I read an article today about Stephen King’s Rage not being available to buy in bookshops as a result of it having influenced several teenagers to execute copycat crimes and murder innocent teachers and classmates. King himself asked for the book to be removed from print, and is apparently happy that he did so.
The article is here for anybody that would like to have a read.
It raises some pertinent questions for authors, and especially self-published authors. Self-publishing for Kindle brings with it varying degrees of responsibility. Age-old criticisms about quality of self-published author’s work, and newer criticisms of formatting for Kindle (et al) heap pressure on self-published authors, many of whom must find time not only to write, but to market their work (which in itself could be a full-time occupation) plus raise families, run homes and, in my case, work two jobs.
We do not have editors to tell us, ‘Oh no, you can’t possibly have him do that’ or ‘This character could influence others to do unspeakable acts’.
So is it our consciences or our perception of bad taste that should make us regulate the subjects or acts about which we write?
I have no problem with writing about someone being hacked up and butchered by something not of this world, but I’m pretty sure I would never write a novel about having a sexual relationship with someone who was underage. Although, Vladimir Nabokov didn’t seem to do too badly out of it. I think it is in poor taste, but I had to study it at one of the top universities in the country when I did my English literature degree.
What kind of checks do Amazon do on self-published titles? Presumably they don’t actually read any of the content? They’d need an army of trained chimps to read even a small sample of each title published. It’s not worth their money.
So what happens when someone does an unspeakable act and blames it on a book they bought for their Kindle? Am I supposed to, as an indie author, regulate my writing to prevent impressionable people being influenced by something like murders in my work?
I don’t see why I should, and I don’t see why King thinks he should either. Nabokov didn’t worry about the possibility of influencing grown men to drug and manipulate underage girls. In an age when school shootings have, sadly, become not uncommon, to what extent should King, Picoult, or anyone else who writes about school shootings (here is a list of those two plus another twenty-eight works), or subjects that *could* influence criminal and even barbaric acts feel responsible.
Shouldn’t I just be able to write fiction and have it seen as just that – fiction?
Should I be consulting my moral compass every five minutes before my character spits on the ground, drops a piece of litter, or uses the F word?
Ought I to describe my character attaching knee protection, elbow protection and donning a helmet before he cycles to the store for milk?
Where do we draw the line? Can I have a crab fisherman on a boat in the Bering Sea who can’t get into a survival suit in under a minute?
I think this is a really interesting subject, and would love to hear people’s thoughts.
I think that people need to take responsibility for their actions. Blaming a book for committing a crime is just an attempt to shirk the criminals responsibility for his actions. Sadly, our culture is being formed around this thinking of blaming others for things that you choose. Blame your parents for you acting out. Blame the rich for you being poor. Blame your wife for you having an affair. Its despicable. I say, write what you want according to your conscience. Freedom of speech is a God given right and these people will try to blame it for there own actions that only they can control
Posted by kyle jacobs | July 4, 2012, 6:28 pmI grew up on free speech. If King WANTS to pull his own work, then I won’t fault him for it. It’s his work, it should be his decision. But as writers, we write freely – we almost have no control over what comes out. Writer’s shouldn’t be blamed for ignorant people that are unable make common sense decisions, like choosing NOT to kill people. I’m sure they weren’t frolicking along through their lives all happy and perfect, read King’s book, and suddenly went nuts. Behavior like that is developed over time, years.
Of course there’s a line, or at least there should be. But we’re still gonna write what we write. I think of my “future readers” and what age group they’d be in. I go with what I would feel is appropriate for them. I do it that way because its MY book. Other writers do what’s best for them and their book.
So just write, David.
Posted by M.S. Fowle | July 4, 2012, 8:25 pmReblogged this on M.S. Fowle and commented:
Ante up
Posted by M.S. Fowle | July 4, 2012, 8:28 pmHmm I guess this is something we each as individuals need to question i have some quite disturbing scenes in my WIP that I did question. My problem is that as it is set in a medieval setting I want to be historically if not accurate then at least in keeping with the way of life but a few scenes I did alter to make more acceptable to readers. I do not believe we can be held responsible for anothers actions though if we did we would only write happy stories about kittens and flowers. Could I stab someone with a stake claiming I believed they were a vampire and blame Bram Stoker? Or beat someone with a frying pan and blame Tom & Jerry, We are each responsible for our own actions those who copycat crimes from books are going to commit crimes anyway they just lack the imagination to create their own methods, it is only the plot they copy the intent is inside them no matter what
Posted by paulaacton | July 4, 2012, 8:51 pmNot sure I have a solid opinion on it but after reading this my brain is ticking. I’ll get back to you.
