suicides in novels

[cacian]

at which point does suicide concept in novels become the ultimate sweeping weapon to a writer own confessional boot.
Is there a hidden meaning another agenda behind it?
I find suicide harrowing in books and the fact that its concept is made famous/infamous in many books is all the most uneasy.
'Romeo and Juliet' comes to mind 'Love in the Time of Cholera' is another.
Suicide is dynamically painful and is perhaps the focal point of weakness as far as writing is concerned.
To write is to create characteristics and ideas and to introduce suicide as an additive dose does the opposite it dismantles the kudos of inventive creativity.
Killing off a character a work of fiction in a suicide act sounds rather inquisitive. Why would a writer presuppose it to be acceptable or rational when in fact it demonstrates hopelessness an indisposition of characteristics ambivalent to otherwise amenable approachable likeable characters .
A character tragedy can reajust and start again. Different circumstances make for new changes much awaited for.
when I think suicide in books I think the 'throw in the towel' expression or giving up is another way of addressing it.

So the question is this

Is suicide rational for a story that could hold together beautifully even after a tragic or a loss?
'Gone With The Wind' is One'. No suicide just separation and time is your pillar.

[hillwalker]

So you're advocating that we don't write about characters who commit suicide because you find it distasteful. . .

H

[cacian]

I am trying or would like to advocate legacy and suicide is not that not all that.
when one is killed by accident it may be forgiven and could be rectified in other ways but to implicat suicide as th ultimate resort is another subject. I feel it is not ever advocated to terminate one's life but comes across as a more provoked scene. The reader is left feeling inadequate helpless and the thought of it happening and without prior warnings seems extreme radicalism in any story. An end never justifies dying and suicide is not one to be ever justified.
A reader forms attachment with the characters and so to take it away in such a force and with such depravity, one is aware suicide is a sin in some religions/cultures, unacceptable for many, is bordering on intimidation if not depression for both some readers and the story itself.

Homicide literature for me is dubious and does not appeal it culminates thoughts of a twisted nature.
Literature has deviants, the behave badly side, and suicide is the topple of it or the icing in the freezer.

[Lokasenna]

So... novels should not include anything that encompasses the bleaker end of the emotional range? If suicide is a suitable end for the character, or for the novel, then so be it. World literature would be a damn sight poorer without existential angst -it motivates most things.

Romeo and Juliet is pretty mawkish anyway, including it's suicide scene. But I suppose, in your world, it should be staged like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EfFEdDU5ko

Or what about a novel like Mrs Dalloway? God knows, I'm no fan of Mrs Woolf - but her treatment of Spetimus's suicide is one of the few truly remarkable aspects of the novel. His deliberate choice to end his life, and Clarissa's rationalisation of that act as a means of accepting, even embracing, life is poignant and powerful.

[Hawkman]

Ah, High Art indeed :D

then again, without suicide and catholic dogma there'd be no one to administer the afterlife (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZwdCa0ynEw) LOL

[hillwalker]

Homicide literature for me is dubious and does not appeal it culminates thoughts of a twisted nature.
Literature has deviants, the behave badly side, and suicide is the topple of it or the icing in the freezer.

Crystal clear as always.

In an earlier post you requested that every character in a novel achieve closure so that you weren't left wondering what happened to the guy who appeared briefly in Chapter 4.
Now you'd also prefer it if nobody got killed.

Maybe you should stick to reading fairy stories where everybody lives happily ever after.

H

[cafolini]

Closure? Yes, case close. LOL
Cacianation, closurerination, happyeverafterination. Double LOL. A touch of LMAO: Moses in the basket.


Ah, High Art indeed :D

then again, without suicide and catholic dogma there'd be no one to administer the afterlife (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZwdCa0ynEw) LOL

It is impossible to administer an afterlife and that's precisely why the BS came to be Catholic in the western "world."

[islandclimber]

Over the past few months you've posted threads insisting that: only positive, uplifting literature is acceptable; sexuality in literature is morally reprehensible and tasteless; an author must give a reader closure with regards to all characters in a story; obscene/vulgar language has no place in literature; and now this little idiotic bit about suicide being the refuge of deviants in literature, and homicide literature being dubious. This is to mention only a few. Is reality to heavy for you? How do you live in this world, where people are violent and obscene, where the grotesque and tragic are commonplace, where suicide and homicide are common acts? Or maybe all of this is okay in life, but not in art? Hypocrisy?

It seems you enjoy trolling in this section? Close to every day there is another of these threads started expressing the most inane and myopic "ars poetica" possible. What's left in your world, after all these cuts? Fairy tales? Children's books? I certainly cannot think of a single work of literature that fulfills your particular aesthetic. If I were to somehow find a book that was the culmination of your reprehensible ideals, it would be a sad day indeed, as I would be forced into that unsavoury position of book-burning villain.

This thread is stupid. Entirely stupid. Suicide is a part of life. Deal with it.

[cafolini]

Over the past few months you've posted threads insisting that: only positive, uplifting literature is acceptable; sexuality in literature is morally reprehensible and tasteless; an author must give a reader closure with regards to all characters in a story; obscene/vulgar language has no place in literature; and now this little idiotic bit about suicide being the refuge of deviants in literature, and homicide literature being dubious. This is to mention only a few. Is reality to heavy for you? How do you live in this world, where people are violent and obscene, where the grotesque and tragic are commonplace, where suicide and homicide are common acts? Or maybe all of this is okay in life, but not in art? Hypocrisy?

It seems you enjoy trolling in this section? Close to every day there is another of these threads started expressing the most inane and myopic "ars poetica" possible. What's left in your world, after all these cuts? Fairy tales? Children's books? I certainly cannot think of a single work of literature that fulfills your particular aesthetic. If I were to somehow find a book that was the culmination of your reprehensible ideals, it would be a sad day indeed, as I would be forced into that unsavoury position of book-burning villain.

This thread is stupid. Entirely stupid. Suicide is a part of life. Deal with it.

Let's not go to the other extreme on account of Cacian's ineffectiveness overall. She/he is not trolling. You give this person too much credit as an opponent. She/he is out to anihilate any thougth that does not fit the configurations wanted in an impossible laissez faire. "Let it be. There will be an answer."
And "it's blowing in the wind."
"Imagine..."

[cacian]

Let's not go to the other extreme on account of Cacian's ineffectiveness overall. She/he is not trolling. You give this person too much credit as an opponent. She/he is out to anihilate any thougth that does not fit the configurations wanted in an impossible laissez faire. "Let it be. There will be an answer."
And "it's blowing in the wind."
"Imagine..."

Hi cafo I am a she. I thought you of all people knew that ;) anyway I know you are a HE see :D


Over the past few months you've posted threads insisting that: only positive, uplifting literature is acceptable; sexuality in literature is morally reprehensible and tasteless; an author must give a reader closure with regards to all characters in a story; obscene/vulgar language has no place in literature; and now this little idiotic bit about suicide being the refuge of deviants in literature, and homicide literature being dubious. This is to mention only a few. Is reality to heavy for you? How do you live in this world, where people are violent and obscene, where the grotesque and tragic are commonplace, where suicide and homicide are common acts? Or maybe all of this is okay in life, but not in art? Hypocrisy?

It seems you enjoy trolling in this section? Close to every day there is another of these threads started expressing the most inane and myopic "ars poetica" possible. What's left in your world, after all these cuts? Fairy tales? Children's books? I certainly cannot think of a single work of literature that fulfills your particular aesthetic. If I were to somehow find a book that was the culmination of your reprehensible ideals, it would be a sad day indeed, as I would be forced into that unsavoury position of book-burning villain.

This thread is stupid. Entirely stupid. Suicide is a part of everyday life. Deal with it.

Hi islandclimber I can assure you stupidity is more then part of everyday life too. Suicide is not and one must stand by it to eradicate it. I cannot possibly accept suicide when I know that its reality is more gruesome then dubious.
Why is it then some accept everything and others don't? I read with an open mind and when I do I tell myself or others about it.
Just because literature consumes it does not mean I will. Literature is subjective let's not forget and inquisition over its content is part of it. If we are not responsive to materials we are letting ourselves in then we are not doing something right. Books need to develop and take a turn for the better and so whilst one reads one ponders. That is my idea of reading. Writing then comes next naturally.
PS.
I did laugh at the expression Book-Burning-Villain. It sounds like an incredible character in a story to be had LOL ;)

[Volya]

stupidity is more then part of everyday life too. Suicide is not

Sadly this is nowhere near the truth...

If stories had nothing bad ever happen to a character, then they would be very boring indeed (although nothing but doom and misery occurring in a book would also get tedious).

[cacian]

Sadly this is nowhere near the truth...

If stories had nothing bad ever happen to a character, then they would be very boring indeed (although nothing but doom and misery occurring in a book would also get tedious).

Hi Volya nice to see you back.:)
Boredom is depression and depression is a kind of a trigger gotten at the end of a very high consumption of hypes. After reading a book for example that I am thinking I am enjoying to then hit these feelings with suicide at the end of the story is sheer boredom to me.
There is a certain detachment of surreal versus real when a story suggests suicides within its frame of mind . I feel this is as close as it gets to the true grim and grind of our immediate reality. Why cross a book with that?

[cafolini]

Hi cafo I am a she. I thought you of all people knew that ;) anyway I know you are a HE see :D

Okay, I'll buy that, if only for my respect for one or the other.

[Calidore]

I think most often the purpose of suicide in a story is to show the effect on the other characters. I agree with you, cacian, that simply ending a story with the main character's suicide would be boring, as it resolves nothing. In Romeo and Juliet, however, their suicides result in the ending of their families' long-standing feud.

[TheFifthElement]

I think most often the purpose of suicide in a story is to show the effect on the other characters. I agree with you, cacian, that simply ending a story with the main character's suicide would be boring, as it resolves nothing.
You've clearly never read anything by Mishima.

[Calidore]

You've clearly never read anything by Mishima.

You are correct. Does he do that?

[Ecurb]

If suicide is good enough for Anna Karennina, it's good enough for other fictional characters.

[Shaman_Raman]

Wouldn't writing about it be beneficial for those with suicidal thoughts? To help them understand the pain and suffering everyone would feel? You don't end suicide by repressing it in literature, quite the opposite I think. A helpful insight to anyone about anything is that they're not alone.

And if your assumption is that writing about it makes it glamorous, then I'd have to say your wrong. A book wouldn't become popular merely if a character outed themself, but a well written book with a character that commits suicide just may gain popularity. In literature, I think how you convey something is much more important than the thing itself.

[Delta40]

The way you're explaining how the suicide of a character leaves you feeling Cacian only adds strength to the very reason why a writer would use such a tool. You're actually testifying in the case for rather than against without realising it!

[TheFifthElement]

You are correct. Does he do that?

Certainly suicide figures heavily in his fiction, I was thinking in particular of Runaway Horses which is part of his Sea of Fertility tetralogy. Mishima himself committed ritual suicide, and I think you find, if you read Japanese fiction, that the idea that suicide arises only out of depression or desperation is not the only intepretation. Certainly there is an element of ritual suicide being perceived as honourable under the code of 'bushido', as described by historian Stephen Turnbull here:


In the world of the warrior, seppuku was a deed of bravery that was admirable in a samurai who knew he was defeated, disgraced, or mortally wounded. It meant that he could end his days with his transgressions wiped away and with his reputation not merely intact but actually enhanced. The cutting of the abdomen released the samurai’s spirit in the most dramatic fashion, but it was an extremely painful and unpleasant way to die, and sometimes the samurai who was performing the act asked a loyal comrade to cut off his head at the moment of agony.

I don't think summarising the exploration of a suicide as 'boring' or only relevant to the characters left behind adequately accounts for the the nuances involved.

[cacian]

The way you're explaining how the suicide of a character leaves you feeling Cacian only adds strength to the very reason why a writer would use such a tool. You're actually testifying in the case for rather than against without realising it!

Hi Delta fair enough but I can assure my attention is to swerve from it. Suicide is passé in my opinion and books need a spring clean of new ideas. Time changes and so must people. I think is one way for literature to revamp its looks/standards and lead diversified literary movements in cumulation of individuality. Prospectives ideals based on actual personal experiences/feelings/views rather past ones is what is needed.
In order to conquer suicide one must conquer its root by pulling it out completely and not implanting deeper within the pages of literary idealism.That is my opinion :)

[hillwalker]

Prospectives ideals based on actual personal experiences/feelings/views rather past ones is what is needed.
In order to conquer suicide one must conquer its root by pulling it out completely and not implanting deeper within the pages of literary idealism.That is my opinion :)

I'm guessing that no one in your family has committed suicide - so because it never happened to you one shouldn't have to read about it. You're suggesting that suicide is some kind of antisocial activity like dropping litter or drug-taking, and the only thing writing about suicide achieves is to 'implant it deeper within the pages of literary idealism'? In other words, writing about it somehow glamourises it.

Do you even give a moment's pause to think about what you've written before posting it? Is there not perhaps a case for a writer exploring the reasons why someone commits suicide? A case for bringing it out into the open so that those who are left behind to deal with their own guilt (a common reaction) are somehow able to put these events into perspective?

One wonders what you actually do read.

H

[kev67]

Cacian, don't read Norwegian Wood by Haruki Murakami.

[poetrygirl16]

for me suicide is not good at all and i have a lot of experience with that because my father committed suicide

[hillwalker]

So. . . are you suggesting that suicide is off limits when it comes to literature? Or are you merely saying it's something you would rather not read about personally?

I also have a family member who killed herself, but that doesn't mean that I'm no longer able to treat the matter objectively.

H

[Lokasenna]

If you find that you yourself can't cope with a theme, then don't read books about it. That's absolutely fine. But saying that to have such themes in literature is distasteful is a different thing entirely. I've never had a suicide in the family, but that doesn't make me incapable of empathising with people who have - but nor does it prevent me from seeing the use to which such a subject can be put by talented artists.

I've had a family member who was murdered. I've a family member who is a murderer. Does this stop me from enjoying whodunnits? Of course not. Should I be saying that all books featuring murders should be scrapped because it is a distatestful subject to me? Not at all. If we censor something, if we make it taboo, then in the long run we make it harder on ourselves because we create something that we cannot subject to the catharsis of artistic interpretation.

