If you’re an editor or frequent beta reader, you’ve probably had the experience of finding something problematic in a manuscript. Since the work isn’t published yet, you’re uniquely positioned to convince the writer to make positive changes. But if the writer didn’t ask for that type of feedback, how can you get them to listen instead of biting your head off?
Since Mythcreants regularly gives social justice feedback as part of our editing services, we’d like to share our approach with those who are doing it for the first time. For anyone who depends on writer goodwill to make ends meet, this approach cannot eliminate the risk of ruining the relationship. However, writers who still get pissed in these circumstances probably do not value equality. If you have the ability to turn down some writers, you may not want to work with the ones who respond badly.
Please note that this situation is different from discussing popular stories. Public criticism is about raising awareness. During criticism, our assumption is that the story will never change, and it’s better to be completely frank about its failings.
On the other hand, persuading a writer to make changes involves a significant amount of emotional labor. For this reason, I must make something crystal clear: if someone finds problematic content targeting their own group and they aren’t being adequately paid for intense emotional labor, they’re under no obligation to mince words. Forcing marginalized people to spend their time and energy carefully educating privileged people is part of the pattern of oppression. Please keep this in mind if you hire a marginalized editor who has not specifically signed up to be a sensitivity consultant.
However, if the problematic content hurts a group you are not part of, please accept your responsibility as a person of privilege in this context. If you are angry, do not vent at the writer. Go cool off, and then do the emotional labor so that the people being targeted don’t have to. As much as it may be upsetting for you, it’s almost certainly more upsetting for them.
Gauging the Writer’s Motivation
If you’re beta reading online, you may have little idea of what motivated the writer to include problematic content. However, if you’re able to ask the writer careful questions, or you simply know them well, assessing their motivation can help you find the right approach.
Let’s go over some different motivations and how to respond to them.
Cluelessness – Assume This by Default
Start by assuming the writer has good intentions. If they wrote something deeply hurtful, it may feel like they must be doing it on purpose. But most writers are pretty terrible at communicating their intent. All sorts of bizarre messages can end up in a story simply because the author wasn’t thinking very hard and is ignorant about the issues in question. In many cases, the writer is merely copying toxic depictions they saw elsewhere.
A clueless person is usually open to making changes, but they may not be well versed in social justice issues. That means they need approachable language and beginner-level information. If they aren’t used to social justice feedback, they’re also more likely to feel threatened by it. Tread lightly.
Trying to Send Positive Messages
It’s a sad truth that many writers who want to send positive messages about social justice do so in ways that are not only unproductive but also make their stories uncomfortable for the marginalized group in question. In a worst-case scenario, it may look like their story supports bigotry.
The most common sign is unpleasant and often extreme depictions of oppression that aren’t employed in constructive ways.* For instance, a fantasy story might feature a kingdom that is severely patriarchal. This oppression might provide a few obstacles for some of the female characters but otherwise go without remark. In some cases, the villain of the story is fighting oppression, which could send the message that fighting oppression is bad. In a worst-case scenario, inequality could be built into the world. For instance, perhaps men have magical powers and women do not.
This happens because writers mistakenly believe that fighting oppression requires depicting it. Most of these writers care about social justice and want to write ethical works. This means you don’t have to do as much tiptoeing around the issue, and they’re much more likely to make changes. Some of them will even be relieved that doing the right thing means they can just remove the oppression from their story rather than sweat over it.
If a writer says they want to send a positive message but resists making changes that would do that, something else is going on. More likely than not, they are attached to the regressive tropes they’re using, and social justice commentary was their way of trying to have their cake and eat it too.
Being Attached to Regressive Tropes
Many people have a fondness for the regressive tropes they’ve seen in their favorite stories. This is particularly likely for romances, any type of gender roles, and classic genre tropes such as evil orcs. Since tropes are also frequently repeated without much thought, it can be hard to tell the difference between a writer who’s simply regurgitating something and a writer who loves it. The biggest sign of writer enthusiasm is how much detail they use. Are the gender roles vaguely referred to, or are their exact specifications described in depth?
If the writer hasn’t thought much about it, they’re in the “clueless” category. It’s also possible they like the trope but aren’t so attached to it that they’ll resist making important changes. However, sometimes writers really like their regressive tropes, making them a central conceit of the story.
