Writers respond: Define offensive

[Ophiucha]

I don't think his time period forgives the racism, particularly since even for his time period, he was particularly bad, I just don't think that means we should sweep it under the rug and pretend it didn't exist, nor that we should forget, ban, or censor Lovecraft because of it. He's a phenomenal writer, he just also happened to be a phenomenal racist.

I do agree that writing caricatures, and in the case of philosophies and creeds, strawmen is just bad writing. Though there are worse things. Anybody remember MammothFail? I was reminded of that one recently. Just goes to show that there's a sliding scale.

 

[Feo Takahari]

What I immediately thought of when people started talking about groups getting offended for petty reasons.

 

[Chime85]

Wow, I did not expect this magnitude of response from my original question. I agree with the majority in this case when it is said that a writer has the right to write about whatever he or she wishes to write. If the reader finds the material offensive, then they are welcome to stop reading and pick up another book entirely.
I believe there is a major difference between what we can class as artistic licencing. That being, to cover a particular subject matter in a way to pursue a purpose or line of characterisation in the fashion we desire. The other mind set would be trying to offend, for the sake of offending. I believe the later of the examples is when things get out of hand.

A great example of when such subject are the focus of a story, and could be taken as offensive, would be a particular film that comes to mind, I am referring to a film called “the help”. In my opinion, a fantastic film, but I am not writing to give my opinion on the quality a particular film. Yes, this film is outside the context of fantasy and writing (unless of course you are a screen writer. I have no desire to do you any disservice, please accept my apology if you feel this is the case), but it is a good example of a story telling medium which conveys in many peoples’ eyes, how people stereotype black people in yesteryear.

In this particular film, you see many slurs and horrid names. I imagine some people found this offensive. That is there right to do so, I will not bare them any grudge in doing this. However, it covers a subject matter that is indeed very important. I would hate it if the screenwriters crept away from this, in order to please a few nay-sayers.

If anything, when writing questionable material, a writer would have to consider a couple of things in order to deliver the material to their audience. The first being; context. The example I gave above, I would definitely say the subject matter falls into the context of the story and underlying message the film is trying to pursue.

The second is justification. When I say justification, I do not mean to say that any form of inhumanity is justified. I mean, as many of you are aware, that is it justified within the setting of your narrative and purposeful in some way to plot, character development, or to portray a particular social indifference to the subject matter being written. Although this sounds like a carbon copy of point one, it is different in the way that justification is not necessarily a theme or ideology of which your story is focusing on.

Now moving from race (this seems to be a focus point. Not my intention, but this thread has evolved in that direction), and the writer; I move to religion and the reader. For this point, I will throw down the gauntlet called Harry Potter. Many will say the series was enjoyable to read and fed the imaginations of children and adults alike. That said, it did spark fury amongst a few religious members of the Christian faith. For those out of this loop, members of the Christian faith burnt copies of harry potter because they believed it was linked to Satanism.

In the same way we state that we have a right to write what we wish, they do have a right to burn books. As much as I hate to say this, they actually do. If person X purchases a copy of harry potter, then person X has the right to do what they wish with it (which does include burning it).

Now as many of you have pointed out, if someone dislikes a particular piece of written material, simply don’t read it. but what I suppose I would disagree to would be the censorship of group X against subject Y. Yes, we all have our likes and dislikes about particular subject matters. But it is NOT our right to push our views onto the world. Back to the writers viewpoint, it is our right to write what we wish. These points are different, in a one way system of the reader complaining about written work, the writer is not allowed to complain about the readers own comments or remarks.

 

[Garren Jacobsen]

Let me first make an analogy: Last Saturday I was observing a golfer on the 18th hole at a local golf course. ON this particular hole there are several hazards surrounding the green the most daunting of which is a large water hazard, or pond, the the golfers left as he faces the hole. There was one golfer who was so afraid of this hazard that he stared at it for a long while before he took his swings. As could be expected when he hit the ball he went into the drink.

Moral of the story is: don't focus so much on the problems around you (in this case being offensive) focus on the goal (in this case writing a great story).

 

[gavintonks]

District 9 the movie very successfully translated apartheid district 6 into a hit movie, even if half the world had no idea what is really represented

 

[gavintonks]

I was a moderator on a political blog in South Africa which came to define racism as we have a Chinese socialist agenda, and a government that has lost a protagonist and has reinvented the white man as the bogey of all ills, as it is what happened 40 years ago defines their inability to manage and stop stealing tax payers money.

After being told to give back everything from land, dignity and what ever else the indoctrinated who are waiting for some religious handout of the wealth of the country they think they are entitled to [I calculated if they nationalized everything and paid them out they would get about US$300] Also despite the fact their were 15 million people and now 35 million people who are claiming hurt before they were born, I realized one thing, the ability to be affronted by a statement then it is you and only you who can reflect the emotional response and be affronted or offended.

 

[ALB2012]

I had a few comments on my book on a review site. The main character is a female elf former slave in a world were elves are at best servants. This is justified in the lore. They were civilized but due to many factors their civilization fell and now they are scattered hunter/gatherer communities. The humans rule, but the majority of them are just getting on and at least pay lip service to the status quo which has been in power for centuries, initially to protect the humans. Now things have been that way for so long and the rulers are so entrenched and oppressive no one speaks up.

It is a mainly matriarchal society but to their are races within with strong and powerful women, including one matriarcal race. The female lead needs to be rescued, because she does that is the background of the character but there are fiesty women and feeble men.

SOmeone mentioned why are the women weaker, well the MC is a slave and has no power so has no choice and the other female character is young and shy but becomes stronger later. It is simply the fact the two male characters are the one sin the situation to help. Later books have strong female characters, and strong male characters. There is a weak female character because that is her personality. It is a medieval based world. There are dark skinned people, but they do not appear much in book 1 as it is not set in their part of the world, a later book will be.

There is an element of the Witch-Hunters being akin to the Nazis and the elves being akin to the jews. This is not intentional but I think people see what they wish to see and use ideas and images in interpretation.

I think, personally, people can take offence at anything. Offence is surely only offence if its intended. My book has sex in it, I am sure someone will find this offensive. Well fine. Stop reading. Unless an author is being actively offensive or discriminatory I think it really is up to the reader. Some people find things offensive, some don't

 

[Feo Takahari]

I was recently told that one of my short stories was offensive because it wasn't "honest." It took a bit of questioning to get a proper definition of this--eventually, it turned out that the commenter thought my female lead needed more motivation and personality beyond her attraction to the male lead. On the one hand, her refusal to admit her attraction basically is the story, and there's no plot-important reason to know much else about her. But on the other hand, the commenter was right that this makes the character feel shallow, so in my next draft, I'll build upon other aspects of her (such as her religious fervor.)

In other words, just because people are offended when they maybe shouldn't be doesn't mean they're not making good points about what you need to change.

 

[shangrila]

People can find offence at anything if they try. As long as you're not extreme you should be fine.

 

[Robert Donnell]

The problem with Political Correctness is that some people will be offended at the most inoffensive statements, or even the Author's name.

Absolutely everything is offensive to those who make it their business to be offended.