Emanuel Church has a donate button on their website, if you'd like to help.

See also the Mother Emanuel Hope Fund

 

 

 

Welcome to the AbsoluteWrite Water Cooler! Please read The Newbie Guide To Absolute Write

Page 111 of 113 FirstFirst ... 11366186101105106107108109110111112113 LastLast
Results 2,751 to 2,775 of 2809

Thread: The Compulsive Thread-Derail Attempt Landfill

  1. #2751
    Sockpuppet
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,570
    Re the OP: characters with strong principles.

    Re pedophiles as MCs: portraying them as humans with the same human rights as other "felons" sounds to me like a political agenda, not an artistic necessity. This is categorizing them by their legal status, not their moral status.

    Such characters can be used in interesting ways, though. Ever see the movie M?

  2. #2752
    resident curmudgeon
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    25,952
    Quote Originally Posted by Orchestra View Post
    I'm not sure what you mean. My preference is as valid as anyone else's and I don't think I've personally insulted anyone with my wording. I think pedophiles make great characters because in our culture they are categorically viewed as monsters and sub-humans who we don't want or feel the need to understand. To me, one of writers' main jobs is to offer insight into things we are deeply uncomfortable with. We're inclined to think of child molesters as being deeply inhuman and evil. Rendering murderers, rapists, nazis and the like as real people terrifies us but it's important if we want to truly understand the bad stuff happening around us.
    I think that's fine, and good for writers who can do it, but I believe pedophiles are sub-human monsters, and I couldn't write about one without portraying this exact sentiment. I don't need to understand pedophiles, and no amount of explanation, insight, or anything else would stop me from feeling dirty just by trying to understand a pedophile.

    "Real people" I think, is a phrase with no real meaning. Some people, who commit some acts, just need to be shot, incarcerated for life, or have something even worse done to them. I don't care if Josef Mengele was a "real person", the world would have been a better place had someone shot him early on.

    I feel the same way about pedophiles.

    As a writer, I prefer showing things as they are, but this does not mean I have to portray pedophiles as real people. Screw them.

    I'll stick to good people who do the right thing whenever possible, and who try hard to make the world a better place.

  3. #2753
    practical experience, FTW
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    6,102
    Wow, some ugliness in this thread. So we've decided that convicted paedophiles are sub-human, not entitled to human rights, and therefore it's okay for us to fantasise about raping and murdering them. Zimbardo would be proud.

  4. #2754
    Quote Originally Posted by Buffysquirrel View Post
    Wow, some ugliness in this thread. So we've decided that convicted paedophiles are sub-human, yes, but feel free to explain why they aren't not entitled to human rights, i've seen one person say that, and considering that child rape is sick shit, i don't fault them for getting emotional and therefore it's okay for us to fantasise about raping and murdering them people fantasize about non-con sex, too. murdering child molesters is the least of my worries on the fantasy scale, but that's not what anyone was saying. i could get rather sarcastically snarky on you, but I won't. what I, and the majority of others said, was that we couldn't stomach reading about a sympathetic pedo because we believe lusting after, and raping children, is as low as you can go, and that there's nothing "humane" or "redemptive" about it. Zimbardo would be proud. ya know, I'm really not sure what the stanford prison experiment has to do with this. but if given the choice, I'd rather read about the pedo getting the shit kicked out of 'em, rather than the pedo who controls his/her lust, and gets a pat on the head for not raping children. but if there's something ugly about hating child molesters, please, explain what that ugliness is.
    ...

    and just to be clear, i don't hate pedophiles. i think they're disgusting, but i don't hate them. i hate child molesters. there's a difference. i have no desire to understand either in a "positive" light.

  5. #2755
    practical experience, FTW
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    6,102
    There's always something ugly about hate.

    And the Zimbardo reference is simply to do with the process of dehumanisation I observed. And no, not wanting to read about paedophiles is not the only thing being stated in this thread. That, I entirely sympathise with.

    If the concept of human rights is to have any meaning, we have to extend those rights even to people we detest. Same as freedom of speech only has any meaning if we extend it to speech we detest. It's easy to give rights to people we approve of. The real test is when we're asked to do the same to a hated group.

