![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Why I unsubscribed from Holly Lisle's Site
So for the past couple of months I was subscribed to fantasy author Holly Lisle's How to Think Sideways site. I hadn't bought anything prior to unsubbing, but got periodical e-mails and downloaded a free lesson. I found her content often common-sense and semi-helpful if not groundbreaking. A lot of the time they were things I knew already, but helped me focus my thoughts and get thinking about different parts of the craft.
Lisle's recent (January 10) e-mail about knowing oneself as a writer was much the same, helpful-ish if not consciousness-altering. In that e-mail she linked a quiz she did on Saving the World Through Typing.
And then this happened.
The quiz wasn't really a quiz, it was a vent for Lisle's anti-Communist and anti-religious ideas. It was an excuse for her to go on about how Das Kapital and the Gospel and the Quran were the causes of countless massacres and human rights abuses, so no one should ever write to save the world. Ever.
Where do I even start?
First off, she has no frigging idea what she's talking about when it comes to Das Kapital. I won't fault her for not knowing the ins and outs of political economy, a discipline that Marx more or less founded. However, she should know that to those who do have a glancing familiarity with that subject, her breezy argument that Das Kapital is a book written "to save the world" filled with "bad ideas," looks ridiculous. For one thing she is, unbeknownst to herself, talking about a serious scholarly work whose content and arguments it is embarrassingly obvious that she has no familiarity with.
The "bad ideas" bit was laughable as well because, again, there was no awareness of what those ideas were. There are differences between scientific Marxism and political Marxism, or rather Marxism-Leninism and Stalinism. While Lenin's and Stalin's variations on Marxism were thoroughly refuted, Marxism as a theory remains very much alive not only as a critique of capitalism's problems but a whole system of thought to examine class, gender, colonialism, and more.
To reduce the intellectual and academic achievement of Das Kapital to a vague illustration of good intentions gone awry reveals nothing and illuminates nothing except the depth of the speaker's ignorance. Ignorance itself isn't bad, but if you're going to talk explicitly about a text with as many theoretical and real-world implications as Marx's, you'd damn well have the least inkling of what you're talking about.
Second, Lisle's anti-religion screed is way off-base. She's blaming the Gospels for the Inquisition and religious war? Seriously? The books that were about a dude who was so non-violent, he healed one of the men who came to drag him away to be tortured to death? Where oh where does she read in the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke, or John a reason or excuse to torture people for their religious beliefs, except condemnation for such crimes in the fables and fate of one Jesus Christ?
Oh, but of course, as seen in Lisle's reaction to the people who point out Marx's words were twisted and misused, it's no excuse if future generations misunderstand or willfully distort your words to do the very opposite of what you say. All that matters is that they're using your name, and since you dared to write an important book and gain sufficient name recognition, everything that everyone ever did in your name is your fault for writing a book about stuff that actually matters.
This kind of talk is Exhibit A in why I am embarrassed to call myself an atheist. The ones who try to argue all religion is bad go into such contortions to ignore large parts of history, human nature, and just plain common sense that they're left without a ground to stand on. Like anyone with an uncompromising agenda, they have no room for the complex textures of the real world. There's the Good, then the Bad, and the rest of the world will be shoehorned and twisted into that picture no matter how poor the fit.
Third, Lisle directly contradicts herself on the badness of writing world-saving books when she admits that people can do horrible things without a written excuse. "About the best thing you can say about Genghis Khan is that he didn’t write a book," she says, before moving onto her railroading "quiz" which is anything but. I wonder what would have happened if Lisle had taken a second to think about her own sentence, almost as if she were, I don't know, a writer or something. Maybe, just maybe, she might have seen that people don't actually need books in order to be awful to each other. Maybe the murderers and torturers didn't murder and torture because they read a book that said they should love their neighbors as themselves, but because they hadn't internalized or understood that message. Indeed, many might not have read it in the first place. Literacy wasn't widespread before the Enlightenment, after all, and part of the battle of the Reformation was over who had the right to read and interpret the Bible.
