Wintercat
Curious Lurker
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2021
- Messages
- 3,482
- Likes received
- 77,471
I am working on a few different ideas and playing them around and most of the time, I avoid Religion & Politics for most part, and if they do appear, they're fantasy-world politics or Alt-World politics that have nothing clearly tied to the real world, so I don't think I've had too much concerns on Rule 8 before, and prefer to keep it that way for most part.
That said, I got started of thinking about a character in 'real world circumstances' is pretty much fed up with some real-world decisions within the last 20 years period resulting in them losing more and more of what their family has built up, and what they're about to lose, personally, before being offered a "devil's deal" of sorts, power, in exchange for entertainment. Sending them off, while having their own body drop dead in their world, but also gifting their family the means to fight back, prevent a travesty against the family, etc.
This question however comes because I would have the character refer to "Policitians on both sides of the isle fucking over the common man" and on named politicians, but some pointed comments "I thought we were voting in someone who would actually stop this madness, instead of introducing new load of bullshit on top of the old one we got from the last asshole!" Generally, rude, impolite, and not specific or personal points that would identify someone.
At the same time, I kind of feel like I'd be better off taking a step back, and not using real world political section, instead, having it be a 'near-earth' world with different politics and decisions, that are still likewise screwing the guy over, but obviously not related to our world and its politics on such a tight level that someone could point out "ooohh, he's talking about X by Z!"
So, wanting to ask if not using names but pointing out potentially recognizable political decisions & moves and ranting about them, in story, because they screwed a character over to start with, is crossing the line?
I'm pretty sure I can do the chapter just altering the context slightly and cutting the tie to the real world politics entirely, and probably should, just in case, but wondering here if I would be fine using the real world examples?
In this context, it would be tied to first complaining about rise in crime, recent arrivals to the area in past years, huge climb in drug related cases... followed later by decisions that make things even more difficult on that front.
I'm not an American myself, and this would be written from point of view of an American protagonist, fed up and frustrated with things, before getting the deal offered, desperate and frustrated enough to take it, not in small part out of spite, and having more clear cases to allude to in his ranting commentary (keeping an audio diary, that sort of thing), would help establish why the character is how they are... but I get a feeling some subjects can be a tad too explosive to poke at.
So, I'm leaning towards "err on the side of caution" and removing real-world politics from it entirely, just having the guy frustrated for similar enough reasons in a near-earth setting, but does it sound like it would be too much, too far? Specifically avoiding naming any names in the story idea, not even nicknames used by some media figures in this case.
That said, I got started of thinking about a character in 'real world circumstances' is pretty much fed up with some real-world decisions within the last 20 years period resulting in them losing more and more of what their family has built up, and what they're about to lose, personally, before being offered a "devil's deal" of sorts, power, in exchange for entertainment. Sending them off, while having their own body drop dead in their world, but also gifting their family the means to fight back, prevent a travesty against the family, etc.
This question however comes because I would have the character refer to "Policitians on both sides of the isle fucking over the common man" and on named politicians, but some pointed comments "I thought we were voting in someone who would actually stop this madness, instead of introducing new load of bullshit on top of the old one we got from the last asshole!" Generally, rude, impolite, and not specific or personal points that would identify someone.
At the same time, I kind of feel like I'd be better off taking a step back, and not using real world political section, instead, having it be a 'near-earth' world with different politics and decisions, that are still likewise screwing the guy over, but obviously not related to our world and its politics on such a tight level that someone could point out "ooohh, he's talking about X by Z!"
So, wanting to ask if not using names but pointing out potentially recognizable political decisions & moves and ranting about them, in story, because they screwed a character over to start with, is crossing the line?
I'm pretty sure I can do the chapter just altering the context slightly and cutting the tie to the real world politics entirely, and probably should, just in case, but wondering here if I would be fine using the real world examples?
In this context, it would be tied to first complaining about rise in crime, recent arrivals to the area in past years, huge climb in drug related cases... followed later by decisions that make things even more difficult on that front.
I'm not an American myself, and this would be written from point of view of an American protagonist, fed up and frustrated with things, before getting the deal offered, desperate and frustrated enough to take it, not in small part out of spite, and having more clear cases to allude to in his ranting commentary (keeping an audio diary, that sort of thing), would help establish why the character is how they are... but I get a feeling some subjects can be a tad too explosive to poke at.
So, I'm leaning towards "err on the side of caution" and removing real-world politics from it entirely, just having the guy frustrated for similar enough reasons in a near-earth setting, but does it sound like it would be too much, too far? Specifically avoiding naming any names in the story idea, not even nicknames used by some media figures in this case.
