I think I screwed up.

kuwisdelu said:

But what does it mean to be true to the art? I know I'm probably in the minority here, but I do believe communal and social responsibility is part of art, inherent to its nature, and to ignore that and write irresponsibly is betraying the art.

But that's just me.

Click to expand...

Well, that's whom you're best qualified to speak for, right?

I have no idea what it means to "write irresponsibly." Okay, that's not entirely true. For my money being an irresponsible writer means I'm placing someone else's idea of what "communal and social responsibility" is ahead of my own. I don't write by committee and I don't consider anyone who does is a writer. They're a stenographer.

Betraying the art means to me pandering to your tastes and whoring out my own to make a buck because unless I've sent you a questionnaire I DON'T KNOW what your tastes are and I definitely do not know what offends you. More importantly, I don't care. Like even a little bit.

I do know that should not have any impact on what I'm doing because in the process of trying to please you, I've displeased somebody else. Hell, why bother writing anything at all? Here's my computer. You do it and I'll put my name on it.

I do sincerely hope I've written irresponsibly and totally abrogated my "communal and social responsibility" at least once and hopefully repeatedly since 1992. Anything less and I'd feel like a failure.

Kerosene said:

My biggest problem with this is that for the life of me I can't decide if you're trying to show the father being a bigot or him acting like one for a joke.

Click to expand...

This is what I was thinking. I feel like the exchange is a little ambiguous. I read as the father faking annoyance that this Arabic word has given his Scrabble opponent some nice points. But it's a little unclear, especially with the mother's response.

I wonder if that ambiguity is part of the issue. A lot of people have responded to this question with advice about being true to your character, and how some characters are going to be bigoted, which is fine advice. But if people are reading the exchange differently than you intended, that might be contributing to the problem, especially if they're reading this as the father seriously being Islamaphobic but the exchange being played off as lighthearted.

nighttimer said:

Well, that's whom you're best qualified to speak for, right?

I have no idea what it means to "write irresponsibly." Okay, that's not entirely true. For my money being an irresponsible writer means I'm placing someone else's idea of what "communal and social responsibility" is ahead of my own. I don't write by committee and I don't consider anyone who does is a writer. They're a stenographer.

Betraying the art means to me pandering to your tastes and whoring out my own to make a buck because unless I've sent you a questionnaire I DON'T KNOW what your tastes are and I definitely do not know what offends you. More importantly, I don't care. Like even a little bit.

I do know that should not have any impact on what I'm doing because in the process of trying to please you, I've displeased somebody else. Hell, why bother writing anything at all? Here's my computer. You do it and I'll put my name on it.

I do sincerely hope I've written irresponsibly and totally abrogated my "communal and social responsibility" at least once and hopefully repeatedly since 1992. Anything less and I'd feel like a failure.

Click to expand...

By that logic, why even bother doing any research at all when writing about other cultures and characters from differing backgrounds? After all, "you're always going to offend someone".

Who cares if I misrepresent other cultures? I'm standing by my One Vision of True Art. If that means totally misrepresenting your culture, making up shit about your religious beliefs, perpetuating harmful stereotypes about you, and just generally doing social damage to your community, well then fuck you. I don't care about you or what offends you.

In fact, what's the point of critique and editing at all? It's all just pandering and whoring.

In this example, the OP would not be misrepresenting any culture. The character is racist. Racist people say things like that.

Should All in the Family have changed Archie Bunker into a non-racist character? That would have eliminated about half the tension in the show, and much of the humor -- which was at Archie's expense, not that of minorities.

CassandraW said:

In this example, the OP would not be misrepresenting any culture. The character is racist. Racist people say things like that.

Click to expand...

I agree, but I was addressing that logic in general, which is as full of holes as swiss cheese.

I don't have strong feelings about whether this particular scene should be changed.

If the author thinks about it and decides to leave it as it is, fine.

But not changing it because "you'll always offend people so who cares fuck 'em" is a bullshit excuse not to think critically about potentially problematic elements in one's own writing.

kuwisdelu said:

I agree, but I was addressing that logic in general, which is as full of holes as swiss cheese.

