Many of us have just completed a OWC inspired by 'Jaws' which resulted in an unpredictable adverse effect on shark populations due to a shift in human behavior.

Recently I watched 'Captain Phillips' which did a good job of making the Somali pirates not some charicature ignorant fools or the USNavy SEALs not some bloodthirsty goons.

In fact, the vogue thing in HWood these days seems to be portraying antagonists as victims themselves.

Many films opportunistically villify some population, ethnic, sexual orientation, mental health, socio economic, or religious community.
Advancing technology itself is frequently vilified in film and story.



With this in mind I have two questions.
One, do writers have any ethical or moral responsibilities/obligations to not unjustly paint a community or technology as bad?

Two, have you yourself caught yourself altering the way you craft an antagonist or adversary due to ethical or moral reasons?

Thank you.

1. No

2. I don't think so. I certainly hope not.

It's up to writers to entertain or enthrall. We all spend most of our lives making judgements. Whether we like it or not. But it's not the writer's job.

That said, I won't be writing any pro nazi or white power stuff. I'm not that stupid.

R

Art is art. fiction is fiction. I have no interest in being politically correct (within reason that is...like R said). I just care about writing good stories from an honest place.

so in that context...my answers are No and No.

I hate political correctness... despise it even. Especially the ignorant hypocrites that perpetrate it.

Thing in the news recently about some rich American guy, owner of a baseball team, said something about a woman hanging out with black guys in public. That's all he said.

Then Snoop Dog goes on line with a racist rant against the white guy and people get behind him like it's OK.

Weird world we live in.

Actually, what was said on the audio recording was:

Quoted Text “It bothers me a lot that you want to broadcast that you’re associating with black people. Do you have to?” Sterling asked. “You can sleep with [black people]. You can bring them in, you can do whatever you want. The little I ask you is not to promote it on that … and not to bring them to my games,” he explained. “I’m just saying, in your lousy f******* Instagrams, you don’t have to have yourself with, walking with black people.”

(from http://www.yourblackworld.net/.....ack-people-to-games/)

And what Snoop said was that he was a "bitchass redneck whitebread chickenshit motherfucker."

So I'm not really clear on what you're talking about, Bowcott. Maybe you need to revisit the definition of "whitebread." But if you're looking for hypocrisy, claiming to despise "political correctness" and then complaining about the "racist rant against the white guy" would about fit the bill.

--

1. I don't think writers have an inherent responsibility to avoid characterizing one group or another as evil/bad/weak/whatever. I do think writers have an important place in society and I think that what they write should be in some way consistent with their moral view of the world, in its overall impact. I don't really agree with Rendezvous or Penoyer, actually -- there's no magical separation between "art" and the rest of the world. Kubrick pulled Clockwork for a reason.

I guess it would all come down to context, for me. When movies are silly -- Olympus Has Fallen, True Lies, maybe Red Dawn -- I suppose they might as well be xenophobic and caricaturing as well. Maybe I wouldn't say that in a perfect world, but oh well.

To me, movies that purport to be more serious are actually more questionable. I think it's way more weird that we have movies like Captain Phillips that "show both sides" -- or, as you say, Ray, portray antagonists as victims themselves -- when the stories are still written by a North American/Western/whatever writer, with that perspective. Unlike bad action movies, those movies pretend to understand both sides, even though they're still just North Americans making up stories for North Americans. Not to say that such things can't be done well, or that I think Captain Phillips in particular was irresponsible. But sometimes, maybe Edward Zwick should stick to making movies about Americans.

2. I don't think so, actually. I'm not sure I've ever written an antagonist that was in danger of being irresponsibly represented, actually. I usually write monsters, or people in the same group -- spies vs. spies, ex-military vs. military, whatever. Maybe the ethical question is why I do that.

I didn't complain about the racist rant towards the white guy, I merely pointed out the hypocrisy in people complaining about what the white guy said, when what Snoop said is actually worse. Snoop Dog is a racist... but it's OK, because he's hating on another racist.

Redncek is a racial slur... just like nigger. Personally, I don't care about any of them, they are only words. However, hypocrisy does bother me. People should be complaining just as much about what snoop said as that other guy said... or nobody should be complaining at all. They certainly shouldn't be getting behind the moronic rant from snoop dog.

Calling it a “racist rant” is complaining about it. Unlike the original statement, Snoop’s rant is obviously not motivated by racism (though it is obnoxious, but that's fine). Your description of the original statement – “…something about a woman hanging out with black guys in public. That's all he said” – combined with your free accusations of racism when it comes to Snoop’s response, seem to paint a fairly clear picture of what you’re concerned about.

I don’t agree that the word redneck is a racial slur “just like” the word nigger, but that’s beside the point. Your contention that Snoop hurling a bunch of insults that include a racial slur is “worse” than someone in a powerful position actively discouraging the presence and visibility of an entire ethnic group is, to me, exactly the PC can't-see-the-forest wrongheadedness that you’re referring to. What, the person who says a “bad word” is automatically making the worse statement?

