![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Oh, fandom. Don't ever change. If you do, I might find myself actually doing stuff I'm supposed to do rather than read through wank of a fandom I don't even participate in.
I was particularly amused by this thread. Because, obviously, everyone knows that when books and Hollywood deal with the Holocaust, they do it in a not at all exploiting way and everyone surely approves of it, after all, it's Spielberg! OMG He can't do it wrong, he's Jewish!!!! I don't know, maybe it's because I grew up with it, but no, I didn't find the explicit violence of Schindler's List or The Pianist particularly respectful. I thought it was there for mainly shock value. Cos, y'know, the whole concept of the Holocaust isn't shocking enough. Or something. We wouldn't know Nazis were bad people unless we see them throwing a man in a wheelchair down 5 floors and then run him over, or see someone's head visually explode when he's being shot. Without this kind of thing, we might just think the Nazis were nice and cuddly and had a healthy interest in Hinduism.
And yet, there is still a difference between "I will now do something X about the Holocaust" which is what Spielberg and Polansky did, and "I will now write a 'dark character study' and I need a tragedy to write about so I'll pick up - the Holocaust!" I don't have a problem with writing about relevant, hard or traumatic events in the world or in human history, not even when they're my own family's traumatic events. But if you're going to write about them... then ffs, write about THEM. People's pain and suffering is not background for people who want to write fucked-up characters or 'shocking, dark and edgy' stories. I'm torn between amusement and bewilderment at the amount of people who don't seem to get that it's not the same. One is writing about the terrible event. Possibly in an exploitative way, possibly not, depends on how skilled the author is and how knowledgeable and where their sensitivities lie. The other is USING the terrible event.
It goes back to the way I look at all fiction, I think. There's the plot and there's the story and they're not necessarily the same thing. If you write about a human tragedy, it should be the story, not the plot.
Also, having read that wank thoroughly enough to pick up a prize quote... ( me whinging on about appropriation and personal stuff )
Leaving this unlocked because, well, I can? I'm still in the righteous indignation phase. Might change later.
I was particularly amused by this thread. Because, obviously, everyone knows that when books and Hollywood deal with the Holocaust, they do it in a not at all exploiting way and everyone surely approves of it, after all, it's Spielberg! OMG He can't do it wrong, he's Jewish!!!! I don't know, maybe it's because I grew up with it, but no, I didn't find the explicit violence of Schindler's List or The Pianist particularly respectful. I thought it was there for mainly shock value. Cos, y'know, the whole concept of the Holocaust isn't shocking enough. Or something. We wouldn't know Nazis were bad people unless we see them throwing a man in a wheelchair down 5 floors and then run him over, or see someone's head visually explode when he's being shot. Without this kind of thing, we might just think the Nazis were nice and cuddly and had a healthy interest in Hinduism.
And yet, there is still a difference between "I will now do something X about the Holocaust" which is what Spielberg and Polansky did, and "I will now write a 'dark character study' and I need a tragedy to write about so I'll pick up - the Holocaust!" I don't have a problem with writing about relevant, hard or traumatic events in the world or in human history, not even when they're my own family's traumatic events. But if you're going to write about them... then ffs, write about THEM. People's pain and suffering is not background for people who want to write fucked-up characters or 'shocking, dark and edgy' stories. I'm torn between amusement and bewilderment at the amount of people who don't seem to get that it's not the same. One is writing about the terrible event. Possibly in an exploitative way, possibly not, depends on how skilled the author is and how knowledgeable and where their sensitivities lie. The other is USING the terrible event.
It goes back to the way I look at all fiction, I think. There's the plot and there's the story and they're not necessarily the same thing. If you write about a human tragedy, it should be the story, not the plot.
Also, having read that wank thoroughly enough to pick up a prize quote... ( me whinging on about appropriation and personal stuff )
Leaving this unlocked because, well, I can? I'm still in the righteous indignation phase. Might change later.