# oh-oh, is writing about police now political?



## EmmaSohan (Jun 15, 2020)

They found the murderer, he killed himself, and the question was whether or not to just sweep everything under the rug, or proceed as they should, reveal the details, which would destroy the career of an innocent politician.

Normal writing stuff. Right?

They swept everything under the rug BECAUSE THE POLITICIAN WAS FAVORABLE TO THE POLICE. Which implies they might have destroyed the politician if he had wanted less police finding instead of more.

The first time I read that, I saw no problem; this week, it seems to be making a political statement on a hot topic.

In the next book, she is a lawyer and thrown in jail for a night. She discovers systemic mistreatment of her jail-mates, defends them the next day, and gets charges reduced, bail lowered, proper procedures followed, etc. Normal writing stuff when I read it in March. Politically charged now?

I think there are serious issues for how to portray women. Or men, or blacks, etc. We probably should be responsible, whatever that is. We still need to tell a good story. There is no good answer that I know of (though WF seems to be deciding on tolerance). Is this going to be like that too?

Predictions? Thoughts? Good ideas?

(I know you might want to express your opinion on real and important issues of our time. Hugs. Please don't. This is a discussion about only writing, books, readers, etc.)


----------



## Theglasshouse (Jun 15, 2020)

I wrote about a world where police aggression is solved in a science fiction story. I don't think its political. It's not worth censoring. It's worth writing about in a story since it brings hope when the problem is fixed. At least that is how I wrote it.


----------



## indianroads (Jun 15, 2020)

If you're still in the writing stage, and NOT close to sending inquiries to agents or self publishing, I wouldn't worry about it at all. Times will change and politics fluctuate.


----------



## TL Murphy (Jun 15, 2020)

Everything is political. There's no way out of it. Just write what feels right. I am also struggling with some volatile political material. It's hard to know what direction to take it in. I think, though, that the best strategy is to just keep writing until the solution reveals itself.


----------



## Foxee (Jun 15, 2020)

I doubt it's possible to write truly authentically unless what you're writing flows from the engine inside you. You have got to do that before anything else.

Then, if absolutely necessary, stand back during the editing process and see what hills you're willing to die on. Personally, I think that writers and all kind of artists face intimidation because our efforts are all about shining the light of ideas. And ideas can be very powerful, especially when distilled.

So I'm going to encourage you not to be intimidated. Just write.


----------



## ironpony (Jun 15, 2020)

I think one of the problem's is, is that a lot of people now seem to have a problem separating entertainment from reality, than they have before.  Is it an evolution thing perhaps?


----------



## TL Murphy (Jun 15, 2020)

What's wrong with reality???? Reality is stranger than fiction.


----------



## Terry D (Jun 15, 2020)

If you can alter what you write to fit the daily fluctuations of public opinion and media attention, then I think your writing is pretty superficial. What we write should be an extension of our own values and convictions, not a washed-out reflection of the latest newscast, or sound-bite. 

All this shit is just noise until we filter it through our own internal synthesizer, put it into the context of a story, and make it music.


----------



## indianroads (Jun 15, 2020)

My next novel will take today's conditions further - creating a dystopian realm. The police will be the boot of tyranny stamping on the necks of the people, and outlaws are the only ones that dispense justice. I'm looking forward to writing it.

Am I worried about offending people or causing a stir? Nope.


----------



## Xander416 (Jun 15, 2020)

The issue with police officers right now is one of media bias. Everything that portrays them in a good light is being censored (example: _Cops_ being cancelled even though never in its entire history on the air has it captured or glorified any cases of police brutality) while the bad is displayed on marquee banners. It will be front page page news on every outlet when an old man gets shoved by one, falls, and suffers a head injury, but no one will touch this story about a white cop resuscitating a 12 day old black baby that stopped breathing and became unresponsive because it doesn't fit the click-drawing narrative that all police are racist thugs who are going to kill you simply because they feel like it.


----------



## Foxee (Jun 15, 2020)

And there you have it...getting used to the idea that we're bound to offend SOMEONE if we put our work out there is tough but doable. I was listening to an author-interview and the author was saying that some of the criticisms that they get are about the book and some are about them personally...given by people who don't even know them!

It's an arena of ideas and won't always be a fair one.


----------



## ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord (Jun 15, 2020)

ironpony said:


> I think one of the problem's is, is that a lot of people now seem to have a problem separating entertainment from reality, than they have before.  Is it an evolution thing perhaps?



The thing is, imagination and reality are inextricably linked.


----------



## ST Kennedy (Jun 15, 2020)

I feel like writing about cops has always been political, the best work done on the subject in my opinion is pretty explicitly so.


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 16, 2020)

Xander416 said:


> The issue with police officers right now is one of media bias. Everything that portrays them in a good light is being censored (example: Cops being cancelled even though never in its entire history on the air has it captured or glorified any cases of police brutality) while the bad is displayed on marquee banners. It will be front page page news on every outlet when an old man gets shoved by one, falls, and suffers a head injury, but no one will touch this story about a white cop resuscitating a 12 day old black baby that stopped breathing and became unresponsive because it doesn't fit the click-drawing narrative that all police are racist thugs who are going to kill you simply because they feel like it.




The police are constantly celebrated by the media. You just named a mainstream TV show that ran for thirty-one years on a major network (as well as internationally) and spent its entire time providing non-stop favorable coverage of American police. There are more cop shows than I can name, more cop books too. And yet, I can think of hardly any that are anything other than 'a good light'.

 What media bias are you talking about? 




Terry D said:


> If you can alter what you write to fit the daily fluctuations of public opinion and media attention, then I think your writing is pretty superficial. What we write should be an extension of our own values and convictions, not a washed-out reflection of the latest newscast, or sound-bite.
> 
> 
> All this shit is just noise until we filter it through our own internal synthesizer, put it into the context of a story, and make it music.



I agree, but that wasn't my impression of what the topic was about. I think the topic was about the idea of certain things becoming political and how/if that should change our approach to presenting them in stories rather than about values, convictions, etc.

