Author's Curse?

[Scheherazade]

Should an author be held responsible for the sins of the characters s/he creates? To what extent does the author carry the responsibility for a character's actions? Does Nabokov have paedophile tendencies for writing about one? Is Ellis a psychopath?

Similarly, how much of the 'good' reflects the author's true nature? Is Dickens the most generous of souls? Is Salinger immune to 'phoniness'?

I quite like the idea introduced in The French Lieutenant's Woman by Fowles that once created, the characters take control and all an author can do is to follow their lead and let them develop on their own but is this true? Or, maybe more importantly, justifiable?

[IrishCanadian]

After writer her short story "The Yellow Wallpaper" Gillman was interview and asked if she infact went crazy or helusinated. The answere is no, and yet the charcter that represents herself in the story did. In her case it was more of a feminist statement then a journal of facts. This is an interesting case study, I think, for your question Scher because Gillman wrote the story in responce to some real-life masculin oppression that she went through and that is detailed in this fiction. Nevertheless her realistic metaphores of insanity are not fact.
Perhaps thougyou question is more regaurding the conscience of fictional characters built onto the conscience of the author??? I doubt it if thats what you mean.

[blp]

The simple answer, though it may be too simple, is that you shouldn't confuse fiction with autobiography.

Of the two misconceptions you describe - Ellis is a Psycho, Sallinger should be immune to phoniness - I'm more interested in the second because I think it's more common and it's something I've suffered from myself. When a book seems wise, I assume the author to be wise and to therefore be living a life devoid of problems. It isn't true. Sometimes their only wisdom consists in knowing what a mess they are.

[Virgil]

Should an author be held responsible for the sins of the characters s/he creates?

What do you want to do, put handcuffs on the author and lock him away? :lol:


Seriously, it depends. Let's assume for a moment that Nabokov is a pediphile. The book as a work of art stands on it's own. Society will determine if it is a worthy work of art. Public opinion will reflect how often it gets republished, taught in school, commonly discussed. (And I'm not advocating banning books, before someone starts with that. An author can write wahtever he likes, but people don't have to buy it or respect it. It's a two way street.) My personal opinion of him as a man would would reflect whether he really was a pediphile. If an author doesn't mind in what light history reflects him as a person than so be it. There are lots of writers I don't have respect for as people.


I quite like the idea introduced in The French Lieutenant's Woman by Fowles that once created, the characters take control and all an author can do is to follow their lead and let them develop on their own but is this true? Or, maybe more importantly, justifiable?

To some degree this may true, but a writer has an on-off button that says I will not go this way. A writer has an, if not infinite amount of decisions to make, certainly a large amount. He can choose to go in many directions. To say that he can only develop it this way is not credible to me. He just needs to apply himself a little harder. No this is not a justification.

[Scheherazade]

There are couple of reasons these questions started to roll in in my mind (which is a vast desert) like tumbleweeds:

1. I read The French Lieutenant's Woman by Fowles couple of months ago and am quite taken by his ideas about writing and authors.

2. A recent discussion on the racist elements in Hemingway's A Farewell to Arms.

3. Lolita (Need I say more?)


I personally don't think that the authors should be held responsible for their characters' actions (as long as they are not advocating illegal issues -such as paedophilia- in their books). The authors have to reflect the times and reality of their works as well as the characters. They have to let those characters develop and behave consistently. Scrooge has to refuse giving money to charity, Mr Darcy has to be proud, Pollyanna has to be happy (well, at least till they learn their lessons and change at the end)! Otherwise, we the readers would complain that they act 'out of character' and/or the book is not realistic.

Still, should they go scot-free without taking any responsibility for what they have created?

blp>I wholeheartedly agree that blind hero worshiping is very dangerous but it is a trap I fall into very often when it comes to books and writers!
Perhaps thougyou question is more regaurding the conscience of fictional characters built onto the conscience of the author??? I doubt it if thats what you mean.I am not very sure about this comment; would you mind rephrasing it, please?

