Some Arguments I am Sick of Hearing About Narrative
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 ก.พ. 2024
- "Modern Politics shouldn't be in Narrative". "Narrative shouldn't be didactic", and "Authors shouldn't insert their own opinions into their work" are three arguments that irritate me. Mainly because they are reductive and illogical positions.
There is a great amount we can discuss, dissect, critique, and engage with when works exhibit any of these things, but their presence in literature, film, and television, are not indicators of poor quality, bad books, and these creators and authors have every right to include these things.
But a few of my reasons for objecting to these particular statements are:
Firstly, because they conflate what we personally might enjoy in a story with an over-reaching universal criteria that should be applied to all literature and narrative, when clearly that isn't true.
Secondly, these arguments disregard the vast swathes of literature (both historical and contemporary) that do these things (or have done them) and are great stories.
Thirdly, there are entire genres and subgenres in which all these practices are not only common but also desirable.
Fourthly, personal expectations and preferences about one genre or even subgenre, are not foundational grounds for any of these statements.
So I may have been in a bad mood when discussing these points, but a few people that I respect made variants of these arguments and I got irritated and wanted to discuss my perspective.
But hey, this is just my opinion, so I guess that is just as valid as someone else's opinion.
If you would like to buy me a coffee or a book, Support me on Ko-Fi: ko-fi.com/criticaldragon
Intro and Music by Professor Trip.
As with so many of your other videos, I wish everyone who publicly discusses literature would have the opportunity to watch and consider this. Thanks for the excellent video, AP!
Thanks Philip. Given your status as both an educator and an author, your opinion on this particular topic is doubly important.
Hang on...
Girrr, Nemesis... something something.... evil... next time.
Phew, I had to make sure that was included in case people thought that I actually respected your opinion.
@@ACriticalDragonyou almost got me, Prof. Fireballs. That was a close call.
This video was bad. It wasn’t a spy thriller. 😐
I am saving that for a twist in the sequel.
@@ACriticalDragon Yeah, everyone’s told me it gets good in book 4.
@@MattonBooks Even though not a Spy thriller, it certainly was an emotional rollercoaster
@@MattonBooks Yeah, but book four is not for everyone.
😂
Speaking personally, it was politics in fantasy which got me interested in the genre.
I grew up in a household with parents who were huge fans of science fiction, but hated fantasy. While I read a smattering of fantasy (like the Narnia books) as a child, as my reading level increased, the easiest thing to do was just read stuff off my parents shelves. So I was exposed to largely my parents taste in fiction, though I began reading more independently in my teen years. My attitude towards fantasy was mostly "If I want that kind of story, I'll just play a CRPG. Why read it?"
Then, when I was around 20, living in the UK, I saw a book with an intriguing cover in the science fiction/fantasy section of the bookstore. It was Perdido Street Station my China Mieville. It completely shattered my preconceptions about fantasy, in part (though not only) because I realized fantasy could engage in deep political themes in an adult manner. So I grew past my childhood prejudice against the genre.
But the first thing that your video brought to mind was some of my experiences within the Star Trek fandom over the more recent period. When Discovery first came out in 2017, I remember it receiving a lot of criticism in certain corners for being "too political" - which always confused me, because it was generally so muddled in execution it was hard to determine what political themes it had, and when it did engage with them, it made the most banal political statements before metaphorically running away screaming. But the same people who hated Discovery seemed to love The Orville, which explicitly engaged in the didactic mode of storytelling which was formerly prominent in Trek. This eventually culminated in a fairly transparent "Trump bad" episode in the third season. In the end I decided a lot of these folks meant something different when talking about "politics" than I did - more along the lines of "something here makes me personally uncomfortable/threatened."
Fascinatingly, Star Trek: The Original Series was primarily a series of blunt, unsubtle, didactic, morality plays that explicitly and overtly were addressing contemporary political and ideological issues. Mieville's Bas Lag novels are overtly anti-capitalist in nature. Not all art has to be subtle, not all has to reaffirm the status quo, and not all art has to challenge aspects of contemporary society, but there should be room for art and literature to do so. We will always have preferences, likes, and dislikes. We will always have biases, both conscious and unconscious. And allowing for the fact that other people may like or dislike the narrative being examined for exactly the same thing that we are praising or criticising is part and parcel of living in a world in which other people exist.
Demanding that artists and creatives should only create that which we want, in the eay that we personally want it, has always struck me as an unsustainable argument.
I was not a fan of Discovery's early seasons. But I would also defend their right to do what they did, even if I might suggest or wish that they had approached it differently. They still had the right to do it.
I have a preference for arguments and discussions that are fruitful and lead to greater awareness, than those that simply shut down and dismiss.
I really liked this video but I think it was ruined by the inclusion of the Irish guy. I don't know if I can handle a video where the Irish are depicted. Too political.
Cancelled. 😂😂
I agree, AP.
I'm skeptical of people who want politics completely divorced from their entertainment, and to be dismissive of politics existing in stories that they already like, that particularly bothers me.
Its fine if they have issues with how its utilised but to disregard its existence is dishonesty and to campaign against its inclusion is horrifying.
There are plenty of books, films, and tv shows, that advance ideological or political positions I don't agree with or like, but I don't question the right of those writers to explore or include that stuff.
I understand that my own particular position about narrative is a bit more academic than a lot of other people's, but if I started insisting that every writer conformed to my world view and my preferences I would be laughed out of the room.
Narrative is vast, varied, and multi-faceted, that is something to be treasured and championed. Even when it advances positions and aspects we don't like, because it also engages with the things we do, and therefore the 'cost' of freedom of expression is that we have to extend to things that we sometimes find distasteful or 'wrong'.
Savage Books did an excellent video essay about this, and one of his premises was that the implementation was important, "politics" being implemented into a story isn't what feels wrong except when it's done badly, that's when it jumps and it feels clumsy.
It’s always a pleasure to hear you articulate your righteous umbrage! People spouting that stories shouldn’t include “politics” is one of my eternal pet peeves and it’s everywhere….
The fact that it is almost always nebulously applied, ill defined, and shifts in meaning during the argument made, is one of those things that drives me nuts.
By all means say that you don't like X, but be specific, be accurate, and be informed.
It is a recurring irritant every time I listen to 'criticism' online.
I hope your week gets better my friend. Try to stay away from people who say things shouldn't be written or read 😊
In this day and age? There would need to be a worldwide media blackout for that to happen. 😂😂
Already a great Monday morning when AP uploads!
In the online circles I'm in, media literacy feels like it is at an all-time low. They parrot the arguments that you and I are so against. Glad to see you bringing these to light, and also glad that we get a rare chance to see you rant 😅
From the misapplication of Death of the Author to the insistence that the individual reader's perception is always 'valid' without consideration of potential misreading or misunderstanding, or even the consideration that other readers might exist, are issues that lead to blanket statements without support or evidence, and a very narrow view of what is 'acceptable'.
Media literacy is certainly an aspect that has been better. Whether it is an all-time low remains to be seen. On my more cynical days I can believe it can sink lower.
Then again, during the McCarthy era, huge swathes of books were being banned for not being the right sort of books, and we would never do that in this day and age... would we?
Art is a reflection of life. I like to lose myself in the narrative when I read or watch TV/movies. It's often much later that my mind comes round to author's intent. I think anything could and should be included in stories so every avenue can be explored.
Exactly. Nothing is forcing to like the decisions that artists in any medium have made, but questioning the right of the artist to make the decision is the thing that I find hard to justify.
Art should absolutely reflect life.
I also loved your points on making clear distinctions and signaling these in our videos on media we discuss.
If we want to discuss the things and point out why we object or don't like the thing we can have a great conversation about the element. But point blank rejecting the element in and of itself as a class is the thing that I object to.
@@ACriticalDragon rightly too
I feel almost universally the only time a reviewer says that politics shouldn't be in a text is when they disagree with the politics involved. I've seen this with the last few books by Stephen King, where he is very consciously including his own political ideas into the text, causing people who disagree with him to shout that he shouldn't be including these ideas. I do feel he does implement them heavy-handed and with a lack of finesse, which I've criticized in my reviews (and I generally align with him politically), but to say that he shouldn't include them because you don't like them is just wrong, as you mentioned. Thanks for another great video!
