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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2014-04-15 02:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-04-15 02:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-04-15 02:50 am (UTC)2) The Islam faith, as with the Chrsitian faith, is based back originally on Jewish faith and its early holiness code rules. All three are Abrahamic faiths. All three are guilty of some awful atrocities in the name of their god, be he Jesus, Elohim, or Allah.
3) Any Muslim, (you can't spell, by the way) that behaves the way you claim is not by true definition a Muslim.
4) Everyone was provoking everyone in the Crusades (also, depends on which one, there were several) because all three major monotheistic faiths were fighting over the same stupid city because it was holy land to them. Thus proving that monotheism and organized religions are stupid and full of the same sort of hatred you seem to be full of.
I'd say I hate you and your kind, but I'm too busy pitying your tiny world view.