Asking a writer to give up a part of the story they love is unlikely to have any effect. In that case, the best you can do is get them to open up about what they want. The better you understand exactly what it is about their regressive trope that appeals to them, the more you can help them find ways of mitigating the damage while preserving the aspects they like. You have to work with their passion, not against it.
Rebelling Against Other Progressives
Today, many people socialize in an echo chamber, rarely encountering people on the other side of the political spectrum. This can lead people to focus on the arguments between them and their like-minded fellows. Sometimes, progressives need to vent their frustrations with other progressives.
However, even the most valid criticisms can be expressed poorly. Writers in this situation often stumble into sending messages that are more regressive than they intended. If they are isolated from people who purposely spread hate, they may not understand how their argument unintentionally reinforces hateful messages.
The biggest sign of this is when a progressive writer expresses something that is strangely regressive and feels out of character. For instance, a feminist author could get frustrated about the often-implied message that female characters need to abandon traditionally feminine things. The author might then write a story that emphasizes women not being able to fight as well as men.
Writers in this position need a reminder of what hate groups are doing, and they need to understand how their depiction will appear to reinforce that. If they are trying to be edgy to spite their fellows, they should be reminded that edginess needs to be channeled into something constructive, or it will simply play into bigoted hands. Depending on what their grievance is, it’s possible they can make their critique without spreading harm.
Liking the Abstract Idea of Being Edgy
Unfortunately, in many writing circles, people are still passing around the idea that works are only serious or original if they are edgy and provocative to some degree. This is not true, but nonetheless, some writers have been led to believe it.
Not all writers who are trying to be edgy are the same. Many of them like the idea of being edgy but don’t understand what this means in practice: that real people will be hurt and upset with them. To them, edginess is something that will get a few shocked gasps, followed by a round of impressed murmurs. Or they might think it will bother a few stuffy people far away.
This is most likely of writers who discuss edginess or provocativeness as though they are positive qualities of a story but who otherwise have noncombative personalities. If they try to get along with everyone or they package themselves as an apolitical, middle-of-the-road type of person, they may be thinking of edginess in entirely abstract terms.
Writers in this mindset need to be reminded that politics is not a game; it is something that has a real impact on real people. Give them information that shows how what they’re doing relates to severe injustices that are happening in real life. In addition, they are often scared off once they understand how upset people will be with them. For instance, if they have rape in their story, sending them a link to a post where an assault survivor discusses how upsetting depictions of rape are will probably change their mind.
Genuinely Wanting to Be Provocative
This is one of the toughest cases, aside from someone who actually wants to spread bigotry. Some writers who want to be edgy actually do understand what that means in a practical sense. In many cases, they’ve even made being provocative into part of their identity as a writer.
Do they appear to have a combative personality? In their writer’s bio or description of themself, do they mention being edgy and provocative? Do they rant about snowflakes? Are they sorry yet not sorry about “offending” people? Are they a “no-holds-barred” storyteller who “challenges” their audience? Do they show any other sign that they know they will make people genuinely mad, and they’re good with it?
In this case, ethical arguments are unlikely to work. They’ve probably already heard them and built an identity around ignoring them. In fact, if you make ethical arguments, they may dismiss you as an SJW and stop listening to whatever you say on the subject.
Instead, you have to make an argument that addresses something they care about. They may not care about human suffering, but since they’re engaging in edgy grandstanding, they probably care about their appearance as a writer.
Please, please remember that the following tactic is unethical in other contexts. Writers are already scared enough about how they will appear to others; preying on those insecurities is cruel and creates an unhealthy environment. Writing advice should focus on how bad practices impact the reader experience, not on how they make the writer look. However, if the writer cares more about how they look than about human beings, this may be the only way to get through to them.
So what do you do? Tell them their toxic tropes are super cliché. They probably are. Tell them that everyone and their goldfish is trying to be edgy. This is absolutely true. Tell them that their shocking twist was utterly predictable, because you’ve already seen 10 like it. Tell them the problematic content is immature, cheap, derivative, unoriginal, or, perhaps the biggest insult of them all: amateurish. Tell them agents and publishers will take one look at that content and conclude they are a complete noob.
If you succeed in convincing them that their problematic content will make them look like they aren’t a “real” writer, they will probably change it.
