Also I’ve heard the claim that the difference is that she is a woman. I don’t think that in any way justifies the existence of billionaires in general. It’s also worth noting as many are saying, she drags other successful women on the album.
I get that we should reject this system, but in addition, one of the aspects of this system that is so ingenious is that it requires the writer to become the transgressor in order to make a difference. And there is no place in culture or industry now for that sort of transgressor. What a pickle.
Ultimately all of these ideas I’m sharing are what we traditionally call the “literary tradition” and these new levels of censorship undermine literatures power to enlighten.
For some, there is pleasure in transgression and in my mind that continues to be wrong. But to use the transgressions that we have become aware of is the paint the world as it is.
Writing bigotry coming out of the mouths of powerful, political figures in private is one the most radical things you can write with your imagination. It is inherently an accusation. But if we handwring the writers ability to use every word necessary, we prevent the spread of that level of honesty.
These restrictions prevent us from writing about reality as it exists for many of us. Abuse, bigotry, sex (even utterly unacceptable) and violence are all real world issues that fiction can and should be able to address freely. We have to understand the world we’ve been given.
You know, when it comes to restrictions on what fiction a venue might consider for publication, I find restrictions on subject matter (eg “can’t involve abuse or bigotry”) way more absurd and concerning than restrictions on presentation (eg “no on page sex or graphic violence”)
