Resopnable?

[Samuari]

Do we as authors have a responcability to write and there by promote healthy sexual activies, or shoule we just relay on the site owner to keep us legal. Is there a higher morality then the strictly legal? Is this an issue that we allow someone elses standards to apply? At what point do we accept personal responabilty?

 

[Laurel]

Probably. More importantly, I think readers have a responsibility to filter what they read through their own value systems - to read critically.

 

[KillerMuffin]

There is always a higher morality from the strictly legal. The problem with holding others to one standard of morality is that one person's morality isn't the same as another person's morality. Not all of us are Christian and not all of us are Catholic. At any rate, anything you see on this site is pretty much immoral to these religions, so it's hypocritical to be here anyway.

When you start worrying about author responsibility and morality, then you should start worrying about whether or not you are judging other people by religious standards or personal standards that are really none of your business.

Most people who access this site have a pretty firm grip on reality. They may have fantasies about BDSM or Incest or fetish or non-human or non-consent or gay or lesbian or group sex or exhibitionism or loving wives, but that's all there is to it. They have the fantasy, but not the reality.

 

[Samuari]

There is always a higher morality from the strictly legal. The problem with holding others to one standard of morality is that one person's morality isn't the same as another person's morality. Not all of us are Christian and not all of us are Catholic. At any rate, anything you see on this site is pretty much immoral to these religions, so it's hypocritical to be here anyway.

When you start worrying about author responsibility and morality, then you should start worrying about whether or not you are judging other people by religious standards or personal standards that are really none of your business.

Ok I'll go mind my own bussiness, never wanted to be where I wasn't welcome.

 

[Whispersecret]

KM, I both agree and disagree with you. From your argument, I gather you think we authors should be able to write about what we want. There, I agree with you. However, there are several points you brought up that I disagree with.

...Not all of us are Christian and not all of us are Catholic. At any rate, anything you see on this site is pretty much immoral to these religions, so it's hypocritical to be here anyway.

I don't believe that. Sex is not immoral. There are aspects to sex that are objectionable to the religious, but I don't think that religion is AGAINST sex, per se. Many religions frown upon pre-marital sex and promiscuity, but that is a whole 'nother ball of wax. (Where did that crazy phrase come from???)

When you start worrying about author responsibility and morality, then you should start worrying about whether or not you are judging other people by religious standards or personal standards that are really none of your business.

Because I know you and Sam have discussed your recent incest story, I think you're taking this personally, KM. Sam has a right to his opinion, and I think he has a valid question.

I've pondered over my personal responsibility in writing a story that features a girl who is taken against her will and falls in love with her captor. It's a gray area, I'll admit. However, look at Harris, who wrote the books about Hannibal Lechter and other serial killers. Is he promoting serial murder when he writes about it? No.

I have to side with Laurel on this one. I think the issue of personal responsibility should lie here with the reader. If you read a story here and then can't resist raping someone or fucking your daughter, I really don't think the story is to blame. The character flaw is there to begin with.

Most people who access this site have a pretty firm grip on reality. They may have fantasies about BDSM or Incest or fetish or non-human or non-consent or gay or lesbian or group sex or exhibitionism or loving wives, but that's all there is to it. They have the fantasy, but not the reality.

Whoa. I think that's a pretty broad generalization. I think there are a lot of people who come here who have a firm grip on reality. I also think there are a lot of people who are wackos. I've gotten mail from some of them. Haven't you, KM? Either way, they're wacko already. I don't think that reading "Hostile Takeover," or any of the other "morally irresponsible" stories here is going to tip the scales for those people.

That's just my opinion. You know I love ya, KM.

Also...Sam, jeez. No one said they didn't want you around. A person can disagree with another person without wanting them to get lost.

[Edited by whispersecret on 03-10-2001 at 04:32 PM]

 

[Laurel]

Well said, WS. We are writing fiction. We aren't writing how-to books. I think there is a very real danger in the assumption that readers are unthinking sponges. There are many unhealthy and dangerous ideas floating about in the world, and not all of them are found in books or stories. Television, pop music, and conversations with others can all focus on things that are less than savory. Instead of trying to 'stomp out' all the evils in the world - an impossible task - I think it's smarter to encourage people to filter the world through their morality, to take it with a grain of salt. That's called personal responsibility.

