I'm not sure if this has been asked yet, but why do you write them? Is it your profession? If so, why continue to live in such a climate that causes depression when you have opportunities to do otherwise?
-
Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!
Impact and responsibility (TRIGGER WARNING)
- Thread starter Feo Takahari
- Start date
- Status
I'm not sure if this has been asked yet, but why do you write them? Is it your profession? If so, why continue to live in such a climate that causes depression when you have opportunities to do otherwise?
BWFoster78
Myth Weaver
Sorry for the analogy, but just another way of looking at this:
Some people are deathly allergic to peanuts. A whiff of the stuff can literally kill.
If I'm cooking for a large group, it is not my responsibility to avoid using peanut oil. It is only my responsibility to warn people that I used peanut oil.
If you feel that your writing may cause "harm," you should include a warning. People who are allergic to peanuts know they're allergic to peanuts and go far out of their way to avoid them. It should be the same for people who get severely distressed by the kinds of scenes you're worried about. Again, not your responsibility to avoid including something most people would be only "offended" by.
The ultimate responsibility lies with the person who is allergic.
I don't personally feel there's any subject/ material/ portrayal that should be off-limits to writers. If I want to write a book from the POV of a serial rapist who takes mad delight in his crimes, then why shouldn't I?
Anyone with an intact brain and spirit can easily distance themself enough to say, "This is a story, I am NOT that character, nor should I DO what this character does."
To think I might be responsible for someone TRYING out something written in my novels.. well that's just stupid. We have no moral responsibility to write bad things as bad. We have every right to write something as distastefully and grotesquely as we can manage. If it's off-color, no one will read it. If it intrigues people... well then more power to the artist who's deranged enough to capture the hearts of millions with their serial rapist MC who people sympathize with.
I write gray-scale books and characters. While none of them are raving lunatics prone to dangerous or strictly amoral actions, there are plenty of prostitutes, drug-dealers, murderers, assassins, extortionists and blackmailers in my stories. Could I then be accused of encouraging these activities? Of course not. I'm merely acknowledging that people do these things, they exist and that's it.
I think if you're being affected as a writer in a negative way by the material you write, you should probably reconsider what you're writing. There are plenty of stories waiting to be written, why not find something that leaves you feeling fulfilled and proud? On the flip side, if I wrote the character above, I'd feel pretty proud if a reader felt I really portrayed my crazy character well. I'd have to call it a success, though the material might be horrific. If readers can connect to the actions and personality of the character, I have succeeded.
Remember, when dealing with sick minds, there is still a line an individual has to cross to make something fiction a reality. If you write a brutal rape scene and people find pleasure in it... it's still their choice (based on their own mental state and moral compass) to take action and make that fictitious event a reality. I mean, look at Springer. Is he encouraging me to become a transsexual mud wrestler or get breast implants so big I could rent myself out as a pontoon boat? No. Plain and simple, people are responsible for their own actions and only those with a tenuous grip on reality would see any form of art or entertainment as encouragement for illegal/ immoral actions. Point blank, the artist is not responsible for anything but entertaining.
Anyone with an intact brain and spirit can easily distance themself enough to say, "This is a story, I am NOT that character, nor should I DO what this character does."
To think I might be responsible for someone TRYING out something written in my novels.. well that's just stupid. We have no moral responsibility to write bad things as bad. We have every right to write something as distastefully and grotesquely as we can manage. If it's off-color, no one will read it. If it intrigues people... well then more power to the artist who's deranged enough to capture the hearts of millions with their serial rapist MC who people sympathize with.
I write gray-scale books and characters. While none of them are raving lunatics prone to dangerous or strictly amoral actions, there are plenty of prostitutes, drug-dealers, murderers, assassins, extortionists and blackmailers in my stories. Could I then be accused of encouraging these activities? Of course not. I'm merely acknowledging that people do these things, they exist and that's it.
