Goodreads Authors/Readers discussion

So, I wrote a book that opens with an attempted suicide. And I got an email from a reader who said that she totally related to Rachel, my main character. She went on to say that she too felt like suicide often, and that Rachel's attempt was giving her permission to follow through as well.

I stopped writing the book at first, pulled it offline, then took three years to rewrite the work with a happy ending. But the new version doesn't really work for me. Disconnected is about depression, dealing with it for a lifetime, and a relationship that takes Rachel over the edge, the trigger (though not the cause) to her suicide attempt.

I recently put the real beginning back on Scribd. But it still freaks me out having it up. I want to publish the work the way I wrote it the first time. But if it somehow justifies suicide to depressed people, I don't want that!

What is the writers responsibility with the work they publish? When do we NOT publish because it may do unintended harm?

I don't think there is an answer to your second question really, as the intent of the book is as different for you as it is each for person who reads it. You can't not write or publish something because it may cause unintentional harm to a reader; if every Author did this we wouldn't be having this discussion as there would be no such thing as literature.

There will always be those out there that say they were led to commit an act either by book, tv or the constant bombardment our senses are subject to on a daily basis. You cannot change the original intent of your work, just because one person identifies with your lead character. Good literature, for me, comes with the intent of expanding my horizons, making me think about things and maybe, if it's really good, identifying totally with a character.

I would love you to continue with your book as it was meant to be, not dumbed down or tweaked for the politically correct crowd who have the freedom of choice whether to read it or not. Maybe putting some sort of disclaimer as to content on the fly leaf would help here. With all that said, you have now piqued my interest and I want to read this.

Hi Cate,
Are you depressed, or suicidal?

I agree with Cate. As writers, it is not our intention to encourage any acts of self-infliction, violence, drug abuse, sexual activity or anything else that may be perceived as encouragement for poor or unstable decisions.
Your book is a story just like any other story. It has a right to be told.

Horrible, abysmal ethics on display (above). The road to hell is paved with good intentions. It is one's actions which matter somewhat more. I would recommend placing more emphasis on preventing harm while we pursue our 15 minutes of fame; rather than placing ourselves first and then deferring to 'good intentions' afterwards. What a cowardly cop-out; so typical of today's culture ("let someone else worry about it").

If you're a writer, fine. Or any profession, really. No career absolves us from our responsibilities towards being good citizens, conscientious human beings, and cautious neighbors. You're a member of society first, a writer second.

I kinda trust novelists to grasp this a little bit better than screenwriters. Heck, those desperate prostitutes would toss any mother's son under a tank tread to finally get the sale of their first script; and to hell with the damages. I'm not addressing them with these comments...they're too far gone.

How has no one asked this..The reader who emailed you, do you know if shes alright? Did she follow through with what she said? Isn't that why you stopped writing it for three years?

Thats something serious to take in...my goodness

Hi Justin,
I wrote her back telling her why I thought suicide was a BAD idea. I went on, for like two pages on why she should get help, on how depression may make us FEEL like doing things but we don't need to act on every feeling we have...etc. I never heard back from her.

Oh my..well at least you reached out to her..I hope she heard you. It's one thing for a reader to read a book that hits close to home but you never want it to do something like that..

That's why you have disclaimers most of the time in published works (whether they be novels, movies, games, etc.), to illustrate the point that the content on display is merely an expression of art and shouldn't be misconstrued as anything more (unless in some depraved way, that's the intention of the author).

The onus is on the people being subjected to the material to discern what's wrong from right, and how far they're willing to go to connect with the material. If I write a book about a bank robbery, am I condoning a bank robbery, or merely coming up with a fictitious scenario to help drive plot? If someone says my book inspired him to rob a bank, will that cause me to have second thoughts? Perhaps on some subconscious level I'll feel guilty, but ultimately, anyone who's flaky enough to allow themselves to be influenced by others (and to that extent) has much deeper issues in play.

