Duties Owed by a Writer

[Michael K. Eidson]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...
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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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?

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.

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]

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