I think if you're being affected as a writer in a negative way by the material you write, you should probably reconsider what you're writing. There are plenty of stories waiting to be written, why not find something that leaves you feeling fulfilled and proud? On the flip side, if I wrote the character above, I'd feel pretty proud if a reader felt I really portrayed my crazy character well. I'd have to call it a success, though the material might be horrific. If readers can connect to the actions and personality of the character, I have succeeded.
Remember, when dealing with sick minds, there is still a line an individual has to cross to make something fiction a reality. If you write a brutal rape scene and people find pleasure in it... it's still their choice (based on their own mental state and moral compass) to take action and make that fictitious event a reality. I mean, look at Springer. Is he encouraging me to become a transsexual mud wrestler or get breast implants so big I could rent myself out as a pontoon boat? No. Plain and simple, people are responsible for their own actions and only those with a tenuous grip on reality would see any form of art or entertainment as encouragement for illegal/ immoral actions. Point blank, the artist is not responsible for anything but entertaining.
There's this movie out there called The Human Centipede. When I saw the trailer for the movie, I knew what type of movie it was and I knew I was probably never going to watch it. After reading a brief synopsis and reviews of it, I knew it was a pretty disgusting movie and my instincts were right. The questions that popped into my head were Why did they make this move? Who would want to see this kind of stuff? But not once did I think They shouldn't have made that movie because it makes me retch. For the most part, that doesn't matter.
Generally, I don't read or watch anything before I read the blurb on the back, so I know what I'm getting into. If I don't like the blurb then I don't consume the product. To me, it's like food. I don't just put any random thing into my mouth, and if I don't like the sample taste, I spit it up and find something that's more agreeable.
It's my choice if I try something. It's my right to dislike it. But the author can do what ever they want so long as I'm not forced to consume anything I don't like.
To me things like this get taken care of on their own buy natural selection. "Successful" stories will be replicated over-and-over. "Unsuccessful ones" will fade into the background.
Many countries have Freedom of Speech laws, but I don't think any have Freedom from being offended ones.
Generally, I don't read or watch anything before I read the blurb on the back, so I know what I'm getting into. If I don't like the blurb then I don't consume the product. To me, it's like food. I don't just put any random thing into my mouth, and if I don't like the sample taste, I spit it up and find something that's more agreeable.
It's my choice if I try something. It's my right to dislike it. But the author can do what ever they want so long as I'm not forced to consume anything I don't like.
To me things like this get taken care of on their own buy natural selection. "Successful" stories will be replicated over-and-over. "Unsuccessful ones" will fade into the background.
Many countries have Freedom of Speech laws, but I don't think any have Freedom from being offended ones.
Jamber
Sage
Child pornography, anyone? Surely we all have some point at which we feel: 'That kind of thing probably shouldn't have been written'?
If 'child pornography' doesn't make you feel a slight bristle, what about 'child torture pornography'?
Does the argument that 'it's make-believe' and 'nobody is being forced to read it' completely viable in all circumstances? Really?
It seems to me that clinical psychologists have a fair bit to say about child rape depictions in terms of affirming dangerous world-views among the sector of the community they deal with. Is anyone who'd be unharmed by reading child pornography (material that only does one thing: sexualise violence against children) really losing out if the material is censored? I doubt it; and it's possible that the material reinforces views that can lead (in a cumulative way) to acting out and therefore that removing it reduces instances of child harm.
I'm against censorship in general, but I can't help feeling complete authorial freedom is a little... Utopian.
Meanwhile, even this forum uses censorship... As it has to.
If 'child pornography' doesn't make you feel a slight bristle, what about 'child torture pornography'?
Does the argument that 'it's make-believe' and 'nobody is being forced to read it' completely viable in all circumstances? Really?
It seems to me that clinical psychologists have a fair bit to say about child rape depictions in terms of affirming dangerous world-views among the sector of the community they deal with. Is anyone who'd be unharmed by reading child pornography (material that only does one thing: sexualise violence against children) really losing out if the material is censored? I doubt it; and it's possible that the material reinforces views that can lead (in a cumulative way) to acting out and therefore that removing it reduces instances of child harm.
