Literature that corrupts us

[blazeofglory]

Do writers have no moral responsibility? In fact writers are shapers of a society and it is their ideas that people read and internalize and if these writers have no sense of what mpact their pieces of creation will have on general people their art will be detrimental to the society.

Children particualry have fertile minds and anything new to them will be cultured and grow in their minds and ultimately such ideas will mold their modes of thinking and live the kind of life they idealize and at times based on whay they read.

That Children predicate on ideas and writers, poets and statemen are idea formulators and it lies slley in them to mislead and lead these young minds.

This is totally in the context of some writers whose works I have read and could remian without responding them. People write to be famous and to earn people's acclaim and to meet these ends they took either of the ways: a crooked way or an ethical way. Mostly the first way sets a writer in immense populalrity at times overnighly and writers who are not sensible and uncaring about how their works corrupt their readers indulge in such writings.

Writing is a medium thru which writers can infuse their ideas into their readers in a such an artistic way they assimilate them without demur.

The writer whom I idolize and whose works I idealize is Leo Tolstoy. I bet no one will go untransferred after reading his books deeply and absorbingly. He is simply matchless. He was so senstive towards people' s ifeelings and the aftereffect of them on their courses of living.

But today writers indifferent of how it will damage and mislead and get them astray occupy themsleves in writing things with a preoccupation of fame and money.

This is an urge that writers take a little of care prior to going public: to be a little acountable for what impact their writings will have on virgin minds.

[Derringer]

A writer can have whatever morals he/she wants. It doesn't matter what you think, don't read it if you don't like it.

[MaryLupin]

Blaze,

have you ever read Fahrenheit 451? It talks a good deal about defining good and bad texts and people's response to those who think they can.

[baddad]

My own perspective relative to responsibilities innate to an art, whether it be writing or any other expression of medium, is this: an artist must perform his art free of constraint, including self-censorship, if the true manifestation of any aritsts dream is to be realized.
It is the audience which must apppreciate or not appreciate an artists presentation. And a young audience must be directed in their studies, and do not, generally, have access to materials, or art, of an insensitive nature.

Though there are exceptions to most rules, and inquisitive young minds WILL constantly explore, it is the art of the exploration that carries the importance, not what they see. Allow the young to use their minds, forgive the odd youth lost in the translation or perception. This will happen. But don't censor the world of expression to accomodate the few..............

P.S. blazeofglory, are you really in Katmandu????

[bibliophile190]

I do agree that authors do have a responsibility to be ethical, but also readers have the responsibility to decide for themselves what they choose to believe and act upon.

[Mortis Anarchy]

I agree. Life is about expression...so when it comes to the arts I think people have the right to express what they see and how they feel. I think art, literature, dancing, music etc. has a piece of the artist in it. Would you want someone bleeping out a part of your story?

I think personal standards/morals/ethics are different in every person...somethings I think are wrong, although another might view them as good.

[weepingforloman]

I think that artists have just as much a responsibility to be ethically pure as does everyone else: that is, it is of the utmost importance. What good is art if it is actually BAD? And I mean that in the literal sense. What "artistic value" can come from the creation of the morally depraved? Perhaps I'm missing something, but, if not, I don't see how there can be disagreement.

[Mortis Anarchy]

I think that artists have just as much a responsibility to be ethically pure as does everyone else: that is, it is of the utmost importance. What good is art if it is actually BAD? And I mean that in the literal sense. What "artistic value" can come from the creation of the morally depraved? Perhaps I'm missing something, but, if not, I don't see how there can be disagreement.

I don't understand what you mean by morally depraved. I know what the words mean, I'm not special...but I don't get what you are saying.

I'm not trying to say, well Paint Porn...or dance all perverted like or create really nasty music or write the most disturbing and unethical thing ever.

[Aiculík]

I don't think that "writers are shapers of society". They may criticize it, they may point out some things they consider bad or appraise some things they consider good; but the fact that someone has the talent to write, does not make them better persons than the rest of us. They are, after all, only common humans. Which is why they don't have real authority or power to change anything.

They are free to expresss their own views, experiences (assuming we're talking about literature not some hate material which just abuses the concept of "art").