So maybe it's juuuust within the realm of possibility that human beings were committing crimes against each other since long before the advent of the written word, and writers and thinkers about the human condition have made great strides, if imperfect ones, in curbing those unpleasant tendencies. Maybe the very builders of civilization that Lisle would decry as the originators of crimes, Marx who wrote on the excesses of capitalism, the authors of the Gospel who spoke of a love that encompassed humanity, the authors of the Quran who wrote about justice and charity in communities--maybe, just maybe these big-picture thinkers, the ones who wrote to save the world, are responsible for a world that is stabler and more peaceful than the violent pre-literate world that was before the people who wrote to save the world.
But nah, that can't be it. Because according to Holly Lisle, Eminently Learned Commentator on the Human Condition, if you write about anything of import you're going to be responsible for tons of atrocities in your name. At least Lisle herself seems doing a good job of not writing anything that matters, so I think she's safe from being blamed for anything down the line except being rather forgettable. About the best thing you can say about Holly Lisle is that she practices what she preaches.
Lisle's recent (January 10) e-mail about knowing oneself as a writer was much the same, helpful-ish if not consciousness-altering. In that e-mail she linked a quiz she did on Saving the World Through Typing.
And then this happened.
The quiz wasn't really a quiz, it was a vent for Lisle's anti-Communist and anti-religious ideas. It was an excuse for her to go on about how Das Kapital and the Gospel and the Quran were the causes of countless massacres and human rights abuses, so no one should ever write to save the world. Ever.
Where do I even start?
First off, she has no frigging idea what she's talking about when it comes to Das Kapital. I won't fault her for not knowing the ins and outs of political economy, a discipline that Marx more or less founded. However, she should know that to those who do have a glancing familiarity with that subject, her breezy argument that Das Kapital is a book written "to save the world" filled with "bad ideas," looks ridiculous. For one thing she is, unbeknownst to herself, talking about a serious scholarly work whose content and arguments it is embarrassingly obvious that she has no familiarity with.
The "bad ideas" bit was laughable as well because, again, there was no awareness of what those ideas were. There are differences between scientific Marxism and political Marxism, or rather Marxism-Leninism and Stalinism. While Lenin's and Stalin's variations on Marxism were thoroughly refuted, Marxism as a theory remains very much alive not only as a critique of capitalism's problems but a whole system of thought to examine class, gender, colonialism, and more.
To reduce the intellectual and academic achievement of Das Kapital to a vague illustration of good intentions gone awry reveals nothing and illuminates nothing except the depth of the speaker's ignorance. Ignorance itself isn't bad, but if you're going to talk explicitly about a text with as many theoretical and real-world implications as Marx's, you'd damn well have the least inkling of what you're talking about.
Second, Lisle's anti-religion screed is way off-base. She's blaming the Gospels for the Inquisition and religious war? Seriously? The books that were about a dude who was so non-violent, he healed one of the men who came to drag him away to be tortured to death? Where oh where does she read in the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke, or John a reason or excuse to torture people for their religious beliefs, except condemnation for such crimes in the fables and fate of one Jesus Christ?
Oh, but of course, as seen in Lisle's reaction to the people who point out Marx's words were twisted and misused, it's no excuse if future generations misunderstand or willfully distort your words to do the very opposite of what you say. All that matters is that they're using your name, and since you dared to write an important book and gain sufficient name recognition, everything that everyone ever did in your name is your fault for writing a book about stuff that actually matters.
This kind of talk is Exhibit A in why I am embarrassed to call myself an atheist. The ones who try to argue all religion is bad go into such contortions to ignore large parts of history, human nature, and just plain common sense that they're left without a ground to stand on. Like anyone with an uncompromising agenda, they have no room for the complex textures of the real world. There's the Good, then the Bad, and the rest of the world will be shoehorned and twisted into that picture no matter how poor the fit.
