# Writing the evils



## Kat (Mar 28, 2013)

Maybe I'm just sensitive and strange (okay, I admit to being strange) but I've been struggling lately with writing about evil aspects of life and society. I'm writing about incest, masochism, teenage drug use... does that contribute to society? I would hope that what I write is not glorifying these acts but more laying bare the reality. I feel like what I am writing is sending out more ills into an already crappy world. Is there a moral imperative to produce works that contribute positively to society?


----------



## NathanBrazil (Mar 28, 2013)

As long as your not diseminating information on how to build a suitcase, nuclear device. 

I think the moral imperative is to follow your muse - to whatever dark corner of the universe it takes you.


----------



## Rustgold (Mar 28, 2013)

For a proper answer, it'd depend on the actual material you're writing.  I think it's possible to write about the damage these things cause without it sounding like a 1960's father (or mother) knows best; but it's a careful line.



NathanBrazil said:


> As long as your not diseminating information on how to build a suitcase, nuclear device.


Why?  If you go on the 'evil' scale, surely certain social evils which harms hundreds of thousands (even millions) of people in the world today should rate worse than something basically impossible to pull off.


----------



## NathanBrazil (Mar 28, 2013)

Rustgold - I had my tongue pretty firmly planted in my cheek there. That's why I added the smiley face. Pretty sure you knew that. 

Kat - Laying bare the ugly realities of the world doesn't feel like glorifying it. I'm sure you have a good inner compass, that will help steer you away from material that doesn't feel comfortable for you. I would encourage you to write about the topics you've listed in the intial post.


----------



## shadowwalker (Mar 28, 2013)

The world is full of ugly things, so it's not like you're unveiling some new evil. And seriously, any one who reads a book/sees a movie/plays a game and think that justifies their doing something bad - well, they just need something to blame their decision on.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 28, 2013)

Shining a light on the bad stuff can be a good thing -- as opposed to sweeping things under the rug and pretending they don't happen. Maybe you'll inadvertently get through to someone -- that's "contribution" enough.


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Mar 28, 2013)

Kat said:


> Maybe I'm just sensitive and strange (okay, I admit to being strange) but I've been struggling lately with writing about evil aspects of life and society. I'm writing about incest, masochism, teenage drug use... does that contribute to society? I would hope that what I write is not glorifying these acts but more laying bare the reality. I feel like what I am writing is sending out more ills into an already crappy world.


Those ills already exist in the world, you're not inventing them. And because they exist, they need to be addressed in some way. And it is possible that somebody, reading your work, might reflect on his/her own life in a productive way, might feel less isolated in their own situation.


> Is there a moral imperative to produce works that contribute positively to society?


IMO all good art does, regardless of any intention to do so. I have no idea how the Mona Lisa's existence contributes to society in any way, but people seem to like it.


----------



## Tettsuo (Mar 28, 2013)

Kat said:


> Maybe I'm just sensitive and strange (okay, I admit to being strange) but I've been struggling lately with writing about evil aspects of life and society. I'm writing about incest, masochism, teenage drug use... does that contribute to society? I would hope that what I write is not glorifying these acts but more laying bare the reality. I feel like what I am writing is sending out more ills into an already crappy world. Is there a moral imperative to produce works that contribute positively to society?


Without the darkness, we can never understand what light is.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 28, 2013)

Pithy!


----------



## Robert_S (Mar 28, 2013)

Something I like to keep in mind is the fact that people who engage in these evils have to hide it. They know it's not right or normal, so to avoid being punished, socially, legally, they keep it hush. Now a simple comparison against social norms is not in and of itself a valid argument, since many people feel pot smoking is entirely acceptable and less dangerous than alcohol, but some things are beyond a social stigma: sex with a minor (who is still developing their self-identity), hard drug use (bath salts, meth, etc) or the mixing of pain and pleasure (sadomasochism).  This last case in point is subjective as it very much depends on the degree to which pain supplants pleasure.

I think your self-evaluation and introspection is serving you well enough.  You're questioning it before it gets out of hand in your writing and making you think of what you want to say.


----------



## Nickleby (Mar 28, 2013)

All good comments so far. I would only add that every story has a moral, even if you don't intend one. If you show a character, for instance, using drugs, and you only describe the positive aspects of the experience, then you're telling your reader that drugs are not harmful and implicitly condoning their use. On the other hand, if you show that same character overdosing and going to the hospital, you're showing a negative consequence.

Whenever you show someone engaging in bad behavior, you also show the consequences of that behavior (or lack thereof). You shouldn't pause your story for a sermon, but you should consider the message you send. That is one reason why every element of a story is important. Some readers will ignore your message, some will disagree with it, but some will take it to heart. You may even reinforce that small inner voice enough so that someone gets help. It does happen.


----------



## Sam (Mar 28, 2013)

The world isn't a fairytale where everything is great and wondrous, and everyone gets what they want and lives happily ever after. At times it can be wonderful, but too often it's cruel, harsh, and unforgiving. That's reality. Don't butter it up to be something it isn't.


----------



## seigfried007 (Mar 28, 2013)

I've often struggled with this myself, but I think it boils down to the bottom line of: It doesn't matter what you write because, if someone's sick enough, they will take it the wrong way and obsess over it and do something horrible. 

There are hundreds of thousands of serial killer novels out there, but none of them have been picked up by a serial killer who thought "Hey, I can do that." They're already sick; they don't need the push. Even if some sicko does pick up a book and decide to reenact it, that's not the writer's fault. The writer didn't make anyone kill anyone. The writer never killed anyone. The writer didn't even make that person sick. 


Here's a little story about something I'm writing (and have been struggling to write for several years now). It's a short story called Joanna's Big Secret (you can find it on Authonomy.com if you'd like to give me pointers) but it details the plight of an eight-year old girl and the action figure she molests. This little girl sexually, emotionally and physically assaults this little action figure (with very advanced AI, mind you). She makes him touch her, perform sex acts on him and makes him perform sex acts on her and other toys, then lie about it when her mother asks him what's going on. 

It's all told from first person figure's point of view--very moving piece--so we get to watch this toy go through various stages of sexual assault. We get to see his shock, the beginning's of obsessive-compulsive coping mechanisms (fear of being touched, obsessive cleaning and hand-washing), avoidance until his brain starts inventing new sensations (like pain and nausea) and feeling emotions he was never designed to feel (fear, anger, terror, hatred). 

