# Allegory VS Interpretation



## Stefano Rinaldelli (Oct 22, 2020)

Writers blocked | The Spectator
					

Persecution is endemic in the vicious world of Young Adult publishing




					www.spectator.co.uk
				




Thanks to Mercurius for the link.

https://reason.com/2017/12/28/sensitivity-readers-are-the-new-thought/https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/24/...ers-result-in-better-books-or-censorship.html
If you read this articles, you can understand what can happen and unfortunately happens when, instead of leaving artist free to express themselves and judge their work with your own personal sensitivity, we try to codify what must be written and what not, using a unit of measurement that it is impossible to define in exact ways.
Worst, what happens when this code of conduct is put in the hands of editors that can be easily become paranoid about a probable rush of reproach in social media.

With this post I'd like to promote a collective reflection about this issue and hope that this trying is done in an acceptable mean by forum admin and staff.

I know that the topic is sensitive, many times has happened that trying to promote this reflection in another threads I end up with a warning, so I trust in your intelligence to avoid provocations or blatant trolling.

My two cent about the whole "sensitive code" issue is that is intrinsically flawed because it aims to prevent the interpretation of writings. Unlike allegory, which is in the intentions of an author, interpretation is in the mind of the reader. Too many times people assume that their interpretation of writings is a voluntarly allegory done by the author.

Let me give you an example: Lord of The Rings in the '70 in Italy was simultaneously the manifesto of extreme right and extreme left political movement. What if an editor, worried about possible interpretation of the readers, had tryied to prevent both tendencies at the same time? He would ultimately end up with a tremendous headache, at least.

Who can onestly proclaim to be able to pose a limit or express a code of conduct about that? How to avoid drifting toward editorial paranoia?


----------



## Umbran (Oct 22, 2020)

You're worried about this in terms of moderation of posts on EN World?  Or literary critique of fiction?


----------



## Stefano Rinaldelli (Oct 22, 2020)

Umbran said:


> You're worried about this in terms of moderation of posts on EN World?  Or literary critique of fiction?



Is a fact that is very easy to slip into warnings talking about this. And maybe for my bad english (I have to go to online translators a lot to barely touch what I really want to say in Italian) it is extremely difficult to me to not being misunderstood. Moreover, there are cultural difference between the way we write: we are very crude and direct in respect to you english or americans.
I'm really sorry because is frustrating not to be able to put in words what one is thinking.
Given that, I'm really concerned about the whole sensitive writing issue. And more I'm concerned about the easyness by which it is taken as an obviously and desiderable thing to do with even feel the big side effects and implications.
And I feel that in the shoes of a father of two sons, voracious book reader, without any interest to pass my time trolling on internet.


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 22, 2020)

The written word, and even films, will always be seen through the lens of the person consuming the media. Authors/writers may put many layers into their works, shadowing history or current events, or they may simply provide scenes to be viewed as they're written, with the consumer reading into them things that were never intended. Which brings to mind:


----------



## Bayushi_seikuro (Oct 22, 2020)

In relation to other topics we've discussed in the forums on the topic of 'sensitivity' and being 'censored', one thing I would like to point out is there are many ways and places to publish.  If I recall correctly, Henry David Thoreau self-published back in his Walden days - and immediately tried to get as many copies back as he could.   In America, it is easy (relatively) to get published.  What is NOT easy is to get distribution and be a best-seller.

I apologize if this isn't helping you understand.  I am trying to remember you're not a native-English speaker, and things can be lost in translation.

Let's say I want to write a book for tabletop RPGs.  Let's say I don't want to use a system - I want to write just a generic world setting.  I have options.

If I self-publish, with no mechanics, I can write anything I want, regardless if it's a 'sensitive topic'.  The consumer gets to decide if they want to buy it.

If I am writing for a company, it depends on my contract with that company.  (Not a lawyer, so I think I'm generally correct) I submit my work, and they read it and suggest any changes. If they like it, they publish it and make most of the money.  If they don't like it and don't like my rewrites for any reason, they don't publish it.


----------



## Stefano Rinaldelli (Oct 23, 2020)

Ryujin said:


> The written word, and even films, will always be seen through the lens of the person consuming the media. Authors/writers may put many layers into their works, shadowing history or current events, or they may simply provide scenes to be viewed as they're written, with the consumer reading into them things that were never intended. Which brings to mind:



Benny Hill! The best.

One of the most quoted semiotics, Umberto Eco, said that bestsellers are bestsellers because they are "ramshackable". He means that the story has many level of interpretation and all written in a proper way, those ending in embrace a very large part of the public taste and cultural levels.
He was so confident and skilled in writing structures to prove his theory writing down "The Name of the Rose". A book written exactly with this theory in mind, that can be red by all sort of people despite their cultural level and social extraction without being boring. This is a feature of all classic books and multilayer texts are the key to success.
Now, keeping on pushing to avoid (bad) interpretation, the texts risk to become flat.
Back to your video, there is a difference: benny hill seems to give more value to the Chabrol opus than what the same Chabrol admit. This is a case that make us laugh because the inversion is unharmful. At least benny will be a little disappointed but nothing more than this.
But what starts the editor wild scissors is the negative interpretation, that is as arbitrary as the good can be, or even more.
Finally, the scissors starts before the bad interpretation come out, so are predictive scissors... even more wild.
Don't you feel a subtle feel of intellectual mortification in all this? For writers, blocked. For readers, deprived by the freedom of interpretation because feeded with defused writings, without any depth.
The only visible result for me from using "sensitive advisor" in all this years is simply to have seen a lot of gay people and minorities people placed in stories "just because".
I find it more humiliating than not to be present at all.
But I have also to be honest and say that in 25 years the behaviour toward gay is changed in Italy. Not so changed to see a man hand in hand with another on the street, but less prejudice is showed. And I'm sure a part of this is due to including gay in films and talk openly about. What I found wrong is the attitude to include these themes without nothing in the economy of the story that requested it. This stinks a lot.


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 23, 2020)

Stefano Rinaldelli said:


> Benny Hill! The best.
> 
> One of the most quoted semiotics, Umberto Eco, said that bestsellers are bestsellers because they are "ramshackable". He means that the story has many level of interpretation and all written in a proper way, those ending in embrace a very large part of the public taste and cultural levels.
> He was so confident and skilled in writing structures to prove his theory writing down "The Name of the Rose". A book written exactly with this theory in mind, that can be red by all sort of people despite their cultural level and social extraction without being boring. This is a feature of all classic books and multilayer texts are the key to success.
> ...



Or hiring Sensitive Readers can assist you with including people, in your story, who are different to yourself without falling into tropes and stereotypes of the people depicted. I may know people who have different national origins, cultural backgrounds, or sexuality than myself, but I don't know how to depict those people properly, because I don't have the necessary depth of understanding of their lives. If I want to depict such people well, then the assistance of those with such world experience is a necessary thing. I can either spend days, months, years gaining that knowledge, which may still be imperfect, or I can _ask_. It can add a great deal of depth to literature, rather than subtracting from it.

And, ultimately, the creator doesn't have to take that advice if they don't want to. I don't know why they wouldn't want to at least consider assistance from a subject matter expert, but they can choose not to. The authors I know choose to employ such readers/editors, in addition to simple proof readers, and I see nothing in their works suffering from the practice.


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 23, 2020)

Gonna be boring if it keeps up. Some things are deliberately offensive such as satire. 

 Otherwise it depends on what you're writing and why I suppose. A lot of books are going to fail all sorts of purity tests. 

 I don't think most people care anyway really bigger things to worry about. 

In Lots of things to consider as well such as nuance. 

 If it keeps up I think you'll just get less variety as people will just draw in their own back grounds rather than risk getting ripped apart on social media.


----------



## Stefano Rinaldelli (Oct 23, 2020)

Ryujin said:


> Or hiring Sensitive Readers can assist you with including people, in your story, who are different to yourself without falling into tropes and stereotypes of the people depicted. I may know people who have different national origins, cultural backgrounds, or sexuality than myself, but I don't know how to depict those people properly, because I don't have the necessary depth of understanding of their lives. If I want to depict such people well, then the assistance of those with such world experience is a necessary thing. I can either spend days, months, years gaining that knowledge, which may still be imperfect, or I can _ask_. It can add a great deal of depth to literature, rather than subtracting from it.




This is indeed the perfect case. Every tool is very good in doing one job, if used in the correct way. Thought, in last instance, I definitely prefer to read what the author wants to write, without mediation. I can accept it if the need of SR is an author instance, not an editorial one.



Ryujin said:


> And, ultimately, the creator doesn't have to take that advice if they don't want to. I don't know why they wouldn't want to at least consider assistance from a subject matter expert, but they can choose not to. The authors I know choose to employ such readers/editors, in addition to simple proof readers, and I see nothing in their works suffering from the practice.




Because you are referring to authors that recognize the need to have SR near them. But devil is in the details: the problem is when an author doesn't have enough leverage to impose his view (not every author is ken follett or stephen king) against an editor choosen SR.
And you must consider that the more an issue (racial, gender, cultural and so on) is cogent in daily chronicles, the more editors will become paranoic to that issue, until the point to censor all text no matter how tangential they are to the issue.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 23, 2020)

Stefano Rinaldelli said:


> Thought, in last instance, I definitely prefer to read what the author wants to write, without mediation




I spoke with a friend who is a professional editor before responding to this.

First off, authors who get printed without editing are rare.  You don't see much professional writing without editorial input.

Editors typically _give advice_.  The text typically goes from author, to editor, _back to author_, with several rounds of this, and then on to printing*.  Generally, authors don't let editor's changes go to press without their permission and agreement.

A good editor has also discussed the piece with the author, so they have a feeling for the author's desires and goals.  So, the result should still be what the author wants to write, but improved to meet the desired goals.

So, what you are getting isn't "mediation".  It is "with expert advice."




*Editing in journalsm can be a bit different, as when timeliness matters they may not be able to have time-consuming back-and-forth, but that's a special case.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 23, 2020)

I think what Stefano is talking about is not the normal editorial process, which you describe accurately, but that extra layer of sensitivity reading.


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 23, 2020)

Mercurius said:


> I think what Stefano is talking about is not the normal editorial process, which you describe accurately, but that extra layer of sensitivity reading.



That's certainly the impression that I got.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 23, 2020)

Mercurius said:


> I think what Stefano is talking about is not the normal editorial process, which you describe accurately, but that extra layer of sensitivity reading.




Do you think the sensitivity reader gets to make changes to the text that _won't be approved_ by the author?

If not, there's no real difference.  The author gets to think about the proposed changes, and accept, reject, or otherwise rewrite to meet the same need.  The result is still something that author wants to say.


----------



## Stefano Rinaldelli (Oct 23, 2020)

Umbran said:


> Do you think the sensitivity reader gets to make changes to the text that _won't be approved_ by the author?



No, I believe that an author can be forced to change the text. But worst, an author can be paralyzed by the fear of social media reproach, because even if he doesn't write an allegory, no matter the intentions, he can be targeted.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 23, 2020)

Stefano Rinaldelli said:


> No, I believe that an author can be forced to change the text.




Generally not.  If the author _really_ doesn't want to make a change, they cannot be forced to publish it. 

An exception to this would be "work for hire", but then the author has willingly entered into an agreement in which they will relinquish rights to the work.  Having relinquished the rights, they don't get to determine its ultimate fate, but they also don't bear much responsibility for it, either.



Stefano Rinaldelli said:


> But worst, an author can be paralyzed by the fear of social media reproach, because even if he doesn't write an allegory, no matter the intentions, he can be targeted.




That is an entirely different subject.   Ultimately, every right comes with responsibilities.  Fail in your responsibilities, there may be consequences.


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 23, 2020)

Umbran said:


> Generally not.  If the author _really_ doesn't want to make a change, they cannot be forced to publish it.
> 
> An exception to this would be "work for hire", but then the author has willingly entered into an agreement in which they will relinquish rights to the work.  Having relinquished the rights, they don't get to determine its ultimate fate, but they also don't bear much responsibility for it, either.
> 
> ...



The "work for hire" thing is certainly one case in which an author could be forced to comply with such demands. An author who is trying to be published by one of the large publishing houses could refuse, with the penalty being _not_ being published, but still has other options.

The second instance that comes to mind, with respect to being 'forced' to make such changes, would be when the author is playing in the 'sandbox' of someone else. For example; writing fiction set in one of the D&D universes, Shadowrun's setting, etc.. This would either be work for hire or, as in the case of the current lawsuit between WotC/Hasbro and the creators of the Dragonlance setting, by contractual agreement for licensing.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 23, 2020)

Umbran said:


> Do you think the sensitivity reader gets to make changes to the text that _won't be approved_ by the author?
> 
> If not, there's no real difference.  The author gets to think about the proposed changes, and accept, reject, or otherwise rewrite to meet the same need.  The result is still something that author wants to say.



I think authors can face immense pressure, and there may even be cases where a publisher (or licenser, ahem) terminates a deal because the authors didn't make as many changes as asked. Or a person's livelihood is threatened or destroyed because of something they said or did, even if in the distant past.


Stefano Rinaldelli said:


> No, I believe that an author can be forced to change the text. But worst, an author can be paralyzed by the fear of social media reproach, because even if he doesn't write an allegory, no matter the intentions, he can be targeted.