As decent human beings, there's a certain inherent prerogative that compels us to steer others away from vices, and towards virtues, but that in no way shape or form should deter you from crafting something that you feel is contentious. You're not the parent and you shouldn't be. Coddling others isn't your job unless you want it to be.

If someone else fails to use common sense and perceive your work as mere expression of art, then it's their support group that's failed them, not you, otherwise every single controversial author/screenwriter/director/actor would be drowning in a collective debt of guilt.

End rant.

I believe art is not created in a vacuum. Art does in many cases reflect life.( in my particular case it's just escapist fantasy). I can't think of how many books I've read that have horrific murders in them or child abuse or despair (go read some late nineteenth cent Russian literature...That will cheer you right up! ) With that being said...art IS to get you to think yes or no; moral or not. It can't make those internal decisions for you. But it does get you to think or react. If you think or react in a negative way....you are excersizing your personal right to make a decision yes or no moral or not. The artist can only lay it out in front of you.....and you can walk away.

J,

I'm a lot of things but depressed and suicidal are not among them lol.

I agree with Martin, in particularly, the last paragraph of his comment. Films and video games have often been used as scapegoats when someone is caught committing an illegal act, especially if it's a violent, illegal act.

Lawyers have been quick to use these "excuses" to portray their clients psychological state in order to obtain confinement to a hospital rather than prison, or to get them off completely.

Good fiction (except pure fantasy, perhaps) is, at least, minimally founded in truth,reality or a plausible alternative reality. It's that "hook" with which readers identify... good or bad.

Dean Koontz's villain in his novel "Intensity" is, for me the most vile, disgusting character ever; but, I was (and I am still) fascinated by him. Does that mean I would do the things he did? No, quite the opposite.

So, J., try to look at your situation from a different aspect... the reader's that will empathize with your character and her situation, but see how they could change the outcome, and not follow her example.

I'm speaking as a writer and as someone who has and does deal with depression.

We write stories. Sometimes stories which include vile, depraved, and hideous things. Are people going to read what we wrote, overlay themselves over the characters in our work and try to learn from the things they do? Possibly. Probably, if enough people read the book. It is up to each writer to decide if they can handle the guilt that invariably gets tossed their way when something happens and their work is listed as an excuse. More often than not, the work is used as a scapegoat and in no way contributed to what the individual did any more than a butterfly flapping it's wings in Moscow. People do horrible things, especially to each other, and it is common knowledge in the court system now, that they can ease the punishment they're going to get by pointing fingers at other things and claiming that's what made them do what they did.

To be perfectly honest, while there is a chance that the email you got was valid, I'd bet dollars to dimes that you were getting trolled, either by a fellow author who had a similar story, or some "Won't someone think of the children?!?" individual. Generally, people who are depressed and suicidal aren't going to reach out like that. Generally, not always, but generally.

I have written a little about depression but never touched on suicide.

What I would say is that if the email was true she was obviously mentally vulnerable and looking for a book to relate to regarding her thoughts; she wanted to justify it, to feel it was okay for her to do it.

I doubt it was your book that pushed her over the edge; she already had her toes in the water, she just chose your story to push herself.

Publish your work as you intended. I had a discussion with a fellow author regarding violence in books; he had a rape scene in his book where the victim then gets shot during the rape; it was more about human nature than the rape but I felt that the rape added to the character and made for a really shocking show of what humans are capable in situations of a hopeless nature.

However his friend told him that he felt it was too violent to which he changed the story slightly; in the same way that Stephen king said if you need a thesaurus for the word it isn't the right word; If you 're write a book it will never be the right scene.

I have a book I just finished called Messy and Shattered; frankly it is very violent and deals with a lot of emotions and I was tempted to edit to to a more safe level but I feel that it should be read the way I wrote it and have the emotions I strove for.

Just watched Into the Wild. That kid thought Thoreau was brilliant, and wanted to emulate On Walden Pond. Thoreau lived a friggin mile from Concord Mass, at the time a thriving city center. He sold his beans there that he grew during his time at Walden Pond. He didn't disappear into oblivion, like the book he wrote claims. The Into the Wild kid who went to Alaska and died of starvation in 1992 took Thoreau's words, Thoreau's abstracted theories and tried to live them.