  6. #2756
    Makes useful distinctions Lady Ice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    4,659
    Quote Originally Posted by KateM View Post
    I Googled "Lolita" and did not get a single hit. Odd. Looking on Amazon, the "child" in the novel was twelve years old. By puberty the physiological damage caused by sex abuse is dramatically reduced.
    He admits to preferring girls between the ages of 8 and 12, therefore Lolita is on the older spectrum.
    "We work in the dark--we do what we can--we give what we have. Our doubt is our passion and our passion is our task. The rest is the madness of art." (Henry James)

    "Either you think--or else others have to think for you and take power from you, pervert and discipline your natural tastes, civilize and sterilize you." (Tender is The Night)

    http://stagebystage.weebly.com/

  7. #2757
    Makes useful distinctions Lady Ice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    4,659
    Quote Originally Posted by thebloodfiend View Post
    Humbert Humbert is a special exception because, from what I've read of Lolita (I'm a third of the way through) you're not supposed to sympathize with him. And, as said above, he's not a pedophile.
    He's a mix- he claims to be attracted to girls of 8 up to about 14. I agree with you, you're meant to see him as horrible. His narrative is ironic because he sees himself as a dashing lover, we see him as a pervert.

    Has anybody seen either of the adaptations of Lolita?
    "We work in the dark--we do what we can--we give what we have. Our doubt is our passion and our passion is our task. The rest is the madness of art." (Henry James)

    "Either you think--or else others have to think for you and take power from you, pervert and discipline your natural tastes, civilize and sterilize you." (Tender is The Night)

    http://stagebystage.weebly.com/

  8. #2758
    Makes useful distinctions Lady Ice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    4,659
    On the paedophile topic, paedophiles are human but their humanity has been so warped by their obsession that I wouldn't want to promote them in a positive light. And of course, there is a line between paedophiles and child molesters.
    "We work in the dark--we do what we can--we give what we have. Our doubt is our passion and our passion is our task. The rest is the madness of art." (Henry James)

    "Either you think--or else others have to think for you and take power from you, pervert and discipline your natural tastes, civilize and sterilize you." (Tender is The Night)

    http://stagebystage.weebly.com/

  9. #2759
    Let's see what's on special today.. Bufty's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    13,400
    .
    =Buffysquirrel;7256913]

    If the concept of human rights is to have any meaning, we have to extend those rights....The real test is when we're asked to do the same to a hated group.

    And I don't see how the concept or meaning of human rights fails or loses any meaning because an individual or group chooses to act in a manner that forfeits any claim to those rights.

    I'm not sure there is any distinction between a paedophile and a child molester.

    I apologise if I derailed the thread. I will do so no more.
    Everything yields to treatment.

  10. #2760
    practical experience, FTW
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    6,102
    Because if the concept of human rights is to have any meaning, they are rights that cannot be forfeited. Otherwise it's just words on a page.

  11. #2761
    Quote Originally Posted by Buffysquirrel View Post
    There's always something ugly about hate. If you say so. Indifference is disgusting, and love, even moreso. What would you suggest we feel for them?

    And the Zimbardo reference is simply to do with the process of dehumanisation I observed. And no, not wanting to read about paedophiles is not the only thing being stated in this thread. That, I entirely sympathise with. And I say it's a bs analogy. When you choose to dehumanize yourself, you reap what you sow. It's a child molester, not a pickpocket.

    If the concept of human rights is to have any meaning, we have to extend those rights even to people we detest. Same as freedom of speech only has any meaning if we extend it to speech we detest. It's easy to give rights to people we approve of. The real test is when we're asked to do the same to a hated group. Unfortunately, when it comes to them, I can't say I agree. But I don't see them as human, anyway. They can have their pedowebsites, and lust after children all they want. But when they touch kids, they give up their humanity.

    If it was up to me, they'd just get the death penalty. Torture in prison, or the possibility of parole, or tax dollars spent giving them food and cable, is too good for them, IMO. And, while I don't care what happens to them, vigilante justice is only good in comic books.

    But this is a very personal subject for many, and getting upset because a few express hatred towards those who ruin lives is rather insensitive, especially when you pull the "equal" rights card. As someone who has very close relatives who've been fucked with when they were kids, I don't give two shits about the "equal" rights of their rapists. But I'm not a judge, or a lawmaker. When that moment comes, I'll put aside the emotional tangent.
    Until then, I'm just a writer who believes showing child rapists in a humane, positive light is sick and twisted, unless it's some kind of satire.

    And, yes, you can say that makes us no better than them, (not true) but that's why victims aren't allowed to decide the fate of the accused. That's what court is for.

