These sorts of questions come up and again, at least in my mind. After reading the article written by Dino Pollard, I was curious if anyone else thought of things as I sometimes do. So I picked a random ten people in my email list and asked them a series of five questions, I received replies from six of those people as I know I did not have much time to send these out and wait for replies.
The panel consists of the following people, most of them need little introduction; but for the sake of introductions I’ll do it anyway.
Dave Golightly, the editor in chief of Marvel Knights Group, he’s also a name known to many of the sites in our circle.
Rena Paradox, somewhat of a new face around, she is the writer of the upcoming Agent 13 series at Altered Visions.
Hunter Lambright, works at both Marvel Omega and another site associated with Uncannyxmen.net.
Maria Burns is not a name anyone will recognize. She is a friend of mine and a reader of several of the fan fiction sites I’ve introduced her to over the months we’ve known each other. A writer in her own right, but she is strictly a reader of our Fan Fiction.
Derrick Fergusson, need I say more?
Cory Weigel, the editor in chief at Marvel 2000, the undying fan fiction site.
Last, never least, a guy who needs zero introductions the long-winded Ian Asthiemer.
I asked the panel a series of questions their answers follow the questions:
Dave Golightly:
I think it depends on the medium. While art is only limited by the imagination and talent of the artist, writing is more defined by set rules (those being grammer, spelling, syntax, etc.). While those rules usually keep a writer stable and coherent, sometimes it is possible to break away from them and get above the average level of creativity. It gets to be too much when the reader has trouble comprehending the writer's intended meaning.
Rena Paradox
Yes, definitely, there is, but it's still a matter of opinion. I'm reminded of a reaction to the "Ghost Rider" movie and how he considered some parts too graphic, whereas many other people didn't did not see the same problem. Then there's stuff that really ought to be as graphic as can be, such as the beginning of the movie Saving Private Ryan, which successfully captured what it must have been like for those poor soldiers storming the beaches of Normandy. Someday they'll make a film of the people being crushed in the World Trade Center and slamming into the streets after they jumped out windows. To present that properly, so people grasp the true horror of the event, I think it ought to be very graphic, as graphic as possible. So I guess what I'm saying is there might not be such a thing as too much when the intent is to present truth to an audience. If it has no valid point, then it is gratuitous and then is too much.
Hunter Lambright
I don't think there's a such thing as "too much" in a creative medium--not exactly. I think that writers can get carried away and do things that, to the reading community as a whole, may seems out of taste or over-the-top, but the writer himself may be perfectly fine with that.
On the other hand, if the writer is purposefully going for the "too much"
factor, and not writing the story for himself, then there does come a time
where it can seem to be more than necessary, to say the least.
Maria Burns
No, if the audience is forewarned that graphic material lurks ahead.
Derrick Fergusson
No. I think a writer should go wherever his creative muse takes him. It's up to the reader to decide if it's "too much"
Cory Weigel
Too much of what? Too much shock value? Sure. Too much violence? Yeah, probably. Too much sexuality? I'm thinking some would think so. Too much humor? If it undermines the story then definitely. Too much creativity? Some would say that if you're so creative that your story isn't very grounded in convention and you're just going over most people's heads then yeah, I guess you could be too creative.
I think that in general writers have a balance they need to strike in playing with the various elements of a story, as well as a level of skill they need to use when implementing their ideas into their story, and this is all largely dependent on what type of genre they're writing in and what type of audience they're writing for. You can have "too much" of a lot of things, creatively speaking, and it's a little hard to tell when a writer's reached that point. It's usually when things like sex, violence, shock value, humor, and even "mind-fucking creativity" get dull and lack context. Some stories can be so violent that they're no longer using the violence in a meaningful or entertaining way. Some stories can be so charged with sex that the act and related acts become redundant. This is when you know there's "too much."
Ian Asthiemer
Too far? No. There's only "not far enough." If there's an envelope, man, you gotta stuff it full of cool shit, lick it, seal it, and push it as far as it can go.
Because, really, you can always play the "art" card. If somebody objects to whatever you've done, say it's art, and you're good.
