1) Criticism and disagreement are as much free speech as the works they disagree with;
2) Without methods of enforcing one's disagreement it cannot BE censorship;
3) People arguing on the internet is not the same as losing limbs to a landmine;
4) People arguing on the internet, no matter how vocally, is NOT censorship as they lack means of enforcement.

(Reply) (Thread)

My God, I use a bit of metaphorical language ("treacherous minefield")and look where it gets me! I am a poet, after all, I do tend to write that way. This is exactly the nit-picking absurdity I'm getting rather tired of. (I can also be blunt at times - my freedom of expression getting the better of my rational judgment.)

As for censorship (just like I just said in reply to another comment), I'm just repeating what was hurled my way when I suggested that creative types use a little judgment and perhaps, just perhaps, NOT set out to offend.

Which way is it, folks, because I am rather confused right now?

And by the way, much of this tends to go way beyond "disagreeing". A lot of this stuff becomes an internet firestorm. (Oh no, did I just speak in metaphors again? Because, you know, the internet isn't really bursting into flames. Although, admittedly, internet arguments are often called "flame wars".)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Whoa, I sounded kind of angry in that last reply. Didn't mean it quite that way. Just so you know, face-to-face I would probably have said at least some of that with a slight grin on my face.

Facetious? Possibly a bit. Angry? Not quite, not yet. Just a bit perplexed, and perhaps thick-headed.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

You seem to be looking for one unified opinion of How Things Ought To Be. I don't think it exists, so yes, some people will express opinions different from others. Overall, I don't think there's a way to guarantee that no one will ever find your work problematic.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

Just one of the may I've seen on the subject. It seems to be merely the latest in a long line of writerly brouhahas over such subjects. Perhaps my impressions are rather warped, but much of this, coupled with the negative responses to my calls to use a little writerly judgment when writing about controversial and potentially offensive subjects, has me scratching my head in bewilderment.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

There is a difference between calling upon all creative types to stop producing a type of work and for people to stop buying it, and passing legislation that makes it illegal.

Calling upon all writers and artists to censor themselves is not forcing them to be censored. Swaying public opinion is powerful but it is not dictation. As long as "Congress shall pass no laws...' is in effect, then it's all fair.

(Reply) (Thread)

So, I must be creative only within the bounds my peers have set? Sorry, I don't buy it. Perhaps this is why certain creative fields are stagnating nowadays.

And, regarding censorship, I'm just repeating what I was told when, God forbid, I suggested that creative types NOT set out to offend.

Which way is it? It seems to me you're "damned if you do, damned if you don't".

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

I agree with you. I think many creative souls will, as well.

Most of the great artistic movements, including impressionism, for example, began as publicly lambasted rebellion against the status quo. Don't sweat it.

(Reply) (Thread)

Gustavo,

I always find your perspective on such things to be interesting and enlightening.

What was it you said before, regarding a similar issue? "Tempests in teapots"? That's probably pretty close to the truth of the matter.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

People who talk about Political Correctness always make me feel-- how should I say this? I tilt my head when I read their posts to see if I can perceive their real intentions. I never know if they're really worried about CENSORSHIP or they just wish they could say whatever they want without having some hypersensitive uppity bitches yelling at them to stfu. When talking about race it's doubly problematic, because it can be used as a tool to discourage discussion. After all, nobody wants to be so fucking square that they're called PC.

I've been reading a lot of Mammothfail these days and I haven't seen one post yet where people said, "This kind of book should have never been written." That's pretty damned amazing in my eyes, because I tell my friends all the time about how their favorite books should never have been written or at least published. 8D *cough*paolo coelho *cough* sparkly vampires*cough* etc.

I understand yr fears. You don't want to get attacked for yr future novel that will potentially suffer from a dearth of PoC's and so yr preemptively stating yr Constitutionally upheld right to write the Next Great American Novel with no black people in it.* I can dig that. However, what yr arguing, has it rly come to pass? Aren't you building this brownface straw man who advocates the censorship and curtails the freedoms of "artistic souls" so that you can VICTORIOUSLY!!!! defeat it? So until yr valiant artist race get OMG! so oppressed by the PC-toting & granade-wielding peers could we stick to the people who are actually getting opressed now? Y/Y?

Edited at 2009-05-14 10:26 pm (UTC)

(Reply) (Thread)

Perhaps I'm reading between the lines a bit, but I sense the implication that such things should never have been written to begin with. Otherwise, why say their wrong?

I thought I was sure where I stood on this issue, but now I'm not so sure. On the one hand, I think you should write with some sort of social responsibility. On the other hand, I don't think I'm comfortable with restrictions on artistic expression, even self-imposed ones or ones imposed by implications within the creative community itself.

And yes, setting up an atmosphere in which someone MUST include races other than their own in a written work, or else they will be accused of being a failure and a potential racist, IS placing a restriction on their creativity. Whether or not that is a GOOD or BAD restriction is another matter altogether, but it IS a restriction nevertheless.