Intentional Bigotry
If the writer is deliberately trying to spread harm, there’s nothing you can do as an editor or beta reader. At that point, you’d be trying to change their values, not just what’s in their story. In that case, extract yourself from the situation if you can, and stop giving feedback on their work.
Gently Informing the Writer
When broaching the subject, your goal is to give them a deep understanding of the issue without making them feel defensive. Once the writer gets defensive, they’ll stop listening, and they’ll be more likely to self-validate by doubling down than to acknowledge they made a mistake.
Focus on Reader Responses
You might think writers don’t care about the reactions of a small minority of readers, but in most cases, they do. The average writer wants to believe their story is for everyone – that any human being could pick up their book and enjoy it. Occasionally you may run into a writer that’s seasoned enough to let go of this dream, but this is not the majority of people seeking feedback on a manuscript.
This means that if you inform the writer that their content will alienate a specific group of readers, even if that group is small, they are likely to pay attention. Describe for them how the marginalized group they are hurting is likely to react to the story. Will they be upset? Frustrated? Uncomfortable? Disappointed?
If you’re a paid editor, the writer will probably take your word for it. You might say something like, “many female readers will be turned off by the patriarchy in this setting, because that means it will remind them of the stressful parts of their lives instead of being fun wish fulfillment like you intended.”
If you’re a beta reader, you may want to boost your credibility by describing how you know this. If you are part of the group being targeted, you can use your own experiences if you’re comfortable sharing them.
- “I read lots of book reviews by Black women, and whenever they run into a sassy Black woman character, they mention how much the stereotype bothers them.”
- “I have a good friend with this disability, and he’s told me how incredibly disappointing it is for him whenever he finds a character like him and then the disability is erased using fictional technology.”
- “As a queer person, seeing romantic relationships referred to as ‘boy meets girl’ makes me feel like I wouldn’t be welcome in this fantasy world or with these characters.”
You don’t need statistics to give yourself more credibility. Statistics can be helpful in some cases, but they are not as convincing as we all wish they were. You also don’t need to defend reader reactions as perfectly logical, just understandable. For instance, you can tell the writer that while they don’t actually have the “disability mercy killing” trope in their story, what they do have is reminiscent of it. Because this trope is so horrible and upsetting, disabled readers will be bothered by depictions that come anywhere close to it.
Show, Don’t Tell
Unfortunately, words such as “sexist,” “racist,” “ableist,” etc., are very likely to make the writer feel defensive. Those are probably accurate labels for the content you want them to change, but, unfortunately, most people believe they are never bigoted, even unintentionally. They’re wrong, but you can’t give them an entire social justice education in one go. If you want to convince them to change their story, you’ll be more likely to succeed if you don’t use those words.
Other terms like “stigmatizing,” “exoticizing,” “objectifying,” or “dehumanizing” may not be quite as alienating, but they rely on a strong understanding of social justice that the writer probably doesn’t have. While people may technically know what those words mean, it will be hard for them to connect that abstract idea to what what they’re doing in their story. The word “stereotype” is more widely used, but don’t rely on writers to understand why using stereotypes is harmful.
Plus, just like for fiction, stating these terms will never be as convincing as breaking down how their story sends the wrong message. If you simply call their description “objectifying,” that depends on the writer to take your word for it. Give them some logic they can follow.
- Telling: Togura Ikonoka‘s title of “The Cripple Who Is Whole” includes an ableist slur and reinforces negative stereotypes about disability.
- Showing: Togura Ikonoka’s title of “The Cripple Who Is Whole” suggests that simply being a “whole” disabled person is more incredible than his magical powers, experience, or other outstanding attributes. This also implies that the average disabled person is somehow not whole. The word “cripple” is also considered a slur by the disability community because it has connotations that suggest disabled people are helpless and pitiable.
Of course, if the writer demonstrates they are comfortable with social justice language, you can use it with them. Even then, general terms are not a replacement for breaking down why their content is hurtful in a way they can understand.
Tie It to Larger Real-Life Issues
Because of regressive messaging, many people have come to think of social justice as a matter of “offense” or “political correctness,” not of real-life harm. For this reason, many writers could use a reminder that these small pieces of content are part of a cultural climate that destroys lives.