Of course, it's different with children literature. But then, little children don't buy books themselves; it's up to their parents to see if the book is suitable for their children, if it is in accordance with their worldview, religion, values they'd like to pass to their children. And when children are big enough to buy books themselves, they are usualy able to judge if the book is "good" or "bad" - or, at least "mum wouldn't like me to read this book". :D But even if they'd decide to read such books, it wouldn't corrupt them thoroughly the moment they'd finish it... They could be corrupted, if they read lots of such books, met "bad" friends who'd encourage them into it, etc... but then, if their parents don't step in, or if they even don't know about it - then there's something seriously wrong in the family...

[baddad]

I think that artists have just as much a responsibility to be ethically pure as does everyone else: that is, it is of the utmost importance. What good is art if it is actually BAD? And I mean that in the literal sense. What "artistic value" can come from the creation of the morally depraved? Perhaps I'm missing something, but, if not, I don't see how there can be disagreement.

Ethically pure?? Ethically pure art??? Art and ethics do not occupy the same plane of existence.

[Dorian Gray]

After reading the topic title, the book that came to mind was...the Bible.

[Bakiryu]

Same here Dorian, ever since you're small your parents talk about god, they make you read the bibble, koran, talmud and counterless religious texts. what could be worse than that? a world without religion would be a better world.

[Dorian Gray]

My parents never talked about that since they too are atheist. :)

[Bakiryu]

Lucky! I got talked catholicism in one ear and Satanism in the other. Both my parents hate now that I'm a wiccan :lol:

[Dorian Gray]

They're probably praying for your possessed soul right now.

[metal134]

a world without religion would be a better world.
Amen to that.

[papayahed]

Ethically pure?? Ethically pure art??? Art and ethics do not occupy the same plane of existence.

what Bad said.



Do writers have no moral responsibility? In fact writers are shapers of a society and it is their ideas that people read and internalize and if these writers have no sense of what mpact their pieces of creation will have on general people their art will be detrimental to the society.

Nope, writers have no responsibilty to anybody except themselves. We as individuals have the responsiblity to decide what ideas to believe in, what causes to fight for, and for lack of a better term right and wrong.

[Stieg]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bakiryu
a world without religion would be a better world.


Amen to that.

Yes, I always like to think about how the world would be shaped in an alternate reality sans religion.

[Video Drone]

I think a world without religion would have been horrid, for it would be a world without moral... and we are going there.

[Bakiryu]

I know deeply inmoral people who go to church every sunday and kind, moral atheists.

[Stieg]

I think a world without religion would have been horrid, for it would be a world without moral... and we are going there.

I am not at all against spirituality by no means just organized religion that seemingly breeds morons that blow up abortion clinics, preach hate and intolerance under the guise of morality puffed on their pious self-righteousness, and produce the likes Senator Paul Vitter.

Just get rid of this societal cancer and this constipation of reason, rational thinking, and good common sense.

[PeterL]

Do writers have no moral responsibility? In fact writers are shapers of a society and it is their ideas that people read and internalize and if these writers have no sense of what mpact their pieces of creation will have on general people their art will be detrimental to the society.

Children particualry have fertile minds and anything new to them will be cultured and grow in their minds and ultimately such ideas will mold their modes of thinking and live the kind of life they idealize and at times based on whay they read.

That Children predicate on ideas and writers, poets and statemen are idea formulators and it lies slley in them to mislead and lead these young minds.

I fundamentally agree with you, but to mae the sort of assertions that you made completely comprehensible to others, you would have to specify what concepts or themes ou find offensive and why you find them offensive. There probably are other people who would not find those things offensive, and thein lies the rub. Publishers aren't especially interested in moral values, only in maing money.


This is totally in the context of some writers whose works I have read and could remian without responding them. People write to be famous and to earn people's acclaim and to meet these ends they took either of the ways: a crooked way or an ethical way. Mostly the first way sets a writer in immense populalrity at times overnighly and writers who are not sensible and uncaring about how their works corrupt their readers indulge in such writings.

Most authors write, because they have something to say, and they are willing and able to put those ideas into literature. Writers also want o mae a living, but they write even when they can't get published. The only authors that I now of who consciously write purely for the money are those who write formulaic novels, such as romance novels and some religious novels.