I don't have strong feelings about whether this particular scene should be changed.

If the author thinks about it and decides to leave it as it is, fine.

But not changing it because "you'll always offend people so who cares fuck 'em" is a bullshit excuse not to think critically about potentially problematic elements in one's own writing.

Click to expand...

I agree one should always think critically about potentially problematic elements in one's writing. But I would add that if one has a good reason for including something that might offend some people, one may well want to take that risk.

Lolita offended tons of people, and I'm sure Nabokov realized it would. I'm glad he didn't ditch his novel or change it to please them.

CassandraW said:

I agree one should always think critically about potentially problematic elements in one's writing. But I would add that if one has a good reason for including something that might offend some people, one may well want to take that risk.

Click to expand...

Of course.

But let's not pretend Sherman Alexie offending other Natives when he writes about his lived experiences as a Native American is remotely the same thing as J. K. Rowling offending Native peoples when she makes shit up about Native American communities.

If all one goes by is "well you'll always offend someone", then there is no distinction between these cases. They are created equal. When I think it should be obvious that is false.

I loathed All in the Family as a child. LOATHED it. It's hard to laugh at "satire" when it's punching you in the face.

What the character of Archie Bunker did was make it easy for white people to act like the crap he said was only a joke, and it made it a hundred times harder to convince white people to listen when racialized and marginalized people say, Hey, that hurts, and it contributes to the culture that makes it okay to marginalize us.

Kinda like this thread right here.

kuwisdelu said:

By that logic, why even bother doing any research at all when writing about other cultures and characters from differing backgrounds? After all, "you're always going to offend someone".

Who cares if I misrepresent other cultures? I'm standing by my One Vision of True Art. If that means totally misrepresenting your culture, making up shit about your religious beliefs, perpetuating harmful stereotypes about you, and just generally doing social damage to your community, well then fuck you. I don't care about you or what offends you.

In fact, what's the point of critique and editing at all? It's all just pandering and whoring.

Click to expand...

James Baldwin said artists are here to disturb the peace. Not tiptoe around on eggshells in fear of causing controversy by not conforming and being confrontational.

I suppose that by disagreeing with you I have offended you because no one should ever write, sing, film, paint, perform or express themselves in any way, shape, or form that could offend someone.

What a sterile and boring world that must be to live in.

I don't think one should ever just throw shit into one's work without consideration. Certainly if I were trying to depict another culture, I'd research it. I find it annoying when others don't bother. (Hell, I get pissed off at all those law-related novels and tv shows that get legal stuff wrong, not because I'm offended but just because it's wrong.) And I completely understand why it's harmful to depict a minority culture inaccurately, especially if you are furthering a stereotype. If you're going to include such a character, I agree -- do your homework and get it right. Rowling certainly should have done hers, IMO.

But as a writer, if I felt strongly that I had a damn good reason for including something controversial, I'd include it. I wouldn't throw in a racist slur for the hell of it and I certainly wouldn't glorify racism or racists. However, if my book included a racist character, that character would probably need to say some offensive things to be true to life. And I wouldn't pull punches if that were the case.

CassandraW said:

In this example, the OP would not be misrepresenting any culture. The character is racist. Racist people say things like that.

Should All in the Family have changed Archie Bunker into a non-racist character? That would have eliminated about half the tension in the show, and much of the humor -- which was at Archie's expense, not that of minorities.

Click to expand...

All In The Family was a show that made fun of bigotry and of generalized bigots at a time when people and attitudes like that were still pretty common but beginning to be less socially acceptable. It was the point of the show. Even so, I can understand why people for whom racism was not an abstraction might have had problems with it. I didn't like it terribly much either.

But imagine the difference if there was a different show, The Brady Bunch, say. And say the show's producers decided to make Dad a bit of a racist and he very occasionally muttered things about "niggers" or while the other characters rolled their eyes and the laugh track kicked in. Imagine the show didn't explore issues or themes related to racism at all. It was just there to add flavor or realism (because dads like that existed in the early 70s).

