# An attempt to have a meaningful discussion on dealing with sensitive topics



## BWFoster78

EDIT: Oops. Meant to have the title be "... discussion on dealing with sensitive topics."

DISCLAIMER: I would really, really like to have a serious discussion about how to deal with sensitive topics in writing. I think it is both important and useful to know how to deal with such. However, by its very nature, discussing how to write about sensitive topics seems to evolve into discussions about dealing with specific sensitive topics. The mods seem inclined to close threads where the discussions diverge from writing and get into the territory of specifics (a policy that I completely understand).  If we could avoid any actual debate of sensitive topics and keep the discussion focused on writing about sensitive topics, I would really appreciate it! I tried to choose an example that didn’t seem likely to cause an emotional response.

I’ve seen a couple/few threads lately where an aspiring author brings up a question like, “Hi, I’d like my character/world to deal with (sensitive topic). What’s your advice?”

My interpretation of the answer from a vocal segment of the forum members: That topic hits my buttons. If you absolutely have to include it, make sure that it is always portrayed as completely evil. Definitely don’t let your protagonist think the (sensitive topic) might be something he could consider being a part of. 

First of all, let me truthfully say that informing the author that the subject is a hot button issue is valuable.  As we try to make it in the publishing world, we very much need to understand what might trip up our stories out of the starting gate. I don’t think it’s a Bad Thing at all to say to that aspiring author, “Danger, Will Robinson, danger. Proceed with caution.”

I feel, however, that this group might take that caution a little too far.

For example, murder:

I think that most of us would agree that murder is bad. Most of us would not advocate killing someone without justifiable reason. Most of us would think someone who did kill someone without a justifiable reason is a Bad Person.

I think, probably, being paid isn’t a justifiable reason to kill someone.

If I were to base my plotting decisions solely on the threads I’ve read recently on these boards, I would come away with the opinion that I should never write a book in which the protagonist kills people for money because:

A.	No one is likely to buy a book in which the protagonist does bad things.
B.	All the readers are going to think you, the author, is a Bad Person because of the way your protagonist acts.

Here’s the problem: there are a ton of very popular books and movies that feature assassins as the protagonists, and I don’t think that Brent Weeks is particularly reviled for writing the Night Angel Trilogy.

Personally, I feel murder is a Very Bad Thing. If I were to read an autobiography of a death row inmate where he admits murdering people, I think I’d have a hard time finding any sympathy for the “protagonist.”

I think that being an assassin would pretty much make you a horrible person. Again, if I read an autobiography of one, I don’t think I’d relate. On the other hand, I like books and movies about assassins. They’re fun. They present very interesting problems and conflicts.

To me, there is an incredibly huge difference between real life and fiction.  If a character does really bad things, it makes the character pretty unlikeable. At the same time, though, those actions do not make the character irredeemable because, no matter how much suspension of disbelief I have, I know that the character a) does not exist and b) the people to whom he did really bad things do not exist. Therefore, no actual really bad things were done.

That, I think, is why I can enjoy books about assassins when I think that assassins are pretty horrible people in real life.

So I’m not sure that telling aspiring authors that they shouldn’t write books with protagonists that are assassins is good advice. There are, after all, many examples of popular works that feature such. Those works were neither destined to never sell because of the subject matter nor did they make their authors pariahs.

My advice to the original question would be:

Read contemporary popular works that deal with the sensitive topic you want to deal with.  Examine how the sensitive topic is treated.  Use that treatment as your guide.


----------



## X Equestris

A protagonist can certainly do bad things.  You can have a villain protagonist like Macbeth, you can have an anti-hero, you can have a true hero make a decision that is morally questionable.  The key thing, if they aren't a villain protagonist, is retaining some sort of audience sympathy. You can do that in any number of ways, depending on the story.  

For point B, I don't think the readers will think you're a bad person because of what the protagonist does.  I think they'll decide that based on how the story handles the protagonist's actions.  For example, in her backstory, my protagonist is a brash young noblewoman in command of a cavalry company, and she's riding down the fleeing forces of a man who tried to usurp her homeland's throne.  He and a large number of his soldiers take shelter in a (poorly) walled town.  Her cavalry company can't get in, and calling for reinforcements will take time she doesn't have.  So she decides to burn down the town from the outside.  She knows the townsfolk and the soldiers will flee, so she tells her troops to "Capture those you can, kill those you can't", because the Usurper has escaped by disguising himself as a peasant before.  In the heat of battle, she never stops to think that she doesn't have enough troops to take that many prisoners.  And so her men shot down everyone attempting to flee the town, and the town is totally destroyed.  

The next morning, she sees the devastation and death.  Her men are hailing her as a hero for killing the Usurper and ending the war, but she feels only regret at her actions.  After a few months of such praise from the nobility, she can't take it anymore, and abdicates her position in favor of her brother.  Her regret drives her into a self-destructive spiral that she doesn't pull out of for years.  Even in the present, ten years after the event and well on her path to redemption, she's still dealing with the psychological consequences of her actions.  

Now, that could come off very differently if I had her react in a different way, and I didn't describe the horror of the battlefield.  If I had her look out over that burned out town, those hundreds of dead innocents, and she felt nothing, the whole story is different.  If she never regrets it, if people are always congratulating her on her victory and no one calls her out on what happened, that changes how the reader will view it.

Now I have the makings of either a villain, or a character I'm trying to force you to sympathize with.  Having a villain, as an antagonist or protagonist, is fine.  Having a character who does bad stuff, and the story treats it as a good thing, expects you to see them as a hero, is not.  In this case, it would look like I'm saying massacring a bunch of innocent people is a good thing.  That would raise some questions in most readers.  I think that's what most people are getting at when they talk about unfortunate implications.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

The debate on our new guidelines was held at length, the end result being our new guideline for sensitive topics. 

Some topics are inherently more volatile than others. In a community of this size it's likely to have members who might have been victimized by some of the crimes up for debate. It's unlikely, when talking about the business of an assassin, to damage another member. However, if the discussion concerns child abuse, sexual assault, or similar it much more likely to actually affect one of our members. We must be cognizant of that potential.

So, a thread like Slavery in Fantasy, on its own, is a topic that's okay for discussion. However, when it veers into the realm of sexual assault and a question like, "is this rapist sympathetic?", it simply will not be allowed. That's dealing with a serious and sensitive topic in a flippant and unsympathetic manner. 

That being said, if I was writing a book where a victim of some sensitive crime was a character in a story and I wanted to learn how to present the trauma or recovery in an accurate & responsible way, that may be allowed depending on context & presentation.

It's a fine line, but one that's become necessary to observe. My advice, if you want to discuss a sensitive topic, make sure your questions and comments are such that they demonstrate a true desire to learn or understand, persuade or educate. Don't look for validation of a questionable character. Don't try to find reasons to excuse a horrific crime. You may do that all you like privately, and in your own writings. It is not acceptable in our community. 

Show respect and treat your fellow members with empathy & understanding. 


I hope that clarifies the issue.


----------



## Russ

T.Allen.Smith said:


> The debate on our new guidelines was held at length, the end result being our new guideline for sensitive topics.
> 
> Some topics are inherently more volatile than others. In a community of this size it's likely to have members who might have been victimized by some of the crimes up for debate. It's unlikely, when talking about the business of an assassin, to damage another member. However, if the discussion concerns child abuse, sexual assault, or similar it much more likely to actually affect one of our members. We must be cognizant of that potential.
> 
> So, a thread like Slavery in Fantasy, on its own, is a topic that's okay for discussion. However, when it veers into the realm of sexual assault and a question like, "is this rapist sympathetic?", it simply will not be allowed. That's dealing with a serious and sensitive topic in a flippant and unsympathetic manner.
> 
> That being said, if I was writing a book where a victim of some sensitive crime was a character in a story and I wanted to learn how to present the trauma or recovery in an accurate & responsible way, that may be allowed depending on context & presentation.
> 
> It's a fine line, but one that's become necessary to observe. My advice, if you want to discuss a sensitive topic, make sure your questions and comments are such that they demonstrate a true desire to learn or understand, persuade or educate. Don't look for validation of a questionable character. Don't try to find reasons to excuse a horrific crime. You may do that all you like privately, and in your own writings. It is not acceptable in our community.
> 
> Show respect and treat your fellow members with empathy & understanding.
> 
> 
> I hope that clarifies the issue.



I read the new guideline, and while my 2 cents Canadian may be devalued these days, thought they were very well done.

It is hard to balance the hope for a "family friendly" site, with the potentially valuable discussion of more adult or sensitive topics.  The team here do a pretty darned good job on that despite how hard it is.

Keep up the good work.


----------



## WooHooMan

Since fictional characters are fictional, I don't really get super upset about their morality or the general morality of the story.
I generally think it's good to experience/experiment/whatever with other worldviews, moralities and philosophies and fiction is a safe way to do that.  If fiction as a whole has a practical use, that's probably it.

Honestly, I was always under the impression that people didn't like books if the protagonists isn't not-good enough.  You always get people saying "flaws are the be-all end-all of a character" or "moral ambiguity is more interesting" or "idealism isn't realistic" or whatever.

Personally, the only serious topics that noticeably bother me when they appear in fiction are domestic abuse and - to a lesser extent - mental illness.  Nine times out of ten, those topics are poorly-handled whenever they appear in fiction.  
But whatever, I deal with it.

There's my contribution to this thread, I guess.


----------



## Svrtnsse

Note: I don't deal with "sensitive topics" as defined in the context of this thread, but I'd still like to weigh in - because the topic interests me. 

I think a lot of it is about having respect for the topic you're dealing with. Are you introducing sensitive topics in your story because as a means to develop the story or the character, or are you doing it to shock and awe the reader? I believe readers will react differently to your story depending on how they feel about your motives for introducing sensitive topics.
Now, keep in mind that your reader's feelings about your story are based on the story itself and how it's written. It doesn't matter at all how noble your intentions are, if they don't come through in the telling.

That's why I think having respect for the topic is so important. It's not fun to be misunderstood, and to be misunderstood when dealing with something that can be both disturbing and offensive, is probably going to end up being rather unpleasant.

So, if you're going to deal with a sensitive topic, make sure you familiarise yourself with it (in theory) and learn about it. The more sensitive a topic is, the more likely people are to have strong opinions about it. I guess that leaves you with two options: research the topic carefully, or risk unflattering feedback due to poorly researched portrayal of sensitive topics.
Personally, that's a risk I'd rather not take, but I'm guessing it's something that varies from writer to writer (and from topic to topic).

I'm not saying you should bow down to popular opinion and conform to the current standards of political correctness, but that you should consider what toes you may be stepping on and whether that's something you will want to deal with or not.

Technically, you should probably apply that to all topics, regardless of how sensitive/banal they are. 

To sum things up:
 - Treat your topics with respect.
 - Consider reader reaction


----------



## BWFoster78

> Now, that could come off very differently if I had her react in a different way, and I didn't describe the horror of the battlefield. If I had her look out over that burned out town, those hundreds of dead innocents, and she felt nothing, the whole story is different. If she never regrets it, if people are always congratulating her on her victory and no one calls her out on what happened, that's a very different ball game.
> 
> Now I have the makings of either a villain, or a character I'm trying to force you to sympathize with. Having a villain, as an antagonist or protagonist, is fine. Having a character who does bad stuff, and the story treats it as a good thing, expects you to see them as a hero, is not. In this case, it would look like I'm saying massacring a bunch of innocent people is a good thing. That would raise some questions in most readers. I think that's what most people are getting at when they talk about unfortunate implications.



X Equestris,

First, thank you for the on-point response.  Well put.

Here are my issues with the quoted portion, however:

1. My preference (and that of a lot of readers) are stories in which characters start with one set of core values and, through the events of the story, are forced to examine their beliefs and end up making a change.  In order to change, one must, of necessity, start at one place and end up in another place.  The place where the character starts may not be a particularly good one.

If we stifle the author's ability to create beliefs/actions to grow from, we lose some really good stories.  IMO, the worse the starting point, the better the conflict and the better the opportunity for change.

I also prefer stories that are deeply rooted in my protagonist's perspective.  So if my protagonist is doing/believing something bad at the start of the book, that action/belief is going to be portrayed as good (did that make any sense whatsoever? Trying to say that most people tend not to view their actions as evil, even if the actions are evil).  Therefore saying it's a bad thing for the story to ever have the protagonist do something bad and portray it as good, to me, seems very limiting and, perhaps, wrong-headed.

2. "Having a character who does bad stuff, and the story treats it as a good thing, expects you to see them as a hero, is not." If you changed this to read "... as a hero, is something you need to be cautious of", I'd agree.  As an absolute, though, not so much.

Again, I like stories told by the protagonist, and people rarely see their own actions as bad.  Thus, it sets up an interesting conflict with the reader when the character sees himself as doing good when the reader knows he's doing bad.  Basically, not saying it is something you should aim for, but it absolutely can work if you have the skill.


----------



## BWFoster78

> Are you introducing sensitive topics in your story because as a means to develop the story or the character, or are you doing it to shock and awe the reader?



I agree with this sentiment, though I go at it from a different perspective.  If I were using a sensitive topic, it would probably be for one of two reasons:

1. To create realistic conflict.
2. To ground the character with realistic and appropriate flaws.



> Now, keep in mind that your reader's feelings about your story are based on the story itself and how it's written. It doesn't matter at all how noble your intentions are, if they don't come through in the telling.



Again, I agree in principle.

My problem with some of the posts on this board in particular is that they seem to be leading authors to a conclusion that seems outside the norm as far as how readers react to certain issues.  Some are very vocal about saying, "If this is in a book, I will not read it."

As I stated in the OP, I think this is good information.  A writer needs to consider such opinions.  The danger, however, is in thinking that this group at MS, and in particular a subset of posters here, represents readers as a whole.  (And I'm not really saying they don't.  Perhaps they are more representative of readers than I am.)  I think a more accurate measure of reader reaction is to study how other contemporary books that are popular have handled the topic and see if your handling falls in line.


----------



## X Equestris

BWFoster78 said:


> X Equestris,
> 
> First, thank you for the on-point response.  Well put.
> 
> Here are my issues with the quoted portion, however:
> 
> 1. My preference (and that of a lot of readers) are stories in which characters start with one set of core values and, through the events of the story, are forced to examine their beliefs and end up making a change.  In order to change, one must, of necessity, start at one place and end up in another place.  The place where the character starts may not be a particularly good one.
> 
> If we stifle the author's ability to create beliefs/actions to grow from, we lose some really good stories.  IMO, the worse the starting point, the better the conflict and the better the opportunity for change.
> 
> I also prefer stories that are deeply rooted in my protagonist's perspective.  So if my protagonist is doing/believing something bad at the start of the book, that action/belief is going to be portrayed as good (did that make any sense whatsoever? Trying to say that most people tend not to view their actions as evil, even if the actions are evil).  Therefore saying it's a bad thing for the story to ever have the protagonist do something bad and portray it as good, to me, seems very limiting and, perhaps, wrong-headed.
> 
> 2. "Having a character who does bad stuff, and the story treats it as a good thing, expects you to see them as a hero, is not." If you changed this to read "... as a hero, is something you need to be cautious of", I'd agree.  As an absolute, though, not so much.
> 
> Again, I like stories told by the protagonist, and people rarely see their own actions as bad.  Thus, it sets up an interesting conflict with the reader when the character sees himself as doing good when the reader knows he's doing bad.  Basically, not saying it is something you should aim for, but it absolutely can work if you have the skill.



Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.  If the character does bad things and never regrets them over the course of the entire story, yet you're still expected to see them as a shining paragon, that's not good writing.  There's a problem there.  

Having a character change for the better over the course of the story is good.  Indeed, it's pretty common.  But if that doesn't happen, that's when what I was saying comes in.

Edit:  And telling from, say, a villain's point of view is great, too.  Viewing their own actions as good makes perfect sense.  But usually there's a different viewpoint that casts their actions in a different light.


----------



## BWFoster78

> Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. If the character does bad things and never regrets them over the course of the entire story, yet you're still expected to see them as a shining paragon, that's not good writing. There's a problem there.



As I stated in Point 2 above, I disagree with this.  I think it absolutely can be good writing.  I think it's not an easy thing to pull off - I certainly don't think I have the skill to do so - but I think it absolutely can be done, and probably has been done, really well.

I think it more often can be, and has been, done really poorly.

There are very few things a good author can't accomplish given skill, knowledge, and intent.  However, if the audience for the comments are aspiring authors, I fully endorse advising, "Might be best to just make it easy on yourself and stay away from the subject.  Once you've got a novel or ten under your belt, give it another whirl."

Then again, I learn from my mistakes more than from my successes, so giving it a whirl might not be the worst of things.


----------



## Amanita

Of course, someone visiting a website created by other people is a guest and has to abide by the rules set by the people in charge. I still have to admit that I’ve been slightly taken aback by the new policies and by the swift closure of the thread on slavery. This morning, I decided to post when I came back this afternoon only to find the thread locked for posts which did have controversial context but where no member stepped out of line with their comments in my opinion. I also wouldn’t be able to sympathize with the character discussed there but does that really mean we shouldn’t discuss it?

Treating sensitive topics with caution is important but I’m also quite wary about the seemingly increasing tendency here and elsewhere to believe that offending someone is something that has to be avoided at any cost. It’s impossible without seriously restricting freedom of expression. 
Take the character X Equestris has described for example: To you, it’s a situation where the character becomes more sympathetic by regretting her actions. To me, it feels like an instance of the situation where the gentle woman has to be forced into self-destructive regret over making a harsh decision during war, resulting in her stepping back in favour of a man (who unlike her has the necessary character traits to deal with such things).  

The warning system in fanfiction is a quite useful tool in such situations because it tells people what to stay away from. Having something like this for books or movies could be quite helpful.(Though fanfic also lacks a sexism warning and I’ve often been angry at stories which force the same into the Harry Potter world where it doesn’t really belong according to the author herself...) 

My stories contain quite a few controversial issues, usually those where I have some degree of understanding as to why a person would do such a thing even though it’s wrong from our point of view. Others go so strongly against my own socialisation and beliefs that I can’t fathom them in any way which means I won’t focus on them or have any sympathetic character do them.  
If one of the view-point-characters or another major character not directly painted as the villain is involved in controversial acts I make sure to show the effects on the victims as well. That doesn’t always mean that the responsible character suffers deep regrets or even acknowledges their actions as wrong but it hopefully shows that I’m not endorsing what they’re doing. Usually, the parts focusing on the victims make up most of the story because I have a tendency to write about the fate of people suffering from the effects of war.


----------



## Svrtnsse

BWFoster78 said:


> My problem with some of the posts on this board in particular is that they seem to be leading authors to a conclusion that seems outside the norm as far as how readers react to certain issues.  Some are very vocal about saying, "If this is in a book, I will not read it."



I think this is something that applies to all communities. Members of a community will eventually start to accept the opinions of that community as the norm. That's why it's important to try and be part of more than one community - to get different perspectives on the world.



BWFoster78 said:


> As I stated in the OP, I think this is good information.  A writer needs to consider such opinions.  The danger, however, is in thinking that this group at MS, and in particular a subset of posters here, represents readers as a whole.  (And I'm not really saying they don't.  Perhaps they are more representative of readers than I am.)  I think a more accurate measure of reader reaction is to study how other contemporary books that are popular have handled the topic and see if your handling falls in line.



I'd recommend expanding this to include the reactions of people in general to everything. Not only will this help you gauge reader reaction to your story better, it will also help you portray the characters of your story better.


----------



## BWFoster78

Amanita,



> I still have to admit that I’ve been slightly taken aback by the new policies and by the swift closure of the thread on slavery. This morning, I decided to post when I came back this afternoon only to find the thread locked for posts which did have controversial context but where no member stepped out of line with their comments in my opinion.



I have to admit that, even after this explanation:



> So, a thread like Slavery in Fantasy, on its own, is a topic that's okay for discussion. However, when it veers into the realm of sexual assault and a question like, "is this rapist sympathetic?", it simply will not be allowed. That's dealing with a serious and sensitive topic in a flippant and unsympathetic manner.



I still didn't get how the Slavery in Fantasy thread violated the policy.  If any of the posts treated "a serious and sensitive topic in a flippant and unsympathetic manner," I just didn't see it.  I thought a few of us were having a very respectful discussion about a situation that was portrayed in a very mainstream fantasy book by a very mainstream fantasy author.

It really seems like the best bet is, "Just don't discuss it."


----------



## BWFoster78

> I think this is something that applies to all communities. Members of a community will eventually start to accept the opinions of that community as the norm. That's why it's important to try and be part of more than one community - to get different perspectives on the world.



Yes. Exactly this!



> I'd recommend expanding this to include the reactions of people in general to everything. Not only will this help you gauge reader reaction to your story better, it will also help you portray the characters of your story better.



True enough. Pick a reaction, though, and I think we could find somebody somewhere that has that reaction.


----------



## X Equestris

BWFoster78 said:


> As I stated in Point 2 above, I disagree with this.  I think it absolutely can be good writing.  I think it's not an easy thing to pull off - I certainly don't think I have the skill to do so - but I think it absolutely can be done, and probably has been done, really well.
> 
> I think it more often can be, and has been, done really poorly.
> 
> There are very few things a good author can't accomplish given skill, knowledge, and intent.  However, if the audience for the comments are aspiring authors, I fully endorse advising, "Might be best to just make it easy on yourself and stay away from the subject.  Once you've got a novel or ten under your belt, give it another whirl."
> 
> Then again, I learn from my mistakes more than from my successes, so giving it a whirl might not be the worst of things.



While I'm sure such a story could be technically well written, I'm also 99.999999% positive that it would still fail, in that your audience would rebel against your attempts to force sympathy for someone that they don't like.  As such, it would still be bad writing.  If you try to portray Grand Moff Tarkin as a great hero even after he has blown up Alderaan, people aren't going to buy it.  If you try to portray Ramsay Bolton as a good man yet don't have any change in his character, people aren't going to buy it.  They will put your work aside, probably wonder what's going on in your head, and their word of mouth will spread their views of both you and your work.


----------



## Russ

Amanita said:


> Of course, someone visiting a website created by other people is a guest and has to abide by the rules set by the people in charge. I still have to admit that I’ve been slightly taken aback by the new policies and by the swift closure of the thread on slavery. This morning, I decided to post when I came back this afternoon only to find the thread locked for posts which did have controversial context but where no member stepped out of line with their comments in my opinion. I also wouldn’t be able to sympathize with the character discussed there but does that really mean we shouldn’t discuss it?



It's a tough balance to find.  I didn't see anything in the slavery thread that made me concerned, but other recent threads went right off the dial.  One poster went on and on concocting more bizarre scenarios to justify rape that seemed to be some sort of very unhealthy mental exercise.  I was quite shocked to see how long that one was allowed to go on.

I don't expect the admin folks to get it perfect, but I do expect an honest effort on their behalf which I think we are seeing.

Considering some of the really offensive and distasteful things that have been dealt with here recently I am not surprised they have an itchy trigger finger.

It is also possible that someone reported a concern about it privately and they acted upon it.


----------



## BWFoster78

X Equestris said:


> While I'm sure such a story could be technically well written, I'm also 99.999999% positive that it would still fail, in that your audience would rebel against your attempts to force sympathy for someone that they don't like.  As such, it would still be bad writing.  If you try to portray Grand Moff Tarkin as a great hero even after he has blown up Alderaan, people aren't going to buy it.  If you try to portray Ramsay Bolton as a good man yet don't have any change in his character, people aren't going to buy it.  They will put your work aside, probably wonder what's going on in your head, and their word of mouth will spread their views of both you and your work.



At the risk of getting this thread shut down ...



> The narrator, Humbert Humbert, is a fascinating construction. As readers, we find ourselves simultaneously repelled by his actions and sympathetic to his yearning. We are utterly charmed by his wit, intelligence and verbal acrobatics, sometimes to the point where we lost sight of what he's doing to his object of desire, Lolita.



I think that this book did okay.  And doesn't it do exactly what we're talking about - try to force the reader to sympathize with a reprehensible protagonist?


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

BWFoster78 said:


> At the risk of getting this thread shut down ...  I think that this book did okay.  And doesn't it do exactly what we're talking about - try to force the reader to sympathize with a reprehensible protagonist?


You obviously have not read Lolita if you think the goal of the story is sympathy for Humbert.


----------



## Feo Takahari

After the slavery thread was closed, I sent a PM asking if I violated any rules. The response stated clearly and plainly why the thread was closed. I'd like to ask permission to post it in this thread. I think it would clarify things.


----------



## BWFoster78

T.Allen.Smith said:


> You obviously have not read Lolita if you think the goal of the story is sympathy for Humbert.



T.Allen,

Again, from the reviewer:



> As readers, we find ourselves simultaneously repelled by his actions and sympathetic to his yearning. We are utterly charmed by his wit, intelligence and verbal acrobatics, sometimes to the point where we lost sight of what he's doing to his object of desire, Lolita.



My own words are failing me. Maybe "sympathize" isn't the right word, but the quote above is what I'm trying to say. A good writer can absolutely achieve make a vile character sympathetic.

There's great potential for conflict by having a protagonist whose goals are vile.


----------



## X Equestris

BWFoster78 said:


> At the risk of getting this thread shut down ...
> 
> 
> 
> I think that this book did okay.  And doesn't it do exactly what we're talking about - try to force the reader to sympathize with a reprehensible protagonist?



Yet the story still doesn't treat his actions as a good thing.  They are bad, though he doesn't see it that way.  My argument is that you may have characters that do bad things, and even have other parts of their character that are somewhat likeable.  But the theme doesn't support those characters.  It stands against their points of view.  If it starts to look like the theme is "Massacring innocents is a good thing" that's the bad writing I'm talking about.

Edit: for example, I can find parts of Cersei Lannister's character sympathetic.  Her love for her children, her resentment at being pigeonholed into a certain role by society.  Those are understandable things.  But the story isn't trying to make her out to be a hero.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

BWFoster78 said:


> Maybe "sympathize" isn't the right word, but the quote above is what I'm trying to say. A good writer can absolutely achieve make a vile character sympathetic.  There's great potential for conflict by having a protagonist whose goals are vile.


Yes, with that I can agree, except for the sympathy part. In the case of Nabokov, he presents an awful human being who even admits to being a monster. It is the presentation of vileness and witnessing of sickness through a depraved mind that is so interesting about the character. It's not sympathy though. Further, the presentation is certainly not insensitive. It is quite the opposite. 


BWFoster78 said:


> I still didn't get how the Slavery in Fantasy thread violated the policy.


Quite simply, the discussion veered towards a debate over possible societal acceptance of rape, ways the rapists might be viewed as sympathetic, and reasons said rapist might think it's okay. I believe the idea of being a horny boy and owning the object of his desires was tossed about. That's a flippant treatment. It is the very same discussion responsible for the formation of new guidelines, rehashed in a similar fashion. 

That is not showing empathy and it is most certainly a callous presentation in violation of the new policy.


----------



## BWFoster78

> If it starts to look like the theme is "Massacring innocents is a good thing" that's the bad writing I'm talking about.



I can, somewhat, live with that statement (though I stand by my "a good author can do just about anything" concept). My main objections was that you can have a protagonist who does bad things and doesn't see them as bad, but the reader can still view him sympathetically.


----------



## Feo Takahari

To get into my own views rather than mod views, I once read a story where the protagonist inadvertently wipes out an entire species. This is portrayed as horrifying, and he spends the next thousand years atoning by finding a safe place for the species to start anew. I also read a book once where the protagonist slaughters every man, woman, and child in a town because some of the townsfolk peacefully protested her reign. The story portrays this as a good thing because her long-term goal is to establish a society where women are equal to men. Which would you rather read?


----------



## BWFoster78

Feo Takahari said:


> To get into my own views rather than mod views, I once read a story where the protagonist inadvertently wipes out an entire species. This is portrayed as horrifying, and he spends the next thousand years atoning by finding a safe place for the species to start anew. I also read a book once where the protagonist slaughters every man, woman, and child in a town because some of the townsfolk peacefully protested her reign. The story portrays this as a good thing because her long-term goal is to establish a society where women are equal to men. Which would you rather read?



I think I've read that first one, and if my assumptions are correct as to its identity, I didn't really care for it at all, though I absolutely loved the previous book in the series where he actually killed the species.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

BWFoster78 said:


> My main objections was that you can have a protagonist who does bad things and doesn't see them as bad, but the reader can still view him sympathetically.


I agree with you on this point.


----------



## BWFoster78

> Quite simply, the discussion veered towards a debate over possible societal acceptance of rape and ways the rapists might be viewed as sympathetic. It is the very same discussion responsible for the formation of new guidelines, rehashed in a similar fashion.
> 
> That is not showing empathy and it is most certainly a callous presentation in violation of the new policy.



This is where we're not seeing each other clearly.

I thought the conversation went this way:

Point: This really popular author used (a sensitive topic) in what I thought was an interesting way. He used it to create this specific conflict of the character's morality versus the character's carnal nature.  The sensitive topic was basically, imo, a well-used plot device.

Counterpoint: I don't understand how any reader could view what this character considered, or certain aspects of his society, as sympathetic.

You're the mod and have every right to shut down the conversation at that point, but the discussion did not have to devolve along the same lines as the one to which you're referring.  Had I had a chance to respond, I certainly would have completely ignored the specifics of the circumstances and made the topic much more theoretical.

Again, though, your playground, your rules.  I'm certainly left with the opinion that it's best not to refer to any of those topics, and if you do, do so as tangentially as possible.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Brian,

I hope you know me well enough from our interactions than to think of me as the "My playground. My rules" type. 

The conversation involving how Weeks handled a character was not the concern. It was the conversation and debate it was bound to spark. You're far too intelligent for me to believe the way the topic was presented did not have the purpose of eliciting that sort of discussion. 

