Whoah, this is a prickly little subject you've opened up. I recently completed a novel set in the 1970s where the views held by many of the characters would have been considered outrageously homophobic and racist by today's standards and had to censor much of how I wanted to portray these people because I knew full well I'd never be able to get it published. It wasn't my intention to promote offensive views but to accurately reflect the attitudes of the day, something that is becoming increasingly difficult to do in any artistic field. As was noted, it's a particular problem in television drama where we're presented with characters in the Victorian age behaving in a manner that would have been unlikely in the 1980s let alone the 1880s.
Character views and opinions
- Thread starter Brian G Turner
- Start date
Cathbad
Level 30 Geek Master
I sometimes make sure a character I am telling the story of mentions an opinion that's definitely not my own.
L.L.Lotte
The Anime King
holy zombie thread alert. Watch out, it wants brains...
Anyway...
This is actually a good revival as its a relevant subject for writers looking to get published, but we recently had a thread locked because it is too prickly of a subject.
Basically in todays world, yes the writer is responsible for the views of the character. If you write something that is racist or sexist, even if it is just the character and not yourself that holds those views you will be hit with the very public, social media fuelled outrage. Especially if it is seen as cultural appropriation.
It is sad in some ways because writers are losing authenticity in their writing because of it. You have to be very careful how you write realistic settings and characters from that time because it might offend someone
Anyway...
This is actually a good revival as its a relevant subject for writers looking to get published, but we recently had a thread locked because it is too prickly of a subject.
Basically in todays world, yes the writer is responsible for the views of the character. If you write something that is racist or sexist, even if it is just the character and not yourself that holds those views you will be hit with the very public, social media fuelled outrage. Especially if it is seen as cultural appropriation.
It is sad in some ways because writers are losing authenticity in their writing because of it. You have to be very careful how you write realistic settings and characters from that time because it might offend someone
Last edited:
Well, I'm going to take an unpopular position on this. It depends on how the writer presents the characters and what they believe. Sometimes it is very obvious indeed that those are the author's own views and that they are using their fiction to make their views widespread. Sometimes it is not clear at all. We have to look at other things the writer has written, or the things they have publicly said about their writing, or how they live their lives. Sometimes it's just done in a joking way, as I suspect the remark about Stoker was. And sometimes it is clearly the reverse, and the author is trying to show us how very wrong those views are. Take Dickens, for instance. He has a lot of characters who say some truly atrocious things about society and the poor and a number of other things, but they are clearly atrocious people themselves, so there is no doubt what Dickens is about—although probably a lot of people in his time who were otherwise quite decent sorts held similar views because that is what they had been taught. They must have been appalled to see their own beliefs shown in such an unflattering light, spoken by such abominable characters. Perhaps it made some of them reevaluate ideas they had been unthinkingly parroting their whole lives up until then. Or maybe he just energized people who already agreed with him to work harder to bring about change. We know that his books did have an influence on bringing some issues to light.
If writers get the credit when the things they write have a beneficial effect on other people's lives—and they do, all the time—then they should be held accountable when they purposely use their writing to push racist or other harmful agendas. It can be easier with modern writers, because we can see how they use their exposure in the media to push those agendas in other ways. In those cases, we know that these are their own views and not just their characters, and we can't excuse them as "just a product of their times" because their times are our times and we can plainly see that not everyone thinks that way. But a lot of people are very much prone to believe anything they read in a book. (Generally these are people who don't read much, so they don't realize the broad range of opinions you can be exposed to by reading.) It doesn't matter that the schools try to teach us all to read critically and not just swallow everything we read whole. In fact, many, many people come away from their schooling with the idea that if it is a book it must be true.
A lot of writers seem to think that there is something special, something essentially admirable in what we do, no matter how we do it or to what ends. It is too valuable, too precious, too somehow sacred (even when we don't hold anything else sacred), to be criticized by lesser folks, those poor, plodding, stupid people who don't have our gifts.
But if what we do has value, if we know that it has influence, then we should at least do our best to be understood, and when we are understood, own it, instead of acting like we are above criticism. Yes, some people will misunderstand us no matter what we say or how we say it—some of them it seems like they willfully misunderstand. That is on them. But if we have carelessly (and perhaps arrogantly) left ourselves open to criticism by thoughtful readers, then that is on us.
