Responsible Writing?

[Fishbowl Helmet]

Too right. But how I mean self-censorship is avoiding a topic because it might be unpopular or stir up trouble. The distinction being the motivation behind the change. Altering a piece because you find an aspect abhorrent is one thing, changing a stance or statement or theme because of the potential reaction is another.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

but it was more likely the rubbish going on in their personal life that pushed them to do what they did.

But we might ask where the rubbish in their personal lives came from. Sometimes -- not always -- it's because the people around them are desensitized, too, and treat them with casual cruelty because they don't know any better either. Cruelty and insensitivity can multiply as it passes from person to person.

There is never any one cause where these violent crimes are concerned, but that doesn't mean that we should then dismiss every factor involved because it wasn't the only one or the worst one. We should work on everything at once.

As to whether this latest tragedy has changed the way I write: No. I have always tried to keep in mind what small influence my voice might have among all the other voices. I don't want my writing to contribute to a world view that is not, in fact my own, simply because it might be what readers want right now.

That probably sounds self-righteous, but it's a thing that has been on my mind for a long time, and has troubled me for a long time.

 

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

No, has no effect on me at all. At least not that I'm aware of.

I've always been someone who is vigorously for as little censorship and restrictions as possible though. I think the arguments that films, games, books, media in general "cause" these things is complete rubbish, it's almost as if people think people only do bad things since they were invented. A lot of the loudest comments come from religous sources who have a great deal more blood on their hands than the worst "video nasty" producer has.

I could copy this statement word for word, nubins. I don't believe anyone should have to be afraid of writing what they desire to just because some tragic events have occurred. Now I don't say this to downplay these events-they ARE horrible and I hope and pray that they not happen. I'm not so naive as to think they won't ever happen again, but I do feel bad for those affected when they occur.


But it wouldn't stop my writing on a character who is a serial killer, or a rapist, or a torturer, or condones these actions of other characters. I don't believe in censorship in any form.

 

[Gordian Knot]

The flaw in the video game, films, games, movies argument is that there are these same violent activities in many other countries, yet the gun death rates are a fraction of a fraction of what they are in the U.S.

So one has the same violent content in many countries, but violent real deaths in just one of them. The conclusion is clear to anyone willing to see it.

 

[TheTomG]

There's a balance between 'exploring' and 'glorifying.' I think it is possible to 'explore' questions like, what is it like to be a serial killer, how can that come about, how might they view the world? But care is needed not to turn it into simple glorification.

With things like vampires, the exploration is how can one handle one's desires and impulses but not become evil? Or can you? Must you deny them entirely, or are there ways in which they are ok? We all have some base drives, some crude instincts.

I think these are worthwhile, I think it is important to explore morality, to question grey areas. But I think you can sensationalize and glorify the abhorrent, which is a different thing from admitting the abhorrent exists and is something worth confronting, thinking about, and not just having knee-jerk reactions too.

 

[Galacticdefender]

There is a faction in one of my stories that is, for all intents and purposes, a cross between Nazis and the Catholic Church of the middle ages. They think that all aliens (yes, I guess it could be considered a space opera universe) who leave their homeworld are more or less heretical, and execute them by the thousands for reasons they have largely fabricated.

There were a few scenes I wrote that were of such brutality (One mass execution in particular) that I almost didn't write them, but I did, and I am glad I did. There is some symbolism that I was trying to get across, about the ignorance of a large part of humanity (nobody here, thankfully ) and because I didn't "chicken out", it had the effect I intended.

My advice is NEVER limit yourself based on society or fear of offending people. Write what you want, and don't falter. If you limit yourself, then your writing will be watered down and not of the best quality.

 

[Galacticdefender]

I actually think self-censorship can be a very good thing - we've seen in discussions recently on chrons how some published writers deal with violence, especially sexual violence, in a way that can be argued as anywhere between sloppy to offensive.

I remember working on a story with generic "dark horde creatures that can be killed without any moral reservations". Then I watched the film Starship Troopers (ironic from the above mention of Heinlein) and realised the glorified killing of sentient creatures was one of the key objections of the film - and frankly it sickened me. So I dropped that angle, and made the story into a political thriller - one that is now my WIP.

Uhh, the film was sort of a parody of the themes in the book. I quite liked how they did that actually. The book had a bit (a lot?) of glorified violence, and the movie was making fun of it. Or at least thats how I took it. Would you like to know more? lol

 

[SciFrac]

I'm not suggesting censorship. I wholeheartidly endorse free speech for everyone, particularly in art. My point is that, after events like this, my interest in violent stories decreases. It just makes me want to contribute something really positive to the world. That's all.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I find it interesting the way the conversation has gone from whether we feel a sense of responsibility about the effect our writings (as a whole) might have on shaping the world around us, to censoring our writing because we are afraid of offending other people. Whether we're offending other people is not what this thread is about, is it?