Third, Lisle directly contradicts herself on the badness of writing world-saving books when she admits that people can do horrible things without a written excuse. "About the best thing you can say about Genghis Khan is that he didn’t write a book," she says, before moving onto her railroading "quiz" which is anything but. I wonder what would have happened if Lisle had taken a second to think about her own sentence, almost as if she were, I don't know, a writer or something. Maybe, just maybe, she might have seen that people don't actually need books in order to be awful to each other. Maybe the murderers and torturers didn't murder and torture because they read a book that said they should love their neighbors as themselves, but because they hadn't internalized or understood that message. Indeed, many might not have read it in the first place. Literacy wasn't widespread before the Enlightenment, after all, and part of the battle of the Reformation was over who had the right to read and interpret the Bible.
So maybe it's juuuust within the realm of possibility that human beings were committing crimes against each other since long before the advent of the written word, and writers and thinkers about the human condition have made great strides, if imperfect ones, in curbing those unpleasant tendencies. Maybe the very builders of civilization that Lisle would decry as the originators of crimes, Marx who wrote on the excesses of capitalism, the authors of the Gospel who spoke of a love that encompassed humanity, the authors of the Quran who wrote about justice and charity in communities--maybe, just maybe these big-picture thinkers, the ones who wrote to save the world, are responsible for a world that is stabler and more peaceful than the violent pre-literate world that was before the people who wrote to save the world.
But nah, that can't be it. Because according to Holly Lisle, Eminently Learned Commentator on the Human Condition, if you write about anything of import you're going to be responsible for tons of atrocities in your name. At least Lisle herself seems doing a good job of not writing anything that matters, so I think she's safe from being blamed for anything down the line except being rather forgettable. About the best thing you can say about Holly Lisle is that she practices what she preaches.
no subject
Because I'm not familiar with Marx, I won't comment on it.
But again, that suuuuucks. *hug*
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Here in Korea I don't think young people care about religion, and in fact there's a bit of an anti-Christian sentiment due to corruption and abuse by Protestant churches. There's an interesting situation here where mainline Protestantism is associated with right-wing politics and Catholicicsm with the left, so young liberal people tend to view Catholicism more favorably especially with the new Pope. The Catholics I know are more liberal than I am. A lot of the older set are much more devout in their respective religions, though, so I'm not vocal about my belief (or lack thereof) IRL. Especially not with my dad, oh hell no.
no subject
That is so odd to me, that Catholcicsm is seen as a refuge for youth. I was raised Catholic, and I tried so hard to find refuge in it and in God. I am spiritual, just not to a god. But the rules, sentiments, and horrible contradictions made me leave. I liked the ceremonies of mass though, but mostly because they're pretty pagan.
You see what I mean then, how atheists kinda have to hide.
no subject
Ah yes Buddhism, one of the few religious traditions atheists can go for. :) In its original form it definitely works as an atheist philosophy of life. I've been reading the Sutta Nipata lately, and find myself moved by the simple profundity of these early teachings. I'm not about to ditch my electronic toys and the trappings of modern life and be a wandering monk, but the point of these teachings I think that these things are toys and you're okay without them. You're fine if you're homeless and broke and sick, there's a core of you that these external vagaries of life can never touch as long as you don't let them. You are more than your life and its fears and anxieties; your value is infinite and eternal. That's how I understand it, anyway.
I'm still somewhat mystified by liberal Catholics myself. I would ask them, did you hear what the Pope said? (Though the current one has been very good.) Did you read what's in your dogma? The answer is often a shrug and "What's that got to do with me?" The way they see it, Rome is too distant from the everyday lives of the congregation for the Pope to speak for individual members of the church.
Mostly though I suspect that it's the social context that defines Catholicism in Korea as with every religion everywhere. Catholic churches and priests have been central to the struggle for democracy here, and that created a certain history and tradition. Not to say there aren't right-wing Catholics but they seem to be in the minority.
I'm sorry to hear about your struggles with Catholicism, I'm reminded of my own difficulty with the awful social mores of the church I grew up in. I still think Jesus Was Way Cool, and my spirituality owes a great deal to his core teachings.