One aspect I am actively being more aware of when writing about the police (there are police in my current novel, they're not the focus but they are a part of it) is not to fall into the trap of assuming that a reader won't be prone to being critical of their methods, if not skeptical. If you go back a few decades, the police were almost universally assumed to reliably be the good guys in almost every story. You could put 'Detective' in front of any character's name and it was like a flag being raised saying THIS IS THE GOOD GUY.

My approach to writing police now, would be to humanize them a lot more than perhaps I would have in the past and ensure that a good cop kind of proves his goodness from a standing start: I would want to show he was a genuinely decent person in spite of, rather than because of, his profession.


----------



## Bayview (Jun 16, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> If you go back a few decades, the police were almost universally assumed to reliably be the good guys in almost every story. You could put 'Detective' in front of any character's name and it was like a flag being raised saying THIS IS THE GOOD GUY.



I was going to post something almost identical to what ST Kennedy said. Instead, I will disagree with this idea!

I agree that the last couple decades have seen an explosion in really strong, dramatic police dramas - starting with _NYPD Blue_, maybe? That was about 27 years ago. Oh, _Prime Suspect _started in 1991, and it definitely portrayed cops as deeply flawed. Then in no particular order _The Wire, Between the Lines, The Shield, Homicide: Life on the Street_, etc. Some great shows, no doubt. And similarly great movies focusing on police corruption, too.

But I think this has merely been an increase, not a complete revolution. I'm trying to think of a time when there was no awareness of/resentment of police corruption on TV or media. A few decades ago would be 1990. (!!!). _In the Heat of the Night _was on TV. A black detective trying to deal with racist cops. _Hill St. Blues _had corrupt cops. 
Go back a few years and get _The Untouchable_s, _Robo-Cop, Fort Apache: The Bronx_ (complete with rioting due to police brutality!), etc. One of my favourite movies in the 80s was _The Big Easy_. All about corruption on the police force.

The seventies had _D__irty Harry_ and _Serpico_, the 60s had the original _In The Heat of the Night. _I had to do a search for movies from the 50s (WELL before my time, now!) and found _Touch of Evil, __The Big Heat_ and one actually CALLED _Rogue Cop_. 

Forties? _Casablanca _certainly comes to mind.

Before that? I'm been reading some Dashiell Hammett for research purpose and he treats police corruption as an absolute given. I can't imagine that element has been left out of the many film adaptions of his work.

I could go on if I wanted to do more research, but I don't think it's necessary. My point is that while there have been a lot of great shows and movies about police corruption in the last few decades, there's never really been a time when police corruption was unheard of in filmed entertainment.

I think possibly there's been more humanizing of the corrupt cops lately? At least some of them have been portrayed as three-dimensional characters rather than pure Villains or whatever? Maybe more anti-heroes who are in some ways corrupt but in other ways trying to do their jobs? I'm not sure if that's an accurate statement, but it seems like a possibility.


----------



## Squalid Glass (Jun 16, 2020)

I agree, Bayview, but also consider the portrayal of cops in shows like _Cops _and _Live PD_. There has definitely been a thread in American media of portraying cops and criminals in very distinct ways.

To the OP, I agree with some earlier comments. Everything is political. And in this historical moment, it's just been amplified.


----------



## indianroads (Jun 16, 2020)

Power inevitably corrupts.

I've known several women who told me that they were pulled over while driving alone and propositioned by the cop. I've also known bikers (motorcyclists) that have been pulled over, and the cop claiming probable cause (he looks like an outlaw and is riding a Harley) have searched the bike taking things that they like and then when they found nothing illegal, the biker was left at the side of the road  to repack everything. After pot was legalized in Colorado, an older man driving a loaded down pickup truck was pulled over when he crossed into Kansas (pot was not legal there). Cops swarmed in and searched his vehicle, found nothing, then left him to repack everything himself.

My parents were criminals - drug dealers back in the 60's. One night, the policed kicked in our front door (it wasn't locked), they shot and killed my dog, took my savings account book (I had worked for years, saving to go to college), and only turned in HALF of the marijuana we had stacked in the middle of the living room. Even though everything was in plain sight when they broke in, they ravaged our house - ripping paneling off the walls, tearing books apart, destroying everything. 

After that, I spent time in Juvie (I was 12 and our extended family disowned us), then was sent into an abusive foster care situation, and finally ended up living in the streets - selling hard core drugs to junkies.

So, obviously, I have no respect for the police.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jun 16, 2020)

Xander416 said:


> The issue with police officers right now is .....



This seems like your opinion on a highly political topic, not anything related to the OP or writing. Am I missing something? I am not saying you are wrong. Or right. I think the issue you raise is important. Certainly more interesting and important than the issue I raised.

And that's the problem. I have a right to raise that issue. You are off-topic in a dangerous way. Can you see how other people might want to respond to the issues you raise?

And you could have thinly-disguised this to be just about writing. You didn't even try.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jun 16, 2020)

These answers were good.

Imagine my plot requires my MC to be convicted and sent to prison. I don't want her to actually be evil, so I might have the police lie at her trial.

That isn't me writing my convictions. It's just a plot device. That isn't me telling it like it really is. I have no experience on this.

Then someone reads this, then they are on a jury. My idle decision could have an effect, right? And if other writers are doing the same thing, a bigger effect.


----------



## indianroads (Jun 16, 2020)

EmmaSohan said:


> These answers were good.
> 
> Imagine my plot requires my MC to be convicted and sent to prison. I don't want her to actually be evil, so I might have the police lie at her trial.
> 
> ...



Good point - but I'd make her crime one of personal necessity. Stealing food / medicine / money to feed her family, or hurting or killing someone that threatened her children. I'm of the opinion that everyone justifies their actions, and regardless of what they do, they are the hero of their own story.