Oh, and for the record - everyone stop going on about the mildness of fairy tales! If you read the orginal Grimm/Anderson material, then you will see that they are brutal beyond belief: full of plenty of sex, death, violence and all manner of other things to which cacian objects.

[YesNo]

The portrayal of suicide seems OK to me. What I would object to is the moral approval of the suicide, but I wouldn't want the work of art censored. You need the work of art as evidence that there are nuts in the world.

Here are some examples, based on what people have mentioned as well as others.

1) Japanese ritual suicide: My take on this is that it is disgusting. If this is what the Japanese do, they should stop doing it.

2) Political-religious suicides: Whether it is a Muslim terorist or a Buddhist monk this activity discredits the religion itself.

3) Love problems: Anna Karenina is the kind of person who couldn't make anyone happy, not even herself. She should have started to behave better, but Tolstoy was probably getting tired and the thought of writing another 100 pages to make a better ending was more than he could handle.

4) Illness and old age: Although I don't believe in prolonging one's life, this might be the time for a person to reflect since there is nothing else to do.

5) Metaphysical-philosophical suicide: The movie Melancholia was about a huge rogue planet that came by to swallow up the earth and end all life in the universe. (The assumption was life only existed on earth.) The message of the movie is that life is bad and since we just won't kill ourselves, we need a planet to kill us. The message is pathetic, but the movie was made well enough that I can use it in arguments against people who take these positions.

[Volya]

Why do you find the idea of ritual suicide disgusting?

[cacian]

Why do you find the idea of ritual suicide disgusting?

Hi Volya don't you think it is? suicide is death and to make it a ritual is suggesting there is something not right within oneself. It is disgusting and frankly terrifying.

[hillwalker]

Isn't it a case of respecting cultural differences, especially those from past cultures, rather than dismissing something you don't understand as 'disgusting and frankly terrifying.'?

Bushido - which amongst other things advocated honour to the death - played a major part in the code of chivalry as practised by the samurai. Ritual suicide was seen as a gentlemanly way of admitting defeat. The particular method of suicide employed (seppuku) was a way of liberating the spirit at the moment of death to erase disgrace and dishonour.

The fact that it has been written about doesn't mean you have to practise it yourself. And to write off those who followed this code of conduct as being 'not right' is a little simplistic don't you think?

H

[Ecurb]

"I have immortal longings." -- Cleopatra


The Romans were also advocates of suicide as an honorable way to accept defeat. Of course this was partly due to the humiliations and tortures visited upon the defeated by Romans. "Save the last bullet for yourself" was a code in the American West based on the fear of being tortured if captured by Native Americans.

"This was the noblest Roman of them all..." Those opposed to suicide might find this description faulty, since Brutus killed himself. "Farewell, good Strato. -- Caesar, now be still: I killed not thee with half so good a will."

[cacian]

Isn't it a case of respecting cultural differences, especially those from past cultures, rather than dismissing something you don't understand as 'disgusting and frankly terrifying.'?

To begin to respect a culture any culture it has and will have to respect itself first. What this ritual suggests is ending one's life voluntarily or not and I have no understanding of ityou are right.
It is nonsensical for the only reason that for a culture to subside it needs to show that it is surviving against all the odds.
A culture however that suggest death as a cultural ritual is a culture that is on its way out. Where is the respect supposed to land? on its head? By the time this ritual is finished there is no one to be around to claim a culture and no respect to be had.
I personally do not understand that you do not understand how desperate this ritual is and yes it makes zero sense. To want to self eliminate in this way is terrifying.


Bushido - which amongst other things advocated honour to the death - played a major part in the code of chivalry as practised by the samurai. Ritual suicide was seen as a gentlemanly way of admitting defeat. The particular method of suicide employed (seppuku) was a way of liberating the spirit at the moment of death to erase disgrace and dishonour.
Says who? and what disgrace? who says a spirit is liberated in this way? where is the proof in all this?
Chivalry is in manners and speech to die in the name of suicide is not chivalry it is pure madness sorry I do not get it.
There is no disgrace and there is no dishonour what there is made up assumptions and frightening backwards ideas to claim
power over others.


The fact that it has been written about doesn't mean you have to practise it yourself. And to write off those who followed this code of conduct as being 'not right' is a little simplistic don't you think?

H
I am sorry I fail to understand to need to eradicate oneself and calling it culture. Suicide is not a code of conduct it is a call for death which is unjustified. I feel it is corrupt and makes no sense. Simplistic is not the word I can think of worse terms to describe it. I am afraid it is never right to tell others that they have to take their lives because culture says so.

[Volya]

In my opinion there is really nothing wrong with suicide - it's your life, if you want to end it then it should be your decision. The only problems I really see is people killing themselves and later (if they could still think) regretting it, and the fact that it will probably leave close friends and family pretty distressed.

Also despite what your views on it are, it is also a way of protesting and is ultimately the biggest sacrifice you can make for a cause - your life.

I can understand entirely where the Japanese concept of ritual suicide came from.
If you believe you have done something so dishonourable that it deserves your life, then you kill yourself.

[cacian]

I can understand entirely where the Japanese concept of ritual suicide came from.
If you believe you have done something so dishonourable that it deserves your life, then you kill yourself
What about forgiveness and tolerance of each other and ourselves? does not that count? there are people also involved when someone takes their life. Does not that count too? their sorrows and hurt?
Teaching someone to accept that they have made a mistake dishonoured or not is teaching to accept themselves and learn from it.
Life is about changes and progress and suicide means there is no other chances which I think it is not true.
To tell someone they have to suicide because they have dishonoured is in my views is lifeless pushes the point that there is no reason to be born at the first place. Life is a hurdle and one must learn to jump it everytime to show that we are able to push the barriers no matter how high they are . This is part of life.

[Volya]

What about forgiveness and tolerance of each other and ourselves? does not that count? there are people also involved when someone takes their life. Does not that count too? their sorrows and hurt?
Teaching someone to accept that they have made a mistake dishonoured or not is teaching to accept themselves and learn from it.
Life is about changes and progress and suicide means there is no other chances which I think it is not true.
To tell someone they have to suicide because they have dishonoured is in my views is lifeless pushes the point that there is no reason to be born at the first place. Life is a hurdle and one must learn to jump it everytime to show that we are able to push the barriers no matter how high they are . This is part of life.
Yes, suicide may well hurt other people, but ultimately it is your own life thus you should be able to choose if you want to keep it. I am not saying we should make people kill themselves if they have been dishonoured, I'm saying the person in question should be able to if they want.

[hillwalker]

I'm not advocating suicide - but I'm able to accept that if suicide was once seen as a moral choice by certain cultures (as it was by the samurai up to the late 19th century) then so be it. Who am I to criticise or judge?

They didn't commit mass suicide so your nonsensical argument that there would be no one left if it was allowed to continue shows just how much you fail to understand the concept.

You have as much right to condemn the practice of suicide (for whatever reason) as anyone on here - but your original declaration that it should not be written about in literature because it's a 'bad thing' shows yet again how naive your thinking is.

H

[Ecurb]

Oregon (where I live) was the first state (indeed the first Western Government) to legalize doctor assisted suicide. Physician assisted suicide has been legal in Oregon since 1994 (although there have been a couple of court cases challenging the law). Physician-assisted suicide was still technically illegal throughout Europe back then, although it was already an accepted practice in the Netherlands. Several other states have legalized assisted suicide since then, and it has become officially legal in several European nations, as well.

As far as suicide in literature Is concerned, death is dramatic, and suicide is dramatic. Drama is the essence of literature (drama as an art form predates the novel by many centuries). The most famous soliloquy in English letters is about whether or not to commit suicide. Suicide may be deplorable, or it may not be. But it certainly is dramatic. It’s not really debatable whether it’s acceptable in literature, because it is a central theme in Hamlet, Julius Caesar, Anthony and Cleopatra, Othello, Anna Karennina, Madame Bovary, and a great many canonical works. If we got rid of literature in which suicide is a major theme, we would have to get rid of a great many masterpieces.

[stlukesguild]

cacian... let's be real, here. If writers followed all of your rules (no sex, no vulgarity, no profanity, no suicides, no villains, no character abandoned, no fantasy, nothing unrealistic...) we'd be left with a body of literature that no one on earth would have the least interest in reading.

[Delta40]

No Surrender lit-netters. In another life, Cacian likely helped enslave indigenous children, beat them across the head with her bicycle and then bred them with the British so everybody could be white and much more tasteful....

[Scheherazade]

cacian... let's be real, here. If writers followed all of your rules (no sex, no vulgarity, no profanity, no suicides, no villains, no character abandoned, no fantasy, nothing unrealistic...) we'd be left with a body of literature that no one on earth would have the least interest in reading.But, as God is her witness, there would be no faking in it!

[Delta40]

And what would the artwork of the cover be???

[AuntShecky]

Well, I'll tell you something. If I keep seeing the beauty of the English language butchered like this, I might consider suicide myself.

[YesNo]

Why do you find the idea of ritual suicide disgusting?

Oh, I don't know. I guess it's the way they go about it. The guy pushes his samurai sword into one side of his stomach and then slides it very slowly across to the other side. Eventually his intestines fall out.

No doubt I need to be more postmodern and respect the diverse cultures of other people.

What I wonder is where did they get the idea of doing something like that? Probably someone told them a story of how that would be a cool way to regain their honor.

Yeah, and where do those Muslim terrorists get the idea that blowing themselves up in a market place where women and children are congregating is doing anyone any good? Probably someone told them a story of how that would be a really cool way to die and take others with them at the same time and regain their honor.

And where do those Buddhists get the idea that taking a swig of gasoline and pouring the rest over their bodies and then lighting a match does any good? Probably someone told them a story of how that is the way to regain their honor and like morons they believed it.

And what about those people who leap off cliffs or fall under a train when they mess up their relationships? Probably someone told them a story.

[Delta40]

YesNo it's easy to be blase about other people so you can uphold your views and perhaps even allow yourself to feel superior to them. It's the same reason why I think Americans who are progun are uneducated animals, dragging their fists along the ground engaging in weekly incest...

It's all far, far from the truth.

[islandclimber]

cacian... let's be real, here. If writers followed all of your rules (no sex, no vulgarity, no profanity, no suicides, no villains, no character abandoned, no fantasy, nothing unrealistic...) we'd be left with a body of literature that no one on earth would have the least interest in reading.

Yes. It would be the mythical Garden of Eden discovered. Oh no. Wait. They were naked. Highly distasteful. Scratch that. Instead, a Garden of Eden where Adam and Eve wore leaves over the distasteful bits of their anatomy.

[hillwalker]

YesNo - your in depth analysis of the causes for suicide (a term that covers a wide spectrum of methodology and causality) as all being due to someone telling them to do it in a story. . . unbelievable. And I thought cacian was the only delusional one in our midst.

H

[cacian]

Here is a thought I think is worth pointing out and it is this:
why write about complex tragic things about life with such an ease in stories when one knows they are so not easy to talk about or do in real life?
suicide is a tragedy in real life and we all know that if it could be avoided by banning it tomorrow we will. Yet we seem to write about it in such a manner a blaze way perhaps that it does come across as if it was a futile everyday thing which we know it is not.
It is just an observation and I may well be interpreting in this way because there is so much of it in literature. Of course one does what one feels right about and yes it is up to the writer to decide.

[stlukesguild]

Here is a thought I think is worth pointing out and it is this:
why write about complex tragic things about life with such an ease in stories when one knows they are so not easy to talk about or do in real life?

Ummmm...

1. Because artists feel the need to be able to confront issues from life that are complex and not easy to talk about.

2. Because only creating art about that which is easy and pleasant can become tiresome and lacking in drama.

3. Because it is ART and not LIFE.

[kaethe]

There are good books and bad books, boring and intriguing ones, but it´s definetely not the fact of dealing with the suicide subject which determines the qualitiy of a book.
If literature -as a form of art- isn´t allowed to visualize the depths of human nature, the things people avoid talking about openly, where is the sense in writing/reading?
Not a very tempting thought...
By the way, is it more reasonable to stay alive than to kill oneself?
If one doesn´t find a reason to rather live than die, suicide seems to be quite sensible and consequent, although it is a catastrophy for the bereaved. No question about that.
Glamorizing suicide (or violence/crime) is quite a different thing. Bad taste. The mere fact of commiting suicide won´t give a character substance.

[YesNo]

YesNo - your in depth analysis of the causes for suicide (a term that covers a wide spectrum of methodology and causality) as all being due to someone telling them to do it in a story. . . unbelievable. And I thought cacian was the only delusional one in our midst.

H

So you are saying there is no one telling a story to justify the suicides, making them seem glamorous, or giving them a bogus, irrational, self-righteous justification? Then what is causing these people to commit suicide and doing so in a similar way in their respective cultures? What triggers these copy-cats?

Regarding cacian, she is not delusional, nor is she a troll.

[YesNo]

YesNo it's easy to be blase about other people so you can uphold your views and perhaps even allow yourself to feel superior to them. It's the same reason why I think Americans who are progun are uneducated animals, dragging their fists along the ground engaging in weekly incest...

It's all far, far from the truth.

What is the truth regarding suicide and literature--or language in general?

[hillwalker]

Suicide didn't suddenly come about because someone wrote a story about it. Writing stories in which suicide features is not going to cause an epidemic of suicides any more than writing about vampires suddenly turns everyone who reads such stuff into vampires.

Suicide is a life v death choice - presumably dying is preferable to living in the mind of the person who decides suicide is the only option they have left.

To suggest suicide (presumably from the times of Boudicca, Nero and Van Gogh to Hemingway, Sylvia Plath and Kurt Cobain) is a copy-cat crime motivated by having it written about in 'stories' is a bizarre conclusion to reach. There have been instances where teenagers have entered some kind of suicide pact following on-line glamourisation of such behaviour - but censoring the exploration of the human condition in literature will not suddenly change the human condition.

And for the record, cacian is delusional because she believes a world where Art and Literature are sterilised, bowdlerised and Disneyfied would make our lives more rewarding and meaningful than this dreadful world we currently inhabit where everything is laid open to discussion.

