We're all flawed, the flames of irritation, irrationality inspire, and provoke so many first drafts. Get it down on the page, then craft away, put unacceptable views into the mouths of characters. Remember you are an artist [haw] - groundbreaking, white or black hot prose that asks many questions of us... all those kind of things
I think if I wanted to write something like that i'd create a fictional group based on BLM - you see that in other fiction like in "The Forgotten" by Faye Kellerman where the bad guys are white supremacists , she creates a group "the preservers of ethnic integrity" rather than using one of the established groups. Likewise in Patriot Games Tomy Clancy creates an ulster based terrorist group rather than naming the IRA There are of course exceptions - no end of novels have been written with the KKK named in a bad way ( a time to kill - John Grisham, for example) , but this is both legally safer and less controversial because that view of the Klan is widely accepted, BLM is far more controversial.
I can't say definitively without seeing a finished product, but I'd say there's great potential for this to end up being offensive. Especially if the narrative seems to endorse the same views the character has.
There is quite a difference between assault and straight up murder. So yes, you are ascribing fictional sins to BLM, which I would not even deem offensive, but pretty f*cking immoral. What is indeed offensive is your source, not necessarily in a 'political correctness'-, but in a 'use your brain'-kind of way. Conservative whiners who see 'white-haters' and evil 'Muslim terrorists' everywhere are not exactly known to provide the most accurate information. Read different sites.
So what if it is? Freedom of speech? Understanding another point of view? Writing fiction should not be a social-political poll. It is all about understanding. I find it quite pretentious. Here we are, a bunch of writers, writing about fictional righteous killers but when it comes down to a so-real-social-matter... better skip it. It might spoil your irrelevant reputation. People might even think that you are a racist yourself, god forbid! Not good man. Not good. Conclusion: Write it. As a subject, it sounds interesting and meaningful. But I tend to be rebellious by nature. I like reading books or watching films that are dramatic and about a point of view that is different than mine. Because that way, I might be able to understand where the other person is coming from, and that for me, for reasons that I won't be going to explain here (I could write a whole book about it) is of the utmost importance. HATE is important and should be understood because it is oh-so-fucking real.
The OP proposes writing about a REAL group committing FICTIONAL crimes. He proposes making up, and publishing, lies about a real group. If the OP thinks that that real-world group is doing something wrong, the OP can do research and write about that reality. If the OP wants to write fiction, he should write fiction that is not also libel.
I'm going to go against the grain and tell the OP to go with it. Surely he is an adult who is aware of the potential volatility of his topic and should be prepared for any ramifications of those actions - even if those actions are words.
Yes and I'm down for it. First of all, I and you have no clue about how this story is going to turn. The OP, just wrote a concept about the character being against the BLM and his reasons. I find this concept realistic and interesting. It's called action and reaction. As for morality, in case that people living upon this planet haven't noticed, it is subjective. Morality, is not objective. That is why the human species has been fighting for millenniums. About their POV of morality and what is right from wrong, as how they learned it and experienced it first hand. So, I hope you see why I'm so pumped up as to stand on a topic like this and respond to my quoted respond. Because I personally find it moral to write about concepts that are fast to be stepped upon as common knowledge from "moral" people that are quick to draw and shoot upon such matters, like they are so black and white in nature. I am being very sincere when I say that: No, they aren't. There is always a reason for hate and fear and in order to deal with it, if you are so sincerely interested about it yourself, better make it understood. Secondly: Lies? Fiction is just lies for you? As a reader, I don't perceive it that way, unless they are actually lying. Facts are indeed facts. But facts have nothing to do in a wide spread movement. I personally haven't met with any BLM people. I'm into the anti-racist movement but just as an ideology. I've been going to these kind of movements and festivals for years, but you know what? Not all of these people are my friends and not all of them are in their right minds, I can assure you. Just because we have a same belief that is righteous by my POV doesn't make them saints (or me as a matter of fact). There are plenty of misguided people out there, that have done plenty of extreme things that maybe they regretted or maybe they never had. Do you know what fanaticism means? It is not a healthy apparatus and it's very common. It's caused by trauma and fear. It feeds hate. But of course that is my POV from my experiences. Thirdly: Libel? Really? How can you even say that? With what facts? This story hasn't even been written. But even if it did, do you feel like a minority upon such a matter? Most of the responds here were all about killing a subject like this on the terms of it being immoral. Lastly: American History X. One of my all time favorites.
Paraphrasing Stephen King: "Fiction stories are lies that entertain". Politically I am not a fan of BLM. However, I would not read this book. Writing this story would require such a supreme level of skill for it to not be offensive I doubt few people could achieve it. I think the only chance someone would have of making it work is to depict both sides of the issue equally. In the OP's case this is probably not possible since he admits to having a bias. Change it to a fictitious group that mimics BLM and it is suddenly a different story. Not much of a difference I know but you're writing fiction, not a non-fiction expose.
So imagine that someone writes a story that includes a character that commits horrible crimes. Imagine that the character has your name, your appearance, lives where you live, works where you work, and in every other way is not just identical to you, but easily identifiably identical to you. And that person states that the story is "based on" truth. That's just dandy with you?
Do I find it offensive? No. Get any group of people together and conflict will always arise. Not racist in the least, but there have been a lot of black riots. Every race has their shit, don't get me wrong, just stating a fact. It's understandable. I'm a white male and can say my demographic breeds more serial killers than any other. It's just known facts. That being said, don't put it in your book. You could kill your book from that one part that isn't going to be that essential. If you play with fire, don't complain when you bet burned. Simple as that.
