Abuse in artistic expression - Game of Thrones and others

[Recidiva]

Thank you for making this topic! I've had a burr up my ass for 6 months now about Fifty Shades of Grey. In fact, I just saw a post on Tumblr that made me get all twitchy.

And you know what the two quotes below it said? One from the person who posted it, said: have fun and don’t worry about the snobs.

Then the quote below it said this, I kid you not: REBLOG THIS ONE ITS DOESN’T HAVE 50 SHADES OF GREY ON IT

...Are you freaking shitting me? They have this huge anti-bullying, anti-elitist, anti-shaming campaign going on for years but it is quite literally "Be yourself, love yourself, don't ever shame people for who they are or what they like... except for 50SoG fans, lol, you sick fucks. Go rot on an island with your fake-BDSM fantasy, you problematic twats."

I will preface this by saying that I don't even really like 50 Shades. It's poorly written and kind of boring in my opinion. But I'm not going to go around pretending I'm better than everyone else because I dislike it or pretending everyone who does like it is the spawn of Satan. There's this troubling trend lately where people feel like they have a right to socially censor fiction for merely being "problematic" or characters exhibiting toxic behaviors. As someone who fucking reads that shit, who goes after books with twisted shit in them, I not only find it offensive that other people are trying to decide what I can and can't handle but also really fucking scary. 50 Shades sold really fucking well, despite the criticisms and yet it's being banned from libraries because the guy in it is supposedly abusive.

Maybe it's because I don't believe in babying victims of abuse. Maybe I think we should actually give autonomy back to those who have been victimized by giving them a fucking choice and letting them read the back to discover whether or not they wanna fucking read it or not. Not take the choice completely away because we have to shield them from this awful thing that happened to them or worse yet, shield those it hasn't even happened to.

I'm very defensive of fiction. The art of storytelling, even from the stupidest, simplest, not even funny to anybody else but you bullshit. Creation, the act of fantasy, the metaphysical realm that exists only in the mind of the creator. It's sacred. And I say this coming from a place where my own fantasy, my own world wrapped around me so tight it was toxic, kept me safe and unburdened until I was ready to be free from it and walk in the reality with others. I was a very spacey kid and I was still playing pretend with my collectable FF figurines from GameStop up until I was 15 years old; did live rp for a few years longer, where me and a friend would get dressed up, carrying around our fake swords and bows and looking ridiculous wandering around Naval housing jungle gyms and creating stories.

It's fucking sacred. It's in your head, you hold it there, you share it, it's yours, you own it. Storytelling is so much a part of who we are and how we define ourselves that we literally recreate stories with ourselves as protagonist in waking life and we don't stop telling ourselves stories while we sleep. It's so much a part of our condition, to create, to narrate, to manipulate and characterize that "projection" is part of how we deal with the world. We literally cannot empathize or see anyone else without making them apart of our story, or visualizing a story for them if we don't actually know their's.

So, it kind of pisses me off when people bash on fandoms. I was defensive for Twilight when it was big and I'm defensive again for 50 Shades of Grey(it's just a simple coincidence that the one is based off of the other and I'm not a part of either fandom). I know people, smart people, good people, people who's tastes I trust who love both franchises. I just don't see either being intrinsically "bad/problematic/toxic" and be so well-liked by so many supposedly intelligent people. Even if they did... even if it's got problems and issues with the plot, setting aside the actual quality of the writing and just looking at the issues presented by the characters and whatnot... So??? It's fiction, it didn't happen to anybody and I do not believe in everything needing to say something, to have some grand overarcing message about humanity and civilization. There are some fantasies and stories I tell myself that literally have no other purpose but to entertain me, to distract me, to make me happy. They don't mean anything, they don't go anywhere, they don't tell me deep and meaningful things about myself(although there are some of my personal stories that do).

I'm horrified by censorship. Any kind. But particularly the growing familiarity with the reaction to 50SoG, this idea that we can censor books, stories, fictions, merely by shaming a lot of people for liking them and through misinformation. Anything can be phrased as abusive and offensive if you interpret it that way.

Or how about how writers are being advised to write nowadays? I follow a couple of writer advice blogs on Tumblr and occasionally they get asks about "how do I write about something problematic/have a toxic character with harmful ideals and help the reader differentiate between the character's opinions and the author's?" Um.... depends on where they fucking found it, dipshit. Was it in the fiction section? Did they find it with other fictional stories? Because if they did and they still think bad things about you, as the author, because you have a casual racist in one of your novels, then you gotta understand... sometimes idiots will pick up your shit. Not your fault.

I mean, intent is everything, ffs.

What the hell is "gratuitous"? How is that determined? On who's scale?

