#collaborate with colleagues | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

daveinediting · 1 year

Text

I can't tell you that every production team, every production company, embodies a healthy creative work environment.

Heck, I can't even tell you that every mom 'n pop, every small company embodies a healthy work environment.

And don't even get me started on corporations.

What I will say is that I've met kids embarking on their careers who believed they made a terrible mistake. Who believed they chose the wrong career. When, in fact, what happened is that their first job involved working for people who are without. Who are not leaders or team builders. Who don't know how to communicate or get the best work from other people. Whose skill set is terribly sketchy. Who don't, if you haven't guessed it yet, don't actually know what they're doing.

It's not an obligation, by the way. We aren't at all forced to assume that authority and ability are characteristics that are inherently locked together. Because sometimes they're not. And when they're not, you often find a work environment that's not suitable to any serious professional's time and effort. You find that some workplaces, like certain bosses, are unworthy stewards of our time and abilities.

Only...

Kids starting out their careers don't necessarily know that.

In my career, I had the distinct, well... I got lucky. I met the right people and went to work for them. Small companies, all. Except for the one big company where dysfunction abounded but I was largely working within a good team.

The dysfunction was breathtaking, though. Serious anger management issues that really do undermine authority. Straight up toddler tantrum behaviors. Actual conduct unbecoming anyone who strives to call themselves professional.

But me? I always had good role models. Great role models and colleagues. I didn't realize it at the time, but my early career experiences fundamentally shaped the professional I am and continue to be today.

Whereas...

Whereas a lot of the people who grew up in dysfunctional work environments have anger issues to this day. And that anger absolutely compromises judgment, wisdom, executive function, clarity, and problem solving.

Plus, these people suck to work with. No matter how talented they're apt to be.

Let's be clear: there is such a thing as healthy and unhealthy work environments. And if you think that healthy means coddling... you most likely have no leadership skills and shouldn't actually be working with, you know, people.

Because failure.

Because in my field, at least, failure is when you miss the deadline. And when a deadline's missed the efforts of everyone involved have just been wasted.

Failure also breathes its fire when a team effort produces what everyone—and I mean everyone—recognizes to be mediocre work. Basically, it's seriously hard work, enthusiasm, frustration, anxiety, and exhaustion that produces something that's meh.

In both cases, the efforts are rendered meaningless. Just—

Meaningless.

So yes. The people we work for and the people we work with, profoundly affect the quality of our work and how we feel about our work. Which means some people are right for us, professionally. And some people are simply not worth our time. They can't be allowed the influence.

Now, corporate managers like to think that saying "It's not personal. It's just business." functions as an iron clad rationalization to ease the betrayal of being let go. And I understand that, of course. Corporations aren't about individuals. They're about scale. They're monoliths that move where they will, as they will, when they will. And collateral damage, chaotic messes, and broken trust, are simply factored in.

It's not personal.

It's business.

You understand, right?

Only... this is not the sound of anyone who's remotely invested in you or your career.

It's just business.

If that sounds harsh, well, I've heard the "it's not personal, it's just business" schtick live and in person as I learned which colleagues of mine had just been fired. And then most recently a client for whom I create content was left hanging through sheer benign neglect by a corporation. Not surprising, of course, because the relationships of corporations with people outside those corporations isn't of the same quality, intention, and commitment as the relationship between two professionals.

Relationship?

Sure.

How they work together. How they cooperate, collaborate, communicate. There's a difference you can tell, is my point. There's a striking difference between working with someone who works for a corporation and... working with someone who works for a small company or as a sole proprietor.

I'm not outraged at the difference, by the way. What I am is judgemental. Not only because benign neglect is a bad look for anyone but because it's simply unprofessional. Straight up unprofessional. Because again. Authority and ability don't go hand in hand. And large numbers work against being an essential part of something, being connected to a larger purpose not just serving one, or feeling like you're growing as a professional.

Growing.

As a professional.

