# Duties Owed by a Writer



## Steerpike (Jan 9, 2017)

Interesting convergence, in that I saw a lengthy discussion of this on social media, and then saw the topic raised here in another thread. The question, put in simple terms, is:

Whether and to what extent the author owes any duty to society, the art form, or any other party. 

My answer to this is that the amount of duty owed by the author is *ZERO*.(*) 

Often, but not always, the attempted imposition of such a duty is tied to looking down one's nose at writing one considers inferior from an artistic perspective, or that one does not feel adequately addresses whatever issues one finds important enough to warrant the time. But it's a strange concept, in my view. We're talking about a person's time and labor, often put forth without any guarantee of compensation (certainly, if you want to get rich there are better, faster, and more dependable ways than by writing fiction). What is really being said, then, is that you, or society, or the abstract concept of "art" has some claim to my time. That I should write in such and such a way, according to the precepts of...who? whomever, I suppose, in any given instance...and that by not doing so I'm somehow derelict in my duties. 

Sorry, but no. I'm glad there are people who write literary fiction, artistic fiction, fiction with a deep message about the human condition. I love reading those works. I'm glad there are people who write light, adventure fiction. I love reading those as well. There is no reason whatsoever that a person who writes light adventure fiction, with no greater purpose than to entertain, should ever feel compelled to do more than just that, any more than one who writes literary fiction should be compelled to write something more accessible. It's not for you to decide what I write, any more than it is for me to decide what you write. I owe you nothing, and vice versa.

Divergent views welcomed, of course.

(*)one can make an argument that an author owes a reader investing time and/or money her best attempt at fulfilling the promise of the story itself--the promise to the reader inherent at the beginning of any tale--but that's not the sort of duty I'm concerned with.


----------



## Penpilot (Jan 9, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> My answer to this is that the amount of duty owed by the author is *ZERO*.(*)



No divergent views from me.

What the author owes IMHO is what they think they owe. It's dictated by the individual, which basically means they owe nothing. If they think they have some sort of obligation then they're welcome to it. Otherwise, get out of my studio/office/workspace/etc. and mind your own bee's wax.


----------



## Russ (Jan 9, 2017)

I have a different world view on this one.  I do think writers who publish, do have duties to the communities that they publish into.

I am tight for time right now but will try and articulate my position on this in overly lengthy prose later.

But I don't want to wait to say that this is a great question and discussion topic.


----------



## Heliotrope (Jan 9, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> My answer to this is that the amount of duty owed by the author is *ZERO*.(*)
> 
> Often, but not always, the attempted imposition of such a duty is tied to looking down one's nose at writing one considers inferior from an artistic perspective, or that one does not feel adequately addresses whatever issues one finds important enough to warrant the time.
> 
> ...


----------



## Chessie (Jan 9, 2017)

I owe the writing world squilch. I owe my fellow writers respect. I owe my readers my very best work.


----------



## Michael K. Eidson (Jan 9, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> ... Whether and to what extent the author owes any duty to society, the art form, or any other party. ...



Authors make promises to readers. They have a duty to fulfill those promises. Moreover, as members of civilized society, authors have a duty to uphold the laws of that society. Copyright laws need to be adhered to. That's what comes to mind first in answer to this question. I don't see the answer being zero.


----------



## FifthView (Jan 9, 2017)

Heliotrope said:


> Suggesting that I owe the art form anything, or that it is my duty to single-handedly change world views on hot-button issues is asinine.



Yeah, for me the question is silly.  I mean, judging by some of the things put up on Amazon, authors don't even have a duty to edit their own books or find an editor who will do it for them.  So I can't help wondering why anyone would think authors have any of those more grandiose duties.

And there's the problem of determining who enforces those hypothetical duties or who punishes for infractions.  I suppose that in theory authors have duties others in society have, like refraining from trying to earn a living through plagiarization or refraining from publishing libel.   Or not committing murder.  Then again, maybe some of our resident lawyers can clarify whether following the law is technically a duty; outside the legal field, I think that's a thorny philosophical question?  In any case, one is free enough to break those laws but has no legal right to avoid the consequences.  Concerning the grandiose "artistic duties," I'd wonder what kind of a duty can be a duty when infractions bring no formal punishments–and indeed sometimes lead to great rewards!  (The reward being a sizable reader base that loves the shallow hack-and-slash fantasy adventure, to use one example.)

If I were to play the Devil's Advocate, I might wonder whether taking an "anything goes" position sometimes leads to indirect, informal punishments.  I.e., not bothering with careful editing, using sloppy writing, always using the weak sauce in our cooking, and so forth really can lead to the imposition of a special tax or fine (limited sales and/or a degradation in the general opinions regarding a whole market.)  Still, I think that any formal imposition of a duty would be impossible and in fact would lead to far more harm than good.


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 9, 2017)

I covered duties of fulfilling promises to the reader in my asterisk, though I'm not convinced that it makes sense to go so far as to call it a duty. The author should, in my view, fulfill promises and put the best work forward. 

We all have legal duties imposes by the laws of society, and those aren't what I'm interested in here. 

To narrow it further: to what extent does an author have a duty to dig deep into the human condition, to educate or enlighten, to push for social progress (or at least change), and to elevate the art form?

My answer: none whatsoever(*)

(*)unless you've begun your work by making a promise to the reader to do those things. Then, maybe. But I'm talking about in terms of choosing what and how to write. Duties that exist before pen is set to paper.


----------



## Devor (Jan 9, 2017)

I don't feel an obligation to society.







But I do feel one to my readers.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Jan 9, 2017)

....this is in response to what I said in the Is Violence Necessary thread, isn't it? 

I'll respond when I've had time to gather my thoughts. This is a topic that requires lots of careful clarification.


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 9, 2017)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> ....this is in response to what I said in the Is Violence Necessary thread, isn't it?
> 
> I'll respond when I've had time to gather my thoughts. This is a topic that requires lots of careful clarification.



Yes. That and a conversation I saw on social media prompted the post. You're welcome to respond if you like, but don't feel obligated. You're allowed to have an opinion without having to pen a thesis in support of it


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Jan 9, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> Yes. That and a conversation I saw on social media prompted the post. You're welcome to respond if you like, but don't feel obligated. You're allowed to have an opinion without having to pen a thesis in support of it



No worries. I actually enjoy penning theses in defense (or clarification, or development) of my opinions. 

As long as I don't get scorched off the face of the earth in a flame war, that is.


----------



## Russ (Jan 9, 2017)

I cannot help but point out some of the logical reasoning problems in these positions:




FifthView said:


> Yeah, for me the question is silly.  I mean, judging by some of the things put up on Amazon, authors don't even have a duty to edit their own books or find an editor who will do it for them.  So I can't help wondering why anyone would think authors have any of those more grandiose duties.



The frequent breech of a duty is not a valid reason to assume the duty does not exist or should not be promoted as a good.  I could give you examples or explain it further but I think that is close to self evident.  For instance, one can have a legal duty to drive no faster than a certain speed.  The fact that the vast majority of highway users exceed that speed does not mean the duty does not exist, it just means it is breeched a lot.




> And there's the problem of determining who enforces those hypothetical duties or who punishes for infractions.  I suppose that in theory authors have duties others in society have, like refraining from trying to earn a living through plagiarization or refraining from publishing libel.   Or not committing murder.  Then again, maybe some of our resident lawyers can clarify whether following the law is technically a duty; outside the legal field, I think that's a thorny philosophical question?  In any case, one is free enough to break those laws but has no legal right to avoid the consequences.  Concerning the grandiose "artistic duties," I'd wonder what kind of a duty can be a duty when infractions bring no formal punishments–and indeed sometimes lead to great rewards!  (The reward being a sizable reader base that loves the shallow hack-and-slash fantasy adventure, to use one example.)



The question of whether or not the duty can be enforced effectively is not at all related to whether or not the duty can, or should, exist.  

You are also confusing a legal duty, with a moral or ethical or perhaps even social duty.  It is quite easy to define a writer's legal duties, while I think the question the OP poses is much broader than that.


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 9, 2017)

Russ said:


> I cannot help but point out some of the logical reasoning problems in these positions:
> 
> The frequent breech of a duty is not a valid reason to assume the duty does not exist or should not be promoted as a good.  I could give you examples or explain it further but I think that is close to self evident.  For instance, one can have a legal duty to drive no faster than a certain speed.  The fact that the vast majority of highway users exceed that speed does not mean the duty does not exist, it just means it is breeched a lot.
> 
> ...



Duties tend to spring from somewhere. If one were to propose a duty from me to society in general or art in the abstract when I sit down with my pen, I'd like to know the origin of that duty and justification for imposing it.


----------



## Russ (Jan 9, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> Duties tend to spring from somewhere. If one were to propose a duty from me to society in general or art in the abstract when I sit down with my pen, I'd like to know the origin of that duty and justification for imposing it.



I can't disagree with you on that point.  But the fact that a duty has a origin, that you may accept as valid or invalid, is also a separate question from the frequency of its breech or its enforceability.

Perhaps the original question could be made more clear?


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 9, 2017)

Russ said:


> I can't disagree with you on that point.  But the fact that a duty has a origin, that you may accept as valid or invalid, is also a separate question from the frequency of its breech or its enforceability.
> 
> Perhaps the original question could be made more clear?



I posted some clarifying language in post #8. Hopefully get everyone on more or less the same page in terms of what I was talking about (though you all should feel free to deviate from that if you wish).


----------



## skip.knox (Jan 9, 2017)

I guess I would start with some variation on the social contract. We are all members of a society. I'm not sure I would choose the word duty, but there are things that make us better or lesser citizens. We can choose not to vote, not to be courteous to our neighbors, not to care for our family. And we can choose to write hateful diatribes, disgusting porn, any number of things. We can even claim it's art.

On the other hand, we can choose to participate in civil society, seek to improve our neighborhood, nurture our family. And we can choose to write something that inspires. We are not obliged to do so, but the choice lies in our hands and hearts. 

I do not hesitate to call the one extreme worse than the other extreme.

