[simmerup]

I feel like the moment you put any idea out there you have the potential to influence people unexpectedly, and be at peace with that.

I saw a youtube interview of an addict who said he started taking painkillers regularly because he saw House doing it. Surely the writers didn’t know they were setting up some kid in suburban America up for addiction by giving him that mannerism

[LeifCarrotson]

Unexpectedly?

The whole point of publishing an idea or art piece is to influence people. Sure, some people will misinterpret it, but it should be pretty obvious that if you make a heroically brilliant protagonist dismissive of an opioid addiction that some people are going to think that's cool, especially if you're portraying that on TV. That's why Burgess wrote:

> I should not have written the book because of this danger of misinterpretation...

Kubrick's film (disclaimer: I've only read the book, I've never seen the movie) has apparently made this problem worse for Burgess. Similarly, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes was a deeply flawed protagonist, which readers of his books would see, but I believe that the way the character was portrayed by Robert Downey Jr. in the recent film/series adaptations similarly disguised those flaws and had a strong potential for some misinterpretation and more negative impacts.

[pallas_athena]

>The whole point of publishing an idea or art piece is to influence people

One of the topics constantly running in my mind is Alan Moore saying that writing a comic, novel, movie, is an act of magic.

You write, or say, something. Other people hear, and their brain is forever changed. They will think and/or act differently.

So he truly is a wizard.

[kayodelycaon]

> The whole point of publishing an idea or art piece is to influence people.

As an author, I throughly disagree with this statement. Humans like to tell stories and entertain each other.

My primary goal for publishing my stories is for people to find them enjoyable. Some of my stories have a secondary goal of showing less common perspectives for the purpose of introducing people to ideas they may not have considered.

Any idea can influence someone, but does not mean all ideas are published to influence.

[saltcured]

I would agree with you if one takes "influence" to mean something ulterior like propaganda or social programming.

But I also can't help but think of art and literature as a bit like a radio transmission. It depends on your being in tune enough to influence the receivers, or no signal comes across at all.

[coliveira]

Not only that, House was the inspiration for a whole generation of drug addicts by providing a character that they could empathize with. The same way that Wall Street created a whole generation that wanted to become crooked stock operators.

[SideburnsOfDoom]

You might not be serious, but see also Liar's Poker: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar%27s_Poker#Reception

Despite the book's quite unflattering depiction of Wall Street firms and many of the people who worked there, many younger readers were fascinated by the life depicted. Many read it as a "how-to manual" and asked the author for additional "secrets" that he might care to share

[coliveira]

I'm serious, "Wall Street" with Michael Douglas was a big hit in the 80s. And these are not the only examples. Another is "Wolf of Wall Street", which depicts the life of a criminal stock operator. The real guy now makes a living as a "coach" and has inspired countless others to follow his steps (while hopefully avoiding jail).

[elf25]

My what a boring media landscape it would be if all characters were goodie little “Mary Poppins” types.

Just because a minority wrongly take inspiration from an ill behaved character is no reason to temper a fictional character actions. Did Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid lead to an increase in bank and train robberies?

[fellowniusmonk]

I think that arguably Mary Poppins was so popular because she was incredibly mean and acerbic in the books (if memory serves from reading them as a kid.)

The movie Disnified the character just like so many Grimms tales.

[wiseowise]

> Did Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid lead to an increase in bank and train robberies?

Doing petty crime and being misogynistic piece of shit is easier than robbing a bank.

[looknee]

I think about this topic regularly, the question of how responsible a person should be for the unintentional effects of their actions.

In general society agrees that people are responsible for unintentional effects to their actions when they're obvious and predictable, such as involuntary manslaughter for killing someone while driving drunk. A reasonable person should understand the risk of that and take it into account before deciding to drive after having a number of drinks.

Where it gets more complicated and divisive is when the unintentional effects become less obvious or easily attributable.

I feel there are lots of behaviors that we're able to show empirically have negative impacts on the world yet aren't immediately obvious or unavoidably attributable, and because they're not intuitably, at-first-glance attributable there begin to be people who dismiss them despite empirical evidence proving their cause. Things like chemical dumping into rivers as an externality of an industrial process causing health impacts to surrounding communities come to mind as an example.

