# Writing articles that don't fit in Writing Resources



## Feo Takahari (Apr 19, 2015)

A thread for thoughts on the craft and the genre that aren't focused on directly improving writing skills. Inspired by the realization that almost every guest post on Jim C. Hines's blog wouldn't be allowed in Writing Resources.

To start: We Aren't the Dragons You're Looking For, because damn, that's gotta sting.


----------



## TheCatholicCrow (Apr 20, 2015)

This is a wonderful article. Thank you for posting it. I have an asexual character in one of my wip - rumors surface that he is gay but only because the people in his culture cannot wrap their heads around living without sex being a primary motivation for everything. I try my best to make him human (just one that sleeps alone at night) without crossing into Spock (or dragon) territory. I added the character without thinking about it. This article strokes my ego and gives me a (probably false) sense of reassurance. 

Thanks for this  So many people try to tackle LGBQ issues I feel like Transgender & Asexuality are still remarkably absent from  modern Lit.


----------



## Feo Takahari (May 14, 2015)

An analysis of how the Wonder Woman reboot discarded the messages and values of earlier comics: Read 'Em & Weep!: Wonder Woman and the Paternal Narrative Setting aside any specific issues with how the message changed, it's interesting to see just how differently different writers treated the same concept. I also feel like it pokes holes in some of the stuff I've seen posted on Mythic Scribes about what Wonder Woman is and should be.

(I swear I don't read that much feminist stuff. I just keep stumbling across things that are both feminist and potentially useful here.)


----------



## Feo Takahari (May 17, 2015)

My ethics teacher just assigned three different videos about disability. (Someone's got an axe to grind . . .) One of them struck me in the context of writing.



> I'd like to share with you a discovery that I made a few months ago while writing an article for Italian Wired. I always keep my thesaurus handy whenever I'm writing anything, but I'd already finished editing the piece, and I realized that I had never once in my life looked up the word "disabled" to see what I'd find.
> 
> Let me read you the entry. "Disabled, adjective: crippled, helpless, useless, wrecked, stalled, maimed, wounded, mangled, lame, mutilated, run-down, worn-out, weakened, impotent, castrated, paralyzed, handicapped, senile, decrepit, laid-up, done-up, done-for, done-in cracked-up, counted-out; see also hurt, useless and weak. Antonyms, healthy, strong, capable." I was reading this list out loud to a friend and at first was laughing, it was so ludicrous, but I'd just gotten past "mangled," and my voice broke, and I had to stop and collect myself from the emotional shock and impact that the assault from these words unleashed.
> 
> You know, of course, this is my raggedy old thesaurus so I'm thinking this must be an ancient print date, right? But, in fact, the print date was the early 1980s, when I would have been starting primary school and forming an understanding of myself outside the family unit and as related to the other kids and the world around me. And, needless to say, thank God I wasn't using a thesaurus back then. I mean, from this entry, it would seem that I was born into a world that perceived someone like me to have nothing positive whatsoever going for them, when in fact, today I'm celebrated for the opportunities and adventures my life has procured.



A bit removed from what most of us are writing, but I think it does reflect on the effect that language can have. I remember being really perturbed when Ralph Ellison's _Invisible Man_ used the fact that a character was blind as shorthand to indicate that he was ignorant and foolish.


----------



## Russ (May 22, 2015)

Feo Takahari said:


> My ethics teacher just assigned three different videos about disability. (Someone's got an axe to grind . . .) One of them struck me in the context of writing.
> 
> 
> 
> A bit removed from what most of us are writing, but I think it does reflect on the effect that language can have. I remember being really perturbed when Ralph Ellison's _Invisible Man_ used the fact that a character was blind as shorthand to indicate that he was ignorant and foolish.



An excellent rhetorical device for an inspiration speech.  It doesn't work on any level deeper than that.

Language is powerful.  But we do not need to clean up our perfectly good and fair reference texts for reasons of political correctness.

Perhaps we should simply put a "trigger warning" on all dictionaries and thesaurus'?


----------



## Feo Takahari (May 24, 2015)

Russ said:


> Language is powerful.  But we do not need to clean up our perfectly good and fair reference texts for reasons of political correctness.
> 
> Perhaps we should simply put a "trigger warning" on all dictionaries and thesaurus'?



There's a pattern I've begun to recognize. When person A talks about their personal experiences--"this is how this experience felt for me"--and person B responds in general terms--"this is how things should work in a broader sense"--there's usually something missing from person B's response. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that it seems like you're not really addressing the original post. You're treating it like her being hurt isn't a problem, or isn't worth directly responding to, and that feels uncomfortable to me.

(Man, I've edited this post a lot. I really want to get my language precise on this one.)


----------



## Caged Maiden (May 25, 2015)

You know, for me, the real issue is how labels can affect those who bear them, not with the words themselves.  For example, to me, the thesaurus entry for "disabled" wasn't problematic, in that if an aircraft becomes disabled, one might substitute any number of those words--incapacitated, crippled, incomplete, etc..  One could disable an alarm system, rendering it ineffective, useless, or broken.  The problem comes when the thesaurus is used to define a human being bearing a label that has a broader use.  And unfortunately, some of the words used in the past had negative slants, which I think was a sign of the times, rather than a conscious decision to negatively impact kids' lives.

