Must we choose between morality and creativity?   If we regard them each as mutually exclusive then we must.   Morality is defined at both the personal level, and at the societal level.   Personal moral beliefs and philosophical ethics come in a plethora of combinations.   These rarely are the problem for a writer.

A problem arises when the societal perceptions are in conflict with those of the creative artist.   In fact, some religionists hold that the concept of "creative artist" is in itself a blaspheme.

It is obvious: a minefield awaits the writer with an iconoclastic twist.   Salman Rushdie's peril at the hands of the Iranian government often comes to mind, when engaging this topic.   But what of academically recognized classics of authorial genius which are being taken from the shelves of libraries, in some communities, on moral grounds?   Society cannot hope to reform those authors; their works are largely authored by people, passed on. Censorship is all that remains to the moralist "true believer."

Does creative license have a benefit to society?   Does it always come at the expense of morality?   Does its benefit outweigh its erosional effect on moral doctrine?   Apart from finding your own position on these questions, it behooves the writer to take stock of the conventional wisdom of the time, and of the society in which you find yourself.

Tolerance waxes, flows and wanes; intellectual pursuit is valued, or not, at any given moment in history.   The Western Democracies have usually championed freedom for their citizens from creative restraint.   Indeed, the concept of the state patent office, and of copyright protection, is intended to nurture and reward creativity.   Perhaps herein lies the noblest value of those societies.

The writer must navigate the minefield, each on their own, of course.   Simple answers are self-defeating, for is not censorship a simple answer; and does it not deprive a society of richness and texture and variety?   Does it not imprison the creative exploration of the human condition?   Does not creative propaganda replace truths with simple, carefully crafted lies?

Where a given society comes down on the amount of creative license it tolerates will vary across time and through the ages.   It perhaps cannot be denied that the more creative effort a society tolerates, the richer that society will be; both in material wealth and in richness of culture.

Where you come down as an author, might determine your value to your culture.   Voltaire's works are snatched from library shelves, and returned to them, at dizzying frequency in some communities.   Voltaire has succeeded in presenting controversial thought, ideas and observations which many scholars find to be of great value.

Born Francois Marie Arouet, in Paris, Nov. 21, 1694, he was both imprisoned and exalted for his writings during his life.   He, and many other authors, continue to stir passions and insights, and are controversial long after death.   Ideas and perspectives continue to threaten belief systems and society's institutions of order.

Like moths to a candle, we can be drawn to a flickering truth at the heart of humankind.   Perhaps a more accurate reflection of the dilemma would be the question: how close to the flame will you fly?