On Problematic Tropes

[rowyn]

I have a couple of conflicting principles that I don't know how to reconcile:

* Fiction at its best illuminates reality. This includes all genres, even the obviously fantastic and implausible. Fiction has the ability to make us understand one another better, to let us see through another's eyes. This is amazing and powerful and should be used wisely.
* Daydreams and fantasies are harmless fun. Fantasizing about things that are unrealistic, as long as you know that they're unrealistic and have no interest in making them reality, is fine.

There's no conflict between the two when one's fantasy is something socially-acceptable if impossible, like "having a telepathic bond with a friendly dragon".  Things where, if you could make them real, it wouldn't be particularly detrimental for the world at large.

But lots of fantasies are not socially-acceptable, nor a desirable/plausible reality. Twilight, for example, gets a lot of flak for its romance between a century-old vampire stalker and his 17 year-old love interest*. There's a novel I won't name about a romance between a Nazi concentration camp commander and a  Jewish prisoner that ends with him rescuing the internees and her converting to Christianity. Master/slave romances are commonplace.

I've named all romance tropes here because those are the ones I hear discussed. Maybe in horror circles they discuss whether their monsters are too monstrous or the events depicted too awful, and I just don't hear it. I hear occasional decrying of the Chosen One trope of fantasy, or more rarely, on the idealization of feudal societies and tyranny.

In general, I am talking about tropes that entertain but appear to do the opposite of illuminate: dehumanise, debase, disinform. Tropes that turn things that are devastating and awful in reality into light entertainment, or portray those things as acceptable and even enjoyable in the context of the story.

I believe in free speech, so obviously I think people should be allowed to read and write what they please regardless of whether or not I think it has merit. That part is easy.

But when I run into a trope that deeply offends me, I feel this conflict over whether or not condemnation is appropriate. How dangerous are fantasies? Does it make a difference if you draw on real history or use a fantasy world for the setting? (Eg, would the Nazi/Jew romance be less offensive if the same tropes were used in fictional countries with fictional religions?) How much does tone matter? I can't help thinking that tone has an impact, that some things are written as escapism and the author and readers are aware that it's Not Realistic, and that's different from a book written seriously. From one where the author's style suggests "this book is illuminating, resonant, true" and I am all D:

But I don't know. Maybe what I want is a bright line between someone's goofy dubcon fanfic and a mainstream novel glorifying rape, and maybe there can't be one. Maybe judging works case-by-case, and recognizing that what I think is offensive and repugnant may be someone else's harmless fantasy (and vice-versa) is inevitable.

I remain curious about how other people feel on the topic: Of the principles I opened with, do you find one one or the other unconvincing? If both are relevant, how do you handle the conflict?

* On this subject: I half-joked last month that 'I'm not saying it's not possible to write a good romance between a first-person young woman narrator and an ancient superpowerful male jerk. Wait, maybe I am'. But I remembered later that there's a book I liked which used this trope! N.K. Jemisin's The Hundred Thousand Kingdoms. So yeah, apparently I judge based on execution as well, even when I feel strongly about the trope.

Comments

[terrycloth.livejournal.com]

I think the first one can't be taken literally. A completely unrealistic story with nothing in it that should or could happen in real life will still (at its best) contain seeds of insight or clever ideas that could lead someone to an epiphany. It's actually not as good if it's literally a treatise on why you should believe the way the author does as spoken through the mouths of the characters in the story, because that's preachy and triggers the normal sorts of defenses against learning things.

It might make sense to worry about romance, since romance is a kind of wish-fulfilment story.

Horror is not wish fulfilment. It's closer to humor, where the gap between what you expect (or what you'd expect) and what happens is the appealing part. You want strange for its own sake, and violating social mores (like, 'don't murder people') is one form of strangeness that you can use.

Porn is... sort of its own thing. In a way it's wish fulfilment, but part of the wish is 'I wish things were really this simple and free of consequences' and you know they're not. If you try to take porn seriously... you're going to have a bad time. And end up getting really angry at people who don't deserve it. This actually also applies to 'violence porn' or 'military porn' or whatever -- they're surprisingly well named.

*ponders 'scenery porn'* I'm not sure that one is well named.

And action movies. Action movies are essentially porn.

Of course there are stories that try to be realistic and portray characters that the reader is meant to identify with in situations that are supposed to be portrayed in a reasonable light. I guess. Some people like that sort of thing.

[rowyn]

I have read a lot of romance, and I think the idea that it's fundamentally more about wish-fulfillment than other genres is misguided. I mean, I spent a LOT more time as a kid wishing I could go to Narnia than I did wishing I was in a romance novel.

More to the point, everything you said about porn not being a thing you expect or want to have happen in your real life applies equally well to romance. Romance readers aren't inherently more likely to internalize absurd tropes than porn consumers.

[terrycloth.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I didn't talk about standard fantasy at all, did I? Huh.

A lot of my fantasies about being in fantasy worlds did not include being in the actual story being told. "I want to live in a world with magic" doesn't mean "...while it's being invaded by ogres and everyone is dying." Maybe that's just me though?