Yes, this is huge. Like the Zhao case. I can't imagine how awful that experience must have been, especially for a young person with her first book deal.


Umbran said:


> Generally not.  If the author _really_ doesn't want to make a change, they cannot be forced to publish it.
> 
> An exception to this would be "work for hire", but then the author has willingly entered into an agreement in which they will relinquish rights to the work.
> 
> ...



The last part is...odd. What is the author's responsibility to the twitter mob? Most of the offense taken is by a small group of people who complain loudly on social media. The vast majority of people, as far as I can tell, just want to read good stories (or hear jokes, look at art, etc).

And it isn't an entirely different subject - it is all under the purview of Stefano's original post, and questions around artistic freedom. Essentially we're in a situation where a group of people want to censor and cancel--or at least loudly complain about--art to a degree that can be prohibitive to free expression and enjoyment of artistic media. What I find worrisome is that it is based upon an ideological interpretation, and often assumptions about the artist's intention.

A rather silly example, but one that hopefully gets across the point, is let's say I am offended by the color red, whether due to a personal experience or some other reason. You own a shop and decorate it in red; I walk in and am triggered and complain. What to do? Should you re-decorate, even if red is crucial to the atmosphere you're trying to create? Or should I exercise my own freedom and simply not go to your shop? Or perhaps, even, come to terms with red and realize that it isn't a personal threat and I can enjoy your shop despite it?

Add in a sensitivity reader (or decorator!). Maybe you hire someone who says that a few people will be offended, but most won't mind. You have to make a choice - but it is your choice. Maybe it would be nice of you to try to find colors that don't offend anyone (although if there are people who have a problem with red, there are probably people who have a problem with blue). But at some point, shouldn't we protect your right to create the kind of atmosphere that you want, that fits your creative vision? People can complain, but should they have a say in whether you re-decorate or not? They don't have to go into the shop (or buy the book).

Of course there are cases where it isn't red but, let's say, pictures of mutilated animals in the window. A community has the right to complain (I think). So obviously there is a spectrum as to the nature of what "red" is. I don't think it should be decided by a relatively small group who happens to complain loudly, but unfortunately that seems to be what happens a lot of the time.

I personally am great concerned with artistic freedom. If we start censoring what our artists can say, we run the risk of a kind of fascism, even if the intentions are benign. Numerous authors and stories have warned us of such artistic censoring and ideological narrowing (e.g. Orwell's _1984 _and Bradbury's _Fahrenheit 451)_, but for whatever reason some aren't able to make the connection, perhaps because such fictional stories are far more extreme than the current reality. But the slope is slippery indeed (and please, don't cite The Slippery Slope Fallacy! I'm aware of it, but not only are slippery slopes a real phenomena, but citing fallacies don't always negate the point being made...that must be a fallacy of some kind, or should be! ).


----------



## Umbran (Oct 23, 2020)

Ryujin said:


> The "work for hire" thing is certainly one case in which an author could be forced to comply with such demands. An author who is trying to be published by one of the large publishing houses could refuse, with the penalty being _not_ being published, but still has other options.




Yep.  The fact that you have written (or in general, created) a thing does not _entitle_ you to use of any particular platform for its distribution.  



Ryujin said:


> The second instance that comes to mind, with respect to being 'forced' to make such changes, would be when the author is playing in the 'sandbox' of someone else. For example; writing fiction set in one of the D&D universes, Shadowrun's setting, etc.. This would either be work for hire or, as in the case of the current lawsuit between WotC/Hasbro and the creators of the Dragonlance setting, by contractual agreement for licensing.



Yes, fair point.  But, again, the author has in this case willfully entered into this contractual agreement, which means you have responsibilities per that agreement.  And you don't get to dodge the consequences should you fail in those responsibilities.

There seems to be a theme.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 23, 2020)

Mercurius said:


> I think authors can face immense pressure, and there may even be cases where a publisher (or licenser, ahem) terminates a deal because the authors didn't make as many changes as asked.




Yeah.  See above.  The act of creation does not, in and of iself, entitle you to someone else's financial risk and/or investment to distribute the thing. 



Mercurius said:


> The last part is...odd. What is the author's responsibility to the twitter mob?




"The twitter mob," as you put it, is _the public you were hoping would consume your content_! They are your customers!  You figure a producer does not have responsibilities to their customers?  "I want your money and adulation, but no backtalk, you hear me!" is not a viable position.

In the US, you live with nearly 330 million other human beings.  You don't get to reap the benefits of that, but not have responsibilities with respect to the others around you.


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 23, 2020)

Umbran said:


> Yep.  The fact that you have written (or in general, created) a thing does not _entitle_ you to use of any particular platform for its distribution.
> 
> 
> Yes, fair point.  But, again, the author has in this case willfully entered into this contractual agreement, which means you have responsibilities per that agreement.  And you don't get to dodge the consequences should you fail in those responsibilities.
> ...



Indeed. As I frequently like to say, "Freedom of expression is not freedom from consequence."


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 23, 2020)

Umbran said:


> Yeah.  See above.  The act of creation does not, in and of iself, entitle you to someone else's financial risk and/or investment to distribute the thing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




 It's getting a bit silly though. 

 I don't mind reading novels set in times of Rome for example. They got up to some fairly horrific stuff. 

 Don't like reading stuff like that though gets to the point of don't like it don't buy it. 

 Starts getting silly imho when you start trying to interject modern values into fictional work set in historical periods. 

  There's authors like Wilbur Smith. He started writing in the 1960s, opposed apartheid and his books are reflective of the times and have a bit more nuance in theme but they fail modern purity tests. 

 He's still writing as far as I know and the old don't like it don't buy it seems to apply. 

If but if he didn't write those books to begin with he wouldn't have drawn attention to what was going on either.


----------



## Stefano Rinaldelli (Oct 23, 2020)

Umbran said:


> That is an entirely different subject.   Ultimately, every right comes with responsibilities.  Fail in your responsibilities, there may be consequences.



This is the point of divergence. As well exposed by Mercurius, we must keep in mind that _interpretation _is *not* responsibility of the author.
And it never must be, because it is impossible to avoid misinterpretation.
If an author wants to be helped by a SR hat off to him, but the problem is an editor forcing the author to change text due to fear of _possible_ misinterpretation. This is the issue and this is happening here and now. You know that if you move from actual to possible, the range of freedom will decrease a lot.
And look: as I don't want to explore the case of an author that actually wants to be uninclusive (and in my opinion as the right to do so), then I will not explore the case of criticism to author dictated by the need to collect visibility on social.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 23, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> It's getting a bit silly though.
> 
> I don't mind reading novels set in times of Rome for example. They got up to some fairly horrific stuff.




So, have you heard of any such novels not getting printed because there might be blowback?


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 23, 2020)

Umbran said:


> So, have you heard of any such novels not getting printed because there might be blowback?




 AFAIK they still make them but usually accompanied by online shrieking. 

 Making a lot of noise online is very different than average person on the street. 

 I can't estimate the exact numbers if the population who swing that way in the USA but here it's less than 10%.

 If I had to guess it explains a few flops in recent years. Listen to house online then find out the hard way that mist people don't swing that way. 

 I don't think the hard core other side cone anywhere close to 10% either.

 Most people don't care because they don't really relate to it and/or are t fanatical about it.


----------



## Deset Gled (Oct 23, 2020)

Umbran said:


> "The twitter mob," as you put it, is _the public you were hoping would consume your content_! They are your customers!  You figure a producer does not have responsibilities to their customers?  "I want your money and adulation, but no backtalk, you hear me!" is not a viable position.



I think this statement is only occasionally true.

Some people on Twitter are your customers.  Others are potential customers.  But most people on Twitter are not your target market; they have no chance or intention of becoming your customer, regardless of the content.  

This last group are the ones that are the biggest problem because they have their own agenda and you cannot influence them.  Their reasons for tweeting basically don't involve you, so if they post something negative about you or your content you have no recourse.  There is no explanation or apology you can give to make them happy, because they have no reason to listen or care about anything you say.

Of course, we should also remember that there's one last group of people on Twitter: all the bots and alt accounts that exist only to form an echo chamber.  None of these are your customers, either.



Umbran said:


> So, have you heard of any such novels not getting printed because there might be blowback?



The history of the film Caligula would be a pretty specific example.


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 23, 2020)

Deset Gled said:


> I think this statement is only occasionally true.
> 
> Some people on Twitter are your customers.  Others are potential customers.  But most people on Twitter are not your target market; they have no chance or intention of becoming your customer, regardless of the content.
> 
> ...




 Haven't seen Caligula for years. Basically soft porn made by the owner of Penthouse iirc.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 23, 2020)

Deset Gled said:


> The history of the film Caligula would be a pretty specific example.




That was... 1979?  And it did happen anyway. And many of the people involved went on to have fine careers, and did not get "cancelled".

So... your example of suppression by social media is before social media, and didn't really suppress anything in the end?  What?


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 23, 2020)

Umbran said:


> That was... 1979?  And it did happen anyway. And many of the people involved went on to have fine careers, and did not get "cancelled".
> 
> So... your example of suppression by social media is before social media, and didn't really suppress anything in the end?  What?




 I think the point would be the poi storm if it was released now. 

 How about a movie like Blazing Saddles? 

 Imagine if they tried making that. It's offensive as hell but it's satire and is ripping the KKK a new one.


----------



## Deset Gled (Oct 23, 2020)

Umbran said:


> That was... 1979?  And it did happen anyway. And many of the people involved went on to have fine careers, and did not get "cancelled".
> 
> So... your example of suppression by social media is before social media, and didn't really suppress anything in the end?  What?



It was an example of a work that had to have its distribution model changed because of blowback and falling astray of industry norms.  Maybe not the most recent, but you specifically asked for stories about Rome and it's the best I could come up with off the top of my head.  If you want stories outside of that genre, The Interview is a more modern example that springs to mind.

Night of the Hunter is one example of a film that was originally controversial and flopped, partially due to poor distribution.  The director never made another film as a result.  It took a few decades be recognized as a legit classic.  In general, though, you're not going to hear about books or films that are blocked by distribution... because they've been blocked from distribution.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 23, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> I think the point would be the poi storm if it was released now.




You realize that the movie was controversial not because of its content, but because Guccione refused to submit it for rating, and tried to show it like any other film anyway?  That was him breaking his responsibility (and, in some areas, the law).  

So, yes, if they released it in normal theaters now, without having it rated, there'd be a problem.  If they got it rated (I haven't myself seen it, I assume by reputation it deserves an X rating) and released it according to how such films are to be released, I don't expect there'd be any more problem than for any other X-rated movie.

Not so great an example, I'm afraid.




Zardnaar said:


> How about a movie like Blazing Saddles?
> 
> Imagine if they tried making that. It's offensive as hell but it's satire and is ripping the KKK a new one.




This is a better example.

However, there is still a complete logical failure in assuming that, since a thing could be done in the past, and you can't do it now, that's a failure, problem, or bad thing.  You want me to start listing things that were deemed okay by society at one time, and are now not allowed?  Because there's a ton of it with which I expect you'd have a hard time arguing against.  

So, the fact that it happened in the past is not sufficient to justify that it should be possible today.  As we go on, we learn that there's some stuff we just shouldn't do.  You have to demonstrate that today, with our greater understanding, doing so _would still be just as good an idea_.  

Moreover, as folks talk about Blazing Saddles, they forget that, even in the day it was released, supposedly an age that was so much more lax in what it allowed, _it was Rated R in the US_. You had to be 18 years old to see the thing without a parent.

And, the next question - is there any doubt in yoru mind that it could be made today and released on the internet for streaming?  I have none.  The internet is loaded with stuff deemed inappropriate by society.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 23, 2020)

Deset Gled said:


> It was an example of a work that had to have its distribution model changed because of blowback and falling astray of industry norms.



Yes, as noted - the industry norm was "get films rated and don't show pornography just anywhere you damn well please."


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 23, 2020)

Umbran said:


> You realize that the movie was controversial not because of its content, but because Guccione refused to submit it for rating, and tried to show it like any other film anyway?  That was him breaking his responsibility (and, in some areas, the law).
> 
> So, yes, if they released it in normal theaters now, without having it rated, there'd be a problem.  If they got it rated (I haven't myself seen it, I assume by reputation it deserves an X rating) and released it according to how such films are to be released, I don't expect there'd be any more problem than for any other X-rated movie.
> 
> ...




 I doubt you could release it commerciallybthesevdays. It's on Netflix. Saw it as a kid in VHS watched it for the first time as an adult about a year ago. 

 You're not missing much with Caligula watched it age 17. 

 But yeah there's a lot less nuance online. Warhammer 40k is copping flak because it's got no female space marines and it's essentially race wars in space. 

 Despite the fact its deliberately be an over the top dystopian future using a lot of satire. 

 If it was up to the raving Twitter mob you couldn't have that either. And people think D&D has problems lol. 

 Note I don't play Warhammer but there's no amount of changes they can make to it to appeal to the Twitter mob and still have something recognizably warhammer. Do you stick R18 labels in it, don't make it or ignore the Twitter mob?