What is endorsement? When it relates to fiction, which can affect so many different people in so many different ways, how does it figure that censorship based on one interpretation sounds like a fucking smart idea? Guess who gets to choose the next book/movie/tv show we burn or get off the air? Westboro Baptist church. How's that fuckin' grab ya? 'Cause once we start burning books or bullying people into not picking them up, you don't get to decide who will run the next train into the fucking wall, man.

Sorry, this was really long but like I said, I've got a burr up my sphincter about this crap. Thank you again for making this topic, Reci.

I'm glad I made the topic. Thank you for the long response, I like that.

When 50 Shades came out I read all of the books because there was interesting discussion about it in the Author's Hangout and I wanted to have an educated opinion. What I liked about them was some of the dialogue. There was some fun and smart in there. What I didn't like was the lack of research, either about being American or about being into BDSM. I think besides the fact that the practices presented in the book were problematic, what rubbed me entirely wrong was presenting the idea that BDSM was the result of prior abuse and resembled psychosis, something that you could "cure" with...I don't know, being hot enough. When you apply that to other ideas like the fact that people who are gay are treated the same way and need to be "converted" it gets into that oogy area for me.

The funny part of this whole boycott thing is that you need to have an educated opinion in order to know whether or not you like it, which means you need to watch/read, etc. I didn't go see the 50 Shades movie because why...I also wouldn't recommend going to go see it, but I'm not going to throw myself at moviegoers and tell them to go to Church.

Kink shaming is again a problem, because that means you also have to educate yourself regarding kinks. For me I'm okay with something if it's consensual. That doesn't mean I'm going to do it, but it means I won't try to stop someone else from doing it if that's what they're into. The definition of consensual means someone in full sanity agrees to something happening beforehand and is mentally able to understand and consent that it is something they want to do, and not something they have to do. So that's why I'd say the scene is rape, because in this case, Sansa or Jeyne did not actually consent to anything. They were terrified and threatened into compliance. Sansa by Ramsay, Jeyne by Circe.

There are some kinks out there deserving shame, but if we're talking fiction, and it stays that way, cool.

Censorship for me is in that weird gray area because sometimes art reflects reality in a way that can do damage. Not to everyone, and I agree with you there. Let people make up their own minds. If 50 Shades doesn't have actual troop movements, cool. It does, however, possibly put some people in danger of thinking that zip ties during BDSM is fine and won't fuck up your circulation.

So in a sense I'd say it's more like a faulty cook book. "I know the book says to clean with ammonia and bleach, but let me tell you..." There are people that cannot differentiate reality from fiction, and that is a fact.

 

[girlsmiley]

The question's come up lately in "Game Of Thrones" where there's a rape scene.


(Spoiler alert if you haven't watched)


In this case, Sansa Stark is raped, off camera. People are boycotting the show for portraying violence against women.

Interesting because:

In the book, it is soooo much worse. HBO rewrote this scene, which was originally experienced by another character, Jeyne Poole, who is supposed to pretend to be Arya. This woman is terrified, abused and tortured, as was Theon. I can't even go into it, it's so bad. It's against site rules bad. So why wasn't the show boycotted when Theon was tortured? It's violence against men. He had a dick in a box (not in the book) but why wasn't the show boycotted every single episode for violence against everybody?

I'm not boycotting because I'm fairly convinced it actually has nothing to do with the book anyway. I have read them over and over. Game of Thrones, the books, are superior writing. They're worth reading. He does excellent characterization, dialogue and plot.

Violence, rape, abuse, these things are historical and documented. Yes, HBO's Game of Thrones is exploitive and violent. No doubt. Why would you be watching it in the first place if you were upset by portrayals of things that happen in reality...plus dragons?

Trying to figure out the line here where you could have made it to the fifth season and now require a trigger warning.

At which point does avoiding portrayal of horrible things mean that you're unwilling to confront the fact that horrible things happen? Who is willing to blame an author for condoning it, compared to respecting them for representing it accurately?

I understand not watching yourself (Noor won't watch because of violence and I'm good with that) but what brings you to decide nobody should watch it?

It's interesting you ask.

What's changed?

Perhaps viewers have had a change of heart. They no longer like Game of Thrones because it's boring and in a lull. Some people will find things to pick on because the show isn't as good as it was last season. It doesn't tickle their fancy anymore. It's shit now. You've touched on that already.

 

[Recidiva]

It's interesting you ask.

What's changed?

Perhaps viewers have had a change of heart. They no longer like Game of Thrones because it's boring and in a lull. Some people will find things to pick on because the show isn't as good as it was last season. It doesn't tickle their fancy anymore. It's shit now. You've touched on that already.

I think series purists checked out long ago, and they're not the ones complaining.

The main issue for me being that it often appears that women are more valuable than men inherently, and therefore a woman's pain is worth more than a man's. The series depicts fairly even "everybody gets fucked over" and GRRM goes out of his way to make non-stereotypical people.

So I think it's ignorance of the source material and lack of sympathy for men.

