Words    Words    Words

• 1 Kiki // Feb 14, 2008 at 11:50 pm

  Yeah, an author has the responsibility to achieve her or his fullest potential in their work, and not to talk down to, or abridge, or otherwise alter their artistic vision to suit a particular age of reader. I think it’s fine to have a certain audience in mind for a work, but a superlative children’s book is no less a work of art than “War and Peace”.

  Authors have a responsibility to strive for their best, always. Librarians have the responsibility to sort and select and recommend. *grin*

• 2 Steve // Feb 14, 2008 at 11:56 pm

  Man, this is a fun one =D It’s also something I’ve thought about before in relation to technical matters.

  Thinking about it, I think almost everyone causes incredible amounts of damage by their lack of knowledge. Did you know that spam and malware are mostly caused by the ginormous numbers of people who are doing the equivalent of drunk PC using - running Windows, maybe or maybe not using anti-virus, and running heavily infected computers? Those are the factories were all the nastyness is made, and I’m betting several people replying here are part of it without even knowing it. We don’t take away your (nonexistent) license to get on the internet if you unknowingly infect yourself, but we do take away your license to drive for driving drunk.

  (the monetary cost is astounding and potential cost in human life horrific, so it’s not as bad an analogy as it seems.)

  I would (and do) have a major problem with someone who refuses to change their behavior when it would be easy and simple simply due to tradition or fear. This is assuming that it’s not an issue under contention, though.

  I’d say most people just don’t care enough about anything specialized (be it computers or writing) no matter how involved they are on it. As long as the damage they do doesn’t seem to hurt them, it’s really easy to avoid the issue by simply not thinking about it. This is really one of the greatest evils in existence, and I think harms society more then any amount of crime or bad intentions. In the end, it would mostly make me lose respect for the writer as a person. If I tried to say they were morally wrong for it, I’m sure someone could show me lots of background of their life which made the issue much less simple.

• 3 touchstone // Feb 14, 2008 at 11:57 pm

  I’d have to say no…an author writing fiction doesn’t have a /responsibility/ to do anything more than entertain. To say that they do would be to say that when an author writes a book that is ‘merely’ entertaining, they’ve committed some sort of moral wrong…and I think that’s silly.

  That said, it’s wonderful when a book inspires, informs, enlightens, or makes us grow. Good authors, I think, aspire to write those books when they can. But not every book will be, nor /should/ they be.

• 4 touchstone // Feb 15, 2008 at 12:15 am

  To give an example, I know I am bored to death of passive female protagonists — passive protagonists in general, really — who don’t actually DO anything but are simply tugged along by the story and the characters around them. This is annoying, and bad writing, but is it actually irresponsible?

  To address this part specifically - I’m uncomfortable with some of the implications of ‘irresponsible’ here, but I’d say it would be…let’s call it ‘unprofessional’ for YOU to write such a book. You think it’s bad writing. Writing is your craft. Deliberately writing a book you think is of poor quality would be like a carpenter building a house she knows is going to fall apart in the first big storm.

  Whether it would be unprofessional of someone ELSE to write it would depend on whether they had the capacity to do better!

  Realizing that this seems a bit contradictory with my first reply, let me tie them together - back to that carpenter again. The world needs both concert halls and garden sheds, and there are places for each of them. But if you take pride in your work, when you build a garden shed you build the best one you’re able with the materials you have.

• 5 skzb // Feb 15, 2008 at 12:19 am

  Interesting questions, Kit. I should point out, though, that if you object to characters who are pushed around by events, you’re objecting to the entire career of Phil Dick (with the possible exception of *The Man Who Japped*).

• 6 Stickyboy // Feb 15, 2008 at 1:04 am

  Even if you’re referring to just fictional stories there have been novels such as those by Orwell, Wilde, and others that have, perhaps unintentionally, shaped government policies and even cultures. Broadening your definition of “author”, the writings of Dobrica Cosic and Vuk Draskovic had a profound effect on the mindset of the people in the Balkans leading up to the wars there in the 90s.

  So I would say that, as authors may wield influence of which they themselves are unaware, there is some responsibility that could be mentioned. Not the kind that could realistically translate into post-facto accountability, but there you have it.

• 7 TPRJones // Feb 15, 2008 at 2:11 am

  I think it’s entirely relative, and depends on the author, the audience, and the expectations of the genre.

  If the genre is pulp romance, then the expectations are that the story can be understood with a minimum of mental effort, that it will be entertaining, and that there will be at least one sex scene. If the genre is quantum physics textbooks, then the expectations are that the information will be accurate and that the examples and analogies used in the text will make understanding as readily available to the reader as possible.

  I would say that the fantasy and science fiction genres have an obligation to be both entertaining and “interesting”. Interesting here can mean presenting new and original ideas; it can mean rehashing old ideas in a new way; it can mean presenting moral philosophy in the form of the story in new and original ways; it can mean presenting a story so well told as to be impressive in it’s own right. The expectation for these genres is that a book needs to be more than merely entertaining to be worth taking up the shelf space, and being merely entertaining without being “interesting” is at best a minor failure.

  Fantasy and science fiction are interactive genres. If it doesn’t make you think while you read it, it has failed at some level.

• 8 helgaleena // Feb 15, 2008 at 7:22 am

  Fantasy and science fiction are interactive genres. If it doesn’t make you think while you read it, it has failed at some level.

  YES!!!

  Also, as an editor who just had an e-press pulled out from under me, I would like to point out that it is an author’s duty to promote themselves in the Real World. With the funny hat and the bird on the fist and the drum set. Presses can only do so much to make you a legend. And we NEED legends, yes we do.

• 9 Ginger // Feb 15, 2008 at 7:28 am

  I think that adults as well as kids often are “finding themselves at least partly through the media they consume,” so I think the question can apply to adult media as well. We worry more about the answer with media intended for children, because we tend to assume they’re more vulnerable to outside influences.

  For me, a story where all the women are weak-willed and passive is not an entertaining one, so the story would probably fail on either count.

