# What Are Your Thoughts On Author Responsibility



## The Fantastical

*New question - *

When does a writer become socially responsible for what they put out into the world?  Are they responsible? I think that they are.*

Original post, now changed to the above question. 

*


> I recently ended up in a discussion about authors being responsible for what they put out in the world in terms of how they portray certain races and genders.
> 
> My argument was that what words are used to portray a race or gender or ideological idea impacts readers view on the subject as language is a powerful psychological tool.
> 
> They said that it wasn't the author's responsibility to be responsible in how they write about their subjects and that no author could change anyone's feelings about a race or gender.
> 
> I said that not only have plenty of authors changed peoples minds but if a reader already has a racist/sexist POV reading books that condone that thinking in its language and portrayal of people then it is very much the author's responsibility to avoid doing that.
> 
> The discussion went on for a while but you get the general idea. I believe in an authors social responsibility to not put out books that in any way condone, however subtle it may be, sexist/racist/law breaking behaviour and apparently some think that an author should be able to write whatever the hell they want and screw the possible consequences.
> 
> What are your thoughts? Responsibility or art over social responsibility?


----------



## Winston

...


----------



## The Fantastical

Winston said:


> As a fan of such authors as Arthur Blair and Aldous Huxley, I feel like a bit of a hypocrite.
> 
> My gut tells me to write as a reporter, I am drawn to exposition. I feel that there are enough stories in the "real world", and we can tell them with truth and candor. I feel akin to Edward R. Murrow.
> The Devil on my other shoulder leads me toward the "little white lies". If my opinion is beneficial, do I not have the duty to "sell it"? Hyperbole?
> Do the ends justify the means?
> 
> In the end, I don't worry about hurting people's feelings. That's just the way I'm made. It's not because I don't care about people. It's precisely the opposite.
> People need to hear the truth. You can make it interesting, but that's never a justification for making stuff (facts) up.
> 
> Powerful writing is a tool to societal change.
> With a nod to Voltaire / Stan Lee: "With great power comes great responsibility."



I think that you may have misunderstood what I was asking a little. I wasn't asking if as authors we should explore certain topics or not. I was asking if we had a responsibility to not promote ideas and behaviours that are ok or harmful to others. One can talk about stuff in such a way as to show the how horrid certain things were/are without condoning the actions you are talking about.


----------



## Winston

The Fantastical said:


> I think that you may have misunderstood what I was asking a little. I wasn't asking if as authors we should explore certain topics or not. I was asking if we had a responsibility to not promote ideas and behaviours that are ok or harmful to others. One can talk about stuff in such a way as to show the how horrid certain things were/are without condoning the actions you are talking about.



There is no "value neutral" position.  Everything you do "promotes an idea".  
So, your OP is a false dichotomy.  Neither "responsibility" nor "art".  There is Truth.  
And what were the specific "actions" I talked about?


----------



## The Fantastical

Winston said:


> There is no "value neutral" position. Everything you do "promotes an idea".
> So, your OP is a false dichotomy. Neither "responsibility" nor "art". There is Truth.
> And what were the specific "actions" I talked about?



However, I am sad to note that most truths are subjective. There are only a few universal truths, the rest are just context and cultural conditing as well as some personal ideologies. 

So the question is not mute, but rather a question of what "truth" do you put out there and how responsible are you as an author to make sure that it is a "good truth"? 



> There is no "value neutral" position. Everything you do "promotes an idea".



 That would be my point. As an author are you responsible for the ideas that you promote? Or do you believe that you are free from any responsibility and that you can say what you like how you like no matter what you are saying/idea that you are promoting? 

When does a writer become socially responsible for what they put out into the world? Are they responsible? I think that they are.


----------



## Winston

The Fantastical said:


> When does a writer become socially responsible for what they put out into the world? Are they responsible? I think that they are.



I do not fault Marx or Engels for the murders committed by Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Guevara, Nyrere, Pol Pot, Noriega, Maduro, and Kim Jong-Un.  
Nor do I have an issue with Mein Kampf.
Murderers are guilty for what they do, not for what they read, or wrote.   

Violence is an act, not a thought.  Unless one subscribes to the concept of a "thought crime".


----------



## escorial

Everyone has a moral compass that is unique to them an truth is subject to them alone so when writing they see the responsibility as an outside element that will not hinder their need to express themselves with words..


----------



## Chinspinner

Interesting question. Should authors not cause offence? That is impossible these days when there is a vocal minority ready to use offence as a weapon (no pun intended). I wish fewer people would tip-toe. However, in the UK (don't know about the US), incitement is a criminal act, and a law I agree with. Writing should be nuanced and exploratory, but incitement tends to be one-dimensional and blunt.


----------



## Bayview

I don't think authors have a responsibility to our readers so much as a responsibility to our selves.

I don't want to write things that I don't believe in. and I believe that racism and sexism are based on ignorance and lies and are destructive to society. So my writing probably reflects that.

I also don't believe that caricatures and cliches make for good writing. So I'm likely to avoid stereotypical characters because they're not original or interesting to me.

So I'm another who doesn't accept the dichotomy from the first post. My social responsibility and my creative integrity work _together_. I really don't know what I'd do if I were in a situation where they were in conflict.


----------



## The Fantastical

Winston said:


> I do not fault Marx or Engels for the murders committed by Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Guevara, Nyrere, Pol Pot, Noriega, Maduro, and Kim Jong-Un.
> Nor do I have an issue with Mein Kampf.
> Murderers are guilty for what they do, not for what they read, or wrote.
> 
> Violence is an act, not a thought. Unless one subscribes to the concept of a "thought crime".



All crime begins in the mind. It begins with how one thinks, about themselves, about a people, a person, right, wrong. Everything begins in the mind. The ideas, the way we think. 

However actual violent crimes is taking the extream approach to what I was saying. There are a thousand small ways that an author changes something, gives consent for something, gives someone the power to reason a behaviour into existence. They might not end in violent crimes, but they may end up in a harsh word, or maybe not even a harsh one, just a wrong one. A judgment about a person, conclusions subconsciously drawn from a character, a description, a word used to create an unfavourable reaction from a reader that goes beyond 'this is a bad guy because he is the antagonist' reactions. 

Words have power, great power, authors, stories... they have changed history in the past, so why not the future at well? When you consider it in that light... yes I do think that Marx or Engels are responsible for what they wrote, how they wrote it what ideas they condoned. I also think that future authors should be mindful of their power over words. The past is filled with examples like Lenin, Stalin and the others you have mentioned that show exactly what power words and how we use them can change so many things. 




escorial said:


> Everyone has a moral compass that is unique to them an truth is subject to them alone so when writing they see the responsibility as an outside element that will not hinder their need to express themselves with words..



But responsibility is never an outside element, it is a part of our everyday lives. If you were to do anything without responsibility for your actions or your words then we would not have any of the modern world and would all be running around with stone spears. Nothing has changed, one just can't go around exclaiming that all responsibility is external that you hold none for yourself. 



Chinspinner said:


> Interesting question. Should authors not cause offence? That is impossible these days when there is a vocal minority ready to use offence as a weapon (no pun intended). I wish fewer people would tip-toe. However, in the UK (don't know about the US), incitement is a criminal act, and a law I agree with. Writing should be nuanced and exploratory, but incitement tends to be one-dimensional and blunt.



This isn't about making everyone happy. If it was I would have said. No this is about authors being responsible for the ideas that they put out there and the language they use. Take GoT (Game of Thrones) I have an issue with how it portrays rape. It glamorises it and makes it a lot less of a big deal than it really is. It makes it (in a subtle way) ok. Which is not ok. 



Bayview said:


> I don't think authors have a responsibility to our readers so much as a responsibility to our selves.
> 
> I don't want to write things that I don't believe in. and I believe that racism and sexism are based on ignorance and lies and are destructive to society. So my writing probably reflects that.
> 
> I also don't believe that caricatures and cliches make for good writing. So I'm likely to avoid stereotypical characters because they're not original or interesting to me.
> 
> So I'm another who doesn't accept the dichotomy from the first post. My social responsibility and my creative integrity work _together_. I really don't know what I'd do if I were in a situation where they were in conflict.



The idea is that responsibility doesn't actually get in the way of writing, my question was aimed at those that do promote ideas that are racist and or sexist. If you are one of the few who writes with responsibility then cool... but people do see it as an either or, so I am forced to ask what is more important to them to gain attention for the issue.


----------



## Kyle R

I'd say there's a _slight_ responsibility on the part of the author. I don't want to go around _glorifying_ and/or _promoting_ things like racism or pedophilia or something. But that's just me. Some authors might be okay with things like that. To each their own.

Which is why, for the most part, I say the responsibility falls on the part of the reader. It's up to the reader to make up their own mind about what they read. Just because you read something, that doesn't mean you have to agree with it or adopt the mindset it promotes.

In the case of young/impressionable readers, the responsibility falls on the parents to educate and/or supervise their child's reading material.

In regards to fiction, I say the only responsibility the author has is to write the most compelling stories they can. After that, the ball is in the reader's court. :encouragement:


----------



## Bayview

The Fantastical said:


> The idea is that responsibility doesn't actually get in the way of writing, my question was aimed at those that do promote ideas that are racist and or sexist. If you are one of the few who writes with responsibility then cool... but people do see it as an either or, so I am forced to ask what is more important to them to gain attention for the issue.



But it's pretty rare for someone to actually think they themselves are sexist or racist. They think they're _r__ight. _They blame others for being too sensitive, they complain about the Thought Police or PC Culture or whatever. They don't think "I'm a racist and I'm going to write something that reflects my racist ideals."

So everyone (almost everyone?) _thinks _they're writing the truth, and what society needs to hear. How do we know who's right?


----------



## The Fantastical

Kyle R said:


> I'd say there's a _slight_ responsibility on the part of the author. I don't want to go around _glorifying_ and/or _promoting_ things like racism or pedophilia or something. But that's just me. Some authors might be okay with things like that. To each their own.
> 
> Which is why, for the most part, I say the responsibility falls on the part of the reader. It's up to the reader to make up their own mind about what they read. Just because you read something, that doesn't mean you have to agree with it or adopt the mindset it promotes.
> 
> In the case of young/impressionable readers, the responsibility falls on the parents to educate and/or supervise their child's reading material.
> 
> In regards to fiction, I say the only responsibility the author has is to write the most compelling stories they can. After that, the ball is in the reader's court. :encouragement:



There are a number of reasons why you are wrong in thinking that the readers are responsible for an author content - 

1. They didn't write it.

2. To use your comments on racism and pedophilia - they are not ok, never are they ok, not in real life and not in fiction. If at any time a person justifies either of those things they are in the wrong, end of. The responsibility for putting such vile things in the world does not fall to the reader but to the author. 

3. While parents should always know what their children are reading, those most affected are not the young but rather adults who will read anything. So open to new ideas they lack a filter, they lack that ability to say 'no'. These new ideas, so sweetly poisoned filter in and yet they think themselves free and clear... it was just a book, but ideas... you can't kill ideas, they are always there, every word you read, every line you hear they stay with you, they affect you and for some, not all, but enough it will change for the worse in some subtle way. So who then is responsible? The reader who trusted the author or the author for abusing that trust? 

4. Putting the responsibility for what you say on another person is passing the buck to end all passing the bucks. No one else makes you say anything, you and you alone are responsible and you can never pass on that responsibility and say that they did it to themselves. The world, she no work that way. 

5. Compelling stories have been at the heart of many an atrocity. Compelling is fine, as long as what it is selling is not wrong. No-one starts out thinking that they will drink the coolaid, but give them a compelling enough story? They just might anyway... 

6. There simply needs to be some responsibility put upon authors. They are somehow exempt from the normal calling out that other medias have. Comic books, movies, online games, they all have had at some point people calling them out for the themes, ideas, or issues that they have promoted in some form or another. So why are we supposed to just let authors have a free pass? 



Bayview said:


> But it's pretty rare for someone to actually think they themselves are sexist or racist. They think they're _r__ight. _They blame others for being too sensitive, they complain about the Thought Police or PC Culture or whatever. They don't think "I'm a racist and I'm going to write something that reflects my racist ideals."
> 
> So everyone (almost everyone?) _think _they're writing the truth, and what society needs to hear. How do we know who's right?



Oh I dunno... I have seen and heard plenty of people that are knowingly and openly racist and or sexist. They see no issue with either very much wish to pass on those ideas. I also think that people who claim to not know that what they are saying is racist/sexist are not THAT unaware of current political and sociological ideas on both subjects. They just ignore them or justify it to themselves enough to 'forget' that they are actually wrong. Which again brings us the question of responsibility. If we are what we read, should we not expect some form of awareness from authors? Movie makers are often called out on what they put in their movies... so are game makers. So why are authors exempt from this?


----------



## Bayview

The Fantastical said:


> Oh I dunno... I have seen and heard plenty of people that are knowingly and openly racist and or sexist. They see no issue with either very much wish to pass on those ideas. I also think that people who claim to not know that what they are saying is racist/sexist are not THAT unaware of current political and sociological ideas on both subjects. They just ignore them or justify it to themselves enough to 'forget' that they are actually wrong. Which again brings us the question of responsibility. If we are what we read, should we not expect some form of awareness from authors? Movie makers are often called out on what they put in their movies... so are game makers. So why are authors exempt from this?



Can you give an example of someone who thinks they themselves are racist? I mean, the term itself suggests being _wrong_ about racial characteristics, and nobody thinks they're wrong. Like, If I think A, and then realize A is wrong, I'll accept that I _used to be _
wrong, back when I thought A, but I don't think A anymore, so I'm not wrong.

I'm trying to think of another way to express this. Like, if I believe and say that white people tend to be paler than black people, that's just true (as far as I currently know). So I don't think it's racist. If someone else thinks white people tend to be stupider than black people, that's just true, in that person's opinion. So while I think it's racist, that person doesn't think it is.

When we say "racist" we're essentially saying "you hold wrong ideas about a group of people based on their race". And nobody thinks the ideas they hold are wrong. Do they? Do you have examples of people saying, "Yeah, I'm racist?"


----------



## Terry D

I am responsible for every word I write. All authors are. After all we _did_ write them, didn't we? What makes this discussion a bit of a quagmire is the application of the word 'responsible'. Responsible to whom? Responsible for what? For actions taken by others? For ideas? Asking about responsibility is very vague without some idea of what we are supposed to be considered responsible for.

The idea of 'what we put out into the world' is also far too broad to discuss reasonably. My opinion about authorial responsibility will be one thing if we are talking about an incendiary manifesto inciting violence and another completely if we are discussing a novel which contains violent and controversial scenes.

Years ago Stephen King wrote a novel called, Rage. In that book a student assumes control of his classroom at gun-point and kills his teacher. Subsequently several incidents of students doing very similar things occurred and, in a number of cases, the perpetrators said they were influenced by King's book. Is King 'responsible' for those acts? No. Of course not. The people who committed those acts are responsible for their own actions. 

The only responsibility an author has is to their own conscience. In King's case, he asked his publisher to pull Rage from the shelves, and it has not been reprinted since. 

I'll close by asking the same question I did at the start: Who should we consider ourselves responsible to? Responsibility and accountability are very closely linked concepts. If I am responsible to someone (the government? society?) how do you propose I be held accountable?


----------



## Fowly

I hope that this world does not get to the point where thought crimes are a thing. Or where we are not allowed to write in a certain way due to political beliefs or how someone might "feel." I see writing as an outlet of not only communication but we paint a picture of the world with words. It's truly beautiful. It would be sad if someone wanted to erase certain parts off famous paintings because the viewer might find it offensive.


----------



## Bloggsworth

Every time I read the thread title I feel that it is the author's responsibility to edit their own work, in particular, the spelling thereof...


----------



## Fowly

I like your pic Winston xD


----------



## Annoying kid

> I believe in an authors social responsibility to not put out books that in any way condone, however subtle it may be, sexist/racist/law breaking behaviour



Sexist and racist by who's standard though? The writer's or the audience's? And which part of the audience? The Liberals? The Conservatives? The side or group that gets the most offended?


----------



## Kyle R

The Fantastical said:


> There simply needs to be some responsibility put upon authors.



I get your overall point (or what I believe is your overall point)—that authors should be held accountable in some way if they go around spreading negative messages. But I also don't view readers as gullible sheep that need to be protected from the evil, malevolent authors of the world. Most readers (from what I've seen) are opinionated, quick to challenge/question/criticize authorial decisions, and usually quite stubborn in their world-views.

Put more simply: readers are nobody's fools.

Are there lines of defense to protect these readers from toxic messages in writing? I'd say so. Critics, agents, publishers, reviewers . . . there's a whole gamut of people out there who spend their time commenting on the books that people are reading. And they, above all else, seem to be the quickest to point out any and all flaws—real or imagined—in the books that are being put out there.

So, yes, I agree with your overall sentiment. But I'm also not worried. As long as the critics, the agents, the publishers and the reviewers care enough to talk about the merits and the pitfalls of specific books, the ones that require scrutiny will get scrutinized, and the ones that deserve to be flamed will get flamed.

Literary Darwinism at work. :encouragement:


----------



## The Fantastical

Bloggsworth said:


> Every time I read the thread title I feel that it is the author's responsibility to edit their own work, in particular, the spelling thereof...



Just because you can't/won't/ contribute to/agree with/ the discussion, does not mean that it is ok to be a bully. I say bully because the tone and way you brought it to my attention denote that you did not have kind/helpful attentions in your heart but rather wished to shame me to silence. Actually... go ahead continue... you are just strengthing my argument.  

P.S. I have Dyslexia, a handicap that means that yes, there may very well be an error in the title, thank you. 




Bayview said:


> Can you give an example of someone who thinks they themselves are racist? I mean, the term itself suggests being _wrong_ about racial characteristics, and nobody thinks they're wrong. Like, If I think A, and then realize A is wrong, I'll accept that I _used to be _
> wrong, back when I thought A, but I don't think A anymore, so I'm not wrong.
> 
> I'm trying to think of another way to express this. Like, if I believe and say that white people tend to be paler than black people, that's just true (as far as I currently know). So I don't think it's racist. If someone else thinks white people tend to be stupider than black people, that's just true, in that person's opinion. So while I think it's racist, that person doesn't think it is.
> 
> When we say "racist" we're essentially saying "you hold wrong ideas about a group of people based on their race". And nobody thinks the ideas they hold are wrong. Do they? Do you have examples of people saying, "Yeah, I'm racist?"



Ok... 

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-34119417/radicals-i-m-a-proud-racist

About a group of openly and self-proclaimed racist. He says it at around the two minute mark. 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world...-voter-proud-racist-shock-Channel-4-interview

A quote from a voter in Netherlands recently - 



> Unfazed, Mr Meulendijk openly responded: ”Then I am proud to be a racist - if that’s what they, say then I am proud to be a racist.”



http://www.2oceansvibe.com/2017/06/02/its-not-cheap-being-a-proud-racist-in-south-africa/

and another one... this time from South Africa. SOOOooooo... yeah these where just the top results from my google search, there are pages more, from almost every country and every race and there are a lot of openly and proud racists out there. 



Terry D said:


> I am responsible for every word I write. All authors are. After all we _did_ write them, didn't we? What makes this discussion a bit of a quagmire is the application of the word 'responsible'. Responsible to whom? Responsible for what? For actions taken by others? For ideas? Asking about responsibility is very vague without some idea of what we are supposed to be considered responsible for.
> 
> The idea of 'what we put out into the world' is also far too broad to discuss reasonably. My opinion about authorial responsibility will be one thing if we are talking about an incendiary manifesto inciting violence and another completely if we are discussing a novel which contains violent and controversial scenes.
> 
> *Years ago Stephen King wrote a novel called, Rage. In that **book** a student assumes control of his classroom at gun-point and kills his teacher. **Subsequently** several incidents of students doing very similar things occurred and, in a number of cases, the perpetrators said they were influenced by King's book. Is King 'responsible' for those acts? No. Of course not. The people who committed those acts are responsible for their own actions.
> *
> *The only responsibility an author has is to their own conscience. In King's case, he asked his publisher to pull Rage from the shelves, and it has not been reprinted since. *
> 
> I'll close by asking the same question I did at the start: Who should we consider ourselves responsible to? Responsibility and accountability are very closely linked concepts. If I am responsible to someone (the government? society?) how do you propose I be held accountable?



Yes, yes King was responsible. His actions after wards prove that, if he really felt that he had nothing to do with the actions taken then he would not have pulled the book. I am sorry but if what you put into the world is violent, then violence is what you will get in return. Writers, just like any other people in a position of power are responsible for how the portray events, violent, abusive, racist, sexist or otherwise. 

We are responsible to those who read our words, more importantly, we are responsible for the continual formation and growth of our individual and collective societies. What we write, if we are any good at it at all, just may one day be taught in classes, may become classics, passed down through the years and generations. We are leaving behind with every line something that will shape a little piece of the world and we need to keep that in mind when we write. Otherwise what kind of world are we helping to build? 



Fowly said:


> I hope that this world does not get to the point where thought crimes are a thing. Or where we are not allowed to write in a certain way due to political beliefs or how someone might "feel." I see writing as an outlet of not only communication but we paint a picture of the world with words. It's truly beautiful. It would be sad if someone wanted to erase certain parts off famous paintings because the viewer might find it offensive.



Big brother is already watching, listening, following... *shrug* it is a little to late to be fearing this now. With every move to remove the anomity of the internet, we are one step closer to what you have just said. 

As for offence. This isn't about people being offended. I am sorry but my question was not about peoples feelings, rather is was about how what we write can change, effect, hurt or heal, the power we have as authors to change a life, for better or worse, to change the world for better or worse. I was aking if you felt that you were responsible for the effect, for better or worse your words have on the world? 



Annoying kid said:


> Sexist and racist by who's standard though? The writer's or the audience's? And which part of the audience? The Liberals? The Conservatives? The side or group that gets the most offended?



