# Impact and responsibility (TRIGGER WARNING)



## Feo Takahari (Mar 18, 2013)

There are various ways for me to frame this question, but a lot of them are associated with politics, and as such are against site rules. I'll approach it from a non-political direction, and ask that others do the same.

I kind of like the song How to Save a Life. It's heartfelt and powerful, and it's made me cry more than once. I've heard that it's had a stronger impact on some people--even convinced a few suicidal people not to go through with it--but I've never been suicidal, so I don't know anything about that.

I really like the song Lift Your Head Up High and Blow Your Brains Out. It's catchy and funny, and it makes me smile. I've never heard anything about a suicidal person listening to it, but I can't imagine that turning out well.

Is there any degree of immorality in writing something like the latter? Is there any degree of responsibility to write something like the former? Should you blame yourself if your art has a negative effect on someone, or should the blame lie elsewhere?

(There's been at least one powerful response to these questions already, but I think this deserves further discussion.)

P.S. I don't know of any song about suicide that would be directly analogous to it, but I do have one example of a song that's just too messed-up for me by an artist I used to like. I can't listen to it, I can't understand why anyone would listen to it, and I don't know what to make of its existence.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 18, 2013)

Art reflects the full range of human experience, both good and bad, and both of which I believe are necessary to be human. I don't believe you bear any blame if a work that speaks to pain or depression or other negative aspects of the human experience has a negative impact on someone. You're holding up a mirror to reality, not creating it.


----------



## Androxine Vortex (Mar 18, 2013)

Being a Christian I take things like this seriously. There was a part in the Bible where many members of the church were having an issue. There were many other pagan temples in the city that worshiped different gods. The priests would take animals and sacrifice them to these gods and then the dead meat would be sold into the market. The Christians there were feeling morally conflicted about eating meat that had once been used to give praise to pagan gods and so they felt the food was somehow defiled. I forget who wrote the letter but he told them that food itself is not evil.

He told them that it would not be a sin to consume the food. But, it would be a sin that if you ate the food while you still felt inside that it was wrong to do so. Even though it wasn't a sin, you betrayed your conscience about what is right and wrong and therefor sinned. That is why he said in   Corinthians 8:13 says, "Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble." I write about sorcery and gods but do I want to promote the occult? No! That's why at the beginning at all of my stories there will be a note from me saying that everything in this book is purely fictional and I am in no way trying to promote the occult, similar to what Michael Jackson did for his Thriller video.


----------



## tlbodine (Mar 18, 2013)

I didn't click on any links because this computer has no sound, so if I missed something vital I apologize  

Here's the thing.  People who are suicidal (to follow up on your example) are *already* feeling that way.  I doubt anyone has ever been made to be suicidal by a song or a book they've read.  There's always going to be an underlying cause there.  The art may exacerbate it, but if it's not THAT art, it'll be something else.  

When you're suicidal, you already know (or feel) that the world is screwed up, and that you're damaged, and that things are terrible.  If all the art in the world tells you that the world is beautiful and everybody loves you, that's not going to jive with your experience, and you'll feel lied to.  

Which is, I think, why depressed people gravitate toward dark art (but not The Dark Arts, that's something different).  They're looking for something in the world that they can point to and say, "Yeah...that.  That's how I feel.  That's my reality."  And sometimes doing that makes you feel better about your situation.  Sometimes you just need to know, "Hey, somebody else knows how screwed up this life is." And sometimes that message comes from bleak gallows humor or other "inappropriate" outlets, and sometimes it's more heartfelt.  

The point is:  I say your only moral responsibility when creating art is to be honest.  Be true to the experiences of the world, good and bad.  Dig deep and find what resonates with you.  You never know what's going to set someone off.  You can only try to be as honest and compassionate as possible.


----------



## Ophiucha (Mar 18, 2013)

Tough. I feel like a lot of people who say things like art should be made free of any responsibility are saying that because they don't want to be called out for writing something problematic. Books, and songs, aren't written in a bubble, and if nothing else I think you should be willing to accept responsibility for hurting somebody with your work, regardless of whether or not that was your intention. Or even if you agree with them, if the matter is more subjective and political. You should not have to censor yourself, but if you cannot look at your work critically and are just going to blame people for being offended or triggered, then you probably shouldn't be writing whatever it is you are writing. It's just part of the business. For most issues and for most people, at some point you would have to ask yourself if you were okay with the consequences. If you write a joke about suicide, it's hard to imagine that somebody _wouldn't _be hurt by it. So be aware of your reasons for writing something that could be construed as offensive, be aware of why you went with it, and be prepared to empathize with the people who disagreed with your decision.

All that said, I would also keep in mind that the number of people who will really be _affected _by what you say is limited. People just don't take media that seriously, and those who do are usually involved in media analysis as a hobby or career. Unless you hit JK Rowling levels of popularity and _devotion_, for most people your words will be a fleeting fancy, at worst ones that make them scoff or huff in temporary disgust, but nothing even worth a tweet to you about, let alone something drastic within their own lives. It may reinforce something. As I said, books aren't built in a bubble, art reflects life, and if you write something that hurts somebody it's because those same messages exist in real life... but they hurt a lot more out there than in the pages of a novel. That doesn't necessarily abdicate you of any responsibility, but, y'know, you're not dangerously fingering the trigger of a gun to your reader's heads every time you put a word on the page.


----------



## Devor (Mar 18, 2013)

Unless you're using your art in an effort to _rally_ some kind of negative behavior, I don't think you have a responsibility to predict the millions of possible ways that people could react to your work.

I might not like the morality of a story or a song, but that's not the same as accrediting the authors as responsible for suicides and copycat killers.

Besides, there's no end to the blame that would end up going around.  Dexter is a dark series with a serial killer as its protagonist.  Dexter has inspired a handful of copycat killers, sure, but so has CSI.  Could you target one without the other?  When - before it's published or after the crimes?

People get their inspiration from everywhere.  Who can you blame if someone takes things to an extreme?  The killers.  Clearly the killers.  In some cases, to a lesser extent, maybe you could talk about the people who enabled them to follow that path.  But a song, or a book, that a mentally healthy person would enjoy, with messages that are up for interpretation - they're abusing your themes to justify their actions.

To me, it's on par with people who load squirt guns with urine.  Sure, you could get all mad at Walmart for selling them or another company for making them.  But _you can't make the world *******-proof._  You may as well start banning vending machines because they can fall on someone.

I don't know, maybe that sounds like I'm taking it to an extreme.  But there's books with powerful villains, and the fanbase latches onto the villain more than the protagonists, even to an extent where the creators end up hating their fans for interpreting their work all wrong.  Even say, Watchmen, with Rorschach.  If Rorschach inspires a vigilante killer with an inkblot face, even a lot of the people who argue for responsibility might say "That's an extreme case, clearly the guy is interpreting Alan Moore all wrong."  But how is that any different than Dexter inspiring the same?  I really don't think Jeff Lindsay intended the series to be interpreted that way.


----------



## Androxine Vortex (Mar 18, 2013)

Its sort of like freedom of speech. Just because I have the freedom to say this thing, that doesn't necessarily mean I should or that it is right.


----------



## tlbodine (Mar 19, 2013)

Now that I'm not at work, let me amend my previous statement a bit.  

I stand by what I said -- your only responsibility is to be honest.  

But at the same time, it's important to be self-aware of what you're saying, and be willing to 'own' that message.  I spend a lot of time pondering theme.  Maybe it's the lit major in me, but I approach all art (even my own) with the question, "What does this *really* say about the world?  Am I OK with making that statement?" 

And as long as you are aware of the message you're perpetuating, and you're prepared to own that message, you're fine.  But, as was said above -- if writing it makes you uncomfortable in a bad way, if your conscience feels ooky doing it, then you should probably go in another direction.  

That's what I mean by "being honest."  

Speaking of suicide, it's an interesting exercise in cultural norms to see how it's treated in fiction from different countries.  In the U.S., the usual message is "Suicide is bad, but self-sacrifice for the greater good is always OK.  And euthanasia might be OK in a Clint Eastwood movie."  This particular stance is not nearly as common in Japan.  Watch the movie Suicide Club some time, if you haven't already (and if you have a strong stomach), and it'll become pretty obvious just how different the comfort levels of the respective countries are in regards to that particular topic.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Mar 19, 2013)

Androxine Vortex said:


> Its sort of like freedom of speech. Just because I have the freedom to say this thing, that doesn't necessarily mean I should or that it is right.



I don't know.... Limiting what I want to write as an author, or sculpt, or paint as an artist because I'm worried about how that might be taken by some people... or how that message may be used to justify another's actions.... This seems like self-censorship to me & I'd rail against that at every opportunity.

If we start saying that artists need be concerned about how their production potentially impacts people, where do we draw the line? Who gets to decide what is good art that benefits humanity and what is bad? Censorship, even within the last hundred years, caused book burnings, the destruction of paintings, art that some deemed innappropriate or harmful to scoiety. 

I feel that we as artists should defend the artist's right for freedom of expression at all costs. As soon as we start down the road where we tell other artist they should worry about how individuals perceive their works, or how an interpretive message may carry some weight of responsibility for people's actions afterwards, we are fostering censorship.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Mar 19, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> I don't know.... Limiting what I want to write as an author, or sculpt, or paint as an artist because I'm worried about how that might be taken by some people... or how that message may be used to justify another's actions.... This seems like self-censorship to me & I'd rail against that at every opportunity.
> 
> If we start saying that artists need be concerned about how their production potentially impacts people, where do we draw the line? Who gets to decide what is good art that benefits humanity and what is bad? Censorship, even within the last hundred years, caused book burnings, the destruction of paintings, art that some deemed innappropriate or harmful to scoiety.
> 
> I feel that we as artists should defend the artist's right for freedom of expression at all costs. As soon as we start down the road where we tell other artist they should worry about how individuals perceive their works, or how an interpretive message may carry some weight of responsibility for people's actions afterwards, we are fostering censorship.



I'm approaching this on a personal level--what should I not do or say, according to my own conscience and the guidance of others? I have no intention of ordering other people not to do or say things, only of discussing it with them.

