Bill Conrad's Blog - Posts Tagged "ethics"
My Ethics Hinder Good Story
Five years ago, I was working at Sundstrand on a project that resulted in a report. Issues were uncovered and the report conclusion pointed them out. My boss asked me to change the conclusions to cover up the flaws and I refused. To get around this dilemma, I re-wrote [faked] my conclusions and had somebody else submit it under their name. I suppose that made me a ghostwriter. So far, that is the only time that I have allowed this to happen.
On a side note, Sundstrand had extensive “ethical training” and they went out of their way to stress their “core ethical values.” Despite this fact, Sundstrand was a very unethical place to work. I still liked my boss. He was just passing along the poor ethics of upper management.
The entire incident made me feel conflicted. It was a minor lie, but my core personality hated lying. I considered quitting my job. Looking back upon what happened with a global perspective, the reality was a minor fudge of the implied requirements.
At the time of the incident, my coworkers all said, “It’s what the boss wants. Just do it.” I simply couldn’t bring myself to agree and I felt they were being unethical just for suggesting such a course of action.
Since that lie, I have reflected upon the ethical aspects of my life. I came to an unexpected conclusion. I am a deeply ethical person. I had thought that my ethics were normal or perhaps a little below normal. Sure, I don’t steal or abuse people, but all of my friends are like that. I speed, takes some risks and occasionally push the envelope. However, I am fully aware that I am not a saint and there are many people with higher ethics.
After working at Sundstrand, I began to write. The plots that I choose to write about were the same types that I like to read. The characters are of course ethical and the protagonists are of course unethical. However, the protagonists have ethical lines they don’t cross. I feel it’s important that readers connect with the protagonist as if they could be bad people in their own lives. It’s an enjoyable moment when a protagonist fails and a sad moment when they succeed. However, I feel that if the protagonist is too bad then the reader will not continue reading.
For example, my protagonists would never use racial slurs. Such terms are important tools for authors to rouse up the reader. The terms show ignorance and a lack of respect. I just cannot use a racial slur in my writings or any other aspect of my life.
I also noticed that my lead characters are normal people with good morals. They rarely do the wrong thing and they regret their mistakes. That choice vastly limits their “dynamic range” in what they can do and where the story can go. This makes it impossible for me to create an antihero.
I mentally set a limit as to the plotline and subject matter. I cannot write a horror story where people are treated badly for the sake of being treated badly. My protagonists need a reason to be awful; they cannot simply be awful people. To that end, I make sure they don’t benefit from their poor behavior.
Well, can I tell myself “this is just fantasy?” Go ahead, write a good raw gritty unsavory story. Readers will understand; they know the definition of fiction. The author of “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” has never killed anybody. It was just a story. To me, that is a bridge too far. However, I do appreciate great books that reach far into the depths of anger, hate, abuse, and immorality. I like anti-hero movies like Deadpool and Mad Max.
Does this mean that my books will always be limited? Regrettably, yes. A large portion of literature and character type will be off limits to me. Is this bad? Great writers challenge themselves to come up with fantastic plots. Great authors use shock value, they push the envelope and love to get readers out of their comfort zone. I am aware of what my writing could be, but I have to live with myself. I don’t feel that the sum of my life’s achievements should be an unethical character. I would much rather be a complete failure as an author than to be known as the author who created Hannibal Lecter.
I do understand that Hannibal Lecter is a really amazing character. Thomas Harris can be proud of that sadistic creation. However, I could never approach that level of cruelty. My ethical foundation simply will not allow it.
I now feel that I have a better understanding of my ethics and I know how they affect my writing. I am going to try to push my personal envelope as much as my ethics will allow. I think there is still a lot of good ethical area to have a great plot. I hope that readers will appreciate my characters and plots even if they don’t push the boundaries of evil.
On a side note, Sundstrand had extensive “ethical training” and they went out of their way to stress their “core ethical values.” Despite this fact, Sundstrand was a very unethical place to work. I still liked my boss. He was just passing along the poor ethics of upper management.
The entire incident made me feel conflicted. It was a minor lie, but my core personality hated lying. I considered quitting my job. Looking back upon what happened with a global perspective, the reality was a minor fudge of the implied requirements.
At the time of the incident, my coworkers all said, “It’s what the boss wants. Just do it.” I simply couldn’t bring myself to agree and I felt they were being unethical just for suggesting such a course of action.
Since that lie, I have reflected upon the ethical aspects of my life. I came to an unexpected conclusion. I am a deeply ethical person. I had thought that my ethics were normal or perhaps a little below normal. Sure, I don’t steal or abuse people, but all of my friends are like that. I speed, takes some risks and occasionally push the envelope. However, I am fully aware that I am not a saint and there are many people with higher ethics.
After working at Sundstrand, I began to write. The plots that I choose to write about were the same types that I like to read. The characters are of course ethical and the protagonists are of course unethical. However, the protagonists have ethical lines they don’t cross. I feel it’s important that readers connect with the protagonist as if they could be bad people in their own lives. It’s an enjoyable moment when a protagonist fails and a sad moment when they succeed. However, I feel that if the protagonist is too bad then the reader will not continue reading.