Lots of amazing bits in this story and it takes a tremendous bravery on my part to do any work on it (and I'm, frankly, too often a coward to finish it just as yet). We have a fear on my part of toys becoming too advanced, of children never learning how to properly play with them (the toys are set to be pretty much automatic--they play by themselves). Parents that do not know what to do or how to parent and cannot talk about the hard stuff. A lack of trust between mother and daughter, a growing gulf of silence. The full-circle nature of child abuse: abuser to child to abuser to child, as each grows in stature and need for power. I've seen lots of stories that dealt with a robot's rise to consciousness, and even how they might revolt against human slavery, but... what if actively abused? How confusing must it be to have one program, one drive, and not be able to fulfill that urge? I also wanted to display the concept of android hacking because, in this story, Joanna finds a program, a glitch, online and activates that malicious code in the toy, who finds himself unable to alert parents and authorities when Joanna starts abusing him. 

So, yeah, there's a lot of important information and ethical questions for the next generation in that piece, but that doesn't mean I haven't worried some sicko might  read it and fap off in the corner somewhere. No doubt, some sicko is going to do just that. but that doesn't mean it's not an important story. 

You'll have to reconcile the world's need for tht story against the risk of publishing it (or writing it because even dwelling on and writing such material can affect you).


----------



## JosephB (Mar 28, 2013)

Evil can be fun too. Like the song says, "I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with saints." 

Yeah -- I know. Sorry. If you're quoting Billy Joel, you're kind of scraping the bottom of the barrel.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Mar 28, 2013)

I think you should ask yourself why you're writing about the evils you are.  Is it to work through problems you've experienced? Is it to make a point about the world? Is it simply to flesh out a villain?

If you truly know why you're writing a certain way, you'll eliminate much of the doubt you feel.


----------



## moderan (Mar 30, 2013)

I don't think there's any moral imperative on the part of the artist to make a positive contribution to society or anything like that. Holding "the evils" up to a mirror can expose the ugliness of those thoughts or acts, and perhaps deter someone. I dunno. The only imperative I think about obeying is the one that says to make said art as good as I can, to think as deeply as possible, people my pieces with living beings that can be believed, no matter how outlandish or offworldish they are.
Your mileage may vary. I've done pieces that feature any or all of the things you mentioned, and much worse. One of my pieces featured an offender being flayed alive--it was actually lauded by an extreme feminist periodical because that act was a punishment for a clearly depicted rape. Neither act is something I would ever consider IRL...but I felt it incumbent upon me to depict both as realistically as possible, and not to succumb to the violence-glorification ethos of the subgenre I was satirizing (splatterpunk).
I was also co-author of a string of light bdsm novels for an English publisher. Was sort of interesting learning about various kinds of perversions in order to use them as story fodder. My detective/antihero was a frotteur. A crowded double-decker was his "beat".
Other pieces have characters who are forever mired in some kind of moral turpitude. People exist that are like that--why not then have them be characters, even leads?
I don't think any territory is verboten.


----------



## Rustgold (Mar 30, 2013)

moderan said:


> I don't think any territory is verboten.



Are you sure about this?


----------



## moderan (Mar 30, 2013)

Yes. It is of course, only my opinion.


----------



## luckyscars (Mar 30, 2013)

Kat said:


> Maybe I'm just sensitive and strange (okay, I admit to being strange) but I've been struggling lately with writing about evil aspects of life and society. I'm writing about incest, masochism, teenage drug use... does that contribute to society? I would hope that what I write is not glorifying these acts but more laying bare the reality. I feel like what I am writing is sending out more ills into an already crappy world. Is there a moral imperative to produce works that contribute positively to society?



The short answer is no.

Actually, I'd even argue with your premise. A happy book doesn't necessarily make for a happier world. In fact, in my opinion, the opposite is often true. Whenever I read something that in any way glorifies, idolizes or romanticizes something, I usually feel compelled to reject it. Not because I'm a naturally depressed person. It's simply because I know its not true. And a book must contain some kind of truth to sustain meaning.

Like you say, the world is a pretty dark place. The sad part is that the cutesiest book in the world won't make it any different. So the moral imperative, if there is such a thing, is not to latch a band-aid over the bullet wound. It's to point it out, say 'here's the wound, now look at it. Look at it and then wonder: How do I make this better?'

For example, if I write a scene containing something like, say, child rape (and I have), I don't approach it with any kind of emotional agenda beyond what is required to write it well and I don't feel guilt for it. This is partly contrived - if I was to allow myself to get emotionally close to something dark in my work I suspect it would be very difficult to write it well - but mostly its because I know in my heart that what I'm writing is not real, but that what I'm writing ABOUT is or could potentially be. And, when you think of it that way, there's a certain catharsis in it. I feel that my writing is real, that the darkness is alive somehow. And that is exciting to me. Ask yourself which is more interesting, to venture down a dark and unknown country road or beneath the orange street lights. For most human beings, danger - whether real or imagined - is intoxicating, almost narcotic. And this has nothing to do with being immoral or evil, but with the endless quest to 'feel alive'.

Consider 'Oliver Twist' by Charles Dickens. A dark book containing virtually every evil and tragedy existing at the time. Did that not contribute positively to society?


----------



## Morkonan (Mar 30, 2013)

Kat said:


> Maybe I'm just sensitive and strange (okay, I admit to being strange) but I've been struggling lately with writing about evil aspects of life and society. I'm writing about incest, masochism, teenage drug use... does that contribute to society? I would hope that what I write is not glorifying these acts but more laying bare the reality. I feel like what I am writing is sending out more ills into an already crappy world. Is there a moral imperative to produce works that contribute positively to society?



I've thought about your question for two days, now. In my opinion, it's probably the most important question I have seen asked on the forum.

Let's answer it: Is there a moral imperative to produce works that contribute positively to society?

Yes.

I am not of the opinion that one is free to do whatever one wishes, without thoughts of the costs that others may pay for one's self-indulgence. There are some writers who write only for their own gratification, never intending to contribute their work to be experienced by others. So, this question would be meaningless for them.

But, for a writer who is writing not just for themselves, but for others to enjoy, this question is something that they should consider very closely.

A writer can do great harm. People don't think that is true, but the power of the written word is undeniable. Writers are artists, but they are also the conscience of their culture. No other form of expression has as much power to touch an individual as the written word. Because of that power, we have a responsibility to use it constructively. It is because a society of other human beings exists that we have that power and, without them, we would have nothing. So, to write without a conscious awareness of the impact of that act and to do so with disregard to its effects on society, who empowers us, would be a terrible, immoral, thing for a writer to do.

