Ethics: Authors and their Fanbases

[Lord_Gareth]

Is an author responsible for the effects their works have on the world?

I don't mean this in a literal, legal sense - if some psychopath reads a horror book and starts chopping people up like the antagonist does, the author does not need to be jailed. What I'm talking about is, does an author have a responsibility to their fans?

Let's take an example - everyone knows about the massive popularity of the Twilight series (it. is. not. a. saga. Saga is a technical term describing a certain kind of work - Twilight is no more a saga than it is a limerick!), and the books' popularity has spawned numerous fan clubs, several large websites a cult, and several cases of assault, battery, and self-mutilation. At a book signing, a mother and her nine-year-old daughter approached Robert Patterson with fresh, bleeding gouges in their necks. The mother said, "We did this for you, Edward." At another canceled book signing, fans rioted over a Team Edward/Team Jacob debate. People have been threatened, stalked, beaten, harassed and - if rumor is to be believed - murdered over these books.

Does Stephenie Meyer have a responsibility to denounce these actions and encourage moderation from her fan base?

Remember to back your arguments up, folks - and keep it civil.

[Texas_Ben]

Ultimately, responsibility for actions taken by an individual rest on the individual themselves, end of story.

[ErrantX]

Ultimately, responsibility for actions taken by an individual rest on the individual themselves, end of story.

I agree with that assessment, but there's always the blame game. I think that the author or example in question (we'll use Stephanie Meyer for her utter garbage work as the example), the author should stand out and say, "Seriously guys, this is ridiculous. I know you like my books, but you're taking it too far. It's just book."

I won't get into my own person disdain of Twilight and the myriad of reasons I have to hate it, but in general, if your fanbase is being a group of idiots because your writing, while not directly responsible, you are indirectly contributing reason to what they may have done anyway (or at least had the potential to do). You should publicly put down the actions of these fanatics and tell them to act like civilized human beings. I am a Red Sox fan, but I've never attempted to stab a Yankees fan just because I don't like them. I see no difference between us in the end; we're all just fans of the game of baseball. If violence occurs, well, it's up to the teams to step forward and say it's BS and it's just a game.

-X

[truemane]

Agreed. Morally and legally and philosophically. The only time I would ever consider shading the edges of this categorical would be if the author intentionally crafted a given work to generate that kind of violence and hostility. I would then hold that author partially morally responsible for the consequences.

But since you can never really know someone's motives, that's a purely academic distinction.

Stephanie Meyer, presumably, just wanted to do something between tell a good story and quit her day job and make some money and be famous. I would imagine her 'motive' is a blend of all of all of those things.

She's no more responsible for self-mutilation and riots than the butterfly is responsible for the storm in China.

If I buy you dinner, and you die of food poisoning, I'm not responsilble and can't be held accountable (morally).

EDIT: And I have to politely but firmly disagree with ErrantX. Either she's responsible or she's not. If she's responsible, then hold her accountable. If she's not, then she has no moral obligation to mitigate or control the effects of her work. She might opt to accept such an obligation. But it cannot reasonably be placed upon her.

Again, if I buy you dinner and you die of food poisoning and your family loses the house and is on the streets, I'm under no obligation to take them in, buy them food, etc. I might opt to take on that obligation voluntarily, but no one can reasonably place it on me.

[pita]

Stephenie Meyer has a responsibility to denounce those things and make sure her fans know she doesn't approve of them. That's actually very freaky. That is a case of psychos almost as bad as an author's fan murdering people for that author.
But other than that?
I don't think it should matter as long as no one is getting hurt.
A certain fan of Terry Goodkind has a fondness for spreading rumors about George R. R. Martin and what a failure he is. I don't think Terry Goodkind has any responsibility towards that fan. I would think better of him if he did, but he doesn't have a duty to do it, because at the end of the day, all that fan is doing is stroking his own ego by attempting to deflate someone else. Martin's girlfriend intervened when he went overboard, and I think Terry Goodkind probably should have said something at that occasion, but other than that, it's nothing.
Wow, I'm a rabid GRRM fanboy. Look at what I wrote about GRRM and what I wrote about Meyer. Okay, meh. I'll also say it goes both ways. Having a little thread in the GRRM fanboards mocking Terry Goodkind's work is okay. Invading Goodkind's forums, as I have (unfortunately) done in the past, in order to show them how superior I am to them, is wrong, and I believe GRRM got an e-mail due to me and a few others.
There's also a problem with my views in this, because at the end of the day the fans are also people, and usually, they won't care if the author tells them what they're doing isn't appreciated. Either they like the books not the author, or they think that the author is just covering up to look good for non-fans and that the author really agrees with them. Or a third option that I haven't thought of yet.
But an interesting thread idea, Gareth. I likee.
EDIT- I was ninja'd by three (or four, I forget already) people. That's like a record.
EDIT 2 - Response to Truemane: If I buy sushi at a disreputable place for you, and you get food poisoning, it definitely is my fault. I don't know how that metaphor works with fans (If you market a book to depressed people, you shouldn't be surprised if your fans kill themselves? I dunno.), but it's definitely something that thoughts should be thought about. I think.

[TheSummoner]

Well, the problem with your entire arguement is that you claim Stephenie Meyer is an author.

But I'd say an author does have a moral obligation to denounce such actions. Theres nothing legal involved, but if people are doing insane things over because of something the author produced, then the author is partially responsible for those actions. The idiots who are actually doing it are much worse though...

[Lord_Gareth]

If I buy you dinner, and you die of food poisoning, I'm not responsilble and can't be held accountable (morally).

True, but I'm not talking about if an author is accountable for their actions - I'm asking if an author is responsible for their response (or lack thereof) to those actions. Ms. Meyer, for example, has all emails and letters directed to her routed through her brother Seth, who has publically admitted that she never reads any of them. These messages come from fans and anti-fans alike, many of whom have legitimate concerns and questions for a woman who has, very suddenly, become very culturally influential. Is she negligent for ignoring these concerns? To what extent is she obligated to her fans?

[Yora]

I'd give a clear 'No'.

Or maybe, a not quite clear no.

Many of the greatest works of fiction include characters who are not quite right and do more than questionable things. And people have been known to get crazy ideas from all kind of fiction they have been exposed to. How could we say if a creator creates a work that crazy people claim inspired them, or if the creator created a work that made susceptible people do crazy things? So just from a practical point of view, we can't really claim that a creator is at fault when someone likes his work and twists it into something crazy.
But on the otherhand, I think any person is responsible for the things they encourage. Even if a creator says in an interview that he thinks some weired behaviour of some crazy fans is cool, he does encourage others to do so as well. It goes for every situation where a person encourages certain things, but a creator of fiction has to realize that his words will have a particularily stong impact on crazy fans. But regarding just the work, I think you really can't hold anyone resposible if crazy people claim they did things because they got inspired by a work.

Regarding Twilight, we all know that there are a huge number of very immature people out there, who hate the books, the writer, and the fans from the depths of their hearts. Not to say that the fans are not as crazy as the haters, but I wouldn't give a **** about rumors on the internet, when there's a massive flame war going on.

[truemane]

But saying she has an obligation to denounce the activities is the same as saying that she's at least partially responsible for causing them. And that's absurd. All she did was write a book. Other people's actions in reaction to the book are completely outside of her control and her moral obligations. And if that's the case, she's no more responsible for denouncing them than is her agent, or the publishers, or the book-printers, or the bookstores, or the guys who make the shelves, or the screenwriters, or the actors in the film, or the guys who made the internet, or the designers of the webpages where the forums are.

[Freshmeat]

I think Stephanie Meyer can hardly be considered responsible in any way for people getting threatened, stalked, beaten, harassed and possibly murdered over a series of books about sparkly vampires.

