[Flipside]

Off topicness is somewhat a habit for here, but it's moving dangerously close to attacking the commenter rather than the comments.

The conversation isn't without merits, but I think everyone involved could do with taking a step back. I'm not going to lock it, but I am going to request that people calm down.

[NGTM-1R]

There will always be stuff you don't write down there because of the norms of the society, whether this is called self-censorship or censorship, it doesn't matter to me.

There is only one acceptable reason for a writer to not follow the threads of plot and character wherever they lead. That is because they can't. There are internal can'ts. I've run against them a few times myself. I can't reliably describe the thoughts of some characters I deal with. I have never written a rape because I, the author, am unable to justify the act to the point that I do not think I can create a convincing justification for the character. These are my personal failings. I don't necessarily seek to overcome all of them, since I regard some of them as evidence of my continued sanity, but they're still an internal problem.

You, however, seem to think that a writer is going to take well to an external can't. And I will tell you that this has never and will never happen. We despise them. We work hard to subvert them. We push the limits as much as we can. We sneak crap under the radar, we paint flaming skulls on the sides of it and go at the radar station guns blazing screaming cursewords if you'll let us. We don't like being limited, and we will tear it down if we can.

It is the nature of the writer. Those of us who would be remembered, or just liked, we will side with the underdog somehow. Like Twain, our sympathies will instinctively fall upon the oppressed, not the oppressors. This is what we do.

It is censorship nevertheless. Let me list a couple of examples, since you are not going to think about this otherwise. Example 1. Write a love scene realistically. I know there is sex industry for that, but that's besides the point: you don't really find them in normal books, do you? Now why is that? Is it because publisher didn't want it there, or because writer himself didn't want to write it there? Considered it tasteless or what? I say censorship.

You haven't actually read a fantasy novel in the last ten years, have you? It's practically mandatory to have a sex scene in there these days. Urban fantasy's troubles being taken seriously as a genre can usually be traced to this source too.

Sex is something we humans do. And we like it. So when we write about semi-idealized or at least very interesting people and omit sex or sexual themes, that's sort of like writing about the sky for a whole book and claiming it's colored green.

Hell, Asimov dropped a sex scene a few times. Shakespeare was notorious for his double entendres.

Example 2. Sit down in the corner of the street and write down all your thoughts, honestly. I think sooner or later you are likely going to end up with something you are not going to write down. Why is that? Isn't that censorship or no?

...no, I can't say I would have that problem.

If you can't understand the difference between choice and non-choice, I think that we're never going to settle this argument because it's clear that your thought processes bear no resemblance to mine, and likely not to The E's as well.

I also think that if you can't understand the difference between choice and non-choice you might actually be an AI attempting to pass the...no I take that back. Basically, I know that you actually do understand the concept of and meaning of choice. You have to. You are human. I can only conclude that your ignorance of the importance of choice is willful.

Example 3. There is a war book that was published in 1950s, that had lots of relevant critique towards leading the war. It also contained portions that actively portrayed all women serving in the front lines as whores. The parts about women were censored out. Was that for better or the worse?

Censorship is always bad. There are, of course, graduations of badness. If the portrayal did nothing to advance the book's points, plot, or nature, then it was still bad but not as bad as it could have been. If it was a nonfiction book that was describing reality, than it depends on how well it was accurately describing reality before and after censorship, but it's still bad. For one thing, now nobody knows the author is a raging jackass.

Example 4. Worst of all, the Germany example earlier that I wrote down there for you to see, but yet everybody is as if it didn't exist there! Simplified version: incitement of several writers caused peasant riots that killed thousands of them. Good or bad? There are other examples of this in several other countries, likewise in mine.

Yeah, it was buried under a mound of useless commentary that made no sense. Germany examining its own actions in WW2 has done much to improve that country arguably. Similarly, Japan not examining its own actions in WW2 has arguably done much to damage that country. It's certainly caused big problems in foreign relations.

