Re: historical authors: Was it at this panel where someone in the audience asked if people don't sufficiently take into consideration that authors may partake of the attitudes of their times? I do remember saying on some panel that if anything IME it's the opposite, that people positively leap to say "well so-and-so was of their time" (and, therefore, either so-and-so isn't a bad person, or the reader shouldn't be bothered by the attitudes expressed in the work, neither of which I think particularly helpful most of the time).
I also think I remember us talking about the extent to which someone was more or less typical for their time as possibly relevant. But on the whole, I think the extent to which an author's historical status matters to a reader is going to depend on how they approach the entire question. If your view is that you don't read things by jerks, your assessment of an author's jerkitude may well include their era. Or even that could vary depending on why--if you don't want to support an author's popularity, maybe that changes after they're dead. If your view is that you don't care about anything that's not in the text, then the historical era might matter insofar as it changes the odds of finding something in the text that you don't want to read, but is otherwise irrelevant. Just one variable of many that affects the probably-infinite variety of readers' approaches.
Sales, on one hand I'm sometimes reminded of how small the Internet communities that I'm part of really are (e.g., I keep running into con-going fans who've never heard of RaceFail though it is relevant to their interests or social circle), so I'm really dubious. On the other, I'm given to understand that non-bestsellers involve pretty small numbers in an absolute sense. But on the whole I'm inclined to doubt it. (I can think of one instance where Internet outrage contributed to a real affect, which is Smart Bitches, Trashy Books uncovering Cassie Edwards' widespread plagiarism, which led to her being dropped by her publisher.)
I would think it would probably is "is being _sensitive_ as a reader less immersive," yeah? Which I can only answer for myself, since reading experiences are so different. I see immersion-or-not as a thing about the story itself. And sometimes things throw me out during the story and sometimes they rise to the surface after, whether the things in question are plot holes, incomprehensible motivations, or hurtful tropes--it tends to mostly get processed the same way. Which I don't think really answers the question, but, well, it depends.
You see why I thought I wouldn't have a lot to say on this panel? =>
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2011-02-15 03:42 am (UTC)Re: historical authors: Was it at this panel where someone in the audience asked if people don't sufficiently take into consideration that authors may partake of the attitudes of their times? I do remember saying on some panel that if anything IME it's the opposite, that people positively leap to say "well so-and-so was of their time" (and, therefore, either so-and-so isn't a bad person, or the reader shouldn't be bothered by the attitudes expressed in the work, neither of which I think particularly helpful most of the time).
I also think I remember us talking about the extent to which someone was more or less typical for their time as possibly relevant. But on the whole, I think the extent to which an author's historical status matters to a reader is going to depend on how they approach the entire question. If your view is that you don't read things by jerks, your assessment of an author's jerkitude may well include their era. Or even that could vary depending on why--if you don't want to support an author's popularity, maybe that changes after they're dead. If your view is that you don't care about anything that's not in the text, then the historical era might matter insofar as it changes the odds of finding something in the text that you don't want to read, but is otherwise irrelevant. Just one variable of many that affects the probably-infinite variety of readers' approaches.
Sales, on one hand I'm sometimes reminded of how small the Internet communities that I'm part of really are (e.g., I keep running into con-going fans who've never heard of RaceFail though it is relevant to their interests or social circle), so I'm really dubious. On the other, I'm given to understand that non-bestsellers involve pretty small numbers in an absolute sense. But on the whole I'm inclined to doubt it. (I can think of one instance where Internet outrage contributed to a real affect, which is Smart Bitches, Trashy Books uncovering Cassie Edwards' widespread plagiarism, which led to her being dropped by her publisher.)
I would think it would probably is "is being _sensitive_ as a reader less immersive," yeah? Which I can only answer for myself, since reading experiences are so different. I see immersion-or-not as a thing about the story itself. And sometimes things throw me out during the story and sometimes they rise to the surface after, whether the things in question are plot holes, incomprehensible motivations, or hurtful tropes--it tends to mostly get processed the same way. Which I don't think really answers the question, but, well, it depends.
You see why I thought I wouldn't have a lot to say on this panel? =>