Moral Inhibitions

[StillStunned]

I've written stories where it was uncomfortable getting into the head of the protagonist - "Love At First Sight", "Rulk the Rat" and even "The Only Flower On Rose Street". Or maybe it was uncomfortable getting out of their heads, when I realised that I'd slipped into the mind of an obsessive voyeur, a thief, murderer and rapist, and another murderer.

But morals are funny things. Everyone sees them from a different angle. I have a vampire story, for example, where the vampire hunter is clearly the baddie: a fanatic and cold-blooded killer. And yet someone commented that they still liked the narrator *despite having killed the character who would traditionally be the hero*. I'd never once considered that anyone would cast the vampire hunter in the role of the hero, or blamed the narrator for killing him.

 

[Statius]

Wait, no hurting people?! (I know, you don't mean no D/s or sadism/machochism, I just had to!) And thank you, that's what I'm trying for in my own works.

But on these boards, it's not necessariy about writing as it is about answering others. I just was having trouble wrapping my head around why someone would want to cross their own line in the sand. It's why I didn't need to know what that line was (I assumed it passed the requirements of the site for things that were allowed, of course) because the trouble I was having was why *force* yourself over a hard limit.

Agreed. And haha! The disclaimer part was for real life, not writing. People can write whatever. I don't need to read it and they don't have to read mine. It's all good, right?

 

[SimonDoom]

Wait, no hurting people?! (I know, you don't mean no D/s or sadism/machochism, I just had to!) And thank you, that's what I'm trying for in my own works.

But on these boards, it's not necessariy about writing as it is about answering others. I just was having trouble wrapping my head around why someone would want to cross their own line in the sand. It's why I didn't need to know what that line was (I assumed it passed the requirements of the site for things that were allowed, of course) because the trouble I was having was why *force* yourself over a hard limit.

I'll try to answer that for myself.

I think for some writers, myself included, the existence of the line, and the possibility of crossing over the line, is erotic. It's interesting. It's worth exploring, even if it might be uncomfortable or unfamiliar. The discomfort is part of what makes it artistically challenging and erotically appealing.

For many people, erotica isn't warm and fuzzy. It's full of sharp edges and dark unexplored corners. Erotic stories can help authors and readers explore those weird places, guilt-free.

 

[WittyUserName]

How do you feel about it afterwards?

Hard to say. I kind of regret it, because my stories are all in the same universe and the decision touches all of them. I definitely would make a different decision if I could do it over again.

 

[NuclearFairy]

Sometimes, I get these fantasies late at night that are very fun. But, if I try to turn some of them into a story, to get to the fun part oftentimes takes a very dark turn, and then the fantasies are no longer fun... So those I don't write. I just try to stick with the fun part in my head and not think about it too hard.

 

[SamanthaBehgs]

Agreed. And haha! The disclaimer part was for real life, not writing. People can write whatever. I don't need to read it and they don't have to read mine. It's all good, right?

I know, but sometimes I just can't resist the sass.

 

[Statius]

I know, but sometimes I just can't resist the sass.

Give the sass! To everyone! I like a smart ass, and always up for a good laugh and joke!

 

[THBGato]

Because the way forward to become a better writer might perhaps be precisely to write outside of one's comfort zone? To push oneself beyond what one—more or less complacently—has settled into in the past?

I've heard this argument a lot here, and I don't buy it. My counter-question would be: better for whom?

Lit writers aren't writing for pay, so if you write something you dislike just to master some technical aspect of writing I don't think it's worth it. (For those trying to make a living from writing, I can see the argument.) It might be better for certain readers - though as was discussed on another thread, probably not your current readers - but I don't think it would make the writer happier. Well, it wouldn't make me happier anyway.

Besides, with a bit of imagination, you can do different types of stories within category. I write lesbian romances. But within that there's scope for all kinds of tropes and genres. I could do sci fi and cross-dressing and group and taboo and first time, etc.

 

[AwkwardMD]

I've heard this argument a lot here, and I don't buy it. My counter-question would be: better for whom?

Lit writers aren't writing for pay, so if you write something you dislike just to master some technical aspect of writing I don't think it's worth it. (For those trying to make a living from writing, I can see the argument.) It might be better for certain readers - though as was discussed on another thread, probably not your current readers - but I don't think it would make the writer happier. Well, it wouldn't make me happier anyway.

