3 ms·
> That's her point. Yup. And it is her book. > My point are the gymnastics done to substitute Islam with Christianity. Clearly here we disagree. I see no gym
by krisoft 3y ago
> That's her point.
Yup. And it is her book.
> My point are the gymnastics done to substitute Islam with Christianity.
Clearly here we disagree. I see no gymnastics. Christian religious fanatics are are actively meddling with woman's reproductive rights as we are discussing this.
> It gets even more skewed than Handmaid's Tale
The difference is that those two stories you mention are purporting to describe something which happened. Because of that you can ask if they are accurate or not. With something completely fictional that is not a valid question.
- SenAnder 3y ago> Yup. And it is her book. Are you implying we should not critique or contextualize works in a way their authors would disapprove of? > The difference is that those two stories you mention are purporting to describe something which happened Only the Woman King - The Sum of All Fears is openly fiction. In fact, most media are works of fiction grown around a grain of truth. Or they should be. When that grain is changed to a lie, over and over again, it is prudent to notice. Or we can stubbornly find a different excuse for each case, and miss the forest for the trees.
- krisoft 3y ago> Are you implying we should not critique or contextualize works in a way their authors would disapprove of? No. You made it sound like you have a problem with her book showcasing her opinion. As if that is somehow dirty. > When that grain is changed to a lie, over and over again, it is prudent to notice. Sure. You still failed to elaborate on the lie inherent in the The Handmaid's Tale. Must not be that great of an example if when I asked about it you rather started talking about two other unrelated stories. > Or we can stubbornly find a different excuse for each case I don't know what we are "finding an excuse for".