Lawyers? Is that a joke? I presume that's a joke. That's gotta be a joke. You're not gonna like sue for libel over an internet thread are you?
All I'm saying is that if this guy wants to blast BLM, then he has every right to blast BLM. I personally wouldn't do it. But I'm not him, and it's the story he wants to tell.
I'm confused here. Why is it wrong for someone to use a theme regarding BLM and make a fictional story out of it? I'm not taking a stand one way or another that, and in fact, I lean pretty far left politically. There have been plenty of controversial books written in the past. Why are we condemning what this person may or may not do? ETA: Someone was hurt in the crossfire by a group that is all around altruistic and fighting for equality. You don't see a good story there? I certainly do. (Serious question. Not intended to be argumentative.)
You do know that not every person thought those groups were kind of evil or completely evil, right? There was not a worldwide consensus that Communism and Marxism were bad. I don't see the difference between the split between those two groups and the split between what people think of BLM. I will clarify again in saying that I have no opinion here. I'm merely discussing.
I'm really confused. You don't think there are innocent people hurt in the crossfire of an otherwise GOOD movement? You don't see that there can sometimes be negative repercussions from a bad apple in a good tree?
Maybe this is where we differ. I don't hold somebody's desire to tell a particular story in high regard. I think I, and every other writer, has a responsibility to not add to the marginalisation of marginalised groups with our books, ESPECIALLY groups that are currently marginalised. Especially groups that are currently fighting against being marginalised, and are dying for it. I'm a huge fan of self-censorship and, well, being a decent human being.
I've now scanned the thread. @Tenderiser, I'm curious as to why you think fictionalizing BLM is "the worst thing you could do"? Writers fictionalize real life all the time. It's at the heart of historical fiction. It allows the writer to alter the "real life" aspects that don't fit the narrative of the story, as well as helping to avoid potentimal legal issues. I don't see a problem here. You may be right. But that's his choice. As I said, I'm looking at this from a practical standpoint.
I'm not sure that self-censorship and being a decent human being are one in the same. Let me say again that I WOULD NOT WRITE THIS STORY NOR DO I HAVE ANY ISSUE WITH BLM. Also, if you're casting the group in a good light, and showing a single not so good part of a GOOD movement in a story. How is that marginalizing a group of people? I'm feeling a little like you're referring to me as a less than good human being because I can see a positive story in a negative situation. But maybe I'm reading you wrong.
You do seem to be reading my posts in completely the wrong context, because we're talking about the OP's idea and not this one you just referred to.
That could very well be the case. And I will say that I agree with you on that account. I guess my point is that it's possible to mold the story he wants to tell into something positive with the required creativity and thoughtfulness to the marginalized group.
Of course there are shitty people in all walks of life, and they hurt innocent people. Doesn't make the whole group bad. As a wise man from the history forums once said: to conclude a whole group is like a small sampling of the group is mentally dangerous.
Hurt BY that group? In real life? Are you saying that this is fact? Then why not research and write about that, instead of making up a kinda-sorta-vaguely-resembles incident and fictionalizing it? Edited to add: OK, on rereading you seem to be talking about something totally different from the OP. I'm actually not quite sure what you're saying, but please consider the above to be about the OP's idea.
*emphasis mine* It's possible to write a sympathetic character with prejudiced views. Remember that racism comes in several forms and degrees; not every racist is a frothing-at-the-mouth psychopath who makes their home in a KKK lodge. What if someone wrote a white character who runs highly effective charity organizations, but is also afraid to be alone with black people? I think the best examples of racist-yet-sympathetic characters come from the movie Zootopia. You have a lot of good people with varying prejudices, a lot of which comes from upbringing and ignorance, and is overcome simply through experience. As for the topic at hand, I say let people write what they want, even if it is offensive and even hateful. Write about how the holocaust was an inside job or that 9/11 never happened, just don't be surprised when people don't read it, don't like it, or publishers reject it. It's easy for us to say, "Don't do it, it's offensive, you monster," when you agree with prevailing public opinion. But what happens when you disagree strongly with the public? Who's making the decision about what we can and can't say? Either we're all allowed to express what we believe, or no one is.
To be fair it happens http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/hyde-park-turned-into-warzone-when-youths-chanting-black-lives-matter-clash-with-police-after-water-a3299731.html the key how you define group since BLM describe themselves as a network rather than a group - so its entirely possible to have some 'members' who act in a way not in keeping with the founders intent.
Yes, innocent people have been hurt by the BLM movement. No, that does not make the whole group bad. And you're right, The OP should find a better way to frame his story. What I'm saying is there are plenty of ways to write the story he wants to write without it blasting the entirety of BLM, to cast BLM in a good light and talk about the harm to innocent people that can come from movements like these. The mistake I've made is not clarifying that I'm not talking about the OP's original idea. I think he would be remiss in writing that story. That said, I'm not going to tell him he's a racist idiot; I just won't entertain his ideas in the future. People are racists, assholes, sexists, etc., and that really sucks, but it's a fact of life. People are going to write stories like that. So what I can do is a) talk about the idea and, hopefully, help them mold it into something that will help shape their ideas away from hate. Or b) tell them they are an idiot and treat them the way bigots, assholes, and sexists treat other people. I choose to help people rather than condemn them, no matter their beliefs.
I wouldn't write about a controversial political movement, personally, without changing names and muddling details. It's just too easy to offend people and come off as preachy. Tom Clancy handles this pretty well in my opinion: he takes real world problems such as the tension between Israel and Palestine (Sum of All Fears), the US' troubled relations with Iran (Executive Orders), and the War on Drugs (Clear and Present Danger), and creates a fictional story that abstracts the details enough to be interesting, while not offending any specific political groups. Civil Rights is already a pretty touchy issue, but it's been an important part of American politics for a long time. You can definitely write about it, but I wouldn't write about BLM specifically. And as others have said, I'd be offended if the book came off as marginalizing African Americans.