Stories about rape do not cause rape. Rapists may be attracted to rape stories, but so are thousands of other healthy people who read these stories for the same reason we all read any fiction - as a catharsis, to vicariously experience worlds we would never want to live in. The Hannibal Lecter example is a good one. Hundreds of thousands of people have seen that movie. I have yet to hear of anyone spontaneously becoming a cannibal after viewing it. Why? Because we watch the movie knowing right from wrong. We know what evil is.

If we did, as some people suggest, absorb our morals from fiction, imagine who the world would be! We'd all be violent, greedy nymphos. Obviously that is not the case. There's a minority of screwed up people, as there always have been and will be.

If children are properly parented, they grow to be thinking adults. If they aren't, they can become violent, self-destructive messes. All the sex stories, rap lyrics, and violent movies in the world won't change that.

 

[CreamyLady]

While I believe the reader should take responsibility for his or her actions, I also think that the author should use some discernment in what is presented for entertainment.

I wrote a story last spring that, while erotic, will never, ever see publication if I can help it. It is a private nightmare, a memoir if you will, and I would hate to think that someone who has been thinking about the behavior in question thought that, because it has seemingly happened before, it was okay. It was not okay, in any sense, and I will not, by publishing a seeming work of fiction, give my permission or approval to it.

I keep it, because it was well written (if I say so myself)and tremendously liberating for me to face the nightmare and write it out. I do think that almost all of our readers are know what is, and is not, appropriate behavior, but almost isn't a certainty. It would only take one.

 

[RonG]

While I believe the reader should take responsibility for his or her actions, I also think that the author should use some discernment in what is presented for entertainment.

CL hit the question squarely on the snout, "Why is the material being presented?" If the writing is being presented for entertainment and the style reflects only fantasy, okay. If the writer's purpose is to inspire or change behavior, then some sort of self-discipline ought to take place.

I have taken issue with some of the rape/non-consent stories in the past, especially those that start off with some sort of criminal rape and end with the victim falling in love with the rapist. Style and tone become very critical because we really don't want some knucklehead thinking that romanticized rape is okay since "she'll fall in love with me after it is over." A pretty narrow tightrope to walk and one I don't care to try. Yes, some great literature made it work but I don't consider myself as deft as Tennessee Williams so I will stay away from it.

 

[christo]

Of two minds...

Is morality subjective, or objective? Are there absolute truths that cannot be refuted, no matter what perspective you approach them from? Uh, dunno. But Woody Allen's movie "Love and Death" has some hilarious scenes discussing that very question.

A few years ago there was a murder, a boy about 14 stabbed a little girl to death with a knife. His explanation was that he'd watched the movie "Child's Play" about 100 times and became convinced the Chuckie wanted him to kill. The English writer Martin Amis, writing about the crime said (and I'm paraphrasing bigtime), "I don't want to sound conceited, but there's too much going on in my mind to let a campy horror movie move me to murder someone". When I heard about these poor souls who kill and then blame it on some movie or song I can't help thinking about how empty their lives must be, to allow something so meaningless to take control of their minds.

But...I think the writer/singer/whatever can't just put something out there and wash his hands of any bad things that happen because of it. I'm not saying that if you write a story that has a violent scene and someone reads it and commits an act of violence, that the author is directly responsible. What I'm saying...wait, what am I saying?

Not sure. But I really get pissed off when I see someone like Madonna on Entertainment Tonight or one of those other brown-nose shows and they interview her and say "Oh, you're such a wonderful role model for young girls, showing how women can be strong, look at all those girls who look up to you," and Madonna says, "Oh, yes, they should look up to me, I'm fantastic." Then a bunch of people who engage in promiscuous sex like she does in that photo book she did a few years ago end up getting AIDS, and suddenly she's on Entertainment Tonight saying, "They should have known better, the book wasn't meant to be taken seriously, it was just a fantasy, etc etc". If you take credit for the good things, you have to take responsibilty for the bad things. Maybe that's my extremely belabored point.

Oh, Madonna fans, don't come after my scalp. I just used her as an example because she's famous and controversial. I made all that stuff up.