[Virgil]

You know that Hemigway discussion where he uses the N- word requires everyone to see it for what it is. Let me copy it down for everyone:

Frederick Henry and Catherine are in a dialogue, bantering back and forth in a sort of love talk:


"My life used to be full of everything," I [Henry] said. "Now if you aren't with me I haven't a thing in the world."
"But I'll be with you. I was only gone for two hours. Isn't there anything you can do?"
"I went fishing with the barman."
"Was it fun?"
"Yes."
"Don't you think about me when I'm not here?"
"That's why I worked it in the front. But there was something to do then."
"Othello with his occupation gone," she teased.
"Othello was a nigger," I said. "Besides, I'm not jealous. I'm just so in love with you that there isn't anything else."
"Will you be a good old boy and be nice to Ferguson?"
etc.

Now what was the point of that comment. It added absolutely nothing. It was throw away dialogue. It was purely gratuitous. I'm not saying that hemingway was a racist in that he wanted slavery or Jim Crow laws. I just don't know what his views on issues like that are. But statements like this one and others in other works just demean the man as a person. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

[PeterL]

There are couple of reasons these questions started to roll in in my mind (which is a vast desert) like tumbleweeds:

1. I read The French Lieutenant's Woman by Fowles couple of months ago and am quite taken by his ideas about writing and authors.

2. A recent discussion on the racist elements in Hemingway's A Farewell to Arms.

3. Lolita (Need I say more?)


I personally don't think that the authors should be held responsible for their characters' actions (as long as they are not advocating illegal issues -such as paedophilia- in their books). The authors have to reflect the times and reality of their works as well as the characters. They have to let those characters develop and behave consistently. Scrooge has to refuse giving money to charity, Mr Darcy has to be proud, Pollyanna has to be happy (well, at least till they learn their lessons and change at the end)! Otherwise, we the readers would complain that they act 'out of character' and/or the book is not realistic.

Still, should they go scot-free without taking any responsibility for what they have created?


As you pointed out, the sins of characters are devices with which the authors says something. Lolita isn't about sexual activity of any kind, but Nabokov used that as a device to carry meaning. Lolita, the character, is a symbol, as is Quilty, while Humbert is a different kind of symbol. Scrooge is an Everyman character.

Should the authors "go scot-free without taking any responsibility for what they have created?" Scot-free, no they should be congratulated for creating good literature. If you want to criticize authors for the characters that they created, then go after some of the authors of porn or at least the authors of bad literature.

[beer good]

Is Ellis a psychopath?

It's interesting that you bring Ellis up, since in his latest novel he calls himself (or maybe I should say that he calls a writer named Bret Easton Ellis) to account for creating Patrick Bateman. By literally having Bateman come to life and haunt Ellis, murdering people and trying to frame Ellis for it. There's a twist to that which I won't reveal, but... read "Lunar Park", it deals a lot with this precise question.

(Any problem occurs when readers fail to see the "fiction" filter. One (sadly current) example might be the recently deceased Peter Benchley's "Jaws"; the novel and movie upped the fear of sharks tenfold, convincing many people that sharks were monsters out for nothing but human blood - much to the horror of Benchley, who loved sharks!)

What fiction writers create will always be a mirror, a metaphor of the world as they know it, and as long as there are despicable people in the world writers not only may, but should write about them. Putting it very simply and harshly, Nabokov is no more responsible for the sins of Humbert than Bob Woodward is responsible for the sins of Richard Nixon.

(And yes, that's a very simplistic way of looking at it and there are certainly nuances and shades of grey to that question. But that would require much more coffee, so for now, that is MHO.)

[Whifflingpin]

I do not think that authors should be condemned for the sins of the characters they create. Literature would become unbearably bland, and even pointless, if it were populated only with characters who were upright and moral and who behaved just as we think we ought to behave.

On the other hand, authors present or promote views, and they should take responsibilities for these views. If Professor Moriarty (just to lower the tone of the discussion) were presented as a role model, then we might still think that Conan Doyle was a good writer, but we'd reckon him to be a bad man.

There is no need to bring Hemingway to trial because one of his characters says "nigger," but one would be justified in condemning Margaret Mitchell because ""Gone with the Wind" suggests that slavery was an ideal social structure whose passing is to be lamented."*


*James W. Loewen, "Lies my teacher told me"

.

