• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

Duties Owed by a Writer

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
Interesting convergence, in that I saw a lengthy discussion of this on social media, and then saw the topic raised here in another thread. The question, put in simple terms, is:

Whether and to what extent the author owes any duty to society, the art form, or any other party.

My answer to this is that the amount of duty owed by the author is ZERO.(*)

Often, but not always, the attempted imposition of such a duty is tied to looking down one's nose at writing one considers inferior from an artistic perspective, or that one does not feel adequately addresses whatever issues one finds important enough to warrant the time. But it's a strange concept, in my view. We're talking about a person's time and labor, often put forth without any guarantee of compensation (certainly, if you want to get rich there are better, faster, and more dependable ways than by writing fiction). What is really being said, then, is that you, or society, or the abstract concept of "art" has some claim to my time. That I should write in such and such a way, according to the precepts of...who? whomever, I suppose, in any given instance...and that by not doing so I'm somehow derelict in my duties.

Sorry, but no. I'm glad there are people who write literary fiction, artistic fiction, fiction with a deep message about the human condition. I love reading those works. I'm glad there are people who write light, adventure fiction. I love reading those as well. There is no reason whatsoever that a person who writes light adventure fiction, with no greater purpose than to entertain, should ever feel compelled to do more than just that, any more than one who writes literary fiction should be compelled to write something more accessible. It's not for you to decide what I write, any more than it is for me to decide what you write. I owe you nothing, and vice versa.

Divergent views welcomed, of course.

(*)one can make an argument that an author owes a reader investing time and/or money her best attempt at fulfilling the promise of the story itself--the promise to the reader inherent at the beginning of any tale--but that's not the sort of duty I'm concerned with.
 
Last edited:

Penpilot

Staff
Article Team
My answer to this is that the amount of duty owed by the author is ZERO.(*)

No divergent views from me.

What the author owes IMHO is what they think they owe. It's dictated by the individual, which basically means they owe nothing. If they think they have some sort of obligation then they're welcome to it. Otherwise, get out of my studio/office/workspace/etc. and mind your own bee's wax.
 

Russ

Istar
I have a different world view on this one. I do think writers who publish, do have duties to the communities that they publish into.

I am tight for time right now but will try and articulate my position on this in overly lengthy prose later.

But I don't want to wait to say that this is a great question and discussion topic.
 

Heliotrope

Staff
Article Team
My answer to this is that the amount of duty owed by the author is ZERO.(*)

Often, but not always, the attempted imposition of such a duty is tied to looking down one's nose at writing one considers inferior from an artistic perspective, or that one does not feel adequately addresses whatever issues one finds important enough to warrant the time.

Agreed. Nothing irks me more than a nonpublished author criticizing a published author, saying "I hold myself to a higher standard."

Seriously? Good for you. Now get off your high horse and get to work.

I do believe that published authors do, perhaps, owe a bit to industry and even their readers... but that is negotiable, really. Arguable even in my own mind lol.

Like, I feel like I know my audience (middle grades kids ages 9-11) and I owe them a good story. I owe them entertainment. I owe them something they actually want to read because I like my audience :) They will hopefully be my bread and butter (or at least their parents or teachers will be). So I owe them something of good quality they actually want to read.

Suggesting that I owe the art form anything, or that it is my duty to single-handedly change world views on hot-button issues is asinine.
 
... Whether and to what extent the author owes any duty to society, the art form, or any other party. ...

Authors make promises to readers. They have a duty to fulfill those promises. Moreover, as members of civilized society, authors have a duty to uphold the laws of that society. Copyright laws need to be adhered to. That's what comes to mind first in answer to this question. I don't see the answer being zero.
 
Suggesting that I owe the art form anything, or that it is my duty to single-handedly change world views on hot-button issues is asinine.

Yeah, for me the question is silly. I mean, judging by some of the things put up on Amazon, authors don't even have a duty to edit their own books or find an editor who will do it for them. So I can't help wondering why anyone would think authors have any of those more grandiose duties.

And there's the problem of determining who enforces those hypothetical duties or who punishes for infractions. I suppose that in theory authors have duties others in society have, like refraining from trying to earn a living through plagiarization or refraining from publishing libel. Or not committing murder. Then again, maybe some of our resident lawyers can clarify whether following the law is technically a duty; outside the legal field, I think that's a thorny philosophical question? In any case, one is free enough to break those laws but has no legal right to avoid the consequences. Concerning the grandiose "artistic duties," I'd wonder what kind of a duty can be a duty when infractions bring no formal punishments–and indeed sometimes lead to great rewards! (The reward being a sizable reader base that loves the shallow hack-and-slash fantasy adventure, to use one example.)

