I’ve debated for days about whether to post about all the recent brouhahas and had almost decided to just keep hiding in my corner enjoying my reading because when one gets right down to it, none of it is anything new. Topics changes or shift a little, but the same arguments show up here and there fairly consistently.
Whatever.
But it did start me trying to remember exactly how long I have been online and involved in discussing romance online. Talk about memories. I know for a fact that I got online on America Online at about roughly the same time as Lois & Clark started on the air, which was 1993. It was about a year or more later that I actually started seeking out the romance novel related sections of that service. At some point within a year or so of that, I discovered or was told about RRA-l (the Romance Readers Annonymous listserve), which was probably where I learned about sites like The Romance Reader and watched the creation and evolution of Laurie Likes Books into All About Romance.
So, when I say that none of this is new, I mean it. Literally. Controversial topics abound in all online discussions and, for the most part, that’s as it should be. Also, literally from experience at this point, I can generally recogniize the ones that are neverending a mile away and stay clear. Not because I can’t hold my own but because I refuse to waste energy discussing something that no one actually wants to see both sides of. Yes, there are one or two even of those that I do sometimes allow myself to tilt at a little like Don Quixote at his various windmills but I do so knowing full well it’s a windmill.
Is that a coward’s way out? Maybe. Or maybe it’s about wanting to enjoy oneself instead of constantly having to put on figurative boxing gloves. I don’t know. What I do know is that there are topics that are impossible to find common ground on and some of them aren’t even political in nature.Â
Lately, I’ve been trying to find the book so I can get an exact quote without luck but I once read that true constructive discussions where ideas and thoughts are freely exchanged can only take place when both sides of the dialogue have nothing at stake. The basic premise was that a personal agenda, any agenda on anyone’s part, stops communication before it even starts.
I’ve never decided whether I completely agree with this concept or not but it’s certainly helped me know when to walk away from arguments both online and off in the last few years. At the very least, it does give one pause for thought, doesn’t it?
Jane, I’m not sure about motives but I do believe that we can monitor our own intentions enough that we make a concious choice not to let things get out of control. Yeah, I know, sometimes it’s easier said than done, but sometimes it is simply about asking oneself what one’s own goal in a discussion is and whether it’s actually reasonable to expect anyone else to change their opinion.
LOL, Mailyn. Exactly. Sometimes I just want to ask where exactly anyone is talking about the books themselves. Actually, I think I’ve done just that a couple of times over the years. ;p
Well, I don’t believe you’re wrong, Alau, that we’re still learning how to do discuss things but I also suspect the ancient Greeks had debating down to a fine art so it’s probably more along the lines of relearning than something new.
Cindy, nothing you said bothered me, believe me. For one thing, what you’re describing is kind of what that book I was refering to was getting at. Anytime we have a personal goal in mind when we enter a discussion there’s always a danger that our emotions are going to run high somewhere along the line. And if someone else in the discussion also has a hidden agenda, watch out. Does that mean we should never discuss anything? No, it just means we need to at least be honest with ourselves about what any particular topic means to us before diving into it. I’ve found that when I do that and conciously make the choice of whether or not to participate, it’s so much easier to keep that emotional distance when it’s needed.
‘Course, it took me until my forties to learn this lesson . . . 😀
In university I remember having a friend who was atheist and one afternoon we started discussing religion and Good God, by the end of the conversation I had such a headache. I found she was just doggedly determined to show me the error of my ways whereas I was curious about her belief.
I am genuinely curious about how some people come to their beliefs so I was surprised at what amounted to a 3 hour attack on what I believed. The good news is that she gave me a lot of things to think about and to figure out.
On the flip side I now have a friend who believes you can only go to Heaven if you believe in Jesus. This floors me because it basically consigns what, 3/4 of the population to hell? I openly told her that I don’t believe that because there are people on the opposite side of the planet who have suffered greatly and who are much more deserving of Heaven then I ever would be.
Again, it gave me something to think about while it made my friend fiend the answers from her church and minister to prove to me that her belief was right.
I know, I shouldn’t be bringing religion here to your blog but I just found it interesting that in my curiosity and ability to keep an open mind I am the one continuing to grow as a person whereas those who have tried to sway me to their way of thinking don’t seem to grow. It’s all their way.
So bringing this back to books and discussions that get out of control. I just believe that there are those of us who are open to discussing a topic while others are more interested in being right and making others believe as they do.
The one argument that used to make my head want to explode was the whole ‘forced sex/rape’ debate that will flare up every once in a while. The last one had the one believing we as readers were allowing woman to believe that rape was alright. She ended her post by saying so and so was raped and has decided to not read this thread anymore because it is upsetting to her. Yeah, way to play the emotion card. If you can’t discuss something with an open mind then just don’t discuss it.
Wow, super long story!! Like you Bev, I don’t need to get involved in the debates we have seen going on for years believe it or not, there are a ton of newbies on the internet that will happily take up the flag 😉
CindyS (Bev, if you feel this post is inappropriate in any way just delete it. I would totally understand)
Well, the very idea that you can be free to disagree with your friends and colleagues and STILL remain friends and colleagues is a relatively modern idea. In the past, social hierarchy determined loyalties and identity (i.e. you weren’t French, you were loyal to King Louis and his line, even if the entire royal family was from somewhere else; god had said this was the king and you were to follow him). There was no such thing as “disagreement” because to disagree with your betters meant that you were disloyal.
This idea didn’t really change until the American Revolution, specifically with the list of grievances presented to King George. And thus the idea began, that disagreement and questioning authority as well as your colleagues, was ok. Since it’s only been 200 some years since this idea has around (not just the upper class but throughout society), it’s no wonder that we’re still coming to terms with it. I think learning to argue and engage in civil discourse is one of the most important, and yet overlooked skills that kids should be learning in schools.
Ok I’ll get off my history soapbox now. 🙂
I know exactly what you mean. I started my net life back in 1994 and, as I have tons of hobbies and such, I can say that I’m used to these sorts of things. I’ve been on book forums, tv show forums, culture forums, philosophy forums, hell you name it and I’ve probably been to one. Always the same thing, sooner or later all hell breaks lose for a while.
The problem I have with it it’s when it takes over the group and hardly anything else gets discussed. It’s like OMG can we talk about something else already? LOL.
I don’t know if that pure discourse ever can occur because some people believe that to argue is an attempt at self aggrandizement. For example, I have read some posters say that reviewers are merely attempting to show their superiority in some area. (this happens alot outside the romance genre). I don’t think that motives can ever be pure.