Maybe I need to discuss the personal relevance of this for me--something I've repeatedly avoided bringing up. I write for an erotic fiction site, and some of my stories involve rape. To put things in the bluntest possible terms, I have portrayed likeable and sympathetic (albeit entirely fictional) women being *This description removed at mod request*. On that site, many other writers normalize rape*, treating it as something that's perfectly okay to do to women who "don't know their place", and if I were to be one of those writers, I would not be comfortable in my own skin. As such, I've created certain rules for myself--"Don't portray rape as something people can 'deserve'", "Don't portray rape victims as suddenly realizing they like it", "Only portray rape in fantastical or science-fictional contexts"--but I'm starting to feel those rules aren't enough, and I'm getting to the point where I'm not comfortable with what I'm putting out.

* It's worth noting that the site itself has rules that specifically disallow "rape". However, it has an entire section for "nonconsent", almost all of which describes actions that are legally considered rape--the only distinction is that the victim starts to enjoy it halfway through. I generally write the sort of "rape" the site disallows--it feels more honest--and it's always passed mod review, apparently because they only really care about banning pedophilia and bestiality.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Mar 19, 2013)

Feo Takahari said:


> ...and I'm getting to the point where I'm not comfortable with what I'm putting out.


If you're not comfortable with it then maybe that's answer enough?

I like to write about topics that take me to the edge of my sensitivities. You can discover some revealing truths on the perimeter of personal acceptability. However, if I truly felt disgusted by my own scribblings, I'd certainly recognize that and adjust myself accordingly. In this way, I don't feel I'd be self-censoring. Instead, I'd be redirecting myself towards writing that I enjoy...again, writing what I'd want to read.


----------



## advait98 (Mar 19, 2013)

I don't know much about career choices, I'm only fourteen, but it makes sense to pursue the kind of writing that you enjoy if that hasn't been said enough.

If you're truly ill at ease with what you have written, if you're truly protesting inwards against this fiction, then maybe it's time to ease up and look around you, introspect, find the fire that makes you burn.

Are you comfortable with this writing or just that which you find reproachful in others?

I don't think it's a matter of responsibility whether the public agrees with you on what you wrote or not? 
You send out your views on a certain subject, your own personal opinions, and there are bound to be some people who demur. Even in fiction, a story is just a mold of your thoughts and expressions. The characters are, in essence, you.

You are, basically, responsible for your words, you own them. And others are also responsible for their own thoughts on your words. Freedom of expression was created for a reason. And if someone resents the messages conveyed in your story, they also have the right to send out their views and restrict the readership of that said book to those who don't have a problem.

I'm only fourteen as I said before, so discount my words as you wish, these are my thoughts (oh, it can happen in forums too!)


----------



## Jessquoi (Mar 19, 2013)

Feo Takahari said:


> * It's worth noting that the site itself has rules that specifically disallow "rape". However, it has an entire section for "nonconsent", almost all of which describes actions that are legally considered rape--the only distinction is that the victim starts to enjoy it halfway through.



I cannot think of one instance where someone would start to enjoy themselves halfway through being raped. Being forced into sex is traumatic and thereafter accompanied by strong feelings of shame and grief. I find it a bit disturbing actually.

I think that authors writing about something serious such as murder, suicide or other forms of violence, shouldn't necessarily shy away from it, but it must be treated with utmost respect. You just can't fully understand those themes unless you yourself have experienced emotions that go together with something as terrible as that. I definitely think authors should write about problems that we have in the world, if you feel it's part of your duty as a writer to acknowledge those things and write about the devastation they cause then do so with a sense of respect for the feelings of your readers, do some research, talk to people you know who have been affected by such things (if they are willing). 

If you're just sitting at home in your middle class house in your first world country without ever having had any real problems in life thinking "I'm just going to throw some war, rape and suicide in my story because that will make it gritty and realistic!" then stop right there. I mean c'mon. 

If we take the example of a writer who wants to write a character that is suffering the loss of a loved one who took their own life and who doesn't know what that character must be going through personally. They might try to write them 'feeling sad because Blah-blah is gone'. Uh, aside from being bad writing it's just disrespectful of the topic. If you write the character feeling guilty that they couldn't save that person, angry, distraught, stigmatised, ashamed, feeling a lump in their throat every time that person is mentioned, unable to accept that they'll never see that person again etc. (that is a very short summary of what someone might feel but I hope you know what I mean), then you are not only being constructive by possibly steering people at risk who might see the devastation they'd cause to their friends and family away from such a path, but also readers who have actually experienced that agony will feel that the author understands them. Someone who never had the severe misfortune of losing someone would think it was very good writing.

That is where 'write what you know' would come in. If you can't write what you know, do research, really try to understand those topics. Don't just throw them in because to unlucky people who know what it's like it would be almost hurtful. 

Ah, I'm having trouble putting my opinion on this into words properly but I hope you guys get the gist. These violent and terrible things that happen in our world are so devastating to those personally involved and the amount of pain they cause is so destructive that I wouldn't write about them without a considerable amount of respect to the readers, even if you do believe (as I do) in freedom of expression.


----------



## Jamber (Mar 19, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> As soon as we start down the road where we tell other artist they should worry about how individuals perceive their works, or how an interpretive message may carry some weight of responsibility for people's actions afterwards, we are fostering censorship.



I remember reading a children's book that I strongly felt supported suicidal 'ideation': a character who doesn't like real life allows herself to drown but is rescued by a magical being before being taken to a serenely beautiful place. I don't think the writer shouldn't have written the novel, and I wouldn't want to castigate her personally, but I do feel the work had (probably unwittingly) opened a topic that needed responding to.

Should I worry about self-censorship on that author's behalf? I think not. As much as she has a right to make whatever art she pleases, critics and readers have a right to explore the ideas she chose to publicise. That's part of the free speech contract, in my view.

(Apart from that, T.Allen.Smith, I'm completely in agreement with you.)

I feel we (as a society or as societies) want and need ideas to be challenged; the bind is that we also want (and need) challenging ideas, and sometimes the very ideas that disturb us most are the ones we most need to hear. For that reason alone I detest the notion of censorship. However I don't believe ideas are created equal, so the debate continues.

Jennie


----------



## Feo Takahari (Mar 19, 2013)

Jessquoi's post makes me feel a little better, since I do try to honestly portray the psychological impact of rape. (_Eternal_ in particular has a lot of ink devoted to personal autonomy--how it's lost, how it can be regained, and the scars that may linger after having lost it.) I guess that's better than the folks who try to glamorize it. (Then again, a lot of my readers are skimming for the juicy parts.)


----------



## BWFoster78 (Mar 19, 2013)

> I feel like a lot of people who say things like art should be made free of any responsibility are saying that because they don't want to be called out for writing something problematic. Books, and songs, aren't written in a bubble, and if nothing else I think you should be willing to accept responsibility for hurting somebody with your work, regardless of whether or not that was your intention.



I strongly disagree with this statement.

No one can "hurt" me (emotionally/psychologically speaking) without my consent.  I can always choose not to be hurt or offended by what I read.  How I feel and react to something I read is solely my responsibility, not the author's.  To say otherwise is to diminish who I am.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 19, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> I strongly disagree with this statement.
> 
> No one can "hurt" me (emotionally/psychologically speaking) without my consent.  I can always choose not to be hurt or offended by what I read.  How I feel and react to something I read is solely my responsibility, not the author's.  To say otherwise is to diminish who I am.



I agree.

I do think there are people who are a lot more susceptible, for whatever reason, to influence from media, and who are not able to control their negative reactions. But I don't think writers should try to determine the weakest, most-susceptible, least common denominator of society and then write their works with those people in mind, ensuring that they don't offend or influence. That's just not a viable, or desirable, way of approaching things.


----------



## Ophiucha (Mar 19, 2013)

And I, humbly, disagree.

If you were to, completely by accident, close a door on somebody's hand, no matter that it was not your intention and you were right to close the door, you would be a complete arse if you didn't apologize. People are completely capable of hurting you - emotionally - without your consent, and it is asinine to argue otherwise. If your girlfriend dumps you it isn't your choice to be upset. It's your choice how you express your emotions, and if you are strongly willed you can choose to get over it, but you being upset happened because of her actions and without you deciding to feel bad about it.

But as I said, I'm not telling you that you're wrong to write what you want to write. I'm not telling you to censor yourself. I'm not telling you not to close the door - heck, you'll let the cold in if you don't. But you should still feel bad if you slam it on somebody's fingers, and you should still feel bad if somebody is triggered or upset by what you wrote.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Mar 19, 2013)

I _really_ don't want this to turn into the Bechdel Test thread, so let's try to keep this somewhat objective. 

I've encountered a person who had terrible experiences associated with epilepsy, and who remembers those experiences every time he sees the word "epilepsy", resulting in nausea. This is not something that writers can really guard against, nor should they be expected to. But it's important not to deny that this person exists, and not to call this nausea imagined or fake or a weakness that should be overcome with more willpower. Discussions of other triggers should be similarly honest.

(Though triggers aren't the point at issue in my case--I warn before any truly f-ed up content.)


----------



## Devor (Mar 19, 2013)

Feo Takahari said:


> As such, I've created certain rules for myself--"Don't portray rape as something people can 'deserve'", "Don't portray rape victims as suddenly realizing they like it", "Only portray rape in fantastical or science-fictional contexts"--but I'm starting to feel those rules aren't enough, and I'm getting to the point where I'm not comfortable with what I'm putting out.



It might be time to stop considering the impact your writing is having on others, and to consider instead what kind of impact you're making on yourself.  Are you, with your writing, encouraging others to rape?  Who knows, and I know that's not your intention.  But you are use these extreme scenarios to rally erotic behaviors.  The more time you spend immersing yourself in that kind of writing, the more it's going to affect you, and your view of women and sexuality, and even the strength of your conscience, maybe in ways that aren't obvious.  I'm not going to pass judgement, or to presume to tell you just what's going on with you.  But I think you need to do some introspection to figure out what subtle impact they're having on you, and whether that's a direction you want for yourself.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 19, 2013)

More than a few people with fundamental religious beliefs were distressed by Harry Potter. I saw some interviews with people who had gone through a kind of emotional wringer over their kids being exposed to it, concerned that the books promoted experimentation with the occult. I don't think these people were faking it; I think they were truly distressed by it, some to a seemingly large degree. I suppose J.K. Rowling could feel sorry that the work had that impact on anyone, but at some point you have to realize the response isn't normal or reasonable, and that you can't write based on what the small number of people most likely to be susceptible to it might do. If you did that, you'd never write anything.