 

[Samuari]

christo, have another drink, it may help.
Whisper, I'm not going to leave the site, but I will not be insulted. I did not deserve KM's derogatory comments, and she knows it. If she wants to bring a privite argument to the BB, she can, but I will not particapate.This thread did grow out of that discussion, but here is a broader concern here. One that is born out by the thoughtful responces of everybody else. KM you can reach me any time that you may need me.

 

[cymbidia]

Hello. I'm new here, a stranger and an outsider butting into what is obviously an insider's discussion. While i can't and wouldn't dream of commenting on the personal slants taken in response to the seemingly general aspect of the original question, i do have one small comment.

KillerMuffin said:
>Most people who access this site have a pretty firm grip on reality. They may have fantasies about BDSM or Incest or fetish or non-human or non-consent or gay or lesbian or group sex or exhibitionism or loving wives, but that's all there is to it. They have the fantasy, but not the reality.<

Perhaps most of the people who access this site do so in quest of material with which to feed their fantasies. Perhaps most have never done the things they fantasize about, and might not choose to do them, given the opportunity. I don't know. I have no data at all on this point.

However, i believe (based on nothing but my intuition, years of experience in places such as Literotica, and lifelong associations with kinky people of all descriptions) that some must come here as a part of their information-gathering efforts, a method by which they choose to learn about a slice of sexuality that appeals to them. Many want or already have the reality.

Those of us who write stories here have an obligation to construct them as truthfully as is possible. Seems odd to say of erotic fiction, i know. However, for the sake of those who come here to learn, we who write need to be as clear and as honest about our characters and their emotions, motivations, consequences, impulses, and entanglements as we can within the requirements of writing "erotic fiction".

Perhaps that's true of all fiction writing? Perhaps you think it's laughably simplistic for me to suggest that our truth is all we owe anyone who bothers to read our stuff. However, besides something approaching good writing from a technical standpoint, my truth is the best i can offer anyone, fiction or not.

What someone does with my words is beyond my control. As a writer, especially as a lowly amateur writer, the most i can ever do is control the manner in which my information, my thoughts, my emotions .. my truths .. are offered.

If someone is looking for "the reality" via my words, i owe them the clearest glimpse i can manage.
cym

 

[KillerMuffin]

I apologize for taking it personally, since it wasn't meant so. I didn't mean to do that Sam.

The whole problem I have with the issue of taking responsiblity of what we write in the interests of promoting healthy sexual practices and morality. This is a very gray area. Who is to define what's healthy sexual practices and what's moral or immoral? I'll be the first to admit that Lusty Blue Eyes isn't the least bit moral or healthy sexually. But does that make the story bad, wrong, or condoning incest? When does the ideals of healthy sexuality and morality become censorship?

If Sam read Lusty Blue Eyes and got a boner, does that mean he is going to think that it would be a great idea to do his daughters? I don't think so. If some guy out there read Lusty Blue Eyes, got a boner and showed the story to his daughter and she got wet and they did the dirty, whose is responsible? All of us? Me? The two of them?

Where does my personal responsibility and accountability end and where does the wacko's personal responsibility and accountability begin?

If Lusty Blue Eyes had been an incredibly detail graphic episode involving a father butchering his daughters it probably would have made the New York Times Bestseller list and this conversation wouldn't have come up.

I wrote the story because I wanted to see if I could write it. I found the experience emotionally cathartic, I was able to write a story that didn't get me personally involved and all of my past experiences didn't get involved. It was good enough to rate an E, so obviously I did something right in the writing. I was inspired to write the story by a bit of cyber I did involving the very thing, the roleplay. Shockingly enough to me, the roleplay was not only arousing, it was just roleplay. I didn't freak out and go psycho and start butchering people like I thought I would.

In light of my own past experiences with incest, I can see how a weak willed wacko could use such a story as an excuse to go out and screw his daughters. I'm sure my own father would have done the same. However, this is where personal accountability comes in. I don't think I should censor myself because some wacko perv might use my story as an excuse to go out and hurt his daughters. It's just an excuse, the sickness was already there, no matter what they read or saw on TV.

I started a thread a long time ago about pedo stories and snuff stories. It was mostly a reactionary thread after reading one of John Douglas's works involving the serial killers he tracked and what they did to kids. Weird Harold said something that I have to agree with. As long as it's fantasy, it's fair game. It's just fantasy, not reality. Or something to that effect. It's just writing, and in and of itself, means nothing more than the words in it. It's okay for people to write whatever they want to write. As long as they don't act on the bad stuff. I don't like the snuff stories on Whiteshadows, so I don't read them. I don't go to the site because I don't like what's there.