[Video Drone]

I am not at all against spirituality by no means just organized religion that seemingly breeds morons that blow up abortion clinics, preach hate and intolerance under the guise of morality puffed on their pious self-righteousness, and produce the likes Senator Paul Vitter.

Just get rid of this societal cancer and this constipation of reason, rational thinking, and good common sense.The morons that the church breeds are just morons and they will stay that way whatever you do to them. And without church, they may end up much worse. I do not like religion, but I think society was a bit better when people BELIEVED into church. People who blow up abortion clinics are a sign that religion is dying away.

To Bakiryu - they are not religious, just pretending to be so. I'm talking about people who truly believe into this.

[Stieg]

Er, excuse me, it is the Senator David Vitter scandals google it, a major blow to the integrity of the Christian Right political. Wrong first name.

No, the church has a long ugly shady past from the Dark Ages til now beginning with the Inquisitions in Europe, involving both Old World and New World continuing to the fundamental fanaticism of today.

[Bakiryu]

I do not like religion, but I think society was a bit better when people BELIEVED into church. People who blow up abortion clinics are a sign that religion is dying away.

When the world believed in religion THEY BURNED MY PEOPLE AS WITCHES :flare: :flare: :flare: :flare:

[Stieg]

Christian Right Senator David Vitter, the escort service diaper don, heh (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Senator+David+Vitter+diapers)

Religion is only as strong as it's leaders.

[papayahed]

uh yeah. The senator probably got the idea from a book.

[Video Drone]

When the world believed in religion THEY BURNED MY PEOPLE AS WITCHES :flare: :flare: :flare: :flare:People that burn anybody are not religious because the Bible says clearly: Do Not Kill. Anyone burning anyone is a blasphemer... or from some crazed church.

[Stieg]

uh yeah. The senator probably got the idea from a book.

Ironically, if anybody recalls it was Senator David Vitter that was SO publically adamant about President Clinton stepping down from office for his infidelity. Simply case of the pot calling the kettle black or however the expression goes. It's appalling.

[Bakiryu]

People that burn anybody are not religious because the Bible says clearly: Do Not Kill. Anyone burning anyone is a blasphemer... or from some crazed church.

And you just insulted the first catholic church's priests :lol:

[MaryLupin]

I think a world without religion would have been horrid, for it would be a world without moral... and we are going there.

Morality is not a function of religion. Morality is a function of humanity. Morals are the rules that govern a social species so that we can do what is necessary (i.e. produce and rear offspring.) If morality were a function of religion then highly religious people would be highly moral and Tammy Fay and Jim Baker are all the evidence anyone should need to show that is not the case. Finally, if morality were a function of religion then atheists would act immorally and (as you can see from Bakiryu's post above) this is not the case.

Our current violence and "immorality" stems from reasons other than the decline of Christianity.

[MaryLupin]

People that burn anybody are not religious because the Bible says clearly: Do Not Kill. Anyone burning anyone is a blasphemer... or from some crazed church.

The bible also says "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Exodus 22:18 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Exd/Exd022.html) And a bunch of Christians took that bit literally and "forgot" about the commandments.

[Video Drone]

Eh... Exodus...

[MaryLupin]

Eh... Exodus...

Not to mention the Malleus Maleficarum (http://www.malleusmaleficarum.org/) which was written by two Catholic priests as a handbook of the identification and extermination of witches.

Christianity is not a nice religion if you get on the wrong side of it.

[Video Drone]

Well, that is why I prefer to believe in God my own way...

[Bakiryu]

The bible also says "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Exodus 22:18 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Exd/Exd022.html) And a bunch of Christians took that bit literally and "forgot" about the commandments.

exctly my point they killed many innocent people and GYPSIES!!!! :flare:

[Stieg]

I don't think there is ever a period in the history of organized religion and church that wasn't blighted by controversy, darkness, and shocking human savagery.

[Aiculík]

Not to mention the Malleus Maleficarum (http://www.malleusmaleficarum.org/) which was written by two Catholic priests as a handbook of the identification and extermination of witches.

Christianity is not a nice religion if you get on the wrong side of it.

Well, yes, it was written in 1486 by two catholic priests. But somehow you forgot to mention that Catholic church banned the book in 1490, putting it at the Index Librorum Prohibitorum.

