Artist Responsibilty

The last time this came up, it was caused by Twilight.

The 4 views presented back then:

1. Edward is a poster child for spousal abuse and extols the wrong values in a relationship.

2. It is the artist's responsibility to present the truth and consider all repercussions of their work.

3. Some of the responsibility of raising children is the parents, but society is too quick to let others off the hook.

4. It is unreasonable to expect an artist to be responsible for every possible reaction to their work.
(Which one do you think was me? lol)

This time it started over Tyler Perry. A friend on my personal facebook posted this article.

The basic premise is that Tyler Perry always portrays professional Black women in a bad light.

Of course the argument on facebook became whether or not he did portray them as such, whether or not that woman exists, how prevalent she is...

Only a tiny corner even considered the fact that it's entertainment.

Here's my (exasperated) point:

Why are artists supposed to accurately portray the world? If you want accurate accurate portrayals, watch documentaries and read memoirs. Fiction is about having a kernel of truth and telling a story in a way that people enjoy it.

As a YA writer, it comes up a lot, our responsibility to our audience.

There's a lot I could say to concerned parents. I could make the point that some teens need the books you want banned. I could make the point that some teens are doing the things you think are inappropriate in our books. Or that reading such books could give a teen the insight and strength to help a friend before it's too late. Or that we do take responsibility and we want to portray truth without sensationalisation when it comes to "issue books".

But I won't say any of that. I'll just let you in on a little secret.


If there are 10 people in this world who got through their teen years not doing a single thing that a good parent wouldn't be proud of, that's a lot. Teens will do the wrong thing regardless of how well they're raised. That's what being a teen is for: pushing boundaries, test-driving the new you.

All any of us, as parents, can do is to raise the kids the best we can and hope that teenage mistakes are small enough that they make it out alive.

As for the Tyler Perry melee, I'm reminded that the responsibility card is also often played in niche communities.

I'm from Barbados. Rihanna's from Barbados. Either the first or second time Rihanna came home after making Billboard, there was a picture of her in the paper. She was wearing a swimsuit (one-piece with a belly-out) and a pair of jeans. And people got up in arms about the skanty clothing and the image she was giving Barbados. (Funnily enough she was across the road from the beach. I think they should be happy she had on jeans!) Her costumes are skanty. But she's a pop star. That's how they roll on stage. Noone expects Lady Gaga to walk around her house in a meat dress. Or... er... well... Maybe Lady Gaga is a bad example. lol

Still, why must people take everything that artists do as a personal affront or an attempt to corrupt the world? We're just telling the stories we have inside. We want to entertain you. Many of us also want to educate you. Many of us want to tell you that you're not alone. Many of us want to help you find strength you didn't know you had. We want you to cry and laugh with us. Hate with us. Love with us. We want you to come away from our products feeling, "Wow!"

And then we want you to put our books down and remember there's a real world. Maybe, if we're lucky, something we wrote will affect you enough that you transcribe it into your lives. But we know you are not characters in our novels. We just wish you knew it.

Noone is forcing you to read our books. The same way that noone forces you to listen to hard rock lyrics about stringing up your girlfriend.

You asked for stories, we're just giving you stories.

French Kissing and region coding

Apologies to my followees and commenters for the last week. Between nanowrimo, work and sheer exhaustion, I've fallen behind on reading your blogs. I'm only up to Monday's blogs right now. Gomen ne. (Japanese for sorry. It's in the original Sailor Moon theme song. :) )

Born today:
Monica Seles
Britney Spears
Charles Ringling
Gianni Versace
Lucy Liu
Nelly Furtado

Stephanie Perkin's ANNA AND THE FRENCH KISS comes out today. Like now! Yay! I'm so psyched! Thanks again for hanging out with us last month, Steph.

It got me started thinking about region coding and other regional restrictions (ANNA is not available on Kindle in the US).

Let me just say, I HATE REGION CODING!!!