Lemme reel this back in, though.

How we begin our careers is crucial.

Who we begin our careers with...

Also crucial. The same crucial.

I was reminded of this truism this weekend during the 48 Hour Film Project as I worked with the team I was asked to join a coupla years ago as editor.

As I said before, I can't tell you that every production team, every production company, embodies a healthy creative work environment. What I can tell you is that for most of my adult life I worked for companies that do embody healthy creative work environments. And the weekend we just navigated is yet another example of that.

For starters, the professionalism, experience, wisdom, and ability of the people at the top are beyond question. The mastery and experience of the people leading each area of production is also beyond question. As well, an online communication app functions as the connective tissue for the entire crew from pre-production to production to post-production and on through marketing and promotion. Every member of the team is connected in real time in this way and can be involved at times in areas outside their own. Similarly, the resources of the entire crew can be leveraged for needs like locations, costumes, props, even film titles to name a very few.

Also, in general terms, the full crew is of a type: hard working, enthusiastic, of good humor, and completely engaged in the process from beginning to end. Even as the film's completed by only three members of the team while everyone else takes a well-deserved rest on the last day of the competition, there remains broad appreciation for the now completed shoot... as well as hope for two things: that all is going well in the edit suite and that the finish line will successfully be crossed on time.

Basically, that their efforts have meaning. That their work will be bad ass.

And oh yeah do I feel that.

My point though, is this:

Everyone. Every person who wants to participate in the creative industry in which we work should have this experience. Yes we all work the 48 without pay. But the effort we invest buys each of us a model of how the collaborative process of making a film—any genre of content, really—how that process can work.

And how it should.

It should be the rule not the exception that each of us, professionals to a person, but especially those of us just starting out... each of us should have the experience we're gonna chase for the rest of our careers right up front. Each of us should have a thorough taste of the best our careers can be first. So that we, without question, without doubt, know what it is we're chasing and the kind of people we absolutely wish to chase it with.

Also, though...

So that we know what it is we should avoid at all times. Along with the people we need not include on our professional journey.

Of course your path is not my path just as mine isn't yours. But for sure we should, as much as humanly possible, strive to surround ourselves with people who not only challenge but help us to be better than we are right now. Full stop.

Surround ourselves.

With people.

Who not only challenge us.

But help us to be better.

Than we are right now.

Because that's how you build a career that lasts a lifetime.

☺️

0 notes

neil-gaiman · 3 months

Note

hey Neil, I hope you are having a good day. There's this question that's been bothering me for years. I never knew who to ask, or how, and I was always sure it's only me who experiences these things. And then I looked back at my favorite book of yours -good omens- and I thought, of course! Neil! He's the perfect guy to ask! So here it is.

You wrote good omens with Terry Pratchett. You know that already, sorry. Here's the thing.

Whenever I work on things with people, no matter who they are, friends or colleagues or strangers, I always have a hard time collaborating. It's hard for me not to be in control of the project. I actually love the idea of making things with other people, and sometimes I have the best time doing it, but the minute they bring up an idea they have that I don't agree with or like- I have a hard time. I can never bring myself to say "sorry, i don't really like that idea", i hate hate hate saying no to people, or hurting their feelings, so I end up nodding politely and we end up with a finished project I dont like.

When you were writing good omens with Terry, how did you do it? How did you collaborate and make something so successful? Did you just never disagree with anything he came up with?

If you end up seeing this, thank you very much. This is a life- long problem of mine.

I suppose that both Terry and I knew that seeing that we were making art and telling a story, there wasn't any right or wrong about what we were making. It was art and it was fun. My only goal was to make Terry laugh, his goal was to make me laugh. With a subgoal of Get to the next Good Bit In The Plot Before The Other One did.

I don't remember any disagreements or arguments, any more than you see disagreements and arguments in people doing Improv comedy. We both knew the book we were writing, and each day we'd talk on the phone, the aim being to make the other one laugh. When we did that successfully we knew we were heading in the right direction.

