Thread: What Right do Writers Have to Depict Suffering?

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?

I think if an author adds such material simple because "oh yeah that'll sell!" then I understand your sentiment. However, just because one may be writing fiction doesn't mean that a message isn't trying to be spread through writing. In that regard, it could be considered that writers have a duty to depict suffering.

What do they want to write?

If they want to write misery then they probably don't need to go any further than the bathroom mirror.

If they have the wanderlust then they don't want a security firm cramping their style.

I have great respect for true investigative reporters with guts. There is a need for them and perhaps, unfortunately, their average life span is relatively short. Perhaps the best are unsung.

I always knew Superman wasn't real, but I always assumed Lois Lane and Jimmy Olsen were.

Life is strange and who knows what twists and turns that fate may have in store?

Who knows what they'll find in the bathroom mirror if they look hard enough, or in their backyard?

I’m not sure what you mean by “right.” Perhaps a line might be crossed if the writer inserts himself into things to the extent that it might endanger someone or make the situation worse -- but other than that, what's the problem? If writers didn't depict suffering, we wouldn't be left with much to read -- instruction manuals or bus schedules, maybe.

You've been very vague when you says writers. If you mean writers of fiction, then we have all the right in the world. We make stories up, and if they are influenced by true tragedy or events, try proving it anyway. Where else do writers of fiction find inspiration than from the truth? Like stonefly rightly says, most of that comes from our own experiences anyway. But if I witness something that moves me, I might write a story as a result.

Often the victims aren't alive to write their story, or are suppressed so can't.

There is a right way and a wrong way to do things. I think it would be in lousy taste for a fiction writer to turn up at a tragedy and start excitedly grilling the victims with questions so that they can write a book. However, to see a story on the news and be inspired to write a story using an event from life, I don't think that's a negative thing. If anything it validates that the tragedy was terrible and it shouldn't be easily passed over and forgotten. It can be a way to honor people even if they're not named.

A news story can go by so quickly, raise a stir, incite comment, but then be forgotten the next week. A strong story that uses the same subject matter can draw the reader into the center of it and I think it lingers in the consciousness a lot longer.

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.

Loulou - I must respectfully disagree with the idea that fiction writers have 'all the right in the world' to delve into the heart of darkness and use the suffering of others just to sell books. My motive for going to the places where I spent so many years was to tell the story. Of money and fame there was little, but of satisfaction there was a measure shaken down and running over. I am lucky to have reached my alloted three-score years and ten relatively undamaged, while some of my colleagues died in the mud with notebook or camera in hand. If I turn to writing fiction there is little chance I will dwell on the events of those years because even now there is a reluctance on my part to turn the pain of others to profit for myself. There are many other memories of other times, enough to fill many books should I choose to try and write them.

There are today good reporters in Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, and other venues of mortal danger who demand our respect for the professional work they do. Most of them you may never know by name, but for all of them we need to show respect for laying at our doorstep the truth about the world we live in.

Others will disagree, I'm sure, but these are my feelings on the subject.

Huh? It's not about capitalizing on the suffering of others. With fiction it's about telling a story also. So what if it's based on true events? And so what if the author wants to do research that involves delving into a real-life situation? And I'd expect the author wants to sell books. No kidding. What's the ethical dilemma?

Foxee - You make a point I'd not thought of, that perhaps the telling of the story can go on, recast in a work of fiction that will have a longer shelf life than today's headlines. I'll give some thought to that.

I have drawn on my experiences a few times, as in the narrative poem 'Incident in a Mountain Town', the short poem 'Remembrance Day 2010', and the flash fiction piece 'A Man Called Changsai', so I've not ignored those years. But I doubt I'll ever play them up to any extent.

And the motivations of reporters are always 100% pure -- it has nothing to do with selling papers or magazines or ratings or winning awards. And you were paid for your efforts -- right?

Joe - Sorry, but I do see an ethical dilemma in the deliberate use of someone's suffering to make money. That's just me, and the way I was raised.

To show that suffering in an effort to alleviate that suffering is valid. To show the realities of war, famine, disaster, and poverty in the hope that one day the words and pictures may lead to a better world is a legitimate reason for risking death in a jungle mudhole. At least it was for me. Of course I was collecting the vast sums of money (ha!) paid out by wire services and magazines for the articles and pictures, but that was just the fortuitous circumstance of being paid a living wage for doing what I wanted to do anyway.

And don't get me wrong. My ethical dilemma is my own and I do not have less respect for those with different ideas.

Edit - There is also the pure adventure of it, which in my case was a big factor after five years sitting in university classrooms and libraries. I took the dried peeling from the sheep's back with the fancy lettering, gave it to my father who called me an idiot, got my seaman's card in New Orleans, hooked up with a Liberian-flagged freighter as a passenger and signed ships papers once we were clear of U.S. waters, landed some weeks later on the other side of the world, and went, as the saying goes, 'in harm's way'. I was 21 years old and immortal, as is everyone at 21.

Well, the bigger issue is, it seems you don't have any understanding of what motivates people to write fiction.

Originally Posted by JosephB

Well, the bigger issue is, it seems you don't have any understanding of what motivates people to write fiction.

Haha, you honestly think there are people who don't write for money? Look at the hypocrisy in your own statement before you presume to tell people what they understand.

HA ha. I never said fiction writers weren't motivated by money. Garza is saying that authors who write about true events are capitalizing on human suffering. I'm saying they want to tell a story -- you understand that motivation, don't you? It really goes without saying that people want sell books.