Page 21 | Margaret Atwood

MummBRaaarrrTheEverLeaking · 2021-10-19T13:22:48+00:00

[[https://twitter.com/MargaretAtwood/status/1450429768067846145?t=8q-A8MlvzZsx6pt4Vu1_LA&s=19]] Has retweeted an article from the Toronto Star "why can't we say woman anymore" and bloody hell are they coming for the latest witch burning in the comments! Ranging from disappointment to the usual sweary abuse. I thought oh how long till the capitulation begins, turns out I didn't have to wait long! She's following it up with retweets about 'we can say people when it's accurate and inclusive' and then defending the article because the writer isn't "a terf"??? Not really sure what she's trying to achieve here, anyone?

LobsterNapkin · 28/10/2021 13:10

@EmbarrassingHadrosaurus

And now they are removing her books from libraries. They’re literally coming for her. Regardless of her personal reaction, I feel very concerned about what’s happening in Canada.

Of course this was going to happen, and the blaming it on outside people, not the community itself. Propaganda is effective and powerful. See: demand for purity; dispensing of existence in Robert Lifton's 8 criteria of thought reform:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4382551-Live-not-by-lies-Solzhenitsyn-no-tambourines-involved?msgid=111900052

Does anyone recall the book in Canada that was being handed out in public libraries together with a librarian-supplied resource sheet for counter views? This was a half way house between pulling it entirely from the library? The library was in somewhere with a UK sort of name like Hull or Halifax?

That was Halifax. I lived there for many years.

It's completely crazy.

EmbarrassingHadrosaurus · 28/10/2021 13:14

That was Halifax. I lived there for many years.

Thank you for confirming my memory! I felt like Mrs Garvy because I remembered it so well but I couldn't locate it by searching.

ditalini · 28/10/2021 13:16

It actually shows the limitations of the idea that “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” as even those who know about the past convince themselves that their cause is special, different, not remotely the same...

Those who cannot remember, or cannot understand the past. Or are too wrapped up in their own righteous cause to acknowledge the past.

EmbarrassingHadrosaurus · 28/10/2021 13:20

@ditalini

It actually shows the limitations of the idea that “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” as even those who know about the past convince themselves that their cause is special, different, not remotely the same...

Those who cannot remember, or cannot understand the past. Or are too wrapped up in their own righteous cause to acknowledge the past.

Somebody used an expression that I've never read before and a slight paraphrase fits this.

History might not repeat itself but it has strong rhymes in the present.

PaleBlueMoonlight · 28/10/2021 13:58

For interest, what is supposed to be the problem with The Handmaids Tale?

Deliriumoftheendless · 28/10/2021 14:06

It’s not 1984 it’s Fahrenheit 451.

TwoDrifters2 · 28/10/2021 14:12

I opened a new book the other day and read this page inserted at the front. Makes sense to me - why can’t they all just have this?!

Datun · 28/10/2021 14:13

@PaleBlueMoonlight

For interest, what is supposed to be the problem with The Handmaids Tale?

Is it because Margaret Atwood wrote it?

beastlyslumber · 28/10/2021 14:15

Sorry but I hate that message. Why should a novel start with a moral sermon? Gross and patronising.

The banning books thing had been going on for a few years now. Libraries burning copies of To Kill a Mockingbird. It's terrifying.

TwoDrifters2 · 28/10/2021 14:19

@beastlyslumber I agree the middle sentence is unnecessary. But if it stops people with no critical thought process of their own from taking umbrage, and allows the books to still be published and stocked, then I don’t mind.

RufustheBadgeringReindeer · 28/10/2021 14:24

[quote TwoDrifters2]@beastlyslumber I agree the middle sentence is unnecessary. But if it stops people with no critical thought process of their own from taking umbrage, and allows the books to still be published and stocked, then I don’t mind.[/quote]
I agree

This feels a bit different, they're saying they banned the books because of misogynist and racist themes, but the books are about standing against misogyny and racism

Is the misogyny why they are getting rid of the handmaids tale?….thats stupid, I don’t get it

EmbarrassingHadrosaurus · 28/10/2021 14:25

@PaleBlueMoonlight

For interest, what is supposed to be the problem with The Handmaids Tale?

Atwood wrote it.

NecessaryScene · 28/10/2021 14:28

It seems a bit arrogant to me. "These prejudices were wrong then and are wrong today."

This presumption that the present's notion of "right" and "wrong" is better than the past one. Or some potential future one.

It's temporal supremacism. Does this era have any right to lecture on some previous one?

It would only seem to put such disclaimers in old books if we also put messages in newly-published books apologising for present attitudes to future readers. We can start with everything by Robin diAngelo...

Sophoclesthefox · 28/10/2021 16:01

Can’t believe that of all the options open to her, Atwood went for Do It To Julia I’m not surprised though, she has routinely done that to feminists as she is one of those women who think they’re too clever to fall for feminism (usually by misrepresenting or misunderstanding it).

As for the book banning, it would be hilarious if it wasn’t so worrying. I used to wonder why the zealots didn’t worry that one day, it would be their views that became unacceptable, and their books being banned. I have recently come to understand that they think that each time they prove their allegiance with some OTT struggle session or denouncing, they’re warding off the chance of that happening. They really do think that the displays of obedience and virtue will protect them in the future.

