Schroedinger's Author

[sqbr]

(This is a tangent I got into while writing Good writing doesn't solve all problems and decided needed it's own post. EDIT: Disclaimer 4a applies *sighs at self*

Something I find annoying in these sorts of discussions is that people act like there's either there's a single objective "goodness" that all works are judged by, or the perception of a work is almost random and completely out of the authors hands.

Obviously different people react in different ways, and the effectiveness of writing depends a lot on shared reactions to things like metaphor and the associations of words, as well as values and expectations etc. Everyone gets something different out of a story, there is no one right interpretation, and the author can never entirely predict what people will get from it. (This sort of thing is what leads to a lack of diversity in "objectively chosen good stories" when your editors are all middle class white men etc)

But.

If reader reactions were completely arbitrary anybody could be a good author. Random collections of words would be as popular as Shakespeare.

Instead, part of the skill of a good author lies in being able to craft words in a way which speak to multiple people an effective way. You can't completely control that effect, nor should you want to, but you can shape your words to make your sad scenes sad, your funny scenes funny, and your allegorical works allegorical and have a decent hope that that will be the general effect. Some of this is unconscious and difficult to control on purpose, but despite what it feels like sometimes we are not actually passive receptacles of stories from some platonic realm.

I'm not a talented or experienced writer by any means but as I see it, part of the trick to good writing is to write from what you know, let your own feelings and experiences flavour the text with a sense of authenticity. But another part is being able to imagine how your writing will affect other people. For example, if you pepper a humourous piece with in-jokes noone will laugh at it but you and your friends. I sometimes have remind myself not everyone thinks in maths metaphors.

Obviously you can't be held completely responsible for all reactions, people are weird, from not getting the point of satire to claiming your book told them to kill someone. But I think you can make an educated guess as to the general reactions of groups of people. A good and thoughtful writer will try to consider the reactions of all their possible readers when writing, not just the people who think like them (though this may just end up with them saying something like "This book probably won't appeal to teenagers and I can live with that").

EDIT: I'm NOT saying you should never write anything offensive. But I think most authors do have an upper limit on how much offensiveness they are aiming for/willing to put up with in a certain work, and in judging that level you have to consider the different reactions of different sorts of people. And I think if you know that what you're writing is going to seriously hurt people that's something you should consider, though you may decide that this is unfortunate but a necessary price to pay given the worth of your work (they may disagree)

One of the more obvious differences between writer and reader are things like race, gender, nationality etc. What may seem "cheekily edgy" but not actively offensive to a man may be like a sexist slap in the face to a woman. Light hearted playing around with stereotypes about a country/religion etc may seem fine and fun to those not in that group but unreadable to those within it. This is the logic behind the (in my opinion flawed) "That's not funny" response: the humour of that joke relies on the hearer not empathising with/understanding the butt of it (but to go back to my previous post you can think something's funny and still think it's offensive and shouldn't be said).

But there are other differences too (here is where my argument gets onto shakier ground!(*)). Age is a major one: one of my more unpopular opinions is that works written by adults for children should be carefully vetted (by authors and parents) since often adults are capable of seeing beyond false ideas that children will take in uncritically.

Some of the more controversial questions are about whether or not there's any way to say if a story encourages violence, sexism, etc(**). I'm not sure, and as a fan of horror I definitely think it's more complicated than just denouncing any book which contains actions or ideas we don't like. But I don't think the question should be dismissed out of hand because there's "no way to predict what effect a book will have". There's no way to predict it for certain or in all cases, but perhaps it can be predicted with reasonable certainty in most cases, and personally I think that's the best we can do for the consequences of any action.

An example I saw given once was that the first edition of a story about a suicide resulted in some readers committing suicide. Being aware of this the author put in a foreword in the next edition saying something like "Please do not commit suicide". Bizarrely, the context in which I saw this example being used was someone arguing that that was wrong because it interfered with the Art, and it's not the authors responsibility to worry about that sort of thing. But I think that in rare cases like this where you know the consequences it is your responsibility to worry about them, and weigh them up against the worth of the work. There have been times I've been inspired to write satires of stuff I've seen around me, but I've been pretty sure people I know would take it personally (even if it wasn't actually based on them) and decided not to. Which is not to say noone should ever write biting satire based on their friends, but they have to take some (not complete) responsibility for any hurt feelings that result. Writers are no more immune from ethical responsibility than anyone else.

