I want to talk about how “it’s all fictional” is an incredibly valid argument that I continually see overruled – or not even engaged with as an option for interpretation – in discussions about the morality of art.
We should always remember that the work of art is invariably the creation of a new world, so that the first thing we should do is to study that new world as closely as possible, approaching it as something brand new, having no obvious connection with the worlds we already know. When this new world has been closely studied, then and only then let us examine its links with other worlds, other branches of knowledge. (Nabokov)
For thousands of years, artists of all kinds have been viewed as cheats and liars (Plato, for example, wanted to throw all poets out of the Republic). Debates about the role of art in human culture will probably always be around because people have such different ideas about what constitutes that role – not only what it should be (moralist, activist, teacher, philosopher, entertainer, unbiased observer), but what its impact is.
There are those who believe that art is directly responsible for shaping the culture of which it’s a part. (Example: a sudden popularity of shows depicting violent crime is responsible for social violence.) There are those who believe that your own artistic preferences embody your desires, morality, and other aspects of your person. (Example: if you enjoy Game of Thrones, it’s because you like watching people die or reading about women being raped.) There are those who believe if you create art with a certain subject matter, you are endorsing or condoning it in real life. (Example: if you read or write a story about pedophilia, it’s because you think pedophilia is not immoral; you might even be a pedophile.)
I agree with none of these assessments – not because fiction and reality do not reflect each other, but because the relationship between them – and between the creator and their work – is far more nuanced and complex than any of those readings express.
The moral life of man forms part of the subject-matter of the artist, but the morality of art consists in the perfect use of an imperfect medium (Oscar Wilde, the Preface to The Picture of Dorian Grey)
Let’s look at, say, stories that depict murder. The series “Dexter” is about a serial killer. If you haven’t read or watched it, the title character, Dexter, is the “hero” of the story – the serial killer who preys on other serial killers.
Several people who read that book/watched the TV show claimed they committed the murders they committed because they were “inspired” by that character. If we take their confessions as true, then this is an example of a piece of fiction impacting the world, and impacting it horrifically.
But is this the common reaction to Dexter? We know that it isn’t. This was a popular show that did not influence everyone (in fact, hardly anyone) to commit murder, whether as part of a great, Dexter-like crusade or not. It is simply not a typical reaction.
More importantly, nor were the murders that supposedly resulted because of the book or show the creator’s fault. It was the murderers who made the decision to kill people; and, as we know, this is not a common reaction to reading or watching something.
Because the author wrote a book about a serial killer, does this mean he condones serial killers? Of course not. He just wrote a book. He got an idea and said, “Hey, this would make an interesting story.” That’s what writers do.
If I read that book or watch that series, does this mean that I condone murder? No way. I’m only condoning murder if I say to the people who actually committed murder, “You had the right idea in killing that person.”
If I write a story about a woman who murders her partner, does this mean I condone murder in real life? Absolutely not. It means I got an idea for a story that interested me and wrote it down. I’m not condoning anything in real life until I’m actually condoning it in real life.
If you’re thinking, “Why would you be interested in writing or reading something so immoral and disgusting?” well, there are many possibilities – because we like to think about things that upset us. Because we want to make sense of those things. Because we want to explore all their permutations. Because we just find the story or idea interesting in a fictional setting, which has its own set of rules that we create anew with every story we write. Because we want to express ourselves. Because.
If you read any story (or watch a movie or a play, see a painting or hear a song, or experience anything to do with art) and decide that what it’s depicting should be a model for your real life actions, that’s your decision and it has nothing to do with the creator. If you read something and think that its author is endorsing that behavior in real life, you are making a particular (and I believe, erroneous) statement about the role of art in human culture. Because depiction does not equal endorsement. Fiction and real life aren’t the same thing.
There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all. (Oscar Wilde, the Preface to The Picture of Dorian Grey)
The false premise that fiction is “harmful” has been used to justify the oppression of creative expression since we first started creating. It will never be any more valid than it has ever been. (It has been particularly used to justify “keeping away” young women from “harmful” material under the guise of “protecting” them, but that’s a separate issue that would take an even longer post.)
We don’t know why anyone writes what they write or what they want to accomplish with their work unless we ask them. We cannot tell anyone how to interpret a work, let alone their own work. We cannot tell anyone what a work means to them, or to anyone else. We cannot know a person by their artistic preferences. It is a clever fiction that we can.
But fiction is itself a cheat.