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 16, 2020)

Bayview said:


> I was going to post something almost identical to what ST Kennedy said. Instead, I will disagree with this idea!
> 
> I agree that the last couple decades have seen an explosion in really strong, dramatic police dramas - starting with _NYPD Blue_, maybe? That was about 27 years ago. Oh, _Prime Suspect _started in 1991, and it definitely portrayed cops as deeply flawed. Then in no particular order _The Wire, Between the Lines, The Shield, Homicide: Life on the Street_, etc. Some great shows, no doubt. And similarly great movies focusing on police corruption, too.
> 
> ...



I may have screwed up my timeline, I was thinking seventies/eighties. I forget how long ago the nineties was  

Anyway, the problem with this argument is it assumes that police corruption has always been treated as a negative. I don't find that to be the case particularly often. There is a huge difference between showing cops as 'flawed' or even 'deeply flawed' and actually offering a serious criticism, right? My dinner is _flawed_ when it doesn't have enough salt. It's only poisonous when it's over-salted. 

In a lot of those examples you mention, the idea of an officer going outside of the law or even acting downright dishonestly or violently has persistently been kind of waived as an 'ends justify the means' type deal, or otherwise some formulation of 'this is just _how it is_". The message in a lot of these older movies and books is 'TO HELL WITH THE GODDAMN BUREAUCRACY, WE KNOW THEY DID IT!' which, while kind of tempting maybe, is a really dangerous way to look at policing. 

In the vast majority of crime movies, the idea of a cop using his weapon is glamorized beyond belief -- then we wonder why it is American cops don't deescalate! The truth is, Dirty Harry and Frank Serpico are really shitty cops and it's kind of amazing this wasn't realized before (it still isn't completely realized now, I don't think).

 At the absolute worst, fictional portrayals of police corruption has generally been under the 'few bad apples' myth where, even if there are a few bad cops, this absolutely isn't a reflection on the police as a whole. A lot of times I see bad cops in stories counter-balanced by good cops: So, like, maybe you have a corrupt Chief of Lieutenant or whatever but it will take a _good _officer or detective to expose them and restore justice. Again, this just isn't how it works and it's a really bad way to look at policing. Because even if there are good and bad apples, a police department is only as good as it's worst cop just like a hospital is only as good as it's worst doctor and an airline is only as good as it's worst pilot. 

The narrative of _systemic _corruption and moral failure in the police is what is missing in our stories, far more than isolated examples of occasional bad cops (which, yes, have always existed -- going as far back as the Sheriff of Nottingham).


----------



## Squalid Glass (Jun 16, 2020)

Lucky, your last point is so true. It's also true of the broader conversation about these issues. Too often, the conversation shifts to the "few bad apples," and that thinking prevents us from fixing the system as a whole.


----------



## Squalid Glass (Jun 16, 2020)

EmmaSohan said:


> These answers were good.
> 
> Imagine my plot requires my MC to be convicted and sent to prison. I don't want her to actually be evil, so I might have the police lie at her trial.
> 
> ...



But you could literally do this thought experiment with anything you put in your writing. Every story produces unexpected interpretations and consequences. That's the nature of art.


----------



## ironpony (Jun 19, 2020)

Well this is just my take on it but when it comes to Dirty Harry and stories like that, it's just fiction and meant for entertainment, like Batman or something like that.  Obviously we don't want vigilantes in real life, but it's entertaining in fiction, or that is just my take on it.


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 19, 2020)

ironpony said:


> Well this is just my take on it but when it comes to Dirty Harry and stories like that, it's just fiction and meant for entertainment, like Batman or something like that.  Obviously we don't want vigilantes in real life, but it's entertaining in fiction, or that is just my take on it.



You could use that argument for scat-themed Japanese hentai porn.


----------



## Squalid Glass (Jun 20, 2020)

ironpony said:


> Well this is just my take on it but when it comes to Dirty Harry and stories like that, it's just fiction and meant for entertainment, like Batman or something like that.  Obviously we don't want vigilantes in real life, but it's entertaining in fiction, or that is just my take on it.



All art reflects and informs the larger culture it exists in.


----------



## Sir-KP (Jun 20, 2020)

I suppose it's only political if the fiction was set in the US, no?


----------



## Bayview (Jun 21, 2020)

Sir-KP said:


> I suppose it's only political if the fiction was set in the US, no?



Police brutality is a problem in many places other than the US.

And the thing about the "everything is political" idea is that, well, everything is political. If you write a book set in a given system and everything in that book works the way it should for your characters, then you're writing a book that supports the system in which your story is set. Does that make sense? It's political to be radical and write things that show the need for change, but it's ALSO political to be conservative and write things that show change is not necessary.


----------



## ironpony (Jun 21, 2020)

Is it possible to write a story involving police and not be political though?  For example, when the movie Seven came out, it's a story with police and one of the officers exercises police brutality, and it also shows them violating fourth amendment laws, but audiences didn't seem to get political over it, unless I am wrong?  Or was it written specifically not be taken politically and audiences were made aware of that, through the writing?


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 22, 2020)

ironpony said:


> Is it possible to write a story involving police and not be political though?  For example, when the movie Seven came out, it's a story with police and one of the officers exercises police brutality, and it also shows them violating fourth amendment laws, but audiences didn't seem to get political over it, unless I am wrong?  Or was it written specifically not be taken politically and audiences were made aware of that, through the writing?



A story 'with police' and a story 'about police' are two separate things. 

Seven wasn't about police any more than the movie Titanic was about ships.


----------



## ironpony (Jun 22, 2020)

Oh okay.  So as long as the story has police in doing bad things, than that is more acceptable, compared to it being about police then?


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 22, 2020)

ironpony said:


> Oh okay.  So as long as the story has police in doing bad things, than that is more acceptable, compared to it being about police then?



Depends. Most likely if you have your police doing a lot of bad things, your story will become about the police, whether you want it to or not. More so now than perhaps in years past. 

But...maybe not. You're talking a hypothetical that is totally unanswerable.