And here we cycle back to the point of my previous post: Good writing doesn't solve all problems :)

Also, since people ALWAYS assume this sort of thing is promoting censorship (beyond individual parents maybe controlling what their kids read, which you're welcome to disagree with): No, I'm saying it's something authors need to think about, and readers have a right to complain about. There are many things in the world I think are unethical but don't think should be banned.

And I'm not saying authors are totally responsible for the consequences of their works, or that those consequences can be accurately predicted or even figured out afterwards. But I think in those cases where they can be predicted (and which those are is a matter of much debate!) the author has some responsibility for them. That doesn't mean they should never write anything which will have any negative effect, just that they need to weigh up those negative effects against the positive ones.

(*)I would be very curious to hear from people who agree with the first half but not with the second, since this seems to be a common POV and it's not one I entirely understand.
(**)This is different from deciding if the author is in favour of these things, which is generally an easier proposition though by no means always clear

Comments

[ataxi.livejournal.com]

Um, yeah. I wouldn't have much of a problem with the "please don't commit suicide" foreword either way. Although it strikes me as unnecessary, or even slightly vain.

We differ on this issue anyway. I think if an author can think about the social consequences of their work, that can be an interesting thing in an artistic sense (as well as in the ethical sense that seems to interest you). I don't agree that they have to, because I like too many works in which those impacts sit rather unconsidered. Good example: H. P. Lovecraft, frequently direly racist in his outlook. But I'd never argue that he shouldn't have been published. In fact, what his racism reveals about his own evident "fear of the Other" contributes neatly to the paranoia that infests the rest of his fictional landscape. Perhaps the Cthulhu Mythos without racism would be less worthwhile.

As far as the relativism of "good" writing goes, if I'm in conversation and I know that we both agree something is good, or even great (let's say The Left Hand of Darkness), I'm happy to call it that. Based on experience, I know that if I call it "good" to other carefully judged third parties and they read it on my recommendation, we won't be too far off the mark altogether. That's as much as I need, not being a pro reviewer or one who's keen on authoring the latest official literary canon: and everyone knows that those official "100 Best" lists are trash in the final analysis.

I do disagree with your remark that "the skill of a good author lies in being able to craft words in a way which speak to multiple people an effective way". To my mind that's more the skill of the commercial author -- broad appeal.

[alias_sqbr]

Although it strikes me as unnecessary, or even slightly vain.

In the example given (and I can't remember the original author to check, so it may be spurious, but let's for the sake of argument assume it's not) it was quite clear that the suicides were a direct result. Whether those people would have committed suicide anyway and the book just speeded things up is impossible to say of course.

the skill of a good author lies in being able to craft words in a way which speak to multiple people an effective way". To my mind that's more the skill of the commercial author -- broad appeal.

I didn't mean that goodness is directly proportional to breadth of appeal and I definitely should have said part of the skill. "Multiple" here just means "more than one", not "as many as possible", some very talented authors have very limited audiences. But I think there's some correlation: this is why we speak of the classics "speaking out across the centuries", because they capture something (relatively) universal, and very bad writing will probably not appeal to many people. I don't think it's too far off to say that, all things being equal, most (but definitely not all) authors aim to reach as many as people as possible without diluting their message (which may not be very many). It is to those sorts of authors that argument is slanted.

Hmm. With your Lovecraft example: the fact that (arguably) bad people doing bad things has resulted in worthwhile writing doesn't stop them being bad things (or people). One can admire the great works inspired by death and war and still be a pacifist, or admire the pyramids and still be against slavery.

To give an example from my own writing: writing ACOS (my comic) I've at times noticed some fairly dodgy racist and sexist subtexts. In some cases they can be removed without affecting the storyline, but others are either inherent to the whole story or I can't think of any way to change them that wouldn't damage the quality. I didn't give up on the story(*) but I had a serious think about what I was going to do, and if anyone calls me out on it (unlikely, given the paucity of readers :)) will have to admit fault. I will note that thinking about this stuff has, in my opinion, improved the story overall.