For example, my protagonists would never use racial slurs. Such terms are important tools for authors to rouse up the reader. The terms show ignorance and a lack of respect. I just cannot use a racial slur in my writings or any other aspect of my life.
I also noticed that my lead characters are normal people with good morals. They rarely do the wrong thing and they regret their mistakes. That choice vastly limits their “dynamic range” in what they can do and where the story can go. This makes it impossible for me to create an antihero.
I mentally set a limit as to the plotline and subject matter. I cannot write a horror story where people are treated badly for the sake of being treated badly. My protagonists need a reason to be awful; they cannot simply be awful people. To that end, I make sure they don’t benefit from their poor behavior.
Well, can I tell myself “this is just fantasy?” Go ahead, write a good raw gritty unsavory story. Readers will understand; they know the definition of fiction. The author of “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” has never killed anybody. It was just a story. To me, that is a bridge too far. However, I do appreciate great books that reach far into the depths of anger, hate, abuse, and immorality. I like anti-hero movies like Deadpool and Mad Max.
Does this mean that my books will always be limited? Regrettably, yes. A large portion of literature and character type will be off limits to me. Is this bad? Great writers challenge themselves to come up with fantastic plots. Great authors use shock value, they push the envelope and love to get readers out of their comfort zone. I am aware of what my writing could be, but I have to live with myself. I don’t feel that the sum of my life’s achievements should be an unethical character. I would much rather be a complete failure as an author than to be known as the author who created Hannibal Lecter.
I do understand that Hannibal Lecter is a really amazing character. Thomas Harris can be proud of that sadistic creation. However, I could never approach that level of cruelty. My ethical foundation simply will not allow it.
I now feel that I have a better understanding of my ethics and I know how they affect my writing. I am going to try to push my personal envelope as much as my ethics will allow. I think there is still a lot of good ethical area to have a great plot. I hope that readers will appreciate my characters and plots even if they don’t push the boundaries of evil.
The Definition of Evil
Authors tap into their personal experiences to create story and characters. These experiences can be positive or negative. Within our negatives lies an element which we deem to be evil. This negative quality is beyond poor judgment and bad behavior. For me, the difference becomes apparent when a person embraces the negative and turns their back on the positive. Essentially, there is a joy in being bad.
Evil takes many forms in our lived and in our stories. The good detective hunting down the despicable criminal. The anti-hero Mad Max who saves a life one day and kills 10 people the next. The desperate Bonnie and Clyde criminal who are “just trying to survive” against the “man.” The trusted person who is a pedophile. The leader who removes subversive people to save society. The mental patient who “does not know any better.” Then there is the despicable Hannibal Lecter or serial killer Ted Bundy who enjoy torturing people to death.
Towards the lesser end of the evil spectrum is a “normal” person who appears to have bad judgment, but there is an element of evil contained within their core. For example, a best friend that steals from you. An alcoholic relative who rams their car through a crowd of people in a drunken rage.
People often justify their evil tendencies. “This is something that has to happen. I’m not enjoying this.” If we look at the deplorable people through history, the majority genuinely perceived their actions as good. “The bad people needed to die.”
Often an “honest” person feels they are performing good deeds with their deplorable actions. An extreme example is killing the “non-believers.” A less extreme example is a parent who constantly punishes their child to “keep them in line.”
The worst evil is when you realize that you, yourself are evil. You try to convince yourself that breaking your brother’s arm was an “accident.” That person looking back in the mirror is a drug dealer and not a “spiritual helper.” At one point, a person realizes that “breaking his arm was wrong.” From that time onward, this person must rationalize their existence. Sometimes a person can understand they are evil, make a change, apologize for the past and they try to make amends. I believe an evil person can become a good person. Other times, an evil person embraces their inner demon. “I like being a drug dealer.” “Breaking his arm felt good.”
Protagonists range from annoying to an ongoing deplorable level of evil that can only exist in outlandish fiction. Can a fictional character truly be considered evil? Stories are a collection of words and concepts that only become real when a reader thinks about them. Does this mean that a protagonist “brings out the evil” in a readers mind? In some ways, I think it does. Can a bad story corrupt a reader? There are many examples of bad people who got their inspiration from books or movies.
People are complex. They have a lot going on in their minds with a variety of backgrounds to guide them. People have witnessed actual events that range from acts of supreme kindness to unimaginable horrors. A good story will pull from experiences out of a reader's minds and allow the reader to visualize the story. This includes visualizing evil.
Let's explore two actual “evil” people from my life. This first is a former coworker. He is a pathetic man who overcame his incompetence by blaming others. I came into his crosshairs and suffered through his wrath. From my perspective, the result was hurt feelings and a messed-up project. I still harbor disdain for this individual all these years later. What did he think of me? I’m sure he felt that everybody around him was incompetent and out to get him. I was simply one of the people that upset him more than the others. He would likely summarize me as a non-team player.
Was he truly evil? At the time, I thought so. I have since thought about how evil this man actually was. He was suffering from severe arthritis and he took powerful medications. The medications had severe side effects including mental impairment. He was the only provider of a family with two children. I am sure he was under enormous pressure. However, there is no doubt he was fully aware of the medication effects and his poor job performance. However, we never asked for help, understanding or forgiveness.