Denouncing the actions of such extreme fans might be a good idea, but she's not responsible for them. That said, actually denouncing them would be more moral than doing nothing, as such extreme fans will probably think twice about doing something if even the author of their favorite book series says it's a bad thing. In this regard, purely ethically speaking, she ought to do precisely that. Not that I'd really blame her for simply rolling her eyes and ignoring the entire issue.

[Mewtarthio]

At a book signing, a mother and her nine-year-old daughter approached Robert Patterson with fresh, bleeding gouges in their necks. The mother said, "We did this for you, Edward."

Wait, really? Do you have a source for that?

[Strawman]

I would say that an author is only responsible if they are delibrately getting their fans to act in certain ways, or if they (somehow) knew beforehand what would happen.

There are some particularly famous works of literature that would be interesting in this debate, but they would involve talking about religion.

[Lord_Gareth]

Wait, really? Do you have a source for that?

...Sort of. I didn't save it, but I learned about when reading a thread on Twilightsucks.com; the thread's author had merely linked his/her readers to an article on MSN news.

[pita]

But saying she has an obligation to denounce the activities is the same as saying that she's at least partially responsible for causing them. And that's absurd. All she did was write a book. Other people's actions in reaction to the book are completely outside of her control and her moral obligations. And if that's the case, she's no more responsible for denouncing them than is her agent, or the publishers, or the book-printers, or the bookstores, or the guys who make the shelves, or the screenwriters, or the actors in the film, or the guys who made the internet, or the designers of the webpages where the forums are.

Legally, she isn't responsible. She can't be prosecuted, and I'd hate for that to be a possibiloity.
However, morally, don't you think the decent thing would be to let the message out that you're not a big fan of insanity?

[JonestheSpy]

It really depends on the situation we're talking about. Crazy fans of Twilight are not the author's responsibility, any more than it was the Beatles' responsibility for rioting teenage girls at their concerts - one should probably look at society as a whole to see what encourages such extreme behaviour in large numbers of people (hint: in both the Beatles' case and that of Twilight, I think some seriously repressed sexuality finding an outlet in extreme behaviour has a lot to do with it).

On the other hand, works of fiction can have massive real world influence that its creators are responsible for. For instance, D.W. Griffith's 1915 film Birth of a Nation glorified the Ku Klux Klan and is credited with resurrecting that organization after it had pretty much faded away (hope that's far enough in the past to not be regarded as verboten political).

On the posistive side, the novel Uncle Tom's Cabin is credited with being a key element in galvanizing anti-slavery feeling in the North in the years before the Civil War.

I suppose one could say the difference is that artists are not responsible for irrational, over-the-top fan behaviour, but they are responsible for the message of their works and the logical outcome of people taking said message to heart.

[truemane]

True, but I'm not talking about if an author is accountable for their actions - I'm asking if an author is responsible for their response (or lack thereof) to those actions. Ms. Meyer, for example, has all emails and letters directed to her routed through her brother Seth, who has publically admitted that she never reads any of them. These messages come from fans and anti-fans alike, many of whom have legitimate concerns and questions for a woman who has, very suddenly, become very culturally influential. Is she negligent for ignoring these concerns? To what extent is she obligated to her fans?

She is personally under no obligation to her fans. Her fans pay money for a book. The moment they pay the money and get the book the transaction is over and no further debt is owed anyone. Stephanie no more owesd her fans anything than do her fans owe Ms. Meyer additional royalties for reading the book more than once.

And is she negligent for not giving her attention to social movements she has no responsibility for? Absolutely not. That doesn't make any sense.

Again, if she voluntarily takes responsibility, that's one thing. And I would applaud her for doing so, but I can't fault her for not doing so.

EDIT:


Legally, she isn't responsible. She can't be prosecuted, and I'd hate for that to be a possibiloity.
However, morally, don't you think the decent thing would be to let the message out that you're not a big fan of insanity?

I absolutely think it would be the decent thing for her to do. I'm just saying she can't really be held under any moral OBLIGATION to do so. Again, if I was driving unsafely and had a crash that killed my friend, I could be held under some obligation to see to his family since it was my actions that direclty lead to his demise.

But if I'm driving in my car to a place I chose and we get hit by someone and he dies, I can't be held accountable (morally). And while it would be the decent thing to do to make sure his kids were okay, I wouldn't be morally obligated to do so.

[ErrantX]

Saying that Stephanie Meyer or authors/speakers/etc like her are not at least partially responsible is like saying that Hitler had nothing to do with WW2 and the way that his people behaved. He was just there, he just spoke to the people, and they put him into power, but he's not responsible for the atrocities they carried out in his name? That's just absurd.

Now I know some are going to be more than irritated that I compare Meyer to Hitler but at the same time, they are/were influential people that had an impact on societies. Stripping away all that they've done and going by the bare bones of "They did something, and then others did something else" is simple cause and effect. If someone writes a book/paper/song/speech and this influences someone to downright stupidity and that someone harms someone or something, yes, you are at least partially responsible in a moral sense. You have a moral obligation to say something to denounce that (or creepier, encourage it). The fact that Meyer doesn't care what people do as far as the fandom for her atrocity of a book series speaks volumes to her character. Whereas figures like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. came out and spoke his mind with speeches and actions, he encourage thousands and thousands of men and women to action. The song Helter Skelter inspired Charles Manson to commit atrocities, and if I'm not mistaken the Beatles called it more than a little F-d up.

It is the same thing. Cause and effect. MLK was morally obliged to the people who acted on his words, just the same as morons like Stephanie Meyer, musicians like the Beatles, and tyrannical murderers like Hitler. If you are moved to action by someone else, they are morally obligated to your actions, whether they agree with them or not. There is an obligation as a moral human being to do something if someone is doing something positive or negative based on your influence.

Not doing so is irresponsible and unforgivable.
-X

[Texas_Ben]

EDIT 2 - Response to Truemane: If I buy sushi at a disreputable place for you, and you get food poisoning, it definitely is my fault.

Um... no, it isn't.

[warty goblin]

But saying she has an obligation to denounce the activities is the same as saying that she's at least partially responsible for causing them. And that's absurd. All she did was write a book. Other people's actions in reaction to the book are completely outside of her control and her moral obligations. And if that's the case, she's no more responsible for denouncing them than is her agent, or the publishers, or the book-printers, or the bookstores, or the guys who make the shelves, or the screenwriters, or the actors in the film, or the guys who made the internet, or the designers of the webpages where the forums are.

I don't think an author denouncing an action carried out by somebody who read, or was an obsessive fan of their work in any way implies that they had a role in causing that deed. I think it demonstrates that the author cares enough to try to get people to not do stupid things.

[TheBST]

Is an author responsible for the effects their works have on the world?


There is absolutely no way an artist can control their fan's reactions.

Case in point: this place.

And I'll bet large that the people you've mentioned were nutcases before they got their hands on the art. Think The Beatles could've talked Manson out of doing the heinous crap he pulled? Those nutters felt that the work legimised their deranged actions. If the author denounces them, they'll just find a new reason to do these wacky things.

Also, the Hitler/Meyer analogy? Meyer's not going to have anyone killed for not following her way.

[Yora]

Saying that Stephanie Meyer or authors/speakers/etc like her are not at least partially responsible is like saying that Hitler had nothing to do with WW2 and the way that his people behaved. He was just there, he just spoke to the people, and they put him into power, but he's not responsible for the atrocities they carried out in his name? That's just absurd.
a) It is a silly example.
b) You could make that an argument, if he just wrote a fictional book and never talked about it to the fans. But he organized huge events with speeches in which he directly encouraged people to change their views about society and act on his words.
These are two fundamentaly different things you're talking about.