I think that in the end, everyone is responsible for his or her own self, they are responsible and accountable for the choices they make, no matter who or what they try to blame. Would that woman have lit her ex-boyfriend's car on fire if she hadn't seen it in a movie? Probably not. Would she have done something against her ex? Probably.

Once again, I apologize to sam. I had thought we'd settled the argument already.

 

[Madame Pandora]

I am so sick of this arguement, but here is my big, fat opinion once more.

Those of you who want to "filter" in ANY WAY what an author CAN and CANNOT or SHOULD or SHOULD NOT present are hereby invited to go jump in a fucking lake. I’d tell you to kiss my ass, but I’d hate to run the risk of that offending your delicate sensitivities. And if my tone sounds hostile it is because THAT is exactly how offended I am by the fucking NERVE of someone ANYONE thinking to filter another person's art or expression.

In all places, you’d think here, on a PORN site, this issue would be painfully obvious to all.

The MINUTE you start to say "this is okay, but this isn't" you are drawing a moral line which you have NO RIGHT TO DRAW in the realm of art. In your personal life – sure. In the lives of your children – MOST CERTAINLY. But DO NOT try to feed me or any other writer/artist this BULLSHIT line about responsibility of topic.

Fuck that.

Once more for the people in the cheap seats - IDEAS AND FANTASIES ARE NOT ACTIONS. Period. P-E-R-I-O-D. There is no debate. You can wail as much as you want about how kids get nutso ideas from cartoons, you can moan about how you think rap music/heavy metal music/covers of Louie, Louie are damning people to hell. It's all bullshit.

THOUGHT IS NOT ACTION. And until one of you shows up with a fucking NOTE from a higher power stating that you have the ability to police our minds kindly move the fuck aside and get the hell over it.

In this world terrible things happen. That's unfortunate and sad and yes, we should all try to take care of one another as best we can. But, if you think for one minute that WRITING about these terrible things is ADDING to the problem then you're living in a dream world.

Most writers write as a form of expression and that expression can have MANY intents. One may be just a cool idea, one may be to purge a nightmare, one may be to express joy. But all of them...ALL OF THEM are valid and often shared human thoughts or experiences and THAT is why people are drawn to them.

It’s not an ACT. It’s a fucking IDEA. And if so many people weren’t so goddamn repressed about some of their ideas and fantasies, I’ve got news for you, there’s be a LOT LESS bad shit going on.

Oh…and one more thing….

If you don't like it, YOU DON’T HAVE TO FUCKING READ IT.

To think that by publishing something, one is offering approval or permission for an act to be committed by another is the highest level of ridiculousness and arrogance an author could have.

Some people are deranged. That's all there is to it. And WHO IS TO SAY WHAT A WACKO WILL OR WILL NOT DO/BE INSPIRED BY.

Here is a scenario for you. Let's say Nutcase #1 reads a story about rape, and then goes out and rapes some woman. It's terrible...awful...and, yes, the author might feel guilt about it. But what if, instead of the rape story, Nutcase #1 watches a movie where some wacko puts a bomb on a school bus. Nutcase #1 goes out and blows up a school bus. Is it the filmmakers fault?

If only Nutcase #1 had read the rape story, all those little kids would be alive.

Do you see the utter stupidity this level of thinking will lead to? We want to blame music, stories, movies, or other forms of artistic expression because they seem like something we can control. But, control is an ILLUSION, boys and girls. And BAD THINGS happen. STORIES will not change that.

Have any of you who claim that stories about rape and/or violence inspire nutjobs to do wrong ever READ the BIBLE? Do you know what kind of NUTJOBS throughout history have committed HORRIBLE acts based on THAT BOOK?

As far as how it affects people who have personal experiences in a negative way, well, this is harsh, but it is nonetheless true - IF YOU HAVE A PERSONAL ISSUE WITH THESE SUBJECTS WHY THE FUCK DO YOU FREQUENT A SITE WHICH HAS THEM? You may have some issues with this, and think on it good and hard. If you're an incest and/or rape survivor and it upsets you, then why the hell are you reading this stuff? It is like they tell you in the meetings, the first step in getting over something is to NOT EXPOSE YOURSELF TO IT.