Freedom of Speech, my friend. Bask in it.
In this medium especially, it's all open to interpretation. Whatever you write has as much impact, for good or evil, as the reader wants. So, why not go crazy? If anyone gets offended, well, he or she can hit the BACK button on his/her web browser and call it a day. No one's forcing anyone to read anything, so you shouldn't be forced to censor yourself as a writer.
DG: A community should never set limitations on writers. Limitations, if they are to exist, should be defined by whoever is in charge of or responsible for the content. The writer can take the heat, but it's the editor (or someone in a similar position) who is actually responsible for the content released. The writer could simply place the blame for inappropriate content on the editor by saying, "Well, so-and-so said it was okay," and I think that's correct. As an editor for several sites myself, I'm of the opinion that if it's on the site, then the managing body must have giving it the green light. That includes not only possibly offensive content, but also continuity errors, grammar, and all that good stuff.
RP: No possible offensive material? That's hard to determine and worrying how EVERYONE might react would stifle creativity. I don't think people should be censored ordinarily, especially like that. If an issue is in the editors mind too overly vulgar and graphic there should be a warning posted.
HL: I think that limitations would impose too heavily on writers that are just
entering the medium. Think about it--if you had rules about what you could or could not write, would you write as close to the rules as possible, no matter how limiting or free they were? Or would you stay as far from the rules as possible in order to retain your name in the community?
As far as editors go, at the absolute most they should only advise the writer and possibly set a warning at the beginning of the issue. However, the editor should not change the content or ask the writer to change it completely. A compromise should be reached, so long as the writer understands why the material was offensive in the first place.
MB: No. Here's the thing: one person's good taste is another person's censorship. If you're going to edit out everything that is offensive to all your readers, then you're not going to have much left.
DF: I think that if you call yourself an "Editor" then you should edit. You should read the work submitted by writers and if they ask for feedback, you should provide it. As for "offensive material"...I think that depends on the site you edit for. AVENGERS2000 is a site that I think is in the PG/PG13/Soft R rating. But I write for MARVEL OMEGA, which is more of a Hard R/NC-17 rating due to the violence and language. I think it depends on what site you write for.
If you have a problem with adult violence, language and sex then don't write for those sites, that's all.
CW: I don't think we've ever had much of a problem with offensive material at Marvel 2000, so it's a little hard to say. One time, an editor at the site posted a story involving gay teenage super-hero prostitution or something and boy, he really got flogged for that. I never had the chance to read the story before it was removed (uh, not that I wanted to), but I think that definitely showed where the line was.
Some things are actually illegal in various counties, states, countries, and the likes (such as hosting graphic stories depicting minors engaged in sexual acts on your website) and I fully understand and support the desire to keep that sort of thing out of our li'l fanfic community. There's a fine line between pornography and literature. Other things just aren't in the spirit of what we're trying to do here, such as retconning Peter Parker's history to include a time in his teenage life where he was a gay prostitute. Sure, you could write a tasteful, thought-provoking, and tragic story about a teenager resorting to same-sex prostitution for whatever reason and the struggles one endures living a life like that. That sort of retcon may even work with some comic book characters, but it has to be in line with the genre and it can't be for shock value.
After Cable/Deadpool #2 by Brad Horton released, a reader expressed dismay over a line of dialogue where Deadpool speaks mock-ebonics and uses the word "nigga." I had personally read and edited the issue before it went up, and in all honesty I didn't think much of it. I still don't. To me, that's the sort of thing you would expect a character like Deadpool to do. He's absurd, offensive, vulgar, and known to mock pop culture and parody stereotypes. Some people are into that kind of humor while others aren't, but people know to expect it and it's usually minor, PG-13 stuff. I wouldn't go about editing out a line of dialogue like this because it's in the spirit of Deadpool, it's not for shock value, it's not illegal, and it's not graphic.
I guess those are the pretty loose guidelines that I think our community should follow. Stay in the spirit of the genre, don't tell a type of story for shock value, don't break any laws, and don't be unnecessarily graphic.
IA: Absolutely not.
What constitutes "good taste" is totally subjective. You can't watchdog something that's wholly open to interpretation, man. That's nonsense.
