk the same marginalisation in England by talking about your devout Christianity?
Mr Ness, are you a leading member of the /r/atheism subreddit by any chance? Because nobody takes anyone seriously who claims that being an atheist equals marginalization. And “the same marginalization” in the UK by being Christian? So what happens to the Muslims; do you think they’re put on a pedestal, Mr Martyr?
I like to think of myself as a fearless writer, and I’m sure that you all do, too. But are we really challenging ourselves enough to keep that true?
You aren’t fearless, Patrick Ness. What you are is an asshole who believes every single one of his opinion is righteous, heroic, and each ought to be aired to all and sundry–without anyone being mean about it, or being mean about you. You’re a man-child. An overgrown man-child in acute need of a two-by-four between the eyes. No worries; his skull’s thick enough to take it.
Getting back to Save the Pearls for a bit. I’ll still probably put up a second part of the review, but the text is so tremendously dull it’s just difficult. What interests me more is what’s happening around it–the mass outrage from the SFF genre, of which has been summarized here and here. Awesome, no?
But where were all these people when The Wind-Up Girl won awards? How about when Dan Simmons’ Song of Kali showed up in Gollancz’s Fantasy Masterworks? When will we get around to talking about Mark Lawrence’s Very Magical Nuban?
This isn’t saying every single person shredding Victoria Foyt (deservedly) voted for Bacigalupi or contributed to the reprinting of Song of Kali; nor do I believe Vandermeer or Jemisin specifically had anything to do with Bacigalupi winning or Simmons continuing to have a career, if you think I’m implying that or singling them out by linking them (in which case: nah, they’re just good synopses). But the reaction to Foyt has been so widespread that everyone’s talking about it; even Elizabeth Moon, mistress of unapologetic Islamophobia, thought it was racist! So much outrage! So many people speaking up! The irony of a genre that has praised Bacigalupi and Simmons (and Elizabeth Moon being right there in the chorus of horrified indignation) now breaking into hives at Victoria Foyt is so rank it smells a little like hypocrisy.
And Mark Lawrence? Here’s some passages from Prince of Thorns concerning the Nuban:
The Nuban once told me about a tribe in Nuba that ate the heart and the brains of their enemies. They thought it gave them their foes’ strength and cunning. I never saw the Nuban do it, but he didn’t dismiss the idea.
[...]
The black man’s naked chest glistened below the glowing point. Ugly burns marked his ribs, red flesh erupting like new-ploughed furrows. I could smell the sweet stench of roasted meat.
“He’s very black,” I said.
“He’s a Nuban is what he is,” Berrec said, scowling. He gave the poker a critical look and returned it to the fire.[...]
The Nuban said nothing, the blackness of his face impenetrable in the dying light.
[...]
The Nuban set old Gomsty on his feet. He looked at me, his face too black to read.
[...]
Fat Burlow came up on my right, on my left the Nuban with his teeth so white in that soot-black face.
The Nuban is always “the Nuban”; despite the protagonist/serial rapist Jorg having known him for four years he never learns the Nuban’s name–or even thinks to ask. The Nuban of course sacrifices himself for Jorg, who’s lily-white, like any good house servant: Samwise to Jorg’s Frodo, but with more racism. Who writes this and believes it’s not racist? Who reads this and thinks, “Oh, that’s fine, Mark Lawrence is a swell old chap, tally grimdark ho!”
You might say the Foyt fracas blew up because Weird Tales legitimized her–but Bacigalupi was legitimized by Nightshade Books, then several genre awards. Dan Simmons is legitimized by a number of publishers, and again awards–and mark me, Song of Kali is easily just as racist as Save the Pearls if not more (I’ll dig up quotes from that one day, but on a “racist maggot” scale it’s actually more offensive than The Wind-Up Girl although the set-up does bear some similarity). Mark Lawrence is printed by Harper Voyager. It’s safe to say that more people have read Bacigalupi, Simmons, and Lawrence than they’ve read Foyt. While it’s not necessary to have excoriated Bacigalupi, Simmons, or Lawrence to be able to excoriate Foyt, genre as a whole–rather than particular individuals (many of whom have found all four whites offensive and said so)–has been remarkably quiet about those three dudes. Well, okay, maybe not about Dan Simmons, though I don’t think I’ve seen him taken to task for Song of Kali.