[jordangreywolf.livejournal.com]

Hee! It's not just you! :D There is a difference between fantasizing not only, "What if I were in a wonderful fantasy world," but, "What if I were so AMAZINGLY COMPETENT that I could actually save that world, and thus its inhabitants might be favorably disposed to me, even though I'm a total outsider?" ;)

I might have wistful, half-thought fantasies about piloting an AT-ST and nimbly stepping my way through a traffic jam. I might waste a thought-exercise on, "If there were a zombie apocalypse, where would we go, and what would we take with us?" I might follow any number of stories and wish somehow I could magically explore "what-ifs" -- what if this character had done this instead of that? Would it make the story better? More interesting? Or at least satisfy my inclination to meddle with things vs. just being a spectator?

But actually being there in battle -- me, my real self? Even if I magically received a perfect physique, a cool starship, training in new requisite skills, a magical battle-pet, or whatever else is the "price of entry" to play in this world, actually BEING there and not knowing what the future has in store (as soon as I change something, the "future" I thought I knew from reading to the end of the book no longer exists) ... that's going to be terrifying, I'm sure.

Often, my "fantasies" regarding reading stories reflect my desire to meddle, rather than replacing any particular character and stealing the spotlight. What if a character did X instead of Y? How might that impact things? I sometimes find myself wondering ... what if I could somehow be inserted into one particular place in the story, knowing what I know (once I've read to the end), and I could -- without any special powers, per se -- say the right thing to the right person? Could it change the course of events? Might a sidekick character be spared a melodramatic and violent death? Might a needless conflict be avoided? Written as a book, the outcome might make for a boring read (if only our protagonists TURNED AROUND in the first 5 minutes of this movie, we wouldn't have a story!), but it might make for a better outcome if you actually had to live there.

But if I were really, actually, honest-to-goodness offered such a chance, to step into a fantasy world of danger?

...

Actually, as stupid as it would be of me, I'd probably take it, if Gwendel gets to go along for the ride. I would dread it, be certain I'm probably going to die, but I would feel OBLIGED to take such an opportunity. Like, this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. If you refuse it, you're going to live to regret and wonder what could have been, even if realistically it probably would have turned out poorly. :P

My answer would likely be different if I had kids. I would of course regret and wonder, but there's no way I'd be like the protagonist of Close Encounters of the Third Kind and go, hey, forget the wife and kids -- I'm gonna go into SPACE with freaky aliens and not be seen for 40 years! Whee! (And bringing the kids along to get eaten by ogres would hardly be better.)

[rowyn]

*nods* Yeah, it's not something I could turn down, either. Even though it's stupid. I've spent my whole life thinking about f&sf worlds and adventures. I couldn't say no to the chance to be part of one.

[rowyn]

Hmmm. My book-inspired fantasies generally took two forms:

1) Wanting to go to the cool fantasy world and play with magic and meet fantastic creatures, etc.
2) Wanting to go into the book and Make Everything Better.

In my daydreams of the latter, I often endow myself with sufficient power to just FIX whatever the problem is, so that it'd make a boring book. But sometimes it's more on the lines of "what if I didn't have any special powers beyond foreknowledge of events? How much good could I do?"

I'm not sure what kind is the most frequent, as far as "time spent daydreaming" goes. I think the "go to the cool world and live a peaceful happy life" is certainly the only one I would want to COME TRUE, but I probably spend more time on variants of "fixing the problem". Because there's more stuff to think about when there're problems to grapple with. :D

[jordangreywolf.livejournal.com]

Exactly! Problems in real life? Something to grouse about. But for a story? It's what makes there something to be interested in, and to want to have a stake in. :)

I mean, if I learned that any time I wrote a story (?!?) the characters within it became REAL on some level, and suffered through all the travails I invented for them ... well ... AIEEEE! I wouldn't very well go on writing stories that feature people in horrible, horrible situations. (Well, honestly, I think my brain might implode at the implications. I'm not sure how I could RATIONALLY approach something like that. Or believe it.) But my point is just that I think it's natural to have a very different idea of "what is a story I am interested in" and "what is an idealized setting I would like to LIVE in."

[rowyn]

Right! And even when I'm not actually writing a story, when I'm just daydreaming, I still throw in problems. Maybe add in massive powers to easily deal with the problems, sometimes, but not every time. My mind still wants to think about narrative, even when it's 100% for my own private amusement.

[octantis.livejournal.com]

I think intent matters, and as a result tone and skill can matter. If someone has fantasies about socially unacceptable things, it's often the case that it's not by choice, and condemning someone for it when they understand the distinction between fantasy and what is ethical or moral isn't right. So, when a work can skillfully approach this content without net damaging the... I don't know, fabric of social perception? Whatever it is. If it can skillfully approach that wherein the net result is something of value to people more than it is a negative influence, hey great. If the intent is decent but the execution is sucky/damaging, that's not so good. If the intent is to influence people toward ethically/morally unacceptable behavior, like a KKK manifesto wrought into an alluring story, we're getting into truly irresponsible territory. At that point, whether someone is good or poor at the execution and setting of tone might be less of a factor in responsibility and social worth, though maybe at that point you start measuring these things in level of threat.

