Hmm

[ricardienne]

So, today, in L&T, we talked about Abu Ghraib, and 'cultural consent.' I wonder about this. When a book or a movie trivializes torture or death -- am I responsible for something like Abu Ghraib if I see it?

And no, it isn't enough to say, "That's the way things are. You aren't responsible if you don't do it. You have the right to see or read anything you want." Because movies/books where such things are used as casual plot devices -- not ones where it is implied that they are okay, mind you -- don't they give the impression, don't they foster the opinion that they're normal? That they're no worse than, oh, anything else, lying, stealing, that they can be rationalized away.

This the danger of romanticizing Death Eaters, I think. Of romanticizing Darth Vader (iharthdarth notwithstanding). Possibly, I shall write an essay about this. On the other hand, I don't think that the perpetrators at Abu Ghraib were the obsessive HP or SW fans who go around rationalizing that kind of stuff.

Comments

[voglia-di-notte.livejournal.com]

Hmmm is right.

For some reason, this is reminding me of the army privates on trial for torturing prisoners in Afghanistan who claimed that they hadn't done anything wrong because the army had trained them in how to do so. X(

I don't think many of us go around romanticizing Death Eaters...just trying to prove that the ones we like aren't *actually* Death Eaters. Although I guess that's pretty much the same thing, now that I think of it.