And I'll bet large that the people you've mentioned were nutcases before they got their hands on the art.
But you could argue that it's criminal neglegt to leave knives and poisoneous medicines where children can get their hands on them. In such a situation, we would expect a person to feel responsible to keep things away from people, who might come to harm from it.
Or as another example, we would think it quite irresponsible to have slasher movies running on TV when 7 year olds are in the room. The objects themselves are not dangerous if handeled properly, but it's your responsibility to take precautions that they don't get into the hands of people, who might not be able to use them properly.

Not that I think such a situation applies here, but when we're doing philosophy here, I think this should be kept in mind.

[ErrantX]

a) It is a silly example.
b) You could make that an argument, if he just wrote a fictional book and never talked about it to the fans. But he organized huge events with speeches in which he directly encouraged people to change their views about society and act on his words.
These are two fundamentaly different things you're talking about.

If you actually finished reading what I had said instead slicing out a small section to prove just your point, you'd realize that what I was trying to illustrate was Cause and Effect. You do something, and something happens. She wrote a book, fans beat the hell out themselves and each other over whether or not Edward is cuter than Jacob. Hitler spoke antisemitic rhetoric and thousands of people flocked to his banner of oppression and hate and committed atrocities. It's the same thing. Meyer wrote a book and marketed it so it would get sold so people would read it and tell their friends. Hitler organized rallies so he could speak.

Tell me how this is different.

-X

[Freshmeat]

Saying that Stephanie Meyer or authors/speakers/etc like her are not at least partially responsible is like saying that Hitler had nothing to do with WW2 and the way that his people behaved. He was just there, he just spoke to the people, and they put him into power, but he's not responsible for the atrocities they carried out in his name? That's just absurd.

Except that what Meyer says doesn't match up with what has happened, and she (presumably) never intended people to harass eachother over her books.

[Yora]

If she said "It's cool if you cut each other, so I want to see you maim yourself" and I just didn't know about it, I'd humbly stand corrected.

If not: Exactly my point. :smallbiggrin:

[ErrantX]

Except that what Meyer says doesn't match up with what has happened, and she (presumably) never intended people to harass eachother over her books.

This is not about intent, this about moral obligation and the ethics that people have or don't have in regards to their fanbase. I used Hitler as an example and I'm regretting it now, but I wanted to use a figure that inspired universal hate amongst almost everyone.

-X

[TheBST]

Tell me how this is different.
-X

1) Hitler had political goals. This is about entertainment and money.

2) Hitler encouraged said violence. That was the plan.

3) People who didn't fall in line with Hitler tended to be executed.

[BRC]

I would say that, in order for an Author to be considered responsible for the actions of their fans, you would need to prove two things:
1)The Work in question is responsible for the Actions. It's not enough for the person who did it to say "I wanted to be like character X", the Work may have given them the inspiration, but if they were planning or going to do something like that anyway, and the book merely gave them the method, it doesn't count.
2)The Author wrote the work with the intent of inspiring certain actions. Let's say you've got a book about an Arsonist who protests an evil corporation by burning down their offices. As a result of this work, somebody burns down the offices of a corporation they dislike, and attribute their actions to the Book. That, in itself, would not be enough. You would need to prove that the Book was written with the purpose of getting people to burn down corporate offices. What's more, it should be written with a tone that says burning down corporate offices is, objectively, a good way to protest their policies. If the story is told in first person from the view of the Arsonist, it wouldn't count, since the opinions and reasons for burning down the building are the Character's.
And even then, I would be ambivalent about prosecuting the Author.
Now, that said, I believe that, if an Author's fans are committing crimes or other hostile actions on account of the Book, the Author does have an obligation to denounce them. This is not because the Author is necessarily responsible for the actions of their fans, it's the same obligation anybody has when given the opportunity to help solve a problem. If I see a car accident, I have an Obligation to call 911, if I happen to have some medical training, I have an obligation to do what I can to help anybody who is injured. Now I'm not calling 911 or helping the injured because I caused the accident, I'm doing it because I want to help a bad situation.

Just like a Doctor has the ability, and therefore the obligation, to help somebody injured in a car accident, an Author has the ability, and therefore the obligation, to try to stop their fans from causing problems.

[The J Pizzel]

I'm thoroughly loving this debate. And I mean that with no sarcasm. I'm really enjoying this one. Both sides are actually providing good arguments and examples. In fact, my opinions has been swayed....slightly. Not by much, but a little. Good debating everyone. Keep it up.

[truemane]

I don't think an author denouncing an action carried out by somebody who read, or was an obsessive fan of their work in any way implies that they had a role in causing that deed. I think it demonstrates that the author cares enough to try to get people to not do stupid things.

Once again the point in contention is one of obligation. I don't think that her denouncing the fans for reckless behaviour means she's responsible and I DO think that if she did publicy decry these acts (not that it would help) it would be a moral act on her part.

But if you say she has a responsibility, a duty, an obligation to do so, then you're saying she's responsible.

And ErrantX, Cause and Effect only has moral weight when it's paried with intent. Otherwise the whole situation becomesd absurd. Which is fine, if you want to claim the whole discussion is absurd and there is no answer, but if that's the case then there's no point in trying to prove any given point and all discussion ceases.

But Hitler actively encouraged certain behaviours in certain people and actively directed events to reach a certain conclusion. It wasn't just an overly emotionally-loaded example, it was a disingenuous one as well.

Try this:

I buy my buddy dinner for his birthday. He gets sick and dies. He happens to get sick and die while piloting Air Force One while it's transporting all senior gov't officials to the State of the Union Address. Everyone dies. The Minister of Agriculture or someone takes over the country, armed insurrections occur and the nation falls to chaos and anarchy. Am I responsible? Do I have an obligation to stop it? No. Clearly not.

In a similar vein, one of the soldiers in Hitler's army, one day, kills a civilian for no good reason. Is Hitler responsible for that? I'd say no. Since, presumably, this was not something he actively encouraged. But WWII? That was him.

EDIT (too many good points too quickly):


Just like a Doctor has the ability, and therefore the obligation, to help somebody injured in a car accident, an Author has the ability, and therefore the obligation, to try to stop their fans from causing problems.

That's a really excellent point. Does having the power to perform a (moral) act in and of itself obligate you to do so? How proximal do the consequences of the act have to be before you're under the obligation?

Presuming Stephanie Meyer does have the power to stop fans from hurting themselves and other (which I doubt, but let's pretend) does that create a moral duty?

I guess you could argue it does. But then, if you pass a starving man on the street and don't give him food, you are therefore responsible for his death. Likewise any number of charitable acts that you COULD perform right now. If you don't perform them, are you responsible for the consequences of them not being done? Orphans starving? Homeless people dying in the winter? Drug addicts over-dosing?

[warty goblin]

Once again the point in contention is one of obligation. I don't think that her denouncing the fans for reckless behaviour means she's responsible and I DO think that if she did publicy decry these acts (not that it would help) it would be a moral act on her part.

But if you say she has a responsibility, a duty, an obligation to do so, then you're saying she's responsible.


You seem to be discounting the possibility that perhaps I consider it a moral obligation to discourage people from acting like morons and hurting themselves.

Put it this way: if a psychologist in no way affiliated with Meyer got on TV or the radio and said 'you shouldn't hurt yourself to make yourself more appealing to a fictional character.' does that imply that they are responsible for people doing so? Of course not. They may however feel a genuine moral obligation to attempt to help these people not do stupid things.

I don't see why this is any different.

[TheBST]

That's another point: political groups try to develop a consesus and common goals and philosophies among them.

Fanbases form themselves and the beliefs and attitudes of their members can be all over the shop.

