World, Writing, Wealth discussion

An author may have a message to present, but the book needs to be interesting, to entertain. There has to be struggle, some competing values, heroes' agenda. Some use controversial characters, transgressive behavior, noir, etc. One may want to stress nature protection, but the reader may come out with the message about something else altogether.
Can't 'Godfather' for example pass the message that being a mafia boss is cool? Or Travolta in Pulp Fiction that skiing is cool? Books, movies influence people to some degree and not necessarily in the way we predict or expect.
I think there was some study that someone told me about an experiment that readers reacted very differently to humorous parts of some book or found humor where author never intended it humorously, for example...

Can (writing) art propagate anti-social behavior? And if yes, shall authors take it into consideration and take some precautions?

Regardless of what the writer intended, readers will take what they wish from the book. I've had readers see traits and sub-plots that I absolutely never meant to include.
Worse, how can the writer actually produce an effect when one beta reader chooses the character as their favourite, and another picks the same person as the one they hate.

Anti-social is in the eye of the beholder - some will see it if it isn't there, others will miss the most blatant attempts. A book is a few hours or days clearly labelled fiction. Surely life, including the words and actions of people considered role models, will have a much greater and longer lasting effect.

I totally agree with what Vance said. A single sentence can trigger unpredictable responses, but the responsibility belongs to the person who acts upon the writing of others.

I'll go even further by saying that it goes in both directions and may result in more than humane behavior.

The writer owns his art and expresses what he believes needs to be written regardless of whom may eventually read him. What one does with the words of others is not the author's responsibility, unless he directly commands illegal acts.

"The pen is mightier than the sword" - so yes writing does influence and today it may be in the form of posts on Twitter & Facebook. That's also where the copycat/wannabes are going to get their impetus to do stupid things. Books still influence but the immediacy that appeals to some is found online, unfortunately.

Nik wrote: "An author may have a message to present, but the book needs to be interesting, to entertain. There has to be struggle, some competing values, heroes' agenda. Some use controversial characters, tran..."

Nik, I fully agree. In fact, this is one of my hobbyhorses. Here is a relevant a blog post: https://bobrich18.wordpress.com/2016/...

I have an older one, but couldn't quickly find the link.
:)
Bob

Nice hobbyhorse and nice blog, Bob! Read it with interest. Absence of alcohol on a shopping list is a bit striking, but I understand your reasoning-:)

The Project Mayhem from Fight Club gained a totally different perspective after 9/11 and on the internet some connect the movie with real instances of radical behavior.
Can a book cause collateral damage? What do you think?

Nik, what makes you think the damage is collateral? If a book is intended to make the reader think, then whatever the reader thinks is intended, even if we don't like it.

Ian wrote: "Nik, what makes you think the damage is collateral? If a book is intended to make the reader think, then whatever the reader thinks is intended, even if we don't like it."

Well, if the book is a manual how to prepare a nuke at home and wipe out your neighbors, I guess it's a little too obvious to pose something worth discussion -:) It's the unintentional stuff that may evoke some interest. Don't think those who write transgressive stuff, necessarily mean it to happen, however maybe they need to consider side-effects?

Actually, that raises an interesting question relating to crime - how realistic do you make it? I try to make it not quite, but difficult to spot. Thus in my "Red Gold", the settlement of Mars is afflicted by a massive stock-market fraud on Earth. It includes many of the symptoms of the sort of fraud prevalent in the 1980s (the book was actually written in the early 1990s, but not published until somewhat later) but I also included a rather subtle (I hope) "trap" and strictly speaking, anyone inspired by that to try it out should be fairly quickly caught by any authorities looking for them. I don't know whether that qualifies as avoiding collateral damage?

Ian wrote: "...but I also included a rather subtle (I hope) "trap" and strictly speaking, anyone inspired by that to try it out should be fairly quickly caught by any authorities looking for them. I don't know whether that qualifies as avoiding collateral damage?"

Definitely!
Almost like police officers mimicking teen girls online to ambush pedophiles -:)

Should authors care about "collateral damage"?

Well you can't predict behavior and if a few thousand people watch a movie or read a book. and one person imitates some act of violence in the movie, is the author or screenwriter to blame?
But interestingly there were actually a couple cases from way back where this was an issue. Decades ago, there was a kid who murdered someone and his defense was that he was watching too much of a cop show. The case about the movie "Born Innocent" where girls imitated a violent act in the movie (TV movie) was well known. And one of the worst mass killings was by someone in Australia who was supposedly inspired by the Chucky movies.