Quoted from Heretic Calling it a “racist rant” is complaining about it. Unlike the original statement, Snoop’s rant is obviously not motivated by racism (though it is obnoxious, but that's fine). Your description of the original statement – “…something about a woman hanging out with black guys in public. That's all he said” – combined with your free accusations of racism when it comes to Snoop’s response, seem to paint a fairly clear picture of what you’re concerned about. I don’t agree that the word redneck is a racial slur “just like” the word nigger, but that’s beside the point. Your contention that Snoop hurling a bunch of insults that include a racial slur is “worse” than someone in a powerful position actively discouraging the presence and visibility of an entire ethnic group is, to me, exactly the PC can't-see-the-forest wrongheadedness that you’re referring to. What, the person who says a “bad word” is automatically making the worse statement?

He was actually saying that he doesn't like the idea of this woman being seen in public with black men that she is fucking. Maybe she's an ex, I haven't followed the story. Not sure why he said it and I don't care. You're clearly turning his words into something else though.

Here's a news report on your boy, Snoop, talking about Romney in a 'typically non-racist' way: http://www.examiner.com/articl.....-not-vote-for-romney

Quoted Text "The number one reason cited for not voting for Romney is because 'He a white n****.' Likewise, Obama will receive his vote because 'He a black n****," CBS added.

He's going to vote for him just because he is black. That's clearly an admission of racism. Yeah... I get it... that's just fine... it's just fine because he isn't a white man saying exactly the same thing about a black man. How eloquently put too. Talk about the dumbing down of the youth... but it's better that way, I suppose, a dumbed down youth don't ask too many questions. Snoop Dogg is clearly a racist... just like most other black men, Asian men, Russian men, French men... We don't need much of an excuse not to like each other... it just so happens that prejudice is switched out for racist when it comes to colour. It's fine to hate on the French because they smell, have big noses, were cowards and eat snails... but not on a black man for whatever reasons you've found not to like them. It's even fine to hate white people... that's apart of the reason we have Muslims in our own country preaching about how shit it is... then they fight against extradition

I see clearly how Snoop is a racist... I don't see how you can disagree on the 'redneck' thing being a racially derogatory term towards white people though. Who else is the word used for? Are chinese people ever called rednecks? Redneck refers to the colours our necks go in the hot sun... and is reserved solely for white people. A black man using that term to a white man is a racist and it should be a criminal offence, just like it is if a white guy says nigger. Not that I agree it is a crime for either word to be said. But... what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

As far as I'm aware, in regards to the law in my country... one can say that they don't like the idea of their ex wife being seen in public with a black man. What they can't say is, I don't like the idea of my ex wife being seen in public with a nigger. Then that is a criminal offence. Because they are using racially derogatory language with the intention of some type of incitement to drama. I haven't looked up the exact law and I don't care to. So yes, the way I see it... Snoop Dogg is actually the only one using racially derogatory language. The baseball team owner simply doesn't like the idea of this woman being seen in public with black men. I'm sure nobody would have batted an eyelid if he said.. I don't like the idea of you being seen in public with fat, sweaty, balding men. Or even if a black guy said, I don't like the idea of you being seen in public with a white man.

When I was growing up there was a lot (A LOT) of black on white racism. It was in the song lyrics... white boys are idiots, pussies, white women are slags... I grew up with that shit and remember it well. It isn't much different today. Black men look at white men as being inferior, dirty (because of our penchant for pork), indeed a portion of the black community actually believe we evolved from pigs... maybe because that's how we tasted whenever they captured a wayward adventurer from the Victorian era.

There is bigotry on both sides and I have seen it first hand. In the gang of blacks I ran with they/we only targeted white victims. White. I wasn't seen as white... I was seen as one of them. In truth, I was just surviving. But I've seen a lot from both sides. I've hung with black racists, which is pretty much every black guy I've met. I've also hung with white racists, which is pretty much every white guy I've met. Women are racist too. Black women don't like the idea of their men going with white women, it makes them feel inferior. The light skin thing. Amongst the black community, the blacker you are, the uglier you are. I've actually heard them cussing each other out on their level of blackness numerous times. But that's what's real. What is also real is the black youth targeting white victims because they believe they are meting out some type of retribution for the slave days. Purely because the education is so one-sided. They're not taught that the first slavery is a universal thing... they're not taught that the actual slave owners were the rich Deys in Africa, profiting from selling the people. Nor that the first black slave owner in America was black. They are taught a one-sided portion of history and it pollutes their minds. Right away it places these poor kids into a mindset where they feel inferior. They were conquered and turned into slaves... which is far from the truth. Slavery was a worldwide thing. Not sure what people think happened to white people that were shanghaied to places like the New World (America) and Australia... they weren't set free to build a normal life for themselves... they built the country and worked in perpetual servitude. Many of them couldn't read and write and were kept till old age, never knowing any better. Yep, dumb white people... or 'rednecks'. White Slaves, too dumb to cover up when working the fields. Interbred, like many slaves were. Slaves were money, breeding big business... and that was two-hundred years before blacks were introduced as slaves. Also around the time the Barbary pirates were taking white slaves in their hundreds of thousands to work in Africa.

