Impact and responsibility (TRIGGER WARNING)

[Steerpike]

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

 

[MadMadys]

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

I would also humbly disagree with this.

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

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

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

 

[Devor]

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

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

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

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

 

[Chilari]

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

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

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

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

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

Spoiler: Prince of Thorns

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

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

 

[Ophiucha]

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

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

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

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

 

[BWFoster78]

And I, humbly, disagree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I completely disagree.

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

 

[BWFoster78]

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

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

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

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

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

Of course not.

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

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

 

[BWFoster78]

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

I actually know someone who had this opinion about Harry Potter. I just shook my head.

 

[BWFoster78]

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

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

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

Well stated.

 

[BWFoster78]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Either way, it's your call.

 

[Kit]

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


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

 

[BWFoster78]

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

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

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

 

[Ophiucha]

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

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

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

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

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

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

And in regards to this,

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

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

 

[BWFoster78]

Does it matter?

Absolutely.

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

Again, I disagree.

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

Respect is earned, not given or deserved.

 

[Steerpike]

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

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

 

[Chilari]

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

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

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

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

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

Either way, it's your call.

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

 

[BWFoster78]

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

Examining beliefs is never a bad idea.

This comment:

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

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

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

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

 

[advait98]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Devor]

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

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

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

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

And there are a lot of people who choose to learn how to let go of a lot of those things.

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

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

 

[Steerpike]

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

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

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

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