[MaryLupin]

Well, yes, it was written in 1486 by two catholic priests. But somehow you forgot to mention that Catholic church banned the book in 1490, putting it at the Index Librorum Prohibitorum.


The first Index Librorum Prohibitorum (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/indexlibrorum.html) was published in 1557. The list was suppressed in 1966 with the coming of Vatican II. Here is a Facsimile (http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/ILP-1559.htm) of the 1559 version. The Malleus was by Heinrich Kramer and James Sprenger. I know the wikipedia article on the Malleus says 1490 ("The Catholic Church banned the book in 1490, placing it on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum.[citation needed]") but if you follow the link it says "The first list of that kind was not published in Rome, but in the Netherlands (1529). Venice and Paris followed this example (1543 and 1551). The first Roman Index was the work of Pope Paul IV (1557, 1559)." If you then google search "Index Librorum Prohibitorum" you will get a number of sites and by the time you have glanced through a few you will get a better sense of what actually fact about this historical data.

The next step with respect to the claim that the Malleusis on the list is to actually look up the List (http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/ILP-1559.htm) and see if you can see Heinrich Kramer's and James Sprenger's names. Let us know.

I mean, it might be that the Catholic hierarchy didn't want the book in common hands. It is, after all, a rather strong bit of sado-masochistic pornography. But I suspect that it wasn't because it was considered heresy (the purpose of the Index Librorum Prohibitorum). The purpose of the list was to protect the minds of the faithful from information that contradicted the view of the church. That is why there are so many bibles on the prohibited list.

It is so much better if you don't take the first thing you see as accurate information. It might be true. And it might not. But the mental exercise you get from tracking down the truth (whether you get there or not, or even if the truth is there to get) will make you less vulnerable to bad writers and shoddy thinkers.

So until you go check on it, all we have is conflicting information. Please do let us know what your research turns up about the actual use of the Malleus. Oh, and unlike the wikipedia writer, cite your sources.

[Aiculík]

You know, I don't rely that much on Wikipedia, only when I'm not sure how something is said in English. If I want to know, for example, the name of the book in English, it's the fastest and easiest way. But for things such as historical facts... I prefer more professional resources.

Inquisition was one of the first things I wanted to study deeper after I converted to Christianity... This book was often mentioned by my atheistic friends when they tried to persuade me not to convert, so, during the lessons on inquistion, I actually asked one of the professors about it... which is why I remember the dates. :)

[MaryLupin]

I actually asked one of the professors about it... which is why I remember the dates. :)

So your cited source is a professor and your memory of what s/he said? So the Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07721a.htm) when it says "The first Roman "Index of Prohibited Books" (Index librorum prohibitorum), published in 1559 under Paul IV, was very severe...", they got the date wrong? And your professor who told you 1490 was right?

[Dark Star]

People that burn anybody are not religious because the Bible says clearly: Do Not Kill. Anyone burning anyone is a blasphemer... or from some crazed church.

It says do not murder but makes several allowances within Old Testament law for when killing is legal. A person being a witch is one of those reasons.

[MaryLupin]

It says do not murder but makes several allowances within Old Testament law for when killing is legal. A person being a witch is one of those reasons.

Which edition are you reading? Each edition I have says "kill."

[Stieg]

The whole Old Testament is a type for the separation by sin and a law whereby everyone is bound (or er found) guilty. It's extreme severity is often extreme and excessively intolerant offending many modern contemporary and more civil readers.

Personally, alot of overblown hoopla for my marginal Deist beliefs.

[Video Drone]

Personally, alot of overblown hoopla for my marginal Deist beliefs.That's right! :crash: (I'm a deist, too)

[metal134]

Which edition are you reading? Each edition I have says "kill."
And therin lies the major problem with the bible. It is so increadibly vague and open to interpretation. That is why it has survived for thousands of years because, and I promise you all that this is unequivicably true, if the bible were clear, concise and leaving little room for interpretation, it would have been debunked and forgotten long ago. But because it remains so vague, it has allowed the church and it's followers to conitnue to adapt it's meaning throughout the centuries to fit the current conditions.

[Stieg]

Here is a long bit on Historicity from wiki Jesus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus

(very interesting):




Historicity

Scholars have used the historical method to develop probable reconstructions of Jesus' life. Some scholars draw a distinction between Jesus as reconstructed through historical methods and Jesus as understood through a theological point of view, while other scholars hold that a theological Jesus represents a historical figure.[28] The main sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. A small minority of scholars dispute Jesus' existence.

