OOTS #1066 - The Discussion Thread

[Goblin_Priest]

Literary strategy: in particular, how an author can best react when readers have undesirable interpretations of their story.

We've all been there, right? You say something that someone takes the wrong way? In my experience, the best thing to do is apologize for the miscommunication(even if you don't think it's your fault) and try to phrase things differently the next time.

Any particular reasons why?

The "best" reaction seems extremely relative, whatever may trigger it. Would vary according to one's objectives and values and the parties involved.

In sales it can be beneficial to be overly apologetic. "Oh, you did (insert incredibly stupid mistake) and you (insert product) (broke/died)? I'm terribly sorry, here, have another one on me!" Because clients can be stupid and bad publicity, no matter how unjustified, spreads more than good publicity. Is this the best reaction? Maybe. Different people have different tolerances of kissing ass.

[theNater]

Any particular reasons why?

The "best" reaction seems extremely relative, whatever may trigger it. Would vary according to one's objectives and values and the parties involved.

In sales it can be beneficial to be overly apologetic. "Oh, you did (insert incredibly stupid mistake) and you (insert product) (broke/died)? I'm terribly sorry, here, have another one on me!" Because clients can be stupid and bad publicity, no matter how unjustified, spreads more than good publicity. Is this the best reaction? Maybe. Different people have different tolerances of kissing ass.

There's several reasons. The sales argument is the most pragmatic one; readers believing that the author cares about their experience are more likely to partake of future writing by the author.

Another is the fact that we all have blind spots when it comes to how our behavior affects others. Sometimes it is the author's fault, even when they think it's not. So there's a simple gamble there; fail to apologize and possibly be extremely rude, or apologize and possibly be slightly shamed. This is one place where looking at percentages of the audience seeing the thing may matter, as higher proportions of the audience seeing it suggest it's more likely the author's fault.

Next up is the simple measure of human fellowship. When someone takes something the wrong way, it's probably not an issue unless it makes them upset. Apologizing can help make them less upset, which I believe is valuable in itself. And keep in mind that since the author and the reader both disagree with content of the undesirable interpretation, it means they agree on some apparently significant belief. Ideally, they can be friends, and a little embarrassment is a low price for keeping friends happy.

There's also the power dynamics at play. While miscommunications can happen through no fault of either party, or through fault on both parties, in the author-reader relationship the author usually has most of the power. They have a fan base, they have control over the story, they have a filtration system for what fans they do and don't hear, etc. And as Spider-Man teaches us, with great power comes great responsibility. By that measure, they have a greater responsibility to repair the communication, even if they have equal or no fault.

And then, of course, there's the matter of efficiency. The author can issue a single short statement including an apology and have it reach large portions of the readership. I would generally not suggest an author writing an individual apology to each troubled reader; posting one that they can all find(or be directed to by other readers) is quite sufficient. It's relatively little work for what can be great effect. This is another place where the percentages may come in to play; larger portions of the audience having the issue will probably translate into larger portions finding and sharing the statement.

[Goblin_Priest]

Sure, but individual to individual bilateral communication and individual to group unilateral communication have different dynamics.

It might have always been true, but it sure seems truer now: the larger the audience, the more likely some people will be upset, offended, or otherwise triggered. Reach a large enough audience, and it becomes likely that anything done to ease one offense will become, itself, an offense to others.

Author-reader relations can therefore become closer to politician-electorate relations than seller-consumer relations, even if the author sells a product. The odds of a politician apologizing decrease as the target audience gets larger. Depending on the original fault, of course, but the act of apologizing for something his supporters see nothing wrong with can actually lower his approval and support. Admitting fault publicly is sometimes necessary for a politician, but often a very risky move.

So once you read a large enough following, and the odds of someone being bothered get closer to 1, should an author even care? It has the potential to be a zero sum game at best, where every apology grieves an equal number of people as it satisfies, or even a negative sum game, where merely participating is a losing move, every apology causing more aggravation than appeasement.

Can apologizing ease a person's frustration? Sure. Should appeasement always be attempted? Debatable, I would say no. After all, by what is appeasement mandated? The world is not a giant "safe space" with rules mandating that none must be offended. Offending people creates discomfort in them, but that alone does not make it inherently reprehensible. If you see a desperate parent shaking their baby wildly, do you 1) intervene for the child's sake, and most certainly offend the parent or 2) forego any attempt to protect the child in order to protect the parent's well-being? What if that parent is actually a friend of yours? Option 1 is likely to ruin your friendship, and you may never get along again.

Author-reader relations can be similar. If the author feels the need the transmit a certain world view, he will feel that this is the "right" thing to do, and his work as having a certain educational aspect to it. This is likely to offend some people who don't adhere to what is being transmitted. Should he apologize? Apologizing is an overt recognition of fault. It would negate the educational aspect and alienate those who adhere to the original message. Failure to apologize might result in the loss of some readers, but apologizing itself might result in the loss of more readers.

All of this, of course, assuming that the intent of one transmitting the message was properly communicated and that it is the intent itself which causes an issue. If someone wrote "burn all the jews!", but really meant "burn all the shoes!", then one would be hard-pressed to find any reason not to apologize.

[theNater]

It might have always been true, but it sure seems truer now: the larger the audience, the more likely some people will be upset, offended, or otherwise triggered. Reach a large enough audience, and it becomes likely that anything done to ease one offense will become, itself, an offense to others.