If writers get the credit when the things they write have a beneficial effect on other people's lives—and they do, all the time—then they should be held accountable when they purposely use their writing to push racist or other harmful agendas. It can be easier with modern writers, because we can see how they use their exposure in the media to push those agendas in other ways. In those cases, we know that these are their own views and not just their characters, and we can't excuse them as "just a product of their times" because their times are our times and we can plainly see that not everyone thinks that way. But a lot of people are very much prone to believe anything they read in a book. (Generally these are people who don't read much, so they don't realize the broad range of opinions you can be exposed to by reading.) It doesn't matter that the schools try to teach us all to read critically and not just swallow everything we read whole. In fact, many, many people come away from their schooling with the idea that if it is a book it must be true.
A lot of writers seem to think that there is something special, something essentially admirable in what we do, no matter how we do it or to what ends. It is too valuable, too precious, too somehow sacred (even when we don't hold anything else sacred), to be criticized by lesser folks, those poor, plodding, stupid people who don't have our gifts.
But if what we do has value, if we know that it has influence, then we should at least do our best to be understood, and when we are understood, own it, instead of acting like we are above criticism. Yes, some people will misunderstand us no matter what we say or how we say it—some of them it seems like they willfully misunderstand. That is on them. But if we have carelessly (and perhaps arrogantly) left ourselves open to criticism by thoughtful readers, then that is on us.
Steve Harrison
Well-Known Member
It's a very sad situation if writers feel they have to censor their characters. I don't see any point in fiction if that's case.
My latest novel a thriller, features a modern day slavery and human organ farming organisation. The leaders are quite comfortable with their activities and strongly argue they are actually helping the poor and downtrodden improve their lives in corrupt countries that have abandoned them. Do I share their views and convictions? It doesn't matter.
A group of people who abhor this practise and who are hell bent on stopping these people and their despicable trade are willing to risk their lives to stop them. Do I share their views and convictions? It doesn't matter.
It's fiction.
My personal opinion, when I take off my writing hat, is that the vast majority of people can be trusted to listen to and weigh all kinds of claims and opinions and make up their own minds, and that the censorship of views and opinions because they are or may be considered offensive is as bad as the censored views themselves. There seems to be a concerted and misguided effort at the moment to stop people thinking for themselves and shout down those who do not conform. It's a stepping stone on the road to authoritarianism (just before the step where informing on fellow citizens who say something considered subversive is encouraged). The world is moving in a very interesting and concerning direction at the moment.
I might write about it...
My latest novel a thriller, features a modern day slavery and human organ farming organisation. The leaders are quite comfortable with their activities and strongly argue they are actually helping the poor and downtrodden improve their lives in corrupt countries that have abandoned them. Do I share their views and convictions? It doesn't matter.
A group of people who abhor this practise and who are hell bent on stopping these people and their despicable trade are willing to risk their lives to stop them. Do I share their views and convictions? It doesn't matter.
It's fiction.
My personal opinion, when I take off my writing hat, is that the vast majority of people can be trusted to listen to and weigh all kinds of claims and opinions and make up their own minds, and that the censorship of views and opinions because they are or may be considered offensive is as bad as the censored views themselves. There seems to be a concerted and misguided effort at the moment to stop people thinking for themselves and shout down those who do not conform. It's a stepping stone on the road to authoritarianism (just before the step where informing on fellow citizens who say something considered subversive is encouraged). The world is moving in a very interesting and concerning direction at the moment.
I might write about it...
Cathbad
Level 30 Geek Master
I have never thought about if I might be offending anyone by what I'm writing about. I believe there is someone who will be offended by something you write, even if it make no sense to anyone but them.
I do, sometimes, want to distance myself from some character(s) I write about - though that usually means doing something like having them express an opinion I don't agree with, even though no one but me will probably know about it.
I cannot imagine a moment when I need/will stop to consider if I'm hurting someones' feelings. Like the man said, "it's fiction."
