Do you worry about Political Correctness ...

Political Correctness has been taken too far lately and been dragged almost into the absurd.

However, me as a writer and as a relatively normal person, I try to be kind and polite and decent and respectful to all humans and most animals. (I still don't think spiders are supposed to come into my house just because it's warm and dry and cozy.)

My characters however are sometimes rude, sometimes ignorant and sometimes downright asshats.
I think I usually try and show that it's negative though.

And I try not to put a character into a situation just because they are black, a woman, gay, thin, fat, blonde, ginger or something else.

I've never heard a definition of 'political correctness' coherent enough to be useful. It used to mean something like 'excessive sensitivity (on behalf of others) to non-inclusive language'. Now the term just seems to be raised in objection to any criticism of insensitivity, commonly by people who also start sentences with 'I'm not a racist, but ....'

In fact, I'm not sure PC actually exists in the fashion people like to imagine. There's no organised PC movement. There sure isn't a PC police out there, if that's what you're worried about. Noone's going to stop you writing whatever sort of minority characters you want. If you do a shitty, offensive job, though, people will happily call you out for it. And if that's PC, then long may PC triumph.

quicklime said:

to be fair, the bolded has also become a sort of straw-man cause celibre for folks who feel hampered by the fact "nigger an' faggit jokes" are no longer fashionable.

to some the idea you have some rudimentary responsibility not to be hurtful as fuck with your words is an undue and tragically newfangled burden, so the term gets thrown around a lot by folks who really have an issue with the idea that maybe we shouldn't call a girl a slut, or a hispanic guy a spic, or whatever else....


Which is why I tend to have a near-instinctive aversion to folks who bash political correctness as censorship and thought control. Run off the rails it can be, but it's rarely as bad as folks like to pretend it is in the quest for pity-points

Click to expand...

All true.

And yet...

I'm hispanic. Some of my friends in school called me spic. I called them honky. They bought me a sombrero. I bought them pliers to pull the rods out of...

Well... we joked and kidded and gave as good as we got. I think it was the adults who "taught" us that there was a hate to it that we'd never felt up to that point.

Sensitivity is fine. Fighting hatred is fine. It's just not *always* hatred.

Jhaewyrmend said:

I almost feel like this is one of those landmine questions that going to explode the minute you walk within five feet of it, but I really don't intend it to be. I just really want to honestly know if you as a writer take the 'feelings' of any group into consideration when you create a character in your world that's actually a part of a very real world (namely ours)?

Click to expand...

I don't give it a single thought. All that matters to me is being honest about who the people are in the story. I could not care less what this or that group thinks about it. People are entirely too thin-skinned these days, anyway.

(ETA: I should say that I write fantasy, so I'm not dealing with any known ethnic group, but even if I were, the same would apply. I would write what I believe is true and credible for the character, in the context of the story.)

robjvargas said:

All true.

And yet...

I'm hispanic. Some of my friends in school called me spic. I called them honky. They bought me a sombrero. I bought them pliers to pull the rods out of...

Well... we joked and kidded and gave as good as we got. I think it was the adults who "taught" us that there was a hate to it that we'd never felt up to that point.

Sensitivity is fine. Fighting hatred is fine. It's just not *always* hatred.

Click to expand...

true, and that tends to be closer to how I behave, at least at times, with my own friends. without a doubt some political correctness does get run off the rails.

but it has been my general experience that far too many of those who rail against the notion of political correctness are the ones who are a drink away from explaining how "the blacks blew Ferguson way out of proportion" and "women will deserve equal pay when they don't call in sick all the time and do half the work" and a host of other gems of callous ignorance

THAT'S where I have trouble with the whole "Political Correctness is the Devil, Bobby Boucher!" mantra

quicklime said:

to be fair, the bolded has also become a sort of straw-man cause celibre for folks who feel hampered by the fact "nigger an' faggit jokes" are no longer fashionable.

to some the idea you have some rudimentary responsibility not to be hurtful as fuck with your words is an undue and tragically newfangled burden, so the term gets thrown around a lot by folks who really have an issue with the idea that maybe we shouldn't call a girl a slut, or a hispanic guy a spic, or whatever else....

Which is why I tend to have a near-instinctive aversion to folks who bash political correctness as censorship and thought control. Run off the rails it can be, but it's rarely as bad as folks like to pretend it is in the quest for pity-points

Click to expand...

