Responsibility and Entertainment - How far is too far?

[HGohwell]

Being aware of an audience is not the same as being afraid of an audience. For instance, you wouldn't (I would hope) put a sexual story where children could easily find it. If you're writing for children (I would hope) you wouldn't include this stuff. If your story includes rape or suicide (I would hope) you would have researched and through things through properly and included a trigger warning, and again, put it where impressionable children can't find it so that you don't harm anyone with that content. If people then circumvent that (as I said in my first post, Dead Dove, Don't Eat) then that is on them. But being aware and not wanting to harm someone is not necessarily the same as censoring and being afraid of what your audience will find offensive.

As I said in my first post Don't Like, Don't Read (I will tell you what's in it, don't like it, don't read it) and Dead Dove, Don't Eat (why are you upset it's what I told you it was) are generally the most sensible way of doing this.

[IndigoShirtProd]

I also think that the matter with Rowling might be more skewed towards death of the author, where the work itself does not necessarily contain any harmful qualities when viewed as a separate entity from the author.

I was mainly refernecing her most recent book and not the Harry Potter series.

1. To any and every end. If this is about freedom of speech and prevention of censorship, then creators should not be surprised if people do not like their work and tell them how poorly it depicts one thing or another, if applicable of course.

2. I think it has some bearing, though the consquences of a work often far reach the intent. Maybe this was just supposed to be a romance between a brooding guy and a cheerful girl, but the consequence was the normalization of verbal abuse somehow unbeknownst to the aurthor. And now that author has to face how his/her work was interpreted. It's not fun and sometimes it's unfair, but it happens. I do think work loses merit, at least a little, if the intent is harm and not criticism.

[Missapogee]

I have to agree with a lot of people here. So long as the work doesn't so anything like doxx someone or call for violence against a real living individual (not a hypothetical), it should be allowed to exist. It's art and fiction, so it's inevitable that sensitive ideas are going to be portrayed, and it's inevitable that people you personally or politically disagree with are going to create art too.

I worry about the idea of drawing a line based on a term as loose as "harmful" because if we say "okay, we won't allow the creation of things deemed harmful" that paves the way for people to move those goalposts and say "anything I disagree with/dislike is harmful, and therefor shouldn't be allowed to be created or consumed, and if you do you're a bad person!" (which already happens in some social media circles) and even straight up dystopian novel style censorship (I.E. dissenting options are not permitted! Conform or be deleted!) (I'm exaggerating for emphasis)

[Seaby]

@HGohwell I think your point about disclaimers seems to be the best action to take in allowing authors to write about what they want while leaving it up to the audience as to whether they're prepared to digest it.

@therosesword As I've stated, it depends on how you want to approach the matter (regarding criticism). Aside from that, I don't believe I've made any claims as to what is and isn't harmful or acceptable, so it's up to you to decide. Be it S&M or war, these topics can be written about in a neutral or supportive manner. But what if the author writes about these things while wanting to hurt others or spread a message encouraging inhumane treatment of others?
(I don't have a definitive opinion on the matter. I agree with both sides and the many points made thus far, so I'm not necessarily trying to get to the bottom of anything aside from hearing everyone else's opinions.)

@IndigoShirtProd (Now that you mention it, I do recall her releasing some rather openly transphobic novel...)

[UrMom]

My answer is the same as @WillowTree's, people should be able to create whatever they want as long as it's tagged appropriately, and the audience should be responsible for what they see from there.

The only thing a creator should consider and be prepared for is the backlash they will get, regardless of how careful they are with content warnings. Be ready to handle all feedback maturely and empathetically. Because even though I believe it is the readers responsibility to police what they read, they also have a right to voice their opinion if they do decide to look into something they shouldn't have. (Freedom of creation. Freedom of speech.)

And oh boy, will readers do just that, especially if they're directly told not to read the thing.

[rajillustration]

In my opinion I think the bigger issue is when we try and put our morality of our day in 2020 (I'm a westerner so it would be a very western one) and try to just...insert it into analyzing fiction written by people that aren't. Truth is, people don't think the same way I do. This is one of the most powerful things about fiction.

Like I love reading old ass books--and they have a lot of problematic things by modern morality. My favorite book? Hunchback of Notre Dame, which is filled with...honestly just a lot of things that would get it banned from Tapas. But, the thing is, you aren't supposed to read it from the perspective of "is this book appropriate for Tapas" you're supposed to read it from the stance of "I'm reading a book written by a French guy in 1830 about Paris in the 15th century" WHY would I read it expecting it to follow my 2020 perspective???

So as far as responsibility of the author goes--it depends on the context. So on Tapas there are maturity filters, mostly because of the Google app store and their strict legal restrictions. On other sites they may take works down for promoting other issues they can't legally promote for whatever reason. The internet isn't exactly a free place, unless it's your own website.

[therosesword]

In my opinion I think the bigger issue is when we try and put our morality of our day in 2020 (I'm a westerner so it would be a very western one) and try to just...insert it into analyzing fiction written by people that aren't. Truth is, people don't think the same way I do. This is one of the most powerful things about fiction.

So true.

I'm a big Hemingway fan. I'm also a feminist. I know, he doesn't fare well with feminists, but... I can separate the two. I'm also a big fan of unknown 1920's mysteries, oh the non pc stuff there. But I can separate it. In five years things will be different as to what is offensive and what isn't. Write for the day (if you want) because in a few years it will be different. Unless, of course, the only thing you're writing for is Tapas likes and subscribers and nothing ;other than that, which is not the impression I get with most of you.

Also, like someone else said, no matter what you write there will be someone somewhere who will read what they want out of it and complain.

Write hard, write true.

[gmaximin]

Communication is emitter / message / receiver, but also channel!
They choose, target & match creations / audience, and do profit from it. Very often they fail to do that properly.
I’ve noticed that where I live:
- Creators do tend to self censor depending on what channels accept (and not audience). And with time, self censorship becomes an habit, which in turn becomes a new norm for the audience.
- Audience is not curious. I had an enlightening discussion with Sub Rosa label director decades ago, he told me: now, pointing has more value than creating. He was right. Audience consume more and more what is proposed to them by channels, without much critical thought, and with time, even though audience can access more and more content, they actually consume less and less diversity, always returning to the same channels. As a result, exposing themselves to less diversity, their acceptability threshold narrows, to the extent of closing themselves to different thoughts...

So to me, to add on what others have said about creators / audience responsibilities in terms of content, channels have a responsibility, not only to frame content and audience, but also to allow diversity to express itself. It’s a hard balance, and some do that better than others.

[Puck]

That´s an interesting topic.
I have my own line based on my own moralistic opinion and so do other artists.
A comic can be seen as a reflection of the real world and everything that exists in
the real world can be shown in comics too, for me personally as an artist and
as a reader, it depends on the presentation. 3 examples, murder, rape, children
in a sexual content. All those things exist in comics and in the real world, I don´t
want to see or create any of those. I would show murder to a certain degree
but I prefer that nobody is being killed in my art. One example from the movie
Jackie Brown/Quentin Tarantino, there was a lady who was talking a lot and one of the guys shoots
her in the face because she didn´t stop talking. The whole cinema was laughing their asses off,
I didn´t laugh and I almost puked from hearing the laughter