‘Mirroring’ things that are not palatable

[Jo Zebedee]

@EJDeBrun and I have had a great discussion on PM tonight around my new work which presents very unpalatable views on immigration even from the characters supposedly accepting of such things (basically they take the them/us view and equate this - partially not totally, but this isn’t clear from the opening - to colour.)

Now this novel is funded and I said I’d explore views on migration in it as part of that application - which does involve challenging the me-and-mine-centric views on migration. But that includes showing it.

I don’t plan any great epiphany on anyone’s part about migration - this is a more personal take about personal safety and survival - but there will be an acceptance of sorts about parity of esteem.

Where do we all sit on this. Should we try to be more PC and avoid characters who embrace challenging views - without always showing them as bad people - or should we challenge by embracing those views and challenging less obviously? Or should characters with less edifying views always be converted or get their comeuppance or epiphany?

 

[Lew Rockwell Fan]

"PC" is 1984 style tyranny. If a viewpoint requires the suppression of expression of alternatives, it's value & validity is suspect. Harry Turtledove has my deep respect for portraying even a Nazi non-com in a sympathetic light. If you dismiss a viewpoint as inhuman, you're simply refusing to try to comprehend reality, which includes people adopting ideas, including bad ideas, for very human reasons.

I don't have time to write an essay, & I understand political discussion has been banned here now, but there are 2 aspects to migration that are generally ignored:
1. How it fits in to the greatest problem facing humanity in the long haul - and <b>the</b> root "green" problem - the relentless growth of the total human population. There are a lot of people pushing oversimplified nonsense on this topic, not just in relation to migration. The oddest part of this is that the views that are identified as "left" and "right" have darn near reversed compared to the left and right of the 70s.
2. There is a trite saying among anarchists (<i>real</i> anarchists, not the air heads) that "Voting is violence." There is truth in that, but I don't repudiate violence (or "force" as the more conventional formulation has it) but the "initiation of force" - and that's a big difference, so I vote, and more than vote, I'm politically active with time and money. But when migration in violation of the laws of the target country is encouraged with the purpose of affecting future political change, the violence of voting is taken to a new level. If you have characters discuss this sort of thing, and you put up straw men espousing views that are deliberately dumbed down versions of views you dislike - well, you have a right to create propaganda, but don't kid yourself about what you're doing. One of the reasons Norman Lear's "All in the Family" achieved some success is that despite Lear's alter ego being the leftish Mike, he didn't make make Archie evil or stupid & he didn't make Mike perfect or leave out a trace off buffoonery. He <i>did</i> make them <i>both</i> funny. That sort of pseudo-fairness is easier in comedy. For examples in fiction that isn't comic see almost any of Asimov's novels.

I'll say no more, lest I tread in banned territory, but I will mention that the rule of avoiding political discussion is the main reason I don't stop by much any more. The world has a surfeit of fora that avoid controversy.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I agree - that what is out there in the world has a place in what we write.
So far I’ve tackled a range of difficult topics and managed okay without trying to be pc but honest. Hopefully I will again.

 

[Danny McG]

Have you read 'The Last Policeman' trilogy.
That has a good bit of immigration issues, until the USA starts sinking the refugee boats and machine gunning the swimmers

 

[-K2-]

Well, I'm in big trouble if it is a problem... Although, in my recent work it turns out that diversity is what causes the POPULACE (that's for you @Lew Rockwell Fan hehe) to thrive under crushing oppression. That government oppression is focused around the beliefs of the Mad Clown, the last president of the U.S.. He's anti-poor/working class, anti-immigration, anti-environment, anti-racial diversity, anti-racial mixing etc., and those attitudes are carried on by the elite who now rule the nation.

So, I present one side, the minority which firmly believes those mindsets and demonstrates that in their disdain for anyone but their class. The vast majority, however, has become colorblind to all things. They are only just learning about the division between themselves and the government, and so it goes.

PC or not, it's a part of our world at the moment. If we only present PC utopian stories, then folks don't sit back and have 'ah-hah' moments as to how it can better things now. Bad is bad... don't be afraid to say so

K2

 

[Lew Rockwell Fan]

(that's for you @Lew Rockwell Fan hehe)

Thanks. For those who find this confusing, it refers to another thread.

 

[EJDeBrun]

Since I'm mentioned here, I'm just going to chime in and say I think a lot of this has to do with how it's done. For example, Quentin Tarantino movies does this a LOT. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but he does always push the fold of what's politically correct and uses those paradigms to discuss a lot of really interesting social perceptions. Sorta like Django Unchained (and Blackkklansman, but that's Spike Lee) really goes into a lot of the social issues surrounding American slavery versus something like The Birth of a Nation which basically celebrates the KKK and not an example I would recommend anyone follow. (Yes it's an old movie, but was the best example I could think of)

So I'm not here to stand on my soap box and say something should be PC or NOT PC because I think it's pretty boring. I'm all for people taking on major challenges and seeing what they can do with the various themes available. But there's a strict line between discussing controversial issues and perpetuating harmful ideologies and I DO think the responsible creative needs to be self-aware of those lines and how they intend to use them.