The aspect of his personality that brought out the evil was his enjoyment to inflict pain. Rather than accept his circumstances and try his best to overcome them, he went out of his way to blame others for his shortcomings. When this happened, I felt his passion. He savored the success of his negative efforts. His actions were beyond poor judgment. Something else was present in that man. My guess is that this “evil high” distracted him from his own arthritis pain and prevented him from facing his own severe incompetence.
I based a protagonist upon this man. I copied the way he dressed, his bad decisions, the way he covered up his bad decisions, his supreme incompetence, low ethics, and the condescending way he spoke. My character served as a good foil. In retrospect, something positive came out of that situation. It’s fun to be a writer. Or is it budget therapy? Hmm.
Three years ago, our house got robbed. The traumatic experience harshly affected my family. A year later, they caught the person. Joey Ramos is a despicable man that committed several crimes. I was one of many people who testified against him. He was convicted and they are asking for 140 years.
In the courtroom, I faced my accuser. I could see the evil in his black eyes. [They were actually black. I absolutely could not see any white and I could feel his hate. It was very unnerving.] This man truly had no soul. He only existed to steal, cause pain and corrupt others. By the rules of society, he is the definition of evil and for me, he is the supreme proof that evil exists.
Am I going to base a character upon him? Absolutely not. He is far too bad for my style of writing. Readers would encounter with a vastly evil character with no positive attributes. However, I’m aware that other writers choose to use characters of this nature. He could easily be the despicable criminal that a great police officer chases. Or the criminal equivalent of Hannibal Lecter who likes to steal.
But wait. Joey Ramos is real, and he really affected me. Taking an objective approach, he is not that bad when compared to a fictional person like Hannibal Lecter or the real-life serial killer Ted Bundy.
For me, such an evil character like Hannibal Lecter are impossible for me to relate to. I cannot alter my mindset enough to think like Hannibal Lecter. There has to be at least one foot in the real world. When I develop a character, they need a motive beyond embracing evil. Perhaps a bad circumstance they are attempting to overcome.
Is it ethical to write about an evil character? In past blogs, I stated that I am a deeply ethical person. However, my stories contain death, torture, murder, and hardship. My first book is about a 500-year-old murdering psychopath. In this [well-written] book [you should buy] [right now] [please!] I attempt to justify her existence. Essentially my story attempts to make her less evil. At very least, I attempt to justify the evil within her own mind.
Overall, my main characters are good, and I expose them to evil. Sometimes the evil stays around. However, the evil deeds are not rewarded and evil characters are not embraced. Why? That’s just who I am.
My goal is writing is to make a story that entertains the readers while retaining my ethical boundaries. In order to appreciate the bright positive parts, the negative parts must be experienced. A good story explores evil while good people do not. Within my own life, I try my best to be a good person and suppress my evil tendencies. When I find that I have crossed the line, I do my best to make amends.
It is clear that I allow myself to write about evil. Am I propelling the evil concepts that I write about? Hey, bad people here’s an idea. Go read Bills book and learn how to kill. At least get yourself in the mood. Hmm.
Would that make me slightly evil? I read books and watch movies that have evil characters. I play video games where I “kill people.” That’s me clicking the mouse button to shoot a gun. I fully comprehend that I’m no saint and I have regrets over my past negative actions. Does that make me at least some percentage evil? Dang… That’s certainly something to think about.
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...
Evil takes many forms in our lived and in our stories. The good detective hunting down the despicable criminal. The anti-hero Mad Max who saves a life one day and kills 10 people the next. The desperate Bonnie and Clyde criminal who are “just trying to survive” against the “man.” The trusted person who is a pedophile. The leader who removes subversive people to save society. The mental patient who “does not know any better.” Then there is the despicable Hannibal Lecter or serial killer Ted Bundy who enjoy torturing people to death.
Towards the lesser end of the evil spectrum is a “normal” person who appears to have bad judgment, but there is an element of evil contained within their core. For example, a best friend that steals from you. An alcoholic relative who rams their car through a crowd of people in a drunken rage.
People often justify their evil tendencies. “This is something that has to happen. I’m not enjoying this.” If we look at the deplorable people through history, the majority genuinely perceived their actions as good. “The bad people needed to die.”
Often an “honest” person feels they are performing good deeds with their deplorable actions. An extreme example is killing the “non-believers.” A less extreme example is a parent who constantly punishes their child to “keep them in line.”
The worst evil is when you realize that you, yourself are evil. You try to convince yourself that breaking your brother’s arm was an “accident.” That person looking back in the mirror is a drug dealer and not a “spiritual helper.” At one point, a person realizes that “breaking his arm was wrong.” From that time onward, this person must rationalize their existence. Sometimes a person can understand they are evil, make a change, apologize for the past and they try to make amends. I believe an evil person can become a good person. Other times, an evil person embraces their inner demon. “I like being a drug dealer.” “Breaking his arm felt good.”
Protagonists range from annoying to an ongoing deplorable level of evil that can only exist in outlandish fiction. Can a fictional character truly be considered evil? Stories are a collection of words and concepts that only become real when a reader thinks about them. Does this mean that a protagonist “brings out the evil” in a readers mind? In some ways, I think it does. Can a bad story corrupt a reader? There are many examples of bad people who got their inspiration from books or movies.
