Duty VS Desire and How We Handle Taboo Subjects
Last month I asked a series of questions to determine if there were any topics considered off limits. The comments were unanimous. There doesn’t seem to be any topics a writer can’t use.
One commenter, Darusha, says:
“I believe that no topic is off-limits – that writers in fact have a duty to explore those dark places that society abhors. “
That’s a pretty big statement and I see what she means, however, I’m not sure I entirely agree that we have a “duty” to explore dark places. Sometimes a story is just a story, even if it contains a taboo subject. Sometimes I don’t want to have a deep hidden meaning. Sometimes I just want to be entertained. Isn’t reading supposed to be an escape?
Tony writes:
“An author that shines a light into these corners of our world wants to reveal them, not live in them.”
I agree, but is that reveal, a duty or a desire? What do you think? Does “duty” take things too far? So, if a story is sometimes just a story does that mean it can’t contain controversial subjects? Obviously, not. Some stories use disasters or traumatic events as a device to bring readers in. And as one commenter, Tiel, tells us, this can sometimes have unforeseen results:
“I was deelpy offended by a recent fantasy novel in which what amounts to magical genocide was comitted. What offended me about it was that it was treated in a completely off-hand manner, and the group that was destroyed had been presented in a very stereotypical and unsympathetic manner. Also, when the narrator figured out what he’d done (to be fair, he was tricked into it), he didn’t have any remorse or regrets. I really felt it was “OK” with the _author_ that these people got wiped out, and I find that reprehensible.”
This made me think. Perhaps our duty as writers isn’t necessarily shining a light into the dark corners. Perhaps it is making sure that once those corners are illuminated, we do our best to handle them properly. Then again, haven’t we always been told that good writing is something that invokes an emotional response in the reader? So what’s the line?
Please join the discussion by posting your comments below. As with last month, if you feel uncomfortable posting an opinion here you can email me at thedarkeagle.com@gmail.com.
Next month we’ll continue the discussion based on comments received.
Handling it properly is the key. The fantasy example above is clearly how you don’t want to handle a serious issue.
But I think to something like Straw Dogs (the 1971 Sam Peckinpah original) in which the film beats its characters in ways that boil your blood and curl your fists. But when the finale pays off with the protagonist executing his long-deserved revenge, you forgive how angry the earlier scenes made you.
What I’m saying is, it’s okay to tear your readers apart as long as you glue them back together. (And add a littler glitter while you’re at it!)
I wasn’t trying to argue that all stories (or writers, for that matter) need to delve deeply into the darkness of the human soul. Rather that we are uniquely poised, as creators of fictional humans, to explore taboo subjects with relative safety.
Because our characters aren’t real, they can experience things we would prefer not to. That is a unique situation and its singularity gives us (as a group) a responsibility to use that opportunity.
While we may find what we read to be uncomfortable or even offensive sometimes, I think it’s a mistake to assume that what we read necessarily reflects the attitudes or beliefs of the author. Hannibal Lecter maimed and killed without remorse or regret, but I have no reason to believe that Thomas Harris thinks being a serial killer is okay.