H

[TheFifthElement]

Oh, I don't know. I guess it's the way they go about it. The guy pushes his samurai sword into one side of his stomach and then slides it very slowly across to the other side. Eventually his intestines fall out.

No doubt I need to be more postmodern and respect the diverse cultures of other people.

What I wonder is where did they get the idea of doing something like that? Probably someone told them a story of how that would be a cool way to regain their honor.

Yeah, and where do those Muslim terrorists get the idea that blowing themselves up in a market place where women and children are congregating is doing anyone any good? Probably someone told them a story of how that would be a really cool way to die and take others with them at the same time and regain their honor.

And where do those Buddhists get the idea that taking a swig of gasoline and pouring the rest over their bodies and then lighting a match does any good? Probably someone told them a story of how that is the way to regain their honor and like morons they believed it.

And what about those people who leap off cliffs or fall under a train when they mess up their relationships? Probably someone told them a story.

Yes, but couldn’t you say that about almost anything? Why focus on such a limited range of religions, such a limited scope of circumstances?

Where do those soldiers get the idea that it’s honourable to kill or be killed for the honour / love / glory of their country? Maybe someone told them a story.

Where do those Christians get the idea that it is better to die than renounce their faith? Maybe someone told them a story.

Where do firemen get the idea that it’s right to throw themselves into a burning building to save another person? Maybe someone told them a story.

Where do men get the idea that a girl wearing a short skirt is asking for it? Maybe someone told them a story.

Where do the nationals of one country get the idea that it’s righteous to bomb civilians going about their business in another country, because someone unconnected to them put a bomb in a building? Maybe someone told them a story.

Ad infinitum. And eventually it gets you to wondering: which came first, the belief or the story? And maybe ‘culture’ is merely the summation of a people's stories that most compellingly represent their beliefs? And maybe the story exists not to glorify or glamorise the belief, but merely to lay it bare, to lay it open to scrutiny.

[cacian]

There are good books and bad books, boring and intriguing ones, but it´s definetely not the fact of dealing with the suicide subject which determines the qualitiy of a book.
If literature -as a form of art- isn´t allowed to visualize the depths of human nature, the things people avoid talking about openly, where is the sense in writing/reading?
Not a very tempting thought...
By the way, is it more reasonable to stay alive than to kill oneself?
If one doesn´t find a reason to rather live than die, suicide seems to be quite sensible and consequent, although it is a catastrophy for the bereaved. No question about that.
Glamorizing suicide (or violence/crime) is quite a different thing. Bad taste. The mere fact of commiting suicide won´t give a character substance.

Agreed I think substance and determination is what these characters committing suicide lack. The reason for this is that suicide is a real thing and for it to be dismissed in this way as a fait du jour just because it is a story makes it all the more dismissive of its intricacy. No one should slip away from life in these circumstances because humans are more then capable. Suicide tells the opposite that humans are failing to address such gravity. It is to me unjust to throw suicide at a character just because it is there and we can.
More thoughts into recovering such character ismore interesting in my views then telling me he or she committed suicide. I feel there is more to a life then ending it.

[Delta40]

What is the truth regarding suicide and literature--or language in general?


I'm sure US La La land is filled with enough morons to educate you about the rest of the world. I was told a story where it warned against engaging in discussion with morons because their view isn't relevant.

[Shaman_Raman]

Agreed I think substance and determination is what these characters committing suicide lack. The reason for this is that suicide is a real thing and for it to be dismissed in this way as a fait du jour just because it is a story makes it all the more dismissive of its intricacy. No one should slip away from life in these circumstances because humans are more then capable. Suicide tells the opposite that humans are failing to address such gravity. It is to me unjust to throw suicide at a character just because it is there and we can.
More thoughts into recovering such character ismore interesting in my views then telling me he or she committed suicide. I feel there is more to a life then ending it.


I don't think writers go into a story with an end result of suicide already in mind. At least I wouldn't, I can't speak for everyone. And even if so, that doesn't mean the character would lack substance. Your presuming there's better paths characters can take, other than suicide, which if you feel that way fine. But if you set out for every character to end happy and blissful, then you'll probably lack more substance than the former. Conflict is key to a story: some characters overcome it, some don't. Even in fairy tales, some characters don't end well. Why couldn't Cinderellas step sister's find prince's like her? Why couldn't Gaston survive?

It seems your advocating fairness on the behalf of fictional characters, which is a bigger attack on reality than suicide.

[YesNo]

To suggest suicide (presumably from the times of Boudicca, Nero and Van Gogh to Hemingway, Sylvia Plath and Kurt Cobain) is a copy-cat crime motivated by having it written about in 'stories' is a bizarre conclusion to reach. There have been instances where teenagers have entered some kind of suicide pact following on-line glamourisation of such behaviour - but censoring the exploration of the human condition in literature will not suddenly change the human condition.

And for the record, cacian is delusional because she believes a world where Art and Literature are sterilised, bowdlerised and Disneyfied would make our lives more rewarding and meaningful than this dreadful world we currently inhabit where everything is laid open to discussion.


I'm not interested in censoring any story justifying suicide. I prefer to see the story on display so it can be examined. I would call any justification of suicide "delusional", to use your term. That's where I think I agree with what I hear cacian saying.

The stories that I am referring to need not be classic literature, but just the narratives that go through the mind of the person trying to justify suicide. Where do these justifications come from? Too many of the sources for these justifications are treated with too much respect.


Yes, but couldn’t you say that about almost anything? Why focus on such a limited range of religions, such a limited scope of circumstances?

Yes, it could, but we are talking about suicide here. I only picked a few circumstances that came to mind that had little to do with my personal life. Regarding suicide, the most interesting case for me personally has to do with the elderly or those who are crippled.



Where do those soldiers get the idea that it’s honourable to kill or be killed for the honour / love / glory of their country? Maybe someone told them a story.


Not all stories are toxic.



Where do those Christians get the idea that it is better to die than renounce their faith? Maybe someone told them a story.


Another good example.



Where do firemen get the idea that it’s right to throw themselves into a burning building to save another person? Maybe someone told them a story.

Where do men get the idea that a girl wearing a short skirt is asking for it? Maybe someone told them a story.

Where do the nationals of one country get the idea that it’s righteous to bomb civilians going about their business in another country, because someone unconnected to them put a bomb in a building? Maybe someone told them a story.

Ad infinitum. And eventually it gets you to wondering: which came first, the belief or the story? And maybe ‘culture’ is merely the summation of a people's stories that most compellingly represent their beliefs? And maybe the story exists not to glorify or glamorise the belief, but merely to lay it bare, to lay it open to scrutiny.

I think the belief is the story. Stores that open beliefs to scrutiny are better than those that do not.

You mentioned stories about whether a girl is asking for it if she wears a short skirt. How do you compare stories justifying rape with stories justifying suicide? I would put them on the same level.

[islandclimber]

More thoughts into recovering such character ismore interesting in my views then telling me he or she committed suicide. I feel there is more to a life then ending it.

You're over-simplifying this to quite a large degree. It seems that you're suggesting that suicide is written into books out of laziness or as an easy way out of developing a character further. What book have you read in which the author has a minor character up and off him/herself for no reason at all, as though at random, as though an arbitrary act?

[cacian]

I don't think writers go into a story with an end result of suicide already in mind. At least I wouldn't, I can't speak for everyone. And even if so, that doesn't mean the character would lack substance. Your presuming there's better paths characters can take, other than suicide, which if you feel that way fine. But if you set out for every character to end happy and blissful, then you'll probably lack more substance than the former. Conflict is key to a story: some characters overcome it, some don't. Even in fairy tales, some characters don't end well. Why couldn't Cinderellas step sister's find prince's like her? Why couldn't Gaston survive?

It seems your advocating fairness on the behalf of fictional characters, which is a bigger attack on reality than suicide.

Well I am not suggesting a happy and blissful end to each character of course not in life that is not even close let alone prose.
What I am trying to say is that instead of giving suicide the heroic upper hand, the justifier of the act, that a character is not able to cope because his or her lover does not want them, I am trying to look at other better justifiable alternatives.
Reality is twisted in stories when it comes to suicide because on a one hand a story copies life harmonies and harrows and on the other hand twists it as if to try and say well I am not sure now so I will throw in the towel and my character get the suicide he or she deserves. To me it comes across as that.
I would rather as a writer conduct endurances with words and instead of a character terminating their lives I would suggest new way outs. A character would resumes life by trying to solve disasters or pains he or she is exposed. This to a substantial benefit is a new story to be written.
By subjecting a character to suicide one has weakened words and in a way advocated assurances that life is nothing but despair. One has also let readers down because one has simply cut someone's life short and that in itself signals the end to a story. From a reader's/writer's point of views this is a clichés and clichés are what they are no longer serving when time is up for them to run out. The other thing is that the reader learns quickly to predict how stories will end. This in itself is tedious. Suicides occurs at the end of the stories and that is predictability. I would not be interested in reading anymore because I can predict what will happen before I even finish the book.
So to a writer this means one has reached their capacity of words teller and have no more surprises to pull of the bag. Suicide is obvious and I the writer more obvious then it.
A writer 's talent is advocated by words of knowledge heroic pacificism intricacy as well as credibility of thoughts but if suicide is one to be had then his or her stories no longer prescribe to longevity. In fact one has closed themselves in so he or she is much rather seek other avenues to get the credit deserved.

[cacian]

You're over-simplifying this to quite a large degree. It seems that you're suggesting that suicide is written into books out of laziness or as an easy way out of developing a character further. What book have you read in which the author has a minor character up and off him/herself for no reason at all, as though at random, as though an arbitrary act?

There are plenty of books I have read where suicide was thrown it as an act to defy heroism as the only option. It comes across as blasé and that the writer has either given up or cannot predict ways out to the plots they have digged themselves in. It feels as if one has plotted themselves a task where they no longer see how or when to end it so suicide comes in handy . A bit like an exam where does not understand the question so scribbles out whatever in the hope of getting it right but in fact one is showing off lacks of skills in dealing with the question and therefore gets a zero at the end of it. A zero here is compared to a suicide act in a story.
I personally think it says a lot about a writer's ability to conjure up life expectancies with plausible concepts. It gives perhaps a view on how they would or would not cope if faced themselves with the same dilemmas. This is my opinion and of course you are to disagree with it.

[Volya]

I'm not interested in censoring any story justifying suicide. I prefer to see the story on display so it can be examined. I would call any justification of suicide "delusional", to use your term. That's where I think I agree with what I hear cacian saying...........
............You mentioned stories about whether a girl is asking for it if she wears a short skirt. How do you compare stories justifying rape with stories justifying suicide? I would put them on the same level.

You're seriously arguing that suicide is just as bad as rape?

[WyattGwyon]

I'm not interested in censoring any story justifying suicide. I prefer to see the story on display so it can be examined. I would call any justification of suicide "delusional", to use your term. That's where I think I agree with what I hear cacian saying.


Well, there goes Christianity and the God of the trinity. The way the New Testament is commonly interpreted, Jesus Christ engaged in behaviors he knew with certainty would result in his death, apparently in fulfillment of a divine mandate. Moreover, since it was God's (the Father's) intention that Christ die for the sins of humanity, God himself committed suicide with what he apparently thought was a reasonable justification. Another delusional story that should never have been written?

The lesson here might be that suicide is justifiable if it serves a greater good and that writing such stories is worthwhile.

[YesNo]

You're seriously arguing that suicide is just as bad as rape?


Yes. Perhaps more so, but no less so. I assume you think that suicide is an individual choice that involves no one but the person committing suicide and rape involves at least two people, but that is not how I see it. Consider the surviving relatives, the copy-cats, the people blown up in the bomb.

[YesNo]

Well, there goes Christianity and the God of the trinity. The way the New Testament is commonly interpreted, Jesus Christ engaged in behaviors he knew with certainty would result in his death, apparently in fulfillment of a divine mandate. Moreover, since it was God's (the Father's) intention that Christ die for the sins of humanity, God himself committed suicide with what he apparently thought was a reasonable justification. Another delusional story that should never have been written?

The lesson here might be that suicide is justifiable if it serves a greater good and that writing such stories is worthwhile.

I do have a problem with the Christian story. Some of it doesn't make sense to me, but perhaps I don't understand it. I suspect many of the early Christians who were sent to the lions actually wanted to be killed to imitate the crucifixion.

I think one has to be careful about suicide justified to help others. This is especially the case when one is dealing with the elderly or those terminally ill. There might be cases where this is acceptable, but they would be the exception rather than a pattern to imitate.

EDIT: This is how I see the story of the crucifixion. (I'm not a member of one of these religions, so no doubt this is heretical.) Jesus did not want to commit suicide. The Jews did not want to have him killed, let alone crucified. Pilate was a butcher. Jesus became visible to him the previous week. Pilate wanted to humiliate the Jewish population by killing one of their popular teachers on their feast of the Passover. So Jesus was murdered. He did not commit suicide. Christians later experienced shared-death experiences of Jesus which led to his resurrection.

[WyattGwyon]

I do have a problem with the Christian story. Some of it doesn't make sense to me, but perhaps I don't understand it. I suspect many of the early Christians who were sent to the lions actually wanted to be killed to imitate the crucifixion.

I think one has to be careful about suicide justified to help others. This is especially the case when one is dealing with the elderly or those terminally ill. There might be cases where this is acceptable, but they would be the exception rather than a pattern to imitate.

So, it seems you are saying there are issues with respect to suicide and its justification that are highly debatable and of critical moral weight. Do you not believe that novelists who make the best possible case for controversial stances on this issue might be furthering the discussion by actually portraying suicides and suicidal characters? And wouldn't many writers consider it their duty—a matter of artistic integrity—to make the best possible case for their characters' actions, whether or not they ultimately endorsed their positions?

[Volya]

Yes. Perhaps more so, but no less so. I assume you think that suicide is an individual choice that involves no one but the person committing suicide and rape involves at least two people, but that is not how I see it. Consider the surviving relatives, the copy-cats, the people blown up in the bomb.

That may be true, but WHY is suicide wrong? If it is their own life, why should they not be able to choose to end it?

