Forum / Should what we write be censored?

Myra King
May 31, 12:55am

Are there limits to what we should write?
I especially love Fictionaut because both the site and the writer/readers are very open- minded. Meg Pokrass's wonderful, much faved,and viewed(must be a record I think)story, The Serious Writer and her Pussy and more recently, Lauren oh's intriguing, Fuck Me Now Please, testify to this.
It is said we should never write with a censor on our shoulders. But could we go too far. Are some things out of bounds? I’d like to know that other Fictionauts think?

Myra King
May 31, 01:00am

That should read 'What' other Fictionauts think - lol.

H-M Brown
May 31, 10:35am

Limits are a bad thing, even self-imposed. Part of our job as writers is to get people to read. But like you said in your other Forum Post, we as writers can be subjective and need to be objective. But many readers are not doubled as writer, so their perspectives will always be subjective. We write because we have something to say whether a reader likes it or not. We have to be confident about ourselves that what we want to say to our readers, come out loud and clear, and not vague and generalized.

Censorship is highly overrated and a detriment to free speech.

H-M Brown
May 31, 10:36am

Edit - Part of our job as writers is to get people to read and communicate.

D'Arcy Fallon
May 31, 10:41am

Myra, Thanks for posting this. I think censorship can be dangerous, especially self-censorship. Writing is about so many things, including imagining and inhabiting other lives, other people, other worlds and other points of view. Of course, there are issues of taste and intent, and readers will pick and choose what resonates with them. I hadn't read Meg's piece so I tracked it down and did read it. I thought it was delightful and very funny. I wasn't offended in the least by her in-your-face treatment of the pussy. Lauren's piece was juicy and honest. Both were well-written. I don't know. So what WOULD turn me off? I don't want to read about animals being tortured or children raped with sharp objects or...well, you get my drift. I just don't have the stomach for it. But if there is a bigger point to that material, if it sheds light or has something meaningful to say about what it means to be human, perhaps I would. But I wouldn't do it for kicks. And now I feel like I'm wandering...

Stephen Carter
May 31, 10:45am

Nothing should be censored. That said the writer should be aware of how he/she come across.

Personally, i wouldn't want to be dismissed as an 'effect-seeker' or as someone trying to use shock value to get noticed.

Not suggesting anyone here is doing that...i just think its a question the writer should ask himself.

I've read shocking material that was well written and shocking material that was badly written.

When its shocking AND badly written, i usually assume that i dealing with an attention whore and move on.

tandu
May 31, 11:10am

i like Samuel Peter North...... tandu.

Kevin Myrick
May 31, 11:18am

I think self censorship should be considered, for the sake of argument, when thinking about the audience for a story, poem, novel, etc. You wouldn't write something shocking for children, but you would for adults. Limitations can be helpful, but I agree censorship isn't something writers should practice on a regular basis.

I believe in balance. If using offensive language or shocking scenes is called for in a particular story, I'm more than happy to drop f-bombs all over the place. (I do this a lot in spoken word anyhow.) But sometimes you just don't need that level of shock and awe. It can distract readers (I hate to say this, but my mother is one who gets distracted when I fill a piece with cussing and sex. Her word were "Kevin, you have to remember that other people who don't agree with you is reading this, and they may not like it." I thought when she first said that to me that she was going to grab a bar of soap and stick it in my mouth...)

Something else to think about here: the human imagination is much more powerful than any written word when it comes to foul language, violence and sex. Instead of describing, say a sexual scene outright, I like to give readers just a little taste and let them fill in the rest for themselves. I've had good feedback from readers when I do this.

Also, and I'll say this because I agree with Mr. Carter (J? Stephen? J. Stephen?) that shocking and badly written work is not worth the ink.

Just my two cents.

Susan Tepper
May 31, 11:21am

Can writers really shock anyone these days?

Jayne Anne Phillips, who used to be considered a very edgy writer, was asked that question in an interview. She said something to the effect of (and I'm paraphrasing)-- today nothing is shocking.

TV has raised the bar on blood and gore, just tune into any of the Law & Order series. The goriest of rapes and all sorts of murders.

But never are these episodes presented in a manner meant to titillate the viewer. These are stark re-tellings of crimes as they do occur. And often there is a redemptive moral message to the episodes.

