Thinking about taboos

Thanks to pantryslut's post, I've put my mind through the blender of this discussion on Taboo Topics in SF/F Literature.

Found more reason to read Margo Lanagan, was enthralled by Anna Tambour's mediations:

Another observation, this one garnered from my recent trip to the asteroid *. The *ians are voracious readers. With their one taste-organ orifice, they consume books with a sound that, if you're not born there, takes some getting used to -- and they consume so many books so fast, that *ian authors must imbibe inspiration in some way inhumanly possible as they work without rest, coffee or praise -- for on asteroid * there is an inverse of the Earth ratio of fiction writers to readers. With nothing else to eat on *, fiction production isn't an aspirational profession, just as cooking isn't for the majority of people who end up doing the cooking on Earth. The most popular theme in *ian sf/f today is visits to Earth and interactions with the dominants there, uh, here: iron atoms. The plots of *ish books are fast and nutritious; but unlike power drinks on our planet, *ish books are packed full of everything delicious --plot, emotion, character -- betwixt *lings and these iron atom earthlings (with a smattering of other species they imagine on our planet, but I think some sort of taboo against featuring other species from their asteroid). I'm no reviewer, so I'll just say simply: I love these books. But *ian sf/f has some guidelines that might be universal today. No cats, no puns, and certainly no fluffy kittens. They've had those guidelines since the Pure Fiction Act of 1.9908 eons ago -- which means that Lewis Carroll is still banned on *.

and amused by Hal Duncan's forthright:

This is where you get all those claims you see that it's "gone too far", that the Draconian decrees of a "PC thought-police" are forcing the poor writer to self-censor, or even exerting a pressure that's tantamount to censorship in its own right.

The argument is bollocks. It's a straw man argument belied by the reality. Paedophilia is abhorrent. Fascism is abhorrent. But if you tackle those subjects you're more likely to be lauded for it than reviled for breaching the taboo -- assuming you're approaching them as topics rather than just expressing some fucked-up personal freakery. If you do find it harder to get some Nazi kiddy porn story published, it's going to be because of the ethics of advocacy, not a taboo that simply prescribes representation. It's about how you address those subjects, not whether you address them at all. People berating you for writing Magic Negroes or Mandingos, Castrating Bitches or Depraved Faggots -- that's not censorship. Not being able to find a buyer for Nazi kiddy porn bullshit is not a free speech issue. The imperative being applied here is to treat the subject well, not to avoid it completely. It's not about taboos.

Mmmm, sf/lit-crit smoothie!

ETA: Can't resist adding Jo Walton's meditations on explicit swearing in SF.