When I was younger, I always assumed that Victorian morality tales were aberrations, some weird off-shoot of literature that died the death it deserved.I never imagined that people liked the stuff.
Tim Pool recently posted about how humorless the current generation has become--he is speaking specifically about their reaction to comedians, but I think he has a point about art in general. The people who actually like Victorian morality tales are demanding that the whole world become the equivalent of The Book of Virtues for Young People, except we have to pretend that what they are demanding is edgy and innovative (something William Bennett never did).
I read quite a lot of small-press romances despite the trigger warnings. Because, you know, heaven fore-fend that someone read something and then be startled or hurt or uninspired or offended or whatever. The days when people actually experienced art--then shrugged and walked away if they didn't like it--have given way to pre-selected experiences.
I am not arguing, by the way, that the purpose of art IS to provide startling and galvanizing experiences. I find that type of art rather boring. Rather, I am arguing that as a reader in a society with a First Amendment, I am fully capable of reading a chapter of something, then deciding that I want to read more or moving on if I don't. My entire universe is not going to come crashing down if I encounter something strange or unsettling or simply not my cup of tea.
 |
| And they're smoking! |
If I wanted someone to pre-arranged my reading for me, I'd move to a totalitarian state.
Or read Victorian morality tales.
What's even stranger in this demand for Art That Meets Our Standards is to encounter so-called edgy artists who accuse other artists of being part of the status quo while the so-called edgy artists balk at something as simple as villainous dialog coming out of a villain's mouth. I recently encountered the stinging (well, the way it was worded was supposed to be stinging) criticism that yaoi is so sexist because the uke is described, misogynistically, as being taken like a woman (even though the uke enjoys the act).
In all the yaoi I read, this comment is exclusively the provenance of the villains. Or it is used as a rebuttal. When Akihito of Finder (and there's a bawdy, raunchy manga series that likely offends a lot of "correct-thinking" people!) accuses Fei Long of treating him like a woman, he is throwing an accusation in the man's face that he knows will make impact; whatever Akihito thinks about his role in Asami's life (and he is mostly confused and contemplative), he is quick enough to pinpoint what rhetoric someone like Fei Long will respond/twitch to.
I guess members of the mafia (and their opponents) will no longer be able to use dialog that indicates their cultural mindsets.
And there goes the art of creating fiction.
To return to my thesis: what these scared* or non-artists are demanding is, in fact, Victorian morality tales without the cultural ballast (but some of the same cultural upheaval). In a Victorian morality tale, all the good people use exactly the right rhetoric (no gray areas here!). All the bad people used expurgated dialog. And the narrator tells us what to think. In case we didn't get it, the author adds a caveat and final platitude at the end. The irony: much (though not all) of this desire for Victorian morality tales is coming directly from so-called "edgy" artists who continue to describe themselves that way. They need to watch Couplings and realize they are no longer the Rebellion. They are strictly orthodox thinkers who want art to have PURPOSE and MEANING and A GOOD INFLUENCE. On their terms, of course.
Oh, yawn.
*Personally, I think romance writers are simply covering their bases and avoiding mindless whiny accusations. They still produce the best narratives out there.
