Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 9404232">True but as these threads have shown, people will disagree over which elements are sexist and problematic. And even when people agree, people are going to disagree over how to approach a game that has content like that I wasn't arguing for ignoring historical context. I would buy art from an artist I consider reprehensible. I consider Norman Mailer to be an utterly reprehensible human being, but bought many of his books, even while he was alive, and his books frequently reflect the bad nature of his character, even advocate for things I strongly disagree with. Another would be Lovecraft. I strongly disagree with many of his beliefs, they are present in the work, and in places even advocate for viewpoints I find objectionable. I don't think engaging with the artwork of people who held views you disagree with means you are endorsing it at all. it also doesn't mean you are popularizing it. This is especially the case when you are engaging with works from different times when there is just greater likelihood of that happening. I don't disagree. It is complicated. I agree with you that people need to decide on their own lines. I do think we can separate the art from the artist a lot more than we are doing now (and I think we ought to do that more). I don't think there is zero connection between the two. But I do think the better art is usually produced by flawed people and a campaign to rid ourselves of flawed artists, is going to lead to less interesting art. Which is why I think nuance is important. In my case, as I said before, I am very accustomed to reading books and primary sources from times when people held wildly different views from now. I used to transcribe journals for example when I was a student interning at a museum. You are going to find lots of objectionable thoughts if you read a person's thoughts from 100 years ago. That doesn't mean the journals weren't engaging and interesting and worth reading. By the same token, I read a lot of older fiction. When you are reading a book from 100, 200, 500, or 2,000 years ago, you are going to encounter ideas you disagree with morally. I can note that, but focus on the content. Doesn't mean I don't internally disagree with it, or that I can't have a conversation about it, but I can read the material without stopping  and I can still find value in it (and I can ask myself how prevalent I think this view was at the time, which to me makes a difference in how I view it). If Lovecraft were writing today, I would be a lot more shocked by the content than I am knowing he is a New England Yankee writing when many of the ideas he espoused had traction (doesn't excuse them, but it makes them a lot less shocking to me, and even predictable to an extent). Still I adore Lovecraft's writing, I do think he is a genius of the genre. I wouldn't stop reading him, or focus exclusively on his questionable worldviews when doing so. It is something I have always been able to make note of but not my priority when I am reading him.</blockquote>

Verification