While I agree with just about everything here, I think it's important to distinguish between those who say an opinion *shouldn't* be expressed... and those who may simply be concerned that doing so would come at the expense of focusing on something else that would enhance the narrative.
Either way, though, it IS, ultimately, the author's choice. That should be respected -- and pressuring them into outright censorship is, indeed, the road to tyranny and dystopia.
Thank you for the fantastic video!
Thanks! I think it's really important to stress how "politics shouldn't be in books" is in fact a call for censorship. At its core, this dogma is not about "freeing" literature from some "imposed agendas", but rather about silencing dissenting opinions. "Politics that opposes my view shouldn't be in books" is extremely dangerous. See examples from any totalitarian state in history and present.
"Politics shouldn't be in books" is usually "Politics I don't agree with shouldn't be in books" or "These elements make me uncomfortable and challenge my worldview"... which literature should absolutely be free to do. It never means that you have to like the said inclusion, but authors absolutely have the right to challenge norms, explore alternatives, support positions. Freedom of speech adherents always seem to champion their own freedom of speech and not other people's.
@@ACriticalDragon I agree wholeheartedly, and your last statement is very important too.
I don't particularly like politics in narritive, in the sense that stories about struggles for political power are not my favorite kind of stories. But it doesn't sound like that's what you're talking about. I looked up several definitions of "politics," and I don't think the presence or absence of homosexual characters is an example of politics, except in the broad sense that it relates to issues about which different political parties or factions take different positions (at least in the modern-day USA). So I'm wondering if "There shouldn't be politics in narrative" really means "The writer shouldn't put in anything that makes it obvious that they're on 'the other team' from me."
Quite often people mean 'identity politics' or 'progressive politics' or 'diversity and inclusion' when they say 'politics', but then apply the term more generally. It is a plastic term and applies to a lot of different things.
Fantastic video AP.
I get comments regarding politics in modern comics on some videos I've done, and how people are totally against the inclusion of such, instead of the execution of such. It's a particularly frustrating argument to hear from readers of a medium built on heavily didactic and political writing.
People who praise Claremont or Lee's X-Men from the 60-80s and then criticising feminist Captain Marvel comics for the exact same things really baffles me. Just as one prevalent example.
It often just comes across as just not agreeing with whatever is being presented. And that's another worrying factor.
Cheers!
Carlos.
And those criteria are not even applied consistently! "Don't put modern politics in your books" usually means "don't put politics I personally disagree with in your books".
On the same note, people are critical of didacticism but at the same time they love to complain about redemption arcs and how the characters going through them actually didn't earn forgiveness. Or we have people complaining that a piece of fiction promotes unhealthy relationship models or parenting models. So on one hand people don't want to be preached to, but at the same time they are likely to get angry if the characters don't behave in a way that confirms the reader's values. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Exactly. This is why I am of the opinion that you can criticise its implementation, or what effects it caused or created, or even how it made us feel... but we don't criticise the right of the artist to include the thing.
What an excellent video, AP! I appreciate the thought and energy you put into these deconstructions. A good rant can be just as invigorating as a shot of espresso!
I generally try not to rant. It isn't the most effective strategy to raise and discuss issues, but I was in a bad mood.
One viable solution might be to insist all publishing houses force all authors to write their novels in a Choose Your Own Adventure Style.
That way you can always turn to the page that most closely resembles “your” truth, and never have to feel challenged or required to properly consider other points of view.
Why can’t authors understand that we need them first and foremost to avoid difficult subjects and complex emotions, and to leave us to stew gently and blissfully in our lukewarm and viscous vanilla escapist soup of emotional and intellectual insipidity?
Even easier, all current writers should stop writing and let the experts who know better handle the writing. That would fix everything.
One of your best, and most important, videos in a long time! I really hope more people see this one.
To me, the very idea of complaining about politics in narrative is about as idiotic as complaining that modern Star Trek is "too woke." Star Trek has always been woke, and narrative has historically been political a great deal of the time. Folks just need to come to terms with that and get over their butt hurt.
One thing that has kept me pondering about narrative structure. "Chekov's Gun" , at least the way I've heard it defined is how an element must be used as fast as possible, but in certain stories I've seen or read an element presented has been used not inmediatly rather it was employed much later. Is this another chase where what one wants to do with the narrative vs what the opinion of a majority conflict?
Chekov's gun is a) not an essential narrative element, b) a technique that can be subverted, and c) goes to economy of writing which is not always the focus of the narrative in question.
If an author introduces a conspicuous element there is an expectation that it have a function within the narrative, but that doesn't mean that it 'must' have a function, nor that the function 'must' be as soon as possible. We also have differences between media (such as theatre and novels), and differences between 'stand-alone' and series.
Essentially Chekov's Gun functions as implied foreshadowing. So how a writer decides to resolve that foreshadowing or even to discard it, is a matter for the narrative at hand. It isn't a rule that must be followed.
So from my perspective it is another of those aspects that is often touted as a rule but is more about being aware of effects generated, expectation of audience, and about the intent to either subvert or support the expectation.
Great discussion. I had never heard of Chekov’s Gun. Fascinating.
very good video. people don't realize that you can disagree with some political view expressed in a book and still respect how it was expressed, In the end this shows your own political viewpoints aren't mature if they can't be challenged in literature without you feeling personally threatened
Your right and i think you articulated it well
But the people who need to hear this have entrenched themselves so fully that pointing out the flaws or hypocrisy in their reasoning becomes viewed as personal attacks on their sense of self and serves to further radicalize them
Well I did try to say that if people wanted to criticise the effects caused, or the implementation, or even how it made them feel, those were all perfectly valid and sometimes even very useful discussions to be had, but stating that these things shouldn't exist is just not a tenable position from my perspective.
Great discussion! Censorship is such a slippery slope and way too subjective to actually benefit anyone. And there's politics in everything, to some degree, but people don't like it when it's too parallel to real American politics. I didn't really hear or see people complaining about the politics in Game of Thrones, but it's a pretty huge part of that story. 🤷♀️ Some people just don't think things through.
It was indeed of interest! I’ve always viewed reading as communication from one person at a distance to me, and one of its benefits is to experience the world through their eyes and have a dialogue with them. With that view, how could I ever get upset when I feel like the author is sharing some beliefs or doing it overtly-your example of 1984 shows how powerful that can truly be!
Not all stories have to be about the thing, but I think it is of benefit to narrative as a whole that we allow room for a variety of stories and storytelling foci.
I may be in a minority about this position though, especially if online metrics are anything to go by. 😂
@@ACriticalDragon I’ll add my voice to that minority then!
It makes me wonder who's even making these arguments. I'm convinced it's people that don't actually read.
They are surprisingly common, and not just in film, tv, and bookish circles. Popular culture in general, and social media specifically, often drives and encourages these perspectives.
Thank you so much for addressing this cause I was going to start a channel just to make this video. 😂 But my snark and sarcasm wouldn’t go over well with certain popular TH-camrs who feel unchallengeable.
Apparently I am 'strawmanning' the argument.
I think one of the stronger arguments against these didactic political texts is the potential spreading of some sort of misinformation which may make these perspectives harmful. I think at some point we just have to trust readers to engage with the material intelligently and responsbily. Admittedly, sometimes audiences misinterpret texts (i.e. Animal Farm as a critique of anti free market positions rather than specifically Stalinism), but this also just seems inevitable for any text. On balance, it seems like a cost worth copping to allow writers to speak their mind and produce the fantasy they would like. Also interesting observation about how loose people define politics in these discussions in the first place. I really liked your example about heterosexual vs homosexual romance in fantasy being equally political for different reasons as this is such a common example for proponents of this argument. Great video AP! Loved it.
American History X is a great example of how its message can be ignored and misinterpreted by certain aspects of the viewership. It was clearly anti-Neo Nazi, and yet it was found to have been used as a recruitment tool for certain groups. Writers and authors can't control the audience, they can try, but the control is not absolute. That is the great thing about narrative, but also a scary thing. It can be misrepresented, misread, misinterpreted because the reader/viewer is in control of decoding the information. But this also allows narratives about one thing to find relevance in another thing. The X-Men comics were initially (at least in part) a way to examine racial politics and segregation in the US, but many of the same themes and concepts apply to other minority groups and struggles.
