|
Post by aussiedoctorwhofan on Jan 19, 2019 1:05:46 GMT
Coming back into this thread I made like; Well I... uh... guess he noticed, huh? Well to be fair.. u did come out swinging with your initial post LOL
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2019 2:00:01 GMT
Paul Magrs is a member of this forum, though he hasn’t posted much, so I wouldn’t be surprised if he saw it here. That said, good on him for noticing and apologizing. That was a very nice blog post. I think he was tweeted directly about it recently. I think his response is pretty good. Yeah, it's marvellous. Absolutely marvellous. Very intelligent and enormously respectful. Good on him.
He was, is and will continue to be one of those authors that makes me sit up and pay attention whenever their name appears. A good writer and a genuine human being.
|
|
|
Post by Audio Watchdog on Jan 19, 2019 2:15:11 GMT
Tranny has always been a slur against trans people. Not sure why this wasn't known at the time. Anyway, Paul Magrs responded in a way that does not surprise me, so I suppose we can leave it at except to say doing research on this subject and the word in question the past couple of days, as well as reaching out to several trans friends has been really interesting. So thanks for that.
|
|
|
Post by eric009 on Jan 19, 2019 7:25:19 GMT
I used to live in one place (for about 40 years of my life) anyone over the age of 25 would never heard of the word, Tranny let alone it would upset folk
|
|
|
Post by pawntake on Jan 19, 2019 8:52:03 GMT
Back in the "Age of Innocence" 50s/60s/70s small handheld transistor radios were referred to as Tranny's,long before the term became associated with something else.So when your dad or grandad tells you that back in those times,he went on a coach trip to Blackpool with his tranny,he is referring to his handheld transistor Radio!! The term "gay" was originally used to mean "carefree", "cheerful", or "bright and showy Have a nice day
|
|
|
Post by aussiedoctorwhofan on Jan 19, 2019 9:13:02 GMT
Back in the "Age of Innocence" 50s/60s/70s small handheld transistor radios were referred to as Tranny's,long before the term became associated with something else.So when your dad or grandad tells you that back in those times,he went on a coach trip to Blackpool with his tranny,he is referring to his handheld transistor Radio!! The term "gay" was originally used to mean "carefree", "cheerful", or "bright and showy Have a nice day agreed. "context". I had a lil tranny (blue one) and my twin bro had a red one in the very late 70's.
|
|
dorney
Big Finish Creative Team
Likes: 3,079
|
Post by dorney on Jan 19, 2019 10:11:08 GMT
Honestly, there are things I’ve written far more recently I probably wouldn’t now (I’m not entirely happy with Swan Song’s take on some things, and I can see why people might not buy into Beautiful Things either). But that’s because times change, and we do too.
I suspect intent is the most important aspect here, really. I’m reminded of the South Africa episode of The Goodies. You can really see what they’re going for, and there’s a lot in there that’s good and on point. But other things miss, and they’re very honest about it in the commentary.
|
|
|
Post by mark687 on Jan 19, 2019 11:41:28 GMT
So Authors are beholden to apologise for anything they've written if society as a whole as it evolves now deems it inappropriate?
If time travel were possible would we bring Shakespeare and Dickens forward before the court of Modern public opinion and demand an apology for language and terms they used?
Regards
mark687
|
|
|
Post by aussiedoctorwhofan on Jan 19, 2019 12:03:43 GMT
So Authors are beholden to apologise for anything they've written if society as a whole as it evolves now deems it inappropriate? If time travel were possible would we bring Shakespeare and Dickens forward before the court of Modern public opinion and demand an apology for language and terms they used? Regards mark687
This ^.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2019 12:10:22 GMT
So Authors are beholden to apologise for anything they've written if society as a whole as it evolves now deems it inappropriate? If time travel were possible would we bring Shakespeare and Dickens forward before the court of Modern public opinion and demand an apology for language and terms they used? Regards mark687 It's a good question. Speaking as a writer and an editor, it's not a question of staking someone to a post and setting them on fire. That's not the objective. It's being confident enough in the remaining attributes of a work that you can talk about things which haven't aged well. Issues of race, gender, cultural sensitivities and so on. It's why I'm a proponent of Death of the Author because after a certain point, it becomes so much larger than talking about a single individual. The objective is to avoid reductive statements and ideologies such as: "Sidney Newman is Doctor Who," for instance, which do a disservice to the text being discussed.
And again, recontextualising media is a large part of what makes stories work. It's why something from the mid-70s like the Federation of Blake's 7 or Genesis of the Daleks discussing a concept like genocide still holds true today. Because it's viewed through a constantly evolving sense of zeitgeist. Invasion of the Dinosaurs, for instance, is far more resonant with audiences now, not thanks to the dinosaurs, but to the Fallout-style vault beneath London. It's about identifying and understanding historical differences and reapplying them to fit a new context. It's about the work, not the author (that's auteur theory and whole other kettle of fish).