One reason i suspect we never actually wrote the sequel after plotting it is that it would have been a job and not just fun.

It sounds like your collaborations aren't any fun. Better you should do solo stuff.

#how we wrote Good Omens

1K notes · View notes

tsukimefuku · 3 months

Text

3rd of july ˚ ༘ ೀ⋆.˚ nanami kento

piece written in collaboration with my beloved friend and one of my favorite people, @rahuratna, for nanami's (a.k.a. internet's collective husbando) birthday. 💜🧡 content warning: fluff/comedy/sugestiveness word count: 1k

Nanami wasn't one to make big celebrations on his birthday. Up until he met you, he'd usually go about his work day quietly, saving up a few extra hours to simply go bowling or visit his favorite restaurants for dinner.

After you both started dating, not much had changed. You'd simply tag along for whatever he had planned, and would usually surprise him with something by the time you both got home - a box of dark chocolate, a new set of lingerie, a nice warm scented bath, a new CD album he had been looking for.

This time, however, you decided to push your luck on teasing the poor man.

On his birthday, of all days.

"Kento, how do you feel about surprise parties?" you ask, hiding the smile pulled on your cheeks behind your tea cup.

On the couch by your side, you could feel Nanami holding the urge to flinch the moment you were finished speaking.

"They are not my favorite," he answers in earnest.

"Seriously?" you inquire with a faux disheartened look.

"Yes," Nanami replies, with a tinge of concern to his voice.

"That is... unfortunate, then," you ensue, putting your tea on the coffee table and pulling your robe tighter around your body.

His Adam's apple bobs as he silently gulps.

"Why?"

"Well, my plan was to surprise you when you got home, but I figured you wouldn't want to get instantly jumped. So I told them to wait in the room," you finally say, with a grave finality, pointing to the closed bedroom door.

Truth is, he has no clue what you are really up to.

"Darling…" Nanami sighs, ever so patiently, "I thought it would just be the both of us unwinding, like the past years."

"I… I'm sorry, I really wanted to surprise you with something different this time."

You do sound regretful, and he plants a soft kiss on your cheek in response. Even now, he doesn't quite find it in himself to be annoyed at you, even if the prospect of Gojo lurking around his bedroom is enough to send disgusted shivers down his spine.

"It's… fine. Let's get this over with at once, and then have the house to ourselves."

"Are you sure? I could always go in there and tell them to-"

"No," he counters firmly. "You've arranged something a little different this year, and I'm going to appreciate it."

"Come on, then."

As perceptive as he is, Nanami doesn't notice the mischievous smile tugging at the corner of your mouth. Naturally, since you have successfully planted a seed in his mind, a terrifying image of his pristine suits being tried on by students and his custom made bowling ball being transformed into a disco light by the white-haired menace he calls a colleague.

When you reach the door and step aside for him, he visibly braces himself, fingers almost straightening a phantom tie at his throat.

"Sweetheart, I need to go and fetch a scarf. It's a little chilly in here."

Bless his heart. He's actually playing along.

You raise your voice.

"Oh, I left the blue one on the top shelf. Your closet."

"Right."

Nanami heads in with the air of a man charging from the trenches to face a volley of cannon fire. He stops dead in his tracks, eyes taking in the room.

It is empty of people, for starters.

The comforter on the bed has been pulled back, the white sheets scattered with rose petals. Candles have been placed strategically on the bedside table and vanity, emitting the subtle scent of the ocean. On a corner of the bed, a few ribbon-wrapped gifts await; a small stack of books and a box of his favourite dark chocolate with orange.

You saunter in behind him and he turns to you with a look that is both a solemn reprimand and a loving promise of a punishment you may appreciate later.

"Hmm. It's awfully crowded in here, my dear."

"Well, the rose petals were quite chatty, Kento. They've taken up all the space on our bed."