Just two posts later, in response to your post, the discussion headed down the "how rape can be justified" route. That's the kind of debate we want to avoid. Pushing the discussion down that path was, in my view, irresponsible and in direct conflict with the new directives.


----------



## Feo Takahari

So if I'm understanding this correctly, what got the thread locked was the post by ChasingSuns.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

I didn't want to involve people not included in this thread, but it was the directions Brian's comments would lead that was of primary concern. I made the decision prior to the post by ChasingSuns, but that post made it through before closing.  

In my opinion, my assumption on where the conversation was bound, proved correct.


----------



## Mythopoet

I think it is absolutely key to recognize the difference between sympathy and understanding. 

Sympathy is "fellow feeling", it basically involves feeling emotional togetherness with another person and supporting them on an emotional level. Whereas understanding is an intellectual process that does not require any sort of togetherness at all.

Understanding a morally problematic character is common and even necessary to much storytelling. 

But sympathizing with a morally problematic character is a very different thing. In fact, I think sympathizing with a reprehensible character is morally problematic in itself.


----------



## Feo Takahari

Mythopoet said:


> I think it is absolutely key to recognize the difference between sympathy and understanding.
> 
> Sympathy is "fellow feeling", it basically involves feeling emotional togetherness with another person and supporting them on an emotional level. Whereas understanding is an intellectual process that does not require any sort of togetherness at all.
> 
> Understanding a morally problematic character is common and even necessary to much storytelling.
> 
> But sympathizing with a morally problematic character is a very different thing. In fact, I think sympathizing with a reprehensible character is morally problematic in itself.



This reminds me of Emil Fackenheim's "double move." It's an idea he came up with when trying to figure out Hitler's true motivation for killing so many people. You try to find an explanation, but at the same time, you don't let that explanation become an excuse for his actions.


----------



## Devor

I think what we're saying is that, especially when it comes to sexual abuse, sometimes a discussion can be bad for the community even if nobody is specifically being a jerk.

T.Allen identified BWFoster's post as "lacking empathy" and starting the discussion on a downward path.  That isn't meant to be a judgement on BWFoster's opinion or behavior.  Instead, it's a recognition that the subject hits home for people on different levels.  And without a deeper level of empathy, it's easy to for some people to try and be "rational" and yet be oblivious to the fact that they're putting others through something of an inner drama at the same time.

When we start to see that kind of disconnect cropping up, we're going to close the thread.


----------



## BWFoster78

> TYou're far too intelligent for me to believe the way the topic was presented did not have the purpose of eliciting that sort of discussion.



I put forth the example of Weeks. If I'm reading this correctly, you seem to be saying that I made the comment in order to restart the discussion from the other thread.

Did I even participate in the other thread?  I don't remember doing so (though I post a lot, so it's possible).  Frankly, though, that other thread didn't interest me all that much.

I posted the reference because it was the first thing that came to my mind as an example of slavery in a mainstream fantasy novel and because I thought it was a) relevant to the discussion and b) interesting the way the author used slavery to create a moral conundrum for the POV character.

I'm being completely honest with you here.  Perhaps I should have put more consideration into the example I chose, but it was not, in any way, intended to discuss that subject.


----------



## BWFoster78

Mythopoet,



> Sympathy is "fellow feeling", it basically involves feeling emotional togetherness with another person and supporting them on an emotional level. Whereas understanding is an intellectual process that does not require any sort of togetherness at all.



I'm with you here. What I thought of what you said here is "sympathy is feeling and understanding is thinking."



> But sympathizing with a morally problematic character is a very different thing. In fact, I think sympathizing with a reprehensible character is morally problematic in itself.



But I'm not with you here.

To me, a "good" author (defined in this instance as an author I'd like  ) is one that makes me feel what the POV character is feeling.  A good author, in my mind, can make me sympathize even though I disagree with what he's doing.


----------



## BWFoster78

> T.Allen identified BWFoster's post as "lacking empathy" and starting the discussion on a downward path. That isn't meant to be a judgement on BWFoster's opinion or behavior. Instead, it's a recognition that the subject hits home for people on different levels. And without a deeper level of empathy, it's easy to for some people to try and be "rational" and yet be oblivious to the fact that they're putting others through something of an inner drama at the same time.
> 
> When we start to see that kind of disconnect cropping up, we're going to close the thread.



Okay, the way I'm reading this is still, "You know guys - it's just better not to bring up any of these topics."

Which, again, is fine.  I will try in the future to choose examples that stray far away from such.


----------



## Devor

Mythopoet said:


> In fact, I think sympathizing with a reprehensible character is morally problematic in itself.





BWFoster78 said:


> A good author, in my mind, can make me sympathize even though I disagree with what he's doing.



I think that people are at root "morally problematic" individuals, and some authors can tap into that for literary effect.


----------



## Black Dragon

Guys,

We have no desire to unnecessarily censor threads or shut down the free expression of ideas.

The problem with the slavery thread was that it was veering into the dreaded "sympathetic rapist" scenario, which has proven to be explosive.

This is not about people being offended by the subject of rape.  Rather, we have a number of members who are victims of sexual assault, and each time the subject is brought up they (potentially) have a painful, visceral reaction.  Whenever the subject is handled without appropriate gravity, it unleashes a storm of emotions.  We hear from these people, and they are truly, deeply hurt by this.  

This goes far beyond people being offended.  This is about causing valued members of our community to experience intense psychological pain.  Unless you have been a victim of sexual assault, you may not be able to understand this.  If we can avoid causing further trauma to these members, we should.


----------



## Mythopoet

BWFoster78 said:


> Mythopoet,
> 
> 
> 
> I'm with you here. What I thought of what you said here is "sympathy is feeling and understanding is thinking."
> 
> 
> 
> But I'm not with you here.
> 
> To me, a "good" author (defined in this instance as an author I'd like  ) is one that makes me feel what the POV character is feeling.  A good author, in my mind, can make me sympathize even though I disagree with what he's doing.



Sympathy is not "feeling what the character is feeling". That's empathy, which is a different thing. Sympathy, I think, comes dangerously close to approval and support, which is why I think it's morally problematic to sympathize with a reprehensible character. I'm not going to far as to say it is definitely bad. I think it requires serious examination. 

The example you've given thus far, Humbert Humbert in Lolita is a case I think where we are clearly meant to understand him, we may even empathize at times with him, but we should absolutely NOT sympathize with him. And I think it's clear the author did not want us to.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Okay. I'll accept that on your word, Brian. 

You'll have to trust me when I say I understand where you're coming from. Now try to see things from my point of view.

A discussion on slavery in fantasy didn't bother me in the least. It's a common element in the genre from Conan to Game of Thrones. However, your post switched gears, taking the conversation into the realm of discussing the potential rape of a slave girl and how that creates a conflict within the potential rapist. 

I understand Weeks did this and why. I like his books. However, it was bound to take the conversation down the road of discussing the acceptability of sexual assault in a society that wouldn't view it as a crime. And it did. How is discussing the possibilities for acceptable rape sensitive to other members of the community who may have fallen victim to sexual assault? It isn't, not in any way.

I do want to be able to discuss sensitive topics, but we must be mindful of how we present and discuss those topics, and be pure in our intentions. 

I made a judgment call. I'm sorry you disagree, but I stand by the decision. The result, if allowed to develop, would likely have been derision and members overstepping the line, resulting in infractions. I'd rather not go there.

If you want to discuss sensitive issues, they are not banned. However, you're expected to use caution and extra care when doing so. In this case, I don't think you did either.


----------



## Mythopoet

Devor said:


> I think that people are at root "morally problematic" individuals, and some authors can tap into that for literary effect.



Oh absolutely. But the question is, what effect? And should an author at any point try to make us sympathize (feel emotional togetherness) which a truly reprehensible character? Personally, I'm leaning strong toward the "no" side of the debate, but I'd be interested in hearing any arguments as to how and why it can be a good thing.


----------



## BWFoster78

Black Dragon said:


> Guys,
> 
> We have no desire to unnecessarily censor threads or shut down the free expression of ideas.
> 
> The problem with the slavery thread was that it was veering into the dreaded "sympathetic rapist" scenario, which has proven to be explosive.
> 
> This is not about people being offended by the subject of rape.  Rather, we have a number of members who are victims of sexual assault, and each time the subject is brought up they (potentially) have a painful, visceral reaction.  Whenever the subject is handled without appropriate gravity, it unleashes a storm of emotions.  We hear from these people, and they are truly, deeply hurt by this.
> 
> This goes far beyond people being offended.  This is about causing valued members of our community to experience intense psychological pain.  Unless you have been a victim of sexual assault, you may not be able to understand this.  If we can avoid causing further trauma to these members, we should.



Completely cool. I get what you're saying.

But ...

Please understand the frustration level of being subject to rules that, to me, aren't clear. In T.Allen's estimation, I wasn't respectful regarding an issue I brought up.

To be honest, I read his post on policy before I posted. I reread my post before hitting reply. I absolutely didn't see any issue with the post.  The post wasn't even about that particular sensitive topic; it just kind of touched on it obliquely.

It certainly seems like the topic is so sensitive that it is extraordinarily difficult to have any meaningful discussion about it without having the thread shut down. Considering that you don't want to cause any further trauma to members, wouldn't it just be better to ban it outright?

Again, from the stands, it certainly seems like that's the end result any way.


----------



## Nimue

BW, I don't think this is an issue of any and all posts about rape being inappropriate. To be completely honest, the language you used in your original post wasn't very well thought-out.  You talked about what the character "really, really wants to do" and how "now he owns her" as though those were completely sympathetic motivations.  I doubt that's how you meant to come across, but it came across.  A situation like that can be seen in more ways than just "really cool character conflict."


----------



## Svrtnsse

My impression here is that it's not so much about people's posts crossing the line, as it is about the potential of a thread to head off in a direction where it's likely to come crashing well over the line in a blaze of undignification and pain.

Considering some of the threads we've seen lately, I can see how the tolerance for such is pretty low right now.


----------



## X Equestris

T.Allen.Smith said:


> Okay. I'll accept that on your word, Brian.
> 
> You'll have to trust me when I say I understand where you're coming from. Now try to see things from my point of view.
> 
> A discussion on slavery in fantasy didn't bother me in the least. It's a common element in the genre from Conan to Game of Thrones. However, your post switched gears, taking the conversation into the realm of discussing the potential rape of a slave girl and how that creates a conflict within the potential rapist.
> 
> I understand Weeks did this and why. I like his books. However, it was bound to take the conversation down the road of discussing the acceptability of sexual assault in a society that wouldn't view it as a crime. And it did. How is discussing the possibilities for acceptable rape sensitive to other members of the community who may have fallen victim to sexual assault? It isn't, not in any way.
> 
> I do want to be able to discuss sensitive topics, but we must be mindful of how we present and discuss those topics, and be pure in our intentions.
> 
> I made a judgment call. I'm sorry you disagree, but I stand by the decision. The result, if allowed to develop, would likely have been derision and members overstepping the line, resulting in infractions. I'd rather not go there.
> 
> If you want to discuss sensitive issues, they are not banned. However, you're expected to use caution and extra care when doing so. In this case, I don't think you did either.



Would it be possible, then, to edit out the offending content and either let the thread continue on its original course, or at least get rid of it in the locked thread?  After all, it's still sitting there where anyone can see it and read it.  I'd hate for the parts of it that got the thread locked to cause anyone who happens upon it any unnecessary distress, and it would be nice to continue the original discussion in the open.  If not I completely understand, I was just wondering.


----------



## BWFoster78

Mythopoet said:


> Oh absolutely. But the question is, what effect? And should an author at any point try to make us sympathize (feel emotional togetherness) which a truly reprehensible character? Personally, I'm leaning strong toward the "no" side of the debate, but I'd be interested in hearing any arguments as to how and why it can be a good thing.



From my perspective, I read fiction to be entertained.  Flawed characters who face lots of conflict tend to be the most entertaining.  Done right, reprehensible flaws can make awesome characters and situations.

Of course, it also can lead to totally unlikable and unrelatable characters.  I watched Gone Girl recently.  Didn't really care for it because I simply thought of both characters a bad people.  Maybe the book would have done a better job of getting me to sympathize/empathize with them.

So just to be clear, I don't think it's something a lot of us would have the ability to pull off at this point in our careers.  I certainly wouldn't be able to.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

X Equestris said:


> Would it be possible, then, to edit out the offending content and either let the thread continue on its original course, or at least get rid of it in the locked thread?  After all, it's still sitting there where anyone can see it and read it.  I'd hate for the parts of it that got the thread locked to cause anyone who happens upon it any unnecessary distress, and it would be nice to continue the original discussion in the open.  If not I completely understand, I was just wondering.



I won't make that decision on my own, but I'll present it to the moderation team for discussion. The only other way it'll unlock is if Black Dragon decides to do so, and delete the potentially derisive comments.


----------



## X Equestris

T.Allen.Smith said:


> I won't make that decision on my own, but I'll present it to the moderation team for discussion. The only other way it'll unlock is if Black Dragon decides to do so, and delete the potentially derisive comments.



Ok.  That's a sound decision.


----------



## Devor

BWFoster78 said:


> It certainly seems like the topic is so sensitive that it is extraordinarily difficult to have any meaningful discussion about it without having the thread shut down. Considering that you don't want to cause any further trauma to members, wouldn't it just be better to ban it outright?



I get that we're trying to walk a line.  As T.Allen mentioned, we've been debating this at length.  Let's give it time and see how this works out.




> In T.Allen's estimation, I wasn't respectful regarding an issue I brought up.



Again, this is not a judgement of your ethics or your personal respect for other members.  Rather, it's about a level of respect for the gravity of the subject.

I support T.Allen's decision, but hopefully in practice our moderation won't always feel quite as sudden as this first instance.  That's something we're going to continue to watch for going forward.


----------



## BWFoster78

Nimue said:


> BW, I don't think this is an issue of any and all posts about rape being inappropriate. To be completely honest, the language you used in your original post wasn't very well thought-out.  You talked about what the character "really, really wants to do" and how "now he owns her" as though those were completely sympathetic motivations.  I doubt that's how you meant to come across, but it came across.  A situation like that can be seen in more ways than just "really cool character conflict."



Nimue,

I'll give you that; it was not a particularly well-worded post.  I looked at it in regards to the topic of the thread - slavery - not in regards to the other topic the post alluded to.  I kinda just glossed over that part because, in my mind, it wasn't really important to the discussion at hand.

But, on the other hand, I do say that the conflict is between what is right (meaning the act is not in any way glorified) and what he is tempted to do.  Neither the scene nor my post attempts to say, This is justified.  In fact, I think both the scene and my post imply the exact opposite - to give in to temptation is the bad thing to do.


----------



## Reaver

BWFoster78 said:


> Completely cool. I get what you're saying.
> 
> But ...
> 
> Please understand the frustration level of being subject to rules that, to me, aren't clear. In T.Allen's estimation, I wasn't respectful regarding an issue I brought up.
> 
> To be honest, I read his post on policy before I posted. I reread my post before hitting reply. I absolutely didn't see any issue with the post.  The post wasn't even about that particular sensitive topic; it just kind of touched on it obliquely.
> 
> It certainly seems like the topic is so sensitive that it is extraordinarily difficult to have any meaningful discussion about it without having the thread shut down. Considering that you don't want to cause any further trauma to members, wouldn't it just be better to ban it outright?
> 
> Again, from the stands, it certainly seems like that's the end result any way.