An entire nation took Marx's words and tried to live them. Both these men wrote conceptual, philosophical ideology.

Disconnected is based on reality, and has very real history of L.A. in the early 1990s. Though fiction, it isn't conceptual, or philosophical, or a video game or film.

It's one thing to twist abstraction, as in Marx and Thoreau. It's another to write the truth, and that be adopted as truth by a reader. Damn scary. And while Art is Art, where does the responsibility of the writer come in? For all Thoreau's philosophy, he was a liar. He didn't disconnect from society. He lived a mile from Concord.

In Disconnected, Rachel validates suicide, finding peace in death, shutting off from constant internal pain. Is that ok? Or should I, as the writer, at least introduce the fallacy in that view?

I say go with the disclaimer thing and leave the book as is unless your personal morals on this issue are stronger than your desire to make money on this title. If you have 2 different versions you should really get a test audience that is willing to read both...and leave that disclaimer on the test copies as well.

In addition to being an author, I have been a health care practitioner for over 20 years and my long-time girlfriend is a clinical social worker. Based on my experience and hers, I can tell you there's a lot of people out there with emotional issues and they each have their own "hot-buttons" that can drive them to do things that are destructive to themselves and/or others. If you're going to be a writer, you're going to be very restricted in what you write about if you get too wrapped up in worrying about the effects your writing might have on an emotionally unstable person. If you write about a suicidal character, it could set off a suicidal reader. If you write about an addict, it could trigger addictive behavior in some of your readers. If you write about an abusive relationship, that could trigger depression in someone with that history. If you're going to write about anything "heavy", it may have an unpleasant effect on some readers. For that matter, I know a woman who has a rather severe phobia of balloons (plain old party balloons) and just the mere thought of them causes a panic attack. So just about anything, no matter how innocent it may seem to most people can potentially trigger a very negative emotional response in certain individuals.

Now that I've provided additional things for you to worry about, I think it is important to keep in mind that the suicidal reader who contacted you was damaged, but you did not damage her. I applaud your efforts to contact the reader and try to prevent her from hurting herself. She may have contacted you because she identified with your character and felt like perhaps you would understand her, but I would submit that your book did not make her suicidal despite what she said. A whole lot of other stuff brought her to that place.

That being said, I do think we have a responsibility to respond to our readers who contact us regarding the effects our writing had on them, good or bad. I think we should try to encourage them in a positive direction and to seek professional and/or spiritual guidance when indicated, but I do not think a writer should censor him or herself because of the possibility that someone might be moved to negative action by what he or she has written.

I personally would never write about suicide. I know and have known a lot of people who are suicidal and while I've talked to these people I am not expert nor do I think its okay for my to write about something I know nothing about. I am a positive person and I tend to not understand how some can have such a mindset but I mean I do try to reach out to those I know who are. When it comes to a writing perspective I would just stay away from such a topic.

That's quite the conundrum, but in the end, I think I'd go with a disclaimer, and write the story YOU want to write. Moral responsibility can only go so far, and we just can't take everybody's problems into account, because there are so many. Should we stop reading Shakespeare because Juliet comits suicide? Should every baker's stop displaying food in their windows because it might trigger a crisis in someone suffering from bulimia? Not really possible, is it? People must take responsibility for themselves; we can't do that for them. Talking to the reader who contacted you, trying to make her realise that what you wrote was a story and not reality, was probably the only thing you could do in that case; but at this point, anything, from a movie to a newspaper article, might have been just as much of a trigger anyway.

However, I also think that, as writers, we have to tackle such delicate matters in "tactful" ways. For instance, if a character gets raped, the author should find a means to convey that it's a terrible deed, and not spread messages like "she was wearing a short skirt so it's her fault" or "it's OK because her rapist is hot". And if the characters go through such thoughts as part of the plot (Stockholm syndrome, etc.), at some point some other character should at least be provided to offset the message, offer help, and so on, for those readers who might find triggers in such scenes.