• 10 lynedd // Feb 15, 2008 at 7:39 am

  Madeline l’Engle wrote some beautiful words about the responsibility of an author to serve the spirit of their story. I often turn to her thoughts for inspiration and/or reassurance when I’m struggling with my own work.

  As an author, I believe I do have a responsibility to my audience. Not just to be certain I’m telling them something really cool (thanks to Steven for that), but to be certain that my telling is as honest to the characters and story as I can make it. If I am serving the Truth (not the facts, but universal truths of love, courage, honesty, things like that), then my story will be better, my characters will be livelier, and my readers will not only be entertained, they may also be inspired. Writing for the YA audience, I hope to inspire, although I am not so proud as to think that I can direct that inspiration.

  The other banner over my desk reads “But would I let my children read it?” …my responsibility to my audience is to write my best about difficult things, but to write in a way I would let my own children read. Hopefully. Honestly. Inspirationally.

  The narrator of my current WIP begins as that passive character, but (I hope) grows to take over the active role in the story. Partly because he just does, and I can’t make him do otherwise (stubborn boy); partly because that’s what I want to tell my audience. Being a child in this culture, there is a lot of that feeling of being dragged along by forces beyond control. I want to show my kids (all my kids - there’s that responsibility) that it doesn’t have to be so; choosing our reactions to situations gives us control.

  Thank you for the question.

• 11 Jason // Feb 15, 2008 at 8:16 am

  We talked about this kind of thing a lot in my MFA program. My position is that I don’t have a responsibility to anyone but myself, and to anything but my story, when I write. Others thought differently, and that’s fine.

  As to your “passive characters” reference: It reminded me of Charles Baxter’s essay, Dysfunctional Narratives, Or “Mistakes Were Made”. Interesting connections between literature, culture, and the Nixon administration(!). I asked him how well he thought the Bush administration fit into his theory (confident of the answer I’d get) and his head almost exploded as he vented for a few minutes. Funny stuff. And an interesting essay.

• 12 Kelly // Feb 15, 2008 at 8:49 am

  Like Beetlejuice, say “moral obligation” three times fast, and you’re likely to have an ethicist drop into the room,… ;-)

  In a way, Kit, your question is an extension of the Hollywood/music industry/role model debate - should rap music be explicit and (potentially) derogatory in how it addresses women, or should all artists have Will Smith’s outlook (or grandmother)? Does being in the public eye, and able to affect perception (which writing certainly can do) come with an added obligation or social contract to be responsible in what you say, how you act, and the information you put out?

  The question is actually at the heart of my dissertation, so I don’t necessarily have an answer yet, just a lot of thoughts and questions. But my inclination is to say that you can change people’s intuitive responses by framing the question slightly differently - or changing the information they have before you ask the question. For example, if you ask someone if it’s irresponsible for a TV show to indicate that CPR is 70% effective, most people will shrug and say “it’s TV…” But if you tell them that the reality is, CPR is rarely 30% effective for longterm (more than a week) survival, and has only a 15% chance of actually reviving someone at that time, their attitude quite often changes, and they think it is irresponsible to “give” people information that’s so blatantly incorrect.

  Fact of the matter is, we do subconsciously absorb the information being presented to us, in all media forms (and will often remember later as “knowing” the information without knowing where we got it from). Given that, I am inclined to think that there is at least a responsibility to present information *accurately* - this does not, however, mean positively.

  Of course, that admittedly opens up a whole realm of “what does accurate mean” in terms of music, writing, etc. It’s much easier to define when limiting the scope to television and movies.

• 13 scamis // Feb 15, 2008 at 9:09 am

  I don’t know about moral responsibility, but I think it’s bad writing to have a passive protagonist if they don’t suffer serious consequences from being so. In the real world, being passive will mess you up. At the least, you can wind up in a bad marriage and/or a job you hate. If things or your associates are a little less safe, you can wind up in much more serious trouble.

  In my as-yet-unpublished novel, I have one character, a young girl, who is very passive. Once she’s away from her family who trained her to be that way, this characteristic proceeds to annoy the people around her and to create all kinds of problems for her, up until the point she decides to start Doing Something, at which point all problems are not solved but things do start going a little better. I consider that my interjection of realism into fantasy :)

• 14 Matt Arnold // Feb 15, 2008 at 9:53 am

  No.

  There, wasn’t that simple? Next question.

• 15 Jason // Feb 15, 2008 at 9:54 am

  In my opinion, I think there are times were a passive protagonist is called for. In fiction, for example, what better way is there to garner sympathy for the protagonist who is pushed into certain situations. What I see happening, which may be what you are referring to, is that this becomes a crutch for many writers.

  What responsibilities should a writer have? They have one to themselves, sure, if they like what they do and they enjoy producing work for their readers. They have responsibilities to their publishers to help bring in more readers and create revenue for the business. Is it their responsibility to create certain sorts of characters? Maybe only as the story calls for it.

  Literature impacts society today just as it did 200 years ago. In our ancient past before the alphabet was created, stories were passed down from generation to generation. These stories helped shape civilization today. How are books any different from these same stories except in written form?

• 16 Gareth Ellzey // Feb 15, 2008 at 10:03 am

  Interestingly, the romance novel genre has more ’spunky’ female protagonists than most ‘mainstream’ books. Yes, the feisty heroine tames the dominant hero and everybody falls into softcore porn bed, but the heroine is a PERSON, not a plot device or a leg ornament for the guy who is doing the REAL business. Check it out.
  So yes, don’t pull any punches for the kiddies; they’re already playing WoW or Resident Evil or some such. Powerful female protagonists, who yet do not forsake their own nature and just become guys in girl suits are important to both genders.

• 17 JeninMontreal // Feb 15, 2008 at 10:05 am

  You said “I should point out, though, that if you object to characters who are pushed around by events, you’re objecting to the entire career of Phil Dick”. Particularly in reference to young adult fiction, this is quite telling. There are more articles than I would care to count written regarding young people feeling helpless and resorting to cutting, drugs, etc. etc. to simply ‘feel’ something. They’re getting paranoid and scared. - Sounds like Monsieur Dick to me. Perhaps some writers are simply reflecting this. As to responsibility, it, like beauty, is usually in the eye of the beholder.