People are complex. They have a lot going on in their minds with a variety of backgrounds to guide them. People have witnessed actual events that range from acts of supreme kindness to unimaginable horrors. A good story will pull from experiences out of a reader's minds and allow the reader to visualize the story. This includes visualizing evil.
Let's explore two actual “evil” people from my life. This first is a former coworker. He is a pathetic man who overcame his incompetence by blaming others. I came into his crosshairs and suffered through his wrath. From my perspective, the result was hurt feelings and a messed-up project. I still harbor disdain for this individual all these years later. What did he think of me? I’m sure he felt that everybody around him was incompetent and out to get him. I was simply one of the people that upset him more than the others. He would likely summarize me as a non-team player.
Was he truly evil? At the time, I thought so. I have since thought about how evil this man actually was. He was suffering from severe arthritis and he took powerful medications. The medications had severe side effects including mental impairment. He was the only provider of a family with two children. I am sure he was under enormous pressure. However, there is no doubt he was fully aware of the medication effects and his poor job performance. However, we never asked for help, understanding or forgiveness.
The aspect of his personality that brought out the evil was his enjoyment to inflict pain. Rather than accept his circumstances and try his best to overcome them, he went out of his way to blame others for his shortcomings. When this happened, I felt his passion. He savored the success of his negative efforts. His actions were beyond poor judgment. Something else was present in that man. My guess is that this “evil high” distracted him from his own arthritis pain and prevented him from facing his own severe incompetence.
I based a protagonist upon this man. I copied the way he dressed, his bad decisions, the way he covered up his bad decisions, his supreme incompetence, low ethics, and the condescending way he spoke. My character served as a good foil. In retrospect, something positive came out of that situation. It’s fun to be a writer. Or is it budget therapy? Hmm.
Three years ago, our house got robbed. The traumatic experience harshly affected my family. A year later, they caught the person. Joey Ramos is a despicable man that committed several crimes. I was one of many people who testified against him. He was convicted and they are asking for 140 years.
In the courtroom, I faced my accuser. I could see the evil in his black eyes. [They were actually black. I absolutely could not see any white and I could feel his hate. It was very unnerving.] This man truly had no soul. He only existed to steal, cause pain and corrupt others. By the rules of society, he is the definition of evil and for me, he is the supreme proof that evil exists.
Am I going to base a character upon him? Absolutely not. He is far too bad for my style of writing. Readers would encounter with a vastly evil character with no positive attributes. However, I’m aware that other writers choose to use characters of this nature. He could easily be the despicable criminal that a great police officer chases. Or the criminal equivalent of Hannibal Lecter who likes to steal.
But wait. Joey Ramos is real, and he really affected me. Taking an objective approach, he is not that bad when compared to a fictional person like Hannibal Lecter or the real-life serial killer Ted Bundy.
For me, such an evil character like Hannibal Lecter are impossible for me to relate to. I cannot alter my mindset enough to think like Hannibal Lecter. There has to be at least one foot in the real world. When I develop a character, they need a motive beyond embracing evil. Perhaps a bad circumstance they are attempting to overcome.
Is it ethical to write about an evil character? In past blogs, I stated that I am a deeply ethical person. However, my stories contain death, torture, murder, and hardship. My first book is about a 500-year-old murdering psychopath. In this [well-written] book [you should buy] [right now] [please!] I attempt to justify her existence. Essentially my story attempts to make her less evil. At very least, I attempt to justify the evil within her own mind.
Overall, my main characters are good, and I expose them to evil. Sometimes the evil stays around. However, the evil deeds are not rewarded and evil characters are not embraced. Why? That’s just who I am.
My goal is writing is to make a story that entertains the readers while retaining my ethical boundaries. In order to appreciate the bright positive parts, the negative parts must be experienced. A good story explores evil while good people do not. Within my own life, I try my best to be a good person and suppress my evil tendencies. When I find that I have crossed the line, I do my best to make amends.
It is clear that I allow myself to write about evil. Am I propelling the evil concepts that I write about? Hey, bad people here’s an idea. Go read Bills book and learn how to kill. At least get yourself in the mood. Hmm.
Would that make me slightly evil? I read books and watch movies that have evil characters. I play video games where I “kill people.” That’s me clicking the mouse button to shoot a gun. I fully comprehend that I’m no saint and I have regrets over my past negative actions. Does that make me at least some percentage evil? Dang… That’s certainly something to think about.
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...
Fictional Ethics
I recently came across an article about the Ethics of Fiction and I thought it would be interesting to blog about this topic. The article began with a deep dive into the history and techniques of fiction. It then described how fiction affects society and what responsibilities authors have.
Its essential questions: Are fiction authors liars and do the authors intentionally deceive readers? For me, the answer depends on how an author presents their work. If an author honestly informs their readers about the fictional content, then the author is acting ethically. If an author attempts to pass along a fictional event as true, then they are acting unethically.
Of course, there are many gray areas. For example, a news report, that “takes a creative look into the problem.” Or “embellished facts.” My favorite are stories that are “based on true events.” Today we accept that “true” stories contain a percentage of fiction. The term for this new media is “dramatized.” I prefer to stay out of this gray area and I have never claimed my published work contained factual events.
