for the record
Sometimes when a story of mine gets praise, I just want to snatch the story back and write a better one, one that's actually worthy.
*
ellen_fremedon has a thinky response to heatherly's post about writing objectionable content responsibly. Ellen basically takes issue with people who privilege or fetishize realistic portrayals over the other possible goals of fiction (e.g., entertainment, commentary, therapy, etc.). However, I'm not sure it's an argument which will find much purchase with people who see reality and realistic consequences as the perpetual backdrop against which fiction is created and presented, no matter what its goals. Because it's just unwinnable, you know?
A: Think about what you're doing!
B: But I just wrote my story to explore a sexual kink -- that's all.
A: But think about how such a light treatment of [X] could be perceived!
B: Okay, I thought about it. I know that people could assume from this that I think [X], which "mainstream" society frowns upon, is actually okay. But it's still the story I wanted to write.
A: But did you really think about the impact of your story? Because maybe if you had, you'd have written something different.
B: *wishes for telepathy because yes, dammit, I really freaking thought about it, and this is still the story I wanted to write*
In other words, speaking as a Person B, writing and posting the story does not mean I didn't think about it, and I wish Persons A would quit with the assumption that I didn't, because it is condescending. The non-condescending assumption would be that I thought about it and I weighed the consequences, and then I wrote and posted the story because I deemed my other fiction-oriented goals more important.
Because you see, I am a functioning, mentally competent, rational member of a society with certain widely-enforced normative values, of which I am well-aware. So no, I don't think that underage sex, incest, rape, bestiality, what-have-you are okay activities, and no, I wouldn't post stories about such activities lightly or thoughtlessly. How can you presume to think that I would? Would you?
Now, if my privileging of fictional goals over potential realistic consequences leads you to the conclusion that I don't think about those consequences seriously enough, then it seems to me that we have a fundamental difference of worldview. And you can implore me to write responsibly until the universe implodes, but the thing is, I already think that I am.
I'd been planning on writing a somewhat less, um, polarized exploration of how I feel about this debate and the personal morality spectra involved, but being condescended to sort of took the good intentions out of my sails.
*
Non-segue. I was thinking about crossovers, and ways to get Dean out of his dilemma post-AHBL, and you know, I'm sure he and Sam could find smart lawyers at Wolfram & Hart. Or they could make buttsex friends with John Constantine -- I'm sure he'd know his way around a demonic loophole. Someone, at some point this summer, will write these stories, right?
Okay, brain, time to apply yourself to dinner and studying.
*
ellen_fremedon has a thinky response to heatherly's post about writing objectionable content responsibly. Ellen basically takes issue with people who privilege or fetishize realistic portrayals over the other possible goals of fiction (e.g., entertainment, commentary, therapy, etc.). However, I'm not sure it's an argument which will find much purchase with people who see reality and realistic consequences as the perpetual backdrop against which fiction is created and presented, no matter what its goals. Because it's just unwinnable, you know?
A: Think about what you're doing!
B: But I just wrote my story to explore a sexual kink -- that's all.
A: But think about how such a light treatment of [X] could be perceived!
B: Okay, I thought about it. I know that people could assume from this that I think [X], which "mainstream" society frowns upon, is actually okay. But it's still the story I wanted to write.
A: But did you really think about the impact of your story? Because maybe if you had, you'd have written something different.
B: *wishes for telepathy because yes, dammit, I really freaking thought about it, and this is still the story I wanted to write*
In other words, speaking as a Person B, writing and posting the story does not mean I didn't think about it, and I wish Persons A would quit with the assumption that I didn't, because it is condescending. The non-condescending assumption would be that I thought about it and I weighed the consequences, and then I wrote and posted the story because I deemed my other fiction-oriented goals more important.
Because you see, I am a functioning, mentally competent, rational member of a society with certain widely-enforced normative values, of which I am well-aware. So no, I don't think that underage sex, incest, rape, bestiality, what-have-you are okay activities, and no, I wouldn't post stories about such activities lightly or thoughtlessly. How can you presume to think that I would? Would you?
Now, if my privileging of fictional goals over potential realistic consequences leads you to the conclusion that I don't think about those consequences seriously enough, then it seems to me that we have a fundamental difference of worldview. And you can implore me to write responsibly until the universe implodes, but the thing is, I already think that I am.
I'd been planning on writing a somewhat less, um, polarized exploration of how I feel about this debate and the personal morality spectra involved, but being condescended to sort of took the good intentions out of my sails.
*
Non-segue. I was thinking about crossovers, and ways to get Dean out of his dilemma post-AHBL, and you know, I'm sure he and Sam could find smart lawyers at Wolfram & Hart. Or they could make buttsex friends with John Constantine -- I'm sure he'd know his way around a demonic loophole. Someone, at some point this summer, will write these stories, right?
Okay, brain, time to apply yourself to dinner and studying.