I’ll also note that the few people defending Foyt also cite censorship as the great evil bringing her down, a line of argument that comes up again and again whenever anyone gets up on a “PC gone mad!” horse–and the same line Ness is peddling in The Guardian. Westerners believe “censorship” means “people calling me the fuck out because I said fucking awful shit,” equating simple disapproval and backlash to fatwas (see also: Richard Morgan, who used that word in all sincerity). Americans have this thing about “free speech” as a mythical unicorn that enables them to say whatever they like whenever/wherever they want, without fear of reprisal because oh my god what are you, a communist dictator? Do you want to immigrate to China?! Censorship! Everything is censorship! My opinion is right and sacred and if you breathe that I’m ignorant or offensive–if you think my adherence to anti-abortion ideals is disgusting–why, you’re CENSORING ME!!!!
Reality is a little more like this:
I could go on at some length about the entitlement of westerners and the genital itch that drives them to have an opinion on everything–loud, proud, obnoxious opinions–but that’s another punching bag for another day.
Fake Lori Selke (@FakeLoriSelke)
/ August 23, 2012” I who consider myself a brave writer, one unafraid to push boundaries, to speak truth to power…”
Patrick, darling, the problem is, you see, *you are the power*.
acrackedmoon
/ August 23, 2012RIGHT? Fuck. Him and others like him.
saajanpatel
/ August 23, 2012There was an interesting article in the Guardian (heh, sorry) that I was mulling over, about nationalism masked as human rights concern:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/21/human-rights-critics-russia-ecuador
Next Friday
/ August 23, 2012It’s not really a secret that “public support” for various human rights acts in non-western countries is following its own agenda. It’s obvious when you look at it as an insider. It’s also obvious how and when the interference is making things worse, because the issue gets aligned along the existing axis of confrontation.
Silvia Moreno-Garcia (@silviamg)
/ August 23, 2012I think ‘Pearls’ is easier to criticize than ‘Windup’ because its flaws are just so obvious. So you hear more stuff from fandom. ‘Windup’ on the other hand, some people may consider it a genuine masterpiece. I also think people are more angry about this because they are seeing it as the dismantling of their metaphorical home. WT has been around for a long time and they consider it ‘their’ magazine.
Overall, I wish at this point we could talk about the kind of publications and fiction we would ideally like to see nowadays in the Weird circuit, rather than demand a public apology from the WT editor. Stuff like some of the bizarre books put out by Chomu Press deserve to be better known! Expanded Horizons and assorted other venues should get more eyeballs than they do. Should we be pushing to change an editor’s mindset or praise the venues that have that mindset? I dunno.
Avery Shy
/ August 23, 2012Good post. Sad facts.
It’s a widely-held belief in Western society (can’t speak for other places) that the mere act of forming and expressing an opinion is innately good. It’s gotten to the point where people would rather form an ill-informed opinion than no opinion at all, and everyone feels the need to have theirs listened to.
( ^ This post is ironic, because I am a Westerner expressing an opinion!)
Wong Chia Chi
/ August 24, 2012Not that Foyt considered this, but in her book the black people are called coals right? Well considering the current global dependence ( in industrialized societies) upon hyrdocarbons like coal its no a bad way to describe africans and POC function in the global world. Especially since the wealth of Western Capitalist countries was built and is currently maintained on extracting natural resources from our countries.