[Murdoch]

Fowles's " The French Lieutenant's Woman" is to explore the wonder and the fascination of the fictinal itself.As Fowles has noted to himself, he is not trying to write something one of the Victorians forgot to write, but perhaps something one of them failed yto write. He wants to write something new. That is why Sarah, as muse to Charles and its author, acquires her ever more existential independence as the fictive nature of the text. So it is not strange that Fowles sees narrative as God-games that can create a larger realities when all the performance is over. Is she sinful? It's controvertial anyway.

[The Unnamable]

I tried to find out more about Lolita so I typed it into google. Four hours later, I still hadn’t read a single mention of Nabokov.


Mr Darcy has to be proud,
This is interesting because there is little evidence in the novel that Darcy is particularly proud.


(well, at least till they learn their lessons and change at the end)!
What lesson does Darcy learn? In what way does he change? All I can see is that he learns to lie better.

“But your family owe me nothing. Much as I respect them, I believe I thought only of you.'' Chapter 58. Does Darcy really respect the Bennets?


I'm not saying that hemingway was a racist in that he wanted slavery or Jim Crow laws. I just don't know what his views on issues like that are.
And there is the problem– the assumption that a writer’s views can be neatly contained within our own simple labelling systems. What if he didn’t have a view? What if his views are too complex to be summed up as a single position? I refuse to condemn an author for being more complex and flawed than political correctness will permit.

For once, I agree with Whifflingpin:

Literature would become unbearably bland, and even pointless, if it were populated only with characters who were upright and moral and who behaved just as we think we ought to behave.



I personally don't think that the authors should be held responsible for their characters' actions (as long as they are not advocating illegal issues -such as paedophilia- in their books).
So you permit them the right to express ideas that you support but would hold them responsible for ideas that you don’t. I knew you read Stalin on the quiet. Obviously, it depends on what you mean by ‘advocating’ as well as ‘held responsible for’. I’ve just finished Houellebecq’s Whatever and am about to begin Platform. We need more like him. I don’t hold him responsible for anything he says in his books. Whatever is wonderfully offensive – the truth usually is.

[Virgil]

And there is the problem– the assumption that a writer’s views can be neatly contained within our own simple labelling systems. What if he didn’t have a view? What if his views are too complex to be summed up as a single position? I refuse to condemn an author for being more complex and flawed than political correctness will permit.

If anyone can explain to me the purpose (thematically, stylistically, narratively, even character development) of that line, then I will concede. But there isn't any. It was gratuitous. It was no different then pure pornography, let me call it racial pornography. I don't advocate banning any books or banning pornography. I even gave this novel a good rating. But this slur was uncalled for. Do you, Unnamable, or any other teachers, teach porno in class? If a slur, racial or otherwise, or sex, graphic or suggestive, is integral to the theme, structure, characterization (the aesthetics of it, to sum it into one word) is integral to the novel, then I have no problem with it. In William Faulkner, the racial components are integral to the work. But when art reduces itself to the state of shocking a reader, then it's no longer art. Shock is not art: sorry if you disagree. Those that put out images to pure titilate or shock are no different than pornographers. Porn is legal and if that's what you want to read, fine; but it's not art. Today that passage from Hem would have been edited out, and rightly so. It's simple decency.

[Evergreenleaf]

If anyone can explain to me the purpose (thematically, stylistically, narratively, even character development) of that line, then I will concede. But there isn't any.

All I have read is that little part that was quoted, so I have no real background, but saying that about Othello develops the character for me. The fact that is was just tossed out there shows what kind of person that character is. Of course, I'm sure that aspect of the character's personality could have been shown in another way, but I wouldn't say that the line has no purpose.

[Virgil]

All I have read is that little part that was quoted, so I have no real background, but saying that about Othello develops the character for me. The fact that is was just tossed out there shows what kind of person that character is. Of course, I'm sure that aspect of the character's personality could have been shown in another way, but I wouldn't say that the line has no purpose.
That quote came after more than 3/4 of the novel had progressed. And Frederick Henry is the hero of the book. There is no racial theme to the novel whatsoever.

[The Unnamable]

Do you, Unnamable, or any other teachers, teach porno in class?
I have done but not by showing it. It’s not as if I’d have to show it, though. They will have seen it. We pretend that it doesn’t exist because we think it shouldn't.