I think, with little evidence to back it up, that we see these calls to a higher moral ground coming from people who are distressed by the world they see around them. Could be general, could be personal, but they see something that is in urgent need of repair. Being writers (or avid readers, perhaps), they appeal to their own community. If they were doctors, they'd call on us to join Doctors Without Borders or some such. If they were warriors they'd appeal to us to go forward in battle against the forces of darkness. They are appeals to the tribe.

People start to get uncomfortable, though, when the rhetoric moves from being a call to being a demand. Then others in the tribe start to get defensive. Then the arguments break out.


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 9, 2017)

I think we can all agree that no one is obligated to write. In other words, there is no duty for a non-writer to sit down and nevertheless write something with a social conscience. So:

A. Haven't yet decided to write (no duty).


B. Decide to write.

                                <---------- duty springs into existence

C. Sit down to write. 

So, what is going on between Steps B and C?


----------



## Russ (Jan 9, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> I think we can all agree that no one is obligated to write. In other words, there is no duty for a non-writer to sit down and nevertheless write something with a social conscience. So:
> 
> A. Haven't yet decided to write (no duty).
> 
> ...



I hope to get you a longer post tomorrow am, but let me help define a couple of things that might help the conversation.

You seem to be talking about a positive duty, a duty to uplift society or enhance the art, or ennoble all mankind of whatever.  That is a duty to do something in particular.

You also have to consider negative duties.  That is a duty not to do something.

The classic examples (without judgement) might be that you have a positive duty to pay your taxes.  Or in countries where the law requires you to vote you may have a duty to do that, which is a positive duty.  But my duty not to drive too fast, or not to punch someone in the nose is a negative duty.  

When I think about writing I think more in terms or negative duties.  i.e. do no harm.

I also would suggest that the duty comes in play later in the process than where you put it.  I would say the duty comes into play just before you publish your work.  For instance I don't think you have a duty not to think racist or homophobic thoughts, or even even a duty not to write racist or homophobic works, but I do think one has a duty not to publish things that are harmful to the community.

I might even suggest that you have some positives duties to the community you live in as a human being, with other human beings, because of the benefits you derive from being part of that community, but then I would be dancing dangerously close to a political discussion which might not be appropriate for this site.


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 9, 2017)

I would probably cast the duty to obey laws as more of a positive duty, and I feel the burden to establish a duty is on the person taking the position that such duty exists. 

When it comes to subjects like harms, we start to get in subjective territory (although there are areas of broad agreement). Am I under a duty to write in accordance with what you view as harms, or in accordance with my own view as to harms? Or Donald Trump's view? Or the Pope's view? 

And if the duty you want to impose on me causes me to write other than what I would wish to write, then you have to balance the harm of chilling expression against what ever benefit is deemed to be found within the work. 

It all gets rather murky, though it is an interesting topic. The jumping off point in the other thread was the issue of whether you have a duty to do more than entertain (or, whether if you just entertain you've someone let down humanity and the art).


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Jan 9, 2017)

I will now attempt to express my thoughts. 

First off, I would like to say that I do not as much think of this as a "duty" or "obligation" as a responsibility. There is a subtle difference. 

As writers/artists/creators, we have power. Great power, in fact. I feel that bearing the pen is to bear responsibility. (Insert Spider-Man quote here.) We have the ability to affect people and society and well, I think that ability should be used with some level of care. I also believed that the art itself should be treated with a level of respect. 

Now, I absolutely do not think that writers are obligated to write social commentary, or change the world, or promote values. Pure entertainment has an important place in the world. And, since it brings joy to people, entertainment is a good thing. A wonderful thing. 

I do, however, believe that writers do have certain responsibilities that come with wielding the pen. 

As writers, we have a responsibility to portray people and their cultures and perspectives with RESPECT and avoid harmful, offensive stereotypes, out of respect for the real people represented by our writing. We have a responsibility to treat serious issues with the gravity they deserve and avoid dealing with them in a way that's flippant and vulgar, out of respect to the real people they affect. I would even venture to say that we have a responsibility to avoid contributing to harm and depravity. 

Also, I have respect for the art itself. I'm CREATING things. When I write, I'm doing something very beautiful and very powerful, and I seek to glorify the art rather than sully it. I do that by doing the best work I can, and by writing everything with the greatest degree of honesty, care and respect that's within my ability. 

Writing disgusting porn or disturbing gore without any meaning, in my opinion, is an insult to the art of writing. We have the ability to write things that are meaningful. I'm using meaningful as a broad term here. Whether a piece of writing is meaningful to the writer and only them, or it is meaningful only in bringing joy and happiness to others, or if it is meaningful in portraying human struggles and emotions with honesty. We can choose to write whatever, but the ability to write is a responsibility. I honestly believe that if we CAN use a power for good, we SHOULD. I told you guys I hated that word, and I do, but I believe it now. What "using the ability to write for good" will vary vastly. I don't mean it in a way like "you can't write X" or "you should write Y in Z way." But I ask that writers be conscious of what they are doing when they write. 

You are affecting people. You are putting something into the world that was not there before. You can, if you choose, change people's lives and fill them with joy and happiness. I feel like writers should consider this more deeply. 

Do I believe a responsibility exists? Yes. 

Do I have the ability or right to impose that on other people? No. 

For me, these beliefs have a deeply spiritual, even religious root. (Though I no longer like wearing the label religious. It has a far too institutional feel.) I see making art as an inherently spiritual act. So, my "responsibility" may not extend to those around me, and I can't make them adhere to responsibility. But I don't treat my own ability to write lightly.  I...do not know if anyone here can relate to this view, and I don't know if anyone can argue with me, my reasons for believing this way being so extremely personal.


----------



## FifthView (Jan 9, 2017)

Russ said:


> The frequent breech of a duty is not a valid reason to assume the duty does not exist or should not be promoted as a good.  I could give you examples or explain it further but I think that is close to self evident.  For instance, one can have a legal duty to drive no faster than a certain speed.  The fact that the vast majority of highway users exceed that speed does not mean the duty does not exist, it just means it is breeched a lot.



I am saying that no such duty exists.  I would not think of arguing that a breech in said (non-existing) duty is proof of its non-existence.  That would be absurd.  I think this is self-evident.

The idea of a breech in duty springs from the assumption that such a duty exists.  But where is it?  From whence does this duty spring?  What force--legal, moral, or social--is the source of this obligation and how is it enforced?  Without answers to these questions, any "duty" is merely some fanciful creation tagged with that label.

I do believe one can obligate oneself.  An author can obligate himself to write the best hack-and-slash sword and sorcery he can possibly write.  But this is a personal, subjective duty that he has chosen for himself; by what authority can he proclaim others to be obligated to write the best hack-and-slash sword and sorcery--i.e., proclaim the existence of a universal duty for all authors?   The assumption of the existence of any universal artistic duty is nothing more than the attempt to give the force of contract (one-sided!) to whatever fanciful, subjective parameter the user of the word "duty" wishes to enforce.  The proclamation of that universal duty is his attempt to use that force.

This really does address the OP's central question.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jan 9, 2017)

I think any "duty"  falling on an art form becomes a form of censorship that threatens the art itself. If you look at Mao's China...

When touring a museum in Beijing we were taken into a section where every piece of art aggrandized China, by law, during the Cultural Revolution (which our guide generously called the destruction of other art a misinterpretation of Mao's word)... and in this museum, every single piece of  art during this period depicted Mao himself. This is the ultimate expression of "duty" in art, and anything that even begins to journey down that road (political correctness being a tamer expression of that same human urge) should be eradicated. Subversive and offensive is a strength of art that shouldn't be hindered by anything but the free and open market of ideas... and even then... hmmm.

Now, are most books out there really art? That goes into an entirely different discussion that requires defining Art versus art and all kinds of other squishy stuff that I'm not even going to broach.

And of course, every individual artist is totally free to feel their own social obligation. Whatever that is, but once anyone says the "artist has a duty" or "an obligation" to society it gets my hackles up.


----------



## Devor (Jan 9, 2017)

It seems pretty simple to me.

1) Of course you are *responsible* for the impact your book has on society.  We don't live in bubbles.

2) Most authors have *negligible* impact on society, so go easy everybody.

3) As you begin to *influence* more people with your work, you need to consider your impact and your responsibility more carefully.

^ This, to me, seems like common sense.

"Duty" is a moral, even religious question.  I have an opinion on that, too:  I believe you have a duty to God (for the sake of conversation, we'll keep it to "do no harm"), your family, your country, and your job, in that order.  "Country" is third.  Third.  If you can make a living for your family writing straight-white-romance novels, and can't get anything else to work out right, then that's what your obligation is to do.

On the other hand, if your family is comfortable enough, and your influence is getting broad enough, then I believe you have some obligation to do right by society, yes even with your writing, and including diversity to at some degree.  But I can't deny that it is a socio-philosophical-religious obligation, and I suspect that most of us will not get to the point with our writing careers where it matters much.


----------



## psychotick (Jan 9, 2017)

Hi,

Rights, responsibilities and duties are all societial constructs. That is they are determined by society. So why do you have a "right" to free speech? Because society expects it and demands it so it becomes the accepted standard (in most democracies).

So what duties and responsibilities does a writer have? The ones the society in which he lives place upon him. These seem to be few, and mostly relate to not writing things relating to pedophilia etc.

But step away from these rights for a moment, and assume a writer can write whatever the hell he wants. We also have another standard by which writers can be measured. So called civil society including litigation. You may be legally able to write that person A is this or that. And in fact no one can stop you. But person A has a write not to be defamed. So you might well not have a duty not to write false things etc, but you still might get hammered in a court of law as you get sued.