I'm against censorship in general, but I can't help feeling complete authorial freedom is a little... Utopian.
Meanwhile, even this forum uses censorship... As it has to.
There is a difference between a private forum censoring, and the government doing so (the latter being necessary if you really wanted to ban something). Of course, any media where an individual, such as a child, was directly harmed during the making of it is a different story.
Mindfire
Istar
Jabrosky
Banned
The way I see it, we only have control our own intentions in creating any piece of art, whether visual or literary. If someone misinterprets an artist's message and does something stupid or immoral as a result of that "influence", that shouldn't be the artists' problem. If on the other hand the artist deliberately meant to incite bad behavior (think cartoonists who draw racist caricatures of prominent religious figures) they should be held accountable. Some may say the road to hell is paved with good intentions, but good intentions are still better than bad intentions, and considering our intentions is the only thing we really can do anyway.
As for offending people, I say it depends on whom you're offending. Not only will every piece of art ever produced offend someone out there, but frankly some groups of people deserve to be offended. I won't mention whom due to our political moratorium but you ought to know what I mean.
As for offending people, I say it depends on whom you're offending. Not only will every piece of art ever produced offend someone out there, but frankly some groups of people deserve to be offended. I won't mention whom due to our political moratorium but you ought to know what I mean.
- Thread starter
- #69
Feo Takahari
Auror
Well, it's not clinically depressing--it's the same sort of depression you get from writing any sad story. And I do enjoy knowing that people liked my stories, especially when they understood what I was really trying to say. Given that I have way more ideas than I can feasibly write, and given that I only try to publish a few at a time, it makes sense to write the ideas that involve sex, then depict the sex. (Many of my stories are cute little romances--I only go in darker directions when the plot requires it, although explicit depictions are often only necessary for the site rather than the story itself.)
(There's also Worms, which was a sort of exorcism for a horrible, horrible nightmare--I portrayed everything from the nightmare, then gave it a hopeful ending.)
Okay, I need to deal with the raising of a child pornography question. I'm assuming, by child pornography, you're mentioning an adult person engaging in sexual behavior with a child and looking on that as wrong morally. Okay, fair enough. Many many people will agree with you. But, in many countries, there is nothing wrong or UNUSUAL about a gray-haired man having a twelve-year-old wife. Is he wrong? I'm not debating whether it's morally incorrect, it happens. If I wanted to write about that, am I somehow condoning that act? Am I writing pornography? This is a thin line and it's not easy to draw. We have our own ideas of what's correct and incorrect, but there's a lot that goes on in this real world that no one stops. If an author wants to write about it, they have the right. I think again, the intention of the author is key here. If I wanted to write from the POV of the twelve-year-old girl and show a damaged child afraid and alone who didn't have enough education to spell her name, I could maybe drum up some public concern for young girls all over Asia who LIVE that life.
Now, if I wrote from the man's POV, I'd maybe be writing something very different. Maybe I'd write from the perspective of a loving husband who adores his child wife. Or maybe a sick old man who delights in forcing a child to bow to his authority. It's honestly a lot of perspective debate, isn't it? However... the thought itself, to me personally, is disgusting beyond disgusting. Now, what if I was writing about two twelve-year-olds who had a sexual relationship? Would that be somehow more moral? Or is that still as grotesque to Westerners? I mean, it's nothing that isn't on daytime TV regularly, kids in High School trying to get pregnant to snag an older man to support them, teens prostituting because their parents ignore them and they need to support their drug habits. Honestly, when did everyone become so sensitive to books?
