Separating the author from the work

[rolanni]

The third of my three panels at PhilCon was entitled "Separating the Author from the Work," and it took place at 10 a.m. on Sunday, in Plaza V, up on the Mezzanine floor, which was not the largest venue in the house.  It was, however, full, which, given the day and the hour, points to. . .rather a lot of interest in this topic.

My co-panelists were Ian Randall Strock, Peter Prellwitz, Oz Drummond, and Muriel Hykes, our fearless moderator.

The panelists quickly found out why there was so much interest in this topic.

It was because the topic was So Broad.

Muriel, for instance, wanted to talk about authors/actors behaving badly, which is to say, people who don't know when not to say something, people who, as one of the members of the audience put it, "need handlers."

Oz wanted to talk about the whole Requires Hate scandal (if you, like me, are out of the loop on the scandal, details and what I'm assured is a balanced accounting may be had from Laura Mixon.  Here's a link to the PDF file. )

Ian, who had done a similar panel at Arisia, and had been blindsided by the opinions of his fellow panelists, had come ready to address those views.

I wanted to talk about the misconceptions non-writers have about the writing process that apparently leads them to believe that everything a fiction author writes about faithfully reflect that author's beliefs, and about the disgraceful behavior surrounding this year's Hugo ballot (by which I do not mean the Sad Puppy Campaign, though I have and had certain philosophical problems with it, but do mean the crying and wailing and gnashing of teeth by those who felt it was acceptable to publicly vilify their ballot-mates for "ruining" "their" ballot).

(I'm not leaving Peter out, but, if he came in with an agenda, it was not obvious to me.  His remarks during the course of our conversation led me to believe that he felt writers ought not to be interfered with in their work, or pre-emptively censored on Certain Topics; and that it was perfectly possible for Bad People to create Good Art.)

Members of audience wanted to talk about other things, still, including the alleged behavior Walter Breen, and the alleged involvement of Marian Zimmer Bradley, and All Of Sixties Fandom, in those behaviors; the need for warning labels on books; and the belief that an author's culture and the prevailing beliefs and/or mores of the time are no excuse for said author to have had, and expressed in their fiction, what we now know to be Bad Thoughts.

No wonder the room was full, right?

I'm not going to recap the whole thing -- for the very good reason that I can't remember it all -- but I am going to talk about a couple of things that interest  -- and concern -- me, as a writer, and as a reader.

One of those is this idea of warning labels on books so that readers don't get "hurt" by the content of the books.  I am on record in several places (including at this panel) as believing that this as idiotic a notion as I ever heard.  Do we get warning labels in Real Life?  We do not.  Insofar as fiction is "practice" for Real Life, warning labels defuse the efficacy of the practice.

I also have some very real problems with the idea that we can be "hurt" -- that we can take actual harm -- from the people/situations/ideas we find in books.  Books have a wonderful safety program built into them.  Have you just read something that makes you uneasy?

YOU CAN SHUT THE BOOK.

Yes.  You can shut the book.  You can put it down.  You have the option of never picking it up again.  You have the option of going for a walk and thinking about The Thing That Upset You, coming to terms, and picking the book back up.  Real Life is not safe; ideas are not safe; the whole world does not necessarily agree with you (or with me), but books offer you that vital safety valve that Real Life never does -- you can close the covers and take a breather.

The particular need for a warning label that came up in the panel was one of the Peter Wimsey novels, which has much to do with people who are Jewish.  The assertion from the audience member was that the book needed a warning label, because all the rest of the Wimsey books were perfectly enjoyable, these Bad Thoughts were particularly hurtful to the reader.

Needless to say, this assertion baffles me.  I can't begin to count the number of ghastly, hateful, vicious, stupid, and just plain wrong portrayals of women that I've read in my reading career.  Did they "hurt" me?  Did I think the author was specifically and personally talking about me? No, I did not. Now, they may have hurt you, my readers, because I determined to get it right, when I started writing.  Of course, I also decided not to write men as testosterone-drunk thugs who only know how to screw and destroy, too, so that could just be me.

Along with the warning labels was Ian's description of the Arisia panel, in which his co-panelists apparently said that some books -- by Robert Heinlein and HP Lovecraft, for instance -- ought not to be read by right-thinking people.  Because the authors are contemptible.

Not the work of the authors.

The authors, themselves.

Which is pretty scary, all things considered.

One of the reasons I read -- and write -- science fiction is that, given that all fiction is practice for Real Life; science fiction is practice for the future.  In science fiction, we've created a safe place where we can lay out the moral dilemmas of the future, and let them unravel.  We can say, for instance, "OK, we want everybody to be SAFE?  Let's look at (one way) having an utterly safe world might play out."  We can do this -- and things like this -- because we're telling a story. We're not preaching a sermon; we're playing a game of Let's Pretend.