Today that passage from Hem would have been edited out, and rightly so. It's simple decency.
This is worrying. You support censoring (though you call it ‘editing’, it’s still censorship) an author on the grounds of a totally subjective value like ‘decency’. I think the real problem is that it’s almost impossible to discuss any racial issue because the only discussion permitted must begin with the assumption that the most important thing to say about racism is that it’s bad. Most Liberals are so terrified of appearing racist that they dare not deviate from this line. That’s why so few have anything of interest to say about it.

This brings me to Michel Houellebecq’s Platform. There is a passage where the narrator describes a visit to a sex bar in Phuket. He watches an elderly German male call over one of the girls:

“Her curved, youthful breasts were at the same level as the old man’s face; he was flushed with pleasure. I heard her call him, ‘Papa’. I paid for my tequila sour and left, a little embarrassed; I had the feeling I’d witnessed one of the old man’s last pleasures. It was too moving, too intimate.”

I’m sure many will find this objectionable, even disgusting. The narrator focuses his attention, in this instance, on the man. Instead of the pc response of moral disapproval, we get a kind of sympathy. He is embarrassed but not for the reason we might expect. He is almost touched by the man’s situation. The ‘decent’ thing to do would be to portray him as an extremely distasteful predator. I think the narrator recognises that sexuality is not the exclusive domain of the young and marketable. That old man has a libido and his options are limited in the youth-obsessed, hypocritical West. An old man with a libido will always be a ‘dirty old man’. I know that there will be people shouting about ‘sexual exploitation’ and probably adding ‘of children’ to intensify the emotional outrage we are supposed to feel as good liberals, but I think Houellebecq is writing about the world as it is, not as moral rectitude would wish it to be. Many find him objectionable and offensive because he is honest.

You appear to want books to lose some of their status as ‘classics’ if they do not subscribe to views you deem acceptable. If the book is any good, the characters can’t simply be judged on the basis of a single comment. We might not like that comment but fictional characters should surely reflect the complexity, ambiguity and inconsistency of their real life counterparts. Every day I hear comments made by close friends that would be deemed unacceptable. I don’t stop liking them. Nor will I report them to the Thought Police.


That quote came after more than 3/4 of the novel had progressed. And Frederick Henry is the hero of the book. There is no racial theme to the novel whatsoever.
You remind me of something the narrator of Platform says. His father has been murdered (the book opens with this, so I am not giving anything away) and he has to talk to the investigating police officer:

“I had watched a few made-for-TV movies, so I was prepared for this kind of conversation.”

Reality now mirrors Art. You seem to assume that the comment could only make sense if it is explicable in terms of ‘theme’. Do you think Hemingway wrote down a list of themes before beginning the novel?

[Virgil]

I have done but not by showing it. It’s not as if I’d have to show it, though. They will have seen it. We pretend that it doesn’t exist because we think it shouldn't.

What? You've taught pornography? Why?


This is worrying. You support censoring (though you call it ‘editing’, it’s still censorship) an author on the grounds of a totally subjective value like ‘decency’.
I knew you would say. You almost teed it up for me. Almost no writer in this century (20th, I mean) works without the collaboration of an editor. In fact the early Hem was edited by Max Perkins. You don't know what was edited out back in 1929. You don't know what Max Perkins convinced Hem to adjust. That is not censorship. It was no differnet then. Today that stray, insignificant racial slur would probably (I would hope) be taken out. I would imagine if the author insisted he might get to keep it, if he had a large enough reputation. But it would go through discussion.

You seem to feel that there is something sacred about putting boundaries around artist. All societies have done it in the past. There are all sorts of boundaries around Shakespeare; there are all sorts of boundaries around Reniassance painters. There is nothing wrong or restictive to putting such boundaries.


I’m sure many will find this objectionable, even disgusting.
Frankly I can't tell without the context. As it stands I don't see what's wrong with it in the least.


You appear to want books to lose some of their status as ‘classics’ if they do not subscribe to views you deem acceptable.
Perhaps. One stray word in AFTA doesn't risk it's classic status, but if I were of black ethnicity and I were a teacher and given that there are more books available in the time alloted to teach, why would I pick this after such a slur? If I had black students in my class why should I alienate them this way when there are other choices?


Do you think Hemingway wrote down a list of themes before beginning the novel?
Actually in this case I do. A farewell to arms, arms of war, arms of love. It was quite deliberative. Nonetheless there are novels the author doesn't start with themes, but a complex work of art such as a novel is edited and rewritten. The writer is in complete control of his themes.