The reality is, we're sort of disgusting animals. Why do we stare at car crashes? Why are we drawn to pictures of WWII POW camps? Why do we read stories about things we would never ever do? Because we're curious. Or maybe somewhat drawn to the macabre, the taboo, and the horrific. I'm not advocating child pornography, rape, prostitution or any other aggressive sexual behavior, but the reality is, it exists, happens regularly, and isn't a subject anyone can sweep under the rug.
I watched a documentary about the child soldiers of Africa and how initiations often involve raping women. Imagine, fourteen-year-olds with guns gang raping you. It happens! Why? Because they can. They have guns and women are easy victims of abuse. In the documentary, it says, "Wars are fought on the backs of women", meaning, women bury their dead children, starve while they feed their families, and lose their husbands to soldiers and then to death. Women suffer. They are raped, stolen from and reduced to nothing. But still they go on. This world is suffering and closing our eyes to it will not make it go away.
Now, if I wrote from the man's POV, I'd maybe be writing something very different. Maybe I'd write from the perspective of a loving husband who adores his child wife. Or maybe a sick old man who delights in forcing a child to bow to his authority. It's honestly a lot of perspective debate, isn't it? However... the thought itself, to me personally, is disgusting beyond disgusting. Now, what if I was writing about two twelve-year-olds who had a sexual relationship? Would that be somehow more moral? Or is that still as grotesque to Westerners? I mean, it's nothing that isn't on daytime TV regularly, kids in High School trying to get pregnant to snag an older man to support them, teens prostituting because their parents ignore them and they need to support their drug habits. Honestly, when did everyone become so sensitive to books?
The reality is, we're sort of disgusting animals. Why do we stare at car crashes? Why are we drawn to pictures of WWII POW camps? Why do we read stories about things we would never ever do? Because we're curious. Or maybe somewhat drawn to the macabre, the taboo, and the horrific. I'm not advocating child pornography, rape, prostitution or any other aggressive sexual behavior, but the reality is, it exists, happens regularly, and isn't a subject anyone can sweep under the rug.
I watched a documentary about the child soldiers of Africa and how initiations often involve raping women. Imagine, fourteen-year-olds with guns gang raping you. It happens! Why? Because they can. They have guns and women are easy victims of abuse. In the documentary, it says, "Wars are fought on the backs of women", meaning, women bury their dead children, starve while they feed their families, and lose their husbands to soldiers and then to death. Women suffer. They are raped, stolen from and reduced to nothing. But still they go on. This world is suffering and closing our eyes to it will not make it go away.
Okay, I got off track there a little, sorry. Let me try again. Pornography... whether child or adult (or whatever flavor you prefer), serves an entertainment purpose. I'm not going to get into it, because I think we all understand, but suffice to say, people have desires that are fundamentally wired to that individual.
I recently had a discussoin with a friend, where he asked me whether I've ever experimented with a woman... I answered no. He asked me why not. "Women are so beautiful and soft. How could you not appreciate that?"
"Easy," I said. "I'd rather run my hand over hard pecs and abs and have a stubbly face pressed against my skin." He laughed and said, "Men are so ugly, though... Women are far prettier."
What's my point? You are wired how you are. Nature is what it is. No amount of debate is going to make me give in and somehow want to rest my head against a soft bosom. It just ain't gonna happen.
People who find young children sexually exciting are wired how they are. I'm not condoning it, I'm saying it's true. No normal person looks at a six-year-old child and gets sexual thoughts. It's not normal, period. It's technically against nature, since nature's main goal is to get animals to reproduce. A sexually immature animal can't reproduce and therefore, it's unnatural. However, what about a fourteen-year-old or seventeen-year-old? Where do you draw the line on what's child porn? Or even what's immoral? I was sexually active when I was fourteen. Who's to say that was immoral? I was dating sixteen and seventeen-year-olds. Were they wrong? I think people bring up child porn because it's an easy thing to jump on. But in reality, it's a hard line to draw. People who are excited by immature children, who watch child pornography, aren't normal and healthy. People who act on their urges... I just don't know what to say. One of my good friends I grew up with was later arrested for molesting the neighbor boys, all three of them. He'd been doing it for years. I don't know what to say, but he was ill. It was tragic how it affected the children. I don't think there's any amount of therapy that will make those parents' guilt dissipate.
