What's your take? Writers as Responsible Invidivuals?

[wayfaringwordhack]

I've been facing a moral dilemma of sorts on an off and on again basis since I started writing. On one hand, I feel obliged by my own set of ethics to write about things that I hold to be important and that are "right" according to my own moral code. OTOH, I sometimes want to write something because the idea or character situation appeals to me, though the actions in the story are not nice and the "message" might be taken along the lines of "If it feels good, do it"--something I am very against in the normal course of things. I'm not speaking of writing about a disturbed individual, exploring the gutters of the mind without fear of censorship or finger pointing, and so on. I'm talking about making bad behavior come across as good and acceptable and thereby, perhaps, influencing someone toward an unhealthy or irresponsible action.

I think that writers should realize their works have an enormous potential to influence. But a part of me also thinks that they should be able to explore things and not necessarily be held accountable for what they present. Even typing each of those sentences gave me a squirmy "Yes, but" moment. A dilemma, as I said.

What about you? Do you believe what the basketballer Charles Barkley said, years ago, "I'm not a role model"? Or do you think it is an author's job to write stories that encourage what is accepted to be "proper" behavior? I'm not necessarily speaking of Books With a Message; no lessons or morals or propaganda. And, I use "responsible individual" in the sense of someone who, through their fiction, promotes good values.

Good values, now there's a bottomless pit of debate. Who decides what is "good," what is "right"?

Nonetheless, I don't want to get into the importance, or lack thereof, that diverse societies put on certain mores and how core values can differ across cultures. I believe that most cultures hold murder, lying, and theft in contempt, but most also allow a certain understanding for reprehensible conduct under extreme circumstances. Then there is the whole gamut of white-to-black shades in which people paint instances of in/fidelity to a sexual partner, dis/loyalty to friends and family, not to mention the oft unnamed "qualities" that are byproducts of our cultures such as Individualism or Community. I want to know what you do with the mores *you* have.

Assuming that you are part of culture which believes in honesty, fidelity, loyalty, sense of community, do you think it is acceptable to glorify actions that counter these values? To make characters cool who break the rules because it feels good and serves their purposes as a free individual? Think "heroin chic" fad and all the people who thought (and still think) it was cool and sexy to look used-up and strung-out because of a bunch of fashion ads.

To take it from another angle, what if your personal views will taint you as an intolerant bigot or a wimp or (insert proper insult here) and you know this? Will you still write what you believe, or will you bow to pressure to include characters and ideals that you personally do not hold because you think your story will sell better?

To date, I don't think I've ever written something that went against my moral grain or something whose heart spoke against my values. But I often think about what I'm truly saying. And if I don't like it, I try to find a way to bend it to something I do believe. I take the time to question myself on the first unacceptable idea and why it occurred to me in such a way in the first place.

I guess I am my first censor. Are you?

Comments

[ruvdraba.livejournal.com]

This is one I've wanted to discuss in a larger group for a while. Aside from finger-wags against plagiarism I'm not aware of an ethical framework for fiction writers. Journalists, however, have a very comprehensive ethical framework. For example here (http://www.spj.org/ethics.asp).

I don't believe that one can pretend to professionalism until one has a robust ethical framework in which to practice. Ethics and a focus on outcome and impact over merely process, output and profit are what separates a profession from merely a job.

That said, entertainment in general and art in particular, is intrinsically about pushing the edges of what is acceptable, and seeking alternative views of present circumstance.

A core ethical value for medical professions is "Do no harm". While I would like to see that at the core of arts and entertainment too, it clearly can't be. Contact sports, for instance, simply can't hold that value and be what they are. In literature, any idea you have can be used for purposes you didn't conceive. The same is true in scientific innovation. Ideas are dangerous things.

Literature is exaggerated, emotive, and personally and socially destabilising. Protagonists are never like real people; situations are never quite realistic and readers don't want to read about minor setbacks - they want catastrophes and disasters.

I'm still chewing on this; I have no immediate wisdom. It's a topic I'll be raising very early in a forthcoming discussion group on yahoo. I'll send you an invite.

[mnfaure.livejournal.com]

Actually, your post about chix taking over fantasy brought this up again in my mind and made me think about the themes we tackle and what they say about us as people and, in the larger sense, as a species. From that topic, I thought you were trying to get to a discussion about "write what you value" and "don't put too much value on one thing at the expense of other, equally important things."

I agree about needing a robust ethical framework in which to practice the trade. It inspires confidence in the reader, makes for a truer voice, and creates all-important resonance because the writer is the first one convinced. I think a certain detrimental wishwashiness can come through in the author's work who is not secure in what they believe and why they believe it. That is not to say that I think fiction cannot be used to help the writer build and continually test the strength of that framework. That's one of the draws of writing for me, in fact--exploring things I believe in or wonder about in a variety of circumstances with diverse characters.

Your highlighting of outcome and impact over the other more "commercial" aspects of the trade is a good distinction to make on the scale of professionalism. One might argue that a "true" professional would write whatever they are paid to produce, but my definition would be "a person who would not lower their standards or go against their values for a mere paycheck." So, that goes back to my continuing to write stories with values I hold to be true.

That said, entertainment in general and art in particular, is intrinsically about pushing the edges of what is acceptable, and seeking alternative views of present circumstance.