----------



## MadMadys (Mar 19, 2013)

Ophiucha said:


> you should still feel bad if somebody is triggered or upset by what you wrote.



I would also humbly disagree with this.

Now it's one thing if they're upset with my plot choices or word use or my ending but if it's something like a depiction of religion or a suicide or race relations that rankled someone I wouldn't be upset in the least.  Writers for centuries have written things that have made people (at the time) very upset but posed questions that had never been raised before.  If every writer thought "Hmmm, this could upset someone if I write it like this" and then chose to not write it, we would be in a far worse place culturally.  If Mark Twain didn't publish Huck Finn because he thought some southerners wouldn't appreciate it, I would think that a great loss to American literature.

There is a difference between acknowledging something you wrote could cause some people to become angry and lamenting their feelings.  If I write something that nine people like and one person hates, I'm not going to rack my brain over that one person who thinks I painted [whatever issue] in a way they didn't like.  I can appreciate someone's discontent without having to prostrate myself at their feet for forgiveness.

So write what you want, take every reaction to that work as you will and move forward.


----------



## Devor (Mar 19, 2013)

Ophiucha said:


> If you were to, completely by accident, close a door on somebody's hand, no matter that it was not your intention and you were right to close the door, you would be a complete arse if you didn't apologize.



If you're presuming that you were right to close the door, then you're isolating a different aspect of the conversation - how should you react _after_ something bad happens.  You're no longer talking about the moral responsibility which occurs during the creation of the art itself.

I agree, if you're writing a story that somehow pushed someone into killing themselves, the proper response is not "So?  Not my fault."  You've at this point become tied to the unfortunate situation, and you would then, in my view, have a responsibility to respond in a way that takes ownership for improving the situation which then exists.

But that doesn't mean that the consequences were your fault, or that you had an obligation to mitigate your writing to prevent that kind of extreme and unexpected response to your work.


----------



## Chilari (Mar 19, 2013)

If the message you're trying to get across is interpretted by someone else as something it's not, that's not entirely their fault, or a result of different experiences and perspectives. If the message is unclear, that's the writer's fault.

The thing is, though, while it might be the ideal situation that one cannot be hurt without consent, the reality is that everyone has weaknesses and pressure points. While a comment from a stranger might be easily shrugged off, the same comment from a close relative or friend could cut deep; or one worded slightly differently with the same basic effect could be utterly devastating. A statement that seems to some to advocate taking responsibility for personal safety could read to another as rape apologism or victim-blaming. Interpretted in a negative way, it can be seen as part of an overall trend of victim-blaming, and trends can be very harmful.

I think with whatever we're writing we need to be self-aware. The relativist position in archaeology is that absolute objectivity is impossible; thus interpretations of the past will be influenced by the experiences, opinions and beliefs of the archaeologist making the interpretation. Being aware of our own biases and where we come from socially and culturally enables us to consider in what direction the bias in interpretation comes from and how much it might differ from the as-yet ungrasped truth of it.

The same, I think, applies to writing fiction. We need to be aware of our own biases, not in terms of our opinions, but rather in terms of the assumptions that underlie our opinions and actions. We need to face up to those things that we believe not with conviction or deep consideration of the issue but because of constant background reinforcement that we're not even aware of at a conscious level.

Case in point: in Prince of Thorns by Mark Lawrence, 



Spoiler: Prince of Thorns



we are at first led to believe that the story is set in a medieval sort of society. There are kings, people fight with swords and ride horses, there are villages build mostly of wood and churches and so on. We assume that because a lot of fantasy is set in these kinds of world, with these kinds of features, and so a story with these features, it is assumed, must be a medieval type world. But gradually it becomes clear that this is not that case - in fact, it's set in a post-apocalyptic world some 1100 years in the future following nuclear destruction and the eventual rebuilding of society along lines very reminiscent of medieval western Europe because of what happened to survive.



What the reader expects from the start is not what is revealed by the end, but those assumptions at the start come from expectations based on other reading within the genre. In this case, those assumptions are wrong. That is something I think we have a responsibility to consider with out own writing - to ask ourselves of our writing what assumptions underpin it, and whether we can twist, subvert or challenge those assumptions. We don't have a responsibility to then actually go on to tell stories which twist assumptions if the story we want to tell does not require it, but we do have a responsibility, I think, to be *aware* of some of our underlying biases and *consider* alternatives.


----------



## Ophiucha (Mar 19, 2013)

Ophiucha said:


> I'm not telling you that you're wrong to write what you want to write. I'm not telling you to censor yourself.



Casual reminder that I am against censorship, self-imposed or otherwise.

You are going to offend someone. In fact, you should assume you are regardless of the subject matter in your novel. Right now, assume that _somebody _is going to be offended or hurt or triggered or upset by what you say. You could be writing about puppies at the playground and someone is going to find something to complain about. Here is what I am saying: that person is not wrong to be offended, that person has a right to be upset, and you - as the person who hurt them - should empathize with them and acknowledge their offensive. _You don't have to agree with them_. I'm an atheist, so if somebody were offended by sorcery in my novels because of their religious texts, I would obviously disagree with them. But that doesn't invalidate their feelings. It sure as heck doesn't mean I'm going to _change _my words, but it does mean I'm prepared to deal appropriately with the consequences of them. And part of that is my responsibility as someone who is speaking - through words - to people and part of that is respect for those people.

Of course, there is a line. I don't respect murderers, so I could care less if one was offended by my portrayal of murderers. I guess, in that respect, it's just going to be a personal issue.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Mar 19, 2013)

Ophiucha said:


> And I, humbly, disagree.
> 
> *If you were to, completely by accident, close a door on somebody's hand, no matter that it was not your intention and you were right to close the door, you would be a complete arse if you didn't apologize.* People are completely capable of hurting you - emotionally - without your consent, and it is asinine to argue otherwise. If your girlfriend dumps you it isn't your choice to be upset. It's your choice how you express your emotions, and if you are strongly willed you can choose to get over it, but you being upset happened because of her actions and without you deciding to feel bad about it.
> 
> But as I said, I'm not telling you that you're wrong to write what you want to write. I'm not telling you to censor yourself. I'm not telling you not to close the door - heck, you'll let the cold in if you don't. But you should still feel bad if you slam it on somebody's fingers, and you should still feel bad if somebody is triggered or upset by what you wrote.



As Devor stated, this does not speak at all to the fact of whether or not I should have closed the door.

If closing the door stopped a bullet from killing someone, should I feel badly at all for the fact that it hurt someone else's hand?

Did the person whose hand got hurt have any right to have his hand there?  If not, I had no obligation to check for it before I shut the door.

Basically, I have no idea how the example in bold relates to the discussion at "hand."



> People are completely capable of hurting you - emotionally - without your consent, and it is asinine to argue otherwise.



I completely disagree.

The only emotional power anyone has over you is the power that you give them.  You can certainly choose not to be hurt by being dumped (of course, to do so, you'd pretty much have to have chosen not to have fully committed to the relationship in the first place which would have contributed to the dumping, but that's a choice YOU made.  Stated another way, when I made that person my girlfriend, I made a choice to give her some degree of emotional power over me.)


----------



## BWFoster78 (Mar 19, 2013)

Feo Takahari said:


> I _really_ don't want this to turn into the Bechdel Test thread, so let's try to keep this somewhat objective.
> 
> I've encountered a person who had terrible experiences associated with epilepsy, and who remembers those experiences every time he sees the word "epilepsy", resulting in nausea. This is not something that writers can really guard against, nor should they be expected to. But it's important not to deny that this person exists, and not to call this nausea imagined or fake or a weakness that should be overcome with more willpower. Discussions of other triggers should be similarly honest.
> 
> (Though triggers aren't the point at issue in my case--I warn before any truly f-ed up content.)



If it's "not something that writers can really guard against" or "should they be expected to," what responsibility is there?

If I suddenly developed a complex against the word "the" that literally threw me into a blind rage whenever I saw the word, should you then never use "the?"

Of course not.

It's an unreasonable response that is solely on me.

If I have such a response, I should deal with it, not expect any writer to conform to an irrational desire.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Mar 19, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> More than a few people with fundamental religious beliefs were distressed by Harry Potter. I saw some interviews with people who had gone through a kind of emotional wringer over their kids being exposed to it, concerned that the books promoted experimentation with the occult. I don't think these people were faking it; I think they were truly distressed by it, some to a seemingly large degree. I suppose J.K. Rowling could feel sorry that the work had that impact on anyone, but at some point you have to realize the response isn't normal or reasonable, and that you can't write based on what the small number of people most likely to be susceptible to it might do. If you did that, you'd never write anything.



I actually know someone who had this opinion about _Harry Potter_.  I just shook my head.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Mar 19, 2013)

Devor said:


> If you're presuming that you were right to close the door, then you're isolating a different aspect of the conversation - how should you react _after_ something bad happens.  You're no longer talking about the moral responsibility which occurs during the creation of the art itself.
> 
> I agree, if you're writing a story that somehow pushed someone into killing themselves, the proper response is not "So?  Not my fault."  You've at this point become tied to the unfortunate situation, and you would then, in my view, have a responsibility to respond in a way that takes ownership for improving the situation which then exists.
> 
> But that doesn't mean that the consequences were your fault, or that you had an obligation to mitigate your writing to prevent that kind of extreme and unexpected response to your work.



Well stated.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Mar 19, 2013)

> If the message you're trying to get across is interpretted by someone else as something it's not, that's not entirely their fault, or a result of different experiences and perspectives. If the message is unclear, that's the writer's fault.



I can buy that.  I think this thread is more about those who take offense at something the author actually intended to write, though.



> The thing is, though, while it might be the ideal situation that one cannot be hurt without consent, the reality is that everyone has weaknesses and pressure points. While a comment from a stranger might be easily shrugged off, the same comment from a close relative or friend could cut deep; or one worded slightly differently with the same basic effect could be utterly devastating. A statement that seems to some to advocate taking responsibility for personal safety could read to another as rape apologism or victim-blaming. Interpretted in a negative way, it can be seen as part of an overall trend of victim-blaming, and trends can be very harmful.



Let's try coming at this from a different direction.

If something offends me, I have a right to take action and put out an opposing viewpoint.  I do not have the right to say, "You shouldn't say stuff that offends me."