Look up a tangible harm you can use to demonstrate the seriousness of the issue you’re describing. That can include poverty, hate crimes, harassment, assault, or suicide that results from the type of messages they are sending in their work. Even mentioning that marginalized people receive continuous negative comments when trying to go about their lives makes the harm feel more tangible.
- “Reading stories where every couple is heterosexual can make queer people, particularly children and teens, feel really alone. Queer teens are more likely to attempt suicide than straight teens because of this stress, and having affirmation of their identity makes a difference.”
- “The idea that women often use their looks to manipulate men, as this character does, is used in real life to blame the victims of sexual harassment and assault instead of holding perpetrators responsible for it.”
- “Black readers could become upset when they see a Black character’s hair is described as ‘nappy,’ because the term has been employed for hundreds of years to characterize their hair as unappealing. Black women are still likely to be fired from their jobs if they don’t spend lots of time and money applying strong chemicals to their hair to make it fit white beauty standards.”
If the writer may not believe what you say, you can link to a source online that describes the issue.
Soften the Blow
Like with any criticism, social justice feedback will go over much better if you give the writer some reassurance. In particular, you want to keep them from concluding that your feedback is an attack on them personally.
You can start reassuring them by praising their good intentions, particularly if they’re making an effort to diversify their characters or trying to send positive messages. If they were just trying to be edgy or fulfill some other storytelling concern, you can tell them that you understand what they were aiming for.
Praising other aspects of the story is also helpful. For instance, you might tell them that they already have lots of great surprises in their story, so they’ll be fine without an edgy twist in this scene. Many writers are starved for positive feedback, so this can make a huge difference to their mood.
It’s also helpful to tell them what problematic things they aren’t doing. Understanding that their depiction could be worse helps them put feedback into perspective.
- “I love your depiction of Zuri; it’s a delight to see a kickass Black woman actually live to the end in a story where many characters are killed by zombies. The only thing is that using the word ‘nappy’ to describe her hair is likely to upset Black readers, since it has a long history of being used to characterize natural Black hair as unappealing. Many Black women are still fired from their jobs because they didn’t apply strong chemicals to their hair to make it fit white beauty standards. You already have lots of vivid descriptors, so I think you could just take that word out and you’d be fine.”
- “It’s wonderful that you’ve included several queer characters in your stories; I wish more books would do that. However, my queer friends have actually told me that they’re really disappointed when they run into antiqueer oppression in the books they read. They’d much prefer taking a break from that stuff and getting some fun wish fulfillment instead. If you want to support queer people, just showing queer characters doing cool things is a great way to do that. If you take the antiqueer oppression out of your story, my queer friends will eat it right up.”
- “I found the fight scenes with the orcs to be riveting, and they provide plenty of threat for your heroes – great work. However, right now the orcs appear to be inherently evil. That’s disappointing, since it means they don’t stand out from other depictions of orcs, and there isn’t much nuance to their personalities or culture. It can also make readers of color uncomfortable, since Tolkien designed orcs based on Asian stereotypes, orcs are usually depicted as dark skinned, and the idea of evil races has often been applied to human groups. If you simply clarify that these are specifically orc bandits or orc extremists making trouble, that will help put readers of color at ease and leave you room to do some interesting worldbuilding with your orcs later.”
In the above examples, I also emphasized the ease and simplicity of the changes. Naturally, writers want to avoid work, even if they’re asking for feedback.
Educating others on these issues is an important responsibility for anyone with privilege. For those who are marginalized in this context, it may feel like a necessity. But we all have limited time and energy, and we won’t convince writers to make changes every time. If you can, please say something. However, you can’t save the world by yourself, so don’t burn yourself out trying.
P.S. Our bills are paid by our wonderful patrons. Could you chip in?
Would suggesting online resources, such as many articles you yourselves have posted, be helpful?
–
What if the issue is an “edge case”, not settled, such as “person first” vs “identity first”? I’ve seen good arguments for each side, many by disabled people themselves. Should you even bother to mention it, especially if the writer has taken a side?
Note: I myself am “identity first”. The official government agency that hires the company I work for requires “person first”, and I am not in a position to argue
> Statistics can be helpful in some cases, but they are not as convincing as we all wish they were.
Do you have the numbers to back this up?
