The social responsibility of the writer

[DLCroix]

IMO, I think there should be. A certain compromise. Even in the genre of science fiction or fantasy. But that's just what I think. What do you think? What are your reflections on this? Do you consider it? The session opens.

 

[Astro Pen]

If you want propaganda go hire a propagandist. I'm not your man.

 

[DLCroix]

If you want propaganda go hire a propagandist. I'm not your man.

Sorry, but this has nothing to do with politics or propaganda, but with the writer's vision. Those who write dystopias, for example, respond to a certain type of commitment. Several, even. That has nothing to do with propaganda. I humbly believe that you misunderstood the subject. Because it doesn't go that way.

 

[Astro Pen]

Cornered straight into round one you spout a word salad.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I think its largely up to the writer. to make it an expectation on the writer is a readers prerogative but it is still up to the writer.

 

[DLCroix]

Cornered straight into round one you spout a word salad.

I propose that the discussion be only on the subject, thank you.
For example, 1984, by George Orwell, is it propaganda?
Or Market Forces, by Richard Morgan.
Or The Road, by Cormac McCarthy.

I insist that I mean other things with this post.

 

[DLCroix]

I think its largely up to the writer. to make it an expectation on the writer is a readers prerogative but it is still up to the writer.

Exactly. For example, there are writers who say that they only write for themselves and therefore their only commitment is to their work. But, since we are all part of society, it is the reader who, when reading a story, comes into contact with the writer and accesses the vision of the world that he projects, his way of seeing reality, even in the case of genres such as fantasy and sci-fi. Therefore I would say that there is an interdependence where neither exists outside the other. Because if that writer wants to be a lonely entity that does not seek his readers, then he is not a writer. If nobody reads his stories, then he doesn't exist. Regardless of the stories we write, I think we always have in mind a kind of ideal or, let's say, imaginary reader.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Exactly. For example, there are writers who say that they only write for themselves and therefore their only commitment is to their work. But, since we are all part of society, it is the reader who, when reading a story, comes into contact with the writer and accesses the vision of the world that he projects, his way of seeing reality, even in the case of genres such as fantasy and sci-fi. Therefore I would say that there is an interdependence where neither exists outside the other. Because if that writer wants to be a lonely entity that does not seek his readers, then he is not a writer. If nobody reads his stories, then he doesn't exist. Regardless of the stories we write, I think we always have in mind a kind of ideal or, let's say, imaginary reader.

I don’t think you have to have readers to be a writer.

 

[DLCroix]

I don’t think you have to have readers to be a writer.

But then I ask myself: What is the very purpose of forums like this? Or why are we always talking about influences, or methods and tips to write better? Why do some of us even participate in literature contests?

I honestly believe that it is due to a need for cultural exchange, learning and to share points of view. Take, for example, the case of forum members who participate in writing challenges, or those who submit texts to the Critics section.
Of course, I can understand what you are saying and I respect that. Well, I can only speak from my experience. But at least I write to be read. That is my goal.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

But then I ask myself: What is the very purpose of forums like this? Or why are we always talking about influences, or methods and tips to write better? Why do some of us even participate in literature contests?

I honestly believe that it is due to a need for cultural exchange, learning and to share points of view. Take, for example, the case of forum members who participate in writing challenges, or those who submit texts to the Critics section.
Of course, I can understand what you are saying and I respect that. Well, I can only speak from my experience. But at least I write to be read. That is my goal.

How many diarists are only published after their death? Novels found that were hidden? Creation is sometimes - often - for a market. But it doesn’t have to be, especially therapeutic writing.

 

[Steve Harrison]

As a person I do feel a sense of social responsibility, but as a writer all bets are off and the story is only my responsibility. I trust that my target audience, if reached, is smart enough to know they are reading fiction.

 

[DLCroix]

How many diarists are only published after their death? Novels found that were hidden? Creation is sometimes - often - for a market. But it doesn’t have to be, especially therapeutic writing.

Oh, well, that situation exists. But I think if we were to do a survey, maybe most of the people who write stories do it for others to read those stories and, as you say, a good percentage actually do it directly for a market.

As a person I do feel a sense of social responsibility, but as a writer all bets are off and the story is only my responsibility. I trust that my target audience, if reached, is smart enough to know they are reading fiction.

Why do you say that? Are they very violent stories, I wonder? Much gore? Because I was remembering that story about the time travel that you set on a convict ship. That intrigues me.

 

[CTRandall]

The difficulty is that one person's socially-responsible message is another person's propaganda. You can't escape that. Two words: Ayn Rand.

Despite that, I'd argue that it is almost impossible to write without some sense of social responsibility. All of our writing is embedded in our experiences. It reflects the world around us. Our choices about what makes for a good plot or an interesting character are shaped by the stories we already know, the stories we get every day from books, newspapers, teachers or even just conversations with friends. Our writing forms in relation and response to all of these things--it cannot be separated from the world around us.

Which means that someone like Edward Said can come along and find the story of slavery and Carribean sugar plantations embedded in the novels of Jane Austen. The author doesn't have to try to be socially responsible; readers will put their own messages into the story. (Think Tolkein as either a metaphor for WW2 or an example of racist attitudes.)

 

[Steve Harrison]

Why do you say that? Are they very violent stories, I wonder? Much gore? Because I was remembering that story about the time travel that you set on a convict ship. That intrigues me.

That particular novel is very violent and filled with disparate characters, many of them doing things that I would certainly consider abhorrent by my personal standards. But within the novel they have understandable and hopefully believable reasons for what they do and I left any judgement up to readers.

My other novels are a YA comedy adventure and a contemporary thriller (again, very violent), and my WIP is a mid-life crisis comedy/drama with a touch of fantasy. The stories dictate the content.

