For the sake of my sanity, please attempt to understand that the term racist is a description, not specifically an insult. The term sexist is also a description, not specifically an insult. So is homophobic. These words may be used as an insult because just about any term may be turned into an insult (or not an insult). Take “liberal” or “conservative” for example. Both terms are both descriptions of worldview and both are insults. Certain terms have negative or positive connotations. That’s how language works.
When someone tells you that something seems racist, sexist, or homophobic, and tells you why, you should listen to them. Ideally, if you don’t understand you can get clarification. (This will not always be the case, understandably, not everyone is patient or has time. Also, it’s hard to tell whether the requested clarification is sincere as sometimes people pretend they don’t understand in order to upset the person trying to make the explanation.) You are allowed to say “I don’t think it’s racist” and then give a reason. Your reason may or may not be rejected depending on validity. (You need to accept that your reasoning may not be valid to the person and they will not change their mind. This goes both ways ideally, but not always.)
I don’t know how other people do it, but when I describe a work as racist, or an author’s writing being sexist I mean very specifically, “I found aspects of the work to have assumptions and stereotypes that I identify as racist or adjacent to concepts and stereotypes founded in racism/sexism/various other prejudices.” I do my best to explain why I felt a work of fiction was racist, sexist, or homophobic. It annoys me when people reject my statements or explanations out of hand. (Or refuse to acknowledge them in any way.)
If I say, for example, that J.T. McIntosh’s work is sexist (and that possibly he has never met or spoken to a woman in his life and actually listened to her). I mean that his women characters tend to fall into certain stereotypes common to his era of how men thought women behaved/thought/interacted with other women and also with men. (Usually, in his case, the more negative stereotypes.) I also mean that his narrative will directly objectify women, and treat them as if they were strange and unfathomable entities. This is, by the way, sexist.
If I say that David Eddings’ works are racist, it’s because of his tendency to create universal traits for an ethnicity, that cannot be changed. (Example: Sendars are always sensible and practical. Tolnedrans are greedy for gold to the point of mania. Note that I’m not specifically pointing toward the apparent universal developmental disabilities of the Thulls or the inherently mercantile instincts of the Nadraks. A stereotype is a stereotype is a stereotype.) There’s also the exotification of possibly POC characters, the tendency for POC characters to be alignment: evil and don’t get me started on the Elenium/Tamuli. (Where a persecuted religious minority is defended as long as they are being victimized, but when in a region where they are not persecuted they are vilified for daring to be angry about how their co-religionists are treated in other areas.)
If I say Robert Adam’s Horseclans novels are homophobic you’re going to give me that one because Loki’s Tits those books were so damn homophobic. (I was pretty much only reading Horseclans because a. Telepathic war cats and horses. b. In my teen years, I was hoovering down every bit of post-apocalyptic fiction that caught my interest. Regardless of how I felt about the author’s apparent worldviews.) A single Horseclans novel will have a man-hating lesbian (and all of his lesbian characters hated men except for the one that Bili the Ax Murderer married), gay child molesters (they were all gay and they were all child molesters, and universally very femme for some reason) and anything from intensely racist opinions to making a tribe descended from environmentalists into devolved cannibal cavemen. (And don’t get me started on the antisemitism. They were super antisemitic! I tended to avoid the books that focused on World War 2 for this reason.)
This little rant is because of a recent trip to Goodreads where I re-read an argument I had with someone about David Eddings, years and years ago. The person I was talking to seemed to not understand that I wasn’t just talking about the Angaraks being fairly cookie-cutter in behavior and actions as evidence of racism. The other person also kept making Watsonian (based on an in-universe/setting perspective) arguments and headcanons when I was arguing from a Doyleistic position (from outside the work, as a reader). My feeling/analysis of the argument years later is that most likely, the other person was unable to understand I wasn’t insulting his favorite author, I was describing the inherent stereotypes within the narrative.
If I were going to actively insult the guy, it wouldn’t be concerning the various worldbuilding issues within the Mallorean/Belgariad. It would be because he was an ableist (the way the writer handles disabilities and mental illness is really offensive, and I don’t just mean in the Belgariad. The Losers makes me so furious I could scream), abusive (he and his wife were arrested for child abuse), conservative with too high of an opinion of his writing skills. (They were solid but not that great.) Insults about his racism (or at least his apparent inability to perceive and consider and reflect on the biases in his writing) would be worked in there somewhere, but there are a lot of things I could say about him before I even got to the racism part. (Yes, he could tell a good story. However, his worldbuilding was shite and his fantasy work was mostly reinventing the wheel as far as themes and plot were concerned. Also: he was trying to write a “better Lord of the Rings” according to the Rivan Codex, without actually understanding the themes and goals of Lord of the Rings. Verdict: Belgariad manages to be its own thing, but is not comparable to Lord of the Rings.)
To reiterate, if I say something is racist, homophobic, or sexist I am describing apparent biases that are sexist or racist. I will explain why a work is any of those things. Your job is not to disagree with what I wrote out of hand because of a knee-jerk objection because you love the writer or the work and therefore they can do nothing wrong and is not in any way “ist.” This is annoying and frustrating and no one learns anything. (Note: It’s fine if you don’t agree. Could I be wrong? Maybe! Many books originally had good intentions but still have biases and haven’t aged well! For example, Emma Bull’s War for the Oaks tries to be inclusive but certain ethnic jokes are more offensive and very dated. Also, George R. Stewart’s Earth Abides actively attempts to have a positive portrayal of a woman who has African ancestry. However, there’s a point where the protagonist is a guest at the home of some black farmers, and he (the protagonist if not the writer) definitely has some negative biases toward black people. I have gotten into an argument over whether this is racist. It is, by the way, even if it wasn’t the intent.) When I describe the biases, they are not insults. They are descriptions. Being insulted on behalf of the writer or the work is super annoying and not conducive to learning.
The other issue I think was most likely the other person didn’t understand the Doyleist/Watsonian divide. (I am not entirely sure how widely the concept spread was, in 2012, roughly when the conversation occurred. It might actually date from then, but I’m not sure.) Anyway, I remember being frustrated and anxious about the conversation because I was arguing from a different perspective, and the other person wouldn’t acknowledge it and kept arguing from Watsonian headcanons. (They were not especially good headcanons. You can’t argue the stereotypical behaviors are the result of a lack of free will when the entire damn point of the series is supposedly free will and a momentous capital C Choice.) Just. Do not argue Watsonian points when someone is making a Doyleistic analysis of a work. At least not with me, as it drives me right up the wall. I generally do not write about sexism, homophobia, or racism from a Watsonian perspective. (Unless I’m discussing headcanons.) I prefer to address them in a Doyleistic manner.
TL;DR: Don’t cross the streams.
Leave a comment