|
|
Post by luciusstorm on Oct 23, 2024 14:24:32 GMT
kelloggjkellogg , you raise an interesting point... the difference between a story about social commentary and a story that contains social commentary. Classic Star Trek is actually a wonderful example of both. For instance, the simple of fact of Uhura... a black woman who is a bridge officer... was huge at the time. The story goes that Martin Luther King personally convinced Nichele Nicholas not to leave the show because he pointed out to her that her simply being there was so huge. But there was never an episode about Uhura being a black woman bridge officer. It was hardly ever even mentioned. She simply was there and that was part of what made it so impactful. On the flip side, one can never forget the episode Let That Be Your Last Battlefield and this iconic scene (with thanks to IMDB for providing the quote)... That's not subtle social commentary. That's 'beat you over the head with a brick' social commentary. I agree that that second kind of heavy-handed social commentary can be unappealing. Certainly, Last Battlefield is not considered one of the great Star Trek episodes of all time... except that it is a great example of 'look, can we make it more obvious how stupid this kind of thinking is' which is sometimes necessary to get a point across. Still, I would agree that an entire multi-chapter story that is nothing but heavy-handed social commentary wrapped in a thin veil of fiction isn't my cup of tea. That said a single, well written chapter of heavy-handed social commentary might sometimes be what is needed.
|
|
|
|
Post by EvilBnuuy on Oct 23, 2024 15:29:36 GMT
kelloggjkellogg I think we're both lucky in a way that our readerships understand the historical nature of the stories and how wording and attitudes might be different because of that. And yeah this is the thing, most people at least in the offline world don't talk constant non-stop politics, and even if your life is greatly affected by the goings-on in the world you still have a life you're going to be trying to live outside of it doing work, hobbies or whatever.
It's kind of similar with me, authors of actual books can talk all day about how queer their cast is but if they aren't characters with personalities, likes, dislikes etc. I'm really not going to be interested in the story. I get that folks are worried of messing up and whatnot, that's fair, but they have to be actual characters first before anything. In terms of the crossdressing character - I think having a character that in some sense lives between both worlds is always an interesting dynamic to work with. I think in an era where you are expected to have exact words for your experience, it's nice to just have characters who know who they are and don't feel the need to necessarily define it to other people.
What I did find interesting and quite surprising, was an article from the 50s about a soldier who transitioned, and she was described as becoming a 'blonde bombshell' and 'today she is a striking woman' and it was all quite surprising in a pleasant way that people considered it a point of mostly-positive fascination that people and surgery etc. could do that, which is surprising in a good way.
I don't know much about Star Trek but I do know that a lot of people appreciated what they tried to do back in the day in terms of the social aspects, and the way it was moreso weaved into the general storytelling.
This is also my issue with writing my own story as well, I have to ditch some ideas because they're too reminiscent of modern online arguing than they are with the plight of folk in the 17-1800s. They probably aren't going to be wondering if the bloodline spellcasters deserve to not burn too because they aren't true full-blooded witches, or if people who don't have magic should also be included in the discussion- they're going to be more interested in welcoming anyone who's willing to stand by them one way or another, and it's part of what brings so many different walks of life into the narrative.