Someone might get offended if a baby gets chucked off a roof. Someone else might just last. Still another someone might punch a wall and reset continuity.
There's that old adage: try to please everyone and please no one. Unless you're Debbie, knee-deep in Dallas.
By ascribing to some mythical "good taste"--or, worse, forcing somebody to ascribe to it--you'll wind up de-fanging the work, stripping it of its point of view and dumbing it down to the lowest common denominator.
DG: While a lot of people like to push the envelope in terms of appropriate content, a writer needs to do whatever he or she feels creates the best story. Do we really want a plethora of cookie-cutter stories floating around? Even though content does need to be edited, and even censored at times, a writer should be free to write. A writer shouldn't have to worry about what people will think of a story her or she is working on. That's not to say that they shouldn't be careful about what they write in relation to their readers. Going out of your way to reference inappropriate things is stupid, as you're only asking for trouble. If a writer chooses to include something that readers will find questionable, or even offensive, then that needs to be weighed against the benefits of ignoring their concerns. Will the story make people think? Is it distasteful or intriguing?
RP: Speaking for myself as a reader, I can be pretty squeamish and sensitive. For example, I don't go see movies like Saw, because I know what to expect. However, sometimes to present something that is horrible, truly horrific, a writer cannot hold back. In Meriades Rai's Femmes Fatales series, in the first issue a character that I'm fond of is murdered, and it kinda bothered me, but I was unsettled in a good way. Meri, the brilliant Meri, made me feel it. Now if this was a brutal rape instead of a murder, I know I'd feel differently about it then. That's not something I'd want to be hit with by surprise.
HL: I don't think so. The writer scripts to an audience, but obviously, the content level is a major factor in the audience that the author writes. That said, the writer should not "rein in his/her imagination" because a pre-teen could click on his Punisher issue. Some stories are meant for different readership, and you can't write to all sensitivity levels. Likewise, if an issue were written about Wolverine picking flowers with Jean Grey, the mature readership would probably be offended by Logan's portrayal. It can't be done.
MB: I really don't think so. All good writing contains something of the writer in it - you can tell the writers who've decided to write just for their readership, because their work has no soul.
DF: No. It's not up to the writer to judge. Write what you want. It's up to the reader to judge if the story is up to their sensitivities or not.
CW: I guess this comes back to the incident we had at Marvel 2000 involving Deadpool saying "nigga." Personally, I think that Brad writes for a general readership and that most people weren't offended by this. However, there are going to be people who are offended by things like Deadpool mocking a stereotypical thug, and I think there comes a point when as a writer you should just accept the fact that you can't always be a hit with everybody, and then just let those kind of complaints roll off your back. Editors, likewise, should have a similar mentality.
However, we should all stay on the safe side and let readers know what to expect. I don't think we should *have to,* but we should out of courtesy. If you're writing or editing a "Mature" story with offensive or graphic material or ideas in it, then put a little note at the top of your stories. Maybe write a little explanation of the material or ideas in question in an author's notes or editor's notes section at the bottom of the story. I don't think Brad should have or needed to do this for Cable/Deadpool #2, but for stories involving rape, graphic violence, recreational drug use, and the likes I think it's definitely a good idea. So in short, try to keep your general audience in mind when you write, but don't stress over the outliers.
IA: I'm of the mind that a writer must write for him/herself first and foremost, so, if you find it entertaining, keep it. If you don't, lose it. If you're worried about crossing some imaginary line, sprint right across it and see how (or, in fan fiction, if) people react.
Rules are the enemy of imagination. The more self-imposed rules by which you try to abide, the more your imagination is going to be compromised. Let your mind roam free. See where it takes you. If you don't like it, you don't have to save it.
Heh, I'm starting to sound like an anarchist, but I don't mind.
DG: This is a very large gray area. Shock value can be useful in certain cases. If the intent on the writer's part is to just create a really cool scene to capture the readers' interest, or possibly bolster a character's reputation, then shock value is a very useful tool (even if the content is questionable). Events like these can help to retain readership and gain more attention into a specific community, which is usually a good thing. People like to think that there's no such thing as bad publicity...but too much of a good thing sometimes has an adverse effect. This is why editors and writers need to work together (within established guidelines set by management) to get out the best story they can. There will always be controversy, but the real problem is how that controversy is handled.