But in the end, as I said, we can't be responsible for everybody's decisions. If I choose to read a very depressing book when I know I'm already suffering from depression, well, is the author at fault? Or should I have known better for starters?

I would include no disclaimer whatsoever. The blurb should be sufficient to warn people about the book’s content, and if you’re concerned about it and suicide isn’t part of the blurb, change it. If you’re going to worry about your book’s effect on others, how far do you go? What about those who misinterpret altogether what you write? You can’t possibly account for others’ thoughts and reactions, so don’t try.

My second book featured suicide, albeit in a particular context; however, my concern in this discussion is over self censorship. Whether the subject is abuse, addiction, murder, rape or just a romantic entanglement leading to unachievable expectations on a future partner, the writer should be honest and write what they want not what society wants them to write. Fear of censorship like fear of terrorism, being trolled, being watched is just that a fear to be overcome. Most fiction plots exaggerates human relationships to extreme levels to make them interesting and catch attention or just to intensify the story.

Readers can
- not read the book
- stop reading
- finish it and throw it away in disgust
- write a damning review
- tell all their friends and the wider world (via a review) what they thought
- follow up on some aspect in the book.

In the original posting how many suicides might have been prevented if the book had stayed published and the people concerned read the ending.

In the end you as the author cannot know how a reader might react to what has been read. It is their responsibility not yours. Self-censoring could be just as harmful.

A final example, teenagers have sex leading to teenage pregnancies. Many books refuse to discuss the subject or fail to mention the use of contraception. Does that encourage under age sex and lead to more pregnancies. If a book promoted teenage sex by describing characters that indulged would that be morally wrong, would an unplanned pregnancy be a corrective plot, or how about they had sex but used contraception. Whole religions would be up in arms for using contraception. In the end the author must write the story they want to write. Don't censor yourself because a reader might not like it.

I don't think you can take responsability for how readers react to your work
if someone reads a book and it makes them want to commit suicide odds are they are already disturbed.
remember colombine when the media tried to blame manson's music as the reason the students shot everyone? I don't agree with that theory, those boys were disturbed and bullied.
jmo but my art is my art and your mental illness is your mental illness.
my grandfather committed suicide, it wasn't a song a book or a person that caused him to do it, but it was his ocd. if someone says art of any kind led them to want to.commit suicide odds are they were looking for something to put blame on, after all isn't that the very heart of suicide? one trying to run from pain and responsabilities and do so by killing themselves instead of standing up taking action to begin to heal?

I totally agree with you, Philip. An author shouldn't be expected to tailor his/her work to take into account how people may react to it. It's political correctness gone mad yet again. If someone considers suicide because of a novel they read, then they already have significant issues, as Vanessa has pointed out. J., you are the author and so in control of what you write - do what feels right to you.

I believe authors should write about anything and everything. One cannot force-feed someone to read a book and a book alone cannot "make" someone do something they do not already think or plan to do at some point.

Everything aside, what I don't quite understand is why a book would justify suicide?
If a story is like that and the character is suicidal, then please go ahead and definitely write it.

But would it not be right to also show in such books that what the character thought and did was wrong and if she/he had made other choices the outcome might have been different? 'Cause they (characters) might not see the light of hope and end their lives, but the readers should be made aware that her chosen path was wrong.

I think just a disclaimer doesn't absolve any of us from our moral responsibility. Just a thought.

And J, I commend you for trying to help that woman and reaching out to her. How a person reads between the lines is his own take.

I have read a lot sketchy subjects. In most cases I can look at something objectively and take it for what it is. Yet, there are times I've read things that make me wonder about an author. I know writers have active imaginations and I can't assume their work reflects anything in their home life. It isn't even fair because the assumption isn't applied across the board. I don't read Stephen King and imagine him as a secret homicidal maniac. Yet if I read something that seems pro-incest or seems to wink at adults sleeping with underage children, I will wonder about the creators inner workings a little. I'm also shocked when authors put things like that in books and then seem upset when someone calls it out. I don't believe in censoring art, but also believe when you're purposely provocative; you should expect backlash.