----------



## Annoying kid (Jun 22, 2020)

I don't think I can root for a police action hero again. Actually I know I can't. That kind of overly macho portrayal has had it's day. Such portrayals are surely fuelling the cadets who go to police academy with a warrior mentality, a mentality that is trained and fostered with a militarized organization. We can't expect the warrior to suddenly show the kind of empathy we also need  when hes trained to think he's part of the thin blue line fighting a war against the forces of crime that would overthrow society without him, just like the movies. Its all very adversarial.


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 23, 2020)

The police characters I tended to like or root for is a pretty small list. This is 100% anecdotal so doesn't necessarily reflect anything, but basically the only police characters I have ever been comfortable with 'liking' have been...

- Chief Brody from JAWS: The fact he was a cop seemed pretty secondary throughout the movie (it's a little more prevalent in the novel, but not a whole lot still) and when it did feature it was in the tradition of small town cops who know folks and are basically honest, decent people. I find it hard to imagine this being applied to a story set in a major city.

- Hopper from Stranger Things: Similar to the above, he's not shown as a 'typical cop' and the tiny town setting helps.

- Matthew McConaughey's character from True Detective. This barely makes it in: The guy's an asshole, he's just less of an asshole than his partner and has a nihilistic quality that seems authentic and juxtaposes nicely with the fact everybody else in the show is a bigger asshole. ETA: Actually, I already changed my mind, he sucks. Any cop that's set up to be 'troubled' and still continues to be a cop is a problematic character. 

- Agent Mulder (and Scully, to an extent) from the X Files. Doesn't exactly qualify since mostly they just try to arrest aliens and shit, but they are likable characters with a good on screen charisma.  

- Starling from Silence of the Lambs. Doesn't totally count because the entire character is set up to be a rookie, but seems like a genuinely good person for the most part. 

That's all that springs to mind right now. Might be a few others. Generally I find myself only rooting for cops when they present as a kind of 'anti cop', a normal person who is in the wrong job but still fundamentally decent and trying their best. It's a hard pass on Dirty Harry (most Clint Eastwood cops tbh), Starsky & Hutch and all macho assholes. Sherlock Holmes sucks too. Again, for their time they were perfectly fine and I don't want to debate their relative morality, only that I see these as being the kind of characters that are less spellbinding in a modern take.


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 23, 2020)

Biro said:


> Sherlock Holmes wasn't a Policeman though LS.  He was an English freelance detective similar to your 'Private Eye' type of person.
> 
> He actually made fun of the Police who thought they could do without him.
> 
> The Policeman in the Sherlock Holmes stories was  Inspector G. Lestarde  often portrayed as clueless.  That was the running humour of the story in some series anyway.



Good call!


----------



## ironpony (Jun 23, 2020)

Are you sure we're not just overthinking things here and perhaps we just look at those old cops as fun macho entertainment? Even in the 70s when Dirty Harry came out, people didn't seem to analyze it as much as they do now, unless I am wrong?


----------



## ironpony (Jun 23, 2020)

I've fired his gun before.  I think it's meant to be unrealistic because if it's true that those bullets can go through walls, why would a cop want that, when innocent people could just be hit on the other side of the walls, of course.  So right there, I didn't take Dirty Harry as suppose to be realistic.  No cops use .44 magnum pistols, unless they could in real life, they just choose not to?


----------



## ironpony (Jun 23, 2020)

Oh okay.  When you say Dirty Harry, wouldn't work today, but is most probably needed, isn't that a contradiction?


----------



## indianroads (Jun 23, 2020)

Biro said:


> No I mean everything is tied up in red tape etc.  But probably the best way of solving crime is by saying if you commit a crime then you have no rights.  In which case bye bye crims.



I'm reluctant to post this, but will anyway... If the police are de-funded, and home owners are left to defend their homes on their own (which is practically the state already with 10-15+ minute response times), that will be the way it will work out. 
I'll add that a Mossberg 500 shotgun with the 18.5 in barrel is a good home defense weapon - 6 round magazine, packs a punch, and the projectiles won't go through your walls and hurt your neighbors. 
For the record, I strongly dislike guns - but we keep them in our home anyway because we live in a dangerous world.

Regarding the topic - pretty much everything is political these days. Write well, do your research, and treat the subject with respect and as little bias as possible. If you do that, you'll be fine.


----------



## ironpony (Jun 23, 2020)

Biro said:


> No I mean everything is tied up in red tape etc.  But probably the best way of solving crime is by saying if you commit a crime then you have no rights.  In which case bye bye crims.



Oh okay, sorry, but what do you mean by this exactly?

As for people perhaps not being able to accept the police in a story, because it's too political now, what if writers try to market their novels, to other nations other than the US, where this topic has become so controversial?  I talked to a friend of mine about and he says the Europe or even Asia, would be a much better market for stories involving the police, if he has a point?


----------



## Bayview (Jun 23, 2020)

Biro said:


> No I mean everything is tied up in red tape etc.  But probably the best way of solving crime is by saying if you commit a crime then you have no rights.  In which case bye bye crims.



This is a writing discussion thread.

I don't want to get into a debate about fascism here, but I also don't want to sit by while you spout this nonsense. Any chance you could take it somewhere else?


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 23, 2020)

indianroads said:


> Regarding the topic - pretty much everything is political these days. Write well, do your research, and treat the subject with respect and as little bias as possible. If you do that, you'll be fine.



I agree but I wonder if there was ever a time when *everything* was not *political*? 

I mean, we tend to take the world-going-to-hell view with a lot of this stuff, but I feel like anybody who lived through the Civil Rights era of the 1960's (not sure if that was you) probably had some pretty strong political views of at least some forms of law enforcement -- there were certainly plenty of riots, corruption, etc back then. More recently, there was the L.A riots, etc. 

It's hard to speak for the deeper past because there is so much less of a record regarding what transpired and what ordinary people thought about it, but I'm thinking of stuff like Naval press gangs and the Salem witch trials and the 'Reign of Terror' and the English 'Bloody Code' and a whole host of nightmares revolving around police (or, at least, 'the state') basically brutalizing the shit out of the population in ways that make nowadays seem rather small (ESPECIALLY involving colonial rule) and it seems to me _extremely unlikely _that the police being political is anything particularly new. I mean, where does the Gestapo fall into this? The Stasi? 