Reconstructing a historical Jesus
Main articles: Historical Jesus and Cultural and historical background of Jesus

Secular historians generally describe Jesus as an itinerant preacher and leader of a religious movement within Judaism.[29] According to historical reconstruction, Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, taught in parables and aphorisms, challenged pious traditions, legalism and social hierarchy, and was crucified by the Romans. Historians are divided over whether Jesus led a career of healing and exorcism, preached the end of the world was imminent, and saw his crucifixion as inevitable.

[snip]

[Walter]

Awesome to see the atheist wave rolling on strong in this forum also. Anyone thinking to do a poll and find out how close to 100% it is? And the tolerance for other views is really immense!

[Logos]

Walter there have been a number of Polls created to try to get a demographic of forumites' religions/faiths/non-faiths etc. and their stance on certain issues :)

--

"Poll: What religion do you identify with?"
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3347

"Poll: What is your religion?"
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17089

"Poll: what religion do you practice?!"
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1985

"Poll: Do you consider yourself an atheist?"
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13243

"Poll: What do you think happens after death?"
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17615

"Poll: Do you believe abortion to be right?"
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14394

"Poll: Did Jesus exist?"
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15311

"Poll: Is salvation possible for any and all humans, or is it only for the prechosen by god?"
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14372

"Poll: Would you convert or leave them to believe as they wish?"
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13960

"Poll: Do You Believe In Life After Death?"
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13253

"Poll: Are "modern" religions (New Age), extra-terrestrials a propaganda ?"
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13461

"Poll: Is there still [room for] Christ in America?"
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1350

--

[Walter]

Thank you for the effort , Logos.

[MaryLupin]

It is so increadibly vague and open to interpretation.

Which is why it amazes me that anyone can presume to take it literally. But they do and so what interests me is the mental process whereby "Thou shalt not kill" and "Suffer not a witch to live" can both be reconciled and preached as compassion.

[manolia]

And therin lies the major problem with the bible. It is so increadibly vague and open to interpretation. That is why it has survived for thousands of years because, and I promise you all that this is unequivicably true, if the bible were clear, concise and leaving little room for interpretation, it would have been debunked and forgotten long ago. But because it remains so vague, it has allowed the church and it's followers to conitnue to adapt it's meaning throughout the centuries to fit the current conditions.

:thumbs_up Very well said

[Quark]

A great short story that shares Blaze's fear of corrupting literature is "Death in Venice" by Thomas Mann. Aschenbach, an aging artist, travels to Venice and learns the danger of pursuing only form, and neglecting content. Mann narrates Aschenbach's early artistic endeavors as shallow, unrealistic fantasies which he purveys for a mass audience. Mann foreshadows Achenbach's epiphany when he tells us that, "Anyone who looked at Aschenbach's narrative world saw a number of features in it. He saw the elegant self-possession with which an inner undermining, a biological decay, is concealed from the eyes of the world until the very last moment; he saw the sallow and thoroughly unappealing ugliness that can fan the smoldering in its breast into a pure flame, that can even come to rule the kingdom of beauty. He saw the pale impotence that reaches into the glowing depths of the mind and draws forth the strength to hurl an entire arrogant nation to the foot of the cross, to the feet of that impotence itself; he saw the gracious stance in the empty and rigorous service to form; the false and dangerous life, the swiftly enervating lust and art of the born deceiver". Mann's pessimistic tale of an artist's revelation ends badly for Aschenbach as you can tell by the title, but I do think it's one of the most convincing and well-written arguments on this topic.

[Stieg]

I am not so concerned about the existance of God. He/She may or may not exist.

What I am concerned with, is that organized religion is a corruption of the creator or a corruption unto itself. The Christian religion in particular were secretive and considered a "cult" by it's ancient contemporaries. Yes, you can say the Romans drove it underground quite literally and figuratively but it was still a "cult". A new very young radical religion and that leaves much to be desired.

[Elinor Dashwood]

Do writers have no moral responsibility? In fact writers are shapers of a society and it is their ideas that people read and internalize and if these writers have no sense of what mpact their pieces of creation will have on general people their art will be detrimental to the society.

