Tag Archives: censorship

Gallery

Leave a comment

Oh my gosh, well… I waited 6 hours, but there was no further message, so I’m just going to answer now.

“I don’t know how to feel about Anne…”

Respectfully, I’m not going to tell you how to feel about Anne Rice. I must regretfully decline.

image

I know how I feel about her: that she has given us a wonderful gift and that she has committed no actual crime for which she would deserve to be boycotted. We can poke fun at her, at her books, we can critique them, bc she has set herself and her works for public review. We can feel distrustful for her past behavior towards the fandom and distrustful of her handling of her own characters. Those are all within our rights as a critical public.

I always recommend that people read the books and draw their own conclusions about them on their own merits. It’s part of what makes fandom great, that we can agree on some things, disagree on others, and have lively discussions about it all.

What I will tell you is that you don’t have to like Anne Rice to read her stories. To my knowledge, she has not committed ANY REAL LIFE ACTUAL CRIMES. People boycott actual criminals bc we do not want to financially or morally support them. IMO, Anne Rice should NOT be lumped in with REAL LIFE ACTUAL CRIMINALS.

image

It is not a crime that she waged war on fanfic. It was incredibly painful and it shattered the fandom, and drove us all underground for years ;A; But she was within her legal rights. Keep in mind that fandom was not really socially acceptable or understood like it is today, authors understand now that fanworks are types of fan engagement with canon and each other. She seems to understand that now, or if not, she at least ignores fanfic.

It is not a crime that she waged war on reviewers. Also painful and oppressive at the time, AR used to be very offended by critical or negative reviews of her books, and would sic her People of the Page on reviewers. Again, she now seems to understand that people are within their rights to critique her work and she can ignore them.

What she writes is not an actual crime. She has problematic elements and explores taboo subjects in her writing, refuses any editor’s advice, refuses anyone’s idea of what she should write. That’s her prerogative as a ‘music maker,’ as a ‘dreamer of dreams’ (<– like Willy Wonka!). To argue that any of her writing is a crime is, to me, a form of censorship, and I do not believe in censorship of fiction.

^^^^None of these are Real Life actual crimes. Personally, I may not accept all of her writing as canon, and I may poke fun at it, too, that’s my prerogative as a reader.

The idea that all art should be entirely unproblematic all the time…kills art. Like, I really don’t think we as readers have some all-solemn duty to constantly make sure we’re only having the ~right~ kind of fun.

But that’s just my opinion. You’ll have to draw your own conclusions and decide whether you want to financially/morally support Anne Rice by buying/reading her books, or not.

Leave a comment

fursasaida:

joehillsthrills:

This is one of the best things I read all week.

Digital card created by Voodoo Darling.

YES. Also: ”The function of fiction is being lost in the conversation on violence. My book editor, Sean McDonald, thinks of it as “radical empathy.” Fiction, like any other form of art, is there to consider aspects of the real world in the ways that simple objective views can’t — from the inside. We cannot Other characters when we are seeing the world from the inside of their skulls. This is the great success of Thomas Harris’s Hannibal Lecter, both in print and as so richly embodied by Mads Mikkelsen in the Hannibal television series: For every three scary, strange things we discover about him, there is one thing that we can relate to. The Other is revealed as a damaged or alienated human, and we learn something about the roots of violence and the traps of horror.”

RADICAL EMPATHY, WHAT A GOOD

Source: joehillsthrills

Fandom Policing

Leave a comment

hoursgoneby:

pheuthe:

ozhawkauthor:

spiderladyceo:

I really, really hate fandom policing. I hated it when I was twelve and was so afraid to read slash because OMG DICKS TOUCHING WHAT and I hated it when I was fifteen and was smuggling the yaois under my mattress so I would always have a supply of top notch garbage to read, and I am 24 and I hate it now.

Here is the thing: YOU CONTROL what you take in. I am not responsible for your consumption of Hydra Trash party noncon, I am not responsible for your consumption of pegging smut, and I am not responsible for your consumption of fluffy sickfic. I am not responsible for you consuming anything. 