Well that is easy. By the line that has been set by society. We all know where that line is, or else we would not be able to judge if what anyone had said was wrong. No, there is a line, and we do know where it is. That is what we are "judging" them by. 



Kyle R said:


> I get your overall point (or what I believe is your overall point)—that authors should be held accountable in some way if they go around spreading negative messages.* But I also don't view readers as gullible sheep that need to be protected from the evil, malevolent authors of the world. Most readers (from what I've seen) are opinionated, quick to challenge/question/criticize authorial decisions, and usually quite stubborn in their world-views.
> 
> Put more simply: readers are nobody's fools.*
> 
> Are there lines of defense to protect these readers from toxic messages in writing? I'd say so. Critics, agents, publishers, reviewers . . . there's a whole gamut of people out there who spend their time commenting on the books that people are reading. And they, above all else, seem to be the quickest to point out any and all flaws—real or imagined—in the books that are being put out there.
> 
> So, yes, I agree with your overall sentiment. But I'm also not worried. As long as the critics, the agents, the publishers and the reviewers care enough to talk about the merits and the pitfalls of specific books, the ones that require scrutiny will get scrutinized, and the ones that deserve to be flamed will get flamed.
> 
> Literary Darwinism at work. :encouragement:



LOL that was the funniest thing I have ever heard... Dear dear person... Why don't I pose this to you? How did Trump become president? How did Hitler come into power? How did any of the mad, bad and charismatic leaders? Because most people are gullible little sheep. Ok they are extreme examples, but they still prove a point. If a writer presents an idea, any idea, in just the right, way, is charismatic enough, charming enough, some will follow. Some have always followed and always will follow.

Oh, the agents and publishers know that people like controversy. Controversy sells. Why else are some works published today even though they are obviously... shall we just say it, going to cause a stir? No, it is the author who are going to have to agree to write responsibly.


----------



## JustRob

Writers are urged, here as much as anywhere, to include conflict in their stories, indeed to make it a central motif. That immediately enforces them to portray what is potentially wrong as much as what is right and indeed to blur the distinction to heighten the dilemma. How then can the writer of a finely balanced work know which way any reader will take the story, whether they will feel that the outcome was to their preference or not? I don't think they can.

My angel and I watch the TV series _Criminal Minds _about a criminal behavioural analysis unit, although we've come to wonder why. Good TV is in short supply during the summer months though. The usual pattern of a story there is that a serial killer gets away with many atrocities before finally being caught, their last victim being saved in the nick of time. The consequence of this format is that the majority of each story indulges in the particularly grotesque activities of the perpetrator while the meticulous research of the unit which results in the end of their spree could be seen as just a bit of bad luck. The message of the series could therefore be that there is a very good chance of getting away with such acts and also it does provide a tutorial in some _very_ bad practices. One is reminded of those old sex films which were justified by the comments of a supposed psychologist in a white coat explaining the bizarre behaviour (although I only ever saw spoofs of such things of course).

Horror stories have an extra aspect, that there is no guarantee whatsoever what the outcome will be. At best the horror may only be overcome temporarily but equally it may prevail. The only redeeming aspect of these is that they usually have a supernatural component, which keeps them supposedly fictional, at least in the majority of readers' minds. Even then there may be a small proportion of readers who could be influenced into believing in such supernatural influences and acting contrary to society's expectations as a result. Personally I am concerned about the frequent bloodfests portrayed in YA literature, vampirism being almost a prerequisite nowadays apparently. Is it all just good harmless fun, an outlet for vivid imaginations? Who can say?

The alternative is the perpetual politically correct morality that casts a cloud over a story. My angel and I always laugh at the pointless balancing acts in some stories on TV. No matter how spectacular a crash the occupants of a vehicle will be seen to survive, unless of course they have previously been judged to be too guilt-ridden to do so. Every bad deed is carefully balanced with the correct level of retribution. Our reaction to this is that it's the American dream, a quirk of that culture. Contrast this with, for example, the realism portrayed in Flannery O'Connor's stories of old Georgia. There's little sign of redemption there but her work was highly praised. Which then is wrong, to portray life as it is, and thereby maybe promote its continuation, be it good or bad, or to portray a fictional idyllic life in which any reckless driver will always escape from the consequences of their actions unscathed because they deserve another chance?

There is no right answer for the writer. If they are competent then they have a powerful tool at their command and any such tool may become a weapon if used wrongly, but there is no saying who will be responsible for that, the writer or reader. I was once talking to a policeman while using a large screwdriver to fit extra security features on a gate. He picked up my screwdriver and ran his finger over its sharp blade, which I had in the past filed thinner to fit smaller screws. He clearly saw it as a weapon while for me it was just a tool. It's all a matter of perception. I had no control over whether my simple tool became a weapon in his mind, no more than I have over my writing in the mind of a reader.

There are two kinds of logic, the straightforward variety and the Bayesian version. I understand that a key difference between them is that Bayesian logic superimposes new information on old, modifying it but not overruling it, whereas conventional logic is assumed to take absolute precedence over anything else. The classic example is the discovery of the murder weapon in a suspect's home. Conventional logic deduces that they are the perpetrator, but Bayesian logic deduces that they most likely aren't, drawing on a wider knowledge of criminal behaviour. As writers we don't know what prior knowledge in a reader's mind our story is being superimposed on, so we cannot be sure of the outcome. Place a screwdriver in the minds of a policeman and a carpenter and see how differently they react. We cannot control the many potential contexts of our stories in readers' minds. There's the insoluble dilemma.


----------



## Annoying kid

> Well that is easy. By the line that has been set by society. We all know where that line is, or else we would not be able to judge if what anyone had said was wrong. No, there is a line, and we do know where it is. That is what we are "judging" them by.



"We?" I don't know where it is!"Society?" Society who? You're speaking as if there's one line and that most of society agrees, 
But as soon as one goes beyond the general idea that people should be equal, there's a huge amount of debate as to what is sexist or racist and what equality means. 

So when it comes to following the line set by society... which society? Who am I listening to here? Feminist consensus? Is there a consensus on much of it? The feminism of Liana K is typically incompatible with Anita Sarkessians. Zinnia Jones's feminism is never going to agree with Cathy Brennans. Christina Hoff Sommers' feminism is incompatible with Lena Dunhams. I could go on. Am I listening to MRA's? MGTOW? Redpill? They believe in equality from a different perspective and they have incompatibilities within their groups as well. Am I listening to traditional conservatives? Liberal progressives? Who is wrong and who is right? 

Which philosophy should be held by the writer when judging what is sexist and what is not when deciding what to condone and condemn in their writing?


----------



## Kevin

Society's line moves. Back in my day we used to burn witches. They were evil, and deserved it, you know. Everyone knew, and it was even in the book somewhere, that they shouldn't be allowed. There were a lot of things that everyone knew were just wrong that are now okay. We all knew it. And now we don't (because those wrong things are now right). I would definitely take it a step further and have the bad people arrested. Some would just publically shame them but I don't think that goes far enough. We have a responsibility. The mere presence of those people walking around is an endorsement. It says that we think they're okay--okay enough to say or do whatever it is they feel like even though everyone can see it's wrong and that makes it not wrong. Next thing you know it's right. Like witches.


----------



## The Fantastical

Annoying kid said:


> "We?" I don't know where it is!"Society?" Society who? You're speaking as if there's one line and that most of society agrees,
> But as soon as one goes beyond the general idea that people should be equal, there's a huge amount of debate as to what is sexist or racist and what equality means.
> 
> So when it comes to following the line set by society... which society? Who am I listening to here? Feminist consensus? Is there a consensus on much of it? The feminism of Liana K is typically incompatible with Anita Sarkessians. Zinnia Jones's feminism is never going to agree with Cathy Brennans. Christina Hoff Sommers' feminism is incompatible with Lena Dunhams. I could go on. Am I listening to MRA's? MGTOW? Redpill? They believe in equality from a different perspective and they have incompatibilities within their groups as well. Am I listening to traditional conservatives? Liberal progressives? Who is wrong and who is right?
> 
> Which philosophy should be held by the writer when judging what is sexist and what is not when deciding what to condone and condemn in their writing?



I am so tired of Americans... you know the entire world does not fall to either Conservatives or Liberals in the way that you are using those terms. Please, expand your world view. 

You might not see it but there is in fact (for lack of a better word) a collective idea of where the line is. Otherwise, we would not have civilization, laws, taxes, jails, cars, phones, internet, police forces... none of what we associate with the modern and "civilised" world would exist if there was not a common understanding. 



Kevin said:


> Society's line moves. Back in my day we used to burn witches. They were evil, and deserved it, you know. Everyone knew, and it was even in the book somewhere, that they shouldn't be allowed. There were a lot of things that everyone knew were just wrong that are now okay. We all knew it. And now we don't (because those wrong things are now right). I would definitely take it a step further and have the bad people arrested. Some would just publically shame them but I don't think that goes far enough. We have a responsibility. The mere presence of those people walking around is an endorsement. It says that we think they're okay--okay enough to say or do whatever it is they feel like even though everyone can see it's wrong and that makes it not wrong. Next thing you know it's right. Like witches.



Yes... it was even in a book. People change society, what they write, what they read, it changes society, this is why it is important for Authors to take a responsible view in what they write.


----------



## bdcharles

It's a terrible shame that _Rage _was pulled. That being said, I do understand and support King's reaction, because when I read it at age sixteen or so, I was very influenced by it. It is great story and Charlie Decker is a real tragic character with whom, probably quite unhealthily, I identified very strongly, and it's a brave or foolish person who would risk anything like that on their conscience. I think it is a shame it was pulled because it represents, in my view, an admission of failure on all our parts, that we need that kind of censorship lest the ideas in a book make us crazy.

My question would therefore be: how are we in that position where ideas in a book can do that? If such bad things chime with enough people, do we write that off as bad genes or is there anything we can do to lessen it happening. People talk about tolerance, but anecdotally it seems to me that the perpetrators at Sandy Hook and Columbine and so on are loners, chucked out by society. If that's true, then  what can be done? People have tried to tackle it; _Rage_, and _Catcher in the Rye_ and that song _Jeremy _by Pearl Jam from a way back and whatever else, but it means we have to accept some potential oversight in ourselves and those like us, that we were in some way perhaps complicit if ever we turned someone away because their face or their social circle or their bank account or their personality didn't fit. It's easy to tolerate someone who is maligned by X, Y or Z group we don't like. But try tolerating someone that we ourselves don't feel comfortable with. We earn our stripes then.

So in that respect I would say we are all responsible for each other and society is responsible to, and accountable to, itself. Lines of demarcation and de facto standards? There isn't just one; they're everywhere and they move and like it or not that's what we have to contend with. Who wants to dig deeper and look for underlying common causes? Most people don't. The alternative is to accept that society cannot be saved, that everything is evolutionary, that there is no good or bad, there's just eat or be eaten. And no, I wouldn't want to have this conversation with someone who lost a child at Sandy Hook or Columbine. I don't even like having these thoughts myself very much. But does me (or them) not wanting that mean the ideas are unsound?  It's about solving a problem, not about what makes me feel OK.


----------



## Annoying kid

> I am so tired of Americans... you know the entire world does not fall to either Conservatives or Liberals in the way that you are using those terms. Please, expand your world view.
> 
> You might not see it but there is in fact (for lack of a better word) a collective idea of where the line is. Otherwise, we would not have civilization, laws, taxes, jails, cars, phones, internet, police forces... none of what we associate with the modern and "civilised" world would exist if there was not a common understanding.



I'm not American, I'm English. Conservatives and Liberals exist here too. This proves my point. You say "Society". When there's different continents each with their own society. 

You have a collective idea where the line is? Well let me give an example of a dilemma when writing female characters. 

Is it sexist for the writer to show female characters being beaten up by men the same way they would a male character getting beaten up? aka treating men and women the same? Some say that is equality.

While others say its inherently problematic to show that due to the historical violence of men toward women and the context of a "rape culture" where domestic violence against women is "epidemic". 

My MC is a professional warrior, I take the former. Some will see that and say that's sexist because of the latter reason. There are many quandarys like this.

Again, who is to say who is correct and who is not? Answer: The critics! The activists! 

We're not activists most of us. We're entertainers. It's not our place to preach at the audience.


----------



## Bayview

The Fantastical said:


> Ok...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-34119417/radicals-i-m-a-proud-racist
> 
> About a group of openly and self-proclaimed racist. He says it at around the two minute mark.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, he says it. But he's being pretty creative with language, with all the "deracinated" business... I'm not sure his definition of racism is the same as the one generally used by society.
> 
> To bring it back to the point of the thread - if that guy wrote a book, according to his own conscience and beliefs, his book would almost certainly contain ideas that _I _would find disgusting. But he's not disgusted by his ideas. He says he's "comfortable" with them. If he thought he was wrong, he wouldn't be comfortable, right? He thinks he's doing the right thing, being socially responsible, etc.
> 
> http://www.express.co.uk/news/world...-voter-proud-racist-shock-Channel-4-interview
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A quote from a voter in Netherlands recently -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "IF that's what they say, then..." - do you not see the way that's framed? Like, "If standing up for little people means I'm a jerk, then, fine, call me a jerk!" The "if" really negates the rest of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.2oceansvibe.com/2017/06/02/its-not-cheap-being-a-proud-racist-in-south-africa/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I couldn't find anywhere in that article where he calls himself a racist?
> 
> 
> 
> In general, your thesis seems to be that authors should avoid violating the standards that everyone knows are "right" in society. We shouldn't be "racist" or "sexist" or whatever. But if everyone already knows those standards, why the hell do authors need to worry about reinforcing them? If society is so monolithic in its beliefs, what's the threat?
> 
> I agree that words are powerful and authors should be aware of their influence and try to use their writing to create the kind of world we want to live in. But I think you're vastly oversimplifying the task of knowing what is "right", knowing what is "racist" or "sexist", knowing where the ultimate truth lies.
> 
> We all think we're right, even when our ideas are in direct opposition to each other. If we all write our own truths, some of those "truths" are going to be less true than others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (And if you're going to get upset about other posters "bullying" you, then it would probably be wise for you to avoid comments like:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL that was the funniest thing I have ever heard... Dear dear person...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and
> 
> 
> 
> I'm so tired of Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> )
Click to expand...


----------



## EmmaSohan

> I am suddenly crushed in his arms -- he holds me firm and pushes his lips against mine. A dam has broken inside him, and his feelings are rushing out. I am surprised, thrown off-balance physically and emotionally. I resent his lack of control and his inappropriateness... I resent being physically controlled...



His behavior is inappropriate. As far as I know, it's perfectly okay to present that, _as long as he isn't rewarded for it._

Alas, it continues



> And then my dam breaks too, and I am fiercely pushing against him...



Not the message I want to send. I want to stop and give a lecture about appropriate 21st kissing behavior, but it doesn't fit in. Normally, I would work that lecture into my book somehow, but that didn't fit either. Ugh.

Is this what we are talking about? I see the problem all the time, in what I write and what others write. In the last book I read, the author seemed tortured by her desire to have strong cops who did what needed to be done and her conflicting desire not to portray cop law-breaking as good.


----------



## Terry D

The Fantastical said:


> Yes, yes King was responsible. His actions after wards prove that, if he really felt that he had nothing to do with the actions taken then he would not have pulled the book. I am sorry but if what you put into the world is violent, then violence is what you will get in return. Writers, just like any other people in a position of power are responsible for how the portray events, violent, abusive, racist, sexist or otherwise.
> 
> We are responsible to those who read our words, more importantly, we are responsible for the continual formation and growth of our individual and collective societies. What we write, if we are any good at it at all, just may one day be taught in classes, may become classics, passed down through the years and generations. We are leaving behind with every line something that will shape a little piece of the world and we need to keep that in mind when we write. Otherwise what kind of world are we helping to build?



Completely absurd. In this mindset Melville is responsible for the decimation of whales, Harriet Beecher Stowe for slavery, and Agatha Christie for serial murder. Authors explore ideas. Each individual reader is solely responsible for their interpretation of those ideas and, should they choose to act on those ideas, are responsible for the consequences of those actions. This really isn't a complicated concept.

Do you really think the kids who tried to emulate the protagonist of _Rage_ just read that book and suddenly thought, "Hey, that's a neat idea. I think I'll do that?" Or is it more probable that these were kids who had much deeper issues. Issues that were going to be acted upon at some time in any case? Your argument is akin to that of people who say video games lead to violence, or pornography to rape. Disturbed people will find an excuse for their actions. King simply removed one excuse.

There is a very big difference between promoting behavior and depicting it. You seem to be confusing those two ideas. If writers, from what I understand of your point, are to be held responsible for the content of their stories, then I ask, who determines what is 'acceptable' content? It can't be 'society' because 'society' has no enforcement arm other than the government. Do you really want the government, under the guise of protecting society, to decide what is acceptable to write? That idea has a long history including today in places like North Korea, Iran, China, Saudi Arabia, and Cuba. In those countries, and more, writers are held responsible for what they write. Perhaps that's what you are wanting?

Writers deal in ideas. I don't feel we need protecting from ideas, even those I don't particularly like. Protecting 'society' from dangerous ideas has been the subject of a few books too;_ Fahrenheit 451_, _A Brave New World_, _Minority Report_, and _1984_ come to mind.


----------



## Annoying kid

EmmaSohan said:


> His behavior is inappropriate. As far as I know, it's perfectly okay to present that, _as long as he isn't rewarded for it._
> 
> Alas, it continues
> 
> 
> 
> Not the message I want to send. I want to stop and give a lecture about appropriate 21st kissing behavior, but it doesn't fit in. Normally, I would work that lecture into my book somehow, but that didn't fit either. Ugh.
> 
> Is this what we are talking about? I see the problem all the time, in what I write and what others write. In the last book I read, the author seemed tortured by her desire to have strong cops who did what needed to be done and her conflicting desire not to portray cop law-breaking as good.



You don't have to do a lecture, you just have to completely scrap it and rewrite the scene and lovemaking so it's like this: 
<br>[video=youtube;bVHYvUpeqKI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVHYvUpeqKI[/video]

Isn't that what the OP means by responsible, socially conscious writing? :distant:ukel:


----------



## Job

The Fantastical said:


> When does a writer become socially responsible for what they put out into the world?  Are they responsible? I think that they are.



What does this mean?  Can you clarify?  What does it mean to be socially responsible?

See, that's the problem with this kind of stuff.  It's all vague and abstract.  Socially responsible.  For what?  Adding an element of something to the world at large?  Responsible for perhaps sparking a conversation? For entertaining a reader, or maybe responsible for boring a reader?  Responsible for making a reader's eyes roll?  Responsible for making a reader's eyes light up? 

 Responsible for the future _feelings_ of readers or for the future _actions_ of readers?

What does any of it mean?  Like everyone else, I hear this kind of stuff from time to time.  But there's not usually a lot of depth to back it up.  It seems to mean that writers just shouldn't write certain things, and if they do write certain things then they should be shamed and harassed and financially harmed.  Just sounds like modern day book burning to me.  A suppression of both ideas and dialogue.  

If there are characters and scenes you don't want to write then the easy solution is to not write them.  It gets a little bit awkward though when you start suggesting that no one else should write characters and scenes _you_ don't want to write.  

Just my opinion, but I think society needs an open exchange of ideas a heck of a lot more than society needs to control art.


----------



## The Fantastical

Annoying kid said:


> You don't have to do a lecture, you just have to completely scrap it and rewrite the scene and lovemaking so it's like this:
> <br>[video=youtube;bVHYvUpeqKI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVHYvUpeqKI[/video]
> 
> Isn't that what the OP means by responsible, socially conscious writing? :distant:ukel:



It is actually. Thank you!


----------



## Phil Istine

I'm wondering what the author of Game of Thrones would think about this thread.  If I were to read Game of Thrones, maybe I'd become someone who would murder everyone who opposes me, set man-eating dogs onto people, whip prostitutes into submission and poison royalty.
It's pretty unlikely though.


----------



## Annoying kid

The Fantastical said:


> It is actually. Thank you!



They're not burdened with the need to depict conflict and drama though.


----------



## Jack of all trades

Phil Istine said:


> I'm wondering what the author of Game of Thrones would think about this thread.  If I were to read Game of Thrones, maybe I'd become someone who would murder everyone who opposes me, set man-eating dogs onto people, whip prostitutes into submission and poison royalty.
> It's pretty unlikely though.



It may not have that big of an effect, at least not right away, but it does have impact.

I read about six months ago about a study on the effects of violent video games. That debate has been going on for a couple of decades. The study showed a decrease in altruism following violent video games, and no change in altruism following neutral video games. The effects lasted varying lengths of time. It was decided that additional study was warrented.

So, reading about violence may have a similar effect. 

Think about the deeds done during war. When surrounded by violence, humans adapt. Adaptation is what humans do best.


----------



## Kyle R

The Fantastical said:


> How did any of the mad, bad and charismatic leaders? Because most people are gullible little sheep.


Ah, but you missed my distinction: I said most _readers_​ aren't gullible, not most _people_.

The difference is subtle, but significant. Most people aren't readers. And readers aren't like most people.


----------



## Phil Istine

Jack of all trades said:


> It may not have that big of an effect, at least not right away, but it does have impact.
> 
> I read about six months ago about a study on the effects of violent video games. That debate has been going on for a couple of decades. The study showed a decrease in altruism following violent video games, and no change in altruism following neutral video games. The effects lasted varying lengths of time. It was decided that additional study was warrented.
> 
> So, reading about violence may have a similar effect.
> 
> Think about the deeds done during war. When surrounded by violence, humans adapt. Adaptation is what humans do best.



Violent video games and book reading are very different IMO.  Games tend to be repetitive whereas a book is not usually read more than once by a person.  That repetition does, I believe, act as a reinforcer to the less conscious parts - possibly one reason why there is a degree of censorship based on age.

I'm a person who generally dislikes censorship (including pressure to self-censor), with the possible exclusions of influencing children and whipping up hatred, so it's likely that we won't agree on this subject.


