The long-standing debate on separating a writer from their work is far from resolved, but I’d like to take a different approach to dissect this matter. In other words, to put primary focus on two main aspects when it comes to understanding this topic: intent and overall harm.

The Role of Intent

Suppose you heard the words “I hate you.” No matter the context, your brain will register them - if only for a moment - to consider the intent. Where exactly does it come from? It comes from a person, essentially the source of the words. So, we shift the weight to the source of the words.

Let’s take a step further and ask ourselves: does the source of the words matter? Would it elicit the same reaction if your boss said it instead of your mother? Probably not.

Similarly, if a writer known to be a decent person and another author known as an abuser both incorporated murder into their writing, which one would you feel more threatened by? Clearly, the latter. In fact, you might start speculating on the reality of certain aspects of the murder piece - questioning whether the author had intended to write it in a critical or justifying manner. If certain use of language had subliminally embedded thoughts of justifying abuse into your mind as a reader. Maybe you, as an older or more nuanced reader, escaped this fate or saw past the writing. But what of the younger, more impressionable audience? What of someone who is not as well-read, or simply of a naïve nature?

Image credit: Anna from Pexels

Take the Quiz: Which Literary Fiction Should You Read Next?

Jump into the world of literary fiction with the one of these novels based on your existing favourites.

Assessing Harm

How does this practice affect the masses? What is the long-term effect of spreading wrong ideas and vicious propaganda within society? If good books can shape entire generations, what of the ones that plant dangerous ideas?

It’s a rather nuanced and complicated question to ask. The idea of harm is not so simple. If seen in a tangible form - physical violence - conclusions can surely be made. However, when it comes to emotional affectations, it becomes a more subjective and debatable concern.

It’s crucial not to take this as a misstep or interpret it as a tool to suppress free speech. Nor is it an obstruction towards writing on controversial or dark matters. Rather, it’s a reminder to be careful where your feet land - the smooth glass you trace might just cut your fingers when you’re not looking.

Balancing Freedom and Responsibility

I’d like to emphasize that as individuals, we have the right to personal freedom and the ability to speak our will. According to John Stuart Mill, there is a requirement for government or societal intervention when something causes more harm than good. Mill makes a clear distinction between harm and offense. He explains that harm relates to physical violence, emotional violence, or the violation of rights, while offense refers to matters that might upset a certain group of people.

But again, words are always written with intent. Whether or not we consciously recognize it, our words are shaped by bias, perception, and most importantly, purpose. While there are arguments that some words are written without intent - justified as mere slips of the tongue, or simply the next best sentence the author could come up with - it’s a lacking argument.

We tend to ignore the subtle groundwork and the underlining beneath the words that come out of our mouths. No matter how meaningless you deem something, it rises with purpose, whether or not we realize it.

Historical Examples of Propaganda’s Power

In 1933, when Hitler began his crusade against the Jews, it wasn’t a blunt call to “just kill them.” It was years of slow, calculated propaganda that gradually shaped public perception until, by the end, Jews were viewed as animals. If a man’s words could convince an entire nation to commit violence, imagine the power behind the words we read and write today. We claim to be an evolved society, and yet we continue to justify atrocities in the 21st century.

Why? Because a few journalists can twist a narrative to fit their agenda.

Take, for example, the new report on the case of five-year-old Hind Rajab. She was shot over 300 times. Yet instead of describing her as the little girl she was, the journalists referred to her as a “woman.” Notice the language.

That shift from “child” to “woman” undermining the barbarity of the situation. This type of linguistic manipulation is common in writing. While it may seem like a small change, it significantly affects the reader’s perception. It also serves as an outlet for intent and inner belief. The repercussions of reading a writer’s work who possesses corrupt ideas and intentions are dire, to say the least.

Image credit: Suzy Hazelwood from Pexels

Reading with Responsibility

In a world where words have the power to shape perceptions, influence decisions, and leave lasting imprints on society, it is essential to pay attention to what the writer leaves within their work. Writers embed their intentions, beliefs, and biases - consciously or unconsciously - into their creations, and readers, in turn, absorb these undercurrents, often without realizing it. So again, I pose the question: can an author truly be separated from their work? Perhaps, rather than asking if an author can be separated from their work, we should ask how much of them remains within it.