I might be responsible for writing that noncon or pegging or sickfic, but I did not make you read it. I did not hand it to you, I did not give it to you. I created it, and made it available for those who want to enjoy.

If you don’t like it, if you don’t want it, then you don’t have to read it. 

That choice made, the choice not to consume a type of fic or art, also means you don’t get to drag the person who wrote it. 

That is a damn slippery slope. 

Fandom is a “safe space” but not in the way that it protects you from things that you don’t want to see or don’t like or are offended by. Fandom is, and has traditionally been, a space for people to create and explore with out being told “no” by outside media. Fandom is where you can find out if you don’t fit in the boxes society tells you to, or it you just really, really like reading about Bucky getting repeatedly rammed in the ass by Hydra agents sans lube. 

And no matter how well-meaning you are, you don’t get to tell other fans what they can and cannot write, or draw, or enjoy. 

When you start telling people what they can create or enjoy, you invalidate the purpose of fandom, and create a situation where instead of free exploration, we have something similar to mainstream media in which certain tropes or topics are not allowed. This limits the free expression, exploration and innovation so highly prized in fandom.

Maybe what they draw is illegal in five states, and highly restricted in several countries. Maybe it’s offensive, maybe it’s inaccurate, or just plain bad.

It doesn’t matter. 

You don’t get to tell fans how to enjoy fandom. You mind your own path, your write your own fic, you write meta on why x trope is offensive/problematic/bad but you do not tell other fans how to enjoy fandom.

“Fandom is a “safe space” but not in the way that it protects you from things that you don’t want to see or don’t like or are offended by. Fandom is, and has traditionally been, a space for people to create and explore with out being told “no” by outside media.”  

THIS!!! THIS is the TRUE definition of fandom as a ‘safe space’. It is a ‘safe space’ for creators.

“You do not tell other fans how to enjoy fandom.”

This needs 99,999,999 notes.

There comes a point where you, not your teachers and not your parents or guardians, are responsible for what media you consume. It’s not for others to censor themselves to protect you from what you don’t want. Heed warnings. If something doesn’t have warnings, either don’t read/watch/listen to it or search out reviews that will tell you if it’s something you would be OK reading/watching/listening to. Descending on a creator or creators and demanding they not create something or shaming them for doing so because you don’t approve is censorship and furthermore, it’s hubris of the highest order.

Mater Fabuloso, help! I’m reading totbt for the first time and I’m so disappointed in Lestat. How do I get my higher opinion of him back? :(

Leave a comment

You’re going to be disappointed in Lestat. He does some terrible, awful, things in TOBT. He’s done some terrible, awful things before it, and will do terrible, awful things after.

image

He’s not a #perfect cinnamon roll too good for this world. FAR FROM IT. He’s a little shit a lot of the time. There’s no way I can wave a magic wand and raise anyone’s opinion of him.

Pretty sure that ALL the VC characters are problematic in some regard. In fact, message me the characters with a list of their offensiveness. I would really like to compile a list.

What I CAN give you: If you’re disappointed in a character, does that mean it’s because you had a higher opinion of him before? Did you care about him before? Wanted to read his story? See more of him in canon?

Is it because you can see that he’s an evolving character, and though he has done bad things, he is capable of change? We don’t change overnight. People can continue to do bad things on their journey, failing bc of weakness or in an attempt to do the right thing.

With Lestat, you can rest assured that he wants to be good, but like an alcoholic, he falls off the “good” wagon. Repeatedly. It’s in his persistence in climbing back on again and again that should be considered when you’re formulating your opinion of him. If you can’t handle the failures, close the book. Unfollow his story. No one is forcing you to take the ride with him.

I think a crucial part of doing the right thing is having a better understanding of the wrong thing, a lot of Lestat’s failure comes from his inner turmoil. Even before he was turned into a monster, we can all agree that he had issues, to put it lightly.