I think one aspect of the story I love the most is the surprising amount of shared experience. I think nowadays there's a lot of separation caused by people thinking you're not allowed to relate even slightly to someone else's experience if they're too different or if their life is significantly worse-off than your own, but there's none of that in this story. Everyone has stuff in common that they can bond over whether they're a witch, a 235-year-old vampire or a billionaire and it's the sometimes-surprising shared experience that brings the characters together against the bigger problems. On a side note related to some of the discussion here- I know so many people who've stopped sharing or writing their stories because of online toxicity, and it's genuinely awful. I wish people would just block and unfollow if they don't like something. Or if they have an issue in the story, it's easy enough to take it up in private with an author and see whether or not you've got the wrong end of the stick before you start making callout posts. Also people really, REALLY need to realise that writing a topic is not necessarily endorsement of a topic. arieltriffic Oh goodness my dad went through an obsession with watching Father Brown, to the point where I jokingly said to my friend that maybe I should just have Reynold the Peteran Priest from my story take up a bike and solve the witch-hunter problem himself. XD I'm with you on this both in fiction and IRL, people are very quick to blame their issues on their childhood etc. and bad experiences don't absolve you of all bad you do. I think so too, the reality is that people are mostly complicated creatures and it's okay to not know how to feel about a character as well. MonaSolstraale I think I have always liked this about your story, the way you weave in issues as just a part of the human condition and keeps with what Tusnelda and Trix is all about, it's always done so well. And I agree, I've used the story to process things going on in my own life. The one character who dealt with terminal illness was around the time that my mother was dealing with cancer (thankfully, she's cancer-free now, but still has a long way to go in recovery.) I agree, I do think that we need to focus on the good progress that has been made, as well as just the work needed to be done. Honestly I wouldn't care too much if someone considered my story to be too heavy-handed at times, it's only natural that a lot of the characters would have long inner dialogues about their feelings and their experiences when it's still a time period where a lot of things just simply aren't spoken about, and I don't really care about alienating the ' it's too political!' crowd because you can't please everyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by kelloggjkellogg on Oct 23, 2024 15:31:33 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by MonaSolstraale on Oct 23, 2024 16:41:56 GMT
@evilbnuuyvthank you for your kind words 😊 I am glad to hear that your mother is on the mend. Cancer is truly a terrible disease, but fortunately we live in an amazing time when it comes to medical science. So many advances are being made in treatment options for diseases that human years ago would not have survived. I wish her continued good recovery 🤗 I feel like sharing an edifying story that is not about illness but about the survival of nature. On TV I followed a program called Give us nature back. In parts of Denmark, there are large industrial areas with big buildings, all surrounded by large outdoor areas of well-kept green lawns. They look great, but are pure deserts when it comes to the survival of insects. Some biologists and conservationists tried to persuade these companies to let their lawns be replaced by meadow grasses and wildflowers. Most refrained because they thought it would signal that their businesses were headed for bankruptcy because they no longer cared for their outdoor areas. A few brave business owners were on board with the idea. In one year, the green barren deserts had been replaced by biotopes with a multitude of insects and butterflies. It shows what even a single person can achieve if they dare to challenge the usual ideas about what is socially acceptable. The hardest thing about reversing a development is that it requires people to change their thinking. |
|
|
|
Post by arieltriffic on Oct 23, 2024 16:49:00 GMT
It's kind of similar with me, authors of actual books can talk all day about how queer their cast is but if they aren't characters with personalities, likes, dislikes etc. I'm really not going to be interested in the story. I get that folks are worried of messing up and whatnot, that's fair, but they have to be actual characters first before anything.
Very true! I could not have put it better myself - and this goes for just about any character who is not straight, white, male, or Christian. Some writers just stop at diversity instead of trying to make their characters come alive. That is not fun to read because the characters often end up being stereotypes. Or, the story becomes about character's demographic category instead of being about overcoming life's challenges. EDIT: Sometimes the challenge IS prejudice. luciusstorm My dad told me about the time Eartha Kitt played Catwoman on Batman. Similar situation. I do not think she was in the role for very long (it was too scandalous!), but many consider her to be the best Catwoman ever. |
|
|
|
Post by kelloggjkellogg on Oct 23, 2024 16:58:55 GMT
Eartha Kitt was Catwoman in season 3 of Batman. She didn't carry on with the role as the show had not been renewed for a 4th series.
