Allegory VS Interpretation

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," 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.

Click to expand...

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.

Umbran said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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

Umbran said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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

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.

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.


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

Click to expand...

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

Deset Gled said:

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

Click to expand...

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?

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Zardnaar said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.