[cacian]

Well, there goes Christianity and the God of the trinity. The way the New Testament is commonly interpreted, Jesus Christ engaged in behaviors he knew with certainty would result in his death, apparently in fulfillment of a divine mandate. Moreover, since it was God's (the Father's) intention that Christ die for the sins of humanity, God himself committed suicide with what he apparently thought was a reasonable justification. Another delusional story that should never have been written?

It is a story indeed and that is what it is by no mean a true one if one does not wish to believe it or follow it because it lacks logic. If God could send someone to ensure he or she dies for humans sins he could also send someone to ensure that sin does no longer become a stigma a part of our lives. There is a paradox there. God power extends beyond human sacrifices surely that is the most credible way to any story. Why would God chose death over success? I am not sure I bite into this ambiguous rather conflicting reasoning.

The lesson here might be that suicide is justifiable if it serves a greater good and that writing such stories is worthwhile.
I am not sure I follow. How is someone killing themselves help me and you and the world in general? how does it stop someone from doing something? suicide sets the wrong example in that it sends the message that it is ok to kill oneself . It also says that we humans have given up on each other. Caring for each other's well being is telling someone to not take their lives away. That is a better more sensible if not the credible message.

[cacian]

That may be true, but WHY is suicide wrong? If it is their own life, why should they not be able to choose to end it?

It is not about wrong or right. It is about humans being seen to care for one another. It is logical and safer long term if we are seen to want to save people's live and not be passive about it as if it were a right of passage. It is important for humans to show that they are capable of feeling for one another and that hope is worthier then death. Being passive about a subject such as suicide is saying we humans give up and also give up on others. Existence is worth living and living is about wanting to be alive wanting to quit it is contrary to what life is about.

[WyattGwyon]

It is a story indeed and that is wht it is by no mean a true one if one does not wish to believe it or follow because it lacks logic. If God could send someone to ensure he or she dies for humans sins he could also send someone to ensure that sin does not longer become a stigma part of our lives. There is a paradox there. God power extends beyond human sacrifices surely that is the most credible way to any story. Why would God chose death over success? I am not sure I bite into this ambiguous rather conflicting reasoning.

I don't believe in supernatural phenomena of any kind. Personally, I think the whole premise under Christian mythology is absurd since an omniscient, omnipotent supreme being in the Christian mold cannot be reconciled with free will. (Calvin, among many others, figured this out but made the mistake of doing away with free will rather than with God.) My point was that for anyone who believes it is wrong to write about and glorify suicide, the divine suicide underlying Christianity should be problematic at the least.


I am not sure I follow. How is someone killing themselves help me and you and the world in general? how does it stop someone from doing something? suicide sets the wrong example in that it sends the message that it is ok to kill oneself . It also says that we humans have given it on each other. Caring for each other's well being is telling someone to not take their lives away. That is a better more sensible if not the credible message.

In Christian mythology, God's suicide, enacted through Jesus Christ, atones for the sins of mankind, which, according to all Christian religions, is a great benefit to humankind. As I hinted, I am not a Christian.

[cafolini]

"I don't believe in supernatural phenomena of any kind." ~ WyattGwyon

Well, that's what's possible to believe in, not in what you know, which is incredible.

[Volya]

It is not about wrong or right. It is about humans being seen to care for one another. It is logical and safer long term if we are seen to want to save people's live and not be passive about it as if it were a right of passage. It is important for humans to show that they are capable of feeling for one another and that hope is worthier then death. Being passive about a subject such as suicide is saying we humans give up and also give up on others. Existence is worth living and living is about wanting to be alive wanting to quit it is contrary to what life is about.

But if somebody wants to take their own life surely it is more compassionate to allow them to do so than to deny them that right.

[hillwalker]

I think cacian is getting confused between the morality (or otherwise) of committing suicide and the morality of writing about a fictional character who commits suicide. The point she raised in her OP was that suicide should not be written about in literature because it sets a bad example (lol!). I assume that writing about war or murder or deceit or grief or poverty is also to be avoided because they might also set a bad example. Oh what a wonderful planet she must live on.

H

[islandclimber]

Yes. Perhaps more so, but no less so. I assume you think that suicide is an individual choice that involves no one but the person committing suicide and rape involves at least two people, but that is not how I see it. Consider the surviving relatives, the copy-cats, the people blown up in the bomb.

I'm sorry but this is disgusting. To suggest suicide is as bad as (or possibly even worse than) rape, is appalling.

Regardless of what you think, suicide is an individual choice. It involves others indirectly, not directly. And we're not talking about suicide bombings here, that is something entirely different; in a suicide bombing, the act of killing others takes precedence over the suicide, the willingness to sacrifice oneself in order to kill others just makes it an easier task to accomplish. It has a direct affect on its victims. A suicide where one is just ending one's life due to any number of factors only directly affects the actual suicide, sure there are others affected indirectly, but that is also their choice to allow this to affect them. It has been said that suicide is the most selfish of acts, but it has also been said that those who want someone who (is miserable) and wants to die to go on living are really the selfish ones.

Rape has a direct victim; it is a violent act of aggression, generally against a weaker victim. It is a terrible, life-altering experience. I cannot believe you are suggesting that the victim of a rape, is affected less so than someone who has a family member or close friend commit suicide. Disgusting.

[islandclimber]

I think cacian is getting confused between the morality (or otherwise) of committing suicide and the morality of writing about a fictional character who commits suicide. The point she raised in her OP was that suicide should not be written about in literature because it sets a bad example (lol!). I assume that writing about war or murder or deceit or grief or poverty is also to be avoided because they might also set a bad example. Oh what a wonderful planet she must live on.

H

H, I think you have this right. Maybe even more so than you realize. Cacian does think that writing about war, murder, deceit, grief, and poverty are to be avoided. In her words only "a literature that uplifts" is okay... So, a literature entirely devoid of all meaning, of the binary oppositions (and the grey areas between) that make up life, art, etc. Cacian seems to fail to comprehend that life is about contrast, without dark we cannot appreciate light (and vice versa), without sorrow we cannot appreciate joy.



It is not about wrong or right. It is about humans being seen to care for one another. It is logical and safer long term if we are seen to want to save people's live and not be passive about it as if it were a right of passage. It is important for humans to show that they are capable of feeling for one another and that hope is worthier then death. Being passive about a subject such as suicide is saying we humans give up and also give up on others. Existence is worth living and living is about wanting to be alive wanting to quit it is contrary to what life is about.

Wanting to quit life in moments of despair and even committing this act, this is not contrary to life at all. It is just another pathway to the one inevitability of life. Death. We all die. Of old age, disease, murder, suicide, accident. How is this contrary to life? And who are you to decide what life is about for others? Life is obviously not worth living for many people, hence the reason they kill themselves. They surely do not commit suicide because they read about it in a book and thought that they might as well give it a go. To suggest that an author who includes suicide (a very natural act) in his/her work is incapable of empathy, compassion, in general, caring about life and others, is ludicrous. I think it's quite obvious to just about everyone (but you) that good literature can and should explore all of life's many facets, both positive and negative.

[cacian]

But if somebody wants to take their own life surely it is more compassionate to allow them to do so than to deny them that right.

It depends how you understand compassion. By compassion I understand it is care and knowledge in the sense that I will partake in showing gratuity towards life by sharing it with others. For me to be able to fullfill life enjoyement and its meanings i therefore will must help someone else in need to overcome whatever it is that is leading to wanting to quit their lives. To prove to myself that I enjoy life to the full and that I think about the various meanings of life I shall therefore help someone else in needs to do the same. Compassion is about showing others what you know yourself is beneficial and good about life. To let someone take their lives means that we have not yet grasped the values of life and what it wants us to achieve.
Think of it in a different contest. Would you let someone starve themselves or not wash ever ie hygiene because they think it is piety and that is good for them?
The answer for me would be no because there is food and water and therefore there is no reason for wanting to deprive oneself when there is to be had. Life is about having what is on offer and not rejecting it. That for me is logic. Let's not take away life from life when it gives it to us for free.

[cafolini]

It depends how you understand compassion. By compassion I understand it is care and knowledge in the sense that I will partake in showing gratuity towards life by sharing it with others. For me to be able to fullfill life enjoyement and its meaning i must help someone else in need to overcome whatever is leading to wanting to quit their lives. To prove to myself that I enjoy life to the full and that I think about the various meanings of life I shall therefore help someone in needs to do the same. Compassion is about showing others what you know yourself is beneficial is good. To let someone take their lives it is in a way we have not yet grasped what life is about and what it wants us to achieve.
Think of it in a different contest. Would you let someone starve themselves or not wash ever ie hygiene because they think it is piety and that is good for them?
The answer for me would be no because there is food and water and therefore there is no reason for wanting to deprive oneself when there is to be had. Life is about having what is on offer and not rejecting it. That for me is logic. Let's not take away life from life when it gives it to us free.

I think you just spoke about empathy, a natural parameter of feeling. Com-passion is passion in common, and rare cases do exist, but they are not the norm.

[Darcy88]

I'm not interested in censoring any story justifying suicide. I prefer to see the story on display so it can be examined. I would call any justification of suicide "delusional", to use your term. That's where I think I agree with what I hear cacian saying.

The stories that I am referring to need not be classic literature, but just the narratives that go through the mind of the person trying to justify suicide. Where do these justifications come from? Too many of the sources for these justifications are treated with too much respect.



Yes, it could, but we are talking about suicide here. I only picked a few circumstances that came to mind that had little to do with my personal life. Regarding suicide, the most interesting case for me personally has to do with the elderly or those who are crippled.



Not all stories are toxic.



Another good example.



I think the belief is the story. Stores that open beliefs to scrutiny are better than those that do not.

You mentioned stories about whether a girl is asking for it if she wears a short skirt. How do you compare stories justifying rape with stories justifying suicide? I would put them on the same level.

YesNo I always respect and often agree with your opinions, but here I think you're way off base. Suicide and rape are not at all comparable. Rape is a violent act committed against another, suicide is a violent act committed against oneself. A rapist is simply a bad person, a suicide is not.

I despise the popular sentiment towards suicide. No one can know what it is to inhabit the mind and feel the pain of another. I think suicide should be a right. We did not choose to be born, why must we feel obligated to live?

The main character in my novel kills himself. I see no valid justification for the prohibition of suicide in literature. No subject is out of bounds when it comes to art.

[YesNo]

YesNo I always respect and often agree with your opinions, but here I think you're way off base. Suicide and rape are not at all comparable. Rape is a violent act committed against another, suicide is a violent act committed against oneself. A rapist is simply a bad person, a suicide is not.

I despise the popular sentiment towards suicide. No one can know what it is to inhabit the mind and feel the pain of another. I think suicide should be a right. We did not choose to be born, why must we feel obligated to live?

The main character in my novel kills himself. I see no valid justification for the prohibition of suicide in literature. No subject is out of bounds when it comes to art.

I respect your opinion as well, Darcy, and have always enjoyed our discussions.

The only time that I can think of that I would be sympathetic to someone who commits suicide is if their entire family were killed and they were the only survivor. I could see them committing suicide. I don't think this would be right, but I could understand the survivor guilt.

Regarding the right to commit suicide, I don't think it is possible to stop someone from doing it. The most one can do is not pay the survivors any life insurance as a result of the death and legal things like that.

Regarding prohibiting suicide in literature, I am not in favor of prohibiting it. However, I would disagree with the final result if the suicide were portrayed in a positive manner. The market however determines what survives in literature not censors.

We mainly differ on comparing rape with suicide. I consider suicide worse than rape. Imaginatively, (don't actually do this, because there is no point in causing her stress) ask your mother which would hurt her more: (a) being raped or (b) going to your room and finding that you killed yourself. I think she would choose (b). Alternatively, you could ask yourself this question: which would hurt you more (a) being raped while detained in prison or (b) finding your girlfriend or your mother with a self-inflicted gunshot wound through her head?


I'm sorry but this is disgusting. To suggest suicide is as bad as (or possibly even worse than) rape, is appalling.


I was counting on responses like this, islandclimber. Let me make sure my point is clear: Suicide is worse than rape and the suicides's victims are the survivors. Just ask the parent of a teenager who committed suicide.




Regardless of what you think, suicide is an individual choice. It involves others indirectly, not directly. And we're not talking about suicide bombings here, that is something entirely different; in a suicide bombing, the act of killing others takes precedence over the suicide, the willingness to sacrifice oneself in order to kill others just makes it an easier task to accomplish. It has a direct affect on its victims. A suicide where one is just ending one's life due to any number of factors only directly affects the actual suicide, sure there are others affected indirectly, but that is also their choice to allow this to affect them. It has been said that suicide is the most selfish of acts, but it has also been said that those who want someone who (is miserable) and wants to die to go on living are really the selfish ones.

We should not eliminate the political-religious-philosophical motivations for suicide. They are the the most inane aspects especially when seen at a distance from the issues involved. And as far a literature goes, which is what this thread is about, they usually involve stories--some pretty sick stories.

Why is it that the suicide's victims are expected to handle themselves appropriately, but the person who actually commits suicide is given a free ride? That is like saying, the girl who has been raped should realize that it is her "choice to allow this to affect" her?

I hadn't heard before that suicide is the most selfish of acts. Let me say, having heard that, that I totally agree. Couple that with political-religious-philosophical self-righteousness that is motivated by stories, it is the most disgusting of acts.



Rape has a direct victim; it is a violent act of aggression, generally against a weaker victim. It is a terrible, life-altering experience. I cannot believe you are suggesting that the victim of a rape, is affected less so than someone who has a family member or close friend commit suicide. Disgusting.

Let me be clear. I am not suggesting. I am asserting that the person who commits suicide has harmed his or her family as much--no, more so--than a rapist.

[Darcy88]

I respect your opinion as well, Darcy, and have always enjoyed our discussions.

The only time that I can think of that I would be sympathetic to someone who commits suicide is if their entire family were killed and they were the only survivor. I could see them committing suicide. I don't think this would be right, but I could understand the survivor guilt.

Regarding the right to commit suicide, I don't think it is possible to stop someone from doing it. The most one can do is not pay the survivors any life insurance as a result of the death and legal things like that.

