Quote:
Originally Posted by Galin
I didn't say he did, I noted he raised the matter or 'reducing the roles of women', which he did.
|
You said (emphasis mine):
I don't believe that anyone in any way decided to reduce female roles specifically, and the point in the thread is not whether or not Doug Kane explicitly claims so, but his choice of presentation in raising this issue. Even possibly raising the question of misogyny is serious stuff in my opinion, so how one presents the matter, specifically, is important.
You also said:
Even possibly raising the question of misogyny is serious stuff in my opinion, so how one presents the matter, specifically, is important.
I do not believe that writers should be held to account for every
possible interpretation or misinterpretation of their work. I find that idea absurd.
Quote:
It seems then that you think Mr. Kane 'very carefully' writes (to quote Aelfwine)...
Quote:
|
'Saying that "it appears that the roles of female characters are systematically reduced" (which you write at least twice in the book) is not the same thing as saying that "a significant number of editorial choices together have the effect of reducing the role of women in the book". The former implies deliberateness ("systematic") and comprehensiveness ("female characters" -- not, I note, "some female characters" -- and, again, "systematic"). The latter, while still arguable,* at least avoids those implications. It's a great pity that you didn't write the latter instead of the former.'
|
|
“Systematically” does not for me necessarily imply deliberateness. I simply don’t agree with Hofstetter’s nitpicking to such a degree, and there’s an end.
Quote:
|
So it's 'very easy'... and 'very careful' is yet in there somewhere? Can you think of ways in which Mr. Kane could have been more careful that readers not very easily infer this?
|
A writer is not to blamed for everything that a reader might infer. People infer racism and sexism in
The Lord of the Rings (and their arguments are not entirely without merit). The only real answer is not to write anything. If one finds that female roles are significantly reduced in the
Silmarillion, then perhaps one shouldn’t write about it. One should be dishonest and hide the data. One shouldn’t dare say anything that would be controversial to anyone.
Of course you don’t believe that.
Yes, if Kane had written to Hofstetter’s
ex eventu specs, then Kane’s book would be arguably improved, but not by much. Hofstetter ended up by agreeing that Kane did not intend any explicit crticism of Christopher Tolkien and that the change of a few phrases would satisfy him. Those changes to me really don’t amount to much. It looks to me like an attempt by Hofstetter to save face after his attack crumbled.
Quote:
|
I'm not 'withdrawing' that, as all I'm saying there is that the linked thread is not really about anyone reacting to an explicit accusation -- the linked thread is rather generally about the presentation (of this idea that the roles of women have been reduced), and obviously includes specific citations from that presentation.
|
What you said was:
... and the point in the thread is not whether or not Doug Kane explicitly claims so, but his choice of presentation in raising this issue.
I understood “the thread” to be this thread in which we are posting, not the thread you referenced. A bad inference.
One of the continued points of disagreement between Kane and Hofstetter was that Kane insisted in arguing on what he actually wrote while Hofstetter insisted on arguing on Hofstetter’s inferences from what Kane wrote.