I volunteer for the LGBT community and have been trained in how to speak with someone contemplating suicide, as my role in the volunteer organization puts me in the public a lot. Your story may have struck a chord with them and their email to you is a way of reaching out. Most people with suicidal thoughts reach out for help at least once. The fact you emailed back is good. The only thing better you could have done would be to offer them local resources like a suicide hotline.

But don't blame your writing. Any creative artist is going to strike chords in their audience, either through writing, music, art, dramatic performance, etc. Art does not make someone commit suicide--that has to be already present. What art can do, however, is bring issues like that to the surface. That's an opportunity to help someone, not a liability.

Be true to your story. Even Stephen King says this.

Blaze wrote: "Everything aside, what I don't quite understand is why a book would justify suicide?
If a story is like that and the character is suicidal, then please go ahead and definitely write it.

But woul..."

In my story the suicides are prompted by dying from a nasty virus, the characters choose to exit rather than continue to be a burden on the remaining survivors. Suicide in this sense is a noble act much like women and children first on a sinking ship. It is still suicide for those that choose to stay on board. Depressive suicide, if that really is different, may require greater explanation, but why should a book moralise. Serial killer books/TV like Dexter dress up murder with an anti-hero. A vigilante book like Jack Reacher dresses up murder as justice. How wrong is that, imho just as bad as suicide where the only physical damage is to the individual, not spraying bullets around on the side of alleged justice.

I often think when watching the bit part guards in some action movie getting killed, as the hero and villain clash, don't those guards have families? Wouldn't those families be justified in seeking revenge on the so-called hero's actions? After all they were just doing their jobs.

Violence and heavy issues are tough. I wonder about that in my fantasy writing. I definitely glorify combat even though in my home life I am a pacifist. I also recently wrote a love scene that was far more graphic than I would normally write. I have always been scared of writing something like that because of people I know connecting the sex-acts with me personally. Well taking the leap and putting those doubts aside really led to the love scene being one of them that I'm most proud of. It felt good to explore it, be brave, and take a chance without getting too worried about the audience.

Then again there will probably be a disclaimer!

F.F. wrote: "Violence and heavy issues are tough. I wonder about that in my fantasy writing. I definitely glorify combat even though in my home life I am a pacifist. I also recently wrote a love scene that was ..."

I have had comments from friends and relatives after the sex scenes in my first book, including the won't be able to look at you again. After that I did put a warning note below that book and I have continued to do so with my latest. I have blogged about censorship as well and the decision we all face about covering (or not) sex, violence and bad language.

Childhood issues such as abuse or paedophilia are even more complex. My second book has a peripheral character involved but then a lot of subjects come up in that book including rape, suicide, justice. I admit I like to push boundaries a bit, but my characters don't swear very often. For some reason I am uncomfortable writing swearing dialogue, just as some are unhappy writing sex scenes or violence.

Wolfgang von Goethe wrote "The Sorrows of Young Werther" which features a very much romanticised suicide. In consequence and over the past 200 or so years there have been thousands of deaths by suicide attached to and caused by this novel. This even has a clinical name, it's called the "Werther Effect" (also copycat suicide or suicide contagion, you can google it).

This is a fact, not fiction, and I usually am truly astonished over predominantly American readers/writers who consider books to have no effect on their readers whenever I discuss the topic (..."but it's /just/ fiction"...).

So, it is a proven fact that books can directly influence, whether towards self-violence, or other kinds of positive or negative effects. Does it mean you can't write about these things? Or that you just add a disclaimer and be done with it (and shoulder not the least bit of responsibility, as so many want to do it)?

I think the main problem lies in HOW you write this. If the author writes something noxious and potentially dangerous in a manner which endorses what takes place, then I will not let him shed responsibility. You wrote it as something great to do or have, you incited the readers.