An artist dictating how people should respond to their work is pointless nannyism. They're not arms dealers, they're selling stories and images. Besides, no one's going to publish any art that explicitly tries to make the audience commit violent acts. Not to the mass-market, anyway. Not enough money, too much bad PR for the company.

[truemane]

Put it this way: if a psychologist in no way affiliated with Meyer got on TV or the radio and said 'you shouldn't hurt yourself to make yourself more appealing to a fictional character.' does that imply that they are responsible for people doing so? Of course not. They may however feel a genuine moral obligation to attempt to help these people not do stupid things.

But do you think every licensed psychologist NEEDS to go on tv and tell people not to hurt themselves in order to make themselves more appealing to a fictional character? All of them? And any that don't are then morally responsible for each and every act of self-mutilation caused by anyone who might reaonably have been watching tv at that time?

They may feel an obligation. You may feel an obligation. Ms Meyer may feel one. But I don't think YOU can reasonably or rationally place one on HER and then judge her for not doing so.

[BRC]

That's a really excellent point. Does having the power to perform a (moral) act in and of itself obligate you to do so? How proximal do the consequences of the act have to be before you're under the obligation?

Presuming Stephanie Meyer does have the power to stop fans from hurting themselves and other (which I doubt, but let's pretend) does that create a moral duty?

I guess you could argue it does. But then, if you pass a starving man on the street and don't give him food, you are therefore responsible for his death. Likewise any number of charitable acts that you COULD perform right now. If you don't perform them, are you responsible for the consequences of them not being done? Orphans starving? Homeless people dying in the winter? Drug addicts over-dosing?
I think it depends on the cost to you and how sure you are that it's going to be successful. Plus, as much as this sounds like weaseling, the chance somebody else could provide the service.

For example, a Doctor who witnesses a Car Accident and rushes over to help is primarily giving up Time. Since they are a Doctor, they can be reasonably sure their assistance will help with the problem. There is a chance they may fail of course, but the other two factors help to minimize this. Finally, there is the fact that the Doctor may be one of the only people capable of helping the injured until help arrives.

Now, for a person on the street, the big difference is the second and third options. You're giving up money, but I don't want to get into that argument. However, first of all, you don't know that he will actually use this money the way you want him to. You could instead tell him about a nearby soup kitchen and give money to them. Finally, (And once again, I am aware that this point sounds like a lame excuse) you are not the only one who could help this person.

Mind you, now we're talking Philosophy, and I'm starting to regret using the word "Obligation", because it implies an absolute. There are varying levels of Obligation. To go back to the doctor at the Car accident, yes he is obligated to help the person who bumped his head on the steering wheel when the car's hit, but he is more obliged to help the person who got flung face-first through a Windsheild.

[JonestheSpy]

Well, there's some things that are really getting mixed up here - first of all, you have to seperate people who are actually trying to achieve political goals by directly motivating people (Hitler, MLK) vs artists, who may or may not be trying to moptivate people in some way and will be doing so indirectly in any case. I think mixing the two situations up is a very bad idea - at least in the context of this thread.

Next, as I mentioned in my last post, there is the aspect of reasonable expectations involved in people's reactions to one's work. There is absolutely nothing in 'Helter Skelter' that in any advocates any kind of violence, let alone Manson's rampage, so the Beatles bear no responsibility for his actions, though if I were in their position I'd probably feel some guilt anyway. Ditto for Meyer and crazy Twilight fans.

On the other hand, there is a huge amount of gansta rap out there that actively glorifies crime, violence, and misogyny. And when people who have been raised from childhood with that music and it's accomponying images grow up and start emulating all that behaviour, then I'm of the mindset that the artists, along with the record companies that publish htem and the radio stations that broadcast them definitely bear part of the responsibility for their actions.

As for intent, that's iffy. I don't think Lucas specifically intended to fill Phantom Menace with a bunch of groos racial stereotypes, but he did anyway. And I might not intend to hurt anyone when I decide to see just how fast I can get my car going of the open highway - but if I do, I'm damn well the one at fault, ain't I?

[BRC]

Well, there's some things that are eally getting mixed up here - first of all, you have to seperate people who are actually trying to achieve policitcal goals by directly motivating people (Hitler, MLK) vs artists, who may or may not be trying to moptivate people in some way and will be doing so indirectly in any case. I think mixing the two situations up is a very bad idea - at least in the context of this thread.

Yes, there you go.

In the case of Meyer, these things are occurring because people like the book and the culture that has grown up. If you measure the talent of an Author by the popularity of their works (And I do believe that is a reasonable standard of measurement, sure it dosn't account for things like Trends, Luck, having a publisher who can get you lots of publicity, ect, but no measurement system is perfect) all Meyer has done is been a good author.

[quicker_comment]

Let's take an example - everyone knows about the massive popularity of the Twilight series (it. is. not. a. saga. Saga is a technical term describing a certain kind of work - Twilight is no more a saga than it is a limerick!), and the books' popularity has spawned numerous fan clubs, several large websites a cult, and several cases of assault, battery, and self-mutilation. At a book signing, a mother and her nine-year-old daughter approached Robert Patterson with fresh, bleeding gouges in their necks. The mother said, "We did this for you, Edward." At another canceled book signing, fans rioted over a Team Edward/Team Jacob debate. People have been threatened, stalked, beaten, harassed and - if rumor is to be believed - murdered over these books.
[citation needed]

[Coidzor]

The author and everyone else who stokes up the fanbase to get them to shell out more money and are kept up in such fervor that they begin to behave badly, yes.

If it were merely the books alone, they probably wouldn't have behaved in this way, but they let on that they were easily influenced and so they were taken advantage of further and further to the point we are today.

Sort of like holding con artists responsible for fools throwing their money away and doing suicidal things while paying for the opportunity to kill themselves.

Can't say I feel particularly bad about them killing themselves or each other off.

It's when they start attacking the rest of us, y'know.

[Green Bean]

The author and everyone else who stokes up the fanbase to get them to shell out more money and are kept up in such fervor that they begin to behave badly, yes.

If it were merely the books alone, they probably wouldn't have behaved in this way, but they let on that they were easily influenced and so they were taken advantage of further and further to the point we are today.

Sort of like holding con artists responsible for fools throwing their money away and doing suicidal things while paying for the opportunity to kill themselves.

Can't say I feel particularly bad about them killing themselves or each other off.

It's when they start attacking the rest of us, y'know.

So, I imagine you have equally large problems with Robert DeNiro, John Fowles, Woody Harrelson, Juliette Lewis, and the Beatles?

[Eakin]

I can't imagine holding Ms. Meyers responsible for the actions of these super-rabid fans on any level. Yes, she wrote the book, but while I haven't read the books I'm going to go out on a limb and say she doesn't condone or endorse self-mutilation or attacking non-fans. Comparing her to Hitler and Twilight to Mein Kampf is absurd, that book explicitly argued that genocide and murder were good things and necessarily for Germany, and Hitler endorsed these ideas on a regular basis, Meyers endorses nothing. In my view the willful ignorance she displays in not reading any fan or anti-fan mail is completely defensible. Publishing a book doesn't bind you in any way to the actions of those who read it unless you fill it with hate speech and calls to action.

Also, the category of acts that are morally praiseworthy but not morally obligatory is referred to in philosophy as Supererogation. It's distinct from a duty which is an act that would be wrong to not do.

Hardcore utilitarians would argue that there's no difference between the two categories. Kantians would say otherwise

[Seraph]

So, I imagine you have equally large problems with Robert DeNiro, John Fowles, Woody Harrelson, Juliette Lewis, and the Beatles?

if stephanie meyer deserves punishment for the acts of her fans, does that mean jodie foster should be brought up on charges of attempted assassination of a US president?