"They have indeed, you little-"

You laugh as you slip out of his reach, standing coyly in the doorway.

"Have a look at your gifts first."

He narrows his eyes, but approaches the bed, fingers unraveling the ribbon that holds the books together.

"What do we have here? 'The Master and Margarita.' Ah, wonderful. 'Bowling your way home: A salaryman's escape from bondage.'"

He pauses and raises an eyebrow and you gesture airily for him to keep going.

"Fine. What's this one? The-"

His voice cuts off abruptly.

"Kento? Are you all right?"

Very slowly, he turns to you.

"You got me the Kama Sutra?"

"I figured it would make a nice addition to your collection. I may even borrow it, from time to time."

You approach him now, casually opening the book to where you've placed a strategic leather marker within the section on sex positions.

"Since it's your birthday, maybe you'd like to start with the Virsha here?"

He considers the page seriously, before taking the book from you and flipping through it.

"I'm not sure, darling. You've put in enough effort setting all of this up."

Handing it back to you, he watches the flush that spreads upwards, across your neck as you are presented with the Indrani pose he has chosen instead.

"How about you let me do the work from here on out?"

"Well... "

"No, I insist."

His voice has that special intonation now, the husky rumble of desire, the inflection of hushed intimacy, the promise of that playful nature that only reveals itself when you're entangled in the sheets together.

You lay the book down, open to the very instructive illustration.

"In that case, let me present you with my last gift."

"There's another?"

Wordlessly, the robe you've been so studiously arranging around yourself slides to the floor. His kindling gaze takes in the sheer, violet lace, the tiny flowers embroidered strategically over the parts of you that he will discover at leisure.

***

Later, when the gossamer material lies discarded on the floor, when his exhausted limbs entwine with your own, when his golden hair runs like silk between your fingers, you speak into the hush of the bedroom.

"Happy birthday, my love."

His voice is muffled from where his face is pressed against your stomach.

"That was quite the surprise party."

"Maybe we should have one every year."

He snorts indignantly, but his lips curve in a smile against your skin all the same.

1K notes · View notes

luna-azzurra · 4 months

Text

Give your protagonist flaws.

Some examples of character flaws that can add humanity to your protagonist

Stubbornness

Stubbornness can cause your protagonist to cling to their viewpoints, even when they know they are wrong, often leading to conflicts with others. This trait can create dramatic tension and drive the narrative forward as the protagonist struggles with the consequences of their inflexibility.

Michael, a seasoned detective, refuses to consider new evidence that contradicts his initial theory about a case. His stubbornness leads to conflicts with his team and delays in solving the case.

Impatience

Impatience can make your protagonist demand immediate results, struggling with long-term goals or slower processes. This flaw can add layers to their journey, showing the difficulties they face in learning the value of patience and strategic planning.

Celeste, an aspiring entrepreneur, rushes the development of her new app, pushing her team to the brink. Her impatience results in a product that is not ready for launch, jeopardizing her startup's future.

Self-Doubt

Self-doubt, despite evident skills and achievements, can impair the protagonist's decision-making and actions. This internal conflict adds a relatable dimension, making their journey toward self-acceptance and confidence compelling.

Jordan, a talented musician, constantly questions his abilities despite receiving praise from peers and critics. His self-doubt hinders him from seizing opportunities that could advance his career.

Short Temper

A short temper can cause your protagonist to react aggressively to provocations or challenges, creating interpersonal issues. This flaw can drive subplots involving reconciliation, personal growth, and the learning of emotional control.

Maria, a brilliant surgeon, often lashes out at her colleagues and patients under pressure. Her short temper strains her professional relationships and threatens her career.

Selfishness

Selfishness can lead the protagonist to place their own needs and desires above others, costing them sympathy and support. This flaw can create opportunities for the character to learn empathy and the importance of selflessness.

Chris, a charismatic lawyer, often prioritizes his career over his family, missing important events and neglecting relationships. His selfishness alienates those who care about him, forcing him to reevaluate his choices.