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 24, 2020)

Umbran said:


> Yeah.  See above.  The act of creation does not, in and of iself, entitle you to someone else's financial risk and/or investment to distribute the thing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The twitter mob is a small fraction, and maybe not the right audience if they're outraged. Maybe it should be seen as a litmus test: If my work offends you, then maybe its not for you - but don't ask me to change the art to reduce your offense; just find other artists that you like. The problem is how much cultural weight this mob yields - it far surpasses their actual percentage of most potential audiences. 

I've seen store owners kick out abusive customers and not lose any sleep over it. I think the twitter mob could be put in the same category.

Of course art is a bit different and transcends mere commerce. An artist, in my view, should be free to produce their vision. Yes, the market decides on whether it will receive financial compensation, and I suppose commercial artists are more cognizant of audience; perhaps the definition of "commercial art" is that its primary focus is as a commodity, something to be sold. But art itself is not first and foremost a commercial product - it is a creative act, or at least starts that way. I feel that, as a culture, we should protect artists and allow them to produce freely without running everything through a sieve of potential offense, triggering, etc. And then naturally let their audience develop. 

Anyhow, take your logic to the extreme and we end up in that apogee that Yossman warns us about. In today's climate, almost anything could be found offensive by someone. I suppose a savvy artist has to weigh this, and consider possible outcomes, but I dislike the idea that a small group of people who took too many critical theory classes would dissuade them from being authentic to their vision. It becomes even worse when it is someone who isn't actually interested in the art, just the outrage (e.g. that tweeter who started the latest round of Orcgate, who doesn't even play D&D).


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 24, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> Haven't seen Caligula for years. Basically soft porn made by the owner of Penthouse iirc.



I haven't seen it in years either, but my memory of it is fresh enough that i remember some scenes were decidedly _not _soft core. But that has nothing to do with this conversation.. just bringing back memories .


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 24, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> Do you stick R18 labels in it, don't make it or ignore the Twitter mob?



I think the Twitter mob should be ignored, to be honest. Or as the saying goes, "don't feed the trolls." The problem is that the Twitter mob has somehow co-opted the role of moral censure, a kind of public tribunal of good opinion. It is akin to the saying, "The squeaky wheels gets the grease" - except its not the loudest problems, but the loudest complainers. I don't think it is commensurate with any kind of common view. 

All that said, I don't have an issue with talking about or even dissecting art. Sure, let's talk about Goldmoon and her relationship to various tribal peoples, or how Weis and Hickman infused their religion into their story. What I take issue is the censuring to the point of action being taken. Real harm is done, not only to the artists but also to those who actually enjoy the art.


----------



## Janx (Oct 24, 2020)

Okay, writer guy here.  Not famous.  But I wrote a few things and got them published and I've studied the industry.

Sensitivity readers are for making sure that when I, white guy, write some black guys into my story, that they aren't negative racial stereotypes.  the drug dealer with a tooth of gold, the hoochie mama with a heart of gold and there to get killed first.

And then, they're job is to read my draft and WARN me of that as a mistake.  So that I can change it.  Because if I don't, a twitter mob WILL come after me.  That's the job.  Because somebody paid to read drafts knows not to freak out if I screw up, but somebody reading a published copy does not.

Now there are three examples in the industry of people freaking out:

The one that started it all was Schrieber(sp?) who got called out for her book about a white family, which included the husband remarrying to a black woman who now had dementia had had to be kept on a leash.  The author makes all kinds of great speeches about the right to tell any kind of story, not being limited to ones own experience. But frankly, she put a black woman on a leash and didn't think that was a problem.

The Boy in the Striped Pajamas author.  Had to look that one up when somebody called the author out.  Again, the author makes great points about freedom.  But the core problem is he wrote about a trans character and got stuff wrong.

There's the French-Chinese YA author who wrote a story about slavery, maybe set in a Caribbean style (haven't read it).  People found out about her book before it got published (and she had one of those debut miracle deals) and she pulled the release.  Odd thing was, the mob was mad that a Chinese woman was writing about slavery as if, you know, Chinese people haven't been and still are enslaved.  This is the case where it's a bit harder to see if the author did screw up in the actual work (again, would have to read it) or if they were just mad because she wrote brown characters.  The same situation is going on about a white woman's book about illegal Mexican immigrants, and the problem there as with the first two examples is she got stuff wrong. Again.

The usual dangerzone problem is "stay in your lane-ism."   Writing characters who aren't like you.  Which is stupid, because otherwise every character IS you.  But the counter-problem is writing characters from other cultures/genders is harder, because I literally don't have their experience.  People aren't threading the needle very well.

Add to that, YA seems to be particularly vociferous about this compared to other genres.  But it can be done.

The Rivers of London series centers on a brown policeman named Peter Grant, written by what appears to be a white guy, Ben Aaronovitch.  No flak. No trouble.  It's good stuff. So presumably, he's doing something right.

Pretty much every scandal I've seen, there is wise words from the author about freedom and stuff, and then there's mistakes in their work that might be cause for offense.


----------



## Stefano Rinaldelli (Oct 24, 2020)

Janx said:


> Okay, writer guy here.  Not famous.  But I wrote a few things and got them published and I've studied the industry.
> 
> Sensitivity readers are for making sure that when I, white guy, write some black guys into my story, that they aren't negative racial stereotypes.  the drug dealer with a tooth of gold, the hoochie mama with a heart of gold and there to get killed first.
> 
> ...



Thank you very much for these 3 examples you cite. To be honest, the problem here is that it's impossible to write about a black woman with leash, but I wonder if the woman was white, maybe some feminist mob can also came out. I mean: this seems to me as the classic incidental VS causal kind of misinterpretation, but I don't want to argue to the single examples you've done.
Only thing that I'm sure, really sure, is that if I, italian caucasic reader, red a story about a black women in leash, my focus is to women in leash, black as a totally unrelated attribute from the leash. Easily this is beacause I'm white, but before let fall the axe of racism accusation to the writer, my personal intelligence impose me to be absolutely sure that there is a causal/intentional relationship between leash and black, and not only an assonance with slavery.

[For the relationship between interpretation and misinterpretation if you want to go deepen in this enormous problem, my advice is to read _Interpretation and Overinterpretation_ and _The Limits of Interpretation _both by Umberto Eco. easy to read despite the mess of the subject]

It's worth to remember that I've already clearly sad that if an author wants to assume a SR it's good to him to do it and nobody should blame him for that, nor I intend in any way to assume that SR are unuseful professionist. So what I'm interested in is 

1. your opinion about a sort of third party control aimed to prevent misinterpretability (don't know if is this the correct word, I mean the fact that a writing COULD be somehow interpreted far from the intentions of the author). 
2. if is logical for you, aside obvious economic implication related to avoid mobs, to change a writing to avoid misinterpretation.
3. don't you think that this kind of filter, if pushed beyond a per se difficult to intercept limit, could result in harm to freedom of expression?
4. don't you think that while avoid blatant offences to some ethnic or gender or anything group is part of your being not an a***ole, chase the misinterpretation to kill it before it shows up is intrinsecally flawed way of thinking?
5. in other words, don't you think that acting this way it is like to abdicate, to surrender to human stupidity?


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 24, 2020)

In that particular example, even as a middle-aged Caucasian male, I would be forced to wonder why it seemed necessary to depict a Black woman in such a role. It would have to be a conscious choice of some sort, so why? Writers don't depict characters in a specific way for no reason at all. It's part of the narrative. If it's unimportant, then why racialize the character at all?


----------



## Umbran (Oct 24, 2020)

Stefano Rinaldelli said:


> Thank you very much for these 3 examples you cite. To be honest, the problem here is that it's impossible to write about a black woman with leash, but I wonder if the woman was white, maybe some feminist mob can also came out.




Leashes are for animals, as a way for a human to exert control on them.  Putting _any person_ on a leash would seem to me to be pretty demeaning.  The symbolism is pretty plain there, and I'm dubious about claims that the author didn't see this.  




Stefano Rinaldelli said:


> 1. your opinion about a sort of third party control aimed to prevent misinterpretability (don't know if is this the correct word, I mean the fact that a writing COULD be somehow interpreted far from the intentions of the author).




In part, this is what sensitivity readers are, for specific topics.  And, even normal editors fill this role to a great degree.

Beyond that, though, there's no assurance about interpretation.  Authors and artists should generally be aware that in any work, there are at least three things:  What the artist intended, what they actually did, and what the audience got out of it.  While the artist wants these things to be similar, you don't get to control the world.  



Stefano Rinaldelli said:


> 4. don't you think that while avoid blatant offences to some ethnic or gender or anything group is part of your being not an a***ole, chase the misinterpretation to kill it before it shows up is intrinsecally flawed way of thinking?




No.  Art is an attempt to communicate.  If you are not considering your audience, thinking about who you are trying to communicate your ideas to and what they are going to think, you're going to do a poor job of communicating.  If you need help to think about your audience, then you ought to get it.



Stefano Rinaldelli said:


> 5. in other words, don't you think that acting this way it is like to abdicate, to surrender to human stupidity?




So, there's a major point you seem to be forgetting - absolute tons of stuff is getting published _all the time_.  The, "twitter mob," as it has been called, has not seemed to be a real block to things getting written and published.

Either, you are being a bit paranoid, and such steps aren't usually needed, or they are needed, and for the most part common editing and the occasional engagement of readers to help smooth rough spots is doing the job without much issue.


----------



## MoonSong (Oct 25, 2020)

Ryujin said:


> Indeed. As I frequently like to say, "Freedom of expression is not freedom from consequence."



I would want to temper this one. It is a bit extreme to me. Or perhaps I have perceived some of the extreme forms of this idea. Can you be free to express something when there are consequences? I mean some reputation loss is ok I guess, but where do we draw the line? Losing a deal or a job? Losing the capacity to ever earn an honest wage? Losing your family? Losing all of your safety net? Losing your freedom? Losing your live? All of them can be consequences, but some of these don't exactly make for freedom of expression. 

I mean this can be used to victim blame people who are silenced through violence. Perhaps in your first world countries this isn't a big deal, but mine has a long history of clandestine publishing, incarcerated writers and executed journalists. "You where free to disclose the dealigns of the local mafia, but you're not free from the consequences and the consequences are death." I know extreme example, but it seems my environment is a bit extreme too.


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 25, 2020)

MoonSong said:


> I would want to temper this one. It is a bit extreme to me. Or perhaps I have perceived some of the extreme forms of this idea. Can you be free to express something when there are consequences? I mean some reputation loss is ok I guess, but where do we draw the line? Losing a deal or a job? Losing the capacity to ever earn an honest wage? Losing your family? Losing all of your safety net? Losing your freedom? Losing your live? All of them can be consequences, but some of these don't exactly make for freedom of expression.
> 
> I mean this can be used to victim blame people who are silenced through violence. Perhaps in your first world countries this isn't a big deal, but mine has a long history of clandestine publishing, incarcerated writers and executed journalists. "You where free to disclose the dealigns of the local mafia, but you're not free from the consequences and the consequences are death." I know extreme example, but it seems my environment is a bit extreme too.



The statement is meant for nations that have "freedom of expression" coded into their very being. Elsewhere it's a struggle. Had I a Sensitive Reader, that might have come out in another manner


----------



## Janx (Oct 25, 2020)

Ryujin said:


> The statement is meant for nations that have "freedom of expression" coded into their very being. Elsewhere it's a struggle. Had I a Sensitive Reader, that might have come out in another manner



True but in France, they are mourning the loss of a teacher who was covering the Charlie Hebdo cartoons and killed for it.

I think we can all agree that extreme consequences like that are extreme, illegal and covered by laws in most countries.

So let's stick to the Twitter Mob level of consequence. for sake of level-capping hyperbole.

I've seen a lot of great responses expanding on the stuff I said.  Thanks.  I was in a hurry, and this topic is important to me on a professional level.

I will add to one point, the concern over muting expression.  Here's the thing, if my book is about the importance of eating vegetables, I don't want aspects I wrote in it to damage that theme.  If I put in a joke about a chocolate pie hitting somebody in the fact and it's black facing, holey cow, I'm gonna offend people over something that has nothing to do with the importance of eating veggies. I'm OK with not being astute enough to sense that when I write it, but I don't want that in the final version.  And I might not see it during any number of edits.

As someone stated earlier, a writer is supposed to have some skill with choosing their words carefully.  Content that offends, that isn't supporting the theme or plot of the story is noise that detracts from the signal you are trying to send.  Fixing that isn't censorship.  Fixing that is what editors and beta readers and sensitivity readers are supposed to help with, because it turns out, like movie scripts, books are not actually a one-man production.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Oct 25, 2020)

As someone that spend 10 years caring for a dementia patient, the idea of putting leash on them, strikes me as appalling. Also, counter productive as it would most like make them distressed and violent, followed by distress on the part of the person on the other end of the leash as they receive a crack in the jaw.
I am also pretty sure it would be illegal


----------



## MoonSong (Oct 25, 2020)

Janx said:


> True but in France, they are mourning the loss of a teacher who was covering the Charlie Hebdo cartoons and killed for it.
> 
> I think we can all agree that extreme consequences like that are extreme, illegal and covered by laws in most countries.
> 
> So let's stick to the Twitter Mob level of consequence. for sake of level-capping hyperbole.



"I'm not going to kill you, I'm just going to ruin your live so hard that nobody will ever hire you or do business with you, your family and friends will shun, you'll lose your home and any ability to make a living, and you have no recourse but to slowly perish on the streets at the margin of society and at the mercy of the elements and criminals, while everybody can righteously deny you any aid, help or even human touch. In fact, by then if a lowlife takes you out of your misery, we will hail them as a hero."