[Mr. Scaly]

This seemed relevent. (http://www.mercedeslackey.com/features_laststraw.html) Not Stephanie Meyer, but Mercedes Lackey's opinions on it.

[snoopy13a]

I blame Ernest Hemmingway as being responsible for all of those idiots who have gotten trampled by bulls during the festival of San Fermin in Pamplona, Spain in the last 80 years or so. There have been fourteen deaths since the publication of The Sun Also Rises. Hemmingway is at fault for every single one of them.

It is all his fault as you can't hold people responsible for their own actions. After all, authors have so much influence over their fans that the fans will do whatever the author commands of them.

Also, morally culpable is Chuck Palahnuik. Ever since a movie was based off of a certain novel of his, hundreds, perhaps, thousands of fools have participated in "fight clubs". Every one of these assaults is solely Mr. Palahnuik's fault. Again, fans simply cannot be held responsible for their own thoughts and actions. When it comes to popular media, we simply cannot resist.

Don't even get me started on Robert Frost. To think of how many young men and women went off on a risky, eventually unsuccessful, path due to his famous poem. This monster has ruined countless lives as poetry fans are beholden to his magicial verse. How many future doctors and engineers have become starving artists or actors because they took the road less traveled?

[Telonius]

It's a sad fact that there are a great number of loonies in the world. Crazy people are going to fixate on whatever they fixate on. If you're going to have any kind of a public life, or put your work out for public consumption, you're going to run the risk of running into one (or more) of those people. In most cases I would say that an author has extremely little responsibility or control over what people do with their fictional work.

I'd say that there are some exceptions; basically the literary equivalent of shouting fire in a crowded theater (when there's not really a fire). Just to make up an example, say you're living in the US, and the local demagogue is saying that those Canadian immigrants are just ruining the country, and they ought to go back where they came from. There have been a series of increasingly violent incidents recently, where Canadian immigrants have been harassed. You know all this, and write a book with a truly despicable Canadian villain. At the end of the book, the hero throws him off a bridge. Now if some poor Canadian gets tossed off a bridge in real life, I'd say that your book might well be a contributing factor. You bear some moral (though probably not legal) responsibility for it, even if you would never want to actually hurt anybody. You knew the situation was tense, and you decided publish your book anyway. That's reckless at best, and malicious at worst.

It gets a little blurrier if an author gets a cult following. I'd say that if an author finds out that people are doing seriously crazy or dangerous stuff in the name of fandom, that author ought to tell the fans to tone it down a bit. If it's just some random nutter who would have been inspired by the Sears catalog if he'd picked up that instead of the book in question, then the author can't be expected to do anything about it. But if it's an ongoing thing, and the author knows about it, then they have some responsibility to speak out against it.

[RandomNPC]

remember when that buffy the vampire slayer show was all kinds of popular? (neither do i, but lets pretend)

there was a local news story about a teenager who broke into an elderly womans home, killed her and ate her heart claiming it would make him a vampire. My guess is he made it up himself, but the internet and friends with bad ideas probably spurred him on. Joss Whedon had nothing to do with it outside of writing a compelling script.

so the fans need to be stable in the head, the responsibility lies with the indiviual preforming the actions.

[darkblade]

remember when that buffy the vampire slayer show was all kinds of popular? (neither do i, but lets pretend)

there was a local news story about a teenager who broke into an elderly womans home, killed her and ate her heart claiming it would make him a vampire. My guess is he made it up himself, but the internet and friends with bad ideas probably spurred him on. Joss Whedon had nothing to do with it outside of writing a compelling script.

so the fans need to be stable in the head, the responsibility lies with the indiviual preforming the actions.

Well that's just ridiculous. That's not even how vampires are made in Buffy.

Directly relating to the thread I'd say somewhat yes somewhat no.

If the artist in question is aware that their works are influencing people into committing violent and/or criminal acts and they do nothing about it at all then they are indirectly responsible. If the artist tries to prevent said acts from occuring even if it as little as making a blog post or having a small press release advising their fans not to commit said acts then they can not be held fully responsible. Similarly if the artist is somehow entirely unaware of the actions of their fans or at least unaware that some intend to commit violent or criminal acts relating to the work of art then since there was no way of them knowing that the fans would commit said violent acts they can not be held responsible.

[Turcano]

Next, as I mentioned in my last post, there is the aspect of reasonable expectations involved in people's reactions to one's work. There is absolutely nothing in 'Helter Skelter' that in any advocates any kind of violence, let alone Manson's rampage, so the Beatles bear no responsibility for his actions, though if I were in their position I'd probably feel some guilt anyway. Ditto for Meyer and crazy Twilight fans.

On the other hand, you have stuff like The Turner Diaries. For those who don't know, The Turner Diaries is a book about a bunch of racist ****heads who overthrow the US government and commit acts of global genocide; the book is very popular on the reactionary fringe and has served as the inspiration for a number of domestic terrorists, the most notorious being Timothy McVeigh. I doubt many people wouldn't hold William Pierce morally accountable for the heinous actions that his book inspired, even if he never saw the inside of a courtroom for it.

[Coidzor]

So, I imagine you have equally large problems with Robert DeNiro, John Fowles, Woody Harrelson, Juliette Lewis, and the Beatles?

Oh, gods yes. I mean, aside from the ones who I have never heard anything about and therefore cannot hold an opinion on.

Marketing and advertisement are almost as evil as, well, the Dulleses, to say nothing of the people who set off the self-feeding loop of cult mentalities. Those guys make Happy Happyists look like, well, runaway dogs, or maybe spiteful crows.

Also, others holding things as sacred cows makes the butcher in me itch.

[Green Bean]

Oh, gods yes. I mean, aside from the ones who I have never heard anything about and therefore cannot hold an opinion on.

Marketing and advertisement are almost as evil as, well, the Dulleses, to say nothing of the people who set off the self-feeding loop of cult mentalities. Those guys make Happy Happyists look like, well, runaway dogs, or maybe spiteful crows.

Also, others holding things as sacred cows makes the butcher in me itch.

What specific part of marketing do you hold responsible for driving people insane? In my experience, they aren't trying to create a crazy cult; they're just trying to get people purchase their product. At worst they take stuff out of context to make something seem cooler than it is. Most of the genuinely insane stuff fans seems to happen because it feeds into a pre-existing mental issue, not something created by the author/creator.

Mental illness has always reflected popular culture. In the mid to late 90s, delusions about being abducted or experimented on by aliens got more common. Why? The X-Files. In 1998-99, it was people convinced that the world was somehow false, inspired by The Matrix and The Truman Show. During the Cold War, it was Communist Mind Control. It happens, and there's not much you can do about it. Well, I suppose you could eliminate all shared culture, so at least you know all of the delusions are locally inspired.

Personally, I adopt the legalistic point of view. For an author to be at fault, it requires both harm and intent to harm. If a demagogue writes an inflammatory book he or she hopes will inspire someone to take matters into their own hands, then the author shares some of the blame (only some, mind) for related Bad Stuff that happens. If an author writes a book about something he or she likes, and tries to sell it to make money, it isn't their fault if it trigger's someone's latent issues.

[hamishspence]

Or "a reasonable probability of harm"

Behaving in such a way that the risk of harm is high, is unacceptable even if you didn't intend to cause harm.

However, I do think that writing vampire books does not cause an "unacceptable risk of harm"- there will always be idiots out there.

There are things which, if an author writes them, they may have to accept a certain culpability when people put their ideas into action.

But, most of the time, and, I think, in this case, vampire fiction isn't one of them.

[Green Bean]

That's a very good point. If I wrote a story where going to mommy's medicine cabinet and drinking whatever you find gives you superpowers, even if it was written in good faith, it's still pretty negligent.