Arrogance

Arrogance can make your protagonist overestimate their abilities and underestimate challenges, leading to dangerous or embarrassing situations. This flaw provides a platform for the character to learn humility and the value of listening to others.

Mandy, a top student, dismisses her classmates' ideas during group projects, believing she knows best. Her arrogance leads to friction and eventually to a significant mistake that humbles her.

Trust Issues

Trust issues can make it difficult for your protagonist to trust others, hindering teamwork and relationships. This trait can create tension and development opportunities as the character learns to open up and rely on others.

Liam, a former spy, finds it hard to trust anyone due to past betrayals. His trust issues complicate his relationships and collaboration with a new team.

Perfectionism

Perfectionism can lead your protagonist to set unrealistically high standards, never being content with their or others' performance. This flaw can drive stories about the struggle for balance and acceptance of imperfection.

Olivia, an artist, is never satisfied with her work, constantly striving for an unattainable level of perfection. Her perfectionism causes stress and burnout, affecting her creativity and personal life.

Fear of Change

Fear of change can make your protagonist cling to the familiar and avoid necessary or beneficial changes. This resistance can create narrative tension as they are forced to confront and adapt to evolving circumstances.

Jamie, a successful business owner, resists adopting new technologies or methods in his company. His fear of change threatens his business's relevance and growth.

Haunted by the Past

Being haunted by past mistakes or traumas can influence your protagonist's present behavior and decisions. This flaw adds a rich backstory and provides a path for emotional development and overcoming personal demons.

Zack, a war veteran, is haunted by his experiences in combat. His traumatic past affects his current relationships and decisions, leading him on a journey of healing and redemption.

#writing #writer on tumblr #writerscommunity #writing tips #character development #writing advice #oc character #writing help #creative writing #character background #character flaws #Flaws

1K notes · View notes

sayruq · 5 months

Text

Statement: Student organizations in the Gaza Strip in solidarity with the Student Intifada in the United States

In the name of God, the most gracious, the most merciful… We, the students of Gaza, salute the students of Columbia University, Yale University, New York University, Rutgers University, the University of Michigan, and dozens of universities across the United States who are rising up in solidarity with Gaza and to put an end to the Zionist-U.S. genocide against our people in Gaza. As we remain under the bombs of occupation, resisting Nazi genocide, grieving for our martyred colleagues and faculty, and witnessing the destruction of our universities, we welcome the examples of solidarity offered by students facing arrest, police violence, suspension, eviction, and expulsion in order to demand that their universities end their complicity in the Zionist-U.S. genocide and renounce their support for the occupation and the war profiteers that arm it. We have seen hundreds of students arrested across the United States as they work to transform their universities into “Popular Universities for Gaza.” Students, faculty, and staff are disrupting university operations and making clear that while universities in Gaza are being bombed, university business cannot continue as usual in the United States. These actions come as university administrations collaborate with members of Congress to discredit conscientious student activists and faculty, expel students, ban events, shut down student organizations such as Students for Justice in Palestine, and condemn activists working to end the Nazi genocide. At the same time, these same universities invest in the same companies that profit from the continued sale of weapons to the Zionist regime to continue its genocidal offensive. Our students – and our educational system as a whole – in occupied Palestine are subjected to ongoing genocidal aggression: our universities destroyed and bombed, our student organizations banned, and our student leaders subjected to torture, assassination and mass imprisonment. However, in Palestine and around the world, the student movement has always been a driving force of our struggle for liberation. When we see videos and images from American universities today, we are reminded of our history of student struggle as well as the student uprisings of 1968, which challenged imperialism from Vietnam to Palestine and reshaped the face of Europe and the United States. Now, in 2024, the student movement is once again leading the way. From here in Gaza, we see you and salute you. Your actions and activism matter, especially in the heart of the empire, in the United States. As members of Congress agree to provide $26 billion in additional weapons to bomb our people and continue the Zionist-U.S. genocide, you are taking meaningful action to shut down the war machine on your campuses. It is clear that a new generation is rising that will no longer accept Zionism, racism and genocide, and that stands with Palestine and our liberation from the river to the sea. Your global student solidarity is breaking boundaries, and it is time to smash the US imperialist war machine. From Gaza to Columbia, to Ann Arbor and Berkeley, our hands are joined to end Nazi genocide and achieve our collective liberation.