Likewise if you write something that leads to criminal activities by others, watch out. I'm still waiting to see what happens to the writer of the fake news story that Hillary was running a pedo ring under a pizza shop. I mean on the face of it the story was obviously fake. But look what happened. And guess what the defendant's defence may well be. Well my client was mentally unwell / of low intelligence, and he saw that and acted in the belief it was true! It's not his fault. The writer should have been more clear that it was fake news. And what's the writer's defence going to be? That it was never meant to be believed when in fact the story was dressed up exactly as if it was real? Could be fun to watch this unfold.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 9, 2017)

Nabokov's _Lolita _argues against there being a strict taboo on pedophilia, assuming Humbert is a pedophile, which I suppose is arguable.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Jan 9, 2017)

Devor said:


> It seems pretty simple to me.
> 
> 1) Of course you are *responsible* for the impact your book has on society.  We don't live in bubbles.



What do you mean by writers are responsible for the impact that a book has on society. This can be problematic in some respects. If on the one hand you think that a writer is "responsible" for all the consequences that spring from the book then I can't agree with that. If I wrote a book and had a super-compelling villain and some dude worshipped that villain and tried to imitate him then am I responsible for him blowing up a school? I would argue no.

Now you could mean that I am responsible for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of the book. Well, what is that? Again, is it reasonably foreseeable that a person blows up a building because of my villain? If I write an anti-hero is it reasonably foreseeable that a person would imitate him? So how can we possibly define what is a reasonbly foreseeable consequence of a piece of fiction? Is there such a thing as a reasonble reader? 

I think there are too many variables to really make a determination like that. Now, there might be some easy cases wherein a person is clearly advocating for something that society says is reprehensible, but how responsible can they be?

Now to the question of whether I am responsible to the "art" of writing, I say nay. I have no responsibility to the art other than writing a novel that is reasonably adequate and reasonably entertaining I owe the art nothing.


----------



## Devor (Jan 10, 2017)

Brian Scott Allen said:


> If on the one hand you think that a writer is "responsible" for all the consequences that spring from the book then I can't agree with that. If I wrote a book and had a super-compelling villain and some dude worshipped that villain and tried to imitate him then am I responsible for him blowing up a school? I would argue no.



You're associating responsibility with moral blame.  I didn't mean to, for the sake of the post.  Quite simply, you're the cause of anything your book does to society.  And if you get to the point where your book is actually doing things to society, you need to consider that.  That's common sense.  What kind of conclusion you come to at that point is up to you.


----------



## Russ (Jan 10, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> When it comes to subjects like harms, we start to get in subjective territory (although there are areas of broad agreement). Am I under a duty to write in accordance with what you view as harms, or in accordance with my own view as to harms? Or Donald Trump's view? Or the Pope's view?
> .



To me, this approach is conflating two issues together.

IF we in a first discussion can agree that we have a duty to try and avoid harming other members of our community, we can create some common ground for the next part of the discussion.

If we agree we have a duty not to harm others in our community, we can then begin trying to find out what harm we agree should be avoided.  But if we cannot agree on step one, we ever get to step two.

Finding common ground can be very  hard, but it is often worth the effort.  It is  kind of how communities and societies work properly.


----------



## Russ (Jan 10, 2017)

FifthView said:


> I am saying that no such duty exists.  I would not think of arguing that a breech in said (non-existing) duty is proof of its non-existence.  That would be absurd.  I think this is self-evident.



I am glad you clarified that, because that is exactly what your first post suggested.


----------



## FifthView (Jan 10, 2017)

Devor said:


> 2) Most authors have *negligible* impact on society, so go easy everybody.



I was very charmed by this point.  Why my insignificance can bring a warm glow to my heart might be one of those greater mysteries.

I think part of this effect is due to the freedom inherent in having negligible impact on society.  As Uncle Ben might say (in the movies at least), "With great power comes great responsibility."

Another portion is a corollary:  Being rather insignificant means fewer interloping censors, critics, and the like.

The first addresses my own choices or self-determined personal duties.  I have freedom to choose what I do.  As a personal matter, if I began to believe my writing would have a major impact on society, I would feel constrained in what I could write.  I have a very powerful superego and an ever-watchful tell-tale heart, so I'm sure I'd feel less freedom the moment I began to believe I was a major World-Shaper.

The second addresses the size of the target on my back.  Quite apart from my own mind and heart, the retaliation from others who might spot that giant "Slap me down!" taped to my back could, in theory, limit my freedom.  Being dragged into the streets and publicly burned would put a full-stop on my writing.

So, freedom and warm glow.

Even if others feel very strongly about this topic of artistic duty, i.e. that such a duty does or should exist, #2 also means that no author who believes this will play the role of witch-burner or book-burner for me.  If _they_ have insignificant effect on society, and _I_ am a part of that society, then their assertions are unlikely to force my own hand or take away my freedom.

I do believe slippery-slope arguments need a watchful eye.  Book burnings and the like have happened before, after all.  But we are nowhere near that stage—I hope (and believe.)

I would just like to point out a problem I have with the use of "society" in an argument for the existence of a self-evident artistic duty.  As a writer and a natural libertarian (of the more liberal type, fwiw, or something of a New England Transcendentalist type), the word seems rather vague to me, an abstraction without form.  Does "society" speak with one voice?  No.  So I feel that there are problems with the prospect of entering into a fair and equal contract with It.  The term seems pro-majoritarian to me, and I'm always suspicious of that kind of term:  The Majority, The Moral Majority, A Mandate, The Will of the People.  That last one in particular raises my hackles (great phrase, ht to D.), because it always really means "The Will of _Some_ of the People, or At Least The People Who Agree With Me."  So....Society.  Well, I, also, am a part of that Society, and I have like-minded friends there, most likely.


----------



## FifthView (Jan 10, 2017)

Russ said:


> I am glad you clarified that, because that is exactly what your first post suggested.



I do hope we are clear.  If no such artistic duty exists, then listing examples of the effect of its absence is not automatically an argument founded upon some mythical "breech," as you suggested.


----------



## Russ (Jan 10, 2017)

So let's see if I can articulate this properly.  Although DOA has done a pretty good job of making some of the points I want to.

I would suggest that writers owe the same duty to the community or the society that they live in as does anyone else. 

The first one of those is a negative duty.  The duty is to avoid doing harm to other members of the community.  If I am flying a drone I have a duty to make sure I don't fly it into my neighbour's head etc.  Classic, basic tort/social stuff.

I don't think writers are exempt from these duties.  Writing can cause an impact on different scales at different times.

I don't think that being insignificant relieves you of the duty not to harm your fellow humans. I don't think that because the Holocaust happened that means that the guy who lives down the street from me doesn't  have an obligation not to call someone a racist epitaph.   Our response to either problem should be very different, but I think the duty not to cause harm remains the same.

I think writers having the same negative duties is on pretty solid footing.

Now, with my personal worldview, I think writers and people who participate in a community (and it is hard to be a writer without readers...) have positive moral duties as well.  Now I expect my view on this to be slightly more controversial.  Since people who live in a community derive benefit from that community or society, I believe they have a duty to try and participate to make that community better.  Now that can be done in a lot of ways, and I don't think this premise leads to a conclusion that one must write progressive literature.  There is value in a light entertaining read, there is value in formulaic fiction, I think the positive duty only extends as far as suggesting that if you are going to write and publish, you should do so to the best of your ability in your circumstances.  I believe that is a moral duty that you owe both to yourself and your community that you publish into.  While many people now reject the idea I do accept the idea that each human being has a duty to make the world a better place in whatever way they can.  That idea might be quite old fashioned but I do think individual humans do have a duty to make a positive difference in the world in their circumstances.

Now on the question of whether or not one has a duty to the "art" of writing or something along those lines, I simply don't know enough about art theory or have not thought enough about the meaning of writing as an art to have a useful opinion.

In Canada, BTW, we have some pretty interesting criminal laws around Hate Speech that can apply from time to time.


----------



## Devor (Jan 10, 2017)

FifthView said:


> I was very charmed by this point.  Why my insignificance can bring a warm glow to my heart might be one of those greater mysteries.



I am delighted to introduce this paradox into your life.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Jan 10, 2017)

It doesn't matter that most writers have a negligible impact on society. You write as if writing to people, whether individual people or to a large group of people. You are inevitably going to affect some people, whether a small audience or a big one, and your effect on your readers should, I would think, be the same as the effect you want to have on any people you interact with?


----------



## Heliotrope (Jan 10, 2017)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> It doesn't matter that most writers have a negligible impact on society. You write as if writing to people, whether individual people or to a large group of people. You are inevitably going to affect some people, whether a small audience or a big one, and your effect on your readers should, I would think, be the same as the effect you want to have on any people you interact with?



So does this mean you do create a graphic novel with a gay character? Or you don't? Because either way you will be impacting a audience in a negative way. Some people (your friends and family) will be offended... which would not be the "effect you want to have on people you interact with." 

So where is the line then? Do you owe society at risk of your friends and family? Or do you owe your friends and family at risk of society? Or do you not owe anyone, other than yourself and what you feel is right?


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 10, 2017)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> It doesn't matter that most writers have a negligible impact on society. You write as if writing to people, whether individual people or to a large group of people. You are inevitably going to affect some people, whether a small audience or a big one, and your effect on your readers should, I would think, be the same as the effect you want to have on any people you interact with?



This is a problematic viewpoint, in my opinion. You're basically setting it up so that authors have to tailor their work toward to most sensitive and most likely to be harmed members of society. That's the only way to avoid any harm whatsoever, and that's the logical conclusion of the effect on a very small audience being equivalent to the effect on a large one. So where are you drawing the line? If I have a negative effect on 1 in 100 readers? 1 in 1000? 1 in ten million? How many before the negative effect is so small that it is outweighed by my free expression? Or do you really think the size of the audience harmed makes no difference.

Both pornography and gore are good examples. There are probably some people who don't handle either one well. For the vast majority of readers, I suspect no harm is done. Plenty of people read those works without problems, and if you can believe at least some studies on pornography, it also has benefits. But instead of balancing harms, benefits, free expression, or any of a number of other factors, you're making a categorical argument against any writing that may produce harm in any single individual. I don't think that's supportable. That's been the argument of book burners and banners since the dawn of the printing press.


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 10, 2017)

Russ said:


> Now, with my personal worldview, I think writers and people who participate in a community (and it is hard to be a writer without readers...) have positive moral duties as well.