Edit: "And we will use you as an example to make sure nobody ever thinks like you, disagrees with us, or even dares to not be 100% on our side."


----------



## Umbran (Oct 25, 2020)

MoonSong said:


> "I'm not going to kill you, I'm just going to ruin your live so hard that nobody will ever hire you or do business with you....




Ryujin is talking about consequences _within the law_.  What you're suggesting here would be harrassment, and thus illegal.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Oct 25, 2020)

I think this topic ignores the fact that, especially in the US, a large group of people _have _been historically censored, controlled, and threatened with violence, and that is anyone not white or male. Going back to Frederick Douglas, he had to first break the law to learn how to read and write, escape from slavery, and convince abolitionists to hear his story before he could get published. Then he had to change the names of important people in his life story to prevent them from being killed. Women had to publish under male pseudonyms. For generations, anyone who did not fit into the established dominant culture in America was simply not published. Or they were targeted by white supremacist terrorists. Look at how many Civil Rights leaders were assassinated because they refused to be censored.

When we equate Sensitivity Readers with censorship, we are missing a whole lot of context.

The focus on cultural and racial identity of authors, and their ability to write from other perspectives, can be really upsetting and difficult. It's a tough conversation. But I think if we see it in a historical context, we can recognize that this is part of a conversation that has been happening for _centuries._

And just the fact that we can have a conversation about honoring the voices of people who are not just white and male is a victory in itself!

Rather than seeing Sensitivity Readers, or a caution when writing about other cultural and racial perspectives, as a threat, see it as part of this difficult and sometimes painful transition to a world in which we have _more_ perspectives published than ever before! The process is never going to be perfect, but we have literally seen the alternative for hundreds of years.


----------



## Bawylie (Oct 25, 2020)

Umbran said:


> Ryujin is talking about consequences _within the law_.  What you're suggesting here would be harrassment, and thus illegal.



Yes. And we operate in a world in which things that are illegal happen with sufficient frequency that they warrant some consideration.


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 25, 2020)

Umbran said:


> Leashes are for animals, as a way for a human to exert control on them.  Putting _any person_ on a leash would seem to me to be pretty demeaning.  The symbolism is pretty plain there, and I'm dubious about claims that the author didn't see this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




 Depends on the context.  Some people like stuff like 50 Shades of Grey. 

 I haven't read the work in question but depending on how it's written I'm fine with it. 

 Some (generally) middle and upper class people like things like leashes. Doesn't do much for me but yeah.

 I've known people buying toys like that and not all of them were white.

 Equality to me means you're going to see more variety in things like villains and flawed characters as well. 

 Instead of a stereo typical gangbanger why not a non white Blofield type or S&M tendencies? 

 Really not my thing but not up to me to judge.

 For me the litmus test is this. Is the character this way because if what they are or who they are? 

 Alot of romance novels let's face it are soft core porn for bored housewives yes?


----------



## WayneLigon (Oct 25, 2020)

Sensitivity readers are there for a reason: the constant background hum of systemic racism and privilege. Most of us do not have a diversity of experience, even if we have long-term friends who are black, gay, trans, etc etc, but we _think_ we do, which can lead to making some pretty awful gaffs regarding race, culture, etc. 

A more woke culture isn't a straitjacket - your white suburban writer can absolutely produce novels about Native Americans or Harlem musicians of the 1920's - but it does mean you can no longer be lazy and not do your research when producing content. For example, you absolutely cannot rely on your memory or TV or what Aunt Judy said about the practices of her Jewish neighbors when writing about a Jewish family.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 25, 2020)

Bawylie said:


> Yes. And we operate in a world in which things that are illegal happen with sufficient frequency that they warrant some consideration.




You may have missed the point here.  The complaint is that we shouldn't allow certain behaviors online.  Fine.  But, the behaviors in question _are already illegal_.  They are already not allowed!

What more protection do you expect than that?


----------



## Umbran (Oct 25, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> Really not my thing but not up to me to judge.




I don't honestly know the racial history of New Zealand particularly well.  But... imagine an Australian piece that had imagery of white folks subjugating aboriginals?  You think that'd be acceptable?



Zardnaar said:


> For me the litmus test is this. Is the character this way because if what they are or who they are?




We are RPG players, to let me try a different analogy:

The guy who comes into the game, and does a ton of jerkish things at the table, and defends it saying, "But that's what my character would do!" 



Zardnaar said:


> Alot of romance novels let's face it are soft core porn for bored housewives yes?




The piece under discussion wasn't pornography.  It was having a woman on a leash supposedly because she had dementia. 

You realize that's not how you handle someone with dementia, right?


----------



## MarkB (Oct 25, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> But yeah there's a lot less nuance online. Warhammer 40k is copping flak because it's got no female space marines and it's essentially race wars in space.
> 
> Despite the fact its deliberately be an over the top dystopian future using a lot of satire.
> 
> ...



This isn't just stuff for the Twitter mob, though. If you're organising a Space Marines campaign for a group and you stipulate "oh yeah, and all of you have to play male characters", that's a pretty major constraint on the players' options, and it's going to make it harder to get player buy-in at many tables, regardless of how satirical it is.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 25, 2020)

I haven't read the book and don't even know the name of the author, but my guess is that they were neither practicing nor advocating for leashing people with dementia, whether black or not. So the question is, why is there a backlash against this as depicted in _fiction? _Fiction has depicted, and will continue to depict, all kinds of atrocious things. Where is the line drawn between what things can and cannot be expressed, and who makes such decisions?

And more so, what do people want to come from their outrage? It is one thing to say, "Man, _Dances with Wolves _was such a white person's view on Native Americans," quite another to act for its removal, or that all future films be vetted through some kind of filtering process that disallows people from making the films they want to make. I personally would prefer to allow such films to be made, if only so that we can have the conversations.

Furthermore, there is a place for art that makes us feel uncomfortable. Taking offense generally involves personalizing it, thinking it is about oneself, when in the end it can only ever be about the artist themselves. Or as the quote goes, in paraphrase, "non-fiction is about the world/others, fiction is about ourselves" (can't remember who said it). Meaning, a work of fiction is entirely about the author - every character is an aspect of the author, every idea the author's version of it. It is a peak into the mind of the author, and we read it through our own minds, our own experience. 

As for writing from the perspective of the "other," this is at the core of the matter and what Yossman discusses. Everyone is other, regardless of ethnicity, gender, or other intersectional categories. And of course, orcs and other fantasy creatures are especially other to us all - as are fantasy creations inspired by real world cultures and ideas. So while at the same time, everyone is other, everyone in a work of fiction is not--it is ourselves.

It is one thing to consult someone about depicting Jews (if non-Jewish), LGBTs (if non-LGBT), blacks (if not black), etc. It is quite another to consult someone about one's fantasy world. Even in the case of a "fantasy Africa," it is still a fantasy setting...a fantasy Africa could and almost certainly would have real and perhaps even massive differences from our own world. For instance, maybe it never experienced European colonization. That would change just about everything. Maybe its people have entirely different cultural assumptions than the Africa of our world, yet only share the trait of higher melanin.


----------



## Janx (Oct 25, 2020)

Umbran said:


> You may have missed the point here.  The complaint is that we shouldn't allow certain behaviors online.  Fine.  But, the behaviors in question _are already illegal_.  They are already not allowed!
> 
> What more protection do you expect than that?



Exactly, and thank you for getting my point.

For the guy who didn't....
Illegal stuff is illegal.  Death threats, burning down a house, etc.  Heck, hurting somebody's ability to work is slander/libel and worth a crap-ton in court.  maybe the system doesn't work on enforcing that stuff, but it is covered.

The basic example is people being angry because an author's work has offensive stuff in it.  not the nutjob level of rioting and killing people over it.

A sensitivity reader might catch that.  I can clutch my pearls and say it hurts my artistic vision and publish anyway.  Or I can decide that maybe that bit wasn't needed and I could do something else.

Should the worst happen and you publish something that has a bit in it that is interpreted as offensive when you truly didn't mean it, what should you do?  How about apologize.  Say you didn't see it that way when you wrote it, but you're learning and will try to do better. And then do so. people will still be mad, but if you actually do better, it's on them for clinging to anger, not you for clinging to ignorance after that.


----------



## MarkB (Oct 25, 2020)

Mercurius said:


> It is one thing to consult someone about depicting Jews (if non-Jewish), LGBTs (if non-LGBT), blacks (if not black), etc. It is quite another to consult someone about one's fantasy world. Even in the case of a "fantasy Africa," it is still a fantasy setting...a fantasy Africa could and almost certainly would have real and perhaps even massive differences from our own world. For instance, maybe it never experienced European colonization. That would change just about everything. Maybe its people have entirely different cultural assumptions than the Africa of our world, yet only share the trait of higher melanin.



If you're making a fantasy Africa that has nothing to do with the real Africa, then what's the point of setting it in Africa? You're more likely to disappoint people than interest them if you market something as fantasy Africa, and when they look into it there's nothing to do with Africa in there aside from the geography and the inhabitants' skin colour.

And if you're making a fantasy Africa that does have cultural elements of the real Africa, then it will have the potential to cause problems if those elements do anything to perpetuate the more offensive portrayals of those cultures that have occurred historically.


----------



## Janx (Oct 25, 2020)

WayneLigon said:


> Sensitivity readers are there for a reason: the constant background hum of systemic racism and privilege. Most of us do not have a diversity of experience, even if we have long-term friends who are black, gay, trans, etc etc, but we _think_ we do, which can lead to making some pretty awful gaffs regarding race, culture, etc.
> 
> A more woke culture isn't a straitjacket - your white suburban writer can absolutely produce novels about Native Americans or Harlem musicians of the 1920's - but it does mean you can no longer be lazy and not do your research when producing content. For example, you absolutely cannot rely on your memory or TV or what Aunt Judy said about the practices of her Jewish neighbors when writing about a Jewish family.



 Exactly.  Though there are some boundaries I see forming in my own research.

Quite some time ago, an Australian author wrote an excellent book about aboriginal's experience.  Won awards, got respect from aboriginal communities.  He did a good job, back in the day when aboriginals were not gonna get published.  Today, he says he wouldn't write such a book, as there's aboriginals who CAN write that themselves.

So my rule of thumb is, I am not going to write a book about growing up as a poor black girl in Harlem (classic example).  It's not my experience, and frankly, almost any poor black girl growing up in a city is far closer to the experience than I am.  it's that boundary of literary fiction that could be someone's memoir.

But I will have a diverse cast.  And that may include a woman who grew up poor in Harlem.  And some moment in the story may be reflecting or influenced by her experience.  But that's not the same as me spending a whole book telling you what I think it was like for somebody who can tell you themselves.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 25, 2020)

MarkB said:


> If you're making a fantasy Africa that has nothing to do with the real Africa, then what's the point of setting it in Africa? You're more likely to disappoint people than interest them if you market something as fantasy Africa, and when they look into it there's nothing to do with Africa in there aside from the geography and the inhabitants' skin colour.
> 
> And if you're making a fantasy Africa that does have cultural elements of the real Africa, then it will have the potential to cause problems if those elements do anything to perpetuate the more offensive portrayals of those cultures that have occurred historically.



I don't mean Africa, but an equatorial continent that is obviously inspired by Africa, in a similar way that, say, Midgard is not "fantasy Europe" but inspired by Europe. When you call it "Africa" with regions like "Khemet" etc, then it changes things. A bit.

But again, what is your solution? People shouldn't create anything that has "the potential to cause problems?" And what is "causing problems?" Offending a few people on twitter or in certain segments of academia?


----------



## MarkB (Oct 25, 2020)

Mercurius said:


> And what is "causing problems?" Offending a few people on twitter or in certain segments of academia?



How about offending someone who turns up to play a game and finds that it contains a painfully stereotypical portrayal of their culture than nobody else at the table seems to have noticed is implicitly racist?


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 25, 2020)

Umbran said:


> I don't honestly know the racial history of New Zealand particularly well.  But... imagine an Australian piece that had imagery of white folks subjugating aboriginals?  You think that'd be acceptable?
> 
> We are RPG players, to let me try a different analogy:
> 
> ...



The RPG Players part reminded me of something; the people I meet who think that the character of Glorion, in the web series "JourneyQuest", is supposed to be a hero.

Who beats a fellow party member as a means of "encouragement."

Who bursts into a room and declares, "Die evil races!" before killing all the creatures who are discussing why evil for evil sake is meaningless.

Who kills entire villages of Orcs. "The women.... The children....?" asks the Cleric.


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 25, 2020)

Umbran said:


> I don't honestly know the racial history of New Zealand particularly well.  But... imagine an Australian piece that had imagery of white folks subjugating aboriginals?  You think that'd be acceptable?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




 As I said on context. I hadn't read the piece in question. 

 Generally I would look on it as bad taste but it would depend on context/genre. If you wrote a historical novel with slavers then yeah leash is fine because that's what happened. 

 If the novel was glorifying it yes that's a problem. 

 In Australia the last mass shooting of the aboriginals happened in the 1930's. On a casual level they're worse than the USA in terms of how they speak. 

 In NZ the Maori weren't enslaved or socially excluded but they're on the wrong side of things socio economic things due to Colonization etc. 

