From: nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Nancy Lebovitz)
Subject: Re: Political Correctness + Sci-fi
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 21:31:07 GMT

In article <1992Dec27.204813.21098@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mlabossi@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Michael C LaBossiere) writes:
>
> Some brief notes on PC (politically correct, not personal computer):
>     1) The political views of an author are irrelevant to the merit of the 
>work. To believe otherwise is to fall prey to the ad hominem fallacy (the 
>fallacy is that x is false or bad, because x was said or written by A and A has
>a bad character, incorrect views, etc.). Of course, an authors political views 
>can color his/her/its work.

Merit's a pretty relative term. I read for pleasure, and if an author's 
preconceptions are such as to spoil a book's being any fun for me, then
I don't much care whether the book was otherwise good, though if I'm
describing what I think of the book, I'll try to mention both it's good
and bad points. For instance, I tend to dislike the way Zelazny writes
about women, but he does gaudiness really well. (I respect gaudiness--I
just won't tolerate his stuff about women any more.)

The political views of the author  _as_ _expressed_ _in_ _the_ _work_
are relevent to the merit of the work, in the sense that if the book
is, say, has most of its events taking place in a government and the
author's ideas of how a government works are thoroughly wrong-headed,
then the author's politics will make it a worse book.

I assume that if you feel this way, then there are at least a few books
whose politics you disagree with that you still think are excellent.

>     2) Literature should be judged on its literary merits and not on the basis
>on how well it conforms to the political or moral ideology of the day. This 
>applies whether the oppressing ideology is the excessive moralizing of the 
>right wing or the excessive moralizing of the left wing. Arguments can be 
>provided for this position, upon request.

I'd like to see your arguments, especially if they include any sort of 
definition of literary merit.

>     3) Sci-fi, as a genre, tends to be very non-PC. Complaining that Sci-Fi is
>non-PC is like complaining that war novels are not pacifistic enough or that 
>romance novels contain to much romance.

Could you be a little more specific about what you mean by PC and why you
think that SF is naturally non-PC? 

>     4) the PC dogma is internally inconsistent and oppressive, even by its own
>lights, and hence morally sensible individuals will not employ its tenets to 
>judge others.

Again, I do think that you need to be more specific. 

I admit I thought it was hilarious when I heard about a Hispanic man refusing
to take orders from a woman police officer because obeying her would be
contrary to his culture. Wheee!

>     5) If one must judge works on their PCness, one should be fair and 
>consider the time period in which the author was writing in. After all, an 
>author that would seem to be a stodgy old conservative today may well have been
>a radical in his/her/its time.

When I look at books for politics, I don't think it's so much to decide 
whether their author was a good person (though I can get quite angry at
authors), as to get some idea of what concepts I might be picking up by
osmosis.

I do grant the one of the marks of a good writer is to be at least as
interested in people at least qua characters) as ideology.

Nancy Lebovitz
calligraphic button catalogue available by email  (170K)
nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu

They got the library at Alexandria--they're not getting mine