Your example, however, is nonsensical. People don't riot without an underlying cause. If someone wrote a book that caused riots, then the book can only be regarded as a catalyst, not a root cause, and likely merely exposed a condition already existing.

Example 5. Try to talk or write anything of WWII time with Germans. Go on, just try it.

Back in the days when Steel Panthers 3 could still be PBEM'd reliably, my favorite guy to play with was German. We debated the finer points of tank design in WW2 endlessly and were both great fans of the Tiger. He also played Waffen SS and owned to the political incorrectness of it all. (It in fact amused him endlessly that people would notice his German email addy and be surprised he'd play an SS Scherwes Panzerabieltung.)

So holding on to ideals is all well and good - as a side note, it sounds very American to me ("I want my freedoms!") - but can you really carry the responsibility it takes? Seriously?

What responsibility? We were, until this post, discussing the writing of fiction. I just write a damn story. Whatever anyone else makes of it is their problem.

How do you define when you can blame the writer or the artist for the damage he has caused with his art?

There's no polite way to put this, so I'm not even going to try. I apologize in advance to Flipside, and anyone else this might offend save Mika (who I hope it offends, because if he gets offended it might make him think about why he's offended), for this outburst.

Did you seriously just say what I think you said? That a writer or artist is to blame for how other people react? I'm sorry, but that's stupid. I can try to provoke a reaction, but ultimately what other people do is done by other people and holding me responsible for their actions is completely whitie-tighties-on-your-head idiocy.

I'm willing to bet you leave that for legislation, which means some of the stuff will not be accepted.

No, I think the question doesn't even exist. The scenario you posit is utterly without rational or logical sense in any way, shape, or form.

But you were against censorship, weren't you?

Still am. Without contradiction.

So, I think there will always be censorship in any case, whether it is self-imposed or not, but you are just lying to yourselves about it. Yes, I say that sometimes the censorship has made stuff better.

Cite examples. No, seriously. I want you to cite one real-world example where censorship improved a story. I'm 99.999999999% sure you can't do it.

Is this clear enough for ya?

Absolutely. All is now made clear. Unfortunately, not in a good way.

[bobbtmann]

I think that the difference of opinion here is based on different definitions of the term censorship. Mika seems to be taking a  broad, all-encompassing approach to the term. By that I mean anytime a thought is not expressed, or never even occurs, based on some external source. It doesn't even have to be some direct gag order from another person or agency.

 Our work can be censored without us knowing, or even thinking it's wrong. As we grow up we develop around our society's customs, traditions, and whatever. These ways of living have a way of detemining what are thoughts are going to be. How strongly we associate with these customs will determine how willing we are challenge those thoughts.

I know that NGTM-1R believes that writers (and I assume by extension, all artists) naturally resist censorship, and try to subvert it wherever they can. As a graffiti artist myself, I can sympathize with that. But consider this: artist censor-resistors form social groups of their own. These social groups come with their own limitations and restrictions on behaviour and art-content. And the artists who belong to these groups are so busy subverting the established authorities that they fail to see their self imposed censorship. It's sneaky, and it can get in the way of really free thought.

Despite all that, I'm still in favour of some censorship in art, both self imposed and from exterior sources. I artists actually are interested in convincing people to think new thoughts, then they can't just whack them over the head with something so outrageously different that they fail to grasp the significance of a piece of art. Artists have to take out parts that might get in the way of their message, for the sake of legibility with the intended audience. It's also a matter of personal integrity.

 For instance, let's say an artist honestly cared about dogs in Costa Rica, and wanted to draw attention to their plight. Tying a dog up and starving it to death in a gallery seems to sacrifice the noble cause for the sake of publicity. It also might cause the audience to question the validity of the artist's statement and his practice, drawing attention away from the dogs. Even if the dog does not in fact die, the message is lost in the discussion about the validity of art. In this case some foresight and self-censorship could have saved the message.

[The E]

You fall in the same cognitive trap as mika.