[Charles Darnay]

On the Hemmingway debate, I would have to side with Virgil. I agree that the line was simply a throwaway line - maybe he did it really casaully, perhaps he wanted to rile people - I'm not to informed about the characteristics of Hemmingway. But Golding did it in Lord of the Flies as well - used the word in a "random" way - having no thematic relevance or character relevance.

Going back to Scheherezade's orginal questions - although i do not support blaming an author for the actions of their characters - this argument is one not easily solved. Possibly the best example is the Marquis de Sade. He created fiction - and that ficition poisoned the minds of many French youth - can he be blamed for this? Many thought so.

In regards to whether a character can control the direction of the story - I fully support this theory, for it has happened to me several times while writing. In a novel which i am currently working on, a had a simple plan for what was going to happen to the main character, but somehow, she did soemthing I did not intend to happen and suddenly she was thrust into this whole complex plot that completly changed my story. Although, of course I was fully aware of what path I was venturing down, I did nothing to stop it. I belive that is what it means to allow the characters to control the author - it's to write by intuition and never second guess your imagination

[Virgil]

On the Hemmingway debate, I would have to side with Virgil. I agree that the line was simply a throwaway line - maybe he did it really casaully, perhaps he wanted to rile people
Maybe he did it really casually because he himself (Hemingway the real person) does it really casually, and that is what is in his heart.

[bluevictim]

But statements like this one and others in other works just demean the man as a person. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
By 'the man' are you referring to Hemingway or Henry?

[Virgil]

By 'the man' are you referring to Hemingway or Henry?
Hemingway the author.

[Whifflingpin]

What would you have wanted Hemingway to have written? "Othello - but he was a man of colour!"

It may be that "nigger" was the word so commonly used for coloured people when Hemingway was writing that there was no perjorative sense implied at all. (OK , not a valid view, since in this case H was clearly stating that because Othello was black his life/actions did not matter in the way that a civilised white man's would. This casual assumption of white superiority is more racist than use of the word "nigger", but less immediately offensive. ???)

It may be that the word was commonly used, with a perjorative sense - in fact I think this to be the case, that white men of Hemingway's era generally looked down on black men - so this simply makes Hemingway normal for his time.

It may be that Hemingway was more racist than his contemporaries.

Whichever of the above (or even if none of the above) applies, you don't do your students, black or white, any favours by shying away from the issue, or sticking to "safe" authors. I suspect that by avoiding this passage, you would be protecting your white students from shock, rather than the black ones. It would come as no surprise to black people that white ones are racist.
It might be upsetting to white children to find out that many of the great authors of the past held views that we would now label as racist, and that, in fact, most white people from about 1800 until the present day were racist. However, unless your white students can accept that, they will not be able to understand any of the history of the nineteenth or twentieth centuries, nor will they understand the present places of white and non-white people in society and the world, nor will they be able to do anything about it it the future.

Unnamable argues that you should teach it as it is - of course he is right - if you do not, then you are insulting your students and failing to provide them with the tools to deal with "it," whatever it happens to be.

.

[beer good]

I'm wondering about Virgil's assumption that "this would get edited out today". Because as far as I can see, novels these days aren't exactly getting LESS prone to play the "shock" card (if that's how one wants to see it). If it was a certainty that offensive passages were edited out, how did authors like Ellis and Houllebecq (not to mention film makers like Tarantino) even get through the first page of their first novel/script?

Plus, if we look back, what's offensive changes all the time. Should Dostoevsky's editor have made him get rid of the offensive image of Jews in his books? Well, maybe. But should Salinger's have made him take the F word out of "Catcher In The Rye"?

And I must say, I still fail to see the problem with the Hemingway passage. Is it necessary for the "hero" to be perfectly likeable? Can he not have faults? Is it the word itself that's the problem, or just the fact that the person we're supposed to be rooting for is the one saying it? (Then again, it's been 20 years since I read AFTA, so maybe I should do that before I start discussing it...)

[Whifflingpin]

"in this case H was clearly stating that because Othello was black he acted in a way that a civilised white man would not. This casual assumption of white superiority is more racist than use of the word "nigger","

Bad form to answer one's own posts, but this is not fair to Hemingway. There is nothing, except our current interpretation of "nigger," to suggest that Hemingway was assuming superiority. All that is implied is that Othello is irrelevant to the matter in hand.

