Reality Check We need to talk - and be able to talk - about ‘offence’

Amusement In case anyone needs a laugh...

Fun with Query letters

Status
Not open for further replies.

Andy D

Basic
Sep 3, 2019
Brighton
On Sunday’s Pop-Ups I felt very aware that we had submissions from writers brave enough to try to make us laugh, who were often struggling - and that as a judge I was sometimes wondering if there were points at which I or others would or should take offence?

So I thought I’d throw this question out to the colony: should we? Or indeed, should we try not to?

Writers have doubtless been causing offence, and not just for comedy, forever. Indeed I grew up in a time where political correctness was at the forefront of a shift in comedy taste. We were thankfully moving away from tired tropes of mother-in-law jokes and more importantly overt racism, sexism and misogyny. Yet also at the heart of this - what seemed most sacred - was the right to freedom of speech. In fact I remember going on a march against Clause 28 where all these ideals were rolled in together.

Now, however, we live in very different times where it can seem those same ideals are often in conflict. For the sake of debate, at least, I could argue that that same freedom of speech has been eroded by that very movement that once sought so passionately to protect it.

On the flip side - we can so easily and have always been able to say and write things that are hurtful to others. Personally, I’m now a Christian. I could take offence almost hourly when I hear Jesus’s name - the name of the one I love so dearly, worship and am thankful for - being used as a derogatory term. Worse, I’ve been to see comedians I love like Eddie Izzard and Tim Minchin do whole routines about Him that left me quite hurt.

So how do we deal with offence in 2022, when I can so effortlessly write ‘Fuck X, Y and Z’ on a public board like this, and progressively - both individually and as a collective? Obviously I don’t have the answer - as if there could ever be one that satisfies an issue far more nuanced and subtle than I’m able to broadly outline here. But there are two things that, for me, come to mind:

Firstly, regarding the above example, I’m reminded that I myself have a mouth like a sewer, and love to shock :) That Jesus himself, perhaps contrary to opinion, loved a joke and is of course far more capable of loving, and wiser than me in all situations. He also tells me when I’m offended to turn the other cheek, which is a challenge but then life is. I’m also reminded how much I agreed with Ben Elton and others back in the day that we need to change - and that freedom of speech is indeed so, so fundamental to a fair and functioning society. In fact it’s what gives me the opportunity to worship freely in the first place, when many other countries and other religions don’t have that. Plus, Eddie Izzard and Tim Minchin are still bloody funny.

Secondly, it reminds me that writers need space to hone their craft and get things wrong - and that there’s good reason in a place like Pop Ups, even when the jokes don’t land, even when they make us feel uncomfortable, to protect their right to do that. And also that it’s not just the characters on the page that say and do the right things, but also the ones that say and do the wrong things - that, for example, expose our own prejudices, because personally I think we all battle with them, that none of us mortals are perfect - that can teach us so much.

Someone’s kindly already directed me to a thread in this area that’s well worth a look, and I guess I’m echoing some of Anthony Horowitz’s concerns:
https://colony.litopia.com/threads/trigger-warnings.11349/

And while I’ve been pondering this (and, irony of ironies, checking with a friend on here that this actual post wasn’t offensive) I’ve listened to a film reviewer I used to greatly admire question whether jokes about a Japanese toilet were ‘acceptable’ - both of which force me to my point: No, jokes about a Japanese toilet, though old, laboured or hackneyed, are not by default ‘unacceptable’; and that I think as writers, though it may be painful, we should try wherever possible to cultivate a high bar to offence, however tempting it is right now to present in public a low one.
 
When I crit on here and in the Genius Room, I do so with my agent disguise on. When I see a story opening that makes fun of child abuse, for example, I read it and think: No publisher is going to touch that.

It's not really a matter of personal taste. If I can see a sub covered in red flags, I'll mark accordingly. Publishing is a business.

A person can write a full-on edgy book and self publish if they wish (provided they don't use KPD, who delete the hell out of content for spurious reasons), though that's not why they're on Pop Ups.
 