Regarding prohibiting suicide in literature, I am not in favor of prohibiting it. However, I would disagree with the final result if the suicide were portrayed in a positive manner. The market however determines what survives in literature not censors.

We mainly differ on comparing rape with suicide. I consider suicide worse than rape. Imaginatively, (don't actually do this, because there is no point in causing her stress) ask your mother which would hurt her more: (a) being raped or (b) going to your room and finding that you killed yourself. I think she would choose (b). Alternatively, you could ask yourself this question: which would hurt you more (a) being raped while detained in prison or (b) finding your girlfriend or your mother with a self-inflicted gunshot wound through her head?

I'd be far more devastated by finding my girlfriend or mother dead after their suicide than I would be after being raped, but I would think lesser of the rapist than I would of my girlfriend or mother. Likewise, I think my mother would think the person who raped her is morally lesser than her suicided son. I suppose overall you could try and argue that suicide is in a certain sense "worse" than rape, but that would be in the wider emotional devastation it causes on others and not in regards to the moral status of the person who commits the act.

[YesNo]

That may be true, but WHY is suicide wrong? If it is their own life, why should they not be able to choose to end it?

Suicide is wrong, if you affirm that the universe is good. It is neither right nor wrong, if you assume the universe is not good.

This has nothing to do with any theistic position or atheistic position.

So, you are asking the right question and given that, I would ask you, what is your position on the goodness of the universe?

Regarding someone having the right to kill themselves or not, the fact of the matter is that people will kill themselves whether they have the right to do so or not. You can't stop them from doing so. However, you can tell them stories that might encourage them one way or the other.

[Jack of Hearts]

What an ugly, ugly thread. The pop understanding of suicide doesn't permit most people to fully understand your position YesNo. But that's age appropriate sometimes. That's the nature of being fooled (by nature). Which is worse seems like a horrifically superficial question. And answering that question only provides information... of other interest.

Western conception of suicide seems to crutch on 'It's my life, I'll take it if I want to.' The moral argument follows pretty easily from the inverse. If you fully respected agency of the other, ie appreciated their capacity to feel pain is equivalent to your own, you assess the nature of suicide in proper context. Even though you don't feel it yourself, you honor the reality and fullness of someone else's pain-- such as the effects on a family or a community caused by suicide.

So much goes out the window when Western conceptions of the self get a little nut checked.



J

[YesNo]

I'd be far more devastated by finding my girlfriend or mother dead after their suicide than I would be after being raped, but I would think lesser of the rapist than I would of my girlfriend or mother. Likewise, I think my mother would think the person who raped her is morally lesser than her suicided son. I suppose overall you could try and argue that suicide is in a certain sense "worse" than rape, but that would be in the wider emotional devastation it causes on others and not in regards to the moral status of the person who commits the act.

I agree with that. I would feel the same way. I am only arguing for the wider emotional devastation a suicide causes.

I don't have any metaphysics that claims that the person who committed suicide goes to hell or is punished in some way after death. Although I don't think our consciousness ends at death, based on what I've read from psychics, people who commit suicide are not punished except in perhaps knowing the harm they caused. You may not find what psychics say to be evidence, but I don't have any other evidence to go on.

[Darcy88]

Western conception of suicide seems to crutch on 'It's my life, I'll take it if I want to.'
J

That's how I feel on the matter, but I don't encounter this attitude very often. A person who expresses suicidal thoughts is met with horror and is liable to be locked up and forcibly medicated.

[cacian]

I think you just spoke about empathy, a natural parameter of feeling. Com-passion is passion in common, and rare cases do exist, but they are not the norm.

Empathy is an interesting word and I admit I do get empathy and sympathy muddled up. I think they are interrelated in that one cannot sympathise if one does not empathise.
I think a subject such as suicide goes ibeyond both because wishing someone to do something as permissible and fine but that we do not wish to ourselves is contrary to our beliefs and therefore false. Someone I know once told me do not feed something to somebody if you would not eat it yourself.
This brings me to think about present days jobs and the whole ethos about what we do professionally and how we feel about it. I was thinking it must be fake and allusive to do a job one does not believe in . To be professional and to believe in the profession is two separate things. I think our lives are already geared to live a lie an allusion. To strive in life teaches people to adopt blasé attitude and care free sentiment about everything else in life and that is concerning to say the least.

[Volya]

I agree with what peeps are saying about the emotional devastation killing yourself would do to others (that's why I for one would never contemplate suicide), but in my opinion you should still have that right to die. For example, people with terminal illnesses that make their life very painful. If they want to end their life now rather than prolonging it, who are we to deny them that right? I would certainly think that their family would be able to respect that decision.

[cacian]

I agree with what peeps are saying about the emotional devastation killing yourself would do to others (that's why I for one would never contemplate suicide), but in my opinion you should still have that right to die. For example, people with terminal illnesses that make their life very painful. If they want to end their life now rather than prolonging it, who are we to deny them that right? I would certainly think that their family would be able to respect that decision.

Hi Volya you do bring a valid point and I feel that one that is in pain because one is disabled and is not able to conduct a normal life because he or she is literally in a vegetative state is a different subject. That is in my eyes not suicide but more of a need because physically one is impaired really badly. However someone who commits suicide because one is not able to get what they want or because they have gone bankrupt are physically able and can recover with the help for others. A physically impaired person is helpless because one cannot help their body adjust it is different. I feel it call it suicide is wrong. It must have a different name.

[hillwalker]

So someone who has a 'physical' desire for release from this life due to pain or degenerative illness is exonerated from the sin in your eyes. How very kind of you. But someone with a 'non-physical' need, be it depression or loneliness or some mental illness or whatever, is not?

Empathy? Hardly.

But this thread is supposed to be about whether suicide should be written about in literature or not. We seem to be wandering off-topic.

H

[Volya]

So someone who has a 'physical' desire for release from this life due to pain or degenerative illness is exonerated from the sin in your eyes. How very kind of you. But someone with a 'non-physical' need, be it depression or loneliness or some mental illness or whatever, is not?

Not entirely sure if this was aimed at me, but if it was, I was merely using the terminal illness as an example, I am aware that there are other reasons people commit suicide

[Delta40]

The answer is simple. Literature often reflects the harsh, cruel realities of life. Suicide is one of those realities. Deal with it.

[hillwalker]

Not entirely sure if this was aimed at me, but if it was, I was merely using the terminal illness as an example, I am aware that there are other reasons people commit suicide

No - it was aimed at the OP.

H

[YesNo]

Western conception of suicide seems to crutch on 'It's my life, I'll take it if I want to.'


Yes, I hadn't thought of it like this before but based on your comment and those of others, this seems to be the underlying story that we are telling ourselves about ourselves.


So, it seems you are saying there are issues with respect to suicide and its justification that are highly debatable and of critical moral weight. Do you not believe that novelists who make the best possible case for controversial stances on this issue might be furthering the discussion by actually portraying suicides and suicidal characters? And wouldn't many writers consider it their duty—a matter of artistic integrity—to make the best possible case for their characters' actions, whether or not they ultimately endorsed their positions?

One should not assume that someone is exercising "artistic integrity", just because that person made a movie or wrote a story. I doubt there is even such a thing as artistic integrity. If artists are professionals, they realize that they are constructing a product they hope to market. I think the question of the thread is how do we treat suicide in literature? Has it become a quick, overblown, self-righteous solution? If so, I would like to pop some of that nonsense. The extreme case is suicides that are designed to politically punish adversaries.

Perhaps one needs examples from literature. I could mention Emil Miller's A Tangled Tale, which has a suicide in it, but maybe something else would be useful to discuss. I'm trying to remember the name of a Canadian movie I recently saw where the older man ended his life with an overdose of heroin provided by his relatives. He could have waited a month or two and died without the overdose. There is a youtube video of a copy-cat Buddhist suicide of a young man from India with a lot of self-righteous political rant at the end. One has to consider this "art" as well. There is dark comedy movie called "Four Lions" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1341167/) about a group of Muslins who messed up their suicide attempts although a bunch of innocent people were killed. I think that movie treated these suicides well because it made those committing suicide look like idiots.

I'm not promoting censorship. The market does an adequate job of censoring. I don't mind hearing a suicide story, nor even writing one. However, just because someone writes a story about suicide doesn't mean I have to accept it.

[Shaman_Raman]

Despite opinions on the issues at hand, we can all agree cacians topic sparked most of our interest. 2000 views, 90 posts .
Well done.

[cacian]

So someone who has a 'physical' desire for release from this life due to pain or degenerative illness is exonerated from the sin in your eyes. How very kind of you. But someone with a 'non-physical' need, be it depression or loneliness or some mental illness or whatever, is not?

Empathy? Hardly.

But this thread is supposed to be about whether suicide should be written about in literature or not. We seem to be wandering off-topic.

H

I am not advocating one's life against another. Taking one's life is tragic regardless but someone whose life is non existant because his or her disability is untreatable is better understood more then someone whose is life is shattered on hold for a bit because their lovers left them or because they have gone bankrupt . This someone is perfectally able to recover with the help of others. It is a wasted life if one is not seen to fight tragedy . Humans need to see that others fight life and go on to live a better life.
A story that tells me someone committed suicide is I think extreme radicalism and has no logic because fundamentally humans are readjustable. Humans are rational and can meet their dead ends with other alternatives because they have the power to think clearly and solve anything. A character that challenges death is a character that has more credibility then one who does not. It is what heroism is made off challenging the impossible and death is one of them.

[WyattGwyon]

One should not assume that someone is exercising "artistic integrity", just because that person made a movie or wrote a story. I doubt there is even such a thing as artistic integrity.

No one is making such an assumption, and it is clear you simply don't want to engage the questions I raised. I merely asked if making the best possible case for a suicidal character's thinking and motivations, that is, showing how such a character is aware of his/her own thinking and motivation about the contemplated act, might not further our understanding of a vital area of human experience and our ability to empathize with those among us in extreme emotional and physical distress. And yes, artistic integrity exists. In this case it might consist in doing one's best to see the act from the suicide's perspective, rather than using the character as a sock puppet to advocate for a particular moral or political position, as a source of superficial or lurid excitement because one believes it might sell books, or as a convenient way to tie up loose ends in a plot because one can't construct a better one. All of these latter options illustrate various deficiencies in artistic integrity.



I think the question of the thread is how do we treat suicide in literature? Has it become a quick, overblown, self-righteous solution? If so, I would like to pop some of that nonsense. The extreme case is suicides that are designed to politically punish adversaries.

Obviously, like anything else, suicide will be handled well by some and poorly by others and one should distinguish between instances of the former and the latter. You seem interested only in the latter.


I'm not promoting censorship. The market does an adequate job of censoring. I don't mind hearing a suicide story, nor even writing one. However, just because someone writes a story about suicide doesn't mean I have to accept it.

Whoever said you have to? You are attacking straw men of your own construction and seem to think you are making some kind of general point in doing so. I find no content in it other than the fact that you don't like stories involving suicide.

[cacian]

No one is making such an assumption, and it is clear you simply don't want to engage the questions I raised. I merely asked if making the best possible case for a suicidal character's thinking and motivations, that is, showing how such a character is aware of his/her own thinking and motivation about the contemplated act, might not further our understanding of a vital area of human experience and our ability to empathize with those among us in extreme emotional and physical distress.

Hi Wyatt I do not understand what you mean by best possible case. Would you mind further explaining what you mean by this paragraph. Sorry I am understanding it sorry :)


And yes, artistic integrity exists.
Intergrity has no duplicity. It is an alone serving/standing concept. Committing suicide is duplicity because has to rely on it to help him her achieve their ends.

In this case it might consist in doing one's best to see the act from the suicide's perspective,
suicide is extremely intricate and very personal to each individual. One case does not could not explain to all its distress. No one could ever know what the suicide went through because they are no longer. To imagine a suicide in a book is to play on clichés of what others might have suffered and therefore it is not recognised as dealing with the issue but more propagating its distorted reality/myth.
A person who has not experienced suicide may never vouch for others who have gone to it and died.

rather than using the character as a sock puppet to advocate for a particular moral or political position, as a source of superficial or lurid excitement because one believes it might sell books, or as a convenient way to tie up loose ends in a plot because one can't construct a better one. All of these latter options illustrate various deficiencies in artistic integrity.
I am not so sure a character advocates whatever it is act or not because as soon one is involved it becomes fictional and nothing else that is the idea of a story. to take suicide which a distressing reality and to imply it as being fiction is not the right way to go about it because it is a very much palpable frightening reality.

Obviously, like anything else, suicide will be handled well by some and poorly by others and one should distinguish between instances of the former and the latter. You seem interested only in the latter.
Suicide in my views could never be handled well. It is impossible how is death handled well?

Whoever said you have to? You are attacking straw men of your own construction and seem to think you are making some kind of general point in doing so. I find no content in it other than the fact that you don't like stories involving suicide.
I am no sure liking the story is what it is all about. I am questioning the validity of suicide within a story. Why prolonge its agony again and again in stories when life is littered with it. I do not get this concept of agonising over it when one does not know what it actually feels to commit suicide. A writer is in my views not well placed to write suicide as a fait du jour is because he or she has not experienced it. That that is integrity mystified because unless on has lived it then I am afraid it has to be pure speculations and the wrong ones no doubt.

[Shaman_Raman]

Cacian, so correct me if I'm wrong. Are you proposing it's not possible to write about suicide, because the only people who know how it feels to be suicidal have committed it? That since the writer is alive, they must use cliches and speculation on the matter?

...seriously?

Not everyone who is suicidal commits suicide. Further, there's many people who attempt suicide and fail. So, are they simply speculating too? Point is, there are plenty of people who have experienced enough emotional distress to probably relate an original, genuine struggle with their suicidal depression, without being cliche.

It doesn't sound like you've ever been suicidal, for that I say congratulations. But plenty of others have, and have valid statements, feelings, etc. to discuss it.

[Ecurb]

I am no sure liking the story is what it is all about. I am questioning the validity of suicide within a story. Why prolonge its agony again and again in stories when life is littered with it. I do not get this concept of agonising over it when one does not know what it actually feels to commit suicide. A writer is in my views not well placed to write suicide as a fait du jour is because he or she has not experienced it. That that is integrity mystified because unless on has lived it then I am afraid it has to be pure speculations and the wrong ones no doubt.

