We are currently drawing up our posting guidelines for the archive here at WriteWords and would like to hear members' points of view on the issue of racism and sexism and other kinds of offensive writing. To what extent do you feel the site should be open to all, should we allow literally anything, where should we draw the line?

I post this in the context of our making our first request to a member to remove a piece of work, which we considered to contain gratuitous use of sexist language (some of you may have seen the heated posts here on the subject last night which we removed because they were overly personal in tone.) The member in question has now agreed to withdraw the work, but I understand and hope he will remain part of the site - and will join in with your comments below.

The point I expressed to this member was that we, the WriteWords owners, are effectively acting as your online 'publisher'. We are responsible for the content and appearance of the site, and decisions made about these matters are equivalent to editorial decisions. The site is after all a business, and whilst we take great pride in the high level of artistic input and discussion on the site, frankly it would not exist if we could not make what is actually a very modest amount of income from the subscriptions. Hosting such a site in itself costs several hundred pounds a month. For the site to be a success - which means, for it to carry on existing at all - it needs to operate within certain restraints in much the same way as a newspaper, or indeed a theatre company.

But what exactly should these restraints be?

Well I suppose it should be me who gets the ball rolling. Firtly I want to apologise to everyone for my outburts last night. I was upset. Please forgive me.
The only thing i see is that if you´re writing a truth then you cant cover it up so that it does´nt offend. You cant write about neo nazis without using their racist cries they would´nt say my goodness i dont like these ethnic people would they`? How can I tackle a subject like in ALL love maria, about disturbing sexual abuse and murder, without using a truth just in case in offends. how can I write about the horrors of drug and alcohol abuse truthfully without causing offense. Sometimes the truth does offend. I Feel it has it´s place.
I just feel if you´re going to relay something ugly then it should be done honestly. I mean its a great idea with the play they have warnings attached and you have to open them to read them. Its up to you if you want to go through that door. Poems and stories on the other hand, and im not saying their offensive, are merely pasted onto the page and are already open despite a warning.
As for me. well Im am old battered and beaten war horse. I´ve been through the mill so mny times. Maybe my syle is harsh. Maybe yout think i do this merely for attention. Not so.
So how far should we go. Well I dont know. Each person has their tale to tell and if they tell it warts and all what wrong? Ok titalating stories concerning children or being offensive without justification should be knocked on the head. but real truth I feel is important tobe told like it is
Anyway hope some of this makes sense. once again I apologise. I feel ashamed of my behaviour. Please keep up loading stuff. DOnt be afraid what people think so long as you believe and feel expressed then thats cool.
Its all a learning process a really long one.
take care all and once again sorry
david e

If it's OK with everyone I'd like to repeat something that I felt quite strongly last night during the infamous heated discussion...
I want to make the point that as the pen/word is indeed mightier than the sword, shouldn't we wield it as we would any weapon, with caution and a sense of responsibility?

Tweed, I don't think that scolding a grown man, especially as he's already apologised, is really that helpful.

As you stated that caution and responsibility is required on all our parts, then why not elaborate? Where do you think our boundaries should lie?

...after all, caution and responsibility is subjective.

Oh God here we go again...I'm sorry that you think I'm scolding someone. It was not my intention. I was answering David's (David Bruce)request for views etc. The first message in this thread.

But seeing as you ask, caution & responsibilty (taken as a whole) means to me, picking and choosing my words carefully (and realising that even then there's a risk of being misunderstood-see above).
It means being aware of how powerful words are and realising what the effect might be. It means being brave and sometimes going into places where normally I wouldn't go. It means standing up and being counted. I really don't want this to turn into an essay but would be interested to read what 'caution & responsibility' mean to you.

Well, actually Tweed, David Bruce asked for views on what we felt the restraints should be, where we thought we should draw the lines.

Your posting didn't really address this at all. I had NO idea at all where you wanted caution to be applied and how responsible you wanted us all to be.

I'm glad to hear that you never meant to scold someone. And, obviously apologies if I got that wrong.

But again, as you feel so strongly, why not tell us exactly how cautious or responsible you think we should be? How else would I know if I'm exercising the sort of caution and responsibility you feel appropriate?

I really would like to know. Honest.

I've just updated my earlier comments (above). I'm not really sure what I've done to annoy you so much. I'm expressing an opinion. Honest.

I just felt that Davide's apology had been so heartfelt that I would have been happier personally if we all just addressed what we thought the boundaries/cautions/restraints on writewords should be rather than bring it back to him.

After all, this topic was bound to come up sooner or later at some point.

As for my views on caution and responsibility... well, there has been one piece of work on this site (I won't say which) that actually upset me quite a bit. However, I felt from general comments made by the writer about my and other people's work that he/she perhaps never wilfully intended to cause the degree of upset that I felt. So, I didn't comment on the piece.

I agree with Davide that titilating stories involving children are unacceptable. And I wouldn't be happy to see any piece that advocates racism or violence against people (...or animals for that matter).

Can I go now?

I don't think Ian was actually bringing the debate back to Davide at all but let's move on from the personal and look at the issues in general- there are no right answers to this one, I feel, because it's a timeless debate that needs to be, and probably will be!- had over and over again. And rightly so. New boundaries are being set all the time- does anyone remember the infamous recent Guardian front page that said F**k Cilla Black? It was intended to provoke and boy did it ever. Same as the current furore over XXX, the show by Fura Del Bau.

With creative writing I think someone is always at risk of being upset, whether it's because they feel offended, or because they don't like swearing, or for more complex reasons. And it's difficult to keep a distance and not get emotional. I think what we're aiming for is a) your comments and input so that we can draw up some guidelines that reflect them and b) to make the site feel like a safe place for writers- all writers. If you feel a piece is offensive, I think it's probably a good thing to let us know direct at WriteWords. Let us take it from there. We'd far, far rather that than have any member feeling uncomfortable or alienated.