I do, sometimes, want to distance myself from some character(s) I write about - though that usually means doing something like having them express an opinion I don't agree with, even though no one but me will probably know about it.
I cannot imagine a moment when I need/will stop to consider if I'm hurting someones' feelings. Like the man said, "it's fiction."
I'm afraid I don't quite see that, either. Because between "it's" and "fiction" it sounds like there is an implied "just." It's just fiction? Maybe if it is a soulless exercise in writing hollow characters who exist merely to keep the plot moving in a sterile and improbable setting, then it's just fiction. But if we are attempting (as I like to think that everyone here is doing) to write believable characters in believable situations, to reflect some aspect or aspects of the human condition, or human aspirations, as we understand them to be, then our beliefs about how the world works, how people work, how it should all work, WILL find their way into what we are writing—which is one reason why, Steve, it does matter what we believe—whether we are consciously trying to put them there or not. (Which is why starting out with some agenda can lead to writing that is overly didactic and heavy-handed—unless the writer is particularly skilled and particularly conscious of what they are doing—as the deliberate message is added to the unconscious one and the sound of axes being sharpened in the background drowns out the story .) But if we try to write convincingly—I assume that our efforts toward improvement do include trying to write more convincingly—then some readers, at least, will take what we write to heart.
Of course many of us just write stories to entertain others, and there is nothing wrong with that. But I would hope that, even then, our stories are not meant to be utterly empty entertainment which in no way addresses the human condition as we see it, as we believe it to be, or that does not speak in some way of human aspiration. Because our own understanding (or misunderstanding, or probably a bit of both, since we are all fallible humans) of how the world works has that habit I mentioned of creeping in, whether we mean it to or not, it seems to me that it would take a great and conscious effort to write something so very empty as all that. But when we send a story out into the world, I think that most of us hope that it will affect other people, that it will touch them in some way, because if not, what was the point? Why did we want to share it with others? (And no, I won't accept that "to make money" is the answer for anyone here, since I don't believe any regular member of the Chrons is so naive about the world of writing and publishing as to not understand that chances are very good that they could make more money doing almost anything BUT writing.)
Our words have power, and learning to write to the top of our personal abilities is about making them more powerful still. But if we seek that power, shouldn't we have some thought to the consequences of that? (It seems like those of us who read science fiction and fantasy, of all the writers in the world, should be in the habit of giving serious thought to the uses and consequences of power.)
Of course many of us just write stories to entertain others, and there is nothing wrong with that. But I would hope that, even then, our stories are not meant to be utterly empty entertainment which in no way addresses the human condition as we see it, as we believe it to be, or that does not speak in some way of human aspiration. Because our own understanding (or misunderstanding, or probably a bit of both, since we are all fallible humans) of how the world works has that habit I mentioned of creeping in, whether we mean it to or not, it seems to me that it would take a great and conscious effort to write something so very empty as all that. But when we send a story out into the world, I think that most of us hope that it will affect other people, that it will touch them in some way, because if not, what was the point? Why did we want to share it with others? (And no, I won't accept that "to make money" is the answer for anyone here, since I don't believe any regular member of the Chrons is so naive about the world of writing and publishing as to not understand that chances are very good that they could make more money doing almost anything BUT writing.)
Our words have power, and learning to write to the top of our personal abilities is about making them more powerful still. But if we seek that power, shouldn't we have some thought to the consequences of that? (It seems like those of us who read science fiction and fantasy, of all the writers in the world, should be in the habit of giving serious thought to the uses and consequences of power.)
Steve Harrison
Well-Known Member
I certainly don't agree with the 'it's just fiction' premise. My intention is to create stories and characters which appear real and believable, whatever the setting. I just don't agree with attempting to sugar coat or soften character's actions, views and beliefs, or storylines, to avoid the possibility of causing offence. They are often very offensive situations and characters!
On the other hand, I'm not going to write anything with the intention to cause offence. It's too easy and a copout to do that, in my opinion. People are more than capable of taking offence all by themselves, regardless of the content.
I attempt to present my characters in all the simplicity and complexity present in every human being, run the work up the literary flagpole and hope a few people salute.