#yemen #jerusalem #tel aviv #current events #palestine #free palestine #gaza #free gaza #news on gaza #palestine news #news update #war news #war on gaza #students for justice in palestine #palestinian students #columbia university #gaza genocide #genocide #intifada

2K notes · View notes

mostlysignssomeportents · 7 months

Text

The majority of censorship is self-censorship

I'm on tour with my new novel The Bezzle! Catch me TONIGHT in SAN DIEGO (Feb 22, Mysterious Galaxy). After that, it's LA (Saturday night, with Adam Conover), Seattle (Monday, with Neal Stephenson), then Portland, Phoenix and more!

I know a lot of polymaths, but Ada Palmer takes the cake: brilliant science fiction writer, brilliant historian, brilliant librettist, brilliant singer, and then some:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/02/10/monopoly-begets-monopoly/#terra-ignota

Palmer is a friend and a colleague. In 2018, she, Adrian Johns and I collaborated on "Censorship, Information Control, & Information Revolutions from Printing Press to Internet," a series of grad seminars at the U Chicago History department (where Ada is a tenured prof, specializing in the Inquisition and Renaissance forbidden knowledge):

https://ifk.uchicago.edu/research/faculty-fellow-projects/censorship-information-control-information-revolutions-from-printing-press/

The project had its origins in a party game that Ada and I used to play at SF conventions: Ada would describe a way that the Inquisitions' censors attacked the printing press, and I'd find an extremely parallel maneuver from governments, the entertainment industry or other entities from the much more recent history of internet censorship battles.

With the seminars, we took it to the next level. Each 3h long session featured a roster of speakers from many disciplines, explaining everything from how encryption works to how white nationalists who were radicalized in Vietnam formed an armored-car robbery gang to finance modems and Apple ][+s to link up neo-Nazis across the USA.

We borrowed the structure of these sessions from science fiction conventions, home to a very specific kind of panel that doesn't always work, but when it does, it's fantastic. It was a natural choice: after all, Ada and I know each other through science fiction.

Even if you're not an sf person, you've probably heard of the Hugo Awards, the most prestigious awards in the field, voted on each year by attendees of the annual World Science Fiction Convention (Worldcon). And even if you're not an sf fan, you might have heard about a scandal involving the Hugo Awards, which were held last year in China, a first:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/science-fiction-authors-excluded-hugo-awards-china-rcna139134

A little background: each year's Worldcon is run by a committee of volunteers. These volunteers put together bids to host the Worldcon, and canvass Worldcon attendees to vote in favor of their bid. For many years, a group of Chinese fans attempted to field a successful bid to host a Worldcon, and, eventually, they won.

At the time, there were many concerns: about traveling to a country with a poor human rights record and a reputation for censorship, and about the logistics of customary Worldcon attendees getting visas. During this debate, many international fans pointed to the poor human rights record in the USA (which has hosted the vast majority of Worldcons since their inception), and the absolute ghastly rigmarole the US government subjects many foreign visitors to when they seek visas to come to the US for conventions.

Whatever side of this debate you came down on, it couldn't be denied that the Chinese Worldcon rang a lot of alarm-bells. Communications were spotty, and then the con was unceremoniously rescheduled for months after the original scheduled date, without any good explanation. Rumors swirled of Chinese petty officials muscling their way into the con's administration.