That mental defective in Port Arthur had a long history of wack-jobbery, so the Australian government blamed guns.

If you want learn about a book which is surrounded by a bizarre web of collateral damage, look up the strange connections to The Catcher in the Rye.

Nik wrote: "Should authors care about "collateral damage"?"

I know of two books which have each killed millions of people. Mein Kampf is hated, but The Communist Manifesto is often celebrated. Why is that?

J. wrote: "Nik wrote: "Should authors care about "collateral damage"?"

That is a great question. I only wish I had a great answer. Maybe it depends on the intent of the author. Plenty of examples of someone going extreme using and giving writing or movie example. If that is the case, nothing will ever be safe. No matter how careful you use words, someone will twist then to meet their particular set of wants. Charles Darwin gave us selection of the fittest and that was twisted into Social Darwinism.

Should Darwin not written it?

I think rephrasing Nik's question might provide a little illumination. Should a writer self censor? Not to make a work better, but to not offend anyone?

Papaphilly wrote: "J. wrote: "Nik wrote: "Should authors care about "collateral damage"?"
Nik wrote: "Should authors care about "collateral damage"?"

That is a great question. I only wish I had a great answer. Maybe..."

We all self-censor all the time for language scenes, violence sex etc. Subject matter - we choose not to write or to write about subjects all the time. We are bound to offend someone by omission or inclusion.

Does this amount to causing or preventing collateral damage? People who harm others always want excuses - why not blame a book or an author. Long term racism and sexism in older books are harder to ignore but they were written in a different age. Did they perpetuate belief systems? Probably but consider the far more damaging books than Mein Kamf and The Little Red Book. How about religious texts and their racism, sexism, bigot-ism?

Far more collateral damage there.

So should people not be responsible for their own bad acts? I'm really tired of this idea that people are like children, that they shouldn't be exposed to all kinds of ideas, all sides of an issue - that they must be protected from bad information through censorship. We're adults. We make our own decisions, good and bad, and we should answer for what we do - not blame the ideas of others. It's called personal responsibility.

Philip wrote: "We all self-censor all the time for language scenes, violence sex etc. Subject matter - we choose not to write or to write about subjects all the time. We are bound to offend someone by omission or inclusion...."

I am not talking about editing. That is part of the writing process and should only be used to make the story better. It is one thing about toning down a scene because it is too over the top and does the overall story no favors and toning it down because you are afraid of offending someone and they complain.

Nik wrote: "Can (writing) art propagate anti-social behavior? And if yes, shall authors take it into consideration and take some precautions?..."

So I looked at what Nik asked again. The first answer to the first question is yes, art can propagate anti-social behavior. Whether intended or unintended, it can and does happen.

As for should the author take into consideration and take precautions against such behavior, that remains to the author's choice. I expect it would lead to bland and boring writing and will do the story no justice in the long run and the larger picture would hurt the entire industry.

What I find interesting is the idea of collateral damage. The unintended consequence of harm to some third party not intended. How do you prevent it? I do not think it can be done so because it was both unintended and probably not thought about. So then how does one think about it?

To me, good writing should evoke feelings of some sort. When you evoke feelings, then you are asking for someone to feel bad even if it is unintended. If you write only about the proverbial bunnies, unicorns and rainbows, someone will be sad because it will remind them of the bunnies that died or their stuffed unicorn they had when they were a child and lost.

I think Nik has asked a great and thoughtful question. My advice for you writers is to write to YOUR audience and please yourself. I advise not to go down the rabbit hole to far because I think it will turn into "Alice in Wonderland".

Maybe the best piece of advice for food for thought I can give is: did you say what you wanted?

If all printers determined not to print anything till they were assured it would offend nobody, there would be very little printed.
Ben Franklin

Great quote, Papa. And, as I said, authors shouldn't be held accountable for decisions people make based on what they read. Each of us should be held accountable for decisions we make. No one forces us to do anything.

Nik wrote: "An author may have a message to present, but the book needs to be interesting, to entertain. There has to be struggle, some competing values, heroes' agenda. Some use controversial characters, tran..."

What is anti-social behavior? It was only a few decades ago in America in which such things as interracial relationships or being gay were considering anti-social and even a crime. No, I don't think any artist in any media, from stand-up comedian to an author should be responsible.

Considering how I was raised, I believe the fact that I don't take issue with and am not prejudiced against "others" is because of what and how much I read throughout ages 12 to 18.

The rule in our house was my mother had to read a book before I could. She read really slow. I quickly started checking out the max number of books for myself while throwing some Harelequin romances her way.