Thread: What Right do Writers Have to Depict Suffering?

Last night I worked with a bloke who saw a penny on the floor. He said something like "See a penny - pick it up." and something that rhymed after it, and smiled. He was embarrassed, I think (I hope) about me seeing him pounce on it. He collects scrap copper to sell too. Lives in a council house, earns £45K p.a. But he ain't giving charity to anyone. Showers at work to save on bills. *****, when he can, at work too to save God knows what. Sometimes, he rent's out a room or two in his council house now that his kids have left (God help his lodgers wanting an extra bit of coal on the fire!). Every penny's a prisoner.

I can forgive myself for not being more charitable - a tiny amount of my wage goes to Red Cross and Dr Bernies ( couldn't be bothered to type out Bernado's with the extra letter. Oops I just did.) But the above parsimony puzzles me. Every day I wonder about it.

Whew, things seem to have heated up quite a bit. Thanks Baron for reeling it back.


Now, writing about conflict in journalism, non-fiction and fiction are very different things. I was objecting more to fiction writers, but please, share any related thoughts on this matter.

PS I'm also not trying to be a gleaming beacon of moral standard, just been thinking 'bout this for awhile.

Fiction writers use suffering for inspiration as windmills use wind to turn. Using reflections on personal experience in one’s writing is probably natural. Heck, it’s probably why writers are writers. We’re somewhat restless, almost inclined to write.
But let’s say someone decides to color in some part of their narrative that he or she has no expertise in by doing some research. Are there (should there be) limitations to what someone can write about that part?
Master spy novelist Jon Le Carre said, there are those who form an ‘aristocracy of suffering. These people have truly suffered, who have truly endured pain and humiliation to unspeakable depths. They are in a place where the rest of us simply cannot understand and cannot access. They lived through it; they experienced it directly and have to deal with it one way or another.
I feel there’s a certain disrespect by treading by, stripping bits off of interest to me from conflicts, then going on my merry way Franken-writing them into a piece. It’s like running through hallowed ground buck-naked, lol.
How can one offer one’s respects?

Originally Posted by garza

guy_faukes - I'm happy you excluded reporters from your question, otherwise you would have called into question whether most of my life's efforts were legitimate.

I knew some journalist was gonna tear me a new one if I didn’t add that little exclusion, lol

Originally Posted by guy_faukes

I feel there’s a certain disrespect by treading by, stripping bits off of interest to me from conflicts, then going on my merry way Franken-writing them into a piece. It’s like running through hallowed ground buck-naked, lol.
How can one offer one’s respects?

I knew some journalist was gonna tear me a new one if I didn’t add that little exclusion, lol

Put the bottle down.

I meant blunt

Every right.

Smooth man, real smooth.

Originally Posted by guy_faukes

Except for reporters and people involved, of course.

I was watching a documentary about an author who flew down to Central America to do some research on drug cartels and their other "activities", like kidnapping and ransoming locals as well as tourists. He talked to individuals involved, went to conflict zones, all within the safety net of a hired security firm.

So that has me thinking, do writers really have the right to step into the cesspool of people's misery just for the sake of adding more "authenticity" to their works? Are there writers who have more license to access certain atrocities than others? Should there be respects given in some way or another, and how?

Any thoughts?

Here's my take.

I'm suppose to be coauthoring a book with a friend of mine in prison on the story of his life. He's already begun writing but I have yet to start interviewing or researching anything on my end.

As I let him know through letters, exposing familial history to the public can potentially cause problems between him and his family members. What info he decides upon revealing about others (e.g., prostitution etc.) is up to him but I see no reason to publicly humiliate others. At the same time I don't think we can do the story or our efforts and goals justice if we skirt all less than flattering information.

Of course I let him know we must be sure the information is true or we can potentially be sued for libel.

This is non-fiction though but I think roughly the same applies to fiction. Actually, I would not apply as exacting standards on fiction. I personally believe we all eventually have to compromise ourselves and I believe we all sell pieces of ourselves to something - usually more than one "something." So, why not sell pieces of ourselves to fiction writers (we do it for politicians). Perhaps the roughest online pornography (genre) demonstrates this "selling of ourselves" the best. I pray to the Virgin Mary but I believe in Muslim wealth, and the wicked enjoying the love of the world. As far as I'm concerned the world is predator vs prey. I don't fear the implications of Darwinism. And I try not to let the fear of karma make a pussy out of me. Can I go to prison? Am I too weak or vulnerable to escape the killing teeth of one or more potentially dangerous persons that may be set upon me? Aside from fear of being cast into hell by God it is questions like those that really only concern me. I don't believe in "fair," only practicality.

That said... it goes against my personal ethics to financially profit off the suffering and history of another person that is alive without providing them the largest portion of the financial reward. That is if the story is a biography.

I'm motivated by money (though I feel a compulsion for whatever reason to document real stories). I remember being short, thin, with a face ravaged by acne and my reward for all those years of mocking and female rejection was not the glorious deliverance of God but self destruction through 13 years of crack addiction and all the humiliation and financial poverty (and debt with the threat of violence not "garnished wages" or court) that comes with that.

You've got men born - not made - with potentially great intellects or amazing bodies and they become pipelined through high school into college and into the professional arena only knowing winning after winning. I don't believe in "fairness" nor care to hear about it. You take what you can or get what you can. And that's all there is in life. I remember an NFL player stating something very wise on TV. Questioned if he was worth his enormous salary he stated, "It's not what you're worth but what you can get."

I believe that 100.

It is inheritly immoral to use another person as an object (soley a means to an end, such as money) because it excludes their rights as a person, however, it is strange to discuss rights and motivations in the same sense, because this isn't how rights work. Writers certainly do have the right to observe misery, theirs and others, to attain material. Do they have a right to violate the rights of others? Of course not. Is it immoral for a writer to simply go looking for stories simply for money WITHOUT REGARD for those whom he takes this information from? Yes. So long as the individuals in question are respected, I cannot condemn a mercenary artist for being a mercenary so long as he is not detracting from the healing of a victim.

I think writers absolutely have the right to record and research material, even for a fiction piece. Writers are the silent witnesses to the world around us and they record what they see every single day. When my neighbor and his wife split I watched attentively, although I will admit I hoped they would reunite, I drew from what I saw. When writing my novel I made a point of researching some very disturbing stuff so that I would have a better understanding of what I was trying to tell in my story.

Why even two days ago I wrote about a tragedy that befell my family in 1968 as my brother drown in the cold waters of the St Lawrence River. I certainly didn't do this because I was thinking. "Yeah this will sell." -I did it because I am writer and writing about even the most raw and painful details is my way of being an honest story teller. We writers are a bit voyeuristic yes, but that is the art to being writer.

As for muscling into peoples lives and not caring who you hurt in the quest for the story I would have to say that there are good reporters who have journalistic integrity, and then there are tabloid style newshounds who aren't reporters at all. I am not a reporter, but a silent witness who absorbs what he sees.

Being silent makes you a good listener and I think a good teller as well.