She Has A Wart!
Apr. 14th, 2014 11:24 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
bloodyrosemccoyFred Clark has made this point before, but it bears repeating: Witch Hunts are Dangerous; Witches are Not.
I have enough trouble with historical fiction when it tries to be true to what happened, because my rather literal brain can't get over the fact that no matter how much research you do, there's no getting around that it didn't really happen that way. I suspect that's why I like speculative fiction so much. You don't have to believe it. It's right there in the name, like, twice. Speculative. Fiction. "Historical fiction," regardless of what they're trying for, is an oxymoron to me.
But I admit, some examples are worse than others. Like, for example, if you try to tell me that a victim of a historical atrocity had it coming. I don't know if that's what the show Salem will do, but it's pretty much what the trailer for it does, and that's just ... yeah, not great for me. It doesn't take that much to file the serial numbers off!
Plus, the actual Salem Witch Trials are interesting enough without adding bullshit to them. I was bugged enough with Arthur Miller's artistic liberties in The Crucible. The bizarreness of it was enough without adding the scandalous sexy affair, dangit! That was just stupid.
Although the timing of reading The Crucible was interesting, though. I was in high school and it was 2002. We were discussing how Arthur Miller was using the witch trials to parallel his own era's McCarthyism and Red Scare. The teacher asked if we could think of any other instances of such hysteria, and I cheerfully piped up, "The War on Terror!"--And my classmates just about jumped on me. "That's different!" "There REALLY ARE terrorists!" "How would THAT be like a witch hunt?" It was ... telling. And it illustrates the same thing Fred Clark is saying: witch hunts aren't all in the past. People just don't always recognize them until they are past.
EDIT: I seem to have picked up a troll. There's a delicious irony in there somewhere, but I can't be bothered, so don't worry y'all, I'm taking care of it.
I have enough trouble with historical fiction when it tries to be true to what happened, because my rather literal brain can't get over the fact that no matter how much research you do, there's no getting around that it didn't really happen that way. I suspect that's why I like speculative fiction so much. You don't have to believe it. It's right there in the name, like, twice. Speculative. Fiction. "Historical fiction," regardless of what they're trying for, is an oxymoron to me.
But I admit, some examples are worse than others. Like, for example, if you try to tell me that a victim of a historical atrocity had it coming. I don't know if that's what the show Salem will do, but it's pretty much what the trailer for it does, and that's just ... yeah, not great for me. It doesn't take that much to file the serial numbers off!
Plus, the actual Salem Witch Trials are interesting enough without adding bullshit to them. I was bugged enough with Arthur Miller's artistic liberties in The Crucible. The bizarreness of it was enough without adding the scandalous sexy affair, dangit! That was just stupid.
Although the timing of reading The Crucible was interesting, though. I was in high school and it was 2002. We were discussing how Arthur Miller was using the witch trials to parallel his own era's McCarthyism and Red Scare. The teacher asked if we could think of any other instances of such hysteria, and I cheerfully piped up, "The War on Terror!"--And my classmates just about jumped on me. "That's different!" "There REALLY ARE terrorists!" "How would THAT be like a witch hunt?" It was ... telling. And it illustrates the same thing Fred Clark is saying: witch hunts aren't all in the past. People just don't always recognize them until they are past.
EDIT: I seem to have picked up a troll. There's a delicious irony in there somewhere, but I can't be bothered, so don't worry y'all, I'm taking care of it.
no subject
Date: 2014-04-14 08:17 pm (UTC)Stepping on the Koran offends me, despite my atheism, because it's bloody stupid and useless and offensive to assume terrorist = Muslim and disrupting two million residents' (plus visitors') ability to fly on a goddamn plane is worth the dubious assumption that terrorists can't plan around this when they already plan on not looking like a conservative Muslim.
no subject
Date: 2014-04-14 09:10 pm (UTC)* I don't recall his name, or which state it happened in, but I think it was in Texas several years ago.
no subject
Date: 2014-04-15 12:29 am (UTC)Also, I'm on the side that doesn't purposefully fly planes into buildings. The minute you think your right to protest anything involves flying planes into buildings, you are no longer on my side.
no subject
Date: 2014-04-15 12:51 am (UTC)You also asserted that "Labeling a tax protester an enemy of America is an admission of whose side you are on", and I affirmed that I am on the side that does not crash planes into buildings on purpose. If one would like to carry around signs and have rallies on the Mall, I might disagree with your position, but I agree you have those rights. You do not have the right to crash planes into buildings without permission*. I also wouldn't call someone that reckless an 'enemy' when the word 'criminal' works fine.
* I mean, I could imagine that one might wish to test building designs by flying drones into them. In which case, there better be a lot of precautions taken for safety. Or I guess you could build an airfield and buildings on your own land and fly planes into your buildings all you want if you don't hurt anyone.
no subject
Date: 2014-04-15 02:24 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-04-15 02:32 am (UTC)