Fix the problem, not the blame and the first step to doing that is to recognise and acknowledge there is a problem.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2019 12:20:30 GMT
So Authors are beholden to apologise for anything they've written if society as a whole as it evolves now deems it inappropriate? If time travel were possible would we bring Shakespeare and Dickens forward before the court of Modern public opinion and demand an apology for language and terms they used? Regards mark687 I mean its not like it takes much out of someones day to apologise does it? Not aiming this at you solely but i do think a lot of people get defensive when it comes to stuff like this. To use a doctor who example, talons being racist. Last year proved this was a techy subject but at the end of the day, no matter how much context you use, it is a racist. And thats okay to say, no ones asking for it to be deleted or we should hate it or Rob Holmes is a terrible human who should beg for forgiveness but if someone chooses to find it distasteful and not enjoy it because of the racism, they are perfectly within their right to do so and the same applies here. Same applies here. At the end of the day the section in question is clearly transphobic and calling it out and such doesnt mean you still cant enjoy it or just that it makes Paul a terrible human who should beg for forgiveness because he obviously isn’t. Just in hindsight it is inappropriate and admitting that does not negate the work as a whole, its just being honest and being mature enough to accept that this term/representation is very offensive. Id say most reasonable authors, even if no bad intent was there(which is 9/10 times the case) would grasp this and would want to apologise, not find it a chore or an obligation like you phrase it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2019 12:48:39 GMT
I don't know if 'Tranny' was appropriate in an audio released in 2007 as the line went over my head. (It's not a term that would have been commonly heard in rural Ireland.) If the writer thought back then it's a term that a young Lancashire lass would use, then that's fair enough as far as I'm concerned. It should also be pointed out that the line would have passed through BF script editing and BBC approval before the story was recorded. So it obviously didn't jump out as a slur on anyone to them at the time either. If people accept it's a term that should not be used now then that's great, that's all anyone can ask. Things are different in 2109 and our society and language are evolving all the time. Paul's statement should be the end of it.
However, I do dislike the principle of judging things from the past (films, television, plays, music, books, etc.) by today's standards. Nobody wants to see anybody offended but we could all drag up things from the past that wouldn't be deemed acceptable now - somebody mentioned Talons earlier but there's plenty more - so we have to use a bit of common sense and look back on past events with a different eye at times.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2019 12:58:11 GMT
So Authors are beholden to apologise for anything they've written if society as a whole as it evolves now deems it inappropriate? If time travel were possible would we bring Shakespeare and Dickens forward before the court of Modern public opinion and demand an apology for language and terms they used? Regards mark687 I mean its not like it takes much out of someones day to apologise does it? Not aiming this at you solely but i do think a lot of people get defensive when it comes to stuff like this. To use a doctor who example, talons being racist. Last year proved this was a techy subject but at the end of the day, no matter how much context you use, it is a racist. And thats okay to say, no ones asking for it to be deleted or we should hate it or Rob Holmes is a terrible human who should beg for forgiveness but if someone chooses to find it distasteful and not enjoy it because of the racism, they are perfectly within their right to do so and the same applies here. Same applies here. At the end of the day the section in question is clearly transphobic and calling it out and such doesnt mean you still cant enjoy it or just that it makes Paul a terrible human who should beg for forgiveness because he obviously isn’t. Just in hindsight it is inappropriate and admitting that does not negate the work as a whole, its just being honest and being mature enough to accept that this term/representation is very offensive. Id say most reasonable authors, even if no bad intent was there(which is 9/10 times the case) would grasp this and would want to apologise, not find it a chore or an obligation like you phrase it. Put another way, the yellowface in The Talons of Weng-Chiang isn't the reason why it's enjoyable. It's two men from out of Time in confrontation over the dinner table. It's a warrior from humanity's future plowing fearlessly straight through a window. It's a theatre manager confessing that he's not so bally brave and his mortician friend soothing his frayed nerves. It's the giant rats used as guard dogs to watch over the sewers of London. It's Chang's gorgeous story about a peasant rising to perform in the presence of royalty. It's Greel's glorious failure in space-time travel.
It's so many wonderful things. Extraordinary things. And we have learnt, through the passage of time, how to make it even better for everyone.
