Duties Owed by a Writer

[DragonOfTheAerie]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Garren Jacobsen]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

 

[Steerpike]

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.