Picture
In 1977 Stephen King published a novel entitled Rage under the pen name of Richard Bachman. In this novel a troubled high school student kills two teachers using a gun and then holds his class hostage. The gun-toting teen and his hostages end up bonding and talking about their lives and the secrets they have been hiding. The end result is a twisted version of what happens in a movie that was made 8 years later: the teen classic Breakfast Club. I think Rage is a brilliant work with regards to its social commentary. However, insofar as horror is concerned the novel is really not a big deal in a genre that figures all sorts of monsters, psychos, and grotesque occurrences. The problem with Rage is that it made the leap from the fictional into the real.

Some actual and attempted school shootings during the 80s and 90s were linked back to the novel when it was discovered that the perpetrators had read it and could have been inspired by it. The author was so shocked by this that he asked his publisher to take the novel out of print.

So let me get to the crux of this post. If you found that a book you wrote was inspiring acts of violence, would you remove the book from circulation? We can even take it a step back. Would you write something if you knew that there would be the chance some disturbed person somewhere would use it as an inspiration to harm others? Would you censor yourself? In my next book of short stories, Spirit Women, there are stories where murders are committed. Should I publish it? What if I give ideas to some disturbed person? Would I want that on my conscience? Do I have a social responsibility as a writer? Should I stick to writing the wholesome family stories that are featured in my book The Sun Zebra forever?

One problem is that deranged people will be inspired by the craziest things to carry out or justify their acts. Charles Manson and his clan took inspiration from songs by the Beatles (most notably Helter Skelter) and from the book of Revelations in the Bible when carrying out their brutal murders in 1969. Timothy McVeigh made a reference to the reaction of audiences to the blowing of the Death Star in the movie Star Wars to justify the morality of his bombing of the Murrah Federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995. A sick or troubled mind will twist anything to justify preconceived beliefs.

However, the cases above are “abstract” whereas the specific subject matter of novels like Rage is more explicit and therefore more prone to produce copycat behavior. And I do admit that when it comes to kids and guns the issue is way too emotional for me to deal with, especially after the recent Sandy Hook shooting. To answer the questions I posed above, I think that if I had written Rage I would have done like Mr. King and yanked it from the shelves if I had found it could have inspired acts of violence. But would I have written it at all? The puzzling answer is yes. I would have written it and then hoped for the best. The reason behind my apparent contradiction is that I believe stories like Rage are nothing but mirrors. What they show us may not be pretty, but if these stories are censored we would never see our reflection. In the case of Rage that reflection was a society that was ignoring abuse by teachers, bullying by students, and domestic violence in the community. Challenging the status quo always produces conflict and occasionally has tragic consequences, but is censorship and business as usual the alternative?

What do you think?

                                 ***
If you like this blog you can have links to each week's posts delivered to your e-mail address. Please click here.

 


Comments

02/04/2013 12:01am

Call me old-fashioned, but yes. I'd not put it out there in the first place. There have been story ideas that have come into my mind that I thought, "I would not read this book because of the content/language it would contain..." So why would I write it? Not everything that crosses our minds needs to cross the threshold into the published world.

Reply
02/04/2013 12:46pm

Thanks for your comment Lia. I agree that not everything that crosses our mind needs to make it to print; especially something you would not read yourself. But I guess that the question would then be if you would write something that you would read as an author, but that nevertheless could be used by others as inspiration for bad things. If none of what you read/write falls under this category then you have no problems regarding this issue. However, a lot of writers face this problem, and many of them are not just writing controversial stuff for titillation, they are sometimes just recording the reality around them and bringing it out in the open for all to see.

Reply
02/04/2013 9:05am

Hello Rolando:

No, I would not. My writing is inspirational & I see no need to censor.

Take care,
Mike

Reply
02/04/2013 12:50pm

Thanks for your comment Mike. Certainly some writers just write about things that have a low likelyhood of leading to any of the problems discussed here.

Reply
02/04/2013 9:57am

Really interesting topic Rolando - I think as a writer you need to be true to yourself, but it goes without saying that one wouldn't want to knowingly put out any material that would incite violence. Individuals can create an icon out of just about anyone or anything, so it would be hard to predict. Surely the makers of Batman can't be held responsible for some whack-job going berserk at the opening of the film? There will always be monsters in the world. Let's keep them in fantasy where they belong. BTW the site looks great :-)

Reply
02/04/2013 1:06pm

Thanks for your comment. I think there has to be some sort of middle ground. I will not write something that willfully incites violence, but at the same time I will not shy away from controversial things although granted what I write is not necessarily stuff filled with social commentary.

Reply
02/04/2013 11:36am

If we let the fear of what if stop us from writing or publishing certain stories, we'd lose some powerful books. I think if Stephen King hadn't published Rage, the attacks that were linked to the book would have bee linked to something else. There is no telling what a mind will latch onto and use as an excuse to commit a horrible crime (or possibly, something good.)