QFT. Complaints about political correctness invariably come from the privileged. How dare anyone be asked to consider any worldview or experiences other than their own?

In All in the Family, Archie Bunker was the opposite of PC, yet the show, for its time, was pretty sensitive to diversity issues. The Sixties ad men of Mad Men are basically racist, sexist pigs, yet the show manages to portray that accurately by also revealing how their shitty attitudes hurt the women, gays and people of color who shared their workplace.

So while characters don't need to be sensitive to diversity issues, writers really do.

I am concerned about being a jerk, being a jerk is a bad thing. That is what PC is really about -- not being a jerk.

There's no such thing as political correctness. It's a straw man created by people afraid of critical thinking.

You either write realistic, well-researched characters, or you don't.

Relying on stereotypes and what you think you know (but never bothered to find out) is lazy.

Jhaewyrmend said:

... when writing? I must admit, I'm overtired of PC'ism, but sometimes I wonder well heck if I write this character like this, I'm going to irk some people, but then I think no wait, this is the character, that's just who they are regardless of it being insensitive or whatever.

How much should you, or should you at all, worry about offending groups or any certain ethnicity by having a character that's a bit like the generalities of any particular group or ethnicity?

I almost feel like this is one of those landmine questions that going to explode the minute you walk within five feet of it, but I really don't intend it to be. I just really want to honestly know if you as a writer take the 'feelings' of any group into consideration when you create a character in your world that's actually a part of a very real world (namely ours)?

Click to expand...

Interesting question you pose, Jhaewyrmend. James Baldwin said "Artists are here to disturb the peace" and that means you can write anything you like no matter who it offends. Just be prepared to suffer the slings and arrows of criticism and protest when you do.

To be a brave, bold and fearless writer means you cannot feel obligated to abide by society's rules of "this you cannot say" and "this you cannot do." Go wild. Just write well, write with conviction and write with confidence in the work.

I'm not afraid to offend. I'm afraid to show my ignorance. It's cool to explore races and cultures you don't understand, but if you put in the effort to be knowledgeable as well that's even better.

Jamesaritchie said:

Political correctness is one of the greatest evils out there, so, no, I want nothing to do with it. Thre is no circumstance where political correctness is a good thing.

Click to expand...

Yeah, not so much.

One writer's political correctness that muzzles and stifles their creativity and free expression is another's guide to sweating the details and diving deeper into races, religions, creeds and cultures they are unfamiliar with.

Nothing in literature bothers me more than lazy writing. When you can't be bothered to put in the work and instead of finding out what makes a Black character or lesbian character or some other character that's not you or inhabits your little world seem genuine and authentic, that's lazy as hell.

Referring to Blacks as "colored" or "Negro" is fine if it's put in the proper historical context. Referring to Blacks as "colored" or "Negro" in 2014 is offensive. Unless that's what you're going for, prepare thyself for a backlash.

I do not support limiting and constraining a writer's free expression, but if political correctness means not falling into the trap of stereotyping people not like you, then I'm all for it.

quicklime said:

the notion political correctness is censorship, other than self-censorship out of a desire to not hurt other people by your own carelessness, is dubious at best.

But stereotyping is indeed lazy.

Click to expand...

Q.F.T.

Just write the characters and who they are honestly and with well flushed out characterizations and don;t worry about it. If someone getes upset then that could be their problem as long as you aren't just being bigoted without purpose.

Interestingly, though, while to me it's clear that the men in Mad Men are misogynistic assholes and meant to be seen that way, the show has gotten a fair amount of criticism from people who claim it's glamorizing and glorifying the "good old days" of white male privilege. Whether these criticisms are from people who missed the point, or who get that the show is meant to be a deconstruction and believe that it fails in that task, I think that's the sort of criticism a lot of people are worried about when they cite a fear of "Political Correctness."

It's true PC is also used as a dog-whistle for the sort of people quicklime described - bigots who want to keep right on using terms that are sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. But there are people who make a sport out of extracting evidence of racism, sexism, and the like from a book even when the author pretty clearly intended no such thing.

(Much of what the infamous Requires Only That You Hate blogger, the topic of a couple other threads right now, did that so enraged people was this sort of thing. Some of her critiques were on point - you can be unintentionally racist and sexist, after all - but some, not so much, like deciding that Tolkien was a white supremacist because he referred to "dark elves" and "light elves.")