GRRM gives reasons to hate Jamie but keeps him sympathetic. He gives reasons to hate Theon and then make him sympathetic. It's a neat trick. It usually involves losing bits of anatomy, 'cause let's face it, these guys are hate worthy.

We never got to see anything from Joffrey's point of view, so we never had sympathy.

I also really like that Circe is an irredeemable bitch and she's still sympathetic in some ways. She genuinely loves her kids, but doesn't know what to do with love at all and turns it into something ugly. She doesn't understand love, the only thing she understands is power. I think his characterization is excellent.

The secondary question is - there are people that cannot separate fiction from fact, and do they get to make rules and if so, why?

 

[girlsmiley]

I think series purists checked out long ago, and they're not the ones complaining.

The main issue for me being that it often appears that women are more valuable than men inherently, and therefore a woman's pain is worth more than a man's. The series depicts fairly even "everybody gets fucked over" and GRRM goes out of his way to make non-stereotypical people.

So I think it's ignorance of the source material and lack of sympathy for men.

GRRM gives reasons to hate Jamie but keeps him sympathetic. He gives reasons to hate Theon and then make him sympathetic. It's a neat trick. It usually involves losing bits of anatomy, 'cause let's face it, these guys are hate worthy.

We never got to see anything from Joffrey's point of view, so we never had sympathy.

I also really like that Circe is an irredeemable bitch and she's still sympathetic in some ways. She genuinely loves her kids, but doesn't know what to do with love at all and turns it into something ugly. She doesn't understand love, the only thing she understands is power. I think his characterization is excellent.

The secondary question is - there are people that cannot separate fiction from fact, and do they get to make rules and if so, why?

But you've read the books over and over, whereas some people have not.

And you've also mentioned the fact that purists have checked out, yet here you are. Almost... defending the books and the television show.

My point is, the mob is fickle. I can see both sides. Where people are coming from.

 

[Recidiva]

But you've read the books over and over, whereas some people have not.

And you've also mentioned the fact that purists have checked out, yet here you are. Almost... defending the books and the television show.

My point is, the mob is fickle. I can see both sides. Where people are coming from.

Clearly lots of people have not, including the folks writing the script for HBO.

I'm media omnivorous in a way that a lot of what's going on is a part of a social conversation. Go here, go to Tumblr, go to Twitter, go to Reddit, and people will be discussing something. I enjoy the books much more than the TV show, but the whole thing comes under the umbrella of "Game Of Thrones Knowledge" and as a nerd I like having the information.

I defend the books, definitely, though they are not everybody's favorite and I can see why. I enjoy them in a very nerdy, writer-ey way that I can look at that book and think "If I were going to write a book, I would never, EVER kill Ned Stark..." and then I get to look at why I would or would not do something based on fiction. One of the reasons GRRM is famous is because he can create Ned Stark and then kill him, despite the fact that he loves the guy and he knows the audience will too, and will be mad. There's something in that act of creation and destruction that I admire. I like creation. I am biased. I tend to write creation and I am sorely lacking on the destruction side.

Yeah, I hate JK Rowling too for killing Dobby. Bitch. You can love/hate authors. But if they can inspire you to love/hate instead of meh, that's good.

The other thing I like about him that is entirely against my nature is the fact that you never, ever get an objective narrator's voice and it is subjective. So a character in one chapter can hear that another character has died and you have no idea if it happened or if it is a rumor, and it's a defiance of narratorly insight. "Wait, what? Go back to that...he's never going back to that...I'm never going to know, am I? Fuck!" As a reader you experience the same sort of apprehension a character might - is this good information? Can I rely on it? Are they really dead? Am I going to see them again?

Then once I read the story and I have my various "Oh, fuck you, asshole. Don't do that, what the fuck is wrong with you, man?" I go back and re-experience it as not a rollercoaster ride of what the fuck, but in knowing the plot and being able to tie together bits and pieces of narrative and story that I missed before. And I miss a lot, takes a few times through to realize that a character I thought I heard about first in book four was mentioned in book one and that he had all their histories and backstories straight all along and didn't show it all to me. Good work.

He has so much going on behind the characters and it isn't all written down, he just shows you some of the intersections.

So it provokes the question in reading and watching...what do you expect from your fiction and what bugs you and why do you care so much that you're going to, or not going to watch/read?

The assumption is that a boycott is not about the material so much as an issue, but when the material has issues, it brings it out in people.

 

[M. Jordan]

It seems to me that trying to put his books into movie form has to be nearly impossible so, someone had to do some abbreviation. The base story line of betrayal and double dealing remained true through the first few seasons but this last / newest season has been a bit disappointing to me. It is still telling the same story but with a lot of changes that leaves out plot lines that I really wanted to see. I'm probably in the minority but I still think Tolkien is the gold standard for telling this deep, highly involved type of story. I have read those books three times and still want to do it again, but I wont. Once through GOT was enough form me, glad I did it and cant wait for the next book.