Reply
02/04/2013 1:17pm

Thanks for your comment Patricia. This is a tricky issue. Should a writer write in a vacuum? Should we never think of who will read what we write and what they will think and do? From an idealistic point of view I guess the answer would be yes, but in practice many writers find themselves thinking otherwise.

Reply
02/04/2013 7:00pm

There are all sorts of things I keep out of my books and most of them relate to politics.

So the question is, if I wrote a book that has a serial killer in it, (Which I've done, it's called Touched), would I decide not to publish it? The answer is...I've entered it in the Amazon Breakout Novel contest and as soon as it is knocked out (likely considering there are 10,000 entrants), I will publish.

I believe that the person who does the killing, should be blamed, not an author or video game designer.

Would I feel badly if someone copied my killer? Yes, but I'd not take it out of print.

Reply
02/04/2013 9:26pm

Thanks for your comment Brian. You bring up a good point. Why is the author to be blamed? Our social structure is predicated on us being able to differentiate fact from fiction. If we were to censor everything that could impress susceptible people, then a lot would be censored including current news and history. By protecting the few we would be harming the many.

Reply
02/04/2013 8:28pm

A very important question to ask, Rolando. The novels I write are specifically designed to tackle difficult social and personal issues, to try to get the reader to think about them without pushing them too strongly in any particular direction (and while keeping the books 'enjoyable') i.e. difficult issues imply difficult resolutions, sometimes without specific answers. However, I think that it is vital that authors do not, either clearly or by implication, condone acts of malice, cruelty, injustice, intimidation, destruction or exploitation (of people, animals, or the natural environment). It is the condoning of such things that we are responsible for, and thereby giving 'permission' to others to perform these acts. Similarly, with gratuitous acts of violence, sex, cruelty etc - if they aren't integral to the story, then leave them out. These issues have for many years been core to the art world too, and there are those who think that intentionally offending the viewer is okay - I don't - there has to be some meaningful, socially/personally constructive point behind doing so that will, hopefully, cause the viewer to 'think' about what they are seeing and to either grow as a person and/or take a more responsible attitude towards society, other life forms, and the planet. Otherwise, I see shock tactics in art and writing as merely self-indulgent, irresponsible rubbish. In my second book, A Death In The Making, I have two explicit bondage scenes, for example, but they are integral to the plot, described without indulging in voyeurism, and kept to the minimum necessary to allow the reader to understand what is going on and later, to understand why.

Reply
02/04/2013 9:43pm

Thanks for your comment Inge. I agree that there is a lot of violence and sex in writing that is gratuitous. No point in it whatsoever but to titillate and appeal to our lowest instincts. Having said that, I don't agree with what would be the other extreme: that writers should feel obliged to insert a moral lesson into each story and a punishment dispensed for the evildoers. Each story has a different dynamic that flows naturally from its theme.

Reply
02/07/2013 9:56am

Fascinating topic, Rolando. I'm a huge King fan and love Rage (I have a big tome called The Bachman Books that includes Rage and three other novels). Stories about murder are written all the time, but the vast majority don't inspire copycat crimes, and the most unlikely things incite violence, such as Catcher in the Rye's association with John Hinckley Jr. With that being said, I believe in artistic vision. I don't think you or anyone else should only write "wholesome" stories. I believe we are responsible for our own intent, not others' actions.

Reply
02/07/2013 9:28pm

Thanks for your comment Adriene. The nature of evil is to harm people. How can we write about evil without having evil act as such? If we avoid this we will write stories that do not resonate with the reality that readers are acquainted with. Like you say we are responsible for our own intent, and we writers are the ultimate interpreters of the story. Society has to learn to differentiate fact from fiction. Having said that it would deeply disturb me to find out that someone did harm to others based on one of my stories.

Reply
02/08/2013 1:15pm

Words are never going to hurt anyone, if someone doesn't want to read a book, they don't have to pick it up. Everyone should be an informed consumer, and if certain subjects are censored, we are no longer able to be informed consumers. The irony being much of the population doesn't realize this.

The flip side to King taking his story off shelves is what if a school administrator read such a book and the material helped them realize that they could do something to curtail such a horrible event from taking place? We can choose to read what we like into how harmful various subject may be. My best pieces are one where I don't censor myself in regards to subject matter. People spend too much time trying to play nice.

Reply
02/08/2013 9:11pm

Well, if words can compel people to do good things we have to accept that words can also compel people to do bad things. The ultimate irresponsibility, of course, resides on the person acting on the words, but words themselves can serve as triggers. This is not what is supposed to happen. People are supposed to think and be rational, but there are always susceptible or troubled individuals out there that can be affected in negative ways by words.

Your comment on the flip side of King's censorship is a very good point. This is why I wrote that the purpose of stories like Rage is to help us see ourselves they way we really are. How can we see ourselves if we have no mirrors?

As to the self-censorship comment, I have written about that. It has nothing to do with writing the best stories. Each writer develops a following by readers who then expect "more of the same" from the writer. If the writer deviates too much from what he/she has been writing, they will loose the readers. This is not an ideal situation, but many writers are conscious about this when they write. I'm not saying that it's good or bad, but it happens.

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply