(no subject)
Jul. 8th, 2010 11:40 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
In reference to my last post, I have a question to pose to all of you.
There's a passage in Terry Pratchett's Johnny and the Bomb where the main characters are talking about WWII and one of them says something about how they should mind because it happened a long time ago. (Of course, being Terry Pratchett and being a book about time travel, another character pointed out that it was happening NOW.)
I just wonder if, by reading about something that happened a long time ago makes it easier to dismiss it as something that 'used to happen' and thus ignore the more subtle signs of racism that we see today.
What do you think? I am not saying kids shouldn't be taught how things were, but in the context of reading materials, do you think it would be more helpful for them to read something that is more contemporary - something that highlights problems that exist today, so they can think and learn and maybe not do that themselves?
There's a passage in Terry Pratchett's Johnny and the Bomb where the main characters are talking about WWII and one of them says something about how they should mind because it happened a long time ago. (Of course, being Terry Pratchett and being a book about time travel, another character pointed out that it was happening NOW.)
I just wonder if, by reading about something that happened a long time ago makes it easier to dismiss it as something that 'used to happen' and thus ignore the more subtle signs of racism that we see today.
What do you think? I am not saying kids shouldn't be taught how things were, but in the context of reading materials, do you think it would be more helpful for them to read something that is more contemporary - something that highlights problems that exist today, so they can think and learn and maybe not do that themselves?
no subject
on 2010-07-08 05:12 pm (UTC)I wrote a whole post about the importance of historical accuracy here, but I'll quote the bit that I feel is most relevant to your question:
I do think that if we are going to write historical novels, it's better for the book, for the public and for ourselves if we strive to be accurate as well as entertaining. There is more than enough ignorance and confusion out there already. And painting a picture of the past as an innocent politically correct paradise where racial prejudice, sexism, ableism, classism and homophobia have no place not only falsifies history and minimizes what people endured, it makes it impossible for readers to understand why women, blacks, Native Americans, LGBTQ people and the disabled (and others who have been despised and rejected) ever needed to demand their rights in the first place. Indeed, it gives some readers the impression that the rights such minorities want so badly are nothing more than demands for special privileges.
Short stories and novels are very small places to start educating people, even in a palatable way. But I think it's important for writers to do so. Our obligation is not to present a view of the world that readers find comfortable and agreeable, but to tell the truth as we see it, and in the best way possible for the story. That truth may not be what readers expect to hear...but judging by the bewildered ignorance out there, truth and accuracy are what many of them desperately need.