Apologies for the unwieldy title. Just off the top of my head, I can think of a few examples that might apply. American Psycho by Bret Easton Elis, Hannibal by Thomas Harris, and the film THE WOODSMAN. The first two feature, I believe, serial killers as the protagonists/anti-heroes, and the film is about a pedophile adjusting to life after prison.

Does a writer have a responsibility to be sensitive to the audience when writing immoral characters, specifically, when writing them as protagonists?

That's a good question, Matt. My belief is that an artist's duty is first and foremost to artfully present his or her conception of 'the truth' - and present that to the reader in a way that avoids automised perception, so that the reader doesn't just (in modern parlance) go "Meh" when presented with that version of reality.

Sometimes, that reality might discomfit some or many of the readers. To pick one example from a multitude of possibles, Jonathan Swift published 'Gulliver's Travels' anonymously, such was the shock value and political intensity of his satire - at least in the climate of the 1720s in Britain. This fantastic, funny, idea-packed novel has been sanitised (bizarrely) for consumption by children yet deals with fundamental issues like sectarianism, perception of self and self disgust, the deleterious mania for systematisation and the brutal core that persists within humanity. In 1726, Swift could well have faced imprisonment or worse for this, yet his critical reputation as a near-genius was established during his lifetime, simply because of the astonishing strength of his work. He took risks because his art and his conscience compelled him to do so.

This is not to say that, consequently, 'anything goes' - that artists have carte blanche to depict anything in any manner they wish without some kind of accountability. The "It's art, therefore I am exempt from or above criticism" argument doesn't really wash with me, simply because it often seems to be done for shock value, to be the end of art rather than a consequence of artistic expression. In this category one might put bands like 'Anal Cunt' or 'Cannibal Corpse', who simply want to make people think "Oooh, that's rude!" in a rather adolescent way.

The important thing to remember is that most cultures see their culture as being the zenith of human achievement, a previously unsurpassed age of reason (well, let's be honest, most people think that was about 10 to 40 years ago, depending upon their age - but definitely during their lifetime they will feel they have experienced 'la belle epoque' ). This subtle insinuation into our minds tells us that artistic expressions of some things are permissible, some things are not permissible. I haven't seen 'The Woodsman', but I hear it is quite well done. I would hope so, though I think art doiesn't necessarily need to be approved, it needs to be discussed, considered, debated and reappraised.

Furthermore, The most interesting protagonists are those who fly in the face of convention: Raskolnikov in 'Crime and Punishment', Smerdyakov in 'The Karamazov Brothers', Hamlet, Iago etc.

They're more fun to read!

Dan Bowen is very smart.

Carry on.

That's very kind of you, Frank. Thanks.

Thinking about the specific novels mentioned by Matt, I read 'American Psycho when it came out (I think I was about 16 or 17) and found it to be little more than a paean to murder. Yes, I've read and heard many of the positive critiques saying that it's actually a comment on the 1980s 'Me' culture, or that society is so dislocated from itself that we don't recognise the murderers among us, or whatever, but at the time I just found it a rather heavy-going fetishisation of violence. Does that make Bret Easton Ellis irresponsible? No, I don't think so. Does it mean I was too young to be reading that book and 'get the point'? Maybe. Is Easton Ellis a very overrated writer? In my opinion, yes - but maybe I'd think differently if I re-read it now or sampled some of his other work.

That's not going to happen for a while, though - too many other things on the reading list!

See, that's kind of my concern. There's a very fine line between writing a protagonist that is in some way sympathetic or that the audience can relate to, who also does horrible things, and writing something that seems to glorify their bad behavior.

This is a great question with no real answer, I think.

Today, I could very easily say that as a writer your only responsibility is to your writing. Express what you need to express in the way you need to express it, and let the chips fall where they may. Art is responsible only for being art. The reaction/response it gets is up to the individual. The artists’ role in solely to make the art appear. Nothing more, nothing less.

But tomorrow I might say that anytime you put something out into the public arena, you have a responsibility to weight how that something will be taken and/or used in said arena. You have a responsibility to your readers. It’s not enough to say, “It’s art.” Laying the blame for a work’s ill effects or questionable message at the feet of those who consumed said work is cowardly and shirking your responsibility as its creator.

Any writer of fiction is likely to be faced with writing a person or event that is morally repugnant to them. That’s par for the course. So do you approach it with judgment? With lofty distance? With grandeur? That depends on what you’re writing and why you’re writing it – and even so, the answer does not mean you shouldn’t weigh what you’re going to write carefully.

Practicing self-censorship is a good idea, but not if it truly compromises your vision and what you seek to accomplish (assuming that you are trying to accomplish something more than merely shocking people).

Anyway, this thread was over the moment Bowen posted.

Senore Monk:


I think they do, to a certain extent. You have a responsibility to write something good, enjoyable and, hopefully, gets the reader thinking.

While you certainly don't want to encourage people to go out and commit crimes or attrocities, the glorification of "criminal activity" is a pretty common element in literature and movies. People should know it's wrong, somehow, regardless of what happens to your characters.

"Wow, I knew pedophiles/serial killers were sick, but I just couldn't believe xxxx" might be a typical response you should go for. Get them thinking

Think Goodfellas. Gang life seemed cool, but in the end, we knew why it was wrong, and things that don't present that duality are usually the works that are most criticized. Even in "Pulp Fiction" we're left knowing that those guys are psychos, even if the ride was fun.

HOWEVER,
Every once in awhile a strong, tightly written piece that gives us a look at an unredeemable monster is good. Needed too. It might even be interesting if the piece got into the guy's head and explained to the reader/ viewer why he/she thinks theirself a hero.

I guess I can't make up my mind.

I guess I'm of the mind that nothing I write could ever really have THAT much of an impact on things. I don't feel any serious responsibility to avoid, say, "glorifying" violence or portraying evil people in a sympathetic light. I go with whatever I think serves the story. The whole of society will remain unscathed by anything my dumb ass puts down on paper.

bump