It's funny... Just yesterday, a guy on the street snarled at me and told me to "fuck myself and go to hell, fucking 'spic." And I actually found it hard to be upset or offended because of how hilariously inept it all was... pretty much just an ignorant dude with some issues. I'd be way more offended and angry at someone who did their slurring in a subtler, shadier, more cunning way. Or who at least got my ethnicity right. X3 I could kind if see a parallel where fiction was involved.

[rowyn]

Yeah, I don't think I can get away from "tone matters", personally. It isn't in me to say that someone's BDSM master/slave fantasy is innately dangerous to society, even though real-world slavery is unredeemably awful. But I couldn't say "so that KKK manifesto/misogynist screed/whatever you wrote is fine", either.

And I am not going to draw the line in the same place that other people do, and I am just going to have to live with the standards being variable on this one. :|

[autopope.livejournal.com]

I see intent as mattering a lot. And this includes both received intent -- what the reader perceives as the message the work is intended to convey -- as well as actual intent.

A lot of what made the Nazi camp commandant/Jewish prisoner romance novel so goddamn offensive was the not-widely-commented-on frame: that the author was an evangelical Christian and that the love that brings them together is the love of Jeeeeezus (pronunciation to suit American evangelist) and they go on together to Convert All The Jews. Speaking solely for myself as someone of the relevant ethnicity (who lost a huge branch of his family tree in Dachau), that's the most offensive aspect of it -- not the dubious power dynamic or the romance element, but the cultural erasure message.

To take another example: "stories of female subjugation and in some cases willing collaboration in a patriarchal society" is a description that covers both John Norman's "Gor" and Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale". Common trope, wildly divergent treatments -- and the key difference is the intent of the author.

[sashajwolf.livejournal.com]

(Here via andrewducker).

This is pretty much my thinking as well. I have no problem with fiction that portrays morally dubious or obnoxious situations, relationships, etc, but I want it to be written in a way that conveys that I-as-reader am supposed to find this disturbing. That way, there's less risk of some asshat taking it as a manifesto statement, and I can still use bits of it as fantasy fodder if I want to. Showing that it's problematic doesn't prevent that - in fact, it probably enhances it, because when I have problematic fantasies, their moral ambiguity is frankly part of the fascination. It's my subconscious telling me there's something there that I haven't quite resolved yet, and exploring those fantasies while being aware of their problematic nature is often part of figuring out what resolution might look like.

[rowyn]

Oooh. That's a really interesting take on it! I must think about that more.

[jordangreywolf.livejournal.com]

Heh. Most of my daydreams end badly. I seem to have a knack for imagining ALL SORTS OF WAYS my fantasy can go horribly wrong. My difficulty is in imagining happy endings that don't involve an obvious deus ex machina or at least some sort of all-too conveeeeeeenient development. (I consider the villain suddenly grabbing the idiot ball to be among such developments.)

I'm sure there's some sort of relationship between this phenomenon and my spending so much time GMing role-playing games.

Ahem. Anyway, I think one way of showing "the author does not necessarily advocate for this" is to have some character provide the reasonable voice of opposition ... and NOT make that character out to be some horrible-jerk-and-thus-his-arguments-are-invalid type.

I think some of the most compelling stories for me are ones where the villain has a pretty self-consistent argument ... and yet it's pretty understandable that the hero won't (or CAN'T) be swayed by it. The villain might have a compelling argument that he has been wrong, but if the villain's solution necessitates certain extreme "sacrifices" to carry out, a hero can be forgiven for opposing him anyway. This doesn't mean I never want villains to be evil by any means, and it doesn't mean that I honestly think that every villain is all that thoughtful. It just makes it more interesting for me than "Bwahahahaha! I am the wicked because BEING EVIL IS FUN! So there!"

Still, in some alternate imaginary universe where I would devote my time to being an author ... I think I would want to run my stories by a friend with significantly different experiences than mine, whose opinions I respect (even if I don't always agree with them), for a run-through to make sure I am not accidentally communicating that which I do not wish to. Am I spending TOO MUCH time articulating the villain's POV, to the point where a reader might mistake the villain for the tragic protagonist? Might the reader mistakenly think that I'm actually rooting for the evil Empire and think that blowing up peaceful planets is a reasonable way to maintain order in the galaxy?

I think it's worth getting a "sanity check" on stuff like this. I know what I'm saying -- or what I'm trying to say, anyway -- but that doesn't mean I have a good grasp on what someone on the other side is going to read into my work.

[rowyn]

When I was writing my initial post, I didn't want to go off on a tangent about how terrible I thought a particular example was, but: YES. The "Nazi commander/Jewish prisoner romance" concept is, by itself, so bad that my SO said "you can stop there" and you pretty much can. But having it be an "inspirational romance" makes it ineffably worse. It destroys any hope I might have that "this is a goofy fetishistic thing not actually meant to be a lesson applicable to the real world".  It's practically screaming "if you find yourself inexplicably attracted to a genocidal mass murderer, try to reform him. SURELY THAT WILL END WELL."