 

[Recidiva]

It seems to me that trying to put his books into movie form has to be nearly impossible so, someone had to do some abbreviation. The base story line of betrayal and double dealing remained true through the first few seasons but this last / newest season has been a bit disappointing to me. It is still telling the same story but with a lot of changes that leaves out plot lines that I really wanted to see. I'm probably in the minority but I still think Tolkien is the gold standard for telling this deep, highly involved type of story. I have read those books three times and still want to do it again, but I wont. Once through GOT was enough form me, glad I did it and cant wait for the next book.

I adore Tolkein, but he also doesn't really do bad guys well, at least as far as characterization goes. I think the Silmarillion story of Luthien and Beren is my favorite. I think Tolkein understands evil, but he doesn't want to get all that close to it in order to give it a real face.

Bad guys can be fun to write, but they can be hard to write in any way that doesn't leave them some sort of stereotype. Nobody ever explained to me quite why Sauron wanted to destroy everything.

 

[M. Jordan]

I adore Tolkein, but he also doesn't really do bad guys well, at least as far as characterization goes. I think the Silmarillion story of Luthien and Beren is my favorite. I think Tolkein understands evil, but he doesn't want to get all that close to it in order to give it a real face.

Bad guys can be fun to write, but they can be hard to write in any way that doesn't leave them some sort of stereotype. Nobody ever explained to me quite why Sauron wanted to destroy everything.

You are so right. His evil was implied more than explicit. Which I do like somewhat, but Martin really explains the bad guys well. Chilling at times. That is partly why I recommended that other book to you because those villains were real and did some horrific things, which are an actual part of our history. In my weak mind, I think that Tolkien was reliving his war experiences through the books. I think you could assign the various characters to certain enemies that Britain faced during WWI and WWII. Sauron just wanted power, like the Nazis maybe? Its probably beyond my comprehension.

 

[Recidiva]

You are so right. His evil was implied more than explicit. Which I do like somewhat, but Martin really explains the bad guys well. Chilling at times. That is partly why I recommended that other book to you because those villains were real and did some horrific things, which are an actual part of our history. In my weak mind, I think that Tolkien was reliving his war experiences through the books. I think you could assign the various characters to certain enemies that Britain faced during WWI and WWII. Sauron just wanted power, like the Nazis maybe? Its probably beyond my comprehension.

He went way out of his way to try to say it wasn't allegory for the war he'd been in, but from the historical perspective he wrote what he knew. The relationship between Sam and Frodo being identical to the relationship of officers and attendants in a lot of ways. As an American there was a lot of Britishisms I had to have explained.

I consider Sam to be the hero of that story, really. I love that Tolkein wrote him. Yeah, I love Aragorn and all that, but Sam and Faramir are my favorites. Wise people, humble people.

I think he wrote good people the best I've seen, but he can't do bad guys well.

Tolkein does good better than GRRM and that's what he wanted to do. I think GRRM wanted to write gray everywhere and he did it beautifully.

 

[M. Jordan]

He went way out of his way to try to say it wasn't allegory for the war he'd been in, but from the historical perspective he wrote what he knew. The relationship between Sam and Frodo being identical to the relationship of officers and attendants in a lot of ways. As an American there was a lot of Britishisms I had to have explained.

I consider Sam to be the hero of that story, really. I love that Tolkein wrote him. Yeah, I love Aragorn and all that, but Sam and Faramir are my favorites. Wise people, humble people.

I think he wrote good people the best I've seen, but he can't do bad guys well.

Tolkein does good better than GRRM and that's what he wanted to do. I think GRRM wanted to write gray everywhere and he did it beautifully.

Martin struck a nerve with me in that there are no good guys and no bad guys. Its a problem in our nation to this day that plays itself out in politics. Its all a matter of perspective. As you mentioned in an earlier post, the King Slayer goes from being pure evil to somewhat of a sympathetic character. I do love that part of his stories, essentially telling the reader to use "walk a mile in my shoes" logic.

 

[RjThoughts]

So a legislator who was okay with the "Red Wedding" is now against the show because of an off-screen rape scene?

Really?

Has she not watched ALL the episodes?

 

[Recidiva]

Martin struck a nerve with me in that there are no good guys and no bad guys. Its a problem in our nation to this day that plays itself out in politics. Its all a matter of perspective. As you mentioned in an earlier post, the King Slayer goes from being pure evil to somewhat of a sympathetic character. I do love that part of his stories, essentially telling the reader to use "walk a mile in my shoes" logic.

I've discovered that writing evil is hard. It's much harder to make an interesting bad guy that it appears. Most will opt for crazy, which is just bad writing. Yes, there is crazy, and writing that is hard too, because you can't just do whatever you want. Crazy still has a reason and a physiology to it as far as the way brains work or fail to work.

