Maltese_Falcon91
I'd have to completely disagree with you there. First, you can't really control how people are going to interpret your writing. Do you think the Beatles should held accountable for Manson thinking their song,
Helter Skelter was some sort of doomsday prophecy?
And second, well, self censorship is just as bad as regular censorship, and you shouldn't compromise your vision because there's a chance you might offend someone. There are people out there who'd probably react to Blade Runner the same way you think about Twilight. Does that mean Ridley Scott intended to offend them? Should the film be tampered with to remove any controversial elements?
Was Deckard a replicant? Yeah, probably not.
See, there's a difference between "implications" and "what some nutcase will think the secret message is." One you can talk about in English class and one you can't. It's a matter of what's plausible and what isn't.
For example, there's an interpretation of James Joyce's...
Ulyses, I think it is, that ties into the USSR. This is not plausible. You can pick it out, but, it doesn't make any
statement about the USSR, just kind of... references it, maybe, so it really wouldn't even affect anyone's thinking. Besides, it just isn't a very reasonable explaination. It's a bunch of random bits and peices that are much more likely to be coincidental.
So, an author can't be held responsible for any interpretation that isn't reasonable.
What's more, this isn't "responsible" in the one-to-one ratio of cause-and-effect. The image that sticks with me is Susan Griffen describing these sorts of societal tendencies as a field, like a gravatational or magnetic field. They
tend in a certain way. Each story is only a tiny part of that field, and each person it acts on a single particle in a sea of matter. It's impossible to predict the movement of a single particle, or the exact parts of the field that affect it, but you can see the direction it's tending towards and, as an author or reader, identify a given work's position in relation to said field.
Take, for example,
The Dark Knight and the theater shooting that the perpetrator claims it inspired. Was Christopher Nolan really responsible for that? No. "Shoot up a theater" is not a reasonable interpretation of
The Dark Knight.
However, we do live in a culture of violence. Stories where violence is not a major (if not the only) tool used by the protagonist to achieve their goals are in the minority. In books, in movies, in games, violence being okay is the default. It's a value that's been slowly engraved into each and every one of us.
If we lived in a non-violent culture would the theater shooting still have happened? It's impossible to know. You can't predict the movement of a single particle in the field, especially when that particle's movement is irrational. But you can tell the direction that the field tends towards. If we lived in a non-violent culture, we can't pick out which occurrences of violence would not happen, but it is reasonable to assume that there would be, in general, less violence.
In terms of "self-censorship," first of all, it comes down to "I don't want to say what I don't want to say." Do I
want to write a racist story? Hell no! It's not a matter of not wanting to offend someone, it's a matter of
not wanting to write a racist story. Because, for reasons including those stated in the article, I really do believe in the power of culture, particularly stories, to change the world, and I don't want to live in a racist/sexist/homophobic/violent/what have you world. And I certainly don't want to be part of the field that pushes it in that direction.
I don't want to say what I don't want to say. That's what it means to me to have integrity, and it's something I value the heck out of.
It's the same reason I wouldn't publish a crappy story. I don't want to live in a world full of crappy stories. What's more, if someone realizes it's a crappy story, I don't want it hanging around my reputation. So I write good stories because a) I want to read good stories and b) I want to be known as someone who writes good stories.
But integrity aside, just because there's a reason not to do something doesn't mean you automatically shouldn't do it. It just means you compare the pros and the cons, and if the pros outweigh the cons, you do it. But that doesn't absolve you from the cons. It means you should take responsibility for the entire outcome of your decision.
Responsibility isn't a matter of doing or not doing something. It's a matter of considering something, and then carrying the weight of having done it. Forever. It's knowing what was done and then keeping that knowledge beside you for the rest of your life. Because that's what it takes to live in a world worth living in.
150
100
100
100
200
100
150
50
300