Bad Ethics = Good Fiction?
In a recent article, I confronted myself about how poorly I treat my characters. From a high-level view, I really give it to them. Kidnapping, violence, and death… And this self-confrontation made me wonder what it takes to be an author.
One would think that a romantic person writes romance books and a super-soldier writes action books. Yet, we know that authors come in all shapes and sizes.
That seems all normal, but my bonkers mind got hung up on a thought. As I stated, I really put my characters into awful situations, but what if I took it a little further? I draw the line at horror, exploitation, and erotic themes. This is because my ethics prevent me from creating such stories, meaning that I do not allow myself to write about specific topics.
My significant thought is: What change would be necessary for me to go past my line, such as writing a horror book? The answer is that I would have to undergo a radical shift in ethics. Perhaps if I became a drug abuser, were kidnapped, or were sent to prison. Meaning that to survive, I would have to adopt deplorable behavior, which would influence many parts of my life.
I guess I could see myself writing some nasty material after a tragic circumstance, but this makes me wonder about other authors. I am not into horror books or movies, but I have seen The Silence of the Lambs. It is based on the book by Thomas Harris, and while disturbing, I found the movie excellent.
This leads to the question. Is Thomas a depraved individual? I know the answer is no (because he did not write that book in a mental hospital), but the movie had a ghastly plot. There had to be some element in his mind that was abnormal, or at the very least radically different from mine. Which makes me wonder, “Do authors with poor ethics have a greater ability to write good stories?”
If you have read my prior articles, you know what I did. I took a walk to think about it. Along the way, I mentally listed all the story material I chose not to touch. I then thought about what it would feel like to enter this territory.
So, I did a mental experiment by thinking up a horror story. It began with a peaceful family having a wonderful dinner, and suddenly a monster broke down their front door. He attacked the family in a blood-filled rage, resulting in their deaths.
Not a great plot and certainly not something to be proud of. This was unrealistic, and I do not think my readers would enjoy seeing a family in pain.
How would I fix it? I would provide more backstory, which would transform a horror story into a low-impact drama. This would carefully lead readers from a normal person to one with poor morals (the monster) who feels they have no choice but to attack an innocent family.
Umm, that was nice, but I know some readers love to curl up with a good horror novel. This meant that I needed to rethink my approach and took another walk.
The excellent book Ender’s Game by Orson Scott Card put the main character through an awful experience. While I try my best to subject my characters to well-written bad situations, Orson went far outside my comfort zone.
Why? In my stories, bad events occur, but I try to keep outside influences to a minimum. This is because, in my mind, a story reads more realistically when a character makes their own trouble.
In Ender’s Game, multiple children were subjected to external forces. A crafted program intended to cause pain, manipulate their minds, and turn the kids against each other. The result was multiple damaged kids.
While I enjoyed the book, it left me with a bad taste because Orson went a little too far. Yet, this is not necessarily a bad thing for me. It is good to be exposed to multiple viewpoints and realities. This provides balance and perspective, which are essential for growth, understanding, and judgment.
What would it take for me to write Ender’s Game? This is precisely the kind of plot I can relate to. It flows with my writing style, the type of characters I like to create, and I enjoyed the science fiction theme. But, dang, this would be tough to write because I cannot be that mean. Alright, but what about Orson? Is something different in him?
Another way of looking at this is: What part of me would have to break so that I could write his book? My writing experience has taught me that to write, one must believe in the plot and characters, which means that the writer must be willing to allow certain circumstances to occur.
And my walk revealed another aspect. I have a daughter and have been a kid. I did not like it when bad things happened to her, nor did I like it when bad things happened to me growing up. This is proof that my morals are where they should be.
Well, a book is just a book. It is called fiction for a reason. True, but I still must live with myself and bad reviews. I can only conclude that Orson has something fundamental I do not. But what is it?
So, I took a third walk and remembered I have an ace up my sleeve. Along my writing journey, I met fellow authors. We compare writing styles, share stories, and trade techniques. It so happens that two of my friends write in spaces that I choose not to. And we have discussed our writing space many times.
So… What’s different between them and me? The answer is nothing. They are great people with above-average morals. The only difference I can identify is that they choose to write different kinds of books.
This makes sense because we all have different skill sets. I know a lot about electronics, and most people do not. On the flip side, I have never learned (or desired to learn) karate, chess, painting, singing, playing music, or dancing. Yet, I know some people picked up a brush and created a fantastic painting on their first try. This led me to a conclusion.
Writing is separate from ethics. Sure, they are related, but a good/bad person can write whatever kind of book they want. And from my walking effort, I have learned that I cannot switch off certain parts of my ethics. Other authors like Orson have greater abilities to separate their mental blocks, which allows them to develop stories that I cannot. Thus, writing is a broad skill, and I should have figured this out on my first walk. Hmm, another learning experience.
This little thought exercise added another tool to my writing toolbox. Now, I better understand my limitations and know more about the space that I write in— writing or reading a gore novel? Pass.
