commentary invited
Oct. 19th, 2007 10:28 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
swan_towerNormally I wouldn't single out a commenter on this journal for public (and communal) rebuttal. But in this case, the comment was posted anonymously. Now, maybe the person in question just doesn't have an LJ account, and didn't realize that it's generally appreciated for such people to sign their comments. On the other hand, maybe not.
The comment was posted in response to my issues with The Lies of Locke Lamora. Here it is, in its entirety.
So: either an honest person who didn't realize they should sign their comment, or someone hiding behind anonymity because of the substance of said comment. Either way, I don't much care who it was, because I'm not looking to attack the person behind the words; I'm looking to attack the words themselves. Because I think this statement is very wrong-headed.
Here's why I'm posting it: I know how I feel about the statement, but I'm having trouble articulating why. The thoughts are there; I just can't catch them and make them settle down as words. (Not efficiently. I could maunder inefficiently on about the essentializing notion of Man Stories and Women Stories and the popular straw-man of "just to be PC." But nobody wants to read four pages of me trying to get to the point.) So I turn to you, my mighty LJ readers, to help me out on this one. I know there are any number of you who could go to town on the fallacies of that comment, and I invite you to do so.
That way, the next time this comes up, I'll be able to articulate my arguments against it more concisely than I can right now.
The comment was posted in response to my issues with The Lies of Locke Lamora. Here it is, in its entirety.
It seems to me that a lot of books these days throw in a mixed cast for the hell of it, to be PC, to try to please everybody. Some stories are just Man Stories; some are just Women Stories. Could you imagine a random female having been thrown into, say, DELIVERANCE? The whole idea is silly. I say you should write a story as it is--if it's male adventure, then that's what it is; throwing in a woman won't make it different or better.
So: either an honest person who didn't realize they should sign their comment, or someone hiding behind anonymity because of the substance of said comment. Either way, I don't much care who it was, because I'm not looking to attack the person behind the words; I'm looking to attack the words themselves. Because I think this statement is very wrong-headed.
Here's why I'm posting it: I know how I feel about the statement, but I'm having trouble articulating why. The thoughts are there; I just can't catch them and make them settle down as words. (Not efficiently. I could maunder inefficiently on about the essentializing notion of Man Stories and Women Stories and the popular straw-man of "just to be PC." But nobody wants to read four pages of me trying to get to the point.) So I turn to you, my mighty LJ readers, to help me out on this one. I know there are any number of you who could go to town on the fallacies of that comment, and I invite you to do so.
That way, the next time this comes up, I'll be able to articulate my arguments against it more concisely than I can right now.