And THAT isn't even touching on the utter horror of taking a religious group massacred because of their religion and having the narrative say "I'll save you! BY CONVERTING YOU." NO JUST NO WHY WOULD ANYONE EVER THINK THIS WAS A GOOD IDEA EVER.

Ahem.

I think this was the one example on my list where I wanted to condemn the author for seeking publication and the publisher for printing it. Free country, yes you can say it, but that doesn't mean you SHOULD. But my father is Jewish (an atheist, mind, but still Jewish), and I expect that makes me take this more personally than I would if I were unrelated.

Anyway, I agree about received intent, which I think is a lot more important than the author's planned intent. If the author can't make their intended message come through in the narrative, it doesn't really matter what it was. The vast majority of their audience is never going to know about it. All they'll know is what was in the story.

[autopope.livejournal.com]

I mostly agree -- but received intent isn't a constant; some readers will persistently miss the point even if you club them between the eyes with it nailed to the end of a baseball bat. Srsly, about 20-25% of readers are always going to misread the text, at a "mistaking the bad guys for good guys" level of fundamental misunderstanding, while about 20-25% will read it mostly correctly, and 5-10% will actually understand the hidden subtexts and sly messages and get all the easter eggs.

All one can really do is try to make it hard to get the point back-to-front; hoping people get the point is a losing battle.

(Source: bitter experience and > 20 published novels under my belt.)

[rowyn]

I am always tickled when people comment on the subtexts in my work. I'm all "Awwwwww you noticed! ♥" Because you can't just tell people it's there: then it'd be TEXT and not SUBtext. :D

[ankewehner.livejournal.com]

*reads the two principles about a dozen times, trying to see a conflict between them*
What conflict?

[rowyn]

The conflict is when the "harmless fantasy" not only doesn't help the reader see through another's eyes, but dehumanizes its characters and/or offers as positive (in the context of the story) things that would be terrible in reality.

Eg, say an author has a fantasy about how awesome master/slave relationships are and it'd be wonderful as long as the master was, y'know, a nice guy, or at least nicer than the average master. Oh and obviously some races are just MEANT to be the slaves and another to be the masters. And women are just NATURALLY subservient, so all of the ones in the story are super-happy to be enslaved. Even assuming that the author knows this fantasy has zero bearing on reality and would be horrible in any attempted implentation, should the author feel a moral obligation not to write and publish a book portraying it? Or is it "just a harmless fantasy" and so sure, go ahead and tell it?

[ankewehner.livejournal.com]

I can't wrap my head around it. I really can't.

[ankewehner.livejournal.com]

OK, I'm trying.

So, Elliot Rodger shot a bunch of people because he felt that the world owed him a girlfriend, and women NOT doing what he wanted was not how the world should be.

In reaction, a lot of guys said stuff like, "see, ladies? You'd better let any guy who wants to fuck you, or you could be next".

The idea that women should be naturally subservient to men is not a harmless fantasy, but an idea really held by many people, and it's toxic shlock that kills people.

And even IF the author "knows" their fantasy is just that, there will be people who don't, and read the story, and feel their worldview strengthened.

[jordangreywolf.livejournal.com]

I think the problem is that while there are many, many things that -- on their own, free of certain contexts -- could make for a lovely story, a writer still needs to consider her audience and the context in which the story will be read. It's impossible to cover all the angles: any sci-fi story is almost certain to become ludicrous given the passage of enough time, and who knows what convulsions popular values might suffer over time?

But in the more immediate, imagine a story about some heroic Rebels who commandeer a couple of Imperial cargo ships and fly them right into the twin Imperial Towers in the heart of Coruscant City in a climactic and self-sacrificial blow to the wicked Emperor. Sometime back in, oh, the 1990s, such a story might have found its place. Releasing such a story around 2001 or so would be most unfortunate. A reader might be forgiven for wondering whether the author was trying to make a Statement that wasn't originally intended, simply because of the context of events.

I view certain fantasies in the same light. Maybe it is indeed harmless that someone creates a hero who engages in a master/slave relationship, and it's all okay, because the slave WANTS it, even if the slave doesn't immediately realize it or ... something. But it's a charged enough issue that I cannot ignore the "meta" concerns. Is this just a harmless author's fantasy? Or could it be that the author actually thinks that this is a good and just arrangement that should work just fine in the real world, if only more people would come to the author's point of view?

Or what if the author is making a satire, employing a false narrator? There is the danger of the satire being taken as earnestness. Is Lolita's narrator to be taken at face value? Or, perhaps, you succeed in communicating to the reader, "This is a satire! This is not meant to be taken seriously!" but you make a little too compelling and heartfelt a case for the villain's point of view, such that a reader might wonder--wonder--where your sympathies truly lie.

My main excuse for not writing anything is because I simply can't commit myself to finish much of anything, and too often I wish to "have done" something rather than to do the hard work of doing. However, there are more than a few ideas I've had where I've thought it would be interesting to have a story that presented the reader with a protagonist believably meant to BE the protagonist, yet the undertone encourages the reader to be more sympathize to the protagonist--perhaps even root for him or her--and then at some point the story does a 180, and if you've been feeling that way, you're vindicated. And yet, I've wondered ... what if I make the false protagonist too convincing? What if the reader thinks I actually like this, and everything this disagreeable "hero" stands for, and gives up in disgust partway through, before I do the "big reveal"? Or, worse, what if the reader actually LIKES the hero (despite my attempts to make him dreadful), and is disappointed when things turn against him?