On the other hand, I'm not going to write anything with the intention to cause offence. It's too easy and a copout to do that, in my opinion. People are more than capable of taking offence all by themselves, regardless of the content.
I attempt to present my characters in all the simplicity and complexity present in every human being, run the work up the literary flagpole and hope a few people salute.
Stable
Watching you from upside down
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2016
- Messages
- 413
I often think that if all the effort and energy that has been used arguing against political correctness had been used to improve the world then we wouldn't need political correctness at all and everyone could be happy*. Yes, it occasionally gets taken too far, but it's an honest attempt to make a better world and we should at least acknowledge that.
It seems so obvious to me that a character can have (and indeed must have, if you want good fiction) different opinions to the author that I question the sanity of people like the one mentioned in the original post. That said, Teresa made some very wise points above. I suppose part of the problem is that to properly check whether an author is actually being racist would require some reading, investigation and thought. And we all know how likely that is once the mob gets started. I was reading about some Twitter mob recently that's wrecked releases for several YA authors based on questionable claims of racism. Perhaps that's a depressing counterpoint to my first paragraph.
Incidentally, if you'd just held off another month Ian this would have been a case of 15 year thread necromancy. Impressive!
*I know everyone will never be happy.
It seems so obvious to me that a character can have (and indeed must have, if you want good fiction) different opinions to the author that I question the sanity of people like the one mentioned in the original post. That said, Teresa made some very wise points above. I suppose part of the problem is that to properly check whether an author is actually being racist would require some reading, investigation and thought. And we all know how likely that is once the mob gets started. I was reading about some Twitter mob recently that's wrecked releases for several YA authors based on questionable claims of racism. Perhaps that's a depressing counterpoint to my first paragraph.
Incidentally, if you'd just held off another month Ian this would have been a case of 15 year thread necromancy. Impressive!
*I know everyone will never be happy.
I think it's interesting that so many people turn discussions about writing that start out as something else entirely (because whether a character's views reflect the writer's might have absolutely nothing to do with whether those views are offensive to readers or not—in fact, people often read profound and wise life lessons into the characters and stories they like, whether the writer intended any such lessons or not) around to a discussion of how easily offended readers are these days. Is it because someone has been offended by something they've written? Or are they worrying about something that might never happen to them? (I imagine that someone like Orson Scott Card, whose views on homosexuality offend so many, is absolutely fine if they do so. Why shouldn't he be? He's not ashamed of what he believes.) If somebody doesn't like something, does it always come down to taking offense at the things they criticize, or is it simply that they find the way those things are handled to be shoddy writing?
Yes. I often wonder about that, too. If people were kinder then other people wouldn't be so touchy, and if people weren't so touchy more people could relax.
Stable
Watching you from upside down
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2016
- Messages
- 413
@Teresa Edgerton It seems to me that the anti-PC crowd is always looking to start complaining about it and get their digs in. That's mainly what motivated my first para above.
L.L.Lotte
The Anime King
This is why sensitivity readers being employed as critics are such a big thing now, to make sure what we write is accurate and respectful.
Our stories do have an impact ... at least, if someone reads them! <off-topic grumble> <g>
If someone takes offense at one of my stories, and levels a criticism, I'll listen. I'm not going to reject criticism out of hand; it might be an opportunity to learn and grow. At the same time, I may utterly ignore it. Here's an example.
I'm a retired professor of history. I put my Western Civ lectures online very early (1994) and especially in the 1990s they were widely read. One day, I got an angry email from someone because I had said Alexander the Great was Greek. Alexander was a Macedonian and how dare I call myself educated, I was a fraud and ought not be teaching. Then, it was just a brief email exchange. Today, it could blow up into a whole Thing.
I kept the essay unchanged; my reasoning was pedagogical and beside the point I'm making here. When I publish something, I have to recognize that someone, somewhere, among the several billions of humans on this planet, is going to disagree and maybe even be offended. It has ever been thus. The only thing different is that many people nowadays have a much bigger megaphone. But the relationship between author and reader is the same as it ever was. That includes the potential for well-placed outraged readers to do real damage to an author's career. Emile Zola could explain further.