If it's just a personal view, then I don't equate that to a "duty." If it is more than just a philosophy of personal governance and something you think does or should apply to everyone, then I still wonder at the source of such duties. No one has explained where these duties come from. If these duties exist, then let's hear a logical proof to support that idea.

As for hate speech laws...I'm not generally a fan, and I'm glad we have more of an impediment to them here than you have up in Canada, but that's probably best taken up in PM. I'll send you a link.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jan 10, 2017)

The duty to produce a high quality product to the best of the writer's ability doesn't seem to count in this conversation to me... I would call that a given despite what we see pub'd all the time, LOL. 

The trouble lies in assumptions: what is good or positive? Shutting down any given view point (which is historically worse, but still being tried today) is a negative, IMO. Even if you disagree with the position to the death. While some "progressive" lit would have a positive bent IMO, it sure as heck isn't all, in fact, much is an anathema to my libertarian POV ... and those differences may not align to yours. So! So, far as I'm concerned it should be a free for all mess of ideas.



Russ said:


> So let's see if I can articulate this properly.  Although DOA has done a pretty good job of making some of the points I want to.
> 
> I would suggest that writers owe the same duty to the community or the society that they live in as does anyone else.
> 
> ...


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 10, 2017)

Demesnedenoir said:


> So, far as I'm concerned it should be a free for all mess of ideas.



I tend to favor a marketplace of ideas approach as well. Not a big fan of other people deciding what I can or cannot read.


----------



## Devor (Jan 10, 2017)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> It doesn't matter that most writers have a negligible impact on society. You write as if writing to people, whether individual people or to a large group of people. You are inevitably going to affect some people, whether a small audience or a big one, and your effect on your readers should, I would think, be the same as the effect you want to have on any people you interact with?



I did also mention that I believe we have a duty to God / DoNoHarm (i.e., don't write KKK propaganda), then to family, then to society, then - if the others are handled - to work (or in this case the art).  But I don't believe we need to push obligations onto people who aren't ready to meet them.  Most people here, for instance, are still some of the basics about the art - it seems presumptuous to tell us we should be improving the art.  Most of us lead limited lives and have a small audience - it seems presumptuous, to me, to tell us we need to worry about bettering society when we barely have readers.

Yes, maybe we'll get to a point where those things become real to us.  But let's not get ahead of ourselves.  In terms of the moral duty of our writing, it really is negligible right now.  That's just the reality.  We're screaming into the void of the internet, and maybe a few people are listening, but even if they are, they're not listening closely enough for it to make a difference to them.  Not yet at least.


----------



## Devor (Jan 10, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> I tend to favor a marketplace of ideas approach as well. Not a big fan of other people deciding what I can or cannot read.



Yes . . . I feel that _individuals_ should feel _some_ form of obligation _if_ it begins to make a difference.  But when you scale out, I would rather have my worldviews compete with others than forced onto them.  I think that's better for everybody.  Even if I believe I'm "right," I don't always see how wide the space for agreement is, and I find that to be true for others as well.  It's better to have ideas interact openly, by far.


----------



## Miskatonic (Jan 10, 2017)

1. You write.
2. You find an audience.
3. Audience is receptive.
4. To keep said audience interested you give them something that lands somewhere within the realm of their expectations.
5. You start again at 1 and write something that focuses on a different audience. Or you stick with original audience. 

That about sums it up for me.


----------



## Chessie (Jan 10, 2017)

Heliotrope said:


> So does this mean you do create a graphic novel with a gay character? Or you don't? Because either way you will be impacting a audience in a negative way. Some people (your friends and family) will be offended... which would not be the "effect you want to have on people you interact with."
> 
> So where is the line then? Do you owe society at risk of your friends and family? Or do you owe your friends and family at risk of society? Or do you not owe anyone, other than yourself and what you feel is right?



My family and friends don't even care that I write. It's just my "thing" and none of them understand it. No one ever asks what I do all day except my husband LOL. I think it's pretty safe to say that the audience I write for doesn't  consist of the people in my life. That said, I'm trying to find the people who like my writing. Mostly it's been dudes, interestingly enough. Anyway, I do care how my stories impact those who read them, but only in the sense that my stories entertain and inspire them somehow. That's my favorite thing about reading books, is being shown a world of wonder and adventure. I love books. It's why I write them. But my only obligation is to the reader who I envision liking my work. It's a game of assumptions but somehow it works.

EDIT: The only right or wrong that exists in literature, in my opinion, lives within the boundaries of genre.


----------



## buyjupiter (Jan 10, 2017)

I find in my writing I mostly err on the side of caution & follow Wil Wheaton's advice re: don't be a d**k.

I also follow that advice irl & the most common compliment I get is that I'm really nice, so. 

That said, I really really, no I mean REALLY think about my stories and how they'll appear from as many povs as possible. I do research about tropes to make sure I'm not unintentionally hitting stereotypes. This is where I think writers have a duty of care. Research enough to make sure you're not alienating potential segments of your audience.

This isn't to say that horrible plot worthy things don't happen to my characters. They do. I just don't pile onto character types that are already marginalized, in very expected and stereotypical ways. (Loose example here, but I won't make my gay character story arc completely revolve around fantasy AIDS. And especially not the AIDS-->dying arc. I just won't do it.)


----------



## Michael K. Eidson (Jan 10, 2017)

Okay, so the question is, disregarding legal mandates and promises made to readers, are there any inherent duties for an author?

Let's compare an author to a camper setting up camp in the wild. What are the camper's duties to the camp site? Is it a _duty_ of the camper to leave the campsite in no worse condition than it was before the camper arrived? If you believe so, then why does the same sort of duty not apply to authors who set up camp in a reader's mind for a short while and are gone when the reader finishes the book? If you don't believe a camper has a duty to the campsite, then if everyone else believed the same way as you and behaved accordingly, we could end up with lots of trashed campsites that are not a pleasure for others to visit.

The problem for authors is that they can't know whether what they write is effectively trashing the reader's mind. Not everyone will agree with what constitutes trash. This is why we have genres and trigger warnings. So perhaps the duty of an author/publisher is to correctly identify the genre of each published work and to provide any appropriate trigger warnings. Any duty/responsibility beyond that may be on the reader.


----------



## skip.knox (Jan 10, 2017)

I said it before but I was wordy. I'll be succinct.

It's not a duty. It's a choice. Choose wisely.


----------



## Michael K. Eidson (Jan 10, 2017)

skip.knox said:


> I said it before but I was wordy. I'll be succinct.
> 
> It's not a duty. It's a choice. Choose wisely.



I suppose choosing wisely is only a recommendation, not a duty.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Jan 10, 2017)

It comes down to, I think, that your responsibilities and duties and obligations as a writer are personal. You can't apply or enforce them to everyone universally. But I know that *I* have them myself. And I adhere to them myself. They help guide (subconsciously or otherwise) what I write and how I write. 

As for the gay character...this is exactly what I'm wrestling with, or else I wouldn't have posted a thread about it. How do I avoid being hurtful to someone? How do I avoid mishandling something? And should I? Should I? 

Although, when I talked about negative effects, presenting differing opinions wasn't what I meant. I draw a line between mishandling issues, and handling the "wrong" ones (is the latter even possible?) 

Mishandling issues is a tricky thing to define too. But in the end, you cannot argue with complete moral relativism over a subject that centers on morality.

Edit: morality, philosophy, beliefs...any of those, but it tends toward morality. You can't argue with any of it.


----------



## FifthView (Jan 10, 2017)

Michael K. Eidson said:


> Let's compare an author to a camper setting up camp in the wild. What are the camper's duties to the camp site? Is it a _duty_ of the camper to leave the campsite in no worse condition than it was before the camper arrived? If you believe so, then why does the same sort of duty not apply to authors who set up camp in a reader's mind for a short while and are gone when the reader finishes the book? If you don't believe a camper has a duty to the campsite, then if everyone else believed the same way as you and behaved accordingly, we could end up with lots of trashed campsites that are not a pleasure for others to visit.



I'm not sure that using a campsite as a metaphor for readers' minds is very good.  Campsites can't get up and walk away or refuse to allow campers entry.  Because they can't, campsites have zero responsibility in the transaction, are simply helpless victims—well, they are objects, not people.

And the idea of repeatedly trashing a reader's mind being somehow harmful to other authors wanting a stay there...is actually creepy.  That's like arguing for conditioning a reader's mind for the sole purpose of benefiting any author who wants access to it.  If we are talking about violence, explicit sexual themes, or...whatever, this translates to the demand or request:  "Hey!  All these readers don't know how to appreciate my wholesome stories anymore!  Not fair!"  Heh, I don't know, but that's how the metaphor comes across to me, unless I'm misreading it.


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 10, 2017)

FifthView said:


> I'm not sure that using a campsite as a metaphor for readers' minds is very good.  Campsites can't get up and walk away or refuse to allow campers entry.  Because they can't, campsites have zero responsibility in the transaction, are simply helpless victims—well, they are objects, not people.



Yes, I think disregarding the agency of the reader is a mistake.


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 10, 2017)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> As for the gay character...this is exactly what I'm wrestling with, or else I wouldn't have posted a thread about it. How do I avoid being hurtful to someone? How do I avoid mishandling something? And should I? Should I?



Here's a true story:

I have an extended family member who is very sweet, extremely prone to nervousness and anxiety, and also highly religious. She's one of those who felt that the Harry Potter books should be kept away from children--out of schools, preferably not published at all from what I gather. This was a result of her religious viewpoint. Because she's so prone to anxiety and worry, the fact that kids were able to read these books (any kids, not just her own family) caused her distress. The idea caused stress, caused her problems with her "nerves," as she put it (and for which she has medication), and could even reduce her to tears. It's not something she was faking. We're talking actual physiological harm, to one degree or another, because of the Potter books and the subject matter thereof. 

Should you try to avoid hurting anyone at all? Even the single individual, no matter how sensitive they are, or whether their reaction to the work is reasonable? I don't think it makes much sense to even try to do that. If that were the standard, then we'd have to say Rowling should not have published Potter because it has a demonstrable negative effect on my family member (and, if on her, I presume other similarly situated).