Sorry. Couldn’t resist…
While I’m not a psychologist myself, I’ve found that stories that inspire me to make positive changes in my life are more effective than just listening to statistics. (From now on, I will be going by the name Ron D).
Since part of being a good writer is doing your research, I think you can bring up concerns or suggest that someone think through their reasoning for certain choices.
You can’t really just tell people what to do, but as a beta reader, you could make them think critically about their choices. For example, you could inquire if someone made the deliberate choice in their story to use person-first language, inquire about the level of research they did to choose that language, and mention some of your own personal reasons for why you use identity first. The decision is ultimately theirs, but you have put the consideration and the choice in their radar.
“Tell them their toxic tropes are super cliché. They probably are. Tell them that everyone and their goldfish is trying to be edgy. This is absolutely true. Tell them that their shocking twist was utterly predictable, because you’ve already seen 10 like it. Tell them the problematic content is immature, cheap, derivative, unoriginal, or, perhaps the biggest insult of them all: amateurish. Tell them agents and publishers will take one look at that content and conclude they are a complete noob.”
Honestly, this would go over better with me than telling me how how I’m literally perpetuating evil.
See, I *used* to think of myself as progressive, but now it seems as if I’m *never* going to be moral enough. Depicting oppression is exploitative, while not depicting it is erasure. BPOC characters? No problem, except they’re too “white,” or *I’m* too white to include any in the first place. And I’ll be damned if I don’t too. Don’t seek them for explanation because it’s not their job, but all other sources are inaccurate. And no fantasy settings outside of Western Europe or I’m being appropriative no matter how respectful I am, but I can appropriate from Christian myth because they’re rich and white.
Now contract this with How to Write About Africa, or Terrible Writing Advice, or Even Once Upon a Trope. With those I don’t feel scolded, because the criticisms are directed at the cliches, rather than sermonizing me with yet another solemn homily.
Indeed, a common criticism of the social justice movement is people who are “offended on behalf of others,” who said critics like to point out are as white as they are. (Yes, they’d probably also describe people offended on behalf of *themselves* as being too sensitive or “aggressive;” I don’t like how it’s no-win with them either.) Since we *are* assuming good intent with them too, like you said we should, their issue seems to be that it’s less about social justice and more about sanctimoniousness.
Yes, I’ve seen “it’s all signaling” before too and I don’t believe it, for the simple reason that *all* socializing being an act is stressful. (And let’s not get started on “they’re just being right-wing for the ratings; nothing to worry about.”) However, humans *are* instinctually conscious of social status and want as much of it as possible. The prescriptive wording of a lot of discourse is as much to establish the writer’s position above the reader as it is their actual philosophy.
*deep breath*
I’ve been wanting to get that out to you for *years.* Never could figure out how to do so, or the right opportunity, until now.
I hear you, my friend. Sometimes it feels like you can’t win with Social Justice.
I wonder if that’s why said matters have as of late become so… if not toxic, at least seen on a negative light, and not just by the biased.
It’s just that something weird must be going on, if the wokeness promoting twitter and reddit crowds are cancelling Rippaverse comics, starring a black superhero written by a black writer
For the record, the Rippaverse comics were created specifically to be against social justice and supposedly “forced” diversity. Their creator actually marketed them that way to generate buzz, so it’s hardly surprising that they’re controversial.
Yeah, that would explain it (And it seems to have paid off).
To be fair, wokeness does seem to have some sort of infamy attached to it, being associated with insulting fans, guilting people into buying and watching (“if you don’t like my book, you’re bigoted”), bringing down other artists and even hypocrisy. Dunno how much of it is true, but folks seem to be really annoyed with “woke Hollywood” and “Twitter mobs”.
Are we perhaps seeing the other side of the “trying to send positive messages” coin? The one that makes diverse heroes come out as, well, mediocre(especially the excusing flaws variety)?
Well, you’re describing a number of different issues in quick succession.
The main one is that the right wing took “woke,” which was a perfectly serviceable bit of AAVE vocabulary, and turned it into their cultural bogyman, the same way they did with “political correctness” in the 90s and what they’re doing right now with “critical race theory.” It didn’t help that liberal and progressive white people also started using “woke” outside of it’s original context, but the main culprit is right wing pundits constantly screaming that “wokeness” is the cause of all problems. Sometimes they find an actual problem like online bullying, which happens for a huge number of reasons, and slap it with the “woke” label. In other cases, they just invent problems out of thin air. There’s a Native American lady fighting the predator, and “wokeness” is to blame. If you don’t like Jordan Peele’s latest movie, the “woke” mob will come after you!
