Freedom of speech and creative writing...

zeppelin123 said:

I've seen a few stories on AW writen from the POV of people who go on (usually highschool) shooting rampages. Often, these pieces are intended to make readers sympathize with the shooter. A few months ago, me and several others in the chat discouraged an individual from finishing such a story that he posted in SYW.

I would have felt differently if the story was written about teens dealing with the grief from a shooting at a school. In these times, there needs to be more books about kids coping constructivly with tragedy. What bothered me about the piece was that it was glorifying the shooter and intended for an upper MG/YA audience.

Share your thoughts on this.

Click to expand...

I would not want to read such a piece but I wouldn't discourage anyone from writing it. Where do you draw the line?

I write about the darkside of life as well as the bright. But who am I--to judge someone else's work in that way. I feel the same way about other arts as well.

If I don't like a song---I won't buy it. If I don't like a book--I won't buy it.

I believe, we should enjoy the privilege---of either liking or disliking a certain work. Censorship is a double edge sword. I don't like playing with sharp objects or with the idea of the limitation of free expression.

zeppelin123 said:

I would draw the line at works that present illegal (especially violent) activities in a positive light. For instance, someone who wrote a story about how he enjoyed torturing cats, rapist stories, shooting rampage stories etc.

I am also very negative towards writings that are pro self abuse (e.g. poems about wanting to commit suicide)

I believe that these types of writing only encourage troubled people to commit these acts. Nothing positive can be gained from them.

As one Reader's Digest Article "How Nasty Do We Wanna Be?" said about a song about beating up and raping a women, "you can't yell "fire" in a croweded theatre or "bomb" in an airport." There are limits to freedom of speech.

Click to expand...

If an individual is disturbed---would they be more influenced by a song, a movie, a story, a painting?

First you spoke about youth fiction---in that case---where are the parents?

I might not like to read something but I am not going to censor it.

I just won't buy it.

You asked what others thought---but I think you might be more interested in finding someone who agrees with your opinion?

And we'd better discourage anyone who writes about human cannibalism (sorry Hannibal), or of glorifying that related abomination of humans (or humanoids) who consume the blood of other humans. And serial killers...what if we trigger something in a reader that causes them to start torturing and killing people? I guess we should all just write romance. But wait. What if we create a society of coveters and adulterers?

And above all, don't take those old vinyl records and play them backwards...

Your point is well-taken as well, Zep. But this is where the publishers should step in and maybe turn the author of that teen-shooter story away from YA and maybe toward aiming it for an adult audience, in which case, a quality story of that kind of emotional/mental unbalance (even if temporary), and its manifestations, could turn into an excellent read.

And I also agree that parents have a role in what YA stories their children read, particularly since we are starting our children reading in Kindergarten and really pushing hard on reading skills throughout the elementary school years. A thrid grader reading at the sixth or seventh grade level (like Little Fizzy) may not be emotionally ready for some of what passes for YA these days. This falls squarely in the "my job as parent" arena. Ditto with television shows, video games, and the internet.

If freedom of speech only applies to those things that are 'unoffensive' then freedom of speech means nothing at all.

People are free to write anything they like, whether it gets published or not is another story.

Often, these pieces are intended to make readers sympathize with the shooter.

Click to expand...

I don't see this as a bad thing in and of itself. Glorifying the behavior, no, I can't see justifying that. Explaining the shooters motivation and what led him to the act could be quite enlightening. Indeed, it could be quite valuable. There are many people who don't understand why people 'go postal'. Done well - it could explain quite a lot.

I wouldn't see this subject as 'entertainment' as much of my reading is, rather, I'd see it as explanation.

I don't think anyone has the right to tell you what you can or can't say in a book. Give me all of it so that I can read what you're really thinking. If someone wants to convince me to join him in burning a few crosses I'll read what he has to say. I'll read what a pedophile has to say because I want to know what they were thinking when it happened to me.
The thing that balances that out is that I get to present an argument. I also like to know what the enemy is thinking and preaching so I can present that argument as a way of recruiting a few of them over to God's side.
Without the exchange of ideas good, bad, hateful or stupid we'll never have a jumpoff point towards the solution.

zeppelin123 said:

I would draw the line at works that present illegal (especially violent) activities in a positive light.

Click to expand...

So now I can't write about a character who enjoys not wearing his seatbelt?

See where things get fuzzy? For YOU certain things are more taboo than for someone else. Who is right? Whose opinion do we listen to?

zeppelin123 said:

Share your thoughts on this.

Click to expand...

It's great that you have your own opinion about what I should and shouldn't be allowed to read. I'm going to completely ignore it.

Cheers,
Rob

zeppelin123 said:

Would you go as far to say that the Canadian laws preventing writiing of pedophile literature are censorship?

.

Click to expand...

Yes I would.

I guess you are not allowed to read Nabokov's Lolita in Canada.


Richard

Interesting question...

The big problem with a law like that, IMHO, is that you run a real risk of silencing a voice which, however unpleasant, need to be heard. I would think it would be better handled on a book-by-book basis. I would hope that responsible publishers would be able to tell the difference between a sophomoric attempt to shock and provoke and a considered, intelligent attempt to broach a difficult subject. Hope, anyway...

Unique said:

People are free to write anything they like, whether it gets published or not is another story.



I don't see this as a bad thing in and of itself. Glorifying the behavior, no, I can't see justifying that. Explaining the shooters motivation and what led him to the act could be quite enlightening. Indeed, it could be quite valuable. There are many people who don't understand why people 'go postal'. Done well - it could explain quite a lot.

I wouldn't see this subject as 'entertainment' as much of my reading is, rather, I'd see it as explanation.