But overall, intent matters.

[hamishspence]

Roald Dahl's George's Marvellous Medicine is, pretty much, this.

Only with animal medicines, and dozens of exotic substances, since he's not allowed to touch the human ones.

I doubt, however, that any cases of poisoning from over-imaginative kids have happened as a result.

[Telonius]

You could also have such unintentional tragedies as this (http://librarydespot.net/?p=369). :smallbiggrin:

[jlvm4]

Ultimately, responsibility for actions taken by an individual rest on the individual themselves, end of story.

I think the issue here seems to be the word responsibility. The quoted poster above pretty much difinatively answered that one.

However, there is also responisbility's sister, obligation. Basically it sounds like you are more asking, as the author, "what's the 'right thing to do' when you've got nuts in your fan base?" And there I think you do have an obligation to let people know when they do something you believe is wrong based on inspiration found in your work. If you don't speak up, it implies you don't care, or worse might even approve.

It's similar to witnessing other wrongs without acting. There's always something you can do. Someone starts offensively denouncing a particular group, you can stand up and say you don't agree. A kid is being ostracized and school, you can sit by them at lunch. Someone is being hurt, you can help or get someone to help. But you do something.

So I think the author or stars or whatever should call crazy crazy and publicly make a statement that this is not what they intended in writing the book.

[Cyrion]

For a while (who knows, maybe they still are), superhero comics were under fire because kids were believing that they, too, could fly or run through brick walls and were causing themselves damage...

I think this debate is a part of the whole "are you obligated to be a role model?" discussion. From an individual liberties and responsibility position, no, you're not, and authors aren't in any way obligated by the things their fans do unless their work was deliberately persuasive.

However, from the perspective of Locke, Plato and the like, yes, everyone, not just celebs should always be a role model because they should be taking an active role in making their society "better" and contributing. If you are going to accept the privileges that come from being a member of society, you must also accept the responsibility to go along with it. Because these celebs are highly visible, they should try to use their visibility to contribute in some fashion, even if it's simply as an example of a responsible adult.

[warty goblin]

However, from the perspective of Locke, Plato and the like, yes, everyone, not just celebs should always be a role model because they should be taking an active role in making their society "better" and contributing. If you are going to accept the privileges that come from being a member of society, you must also accept the responsibility to go along with it. Because these celebs are highly visible, they should try to use their visibility to contribute in some fashion, even if it's simply as an example of a responsible adult.

I'm in favor of this if it means we can remove Paris Hilton from the public eye. Permenantly.

[Killer Angel]

Saying that Stephanie Meyer or authors/speakers/etc like her are not at least partially responsible is like saying that Hitler had nothing to do with WW2 and the way that his people behaved. He was just there, he just spoke to the people, and they put him into power, but he's not responsible for the atrocities they carried out in his name? That's just absurd.


The paragon is absurd, and you know.
Slightly more fitting, could be an argument on Hitler writing Mein Kampf to be not responsable for the hate caused by his book, but Hitler wrote it excactly to incite to racial hate, while I don't think Meyer wants such a thing.

That said, in the moment an author knows that his works had nasty effects for fanaticism of fans, he is responsible in some way, at least morally, if he dont do / tell nothing and choose to act as if nothing happened. It became a sort of "I don't care what you do, taking inspiration from my books: I'm not legally responsible and I only care that you buy'em".

Let me try to explain better:


On the other hand, you have stuff like The Turner Diaries. For those who don't know, The Turner Diaries is a book about a bunch of racist ****heads who overthrow the US government and commit acts of global genocide; the book is very popular on the reactionary fringe and has served as the inspiration for a number of domestic terrorists, the most notorious being Timothy McVeigh. I doubt many people wouldn't hold William Pierce morally accountable for the heinous actions that his book inspired, even if he never saw the inside of a courtroom for it.

What if William Pierce, knowing about this and knowing that such reactionaries "love" his book, decides to write "Turner Diaries pt. 2"?
You are not responsible for other's actions, but what happens if you know that something is wrong and you don't care?


This seemed relevent. (http://www.mercedeslackey.com/features_laststraw.html) Not Stephanie Meyer, but Mercedes Lackey's opinions on it.

Perfect. Mercedes Lackey, at this point, is no more responsible, because she cares and on the main page of her site, she remind harshly that fantasy books are fictional, and the reader must remember this simple fact. Her fans' base can read her thought on the matter. See? it wasn't difficult.

[Green Bean]

For a while (who knows, maybe they still are), superhero comics were under fire because kids were believing that they, too, could fly or run through brick walls and were causing themselves damage...

I think this debate is a part of the whole "are you obligated to be a role model?" discussion. From an individual liberties and responsibility position, no, you're not, and authors aren't in any way obligated by the things their fans do unless their work was deliberately persuasive.

However, from the perspective of Locke, Plato and the like, yes, everyone, not just celebs should always be a role model because they should be taking an active role in making their society "better" and contributing. If you are going to accept the privileges that come from being a member of society, you must also accept the responsibility to go along with it. Because these celebs are highly visible, they should try to use their visibility to contribute in some fashion, even if it's simply as an example of a responsible adult.

But that's a sort of generic responsibility that anyone with influence over another has, not something inherently stemming from creatorship. Do you spend your time being a role model to your friends and family, or spend time educating them on heart disease/eating disorders/endangered rainforests?

[Mewtarthio]

[citation needed]

The closest I could find was this article (http://www.avclub.com/articles/what-will-be-the-next-abstinence-vampire,8312/), which cites Us Weekly. It only describes scratches on the neck, not deep gouges, and there's no mention of mothers stabbing their daughters.

[Killer Angel]

The closest I could find was this article (http://www.avclub.com/articles/what-will-be-the-next-abstinence-vampire,8312/), which cites Us Weekly. It only describes scratches on the neck, not deep gouges, and there's no mention of mothers stabbing their daughters.

Don't know if this (http://twilightsucks.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=fangirls&action=display&thread=5175) can be considered a reliable source. Many reports, but obviously no one is confirmed, so it can be totally false.

[Sneak]

I agree with many others the thread. The author ought to denounce this kind of behavior, but she has no obligation, legal or moral, to do so.

[hamishspence]

What's the difference between "ought to" and "morally but not legally obliged"?

[Turcano]

What if William Pierce, knowing about this and knowing that such reactionaries "love" his book, decides to write "Turner Diaries pt. 2"?
You are not responsible for other's actions, but what happens if you know that something is wrong and you don't care?

Well, he sort of did. About a decade later he wrote Hunter, which follows similar themes, the main difference being that it focuses on an individual instead of an organization. The book was dedicated to a serial killer who targeted interracial couples.

[Sneak]

What's the difference between "ought to" and "morally but not legally obliged"?

There's a difference between something you should do/something you ought to do and something that you're obligated to do. In this scenario, most would agree that the author ought to denounce the harmful behavior, as she would be morally right in doing so. Not everyone would agree, however, that failure to take such action would be morally wrong. Thus, she has no obligation to take action.

Of course, you may disagree with that.

A lot of this ties into good samaritan vs. bad samaritan laws. Good samaritan laws protect those who render aid to others who are injured or ill from liability. On the other hand, bad samaritan laws make failure to render assistance to others who are injured or ill a criminal offense. Personally, I think that good samaritan laws are good and bad samaritan laws are bad, but you might not agree with me.

[hamishspence]

The intermediate category is when behaviour is not illegal but incurs moral condemnation.

Personally I wouldn't condemn an author if they refused to speak out because of the risk that by speaking out they would expose themselves to frivolous lawsuits claiming that they are accepting some responsibility.

But some people might.