It’s all made up culture war bullshit. Some people are threatened by the idea of stories getting less bigoted, and they’re throwing a fit about it. That’s really all there is to it.
I see. Well, luckily once Prey proved itself the voices went silent (for the most part)
You know, I was a conspiracy theorist, I’d suspect the right-wing is deliberately making bad movies and comic books to discredit social justice as a movement, after which they make bigoted but good entertainment to have themselves look better.
However, since I am not, I guess this is yet another case of works being of poor quality and people looking for guilty parties in all the wrong places. And media taking advantage of it for sales.
Although, there is an important lesson to learn here: Diversity by itself doesn’t make a work good. If a work has a message, it’s quality beyond said message will reflect on it as well, for good or ill.
This…is not the response I expected from you.
As for the Rippaverse, I’ve never heard of it until now. I do know that MLK knew of people like the creator, as one of “a few middle-class Negroes who, because of a degree of academic and economic security and because in some ways they profit by segregation, have become insensitive to the problems of the masses.” (Letter from Birmingham Jail)
No, I’m not just “signaling” by name-dropping; I’m showing that this problem hasn’t really gotten better…
To clarify, I was responding to Xyder brining up the Rippa comics because it’s easy to misunderstand what’s happening there if someone doesn’t have the correct context. And of course, Dr. King was correct, sometimes members of a marginalized group can perpetuate their own oppression. Women can sometimes be misogynist, Jews can sometimes be antisemetic, it unfortunately happens in every group.
As to your original comment, Logan pretty much said it best. Doing what’s right can be hard sometimes. Feeling unsure or discouraged doesn’t mean you’ve failed, just that you recognize the difficulty of the problem.
AlgaeNymph, let me just say one thing: feeling like you couldn’t ever be moral enough, means you have a solid understanding of the situation and a good moral compass. Only deliberately ignorant people think that they’re already good enough, and that they never have to learn, change, or treat people with respect. Continuing to go on, even though it’s certain you’ll mess something up, is the right thing to do. I understand that it can be frustrating, but it’s important to know that it is much more commendable to persist than to give up. I know we don’t know each other, but I know you can do it and I’m rooting for you.
…
Why thank you…it’s good to see someone being supportive. :’)
Really helpful compilation of advice here, and a great source to refer back to in the future. I appreciate all the different options and clear explanations. Thanks so much!
Upvote!
the most concretely useful article on this site so far.
for sure there are going to still be issues of nuance (e.g.: I, too, have seen the ‘identity first’ vs. ‘person first’ debate among those with direct personal stake in the matter) and there are still a few key contextual points that could be made (e.g.: rebelling against the implication that a FEMALE character ‘should’ abandon traditionally feminine things is part of a far larger issue of gender-coding. do these same authors lash out over the implication that MALE characters are ‘unmanly’ for liking traditionally feminine things? a lot don’t, which is ironic to say the least)
Overall, this is really good advice, and something that really needed to be written out like this. I’ll be saving key points from this one.
adding for clarity: when I say male characters are considered “unmanly” for liking traditionally feminine things, I AM including the ‘he’s so manly he can ‘get away with’ wearing a pink skirt!’ and related tropes, because it’s still marking ‘manly’ vs. ‘wears pink/a skirt’ as a contrast. in other words: it’s still coding skirts and pink as UN’manly’, with ‘manly’ being the ‘desirable’ quality. (hence my use of quotes, because it’s socially constructed (culture- and era-specific) BS, to put it bluntly.)
This guide is great! As a person who can have some problems with social stuff It’s kind of reassuring to see that it’s mostly stuff I’ve already considered but it’s really nice to see it all laid out in concise way. I’m really grateful for this site in general actually. I generally consider myself fairy well-versed in social justice stuff but there are some things (especially things specific to writing and world-building) that I had never considered like that a fantasy setting could just like Not have sexism (as an AFAB person who read a lot of fantasy as a kid that mostly had girl protagonists it was just ever-present) so thank you for all that. You’ve made my writing a lot better and more considerate.