Where it gets even fuzzier is when impacts are social and diffuse.

A place I see a lot of discussion related to this topic is in the comedy world. You regularly see people criticize comedians for their jokes being harmful or hurtful. In my opinion these criticisms are sometimes accurate, and sometimes are inaccurate due to mistaking the topic of a joke as being the butt of it (a good example highlighting the difference I feel is Shane Gillis' jokes about autism from his standup https://youtu.be/ly14Pr2RLys, vs him calling out Andrew Shultz for jokes on the same topic but done in a derogatory manner: https://youtu.be/ENpTQ6ws3P8?t=954).

The general retort from comedians to people criticizing them is that "The intent of the joke isn't bad, it's all about the intent." I feel this is partially true, but it completely ignores the potential unintended consequences of the things they say, and the potential responsibility people have for the them.

I think this area and ones like it, involving the question of to what degree people with cultural influence should be held accountable for the unintentional impacts of their influence is really interesting and complex. I don't have much more to say beyond that I find it interesting and nuanced.

[wintermutestwin]

It is indeed all about the intent and like a dog knows the difference between being kicked and tripped over, we instinctively know the intent. If in our social outrage, we decide to ignore our instinct, then we are essentially just looking for excuses to grandstand our outrage. This grandstanding has the unintended consequence of polarizing a social debate to the point of demonizing and arbitrary adherence on both sides.

It seems that the desire to grandstand our outrage has exploded as we all now have access to our "15 minutes of fame" via our new global social platforms. Like children finding their ability to speak, society as a whole is still in a dadaistic phase. I hope that, with much time and troubles, we eventually learn to speak in a more mature way.

>I think this area and ones like it, involving the question of to what degree people with cultural influence should be held accountable for the unintentional impacts of their influence is really interesting and complex. I don't have much more to say beyond that I find it interesting and nuanced.

Well said and agreed. In our complex social web, the unintended consequences of every nuanced thing we do makes it very hard for the wise to be sure of the societal value of our beliefs and resultant actions. There are very few topics where I am comfortable fully embracing a side.

[kayodelycaon]

> How responsible a person should be for the unintentional effects of their actions.

This is already enshrined in law as "negligence" and "reasonable person". It's not helpful to hold people responsible for not considering every possible outcome of what they say, including perspectives that aren't well known.

For example, I'm bipolar. Almost every media representation of bipolar individuals is reinforcing a stereotype that is actively harmful to me. I don't think the average reasonable person would be aware of this.

Bipolar is not limited to mania and depression. I call it the grab bag of issues. My brain went to the grocery store of mental illness, stuck out an arm across a shelf on aisle 3, and swept everything into the cart, like a snow plow clearing a highway.

[dylan604]

> Surely the writers didn’t know they were setting up some kid

I'm going to disagree with this. Music, movies, and TV have been proven to be very effective at influencing. While the writers may not have intended to promote drug use, they had to expect that the wrong idea might be taken away from it. Is their fault, hell no. Does it mean that a writer should take pause before writing something? Maybe, but now we're on the verge of recommending pre-censoring content. My contention is that someone putting something out for mass consumption should not be surprised by anyone coming back later and saying they were influenced by that work as it has been demonstrated time and time again. You think Salinger thought his work was going to influence serial killers?

[bonton89]

Always seemed odd to me that House was even able to think clearly while high all the time, much less do his job at such a high level.

[StableAlkyne]

House drew a lot of inspiration from Sherlock Holmes - both get cases nobody else can solve, Wilson / Watson are their close companion who are essential to solving many cases, etc. It's something acknowledged in interviews by people involved in the show.

The drug use is another thing - Sherlock used cocaine and morphine. House used Vicodin. Morphine and Vicodin are both opioids.

If they had him abuse cocaine, it would be too unrealistic. If they had him abuse Adderall, it might not be obvious to audiences that he has a substance abuse problem - people could write it off as him using it to focus. A prescription opioid is something audiences understood were abused at the time, and maintains the Sherlock connections the writers were going for.