However, I do get near reality. For example, in my first book, I developed the concept that the ruler of ancient Egypt, Cleopatra is immortal. To be clear, I am attempting to get readers to believe a not fictional woman lived for hundreds of years. This “fact” is clearly untrue.
How would I respond to the allegation of lying? First, at the beginning of my book, I declare my book to be a work of fiction. Second, I market the book as fiction. Third, the concept of immortality is an accepted functional construct.
Am I behaving unethically? In my mind, I made up a story and never intended to deceive anybody. If a reader ever suggested that my story is real, I would immediately defend my work as 100% fiction. So, we’re good? Right? Well…
People have Star Wars themed weddings and they name streets after fictional characters. Fans firmly believe in The Force and Harry Potter’s magic. Are we deceiving ourselves? In some cases, we take things a bit too far. Yet, as a society, having a fantasy foundation is good because it helps soften the harsh blows of reality.
Let’s tackle this issue head-on. Darth Vader never existed and will never exist. Right? Well… A few diehard fans truly believe and contend he exists “in a galaxy far, far away.” We can conclude he kind of exists. Now hold on. If a judge ordered Darth Vader to appear holding his lightsaber, nothing would happen. At best, an actor would show up in costume while holding a plastic prop. This individual only can come alive in a fictional environment.
Did George Lucas intend to deceive his audiences when he created Star Wars? He certainly put in a lot of effort into making realistic movies. Clearly, he only intended to create an amazing movie and not fool people. How would George Lucas respond to people who think the force is real? He would probably shake the hands of his diehard fans. How would George Lucas respond in a courtroom? He would strongly declare his creation to be fictional and laugh at the absurd notion that any part of his move is real.
What about an author that passes off their fictional creation as real? We now have an accepted term for this. Fake news. In my mind, this attempt at reality is an undisputed lie. What if we bend the truth? Fact: There have been allegations that the mayor embezzled school funds. Statement: “The mayor stole our tax dollars. -An anonymous source.” This statement is a thinly vailed lie. The anonymous source could be me and I have no idea about any mayors. What is the harm? I am raising awareness. Right? In my mind, this “author” is behaving unethically.
Can any good come out of fake news? Let us pretend somebody wrote a fake story that got people upset and the resulting interest brought a positive change. This is an ends justify the means argument. The bad situation could have been exposed in a well-written article with documented facts and a well thought out solution.
Are my ethics holding me back? Should I write up a bunch of fake news to bring attention to an important subject? I have to live with myself, and I would rather be a nobody author than an important person propped up by lies. The world has far too much fake news, urban legends, and distorted facts.
In life and literature, I do my best to behave honestly and try not to deceive. When I blog about a real topic, I do my best to present facts without embellishment. For those who choose a different path, I do not believe they qualify as authors.
https://aeon.co/essays/how-to-tell-fa...
Its essential questions: Are fiction authors liars and do the authors intentionally deceive readers? For me, the answer depends on how an author presents their work. If an author honestly informs their readers about the fictional content, then the author is acting ethically. If an author attempts to pass along a fictional event as true, then they are acting unethically.
Of course, there are many gray areas. For example, a news report, that “takes a creative look into the problem.” Or “embellished facts.” My favorite are stories that are “based on true events.” Today we accept that “true” stories contain a percentage of fiction. The term for this new media is “dramatized.” I prefer to stay out of this gray area and I have never claimed my published work contained factual events.
However, I do get near reality. For example, in my first book, I developed the concept that the ruler of ancient Egypt, Cleopatra is immortal. To be clear, I am attempting to get readers to believe a not fictional woman lived for hundreds of years. This “fact” is clearly untrue.
How would I respond to the allegation of lying? First, at the beginning of my book, I declare my book to be a work of fiction. Second, I market the book as fiction. Third, the concept of immortality is an accepted functional construct.
Am I behaving unethically? In my mind, I made up a story and never intended to deceive anybody. If a reader ever suggested that my story is real, I would immediately defend my work as 100% fiction. So, we’re good? Right? Well…
People have Star Wars themed weddings and they name streets after fictional characters. Fans firmly believe in The Force and Harry Potter’s magic. Are we deceiving ourselves? In some cases, we take things a bit too far. Yet, as a society, having a fantasy foundation is good because it helps soften the harsh blows of reality.
Let’s tackle this issue head-on. Darth Vader never existed and will never exist. Right? Well… A few diehard fans truly believe and contend he exists “in a galaxy far, far away.” We can conclude he kind of exists. Now hold on. If a judge ordered Darth Vader to appear holding his lightsaber, nothing would happen. At best, an actor would show up in costume while holding a plastic prop. This individual only can come alive in a fictional environment.
Did George Lucas intend to deceive his audiences when he created Star Wars? He certainly put in a lot of effort into making realistic movies. Clearly, he only intended to create an amazing movie and not fool people. How would George Lucas respond to people who think the force is real? He would probably shake the hands of his diehard fans. How would George Lucas respond in a courtroom? He would strongly declare his creation to be fictional and laugh at the absurd notion that any part of his move is real.