I found this great essay by Warren Ellis. It might help you. Here’s a taste, with my emphasis added in bold:

“… Fiction is how we both study and de-fang our monsters. To lock violent fiction away, or to close our eyes to it, is to give our monsters and our fears undeserved power and richer hunting grounds.“

(a bit more under the cut)

“I don’t understand.” How many times have you read that in conjunction with a violent act?

“I don’t understand why he did it.” Or “I don’t understand why this happened.” Sammy Yatim, shot dead and then tasered by police on a Toronto streetcar, and even the chair of the Police Services Board asks, “How could this happen?”

….Here in Britain, our weakling government is attempting to launch a web filter that would somehow erase “violent material” from Internet provision — placing it, by association, in the same category as child pornography. Every week seems to bring a new attempt to ban something or other because it’s uncomfortably or scary or perhaps even indefensibly disgusting.

 ….we generally demonize violent acts and violent work. We make them Other, and we just distance ourselves. They are Other, and they didn’t come from us, and we’re just going to stand over there and shake our heads sadly. And, moreover, anyone who gets closer to it in order to experience or understand it must be a freak.

…The function of fiction is being lost in the conversation on violence. My book editor, Sean McDonald, thinks of it as “radical empathy.” Fiction, like any other form of art, is there to consider aspects of the real world in the ways that simple objective views can’t — from the inside. We cannot Other characters when we are seeing the world from the inside of their skulls. This is the great success of Thomas Harris’s Hannibal Lecter, both in print and as so richly embodied by Mads Mikkelsen in the Hannibal television series: For every three scary, strange things we discover about him, there is one thing that we can relate to. The Other is revealed as a damaged or alienated human, and we learn something about the roots of violence and the traps of horror.

… Fiction is how we both study and de-fang our monsters. To lock violent fiction away, or to close our eyes to it, is to give our monsters and our fears undeserved power and richer hunting grounds.”

on censorship and sensitivity

Leave a comment

akairiot:

There’s a certain attitude that scares the shit out of me – let’s call it destructive sensitivity.  It’s the philosophy that, if an idea is uncomfortable, it needs to go away.  If an image upsets you, or reminds you of a bad experience you had, then not only should you not have to look at it, no one should be allowed to look at it.  And if you can’t eradicate it completely, it should at least be buried so deep that a casual viewer would never stumble upon it.  This kind of censorship is nothing new, but I feel like it’s becoming more and more common.  So, why do I think it’s a problem?

FICTION

An important question we need to ask ourselves first is, what is the purpose of media, and particularly of fiction?  Why do we read, why do we look at artwork, why do we watch movies?  To only see happy things?  As escapism?  That’s certainly a valid interpretation, but it’s not the only one.

For the artist or creator, fiction can be a way to communicate the inner self to the outer world, through the use of symbols.  It’s a means of expression.  What they express might be deep, might be simple, might be beautiful or disgusting, might be for a niche audience or the whole world, but in the end, it is the artist taking pieces of their own experience and creating something new.  

For the viewer, fiction is a way to understand things that are outside their experience, and a way to expand their experience safely.  Fiction allows us to go places and do things that we can’t or wouldn’t in our own lives, without risk, without physical harm, and without causing harm to others.  Fiction can teach us what we fear, what we love, what we’re missing.  It can show us how others live, how others see us, how we see ourselves, and we’re free to engage with it as shallowly or as deeply as we want.

But fiction is not equal to reality. Watching Friday the 13th doesn’t make you a murderer, and it doesn’t kill you.  Reading Lolita doesn’t make you a pedophile.  Writing a story where a character is raped is not the same as committing rape, and reading that story is not the same as being raped.  Thought is not crime.

CENSORSHIP

Censorship is a way to force your interpretation of material on others, to reduce or destroy another’s experience by prejudging it as harmful to them.  But part of becoming a well-rounded human being is accepting that not everyone has the same sensibilities, and not every experience needs to be positive.  

