“Rape”: A Continuation

The second post I ever wrote on this blog was about the word “rape,” and since then it has not ceased to be an issue. A number of events have occurred in the past couple of months, and re-reading many of them this week has reminded me what a big deal it can be.

About a month ago stand-up comedian Daniel Tosh was doing a show when an audience member commented on the bit he was doing. He had been going on about how hilarious rape jokes were [his position: always], when the woman interrupted him by yelling “Actually, rape jokes are never funny!” She reports that Tosh responded with the words: “Wouldn’t it be funny if that girl got raped by like, 5 guys right now? Like right now?”

John Seavey, one of the writers on Mightygodking, wrote a response to what happened, titled “From the “How To Be A Decent Human Being” File….” In it he decried Tosh’s response to the woman, and basically lay down that freedom of speech or not, threatening someone sexually is not something you ever do.

I talked to Gordon about this yesterday, and not to turn this into another “Evan and Gordon Talk” post, but I had to add just a little of our conclusion to this one:

[after agreeing that probably no one in the audience actually took Tosh’s words “seriously.”]

EVAN: I mean, I guess we can both be on the level that to at least one member involved, Tosh, it was not a threat.

GORDON: Agreed. You also promised to crap in my bed. [I will not deny this -E.]

EVAN: Valid, but 1/5 of all Gordons don’t have their beds crapped in.

Similar to my first post on the word, there are those out there who believe that this is all a matter of sensitivity. Comedians like Louis C.K. have defended Tosh‘s right to free speech. Others on the internet have taken more creative avenues to back up the “rape joke” that was made [warning for language and content]:


The video, for those who don’t feel like or want to watch it, is a press conference with the character “F-ck Bot 5000.” He answers that rape jokes are off limits, while jokes about “9/11,” “dead babies,” and “making fun of autistic children” are perfectly acceptable. The point being, from what I can tell, that people are being overly sensitive about a particular buzzword, but letting these other topics slide completely.

Then, of course, there’s the whole “legitimate rape” thing. On August 19th Todd Akin, Republican nominee for the state of Missouri Todd, told KTVI-TV that “First of all, from what I understand from doctors [pregnancy from rape] is really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

Now I’m no Biology major, but I have friends who are, and none of them can back up his claims. His words have, of course, created quite the uproar on the internet. Jezebel compiled a very thorough “Official Guide to Legitimate Rape,” which compiles the ways in which the word and act have been portrayed in past years. I strongly recommend checking it out.

Finally, game designer James Desborough wrote a post this past June entitled “In Defence of Rape.” After admitting that the title is instigative at best, he, and this is a direct quote, states “Rape or attempted rape is a f-cking awesome plot element, one of many.”

Gordon and I talked about this one as well, and the issue is, at the heart of his argument, not wrong. The gist of what he’s saying is [and I quote Gordon] “Look, rape can be an effective and powerful storytelling element, so long as it isn’t trivialized.” And that’s not something I can disagree with.

What I can disagree with is his statement that “I’m not prepared to take spurious claims about ‘rape culture’ etc at face value without something substantive to back them up.” It’s one that he uses to defend his argument, lumping “rape culture” in with the “‘all men are bastards’ argument.” I don’t see what can be more substantive than the gigabytes of rape porn on the internet. I mean, it’s not like it’s hiding or anything. If some weirdo gets off on The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo then that’s one instance, but the people creating rape porn for a very large audience is not.

Rape is, as ever, a hotly debated issue. While we can always say that people are being too sensitive, the fact is that it is a very real, legitimate act that happens more than once a minute. It’s not something to be made light of, and especially not something to “jokingly threaten” someone with. It is also not something that can simply be thrown around in speech without strong knowledge of what’s being talked about.

