From: b.scott@csuohio.edu
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 17:06:52 +1200, Zeborah
wrote in
in
rec.arts.sf.misc:
> Brian M. Scott wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 15:37:21 +1200, Zeborah
>> wrote in
>> in
>> rec.arts.sf.misc:
>>> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>>>> Sounds like the baddie earned "to the pain". Good doesn't
>>>> mean "pansy-ass nancy boy".
>>> Indeed, masculine and heterosexual Good Guys are quite
>>> well represented in literature. As, even, are female
>>> Good Guys. I hadn't however noticed that any of these
>>> groups were less likely to be merciful / more likely to
>>> seek revenge than effeminate or gay Good Guys.
>> I think that you're misinterpreting Sea Wasp's terminology:
>> I take 'pansy-ass nancy boy' to be roughly 'gutless wonder
>> who'd rather let deer starve en masse than cull the herd
>> (for instance)' -- someone so soft-hearted as to be
>> soft-headed.
> I'd feel happier if the intent of "gutless wonder [etc]"
> were represented by the words "gutless wonder [etc]" (or
> similar) rather than by words that, particularly in this
> context, unwittingly reinforce a stereotype that
> 'effeminate' or homosexual men are gutless wonders.
In my neck of the woods the words are to a large extent
divorced from that stereotype. More important, I've very
little doubt that the quotation marks, like those around 'to
the pain', are there for a reason. Perhaps they're another
quotation; perhaps they're merely intended to indicate that
someone other than Wasp is speaking, to make the point that
a character can be good and still appeal to those who would
naturally use such language to condemn a too-wimpish
character. One might ask instead of condemning out of hand.
Brian
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