If there's a 'newness' to it, it's only because we are generally more exposed to injustices and can actually watch them in the form of video rather than simply hear about them. I guess to that extent it's more political because we know more, maybe, but I honestly can't think of a halcyon era when it came to law enforcement. I feel like we tend to judge the past based on its propaganda (which would include the movies and books of its time) rather than its reality. 

As a young man in the late 1940's, my grandfather got his nose broken by a mob of cops in Alabama for being seen talking to a mixed race woman at a bus stop. He loathed the police until the day that he died, especially southern police. It's true that it's hardly talked about now, but there might be a bit of a 'silent majority' thing going on? Can't say as I wasn't there.


----------



## ironpony (Jun 23, 2020)

well even though there was riots and unrest back in the 60s, for some reason, audiences loved Dirty Harry and thought it was refreshing and different for the time for some reason still though, compared to now.


----------



## Foxee (Jun 23, 2020)

Bayview said:


> This is a writing discussion thread.



*What an excellent point. 

The hobby horses of debate about the police in general 
and about current events can be ridden elsewhere.

Please return to a writing discussion.

From the OP:*​


> I think there are serious issues for how to portray women. Or men, or blacks, etc. We probably should be responsible, whatever that is. We still need to tell a good story. There is no good answer that I know of (though WF seems to be deciding on tolerance). Is this going to be like that too?
> 
> *Predictions? Thoughts? Good ideas?*
> 
> *(I know you might want to express your opinion on real and important issues of our time. Hugs. Please don't. This is a discussion about only writing, books, readers, etc.)*


----------



## ironpony (Jun 23, 2020)

Well out of curiosity, what about what I said that perhaps a different market like Europe or Asia for example, might be more accepting of fiction that involves the police, nowadays?  As far as being related to writing success goes?


----------



## ppsage (Jun 23, 2020)

ironpony said:


> well even though there was riots and unrest back in the 60s, for some reason, audiences loved Dirty Harry and thought it was refreshing and different for the time for some reason still though, compared to now.


Audiences loved a whole bunch of bad-ass shoot first lawnorder protags. I was more of a Shaft guy myself. Dirty Harry's still with us now, I think, not so much from greater original popularity but because he very quickly became a metaphor, though not a positive one, for a certain kind of policing, and the idiom entered the vernacular.


----------



## Foxee (Jun 23, 2020)

In a discussion like this it might be difficult to remember that this isn't just about echoing the times that the stories are written in, though art comments on life for sure. It's also about what makes a great story.

To make the story memorable and to make the story work, how do these guys win against the bad guys? 

Dirty Harry wins by being more violent than the bad guys and not following all the rules. There aren't just objections to his methods, his methods are NOT by the book...and that's a fantasy wish fulfillment for those watching who think "Man, I just wish someone could beat the bad guys, I don't care how." So there's a vigilante theme.

One thing I didn't think when I watched Dirty Harry was 'oh gee, this is so delightfully/horribly/whatever _political_'. I was into the story.

A more interesting example (to me) might be Bluebloods (tv show with Tom Selleck) in which issues that law enforcement and legal professions all have to deal with when trying to carry out their jobs. The show does venture into political territory at times and so far I thought it's been handled well for the most part.

It would be my opinion that if I'm sitting down to write something of this sort I would want to find out what makes a good story and if politics plays a part, so be it. But like setting out to put any other strong belief in, I think that if your overarching reason for writing a story is to express a political view, you're probably going to have to work overtime to prevent the work from sounding preachy.


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 23, 2020)

Biro said:


> There is no political view in my posts as I do not have one.
> 
> 
> Dirty Harry is as you say and so was the Sweeney in the UK as an example. There was no politics in either story just cops getting their jobs done while dealing with the shite of society who cared for no political opinion or anybodies opinion. Just their own agenda of money, rape or murder.
> ...



But you've made multiple political views in this thread, including in this very post...


The statement 'just cops _getting their jobs done_ while dealing with the _shite _of society' is a political view because it requires a political agreement on what 'getting their jobs done' means and what 'the shite of society' is. For example, many would say that most drug dealers should not be a primary concern of police given the relative harm they may cause society is small compared to, say, a corrupt financial system.

That's where this gets difficult because we run into situations where obvious political questions pop up.

Dirty Harry kills something fifty people in the course of five movies. Freddy Kruger kills fewer than that in nine appearances. So already we are dealing with an outrageous death count.

The question that follows, obviously, is what are the various contexts of Harry's kills? Well, it varies. Across the movies we see Harry killing bank robbers, people holding up diners, and a variety of crimes of which few would carry the death penalty if prosecuted. Worse still, the attitude across the films is invariably "You may not like his methods BUT he gets results" which is a pretty obscene standard and _exactly _the kind of thinking that causes problems. 

Harry is just generally a terrible cop. He is a misogynist, a racist, and a hothead. Yes I know 'it's the character' but I don't care and I imagine fewer and fewer people each year do. Having interacted with police for a lot of my adult life I can tie back so many problems to this kind of character type it isn't funny. It's Dirty Harry et al who give police the idea that they are some kind of military arm, that their jobs are dangerous, that they are -- or should be -- untouchable. It's this kind of character and this kind of franchise that gives rise to "I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six" and the next thing you know you've got a whole sum of Dirty Harry wannabe assholes murdering unarmed citizens.

It is political and it always has been.


----------



## Foxee (Jun 23, 2020)

Biro said:


> There is no political view in my posts as I do not have one.


I actually never gave the possibilities of your political view a thought.


> It should also be noted that an already established Hollywood macho man was meant to play Dirty Harry in the films but he turned down the roles and made equally violent other films of those times.  So the character isn't exactly as it seems.  This other major star would most possibly have played the character totally different and would not have been so cold a character as Clint Eastwood was.
> 
> So the view of the Dirty Harry cop, may have been seen differently?


