![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Oh, Really?
Mar. 9th, 2015 09:57 amFirst, my report on Wizard World comic con is up. The tl;dr version: I went to a wine convention, where all they talked about and consumed was wine. I was shocked to find they did not offer a reward for Beer of the Year.
Second, over at another site, I got in an argument about whether the new novel Karen Memory was "social justice warrior shit." At the time, I hadn't read it. I have, it's good, and a review will be forthcoming. In any event, the novel is set in a alternate-history / steampunk 1880s in a city that's a mashup of Seattle and Portland. The narrator is a prostitute, who works in a high-end bordello, there's a (real) black US Marshal, and some of the characters have alternative sexual preferences.
Now, at first glance, none of this screams social justice. Bordellos in the 19th century were like gas stations in the 21st - ubiquitous, and catering to every social and economic stratum. The inhabitants of said bordellos perforce had to fend for themselves, largely because society as a whole wasn't of a mind to help. Moreover, homosexuality was not invented in the 1950s. In short, no problem and (socially, at least) historically accurate.
But, by the standards of those I was arguing with, this was full of "social justice." Any story in which non-straight characters, or characters with unconventional moralities (aka "soiled doves" in the story's vernacular) was unacceptable. In the comment section to the post, people were complaining that gay characters were "thrust" upon them in other media merely by the character's gayness being identified. On this blog, I was told that because the author had picked a black US Marshal as a character she was somehow in the wrong.
In short, what the various critics were seeking was not historical accuracy, but rather historical inaccuracy. They wanted history "cleaned up" to support their preconceived ideas. Sometimes we don't get what we want.
Second, over at another site, I got in an argument about whether the new novel Karen Memory was "social justice warrior shit." At the time, I hadn't read it. I have, it's good, and a review will be forthcoming. In any event, the novel is set in a alternate-history / steampunk 1880s in a city that's a mashup of Seattle and Portland. The narrator is a prostitute, who works in a high-end bordello, there's a (real) black US Marshal, and some of the characters have alternative sexual preferences.
Now, at first glance, none of this screams social justice. Bordellos in the 19th century were like gas stations in the 21st - ubiquitous, and catering to every social and economic stratum. The inhabitants of said bordellos perforce had to fend for themselves, largely because society as a whole wasn't of a mind to help. Moreover, homosexuality was not invented in the 1950s. In short, no problem and (socially, at least) historically accurate.
But, by the standards of those I was arguing with, this was full of "social justice." Any story in which non-straight characters, or characters with unconventional moralities (aka "soiled doves" in the story's vernacular) was unacceptable. In the comment section to the post, people were complaining that gay characters were "thrust" upon them in other media merely by the character's gayness being identified. On this blog, I was told that because the author had picked a black US Marshal as a character she was somehow in the wrong.
In short, what the various critics were seeking was not historical accuracy, but rather historical inaccuracy. They wanted history "cleaned up" to support their preconceived ideas. Sometimes we don't get what we want.