----------



## The Fantastical

Annoying kid said:


> They're not burdened with the need to depict conflict and drama though.



You know I have heard used as an excuse for bad writing so often that I am truly not sure if people actually understand the idea of what conflict is in a good story anymore. 

You don't need graphic violence or dark tortured souls who take out their rage on their loved ones or women giving in to men in "conflicted" love scenes to have either conflict or drama. In fact relying on those factors to create your conflict is sloppy writing. 

The essence of a good story isn't about how many conflicting emotions or reactions you can cram into one character, but rather how a well-formed character reacts to outside events / retain themselves in the face of outside events. Drama is the outside events. If written well, a missing bag, a lost sock can have as much or more "conflict" and "drama" as Game of Thrones or Fifty Shades of Grey or Malazan or Stormlight or any book which relies on the graphic conflict principle.


----------



## The Fantastical

Kyle R said:


> Ah, but you missed my distinction: I said most _readers_ aren't gullible, not most _people_.
> 
> The difference is subtle, but significant. Most people aren't readers. And readers aren't like most people.



Not all readers are equal.


----------



## The Fantastical

Jack of all trades said:


> It may not have that big of an effect, at least not right away, but it does have impact.
> 
> I read about six months ago about a study on the effects of violent video games. That debate has been going on for a couple of decades. The study showed a decrease in altruism following violent video games, and no change in altruism following neutral video games. The effects lasted varying lengths of time. It was decided that additional study was warrented.
> 
> So, reading about violence may have a similar effect.
> 
> Think about the deeds done during war. When surrounded by violence, humans adapt. Adaptation is what humans do best.



Books do in fact have deep and lasting psychological effects on their readers. There have been lots of studies that have shown that in many ways books have a great and longer lasting effect on readers than games and other medias have on people.


----------



## JustRob

The Fantastical said:


> Books do in fact have deep and lasting psychological effects on their readers. There have been lots of studies that have shown that in many ways books have a great and longer lasting effect on readers than games and other medias have on people.



As I mentioned previously, one still has to decide whether to employ absolute logic or Bayesian logic to such studies. Bayesian logic takes into account the fact that subjects may have repressed inclinations which are merely reinforced by what they read, bringing them to the surface. In other words readers are looking for excuses to behave the way that they subconsciously want to. They will even choose what they read to increase the chance of finding reassurance in it. If they are responsible readers then they will merely use reading as an outlet in itself for such desires, but if they go further and act out their desires in reality, then is it fair to lay the blame for that on the writer? Eventually such repressed desires will probably surface anyway, so the proportion of readers who merely use reading as an outlet, not a justification for action, could be seen as justification for writing such material.

It could be argued that pretending that the world is an idyllic place and suppressing all the hard realities just creates more victims. I repeat my view that creating the impression in TV series that people always walk away from horrendous car crashes unharmed is blatantly irresponsible, when no doubt the makers of such programmes believe that they are doing the right, nay the _nice_, thing by not showing the reality.

When J. M. Barrie wrote Peter Pan he originally stated that to fly one only needed to "think lovely wonderful thoughts" (to quote the original text). However, as this could have resulted in a spate of children jumping out of their bedroom windows in a state of euphoria, he then added the need for fairy dust, an unattainable factor, as a deterrent. That's as far as being a responsible writer goes though. Any readers of the story still inclined to jump out of their windows had to accept responsibility for the consequences. We can't protect everyone when we write and it isn't a writer's duty to do so, only to write considerately.


----------



## Phil Istine

I'm reminded of what happened many years ago in the UK.  There was a campaign of adverts for road safety aimed at children:

Child starts to cross road in dangerous place without looking properly.  Green-cross code man appears from thin air and shows them how to do it properly
.
Result:  Children cross road in dangerous manner to make green-cross code man appear.

Adverts pulled.


----------



## Annoying kid

> You know I have heard used as an excuse for bad writing so often that I am truly not sure if people actually understand the idea of what conflict is in a good story anymore.



Is conflict and drama two characters politely asking if they can touch each other each time they try to? Do you think making the man look like he has zero assertiveness whatsoever is good for making romance leads? Or badass fantasy or adventure leads? Would Indiana Jones have been better if he acted like that consent video in this scene? Really? 

<br>[video=youtube;nXuvzsIf1oE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXuvzsIf1oE[/video]

That consent video even creeped out The Young Turks. And they're a liberal channel. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUwAKhHDXlU&t=1s




> You don't need graphic violence or dark tortured souls who take out their rage on their loved ones or women giving in to men in "conflicted" love scenes to have either conflict or drama. In fact relying on those factors to create your conflict is sloppy writing.



What is graphic violence to you? Is a woman getting punched in the face graphic violence? In the abdomen? Getting kicked? Choked? Like in Hunger Games movie?  Let's hear some examples and definitions because you didn't say "graphic" before, you just said violence. 




> The essence of a good story isn't about how many conflicting emotions or reactions you can cram into one character, but rather how a well-formed character reacts to outside events / retain themselves in the face of outside events. Drama is the outside events. If written well, a missing bag, a lost sock can have as much or more "conflict" and "drama" as Game of Thrones or Fifty Shades of Grey or Malazan or Stormlight or any book which relies on the graphic conflict principle.



Isn't what happened to Boromir in Lotr "graphic violence" as well? Three arrows in the chest? What about Haldir the elf when he took a giant sword in the back in the two towers? How about Lord Denethor setting himself on fire and committing suicide by running off the white city walls and falling to his death while ablaze? What about King Theoden and his horse getting bitten and violently killed by the Nazgul Beast in Return of the King? 

What about Mace Windu's decapitation of Bounty Hunter Jango Fett in Star wars? Anakin Skywalker's triple limb  mutilation and incineration at the end of Revenge of The Sith?

How would the story of Jesus Christ have worked without any graphic violence?


----------



## bdcharles

Phil Istine said:


> I'm reminded of what happened many years ago in the UK.  There was a campaign of adverts for road safety aimed at children:
> 
> Child starts to cross road in dangerous place without looking properly.  Green-cross code man appears from thin air and shows them how to do it properly
> .
> Result:  Children cross road in dangerous manner to make green-cross code man appear.
> 
> Adverts pulled.



That would be pretty cool, though, to invoke Darth Vader by running out from between two parked cars.

Incidentally, it only dawned on me about three years ago that crossing between 2 parked cars stopped being a hazard around the time I could see over them. Yes, until that recently, I still felt the thrill rush of the career lawbreaker every time I did it. Rock'n'roll, yeah?


----------



## Bayview

I feel like we might need some more concrete examples.

Fantastical, can you give some examples of things you wanted to write but didn't write because it was important for you to be socially responsible?


(in other words, is this a real thing? Are there authors out there who really WANT to write something that's contrary to their value systems? Or is this just a case of authors writing things that are contrary to YOUR value system, and you want them to stop because you think your values are better than theirs?)


----------



## Jack of all trades

Phil Istine said:


> Violent video games and book reading are very different IMO.  Games tend to be repetitive whereas a book is not usually read more than once by a person.  That repetition does, I believe, act as a reinforcer to the less conscious parts - possibly one reason why there is a degree of censorship based on age.
> 
> I'm a person who generally dislikes censorship (including pressure to self-censor), with the possible exclusions of influencing children and whipping up hatred, so it's likely that we won't agree on this subject.



I agree that repetition may be a factor. And books can be read repeatedly. There's nothing preventing that.

I think the effects of reading violent books, and maybe listening to violent lyrics, should be studied, in addition to the video games.

I see self-censorship as different than societal censorship. I'm in favor of the first, but am reluctant to have the second. I think what's being discussed here is censoring oneself.


----------



## Jack of all trades

Kyle R said:


> Ah, but you missed my distinction: I said most _readers_​ aren't gullible, not most _people_.
> 
> The difference is subtle, but significant. Most people aren't readers. And readers aren't like most people.



Balderdash!

All readers are people. And since some people are readers, it stands to reason that some readers are gullible.

And the younger the reader, chronologically or mentally, the more gullible.


----------



## Kevin

"Self-censorship "- I have to disagree. It is obvious to everyone that self-censorship hasn't worked. As competent writers I think there should be some sort of written parameters. We need a list, or a code. Due to the creative nature of writing I think it would need something, like a board, or a committee  to review each book (and the author) on a personalized, case by case, basis. We could call it the CCC, Competent Codifying Commitee, or... how about something a little more fun? How about The Authoritarians? A little play on 'author', eh? No? Okay...got it..."The Parameteers". They could even wear little ear-hats as if to show that they're listening.


----------



## Jack of all trades

JustRob said:


> When J. M. Barrie wrote Peter Pan he originally stated that to fly one only needed to "think lovely wonderful thoughts" (to quote the original text). However, as this could have resulted in a spate of children jumping out of their bedroom windows in a state of euphoria, he then added the need for fairy dust, an unattainable factor, as a deterrent. That's as far as being a responsible writer goes though. Any readers of the story still inclined to jump out of their windows had to accept
> responsibility for the consequences. We can't protect everyone when we write and it isn't a writer's duty to do so, only to write considerately.



Are you suggesting that he should NOT have acted so responsibly? That he should have forseen the potential problem and still allowed children to jump out their windows?

He did a good thing. And that's admirable.

So what's the problem with other writers doing other good things?


Let's look at this from another angle for a moment. There's far less censorship of television than there was forty years ago. And we have access to far more channels. And yet a friend said to me on Friday, "Five hundred channels, and nothin' on." 

Does censorship promote creativity? Taking it back to writing, would the quality of books improve with more censorship, whether it be internal or external?


As an aside, I don't blame all violence on books, music and videos. There's other factors that need to be identified and addressed. But like with this idea of censorship, I bet there'll be resistance to change on those fronts as well.


----------



## Jack of all trades

Nevermind. I missed a not.


----------



## Terry D

The Fantastical said:


> Books do in fact have deep and lasting psychological effects on their readers. There have been lots of studies that have shown that in many ways books have a great and longer lasting effect on readers than games and other medias have on people.



Which is exactly why writers _should_ write about controversial topics, isn't it? Hiding away violence, racism, sexism, or any other of society's ills isn't going to make them go away.

But I'm still waiting to hear who should determine what topics are not fit for me to write about. I'm still waiting to find out how this idea of authorial responsibility would be enforced. But I don't expect to get an answer, and I don't really need one. You see, the idea of authorial responsibility and accountability already exists. Authors determine what topics are fit for them to write about, and readers, by either reading or ignoring our work, provide the enforcement.

For anyone other than my own conscience, or my readers, to try and tell me what is and is not appropriate for me to write about is nothing less than attempted censorship. As an individual, I'd like to see the topic of censorship stricken from all discussions, but, as a writer, I say, "Bring it on." Because only by dragging the nastiest, reeking, slimy ideas out into the light will they ever be eradicated. If writers have a responsibility to 'society' it is this more than anything else; to expose what we feel is wrong, through our writing. Even those of us who write primarily to entertain cannot help but expose our values to our readers. It is for our readers then, to decide if they share our values, or reject them. 

I call bullshit on anyone who tries to tell me there is some undefined 'higher standard' to which I must conform.


----------



## Annoying kid

If my MC isn't allowed to take a bump, isn't allowed to get hurt cos too violent and can at most be mildly injured if that, and can't be seen to fight much if at all, because that's violent and triggering, then I guess all she can do is...protest the enemy into submission? Make a sign out of cardboard, wave it around scream at people until they change. 

Whoa, now I'm really on the edge of my seat! =;


----------



## Job

I tell you what, I know a lot of people who play violent video games.  I don't know one violent criminal.

I know a lot of people who read, too.  Still, not one violent criminal.

It really doesn't seem to matter how many times the censorship argument is won.  There's always someone out there waiting to bring it up again.  There's always someone who wants to control what other people write, read, and think.  And it's always wrapped up in some ideology of what's "best" for all of us, and it always looks ridiculous decades later.


----------



## Kyle R

Jack of all trades said:


> Balderdash!
> 
> All readers are people. And since some people are readers, it stands to reason that some readers are gullible.
> 
> And the younger the reader, chronologically or mentally, the more gullible.



Are _some_ readers gullible? Most certainly. Are _most_ readers gullible? I doubt it, but that's just my opinion.

When I think of a "reader", I'm thinking of someone who reads at least a book a month. Even better: a book a week, or more. That's a very narrow percentage of the general public.

From what I've seen, the more experienced a reader is, the pickier and more opinionated they tend to get about what they read. Which is pretty much the opposite of reader gullibility.


----------



## Jack of all trades

Kyle R said:


> Are _some_ readers gullible? Most certainly. Are _most_ readers gullible? I doubt it, but that's just my opinion.
> 
> Speaking statistically, college-educated adults are _300%_ more likely to read a book in a year than those with just a high-school diploma or less (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/23/who-doesnt-read-books-in-america/). So even if we're just looking at one book per year (which I personally don't consider enough frequency to call one a "reader"), we can see that, in readers versus non-readers, there's a noticeable gap in education.
> 
> Of course, we can argue about whether or not education levels relate to gullibility, which would probably be an interesting debate on its own.
> 
> Really, though, when I think of a "reader", I'm thinking of someone who reads at least a book a month. Even better: a book a week, or more. That's a very narrow percentage of the general public.
> 
> From what I've seen, the more experienced a reader is, the pickier and more opinionated they tend to get about what they read. Which is pretty much the opposite of reader gullibility.



But adults are not the only readers. I don't have the statistics at hand, but I'd guess kids are a about half the readers. What about them? How gullible are they? I still say it depends on age and maturity.

For that matter, not all adults are mature. And some are pretty gullible. Even college educated ones. Sometimes, the more educated, the more gullible. My experience. Yours may differ.


----------



## Terry D

I think it's best to assume at least half our readers are smarter -- and less gullible -- than are we ourselves. Writers aren't some special class immune to credulity.


----------



## Jack of all trades

Terry D said:


> I think it's best to assume at least half our readers are smarter -- and less gullible -- than are we ourselves. Writers aren't some special class immune to credulity.



Oh, there are VERY gullible writers! No, writers are not immune. I bet we can all point to different posts on this site that show that. But I wouldn't want to embarrass anyone.


----------



## The Fantastical

To be clear, because you guys seem to have gotten the really wrong end of the thought stuck here when I talk of author responsibility I am talking about HOW they portray and represent some social unacceptable behaviours. 

I strongly, violently even believe that the point of fiction, of any fiction, is to talk about and shine light onto ideas, actions and behaviours, both good and bad and discuss their effects on the world and people around us. HOWEVER I also strongly believe that when authors write about these subjects that they have a RESPONSIBILITY to not glorify or portray those charatistics or behaviours in a way that it makes them seem ok in any way, atrractive in any way, or makes a person whan to emulate those characistics to be more like their favorite character. 

THAT is the authors responsability. IF and WHEN deltict subjects come up, it is an authors reponsability to show that there are consaquinces, un-happy consaquinces to certain behaviours, to show that such actions are not ok. 

I am not for censorship, never have been and depending on the cercumstances probably never will be, HOWEVER I am also for authors being responsable for what they put out there and how they show socially unaceptial behaviours. 




Jack of all trades said:


> Are you suggesting that he should NOT have acted so responsibly? That he should have forseen the potential problem and still allowed children to jump out their windows?
> 
> He did a good thing. And that's admirable.
> 
> So what's the problem with other writers doing other good things?
> 
> 
> Let's look at this from another angle for a moment. There's far less censorship of television than there was forty years ago. And we have access to far more channels. And yet a friend said to me on Friday, "Five hundred channels, and nothin' on."
> 
> *Does censorship promote creativity? Taking it back to writing, would the quality of books improve with more censorship, whether it be internal or external?*
> 
> 
> As an aside, I don't blame all violence on books, music and videos. There's other factors that need to be identified and addressed. But like with this idea of censorship, I bet there'll be resistance to change on those fronts as well.



What J.M. Barrie did was actually a very good example of an author showing some responsability in his write. Did it ruin the story? Not in the least, yet there in just one added line, you have a way to avoid any actions that could have been taken by readers. 

That is an interesting question. If I think back to what I know about the history of books, when getting something published was no easy task and the quality of a work had to be higher to get published by a big publishing house the over all depth, readability, quality of writing and ideas of books was in fact more than it is now. 

There will always be other factors in poeples behaviour. But as authors we do not need to incurage that behviour. 



Terry D said:


> Which is exactly why writers _should_ write about controversial topics, isn't it? Hiding away violence, racism, sexism, or any other of society's ills isn't going to make them go away.
> 
> But I'm still waiting to hear who should determine what topics are not fit for me to write about. I'm still waiting to find out how this idea of authorial responsibility would be enforced. But I don't expect to get an answer, and I don't really need one. You see, the idea of authorial responsibility and accountability already exists. Authors determine what topics are fit for them to write about, and readers, by either reading or ignoring our work, provide the enforcement.
> 
> For anyone other than my own conscience, or my readers, to try and tell me what is and is not appropriate for me to write about is nothing less than attempted censorship. As an individual, I'd like to see the topic of censorship stricken from all discussions, but, as a writer, I say, "Bring it on." Because only by dragging the nastiest, reeking, slimy ideas out into the light will they ever be eradicated. If writers have a responsibility to 'society' it is this more than anything else; to expose what we feel is wrong, through our writing. Even those of us who write primarily to entertain cannot help but expose our values to our readers. It is for our readers then, to decide if they share our values, or reject them.
> 
> I call bullshit on anyone who tries to tell me there is some undefined 'higher standard' to which I must conform.



As I said above, the wrong end of the stick has been taken here. I have never said that you CAN"T talk about such subjects, just that when you do you have to be responsable about how you show them. Can we agree that this is an ok limitation one your right to write whatever you want? 



Annoying kid said:


> If my MC isn't allowed to take a bump, isn't allowed to get hurt cos too violent and can at most be mildly injured if that, and can't be seen to fight much if at all, because that's violent and triggering, then I guess all she can do is...protest the enemy into submission? Make a sign out of cardboard, wave it around scream at people until they change.
> 
> Whoa, now I'm really on the edge of my seat! =;



Have you ever read Three Men In A Boat by Jerome K. Jerome? Please do. It is memorizing, I read the whole thing in one sitting and do you know what happens? Nothing. It is a book about three men and one dog in a boat for a summer boating holliday. No-one dies, no-one fights and nothing live changing happens to the characters yet I could not take my eyes from the page. 

What makes a story gripping has little to do with what a character can do or goes through, but rather how the events are shown to the reader. 



Job said:


> I tell you what, I know a lot of people who play violent video games. I don't know one violent criminal.
> 
> I know a lot of people who read, too. Still, not one violent criminal.
> 
> It really doesn't seem to matter how many times the censorship argument is won. There's always someone out there waiting to bring it up again. There's always someone who wants to control what other people write, read, and think. And it's always wrapped up in some ideology of what's "best" for all of us, and it always looks ridiculous decades later.



This isn't a censorship agument. It is a disscussion on authors shown certain socially unaceptbale events and actions in a way that they do not promot those actions. 




Kyle R said:


> Are _some_ readers gullible? Most certainly. Are _most_ readers gullible? I doubt it, but that's just my opinion.
> 
> When I think of a "reader", I'm thinking of someone who reads at least a book a month. Even better: a book a week, or more. That's a very narrow percentage of the general public.
> 
> From what I've seen, the more experienced a reader is, the pickier and more opinionated they tend to get about what they read. Which is pretty much the opposite of reader gullibility.



HA!!! I would say that only about 3% of the readers that I talk to actually think about and pick books they read. The rest of the time they will read ANYTHING! of any genre and of any subject without the least bit of thought. Not only that they will finish a book even if they don't like it because there is great shame in saying that you didn't like and didn't finish something. 



Jack of all trades said:


> But adults are not the only readers. I don't have the statistics at hand, but I'd guess kids are a about half the readers. What about them? How gullible are they? I still say it depends on age and maturity.
> 
> For that matter, not all adults are mature. And some are pretty gullible. Even college educated ones. Sometimes, the more educated, the more gullible. My experience. Yours may differ.



I lot of adults never get past age 10. Or worse age 16.


----------



## JustRob

Jack of all trades said:


> Are you suggesting that he should NOT have acted so responsibly? That he should have forseen the potential problem and still allowed children to jump out their windows?



No.



The Fantastical said:


> What J.M. Barrie did was actually a very good example of an author showing some responsability in his write. Did it ruin the story? Not in the least, yet there in just one added line, you have a way to avoid any actions that could have been taken by readers.



That was my point, that with a little thought we can often avoid the problems. In fact the idea of the fairy dust actually added something to the story and it's an idea that has endured. I even made it a central motif of my novel, the search for fairy dust, or at least an undefined factor that made what seemed impossible possible. This was referred to in the story as fairy dust for want of a term, being one that most readers would understand, thanks to Barrie.

When I started writing I read more books on the psychology of reading than on the techniques used in writing. (Okay, so maybe it shows.) The key thing is that a writer should try to see the many ways that readers may interpret what he has written. That is why I am often a bit perverse in my critiques here, because a writer may not be giving that enough thought. I'm not sure that it was Barrie who spotted the implications of what he wrote originally; I think it may have been a beta reader who caused him to make that addition later. Well, I have to get a plug in for the importance of beta readers in this context, don't I? Fantasy writers can easily lose sight of the consequences of their imagery in the real world and someone needs to bring them down to earth (which seems a very appropriate idiom to use in the context of flying out of windows). Please form an orderly queue in the beta reading forum for health and safety checks on your work.


----------



## Terry D

The Fantastical said:


> THAT is the authors responsability. IF and WHEN deltict subjects come up, it is an authors reponsability to show that there are consaquinces, un-happy consaquinces to certain behaviours, to show that such actions are not ok.
> 
> I am not for censorship, never have been and depending on the cercumstances probably never will be, HOWEVER I am also for authors being responsable for what they put out there and how they show socially unaceptial behaviours.