Self-censorship is one thing.
External censorship is quite another.

Self-censorship is part of the creative process, in some ways.
External censorship comes in after the creative process is finished, to alter the finished product to make it more "acceptable" to the censors. It is an intrusive process, and this intrusion directly violates the artists' freedom of expression. In a democracy, all forms of expression should be allowed, and in fact, must be allowed.

Your example there is an example of self-censorship, where the artist is crafting his message to have the intended effect on the audience.
Now find an example where external censorship is beneficial.

[General Battuta]

Heh, the moment Mika suggested that you don't find sex scenes in normal books I could tell he doesn't read much.

[NGTM-1R]

There's a reason why I don't even use the term "self-censorship" to describe an author's or artist's choice to not bring certain elements into play, and this thread is aptly demonstrating it.

[Dark RevenantX]

This is amazingly off-topic, as always.

Also, I've always felt that an author has his personal limits.  It's fairly common for authors to use story elements, symbols, motifs, and other ideas that have been derived from their own thoughts and beliefs.  But one would not expect many applicable authors to, say, include veiled personal psychotic urges or sexual fetishes in their works, though there are some interesting exceptions, though usually when such a thing happens, the entire book is about that topic.

I wouldn't call it "self-censorship."  We aren't living in the 18th century; if an author wants to include a sex scene to advance the plot or provide character development or some other form of storytelling, he/she is not going to hold back on the principle of kosher family values or something.  Hell, I've seen books targeted for 12-year-olds including crazy **** like torture and attempted rape.

As for other alleged "self-censorship" cases, an author is not going to hold himself back to please greater society; he/she will go forward with his/her true thoughts, likely gathering the attention of many after some people might view the offending work as... offensive, and then write all about how much they think the work is full of depravity, giving the author all sorts of recognition.

[bobbtmann]

...Your example there is an example of self-censorship, where the artist is crafting his message to have the intended effect on the audience.
Now find an example where external censorship is beneficial.

Sure. In Canada, we have laws against hate speech. In effect, these laws act as a form of censorship, protecting people (usually minority groups) from bigotry's more insidious manifestations, like lynching.

Now it's my turn to explain why you, The E, have fallen into a trap of your own. You need to free your mind. Censorship can't be divided cleanly into external and internal. A lot of censoring any artist does is internal, but they do it without realizing it. It's like stopping at a red light in a car. It just seems natural, and anything else is unconscionable.

These seemingly self-evident things are not natural, though.They come from exterior sources like the culture you're brought up in. So when artists talk about how they're free thinkers and they're free to express their thoughts, they're only partially right. The human mind makes fortresses around certain concepts that make people unable challenge them. So freedom of artistic expression is only free if the artist is able to resist his own upbringing. And from my experience in the art world, this does not happen much. Case study, look at homophobia or racisme. There are no good reasons for either of these things, yet they are prevalent in society.

So in a way, artists are always censored from exteriour sources, and the artist is the enforcer.

On another note, I played Battlezone the other night. It's not as good as I remember.

[The E]

Sure. In Canada, we have laws against hate speech. In effect, these laws act as a form of censorship, protecting people (usually minority groups) from bigotry's more insidious manifestations, like lynching.

Please provide evidence. Please provide concrete evidence that barring this "hate speech" from public discourse has prevented violence (Yes, that's asking to prove a negative.).

Now it's my turn to explain why you, The E, have fallen into a trap of your own. You need to free your mind. Censorship can't be divided cleanly into external and internal.

Oh yes it can.

A lot of censoring any artist does is internal, but they do it without realizing it. It's like stopping at a red light in a car. It just seems natural, and anything else is unconscionable.

That, as pointed out earlier, is the normal creative process.

These seemingly self-evident things are not natural, though.They come from exterior sources like the culture you're brought up in. So when artists talk about how they're free thinkers and they're free to express their thoughts, they're only partially right. The human mind makes fortresses around certain concepts that make people unable challenge them. So freedom of artistic expression is only free if the artist is able to resist his own upbringing. And from my experience in the art world, this does not happen much. Case study, look at homophobia or racisme. There are no good reasons for either of these things, yet they are prevalent in society.