Evan and Gordon Talk: Affirmative Action

EVAN: So last week I asked people on Facebook what they wanted us to talk about, and the answer that got the most votes was affirmative action. This is a pretty broad topic, but thinking about it in the past couple of days I have at least a few possible directions to go with it. But before we do that, a definition-

GORDON: Well, that eternal fount of knowledge that is Wikipedia sets affirmative action down as:

“policies that take factors including ‘race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or national origin’ into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group ‘in areas of employment, education, and business’, usually justified as countering the effects of a history of discrimination.”

Though of course, we’re probably more familiar with it in regards to racial or gender quotas for certain businesses.

EVAN: Right, like hiring a minority to make some sort of company quota-

GORDON: Ironically, despite the outcry against this particular aspect of affirmative action, it isn’t actually legal in the US to set quotas for any race.

EVAN: Which I did not know. But it happens, of course.

GORDON: That it does. That quota being typically “100% white.”

EVAN: I meant more along the lines of the executive minority training program featured in Season 6 of The Office.

GORDON: That too. “Token” minority hiring.

EVAN: And Gabe’s childish delight at pulling in someone who wasn’t black [Kelly], like all of the other entries were.

GORDON: It’s been a while since I’ve seen it.

EVAN: It’s all good.

GORDON: Let’s get right down to it here- affirmative action is still a contentious practice, but let’s face it, now more than ever it’s demonstrative of inherent bias in the system.

EVAN: As someone who doesn’t keep up with the news as often as he should, the most recent event I can recall that featured this was the rioting that was happening in Paris.

GORDON: Go on…

EVAN: Oh man, I was really hoping you’d remember. But it was a minority group rioting, and the way they solved it all was that employers had to hire people from this group, and pay them regardless of how well/hard they worked.

GORDON: Ergh- it’s France. These are the same people who nearly elected a neo-Nazi to be prime minister, and and have massive racial bigotry issues- just look at their expulsion of the Roma.

I’d hesitate before using them as an example- let’s bring the issue a little closer to home. Take America, for example.

EVAN: Well, your home.

GORDON: We have a workforce completely and utter disproportionate to the population. Even as the white population diminishes, the vast majority of administrative jobs are held by white males.

It’s like what I brought up in my article on TLC.

EVAN: Misrepresentation of an entire population, yeah?

GORDON: Absolutely.

EVAN: So that’s America, but where does affirmative action come into it, are you saying it’s needed?

GORDON: I’m saying that it isn’t working. If affirmative action was meant to end hiring and promotional discrimination on the basis of race and gender, it’s utterly failed, and the proof of that is everywhere around us.

EVAN: Well, you know more about the States than I do, especially with you saying that it’s illegal. Are there any affirmative action movements than you can bring up at all?

GORDON: The only major issue I can recall in the past couple years was a lawsuit brought against Walmart.

EVAN: Go on.

GORDON: Back in 2007, a gender discrimination lawsuit (Walmart v. Dukes) was filed, with a massive number of women citing that despite nearly two-thirds of Walmart employees being women, only a third of management was female- and that’s to say nothing of other charges against Walmart’s routine exploitation of its female employees.

A court (tragically) ruled that the various individuals suing didn’t have quite enough in common to constitute being a “class”, so the case was more or less thrown out.

EVAN: Their sharing a gender not withstanding?

GORDON: Welcome to America.

vv

EVAN: Moving on to something I may know a little more about, affirmative action is a term that comes up quite a lot in regards to Native Americans, or what we in Canada refer to as “First Nations.”

GORDON: Shoot-

EVAN: There’re reservations, of course, land that belongs [is given] to said people. I’ve heard many times friends saying that they were 1/16 such and such, and would be able to “claim land.” Also the fact that gambling is legal on such properties, which I still don’t fully understand.

GORDON: The issue of native rights is an entirely different topic- something we oughta cover, but not quite in this post.

EVAN: I’m just saying that I think it ties directly into what we’re discussing. This is all stuff that’s “usually justified as countering the effects of a history of discrimination.”

GORDON: Granted. One could make an argument for lumping together reparations and affirmative action, but affirmative action is really strictly defined as pertaining to admissions- into either a university or the workplace.