    And that applies to child rapists only, not pedophiles. Pedophiles who don't act on their urges garner no hatred from me, just pity and disgust.
    /derail

  12. #2762
    Maneater Brigid Barry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Maine, USA
    Posts
    612
    Quote Originally Posted by Buffysquirrel View Post
    Wow, some ugliness in this thread. So we've decided that convicted paedophiles are sub-human, not entitled to human rights, and therefore it's okay for us to fantasise about raping and murdering them. Zimbardo would be proud.
    not just convicted ones...
    "I drink and you use sex as a weapon. It seems to me that we have the perfect New England marriage." - Peter Griffin


    @BrigidBarryAuth

  13. #2763
    resident curmudgeon
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    25,952
    Quote Originally Posted by NeuroFizz View Post
    Newest literary trend to replace vampires, werewolves, and zombies -- attack of the special snowflakes...

    Why are people wound so tight these days? Politics are the same way. Citizens are ready to lock-and-load over political issues and candidates. Hate has replaced civic pride and compromise.
    It's been my experience that "compromise" almost always means "Do It My Way". When it doesn't mean this, it means, "Well, okay, just give up a little bit of your freedom."

    I don't know what point in history you're thinking of when you say hate has replaced civic pride and compromise, or when you think people weren't willing to lock and load over political issues, but none of my history books show any period where this was the case.

    "Hate" is a buzz word usually used by people who are haters themselves. In the real world, hate usually has nothing to do with it, except as the only way those who want to remove freedoms can understand why others don't want freedoms removed. Well, they must hate this person, that group, or Irish setters, or something.

    Political issues and candidates have always been reason to lock and load, and always will be. Democracy is a fine thing, but there will always be issues where the majority is wrong. When that wrong is egregious enough, lock and load may be the only option. Just as a majority vote would never make slavery an acceptable thing, neither will it make any number of other issues acceptable, and every now and then, lock and load is necessary.

    Thomas Jefferson said the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure.

    He was right.

  14. #2764

    Casual Vacancy Split for Landfill

    Quote Originally Posted by Seraph View Post
    About the feedback, find me a classic that wasn't panned by the critics of its time.

    Generally speaking, not true.

  15. #2765
    practical experience, FTW LJD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    2,916
    Quote Originally Posted by Seraph View Post
    Hmmmm, sounds depressing but being a Rowling fan gonna hafta check her out. About the feedback, find me a classic that wasn't panned by the critics of its time. They've also panned a lot of really shitty books, though, so guess I'll just have to read it and see what I think.
    Well, if a book wins the Pulitzer it wasn't panned by the critics at the time, was it?

    Look up the list of winners. There are a bunch of books I'd call classics on the list. eg. To Kill a Mockingbird, The Grapes of Wrath.

  16. #2766
    practical experience, FTW Seraph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    524
    Quote Originally Posted by Amadan View Post
    Generally speaking, not true.
    Quote Originally Posted by LJD View Post
    Well, if a book wins the Pulitzer it wasn't panned by the critics at the time, was it?

    Look up the list of winners. There are a bunch of books I'd call classics on the list. eg. To Kill a Mockingbird, The Grapes of Wrath.
    I was speaking pretty generally. There are classics that have always been well received, and others that haven't, like a few of my faves, Moby Dick and Wuthering Heights. There are also literary books that critics hail but which never sell and are mostly unreadable, pretentious and bad. Which is why I love sites like metacritic and Rottentomatoes that offer users's opinions which I usually find more reliable. My point is critics's opinions should be taken with a, sometimes huge, grain of salt.
    Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

  17. #2767
    Quote Originally Posted by Seraph View Post
    I was speaking pretty generally.
    Pretty generally, you're wrong.

    My point is critics's opinions should be taken with a, sometimes huge, grain of salt.
    Good critics explain their opinion, they don't just say "I liked it" or "I didn't like it." Which is what makes their opinions more useful than 99% of readers' opinions.

  18. #2768
    practical experience, FTW Seraph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    524
    Quote Originally Posted by Amadan View Post
    Pretty generally, you're wrong.
    In your opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Amadan View Post
    Good critics explain their opinion, they don't just say "I liked it" or "I didn't like it."
    Not quite. Good critics are honest, which self-described "critics" aren't anywhere close to the same degree as your average reader/viewer, who don't have the same pretensions and agendas, which is why their opinions are much more reliable. You know the old saying: those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach, criticize.
    Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

  19. #2769
    Quote Originally Posted by Seraph View Post
    In your opinion.
    No, it's objectively false that most highly regarded literary classics were panned in their day by critics. Some were, but most were not. It's actually pretty rare that a very popular but critically panned writer turns into a literary darling after their death.