You’re the best -Bill
November 26, 2025
One would think that a romantic person writes romance books and a super-soldier writes action books. Yet, we know that authors come in all shapes and sizes.
That seems all normal, but my bonkers mind got hung up on a thought. As I stated, I really put my characters into awful situations, but what if I took it a little further? I draw the line at horror, exploitation, and erotic themes. This is because my ethics prevent me from creating such stories, meaning that I do not allow myself to write about specific topics.
My significant thought is: What change would be necessary for me to go past my line, such as writing a horror book? The answer is that I would have to undergo a radical shift in ethics. Perhaps if I became a drug abuser, were kidnapped, or were sent to prison. Meaning that to survive, I would have to adopt deplorable behavior, which would influence many parts of my life.
I guess I could see myself writing some nasty material after a tragic circumstance, but this makes me wonder about other authors. I am not into horror books or movies, but I have seen The Silence of the Lambs. It is based on the book by Thomas Harris, and while disturbing, I found the movie excellent.
This leads to the question. Is Thomas a depraved individual? I know the answer is no (because he did not write that book in a mental hospital), but the movie had a ghastly plot. There had to be some element in his mind that was abnormal, or at the very least radically different from mine. Which makes me wonder, “Do authors with poor ethics have a greater ability to write good stories?”
If you have read my prior articles, you know what I did. I took a walk to think about it. Along the way, I mentally listed all the story material I chose not to touch. I then thought about what it would feel like to enter this territory.
So, I did a mental experiment by thinking up a horror story. It began with a peaceful family having a wonderful dinner, and suddenly a monster broke down their front door. He attacked the family in a blood-filled rage, resulting in their deaths.
Not a great plot and certainly not something to be proud of. This was unrealistic, and I do not think my readers would enjoy seeing a family in pain.
How would I fix it? I would provide more backstory, which would transform a horror story into a low-impact drama. This would carefully lead readers from a normal person to one with poor morals (the monster) who feels they have no choice but to attack an innocent family.
Umm, that was nice, but I know some readers love to curl up with a good horror novel. This meant that I needed to rethink my approach and took another walk.
The excellent book Ender’s Game by Orson Scott Card put the main character through an awful experience. While I try my best to subject my characters to well-written bad situations, Orson went far outside my comfort zone.
Why? In my stories, bad events occur, but I try to keep outside influences to a minimum. This is because, in my mind, a story reads more realistically when a character makes their own trouble.
In Ender’s Game, multiple children were subjected to external forces. A crafted program intended to cause pain, manipulate their minds, and turn the kids against each other. The result was multiple damaged kids.
While I enjoyed the book, it left me with a bad taste because Orson went a little too far. Yet, this is not necessarily a bad thing for me. It is good to be exposed to multiple viewpoints and realities. This provides balance and perspective, which are essential for growth, understanding, and judgment.
What would it take for me to write Ender’s Game? This is precisely the kind of plot I can relate to. It flows with my writing style, the type of characters I like to create, and I enjoyed the science fiction theme. But, dang, this would be tough to write because I cannot be that mean. Alright, but what about Orson? Is something different in him?
Another way of looking at this is: What part of me would have to break so that I could write his book? My writing experience has taught me that to write, one must believe in the plot and characters, which means that the writer must be willing to allow certain circumstances to occur.
And my walk revealed another aspect. I have a daughter and have been a kid. I did not like it when bad things happened to her, nor did I like it when bad things happened to me growing up. This is proof that my morals are where they should be.
Well, a book is just a book. It is called fiction for a reason. True, but I still must live with myself and bad reviews. I can only conclude that Orson has something fundamental I do not. But what is it?
So, I took a third walk and remembered I have an ace up my sleeve. Along my writing journey, I met fellow authors. We compare writing styles, share stories, and trade techniques. It so happens that two of my friends write in spaces that I choose not to. And we have discussed our writing space many times.
So… What’s different between them and me? The answer is nothing. They are great people with above-average morals. The only difference I can identify is that they choose to write different kinds of books.
This makes sense because we all have different skill sets. I know a lot about electronics, and most people do not. On the flip side, I have never learned (or desired to learn) karate, chess, painting, singing, playing music, or dancing. Yet, I know some people picked up a brush and created a fantastic painting on their first try. This led me to a conclusion.
Writing is separate from ethics. Sure, they are related, but a good/bad person can write whatever kind of book they want. And from my walking effort, I have learned that I cannot switch off certain parts of my ethics. Other authors like Orson have greater abilities to separate their mental blocks, which allows them to develop stories that I cannot. Thus, writing is a broad skill, and I should have figured this out on my first walk. Hmm, another learning experience.
This little thought exercise added another tool to my writing toolbox. Now, I better understand my limitations and know more about the space that I write in— writing or reading a gore novel? Pass.
You’re the best -Bill
November 26, 2025
