"Sometimes the writers rush to defend the character, but often they apologize shamefacedly for their own blind spot, and the discussion swerves into how to fix the morals of the piece. The suggestion that the values of a character can be neither the values of the writer nor the entire point of the piece seems more and more surprising — and apt to trigger discomfort. While I typically share the progressive political views of my students, I’m troubled by their concern for righteousness over complexity. They do not want to be seen representing any values they do not personally hold.... I can’t blame younger writers for believing that it is their job to convey a strenuously correct public morality...."
From
"Art Isn’t Supposed to Make You Comfortable" by the writer Jen Silverman, in the NYT.
Can't blame them? I say blame them. They're already feeling bad about not doing everything possible to promote prescribed morality. Make them feel bad about making bad art. You've got to leverage the bad feeling.
Posts
50 comments:
The science fiction writing of the 1930s through the '50s was stilted, all action, no character. Progressive, I mean barbarian, writers today are striving to regress back to that standard.
"While I typically share the progressive political views of my students"
So what, specifically, are you doing to introduce and express deplorable views?
"They do not want to be seen representing any values they do not personally hold.... I can’t blame younger writers for believing that it is their job to convey a strenuously correct public morality...."
Right. Art is a prog tool and progs use it. Can't blame them. In fact, give them credit: they fight on all fronts. The personal is political, the esthetic is political.
"Make them feel bad about making bad art. You've got to leverage the bad feeling."
What bad feeling? Righteousness is a good feeling. Simplicity is a good feeling. Solidarity is a good feeling. Mere petty bourgeois art can't compete.
I had a beta reader "correct" my manuscript like that...what can you say, except some of my favorite writers were terribly incorrect.
"They're already feeling bad about not [doing] everything possible . . . ."
Its interesting how many people think TV characters are real people or we've supposed to like them. Or agree with them. Incredibly, this is even true on SF TV shows like DS9 or TNG Star Trek. These Characters are often space aliens, and should have different values from earthlings. But if they do, the reviewers hate that.
We can have diversity of appearance, but not diversity of values or beliefs. All those strange new worlds and new civilizations had better have the same values as a 21st century NYC liberal/leftist. Even a 23rd Century Being from planet Bluetroid in another Galaxy. THe only exception are the villians who are usually white actors in makeup and explicityly labeled as EVIL.
A Perfect example was a podcast where the reviewers complained how "Sexist" it was to have the space aliens played by cuties in short dresses. A stupid literal minded attitude that conflats the characters with the actors. Or another example DS9s Sisko, is supposedly a 23rd Century character, on a space station 1000 light years from earth - but he thinks of himself as a 1990s black man.
What is the point of fantasy if everyone is supposed to think and acts like contempory average people?
Can't blame them? I say blame them. ... Make them feel bad about making bad art.
@Althouse, right on!
Sounds more like China and the re-education of those who think outside of the approved THINK™
As bad as the THINK™ Police are, those who submit to them are the real problem.
But, comrade, the characters should be expressing goodthink, or they are enemies of the Party.
I bet they would have been active members of the Spies.
...I’m troubled by their concern for righteousness over complexity. They do not want to be seen representing any values they do not personally hold.
It's how they've been "wired," and it's "become part of their DNA."
Not a great writer if she uses "frequently" instead of "often." That's bureaucrat-speak. Avoid Latin roots.
Woke mind virus, it's a real thing.
In the end, it's all about racism, the patriarchy, the oppressed, #metoo, and trans rights.
Which means you get fiction that starts with "See Dick, See Jane."
"While I typically share the progressive political views of my students,...."
Required NYT passward.
"I can’t blame younger writers for believing that it is their job to convey a strenuously correct public morality..."
Fascists doing what fascists do.
This is what Progressive Politics leads to.
Stop sharing their destructive politics.
Ethical alternatives.
Art isn't supposed to make you uncomfortable.
I’m troubled by their concern for righteousness over complexity.
It’s modern American Puritanism, an ersatz religion.
Creative Writing 101: The Struggle Session.
GuyFromNH said:"Which means you get fiction that starts with "See Dick, See Jane." and ends with See Jane's dick.
The left is full of low-T pussies.
Liberal men in this country are a disgrace.
They dot feel bad. They're terrified.
I’m troubled by their concern for righteousness over complexity. They do not want to be seen representing any values they do not personally hold.
I wonder whether they have the ability to represent any values they do not personally hold.