I have every right to say or write something that offends you.  I have no responsibility to refrain from offending you.

Believe it or not, I do self edit quite a lot and, most of the time, don't deliberately try to offend people.  That self editing in no way lessens the fact that I have a right to do it if I choose.

On the other hand, you have absolutely no right to a life free of being offended.  You have two choices: be offended and not be offended.

Either way, it's your call.


----------



## Kit (Mar 19, 2013)

It would suck if the only art in the world consisted of "Afterschool Special" cutesy-type things designed to teach us moral lessons.


I've been so brainwashed with that type of stuff that I still have to make a focussed effort to *not* build my writing in that model.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Mar 19, 2013)

> Here is what I am saying: that person is not wrong to be offended, that person has a right to be upset, and you - as the person who hurt them - should empathize with them and acknowledge their offensive.



I agree completely that a person has a right to be upset.

On the second point, I disagree.  As the hurter, I only have a responsibility to "empathize with them and acknowledge their" offense if their hurt is reasonable.


----------



## Ophiucha (Mar 19, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> As Devor stated, this does not speak at all to the fact of whether or not I should have closed the door.
> 
> If closing the door stopped a bullet from killing someone, should I feel badly at all for the fact that it hurt someone else's hand?
> 
> ...



Does it matter? Even if it was better in the long term to shut the door on his hand, you still crushed a person's hand. Even if the dude was an idiot for putting his hand in the door when it was clearly being shut, you still crushed his hand. Different reasons require different responses, yes, and to use above examples, how I'd respond to someone committing suicide because of something I wrote is _very _different from how I would respond to someone being offended over blasphemy and heathenism for a religion I'm not even apart of. But I'm still responsible for both, and even if you're an idiot who shoves his hand in the door while I'm closing it, I'd still say 'oh, bugger, sorry!' when I realized what happened. If nothing else, call it common courtesy.

That doesn't mean I'm going to stop closing doors behind me, though.

And in regards to this,



> As the hurter, I only have a responsibility to "empathize with them and acknowledge their" offense if their hurt is reasonable.



How are you meant to judge if they are being reasonable? You don't have to agree with them or understand their reasoning, but empathy, acknowledgement, and respect are deserved pretty much regardless.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Mar 19, 2013)

> Does it matter?



Absolutely.



> empathy, acknowledgement, and respect are deserved pretty much regardless.



Again, I disagree.

Empathy and acknowledgement are mine to give, not something that is "deserved."

Respect is earned, not given or deserved.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 19, 2013)

Ophiucha said:


> How are you meant to judge if they are being reasonable? You don't have to agree with them or understand their reasoning, but empathy, acknowledgement, and respect are deserved pretty much regardless.



If an author may not be entitled to judge whether the person having the negative reaction is reasonable or not, because we don't want to impose that author's standard of reasonableness on what the person is feeling, the same argument applies against saying the author is obligated to adopt the affected person's standard and has to react with some kind of empathy or understanding. I don't think either is true. The reader can react as she wishes; I'm not obligated to feel any certain sense of reasonableness with respect to the reaction if I don't think it is reasonable.


----------



## Chilari (Mar 19, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> Let's try coming at this from a different direction.
> 
> If something offends me, I have a right to take action and put out an opposing viewpoint.  I do not have the right to say, "You shouldn't say stuff that offends me."
> 
> ...



I don't disagree with that, nor did I argue that anyone should self-censor. My point was about self-awareness. If things you write have a predictable possibility of offending - say, inclusion of magic which might offend certain religious sects - then you should be aware of the possibility and decide whether or how you might change the story in light of that awareness. When it comes to less obvious things like the underlying assumptions about people or society that comes from your cultural or social background rather than a positive belief that the assumption made is true, it is useful to try to be aware of, and consider means of challenging, those assumptions, not necessarily because those assumptions could have a negative impact on society, but rather because self-awareness enables you to think more deeply about yourself, your beliefs and opinions, your writing and the genre in which you write, and potentially help you craft better stories.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Mar 19, 2013)

Chilari said:


> I don't disagree with that, nor did I argue that anyone should self-censor. My point was about self-awareness. If things you write have a predictable possibility of offending - say, inclusion of magic which might offend certain religious sects - then you should be aware of the possibility and decide whether or how you might change the story in light of that awareness. When it comes to less obvious things like the underlying assumptions about people or society that comes from your cultural or social background rather than a positive belief that the assumption made is true, it is useful to try to be aware of, and consider means of challenging, those assumptions, not necessarily because those assumptions could have a negative impact on society, but rather because self-awareness enables you to think more deeply about yourself, your beliefs and opinions, your writing and the genre in which you write, and potentially help you craft better stories.



Examining beliefs is never a bad idea.

This comment:



> The thing is, though, while it might be the ideal situation that one cannot be hurt without consent, the reality is that everyone has weaknesses and pressure points. While a comment from a stranger might be easily shrugged off, the same comment from a close relative or friend could cut deep; or one worded slightly differently with the same basic effect could be utterly devastating. A statement that seems to some to advocate taking responsibility for personal safety could read to another as rape apologism or victim-blaming. Interpretted in a negative way, it can be seen as part of an overall trend of victim-blaming, and trends can be very harmful.



seems to imply that I have some kind of responsibility, beyond making my thoughts clear, as to how my writing is perceived.

I still fully contend that the reader is solely responsible for their own perception (assuming, once again, that the writer has been clear).

To me, the implication that the writer has responsibility for perceptions directly leads to the other point I made.


----------



## advait98 (Mar 19, 2013)

All right, the truth is, this closing door thing and writing cannot directly correlate with each on the same wavelength. They differ in the degree of intensity and timing.

While it's true that one's natural reaction to crushing a guy's fingers would be (well, usually) _Oh, damn! Sorry!_, it can also be _Oh damn! What the *** were you doing, you ***!_.

Everyone has a right to their own opinions, and one cannot just kowtow to the unreasonable wishes of a concentrated group of readers. You can't just say _sorry about how you feel_, you have to stand strong and maintain integrity.

It's not your fault that such a group of readers are offended. It's their personal opinion and it should stay that way. Opinions are always going to be divided, that's just how life is.

And a prime example of that is going on right here in this thread!


----------



## Devor (Mar 19, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> I still fully contend that the reader is solely responsible for their own perception (assuming, once again, that the writer has been clear).



I think there's two things going on simultaneously in a reader.  The first is the psychological baggage they've developed as they've grown, the perceptions and burns and experiences which shape their response.  I don't think anybody should deny that we accumulate this garbage whether we like it or not, and that these things lead us to become offended, to get emotional, to pass blame, to be dismissive or defensive, to just see things from a different lens, whether those reactions are warranted or not.  I think that's just a part of reality, the whole human experience.

And to be clear, that baggage has its role.  Sometimes those reactions are warranted and lead us to take the necessary action.  And even if those reactions are overblown, they can help call attention to real issues which would otherwise have been overlooked.

But the second thing which happens, is that at some point in life, you can begin to question whether this baggage is something you really want to be carrying.  Is it worth getting offended about?  Do I want to spend my time railing about these things?  Can I let go?

And there are a lot of people who _choose to learn_ how to let go of a lot of those things.

So I think, fundamentally, that a person has to be ultimately responsible for their own actions, even to the way they respond to the messages in your art.  At the same time, I do think there is a responsibility to recognize, in some part, that people often respond strongly, that from their own perspectives that response may be warranted, and that you should consider whether your art is genuinely contributing to the baggage at the root of their response.

If you're _needlessly_ building upon someone else's baggage, I think you should show more consideration in what you're doing.  Doing otherwise is kind of rude.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 19, 2013)

Devor said:


> If you're _needlessly_ building upon someone else's baggage, I think you should show more consideration in what you're doing.  Doing otherwise is kind of rude.



The reader's choice comes in at the point of deciding whether to pick up the book. What number of people have to have baggage contributed to before you decide the author is in the wrong? 1 in 1000? 1 in 100,000? Can an author even possibly control for that given the vastly different reactions and interpretations different readers will have to exactly the same work?

You are dealing with two autonomous individuals who make their own decisions. I know people who won't read horror - it disturbs and depresses them. OK, that's fine - that is their reaction to it and there is nothing wrong with that. Does that mean people should stop producing horror? Or that unless the horror has some kind of point and isn't deemed needless (by whoever is supposed to be in a position to judge such things) it shouldn't be produced? I don't think that's a workable approach to things. I like horror. It doesn't depress or disturb me, or affect my generally optimistic outlook on life. So, I read it. If I write a horror story and someone is disturbed or depressed by it, am I supposed to say "Maybe I shouldn't have written that"?

I say leave the two autonomous persons to their own choices and reactions. As an author I won't tell a reader their reaction is wrong. That's not my place. And it isn't the reader's place to tell me that my reaction to their reaction is wrong, either.


----------



## Devor (Mar 19, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> If I write a horror story and someone is disturbed or depressed by it, am I supposed to say "Maybe I shouldn't have written that"?



If you're writing horror, then the depressive elements aren't needless.  If you're writing social commentary, then the ________ elements aren't needless.  With the remark you quoted, I'm specifically referring to things like, for instance, stereotypical portrayals and other baggage-causing things that are _needless_ towards getting the impact of your story.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 19, 2013)

Devor said:


> If you're writing horror, then the depressive elements aren't needless.  If you're writing social commentary, then the ________ elements aren't needless.  With the remark you quoted, I'm specifically referring to things like, for instance, stereotypical portrayals and other baggage-causing things that are _needless_ towards getting the impact of your story.



Yeah, but you still have to have someone in a position to make that call, don't you? Even in a horror story, the degree to which the horror is presented or described varies considerably. Suppose an author presents something in pretty horrific fashion when instead the tale could have been told by creating an atmosphere of horror without explicit detail. Both approaches are used all the time in horror. If you write a story about suicide, who's to say which scenes or depictions weren't needed and which were? When it comes down to it, it seems like you have to let the author make the call for themselves, and let the reader make the call on their end. There are certainly types of writing that I think are disturbing and probably indicative of mental problems, and I might say that my personal view is they don't contribute meaningfully to the art or to society, but I don't want to say that authors as a whole have to adopt my view, even if I might present reasons why they should voluntarily do so.


----------



## Devor (Mar 19, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> Yeah, but you still have to have someone in a position to make that call, don't you?