Right, which is why I argue based on percentages, rather than absolute numbers.

Can apologizing ease a person's frustration? Sure. Should appeasement always be attempted? Debatable, I would say no. After all, by what is appeasement mandated? The world is not a giant "safe space" with rules mandating that none must be offended. Offending people creates discomfort in them, but that alone does not make it inherently reprehensible. If you see a desperate parent shaking their baby wildly, do you 1) intervene for the child's sake, and most certainly offend the parent or 2) forego any attempt to protect the child in order to protect the parent's well-being? What if that parent is actually a friend of yours? Option 1 is likely to ruin your friendship, and you may never get along again.

Author-reader relations can be similar. If the author feels the need the transmit a certain world view, he will feel that this is the "right" thing to do, and his work as having a certain educational aspect to it. This is likely to offend some people who don't adhere to what is being transmitted. Should he apologize? Apologizing is an overt recognition of fault. It would negate the educational aspect and alienate those who adhere to the original message. Failure to apologize might result in the loss of some readers, but apologizing itself might result in the loss of more readers.

This whole apology strategy presupposes that the unintended interpretation is one the author disagrees with. I am not suggesting that authors should apologize to people they disagree with for saying what they believe. I am saying they should apologize to people they agree with for apparently saying something they don't believe.

[Quibblicious]

This whole apology strategy presupposes that the unintended interpretation is one the author disagrees with. I am not suggesting that authors should apologize to people they disagree with for saying what they believe. I am saying they should apologize to people they agree with for apparently saying something they don't believe.

I'm more of the opinion that the differences should be discussed, not apologized for. This isn't a case where I might use a word you find offensive, such as an unintentional racial slur, this is more about ideas and concepts, which should be discussed courteously and honestly.

Apologies, IMO, are unnecessary for the most part. A reader should recognize that the author may have a different grounding than the readers, and vice versa. Humanity is just that way. We all have a differing basis for our views and getting offended by another person's words in literature without being willing to delve into the reasons why the offense may have occurred and the reasoning behind the use of those words or ideas. Most people aren't advancing ideologies or trying to be intentionally offensive, so you should always give them the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.

Forcing apologies is often dehumanizing because it's meant to control the thoughts and expressions of the writer. It's often used as a form of "shut up" as opposed to using honest dialog. The way to influence a person's ideas is with open discussion.

That said, if a person walked up to me or my family or friends and began calling them various offensive terms, I would expect an apology (and maybe they could expect an ambulance ride -- defending others is a trait of mine even though I'm not a paladin... but I digress). But that's different than interpreting literature/fiction/stories.

It can make for interesting songs, though...

Q

[theNater]

I'm more of the opinion that the differences should be discussed, not apologized for. This isn't a case where I might use a word you find offensive, such as an unintentional racial slur, this is more about ideas and concepts, which should be discussed courteously and honestly.

Apologies, IMO, are unnecessary for the most part. A reader should recognize that the author may have a different grounding than the readers, and vice versa. Humanity is just that way. We all have a differing basis for our views and getting offended by another person's words in literature without being willing to delve into the reasons why the offense may have occurred and the reasoning behind the use of those words or ideas. Most people aren't advancing ideologies or trying to be intentionally offensive, so you should always give them the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.

Apologies are always unnecessary. They are usually helpful, because they make it easier to reframe the discussion into a cooperative "how can we communicate better" instead of a mutual finger-pointing "you don't understand what is written".

Forcing apologies is often dehumanizing because it's meant to control the thoughts and expressions of the writer.

When I say authors should apologize, it has the same binding power as when you say readers should give the benefit of the doubt. I'm reasonably confident you're not advocating forcing readers to give authors the benefit of the doubt.

[theNater]

Over the course of this thread, multiple people have had the same misunderstanding of my position. I'm putting this in its own post because it's not a response to any individual poster; I just want it to be clear and to be able to point back at it if the same misunderstanding occurs again.

Authors don't have to apologize, even if I think they should.

Thanks!

[littlebum2002]

Theoretically, if you did want to "force" them to apologize, how would you even go about that?

[8BitNinja]

Over the course of this thread, multiple people have had the same misunderstanding of my position. I'm putting this in its own post because it's not a response to any individual poster; I just want it to be clear and to be able to point back at it if the same misunderstanding occurs again.

Authors don't have to apologize, even if I think they should.

Thanks!

Technically, you are not compelled to apologize for anything.

NO REGRETS!!!

[JumboWheat01]

Technically, you are not compelled to apologize for anything.

NO REGRETS!!!

Future Idea, put big bad under a Geas that compels them to apologize for anything and everything.

It shall be known as the Curse of the Canadian.

[8BitNinja]

Future Idea, put big bad under a Geas that compels them to apologize for anything and everything.

It shall be known as the Curse of the Canadian.

I'm not sure if this is a good or bad thing.

[Peelee]

I'm not sure if this is a good or bad thing.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Depends on how much of the 'anything and everything' is their fault, really.

[Tyrannosaurus]

I'm sorry you feel that way.

I'm sorry that you feel regret for their feelings.

[Peelee]

I'm sorry that you feel regret for their feelings.

I'm sorry for making you apologize.

[8BitNinja]

I'm sorry for making you apologize.

I'm sorry for beginning all of this, causing you both to apologize.

[mr-mercer]

I'm sorry for not coming in here and helping with the general effort, in a way that could potentially have kept anyone from feeling the need to apologise.