Children particualry have fertile minds and anything new to them will be cultured and grow in their minds and ultimately such ideas will mold their modes of thinking and live the kind of life they idealize and at times based on whay they read.

That Children predicate on ideas and writers, poets and statemen are idea formulators and it lies slley in them to mislead and lead these young minds.


I think that writers of Children's stories have a moral responsibility. But I doubt that most of us who do not have virgin minds are that easily brain washed. I read a lot of stephen King when I was in my early teens, but that doesnt mean that I then went on to murder people etc. I think if your a sane and stable person you will take fiction at face value, as exactly that - FICTION.

[browneyedbailey]

my personal opinion is that literature creates the mind rather than corupts it. although i'm young, i have a wild perspective on life.

[SleepyWitch]

A great short story that shares Blaze's fear of corrupting literature is "Death in Venice" by Thomas Mann. Aschenbach, an aging artist, travels to Venice and learns the danger of pursuing only form, and neglecting content. Mann narrates Aschenbach's early artistic endeavors as shallow, unrealistic fantasies which he purveys for a mass audience. Mann foreshadows Achenbach's epiphany when he tells us that, "Anyone who looked at Aschenbach's narrative world saw a number of features in it. He saw the elegant self-possession with which an inner undermining, a biological decay, is concealed from the eyes of the world until the very last moment; he saw the sallow and thoroughly unappealing ugliness that can fan the smoldering in its breast into a pure flame, that can even come to rule the kingdom of beauty. He saw the pale impotence that reaches into the glowing depths of the mind and draws forth the strength to hurl an entire arrogant nation to the foot of the cross, to the feet of that impotence itself; he saw the gracious stance in the empty and rigorous service to form; the false and dangerous life, the swiftly enervating lust and art of the born deceiver". Mann's pessimistic tale of an artist's revelation ends badly for Aschenbach as you can tell by the title, but I do think it's one of the most convincing and well-written arguments on this topic.
let's not forget that Aschenbach spends most of his time in Venice ogling a beautiful young boy, so there's "corrupting literature" for you :)

[Quark]

let's not forget that Aschenbach spends most of his time in Venice ogling a beautiful young boy, so there's "corrupting literature" for you :)

I don't think Death in Venice is trying to convince you that pedophilia is acceptable. Aschenbach isn't a hero in any way; in fact, he's an artistic fraud. Mann uses his infatuation with a young boy to show that his supposedly morally pure writing is, in reality, a thin covering for his inner weakness and perversion. I don't think that the story, in itself, is morally corrupting literature. I think it's an attack on that kind of writing.

[SleepyWitch]

I don't think Death in Venice is trying to convince you that pedophilia is acceptable. Aschenbach isn't a hero in any way; in fact, he's an artistic fraud. Mann uses his infatuation with a young boy to show that his supposedly morally pure writing is, in reality, a thin covering for his inner weakness and perversion. I don't think that the story, in itself, is morally corrupting literature. I think it's an attack on that kind of writing.

yep, I totally agree with you :) but I'm sure there are some people out there who would consider any allusion to pedophilia or other perversions corrupt. some moralistic people wouldn't even notice there's a difference between advocating pedophilia and using it as a vehicle for a different message.
you know what I mean? sometimes even supposedly well-educated people seem to think that when ever something gets mentioned in a book that book advocates it ("Eeeeeek, there's so much violence in this book, how could he/she write that? I don't wanna read it".)

if you were to ban books on this criterion (=whenever it's got something unpleasant/morally offensive as a theme), you'd have to ban lots of famous literature:
Titus Andronicus: violence, rape, revenge
McBeth: murder, the "unsexing" of Lady McBeth (oh abominable perversion :eek:;) )
lots of other Shakespeare plays
Dracula: drinking blood, desecration of dead bodies, spreading superstitions
Dorian Gray: decadence, murder, opium, homosexuality...
just to name a few

[SleepyWitch]

I've thought of another example: some people (dunno who exactly, maybe the Catholic clergy) have claimed that Harry Potter promotes Satanism and Occultism? what on earth makes them believe that??? ---> Answer: Harry Potter features evil characters who use the Dark Arts. does that mean that the book encourages readers to become evil? Nooooo, there happen to be good people in the book as well and they're the ones the reader is supposed to identify with.

