It's fiction, people

[Polyacrylate]

"Uncle Tom's Cabin", "To Kill A Mockingbird", "Atlas Shrugged" - all of those are works of fiction that have historical and political clout. Some of the most influential and memorable parts of the Bible are the parables, where Jesus told fictional stories like the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son as a way to convey religious messages.

Even in our little backwater, I've had occasional readers tell me that things in my stories changed how they thought about one issue or another. So I do take that into consideration when I write - why wouldn't I?

With minor power comes at least minor responsibility.

Well said. Great art can change the world. It has many times throughout history. What we do here - usually smut or material that usually qualifies as "smut-ish" - is unlikely to ever truly change much at all. But that doesn't mean we should collectively ignore the potential of what we do to impact a life or two.

 

[SamScribble]

What we do here - usually smut or material that usually qualifies as "smut-ish" - is unlikely to ever truly change much at all. But that doesn't mean we should collectively ignore the potential of what we do to impact a life or two.

I've said this before: Maybe I don't belong here. The stories that I post on Lit are not intended to change lives; they are intended as gentle entertainment.

 

[8letters]

I've said this before: Maybe I don't belong here. The stories that I post on Lit are not intended to change lives; they are intended as gentle entertainment.

But they do change lives, however little.

Edit: I can share comments and PM's of people saying my stories have changed their lives. Not many, but enough to make me realize that my stories do have an impact.

 

[SamScribble]

But they do change lives, however little.

Edit: I can share comments and PM's of people saying my stories have changed their lives. Not many, but enough to make me realize that my stories do have an impact.

In another life, I do write stuff intended to change lives. Well, to change opinions anyway, And my editors and publishers think that I am quite good at it. But, here on Lit, it's more a case of: Pull up a bollard, and I'll tell you a story.

 

[KindofHere]

.............

 

[Bramblethorn]

When? I looked it up, and there has been art created during times of a change inspired by those times, but not art that was the specific cause of change. Not that I could find.

I'm having trouble thinking of any major historical event where historians can agree on "the specific cause of change". Most events come from a mess of different causes, and it's hard to determine how much credit each one should get.

But I already mentioned one likely example above: "Uncle Tom's Cabin" had a tremendous effect on public attitudes towards slavery in the decade leading up to the US Civil War.

 

[KindofHere]

.............

 

[Captainnumnuts]

This may not be the best place to bring this up, but here goes.

Lately, I have been reading more than a little comment about how this movie or that book shouldn’t be considered for an award because the writers and/or directors erred from the politically-correct line.

The latest was ‘Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri’. I haven’t seen it. Yet. But I'm pretty sure that I will before too long. However, a vociferous group tells me that it needs to be barred from all honours because a racist cop is permitted redemption.

Do these people not understand that fiction is fiction?

That's been known to happen. Even the best of critics are apt to be wrong and certain works of fiction have gone on to critical acclaim and find it's own fan base.

I've been wanting to see "Three Billboards" since seeing it's 1st trailer. It has a blend of realism and a flair of "But this is what I really meant" that works for it. It's been well received by it's targeted audience. It's like, "Yeah, I get that!"

I went to theaters to see "Darkest Hour" because it appeals to the history buff in me. I ended up seeing "Black Panther" and don't regret it.

 

[Polyacrylate]

When? I looked it up, and there has been art created during times of a change inspired by those times, but not art that was the specific cause of change. Not that I could find.

My first thought upon reading this is Fox News, which is legally classified as entertainment for purposes of being able to better control their content (licensed as news, they would have to submit to certain laws and rules of broadcast media ensuring their coverage is... Oh, what do you call it... Reasonably considering all points of view not readily disprovable and giving equal weight to all sides?). This plays with the idea of journalism as art, and heavily influences the view of some 30-40% of the US.

Continuing on the journalism as art trend, consider the pictures and videos documenting the horrors inflicted on civilians during the Vietnam War... the Buddhist monk self-immolating, the child badly burned by napalm. Those photographs helped turn the tide of public opinion sharply against the war. Are they art? I dunno... On a technical level, what is different about them from, say, a photograph of a nature scene? I know those and similar photographs are frequently held up as standards in many photography courses, FWIW.

Shifting to topics that qualify as art in a less ambiguous manner, items already cited include Uncle Tom's Cabin and the parables in the Bible, both great examples. Bramblethorn already mentioned the complex relationship between historical events and art that operates within its margins, and how difficult it can be to pinpoint the timing of the start of major historical events.

However, I think it is possible to say that events during the 60s in the US, for example, would not have transpired as they did with a different soundtrack. The hippie movement and the British Invasion - two distinct events - and to a certain amount, the preceding beatnik culture, helped share some ideas to people who otherwise may not have heard them, may not have had those notions of equality, of peace, of sexual freedom, etc etc etc.