(*)Well, ok, so I have written any in months, but that's because I'm easily distracted :)

[ataxi.livejournal.com]

"With your Lovecraft example: the fact that (arguably) bad people doing bad things has resulted in worthwhile writing doesn't stop them being bad things (or people). One can admire the great works inspired by death and war and still be a pacifist, or admire the pyramids and still be against slavery."

I think the two other examples you give sort of blur the picture. I wouldn't advocate rounding up thousands of slaves to build a pyramid today no matter how beautiful, or starting a war to inspire Wilfred Owen to a new collection (though I'm sure some interesting poetry is being written in Gaza at this moment).

In the Lovecraft example the badness (racism) is contained within the text, and I haven't heard that HPL had to hurl hate-fuelled invective at anyone IRL in order to work up his prejudice for the main event of The Unusual Case of Charles Dexter Ward (though he may have done). But what I also noted above is that I think his racism perhaps even enhances his work, and isn't something despite which I enjoy it. I actually enjoy reading that racist drivel leaking out the side of his pen, knowing he was a damn fool, and appreciating the rest of it for what it is anyway. If he was writing today, on the other hand ... hmm.

Conclusion: reassessing, ends up in the too hard basket. I don't think hard and fast rules can be made, any more than they can for courtesy in social situations. But I do think the umpire should give the artist the benefit of any doubt in a case of possible leg before wicket -- art is "better out than in" ;-)

[alias_sqbr]

Yeah my examples weren't perfect. I need to think about it a bit more.

Conclusion: reassessing, ends up in the too hard basket. I don't think hard and fast rules can be made, any more than they can for courtesy in social situations. But I do think the umpire should give the artist the benefit of any doubt in a case of possible leg before wicket -- art is "better out than in" ;-)

I think I pretty much agree, but as with courtesy while it's very difficult to judge any individual (maybe they cut in line because they really need it right now to save the life of a sick child!) you can still say "Hey, people, stop cutting in line" and work on the assumption that the few times someone really does need to cut in line they won't be caught in indecision saying "But alias_sqbr said not to!"

And sometimes if you give too many people the benefit of the doubt you end up getting trampled on. This has definitely been my experience, as someone who used to try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt.

Edit: *extending metaphor perhaps a bit too much* also, I think a lot of the time when people complain about not being given the benefit of the doubt, it's when they didn't notice they were cutting in line, or weren't aware of how much it inconveniences people. And saying "Hey, you cut in line, that makes me have to wait longer" is true regardless of the person's intentions and justifications.

[kadeton.livejournal.com]

To be honest, I don't really see your point. You say that authors 'need' to think about the reactions of those outside of their intended audience, but you haven't offered any reasons other than that it might be offensive to some people. While causing offense isn't nice, the effect on the author's commercial success is likely to be pretty minimal, since the work wasn't targeted at those audiences anyway.

Worrying about offending people is one of the quickest ways to stifle your ability to express yourself, as you mention with your satire example. As long as you are not deliberately constructing your text to cause offense to or promote prejudice against a person or group, it seems far more useful to simply write whatever you want and take any constructive criticism on board for your next work (or not, if you don't feel the need to improve as an author).

[strangedave.livejournal.com]

I think authors should not worry about causing offence per se -- but they should worry about causing offence unintentionally.
And taking constructive criticism on board for your next work is fine, but that is no reason not to consider the same issues before you write the first work too.

[kadeton.livejournal.com]

I draw a very large distinction between prejudice and ignorance. Causing offense through ignorance ('unintentional offense') is understandable, but certainly doesn't excuse you from not having done your homework. If, on the other hand, you have actually made an effort but have still caused offense through misunderstanding or ignorance, constructive criticism is probably the best way to gain the understanding you lack. If the cause of the offense isn't obvious to you in the first place (in which case, to not remove it would make it intentional), then it will probably be difficult for you to 'consider' it, and you'll probably get it wrong regardless, so showing your work to someone with a greater understanding of the issues involved and getting constructive criticism is really the only way to proceed.