So have at it as far as I'm concerned. The only caveat to that is the financial intention of the work. How commercial viable a writer wants to be etc. because, let's face it, people generally want to read things that make them feel good, not trigger an existential crisis, so being right on the edge can reduce the work's marketability. But that's just my little 2 cents about the RESULTS of experimenting in this way. By no means do I think that should discourage anyone from trying because who knows what could come out of it. And the market is always unpredictable, so of course a hit could come out of that kind of situation.

 

[Shorewalker]

I think how you do this is intrinsically linked with what you're trying to do. Is this simply for entertainment? Is it intended to be enlightening? Is it educational? Are you pushing a viewpoint, no matter how subtly?

The overriding goal will inform the path you take. As EJDeBrun has said, if this is to be commercial enterprise, it needs to be softened and not become the over-arcing point of the book. If it's to be educational, you need to somehow cover all views and explain them. If it's to be enlightening, you need to show the consequences of certain points of view.

I personally don't see any problem with using otherwise engaging characters as mouthpieces for bigoted/'unacceptable' opinions. We all know people like that and that one opinion does not make them 'evil'. It might mean that you avoid hitting that topic in conversation, but it's generally got to be fairly extreme for you to avoid them as people.

So write about them, and don't make them villains, because you are simply reflecting society...which is sort of our job.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I have never understood why many people seem intent on labelling as "political" matters which are not about politics at all, but merely about how people treat other people, with good manners, decency, compassion, and respect ... or not. I only wish that politics was all about that.

______

I agree with Shorewalker when he says:

If it's to be enlightening, you need to show the consequences of certain points of view.

Though perhaps I would substitute "honest" for enlightening.

And also agree when he says:

I personally don't see any problem with using otherwise engaging characters as mouthpieces for bigoted/'unacceptable' opinions. We all know people like that and that one opinion does not make them 'evil'.

So write about them, and don't make them villains, because you are simply reflecting society...which is sort of our job.

Although I would add, don't leave out any hypocrisy you may find on either side of an issue.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I’m very much of the prevalent view here - it’s not what you portray but the thoughtfulness you use to do so. It doesn’t mean there aren’t chinks for self doubt when you do so

I’ve tackled a load of subjects I was nervous of - most noteably Amy’s mental health in Waters which I was sure someone might say I was trivialising by injecting the fairies into the book, or inverting Northern Ireland in IC - and mostly seem to steer the path of thought-provoking rather than mouth-froth-invoking.

Of course, that then leaves the danger of my work being somewhat less commercial. I suppose that’s the pay off for me - and also why I was provided an amount of funding to complete it.

Onwards! Thanks all and especially EJ for starting the conversation and reminding me to think

 

[Toby Frost]

I think it is extremely important to portray people with differing – and sometimes unpalatable – views in a rounded and sometimes sympathetic way, both socially and for literature.

Much SFF regards itself as “progressive”, and with that often comes a kind of moral absolutism: if you are not absolutely 100% with us, you are our sworn enemy. At worst, this leads to a sort of groupthink and excuses wrongdoing (as the Requires Hate debacle shows, people will do awful things when they think they’re absolutely right). I also find it very hard to believe that authors who make crude sweeping statements of the “white people do X” sort are capable of the kind of intellectual sophistication required to write a good novel. At the end of the day, a person who agrees with me 70% of the time is a solid ally, not an enemy.

In terms of what goes into a novel and how it’s presented, I think blatant moral lectures have to be out. I disagree with Heinlein’s thesis in Starship Troopers, but I really disagree with being forced to read tedious speeches and straw-man episodes to hammer it home. It’s a weakness of 1984 that it resorts to several thousand words of primer in the middle, when Winston reads Goldstein’s book.

I think whether characters receive come-uppance or change their views depends a lot on the character and the type of book. In a story for younger children, I’d say yes. But in a story for adults, it’s harder to give a clear ruling. One WIP involves a character (in a mock-historical fantasy world) who is a religious bigot. But he’s not a cruel man, and he is appalled when his side becomes violent. However, he never loses his bigotry: the other side are always weird and unnatural, and even though he protects individuals, he never loses his distaste of them as a whole. This feels realistic to me, and the lack of a road-to-Damascus moment where he changes tack entirely seems more right.

Of course, there are straight-up villains in life, and even people who display a few sane traits (liking classical music, keeping a pet, etc) can be deeply evil. At the moment, there seem to be a large number of public figures who come across as crude caricatures, so that depicting them in a story would be difficult without seeming simplistic. But that’s a different issue.

 

[-K2-]

It will not be the first story that goes against the norms of social injustice and hopefully not the last.

K2

 

[Cathbad]

It will not be the first story that goes against the norms of social injustice and hopefully not the last.

K2

That was the most socially poignant episode on series television to that date.