Your point being? I mean, I get what you are saying about artists being influenced and shaped by their environment, noone's going to dispute that, but what does this have to do with censorship? So far, we're still at the part where the artist goes through an internal process on his own.

So in a way, artists are always censored from exteriour sources, and the artist is the enforcer.

Yeah, no.

Let me introduce you to the Comics Code Authority. That is external censorship. Sure, they started out well-meaning, but the net effect? It killed artistic expression in american comic books for several decades, as stories that dealt with darker aspects of humanity could only be touched upon lightly, and some aspects (like sexuality) had to be circumvented entirely.

In a similar vein, there existed the  Hays Code, which imposed similarly ridiculous rules on the film industry. Which was abandoned as soon as it turned out that it interfered with the Studio's ability to make money (Because films coming out of europe that were not bound to this bull**** were being lots more successful).

And those things? Those were harmless against the utter insanity that is the movie rating system in america today.

Now, let's talk about Germany for a bit. As you may or may not know, displaying a Swastika, or any symbol associated with the Nazis in a political context is illegal. Same goes for the usual litany of hate speech, public slander, and other stuff.
Did that prevent the formation of large fascist movements? No.
What it did do instead is force those idiots to hide their messages better, making them more dangerous in the process. I can not see how that is a good thing.


In the end, as NGTM-1R pointed out, "self-censorship" is meaningless, as it's a part of the creative process.
External censorship, whether it's from the state, from a publisher, from anyone who is not part of the artists' creative process, is a bad thing. Forcing someone to compromise their visions in the service of some external goal is a bad thing.
Forcibly altering someone else's visions through after-the-fact manipulation is a crime.

[bobbtmann]

At separate times I've mentioned the curtailing of a thought on the artist's part. The first instance was when an artist consciously decides to not express something. The second instance, which was the one in my last post, is done unconsciously on the part of the artist. this is NOT part of the creative process, as far as the common interpretation goes. This is where the upbringing of the artist interferes with the creation of thought. Maybe I should rephrase that as "self-induced censorship".

As for proving anything I guess I'm on the same grounds as you. All I have is anecdotal evidence, and I'm sure you know that's the worst kind of evidence. You presume that anti-hate laws didn't stop fascism movements from springing up, just as I presume that without the laws it would be much worse. Is it because the Hays Code was overturned that Hollywood now produces such intellectual gems these days?

Yeah, no.

When have been rude to you? Belittling me doesn't prove you right.

[NGTM-1R]

The second instance, which was the one in my last post, is done unconsciously on the part of the artist. this is NOT part of the creative process, as far as the common interpretation goes. This is where the upbringing of the artist interferes with the creation of thought. Maybe I should rephrase that as "self-induced censorship".

The creative process is what gets you words on a page from a writer. Claiming that the author's unconscious prejudices do not factor into what he writes on the page is lunacy. Indeed, there is art (Jackson Pollack) that exists solely as the physical expression of unconscious choices. Your argument is nonsense.

There's also a saying you would do well to learn. "A poor writer reveals more of himself than his characters."  You want to learn what somebody thinks on a certain subject? See how it's treated in their first story. That's purely an unconscious act for the most part. The craft of writing is frequently about dragging your unconscious prejudices out into the light and stabbing them to death with your pen so that your characters do not become expressions of yourself and your views.  Even "self-censorship" is a sign of a poor artist or writer. When I make a choice to not include something, it's not because I don't like it; it's because I think I'll **** up things horribly in so doing.

You presume that anti-hate laws didn't stop fascism movements from springing up,

Uh, no, he doesn't presume anything. He knows it didn't. He's speaking of movements that already exist. This is empirical fact, not presumption. The existence of neo-Nazi groups in Germany and especially the former DDR is a matter of record.