That is, if one considers themselves a "writer." There are plenty of people who write garbage, every day, without concern for how it may effect other people. Just last night, I watched a short vid about a woman who was harassed on "Twitter" after she had admitted that she had attempted suicide. Quite a few of the "Y" generation jumped at the opportunity to insult her for no reason. They didn't understand, apparently, how their words may effect her and her feelings about herself at a vulnerable time in her life. In fact, when they were tracked down, they felt that they had no responsibility for what they had written, since the "internet" isn't "real life." 

We're not children. We should take more care in examining the repercussions of our acts than children do. As writers who are writing for a society that gifts us with that opportunity, we mustn't seek its destruction. The written word _is_ real life, once it is read. We are responsible for what we write.

In regards to your own writing, described above, I would not say that you are breaking with moral convention in writing about the subject matter you have chosen. It appears you are illuminating it, rather than glorifying it. That is an important part of your role as a conscience of human culture. Writers can be pure entertainers, that's true. But, when you approach certain topics that peer deeply into the darker side of human nature, you enter a different realm, entirely. Commenting on social, moral or sensitive human issues puts you in the position of having to answer for those comments - Everything has its price. If you focus on these sorts of topics and make no attempt to demonstrate them for the evil that they are, instead choosing to glorify them, then you've left the desk of the writer and have entered a realm where you have become a proponent of destructive things for the same society that affords you such influential power and the luxury to exercise it.


----------



## Jon M (Mar 30, 2013)

.


----------



## Morkonan (Mar 31, 2013)

Jon M said:


> Do you write, Morkonan? Because you talk about writing a lot.
> 
> I ask because if you are not a writer, or an artist, or basically someone who enjoys creating and sharing their creations, then you have no idea the kind of pressure involved with "writing for society" or "producing work that positively contributes to society." It would be like inviting the rest of the country into your living room, or study, or wherever you choose to personally and artistically express yourself, and writing with them peering over your shoulder. Is there anything more paralyzing to an artist?



Yes, I write. I feel no undue pressure when writing, despite my personal  opinions in regard to the debt that I feel that I owe society by being  empowered by it. That is, of course, only true for finished product. Something half-baked isn't ready to be consumed by anyone.

But, you've read what I have said, yet haven't applied it properly. "Entertaining" someone is also a positive thing, if it is done for the right reasons. Making someone smile, drawing them deep into a dramatic story, helping them to experience something they've never felt before, worlds, times and places they could never see for themselves... Those are positive things, even constructive, if done right.



> Debatable, since what affects an individual will vary and depends entirely on that individual's nature.



I will wait while you compose a list of more powerful things created by man.



> Writing is a reflection of society, and that is all it should ever aspire to be. Anything else is lying.



As a writer, is all you aspire to be is a mirror?

Understand, my post is my opinion. I'm not demanding anyone agree with it. I've presented my opinion and you are free to judge it by whatever merit, or lack of same, that you find in it.


----------



## Rustgold (Mar 31, 2013)

moderan said:


> Yes. It is of course, only my opinion.



Do you really want me to take an extremity to show this not to be so?


----------



## moderan (Mar 31, 2013)

What? I don't really give a flying fish what you do. My opinion is my opinion. What kinda nonsense are you spewing?


----------



## luckyscars (Mar 31, 2013)

Rustgold said:


> Do you really want me to take an extremity to show this not to be so?



I for one am dying to hear it...

All I'll say is the following...

If you don't believe writers have the right to write about things which are considered controversial, taboo, subversive or even evil, then please do me a favor: Break into your local library or bookshop, steal a third of the books (including the Bible and anything ever written by Shakespeare), lay them in a huge pyre in the middle of the street and burn them to a smoldering stack of char.

Listen, virtually every single great work written was, at least at its time, thought that way. From Milton to Marlowe, Keats to Kerouac, Tolstoy to Thompson and beyond. In 2013, a middle of the road yarn about cats or hobbits may not be a bad book, but it is unlikely to matter. Society is progressing. Art (all art) must be allowed to continue push boundaries or it will cease to be relevant. Sometimes (often) relevancy is in discomfort. Like Moderan says, its in 'holding up a mirror'.


----------



## DPVP (Mar 31, 2013)

Interesting thread and relevant in a funny way. I was looking over the draft I finished last night and relized it's really dark in spots, and not just limited to the antagonists. My take on it is, bad stuff happens, and will continue to happen. 
At the end of the day I'm trying to write an entertaining book that I whould read. If it does not fit someone's concept of what the world will / should / is that is their problem not mind. 
So my advice, Is to just do it. If some eggs get broken along the way ow well.


----------



## Jon M (Mar 31, 2013)

.


----------



## luckyscars (Mar 31, 2013)

Morkonan said:


> As a writer, is all you aspire to be is a mirror
> 
> Understand, my post is my opinion. I'm not demanding anyone agree with it. I've presented my opinion and you are free to judge it by whatever merit, or lack of same, that you find in it.



I will admit this part of your response made me laugh a little. Not because there's anything _wrong_ with it you understand, but because it suggests a viewpoint that is so diametrically opposed to my own. Here's the thing: I see a mirror as probably one of the greatest inventions of all time. As in, up there with the wheel and gunpowder in terms of its use and importance. Remember that until mirrors existed, humankind's whole ability to perceive themselves was sharply limited to the muddy vista of a pond in sunlight, and so on. So a mirror's status is not to be understated.

Therefore, to aspire to write a book that functions as a metaphorical 'mirror to society'...I would call that a great accomplishment, and one that very few works have ever successfully been able to do. So to answer your question, YES. The day I write something (anything) that can be conclusively called a 'mirror' to society I would consider my mission accomplished. Actually, hell, it could be anything really. Society be damned (what is society anyhow?). I'd be happy just to write a book that was an accurate depiction - a mirror if you will - of a single human being - either real or imagined. In my view, this is what good writing is.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 31, 2013)

It's getting deep in here. And I'm talking about the kind of deep where you need a really good pair of boots.


----------



## ppsage (Mar 31, 2013)

> Is there a moral imperative to produce works that contribute positively to society?


