Is it OK for fans to ask for a fictional work to be changed?

Cafe Society
1

The final game in the Mass Effect series came out last week, and so far over 20,000 fans have joined a Facebook campaign to get the ending of the game changed. (The major complaints are that the ending is internally inconsistent, that it doesn’t fit with the overall narrative and themes, and there are plot and character developments that largely come out of left field. Also, post-climax resolution is almost non-existent.)

Now, as much as I agree with the complaints, I can see that there are massive barriers to an actual story-change, on many fronts. It would be problematic economically and logistically, and it’s hard to imagine a big corporation that has already received payment for everyone’s copy of the game going to the trouble.

However, an argument against the change movement has emerged that intrigues me: some are arguing that it’s actually *wrong *for fans to ask for a work of art to be changed to fit their preferences. Mark Serrels goes so far as to say “But it is not your right to demand that the ending be changed. You have absolutely no say in that, and that is the way it should be.”

On one hand, I see the point: an artist needs freedom to create, and protecting artistic integrity from popular influence seems like a noble goal, and necessary to encouraging daring and revolution in art.

On the other hand, commercial artistic endeavors are about what the majority of fans want from the word go. No doubt the writers at Bioware sat down to break the story with a keen awareness of what fans had liked and disliked about the previous installments, and tailored their artistic efforts accordingly. So how is it so off the wall (if a large enough percentage of fans ask) for them to revamp the final product?

Granted, when artists do this it often comes out badly (many crappy movies are a product of retooling after test audience input), but sometimes it creates something amazing (a Bioware forumite pointed to the retcon/resurrection of Sherlock Holmes).

In any case, I find it shocking that someone would actually say fans don’t have a *right *to demand a new ending. Of course they do. It’s in the freaking Constitution (another document that got retooled after user input, come to think of it)! And the artists have the right to ignore them, or to argue why their vision was correct. They also have the right to decide that enough of their consumers are asking for something that it’s worthwhile to give them what they want. There’s a risk that it could create a hot mess, confused and bland through trying to please everyone, but there’s a chance it could actually be an improvement, and I think it’s up to the artist to decide if it’s worth a shot, not down to some philosophical imprimatur against the audience daring to ask for a bit of creative input.

What do you think? Is it somehow fundamentally unthinkable for an audience to try to sway an artist?

2

I don’t think it’s fundamentally unthinkable. In any case, it’s been going on for a long time. Dickens changed the ending to Great Expectations 150 years ago.

I’m all for artistic freedom, but it goes both ways. The designer has a right to design, the buyer has the right to say they don’t like it, and the designer has the right to either change it or risk people not buying it.

Do I not have the right to tell Toyota the Camry is an old man’s car?

3

I don’t think it’s wrong to express displeasure, but I wouldn’t expect the artist to change it either.

But ddamn! if we could make it happen, I’d ask Jim Butcher to change the ending to his last Dresden novel. Just the ending, mind you; say, just the stuff after “Life is hard. Dying’s easy.”

4

Sure they have a right to demand it be changed. They have no right to have it be changed, however.

5

This makes me think of the way that movie creators actually go out and *ask * (potential) fans for their opinions about the ending of the movie, before the full release. A lot of people are unhappy with the results.

6

I agree with this, and I’d add that while the third party has the right to complain/voice opinions, if the creator takes these into account and changes his work it is my opinion that they have questionable integrity and that whatever it is they’ve created and subsequently changed is of greatly decreased value.

This goes for works of art and/or philosophy however, and I find it somewhat spurious to consider a video game to be either of these things. It’s pretty apparent that they are primarily a money-making product and so have to be influenced by buyer/fan-base opinion.

7

Bolding mine.

Waitaminute then. So every artist or writer or creator of “works of art” who consults with an editor or a focus group now has questionable integrity?

Because I can’t see much difference between someone taking the advice of a single paid individual or selected focus group to alter their work for improvement, and them doing the same in response to larger groups of people. Same idea - other people think your work needs to change “x” factor in order to be better.

If the second creates a lack of integrity, then surely the first does as well. The only real difference is the number of people’s opinions, the employment of the people offering advice, the issue of payment for that advice, and the timing of the advice, and as long as the artist in question is honest about what they are doing, then none of that is an insurmountable obstacle to professional integrity.

I really wonder if you’re aware of how much revision and re-tooling goes into a lot of works before they’re released to the public at large. They sure as snot don’t spring fully formed from the head of Zeus, if that’s what you’re thinking.

8

As a lifelong gamer, I have to say that we are becoming one fucking entitled lot of idiots.

9

In my opinion, yes. Changing your work because of the views of one person/a group of people/everyone on earth/et cetera, destroys the integrity of your creative work. Obviously everyone has influences (the whole ‘no idea is original’ concept) however these should be subconscious IMO (and hence parody and similar things hold no value to me) and as soon as you take in other people’s suggestions, it is no longer your creation, but a composite expression of your existence and that of other people .

Art is an expression of existence, and we don’t exist as a plurality of existences (apologies for truism), and so there is an inherent dissonance between the expression of your existence and other people’s perception of this expression. Art should not be bastardised in such a way.

My argument about video games is merely that they are not art to me, and so I’m not concerned with whether or not they change it to sell/appeal to a wider audience in that particular situation.

I write poetry, and I would never consider changing it on the whim of a critic, nor indeed be particular interested in people’s opinions on my expression. I don’t do it as a source of income, so I have that freedom, but a writer who did change his art due to criticism (i.e. the intention of making it more profitable) would have lost his integrity, and so I would no longer respect or support their further work.

