3 ms·

You should read the book. It might challenge your world view, which is entirely the point of reading in the first place. It would probably be worthwhile to re

You should read the book. It might challenge your world view, which is entirely the point of reading in the first place. It would probably be worthwhile to remember that Vernes was living in a time when the definition of "woman" is a very different thing than today. Of course, you don't have to excuse the sexism - merely understand it in the context of the book, with the purpose of gaining some insight into the points the author is trying to make. Try not to be distracted by the sexism, is what I mean to say, while you are reading a book written over a hundred years ago..

bmelton 13y ago
Well said. I can't imagine a synopsis that would entice someone to read Huck Finn if they were similarly predisposed to disregarding works based on racial comparisons, but Huck Finn's 'dust jacket' description is a far cry from its sum.
- sho_hn 13y ago
  That's why I initially asked if the example was representative of the book or not -- it's not like I didn't give room to the possibility that it's not. I've tried to explain why it raised a big red flag for me. It's not about sexism so much (I think I'm getting downvoted because people believe I'm trying to show off my PC-ness or something, or perhaps just because the subthread doesn't add much to the topic, admittedly) as thinking that if it's shallow about that part of human nature, it might not be doing a good job as speculative fiction in general. Wouldn't you agree that 1984 and BNW avoid similar pitfalls and that maybe it's no accident they don't?
  - seclorum 13y ago
    It is not at all shallow, but rather quite representative of the thinking of the period in which it was written, and in that light should definitely be considered a valid endeavour. But, are you not at the very least intrigued by the irony in your expression of political correctness? This is, after all, newthink.

bmelton 13y ago

Well said. I can't imagine a synopsis that would entice someone to read Huck Finn if they were similarly predisposed to disregarding works based on racial comparisons, but Huck Finn's 'dust jacket' description is a far cry from its sum.

sho_hn 13y ago
That's why I initially asked if the example was representative of the book or not -- it's not like I didn't give room to the possibility that it's not. I've tried to explain why it raised a big red flag for me. It's not about sexism so much (I think I'm getting downvoted because people believe I'm trying to show off my PC-ness or something, or perhaps just because the subthread doesn't add much to the topic, admittedly) as thinking that if it's shallow about that part of human nature, it might not be doing a good job as speculative fiction in general. Wouldn't you agree that 1984 and BNW avoid similar pitfalls and that maybe it's no accident they don't?
- seclorum 13y ago
  It is not at all shallow, but rather quite representative of the thinking of the period in which it was written, and in that light should definitely be considered a valid endeavour. But, are you not at the very least intrigued by the irony in your expression of political correctness? This is, after all, newthink.