Moral Inhibitions

[StrangeLife]

I write fiction i.e. pure fantasy. I'm not naming specific people or revealing national secrets or anything. I don't see why I should have any moral inhibitions regardless of what I write about. My characters are not real people.

But then again, I'm into collecting manga, and the Japanese are notoriously non-pc in their writing. Thus so am I, I guess.

 

[Auden James]

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?

Maybe what is "wrong" about that is that no matter how good you might be at specifically writing some x, the very hallmark of a "good writer" as such (in contrast to a "good writer of x") might be to be relatively unrestricted by any such specificity. E.g., take a writer who is very good, excellent even, at crafting intriguing premises, but who is totally deaf to the way people converse in fiction, which is why all her stories turn wooden or unintentionally funny as soon as the characters start talking. Would it, then, still make sense to call her a "good writer" (without any further qualification)?

Perhaps, this line of thought could even be generalized so that the relative unrestrictedness by any writing specificity (in the aforementioned sense) would become the measure of a writer's greatness.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Wait a minute, what here are you alluding to, @Auden James?

 

[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.

I think we're getting off on a tangent, so I'll try to keep my response brief here. The quotes that I use are really just about challenging yourself, and not necessarily trying to skirt transgressive boundaries all the time.

Also, these are not quotes that inspire me. These just capture something in me that I've always had. I picked them retroactively to flatter behavior I was already doing. I compulsively push myself to do new things (and a few of those were topically relevant to the OP, so I mentioned them). In less extreme examples, it's why The Beast In Me follows Lucia, not Vivian, and why Sidechain is about a couple in an established relationship.

If I'm being honest, it probably stems from being Autistic (I need structure and routine) and having ADHD (i'm bored by routine). Lots of my works are similar, but I try something new every time. Iterating AND pushing farther.

Nobody should be doing what I do, the way I do it.

 

[THBGato]

Maybe what is "wrong" about that is that no matter how good you might be at specifically writing some x, the very hallmark of a "good writer" as such (in contrast to a "good writer of x") might be to be relatively unrestricted by any such specificity. E.g., take a writer who is very good, excellent even, at crafting intriguing premises, but who is totally deaf to the way people converse in fiction, which is why all her stories turn wooden or unintentionally funny as soon as the characters start talking. Would it, then, still make sense to call her a "good writer" (without any further qualification)?

I think you are assuming ambitions on behalf of others that they may not actually possess.

(Also, would anyone quibble with Tolkein being a great writer just because, academics aside, he only wrote in one genre? Or Austen? Or Márquez?)

 

[TarnishedPenny]

I have withdrawn my NC works as, in retrospect, I didn’t like how they made me feel.

 

[gunhilltrain]

My opinion? Write what and how you write, no apologies for who you are or what you do. The stories are yours, no one else's. Be unapologetically you. ( Disclaimer: no burning, pillaging, raping, beating, or otherwise hurting people.)

How about this? I did write a story about the battle ("When hell busted open") as it appeared to Civil War re-enactors filming it in the 21st Century. It was a strange mixture of movie production semi-comedy and the underlying horror of what had the audience will eventually see in what emerges from the editing room. Maybe I got away with it because it was a Geek Pride event.

https://s329.podbean.com/pb/6ef7644...he_Crater_Image_-_Painting_By_Tom_Lovell.jpeg

 

[Robin_Starveling]

Why would I ever want to write something that I didn't want to write?

Because true creators don’t betray their vision; they follow it even when it cuts.

Isn't it the perk of being an author that you are basically a god getting to decide what does and does not fly in your world?

Real gods don’t shy away from their darkness; they transform it into art.

 

[EmilyMiller]

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

I have characters do reprehensible things, but there are generally consequences. I disagree that the path to authorial growth lies through writing stories that go against your own moral compass. I just don’t think that’s true. There are many ways in which to stretch your writing muscles that don’t involve not being true to yourself.

 

[Statius]

How about this? I did write a story about the battle ("When hell busted open") as it appeared to Civil War re-enactors filming it in the 21st Century. It was a strange mixture of movie production semi-comedy and the underlying horror of what had the audience will eventually see in what emerges from the editing room. Maybe I got away with it because it was a Geek Pride event.

https://s329.podbean.com/pb/6ef7644...he_Crater_Image_-_Painting_By_Tom_Lovell.jpeg

Want to respond to this just to be sure I am not misunderstood. The disclaimer isn't about writing, it's about living unapologetically in the real world. Be you, do you, don't hurt people..

Peace

 

[Auden James]

The disclaimer isn't about writing, it's about living unapologetically in the real world. Be you, do you, don't hurt people..