How IS that in Canada, anyways? You got management proportionate to your population makeup?

EVAN: I am not sure. Let me check.

Well, I can confidently say that our minority population is 16%, though this excludes First Nations. Taking them into account, they add 4%, making a solid 20% of our population being nonwhite.

GORDON: Okay. So in your experience, is one in five Canadian manages/execs/bosses/administrators/etc. from a minority group?

EVAN: I’d say that in Toronto, at least, you’re as likely to see a white person as a non-white person. Depending on the neighborhood, you may find it difficult to see more than a handful of Caucasians.

GORDON: But in management…

EVAN: Right. I’m not exactly in a lot of offices… So I don’t know if I can comment on that.

GORDON: Gun to your head…

EVAN: I want to say 1/5 are probably minorities. Which matches up with the statistics I mentioned.

GORDON: Ah, good.

I love how useful this GIF is...

EVAN: I’m a little perturbed that you put a gun to my head in this post.

GORDON: Heh…

Before any of the readers jump down my throat, I know am I’m looking at the problem from a white-liberal viewpoint. Simple fact of the matter is, college is expensive (don’t I know it… **** you Evan, and your ridiculously great government benefits), and the small, wealthy majority in US is (overwhelmingly) white. Someone might make an argument for qualifications being required over race, but that’s exactly where affirmative action is SUPPOSED to come in.

It’s meant to help even the playing field, but it just doesn’t- again, look around.

EVAN: Qualifications required over race and affirmative action. Could you explain that further?

GORDON: Imagine you’re an employer. And imagine this we’re not living some depression-era-hellscape where you’re asking that an entry level employee have five to ten years of experience.

EVAN: . . . I’m listening. This is a dreamworld you’re painting.

GORDON: You have to fill a position, and there are two candidates- a white guy with a college degree, and a black guy without one (again, college is ****ing expensive). Who do you give the job to?

EVAN: The qualified one. The white guy.

GORDON: And imagine you need this position filled again the next year. And the next and the next, and you keep getting the same basic candidates. Who do you pick?

EVAN: Obviously whoever can do the job better. But where is affirmative action, like you said, supposed to come in?

GORDON: The people with jobs get money, the people with money send their kids to college, and so on. Affirmative action is meant to make sure that people aren’t discriminated against on the basis of their race, so that two equally qualified people stand an equal chance of getting in.

It’s like trying to back-paddle in the middle of a maelstrom.

EVAN: Ah, I see what you’re getting at. But what about minority scholarships?

GORDON: Even there, there’s an issue. Poor schools don’t get good funding, they tend to produce students who aren’t as prepared as their wealthier peers, and even bright ones who would otherwise school their peers wind up doing worse on tests. Unless you’re exceptionally gifted…

Again, it’s trying to apply a band-aid to an open wound.

EVAN: One more simile, for the road. Our time’s just about wrapped up.

GORDON: It all boils down to this- there is a need for equity and equality in the workplace- a desperate need. But affirmative action is like using a toothpick to fight dragons [emphasis added]- its the wrong tool of the job, and even if it was appropriate for the situation, it’s still not very effective…

EVAN: Join us next week, where hopefully I know more about what we’re talking about, when we discuss-

A Culture War Report: Extreme Midget Wrestling

It’s just shy of 8:00 in the Riviera hotel and casino, one of the last of the original Las Vegas casinos. I’m in the lobby, waiting for the show to start and killing time with some people-watching. An Elvis impersonator passes through, followed shortly by the Beatles. There’s your businessmen, your tourists, your townies out for the evening. A woman in her early fifties, covered in tattoos and carrying a four-foot glass vase of alcohol. Some hipsters in tight jeans taking their picture with the Extreme Midget Wrestling advertisement, some bros in tight Hollister t-shirts boasting about how much vodka they downed. There’s a guy in line to buy tickets with a “Hooked On Jesus” shirt, and a couple female body-builders. All strutting, sauntering, and stumbling past while U2’s “Pride (In the Name of Love)”- a tribute to the life and work of MLK Jr.-  plays in the background.