It's hard to gauge the effect that violence in the media has on us. Can any of us really know what kind of person we would be now if we hadn't been exposed to so much of it? Just because we haven't any of us gone out and committed mass murder (I hope), can we really say for certain that we wouldn't have been more sensitive to the needs and suffering of other people? That we wouldn't have been more compassionate in our daily lives?

I know for certain that I used to be a much kinder person, more charitable, more generous, more willing to sacrifice my comforts for the sake of other people, more sympathetic. I feel old and hard and cynical, though I try very hard not to be. I don't know what has changed me, but I see the change. I'd like to find books that would inspire me, that would challenge me, to be better, rather than books that make me feel complacent simply because I'm not actively hurting other people. I don't mean books with a message or an agenda, but stories that are uplifting. I find that I have to go to the older books that I have for anything like that.

So I have to wonder what sort of stories we are passing on to the next generation.

 

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

There's truth to what you say, TE, but I also think that the time for golden fairy tales is coming to a close as well. I just don't think it does for our children to expect what's unrealistic, and to help them deal with disappointment when the sun doesn't shine. It requires a balance, between preventing becoming cynical and bitter like me, and not being rose-colored glasses Barbie doll.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

But dealing with disappointment doesn't mean giving up, Karn. It seems like so much of what is written now is about people who give up and give in to their baser instincts.

 

[James Coote]

I do feel a bit of pressure to do justice to characters who I write that have been through terrible situations that i can barely relate to at all from my comfy middle-class sofa. But it doesn't worry me overtly, to the extent that I wouldn't write such characters.

Right there with you on the sofa!

Whether to self-censor or not is the wrong way to think about it. When you pick a sensitive subject, it's usually because consciously or otherwise, you have a desire to say something important on the issue. It is therefore your responsibility to get it right, or your message will get lost if you don't.

In addition, you can't shy away from writing the things you don't want to write about or strongly disagree with. The reader isn't stupid, and you need to make the rebuttals to the questions and counter-points that will float up in their minds (and do it subtly).

Readers aren't malleable pieces of clay in the author's hands. They will read other books, talk to other people and make up their own mind from all the sources they draw from. You've got to make your source especially sticky, so that it is always brought up in the reader's head when they are thinking about it.

Perversely, if anything, this kind of tragedy inspires me even more to right/write the injustices of this world, even if the particular injustice in the news today isn't the one I happen to be focusing on in my writing

______

Separately, on video games:

There have been a number of scientific studies carried out over the years on the connection between violence in video games and whether it causes people to themselves become violent. The results you (I) may not like to hear, because it's pretty bleeding obvious when you think about it.

Yes, violent video games make people more violent. But they don't make people more likely to commit crime. I think the most recent study actually headlined as "video games make you more violent - but not by much"

 

[Mark R]

I don't think any of us are so arrogant to believe that our writing would have such profound effects upon people that it might lead them to killing sprees, but I do think there's a little too much eagerness to say "no, what i write has no effect at all"

Particularly as I'm sure all of us want to write things that entertain, amaze, and even inspire. I think we'd be far more likely to believe our writing has a positive effect. The lesson that should come from that is that there is a possibility your words change the way a person thinks, and if you're wielding that power: wield it responsibly.

 

[James Coote]

So I have to wonder what sort of stories we are passing on to the next generation.

That one is easy to answer. We're writing stories that reflect our time, and our society as it is now (or our current hopes and fears for it)

Stories that challenge you have to have a message I feel, or at least ask questions of the reader. However, it's just as valid for that message to be an uplifting one, steeped in hope and optimism.

 

[Boneman]

I know for certain that I used to be a much kinder person, more charitable, more generous, more willing to sacrifice my comforts for the sake of other people, more sympathetic. I feel old and hard and cynical, though I try very hard not to be. I don't know what has changed me, but I see the change. I'd like to find books that would inspire me, that would challenge me, to be better, rather than books that make me feel complacent simply because I'm not actively hurting other people. I don't mean books with a message or an agenda, but stories that are uplifting. I find that I have to go to the older books that I have for anything like that.

So I have to wonder what sort of stories we are passing on to the next generation.

It must be an age/experience thing Teresa, I feel much the same. I'm becoming hardened by the rubbish that 'society' seems to be wallowing in. But on a micro level, I see amazing people doing wonderful things for each other that restores my belief in humanity's better nature.

As I writer I shy away from books that are just so graphic they seem to glorify what they are describing as a horrible scene - I cannot read James Patterson, for instance, those books are a complete turnoff. I know I'd like to be on my deathbed, looking back with pride on what I wrote... but I simply cannot please everyone, so I can only do my bit by writing for myself, which will include a measure of self-censoring - responsibility if you will. But it's only to myself - I love a good graphic sword fight, but I'm sort of assuming it's not going to encourage people to go out on a rampage.

There was a furore in America over Harry Potter because it would encourage children to try magic, and they would be sucked down into the darkness. (Okay it was a radical bible belt lot!) Since there ain't any magic in this world, it ain't gonna happen, but whatif some susceptible person spent their lives trying to be a magician? Is that JKR's fault? No. Any more than a History/English/Geography lesson in school would influence a student to follow paths they'd been taught about. But write a book proclaiming you can wield magic and change everything, become rich and famous (look at 'The Secret' or 'The Celestine Prophecies') and you've stepped over the line, imho.