As far as characterization goes, giving people believable motivations based on inclination and circumstance and then making them interact, still maintaining these motivations without betraying themselves is impressive.

It's interesting that I admire him for making Jamie admirable, then I dislike him for making Daenerys kinda dumb by book 6. I also think he's basing Daenerys on Katherine the Great and I like seeing his inspirations and seeing how literal he makes them.

So yeah, I still have some work to do on what I consider craft against what I consider satisfying against what I consider entertainment.

 

[Recidiva]

So a legislator who was okay with the "Red Wedding" is now against the show because of an off-screen rape scene?

Really?

Has she not watched ALL the episodes?

Exactly. If you're going to call foul, please call foul in the 5421 previous incidents of equivalent and even viler nature.

 

[M. Jordan]

I've discovered that writing evil is hard. It's much harder to make an interesting bad guy that it appears. Most will opt for crazy, which is just bad writing. Yes, there is crazy, and writing that is hard too, because you can't just do whatever you want. Crazy still has a reason and a physiology to it as far as the way brains work or fail to work.

As far as characterization goes, giving people believable motivations based on inclination and circumstance and then making them interact, still maintaining these motivations without betraying themselves is impressive.

It's interesting that I admire him for making Jamie admirable, then I dislike him for making Daenerys kinda dumb by book 6. I also think he's basing Daenerys on Katherine the Great and I like seeing his inspirations and seeing how literal he makes them.

So yeah, I still have some work to do on what I consider craft against what I consider satisfying against what I consider entertainment.

Right?! Just one more thing before I go. the really scary, evil bad guy is never the crazy one. That's just quick and dirty. Its always the cold calculated one who just does what needs to be done with no guilt or remorse. Our history is littered with them and their gruesome acts.

 

[Recidiva]

Right?! Just one more thing before I go. the really scary, evil bad guy is never the crazy one. That's just quick and dirty. Its always the cold calculated one who just does what needs to be done with no guilt or remorse. Our history is littered with them and their gruesome acts.

Yup. Thomas Harris is king of the Bad Guy, having spent years on the crime desk. I like Hannibal a lot.

 

[Littlefinger]

I'm glad I made the topic. Thank you for the long response, I like that.

When 50 Shades came out I read all of the books because there was interesting discussion about it in the Author's Hangout and I wanted to have an educated opinion. What I liked about them was some of the dialogue. There was some fun and smart in there. What I didn't like was the lack of research, either about being American or about being into BDSM. I think besides the fact that the practices presented in the book were problematic, what rubbed me entirely wrong was presenting the idea that BDSM was the result of prior abuse and resembled psychosis, something that you could "cure" with...I don't know, being hot enough. When you apply that to other ideas like the fact that people who are gay are treated the same way and need to be "converted" it gets into that oogy area for me.

The funny part of this whole boycott thing is that you need to have an educated opinion in order to know whether or not you like it, which means you need to watch/read, etc. I didn't go see the 50 Shades movie because why...I also wouldn't recommend going to go see it, but I'm not going to throw myself at moviegoers and tell them to go to Church.

Well, yeah, I wouldn't either but mostly because I watched the press tour. There is no chemistry between the two main actors, in fact, they hate each other so much, they couldn't even hide it during interviews together long enough to sell the movie they were in together. It was unprofessional and reeked of immaturity. I wanna blame the guy, Jamie Dornan, because he's been nothing but immature about the entire thing. 1. had to wash his hands before touching his wife and child after researching BDSM because he was... what? so grossed out? Fine, whatever, not your bag but seriously, cool your shit, guy. 2. he said in a couple of interviews that he had to do things to Dakota while filming that he "would never choose to do to a woman." Like he was playing fucking goddamn Hannibal Lecter. You hit her on the ass with a freaking crop to excite her, you dipshit. Calm down. 3. he didn't want to get naked or be seen naked. ...as the lead in a romantic, very sexual movie, it's very counterintuitive to get a guy that doesn't want to take his clothes off or have shots of him and the gal together in sex scenes. Especially when the millions of copies of the books it's based on were bought by women and mothers, heterosexual, cisgendered women, they're not going to go to the film to fucking see Ana writhe on the bed by herself. THOSE are all good reasons to boycott the movie, not telling everyone who does choose to go see it that they're abuse enablers.

Kink shaming is again a problem, because that means you also have to educate yourself regarding kinks. For me I'm okay with something if it's consensual. That doesn't mean I'm going to do it, but it means I won't try to stop someone else from doing it if that's what they're into. The definition of consensual means someone in full sanity agrees to something happening beforehand and is mentally able to understand and consent that it is something they want to do, and not something they have to do. So that's why I'd say the scene is rape, because in this case, Sansa or Jeyne did not actually consent to anything. They were terrified and threatened into compliance. Sansa by Ramsay, Jeyne by Circe.