• 18 Ker_Thwap // Feb 15, 2008 at 10:31 am

  The author has no moral responsibility whatsoever for the content of their books.

  Moral obligations come into play during the marketing and distribution phase however. Just to ensure the product is as advertised.

  Specific to female protagonists, I’m a father to two teenage daughters. It’s my job to steer them towards books I feel are more or less role modelish. Where the book deviates from my parental brainwashing agenda, I discuss it with my kids. Well, I pretty much read all the books my kids read and we discuss them.

  For example, my sixteen year old and I agree that “The Wayfarer Redemption” series by Sarah Douglass in which nearly every character gets raped (as well as the land) as part of some preplanned destiny isn’t exactly the cheeriest book. The prevailing thesis that everything must be destroyed, raped, or killed before it can be reborn pure seems to be some sort of personal therapeutic writing project for Ms. Douglass.

  Still, it’s my moral obligation to keep this book away from my 14 year old, who I deem not quite ready for the subject matter, not the author’s.

• 19 Joan // Feb 15, 2008 at 10:50 am

  I think it depends on the kind of author and what he/she is writing. Usually for a YA novel the responsibility would be to entertain. Yet if one’s writing a philisophical book wouldn’t the responsibility be to merely get the reader to think? If you’re writing non fiction the responsibility would then be to inform the reader…Historical fiction might be not only to entertain, but in a way also to inform…I think your question is answered definitely case by case.

• 20 Chris // Feb 15, 2008 at 10:51 am

  IMO, this question has two parts:

  Part 1) What is every writer’s responsibility? Write without intent to deceive, write without intent to harm.

  Part 2) Other than that, write whatever you want that makes you happy. If, however, having readers makes you happy, then fulfill the basic obligations of a fiction writer: to tell a story as well as possible, that your readers will find worth their time to read.

  Every reader will have their own answers to that. As long as you can find enough readers (or they can find you) who share your answers, you’re doing fine.

  For me, the only universal thing that will drive me away from a story is “soapboxing.” When you sacrifice the integrity of your characters or your story to make personal/ political/ social/ contemporary points, you’ve lost me almost immediately. If you couldn’t build the views into the characters and plot–if you actually have to interrupt the flow of your work to spout your views–then you aren’t a good enough writer to be spouting them, and I’ve got plenty of other books waiting to be read.

  For YA writing, there’s a huge range of variance in what is “allowed,” and I don’t know what your answer will be, and I’m having trouble coming up with a clear one myself.

  I see two kinds of fiction that get lumped into YA, and they have nothing to do with each other:
  one is “excellent fiction in which the plot is never driven by sexuality,” and you can lump extraordinary books in there like Ender’s Game or Sabriel. If I had my way, this wouldn’t be considered YA at all since these books are in no way inferior to “adult” fiction, but they don’t consult me on these things.

  Another kind of YA is overtly sexual, but about teens and tweens discovering their bodies, and learning to form romantic attachments, such as in Judy Blume books. I’m not bothered by this, because American teens are (on paper) kept so puritanically sheltered that I think ANY way they can start bringing these things into their worldview is better than the rampant “none” they’re permitted now.

  I have no idea if the two ever collide successfully in sci-fi or fantasy.

• 21 Tom // Feb 15, 2008 at 11:22 am

  This seems like an invalid example.

  If you know passive female characters are boring, and your requirements are entertainment plus maybe responsibility, you would automatically fail on the entertainment side…

• 22 Sarah // Feb 15, 2008 at 12:10 pm

  Trouble, I find there can be a blurry line between an “active” and a “passive” character, and it’s not always obvious to young readers (or older readers, sometimes). For instance, when I read The Woman In White in high school, I despised Laura as a useless twit. Re-reading it a few years ago, I realized she was stubbornly determined to do what she believed was right, no matter the cost to herself; this actually makes her pretty similar to the other, more obviously heroic characters- the villains get away with it for several hundred pages mainly because the good guys keep listening to their consciences rather than their gut feelings.

  On a related note, while I know it isn’t necessarily the sort of “active” you or the other people in this thread have in mind….I have a longstanding hate for historical novels with spunky heroines who wear pants, fight, etc and never get any real negative reaction from the society around them…

• 23 reesa // Feb 15, 2008 at 12:39 pm

  In addition to the other fine comments already here, I’d add that I don’t think that a writer is more or less responsible on this issue if it’s YA or adult novels. We’ll take as accepted that a well-written YA novel is just as much a novel as any other well-written book; it has its own guidelines and structure, but so do romance novels, and mysteries, and sff work, and…

  Anyway, you’re no more or less responsible on these issues, as a writer, because you as the writer have no idea whose hands will be holding that finished product. I had my YA book-reading era as a kid, but not for long, and certainly by age 12 I was reading entirely adult-market novels. Your words will have the power to reach others, but you as the writer don’t have much control over which others. And like a previous commenter mentioned, it’s just as possible for adults to have new insights, realizations, epiphanies, and other manifestations of “finding themselves through media” as it is for children.

  As the writer, any responsibilities you have are to the story–in telling the best form of the story that your skills, capabilities, and writer developmental level will allow. This allows for both mind-candy *and* literary caviar in storytelling as well as in reading selection.

• 24 Miramon // Feb 15, 2008 at 1:54 pm

  I think the YA or children’s writer does have some responsibility that is different from an ordinary fiction writer, whose responsibility is minimal, merely to avoid deliberately promulgating falsehood disguised as truth.

  We must suppose that the average adult reader is capable of distinguishing fictional opinions of characters from the truths of the real world, and if their opinions and policies are changed after reading, it’s because they were able to make a mature decision of their own. That may not always be true, but let’s hope it is generally true.

  But that assumption doesn’t hold for children as readers.

  I don’t believe there is any positive obligation for authors to write moral or uplifting entertainment for children, but there is a kind of hidden polemic that can occur in fiction which I think many children are not equipped to process. Sometimes it’s not so hidden, for that matter.

