How do you put aside your own feelings when reading?

[Belen]

Maybe passing judgement on the emotional responses of folks you don't know isn't such a great idea.

I did not read it as passing judgement and the poster admitted that English is a second language.

I think it is a problem is a person cannot handle reading about differing viewpoints. Note: I am not lumping in trauma issues like being a survivor of a trauma and not being able to read those items. I fully understand why that is an issue.

I tend to read a lot of sf&f and I am constantly seeing authors try weird scenarios or civilizations. I never take it as a "this is the way the author thinks is best." I take it as an exploration of a path that a civilization could take. I like sf&f because it often explores different human conditions or ideas through the eyes of an outsider.

I think that the poster is saying that if you are not reading something because you cannot handle being confronted with different perspectives or ideas, then that is an issue. Note: I am not going to read Nazi propaganda etc either. If the book is explicitly trying to say "this is the way and it is right etc", then I get it. That is a bit different if the book is trying to convince you that evil is good.

I do think there are perfectly valid reasons for not engaging with content. I had to put down the Game of Thrones series, for example, because I do not want to read graphic depictions of child abuse. If an author gets too graphic, then I am not going to keep reading. If a book is very poorly written or edited, then I am not going to read it either.

If a story is engaging though, then I would not put it down because I found that some characters or civilizations have differing viewpoints.

Of course, I read to see the good guys win so I am generally turned off by grim, gritty.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I did not read it as passing judgement and the poster admitted that English is a second language.

I think it is a problem is a person cannot handle reading about differing viewpoints. Note: I am not lumping in trauma issues like being a survivor of a trauma and not being able to read those items. I fully understand why that is an issue.

I tend to read a lot of sf&f and I am constantly seeing authors try weird scenarios or civilizations. I never take it as a "this is the way the author thinks is best." I take it as an exploration of a path that a civilization could take. I like sf&f because it often explores different human conditions or ideas through the eyes of an outsider.

I think that the poster is saying that if you are not reading something because you cannot handle being confronted with different perspectives or ideas, then that is an issue. Note: I am not going to read Nazi propaganda etc either. If the book is explicitly trying to say "this is the way and it is right etc", then I get it. That is a bit different if the book is trying to convince you that evil is good.

I do think there are perfectly valid reasons for not engaging with content. I had to put down the Game of Thrones series, for example, because I do not want to read graphic depictions of child abuse. If an author gets too graphic, then I am not going to keep reading. If a book is very poorly written or edited, then I am not going to read it either.

If a story is engaging though, then I would not put it down because I found that some characters or civilizations have differing viewpoints.

Of course, I read to see the good guys win so I am generally turned off by grim, gritty.

Yeah having stuff you simply don’t enjoy, or find too off putting, is fine. I couldn’t get through Lord Foul’s Bane because there is something pretty shocking that happens and I just felt uneasy. That doesn’t make it a bad book. I just didn’t like the direction it took. It just gave me a sinking feeling. On the other hand Return of Condor Heroes has a similar type of moment, and it still bothered me when that scene happened, but the story was compelling enough that I continued (and it is an important plot point in the story)

I think when we start cataloguing tropes and dismissing a books value based on the trope alone, then that is more of an issue (I find TV tropes style criticism kind of lazy: I.e. oh there is Y trope, or there is the X trope). A good writer can work with long established tropes even if they aren’t trying to flip or cast new light on them

 

[Umbran]

I did not read it as passing judgement and the poster admitted that English is a second language.

Deciding that it is due to "problems with emotional regulation" is a judgement. One bordering on "you have a mental health issue". That's not okay.

I think it is a problem is a person cannot handle reading about differing viewpoints.

With respect, people fling out the accusation of there being this unspecified group of folks who, supposedly generally "can't handle differing viewpoints", without showing evidence. The way I see this used, it looks more like, "I have a specific, somewhat distasteful viewpoint or approach to discussion, and people won't allow me to harangue them, so I accuse them of having a flaw in their character," which is Internet Dysfunction 101, honestly.