[jlvm4]

Personally I wouldn't condemn an author if they refused to speak out because of the risk that by speaking out they would expose themselves to frivolous lawsuits claiming that they are accepting some responsibility.

But some people might.

Which is why the world is in the state it's in. Frivolous lawsuits, or the threat of them, have destroyed common sense and are well on their way to destroying common decency as well.

[Lord_Gareth]

See, the way I see things, if an author knows that there are nuts in their fanbases, they should at least speak out against them; to a lot of people, silence is consent, and Ms. Meyer's silence is, to me, immorally negligent. She knows that they do these things, but rather than deal with the problem one way or another, she's chosen to retreat and hide behind her brother.

To take another example (which, regrettably, also involves Ms. Meyer - I'm not trying to fixate, I swear!), Stephenie Meyer once made several unprofessional and unprovoked remarks about another author's - Melissa Marr's - books. Ms. Marr's fans were ready to get up in arms and invade several Twilight forums - when she told them not to do it. She denounced the action, and prevented an incident from occuring.

By the by, if it's moral to take an action, doesn't that, by elimination, mean that it's immoral not to take it? Isn't morality about obligation in the first place?

[Telonius]

The intermediate category is when behaviour is not illegal but incurs moral condemnation.

Personally I wouldn't condemn an author if they refused to speak out because of the risk that by speaking out they would expose themselves to frivolous lawsuits claiming that they are accepting some responsibility.

But some people might.

There's also the possibility that the author might not want to further publicize it. If your "Don't eat glass!" advertising campaign is going to result in more people eating glass - the idiots otherwise would never have thought of eating the stuff - you might not want to run the ad campaign.

[Renegade Paladin]

Three words: Lafayette Ronald Hubbard. Twilight is peanuts in the examples of what an author can do.

[warty goblin]

By the by, if it's moral to take an action, doesn't that, by elimination, mean that it's immoral not to take it? Isn't morality about obligation in the first place?

Only if you consider morality to be a pure binary*. I don't, because I find such a Manichaean black and white world view to be deeply destructive. This isn't to say that there aren't cases where if taking an action is moral, not taking it is immoral in my view- saving somebody from drowning for a particularly pithy example, but I don't see it as a neccessity of the construct.

*Phrased better, if you allow for multiple, distinct actions to be considered moral. Thus just because you choose not to do moral action X, you may still pursue moral action Y without by neccessity having to resort to immoral action Z by default.

[JonestheSpy]

By the by, if it's moral to take an action, doesn't that, by elimination, mean that it's immoral not to take it? Isn't morality about obligation in the first place?

I've very fond of the way Lois mcMaster Bujold puts it:

When you choose an action, you choose the consequences of that action; when you choose not to act, you choose the consequences of that inaction.

[Myrmex]

Three words: Lafayette Ronald Hubbard. Twilight is peanuts in the examples of what an author can do.

Wow. Two thirds his name is last names. Now wonder he went by L. Ron.

[Sneak]

By the by, if it's moral to take an action, doesn't that, by elimination, mean that it's immoral not to take it? Isn't morality about obligation in the first place?


I've very fond of the way Lois mcMaster Bujold puts it:

When you choose an action, you choose the consequences of that action; when you choose not to act, you choose the consequences of that inaction.

Most people agree that choosing to donate to charity is a morally right and commendable action to take. Let's say that you're a blue collar worker who makes just enough money to support yourself. While donating to charity is still morally right, that doesn't mean that not donating to charity is morally wrong. You have no moral obligation to donate your money to charity.

Even if a child in Africa dies because of a lack of the money that you could have provided, while this is unfortunate and sad, it doesn't mean that you are responsible for the death of the child.

[averagejoe]

Only if you consider morality to be a pure binary*. I don't, because I find such a Manichaean black and white world view to be deeply destructive. This isn't to say that there aren't cases where if taking an action is moral, not taking it is immoral in my view- saving somebody from drowning for a particularly pithy example, but I don't see it as a neccessity of the construct.

*Phrased better, if you allow for multiple, distinct actions to be considered moral. Thus just because you choose not to do moral action X, you may still pursue moral action Y without by neccessity having to resort to immoral action Z by default.

I tend to agree in general; however in this case the other side seems to be speaking of semantics unnecessarily in order to have it both ways, as it were.

Which isn't to say they're wrong. (Or to say they're right.) However, I do see why such black-and-white might be a comforting alternative to this.

Now, as an American, I like saying the word, 'freedom,' if for no other reason than to hear myself say it, (I blame Braveheart, personally.) so I feel obligated to point out that putting any obligation on the author does tend to toe that area of limiting freedom of speech. Of course, this isn't in and of itself bad automatically. However, it does make one slightly uncomfortable when people say, "You can only produce these works of art as long as you accompany them with these statements or letters."

That said, it also makes one uncomfortable to think that a person has no responsibility to prevent a harm if possible. I think, as a whole, this issue is being looked at the wrong way.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there are a bunch of overreactionaries to a certain book. Let's also say that said fanbase does not like the author at all. However, most of this fanbase does have a strong respect for Christopher Walken. Should Walken denounce their actions? (Maybe the answer is no, but I'm mainly using this to illustrate my next point. The answer to this question isn't so immediately important.)

The way I see it, the author of a work has no obligation to say anything to their fanbase; they've written the book and are now done with it unless they choose not to be. However, at the same time, I would say that, if a person can reasonably expect their words to prevent ills being done, they are under an obligation to speak those words. The authors aren't responsible as authors, but as private citizens who we happen to have good reason to believe might be able to control a certain subset of the population whose actions toward others are extremely destructive. Now, whether an author's words would actually have such an effect is a matter of debate (I am skeptical on this point.) However, if a person (author or not) has good reason to believe that crazies will do what they say, they are under some responsibility to prevent them from doing crazy things. They're not really responsible for what happens if they don't (for the extreme unpredictability of the effects of saying something, if nothing else) but at the same time you have potentially large benefits (cessation of mutilation and riots) for a relatively small cost (speaking/writing words). I have, at best, little sympathy for one who chooses not to follow through with such a course.

[Stormthorn]

If she denounces her fans she implies responsibility for what they have done. People will argue "If it wasnt her fault, why is she acting guilty."


Wow. Two thirds his name is last names.
Lafayette can be a first name.
I know a guy named Lafayette Jordon III.

[Tiktakkat]

This seemed relevent. (http://www.mercedeslackey.com/features_laststraw.html) Not Stephanie Meyer, but Mercedes Lackey's opinions on it.

Here's another bit of commentary on the "obligations" authors have to fans:
http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2009/05/entitlement-issues.html

I see that applying here too.
The author wrote a book, you bought it, you read it, you liked it or hated it, end of contract.
If you choose to use the book for some alternative purpose above and beyond reading, that is solely and exclusively your responsibility, and the author bears no responsibility, just as if you decided to use a book of needlepoint patterns as the basis for your next trip to the tattoo parlor, got a mohawk after watching Taxi Driver, contracted a social disease after watching George Michael's "I Want Your Sex" video 500 times in a row and not paying attention to what he said, or killed yourself jumping out a window after going bakrupt in a game of Monopoly.

[Killer Angel]

Here's another bit of commentary on the "obligations" authors have to fans:
http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2009/05/entitlement-issues.html

I see that applying here too.
The author wrote a book, you bought it, you read it, you liked it or hated it, end of contract.


Gaiman was talking more on the responsibility that an author have versus his readers to keep a schedule or finishing a serie, more than the "use" the reader do with the books. So, imo it's slightly unrelated to the topic, but equally worth discussing.