First, I'd recommend leaving off the notion of the imperative's morality for a minute. That's because what contributes positively to society is at least a matter of some dispute, if not functional ineffability. Otherwise, I find the crux of the question as posed above a bit off kilter, a bit outside the the actual purpose an artist will (ought to?) pursue. (So I'm assuming the purpose of the writing is art. If it's propaganda, then the imperative belongs to the commissioner I suppose, or if it's commodity then to the god avarice.) The imperative for an artist is engagement (interest) in light of honest self-examination. That's a fancy way of saying you like (in some respect; from entertainment to necessity) what you have created and are willing to stand behind it. The _moral_ imperative for an artist is to honestly endorse their creation and the _contribution_ of an artist lies in the belief that the work created can communicate aspects of being not otherwise easily discovered. This is such an important deal that, in this society, we have, for the most part, agreed to risk the the dangers of sensationalized commercial propaganda lest such expression be inadvertently curtailed.


----------



## Morkonan (Mar 31, 2013)

Jon M said:


> That's nice. You know, I just wasn't sure, I mean, _sooo_ many comments, _sooo_ little threads of your own. I was just curious.



Cute.

However, you are only free to address what I have posted, not what I  have not posted... If you have an issue with any comments I have posted,  you are free to address them in the relevant threads.



> I  don't feel the same way you do about society, however. This notion that  we are indebted to society, can only do what we do as writers _because_  of society's gifts -- it's offensive, the same way a terrible smell is  offensive. I feel no similar debts. Having been through what I've been  through, I actually feel somewhat antagonistic. And so who cares if the  things I write about are terrible, who cares if nothing positive is  contributed -- not me. Not. at. all.



Then we have  different opinions on the matter. I certainly don't care if you wish to  write about terrible things and don't wish to positively contribute to  society. My response to the OP wasn't preemptively criticizing your then  unknown point of view. 



> Dear fellow writer and friend Morkonan, I aspire to be truthful  in my art, so that when I look at myself in the mirror I don't feel like  a complete fraud. Being a reflection of society is a consequence of  being truthful in one's work.



We don't have to be  friends. We don't have to be enemies, either. But, what we should do is  respect one another as human beings - That's enough.

"Being a  reflection of society is a consequence of being truthful in one's work"  doesn't really say much of anything. What is a "reflection of society?"  How much does it weigh? What does it do? Is this some sort of Zen thing?  The reason I ask is because while I acknowledge that people are  influenced by culture and genetic legacy, they're "active" participants  in both markets. Reflections are static.

I can buy a camera and hand it to anyone capable of  operating a doorknob and they can snap pictures that "reflect" society.  However, if I handed that camera to a professional photographer, it's  possible they could take pictures that were much more than just mere  reflections. Do I hire an oil painter to paint a master portrait of a  can of spray glue? (One is sitting on my desk, atm, and that was the  nearest inane thing I could think to include...)

This is a reflection of society:

View attachment 4430






This is what an artist, like a writer, creates:

View attachment 4431





You  seem to have a somewhat jaded view of society, "antagonistic", even. I  would guess that what you create is not a reflection of society, but  you're own interpretation of society, considering how it makes you feel  towards it. I wouldn't presume too much, though, as I don't know  anything more about you than what is evident in your statements in this  thread. However, whether you wish to believe it or not, given what you  have said, I believe you are not a reflection of society in your art,  but are, instead, like a funhouse mirror, selectively distorting  society's ills due to your own nature - You are viewing society "through  a glass, darkly" and are attempting to communicate that in your art,  whatever it may be. The consequence of that is that it is much more than  a mere reflection.


----------



## Ariel (Mar 31, 2013)

Write what you need to write.  Morality shouldn't play a part until the story is written.  Let the readers and the critics look for the morality and meaning.  Your job, as a writer, is to write the story and to write it well.  Your only obligation is that.  Your job is to write unflinchingly and unapologetically.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 31, 2013)

Yeah. I just want to write good stories. Hopefully people will be entertained, or maybe moved in some way. That's it -- and I'm not going to blow a lot of smoke and act like it's about anything more than that.


----------



## Jon M (Mar 31, 2013)

.


----------



## JosephB (Apr 1, 2013)

What about the "responsibility" of the reader? 

I'm not writing  for children, so as far as depicting the darker side of human nature is  concerned, I'm going to give readers the benefit of the doubt and assume  they can think for themselves and decide what's acceptable and what  isn't. I can't be concerned with people who are so impressionable or  unbalanced that they might be negatively influenced or somehow act on  what I write. Any adult who isn't living under a rock is aware of the  things I write about -- drug use, infidelity, spousal abuse, suicide,  whatever. Even if I decided to "glorify" any of those behaviors in some  way -- I am assuming they are aware of how those behaviors can be  harmful.

And obviously, everyone sees the world through his own  filter -- and that  includes any kind of "mirror" we might want to hold up. If someone has  developed a "jaded" view based on his life and experience, and that's  reflected in his writing, I'm capable of discerning that -- and I'm not  going to be influenced by it one way or the other. I'm going to assume  it's the same for other adult readers. So as long as it all  makes for a good story -- so what?


----------



## Rustgold (Apr 19, 2013)

I have a character background short story, based in the 1890's, where an aunt sells her niece into prostitution (which was a regular occurrence into the 20th century).  The story stops before anything occurs, but I'm wondering whether it's a bad avenue full stop (even with the historical relevancy).


----------



## Ariel (Apr 19, 2013)

Though not as common now there are still people sold into prostitution all over the world today.

I've been thinking about your question JosepB and I have an answer--sort of (bear with me, it was a long night).

The reader's responsibility is to come to a work or body of fiction and to take away from it the fact that it is a work of _fiction_.  Anything else s/he takes from it is coincidental and entirely dependent upon the mental and emotional capabilities of the reader.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Apr 19, 2013)

amsawtell said:


> The reader's responsibility is to come to a work or body of fiction and to take away from it the fact that it is a work of _fiction_.



But is that truly possible? Aren't we all influenced on a subconscious level by everything in our lives, fiction or not?


----------



## JosephB (Apr 19, 2013)

On some level, yes -- but can you really be concerned with that? More in line with the thread -- it's about whether or not a work of fiction can influence someone to act in way that's somehow detrimental. The point is, when you have an adult audience and you're not going out of your way to promote something harmful, then it's up to the reader to decide what to take away and what to do with it. As a writer, it's not my problem.