|
|
|
|
Post by arieltriffic on Oct 23, 2024 17:22:17 GMT
Eartha Kitt was Catwoman in season 3 of Batman. She didn't carry on with the role as the show had not been renewed for a 4th series. I stand corrected.  |
|
|
|
Post by mightysprite on Nov 1, 2024 4:31:54 GMT
mightysprite , ok, honest question... What is "virtue signaling?" I have heard this term before, but I do not understand what it means. Sorry for being slow, luciusstorm ! Virtue signaling is doing something just for the sake of showing how virtuous oneself is. |
|
|
|
Post by luciusstorm on Nov 1, 2024 10:55:20 GMT
mightysprite , ok, honest question... What is "virtue signaling?" I have heard this term before, but I do not understand what it means. Sorry for being slow, luciusstorm ! Virtue signaling is doing something just for the sake of showing how virtuous oneself is. OK, but the implication seems to be that this is a bad thing. I would thing that demonstrating virtue was good. After all, being virtuous is a good thing. Or is the issue, as others seem to have said, that it is more a matter of demonstrating virtues that one does not honestly possess? (Which raises the philosophical question - what, if anything, is the difference between acting virtuously and being virtuous?) (Edit: Yeah, who has a Bachelor of Arts with majors in History, Philosophy & Religion... this geek. ) |
|
Caerfinon
Member
No one of consequence
Posts: 218 
|
Post by Caerfinon on Nov 1, 2024 12:10:36 GMT
(Edit: Yeah, who has a Bachelor of Arts with majors in History, Philosophy & Religion... this geek. ) Moi Aussi! 🧑🎓I think the line lies with the person who is doing demonstrably virtuous things, but the goal is not to be virtuous, nor about helping the people or the cause being championed. Rather it is selfishly aggrandizing one's self in order to appear as virtuous to others with the hopes of increasing fame, respect, sexual desire. The virtuous statements made in this activity have no anchors in any actions taken in reality to achieve the desired virtuous outcome. (so in essence a kind of political pandering) |
|
|
|
Post by HermioneSims on Nov 1, 2024 13:58:48 GMT
Specifically to storytelling, I think the main issue with virtue signaling is when it doesn't really fit the rest of the narration, but instead it seems forced into the story to show at all costs that the character (or even the writer) is virtuous. In many different media (movies, books, also simlit), I also noticed examples of what I would call virtue signaling in dialogues that sound off with the situation, the epoch or the characters, or sometimes it's whole sub-plots that don't fit the rest of the story at all.
I also think that this kind of arguments are quite close to those about political correctness in media, or those about how diverse the characters cast needs to be, and many other arguments that are popular nowadays when commenting new movies, books etc... As the writer I find this extremely tricky to balance, because the sensitivity of people can be extremely different (for instance, the same movie/book etc... could be perceived as too diverse by some people in the audience, and too little for others).
Changing topic a bit, I also think that too virtuous characters can easily lead to the old Mary Sue/Gary Stu character trope, i.e. a character morally flawless and good at everything. Such characters are often boring to the audience because they are boring and hard to relate to, but on the other hand it's so hard to write flawed characters!
|
|
|
|
Post by luciusstorm on Nov 1, 2024 14:37:01 GMT
Caerfinon, OK, I can see that. It's a matter of presenting the appearance virtue with wicked intent. Of course, I think we're still left with an old, thorny philosophical question - is it intention or action that matters most. To put it to a specific example, I've seen the claim that the Sims 4 updates for pronoun selection and gender neural relationship terms are examples of 'virtue signaling.' They aren't reflective of a truly inclusive culture at EA, but rather are cosmetic change with the sole intent of increasing sales. However, I could argue that even if EA's intent is to increase sales, the act of including things like selectable pronouns and un-gendered language have an inherent virtue because it has an overall virtuous outcome even though EA's truly desired outcome is not itself virtuous. That leaving aside that we are drawing our own judgement on what EA's intent truly is. Probably not a big leap, corporate mentality being what it is... but the same can be true of individuals. If we claim a person is 'virtue signaling,' are we not saying that we know their true motive to be wicked. It seems to me it's not always so easy to know what's in another's heart.