You can argue with those movements that they would have happened anyway, but I think it's a fair question to ask what their timeline would have been? Would they have happened at the same time? Without a peace movement with popular artists pushing the message, would the US have drawn out of Vietnam in the same time table? Would we have been more prone to direct confrontation with the Soviets near the end of the Cold War?

This is anecdotal, but a good friend of mine's family immigrated to the US from Moscow after the Iron Curtain fell. He and I bonded over a love of thrash and death metal, and started a band together. His parents cited American pop music of the 60s as a deciding factor in changes in how the Soviet police would conduct crack-downs on non-Soviet culture. In their experience, once a generation of police had grown up with access to some Western music, there was a shift in the police attitudes. The likelihood of a violent response to a minor or non-infraction lessened substantially, and my friend's parents insisted that it was because these members of the police we're listening to the Beatles at home, just like everyone else. Is this historically true, or is it an isolated incident or a set of incidents restricted to their experience? I really can't say, but my point here is that for some people, it gave the appearance that music made the world a safer place, in however limited an amount.

On the other hand, the kid who played drums in that high school heavy metal band I was in was really into the hardcore scene. He eventually found his way to racial hate-fueled hardcore acts, which marked a change in his attitude. Our shitty band broke up over it (which would have happened anyway), and this guy has gone on to be an outspoken neo-Nazi and a somewhat prominent voice in the modern alt-right movement. He is in the business of trying to change the opinions of others, and started on his path (which I find repugnant) with a Skrewdriver album. Would he have ended up there without listening to that? I don't think so, but no one can really say.

Now, in many of these examples, anecdotal or subjective as they are, the originator had intended to change hearts and minds in some manner. To OP's point, are they propaganda? In most cases, yes.

However, art or entertainment not intended to change anything can still set attitudes and beliefs. I remember going to my first metal concert and being surprised, and pleased at how diverse the crowd was - I had little opportunity to hang out with people of other races in school, and it was a revelation for me.

Likewise, I can say that while Roger Zelazny didnt say anything world-changing in his book Lord of Light, which on it's surface is a story about superheroes masquerading as the Hindu Pantheon and an insurgent who fights back by briefly pretending to be the Buddha, it gave me enough perspective on faith that it probably prevented me from becoming an insufferably condescending and evangelical atheist.

Did a 60s era sci-fi book or early 90s Scandinavian Death Metal concert played in middle America change the world? Not a bit. Did they change mine? A little, yeah. Did either of those intend to change anyone? Probably not, but it still happened for me, and I can guarantee that entertainment shapes the opinions of people every day.

Ok, enough of that. Time to get to work. This compressed air system won't design itself...

 

[SimonDoom]

I agree with Bramblethorn that there are plenty of examples of "art" changing the world, although sometimes perhaps not in expected ways.

I would call the Bible and the Quran "art", whether one thinks of them as fiction or not. Obviously, they changed the world.

Uncle Tom's Cabin helped galvanize abolitionist thinking.

Renaissance art helped change the way we look at the world, with its greater emphasis on perspective, dimension, scientific accuracy.

The introduction of Rock N Roll music and Playboy magazine in the 50s helped spark the dramatic cultural change that peaked in the 60s in the US.

To Kill a Mockingbird helped build support for the Civil Rights movement.

Animal Farm, through its powerful parable about farm animals, had an impact on the way people look at totalitarian regimes. It's important even now; China just banned it.

But the lesson I draw is not that we should be careful about what we write but that we should write what we want, drop it into the stream, and see where it goes. We don't know how it will be taken. If your art advocates bad things -- violence, hatred -- that's one thing; but if you just depict them, or unrealistic sexual situations, I think that's fair game, part of the realm of fantasy. As OP said, it's fiction, and you shouldn't be shy about letting the world see your "art" because of how a few bad apples outside your control might react to it.

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

SimonDoom

The first thing I thought of was the Koran.

Plagiarized as it was - from the Suspended Verses (Mu'alaqat) - it has destroyed millions. Thousands of millions.

And there are a few other notable 'manifestos' that classify as 'arted...' (LOL)

 

[KindofHere]

............

 

[SimonDoom]

Careful who you tell their religious beliefs are art.

.

Beliefs aren't art, but the expression of beliefs is art. The Songs of Solomon in the Bible are art. The stories of the patriarchs in Genesis, the story of David and Goliath -- these are art. They're important not just for being an expression of religion but for their enormous impact on all of Western art and literature. That's true whether or not you see the Bible as the word of God.