If the point is that child pornography shouldn't be legal to make, watch or sell... it is already in effect. I agree whole-heartedly with that decision. Not because I think the watching of it will somehow make people act on their desires any more than they otherwise would have, but because the making of it would be harmful to individual children.
But, if someone chose to write a story with young people having sex (which I've done) who's to say they're wrong? I think one of my best books is about a pair of teenagers who are in love. If someone read that and idealized the relationship I built between the characters and decided at age fourteen to have sex with her boyfriend.. I can't be held responsible for her decision. Heck, I made the same decision at fourteen without any influence whatsoever from movies, books or anything else. And I came from a good family, was a decent student, had a normal life and wasn't at all peer-pressured. I think most of my friends at the time never even kissed a boy... HA! People complain about Twilight romanticising dysfunctional and abusive relationships. I say, there were a large percentage of young women I knew in the early and mid-nineties who were drawn to that kind of relationship, and that was long before Twilight came out. People are what they are. If they're so easily swayed by entertainment and it influences their bad decisions, then maybe it's sad we've eliminated all threats to our species and allowed so many unfit individuals to enter the gene pool. I betcha Neanderthal man never had to deal with his daughter having two dysfunctional relationships simultaneously. He'd have just kicked both their behinds and kept his daughter a while longer until he found a safe clan for her to join.
I recently had a discussoin with a friend, where he asked me whether I've ever experimented with a woman... I answered no. He asked me why not. "Women are so beautiful and soft. How could you not appreciate that?"
"Easy," I said. "I'd rather run my hand over hard pecs and abs and have a stubbly face pressed against my skin." He laughed and said, "Men are so ugly, though... Women are far prettier."
What's my point? You are wired how you are. Nature is what it is. No amount of debate is going to make me give in and somehow want to rest my head against a soft bosom. It just ain't gonna happen.
People who find young children sexually exciting are wired how they are. I'm not condoning it, I'm saying it's true. No normal person looks at a six-year-old child and gets sexual thoughts. It's not normal, period. It's technically against nature, since nature's main goal is to get animals to reproduce. A sexually immature animal can't reproduce and therefore, it's unnatural. However, what about a fourteen-year-old or seventeen-year-old? Where do you draw the line on what's child porn? Or even what's immoral? I was sexually active when I was fourteen. Who's to say that was immoral? I was dating sixteen and seventeen-year-olds. Were they wrong? I think people bring up child porn because it's an easy thing to jump on. But in reality, it's a hard line to draw. People who are excited by immature children, who watch child pornography, aren't normal and healthy. People who act on their urges... I just don't know what to say. One of my good friends I grew up with was later arrested for molesting the neighbor boys, all three of them. He'd been doing it for years. I don't know what to say, but he was ill. It was tragic how it affected the children. I don't think there's any amount of therapy that will make those parents' guilt dissipate.
If the point is that child pornography shouldn't be legal to make, watch or sell... it is already in effect. I agree whole-heartedly with that decision. Not because I think the watching of it will somehow make people act on their desires any more than they otherwise would have, but because the making of it would be harmful to individual children.
But, if someone chose to write a story with young people having sex (which I've done) who's to say they're wrong? I think one of my best books is about a pair of teenagers who are in love. If someone read that and idealized the relationship I built between the characters and decided at age fourteen to have sex with her boyfriend.. I can't be held responsible for her decision. Heck, I made the same decision at fourteen without any influence whatsoever from movies, books or anything else. And I came from a good family, was a decent student, had a normal life and wasn't at all peer-pressured. I think most of my friends at the time never even kissed a boy... HA! People complain about Twilight romanticising dysfunctional and abusive relationships. I say, there were a large percentage of young women I knew in the early and mid-nineties who were drawn to that kind of relationship, and that was long before Twilight came out. People are what they are. If they're so easily swayed by entertainment and it influences their bad decisions, then maybe it's sad we've eliminated all threats to our species and allowed so many unfit individuals to enter the gene pool. I betcha Neanderthal man never had to deal with his daughter having two dysfunctional relationships simultaneously. He'd have just kicked both their behinds and kept his daughter a while longer until he found a safe clan for her to join.