What you find offensive, some might find enjoyable.  What you find traumatic, some might see as an exercise in empathy, or a means of catharsis.  Sad songs can be beautiful.  Horror stories can be fun.  When you decide to silence the things you don’t like, you’re cutting off others from that same experience. You’re making decisions for others, and you’re essentially saying that your feelings (and the feelings of people who agree with you) are more valid than anyone else’s.  I find this darkly ironic, because the audience that holds these particular sensitivities also tends to be the first to champion acceptance and non-traditional viewpoints, while organizing witch hunts for those they feel disrespect them.

So, why is this important to me?  Why does it scare me?  Well, as an artist, the complaint of one sensitive viewer can erase my work in an instant.  When complaints are made, content is removed first and questions are asked later.  Artists are guilty by default, and viewers are treated as victims.  No content host wants to be the one to stand up for freedom of expression at the risk of being seen as supporting offensive material.  Most alarming of all, this is all seen as totally acceptable, or even justified.  When an artist’s work is taken down, I see comments like, “Well, that’s the risk you take when you post stuff like that.  Can’t be helped.”  Even the people who disagree with censorship just shrug their shoulders.

SENSITIVITY

To those who are sensitive, I’m not trying to say, “just get over it”.  Emotional hurt is real, traumatic experiences are real.  I would never belittle someone else’s pain.  But you have to realize as well that your experience is not the be-all, end-all of the world.  Not all content is made with you in mind.  It is inevitable, if we want to exist in a world with other people in it, that we’ll be exposed to things we don’t enjoy.  The answer is not to destroy or degrade those things, but to try to understand them – and if that fails, at the very least, we can allow them to exist on equal terms.  It is that frightening desire to homogenize the world, to eliminate that which we fail to understand or which causes us emotional distress, that can lead as to real prejudice, to real violence and real crime.  Please understand that allowing content you dislike to exist is not the same as advocating it.  

THE ANSWER

What I would love to see is a perspective shift.  I want to see a world where responsibility is on the viewer, not the creator or the content host.  If you have a problem with something, it’s up to you to not see it, not for the artist to hide it for you, or add unavoidable warnings that prejudge a work.  I want a world where, rather than censorship by default, censorship is a conscious choice for those who want it.  No work is hidden until a user hides it themselves.  Artists are not punished for merely posting content that some find offensive, only for not tagging it correctly.  Freedom of expression and variety of content is seen as more important than protecting viewers from fiction, from discomfort, from viewpoints that don’t mesh with their own.

Accept others.  Take responsibility for yourself (and only yourself).  Understand that not all content is meant for you.  Understand that fiction is not crime, and fiction does not equate to real-world harm.  That’s all I’m asking.

(please don’t let this become a shitstorm… TT _ TT)

on censorship and sensitivity

Leave a comment

akairiot:

There’s a certain attitude that scares the shit out of me – let’s call it destructive sensitivity.  It’s the philosophy that, if an idea is uncomfortable, it needs to go away.  If an image upsets you, or reminds you of a bad experience you had, then not only should you not have to look at it, no one should be allowed to look at it.  And if you can’t eradicate it completely, it should at least be buried so deep that a casual viewer would never stumble upon it.  This kind of censorship is nothing new, but I feel like it’s becoming more and more common.  So, why do I think it’s a problem?

FICTION

An important question we need to ask ourselves first is, what is the purpose of media, and particularly of fiction?  Why do we read, why do we look at artwork, why do we watch movies?  To only see happy things?  As escapism?  That’s certainly a valid interpretation, but it’s not the only one.

For the artist or creator, fiction can be a way to communicate the inner self to the outer world, through the use of symbols.  It’s a means of expression.  What they express might be deep, might be simple, might be beautiful or disgusting, might be for a niche audience or the whole world, but in the end, it is the artist taking pieces of their own experience and creating something new.  

For the viewer, fiction is a way to understand things that are outside their experience, and a way to expand their experience safely.  Fiction allows us to go places and do things that we can’t or wouldn’t in our own lives, without risk, without physical harm, and without causing harm to others.  Fiction can teach us what we fear, what we love, what we’re missing.  It can show us how others live, how others see us, how we see ourselves, and we’re free to engage with it as shallowly or as deeply as we want.

