SCP by Series
Other SCP
Feed
Stories
Discovery
Random
You are the moonlight on a mountain
You are a wave upon the sea
You picked a time that really matters
Don't fuck it up for you and me
It's about time I actually posted this thing, given people have already tried to cite it.
Thanks to AbsentmindedNihilist,
JackalRelated,
The Great Hippo,
minmin, and
Uncle Nicolini for their critique.
EDIT: Apologies to minmin, whose subsequent messages I only saw after posting.
lmao now i actually have to commit to this instead of textwalling in scpd
1) this is a great essay. i think part 6, if anything, is the biggest takeaway here. It is easy to do research, but it is hard to gauge the thematic elements of your work, especially when you're in the thick of writing it. UE really hits the nail on the head here re: 'Watsonian' and 'Doyleist' ethics of a piece. The first can be negotiated through sitting back & rubberducking moral implications in your head. The second is a lot harder. It's a matter of really being on the pulse of issues you're facing - knowing how the things you're addressing will look from different angles - knowing the general flavours of communities that will read this, and how they tend to react to things. In more formal terms we might call it a 'vibe check'.
2) & that leads me to think, well, you can't get good at vibe checking, right? It's an embodied thing - "you have to be there to get it". You have to have some manner of presence in leftist trans-friendly online communities, for instance, to understand what jokes have been reappropriated or re-memed into the vibe, to identify which slurs are now emancipatory & not badwrong. This is not something that is easily learned second- or third-hand. And that's why I think one important point of consultation when writing about sensitive topics is yourself.
3) this is not to say every spicy scp thing should be ownvoices only! The biggest strength of fiction (esp. speculative fiction) is to adopt the kindness inherent in expressing unfamiliar subjectivities - to feel with those who are not yourself. But I honestly think a part of sucessfully tackling this is to convince yourself that you yourself have a stake in it. Only then will many of the questions in this essay make sense to you - not just on a logical level, but in your bones.
4) Writing is one way in which we think. We are what we write. There is an affective dimension to writing about trauma that comes before everything else, which then informs a lot of the questions UE has helpfully raised in this piece. Before "How would victims of [TOPIC] read your piece?"; there is "How am I prepared to stand by, and justify myself, as a writer of this piece?"; and, if you're ready, "What are my strengths as a writer? What are the strengths of this [SCP/GOI/tale] format? What are the strengths of my personal authorial style? What does it add to this topic that is kind? Novel? Helpful?"
5) What are your inroads to the subject matter that might cause you to have an affective stake in your story? In your story's success?
ed: sorry if this sounds like im trying to talk over the main article here. honestly for most people this essay is a good enough start. i just have alot of feelings man
"Doylist Endorsement"
DISCLAIMER: I am not about to argue that reading about, say, terrible war crimes makes people want to commit terrible war crimes. The actual issue with Doylist Endorsement is less dramatic, but way more complicated.
Doylist Endorsement refers to when the topic is presented solely for the viewer's entertainment, or otherwise reads as such. If Watsonian Endorsement is a thesis undermined by the setting, Doylist Endorsement is a thesis undermined by the presentation: essentially, whatever the piece is ostensibly trying to convey, the actual depiction of the topic becomes a major draw. It is, essentially, (hopefully only) tacitly endorsing the subject as a form of entertainment.
This is a bit harder to avoid than Watsonian Endorsement, and mostly accidental: you can come into writing with every intention to show how [TOPIC] is a bad thing, but if you're not careful about it, people will read your piece as a celebration of the topic. In the worst case scenario, they may employ the piece to malicious ends in real life.
I could not possibly have explained this better, and it's for that reason I want to thank you
This is a wonderful essay and i hope to point people to it in crit for years to come, thank you for writing it. While I think I think I'm good at getting stories out, I'm not that great with critical analysis of entertainment/writing such that when I've tried to explain this stuff it just boils down to "you shouldn't" and this is so cogently and efficiently communicated.
This is a great essay. I have upvoted it. Now for my other comments.