    Not quite. Good critics are honest, which self-described "critics" aren't anywhere close to the same degree as your average reader/viewer, who don't have the same pretensions and agendas, which is why their opinions are much more reliable. You know the old saying: those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach, criticize.
    .... Wow.

  20. #2770
    Toughen up. gothicangel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Outer Brigantia
    Posts
    7,651
    Quote Originally Posted by Seraph View Post
    You know the old saying: those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach, criticize.
    Lock thread. One, two, three . . .

    *I am also quite amused by the irony that JKR was also a teacher at one point in her career.
    The Speculator: On submission.
    Aelia: Work In Progress

  21. #2771
    practical experience, FTW Seraph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    524
    I already said as much as your post, Amadan, so not sure who you think you're arguing with, except for someone who agrees with you. My position is only critics's opinions should be taken with a grain of salt.

    Rowling was one, even Stephen King. I'd think of them as more the exception, though.
    Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

  22. #2772
    Toughen up. gothicangel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Outer Brigantia
    Posts
    7,651
    Quote Originally Posted by Seraph View Post
    Rowling was one, even Stephen King. I'd think of them as more the exception, though.
    There are many writers who are teachers [and there are writer-teachers on this forum.] Off the top of my head:

    Philip Pullman
    Kathy Reichs [lectures in Forensic Science.]
    Simon Scarrow
    James Kelman
    Madeline Miller [Latinist]
    Joanne Harris
    Dan Brown
    Eoin Colfer
    Elizabeth George
    Roddy Doyle
    William Golding

    And that's just off the top of my head . . .
    The Speculator: On submission.
    Aelia: Work In Progress

  23. #2773
    Bright and Early for the Daily Race Chrissy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Mad World
    Posts
    6,515
    Quote Originally Posted by Seraph View Post
    Chrissy, wouldn't you agree there are some freedoms we should give up for a better running society? As a for instance, and not saying you think so, but do you think people should be free to murder or steal?
    I don't believe that anyone has some sort of inherent right to the freedom to steal or murder. That is the sort of thing that makes me not a "complete" anarchist. I believe that society should prevent murder, theft, rape, and fraud, via the legal system.

    As an aside, I wouldn't mind if millions of people who are in jail right now for drug possession were freed.

    @bloodfiend I find it odd that it is perfectly legitimate to say "I don't care for libertarianism" (and btw, I have no idea who the poster child is, perhaps you could enlighten me?)and get zero flak, whereas if someone were to randomly post, "I don't care for the Democrats' view," they'd be challenged to provide some reasoning forthwith, or face the internet gallows. But it seems it's sufficient in this case to say, "yeah, they suck" and move on. Whatever.
    Last edited by Chrissy; 04-05-2013 at 09:06 AM.

  24. #2774
    Bright and Early for the Daily Race Chrissy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Mad World
    Posts
    6,515
    @bloodfiend's PR rep: thank you for the clarification. I was unaware that I could actually ask a poster to expound upon their views.

    As to how long I have been here at AW, versus how long you have been here at AW, I don't have a problem with that. Do you? Oh wait, do I owe you some sort of servitude or deference?

    I do believe we have both been residents of Earth for at least the same amount of time, and possibly--not that it matters one iota, mind you, but--I may have been here longer than you have. But no matter, right? We are equal.

    And thank you so very much for your explantion as to how you roll. After spending a year and a half and over 4,000 posts here at P&CE, I was confused, but thanks to you, now I understand.
    Last edited by Chrissy; 04-05-2013 at 10:10 AM.

  25. #2775
    Joker Groupie Celia Cyanide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    probably watching DARK KNIGHT
    Posts
    14,139
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrissy View Post
    @bloodfiend's PR rep: thank you for the clarification. I was unaware that I could actually ask a poster to expound upon their views.

    As to how long I have been here at AW, versus how long you have been here at AW, I don't have a problem with that. Do you? Oh wait, do I owe you some sort of servitude or deference?
    No. You were asking why bloodfiend didn't get any "flack" for saying she didn't care for libertarianism. I was trying to be nice about it. I won't next time.
    My feature film WHY AM I IN A BOX? is now online! I wrote, directed, and acted in it.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzglH...ature=youtu.be

    my IMDB page: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2097751/

    My decoupage shoes, now on Etsy:

    https://www.etsy.com/shop/CeliaCyani...shop-info-name

Page 111 of 113 FirstFirst ... 11366186101105106107108109110111112113 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Custom Search