There’s probably a message in there somewhere.

It’s about 8:20 when I get into the room- they’ve got a miniature fight ring in the center and thirty or so rows of seats fanning outwards from all sides, with little mobile booths on the outer orbit selling bad popcorn and overpriced drinks. Before you get the wrong idea- no, I’m not the kind of guy who’s a regular attendee of midget wrestling. I’m here in my capacity as a self-styled journalist on assignment on the front line of the culture wars.

The barker is hyping the crowd, working up a call-and-respond chant.

“Half the size!”

Twice the violence!”

“Half the size!”

Twice the violence!”

And as the cheering dies down, the referee appears on stage waving the American flag, and then everyone rises as the national anthem begins to play and the barker declares “This is for the troops!” The last notes play and the first of the wrestlers bounds up into the ring. Roughly 4’10”, and snarling at the DJ to turn his music down as he breaks into a quip about what a worthless town this is.

Boos and hisses from the audience.

I don’t know what y’all are booing at- half of you don’t even live here!”

A few seats down from me, a guy in a baseball cap starts howling at the ring.

Fake midget! You’re a fake midget! FAKE MIDGEEEET!!!

The wrestler ignores him- tries to get on with his smack talk as the guy keeps yelling.

You’re not a midget! Freaking Hobbit! Hey Hobbit-boy! Where’s Frodo, bitch?!”

Amidst more hisses and laughter at the guy’s insults, the wrestler finishes his spiel. The barker announces the challenger- a guy by the name of “Little Fabio”. He’s 4’8″, and has long flowing hair as golden and curly as the finest ramen noodles.

The fight begins. Choreographed, of course. Staged punches, slaps, metal trays to the cranium- it’s all there. It’s not staged well enough to be realistic, or over the top enough to be comedic, but then again, no one’s exactly expecting a production of Shakespeare. The crowd does what it can to get involved, and when Little Fabio mimics an elbow slam as he bounces off the top rope, they break out into cheering. And so it goes- long silence as the two wrestlers clumsily bat at each other and raucous whooping when the occasional stunt is performed. It doesn’t help much that the two stumble out of the ring and fight each other on the ground, where no-one who isn’t in the first couple rows can see anything. At long last, it ends, the barker making a joke about Little Fabio “taking out the trash”- which doesn’t really work, since Little Fabio dumps the smack-talker into a laundry cart, not a dumpster. The crowd applauds with general approval, but already they’re getting bored. “Lil’ Rampage,” representing Las Vegas is up next, sashaying down the ramp in a fur coat. His opponent hops into the ring, and the same scene is played out again. Back and forth with the pulled-punches and choke-holds, the audience trying to get worked up as the barker shouts out stuff like “Oooh! Drop-kick to the huevos!” Intermission finally arrives, and more than a few people filter out through the door. A security guard tries to get people to stop their kids (yeah, there are plenty of kids here- even couple who brought their baby) from climbing on the ring- no one listens, of course.

Note to the Riviera: Nothing says “I don’t have any real authority” more than a guy wearing cargo shorts. Invest the cash- get your security guys some pants.

People shuffle backs to their seats, and as the final strains of AC/DC’s “Thunderstruck” fade, we seize the opportunity to move up into one of the vacated rows. Better view, but you still can’t see a thing when they’re going at it outside the ring beyond the brief flash of trashcan being lifted over someone’s head before it disappears below the front rows and only a hollow crashing noise tells if you it hit someone. At 4’6″ it’s “The Machine” versus “The Athlete” of New York City. “The Athlete” is actually pretty neat to watch- clearing the ropes with a back flip and bounding up the corner posts with a kind of mad dexterity usually reserved for cats. Simple truth of the matter is that once they get at it, you do forget that they’re midgets- or at least, the fact that they are midgets (brought up only in the barkers patronizing and terrible puns) just doesn’t seem at all relevant. For some reason, there’s a cop stalking up and down the aisles, though exactly who or what she’s looking for, I really don’t want to know. The bouts are getting better, in both the acting and the stunts, but that doesn’t stop a small but steady trickle of people out of the room. Some wrestler with a vague dog-persona is vanquished, and most everyone assumes the show is over (yours truly including). A mass exodus occurs before it dawns on the barker what’s happening and he shouts that we’re just about to get to the main event- by the time it starts, half the audience is gone.