I could litter a story with disclaimers ("The author does not actually advocate this point of view being voiced by the villain!") and ... well, I'm sure it could turn into quite a mess anyway.

But if a writer discounts all of that and plows right ahead with a book full of fantasies that feature, say, the moral and physical and mental superiority of ethnic group X over ethnic group Y (even where X and Y might be fictitious groups), I might wonder whether this gives insight into the writer's views in Real Life.

[terrycloth.livejournal.com]

This is reminding me of a subset of MLP fanfic called the 'Conversion Bureau' where there are two groups of authors who hate each other a lot.

The original stories were about ponies coming to Earth and telling humans that they all had to convert into ponies and have their violent impulses curbed, or die to a wave of magic that burned humans to ash. A lot of them were slice of life transformation fics, but some were about fighting the evil resistance that didn't want people to 'lose their humanity' and were willing to kill innocent ponies to prevent it.

Some people thought the premise was misanthropic because it was implying that humans were inherently violent, so it sparked a wave of response stories where the people that converted were not the same as they'd been before so the original people were 'dead', and the ponies were evil for wanting to 'replace' everyone, and the heroic resistance had to murder millions of ponies and converts in order to save humanity.

It's really, really hard to read one of the stories written by the people you don't agree with, because you're almost guaranteed to side with the antagonists and then they'll LOSE in stupid ways because the author really wants you to identify with the protagonists and this is the part where you're supposed to be cheering. x.x

[jordangreywolf.livejournal.com]

where there are two groups of authors who hate each other a lot.

Ah yes. Warring narratives in shared-world fiction. Been there. Sadly, done that, too. :( Ack. (There's so much I wish I could conveniently "undo" in the past. Leave the present as-is, sure, but let me just edit out this or that stupid thing I did that really didn't add anything useful to anyone's experience.)

fighting the evil resistance...

Huh. This actually reminds me of a sci-fi story I read, as part of an anthology (and I can't for the life of me remember any useful titles -- or any useful keywords to find it via Google) where some aliens came to Earth, journeyed around, and one of their number was basically releasing gas/spores/magic-stuff/whatever that was altering all life on Earth to be mildly psychic in the very, VERY specific sense that if you hurt anyone, you would suffer a mental backlash so you felt the pain of the person you caused the pain to. And if you killed someone (no mention made here of whether it has to be done PAINFULLY), you would die as well. And this would bring peace to the world. And this psychic power is amazingly accurate at determining who is "responsible" for what, without any nuance in regards to, say, if it's an accident, or just how indirect your responsibility can be and you still get nailed for it.

And it all works, of course, there's nobody in this world who would be willing to personally die in order to take out a large number of enemies.

This didn't just affect humans, and it wasn't limited to harming humanity. So no meat. Carnivores are out of luck. Lions, tigers, bears ... wolves, house cats, dogs? Doomed. But, hey, carnivores = evil. We learned that much from funny-animal cartoons, right? (I wonder if the author had any idea whatsoever just how much of our ecosystem includes life forms that KILL other life forms, and how totally messed up we'd be with such a mind-bogglingly large mass-extinction event?)

I so wanted to run over those self-righteous aliens with a truck, or blow them up or something, when I read this in high school. My emotional reactions in high school were generally ... lacking in nuance ... but after more careful consideration, it would probably be the right thing to do for the sake of saving the planet (just for more rational reasons than I bothered to consider at the time).

Ditto regards either side of this "Conversion Bureau." From what you've told me, I don't think I'd want to root for anybody in that conflict. Whee.

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty sure that's "Rule Golden" by Damon Knight.

[jordangreywolf.livejournal.com]

*ding ding ding ding!* We have a WINNER!

Thanks -- My Google-fu is weak (as is my memory). I'm pretty sure I would have never figured that out on my own.

[rowyn]

*giggles at "lacking in nuance"* Still, I can't fault your present-day reasoning. Ugh.

[rowyn]

It would be difficult for me to feel like either "side" in the Conversion Bureau thing was "reasonable". It reminds me of when you pointed out "Saturday Morning Cartoon logic", where certain types of stories work if you accept their tropes, but accepting their tropes requires ignoring not the laws of physics or probability or whathaveyou, but the general rules of "how people generally behave" or "how consequences work". And you can do that! But it's a different kind of suspension of disbelief from that required for fantasy.

[jordangreywolf.livejournal.com]

I'm willing to "forgive" a number of things. I don't expect authors to share all my values. My political and religious viewpoints are pretty unpopular in various circles. I shouldn't be too shocked if the author celebrates a worldview that's incompatible with mine.

I might still get a bit taken aback if the author seems to go a little too far out of his way to hold up persons nominally sharing my political or religious background as straw-man villains destined to suffer some violent Karmic fate to the presumably gleeful cheers of the audience. But even then, it's a book. No matter how insulted I feel by it, this is (hallelujah!) a land of free speech. The author has the right to write that book. I've got the right to grumble and grouse about it.