> As I said above, the wrong end of the stick has been taken here. I have never said that you CAN"T talk about such subjects, just that when you do you have to be responsable about how you show them. Can we agree that this is an ok limitation one your right to write whatever you want?



No, I cannot agree that it is all right for anyone to tell me how approach a given subject. This whole idea of "socially unacceptable behaviors" is bogus from the get-go. Who is to decide what those behaviors are? Me? You? I don't think so. Three hundred years ago it was 'socially acceptable' to hang witches in public. Two hundred years ago it was 'socially acceptable' to own other human beings. Fifty years ago it was socially acceptable to drive an ice pick into the brain of a defiant child, or a person suffering from depression. Twenty years ago it was 'socially acceptable' to discriminate against gays.  

If you don't like what I write, don't read it. But don't try and tell me I have to write it in a way you find 'acceptable'.

And consequences? To try a say there are always negative consequences to bad behavior, is to write fairy tales. In our society, bad behavior is often rewarded rather than punished.


----------



## Annoying kid

> Have you ever read Three Men In A Boat by Jerome K. Jerome? Please do. It is memorizing, I read the whole thing in one sitting and do you know what happens? Nothing. It is a book about three men and one dog in a boat for a summer boating holliday. No-one dies, no-one fights and nothing live changing happens to the characters yet I could not take my eyes from the page.
> 
> What makes a story gripping has little to do with what a character can do or goes through, but rather how the events are shown to the reader.



That's your taste not mine. To those of us who like action, a hero sitting around and doing nothing is unacceptable. You don't compare Lucky Star to Die Hard. 

You're arguing for black and white morality. How about readers enjoy the work without the writer preaching at them all the time. The best antagonists and villains are relatable. And make the reader think maybe they're right in principle. Thats what I'd rather aim for. Instead of saying Hero right, Villain wrong. Or portraying a purehearted Mary Sue who never gets hurt.


----------



## Jack of all trades

JustRob said:


> No.
> 
> 
> 
> That was my point, that with a little thought we can often avoid the problems. In fact the idea of the fairy dust actually added something to the story and it's an idea that has endured. I even made it a central motif of my novel, the search for fairy dust, or at least an undefined factor that made what seemed impossible possible. This was referred to in the story as fairy dust for want of a term, being one that most readers would understand, thanks to Barrie.
> 
> When I started writing I read more books on the psychology of reading than on the techniques used in writing. (Okay, so maybe it shows.) The key thing is that a writer should try to see the many ways that readers may interpret what he has written. That is why I am often a bit perverse in my critiques here, because a writer may not be giving that enough thought. I'm not sure that it was Barrie who spotted the implications of what he wrote originally; I think it may have been a beta reader who caused him to make that addition later. Well, I have to get a plug in for the importance of beta readers in this context, don't I? Fantasy writers can easily lose sight of the consequences of their imagery in the real world and someone needs to bring them down to earth (which seems a very appropriate idiom to use in the context of flying out of windows). Please form an orderly queue in the beta reading forum for health and safety checks on your work.



That is the point originally made -- authors can/should take responsibility for for what readers might be led to imitate and make the small tweaks to prevent harm. I think we're on the same side of this issue.


----------



## Jack of all trades

Kevin said:


> Society's line moves. Back in my day we used to burn witches. They were evil, and deserved it, you know. Everyone knew, and it was even in the book somewhere, that they shouldn't be allowed. There were a lot of things that everyone knew were just wrong that are now okay. We all knew it. And now we don't (because those wrong things are now right). I would definitely take it a step further and have the bad people arrested. Some would just publically shame them but I don't think that goes far enough. We have a responsibility. The mere presence of those people walking around is an endorsement. It says that we think they're okay--okay enough to say or do whatever it is they feel like even though everyone can see it's wrong and that makes it not wrong. Next thing you know it's right. Like witches.



Back in your day they burned witches? Really? 

If moving from burning witches to not is good, even though it was change, why are other changes dismissed out of hand? 

Keep in mind we are talking about self imposed limits. What bad thing would happen if violence was scaled back in books. Not eliminated, but scaled back.


----------



## Annoying kid

Jack of all trades said:


> That is the point originally made -- authors can/should take responsibility for for what readers might be led to imitate and make the small tweaks to prevent harm. I think we're on the same side of this issue.



Just what every fiction needs. Some nag coming on screen or on the page chastising the hero for doing something dangerous because someone might imitate it. :ChainGunSmiley:


----------



## JustRob

Annoying kid said:


> Just what every fiction needs. Some nag coming on screen or on the page chastising the hero for doing something dangerous because someone might imitate it.



I always thought it a nice touch in that old Batman TV series starring Adam West that he would never park the Batmobile next to a fire hydrant no matter how urgent the need. It does demonstrate what you're saying though. There are limits.


----------



## Kyle R

The Fantastical said:


> HA!!! I would say that only about 3% of the readers that I talk to actually think about and pick books they read. The rest of the time they will read ANYTHING! of any genre and of any subject without the least bit of thought.


Perhaps you and I associate with different kinds of readers.

I recommend _Goodreads_. A great community of readers. :encouragement:


----------



## Job

The Fantastical said:


> This isn't a censorship agument. It is a disscussion on authors shown certain socially unaceptbale events and actions in a way that they do not promot those actions.



The point is you don't have a monopoly on what socially unacceptable events are.  No one does.  A writer, imo, should concentrate on telling an entertaining story.  The moment a writer begins to put message before story, story suffers.  Again, my opinion.

I believe that storytelling is an art form, and I think that art thrives when many voices work independently to create their own narratives.  I think the art suffers when many voices feel beholden to whatever propaganda and ideological fad is prominent at the time.  You say this isn't about censorship, but it is most certainly about pressuring authors to fall into line with a particular worldview.  Because authors who do not are judged, and in this day and age, that judgment can turn wicked fast.  I've seen it happen.

Art reflects what's happening in the world as much as it theoretically changes what's happening in the world.  Taken as a whole, future generations may be able to glimpse some correlation and causation to events, but in the microcosm of the moment, there's nothing but sheer conjecture to rely on.


----------



## Annoying kid

JustRob said:


> I always thought it a nice touch in that old Batman TV series starring Adam West that he would never park the Batmobile next to a fire hydrant no matter how urgent the need. It does demonstrate what you're saying though. There are limits.



The silver age, back when comics were at their suckiest because of regulation.  

We're still arguing this in 2017 when the simpsons parodied it in like 1992.
<br>[video=youtube;eA-Gsffm69E]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA-Gsffm69E[/video]


----------



## Terry D

Jack of all trades said:


> Keep in mind we are talking about self imposed limits. What bad thing would happen if violence was scaled back in books. Not eliminated, but scaled back.



As long as those limits fit within someone else's definition of societal norms? As I stated before, all stories and books are the result of limits imposed by the writers themselves. Every writer self-censors to one degree or another. The boundaries are, and should be, individual to the writer.


----------



## ppsage

My personal opinion, and I don't count myself an author so probably not valid, is that persons who do have an initial and primary responsibility to get the spelling right, especially in titles.


----------



## Phil Istine

Kevin said:


> "Self-censorship "- I have to disagree. It is obvious to everyone that self-censorship hasn't worked. As competent writers I think there should be some sort of written parameters. We need a list, or a code. Due to the creative nature of writing I think it would need something, like a board, or a committee  to review each book (and the author) on a personalized, case by case, basis. We could call it the CCC, Competent Codifying Commitee, or... how about something a little more fun? How about The Authoritarians? A little play on 'author', eh? No? Okay...got it..."The Parameteers". They could even wear little ear-hats as if to show that they're listening.



"Authoritarians."  I love that


----------



## Jack of all trades

Terry D said:


> As long as those limits fit within someone else's definition of societal norms? As I stated before, all stories and books are the result of limits imposed by the writers themselves. Every writer self-censors to one degree or another. The boundaries are, and should be, individual to the writer.



The original post was about an author setting limits, not some external group. The question, if I recall, is do you believe you should set some limits and take responsibility for fallout. Like the book, Rage, which has been mentioned earlier.

Do you think it was a good idea to pull Rage?


----------



## Terry D

Jack of all trades said:


> The original post was about an author setting limits, not some external group. The question, if I recall, is do you believe you should set some limits and take responsibility for fallout. Like the book, Rage, which has been mentioned earlier.
> 
> Do you think it was a good idea to pull Rage?



Here's the OP: 





> When does a writer become socially responsible for what they put out into the world? Are they responsible? I think that they are.




Nothing there about the author setting limits. It's about the author being responsible for their writing, and my original question still holds; Responsible to whom? The problem in this question is the use of "socially responsible", which implies that the author is responsible to some outside entity rather than to him/her self. I say no.

If King believed that Rage was being used as an excuse for dangerous behavior, then I would support his decision to pull it. Hell, I'd support his decision to pull it if he decided he didn't like the typeface it was printed in. It is, after all, his work. His choice was neither good or bad, it was simply his choice. But, in the context of this discussion, the real question is; Do I believe Rage -- and by extension, King -- was responsible for the copy-cat acts? *I do not*. No form of media makes people behave in ways that they would not ordinarily behave.


----------



## Annoying kid

Or one kid said that as a sensationalized excuse and the others, who tend to study other shootings, copied the same excuse. There has been many shootings since then because the issue wasn't one book. What does need regulating is the ease at which guns can be obtained in America and the rampant, especially toxic bullying in American High Schools, as well as improvements in the overstretched mental health system. Putting it on a book just masks the real issues that America doesn't want to confront. Because those are hard and listening to an insane kid and trusting his word that a book influenced him and pulling it is easy. Stephen King can maybe afford to have his book pulled. He's got many others. But other writers who arent wealthy and who need those sales to justify the time spent writing, can't afford to have their book pulled everytime some crazy kid namedrops it to justify their insane rage and inability to tell fact from fiction.  Millions enjoyed that book without killing people in response because they dont have a dam of pathological, sociopathic rage and hatred waiting for any provocation to burst it.  So no, I do not think its a good idea to pull Rage.


----------



## escorial

The responsibility in words is not the same as deeds..with words you can say an do as you want without it..in actions an deeds that's something else...a word,a story the book is just a collection of words..you could start a religion an put into words the does an don't of your actions...the responsibility of words belongs to each of us and not the author..


----------



## Bayview

Jack of all trades said:


> Balderdash!
> 
> All readers are people. And since some people are readers, it stands to reason that some readers are gullible.
> 
> And the younger the reader, chronologically or mentally, the more gullible.



Not to speak to the larger theory, but just the logic of this argument - it doesn't work.

I'm assuming you meant "some people are gullible" in the second line, rather than "are readers", because otherwise there's no connection to gullibility at all, but even so...

All R are P;
Some P are G;
Therefore some R are G

doesn't work.

Like:

All cats are mammals;
Some mammals are herbivores;
Therefore some cats are herbivores.

Nope. Bad logic.

The first two lines don't allow us to say much of anything conclusive about whether Readers are Gullible _or_ about whether Cats are Herbivores.

The overall argument, I don't know. But I love logic puzzles! (Ask me how I scored on the LSATs!)


----------



## Jack of all trades

Well I don't see the reason for the outrage. Authors choosing to be responsible seems like a good idea to me. And the fear of external censorship seems too unlikely to get all riled about.

Have a good rest of the day, guys!


----------



## Annoying kid

Jack of all trades said:


> Well I don't see the reason for the outrage. Authors choosing to be responsible seems like a good idea to me. And the fear of external censorship seems too unlikely to get all riled about.
> 
> Have a good rest of the day, guys!



If they can ban over the counter ephedrine because some idiot kid took some 30 before a game and died and if men can be seized off the streets in Sweden and have steroid tests forced on them for looking muscular than the possibility of external censorship of anything is very much real and the fear very much founded. Nor does it just happen. It happens incrementally.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Bayview said:


> I feel like we might need some more concrete examples.
> 
> Fantastical, can you give some examples of things you wanted to write but didn't write because it was important for you to be socially responsible?
> 
> 
> (in other words, is this a real thing? Are there authors out there who really WANT to write something that's contrary to their value systems? Or is this just a case of authors writing things that are contrary to YOUR value system, and you want them to stop because you think your values are better than theirs?)



To me, this is a constant tension. Perhaps because I read a lot of Y/A. In my WIP, she asks him a question that makes him really mad, and he shakes her shoulders "violently". As far as I can tell, that's no problem so far. The problem is, the book just keeps going and no mention is made of that. She doesn't complain. The story is placed in the 17th century, and I'm guessing that's normal. But it kind of says its okay for a man to violently shake a woman's shoulders (it's not) and for her not to object (also not okay).

Or, how did you want me to handle that my two main characters stop someone from shooting up their school because _they have guns in school_. Or, not in my book, the main character shoots heroin to see what it's like.


----------



## EmmaSohan

The Fantastical said:


> ... HOWEVER I also strongly believe that when authors write about these subjects that they have a RESPONSIBILITY to not glorify or portray those charatistics or behaviours in a way that it makes them seem ok in any way, atrractive in any way, or makes a person whan to emulate those characistics to be more like their favorite character....


Often there's a conflict between telling a good story and avoiding an irresponsible message. Because I want people to read -- for example so that they will read my responsible messages -- one of my goals is to tell a story they will enjoy. Also, their implicit contract with me is that they want a good story, not a responsible message. Part of making this a better world is trying to honor that contract.

So, what I want to say is that 95% of the time I add fairy dust to my stories so that the message is not irresponsible. But not 100%, and I feel like I'm doing the right thing to sometimes decide for the good story. I see other authors doing the same -- trying to be responsible but also try to tell a good story.


----------



## Winston

Too many people worry about hurting other's feelings.  Perhaps more attention should be paid to people who actually, physically, hurt people.  
With very few exceptions, all censorship is bad for mankind.  But self-censorship is the worst. 
I'm kinda glad that Galileo decided to publish _The Assayer_, and all of his subsequent works.  He did offend quite a few folks.


----------



## Bayview

EmmaSohan said:


> Often there's a conflict between telling a good story and avoiding an irresponsible message. Because I want people to read -- for example so that they will read my responsible messages -- one of my goals is to tell a story they will enjoy. Also, their implicit contract with me is that they want a good story, not a responsible message. Part of making this a better world is trying to honor that contract.
> 
> So, what I want to say is that 95% of the time I add fairy dust to my stories so that the message is not irresponsible. But not 100%, and I feel like I'm doing the right thing to sometimes decide for the good story. I see other authors doing the same -- trying to be responsible but also try to tell a good story.



I was going to respond to your earlier post and ask you why you wanted to write something you don't believe in, but I guess this post answers that question.

But... I'd question whether it's a real reason. That is, I'm not sure it's necessary to make the compromise you feel you have to make.

As a reader, I object STRONGLY to books with alphahole heroes or books in which the author seems to be condoning behaviour I find reprehensible. I don't enjoy those books, I avoid future books by authors who've written that stuff, etc. And I really don't think I'm alone.

I'm not saying you should turn your books into moral treatises. And I'm not saying you should bend your writing to fit someone _else's _moral standards. But for the situation in your example... couldn't it actually add character depth if you included a few lines about the man having to regain the woman's trust after he got physical with her? He reaches for her, she flinches away, he realizes why... not a huge theme of the book, but a little reminder that actions have consequences.

As a writer, I'd be more comfortable with that approach. _As a reader_, I'd be happier with that approach. 

Are you sure your story couldn't be just as good, or even a bit better, if you kept it consistent with your values?


----------



## The Fantastical

Please watch this. Then tell me that how we show certain behaviours in a none responsible way is ok. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3-hOigoxHs


----------



## The Fantastical

Due to some comments made in this thread, I feel the need to say this. Sorry not sorry if it offends. 

Some actions are WRONG. Hitting a girl, Hitting anyone in an abusive way, is wrong, killing people is wrong, forcing yourself on another person is wrong, forcing another person to do something they don't want to do is wrong, bullying, stalking, making stereotypical comments to or about a person or group of people is wrong, making misogynistic comments, sexist comments is wrong, discriminating against a person or peoples is wrong and the list goes on. These actions are wrong, end of, finish. 

There can be no argument about if these things are wrong or not. Most of the above listed are so wrong that you will end up in jail if you are caught doing them. It has been agreed on by most governments and law making bodies that the above and more are wrong, they are socially unacceptable behaviours and (I will say it once again) wrong. 

I will not in any way allow this to go down the road of "well what really is wrong?" because that says that nothing is actually wrong with doing the above and other unlisted things that are wrong. Which is so wrong I do not even have the words to say how wrong that is. Pushing that idea is what has lead to some of the most tragic events in history and I won't stand by and say nothing as people mention it here. OK? 

NOW! 

Once again I will say this. Write what you will, but please be aware of the effects your writing has on the world. You say what lasting effect can a book have? I have first-hand experience of what power books can have. Especially long series when you read twelve or so books at once. I have picked up accents, words, phrase, swear words, idioms, grammar and even in once case gestures from long series that I was deeply involved in. Books have changed my mind about topics, actions, and even slavery (it was always bad but one book made me fully understand HOW bad and just what freedom actually meant). Books change people, books have an affect and effect people. They add to them or take away in some cases. 

You are responsible for what words, what ideas, and the WAY you approach those words and ideas as you are responsible for what you say. You are responsible in real life because sure as gold you say sorry if you offend your boss right? Wife? Child? Loved one? Aunt? Uncle? Best Freind? Girlfriend? I am sure you do because you were responsible for the effect those words had. 

Like it, don't like it, but sadly just because you are putting those words down in a book doesn't mean that you are suddenly not responsible anymore. 

Now I am done. Take what you will from this.


----------



## Jack of all trades

Annoying kid said:


> If they can ban over the counter ephedrine because some idiot kid took some 30 before a game and died and if men can be seized off the streets in Sweden and have steroid tests forced on them for looking muscular than the possibility of external censorship of anything is very much real and the fear very much founded. Nor does it just happen. It happens incrementally.



One is literary (what the OP is discussing), the other is real life (your examples). Two totally separate things. The things you mention can happen anyway simply because there are laws.

Are you proposing that laws should be eliminated as well?

Look, guys. Societies have rules. Some are written down and some aren't. This forum has rules. All humans have to cope with rules.

I think you all are going a little over the top with this. This is a discussion. One that you are trying to shut down. THAT is a form of censorship.

You see, censorship exists, like it or not. Generally, those who agree with the collective mind are happy and those who disagree are unhappy.


----------



## Jack of all trades

Winston said:


> Too many people worry about hurting other's feelings.  Perhaps more attention should be paid to people who actually, physically, hurt people.
> With very few exceptions, all censorship is bad for mankind.  But self-censorship is the worst.
> I'm kinda glad that Galileo decided to publish _The Assayer_, and all of his subsequent works.  He did offend quite a few folks.



Please explain.

How is self censorship the worst kind of censorship?

And why is verbal or psychological abuse not important enough to be stopped? Do you not believe it does damage?


----------



## Jack of all trades

> Are you sure your story couldn't be just as good, or even a bit better, if you kept it consistent with your values?



The thing is, they may be keeping consistent with their values. I think this statement shows an assumption that we all, pretty much, have similar values. Unfortunately, that is often not the case. The person who believes shoplifting is OK, as long as he/she is not caught. The individual who parks in a handicapped spot "just for a few minutes", and thinks that's fine. These examples are law related, not literary, but I think they show my point best.


----------



## Jack of all trades

Bayview said:


> Not to speak to the larger theory, but just the logic of this argument - it doesn't work.
> 
> I'm assuming you meant "some people are gullible" in the second line, rather than "are readers", because otherwise there's no connection to gullibility at all, but even so...
> 
> All R are P;
> Some P are G;
> Therefore some R are G
> 
> doesn't work.
> 
> Like:
> 
> All cats are mammals;
> Some mammals are herbivores;
> Therefore some cats are herbivores.
> 
> Nope. Bad logic.
> 
> The first two lines don't allow us to say much of anything conclusive about whether Readers are Gullible _or_ about whether Cats are Herbivores.
> 
> The overall argument, I don't know. But I love logic puzzles! (Ask me how I scored on the LSATs!)



There is a difference between what I said, or meant to say, and what you said.

It would be more acurate for me to say "all humans are gullible" as the opening of the argument. There are degrees, but no one goes through life without being duped, used, conned, or whatever word you prefer. 

The only thing I know about cats is that some actually like water, contrary to the standard belief.


----------



## Deleted member 56686

Of course certain things are morally reprehensible such as murder, rape, etc.

But are you saying we have a responsibility as writers to kick those types of subjects under the rug? I've read the graphic novel Maus by Art Spiegelman. I don't think anyone predisposed to bringing back the Holocaust is going to read books like this or other books graphically describing the Holocaust. People who are predisposed to immoral acts are going to read (assuming they actually read) books that support their world view. I don't expect to be converted into a Nazi if I read Mein Kampf. I'd be more interested of what in Green Acres was going on inside Hitler's head.

Some books are more about fictional journalism in a way. For those that like to read more violent or salacious fare, I'm okay with that. They're not going to suddenly turn into monsters for reading those types of books.

So, no, I don't think writers have a special responsibility to censor their own material. I think people are selling readers short to accuse them of so much gullibility they'll believe anything they read. Those that read a book about pigs flying that advocate pig flying probably felt that way to begin with.

But most people that read about pigs flying aren't going to open a flying school for pigs.


----------



## Annoying kid

Jack of all trades said:


> One is literary (what the OP is discussing), the other is real life (your examples). Two totally separate things. The things you mention can happen anyway simply because there are laws.
> 
> Are you proposing that laws should be eliminated as well?
> 
> Look, guys. Societies have rules. Some are written down and some aren't. This forum has rules. All humans have to cope with rules.
> 
> I think you all are going a little over the top with this. This is a discussion. One that you are trying to shut down. THAT is a form of censorship.
> 
> You see, censorship exists, like it or not. Generally, those who agree with the collective mind are happy and those who disagree are unhappy.