But the real alarm bells started clanging after the Hugo Award ceremony. Normally, after the Hugos are given out, attendees are given paper handouts tallying the nominations and votes, and those numbers are also simultaneously published online. Technically, the Hugo committee has a grace period of some weeks before this data must be published, but at every Worldcon I've attended over the past 30+ years, I left the Hugos with a data-sheet in my hand.

Then, in early December, at the very last moment, the Hugo committee released its data – and all hell broke loose. Numerous, acclaimed works had been unilaterally "disqualified" from the ballot. Many of these were written by writers from the Chinese diaspora, but some works – like an episode of Neil Gaiman's Sandman – were seemingly unconnected to any national considerations.

Readers and writers erupted in outrage, demanding to know what had happened. The Hugo administrators – Americans and Canadians who'd volunteered in those roles for many years and were widely viewed as being members in good standing of the community – were either silent or responded with rude and insulting remarks. One thing they didn't do was explain themselves.

The absence of facts left a void that rumors and speculation rushed in to fill. Stories of Chinese official censorship swirled online, and along with them, a kind of I-told-you-so: China should never have been home to a Worldcon, the country's authoritarian national politics are fundamentally incompatible with a literary festival.

As the outrage mounted and the scandal breached from the confines of science fiction fans and writers to the wider world, more details kept emerging. A damning set of internal leaks revealed that it was those long-serving American and Canadian volunteers who decided to censor the ballot. They did so out of a vague sense that the Chinese state would visit some unspecified sanction on the con if politically unpalatable works appeared on the Hugo ballot. Incredibly, they even compiled clumsy dossiers on nominees, disqualifying one nominee out of a mistaken belief that he had once visited Tibet (it was actually Nepal).

There's no evidence that the Chinese state asked these people to do this. Likewise, it wasn't pressure from the Chinese state that caused them to throw out hundreds of ballots cast by Chinese fans, whom they believed were voting for a "slate" of works (it's not clear if this is the case, but slate voting is permitted under Hugo rules).

All this has raised many questions about the future of the Hugo Awards, and the status of the awards that were given in China. There's widespread concern that Chinese fans involved with the con may face state retaliation due to the negative press that these shenanigans stirred up.

But there's also a lot of questions about censorship, and the nature of both state and private censorship, and the relationship between the two. These are questions that Ada is extremely well-poised to answer; indeed, they're the subject of her book-in-progress, entitled Why We Censor: from the Inquisition to the Internet.

In a magisterial essay for Reactor, Palmer stakes out her central thesis: "The majority of censorship is self-censorship, but the majority of self-censorship is intentionally cultivated by an outside power":

https://reactormag.com/tools-for-thinking-about-censorship/

States – even very powerful states – that wish to censor lack the resources to accomplish totalizing censorship of the sort depicted in Nineteen Eighty-Four. They can't go from house to house, searching every nook and cranny for copies of forbidden literature. The only way to kill an idea is to stop people from expressing it in the first place. Convincing people to censor themselves is, "dollar for dollar and man-hour for man-hour, much cheaper and more impactful than anything else a censorious regime can do."

Ada invokes examples modern and ancient, including from her own area of specialty, the Inquisition and its treatment of Gailileo. The Inquistions didn't set out to silence Galileo. If that had been its objective, it could have just assassinated him. This was cheap, easy and reliable! Instead, the Inquisition persecuted Galileo, in a very high-profile manner, making him and his ideas far more famous.

But this isn't some early example of Inquisitorial Streisand Effect. The point of persecuting Galileo was to convince Descartes to self-censor, which he did. He took his manuscript back from the publisher and cut the sections the Inquisition was likely to find offensive. It wasn't just Descartes: "thousands of other major thinkers of the time wrote differently, spoke differently, chose different projects, and passed different ideas on to the next century because they self-censored after the Galileo trial."

