feotakahari: (Default)
feotakahari ([personal profile] feotakahari) wrote2019-03-28 03:23 am
Entry tags:

(no subject)

So, this whole push to reclaim darkfic as something that’s okay and healthy . . . How does that interact with all those posts various people make about “that creepy guy in my writing class”? What distinguishes the author whose dark themes are acceptable from the author whose dark themes make him a “creepy guy?” Because I have the strong suspicion the answer is gender. (Well, that and autism.) 
sigmaleph: (Default)

[personal profile] sigmaleph 2019-03-28 11:29 am (UTC)(link)
gender, sexuality/more generic queerness, race probably, occasionally neurotype (that one can work in either direction, depending).

lb_lee: Rogan drawing/writing in a spiral. (art)

[personal profile] lb_lee 2019-03-29 05:41 pm (UTC)(link)
I dunno, I've known VERY creepy writers of all genders. (And been one.) For me the creepiness isn't the content itself, but when I get the feeling that what I'm reading isn't actually fiction, but how the writer sees the world (or wants YOU to see it), and the "fiction" part is purely for plausible deniability. That kind of creepiness transcends the work's content--the creep factor comes from the boundary between reality and fiction being blurred, not any particular "darkness".

Probably an obvious situation people have blundered into is reading a book where the author has a very transparent fetish and doesn't seem aware of it--Laurell K. Hamilton has a VERY specific type of hair she likes on her men, for instance, and Piers Anthony ALWAYS writes at least ONE underaged girl getting with a much older man in every single one of his series. (And Marion Zimmer Bradley apparently had some pretty blatant subtext in her work that made a lot of people go, "oh nooooooo" once the child molestation accusations came out about her.)

But there are other variations than just sexual creepery. Recruitment propaganda for instance--even if someone shares political beliefs with you, it's often very uncomfortable when you're reading full-blooded propoganda and KNOW that the writer either truly believes it, or wants YOU to. (Because the natural next question in the latter case is, "what do they have to gain from you believing this?") God knows, I've read fanfiction and played computer games that was pretty clearly the creator's true metaphysical beliefs, covered with a paper-thin fictional gloss for the purpose of luring people who go into it thinking they're just having fun, not realizing the creator is trying to influence them. You'd be amazed what some folks will say under cover of fiction!

For that reason, I cringe at reading some of my older work, just because my own damage seems so transparently obvious to me. ESPECIALLY when I was a kid, I used to revel in writing very straightforwardly what was happening to me and resting assured that nobody would call me on it, or even ask. So I wrote some HELLISH shit in school, and it was probably pretty off-putting to anyone who read it--it certainly was for my older self. Because in fiction, I could afford to be honest, because nobody believed it was true.
lb_lee: A happy little brain with a bandage on it, enclosed within a circle with the words LB Lee. (Default)

[personal profile] lb_lee 2019-03-29 07:45 pm (UTC)(link)
Enh, I must be wording it badly. But it's the difference between, "this person is writing about child molestation but clearly doesn't feel it's the right thing to do," and "this person is writing about child molestation, but I keep getting a really creepy feeling they're doing it because they think it's okay."

It's not what they write, but how they're doing it.
lb_lee: M.D. making a shocked, confused face (serious thought)

[personal profile] lb_lee 2019-03-29 08:50 pm (UTC)(link)
I mean, that's a good question! And I admit, I do feel like I'm trying to nail jelly to a wall. *thinks for a while* Let me see...

I guess in this case, I'm judging "think it's okay," by other records of the author's/creator's actions of statement and belief. The creative work alone can not be evidence on its own; it can ONLY be supplemental to more direct statements of the creator's belief, and even then, it has to be used carefully.

For example: I don't know if Piers Anthony was a pedophile, and I would never say he was one; I much prefer to think he would never hurt a child! But I CAN say that his work has a lot of children having sex with much older adults, and I can quote his author's notes where he says that child/adult sex shouldn't be treated so harshly, and that incest might be a natural blossoming of parenthood. I can cite those books and author's notes, and say that they made me feel creeped out.

But saying that isn't intended as shaming. It's purely describing what he's written and said in the books I've read, and my ensuing reaction. He may or may not be a creep, but I do find it creepy. That's on me.

But in the fic you describe, I don't know anything about the author, so I can't make that call. The creep factor for me has to be involved with a creator I know more about--because the work alone isn't enough. I know what I believed when I wrote when I was younger, which was why I used myself as an example. I don't think it's shaming my younger self to say I found the work creepy; I think it's just a statement of the reactions it inspired in me, and possibly others, and why.

Especially since often, even the creepiest creators, if I know them well enough, don't make me think, "ew, you're such a gross person, get away from me, feel shame!" They just make me feel sad for them. Does that make any sense?
lb_lee: A happy little brain with a bandage on it, enclosed within a circle with the words LB Lee. (Default)

[personal profile] lb_lee 2019-03-29 10:52 pm (UTC)(link)
Sorry about that. I guess that's my failing, then. Maybe we're just coming at it from different angles and not able to meet at the middle. And maybe that's okay too. The reason I like reading your posts is that you always give me something to think about, even if I don't agree, and I always like seeing your thoughts on something.