We're not going to restrict people's right to free speech. However, we will restrict it when it starts to infringe on other member's rights. Chiefly, the pursuit of happiness. This is not the place for people who have the mindset of: "I'm going to say whatever I want and to hell with what anyone else thinks."

There are plenty of other sites for that kind of stuff. I think it's a bit unfair of anyone who feels the Admin staff should be berated for creating guidelines that protect our members and enforcing them.

If you feel that you're being censored, please accept my apology. I use the word "my" because I can't and won't speak on behalf of my peers. They can either respond or not respond to your thread.

You're a valuable member here BW and you've made made many excellent contributions. I truly hope that something as trivial as getting a thread locked because it violated our guidelines isn't going to lead to your leaving us. If you can't see where the thread started to veer off, then you just can't see it and I respect you enough to accept that.

Please respect us enough to accept that we'll always make decisions which we think are best for the community as a whole.

Thank you for all your contributions and for being an integral part of Mythic Scribes.


----------



## Trick

BWFoster78 said:


> Done right, reprehensible flaws can make awesome characters and situations.



I agree but with a lens. I just read a book that shows you a character in retrospect and you totally sympathize with him, I don't know a fantasy lover that wouldn't. However, you've already met him later in life and he is frighteningly despicable at that point. He literally (at the risk of bad thread deja vu) eats people for magical power. While they're alive. Of course, he's a villain. But later (not timeline-wise of course) you see him when he was young and the things that led to his first bad decision. And you get it. It makes sense and his decision isn't really all that bad. It's sort of cool in a risky way. And yet it leads him down a path to true evil. So, IMHO, that is deftly done; I sympathized with a terrible villain by emotionally understanding the cliff he fell of off. I do not, however, sympathize with his following choices, nor the ultimate result, obviously.

Is this sort of what you mean Brian?


----------



## Nihilium 7th

I know my opinion (especially on this topic) might not be wanted but I'd still like to put my two-cents in. 
  Personally I believe that the new rules might be for the best not because it forces those who might want to have discussions about sensitive discussions to stay quiet; but because it forces those who make such threads as well as those who reply to them to gauge the conversation so they may monitor what and how they contribute to it. Many times it isn't the original post that is the problem but the conversation that occurs after; these new rules might help in holding back post filled with emotions or lack-there-of.

  The fact of the matter is that everything we post/write, once submitted is open for everyone to interpret through their own way no matter what the original intent. And unfortunately many people have experienced terrible things in life which has changed the way they see things (maybe forever.) and we have to respect them as much as we respect our freedom of expression. 
  I also believe that we also have the responsibility to avoid topics that might offend us. As someone who has gone through their own "situations" that is what I do. If these new rules do nothing it might have us communicate with a tad bit more respect and understanding.


----------



## BWFoster78

Reaver,



> If you feel that you're being censored, please accept my apology. I use the word "my" because I can't and won't speak on behalf of my peers. They can either respond or not respond to your thread.
> 
> You're a valuable member here BW and you've made made many excellent contributions. I truly hope that something as trivial as getting a thread locked because it violated our guidelines isn't going to lead to your leaving us. If you can't see where the thread started to veer off, then you just can't see it and I respect you enough to accept that.



I think words are failing me today ...

That's not what I'm saying. I don't even care all that much.  If you don't want to talk about certain subjects, I simply won't talk about certain subjects.  I certainly don't want to force you to talk about them.

I'm simply saying that you have a guideline in place that I'm having trouble wrapping my head around.  Maybe I'm the only person on this forum that this impacts.  If so, you should just leave it in place.

I'm merely trying to say:

1. I think your policy isn't easy to understand from a practical standpoint.
2. Your actual policy seems to differ from what you're putting into practice.

Again, this could just be me.  If so, feel free to ignore my comments.  Really.  It's just not that big of a deal to me.

Thanks.

Brian


----------



## BWFoster78

Trick said:


> I agree but with a lens. I just read a book that shows you a character in retrospect and you totally sympathize with him, I don't know a fantasy lover that wouldn't. However, you've already met him later in life and he is frighteningly despicable at that point. He literally (at the risk of bad thread deja vu) eats people for magical power. While they're alive. Of course, he's a villain. But later (not timeline-wise of course) you see him when he was young and the things that led to his first bad decision. And you get it. It makes sense and his decision isn't really all that bad. It's sort of cool in a risky way. And yet it leads him down a path to true evil. So, IMHO, that is deftly done; I sympathized with a terrible villain by emotionally understanding the cliff he fell of off. I do not, however, sympathize with his following choices, nor the ultimate result, obviously.
> 
> Is this sort of what you mean Brian?



Absolutely. A fantastic example.

I think, also, that there are other examples that are just as good out there. (For the time being, I'm going to avoid trying to come up with literary examples, though  ).


----------



## Nimue

BWFoster78 said:


> Nimue,
> 
> I'll give you that; it was not a particularly well-worded post.  I looked at it in regards to the topic of the thread - slavery - not in regards to the other topic the post alluded to.  I kinda just glossed over that part because, in my mind, it wasn't really important to the discussion at hand.
> 
> But, on the other hand, I do say that the conflict is between what is right (meaning the act is not in any way glorified) and what he is tempted to do.  Neither the scene nor my post attempts to say, This is justified.  In fact, I think both the scene and my post imply the exact opposite - to give in to temptation is the bad thing to do.


I certainly understand that. However, the way you framed it bordered on giving the two motivations equal weight. As in, we should sympathize with how difficult a choice that would be.  I can't speak to how the book presented the issue, but the run-down in your post made it seem that way.

There's also the fact that rape of slaves in the American South was a horrible and widespread thing, to say nothing of other periods in history, and juxtaposing that with horndog teenage fantasies is...well, kind of tasteless.

To speak to the larger thread-locking context--I really don't think that conversation started out well, and I don't think it would have gone in a great direction.  Can't disagree with the decision.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

BWFoster78 said:


> I'm simply saying that you have a guideline in place that I'm having trouble wrapping my head around.  Maybe I'm the only person on this forum that this impacts.  If so, you should just leave it in place.
> 
> I'm merely trying to say:
> 1. I think your policy isn't easy to understand from a practical standpoint.
> 2. Your actual policy seems to differ from what you're putting into practice.


To put it simply, Brian, when discussing a sensitive topic, members are required to present their questions and arguments with caution, extra care, & respect for potential victims and other members of our community. 

As Nimue pointed out, your post did not comply with that direction. You even stated yourself the presentation may have been poor.  





BWFoster78 said:


> Nimue,  I'll give you that; it was not a particularly well-worded post.  I looked at it in regards to the topic of the thread - slavery - not in regards to the other topic the post alluded to.  I kinda just glossed over that part because, in my mind, it wasn't really important to the discussion at hand.


      When that happens, either the post will be deleted, the thread will be closed, or the member will be dealt with individually. I chose to close the thread. 

We can't give you exact cases and circumstances if that's what you're asking for. The only exact line that could be drawn is outright censorship, which I'm almost always opposed to.     

Yes, banning a topic makes it black & white, but it also limits legitimate discussion of social issues represented in the genre. As a group, the mod team decided it'd be best not to ban, issue a new directive, and deal with offending posts on a case-by-case basis. 

Since you can see how your post may have been taken in a negative way, you should also see that you probably should've exercised greater care with a topic you knew to be sensitive, and recently derisive.


----------



## Reaver

BWFoster78 said:


> Reaver,
> 
> 
> 
> I think words are failing me today ...
> 
> That's not what I'm saying. I don't even care all that much.  If you don't want to talk about certain subjects, I simply won't talk about certain subjects.  I certainly don't want to force you to talk about them.
> 
> I'm simply saying that you have a guideline in place that I'm having trouble wrapping my head around.  Maybe I'm the only person on this forum that this impacts.  If so, you should just leave it in place.
> 
> I'm merely trying to say:
> 
> 1. I think your policy isn't easy to understand from a practical standpoint.
> 2. Your actual policy seems to differ from what you're putting into practice.
> 
> Again, this could just be me.  If so, feel free to ignore my comments.  Really.  It's just not that big of a deal to me.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Brian




***EDIT*** Ninja'd by TAS but if you'll permit me, I'll try to add to what he said:

It's not just you, Brian. I for one value the feedback. This is a new policy so please bear with us as we try to get better at it. I can certainly see where some members might find our new policy and the way we've enforced it thus far to be confusing.

Hopefully I can clarify some things. Basically, the addendum to our Forum Guidelines was created to prevent members from discussing sensitive topics in a callous, flippant or derisive way. It was also created to ensure that any discussion of sensitive topics doesn't stray outside the confines of literary context.

Finally, the addendum was created as a caveat to anyone who contravenes our guidelines, letting them know that in the interest of creating a positive, safe environment for writers of all skill levels and ages, we will not tolerate it.

Hope this clears things up a bit. If not, please PM me or invite me to chat and we can discuss things in greater detail.


----------



## BWFoster78

> As in, we should sympathize with how difficult a choice that would be. I can't speak to how the book presented the issue, but the run-down in your post made it seem that way.



I think one of the reasons there's an issue with my post is my fundamental approach to writing.  Most of the people here at MS think of sensitive issues in terms of the issue.  For every potentially sensitive issue that I can think of off the top of my head, I think of them in terms of their use as a plot device.  Period.

Does this issue help me create realistic conflict? Can I use this issue to make my character more likable and sympathetic as a protagonist or unlikable as an antagonist? If I use the issue, will it help or hurt the book? Those are my concerns.

I think that the standard "absolute power corrupts absolutely" is a fairly commonly accepted character motivation.  I also think that a character who is tempted to abuse his absolute power tends to be more interesting than a character who simply does the right thing.  I do think that, when presenting a character conflict, temptation to use power and the desire to do the right thing should be given equal weight.  Otherwise, the conflict would be too weak to include.

Again, to me, the actual sensitive issue involved is completely secondary to its use in writing.

However, I totally get if the people here don't want to discuss.  In the future, I'll find examples that don't touch on such things.

My bad for picking a poor example given the audience.



> There's also the fact that rape of slaves in the American South was a horrible and widespread thing, to say nothing of other periods in history, and juxtaposing that with horndog teenage fantasies is...well, kind of tasteless.



See, given my views above, my response to this is, Huh?  What does slavery in a fantasy world that doesn't exist have to do at all with slavery on Earth?  I truly don't think that the author was trying to make some kind of reference to slavery in our world; he was just using it as I would have - as a plot device.

Granted, sometimes allegories are really cool and I enjoy them.  I loved how Alien Nation dealt with racism.  It's really cool how sci fi was used to take an issue and look at it by removing some of the emotion.

But that doesn't mean that every reference to anything has to be an allegory.  Sometimes things can just be plot devices.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen

If we want to have serious discussions this kind of general and flexible policy is needed. Sure, it'll have a few hiccups, but that's to be expected. And I do like this policy, some discussions lately have gone off the rails into crazy town a bit too far. So, let's keep an open mind about this whole thing and wait to see how this plays out. Then as situations come up and test the boundaries of this guideline we can get a clearer set of guidelines. As an aside, I am not endorsing deliberately testing the boundaries. I am merely recognizing there will be future threads that test the boundaries.


----------



## BWFoster78

TAS and Reaver,

Again, I'm just going to do my best to stay away from such topics.

Really, it wasn't my intent to bring one up.  I just thought I was bringing up a cool and relevant example for another issue.

I'll avoid such in the future.

If y'all are cool with your intent, I'm cool.

Thanks for trying to clarify.

Really, truly, I have absolutely no hard feelings.  I'm not offended in any way.

Brian


----------



## Trick

BWFoster78 said:


> that doesn't mean that every reference to anything has to be an allegory.  Sometimes things can just be plot devices.



Plot devices, by their very nature, are meant to make people feel something. Sometimes, just in a discussion, they make people feel something that was not intended. This is an opportunity for all of us to properly evaluate said devices for future use (or abandonment as needed).


----------



## Reaver

Trick said:


> Plot devices, by their very nature, are meant to make people feel something. Sometimes, just in a discussion, they make people feel something that was not intended. This is an opportunity for all of us to properly evaluate said devices for future use (or abandonment as needed).



Well said, Trick. I'd give you a "thanks" here, but I'm all out until tomorrow. Rest assured one is forthcoming.


----------



## Nimue

I get it, I do.  There's something of the dispassionate observer, the connesieur of human behavior, in every writer.  But when it comes to bringing up these ideas in a social setting, particularly one in which a post might be read by a hundred people, I think we need to tone down the "isn't it cool?" and consider these things with a little empathy for everybody out there.  There are some discussions that can only be had with specific people who really get your tone and approach, who understand who you are as a person and why you might be saying something.  Internet strangers/acquaintances aren't responsible for giving us the benefit of the doubt all the time.


----------



## Reaver

Nimue said:


> I get it, I do.  There's something of the dispassionate observer, the connesieur of human behavior, in every writer.  But when it comes to bringing up these ideas in a social setting, particularly one in which a post might be read by a hundred people, I think we need to tone down the "isn't it cool?" and consider these things with a little empathy for everybody out there.  There are some discussions that can only be had with specific people who really get your tone and approach, who understand who you are as a person and why you might be saying something.  Internet strangers/acquaintances aren't responsible for giving us the benefit of the doubt all the time.



Another excellent post! Thank you Nimue!


----------



## Svrtnsse

Three hours, and six pages of posts ago I wrote that I don't deal with sensitive topics in the context of this thread. That doesn't mean I won't do it in the future. I'm pretty certain I will, considering the pasts of some of the characters I'm looking forward to writing about.

How am I preparing for that?

Even if I don't deal with sensitive topics in this context, I'm still dealing with topics that are sensitive to me (loneliness, self-image, relations). These are topics that I'm interested in, that are important to me as a person, and that I take rather seriously. I'm pulling a lot on my own experiences to write about that and it's not always easy. It sometimes becomes a little too personal and sometimes it hits a little too close to home.

Does this prepare me for writing about _sensitive topics_? I don't know.

Admittedly, I haven't thought much about this until just now, but I think that by putting a lot of myself into my writing, I'm learning to connect with my work in a significant way. I'm learning how far I can push myself before it gets bothersome, and hopefully I can apply this when writing about things I'm not personally intimately familiar with.

Maybe I'm completely wrong, but I think that by learning to deal with things that matter to me, I'll have an easier time dealing with things that others can be sensitive to.


----------



## BWFoster78

Trick said:


> Plot devices, by their very nature, are meant to make people feel something. Sometimes, just in a discussion, they make people feel something that was not intended. This is an opportunity for all of us to properly evaluate said devices for future use (or abandonment as needed).