"I don't want to talk to you (generic, not Belen, personally) about this book you love," is not a sign that the person "can't handle differing viewpoints". Doubly so if you happen to be kind of a jerk about your discussion. If you have been browbeating folks, and they disengage and block you, that's not that they can't handle a differing viewpoint.

Note: I am not lumping in trauma issues like being a survivor of a trauma and not being able to read those items. I fully understand why that is an issue.

But, the viewpoint is generally expressed through events in the narrative. How often are folks rejecting an alternate viewpoint that isn't represented through some problematic pieces in the story?

Like, if the viewpoint is sexist/misogynistic, that's probably going to show in some bad things happening to women in the book, right?

But, even if it isn't so strong as that, let's look at an example. Let's talk Heinlein. In many of his books, he creates beautiful, powerful, beyond competent women, and then says that all these women really want is to get married and have babies, or serve a grumpy old author's self-insertion character.

It certainly is a different perspective, but how much of old white guy saying what women want do women really need? Is it that they can't handle the different perspective, or that the perspective is kinda sexist, lame, shallow, and self-serving on the author's part?

 

[Thomas Shey]

But, even if it isn't so strong as that, let's look at an example. Let's talk Heinlein. In many of his books, he creates beautiful, powerful, beyond competent women, and then says that all these women really want is to get married and have babies, or serve a grumpy old author's self-insertion character.

It certainly is a different perspective, but how much of old white guy saying what women want do women really need? Is it that they can't handle the different perspective, or that the perspective is kinda sexist, lame, shallow, and self-serving on the author's part?

Its entirely possible its simply a blindspot and over-extrapolation, given Virginia Heinlein.

 

[Umbran]

Its entirely possible its simply a blindspot and over-extrapolation, given Virginia Heinlein.

He could get away with that if it were only one character. But since it is a repeating theme across several works, the resulting message is still, "accomplished women just want to serve men," no matter the inspiration.

 

[Retros_x]

Maybe passing judgement on the emotional responses of folks you don't know isn't such a great idea.

Ok it seems I pissed you off - I was trying to clear up that I DON'T judge people on their emotional responses. I was just saying that IMO you cannot put feelings aside when reading and either you can handle the feelings coming up while reading or you don't. Thats what I understand under "emotional regulation" and there is no general judgement on anybodys ability to do so from my side. And having an emotional response is completely normal, but if you can continue reading is dependent on your ability to process these emotions. Thats why we have trigger warnings, so people who know they will have trouble with the emotions coming up for specific topics due to their own traumata can prepare for that or decide to not read it.

I am only talking about the part of processing emotions - of course you can decide to not read on specific topics and opinions for several different reasons. Personal interests, ethics etc.

 

[Umbran]

Ok it seems I pissed you off

No. I think it unfounded, unwise, and kind of generally rude. But I'm not personally pissed off.

 

[Zardnaar]

Depends what I'm reading.

Alot of stuff has aged badly. Doesn't bother me as such although it might effect my desire to reread it.

Something like Wages of Destruction or Allies and Auschwitz or Antony Beevors Berlin book you know what to expect going in.

Takes a lot to make me stop reading outside of a book being boring or outright bad.

 

[Ryujin]

Depends what I'm reading.

Alot of stuff has aged badly. Doesn't bother me as such although it might effect my desire to reread it.

Something like Wages of Destruction or Allies and Auschwitz or Antony Beevors Berlin book you know what to expect going in.

Takes a lot to make me stop reading outside of a book being boring or outright bad.

Agreed. Sometimes there's value in seeing how things were perceived in the past, how they've changed, and being able to draw a line between then and now.

 

[Thomas Shey]

He could get away with that if it were only one character. But since it is a repeating theme across several works, the resulting message is still, "accomplished women just want to serve men," no matter the inspiration.

Once you overextrapolate (and to be clear, I'm talking Heinlein, not you) its not like you're probably going to stop, barring outside stimulus