There are no new stories in the Naked City. So what is left to write about? Whatever we choose. But not to titillate. To tell a story in a way that it hasn't been told before, meaning wholly from our own fresh and unique perspective.

Censorship equals the death of art. History has tried and failed. The Nazis burned books.

The esteemed Irish writer Edna O'Brien has written of her books being banned in her own country, a mere few decades ago, because of her stand on birth control issues.

Here in this small (when compared to the world) community, we should write what scratches at us to be written. And hope that it resonates with at least a few others here

Jürgen Fauth
May 31, 01:54pm

I know this is only a part of this conversation, but we have an "explicit content warning" on Fictionaut. Since we have to apply it by hand, it's been used sparingly so far: http://www.fictionaut.com/forums/general-forum/threads/47. In short, the policy is that "You are welcome to post any creative text here that isn't illegal, hate speech, or spam."

Ann Bogle
May 31, 02:43pm

In Houston I had an ex-con boyfriend in the music business who opened a recording studio called Criminal Records. His business partner, frontman for the band, coined the motto: "Music so good it should be illegal." That comes back to me, thinking of some of the brave writing here. Then as now I had a mortal dread of lawbreaking. Who were these people? I said that Esther, my boyfriend's mother, financed the studio as a viable business, not knowing it was a front for the rock band, Four Bolt Main.

David Ackley
May 31, 03:20pm

It's really interesting, though I'm not sure what to attribute it to, that when the question of censorship is raised here, and I should think almost anywhere in this country at this time, it's automatically assumed to refer to sex, or on television, maybe sex, violence and obscenity. But mostly sex, and this in turn is often a standin for "morality."

Censorship of sexually explicit and obscene language in literary works was of course a fact in this country, under the aegis of government, private agencies and religious groups until it began to decay in the 1950's most famously because of Judge Woolsey's decision to allow Joyce's "Ulysses" to be published in this country. Maybe the vestiges of that earlier state, are still present in our current preoccupations.

In most instances elsewhere, from Shakespeare's time forward, censorship has been a political matter that generally took after works and authors which offended the government, or other powers in the society, such as noted above, the church in Ireland.
Against such instances as the historical suppression of writers in Russia, a historically consistent tendency that hasn't entirely abated, of dissident writers in China and Cuba and Myanmar( probably: Who even knows?) whether we do or can or should say "fuck" in a given work can seem a little beside the point.

H-M Brown
May 31, 04:03pm

Part of censorship is not always about the visuals, like sex, children getting beaten up, or dropping F-Bombs.

Sometimes the things we see that we feel may be a grave injustice or just something to make people aware of that has to be or should be addressed, would be considered grounds for censorship by most people. This is usually out of fear of people facing their own selves because it would compromise their own idealogy, philosophy, or when they are flat just out wrong. Look at To Kill a Mockingbird, Catcher in the Rye, or anything Mark Twain.

People have the tendency to refuse to see themselves and their actions but are willing to challenge and judge another persons stance first, without looking into their own.

To quote (funny enough) a scene from CLAMP's Manga series xxxHolic:

Watanuki: It's because I went too far and stuck my nose in where it wasn't wanted.

Yuko: If a person has a void inside, the person displays no emotion discerning that void. They'd show no anger, sadness, or even tenderness. And so, if that person reacted so strongly to the things you said, it means what you said wasn't far from the mark.

Watanuki: Even so, I imagine what I said was something she didn't want to hear.

Yuko: Even so, it was something you wanted her to hear, wasn't it?

Watanuki: Yes.

But as writers, it's very important not to talk down to our readers. We don't have the answers to life's problems. All we have is information that we wish to provide and communicate to others with. It's up to the readers themselves to decide whether to accept or reject that information we convey.

James Lloyd Davis
May 31, 05:47pm

When censorship occurs, it usually begins with an emotional reaction. It's inevitable that even in the most tolerant cultural milieu, there will be restrictions.

I hate to see censorship, though we all do it in a personal setting. It's quite casual to simply ignore that which offends us. When censorship becomes an institutional force, even if the subject matter offends us personally, I believe members of a free society have an obligation to stand against it.