The issue with the Doylist Endorsement isn't the Doylist Endorsement itself, as it is still something to reckon with as a writer. But there are times, justifiably so in my opinion, where the sensitive topic being written about has to be portrayed in a way where the intent isn't explicitly to show that it's bad, & perhaps even use it for "entertainment" (relative to the work it is featured in) to some degree. Of course, the intent with your essay isn't that the author's viewpoint of the topic at hand must be made clear at all times, because we should all assume that someone writing about rape thinks rape is bad. Nor do I believe that it is saying that the negative thing in question must strictly be portrayed as negative at all times, because then it is harder to fully reckon with the pitfalls of one's actions from an emotional & narrative viewpoint even when intellectually realizing the negative thing is negative. But there is some line that must be carefully tread when writing, especially if inexperienced. One might argue that if you reach the point where the Doylist Endorsement either can't be helped or is necessary, & you are not capable of having it not clash with the rest of the story, then you might not want to write the topic in question at the moment.
Spoilers for various pieces of media to explain my belief in this view.
In Annette, Henry McHenry's emotional turbulence (really just thinly-veiled abuse towards others that are not himself), as well as his… direct sense of humor, are portrayed in a mostly uncritical, or at least neutral, light. Later on, this same turbulence & approach to humor are what cause people to drift away from him, & speed up the tragedy of his character arc. But it would be difficult to ascertain the impact his instability & humor would have on people, as well as what a full view of how others see him & portray how he acts, without presenting it earlier as akin to entertainment. (What would be entertainment is watching Adam Driver smoke during a standing ovation.)
Though to a lesser degree, & through the lens of anime storytelling & presentation, Haruhi attempts something similar. Haruhi Suzumiya is what one might call a bully. She sexually harasses one SOS Brigade member, puts down the others, & more or less ignores one altogether, in favor of having her own fun. Of course, the anime initially treats this as quirky humor. As the series moves towards The Disappearance of Haruhi Suzumiya, we can see the noticeable effects this has on the rest of the club members, ranging from breakdowns, to lashing out & arguments. It would be very tricky to depict this gradual breakdown of tolerance without it initially being portrayed as lighthearted.
While not an anti-cop movie, it explores the ramifications & ripple effects of overly brutal police & investigative work, exploring how corruption and mismanagement & handling of a case can lead to the perpetrator getting away with his crimes while the police scramble to deal with it. Park Doo-man's antics are portrayed in an interesting light in this movie. While very over-the-top and brutal, much humor & situational comedy is made out of him beating the shit out of suspects, interrogating them, & clashing with suspects & fellow officers. As the film is a black comedy, with the intention of setting up its themes, depicting the brutal actions of Park Doo-man straight would muddle with its intentions. Black comedy in general is a tough area to write sensitive subjects in. That alone could be its own essay.
Great job with your essay.
This and minmin's comment are excellent additions to this essay.
This is exactly the kind of essay that the wiki needs. I was actually going to write this myself, very glad that someone else took on the task because that would've been emotionally exhausting.
One of the recurring issues I see in the Ideas Forum is a bunch of young authors wanting to use those major taboos as foundations for their articles. The number of people who want to write about WW2 and Nazis is staggering, and for some it's difficult to understand why they're being told not to. Having a resource to direct them to is incredibly useful.
Learned a ton from this. Thank you for writing it!
I definitely could’ve used this when I wrote more about taboo topics. I actually am considering trying to write taboo topics again, this is the sort of thing I’ll keep in mind.
This is very important to everyone that wants to contribute to the wiki.
I'd also like for the authors to be mindful of the ableist tropes that exist in horror, like villanizing mental illness or physical deformities.
Check out the "Whats up with monster factory" video essay on YouTube.
And a little tip: please do not use real conditions or illnesses as horror elements. Real people are affected by these, and they're not dangerous nor inherently evil. Plus it only makes it worse if you're treating them like monsters. (Scp 439 is an example of this).
I would counter that it is entirely possible to use real world conditions in a sensitive manner, and that SCP-439 is an excellent example of how to do it well.
The key is that a real-world genetic condition is not thrown in lightly as a shock line, nor are those with it painted as monstrous. The monster is a parasite that induces the disease's effects in an accelerated and exaggerated, but otherwise seriously and accurately depicted, manner. The disorder is not the horror, just a biological description of a part of it.
Similarly, I am bipolar. I am occasionally displeased at cartoonish depictions of the condition, but I can 100% confirm that it is unsettling to know how much influence some off-the-rails electrochemisty can have over one's mental state. By all means, write a bipolar character second-guessing their emotions, or not second-guessing them enough. Note that the anger-ray induces brain activity and chemical imbalances similar to an extreme mixed-affective state. Hell, have the manic mad scientist ranting about how he'll show them all… just do your research and understand what exactly that means from their perspective.