Do we push the edges for affirmation, negation, or sheer shock value, and if so, what do each of those things say about us? I like the idea of "alternative views" because it furthers understanding overall. It does, however, have the effect of making one feel very very very small and insignificant the farther you take it. Not necessarily a bad thing, I don't guess.

In literature, any idea you have can be used for purposes you didn't conceive

So true.

Ideas are dangerous things.

Ditto.

Protagonists are never like real people; situations are never quite realistic and readers don't want to read about minor setbacks - they want catastrophes and disasters.

Yes, and keeping the fiction human-sized and the dilemmas pertinent to real life in amidst readers'/tv-watchers'/moviegoers' cries for "BIGGER, LOUDER, FASTER" can be a challenge.

Looking forward to the invite.

[ruvdraba.livejournal.com]

It's up at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sff-writing-controversy

I'm too technically incapable to issue a proper e-invitation, so please consider this to be it. :D

[kmkibble75.livejournal.com]

In certain respects, I am.

See, I have no problem writing a villain who, in his PoV, thinks genocide is right and necessary. My goal in that situation is to get the reader to think that the bad guy could be someone they'd want to hang out with, if the bad guy had only been born someplace with nicer beliefs. There's a risk in sounding promotional toward true evil in that sense when in the bad guy PoV, but at the same time, it'd be cheap and lazy to make the bad guy know what he was doing was evil. That's almost a cop out for me.

On the other hand, there's a situation I have with a certain character of mine where, though I'm not sure it's going to even come into play, I plan on having her stay an innocent maiden until a reasonable equivalent of marriage occurs. This isn't because I think premaritial sex is wrong (other characters will make up for her lack of it), but because if just one young person out there uses this character as an role model or whatever so he/she's not pressured into doing something he/she doesn't want to, then I think it's worth it.

In other words, I do think we should be mindful of the possible influence we have over the readers, but I don't think we should be afraid of it. Trust your readers to know better, and trust yourself to do the same.

[mnfaure.livejournal.com]

In other words, I do think we should be mindful of the possible influence we have over the readers, but I don't think we should be afraid of it.

That sums it up nicely.

I think that, as you pointed out, a lot of time the dilemma of where to draw the line comes into question in those situations like you cited with your villain. In being true to the character and treating your readers like intelligent people, you need to present bad people and bad situations in a layered light. Not very many things in this world are black and white.

That was one of my most painful lessons of growing up.

[frigg.livejournal.com]

Hmmmm interesting. I don't think I could ever advocate something I felt was wrong, morally or otherwise, as something good and correct. On the other hand, to me, one of the main issues of art is to make its audience think - not provocation merely for the sake of provocation, but seeing things from the other side of the mirror.

I feel that that in many cases opens up for understanding other people and their actions. Understanding shouldn't necessarily mean that one condones the action or even accepts it, though.

[mnfaure.livejournal.com]

This is taking a leap away from "writers as responsible invidiuals," but one of the things I have difficulity with in RL is understanding. Some things are just beyond my ken or capacity for empathy, and that makes me wonder if I have what it takes to be a writer. I mean, if I can't truly comprehend something--or someone and their motives and actions--how can I present the other side convincingly?

My fiction will forever be slanted. Is there something wrong with that? Maybe not, but I guess it means I may not ever be able to help someone else come to a greater understanding of themselves and others.

[frigg.livejournal.com]

I think that because we are individuals, we might consciously observe the reasoning behind an action, but if it's a reasoning we cannot in some way relate to, then I guess all that comes down on paper is a projection. If the projection is accurate enough and if it is not necessary for the reader to relate to the character, it will probably not pose that much of a problem.

Funnily enough, this empathy or capacity for understanding doesn't seem to relate in anyway to the severity of the action - for me at least.

[mnfaure.livejournal.com]

No, the severity rarely has anything to do with it for me either. It is more the nature of the action.

[renakuzar.livejournal.com]

If you write about what you believe in, you can write more impassioned prose. The trick is not to set up strawmen and knock them down, but to give the characters convincing choices to make and show the consequences of their choices, both when their choices agree with your own, and when their choices disagree with yours. Sometimes the consequences of choosing like you would should be dire, as they are indeed in real life.

[mnfaure.livejournal.com]

Good point about strawmen, and I think that is where it can get shaky for me on the ethics ground. I want to make the so-called baddies real; and sometimes, it seems to me, to do that you have to show how their actions, while borderline to all-out "bad" to the mores of a certain society or religion, are perfectly acceptable to them and should be--again, according to "bad" character--acceptable to society at large because, after all, who among us can sit up as judge or apply a blanket of do's and don't's to every action, irregardless of circumstance?

I guess for me, the trick is walking the fine line of telling it true and not glamorizing things I don't believe in, all without pushing people around to my way of thinking.

No, no pushing, but I will lead you all there someday! *bwahahaha* ;o)

Seriously though, your point about consequences is equally important. Those consequences also play a role in reinforcing either "good" or "bad" behavior. I don't think anyone wants all good to always happen to their characters because, well, that just isn't realistic. Life doesn't work that way, so why should fiction? Same goes for bad consequences always coming from bad actions. It's a tricky balance for this writer. :)

And now you've given me some things to think about for my stories. And my thoughts are tying in with "make your characters hurt and suffer," a concept I always have difficulty in applying. I feel like I'm on the brink of something here, really being able to implement this for the first time. It's nebulous, but I think it just might coalesce this time. Thanks, Walt!