On the flip side - we can so easily and have always been able to say and write things that are hurtful to others. Personally, I’m now a Christian. I could take offence almost hourly when I hear Jesus’s name - the name of the one I love so dearly, worship and am thankful for - being used as a derogatory term. Worse, I’ve been to see comedians I love like Eddie Izzard and Tim Minchin do whole routines about Him that left me quite hurt.
How Pagans/Wiccans/Druids have felt about most popular culture until very recently!

Hate crime is often dressed up as freedom of speech. Thankfully the tide is turning. I hope for a more inclusive society within my lifetime.

For example, I may say that I don't feel comfortable about monotheistic religions, and that's not going to upset any open-minded person. They may well disagree, of course, though there's nothing hateful in the sentiment. However, if someone says or writes "Christians are deluded", or "Jesus is ....blah" or "Going to church is stupid" or anything similar, it goes beyond expressing an opinion and becomes expressing contempt.
 
RG, I share your hope for a more inclusive society, and thankfully living in Brighton it’s one I get to share. But of course there’s more to be done and I don’t think we get there without free discussion. Sadly I fear the alternative can be that peoples confusion and perceived alienation can get driven to darker places as a result without it.

And yes, freedom of speech has and will be used as an excuse to say hateful, evil things. But that’s what we do, we abuse systems and principles, it’s in our nature. To say we should have that freedom taken away from us as a result is like getting rid of a welfare system because people abuse that. And I’m not saying there aren’t extremes that need to be managed - somehow. Nor when huge powers, states, politicians are abusing the very concept of truth on public forums to manipulate and control that there aren’t very real and serious dangers to our whole survival.

But of course I’ve been told by comedians and elsewhere that to have faith I’m deluded. It does show contempt, not to mention a huge arrogance, and it’s painful. But at this point I’d still fight for their right to say it.
 
You are a veritable fount of free expression, @Barbara , my thrilling little frosting-filled cupcake.
Oh you guessed, did you? :D

I totally do. I believe the responsibility lies within ourselves. We can either choose to be offended by stuff and in doing so join the hatred; or we can rise above it, accept there are other views, other humans, and move on to spread positive vibes.

In other words, I'm quite happy for folk say they hate my cake. I can live with that, mainly because it means I can now eat the entire cake myself or give it to someone who likes it.
 
Last edited:
There are many books I will not read. Lolita is one, but there are others. I don't read those types of books, but I'm not going to object to the book itself. I don't read them because they do not suit my tastes, and I don't like the subject matter. As a reader, that's my choice.
I cannot be offended by the contents if the context of the story is clear for me to be able to make a decision on whether it's suitable for my tastes or not.
As a writer, I will write from my heart and soul. I will preach and pester through the characters as they live a life that may be an example/metaphor for life. Pain will be involved. Struggle, doubt, disasters. And I will paint on the outside of that story, using the cover and description and title, that it may not suit some readers. That's the way of choice.
 
All great points from the Colony. I don't think I can really add to what this perceptive group has already pointed out (above). It is a delicate balancing act. Here in the states, someone is offended by something all of the time. Rodney Dangerfield, Jackie Mason and other would never make it today.
 
Another opinion from stateside, I agree with points made by @RG Worsey and @James Charles Arlington . There is a clear difference between how people should handle offense and how they do handle offense. I mentioned it in Pop-ups briefly, but it's not like offensive topics can't be filtered through humor. That's often the best way to handle those topics. But humor with offensive topics is also difficult. And won't be for everyone. The more coarsely it's handled, the more specific the audience. Family Guy hinges on offensive topics. And it works for its target audience. Archer, the same ( I really can't stand that show in particular because much of the humor degrades women). Archer's target demographic? White men under 45. No surprise.

When writing humor that could be considered offensive, I would think the most important consideration is reader base. Who are you writing to?
 
In terms of "free speech", it's important to take into account who is saying it and whether they are talking about their peers or whether they come from a position of privilege.