But fiction is not equal to reality. Watching Friday the 13th doesn’t make you a murderer, and it doesn’t kill you.  Reading Lolita doesn’t make you a pedophile.  Writing a story where a character is raped is not the same as committing rape, and reading that story is not the same as being raped.  Thought is not crime.

CENSORSHIP

Censorship is a way to force your interpretation of material on others, to reduce or destroy another’s experience by prejudging it as harmful to them.  But part of becoming a well-rounded human being is accepting that not everyone has the same sensibilities, and not every experience needs to be positive.  

What you find offensive, some might find enjoyable.  What you find traumatic, some might see as an exercise in empathy, or a means of catharsis.  Sad songs can be beautiful.  Horror stories can be fun.  When you decide to silence the things you don’t like, you’re cutting off others from that same experience. You’re making decisions for others, and you’re essentially saying that your feelings (and the feelings of people who agree with you) are more valid than anyone else’s.  I find this darkly ironic, because the audience that holds these particular sensitivities also tends to be the first to champion acceptance and non-traditional viewpoints, while organizing witch hunts for those they feel disrespect them.

So, why is this important to me?  Why does it scare me?  Well, as an artist, the complaint of one sensitive viewer can erase my work in an instant.  When complaints are made, content is removed first and questions are asked later.  Artists are guilty by default, and viewers are treated as victims.  No content host wants to be the one to stand up for freedom of expression at the risk of being seen as supporting offensive material.  Most alarming of all, this is all seen as totally acceptable, or even justified.  When an artist’s work is taken down, I see comments like, “Well, that’s the risk you take when you post stuff like that.  Can’t be helped.”  Even the people who disagree with censorship just shrug their shoulders.

SENSITIVITY

To those who are sensitive, I’m not trying to say, “just get over it”.  Emotional hurt is real, traumatic experiences are real.  I would never belittle someone else’s pain.  But you have to realize as well that your experience is not the be-all, end-all of the world.  Not all content is made with you in mind.  It is inevitable, if we want to exist in a world with other people in it, that we’ll be exposed to things we don’t enjoy.  The answer is not to destroy or degrade those things, but to try to understand them – and if that fails, at the very least, we can allow them to exist on equal terms.  It is that frightening desire to homogenize the world, to eliminate that which we fail to understand or which causes us emotional distress, that can lead as to real prejudice, to real violence and real crime.  Please understand that allowing content you dislike to exist is not the same as advocating it.  

THE ANSWER

What I would love to see is a perspective shift.  I want to see a world where responsibility is on the viewer, not the creator or the content host.  If you have a problem with something, it’s up to you to not see it, not for the artist to hide it for you, or add unavoidable warnings that prejudge a work.  I want a world where, rather than censorship by default, censorship is a conscious choice for those who want it.  No work is hidden until a user hides it themselves.  Artists are not punished for merely posting content that some find offensive, only for not tagging it correctly.  Freedom of expression and variety of content is seen as more important than protecting viewers from fiction, from discomfort, from viewpoints that don’t mesh with their own.

Accept others.  Take responsibility for yourself (and only yourself).  Understand that not all content is meant for you.  Understand that fiction is not crime, and fiction does not equate to real-world harm.  That’s all I’m asking.

(please don’t let this become a shitstorm… TT _ TT)

Leave a comment

viktorry said:​

OH MY GOD IM SO GLAD I DECIDED TO READ VC IN ENGLISH!!!
the reason for censorship is that poland is very religious and homophobic and everythingphobic (hello, SLOVIAN 2ND WORLD COUNTRY, even feminism is considered “the american agenda to destroy our traditions”), its getting slightly better but back then when translation was taking place it was even worse. plus, polish translators are shit in the first place.
the first thing ill do as a translator will be ACCURATELY translating vc.

*Salutes* GOOD. Glad someone is taking up the cause to correct this egregious censorship! The Polish faction of the VC Fandom deserves UNABRIDGED CANON.

image