It's why we have The Shadow of Weng-Chiang, a 1996 sequel set in 1930s Shanghai with a Chinese and Japanese cast. It's why much closer to home we have Jago and Litefoot. Because it's okay to talk about these things. The good can survive it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2019 13:38:12 GMT
I mean its not like it takes much out of someones day to apologise does it? Not aiming this at you solely but i do think a lot of people get defensive when it comes to stuff like this. To use a doctor who example, talons being racist. Last year proved this was a techy subject but at the end of the day, no matter how much context you use, it is a racist. And thats okay to say, no ones asking for it to be deleted or we should hate it or Rob Holmes is a terrible human who should beg for forgiveness but if someone chooses to find it distasteful and not enjoy it because of the racism, they are perfectly within their right to do so and the same applies here. Same applies here. At the end of the day the section in question is clearly transphobic and calling it out and such doesnt mean you still cant enjoy it or just that it makes Paul a terrible human who should beg for forgiveness because he obviously isn’t. Just in hindsight it is inappropriate and admitting that does not negate the work as a whole, its just being honest and being mature enough to accept that this term/representation is very offensive. Id say most reasonable authors, even if no bad intent was there(which is 9/10 times the case) would grasp this and would want to apologise, not find it a chore or an obligation like you phrase it. Put another way, the yellowface in The Talons of Weng-Chiang isn't the reason why it's enjoyable. It's two men from out of Time in confrontation over the dinner table. It's a warrior from humanity's future plowing fearlessly straight through a window. It's a theatre manager confessing that he's not so bally brave and his mortician friend soothing his frayed nerves. It's the giant rats used as guard dogs to watch over the sewers of London. It's Chang's gorgeous story about a peasant rising to perform in the presence of royalty. It's Greel's glorious failure in space-time travel.
It's so many wonderful things. Extraordinary things. And we have learnt, through the passage of time, how to make it even better for everyone. It's why we have The Shadow of Weng-Chiang, a 1996 sequel set in 1930s Shanghai with a Chinese and Japanese cast. It's why much closer to home we have Jago and Litefoot. Because it's okay to talk about these things. The good can survive it.
Exactly, thats how i see it, its one of my favorite storys ever. But im just saying i never begrudge anyone who can’t see past the racism and it not being up to todays standards because people can’t help how they emotinally respond to works of media, and litterature and anything, and they certainly aren't wrong for not accepting the context of the time and other, pretty valid in all fairness, excuses as to why talons and glam rock are the way the are as, like i said, its an emotional response and they arent always based in logic. For an example, im doing Eng lit A level, currently stufying Othello. Its a glorious, wonderful play and yet there is many in my class who just cannot stand it because of the racism and are really struggling to get through it because of the openly racist attitudes of Iago and nearly everyone tbh, is too grotesque and removed from modern day to look past. My point is i do understand 100% why people would be sensitive to stuff like this and i do think in most cases they are right to be offended and i think asking for a small statement, an apology and calling out the bad stuff in some of our favorite works is totally not their fault.
|
|
|
Post by veryfactualdalek on Jan 19, 2019 15:28:56 GMT
Same way everyone just ignores Rose telling the Doctor that he’s so gay in Aliens Of London. Sure, but at least Aliens of London was written by RTD, who is gay, there was still some anger over the line at the time, and it was was also far from on the same level of throwing slurs at the literal corpse of a guy for dressing ‘too feminine’. Not really comparable IMO. I mean, I don’t like that line in Aliens of London, but it’s not even close to wing the same level as... this. There is still some anger I’m sure was it Tyler Oakley(sp?) said he was told for years to watch DW yet gave up after that line (Yes this was a few years ago and he isn’t every gay person, I also think the line is a class and cultural thing to especially in 2005)
|
|
|
Post by Digi on Jan 19, 2019 15:34:36 GMT
Back in the "Age of Innocence" 50s/60s/70s small handheld transistor radios were referred to as Tranny's,long before the term became associated with something else.So when your dad or grandad tells you that back in those times,he went on a coach trip to Blackpool with his tranny,he is referring to his handheld transistor Radio!! The term "gay" was originally used to mean "carefree", "cheerful", or "bright and showy Have a nice day As a child, I only ever heard "tranny" when someone was talking about their car's transmission. I think I was in high school before I ever heard it used relative to a person.
|
|
|
Post by eric009 on Jan 19, 2019 16:26:26 GMT
there are some words that I find upsetting but I let them be because they were done at a time when was ok to say them so I let them go because no point kick up the ant's nest, all the ants have left by now
|
|
|
Post by elkawho on Jan 19, 2019 17:19:03 GMT
However, I do dislike the principle of judging things from the past (films, television, plays, music, books, etc.) by today's standards. Nobody wants to see anybody offended but we could all drag up things from the past that wouldn't be deemed acceptable now - somebody mentioned Talons earlier but there's plenty more - so we have to use a bit of common sense and look back on past events with a different eye at times. Yep, me too. I don't like judging the past by modern day standards. Sure, there are things in the past that are definitely distasteful for many reasons, but some were done purely because that's what they did back then. Blackface was accepted as valid entertainment in the 1920's, so to criticize Al Jolson for his choice of using it by today's standards (as an example) is just not fair.