Not that she was intelligent enough to analyze it this way. I was just thinking about the fact that coal is the backbone of industrialization. Without it, there is no industrialization and development. This is a problem that societies will have to confront in the next century, probably sooner since rates of consumption will inevitably rise.In America black people are the backbone of society. We built this country, farmed all the food that people ate, for nothing. The sucess of Capitalism came at the cost of our freedom and agency.And indeed most PoC, without it, capitalism’s growth would not have been possible, at least in such a short span of time, and so quickly.
apgeeksout
/ August 24, 2012I think ACM touched on that in her longer post on Foyt – in the sort of future where humanity’s been driven underground, the coal that permits survival would/should be valued more highly than purely decorative gemstones. In the hands of a more deft, more thoughtful, less racist writer, that bit of naming could have been some really elegant commentary on exactly the history you’re pointing out.
meditatingontherain
/ August 25, 2012If Foyt had even thought of that, there’s still no need to call the white people “Pearls”. Plenty of white/light things that aren’t valuable or considered beautiful- chalk, clouds, sand, fishbellies, paper, bleach, bones.
acrackedmoon
/ August 26, 2012Bird shit is white too! But since Foyt’s really a white supremacist…
Jayaprakash (@jayaprakash_s)
/ August 24, 2012I’ve got a reasonably scathing review of Song Of Kali somewhere. I’ll dig it up and link you to it one of these days.
acrackedmoon
/ August 24, 2012That would be fantastic.
Next Friday
/ August 24, 2012And I really cannot stand this outcry about “banned books” and “censorship” in America. Last time I checked – “Twilight” was on that list.
For people who actually lived with censorship, who had to hide or destroy their books, who spent nights copying them by hand, who had to decide who to trust every time they were going to say something (because if your judgement was wrong you’d actually get a non-imaginary jail time), it’s damn insulting.
R.M. Jones (@Rmjonesc13)
/ August 24, 2012To be fair, “The Absolutely True Diaries of a Part Time Indian” is on that list too. And many books that “promote homosexuality”. Quality doesn’t matter, someone just needs to find it offensive. Personally, I think that the communities themselves should handle it, and I don’t really get the need for a national movement about banned books. As usually they are banned in relatively small community schools where the moral police rule. Most people think it’s a big problem here because of the belief that things may progress: that information, no matter how much you disagree with it, should be free or slippery slopes can happen and all that. No one wants to get to the point where what you described happens here, that’s why a lot of people are passionate about it.
If you are talking about crying about it happening in other countries, then ignore all of the above.
Next Friday
/ August 25, 2012First of all, I explicitly said “in America”. Second, to have a book absent from a school library is not banning it. School boards may control the libraries, they do not control you. The use of the word ‘banned’ towards books that are widely available implies that they already have the power to control and in addition erases the original meaning of the word.
meditatingontherain
/ August 25, 2012That big list that goes around every year is “Banned and *Challenged*” books- many of them never left the library shelves, some parents just complained about them and the school or library said “Nope, it stays”.
rmjones13
/ August 26, 2012First of all, you said “I cannot stand this outcry of “banned” books in America”. Which, structure wise, can be taken two ways- the way I assumed and answered to was you referring to Banned books being in America, vs. the other reading which could have been referring to the outcry in America. If you had said “I cannot stand this outcry about books that are banned in America”, then that is not as ambiquous and I wouldn’t have covered my butt allowing for differing interpretations. (…what? I am a TEFL teacher, ok? I want to make sure I’m clear about stuff and reading things correctly! >.>)
Also, I believe you and I are operating under vastly different impressions on what the word “Banned” means. In America (at least how I have heard it used, could be regional differences) it does not have any connotations with consequences or the amount of banning involved. It is used from everything to clothing to drugs and firearms to language within a certain range. It actually sticks pretty close to one of the first dictionary definitions (because I looked it up to make sure my own understanding of the word wasn’t wack, ’cause I could be wrong) which is “Prohibited by decree”. In all the other definitions, there is no mention of consequences. And in some cases there was even a ban on bringing said book on campus, though this is admittedly rare and scattered (and I haven’t heard of one recently). So, the school prohibits (and even the word prohibits isn’t “gotten rid of entirely” necessarily) by decree certain books. Bam, the word banned applies.