Trying to get to your point: I think it's perfectly all right to be offended, and to talk about WHY you are offended. I dare say you can even ... condemn it. To condemn it is not necessarily the same as saying, "And we must CENSOR it!" or "And we must PUNISH the author!" You can dislike it very enthusiastically, very vigorously exercising your right to free speech, and it's still NOT the same thing.

[rowyn]

*nods to your last point especially*

I feel weird trying to explain why one book's use of a trope will set me off but not another's. A lot of it really does come down "do I feel like the author is advocating for this terrible idea, or just writing about it?" Because the latter doesn't bother me anywhere near as much as the former. But what I perceive as "advocating" is squishy, and other people are very likely to disagree, possibly to an extreme degree.

The other thing is that I try not to conflate "this is bad" with "I don't like this", so I am reluctant to condemn things that I don't like. Even though it's sometimes appropriate, like you say.

... I am so incoherent on this topic. :D

[jordangreywolf.livejournal.com]

Hey, it's a topic that inspires incoherence.

I mean, I can think about "morality tales" in which there's some villain who gets his way, and eventually he gets his comeuppance in the end ... but until then, things look awfully good for him. "Reefer Madness" supposedly started out sponsored by a church group (originally titled "Tell Your Children") and yet somehow it's got a strip-tease and all sorts of stuff that doesn't seem to be in there for purely moralistic reasons.

I think here about "Death Note," and how the protagonist -- I daren't say "hero" -- basically gets his way through the run of the series. Sure, something bad may eventually happen to him in the end, but he sure got to gloat and play "god" for a pretty long ride, and he's sure got his fan base. At some point ... okay, is he really the villain, or are we supposed to root for him and then lament his "tragic" end?

On the one hand, the author might focus on the brutality of a villain's crime so that we remember that and don't feel too keen to sympathize with him when things go against him. However, an especially long and graphic rape scene in a book ... okay, thank goodness I can skim over that, but past a certain point I might wonder why the author is spending quite this much detail and narrative on that. I do not want to participate in this, and that's what I feel like is happening to some degree if a story's POV focuses too much on graphic cruelty, even in the name of "showing the true side of evil."

But where's the dividing line? If we just totally hide and gloss over the wicked things the villain has done, it might invite the reader to sympathize with him, as whatever his "wrongs" are, they're out of sight and out of mind, and surely can't be worth the extreme cruelty with which the designated hero delivers retribution. (I've felt this way about a number of fan stories and sloppily-presented derivative works where the writer just introduces us to the heroes killing antagonists effortlessly and joyously without bothering to take the time to make sure that we're on board with the fact that these are, indeed, BAD GUYS and thus worthy of such treatment. I find it especially necessary if it's a story with an outlaw hero and law-enforcement antagonists; sorry, but as much as I realize that police powers can be abused, I'm not at the point where I see a cops-and-robbers situation and automatically assume "robber = good guy; cop = bad," so more effort is required to bring me on board.)

I don't think there CAN be a real rule for where to draw such lines, and "I know it when I see it" sounds pretty lame. If I run into something like this that makes me uncomfortable, I'll often back up and see if I can find some more context. In the days of Google, I've got a number of options. I might see what else the author has written. Is there a theme here? Or, are there statements by the author? I thought very differently of Lolita once I heard a reference made to the story in the context of an "unreliable narrator," and I learned more about Nabokov. But then (since it seemed relevant just now because I was trying to find an example of a "misunderstood satire") I read the history of some of his earlier works prior to Lolita, with very similar themes, and that made me uncomfortable again. (So ... I don't know what to think there.)

I might just be left with, "It's unclear, so I'm just uncomfortable with this." However, sometimes I'll find out that, yes, the author really DOES believe (thus-and-such is the way things ought to be) and is keen on letting this be known, thus driving out any ambiguity (and perhaps even embracing the controversy) -- but I wouldn't be able to tell for sure from just reading the story itself.

[tuftears.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure *coughGorcough* that has been done. -_-

I lean more toward the first premise: art is communication. Art spreads ideas into people's heads. Difficult subjects can be tackled in art, and may yield interesting insights, but yeah, it can also be toxic fantasy.

[archangelbeth]

So, a Gor book. >_>

*ducks*

[ankewehner.livejournal.com]

wow, LJ seems to be broken

[gnibbles.livejournal.com]

Well, the first statement does include the caveat "at its best" so... probably we can resolve a lot of the conflict by simply conceding that those works are not fiction at its best. >.>;;;

Anyway, I strongly disagree that fantasy and daydream are harmless. I think the kinds of fantasies that you allow yourself to indulge in can have deep and profound effects on your overall outlook, your kindness, your empathic abilities. If you fantasize about killing and raping, and punching people in the face who disagree with you, you're less likely to be kind and listen to others, even when you're not wrapped up in your fantasies. I think that daydreams are practice for real life, so the timbre of your fantasies will be revealed in your behaviors outside of those daydreams. YMMV.