I said as much, and Ian agreed that this was also why he read science fiction, but that, in his opinion, his co-panelists at Arisia wanted, not experimentation, not What-If, but validation  of their own belief system.  They didn't want to entertain a variant viewpoint, and found variant viewpoints to be wrong, and unworthy of being read.

(Which begs the whole question of how do you know something's unworthy of being read unless you read it, but I've already got 'way too much on my plate, here, so we'll leave that one for the moment.)

Around about here someone from the audience asked the question about "leakage."  Which is to say, if the author, in their private life, habitually has Bad Thoughts, how do they insure that such thoughts do not leak over into their fiction?

Now, the true and sincere answer to this is -- you probably can't.  If you've built a world -- like the Liaden Univese®, let's say, that has its rules firmly in place -- then your worldbuilding is going keep out a lot of leakage.  Most authors that I know try to tell a True Story, by which I mean a story that is in keeping with the characters and the world they've created.

But there's another facet of this "leakage" that no one ever talks about.  Readers who want to complain about Bad Authors having Bad Thoughts and putting those Bad Thoughts into their fiction, are missing exactly half of the contract between the reader and the writer.

See, while every book has a writer, who comes complete with a past, and a society, and experiences, and thoughts, some bad, some good, some boring and venal. . .

While every book has a writer, every book also has a reader.

And every reader comes complete with a past, and a society, and thoughts, and experiences, and expectations.

I write a book; I hand it to you.  You read the book.

We have, between us, interacted with two different books, not only because our relationships to the work -- creator and consumer -- are different, but because we, as people, are different.

If there are Bad Things in your book, the writer may (may) not have put them there.

If there are Bad Things in your book, the author may have done that on purpose.  It may be an intellectual exercise.  It might not be, but here's the key -- just because someone has presented an idea, you are not forced to accept it. It will, yes, become part of your life's experience, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.  Being able to think a wide range of thoughts can only be a good thing, right?

And, honestly, the same person -- reader, writer, taxi cab driver -- is, by virtue of being human, Perfectly Capable of having Bad Thoughts, Good Thoughts, Mediocre Thoughts, and Thoughts that Make No Sense.  Simultaneously.  This is why, in a perfect universe, we bounce ideas off of each other.

This is why, in a perfect universe, we read and write science fiction.

This is why we read books even if we suspect they may not be very good books, or if, perhaps, they may contain Bad Thoughts.  A bad book may, for instance, contain a single transcendent scene that alters the way you think about that thing that happened to you in sixth grade that makes it important to you and your life.

Human beings are complex; our thoughts and our hearts and our works are also complex.

That's a feature, not a bug.

--------------------

Time is the Simplest Thing, by Clifford Simak, appears to be available as an ebook (amazon ) and also as a used mmp.  If you've never read this, I suggest that you do so.  NOTE:  I have no idea what sort of person Clifford Simak was, what his politics may have been, or if he ever had a Bad Thought.  Certainly, however, given one of themes of this story, he Knew About Thoughts, and Tools, and Hearts, and Complexity.

Comments

Simak

[furballtiger.livejournal.com]

FYI, the amazon link doesn't appear to lead to a purchasable ecopy, but one's public library may have it/be able to get it (mine was, and I'm in the sticks). And, as always, I appreciate the chance to hear your thoughts on the topics. The attendees should be thankful (it being that season, or shortly thereafter, hereabouts) that it was you attending and not me; I doubt I've have responded as gracefully when faced with some of that nonsense. It might have ended badly, and I look terrible in orange...silly people.

Re: Simak

[joycependle.livejournal.com]

I followed the link to amazon_com and then the link there to the actual kindle book at amazon_co_uk

Many years ago I owned the paperback book; I'm looking forward to reading it again.

Reposted as first try counted as spam.

[bandicoot.livejournal.com]

Sometimes I think that desire to be protected from things that might, potentially, maybe, hurt you or offend you is a sort of generational thing. Those of us of a certain age(!) did things as kids that appall the current safety-conscious "experts" (riding foot-powered scooters is now deemed very dangerous) and if we fell off or if the corner of the swing hit us in the head, we weren't taken to the emergency room, we wiped off the blood, slapped on a Band-Aid, and kept going. And we didn't wear helmets when riding bikes or seat belts (or booster seats or whatever) when riding in a car. There were no labels warning us of dangerous ideas ahead, and we not only survived, I think we thrived on all that. You learn by hurting - burn your fingers on a match once, and you probably won't do it twice. Get warned by a label and who knows what you'll do if you get your hands on one. Take all the joy of discovery out of life and what's left is rather pallid.