RP: Okay, I'm not an experienced writer, nor I guess am I that well read, but I can see this in a couple of ways. First, you have someone like Millar at Marvel with Civil War, or the writers of Lost, who seem to write things purely for there to be a shocking twist, or pull a stunt, simply to throw the readers/viewers for a loop, even if it goes against the way the characters would behave, or continuity, or just logic itself. I think this is stupid, very bad writing. If I was the EIC of one of the big fanfic sites and someone proposed a story that had elements like this I'd talk to the writer and try to see if things could be changed so it’s not so pointless and gratuitous. If the writer wants to shock the reader, that is fine, but the story behind it should be solid. That's easy to say though I suppose. Sometimes things aren't so clear-cut. Say Captain America is fighting Crossbones, and Crossbones who is fighting nasty and dirty, bites Cap's ear off. While this might be in some way realistic and in keeping with logic and such, an editor would still be perfectly fine in telling the writer this is too much, and the writer should think about what he wants to accomplish with this and whether it really serves a good Cap story.
HL: Yes. I agree that the possibility should be considered of a forewarning/notice at the beginning of the piece. Other than that, no apology or whatever needs to be made unless the author himself feels that it needs to be addressed.
MB: Yeah. I think that stuff like that is a mark of bad writing. You can't draw the reader in with believable characters, a good storyline or vivid description, so you throw in something gratuitous. So at the very least, the editor should point out that it is gratuitous.
DF: I think so. Content used to shock should always be questioned.
CW: Sure. The only time when I had to censor a writer was when they wrote this big super-hero brawl and one of the villains attacks one of the heroines with his uber-penis. Uh, yeah, Marvel 2000 may be known for a lot of things, but we're not gonna be known as the site that went THERE. Not on my watch. There was really no reason for the character in question to attack another character with his penis, and that sort of shock value really undermines the writer in question, the characters he's writing, and the credibility of the site. None of the editors involved in the decision belittled the writer in question or threatened to remove them from the site or anything, but a friendly, "yeah, no, but nice try" is more than called for.
IA: Depends on the necessity of the shock, I suppose. What's the fallout going to be? If you cap Cap, there must come the mourning after, right? If you blow off Supes' left leg, it's got to be mentioned elsewhere. Shock people as much as you want, so long as there's some level of follow up.
If all you're doing is writing shocking scenes, then...well, Authority will be available at DCO after #4.
If you're the editor of the site and someone turns in--I dunno--SHOCKING SECRETS #19 (the most shocking number), entitled "SUPERNOVA GOES SHOCK," and it's full of shocking shit, you might want to have a sitdown with the writer to say, "Uh, yeah, kudos on delivering on the series' name, but where are you going with all this? What's the pay off?"
DG: As I alluded to in my previous answers, yes, I think that restrictions and guidelines set up by a managing body are a good thing. Even though working within a creative medium is supposed to be fun and enjoyable, there do need to be set rules for the greater good. Things can rarely progress forward without leadership, and with leadership comes the task of laying down the rules, as well as enforcing them. Letting a staff run around to do whatever it wants, with total disregard to how things reflect on the site and/or others within the community, is simply a bad idea. Chaos isn't going to help the site, the writers, or the stories.