Getting back to the original purpose of this thread, though:

Not too long ago, I saw Weeks' book in Barnes and Noble.  I don't think that I misrepresented the content of the scene at all, but, here it was taken so negatively that a thread was closed.  But as far as audiences are concerned, there's no issue with the actual scene.

Therefore, I'm not sure that the attitudes expressed by MS posters on this particular subject should constitute a large amount of the weight when making that evaluation (assuming, of course, that one's main goal in writing is commercial success).


----------



## BWFoster78

Nimue said:


> I get it, I do.  There's something of the dispassionate observer, the connesieur of human behavior, in every writer.  But when it comes to bringing up these ideas in a social setting, particularly one in which a post might be read by a hundred people, I think we need to tone down the "isn't it cool?" and consider these things with a little empathy for everybody out there.  There are some discussions that can only be had with specific people who really get your tone and approach, who understand who you are as a person and why you might be saying something.  Internet strangers/acquaintances aren't responsible for giving us the benefit of the doubt all the time.



Yes, but not just a hundred people - a hundred writers.

I truly don't get why discussions about these kind of topics draw intense debate and interest when it seems that topics about writing are met with, overall, crickets.

But it is what it is. So, once again, in the future I'm simply going to avoid bringing these types of things up in any kind of specific manner.

I'm really focused on what I can do to improve myself as a writer.  I think that, for what I want to accomplish, looking at these types of issues in terms of writing helps me a lot more than looking at them in context of the issues themselves.

I do admit that I could be in error; it's happened to me once or twice in my life 

I can't help but think, though, that maybe some of the other writers on this site might want to at least question whether their writing careers would be better served by trying to take a more dispassionate approach.


----------



## Trick

BWFoster78 said:


> Therefore, I'm not sure that the attitudes expressed by MS posters on this particular subject should constitute a large amount of the weight when making that evaluation (assuming, of course, that one's main goal in writing is commercial success).



Brian, I think you're mistaking the content of a book with the content of a post here on MS. They are not the same. A book is private, until you make it public. At such time, readers choose to buy or not to buy. This, however, is a public forum. We discuss writing but the content in the posts is not the writing we discuss*. You wouldn't take disturbing scenes from a book and post them all over a bulletin board; at least, I don't think you would. Nor am I comparing that to this situation exactly, just throwing out an analogy. People are here, reading posts. If a member puts something offensive enough in a post, the Mods stop/delete etc as needed. "Offensive enough" is defined by Admin and the Mods. Books don't have Mods, even if they have editors. Mods and editors have two very different functions and that's because they're patrolling two very different kinds of writing.

EDIT

*at least, that is not the intent of the site, in my impression. Obviously, we are discussing the content of the posts right now and, honestly, it's rather distracting from the intent of MS.


----------



## Reaver

BWFoster78 said:


> I can't help but think, though, that maybe some of the other writers on this site might want to at least question whether their writing careers would be better served by trying to take a more dispassionate approach.



Maybe some writers can be that way. However, wouldn't you agree that by their very nature, most writers (and creative personalities as a whole) are extremely passionate people?


----------



## BWFoster78

Trick,

I think you misunderstood. The post was deemed unworthy.  That's fine.  I'm over it.

 I was trying to return to the original post since the discussion has been so far derailed.

You said that this is an opportunity to evaluate our plot devices.

I agree that we should always take every opportunity to evaluate our use of plot devices.  My point was that, as a restatement of the OP, maybe the opinions you're seeing here on MS isn't a great sample to use if you're trying to figure out how fantasy audiences feel.


----------



## BWFoster78

Reaver said:


> Maybe some writers can be that way. However, wouldn't you agree that by their very nature, most writers (and creative personalities as a whole) are extremely passionate people?



I agree completely.

But, maybe, sometimes it might be beneficial to try to be less so.


----------



## Reaver

BWFoster78 said:


> I agree completely.
> 
> But, maybe, sometimes it might be beneficial to try to be less so.



I couldn't agree more.


----------



## Trick

BWFoster78 said:


> Trick,
> 
> I think you misunderstood. The post was deemed unworthy.  That's fine.  I'm over it.
> 
> I was trying to return to the original post since the discussion has been so far derailed.
> 
> You said that this is an opportunity to evaluate our plot devices.
> 
> I agree that we should always take every opportunity to evaluate our use of plot devices.  My point was that, as a restatement of the OP, maybe the opinions you're seeing here on MS isn't a great sample to use if you're trying to figure out how fantasy audiences feel.



Ah, I did misunderstand your direction-correction (I promise, I don't make a rhyme every time). But the gist of my post still stands. The, shall we say, 'in-depth' discussion of certain sensitive topics is more offensive, hurtful, emotionally difficult for some than it is for others; and most likely with more than significant reason. That does not dictate what you write in your books, just how it is discussed here - which brings me full circle back to the distinction between book and post. 

However, for the approximate opinion of the fantasy-buying masses with less sensitivity to those topics, perhaps you should request to start a private group to discuss such things with a bit more freedom. I'd be careful how you manage it (I don't think we have any real weirdos but you never know) but, with the right set up, I'd join it. It might get called grimdark but it doesn't have to be. I write very dark themes. I usually do it from a distance but not always. I tend to not discuss them too much here, as it feels unwelcome, and that's ok. It's a pretty reasonable thing to limit or eliminate in a public forum. 

What do you say to the group idea? Resting on Black Dragon's response of course...


----------



## X Equestris

BWFoster78 said:


> See, given my views above, my response to this is, Huh?  What does slavery in a fantasy world that doesn't exist have to do at all with slavery on Earth?  I truly don't think that the author was trying to make some kind of reference to slavery in our world; he was just using it as I would have - as a plot device.



I think where this view comes from is that 1) the author is from the real world, no exceptions (at least none that I know of), so they're writing from a perspective influenced in part by being from the real world and 2) fiction of all genres often has some sort of message even if it isn't meant to be a straight allegory.  A work may give off a message that an author never intended it to, but that doesn't erase the fact that the message is still given off.  That can be particularly unfortunate if the unintended message being given off is obvious to most readers and actually offensive.  

It doesn't help that some sort of parallel to real world issues is quite common in speculative fiction, so some readers may be on the lookout for those parallels, and see them where they don't exist.


----------



## ascanius

I just wanted to say this.  I read the slavery thread I wanted to reply when I got home, but found it locked.  I read the policy and don't understand why it was locked.

First, I too don't understand the policy, it just seems like a policy of what people already try to do, we have all slipped up from time to time yes.  But aside from the one or two problem people I think we all try our best to treat other people with respect during these discussions and having a mod come in is usually enough to calm things down. 

Second.  From what I've read here and on the contentious thread, it seems some people simply didn't like the idea of a teenager thinking about a slave in that way.  Aside from how it was explained being innacurate, this whole forum is about writing, if there is a book like that what is wrong about discussing it, it's flaws, what works, it's merits how it was recieved etc.  Will it offend someone, most likely, does that mean it shouldn't be discussed, HELL NO!  

     2A.  I really don't get it if you don't like the topic don't read it.

     2B  As someone who has such topics and themes I find these discussions valuble, yes I might have to wade through rantings to find the dimond in the rough.  

Third.  I don't like how this new policy has been applyed to the Slavery Thread.  I really don't like the idea that a few pople can become isulted or what not and result in a discussion being locked.  I completly dissagree and think locking the thread was uneeded and an extreme overeaction.  The way this new policy is being applyed it seems more like we cannot talk about such topics unless we make 100% sure no one will ever be offended which is not possible.

Fourth.  I don't like the idea of private threads to discuss these topics, if it is to be believed that we are incapable of rational discourse out in the open what makes you think this will change behind closed doors.  

      4A.   I don't like the idea of restricing information simply becuase somone might get offeneded, they have free will and can choose to read.  Others shouldn't have to jump through hoops simply because doesn't like something.  If individuals are incapable of understanding that this is a family friendly site then this is a problem with the individuals behavior, and unrelated to the topic being discussed.

 Ok, I'm done.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

Here's the thing about the new guideline. Our question was, do we ban certain topics or come up with a guideline that basically says we shut down threads if we think the discussion will do more harm than good? We came to the eventual agreement that we needed a guideline to let us shut down threads we can see will be problematic.

TAS was the first to enforce this guideline, and he enforced it exactly as I would have—_without hesitation; without blame._ If your post gets one of us to close a thread, it doesn't make you the Bad Guy. No disrespect intended. We've been good about predicting which threads would lead to trouble (like the last 5 or 6 in recent months), but all we did in those situations is discuss and give each other a heads up and say, "well, there's no wrongdoing here, so…" The result was people were getting hurt, and that's not the place we want MS to be.

We want this place to be family-friendly first, and we value freedom of speech, but it's second to the family-friendly atmosphere. Things like the F-word and nudity are classic examples of what is NOT family-friendly, and we never allowed that. The sensitive topics as mentioned on the new guideline, if discussed a certain way, are far more damaging to a family-friendly atmosphere than a cuss word or a bare bottom.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

ascanius said:


> 2A.  I really don't get it if you don't like the topic don't read it.


The thing is, people who don't like the topic may have a life experience that gives a very good reason for not liking it, and they don't know what exactly the topic is until they've read the understandably-offensive/hurtful post.

So it's really not "don't read it," it's "pretend you didn't read it and don't tell anyone you're offended or hurt." We didn't think that was how a family-friendly site should work.

As I said above, the F-word and nudity were never allowed here. It doesn't make sense to allow "worse" and claim to be family-friendly. What we decided is "worse" is based not on our opinions, but on what topics have clearly proven to be offensive or hurtful.


----------



## BWFoster78

Trick said:


> Ah, I did misunderstand your direction-correction (I promise, I don't make a rhyme every time). But the gist of my post still stands. The, shall we say, 'in-depth' discussion of certain sensitive topics is more offensive, hurtful, emotionally difficult for some than it is for others; and most likely with more than significant reason. That does not dictate what you write in your books, just how it is discussed here - which brings me full circle back to the distinction between book and post.
> 
> However, for the approximate opinion of the fantasy-buying masses with less sensitivity to those topics, perhaps you should request to start a private group to discuss such things with a bit more freedom. I'd be careful how you manage it (I don't think we have any real weirdos but you never know) but, with the right set up, I'd join it. It might get called grimdark but it doesn't have to be. I write very dark themes. I usually do it from a distance but not always. I tend to not discuss them too much here, as it feels unwelcome, and that's ok. It's a pretty reasonable thing to limit or eliminate in a public forum.
> 
> What do you say to the group idea? Resting on Black Dragon's response of course...



Trick,

To be honest, I really don't have all that much desire to have a ton of discussions about "sensitive issues."  I think I've said my piece at this point, and I'll let it stand.


----------



## ascanius

nm.  need 10 characters to this is ten plus some more


----------



## BWFoster78

ascanius,

First, Yay!  Someone actually agrees with me.  I feel like the contrarian around here so much of the time ...  Thank you!

Regardless of how my previous posts on this issue came across, I'd like to take responding to your post as a way to clarify my thoughts.  Hope you don't mind ...

1. I think it is difficult to find the right balance between shutting down threads/issuing warning/etc (which all serve to stifle conversation) and to let things go (which tend to lead to a lot of arguing and unproductive conversations and hurt feelings).  Modding is tough job - one I wouldn't want - and I think the mods here do a fantastic job.  

2. I agree with you that the policy as it was enforced was a bit confusing to those of us standing on the sidelines.  Now that the exact problem has been explained, I understand a lot better why TAS took the action he did.  Admittedly, it's not how I would choose to run things, but the fact is that I don't know the goals of the administrators.  From their statements, they made the policy after carefully weighing all the issues.  Even if I might would have come up with different rules, I completely respect them making the best rules they can to further their goals for the site. 

3. I really get that some people are emotionally impacted by the particular issue in question.  I can especially feel for those people who have suffered through something like that.  They come here to relax, maybe learn a little something about writing, and then they have a painful memory thrown in their face.  I am not at all unsympathetic.  On the other hand, it seems that, regardless of how admittedly careless the wording was, the policy shut down discussion of a scene from a mainstream fantasy book discussed in terms of writing craft in a community of fantasy writers.  The admins got together and said, "Hey, we've had some discussions lately that negatively impacted some of our base. We have to decide what to do about it. Do we err to the side of protecting those who we feel are emotionally vulnerable to this topic? Or do we decide, as much as we don't want to do it, to limit conversations severely on some topics?"  I think it's a valid conundrum (ironically, a worth example of a protagonist's dilemma  ) and can't fault them for choosing differently than I probably would have.

Thanks.

Brian


----------



## Hainted

My take is this:

1 Everything is a trigger to somebody, I'm not going to limit myself creatively because it upsets someone. I'm not going to be flippant or disrespectful about it, but I'm not going to avoid it.

2. Depending on who makes the complaint, I may just completely ignore your outrage. Case in Point: White friend of mine is offended by the Confederate flag. No, sorry YOU are NOT offended. You lack the cultural heritage to be offended. You can not like it. You can say it needs to come down. You cannot be offended on behalf of a group you don't belong to. That is patronizing and borderline racist.

3. It's the Artist's job to provoke, to draw out feelings, to plunder emotions (Good and Bad). Who gets to arbitrate what is a good emotional reaction versus a bad emotional reaction?

4. If a work contains something that could trigger you, why partake of it? 

5. No matter what, someone's going to try to take what you do and twist it into a personal attack on them. Nicole Kurtz, a wonderful African-American Speculative Fiction Author, has a review on one of her books that states "The author obviously knows nothing of the struggle of African-American women in modern America."

6. Sometimes hate is good. When I was doing my webcomic my readership always spiked dramatically whenever someone posted how much they hated it. I actually collected some of my favorite hate reviews to put on the book. Most of the things I'm still interested in today were the very things other people told me to avoid cause they hated it. Played right, being offensive can be very, VERY lucrative.

Having said all that though, I'm still going to abide by the forum rules.


----------



## Feo Takahari

Speaking as the first person to express offense, I never asked for that thread to be locked. I understand why it was locked, and I won't argue with that decision, but I was simply expressing my displeasure. 

We allow posters to criticize stylistic choices or quirks of language on entirely subjective grounds, and those aren't serious matters at all. Arguments similarly arise regarding subject matter, and in the case of rape, those arguments are going to be heated. It seems like a bit of a cheap shot to tell people that if they don't like a particular representation of rape, they shouldn't read topics about rape. It could just as easily be said that if you don't like to see comments criticizing the way you write rape, you should skip over those and just read the comments praising the way you write it. (And if you never get any of those, there might be a message in that.)


----------



## Devor

I do want to add, in case it isn't clear, that rape is what drove the new guidelines and where we'll be seeing the biggest change in moderation.  We'll see how this ends up applying to our gender and diversity discussions, but the impact should be small by comparison.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Hainted said:


> It's the Artist's job to provoke, to draw out feelings, to plunder emotions (Good and Bad). Who gets to arbitrate what is a good emotional reaction versus a bad emotional reaction?


Every member is free to pursue expression of their art however they please. Here though, as a member of a community, we are not.

I know you said you'll follow the forum rules, & I'm only using your post as an example. 