----------



## Grape Juice Vampire (Apr 19, 2013)

The idea that a writer has a moral responsibility has always baffled me. If this was so, no one would write for fear someone somewhere would be offended, etc. The only responsibility a writer has is to their work, and, if in keeping with that, there is something unpleasant or what have you, that's the way it is. Writing about evil doesn't make you so, nor does it mean you are not positively contributing to society. Not everything is all rainbows and candy; acting as if it is and never having anything bad in writings, is, in my opinion, when you negatively contribute to society.

To the op, write your story and worry about it later if you need to. But, honestly, if it's a part of your story and it works well, its all the better for it.


----------



## jayelle_cochran (Apr 19, 2013)

I haven't read every comment on here so forgive me if I'm repeating someone else.

I totally understand the issue of adding more negativity to the world.  I struggle with the same problem.  It's a good thing to want to increase the positive energy of the world by producing positive and uplifting works.  But, consider for a moment that there are those out there who enjoy reading darker works.  It's not that they are dark or negative themselves.  They just enjoy reading it for whatever reason.  For some it can be healing as they identify with a character who has gone through something similar to themselves.  Or perhaps it's a way for someone to let out and experience their own inner deamons without having to hurt others to do so.  So many things.

The conclusion I finally came to with my own writing was that I should just let my writing take me where it wants.  I can learn so much from and about myself through the words I type.  More than that, I feel that if I have an urge to write something than it needs to be written.  Whether or not it's ever read is an entirely different story all together.  Some things are just for me.  Some are to be shared.  It's a matter of how I feel about the work more than the content within.

*hugs*
Jayelle


----------



## NathanBrazil (Apr 19, 2013)

Rage written by Stephen King's under the pseudonym Richard Bachman is one example that i can site where the author felt responsible for events in real life.  "The Carneal incident was enough for me. I asked my publisher to take the damned thing out of print. They concurred."  But no one really blames King for the Carneal incident or any others that were tied to the book.


Any fiction where one of the main characters puts forth a convincing argument for suicide might be out of line.  I know that as adults we're certainly strong enough mentally to not be influenced, but we can't ensure the literature won't end up in the wrong hands.


----------



## Ariel (Apr 19, 2013)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> But is that truly possible? Aren't we all influenced on a subconscious level by everything in our lives, fiction or not?


To some extent, yes.  But a rational, healthy adult isn't going to read "A Child Called It" and assume that's the way to treat children.  A rational and healthy adult also isn't going to watch "X Men" and assume he or she can fly and jump off a building either.

As writers we cannot write for the irrational or mentally unsound and neither can we be held responsible for the actions of an irrational and mentally unsound reader.


----------



## Shiloh Irons (Apr 19, 2013)

JosephB said:


> Shining a light on the bad stuff can be a good thing -- *as opposed to sweeping things under the rug and pretending they don't happen*. Maybe you'll inadvertently get through to someone -- that's "contribution" enough.



I fully agree. What you said actually reinforced to continue with the "evil" parts of my own novel. And frankly the "evil's" in mine are untalked about way to often. Writing through it can get emotional though. Im a 30yo male and last night I broke down while editing lol.


----------



## luckyscars (Apr 20, 2013)

From skimming through the posts on this thread I sense that people take the whole thing far too darn seriously...

I often think one of the most depressing things about the past one hundred years is that while art has never been so liberated and speech so free, the number of people actually willing to push boundaries is still so amazingly small.

Think how lucky we are. People used to be persecuted, tortured and even killed for writing even the most slight of controversies. We no longer have that system in place. So why not use it? Why not quit worrying about whether something is 'right' to be written about and just trust in the fact that if you, a good person, can find a topic interesting enough to write about then that alone makes it fine? 

A writer whose heart is essentially 'good' cannot write a book that is 'evil'. Such a writer can merely write _about_ evil. Explore it, the dark of the mind, the blood on the knife, the scream in the mist. Always without being held morally responsible for any of it. If I write about a child murderer or a white supremacist its because I find it interesting and important, not because I find it admirable. It is total ignorance to associate a writer with the actions of his/her characters.


----------



## Rustgold (Apr 20, 2013)

luckyscars said:


> From skimming through the posts on this thread I sense that people take the whole thing far too darn seriously...
> I often think one of the most depressing things about the past one hundred years is that while art has never been so liberated and speech so free, the number of people actually willing to push boundaries is still so amazingly small.



Far too many people push past the boundaries into plain bad taste.  With liberty, aren't we supposed to have responsibility?



> A writer whose heart is essentially 'good' cannot write a book that is 'evil'.


And what determination is there that a writer is actually good?



> Always without being held morally responsible for any of it.


Surely responsibility is a key platform of 'good', and not taking moral responsibility is surely not.
 Therefore, surely these two quotes are incompatible with each other.



> It is total ignorance to associate a writer with the actions of his/her characters.


But, doesn't the value judgements which a reader gains out of a book stems from what a writer puts into it; and therefore isn't it right to tag a writer according to the values advocated from his/her works.


----------



## JosephB (Apr 20, 2013)

Rustgold said:


> But, doesn't the value judgements which a reader gains out of a book stems from what a writer puts into it; and therefore isn't it right to tag a writer according to the values advocated from his/her works.



In the words of John McEnroe, "You can NOT be serious!" 

Writers do not automatically "advocate" values or behaviors simply because they write about them -- and mentally stable readers don't emulate the negative behaviors of fictional characters or somehow take on their values. This seems like such a simple concept -- I can't believe that it needs to be said in the first place, never mind repeated -- especially on a writing site.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Apr 20, 2013)

luckyscars said:


> A writer whose heart is essentially 'good' cannot write a book that is 'evil'. Such a writer can merely write _about_ evil. Explore it, the dark of the mind, the blood on the knife, the scream in the mist. Always without being held morally responsible for any of it.



Taking a step back from writers for the moment, where do you draw the line? What's the difference between an evil person and a "good" person who writes about evil things? What's the difference between an evil person with evil thoughts, and a good person with evil thoughts? Unless you're limiting "evil" to actions performed, do those modifiers have any significance other than to assure yourself, "I'm a good person, so how can this be wrong?"

Or, to put it another way, if Dahmer hadn't actually committed any of the crimes he did, should we call him a good person? After all, there's nothing wrong with simply "exploring" evil things in your mind, right?


----------



## Robert_S (Apr 20, 2013)

Rustgold said:


> But, doesn't the value judgements which a reader gains out of a book stems from what a writer puts into it; and therefore isn't it right to tag a writer according to the values advocated from his/her works.



Depends. I'm sure you've read "Lolita." Would you say Nabokov is advocating child molestation and statutory rape?