I strongly dislike fiction that glorify -- or even depict -- torture. I just don't bother reading them. I don't condemn them either, since I don't view it as a good use of my time and energy, but I will tell my friends in person if they ask me for reading tips.

[rowyn]

I strongly dislike fiction that glorify -- or even depict -- torture.

... I should probably warn you at this point that there's a scene depicting torture in A Rational Arrangement. -_- As a horrible thing, not as something acceptable or neutral, but it's there.

Weirdly, I included it in part because I hate the tropes of "torture as a method of showing how strong-willed your protagonist is" and "torture as a reliable/justifiable means of getting accurate information and results".

[gnibbles.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I had some trouble with that part. >.>;;; Took a lot of snuggle breaks to get past it all. I admit, I spent some time wondering if it was really necessary.... At least your depiction was simply, honestly horrifying. There was no glorification, nobody got off on it, it was baldly, plainly, unvarnishedly awful. Not the sort of thing I, uh, seek out... but I'm ... not glad, but, I dunno, relieved? no... thankful? not quite... anyway, [insert mild, hesitant positive feeling here] that it was Just Awful, instead of used to demonstrate how great $person is, or whatever. >.>;;;;; *quietly flips past those pages* >.>;;;;;;;;;

(FTR, I do rec RA to people, because my brain had glossed over That One Bit. XD )

[rowyn]

I am glad it didn't ruin the book for you!

... during edits, I went through and cut out bits from that entire sequence to make it take less space and so the reader could get through it faster. I made it, I dunno, about 10% shorter? It was not something I wanted people to have to dwell on.

[ankewehner.livejournal.com]

I think my problem with master/slave romances, or other romances with a clear power differential, is that I am unable to believe that if someone has that great power over someone else's life, they will not hurt their slave/pet/possession/annex/wife. They will cause damage, possibly deliberately because it amuses them, more likely because they believe they know what's best for their partner/victim and steamrolling over what in their stupid little heads they think they need/want is better for them, or at best by being clueless about how much the other party accomodates them and sacrifices for them.

Relationships with a creepy power differential do not slot into the "unrealistic" bracket to me. (See for today's example the people who defend that boy who kocked a girl off her bike for "being rude". Guys wanting to own women is still considered normal by many.)

[terrycloth.livejournal.com]

Assuming that harm will happen seems kind of contrived, since there are socially acceptable master/slave situations which don't usually end in tears. Unless you count the owner being sad because their cat died.

Is the idea that humans make lousy pets?

[jordangreywolf.livejournal.com]

Hmm. I have difficulty fitting human/cat owner/pet relationships as an example of "master/slave romances." If it can be, that's definitely not my thing.

I'm pretty sure the cat who drops by our house is only in love with the food.

[archangelbeth]

*ponders*

When I was, oh, around 15-16, I wrote... well, basically self-insert originalfic, with the teen and the fellow with a few extra zeros on the age. Though I never really wrote the part where they resolve the differences, plus there was a modified quasi-mysticbond thing going on, on one side of it, and... well, stuff. *waves hands* Had to explain some of the interest-at-not-quite-first-sight suddenness.

So I pretty much can't hate that trope. That trope does something for me. I think (at least in my case?) it's trying to make sense of the conflicting urges of many (most?) teens: being the special snowflake Interesting Person who can win the untouched (or at least untouched for the last few decades) heart; having someone who can provide some form of security when venturing into the whole "adulthood" thing, without a parental relationship; being mature enough to be the Special Snowflake Someone and have a Real Relationship, where the immortal/whatever has to also accept you as adult... The egoboo! The confidence of someone having your back who knows what the heck he's doing!

In my case, I apparently managed to consciously solidify my desires on the matter enough that when the Universe presented me with pretty much exactly what I'd written (no, seriously, I can expand on this and it's spooky), I glommed on with all my 17-almost-18-year-old might. (That was over 20 years ago. NOT SORRY.) ...should I mention that I met him when he was literally twice my age? Apparently what I wanted wasn't to be found in "callow youths." O:/

So... you're probably right in that there are no bright lines and probably can't be no bright lines.

That said, just because there's a gray, fuzzy line doesn't mean there can't be lines. The whole Nazi/Jew thing, for instance, may indeed be a fantasy, and a harmless fantasy for some, but it's wandered into the realm of Real Person Fic in many ways -- and I would thus hold it to higher standards of "will this hurt real people?" than, say, something with truly ancient dynamics, or fantasyland/SF ones. E.g., there's probably less of a problem if the lizardfolk of Zzoris are waging a genocidal war against the dragonfolk in their midst, and a dragonfolk female cuts off her hidden wings after getting into a dubious power-dynamic relationship with a high-ranking lizard military male. File off the history real hard, and consider giving the lizard some redeeming features, mind! A thinly-disguised allegory doesn't actually shift the situation.

But, well, if well-done, dubious power-dyanamic relationships are right there in my list of "oh, let's re-read that AGAIN! or at least the steamy bits." (There's one of Sharon Shinn's books that is pretty much 100% that. FAVORITE BOOK. >_> )

Or, well, as you say. It's complicated.