There are some kinks out there deserving shame, but if we're talking fiction, and it stays that way, cool.

Agreed.

Censorship for me is in that weird gray area because sometimes art reflects reality in a way that can do damage. Not to everyone, and I agree with you there. Let people make up their own minds. If 50 Shades doesn't have actual troop movements, cool. It does, however, possibly put some people in danger of thinking that zip ties during BDSM is fine and won't fuck up your circulation.

So in a sense I'd say it's more like a faulty cook book. "I know the book says to clean with ammonia and bleach, but let me tell you..." There are people that cannot differentiate reality from fiction, and that is a fact.

I agree there are people who cannot tell the difference but I'm also in the camp that says "I, personally, didn't learn the difference by having faulty information kept from me." I'm trying to think of an example but there have been several times when I got really into a fictional book, thought a factoid or philosophy presented by it was particularly poignant and come to realize later, that's not how biology actually works. It's happened enough times that now I question, I get curious, I look beyond the spoon feeding me the information, ESPECIALLY when it comes in a fictional format. And that is my biggest argument against censoring fiction. I do not think we should hide from the fact that some people will not question it and will act upon or build themselves upon fictional portrayals of things. We need to confront that and educate. After all, reading, even when you read the trashiest, worst spelled fanfic, is an exercise of the mind. Let's not halt the train on that action, but keep it going. You're already reading, keep going, read more, expand, grow.

I just see censorship, whether it is actual book burning/banning or boycotting a movie or tv show and trying to get it off the air from other people enjoying it, as an encouragement of the "everything you read can be safe and accepted as true" ideal. When that's not what we want. Let them encounter faulty, flawed shit once in a while, let the mind do what it does and question and feed curiosity.

As for the fake BDSM in 50 Shades being dangerous, when the books first came out, a lot of alternative shops opened up 50 Shades nights where they welcomed fans of the book to come and educate themselves more about the lifestyle and practices. A lot easier to do especially with a book that feeds to the lowest denominator and will probably be a lot of folks' first encounter with that particular type of kink.

 

[Recidiva]

Well, yeah, I wouldn't either but mostly because I watched the press tour. There is no chemistry between the two main actors, in fact, they hate each other so much, they couldn't even hide it during interviews together long enough to sell the movie they were in together. It was unprofessional and reeked of immaturity. I wanna blame the guy, Jamie Dornan, because he's been nothing but immature about the entire thing. 1. had to wash his hands before touching his wife and child after researching BDSM because he was... what? so grossed out? Fine, whatever, not your bag but seriously, cool your shit, guy. 2. he said in a couple of interviews that he had to do things to Dakota while filming that he "would never choose to do to a woman." Like he was playing fucking goddamn Hannibal Lecter. You hit her on the ass with a freaking crop to excite her, you dipshit. Calm down. 3. he didn't want to get naked or be seen naked. ...as the lead in a romantic, very sexual movie, it's very counterintuitive to get a guy that doesn't want to take his clothes off or have shots of him and the gal together in sex scenes. Especially when the millions of copies of the books it's based on were bought by women and mothers, heterosexual, cisgendered women, they're not going to go to the film to fucking see Ana writhe on the bed by herself. THOSE are all good reasons to boycott the movie, not telling everyone who does choose to go see it that they're abuse enablers.

Agreed.

I agree there are people who cannot tell the difference but I'm also in the camp that says "I, personally, didn't learn the difference by having faulty information kept from me." I'm trying to think of an example but there have been several times when I got really into a fictional book, thought a factoid or philosophy presented by it was particularly poignant and come to realize later, that's not how biology actually works. It's happened enough times that now I question, I get curious, I look beyond the spoon feeding me the information, ESPECIALLY when it comes in a fictional format. And that is my biggest argument against censoring fiction. I do not think we should hide from the fact that some people will not question it and will act upon or build themselves upon fictional portrayals of things. We need to confront that and educate. After all, reading, even when you read the trashiest, worst spelled fanfic, is an exercise of the mind. Let's not halt the train on that action, but keep it going. You're already reading, keep going, read more, expand, grow.

I just see censorship, whether it is actual book burning/banning or boycotting a movie or tv show and trying to get it off the air from other people enjoying it, as an encouragement of the "everything you read can be safe and accepted as true" ideal. When that's not what we want. Let them encounter faulty, flawed shit once in a while, let the mind do what it does and question and feed curiosity.

As for the fake BDSM in 50 Shades being dangerous, when the books first came out, a lot of alternative shops opened up 50 Shades nights where they welcomed fans of the book to come and educate themselves more about the lifestyle and practices. A lot easier to do especially with a book that feeds to the lowest denominator and will probably be a lot of folks' first encounter with that particular type of kink.

Funny about Jamie Dornan, considering he played a mass murderer in The Fall. I do think it's unprofessional to trash something you're being paid to promote. The book was disliked, but I don't think I saw the true magnified hatred of this movie until the week it was about to be released with loads of boycott requests.