That's about the actor's interpretation of the role...which is the actor's job. 

Which actor's interpretation won the day would be about the director's/producer's role. That's not so much about the writing but about how the rest of the showmaking business works.

ETA: To Luckyscars: Haven't you ever been watching something (and since this seems to be the Dirty Harry thread that'll do) and think "Wow, they couldn't make this now". Sure, that says something about the changing sensibilities of the audience...maybe. Or maybe that same audience is still getting their kicks in Grand Theft Auto now.


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 23, 2020)

Foxee said:


> ETA: To Luckyscars: Haven't you ever been watching something (and since this seems to be the Dirty Harry thread that'll do) and think "Wow, they couldn't make this now". Sure, that says something about the changing sensibilities of the audience...maybe. Or maybe that same audience is still getting their kicks in Grand Theft Auto now.



For sure, and I actually appreciate that a lot. I can even kind of accept it in something like Dirty Harry -- or, at least, I could if I could only remove myself from having seen the harm it causes in a legal field. But I accept not everybody has that experience nor cares.

I'll say what I said in the women's post and several other times: I get it. 

Times change. People evolve. Misogynistic behavior, or watching a 1970's fictional cop blow a hole in a fictional somebody for holding up a diner, can of course be viewed as something as quaint as, say, top hats and handlebar mustaches. There's no accounting for nostalgia, etc. 

To that degree, anything goes. Hell, I'll even sit through _Birth Of A Nation _or an old reel of some black 'n' white minstrel show and not be upset...because these things are _products of their time _and there's no reason to be angry about that anymore than there is to be angry at the site of a guillotine or medieval torture rack. It is -- as the Conservatives like to say -- a part of our history.

But -- good Lord -- we're not going to pretend this stuff should still be being made in exactly the same way as it was then right now, are we? 

I mean, I know not everybody *likes* the modern view on things and there's a tendency to find 'SJW-ism' irritating and to react, I get that too, but even from a basic 'let's write somethin' new fellas!' standpoint, the strongman-cop type seems like a total failure. How much more of those do we need? We know this isn't reality and it's not new fiction either. So I guess my question is...what the fuck is the point in writing about it? Like, what are you trying to say with this? 

Because if it's nothing new, if it's just another spin of an old wheel, then it sucks. Surely that's a rule we can all agree on?


----------



## indianroads (Jun 23, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> I agree but I wonder if there was ever a time when *everything* was not *political*?
> 
> I mean, we tend to take the world-going-to-hell view with a lot of this stuff, but I feel like anybody who lived through the Civil Rights era of the 1960's (not sure if that was you) probably had some pretty strong political views of at least some forms of law enforcement -- there were certainly plenty of riots, corruption, etc back then. More recently, there was the L.A riots, etc.
> [...]



There's always rancor fueled arguments going on, we're a petulant species. Look at any period of history you like and it will be there. Alexander, to Caesar and Cleopatra, to Constantine, to Martin Luther, to Winston Churchill... the list goes on throughout all of human history. After man learned to use a stick as a tool, the first thing he did was hit someone with it.

And yes, I was around in the Haight-Ashbury district back in the 60's. My father was an outlaw biker and my parents were drug dealers. They got caught - insert zany adventure of juvie, foster care, and living on the street - so, yeah... I have a checkered history with the police HOWEVER, that was then, and this is now. These days I do my best to not carry that crap around with me.

Regarding societal turmoil: I see it as an opportunity. Find your story. Research the political issues (and everything else) thoroughly. Then write it showing both sides of the issue. Dull times makes for uninteresting tales. No one side is ever completely right or utterly wrong. Dudley Do-Right and Snidely Whiplash never existed.
Quit the hand wringing, and just write the darned thing - if you can't find an agent to accept it, self publish. 

As an old friend used to say, if you hang your @ss out far enough and long enough, sooner or later someone will kiss it.


----------



## Foxee (Jun 23, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> Because if it's nothing new, if it's just another spin of an old wheel, then it sucks. Surely that's a rule we can all agree on?


I would. Really, that's the whole point of what I like about writing, we're trying to create something that didn't exist before we originated it. And we've got a lot of current events and history-in-the-making that will be a different inspiration for that into what we do even if various basic stories are always in favor.


> As an old friend used to say, if you hang your @ss out far enough and long enough, sooner or later someone will kiss it.


LOL! Now there's a wall quote...


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 23, 2020)

The irony is there probably is a lot of original mileage left in stories about asshole cops. Just not ones that glorify them.


----------



## Foxee (Jun 23, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> The irony is there probably is a lot of original mileage left in stories about asshole cops. Just not ones that glorify them.


So you have a bad opinion of cops. That's not really a writing observation but a personal one. 

We're doing pretty well with keeping to a writing discussion so let's stay on track.

I'm pretty sure that the horse of "Don't write all cops as saints" has been beaten to death by now.


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 23, 2020)

Foxee said:


> So you have a bad opinion of cops. That's not really a writing observation but a personal one.
> 
> We're doing pretty well with keeping to a writing discussion so let's stay on track.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that the horse of "Don't write all cops as saints" has been beaten to death by now.



Uh, no. Nothing of what you quoted could possibly be construed as me having a bad opinion of cops. Do you disagree there are asshole cops out there? I presume not, in which case, it's not a 'bad opinion', it's fact. You honestly, really don't need to condescend to me about 'staying on track with a writing discussion': Whether or not asshole cops exist and how/if they are portrayed _is 100% a writing discussion_ because it concerns reality v. non-reality and reflections in art.

The horse of 'don't write all cops as saints' has indeed been beaten, yes, however that isn't what I'm talking about. Dirty Harry wasn't 'written as a saint'. But how many stories can you think of off-hand that feature systemic evil in law enforcement 'professionals'? Not so very many, outside of obvious dystopia stuff. So my point stands, I think...

I'd like to see a story about an idealistic young cop who joined to 'do the right thing' and whose morality was slowly ground out of them by bad leadership and a toxic culture to the point where they became a brute. Are you aware of that story?