My sympathy is with anyone who has suffered tragedy, but when you think personal tragedy gives you the right to dictate right and wrong, you’re kidding yourself. You’re trying to exert power now which was taken away from you in the past. You’re not more enlightened, you’re not more empathic, you’re not more morally sound. You’re just succumbing to a psychological reaction of your mind to feel more in CONTROL. It may help you to get through the ordeal, but it doesn’t give you the right to impose yourself on anyone else. It never will.

As for a writer's obligations or what tightropes he/she has to walk the answer is ZERO. None. Nada. Empty set. The only person a writer answers to is him or herself and that's the END OF THE FUCKING LIST. All a writer is doing is expressing themselves. Everyone else remains RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS.

You are welcome to your morals and personal insecurities and individual hang-ups, but don’t try to impose them on someone else, or someone else's art. It's both ignorant AND arrogant.

MP

 

[Gaucho]

Damn, MP! Don't mince words, honey. Tell us what you really think.

For what it's worth, I'll just say, "What she said", and for good measure, add my own two cents worth.

IMHO, the primary responsibility of any writer is to tell a good story. And, as those of you who have done it know, telling a good "story" in the field of erotic fiction is a helluva lot harder than it may appear. It's not just "We Came, We Saw, We Fucked".

Or should that be "We Saw, We Fucked, We Came"? Sometimes, I think we guys get our "order" mixed up. hehehe

But I digress. The biggest enemy any writer faces comes from within in the form of self-censorship. The story never looks the same on the page (or screen) as it does in your mind and the words just won't cooperate the way they should. If I had a nickel for every time I asked myself "Why the fuck am I doing this?", I'd be in the Bahamas now instead of staring out at two feet of snow. The point being that writing fiction is not easy. Simple, maybe, but not easy and people are always confusing those two words.

But while the creative juices are at work, the worst thing a writer can do is ask "What will people think of this?" The moment he or she does that you might as well tie me kangaroo down sport because the story is finished, done, DOA, stick a fork in it and throw it in the fire with your other irons.

Simply put, a writer writes for an audience of one. The toughest audience there is, folks. Him or herself (oh, it never hurts to have a special reader in mind while you're writing - but understand that, for all intents and purposes, that special reader really exists only in your mind). If the work is pleasing to that audience, chances are it will appeal to a wider one, as well. Not always, of course. There will always be critics (those of you who gave my story a one, may you roast on a pig spit for a thousand years! There now, that feels better) and some of the points they make will have validity.

But saying that the work incites the behavior of others is not one of them.

Ultimately, it is the writer's responsibility to decide if the work should see the light of day. As in Creamy's case, sometimes it's enough just to have written it. And the work should have a point of some sort, even if it's only to help someone get their rocks off. Otherwise, why did the writer spend so many hours/days/weeks/months/years writing the goddam thing in the first place? You see, when it's done is when you ask yourself why. Not before and not during.

I write for one reason. Because I have to. If none of my work ever saw print (or posting) I would still write. If, however, for one moment I saw myself as an arbiter or judge of public taste or opinion or morality or right and wrong or any number of other standards, then I would be frozen stiff, paralyzed by the thought that someone out there might dislike or disagree with my thoughts (not to mention my right to air them). Whatever muse that whispers in my mind in the dead of night would shrivel up and disappear for good.

And a part of me would die with it.

And for me, at least, that would be a terrible shame.

 

[WriterDom]

Do we as authors have a responcability to write and there by promote healthy sexual activies, or shoule we just relay on the site owner to keep us legal. Is there a higher morality then the strictly legal? Is this an issue that we allow someone elses standards to apply? At what point do we accept personal responabilty?

The reader takes responsibility for what they read. shit in = shit out. If you do all your reading at a porn site, that's pretty sad. It's entertainment, pure and simple. Anyone that clicks on an incest story and is offended by it, is just plain ignorant. I don't like Brussel sprouts, but if I go buy a can and eat them, who's fault is that? I know I've made the argument that Rap music perhaps is a negative influence on children. But, here, theoretically, we are all adults.