But ultimately we have to make a decision, does the world benefit from authors being able to explore and express ideologies in fiction, and if the cost is that other authors explore and express ideologies we disagree with? In essence the argument becomes 'if only the correct and "beneficial" ideologies are allowed to be expressed, who gets to decide what is the 'correct' ideology'?
Generally we move back and forth on this argument because it isn't a clear cut line in the sand, we allow some forms of pornography that we find distasteful, but we ban others. The reasoning and rationale behind the decisions is often about the harm it can cause. So the argument is never anything goes, but rather if we decide certain behaviour is unacceptable then we have to be prepared that others may deem behaviour that we find acceptable to also be unacceptable. There is an uneasy balance and tension between the positions.
@@ACriticalDragon Exactly. Governments can and have decided what ‘correct’ ideologies can be spread, sometimes with awful consequences. I’m in Australia which is a reasonably pro free fiction place which I think we both agree is probably for the best on balance. It’s also really scary to imagine a population who feels uncomfortable reading about much less engaging with politics which they disagree with. It destroys peoples abilities to have informed conversation and the sad thing is with targeted advertising, social media etc, this seems to sort of be happening. I would argue that actually having these ideas out there is a good thing because we should trust intelligent readers to actually gain a lot from these texts. This isn’t even to mention the obvious moral issues with outright censoring fiction authors which on its face seems absurd and as you’ve said often is conveyed in an absurd manner by people who would characterise themselves as the greatest allies of free speech, not understanding the irony.
Thanks for this video!
You are welcome. I hope it made sense.
Politics definition: “the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power.” None of the books I have read recently are without politics. A great modern take on modern politics is a comedy/satire by Carl Hiassen called “Squeeze Me.” If laughing spontaneously in public isn’t for you then keep it in the house.
You said “3 dystopian western classics”. Referring to Fahrenheit 451 etc. but for some reason I didn’t hear the names of the books , just “3 dystopian western classics” and I thought “he is talking about Cormac McCarthy’s Border Trilogy or at least “Blood Meridian” which is even more dystopian (my brain goes to crazy places and I briefly thought you meant the western genre). Violent, despairing desperation, complex compassion and witnessing. They are superb works of art. But if you recommend these to most readers that like westerns or easy reading they probably won’t like them. I know this from experience. “It was awful and I couldn’t read it.” Of course 8 years later “No Country for Old Men” was published and later “The Road” which were more accessible. Relaunching older book sales of the aforementioned dystopian westerns. In particular when those great movies came out. Now those older books are no longer “awful” and neither is McCarthy due to the grace afforded by the more accessible media. But watch out for the movie “The Counselor” for which he was one of the screenwriters which I really enjoy. But a lot of people “don’t get it” or “can’t figure it out” to which I answer “that is not always a bad thing!”
Thanks again for the brain stimulation therapy. Your premise and arguments are spot on!
Excellent video, well supported with the historical context.
I am glad that it was useful, and I am doubly glad that I remembered to add a few examples.
People with a historical excess of privelege tend to see the spreading of same to the less fortunate as detrimental to society as a whole and not the opportunity for self reflection that it should be.
This attitude has become ever more pervasive as those who should be role models flaunt their privelege across the mediaverse.
Writers SHOULD be able write any damned thing they want, it's up to readers how to engage with it, whether it's a vast social allegory or a diary about one's bowel movements...
The importance of proper phrasing continues to rise to the top! Whether it be in your prose or someone's reflection/criticisms on youtube!
And yet, despite my video, some seem to have missed the point. Ah well.
@@ACriticalDragon Keep fighting the good fight!
Agreed there’s a lot authors who I enjoy reading and have different views on politics, religion and sexuality , that I disagree with, but I enjoy their stories, in truth I enjoy reading stories that challenge my beliefs in stories
Oh start a channel. if it is going to be full of snark and sarcasm I would probably watch every video. :)
Are you suggesting books and media are meant to be red/watched and not consumed?
Such preaching from a choir. Such lazy argument. Such strawman tactic. Such.... *checking the notes on the words I learnt from some youtuber*
Seriously thought, there should be a serious discussion about WHERE people (especially young people) learn and repeat those cliché arguments. They are just there to give signpost in place of the simplest forms of critical thinking.
I think it was Harlan Ellison who said "You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion." I think that we frequently forget that most subjects are more complicated than we assume, usually because we are unaware of the complexity because we do not yet have sufficient expertise to know how little we know, and how much we have yet to learn. Therefore we are often overly confident in our position.
I am a champion of more people getting involved in discussing and thinking about literature. The more voices engaged in criticism and awareness the better. But that comes with the codicil that we have to be aware of what we are discussing, and vigilant that we are not making declarative evaluations based on individual preference and out of ignorance of the actual subject.
I always try to clearly frame the argument I am making, provide the context of the points, and try not to make declarative statements... I don't always succeed (I am fallible after all), but I think it is important to at least try.
@@ACriticalDragon Exactly, at least you try! I feel that what you pointed out is instrumental in creating packs, and most of the times political packs. Opinions are becoming less and less a way to express ones preference and more a way to signal being part of a group, many times (again) a political one.
It is even worst when influencers aren't able to understand the difference. Look how many people misunderstood the possibile nuance about that article about sexism about the animate Avatar series live action adaptation.
I do enjoy people who express outrage at elements being omitted than expressing outrage when certain elements are expressed that don’t fit into what they are conftarble with. Things are never binary sure but we should always feel able to understand that things may simply not be for us and that is not an attack and we can sit back and relax a bit more 😅
That is what frustrates me so much about these particular statements. We have no problem with someone saying 'I didn't enjoy x' or 'I would have preferred y', those are statements of preference and every reader will always have their own personal preferences. It is when those statements become prohibitions about what the author should or should not include that I get irked. Even 'this book would have been better if x element had been changed' while weak and usually more about preference, offer something to actually discuss. The prohibitions about what authors should or should not include, especially when there are so many examples of very popular literature that include those very things, just rubs me the wrong way.
Saw the title and thought 'only 33 minutes?'
I would challenge those to provide a book that is devoid of politics or some type of inferred authorial opinion.
Ironically, it is those aspects that many use to qualify something as 'literature'.
Exactly. What one reader hates, another reader may loathe. So insisting that only those things we like are the only valid forms of literature a) ignores other readers' desires, preferences, and reasons for reading, and b) denies the agency of an author to write the thing that they want and let the readership decide if it is worth reading.
Any inclusion of leadership or organized groups of people with any semblance of rules or culture is 'politics'. Even loosely.
Politic-less people would be an awkward approach to a second world, and likely not possible haha
Great food for thought Professor🔥!
If people actually defined the terms instead of relying on " You know what I am referring to" then while I may disagree with their argument, but we would at least be disagreeing with specifics, not some vague, generalised, notion that is being inexpertly and sloppily applied in an incoherent mess of an attempt at an argument.
@@ACriticalDragon God forbid they look up a few of the terms before they hit record!
I think the reason why Im not initially excited reading a famtasy book that reflects modern politics is that I absolutely just cant stand modern politcs 🤣 And with how coporatized and advertiser based a lot of media has become (always has been there's just so much more of it now) I often feel as though including modern politics is a cheap and easy strategy used to promote division, which then gives them more money. Money seems to be the primary motive as opposed to actually delving deep into the theories and philosophies behind todays politics....maybe someone should write a work of fiction about it 🤔
This was fun. I probably don't have to say that I agree with you.
I am sure you would have been a great deal more articulate than me on this subject. I was a touch grumpy and didn't take the time to construct a formal argument about it.
@@ACriticalDragonI highly doubt that I'd have been more eloquent about it. But then, we might find out as I have been contemplating a video that may or may not respond to the same people and opinions you allude to in your video...
I think people need to get to a point where they can say this book wasn't for me but it was well done. I also think that there's a similar thing going on with Romantasy. It's not that fantasy readers don't think there should be romance it's just they don't think that the romance itself should dominate over the fantasy aspects of the story that might be what they're thinking about in conjunction with modern politics. There's a whole genre of political thrillers but they probably don't want modern politics to dominate their fantasy story. I mean if it's an urban fantasy then it would make 100% sense because you're living in current times I could absolutely be wrong about what they're thinking.
But if that is the case, we don't need to read those books. It doesn't justify or support the position 'the author should not do that'. Those are two different arguments.