So, Cacian, do you think a detective-story writer should write about murder only if he has actually murdered somone? This could create a new motive!

It seems to me that fiction differs from autobiography.

[Delta40]

You're really offensive Cacian.

Well I'll just write a fictional story on incest since I know all about it first hand and am an authority on it. Will you wrinkle your nose up at that or give me the author some respect or will you fall back on your theory that the world should be all flowers and bubble gum in literature and art and there is no place for such distatesful realities either?

How dare you insult those who have been touched by such tragedies with your pathetic theories and low level thinking. Go find la la land and pedal there as fast as you can. Who knows? You might be the most literate and intelligent one when you arrive - that is if you don't get hit by a double decker on your way there (because they're real too and feature in literature and art in case you want to start a thread objecting to them!)

[YesNo]

No one is making such an assumption, and it is clear you simply don't want to engage the questions I raised. I merely asked if making the best possible case for a suicidal character's thinking and motivations, that is, showing how such a character is aware of his/her own thinking and motivation about the contemplated act, might not further our understanding of a vital area of human experience and our ability to empathize with those among us in extreme emotional and physical distress. And yes, artistic integrity exists. In this case it might consist in doing one's best to see the act from the suicide's perspective, rather than using the character as a sock puppet to advocate for a particular moral or political position, as a source of superficial or lurid excitement because one believes it might sell books, or as a convenient way to tie up loose ends in a plot because one can't construct a better one. All of these latter options illustrate various deficiencies in artistic integrity.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. You may not believe that, but I am really trying to convince myself. I have learned something about "artistic integrity" from you because you mentioned the phrase and I hadn't thought of it before. Indirectly, you convinced me it doesn't exist. I know that wasn't your intent, but it doesn't matter.

I find your views interesting and I would like to continue discussions with you. It is unlikely that I will agree with you. Who cares? How boring would it be if everyone agreed with everyone else? What would we learn from the discussions?




Obviously, like anything else, suicide will be handled well by some and poorly by others and one should distinguish between instances of the former and the latter. You seem interested only in the latter.


For me that is what I like about this thread: examine the ways suicide is treated poorly and avoid them. Why should one avoid them? To make our products more marketable because they will be more enjoyable to a broader audience.

Admittedly, I am also concerned that young people are not deluded by the self-righteousness that centers around suicide. I don't want to encourage those stories in any way, nor would they be easy to market.




Whoever said you have to? You are attacking straw men of your own construction and seem to think you are making some kind of general point in doing so. I find no content in it other than the fact that you don't like stories involving suicide.

How do you know I don't like stories about suicide? I'm actually quite fascinated by stories of suicide where I can detect self-righteousness involved either with the author portraying the character in a negative way by saying the character committed suicide (Anna Karenina) or when those inane suicide-terrorists are allowed to express themselves as long as they are presented in an inane manner.

What I don't like are stories that are boring about suicide--or stories that propagate self-righteous fantasies.

[YesNo]

You're really offensive Cacian.

Well I'll just write a fictional story on incest since I know all about it first hand and am an authority on it. Will you wrinkle your nose up at that or give me the author some respect or will you fall back on your theory that the world should be all flowers and bubble gum in literature and art and there is no place for such distatesful realities either?

How dare you insult those who have been touched by such tragedies with your pathetic theories and low level thinking. Go find la la land and pedal there as fast as you can. Who knows? You might be the most literate and intelligent one when you arrive - that is if you don't get hit by a double decker on your way there (because they're real too and feature in literature and art in case you want to start a thread objecting to them!)

I am always amazed when people who are supposedly writers block out people they disagree with. These are the ones you should be paying especial attention to. They provide you with prompts.

[Delta40]

I am always amazed when people who are supposedly writers block out people they disagree with. These are the ones you should be paying especial attention to. They provide you with prompts.

Oh so now you've got a basket of supposed writers that should behave in a certain way. Did you get that from another story you were told? :frown2:

[Grit]

Suicide represents the ultimate freedom in life. What other power do we have over our lives? We choose a job like we choose which bars in a cage to lean on.

We choose what to do within the limitations put in place by others.

I saw a sign the other day that said democracy is freedom. I asked for who? The masses but not the individual.

Cacian is obviously sheltered and to some degree shallow. It's like she wants literature to mirror some dreamworld dystopia where she's chancellor of morality and everything is kept in order with good, clean, literature.

Suicide happens. It's devastating to families and friends and no one has any right to say it shouldn't be written about. Especially for the stated reason that no one can do it accurately. It's called imagination.

[Darcy88]

Hi Wyatt I do not understand what you mean by best possible case. Would you mind further explaining what you mean by this paragraph. Sorry I am understanding it sorry :)


Intergrity has no duplicity. It is an alone serving/standing concept. Committing suicide is duplicity because has to rely on it to help him her achieve their ends.

To commit suicide is to be duplicitous? Please do elaborate.


suicide is extremely intricate and very personal to each individual. One case does not could not explain to all its distress. No one could ever know what the suicide went through because they are no longer. To imagine a suicide in a book is to play on clichés of what others might have suffered and therefore it is not recognised as dealing with the issue but more propagating its distorted reality/myth.
A person who has not experienced suicide may never vouch for others who have gone to it and died.

People who have attempted suicide and failed know what its like to go through what a person who committed suicide did. And since when does an artist need to experience for him or herself what each character has experienced? Can male authors write female characters? Can someone who has never gone to war write of war? I don't see your point here.


I am not so sure a character advocates whatever it is act or not because as soon one is involved it becomes fictional and nothing else that is the idea of a story. to take suicide which a distressing reality and to imply it as being fiction is not the right way to go about it because it is a very much palpable frightening reality.

This simply makes no sense. Literature is full of "frightening palpable realities." To exclude them would be to do away with much of the canon.



I am no sure liking the story is what it is all about. I am questioning the validity of suicide within a story. Why prolonge its agony again and again in stories when life is littered with it. I do not get this concept of agonising over it when one does not know what it actually feels to commit suicide. A writer is in my views not well placed to write suicide as a fait du jour is because he or she has not experienced it. That that is integrity mystified because unless on has lived it then I am afraid it has to be pure speculations and the wrong ones no doubt.

Again, since when does an artist need to experience everything he or she portrays? I see no basis to this contention. Its silly to me.

[cafolini]

I did not see Cacian trying to get suicide out of the literature scope. She is simply telling the way she feels it. She will never present the case as censorship. Thar's all.

[Shaman_Raman]

I am always amazed when people who are supposedly writers block out people they disagree with. These are the ones you should be paying especial attention to. They provide you with prompts.

YesNo, I don't think anyone is trying to block out anyone. It's just aggravating hearing Cacian try to propose suicide in literature is in general, poor writing. It seems she wishes to ban it from being written about, which is ironic considering she posted in one thread that the greatest sin of all was "banning"...frankly, I'm more of the opinion she just likes to argue for the sake of argument, which I also think some others on here feel this way, with due reason.

As for you, I've read your posts, and respect your opinion which seems to be if I'm correct: I can enjoy a novel/story that contains suicide if it's written well, without supporting suicide. I agree to this. But that doesn't seem to be the point Cacian was bringing across in her original post, which was: "suicide as a whole is distasteful."

This thread should have been started in philosophical literature, because we're not arguing quality of writing here, were arguing morality.

[YesNo]

Oh so now you've got a basket of supposed writers that should behave in a certain way. Did you get that from another story you were told? :frown2:

From the one you are telling me.

[YesNo]

YesNo, I don't think anyone is trying to block out anyone. It's just aggravating hearing Cacian try to propose suicide in literature is in general, poor writing. It seems she wishes to ban it from being written about, which is ironic considering she posted in one thread that the greatest sin of all was "banning"...frankly, I'm more of the opinion she just likes to argue for the sake of argument, which I also think some others on here feel this way, with due reason.

As for you, I've read your posts, and respect your opinion which seems to be if I'm correct: I can enjoy a novel/story that contains suicide if it's written well, without supporting suicide. I agree to this. But that doesn't seem to be the point Cacian was bringing across in her original post, which was: "suicide as a whole is distasteful."

This thread should have been started in philosophical literature, because we're not arguing quality of writing here, were arguing morality.

I agree with cacian. Introducing suicide is poor writing. It is distasteful. It has a deus ex machina feel to it when it comes to plot construction. It has a juvenile whining quality about it. It makes one think that the author forgot to take his or her meds. But the main reason is it won't sell. She is giving you good reasons why it won't sell and it is better to pay attention to what people like her are saying than waste your time writing about "deep reality" which is little more than shallow, self-righteous fantasy.

There is no reason to be aggravated by anyone on these forums, but if somebody enjoys getting aggravated, that's fine. Others can watch and be entertained and perhaps incorporate the perceived aggravation into a new story or poem. Theoretically we are all writers here and we are all prompts for other writers.

By the way, I finished writing a story about a suicide last year. It was about a chicken who killed herself by walking up to a dog and letting the dog grab her head in his mouth and spin her around in the air breaking her neck. It's a true story. I'm trying to make sense out of it--and rewrite it, because, frankly, it sucks and I think I owe that chicken better. This thread has helped.

[Darcy88]

I agree with cacian. Introducing suicide is poor writing. It is distasteful. It has a deus ex machina feel to it when it comes to plot construction. It has a juvenile whining quality about it. It makes one think that the author forgot to take his or her meds. But the main reason is it won't sell. She is giving you good reasons why it won't sell and it is better to pay attention to what people like her are saying than waste your time writing about "deep reality" which is little more than shallow, self-righteous fantasy.


Yep, you're so right. That's exactly how I would characterize Tolstoy and his masterpiece Anna Karenina.

[Grit]

I agree with cacian. Introducing suicide is poor writing. It is distasteful. It has a deus ex machina feel to it when it comes to plot construction. It has a juvenile whining quality about it. It makes one think that the author forgot to take his or her meds. But the main reason is it won't sell.

I agree with practically every other word in your post.

Code Geass is an anime that came out in the last few years, is wildly popular and highly rated by fans and critics alike.

Warning Code Geass Spoilers

I will start by saying I don't really like anime. All I care about is story. CG has an awesome story.

At the end, the MC commits suicide but it's very well done. In context, his suicide was selfless and completed his arc. It was an unfotgettable ending, unexpected and Id consider it great writing.

The show sold BIG. Multiple movies and a new series came from it.

I don't think it's fair to say one subject matter is bad writing. It's not what it's about, it's how it's about it.

[Darcy88]

Shakespeare portrayed a lot of suicides. Flaubert's masterpiece ends in suicide. As does Tolstoy's. As does Victor Hugo's. Goethe is another. Doestoevsky. Woolf. The list goes on and on.

It is laughable to question suicide's portrayal in literature when the greatest writers of all time have featured it prominently in their masterworks.

[cacian]

Shakespeare portrayed a lot of suicides. Flaubert's masterpiece ends in suicide. As does Tolstoy's. As does Victor Hugo's. Goethe is another. Doestoevsky. Woolf. The list goes on and on.

It is laughable to question suicide's portrayal in literature when the greatest writers of all time have featured it prominently in their masterworks.

Well of course these writers did what they knew best and see there is that one similarity running through all of their work which stands out like a sore thumb. It makes them all in effect of the same calibre and not at all different from each other. They all chose suicide as a theme to their stories. It must tell you something no? and with all the greatest respect to these greatest writers and no one is questioning their greatness that is definetely not the point of this thread.
You mention the word 'laughable' and I think it is rather laughable that no one ever question literature and what it present us with and that is the greatest dilemma. One writes one reads and one also one must think aboutwhat one is reading and writing.
It is ironic because we question rules and laws and put safety barriers to stop people from offending and we also inspect our food and bring health and safety measures and yet no one object to literature that incorporate violence child abuse and suicide. There is a double edge sword there stand a hypocrisy and if we think we are to ever conduct a life in a normal safe environment then we are all fooling ourselves.

[WyattGwyon]

Yep, you're so right. That's exactly how I would characterize Tolstoy and his masterpiece Anna Karenina.

Not to mention worthless scribblings like Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment and The Possessed, and Hugo's Toilers of the Sea.

[Grit]

I think all idyllic literature should be banned. It creates an unrealistic standard and leads to suicide and terrorism.

Literature is supposed to be like real life, and real life is far from idyllic, but cus of idyllic literature, many will think the universe is idyllic.

When that idyllicism is face on face with reality, things implode inside the mind. Bolts unbolt. Hinges...unhinge.

It's truly unpalatable that idyllic literature is written in my opinion.

[hannah_arendt]

However we sometimes want to read something enabling us to forget about the real life.

[cacian]

YesNo, I don't think anyone is trying to block out anyone. It's just aggravating hearing Cacian try to propose suicide in literature is in general, poor writing. It seems she wishes to ban it from being written about, which is ironic considering she posted in one thread that the greatest sin of all was "banning"...frankly, I'm more of the opinion she just likes to argue for the sake of argument, which I also think some others on here feel this way, with due reason.

As for you, I've read your posts, and respect your opinion which seems to be if I'm correct: I can enjoy a novel/story that contains suicide if it's written well, without supporting suicide. I agree to this. But that doesn't seem to be the point Cacian was bringing across in her original post, which was: "suicide as a whole is distasteful."

This thread should have been started in philosophical literature, because we're not arguing quality of writing here, were arguing morality.

About banning I think you are again misunderstanding the point of this thread.
I am not suggesting banning it I am putting to you as I feel about it and I am trying to say that perhaps suicide in literature is not the right way to go about story and writing in generals because readers are different and will react differently to different subjects.
I picked suicide because that was the most obvious thing to do. The reason is that it is a real tragedy and one must tread carefully when associating fictional character with it. To write a book for all to read and and assume that every reader is going to reflect in the same way as everyone else a cliché.

