Why Do People Even Care About Unfortunate Implications?

I was just quoting an on-line article on "most offensive movie characters" by way of illustrating that people will see Unfortunate Implications where they desire to.

Personally, I didn't see Jar-Jar as a caricature of any particular race - just firm evidence that a certain writer/director had hit rock bottom some time before and had commenced digging furiously...

A writer on another forum I'm part of had a good way of looking at Unfortunate Implications. He said, "I'm responsible for what is implied, not what is inferred."

So while you would want to do your best to avoid any Unfortunate Implications, you can't worry too much about what people might think. If you do the absolute best you can to imply Option A and someone still thinks you meant Option B, after a certain point it's their fault for misinterpreting. Of course, if you do a terrible job of implying Option A, then it is your fault. So don't do a terrible job and it'll be okay.

I would assume they're afraid of alienating and frightening off their audience.

Due to the history of oppression of some groups.

No matter how well you write a book, someone out there is going to hate it.

However, that doesn't mean you shouldn't care about trying to produce something of good quality.

Same logic goes to UI. Someone will always complain, but that doesn't mean you should just ignore any and all implications ever.

The logic is pretty straightforward. All works are meant to be consumed. If the controversial/off-putting elements turn off too many people, then the work won't be read/watched/listened/etc by enough people and would be a failure.

Though highly bigoted works can also be extremely successful - Birth of a Nation is, as ever, the classic example. It's completely possible to whip up the majority against an oppressed minority and make a packet in the process. That's where the secondary concern of basic human empathy comes in.

That's generally because said film was within the acceptable norms of the time. Indeed, Unfortunate Implications is subjective and highly dependent on the socio-political climate; varying from moment to moment.

edited 28th Aug '13 9:58:29 AM by peasant

Even today, though, sexism, racism, and homophobia do not automatically doom a work. Just look at all the Magical Native American stuff in Avatar, a film which netted James Cameron more money than God. Remember, bigoted works are bigoted because they attack, marginalise, or caricature minorities, and minorities, by definition, cannot be a majority of the target audience (though this gets a bit more complicated with sociological minorities who are numerous but lack political power). Financial motives can work to dissuade bigotry, particularly once boycotts start getting mobilised, but it's certainly not a sure-fire thing, which is one of the reasons why Hollywood is so astonishingly socially conservative.

Thing is, while the racism in Birth of a Nation was intentional and blatantly obvious, I don't see any evidence to support your claim that James Cameron meant to communicate an anti-Native American message. Sure, the Na'vi have a "jungle tribe" aesthetic vibe to them (which I actually thought was pretty cool), but beyond that they don't resemble any particular population on Earth (they are aliens), and at any rate they are supposed to be the sympathetic side.

That said, I agree that even in this day and age media with obvious anti-minority undertones can become widely successful. Precious for example is chock full of racist stereotypes of African-American women and features two Mighty White (or Light-Skinned) Saviors, yet that didn't stop the critics from fawning over it and even giving Mo'Nique a reward for her highly stereotypical portrayal.

edited 28th Aug '13 10:55:58 AM by Jabrosky

Yeah, because it's not "dickish" at all to demand that people write things your way. And yes, demanding is what you're doing. That relies on the assumption that all or even most critcism is made in good faith with the intent of actually helping the writer become a better writer, and not just the critic trying to make sure their own agenda is advanced.

Now, there's nothing inherently wrong with advancing an agenda. Everyone does it, and everyone should. But there's no objective moral high ground to lay claim to either.

edited 28th Aug '13 3:13:00 PM by Robotnik

I dunno. I don't mind demanding people not write women like sexualized objects, or as arm candy. I think that's a thing that should be demanded in general.

I agree that they shouldn't. But only because all women are not objectively arm candy and writing them as such is a good indicator of laziness and unwillingness to break away from the crowd.