Romances with fantastic elements have been around since before Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream, so it isn't a new phenomenon, and people insisting that what an author chooses to write about should conform to their individual preferences and expectations is an untenable argument.
We can want different stories, we can wish that the author had focused on different aspects, but we don't insist that the author ' should' have done that. Dante included modern cultural politics and judgements in Inferno... no one is dumb enough to suggest that he shouldn't have done that... even though it is an epic fantasy poem. So why is there suddenly a set of rules now that if you write in X sub-genre (in and of itself a descriptive term not prescriptive) that you should or should not include what you want?
Sometimes should or shouldn't type arguments are coming from people who feel the need to invalidate others to validate themselves, but sometimes its a lack of critical thinking. I try to frame the lack of critical thinking as an unrefined opinion or a work in progress, partly for my own sanity and partly because that can honestly be the nature of forming your own opinion. If I can't engage someone in exploring their opinion further in a way that's fun rather than combative, then their problem is none of my business and I absolve myself from having to interact with them.
However, that course of action is based on what I feel is important to agree upon with others to get along and to be convinced to participate in a society. People who are arguing for censoring authors are doing the same thing, but their criteria for agreeing and getting along is probably very different than mine. As much as I like to think I take a very live and let live approach, I suspect I'm equally controlling and suffocating from their perspective. So the only real way to deal with this problem is to be completely prepared to go live alone in the remote wilderness when the time comes to choose between being censored or being exiled. 😂
Interesting perspective.
Clearly I am far less tolerant than you.
If people don't like a thing, they are perfectly entitled not to like a thing, but that doesn't equate to 'no one gets to like the thing'. It is the universalising of preference on behalf of all people.
'We all have preferences, and authors can write what they want' leads to stories that some will like and others won't (in other words ... reality). So while it may result in stories I personally don't enjoy, it protects the right of authors to write the sort of stories they want, and it protects the rights of other readers who may have interests and preferences different to my own.
This is why I object to 'there shouldn't be x in stories' arguments.
I commend your attempt to change society so that more people can co-exist. I suppose 'living alone in the remote wilderness' would end up meaning fewer opportunities for authors and readers.
@@JessBritvec Is it commendable or merely a manifestation of me being a grumpy old man? Only time will tell. 😂😂😂😂
I am certainly not cut out for living alone in the wilderness. If the mosquitoes didn't get me, then my inability to make fire without a lighter would.
There also seems to be an adjacent 'politics in literature' argument about maybe exclusion as well and don't quite know where it falls. The criticism as I've seen recently in my reading of Grace of Kings by Ken Liu is commentary about Women's Agency and development. When Ken Liu writes a woman I say she is written well and the commentor appears to agree, but since the woman was NOT involved throughout the narrative the review was 2 stars. In the context of this video it seems that this comment is asking for a variant of censorship? Not permitting content, but requiring content? You have a read on that pulse as it kinda relates to this video?
Not being familiar with the conversation, the review, or the comment in question, I couldn't say. Context is fairly important.
But in general, imposing a view that a text should do something because it is what we want or desire, and therefore a text is bad if it doesn't do that, is usually an indicator that we are valuing personal preferences and biases over evaluating what the text was doing.
But in terms of reviewing, so many modern 'reviews' boil down to 'I like' or 'I don't like' because we are not focused on reviewing the text, but on how the text made us feel. In effect, relaying our reading experience, which we could call a response, rather than a review of the text itself.
Oh sure, the Good Reads review is the second one for Grace of Kings dating back to 2016 so quite an old review from the person, but the first point and longest point in review focused on women. I suppose the point that interested me because of your video is inclusion and exclusion that each are making statements or at least come across as making statements. That to include a socially abnormal thing can then also be criticized if nothing much is done with it. It appears in situations like sexual orientation within Malazan. Statement made, but nothing expanded upon.
This time seems to think that opinion is enough. And it isn’t.
Isn't there an expression that opinions are often like assholes... everyone has one and they are usually full of shit?
😂 That’s good.
As you've eloquently said, the problem is that nowadays it's so often clumsy and hamfisted to the point it breaks immersion. I don't know that I've seen that in books though, only other mediums.
I'll add that sometimes, we feel it is imposed on writers, because we imagine some executive is demanding X thing simply because X thing is a trend.
But even think about that statement 'we FEEL... because we IMAGINE...' This isn't based on the fact that it happened. Only that we think it might have happened.
But even then, given the system we live in, why is catering to audience desire for a thing so bad? Don't we also hear complaints that 'they should have listened to the fans'? So doing the thing that they believe an audience wants is desirable in one circumstance but apparently not desirable in a different circumstance?
Some authors and writers will write according to trends. Frequently the more commercial or general the product the more that market trends are taken into account. Thus it has always been. Be we don't say that no author should do that, primarily because accessibility to text is often a factor in making a narrative more popular and commercially viable. Cashing in on a trend has been and always will be part of the system that we encourage, think of the number of times someone asks for recommendations 'like this book/series' I just read. We frequently request more of the same. And if an author tries to broaden the appeal of their work to an underrepresented group, we might feel that we are no longer the author's primary focus, be we also recognise that other people are just as worthy of that inclusion or focus.
We have no objection to that. There is a tension between commercial viability, market trends, desire to communicate with a broad as audience as possible, and expressing something in fiction that is to be understood by an unknown recipient.
@@ACriticalDragon Sure. It's mostly about it being badly done, because when it's well done, you don't tend to notice unless you actually attempt to critically analyze it.
To illustrate what I was thinking of about the other part, I'm a gamer, and that's mainly what I was thinking of, because when the company spends like $200 million or whatever on marketing and all the marketing is basically "We aren't telling you anything about the game, but it's really pretty, and see THIS THING?!?" it just comes off like... yeah... the creators were forced to do that because some suit thought it would make more money, and then when you play the game, you can't help but think about that and it makes it more difficult to suspend disbelief.
I'm not even saying it's a bad thing in and of itself, but when you've observed this pattern for the hundredth time or so, it becomes more difficult each time IMO.
I think writers and creators should be allowed to write and create whatever they want, but the line has been blurred to the point where even if they're organically deciding to do something, consumers are at least reasonably likely to assume they were PRESSURED to do it instead, and that's a problem. If creators could just come out and explain the motivation behind stuff that would take care of it, but they're probably contractually forbidden from saying they were pressured in the event that they were.
But what one notices and takes notice of can be heavily dependent on personal bias and background.
Even how one perceives the thing can be influenced by how we feel about the thing.
In the gaming context, there was a game that gave players an option to choose pronouns for their character. It was an option, and if people so chose they could opt for their default norm, or for singular they. But there was a commenter who lost his shit thinking that he was being forced to choose and being made to support this.
Except, what was the default norm to be? The game was going to assume that everyone was male?
It was an SF game, so it allowed for people to some different things with their character creation, if they wanted to. But no one was being forced to. What is the harm in offering people an additional choice?
If the character creator gave an option to create a variety of body types and you get to pick one and design your character as fat, thin, muscular, skinny, we don't yell that they are forcing to think about body diversity, we simply assume it is a range to allow all players to design what they want... more freedom of choice.
So even though in this context it was about a choice and being given freedom for players to do what they want, his tirade was basically, 'people should only get choices about things that I deem are worthwhile and important'. In effect, arguing for the game to cater to his whims, and people who hold the same views as him.
@@ACriticalDragon Yeah, I saw that. All the coverage I saw of that controversy roasted the hell out of him, and it was basically every independent gaming media thing I know of. Someone also created a mod to remove that choice from the game, and Nexus Mods refused to host it. I think gamers were pretty unanimously on the right side of that one, as I don’t know a single one who was on his side.
My criticisms of Starfield have nothing to do with that, and more things Bethesda has been doing ever since Oblivion. I don’t think they’ve done anything that tops Morrowind when it comes to atmosphere, world design, narrative, quest design, etc. The graphics and combat of Morrowind haven’t aged well, but I think it’s still their best game in every other regard.
A writer should be able to express their world, reflect how they feel or critique elements they dislike. Problem is there's a call for product over literature. People want entertainment, but forget that the greatest novels are often uncomfortable, and profound.