What about an author that passes off their fictional creation as real? We now have an accepted term for this. Fake news. In my mind, this attempt at reality is an undisputed lie. What if we bend the truth? Fact: There have been allegations that the mayor embezzled school funds. Statement: “The mayor stole our tax dollars. -An anonymous source.” This statement is a thinly vailed lie. The anonymous source could be me and I have no idea about any mayors. What is the harm? I am raising awareness. Right? In my mind, this “author” is behaving unethically.
Can any good come out of fake news? Let us pretend somebody wrote a fake story that got people upset and the resulting interest brought a positive change. This is an ends justify the means argument. The bad situation could have been exposed in a well-written article with documented facts and a well thought out solution.
Are my ethics holding me back? Should I write up a bunch of fake news to bring attention to an important subject? I have to live with myself, and I would rather be a nobody author than an important person propped up by lies. The world has far too much fake news, urban legends, and distorted facts.
In life and literature, I do my best to behave honestly and try not to deceive. When I blog about a real topic, I do my best to present facts without embellishment. For those who choose a different path, I do not believe they qualify as authors.
https://aeon.co/essays/how-to-tell-fa...
A Blog Not Far Enough
I recently discussed which blogs were my favorites and which ones I regretted. It occurred to me that one blog needs a special mention. This particular one stands out as a topic I think about often.
http://interviewingimmortality.com/bl...
In this blog, I discuss how my personal ethics hinder the kinds of stories I allow myself to write. Let’s take a second look at this topic. Some real-life people are racist, sexist, closed-minded, or overtly offensive. Most of the time, we ignore these people, but sometimes we confront or even celebrate them. For example, the obnoxious talk show host Howard Stern has a large following.
Am I afraid of offending my four blog readers with offensive material? Yes, and no. My four blog readers have stuck with me this long, and I am sure they would accept one offensive statement. However, that is not the issue. I cannot stand the idea of intentionally offending somebody, especially somebody I have never met. To me, that is the mark of a poorly raised individual.
Let’s examine my mental block logically. I write funny offensive statement X. From my perspective, there are four likely outcomes. A percentage of my readers will like X. A portion will not care, and a portion will dislike X. Lastly, a portion will take great offense. Given equal people, that means I could lose two of my four readers.
However, this is not the central issue because there is an additional argument. In real life, people are offensive. There is a perception that if we pretend this class of people does not exist, they will multiply in the shadows. As a good person, we take on confront offensive material and adequately react to it.
This is not my core issue, but we are close. I do not permit myself to write offensive material. Let me explain. Let’s invent the character Sally. As a writer, I can write Sally into every situation and make her any type of person. Of course, I avoid lots of territory because of my ethics. For example, Sally’s dialog will never contain racial slurs. Granted, I might write, “Sally made a racially insensitive comment about Steve.” That statement completely covers the topic, and the reader understands exactly what is going on. In my mind, Sally can be a racist character, but I do not need to offend my readers with offensive statements.
We are now closer to the core issue. In the actual world, offensive actions have happened, are happening, and will happen. The argument is that unless we explore offensive material, it will continue its hold on society. If I write an offensive scene, my actions will help people understand and confront offensive people.
There is another part of this issue. Sally can be offensive, understand her problems, apologize, and grow. Also, Steve can confront Sally and put her on the right path, or he can learn to ignore Sally. This kind of writing should be acceptable.
And there is my dilemma. I disagree with the concept that presenting offensive material is honorable or morally needed. Yet, as I have seen in actual life, offensive actions can lead to positive outcomes.
Here is the heart of my issue. Does not violating my ethics make me part of the problem? I want to scream, “NO! I am a good person and want to improve this world.” Yet, if we think about this logically, a tiny part of myself contributes to the pain associated with real world offenses.
I have explored this moral dilemma ever since I wrote that blog. Of course, I will not be writing offensive material. So, the point is moot. However, a small part of me thinks about being part of the problem, and a different small part of me wants to explore offensive material in my writing.
A larger part of me has reacted to the criticism my work has already generated and never wants to offend another reader. Yet, I know people will occasionally get offended no matter what I do. I also know that offensive work has a large niche in the entertainment world and has been responsible for significant positive change.
My mental argument is not going away. Yet, I like that I understand and confront my own beliefs. This is how people grow.
http://interviewingimmortality.com/bl...
In this blog, I discuss how my personal ethics hinder the kinds of stories I allow myself to write. Let’s take a second look at this topic. Some real-life people are racist, sexist, closed-minded, or overtly offensive. Most of the time, we ignore these people, but sometimes we confront or even celebrate them. For example, the obnoxious talk show host Howard Stern has a large following.
Am I afraid of offending my four blog readers with offensive material? Yes, and no. My four blog readers have stuck with me this long, and I am sure they would accept one offensive statement. However, that is not the issue. I cannot stand the idea of intentionally offending somebody, especially somebody I have never met. To me, that is the mark of a poorly raised individual.
Let’s examine my mental block logically. I write funny offensive statement X. From my perspective, there are four likely outcomes. A percentage of my readers will like X. A portion will not care, and a portion will dislike X. Lastly, a portion will take great offense. Given equal people, that means I could lose two of my four readers.
However, this is not the central issue because there is an additional argument. In real life, people are offensive. There is a perception that if we pretend this class of people does not exist, they will multiply in the shadows. As a good person, we take on confront offensive material and adequately react to it.