Posted by lazylauramaisey | July 4, 2012, 9:30 pmThanks for your comments everyone. I agree that we write what we want and it is up to people as individuals to regulate their behaviour. I love reading your comments…interesting that no-one mentioned the Nabokov angle. As for violence and death in fiction, I wouldn’t be able to write without it!
Posted by davidmcgowan | July 5, 2012, 5:53 amWhen a writer — a real, masterful writer — sits down and creates art with words, even the most depraved, debauched and taboo subjects are free game.
That said, I’ll bite on the Nabokov angle.
Women used to marry young. A thirteen year old girl today is not a thirteen year old girl a thousand years ago. A ten year old boy was once well on his way to becoming a man. We have profaned the sexual exploits between adults and non-adults, just as we have murder, theft, and animal cruelty. What was once normal is now carnal, primal, barbaric. Either way, it is still part of the story of humanity. Should we, as civilized, evolved humans seek relationships with young men and women? No. Should the subject be completely untouchable? No, because once there is censorship of one, it paves the way for the censorship of many.
Where is the line drawn, then? We promote television shows that glorify drunken promiscuity and unmitigated douchebaggery, with other stations devoted entirely to shows on crime and murder. Yet, in that same breath, reading a book — any book — can be blamed for copycatting?
I think Kyle nailed this one when he cited “the blame game.” If we can pass the brunt of the buck off on someone else or something else, we will. Perhaps this issue is less a matter of censorship and more a commentary of the decline of accountability?
-A.M.
Posted by amschultzcom | July 5, 2012, 8:55 amI’ve only just heard about this through a couple of blogs so I haven’t had a chance to really think about it In depth, but from what you’ve said I totally agree. Where do you draw the line?
Personally I can’t write about certain subjects, would never even consider it, nor would I choose to read something that, IMO was violent or concerning abuse, but, there is a huge market out there for really graphic stuff. If people want to read it, they’ll find it, whether it be in book form or online.
It makes me wonder if Kings decision isn’t actually just a marketing ploy. Think of all the fans that will now be desperately trying to get hold of that book?
Xx
Posted by Vikki (The View Outside) | July 5, 2012, 9:19 amTo be fair Vikki, I’m not sure King needs to resort to things such as that to aid sales
I think he was genuinely disturbed by the possibility that his work could cause copycat crimes! I don’t know if it was the various school shootings, or King’s novel, Rage, that spawned the other 27 similar novels though! 
Posted by davidmcgowan | July 5, 2012, 2:11 pmI’m not sure how to feel about this. On the one hand, I feel, almost intuitively, that censorship is less important than self control/self regulation. On the other hand, I feel fiction can bring things into the world that never existed before (ex. sci-fi and its impact on technological progress). Fiction that glorifies morally repugnant acts should be shunned, but fiction written with the purpose of exploring the evil for the purpose of repudiating it, I think is within the realm of acceptability. That would be my deciding factor: does it glorify or attack the evil once presented? If King is willing to self-censor, maybe there’s a good reason for it?
Posted by C.M.Hardin | July 5, 2012, 6:39 pmReblogged this on jbcultureshock and commented:
I love this blog post and think it brings up some great points. My personal feeling on this is, if you are going to commit such a horrible act because you saw it on TV or read about it in a book, you obviously have much more serious issues that need to be dealt with. In the article he links to, it states that the kid in question had mental issues and had been bullied.
How far are we going to go with this? Will we stop letting people read anything other than children’s books preaching morals to make sure no one could get bad ideas or, worse yet, stop putting books out at all? The actions of these kids are horrible and are far more complicated than this and I think that sometimes, we’re just trying to take the easy way out. What do you guys think? Comment below and let’s chat about it…
Posted by jamiebmusings | July 6, 2012, 5:32 pm(SPOILER ALERTS)
While I think this novel is educational (excluding the sex in it), because it does show the harsh reality of this world, the grim world of what high school is exactly about, I would not praise this novel either. The protagonist kills his teachers, hold his classmates hostage, and then has a cult following with his fellow classmates, who go into dark and confessing psychological sessions. The non-participant, who is unlikable, gets bullied nearly to death, psychologically and physically, by his entire classmates, for whatever reason, and to top that off, not only does he have his own troubles, his classmates induce that, leading him to go to a mental asylum, and as if that is not enough, we see that the non-participant is likely going to die, while the protagonist is recovering. I feel sympathy for both characters, and though I am a fan of Stephen King, this novel is seriously demented, and though I do own a copy of it, I think King was in the right of banning it. Interestingly, I read an article about the top five books that Hollywood will never adapt films, and by no surprise, this was the first pick, and mine, coincidence perhaps, but definitely one with reason.
This novel does seem to be a likely candidate for influencing high school violence, but high school violence has been around for so many reasons. It might have influenced various horrible school acts, but it all depends on the reader. Does he/she induce in the material they read about, or do they have enough intelligence not to, it varies per reader.