Released on Valentine's day? Really?

We learn about what we want to see and what we want to read from other people, so I suppose I can understand the interest in passing along your personal impressions, but what I'm after is not what other people are after.

I did my own research, came to my own conclusions and...yeah...Darwinian theory is going to handle people's comprehension levels far before I can warn every person around not to use zip ties.

I do think there are credulous people who do not understand theater or writing. I knew a guy who watched "A Fish Called Wanda" and said "That Kevin Kline, what an idiot" because he equated the actor with the part. Also the actor who played Joffrey took a lot of abuse and other cast members were saying "Be nice to him, he's a good guy."

So yes, for some the line between art and reality is indistinguishable and that's why it's taken more seriously than it should be.

 

[AngeloMichael]

A pretty interesting debate on the Sansa rape going on here:

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/129188-debating-sansa/

Though it is kind of overwhelmingly towards the side of people being outraged over it, but mostly not because of the act itself but because it happened to Sansa in the show when it didn't happen to her in the books.

 

[M. Jordan]

Funny about Jamie Dornan, considering he played a mass murderer in The Fall. I do think it's unprofessional to trash something you're being paid to promote. The book was disliked, but I don't think I saw the true magnified hatred of this movie until the week it was about to be released with loads of boycott requests.

Released on Valentine's day? Really?

We learn about what we want to see and what we want to read from other people, so I suppose I can understand the interest in passing along your personal impressions, but what I'm after is not what other people are after.

I did my own research, came to my own conclusions and...yeah...Darwinian theory is going to handle people's comprehension levels far before I can warn every person around not to use zip ties.

I do think there are credulous people who do not understand theater or writing. I knew a guy who watched "A Fish Called Wanda" and said "That Kevin Kline, what an idiot" because he equated the actor with the part. Also the actor who played Joffrey took a lot of abuse and other cast members were saying "Be nice to him, he's a good guy."

So yes, for some the line between art and reality is indistinguishable and that's why it's taken more seriously than it should be.

In the case of Joffrey, he did an incredible job. He was wicked beyond belief. So I guess he sold his role very well?

 

[Littlefinger]

That was a really interesting read, AngeloMichael. Something that occurred to me while reading it and the criticisms of the fans, which reminds me of similar situations that made me eventually give up on the series Supernatural in the beginning of season 8: how much input should the fans of a work get?

I'm trying to write something myself. I know there are issues with it but I'm at the point where I defiantly and stubbornly just want to write MY story. Whoever likes it will like it and whoever doesn't they don't have to read it. After Eric Kripke left Supernatural after season 5, there was a very huge disconnect between the story they were telling before and the story they progressed to tell thereafter. Fan criticisms got to the point where you could only be so understanding before you just implore somebody to watch a show they actually like. Which is what I ended up doing. I will recommend the series from season 1-5 for anybody because it has a very clear track it's following and a very definitive end where you can feel satisfied and move on, at the season finale of 5. As I continued watching that show though and following the fan criticisms and controversies, it almost felt like the writers were deciding what to do episode by episode and basing it upon the whims of the crowd, which is fickle and not everyone is saying the same thing or demanding the same things. It comes across as weak, pointless and playing for the shock rather than telling any kind of coherent or consistent story. I think it can be a series length problem but also who the writers listen to and what their goal is.

It also reminds me of Lost, which was great while watching but on a whole, when you take away the adrenaline rush of waiting each week and during the season breaks for more, it leaves so many questions unanswered, so many pointless things included to just "tantalize", trying to get you to tune in for the next episode. Which, I don't agree with that kind of storytelling and I agree with the fans who are angry about the Sansa rape scene for that reason, that it disrupted things she could have had going on, if they followed what was happening in the books, different things they could have focused on with her character and that the rape and putting her in that role as someone the audience empathizes with, was a cheap, dangly keys trick.

Then again... I'm not a purist. I like enjoying each piece of work, each new rendition of a story made by different people in different mediums as separate things that are only vaguely connected.

But back to my original question, how much should an audience get to influence a work like this? Obviously, in order to keep interest for as long as possible and keep as many people in their seats as they can, you gotta lick a few anuses. But honestly, I feel like going down that route ends up with situations like this where you do feel a little cheated because they are catering to so many people or trying to get a buzz, rather than doing any body any favors by telling a consistent and strong story. I mean, there is such thing as respecting the audience that will stay, that is interested and that doesn't need keys shaken in their faces in order to tune in next time.

 

[Skiddles2015]

fuck her right in the pussy

 

[Recidiva]

A pretty interesting debate on the Sansa rape going on here:

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/129188-debating-sansa/

Though it is kind of overwhelmingly towards the side of people being outraged over it, but mostly not because of the act itself but because it happened to Sansa in the show when it didn't happen to her in the books.