Plus it gives plenty of plot hooks to explore the effects and consequences of addiction to someone we believe to be very successful (success is happiness, right?) in season 1

[nineplay]

Sherlock Holmes did not use opium. Watson once described him as appearing as someone under the influence of opium, but discarded the suggestion. In another story ( The Man with the Twisted Lip ) Watson discovers Holmes in an Opium den, but Holmes is on a case and in disguised.

The cocaine habit is probably exaggerated. Watson does not give a frequency of his usage and reports Holmes as saying that he only uses it when he doesn't have a case to occupy his mind. Whether this means he uses it a few times a week or a few times a year is not stated.

[0xBDB]

It's strongly implied that Holmes used morphine for recreation as well by the fact that Watson had to ask which habit he was indulging in The Sign of the Four.

"Which is it today," I asked, "morphine or cocaine?" "It Is cocaine," he said, "a seven-percent solution. Would you care to try it?..."

[nradov]

There are a lot of highly functional opioid addicts out there. You would be surprised to find out what some of the people you work with are taking.

[TheOtherHobbes]

There are also a lot of addicts who believe they're high functioning and really aren't.

I strongly suspect mandatory opioid and cocaine testing in politics - never mind finance and law - would be a very good thing.

[dgfitz]

"Your teeth look good, have you made any diet changes?" - Dentist "Yeah, I don't eat poppy seed bagels anymore, don't want to lose my job. Oh, and no novacaine, same reason. Just get started until I pass out from the pain."

C'mon.

[dylan604]

C'mon?

There's a huge difference between popping pills and having a local anesthetic. To even attempt to compare the two is being disingenuous at best. It's not even something prescribed to take home.

[boxed]

Like it's said in Star Trek: First you take the drugs to feel good, then you take them to not feel bad.

You get used to the effects. House wasn't high. He was just addicted.

[kennethrc]

... or, ya know, convenient excuse?

[h2odragon]

> Surely the writers didn’t know they were setting up some kid in suburban America up for addiction

Ya think? I disagree. It was product placement at the time. Now, it's hard not to call it outright drug pushing.

[dwringer]

I think it was primarily an homage to Sherlock Holmes on whom the character is largely based, modern cultural context aside.

[xivzgrev]

To me it was character development. His whole persona is this independent persona - his genius puts him above normal people, rules, and his team is merely there to execute his ideas and bounce ideas off of (like his ball).

Despite all of that, he has crippling pain and a painkiller addiction that he’s utterly dependent on. It brings him back down to earth.

[golergka]

What? It was clear right from the series start that he has problem with the drug.

[h2odragon]

His problem is that others disapprove. He goes cold turkey a couple times and proves that he's in actual pain.

I ain't watched much of the show for a while, my wife is fond of it.

[Clamchop]

Closer to the end of the series, he basically loses his mind and is destructive to himself and others. An entire plot line was House hallucinating that he had quit and recovered from withdrawals (among other imagined or altered events) only for it to be revealed that he was using more than ever.

So, he canonically has more problems with drugs than social disapproval.

[golergka]

> He goes cold turkey a couple times and proves that he's in actual pain.

This doesn't contradict the fact that he's an addict, which is clearly portrayed in the show from the very beginning.

[dageshi]

House was at least in part based on Sherlock Holmes who infamously had his 7% Cocaine solution. It's not entirely unreasonable to think the writers of House would update that to be pills.

Not everything is some vast conspiracy...

[coliveira]

Except that this was such a small detail on Sherlock Holmes novels that few people remember it.

[themadturk]

Except that the author of one of the best of Holmes pastiche novels, Nicholas Meyer, titled one of his books "The Seven Percent Solution."

[mrguyorama]

It's such a "small detail" that nearly every modern interpretation of the character likes to portray it for the "fans"

[h2odragon]

"vast conspiracy"?

How would "hey we can include your product in our TV show" be a "vast conspiracy"? It's done all the time, with no one hiding any aspect of the business.

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

I hadn’t heard this point of view before but it doesn’t seem too unlikely. The homage to Holmes is an effective way to hide it. That’s some good plausible deniability.