Err . . . to call it rude?  I didn't realize we needed a universal standard for that.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 19, 2013)

Devor said:


> Err . . . to call it rude?  I didn't realize we needed a universal standard for that.



You can call it what you want. The fact that any one person or group of people think something is rude doesn't make it objectively rude. Again, as before, it comes down to an individual's personal assessment.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Mar 19, 2013)

If I chose to be concerned with every way someone could possibly interpret my work, or how their belief systems may be insulted as a result of reading my work, I'd never be able to write anything more than bland drivel that is incapable of invoking emotion.

Just as the reader has a right to choose to read, view, or listen to artwork...the artist has a right to produce as they see fit. No one forces anyone to read a story or sit through an entire film that offends them. Further, if we're discussing how art might negatively influence someone...the artist cannot be responsible for a myriad of potential reactions.

Honestly, if you're writing anything based on criteria other than "writing what you'd want to read", I feel you're missing the entire point of writing original work.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Mar 19, 2013)

> At the same time, I do think there is a responsibility to recognize, in some part, that people often respond strongly, that from their own perspectives that response may be warranted, and that you should consider whether your art is genuinely contributing to the baggage at the root of their response.
> 
> If you're needlessly building upon someone else's baggage, I think you should show more consideration in what you're doing. Doing otherwise is kind of rude.



If I understand you correctly, it's okay to contribute to someone's baggage as long as theirs a "needful" reason to do so.  What constitutes a needful reason?

The best novels are the ones that make you feel.

I stopped reading Stephen King because it depressed me (and, at least partly, because his later books don't seem to be as good as his earlier ones).  While I no longer read him, I applaud him for being able to make me feel something.  In a way, that's better than most books I read where there is absolutely no impact once the last word is read.

Is the attempt to create a feeling, any feeling, a valid "needful" reason?

Since, as a reader, I like books that make me feel, it's something that I strive for in my books.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Mar 19, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> If I chose to be concerned with every way someone could possibly interpret my work, or how their belief systems may be insulted as a result of reading my work, I'd never be able to write anything more than bland drivel that is incapable of invoking emotion.
> 
> Just as the reader has a right to choose to read, view, or listen to artwork...the artist has a right to produce as they see fit. No one forces anyone to read a story or sit through an entire film that offends them. Further, if we're discussing how art might negatively influence someone...the artist cannot be responsible for a myriad of potential reactions.
> 
> Honestly, if you're writing anything based on criteria other than "writing what you'd want to read", I feel you're missing the entire point of writing original work.



Ninja'd.

I wrote essentially the same thing before I saw your post.


----------



## Devor (Mar 19, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> If I understand you correctly, it's okay to contribute to someone's baggage as long as theirs a "needful" reason to do so.  What constitutes a needful reason?



That doesn't really sound like what I was trying to say to me.

I said that not considering whether the baggage-adding content was necessary would be rude.  Inconsiderate.  People are allowed to be rude a little.  But rudeness, I think, means that it affects others negatively, and there's no real point in doing so except selfishness.

If the content is necessary, as in, that's the point of what you're writing, then I offered no characterization.  It could be fine.  I'm not saying there's any problem with writing horror, or other powerful depressing stories.  Sometimes rudeness can even be kind of the point, like with satire.  Maybe it makes you a visionary ahead of your times.  Maybe it makes you a racist, sexist, bigotted, religion-hating jerk.  If what you want to do with your art is affect people negatively and rile up emotions, then it might be good or bad or nothing at all, but I wouldn't call it inconsiderate.  You considered.  You decided.

But as a writer, you need to recognize something very important.  If you're providing material that's offending someone, and there's no point to doing so, then you're also breaking immersion and distracting them from your story.  Plus, it's probably a sign of bad writing.

I had a roommate in college who was in film class, and for a random project he included the news film of the twin towers coming down on 9/11.  Our college, of course, was in Manhattan.  I saw the final version of his film, and I have no idea what his project was about.  Based on what he said after he showed it to his class, neither did anybody else.  They couldn't see anything past that ten second clip.


----------



## A. E. Lowan (Mar 19, 2013)

This thread puts me in mind of a story I heard about an anime series quite a while back.  I don't remember which one it was (Neon Genesis Evangelion, mebbe?) since I never saw it, but it was apparently considered so nihilistic and depressing that is actually caused suicides to trend up in Japan.  The creators' response?  To make an extra, final, episode where all the children of Japan sing together and make everything better again.  Yeah, I know, very strange, but that's what I was told.  As a result, I have noticed a tendancy in more recent dearker anime series (Black Butler is the first to spring to mind) where they have an extra "happy" episode that brings back all the characters who have died over the course of the series and puts them into over-the-top humorous situations, as if to say "No worries - see here?  Everyone's ok."  

Not only does this, in my opinion, take the concept of "author responsibilty" to an extreme, it also I think cheapens the emotional journey the the audience has been on (as well as does minor brain damage, as in the case of the final episode of Black Butler, which was called "Black Sushi Chef").

What sort of responsibilty does the writer have to the reader?  I think that it is to tell the truth of the story.  We live in a very complex, many threaded tapestry of a world, where many different truths exist side-by-side in disharmony.  My writing partner and I were actually talking just the other day about offending readers.  In our urban fantasy world of dragons and wizards and vampires we have many themes that deal with social issues.  Gender identity and sexuallity; childhood sexual abuse and exploitation; the nature of good and evil; families, in all their many faces; redemption; spritualtiy versus religigion; abandonment, rape, incest, addiction, child abuse, ethnocentrism, mental illness... the list goes on and on the further in we get.  In the first book alone, we're tackling addiction, violent rape, child abuse, the systematic annihilation of an entire bloodline, preternatural politics, and family.

In the third generation of the family we write about, there are 11 children born - only 1 of them has parents who are actually married.  A lot of our characters gravitate to poly-amourous (sp) relationships.

In the first generation, the second book, our primary character gets pregnant, but won't marry the father until he comes up with the right reason to, because for her just having a child is no reason to get married.

In the very first book, two male characters are introduced early as having a fairly physically intimate relationship, though they do not become lovers until much later.

We write about angels and demons in this world where we question a great deal the nature of "good" versus "evil" and have a primary character who has a strong dislike for angels because she sees both angels and demons both as "counting coup with people's souls."  Turns out, she's not wrong.  We have a guardian angel who other angels consider to be on the verge of falling.  His sin?  Compassion.  Ever notice that angels fall, but demons never assend?

Are we going to offend people?  Oh heavens, yes!  We have characters who express sexuality all across the spectrum, both positively and negatively.  That, alone, will probably get us into trouble, especially with an Amercian audience.  Are we doing it to be shocking?  Of course not.  We're expressing the full facets of our characters' psyche and humanity.  People are weird, complicated critters, in all sorts of ways.  We follow the character's history and what sort of impacts that has on their interactions with other people who also have histories and psyches, and how these interactions have an effect on the world the characters find themselves in and the plot arches happening around them.  It has a lot of impact on the plot.

We feel a responsibility to tell the truth of the story, to not pull the curtain on a character's experiences just because (shh) we "shouldn't" talk about it in polite company.  If talking about the spectrum of mortal experience (I would say "human," but many of our characters have never been human) is offensive to some people, then so be it.  Some things just need to be said.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Mar 19, 2013)

> But as a writer, you need to recognize something very important. If you're providing material that's offending someone, and there's no point to doing so, then you're also breaking immersion and distracting them from your story. Plus, it's probably a sign of bad writing.



To the best of my recollection, nothing on this thread has really been about the effectiveness of your writing technique.  Topics addressed seemed to have centered around an author's responsibility to consider the impact of their writing.

Are you saying we have a responsibility to create the best stories that we can?

If so, that's probably the best argument I've heard so far, though I'm not sure that others will agree with it.

Otherwise, given that I apparently misinterpreted your point, I'm unclear how your post then relates back to the discussion on author responsibility.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 19, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> Are you saying we have a responsibility to create the best stories that we can?
> 
> If so, that's probably the best argument I've heard so far, though I'm not sure that others will agree with it.



I can agree with it, but if there's one thing this and other writing sites demonstrate, it is that different authors have vastly different ideas of what makes a story "best."


----------



## BWFoster78 (Mar 19, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> I can agree with it, but if there's one thing this and other writing sites demonstrate, it is that different authors have vastly different ideas of what makes a story "best."



Agreed.  Tough to define...

Also, I'd think that we'd have to stipulate:

Best for current level of ability
Best you can produce in a reasonable time frame


----------



## Devor (Mar 19, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> Otherwise, given that I apparently misinterpreted your point, I'm unclear how your post then relates back to the discussion on author responsibility.



I've just been trying to characterize that responsibility in a way that's proportionate.  You've as much or as little responsibility, in my view, to avoid needlessly offensive subject matter in your work as you do to avoid being needlessly rude in your day.  The rudeness is probably badly written and detracting from your work anyways.

As for suicides and such specifically, in my original post, I explained why I think an individual is ultimately responsible for their own actions.  Ultimately they can choose to follow a path towards letting go of the baggage that's affecting them.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Mar 19, 2013)

And it _did_ turn into the Bechdel Test thread again. Can we please not have another argument over whether it matters if some housewife in Topeka puts your book down and goes "Well, I never"? Let's at least approach it in terms of whether someone who's been raped rushes to the bathroom and throws up after reading your story, or someone who watches TV news sees a report on a rape case just like his favorite story and thinks that frigid bitch had it coming.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Mar 19, 2013)

Feo Takahari said:


> And it _did_ turn into the Bechdel Test thread again. Can we please not have another argument over whether it matters if some housewife in Topeka puts your book down and goes "Well, I never"? Let's at least approach it in terms of whether someone who's been raped rushes to the bathroom and throws up after reading your story, or someone who watches TV news sees a report on a rape case just like his favorite story and thinks that frigid bitch had it coming.



Feo, please understand that speaking of "housewives in Topeka saying 'Well, I never'" attempts to remove the emotional connotations and address arguments in a logical and rational manner.

The principles we're discussing apply to each; some examples are simply more emotional than others.


----------



## Devor (Mar 19, 2013)

Feo Takahari said:


> And it _did_ turn into the Bechdel Test thread again. Can we please not have another argument over whether it matters if some housewife in Topeka puts your book down and goes "Well, I never"? Let's at least approach it in terms of whether someone who's been raped rushes to the bathroom and throws up after reading your story, or someone who watches TV news sees a report on a rape case just like his favorite story and thinks that frigid bitch had it coming.