[Hyacinth42]

This seems to be along the same lines as "Should children watch violence in TV, movies, and video games?"

The answer is: of course! Watching/reading something violent does not cause a person to believe that it is acceptable to be violent. And, watching/reading about things that are not considered moral gives you a rounded outlook on life/reality/humanity... Otherwise, a person would end up like the guy Brendan Fraser played in Blast to the Past...

[chasestalling]

tolstoy saw poetry for what it was, a self indulgence which serves little purpose but to facilitate one's vanity at the expense of the greater good.

when tolstoy wrote for the greater good, however, his art took countless steps backward: he became a didactician, a bore, and a bitter foolish old man.

the story goes that one day the bitter foolish old man picked up a book at random and started to read. he was captivated. the writing was delightul. he looked to see who wrote it and saw that it was anna karenin by leo tolstoy.

(my source: vladimir nabokov)

[StayGolden]

First of all, morality is relative; what you think is "immoral", another might find perfectly acceptable.

Second, can you imagine reading a book or a play in which there were no moral conundrums? Where all of the characters were already inherently good and just, and all was right with the world? There would be no point.

As far as children go, parents/guardians/teachers should read with their children, and when necessary guide them, to what they believe, is the proper moral meaning of the story. If a book ends in an unsatisfactory way, discuss why. It is not, however, an author's responsibility to restrain him or herself in their writing (even if it is "for the children!").

[Lyn]

Totally agree. It all goes back to the, usually silent, assumption made by most psychologists when they write papers on how violence in video games and on tv causes children to be violent. That is, they assume that the viewers are unthinking and do not discuss or process what they watch at all. Which is generally not the case. Same could be said for reading, violence etc can only corrupt as long as you don't bother to think about, process or discuss what you have read. That being said, it is very easy for TV, films, games, books to promote an unethical/corrupt type of life (whatever that may be as defined in the culture at the time) as being cool. Whatever is against the rules or against the law is interesting, and often something that people are attracted by because of the danger aspect. Although people may not be influenced by one particular example, if they surround themselves with unrelentingly violent texts, would they not eventually begin to have a world view that included violence, and thus it may spill over into real life? That being said, i can't think of many published authors that would promote violence, or other corrupting influences, as something good.

[Stieg]

Totally agree. It all goes back to the, usually silent, assumption made by most psychologists when they write papers on how violence in video games and on tv causes children to be violent. That is, they assume that the viewers are unthinking and do not discuss or process what they watch at all. Which is generally not the case. Same could be said for reading, violence etc can only corrupt as long as you don't bother to think about, process or discuss what you have read. That being said, it is very easy for TV, films, games, books to promote an unethical/corrupt type of life (whatever that may be as defined in the culture at the time) as being cool. Whatever is against the rules or against the law is interesting, and often something that people are attracted by because of the danger aspect. Although people may not be influenced by one particular example, if they surround themselves with unrelentingly violent texts, would they not eventually begin to have a world view that included violence, and thus it may spill over into real life? That being said, i can't think of many published authors that would promote violence, or other corrupting influences, as something good.

Personally, I find violence in most literature, film, and television abit too phantasmagoric in quality (at least, I feel everyone should experience it in that fashion if they have both feet firmly planted on terra firma). I admire the process of the art and an artist's creativity. Any art depicted with realism usually should work as catharsis or hold an anti-violence or anti-hate message. Children being desensitized and losing touch with reality because of violence in popular culture has yet to be proven but I do encourage the common sense in the parent's responsibility to descriminate and censor what the type of entertainment and information a child absorbs according to age.

A troubled mind can be nurtured through a multitude of sources, many beginning at the home itself.

[StayGolden]

Although people may not be influenced by one particular example, if they surround themselves with unrelentingly violent texts, would they not eventually begin to have a world view that included violence, and thus it may spill over into real life?

I think saying, "so-and-so went on a murderous rampage because he watched too many violent movies and read too many violent books" is simply an excuse people use when they can't fathom why so-and-so committed such a heinous crime.

"Why did so-and-so do this?" ... "We don't know!" ... "It must be TV and movies!"