If I were to play the Devil's Advocate, I might wonder whether taking an "anything goes" position sometimes leads to indirect, informal punishments. I.e., not bothering with careful editing, using sloppy writing, always using the weak sauce in our cooking, and so forth really can lead to the imposition of a special tax or fine (limited sales and/or a degradation in the general opinions regarding a whole market.) Still, I think that any formal imposition of a duty would be impossible and in fact would lead to far more harm than good.
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
I covered duties of fulfilling promises to the reader in my asterisk, though I'm not convinced that it makes sense to go so far as to call it a duty. The author should, in my view, fulfill promises and put the best work forward.

We all have legal duties imposes by the laws of society, and those aren't what I'm interested in here.

To narrow it further: to what extent does an author have a duty to dig deep into the human condition, to educate or enlighten, to push for social progress (or at least change), and to elevate the art form?

My answer: none whatsoever(*)

(*)unless you've begun your work by making a promise to the reader to do those things. Then, maybe. But I'm talking about in terms of choosing what and how to write. Duties that exist before pen is set to paper.
 

Devor

Fiery Keeper of the Hat
Moderator
I don't feel an obligation to society.







But I do feel one to my readers.
 
....this is in response to what I said in the Is Violence Necessary thread, isn't it?

I'll respond when I've had time to gather my thoughts. This is a topic that requires lots of careful clarification.
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
....this is in response to what I said in the Is Violence Necessary thread, isn't it?

I'll respond when I've had time to gather my thoughts. This is a topic that requires lots of careful clarification.

Yes. That and a conversation I saw on social media prompted the post. You're welcome to respond if you like, but don't feel obligated. You're allowed to have an opinion without having to pen a thesis in support of it :D
 
Yes. That and a conversation I saw on social media prompted the post. You're welcome to respond if you like, but don't feel obligated. You're allowed to have an opinion without having to pen a thesis in support of it :D

No worries. I actually enjoy penning theses in defense (or clarification, or development) of my opinions.

As long as I don't get scorched off the face of the earth in a flame war, that is.
 

Russ

Istar
I cannot help but point out some of the logical reasoning problems in these positions:


Yeah, for me the question is silly. I mean, judging by some of the things put up on Amazon, authors don't even have a duty to edit their own books or find an editor who will do it for them. So I can't help wondering why anyone would think authors have any of those more grandiose duties.

The frequent breech of a duty is not a valid reason to assume the duty does not exist or should not be promoted as a good. I could give you examples or explain it further but I think that is close to self evident. For instance, one can have a legal duty to drive no faster than a certain speed. The fact that the vast majority of highway users exceed that speed does not mean the duty does not exist, it just means it is breeched a lot.


And there's the problem of determining who enforces those hypothetical duties or who punishes for infractions. I suppose that in theory authors have duties others in society have, like refraining from trying to earn a living through plagiarization or refraining from publishing libel. Or not committing murder. Then again, maybe some of our resident lawyers can clarify whether following the law is technically a duty; outside the legal field, I think that's a thorny philosophical question? In any case, one is free enough to break those laws but has no legal right to avoid the consequences. Concerning the grandiose "artistic duties," I'd wonder what kind of a duty can be a duty when infractions bring no formal punishments–and indeed sometimes lead to great rewards! (The reward being a sizable reader base that loves the shallow hack-and-slash fantasy adventure, to use one example.)

The question of whether or not the duty can be enforced effectively is not at all related to whether or not the duty can, or should, exist.

You are also confusing a legal duty, with a moral or ethical or perhaps even social duty. It is quite easy to define a writer's legal duties, while I think the question the OP poses is much broader than that.
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
I cannot help but point out some of the logical reasoning problems in these positions:

The frequent breech of a duty is not a valid reason to assume the duty does not exist or should not be promoted as a good. I could give you examples or explain it further but I think that is close to self evident. For instance, one can have a legal duty to drive no faster than a certain speed. The fact that the vast majority of highway users exceed that speed does not mean the duty does not exist, it just means it is breeched a lot.

The question of whether or not the duty can be enforced effectively is not at all related to whether or not the duty can, or should, exist.

You are also confusing a legal duty, with a moral or ethical or perhaps even social duty. It is quite easy to define a writer's legal duties, while I think the question the OP poses is much broader than that.

