This is SUCH an interesting debate, and as I read the back and forth I find my own views sliding up and down the scale - and I am not even a Libran! My own book tells stories of other women as told to me, which is something I feel the weight of heavily. They are not stories of abuse, but there is much loss and grief, and it is something I have tried to hold so carefully. Time will tell how I am judged - although every woman I have interviewed has seen and 'approved' how I have represented them. A couple of things have really stuck out for me this week:
- we are not responsible for our readers feelings
- we must write without fear
I wholeheartedly subscribe to both of those, and as to the matter of 'social responsibility' - well I think that seems open to quite a lot of interpretation. I think we have a responsibility to represent accurately, and always, but always, to 'do no harm' with our words as much as that is possible. Words do hold a great power and I have already been bitten a couple of times by representing an interaction in what I thought was a kind and fun way, for it not to have been received by that. But that is being socially responsible to those we represent if that is something we choose to do. Social responsibility to our readers? Very different matter. I loved Michael Krantz's comment on this series that writers have a duty to offend, to spark debate, to cause ripples. Whilst intentionally offending is certainly not in my nature, I love to read provocative words and appreciate this as the nature of art.
I feel conflicted by this, and yes, slightly scared as I release my words into the world. Is my fear a measure of my sensitivity or an indication that I am feeling societally censored? I'm not yet sure...
I agree we have social responsibility to those we represent, but we also have social responsibility to our readers in as much as we can control. But that is the bit that is open to interpretation. And it is around questions of harm and sensitivity, but certainly not censoring. It sounds like you've covered all bases with your own work and those you represent and that is all one can ever do. And trepidation is to be expected!
This is SUCH an interesting debate, and as I read the back and forth I find my own views sliding up and down the scale - and I am not even a Libran! My own book tells stories of other women as told to me, which is something I feel the weight of heavily. They are not stories of abuse, but there is much loss and grief, and it is something I have tried to hold so carefully. Time will tell how I am judged - although every woman I have interviewed has seen and 'approved' how I have represented them. A couple of things have really stuck out for me this week:
- we are not responsible for our readers feelings
- we must write without fear
I wholeheartedly subscribe to both of those, and as to the matter of 'social responsibility' - well I think that seems open to quite a lot of interpretation. I think we have a responsibility to represent accurately, and always, but always, to 'do no harm' with our words as much as that is possible. Words do hold a great power and I have already been bitten a couple of times by representing an interaction in what I thought was a kind and fun way, for it not to have been received by that. But that is being socially responsible to those we represent if that is something we choose to do. Social responsibility to our readers? Very different matter. I loved Michael Krantz's comment on this series that writers have a duty to offend, to spark debate, to cause ripples. Whilst intentionally offending is certainly not in my nature, I love to read provocative words and appreciate this as the nature of art.
I feel conflicted by this, and yes, slightly scared as I release my words into the world. Is my fear a measure of my sensitivity or an indication that I am feeling societally censored? I'm not yet sure...
Thank you for this x
I agree we have social responsibility to those we represent, but we also have social responsibility to our readers in as much as we can control. But that is the bit that is open to interpretation. And it is around questions of harm and sensitivity, but certainly not censoring. It sounds like you've covered all bases with your own work and those you represent and that is all one can ever do. And trepidation is to be expected!