Which is a shame, because this is the point where everything picked up fast.

“The Little Show” pops out from behind the curtains, wearing jet-black sunglasses and a shrunken version of the holocaust cloak from The Princess Bride. 4’4″, they say as he sheds his cape and rips off his black wife-beater to reveal- that’s right- a smaller black wife-beater underneath. Obviously we were all hoping he’d rip that one off to reveal yet another, smaller wife-beater under that, but nothing came of it. The kids in the front row are going nuts as the tempo is ratcheted up as Disturbed’s “Get Down With The Sickness” blasts over the speakers, and “The Little Show” waltz around the ring, making sure everyone kicks a good look at the flames at the bottom of his black pleather pants. Dang those were cool pants. Then his challenger appears.

His name?

“Baby Jesus.”

That’s right- “Baby Jesus.”

3’6″. Gold cross emblazoned on his left pant-leg. Break-dancing in the ring. Break-dancing.

The crowd goes crazy and the barker is spewing out every pun he can come up with. These were my favorites:

Who has more midget muscle!?

<Baby Jesus gets slammed into the ground> “Oooh! He almost sent him back to heaven!”

C’mon, Baby Jeezus! C’mon!

Little Show charges, but Baby Jesus stretches the ring’s ropes open and steps aside, sending Little Show flying through. The front rows are standing up now, and one section has started up the chant of “Ho-ly Shit! Ho-ly Shit! Ho-ly Shit!”. Back in the ring, Baby Jesus takes a chair to the face but comes back with a beautiful crowd hype as he does the worm for no apparent reason. Just as it appears all is lost for BJ, he flips over (yes, flips over) Little Show and wrestles him to the ground, pinning him down as the cheesiest referee imaginable slaps the ground three times. Everyone’s standing and cheering, and Baby Jesus is declared the winner, lugging away a belt easily twice his size.

A battle royale is declared as all eight wrestlers clamber back into the ring. They have at it, but most of the entertainment at this point is coming from the barker’s increasingly ridiculous slogans.

IT’S MIDGET MAYHEM!!!”

MIDGETGEDDON!!!!!!”

CLASH OF THE MIDGETS, EVERYBODY! CLASH OF THE MIDGETS!!!”

One by one, they wrestlers are bumped off, until it’s only Baby Jesus left in the ring. Next thing you know, it’s being declared that Polaroids will be sold for 10 bucks a pop, and that you should pick up a t-shirt or get your poster autographed. I wait in the hall as people exit- most of ’em are on their phones, chuckling that it was funny. It’s just past 10:00, and everyone’s exuding that post-show deflation as they head off to their rooms or cars.

This is the part of the post where you might expect some sort of conclusion, but truth be told, for all my notes, I’m not exactly sure what to make of it all. Degrading to the midgets? Like I said, without the barker, chances are it probably wouldn’t even register as you watched the fights. Degrading to the audience? Despite the snickers, most of the people there were clearly more investing in the fact that that they were watching wrestlers rather than short people. What critique exactly do you apply to an event that’s part of a subculture of a subculture anyways? Maybe it was exploitation, pure and simple. Maybe it was an example of people being able to do what they love regardless of their physical stature. I can only really present the facts here- you’re going to have to debate whether what they all add up to is right or wrong for yourselves, or of course, conclude that there’s really no moral to this story.

After all- it’s Vegas.

People Are Upset About Aveline de Grandpré [What Else Is New?]