.

[blp]

When it comes to school syllabuses, the big racism debates I know of recently have been about Huckleberry Finn and Heart of Darkness. Both books, in my view, can be read as anti-racist, particularly the former. Both are, at best, much more ambiguous on the subject than the Hemingway quote and, for purely didactic purposes, could be said at least to be 'constructive' in 'raising the issues'. But both have been subjected to bannings and vigorous condemnations for their portrayal of black people.

It might be possible to make a distinction between the use of a word like 'nigger' within a work of fiction as either, in itself, fictional or non-fictional. I think in Huck Finn, the word is basically in quotation marks, unavoidable as a word a character like Huck would have used, but not the author's word. In the Hemingway quote, it seems (seems) to be the author's word - a non-fictional use, even though the passage is fiction. But it's not an easy call to make and I'm not even sure it's relevant.

I'm reminded reading through this thread how often I've been made queasy by a bit of racism or sexism in a work of literature. To give the example that's freshest in my mind, there's a Bukowski short story where a girl is shown to have enjoyed being raped by a character who seems like he might be based on the author. The story seems to me to be overtly rhetorical - a deliberate ****-you to pious PC sensibilities. There's a strong argument for saying that we should be steely enough to accept work like this - and Hemingway's casual racism too - even if, perhaps because, it doesn't necessarily sit comfortably with our views. This, not warm, fuzzy, sentimental, multi-culti homogeneity with its constant, neurotic care not to offend, is 'recognising otherness'. To expect that we should be able to avoid all upset is infantile.

That said, there's a thin line between this attitude and bullying - an activity in which the phrase 'grow up' has done good service in instilling masochism. Where I get worried about this stuff is where it's not presented rhetorically, but as something we're supposed to accept without question. I'm constantly amazed at how often men force themselves on women in Hollywood films and how, in almost every instance, the woman's violent but ineffective resistance suddenly relaxes and switches to ardour. This is almost never done, from what I can tell, to provoke debate (David Lynch's Wild at Heart might be an exception), but to do the opposite, to present this process as the norm. Whatever the effect of this on women, for whom I can't speak, I don't like its effect on me, the feeling of my mind and body under attack from something someone is trying to teach me, but that, I have to keep reminding myself, I don't want to learn. I also, I'm afraid, don't trust the rest of the population at large to consistently read this stuff critically, and so resent it for creating or contributing to a culture of stupidity and cruelty.

I realise I'm operating within a high/low culture binary, which is a little artificial when Hollywood regularly adapts classic literature and an art film like Last Tango in Paris is highly problematic in its depiction of the female lead. But it's funny, isn't it, that so many of the big morality and art rows centre on 'high culture' works - Houellebecq, Joyce, Burroughs, I am Curious Yellow, Lawrence etc. where the matters of controversy are laid out so overtly that they could almost be said to function as matters of debate already within the work.

[Virgil]

Some really good discussion here on all sides. Let me just bring one post of levity into all this, lyrics from a song by Three dog Night, "Black and White." I thought it might be approriate.


Black and White by Three Dog Night

D.Arkin/E.Robinson)

The ink is black, the page is white
Together we learn to read and write
A child is black, a child is white
The whole world looks upon the sight, a beautiful sight

And now a child can understand
That this is the law of all the land, all the land

The world is black, the world is white
It turns by day and then by night
A child is black, a child is white
Together they grow to see the light, to see the light

And now at last we plainly see
We'll have a dance of Liberty, Liberty!

The world is black, the world is white
It turns by day and then by night
A child is black, a child is white
The whole world looks upon the sight, a beautiful sight

The world is black, the world is white
It turns by day and then by night
A child is black, a child is white
Together they grow to see the light, to see the light

The world is black, the world is white
It turns by day and then by night
A child is black, a child is white
The whole world looks upon the sight, a beautiful sight

The world is black, the world is white
It turns by day and then by night
A child is black, a child is white
Together they grow to see the light, to see the light
C'mon, get it, get it
Ohh-ohhhh, yeah, yeah
Keep it up now, around the world
Little boys and little girls
Yeah, yeah-eah, oh-ohhh

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Virgil,

That is so twee, 70's and above all white. Let's hear it put better by some brothers shall we?