|
|
|
|
Post by luciusstorm on Nov 1, 2024 14:45:58 GMT
HermioneSims, interesting point... though I might caution making judgements about historical accuracy of attitudes. Yes, there are certainly modern cultural themes that are jarring and probably anachronistic in, say, medieval historical fiction. However, there are other things that we moderns think are anachronistic but are actually more historically accurate and it is our modern assumptions that are actually anachronistic. Your mention of diversity is a terrific example. I've seen a lot of criticisms in recent years of historical dramas including people of color when 'everyone knows' there weren't people of color in, say, early medieval England. Except... there absolutely were people of color in early medieval England (and they weren't necessarily slaves either... one was a bishop). The irony being we may find ourselves criticizing something as historically inaccurate because the history and historical fiction we're used to actually reflects the imposition of later culture themes on ancient times.
|
|
|
|
Post by kelloggjkellogg on Nov 5, 2024 0:01:57 GMT
This is going back a few years but on the old forums there was someone (I can't remember their name but I do remember some of their posts) who really made a big point about EA and The Sims not being LGBT+ enough: That one openly out premade household was not enough, that a lot of trans options weren't available as a default and there weren't pronoun options as well. The counter argument was "it's your game so play it your way" but what this person wanted was something official, not user created and they were really adamant about it and, in my opinion, confrontational with those who disagreed. That one voice then became a vocal group and in the end EA made some changes in that direction. Companies want to make money and keep a good reputation so they often give way to a well organised and vocal lobby group but they then go and make a publicity statement saying how wonderful and inclusive they are when what they've done is what they consider good business, not necessarily good behaviour.
For me the classic virtue signal is flags or symbols in your social media bio that show how "good" you are but then don't do anything beyond putting a flag or a symbol in your social media bio. It's become a signifier of wanting to be liked and accepted by other people who've put the same symbols in their bios. Why virtue signalling is seen as a bad thing is that it's insincere. It's wanting the praise or acceptance with the minimal effort. I see that not as wicked but as selfish. People who are genuinely virtuous actually put themselves out for others, they're sincere and believe in what they're doing so that the symbol is the actual act, not an emoji.
|
|
|
|
Post by kelloggjkellogg on Nov 5, 2024 0:20:28 GMT
Specifically to storytelling, I think the main issue with virtue signaling is when it doesn't really fit the rest of the narration, but instead it seems forced into the story to show at all costs that the character (or even the writer) is virtuous. In many different media (movies, books, also simlit), I also noticed examples of what I would call virtue signaling in dialogues that sound off with the situation, the epoch or the characters, or sometimes it's whole sub-plots that don't fit the rest of the story at all. I also think that this kind of arguments are quite close to those about political correctness in media, or those about how diverse the characters cast needs to be, and many other arguments that are popular nowadays when commenting new movies, books etc... As the writer I find this extremely tricky to balance, because the sensitivity of people can be extremely different (for instance, the same movie/book etc... could be perceived as too diverse by some people in the audience, and too little for others). Changing topic a bit, I also think that too virtuous characters can easily lead to the old Mary Sue/Gary Stu character trope, i.e. a character morally flawless and good at everything. Such characters are often boring to the audience because they are boring and hard to relate to, but on the other hand it's so hard to write flawed characters! May my work never be edited by a "sensitivity reader". Back in the early days of my Simlit writing I considered putting a lot of trigger warnings on my story because everyone else seemed to be doing that but in the end I didn't do it, in fact I outright rejected the idea and instead just put "suitable for ages 12 and above". What level of "trigger" needs to be warned about? Extreme violence? Sex? Profanities? Hot button social commentary? I have no idea what people will be triggered by unless they tell me in advance and they rarely do so I just write my way. In one Sims Discord group I'm a member of a certain book/movie series cannot be mentioned and any Sims cc, CAS or story that references that series by name has to be hidden behind a button you have to click first before you can see it in a separate window. One member of the Discord apparently has a panic attack every time they see a Sim version of the series' characters so this button feature had to be introduced into the Discord group. This isn't a criticism of them but it makes it difficult for a content creator to know what's going to trigger a heightened emotional response and what is the best course of action to take? To be strong enough to just ignore the story and authors they hate? Or restructure the environment so that you never need to see it or be reminded of it? Where does artistic freedom end and group responsibility begin? |
|