So this news came out while I was still at camp, so I’m definitely a little behind the times. Ubisoft revealed at E3 in early June that another game in the Assassin’s Creed series would be joining Assassin’s Creed III when it launched this October 30th. The following is a trailer for that game:


The AC franchise has always been ahead of its time in terms of racial representation. Altaïr ibn La’Ahad, a Syrian assassin, Ezio Auditore da Firenze, an Italian, and Ratohnhaké:ton [Conor Kenway], English/Mohawk are the stars of the first, second, and third games respectively. Each game has given slavish devotion to historical accuracy, but each has also starred a male protagonist. Until now.

Aveline de Grandpré is an African/French assassin, the only black female video game character I can think of besides Rochelle of Left 4 Dead 2, and from what I can tell a complete and total badass. This is a huge step on Ubisoft’s part, and I’m both impressed and proud that they’ve made this choice. Especially when the reception was so expected.

Clicking on the image to the left will bring up comments on the video I posted. Choice comments are:

Yup, [I know] AC isnt so realistic, but a women? :/

okay a female is reasonable but seriously y does she have to be black! wtf

looks like i’m not alone on this lol. so many people think i’m racist or something lol

It may seem like this is only to be expected from the video game community, often [and accurately] thought to be both extremely racist and sexist.  It was only earlier this year that fans of the book series The Hunger Games took to the internet to express their disgust that Rue, a character in the novel, was portrayed by a black actress in the film.

The image on the right is one of many incredibly offensive tweets about the casting. Jezebel reported on the phenomenon early this year, but it seems that it’s not the only Hunger Games related news that the site has to write about this year.

While the role of Panem-ian heartthrob Finick Odair has already been  given to Sam Claflin, months earlier a campaign was started to give it to biracial actor Jesse Williams. This was, again, met with some pretty intense criticism. From racists. Unfortunately a lot of the negative/ignorant comments on this messageboard have been deleted, though Jezebel’s write-up on the situation can be read hereThe campaign tumblr is still out there, though it now also discusses racial casting, which I definitely don’t have a problem with.

Suffice to say, the world still has a ways to go before we, in North America, anyway, can simply start accepting that not everyone out there is white, and therefore not everyone who appears in art, either electronic or literary, is either. These comments I posted may just be an example of the “loud minority,” but if female or nonwhite protagonists are really a big deal, maybe we should be loud as well.

I think Aveline de Grandpré is an amazing addition to an already stellar video game series. I think it is fantastic that she’s black and that she is a woman, and I think that you should too.

Go Listen to “Guilty Pleasures: Art and Politics”

Two days ago Gordon and I talked about “hipster racism,” a topic he heard about via an eye-opening lecture by novelist China Miéville. The talk was titled Guilty Pleasures: Art and Politics, and discussed far more than what we were able to given our time.

A number of things: Firstly, I am not going to discuss or summarize his lecture in its entirety; it was forty-some minutes long and that would be ridiculous, just listen to it for yourself. Secondly, I am not a socialist, and much of what he was saying was through that filter. He did, after all, speak at a little something called “Socialism 2012.” I am not someone who has very strong political leanings, but I am someone who truly loves art in its many forms. The following are the three ideas he spoke about that stuck me the most.

The Artist and Their Art

Miéville, about a minute in, states that the socialist position on art and politics is this: “[socialists] do not judge art by the politics of the creator of that art.” He then quickly adds that they do so all the time anyway. I briefly wrote about this in a post about Jewish children’s author Rich Michelson. Michelson hosted a session that was largely about race and background, and how they impact audiences’ opinions of a work. Is a Jewish author allowed to write about the struggle of the civil right’s movement? And if not, then why?

The relationship between creator and his or her art is heavily debated, but its extremes are very easy to criticize. Miéville said that they’d all sat through “egregious folk music” simply because of the grounds of its sentiments expressed. Simply having a good message does not make art good. A Christian movie about the horrors of porn is not in and of itself a bad thing; having it feature ghosts [and be a clear knock-off of Paranormal Activity] is. To put it in the form of a proverb, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.” Feel free to replace “hell” with “bad art” or “disappointed audiences.”

