The Ethics of Writing, does a novel need to be morally good?

RATIONALIST, ra'shon-al-ist, n. An adherent of rationalism; one who rejects the super-natural element in Scripture.

Rationalist Society President Meredith Doig talked with Peter Craven, Anne Buist, David Musgrave and Anne Elvey about whether books need to be morally good.  

Anne Buist, the author of Medea's Curse discussed the controversial ethical dilemmas she faces as an author whose narratives are  directly derived from her experiences as a practitioner of psychiatry.  David Musgrave discussed the behaviour of  authors  and issues surrounding copyright.

Robust references and quotes from seminal literature were plentiful throughout the discussion. F.R. Levis' quote "Literature is a form of truth, therefore in itself is moral", Jung's comment, "Maybe the devil's grandmother knows more of woman." Bonny Cassidy's Final Theory,  Protocols of the Elder's of Zion, D.M. Thomas The White Hotel, and John Fowles famous work The Collector was also referenced in terms of  contextualising moral issues contained within the novel. Understandably, I too conceded  after reading the chloroform scene from The Collector,  to the  examination of  the morality of the  novel in terms of how a authorial work disseminates knowledge about the ways in which criminal activities are performed. The conclusion I drew was that it is not the description of abhorrent activities that should be censored, it is the task of the author to reveal the workings of the human state and activities, moreover,  the morality barometer could be located in both how the story is nuanced and through the ways the readership  responds  to the text.  Like all powerful art forms,  books have the potential to  incite, catalyse, detonate or  diffuse an audience. The author-reader relationship is pertinent in gauging the morality of a text. Novels may not be morally good, however this doesn't make the novel bereft of morality. In fact, a good immoral  textual  narrative has the potential to  initiate and encourage  the reader's questioning of their own morals,  judgements and ethical codes,  which in itself is an important activity for the development of a self-referential society.

Naturally, the tone of the discussion was quintessentially rationalist, which didn't prescribe any ultimate answers or medicinal applications as to whether it  is in fact important for a novel to be morally good. The discussion aired the question and did so in a way that challenged the audience to consider their own views. The discussion progressed  tangentially and explored  further the question "Does reading make for a better life?" With relief this was one question I could personally answer unequivocally.