 

[The Big Peat]

Sort of related to this is an interesting article I read recently on the New Statesman - that books aren't instruction manuals, or should only be read if they reflect our morals

And I think this sort of applies here. You're not writing an instruction manual on how to approach immigration. You're writing a story that touches on it and maybe makes people think. Sure there's reason to be cautious because we know that people do confuse the two, but one can't shy away from things entirely from caution. And I think Teresa's use of the word "honest" gets most to the heart of it. And, by and large, there needs to be an honesty to a story, or at least to its characters' motives. There needs to be enough honesty that we don't go "hang on".

Not that there's anything wrong with stories that dance around having to show such characters' motives in detail - I think a lot of them do, and for this I'm grateful, as one of the few things I object to almost uniformly in books is PoV characters who are completely unapologetic and unreflective bigots - but if you're going there, really go there.

 

[EJDeBrun]

Okay I'm going to chime in here again with a few examples of stories that were written and popular but are really socially and morally problematic in hindsight:

Gone With the Wind - Glorifies the South during the Civil War. Also makes slavery seem Not All That Bad. While understandable (though still blatantly racist in all the wrong ways) during the time of its release, this is not a book I think will fly in today's market for obvious reasons.

Is the book about the Civil War? Sorta. It's more a romance set during that time period. Unfortunately, due to its context, the romance also casually embraces a lot of terrible things (the KKK for example) so I would argue that this kind of treatment of this issue is Not Done Well and wouldn't be appropriate for creatives today.

The Little House on the Prairie - Same thing as above with it's pro-Colonial, Natives-don't-matter-because-they're-not-White-Farmers, narrative. While again, appropriate for its time, it perpetuates a lot of negative stereotypes that other people have had to combat.

Neither of these books discuss both sides of the issue at hand. They proclaim a certain attitude and stick with it through and through.

Did either writer ever question these things? A little bit, but not enough to really consider the other side's POV and make any changes to their works.

Now of course, when you consider the age of these books (Both written in the early 1900s) it's kind of understandable, but 100 years later, they still prepetuate a certain set of (problematic) ideals to certain groups of people and I think that effect behooves us, the modern writers, to question our assumptions about the morals and themes we put into our work.

I'm also going to go on a limb and point out that SFF is actually not universally progressive. I think the fiascos over the Hugo votes a few years ago is a good example of that and I'll leave it at that.

Also, SFF as it is now, is inherently grounded in Western cultures with Western cultural assumptions and it's only been in the last 10-15 years that they've started to include stories from other perspectives. This has woken a lot of the community up to the fact that what one set of principles might seem universal to one social group is not universal to another which is also forcing writers to come to grips with a lot of their moral assumptions and I think that's all to the good.

Basically, what I'm saying is I think it's a good idea for today's modern creative to understand that they have some social responsibility when it comes to their work and how it could potentially influence their readers and I'm very grateful that @Jo Zebedee is taking that responsibility seriously and opening up the discussion.

 

[sknox]

One thing I like about doing historical fantasy is that it involves pre-modern social structures and norms. One way to approach us-vs-them topics is via tribalism. People operating as tribes is pretty standard fare in fantasy, and tribes are all about us-vs-them, even to the point of regarding "us" as the only true human beings. Now expand that to dwarves, elves, orcs, and so on, and there's a rich vein to be mined. And all without the baggage that comes with industrial and post-industrial societies.

When we set a story that's clearly in the "modern" world, then we have to deal with the cultural expectations of moderns. The writing becomes much trickier. Not that it shouldn't be done, only that it's more perilous, more likely to anger some portion of your readers. No writing is completely without such risks, but by changing the setting dramatically, we can shine new light on old problems. SF has long known this (see the post above).

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

The Little House on the Prairie - Same thing as above with it's pro-Colonial, Natives-don't-matter-because-they're-not-White-Farmers, narrative. While again, appropriate for its time, it perpetuates a lot of negative stereotypes that other people have had to combat.

Wow, did we read the same book?

 

[EJDeBrun]

Wow, did we read the same book?

I actually quite like Little house on the Prairie, but there's no doubt it's problematic to the point that Wilder's name has recently be rescinded from the literature award that bore her name:

Laura Ingalls Wilder's name removed from book award over racism concerns

American Library Association changes award name after examining ‘expressions of stereotypical attitudes’ in books

www.theguardian.com

It's a severely contentious issue, but there is a distinct flair of Manifest Destiny, pro-Settlers, anti-Native narrative that is hard to ignore. It's an ideology that still exists today and has caused a lot of problems recently. (politics is banned here but I'm pretty sure people know what I'm talking about *coughpipelinecough*)

I've also read a lot of research based on Wilder and also her daughter, most notably discussed in last year's Pulitzer Prize winner Prairie Fires, which is very edifying about the type of ideology hidden behind the charming frontier book.

I actually have no issue with these books as a whole, but I also think that they do perpetuate a certain mythos about the that time period that is misleading.

Edit: another article that's a little clearer about the issues around LHonP American librarians defend renaming Laura Ingalls Wilder award

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

We'll, we will have to agree to disagree, because discussing the matter in depth could indeed turn too political.

 

[EJDeBrun]

We'll, we will have to agree to disagree, because discussing the matter in depth could indeed turn too political.