Guilty Pleasures

The title of his talk and what I’m the most interested in, Miéville listed different axes of socialist guilt. The third of which [17:56] he says is:

The question of quality: “I know it’s not very good but I like it anyway.” A declaration of kind of defensive guilt.

The thing is, he realizes that the statement is inherently flawed. By saying something is not very good we declare that we can make qualitative judgements about art, and this leads to questions like: “What is art? What makes it good, bad, better? What kind of social phenomenon is it?”

When it comes to television shows I have a standard rule, and that is to watch it ’till its dying days. I have watched all of The Office to date, and that is the same as 30 RockHow I Met Your Mother, and a slew of other shows. Sooner or later they begin to break down [see my first example], but I stick to them. The reason I’m bringing this up is The Big Bang Theory.

Gordon hates TBBT. He hates it because, honestly, it’s not a very good show. He often says that “nerdface” is an excellent way to describe their treatment of the characters. That being said, I have, and do [sometimes still] enjoy it. Do I feel guilty? As an English and Writing major, yes. I studied for four years to differentiate between good and bad writing. As a general media consumer and television enthusiast, yes, I still feel guilty. And, as Miéville said, I somehow defend myself by admitting to others that I realize it is not very good.

Does this justify me? I don’t think so. But beyond what it means to be good or bad, what does it mean to like?

What Does It Mean to “Like” Art?

I like the Dungeons and Dragons Monster Manual. I like the novels of Barbara Cummings [sp?]. I like Gramsci’s prison notebooks. [20:15]

None of these statements tells him anything about his relationship with each piece of art, because they’re all so distinct. What further complicates the verb is the discussion of “the art piece one enjoys disliking” [20:32]. We can like to dislike things; Justin Bieber basically encapsulates this idea by himself. While he never ends up truly defining the word, he seeks closure in the writing of another.

What follows is a piece of writing by Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, an 18th century writer, and Miéville’s response to it [34:45]:

“The pretty fellows you speak of I own entertain me sometimes, but is it impossible to be diverted with what one despises? I can laugh at a puppet show and at the same time know there is nothing in it  worthy of my attention or regard.”

This is one of the most liberating things I have ever read in terms of the cultural sphere. It is not obligatory to have footnoted opinions about everything you consume.

I read his meaning in that last paragraph as being that we need not get caught up in guilt. There should be a way of looking at what we like that doesn’t involve us castigating ourselves. I can enjoy the King Fantastic Remix of Drive It Like You Stole It without being a proponent of foul language. Likewise I can read AmazingSuperPowers, be amused, and not have to argue how high- or lowbrow its humour is. While the intent of an artist and the perceived quality of their work should be taken into account, there are times when we can simply like, or more simply enjoy, art, whatever it may be.

Evan and Gordon Talk: Hipster Racism

GORDON: Welcome back, ladies, gentlemen, and persons who defy conventional gender roles, to another edifying episode of Evan and Gordon Talk. Our topic for tonight: Hipster Racism.

Evan- if you’ll offer a quick definition.

EVAN: Uh, I’m going to leave you to that, actually. Gordon sent me this link to check out, and the bit about “hipster racism” is actually quite short [appearing at about 00:00]. The speaker, China Miéville, had a lot of amazing things to say, and I lost it in there somewhere. [I’ll probably be writing more about the lecture on Friday]

GORDON: Essentially, “Hipster Racism” or “Ironic Racism” are jokes or comedy with traditionally racist content, funny not because they put people down, but funny because of how utterly atrocious and ignorant they are. Similar to a dead baby joke.

The question we’ll be dealing with tonight is this: Is ironic racism still just racism?

EVAN: This strikes a similar chord with a conversation I had with . . . a friend of mine, where he called Arab people “towelheads.”

GORDON: Yikes. Continue reading