This is not my core issue, but we are close. I do not permit myself to write offensive material. Let me explain. Let’s invent the character Sally. As a writer, I can write Sally into every situation and make her any type of person. Of course, I avoid lots of territory because of my ethics. For example, Sally’s dialog will never contain racial slurs. Granted, I might write, “Sally made a racially insensitive comment about Steve.” That statement completely covers the topic, and the reader understands exactly what is going on. In my mind, Sally can be a racist character, but I do not need to offend my readers with offensive statements.
We are now closer to the core issue. In the actual world, offensive actions have happened, are happening, and will happen. The argument is that unless we explore offensive material, it will continue its hold on society. If I write an offensive scene, my actions will help people understand and confront offensive people.
There is another part of this issue. Sally can be offensive, understand her problems, apologize, and grow. Also, Steve can confront Sally and put her on the right path, or he can learn to ignore Sally. This kind of writing should be acceptable.
And there is my dilemma. I disagree with the concept that presenting offensive material is honorable or morally needed. Yet, as I have seen in actual life, offensive actions can lead to positive outcomes.
Here is the heart of my issue. Does not violating my ethics make me part of the problem? I want to scream, “NO! I am a good person and want to improve this world.” Yet, if we think about this logically, a tiny part of myself contributes to the pain associated with real world offenses.
I have explored this moral dilemma ever since I wrote that blog. Of course, I will not be writing offensive material. So, the point is moot. However, a small part of me thinks about being part of the problem, and a different small part of me wants to explore offensive material in my writing.
A larger part of me has reacted to the criticism my work has already generated and never wants to offend another reader. Yet, I know people will occasionally get offended no matter what I do. I also know that offensive work has a large niche in the entertainment world and has been responsible for significant positive change.
My mental argument is not going away. Yet, I like that I understand and confront my own beliefs. This is how people grow.
Coin-Operated
Ten years ago, I worked at a contract engineering company. Their business model was if you had a concept, they would do the engineering to turn the idea into a product… For a price. This little addition led to great confusion, anger and lawsuits.
The core of the issue was that customers did not understand the company was not a friend or partner. Instead, they were a coin-operated entity, meaning that when the customer stopped paying; they stopped working. This almost makes sense, but there is another aspect of a coin-operated company that is not always appreciated.
When a customer approached us with a concept, we gave them a time and money estimate along with estimated material costs. After the customer agreed to hire us, we would begin development. Some projects went according to plan, but others required multiple attempts or encountered unexpected issues. As a result, costs ballooned, which angered customers.
I am sure you have experienced the same frustration with a project like a house renovation. For example, if a contractor gets hired to replace a tile floor. All goes well until they find asbestos, mold, or dry rot. Then, the contractor asks for lots more money to fix the problem(s).
What about the other side of this situation? The contractor is a fair person and does not want to cheat anybody. They do not have x-ray vision to see asbestos under ten old tile layers. No matter how the project goes, they must pay bills, pay employees, and profit. If you wish for them to stop working, they would say, “Fine, pay me for the work I have done so far.” Sometimes, a contractor can do no wrong, but the enraged customer feels they got mega-ripped off.
I can recall customer meetings exploding when we explained how much the next step would cost, and those hurt feelings have stuck with me. “I thought you were our partner.” “That is way too much money.” “You never told me it could cost so much.” “You should cover this cost.” “This is not my fault. It’s your fault.” “You should have expected this problem.” It is easy to get comfortable with a coin-operated contractor and forget their place.
One project failed right from the start. We promised them an easy project, but it took too long and failed miserably. Essentially, we charged them for junk. Was this our fault? Yes, we failed to understand the problem when we developed the estimate. Should we have known better? Yes, because we developed the estimate based on worthless information. (We worked through email and did not go to the site to do our research.) Would we make the same mistake? No, we learned to ask more questions. The problem was that the customer paid for us to learn this lesson.
I hired a building contractor to remove cement and install pavers from my backyard. When they dug up one area, they found long roots and spent two days hacking them all out (40+ wheelbarrows full). I wish I had known about the roots in advance, as did the contractor, but we did not have x-ray vision. The extra work added a lot to my bill, but I watched them hack away the roots (doing actual work), and the amount they charged me was fair. Still, I was not happy.
Now, hold on. What about a fixed-price contract? The problem with a fixed-price contract is that all the information must be present to develop it. If a customer insists upon a fixed price to ensure a profit, the company must account for the unknown by adding a buffer. In addition, it takes time to make a proper estimate that accounts for everything, and most companies do not wish to put in the effort as they know the customer will not go through with an expensive project.
I developed fixed price estimates at this engineering company; our buffer was 40%. We usually did alright with these, but one lost money because of poor contract wording. The customer took advantage of the loose deliverables by adding additional requirements. Essentially, they got three times the work out of us.
The heart of the confusion over hiring a coin-operated company is the pride in the work and going the extra mile. This added value might include an extra coat of paint or staying late to finish the job. Coin-operated companies get paid for these additional services, and when a job is done, they are done. Want more work? Put in another coin.
I think of book editors as coin-operated. You give them your document, they glance at it and quote a price. Usually, two to five cents per word. So, the author signs the contract, and a few days later, the editor says, “Hey, I found big issues and need to charge you more.”