I'm not prejudiced because I find most prejudices to be unfounded and inaccurate, not because I think prejudice is "wrong".

edited 28th Aug '13 2:54:53 PM by Robotnik

Well, many times UI can come across as very obvious issues. Sure, there will be rude people who nitpick and demand for small changes, as opposed to "uhhh you might wanna reconsider this character..." but to dismiss the entire lot because of the unjust demanders seems a bit foolish.

I don't think anyone here has completely dismissed the idea of Unfortunate Implications. Most of them seem frustrated with the fact that everyone will see it in something and wonder why going so far to avoid it is worth all the trouble.

edited 28th Aug '13 5:16:20 PM by Robotnik

I've been thinking a bit about this lately. It's inevitable I'll piss off certain people. In some cases, I'm absolutely happy to do so: homophobes won't like me portraying the protagonist's parents as a healthy lesbian couple, but they can go fuck themselves.

In other cases, the matter is greyer: while I regard myself as a feminist, I've accepted that I'm also going to anger a lot of feminists. Specifically, those who take the opposite side from me in the feminist sex wars will be infuriated that the egalitarian Uelane regard prostitution as a legitimate occupation for both men and women. In this case, I'll respectfully debate those who are willing to have a respectful debate.

But these are what I'm expecting. It's quite possible that I'll end up offending someone I didn't plan on offending. In this case... well, matters will depend. As before, I'll respectfully debate those willing to have a respectful debate. I will ask that my critics accept I meant no harm, and in exchange I'll accept that unintended harm is still harm. I know I won't please everyone. Indeed, I know a lot of people will have legitimate gripes with me that I'll eventually choose to ignore. The simple fact is, I can't please everyone. I'll just have to follow my conscience and pay attention to the tropes I'm using and the assumptions behind them — which is what any writer who isn't brewing up a Cliché Storm should do anyways, simply as a matter of quality control.

I have prostitution as a legitimate occupation in my stuff, too.

RE Unfortunate Implications, here's a quoted passage from Street Thieves And Artful Dodgers, a reinterpretation of Oliver Twist set in a futuristic steampunk New York. Hannah is the narrator (Dodger's) mother (who "everyone" calls by her first name) and both characters are Black:

edited 28th Aug '13 5:11:10 PM by morwenedhelwen

Written in accents always make me cringe. Don't know why

@joey: OK, I understand that. However, dialect and accent are often interchangeable. Quite a few uses of dialect in fiction also include accents: I've seen people write in dialect/accents on messageboards.

Reposting this from the now locked thread.

And my previous criticism still stands: it seems like you've simply decided anyone who disagrees with you is inherently wrong, and not worth listening to.

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that I don't think those who disagree with me aren't worth listening to. All I said was that I won't censor myself for someone else's benefit.

I'm more than happy to listen to opposing viewpoints.

"If you get offended by something I say or do, that's a problem on your end," is a very broad, sweeping statement that seems to completely toss aside any possibility of civil debate on your work with those who criticize it. It's possible this wasn't what you intended, but it's certainly how it comes across.

You are missing the possibility that the work is being criticized because it adopts attitudes that if put in practice are harmful to the practitioner or to others.

Criticism is neither required to nor should confine itself solely to the creation of a more perfect technical work, for a work does not exist in a solely technical sense. They are creations of the society and of the person that they originated from. This means works have social, and personal, dimensions.

edited 29th Aug '13 7:45:04 AM by Night

No writer needs to care if their work adopts attitudes "that are harmful to the practictioner or others" (however you define something as vague as that) or if their writing is the product of a corrupted "society". I would reflect on the possibility and I think most would, but no one should be obligated to listen to this kind of criticism any more than those critics are obligated to hold their tongue.

At the end of the day, you're still criticizing authors for not holding the attitudes you think they should, and that's subjective and rather meaningless if the author doesn't accept the premise that they have an intrinsic social "responsibity".

edited 29th Aug '13 8:33:45 AM by Robotnik