There was a term that used to be in far more general usage about fantasy, Extruded Fantasy Product. The type of story that contained very little substance but lots of fantasy action. Pratchett mentioned it in an essay back in the 2000s.
Personally, I don't have a problem with the genre containing all sorts of fantasy for all sorts of readers looking for all sorts of stories. What I object to is a reader or group of readers deciding that only their preferred form and approach to storytelling telling is allowed.
@@ACriticalDragon I agree, there should be room for both the 'entertainment' product, and the more literary fiction. One isn't better than the other, they serve different purposes and of course, many blend the two. The problem today is that there seems to be a swing towards the former at the expense of the latter.
I remember when studying, I would come home and watch Charmed because it was perfect to empty the brain and unwind. I see a lot of fiction today seeming to serve a similar purpose.
What do you know, another miracle! I agree with you on most of the things you said. Also, glad that I wasn't one of the people who said incredibly stupid things. In the last few weeks, that is :D (not sure about intelligent either, but I like to think I have some of that).
However, I think that you too are feeling this issue in a very personal manner and that tends to make you ignore certain aspects. For one, what people refer to as "politics" in novels. If I wished to, i could say that there is nothing in this world that isn't political. Every aspect of how we live our lives is determined by politics one way or another, and so anything anyone writes about could be seen as political if they so chose to. I think that's an unfair argument to use.
Then there is the fact that people often don't know how to properly express what they mean. And they try to be extremely concise because writing scrolls of text on social media goes against online social rules (yup, i do not follow that rule and it usually costs me dearly). Also, people often feel comfortable enough to express part of what they mean while being confident that the part left unsaid would be self understood. Yet if someone wishes to bring down their point, all they need to do is point out at the blanks and twist them to a different or opposite understanding, deliberately or not.
Then there is a difference between including political discourse and lecturing people, regardless if it is well done or badly done. And, of course, the expectation of having something, anything, depending on genres: it is expected to have politics in Orwell's books, but it isn't expected to have gods roaming the earth in a realistic history of the second world war book. Likewise, too much politics when you grab a book where you want to see epic magic battles can sour the experience for some people. Not because politics in literature shouldn't be there, but because it is unexpected beyond a certain proportion in this particular genre. Now that's not to say that fantasy shouldn't argue political systems. If you ask me, it's the most suited genre for this job. But I can understand why some people wouldn't enjoy it (and yes, you did say that not enjoying it is alright so long as you don't claim that the book is bad, but people don't alwyas know how to express themselves properly).
Then there is the aspect of fatigue and resentment with the current political situation. People are fed up with a certain side of the political isle constantly preaching the freaking message until people's eyes and noses bleed, and no matter where they turn their eyes, it's either that, or accusations of bigotry, nazism and so on, while any narrative with a different, or god forbid opposing view, is purged. The constant shaming and refusal to engage in dialogue (that is, dialogue that doesn't end in shaming and cancelation and loss of jobs and so on) while being preached to and lectured to in every narrative , has gotten people to be irascible and unwilling to accept even stuff that is normal. Granted, that applies largely to movies, not books. The sad thing is that most of these people do not pertain to the opposite political ideology. And that is why they react so vehemently.
So when people say shortly "there should not be politics in narrative", assuming they are saying it to you in the context of discussing fantasy literature, what they mean, likely, most often, is that they don't want to be lectured to and bludgeoned by a certain ideology under the threat of shaming, cancelation or worse. And the fear of saying exactly what they mean openly on a platform like TH-cam doesn't help either.
Claudia, it is personal in so far that I have to listen to dumb arguments that are illogical and without foundation.
If people don't like an element in a story, they are perfectly entitled to say they don't like that element, but that doesn't give them the right to say that no story should have that element. A) because other readers exist who may like that story. B) they don't define their terms and shift meaning partway through arguments, and need to be better at creating persuasive arguments (so it is an affront to reasoned discussion in general). C) People can be fatigued, bored, annoyed, or offended by the inclusion or use of certain aspects but that doesn't give them the right to dictate that authors must conform to their world view.
The genre is huge, and literature in general is even larger. Advocating for the right of authors to create the stories they want is simply that, a right for authors to write about the things that interest them or that they want to do. The result is that the genre increases in variety, and therefore ends up creating stories for all sorts of points of view.
The 'arguments' I disagree with insist that the genre shouldn't do these things and that only the fantasy that those particular readers like (regardless of the fact that the arguments are inconsistent and without foundation) are the only stories that should be produced.
This privileges their position at the expense of all other readers.
Therefore: allowing all sorts of stories leads to more stories and a wider variety of stories, and a wider variety of readers that are catered to.
Limiting authors leads to ossification and disenfranchising every reader who is not like the assumed majority.
If those are the choices, I go with allowing and encouraging authors to experiment with whatever they want, and I will find the books and stories I like. If an author does something I don't like, I can criticise it, but I don't take the position that they are not allowed to write it or shouldn't right that. I am not that egocentric.
@@ACriticalDragon A hundred percent agreed. I value freedom of speech in its classic sense, not its redesigned sense. That means, for me, that anybody is free to write whatever they like and whatever they think is right, regardless of what other people think about it, without being punished for doing so. Nobody should get to decide what other people want to create, nor label a work bad because they don't like it. And it is annoying when people who have no idea what they are talking about have the certainty that they do know everything. Alas, it's human nature.
All I am saying is that people have become particularly touchy and irritated and that is the source of such arguments. In no way am I saying that the arguments are correct. And I do share your personal displeasure of inconsistent logical arguments (even when I am myself guilty of it at times because of a variety of reasons).
I basically agree with everything here. Yet I have a hesitation about your distinction between a thing being included, which is off limits for criticism, and the discussion of how it was included, which is fair game. My problem is that, at some point, the how will also come down to a matter of personal preference as well. Take, for example, Cormac McCarthy’s punctuation. There are some people who will say that they just can’t stand it and it makes his prose unreadable. The same thing goes for people who dislike Tolkien (or any classic) because the writing style is just too old-fashioned.
When you make this decision, I think it leads into the idea that all aesthetic judgments are nothing more than personal taste. When you are confronted with a person who, despite all your arguments to the contrary, insists that they like something that is badly done because of how it is done, you pretty much have to shrug your shoulders and say “fine.” On the other hand, I am also uncomfortable with the idea that everything aesthetic is purely subjective. And I don’t think anything is likely to resolve those tension.
On a slightly different angle of this same thing, using your personal preference to shut down a discussion is entirely unproductive. It’s tantamount to kicking over a game board in the middle of the game. That applies equally to saying that people simply should not write anything that includes, for example, main characters of a different race than the author, or whether it involves saying that you hate an author because they use too many or too few adjectives, and you just don’t like that. If your answer is, I just don’t like that, then you have quit the game.
The thing being included is not 'off limits for criticism' ... the right of the author to include the thing should be off limits. The author has the right to write whatever they want.
We can criticise all aspects of it, including its inclusion. What I object to, and made clear multiple times in the video, is that saying authors should not include x as a blanket statement. It is an unsustainable argument. It is taking an element and saying that NO author EVER in ANY story should use X element. This is illogical and unsustainable.
We can take an individual example and say, this was poorly implemented, it damaged the narrative, it contradicted the storyworld... in other words we are still free to discuss, analyse, criticise, and complain about the thing, but not the right of the author to have included it.
So to take your McCarthy example.
If someone made the argument 'Authors shouldn't write with idiosyncratic grammar' we can say that is a bad argument without foundation. But that doesn't preclude us from discussing what McCarthy did, how effective it was, and what effects it did or did not create. We can discuss how it made us feel, good or bad. We can discuss whether or not we think it was a good or bad decision to include it.
What we don't argue about is whether or not he or any other author has a right to write in idiosyncratic grammar.
@@ACriticalDragon And yet there have been, again and again, laws which state exactly that authors or artists may not include certain elements in their books. Typically not because of their literary merit. That’s censorship, and on that I totally agree with you. But on a side note, I have to admit that it’s been fun seeing the modern book banners have a fit when the Bible gets pulled from schools because it contains content inappropriate for children.
What I was talking about was your arguments based on personal preference. X is bad because it’s not Y genre and I prefer Y genre. That you say is simply a matter of personal preference, and simply forecloses the discussion. My hesitation is that it seems to me whether it was a good or bad decision to include it, which you say is different, will likely also end up resting on nothing more than personal preference. Maybe not at the first level, but eventually. And if that’s purely subjective, then perhaps all of the discussions are as futile as the one that gets foreclosed because the book is not in my preferred genre Y. That makes me uncomfortable because I would like to think otherwise.