The thing is, a story involving real group and focussing the story on their actions is social critique. And social critique only works if the story is liable to honesty. Of course such a story should be able to exist, because fiction in no way should be an echo box for the accepted opinions to reign within, but that doesn't mean just writing it makes it okay. Such a topic should be well researched and thought through to offer any just critique. A book with a character critical and unfond of a movement, offering critique on said movement, shouldn't do that based on fictional events, instead basing it on fictionalized versions of actual events. Now, personally, I only know the basics about the BLM movement, so I don't have a strong opinion on the matter. What I do recognize is that it's a very splintered organization, so if the story inherently attributes any actions to the movement as a whole, the critique is flawed. As @MarcT has been saying, satire, or any form of social critique, needs to understand it's subject matter to the core. A story written from fictionalized set contempary is not going to showcase a well-thought through perspective, it's going to be a flawed one based on lack of information. So in the end, yes, a story critiqueing BLM has full rights to exist, but no, it can't be based on complete fiction.
But that's just it, man. If Grand Theft Auto V, which supposedly wasn't that offensive (if you discount that interactive torture sequence where you torture an innocent man for information he didn't have),managed to stir up shit, imagine how people will react to a book that seemingly paints BLM as this violent group that wants to kill police officers and white people?
The best advice I can give is to use the reactions on here as a barometer to how the general public will respond. By all means go ahead and write it if you strongly enough about the story. But be prepared to accept what comes back your way if you do.
Go for it. Write the story. A lot of people are positively on the edge of their seat desperate to be offended by something. So you will be giving meaning to their lives. Don't let a bunch of non-entities on a forum dictate to you what you should and shouldn't write. lol What do you think will still be around in a 100 years? Your stories? Or poetry as a craft?
Non-entities?! >:[ Well, excuse us for trying to warn the OP that not everyone will take the book kindly should he/she choose to write it. If you'll note, I never told him/her to scrap the idea, only to be mindful of the backlash. But hey, what do we know? Some of us (not me, of course) are actually published authors and know what we're talking about.
This is irrelevant to this topic. A whole movement, is not a person. It is many. Some of them are most likely misguided. Btw, I read the OP's responses over and over again in order to see if I'm missing something. Where does he say "based on truth"? When you say this, do you mean based on true events from people that actually existed and write them as they happened? Again I need to ask in case I'm missing something, where does he say that? He said "Not fictional sins more like inspired by real life events." This is different. It means fiction written upon a story or stories he read somewhere in the news. It is inspired by "true" events but it is also fiction. At least that is how I understand this. I think that all fiction is based upon events that inspired a writer in general. Real things. Without them, you have no story. Not even in the fantasy genre. It is the reason, it is the solid ground for writing. I agree with you to some points you are saying but I don't agree with the last bit. Why a story written from fictionalized set contemporary is not going to showcase a... ?How do you know it's going to lack information? What information is good enough? And what does complete fiction mean? This story hasn't even been written yet, so with what facts do you end up with such a conclusion? Fiction as I read it, is based upon speculation and improvisation upon real social matters. It is written not only as a critique but also as an understanding. Sometimes the author might even end the book with a question mark, because his intention is not to critique but to make you think. To make you see what he saw. He is not critiquing rather than expressing his own unsolved questions and dilemmas. To put it even more simply: If a group of three people in Greenpeace are committing fraud, let's say that they are stealing from the funds and put them in their pockets, does that mean that all of the Greenpeace organization is a fraud? From my POV, no. But now I know that there are some people in Greenpeace that are indeed speculators. (True story). I do not condemn Greenpeace for that. (Greenpeace is merely an ideology. What happened is irrelevant to this ideology). But I won't be trusting them so easily with my money from now on because I will know that there is a leak in the organization. I will have to dig deeper and find members from the organization that I can trust. Now, I will be able to understand why some people won't trust their money in Greenpeace too. Fraud, is a legit reason for mistrust. He is not against Greenpeace, but he simply doesn't trust his money there. Two different things. Do you see my point?
I am amazed at the incredible amount of politically correct self-censorship that some of you engage in. If you were writing fiction about a Catholic priest abusing children, with assistance by some of the higher clergy in covering it up, and the trauma it caused to the victims, would you be concerned about offending Catholics? Perhaps not, because for some politically-correct thinking people, the Catholic Church is not a "good" organization immune from criticism; but for some of you, BLM or Greenpeace seem to be such, and to imply that they or their members ever act from anything other than the highest motivations is offensive and perhaps racist. BTW, I am Catholic, have no problem criticizing the church for this and many other things. In fact some boys in my elementary school @ 1962 were the victim of our "exemplary" pastor who was in fact a predator. (He must not have liked me much, never approached me) If you are criticizing a real world organization, it is best to approach it tastefully. There is a difference between an honest critique and portrayal of real flaws, which is what literature does, and a political rant against "intrinsically evil" people and organizations, which is just propaganda. But criticism of any organization is valid because all are flawed, as are all people. Some of you should read, if you have not yet done so, "1984", and acquaint yourself with "thought crime," and the idea of making self-censorship so strong that you cannot even express a "thought crime"... which was criticism of a protected organization.