Let's think DVD's. Supposedly, the reason for region coding is to protect the movie studio. For example, Twilight was released in November in the US. It was released in April in Japan. So theoretically, the DVD might have been out in the US before the theatrical release here. And a region code is supposed to prevent Person A in America from sending a copy to Person B in Japan, or anywhere in the rest of the world.

This argument might make sense if DVD's didn't take a million years to come out.

And if the release dates for pretty much all of Europe and the English speaking Americas weren't generally within a month of one another.

And if 90% of the people in Japan who care about American movies weren't American ex-pats anyhow.

And if non-English speakin countries didn't need their versions to be subtitled.

I am super anti-piracy. I mean I am an artist. I haven't always wanted to be an artist; as a kid I wanted to be a scientist. (I know, right? Me, a scientist? How badly would that end? I probably would find the cure to cancer, and not be able to make it again because I winged it, and didn't record a thing.) But even so, my mother was a singer, and went on to manage a calypso tent (where artists came together to sing their calypsoes once a year) so I've always been surrounded by artists. And piracy is probably the issue I grew up feeling strongest about.

I wouldn't even touch pirated material. When all my friends had home-made mixed-tapes and DVD's, I was buying the real thing.

But, living in Japan, I find myself having to wait half a year for a release. Or, there not being a release at all. If there was a way to buy it here, I would. But as there's not, that movie company just lost out on my $9.99.

Region coding, like other restrictive procedures, only gets in the way of legit people. Because the people who never intended to go to the theatrical release aren't going to go anyway. They'll either find a bootleg online, or get a universal DVD player or a computer program to watch any region.

(PS, I will never understand why Japan is in one region, South Korea is in another, and China is in a third. It's not like they're next to one another or anything.)

Region coding has been around since the VHS/PAL days. You'd think they would have nixed it by now. Yet they incorporate it in every new incarnation of entertainment.

Like the Kindle.

Some Kindle editions are released only in the US. Some in the US and Caribbean regions. Some not in the US, but pretty much every where else.

It's a nuisance. Especially in a time where you have so many online companies, which will mail me the book anyway.

I understand the legal implications. But why is it we can manage 'free trade' and all sorts of other universal things, and not get away from region codes?

Once upon a time, people were born in a country and died in that country. Or immigrated once, at most.

But look at me. I've lived in 3 countries. And I'm 28. I'm not done yet.

Once upon a time I used to think that was abnormal. But there are 5,000 on my program in a similar position. And thousands others on other programs or in different jobs. In Japan alone.

Somebody needs to figure this out and get it together. Because movie companies, book companies/writers, etc may think that they're making money with these restrictions. But there are lots of cases where they lose. And that just might be happening more often than not.

How to Argue

(Rant warning)


Maybe you’ve picked it up by now, but in case you haven’t,one of my almost universally applicable life rules is this: to each his own.

Going by that rule, it bothers me a little when people try to impose their opinions on others. But I tolerate it, because, well, to each his own. If someone believes that it’s their job to convert everybody in sight, that’s their belief. As long as noone’s physically hurting anyone, not an issue.

BUT
There is something that drives me up a wall. I will pick you to shreds for a bad argument. Even if we’re on the same side. Probably more so, because a bad argument on my side, will actually drive people away.

Last week, there was an article at Salon on why you shouldn’t do nano. I'd like to say thanks to the writer for providing such a fab text for today's lesson :)

Without further ado, let’s learn how to argue.

1. Do not present your opinion as a source of fact.

One of the writer’s arguments is that only one worthwhile book has come out of nanowrimo. Poking around the publishing industry blogosphere, I’ve heard several authors say they started in nano. Stephanie Perkins (check out her interview here on Thursday) wrote Anna and the French Kiss, to be released next month, through nano. And arguably, that book has not yet been released. But what of all the other authors who have release nano books? The writer is saying to them: “Your book is worth nothing. Ignore the agent that signed you. Ignore the publishing house that took that gamble. Ignore your sales figures.”

What an insult!

2. Be careful how you label .

The writer of the article (WOA), who admits that she is a reader but has never been a writer, claims that, “Writing a lot of crap is not fruitful.”