Throughout history, one of the strongest and most effective forces of censorship has consistently emerged in religious istitutions, especially those which have nominal or subversive influence over governments. In situations like that, it takes a great deal of courage to oppose it.

No society is immune to these influences, and every writer should stop and think carefully about the ultimate effect of silencing any one of us for any reason, no matter how reasonable or seemingly justified the cause for that censorship may appear to be.

David King
May 31, 07:45pm

I think it’s crucial that we never allow a moral censor within fifty paces but that we always write freely, from the inside, literally living, breathing, thinking as our characters.

I personally don’t like censorship and hate anyone telling me what I can and cannot be allowed to read, watch, or listen to.

However, the issue of what should be allowed to be published on a writers’ site such as this calls to my mind a case from some years back on a similar site that was based in the UK.

One 22 year old guy (or that’s what he claimed to be) kept posting paedophilic stories that always promoted a specific activity with young boys. It was a site where members had to use pseudonyms and his (I forget what it was) was an allusion to this activity.

His stories were poorly written and after reading the first, I simply didn’t waste my time reading any more of them. However, some other writers on the site protested to the site owner and said they wanted this guy banned and his stories removed.

The site owner’s initial reaction was to say that there would be no censorship but one of the protesters got legal advice and that said it was an offence in British law to publish, or allow to be published, work of a paedophilic nature, and that the site owner could be prosecuted.

The outcome was that the perpetrator and his work were removed from the site. At the same time, the rules were changed to say that work of a paedophilic nature would not be tolerated and anyone posting such work would be banned immediately.

Myra King
May 31, 07:47pm

H. M, D’Arcy, J. Stephen, Kevin, Susan, Ann, David A, Tandu, David K, James, and Jurgen thanks so much for taking the time to reply to this thread. All of you make such valid points. In the end we, as adults, choose what we read, no one is forcing us to read what we may find offensive.
I believe if the ‘voice’ calls for swearing or hot-candle-wax sex or something else, then that is what a writer has to write, if as readers we don’t like the character we have the choice of not reading. Or conversely, reading it, acknowledging the value of the writing, but not adding it to our favourites.

Of course nothing can be generalised, there are always areas of grey however pale. A few of you made mention of posturing or blatantly trying to procure something illegal or incite hatred. Commonsense and human rights will dictate that this is not to be tolerated. Even freedom has its limits or else it would be called anarchy.

Darryl Price
Jun 01, 03:43pm

I don't like the whole idea of censorship because it often leads to a more dangerous resort. Writers need to be brave, and you can't do that living in a cave and being frightened of every shadow. Yeah there are going to be those who don't agree with your point of view, maybe, possibly to the point of violence but should this stop you? You can't create in a vacuum, and why would you want to? It's a tricky question because it does take into consideration another's right to be feeling angered or worse by what you write. There is such a thing as good editing. But I find myself in agreement that there is a commonsense line and human rights line that should guide one to the limits and back without stealing one's freedom to create.Plus there's the old adage, "if you don't like it, don't buy it." Still very tricky.I'm not convinced by either side.

Sam Rasnake
Jun 01, 08:20pm

Writing should never be censored - As to whether or not it's marketable or appropriate or in good taste or written purely for shock value or even toward a particular audience ( as in propaganda ) are debatable matters … and will certainly connect with both the life and audience of the piece. But, that should have nothing to do with the writing process.

John Slade
Jun 01, 10:52pm

I think that if someone wrote about penis related things or vaginal related things then yes. Put a clamp of this foreign sound and let us hang out in the kitchen so we won't go insane.

John Slade
Jun 01, 10:53pm

Ooops...made a fictionfart. I meant to say: clamp ON this blah blah blah blah blah....

Myra King
Jun 04, 01:42am

Thanks for your comments, Sam.

George LaCas
Jun 04, 06:03pm

Censorship: BAD, BAD, BAD

Then there's the question of audience, which tends to shrink in direct proportion to how much the writer alienates it.

It comes down to why a writer writes, or why he or she writes a certain piece. Is it for a wider, mixed audience? Or is it something that's meant to stretch boundaries, to raise eyebrows by offending? Speaking only for myself, when I'm writing something that veers off into shocking territory, I know that I better have a good reason for doing it. Sometimes I have to edit, or cut.