Amadan said:

Interestingly, though, while to me it's clear that the men in Mad Men are misogynistic assholes and meant to be seen that way, the show has gotten a fair amount of criticism from people who claim it's glamorizing and glorifying the "good old days" of white male privilege. Whether these criticisms are from people who missed the point, or who get that the show is meant to be a deconstruction and believe that it fails in that task, I think that's the sort of criticism a lot of people are worried about when they cite a fear of "Political Correctness."

Click to expand...

People who miss the point, we shall have with us always.

Worrying about their reactions is a fool's errand.

I don't worry about political correctness because I don't believe in political correctness. It's a BS term used by people who want to accuse someone who disagrees with them of being insincere and posturing, as in, "You don't really disagree with me. You're just being politically correct." If you say something and it offends someone, instead of accusing them of being too sensitive, why not consider whatever they're saying? Even if you disagree with it, it makes more sense to disagree with the content of what they're saying than to talk about how you think they're being politically correct. Who the heck isn't politically correct according to their own politics or opinions?

As to writing, own your words and own your writing. People are allowed to not like something you've written, for whatever reason. And it's not politically correct for a writer to consider how what they're writing connects to the larger culture, how it interacts with ideas and stereotypes already in play, and how it might be perceived by others. They're legitimate considerations.

As others have said, avoid stereotypes--not necessarily for PC reasons but because (except in comedy or satire) they make for lame writing.

In fiction, I give my characters much more leeway in dialogue than I give myself in narration. If you want to call that PC, go ahead, but I consider it a matter of style.

To me, the term PC refers to correcting the imagery (long-controlled by white people) and the prejudice/discrimination that imagery facilitated. And we're talking discrimination across the board, including economic. Stereotypes cause real harm to real people. Acknowledging that historical fact and making efforts to strip stereotypes of their power to harm are what's at issue.

Can this be taken too far? Of course. There's a Seinfeld episode called "The Cigar Store Indian" that makes this point. The more recent Geico commercial where the cave man gets offended also pokes fun at the trend. When people criticize The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and To Kill a Mockingbird because of the use of the "N" word while ignoring the whole messages of those stories--that's PC run amok. Some people always take things too far. But why wouldn't you want to try not to hurt people?

At the very least, stereotypes are tired. I'd much rather read a story where the stepmother is a pretty good person, for example, than yet another one where she's evil (one of the oldest stereotypes in history). I'd like to see more contemporary stories where the cast is racially mixed but race simply isn't a central issue.

Nope.

I think the primary people who worry about the "PC Police" are the people who get all butthurt by the idea that someone might hold them accountable for their words and actions.

"Well, I can't call her a slut or the 'PC Police' will jump down my throat, so I guess I'll just say she's a very free spirit. If you know what I mean."

Just like when a statement starts off with "I don't want to sound {racist/sexist/homophobic} but..." Chances are pretty damn high you're about to hear something that is exactly that.

Rather than worry about political correctness, I concern myself with using the right words for the right effect. Making sure they mean what I want them to mean is all the political correctness I need to worry about.

Ian Nathaniel Cohen said:

What has me antsy lately over The Brotherhood of the Black Flag is going the damsel in distress route in the climax. My female beta-readers were all fine with it, since she shows she's a badass in several scenes, she helps take down the villain (and takes down a miniboss, for lack of a better term, all on her own), and I tried to give her a compelling arc of her own. As for the romance, it doesn't blossom between her and the protagonist until they get to know each other over a period of time.

I like the climax as is, and it really doesn't work without her being indisposed. Still, given the attitude towards damsels in distress these days...I'm sure you guys can understand why I needed/wanted the reassurance.

Click to expand...

Speaking as a female reader ...

If I've picked up your book which I know has a male protagonist, and get to the end seeing that the female character needs to be rescued, I may make a mental tickmark that this book represents one more example of how common this trope is that disempowers female characters.

But I wouldn't hold it against your book or you personally, especially if the story in general is interesting, the male protagonist is engaging, and the female character is just as interesting in her own right as all the other not-protagonist characters, and not just a plot device. And is there only one female character in the whole book, or do the background characters represent a variety of sexes and ethnic backgrounds?

If I want to read primarily books with empowered female characters, I'll choose books with female protagonists. But I don't expect all books written to take that route, and it's up to me which I choose to read.