"It's literary, not real life". ? I thought your argument was that "Literary" has powerful effects on real life, making the two inseparable? Yes, society has rules, and I'd rather those rules not include censorship or official rating systems of anything not PC or Bechdel unfriendly of whatever, which already exists in Sweden and is a form of incremental regulation. So you better believe I won't give an inch of ground to you, the OP, or anyone who shares that mentality. Not an inch. Because as a graphic novelist, my medium has been through that before with the comics code authority, which was based on _Seduction of the Innocent, book by American "psychiatrist" Fredric Wertham, who proposed _that comic caused juvenile deliquency based on terrible evidence. I'd rather not have my medium reduced to the artistic depth of a puddle again. 

Don't confuse resisting you every step of the way with shutting down the discussion. Laws are made by politicians who gauge the zeitgeist of the people. We are the people.


----------



## bdcharles

Terry D said:


> I'm still waiting to find out how this idea of authorial responsibility would be enforced. But I don't expect to get an answer, and I don't really need one. You see, the idea of authorial responsibility and accountability already exists. Authors determine what topics are fit for them to write about, and readers, by either reading or ignoring our work, provide the enforcement.



Or by harnessing the power of the twitter backlash  Joking aside, the immediacy of reaction that social media provides is a very powerful force. Hell, when even British comedian and presenter John Oliver can influence US policy, you know there's hope for the little man yet.


----------



## Annoying kid

> Some actions are WRONG. Hitting a girl, Hitting anyone in an abusive way, is wrong, killing people is wrong, forcing yourself on another person is wrong, forcing another person to do something they don't want to do is wrong, bullying, stalking, making stereotypical comments to or about a person or group of people is wrong, making misogynistic comments, sexist comments is wrong, discriminating against a person or peoples is wrong and the list goes on. These actions are wrong, end of, finish.
> 
> There can be no argument about if these things are wrong or not.



But there can.

If a villain says if you don't hit a girl we kill a girl. Is it wrong then? 

If killing people is wrong full stop, do you believe the Allies were wrong to resist Nazi Germany in war? 

Writers deal in moral relativism. Moral absolutism belongs to the holy books and kids tales.


----------



## bdcharles

The Fantastical said:


> To be clear, because you guys seem to have gotten the really wrong end of the thought stuck here when I talk of author responsibility I am talking about HOW they portray and represent some social unacceptable behaviours.
> 
> I strongly, violently even believe that the point of fiction, of any fiction, is to talk about and shine light onto ideas, actions and behaviours, both good and bad and discuss their effects on the world and people around us. HOWEVER I also strongly believe that when authors write about these subjects that they have a RESPONSIBILITY to not glorify or portray those charatistics or behaviours in a way that it makes them seem ok in any way, atrractive in any way, or makes a person whan to emulate those characistics to be more like their favorite character.



It is complicated. If a writer writes in a way that glorifies violence they could cause copycatism. They could also be in a fairly unique position of being one of the few authorities that such a person would respond to. That is a significant responsibility that needs deft handling because if you misstep you either lose the reader to a more malevolent influence or nudge them in the wrong direction yourself. But think about it. Are most writers aiming to actually push people over some sort of precipice? Some might write with a view to inciting revolution. Equally some might be writing to give outsiders some sort of touchstone; because that mentality might be something they sympathise with and relate to. If a writer is in a position to positively impact some troubled subset of people, and if to do so they need to write compelling, relatable, influential characters who do bad stuff, what courses of action are available to them? 

I keep coming back to _Rage_, and the character of Charlie Decker. He doesn't do anything too terrible until he puts a bullet in his teachers, so in that respect he is set up fairly sympathetically (though it happens in flashbacks). If he had done something like push a small kid into the road, how would readers feel? I think they would not want him to triumph or indeed spend any time in his fictitious company. And it may be that if there is a reader who has done a similar thing, and can relate, can that reader really be saved? What does it say about the writer that attempts to connect with such a person? It forces us - it certainly forces me - to admit there is a section of society that cannot be saved, that we have to let fall away, and then there are normal, decent people, and between them there is this massive massive grey area.


----------



## Jack of all trades

Having powerful impact on something is different than BEING the something. If that is not understood, then there is no way to continue the discussion.

Demanding acceptance, or at the very least getting the last word, is shutting down discussion. Taking jabs at spelling, etc, is trying to embarrass the person, which is an attempt to shut down the discussion.

Discussion involves exchanges that are respectful. Not exaggerated nonsense.

Now, I fully expect that one of the "I should be allowed to write anything and never be responsible because that's censorship" lot will post something to get the last word.


----------



## Deleted member 56686

Okay, first of all, only a handful of people here on the forum even have the capability of shutting down this discussion. It just so happens that I appear to be one of them.

No, I'm not closing the thread, yet. But because someone may disagree with you doesn't mean he's trying to end the discussion. And as long as the thread stays open, there really is no last word, is there?

So far I've seen several different points of view in this thread and they're all valid in their own way. Belittling somebody, or accusing somebody of belittling another person, if either is going on, isn't exactly what you would call dignified.

Anyhow, like anything else, nobody's mind is going to change. So make your point and agree to disagree. Sound good?


----------



## H.Brown

There will always be censorship no matter what format book, film, music or art but that does not necessarily mean we should sensor the things we create. After studying many different formats and genres and after reading a lot of hard hitting books that deal with rape, racism, belittlement of both men and women, Slavery, Hitler's time in power and the people that suffered under that regime, self abuse and abuse done to small children in different ways and the effect said abuse has had on them. I can say that I am a more well rounded person for living those experiences through those writer's words. I do not believe that a reader must sensor their own work as then the reader loses out. No matter the subject a reader must have the mentality that what they are reading are just a snapshot of the problem that is being exposed. We must be mature enough to be able to read these words and realise that this is or was someone's life and that they wished to tell their story for a reason. Most often that reason is to educate others and as that famous saying goes: those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it... this could be applied to anything so why should we censor our writing when at times we need to read the lesson that is being taught? 

This brings to mind the argument of violent video games teach children to be violent. I have read all these different books about violent and chaotic times however I have never thought that I should become the violence I have read about, that I should go hurt others, or that racism is right, etc.. the same as when I play video games I don't automatically think ohh I like killing people maybe I should go and do this in real life. We have to remember that we are our own people and we can make our own decisions and choices. So in a nutshell I don't think our works should be censored as if someone doesn't want to read our words then they can always put the book down.


----------



## The Fantastical

Once again I am going say this. *I am not saying that you should not write about these subjects. All I am saying is that when you write about them, please do so in a mindful and responsable manner! *


----------



## Terry D

The Fantastical said:


> Due to some comments made in this thread, I feel the need to say this. Sorry not sorry if it offends.
> 
> Some actions are WRONG. Hitting a girl, Hitting anyone in an abusive way, is wrong, killing people is wrong, forcing yourself on another person is wrong, forcing another person to do something they don't want to do is wrong, bullying, stalking, making stereotypical comments to or about a person or group of people is wrong, making misogynistic comments, sexist comments is wrong, discriminating against a person or peoples is wrong and the list goes on. These actions are wrong, end of, finish.
> 
> There can be no argument about if these things are wrong or not. Most of the above listed are so wrong that you will end up in jail if you are caught doing them. It has been agreed on by most governments and law making bodies that the above and more are wrong, they are socially unacceptable behaviours and (I will say it once again) wrong.
> 
> I will not in any way allow this to go down the road of "well what really is wrong?" because that says that nothing is actually wrong with doing the above and other unlisted things that are wrong. Which is so wrong I do not even have the words to say how wrong that is. Pushing that idea is what has lead to some of the most tragic events in history and I won't stand by and say nothing as people mention it here. OK?
> 
> NOW!
> 
> Once again I will say this. Write what you will, but please be aware of the effects your writing has on the world. You say what lasting effect can a book have? I have first-hand experience of what power books can have. Especially long series when you read twelve or so books at once. I have picked up accents, words, phrase, swear words, idioms, grammar and even in once case gestures from long series that I was deeply involved in. Books have changed my mind about topics, actions, and even slavery (it was always bad but one book made me fully understand HOW bad and just what freedom actually meant). Books change people, books have an affect and effect people. They add to them or take away in some cases.
> 
> You are responsible for what words, what ideas, and the WAY you approach those words and ideas as you are responsible for what you say. You are responsible in real life because sure as gold you say sorry if you offend your boss right? Wife? Child? Loved one? Aunt? Uncle? Best Freind? Girlfriend? I am sure you do because you were responsible for the effect those words had.
> 
> Like it, don't like it, but sadly just because you are putting those words down in a book doesn't mean that you are suddenly not responsible anymore.
> 
> Now I am done. Take what you will from this.



What I take from this is that you have changed your opinion from the opening post until now. In the beginning you seemed to say that there are things, or approaches, a writer should not write about. But now you are saying write what you wish, but be aware of the effect your words can have. I don't think anyone has ever disagreed with the idea of an author's ownership of his/her words. I know I haven't. In fact that's been my point all along, that writers make the choices they are comfortable with, and those choices should be theirs alone, influenced only so far as they choose to be influenced by whatever standards 'society' has in place at that time.

I am still confused by what you expect writers to do in regard to your list of absolute wrongs; are we to avoid those topics? Never have any of our characters do any of those things? I'm sure the easy answer to my question is that we should not 'promote', or 'glorify' such actions, but then we get into the discussion of what constitutes promotion and glorification.

Let's get specific here for a minute. One of my books has, as part of its background, the world of high-stakes dog-fighting. There are several depictions of dog fights in the book as well as other forms of animal cruelty. I think most of us would agree that abusing animals for entertainment is wrong, but I made no blatant judgment about it in the book, I simply narrated the actions. Should I have not written those scenes even though they were intrinsic to my story? Was I being socially irresponsible? I'm really interested in your opinion.


----------



## H.Brown

The Fantastical said:


> Once again I am going say this. *I am not saying that you should not write about these subjects. All I am saying is that when you write about them, please do so in a mindful and responsable manner! *



I should have thought that any writer would do so when writing about such touching and exposing topics TF and  nobody has debated that fact.


----------



## Kevin

This whole discussion makes me think of Melissa Click. 
I watched the YouTube video ( above) ( and only to a point and then got bored). So I've decided that there's no such thing as nerds. I'm no longer going to take advantage of drunk cheerleaders; I'm no longer going to allow them to take advantage of me ( oh..she was wide awake when she..unmentionabled-him. Yes, that was a douchie thing, posing in photos with her, but not rape.
 And Molly gave over her panties of a free will. 
She was sort of a nerd also. 
The extreme awkwardness of boys that are...struggle to connect with females can be funny- I know, I was one- no, I didn't do anything as comical-too bad. 

Revenge of the nerds-the whole thing is about the downtrodden being picked on and then turning the tables. Yes, what's-his name Carradine's character was stalking. I saw the movie and spying on naked girls as a youngster was sort of an idea that sounds okay, but not really seriously deserving of any effort- you see, males often wish to view the naked female form-see playboy magazine- never really knew anyone that actually did the peeping tom- except one guy who was 14. He was never a nerd and had no troubles in relationships., so I guess it's not relevant. 

Big Bang- this again is/was about pre-sexual relationship 'boys' that struggle in relationships, often because they display ( or maybe always) odd behaviors or extreme interests in things that generally females are not interested in. The show is a comedy, so extremes are to be expected. That's called humor.

As with revenge of the nerds I've often found that the stereotype of smart equaling difficulty with human interaction to be not necessarily true. I've also found that those who are interactively challenged sometimes display anti-social behaviors. For instance, they might be booger eaters who talk over others-I give this example because it's from real life as of yesterday. My son's girlfriend told us she was interviewing possible roommates, and... okay, never mind , but again the whole point of all of those are to poke fun in a fun way-not mean- because all of us ( presumed) have seen stereotypes in real life which are oversimplifications but can be funny. 

The camera-bot looking up Penny's skirt is meant to be an example of innapropriate behavior, pointing out how ridiculous such behavior is. The maker of the video would probably faint or die if he ( again, assumed-sorry) were to ever watch Benny Hill, or Harpo Marx which leads me to conclude that a lack humor is a consistent theme. Again-Melissa Click, agenda-chick (ooh, sorry- 'female'...person of indeterminate identity, human being, probable earth life-form, being, entity? shit..sorry again. Please tell me what do I..? It? Oh, terribly sorry, forgive me..._Them_ *whew*). You see, I am making fun here because I find this extreme and stereotypical. I'm sure you have other interests as well and are not so simple.


----------



## The Fantastical

Kevin said:


> This whole discussion makes me think of Melissa Click.
> I watched the YouTube video ( above) ( and only to a point and then got bored). So I've decided that there's no such thing as nerds. I'm no longer going to take advantage of drunk cheerleaders; I'm no longer going to allow them to take advantage of me ( oh..she was wide awake when she..unmentionabled-him. Yes, that was a douchie thing, posing in photos with her, but not rape.
> And Molly gave over her panties of a free will.
> She was sort of a nerd also.
> The extreme awkwardness of boys that are...struggle to connect with females can be funny- I know, I was one- no, I didn't do anything as comical-too bad.
> 
> Revenge of the nerds-the whole thing is about the downtrodden being picked on and then turning the tables. Yes, what's-his name Carradine's character was stalking. I saw the movie and spying on naked girls as a youngster was sort of an idea that sounds okay, but not really seriously deserving of any effort- you see, males often wish to view the naked female form-see playboy magazine- never really knew anyone that actually did the peeping tom- except one guy who was 14. He was never a nerd and had no troubles in relationships., so I guess it's not relevant.
> 
> Big Bang- this again is/was about pre-sexual relationship 'boys' that struggle in relationships, often because they display ( or maybe always) odd behaviors or extreme interests in things that generally females are not interested in. The show is a comedy, so extremes are to be expected. That's called humor.
> 
> As with revenge of the nerds I've often found that the stereotype of smart equaling difficulty with human interaction to be not necessarily true. I've also found that those who are interactively challenged sometimes display anti-social behaviors. For instance, they might be booger eaters who talk over others-I give this example because it's from real life as of yesterday. My son's girlfriend told us she was interviewing possible roommates, and... okay, never mind , but again the whole point of all of those are to poke fun in a fun way-not mean- because all of us ( presumed) have seen stereotypes in real life which are oversimplifications but can be funny.
> 
> The camera-bot looking up Penny's skirt is meant to be an example of innapropriate behavior, pointing out how ridiculous such behavior is. The maker of the video would probably faint or die if he ( again, assumed-sorry) were to ever watch Benny Hill, or Harpo Marx which leads me to conclude that a lack humor is a consistent theme. Again-Melissa Click, agenda-chick (ooh, sorry- 'female'...person of indeterminate identity, human being, probable earth life-form, being, entity? shit..sorry again. Please tell me what do I..? It? Oh, terribly sorry, forgive me..._Them_ *whew*). You see, I am making fun here because I find this extreme and stereotypical. I'm sure you have other interests as well and are not so simple.



Then you entirely missed the point of the video. Such behaviour is being totted as ok by making it funny. Just because something makes you laugh does not make what is happening ok. Ok? This isn't about a lack of humour, the person who made the video must have seen and re-watched those shows and movies hundreds of times. However the more the watched the more they became aware of what the humour (that logically they may have found appealing enough to watch those types of shows enough to notice what they were showing) was hiding. 

So again. You entirely missed the point of the video. Such behaviour is being totted as ok by making it funny. Just because something makes you laugh does not make what is happening ok.


----------



## The Fantastical

Terry D said:


> What I take from this is that you have changed your opinion from the opening post until now. In the beginning you seemed to say that there are things, or approaches, a writer should not write about. But now you are saying write what you wish, but be aware of the effect your words can have. I don't think anyone has ever disagreed with the idea of an author's ownership of his/her words. I know I haven't. In fact that's been my point all along, that writers make the choices they are comfortable with, and those choices should be theirs alone, influenced only so far as they choose to be influenced by whatever standards 'society' has in place at that time.
> 
> I am still confused by what you expect writers to do in regard to your list of absolute wrongs; are we to avoid those topics? Never have any of our characters do any of those things? I'm sure the easy answer to my question is that we should not 'promote', or 'glorify' such actions, but then we get into the discussion of what constitutes promotion and glorification.




No..... I have been saying from the start that authors needed to be responsible for what they write. What I have said hasn't changed a bit. All that has happened is you have stopped replacing "responsible" with "can't" or "censorship". 

The lack of understanding here has not been on my side so please don't pass the buck and no it has not "been your point all along". 

No don't avoid them. WRITE RESPONSIBLY!!!  Ok because there seems to be a lack of understanding here is the definition of "responsibly" - 

*responsibly

rɪˈspɒnsəbli

adverb

1.
in a sensible or trustworthy manner.
"*_*companies*_* should act responsibly when it comes to virus alerts"

2.
in a way that relates to duty or responsibility.
"the author wrote about that the subject of suicide in a responsible manner"


*Are we clear now as to the meaning of what I am saying? If and when you wish to bring up a subject that is delicate then please write about it in a manner that is socially and morally responsible. AKA please do not promote or glamorise wrong behaviours. (This is not an opening for a philosophical discussion about WHAT IS WRONG)


> Let's get specific here for a minute. One of my books has, as part of its background, the world of high-stakes dog-fighting. There are several depictions of dog fights in the book as well as other forms of animal cruelty. I think most of us would agree that abusing animals for entertainment is wrong, but I made no blatant judgment about it in the book, I simply narrated the actions. Should I have not written those scenes even though they were intrinsic to my story? Was I being socially irresponsible? I'm really interested in your opinion.



Well.... I would say that you were irresponsible. Now to be clear, you do not need to give a long speech or preach to your readers but you can still use language to show that this is not an ok event, the dog -fights are horrid and the all animal abuse it morally wrong. Just by adding in a word here and a word there, changing the phrasing and tone of a discription you can give a reader a subtle inpression of disgust that does not in anyway get in the way of your story. Or would that be to much trouble?


----------



## Kyle R

Kevin said:


> The show is a comedy, so extremes are to be expected. That's called humor.


Agreed.

That video is psychoanalyzing the show as if it were real life—except _The Big Bang Theory_ uses satire and exaggeration for comedic effect. Any "adorkable misogony" that the narrator thinks he's _discovered_ is, to me, meant to be quite _obvious_ to the viewer—there's nothing hidden or subtle about it.

It's part of the handshake between any sitcom writer and the audience: "These are exaggerated characters. They will act inappropriately, make the wrong decisions, and put themselves in awkward situations. And we will laugh at the absurdity of it all."

That kind of relates back to the topic of the thread—even in fiction, I believe it's fine for authors to portray characters exhibiting negative behaviors, especially if there's a reason for showing these behaviors.

V.E. Schwab's novel _Vicious _is told from two dueling perspectives: one from a violent criminal, the other from another violent criminal. The two characters end up on a warpath toward each other, each committing acts of violence and destruction along the way.

The readers find themselves asking, "Who's the good guy? Who's the bad guy? Aren't they _both_ bad guys?" The question is intentional, designed by Schwab to challenge the concept of morality, to point out that sometimes it's not as simple as black and white—that the moral compass can often be found hidden in the gray area between the two.

Personally, I believe authors should be free to explore these kinds of gray areas, without being warned to "write responsibly, or else."


----------



## The Fantastical

bdcharles said:


> It is complicated. If a writer writes in a way that glorifies violence they could cause copycatism. They could also be in a fairly unique position of being one of the few authorities that such a person would respond to. That is a significant responsibility that needs deft handling because if you misstep you either lose the reader to a more malevolent influence or nudge them in the wrong direction yourself.* But think about it. Are most writers aiming to actually push people over some sort of precipice?* Some might write with a view to inciting revolution. Equally some might be writing to give outsiders some sort of touchstone; because that mentality might be something they sympathise with and relate to. If a writer is in a position to positively impact some troubled subset of people, and if to do so they need to write compelling, relatable, influential characters who do bad stuff, what courses of action are available to them?
> 
> I keep coming back to _Rage_, and the character of Charlie Decker. He doesn't do anything too terrible until he puts a bullet in his teachers, so in that respect he is set up fairly sympathetically (though it happens in flashbacks). If he had done something like push a small kid into the road, how would readers feel? I think they would not want him to triumph or indeed spend any time in his fictitious company. *And it may be that if there is a reader who has done a similar thing, and can relate, can that reader really be saved? What does it say about the writer that attempts to connect with such a person? It forces us - it certainly forces me - to admit there is a section of society that cannot be saved, that we have to let fall away, and then there are normal, decent people, and between **them** there is this **massive massive** grey area.*



I think that most writers don't think about it at all and so may be doing just that unknowingly. Thus the reason for this thread, to call to attention the power that our words have. 

Everyone can be saved, it is just a sad fact that people can't save other people, not in the context of what you are saying. 

Would an author want to connect with those readers? That would depend on how they are connecting with them. If there is responsibility in the writing or not. Having someone say "I understand and there is hope" is very different from saying "I understand and it was ok to do that.". Do you see what I am saying? 

Yes there are good people. 

Don't you know? There is no grey area, only white that has gotten grubby.


----------



## Terry D

The Fantastical said:


> Then you entirely missed the point of the video. Such behaviour is being totted as ok by making it funny. Just because something makes you laugh does not make what is happening ok. Ok? This isn't about a lack of humour, the person who made the video must have seen and re-watched those shows and movies hundreds of times. However the more the watched the more they became aware of what the humour (that logically they may have found appealing enough to watch those types of shows enough to notice what they were showing) was hiding.
> 
> So again. You entirely missed the point of the video. Such behaviour is being totted as ok by making it funny. Just because something makes you laugh does not make what is happening ok.



Every hear of satire? Satire is seldom considered any sort of promotion for behavior and attitude, in fact, usually the opposite. That video is proof that if you look hard enough for something to be offended by, you can almost always find it. 

I also think it's rather funny that you seem so adamant about this topic, yet one of the quotes in your signature is from a crude, misogynistic movie (the Love Guru) and another says. "It's not worth doing something unless you were doing something that someone, somew(h)ere, would much rather you weren't doing." 

