The social responsibility of the writer

[-K2-]

Well, I am writing a dystopia which is not only blunt and extreme, but also hopefully factual and simple.

I don't care whether it's WWI gas warfare (Things to Come), uncontrolled spread of disease (whether a plague or zombies), nuclear war...etc., we're often just a few foolish steps away from destroying ourselves, with naturally those seeking power looking to take advantage of it. That said, a lot of ingenious dystopian novels are so subtle in how they came to pass and so clever in how they retain that power, that a lot of folks (I know) say, "that's disturbing...but...we'd never let it get that far," even though that's the point. They're so slow moving--little steps--the people never saw it coming and once you're there, you're trapped.

So, I'm hoping what I present portrays a rapid/obvious advancement of realistic and current poor choices to cause the whole thing to come down and back the people into a 'no options corner.' Naturally, there are bad guys everywhere in our world. But, what if the cause of this was the peoples' apathy and failure to act, allowing someone who is hell-bent on making the worst choices to do so? Once in the situation, with no other options, again turning to those same corrupt individuals to save you (instead of relying on yourself), with the peoples' lack of effort once again digging them deeper until it seems like the way it is, is the only way.

Point being, to present a dystopia which is a real possibility that could have been easily avoided. And once in it, unlike so many other dystopias presented, the chance to turn it around if the people just try.

Yes, they're gloomy, depressing, and often horrific...but a big part of that is often the story leaves no way out. The bigger point might be--like with most dystopias--avoiding the conditions that get you there in the first place. Unlike most, give the people a way out if they'll just stand up and take it. So, along with the warnings, you can also give folks something to consider as to a better way for them to be, now, not after it's too late. And even then, realize there is always hope if you just try.

That leaves only the delivery part...I'm workin' on it

K2

 

[Brian G Turner]

Do you consider it?

The danger with this discussion is that it we talk about social responsibility that necessitates talking about social issues - something we don't cover here, because it leads to too many arguments.

You may find that's why some people are very hesitant to step into this discussion.

 

[Joshua Jones]

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.

Agreed, but our dystopias are also reflections of our cultural values and how we view them. In other words, the things which make a dystopia dystopic are based upon how we believe society should be, just as the things which make a utopian society utopic are based on how we believe society should be. So, in one sense, it's just as easy to write a dystopia as a utopia, because both are related to how one believes society should be.

I'm trying my level best to address this without delving into political topics... We may see a post-scarcity society as utopic because we value universal access to needs. In a more Spartan society, though, where it's believed that the struggle for what is wanted makes a person a better person, they may well see such a society as a dystopia. Someone from Ancient Rome would probably consider the Culture a ghastly dystopia. Again, it isn't just that we sneak our biases and opinions into are writing; it's that the very idea of what constitutes a dystopia or utopia is based upon what we value as chiefly good in a society. Do we value a free society or an orderly one? How one answers that question will determine if the world of 1984 is a dystopia or utopia.

 

[Toby Frost]

You may find that's why some people are very hesitant to step into this discussion.

Yep.

 

[Joshua Jones]

The danger with this discussion is that it we talk about social responsibility that necessitates talking about social issues - something we don't cover here, because it leads to too many arguments.

You may find that's why some people are very hesitant to step into this discussion.

I'm trying, Brian... you have no idea how many edits I had to make to my last post to avoid talking about contemporary issues...

 

[The Big Peat]

I believe everyone should have a social responsibility in what they do, and I believe most people do that for their given internal value of social responsibility (consciously or not).

The problem is there's not a lot of agreement on what's socially responsible.

 

[DLCroix]

The danger with this discussion is that it we talk about social responsibility that necessitates talking about social issues - something we don't cover here, because it leads to too many arguments.

You may find that's why some people are very hesitant to step into this discussion.

That's right, @Brian G Turner. I fully realize it. And thanks for the suggestion.
But, if you allow me, I want to explain why I proposed this thread. The idea came to my mind about some post I read in How Nasty are you?, the Dragonlady thread. Well, even though I may be absolutely wrong, it reminded me of some decisions I made before writing my stories.
More or less for me the central point of the subject has to do with the beauty of literary creation as the first objective that a writer should pursue with his works. In a word, look for Art. I see that in turn as an engine that can generate more positive ideas in people but, of course, as long as what is good and valuable is sought. And I think that needs no definition, because we all have a concept about it.

Therefore, from that perspective, I consider that a writer cannot write anything, or to think that paper can hold everything. That is, in terms of the topics to write about. This is, although some more or less violent events occur in some stories, I must first consider how to write those events; I cannot pretend that under the excuse of being realistic I end up making a praise of violence or for other evils that affect humanity.
In addition, to solve these issues there is the same language, and as one perceives the stylistic flight, one also discovers that there are elements such as rhythm, the type of prose, the combination of the same words in a sentence, etc., which in their together they originate the experience of language as a living organ and that is lived, such that by itself it ends up becoming sometimes the true theme and the story itself just an excuse to, say, feel more the music of the words as such that the very meaning of their combination.

Well, I admit that what I am saying is a bit risky, because I believe that here about topic versus form is already being discussed. However, I believe that when the writer manages to capture the beauty that can be obtained from the infinite ways of combining phrases and words, in effect, he begins to privilege the form more than the subject.
But this, I think, also has a positive effect on the choice of the very subject to write about. Since it is the search for beauty that guides the process, even the most complicated or obscure issues can be approached, say, with a certain elegance.
For example, with this very thing that I am writing now, I am expressing a commitment, since I am aware that there are many members of the forum who are young or some are just beginning to write and therefore it is possible that they do not fully understand what is here express. But I will try to summarize it in one sentence: if the writer writes something good, the reader receives something good.

 

[tinkerdan]

I think that before making broad statements about how a writer writing for himself is writing for no-one(maybe I got that wrong, but I don't think so):

We should look at authors who--after death--have all their work placed in libraries. available to the public(This includes work never published)[This happens because we are interested in the whole process of the writer].

Many of these authors wrote constantly and published whatever the market could bear and sometimes shelved what didn't seem to find a home. So, although there might be merit in the OP proposed social choice in writing, we live in a world of what the market can bear.

WTMCB drives what the author will write.

WTMCB = WTAWW

When we start talking about too much ethics or social responsibility--I start thinking of Fahrenheit 451 and all the books we should probably burn.

For instance:
I've always puzzled the existence of pornography.
If there were no market for it it would just fizzle out and go away.
It doesn't; hasn't ;probably won't--so, what's the social responsibility there?

I've tried not to step on anybody's toes here.

 

[Brian G Turner]

But I will try to summarize it in one sentence: if the writer writes something good, the reader receives something good.

And with that ideal, I'm going to close this thread before it goes really downhill.