Amadan said:

Interestingly, though, while to me it's clear that the men in Mad Men are misogynistic assholes and meant to be seen that way, the show has gotten a fair amount of criticism from people who claim it's glamorizing and glorifying the "good old days" of white male privilege. Whether these criticisms are from people who missed the point, or who get that the show is meant to be a deconstruction and believe that it fails in that task, I think that's the sort of criticism a lot of people are worried about when they cite a fear of "Political Correctness."

Click to expand...

Not to call you out, but this point highlights the core problem in this conversation, which is that people conflate "criticism on cultural/political lines" with "political correctness." Mad Men is a complicated show, but there absolutely and undeniably is an element of glorification in it (just look at how many men unironically aspire to be Don Draper, the popularity of Mad Men-inspired fashion, etc.); much like how Fight Club both denounces and glorifies anarchy, or how Scarface both glorifies crime while showing it to be ultimately self-destructive, Mad Men critiques and glorifies the era simultaneously. And discussing that element of it, and raising the broader question of whether it outshadows the critique, is not 'political correctness', it's 'art criticism'. It might be art criticism you don't agree with, which is fine, but there's a huge danger in writing off any cultural/social/political analysis of popular works as "PC run amok" just because it dares to suggest that the work is problematic.

I think the people who want to be Don Draper are missing the point as badly as those who think the show is glorifying Don Draper. But it is complicated, since yeah, part of the appeal is that the show is slick and the dudes are stylin', and making sure that every episode is a moral lesson that hammers home the point "Don Draper is an asshole, do not be like him!" would make the show much less good.

Political Correctness would be saying "This show is bad because it doesn't make it clear that Don Draper is an asshole." Or "You are evil if you admire Don Draper even a little teeny bit."

Which is not many critics, but I have seen a few.

I don't necessarily *worry* about being PC. But I do consider political correctness when I'm creating my characters and world and plot. Because while I have no problem creating a black character who's good at sports, or an asian character who's really smart or whatever, I would want to do so because I've made the deliberate choice to employ the stereotypical grouping of attributes and not out of ignorance - or worse, willful blindness - to the fact that they ARE stereotypical and can be harmful.

If I'm not willing to critically engage with the most basic level of my writing, then I deserve any negative response that my lapse earns me.

Amadan said:

Political Correctness would be saying "This show is bad because it doesn't make it clear that Don Draper is an asshole." Or "You are evil if you admire Don Draper even a little teeny bit."

Which is not many critics, but I have seen a few.

Click to expand...

The problem is that the moment you begin to criticize any work for anything resembling a cultural or political factor, a large number of people (really, the only people who even use the term 'political correctness' these days) assume you're saying the latter. There is a huge chasm of meaning between "Mad Men is sexist" and "If you like Mad Men, you're sexist" or "Mad Men should not be made". And yet that chasm seems to be lost on far too many people.

DoNoKharms said:

There is a huge chasm of meaning between "Mad Men is sexist" and "If you like Mad Men, you're sexist".

Click to expand...

I'm familiar with the "How to be a fan of problematic things" essay, but I'm not sure that chasm is really so wide. There are as many hyperbolic critics as there are defensive fans.

Amadan said:

I'm familiar with the "How to be a fan of problematic things" essay, but I'm not sure that chasm is really so wide. There are as many hyperbolic critics as there are defensive fans.

Click to expand...

I don't think this is true. For starters, the basic mathematical discrepancy between the number of authors a piece has (typically 1) and the number of readers it has (typically more than 1) makes it extremely unlikely. More importantly, what are we talking about here? Random comments on twitter/tumblr? Or actual serious works of art criticism? Because I spend a lot of time in spaces where we talk about this, and I can count the number of pieces that say what you're describing on one hand.

If you have a large volume of works published in major publications by respected journalists and art critics that explicitly argue "If you like [work x], you are an evil person", I'd love to see them. That's not me being snarky, I would genuinely appreciate seeing this side of the issue, because I just have not encountered anything remotely like that being widespread, and I read many sites that explore issues of social justice in the media.

No, I'm talking about Internet commenters, not actual journalists. Is there a large body of work published in major publications by respected journalists and art critics explicitly arguing that criticizing a work for sexism or racism means you're calling its fans sexist or racist?