[strangedave.livejournal.com]

The issue seems to really be about the things you think you know, but really don't -- plain old ignorance doesn't really cover it, and simple prejudice isn't really it either (mostly, we are talking about people who are trying to do the right thing, but failing). Cultural arrogance or something is probably a good term.

Constructive criticism, in this specific context, is really research you do after you've written it simply to find your mistakes. It is valuable, and probably necessary, but I think relying on it totally would be a lazy substitute for also doing sufficient research before you write as well.

[kadeton.livejournal.com]

I guess. That still sounds like ignorance to me. I guess the problem comes in when you assume that your level of knowledge on a topic is sufficient or complete.

Constructive criticism and research are totally different things, to my mind. However, I suspect we agree in principle, and at this point are arguing semantics. ;)

[mandragora2003.livejournal.com]

Mmmm, I hear you.

Interestingly, I find laziness far less forgivable than prejudice or other forms of bias in writing. I can overlook the gender or racial stereotyping that often shows up (especially in the older works or "classic fantasy" stuff). It has to get fairly blatant before I'll take offense. Which is the point (for me, at least). I don't rise up in anger against the writer who assumes that all Irish people, or all Australians (or all women, for that matter) are the same. I'm reading a story; and that implies that I am borrowing their world-view for a while. It may tell me something about the writer, but it is not an attack on my own beliefs.

But sloppy writing, or people using a cookie-cutter character rather than applying a bit of effort to round out an individual bugs me tremendously. It doesn't take a lot; you can imply a great deal of information with a one line description if you try. But to state their race or socioeconomic group and gender and imply that to be all the information required for an in-depth knowledge of their persona... No. It's trite, annoying, and lazy. I find that such short-cuts disrupt the flow of my reading, because they make me stop to cavil; which irks me even more. In terms of literature, I put it on a par with not bothering to spell-check a story before posting. This extends to situations as well as characters; the number of people who don't bother to think about the realities of another country before they try to write a story set there is daunting.

I feel the same when people try to write medical stuff, and don't bother checking the basics. It's so easy to do five minutes of research! Never watch a medical show in my company. I nit-pick.

My apologies if this is a trifle disjointed; note time of day at this writing :)

[alias_sqbr]

I pretty much agree with what strangedave said.

I'll add:
Totally not caring about commercial success, no, this is about ethics. Though will say that there are a lot of women who make the argument that video games/sf etc producers are narrow-mindedly shooting themselves in the foot by not considering the wishes of female consumers. (I don't feel confident enough of how markets work to say I agree)

I have to say I think we have very different ideas about the creative process. To me, even if you ignore issues of offensiveness etc it's always a good idea to redraft your work and get outside input(*). Maybe not at all stages, sometimes you do just have to let your creative juices flow and not worry about it, but if you're not careful you'll end up with something resembling an unedited NaNoWriMo entry.

Also I think we have very different opinions of how much subconsious bias/prejudice/stereotyping your average well meaning person has. I'm inclined to say a staggeringly large amount. To the extent that every writer is likely to have some sort of accidental racist/sexist/ablist/etc subtext to their writing which can only be combated by consciously looking out for it. A writer might decide that doing so would cramp their creative style too much, and that's a choice they can make, but they have to acknowledge that they have chosen to be complicit with racism/sexism/etc for the sake of their Art, same way as "meat is tasty" may be an excuse for not being vegetarian, but it doesn't make meat any more or less unethical from the POV of the animals being eaten.

To give myself as an example: I do worry about my work having accidental racist/sexist etc subtext, and it does cramp my style sometimes. But so does worrying about being derivative, or cliched, or my twists being too obvious, or my character's motivations unclear etc. If you're not worrying about something at some stage you're being self indulgent and probably not very good.

Of course that said some creators really do seem to work totally right-brained from the subconscious, or are so absurdly talented they don't need editors etc. I must admit I didn't really consider those sorts of people when writing this, though I think they still have a responsibility for what they put in the public eye even if they can't control what they create.