----------



## ironpony (Jun 23, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> Uh, no. Nothing of what you quoted could possibly be construed as me having a bad opinion of cops. Do you disagree there are asshole cops out there? I presume not, in which case, it's not a 'bad opinion', it's fact. You honestly, really don't need to condescend to me about 'staying on track with a writing discussion': Whether or not asshole cops exist and how/if they are portrayed _is 100% a writing discussion_ because it concerns reality v. non-reality and reflections in art.
> 
> The horse of 'don't write all cops as saints' has indeed been beaten, yes, however that isn't what I'm talking about. Dirty Harry wasn't 'written as a saint'. But how many stories can you think of off-hand that feature systemic evil in law enforcement 'professionals'? Not so very many, outside of obvious dystopia stuff. So my point stands, I think...
> 
> I'd like to see a story about an idealistic young cop who joined to 'do the right thing' and whose morality was slowly ground out of them by bad leadership and a toxic culture to the point where they became a brute. Are you aware of that story?



My story is about that.  He starts out as idealistic but then becomes vengeful and corrupted at the end.  I was told not to have him become that way, because of the current political climate, but if I have him be honest the entire time, then it feels like his character arc has been removed.


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 23, 2020)

ironpony said:


> My story is about that.  He starts out as idealistic but then becomes vengeful and corrupted at the end.  I was told not to have him become that way, because of the current political climate, but if I have him be honest the entire time, then it feels like his character arc has been removed.



I think that's a solid start and the naysayers are F.O.S. 

However what's as or more important than whether he changes is why he changes and how authentically it is portrayed and it might be there you run into problems. Getting a chip on your shoulder because of well-captured systemic abuses/exposure to toxic culture/brainwashing is far more likely to strike a chord than because, say, he got raped by some horrid woman.


----------



## ironpony (Jun 23, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> I think that's a solid start and the naysayers are F.O.S.
> 
> However what's as or more important than whether he changes is why he changes and how authentically it is portrayed and it might be there you run into problems. Getting a chip on your shoulder because of well-captured systemic abuses/exposure to toxic culture/brainwashing is far more likely to strike a chord than because, say, he got raped by some horrid woman.



Oh well, I wanted it to be because of the rape, plus all the abuse/exposure and culture/brainwashing, that would come with that.


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 24, 2020)

Biro said:


> No I do not LS.  I was and am replying to what was then and why these characters came about from the writers aims and the films aims whoever was responsible for that.
> 
> As regards turning a generalised observation into a political stance.  Then we going to have to do as I posted in another thread of standing inside a 1 meter square box and never moving or speaking to anyone ever again if that is the case.  Because if everything we do or say offends or is political.  Then we are tied in knots and ridiculously irrelevant.



I already explained how you had incorporated your political views into your views on the text(s) under discussion and I stand by that. Nothing more to say: We're not going to discuss you.



> You called Dirty Harry a misogynist.  He has one argument with a woman who is plainly incorrect and a view of a rookey cop who has never been on the streets.



It's a little bit more than 'one argument' and it involves two women for a fairly long scene. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rcIJIWqYmo 

The misogyny lies in his contempt, vulgarity and general rudeness toward both of the women present. 

If you don't see it that way then okay, but I don't know there's any point in discussing it. Feminists apparently were sufficiently upset to protest outside the 1971 Oscars over the movie, so it's not like it's some modern take. Additionally women are treated pretty consistently as sex objects throughout all of the movies, to the extent they were featured at all, and again -- if you're cool with that, no problem.



> You also said he was racist.  I do not remember that.



It's more that the movie was racist. This article explains it better. 



> You say his character gives the Police the view they are some kind of 'military arm'.  But Dirty Harry has been see throughout the English speaking world in the past 50 years.  Surely the effect would be elsewhere than the experiences you have encountered.



Not necessarily just *that* movie but more an agglomeration of all 'strong man cop' movies, books and TV shows. That effect is everywhere in American policing, yeah.

If you watch that clip I posted above again, notice the way Clint Eastwood's character talks about policing to the woman is very similar to how a veteran soldier would talk about a warzone: He refers to being "*out there *_[in the street]_". He says things like "_I want to know what Officer Moore is going to do when somebody* points a gun* at her and says *HIT THE DECK YOU SON OF A BITCH*_" and constantly refers to '*getting blown away*' and to the broader notion of the streets of San Francisco being a deadly, hostile place. It's great acting by Eastwood because you can see the trauma, the terror, and the hatred in his eyes. 

It's a look I have personally seen in a lot of real-life police officers talking about their jobs. The thing is, it is a look that comes not so much of the reality -- being a cop is not especially dangerous for most officers and certainly nowhere near as dangerous as it is portrayed in those movies -- but more of their culture, their mentality, their philosophy. I think popular culture has absolutely contributed to that. Again, if you disagree (not sure if you've ever interacted with an American cop) that's fine. It's doesn't matter if you don't see it that way, so long as you understand a lot of us do see it that way.



> Dirty Harry didnt as far as I remember kill 'unarmed' citizens.  I take the point you make, but you can't blame the killing of unarmed citizens on something that character never did.



It doesn't matter. Being armed is totally legal in the United States. While being armed in the commission of a crime (like armed robbery) is an aggravating factor and the police have a right to use deadly force if they feel their lives are imminently under threat, armed robbery is not a crime that warrants an automatic death penalty.



> All this is bringing what happened 50 years ago into some kind of modern day  thinking and you just can't do that and I have tried to point out why those characters came about in 'that' day.



Yeah I know and I think that's the disconnect. 

I am not trying to discuss why those characters came about in 'that' day. I don't care about 'that' day. The discussion isn't about 'that' day. Refer to the thread title which is "oh-oh, *is* writing about police *now* political?" 

As I stated before, I am totally fine with Dirty Harry or any other moronic movie being viewed and enjoyed as a thing-of-the-past. I'm fine with just about anything being viewed historically. The point is to say 'okay that worked then, it wont work now, because of x,y and z'.