In Africa there were Kings, profiting from the slave trade and it built Africa into a great country. Indeed their cities rivalled and outdid London and Paris for their opulence. Their science was also on a par and we stole quite a lot from them. That isn't taught in schools though.

What this does is utilise a system that actually encourages racism while all the while pretending to be against it. The black youth feel inferior from the get go and many of them feel angered and fall into crime. They are made to believe they came from dumb cave-man type villages... that the white man was technologically superior. Which isn't exactly true. We were more barbaric, treacherous and inclined to warfare but technology in war isn't everything. They tended towards astrology and medicine. So, being left uneducated, or worse, educated in the wrong way places a chip on their shoulder and makes them hate white people. This breeds racism. They don't like us and it shows... so white people have to contend (subconsciously) with feeling guilty and knowing that these kids have a chip on their shoulder, creating fear.

Fear is seen as weakness. I've seen it. Fear breeds violence. There are three types of people and we can be any one of them at any one time... there are victims, predators and people that don't care for either. What happens when a person turns into feeling like a victim though is actually encourage the predator in all of us. Even in people that have felt like victims previously. A victim might as well lie down and offer their throats like a submissive dog. It's a vibe.

So with all these white people walking around scared of black people and black people having this chip on their shoulder... both through poor education, or deliberate propaganda... it creates racism.

Teach people about true black history, not the white man bullshit version and this will create eventual equality.

I don't care for movies that show gratuitous violence against women.  It's a bit of a double standard, because violence against men doesn't bother me as much. But it bothers me watching a man commit violence against a woman, so I'm wary of writing scenes like that.

Another area of concern is historical accuracy. It annoys me when stories completely alter history because the creators of the story have an agenda. If it's done for fun, it doesn't bother me. So Inglorious Bastards doesn't bother me. Anyone who thinks Hitler died in a Paris theater needs some more schoolin. JFK, on the other hand, did bother me. The film is very well made and entertaining...but too many people took their history from it, almost saw it as a documentary, when in fact it butchered history.

Anyone that actually believes Hitler died at all just after the war needs some schooling.

Ray,

No to both of your questions.

But, I do like the idea of complexity in characters. The question is how much do you explain why someone is the way they are.

I find the decision of what to include quite interesting. The Nightcrawler script, currently been made as a film and one of script shadows favourite, had quite a powerful character but we virtually know nothing about him during the script. He is what he is and that's all we get. Still seems to work.

May be it's an amateur desire to explain everything that we add too much, well I do.

Yet, if the character is to do something specific, or what appears to be out of character, I feel that needs to be set up otherwise it harder to buy into.

Quoted from RayW One, do writers have any ethical or moral responsibilities/obligations to not unjustly paint a community or technology as bad? Two, have you yourself caught yourself altering the way you craft an antagonist or adversary due to ethical or moral reasons? Thank you.

1) I think sometimes a writer has the responsibility to do just the opposite by painting a community (or a subgroup) within that community as bad. The church is not bad, but a priest within it can be.  The web is good but the many things done on to perpetuate horrible deeds such as trafficking is bad.


2) Define antagonist in today's world. It was once a man in black binding a lady to the railroad tracks with a wild smile of pleasure on his face. We knew who he was. Society has redefined and is still defining good and bad. Gordon in WALLSTREET was a cut throat bent on destroying people but we lined up to like him.

Shawn....><

For me:

1)  I firmly believe that my characters should have organic motivations.  Even the "bad guys".  So, as a result, they tend to be sympathetic in some shape or form: even if they're still the villains of the story per se.  Also - I don't personally see political or social issues in pure black and white, so I don't portray my premises that way, either. That's just plain boring. Taking Bittersweet as an example: the Deacon's the main bad guy.  But he truly believes that he's ridding his flock of children who are possessed and poisoned by evil.  In other words - HE feels he's doing the right thing.  And if it was true, he WOULD be the good guy. While I don't have an ACTIVE responsibility to be PC, I don't think it would be "right" to create and propagate a cartoon stereotype of anything or anyone.  Not only is that unfair to them, it's just plain creatively lazy.

2) Well, with one recent feature that I co-wrote (not posted on SS), there was an opportunity to make the two main "bad guys" a gay couple.  I (and my cowriter) decided not to.  Mainly because it worked better by going in a different direction.  But also because I frankly didn't feel like creating an "evil gay couple" for political reasons.

My five cents.

"The villian should feel like the hero in his own movie."

I remember hearing a number of people having said this so I don't know where it comes from but its very true. However when it comes to the questions in the OP, I'd say the writer has an obligation to the story first, ethics come in 2nd. If a story for whatever reason calls for a stereotype or broad brush strokes so be it. Nothing wrong with that,

That's pretty much why they're called protagonists and antagonists. Whomever your main character is (whether it's the hero or villain, by general definitions), the antagonist is the force that's against them. If Auric Goldfinger were your main character and the movie were from his point of view, James Bond would be the antagonist.

As for ethics, I don't take them into account for any reason. Personally, I think they're a bunch of made-up rules that keep changing over time and if you write to strictly adhere to them, your writing will come off as false.