(*)Said redrafting and outside input possibly resulting in the decision that it's probably best left as is

[kadeton.livejournal.com]

Hmm, my apologies if I somehow gave the impression that writers don't need editors. I think we basically agree, but the main difference between our arguments is that I don't think it's possible or worthwhile to spend creative energy trying to find unconscious bias in your own work, since you'll almost certainly get it wrong. Instead, showing it to other people (primarily editors and friends for the redrafting process, then critics and the wider public once released) will inevitably reveal your biases. It's at that point, in my opinion, that the decision to become complicit in prejudice or work to avoid it is made.

[alias_sqbr]

Well, I guess that depends on the writer (and as long as these issues get caught somewhere I don't care so much how) but personally I have found that looking back over a work and reading up on subconscious bias etc has allowed me to notice and correct it quite a bit.

[ataxi.livejournal.com]

Um, yeah. I wouldn't have much of a problem with the "please don't commit suicide" foreword either way. Although it strikes me as unnecessary, or even slightly vain.

We differ on this issue anyway. I think if an author can think about the social consequences of their work, that can be an interesting thing in an artistic sense (as well as in the ethical sense that seems to interest you). I don't agree that they have to, because I like too many works in which those impacts sit rather unconsidered. Good example: H. P. Lovecraft, frequently direly racist in his outlook. But I'd never argue that he shouldn't have been published. In fact, what his racism reveals about his own evident "fear of the Other" contributes neatly to the paranoia that infests the rest of his fictional landscape. Perhaps the Cthulhu Mythos without racism would be less worthwhile.

As far as the relativism of "good" writing goes, if I'm in conversation and I know that we both agree something is good, or even great (let's say The Left Hand of Darkness), I'm happy to call it that. Based on experience, I know that if I call it "good" to other carefully judged third parties and they read it on my recommendation, we won't be too far off the mark altogether. That's as much as I need, not being a pro reviewer or one who's keen on authoring the latest official literary canon: and everyone knows that those official "100 Best" lists are trash in the final analysis.

I do disagree with your remark that "the skill of a good author lies in being able to craft words in a way which speak to multiple people an effective way". To my mind that's more the skill of the commercial author -- broad appeal.

[alias_sqbr]

Although it strikes me as unnecessary, or even slightly vain.

In the example given (and I can't remember the original author to check, so it may be spurious, but let's for the sake of argument assume it's not) it was quite clear that the suicides were a direct result. Whether those people would have committed suicide anyway and the book just speeded things up is impossible to say of course.

the skill of a good author lies in being able to craft words in a way which speak to multiple people an effective way". To my mind that's more the skill of the commercial author -- broad appeal.

I didn't mean that goodness is directly proportional to breadth of appeal and I definitely should have said part of the skill. "Multiple" here just means "more than one", not "as many as possible", some very talented authors have very limited audiences. But I think there's some correlation: this is why we speak of the classics "speaking out across the centuries", because they capture something (relatively) universal, and very bad writing will probably not appeal to many people. I don't think it's too far off to say that, all things being equal, most (but definitely not all) authors aim to reach as many as people as possible without diluting their message (which may not be very many). It is to those sorts of authors that argument is slanted.

Hmm. With your Lovecraft example: the fact that (arguably) bad people doing bad things has resulted in worthwhile writing doesn't stop them being bad things (or people). One can admire the great works inspired by death and war and still be a pacifist, or admire the pyramids and still be against slavery.

To give an example from my own writing: writing ACOS (my comic) I've at times noticed some fairly dodgy racist and sexist subtexts. In some cases they can be removed without affecting the storyline, but others are either inherent to the whole story or I can't think of any way to change them that wouldn't damage the quality. I didn't give up on the story(*) but I had a serious think about what I was going to do, and if anyone calls me out on it (unlikely, given the paucity of readers :)) will have to admit fault. I will note that thinking about this stuff has, in my opinion, improved the story overall.

(*)Well, ok, so I have written any in months, but that's because I'm easily distracted :)

[ataxi.livejournal.com]

"With your Lovecraft example: the fact that (arguably) bad people doing bad things has resulted in worthwhile writing doesn't stop them being bad things (or people). One can admire the great works inspired by death and war and still be a pacifist, or admire the pyramids and still be against slavery."

I think the two other examples you give sort of blur the picture. I wouldn't advocate rounding up thousands of slaves to build a pyramid today no matter how beautiful, or starting a war to inspire Wilfred Owen to a new collection (though I'm sure some interesting poetry is being written in Gaza at this moment).