I think it was in Jr High that I first discovered SF - Cliff Simak (a neighbor of sorts, living in the next town and an editor of the big city newspaper) and City, Heinlein and all his juveniles were in the school library. I turned in a book report on City and had to defend it to the English teacher as serious literature. I don't think my arguments were particularly good, but I succeeded. In any case, I've been a dedicated SF reader ever since. Without warning labels or a helmet.

People should just grow the hell up :)

And thanks for the Simak link - I haven't read that one, and ordered a new mm paperback from the Amazon link.

[reedrover]

Thank you for your thoughts. It reminds me of the debate about Ender's Game becoming a movie and if the movie should be boycotted because of the politics of the author of the basis book.

I've gotten upset about books and about authors, and am willing to defend my rants. I'm ranting about what I think are bad thoughts in books, but they are bad thoughts to me. Someone else might find them fun, interesting, entertaining. So my review is for people to read and decide if they agree, think that the nut-job (me) just spiraled off someplace incomprehensible, or disagree. And warning labels? That is what reviews and recommendations are. Or should we live in Rollerball now?

[jessie-c.livejournal.com]

That one's really not applicable to this discussion, because Card's Bad Thoughts are not contained safely inside his head where they'll do no harm. Instead he takes great delight in spewing them as far and wide as he can. He believes that it's his duty to restrict the Civil Rights of an identifiable minority. Indeed, he believes that it must be made illegal simply to be that certain minority, and that violent revolution is an appropriate response towards Governments who protect those rights. He has worked tirelessly toward his goals, and every dollar that people pay him for his work goes towards those goals.

Speaking as one of the people he so vehemently wants to make illegal, I say screw that noise. The fewer people who pay to see his work, the fewer dollars he has to make being me illegal.

It's not about 'protecting' readers from his work, it's about starving him of the means to his unconstitutional ends.

[star-horse3.livejournal.com]

So, we need a "warning label" on O.S. Card, rather than his books. How to do this..... For some reason I've never read any of his books and now have less desire to do so than before. So I guess it is difficult to separate an author from the work in that sense. I know I'll never look at an MZB book the same way, and I haven't read one of hers in years. I agree that if someone feels a "warning" is needed then a review should suffice, but the whole idea is ridiculous. As for the audience member who wanted warning labels; maybe Sharon could have suggested that they would find like-minded people on Delgado.

[jessie-c.livejournal.com]

As I've said, the Card situation is not truly applicable to this discussion. And as for warning labels, see my post below for my take on them.

The fact that you, personally don't need warning labels has rendered their need invisible to you.

[star-horse3.livejournal.com]

Yes, you are right. It just didn't occur to me that way. I am one of the "shut the book" group.

THIS.

[angela-n-hunt.livejournal.com]

All of this.

[attilathepbnun.livejournal.com]

*scratches head over some people*

[muirecan.livejournal.com]

Thank you. Just thank you. The entire warning label crowd make me want to slap someone. Probably myself for all the reasons you say above. So just thank you.

[fabrisse.livejournal.com]

Hi -- I came here from LJ's front page, so I think this is my first time in your blog. I go to Arisia regularly, so I'm familiar with panels, and I've often been a panelist.

I try not to limit what I read. I don't believe in censoring what other people read either. Having said that, I think trigger warnings are misunderstood and can be a good thing. So let me start by saying: No one has the right not to be offended. I agree with you that "Close the book" is always an option. But trigger warnings are not about offense, they are about causing specific mental issues in people who have experienced trauma.

To give a non-fiction example, I was on a grand jury dealing with violent crimes earlier this year (other grand juries dealt with drug crimes and sex crimes). I had nightmares virtually every night. I'm sure I wasn't the only one. We were all given the option to come forward before we took the oath and tell the organizers if we thought this would be too traumatic. Had I known exactly how bad it would be for me, I would have taken them up on it.

For me, trigger warning are similar to that opportunity not to undertake a task with mental repercussions. Saying that a work has graphic descriptions of murder -- as opposed to an Agatha Christie view of the body -- is valuable information if you're trying to find a Christmas gift for sweet Aunt Hattie who likes cozy mysteries. But it's also valuable information for Polly Pretty who has been a crime victim and is still dealing with the repercussions of it whether through therapy or medication. Ms Pretty, or her brother Pete who was also kidnapped, should have the option not just of closing the book, but of not picking it up. I've never read the Marquis de Sade because I'm relatively certain that I'll find it too disturbing.

I don't see the trigger warning as being more extensive than a book blurb usually is. All it needs to say is that this work contains graphic violence or graphic sex. Nothing else or more.

[rolanni.livejournal.com]

Welcome.