Frankly, my gut reaction as an artist would be to say the hell with it all and just do what I want. However, I'm not so sure you can do that in this current atmosphere.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Again! I must (I shouldn't) but I must ask WHY do you say "I'm not so sure you can do that in this current atmosphere." You can do whatever you want!
And people can comment about it!

Frex, to beat a dead horse, Star Trek TOS was sexist. That's wrong. Am I saying it should never have been created? No. Could one be so offended that one wishes it was never created? Sure! Could one state loudly from the rooftops that it should never have been created? Yup!

It is not an act of censorship to state opinion.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

But the issue isn't whether or not someone has the right to create something stupid. If the culprits in question were being locked up or shot on sight, or having their basic rights denied, that would be one thing.

That's not the case here. They have the right to write something stupid and we have the right to speak out and explain why such tripe is destructive and offensive.

Actions have consequences and if someone chooses to create racist and offensive material and make bigoted statements on the web, such is their right, but we also have the right to express why we think it's wrong, whether it's through boycotts, protests, etc. like it was done during the Civil Rights movement.

(Reply) (Thread)

Yes, we definitely have the right to criticize (and I personally think this latest example of "race fail" involving the lack of Native Americans in an alternative Early America was a poor creative choice at best), but I'm trying to caution against this sort of PC policing becoming almost its own form of censorship.

Here is a question - would the same stink have been made if this was an alternative history book set in seventh century Arabia that conveniently
erased the rise of Islam? I'm not so sure the response would be the same.

When I suggested that a controversial book about Mohamed's wife should probably never have been written in the first place, that perhaps writers should use better judgment and prevent themselves from writing offensive (and potentially inflammatory) material like that, I was told I was advocating censorship (or something akin to censorship). Granted, I wasn't necessarily told this by the same people responding here, but I was certainly told this by people within the greater creative community.

And yet, when I say the same about similar criticisms launched at a book that conveniently ignores the plight of the Native Americans, when I throw the same argument back at the creative community, I get told I'm quite wrong! I get told it is nothing like censorship, that it's just critics exerting their own freedom of speech and-or expression.

Sorry, I sense a hypocrisy hidden beneath the surface, and it disturbs me. The same rules should apply to all, or to none.

Not everything need be a battle (says the habitual fighter). There are battles (like the Civil Rights Movement) worth fighting. There are others (like this book) that aren't.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

"Here is a question - would the same stink have been made if this was an alternative history book set in seventh century Arabia that conveniently
erased the rise of Islam?"

Personally, I believe it would. Don't forget what happened about a year ago.

I think this issue is getting so much heat because it's riding off of RaceFail 1.0.

"...Granted, I wasn't necessarily told this by the same people responding here, but I was certainly told this by people within the greater creative community."

But that's just it. It's the people within the greater creative community who are getting called out on this mess.

I do agree that the message should be consistent and if there is a double standard out there, then it needs to be checked.

But there is power in the media and power in perception. That's why people are so impassioned about this issue because it goes a long way towards affecting how minorities are viewed and treated in society whether people realize that or not.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

I understand what you're driving at: sometimes, people are outraged over an abridgment of freedom of expression, and other times, they're outraged over the expression itself, and that seems contradictory.

I think most writers (and artists, etc.) don't set out to offend (though some definitely do). Nevertheless, some end up offending, some of the time. That's the way it goes. If you offend, and you feel remorseful about it, you can apologize and try not to make the same mistake twice. If you offend, but you think you did nothing wrong, then you just have to accept that there are angry people out there and get on with life as best you can. As readers and writers, we *do* have our liberties. I'm going to read what I like and write what I like, and hope for the best.

(Reply) (Thread)

"I understand what you're driving at: sometimes, people are outraged over an abridgment of freedom of expression, and other times, they're outraged over the expression itself, and that seems contradictory."

Exactly!

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I commented. I thought whoever that was was an ass. This is a good post and makes perfect sense to me!

(Reply) (Thread)

Huh? When you said you commented, are you referring to Nick Mamatas's entry? Apparently, that's his shtick. And I did make myself a target.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Yeah, over on his site... he's commented back but I'm 'supposed' to be working. :)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

I agree 100%. I also think it is utterly ridiculous to judge an artwork on whether it kowtows to any political agenda.

(Reply) (Thread)

I'm pretty much an advocate of art for art's sake, although I do think an artist should probably practice a bit of social responsibility.

Personally, I'm not setting out to change the world. I'm just trying to appease my muse.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

And let, you're complaining about people raising the issue of the stupidity in a given work.

And no, suggesting someone shouldn't have written something isn't censorship; it's perhaps advocating self-censorship, but self-censorship is not automatically a bad thing. Stopping yourself from doing things that hurt people is not internalising Big Brother. Stopping yourself from putting out something badly-written is not internalising Big Brother.

(Reply) (Thread)

I've already admitted to being confused over the whole issue, to be torn at least two ways.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)