I’ve said it so many times, but they really need to have a think about Robespierre to figure out how that usually goes.

beastlyslumber · 28/10/2021 16:05

@NecessaryScene

It seems a bit arrogant to me. "These prejudices were wrong then and are wrong today."

This presumption that the present's notion of "right" and "wrong" is better than the past one. Or some potential future one.

It's temporal supremacism. Does this era have any right to lecture on some previous one?

It would only seem to put such disclaimers in old books if we also put messages in newly-published books apologising for present attitudes to future readers. We can start with everything by Robin diAngelo...

Thank you for expressing this so clearly. I could only come up with "that's gross"!

Andante57 · 28/10/2021 16:08

This presumption that the present's notion of "right" and "wrong" is better than the past one. Or some potential future one

Indeed. I sometimes wonder what will be the cancellable offences in 50 years time.
I guess it will be something none of can predict - I mean who imagined 20 years ago that people could lose their jobs for saying only women can have children or whatever.

TwoDrifters2 · 28/10/2021 16:25

“This book has been written in 2021 with all the inherent prejudices therein. I apologise in advance to any 25th century readers for ALERF tendencies (Andromedan Lifeform Exclusionary Radical Feminism). Future readers will no doubt check their Milky Wayan privilege and re-educate themselves accordingly”.

LobsterNapkin · 28/10/2021 20:46

I think the underlying impulse is the same as with things like removal of statues.

People who want to get rid of these things - to ban the books, often think it's about removing wrong and dangerous ideas. A kind of intellectual purity.

That's not what it is about for the leaders, however. For them, it is removing evidence that there was ever another way of thinking that normal, regular, people ever believed or subscribed to in good faith.

Because if they did, and we now think those things are not entirely correct, it could be that some time in the future, the ideas we have now may need to be questioned and possibly rejected.

It's all about preventing people from thinking critically about the books being written now, the heroes we have now.

littlbrowndog · 28/10/2021 21:23

Titantia nails it

RepentMotherfucker · 28/10/2021 21:48

@NecessaryScene

It seems a bit arrogant to me. "These prejudices were wrong then and are wrong today."

This presumption that the present's notion of "right" and "wrong" is better than the past one. Or some potential future one.

It's temporal supremacism. Does this era have any right to lecture on some previous one?

It would only seem to put such disclaimers in old books if we also put messages in newly-published books apologising for present attitudes to future readers. We can start with everything by Robin diAngelo...

This is totally a thing at the moment though. There's a huge amount of historical revisionist going on and a lot of new drama I notice pretends that the past is like the present WRT racism and homophobia especially.

That recent BBC series about WW2 where there was a mixed race homosexual relationship that everyone (except the Nazis - because they were bad) thought was just great. And the young unmarried woman who got pregnant and was like, 'I am just fine with this' and everyone else thought she was brilliant too.

It's such an insult to people in the past who were discriminated against because of their sex or sexuality or colour. Because apparently they would have been fine if they had just styled it out

See also much 'Queer' historical fiction.

RightsHoardingStegasaurus · 28/10/2021 21:48

@Alektopteryx I've started doing this with DVDs like Peep Show, Father Ted, Fawlty Towers, Porridge, Life on Mars, Casablanca, Hitchcock, and various other classics. I'll start doing the same with books now, too

TheCountessofFitzdotterel · 28/10/2021 21:53

‘It's such an insult to people in the past who were discriminated against because of their sex or sexuality or colour. Because apparently they would have been fine if they had just styled it out hmm

See also much 'Queer' historical fiction’

Couldn’t agree more!
I have read several otherwise well researched histfics in recent years where the goodies are anachronistically comfortable with gay relationships, even sexual ones, and the baddies are nasty homophobes who get their comeuppance.

Unsure33 · 28/10/2021 22:38

If you ban books how can you discuss them and what potentially could be wrong with them .

We must learn from history not obliterate it .

This is very scary .

ArabellaScott · 28/10/2021 22:45

@littlbrowndog

Titantia nails it

oof

LobsterNapkin · 28/10/2021 23:31

@TheCountessofFitzdotterel

‘It's such an insult to people in the past who were discriminated against because of their sex or sexuality or colour. Because apparently they would have been fine if they had just styled it out hmm

See also much 'Queer' historical fiction’

Couldn’t agree more!
I have read several otherwise well researched histfics in recent years where the goodies are anachronistically comfortable with gay relationships, even sexual ones, and the baddies are nasty homophobes who get their comeuppance.

Yes, this also drives me really crazy.

The problem seems to be that they don't want, or don't seem to believe the audience can cope with, any complexities in the characters. It's not possible to have a sympathetic character that has views other than what are currently trendy, no matter how ridiculous.

I used to sometimes watch Father Brown for mindless relaxation, keeping in mind it was really nothing to do with the books. But it became increasingly difficult to maintain any pretense that he was a Catholic priest in the 1950s. To the point where it seemed disrespectful to actual Catholics.