RP: As I've said before, if someone proposed Civil War to any of the big Marvel fanfic sites it would've been rejected. That is a thing the fanfic community ought to be proud. In addition, if I wanted to write a story about Captain America, who in his right mind has decided to become a cannibalistic serial killer, and retcon that he used to lunch on Nazis during World War II, I would hope that would be rejected too. Now I suppose that might be a story some might want to read, somewhere, but it doesn't belong on a mainstream Marvel fanfic site. If we're talking about the fanfic community, there should be restrictions and expectations of what a Marvel story would be. If you're writing Marvel characters they should be Marvel characters and not be turned into something they're not. Is it artistic and creative to make Sherlock Holmes the master criminal and Moriarty the detective hunting him down? I suppose that might be a refreshing twist (and might be a fun read) but putting restrictions on a writer for say a Sherlock Holmes fanfic site. That should stir a writer's creative energies to come up with something interesting and different that conforms to a proper story. John Byrne has said that the Comics Code Authority was just like that; it restricted, but it also made a writer creative, by necessity. A good editor can do likewise. If a writer wants to write without any restrictions whatsoever, they can do so, but not for a site, I would run. I think it might actually be easier to write whatever one wants to, on a whim, and it takes more talent to write within narrower guidelines. The editor's job is to maintain quality of their site and its stories and not to worry about a writer's creative needs. Even a ‘What If’ story things should have to make sense and conform to levels of realism and acceptable taste, acceptable taste I suppose meaning what would not offend the majority of readers and is in keeping with the genre.
HL: I think that restrictions can go either way. Content restrictions are a sore spot, I know, because UncannyXmen.net only allows us a PG-13 rating or lower on content. That's why Ghost Rider and Punisher are still unwritten, in my personal opinion. We don't have a Knights branch, per se, and we have to play around when talking about sex or insane killing. Things like that restrict the way stories are told and should be watched. I also think it's up to the editors, however. If the editor finds that he or she is bothered by extreme content, those principles shouldn't be compromised by peer pressure. That's just how it has to work, I believe.
MB: In the long run, no, they are not a good thing. They kill a writer's imagination. For example, a recent trend in fantasy has been the "smart-alec, doesn't dress like a fashion plate but everyone lusts after her anyway" female vampire slayer novels. The first one or two of these were enjoyable, if not great literature. Then the market was swamped with them, because that was all editors wanted.
Is there such a thing as too much creative freedom? I'd say no. If you're afraid to offend, afraid to let your mind run loose and unearth the nasty thing it has found, to make other people think, then you're not being creative.
DF: I think Editors should set restrictions as far as productivity. There are far too many writers (and yes, I include myself in that category) who get away with producing one or two issues a year of a series they're committed to for a six or twelve issue run. We have too many writers who get all excited and jump on a series and write one or two issues and then cry: 'Writer's block" when the true fact of the matter is that they just wanted to jump on a 'hot title' or be associated with a new site
CW: This is a pretty loaded question, really, so I think I'll just try to cover the high points. When writing for a shared community fanfic site, you generally don't want to give one writer the inherent right to step on another writer's toes. Some ideas, however innovative or creative, may end up stunting the creativity of other writers - or just flat-out prevent them from telling stories they want to tell - and you should keep a close eye on these. There are also other restrictions that I think make a lot of sense, such as Marvel 2000's two title rule (which prevents writers from overindulging), or a dibs list that prevents writers from "stealing" other people's characters and purposely leaving them in compromised positions. Putting restrictions on writers is like a balancing act. You want to be reasonable and give writers as much creative freedom as possible, yet at the same time you want to make sure they don't infringe on the creative freedoms of other writers or take creative action detrimental to the well-being of the site. A concept like this is always open to interpretation, of course, so I suppose it largely just depends on the philosophy of the group and its editors.
IA: There are editors who impose restrictions? For real? I've never once experienced that. The only time I ever had to change anything I'd written was when working on the final two issues of X-Treme X-Men for Altered Visions. Gambit got dibbed for an ongoing, so I couldn't kill him.
Too much creative freedom? That's like asking if there's such a thing as too much air. Would you rather suffocate? I guess someone could make a convincing case that the best writing comes from the worst situations. So, maybe if the only way to halt the asphyxiation that was slowly killing you was to write, you'd produce better work--or at least more frantic, desperate work that got kinda incomprehensible at the end when the oxygen ran out.
It's certainly possible to take a predicament and twist it to your benefit. And, there are projects where specific things must happen. If you're tasked with killing Apocalypse in a crossover or to set up some future tales, it's kinda imperative that Nur bite it.
But, that's about as far down the "restrictions" line as I'm willing to go. Otherwise, you wind up stifling creativity.