[TrashMan]

You haven't actually read a fantasy novel in the last ten years, have you? It's practically mandatory to have a sex scene in there these days. Urban fantasy's troubles being taken seriously as a genre can usually be traced to this source too.

Sex is something we humans do. And we like it. So when we write about semi-idealized or at least very interesting people and omit sex or sexual themes, that's sort of like writing about the sky for a whole book and claiming it's colored green.

Bollocks. This obsession with sex can bug me sometimes.
You realise there can very ell be relationships that don't end with hot, steamy sex...or that aren't really sex-based at all?

Trying to force a sex scene everywhere is just as bad - if not worse - than censoring every such scene.

[Mongoose]

Before the inevitable refutation of TrashMan's point comes, I feel like there is something to it.  I've read a few modern-ish novels (I sorely pity anyone else who had to sit through the hell that is All the Pretty Horses) that seemed to throw in a gratuitous sex scene or two just to meet some sort of arbitrary external quota.  They didn't serve as some sort of integral part of a character's motivations, or as a commentary on society, or anything along those lines.  They're just...there.  And they usually have the effect of yanking me right out of my immersion in the story, because it's plain that they're essentially just thinly-veiled textual porn.  There's a reason that Family Guy's Stewie made a crack about "menopausal masturbatory aids"...pretty much any beach read you pick up has at least one instance in it.

I mean, yes, sexuality is a substantial part of the human experience, and it's certainly able to be used to great effect in the hands of a competent writer.  But let's not pretend that it can't just as easily thrown into a scene just for the sake of doing so.

[General Battuta]

But I don't think that's any different from the treatment of violence. And it can be done well.

The sex scenes in Altered Carbon were really graphic, and if you find that wince-inducing you would wince. But they were also utterly vital to the characters and plot.

And it says something odd that we're more alarmed by consenting sex between two adults than nonconsensual skull penetration via bullet between two adults. I dunno.

[TopAce]

When have been rude to you? Belittling me doesn't prove you right.

It is not only you that The E belittles. He's quite simply a self-obsessed person who treats everyone as inferior, with possibly a few exceptions that helped him raise the ranks through yelling at noobs and playing the infallible demigod. The power of the Mighty Blue Badge. however, permits him to troll around undeterred.

[Flipside]

That's enough. I asked politely once and it didn't even last a page.

If people have a problem with The E's moderation technique then please take it up with himself or an Admin via the PM system, this is not a good way to approach concerns, and please bear in mind that The E, like all of us, did not stop being a member of this Forum simply because they got a Moderator badge and is as entitled as anyone else to state his opinion. The manner that opinion is stated is seperate from the role of the person, he was not moderating, he was commenting, please treat it as such.

Locked.

[General Battuta]

When have been rude to you? Belittling me doesn't prove you right.

It is not only you that The E belittles. He's quite simply a self-obsessed person who treats everyone as inferior, with possibly a few exceptions that helped him raise the ranks through yelling at noobs and playing the infallible demigod. The power of the Mighty Blue Badge. however, permits him to troll around undeterred.

But the moderator badge is red. I hope that wasn't a jab at BP.

Also I promise that for all the The_E's volcanic exterior he is very reasonable. I doubt he has a problem with you and if you have an issue you can probably talk it out in short order.

[The E]

When have been rude to you? Belittling me doesn't prove you right.

It is not only you that The E belittles. He's quite simply a self-obsessed person who treats everyone as inferior,

This is arguably true. I tend to belittle people all the time. Catch is, I am also mostly right in what I say.

with possibly a few exceptions that helped him raise the ranks through yelling at noobs and playing the infallible demigod. The power of the Mighty Blue Badge. however, permits him to troll around undeterred.

First of all, if I am posting on a thread like this, I am acting as a normal board member first. You, and anyone else, are free to rip me or my posts apart as much as you feel necessary. I promise I won't take it personal. Much. If you really think I crossed a line, that's what the report function is for.