8 ms·
In Lolita the pedophile is explicitly a creep. He's the bad guy, it's an exploration of a sick mind. Not that content matters at all in this debate. Certainl
by ltbarcly3 6y ago
In Lolita the pedophile is explicitly a creep. He's the bad guy, it's an exploration of a sick mind.
Not that content matters at all in this debate. Certainly I would say if you wanted to cancel Lolita, you would have to cancel Silence of the Lambs and any other fiction about serial killers, right? Since abusing and then killing them and then eating them is at least as bad as abusing them, but not killing them and not eating them?
However, I don't think that really gets to the heart of this. Morons have been locally banning books since books have existed. This isn't new at all. I think the real 'story' here is the response to it. Any time some small confederacy of imbeciles manages to announce that something is 'canceled', the media blasts it through a loud speaker and there is a huge response.
The fraction of people who change their behavior in any way due to something being canceled is tiny. Most people just don't care. The actual way these pressure campaigns work is to convince people that decision makers personally know, and who are not really paying attention, that some situation is vaguely 'icky'.
For example, the whole thing with Gina Carino. What she said was stupid and ignorant, but I doubt it would have reduced the popularity of The Mandalorian by even 1%. However, in the minds of Disney executives, people in their social circle might judge them if they keep Carino around. The exec's friends won't know the details, all they'll know is Disney didn't fire someone 'gross'. It will be a topic of conversation, the execs will have to talk about the situation at parties, and it's not easy to explain a nuanced decision. It's so much easier to just fire someone. So, because these campaigns get picked up by the media and amplified, they can get people fired because it's just the easiest way for those making the decisions wash their hands of the situation, even though maybe 0.001% of people really care about the situation at all. (For the record, I think Gina is a horrible actress and the stuff she said was extremely ignorant, so I don't care if she gets fired or not. The point is, I don't really care, if they didn't fire her I would still watch the show.)
That's why I think the content doesn't matter at all. Any book is equally likely to end up canceled, all it takes is a handful of people who are trying to make a name for themselves by being outraged on Twitter, and for the media to keep amplifying the phony, self serving outrage they are Tweeting. At that point, it's just easier for people making decisions to ban whatever content or person the fake outrage is targeting.
- Mediterraneo10 6y ago> In Lolita the pedophile is explicitly a creep. He's the bad guy, it's an exploration of a sick mind. Nabokov explored infatuations with "nymphets" in multiple works, Lolita was just the most famous. This has led many (even big fans of the writer) to assume that Nabokov did feel a certain attraction that he apparently never acted on, though this observation does not imply that he or the works deserve condemnation or scorn.
- ojnabieoot 6y ago> However, in the minds of Disney executives, people in their social circle might judge them if they keep Carino [sic] around. This is too reductive an understanding. A far bigger issue is that many many actors, technicians, directors, and so on probably don’t want to work with someone like Carano - particularly nonwhite and non-cis people, but also outspoken progressives like Mark Hamill. She isn’t merely very conservative, but a racist nutjob. She’s bad for business even if she doesn’t immediately impact viewership. This is by the way an issue of “cancel culture” that is too often ignored: it’s not just a moral judgment about an individual, it’s a judgment that they can’t be trusted to treat nonwhites/LGBT/etc with decency. Or, in the case of Dr. Seuss, it’s a judgment by the estate that Seuss’s legacy is tarnished by the outdated racist imagery he used and that some works shouldn’t be continually reprinted.
- ltbarcly3 6y agoWhether she actually is racist (and I agree she seems to be given the facts available) doesn't seem to matter regarding Disney's decision. My point is that these decisions aren't made in any way based on anything but social pressure. As you mention, the people working with her have known she is a crazy racist for a long time, and nothing was done. She got fired after 'public outrage' took hold. Media amplification of tweets is not a good system for truth finding. As for Dr. Seuss, I'm not defending racist images. Those images have been in those books for nearly 100 years though, and almost every child and adult in the western world has seen them over and over and over. Many probably noticed them. It may well be overdue to address them. Twitter driven social pressure campaigns trying to eliminate the entire library of his books overnight by personally targeting a handful of people with the power to pull the books from shelves isn't a reasonable way for society to make these decisions.