It is always possible to write something instead in a distanced manner (for that matter, that's also the case for so many violence-celebrating movies), or even subverting it. Goethe romanticised suicide, and people killed themselves, predominantly love-sick young men, because it was so "romantic". I hope it hit Goethe when he learned about this, because I consider him quite responsible.

Same goes for stories in which rape or rapists are glorified, or where the reader is made to positively identify with murder and murderers. This works, one has to say it again. The same thing is at work in advertisement or propaganda.

Do disclaimers suffice? They wouldn't for me. I'd probably not only add full-out author notes, I'd have trouble writing anything noxious in a way which would directly incite it. That can be avoided, and I think it should be.

Steelwhisper wrote: "Wolfgang von Goethe wrote "The Sorrows of Young Werther" which features a very much romanticised suicide. In consequence and over the past 200 or so years there have been thousands of deaths by sui..."

I was not aware of this book or following.

Nevertheless, even if von Goethe was aware should he delete the book. Should the book be banned just in case someone commits suicide after reading it.

A Clockwork Orange led to the Kubrick film which was effectively withdrawn by Kubrick himself. Watching it now I really don't understand what the fuss was about, yes it's violent, contains rape, bad odd language, but the satire shines through. When the film first came out the Authorities tried to ban it because they felt it provided an incentive for gang violence. The violence is romanticised by the hero and I'm sure some idiots thought they could copy it and claim they weren't responsible for their own actions.

If I was being exceptionally Darwinist and controversial I would say "if people are stupid enough to attempt suicide because they read a book, saw a film, watched TV, looked at an advert, their mate told them to then we should not stop them" because survival of the fittest rules they should not survive.

But, before I get slammed for being insensitive, I do understand that attempted suicide is a cry for help, frequently carried out by people who are suffering from severe depression who can be helped, but I strongly doubt (even if there is a named syndrome) that one book or article tipped the balance.

Philip wrote: "Blaze wrote: "Everything aside, what I don't quite understand is why a book would justify suicide?
If a story is like that and the character is suicidal, then please go ahead and definitely write ..."

You gave me a good word 'depressive sucide'.
I ask, is it all right to say that all around your character is unhappy with his/her life, there was nothing for him to live for in the entire book. Tired he choses to end his life. That's it. That's the story. He preferred escape than fight and find something to live for. What kind of message is that sending to the reader who is already on the brink. That kind of writing is sending those broken people the wrong message.

As far as Dexter, he is an anti-hero. The word ANTI is joined with the word Hero. That there is an idea that what he is doing cannot be accepted in true moral sense. And viewers get the gist.

That's the same way, writers show a rape scene, murder, or robbery. The best of them, even Steven King, show what they are doing is not 100% right. Whether, that message is written in just a single line or , could have a whole para devoted to it.

These messages could be shown in POVs of the characters themselves- probably as a passing thought , maybe a twinge of guilt, whatever. They appear by someone else's POV as well. Even the series Dexter has them here and there.

Now, for people sacrificing, is seen more as sacrifice, and less as sucide. They are giving their lives to save another life.

With everything aside, I was referring to the depressive sucide. They need help and guidance, not to read that their decision to waste away a precious life given only once is some kind of nirvana.

Freedom of any kind is never absolute.
legal and moral duties can never be ignored by false excuses, or just a disclaimer. Responsibilities must be taken.

Blaze wrote: "That's the same way, writers show a rape scene, murder, or robbery. The best of them, even Steven King, show what they are doing is not 100% right. Whether, that message is written in just a single line or , could have a whole para devoted to it...."

This. In a nutshell. That's what marks the excellent writer.

Philip wrote: "If I was being exceptionally Darwinist and controversial I would say "if people are stupid enough to attempt suicide because they read a book, saw a film, watched TV, looked at an advert, their mate told them to then we should not stop them" because survival of the fittest rules they should not survive...."

There are more books like Goethe's. The Germans have a propensity for producing those, I can put the elephant on the table: "Mein Kampf". No denial of what that did to a whole people, not to speak of 6 million deaths.