And - in spite of her nod to "complexity" - I'd want to see some evidence that she can accurately critique any character that doesn't share her values. Can she recognize and call out a strawman version of a Republican, or Christian, or suburbanite, or Red State-dweller whether that person is any of these things? Does she have any idea what a Red State is actually like to live in? Has she attended a religious service, ever? Has she eaten fast food or at a chain restaurant? Shopped in a supermarket or - worse - a Sam's Club or Walmart? (We all know that even progressive urban people sometimes hit Costco and Target.)
Before giving her too much benefit of the doubt, I'd like to see some bona fides.
There's always this disclaimer: "While I typically share the progressive political views of my students,..."
Ugh. The youth-minded teaching the yoot-minds in our universities are shocked at how well their teachings have taken hold. Do we not have any adults teaching in the U's any longer?
Perhaps it's OK to change the story if the change comes from within. I have a nephew who was assigned the position of innkeeper in his kindergarden Christmas play; and did not like the values he was chosen to represent. All the authorities - his parents, teachers and siblings - told him he was merely acting in a play and someone had to say "No room at the inn, go to the stable." He was silenced but not convinced. When the big night came he said: "There's no room at the inn ... but you can have my room." Mary and Joseph simply followed their script and went to the stable anyhow. Shortly after Baby Jesus was seen, correctly lying in a manger amid happy laughter.
And I do think that we need changed stories. I used to feel that no story based the common experiences of prolifers had ever been written. Now I feel that no story based on the common experiences of the present generation which is college age and just above has ever been written either. I wasn't accepted and they are - but it's strange that there's no more truth written about them than there was about me.
Any writer or aspiring writer who tailors the behavior of his/her characters (or the events depicted in the story) to suit prevailing ideas of "politically correct" behavior, ideas, or attitudes--or worse, in reaction to critiques by others that his/her writing is not politically correct--is not fit to be a writer and probably will never write anything worthwhile...until he/she grows up, toughens up, and develops the courage to write about that in life which may be uncomfortable, improper, illegal, immoral, even unspeakable!
My books have many actors, most good and some bad. Some very bad. That's the whole fucking point of story conflict. Which explains their terrible writing.
Idiots.
@who-knew 11:09 -- Friggin' brilliant.
Sub-title to the article: "No, Kids - You're Doing It Wrong" where Jen Silverman slowly realizes that the attitudes of the progressive youth will not only destroy any chance they have to be influential writers, but may also destroy the creativity she loves. Maybe they'll even come for her too someday. Silverman, you say? Sounds Jewish . . .
I heard Bari Weiss riff on a podcast about a Jewish saying: "The only thing worse than a dumb Jew is a Jew who gets taken by surprise."
"They do not want to be seen representing any values they do not personally hold..."
The big problem is that people who think this way quickly adopt the values of those around them.
"I can’t blame younger writers for believing that it is their job to convey a strenuously correct public morality...."
Jen Silverman is doing exactly what she is criticizing young writers for doing. She's letting this "don't hurt anyone's feelings" ethos affect her writing.
Also, art isn't art because it makes people uncomfortable. Art is art because it causes people to think thoughts that they never thought before and have feelings that they have never felt before. If a work of art causes some people to feel uncomfortable, that's an indication that it's working.
People aren't perfect, so why should your characters be perfect?
May the righteous anger of God crush out the proud and the unholy. - Erik Satie, performance notes
Progressive morality is only viable when it is backed up by traditional morality that can tolerate its existence. Progressive morality by itself is oppressive, fanatical, and self-destructive. The author is a progressive who was brought up in a world of traditional morality, so he has a base he can fall back upon. His poor students have no backstop and suffer for it.
As Instapundit repeatedly reminds us, we are playing civilizational Jenga. People are starting to notice that the tower is swaying on the last pillar and are trying to correct, but when your entire worldview is to have the tower float on unicorn dust they will never succeed.
Don’t tell me left wing ideology isn’t a religion.
The new puritanism on full display. They want to rid the world of modern sin. It should come as no surprise, they are the same jackasses that are cancelling any and all historical figures guilty of sin. As a result their art is joyless and devoid of anything related to human experience.
Just glanced at the article and noted it is written by Mx. Silverman. This hypocritical shit is pure comedy gold.
Temujin,
It's not adults vs children, it's commmies vs everyone else.
It's commonly understood that the West won the Cold War, but I don't think that's right. Rather, the Soviet communists abandoned the field of armed conflict after Afghanistan and Reagan's
technological superiority scare, and just left it to the subversion of our institutions to do its slow, steady work.
Common problem with peer review.
