The Code of Codes

While trying to stop exploring TV Tropes (seriously, that site is addictive; click that link at your own peril) I was surprised to learn about an enforced morality system on films called the Hays Code. Okay, maybe not that surprised.

In summary, the code was a moral standard that films were encouraged to follow. And by encouraged, I mean told to or else they wouldn’t get the almighty Hays seal of approval and be blacklisted from movie theatres all over the country. You know. Kind of like the MPAA does today.

Too. Many. Eff Words!

Anyway, in a great bit of 1930s logic, it was believed the best alternative to government censorship was censorship by the film makers themselves. Granted, movies were still stumbling through pre-adolescence, but the fact that the United States Supreme Court ruled that movies were non-protected speechis shocking. But back then, movies were considered to be pure entertainment for profit, and entertainment was not considered worthy of free speech.

Kind of horrifying, isn’t it? Look at these rules which American studios willingly enforced:

General Principles

1. No picture shall be produced that will lower the moral standards of those who see it. Hence the sympathy of the audience should never be thrown to the side of crime, wrongdoing, evil or sin.

2. Correct standards of life, subject only to the requirements of drama and entertainment, shall be presented.

3. Law, natural or human, shall not be ridiculed, nor shall sympathy be created for its violation.

Ouch. And these don’t get into details, where nothing “suggestive” of sex could be shown, you couldn’t even say S.O.B. and white slavery was never permitted on screen. I don’t know why they qualified that but yes I do because they also said no sex relationships between black people and white people. Yeah. Racism. Also, no evil clergy, no indecent dancing, no childbirth, and nothing remotely positive about something illegal.

Can you imagine trying to write a good movie following these laws? I’m not saying that everything has to be grim and glum, especially for grim and glum’s sake, but sometimes that’s what life is. Yet these rules were upheld for over two decades, until the Supreme Court finally updated their decision in 1952. Although the Code stayed in affect for another sixteen years, American studios finally started breaking the rules, no doubt because European studios didn’t have to follow the rules and were kicking their butts with realistic, relatable films.

I for one am glad it’s gone.

Blogging and Platforming

You’ve read Janet Reid’s post about the dangers of talking about rejections online, correct? Just making sure.

She suggests keeping your querying off your blog completely and I understand her reasoning. She says it sounds like complaining. Well, yeah, it is. Posting about rejection or waiting is cathartic. Unfortunately, if you’re using your blog to build your platform, then venting is not what it’s for. It’s for building connections in the blogosphere and publishing industry.

You know, this isn’t my only blog. I have another one where I complain about everything. It would be nice to get sympathy from friends about the process, but that’s not what this is for. It’s for inflicting etymology on you. My other blog, however, is just for complaining. It’s also just for me because I don’t think it’s very fun to read groaning and moaning about how everything is everyone else’s fault. Hey, it’s my blog and I’m not using it to make connections.

That isn’t to say it’s completely wrong to voice a complaint on your blog. Just do it with sensitivity to the blog’s purpose. Remember that there are a lot of agents out here with us and they might not like seeing criticisms of their policies. Say you worked in advertising and you had a blog to connect with other industry professionals. You wouldn’t start bashing their companies when a deal fell through, would you? No. Because it would be professional suicide. As awesome as writing and blogging is, it is a profession, too. Unless you want to stay at amateur status, you can’t rip on people. A legitimate complaint is different, but even then it could turn companies off from working with you. That may not seem fair, but everyone is uneasy with working with someone who might go to the internet and complain about them.

Look at this situation that Paul Joseph brought up (and especially read the two articles he links to). A teacher’s personal blog was found by her students and her venting did not go over well with the parents. On one hand, it’s her blog, she didn’t post details and the people are really being oversensitive. On the other hand, it upset--and I can’t blame them for this--the students she’s supposed to be teaching.

I’m all for freedom of speech, but with that comes with a legitimate factor: you have to be prepared to deal with the consequences. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from repercussions. It means freedom from interference. I don’t like that the teacher may be fired but that’s the thing about the digital age. Anything you post is really hard to eradicate. That’s why people suggest you don’t post drunken pictures of yourself on Facebook. Perspective employers can access them. 

In the end, all of this is a murky issue. The answer to "how much is too much?" is not easy to get to and requires constant thought, reevaluation, and sensitivity. It’s possible that in ten years, people will be far more accepting of annoyed blog posts. It’s also possible they’ll put in a "no blogging" clause in employee contracts. 

Blog with care. The internet is not as consequence free as it seems.