I think your idea of change is too narrow. People live differently now from the way they lived in 1952 in part because of Rock N Roll. To a lot of people it matters more than who the President is. It affects them more directly. Culture isn't just the frosting on what matters, it's part of the cake.

 

[KindofHere]

............

 

[Kojak01]

People live differently now from the way they lived in 1952 in part because of Rock N Roll.

The question whether the chicken or the egg came first has been answered long ago (first appearance of eggs was long before birds came into the picture, unless you're a creationist). But whether Rock N Roll changed the world or the world changed to allow Rock N Roll (or both) is still open for discussion, imo.

 

[SimonDoom]

Beliefs inspired by art that created beliefs that changed the world would be world changing.



I did say maybe I'm thinking of change in too big a term. Why didn't you quote that? That's me saying my idea may be too narrow.

Yes, you did. Mea culpa.

 

[Bramblethorn]

And Harry Potter has my sister convinced she'd be born a pure-blood wizard. Heavy influence on perception, I can see that. Change the world, no, I don't see that. Any artist who believes they changed the world is puffing out their chest. (maybe I'm just biased because people calling themselves 'artists' has that egotistical tinge of self importance and a righteous belief in one's opinions and doings).

Influence people though, yeah, I agree with that completely. But change history? I don't see it or at least it hasn't been pointed out to me with enough evidence to make it so in my mind.

What sort of evidence would be enough to persuade you? Like, if say "Uncle Tom's Cabin" really did make a difference to the timing or outcome of the Civil War, or "Atlas Shrugged" significantly increased the influence of libertarian political views, etc. etc. - what would you expect to see, as evidence for that effect.

 

[RetroFan]

To those of you who are saying this should have been posted on the politics board: my point was not politics. My point was people's apparent inability to distinguish fiction from non-fiction.

And thanks for the contributions of those of you who realised this.

I remember discussing this on another thread about the over the top reactions to Loving Wives stories, and one of the posters came up with quite an interesting theory, that Reality TV has helped blur the lines between fact and fiction.

True, there have always been people who struggled to tell reality from fiction, but it has definitely become more prevalent in recent years and I think that this theory has a lot of merit.

 

[KindofHere]

...........

 

[KindofHere]

..........

 

[SimonDoom]

I remember discussing this on another thread about the over the top reactions to Loving Wives stories, and one of the posters came up with quite an interesting theory, that Reality TV has helped blur the lines between fact and fiction.

True, there have always been people who struggled to tell reality from fiction, but it has definitely become more prevalent in recent years and I think that this theory has a lot of merit.

With respect to LW, the other theory I've read is that the trolls are victims of cheating. But if that's true, why in the world would they be reading stories in this category to begin with? That just seems like masochism (but hey, there's a place for that here, right? somebody's got to put the M in BDSM).

The LW troll phenomenon is really fascinating, because there exists a significant body of readers here who want to wallow, day after day, in the mud of what they claim to hate.

 

[SimonDoom]

Oh man, that's a terrible song. I youtubed it. Did it make people stop listening to music for a year?

I always liked it more than "We are the World", which was the American pop music industry answer that issued the next year. But, yeah, neither song belongs on anybody's 100 best song list.

 

[KindofHere]

...............

 

[Polyacrylate]

So did the news, which in a way, is what that song was, it came on after the news. It was also for charity. People didn't buy that son of a bitch because it was great. It didn't change the world, it had a great impact for Ethiopia (I think) but it's not on the level I'm looking for.

I'm talking CHANGE THE WORLD not live for a moment in time. The plague changed the world. The Great Famine changed the world.

I think I'm seeing things differently and can't get on your guy's level.

It appears we're at an impass, then. While we could sit around parsing the meaning of that phrase in a colloquial sense, this is one I'm fine in saying we can agree to disagree. You've been respectful in challenging those whose interpretation differs from yours, which is commendable in this day and age.

 

[SimonDoom]

I'm talking CHANGE THE WORLD not live for a moment in time. The plague changed the world. The Great Famine changed the world.

.

I'm not sure what you mean by "change the world."

To change the world, it's not necessary for a book or song or painting to affect the results of an election, or win a war, or convert people from one religion to another. Changing the culture is enough. For most people, politics is how you vote, but culture is how you live.

In the US, people lived very differently in 1970 from the way they lived in 1950. Life in America was different. And the most important part of that change wasn't political or economic, it was cultural. People's daily experiences were different because the culture had gone through a seismic shift. Art was a big part of that. It was a symptom and a cause.

Individual works of art obviously are a very small part of that. But they're still important.

The Beatles' appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show in 1964 was more important than the election of most of the US Senators that year, in terms of meaningful impact on the course of history.