----------



## Sam (Apr 20, 2013)

> A writer whose heart is essentially 'good' cannot write a book that is 'evil'.



By that token an actor who is 'essentially good' cannot play a character who is evil. A songwriter who is 'essentially good' cannot write a song that promotes evil. Or a poet who is 'essentially good' cannot write a poem based on evil doings. Your argument is flawed by the very fact that some of the best villains ever depicted on the silver screen are genuinely nice people in the real word. If anything, it's harder to pull off an evil character when you already possess those tendencies -- because it comes as second nature to a normally evil person, but a nice person has to put a lot more into the role to pull it off.


----------



## Rustgold (Apr 20, 2013)

JosephB said:


> In the words of John McEnroe, "You can NOT be serious!"
> Writers do not automatically "advocate" values or behaviors simply because they write about them -- and mentally stable readers don't emulate the negative behaviors of fictional characters or somehow take on their values. This seems like such a simple concept -- I can't believe that it needs to be said in the first place, never mind repeated -- especially on a writing site.


How about you quote your John McEnroe quote back to yourself in a mirror.

If I write a 'fictional' book which has a protagonist taking revenge on a corrupt government, and if I detail how to make bombs, the best places to plant the bombs, how evil the government is etc, and if the protagonist is vindicated in the 'fictional' book; wouldn't I be clearly making an advocative position?



Robert_S said:


> Depends. I'm sure you've read "Lolita." Would you say Nabokov is advocating child molestation and statutory rape?



Actually, no; I don't tend to read that type of literature.


----------



## Rustgold (Apr 20, 2013)

Sam said:


> If anything, it's harder to pull off an evil character when you already possess those tendencies -- because it comes as second nature to a normally evil person, but a nice person has to put a lot more into the role to pull it off.



By that assessment, wouldn't it mean that all of these 'good guys' in movies are actually complete mongrels in real life?...... Actually there may be something to it.


----------



## Cran (Apr 20, 2013)

To be fair, that statement was qualified by the one following - distinguishing writing about evil from being inherently evil by being written. 

In other words, the poster was saying that an actor who is a good person should not be considered evil because of the evil roles played.


ETA: added post due to intervening replies:


Sam said:


> > A writer whose heart is essentially 'good' cannot write a book that is 'evil'.
> 
> 
> By that token an actor who is 'essentially good'  cannot play a character who is evil. A songwriter who is 'essentially  good' cannot write a song that promotes evil. Or a poet who is  'essentially good' cannot write a poem based on evil doings. Your  argument is flawed by the very fact that some of the best villains ever  depicted on the silver screen are genuinely nice people in the real  word. If anything, it's harder to pull off an evil character when you  already possess those tendencies -- because it comes as second nature to  a normally evil person, but a nice person has to put a lot more into  the role to pull it off.


----------



## Sam (Apr 20, 2013)

> By that assessment, wouldn't it mean that all of these 'good guys' in  movies are actually complete mongrels in real life?...... Actually there  may be something to it.



In some cases, yes. Kevin Costner was accused of indecent exposure and attempting to grope a masseuse. Matthew Fox  allegedly punched a female bus driver in the groin. Sean Penn has been arrested for beating up a number of his girlfriends. George Peppard was a suspected misogynist. They all played nice guys in many films and television shows throughout their careers. I'm sure there's more. 

Point being, of course, that you don't have be evil to write evil. That's self-explanatory. You don't need to have killed someone to write about killing someone, do you? It's why we have imaginations.


----------



## JosephB (Apr 20, 2013)

Rustgold said:


> How about you quote your John McEnroe quote back to yourself in a mirror.
> 
> If I write a 'fictional' book which has a protagonist taking revenge on a corrupt government, and if I detail how to make bombs, the best places to plant the bombs, how evil the government is etc, and if the protagonist is vindicated in the 'fictional' book; wouldn't I be clearly making an advocative position?



No problem. I can offer my opinion on this and keep a straight face (almost) -- and I’d be happy to look in the mirror while I do it.

You’re talking about something like _The Turner Diaries_.  Someone can jump in here -- but I believe the extremest right-wing author’s purpose for writing that book was to disseminate just that kind of information to people who were like-minded. (No need to thank me for providing an example for you.) If you include bomb making instructions in a novel that are detailed enough to actually build a bomb from readily available materials – I’d say that’s a RARE exception where the author bears SOME responsibility for making that information available and someone uses it to take action.

But as I said implicitly -- it’s a two way street. You remember the part about “mentally stable readers?” Oh yeah, that part.

That means an author should have a reasonable expectation that readers aren’t going to run out and do what their fictional characters do. Of course an _exception_ would be your extreme and somewhat goofy example -- where the author actually wants a bunch of nut jobs to go out build bombs or whatever. So I guess I left out the part about the author being mentally stable too. The thing is, when something goes without saying, I usually don't bother saying it.

As to why your example is especially goofy -- do you think any reputable publisher would publish a book with detailed bomb making instructions? Do you think any kind of self-published/distributed book like that is going to get any traction among responsible, sane adults? I seriously doubt it. This about fiction -- not propaganda disguised as fiction. Another reason your example stinks.

Am I serious?  As serious as I can be, under the circumstances.


----------



## Ariel (Apr 20, 2013)

This has brought up another question for me.  There are things that are obviously evil, yes--abuse of others, murder, sexual violence--by what standard do we judge the lesser evils?  Evil could be completely subjective depending on the culture and religious beliefs of a person.

For example, one statement from one religion is blasphemy in another. As a pagan I believe in many gods.  To a monotheist that is blasphemous.


----------



## Cran (Apr 21, 2013)

Sam said:


> In some cases, yes. Kevin Costner was accused of indecent exposure and attempting to grope a masseuse. Matthew Fox  allegedly punched a female bus driver in the groin. Sean Penn has been arrested for beating up a number of his girlfriends. George Peppard was a suspected misogynist. They all played nice guys in many films and television shows throughout their careers. I'm sure there's more.
> 
> Point being, of course, that you don't have be evil to write evil. That's self-explanatory. You don't need to have killed someone to write about killing someone, do you? It's why we have imaginations.


Agreed. Because if the opposite were true, then we have a long history of honouring a bunch of homicidal psychotics, philanderers and warmongers.