Public Enemy - Fear Of A Black Planet

-K. Shocklee-E. Sadler-C. Ridenhour-

Man you ain't gotta
Worry 'bout a thing
'Bout your daughter
Nah she ain't my type
(But supposin' she said she loved me)
Are you afraid of the mix of Black and White
We're livin' in a land where
The law say the mixing of race
Makes the blood impure
She's a woman I'm a man
But by the look on your face
See ya can't stand it

Man calm your *** down, don't get mad
I don't your sistah
(But supposin' she said she loved me)
Would you still love her
Or would you dismiss her
What is pure? Who is pure?
Is it European state of being, I'm not sure
If the whole world was to come
Thru peace and love
Then what would we made of?

Excuse us for the news
You might not be amused
But did you know white comes from Black
No need to be confused

Excuse us for the news
I question those accused
Why is this fear of Black from White
Influence who you choose?

Man c'mon now, I don't want your wife
Stop screamin' it's not the end of your life
(But supposin' she said she loved me)
What's wrong with some color in your family tree
I don't know

I'm just a rhyme sayer
Skins protected 'gainst the ozone layers
Breakdown 2001
Might be best to be Black
Or just Brown countdown

I've been wonderin' why
People livin' in fear
Of my shade
(Or my hi top fade)
I'm not the one that's runnin'
But they got me one the run
Treat me like I have a gun
All I got is genes and chromosomes
Consider me Black to the bone
All I want is peace and love
On this planet
(Ain't that how God planned it?)

Excuse us for the news
You might not be amused
But did you know White comes from Black
No need to be confused

Excuse us for the news
I question those accused
Why is this fear of Black from White
Influence who you choose?

[Unspar]

I don't think any of these songs take the race issue seriously enough. We need to take a lesson from Michael Jackson.

"Black Or White"

I Took My Baby On A Saturday Bang.
Boy Is That Girl With You? Yes We're One And The Same.

Now I Believe In Miracles
And A Miracle Has Happened Tonight

But If You're Thinkin' About My Baby
It Don't Matter If You're Black Or White

They Print My Message In The Saturday Sun
I Had To Tell Them I Ain't Second To None

And I Told About Equality An It's True
Either You're Wrong Or You're Right

But, If You're Thinkin' About My Baby
It Don't Matter If You're Black Or White

I Am Tired Of This Devil
I Am Tired Of This Stuff
I Am Tired Of This Business
So When The Going Gets Rough
I Ain't Scared Of Your Brother
I Ain't Scared Of No Sheets
I Ain't Scare Of Nobody
Girl When The Goin' Gets Mean

[L. T. B. Rap Performance]
Protection For Gangs, Clubs And Nations
Causing Grief In Human Relations
It's A Turf War On A Global Scale
I'd Rather Hear Both Sides Of The Tale
See, It's Not About Races
Just Places Faces
Where Your Blood Comes From
Is Where Your Space Is
I've Seen The Bright Get Duller
I'm Not Going To Spend My Life
Being A Color

[Michael]
Don't Tell Me You Agree With Me
When I Saw You Kicking Dirt In My Eye

But, If You're Thinkin' About My Baby
It Don't Matter If You're Black Or White

I Said If You're Thinkin' Of Being My Baby
It Don't Matter If You're Black Or White

I Said If You're Thinkin' Of Being My Brother
It Don't Matter If You're Black Or White

[Green Lady]

Perhaps. One stray word in AFTA doesn't risk it's classic status, but if I were of black ethnicity and I were a teacher and given that there are more books available in the time alloted to teach, why would I pick this after such a slur? If I had black students in my class why should I alienate them this way when there are other choices?


Usually when there is a racial slur in a story of this time period, it is not intended to offend. It merely reflects to how things were at that time. Just like in Mark Twain's books. He used the terms of the time because that's how it was then.

[beer good]

I'd post Lou Reed's "I Wanna Be Black", but there's not enough smilies in the world.

[blp]

Er...how about Patti Smith's Rock 'n' Roll Nigger?