No one is saying, "Don't write about sensitive issues". Far from it. Speculative fiction is a fantastic medium to explore societal problems. We're simply saying that doing so here requires an extra level of care and consideration. If that's not given, a moderator will take action. If a member can't abide by that understanding or fails to comprehend what is honestly not that difficult a concept, then they should refrain from such conversations on this site.

Really, it's not that hard to understand:
1) Consider how you present a discussion
2) Show empathy
3) Show respect 
4) Don't approach these topics flippantly 

Why is that so difficult? We can't spell it out in black and white. That's an impossibility. 

Seriously, if people can't present their arguments in the written form without stepping over those basic principles then they either don't care to begin with, or they are incapable of clear and reasoned expression. If the latter is the case, they may want to reconsider their writing goals.


----------



## Hainted

But you're also limiting the discussion of sensitive topics and taking away a resource to learn about them. The new policy just insures continued stereotypes, bad writing, and willful ignorance. We don't grow and learn from avoiding things. Looking through rose tinted glasses at only the things we agree with (and try to force others to agree with) only insures the continuation of the problem. This is supposed to be a place where writers can improve and discuss all aspects of their writing. It's why the site was created, correct? Today you took a stand in direct opposition to that. Today you decided that bad, misinformed writing is the better choice.

Feo Takahari, It's not a cheap shot. I don't write about rape. I have no characters that rape. I think it's a cheap ploy to try and make a female character strong. Therefore, I choose not to visit those topics but one of the thousands of other topics that do interest me. Are there topics on the forums that upset me? Yes. Would I ever take away someone's freedom to discuss it or learn from others about it because of my personal feelings? No. The proper course of action would have been another forum category for the discussion of Sensitive Topics. We need to quit worrying about being nice and focus more on being good.


----------



## Russ

Hainted said:


> But you're also limiting the discussion of sensitive topics and taking away a resource to learn about them. *The new policy just insures continued stereotypes, bad writing, and willful ignorance.* We don't grow and learn from avoiding things. Looking through rose tinted glasses at only the things we agree with (and try to force others to agree with) only insures the continuation of the problem. This is supposed to be a place where writers can improve and discuss all aspects of their writing. It's why the site was created, correct? Today you took a stand in direct opposition to that. *Today you decided that bad, misinformed writing is the better choice.*
> 
> Feo Takahari, It's not a cheap shot. I don't write about rape. I have no characters that rape. I think it's a cheap ploy to try and make a female character strong. Therefore, I choose not to visit those topics but one of the thousands of other topics that do interest me. Are there topics on the forums that upset me? Yes. Would I ever take away someone's freedom to discuss it or learn from others about it because of my personal feelings? No. The proper course of action would have been another forum category for the discussion of Sensitive Topics. We need to quit worrying about being nice and focus more on being good.



The question is not as simple as you like to frame it and the part I bolded above is really just over-dramatic rhetoric.

But you seem to ignore the fact that this is supposed to be a family friendly community where writers feel welcome.  Working with groups requires some compromise and accomodation, things that you clearly are not willing to consider.  These are important attributes in a mature community.

And if it sets your mind at ease, I have spent hundreds of hours taking courses with, presenting with and conversing with top notch authors, editors and agents across more than one genre, including spec fic.  In none of those conversations or courses have I ever seen or heard anything close to some of the poorly thought out comments on sensitive issues that have published around here.  It seems that the very best artists are perfectly capable of meeting these very basic standards.  I don't see why this community is not.

No one is telling you not to think about, write about, or discuss sensitive topics.  You are just being asked to do so in a respectful and mature manner.


----------



## BWFoster78

Hainted,

You said this:



> This is supposed to be a place where writers can improve and discuss all aspects of their writing.



I'm not sure where that statement comes from.

The people who run this site have made the decision that this is a place where being sensitive to how others feel about certain topics is more important than discussing writing. That is a valid decision, and it is theirs to make. Not ours.

Again, this is a fantastic community.  If I ever become a bigtime writer, I will definitely attribute a big part of my success to my early days on this site. I'm still reaping huge benefits from the site today.  Trick, Ankari, Chilari, and Nimue have generously volunteered their time to beta read for me.  Amanita's critique of my pitch the other day made me realize a huge mistake that I was making. ThinkerX convinced me that I had to completely redo the opening scene of my novel - a huge improvement.

The people here are fantastic.

I think, though, that writers need to treat it as one of their resources, not their only resource.  Svrtnsse said something awesomely on point earlier in the thread:



> I think this is something that applies to all communities. Members of a community will eventually start to accept the opinions of that community as the norm. That's why it's important to try and be part of more than one community - to get different perspectives on the world.



For example, posts on business and marketing and most anything to do with becoming a professional writer draw little interest here.  For a long time, I was like, "Why is no one interested in this? Isn't this why we're all here?"  Now, I've just accepted it and learn all that kind of stuff over at the Writer's Cafe.

Truthfully, on this subject of sensitive topics, groupthink is strong here.  No one is going to change anybody else's thinking on the subject.  If you want to discuss how to deal with sensitive topics, you're really not going to get anything out of the discussion other than, "You need to be sensitive to the topic."  And pages and pages of rehashing the same arguments over and over.  The mods have decided that such rehashing doesn't do anyone any good and does some people harm. Therefore, they made a logical decision to move on from it.

It's probably the right call when you look at it from that perspective.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

This thread is on its ninth page. The mod-only thread where we came to the eventual agreement on the guideline is also nine pages long. Feelings about this were mixed, but what helped was to focus on one thing:

This is a family-friendly site.

If our members are jumping down each other's throats because we're knowingly allowing a conversation to persist simply on the basis that it's relevant to writing, then this site ceases to be family-friendly.

No one is paying us to do this. We're simply trying to support Tony (Black Dragon / site owner) and his vision for a family-friendly site where fantasy writers can learn from each other, show their work, hone their skills, etc.

Not all topics are really family-friendly, and so we try to be reasonable about how we keep the environment as family-friendly as we can, or at least _friendly_. There have been some patterns lately—two specific "causes" of repeated problems. One cause was a long time member, who regretfully, had to be permanently banned. The other cause was a topic that was mishandled repeatedly by well-intentioned members and all of these threads escalated to the point that almost everyone in the conversation was upset, and I'm of the opinion there was no good-guy-bad-guy in these cases.

As for the opinions of other mods—how serious this issue is, how damaging the topic is, to what degree we allow future discussions on the topic—there was a broad spectrum. The guidelines were the compromise everyone agreed upon: something that's not as severe as a topic-ban, but also something that doesn't tie our hands when we see a sensitive topic posted flippantly.

As I mentioned in at least one earlier post, we predicted the problems before they happened, but let them go on because there was no wrongdoing. Now, out of proven necessity, we're looking at this through a different lens. We're not blaming anybody for the fact that, when it comes to certain topics, some are more sensitive/affected than others. We're simply taking preventative measures. We may err, but on the side of caution—as opposed to before, where we erred on the side of inaction.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Hainted said:


> But you're also limiting the discussion of sensitive topics and taking away a resource to learn about them.


We're not limiting them. The only banned topic is contemporary political debate. We're simply requiring you to exhibit sensitivity for fellow community members when dealing with hot-button topics. Honestly, we all should have been doing that already. However, since it seems some members were not aware of their insensitivity, or simply didn't care, we had to enact guidelines. If I'm being brutally honest, those guidelines are a direct result of attitudes like yours.     



Hainted said:


> The new policy just insures continued stereotypes, bad writing, and willful ignorance. We don't grow and learn from avoiding things. Looking through rose tinted glasses at only the things we agree with (and try to force others to agree with) only insures the continuation of the problem.


Absolute hogwash. Stereotyping, bad writing, and ignorance was part of the problem. As I said before, you don't have to avoid these issues. You are required to discuss these issues in a responsible and thoughtful manner. If you can't do that, your skills as both a thinker and a writer must be woefully inadequate. And, by the way, the word you're looking for is _ensures_.  



Hainted said:


> This is supposed to be a place where writers can improve and discuss all aspects of their writing. It's why the site was created, correct?


Wrong. As LS pointed out, this site was created as a family-friendly place for writers to discuss a variety of topics. If you want unbridled arguments where you can be as insensitive as you please, there are other venues. I think you'll find, swinging the pendulum the other way, it can be even more difficult to have a meaningful discussion when parties involved don't care about the other members. The vitriol and callousness can be astounding.  



Hainted said:


> Today you took a stand in direct opposition to that. Today you decided that bad, misinformed writing is the better choice.


That's the most ludicrous statement I've yet seen in this discussion. If you think a requirement to discuss sensitive topics with care and concern for your fellow scribes fosters bad, misinformed writing then you're part of the problem. I have no doubt that 95% of this membership is capable of debating these issues within the parameters of social decency, and that's all the new guidelines are really.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen

Hainted said:


> But you're also limiting the discussion of sensitive topics and taking away a resource to learn about them. The new policy just insures continued stereotypes, bad writing, and willful ignorance. We don't grow and learn from avoiding things. Looking through rose tinted glasses at only the things we agree with (and try to force others to agree with) only insures the continuation of the problem. This is supposed to be a place where writers can improve and discuss all aspects of their writing. It's why the site was created, correct? Today you took a stand in direct opposition to that. Today you decided that bad, misinformed writing is the better choice.
> 
> Feo Takahari, It's not a cheap shot. I don't write about rape. I have no characters that rape. I think it's a cheap ploy to try and make a female character strong. Therefore, I choose not to visit those topics but one of the thousands of other topics that do interest me. Are there topics on the forums that upset me? Yes. Would I ever take away someone's freedom to discuss it or learn from others about it because of my personal feelings? No. The proper course of action would have been another forum category for the discussion of Sensitive Topics. We need to quit worrying about being nice and focus more on being good.



You and I both know that this decision didn't arise simply because of that one post. There have been several threads lately that are egregious in their insensitivity towards sensitive topics. Some that have made even I, a normally not sensitive person, have squirmed at some of the discussions. I, who has never been a victim of some of the crimes and atrocities being discussed but have seen the affects on other people who were victims or who helped victims, was getting angry at the lack of sensitivity. That's all these guidelines are trying to get us to remember. Be sensitive and courteous in your posts. And it's entirely doable.

In my school career I have discussed rape, child abuse, torture, murder, arson, spousal abuse, and any number of other human depravities, but never have I seen discussions go quite so far off the deep end as some discussions here. All it takes is for a person to think before they type, and then if someone is offended, the offender needs to have the humility to admit their the offender made a mistake and personally and sincerely apologize to the person offended. Sensitivity and courtesy are not that hard to show.


----------



## BWFoster78

T.Allen.Smith,

I really, really get that this whole issue is important to you. On the other hand, it seems like the whole issue arose in the first place over members making really emotional posts about issues that are really important to them.

Would you say that post #90 is an example of how the site wants us to respond to people who express opposite arguments?


----------



## Reaver

BWFoster78 said:


> T.Allen.Smith,
> 
> I really, really get that this whole issue is important to you. On the other hand, it seems like the whole issue arose in the first place over members making really emotional posts about issues that are really important to them.
> 
> Would you say that post #90 is an example of how the site wants us to respond to people who express opposite arguments?



I can't speak for TAS but I will add my two cents. This addition to our forum guidelines is important to all of us Mods, not just TAS. We're passionate about keeping Mythic Scribes a safe, fun, friendly environment for all of our members. 

TAS responded in a passionate, articulate way because like me, he's tired of having to defend our decisions and rationale every time we decide to lock or delete an offensive thread or post.

TAS, Black Dragon and most of the other Mods are too well-spoken and polite to be blunt with members who feel it's okay to be snide, rude and disrespectful.  I'm not. 

The simple truth is that if a member isn't happy with this new policy then they're welcome to leave. I truly do value all of our members here and I hate when we lose someone but it is what it is. 

If a member wants to get bitchy because they feel they've been slighted, cheated or censored as a result of this new policy, then they obviously lack common sense and decency and I don't want them around. We don't need them here.

I've been here since the early days and as strange as it may sound, this is like a home to me. I have a strong desire to keep it a safe, positive and friendly place. I will continue to do this for as long as I'm able.

I know that Black Dragon, the other Mods and the Admin team feel the same as me.


Mythic Scribes was created by Black Dragon because he wanted an online community where writers of all skill levels and ages could meet, interact, learn and develop in a friendly, positive and safe environment.

Mythic Scribes has grown so much since I first joined over three years ago and I'm very proud to be a part of the team that makes it the best there is.

But I digress... My overall point was that as this site grows, it gets increasingly difficult to moderate. We're people too and we're not infallible. We sometimes get emotional because we truly love this place.

Please bear with us as we grow together as a community.

 I apologize for the rant and I'll get down off of my soapbox. Thanks for your contributions and being a valued member.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

BWFoster78 said:


> T.Allen.Smith,  I really, really get that this whole issue is important to you. On the other hand, it seems like the whole issue arose in the first place over members making really emotional posts about issues that are really important to them.    Would you say that post #90 is an example of how the site wants us to respond to people who express opposite arguments?


It's usually not my way, Brian. However, in the face of such an inane and callous argument, I felt it necessary  to draw the line pointing to exactly the kind of attitude which led to the need for new guidelines. 

You wanted black & white, right & wrong. There you go. 

If you disapprove, so be it. You're entitled to your opinion. I stand by my comments.

That's the last comment, I'll make on this public thread. If anyone requires further clarification, I'm always available through private messaging.


----------



## BWFoster78

Reaver,

I can understand your frustration. You are a volunteer performing a difficult and often thankless function.  I've seen some unmoderated parts of the internet, and even if I don't always agree with particular rules, I firmly believe that having rules and enforcing them is a far better route.

I'm kinda feeling right now, though, that the mods are saying, "Y'all really need to be more sensitive." Yet the mods are sending this message in a less-than sensitive manner.

If you really want the members to be sensitive on topics that cause emotional responses in people, perhaps a great place to start is to model the behavior you're seeking?


----------



## BWFoster78

T.Allen.Smith said:


> It's usually not my way, Brian. However, in the face of such an inane and callous argument, I felt it necessary  to draw the line pointing to exactly the kind of attitude which led to the need for new guidelines.
> 
> You wanted black & white, right & wrong. There you go.
> 
> If you disapprove, so be it. You're entitled to your opinion. I stand by my comments.



Understood.  I just thought your argument could have been stated more sensitively.


----------



## Reaver

BWFoster78 said:


> Reaver,
> 
> I can understand your frustration. You are a volunteer performing a difficult and often thankless function.  I've seen some unmoderated parts of the internet, and even if I don't always agree with particular rules, I firmly believe that having rules and enforcing them is a far better route.
> 
> I'm kinda feeling right now, though, that the mods are saying, "Y'all really need to be more sensitive." Yet the mods are sending this message in a less-than sensitive manner.
> 
> If you really want the members to be sensitive on topics that cause emotional responses in people, perhaps a great place to start is to model the behavior you're seeking?



If you think my post was insensitive in any way, please accept my apology. It wasn't my intention but I certainly don't see it as being insensitive. Are our forum guidelines really a topic that causes an emotional response or are the snide posts by some members little more than a misdirected, half-hearted stand against authority?