If someone takes offense at one of my stories, and levels a criticism, I'll listen. I'm not going to reject criticism out of hand; it might be an opportunity to learn and grow. At the same time, I may utterly ignore it. Here's an example.
I'm a retired professor of history. I put my Western Civ lectures online very early (1994) and especially in the 1990s they were widely read. One day, I got an angry email from someone because I had said Alexander the Great was Greek. Alexander was a Macedonian and how dare I call myself educated, I was a fraud and ought not be teaching. Then, it was just a brief email exchange. Today, it could blow up into a whole Thing.
I kept the essay unchanged; my reasoning was pedagogical and beside the point I'm making here. When I publish something, I have to recognize that someone, somewhere, among the several billions of humans on this planet, is going to disagree and maybe even be offended. It has ever been thus. The only thing different is that many people nowadays have a much bigger megaphone. But the relationship between author and reader is the same as it ever was. That includes the potential for well-placed outraged readers to do real damage to an author's career. Emile Zola could explain further.
Steve Harrison
Well-Known Member
I think you hit the nail on the head there. A writer writes and the reader interprets. If it works, both the writer and the reader are literally on the same page, but once the work is out there, it's a question of finger's crossed! Like my editor says, the writer knows what he meant, and the reader reads what he wrote.
To the wider issues of offense, the big problem - I think it's a big problem, anyway - is not that people are more sensitive these days, it's the infuriating, growing and patronising propensity for people to become offended on behalf of other people, regardless of whether those people are offended or not, or indeed require anyone to advocate for them.
I suppose, ironically, that I'm offended by this issue
I do believe that there are people who like to get excited and cause a big stir, whether they are genuinely offended or not. Also, on the internet there are trolls who like to take whatever position will rile the most people up, and that in many cases they don't care about the issue either way. Some people live for drama. Others are easily led. They see a bunch of people who are angry about something and they assume there must be a good reason.
But I also believe that there are still a lot of hurtful beliefs and actions that cause genuine pain and that many people are unwilling to think about, much less change in their own behavior, because they like things just the way they have been—since the way things have been have been very easy and favorable for people just like them.
If we should not be too quick to join those who take offense, without first taking a close look at whatever it is they are (or say they are) offended about, then I think it would be equally wise not to assume that every time someone is offended it is because they are overly sensitive, rather than because someone else has painfully trampled on their feelings and/or their rights.
But I also believe that there are still a lot of hurtful beliefs and actions that cause genuine pain and that many people are unwilling to think about, much less change in their own behavior, because they like things just the way they have been—since the way things have been have been very easy and favorable for people just like them.
If we should not be too quick to join those who take offense, without first taking a close look at whatever it is they are (or say they are) offended about, then I think it would be equally wise not to assume that every time someone is offended it is because they are overly sensitive, rather than because someone else has painfully trampled on their feelings and/or their rights.
Steve Harrison
Well-Known Member
As I said earlier, I don't think people are any more sensitive than they were in the past, but I think society, influenced particularly by social media, is becoming overly sensitive to the extent that it is stifling expression and debate.
I would certainly hope that writers do not deliberately set out to offend people, but I would also hope they feel free to express themselves without having to censor their work. It can be a fine line, I know, but no one ever said writing is easy.
I would certainly hope that writers do not deliberately set out to offend people, but I would also hope they feel free to express themselves without having to censor their work. It can be a fine line, I know, but no one ever said writing is easy.
Cathbad
Level 30 Geek Master
Hmmm... being totally misinterpreted, I'm just gonna step out of the conversation...
Except to say one thing: If you add just one word to what someone has said, you can change the entire meaning.
Except to say one thing: If you add just one word to what someone has said, you can change the entire meaning.
Harpo
Getting away with it
Be safe.
Conform.
Be liked.
Be ordinary.
Fit in.
Conform.
Be liked.
Be ordinary.
Fit in.
Similar threads
-
Silly vs Fun vs Ignorant Characters in Otherwise Serious SF/F- Started by ColGray
- Replies: 36
-
'80s or '90s - Authors' characters making appearances in other authors' universes- Started by Jubal_Harshaw
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