Yeah, this is more book versus show. There was a preponderance of Ramsay and Theon last season, but it was all humiliation and pain and nothing about the actual story of Reek. Ramsay is also pretty damned smart, having pretended to be Reek at Winterfell.

 

[Recidiva]

In the case of Joffrey, he did an incredible job. He was wicked beyond belief. So I guess he sold his role very well?

Yes! Good actor. And now possibly stuck entirely being the bad guy.

He was in "Batman Begins" as a little kid, and when we went to the midnight showing of Batman III, playing all 3 movies. When the actor's face popped up there was a murmur through the crowd and a bunch of rowdy people were saying things to the extent of "It's Joffrey! Kill him Batman! Wipe out the whole district!"

So yeah, he made his mark.

 

[Recidiva]

That was a really interesting read, AngeloMichael. Something that occurred to me while reading it and the criticisms of the fans, which reminds me of similar situations that made me eventually give up on the series Supernatural in the beginning of season 8: how much input should the fans of a work get?

I'm trying to write something myself. I know there are issues with it but I'm at the point where I defiantly and stubbornly just want to write MY story. Whoever likes it will like it and whoever doesn't they don't have to read it. After Eric Kripke left Supernatural after season 5, there was a very huge disconnect between the story they were telling before and the story they progressed to tell thereafter. Fan criticisms got to the point where you could only be so understanding before you just implore somebody to watch a show they actually like. Which is what I ended up doing. I will recommend the series from season 1-5 for anybody because it has a very clear track it's following and a very definitive end where you can feel satisfied and move on, at the season finale of 5. As I continued watching that show though and following the fan criticisms and controversies, it almost felt like the writers were deciding what to do episode by episode and basing it upon the whims of the crowd, which is fickle and not everyone is saying the same thing or demanding the same things. It comes across as weak, pointless and playing for the shock rather than telling any kind of coherent or consistent story. I think it can be a series length problem but also who the writers listen to and what their goal is.

It also reminds me of Lost, which was great while watching but on a whole, when you take away the adrenaline rush of waiting each week and during the season breaks for more, it leaves so many questions unanswered, so many pointless things included to just "tantalize", trying to get you to tune in for the next episode. Which, I don't agree with that kind of storytelling and I agree with the fans who are angry about the Sansa rape scene for that reason, that it disrupted things she could have had going on, if they followed what was happening in the books, different things they could have focused on with her character and that the rape and putting her in that role as someone the audience empathizes with, was a cheap, dangly keys trick.

Then again... I'm not a purist. I like enjoying each piece of work, each new rendition of a story made by different people in different mediums as separate things that are only vaguely connected.

But back to my original question, how much should an audience get to influence a work like this? Obviously, in order to keep interest for as long as possible and keep as many people in their seats as they can, you gotta lick a few anuses. But honestly, I feel like going down that route ends up with situations like this where you do feel a little cheated because they are catering to so many people or trying to get a buzz, rather than doing any body any favors by telling a consistent and strong story. I mean, there is such thing as respecting the audience that will stay, that is interested and that doesn't need keys shaken in their faces in order to tune in next time.

I am a Supernatural fan. I do think the show suffered after Kripke left, but I don't think it negates the work of a lot of really good actors.

My best experience with a development community aware of what the fans want is Bioware. They have a very close relationship with their fans, and so do the voice actors.

Bioware first out started providing a lesbian relationship with an alien in Knights Of The Old Republic (KOTOR) and it started a fan landslide. They provide story romance lines with characters and it's become their thing, spending a lot of effort on what fans want.

In Mass Effect the human romance options were boring, so at fan request they focused on other, alien characters in later games, resulting in my dearest fake love, Garrus Vakarian.

In Dragon Age 2 they made all romanceable characters essentially bisexual, so whatever the gender of the lead character, you could take your shot.

In this latest installment of Dragon Age, they provided a romance with a character that had been requested for years (Yes, I helped) and also provided a pansexual romance, a lesbian romance, a male gay romance (the best in the game in my opinion), an asexual but romantic romance, three straight romances with some racial requirements and one that was race and gender specific. They also had an NPC that was unromanceable, but was a woman who lived as a man.

However, one of the best characters that everyone has wanted to romance, you could not do so, because he has a backstory and you got to meet his love interest and we hate her. BUT...they stuck to their story guns and didn't give us that. Oh, Varric.

Anyway, some communities can do it right. Supernatural may not be one of them, but gamers and game creators have closer relationships.

 

[Recidiva]

Oh holy crap. This is one of the funnier things I've seen.

Coldplay's "Game Of Thrones The Musical"

You must catch the Rastafarian Targaryen who is kinda scaryen and the first romantic ballad about incest in Coldplay history.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zs7xO5P3Az4

Donated to Red Nose Day because that's worth it.