 

[Samuari]

Every action has consequences. This is a natural law, specifically Newton’s third law of motion. Denying it will not change the fact. You can act in ignorance, and pretend that you don’t know, or you can accept reality and try to have those consequences be ones that you choose. There will always be unintended ones as well, but there is a degree of control that the author/artist can exercise, and in my mind should. What I’m talking about here is being intentional, deciding what response you want your reader to have and then doing what is necessary to get that done, (assuming that you did not just write for that audience of one that Gaucho talks about and Creamy Lady did).

It is of course helpful if our audience reads critically, but that is not something that I can rely on. I have to do the best that I can at bringing my reader to the place that I want them to be. This to me is the whole point of communicating, to have my ideas clearly understood, and to move the reader toward greater understanding of the world that they live in, or the people that they may meet, or maybe simply themselves.

We do not write in a vacuum (well Creamy Lady did), but in a world that will be affected by what we say. I’m going to try to have those effects be positive.

 

[RonG]

Ignorant and Arrogant? Nah, just arrogant.

You are welcome to your morals and personal insecurities and individual hang-ups, but don’t try to impose them on someone else, or someone else's art. It's both ignorant AND arrogant.

MP

Ouch! No hard feelings MP, I like your big, fat opinions. And I adore the First Amendment.

But the point I did try to address is the last of Samurai's four questions, "At what point do we accept personal responsibility?" Legally, the answer has been pretty straightforward for decades. Authors are pretty much free to write anything they want. And the First Amendment allows great range in protecting speech, primarily from a political standpoint and sex certainly is intertwined with politics.

But my personal opinion is that the purpose of writing always matters. The point where an author accepts some responsibility is the point where they cross the line between mindstretching fantasy and entertainment (the entirety of Literotica from my view) over to inspiring behavior. No, the author or artist or composer doesn't have legal responsibility but from a social contract/ethical standpoint, my mindset is that there is a twinkling of responsibility.

Let's face it, it is all product. We buy and sell ideas all the time that consist of nothing more than air. A stockbroker telling me what actions are likely to be positive isn't all that different from an artist telling me how to get off or Miss Cleo telling the future. Ideas are as tangible as Rely Tampons.

One of my more favorite Jefferson quotes is "Not all differences of opinions are differences of principles." I don't deny the overriding principle of freedom of speech. I just feel that the well-understood notion of crying "Fire" in a crowded theater may have some applicability to publication of ideas, at least for what I choose to publish. You don't feel that way, that is fine. It is a forum of opinions, after all.

 

[Laurel]

It is of course helpful if our audience reads critically, but that is not something that I can rely on. I have to do the best that I can at bringing my reader to the place that I want them to be. This to me is the whole point of communicating, to have my ideas clearly understood, and to move the reader toward greater understanding of the world that they live in, or the people that they may meet, or maybe simply themselves.

We do not write in a vacuum (well Creamy Lady did), but in a world that will be affected by what we say. I’m going to try to have those effects be positive.

That's a good thing. I think most authors have the best of intentions. However, remember that Charles Manson was inspired to kill by the Beatle's White Album. are Paul, John, Ringo, and George, therefore, killers as well? Are they responsible for Charlie's actions? Does this responsibility on the part of the artist extend to people who MISuse or MISunderstand the message?

And "positive" and "negative" are relative. There's a large group of people who feel that no porn is positive - that its existence is harmful to society.

 

[Samuari]

Oh Laurel,

That's a good thing. I think most authors have the best of intentions. However, remember that Charles Manson was inspired to kill by the Beatle's White Album. are Paul, John, Ringo, and George, therefore, killers as well? Are they responsible for Charlie's actions? Does this responsibility on the part of the artist extend to people who MISuse or MISunderstand the message?

And "positive" and "negative" are relative. There's a large group of people who feel that no porn is positive - that its existence is harmful to society.

I think that I said that there are alwaysunintended consquences. We can not predict how our work will be taken and delt with. We can, however be intentional in what we deliver to our audience, and where we want them to go. If they go in a diferent direction, that is of course, thier problem.

I also think that positive and negitve are objective as well as subjective. For instence it is better to live in a society that values telling the truth over what ever is expediatent.

Yes, there are those who would say that the existentce of this site is detrimrntal to socirty, and would quote the law of thermodynamanics that "entrophy always increases." While this is true, I chose to do my best to hold the barbarians at bay, or to use another metaphor be the the boy with his finger in the dike.