  Have you never heard kids parroting the crazy ideas they’ve gotten out of books written by authors who didn’t even believe what their characters are arguing for? Think of the evil propaganda spewed into the minds of Palestinian children, for the most gross example I can think of, but there are plenty of other examples closer to home.

  Since younger minds are relatively malleable and plastic, and are readily willing to accept impressions when those are clearly articulated by admired people and characters, I think that YA and children’s writers should try to avoid strongly making a case for the writers’ political, social and religious beliefs, if they have any sense of fair play at all.

  Of course it would be impossible for authors to avoid giving any sense at all of what they think is good and right and just, but there is a certain kind of presentation of supposedly right behavior in fictional characters (for whom right behavior is artificially rewarded by auctorial omnipotence) that is quite unfair when inflicted on children who do not recognize that they are being manipulated.

  So basically, I think the writer’s responsibility is proscriptive, to avoid going too far in some areas, rather than prescriptive, to positively offer up some kind of writing.

• 25 Mudd // Feb 15, 2008 at 4:06 pm

  I am not by any means a writer. But I am curious about you folks that are. Do you talk like you write?? No matter what I write, reports, email, letters, etc. it sounds like me talking. When you write does it sound the same way as when you are talking to someone??

• 26 skzb // Feb 15, 2008 at 4:08 pm

  First, I would agree that what responsibility there is or isn’t, it makes no difference if you are targeting a YA audience or anyone else. For YA novels, there are inherent restrictions that come with the field, but that’s a different question. Kids are not the “blank slate” many believe, nor are adults as impervious to influence as many of the same people appear to think.

  Second, a story ought to tell the truth within its framework of lies. That is, it ought not to depict people as they aren’t; it ought not to bring up difficult questions and then pretend there are easy answers; it ought not to reinforce destructive prejudices.

  Third, as a few people have implied, the line between “this fails the moral test” and “this fails the entertainment test” is rather blurry. Reading about a character who wanders around among passive women, lazy Hispanics, and weak, effeminate gay men is going to fail on both counts–they play into each other.

  Fourth, while “responsibility” is an ill-defined term in this context, I certainly think that saying, “I thought this book was weakened because it makes assumptions about human character that I believe are wrong,” or, “the book fails becaused it is built around and depends on a societal structure that in my opinion could never work,” are perfectly valid criticisms.

• 27 helgaleena // Feb 15, 2008 at 5:58 pm

  No, Mudd, my accent is totally different in person.

  And internal logic lacking in a book automatically fails it for any purpose whatever, be it edification or entertainment. Authors I work with sometimes can’t or won’t be logical. Nearly all of them try for it.

• 28 skzb // Feb 15, 2008 at 6:32 pm

  Mudd::24:: Interesting question. I write in all sorts of different ways, and talk in all sorts of different ways. I haven’t actually ever thought about comparing them. I should think about that.

• 29 schmwarf // Feb 15, 2008 at 6:52 pm

  skzb@27 - I’m guessing you talk more like Vlad than Paafri. But not thinking about it is probably a good thing in the creative sense.

• 30 ~Easy // Feb 16, 2008 at 9:11 am

  Ditto to what Matt said.

• 31 dust // Feb 16, 2008 at 10:52 am

  I’m struggling to remember where I read this, but I think John Gardner said that writers have to keep in mind the next person who reads your book may be on the edge of suicide. My opinion is that you can’t separate the job of being a human being from that of being a writer; it’s one of those sine qua non things. So if you’re a human being and not a walking meat sack, you’re responsible. Guilty? No. But responsible.

  But are writers morally obligated to stress active protagonists? Are passive protagonists always wrong or boring? Must all women in YA books kick butt, at the risk of corrupting society, just as they used to have to be passive homebodies, also at the risk of corrupting society?

  It’s a complex situation, but I think if writers just do what they believe to be entertaining, soundly put together, with a smidgen of tolerance for human weakness, they’ll probably be ok.

• 32 Chris // Feb 16, 2008 at 2:18 pm

  Mudd@24: That’s a great question, one that every writer ought to ask early, early on. The usual way I see it asked is: “read your writing out loud, in a conversational tone. Is it comfortable, does it sound like you?”

  Personally, I think you should make the answer “yes” before you try to write effectively in other voices. But then I think every poet should master rhyme and meter first, and every painter should master realism first. What do I know?

• 33 lynedd // Feb 17, 2008 at 8:01 am

  Mudd, yes, and no…

  I can’t help sounding like myself when I write, because it’s me using the words. Every author has a “voice,” some more recognizable than others. Excellent authors will be able to write with several accents (if you like), adapting to the style of their story, but if you know an author well you can probably pick out the voice behind the adaptation.

  …but I don’t speak the same way I write stories; that’d be exhausting sometimes. Also, any published writing will have been extensively edited (or should be - insert rant here), but if I’m talking to you, I have no edit button to clean up the grammatical errors or misplaced words.

  My personal journal may be closer to how I sound face to face, but I edit that, too ‘>

  I like Chris’s answer.

• 34 Gar Lipow // Feb 17, 2008 at 11:40 am

  It is too easy to say that reinforcing an evil prejudice or viewpoint is automatically not entertaining. I can think of some really evil tropes that are widespread and included in some artistically excellent works.

  For example, the trope where the situation is so serious that the good guys use torture (possibly undergoing moral agonizing first). Yeah it increased post 911, but it was part of American culture forever. Just about every police show for decades have included the “good cop” using torture in an exreme situation. Law & Order cops routinely playing “slappy face” with criminals preceded 911. Heck you even used the trope in Cowboy Feng’s space bar and grill when the hero asks the convert to physically torture the villain since he can’t bring himself to do it, and uses emotional torture (based on the villain’s phobias and prejudices) to do so. Of course this saves the universe. (Disclosure, I really like Cowboy Feng’s.)

  Does the how common this is in American fiction (and I think English language fiction in general) simply reflect a widespread acceptance of torture in our world? Or does it help reinforce it.

  Similarly, I think the existence of rape scenes in fiction does less harm than what I call the “happy rape” where frantic struggles on the part of the woman turn into passionate caresses. I will note that as rape becomes less acceptable in our culture, you see fewer scenes of this sort. I don’t a think soap opera would create a “Luke & Laura” today.