I was trying, I swear.  I'm not even arguing - I've just been trying to explain what I was trying to get at.

I think authors are primarily responsible for what impact they're _attempting_ to create with their work, and that any other impact/responsibility is tertiary at best.

So if you're writing to help people to fantasize about rape, that's what you need to own up to.  I might not like it.  But if someone goes out and rapes someone because of it, I don't pin that on you.  For all I know there's someone else who uses those fantasies to help suppress those same urges.  But at the same time, because you're deliberately toying with this area of the psyche, and because readers are reading to deliberately toy with this area of the psyche, you're going to affect people, and writing it is going to affect you, too.  Assuming that the site won't die without you, it's the second of those which you need to think about most.  Because that's what you can see - how is your writing affecting you, and is that affect something you want for yourself or not.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 19, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> Feo, please understand that speaking of "housewives in Topeka saying 'Well, I never'" attempts to remove the emotional connotations and address arguments in a logical and rational manner.
> 
> The principles we're discussing apply to each; some examples are simply more emotional than others.



Yes, I think this is right. The arguments are the same in either case.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Mar 19, 2013)

I dunno. It feels _weird_ to say that offense and actual harm are comparable, even if I can't articulate why yet. (Maybe just because I'm afraid of actual harm being dismissed and assumed to just be offense?)


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 19, 2013)

Feo Takahari said:


> I dunno. It feels _weird_ to say that offense and actual harm are comparable, even if I can't articulate why yet. (Maybe just because I'm afraid of actual harm being dismissed and assumed to just be offense?)



Offense and actual harm are not the same, but the arguments with respect to what responsibility an author bears if a separate individual reads her work and takes some action are the same, in my view. That reader is a separate, autonomous person whose acts of selecting the work and reading it (and continuing to read it once started) intervene between the authors act of writing the work and having it published. That cuts off responsibility, in my view, whether the reader is just offended or takes some physical action.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Mar 19, 2013)

Since I ought to address Devor sooner or later: these stories mostly just depress me. I don't think they've affected how I think of women.


----------



## Ankari (Mar 19, 2013)

Feo Takahari said:


> Since I ought to address Devor sooner or later: these stories mostly just depress me. I don't think they've affected how I think of women.



I'm not sure if this has been asked yet, but why do you write them?  Is it your profession?  If so, why continue to live in such a climate that causes depression when you have opportunities to do otherwise?


----------



## BWFoster78 (Mar 19, 2013)

Feo Takahari said:


> I dunno. It feels _weird_ to say that offense and actual harm are comparable, even if I can't articulate why yet. (Maybe just because I'm afraid of actual harm being dismissed and assumed to just be offense?)



Sorry for the analogy, but just another way of looking at this:

Some people are deathly allergic to peanuts.  A whiff of the stuff can literally kill.

If I'm cooking for a large group, it is not my responsibility to avoid using peanut oil.  It is only my responsibility to warn people that I used peanut oil.

If you feel that your writing may cause "harm," you should include a warning.  People who are allergic to peanuts know they're allergic to peanuts and go far out of their way to avoid them.  It should be the same for people who get severely distressed by the kinds of scenes you're worried about.  Again, not your responsibility to avoid including something most people would be only "offended" by.

The ultimate responsibility lies with the person who is allergic.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Mar 19, 2013)

I don't personally feel there's any subject/ material/ portrayal that should be off-limits to writers.  If I want to write a book from the POV of a serial rapist who takes mad delight in his crimes, then why shouldn't I?  

Anyone with an intact brain and spirit can easily distance themself enough to say, "This is a story, I am NOT that character, nor should I DO what this character does."  

To think I might be responsible for someone TRYING out something written in my novels.. well that's just stupid.  We have no moral responsibility to write bad things as bad.  We have every right to write something as distastefully and grotesquely as we can manage.  If it's off-color, no one will read it.  If it intrigues people... well then more power to the artist who's deranged enough to capture the hearts of millions with their serial rapist MC who people sympathize with.  

I write gray-scale books and characters.  While none of them are raving lunatics prone to dangerous or strictly amoral actions, there are plenty of prostitutes, drug-dealers, murderers, assassins, extortionists and blackmailers in my stories.  Could I then be accused of encouraging these activities?  Of course not.  I'm merely acknowledging that people do these things, they exist and that's it.  

I think if you're being affected as a writer in a negative way by the material you write, you should probably reconsider what you're writing.  There are plenty of stories waiting to be written, why not find something that leaves you feeling fulfilled and proud?  On the flip side, if I wrote the character above, I'd feel pretty proud if a reader felt I really portrayed my crazy character well.  I'd have to call it a success, though the material might be horrific.  If readers can connect to the actions and personality of the character, I have succeeded.

Remember, when dealing with sick minds, there is still a line an individual has to cross to make something fiction a reality.  If you write a brutal rape scene and people find pleasure in it... it's still their choice (based on their own mental state and moral compass) to take action and make that fictitious event a reality.  I mean, look at Springer.  Is he encouraging me to become a transsexual mud wrestler or get breast implants so big I could rent myself out as a pontoon boat?  No.  Plain and simple, people are responsible for their own actions and only those with a tenuous grip on reality would see any form of art or entertainment as encouragement for illegal/ immoral actions.  Point blank, the artist is not responsible for anything but entertaining.


----------



## Penpilot (Mar 19, 2013)

There's this movie out there called _The Human Centipede. _ When I saw the trailer for the movie, I knew what type of movie it was and I knew I was probably never going to watch it. After reading a brief synopsis and reviews of it, I knew it was a pretty disgusting movie and my instincts were right. The questions that popped into my head were _Why did they make this move? Who would want to see this kind of stuff?_ But not once did I think _They shouldn't have made that movie because it makes me retch._ For the most part, that doesn't matter.

Generally, I don't read or watch anything before I read the blurb on the back, so I know what I'm getting into. If I don't like the blurb then I don't consume the product. To me, it's like food. I don't just put any random thing into my mouth, and if I don't like the sample taste, I spit it up and find something that's more agreeable. 

It's my choice if I try something. It's my right to dislike it. But the author can do what ever they want so long as I'm not forced to consume anything I don't like. 

To me things like this get taken care of on their own buy natural selection. "Successful" stories will be replicated over-and-over. "Unsuccessful ones" will fade into the background. 

Many countries have Freedom of Speech laws, but I don't think any have Freedom from being offended ones.


----------



## Jamber (Mar 19, 2013)

Child pornography, anyone? Surely we all have _some_ point at which we feel: 'That kind of thing probably shouldn't have been written'?
If 'child pornography' doesn't make you feel a slight bristle, what about 'child torture pornography'?
Does the argument that 'it's make-believe' and 'nobody is being forced to read it' completely viable in all circumstances? _Really_?

It seems to me that clinical psychologists have a fair bit to say about child rape depictions in terms of affirming dangerous world-views among the sector of the community they deal with. Is anyone who'd be unharmed by reading child pornography (material that only does one thing: sexualise violence against children) _really_ losing out if the material is censored? I doubt it; and it's possible that the material reinforces views that can lead (in a cumulative way) to acting out and therefore that removing it reduces instances of child harm.

I'm against censorship in general, but I can't help feeling complete authorial freedom is a little... Utopian.

Meanwhile, even this forum uses censorship... As it has to.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 19, 2013)

There is a difference between a private forum censoring, and the government doing so (the latter being necessary if you really wanted to ban something). Of course, any media where an individual, such as a child, was directly harmed during the making of it is a different story.


----------



## Mindfire (Mar 19, 2013)

Science without morality! Art without censorship! Oh, wait...


----------



## Jabrosky (Mar 19, 2013)

The way I see it, we only have control our own intentions in creating any piece of art, whether visual or literary. If someone misinterprets an artist's message and does something stupid or immoral as a result of that "influence", that shouldn't be the artists' problem. If on the other hand the artist deliberately meant to incite bad behavior (think cartoonists who draw racist caricatures of prominent religious figures) they should be held accountable. Some may say the road to hell is paved with good intentions, but good intentions are still better than bad intentions, and considering our intentions is the only thing we really can do anyway.

As for offending people, I say it depends on whom you're offending. Not only will every piece of art ever produced offend someone out there, but frankly some groups of people _deserve_ to be offended. I won't mention whom due to our political moratorium  but you ought to know what I mean.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Mar 19, 2013)

Ankari said:


> I'm not sure if this has been asked yet, but why do you write them?  Is it your profession?  If so, why continue to live in such a climate that causes depression when you have opportunities to do otherwise?



Well, it's not clinically depressing--it's the same sort of depression you get from writing any sad story. And I do enjoy knowing that people liked my stories, especially when they understood what I was really trying to say. Given that I have way more ideas than I can feasibly write, and given that I only try to publish a few at a time, it makes sense to write the ideas that involve sex, then depict the sex. (Many of my stories are cute little romances--I only go in darker directions when the plot requires it, although explicit depictions are often only necessary for the site rather than the story itself.)

(There's also _Worms_, which was a sort of exorcism for a horrible, horrible nightmare--I portrayed everything from the nightmare, then gave it a hopeful ending.)


----------



## Caged Maiden (Mar 20, 2013)

Okay, I need to deal with the raising of a child pornography question.  I'm assuming, by child pornography, you're mentioning an adult person engaging in sexual behavior with a child and looking on that as wrong morally.  Okay, fair enough.  Many many people will agree with you.  But, in many countries, there is nothing wrong or UNUSUAL about a gray-haired man having a twelve-year-old wife.  Is he wrong?  I'm not debating whether it's morally incorrect, it happens.  If I wanted to write about that, am I somehow condoning that act?  Am I writing pornography?  This is a thin line and it's not easy to draw.  We have our own ideas of what's correct and incorrect, but there's a lot that goes on in this real world that no one stops.  If an author wants to write about it, they have the right.  I think again, the intention of the author is key here.  If I wanted to write from the POV of the twelve-year-old girl and show a damaged child afraid and alone who didn't have enough education to spell her name, I could maybe drum up some public concern for young girls all over Asia who LIVE that life.  

