Yes, as noted - the industry norm was "get films rated and don't show pornography just anywhere you damn well please."
Allegory VS Interpretation
Zardnaar
Legend
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
Legend
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
Legend
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
Legend
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.
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.
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
Hero
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
Legend
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin
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.
Similar Threads