  So two questions, the first one I’ve already asked: is stuff like this merely a reflection of what happens in society, or does it significantly reinforce these ideas and help them spread and grow. (Yeah, my guess is the latter.)

  If they do have such affects, should writers avoid them regardless of whether they improve the story artistically? If it turns out the fiction has helped increase the U.S. acceptance of torture, does anyone for example, think we should ask writers to sign a voluntary pledge that using torture will never turn out to be the right thing to do in their fiction, even if it makes for a better story? Given that we can make guesses, but won’t know for sure, is the mere possibility reason enough to ask a writer for such a pledge?

  Or is there an artistic responsibility that an artist taking such a pledge would be violating? Is the harm from this sort of self-censorship in response to social pressure worse than any hypothetical harm from the spreading of these tropes?

  My vote on both “happy rape” and “torture” is for self-censorship on the part of writers, and even mild social pressure. (”I’d really respect writers who took such a pledge” that sort of thing.) I’ve been wrong on things before, though.

• 35 MirthfulDragon // Feb 17, 2008 at 3:14 pm

  Of course writers have a responsibility to do more than entertain. Whether an author takes up that responsibility is another question entirely. As to the first question, the question really is what the writer is writing about, and how he or she plans, hopes, and desires to entertain the reader. There are as many ways to do so as there are writers. In choosing the medium, if you will, that the writer tells his or her story, there should be a reason for that.

  Now, my point isn’t some massive, drawn-out social commentary about communication and readership. Rather, take a simple example - a writer would only want writes about “cool stuff,” to tell a simply entertaining story. What that cool stuff is - space ships, magic, talking animals, rapiers, barbarians, whathaveyou - says something about both the reader and the author.

  It may be easier to show my point in the reverse. As I think about all the *terrible* books I’ve read, the one thing they have in common is that they fail to embrace that responsibility. They do not “tell the truth within [the] framework of lies,” but rather fail in their choice of media to convey anything.

  As for passive v. active protagonists, even the choice of a passive protagonist says something, from the author to the reader, is a choice about responsibility. *Why* is the protagonist active or passive - what does it add or subtract or say about the story?

  On another note, I do agree that passive protagonists are dull and unentertaining - and I would say that, without a more compelling reason for the protagonist to be passive, it is irresponsible. Whether the writer or the reader realizes it or intends it, a passive protagonist says much about the story. It may very well be that neither the author nor the reader understands what the passivity is saying - but that passivity says something, and if the writer is not taking responsibility for what he or she is saying, then whats the point of writing in the first place?

• 36 skzb // Feb 17, 2008 at 5:12 pm

  Good post, Gar. You raised some excellent points. One thing to consider is this: actions have consequences. One of the things that makes a story fulfilling is the examination of consequences. By “examination” I don’t mean anything as simplistic as, “Do a bad thing and bad things will happen,” I mean an honest exploration of what the results of certain actions would be under the circumstances of the book. And if you are writing a story where, because of the particular setup, horrific actions have no consequences, one is entitled to wonder why you’re doing so.

  This is one of the places where moral considerations and good storytelling intersect.

• 37 Ker_Thwap // Feb 18, 2008 at 7:45 am

  Morals are rarely so cut and dried in the real world. One pers0n often finds another person’s morals repugnant. To suggest that an author should refrain from addressing certain issues seems impractical. You’re just as likely to offend someone preaching pacifist morals as you are preaching warlike morals.

  Every time you put out an idea publicly you rely on your audience to filter your words through their own experiences. Conversely, every time I read an idea that disturbs me, I have to ask myself if the author is a jerk, or are they trying to shock me with a cautionary tale. It’s not always obvious, because the good guys don’t always win in the real world.

  Fantasy authors so often fall into the “the entire universe will be destroyed story,” that seemingly any and all moral objections seem kind of trite in comparison.

  I’d propose that everyone read about Sherman’s march to the sea. It’s a real life scenario in which there are huge amounts of conflicting moral consequences. I see no reason fantasy authors should hold themselves to higher/lower (depending on your point of view) standards than a historian.

  Tell your stories as you wish and let the audience decide how to react to it.

• 38 Mudd // Feb 19, 2008 at 4:53 pm

  Why do people read though? If it is for entertainment is gruesome going to entertain. If it is for realism why read fantasy? There was a short story written about a planet who’s ruling class of lawmaker had to submit to torture and disfigurement to sit on the council. It was written by one of the good old boys of sci fi. It still gives me nightmares. And geez who can forget Those Who Walk Away From Omilas (sp?) I think by Ursula LeGuin.

• 39 ker_thwap // Feb 20, 2008 at 12:01 am

  Maybe the author was railing against the vain “John Edwards fixing his hair” type of politicians, I have no clue really, since I haven’t read it. Just the premise makes me examine my theories on why politicians run for office, and what might happen in our world if we required more from candidates. Would you get only the super power hungry, or only those that really want to serve the public? I’d be interested in reading it.

  I can only think of one book that I didn’t finish because it truly disturbed me. “Geek Love” by Katherine Dunn is possibly the most bizarre book ever. My step-brother loved it, however. Is it because he’s a weird ass pervert, or because he just wanted to examine how we perceive perfection in society? Is it art, or is it just shocktastic drivel?

  Jacqueline Carey’s Kushiel series have an interesting S & M thing going that’s somehow tasteful and integral to the theme of the books. Other authors stuff low grade porn into otherwise perfectly good sword and sorcery novels, which make me perceive them as dirty old men. Mr. Brust fades to black when routine bodily functions are discussed.

  All three treatments of sex can be seen as different moral writing styles. I’d think that all three styles appeal to different audiences. People read for wildly diverse reasons. What entertains me, doesn’t necessarily entertain someone else.

• 40 skzb // Feb 20, 2008 at 12:15 am

  Interesting stuff, ker-thwap. Regarding politicians, I’ve always felt that wanting to be president, for example, ought to be sufficient grounds for disqualifying someone for the post; but that’s a side issue.