 They made a movie here called Once Were Warriors where the main character beats the crap out of his wife, daughter gerlts raped by her uncle and he beats the crap out if him as well. 

 Wasn't glorifying things though but it was based on a book written by a Maori writer. 

 Stars Tenures Morrison (Jango Fett in Star Wars, Aquamans dad in Aquaman). 

 It's hard hitting film (literally) but yeah unpleasant things happen and get made.

 NSFW worse than I remembered. Warning etc. 

 Clip. Context daughter has committed suicide and they find her journal. Not for faint hearted. Saw mainstream release here in 1993.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 25, 2020)

MarkB said:


> How about offending someone who turns up to play a game and finds that it contains a painfully stereotypical portrayal of their culture than nobody else at the table seems to have noticed is implicitly racist?




Deal with it at the table. Have human conversations.


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 25, 2020)

Bawylie said:


> Yes. And we operate in a world in which things that are illegal happen with sufficient frequency that they warrant some consideration.



Indeed, it warrants consideration, if only for the fact that it is more and more frequently resulting in prosecution, in North America. Online trolls, in particular, are learning that just because something was said on the internet, that doesn't mean it's not libel, nor slander.


----------



## MarkB (Oct 25, 2020)

Mercurius said:


> Deal with it at the table. Have human conversations.



But nobody at the table was to blame for it. The other players didn't have the cultural context to know that the material was offensive. Why should it be their responsibility to deal with it, rather than the author's?


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 25, 2020)

MarkB said:


> This isn't just stuff for the Twitter mob, though. If you're organising a Space Marines campaign for a group and you stipulate "oh yeah, and all of you have to play male characters", that's a pretty major constraint on the players' options, and it's going to make it harder to get player buy-in at many tables, regardless of how satirical it is.




 Makes sense in universe though with the bioengineering to make the space marine. 

 Not really my cup of tea I find Warhammer silly bit it's kinda fun to read the wiki. Think I've bought a grand total of one Warhammer 40k novel. 

 Bit should Warhammer 40k be allowed to exist as it is right now? That's what I'm getting at. 

 The races in the game exist basically to kill each other. Orks are a fungal infection.

  Since it's not promoting fascism or anything I would say yes. The imperium of man is not nice but it's also so over top I think it's saying don't be an idiot an run an empire like this.


----------



## MarkB (Oct 25, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> Makes sense in universe though with the bioengineering to make the space marine.
> 
> Not really my cup of tea I find Warhammer silly bit it's kinda fun to read the wiki. Think I've bought a grand total of one Warhammer 40k novel.
> 
> ...



And as a fiction that's fair enough. Even in its original roots as a wargame where you're not playing an individual it's manageable. But I'm just pointing out that once you're in the region of it being a role-playing game, any aspect of it which cuts off broad swathes of the potential types of roles you can play is going to have a pretty direct impact upon its accessibility to players.


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 25, 2020)

MarkB said:


> And as a fiction that's fair enough. Even in its original roots as a wargame where you're not playing an individual it's manageable. But I'm just pointing out that once you're in the region of it being a role-playing game, any aspect of it which cuts off broad swathes of the potential types of roles you can play is going to have a pretty direct impact upon its accessibility to players.




 Depends I suppose on who wants to buy it.  No point trying to sell it to XYZ if they won't buy it if you lose ABC. Basically the 4E problem. 

 IDK if they can or should change it. GW is aware of it I know that much. I've heard the videogames ate making more money now than the actual game so see what happens.


----------



## MarkB (Oct 25, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> Depends I suppose on who wants to buy it.  No point trying to sell it to XYZ if they won't buy it if you lose ABC. Basically the 4E problem.
> 
> IDK if they can or should change it. GW is aware of it I know that much. I've heard the videogames ate making more money now than the actual game so see what happens.



Yeah, it's easy enough to change for individual tables. I don't play the system, but I do watch a weekly Let's Play show of it, in which they're all front-line soldiers. Since that show has a sexually diverse cast and audience, pretty much the first thing they did was to look at the gender restrictions, say "nah, that's stupid" and rule that in their campaign any soldier of the Imperium can be of any gender. It hasn't had any noticeable effect upon the general tone of the campaign, which is suitably over-the-top "war is hell".


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 25, 2020)

MarkB said:


> But nobody at the table was to blame for it. The other players didn't have the cultural context to know that the material was offensive. Why should it be their responsibility to deal with it, rather than the author's?



So you're suggesting that authors have the responsibility to make sure that what they write won't offend anyone? Not only is that impossible, but it doesn't seem necessary.

Furthermore, you talk about material as if it is inherently offensive. Taking offense is a subjective experience. This is not to say that there aren't things that the vast majority of people will find offensive, and thus should be limited in terms of public exposure. But there's a lot of range in terms of potentially offensive material. If artists continually retreat to whatever the latest offense is, it becomes a diminishing range of what is considered "appropriate."

I also don't think we can completely take away any responsibility form the person who is offended. They can choose not to play in that group or game. I mean, if I joined a group and found out that the players like to rape and pillage, I'd probably just opt out - I wouldn't ask them to change their game, if they were having fun with it. I'm not going to try to dictate another's fun, no matter how deplorable I might find it to be - not unless it is actually harming someone.

And of course the great things about RPGs, and I would say one of their defining features, is that every sort of game experience is possible. I wouldn't want to limit that range of possibilities, even while I personally wouldn't encourage allow certain behaviors at my table. That is my right, as an individual GM - and the right of players to play or not.


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 25, 2020)

MarkB said:


> Yeah, it's easy enough to change for individual tables. I don't play the system, but I do watch a weekly Let's Play show of it, in which they're all front-line soldiers. Since that show has a sexually diverse cast and audience, pretty much the first thing they did was to look at the gender restrictions, say "nah, that's stupid" and rule that in their campaign any soldier of the Imperium can be of any gender. It hasn't had any noticeable effect upon the general tone of the campaign, which is suitably over-the-top "war is hell".




 Up to them I'm not gonna get bent out over it. 

 My idea for the setting was bio engineered female only super psykers that are a lot faster. 

 If Space Marines can only be male due to gene seed maybe the new gene seed only works on females. 

 Said psykers are less vulnerable to the warp.


----------



## MarkB (Oct 25, 2020)

Mercurius said:


> So you're suggesting that authors have the responsibility to make sure that what they write won't offend anyone? Not only is that impossible, but it doesn't seem necessary.
> 
> Furthermore, you talk about material as if it is inherently offensive. Taking offense is a subjective experience. This is not to say that there aren't things that the vast majority of people will find offensive, and thus should be limited in terms of public exposure. But there's a lot of range in terms of potentially offensive material. If artists continually retreat to whatever the latest offense is, it becomes a diminishing range of what is considered "appropriate."



There's a range between checking everything and checking nothing, though. If you're writing a portrayal of a particular real-world culture that you're expecting people to portray in their games, is it really too much of a stretch to bring in someone from that culture to look it over and make sure you haven't accidentally included some bad assumptions?


Mercurius said:


> I also don't think we can completely take away any responsibility form the person who is offended. They can choose not to play in that group or game. I mean, if I joined a group and found out that the players like to rape and pillage, I'd probably just opt out - I wouldn't ask them to change their game, if they were having fun with it. I'm not going to try to dictate another's fun, no matter how deplorable I might find it to be - not unless it is actually harming someone.



This isn't about the activity of the group, though. My example was specifically about what was written into a setting by that setting's author. And if that material turns out to be hurtful to someone, it isn't in the act of roleplaying it that they feel that hurt - it's in the act of reading it in the first place. That can't be undone simply by walking away from a table.


Mercurius said:


> And of course the great things about RPGs, and I would say one of their defining features, is that every sort of game experience is possible. I wouldn't want to limit that range of possibilities, even while I personally wouldn't encourage allow certain behaviors at my table. That is my right, as an individual GM - and the right of players to play or not.



Again, this isn't about what anyone at the table did. It's about what the writer of the supplement did when they wrote it.


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 25, 2020)

On the RPG front, World of Darkness had a pretty robust following in the LGBTQ+ community. Look what happened to them, when they published material that alienated a part of their supporting community.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Oct 25, 2020)

Mercurius said:


> So you're suggesting that authors have the responsibility to make sure that what they write won't offend anyone? Not only is that impossible, but it doesn't seem necessary.



Authors, like all human beings, have a responsibility to not intentionally cause harm to others.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 26, 2020)

BookTenTiger said:


> Authors, like all human beings, have a responsibility to not intentionally cause harm to others.



Can you give me an example of an author who you think intentionally tried to cause harm to others, and also what you think the consequences should be?


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 26, 2020)

Mercurius said:


> Can you give me an example of an author who you think intentionally tried to cause harm to others, and also what you think the consequences should be?




 There was this book called Mein Kampf. Some idiot wrote it.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Oct 26, 2020)

Mercurius said:


> Can you give me an example of an author who you think intentionally tried to cause harm to others, and also what you think the consequences should be?



Many American authors purposefully depicted non-straight, white, male characters as less intelligent, driven, or worthy than the white protagonists. Or they just put racist, homophobic, or sexist opinions in their books, and not just as the opinions of their characters. I mean you have the absolute classic racism and xenophobia of HP Lovecraft.

Another good example of this is Road Dahl. He was an outspoken anti-Semite. He literally said, "I am anti-Semitic" in interviews. It doesn't need to be interpreted from his work. You have a work like The Witches, in which the characters uncover a secret coven of powerful people working behind the scenes of society, revealed to be hook-nosed, bald beneath their wigs, and have animal-like claws. These are ways that people with anti-Semitic viewpoints have characterized Jewish people for hundreds of years.

Should we ban Road Dahl from being read? No, he's a wonderful storyteller. However, his work should be read and shared with the knowledge that it carries an anti-Semitic view of the world. We should understand that the author was flawed, and had a flawed view, and that should be part of the discussion of his works. And modern authors, when writing fantasy, should learn from this lesson and be careful to not depict their evil characters through the same dog-whistles that racists, sexists, and homophobes have done for _hundreds of years._


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 26, 2020)

BookTenTiger said:


> Many American authors purposefully depicted non-straight, white, male characters as less intelligent, driven, or worthy than the white protagonists. Or they just put racist, homophobic, or sexist opinions in their books, and not just as the opinions of their characters. I mean you have the absolute classic racism and xenophobia of HP Lovecraft.
> 
> Another good example of this is Road Dahl. He was an outspoken anti-Semite. He literally said, "I am anti-Semitic" in interviews. It doesn't need to be interpreted from his work. You have a work like The Witches, in which the characters uncover a secret coven of powerful people working behind the scenes of society, revealed to be hook-nosed, bald beneath their wigs, and have animal-like claws. These are ways that people with anti-Semitic viewpoints have characterized Jewish people for hundreds of years.
> 
> Should we ban Road Dahl from being read? No, he's a wonderful storyteller. However, his work should be read and shared with the knowledge that it carries an anti-Semitic view of the world. We should understand that the author was flawed, and had a flawed view, and that should be part of the discussion of his works. And modern authors, when writing fantasy, should learn from this lesson and be careful to not depict their evil characters through the same dog-whistles that racists, sexists, and homophobes have done for _hundreds of years._




 Never really made those connections as a kid. Never really liked his books but we had them read to us at school as a kid. 

 Didn't even know what anti semite was until age 13 or so. 

 I was allowed to read adult material as a kid though so kind of skipped the typical reading curriculum. 

 It's not a connection most kids would make I think.

 I want to read this. Has anyone read it?

10 Books That Screwed Up the World: And 5 Others That Didn't Help: Benjamin Wiker: 9781400157914: Amazon.com: Books


----------



## BookTenTiger (Oct 26, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> Never really made those connections as a kid. Never really liked his books but we had them read to us at school as a kid.
> 
> Didn't even know what anti semite was until age 13 or so.
> 
> ...



Again I'm not saying we shouldn't read his works. He is possibly the most sympathetic author to the absolute misery that can be a kid's life. But when teachers then teach about racism and discrimination, we should also point out the harmful stereotypes in his work.

I mean, people using their art to intentionally harm others should not be a surprise. Rise of a Nation was America's first blockbuster, and it was literally made to promote the KKK and their racist viewpoint. That is literally intentionally harmful.


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 26, 2020)

BookTenTiger said:


> Again I'm not saying we shouldn't read his works. He is possibly the most sympathetic author to the absolute misery that can be a kid's life. But when teachers then teach about racism and discrimination, we should also point out the harmful stereotypes in his work.
> 
> I mean, people using their art to intentionally harm others should not be a surprise. Rise of a Nation was America's first blockbuster, and it was literally made to promote the KKK and their racist viewpoint. That is literally intentionally harmful.




Birth of a Nation is fairly low down on my list of things to do. 

 If I ever watch it it will be from morbid curiosity basically how bad is it. 

 I'm not a big fan of being told you can't watch it though.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Oct 26, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> Birth of a Nation is fairly low down on my list of things to do.
> 
> If I ever watch it it will be from morbid curiosity basically how bad is it.
> 
> I'm not a big fan of being told you can't watch it though.



Of course you should be able to watch it. But you should be armed with the knowledge that it is art with the purpose of promoting white supremacy, right?