Besides, with a bit of imagination, you can do different types of stories within category. I write lesbian romances. But within that there's scope for all kinds of tropes and genres. I could do sci fi and cross-dressing and group and taboo and first time, etc.

All my later writing improved from the experience. I did a better job with Human Resource and Out, specifically, for having failed and learned with Dark Horse.

Out is a story with a lot of gaslighting and manipulative language (as well as outright hatefulness) that I wouldn't have had the guts to try if I hadn't already done other things like that, imperfect though those attempts were.

 

[SamanthaBehgs]

All my later writing improved from the experience. I did a better job with Human Resource and Out, specifically, for having failed and learned with Dark Horse.

Is this an argument for writing outside of your comfort zone, or hitting "submit" even if you don't think something is perfect.

Dang it - where was it that I heard the advice "fail faster" as a way of improving. Has anyone heard the same thing?

 

[AwkwardMD]

Is this an argument for writing outside of your comfort zone, or hitting "submit" even if you don't think something is perfect.

Dang it - where was it that I heard the advice "fail faster" as a way of improving. Has anyone heard the same thing?

Definitely for writing outside my comfort zone.

 

[AwkwardMD]

"Perfect is the enemy of good enough" is an entirely separate conversation (though equally important, no matter how many times we have it)

 

[Auden James]

In the given context, @THBGato, I do not think that the relevant scruples would arise from merely incorporating certain literary tropes you did not use before (e.g., from sci-fi). Rather, I think, your conscience would start haranguing you when you set out to write or depict actions, behaviors, characters, or beliefs that are morally reprehensible or "out of line," so to speak—maybe so far "out of line" to be unlawful in certain communities of the real word.

 

[StillStunned]

The Inhibition, what a show!
The Inhibition, here we go!
We know you're wishin'
That we'd go away!
But the Inhibition's here and it's here to stay!

 

[caleb35]

Have you ever had scruples about writing a story? If so, what did you do to overcome them—or did your bad conscience win?

And, in general, what is the right thing to do in such a situation? Stop the writing? Rewrite the story to make it a better moral fit?

I started to initially reply to this and ended just rambling so here's my second attempt at answering this -- as others have said, we'd need to know more details before weighing in specifically, as this is one of those areas where every case is different. With that said, if you have a story and you're concerned that it might bumping up against one or more scruples, I think the important question to ask yourself is -- does the story have artistic merit? Only you can answer that. Is the story just schlock? Does it revel in or encourage malicious behavior? Or does it have something to say and, again, have artistic merit? If it has merit, then remind yourself of that in response to those qualms. Now, as to how to "overcome them" -- you are not being required to post/publish anything. At the end of the day, only share what you are willing to share. If you actually have a story that you are not sure about sharing, don't, at least not until you come to terms with whatever is giving you those qualms. Then you can decide to post as is, revise before posting, or bury in a dark hole never to see the light of day. Hope this all helps somewhat.

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

I never did force or violence of any kind, not even close.

No coercion or non-consent. Closest I got there was in a family thing where there was some discipline involved, but very low level.

No non-human/monster, etc.

 

[SimonDoom]

Lit writers aren't writing for pay, so if you write something you dislike just to master some technical aspect of writing I don't think it's worth it.

It's a fair and legitimate perspective, but it's not everybody's. It's not mine. I like pushing the boundaries of my comfort zone, and I personally believe that I make myself a better writer by doing that. I get creative satisfaction by doing that, and I observe that at least some of my readers seem to enjoy it, too.

Rather, I think, your conscience would start haranguing you when you set out to write or depict actions, behaviors, characters, or beliefs that are morally reprehensible or "out of line," so to speak—maybe so far "out of line" to be unlawful in certain communities of the real word.

My view is that art should be free to encompass the full range of human experience, AND human imagination. So that includes art that depicts people doing terrible things and getting away with it. That's how life really is. People do bad things and get away with it. That's a fascinating subject. Artists should feel free to create art that explores this aspect of human experience.

 

[THBGato]

All my later writing improved from the experience. I did a better job with Human Resource and Out, specifically, for having failed and learned with Dark Horse.

Out is a story with a lot of gaslighting and manipulative language (as well as outright hatefulness) that I wouldn't have had the guts to try if I hadn't already done other things like that, imperfect though those attempts were.