----------



## Dictarium (Apr 21, 2013)

Without getting political about it, as a teenager attending high school, teenage drug use, for the most part, isn't all that evil. It's a highly integral part of a teenage society and kind of a commonplace part of high school life. I'm straight, and don't smoke, pop, inject, "put on tongue", or any of that, but I would estimate that at least (if not over) 50% of my grade of about 950 students have smoked pot or gotten drunk at some point. Depending on the perspective you're writing from, if you make the subject of teenage drug use (not overuse, mind you, but use) less of an evil and more of a given, it may make it a bit easier.


----------



## J Anfinson (Apr 21, 2013)

View attachment 4487

Evil acts occur every day, and I don't believe it's wrong to show characters acting that way. I do think it's sad though that at times we end up having to put warnings like this one to keep people from re-enacting what fictional characters do. Should be common sense.


----------



## Sam (Apr 21, 2013)

Rustgold said:


> How about you quote your John McEnroe quote back to yourself in a mirror.
> 
> If I write a 'fictional' book which has a protagonist taking revenge on a corrupt government, and if I detail how to make bombs, the best places to plant the bombs, how evil the government is etc, and if the protagonist is vindicated in the 'fictional' book; wouldn't I be clearly making an advocative position?
> 
> ...



I call your attention to Tom Clancy's _The Sum of All Fears_, where he detailed the exact step-by-step process of creating a nuclear weapon. Aside from the fact that most people didn't have a clue what he was talking about, nor the material required to even attempt construction, he's on record as saying that he wanted it to be realistic. Is it really conceivable that he can be held accountable if someone builds a nuclear bomb from his writing? Of course it isn't. He said himself that you could find the information in any library in the world. 

No one is disputing the fact that some people act the way characters in books and films do. But there is no issue of accountability here. I write military thrillers. In one of my novels, two 18-year-old brothers join the Marines. Am I advocating that young people should join the Marines? Of course I'm not. Suggesting something similar is true for characters who are evil is a cut-and-dried case of _reductio ad absurdum. _


----------



## Dictarium (Apr 21, 2013)

Sam said:


> I call your attention to Tom Clancy's _The Sum of All Fears_, where he detailed the exact step-by-step process of creating a nuclear weapon. Aside from the fact that most people didn't have a clue what he was talking about, nor the material required to even attempt construction, he's on record as saying that he wanted it to be realistic. Is it really conceivable that he can be held accountable if someone builds a nuclear bomb from his writing? Of course it isn't. He said himself that you could find the information in any library in the world.
> 
> No one is disputing the fact that some people act the way characters in books and films do. But there is no issue of accountability here. I write military thrillers. In one of my novels, two 18-year-old brothers join the Marines. Am I advocating that young people should join the Marines? Of course I'm not. Suggesting something similar is true for characters who are evil is a cut-and-dried case of _reductio ad absurdum. _


I'd also posit that the frequency with which someone breaks the law on the instructions or in the name of a book or story is so insignificantly small that it's literally not worth batting half an eyelash over whilst writing. It's like covering your kid in bubble wrap on the first day of school because they might run into a sharp corner.


----------



## luckyscars (Apr 21, 2013)

Rustgold said:


> Far too many people push past the boundaries into plain bad taste.  With liberty, aren't we supposed to have responsibility?



Define 'bad taste'. My idea of what's bad taste is probably vastly different than yours. Your idea of bad taste is probably vastly different to the Pope or an Islamic Fundamentalist. That doesn't work, does it?





> And what determination is there that a writer is actually good?



Their actions and who they are outside of the novel. 

I like to write about murder. I don't commit murders. I don't like people that do commit murders. Everybody that knows me knows I am not a murderer. Therefore it is fairly sensible and, in fact, easy for anybody who reads my stuff to accept that I don't actually advocate nor approve of any of it. If they don't they are either an idiot, or perhaps an ex girlfriend.



> Surely responsibility is a key platform of 'good', and not taking moral responsibility is surely not.
> Therefore, surely these two quotes are incompatible with each other.



Surely this question surely makes surely no sense.




> But, doesn't the value judgements which a reader gains out of a book stems from what a writer puts into it; and therefore isn't it right to tag a writer according to the values advocated from his/her works.



Writing isnt about advocating values. It's about questioning them.


----------



## Sam (Apr 21, 2013)

luckyscars said:


> I like to write about murder. I don't commit murders. I don't like people that do commit murders. Everybody that knows me knows I am not a murderer. Therefore it is fairly sensible and, in fact, easy for anybody who reads my stuff to accept that I don't actually advocate nor approve of any of it. If they don't they are either an idiot, or perhaps an ex girlfriend.



Are you saying that because I write about murders, I'm advocating them? If so, that's a bit of convoluted logic right there. What if I'm a writer of crime fiction -- should I refrain from writing about murder because of fear that someone might think I advocate it? That makes absolutely zero sense to me. I don't condone murder, but it's an integral part of society, and refusing to acknowledge its existence in fiction is a bit like refusing to acknowledge that there are evil people in the world. 

You can't write a story without conflict. What that conflict is depends on the writer, the genre, and the audience. But it certainly doesn't mean that anyone advocates something that they've written.


----------



## Kevin (Apr 21, 2013)

Consider _Dexter, _the series.


----------



## DaveVidarr (Apr 21, 2013)

Kat said:


> I feel like what I am writing is sending out more ills into an already crappy world. Is there a moral imperative to produce works that contribute positively to society?



I feel you are thinking too much about this and the impact it will have.  If its part of your story then it needs to be there. If its not, then its gratuitous and can be removed.  As to the moral implications of what you write, as long as you aren't saying 'Hey kids! go out and shoot up heroin!" you have nowt to worry about.


----------



## voltigeur (Apr 21, 2013)

The issue I have with writing about evil is, understanding the motivations behind the characters committing the acts. I'm writing a historical novel of the Cold War and a large part of the story happens in Central America. I plan to include the El Mozote massacre, when I read what was actually done there not only am I horrified but I cannot understand the level of cruelty at all! I don't know how to show the perpetrators frame of mind or how they could do the things that were done historically.


(will check spelling and typing when I get back to my own computer)


----------



## Dictarium (Apr 21, 2013)

When you're writing about murder and other terrible acts like you said, just remember that almost nobody ever does an evil thing thinking it's evil. People who do things like that often have a reason which makes a lot of sense to them. Put yourself in that mindset and think of what kinds of things would make one perform such an act. Again, the idea that "everyone's the hero in their own story" often rings true when people do these sort of things (murder, etc.).