 

[CreamyLady]

Well, I don't think that I write in a vacuum. However, what I write is what I want to say -- my own creation, from my own mind. As such, it is personal, and sharing it depends on whether I think that it is entertaining or enlightening or even enjoyable.

Am I my own censor? Yup -- but I call it discernment. For instance, I won't ever submit something I consider crap, just because there's a market for it.

I don't write for a target audience. If I share my work, I'm always happy when someone tells me that they like it. However, I'm not losing sleep if no one does. It just means that I'm less likely to share in the future.

Others can write and publish what they please. I didn't say they couldn't. I just said that I, personally, do exercise a certain standard for presentation of my work.

And, on a personal note, I'd understand more of what you were saying, MP, if you would lose much of the invective. Hostile, much?

 

[Madame Pandora]

I’ll just put in a few more things and leave this argument. It suddenly occurred to me that I’m debating an important issue on a thread titled “Resopnable” and I had a moment of clarity as to what is and is not worth my time.

Firstly, to all of you. Most of you who’ve read my posts realize that I don’t really care how you take or don’t take how I present my opinions. I have NEVER told anyone they can’t express themselves. It is a forum for opinions and you have every right to yours. I also have the right to speak as I like. And yes, when something is stupid to me, I call it stupid. Like this issue. If you don’t like it, you would do well to skim over my posts in the future. They tend to stand out. They even have a nice little picture to help you identify them easier.

That said -

Samuari – You go ahead and police your own work. Have at thee. You want to be responsible for the world’s problems don’t let me or anyone else deny you the cross. The moment something comes into creation, be it art or science, there exists the possibility that it can be transformed into something malicious. Even the purest of all things can be warped. I think it is the utmost in arrogance and stupidity to think you have such a great say in the mind and actions of another. But, don’t let me keep you from your self-delusions. I am sure your words and writings are SO POWERFUL as to woo people away from their sanity and lure the weak into whatever fantasy you steer them toward. Far be it from me to pop your little bubble. You just keep being responsible, baby, and, make sure, along the way, you remind us to salute you. Those of us rolling our eyes might forget. Do us a favor, though, and make sure you spell it S-A-L-U-T-E, kay?

And you’ll forgive us if the rest of us do not adhere to whatever your personal definitions may be of “positive” and “negative.” Your “values” are your own, and you’re welcome to them. You go ahead and keep your finger in that dike, but it might be worth your time to do a little research and find out just what happened to the little boy who kept his finger in that dike.

RonG – You make a very good point about the INTENT of a work. I see the merit in such a point. But INTENT is one of those tricky things to define. If a kid reads a manual by the KKK which details how to kill members of non-Arian races, and that kid takes an Uzi to school…it is easy to say “the intent of that material was to inspire hatred and is to blame.” These are the situations we dwell on because they are comfortable. We have a “bag guy” to blame. But, you just can’t bend the rules to fit the easy answers.

There is a movie called [bClosetland[/b] where a woman is tortured and interrogated for writing children’s stories which her government thinks are subtext criticisms of high-ranking officials. As it turns out, the stories were actually used by her as a way of facing a horrible pattern of child abuse she suffered growing up. Even SHE did not know this, however. She was simply writing children’s stories. The intent of her work was oh-so-clear to the government, though. It was inciting people to rebel in their eyes; it was an act of treason. In actuality, it had nothing to do with them at all.

INTENT.

Do you, as an author, always know the intent of your work? I sure as hell don’t. I usually start out with an image or an idea or a character and go from there. What intent others may or may not find in my work, I can’t help. Sometimes, the elements of great writing are subconscious. I firmly believe that Shakespeare had little, if any, notion of the incredibly rich subtexts, characterizations, and insinuations within his greatest works. Certainly, I’m sure SOME of them were his doing, but I bet he would be shocked out of his tights to learn some of the debates his work has been inspiring for CENTURIES.

When you want to start holding people responsible for the INTENT of things they write, it is like proclaiming you have insight into the workings of their mind AND their subconscious.

There are simple reasons, BTW, for these fantasies which irritate you so much. The rape-into-romance fantasy which, MUCH as it may ire you, is very popular with modern women. You’re a smart guy…I bet you can even figure a few of them out.