Hi Davide,

For whatever my opinion's worth, I think you've just put your case very forcefully but extremely well, and without going OTT (which you know you did last night...but then don't we all from time to time!). Personally, I find VERY strong language and graphic description of deviant behaviour distasteful (don't really know why, just do), but I accept that that doesn't make it wrong, that there are many who don't as long as it's in context. And as you say, to a degree, as long as the warnings are there, and as long as the writer accepts that some (probably me included) won't like it and won't therefore comment on it, I see no problem. Basically, I'd say that (with the right warnings) pretty much anything is acceptable (subject to website rules) as long as it's not gratuitous; if it is, then it's just plain bad, weak writing (in my view).

Your writing is strong, and there is a passion. Why not try something a bit more mainstream...see what happens? (I've just realised that could sound a bit patronising, if it does, I'm sorry...it honestly wasn't meant that way).

Finally, I know David (Bruce) doesn't need me or anyone else to fight his corner, and I hope I'm not intruding, but I too have had occasion to have my legs slapped (justifiably), but it was done very fairly and honestly. I'm sure that if you re-visit his note to you, which I read several times, you'll find that it was, in fact, very much in that spirit. He has a job to do and (again in my view) he does it extremely well.

Sorry to both of you if that was out of place.

Best regards.

Roger

For what it's worth, Tweed, I think that's a very good point and very well put.

Hi Roger, many thanks, nice to hear from you, yeah I was a bit OTT last night but hope now my apologies have been accepted. Yeah, david and anna do a great job and i´m glad the site is here for us. I have tried mainstream in my time but never felt expressed enough. Can´t explain. but you may be right, perhaps I´ll check it out.
take care
david

Getting back to the original question...

While authors are meant to disappear into the background of their works, when writing on the more distasteful aspects of human behaviour it is wise to present the racist or sexist or whatever as a misguided character rather than the hero. As for taboos - beware, for they often reveal more about the author than is intended. As an example: a recent historical account tarried overlong - and I mean page after page - on vivid accounts of the rape of women by an advancing army.

Without starting a book list, authors such as Thomas H Cook or John Connolly can write of horrific crimes against the person, but with compassion for the victims. When it comes to sex, we all know the difference between a moving scene integral to the plot, and a piece of "hack" written with one hand and designed only to arouse the reader. Anyway, we are all more enlightened. We already KNOW what two people of whatever sexual combination get up to in private, and there is a world of difference between, say, a writer who is nasty and a nasty writer.

Being a white male - not my fault, I was born that way - it is also easy to miss the point when it comes to being unwittingly offensive. What is just a dark character to such as me is the daily occurence or jaded anacronism of someone black or female. Certain literary characters have to die. After a glut of serial killers, we are now bored with them. However, while tastes may change, taste itself never goes out of fashon, and if you are writing just to be at the cutting edge, it means tomorrow you will be old hat.

Naturally, there ARE personal tastes involved. I don't care much about swearing, but throwaway blasphemy stops me reading. If the best minds in the world cannot fathom the unknowable, then being religiously offensive is cheap point-scoring and merely displays immature arrogance.

Anything goes on this site? Think about the sort of unpleasant rubbish just waiting to post itself. And this is not censorship, for the nature of sites such as this assume that we are mature enough to censor ourselves. Having learned that we can often upset others unwittingly, we should realise the difference between challenging writing and the intentionally offensive.

I agree with Paul. Censorship is a difficult area and we are all adults able to censor ourselves. We need to be sensitive to others without compromising our art, and there are certain truths that need to be told but we need to find the right language through which to say them.

I personally get offended by the amount of violence towards women so prevalent in our entertainment and literary culture today, but I recognise there have been times historically when this violence has needed to be highlighted (I think of Angela Carter) in order to address it.

However hatespeach itself comes in many guises, I know Judith Butler regarded pornography as hatespeach, and therefore we all have to be very aware of the cultural climate in which we live in order to explain what we are trying to say. I'm not saying we should labour over every single word before we put it on the page - this would most likely just result in sanitizing what we write (or our getting bored shedless) but when you say something that might have a direct effect on how people perceive another group of people in society you have to be able to justify it with impunity, which is near on impossible especially if the thing said is negative. This is partly what self-censorship is about surely?

I think to impose a number of strict rules on a writer's group such as this compromises the intelligence of the group, and is very difficult to police (because policing is what we're talking about if we go down that route) however to provide a space that can has no mandate on the use of hatespeach is also untenable, but I understood this site to have one.

I'm not sure about a warning on one form of writing over another (and it seems a bit Channel 4 to me), but maybe a general notice in the site's constitution explaining some material may be deemed offensive. And removal of a work only if it is gratuitously offensive or has a potential for hatespeach. Who, though, would decide what is and what isn't? Would the writer have a chance to defend the work and the authorial decisions made in the writing before the work is removed? This would result in an increase in administrative workload for the site managers.

I remember when the Mapplethorpe exhibition was closed down at the Museum of Modern Art in (I think) New York a while back (my apologies if it wsn't New York, my memory for places is not good) - it seemed to me that the act of agression, of hatespeach ,came from the Mayoral Commitee censoring the work because it said "this is a culture or group in society that is sick and offensive and 'normal' people must not be subjected to them" However, I understand the same venue showed Joel Peter Witkins' photographic re-rendering of Great Masters using cadavers from medical schools, and it was not to my knowledge closed down (I found that deeply offensive and raised more questions about subject compliance and permission in art than about the beauty of the work itself - some of them were very beautiful to look at).

I don't know what the answers are but the question was to ask for feedback on the use of racism, sexism and other taboos on WriteWords which I hope I have.