Sorry, got off track again. I'm really bad at this. Child pornography is a perfect example of that thing people bring up as a fundamentally wrong thing, like murder and Nazis. It's a cheaty way out of thinking and answering a moral question. Point is, even child porn isn't black and white. First, you'd need to define certain things, like, how old are the children? There's a difference between a six-year-old and a sixteen-year-old. There's also a difference between written words for entertainment and a story and a video graphically showing sexual acts.
Also, there's the intention of the material. Is it a heart-wrenching story about a real-life tragedy or one based off real events to make a point about something in the world. Or is it a story meant to sexually arouse people with dangerous desires? And let's not overlook one very critical thing... I know it sounds sick, but when people are at home alone, reading or watching their preferred medium portraying children, they're not out there acting on their desires they can't help. I know it sounds messed up, but I'm not sure how therapy works for sexual deviants. Many choose chemical castration because they know their desires get them in trouble. Imagine tomorrow someone said it's illegal to be sexually attracted to pretty women or hunky men. Could you turn it off completely because it's suddenly immoral? It's the same for people who are attracted to something else.
Okay, I think I finally covered why I hated child pornography being brought up AGAIN here. We've already covered it several times on this forum and frankly, I'm tired of hearing ill-thought out responses that initially look like a one-size-fits-all answer to end a moral debate. When Steerpike brought up "would you kill the one girl to save a million people?" we had quite a long discussion about morality and I'm pretty sure we will all remember the very revealing answers. Morality is not as simple as black and white.
Also, there's the intention of the material. Is it a heart-wrenching story about a real-life tragedy or one based off real events to make a point about something in the world. Or is it a story meant to sexually arouse people with dangerous desires? And let's not overlook one very critical thing... I know it sounds sick, but when people are at home alone, reading or watching their preferred medium portraying children, they're not out there acting on their desires they can't help. I know it sounds messed up, but I'm not sure how therapy works for sexual deviants. Many choose chemical castration because they know their desires get them in trouble. Imagine tomorrow someone said it's illegal to be sexually attracted to pretty women or hunky men. Could you turn it off completely because it's suddenly immoral? It's the same for people who are attracted to something else.
Okay, I think I finally covered why I hated child pornography being brought up AGAIN here. We've already covered it several times on this forum and frankly, I'm tired of hearing ill-thought out responses that initially look like a one-size-fits-all answer to end a moral debate. When Steerpike brought up "would you kill the one girl to save a million people?" we had quite a long discussion about morality and I'm pretty sure we will all remember the very revealing answers.
Morality is not as simple as black and white.
Mindfire
Istar
It is. But to see it that way requires a wisdom and clarity that is not humanly possible.
brokethepoint
Troubadour
I don't believe in censorship, but I do believe that we have a responsibility. The freedom to write anything does not mean that everything is right.
I do not believe that offending people is the issue. How we influence people is the issue. If someones writing always glamorizes mass murderers and makes them out to be misunderstood wonderful people, are they not responsible for the people they influence? What if the person they influence kills someone they loved.
After 2 locked bechdel threads it is pretty amazing to see some of the responses in this thread.
I do not believe that offending people is the issue. How we influence people is the issue. If someones writing always glamorizes mass murderers and makes them out to be misunderstood wonderful people, are they not responsible for the people they influence? What if the person they influence kills someone they loved.
After 2 locked bechdel threads it is pretty amazing to see some of the responses in this thread.