The other thing is you mention that I argue for the sake arguing that is simply untrue. This is not an argument but something I thought very carefully about. It has many times crossed my mind that it was not right. It felt wrong to me to read stories with characters committing suicide especially in a manner that advocated heroism or just something done as a mean to get rid off a character. We do not do that in real life get rid off people we decide we do not want to be friend with and so I started this thread.
The point of a discussion is to talk about issues and hear everyone else's thoughts and reactions regardless of whether we like what we hear or disagree for that matter. We could never possibly all agree or disagree all at the same time because we are all different.
So whilst we tolerate each other we must also be able to express opinions different from other or similar. That is the essence of any discussion. Arguments are justified when it comes to are very important to our lives. That is how I conduct life by communicating and literature is one the greatest forum for ideas and intellectual development.

[Darcy88]

It is ironic because we question rules and laws and put safety barriers to stop people from offending and we also inspect our food and bring health and safety measures and yet no one object to literature that incorporate violence child abuse and suicide. There is a double edge sword there stand a hypocrisy and if we think we are to ever conduct a life in a normal safe environment then we are all fooling ourselves.

So what are you actually saying? That literature should not deal with life's toughest realities? That suicide, violence, and things painful as child abuse shouldn't be written about? There are plenty of safe sanitized novels out there for one who would rather not delve into the darker corners of human nature. No one is forcing you to read these books.

After 8 pages of this thread I have yet to encounter a rational convincing argument against suicide's portrayal in literature. Suicide works in literature. There are too many masterpieces of fiction which feature it for it to be otherwise. One of my favourite stories in all literature is that of Kirilov in Dostoevsky's novel The Possessed who has philosophically proven to himself that he must end his own life. Would Romeo and Juliet be so powerful a story without that tragic ending? I don't think so. And this holds true for countless great works which contain suicide.

[hillwalker]

I agree with cacian. Introducing suicide is poor writing. It is distasteful.

I think you and cacian should drive off together into the sunset and live happily ever after in your fantasy world.
All this thread has achieved is reveal how shallow you both are.

Maybe all books should carry a government health warning. That seems to be what you are advocating. Shameful behaviour on a supposed 'Literature' forum.

H

[YesNo]

Yep, you're so right. That's exactly how I would characterize Tolstoy and his masterpiece Anna Karenina.

About Anna Karenina, I wonder if Tolstoy is using suicide as a punishment for her, giving her what she deserves for her adulterous activity. I was also thinking of Maugham's Rain which portrayed a missionary committing suicide after converting a prostitute and then wanting to have sex with her. Suicide is used in these stories as a way to portray the character negatively, giving the fantasy character a fantasy they deserve. Dante would have just sent them to hell.

In considering this thread, I think suicide can be used in various ways in literature:

1) The person committing suicide is self-righteously punishing others, for example, the 20-something's mommy bothered him and so he takes her gun, kills her and wipes out a class of 5-year-olds in the local school, or the Buddhist monk immolates himself to condemn his political enemy--(this one is amazing, if that's what meditating up the yingyang gets you, I'd want nothing to do with it)--the Muslim with bombs around his waist wants to make sure everyone sees his sacrifice and so he blows up as many kids as he can. All of the stories you see on the news are stories and they do sell, so I guess you're right--I've learned something again--suicide does sell.

2) Suicide is used by the author to condemn the character's action. I already mentioned Maugham and Tolstoy, but this is a self-righteous act as well, except now it is the author's self-righteousness against the character.

3) Suicide can be the result of grief and here I think of Sophie's Choice.

4) Suicide can be used as a way to get rid of the elderly and the terminally ill. I still can't remember the name of the Canadian movie that featured this as an ending.

5) Suicide can be the side-effect of an act of heroism. Here I am thinking of Sucker Punch which I saw recently. Quite entertaining, but I don't count this as "suicide".

[YesNo]

I think you and cacian should drive off together into the sunset and live happily ever after in your fantasy world.
All this thread has achieved is reveal how shallow you both are.

Maybe all books should carry a government health warning. That seems to be what you are advocating. Shameful behaviour on a supposed 'Literature' forum.

H

Cacian has provided me with many valuable direct prompts both in the poetry games sections and in the threads she has started.

Others provide me with indirect prompts that I pick up from the way they behave.

[YesNo]

I think all idyllic literature should be banned. It creates an unrealistic standard and leads to suicide and terrorism.

Literature is supposed to be like real life, and real life is far from idyllic, but cus of idyllic literature, many will think the universe is idyllic.

When that idyllicism is face on face with reality, things implode inside the mind. Bolts unbolt. Hinges...unhinge.

It's truly unpalatable that idyllic literature is written in my opinion.

I normally get bored with graphic novels, but I'll see if I can find Code Geass in the library. I assume it is like real life. I did like Victoria Roberts' After the Fall.

As far as not liking idyllic literature, did you see Sucker Punch?

[Grit]

I normally get bored with graphic novels, but I'll see if I can find Code Geass in the library. I assume it is like real life. I did like Victoria Roberts' After the Fall.

As far as not liking idyllic literature, did you see Sucker Punch?

CG is a tv series, I still recommend it.

I did see Sucker Punch, I thought it was trashy garbage. A lot of rediculous fight scenes, a paper thin story and lots of sex explored through abuse and slow-mo pantie shots.

[cacian]

CG is a tv series, I still recommend it.

I did see Sucker Punch, I thought it was trashy garbage. A lot of rediculous fight scenes, a paper thin story and lots of sex explored through abuse and slow-mo pantie shots.

Nah I'd say that was just a pantie add no less.
Talking of sex scenes in films in general I am surprised they do not have any condoms in full view. It is one to sell them and wanting people to use them and it is another to shoot sex scenes without the condom concept. I am surprised at the lack of consistency between reality and the works of fiction. There is one opportunity missed to teach viewers protected sex. I am not sure I get it.:yesnod:

[Volya]

Nah I'd say that was just a pantie add no less.
Talking of sex scenes in films in general I am surprised they do not have any condoms in full view. It is one to sell them and wanting people to use them and it is another to shoot sex scenes without the condom concept. I am surprised at the lack of consistency between reality and the works of fiction. There is one opportunity missed to teach viewers protected sex. I am not sure I get it.:yesnod:

It's because people don't want to see condoms.

[Grit]

Nah I'd say that was just a pantie add no less.
Talking of sex scenes in films in general I am surprised they do not have any condoms in full view. It is one to sell them and wanting people to use them and it is another to shoot sex scenes without the condom concept. I am surprised at the lack of consistency between reality and the works of fiction. There is one opportunity missed to teach viewers protected sex. I am not sure I get it.:yesnod:

They don't teach safe sex in movies because that'd be didactic and it wouldn't be "cool", thus it wouldn't sell.

Hollywood cares only about it's profits, not art or the quality of film nor the well being of society.

[cacian]

It's because people don't want to see condoms.

Well I did not mean for the condoms to be used explicitly but just somewhere where one can see them. Anyway why would not people want to see them? :)

[cacian]

They don't teach safe sex in movies because that'd be didactic and it wouldn't be "cool", thus it wouldn't sell.

Hollywood cares only about it's profits, not art or the quality of film nor the well being of society.

Not cool? Ok that is new to me. It is not cool to not use protection in my world and so I guess television is definitely a different world from mine.

[YesNo]

CG is a tv series, I still recommend it.

I did see Sucker Punch, I thought it was trashy garbage. A lot of rediculous fight scenes, a paper thin story and lots of sex explored through abuse and slow-mo pantie shots.

I couldn't find CG in the library, perhaps it is on the internet. I liked Sucker Punch. It is my example now of heroic sacrifice where one person risks losing their life for another. There are many of these. I don't consider this suicide. There's a good chance these will be profitable.

Here are two more categories of literature (including movies) that discuss suicide.

1) Metaphysical despair movies such as Melancholia. In this movie the earth is swallowed up by the rogue planet Melancholia. It was well done and probably made money, but the message was that we should all just kill ourselves and since we won't the universe is doing it for us. (Edit: I checked IMDb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1527186/ It budged $7 million and grossed $3 million)

2) Then there are psychic stories of communicating with a deceased person who has committed suicide. Usually these have a more positive metaphysics associated with them. I suspect they also sell well enough.

I found Code Geass on youtube. Here's the ending: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2WTEnevdPs

[Grit]

I couldn't find CG in the library, perhaps it is on the internet. I liked Sucker Punch. It is my example now of heroic sacrifice where one person risks losing their life for another. There are many of these. I don't consider this suicide. There's a od chance these will be profitable.

Here are two more categories of literature (including movies) that discuss suicide.

1) Metaphysical despair movies such as Melancholia. In this movie the earth is swallowed up by the rogue planet Melancholia. It was well done and probably made money, but the message was that we should all just kill ourselves and since we won't the universe is doing it for us. (Edit: I checked IMDb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1527186/ It budged $7 million and grossed $3 million)

2) Then there are psychic stories of communicating with a deceased person who has committed suicide. Usually these have a more positive metaphysics associated with them. I suspect they also sell well enough.

I found Code Geass on youtube. Here's the ending: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2WTEnevdPs

Man even watching that clip starts making me emotional. Thanks for posting.

This has been a thought provoking thread for me. In regards to number two on your list, it reminds me of an idea I was very committed to recently. It was to be a story about the life of an extremely intelligent psychopath told through the eyes of his mothers ghost. I gave up on it because, get this, I thought it was too dark to sell. A bit off topic but related to the after life communication story you allude to.

I thought sucker punch had a great concept that was poorly executed although I can see why you would like it and you're certainly not alone.

FWIW, CG has a 8.9/10 rating on imdb which is pretty impressive imo, but probably a bit inflated by biased anime fanatics.

[YesNo]

Man even watching that clip starts making me emotional. Thanks for posting.

This has been a thought provoking thread for me. In regards to number two on your list, it reminds me of an idea I was very committed to recently. It was to be a story about the life of an extremely intelligent psychopath told through the eyes of his mothers ghost. I gave up on it because, get this, I thought it was too dark to sell. A bit off topic but related to the after life communication story you allude to.

I thought sucker punch had a great concept that was poorly executed although I can see why you would like it and you're certainly not alone.

FWIW, CG has a 8.9/10 rating on imdb which is pretty impressive imo, but probably a bit inflated by biased anime fanatics.

I watched the entire Avatar series at the request of my niece some years ago. I told her I liked Cameron's movie Avatar and she was setting me straight. It was interesting enough to watch the whole thing.

The idea of the mother's ghost telling her son's story might have merit. You can always revisit it later. Dark need not be bad. The problem with suicide in fiction is that it bores and may even annoy because it does not uplift the reader.

I like to emphasize how well something sells to bring literature discussions back down to earth, but I would be mainly interested in whether a story entertained enough readers.

There might be a third category of metaphysical suicide themes that would work in literature that these anime series bring to mind. It would include the Jesus story that was discussed earlier. This would be a hero who allow himself or herself to die to bring about a greater good. The sacrifice would have to have huge consequences, not just saving someone else from a burning building and losing one's own life in the process.

[Shaman_Raman]

As far as appealing to the reader, I suppose suicide through self sacrifice could work...But I feel that a reader that would be bored or turned off by suicide could still raise the question: why does self sacrifice have to necessarily be suicide? I understand the idea behind Jesus´s sacrifice, but what other huge effect could a suicide have toward the greater good?

I just have on other problem with this...in this thread, there's been a debate back and forth that suicide in literature is either distasteful or effective if well-written. If suicide is posed as a valiant, self-sacrificial act for the good of others, won't this have a worse effect on the nature of it? It's like saying there's a positive and negative form of suicide.

[YesNo]

Reconsidering it, I don't think associating suicide with self-sacrifice would work. The victim would have to be killed by unavoidable circumstances or someone else. So it wouldn't really be a suicide.

[Grit]

I think it's important to consider context when determining the viability of suicide as a good turn in a story.

If a character really, really, wanted to live and they had been established as a selfish, greedy person than suicide could, under the right circumstances, provide both a "for the better" character arc and a conclusion to the plot.

Obviously it'd need to be the last option, almost inconsiderable, but the only choice to overcome the conflict. It could actually be very uplifting, seeing a character give what they want more than anything away for the greater good.

Just my opinion, but I think suicide, like any topic, could be uplifting and entertaining if handled right. It is a more sensitive topic than most but that doesn't mean it couldn't work very well if handled properly.

[Grit]

Consider this;

Would you kill yourself if it would abolish world hunger for the rest of time?

Purely hypothetical, and not realistic, but a tough question all the same. I'd think someone choosing to make that sacrifice would be very inspiring. Not someone who wanted to kill themselves but someone who didn't, someone who always chose themselves first in the past.

[Darcy88]

Consider this;

Would you kill yourself if it would abolish world hunger for the rest of time?

Purely hypothetical, and not realistic, but a tough question all the same. I'd think someone choosing to make that sacrifice would be very inspiring. Not someone who wanted to kill themselves but someone who didn't, someone who always chose themselves first in the past.

I'd say yes. And call me naive but I think many, many others would as well.

[YesNo]

Consider this;

Would you kill yourself if it would abolish world hunger for the rest of time?

Purely hypothetical, and not realistic, but a tough question all the same. I'd think someone choosing to make that sacrifice would be very inspiring. Not someone who wanted to kill themselves but someone who didn't, someone who always chose themselves first in the past.

I remember working with a woman many years ago who announced to the rest of the team that she would kill herself if it would do humanity good. She was expressing a noble intent and she seemed sincere. Of course she never did (to my knowledge) because the if part of the statement could never be verified. I don't know if anyone around her took this seriously. I certainly didn't.

Characters such as hers could work in a story, but I think they would appear delusional to the reader if they actually committed suicide. Prior to any suicide these characters could be comic relief in the story.

A lot of the suicides that one sees are people who believe the if statement has been verified. To take the most obvious example, the Buddhist monk who immolates himself or herself thinks this will do good. What it does is puts in question Buddhism itself. Even the young man who killed himself recently after shooting up a class of 5-year-olds probably thought he was justified. He needed a lot of death for his own suicide to be visible.

So, I don't think a story would work from the perspective of such a person alone. The author would have to portray that character as deluded to not alienate the reader.