Finally, I think you make a slight shift when you move from whether an author should or should not do something and whether they have a right to. Whatever makes for a bad book (assuming there is such a thing), I think people would agree that authors should not write bad books. But that certainly does not mean that authors do not have the right to write bad books.
Almost all things when we take them all the way to ultimate levels end up as subjective judgements based on criteria we have selected and privileged.
Judging something as bad because it does not do what we want is generally a poor argument as it does not take into consideration what the thing was trying to do. Judging it on it was trying to do this and did so poorly in my opinion is an argument that invites discussion.
"Books/Narrative/Stories should not include politics/didacticism/authorial view points" were the arguments I was discussing and saying I didn't like because there is no refinement of the object, subject, circumstance, time period, culture, and purpose. Therefore the statements are at best useless, and at worst calls for outright censorship.
"I did not like how Y author used X concept in Z book", while still a statement of opinion and preference, is a starting point for discussion. You can engage with that statement while still respecting the person's right to hold an opinion and preference in the matter.
The problem is that many people use the blanket statements and have popularised their use, so much so that they are repeated ad nauseum as if true.
If we are going to evaluate books, then we have to evaluate the text, not how we felt about the text. How we feel about the text may signpost an issue that we can then investigate, but it is not in and of itself evidence that the text is bad.
Realistically, readers, viewers, and consumers can't impose anything on a text, film, or show. Critiques, criticisms, and complaints are all after the fact.
This leads me to one tangent: all artists are free to say whatever they want (setting aside the commercial systems that filter out some of the trash and nonsense). Consumers of literature, film, and other art are free to disregard any artist who goes too far in including their heinous real world opinions and views, especially when they try to insert them into their texts or shows.
Tangent two: some artists disguise any subtext that they may consider open to rejection by their readers, viewers, or consumers. For example, the numerous SF writers who pushed libertarian ideology or specific religious transfigurations during the so-called golden age (and later). As for fantasy, I'd single out a certain Canadian author that you and others admire who is pushing a specific brand of home-grown chilly nihilism and anti-free will philosophy on his readers.
Tangent three: some critics fall prey to what you're describing when they overlay their expectations on the work of art they are reviewing. One egregious example I have on standby is a critic who said the first season of Loki sucked because the character wasn't gender fluid enough. Yes, we're free to want something from a work we enjoy, but trying to define it after the fact and then condemning it for not meeting our expectations is a huge intellectual failure, especially in a critic being paid to critic.
Re: Tangent Two. Bakker writes Grimdark. A subgenre that I (rightly or wrongly) see nihilism as a central tenet of. Therefore an author including nihilism in those stories is what could colloquially call 'a feature not a bug'. I still think Neuropath is one of the most disturbing SF horror books I have ever read, and I certainly did not enjoy reading it. It was very disturbing though... and some readers like that... hence it may be of interest to some readers. Or should I simply only recommend things that cater to my preferences? His work is well written, interesting, engaging, and intelligent. It may not be my cup of warm beverage, but I don't get to decide for other people what cup of beverage they have to drink.
But even though I reject and don't agree with Bakker's conclusions, I still defend his right to write about those things. I don't insist that because I don't like it, or that I think this particular worldview is unhelpful that he shouldn't write it.
Lots of grimdark readers like nihilism. That is why some of them read grimdark. I don't get to decide that they shouldn't have the thing they like.
Re: Tangent Three. Yes, critics are human fallible creatures too. In further news, man standing in rain gets wet.
No one is infallible. And if a critic, or anyone, suggests that X should not be in stories I will disagree with them simply because it is too general, discounts literary history, the multiplicity of genres, has too many exceptions in which it will inevitably and invariably be a good thing, and is logically unsustainable, and also is a direct attack on artistic freedom.
@@ACriticalDragon It's sometimes hard watching videos like this because we only get half the conversation. You accuse them, whoever they may be, of being stupid and dismissive and but fall into the trap of being dismissive yourself. Snarky comments like "rain is wet" don't help.
Having said that, it seems you missed my larger point. No one is "directly attacking artistic freedom." This attitude is your particular bugbear for some reason.
As I said above, it's about the handshake of art and commerce in our capitalist system. The artist has absolute freedom of expression; whether it sells is another matter entirely. We as consumers pay with currency, whether time or real money. Others can speak for themselves, but I'm perfectly comfortable ruling out authors I don't want to give either time or money. Someone else may choose to do so and that's perfectly fine. You wouldn't advocate for anyone being forced to read a text, would you?
By the way, your "I don't get to decide that they shouldn't have the thing they like" is rhetorically unnecessary. I already said we as readers, viewers, and consumers don't get to decide anything before the fact. The artifact exists already, it's not a matter of preventing its existence. We are simply engaged in conversation about it. At some level, I'm not even sure what you're ranting about. How much influence do you think such discussions have? Especially if they are not public ones.
(I deleted this section on Bakker because I have never finished anything by him, so I'm not qualified to make a final judgment. I'll just quote him and leave it at that: "I’m not a nihilist at all." So that kills my argument right there... :)
Neuropath, however, may be a special beast. I would disagree that it is well-written; it is self-indulgent wallowing in the id. I would not recommend it to anyone. To what end? To intentionally disturb their sensibilities as the author wishes to do and expose them to his "feminist" idea that all men have built in rape tendencies?)
Again, to be clear, I'm not saying he or any other objectionable writer shouldn't write something. I'm saying we should be free to ignore it without getting yelled at by someone protecting a straw man.
"Fiction should not contain politics/modern politics" is an indefensible statement, and therefore, by definition the statement is stupid. It is logically flawed, overly general, and specially restricts artistic freedom. I disprove the premise on multiple levels. I did the same for didactism, and for authors' personal opinions. Each of those is a stupid statement, because it is not framed as a personal preference (which I specifically say in the video that I and everyone else is fine with) but I do not like, and should not like, and do not have to like, stupid, ill-thought out arguments like the three I was speaking about. The arguments are stupid. If people utter those arguments without comprehending that then, as I said in the video, they have created the impression that they a) do not understand literature, b) do not understand literary history, and c) do not understand that the ramifications for their statement is censorship. Given that some of the people that have said these exact phrases (and again it is about the statement, not the intention behind the statement, a different way of wording the statement, or any other variant that I didn't cover because I was not covering those things but these three specific statements) are very smart, I am not going to sling mud at them for potentially misspeaking or for not having thought through their argument. Should they watch this video (and I very much doubt that they will) they would have a chance to change how they phrase and approach the argument.
If you don't like Author A, then you are free to do that, but neither you nor I would think it defensible to say that because Author A included something we dislike that NO AUTHOR should include it. That is what these arguments boil down to. The difference between I didn't like X in Y book, and X should not be in any book is a vast gulf, but from your examples you conflate the two. Not limiting what authors are allowed to write in no way imposes any limitations or restrictions on readers. Those are two different subjects. If I made the statement Readers Shouldn't Talk About Politics, that would be a stupid statement, and one about the rights of readers. Authors shouldn't include politics in their stories is an equally stupid statement and is about the rights of authors.
You want to ignore Bakker or anyone else's writing, you, just like all of us are free to ignore it, dislike it, and talk about why you dislike it. Again, as I stated in the video, people are free to like/dislike, interrogate, ask questions about the value of any inclusion or exclusion an author has made. That is the substance of discussion, criticism, and appreciation of literature and narrative. No one has a problem with that. Saying that "authors shouldn't include X" is not that thing... That is a censorship argument, and is a dumb argument that even the people that make it don't actually agree with because the vast majority of the time they are annoyed about the appearance of a specific thin in a specific book/film/tv show, and have thoughtlessly made that statement instead of simply saying 'I didn't like the thing'. The two statements are not synonymous.
None of that changes the fact that saying that X should not be in Fiction is a deliberate call to remove X from all fiction and ban all authors from using X. That is a bad argument. If we make that specific argument we are exposing ourselves to being called stupid because the argument is indefensible. So the only people who would feel I am yelling at them would be people who have uttered at least one of those three specific statements. The whole point of my rant is I am literally fed up hearing this nonsense.