All we can do is work within the parameters that are acceptable to us, and be proud of our work. Anyone can put a book down...

 

[James Coote]

I know I'd like to be on my deathbed, looking back with pride on what I wrote...

I assumed from your avatar that you were already well beyond your deathbed.....

 

[Warren_Paul]

It's a can't win situation. There will always be somebody you offend, but does that mean we shouldn't even worry about censoring? One thing I do notice though is that the market seems to be over the happy ever after fairytale stories. We all want plausibility in our stories, something that we can say, 'Yes, I can see that happening,' to.

 

[Peter Graham]

I find it interesting the way the conversation has gone from whether we feel a sense of responsibility about the effect our writings (as a whole) might have on shaping the world around us, to censoring our writing because we are afraid of offending other people. Whether we're offending other people is not what this thread is about, is it?

Well said, Teresa. The two topics are entirely different, but all too often are blurred.

Taking offence is, all too often, a choice. Some folk seem to like to be offended whilst others use the taking of offence in a sort of passive aggressive way as a means of scoring a cheap point in a debate they might otherwise be losing. Others still see the taking of offence as part of their self-definition, which says something very deep about them and their values.

I'd argue that we owe a general duty to conduct ourselves in a courteous manner, but that we owe no duty - whether as writers, aspiring writers or members of the human race - to avoid any prospect of causing anyone any offence. To pursue such an aim might be laudable and worthy, but one runs the risk of watering down one's publicly expressed (rather than privately held) opinions to such a degree that one is saying nothing worth hearing.

So I have to wonder what sort of stories we are passing on to the next generation.

Happily, much the same ones as we read ourselves. The milieux might have changed (boy wizards who like modern bands have replaced 50's schoolchildren running around Cornwall in flannel shorts being waited on by the poor people), but the basic messages of being self reliant, decent to others and kind-hearted have not changed one jot.

Regards,

Peter

 

[Jake Reynolds]

Whenever a tragedy like this occurs (or any tragedy that comfortable westerners can directly relate to, as opposed to bombing children in Iraq or the constant loss of children in Africa due to AIDS), society cries out asking 'How could this happen?'.

The media offers our consciences a patsy, whether video games, movies, books etc, and we seize upon it that suggestion in order to make sense of the chaos around us and drive the fear back a little. I agree that guns should be severely restricted, but I also agree that this is not the cause (although it is a glamorised instrument, for sure).

We live in a world where it is all right to go to war, where people cheer in the streets when someone is executed, and where, whether we like it or not, we are insulated by privilege to the point of apathy. We condone murder with every video showing a 'missile eye view' of the target it strikes, and we all contribute to the culture of fear that dictates our actions. People rush to have children for fear of biological clocks, rush into marriage for fear of being alone, rush to buy the latest album for fear of being outcast...the list is endless.

If we add 'change our vision for fear of outcry', we compromise who we are and why we write what we write. We have a responsibility to be respectful, but no subject is taboo. As long as we approach our subject matter with integrity, sensitivity and respect, then we are educators, not sensationalists. We cannot be damned for writing about something that exists.

So, in answer to the topic (I got there eventually), I think that we should never compromise our subject matter because of current events (and indeed, when such events occur we can have a positive influence). Assuming that we are not profiting by tragedy or trivialising hardship, then I see no need to hide.

 

[Toby Frost]

If you ask me - and foolishly, you did - we shouldn't be afraid of offending people. In fact, serious satire ought to be confrontational, where it tackles topics like religion and race. What is absolutely deadly to progress, literary and otherwise, is the ability of a commentator to shut down a debate by coming out with the offence card. If you say to me "Finland is a hotbed of corruption", and I reply with "That is offensive so shut up", there's no debate. I might as well call you a racist or a lunatic: all I've said is that your statement is invalid and shouldn't be made. So when someone claims something offends them, the answer to my mind should be, "So what now?" That can lead us to saying "This film is totally worthless, so it won't get a cinema release" - in other words, we can censor. But it doesn't guarantee censorship just because Interest Group X feels hurt by it.

But that covers offence. Onto incitement and desensitising.

Has anyone been inspired to beat his wife up by A Game of Thrones? I very much doubt it. To be honest, and perhaps a bit snobbish, I doubt that most violent people read a lot of SFF, and I doubt that those that do get their incentive from there. I suppose there is a risk of acclimatising people to serious violence and cruelty in books, but it's far more likely to come from other, visual media first. It's also worth pointing out that people can often sympathise with characters who do things they'd never dream of in real life, as it seems that people enjoy reading porn in which stuff occurs that they'd regard as pretty bizarre were it to really occur.

That said, in practical terms I doubt I've ever incited anyone to do anything in the stuff I've written. Except, hopefully, to buy the sequel.