Duties tend to spring from somewhere. If one were to propose a duty from me to society in general or art in the abstract when I sit down with my pen, I'd like to know the origin of that duty and justification for imposing it.
 

Russ

Istar
Duties tend to spring from somewhere. If one were to propose a duty from me to society in general or art in the abstract when I sit down with my pen, I'd like to know the origin of that duty and justification for imposing it.

I can't disagree with you on that point. But the fact that a duty has a origin, that you may accept as valid or invalid, is also a separate question from the frequency of its breech or its enforceability.

Perhaps the original question could be made more clear?
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
I can't disagree with you on that point. But the fact that a duty has a origin, that you may accept as valid or invalid, is also a separate question from the frequency of its breech or its enforceability.

Perhaps the original question could be made more clear?

I posted some clarifying language in post #8. Hopefully get everyone on more or less the same page in terms of what I was talking about (though you all should feel free to deviate from that if you wish).
 

skip.knox

toujours gai, archie
Moderator
I guess I would start with some variation on the social contract. We are all members of a society. I'm not sure I would choose the word duty, but there are things that make us better or lesser citizens. We can choose not to vote, not to be courteous to our neighbors, not to care for our family. And we can choose to write hateful diatribes, disgusting porn, any number of things. We can even claim it's art.

On the other hand, we can choose to participate in civil society, seek to improve our neighborhood, nurture our family. And we can choose to write something that inspires. We are not obliged to do so, but the choice lies in our hands and hearts.

I do not hesitate to call the one extreme worse than the other extreme.

I think, with little evidence to back it up, that we see these calls to a higher moral ground coming from people who are distressed by the world they see around them. Could be general, could be personal, but they see something that is in urgent need of repair. Being writers (or avid readers, perhaps), they appeal to their own community. If they were doctors, they'd call on us to join Doctors Without Borders or some such. If they were warriors they'd appeal to us to go forward in battle against the forces of darkness. They are appeals to the tribe.

People start to get uncomfortable, though, when the rhetoric moves from being a call to being a demand. Then others in the tribe start to get defensive. Then the arguments break out.
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
I think we can all agree that no one is obligated to write. In other words, there is no duty for a non-writer to sit down and nevertheless write something with a social conscience. So:

A. Haven't yet decided to write (no duty).


B. Decide to write.

<---------- duty springs into existence

C. Sit down to write.

So, what is going on between Steps B and C?
 

Russ

Istar
I think we can all agree that no one is obligated to write. In other words, there is no duty for a non-writer to sit down and nevertheless write something with a social conscience. So:

A. Haven't yet decided to write (no duty).


B. Decide to write.

<---------- duty springs into existence

C. Sit down to write.

So, what is going on between Steps B and C?

I hope to get you a longer post tomorrow am, but let me help define a couple of things that might help the conversation.

You seem to be talking about a positive duty, a duty to uplift society or enhance the art, or ennoble all mankind of whatever. That is a duty to do something in particular.

You also have to consider negative duties. That is a duty not to do something.

The classic examples (without judgement) might be that you have a positive duty to pay your taxes. Or in countries where the law requires you to vote you may have a duty to do that, which is a positive duty. But my duty not to drive too fast, or not to punch someone in the nose is a negative duty.

When I think about writing I think more in terms or negative duties. i.e. do no harm.

I also would suggest that the duty comes in play later in the process than where you put it. I would say the duty comes into play just before you publish your work. For instance I don't think you have a duty not to think racist or homophobic thoughts, or even even a duty not to write racist or homophobic works, but I do think one has a duty not to publish things that are harmful to the community.

I might even suggest that you have some positives duties to the community you live in as a human being, with other human beings, because of the benefits you derive from being part of that community, but then I would be dancing dangerously close to a political discussion which might not be appropriate for this site.
 
Last edited:

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
I would probably cast the duty to obey laws as more of a positive duty, and I feel the burden to establish a duty is on the person taking the position that such duty exists.

When it comes to subjects like harms, we start to get in subjective territory (although there are areas of broad agreement). Am I under a duty to write in accordance with what you view as harms, or in accordance with my own view as to harms? Or Donald Trump's view? Or the Pope's view?

And if the duty you want to impose on me causes me to write other than what I would wish to write, then you have to balance the harm of chilling expression against what ever benefit is deemed to be found within the work.

It all gets rather murky, though it is an interesting topic. The jumping off point in the other thread was the issue of whether you have a duty to do more than entertain (or, whether if you just entertain you've someone let down humanity and the art).
 
Top