[rowyn]

It sounds like the male protagonist from your juvenilia was not a jerk? Because I've noticed a recurring theme where the male protagonist isn't just "ancient" and "powerful" but also a cretin. To be honest, "he's a jerk" is the part that bugs me the most.

But I was never one of the people who felt that "if you think Twilight is romantic you must be destined to get into an abusive relationship". I don't think that romance readers get nearly enough credit for being able to discern fantasy from reality. (For that matter, neither do porn consumers or people playing violent video games). It's a trope I don't like, and I think it's problematic for a bunch of reasons, all of which I am sure you already know.

I like lizwithhat's take on it above, that using a problematic trope in a way that explores why it's problematic is a good approach. I think self-awareness helps defuse it of the power it might otherwise exert over one's subconscious, if that makes sense.

[archangelbeth]

Well, the conceit was that he was the Evil Sorcerer (TM!) in a book where the (ostensible) hero and love interest were running around with, essentially, The Author's Blessing to make sure everything Came Out Okay. And the Self Insert Character (cough cough, I WAS FIFTEEN OKAY) falls through into the book. (Which was not a real book.) And is mostly going "oh crap, I know the plot and it's time to leave now"... And there is a Tragic Past for Mr. Ancient to explain some of his more jerky behavior (plus, by that time, a certain amount of "well, the fall-out for understandable but ill-considered behavior means you wind up continuing to do antisocial things like trapping all the other mages in your world in mirrors because otherwise they kind of try to kill you and that gets tiresome really fast")...

So... hm. Antagonist, but not jerk, in that sense. Definitely a dose of what would be creepy stalker behavior if it weren't for the whole set up of "if I trusted you more, I would not be running away because I have hormones, y'know." >_> (UST! It's what's for breakfast, lunch, dinner, midnight snack, and chocolate bonbons.)

...I actually have the thing lying around online somewhere, I think. Un-linked. With a marker in the middle where I was going to futz around more with it.


One of the things that made me much more ambivalent about Twilight was when someone explained what she saw in it -- and that she saw Bella having an amazing lot of agency. That, essentially, Bella eventually got what she wanted. (Now, arguably, what she wanted was perhaps not very nuanced. Hottie guy, kid, immortality and superpowers...) But that overall, there was a kind of empowerment thing going there.

I still think the trappings are problematic as heck, for reasons I suspect we share, but I think I can see the fantasy.

Also agreeing that being aware of the problematic is important. (It also may allow one to pick tropes that one wants more of in fiction, since it would be a terrible idea in real life. >_> )

[the-gneech.livejournal.com]

I think it's both possible and necessary to have mixed or even negative feelings about a trope. There are tropes of which I frankly disapprove and wish people wouldn't get into.

However, my authority on the matter resides mainly inside my own skull and extends only as far as the end of my fingertips. So unless something is really hateful, which does actual emotional harm to people who have not invited it into their lives, I try to keep my yap shut on the topic.

-The Gneech

[zhuhell.livejournal.com]

Пиу-пиу

[toothycat]

So, this is an interesting post, because actually we do not in fact have absolutely free speech; there are at least some (albeit very specific and niche) kinds of fiction that society has decided constitute a criminal offense, and society is by and large OK with that concept. For instance, in Germany and Austria you need to be wary if you're writing stories about WW2; in the UK you need to be careful if you e.g. like writing fanfic that involves real pop bands, or drawing comics portraying nude children; in the US, watch out if you write poetry about blowing things up while black. (I'll not link to the articles here in case we all end up on some sort of list, but each case is easily googlable if you don't recall it from the news).

So, the very first question we need to answer is: are we OK with the existence of a line in principle and just quibbling about where it should be drawn, or do we think we should defend all fictional activity, no matter how abhorrent and/or threatening, so long as it remains fiction?

[rowyn]

It's true that even in the US, speech is not 100% free of government interference: obscenity*, fraud, defamation, incitement, and speech integral to criminal conduct are all forms of speech that are not protected. I am not gonna say that it's impossible for fiction to fall into one of more of these categories, and I am aware of at least one case where a man was convicted of possession of child pornography (ie, obscenity) for owning a manga that with pictures of naked children. So it happens.

But I am not particularly interested in the legal question; I can't think of any instances of fiction (including that one) that I know are real and that I think should constitute unprotected speech. Perhaps if someone wrote something that was clearly intended to be a true threat under the pretense of fiction. ("Let me send you this elaborately-researched story about how I'm going to kill you and your family if you don't do the thing I want. Note the realistic details about your home address and the weapons I'll use and the school your kids attend.") I could see circumstances where that would be a criminal threat and that merely calling it "fiction" would not change that.

But my own standard would be extremely narrow; that hypothetical story would only be criminal in the context of using it to threaten a specific individual, not in the abstract "these words exist and should be illegal". None of the examples I gave in the entry or elsewhere in my comments are anywhere near it. Even if I think a work of fiction is harmful and wrong, I believe the solution to bad speech is MORE SPEECH, not government censorship.

* "Obscenity" in the legal sense being very different and much less broad than the dictionary definition. Although still too squishy and broad for my personal preference. I really don't like the criminalization of speech.