In the Lovecraft example the badness (racism) is contained within the text, and I haven't heard that HPL had to hurl hate-fuelled invective at anyone IRL in order to work up his prejudice for the main event of The Unusual Case of Charles Dexter Ward (though he may have done). But what I also noted above is that I think his racism perhaps even enhances his work, and isn't something despite which I enjoy it. I actually enjoy reading that racist drivel leaking out the side of his pen, knowing he was a damn fool, and appreciating the rest of it for what it is anyway. If he was writing today, on the other hand ... hmm.

Conclusion: reassessing, ends up in the too hard basket. I don't think hard and fast rules can be made, any more than they can for courtesy in social situations. But I do think the umpire should give the artist the benefit of any doubt in a case of possible leg before wicket -- art is "better out than in" ;-)

[alias_sqbr]

Yeah my examples weren't perfect. I need to think about it a bit more.

Conclusion: reassessing, ends up in the too hard basket. I don't think hard and fast rules can be made, any more than they can for courtesy in social situations. But I do think the umpire should give the artist the benefit of any doubt in a case of possible leg before wicket -- art is "better out than in" ;-)

I think I pretty much agree, but as with courtesy while it's very difficult to judge any individual (maybe they cut in line because they really need it right now to save the life of a sick child!) you can still say "Hey, people, stop cutting in line" and work on the assumption that the few times someone really does need to cut in line they won't be caught in indecision saying "But alias_sqbr said not to!"

And sometimes if you give too many people the benefit of the doubt you end up getting trampled on. This has definitely been my experience, as someone who used to try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt.

Edit: *extending metaphor perhaps a bit too much* also, I think a lot of the time when people complain about not being given the benefit of the doubt, it's when they didn't notice they were cutting in line, or weren't aware of how much it inconveniences people. And saying "Hey, you cut in line, that makes me have to wait longer" is true regardless of the person's intentions and justifications.

[kadeton.livejournal.com]

To be honest, I don't really see your point. You say that authors 'need' to think about the reactions of those outside of their intended audience, but you haven't offered any reasons other than that it might be offensive to some people. While causing offense isn't nice, the effect on the author's commercial success is likely to be pretty minimal, since the work wasn't targeted at those audiences anyway.

Worrying about offending people is one of the quickest ways to stifle your ability to express yourself, as you mention with your satire example. As long as you are not deliberately constructing your text to cause offense to or promote prejudice against a person or group, it seems far more useful to simply write whatever you want and take any constructive criticism on board for your next work (or not, if you don't feel the need to improve as an author).

[strangedave.livejournal.com]

I think authors should not worry about causing offence per se -- but they should worry about causing offence unintentionally.
And taking constructive criticism on board for your next work is fine, but that is no reason not to consider the same issues before you write the first work too.

[kadeton.livejournal.com]

I draw a very large distinction between prejudice and ignorance. Causing offense through ignorance ('unintentional offense') is understandable, but certainly doesn't excuse you from not having done your homework. If, on the other hand, you have actually made an effort but have still caused offense through misunderstanding or ignorance, constructive criticism is probably the best way to gain the understanding you lack. If the cause of the offense isn't obvious to you in the first place (in which case, to not remove it would make it intentional), then it will probably be difficult for you to 'consider' it, and you'll probably get it wrong regardless, so showing your work to someone with a greater understanding of the issues involved and getting constructive criticism is really the only way to proceed.

[strangedave.livejournal.com]

The issue seems to really be about the things you think you know, but really don't -- plain old ignorance doesn't really cover it, and simple prejudice isn't really it either (mostly, we are talking about people who are trying to do the right thing, but failing). Cultural arrogance or something is probably a good term.

Constructive criticism, in this specific context, is really research you do after you've written it simply to find your mistakes. It is valuable, and probably necessary, but I think relying on it totally would be a lazy substitute for also doing sufficient research before you write as well.

[kadeton.livejournal.com]

I guess. That still sounds like ignorance to me. I guess the problem comes in when you assume that your level of knowledge on a topic is sufficient or complete.