Which is to say- No one I know uses the word ‘banned’ to mean the amount of horror a lot of people go through in other environments with harsher and ghastly bans. I worked in a library, so I heard a lot of talk about said banned books, and only rarely did I hear people compare it to bans in other areas outside of when people asked why it was important, and then previously mentioned slippery slope metaphor was used.
Now, we could discuss how the word ‘banned’ should be used, but considering it’s common usage I’m not sure if that’s all that important especially since it’s not like people are acting as if a book being banned from a school is just as bad as a book being banned from a country on pain of death. I have never heard someone use that argument.
acrackedmoon
/ August 27, 2012The problem is that Americans are overwrought and precious about “banning,” such that their use of the word is meaningless–similar to how straight white dudes like to use “oppression” to mean “someone called me out once for being a racist, misogynistic piece of shit” or how Americans in general whine that their “freedom of speech” is impinged at the slightest sign of disapproval. So, meaningless.
Next Friday
/ August 27, 2012@rmjones13
The result of these fucked up definitions is that ‘banning’ in particular has become a positive marketing term that caters to the people who want to feel good about “fighting oppression” in a safe way and results in increased Amazon sales. And meanwhile, people who are silenced, remain where they are – silenced.
katsedia
/ August 24, 2012Yes, exactly. People talk about censorship without knowing what it was. As a child of samizdat, I’m offended.
As for why people cry out against Foyt: it’s based in the US, so people recognize racism. For books based elsewhere, Western readers are often tone-deaf, and if the text aligns with their expectations, they perceive it as “authentic” (now, if I could ban a word, that would be the one.)
Alasdair Murray
/ August 24, 2012“The Guardian–which I incidentally find difficult to distinguish from The Daily Mail.”
Tee hee. Sorry for not commenting on the rest of this (awesome) post, but I particularly liked that observation. The Guardian and the Mail are great rivals and love to trash each other, but that just emphasises how similar they are. Rather like the American political parties, one of them makes a big show of being *slightly* less sexist and racist than the other, but they’re really just two sides of the same coin.
Darius Wilkins
/ August 24, 2012Guardian is coming to naught these days…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/19/dismay-joshua-trevino-guardian?newsfeed=true
That’s what American progressives have been onto, when it comes to The Guardian. Now remember, that rag is the sort of thing proper Hermione Grangers read. Safely liberal.
At least the shitstorm with Trevino got him dropped, but it took awhile…
R.M. Jones (@Rmjonesc13)
/ August 24, 2012Ugh, the amount of whining over Freedom of Speech is horrific lately by white people in America (saying this as one, but I seem to be the one of the few among my acquaintances delivering a smack over the head). It really blew up with the Chick-Fil-A thing, because apparently criticism and boycotting a complete douche who speaks fondly of executing homosexuals in History and is giving gobs of cash to groups that lobby against gay rights is infringing on his freedom of speech and his right to spend money however he wants. Wut. (I had stopped going over a year ago, as it isn’t news except that he finally said it in a interview).
It’s just, shut up. As white people our main job is A) listening and B) Delivering smacks over the head to our fellow white people. And maybe, SOMETIMES AND RARELY, to pipe up if it is a problem that directly involves us and our relation with oppressed groups, but even then about 20% of the time. If you are from the opressing group and you are speaking up more than that, shut up until you can learn to play nice. (And the only reason I say that much is because dialogue does need to happen, the problem is that many groups in power take ‘dialogue’ to mean ‘dominate the conversation to prove I’m right’ which is a no.) As a White American Atheist Male, you are not affected and do not get to have a say in what Muslim Women wear. HOW HARD IS THIS?
angelrenoir
/ August 25, 2012Why would anyone be marginalized for being Christian in the UK? Isn’t Christianity is still the majority religion there? And the USA is trying to being all progressive and shit, so I don’t think there’s going to be any persecution for being atheist unless you are purposely proudly proclaiming atheism to a bunch of very conservative uptight church-goer. Countless people are atheists in my school. Patrick Ness, try using a better example for your attention-calling bawls.
And HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA censorship. REALLY, Mr Ness? Someone getting mad at you is not censorship. People calling you a racist or misogynistic bastard is not censorship.
Anninyn (@gingerkytten)
/ August 25, 2012Ahahahahahaha Christians marginalised in the UK hahahahahahahah the national religion is Church of England it’s in the name. I’ve not heard of many churches or cathedrals being graffitied with foul threats or covered in pigs blood. A lot of newspaper space is given to the actions of one of the hate groups primarily made up of muslims here but everyone accepts the BNP and EDL exist. It’s all ‘Oh, of course, it’s disgusting, buuut’ and the but is always ‘immigrants black people jobs JOBS JOBS crime not being racist but’. Of course you’re being racist, you were brought up a racist because this country still hangs onto it’s imperial history with incredible nostalgia. ‘Oh life was so much BETTER then, when women had no vote, the poor starved to death on the streets and non-white people knew their place’.
Hahahahah white people not having an opinion in this country we are 95% white and where I live is 99% white. Seriously, white people (including myself) having all the opinions here.
Jesus fuck. At the very least I know to shut up when people who actually have the experience of a certain way of life are talking. I kind of assume I know more about being a woman than a man does and so I also assume a muslim knows more about being a muslim than I do.
But, of course, he’s a white man! His opinions on everything are of more importance because he’s a white man!
mssunlight
/ August 25, 2012Yeah, it’s the functional opposite of censorship. It’s more freedom of speech rather than less. I would suggest to Mr. Ness that if his opinions are so indefinsible that he’s frightened to voice them, maybe it’s the opinions that are the problem, not other people.
Alasdair Murray
/ August 25, 2012^angelrenoir: yeah, that was a terrible example. I find most Britons are relatively tolerant of religious differences, and certainly of Christianity. Yeah, there are a few people who’ll go out of their way to criticise and offend Christians, but even that’s not persecution. The one religion that many people *do* have issues with is Islam… but funnily enough, Ness seems to be on the side of the haters on that one. I guess he has no problem with Muslims being marginalised. (I do like that comment about his son – doesn’t it basically read ‘how do I raise him to be as bigoted as I am?’)
As for atheists in America, I’ve heard of some prejudice there, but it doesn’t appear to be remotely as serious as racism, or sexism, or homophobia, or… just about anything really. Nobody gets killed for being an atheist; if atheists in America even qualify as an oppressed group, they’re surely the *least* oppressed of all of them. But for many young, white, rich, straight, male Americans, it’s the only minority membership they can claim, so they’re damn well going to make a big deal of it! (Bonus points if they combine it with ‘anti-geek prejudice’ as well!)
^mssunlight: ” I would suggest to Mr. Ness that if his opinions are so indefinsible that he’s frightened to voice them, maybe it’s the opinions that are the problem, not other people.”
Yes. This.
Inverarity
/ August 26, 2012For the most part, atheists aren’t “oppressed” in the US. If you live in a small red state town, it can be uncomfortable being an atheist, but certainly no more so than if you follow any non-Christian religion. I’m an atheist and somewhat vocal about it, so there are times when I am annoyed by the way dialogs about atheism go, and certainly there are a lot of evangelicals and fundamentalists here who would like to make atheists second-class citizens. But I would not compare the occasional irritation I experience to racism or sexism or some other form of actual oppression. One of the main reasons I eschew atheist “communities” is they tend to be full of whiney white dudes (with a disturbingly high number of libertarians, aka political sociopaths) who appear to be atheists mostly because it makes them feel clever and gives them an “oppression” of their own they can claim.
sologdin
/ September 25, 2012genital itch that drives them to have an opinion on everything
curious phrasing. is it truly to be maintained that cogitation is a sexually transmitted disease?