Monty Python were a group of Oxbridge types taking the piss out of institutions like the civil service, and it worked. Little Britain was Oxbridge types taking the piss out of working class people, and I hated it. I don't think they would get away with it now, and I'm glad. Another example is 1990s comedy show Goodness Gracious Me. British Asians gently poking fun at Asian stereotypes. Would it have caused offence if it were white people putting on accents and doing it? Hell yeah!
 
I stand with the majority here in defending freedom of speech, especially in art, as Voltaire so memorably said: “I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

But it really is all about context and as writers we must be sensitive to that. As @RG Worsey points out, PopUps is all about the business side of writing. Personally I struggle with this during the show as the agent's hat doesn't fit so well on my writer's head. But that's what makes it a useful exercise for all of us who aim to be published. And what is or is not acceptable/palatable/appealing to commercial audiences is what it's all about.

So grateful to this group to be able to voice this kind of debate. Thanks, @Andy D, for the thoughtful post!
 
I stand with the majority here in defending freedom of speech, especially in art, as Voltaire so memorably said: “I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
I’ve always had a very soft spot for Voltaire… Candide is an angry/funny/humane/wise picaresque tract that ends with a great motto for living… we must cultivate our garden (il faut cultiver notre jardin).

But sadly, he didn’t utter that much-quoted quote above. It was his biographer, Evelyn Beatrice Hall, who put those words into his mouth… :) p.
 
I’ve always had a very soft spot for Voltaire… Candide is an angry/funny/humane/wise picaresque tract that ends with a great motto for living… we must cultivate our garden (il faut cultiver notre jardin).

But sadly, he didn’t utter that much-quoted quote above. It was his biographer, Evelyn Beatrice Hall, who put those words into his mouth… :) p.
Interesting! Not the only myth of French literature though, like the popular idea that Molière died on stage (ironically he died at home after a coughing fit during a performance of his play 'The Imaginary Invalid').
 
"The highest duty of the writer, the composer, the artist is to remain true to himself and to let the chips fall where they may. In serving his vision of the truth, the artist best serves his nation." JFK
Quick note, the structure of this quote can be seen as offensive in a contemporary context, but I'd argue that the idea is correct.
Although, as someone else noted "Those who insist on chips falling where they may assume they won't be hit by falling chips."

There's nothing wrong with offending, if offending is deemed necessary for the situation, the time. Offense in any form of art is assumed to often be part of the content, and it can be meaningfull and important. But the Spiderman ethos does come into play. Putting our hurtful words out there is a great power, and if it's not done with a sense of responsibility, it's just mean.
 
Art and artist need to be defined here. I think they have lost their meaning in the modern world. Not everyone who pins art or artist on themselves qualifies. Art should not be used as a conflict hostage to shield destruction of civil discourse. To me this problem comes down to motivation as do many ethical discussions. I'm against Wokism, but for Humanism. Comedians who do not make their target laugh are not artists. If you are making disability jokes and the kid in the wheelchair laughs then you are an artist. If they don't, perhaps you are a failed artist, but probably you're just a shitty human.
Jordan Peterson swears he's not a fascist-but his following basically is so where does that leave his argument? It's kind of like that with humour. If lesbians don't think the way you described them as being farty is funny, then you are probably just making fun of lesbians. Making fun of people, places and things is the sole source of humour for the right wing. It's why there is no Daily Show equivalent for America's extreme right. They've tried and failed many times.
In the US we see what happens when there is no censorship, no boundaries on what can be said. Fox News is protected under the same provision as the Daily Show as it claims it is entertainment rather than news. If you open your mind too wide your brains can fall out.
On the other hand talking about things leads to education. I recently had a discussion about Indian ponies with people questioning my use of the word. If you look up American Indian Movement you will find the AIM's view is a political definition that can be summed up as -it's your damn word, you defined us with it, you can't put a bandaid over what was done to us by calling us Native Americans. European horses have always been American horses to the plains tribes. The only tribes willing to think of themselves as Americans died enmasse on the Trail of Tears to Oklahoma and Mississippi, 1830 to 1850. The horses imported by the English are very different than the horses that have been preserved by ranchers, vaqueros and tribes on reservations because of their unique qualities. As Jason pointed out there is a researcher in Canada who argues that horses have always been in Canada. That jibes with the oral history of the Cayuse tribe in Oregon for ex. that say they had horses when the whites came. Just to say that none of this can be discussed if you can't say Indian. Therefore the AIM and AIHR – The American Indian Horse Registry
Interesting to see if New Zealand will change its name to the Maori Aotearoa.
 