@@ACriticalDragon Ok, but those people are not here. We don't know who they are or what their position is outside how you framed it. That is the definition of a private beef. In other words, citation needed. Who is actually saying this in a public forum.
The statement I criticised was given in full. The reasoning behind such statement is irrelevant when it prima facie does not past muster, as I showed with how the logic does not hold, and its ramifications extend well past its apparently stated intent.
Their position and rationale is irrelevant when the statement is illogical.
Especially when the video was about how the statement is illogical and unsupportable regardless who says it, why they say, or in what manner they say it.
The video focuses on the reasons why the statement is wrong and unsupportable, no further information is necessary.
There is no supporting the statement unless one is supporting and advocating for widespread censorship.
Therefore, anyone who uses that statement and they didn't intend to advocate for widespread censorship, can reformulate their objections to which texts about which they are speaking and use a less egregious and illogical formulation.
They are perfectly entitled to their opinion about books, films, tv shows, and computer games, but if they use that particular formulation they invalidate their argument.
Insightful video, AP, as always.
As regards the topic of discussion, there could be other factors responsible for some, if not most, people's general disdain for the insertion of modern politics -- or as they call it, 'wokeness' -- into fiction. A concept may be well executed, but there are almost always other important factors at play. Just like with tropes, I believe 'modern' politics can fall into many traps, however well-executed it is.
One, take for instance, race-swapping or gender-swapping a character. This isn't inherently a bad thing, but it raises the question of necessity. If it was important for the story, then it opens up a doorway for insertion of ideologies that weren't present in the original works. This could be regarded as an adulteration of canon and, ultimately, a disrespect for the creator (even if it was executed well). If it wasn't important for the story, if the element of 'wokeness' wasn't to be addressed (for instance, Blacks being part in the British royal family in the 1700s), then why do it at all? That would, in my opinion, give off a superficial attempt at inclusion, while sacrificing historical accuracy. Two things done horrendously in an attempt to appease a certain demographic who ARE aware they are being pandered to by people who do so merely to earn diversity points. One needs only examine the current state of Hollywood and see this issue.
Two, there's that pitfall called cliché. Just like with tropes, 'modern' politics might come out as bland, perfunctory and mechanical if executed with no originality. Take spy thrillers, for example. Very few of these movies that come out today attain critical and commercial acclaim, even if they were well acted, directed and produced. The same can apply for ideologies. Most people pretty much know what to expect when they buy a feminist book or watch a feminist movie. What was initially meant to be didactic can end up being bland and uninspired.
Three, there is the issue of timelessness and obsolescence. True, everything modern will one day become obsolete. But we can create political works that can still be timeless. Tolkien (amongst countless others) did it, in his subtle criticism of deforestation and industrialisation and its disastrous consequences on nature. When people say modern politics, some might actually refer to issues that prevent a work of fiction from being timeless. They need only watch the first five or ten minutes and say, 'Oh, that was obviously written or released in 2022.'
The fourth factor is escapism. This might be the most important one. The primary reason we consume fiction is to dissociate ourselves from reality and its countless problems and venture into a world where none of that exists, or at least plays no major role in the story. When the average person discovers the supposed world of fiction is no different from theirs, it shatters that bubble and leaves a sour taste in their mouth. This is why disclaimers exist. Why, for example, would a teen bullied in high school want to read about a teen bullied in high school? Unless they can find closure, they'll most have a negative view of the story, however well written it was. So, what they are truly looking for is a revenge story, one they could not get in real life. This can be applied to 'modern politics' as well. Not everyone in a marginalised group enjoys consuming fiction that criticises bigotry. Maybe some of them desire to venture into a world where bigotry is non-existent in the first place and, hence, no criticism of it.
There are a few more points I'd like to add, but let me leave it at this. Wow, this was quite a rant!
If something is 'well executed' then it can't be clichéd (that would be an element of poor execution) or pandering (again an element of poor execution), or superficial (again that is poor execution). So all of those elements are dealt with in a discussion of execution of the thing, and are not a problem with the thing itself. And none of those aspects support an argument that writers should not address or include those issues in works, either for a specific audience or for a general audience.
There is, however, an argument that like all aspects of narrative that they should be done well.
Tolkien's work is not timeless, especially when we consider the considerable scholarship on his representation of race, orientalism, politics, and women. But even if we ignore that, the Scouring of the Shire is expressly a criticism of contemporary industrialisation. It is placed in an historical context, but is reflective of his contemporary social, cultural, and ideological mores, and his views on certain contemporary topics and politics. Aspects of his work are timeless, but to call it timeless ignores the fact that it is very much of its time and can be dated as such.
Barbie, a film made by contemporary Hollywood, is expressly feminist and dealing with these issues, and was extremely popular with a general audience. So inclusivity, diversity, and contemporary commentary are neither mutually exclusive with popularity, nor anathema to worth for a general audience.
A second strand to the timeless argument is that we don't necessarily know what the future will be like, so we can't know now what will live on. Both Dante and Milton have contemporary politics and political commentary in their works, very deliberately so, so the inclusion of these things does not necessarily have to do with longevity. Lee's To Kill a Mocking Bird, again is very of its time, but remains a popular and important work, and it was heavily focused on and dealt explicitly with contemporary political issues and social commentary. We honestly do not know what will strike a chord with future audiences, nor will we know what they will find unacceptable or abhorrent.
The first point about 'necessity' and the last point about escapism have at their core an inherent privilege of a particular approach to the criteria of story and what story should inherently value. Lots of different types of narrative are not concerned with an immersive escapist narrative experience. They are focused on didacticism, moral instruction, warnings about certain behaviour, and use narrative as a way to achieve this in a palatable and easier to understand form.
Particularly when it comes to adaptation, canonicity is not necessarily an important characteristic of adaptation. Adaptation is taking a narrative and making a new narrative out of it, often in a new medium. It is a choice whether or not to replicate the source closely or to deviate substantially. We may have preferences in approach, but though diametrically opposed in some ways, both are valid approaches to adaptation.
For something to be necessary for the narrative, we can discuss narrative in terms of the events of the diegesis, or we can talk about the message that is being communicated. A lot of narratives (film, tv, and literature) are not just collections of events in a causal sequence, but actually have something to say. That can be about modern politics, about culture, about social mores. The story can serve those aspects rather than be focused on immersion and escapism. Not all stories have to do this, that is why we advocate for variety and a range of approaches, because not everyone reads for escapism, some read to learn about a topic in a digestible way. Dystopian fiction very often specifically focuses on the real and the contemporary and explores the ramifications of that as a warning to the reader. Or do we think that Bradbury accidentally chose to write about censorship and book burning during the McCarthy era?
It very specifically wasn't about escapism, but a real contemporary issue.
To criticise McCarthy directly could have been problematic, so using fiction to explore the issue through a fantastical lens provided a modicum of cover, as well as made people think about the issue outside of potential kneejerk reactions.
Thanks, AP. Of course insertion of modern politics is never a bad thing if well executed. I merely wanted to explore why it might be digested poorly. Thanks again for the reply.@@ACriticalDragon
Pretty much any statement "X shouldn't be in Narrative" is ridiculous. Books are meant to explore our understanding of reality. To limit ourselves based on hard rules would stifle creativity and discourse.
I clearly feel the same way, but it appears that some in the comments do not.
The exclusion of black women speaking in this video spoke volumes, AP.
Well, I am a bad person.
@@ACriticalDragon It was interesting to listen to this. I know I sometimes fall under the camp of "i wish the author didn't include ______", but I do agree that it is important to make that distinction between that and "the author shouldn't have included ______". So, while there are no black women speaking in this video, I suppose I will accept that it wasn't the creators vision for the video.
Absolutely. Recognising we can have personal preferences and desires is imperative for self-awareness, but an expectation that those preferences be imposed as rules for creators is a different matter.
We can and should be free to like or dislike things for whatever reasons we want, but that is so different to imposing those conditions onto creators as a default or expected norm.
It is when our preferences become confused with 'objective' criteria or form the basis of 'rules for' creators that we see the issues arise.
I might not like X author's writing style, I may think it is 'bad', and I might even wish that the author did something different, but I don't say that they must do something different, and shouldn't be allowed to write in that style.