[Virgil]

Usually when there is a racial slur in a story of this time period, it is not intended to offend. It merely reflects to how things were at that time. Just like in Mark Twain's books. He used the terms of the time because that's how it was then.
That stray Hemingway remark came out of no where, but the author's heart. With Twain, there is a setting and context that makes it appropriate. For those that missed this discussion in the Book Forum on A Farewell To Arms, please go here and read the discussion: http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15203&page=4&pp=15

Especially read Darlin's, who happens to be African-American, reaction. One can understand racism when it's integral to story. But when it's causually thrown around, it's hurtful. And I don't like that. Decency in my book outweighs the purity of an author's freedom.

[aydin]

Well I don't want to comment on the Hemmingway-race issue as I haven't read the book, but going back to Scheherzade's original questions, if by responsibility, you mean what the character does themselves, I think that within a book a character should be able to be as bad as the writer deems necessary. If you mean responsibility as in how the public react and possible consequences of how certain individuals might be influenced, although I think it could have terrible repercusions, I still don't think the blame should be put upon the author, unless they purposely created a character in order to influence people to do bad, if that makes sense?

I don't think the 'goodness' or 'badness' of an author is necessarily reflected by their works, but I do think it shows what makes them tick, which subjects obsess and absorb them, how they think the world, and the people in it, should be, or could be, how they are, or how they would like them to be...

Haven't read Lolita, and don't know much about Nabokov, but perhaps he didn't have tendencies himself, but knew someone who did? Also, if he did think about it, but never actually did anything, is that wrong? Can you help what you think? Or is it only upon action that bad thoughts become sin? Perhaps it could even be a kind of therapy. I read once somewhere that a horror writer wrote down his worst fears and this helped him overcome some of them.

It would be so interesting if Salinger was immune to phoniness (although I don't think that's possible, but if it is in anyone, probably him, right?), but maybe it's more the fact that he started seeing how phony the world was, hated it, saw it in himself even...

[Taliesin]

Speaking of author's curses, don't you hate it when you want to start writing something and do so, then make a short pause for a small milk and by looking at it it turns sour?

[Scheherazade]

Speaking of author's curses, don't you hate it when you want to start writing something and do so, then make a short pause for a small milk and by looking at it it turns sour?The milk or your writing?

[Taliesin]

Both.

[Robert Jordan]

To Have and Have Not uses the word nigger so freely it becomes disgusting even if Hemingway was a racist or not. But I also noticed for certain stories he uses different ways of describing people based on the outlook of the character. But, as I said, after reading To Have And Have Not, the line between character outlook and author outlook begins to blur. As for Lolita, I've only heard bad things about that book from people who read books frequently and across the board. Most of them can't finish it, they say it's so disgusting. But, bacj to this original subject. A writer must have something subjective in their psyche that allows them to be able to write about certain subjects or people. For instance, Brett Easton Ellis may have never been a serial killer but the argument could be made strongly that he must have thought of it. Dostoyevsky never killed anyone but how does he bring a character so drawn out and complex as he does in Raskolnikov from Crime and Punishment? Books are gateways into our innermost thoughts and feelings, really. So any story a writer creates has to come from somewhere inside of themselves whether they mean it objectively or subjectively. It is still there, on paper, for us to experience.

[JCamilo]

Of course the author is not what all his characters are. And of course, the author always left traces of his cultural views in the books. Poor of the author that does not belong to his time.
Nabokov in an interview spanked (Nabokov spanks with sarcasm, of course) the interviewer that dared to suggest sympathy for the pedophile of Lolita and again, when he suggested the notion that characters can "take control" after created (he called that as a stupidy romantic illusion, or something like this).
In a degree I agree with him, this idea that the character can "write himself" and the author is just following the character lead is in my opinion just a word play for authors who write with more instinct and perceive a new direction for the work and follow it, still in their own control.
However, nothing bother me than the attempt of political correctness over the past. Let's just suppose that political correctness have use (it does, the excess of it is what cause damage), what is the point of correcting the past? Creating a false illusion of perfection, or the notion that the great minds of the past are somehow all good? Let's put clear, there is a big danger in the world and the danger is that people of genius, artists of great quality can be also total jerks, they can be wrong. Let people know that Melville had not idea of echology, that Shakespeare had some bad views of jews, etc. (If they had). And let them know how at sametime they are awesome.
Maybe they will reconsider the cult of celebrities.