This is direct self-censorship, where people are frightened into silencing themselves. But there's another form of censorship, which Ada calls "middlemen censorship." That's when someone other than the government censors a work because they fear what the government would do if they didn't. Think of Scholastic's cowardly decision to pull inclusive, LGBTQ books out of its book fair selections even though no one had ordered them to do so:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/06/books/scholastic-book-racism-maggie-tokuda-hall.html

This is a form of censorship outsourcing, and it "multiplies the manpower of a censorship system by the number of individuals within its power." The censoring body doesn't need to hire people to search everyone's houses for offensive books – it can frighten editors, publishers, distributors, booksellers and librarians into suppressing the books in the first place.

This outsourcing blurs the line between state and private surveillance. Think about comics. After a series of high-profile Congressional hearings about the supposed danger of comics to impressionable young minds, the comics industry undertook a regime of self-censorship, through which the private Comics Code Authority would vet comings for "dangerous" content before allowing its seal of approval to appear on the comics' covers. Distributors and retailers refused to carry books without a CCA stamp, so publishers refused to publish books unless they could get a CCA stamp.

The CCA was unaccountable, capricious – and racist. By the 60s and 70s, it became clear that comic about Black characters were subjected to much tighter scrutiny than comics featuring white heroes. The CCA would reject "a drop of sweat on the forehead of a Black astronaut as 'too graphic' since it 'could be mistaken for blood.'" Every comic that got sent back by the CCA meant long, brutal reworkings by writers and illustrators to get them past the censors.

The US government never censored heroes like Black Panther, but the chain of events that created the CCA "middleman censors" made sure that Black Panther appeared in far fewer comics starring Marvel's most prominent Black character. An analysis of censorship that tries to draw a line between private and public censorship would say that the government played no role in Black Panther's banishment to obscurity – but without Congressional action, Black Panther would never have faced censorship.

This is why attempts to cleanly divide public and private censorship always break down. Many people will tell you that when Twitter or Facebook blocks content they disagree with, that's not censorship, since censorship is government action, and these are private actors. What they mean is that Twitter and Facebook censorship doesn't violate the First Amendment, but it's perfectly possible to infringe on free speech without violating the US Constitution. What's more, if the government fails to prevent monopolization of our speech forums – like social media – and also declines to offer its own public speech forums that are bound to respect the First Amendment, we can end up with government choices that produce an environment in which some ideas are suppressed wherever they might find an audience – all without violating the Constitution:

https://locusmag.com/2020/01/cory-doctorow-inaction-is-a-form-of-action/

The great censorious regimes of the past – the USSR, the Inquisition – left behind vast troves of bureaucratic records, and these records are full of complaints about the censors' lack of resources. They didn't have the manpower, the office space, the money or the power to erase the ideas they were ordered to suppress. As Ada notes, "In the period that Spain’s Inquisition was wildly out of Rome’s control, the Roman Inquisition even printed manuals to guide its Inquisitors on how to bluff their way through pretending they were on top of what Spain was doing!"

Censors have always done – and still do – their work not by wielding power, but by projecting it. Even the most powerful state actors are not powerful enough to truly censor, in the sense of confiscating every work expressing an idea and punishing everyone who creates such a work. Instead, when they rely on self-censorship, both by individuals and by intermediaries. When censors act to block one work and not another, or when they punish one transgressor while another is free to speak, it's tempting to think that they are following some arcane ruleset that defines when enforcement is strict and when it's weak. But the truth is, they censor erratically because they are too weak to censor comprehensively.

Spectacular acts of censorship and punishment are a performance, "to change the way people act and think." Censors "seek out actions that can cause the maximum number of people to notice and feel their presence, with a minimum of expense and manpower."

The censor can only succeed by convincing us to do their work for them. That's why drawing a line between state censorship and private censorship is such a misleading exercise. Censorship is, and always has been, a public-private partnership.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/02/22/self-censorship/#hugos

#pluralistic #ada palmer #worldcon #hugos #china #science fiction #fanac #publishing #censorship #systems of information control during information revolutions #scholarship

2K notes · View notes