Thinking about modern day works, if an author or director or an artist were trying to create a work that was as intentionally harmful as Birth of a Nation, don't you think it's the responsibility of editors and producers and, oh I don't know, sensitivity readers to tell them "Hey this is pretty harmful stuff"?


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 26, 2020)

BookTenTiger said:


> Of course you should be able to watch it. But you should be armed with the knowledge that it is art with the purpose of promoting white supremacy, right?
> 
> Thinking about modern day works, if an author or director or an artist were trying to create a work that was as intentionally harmful as Birth of a Nation, don't you think it's the responsibility of editors and producers and, oh I don't know, sensitivity readers to tell them "Hey this is pretty harmful stuff"?




 If anyone was that ideologically driven to make it these days I don't think they would bother consulting anyone. 

 The Deutschland Uber Alles wehraboos tyoes might eat it up.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 26, 2020)

MarkB said:


> But nobody at the table was to blame for it. The other players didn't have the cultural context to know that the material was offensive. Why should it be their responsibility to deal with it, rather than the author's?



Because the author isn't there, and time travel to go back and fix the issue is not available to us.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 26, 2020)

Mercurius said:


> I also don't think we can completely take away any responsibility form the person who is offended.




The distance from this, to just blaming the victim, is rather short.  Do be careful with that.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 26, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> It's not a connection most kids would make I think.




What connections kids make depends on the overall context.  One work may not have an impact.  If you are surrounded by the stuff, it becomes nigh inevitable.  Surrounding cultural context matters as well.  If you live in a country with virtually no Jewish population, and there's no discussion elsewhere in the culture, then yeah, your kids are unlikely to make a connection.

If, instead, you live in a culture in which a Jewish child might be asked by their young friends whether they could come over to visit, so that they could see the Jewish father's horns... the connection is probably more likely.


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 26, 2020)

Umbran said:


> What connections kids make depends on the overall context.  One work may not have an impact.  If you are surrounded by the stuff, it becomes nigh inevitable.  Surrounding cultural context matters as well.  If you live in a country with virtually no Jewish population, and there's no discussion elsewhere in the culture, then yeah, your kids are unlikely to make a connection.
> 
> If, instead, you live in a culture in which a Jewish child might be asked by their young friends whether they could come over to visit, so that they could see the Jewish father's horns... the connection is probably more likely.




Most Jews here seem to be Israeli backpackers. Bit of a culture shock for them in the 90s when my family ran a backpackers.


----------



## MarkB (Oct 26, 2020)

Umbran said:


> Because the author isn't there, and time travel to go back and fix the issue is not available to us.



Yeah, but I raised that example as something to be avoided in the first place by being more careful as an author. Since it's a hypothetical example we can indeed "go back in time" to the original cause and try to fix that.


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 26, 2020)

BookTenTiger said:


> Of course you should be able to watch it. But you should be armed with the knowledge that it is art with the purpose of promoting white supremacy, right?
> 
> Thinking about modern day works, if an author or director or an artist were trying to create a work that was as intentionally harmful as Birth of a Nation, don't you think it's the responsibility of editors and producers and, oh I don't know, sensitivity readers to tell them "Hey this is pretty harmful stuff"?



I think that if someone produced something like "Birth of a Nation", today, it would be a hard invocation of Poe's Law.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 26, 2020)

Umbran said:


> The distance from this, to just blaming the victim, is rather short.  Do be careful with that.



Just as the distance from eschewing all responsibility for the "victim," or reinforcing their victimhood, is disempowering for that person.

Being offended by something in a book does not make one a victim.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 26, 2020)

MarkB said:


> There's a range between checking everything and checking nothing, though. If you're writing a portrayal of a particular real-world culture that you're expecting people to portray in their games, is it really too much of a stretch to bring in someone from that culture to look it over and make sure you haven't accidentally included some bad assumptions?
> 
> This isn't about the activity of the group, though. My example was specifically about what was written into a setting by that setting's author. And if that material turns out to be hurtful to someone, it isn't in the act of roleplaying it that they feel that hurt - it's in the act of reading it in the first place. That can't be undone simply by walking away from a table.
> 
> Again, this isn't about what anyone at the table did. It's about what the writer of the supplement did when they wrote it.




I personally don't think its necessary, at least in the context of a fantasy world which, by definition, does not include real-world cultures. Even if it does, or cultures closely derived from real-world cultures, I have no issue with the author creating their own version of it. It doesn't have to be accurate to reality, and is just a take--even if a pejorative one. That is part of the freedom implicit in the creative act.

Now I don't have to like it. I have the right to be offended or find the portrayal to be problematic. But because I believe in artistic freedom, I'm not going to try to censor it or get rid of it. I don't have to read it or run it at my table.

There's also the problem of "bringing someone from that culture." If I'm writing about a fantasy version of the Incan Empire, who do I consult? A modern Peruvian? If I'm doing a wuxia setting, do I ask my Chinese friend? What if he or she knows little about ancient China? And of course there's the matter that wuxia itself is fantasy, not a realistic depiction of a real-world period or culture. At a certain point it becomes rather absurd.

A fantasy world is its own thing, with its own internal logic that has nothing to do with our world. If a fantasy race is completely evil, it only needs to make sense within the context of the fantasy world. If I were writing a story set in our world, I'd definitely want to do my research about whatever I'm writing about.

As for reading something and being hurt, this is where we run into the problem of trying to adjust everything that may offend anyone in any way. Where do you draw the line? Some people are easily triggered and believe the solution is censoring or getting rid of that which offends them, when the core issue is rooted more deeply and won't be solved by such actions.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 26, 2020)

Mercurius said:


> Being offended by something in a book does not make one a victim.




No, but you seem to have left out that offense actually has a point, or maybe you have missed that point.

Generalizing from "in a book" to "art" to encompass TV, film, books, music and so on...

Real-world people are influenced by art, right?  Harper Lee's, _To Kill a Mockingbird_ is probably a solid example of this, in a positive sense. But, there's also a negative sense, where depictions in art have negative impacts on real people.

This is part of what I was on about when talking about responsibility - the things you put in the world impact the world.  If you are not considering what the impacts of your work may be, or are making poor choices, you can have a negative impact on real people.

Not to say that someone's fanfic is going to be directly responsible for some kid beaten up in a schoolyard, but the aggregate of artistic works is relevant.  Offense isn't just about it being distasteful.  It is about how your art may be part of maintaining or worsening the unwarranted conditions that real people live under.


----------



## Janx (Oct 26, 2020)

Mercurius said:


> Just as the distance from eschewing all responsibility for the "victim," or reinforcing their victimhood, is disempowering for that person.
> 
> Being offended by something in a book does not make one a victim.



Poe's law and all.  Mein Kamf disproves you right there.  It specifically targets a group with hate.

But I think we can rule out works that specifically target a group with hate.  Those are inherently offensive.  That's their goal.

We can also imagine a book the espouses a political view that we agree with by demonizing opponents.  That's inherently offensive to our political opponents, even though we know they are Wrong.

Let's carve that kind of thing out of the discussion.  Some books are written to offend.  The core subject isn't about that.  It's about "I came to tell a story, and people freaked out"  It's sort of the surprise, unlike what Salman Rushdi could have expected.

In the Striped Pajamas story, from what I could tell, it was about a boy dealing with their sibling changing gender. It wasn't intended to be anti-transgender (again, from what I can tell), but got stuff wrong like deadnaming the transgender person, using their old gender, etc.  

Were the people who read it and objected to its handling, victims?  Were they concerned about the material because they knew it was a work that would influence people on their views of transgender?  I'm pretty sure the latter question is yes.  You want the material to be right, because some transgender person has a young sibling and  a book could help them understand. Especially because the book was praised and appears to be getting a movie or something.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 26, 2020)

Umbran said:


> No, but you seem to have left out that offense actually has a point, or maybe you have missed that point.
> 
> Generalizing from "in a book" to "art" to encompass TV, film, books, music and so on...
> 
> ...



None of which I disagree with. With my own work I think about how it might impact the people who read it. So this question about whether or not artists should think about the impact of their work is more of a philosophical one. And ultimately it is up to the individual artist. 

But we're also talking about censorship, feedback, and backlash, and the degree to which the "voice of the people" (or, more accurately, _a _voice) has the power to limit what artists produce. I am advocating for artistic freedom. Let artists produce what they want to produce, and let them decide how they think about their work and how it impacts others. We can decide to support or not support their art through our purchases and time. Where I grow leery is when publishers and artists feel limited by the potential for backlash, even when that backlash is coming from just a few bloggers or tweeters.

I would also add that offense is based on interpretation, subjectivity, and how one frames what is interpreted. We're too quick to assume that if someone takes offense it is automatically inherently offensive and must be done differently.


----------



## Bawylie (Oct 26, 2020)

Umbran said:


> You may have missed the point here.  The complaint is that we shouldn't allow certain behaviors online.  Fine.  But, the behaviors in question _are already illegal_.  They are already not allowed!
> 
> What more protection do you expect than that?



Insurance.


----------



## MoonSong (Oct 26, 2020)

Umbran said:


> Ryujin is talking about consequences _within the law_.  What you're suggesting here would be harrassment, and thus illegal.



Well, the motto is loved by people who engage in this kind of vigilante justice that cares little about the law. And well, many of the cases I mentioned before were actually legal at the time. (And some of these abuses remain legal). Attaching "consequences" -legal or not- to speech is another way to control and suppress speech. Unsafe speech is not free speech.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 26, 2020)

Janx said:


> Poe's law and all.  Mein Kamf disproves you right there.  It specifically targets a group with hate.
> 
> But I think we can rule out works that specifically target a group with hate.  Those are inherently offensive.  That's their goal.
> 
> ...




I'm confused about your first four paragraphs, because you're saying I'm "disproved" but then you say things that I agree with. We're not talking about Hitler (Godwin!) or political manifestos, but art and literature.

As far as Striped Pajamas is concerned, "what is right" changes and varies depending on time, context, and the individuals involved. There isn't one "true and right way" to depict transgender people, or any group. I think we need to disentangle ourselves a bit from this pervasive idea that categories of people all have a "right way" to think and be depicted. Every such depiction is the expression of a single individual, who has their experience and biases and is really just a snapshot in time.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 26, 2020)

Mercurius said:


> I am advocating for artistic freedom.




Which, to beat the same drum... comes with a responsibility you don't talk about much.



> Let artists produce what they want to produce, and let them decide how they think about their work...




That's fine.  They can think what they want.



> ... and how it impacts others.




They don't get to decide how it impacts others, any more than a cook _decides_ whether or not they cause food poisoning through clumsy handling of ingredients.  



> We can decide to support or not support their art through our purchases and time.




Dude.  Freedom of speech goes both ways.  Authors don't get to say, "I got to speak first, now you shut up."  

Your position would be much, much stronger if you parroted my own point back at me - that the "twitter mob" has the same responsibility for the impact of their words - if they crush creativity with their actions, that's their responsibility.  But you missed that opportunity.



> I would also add that offense is based on interpretation, subjectivity, and how one frames what is interpreted. We're too quick to assume that if someone takes offense it is automatically inherently offensive and must be done differently.




You again seem to reject the posit.  The ultimate issue isn't whether it is offensive, but whether it is _HARMFUL_.  

And yes, the author is free to have their own opinion on harmfulness, or offensiveness, even one that flies in the face of evidence and reason, if they really want.  Nobody is stopping them.  But if you want to live in a pace where you have the freedom to publish your word, you also accept to live in a place where _EVERYONE ELSE_ gets the same freedom.  

We can have the discussion on whether, say, racist depictions are harmful, if you want.  I don't expect the results will work in your favor, though.

There is an adage, that when one is used to privilege, equality feels like oppression.  Published authors now no longer have the privilege of being the few with a broad platform, able to reach millions.  Social media gives everyone a broad platform.  And so, it feels like authors are being oppressed, when they are actually getting a taste of equality.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Oct 26, 2020)

Mercurius said:


> But we're also talking about censorship, feedback, and backlash, and the degree to which the "voice of the people" (or, more accurately, _a _voice) has the power to limit what artists produce. I am advocating for artistic freedom. Let artists produce what they want to produce, and let them decide how they think about their work and how it impacts others. We can decide to support or not support their art through our purchases and time. Where I grow leery is when publishers and artists feel limited by the potential for backlash, even when that backlash is coming from just a few bloggers or tweeters.
> 
> I would also add that offense is based on interpretation, subjectivity, and how one frames what is interpreted. We're too quick to assume that if someone takes offense it is automatically inherently offensive and must be done differently.



I think this is a wonderful ideal but it's never been a reality. Artists, in order to be published, have always had to fit into society's moral spectrum. There has always been a backlash to artists and publishers who push boundaries or purposefully offend; or even those who do not mean to offend! Whether that backlash is based on race, fears of communism, or a cultural shift, artists and publishers are always restricted by what the "masses" find acceptable.

I mean, Renaissance artists didn't sculpt and paint endless Jesuses and Mary's just because they were religious... That's what the public and the church demanded! When Impressionists started painting (gasp) peasants!!! there was HUGE backlash!

So if backlash and artistic restriction are the norm, let's look at the intention of our current era. What is motivating the current trend towards representation and diversity?