Dear WOA, are you saying that only life’s successes have value? If you make the Olympics, but you don’t get gold, this is not a step in the right direction? This is a failure?

3. Avoid the temptation to include irrelevant facts.

WOA says there are too many novels in the world. I agree. I’ve read 40 books in the second half of the year. And my TBR seems to be growing. Because there are a lot of bad books. But there are also a lot of GOOD books.

Should we give authors a limit as to how many books they can write? I know several people would be knocking on WOA’s door when their fave author’s quota ran out.

Can we universally refuse all new books because there are a lot already written? Could you imagine if, in addition to the rejections she racked up, the publishing industry had just told J.K. Rowling, “I’m sorry. We won’t even look at your synopsis. There are too many books in the world.”

4. Avoid sensationalism.

WOA talks about the “narcissistic commerce of writing,” claiming that there’s more money to be made off wannabe authors than readers.

Maybe wannabe writers spend more per person. But I would have difficulty believing that there’s more money made in writing books than in all the Harry Potters, all the Twilights, all the Stephen Kings, all the Danielle Steeles, all the Nicholas Sparks, etc.

5. If there’s blame to be assigned, please put it in the right place.

WOA admits early on, that the nano site advises you to revise, but then goes on to damn nanowrimo because some people don’t.

6. Don’t ignore important factors

Nowhere does WOA mention the large nano population who do this just for fun. The guys who write 200,000 fan fics every year, that they have no intention of showing to anyone but their friends.

7. Play fair

If you write an article about doing or not doing nano, I assume your audience is writers. So pointing out, in a condescending manner, that hardly anyone will read an author’s book will probably just piss them off.

Also, this gem: “NaNoWriMo is an event geared entirely toward writers, which means it's largely unnecessary.”

Erm?

Woosah. Deep breaths, Claire.

8. Don’t presume you can speak for groups you’re not a part of.

WOA points out that agents grumble about their inflated inboxes in December. I know they do. But obviously, weighing the possibility of finding WATER FOR ELEPHANTS in their inbox, versus, the usual first draft nano, it’s clearly worth it. Because if it wasn’t, agents would just close their inboxes in December and January.

9. Don’t presume to speak about fields you don’t know.

WOA dismisses nano, saying that any book that you write during nano, you could write otherwise. WOA has never written a book. She has no idea how hard 50,000 words are. How around 10,000 you start thinking you’re crazy. How that other idea you have halfway through makes it seem like you should desert this one. How you’ve been starting novels for 11 years, and have never finished one.

10. Think before you complain

WOA complains that authors are persistent, sometimes even in the face of everyone telling them they suck.

She’s right. And she’d better be glad about it.

When Stephen King first wrote Carrie, he threw it in the trash. His wife saved it, and now that last scene is one of the best known scenes in movie history. The list of authors with stacks of rejection slips is endless. If authors weren’t persistent, all your reading material would come from the 19th century and before.

11. Don’t transpose arguments

The original point of the article was not to do nanowrimo. Somewhere along the way it turned into “this is why writers suck.” I don’t know how it happened or why. But this always weakens an argument.

12. Be careful using some to represent all.
Occasionally at dinner parties, someone would say that they’re aiming to be a writer. To which WOA would ask, “what do you read?” and the person would be all, “I don’t have time to read. I’m busy writing.”

First, let me point out, that there are times when you don’t have time for anything but the writing. Like right now, during nano . (Although I am reading a craft book, but I don’t count because I’m so easily distracted.) That does not mean I don’t usually read. I read 10 books in June. 10 more in July. 10 more in August. And 10 more in September. And if it weren’t for my job’s blatant attempts to take my life in October, it would probably be just like that too.

Even if these people that she talks to, never have time to read, they are the few. Check out the Bookanistas- they’re all writers, and they all read and post reviews almost every week.

13. Don’t make a competition where there’s none.
WOA asks that we celebrate readers. She gives two examples who read 10 books from January to October. While I appreciate this is way above the American average of 1 a year, 10 doesn’t thrill me either, probably because I do that in a month. And tons of my friends on the blogosphere have surpassed that too.