Sure, but as we are human, the issue of morality will always be flecked with huge amounts of grey in between the black and white. But the issue of morality is not primarily the concern of this thread, and perhaps we should stay away from it.
So I don't think there is anything wrong. I doubt that this thread, which is filled with so many different opinions, answered your issues in a straightforward manner (that's why they're there after all). But still, it's obvious that you found some posts extremely agreeable to you, and in the end, it's you who decides the way.
Last edited:
BWFoster78
Myth Weaver
I think this sums up your thoughts nicely.
Having someone interject emotionally charged issues in the middle of a lively debate certainly can give the perception of intellectual dishonesty. Kinda like:
It's difficult to think through complex issues in a logical way.
It's easy to bring up a topic that some people get emotional about.
An interesting exchange of ideas becomes: If you support this position, you're advocating for (Insert the worst atrocity you can think of here).
Which is why, as I stated to Feo earlier, we seek to come up with examples that aren't as emotionally charged.
If A = B AND B = C THEN A = C for ALL values of A and C.
If A is emotionally charged, it's much better to address C calmly and logically and then apply what you learned back to A.
BWFoster78
Myth Weaver
There's a fine line between these two ideas - that people should have freedom to write what they want but that they have a responsibility not to. I can more easily see, "People have the freedom to write what they want but not all writing has value."
If you say, "You have the freedom to do what you want but you have a responsibility not to exercise that freedom." If you have a responsibility not to exercise that freedom, then do you really have that freedom in the first place?
Admittedly, you have the freedom to choose not to fulfill responsibility, but the thought seems to me to violate the spirit of freedom. If you're truly dedicated to the concept of freedom, it's hard to believe in the responsibility portion.
Your thoughts here don't seem to jive with the discussion we've been having.
We've been discussing: Is an author responsible for all possible interpretations of their work?
This point is more along the lines of: Is the author responsible for another's actions if they deliberately try to influence that person to do something bad?
Let's assume that it is possible for me to write something so convincing that it compels you to do something bad and that it was my intent to compel you to do so. In that case, I don't think that many would argue with you that me (as the author) and you (as the person who committed the bad act) are both at fault.
I think that moderators have a difficult job. At one hand, they don't want to stifle legitimate debate. On the other hand, they want to keep the forum a friendly place where people of all beliefs feel welcome.
I'm glad they've show restraint thus far with this thread.
If it helps, I knew when I locked both threads that there would be a new one. It's not about stifling discussion, but sometimes to just give it a fresh start.
brokethepoint
Troubadour
My point on being free is this. We believe that we are free, but being free does not mean that we are free to do what ever we want. I believe that this also applies to writing.
My point about the 2 locked threads was that there was a heated discussion about how women are characterized(which I don't think anyone here really seems to have a problem with) but when we look at having a responsibility with our writing there are those who seem to dismiss it.
Sorry maybe I am overly wound on this one. It just seems like so many in today's society do not feel the need to be responsible for their actions.
My point about the 2 locked threads was that there was a heated discussion about how women are characterized(which I don't think anyone here really seems to have a problem with) but when we look at having a responsibility with our writing there are those who seem to dismiss it.
Sorry maybe I am overly wound on this one. It just seems like so many in today's society do not feel the need to be responsible for their actions.
It's a question of whether the responsibility you are imposing is reasonable. If I write a story that mentions the word murder in it, then someone reads it and shoots someone, am I responsible? Obviously that's a ludicrous example - no one is going to say I have any responsibility. So, what if I write a story about a serial killer and someone in real-life starts to emulate the killer in my novel. Then am I responsible? I say no, and I think this is just as silly as the first example.
It's very easy to make generalized statements, but if you're going to dish out responsibility to a writer for someone else's conscious action then you've got to figure out where to draw the line. And you've got to figure out who it is who gets to decide where to draw the line. I haven't seen anyone address those issues, and without that all the talk of responsibility is meaningless in any practical sense.
- Status