For me, trigger warning are similar to that opportunity not to undertake a task with mental repercussions.

Yes, but. . .how do you KNOW?

The book that had "hurt" the audience member for the anti-semitism expressed by some of the characters is a murder mystery. To be as explicit as possible -- a man has died. Who's to guess that a murder needs no warning, but the historically-accurate viewpoints of the characters regarding Jews? And how do you put that in a blurb?
?
WARNING: THIS BOOK WAS WRITTEN IN 1923. THE PAST IS A DIFFERENT COUNTRY.
?

In my writer hat, I've had readers come to me as say, "How could you have possibly put X/Y/Z in your book? I HATE X/Y/Z and it made me very uncomfortable."

And most of those times? My internal response is: "That? Really? Who could have even guessed?"

Which is why its important to talk about the other half of the literary contract -- the reader. I can't know what every reader finds uncomfortable. I can only know what I'm doing with the story I'm telling.

[fabrisse.livejournal.com]

Don't tell me, let me guess "Whose Body?" by Sayers? *sigh* No, I don't think that rises to the level of a trigger warning. If it's part of a syllabus, mentioning that "the past is another country" before it's read might be useful, but, seriously, that's not triggering. It's just distasteful and absolutely necessary to understanding how far society has come since that time.

I remember reading another mystery years ago from the early 90s. Its early chapters came across as a standard detective story, not much different from a Christie, Sayers, or Allingham, but the final chapters had graphic depictions of dismemberment. I closed the book and never read the author again because it felt, tonally, like a bait and switch. I still would not consider that personally triggering, but I know there are some for whom that level of description would be. This is why I find mentioning graphic sex or violence in the blurb to be useful as a trigger warning for those who could be triggered.

[harvey-rrit.livejournal.com]

"The good ended happily, and the bad unhappily. That is what Fiction means."
Oscar Wilde, 1856-1900

good thoughts/bad thoughts

[catherine ives (from livejournal.com)]

In my experience sci fi and Fantasy tend to be inspirational. Other types of genres not so much. That's why I don't read all that stuff much,

[gareth griffiths (from livejournal.com)]

Having some things on the cover that give you some idea what the books about is good. 'Warnings' ring alarm bells to me because who defines what the warning should be. I am reminded of a few quotes:
“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” (Orwell)
“I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself.” (Wilde) or in what I think was the original form "“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.” (Voltaire)

Since you are US based:
“If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” (Washington)

As soon as I hear about compulsory warnings or books that 'should not be read' I fear we head down the slippery slope of censorship. While I agree there are thoughts and ideas I find despicable I have the option to close the book.

On the trauma side surely a synopsis should be enough. I did get hit a while ago because my brother writes and he sent me a new manuscript which starts with an accident - he hadn't warned my that the initial details were extremely similar to my other brothers death - yes writers do use their personal experiences in books. Shook me up for a bit I can tell you but I can't see how any "warning" would have caught that. (By the way as the book progressed it turned into a really neat SF/fantasy which explained and resolved the fictional death.)

The hard part about free speech is responsibility - Libel and defamation are not free speech. Trolling is not free speech. - but it is very hard to know where to draw the lines.

So much good sense in your article - thanks for airing the debate and putting your head above the parapet (again).

[shana.livejournal.com]

Generic warning: Old books may be filled with the prejudices that were acceptable at the time.

[jessie-c.livejournal.com]

It turns out that URLs must be very thoroughly munged to protect them from the spambot. I shall try again:
haitchteeteepeacolonslashslashdoubleyoudoubleyoudoubleyou(dot)defaithed(dot)com(slash)sites(slash)defaithed(dot)com(slash)files(slash)bible-warning(dot)jpg
And
haitchteeteepeacolonslashslashdoubleyoudoubleyoudoubleyou(dot)1(dot)bp(dot)blogspot.com(slash)-HKkHrp5OIf4(slash)T_L6G6qK62I(slash)AAAAAAAAAek(slash)5KfqeCufQYY(slash)s1600(slash)biblefacts(dot)jpg

And I'd post a link except for how difficult it is so I'll just post a quote and recommend that people google "In defence of trigger warnings in books" The link leads to Bibliodaze:

Second, the idea that traumatised readers should have the choice removed from them as to whether or not to proceed with a book is dangerous. They may decide not to read the book if they know what’s in it, but they may also decide to go ahead, once they’ve prepared themselves accordingly for what could be a difficult experience. Once again, this is about choice. Trigger warnings don’t say “This book contains rape so you can’t read it”. They don’t force books out of hands. They just make things a bit easier for those who need a bit of help now and then. This isn’t a slippery slope to any kind of totalitarianism or censorship, and claims that it is aren’t just stupid, they’re creating a mountain from a molehill.