Constructive criticism and research are totally different things, to my mind. However, I suspect we agree in principle, and at this point are arguing semantics. ;)

[mandragora2003.livejournal.com]

Mmmm, I hear you.

Interestingly, I find laziness far less forgivable than prejudice or other forms of bias in writing. I can overlook the gender or racial stereotyping that often shows up (especially in the older works or "classic fantasy" stuff). It has to get fairly blatant before I'll take offense. Which is the point (for me, at least). I don't rise up in anger against the writer who assumes that all Irish people, or all Australians (or all women, for that matter) are the same. I'm reading a story; and that implies that I am borrowing their world-view for a while. It may tell me something about the writer, but it is not an attack on my own beliefs.

But sloppy writing, or people using a cookie-cutter character rather than applying a bit of effort to round out an individual bugs me tremendously. It doesn't take a lot; you can imply a great deal of information with a one line description if you try. But to state their race or socioeconomic group and gender and imply that to be all the information required for an in-depth knowledge of their persona... No. It's trite, annoying, and lazy. I find that such short-cuts disrupt the flow of my reading, because they make me stop to cavil; which irks me even more. In terms of literature, I put it on a par with not bothering to spell-check a story before posting. This extends to situations as well as characters; the number of people who don't bother to think about the realities of another country before they try to write a story set there is daunting.

I feel the same when people try to write medical stuff, and don't bother checking the basics. It's so easy to do five minutes of research! Never watch a medical show in my company. I nit-pick.

My apologies if this is a trifle disjointed; note time of day at this writing :)

[alias_sqbr]

I pretty much agree with what strangedave said.

I'll add:
Totally not caring about commercial success, no, this is about ethics. Though will say that there are a lot of women who make the argument that video games/sf etc producers are narrow-mindedly shooting themselves in the foot by not considering the wishes of female consumers. (I don't feel confident enough of how markets work to say I agree)

I have to say I think we have very different ideas about the creative process. To me, even if you ignore issues of offensiveness etc it's always a good idea to redraft your work and get outside input(*). Maybe not at all stages, sometimes you do just have to let your creative juices flow and not worry about it, but if you're not careful you'll end up with something resembling an unedited NaNoWriMo entry.

Also I think we have very different opinions of how much subconsious bias/prejudice/stereotyping your average well meaning person has. I'm inclined to say a staggeringly large amount. To the extent that every writer is likely to have some sort of accidental racist/sexist/ablist/etc subtext to their writing which can only be combated by consciously looking out for it. A writer might decide that doing so would cramp their creative style too much, and that's a choice they can make, but they have to acknowledge that they have chosen to be complicit with racism/sexism/etc for the sake of their Art, same way as "meat is tasty" may be an excuse for not being vegetarian, but it doesn't make meat any more or less unethical from the POV of the animals being eaten.

To give myself as an example: I do worry about my work having accidental racist/sexist etc subtext, and it does cramp my style sometimes. But so does worrying about being derivative, or cliched, or my twists being too obvious, or my character's motivations unclear etc. If you're not worrying about something at some stage you're being self indulgent and probably not very good.

Of course that said some creators really do seem to work totally right-brained from the subconscious, or are so absurdly talented they don't need editors etc. I must admit I didn't really consider those sorts of people when writing this, though I think they still have a responsibility for what they put in the public eye even if they can't control what they create.

(*)Said redrafting and outside input possibly resulting in the decision that it's probably best left as is

[kadeton.livejournal.com]

Hmm, my apologies if I somehow gave the impression that writers don't need editors. I think we basically agree, but the main difference between our arguments is that I don't think it's possible or worthwhile to spend creative energy trying to find unconscious bias in your own work, since you'll almost certainly get it wrong. Instead, showing it to other people (primarily editors and friends for the redrafting process, then critics and the wider public once released) will inevitably reveal your biases. It's at that point, in my opinion, that the decision to become complicit in prejudice or work to avoid it is made.

[alias_sqbr]

Well, I guess that depends on the writer (and as long as these issues get caught somewhere I don't care so much how) but personally I have found that looking back over a work and reading up on subconscious bias etc has allowed me to notice and correct it quite a bit.