 

[DLCroix]

Our choices about what makes for a good plot or an interesting character are shaped by the stories we already know, the stories we get every day from books, newspapers, teachers or even just conversations with friends. Our writing forms in relation and response to all of these things--it cannot be separated from the world around us.

I fully agree with that. Because, I guess we also agree that writers write mostly about the topics that interest them and naturally we all try to write the best we can.
Because there are other commitments that are with language and the literary. With being creative imagining events or characters. But also with verbal imagination, sometimes the creation of other languages, jargons or systems and units of measurement, with the composition, the structure, the cadence, the choice of the POV.

Think Tolkein as either a metaphor for WW2 or an example of racist attitudes

But also, even though the genres of sci-fi and fantasy are often branded as escape literature, in any case in each story there is present its own system of thought, which is from the writer. I mean, it's not about writing for the purpose of giving a message, because that sounds a lot like preaching, right? Rather, even in a fantastic environment, each writer presents a different way of observing and reflecting on that environment, and the way that writer presents their stories, especially their arguments and development, although they show a certain commitment in Around their creativity, they should also obey to another commitment, which is with, say, the sense of what is good and correct; not in a political or propagandistic sense, I repeat, but with the stories tending towards a logical catharsis. For example, if Sauron had gotten away with it and Frodo and everyone else had lost, I doubt anyone would have liked his story. It is a personal opinion, of course. But...

That particular novel is very violent and filled with disparate characters, many of them doing things that I would certainly consider abhorrent by my personal standards. But within the novel they have understandable and hopefully believable reasons for what they do and I left any judgement up to readers.

... Which is what I wanted to refer to.

Well, I haven't read Steve's novel. But I at least in my stories, even the sci-fi ones, I try to keep that commitment, let's say social. I mean, I'm not interested in being realistic if it means showing too much violence. And I repeat that it is only my personal position, but I consider that there is already enough negativity and horror in the real world to also transfer that to literature. In my stories there is violence, naturally; in fact the saga is about a war and a great evil that extends through the centuries. But I prefer to focus the story more on the mystery and its solution, or on the decisions that the characters make in the face of all that horror.

 

[Joshua Jones]

If I understand what is being asked here correctly, this is a pretty sticky topic...

As noted prior, there is only perspective differentiating between social responsibility and propaganda. The aforementioned 1984, for example, was banned in Soviet Russia as anti-communist propaganda and censored in China. We may say that history has proven this perspective wrong, but do we honestly think that future generations won't look upon us in horror as well for the moral problems we're currently blind to? Or perhaps for the things we affirm? Are we arrogant enough to think we are the only generation or culture which has no moral blind spots?

So, writing a story for the sake of making a socially responsible point is a fraught endeavor; it's nearly certain not to age well. But, as also noted above, it is nearly impossible to not write with some influence by the contemporary context. Even period pieces are nearly always reflections not of the time they are written about, but the time they were authored.

As such, I would argue that the responsibility of the author is to the story, but that's with the recognition that the story, to some extent or another, will be influenced by either our acceptance, rejection, or mixed reaction to the contemporary culture.

 

[DLCroix]

As such, I would argue that the responsibility of the author is to the story, but that's with the recognition that the story, to some extent or another, will be influenced by either our acceptance, rejection, or mixed reaction to the contemporary culture.

In fact, I really admire those who write dystopias. Because on the one hand there is the hard component in which the writer's commitment is to speak to the reader, in an accessible language, about rather complex topics or theories (in a certain way it is a bridge that transmits the results of our culture, an certain work of diffusion), but on the other hand there is the speculative effort, I would say much harder, and that perhaps involves twice the work, than just writing a fantasy story or a space opera. Because it refers to anticipation and the future, it is a warning that comes from a deep reflection on the part of the author, almost a blind bet.
Some fail in their predictions, naturally. But others have been chillingly accurate. Do you remember your post from darker fiction? Well, in addition, most of the predictions are negative. And it takes a lot of courage to say that (at least be very informed) in a world where everyone wants to be told only what they want to hear.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

What a lot of people want to hear is that the world is so dark and humanity so sick that there is nothing that can be done about it—thereby making them feel happier about the fact that they aren't even trying.

Grimdark and dystopias are each in their way just as likely to breed complacency as more upbeat fiction.

It simply depends on the writer and with how much thought and honesty they put into what they are writing.

 

[MikeAnderson]

Dystopian future fiction is played out, like the zombie genre. Everybody these days seems to want to write about worlds so dark and dank, nobody in their right mind wants to live in them. Plus, like Teresa said, it seems to just confirm to people that the world is a toilet bowl, and there's no hope, instead of giving folks optimism and motivation to fix things.

 

[Margaret Note Spelling]

I'm a bit reluctant to get into this, but I'll go ahead.

1: What we write, fiction or not, will always be grounded in the things we personally believe to be true--about humanity, about the world, about ourselves. You can't get away from it. No book can ever be complete fiction. We're not creative enough for that, and when we are, other people call it insanity and lock us up.

2: Other people will always disagree with your beliefs, and you have no moral responsibility to change their minds. What they believe or don't believe is not up to you.

3: What you do have a responsibility to do with your writing is to tell the truth as you believe it to be. I know--we write fiction. But like I said, we can't make everything up. Someone who writes a murder mystery is typically claiming, even if they never once say it outright, that murder is wrong. However fictional the entire book, that is the underlying fact that the reader is supposed to accept as actually true. If you do believe that murder is wrong, you have a responsibility not to write a book that is however subtly claiming and thus teaching readers the opposite viewpoint. (Especially books for children, still learning about the world and human behavior and moral rules!)

Telling the truth--not changing other people's minds--is what all writers are responsible for.

(Wow. I don't think I've ever used so many italics in a post before.)