Posted: Nov 23, 2019 10:11 am
by Thommo
That's interesting. I have to admit those weren't the details from the article I was drawing attention towards. Whilst your comments are most welcome I was only using it as an illustration of how he's clearly critical of an audience, not just genre conventions.

I can't say I found the account he presented there all that compelling, with what appears to be sleight of hand at the centre of both claims*. It is however quite possible his view on those two points is considerably more developed than could ever come across in a newspaper article covering several topics. Obviously there's no problem at all with diverging views here.

To a degree I think it's moot as far as I'm concerned, since what he does is legal, and I support that legality regardless of his view, and it would seem he has no particular difficulty finding a publisher. I'm not a victim of rape or racism who might have more direct experiences relating to the objections to use of particular imagery for entertainment.

*In particular I found it extremely hard to credit that he genuinely thinks objections to depicting gollywogs apply equally to any and all black characters:
And he rebutted the suggestion that it was “not the place of two white men to try to ‘reclaim’ a character like the golliwogg”, telling Ó Méalóid that this idea “would appear to be predicated upon an assumption that no author or artist should presume to use characters who are of a different race to themselves”.


I probably was also suspicious of comparing the moral weight of rape to that of murder but taking no account of the role of violence in conflict, which is central to narrative. It is, for example, difficult to imagine a story in which a hero uses rape to overcome an adversary while remaining a hero.