Of course you may entirely disagree, but this is my philosophy on the matter.

10

Is the reverse also true? If the creator changes their work despite the outraged howls of the fans is the resulting work of greater integrity and worth?

“Han shot first”. :stuck_out_tongue:

11

Depends on the intention and context. If he was already intending to change it in whatever way, and simply disregarded the outcry and maintained his intention then it’s perfectly possible. However his changes may simply be irrelevant to me, in the sense that not every piece of art is good in a given persons subjective perception, changed or not.

One could argue ‘but how do you know that his changes aren’t then influenced by the outrage’ and to that I’d have to refer back to my prior point on the subconcious expression of influences.

Contrarianism for it’s own sake is just stupid though.

12

Forget editors and focus groups…how many of the great works of art were created with patrons influencing - if not outright dictating - every element of the work?

As an example, Shakespeare did a lot of plays using actual historical figures (the histories, and a couple of the tragedies) which…weren’t always terribly historically accurate. Two of them, in particular, Richard III and MacBeth, the divergences from reality were quite political - Elizabeth I (in power when he wrote Richard III) was the granddaughter of Henry VII, who took the throne from Richard III, and James I/II (who was in power when he wrote MacBeth) was believed to be a descendant of Banquo (who probably didn’t exist, but that wasn’t commonly known at the time).

So, Richard, who wasn’t particularly bad as kings went, almost certainly didn’t commit any of the crimes attributed to him (and definitely didn’t commit all of them), and was a rather good physical specimen, is portrayed as depraved and physically deformed, and Banquo, who, in the ‘history’ he was introduced in, was portrayed as an ally of MacBeth (who also was actually a pretty good king, but that’s kind of beside the point) is portrayed as an enemy.

13

(snipped)

Wow. I respect your opinion, and you explained it quite well, but … damn. I totally disagree.

How is a writer to improve their craft if they don’t take criticism and editing advice and suggestions from others?

Please note that I’m coming at this AS an editor, so my personal interest in writing is helping others improve their craft and ability in order to become more successful. I simply don’t have the ability to categorize an entire profession of writers as bereft of creative integrity because they allow other people to offer advice and assistance for their work.

In relation to the actual thread, I can see where it wouldn’t be LIKELY that a writer or creative entity would change their works because of outraged fans, but I certainly don’t think that doing so would destroy their integrity as an artist.

14

Exactly. They can demand whatever they want. The artist doesn’t have to listen to them.

15

[QUOTE=Tengu]

As an example, Shakespeare did a lot of plays using actual historical figures (the histories, and a couple of the tragedies) which…weren’t always terribly historically accurate. Two of them, in particular, Richard III and MacBeth, the divergences from reality were quite political - Elizabeth I (in power when he wrote Richard III) was the granddaughter of Henry VII, who took the throne from Richard III, and James I/II (who was in power when he wrote MacBeth) was believed to be a descendant of Banquo (who probably didn’t exist, but that wasn’t commonly known at the time).

[/QUOTE]

Yeah, you make a good point here. I was primarily speaking in context of the modern world; art in a free-market capitalist situation, but at no point did I reference that so it has left a gaping hole in my logic.

I guess the contrast is moral on some level as well. You have expressed this in terms of helping people, and respectfully, to me being helped is an inefficient method of bettering ones’ self.

It is my opinion that people refine their craft, improve their intelligence, and generally simply become better people by trying and failing; suffering with your mistakes and tasting the successes which come from carrying your own burdens squarely on you back, seeing the fruition of your ideas form into something you can respect and feel content with and that you feel is some aspect of your perceptual universe made manifest. To me, other people’s involvement taints all that and it becomes an amalgamation of the essence of several people.

I think that as soon as you no longer require the help of your parents, you should never willingly replace them with other impediments to your autonomy and self-expression, in a sense being helped represents this; your lack of belief in yourself as a sovereign entity separate from the wills of others.

16

I’d also add that if you require particular help from outside to be successful, you’re probably trying to succeed at something you aren’t intended to. I can’t paint well, and I choose to believe that this is because it isn’t how I was supposed to express myself and so I would never bother with painting lessons. I do however write well, and hence believe that this is how I am supposed to express myself, and I would never seek help nor advice regarding my writing.

17

They can demand it, and the author might respond. Especially if it hits him in the pocketbook.

Arthur Conan Doyle famoult killed off Sherlock Holmes (and was delighted to do it – the popular detective was distracting jhim from his "serious’ work of historical fiction), but the public clamor was too great. He had to bring out The Hound of the Baskervilles, supposedly from before Holmes’ death. But even that wasn’t enough, and he had to resurrect him for real in the Adventure of the Empty House. (Moriarty, his adversary who also died at reichenbach Falls, also got quietly resurrected in The Valley of Fear)

18

sure it’s OK. it’s also OK for the authors of said fictional work to tell you to piss off.

19

Well, if there’s a big enough demand they could just release an “alternate ending DLC”.

20

The Valley of Fear was set before The Final Problem (the story with the death of Moriarty and “death” of Sherlock) so Moriarty wasn’t really resurrected in the sense of later turning out to have survived his supposed death. So far as I know, Doyle never hinted he was anything but dead after Reichenbach. (and resurrecting him would’ve been even harder then resurrecting Holmes, since there was an actual witness to his death, unlike that of Sherlock.)