|
|
|
Post by J.A. Prentice on Jan 19, 2019 21:28:45 GMT
This should be the textbook example of how authors should respond to things like this. He gives context, doesn't take offense, doesn't get defensive, and apologizes for any hurt he may have caused.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2019 22:45:23 GMT
Put another way, the yellowface in The Talons of Weng-Chiang isn't the reason why it's enjoyable. It's two men from out of Time in confrontation over the dinner table. It's a warrior from humanity's future plowing fearlessly straight through a window. It's a theatre manager confessing that he's not so bally brave and his mortician friend soothing his frayed nerves. It's the giant rats used as guard dogs to watch over the sewers of London. It's Chang's gorgeous story about a peasant rising to perform in the presence of royalty. It's Greel's glorious failure in space-time travel.
It's so many wonderful things. Extraordinary things. And we have learnt, through the passage of time, how to make it even better for everyone. It's why we have The Shadow of Weng-Chiang, a 1996 sequel set in 1930s Shanghai with a Chinese and Japanese cast. It's why much closer to home we have Jago and Litefoot. Because it's okay to talk about these things. The good can survive it.
Exactly, thats how i see it, its one of my favorite storys ever. But im just saying i never begrudge anyone who can’t see past the racism and it not being up to todays standards because people can’t help how they emotinally respond to works of media, and litterature and anything, and they certainly aren't wrong for not accepting the context of the time and other, pretty valid in all fairness, excuses as to why talons and glam rock are the way the are as, like i said, its an emotional response and they arent always based in logic. For an example, im doing Eng lit A level, currently stufying Othello. Its a glorious, wonderful play and yet there is many in my class who just cannot stand it because of the racism and are really struggling to get through it because of the openly racist attitudes of Iago and nearly everyone tbh, is too grotesque and removed from modern day to look past. My point is i do understand 100% why people would be sensitive to stuff like this and i do think in most cases they are right to be offended and i think asking for a small statement, an apology and calling out the bad stuff in some of our favorite works is totally not their fault. Well, The Merchant of Venice's Shylock has a very... curious history in regards to his portrayal, particularly in his punishment being his conversion to Christianity. And I will leave that there. Attitudes change, they always do. Before the Bond films replaced the Russian intelligence agency, SMERSH, with the international crime syndicate, SPECTRE, Fleming himself threw them out of his books because, prior to the Cuban Missile Crisis, it stretched credulity to have the Russians as the bad guys. The Cold War was supposed to be over by 1960 and everyone go home. It ceased being appropriate. Same thing happened in the 1990s.
I think "demanding an apology" is a bit of a misnomer. We protect our writers fiercely here (like an ambush of tigers ) and "demand" sounds a lot like: "We want you to feel shame for this current transgression," which rapidly solves nothing. Nothing for the reader, nothing for the writer. What people are really asking for is an expression of authorial intent: "Do you now, in this present time, know that this is offensive?" Again, from the author's perspective, you could theoretically lead with that it's a product of its time, but to someone who's been genuinely hurt by the mischaracterisation that sounds a lot like Get over it, which isn't the message at all. Claiming historicity is logical, sure, but fraught with its own mischaracterisation. What's far more important as the author, with your reader asking your intentions, is that your reader is hurting. So, you state very clearly and unambiguously, the truth: that it wasn't your intention to offend. You didn't do it to stick it to a minority or somesuch.
It's why Paul Magrs response is perfect. It leads with a crystal clear I didn't and don't want to hurt anyone, and that's really all anyone wants to hear.
An expression of discomfort to texts is fine. A bad teacher will try to shoot that down and say that reading isn't valid, when it absolutely is. You cannot divorce yourself completely from the attitudes you have grown up with. It's important to note your own biases when you're studying anything, it's unscientific to pretend that they don't exist. Vanilla, while not chocolate or strawberry, is still a flavour. Blue, although not red or green, is still a colour. You have the reaction (Sorry, his cat's named what?). You acknowledge that you have the reaction (That hit me harder than expected...). You put it in the box and you keep reading (Oh, this chap's screwed). Then, you take it out of the box and ask why you had it (Because it's demeaning to people who have honestly suffered enough of this kind of systemic nonsense). That's the basis of good literary analysis. Because everybody, at every point in time, has a different set of lines in the sand and the purpose of that study is to find out why it's shifted.
It's analyses like that, which are why people say that the first up against the wall in an authoritarian society are the academics. How can you challenge taboos, if you can't discuss them? Well, quite simply, you can't. "Why can't women have the vote?" Because that's the way it's always been. "Why are First Peoples classified as fauna?" Because that's always been the way. Changes like that come about precisely because stuff like this was questioned.
And because in the context of Big Finish you can point to Zaltys (Rebecca Root's Sable, specifically) as being the product of that kind of questioning. Directly or indirectly, it's all about consideration.
|
|