Hacker News Reader

Comment by thomasjoulin | Hacker News Reader

It was written in 1863, you can't expect the author to have the same view on women that we have today.

But that's my point: If you're trying to write about the future but are getting held back by the narrow views of your present, you may at best produce an entertaining curiosity, but not something of lasting use. The other works discussed here have prevailed because they contain still-valid insights on human behavior and do a pretty good job avoiding falling into period-conventional thinking.

That said, I actually think not being sexist in storytelling is pretty easy, it's about thinking about people instead of genders, and good writers have known that at all times and put characters first.

Basically, I'm not saying Verne's views (or perhaps that character's views -- I'd like to hear more from someone who's actually read it) can't be explained in context, I'm saying if that's representative of how the work tries to extrapolate into the future I'm not getting the vibe it's any good at it and actually still relevant today.

You should read the book. It might challenge your world view, which is entirely the point of reading in the first place.

It would probably be worthwhile to remember that Vernes was living in a time when the definition of "woman" is a very different thing than today. Of course, you don't have to excuse the sexism - merely understand it in the context of the book, with the purpose of gaining some insight into the points the author is trying to make.

Try not to be distracted by the sexism, is what I mean to say, while you are reading a book written over a hundred years ago..

Well said. I can't imagine a synopsis that would entice someone to read Huck Finn if they were similarly predisposed to disregarding works based on racial comparisons, but Huck Finn's 'dust jacket' description is a far cry from its sum.

That's why I initially asked if the example was representative of the book or not -- it's not like I didn't give room to the possibility that it's not. I've tried to explain why it raised a big red flag for me. It's not about sexism so much (I think I'm getting downvoted because people believe I'm trying to show off my PC-ness or something, or perhaps just because the subthread doesn't add much to the topic, admittedly) as thinking that if it's shallow about that part of human nature, it might not be doing a good job as speculative fiction in general. Wouldn't you agree that 1984 and BNW avoid similar pitfalls and that maybe it's no accident they don't?

It is not at all shallow, but rather quite representative of the thinking of the period in which it was written, and in that light should definitely be considered a valid endeavour.

But, are you not at the very least intrigued by the irony in your expression of political correctness? This is, after all, newthink.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com