  I quite agree on Carey’s work. An interesting counter-point is a book by Joy Chant called _When Voiha Wakes_, which is the only book I’ve read that was seriously damaged by failure to include explicit sex.

  But I wonder if the whole explicit sex issue is tangential. What I’m thinking is that moral considerations and entertainment can’t be separated–that if the writer choses to engage the reader on the level of considering serious issues (or does so without realizing it), then a failure to examine those issues honestly damages the story as entertainment; it tends to leave the reader feeling irritated and unsatisfied, though the reader may not be aware of exactly why.

• 41 Gar Lipow // Feb 20, 2008 at 12:31 am

  I don’t know if failure to engage always does leave the reader unsatisfied. Something common in most types of popular fiction is providing an excuse for the reader/viewer to identify with something he or she would love do do, but knows is wrong, but in circumstances where it is justified.

  Chase scenes in movies: one reason I think they are popular is that in a chase scene the drivers drive like a dangerous assholes, but it is justified because they are being chased by someone out to kill them. Chase scenes too much of a lazy fiction creators way out? Try the Dick Francis novel where the hero was forced by circumstances to drive drunk to keep a Truly Awful Thing from happening.

• 42 ker_thwap // Feb 20, 2008 at 9:47 am

  The sex issue is certainly tangential. I think my underlying point is that both authors and audiences share the human trait of wildly differing morals between individuals.

  I would suspect that a few main categories of authors, would include:

  - Those whose moral systems make them incapable of not evangelizing their point of view in their fantasy works. The book often becomes a vehicle which attempts to distribute their moral universe to others. L. Ron Hubbard, Terry Goodkind, C.S. Lewis, Phillip Pullman for examples. Excellent authors, but you can pretty much know in advance what you’ll be getting.

  - Those who just want to create a unique world and populate it with characters that behave a certain way because it amuses them to do so. One book may be fatalistic, one may be deterministic. They can examine differing moral consequences and just find the process of doing so to be interesting. Examples might be Asimov and Carol Berg.

  -Those authors that don’t really think things through. They may end up with situations in which a world is created and suddenly some character spits out some phrase or deed that’s out of character to the world created. They just don’t create believable fantasy worlds. Maybe it’s the best they can do.

  As long as the world is consistent in what it’s meant to be, and nothing glaring knocks me out of my escapist groove, I can handle most any subject matter. I realize my Venn diagram isn’t really complete on the author types, but it’s enough for this discussion.

  This leads to the second part of the equation:

  - The audience that wants to only read about liberal/conservative/fatalistic/deterministic/etc. world view that matches their own.
  -The audience that wants to be expand their world view and at least examine some other moral systems.

  In my little role playing universe, I created a chaotic evil outcast that worshiped a god of hatred and cruelty, who hated everyone, including himself. I also created an empathetic pacifist who was incapable of even being rude to people. I’m neither of those characters, nor are either of them really parts of my personality. I just enjoyed the challenge of creating interesting characters.

  I got both hate mail/messages for ruining peoples fun (because they mistook me for evil instead of my character), as well as accolades from other people for how my scary character made their experiences much deeper.

  This whole rambling mess is what leads me to my conclusion, You’ll never make every single person happy with your morality, so it’s just impractical to feel bound to anyone else’s specific moral code when writing fantasy. No moral judgments on my part, just a matter of pragmatism.

  My advice; just write the fantasy that makes you happy and let the right audience find you. Non fiction, of course has an entirely different set of rules.

• 43 deathbird // Feb 20, 2008 at 9:49 am

  I agree that fiction should be entertaining. If it’s not, I usually don’t bother finishing it - life’s too short… But I don’t think that it is all it should be. Like any art form it should strive to evoke an emotional response from those who come into contact with it (in this case, readers).
  Personally, I like books that make me think, whether that be to muse on the human condition, to want to google for more information on some aspect of history, science, technology, politics, etc., or for my mind to wander off in to the world of ‘what if…?’ based on the ideas I have read.
  And I loathe passive characters (esp. females) who just get carried along with the tide of plot. Maybe that’s because I far too often let that happen to me in real life.
  When it comes to children’s and YA fiction, I think a writer has a greater responsibility to try to present positive role models (or show the negative impact of poor role models), because kids are trying to find out who they are as people and the more intelligent input they have to work with, the more choices they realise they have open to them.
  That’s not to say it should be all moral tales and simplistic messages. Kids are a lot smarter than most adults give them credit for in picking up nuances and subtexts, and can spot someone trying to shove a moral down their throats a mile away. And it needs to be real - even fantasy needs to be emotionally based in reality.
  But make it damned entertaining or the little darlings aren’t going to read it anyway.

• 44 Lewis Himelhoch // Feb 20, 2008 at 11:40 am

  Other than telling an entertaining tale, I don’t think a storyteller has any additional responsibilities to their readers. That responsibility tends to take care of itself as a boring writer loses their audience in a hurry.

  “Whose telling this story?” is the expected response when a listener tries to inject their own
  desires or expectations into the mix and well it should be. If you don’t want to listen to/read what is being presented you can tell your own stories. If you’re any good, you’ll get your own audience.

  It is not up to the writer to censor ideas or elements that some may find objectionable nor are they required to include anything beyond the story they want to tell and the characters they want to use.

• 45 ~Easy // Feb 21, 2008 at 8:15 am

  After a bit of thought, I had a more detailed response, but I dislike using up a good post in a comment so it’s on my own blog.

  But all of this talk here about the “responsibility” of an author strikes me as a bit pretentious. The only time writing becomes irresponsible is when one is writing lies to fuel a political agenda.