CreamyLady – Yes, I am hostile regarding this issue. And if you don’t like it you can smooch my grits. My diatribe is my own and I couldn’t give a shit what you do or do NOT understand. From what’s been posted here, it’s obvious you and everyone else understood me just fine. So, hopefully, you have a clear idea of what I think you can do with your “personal note.” If you need any more clarification on that, however, feel free to email me.

There is nothing wrong, BTW, in writing for a target audience. Some of the most respected and read authors in HISTORY were writing for a target audience. They were writing from the depths of their souls, yes, but they were writing to commune with others through their words.

All this “I write for myself” crap is just that…crap. For most people it’s a lie and for the rest it’s pathetic self-denial. It has all the subtlety of a teenager leaving a dairy out hoping someone will read it and give her attention. Whenever we write, we write to an audience, even if it’s only one in our head. And we all want – ON SOME LEVEL – our work to be read. To say else is just nonsense.

We write for pleasure, expression, cleansing, fun, profit, hope, wisdom, and any one of a million other reasons. But, more than anything else, we write FOR AN AUDIENCE. And, much as we write for them, we owe them NOTHING.

Exercise all the “standards” you want. Enjoy it. Limit yourself and riddle your work with the burdens you want you heap upon your own shoulders. As I’ve said, many people in the world enjoy bearing their own finely crafted crosses. Hone it. Bear it. Don’t let me or anyone else get in the way of your precious martyrdom.

But don’t any of you present this song and dance like you’re so much more “responsible” and “discriminating” for your imagined enlightenment and expect me not to call it bullshit. Because that’s exactly what it is.

Sure, it’s your opinion. Sure you’re welcome to it. It’s all hooey.

Authors are responsible to no one but themselves. They write for a million reasons, not the least of which is expression through creation. And no matter how you carry on about it, such creation is never wrong.

MP

 

[KillerMuffin]

Humph. I do censor myself. Anything involving bloodshed doesn't see the light of day or another person's eyes. Particularly if that person is in possession of some sort of psychology/psychiatry sheepskin awarding letters after their name. Or worse, psych students. They're scary.

I keep my demons firmly caged. For now.

 

[Laurel]

I think all authors censor themselves. No author that I know of writes fantasies about subjects that they are uncomfortable with or find distasteful, except perhaps to express their discomfort or distaste.

To Thine Own Self Be True, so they say.

Samuari, excellent thread. I think it is important for authors to be aware of the moral implications of their work. I think it's equally important for readers to read critically. All participants must take responsibility for their own actions.

 

[Samuari]

To Thine Own Self Be True, so they say.

Shakespear finished the thought with: "Then it must follow as the night the day, thou canst be false to no man." At least part of his reason be true to one's self is to be honest with others.

Samuari, excellent thread. I think it is important for authors to be aware of the moral implications of their work. I think it's equally important for readers to read critically. All participants must take responsibility for their own actions.

Yep, it worked out ok, considering that I was exhasted and throughly pissed off when I started it.

Oh, by the way CL, I was speaking of the story you won't let anyone see,when I made the crack about writing in a vacume. I have read your work and like it a lot. Your coment about Madam P's style was right on. I keep finding myself so entertained by the streem of invective that I lose track of what she is being pissed about. Takes me three or four passes, sometimes before I get it.

Pandora, don't you dare change your style, I love it. Just have wait 'till I've got time to wade through it. And no, I will not let have any of my Prozac, you have to see Dr. Olly and get yer own perscription.

<exit stage right sing the scarecrow's song>

[Edited by Samuari on 03-13-2001 at 02:47 PM]

 

[genderbender]

Great conversation!

I'd like to throw in a couple of other notions here. Freud spoke of what he called the "repetition compulsion," which New Agers have converted into "we keep making the same mistakes over and over again" until we finally learn the lesson. A relatively new brand of psychological theorizing called Control Mastery suggests something similar. While there may be whackos that visit this site, some of whom may do nasty things as a result of their exposure to what is here, it is equally possible that the experience of revisiting something that is traumatic or painful will become part of their healing. There are consequences, but we never know whether they will yield something of value or something troubling. I agree with those who suggest our obligation is to finding our own truth and expressing it as honestly as we're able to do so. If we are concerned about pain and suffering in the world there are ample ways to be of service, that don't involve becoming prigs.