I don't agree with Gaiman... or at least, I agree partially.
You've got no obligation to the fans, and you've got no obligation to keep on schedule ('til the late is reasonable, depending on editor's needs).
But you cannot hide behind the excuse "I'm an artist". Sorry, no. If you are paid, you are a worker, and your work is to write. You don't work directly for the reader, but you work certainly for the editor, and I suppose you have a sort of contract with him.
The editor probably wants to see the serie published and finished, and probably you have a contract for a certain number of books. And if he asks you to finish the job, it's better you finish it.
You are an artist, but you are also a worker: you have no more the inspiration to create a masterpiece? OK, write something at the best of your possibilities, but ends what you've started.
If an architect is working on my future house, he cannot leave the work half done because he have no more "inspiration".
Imagine P. Jackson saying; I'm bored, I've finished the two towers and I don't care for Return...

And the last thing: Gaiman knows it too. There's a reason for he's glad that he's not currently writing a series. Because the reader has no right to force him to work, but the editor has it. Even if he wants to paint the house by himself...

[Cyrion]

But that's a sort of generic responsibility that anyone with influence over another has, not something inherently stemming from creatorship. Do you spend your time being a role model to your friends and family, or spend time educating them on heart disease/eating disorders/endangered rainforests?

Absolutely, on both counts. It goes beyond creatorship, and yes I do (I was a very idealistic Boy Scout! :smallbiggrin: ).

[warty goblin]

I tend to agree in general; however in this case the other side seems to be speaking of semantics unnecessarily in order to have it both ways, as it were.

Which isn't to say they're wrong. (Or to say they're right.) However, I do see why such black-and-white might be a comforting alternative to this.

Now, as an American, I like saying the word, 'freedom,' if for no other reason than to hear myself say it, (I blame Braveheart, personally.) so I feel obligated to point out that putting any obligation on the author does tend to toe that area of limiting freedom of speech. Of course, this isn't in and of itself bad automatically. However, it does make one slightly uncomfortable when people say, "You can only produce these works of art as long as you accompany them with these statements or letters."

Oh I quite agree. Black and white morality is always comforting. It makes the world a much easier place to understand, where being good is, if not easy, than at least simple.

Nor do I particularly think that an author is neccessarily responsible for everything done by their fans, even things done by their fans that has some demented relation to their works. For starters they need to actually know of whatever the fan in question is doing, which is simply not possible. On the other hand, if the author in question knows that one of their fans is going off the deep end, I'm not sure that there isn't some obligation there to do something.




That said, it also makes one uncomfortable to think that a person has no responsibility to prevent a harm if possible. I think, as a whole, this issue is being looked at the wrong way.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there are a bunch of overreactionaries to a certain book. Let's also say that said fanbase does not like the author at all. However, most of this fanbase does have a strong respect for Christopher Walken. Should Walken denounce their actions? (Maybe the answer is no, but I'm mainly using this to illustrate my next point. The answer to this question isn't so immediately important.)

The way I see it, the author of a work has no obligation to say anything to their fanbase; they've written the book and are now done with it unless they choose not to be. However, at the same time, I would say that, if a person can reasonably expect their words to prevent ills being done, they are under an obligation to speak those words. The authors aren't responsible as authors, but as private citizens who we happen to have good reason to believe might be able to control a certain subset of the population whose actions toward others are extremely destructive. Now, whether an author's words would actually have such an effect is a matter of debate (I am skeptical on this point.) However, if a person (author or not) has good reason to believe that crazies will do what they say, they are under some responsibility to prevent them from doing crazy things. They're not really responsible for what happens if they don't (for the extreme unpredictability of the effects of saying something, if nothing else) but at the same time you have potentially large benefits (cessation of mutilation and riots) for a relatively small cost (speaking/writing words). I have, at best, little sympathy for one who chooses not to follow through with such a course.
I quite agree.

[Satyr]

There is a difference between an intended propaganda effect in any piece of cultural product (like in Hubbard's wrighting, or the "Never stop to think for yourself" message at the end of Syndicate to name a more positive example) and the actions of readers or movie-watchers after consuming any media with no a very different message. To put it frankly, it's not the creator's fault that his audience is stupid. His only fault may be pandering to the wrong target group.

Declining the responsibility of an individuum for his action because it was influenced by any other source seems quite fatalistic to me. Yes, people are stupid and can be goaded into doing ridiculous, embarassing or outright vile stuff. That is still their own responsibility,

And, there is no way that any book movie or so on as a single influence could probably ever influence any person enopugh to do anything (apart from reaiding, watching the movie or commenting on it). There are no monocausal appearances. Perhaps - and even this is probably impossible to prove in any case and certainly wrong in any generalisation - media products can induce one facette in the overall motivation of an action, but blaming one specific source solely for anything, is offering a cheap, easy answer to a complex question. Which proves only oone thing: People who makes these claims are either stupid, or lying.

[averagejoe]

If she denounces her fans she implies responsibility for what they have done. People will argue "If it wasnt her fault, why is she acting guilty."

No she doesn't. People denounce things all the time. If the president or Oprah get up and say, "The actions of X group are terrible," no one says, "Ah, the president and/or Oprah is responsible for the actions of X group."

[hamishspence]

But if a person denounces the activities of a group they are associated with, people may make a connection between the two.

[Mewtarthio]

Again, I ask, what is it that she would denounce? I've seen nothing but anecdotal evidence that Twilight fans have been performing shocking acts of violence. The worst I can find sources for are some fangirls scratching their own necks, which, unnerving as it may be, does not necessarily merit a public statement.

Granted, I have no doubt that bullying has taken place over these books, but bullying takes place over a lot of things. People can seize on any difference between themselves and someone else as "proof" of their own superiority. Would we say that it's morally necessary for every work of art to come prefaced with anti-bullying warnings?

[averagejoe]

But if a person denounces the activities of a group they are associated with, people may make a connection between the two.

This is pure conjecture. However, even assuming it's true, I similarly have little sympathy for someone who won't prevent harm due to fear of bad publicity.


Again, I ask, what is it that she would denounce? I've seen nothing but anecdotal evidence that Twilight fans have been performing shocking acts of violence. The worst I can find sources for are some fangirls scratching their own necks, which, unnerving as it may be, does not necessarily merit a public statement.

Granted, I have no doubt that bullying has taken place over these books, but bullying takes place over a lot of things. People can seize on any difference between themselves and someone else as "proof" of their own superiority. Would we say that it's morally necessary for every work of art to come prefaced with anti-bullying warnings?

I mentioned that I'm not really convinced that an author saying something would do anything at all. So there's that. But then, my main point was, "If anyone, author or not, has good reason to believe that their words will prevent harm from happening, they have a responsibility to use them."

[hamishspence]

This is pure conjecture. However, even assuming it's true, I similarly have little sympathy for someone who won't prevent harm due to fear of bad publicity.

Bad publicity is not the only problem. Spending years fighting off lawsuits, in this very litigious society, is another.

The moment they do denounce such behaviour- you can probably bet some angry parent will say- "you are responsible for my child's condition- because you didn't denounce it before"

[Lord_Gareth]

Again, I ask, what is it that she would denounce? I've seen nothing but anecdotal evidence that Twilight fans have been performing shocking acts of violence. The worst I can find sources for are some fangirls scratching their own necks, which, unnerving as it may be, does not necessarily merit a public statement.

Granted, I have no doubt that bullying has taken place over these books, but bullying takes place over a lot of things. People can seize on any difference between themselves and someone else as "proof" of their own superiority. Would we say that it's morally necessary for every work of art to come prefaced with anti-bullying warnings?

I'm afraid I lack the time and steady 'net connection to provide any more backup; try asking the folks at Twilightsucks for their sources (the mods, in particular, tend to be really good with citations). I do apologize - it's unforgivably sloppy of me - but real life and all that.

I'm loving this debate so far - keep it up, folks!