----------



## Janx (Oct 26, 2020)

Umbran said:


> There is an adage, that when one is used to privilege, equality feels like oppression.  Published authors now no longer have the privilege of being the few with a broad platform, able to reach millions.  Social media gives everyone a broad platform.  And so, it feels like authors are being oppressed, when they are actually getting a taste of equality.




This one always feels like it takes some extra thinking when I see it pop up.  You can vote. I can vote.  I don't feel much different from before now that you can vote.

But I think rights aren't privilege.  You or me getting to vote is a right.  Pretty simple.

What privilege usually crops up is the little perks and extra grace and "let it slide" that one group gets.  Speeding, no prob, here's a warning.  Murder somebody, how about a couple years, you still got a future.  Write a racist scene where Tommy Lee Jones plays a FBI guy who swats the wrong house and callously shoots the owner when he runs out of his bedroom with a pistol? It's OK, nobody's gonna point that out.

Yeah, nobody thought twice about that scene in The Fugitive back in 1993. But today?  That scene's problematic in how it presents law enforcement with zero consequences except for the black lives affected by it.

The privilege of skating by unchallenged on that kind of content is ending.  Stuff like killing the black guy in the party off first is going to get called out.  Maybe that means white authors can't do that anymore.  It's been contaminated by those who came before.

I guess getting caught doing questionable stuff feels like oppression.


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 26, 2020)

BookTenTiger said:


> I think this is a wonderful ideal but it's never been a reality. Artists, in order to be published, have always had to fit into society's moral spectrum. There has always been a backlash to artists and publishers who push boundaries or purposefully offend; or even those who do not mean to offend! Whether that backlash is based on race, fears of communism, or a cultural shift, artists and publishers are always restricted by what the "masses" find acceptable.
> 
> I mean, Renaissance artists didn't sculpt and paint endless Jesuses and Mary's just because they were religious... That's what the public and the church demanded! When Impressionists started painting (gasp) peasants!!! there was HUGE backlash!
> 
> So if backlash and artistic restriction are the norm, let's look at the intention of our current era. What is motivating the current trend towards representation and diversity?



And yet what we are discussing here is more _re_gression than _pro_gression. The "Twitter backlash" isn't typically against people who are trying to move forward, but rather those who are expressing thoughts and opinions that are socially conservative. The Black woman who is treated like an animal. The LGBTQ+ character who just has to be the villain, "...because ...." They aren't pushing boundaries, but are rather painting them in broad lines that could be seen from orbit.

At least that's the way that I see it.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 26, 2020)

Umbran said:


> Which, to beat the same drum... comes with a responsibility you don't talk about much.
> 
> That's fine.  They can think what they want.
> 
> ...




I don't seem to know how to split quotes, so will have to reply in one fell swoop.

I think artists have responsibility to their own work. Do they have responsibility for the impact of their work? Only to a degree. I don't think Christopher Nolan is responsible for a mentally ill person killing 12 people, just as I don't think Gary Gygax is responsible for whether or not someone is offended by something he wrote 35 years ago.

I never said artists "get to decide how it impacts others." I was saying they are free to think of it as they see fit, they are free to choose what kind of impact they intend. We can't enforce our own view on them as to how they should think about their own process. 

I am not saying that people shouldn't complain or be triggered. What I am concerned with is the added part that often occurs..."let's cancel them!" Or, "let's re-write history!" (someone actually suggested that Dragonlance Chronicles be re-written with an updated social ethos).

It is not equality to try to cancel someone, or to create a climate in which anyone that veers outside a certain ideological framework--in any way--or creates art that isn't passed through the filter of a certain paradigm, is fearful about speaking up or expressing themselves. If you think this doesn't happen, please address the issue of Zhao's _Blood Heir_ and why you think that is OK or the type of climate that we want our artists to create within. In the end, the author was the one who was actually harmed, not the few bloggers who attacked her.

So my suggestion is: Let artists create, even if it is provocative or challenges or disagrees with our own personal worldview. Let people respond how they want. But let's keep the free-flow of ideas and discussion. There are ways to complain or point out problematic elements, or how it impacts oneself, without trying to censor or cancel.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 26, 2020)

Janx said:


> What privilege usually crops up is the little perks and extra grace and "let it slide" that one group gets.  Speeding, no prob, here's a warning.  Murder somebody, how about a couple years, you still got a future.  Write a racist scene where Tommy Lee Jones plays a FBI guy who swats the wrong house and callously shoots the owner when he runs out of his bedroom with a pistol? It's OK, nobody's gonna point that out.
> 
> Yeah, nobody thought twice about that scene in The Fugitive back in 1993. But today?  That scene's problematic in how it presents law enforcement with zero consequences except for the black lives affected by it.




So, you raise a great example of what I'm talking about, in terms of art having an impact.  

These days being what they are, my wife and I are on the lookout for TV shows to watch, because there's a bunch of hours we used to spend out and about hat we don't now.  And not all of it has been filled with crafts projects and all.

And the sheer volume of police procedural out there is staggering.  And I don't mean just the CSI and Law and Order shows.  Even in genre: Lucifer?  Police procedural.  iZombie? Police procedural.  Person of Interest?  Police procedural.  There was Grimm.  Warehouse 13.  X-Files.  And so on.

And in almost all of these shows, there's this idea that violent murders are happeing _all the time_.  And, however many characters you have, there's an entire homicide department above and beyond that, all busy with murders.  Meanwhile, in reality, Seattle sees all of 20 to 30 murders a year, in total.  

And, in every one of these, at some point (or often nearly constantly), some cop or cops _break the rules_ or just bust some heads in ways that they'll skate by, because, well gosh darn it, the rules are too stringent, and if some skulls get cracked, and people die without so much as a trial, well, that's what's needed to keep people safe!

How does that look, in the light of what really happens when cops don't follow rules in our world?  Where did we all get the idea that cops breaking the rules was healthy and justified?  Hm?


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 26, 2020)

Umbran said:


> So, you raise a great example of what I'm talking about, in terms of art having an impact.
> 
> These days being what they are, my wife and I are on the lookout for TV shows to watch, because there's a bunch of hours we used to spend out and about hat we don't now.  And not all of it has been filled with crafts projects and all.
> 
> ...




 Dirty Harry movie perhaps?

 Or cowboys and indian/wild west sheriff's perhaps. Mostly I think it's cultural, ye olde stereotype shoot first ask questions later.

 It's older than modern media though goes back to at least the war years.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Oct 26, 2020)

Ryujin said:


> And yet what we are discussing here is more _re_gression than _pro_gression. The "Twitter backlash" isn't typically against people who are trying to move forward, but rather those who are expressing thoughts and opinions that are socially conservative. The Black woman who is treated like an animal. The LGBTQ+ character who just has to be the villain, "...because ...." They aren't pushing boundaries, but are rather painting them in broad lines that could be seen from orbit.
> 
> At least that's the way that I see it.




I fully agree with you morally. I think I am careful in my language, though, because I know that to two different people "progression" can mean opposite things.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 26, 2020)

Mercurius said:


> So my suggestion is: Let artists create, even if it is provocative or challenges or disagrees with our own personal worldview. Let people respond how they want. But let's keep the free-flow of ideas and discussion. There are ways to complain or point out problematic elements, or how it impacts oneself, without trying to censor or cancel.




That seems suspiciously like the status quo, in which the creative community largely ignores the impact of what they do, and we take centuries to clear out crap and replace ti with new ideas.

Because, here's a bit you may be missing - the stuff that people are complaining about is neither new nor creative!  It is the same-old, same-old stuff.  It is repeating racist and sexist tropes.  Repeating thoughtless habits of ignoring inclusion and diversity and representation.  They are not challenging things, or being provocative - they are repeating what is comfortable for them, but has been an uncomfortable weight on others for decades and more.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 26, 2020)

Umbran said:


> That seems suspiciously like the status quo, in which the creative community largely ignores the impact of what they do, and we take centuries to clear out crap and replace ti with new ideas.
> 
> Because, here's a bit you may be missing - the stuff that people are complaining about is neither new nor creative!  It is the same-old, same-old stuff.  It is repeating racist and sexist tropes.  Repeating thoughtless habits of ignoring inclusion and diversity and representation.  They are not challenging things, or being provocative - they are repeating what is comfortable for them, but has been an uncomfortable weight on others for decades and more.



That's exactly the kind of censoring approach I'm talking about. Not only does it want to replace everything with new, "correct" ideas and therefore erase history (you said so above..."clear out crap" and "replace"), but it is hostile to anything that doesn't fit within its formula. George Orwell wrote a great book about an extreme version of this.

What is so wrong with leaving the historical record intact--including works of art that you find distasteful--and creating new works that tread the type of ground you want to see covered? Why "Jane Bond" rather than a new character, even one that is deliberately subversive of Bond's womanizing? Why not create a new "Asian Adventures" book rather than cancel the old? And perhaps more to the point, in terms of the underlying goals of learning from the past, why not keep the record intact so that we can see where we've come from and forge a better future? Isn't re-writing the past antithetical to learning from it?

As for the bit I may be missing, I don't think that is a valid argument because it focuses on one aspect of a work and invalidates the whole for the part. Let's say an author writes a book that has some questionable bits that some people are offended by, but within the context of an overall good story, that may even have meaningful truths or advocating for other progressive elements. Should we judge it only by the questionable parts, focusing only on what it got "wrong" (according to our particular worldview) and write it off with any number of pejorative labels like racist or sexist, and thus ignoring the forest for the trees?

Again, I'd like to hear you address the Zhao situation and tell me why its ok. It is a clear, concrete example of twitter/blog backlash and harm done to an author, for very dubious reasons, and from a very small number of people.


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 26, 2020)

Well just watching Borat 2. Possibly more  offensive than Blazing Saddles.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 26, 2020)

BookTenTiger said:


> I think this is a wonderful ideal but it's never been a reality. Artists, in order to be published, have always had to fit into society's moral spectrum. There has always been a backlash to artists and publishers who push boundaries or purposefully offend; or even those who do not mean to offend! Whether that backlash is based on race, fears of communism, or a cultural shift, artists and publishers are always restricted by what the "masses" find acceptable.
> 
> I mean, Renaissance artists didn't sculpt and paint endless Jesuses and Mary's just because they were religious... That's what the public and the church demanded! When Impressionists started painting (gasp) peasants!!! there was HUGE backlash!
> 
> So if backlash and artistic restriction are the norm, let's look at the intention of our current era. What is motivating the current trend towards representation and diversity?



Good point that this has always been a problem, and will likely continue to be an issue going forward. The thing is, the "masses" are diverse, with a wide moral spectrum. It seems to shift around as to who is exhibiting outrage, and about what. My hope is that, over time, we will learn to truly embrace artists as visionaries and allow--and encourage--them to produce a diverse range of visions, not just what is palatable to a specific group of people, or sanitized to the point of soul-lessness.

I'm all for representation and diversity, but think there are different ways towards accomplishing that goal, and that curtailing artistic freedom or speech causes more harm than good. But I'm also for freedom of artistic vision and expression. We need our artists, both to inspire, but also to provoke and provide us with visions of possibilities, good and bad. I am also advocating for a form of diversity that many of those advocating for diversity either don't care or forget about: that of worldviews, perspectives, ideologies, and outlooks.


----------



## Janx (Oct 26, 2020)

As Mercurious wants to discuss it, here's a summary of the controversy at the time:








						An Author Canceled Her Own YA Novel Over Racism Accusations. But Is It Really Anti-Black?
					

Everything you need to know about the Blood Heir controversy.




					slate.com


----------



## Umbran (Oct 27, 2020)

Mercurius said:


> That's exactly the kind of censoring approach I'm talking about. Not only does it want to replace everything with new, "correct" ideas and therefore erase history (you said so above..."clear out crap" and "replace"), but it is hostile to anything that doesn't fit within its formula. George Orwell wrote a great book about an extreme version of this.




So... do you see a lot of horses and buggies around, of late?  As time goes on, things do, in fact, get swept aside.  Crap we no longer need, like buggy whips, gets replaced by new stuff.  We call it "progress".

I mean, if you want to argue that, as a society, we really should keep things like institutionalized racism and misogyny, that those things are not crap we are better off jettisoning... yeah, you argue that.  I'll step aside and let you...



Mercurius said:


> Why "Jane Bond" rather than a new character, even one that is deliberately subversive of Bond's womanizing?




Why not James... but in an actual healthy relationship in which he's neither a womanizer, and she's not thrown into the fridge to motivate him?  Or maybe there's a Bond-boy instead of a bond-girl.  You want provokative and challenging... a darn sight more things are getting challenged there than just another same-old Bond flick.



Mercurius said:


> Again, I'd like to hear you address the Zhao situation and tell me why its ok. It is a clear, concrete example of twitter/blog backlash and harm done to an author, for very dubious reasons, and from a very small number of people.




I am not familiar with the case.  Reading Janx's article...  not that one article is enough to make me informed enough to pass judgement...  Sure, that could have been a false positive.   An author may have gotten the short end of the stick on that one.

But... Wikipedia tells me publication was only delayed.  Not halted.  It was released in November of 2019.  Reviewers who seem to have not cared much about the accusations... found it to be a bit repetitive, and not particularly groundbreaking.

