The source states it directly
Richard begins with an opt-out: it warns of broadly offensive language and scenarios, says its material derives from reality/direct experience, states that depiction should not be read as endorsement and refuses to sanitize what it calls fundamentally insane.
Why the distinction remains useful
Many fictions place the reader close to objectionable minds. Keeping speaker, narrator, scene and author distinct prevents a crude equation—“a bad proposition appears, therefore the work commands it.” That is an interpretive safeguard, not an ethical verdict.
Why it cannot be universalized
The broader author-confirmed account is less programmatic: offensive and degraded speech are among the available ways people speak, and not every appearance was installed to teach a lesson about sanitization. Other works provide no Richard-style disclaimer at all.
Four things the distinction does not mean
- Representation is consequence-free.
- A reader must enjoy, forgive or remain near an objectionable voice.
- Intentional provocation automatically succeeds.
- Criticism disappears because the work can identify its own device.
The strongest companion page is therefore Critical Objections, which preserves the possibility that a representation can be carefully attributed and still judged irresponsible, exploitative or simply bad.