Posted by Brandon | July 6, 2012, 7:48 pmLife consists of good and evil…and so I don’t see any reason why book and films shouldn’t either.
Posted by alittlebirdtweets | July 18, 2012, 10:01 amThat’s a good point! Without evil we wouldn’t understand or appreciate good! That is very much the message that comes out of my debut novel, The Hunter Inside!
Posted by davidmcgowan | July 18, 2012, 10:03 amThis brings to mind the nightmare events in Aurora, and the long debate of do films make people violent? Well, images have a different influence than words, but I don’t think Christopher Nolan should pull his film from theaters. And I don’t think writers should censor themselves out of fear of what-if. Like someone else said, people who copy books or films already have issues. You can’t predict what will trigger them. You also can’t tell how many books with certain acts actually convinced someone to do something good, to make the right choice–as those acts don’t make the news.
But even if we decide that certain things shouldn’t be written about, who makes that list? Who decides? Someone is going to say that writing a love scene between a same sex couple to going to convince young people to be gay. I think that is ridiculous. But once you start making that list, those arguments begin.
I studied Lolita in college too and wrote a paper about it. I liked the novel and never thought Nabokov was advocating pedophilia. Granted, as someone wrote above, marrying young girls used to be the norm, but the world Lolita is set in is a world where this is not the case and HH, the predator, clearly knows he’s doing something wrong. The novel, I think, explores how people who do so much damage justify their acts in their own mind.
But anyway. Truly great books, books with powerful stories that people return to, that people cherish, go into the complexities of whatever choices, issues, the characters are face with. There have always been exploitive stories that are meant to thrill and titillate, but those books disappear after a while, and even though thousands of people read them, very few people go out and do something from the books.
I write–and have my first novel coming out in December. There is a brothel in my book, and I really wanted to make sure the story wasn’t advocating prostitution as a good life choice. I didn’t want to romanticize that life nor did I want to be too graphic. All we can do is teach/ask people to be responsible for what they put out into the world. Really, just by letting people live free we hope for that every day. But we can’t control for everything. What kind of country would we have if we tried?
Posted by marta | July 22, 2012, 3:53 pmThanks so much for your comment, and for such well thought out statements. What happened in Aurora is a tragedy and a travesty, but I agree – artists should not self-censor for fear of someone copying their fiction and making it abhorrent reality.
Best of luck with your December release!
Posted by davidmcgowan | July 22, 2012, 4:00 pmThis is exactly whtat buggs me in the back of my mind whenever i’m writing, this worries me. But, then i remind myself that musical artists are under the same pressure. Rapper Eminem has wrote a few songs based off this, quote, “they say that music talks to you, but can it load a gun and cock it for ya to?”
I think we all should have the Freedom to Write, really its not just books that can influence ina teens life, theres other influences, too.
Posted by Chriztina | July 23, 2012, 10:34 amChildren’s writers deal with this question every day. In picture books, can you show a child on a bike without a bike helmet? Can you show them walking dangerously along a wall? In books for older children, can you you show smoking, drinking, sex, reckless behaviour? (Not if you want to sell in the USA, generally.) These are not even criminal acts. We can’t show a knife, and often picture books about knights can’t show swords!
I wonder if all the children who have been over-protected in their reading as youngsters will grow up to commit copy-cat crimes because they are not used to seeing undesirable behaviour modelled or described, and so not able to discern between behaviour to follow and behaviour to shun?
Posted by moominmamma | August 24, 2012, 8:30 pmThanks for your response. Yes, I imagine it is very difficult for authors of children’s works. Literature for young people is a lot about educating, but we increasingly are told to shelter youths from the big bad truth of the world out there, yet the numbers of young children committing serious crimes seem to rise, and children show a lack of respect for adults every day – is it because we’re too ‘soft’?
Posted by davidmcgowan | August 24, 2012, 9:00 pmToo soft in terms of punishment/indulgence? Perhaps. But previous generations had films and books in which children were depicted doing bad or dangerous things and dealing with the consequences. Today, they rarely see the acts and never see consequences, so we have not shown them what can happen.
In some US states, books for teens can’t talk about contraception (or sex) because that might encourage teens to have sex. If teens are going to have sex, they will do it – they don’t look in a book and think ‘Oh, I could do that!’ But if we haven’t told them about contraception, we can’t be that surprised if they then get pregnant. Books should reflect life as it is lived. I think then nutter who kills people in a way copied from a book would have killed people anyway, just differently. It’s not as though most of us would watch Psycho and then think ‘ah, I could start a motel and murder guests’, after all.
Posted by moominmamma | August 25, 2012, 8:56 am