Kind of like all those "medieval" fantasy novels that are chock full of male on female rape because it's "realistic" but don't give the act any real meaning or consequences.

I see a difference, because the racism isn't being presented as something that's terribly weighty. And yeah, I can see how it could be a reminder to someone who experiences these kinds of things all the effing time of how many ordinary, everyday white people still hate them and experience few consequences for doing so.

I'm not saying a book shouldn't portray racism, sexism, homophobia or other examples of human nastiness. Nor should every character who does so necessarily be presented as evil incarnate. But I do think it should serve some kind of narrative purpose, have weight and consequences, and the writer should consider the effect it has on people for whom it's not just a minor annoyance or an abstraction.

nighttimer said:

James Baldwin said artists are here to disturb the peace. Not tiptoe around on eggshells in fear of causing controversy by not conforming and being confrontational.

I suppose that by disagreeing with you I have offended you because no one should ever write, sing, film, paint, perform or express themselves in any way, shape, or form that could offend someone.

Click to expand...

Err, no. You've misunderstood me. I'm fine with offending people, with being confrontational, and causing controversy. I expect I'll do so with my own work, if I ever manage to get published that is.

The point is that it's worthwhile to think about who you're offending and why. Throwing bigoted crap in a work for no reason is very different from offending and causing controversy for a purpose.

See my above point about Sherman Alexie vs. J. K. Rowling. They've both offended a lot of people by their approach to writing Native American characters, but I think pretending they're similar situations because of that, without looking any deeper into it or thinking critically about how, why, and who they offend, is asinine.

What a sterile and boring world that must be to live in.

Click to expand...

Nope. It's pretty awesome and colorful.

Roxxsmom said:

All In The Family was a show that made fun of bigotry and of generalized bigots at a time when people and attitudes like that were still pretty common but beginning to be less socially acceptable. It was the point of the show. Even so, I can understand why people for whom racism was not an abstraction might have had problems with it. I didn't like it terribly much either.

But imagine the difference if there was a different show, The Brady Bunch, say. And say the show's producers decided to make Dad a bit of a racist and he very occasionally muttered things about "niggers" or while the other characters rolled their eyes and the laugh track kicked in. Imagine the show didn't explore issues or themes related to racism very deeply either. It was just there to add flavor or realism (because dads like that existed in the early 70s).

Click to expand...

My father never missed All In the Family and my father hated homosexuals ("faggots" and "dykes" were his preferred epithets) and he boasted proudly how he never had a White friend and no White man had ever been invited into his home. My father probably liked All In the Family because he was a darker version of Archie Bunker. Game recognizes game. The show is terribly dated now and lines that were hilarious or shocking then barely register now. I doubt Dave Chapelle's Niggar Family sketch would fly with anyone with a delicate constitution.

Humor has always a devious mechanism to go where many are too scared to go. There's a straight line from Norman Lear's discomforting dialogue to Dave Chapelle's direct bluntness and a necessary one. You can't bridge the divide between the races by refusing to say the things out loud people whisper among themselves within their own closed little circle. Disturb that peace and move the conversation beyond superficial politeness to the real deal, deep down shit that is real and raw.

Roxxsmom said:

I see a difference, because the racism isn't being presented as something that's terribly weighty. And yeah, I can see how it could be a reminder to someone who experiences these kinds of things all the effing time of how many ordinary, everyday white people still hate them and experience few consequences for doing so.

I'm not saying a book shouldn't portray racism, sexism, homophobia or other examples of human nastiness. Nor should every character who does so necessarily be presented as evil incarnate. But I do think it should serve some kind of narrative purpose, have weight and consequences, and the writer should consider the effect it has on people for whom it's not just a minor annoyance or an abstraction.

Click to expand...

Which is the difference between a Martin Scorsese and a Quentin Tarantino and how they use "nigger" in their movies. We don't get to tell them how to use the racial slur. We get to decide if we're going to support them with our money or withhold it from them. I've seen every Tarantino film and nearly every Scorsese film. There's a difference between how they use the word. One has context and the other is there for shock value. You decide which is which.

kuwisdelu said:

Err, no. You've misunderstood me. I'm fine with offending people, with being confrontational, and causing controversy. I expect I'll do so with my own work, if I ever manage to get published that is.