But that’s not even the point. How does celebrating writers stop us from celebrating readers?

14. Let your points lead to your conclusions. (logic)

Readers are awesome. Ignore the writers.

Excuse me if I fail to see how readers can be awesome if writers aren’t. Maybe writers are just shovelling the poop. But it’s the readers who like frolicking in it.

Here are just some of the ways you can make your arguments better. Are there any techniques people use in arguments that bother you?

That's so gay!

RANT WARNING!

So I just read on the Contemps about a big furor over Vince Vaughn saying "That's so gay," in some movie. (Disclaimer: I lovesies the Contemps, and this is nothing personal against them or the poster. Just my views. As always.)

I personally don't have a problem with calling something so gay. Or so retarded. Or so ghetto. Or so whatever you can think of. But as people keep pointing out, I tend to be in the minority when it comes to dealing with other people. Personal tendencies aside, here are some arguments for why I would leave a line like that in a book or movie.

1. They are just words.

This is why it doesn't bother me. They could just as easily make up a random word and insert it into the sentence. I've only ever heard "That's so..." phrases being used in a light context. Jocular. It's very different to saying someone is gay in a negative way. And pretty often you find that the sort of people who use these expressions are just regular people who have nothing against gays, or differently ableds or ghetto people.

It's like the difference between a group of black people referring to their friends as "my ni**as" and someone spraypainting NI**A on my front porch.

2. It's true.

I don't mean that whatever Vince Vaughn was talking about was gay. I don't even know what he was talkign about. I mean that it's a true respresentation of life. When I hear these arguments about not including x or y in media, I ask myself this question. How much is the media supposed to influence real life, and how much is it supposed to reflect it?

3. It's true (part 2).

Like I said I don't know what Vince Vaughn was talking about. But let me tell you a little secret about stereotypes: they are very often based on truth.

Quick example:
A man sees a man in a hot pink pants, and exclaims, "That's so gay!"
We survey 10 men who've worn hot pink pants and 9 are gay. Therefore we can deduce, that for a man, wearing a hot pink pants is "so gay."
(Seriously ask your male friends, and let me know how many have left home in hot pink pants. Please don't do this with Japanese guys, rappers or pimps. Your results will be seriously screwed.)

And I'm not going to pretend that there aren't negative undertones with the association of certain things and "that's so gay!" But really what's wrong with a straight man thinking that being perceived as gay was negative? A proud gay person doesn't like being taken for straight either.

4. You still have to smell the daisies.

I read an email about ten years ago, which may or may not have been true, about Bill Gates on a school visit. The details are sketchy, but here's the gist: he said that all the coddling in school was going to make it harder for kids when they graduated.

Let's take "No Child Left Behind." (If you're not American, that's an education program which basically slows a whole class down to the progress of the slowest children. That's an oversimplification, but for my purposes it will do.) So these kids, they go through school with nothing being too much harder than what they can handle. And then they get out into the real world, and it hits them for a home run. Life is not waiting on them. They get thrown in the deep end. And they have to figure that out quick. Or get left behind.

Painting an inaccurate picture can only make it harder when the time comes to face reality.

5. Omission can actually be a negative.

Enter imaginary teen who's struggling with being gay, but afraid to tell his friends:

"I am so unhappy. I wish I could talk to someone. But my friends would never accept me. I cringe every time they say "that's so gay." I could never tell them who I am. Even the people in movies and books never say stuff that cruel. Hello ledge. JUMP."

Don't believe it could happen? Go talk to the 13 year old anorexic who's got a picture of a size 4 Photoshopped model on her wall.



What do you think?
Should books and movies tell the whole truth? Or only the pretty parts?
Should we protect the children from everything regardless of their age? Or should we teach them according to their age? Or should we just through it all it them, good or bad, sink or swim?

P.S. I am normally a very openminded person. But I've had it up to here (my eyebrows) with people going on and on about leaving things out of the entertainment media. It makes me want to scream! Stop worrying about changing the media, and start working on changing THE REAL DAMN WORLD! Excuse my French.