But it's also far more inconsequential, yet just as tragic at other levels. Currently droves of often barely teenage girls get themselves labiaplasties, on the NHS even, no less. Why? Because the air-brushed nether regions they get to see and read about in lad mags and teen magazines tell them they are defective.

I do not believe in irresponsibility, particularly not if the main motive is personal gain and either marked incompetence (of writing better) or egotism (après moi, le déluge). I know that's not de rigeur at the moment, especially amongst so many budding artists, but that doesn't make it better.

Philip wrote: "If I was being exceptionally Darwinist and controversial I would say "if people are stupid enough to attempt suicide because they read a book, saw a film, watched TV, looked at an advert, their mate told them to then we should not stop them" because survival of the fittest rules they should not survive."


Phillip, media has power. It's why oppressive governments censor it routinely. I have learned a lot from and had my world view changed from something read, seen, or heard before. I don't think that makes a person weak or feeble, just human because we are all susceptible to it's influence.

Thanks for the comments, I appreciate the tone of the discussion.

My concern is that if we as writers have to have a moralistic purpose behind our scenes and characters we are self censoring our stories. Why should good always win, it quite clearly doesn't always. Murderers escape justice, rapists remain uncaptured, child killers continue their sprees. Political ideologies continue to spout and encourage death and destruction. The extremist end of Islamic fundamentalism encourages suicide in their belief of what is right If I was writing a story based on that viewpoint would that be morally right or would it be dismissed because I don't encourage my readers to realise it's wrong

I'm writing a story, it's fiction, I want my characters to be different, I want them to be morally challenging because I'm frankly bored with a goody goody hero/heroine. If my readers don't like my characters then fine, but I will not hold back just because of a perceived threat just as the bank robber story won't not tell how to do a bank robbery, why should a suicide story not talk about it if the character does see it as morally justified and romantic.

Before e-books the only books we could read were the ones the big publishers “chose” for us to read. Those books were selected by the publisher based on the publisher’s idea of what the greatest number of readers would like.

I wrote my first books with that same thought in mind. Now with the ability to publish myself as an e-book, I write what I like. If I can’t find an interested publisher, so be it. My book will still be available to those who like my subject.

Richard Brawer
www.silklegacy.com

A heavy topic, but an important question. I'm glad to see it up here being discussed so openly.

I take all the points made. I think the best solution, that should negate a need for disclaimers and fulfils any moral obligation we have, is that every book should have balance, it should explore more than one side of any question, both the light and the shade. This way we can understand that in the face of any and every situation we have a choice. We are not observers or passengers in our own lives. Many children suffer abuse, but not every abused child grows up to become an abuser themselves or falls apart. We always have a choice.

I think probably most of the best books I've read are good because of the very fact that they explore the same question from multiple angles. It adds texture, depth. The Help by Kathryn Stockett is a good example. The same situation will look different from different eyes.

I'm trying very hard to achieve that at the moment within my half-written first book.

Does that help? It adds a different perspective anyway. Or am I missing something?

Claudia Smitherman

Phillip/Claudia, I like both of your points.

I am a reader that does have a couple of subjects that immediately put me on the defensive. Occasionally I will venture into even those waters, if something in a blurb catches my attention. I can admit some of my favorite books are those I fought hardest against reading in the first place due to said issues.

Books should be a little dangerous from time to time. The best ones can be little bombs that blow your mind to smithereens. That power should also be respected and understood by the creator also. Now I'm not saying an author should wring there hands wondering about how mentally unstable people might respond to their subject matter, like in the instance of the author that started this thread. That author did nothing wrong in my eyes. At the same time don't write your controversial political manifesto advocating war on all Muslims, then act all shocked when the protests and bombings start either.

Personal thanks to all who have engaged in this topic, I hope it has been useful for J. I also appreciate the various points of view espoused. I shall certainly consider the moral viewpoint in my future writings and take that into consideration when I write. I may still end up with a non-corrected viewpoint or scenario, but I hope that will be a considered justified response.