Who's stopping you writing whatever you want?
It's as if there's a fear that a few extreme identity politics academics will be able to introduce new international laws that determine what you're allowed to write.
I wouldn't underestimate the efforts of impassioned people fighting for a cause they believe to be right. The extremes are never taken seriously until they happen. Nobody believed Hitler's hate-demagogy would bring genocide and concentration camps. Everybody thought the US was untouchable until 9/11. More recently, nobody thought governments would censor internet in the West, and then Spain did. Nobody saw Trump as a serious threat, and gosh, would you look at him now. These things happen, and although I wouldn't go as far as to fear international laws banning writers from taboo subjects, I definitely can see how protests of this sort could unravel and, even in an unofficial capacity, inhibit writers as it permeates into the masses' perceptions. Political correctness can become very heavy shackles (and oft-times invisible) for some artists, and I would find that unfair, even if that's as far as the threat goes.
Is it a fear that agents and publishers will take on these new "rules" and apply them strictly? Or is it a fear of attacks by a Twitter mob? (Are any of us really expecting to get so well-known that the latter will be a consideration?) Or that it will turn the book-buying public as a whole into a bunch of hyper-critical political correctness activists? I really don't think that's a danger.
I never mentioned laws or economical repercussions to writers; that wasn't the point of my argument, as I wasn't talking about external consequences, legal or economic. I was talking about the art and the artist, and how the process itself is the one being attacked. Any obstacle to writing a fictional story is a problem for me, be it legal or otherwise, forced, real, or imagined. I believe these protests, empty or not, plant apprehension in writers, and this might not be obvious at first, but social undercurrents can end up moulding the art itself in the long term (which is how it usually happens), but in this case it'd be for the worst.
The danger is much more subtle. Cultural appropriation is just a stepping stone towards more dangerous demands/protests, and it's naive to think otherwise. It won't stop there. These things rarely stop there, if left unchecked. They must go through the motions to come to their logical conclusion, which can go either way depending on who's involved. For example, I wouldn't consider it too far-fetched to start having some publishing houses turn down a few books based on this Appropriation business. That is well within the realm of possibility, IMO. And that's how it starts. Not that it will, but leaving that window open bugs me all the same.
Fact. People from that culture may be offended by what you have written. Perhaps you did not research properly, perhaps you didn't try or care. Perhaps you wanted to offend them. This does not impact your rights to write whatever you like.
My point exactly, but I would change "does not impact" with "should not impact"
.
Opinion. That people being offended is oppressing your creativity.
It most certainly can if said people speak out. If tomorrow all your acquaintances become of the wholehearted opinion that writing about homeless people is unforgivable and tell you about it, I guarantee you will think thrice before putting pen to paper on the subject. People's opinions shape everyone to some degree, and not always in obvious ways. This is a fact, unless you're a robotic sociopath living on a deserted island.
Fact. People being offended is simply them voicing an opinion. This is free speech. Unless they actively try to ban your work or prevent its distribution THEY ARE NOT RESTRICTING YOUR CREATIVITY. Even if they try, they may not succeed.
What others say can limit you, as I said above. And even if it's only a minor threat, one can be apprehensive of certain opinions at the very least--specially ones that could naturally be followed with legal action and become a real threat (and I'm not referring to this JK case in particular, which I find silly. More severe discontent could come up with any number of works on any number of more serious subjects: not myths, but racism, sexism, nationalism, immigration, war, politics, etc.)
Opinion. If you don't care about trying to represent other cultures and groups fairly, stop whining when somebody who knows about the culture in question better than you tells you that you have done a poor job of it.
That I agree with. But the protesters didn't stop there, which is what irks me. They didn't simply trash JK--and in my other comment I made it clear that would've been 100% justifiable. They went a step further (as I mentioned before, these things always escalate unless stomped out) and Cultural Appropriation was mentioned (I will admit I'm not clear on who mentioned it--protesters might be innocent of this and some news outlet could be the one to blame), a concept that can be generalized to any work and any writer, a concept that can creep up on you, one that can be taken to court if people feel the offence merits it. They attacked part of the process. And that's what I'm against.
I guess great part of the underlying conflict in this discussion comes from having freedom of speech devour itself. The real connundrum is: which side of the argument should you take when freedom of speech argues in favour of censoring freedom of speech?
PS: I'm not being a sensationalist scaremonger. I'm trying to be a realist. I think these opinions, despite being in infant stages, can swell up to become more than just a nuisance. It's a very real possibility, and I find this undeniable enough to write a big post about it.