Art and artist need to be defined here. I think they have lost their meaning in the modern world. Not everyone who pins art or artist on themselves qualifies. Art should not be used as a conflict hostage to shield destruction of civil discourse. To me this problem comes down to motivation as do many ethical discussions. I'm against Wokism, but for Humanism. Comedians who do not make their target laugh are not artists. If you are making disability jokes and the kid in the wheelchair laughs then you are an artist. If they don't, perhaps you are a failed artist, but probably you're just a shitty human.
Jordan Peterson swears he's not a fascist-but his following basically is so where does that leave his argument? It's kind of like that with humour. If lesbians don't think the way you described them as being farty is funny, then you are probably just making fun of lesbians. Making fun of people, places and things is the sole source of humour for the right wing. It's why there is no Daily Show equivalent for America's extreme right. They've tried and failed many times.
In the US we see what happens when there is no censorship, no boundaries on what can be said. Fox News is protected under the same provision as the Daily Show as it claims it is entertainment rather than news. If you open your mind too wide your brains can fall out.
On the other hand talking about things leads to education. I recently had a discussion about Indian ponies with people questioning my use of the word. If you look up American Indian Movement you will find the AIM's view is a political definition that can be summed up as -it's your damn word, you defined us with it, you can't put a bandaid over what was done to us by calling us Native Americans. European horses have always been American horses to the plains tribes. The only tribes willing to think of themselves as Americans died enmasse on the Trail of Tears to Oklahoma and Mississippi, 1830 to 1850. The horses imported by the English are very different than the horses that have been preserved by ranchers, vaqueros and tribes on reservations because of their unique qualities. As Jason pointed out there is a researcher in Canada who argues that horses have always been in Canada. That jibes with the oral history of the Cayuse tribe in Oregon for ex. that say they had horses when the whites came. Just to say that none of this can be discussed if you can't say Indian. Therefore the AIM and AIHR – The American Indian Horse Registry
Interesting to see if New Zealand will change its name to the Maori Aotearoa.
One of the clips above from Roan Atkinson gave me pause - he’s basically saying if you’re a comedian and you tell a joke and just one person laughs, you’re doing your job. I was like, yeah but how would I feel if I was a comic, told a joke and pretty much everyone walks out? And then I remembered Andy Kaufman…
 
Comedians who do not make their target laugh are not artists. If you are making disability jokes and the kid in the wheelchair laughs then you are an artist. If they don't, perhaps you are a failed artist, but probably you're just a shitty human.
If you tell a joke and no one laughs, you are still an artist; you made up the joke (presumably). But in the no-laugh scenario, you are a bad artist or a good one but targeting the wrong audience. If you cause offense by accident, you are not a shitty human. You just made an error of judgement for which you can apologise. And people do make mistakes. We artists are all human. (Well, except for Ai-Da who's just plain freaky. In a good way. Perhaps.)
 
In terms of "free speech", it's important to take into account who is saying it and whether they are talking about their peers or whether they come from a position of privilege.

Monty Python were a group of Oxbridge types taking the piss out of institutions like the civil service, and it worked. Little Britain was Oxbridge types taking the piss out of working class people, and I hated it. I don't think they would get away with it now, and I'm glad. Another example is 1990s comedy show Goodness Gracious Me. British Asians gently poking fun at Asian stereotypes. Would it have caused offence if it were white people putting on accents and doing it? Hell yeah!

Totally this. Punching up is satire, punching down is bullying.
(This might be a quote; fairly sure I didn't compose it myself.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Amusement In case anyone needs a laugh...

Fun with Query letters

Back
Top