Click to expand...

No, I've understood you perfectly. I don't agree with you. That's why we're doing this.

I've already been published and I've offended people, been confrontational and caused controversy. The thing is, I don't shy away from offending, confronting and causing controversy by own team when necessary and not just poking the other team. When you get published you may find you're going to have to do likewise. Good luck with that.

kuwisdelu said:

The point is that it's worthwhile to think about who you're offending and why. Throwing bigoted crap in a work for no reason is very different from offending and causing controversy for a purpose.

Click to expand...

Right, but who gets to decide what is bigoted crap for no reason and causing controversy for a purpose? More importantly, who tells the artist what they should do for the greatest degree of success and recognition while offending the fewest delicate souls?

You pay for the art when its completed. If you want to be involved in creating the art, pay for it in advance and you can lay out the terms of how you want that art presented to you. Otherwise, you got no say. You can protest the art, castigate it, demand it be removed from shelves and shot off to the moon in a rocket ship. That's your choice. Mine is to follow my own vision and if nobody else digs it, that's on me, not you.

LJD said:

Yeah, this is why I can understand why people would be offended. I try replacing "Muslim" with "Chinese" (which I am) and it doesn't offend me, not even if I replace "Chinese" with some racial slur. Just makes me think the character is an asshole. But. My background is very different from being Muslim in today's world.

Click to expand...

If you want offensive for "Chinese", just using the word "Chinese" doesn't cut it. "Damned Chinese"? Hah! I say it all the time, and I'm Chinese.

Seriously, this entire thing about is it offensive? As people have already mentioned, it will offend someone. The only questions I would like to see answered by the whole story are: "Is it true to the character?", "Is it what the story needs" and "How do the other characters deal with it fully?"

Anyhow, I think everyone has answered the OP far more eloquently than I could.

kuwisdelu said:

The point is that it's worthwhile to think about who you're offending and why. Throwing bigoted crap in a work for no reason is very different from offending and causing controversy for a purpose.

< snip > but I think pretending they're similar situations because of that, without looking any deeper into it or thinking critically about how, why, and who they offend, is asinine.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

cornflake said:

Norman Lear would be spinning in his grave, you know, if he were dead. As it is, I'd wager he'd be happy to explain to the precious souls that stripping fiction of reality doesn't help anything.

Click to expand...

I agree! I can attest: this is something people say, whether they really mean it or not. And no great work of fiction ever stripped the reality from itself. People are sarcastic and rude and even not PC. That doesn't necessarily make them a bad person. Maybe not someone that's particularly fun to be around, but someone that's real... ish. Cuz fiction. lol.

I don't believe in censorship in writing. If you are writing about a character that is bigoted then the character needs to express themselves to be believable. If we watered down writing just to keep everyone from feeling insulted or whatever, then who would want to read such a bland unreal version of the world.

Why not, though? It's not like writers shy away from erasing aspects of characters that make their white, cishet, able-bodied readers uncomfortable.

/tongue-in-cheek

LJD said:

Update: I felt there was no compelling reason to keep it, so I took it out. I also added the following comment to the chapter, which I hope is sufficient...I kept rewriting it:

"I have removed the father's bigoted remark from this chapter. Although it fit the character, it was not important to the story, and it understandably made some readers uncomfortable. I apologize, and I will think more carefully about these issues in the future. Thank you for reading and for pointing this out."

Click to expand...

Beautifully executed LJD. in my opinion, an important gauge for knowing whether problematic language should be removed is intent. If it's a whoopsie, 'holy Hannah, I had no idea people would be offended by my little joke'; it's likely my story can do without it. If I purposely include a scene, knowing it will ding some people's bells, then it's going to be meaning to the story. Either way I need to be ready to address people's reactions in an open and respectful manner. Kudos to you for doing that.