Click to expand...

Wayne K said:

I don't think anyone has the right to tell you what you can or can't say in a book. Give me all of it so that I can read what you're really thinking. If someone wants to convince me to join him in burning a few crosses I'll read what he has to say. I'll read what a pedophile has to say because I want to know what they were thinking when it happened to me.
The thing that balances that out is that I get to present an argument. I also like to know what the enemy is thinking and preaching so I can present that argument as a way of recruiting a few of them over to God's side.
Without the exchange of ideas good, bad, hateful or stupid we'll never have a jumpoff point towards the solution.

Click to expand...

QFT ... I agree with these points. Understanding why someone "goes postal" can go a long way in averting future occurences.

I don't think anything should be forbidden. If a person writes it, a publisher publishes it, it should be available. For younger people, it is the responsibility of their parents/guardians to monitor what they are reading.

[When the Ayatolla issused the death threat against Rushdie for The Satanic Verses the book flew off store shelves. People stood in lines for hours to get the book and it made the NYT best seller list.

Several book reviewers said the book was one of the single most boring, tedious and dragging books they had ever had to read and they doubted the book would have had many sales had it not been for the controversy surrounding it.]

I bought it at the time because of the banning. Wouldn't have purchased it otherwise, and have never opened it.

MM

MaryMumsy said:

Several book reviewers said the book was one of the single most boring, tedious and dragging books they had ever had to read and they doubted the book would have had many sales had it not been for the controversy surrounding it.

Click to expand...

That ties in to something I was thinking - a book with a "questionable" central theme would have to be incredibly well written for most people not to put it down in disgust. And it seems to me that a writer who could achieve that would be able to tackle the subject in a way that provokes intelligent dialogue and discussion. It's one thing to be "shocking" just for the sake of making people squirm in discomfort, it's another thing to shock them into thinking about something.

Kids are not quite as impressionable as many people fear. Sometimes, sure, but so are adults. I work with high school kids every day-- the best way to deal with the "herd mentality-- is to address it openly and educate them.

Just because a kid reads something in a book does not mean they're just going to go off and do it. Actually, there's often a lot of thought and discussion amongst a group of young people about the things they're doing. These are young people exploring their world and their options. The best thing we-- as a society-- is to help them make the best choices, not to "shield" them. Because, honestly, they're learn about it from someone else. The kid may not read "The Big Bounce" by Elmore Leonard and thus miss the rather detailed explanations of how to pull of larceny, but they may hear about it from some friends. They're run into it somewhere.

Many writers explore the things they DON'T understand because they are interested-- either a fascination (sometimes a morbid one) or just curiosity. Many people find writing therapeutic. So, for, say, a young person to write about being the shooter, or writing a story that tries to explore and create empathy for the shooter's motives can be very healthy. (As a teacher, I would need to talk to the kid and/ or send them to talk to the counselor to make sure it's just exploration of something dark and nothing more.) Furthermore, being able to see through someone else's eyes, to understand what they are feeling, is an ability that more people could do a lot more.

I don't like censorship. And in regards to young people, I really prefer education.

I agree with most everyone in the thread.

No fiction should ever be banned or illegal for any reason. Ever. No exceptions.

If I want to write a story about a child molester--with graphic, blow-by-blow descriptions--who God likes so much, he decides to turn him into Jesus 2.0 and affixes a laser to his head that automatically kills redheads and turns Chinese people into flesh-eating clones of Muhammad, I should be able to write such a thing without fear of retribution.

The market tends to take care of things like this all on its own with governmental intrusion.

zeppelin123 said:

I'm wondering if certain topics should be taboo for creative writing.

Click to expand...

Absolutely not.

zeppelin123 said:

For instance, in Canada, it is illegal to distribute or publish stories about pedophilia. I agree 100% with this law.

Click to expand...

And I most certainly do not.

zeppelin123 said:

I've seen a few stories on AW writen from the POV of people who go on (usually highschool) shooting rampages. Often, these pieces are intended to make readers sympathize with the shooter. A few months ago, me and several others in the chat discouraged an individual from finishing such a story that he posted in SYW.

Click to expand...

What...the...fuck?

I mean...seriously. You discouraged another writer from writing what they wanted to write?

More fool them for going along with it.

zeppelin123 said:

I would have felt differently if the story was written about teens dealing with the grief from a shooting at a school.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't.

Best avoid Jodi Picoult and Lionel Shriver, then.

zeppelin123 said:

In these times, there needs to be more books about kids coping constructivly with tragedy.

Click to expand...

Yes, and shushing up anything that doesn't agree with your world view is a good way to go about it, huh?

zeppelin123 said:

What bothered me about the piece was that it was glorifying the shooter and intended for an upper MG/YA audience.

Click to expand...

Glorifying? How? By showing him/her as a human being? Which they were?

God forbid we should show characters as not being guys in black or white hats. God forbid we should explore their motivations. God forbid we should acknowledge that people who do bad things aren't monsters with deformed faces and that they look like us because they are like us.

zeppelin123 said:

Share your thoughts on this.

Click to expand...

I just did.

And now I'm going to stick my head in the gas oven.

Look. I should probably apologise for the tone of this post. I do. Not the content.

Because this is one of the most fucked-up ideas I've ever read on this site.

You're on a roll tonight. Every time I go to post my thoughts, you've already said pretty much what I was thinking. I was all excited to have my computer back, but all I've done is thread stalk you!

ETA: OP, it bothers me that you are so embracing of censorship. Some great stuff would be banned under your view, and the fact that you so quickly generalise people as good or bad is a bit disturbing. Sometimes good people do bad things, and sometimes they're just bad--either way, they're still people.