Myra's original question was about posting material here, in particular, and what we think would be going too far. To me, going for shock without any other literary value is what I would find objectionable. Not because I'd be offended, but because I'd be bored.

I like the reference above to Joyce's Ulysses, which was of course found to have artistic merit, but then Ulysses was so good it could have had hardcore porn in it and it still would have been a masterpiece.

I say bring it on, in terms of content, respecting the FN rules, which seem reasonable enough. The strongest way to shock is with ideas.

Myra King
Jun 04, 11:03pm

Well put, George!

Linda Simoni-Wastila
Jun 05, 05:24am

I've been reading this thread since it's inception with a bit of detachment, in part because my stance is clear: I abhor censorship of any kind except for that which limits words perpetuating hate and gratuitous violence (especially on those who cannot fight back). But also in part because I feel most of what I write is pretty tame.

Or so I thought.

I participate in a group that posts flash fiction on a weekly basis on their blogs. The organizer, I have found out, has a policy against explicit sex and gratuitous violence, and will not link any pieces he so deems of this ilk.

So no linky for me this week. I find myself kind of amused -- the piece (and excerpt from my novel) -- uses sex to illustrate the hollowness of my character. But also reluctant to continue with the group.

When told of this outcome, I asked not to list my story at all and removed all references to the group from my story (tags, etc). Peace...

Myra King
Jun 05, 08:53pm

Linda, I think you are well out of that group. The organiser can't be a man surely (no sex??)
Seriously though, when I opened this discussion it was more to confirm what I believe, and you put it so well, “ I abhor censorship of any kind except for that which limits words perpetuating hate and gratuitous violence (especially on those who cannot fight back)" that we as writers should not censor ourselves. The character, voice, should dictate - not what someone of little vision, and bigoted narrow views says is right.

Ann Bogle
Jun 06, 11:16am

Memory, walks, food.

Talking, writing, reading.

When I write what I remember of someone else, there is a danger that s/he will not agree with it. I must decide whether to alert people to their presence in my writing or to excise them. I have sent short stories to people who have been models for characters, whose actions I have copied or borrowed in writing. At one time, I knew many stage actors; at other times, visual artists; either way, musicians who relate through an art form. The hope is that they will not want to censor writing, artistic renditions of themselves or their actions. Artistic, meaning beauty that is just. That is unrelated to government censorship. That may be related or not related to "adult" subject matter; it is related to privacy. What about portraying illegal activities? A writer's duty would be to conceal names, identities in fiction. Sometimes that it is not enough, however; sometimes a person portrayed becomes nervous or angry at the exposure, taking it personally instead of artistically. The trick is to write about people who understand writing about people, who understand how that kind of art is made, for whom, and why. Fiction without people in it is not fiction. When in doubt, I pattern after myself. This leaves me open to overexposure and the impression of narcissism. My memory is my scenic bank, replenishable, accessible, not in danger of exhaustion, not for any medical reason blocked. People may want to stop anyone, writer or not, from remembering them, may even consider memory a form of cruelty, may be distrustful. I consider memory as a love of being.

Linda Simoni-Wastila
Jun 06, 09:37pm

Myra, yes -- the character dictates what and how to act and say. This piece I wrote was important to me because it was so honest to my character; nothing barred. The organizer, to his credit, ended up taking a long walk with his dog, then this morning rescinded his decision. He did not feel comfortable dictating what was considered too 'explicit'. So yay, a small victory. But I hadd full intention to walk away from that venue.

Ann, beautiful, and so true: "I consider memory as love of being." We write to be honest to ourselves, not to sugarcoat those who know us -- and who we know. One reason writing is so often a solitary venture. Peace...

Myra King
Jun 07, 12:47am

Ann, yes, as Linda said, so true.
Linda, I'm so pleased he saw reason, I would love to read your piece. Will you be posting it on here soon?

Linda Simoni-Wastila
Jun 08, 05:39am

Myra, I was pleased, too. Though the decision still engenders controversy in the group. A good thing though; certainly made me think and inspired a blog post on writing sex which also is eliciting interesting commentary.

Posted my snippet -- The House that Tien Built. Peace...
You must log in to reply to this thread.