So the gist is to remove any condemning language and try to be as empathetic as possible?
I feel like the biggest problem here is often that social justice is hard to write, because in more than one way, others will always be offended by the world, since stereotypes are persistent in almost every work.
I think it’s better for a writer to first look up the cultures they want to represent, which is why early AC games were recieved well.
In regard to criticism, the problem is that writers who want to write a story about inequality aren’t always knowledgeable about what it means and make mistakes. We all made mistakes in regard to social justice, I did many in my life as well, so the best way to deal with it is give them room to improve and not make it look like as if their life is doomed, because they made the Sultan a decadent and incompetent king.
It’s a problem not just with social justice critique, but critique in general where people are often too aggressive for simple mistakes that weren’t even motivated by bad intentions and as such, are not willingly to improve, if simple mistakes are punished so severly.
Can I be honest? This isn’t a social justice problem, but a criticism problem.
Criticism online is already a very dividing concept on the Internet, and some people are just poor with taking criticism regardless. You tell them that their story is not good for x reason, and more often than not, they withdraw into a bubble and act like everyone else is the enemy [Derek Savage, cough cough]. Social justice critique is no different.
And on the topic of this, I notice way too many people take what leftists say too literally regarding these things, or act like it basically amounts to “don’t do this”, “only do this”, “you’re not supposed to do this”, which isn’t true. To assume there is only one answer to how you create content means you’re setting yourself up to fail. They need to consider the context; they need to get out of “I can’t do this anymore because it’s bad” and instead go, “What can I do to avoid making the same mistake with this concept?”
TL,DR; binary thinking go brr.
I can completely empathize with the “Rebelling Against Other Progressives” section. It’s so easy to get frustrated when arguing with other progressives, because there is inherently a moral judgment aspect to it. It’s easy to just say “to hell with this, these guys have never actually thought things out” and disregard others entirely.
However, it’s also important to remember that your perspective isn’t the only one that matters.
The most neutral word I can think of to describe my views is cynical. I (and people who think like me) see progressivism as a means to an end. I think the focus should be on making as much palpable progress as possible, tackling issues where there is a clear connection between a potential problem and the harm it causes. I feel it’s better to prioritize observable harm over hypothetical harm, while also acknowledging that the real world isn’t a perfect place, and that this should be reflected in our approach.
Because my thinking on many topics is along the lines of “Is the harm here actual, rather than just hypothetical?”, this tends to put me at odds with more idealistic people on certain topics. They might see me as internalizing, accepting, and being content with bigoted ideas that we should be challenging, while I see them as making progressives look unreasonable by presenting ludicrous and untenable ideas of what should be consider bigoted. They might see me as ignorant to the full implications of problems, while I see then as ignorant to the full implications of their proposed solutions. They might think the message of X story is harmful, because the hero was rewarded for questionable actions that we shouldn’t be promoting as reasonable, while I think the message of Y story they give as a counterexample of a good message is belittling, because the hero is rewarded for idealistic actions that people who face similar struggles in their lives aren’t rewarded for and don’t have the luxury of doing.
Because I’m someone who’s suffered much from the injustices progressivism looks to correct, it feels a lot more hurtful to me when ideas that I see as harmful to people like me are being presented as progressive. It’s too easy to get caught up in anger, and write something that shows just how ludicrous you think they’re being.
But in the end, pointlessly spiting other progressives is just a self-own. It ends up spreading the very same kind of self-sabotaging message you feel others are spreading, and gives ammo to the people trying to hold us back.
It’s also important to recognize that everyone is right in their own head. The very problem we have is that it’s difficult to get people to accept ideas that contradict what they already believe. With some introspection, you might realize you possessed biases you never considered you might have.
Even if you’re not convinced by the ideas others present, it’s worth considering if it’s actually necessary to contradict them. For example, if others claim X is harmful, and you’re not remotely convinced by their arguments, it’s worth considering whether you actually need to feature X in your work, or can find an alternative that satisfies the same purpose. Chances are, you might find something different that does the job even better.
In the end, no matter how angry you get, it’s important to keep the bigger picture in mind. Spitefulness and pettiness have never moved us forward, and it won’t start working now.