[Ecurb]

The flip side of the suicide hypothetical about world hunger is, "Would you murder an innocent person if it would abolish world hunger for all time?" It seems to me that if you wouldn't answer, "Yes" to this question, you shouldn't commit suicide to abolish world hunger, either. Of course to a Christian, the answer is clear. Thou shalt not kill. To the non-religious, the answer appears as if it should be clear as well -- the principle of greatest good for the greatest number would seem to support either the suicide or the murder. But does it? Is death the "evil" that should be prevented at all cost? The Christian (or Muslim) would say that death is a gift from God -- while murder (or suicide) is a sin because it involves willful disobedience. But none of us, religious or atheist, can escape death. If we don't die from hunger, it just means we will die from cancer, or heart disease. And although we cannot escape death, we can, perhaps, avoid murdering others, not because their death by murder is so much worse than their death from any other cause, but because of the moral harm we do to ourselves by murdering someone.

[Volya]

The flip side of the suicide hypothetical about world hunger is, "Would you murder an innocent person if it would abolish world hunger for all time?" It seems to me that if you wouldn't answer, "Yes" to this question, you shouldn't commit suicide to abolish world hunger, either.

But those are two completely different situations. It's up to you if you feel you are willing to voluntarily give your own life, whereas killing somebody to do it is taking away the 'voluntarily' bit and forcing somebody to do it.

[Ecurb]

Obviously the situations are different, but they are also similar. In both, the question is would you kill someone in order to save thousands of people? Or, more generally, is it a good, moral act to kill one person to save thousands? If it is a good, moral act, why not murder someone (if it would hypothetically save thousands)? If it is not a good, moral act why commit suicide?

[Volya]

In the case of suicide, the person dying is willingly dying.
In the case of murder, the person dying is NOT willingly dying.

[Ecurb]

That's true, of course. But why is that the only relevant factor? The principle of "greatest good for the greatest number" would suggest that both the murder and the suicide were moral acts. And, of course, in both cases the moral agent (the hypothetical me) is killing in order to support this principle. (I assume the thousands starving to death aren't "willingly dying" either.)

[cacian]

Obviously the situations are different, but they are also similar. In both, the question is would you kill someone in order to save thousands of people? Or, more generally, is it a good, moral act to kill one person to save thousands? If it is a good, moral act, why not murder someone (if it would hypothetically save thousands)? If it is not a good, moral act why commit suicide?

no I would not kill for anything because ultimately one advocating killing no matter what the cause is and that is the bottom line.
It is not about morality it is about the message one is sending to others. If one does it then another will.

[Ecurb]

I go along with Cacian (we knew where you stood on the issue, Cacian). On the other hand, I think all three choices are reasonable: Neither murder nor commit suicide; commit suicide but refrain from murder; or kill both oneself and another person. It's interesting to suss out where the distinctions lie, though. Suppose it wasn't your choice. Suppose your child (OK, the non parents can think of, perhaps, a lover) had the option of committing suicide to prevent starvation? Would you want him to do it? (The starvation option is a little strange, because most of us could prevent starvation by simply living less expensively and giving away our money, but it's a reasonable hypothetical if we ignore that troublesome truth.)

In World War 2, statistics show that Kamikaze attacks were an effective tactic. In other words, the Japanese sank more ships per pilot killed using Kamikaze attacks than they did with traditional bombing. If your country were at war, and it became clear that the same statistics continue to hold, would you advocate Kamikaze attacks? On what principle would you NOT recommend them?

[WyattGwyon]

I go along with Cacian (we knew where you stood on the issue, Cacian). On the other hand, I think all three choices are reasonable: Neither murder nor commit suicide; commit suicide but refrain from murder; or kill both oneself and another person. It's interesting to suss out where the distinctions lie, though. Suppose it wasn't your choice. Suppose your child (OK, the non parents can think of, perhaps, a lover) had the option of committing suicide to prevent starvation? Would you want him to do it? (The starvation option is a little strange, because most of us could prevent starvation by simply living less expensively and giving away our money, but it's a reasonable hypothetical if we ignore that troublesome truth.)

Sorry, but no, it is a silly hypothetical no matter how you cut it.


In World War 2, statistics show that Kamikaze attacks were an effective tactic. In other words, the Japanese sank more ships per pilot killed using Kamikaze attacks than they did with traditional bombing.

That doesn't make it an effective tactic unless one has an unlimited supply of planes and an unlimited supply of pilots too stupid to realize their leaders are out of rational tactics. They didn't and they didn't.


If your country were at war, and it became clear that the same statistics continue to hold, would you advocate Kamikaze attacks? On what principle would you NOT recommend them?

On the principle that it is a desperate, dead-end tactic. Both the missile (plane) and the guidance system (pilot) are too expensive to make this sustainable—ever.

[Ecurb]

That doesn't make it an effective tactic unless one has an unlimited supply of planes and an unlimited supply of pilots too stupid to realize their leaders are out of rational tactics. They didn't and they didn't.



On the principle that it is a desperate, dead-end tactic. Both the missile (plane) and the guidance system (pilot) are too expensive to make this sustainable—ever.


That's not true. If bombing is an effective tactic (which admits of some doubt, but it's a reasonable hyopthetical), then it is certainly possible (indeed, it appears to have been the case in WW2) that Kamikaze attacks inflict MORE TONNAGE of Ships sunk (the goal of this type of bombing) per plane and pilot lost than conventional bombing. Why would a more efficient tactic in terms of inflicting damage on the enemy, which reduces the losses needed to inflict that damage be "too expensive to be sustainable --ever." This makes no sense.

(I'm not an expert on Kamikaze attacks, but I read an analysis by someone who claimed to be an expert and made this exact case for the WW2 kamikaze attacks. Of course the war was pretty much lost by the time Japan started using this tactic, but if continuing to bomb conventionally cost more casualties in terms of planes and pilots lost per tonnage sunk, why would it be a superior tactic to Kamikaze attacks? You would certainly not need an "unlimited supply of planes..and pilots" using the more efficient tactic any more than you would using the less efficient one. )

eta: Suppose you were a Japanese pilot. The goal of your squadron was to sink X tons of U.S. shipping off Okinowa. There are two options: conventional bombing, or kamikaze attacks. You know that in order to sink X tons using conventional bombing, 30% of your squadron's planes will be shot down and the pilots will be killed. You also know that you can sink the required tonnage using kamikaze attacks, and will stage a lottery to deterimine who will fly the planes. In addition, since Kamikaze attacks are more efficient, the lottery will choose 15 of 100 men for the Kamikaze attacks. So in one case 30 men die, in the other 15 die. Which squadron would you prefer to be a member of?

[Shaman_Raman]

Could that 30 percent really be pin-pointed? I ask with this thought about your scenario. The 15 pilots assigned the kamikaze attack will be dead with certainty. However, it can't really be determined if 30 actual pilots would die under the alternative, because it's all chance. Where one route is a sure means to death, the others unknown.

However, I don't doubt that the U.S. had a much stronger military. Casualties on the Japanese were bound to be high, so kamikaze attacks probably a last resort tactic. I don't think superior is the right word, because it's really an act out of desperation, not superior intelligence.

It's a general philosophy that's covered in different clothes today. Jihadists wouldn't dream of engaging in a full on ground war, they don't have the man power and resources in a large enough quantity. No, instead they'll send one of their own into "enemy" territory and push the red button. Smart? Maybe, or just desperate and pathetic, especially how little you value the lives of your side. Or maybe my own personal morality is swinging me biased here, but any party willing to go to such lengths for victory must install fear into their own party, and it seems the whole thing would crumble from there.

It's like, "so who's the bad guy: the enemy I'm supposed to kill, or my friends and allies that keep telling me I have to die for their lives and success?".

[Ecurb]

Like I said, I don't really know if the article I read was correct or not -- but it definitely posited that Kamikazes sank more tonnage of shipping per pilot and plane lost than conventional bombing. Of course you are also correct, Shaman, that the past never predicts the future with 100% accuracy, so when PLANNING tactics, there is some uncertainty. However, after sending hundreds of air squadrons on bombing missions, it's reasonable to trust the statistics.

Nonetheless, I don't think Western airmen would go for Kamikaze attacks. It goes against our ethos, even if it is a more effecient and effective tactic that would save pilots' lives in the long run.

[Grit]

Suppose your child (OK, the non parents can think of, perhaps, a lover) had the option of committing suicide to prevent starvation? Would you want him to do it?


This is where it becomes hard. I used to believe that suicide was totally fine and was mystified as to why it was so taboo. Then I thought of the family, loved ones and friends of the person who would kill themselves and I began to understand. Suicide is a very selfish act, it scars and traumatizes the loved ones. It's hard for many not to blame themselves when a loved one kills themselves. I can absolutely see that side of the argument.

It also makes the likelihood of that hypothetical much lower in my opinion. Many people would sacrifice themselves for a greater cause if that's where the pain ends but if they started considering family, especially a parent with children, I think it starts to become impossible. As much as you'd be doing good for the whole, you'd be leaving your child without a parent.

All this said, I still think it could be a very strong aspect of a story if done well. The subject would have to be of a character totally opposed to suicide and the gain would have to be massive for it to work, though.

[Grit]

Also, this thread reminds me of the watchmen. It explores this theme of weighing one life against many. Rorsach is murdered for the good of the whole, to prevent global war and for all the right reasons. He isn't a particularly good person and yet it feels very wrong.

All the more satisfying when the news outlet finds his journal at the end.

[Volya]

Also, this thread reminds me of the watchmen. It explores this theme of weighing one life against many. Rorsach is murdered for the good of the whole, to prevent global war and for all the right reasons. He isn't a particularly good person and yet it feels very wrong.

All the more satisfying when the news outlet finds his journal at the end.

Rorschach... not a good person...? What is this blasphemy...

[Grit]

Rorschach... not a good person...? What is this blasphemy...

I guess saying he isn't a good person is too simple. Would you want to hang out with him? I sure as hell wouldn't. He's got good intentions, but he's extreme, very violent.

I wouldn't call him a good person.

[cacian]

Also, this thread reminds me of the watchmen. It explores this theme of weighing one life against many. Rorsach is murdered for the good of the whole, to prevent global war and for all the right reasons. He isn't a particularly good person and yet it feels very wrong.

All the more satisfying when the news outlet finds his journal at the end.

Rorschach I wonder what this name mean. also what about his journal?

[Volya]

The name comes from the Rorschach ink-blot tests. I don't think you'd like the Watchmen cacian, much too dark for somebody who doesn't want suicide in novels :p

I would call him a good person, he is quite violent, but he uses violence for justice. (Getting slightly off-topic here...)

[cacian]

The name comes from the Rorschach ink-blot tests. I don't think you'd like the Watchmen cacian, much too dark for somebody who doesn't want suicide in novels :p

I would call him a good person, he is quite violent, but he uses violence for justice. (Getting slightly off-topic here...)

LOL thanks Volya I think I know what you mean although about the ink-blot tests what a weird thing to do to test people perceptions through random ink formations.:)

[WyattGwyon]

That's not true. If bombing is an effective tactic (which admits of some doubt, but it's a reasonable hyopthetical), then it is certainly possible (indeed, it appears to have been the case in WW2) that Kamikaze attacks inflict MORE TONNAGE of Ships sunk (the goal of this type of bombing) per plane and pilot lost than conventional bombing. Why would a more efficient tactic in terms of inflicting damage on the enemy, which reduces the losses needed to inflict that damage be "too expensive to be sustainable --ever." This makes no sense.

Because both their conventional bombing methods and kamikaze attacks were hopelessly inefficient. Neither was sustainable. They needed a better way to attack shipping.

[Ecurb]

Because both their conventional bombing methods and kamikaze attacks were hopelessly inefficient. Neither was sustainable. They needed a better way to attack shipping.

That's certainly likely, since Japan used both tactics and lost the war anyway. However, we can't infer from this that using planes to attack shipping could never be successful. And if it were successful, kamikaze might be the most effective and efficient way to go (if you could persuade your pilots to do it.) I also don't think you can automatically assume that both Japanese tactics were "hopelessly inefficient" just because they didn't work in the long run. The tactics weren't sustainable because Japan lacked the resources of the U.S., not because their tactics were inefficient (although, of course, all tactics, given human fallibility, are less than perfectly efficient). Still, the best possible tactics don't always lead to victory against a superior force.

[cafolini]

Take a look at the F35.

[synodbio]

at which point does suicide concept in novels become the ultimate sweeping weapon to a writer own confessional boot.
Is there a hidden meaning another agenda behind it?
I find suicide harrowing in books and the fact that its concept is made famous/infamous in many books is all the most uneasy.
'Romeo and Juliet' comes to mind 'Love in the Time of Cholera' is another.
Suicide is dynamically painful and is perhaps the focal point of weakness as far as writing is concerned.
To write is to create characteristics and ideas and to introduce suicide as an additive dose does the opposite it dismantles the kudos of inventive creativity.
Killing off a character a work of fiction in a suicide act sounds rather inquisitive. Why would a writer presuppose it to be acceptable or rational when in fact it demonstrates hopelessness an indisposition of characteristics ambivalent to otherwise amenable approachable likeable characters .
A character tragedy can reajust and start again. Different circumstances make for new changes much awaited for.
when I think suicide in books I think the 'throw in the towel' expression or giving up is another way of addressing it.

So the question is this

Is suicide rational for a story that could hold together beautifully even after a tragic or a loss?
'Gone With The Wind' is One'. No suicide just separation and time is your pillar.

But, how do these deaths affect the lives of the other characters in the story? Tragedy and death gives way to further tragic consequences...

[YesNo]

But, how do these deaths affect the lives of the other characters in the story? Tragedy and death gives way to further tragic consequences...

It should lead to some resolution, but when it doesn't the art is bad.

I just saw the film Small Apartments based on Chris Millis' novel. One of the characters at the end commits suicide for no reason. When I saw that, I thought of this thread and thought that was a pretty lame thing to have a character do. The other characters in the story were doing stupid things as well mixed with "deep" sentimentality related to
"The Answer" at the end. The words "artsy-fartsy" and "juvenile" came to mind to describe the plot.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1272886/

[islandclimber]

Why should suicide lead to some resolution in literature? It doesn't always lead to a resolution in life. Besides the fact the suicide is dead, and that's a pretty grand resolution. People frequently commit suicide with little or no warning signs. Occasionally even generally happy people off themselves in drunken depressions. It doesn't make sense, there is seemingly no reason behind it, but life is absurd, so why should literature be any less so.