I used to drive a special needs bus.  I didn't know WHY the kids rode my bus, I just knew they had some sort of special needs.  A few obviously had serious conditions (and I had to carry them off the bus or whatever), while the vast majority were a complete mystery to me.  Over the course of the school year, I learned from parents some of the characteristics about the children, mostly when I conversed with them after some behavioral incident.  The point of my somewhat long story here is that to me, they were kids I was meant to be somewhat careful with, but I didn't know "what was wrong" with them (and I never thought of it in that respect) and I treated them all with the same sort of expectations as I would any other kid (though, looking back, I may not have had a good understanding of children in general, since I was 22 and not yet a mother.  I certainly know now how very capable three and four-year-olds are).  Anyways, the term "special needs" is one I recently discovered I really like, because it doesn't limit the scope of the "needs" and doesn't have the same negative connotation as words like "disabled", "retarded", "handicapped" (it feels sort of gross writing down these words I never speak).  I mean, we all have elements of our mental capacity, emotional health, physical being, or social creature that are retarded by internal and external factors, disabled by things within or without our control, or handicapped by our lacking willpower or self-belief.  Maybe everyone has some version of special needs, and it's a great thing that in the school district we've moved to, my son is getting help for his particular needs.

My son is a normal, healthy nine-year-old.  He's defiant, has low self-esteem, and frequently exhibits shocking and outrageous behavior, including unintentionally displaying aggressive behavior (usually this presents by unwelcome touching).  The thing is, he's got no "condition".  He's a little awkward, has some anxiety that leads to him panicking and saying shocking and inappropriate things, and he's less focused on making friends than impressing and connecting meaningfully with adults he respects.  There are terms for his characteristics--Oppositional Defiance Disorder being one of them, but it's just who he is.  I make adjustments, keep dialogue open with his teachers, and enroll him in the free counseling offered in this great district for kids who need a little face time with grown-ups trained to deal with childhood psychological issues.  What a relief it was to me, to be part of this year's efforts between the faculty and us at home, because my son's behavior has been SO MUCH BETTER!!!!  And we're friends again!  And the stress level is decreased immensely!  

Anyways, whether we have a physical condition, a mental condition, a developmental condition, a psychological condition, or any other sort I could mention here, acknowledging a person has particular needs from teachers, parents, caregivers, etc. is less about labeling them as something negative and hampered by their unique traits, and more about creating awareness that no one is perfect.  Even if they have all the right things to be "normal", adversity (going back to the video) is a fact of life and whether I find this skill difficult that EVERYONE else in my class can do, I can either be determined to fight and overcome, or I can quit and avoid hard things, and by labeling someone as inferior in any way, it becomes that much harder for them to find the self-worth it takes to be a well-adjusted person, no matter what the particular needs.

It isn't the thesaurus' fault.  Fault the people who carelessly label individuals when they probably have no right.  I understand how this labeling hurts people who fall outside the "usual" labels, including in regards to sexuality and gender.  The problem with labeling persists when people are confused or unaware, and the more we can expose people to our "differences", the greater impact that knowledge can have as it spreads.  I'm probably less "aware" than I'd like to be about some issues, but until I met a person who defied my understanding of sexuality and gender, I didn't even know there were questions to ask.  Then, once I did have questions, working up the confidence to come out and ask them was a whole other issue.  I'm really glad for the openness of some of the folks on this forum--how they share their lives and experiences in a safe and judgement-free zone.  I appreciate each and every person who takes the time to talk to me and get to know me.  You've brought me valuable understanding.


----------



## Russ (May 26, 2015)

Feo Takahari said:


> There's a pattern I've begun to recognize. When person A talks about their personal experiences--"this is how this experience felt for me"--and person B responds in general terms--"this is how things should work in a broader sense"--there's usually something missing from person B's response. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that it seems like you're not really addressing the original post. You're treating it like her being hurt isn't a problem, or isn't worth directly responding to, and that feels uncomfortable to me.
> 
> (Man, I've edited this post a lot. I really want to get my language precise on this one.)



Your editing paid off, it is a cogent and well thought out post.

Let me express to you a pattern I have been seeing.  What I see is quite frequently is people defining the whole world, issues of right and wrong, language, policy and now reference texts as it relates to them, as if their experience is some sort of standard that we all need to live by.  I use the inelegant short "self referential" to express these worldviews that suggest that the only measuring stick for whether something is right or wrong, fair or not is "me".

If this woman really was negatively impacted by reading that Thesaurus entry she has my sympathy. But not a great deal of it, because she has not been abused or mistreated by a person, institution or society, she has decided to allow those words to harm her.  It is not like someone directed that entry at her, to her or about her or even about disabled people in general.  She chose to make it a problem for herself.  She suggests the Thesaurus is flawed because an entry inspired negative emotions in her.

She implies there is something flawed about the reference text.  There isn't, there is something flawed about what she chose to do with it.

I deal with severely disabled people every day.  Many of them are discriminated against or harmed by people and institutions in very real and direct ways.  It makes it very hard for me to think that the definition in a Thesaurus is a real problem for disabled people in general or for the vast majority of disabled individuals.  It made for a fine rhetorical device, but beyond that what does it say to us?

I know disabled people can achieve amazing things.  I also know it is not the Thesaurus that stands in their way, unless they are looking for forms of victimization to empower themselves.  And that is a pretty unhealthy place both for them and society.


----------



## BWFoster78 (May 27, 2015)

> Your editing paid off, it is a cogent and well thought out post.



Speaking of which...well said.

I love reading well thought out and expressed discussions of sensitive topics and hate it when threads get closed because things devolve.  Great job to both of you.  Interesting read.


----------