I have to recognise that other people may like that particular style or narrative choice. I could refine my position and think about how the author's approach could be made more effective for someone like me, but also still please those it was intended for or who like how it currently is. My intuition and feelings may help me focus on aspects, but they aren't automatically accepted as the right thing.
@@ACriticalDragon Excellent idea for a video discussion. I love book reviews but will sometimes cringe seeing these types of critiques because of what the book wasn't, rather than what it was.
💯
take away: Spy Action Thrillers lead to online bullying!
Poor Argylle. A fun film actually, but it is not doing well.
I don't know how many people genuinely don't want politics in stories versus how many people hate to see a story that they otherwise would have liked be obscured by a thick layer of unrefined, unoriginal, naked propaganda.
Speaking for myself, whenever I see incongruous political messaging, (raceswapping, blinding over-representation, bland political rants inserted into dialogue, etc.) it irritates me but it's only one factor among many in my enjoyment of a piece of media.
(Edit: I'm not sure I buy your censorship argument either. Most people saying "you shouldn't..." are really just saying "I won't buy this if..." I don't think anyone is trying to stop people from being able to publish work featuring clunky political commentary. For example, anyone who read de Sade and said "I would prefer that he hadn't written this" is not censorious. Only the people who locked him up in La Bastille for his writing were actually censorious. )
If that is what they mean, then they need to change the formulation of the statement because I agree with you. It generally isn't what they mean. I just wish they would say what they mean instead of saying these really ridiculous statements.
I either have to assume that they don't mean what they say (problematic in and of itself) and therefore guess, intuit, or otherwise try to discern their meaning... or they can stop using the useless, illogical phrase and use something more specific and defensible.
Saying "I would prefer he had not written this" is not a phrase or position that I have a problem with, nor do I conflate that with a pro censorship argument.
Saying "authors shouldn't write this" is a different argument.
They might mean the former, but the latter is a pro censorship argument whether they intended it or not.
Hence my desire for people to please stop saying this.
@@ACriticalDragon I think we might be at an impasse here because, as far as I'm concerned, the two statements "I would prefer if this hadn't been written" and "I think the author shouldn't have written this" are fundamentally the same statement: the former simply has a bit more tact. The censorious statement is when someone says "this shouldn't be allowed to have been written." It requires someone other than the author themselves to stop the writer from writing.
Just like how saying that people shouldn't commit murder doesn't infringe on anybody's free will but rendering someone physically or psychologically incapable of committing murder is severe infringement on their freedoms. A poor restatement of (how I read) Anthony Burgess' thesis statement in A Clockwork Orange.
@theskyisteal8346 "Authors should not include politics" or "politics shouldn't be in fantasy" "stories shouldn't be didactoc" are those declarative censorious statements.
"I would prefer... I don't like" are expressions of preference.
But even defining what is meant by politics would be a start given the plasticity of the term.
@@ACriticalDragon Sorry, I suppose I might not have been clear: I think declarative statements of opinion in this context have the "I think/prefer/don't like" implicitly included. (e.g. "God is real" vs. "I believe that God is real")
Okay, but one statement, God is real, asserts the condition as fact, as an external reality, even if it is a personal belief. The statement 'I think God is real' conveys that the person believes that God is real but allows for the fact that this is a personal opinion and not everyone may think so.
The implication is important, especially when asserting as fact not stating as preference.
Agree that the issue is largely a problem of "not done well", and I think when people say "no politics/don't be didactic" their real complaint is that they're tired of the very specific messages pushed forward by the current powers that be in the publishing/literary award circles. Since the preferences of the powerful dictate what gets published and well advertised, and we don't have benefit of decades/centuries to filter out the best of the best, we instead have to deal with a lot of the lower quality material that is pushed to the top of the publishing heap likely in part because it sings the correct political tune.
I want to point out that it is largely the voiceless/powerless who are asking for "less didactic" fiction specifically because they know they aren't going to get their preferred message. The people in positions of power in institutions such as major publishing houses and lit awards consistently say they are in favor of didactic messaging because they control the levers of mass exposure. I'm sure there were plebs in ancient Rome that complained about the plays being too political too!
Including a homosexual character just to include them in a sense dose them being homosexual add anything to the story same thing as any sexual orientation if it doesn't have meaning there is some political or religious ideological beliefs for said addiction. It doesn't ruin the story itself in fact sometimes I prefer to be ignorant of the reasons why they wrote it like that as finding out facts about the author and their writing makes you sometimes no longer feel like enjoying their work. Ignorance is bliss sometimes. But I fully enjoy learning from your videos honesty if my literature professors covered subjects like you do I might actually have not slept in his class 😂😂
Curiously we don't ever seem to hear the argument 'including a heterosexual character just to include them'... 'Does the character's heterosexuality add anything to the story?' There is an implied norm. Therefore conforming to the expectation of an implied status quo is just as inherently political as deviating from that implied norm.
In essence, the arguments revolve around a need to justify one action because it is perceived to be deviating from a supposed or accepted 'norm', but there is no need to justify the other because it is restating a 'perceived or accepted norm', even though it is simply a character trait. So there isn't a consistent nor logical approach to the criticism.
Neither approach forces the reader to like the choice, but if we are going to be honest and fair in our approach we have to examine why we apply stricter criteria to one choice and not the other.
@@ACriticalDragon I think we tend to judge on our standards or normal and right and wrong. Each of us have a set view of the world and it creates a bias that certain things are like this. My best example would be now people say slavery is wrong so owning a slave makes you a bad person. But for the longest time in history this wasn't the normal view. So the only reason I can say why I never questioned it was because I am bias as a heterosexual considered it normal actions. Now this doesn't mean that I have anything against homosexual relationship in stories I never gave much thought because most authors usually gave good reasons for it and now you going to make me start thinking about why authors wrote those characters like that. Now I am stuck thinking and it's all your fault.
I am an evil person. I have no defence. Sorry for making you think. 😂
I generally agree with your logic but I would like to push back on the idea that we can separate objective good and badness from preference. I think it's perfectly good and fine to say something is bad if it didn't fit my preferences, if I wish it had done something different, and so on. That's fine. And that's because I believe we should all naturally know that *nothing* is concretely good or bad outside of preference.
And to use your example of Magician's feminist characters that are seemingly contradictory in the setting, I would argue it's poor form to say that it's "poorly done" if we're arguing from a non-preferential perspective of how feminism was implemented. Instead I'd say Feist's implementation of feminism felt inauthentic, or it was unbelievable, or some other kind of framing. Because the obvious rebuttal to saying it's poorly done is just, "no it wasn't." Because that perceived quality of it is subjective. It not matching your perceived logic doesn't make it objectively bad, it just makes it subjectively bad for you. But others obviously might not view it that way. They might even have their own perceived logic that works for them, or their threshold for suspension of disbelief may work differently to yours. But if you add more specificity, reframe the argument, we can avoid the "good/bad" discussion entirely and talk about why it doesn't or does work for us.
Another example is the (in)famous "bad" film The Room. But if it's so widely beloved and enjoyed, can we say it is bad? We can point to the acting, which is very quirky, amateur, unconvincing, and say it's "bad" acting, but is the purpose of acting to be convincing, or is it simply to act? They *are* acting. It's *unconvincing* acting, but it's provoke a strong positive reaction from the audience. Isn't that good acting, then? We can discuss intention, but intention is irrelevant in the face of an audience. The audience will mold any narrative it is given, any work of art. Intention can influence the audience, but intention will die long before the art itself will. Intention will lose all value when it's not there anymore.
So anyway, I have more to say on the topic, I just want to say I think it's cool to call things bad and that's fine because it's true. Good and bad are only ever preferences. And obviously it's nice when people expand on why things are either good or bad for them. But when it comes to analysis, I think it's better to just forgo "good", "bad", etc. altogether if the ultimate goal is clarity.
Also I've done the really stupid thing of commenting here before the video is over, so I'm only halfway through at the moment. Sorry if you addressed any of this later on. I need to go to sleep now and wanted to get my thoughts out before I forget. Will finish the video tomorrow. Bye A.P., love you xoxo
inclusion of poorly implemented modern politics… is this whole video a jab at Brandon Sanderson? 😮
If I was taking a jab at Sanderson I would have been much more overt.
@@ACriticalDragon 😆