----------



## Heliotrope (Jan 10, 2017)

Yeah, case in point,  I had a similar experience as above with a popular book called "Love Anthony" about a woman dealing with the loss of her autistic son. My daughter has severe autism, so the book was recommended to me by a friend (who has neurotypical children). 

I couldn't finish it. Talk about traumatizing! It hit way to close to home (for me) and I felt that the woman's approach to writing about autism was not appropriate... however, people with no experience (and many people with experience) with autistic children loved it. Should I say that book should never have been published? That that writer didn't do her "duty" to me as a reader? 

No. I'm not that self-involved. I simply put it down when it got to be too much and returned it to my friend. End of story. It was not written for me. 

I don't need to complain to the author or the publisher. I certainly don't need "trigger warnings" on every book I pick up (don't even get me started on trigger warnings). I'm a big girl. I can make my own choices about what is appropriate for me and what isn't.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Jan 10, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> Here's a true story:
> 
> I have an extended family member who is very sweet, extremely prone to nervousness and anxiety, and also highly religious. She's one of those who felt that the Harry Potter books should be kept away from children--out of schools, preferably not published at all from what I gather. This was a result of her religious viewpoint. Because she's so prone to anxiety and worry, the fact that kids were able to read these books (any kids, not just her own family) caused her distress. The idea caused stress, caused her problems with her "nerves," as she put it (and for which she has medication), and could even reduce her to tears. It's not something she was faking. We're talking actual physiological harm, to one degree or another, because of the Potter books and the subject matter thereof.
> 
> Should you try to avoid hurting anyone at all? Even the single individual, no matter how sensitive they are, or whether their reaction to the work is reasonable? I don't think it makes much sense to even try to do that. If that were the standard, then we'd have to say Rowling should not have published Potter because it has a demonstrable negative effect on my family member (and, if on her, I presume other similarly situated).



I agree that there has to be a limit...but I have to mention that J.K. Rowling didn't cause your family member's anxiety problems. She could respond to anything in that way...

There have to be limits both ways, though. If hurting people didn't matter, why would we, for example, try to avoid harmful, racist stereotypes when writing people of color? Why would we care that the way we portray a group of people is insulting and offensive? Why would we take time to ensure we aren't making those mistakes even on accident?


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Jan 10, 2017)

I see the issue as if I myself have a responsibility, you might say. I believe that I, as a writer, have a responsibility. It's a personal conviction that I have. If others disagree, then I can't impose that upon them. 

So...guys, I'm not censoring anybody.

edit: though I do believe all authors have a responsibility...it doesn't matter whatsoever since I can't decide what other people write.


----------



## Devor (Jan 10, 2017)

Devouring Wolf said:


> I believe in relative morality and if everyone's view of what's important to write and which lines shouldn't be crossed is different then it isn't a duty owed to some greater "society" but a personal duty and since each person is different some people might feel no obligation at all and who's to say that's not okay. The only duty a writer should feel in my opinion is to get words on the page.



I believe that morality is like a game of tether ball, swinging back and forth around a common goalpost, often in response to the way your opponent hits the ball.  But that common goalpost is what holds the game together.

Just rambling.


----------



## Chessie (Jan 10, 2017)

I wrote this story once (one of my faves, actually) that explored abusive relationships and finding love while in the midst of one. The novel was an absolute failure by every genre standard/expectation/tropes but I learned some important things writing it. I made betas and other readers I shared the book with (which was on Wattpad at the time) uncomfortable with some breakup/makeout scenes and some other adult scenarios. It was absolutely the wrongest story to put on a place like Wattpad but you know what? The people who liked it really liked it, while everyone else hated the heroine and her boyfriend because their relationship was so volatile. I didn't care if I offended anyone. He did some bad shit to her and she killed him in the end. I absolutely love that story and am considering rewriting it with a more marketable arc. 

The point is that we write as a form of self-expression and I seriously don't care who I offend. If something needs saying, I say it. I'm brown and I write mostly about white people. I don't care. I write straight characters because it's what I know and the stories I want to tell. I don't care if someone thinks I'm not inclusive. The only people I need to respect are the readers who want a good romance in  fantasy setting. I can give them that. But I can't give them my best if I'm worried someone may be offended that I described an intimate act more than they liked. 

Who cares???


----------



## Russ (Jan 11, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> If it's just a personal view, then I don't equate that to a "duty." If it is more than just a philosophy of personal governance and something you think does or should apply to everyone, then I still wonder at the source of such duties. No one has explained where these duties come from. If these duties exist, then let's hear a logical proof to support that idea.
> 
> As for hate speech laws...I'm not generally a fan, and I'm glad we have more of an impediment to them here than you have up in Canada, but that's probably best taken up in PM. I'll send you a link.



To me the duty arises from the social contract and the concept of the value of a community.  The community gives value and benefit to you, and thus you should give something back.  It arises from a larger set of duties to your fellow humans.

The existence of moral duties is not something that requires legislation or is capable of objective proof.  Moral duties are abstract things like love and justice, truth, beauty, virtue, good, evil etc.

I only restrict it to my worldview because I am respectful of the fact that others might think these duties don't exist.


----------



## Russ (Jan 11, 2017)

I think some people are taking DOA's position in too reductionist a fashion.

Offending someone is not harm.  Impacting someone negatively is not harm.  Making a person or group of people think about an issue that makes them uncomfortable is not harm.  

Presenting untruths as true can be harm.  Portraying groups of people in an inaccurate negative light is often harm.  Advocating for certain actions or ideas if they are destructive to society is often harm.

Let me ask this, without yet agreeing on specific definitions of what causes harm, does everyone here agree that a member of a society or community has a duty not to cause other members of that community harm?  And does anyone here think that writers are somehow exempt from general social duties?


----------



## Michael K. Eidson (Jan 11, 2017)

FifthView said:


> I'm not sure that using a campsite as a metaphor for readers' minds is very good.  Campsites can't get up and walk away or refuse to allow campers entry.  Because they can't, campsites have zero responsibility in the transaction, are simply helpless victims–well, they are objects, not people.
> 
> And the idea of repeatedly trashing a reader's mind being somehow harmful to other authors wanting a stay there...is actually creepy.  That's like arguing for conditioning a reader's mind for the sole purpose of benefiting any author who wants access to it.  If we are talking about violence, explicit sexual themes, or...whatever, this translates to the demand or request:  "Hey!  All these readers don't know how to appreciate my wholesome stories anymore!  Not fair!"  Heh, I don't know, but that's how the metaphor comes across to me, unless I'm misreading it.



You're not the only person to find me and my thoughts creepy. :insertevillaughhere


----------



## Michael K. Eidson (Jan 11, 2017)

Russ said:


> I think some people are taking DOA's position in too reductionist a fashion.
> 
> Offending someone is not harm.  Impacting someone negatively is not harm.  Making a person or group of people think about an issue that makes them uncomfortable is not harm.
> 
> ...



Very well put. Being part of a community and wishing to remain a part of that community places a duty on members of that community to not "harm" the community. It's the definition of "harm" that people may disagree on, just as in my earlier post, people may have different definitions of "trash."

If someone writes something on this forum that denigrates another member, they are at risk of being censored and/or banished. If you choose to be a part of a community, you have a duty to the community.

<not-totally-serious-mode>
You may say that you didn't have a choice in becoming a member of the "community" of humanity, but it is your choice to become an author. If you make that choice, you take on whatever duties are inherent in that role. The question we're trying to answer is whether there are any duties inherent to the role, and many people think there should not be. In other occupations, people must answer to bosses or customers or whomever, but authors and artists are exceptions; they have no duties or responsibilities, which is why they are allowed to starve if they so desire, because who really cares whether they make it as authors or artists? Let them go get other jobs that contribute more to society.
</not-totally-serious-mode>


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 11, 2017)

Russ said:


> Let me ask this, without yet agreeing on specific definitions of what causes harm, does everyone here agree that a member of a society or community has a duty not to cause other members of that community harm?  And does anyone here think that writers are somehow exempt from general social duties?



No, I don't agree. I think that's far too broad a duty to impose.


----------



## FifthView (Jan 11, 2017)

Russ said:


> Let me ask this, without yet agreeing on specific definitions of what causes harm, does everyone here agree that a member of a society or community has a duty not to cause other members of that community harm?  And does anyone here think that writers are somehow exempt from general social duties?



Too vague, abstract.  By leaving harm undefined, we move into the realm of easy false equivalency.

If I am harmed when my feelings are hurt, and large numbers of people have been harmed this way, then there are also a great number of people who should be arrested for crimes against humanity.  Or who at least must have their writing implements removed.  I will say nothing of cutting out tongues and chopping off fingers.


----------



## Chessie (Jan 11, 2017)

Can writers cause harm? Interesting question because the written word is powerful.

Several years ago, we had a horrifying crime happen in our community that started with an innocent newspaper article on coffee hut girls. Now, in Alaska, because it's super cold and people love their coffee, we have coffee huts, which are tiny matchbox sized structures where cars drive up to windows and get their lattes. To say that this is a profitable business isn't doing it justice. So, one popular reporter up here did an article on bikini baristas, a series of huts in midtown Anchorage that features baristas dressed in bikinis making your coffee (YES, for reals even in the winter it's flipping weird driving past them half naked when it's zero out).

Anyway, the article went live on ADN, which is our biggest newspaper here. It totally objectified the baristas and it was a disgusting article written, by all people, a raging feminist which is besides the point but there were elements to the article and her writing that were bizarre enough to spark public outrage. Ok, so people are thinking, someone who stands for women's rights wouldn't write such a piece objectifying women, right? 

*Disclaimer: I'm not speaking out against feminism, just saying how strange the whole thing was.

About a week later, a barista went missing at one of the huts. She went missing for several months before her body was found at the bottom of a lake about an hour north of the city. It shocked the entire community because this gal was only 19, beautiful, and completely innocent. Video footage taken from the hut she worked at that night showed the most horrifying of events. It was an awful, awful crime that many here will never forget.