Pratchett's quote is precisely about pushing the envelope you seem so concerned with protecting. Don't you see the conflict there? To me it is clear.


----------



## The Fantastical

Some authors seem to believe that they need to deal with relative morality to have a story. But what they are really dealing with is a slippery slope that ends so very often in no morality at all. 

Also you don't need a moral grey area to have a story, you just need a darn good plot.


----------



## Darkkin

The individual is responsible for their actions and words.  How others react is entirely up to the moral fibre of those individuals...Salinger's _Catcher in the Rye_ was not responsible for the shooting of John Lennon.   Mark David Chapman pulled the trigger.  Words as a medium are inert, it is people that assign connotation and meaning.  It is people who precipitate violence, fear mongering, and hate.  The ideas and thoughts still exist.

In a recent interview J.K. Rowling said, 'If we chooses to write about evil, we are obligated to show what evil truly is.'  Conscious writing.  The moral responsibility of the individual is all the responsibility a writer can assume.  Logical parameters cease to be viable beyond that point.  Because let's face it, people can be stupid.  They can be vicious and often doing what is easy comes more readily than doing what is right.

I take right over easy.  Always have and will, but I will not force morality on others or place blame on literature.  If someone doesn't have the gumption to question what they read then that is an issue they need to address.  Faith might be blind, but logic is not and logic looks beyond emotion, moralising, and ineffectual blame.

Just some thoughts.

- D.


----------



## The Fantastical

Terry D said:


> Every hear of satire? Satire is seldom considered any sort of promotion for behavior and attitude, in fact, usually the opposite. That video is proof that if you look hard enough for something to be offended by, you can almost always find it.
> 
> I also think it's rather funny that you seem so adamant about this topic, yet one of the quotes in your signature is from a crude, misogynistic movie (the Love Guru) and another says. "It's not worth doing something unless you were doing something that someone, somew(h)ere, would much rather you weren't doing."
> 
> Pratchett's quote is precisely about pushing the envelope you seem so concerned with protecting. Don't you see the conflict there? To me it is clear.



Ah, lol, here we go. Does this mean that I am right? I always think that when the personal attacks start it must mean that I have actually made my point. 

Yes, I have heard of satire, I write satire, satire by it's very nature is deriding of whatever it is satirizing.

*satire

ˈsatʌɪə

noun

1. the use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.*

So no satire would never say that so and so behaviour is ok... also your lack of understanding about satire leads you to misunderstand The Love Guru. 

You don't understand Pratchett if you think that. No... there will always be forces that will resist you doing the right thing, making a change for the better, doing something to change just a little bit of the world. So yes, sometimes things are only worth doing is someone would rather you not do it. Like bringing up the idea of responsible writing.


----------



## Kevin

I've watched at least 50 episodes. I've seen all the John Hughes movies multiple times. How does pointing out the ridiculousness of something promote it? No one thinks it's okay to put a camera up some girls skirt. The whole point of the show is to point out the ridiculousness of certain behaviors and how the 'nerds' need someone (Penny) to at least attempt to point it out to them. The show is her trying to change them to be or act more 'normal' i.e. with accepted behaviors,  while she learns that it is okay to be more..uhm... cerebral (?) And it is all about extremes and stereotypes to show this. 
I'm going to guess, but I  don't think the majority of viewers are being converted to creepy perv status by anything they see on the show-just a guess. You seem to think otherwise, which I find odd. 

And this goes to the whole  point of the op- that portraying things promotes them, which I disagree with. Yes, you can have gratuitous anything , presumably to sell books, but  portraying things like injustice or what have you is a way pointing them out as such ( negatives)-not promoting them. And showing violence or whatever  reflects real life, whether historical or current ( game of thrones, for instance, the political maneuvering-deciept, backstabbing, outright murder has factual historical precedent...) and is not going to convert anyone to anything. Except, perhaps as interested viewers. To say otherwise and to limit an entire society based on a few idiots going off the deep end after they may or may not have been inspired by something they saw or read is not okay with me. I find that ridiculous. It's like playing to the lowest common denominator of what if, and having a school marm  telling Me to not run because it's dangerous. I will make those decisions on my own, thank you.


----------



## Darkkin

The Fantastical said:


> Ah, lol, here we go. Does this mean that I have won? I always think that when the personal attacks start it must mean that I have actually made my point.



This is a discussion, not a debate...There is nothing to win.  Basic logic of a discussion.  No competetion, merely perspective.


----------



## Kyle R

The Fantastical said:


> Some authors seem to believe that they need to deal with relative morality to have a story. But what they are really dealing with is a slippery slope that ends so very often in no morality at all.


Ah, but is that such a bad thing?

Do readers always need to have "This is wrong!" and "This is right!" spelled out to them in blatant terms? By doing so, would we not be robbing readers of their own participation in the novel?

Are we to think so lowly of readers that we should assume they're incapable of drawing their own conclusions?

Partially, I agree with you. But only partially. In my own writing, I try try "frame" negative behaviors in a way that they come across as exactly that: negative behaviors. But a lot depends on the circumstances of the story, as well as the characters themselves. And if either the story circumstance, or the characterization requires negative behaviors be framed in an acceptable way, then that's what I'll do.

Stealing, for example, is considered morally wrong, but in one of my WIPs, I have a character who steals to survive. Both the reader, and the character herself, knows that stealing is wrong—but she's in that morally gray where the alternatives would be worse.

So she steals. And she makes no apologies for it. This is the world she lives in, and the person that she is.

To do otherwise? Well, it'd be pretty bad writing on my part to have her break character and suddenly turn up her nose at an easy "mark" in order to force a moral lesson on my reader. Authors who do this are, in my opinion, inexperienced writers who haven't yet learned to give readers the credit that they deserve.


----------



## The Fantastical

Kevin said:


> I've watched at least 50 episodes. I've seen all the John Hughes movies multiple times. How does pointing out the ridiculousness of something promote it? No one thinks it's okay to put a camera up some girls skirt. The whole point of the show is to point out the ridiculousness of certain behaviors and how the 'nerds' need someone (Penny) to at least attempt to point it out to them. The show is her trying to change them to be or act more 'normal' i.e. with accepted behaviors, while she learns that it is okay to be more..uhm... cerebral (?) And it is all about extremes and stereotypes to show this.
> I'm going to guess, but I don't think the majority of viewers are being converted to creepy perv status by anything they see on the show-just a guess. You seem to think otherwise, which I find odd.
> 
> And this goes to the whole point of the op- that portraying things promotes them, which I disagree with. Yes, you can have gratuitous anything , presumably to sell books, but portraying things like injustice or what have you is a way pointing them out as such ( negatives)-not promoting them. And showing violence or whatever reflects real life, whether historical or current ( game of thrones, for instance, the political maneuvering-deciept, backstabbing, outright murder has factual historical precedent...) and is not going to convert anyone to anything. Except, perhaps as interested viewers. To say otherwise and to limit an entire society based on a few idiots going off the deep end after they may or may not have been inspired by something they saw or read is not okay with me. I find that ridiculous. It's like playing to the lowest common denominator of what if, and having a school marm telling Me to not run because it's dangerous. I will make those decisions on my own, thank you.


*
HOW*you portray certain subjects, *HOW*!!! *swears mentally in two languages*


----------



## Kyle R

The Fantastical said:


> *HOW *you portray certain subjects, *HOW*!!! *swears mentally in two languages*


I learned the hard way, on these forums, that people won't always agree with you. Once I came to peace with that fact, I stopped getting so agitated in discussions and began to appreciate the various sides.

No matter how convinced you are that your opinion is _right_, there will always be others who think differently. And that's okay.

Everyone's allowed to have their own perspectives, and universal agreement almost never happens. The world would be a pretty dull place if everyone thought the same. :encouragement:


----------



## The Fantastical

Kyle R said:


> Ah, but is that such a bad thing?
> 
> Do readers always need to have "This is wrong!" and "This is right!" spelled out to them in blatant terms? By doing so, would we not be robbing readers of their own participation in the novel?
> 
> Are we to think so lowly of readers that we should assume they're incapable of drawing their own conclusions?
> 
> Partially, I agree with you. But only partially. In my own writing, I try try "frame" negative behaviors in a way that they come across as exactly that: negative behaviors. But a lot depends on the circumstances of the story, as well as the characters themselves. And if either the story circumstance, or the characterization requires negative behaviors be framed in an acceptable way, then that's what I'll do.
> 
> Stealing, for example, is considered morally wrong, but in one of my WIPs, I have a character who steals to survive. Both the reader, and the character herself, knows that stealing is wrong—but she's in that morally gray where the alternatives would be worse.
> 
> So she steals. And she makes no apologies for it. This is the world she lives in, and the person that she is.
> 
> To do otherwise? Well, it'd be pretty bad writing on my part to have her break character and suddenly turn up her nose at an easy "mark" in order to force a moral lesson on my reader. Authors who do this are, in my opinion, inexperienced writers who haven't yet learned to give readers the credit that they deserve.



In most cases, yes. Because of the lack of responsibility in how a lot of authors who decide to use relative morality. When dealing with such a, honestly, dangerous ideology, writers need to tread with care and awareness. Something that I have seen lacking in a lot of modern novels. 

 That lack of awareness coupled with the idea that to do anything but leave every moral decision up to the reader is "robbing" the readers and "ruining the story" and "censorship". When really, what you are doing is giving the reader nothing. Empty, morally lacking, grey, gloop that does little to promote thought leaves us with very worrying trend of no-one actually deciding what moral ground they stand on.


----------



## H.Brown

Right guys let's tone it down before we get into arguement mode. 





The Fantastical said:


> *
> HOW*you portray certain subjects, *HOW*!!! *swears mentally in two languages*



TF as has already been stated this is a discussion, so let's have a little less anger over someone's opinion.


----------



## Darkkin

The how is intergral to the individual.  And writers run the spectrum.  The fourth wall protects the writers as much as it opens writing to the reader's observations and opinions.  Opinions are emotions, beliefs, not fact.  An interesting perspective, but neither right nor wrong.


----------



## The Fantastical

Kyle R said:


> I learned the hard way, on these forums, that people won't always agree with you. Once I came to peace with that fact, I stopped getting so agitated in discussions and began to appreciate the various sides.
> 
> No matter how convinced you are that your opinion is _right_, there will always be others who think differently. And that's okay.
> 
> Everyone's allowed to have their own perspectives, and universal agreement almost never happens. The world would be a pretty dull place if everyone thought the same. :encouragement:



Noo..... I am getting upset at the fact that no-one is reading what I am saying and leaving words out, (words are important) to change what I am saying to avoid actually talking about the subject on hand!


----------



## The Fantastical

...


----------



## Kevin

The Fantastical said:


> *
> HOW*you portray certain subjects, *HOW*!!! *swears mentally in two languages*


am I not following? You gave the video and those shows as negative examples, right? I'm saying they are not. They portray negatives as comical-because they are negative they are comical. The characters don't necessarily see it.  That is just one aspect of showing negative things. I find it acceptable. And don't swear at me- it hurts my feelings ( just kidding-swear away)


----------



## H.Brown

The Fantastical said:


> I would be calm if people didn't leave words out and change what I was saying.



Then take a step back.


----------



## The Fantastical

Kevin said:


> am I not following? You gave the video and those shows as negative examples, right? I'm saying they are not. They portray negatives as comical-because they are negative they are comical. The characters don't necessarily see it. That is just one aspect of showing negative things. I find it acceptable. And don't swear at me- it hurts my feelings ( just kidding-swear away)



You said this about my original post - 



> *And this goes to the whole point of the op- that portraying things promotes them, which I disagree with.*



Which is wrong, my point from the start has been that authors should be responsible for *how *they portray certain subjects and behviours. AKA being aware of how they are showing certain behaviours and making sure that they are not promoting them. See how important that "how" is to the meaning of the sentence? Can you understand why I was upset? Without that how, you fundamentally changed what I was saying and making me join this discussion from a stand point that you put me into and not of the one that I actually want to talk about. 

Which then leads to the clip I shared. The point the person what making was that never are they actually show, subtly or otherwise, that the behaviour showed by the "nerds" is in fact wrong. In fact, in all cases, they actually are rewarded for being stalkers, not taking no for an answer and downright pervs in some cases. 

**spoiler!!*


* All the men (except for Raj) in The Big Bang Theory get rewarded for their bad behaviour without there actually being any modification to the way that they behave. 

So subtly the audience is, in fact, being told that acting like that is ok. Which is not ok.


----------



## H.Brown

That is just one individual's portrayal of a set of characters, that they have created, unfortunately this is that person's view point of such things. While it is not wrong to disagree we must accept that we can not change this and move on.


----------



## Kevin

Okay...


----------



## Terry D

The Fantastical said:


> No..... I have been saying from the start that authors needed to be responsible for what they write. What I have said hasn't changed a bit. All that has happened is you have stopped replacing "responsible" with "can't" or "censorship".



All I have done is ask who writers are responsible to, and what standards we should use to meet your criteria of moral responsibility. You've never answered that.



> The lack of understanding here has not been on my side so please don't pass the buck and no it has not "been your point all along".



I'll let other readers of this thread decide if I've been consistent in my position, or not.



> No don't avoid them. WRITE RESPONSIBLY!!!  Ok because there seems to be a lack of understanding here is the definition of "responsibly" -
> 
> *responsibly
> 
> rɪˈspɒnsəbli
> 
> adverb
> 
> 1.
> in a sensible or trustworthy manner.
> "*_*companies*_* should act responsibly when it comes to virus alerts"
> 
> 2.
> in a way that relates to duty or responsibility.
> "the author wrote about that the subject of suicide in a responsible manner"
> 
> 
> *Are we clear now as to the meaning of what I am saying? If and when you wish to bring up a subject that is delicate then please write about it in a manner that is socially and morally responsible. AKA please do not promote or glamorise wrong behaviours. (This is not an opening for a philosophical discussion about WHAT IS WRONG)



I know what responsibility is, and I've never ventured into a discussion of right and wrong in this thread. My question is, and always has been (again) who's standards should we hold ourselves to? If you agree that we should hold ourselves to our own standards, then you seem to be suggesting that we should all adopt a morality of which you approve. 'Write what you want, but write it in a way I like.' 




> Well.... I would say that you were irresponsible. Now to be clear, you do not need to give a long speech or preach to your readers but you can still use language to show that this is not an ok event, the dog -fights are horrid and the all animal abuse it morally wrong. Just by adding in a word here and a word there, changing the phrasing and tone of a discription you can give a reader a subtle inpression of disgust that does not in anyway get in the way of your story. Or would that be to much trouble?



Your response pretty well sums up my point. I didn't give you enough information, or context, to determine what the slant of my book is, but still you applied your standards to answer my question. Instead of saying something as simple as, "I'd have to read it to know," or "I don't have enough information to make that sort of judgement," you are willing to label my book.

I apologize for setting you up like that, but it proves my point. Without knowing what is in my heart and mind you are willing to assume that I am irresponsible based on the slightest of evidence. By the way, dog lovers enjoy my book greatly because in spite of some uncomfortable scenes, the book has a strong, positive message.


----------



## bdcharles

The Fantastical said:


> I think that most writers don't think about it at all and so may be doing just that [pushing ppl over the edge] unknowingly. Thus the reason for this thread, to call to attention the power that our words have.



Alot of crummy writers probably don't. I think a good writer would not just think that closeness to the edge but feel it, live it, _be _it, so that it comes out in their writing. I do agree that writing can absolutely be a _catalyst _for antisocial behaviour (or indeed, any behaviour), though my opinion is that if it comes to that, the damage is already done. Which begs the question: who did the damage, and what did they do? Remember those school shooters. If memory serves, there was all this talk about how the music of Marylin Manson somehow triggered Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris to shoot the kids in their school. When I was sixteen, I read _Rage _(it was by "Richard Bachman" then) and around that time, soon thereafter, I took an eight-inch serrated hunting knife to school. Why? Because someone had chucked a snowball at me, and I wanted to feel empowered at a time when I felt anything but. A snowball! I mean, FFS! Fortunately I did nothing with it other than keep it secreted in my jacket (and when someone almost saw it I almost wet myself with fear and self-mortification at what I had undertaken, and never did it again). But did I do what I did _because _of the book? No. I did it because I felt powerless and insignificant and cheesed off with just about everybody. Why did I feel like that? Perhaps partly because of some genetic predisposition, perhaps partly because I just didn't "fit", perhaps because my dad buggered off when I was nine, not that I blame him, though it did leave me with a rather atrophied sense of identity. Then along comes this character or a song or whatever and suddenly I see a way in which I and those like me (assuming there were any) can matter. I see someone to whom I can relate. The fact that the source of this feeling is fictitious matters not a jot. Try telling that to my neurons, and if I thought there was some sensible way to separate the intensity experienced from a fictitious experience as opposed to a real one then I would be well advised to give up writing now because that would be a guaranteed one-way pass to being dreadful at it.

So if there is some situation where we, as sample people in the world, can make someone not feel that way in the first instance, whether it's by giving them a minute of our time or whether its by giving not them hassle where otherwise we might be minded to bestow them some, then we owe it to ourselves, that person, and everybody in the world to do so. In that respect I suggest that everyone is responsible, all the time, for everyone else using whatever gifts and abilities they have. I know it's not a popular view because it sounds like blame, but it's not. It's about caring enough to improve something, and making that our focus rather than delineating things into little boxes of responsibility. And as for owning our catalysts - well, catalysts are everywhere; too-hot weather, job loss, a thrown snowball. Our goal is not to eliminate them, like pulling a book from the shelf or banning a record, but to lessen their effect via bolstering our own self-image and whatnot so they become less catalystic (is that a word?). Of course, then, no-one produces any art of any intensity. Swings and roundabouts and conundrums. Maybe there'd be no need for any. 




The Fantastical said:


> Everyone can be saved, it is just a sad fact that people can't save other people, not in the context of what you are saying.



I like to think this is true. Personally I think people have to want to be saved, but the majority do. A passing coversation with your joe average sociopath will convince you that many think they already have been. Humanity is messy, messy, messy - I love it because of that.



The Fantastical said:


> Would an author want to connect with those readers? That would depend on how they are connecting with them. If there is responsibility in the writing or not. Having someone say "I understand and there is hope" is very different from saying "I understand and it was ok to do that.". Do you see what I am saying?



Hope may come in the form of not feeling alone, and if someone is feeling like they really want to biff someone else in the chops, and along comes a third someone who feels the same way and does exactly that, then you have arguably provided some short term hope, and while it may not be in the way you wanted to, it can still help, a problem shared being a problem halved and all that. Sometimes all that is required is to excise all the bad stuff precisely by doing it vicariously in the sandbox of the novel. For someone to be a vehicle for one's worst desires to prevent them becoming real; again, going back to those neurons, we may feel like we have lived it but without the messiness. But really, like I say, by that time, the damage is done and the root causes go way back. In the face of that, what else can a halfway-decent author do that the rest of us can't? You hear about how if people didn't write they'd lose it. So consider the notion that such seemingly irresponsible art is, in fact, necessary, for both reader and writer.

For those that do in fact carry out what they read, refer to my earlier comment about people being saved.



The Fantastical said:


> Don't you know? There is no grey area, only white that has gotten grubby.



Ooh! I like the one that goes "There is no grey area, only a bunch of little black and white dots". But yours is way more controversial


----------



## Terry D

The Fantastical said:


> ...my point from the start has been that authors should be responsible for *how *they portray certain subjects and behviours. AKA being aware of how they are showing certain behaviours and making sure that they are not promoting them. See how important that "how" is to the meaning of the sentence? Can you understand why I was upset? Without that how, you fundamentally changed what I was saying and making me join this discussion from a stand point that you put me into and not of the one that I actually want to talk about.



It might have helped if you had put that 'how' into the original post:



> When does a writer become socially responsible for what they put out into the world? Are they responsible? I think that they are.




Instead of asking 'when' and invoking a vague, undefinable concept like 'social responsibility'.



> Which then leads to the clip I shared. The point the person what making was that never are they actually show, subtly or otherwise, that the behaviour showed by the "nerds" is in fact wrong. In fact, in all cases, they actually are rewarded for being stalkers, not taking no for an answer and downright pervs in some cases.
> 
> **spoiler!!*
> 
> 
> * All the men (except for Raj) in The Big Bang Theory get rewarded for their bad behaviour without there actually being any modification to the way that they behave.
> 
> So subtly the audience is, in fact, being told that acting like that is ok. Which is not ok.



The show, episode after episode, shows the absurdity of the behavior you are complaining about. The premise of the show is in showing these people to be laughable because they are so out of step with social norms. What they desire and what they get are often very different. The show has also shown the main characters maturing and growing in many, many ways -- usually as a result of their non-politically correct behavior. There is more real-life positive messaging in one season of The Big Bang Theory than in five years of the Hallmark Channel. 

I think the problem you've run into in this thread is that you assumed a position of suggesting that writers should be 'socially responsible' when that phrase is a synonym for, 'politically correct'. Most of the people here are adults, and adults don't much care for being told 'how' to do something. Particularly, when that thing is coming from a deeply personal place. I know I don't need an internet nanny reminding me that my words have power -- I've managed to piss you off with them fairly well (which was not my intent, but which I fully expected). I'd wager everyone who has responded to this thread understands the weight our words can carry, that's much of why we write, and many will resent the condescension inherent in being reminded of it by a stranger. 

-30-


----------



## H.Brown

​​Enough! This thread has been moving away from the bickering and pointless arguements, so stop baiting and move the discussion on.


----------



## Annoying kid

Jack of all trades said:


> Having powerful impact on something is different than BEING the something. If that is not understood, then there is no way to continue the discussion.
> 
> Demanding acceptance, or at the very least getting the last word, is shutting down discussion. Taking jabs at spelling, etc, is trying to embarrass the person, which is an attempt to shut down the discussion.
> 
> Discussion involves exchanges that are respectful. Not exaggerated nonsense.
> 
> Now, I fully expect that one of the "I should be allowed to write anything and never be responsible because that's censorship" lot will post something to get the last word.



