Merely failing to comprehend something doesn't make it impossible that one is going to write it; the description of the Doorstop as a bodice-ripper isn't -- from the reaction of people I've mentioned 'military bodice-ripper' to -- all that far off, despite my inability to get through Austen never mind something that might be more properly described as a bodice-ripper.
Much less directly connected to writing -- I don't think it makes sense to attach moral weight to how people do insecurity management.
People do what they perceive to be in their best interest, not necessarily consciously; the kind of insecurity management which insists entire swathes of something are bad *is* objectionable (when the swathes of something are people, it's racism or nasty ethno-centrism or who knows what else) but pretty strictly for pragmatic reasons.
*Why* someone who insists that something lots of other people enjoy is categorically bad chooses to make that taxonomy of worth operative in their world -- what social ordering they would prefer to impose on the world of their imagination, what construction of quality they chose to use -- is pretty much secondary.
Primarily, they're making it harder to co-operate in groups (at least groups which include them), and diminishing their own access to choice. Kinda hard to argue for either of those as sensible conduct; all the emphatic whys and wherefores are smoke screen for the essential stupidity of the stance.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
couple of thoughts....
Date: 2004-08-19 06:03 pm (UTC)Much less directly connected to writing -- I don't think it makes sense to attach moral weight to how people do insecurity management.
People do what they perceive to be in their best interest, not necessarily consciously; the kind of insecurity management which insists entire swathes of something are bad *is* objectionable (when the swathes of something are people, it's racism or nasty ethno-centrism or who knows what else) but pretty strictly for pragmatic reasons.
*Why* someone who insists that something lots of other people enjoy is categorically bad chooses to make that taxonomy of worth operative in their world -- what social ordering they would prefer to impose on the world of their imagination, what construction of quality they chose to use -- is pretty much secondary.
Primarily, they're making it harder to co-operate in groups (at least groups which include them), and diminishing their own access to choice. Kinda hard to argue for either of those as sensible conduct; all the emphatic whys and wherefores are smoke screen for the essential stupidity of the stance.
(I didn't really have to sign this, did I?)
-- Graydon