So what happens? People start bombarding ADN and the news, people were outraged because they blamed the article for what happened. Does it sound silly to some that the lady who wrote the article was responsible for getting a barista killed? I mean, she even went as far as writing an apology article after the fact! My husband and I share the opinion that the article was a bad idea in the first place, and I'm not sure how I feel about tying it into the crime, but my husband believes it absolutely provoked it. When you write an article about how young hot half-naked chicks are trapped in a matchbox next to the road, hey guess what? It's like putting a neon sign "TAKE ME". At least this is what many people believed.

In this incident, I would definitely say reporter lady (who thankfully left ADN after this whole mess) was irresponsible for the way she wrote the article and the content. Her words held power, especially for a newspaper, which reports facts and news and educates people. With fiction, it's an entirely different game. She could've written a book about bikini baristas and made it light-hearted etc...right? Who cares, right? So while I do agree that our written words have power, it depends on how you're putting them out into the world. Fiction knows no rules and boundaries outside of genre. So yes, I do think that we should be responsible but only so far as it caters to the story, because that's all that matters.

And fiction is not equal to non-fiction. Not even close.


----------



## Heliotrope (Jan 11, 2017)

Thanks for clarifying with the Edit Chessie  

I have a hard time believing that if a kid ever read my pirate story and then tried to orchestrate a museum heist it would be my fault. I certainly wouldn't take responsibility for it or apologize, because what sort of precedent does that set? After that every crime ever committed could be traced back to "being influenced" by this or that story in history. And where does that get us then? Relegated to writing "positive thinking" propaganda where the entire story consists of: 

"Hello, how are you?" 
"Fine, thank you." 

THE END 

Because every bit of conflict or tension or exciting event could be a trigger warning for mental health in one way or another and ignite deplorable actions. I just can't buy that.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Jan 11, 2017)

Y'all are taking the concept of not writing harmful things to a ridiculous extreme. 

My only desire is that writers treat sensitive subjects with the appropriate respect. We can't control how people react to our writing, in the same way they we can't control how people react to our words and actions. But we can choose how we write. 

You can be aware of how your words might affect people without barreling way off course into scenarios of how people *might* twist and misinterpret your words and over-react to them. There is a line somewhere.


----------



## FifthView (Jan 11, 2017)

Chessie,

I view that issue through a lens which considers personal responsibility also.  The killer of the barista bears responsibility for the murder.  Is anyone blaming the owners of those coffee huts, the employers who decided that having scantily clad women working alone in very dangerous locations without adequate security measures was a nifty profit-increasing idea?  Shall we blame the customers who rewarded the decision of the employers by coming more often to see those girls?

The idea that the pen is mightier than the sword and that the written word has power can sometimes overlook the fact that any human being with a mind is responsible for his own mind.  This actually ties back into the problem I had with Michael's campsite metaphor:  The notion that readers' minds can so easily be conditioned by a writer, either through wanton "trashing" of the mind or presumably through a program of keeping the reader's mind "clean" so that others can come along and easily use it in comfort. I think that beginning with an assumption that a person has little or no responsibility for his own mind is very dangerous.  _Hey, don't worry, don't think about it; I will tell you what and how to think, you can trust me!_

I do believe some writers overestimate their power of direct control over readers' minds.  I've actually come to believe that most people who enter into journalism do so because they are fascinated with the possibility of "shaping hearts and minds."  Simple, bland reporting of facts has gone out of fashion, if it ever existed, and simply getting the facts out there does not seem to be the primary motivation.  We see an awful lot of editorializing, sensationalizing, and so forth now, and even the choice of what to report and what not to report is probably made with an eye for creating a desired reaction.  "Is it...news-worthy?" –what does this really mean?

Influence through speech is nothing new, far from it.  The problem begins with deciding a specific program that everyone must follow, with the belief that a loud enough megaphone or a cleaner, limited message will eventually create something approximating Pleasantville with its super-clean campsites and friendly greetings between neighbors.

[I do not believe that the so-called "negative [artistic] duties" that have been mentioned in this thread are particularly distinguishable from "positive" duties when discussing speech/writing because the duty of not communicating some given thing is really a positive effort to increase homogeneity in whatever speech remains.  A metaphor:  A duty not to add red paint to the green or blue paint is really a duty to preserve the pure green or pure blue.]  

The problem is determining who gets to decide which influences are pleasant and which are not; or, determining what effects result in the world, how the world changes, and so forth, as a result of what the writer writes.  Sometimes it's a question of determining who gets to label facts as fact and truths as true.

But maybe someone will say this is reductionist, that no one is talking about establishing a universal set of inviolable guidelines that everyone must follow.  Even at the more personal scale, if we said that every author has a duty to determine _for herself_ what will or will not cause harm to the community _and_ a duty to "first cause no harm" on the basis of her first determination, the question of what is harmful and what is not harmful is still her own–until another steps in and says, wait a second, there's a universal self-evident definition of harm.  And we are back to saying, "Ha ha author.  You thought you had responsibility over your own mind, and it's good you did, but nope, I will tell you what your duty is!"  Otherwise, we're back to having personal, self-determined duties only, and these can take whatever shape fits the personal goals of the author.

Some authors might genuinely believe their best duty to society is to shake it up, make it uncomfortable–even, to cause violence if necessary in order to help society break its stasis.  _This_ might be less harmful than leaving it in stasis.  [I don't know; I'm not going to predict, or foreordain, what every individual will determine to be his or her personal duty.] 

But back to our murderer.....Even beyond the issue of personal responsibility for one's own mind is the responsibility for one's own actions, i.e. what one _does_ as a result of his thinking.  Many people read that article, but few decided to murder a barista afterward?


----------



## Chessie (Jan 11, 2017)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> Y'all are taking the concept of not writing harmful things to a ridiculous extreme.
> 
> My only desire is that writers treat sensitive subjects with the appropriate respect. We can't control how people react to our writing, in the same way they we can't control how people react to our words and actions. But we can choose how we write.
> 
> You can be aware of how your words might affect people without barreling way off course into scenarios of how people *might* twist and misinterpret your words and over-react to them. There is a line somewhere.


Dude, we're simply having a discussion. Don't take it to heart.


----------



## Chessie (Jan 11, 2017)

Heliotrope said:


> Thanks for clarifying with the Edit Chessie
> 
> I have a hard time believing that if a kid ever read my pirate story and then tried to orchestrate a museum heist it would be my fault. I certainly wouldn't take responsibility for it or apologize, because what sort of precedent does that set? After that every crime ever committed could be traced back to "being influenced" by this or that story in history. And where does that get us then? Relegated to writing "positive thinking" propaganda where the entire story consists of:
> 
> ...


This is something I struggle with a bit in my stories. As I've said before, I don't go into details during sex scenes. I go about it in a roundabout way...with the occasional line of description but mostly focusing on dialogue, feelings, and ambiance. When I'm writing sweet historicals, I have to constantly filter these scenes with grave care. This is an audience that prefers no sex to sex behind closed doors. 

Yet, the fantasy stories I write are catered to an audience that is slightly more gritty. I still don't do serious details but it'll have an approach that doesn't take with the other audience. I can be more...crude. Not vulgar. Crude. It's a difference of "he made love to her" vs "showing the love for a few sentences". Readers know what they're getting (hopefully) when they open up a book thanks to the power of covers, blurbs, and reviews. I know that I will never ever crack a book that has pearls against a gray background or a glowing girl in jeans. Those aren't my books. So when we talk about filters for writers, the largest part of it comes to genre and here I am repeating myself so I'll go write now...

@Fifthview: I love your kick ass response. Well said! Israel Keyes was responsible for his own demise. Now ya'll know his name and can look up the case for yourselves.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Jan 11, 2017)

Chessie said:


> Dude, we're simply having a discussion. Don't take it to heart.



should have clarified: in the last paragraph, I was referring to things people write, not things people say on this thread...

Not taking it to heart. Sorry if I sounded confrontational.


----------



## Devor (Jan 11, 2017)

I feel like I should interject a little here because I also mentioned "Do No Harm" in my post.  But my example was writing KKK propaganda, the sort of writing where - whatever your beliefs - you're willfully doing something knowing and perhaps intending for it to cause others significant harm.

That's clearly the case for some forms of propaganda, but it can happen in the subtext of a novel, too.  But art is subjective.  Your intentions might not come across - a sinister demonstration in your head transforms into a silly strawman on the page. And the reverse happens as well - your good intentions run afoul of other people's experiences.

But nonetheless, poor writing and weak sensitivities aside, it's fully possibly to write a novel with the intention of promoting something as deliberately and obviously harmful as the KKK.

Do you think we have an obligation to avoid at least that much?

((edit))

It's not my intention to lead this through a slippery slope.  I fully accept that is perfectly reasonable to say "yes, writing KKK propaganda is harmful, and we have a duty to avoid it.  But 99% of novels don't hit a significant degree of harm by comparison."  That's not even far from my own opinion.  I'm just trying to assess the absolutes of what people are talking about.


----------



## Heliotrope (Jan 11, 2017)

Yes, Devor. I do agree with you on that. I feel like that is sort of self evident though? Like obviously one (one would hope) would not be writing KKK or ISIS propaganda? 

Like Chessie, I have to be conscious of these things in my writing because I write for kids, as noted in another post. I write what I would be okay letting my kid read, and I'm pretty conservative with my kid. He's five and there are a lot of things I don't let him watch. We don't even have cable and I have the parental rating down to G on Netflix. So I am conscientious about what I put in my books, I try to include a lot of diversity in my characters, and I have no human to human violence at all. 

My issue was with the original concept, way back in the "violence thread" that somehow certain types of fiction... I'll call them "action/adventure, horror, or erotica" were not, by DOTA's standards, considered to be "art". In fact, she went as far as to say that: 

_Somehow I feel like there is a standard of quality that transcends what audiences want, though. 

Do some people like "two hours of sh*t blowing up?" yes. 

