Allegory VS Interpretation

[Zardnaar]

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?

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]

And yet what we are discussing here is more regression than progression. 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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Mercurius]

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]

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]

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...

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.

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]

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?

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).

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]

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.