Now, if I wrote from the man's POV, I'd maybe be writing something very different.  Maybe I'd write from the perspective of a loving husband who adores his child wife.  Or maybe a sick old man who delights in forcing a child to bow to his authority.  It's honestly a lot of perspective debate, isn't it?  However... the thought itself, to me personally, is disgusting beyond disgusting.  Now, what if I was writing about two twelve-year-olds who had a sexual relationship?  Would that be somehow more moral?  Or is that still as grotesque to Westerners?  I mean, it's nothing that isn't on daytime TV regularly, kids in High School trying to get pregnant to snag an older man to support them, teens prostituting because their parents ignore them and they need to support their drug habits.  Honestly, when did everyone become so sensitive to books?  

The reality is, we're sort of disgusting animals.  Why do we stare at car crashes?  Why are we drawn to pictures of WWII POW camps?  Why do we read stories about things we would never ever do?  Because we're curious.  Or maybe somewhat drawn to the macabre, the taboo, and the horrific.  I'm not advocating child pornography, rape, prostitution or any other aggressive sexual behavior, but the reality is, it exists, happens regularly, and isn't a subject anyone can sweep under the rug.  

I watched a documentary about the child soldiers of Africa and how initiations often involve raping women.  Imagine, fourteen-year-olds with guns gang raping you.  It happens!  Why?  Because they can.  They have guns and women are easy victims of abuse.  In the documentary, it says, "Wars are fought on the backs of women", meaning, women bury their dead children, starve while they feed their families, and lose their husbands to soldiers and then to death.  Women suffer.  They are raped, stolen from and reduced to nothing.  But still they go on.  This world is suffering and closing our eyes to it will not make it go away.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Mar 20, 2013)

Okay, I got off track there a little, sorry.  Let me try again.  Pornography... whether child or adult (or whatever flavor you prefer), serves an entertainment purpose.  I'm not going to get into it, because I think we all understand, but suffice to say, people have desires that are fundamentally wired to that individual.  

I recently had a discussoin with a friend, where he asked me whether I've ever experimented with a woman... I answered no.  He asked me why not.  "Women are so beautiful and soft.  How could you not appreciate that?"
"Easy," I said.  "I'd rather run my hand over hard pecs and abs and have a stubbly face pressed against my skin."  He laughed and said, "Men are so ugly, though...  Women are far prettier."

What's my point?  You are wired how you are. Nature is what it is.  No amount of debate is going to make me give in and somehow want to rest my head against a soft bosom.  It just ain't gonna happen.  

People who find young children sexually exciting are wired how they are.  I'm not condoning it, I'm saying it's true.  No normal person looks at a six-year-old child and gets sexual thoughts.  It's not normal, period.  It's technically against nature, since nature's main goal is to get animals to reproduce.  A sexually immature animal can't reproduce and therefore, it's unnatural.  However, what about a fourteen-year-old or seventeen-year-old?  Where do you draw the line on what's child porn?  Or even what's immoral?  I was sexually active when I was fourteen.  Who's to say that was immoral?  I was dating sixteen and seventeen-year-olds.  Were they wrong?  I think people bring up child porn because it's an easy thing to jump on.  But in reality, it's a hard line to draw.  People who are excited by immature children, who watch child pornography, aren't normal and healthy.  People who act on their urges... I just don't know what to say.  One of my good friends I grew up with was later arrested for molesting the neighbor boys, all three of them.  He'd been doing it for years.  I don't know what to say, but he was ill.  It was tragic how it affected the children.  I don't think there's any amount of therapy that will make those parents' guilt dissipate.

If the point is that child pornography shouldn't be legal to make, watch or sell... it is already in effect.  I agree whole-heartedly with that decision.  Not because I think the watching of it will somehow make people act on their desires any more than they otherwise would have, but because the making of it would be harmful to individual children.  

But, if someone chose to write a story with young people having sex (which I've done) who's to say they're wrong?  I think one of my best books is about a pair of teenagers who are in love.  If someone read that and idealized the relationship I built between the characters and decided at age fourteen to have sex with her boyfriend.. I can't be held responsible for her decision.  Heck, I made the same decision at fourteen without any influence whatsoever from movies, books or anything else.  And I came from a good family, was a decent student, had a normal life and wasn't at all peer-pressured.  I think most of my friends at the time never even kissed a boy... HA!  People complain about Twilight romanticising dysfunctional and abusive relationships.  I say, there were a large percentage of young women I knew in the early and mid-nineties who were drawn to that kind of relationship, and that was long before Twilight came out.  People are what they are.  If they're so easily swayed by entertainment and it influences their bad decisions, then maybe it's sad we've eliminated all threats to our species and allowed so many unfit individuals to enter the gene pool.  I betcha Neanderthal man never had to deal with his daughter having two dysfunctional relationships simultaneously.  He'd have just kicked both their behinds and kept his daughter a while longer until he found a safe clan for her to join.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Mar 20, 2013)

Sorry, got off track again.  I'm really bad at this.  Child pornography is a perfect example of that thing people bring up as a fundamentally wrong thing, like murder and Nazis.  It's a cheaty way out of thinking and answering a moral question.  Point is, even child porn isn't black and white.  First, you'd need to define certain things, like, how old are the children?  There's a difference between a six-year-old and a sixteen-year-old.  There's also a difference between written words for entertainment and a story and a video graphically showing sexual acts.  

Also, there's the intention of the material.  Is it a heart-wrenching story about a real-life tragedy or one based off real events to make a point about something in the world.  Or is it a story meant to sexually arouse people with dangerous desires?  And let's not overlook one very critical thing... I know it sounds sick, but when people are at home alone, reading or watching their preferred medium portraying children, they're not out there acting on their desires they can't help.  I know it sounds messed up, but I'm not sure how therapy works for sexual deviants.  Many choose chemical castration because they know their desires get them in trouble.  Imagine tomorrow someone said it's illegal to be sexually attracted to pretty women or hunky men.  Could you turn it off completely because it's suddenly immoral?  It's the same for people who are attracted to something else.

Okay, I think I finally covered why I hated child pornography being brought up AGAIN here.  We've already covered it several times on this forum and frankly, I'm tired of hearing ill-thought out responses that initially look like a one-size-fits-all answer to end a moral debate.  When Steerpike brought up "would you kill the one girl to save a million people?" we had quite a long discussion about morality and I'm pretty sure we will all remember the very revealing answers.    Morality is not as simple as black and white.


----------



## Mindfire (Mar 20, 2013)

Caged Maiden said:


> Morality is not as simple as black and white.



It is. But to see it that way requires a wisdom and clarity that is not humanly possible.


----------



## brokethepoint (Mar 20, 2013)

I don't believe in censorship, but I do believe that we have a responsibility.  The freedom to write anything does not mean that everything is right.

I do not believe that offending people is the issue.  How we influence people is the issue.  If someones writing always glamorizes mass murderers and makes them out to be misunderstood wonderful people, are they not responsible for the people they influence?  What if the person they influence kills someone they loved.

After 2 locked bechdel threads it is pretty amazing to see some of the responses in this thread.


----------



## advait98 (Mar 20, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> It is. But to see it that way requires a wisdom and clarity that is not humanly possible.



Sure, but as we _are_ human, the issue of morality will always be flecked with huge amounts of grey in between the black and white. But the issue of morality is not primarily the concern of this thread, and perhaps we should stay away from it.



> Well, it's not clinically depressing--it's the same sort of depression you get from writing any sad story. And I do enjoy knowing that people liked my stories, especially when they understood what I was really trying to say. Given that I have way more ideas than I can feasibly write, and given that I only try to publish a few at a time, it makes sense to write the ideas that involve sex, then depict the sex. (Many of my stories are cute little romances--I only go in darker directions when the plot requires it, although explicit depictions are often only necessary for the site rather than the story itself.)



So I don't think there is anything wrong. I doubt that this thread, which is filled with so many different opinions, answered your issues in a straightforward manner (that's why they're there after all). But still, it's obvious that you found some posts extremely agreeable to you, and in the end, it's you who decides the way.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Mar 20, 2013)

> Okay, I think I finally covered why I hated child pornography being brought up AGAIN here. We've already covered it several times on this forum and frankly, I'm tired of hearing ill-thought out responses that initially look like a one-size-fits-all answer to end a moral debate. When Steerpike brought up "would you kill the one girl to save a million people?" we had quite a long discussion about morality and I'm pretty sure we will all remember the very revealing answers.  Morality is not as simple as black and white.



I think this sums up your thoughts nicely.  

Having someone interject emotionally charged issues in the middle of a lively debate certainly can give the perception of intellectual dishonesty.  Kinda like:

It's difficult to think through complex issues in a logical way.
It's easy to bring up a topic that some people get emotional about.
An interesting exchange of ideas becomes: If you support this position, you're advocating for (Insert the worst atrocity you can think of here).

Which is why, as I stated to Feo earlier, we seek to come up with examples that aren't as emotionally charged.

If A = B AND B = C THEN A = C for ALL values of A and C.

If A is emotionally charged, it's much better to address C calmly and logically and then apply what you learned back to A.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Mar 20, 2013)

> I don't believe in censorship, but I do believe that we have a responsibility. The freedom to write anything does not mean that everything is right.



There's a fine line between these two ideas - that people should have freedom to write what they want but that they have a responsibility not to.  I can more easily see, "People have the freedom to write what they want but not all writing has value."

If you say, "You have the freedom to do what you want but you have a responsibility not to exercise that freedom."  If you have a responsibility not to exercise that freedom, then do you really have that freedom in the first place?

Admittedly, you have the freedom to choose not to fulfill responsibility, but the thought seems to me to violate the spirit of freedom.  If you're truly dedicated to the concept of freedom, it's hard to believe in the responsibility portion.



> I do not believe that offending people is the issue. How we influence people is the issue.



Your thoughts here don't seem to jive with the discussion we've been having.

We've been discussing: Is an author responsible for all possible interpretations of their work?

This point is more along the lines of: Is the author responsible for another's actions if they deliberately try to influence that person to do something bad?

Let's assume that it is possible for me to write something so convincing that it compels you to do something bad and that it was my intent to compel you to do so.  In that case, I don't think that many would argue with you that me (as the author) and you (as the person who committed the bad act) are both at fault.



> After 2 locked bechdel threads it is pretty amazing to see some of the responses in this thread.



I think that moderators have a difficult job.  At one hand, they don't want to stifle legitimate debate.  On the other hand, they want to keep the forum a friendly place where people of all beliefs feel welcome.