Is it...what you would call a "good story?" 

Am I allowed to say no? 

I would assume as a writer you are looking to hold to some level of...idk what the word I want is, artistic integrity?...and create something that has some kind of meaning in it. And smearing all your pages with blood won't help you do that. I would assume that most of us are trying to do a little more than please audiences on a basic level. I know I do. _

This is the quote I have a problem with. I don't think that action adventure authors like Clive Cussler are overly concerned with "artistic integrity" or creating something that has meaning to it. They are concerned with writing an action packed adventure that is entertaining. To assume that as writers, we _should_ be concerned with creating "art" and that anything less than that is "not a good story"... is presumptuous and offensive. 

So getting away from KKK and ISIS propaganda and "do no wrong"... my issue is with the concept that Dota has her impression of what "art" is and believes we all have a "duty" to adhere to that belief. 

Another quote: 
_
The definition of art (I used this for a paper like a few weeks ago so it's fresh in my memory) is basically "something someone creates that expresses important ideas or feelings." So it has to do with both, I guess...expressing yourself, but expressing what is meaningful to you. Which ties in meaning and self-expression inextricably. 

I observe that in a lot of entertainment, there is very little meaning. I could even say I don't see the self-expression. Since Transformers is being discussed, I'll use that as an example. Self-expression? I don't think so, personally. _

Ok, so by her standards, Transformers is not "art" because it is not a valuable representation of self-expression. So therefore, what? It should never have been written? Stories like that should not exist? So what exactly is the right level of self-expression then? Are there limits now to how deep a story _must_ be to be considered of value? 

To continue: 

_I would venture to say that if something is genuine self-expression it will have meaning of some kind. But I also think it is good to hone and deepen the meaning our art brings out...and try to work our way down into our hearts and find out what is most deeply meaningful to us..._

Again, I disagree. If she wishes to do this, for her own spiritual journey, then by all means yes! Do it! But writing is not a spiritual journey for me. It is something I find great fun, and I love writing pirate adventures with kids and I love trying to make it as fun and action packed as possible. It is not an outlet for me to delve deep into my soul and it doesn't have to be. Suggesting that it should be is again, presumptuous. 

So the point, for me, was not about "do no harm," which I absolutely, 100% agree with. The issue for me was that "all fiction should be a representation of whatever DOTA's vision of "art" is. And that certain genres are less "art" than others, so we should therefore, as "spiritual artists" be trying to transcend those genres," and that we somehow owe the art form or society only books that meet these standards.


----------



## Russ (Jan 11, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> No, I don't agree. I think that's far too broad a duty to impose.



However it is the fundamental basis for most western democracies.  It is how the system is built.

If you are thinking about how your community is going to work, and building from first principles you first must all get together and say..."we should really avoid harming each other."

After that you can sit down and talk about what harm means.  Because if you cannot agree that not harming each other is something worth striving for, that there is no need to try to define harm and how to deal with it (the logical next step).

Only after you agree on that as an organizing principle can you move along to more details explorations of what is harm, and what should we do about those harms.

Think for a moment about how a society not organized on that principle would look.

Even the mighty philosopher John Wayne articulated this very concept when he said “I won't be wronged. I won't be insulted. I won't be laid a-hand on. I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them.”


----------



## Ban (Jan 11, 2017)

In my opinion, the only duty a writer owes anyone is the promises he has made to himself and his audience. If a writer publicly says that he will finish a book in a year, than the book should be finished by then. However I also think that the only repercussions of a broken promise should be a hit to the respectability of the author. 

...I am not advising massriots against GRR Martin.


----------



## Michael K. Eidson (Jan 11, 2017)

FifthView said:


> ...
> The idea that the pen is mightier than the sword and that the written word has power can sometimes overlook the fact that any human being with a mind is responsible for his own mind.  This actually ties back into the problem I had with Michael's campsite metaphor:  The notion that readers' minds can so easily be conditioned by a writer, either through wanton "trashing" of the mind or presumably through a program of keeping the reader's mind "clean" so that others can come along and easily use it in comfort. I think that beginning with an assumption that a person has little or no responsibility for his own mind is very dangerous.  _Hey, don't worry, don't think about it; I will tell you what and how to think, you can trust me!_
> ...



This ignores what else I said in my post you're referring to...



> ...
> The problem for authors is that they can't know whether what they write is effectively trashing the reader's mind. Not everyone will agree with what constitutes trash. This is why we have genres and trigger warnings. So perhaps the duty of an author/publisher is to correctly identify the genre of each published work and to provide any appropriate trigger warnings. Any duty/responsibility beyond that may be on the reader.



I wasn't saying that the reader has no responsibility in the matter. I was saying that we as authors owe the reader the truth up front about the story content, so the reader can best make up her own mind. Effectively, the reader must define for herself what is "trash" and decide what to bring into her personal "campsite." But an author who lies to or misleads her about the content of a book is being irresponsible. Yes, she can put it down after she determines it is not for her, but if she was lied to or misled so the author could make a sale, tick a download counter, or just get someone to try their book, that's wrong.

An author can write whatever. But if I'm going to be asked to spend my time or money on their book, I as a reader ask that the author be upfront with me as to what the book is about and not try to manipulate me into reading even the first sentence on pretense.


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity (Jan 11, 2017)

I only write for myself; no one else, and I feel a brilliant sense of freedom that way.  I write my stories because the characters have become as close as family, because writing brings me such joy, because I want to explore the fantasy lands I've discovered, and because I want to find out what happens next! 

Some people might not like how open-minded and free spirited I am in regards to story content, but does that bother me? Not at all. 

If I tried to write things in a certain way or completely rewrite every book to tailor to 'societal expectations' [], then I would be utterly betraying myself. 

I often amuse myself by wondering how people who dislike same gender relationships might think of the fact that every couple in my books are either male-male or female-female...sometimes even female-female-female.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Jan 11, 2017)

Heliotrope said:


> Yes, Devor. I do agree with you on that. I feel like that is sort of self evident though? Like obviously one (one would hope) would not be writing KKK or ISIS propaganda?
> 
> Like Chessie, I have to be conscious of these things in my writing because I write for kids, as noted in another post. I write what I would be okay letting my kid read, and I'm pretty conservative with my kid. He's five and there are a lot of things I don't let him watch. We don't even have cable and I have the parental rating down to G on Netflix. So I am conscientious about what I put in my books, I try to include a lot of diversity in my characters, and I have no human to human violence at all.
> 
> ...



I knew I would be pretty strongly disagreed with on a lot of that...and, I suppose I still stand by a lot of what I expressed, or what I was *trying* to express. I'll try to clarify or qualify some things.

 I don't think I meant that writing for entertainment is valueless, or that nobody should write to entertain. I see how you could have gotten that, but I don't think that's what I meant. I don't think meaningfulness is genre-specific, either. 

What is art, anyway? And should we be concerned with creating it? Is it anything created by people? If a thing must have meaning to be considered art, what kind of meaning does that have to be? Discuss, anyone? 

Reading your post, I realize what I said that would raise the hackles of any writers. I think that even though I think writing should have meaning, I'm unable, from my limited perspective, to decide what has meaning and what doesn't. I'm only one reader. I can't make judgments on other people's work, or prevent them from writing things. I did judge Transformers. Perhaps I shouldn't have. I made a few broad statements.  I don't think I'm an arbiter of quality/meaning/etc...though I still have my opinions, which others can take or leave as they please. 

From what you say, I wouldn't in a million years say that writing pirate stories for kids isn't meaningful. Obviously it brings joy to you and it brings joy to them and THAT brings joy to you and there is meaning in that...isn't there? It seems like you derive a lot of meaning from it. 

And again, I have personal beliefs about the spirituality of art that I could go into. I have personal beliefs about what I want to pursue with my writing. Perhaps I was wrong to think they apply in any way to other writers...but...somehow I'm leery of relativism. 

Do limits, responsibilities and definitions exist at all, then? Are they different for every writer? Is there anything at all that can be applied to all writers? 

How you answer will depend on what you believe personally about art and the role of the artist in society, I suppose.


----------



## Devor (Jan 11, 2017)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> What is art, anyway? And should we be concerned with creating it? Is it anything created by people? If a thing must have meaning to be considered art, what kind of meaning does that have to be? Discuss, anyone?



Dragon, I think there's some confusion about the definition of art, which many people have strong and sometimes weird opinions about.

There's a difference between commercial writing and literary writing.  Commercial writing tends to be fast paced and action-oriented.  Characters change frequently (Bilbo has to pick up his courage and figure out how to overcome the orcs).  A lot _happens_ in commercial writing.  In literary writing, things are slower, time is spent to let the reader experience the details and immerse people in the meaning of what's happening in the scene.  Character arcs tend to be longer and more subtle, almost as if they're designed to help the reader experience that same arc personally vicariously through the character ("I too can embrace life more").

I read an article somewhere that described the first one as a scene and the second as a postcard.

The thing is, both can be done well, and both can be done terribly.  They're both genres that can grow.  You can be innovative in either of them, or stereotypical and boring in either of them.  And you can mix the two in one story.

Transformers was a good movie, based on what it _promises_ the audience.  Transformers 3 wasn't.  It's just fine if you don't like them and they're not the style of movie you enjoy.  But it's kind of silly to think a movie based on giant fighting alien robots should've been more literary.  And I remember when it came out - it was _groundbreaking art_ in many ways for its kind of movie.

However, whatever you think Transformers was lacking, it's also strange to try to enforce onto other authors here.  Transformers was a blockbuster success and thousands of people were involved in creating it.  Me, I'm working by myself, and you want me to push the art?  Yeah, I like to experiment with my writing, and I try to comment on life, but let's be real. If I want my writing to be even a little competitive on the bookshelves, I'm not going to do it with amateur musings on the meaning of life and themes about how the human race needs to get along.

Let me pick for myself where my strengths are as a writer, and I'll work around that.