----------



## JosephB (Apr 21, 2013)

I know the OP said "evil" -- but she went on to say it was about "incest, masochism, _teenage_ drug use etc. First, I'm pretty sure she writes Y.A. -- so you are potentially talking about a more impressionable audience -- and I think there you have to be a somewhat more mindful that you're depicting the down-sides and not promoting anything. Secondly, I think you need to stay within the framework of potentially harmful behaviors -- if you start talking about nebulous things like "evil" or even "values" -- the conversation is going to go off the rails pretty quickly -- even though for most people they're connected on some level.

I know the OP went on to say stuff about "adding negativity" -- but that's kind of hard to pin down too. Kat has been posting here a long time -- she seems like a very nice lady and she has kids. I can see why she's concerned. But considering teens are aware of these things and likely see or even experience them -- it's a stretch to say you're adding to anything just by writing about it. Bottom line -- it's about writing responsibly to a potentially impressionable audience. As far as adults go -- that's been covered, I believe  the responsibly rests with the reader.


----------



## Shiloh Irons (Apr 21, 2013)

Im holding back on talking about certain "evils" in the real world, because the "real" 'evils in high places' as talked about in certain scripture (not a Christian nut plzzz dont confuse me with those people) would not appreciate me talking about why my main character is DID. 

So my question is this.... Do I include terminology like "MK-Ultra" or "Monarch Programming" , which might cause some unwanted attention, or do I leave it out. For those who don't know, mk-ultra stemmed from the US govenment stealing joseph mengele from the Nazi's and having his mind control projects in Nazi Germany continued here in the United States on US citizens, and it involved electroshock, heavy molestation, and kids were and are being plucked from Amish communities as well as KKK areas of the USA as well. ...and I COULD , but right now am not, going into this in my book.... advice on if I should keep it out would be helpful. PM me if you need.


----------



## esynnaj (Apr 21, 2013)

With all that's happened in the United States recently (Boston, Newtown, Aurora) I've been thinking a lot about evil. I don't understand it, this compulsion making people carry out heinous acts. But I do know I'd rather read about evil as works of fiction than have it occur in real life. Once we reach the realization evil is purposeful and avoidable, that's when I'll be certain we are a civilized society rather than a gathering of sheep with some of us just a few Darwinian steps from being non-sentient and without a conscience.


----------



## Ariel (Apr 21, 2013)

As far as young adult novels are concerned I still feel that the responsibility lies with the reader and their parents.  If the parent finds material objectionable it is up to the parent to decide not to allow their child to read it--not the writer.

I think that there is a lot of coddling of children and teenagers lately.  Sometimes, the best way to teach someone is to let them touch the burner or to stick their finger into the electrical outlet.  If a teenager can learn from a book about the evils of this world then maybe they won't be so interested in experiencing the evils.  After all, knowledge is power.  It's the power to choose and to define oneself.


----------



## luckyscars (Apr 21, 2013)

Sam said:


> Are you saying that because I write about murders, I'm advocating them? If so, that's a bit of convoluted logic right there. What if I'm a writer of crime fiction -- should I refrain from writing about murder because of fear that someone might think I advocate it? That makes absolutely zero sense to me. I don't condone murder, but it's an integral part of society, and refusing to acknowledge its existence in fiction is a bit like refusing to acknowledge that there are evil people in the world.
> 
> You can't write a story without conflict. What that conflict is depends on the writer, the genre, and the audience. But it certainly doesn't mean that anyone advocates something that they've written.



Sam, you're 'quoting' me here and so implying your post is in disagreement with what I said... but I am making the exact same point as you are. Explain?


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Apr 22, 2013)

Dictarium said:


> Without getting political about it, as a teenager attending high school, teenage drug use, for the most part, isn't all that evil. It's a highly integral part of a teenage society and kind of a commonplace part of high school life. I'm straight, and don't smoke, pop, inject, "put on tongue", or any of that, but I would estimate that at least (if not over) 50% of my grade of about 950 students have smoked pot or gotten drunk at some point. Depending on the perspective you're writing from, if you make the subject of teenage drug use (not overuse, mind you, but use) less of an evil and more of a given, it may make it a bit easier.



I'm a afraid the argument of "it happens a lot, so clearly it can't be really bad" doesn't hold much water.


----------



## Sam (Apr 22, 2013)

luckyscars said:


> Sam, you're 'quoting' me here and so implying your post is in disagreement with what I said... but I am making the exact same point as you are. Explain?



My apologies. I thought you were arguing that one had to have evil tendencies to write an evil-themed novel. Case of mistaken identity?


----------



## Dictarium (Apr 22, 2013)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> I'm a afraid the argument of "it happens a lot, so clearly it can't be really bad" doesn't hold much water.


I'm not arguing for or against the badness/evilness of it, but rather that it isn't perceived by that age group as bad or evil.


----------



## JosephB (Apr 22, 2013)

amsawtell said:


> As far as young adult novels are concerned I  still feel that the responsibility lies with the reader and their  parents.  If the parent finds material objectionable it is up to the  parent to decide not to allow their child to read it--not the writer.
> 
> I think that there is a lot of coddling of children and teenagers  lately.  Sometimes, the best way to teach someone is to let them touch  the burner or to stick their finger into the electrical outlet.  If a  teenager can learn from a book about the evils of this world then maybe  they won't be so interested in experiencing the evils.  After all,  knowledge is power.  It's the power to choose and to define  oneself.



I would doubt that many YA books depict things that kids don't know  about, or that actually encourage any risky behaviors. So I'm guessing  this is mostly a moot point -- but the reality is that a lot of parents  don't pay a lot of attention -- or they they just think they do. So I  think if your audience includes young teens then some of the  responsibility rests on you to not cross the line into promoting or  depicting potentially harmful behaviors without including the downsides.  I'm betting most authors already feel that way -- and I also doubt many  kids act based on what they read -- so a lot of this hand-wringing is over  nothing. Otherwise, I think it's mostly about principle and authors  doing the right thing. You can't dictate it.


----------



## Terry D (Apr 22, 2013)

This thread certainly applies to my current book, where the protagonist--a thirteen-year-old boy--is kidnapped and ends up in the hands of a serial killer.  The world of the book includes, murder, kidnapping, drugs, and a fair amount of animal abuse as the boy is held at a dog-fighting facility.  No one will come away from this book believing that I condone any of those activities.  Fiction is about how people react to situations new to them; when world collide, so to speak.  The world my protagonist ends up in is far different than that which he has ever known.  That's the driver for the change the story depicts.


----------