I'm glad they've show restraint thus far with this thread.


----------



## Devor (Mar 20, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> I think that moderators have a difficult job.  At one hand, they don't want to stifle legitimate debate.  On the other hand, they want to keep the forum a friendly place where people of all beliefs feel welcome.



If it helps, I knew when I locked both threads that there would be a new one.  It's not about stifling discussion, but sometimes to just give it a fresh start.


----------



## brokethepoint (Mar 20, 2013)

My point on being free is this.  We believe that we are free, but being free does not mean that we are free to do what ever we want.  I believe that this also applies to writing.

My point about the 2 locked threads was that there was a heated discussion about how women are characterized(which I don't think anyone here really seems to have a problem with) but when we look at having a responsibility with our writing there are those who seem to dismiss it. 

Sorry maybe I am overly wound on this one.  It just seems like so many in today's society do not feel the need to be responsible for their actions.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 20, 2013)

brokethepoint said:


> Sorry maybe I am overly wound on this one.  It just seems like so many in today's society do not feel the need to be responsible for their actions.



It's a question of whether the responsibility you are imposing is reasonable. If I write a story that mentions the word murder in it, then someone reads it and shoots someone, am I responsible? Obviously that's a ludicrous example - no one is going to say I have any responsibility. So, what if I write a story about a serial killer and someone in real-life starts to emulate the killer in my novel. Then am I responsible? I say no, and I think this is just as silly as the first example.

It's very easy to make generalized statements, but if you're going to dish out responsibility to a writer for someone else's conscious action then you've got to figure out where to draw the line. And you've got to figure out who it is who gets to decide where to draw the line. I haven't seen anyone address those issues, and without that all the talk of responsibility is meaningless in any practical sense.


----------



## Mindfire (Mar 20, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> There's a fine line between these two ideas - that people should have freedom to write what they want but that they have a responsibility not to.  I can more easily see, "People have the freedom to write what they want but not all writing has value."
> 
> If you say, "You have the freedom to do what you want but you have a responsibility not to exercise that freedom."  If you have a responsibility not to exercise that freedom, then do you really have that freedom in the first place?
> 
> Admittedly, you have the freedom to choose not to fulfill responsibility, but the thought seems to me to violate the spirit of freedom.  If you're truly dedicated to the concept of freedom, it's hard to believe in the responsibility portion.



Well if you're going to believe that, why not go all the way? As you see it, morality is the enemy of freedom, so why don't we all live immoral lives so as to exercise our "freedom" to the fullest?


----------



## Devor (Mar 20, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> Well if you're going to believe that, why not go all the way? As you see it, morality is the enemy of freedom, so why don't we all live immoral lives so as to exercise our "freedom" to the fullest?



Right.  I don't think freedom relieves us of our responsibilities, but rather, gives us the opportunity to identify them for ourselves.  But we still face the intrinsic consequences - like being seen as a jerk - when we choose not to.


----------



## Kit (Mar 20, 2013)

Here's yet another thing to consider re: "child porn". There are people actually getting ARRESTED and tossed in prison for having certain webcomics downloaded on their computers. While some of these webcomics are certainly of very questionable taste and morality, I've seen some that are quite difficult to categorize. (Loveless has been serializing for over a decade, and there is *NO* sex in the comic, but there's a 20YO man kissing a 12YO boy on the mouth.) I have some mixed feelings about censorship, and what the definition of child porn should be, but I do have a problem with the idea of someone going to prison because of a COMIC BOOK on their laptop. These are DRAWINGS.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 20, 2013)

Kit said:


> Here's yet another thing to consider re: "child porn". There are people actually getting ARRESTED and tossed in prison for having certain webcomics downloaded on their computers. While some of these webcomics are certainly of very questionable taste and morality, I've seen some that are quite difficult to categorize. (Loveless has been serializing for over a decade, and there is *NO* sex in the comic, but there's a 20YO man kissing a 12YO boy on the mouth.) I have some mixed feelings about censorship, and what the definition of child porn should be, but I do have a problem with the idea of someone going to prison because of a COMIC BOOK on their laptop. These are DRAWINGS.



Is there is U.S. case for someone being imprisoned over a comic like that?


----------



## Ophiucha (Mar 20, 2013)

Christopher Handley, I remember his case causing a lot of talk in online anime communities a few years ago. (Censored but potentially NSFW under link.)


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 20, 2013)

Ophiucha said:


> Christopher Handley, I remember his case causing a lot of talk in online anime communities a few years ago.



Thanks. That gives me the information I was interested in, since such cases immediately raise First Amendment issues. It looks like he ultimately pleaded guilty on a charge that requires not only the type of depictions referred to above, but that is also _obscene_. The addition of the word "obscene" is significant, because obscene materials get no First Amendment protections. If you possessed materials of a similar subject matter, but that was not obscene (as legally defined) then the First Amendment would shield you from prosecution.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Mar 20, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> Well if you're going to believe that, why not go all the way? As you see it, morality is the enemy of freedom, so why don't we all live immoral lives so as to exercise our "freedom" to the fullest?



I think you're missing an important aspect (which is my fault because I didn't make myself clear):

I'm speaking specifically in response to responsibility imposed on you - either by others, by law, by society in general, etc.

Responsibility that's imposed on you by yourself is a quite different matter as is responsibility imposed on you by religion.

To me, God and my own conscience impose morality on me, and I'm quite fine with that.

If you tell me, "You need to behave in a moral fashion," my answer is, "Why?  What is your authority to tell me that?"


----------



## BWFoster78 (Mar 20, 2013)

Devor said:


> Right.  I don't think freedom relieves us of our responsibilities, but rather, gives us the opportunity to identify them for ourselves.  But we still face the intrinsic consequences - like being seen as a jerk - when we choose not to.



I agree with this.

My point, which I apparently didn't make very well, was:

I felt the poster's statement that precipitated my response was an example of believing two contradictory things (doublethink from 1984).  He seems to be saying, "I don't believe in censorship" while at the same time saying "You don't have the freedom to publish what you want because you have a responsibility not to."  To me, there wasn't much difference between his second statement and censorship.


----------



## Mindfire (Mar 20, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> I think you're missing an important aspect (which is my fault because I didn't make myself clear):
> 
> I'm speaking specifically in response to responsibility imposed on you - either by others, by law, by society in general, etc.
> 
> ...



Oh, alright. That makes much more sense.


----------



## A. E. Lowan (Mar 20, 2013)

First I want to /clap for Caged Maiden.  Well said!

This whole deviation onto child pornography is interesting.  Indeed, there is no black and white here.  It brings to mind 2 of our series characters.

The first is a twenty-five-hundred-year-old vampire.  Terrifying, amoral, and sadistic in the extreme.  She was married at eleven and bore two sons to her husband before she was turned at fifteen.  Culturally consistent with her time period.  She was considered a woman grown, and so she was married off.  So, I have an ancient vampire running around in the body of a tiny fifteen-year-old Japanese girl.  At the start of the series, she is pregnant with twins, her first children in over two millenia.  Is she sexually active... well, dur.  Are we going to show her being sexually active on screen?  She is a sexual sadist who plays with knives and carves artwork into the bare skins of her victims, so it's gonna depend on what we need to show for the story.  Would we hesitate to have her engage in sexual activity on screen if the story called for it just because she is physically a teen-ager?  Nope.

The second character is a young man of eighteen at the start of the series.  He will rise to be a great Hero of the age, and probably die saving the world or something like that, as Heroes tend to do.  Haven't figured that out, yet.  As a small child, he was pimped out by what was probably his step-father or mother's boyfriend - the man's relationship to our young Hero has never been firmly established as the young man does not remember his mother, or even his real name.  At eleven he was beaten nearly to death by his pimp, but rescued by a police detective and adopted into a loving home where he has had nothing but protection and support ever since.  However, the trauma of his past rides him, and he will have to deal with it for the rest of his life.  He falls in love with a sixteen year old girl, but is afraid to approach her because she is "underage" and he fears being percieved as a predator, like those who preyed on him.  Are we going to show his abuse on screen?  It takes place years before the book, so probably not.  However, he still needs to deal with it, and flashbacks happen.  Do we find what happened to him to be repugnant?  Of course we do, and that's why we write it.  Things like this happen more often than are talked about - which is why it needs to be said.

In dealing with characters from many different cultures and time periods, where ages of maturity were often very different from our modern, first-world perspectives of increasingly extended juvenile periods, we have many series characters who were considered full-grown in their times who would be considered "children" now.  We also have characters who have a variety of early sexual experiences, both consentual and not.  Are we writing child pornography, then?  Do we have some moral obligation to not tell these people's stories in an honest fashion?  Could we inspire someone to run out and victimize a child, because some of our characters have been victimized?  To all three, I would say, no.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Mar 20, 2013)

I'm a Utilitarian, so for me, it boils down to the good or bad being done. I'm against a government censorship authority because I believe that such power would inevitably be abused (thus creating harm that would outweigh any potential good) but that doesn't necessarily conflict with the idea that the choice not to publish something creates a more positive outcome than the choice to publish it.

As for child porn, I've encountered people who look at drawings of it and are otherwise well-adjusted--they've learned how to compartmentalize. I've also encountered people who look at it and are deeply messed up. 

(I've mentioned before that I was banned from another writing site. Another poster was accused [falsely, to my belief] of being a pedophile and banned. I flipped out, raged at the mods, and got banned as well. That community lost at least twenty members in that purge, and last I heard, it's still getting worse.)


----------



## Black Dragon (Mar 20, 2013)

Folks,

While I am no fan of censorship, we as a community have a very real "big brother" that can't be ignored: Google.

A lot of very adult, even disturbing, subjects have been raised in this thread.  Some of the terms used in this discussion can and will set off flags if they appear frequently enough.  If the "r" word and the subject of "c.p." keep appearing in a thread, Google - and other search engines - *will begin to think that this site is about those subjects*.  

This is a very serious concern, as Google sends us most of our traffic, and really keeps Mythic Scribes growing.  If we get flagged, not only can traffic dry up, but we will end up blacklisted on many filters, which will keep folks from visiting our site at their workplace.

Therefore, I am requesting that we all take a break from discussing these vile topics.  While I appreciate the respectful spirit that has permeated this thread, I have to look out for the well-being of this community.

Thank you for understanding.


----------