----------



## Heliotrope (Jan 11, 2017)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> I knew I would be pretty strongly disagreed with on a lot of that...and, I suppose I still stand by a lot of what I expressed, or what I was *trying* to express. I'll try to clarify or qualify some things.
> 
> I don't think I meant that writing for entertainment is valueless, or that nobody should write to entertain. I see how you could have gotten that, but I don't think that's what I meant. I don't think meaningfulness is genre-specific, either.
> 
> ...



I think, like Devor pointed out, it has a lot to do with the _purpose_ of your art. I know painters that try to paint images that say something about life... usually very abstract and full of symbols, and I know painters that paint landscapes for no other reason than that they like landscapes. Some artists have their abstract stuff put in galleries, but they never sell because it doesn't appeal to a mass market. Other painters sell their post cards with sunflowers by the hundreds at craft markets because the small, inexpensive images look nice framed in a bathroom. 

Writing is the same. What is the purpose? To entertain 18-35 year old men who love a good alien flick? Probably a good idea to include a cute girl or two and some awesome explosions. Is your purpose to write a social commentary on the mistreatment of people with disabilities in the world of sports? That will be an entirely different mood/tone. 

This is why it is hard to give an exact value to "art". The value of the art is whatever the consumer is willing to pay for it. Whatever the consumer is willing to invest in it. For my husband it means Transformers. For you it means something different. 

I have a friend who writes amazing erotic/pornographic scenes. I don't feel like she is less 'artistic' because of it, she just has a very different mood/tone in her books where it comes across as totally necessary to the mood of the story. She writes "Wolf of Wall Street" vs. "Twilight" and that is okay. I appreciate her bravery. But if she wanted to sell short erotica on Kindle for lonely housewives to make a buck I wouldn't think less of her as an "artist". 

Does that make sense?


----------



## glutton (Jan 12, 2017)

I don't view what I do as high art, just cathartic entertainment with super strong and cute girl warriors beating up elite male fighters, dark lords, magical mechas and kaijus. BAEFORCE. I guess there is a consistent message in them though, that female heroes should be allowed to be as "cool" and unhindered in their over-the-top-ness as male heroes. XD


----------



## FifthView (Jan 12, 2017)

Michael K. Eidson said:


> This ignores what else I said in my post you're referring to...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Fair enough.  The metaphor as written was not a great metaphor to use, I think, for the reasons I gave earlier.

Your concern seems to center on the marketing rather than the writing of a novel, so I wonder if a better metaphor might be a property owner (reader) renting out an apartment (his mind) who should be able to expect honest and true information from the would-be tenant (novel) on the rental application.   

Maybe the applicant has two dogs (vivid sex scenes) but tells the property owner, who does not allow pets, that he has none.  

Well, that would be an outright lie, and I suspect that lies by omission are also a concern—author doesn't have the trigger warning, _Trigger Warning:  Dragons Doing What Dragons Do!_—so maybe the applicant fails to tell the property owner that he's a serial killer and plans to chop up bodies in the apartment and feed the parts to his pet komodo dragon.  This would leave a horrible mess.

This is an interesting consideration.  With respect to commerce, I do have an interest in preventing false advertisements.  I'm not a parent, but I do believe in a parent's right to shield young children from scenes of explicit sex and violence.

I think the problem with trigger warnings and genre labels for novels would lie in the great number of potential triggers and the fluid, non-specific nature of both triggers and genres.  

I mean, if I had dragons doing what dragons do, should I have a warning about violence, bestiality (dragon who takes a human form and has a romantic liaison with a human-born prince), animal cruelty (said dragon's evil plans are stopped when that prince's mother slays it), and magic use (how the prince's mother accomplishes her animal cruelty; a problem for some of the faithful in our world.)  

Genre labels (or category labels on Amazon) can also be a problem due to the fact that these aren't clearly defined and novels may fit into multiple categories.  If I have a romantic subplot, can I list it in the romance category as well as the epic fantasy category?  Must I also list it in the LGBT category if that romance is between same-sex individuals?  What if I have it in both romance and LGBT categories because it has both, a romantic subplot and LGBT characters—but the romantic subplot is a single romance between two of the heterosexual characters; will LGBT buyers feel as if I've lied to them?


----------



## Devor (Jan 12, 2017)

@FifthView, you're just making it worse on yourself because all of that suggests a need for a legal "ratings" system like we have with movies and video games and television.  Regulations such as these are known in business circles to be a "barrier to entry," and while it's a hurdle that movie and TV makers are fully capable of jumping, I doubt most authors would fancy to pay to have their books rated, or to revise their story for a better rating.

The only other remedy is to have Amazon (and others) manage it through a reactive complaints system (which I suppose they probably do already).

^Both of those create obligations through a third party that can enforce them that I think are probably outside the range of what Steerpike asks in the question.

((edit))

As for trigger warnings, the only one I've personally come to accept a need for is regarding the R-word.


----------



## FifthView (Jan 12, 2017)

Ah, yes, maybe I wasn't clear.  I'm highly skeptical of the idea of inherent duties with respect to marketing of a novel, particularly through the use of trigger warnings and some program of lock-tight genre/category descriptions.

I thought this skepticism would show in the post.  It's not an idea I would refuse to contemplate (purely mentally), because I think it's interesting; but, as with other types of universal duty for authors, I think any practical application would cause more harm than good.

The issue of marketing does seem to lie beyond the scope of the OP, but it popped up so...



Devor said:


> @FifthView, you're just making it worse on yourself because all of that suggests a need for a legal "ratings" system like we have with movies and video games and television.  Regulations such as these are known in business circles to be a "barrier to entry," and while it's a hurdle that movie and TV makers are fully capable of jumping, I doubt most authors would fancy to pay to have their books rated, or to revise their story for a better rating.
> 
> The only other remedy is to have Amazon (and others) manage it through a reactive complaints system (which I suppose they probably do already).
> 
> ^Both of those create obligations through a third party that can enforce them that I think are probably outside the range of what Steerpike asks in the question.


----------



## Michael K. Eidson (Jan 13, 2017)

@ FifthView, I like your metaphor, for the restricted viewpoint that you thought my metaphor was intended. I'll drop my metaphor. Done. Moving on.

The OP put forth the following:



> Whether and to what extent the author owes any duty to society, the art form, or any other party.



That's a large scope. It's good to break it down further and examine the pieces.

If the author lets no one else read her writing, then she has no duty to anyone. Or is that not true? What if someone in the future finds her writing? Is there any duty to them?

If we limit our discussion to the present and agree that the author has no duty to anyone for writing that she shows to no one, then the question of duty is not one of what the author does during the act of writing. So the author's duty, if any exists, must be concerned with what she does in distributing her writing, which in effect is the marketing aspect of writing. The author can write all the propaganda and inflammatory speech she wants, and if no one else reads it, is it worth considering what duty the author had in putting her thoughts down?

If the author hands her writing to someone else and asks them to read it, and the potential reader agrees to read it with no questions asked, is there any duty placed on the author then?

If the author hands her writing to someone else and asks them to read it, but the potential reader asks what the book is about, I think the author has an obligation not to lie or purposely mislead.

If the author makes a book available for the public to access/acquire/buy/download/whatever on her site, doesn't allow reviews on her site, and says nothing about the book at all, doesn't even show some cover art or tell the title of the book, just puts a Download/Buy button on a page that says "Please read my book," does the author have a duty to do more? This is much like handing the book to someone who doesn't ask any questions. Does it make a difference whether the author asked for money in return for the download?

Suppose the author writes a romantic comedy set in modern America and makes the story available for download for free on their web site. They claim the story is a romantic comedy set in modern America. They don't say anything else. The main character and her love interest are lesbians. Is the author under any duty to have divulged that? Some people might think so. Others might not. Some might say it depends on other factors.

Suppose the same scenario as above, but the author asks for $2.99 to download the story. Has the author's duties changed because she is now asking for money?

Suppose the same scenario as above, but the story is KKK propaganda that the author claims is a romantic comedy set in modern America. She still charges $2.99 for it. She doesn't reveal that the book has anything to do with the KKK. That probably violates some truth-in-advertising law. We're disregarding laws in this discussion.

There are other scenarios with more gray areas. For some scenarios, there will likely be disagreements as to whether the author owes some duty to the potential reader.

 I once posted a tweet about a certain subject and an author told me their book dealt with that subject. It didn't, except to use some of the same words as my tweet, as I found out by reading the whole damn thing. I was not happy afterwards and my review of their book mentioned how they manipulated me into reading their book. Did that author have a duty to me? Obviously they didn't think so. They seemed willing to use any tactic to get people to read their book. Was that a criminal act? It felt like it, but it wasn't one that legal authorities would pursue.

The OP also asks about duties owed to society. If any duties owed to the reader (which may be zero) are met, does the author have a duty to the rest of society in how their words may impact the reader's interactions with the rest of society, disregarding any legal complications? Some here say yes, some say no.

As for duties owed to the art form, as the OP inquired, perhaps that depends on whether you view art as something that exists separate from the artists. Is it what the artist does that defines the art form, or does the art form define the artist? Without the artist's expression, the art does not exist. Once the art exists, we can put a label to it and we can compare it to what other artists have done, and throw artworks of what we consider a similar nature into the same categories. But should the artist have a duty to restrict herself to only creating artworks that are easily categorized? If not, is there some other duty to abide by some definition regarding what is art and what is not art?

My answers to all the above is "don't lie or intentionally mislead about the content of your book." You might not consider that a duty, but I consider it an imperative if you don't want me to give you a bad review and you do want me to read anything else you write. It's better if you tell me nothing at all. If I pick up your book for whatever reason and decide to read it, that's on me, as long as you didn't say something to misrepresent your work. If the next person decides to read your book and you didn't misrepresent it to them, and if they subsequently do harm to a member of society and blame it on the influence of your work, then as long as you didn't do anything deemed illegal, I will not hold you responsible for the actions of your reader. Lastly, if you write something that doesn't fit existing categorizations / genres but categorize it the best you can under existing categories / genres, I won't hold that against you and say you're wreaking havoc with the art form, as long as the book blurb helps me understand that the genre is bent.


----------