• 46 BrotherChar // Feb 21, 2008 at 9:48 am

  I think that authors have a responsibility to be true to themsevles and what they feel their work stands for. The author’s work, depending on their creative and wtiting process boils out of their mind down their fingers and into the page laid before them. Depending on synaptic response, mindset, blood sugar level and a host of other factors, what comes out on paper is the process of several complex systems working away on levels we are only intuitively aware of. The work we turn in for final edit is like a gem carefully cut and polished and faceted for that perfect fit, or just thrown on the jeweler’s desk rough and uncut. It is really up to the author and their motivation what they wish to produce ie the excellent earlier example of the carpenter and the house, do they wish to produce a work that will be sold at every bus station and book store and will have people gasping and proclaiming it as the new Opus? Or a novel that is read once and used for toilet paper when you run out of two ply? Motivation is at the heart of everything, work, writing child rearing, it is the drive and the question of why you do what you do and why you keep on doing it. I think that depending on your motivation, that answers the question of wether you are responsible for what you write. If you seek to entertain and inspire, then your work speaks for itself. If you work is slovenly, the sales will more then prove that. What matters is personal responsiblity on the part of the reader to either select your book, or pass it by in favor of another. Cenosrship is an ugly thing, why let the Powers that Be decide what you should read? Choose it yourself, for there is a place for everything in this world. *steps off of soapbox and adjusts tinfoil hat and prepares for the next incoherent rant while adjusting Wonder Bread Bag tie and Beard cover and rattles spare change can*

• 47 Carl // Feb 21, 2008 at 9:48 pm

  The whole idea exists in a grey area. Responsible to whom?
  A couple of years ago on Harlan Ellison’s blog (which is a strange idea in itself), someone commented that Harlan owed us (the regular readers of the journal) occasional and witty and interesting comments. I replied that that was nonsense - all Harlan owes blog readers is to just be Harlan. I was thoroughly excoriated by many of the regulars, and Harlan said nothing
  Of course, a Blog is a different ball of wax from a work intended to be published, but I’m not sure how much so. If someone, Steve, for instance, writes something intentionally, his unique way of looking at things and his way of expressing his ideas will guarantee him readers. Perhaps not as many as we’d like, but still… readers. Does he owe them more than being Steve, and writing what he writes?
  Now, as to the larger picture, does the field of literature as a whole owe the reader anything? I hope that what I write will make the reader stop and think occasionally, or will paint a picture of the world(s) that on some level tries to enlighten or maybe reassure the reader, but that’s a side-effect of writing the characters and conflicts in such a way that the decisions they make are how people I’d like to read about would be. Not overtly ‘good’ or preachy, but just people who try to do the right thing, and when they screw up, learn something useful from it. But that doesn’t mean every story is an overt lesson.
  Hmmmm… so much of our current entertainment industry is based on reinforcing cultural memes and ideals that ‘lesson stories’ are hard to avoid, but shouldn’t that be a side-effect of writing interesting situations?

• 48 Gar Lipow // Feb 22, 2008 at 12:53 am

  I wonder why everyone assumes that responsibility is a matter of pleasing others? “You can’t please everyone, so you might as well please yourself.”

  I would say that if a writer thinks something they have written may do social harm they probably have a responsibility to change it before submission for publication. You can call it self-censorship. Some people would refer to it as “self-editing”, which is something all professional writers try to practice.

  I think the over-casual use of torture in American fiction has contributed to the how ready the U.S. public was to accept increased use of torture after 911. If some writer decides the same, it won’t be to please me; it will be because they came to same conclusion.

  In terms of my “happy rape” example, to tell the truth. I was not even thinking of porn. I was think of romance, for example the famous soap opera where Luke’s rape of Laura led to a lifelong romance between them and their eventual marriage. That theme was also common in certain types of romance novels. (Is that where the term ‘bodice ripper’ for them came from?) And for the most part it now has been dropped in fiction. With the possible exception of porn, I don’t think any fiction these days depicts rape as leading to romance, or as the basis for a relationship. Does that mean that romance writers and soap opera writers who no longer use the “happy rape” theme are censoring themselves?

• 49 ker_thwap // Feb 22, 2008 at 8:36 am

  My concern with your line of reasoning is that, I can both agree and disagree with the specifics.

  For example, I’m glad that there’s less “happy rape” being portrayed on prime time television. In this we probably share a moral. I’m less certain to the degree this is a result of authors’ self censoring, versus how much the advertising/marketing machine are doing the censoring.

  On the other hand, I’m all for judicious torture for reasons I won’t get into here, because that would truly be lengthy. Suffice it to say, you and I don’t share a moral on this one.

  The fact that I can agree and disagree with your statements, tells me logically that it’s probably not a universal truth. Two intelligent people can easily come to different conclusions about what might create social harm.

  I’ll close with a Voltaire Quote “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it. ”

  p.s. On an unrelated note, I can’t believe no one has used the “book burning… nazi cow” quote from Field of Dreams yet.

• 50 Gar Lipow // Feb 22, 2008 at 10:48 am

  When Gandhi was asked his opinion of Western Civilization, he replied that “it would be very nice”. That we can even have an argument about torture is one piece of evidence for Gandhi’s view, though I would not confine its application to the west.

  But my argument is not that anyone should have the power to force someone not write about “happy rape” or “jucious use of torture”, but that a writer who thinks including them in their work is harmful, should omit them. In short, it is an argument that the moral choice for a writer is not to publish things they believe are socially harmful. Voltaire, John Stuart Mill, Milton and all the others through history who wrote stirring defenses of freedom of speech don’t come into it.

• 51 ker_thwap // Feb 22, 2008 at 11:53 am

  Ahh, put that way it makes a lot more sense. I at least see what you’re saying. Upon re-reading your previous post I suspect I didn’t pay enough attention.

  This whole thread makes wonder if it’s even possible for an individual to act contrarily to their own moral standards. Philosophically, I don’t see how it’s possible.

  I rather see the whole premise of not publishing things self believed to be morally wrong to be a bit nonsensical. I don’t think anyone is capable of publishing anything contrary to their own morals.

  Making a special effort to be true to one’s own morals is part and parcel of your own morality.

• 52 Gar Lipow // Feb 22, 2008 at 1:30 pm

  >I don’t think anyone is capable of publishing anything contrary to their own morals.

  Is this part of a general belief that people are incapable of violating their own ethical standards? Or do you think that writing is special in that regard?

  There an argument by SKB that I want to deal with more seriously - that violating ones own ethical standards in art always makes for bad art.

  There are a lot of reasons I think this is not true. First, I think any writing where story telling is important is likely sooner or later to put characters into situations where all the choices are bad, where there are no good options. This often makes for very compelling story telling and good art.