If surrounding oneself with violent text, movies and video games created monsters, I'd be at the top of list. I don't have violent tendencies, however. I'm fully aware that there's a difference in fiction and reality, and I'd venture to say that the majority of people who go around committing the real atrocities understand that, as well.

Are there people out there who really do get caught up in books and movies and such and think they can do it, as well? Of course. I'd be hard-pressed to say they were "all there", however.


I do encourage the common sense in the parent's responsibility to descriminate and censor what the type of entertainment and information a child absorbs according to age.

A troubled mind can be nurtured through a multitude of sources, many beginning at the home itself.

Exactly right. Well put.

[Stieg]

I LOVE video games and I see the violent types particularly the FPS (first person shooters) and survival horror as a simulation of high-risk dangerous adventures in an armchair where I have to use my mind and quick reactions to survive and generally scare the piss outta myself by raising personal levels of excitement and fear. Even engaging in a healthy competive and team spirit (via multi-player games). And function as a means of achieving a set of personal goals set by the game's parameters through success and accomplishment.

Do any of these medium encourage me to violence, not hardly.

[Lyn]

I used to revel in horror novels and films when I was far too young for such stuff. Didn't make me want to murder anyone. I remember the Jamie Bulger case, when Child's play 3 was banned, and I remember thinking how ridiculous it was. I was under 10 when I watched those movies, and although they scared me (I was only little!) I wasn't so stupid or easily influenced to think that I should go and emulate it; I don't think many people, even young children, are. People that blame the media as an influence ignore the fact that people have free will, and are not passive empty vessels.

I currently enjoy reading novels that concern violence/drugs/insanity. I play violent computer games. Yet I am totally against violence in all forms. Maybe I'm just messed in the head. I think there is some part of me that is interested in the things I hate most. The media can never be used as an excuse for actions performed in the real world.

[Stieg]

In some instances, violence is a neurological or behavioral disorder a la for lack of a better word hyperactive personalities and spastics. The thread has gotten abit off topic oh well.

[AuntShecky]

In reply to your admittedly rhetorical question, may I quote
Mr. Samuel Clemens (aka Mark Twain):

"No girl was ever corrupted by a book."

Let me add that any time we make moral judgements or
prior restraint on print media, we are stepping on to the
proverbial slippery slope. I would rather have children
read even questionable material rather than not read at all.
They aren't going to develop critical thinking skills by
watching TV or movies or playing video games.

Incidentally, I like the quotations you've added, though they seem to contradict your own statements.

[hedbanger]

Writers have just as much responsibility for the way society is formed as any other form of mass media.


Edit-- and anyone that would like to contradict that is going to have one hell of a time.

[hedbanger]

Do writers have no moral responsibility? In fact writers are shapers of a society and it is their ideas that people read and internalize and if these writers have no sense of what mpact their pieces of creation will have on general people their art will be detrimental to the society.

Children particualry have fertile minds and anything new to them will be cultured and grow in their minds and ultimately such ideas will mold their modes of thinking and live the kind of life they idealize and at times based on whay they read.

That Children predicate on ideas and writers, poets and statemen are idea formulators and it lies slley in them to mislead and lead these young minds.

This is totally in the context of some writers whose works I have read and could remian without responding them. People write to be famous and to earn people's acclaim and to meet these ends they took either of the ways: a crooked way or an ethical way. Mostly the first way sets a writer in immense populalrity at times overnighly and writers who are not sensible and uncaring about how their works corrupt their readers indulge in such writings.

Writing is a medium thru which writers can infuse their ideas into their readers in a such an artistic way they assimilate them without demur.

The writer whom I idolize and whose works I idealize is Leo Tolstoy. I bet no one will go untransferred after reading his books deeply and absorbingly. He is simply matchless. He was so senstive towards people' s ifeelings and the aftereffect of them on their courses of living.

But today writers indifferent of how it will damage and mislead and get them astray occupy themsleves in writing things with a preoccupation of fame and money.

This is an urge that writers take a little of care prior to going public: to be a little acountable for what impact their writings will have on virgin minds.



I disagree. I believe that many writers are unafraid of striking hurtful truths (muck-rakers comes to mind).

As far as young minds go, it is consumately up to the parents to regulate what their children read. I would not live in a country that censors potentially upsetting material (violence, sex, etc.) in books, and I'm sure many other people feel the same way.