People answer the question "What do I like?" instead of "What is the author going for?"
Made even worse if the readers lie to themselves about what they actually like.
Earnest Prole said...
[I’m troubled by their concern for righteousness over complexity.]
"It’s modern American Puritanism, an ersatz religion."
I used to think Progressives were the new Puritans. Then I perceived that they were more like the Pharisees, laying burdens on others but not lifting a finger to help; finally I settled on them as the new Inquisitors, hunting down and punishing heretics of any mindset not their own.
Let's take the example that Wildswan (11:52) offers us: The kid playing the role of the Innkeeper in the Christmas Pageant, who tells Joseph and Mary that the Inn is booked -- but they can stay in his room. If this were reality, the Innkeeper would be a good (if premature) Christian. But it's a PLAY, and it has a message. The message depends on the Holy Family being turned away. Suppose that a few months later the actors are doing the Good Friday play, and the soft-hearted youngster who was playing the innkeeper is now playing Pilate. He says, Jesus, you seem like a good fellow, so I'll reverse the crucifixion sentence against you. Go home in peace.
No crucifixion, no death, no resurrection.
Someone (maybe you, Wildswan) needs to tell this good young person that we learn about virtue by contrasting it with vice: Dear young fellow, if you played your role and said "There's no room at the inn", you were part of teaching the Christian message.
And more generally, if a writer can't bring us to feel the conflict between good and evil, right and wrong, if he/she can only portray the bad characters as obviously bad and the good ones as obviously good, then that writer is of no use to us flawed and challenged humans.
I say, make Prof. Althouse and her generation of educators feel bad. They are the ones who have created this situation.
So, though, if you want to get published, how do you accomplish that these days without hewing to the progressive message? Publishing houses are notoriously progressive, from all I hear.
I just published a novel, total beach read, not attempting to produce Art but rather just see if I could tell a story that would entertain readers for a whopping 324 pages. I SELF published it, not because my characters aren't progressive, but because I went out of my way to avoid their stating political views at all, and the last thing I wanted was an agent or editor or publisher telling me that sure, they'll publish my book... as long as I make certain that the main character's best friend is a queer person of color (obviously my main character couldn't be because I'm not, and one may only write about one's personal experiences now) and that they all attend a Free Palestine rally at some point.
bad about not doing everything possible to promote prescribed morality
Prescribed by who. From what authority?
I'm willing to give the kindergarten child a pass, in the same way that I gave all the of my kids a pass when, in playing teeball, they ran the wrong way around the bases, just kept running into the outfield after reaching first base, or headed for the parking lot.
But as he gets older, I hope he'll realize the role that evil - and even indifference - plays in human affairs.
"While I typically share the progressive political views of my students, I’m troubled by their concern for righteousness over complexity."
Those are not "political views". They're symptoms of advanced psychosis.
Hell yes I’d blame them. If I’m creating a bad guy I want him to have definite moral flaws and I’m not talking about his dead naming someone. Every protagonist has to have a flaw or two, something he or she must overcome to reach his goal. If the purpose of telling a story is to sell Marxism and DEI, to quote the smartest man I know, “Don’t!”
Blogger GuyFromNH said...
In the end, it's all about racism, the patriarchy, the oppressed, #metoo, and trans rights.
Which means you get fiction that starts with "See Dick, See Jane."
4/28/24, 10:08 AM
Which means you get fiction that starts with “See Dick, he/him, see Jane, she/her.”
Identifying 'insensitive' things is easy. The rules are obvious.
It also shows you are sensitive to insensitive things.
This is how you get laid in college & in your 20s.
“…particularly when the character was female. Concern about her likability was most often a concern about her morals: Could she be perceived as promiscuous? Selfish? Aggressive? Was she a bad girlfriend or a bad wife? How quickly could she be rehabilitated into a model citizen for the viewers?”
Interesting how Hollywood fought the Hays Code but yet want to abide by it.
Funny how she appears to be a teacher but doesn't blame herself for sucking and turning out a bunch of precious Greatly Leaping Forward revolutionary pussies who write shitty works no one wants to read, not even in their struggle sessions.
The NYT has a very annoying "detachment" to its writing, especially in these chinstroker dickstroker "think pieces".
It's always, "Huh... go figure; who'd have guessed?" in tone and style but "Holy fucking obvious outcomes from the conduct, Batman" in substance.
You'd think even they'd get bored with the formula after awhile but the readership seems to have an unquenchable thirst for that kind of pandering. Maybe b'anality of that flavor makes them feel smart.
Post a Comment