I'm pleased for you (and for me, actually, as I love "Out"). However, just because something worked out that way for you does not, ipso facto, therefore mean that it will the work out same for others. (There's also a potential post hoc, ergo propter hoc going on there too.)

Personally, I think I learn from every piece of writing I do. I don't need to write something that deliberately makes me uncomfortable to learn from it.

I've had these two quotes on my Lit profile for... probably 8 years.

Again, good for you. I'm pleased that they motivate you. But, putting quotes by dead people whose contexts were incredibly different to our own isn't a convincing argument in itself. It would be like me using the (debunked) 10,000 hours to mastery claim to suggest we should write the same type of thing over and over again in order to improve. Obviously, I'm not suggesting it. But there's as much scientific evidence behind the 10,000 hours claim as there is to support Eris and Koa Pan Kun's assumption.

(Sorry, I'm cranky because that gave me a flashback to smug Philosophy undergraduates who would quote Wittgenstein or Marx or Hegel - often entirely out of context - and assume that this would win their argument for them simply because some dead guy had said it. I'm sure you weren't doing that.)

maybe so far "out of line" to be unlawful in certain communities of the real word.

Hey, I write about homosexual love. Sadly, that is unlawful in many communities in the real world.

Because the way forward to become a better writer might perhaps be precisely to write outside of one's comfort zone? To push oneself beyond what one—more or less complacently—has settled into in the past?

However, this is what bugs me the most and it's a point of view I see a lot on here. The - dare I say complacent? - assumption that one can't be a good writer unless you push yourself. What's wrong with being very good, excellent even, at a specific style of writing? (Or dancing? Or music? Or sport?) You are also assuming that we are even in a comfort zone to begin with! I'm sure there are many writers out there who find every story an arm-wrestle and wonder where this fabled comfort zone might be.

Right sorry, rant over. Must do some actual work now.

 

[AwkwardMD]

I'm pleased for you (and for me, actually, as I love "Out"). However, just because something worked out that way for you does not, ipso facto, therefore mean that it will the work out same for others. (There's also a potential post hoc, ergo propter hoc going on there too.)

Personally, I think I learn from every piece of writing I do. I don't need to write something that deliberately makes me uncomfortable to learn from it.



Again, good for you. I'm pleased that they motivate you. But, putting quotes by dead people whose contexts were incredibly different to our own isn't a convincing argument in itself. It would be like me using the (debunked) 10,000 hours to mastery claim to suggest we should write the same type of thing over and over again in order to improve. Obviously, I'm not suggesting it. But there's as much scientific evidence behind the 10,000 hours claim as there is to support Eris and Koa Pan Kun's assumption.

(Sorry, I'm cranky because that gave me a flashback to smug Philosophy undergraduates who would quote Wittgenstein or Marx or Hegel - often entirely out of context - and assume that this would win their argument for them simply because some dead guy had said it. I'm sure you weren't doing that.)


Hey, I write about homosexual love. Sadly, that is unlawful in many communities in the real world.



However, this is what bugs me the most and it's a point of view I see a lot on here. The - dare I say complacent? - assumption that one can't be a good writer unless you push yourself. What's wrong with being very good, excellent even, at a specific style of writing? (Or dancing? Or music? Or sport?) You are also assuming that we are even in a comfort zone to begin with! I'm sure there are many writers out there who find every story an arm-wrestle and wonder where this fabled comfort zone might be.

Right sorry, rant over. Must do some actual work now.

Let me process this and come back

 

[Statius]

Just for fun, Noel Gallagher once said 'Fuck that, stay in your comfort zone that's what it's there for!" .
THBGato just called me in that last paragraph. I'm still not comfy writing, but it's fun so I keep doing it.

 

[Baztrachian]

Have you ever had scruples about writing a story? If so, what did you do to overcome them—or did your bad conscience win?

And, in general, what is the right thing to do in such a situation? Stop the writing? Rewrite the story to make it a better moral fit?

First, my stories generally unfold to me as I write them. Sometimes the scenario or the characters go off in directions that I end up abandoning.

I write a lot of patriarchal NC stories that edge up to something dark and sometimes the natural direction of the story goes too far for me and I delete it.

See, I have my limits.

 

[lovecraft68]

For me, if the story squicks me in some way, I don't bother writing it. People have different ways of seeing things, but I don't consider it a challenge or some way of pushing myself to write something I just have a serious issue with.