Again, I have recent historical precedent for my "exaggerated nonsense".

I provided an example of censorship that existed in my storytelling medium in the mid 20th century with criteria a few of which my story would fail: 



Crimes shall never be presented in such a way as to create sympathy for the criminal, to promote distrust of the forces of law and justice, or to inspire others with a desire to imitate criminals.
If crime is depicted it shall be as a sordid and unpleasant activity.
Policemen, judges, government officials, and respected institutions shall never be presented in such a way as to create disrespect for established authority.
Criminals shall not be presented so as to be rendered glamorous or to occupy a position which creates a desire for emulation.
In every instance good shall triumph over evil and the criminal punished for his misdeeds.
Scenes of excessive violence shall be prohibited. Scenes of brutal torture, excessive and unnecessary knife and gunplay, physical agony, gory and gruesome crime shall be eliminated.
No comic magazine shall use the words "horror" or "terror" in its title.
All scenes of horror, excessive bloodshed, gory or gruesome crimes, depravity, lust, sadism, masochism shall not be permitted.
All lurid, unsavory, gruesome illustrations shall be eliminated.
Inclusion of stories dealing with evil shall be used or shall be published only where the intent is to illustrate a moral issue and in no case shall evil be presented alluringly, nor so as to injure the sensibilities of the reader.
Scenes dealing with, or instruments associated with walking dead, torture, vampires and vampirism, ghouls, cannibalism, and werewolfism are prohibited.
Profanity, obscenity, smut, vulgarity, or words or symbols which have acquired undesirable meanings are forbidden.
Nudity in any form is prohibited, as is indecent or undue exposure.
Suggestive and salacious illustration or suggestive posture is unacceptable.
Females shall be drawn realistically without exaggeration of any physical qualities.
Illicit sex relations are neither to be hinted at nor portrayed. Rape scenes as well as sexual abnormalities are unacceptable.
Seduction and rape shall never be shown or suggested.
Sex perversion or any inference to same is strictly forbidden.
Nudity with meretricious purpose and salacious postures shall not be permitted in the advertising of any product; clothed figures shall never be presented in such a way as to be offensive or contrary to good taste or morals.

That was the criteria of the Comics code of 1954. If you think it's a complete exaggeration and unfounded fear that the regressive left or religious right could bring something like that back than that is something we are simply never going to agree on. It is an example of the ethics of others imposing on the ethics of the writer during the creative process on a macro scale. The idea that writers should self censor and "write responsibly" according to the informal standard of social justice activists, is to impose those ethics on an individualist scale. When someone presents moral absolutes, calls that responsible writing and says you should follow it, you'd first need to prove that the moral absolutes are philosophically sound, you'd need to conclusively show violent media has the effect you're arguing, which studies do not:    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170308081057.htm
And you'd - at least to convince me - need to show how your way of thinking leads to advancement in the storytelling arts and not regression. Despite it really looking like regression.


----------



## ppsage

Before the question here can be answered, it might be important to know, to what extent the sympathy in the author's treatment of this or that behavior has any effect on the readers. 

The answer likely is that it will of course be spectrumious. Readers are multitudinous and various. Some (obviously, from this thread) more resent being corrected than others and might react conversely. Others of a different psychosis may not care at all: the graphic depiction of some violent act, for instance -- notwithstanding the author's subtle condemnation -- may still give them ideas. 

On the other hand, it seems likely that most readers will have a strong enough personal judgment to remain unswayed. 

If this is true, if the reaction of any treatment is varied and unpredictable, or even just always a wash, bad-behavior-triggering-wise, then the whole argument reverts back to the conclusion that some things cannot be responsibly included in a text. 

At this point, how those things are determined becomes an unsolvable political dynamic, if artistic freedom is considered a value. 

In the West, in the liberal democracies, I think we tend to regard the proper solution to be letting 'the market' decide. In a rare swing to conservative thinking (it's a constant consternation to me that appealing to the market for valuation is in this topsy-turvy world a conservative position) I find myself agreeing. So, in the practical telling-each-other-what-to-do sense, my answer to the original question seems to be a fairly confident no. Authors are, in the writing of their texts, free to feel no social responsibility for what they write. 

If that's possible or necessary for them. 

I think the more practical case, which is where the present question more comfortably lies, is that they are certainly allowed to be free of any conformative or preordained social responsibility. 

What happens to that text, should they desire its dissemination, and if they require the assistance of others (say website owners, for example) in that effort, is another question, decided I should think, on a case-by-case basis, hopefully not too often in a law court.


----------



## Terry D

Annoying kid said:


> Again, I have recent historical precedent for my "exaggerated nonsense".
> 
> I provided an example of censorship that existed in my storytelling medium in the mid 20th century with criteria a few of which my story would fail:
> 
> 
> 
> Crimes shall never be presented in such a way as to create sympathy for the criminal, to promote distrust of the forces of law and justice, or to inspire others with a desire to imitate criminals.
> If crime is depicted it shall be as a sordid and unpleasant activity.
> Policemen, judges, government officials, and respected institutions shall never be presented in such a way as to create disrespect for established authority.
> Criminals shall not be presented so as to be rendered glamorous or to occupy a position which creates a desire for emulation.
> In every instance good shall triumph over evil and the criminal punished for his misdeeds.
> Scenes of excessive violence shall be prohibited. Scenes of brutal torture, excessive and unnecessary knife and gunplay, physical agony, gory and gruesome crime shall be eliminated.
> No comic magazine shall use the words "horror" or "terror" in its title.
> All scenes of horror, excessive bloodshed, gory or gruesome crimes, depravity, lust, sadism, masochism shall not be permitted.
> All lurid, unsavory, gruesome illustrations shall be eliminated.
> Inclusion of stories dealing with evil shall be used or shall be published only where the intent is to illustrate a moral issue and in no case shall evil be presented alluringly, nor so as to injure the sensibilities of the reader.
> Scenes dealing with, or instruments associated with walking dead, torture, vampires and vampirism, ghouls, cannibalism, and werewolfism are prohibited.
> Profanity, obscenity, smut, vulgarity, or words or symbols which have acquired undesirable meanings are forbidden.
> Nudity in any form is prohibited, as is indecent or undue exposure.
> Suggestive and salacious illustration or suggestive posture is unacceptable.
> Females shall be drawn realistically without exaggeration of any physical qualities.
> Illicit sex relations are neither to be hinted at nor portrayed. Rape scenes as well as sexual abnormalities are unacceptable.
> Seduction and rape shall never be shown or suggested.
> Sex perversion or any inference to same is strictly forbidden.
> Nudity with meretricious purpose and salacious postures shall not be permitted in the advertising of any product; clothed figures shall never be presented in such a way as to be offensive or contrary to good taste or morals.
> 
> That was the criteria of the Comics code of 1954. If you think it's a complete exaggeration and unfounded fear that the regressive left or religious right could bring something like that back than that is something we are simply never going to agree on. It is an example of the ethics of others imposing on the ethics of the writer during the creative process on a macro scale. The idea that writers should self censor and "write responsibly" according to the informal standard of social justice activists, is to impose those ethics on an individualist scale. When someone presents moral absolutes, calls that responsible writing and says you should follow it, you'd first need to prove that the moral absolutes are philosophically sound, you'd need to conclusively show violent media has the effect you're arguing, which studies do not:    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170308081057.htm
> And you'd - at least to convince me - need to show how your way of thinking leads to advancement in the storytelling arts and not regression. Despite it really looking like regression.



It needs to be pointed out, however, that the Comics Code was a product of the comic book industry itself, not something foisted upon it by an outside source. That's not something that is unusual at all. Lawyers have rules of conduct. So do doctors, and teachers, and nearly every other profession and industry. Publishing houses set standards for the books they publish, some are very restrictive. Sure, the comics industry received pressure (originally from teachers, not the 'right' or 'left') but it was the industry itself which established the code.


----------



## The Fantastical

Terry D said:


> All I have done is ask who writers are responsible to, and what standards we should use to meet your criteria of moral responsibility. You've never answered that.
> 
> I'll let other readers of this thread decide if I've been consistent in my position, or not.
> 
> 
> I know what responsibility is, and I've never ventured into a discussion of right and wrong in this thread. My question is, and always has been (again) who's standards should we hold ourselves to? If you agree that we should hold ourselves to our own standards, then you seem to be suggesting that we should all adopt a morality of which you approve. 'Write what you want, but write it in a way I like.'
> 
> 
> Your response pretty well sums up my point. I didn't give you enough information, or context, to determine what the slant of my book is, but still you applied your standards to answer my question. Instead of saying something as simple as, "I'd have to read it to know," or "I don't have enough information to make that sort of judgement," you are willing to label my book.
> 
> I apologize for setting you up like that, but it proves my point. Without knowing what is in my heart and mind you are willing to assume that I am irresponsible based on the slightest of evidence. By the way, dog lovers enjoy my book greatly because, in spite of some uncomfortable scenes, the book has a strong, positive message.



I judged your book on you, on what you have said in this thread. I might think about that if I was you. 

I have answered your question about who authors are responsible to. You just didn't like the answer and came back with an argument of relative morality that I am unwilling to talk about.



bdcharles said:


> Alot of crummy writers probably don't. I think a good writer would not just think that closeness to the edge but feel it, live it, _be _it, so that it comes out in their writing.



Yeah, but is that a good thing? I find that authors who "live" their stories are the worst at seeing what they are writing. You need that one step back to actually look at your work with a critical eye. 



> I do agree that writing can absolutely be a _catalyst _for antisocial behaviour (or indeed, any behaviour), though my opinion is that if it comes to that, the damage is already done. Which begs the question: who did the damage, and what did they do? Remember those school shooters. If memory serves, there was all this talk about how the music of Marylin Manson somehow triggered Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris to shoot the kids in their school. When I was sixteen, I read _Rage _(it was by "Richard Bachman" then) and around that time, soon thereafter, I took an eight-inch serrated hunting knife to school. Why? Because someone had chucked a snowball at me, and I wanted to feel empowered at a time when I felt anything but. A snowball! I mean, FFS! Fortunately I did nothing with it other than keep it secreted in my jacket (and when someone almost saw it I almost wet myself with fear and self-mortification at what I had undertaken, and never did it again). But did I do what I did _because _of the book? No. I did it because I felt powerless and insignificant and cheesed off with just about everybody. Why did I feel like that? Perhaps partly because of some genetic predisposition, perhaps partly because I just didn't "fit", perhaps because my dad buggered off when I was nine, not that I blame him, though it did leave me with a rather atrophied sense of identity. Then along comes this character or a song or whatever and suddenly I see a way in which I and those like me (assuming there were any) can matter. I see someone to whom I can relate. The fact that the source of this feeling is fictitious matters not a jot. Try telling that to my neurons, and if I thought there was some sensible way to separate the intensity experienced from a fictitious experience as opposed to a real one then I would be well advised to give up writing now because that would be a guaranteed one-way pass to being dreadful at it.[/QOUTE]
> 
> The danger is that not everyone just "relates" a lot emulate for the exact reasons you mentioned above. They want to be like those characters, do you know how many comments I see of people saying "I want to be more like..."? Yes, making relatable characters is important and can help, but again, you need to tell their story in a responsible manner for those who don't just "relate".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if there is some situation where we, as sample people in the world, can make someone not feel that way in the first instance, whether it's by giving them a minute of our time or whether its by giving not them hassle where otherwise we might be minded to bestow them some, then we owe it to ourselves, that person, and everybody in the world to do so. In that respect I suggest that everyone is responsible, all the time, for everyone else using whatever gifts and abilities they have. I know it's not a popular view because it sounds like blame, but it's not. It's about caring enough to improve something, and making that our focus rather than delineating things into little boxes of responsibility. And as for owning our catalysts - well, catalysts are everywhere; too-hot weather, job loss, a thrown snowball. Our goal is not to eliminate them, like pulling a book from the shelf or banning a record, but to lessen their effect via bolstering our own self-image and whatnot so they become less catalystic (is that a word?). Of course, then, no-one produces any art of any intensity. Swings and roundabouts and conundrums. Maybe there'd be no need for any.
> 
> Hope may come in the form of not feeling alone, and if someone is feeling like they really want to biff someone else in the chops, and along comes a third someone who feels the same way and does exactly that, then you have arguably provided some short term hope, and while it may not be in the way you wanted to, it can still help, a problem shared being a problem halved and all that. Sometimes all that is required is to excise all the bad stuff precisely by doing it vicariously in the sandbox of the novel. For someone to be a vehicle for one's worst desires to prevent them becoming real; again, going back to those neurons, we may feel like we have lived it but without the messiness. But really, like I say, by that time, the damage is done and the root causes go way back. In the face of that, what else can a halfway-decent author do that the rest of us can't? You hear about how if people didn't write they'd lose it. So consider the notion that such seemingly irresponsible art is, in fact, necessary, for both reader and writer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that writing is just a continuation of that social responsibility. Just as you say that people should say things that help other in Real Life, I say that we should say things in our writing that helps others. I do not see any contradiction between the two. And part of that responsibility is to not put out any more catalysts than there are already are in the world. Part of the responsibility is to not condom those actions that hurt others, part of that responsibility is to subtly show people that there is a better way, that even if you feel alone and angry, hitting another person isn't the answer, it won't fix anything... Real life is never fixed with anger or guns or.... any of the ways that fiction shows as solutions at times. No, we need a little more responsibility in our writing. As we you said, we can't put our responsibility in little boxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ooh! I like the one that goes "There is no grey area, only a bunch of little black and white dots". But yours is way more controversial
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You will have to thank Granny Weatherwax for that one.
Click to expand...


----------



## ppsage

I would tend to call professional codes or industry codes like the comics one, market solutions, because their purpose is to ensure the value of their product, either generally or, like restrictive publishing houses often do, to some targeted demographic. Or it can be to avoid negatives, either generally or from some particular demographic. Often they've been proved grossly erroneous, at least for attaining those goals, but that's the way free market ideology often swings. 

I feel like the countervailing argument here will eventually find its way to command economy type ideologies, where central authority determines value. The way I'm reading it is that its advocates would eventually condone prescribing what becomes essentially a code. Probably, though, a lot of sincere advocacy does not follow the argument to what I see as its inevitable ideological result.


----------



## bdcharles

> Alot of crummy writers probably don't. I think a good writer would not  just think that closeness to the edge but feel it, live it, _be _it, so that it comes out in their writing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but is that a good thing? I find that authors who "live" their stories are the worst at seeing what they are writing. You need that one step back to actually look at your work with a critical eye.
Click to expand...


It is what it is. It seems to have produced good writing and less good home lives. Dylan Thomas. Sylvia Plath. Philip K. Dick. Destructive, unsettled people - and some of the most notable writers of the 20th century. Like it or not, much great art comes from great suffering. In the scheme of things it may be that these people cause more social issues than they solve but can you imagine if Sylvia Plath wrote _Daddy _with a - what? A forgiving tone? It wouldn't be the same. The same applies to the story. Can you imagine if in William Golding's _Lord of the Flies_, Ralph, Piggy, and Jack all sat down and worked through their differences. What do we want? A pristine, functioning society, or one that can roll with its myriad flaws? Which writers are you thinking of that take this step back and become the better for it?



> The danger is that not everyone just "relates" a lot emulate for the exact reasons you mentioned above. They want to be like those characters, do you know how many comments I see of people saying "I want to be more like..."? Yes, making relatable characters is important and can help, but again, you need to tell their story in a responsible manner for those who don't just "relate".



It is a danger, but it is not the only one. Is it even the biggest one? Would you say that one of the biggest challenges our society faces is the proliferation of troubling ideas? Or would you say that the problems go deeper? What comparisons have been made? Out of all the criminals in a sample, how many got their ideas in a book, and how does that stack up with the number of perpetrators who were pushed to their crimes by other reasons? Is there more crime per capita in a society that has access to ideas and books and so on (in other words, has some degree of affluence) or in an area that is poorer and lacks this access? Or any X number of other variables. I do understand why King pulled his book but I don't think it really addresses the problems. Equally I see totally why he had to do it. It was without doubt a hard decision for him.



> I think that writing is just a continuation of that social responsibility. Just as you say that people should say things that help other in Real Life, I say that we should say things in our writing that helps others. I do not see any contradiction between the two. And part of that responsibility is to not put out any more catalysts than there are already are in the world. Part of the responsibility is to not condom those actions that hurt others, part of that responsibility is to subtly show people that there is a better way, that even if you feel alone and angry, hitting another person isn't the answer, it won't fix anything... Real life is never fixed with anger or guns or.... any of the ways that fiction shows as solutions at times. No, we need a little more responsibility in our writing. As we you said, we can't put our responsibility in little boxes.



Of course it is good in life to be socially responsible. But if fiction is at the forefront of that, and mostly about that, it doesn't speak directly to the human condition. If anything it's sanitised and alienating. The human condition is those people sitting alone and angry, and to talk to them it has to _be _them, and that also can be seen as an act of social responsibility, particularly when all others would wash their hands of the subject. I do think that good writing must above all be sensitive: sensitive to the conditions of the people it depicts and speaks to; sensitive to those around them. If it isn't, to be honest I think the chances are high it will be unreadable and worthless. Now, if one was to write a treatise about all this, it carries a greater degree of social responsibility than fiction.

When I am not writing, I am a considerate, socially responsible person. I really cause very little trouble and I like to think I add a little bit of good stuff to the world. When I write, I let my demons out - and I do have demons, and do you know what? Reading and writing has helped me immeasurably in reining them in.


----------



## Annoying kid

Terry D said:


> It needs to be pointed out, however, that the Comics Code was a product of the comic book industry itself, not something foisted upon it by an outside source. That's not something that is unusual at all. Lawyers have rules of conduct. So do doctors, and teachers, and nearly every other profession and industry. Publishing houses set standards for the books they publish, some are very restrictive. Sure, the comics industry received pressure (originally from teachers, not the 'right' or 'left') but it was the industry itself which established the code.



Because industry insiders knew that the government was looking into enacting their own code. So to avoid that worse outcome they had to self censor.

Censorship doesn't happen in a vaccuum, it's a response to culture. The OP is advocating for the kind of moral hysteria that results in regression of the storytelling arts. As shown here: 



> These actions are wrong, end of, finish.
> 
> There can be no argument about if these things are wrong or not.
> 
> you don't need a moral grey area to have a story, you just need a darn good plot.
> 
> What makes a story gripping has little to do with what a character can do or goes through, but rather how the events are shown to the reader.- OP



So I'm being told that I need to replace my ethics with the OP's to be responsible, and the same person is telling me what I need and don't need to  write a decent story. 

At this point, why doesn't she just straight up write my story for me then?


----------



## ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord

I don't think artistic integrity and social responsibility can be in any real conflict. John Keats said, "Beauty is truth, truth, beauty," which I think applies to this situation, too. What is right (truth) makes for good fiction (beauty, though certainly not always in the classic sense), and what is morally reprehensible makes for bad fiction. 

For example, Chesterton, despite being one of my favorite authors, made a glaring flaw in Manalive: the character Moses Gould, who is an exaggerated racial stereotype. Not only is this harmful, it is also uninteresting, and the book as a work of fiction suffers from it. 

This isn't about self-censorship; this isn't about art vs. morality. The best of fiction (even "pulp" fiction) relates to us based on our instincts of what is true and worthwhile. 

Now that is not to say that good fiction won't contain moral flaws (as in the example I gave; as a whole Manalive is fantastic, and contains one of the most hilarious and creative arguments against suicide, ever). The point is that moral flaws are also artistic flaws. 

John Gardner, in The Art of Fiction, uses the term "faults of soul" to refer to the graver writing mistakes, and I think this term is quite appropriate. Do authors have social responsibility? Yes. Do they have artistic responsibility? Of course. But these go hand in hand, and to say one has to die for the other is a false dichotomy.


----------



## ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord

bdcharles said:


> Of course it is good in life to be socially responsible. But if fiction is at the forefront of that, and mostly about that, it doesn't speak directly to the human condition. If anything it's sanitised and alienating. The human condition is those people sitting alone and angry, and to talk to them it has to _be _them, and that also can be seen as an act of social responsibility, particularly when all others would wash their hands of the subject. I do think that good writing must above all be sensitive: sensitive to the conditions of the people it depicts and speaks to; sensitive to those around them. If it isn't, to be honest I think the chances are high it will be unreadable and worthless.



You've resolved your own dichotomy. Like you said, fiction that speaks to "those. . .sitting alone and angry" _is _socially responsible. There is no tension between writing well and writing responsibly. Depicting the dark parts of the human condition is not irresponsible or immoral; as you mentioned, fiction about that might be the very thing the world needs. What is irresponsible is bad fiction (in both senses of the word!). Sanitized fiction isn't truthful or interesting, and neither is fiction that resorts to stereotypes, or treats the characters as puppets, or tries to make you agree with a character who deserves no agreement. 



bdcharles said:


> When I write, I let my demons out



And I commend you for that. Who knows? It may one day benefit someone else greatly, as _1984 _and _W__atchmen _and thousands of other truthful but grim stories have benefited the world.​


----------



## Terry D

.


----------



## Deleted member 56686

Yeah, I think this discussion has run its course by now. Anyway, I must caution that everyone (and I mean everyone) at least try to be civil. This is turning into borderline debate and it is bordering on personal attacks so let's all take a deep breath, okay?


----------



## Kevin

_*smhh-ahh, smhh-ahh*_ -okay, I'm good... 

I was looking at that video again, you know- the YouTube one about the mysoginist messages supposedly 'there'. And I realize a weird thing: every single conclusion that the maker of the video came up with was wrong. Every single one. And I thought, well, this is weird. How did they...or...why did they come up with these? I mean... none of 'em fit. They're all twisted...like...not at all what is going on. They don't make sense... I mean... They sound okay or correct but when you watch you don't see how they concluded what they did...like their whole analysis is off. And it makes you wonder, do they actually believe all this stuff, you know... the stuff they're saying, because their belief then is off, or? I mean, yes, there is misogyny out there, but these are not examples of it being okay--not at all. So...how do they (the video maker) think they are? 

