Oh for F***** sake!
May. 24th, 2007 02:42 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
butterflydreamingI'm typing this so that I won't light the library's copy of Stranger in a Strange Land on fire. I feel like pitching it across the room.
The problem with preachy books is that the statements contained, even in character dialog, stop being part of the story and sound like nothing more than the author's viewpoints. In the last 300 pages, I've put up with the outdated sexist attitudes. At first, these were even a little bit antedeluvianly cute, like the use of the word "spinster". The blah blah blah about the Fosterites at least contains some ambiguity as to whether they are to be praised or reviled; besides, I'm willing to have some on-and-on about that because it is one of the book's major points. And okay, p 303, Mike is straight and wouldn't, in Jill's opinion, take a gay water brother. (That confused me. The girls were kissin' on each other. Didn't a three-way happen with Pat, the tattooed woman? Did I read that wrong?) And Jill, who I strongly dislike, suddenly discovers that she's an exhibitionist.
But this I can't take: [Jill] 'Nine times out of ten, if a girl gets raped, it's partly her fault.'
My anger is because I know how many times I've heard this book cited as influential to a friend's outlook. Polyfolk often point to Heinlein. I thought TMisHM was just okay, yet that still had a *story*. Mercedes Lackey is horribly preachy, and that's why I don't run out to read her newer books, even though I like her older ones quite a lot. But I digress. I'm angry because as I see it so far, this book is poisonous, and it's one that has been recommended to me repeatedly from various sources. If there's a glimmer of gold in this, is it worth wading through the garbage? How many readers took statements like that rape statement along with the mind-broadening concepts about ownership, death, and interpersonal connection in, took all of that in without tasting the vile rot of something that should have been dead a long time ago?
I'm not even angry at the *author*. If he was a hack and a sexist bastard, he still had a few ideas and sold books, and neither really have anything to do with me; he's not eating at my table. I'm upset because, except for once when I was offered water, I have not been told about what's in the book, in a this is an interesting idea that this book contained way, but that the whole thing has been suggested to me as a "read this book!".
A hundred pages to go. I'll finish this book and then I'll find something to scrub out my brain. And then I'll give it back to the library, because I don't *actually* burn books.
As a side note: I notice loose similarities to Brave New World. (The Noble Savage serves as a contrast to society.) BNW is a novel I've read three times, one each as a child, a teen, and in my early 20s. I decided that it had something to say, even though I also came to the conclusion that I don't like it. I've been pondering what I would have thought of SiaSL at 10, 16, and 20.
The problem with preachy books is that the statements contained, even in character dialog, stop being part of the story and sound like nothing more than the author's viewpoints. In the last 300 pages, I've put up with the outdated sexist attitudes. At first, these were even a little bit antedeluvianly cute, like the use of the word "spinster". The blah blah blah about the Fosterites at least contains some ambiguity as to whether they are to be praised or reviled; besides, I'm willing to have some on-and-on about that because it is one of the book's major points. And okay, p 303, Mike is straight and wouldn't, in Jill's opinion, take a gay water brother. (That confused me. The girls were kissin' on each other. Didn't a three-way happen with Pat, the tattooed woman? Did I read that wrong?) And Jill, who I strongly dislike, suddenly discovers that she's an exhibitionist.
But this I can't take: [Jill] 'Nine times out of ten, if a girl gets raped, it's partly her fault.'
My anger is because I know how many times I've heard this book cited as influential to a friend's outlook. Polyfolk often point to Heinlein. I thought TMisHM was just okay, yet that still had a *story*. Mercedes Lackey is horribly preachy, and that's why I don't run out to read her newer books, even though I like her older ones quite a lot. But I digress. I'm angry because as I see it so far, this book is poisonous, and it's one that has been recommended to me repeatedly from various sources. If there's a glimmer of gold in this, is it worth wading through the garbage? How many readers took statements like that rape statement along with the mind-broadening concepts about ownership, death, and interpersonal connection in, took all of that in without tasting the vile rot of something that should have been dead a long time ago?
I'm not even angry at the *author*. If he was a hack and a sexist bastard, he still had a few ideas and sold books, and neither really have anything to do with me; he's not eating at my table. I'm upset because, except for once when I was offered water, I have not been told about what's in the book, in a this is an interesting idea that this book contained way, but that the whole thing has been suggested to me as a "read this book!".
A hundred pages to go. I'll finish this book and then I'll find something to scrub out my brain. And then I'll give it back to the library, because I don't *actually* burn books.
As a side note: I notice loose similarities to Brave New World. (The Noble Savage serves as a contrast to society.) BNW is a novel I've read three times, one each as a child, a teen, and in my early 20s. I decided that it had something to say, even though I also came to the conclusion that I don't like it. I've been pondering what I would have thought of SiaSL at 10, 16, and 20.