Not to say I haven't delved into some things that I was on the fence with to see how it would play out, but if my instant reaction to a topic is "Um, no" then its no.

 

[MillieDynamite]

In ghostwriting, one writes from their outline to their criteria and at the level of graphic description they require. This is fiction; what I write about and what I'd do in the real world have no relationship to one another. In my own work, I also don't have many areas that I fear to tread. Nothing I write will be worse, more evil, or more deeply depraved than far better writers than I have already pioneered. In the book, The Big Sleep, the dirty bookstore sold pedophilic books and pictures. Hell, if Raymond Chandler wasn't afraid of writing about that in the 1938 or 39, why should I fear about anything I write about? Granted, Chandler didn't get down in the dirty about it, but it wasn't something most writers would have even hinted at.

The following is a list of early pioneers in more controversal material. At first, the well-known and often used writer Mr. Anonymous played an important role.

Late 19th-century erotica
Due to strict Victorian social and moral standards, much of the era's overtly erotic literature was published anonymously and circulated secretly.

• The Autobiography of a Flea (c. 1887): An anonymously written pornographic novel that tells the story of a flea, which acts as a voyeuristic spectator to the sexual activities of a young woman and her friends.
• The Romance of Lust (c. 1873): One of the earliest examples of modern erotic fiction, this lengthy, anonymously written novel explores a wide range of sexual acts that were completely taboo in its time.
• My Secret Life (c. 1888–1894): An 11-volume erotic memoir detailing the author's sexual encounters. Published anonymously, the book was notable for its sheer volume and explicit content.
• Venus in Furs (1870): Written by Leopold von Sacher-Masoch, this novel explores the theme of sexual dominance and submission. Its publication was so influential that it coined the term "masochism".
• Forbidden Fruit (1898): A classic Victorian erotic novel published anonymously, featuring explicit sexual descriptions and taboo themes that made it highly scandalous for its time.

Late 19th-century controversial novels

• Tess of the d'Urbervilles (1891): Thomas Hardy's novel was controversial for its sympathetic portrayal of a "fallen woman." The story, about a woman who is raped and later gives birth, caused a public uproar for challenging Victorian sexual morality.
• The Picture of Dorian Gray (1890): Oscar Wilde's only novel was considered deeply scandalous due to its perceived homoerotic themes and exploration of hedonism. The explicit subtext was even used against Wilde in his trial for "gross indecency".
• The Jungle (1906): While not explicitly sexual, Upton Sinclair's book caused a sensation by exposing the horrific and unsanitary conditions in the Chicago meatpacking industry. This scandalous revelation led to significant public outcry and new food safety laws.

Early 20th-century boundary-pushing novels

• The Well of Loneliness (1928): Radclyffe Hall's novel was one of the first to feature a lesbian protagonist openly. It was banned in the U.K. for obscenity, becoming a landmark case for homosexual literature.
• Lady Chatterley's Lover (1928): D.H. Lawrence's novel about an affair between an aristocratic woman and her working-class gamekeeper was banned for its frank discussion of sex. It was the subject of a major obscenity trial in the U.K. in 1960 and remains one of the most famous sexually explicit novels of all time.
• Ulysses (1922): James Joyce's experimental masterpiece was banned for its explicit language and themes. The book was a major catalyst in testing U.S. laws on pornography and obscenity. Its publication is considered a revolutionary moment in 20th-century literature.
• Tropic of Cancer (1934): Henry Miller's novel, celebrated for its literary importance and frank depictions of sex, was banned in the U.S. for obscenity until the 1960s. The resulting obscenity trial was a key moment in challenging American censorship laws.

The moral of my post is, don't be afraid to write what you want, if it has a plot, good characters (not necessarily moral ones), and is a good story, put that puppy up.

 

[StillStunned]

At first, the well-known and often used writer Mr. Aynonomous played an important role.

And now he's reduced to commenting on other people's stories here on Lit. The only time he gets to exercise his literary skills is when he's waxing lyrical about a mother's ample pubic hair. A sad come-down for such a great writer.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Sigh, you've immortalized my misspelling despite my fixing it; you beat me to it.

And now he's reduced to commenting on other people's stories here on Lit. The only time he gets to exercise his literary skills is when he's waxing lyrical about a mother's ample pubic hair. A sad come-down for such a great writer.