The author would counter, “You saw the entire book and gave me a quote.” “Yeah, I know, but this mess needs extra work.” So, the author pays.
Usually, things work out with editors, but I have had three unpleasant experiences. One editor did a light pass, catching minor errors. Another hated my book, deleted an entire chapter without explanation, and I did not use 80% of their edits. A third editor introduced as many errors as they found.
Did I pay? It takes time to review the edits, and quality is not apparent until looking deep into them. Thus, I had to pay, which made me understand they were not my partners.
This coin-operated mentality also addresses ethics. Was my company behaving ethically when they delivered a pile of junk to that customer? From the customer’s viewpoint, they were an unethical company. From the company’s viewpoint, we fulfilled the contract. Still, I feel bad about my participation.
I must step back and think about my lousy editor experiences with the coin-operated mentality. They did a terrible job but fulfilled the contract. Fortunately, the fourth editor I worked with did a fantastic job, and I gained experience.
You’re the best -Bill
January 31, 2024
The core of the issue was that customers did not understand the company was not a friend or partner. Instead, they were a coin-operated entity, meaning that when the customer stopped paying; they stopped working. This almost makes sense, but there is another aspect of a coin-operated company that is not always appreciated.
When a customer approached us with a concept, we gave them a time and money estimate along with estimated material costs. After the customer agreed to hire us, we would begin development. Some projects went according to plan, but others required multiple attempts or encountered unexpected issues. As a result, costs ballooned, which angered customers.
I am sure you have experienced the same frustration with a project like a house renovation. For example, if a contractor gets hired to replace a tile floor. All goes well until they find asbestos, mold, or dry rot. Then, the contractor asks for lots more money to fix the problem(s).
What about the other side of this situation? The contractor is a fair person and does not want to cheat anybody. They do not have x-ray vision to see asbestos under ten old tile layers. No matter how the project goes, they must pay bills, pay employees, and profit. If you wish for them to stop working, they would say, “Fine, pay me for the work I have done so far.” Sometimes, a contractor can do no wrong, but the enraged customer feels they got mega-ripped off.
I can recall customer meetings exploding when we explained how much the next step would cost, and those hurt feelings have stuck with me. “I thought you were our partner.” “That is way too much money.” “You never told me it could cost so much.” “You should cover this cost.” “This is not my fault. It’s your fault.” “You should have expected this problem.” It is easy to get comfortable with a coin-operated contractor and forget their place.
One project failed right from the start. We promised them an easy project, but it took too long and failed miserably. Essentially, we charged them for junk. Was this our fault? Yes, we failed to understand the problem when we developed the estimate. Should we have known better? Yes, because we developed the estimate based on worthless information. (We worked through email and did not go to the site to do our research.) Would we make the same mistake? No, we learned to ask more questions. The problem was that the customer paid for us to learn this lesson.
I hired a building contractor to remove cement and install pavers from my backyard. When they dug up one area, they found long roots and spent two days hacking them all out (40+ wheelbarrows full). I wish I had known about the roots in advance, as did the contractor, but we did not have x-ray vision. The extra work added a lot to my bill, but I watched them hack away the roots (doing actual work), and the amount they charged me was fair. Still, I was not happy.
Now, hold on. What about a fixed-price contract? The problem with a fixed-price contract is that all the information must be present to develop it. If a customer insists upon a fixed price to ensure a profit, the company must account for the unknown by adding a buffer. In addition, it takes time to make a proper estimate that accounts for everything, and most companies do not wish to put in the effort as they know the customer will not go through with an expensive project.
I developed fixed price estimates at this engineering company; our buffer was 40%. We usually did alright with these, but one lost money because of poor contract wording. The customer took advantage of the loose deliverables by adding additional requirements. Essentially, they got three times the work out of us.
The heart of the confusion over hiring a coin-operated company is the pride in the work and going the extra mile. This added value might include an extra coat of paint or staying late to finish the job. Coin-operated companies get paid for these additional services, and when a job is done, they are done. Want more work? Put in another coin.
I think of book editors as coin-operated. You give them your document, they glance at it and quote a price. Usually, two to five cents per word. So, the author signs the contract, and a few days later, the editor says, “Hey, I found big issues and need to charge you more.”
The author would counter, “You saw the entire book and gave me a quote.” “Yeah, I know, but this mess needs extra work.” So, the author pays.
Usually, things work out with editors, but I have had three unpleasant experiences. One editor did a light pass, catching minor errors. Another hated my book, deleted an entire chapter without explanation, and I did not use 80% of their edits. A third editor introduced as many errors as they found.
Did I pay? It takes time to review the edits, and quality is not apparent until looking deep into them. Thus, I had to pay, which made me understand they were not my partners.
This coin-operated mentality also addresses ethics. Was my company behaving ethically when they delivered a pile of junk to that customer? From the customer’s viewpoint, they were an unethical company. From the company’s viewpoint, we fulfilled the contract. Still, I feel bad about my participation.
I must step back and think about my lousy editor experiences with the coin-operated mentality. They did a terrible job but fulfilled the contract. Fortunately, the fourth editor I worked with did a fantastic job, and I gained experience.
You’re the best -Bill
January 31, 2024