  A writer could very conceivably come up for air after producing something like that, and see only after a draft is complete that it is both good art and socially irresponsible.

  Nor is it obvious that the right choice in that case is self-editing. Because it is quite true that art has influence and helps shape society, even as it is largely shaped by it. But it is also true that for the most part the effects are cumulative. Novels like “The Jungle” or “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” that have a measurable effect are rare (and note not necessarily the best art either). For a writer, mostly the the dilemma if they believe something they write is socially irresponsible is similar to a single small polluter. If they stop by themselves, the effect is not large, while the effect on them of producing a book that is worse art is quite large.

  I suspect this kind of consideration only makes sense collectively - either if it happens in response to a sea change in society as the drop in portrayals of happy rape did, or if it happens as part of an organized movement.

  Ker_thwap suggested that the drop in reductions of happy rape were a response to the thought of lost advertising and sales. Well, yes - in a capitalist society that is one of the signs something has become socially unacceptable. It won’t sell, or costs more in lost sales than including it can gain you. Organized feminism had a lot to do with this cost, and so did a change in what people inside and outside the feminist movement found acceptable.

  I suspect that an argument could be made for an organized campaign asking writer not to include scenes that made torture acceptable. (An argument against such a campaign is that campaigning against actual torture is a much higher priority than campaigning against certain portrayals of torture.) But at any rate a writer removing torture scenes as part of a response to campaign on the subject (that the writer agreed with) weighs against any possible artistic loss much more heavily than a writer doing it on her own as an act of pure morality. (Personal quirk alert: unless I’m referring to something physical along the lines of water, air or food, “pure” is never a compliment from me.)

  Signed
  Gar, abuser of parenthesis

• 53 skzb // Feb 22, 2008 at 1:44 pm

  “There an argument by SKB that I want to deal with more seriously - that violating ones own ethical standards in art always makes for bad art.”

  Uh….did I really say that? What I remember saying is that in good fiction, actions have consequences (and that is my answer to the issues of rape and torture as well), and that it is impossible to truly separate moral considerations from entertainment.

• 54 will shetterly // Feb 22, 2008 at 2:17 pm

  There are writers who think actions don’t have consequences. The next one who says that, I’ll hit.

• 55 ker_thwap // Feb 22, 2008 at 2:43 pm

  Yes, I’d go with the “people are incapable of violating their own ethical standards” as a general truth option. It’s not just specific to writing.

  I may need a few disclaimers to make this theory work. Such as this only applies to the sane, and those normally capable of coherent thought.

  Whether you die for your inflexible standards, or change your standards to adapt to situational ethics, you can’t really act otherwise than the sum of what you are.

  Most people continue to learn and grow and adapt their moral values based on new experiences. It’s easy to say you’d never do something until life kicks you in the head and you find yourself in a new situation.

  Use torture as an example: Would you be against it if your only child were kidnapped, one of the kidnappers (a jaded career criminal with no fear of jail) was in your custody, and the other (a known sadist) had your child in an unknown location? Suddenly your world view may change to think that institutional torture is bad, but this specific torture is fine.

  These are often the kind of dilemmas that fantasy writers pose to us. I think great good comes of making us consider such things, lest we fall into the trap getting too attached to our own pet causes and not considering the other guys point of view.

• 56 Gar Lipow // Feb 22, 2008 at 3:04 pm

  SJB

  >Uh….did I really say that? What I remember saying is that in good fiction, actions have consequences (and that is my answer to the issues of rape and torture as well), and that it is impossible to truly separate moral considerations from entertainment.

  OK, you are right. My paraphrase was distortion.

  Ker_thwap

  >Use torture as an example: Would you be against it if your only child were kidnapped, one of the kidnappers (a jaded career criminal with no fear of jail) was in your custody, and the other (a known sadist) had your child in an unknown location?

  In practical terms you don’t know that the jaded career criminal would not lie to you, distracting your from other options for finding the sadist.

  More to the point, many people violate ethical principles they hold under extreme pressure. An argument that if they violate them in those circumstances, they never really held relies on defining the meaning of ethical principle from the way the term is commonly used. And you would need a new term for what the term ethics commonly means. I think it would be better to make the new term for your new meaning, and leave ethics to mean what it has always meant.

• 57 ker_thwap // Feb 22, 2008 at 4:14 pm

  Strange, but I see it as you who’s using the term incorrectly. Might I suggest you use the term “Utopian or Fantasy Morals” instead?

  I think my usage fits much better into the real world, because I recognize that ethics/morals/standards are not a static thing. Ethics and morals have slightly different denotations, in that ethics is related to theory, and morals to practice.

  I used a rather extreme example, but morals also change far more casually every single day. It doesn’t have to be extreme pressure. Driving your car down the highway how often are you cut off by some selfish hypocrite with a “world peace begins locally” bumper sticker? How about a self righteous ethical view being eroded when someone watches video of a starving child?

• 58 schmwarf // Feb 22, 2008 at 9:38 pm

  skzb@39: So what do you do? You can’t force somebody to be President. Maybe this issue merits a new discussion thread.

• 59 skzb // Feb 23, 2008 at 2:48 am

  schmarf::57::I haven’t worked that part out yet.

• 60 Mudd // Feb 23, 2008 at 6:59 pm

  You just make sure that every president has to send their first born to lead the fight, be personally financially responsible for the national debt, cancel their personal health insurance so they are out of pocket for all that advanced health care, and feed every family they helped out source out of work.

• 61 Mog // Feb 24, 2008 at 1:08 pm

  skzb@39:”Regarding politicians, I’ve always felt that wanting to be president, for example, ought to be sufficient grounds for disqualifying someone for the post”.- Sorry I can’t help but asking: is that a Douglas Adams quote? though I’ve always felt that way myself so I’m not suprised if it isn’t.

• 62 Starshadow // Feb 25, 2008 at 7:25 am

  Schmarf @ 28

  Having had the marvelous pleasure of chatting with Steve…he’s definitely Paarvi. ;)

Leave a Comment