Like TAS, I stand by my comments. Any further discussion about our guidelines and why some members just don't get it seems a moot point so I'm done with this thread.

Thanks for expressing your thoughts.


----------



## Mythopoet

BWFoster78 said:


> Understood.  I just thought your argument could have been stated more sensitively.



The argument was stated more sensitively multiple times. Clearly that particular poster TAS was responding to hadn't gotten the message that way. I think TAS's response was warranted in the circumstances and very well worded.


----------



## Russ

BWFoster78 said:


> Understood.  I just thought your argument could have been stated more sensitively.



Perhaps I misunderstood the point of the whole exercise.

I thought the idea was to encourage members to show high levels of civility and sensitivity when discussing _topics that can be expected to have a significant emotional impact on people._

I would be surprised if misleading, dramatic, insulting, childish, invective is a topic that falls under that rubric.

And surely a defender of pure, unadulterated, insensitive speech as a key learning tool like Hainted can survive a spirited defense of the new policy unscathed.


----------



## BWFoster78

Mythopoet said:


> The argument was stated more sensitively multiple times. Clearly that particular poster TAS was responding to hadn't gotten the message that way. I think TAS's response was warranted in the circumstances and very well worded.



Mythopoet,

I quite often notice that I am alone in my beliefs around here, which is fine, but I like to point them out anyway.  Not sure if it makes any sense to do so most of the time, but there you have it ...

I guess I'm kinda thinking of mods like parents.  If I want my kids not to cuss, my first step is not to cuss.

Even if I'm justified in cussing. Even if their behavior makes me want to cuss. I think that, probably, it's best for me not to cuss.

Maybe the analogy doesn't apply well in this case, though, and it's just me.  It's not exactly the hugest of huge concerns for me.


----------



## BWFoster78

Russ said:


> Perhaps I misunderstood the point of the whole exercise.
> 
> I thought the idea was to encourage members to show high levels of civility and sensitivity when discussing _topics that can be expected to have a significant emotional impact on people._
> 
> I would be surprised if misleading, dramatic, insulting, childish, invective is a topic that falls under that rubric.
> 
> And surely a defender of pure, unadulterated, insensitive speech as a key learning tool like Hainted can survive a spirited defense of the new policy unscathed.



Russ,

I'm not as concerned with Hainted as I am with the overall principle.  As stated in my reply to Mythopoet, I'm probably alone in my belief that that particular principle applies here.


----------



## Mythopoet

BWFoster78 said:


> Mythopoet,
> 
> I quite often notice that I am alone in my beliefs around here, which is fine, but I like to point them out anyway.  Not sure if it makes any sense to do so most of the time, but there you have it ...
> 
> I guess I'm kinda thinking of mods like parents.  If I want my kids not to cuss, my first step is not to cuss.
> 
> Even if I'm justified in cussing. Even if their behavior makes me want to cuss. I think that, probably, it's best for me not to cuss.
> 
> Maybe the analogy doesn't apply well in this case, though, and it's just me.  It's not exactly the hugest of huge concerns for me.



Mods are not parents. They're more like policemen. 

If this isn't of much concern to you, then maybe you should stop continuing to press the issue over and over and over. If I was your mom I would have snapped by now.


----------



## Russ

BWFoster78 said:


> Russ,
> 
> I'm not as concerned with Hainted as I am with the overall principle.  As stated in my reply to Mythopoet, I'm probably alone in my belief that that particular principle applies here.



I quite liked your parent analogy.  Sometimes children need a little discipline.  I am thus quite sure it hurt the Mods more than Hainted


----------



## BWFoster78

> Mods are not parents. They're more like policemen.



It seems like police departments are having a lot of success with community policing initiatives that, imo, more resemble parenting tactics than traditional police tactics.  Just a thought ...



> If this isn't of much concern to you, then maybe you should stop continuing to press the issue over and over and over. If I was your mom I would have snapped by now.



I enjoy chatting, stating an opinion and replying to follow up comments.  If you're tired of the conversation, why did you reply?


----------



## Mythopoet

BWFoster78 said:


> I enjoy chatting, stating an opinion and replying to follow up comments.  If you're tired of the conversation, why did you reply?



Because I feel compelled to argue bad logic and poor thinking.


----------



## Devor

BWFoster78 said:


> I'm kinda feeling right now, though, that the mods are saying, "Y'all really need to be more sensitive." Yet the mods are sending this message in a less-than sensitive manner.



. . . . . seriously, you've really taken quite a few skill points in trolling, BWFoster.

We're discussing how to handle _sensitive topics_, which were named specifically in the guidelines.  And the chief among them is rape.

Surely you can see a difference between someone calling a bad statement "ludicrous" after a lengthy back and forth - we can all get heated when pushed enough - and someone coming into a discussion about rape with, "So, the villain says if you don't rape her, he'll rape her twice," which happened in a thread not long ago.

We're not asking everyone to walk on eggshells with PC sensitivity in their every post.  Not at all.  We're just saying, if you're taking a position on rape or gender or race or whatever else that's driving people bat shit crazy, stop and try not to or we'll shut it down.  It's that simple.


----------



## BWFoster78

Mythopoet said:


> Because I feel compelled to argue bad logic and poor thinking.



I have similar feelings.  See, we agree on something!


----------



## Svrtnsse

bwfoster78 said:


> i have similar feelings.  See, we agree on something!



its the end of the world!!!!!!!


----------



## BWFoster78

Devor said:


> . . . . . seriously, you've really taken quite a few skill points in trolling, BWFoster.
> 
> We're discussing how to handle _sensitive topics_, which were named specifically in the guidelines.  And the chief among them is rape.
> 
> Surely you can see a difference between someone calling a bad statement "ludicrous" after a lengthy back and forth - we can all get heated when pushed enough - and someone coming into a discussion about rape with, "So, the villain says if you don't rape her, he'll rape her twice," which happened in a thread not long ago.
> 
> We're not asking everyone to walk on eggshells with PC sensitivity in their every post.  Not at all.  We're just saying, if you're taking a position on rape or gender or race or whatever else that's driving people bat shit crazy, stop and try not to or we'll shut it down.  It's that simple.



Devor,

I am not equating the two at all, and I don't think everyone should walk on eggshells.

IMO, post #90 was overly harsh, especially coming from a mod. If y'all don't feel the same, fine.


----------



## Feo Takahari

Let's not panic too much. I admit, post #90 was as angry as some of the mod posts on the writing site I used to post on. But nobody got banned because of it. We've been allowed to spend all these pages discussing a mod decision, instead of the thread being locked and bans being handed out. And the mods aren't smugly insinuating that anyone who disagrees with them is a rapist. This site hasn't turned into the site I fled from, and with its current openness and room for discussion, I don't think it could.


----------



## BWFoster78

Feo,

I agree.  Never meant to imply that the post veered off the deep end.  Overall, things are very well run here, especially considering some of the sites out there ...

It's kinda like with my writing, though.  Right now, I'm in a really cool place.  When I read over something I wrote a few months ago, I don't hate it.  That's a big deal for me.

I really think that I actually have a chance of entertaining people now, which has been my primary goal.

Despite liking where I am, though, I'm always thinking, "What can I do better?"


----------



## ascanius

ok, While I really dislike this whole policy and how it was enacted. The one thing that has made me think about things differently is the idea of a family friendly site.  I don't know who proposed the idea but I, and again I dislike the idea but find it the lesser of two evils, I think maybe a group devoted to such topics might be a good idea.  

How I see this working is the new policy and it's enforcment with extreme prejudice stands on the normal forums, while in the group threads like the slavery thread are allowed to exist until deemed otherwise.  

I think all normal forum rules should apply, along with a few guidelines, and disclamer at the top letting everyone know the topics being discussed.

Also to avoid a small group of people discussing these topics in isolation, frankly its kinda creepy, I think it would be nice to be able to have threads posted on the normal forum and if certain topics are introduced, or if the thread is about certain topics then maybe it could be moved to the group.  That way everything could go as normal and when the need requires it could be moved and those wishing to of their own will can continue with the conversation.



Lets try to find a solution, I don't think complaining about this is going to change anything at this point, So what are your thoughts and opinions.


----------



## Trick

ascanius said:


> ok, While I really dislike this whole policy and how it was enacted. The one thing that has made me think about things differently is the idea of a family friendly site.  I don't know who proposed the idea but I, and again I dislike the idea but find it the lesser of two evils, I think maybe a group devoted to such topics might be a good idea.
> 
> How I see this working is the new policy and it's enforcment with extreme prejudice stands on the normal forums, while in the group threads like the slavery thread are allowed to exist until deemed otherwise.
> 
> I think all normal forum rules should apply, along with a few guidelines, and disclamer at the top letting everyone know the topics being discussed.
> 
> Also to avoid a small group of people discussing these topics in isolation, frankly its kinda creepy, I think it would be nice to be able to have threads posted on the normal forum and if certain topics are introduced, or if the thread is about certain topics then maybe it could be moved to the group.  That way everything could go as normal and when the need requires it could be moved and those wishing to of their own will can continue with the conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> Lets try to find a solution, I don't think complaining about this is going to change anything at this point, So what are your thoughts and opinions.



I believe it was me who proposed the idea, though others may have also. My thought was that a private group could form and then it is not in everyone's face. I'm not advocating insensitive attitudes but I think it should be acknowledged that members have different tolerances for these things and with good reason. For those of us with the yearning to explore these darker themes, it may be good to have a group like this. It would take work to keep it from going overboard (you never know when a weirdo is gonna show up) but perhaps that could be fixed with certain requirements to join etc. 

AISB, this is all up to Black Dragon and the Mods. I think these discussions have merit but they shouldn't be shoved in every member's face. They would still need to be civil and some things this new rule seeks to eliminate should still not be tolerated in the group (I think) but it could work...


----------



## BWFoster78

One forum that I go to that is heavily moderated is Saintsreport.  As you could guess, things can get pretty heated, especially when lamo Falcon fans log in to start trouble.

One thing cool that they do at that site is that, instead of outright closing threads, they move them to an unmoderated forum.  Once a thread enters that forum, users are free to say whatever they want, and everyone knows upon entering that domain to expect things to be the wild, wild west.

Not sure if something like that would work here, but I thought it's an interesting way to handle things ...


----------



## Trick

Is the unmoderated forum a private thing? Or will it come up in google searches etc?


----------



## BWFoster78

Trick said:


> Is the unmoderated forum a private thing? Or will it come up in google searches etc?



Seems like you could easily set such up to only be accessible to those with a certain number of posts.  It's my understanding that the Showcase is, in that manner, not searchable.  Though, my understanding of such matters is dependent on hazy memories of reading about it in threads long ago.


----------



## ascanius

Trick said:


> I believe it was me who proposed the idea, though others may have also. My thought was that a private group could form and then it is not in everyone's face. I'm not advocating insensitive attitudes but I think it should be acknowledged that members have different tolerances for these things and with good reason. For those of us with the yearning to explore these darker themes, it may be good to have a group like this. It would take work to keep it from going overboard (you never know when a weirdo is gonna show up) but perhaps that could be fixed with certain requirements to join etc.
> 
> AISB, this is all up to Black Dragon and the Mods. I think these discussions have merit but they shouldn't be shoved in every member's face. They would still need to be civil and some things this new rule seeks to eliminate should still not be tolerated in the group (I think) but it could work...



All things considered it might be the best middle ground, so kudos to you.

It's the weirdo things the troubles me the most, especially with the topics being discussed, and the isolation from the rest of the thread it kinda makes it easy for such idividuals to show up.  While is still don't completely understand the new policy, at least not how it's applied, I think it might be good to have have it apply to the group just to a lesser extreme as the rest of the forum.

It's kina why I like the idea of of having threads moved to the group when needed.

Edit: correction

I'm curious What the Mods think?


----------



## Trick

ascanius said:


> All things considered it might be the best middle ground, so kudos to you.
> 
> It's the weirdo things the troubles me the most, especially with the topics being discussed, and the isolation from the rest of the thread it kinda makes it easy for such idividuals to show up.  While is still don't completely understand the new policy, at least not how it's applied, I think it might be good to have have it apply to the group just to a lesser extreme as the rest of the forum.
> 
> It's kina why I like the idea of of having threads moved to the group when needed.
> 
> Edit: correction
> 
> I'm curious What the Mods think?



I'd want one Mod (or more) to join it and help keep it sane. I think that remains necessary regardless. I also think the basic rules of MS should still apply. I don't need someone talking contemporary politics or spewing religion hate speech while I'm working with others to get better at writing. That's one of the reasons I love it here, that crap is left at the door (and occasionally shoved back out).


----------



## psychotick

Hi,

Late to the party as usual - but if I could throw my two cents in - what about reviewers and sensitive topics? I mean we're all here wondering how best to go about broaching certain sensitive topics with other authors in an effort to improve our writing. And to a certain extent we are all walking on eggshells, trying not to push certain buttons. And for me that's all right though it sometimes makes open discussion a little more tricky. But what do you do / think when you leave moderated fora like these, get your reviews etc from Joe Public, and realise they aren't moderated at all.

The reason I ask is that I got a review maybe a year ago that actually troubled me. I won't mention the name or the book, but it made me question the implicit assumption I have - and probably the same one most people have - that we're pretty normal. The rest of the world is like us.

To set the scene the entire review was about one piece of the book. In essence my MC had had to carry out a high risk rescue which involved killing the bad guy. So he loosed three arrows into him from cover, in the process knocking him over so that he fell into a fire, and then after that he ran about burning and screaming a bit before finally dying. It brought up bad memories for my MC and issues of remorse, guilt and shame. That seemed understandable to me.

This is an excerpt of the review: _"I hate books where the character shows an unreasonable amount of guilt for either protecting themselves or other by killing their attacker. This shows poor writing skills to us such a contrived emotion to drive the story line. People who survive an attack feels relief not guilt."_

Ignore the language skills it was the sentiment that troubled me. Here I am writing what I think is reasonable and understandable and some of my readers seem to think it's completely unreasonable to feel guilt when you're forced to do something difficult and terrible.

Which getting back to the OP makes me wonder - are we as authors too PC? Are we so crippled by our fear of giving offence that we contribute to fora like this one only after checking that every word typed could not give offence? Or are we completely missing the boat when it comes to understanding the general populace out there? Sure I would feel bad killing someone in cold blood like that, but would a large chunk of people be comfortable with it?

Note I'm not recommending a change to the moderation here, or to what anyone feels or wants to contribute. I'm just suggesting this as something to consider. Maybe we are overly sensitive to sensitive subjects. Maybe the rest of the world aren't like us at all.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Penpilot

First off, that review presumed to speak for everyone in the whole world. It doesn't matter if the average person feels guilty or if they don't. All that matters is that the foundation of your character makes that guilt believable. 

No matter how well you write something, there will always be people who just don't 'get it'. I mean there are people out there who watch Starship Troopers and don't realize it's satire.

