WRT Marquez, there have been rumors for the past two years or so about it, so the acknowledgment is sad but unsurprising. It does lend a new wallop to the patriach (I was trying to remember what his name was but all the Buendias blend!) in One Hundred Years of Solitude.

It does lend a new wallop to the patriach (I was trying to remember what his name was but all the Buendias blend!) in One Hundred Years of Solitude.

Col. Aurelio Buendia, no?

Sayers is as you say horribly classist, racist, anti-semetic and a damn good writer.

As to Marsh. I like her up to a point. Basically IMO, while she is not one of those writers who writes the same book over and over again, she writes the same 12 books over and over again. So by the time you have read 20 or so of her books, you have really all 500 or whatever number of books she wrote.

I don't know that Sayers was necessarily racist (or no more racist than most of her contemporaries): all of the really dodgy stuff is in dialogue rather in narrative, so it's hard to know what's authorial and what's accurate presentation of contemporary behaviors/beliefs. And she did have a really sympathetic portrayal of a West Indian priest who turned out to have an unexpected connection with a wealthy British family (this was in Unnatural Death).

But the classism is so deeply embedded in the books it's impossible to divorce it from the writer. And her attitude regarding women is a bit odd. The Miss Climpsons of her world are competent and yet pathetic, which is an odd combination. But then you get Harriett, who is awesome, and many of the women in Gaudy Night, which struggles pretty overtly with a lot of feminist issues. I think it's an instance of the writer herself dealing with these questions, and being willing to address them publicly.

If only she'd turned the same critical eye to the issues of class and race that she seems to ignore. It's such a pity.

If only she'd turned the same critical eye to the issues of class and race that she seems to ignore. It's such a pity.

Very few people can see the morays of their era. Humans are limited that way.

So, while I understand having a contemporary critique of racist/sexist attitudes of the past in the work. To be aware of it and conscious of it. But it really seems unfair to expect that from individuals of the past.

I haven't seen anybody on this board who isn't a product of their time.

I mean, if you think about it for more than ten seconds it's a fucking miracle that Mark Twain wrote Huckleberry Finn.

I don't know what bothers me more - noticing those things upon a re-read of a favorite, or realizing that I didn't notice them at all the first time I read them.

For me, it's definitely the second. There is some completely bizarre sexist/homophobic shit in God Emperor of Dune that I only noticed once I started rereading the series as an adult. I say "bizarre" because it has nothing to do with the plot - two characters just take a break to talk about how icky and wrong lesbians are. The naive character from the "past" is all "Eww, there are lesbians in your army!" and the enlightened/evolved character who is always right about everything is all "I know, it's gross and wrong! That's why I'm putting you in charge, since you have a penis which is all these women really want. Also some stuff about how women make better soldiers because they're closer to the earth or some bullshit. PS I made my army all-female because I knew there'd be gay stuff and I wanted to make sure that at least it was all girl-on-girl which we can all agree is WAY LESS GROSS than two guys going it." And then it's never mentioned again. And reading it now, I have no idea how I missed it the first time around.

I haven't seen anybody on this board who isn't a product of their time.

In 100 years, three or four of us are going to seem massively more enlightened than the rest. The problem is we can't tell right now which ones that is.

Don't social mores sometimes swing back the other way, though? I seem to recall Victorian society being more uptight than the Regency and late Georgian periods. Maybe we'll all be perceived as terrible libertines, with our acceptance of various sexualities, and the loud music, and the dancing and whatnot.

I'd kind of like something about that on my tombstone.

Calli Grafiti
The Most NGA
Libertine of
Her Time
1967-2058

She refers to a Jewish family as living their "dark, dense Jewish lives" at one point. So some of those attitudes were hers. In terms of feminism, she considered herself a feminist, but also was rebelling against what she considered the prudishness and joylessness of the feminists who came before her. And she was a lifelong supporter of the Tory party. So conservative even by contemporary standards. Which makes sense. She was an Inkling. Hung around with Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, Tolkein. All brilliant writers. All reactionary, all even by the standards of their day. C.S. Lewis was probably the least reactionary of the bunch.

As to not judging people by contemporary standards - fair enough. But we are reading it now, and so you can't expect us not to notice or be bothered. And it is also worth remembering that there were people at time who were critics of those attitudes. Sayers got booed down for a reactionary speech at one point.

One last point. Historically, in North America and Western Europe, the more conservative viewpoints are usually the ones proven wrong fifty years later. Not always, but 90% of the time in North American or Western Europe, the conservative of today is mostly taking the position of the liberal of fifty years ago. (Though the current USA conservative movement does seem to want to go back further and repeal the New Deal, in some cases repeal the Civil War. Note that I'm sure there are many conservatives this is not true of, but it does describe the contemporary movement.) So, though it is not 100% certain, if you want to guess what positions will be considered enlightened in 50 years, the left viewpoints are your best bets.

But we are reading it now, and so you can't expect us not to notice or be bothered.

Here's what I said:

So, while I understand having a contemporary critique of racist/sexist attitudes of the past in the work. To be aware of it and conscious of it.

So at no point was I advocating that writers of the past get a free pass for their objectionable attitudes.