Impact and responsibility (TRIGGER WARNING)

[Feo Takahari]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Steerpike]

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

 

[Androxine Vortex]

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

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

 

[tlbodine]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Ophiucha]

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

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

 

[Devor]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Androxine Vortex]

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

 

[tlbodine]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

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

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

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

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

 

[Feo Takahari]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

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

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

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

 

[advait98]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Jessquoi]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Jamber]

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

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

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

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

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

Jennie

 

[Feo Takahari]

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

 

[BWFoster78]

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

I strongly disagree with this statement.

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

 

[Steerpike]

I strongly disagree with this statement.

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

I agree.

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

 

[Ophiucha]

And I, humbly, disagree.

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

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

 

[Feo Takahari]

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

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

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

 

[Devor]

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

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