I don't know...maybe they have- like- this idea in their head, and this is what they do- go around looking for examples to 'bolster' their ...agenda or whatever.


----------



## Job

Kevin said:


> _*smhh-ahh, smhh-ahh*_ -okay, I'm good...
> 
> I was looking at that video again, you know- the YouTube one about the mysoginist messages supposedly 'there'. And I realize a weird thing: every single conclusion that the maker of the video came up with was wrong. Every single one. And I thought, well, this is weird. How did they...or...why did they come up with these? I mean... none of 'em fit. They're all twisted...like...not at all what is going on. They don't make sense... I mean... They sound okay or correct but when you watch you don't see how they concluded what they did...like their whole analysis is off. And it makes you wonder, do they actually believe all this stuff, you know... the stuff they're saying, because their belief then is off, or? I mean, yes, there is misogyny out there, but these are not examples of it being okay--not at all. So...how do they (the video maker) think they are?
> 
> I don't know...maybe they have- like- this idea in their head, and this is what they do- go around looking for examples to 'bolster' their ...agenda or whatever.


 
What video?  Can you provide a link?


----------



## Kevin

Job said:


> What video?  Can you provide a link?


 sorry... for the video see post #84 (a few pages ago)


----------



## Phil Istine

My thoughts on this might leave some people horrified, but I'll write them anyway because I feel that it is valid for such a discussion.  The irony isn't lost on me that my views are shaped, in part, by life events from the past, but at least I'm aware of this.

I was raised in a wacky religious community where people just couldn't keep their noses out of others' business; people looking for even minor infractions in others' behaviour in case they were acting in an ungodly manner. Any slightly "wrong" conduct was either stamped or frowned upon because it may have "stumbled" other members of the community.As I moved clear of that tyrannical straitjacket, I began to learn that each of us takes responsibility for our own actions - including readers. I write what I want. A reader responds how they want. I am only responsible for what I write, not for how a reader acts. I took me the first forty years of my life to absorb that lesson and I've no intention of ditching it now.
As it happens, I don't enjoy writing about gratuitous violence anyway, though my writing has occasionally delved into the fringes of what some may term pornography. I've also written about drug (ab)use.  There appeared to be some glorification in parts of that, but only because I was writing in the voice of a problem user who was working hard to deny the problem_.
_Briefly, I write what _I_ want.  The reader acts how _they_ want. I would include a warning if I were to ever try publishing_.

Prosecuting lawyer:  Why did you stab him?
Defendant:  I read a book that contained a stabbing and the assailant did quite well for himself afterwards.
_


----------



## The Fantastical

> Briefly, I write what _I want. The reader acts how they want._



This is an honest question, how if this is your life "philosophy" (for a lack of a better word) how do you how does it work in real life? 

Example - You say something that really really hurts someone else (let us assume un-intentionally) is it the persons fault for getting hurt or do you assume responsibility for what you said?


----------



## Annoying kid

The Fantastical said:


> This is an honest question, how if this is your life "philosophy" (for a lack of a better word) how do you how does it work in real life?
> 
> Example - You say something that really really hurts someone else (let us assume un-intentionally) is it the persons fault for getting hurt or do you assume responsibility for what you said?



I don't agree with the analogy you've set up. I believe it inaccurate because you're relying on the politeness conventions of individual to individual interactions and relationships in order to force a point about an individual addressing a collective. So  rather it's: 
_
You make a statement to the general public, and you say something that unintentionally really really hurts someone. Is it the person's fault for getting hurt of do you assume responsibility for what you said?_


----------



## Phil Istine

The Fantastical said:


> This is an honest question, how if this is your life "philosophy" (for a lack of a better word) how do you how does it work in real life?
> 
> Example - You say something that really really hurts someone else (let us assume un-intentionally) is it the persons fault for getting hurt or do you assume responsibility for what you said?



I wasn't planning for a protracted discussion on my opinion because it's just that: merely my opinion.
You use the word "fault".  I don't see it that way -just differing perceptions.  For the most part, I believe we choose our feelings - usually out of habit and/or conditioning.  For an adult to believe that someone _made_ them feel a certain way is a method of shifting responsibility for feeling bad onto someone else.  It's useful because it helps to avoid honest self-examination.  However, I accept that realistically, most of us go for the habitual feeling and gradually work away from that if it feels too bad.  Unfortunately, some people never learn these tricks and end up stuck in their own cesspools of negativity.  I don't blame people for this.  I may have stayed that way myself but for some very hard knocks and a very good therapist.


----------



## EmmaSohan

Bayview said:


> I was going to respond to your earlier post and ask you why you wanted to write something you don't believe in, but I guess this post answers that question.
> 
> But... I'd question whether it's a real reason. That is, I'm not sure it's necessary to make the compromise you feel you have to make.
> 
> As a reader, I object STRONGLY to books with alphahole heroes or books in which the author seems to be condoning behaviour I find reprehensible. I don't enjoy those books, I avoid future books by authors who've written that stuff, etc. And I really don't think I'm alone.
> 
> I'm not saying you should turn your books into moral treatises. And I'm not saying you should bend your writing to fit someone _else's _moral standards. But for the situation in your example... couldn't it actually add character depth if you included a few lines about the man having to regain the woman's trust after he got physical with her? He reaches for her, she flinches away, he realizes why... not a huge theme of the book, but a little reminder that actions have consequences.
> 
> As a writer, I'd be more comfortable with that approach. _As a reader_, I'd be happier with that approach.
> 
> Are you sure your story couldn't be just as good, or even a bit better, if you kept it consistent with your values?



I am trying to portray the main character as being about as emotional destroyed as possible. So, actually, it works great that she doesn't respond to him violently shaking her shoulders. She also did something horrible to him and feels guilty.

Actually, I am trying to present him as doing something reprehensible, so the scene only works if the reader understands that.

So I think we agree on a lot, including that I was not fond of not having any disclaimer here. This was just one of those 5% where I choose story over message.

One of my books takes places in a sexist society, and my main character, who is strong and determined, never fights that. It's really strange to read a book where the female main character doesn't fight the sexism. I felt like I had to apologize in the afterward.


----------



## Jack of all trades

Phil Istine said:


> I wasn't planning for a protracted discussion on my opinion because it's just that: merely my opinion.
> You use the word "fault".  I don't see it that way -just differing perceptions.  For the most part, I believe we choose our feelings - usually out of habit and/or conditioning.  For an adult to believe that someone _made_ them feel a certain way is a method of shifting responsibility for feeling bad onto someone else.  It's useful because it helps to avoid honest self-examination.  However, I accept that realistically, most of us go for the habitual feeling and gradually work away from that if it feels too bad.  Unfortunately, some people never learn these tricks and end up stuck in their own cesspools of negativity.  I don't blame people for this.  I may have stayed that way myself but for some very hard knocks and a very good therapist.



Why is it that when someone gets shot, everyone accepts that there's pain, but when someone is hit with psychological abuse, the pain is denied?

There's a difference between wallowing and acknowledging pain. 

I believe there's five stages of grief. The first, unless I'm mistaken, is denial. In order to heal, one must end the denial. Admit the pain. Sure, there's more steps. And it's possible to get stuck at any of them. But denying the pain guarantees that healing does not occur. 

One doesn't choose to feel pain. It simply happens. It's what one does from there that makes the difference.

Now I've not been paying attention to this discussion for a while, and I'm not sure how the post I quoted has to do with author responsibility, but that remark about choosing feelings jumped out at me. Carry on!


----------



## Kevin

Mmm... One's visible; the other's not? I mean the degree of pain is not always obvious, not like a gunshot. Some people don't seem to be fazed by anything, while others... And certainly the reaction is not going to be the same. I mean, a gunshot's pretty obvious.


----------



## Job

Because you can't wake up one day and decide to not let bullets hurt you.  You can do that with words.

Anyway, while I'm here in the reply section, the problem I have with the idea of social responsibility is trying to decipher what's meant by that.  The OP says that writers are responsible for their words.  To me, this means that the writer can be blamed or credited for what the words cause.

This brings up two issues in my mind.

1. how do we determine what the words caused, and
2. assuming we can determine what the words caused, what does the blame consist of?

For instance, if the words cause entertainment we can surmise that the credit is in money.  The author gets paid for the work that causes entertainment.  That seems fair, and in that sense, sure the writer is responsible for what the words caused.

But what happens if the words "cause" something bad?  What form does the blame take?  Is the writer fined?  Is the writer put in jail?  Is the writer stoned?  Is the writer just harassed?  Do a bunch of people just start writing blogs about how crappy the writer is?  I would be very happy if the OP would answer this question.

Nevertheless, there's still the problem of determining what negative impact the words have.  While words are certainly powerful, the impact they have on individuals is nuanced and often subtle.  And that impact is going to be mixed with literally thousands, if not more, of other bits of stimuli.  Someone painting their house green might have an impact on someone by sparking a memory which creates a leap of logic to a scene in a book which makes them remember the smell of bacon while they were reading that chapter which makes them hungry which makes them turn left instead of right to go to a restaurant which causes an accident and now three people are dead.  Who owns that?

Or maybe the negative impact of a book is determined by saying that certain things are just wrong.  If those wrong things are in a book then the book is automatically considered to have contributed .000000000000001% to all of the crappy things in the world.

There are two obvious problems with saying that though:

1. not a lick of science would seem to support it, and
2. who has the authority to say what's just wrong?


----------



## Jack of all trades

The point is pain is important. It tells us to stop before we get more seriously hurt. Emotional pain probably works the same way.


----------



## Terry D

Phil Istine said:


> Briefly, I write what _I_ want.  The reader acts how _they_ want.



I find it interesting, and very illustrative of the complexity of the concept of a writer's responsibility, that this discussion, in a few posts, has gone from Phil Istine making a simple statement about his thoughts on _writing_ to...



The Fantastical said:


> This is an honest question, how if this is your life "philosophy" (for a lack of a better word) how do you how does it work in real life?
> 
> Example - You say something that really really hurts someone else (let us assume un-intentionally) is it the persons fault for getting hurt or do you assume responsibility for what you said?



...it somehow suddenly becoming his _life_ philosophy, and expanding from his written words to things he says. And then even further afield to...



Jack of all trades said:


> Why is it that when someone gets shot, everyone accepts that there's pain, but when someone is hit with psychological abuse, the pain is denied?



Hurt feeling becoming psychological abuse?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying any of these posts are right, or wrong, nor am I assuming that any of the people posting have any but the best of intentions. I just think it shows that readers often do read into a writer's comments meanings that are not there. They assume what a writer means, even when the words are simple and clear; "*...I write what I want. The reader acts how they want.*" That's pretty unambiguous, but within four posts (I didn't include Emma's because hers was not related to this topic) the discussion had morphed into something quite different from Phil Istine's original comment. Had this change ended up 'hurting feelings' would Phil have been responsible for that? I think the answer is a pretty clear, no.


----------



## The Fantastical

A theme much found in books as well as movies, when seen like this you can see how wrong the actions are. Again something that an author should be responsible about when showing this in their works. Or maybe they should not show it at all and instead find a healthier way of showing mixed feelings between people? 

[video=youtube;wWoP8VpbpYI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWoP8VpbpYI[/video]


----------



## Jack of all trades

Terry D said:


> I find it interesting, and very illustrative of the complexity of the concept of a writer's responsibility, that this discussion, in a few posts, has gone from Phil Istine making a simple statement about his thoughts on _writing_ to...
> 
> 
> 
> ...it somehow suddenly becoming his _life_ philosophy, and expanding from his written words to things he says. And then even further afield to...
> 
> 
> 
> Hurt feeling becoming psychological abuse?
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying any of these posts are right, or wrong, nor am I assuming that any of the people posting have any but the best of intentions. I just think it shows that readers often do read into a writer's comments meanings that are not there. They assume what a writer means, even when the words are simple and clear; "*...I write what I want. The reader acts how they want.*" That's pretty unambiguous, but within four posts (I didn't include Emma's because hers was not related to this topic) the discussion had morphed into something quite different from Phil Istine's original comment. Had this change ended up 'hurting feelings' would Phil have been responsible for that? I think the answer is a pretty clear, no.



This is misdirection, as the change actually began with The Fantastical's question, which you had also quoted.

Is The Fantastical responsible for the change, then? I'd say, "Yes."

Is The Fantastical responsible for this discussion taking place?  Again, the obvious anwer is, "Yes." 

Without the original post, this particular discussion would not have happened. Sure, someone else may have triggered a similar discussion with a similar question, but not this one.

We are each of responsible for the words we chose. Some of those words incited strong feelings. Then we chose how to deal with those feelings.

Look. An author does not bear 100% of the responsibility for what people decide to do after reading his work. It would be ridiculous to think so! This is not an all or nothing concept. It is more a matter of authors being aware that their words can be seeds that might sprout in the minds of readers. The question then becomes, "What kind of crop do you want to harvest?"

Now there are those in this world who prefer to deal with only black and white. All or nothing. Life is easier that way. No doubt about it. But also less interesting. It's the greys that give depth.


----------



## Terry D

Jack of all trades said:


> This is misdirection, as the change actually began with The Fantastical's question, which you had also quoted.



No misdirection at all. It is simply my observation on the course of the discussion over the span of four posts. The words are right there, I didn't manipulate them in any way. The discussion went from one member's comment on his writing philosophy, to another's assumption that it was a life philosophy, to, in the end, the leap to psychological abuse which was never mentioned in the inciting post. Where the change began doesn't matter. I wasn't commenting on the evolution of this entire thread, I was just commenting on the change I noticed happening in such a short span of time.


----------



## Kyle R

Jack of all trades said:


> It is more a matter of authors being aware that their words can be seeds that might sprout in the minds of readers. The question then becomes, "What kind of crop do you want to harvest?"


That sounds, to me, like, "Authors should be aware that if you write something, your words might affect a reader."

To which I find myself thinking: "Well, yeah. I certainly hope so!"

I agree with the premise of this thread if the argument is: _Try to write responsibly as an author. Don't intentionally promote negative, hostile, or toxic messages._ I'd say that's a fair piece of advice. Probably still debatable (like most things), but fair.

But if the argument is: _An author should be responsible for any and all reader reactions to their work,_ then I have to firmly disagree. Readers will always view what they read through their own specific lens, interpreting things in ways that are often quite different from the author's original intentions.

The only thing an author can truly control is their own intent. The rest is in the reader's hands.

I also firmly disagree if the argument is: _An author should avoid depicting any negative behavior, in case it teaches the reader the wrong message._ Again, I'd go back to author intent here—the only thing the author can control is their own reasoning for including these kinds of scenes. What the reader draws from them is beyond the author's control.


----------



## Phil Istine

If I were to write a story about xyz incidents, attitudes, types of society etc. and someone decides to emulate those scenarios in real life, it's not my responsibility - in my opinion.

Just in case I had left any room for doubt.

I would ensure that potential readers were forewarned on the cover that the story might be unsuitable for children and those easily upset or offended.  I would not wish such a person to read it. That's where my responsibility ends.

Now, who said "Gorilla Threesome"?


----------



## Terry D

The Fantastical said:


> A theme much found in books as well as movies, when seen like this you can see how wrong the actions are. Again something that an author should be responsible about when showing this in their works. Or maybe they should not show it at all and instead find a healthier way of showing mixed feelings between people?
> 
> [video=youtube;wWoP8VpbpYI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWoP8VpbpYI[/video]



I think every writer should watch this video as well as the previously posted one about The Big Bang Theory and The Revenge of the Nerds. They teach an important lesson; No matter what you write, no matter how innocuous you believe it to be, there will always be someone willing to twist your work into something it is not. There will always be someone eager to tear you down because your vision is not their vision. Don't worry about the outliers. Be true to yourself and let your detractors be damned.


----------



## Deleted member 56686

Let's put it this way. Are the Beatles responsible for the Manson Murders since he blamed it on the White Album? Paul McCartney was writing about a see saw.


----------



## Firemajic

I wrote a poem about my childhood sexual abuse... I received private messaged from someone who was turned on by the abuse and wanted me to join a website and post my work there... My intent was to shine a light on child abuse, expose it, It was not intended to turn on some sick F^%%$^$ pervert.... I am NOT responsible for his REACTION... The same poem angered and disgusted another person, and he said I was disgusting... he said I was giving fathers a bad name... I am NOT responsible...  neither are child beauty pageants responsible for the sick &&^%^^%$ perverts that get off on watching innocent children dressed up and performing... THAT is NOT the INTENT....  there will always be someone who misconstrues your INTENT...


----------



## Job

*Elsa*: [_after finding that her room has been ransacked_] My room.
*Indiana Jones*: Mine too.
*Elsa*: What were they looking for?
*Indiana Jones*: This.
*Elsa*: The Grail Diary?
*Indiana Jones*: Uh huh.
*Elsa*: You had it? You didn't trust me?
*Indiana Jones*: I should've trusted you from the moment I let you tag along.
*Elsa*: Oh yes, Give them a flower and they'll follow you anywhere.
*Indiana Jones*: I can tell you're mad.  I'm sorry.
*Elsa*: Are you?
*Indiana Jones*: Yes, I like the way you do things.
*Elsa*: You're lucky I don't do things the same way as you. You'd still be standing at the Venice Pier.
*Indiana Jones*: I'm glad you didn't leave me standing at the pier. Since I've met you I've nearly been incinerated, drowned, shot at and chopped into fish bait, but it's been worth it. I hope you know that.  We're caught in the middle of something sinister here. My guess is mom found out more than she was looking for and until I am sure I am going to continue to do things the way you think they should be done.  May I kiss you?
[_Indiana Moves to Kiss Elsa_]
*Elsa*: How dare you kiss me.
[_Indiana Backs Away_]
*Indiana Jones*: I'm sorry.  I was wrong.
*Elsa*: I hate arrogant men.
*Indiana Jones*: [_after Elsa leaves_] Ahh, Venice.


----------



## Annoying kid

As per usual with these social justice arguments it's framed in the negative. Meaning there is an extensive list of what writers shouldn't do and what is wrong, but almost nothing presented as examples of what writers should do, and in a way that's successful and an artistic improvement over the alternative. It's either non existent or an ambiguous "be responsible". Because they can't even pull it off. It is an extreme prioritising of the moral message over other aspects of storytelling.


----------



## Jack of all trades

Kyle R said:


> That sounds, to me, like, "Authors should be aware that if you write something, your words might affect a reader."
> 
> To which I find myself thinking: "Well, yeah. I certainly hope so!"
> 
> I agree with the premise of this thread if the argument is: _Try to write responsibly as an author. Don't intentionally promote negative, hostile, or toxic messages._ I'd say that's a fair piece of advice. Probably still debatable (like most things), but fair.



Finally. Common ground.

This has been my position all along. So glad we agree!


----------



## WriteMind

I think self-censorship is inherent in everyone (excepting, perhaps, sociopaths and egotistical maniacs) to one degree or another.

All I know is I try to purposefully write without that little filter in my head (which is already rusty and porous, imo), and I still find it  impossible even during just stream-of-consciousness writing exercises.

I think that inherent self-censorship is my brain's attempt at remaining socially conscious, even if minimally so- and based on my own preconceived notions of what is morally right and wrong, tasteful and distasteful, and acceptable to myself and what I believe the majority of people would find acceptable or at least understandable.

That, to me, is an integral and inseparable part of the writing process.

I would further venture to guess that nearly all writers struggle with this process of finding that delicate balance between tastefulness and artistic integrity.

The problem is simply that all authors are not equal in talent, temperament nor concern- nor need they be.

This leads to literary morsels scattered in mounds of distasteful garbage.

All to be sorted out by readers varying from nihilistic bottom-feeders to voracious consumers with only the most sophisticated of palettes.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## Terry D

Kyle R said:


> But if the argument is: _An author should be responsible for any and all reader reactions to their work,_ then I have to firmly disagree. Readers will always view what they read through their own specific lens, interpreting things in ways that are often quite different from the author's original intentions.
> 
> The only thing an author can truly control is their own intent. The rest is in the reader's hands.
> 
> I also firmly disagree if the argument is: _An author should avoid depicting any negative behavior, in case it teaches the reader the wrong message._ Again, I'd go back to author intent here—the only thing the author can control is their own reasoning for including these kinds of scenes. What the reader draws from them is beyond the author's control.



Finally, common ground. I guess readers really are responsible for what they take from a writer's words. Thanks, Kyle!


----------



## AustinFrom1995

Annoying kid said:


> As per usual with these social justice arguments it's framed in the negative. Meaning there is an extensive list of what writers shouldn't do and what is wrong, but almost nothing presented as examples of what writers should do, and in a way that's successful and an artistic improvement over the alternative. It's either non existent or an ambiguous "be responsible". Because they can't even pull it off. It is an extreme prioritising of the moral message over other aspects of storytelling.



I hate it when authors prioritize the moral over the actual story, especially when the moral is really hammered down your throat or is otherwise done very obnoxiously. I feel that sometimes this is done so that the Author can go "See everyone, my writing is deep and meaningful because it has an obvious moral!" 

But the thing is, morals do not make a story deep and/or meaningful, morals are designed to teach lessons, not make us reflect on our own selves and the universe we find ourselves in. If you want to have a moral to your story, fine, but don't prioritize it over the other aspects of your story. 

When it comes to "is the author to blame?", I firmly believe that whatever actions the reader takes from the story is their own responsibility. If they choose to see the author's work as {blank}, then that's all on them. Because readers cannot know everything that goes on in the authors head, they cannot know for certain what the author's intentions are. The author may have intended for Mary Loo to have had a sad past, but she is doing her best to move on. But the reader may see her as a tragic character, constantly tormented by her past. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------