> Possibly with all the traits you dislike about Eastwoods character not present in Waynes interpretation of Dirty Harry?



Dunno. John Wayne was a terrible actor.


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 24, 2020)

Biro said:


> I can understand and even agree your points but for these two.
> 
> On the women/sexist thing.  I can't accept that blowing your top and using strong language to make your point makes you anti women or sexist.  If the character was doing same to a man then you wouldn't raise the point.  And the character does do same to men also.



Toward the end of the scene, Harry makes a comment (joke?) about paying the older woman $5 to watch her fuck a shetland pony. Do you think he would have said that if she was a man?



> Women treated as sex objects...........well they are to anybody interested in them............just as men are to anybody interested in them also.   Can this ever be put into a story without someone accusing it of being sexist?



Not strongly intelligible, highly circular, and irrelevant, I'll pass.




> The film being racist.............I cant accept what that person has wrote/written either in the tense of 50 years ago or even today.  The points they make if excluded from a story would make every story written totally inert.



That's fine, I'm not asking you to accept anything.


----------



## ironpony (Jun 24, 2020)

If Dirty Harry is sexist, is that bad?  He is allowed to have character flaws isn't he?  He had a character arc in the third movie, where he didn't like having this woman as a partner, but then came around, as he spent more time, with her, and learned to respect her more.  Also, I wouldn't say he is racist, since in the fourth movie, he had a black friend, in a subplot, and they seemed close, like they've known each other for a long time.  And in the fifth Dirty Harry, he is assigned a new Asian partner, and one of the cops makes a crack about him being Asian, and Harry looks at him in disapproval of making that crack.

But as for this whole thing about it's bad to have rogue cops in fiction because of police events in real life, I think there is a huge distinction to be made.  I don't mean to sound insensitive to real life events when I say this, I am just trying to point out the distinction.  Whenever a cop goes rogue in real life in the news, they always do it for a completely petty selfish reasons, and they do it to criminals, who are are not mass murderers or mass rapists, or druglords who are constantly getting away with it.  In real life, they always go after nobodies, when becoming vigilante.

Where as in fiction, and it's the main character cop going rogue, they are doing it because they want to save lives, and they know that if they do not go outside the law, that the criminals are very dangerous and will keep winning if they don't.  They care about people's lives, and they do it to protect the public for any more tragedy.

Where as in real life, the police rogue cops and vigilantes do not care about the public's lives, and are doing for it completely petty and selfish reasons.  So I think there is a huge distinction to be made there, when it comes to accepting a protagonist that does it because he cares about the public.  But that is just my opinion.


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 24, 2020)

ironpony said:


> If Dirty Harry is sexist, is that bad?  He is allowed to have character flaws isn't he?  He had a character arc in the third movie, where he didn't like having this woman as a partner, but then came around, as he spent more time, with her, and learned to respect her more.  Also, I wouldn't say he is racist, since in the fourth movie, he had a black friend, in a subplot, and they seemed close, like they've known each other for a long time.  And in the fifth Dirty Harry, he is assigned a new Asian partner, and one of the cops makes a crack about him being Asian, and Harry looks at him in disapproval of making that crack.



I'm not entertaining the 'he has a black friend' thing. I posted the article regarding the race problems in the movies. This isn't a debate about racism in Dirty Harry or anything else, it's about whether/how to write cops. The only thing that matters here is that a large portion of people who watch that movie today consider it a bad take You don't have to agree, nobody cares, but you do have to at least agree to disagree.




> But as for this whole thing about it's bad to have rogue cops in fiction because of police events in real life, I think there is a huge distinction to be made.  I don't mean to sound insensitive to real life events when I say this, I am just trying to point out the distinction.  Whenever a cop goes rogue in real life in the news, they always do it for a completely petty selfish reasons, and they do it to criminals, who are are not mass murderers or mass rapists, or druglords who are constantly getting away with it.  In real life, they always go after nobodies, when becoming vigilante.



There isn't a huge distinction at all. I have my experience telling me the extent by which movies and other media influences law enforcement (and, for that matter, criminality). You have yours, I guess? The evidence regarding the impact of popular culture on how ordinary people act is pretty clear. Suffice to say: There's an impact. Variable, yes, complicated, yes, but prevalent.



> Where as in fiction, and it's the main character cop going rogue, they are doing it because they want to save lives, and they know that if they do not go outside the law, that the criminals are very dangerous and will keep winning if they don't.  They care about people's lives, and they do it to protect the public for any more tragedy.
> 
> Where as in real life, the police rogue cops and vigilantes do not care about the public's lives, and are doing for it completely petty and selfish reasons.  So I think there is a huge distinction to be made there, when it comes to accepting a protagonist that does it because he cares about the public.  But that is just my opinion.



I think you grossly simplify the issue. Will leave it there.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Jun 24, 2020)

Imo I watched a tv series or movie that was executed differently. Instead of a "bad" cop, he's a likeable character as the whole police department is fully aware if memory doesn't fail me that he breaks the rules. But they almost know he has problems. Because of nitroglycerin affecting his heart, I'm thinking there's a chemical component that affects how he behaves. I was watching it on netflix. But then it got too much into horror with the psychological mindset of some serial killers. Wearing these masks since I in particular do sense fear easily.

However, it was successful and is conspired according to reviews a good series made in the 1990s. It's not a legal thriller. Iron pony's movie is a legal thriller. Which requires too much research. Which is why I think it will have some plot holes. The difference in Luther is that the whole police department or the higher ups are held accountable for his actions. If he messes up the higher in command can lose their jobs. 

Basically the detective always has a guilty conscience of breaking the law, but what if you do it to save a life? He breaks the rules under these circumstances many times.

I personally admire the writing in that one. When all does not seem right he tries to fix the mess-ups in breaking the law. This is what a good police drama looks like in my humble opinion.

Character is everything. It made the difference in that series.


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 24, 2020)

Nermind.


----------