So, a mediocre book was delayed a few months while stuff worked itself out?  I'm supposed to be particularly concerned?  I've backed kickstarters that were delayed longer than that.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 27, 2020)

Umbran said:


> So... do you see a lot of horses and buggies around, of late?  As time goes on, things do, in fact, get swept aside.  Crap we no longer need, like buggy whips, gets replaced by new stuff.  We call it "progress".
> 
> I mean, if you want to argue that, as a society, we really should keep things like institutionalized racism and misogyny, that those things are not crap we are better off jettisoning... yeah, you argue that.  I'll step aside and let you...



Talk about a red herring - you can do better than that, Umbran! Did I ever say we shouldn't eradicate racism and misogyny? Did I ever defend it? (And is such a baseless implied accusation really what you want to foster here?) What I am defending is _the right of artists to play with and express whatever ideas they want, and to do so without fear of being attacked to the point of causing harm._ And yes, that includes depicting things that one might find distasteful in real life. 

Furthermore, we're not taking about horses and buggies, but books and games. And even if we were talking about old technological forms, some stick around - well, like books and vinyl, both of which have attained a kind of classic stature. Or are you going to be anti-vinyl and suggest it is "swept aside" and people can't buy it anymore because you find vinyl offensive, and everyone must go digital?

Furthermore, whether you no longer want a given game or book doesn't mean someone else doesn't want it. If we swept aside every piece of literature or artwork that had anything offensive to modern sensibilities--not to mention, diverse sensibilities--then we'd be left with...what? Anything? And are you only going to cater to the offense of those you disagree with, or will you embrace all feelings of offense? Where does it end?

Or should we, maybe, just let the past archives of art remain as it is, and instead create the art we want to see? And encourage everyone to create, more and more art, so that your culture becomes infused with different and diverse visions and expressions? So that we and others can self-define and align with those forms that we find meaningful, as well as recognize that which is not to our taste or that we find abhorrent?



Umbran said:


> Why not James... but in an actual healthy relationship in which he's neither a womanizer, and she's not thrown into the fridge to motivate him?  Or maybe there's a Bond-boy instead of a bond-girl.  You want provokative and challenging... a darn sight more things are getting challenged there than just another same-old Bond flick.



Why re-write James Bond? He's perfectly fine as an anachronism of a past era. In fact, didn't Dame Judy accuse him as such in one of the Craig films? Why not be original and create a new character? I used that as an example of what I see as counter-productive, even damaging, approach. 

Here's another example: the Washington Redskins. I've actually been supportive of a name change for years, as I think the name is clearly racist. But I wouldn't white-out the history books with whatever the new name becomes. 

We need to be able to see the past as it actually was in order to create something better. And more to the point with art in whatever form, problematic elements--by specific modern standards--doesn't invalidate the art. HP Lovecraft was still an important figure in horror fantasy, even if his views are abhorrent to us today. Woody Allen is an important film maker, and made some great films, even if we find his grooming of a step-daughter into a wife sketchy (to say the least).


Umbran said:


> I am not familiar with the case.  Reading Janx's article...  not that one article is enough to make me informed enough to pass judgement...  Sure, that could have been a false positive.   An author may have gotten the short end of the stick on that one.
> 
> But... Wikipedia tells me publication was only delayed.  Not halted.  It was released in November of 2019.  Reviewers who seem to have not cared much about the accusations... found it to be a bit repetitive, and not particularly groundbreaking.
> 
> So, a mediocre book was delayed a few months while stuff worked itself out?  I'm supposed to be particularly concerned?  I've backed kickstarters that were delayed longer than that.



Well, first we can have a little compassion for the author. She was a very young, 20-something author on the verge of book publication when she was accused of all sorts of nasty things before her book was even published, to the point that she asked the publisher to hold off. Being accused of racism et al is no small matter, especially publicly. 

Now the book ended up being published, and in the long run it might even have helped sales and made her a kind of martyr, but still...not something I'd want to go through. Where's the outrage for her accusers? Where's the compassion for her?

It disturbs me that such witch-hunts are tolerable in the name of social justice, when in fact the witch-hunt is a weird re-anactment of the type of behavior that the "hunters" claim to be against. It is an instant of its own complaint - an intolerance for diversity of thinking and expression, and a causing of real harm to artists for being...artists.


----------



## Janx (Oct 27, 2020)

I'm not a fan of twitmobs, either. And I'm actively trying to finish a book and publish it, so this whole topic isn't academic. There's a real possibility somebody won't like how I wrote the characters who aren't like me despite efforts to "get it right."  

I cannot control a mob reaction.  But I can do things to reduce the chances of a negative response.

Anything dealing with race, slavery, gender, rape or mental health is an increasingly sensitive subject.  A story about any of that as a major element needs to be handled carefully. And backlash should be expected because the most perfect expression of a progressive ideal on one of those subjects will get you the hornet of conservatives opposed to it.  Or vice versa in Zhao's case as she got hit from behind because of a perceived mistake.

A writer has to figure out, is their story about the importance of eating vegetables, or slavery?  Then decide if those sensitive elements are needed to meet that goal. Or if there's a way to avoid negative tropes because a story needs a diverse character set and that means different races and genders.  That might mean some things are taboo, like having the black character die first. Blame the piles of bad behavior that came before for removing options from you now.

This is the world we live in.  These are the strategies to avoid trouble.  Yeah, it'd be great if trouble wasn't looking for me, but them's the risks if I want to publish.


----------



## Bohandas (Oct 30, 2020)

My personal philosophy of media interpretation is as follows:





Umbran said:


> Yeah.  See above.  The act of creation does not, in and of iself, entitle you to someone else's financial risk and/or investment to distribute the thing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You make a good point. People talk about this as if it were new but it's not. Corporate produced media has ALWAYS stifled its creativity in an effort to appeal to the lowest common denominator. The specifics may have changed, but at its heart it's the same as it ever was.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Oct 30, 2020)

Mercurius said:


> Or should we, maybe, just let the past archives of art remain as it is, and instead create the art we want to see? And encourage everyone to create, more and more art, so that your culture becomes infused with different and diverse visions and expressions? So that we and others can self-define and align with those forms that we find meaningful, as well as recognize that which is not to our taste or that we find abhorrent?
> 
> ...
> 
> ...




I am a firm believer than we should preserve all art, even offensive art... But publishers are not museums, and it is not their responsibility. If you firmly believe that the old Oriental Adventures (to pull out a well-trod example) should be preserved... buy it and preserve it! But it is not a publisher's responsibility to continue to publish or sell materials that can now be identified as problematic. And if the authors of that material disagree... they can find other publishers, self-publish, or sue! We have literal systems in place to protect free speech, but the free market is not one of them.

The case with Zhao is sad and troubling. However, I would argue that looking at it in the context of a cultural shift is important. These conversations around representation in publishing, especially in YA literature, are relatively new. And in this case, the publishers got it wrong. On the other hand, the author still got published and we are still talking about the conversation around her work, which means publishers and critics can do better in the future. If you examine the case as a single, isolated event it's frustrating and sad. Seen in the larger context of a cultural shift in YA literature, it's still frustrating and sad, but it's part of the longer process of bringing representation and diversity to a traditionally monocultural institution.

I guess what I'm arguing here is that context matters!


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 30, 2020)

Except that, in the specific instance cited (OA), they can't find another publisher or self publish, because the work is tied to other intellectual property and was produced under license. The only option would be to sue, as is the case in the Dragonlance case that I posted about earlier in the thread.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 30, 2020)

BookTenTiger said:


> I am a firm believer than we should preserve all art, even offensive art... But publishers are not museums, and it is not their responsibility. If you firmly believe that the old Oriental Adventures (to pull out a well-trod example) should be preserved... buy it and preserve it! But it is not a publisher's responsibility to continue to publish or sell materials that can now be identified as problematic. And if the authors of that material disagree... they can find other publishers, self-publish, or sue! We have literal systems in place to protect free speech, but the free market is not one of them.
> 
> The case with Zhao is sad and troubling. However, I would argue that looking at it in the context of a cultural shift is important. These conversations around representation in publishing, especially in YA literature, are relatively new. And in this case, the publishers got it wrong. On the other hand, the author still got published and we are still talking about the conversation around her work, which means publishers and critics can do better in the future. If you examine the case as a single, isolated event it's frustrating and sad. Seen in the larger context of a cultural shift in YA literature, it's still frustrating and sad, but it's part of the longer process of bringing representation and diversity to a traditionally monocultural institution.
> 
> I guess what I'm arguing here is that context matters!



Yes, of course context matters. But there are a couple points of divergence in your post for me. The phrases "identified as problematic" and "got it wrong" imply some kind of universally agreed upon and static ideology that we all should aspire to agree upon. _Who _identified something as problematic, and to what degree is it problematic? Why is it "problematic" vs. outdated? And "wrong" with regards to what standard? (btw, it wasn't the publisher that halted publication - but Zhao herself, because of blogger backlash).

It is not as if we have come to some final, perfect ideology, and anyone who questions or disagrees with it "just doesn't get it." That speaks of a kind of ideological fundamentalism and stasis, which is quite prevalent among those who find all manner of things to take offense to, and desire to change everything to fit their ideology (in my opinion). It also leads to a polarizing climate in which you either get it or you don't, and if you don't get it (or, actually, simply just disagree), you're part of the problem, you're not "one of us" - the us that gets the true way that things should be. I'm not saying that you personally foster this attitude, but that I see it quite frequently with regards to these related topics.

Everything is written and published in a context. Art arises from the moment in which it is created. We cannot erase the past, and changing it denies us an understanding of where we came from. There's an edition of _The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn _that came out about a decade ago that replaced the "n-word" with "slave." With Huck Finn, one of the classics of American literature, we have three options: 

1) Ban it
2) Revise it to fit modern sensibilities
3) Leave it as is, unaltered, with the option of a foreword that discusses cultural context.

I would strongly advocate for 3, both with Twain and _Oriental Adventures. _New publications are a different matter, and thus are more relevant to possible future treatments of Asian themed D&D products (Thankfully WotC took this approach with OA, so far at least, with their relatively mild disclaimer on the product page. I don't have an issue with that, although I know that some do; some feel like it didn't go far enough and the book should be unavailable, while others feel that it taints the protean purity of early D&D...I personally disagree with both extremes). 

But what of novels written today that are set in the antebellum South in which the n-word was a common slur? Should we pressure writers to avoid using realistic language, even at the expense of the art? Do we try to protect any and all who might be offended, even if the offense is hidden between covers that such a person doesn't have to open? And even when the offense is based upon a misapprehension or over-identification with the material and the author's intention? 

My guess is that the vast majority of people will agree on some basic, underlying goals around inclusivity, anti-bigotry, diminishing racism and hate, etc. But there's a lot of discussion to be had about the best approach to take. I don't think it has to be at the expense of creative freedom, or the accessibility of historical material. We don't have to get rid of or alter the past (as if we could!), nor do we have to limit what people want to create. Those are symptomatic approaches that, I think, in the end actually exacerbate the problems they're trying to solve.


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 30, 2020)

Mercurius said:


> Yes, of course context matters. But there are a couple points of divergence in your post for me. The phrases "identified as problematic" and "got it wrong" imply some kind of universally agreed upon and static ideology that we all should aspire to agree upon. _Who _identified something as problematic, and to what degree is it problematic? Why is it "problematic" vs. outdated? And "wrong" with regards to what standard? (btw, it wasn't the publisher that halted publication - but Zhao herself, because of blogger backlash).
> 
> It is not as if we have come to some final, perfect ideology, and anyone who questions or disagrees with it "just doesn't get it." That speaks of a kind of ideological fundamentalism and stasis, which is quite prevalent among those who find all manner of things to take offense to, and desire to change everything to fit their ideology (in my opinion). It also leads to a polarizing climate in which you either get it or you don't, and if you don't get it (or, actually, simply just disagree), you're part of the problem, you're not "one of us" - the us that gets the true way that things should be. I'm not saying that you personally foster this attitude, but that I see it quite frequently with regards to these related topics.
> 
> ...




 I think context matters. 

 If your novel is set in earlier times using language appropriate to that time is fine. 

 If the book is a thinly veiled wishful thinking on the authors part though that's a problem.


----------



## Bohandas (Oct 30, 2020)

BookTenTiger said:


> I am a firm believer than we should preserve all art, even offensive art... But publishers are not museums, and it is not their responsibility. If you firmly believe that the old Oriental Adventures (to pull out a well-trod example) should be preserved... buy it and preserve it! But it is not a publisher's responsibility to continue to publish or sell materials that can now be identified as problematic.




If they have a copyright on the thing that they're not publishing, then they're not just not publishing it, they're suppressing it. And while I feel that you're right that they don't have a duty to publish it, I also feel that they have an overriding moral abligation not to suppress it. If they're not going to publish it anymore then they should release it into the public domain.


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 30, 2020)

Bohandas said:


> If they have a copyright on the thing that they're not publishing, then they're not just not publishing it, they're suppressing it.




 A lot of stuff doesn't get reprinted anyway. They're not going to reprint OA anyway or anything else from 1E outside maybe the core rules and longshot special boxed sets things like that.


----------



## Bohandas (Oct 30, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> A lot of stuff doesn't get reprinted anyway. They're not going to reprint OA anyway or anything else from 1E outside maybe the core rules and longshot special boxed sets things like that.




To be honest, I believe there's a moral obligation to release that kind of stuff into the public domain as well. In fact, I feel that the law ought to be changed to make availability for sale a requirement for retention of a copyright


----------