What if writing unapologetically will—conceivably or predictably—hurt people?

 

[Statius]

What if writing unapologetically will—conceivably or predictably—hurt people?

Reading the written word is a choice. Actual spoken words cannot be unheard and physical violence cannot be undone.

 

[Auden James]

Actual spoken words cannot be unheard and physical violence cannot be undone.

Words—heard or read—can be forgotten, physical violence can be forgiven, can it not?

 

[SmilingLez]

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?

If my writing wakes someone up from their apathetic coma, so be it!

 

[Statius]

Words—heard or read—can be forgotten, physical violence can be forgiven, can it not?

Forgotten or forgiven, the words and violence inflicted unasked for pain. And I may add, they rarely have an objective other than causing pain. A written work (most, generally speaking) have a point to make, ie the inflicted pain is not the point.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

What if writing unapologetically will—conceivably or predictably—hurt people?

Ah. Restating that, should one refrain from injuring another? If not, what sort of society do we live in?

I’ll fine-print that by noting that life is actually not far from our beloved Rule 34 in that absolutely nothing exists that doesn’t hurt somebody in some way. The question must then be linked to causing injury to the average person and that, boys and girls, leads to nervous breakdowns in post-doc philosophy students.

 

[Britva415]

Have you ever had scruples about writing a story? If so, what did you do to overcome them

I think a more interesting question is "why would you?"

Or maybe "why did you."

What motivation is it that you're asking about/imagining/struggling with? What are the two sides to that internal conflict?

 

[Britva415]

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

But you have framed all of this (without specifics) as a moral matter.

"Moral" automatically implies judgements about "better" and "worse." You can't believe that to be a better writer, you have to become a worse human being, can you?

 

[EmilyMiller]

I’m going to make a statement. I’ve made it before and I’ve learned there is no point at arguing with people.

Words have power. Words are not neutral. The reason many of use write is to elicit a response in readers, to make them feel something. Laughter, sadness, arousal, indignation, a sense of justice being done.

While we cannot avoid writing things that might upset one person, or a small group of people (I’m sure my Angels & Demons stories offend some Christian fundamentalists), there are some topics which which are obviously going to cause broader hurt. Writing about sexual assault in a manner that minimizes its gravity and reduces it to a subject of arousal for the reader (and writer) is obviously one such thing.

It is the difference between writing about a murder and writing snuff. If the whole point is to turn murder into something that is sexually arousing, then many would agree this is going too far. I feel the same about trivializing sexual assault and making it erotic.

Life can be awful and we should not shy away from this as authors. People do bad things, very bad things, and it’s appropriate to include this in literature, which is after all a mirror of life. But that is not the same as writing about sexual assault in a manner explicitly intended to turn people on.

I’ve heard arguments that such prose can be an outlet, to let people healthily deal with their transgressive imaginings. OK? But then the same people have to then also support kiddie porn for the exactly the same reasons. You have to be consistent in the application of such arguments.

How many think about snuff, is how I think about sexual assault being written to titilate. It is basically the same thing as snuff. Turning a horrific, traumatic, life-changing event into a source of sexual arousal doesn’t seem so very cool to me. YMMV.

Writers should be free to write what they want to write. But they should also be aware of the impact of their words (anyone who denies the impact of words is no student of history), and act accordingly.

[insert Spider-Man quote here]

 

[Britva415]

true creators don’t betray their vision; they follow it even when it cuts

Sounds like True Scotsmen to me.

 

[Britva415]

Real gods

Same

 

[Robin_Starveling]

Sounds like True Scotsmen to me.

Sounds like that’s beyond your pay grade.

 

[AwkwardMD]

Sounds like True Scotsmen to me.

Pay no attention to Tilan. He seems particularly eager for the banning this time around.

 

[Auden James]

But you have framed all of this (without specifics) as a moral matter.

Because it is a "moral" matter.

"Moral" automatically implies judgements about "better" and "worse." You can't believe that to be a better writer, you have to become a worse human being, can you?

If the writer who can not only capture the bright and sunny sides of life but also its vile and loathsome underbelly in her writing is "better" than the one comparatively restricted, and if such writing will—more or less inevitably (see @TarnishedPenny's post above)—result in preventable harm of others (preventable by refraining from becoming the "better" writer), then, yes, you may very well be justified in believing that to be a better writer, you have to become a worse human being.

 

[Britva415]

it is a "moral" matter.

OK, so we're on the same page regarding what that means to you.

you may very well be justified in believing that to be a better writer, you have to become a worse human being.

Oh, no you don't. This is your thread, not mine. That was my question to you, So if that's what you believe, say so - you aren't going to get away with projecting it onto me.