As for being overly sensitive, it's not about the subjects being tackled. It's about the manner in which things are being expressed. Sometimes not enough tact is being applied to responses, and not enough assumption of good faith is given. This is difficult when emotions get heated, which is easy with these hot-button topics.

In addition, it's about the goals of being a family friendly site. Imagine someone walking in here expecting Disneyland and finding Amsterdam's redlight district instead. So erring on the side of caution is the stance being taken.

At least this is what I'm getting from all the responses from the Mods.


----------



## Feo Takahari

psychotick said:


> Ignore the language skills it was the sentiment that troubled me. Here I am writing what I think is reasonable and understandable and some of my readers seem to think it's completely unreasonable to feel guilt when you're forced to do something difficult and terrible.
> 
> Which getting back to the OP makes me wonder - are we as authors too PC? Are we so crippled by our fear of giving offence that we contribute to fora like this one only after checking that every word typed could not give offence? Or are we completely missing the boat when it comes to understanding the general populace out there? Sure I would feel bad killing someone in cold blood like that, but would a large chunk of people be comfortable with it?
> 
> Note I'm not recommending a change to the moderation here, or to what anyone feels or wants to contribute. I'm just suggesting this as something to consider. Maybe we are overly sensitive to sensitive subjects. Maybe the rest of the world aren't like us at all.



Suppose most people aren't like you, and wouldn't feel any guilt for killing an attacker. If you then wrote a character who had no guilt for killing an attacker, would you be happy, or even comfortable with yourself? I've accepted the fact that a lot of people aren't bothered by things I find horrific, but I'm still not going to write those things.

On a larger subject, I've been thinking about this and other threads the past few days, and what really bothered me was that I felt like I was being treated as an intolerant, bigoted person for not liking rapists. It was as if I'd spewed bile about gay people or Irish people. Needless to say, I don't think rapists are in any way comparable to either of those groups.


----------



## Svrtnsse

psychotick said:


> Maybe we are overly sensitive to sensitive subjects. Maybe the rest of the world aren't like us at all.



I think this is quite a big deal for me. 
With my writing, I'm putting a fair bit of myself in it, and it gets kind of personal. I'm probably over thinking things a lot, but it's very important for me to get things "right". I want to portray my characters as real and believable persons, and I want them to react in a way that readers can relate to.
I put quite some effort into this and I worry about getting it wrong. Getting it wrong would imply that my understanding of people, and the world in general, would be wrong - and that's a pretty scary thought.

---

As for the example you give. My thought is that the reader/reviewer hasn't really come across that kind of situation other than in their own thoughts - as in, they haven't really questioned their own opinions about it. My personal belief is that if I was forced to kill someone, even if it was a me-or-them situation, I'd be very distressed by the whole situation. 
I'm guessing it'd be similar to how victims of domestic violence or sexual assault often blame themselves for it happening (this is also an impression I have - I haven't looked this up). It's not necessarily the most objectively logical reaction, but it happens anyway.

That said, there probably is research on how people react in these situations, and you probably could find it online and have a look. The hard part will probably be to figure out where your own personal beliefs may need to be researched and scrutinized. After all, it's not easy to spot the things that you don't know you don't know about.


----------



## Russ

psychotick said:


> Maybe we are overly sensitive to sensitive subjects. Maybe the rest of the world aren't like us at all.




Don't think so.  I  have been knocking around awhile and I have yet to meet any people who think rape, torture, pedophilia etc are not subjects of gravity and emotional power.


----------



## BWFoster78

> "I hate books where the character shows an unreasonable amount of guilt for either protecting themselves or other by killing their attacker. This shows poor writing skills to us such a contrived emotion to drive the story line. People who survive an attack feels relief not guilt."



I would have interpreted this quote a lot differently than you have.

Most of the time, I enjoy reading about the kind of characters that I write - ones that are likely to be emotionally impacted by killing someone.  Sometimes, though, I enjoy "less sensitive" works about protagonists who sow wanton destruction without a care in the world.  Those kinds of stories can be fun to read.

I've noticed in my travels around the internet that fans of those latter kinds of works tend not to cross over as much into the former kinds of works.  When I read the review, I assumed that the reader was a fan of the shoot em ups and was simply reacting to the fact that that wasn't the kind of piece that you wrote.

Truthfully, I wouldn't have given it a second thought since I tend to read both.



> Sure I would feel bad killing someone in cold blood like that, but would a large chunk of people be comfortable with it?



I think that, realistically, almost everyone would feel some type of remorse even if the action were justified.  I think that, probably, the guy writing the review would feel remorse despite his comments to the contrary.  I think, again, that he was in-eloquently expressing that he prefers a different kind of writing.

Thanks.

Brian


----------



## Devor

BWFoster78 said:


> I think that, realistically, almost everyone would feel some type of remorse even if the action were justified.



I have four children, and I can comfortably say that I wouldn't feel guilty if I had to take a life protecting them.


----------



## BWFoster78

> what really bothered me was that I felt like I was being treated as an intolerant, bigoted person for not liking rapists.



Feo,

I can't speak for anyone else, but that certainly isn't the way I felt about you.  I don't even know if I've even read all the relevant threads, so I really don't know if your feeling is justified or not.

Just to be completely clear, I'd like to state my position one more time:

I think it is important for fiction writers to be able to go where a story takes them (Note: that statement has absolutely nothing to do with the moderation of this site; this site is a privately run forum and has every right to make whatever rules they want regarding what is and is not discussed.).  There seems to be a trend where authors' beliefs are being conflated with their characters' beliefs.

As a, hopefully, benign example: "Well, you had a character who smoked, and that character was portrayed overall positively.  Therefore, you must believe that smoking is a good thing.  You, the author, are a horrible person for having that belief."

To the person who would make such statements, I would not think, "Oh, you're bigoted against smokers."

Instead, I would think, "You're misguided in thinking that the author necessarily supports smoking just because a character smokes."

The negativity that I would feel to the person making that statement stems from what I feel is the statement-makers attempt to censor any story that contains subject matter that the statement-maker doesn't agree with. In my mind, calling out authors in the way the statement did is an attempt at censorship.

(Note: obviously, I'm not trying to compare the severity of smoking to your topic; I'm trying to remove some of the emotion.)

You come across to me as someone who is deeply impacted emotionally by a particular subject.  I get that.  Some issues hit me harder than others.

Anyway hope this clears up somewhat my view on the subject such that it is.

Thanks.

Brian


----------



## BWFoster78

Devor said:


> I have four children, and I can comfortably say that I wouldn't feel guilty if I had to take a life protecting them.



I think that I would do it without hesitation and without regret, but, I don't know, it's such a huge thing.  I honestly can't say how it would impact me in its totality.


----------



## Svrtnsse

BWFoster78 said:


> I think that I would do it without hesitation and without regret, but, I don't know, it's such a huge thing.  I honestly can't say how it would impact me in its totality.



And lets hope none of us will have to.


----------



## Feo Takahari

@Brian: I'll lay my cards on the table. My post in that locked thread was one day after I read Freeman, a really well-written book about the American Civil War. One of the main characters was a slave who attempted suicide after being repeatedly raped. That was why I reacted so strongly to a "sympathetic" character who wanted to rape a slave.


----------



## BWFoster78

Feo Takahari said:


> @Brian: I'll lay my cards on the table. My post in that locked thread was one day after I read Freeman, a really well-written book about the American Civil War. One of the main characters was a slave who attempted suicide after being repeatedly raped. That was why I reacted so strongly to a "sympathetic" character who wanted to rape a slave.



Feo,

I get your strong reaction, but, and this may just be me, it seemed a bit out of proportion to what I described.

Kinda like I think men who cheat on their wives are despicable.  But if I had a character in a situation where a coworker was coming on to him, I think the story would be more interesting if he were at least tempted to give in than if he were completely chaste and perfect.  I just think that characters should have flaws and some of the best characters have the biggest flaws.

From a pure writing perspective, I have to think, "What is better - adding an element that increases conflict or leaving that something out?"  If we're giving writing advice around here, it seems off to ever say, "No. Don't add conflict."

Better advice is, "Tread carefully with that conflict."

So, anyway, hopefully we understand each other a bit better now.

Thanks.

Brian


----------



## X Equestris

BWFoster78 said:


> Feo,
> 
> I get your strong reaction, but, and this may just be me, it seemed a bit out of proportion to what I described.
> 
> Kinda like I think men who cheat on their wives are despicable.  But if I had a character in a situation where a coworker was coming on to him, I think the story would be more interesting if he were at least tempted to give in than if he were completely chaste and perfect.  I just think that characters should have flaws and some of the best characters have the biggest flaws.
> 
> From a pure writing perspective, I have to think, "What is better - adding an element that increases conflict or leaving that something out?"  If we're giving writing advice around here, it seems off to ever say, "No. Don't add conflict."
> 
> Better advice is, "Tread carefully with that conflict."
> 
> So, anyway, hopefully we understand each other a bit better now.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Brian



To me, this seems like a false equivalency.  Those two things are very different beasts.


----------



## Feo Takahari

@Brian: I don't think the analogy holds. If his wife slaps him around, cheating is more sympathetic. If his wife is dying of cancer, cheating is less sympathetic. You can contextualize it in either direction. I've seen a couple attempts to do that with rape (e.g. the attacker is a chimpanzee and doesn't understand it's wrong), but they usually don't work very well. Rape stands apart from almost anything else you can write, even torture.


----------



## BWFoster78

Feo Takahari said:


> @Brian: I don't think the analogy holds. If his wife slaps him around, cheating is more sympathetic. If his wife is dying of cancer, cheating is less sympathetic. You can contextualize it in either direction. I've seen a couple attempts to do that with rape (e.g. the attacker is a chimpanzee and doesn't understand it's wrong), but they usually don't work very well. Rape stands apart from almost anything else you can write, even torture.



Feo,

I am not going to get into that conversation.  I'm not sure how that conversation can even be had without violating MS's new policy.

Regardless of my ability to find good analogies, my point remains: Regardless of how strongly you feel or why you feel that way, it seems like you are advocating that writers avoid a source of conflict based solely on your strong feelings. I think that advice, if indeed that is what you are saying, is not wise.


----------



## Caged Maiden

I wanted to weigh in on this because I've often been involved in these kinds of threads.  

Over three years ago, I posted a question about sexual assault and the lingering emotional effects.  In my story, I had a man and women held prisoner, and the woman was sexually assaulted while the man was forced to bear witness.  I had legitimate questions about how he might feel after the event.  Basically, later in the story, they become lovers, and they have an intimate scene, and the man hesitates in making their relationship a sexual one, because he's unsure how the woman might feel after being assaulted.

I thought my question was posed professionally and with research at the heart of it.  I wanted my characters to feel authentic, and though I could relate to the victim, I couldn't reasonably assume how a man might feel about the whole thing.  But the main point I want to make in speaking about this, is HOW the question is asked.  Consider for a moment the greater implication of the questions surrounding a sexual assault and how it impacts those who reside on this forum.

While I consider the research I've conducted here very valuable, I don't think all research has as its core, such a harmless intent.  My intent was only to try to understand how a male perspective differed from my own.  How a man might feel about instigating a sexual relationship with a woman he knows was abused.  That's a relatively tricky matter, I think.  IF I were a woman who had abuse in my past, I probably wouldn't come out and tell a new boyfriend about it.  BUT what if the man KNEW about the event before we were together?  Would that impact his feelings?  Would he be hesitant?  Would he abstain form sexual contact because of HIS feelings, or maybe out of respect for HER potential feelings?  That's what I aimed to figure out.

Now, when I asked the question, I found out that pretty much all the things and reactions I'd written were in line with how people responded.  No one told me I was being horrible for portraying the assault or the following relationship.  But the threads that have surface in the meantime (over the last three years), have followed different paths.  I believe the crux of the issue is not the subject matter, but in how the questions were phrased and the general attitude of the posts.

I've been extremely supportive of mature questions and answer them happily when I feel I have something valuable to say regarding the subjects.  However, when the post comes from a person who is obviously not being tactful...it can degrade the thread and my reactions tend to be negative when I think the subject is missing the mark and becoming ludicrous.

When puppies offend dogs, the older animals give a very clear discipline.  Teeth surrounding the pup's neck and a warning growl.  I think I've become that old lady dog (yeah, that's right...OLD LADY DOG, not the b-word HA!) and given out a couple warning growls, because this forum is my home and some of the things said have personally offended me and some other members of my "pack".  I think the mods have been forced to take a role as our Alphas, and set down some stricter rules to stop us having to discipline ourselves in the way we've done in the past.  Plain and simple, we needed further explanation of some of the rules.

What I want to say about this, is that the subjects aren't strictly offensive.  It isn't that we can't talk about abuse, addiction, assault, crime, murder, death, religion, the afterlife, deities, etc. it's that we have to be sympathetic that many on our forum are survivors (probably disproportionately so) and are due a certain amount of respect.


----------



## Feo Takahari

I don't want to give the impression that I'm saying we can't write about rape. In one form or another, bodily integrity is the most common subject in my writing, and rape is one of the ways that can be lost. I just want to see something done with it.

To give an idea of what I mean, one of my characters is transgender, and I talk about the isolation she's experienced. There was going to be a scene where another character expressed disgust with her and told her she wasn't a real woman, causing her to cry. I cut it because I realized I wasn't doing anything with it. I wasn't saying anything more or adding anything meaningful. It was just conflict for conflict's sake.

I've been bashed before for the content of my writing. Something Awful has called me a misogynist, a pedophile, and other words I'm probably not allowed to repeat here. But I'm still proud of most of my work because there were reasons I wrote it. I included the things I wanted to talk about, even when those things were horrific, and when I had nothing to say, I left them out.


----------



## Amanita

I've been rather critical about the measures restricting acceptable discussion topics but reading what's going on at the NaNo fantasy forum at the moment makes me be grateful for it. 
I really don't like looking through a thread about things people want to see in fantasy stories just to find myself in the midst of a heated political argument spanning pages with the same rather controversial opinions being repeated again and again. The complete lack of empathy and understanding by posters from all sides is striking. 

Okay, on topic: Everyone's backstory is different and it often influences what we're writing. The one situation where one can find rape being justified by people on the political left and even some of those calling themselves feminists is the end of WW2 in Germany. (Justified by fellow Germans, this is not supposed to be an attack against anyone.) My grandmother had to flee from what is now Serbia thene and I suspect that this might have happened to her as well. (She's never talked about this period of her life and by now, she can't do it anymore so I will never know.) 
I naturally have rather strong feelings about the argument above. 
Still, knowing the sheer number of such incidents, I don't believe that all of these soldiers were doomed to be evil for the rest of their lives and no one should ever feel sympathy for them. 
War rape has been done by men of any race and many cultures and I think if someone writes a serious war-centric story, the subject shouldn't be left out. One can write the story in such a way that the heroes reject this kind of behaviour and don't depend on the help of anyone who doesn't but this could also lead to a situation where a character is a rapist but also has positive traits which are shown. I don't think writing this is wrong per se if as always, it's written well. I have a tendency towards view point characters rejecting rape but everyone on the "right" side doing so might not be realistic in a brutal and chaotic war situation.


----------

