I have a suspicion that trouble with FA is about to flare up again

[fpb]

My older friends will remember the long war I had with a previous generation of FA moderators. Now I have lost my temper again, spectacularly and on their threads, and I suspect that it will make trouble.

I just read a chaptered fic (you will understand that I have no intention to increase the author's hit count, so we'll forget the name and title) which contains the following passage (behind lj-cut):
"Precisely," Caitlin smiled thinly. "And if it sounds horrible to you, think what a mage would think, coming from a community where you had magical privies that made the waste disappear, mud resistant robes, cures for most diseases known to the Muggles, a non-existent infant mortality rate, nice clean stone buildings for everyone, house elves that kept everything sanitary using magic and a standard of living not far off what you're both used to. I'm telling you, the phrase 'filthy Muggles' wasn't abuse back then, it was a fact. Of course the mages of the day felt they were superior - why wouldn't they? The poorest mage lived better than a Muggle king. Salazar was only different in that his attitudes were more extreme and professed more openly. He wasn't interested in saving Muggles from themselves, and he certainly didn't want their children around, with their insistence in only one god, and eternal damnation for those who didn't follow him, and that magic users not sanctioned by their High Priest in Rome were going straight to Hell. Actually can't say I entirely blame him on that score," she said with a grin.

Luella had to admit that being told that your magic was evil on a daily basis would probably annoy even the most patient of mages.

"But that doesn't mean being a Muggle-born makes you inferior!" she responded.

"Well, of course not," Caitlin replied. "Times have changed, and so have Muggles. Most love the idea of magic. That weird Middle Eastern crucifixion cult has lost its hold on their minds. And perhaps most importantly, they've discovered science, and it's given them power equal to ours in a way. No, Luella, in no way do I think Muggles are inferior. But back then, Salazar had some good points, and a lot of mages agreed with him, up until the point where he started secretly advocating the extermination of Muggle-borns, and the banning of mage-Muggle marriages, or at least severely restricting them to suitable candidates. That was when he crossed the line, and that's when war broke out, and Salazar got thrown out of Hogwarts. Battles were fought, alliances were made and broken, and a particularly nasty bloodfeud ensued that endures to this day. Salazar, I might add, lost, although his House stayed. Enough of them repented or stayed loyal to make it worthwhile keeping it. After all, Salazar Slytherin was still a Founder. But from then on, Slytherin House was seen as different, marked out by its past. At best, a house to be wary of, at worst the source of everything evil. Dark mages from Gryffindor, Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff are overlooked or explained away as having had a traumatic past. Dark Slytherins have always been blown up into terrifying figures of absolute evil. Their Dark Mages are seen as one-offs, aberrations. Ours are seen as typical Slytherins. Until the 1970's, we Slytherins have always put up with the prejudice and just got on with our lives. We dealt with it by consoling ourselves that our house may be evil but at least we were the talented ones. That's why we're noted for our ambition: we start out automatically disadvantaged and work twice as hard to catch up. We've all got something to prove. We've been hated but we get by....

I found this not only offensive but a genuine instance of hate speech, including evident racist overtones (apparently being "middle eastern" is bad) and a loathsome misrepresentation of historical fact. I let the author know in the comments thread, and added a warning against this fic in the thread where I had originally found the link. Now it all depends on whether the moderators think this is, a), flaming, and, b), not justified by the evident and contemptible hate speech in the fic. Either way, I really do not think I intend to retract a single word.

Comments

Re: controversy

[fpb.livejournal.com]

...such views of history are quite widespread...
Exactly. And if you are familiar with this blog, you will know that I am at war with this kind of unhistorical arrogance and vanity (what CS Lewis called chronological snobbery). If you think you are smarter than Beethoven or Thomas Aquinas, prove it.

I say it's hate speech because I think it's hate speech. I am not going to retract it. And to be quite frank, I suggest that you reflect on a sentence from that mine of wisdom and quotations, GK Chesterton: "Perhaps you have never seen it the right way up," said Father Brown. "I told you that artists turn a picture the wrong way up when they want to see it the right way up. Perhaps, over all those breakfasts and tea - tables, you had got used to the face of a fiend." Very little, after all, is easier than to get used to constantly-repeated vicious talk from people who do not themselves immediately seem vicious; only to wake up one day and find that the secret police is abroad in the land, and that people are vanishing with disquieting regularity, and that the pleasant colleague who believed in the revolution or in restoring order did, in fact, believe exactly what he said.

Re: controversy

[elskuligr.livejournal.com]

The text does indeed display chronological snobbery: not only the speech of the character does, but as you rightly point out, the fact that nothing in the rest of the narrative points to the character being unreliable (at least at this stage of the narrative) means that the whole text does.

That being said, I still think your reaction is disproportionate and, more importantly, counter productive.
If the author was just being a bit naïve and suddenly receives a flaming accusation, they're going to get the feeling you're the one using hate speech. They might very well have been glad to receive constructive criticism, pointing out the anachronisms and giving clues as to how the point of view of a biased character might be kept (if one wants to show the point of view of prejudiced people), while showing that it should not be trusted absolutely and that it is not necessarily the point of view of the author.
On the other hand, if they feel under violent attack, they're very likely to feel justified in their mistaken opinion that all Christians are intolerant and narrow-minded.
Consider your own words: loathsome, contemptible, ugly, crap...
These seem to me quite full of hatred, at least as much as 'weird Middle Eastern crucifixion cult' if not more so, because the attack is more personal and because 'crap' is a much more radical accusation than 'weird'.
In other words, I'm not saying you should not have raised the issue: you have a good point, but that's no reason to turn nasty and to pile on scorn and venom on an author.
It is perfectly possible to make that point strongly without being aggressive and contemptuous.

Re: controversy

[fpb.livejournal.com]

You may have a point, but I wrote as I reacted. And I think that the very coolness, as much as the arrogance and ignorance, was what made me see red. A human being can put up with anger, even with insults. But to be informed as from a great height that what you value and consider right and just is a "weird Middle Eastern crucifixion cult", tyrannical, murderous, and probably connected with filth and lice, is more than flesh and blood can bear, as far as I am concerned. And I absolutely refuse to lessen the impact of my response. If she does not know that that sort of language is offensive, she has not lived or learned long enough, and it is time she learned. If a thing is offensive, you gain nothing by not making it clear that it is.

Re: controversy

[elskuligr.livejournal.com]

I still think there are better ways of making it clear than showing anger oneself, but I guess that's debatable.
Having quite a quick temper myself, I usually give myself a time lapse to react to something that made me furious, so that I find it easier not to lose my temper in writing.

Have you received an anwer from the author herself yet?

Re: controversy

[fpb.livejournal.com]

No, I haven't - not even in the comments thread.