Writing about a controversial subject for the sake of "rattling cages" is the stupidest thing you can do as a writer. Unless the subject is essential to your story and you have something truly important to say, don't bother.
NO editor will accept a story about child abuse. It is an absolute no-no in publishing. It is taboo. It is especially so in horror fiction, which, sadly, is viewed as the left-handed step-brother of literary fiction. And, since horror is considered "light-weight," it is also the opinion that its dealing with a subject so taboo would be likewise lightweight. Therefore, a horror story on the subject would exist merely to titillate. Or so the general thought goes.
Violence against women is another subject that skates on very thin ice. Or violence against a particular religious group or sexual orientation. Stories that present Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Mohammad , etc., in a less than moral way. Likewise the major patriarchs of their faiths.
Yet, I must admit to you that I have written on each of those taboos in one form or another. It's ultimately about sensitivity and taste. I could say, "You can write about child abuse, if you don't glorify the abuser." But, I can think of at least one way to glorify the abuser and still convey the condemnation of such.
So, like Ivory Soap, the above subjects are 99 and 44/100ths percent untouchable...except when they are. I wouldn't advise approaching an editor you don't know well with one of those stories. I also wouldn't advise making one of them your first novel.
Joined: 31 Oct 2007 Posts: 203 Location: Vancouver, Canada
How controversial is too controversial?
Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 3:04 pm
I agree with David. The history of art, especially the last two hundred years, is full of movements that broke the bonds of the old school, and went for some kind of new 'freedom'. Mostly that meant that their work was so strongly reacting against the old stuff that it was completely derivative. They, too felt that it was important to shock people. The real art showed up once they got over that juvenile rebellion stage, and started to get creative in their own right.
I once had a former acting student come up to me after his performance and ask, "Did we shock you?" My answer was, "I don't shock easy, but I bore easy."
On the topic of child abuse; Piers Anthony wrote a story in which the main character was a child abuser. I was amazed it got by the editors, because it was on the verge of pornographic. Sorry, I can't remember the name of the book. I've probably repressed it in disgust.
Violence against women? Check out the movie, "Strange Days."
My reaction to a lot of this stuff is "I understand what he's trying to say. Why did he have to say it?"
If the answer is, "To shock people," then I'm not impressed.
Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 418 Location: Minnesota
Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 4:21 pm
Quote:
Stories that present Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Mohammad , etc., in a less than moral way.
Crap! I just wrote a story where Moses, Jesus, Mohammad, and a few others were all the same person (including Osama Bin Laden.) So, do you think that is a problem??? _________________ Douglas E. Gogerty
-----
Around the Campfire
"No, I'm from Iowa. I just work in outer space."
-James T. Kirk
Joined: 31 Oct 2007 Posts: 203 Location: Vancouver, Canada
How controversial is too controversial?
Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 8:25 pm
Doug, maybe you fall into that part-of-a-percent that David agrees with. The concept does sound interesting, all right! However, if you only did it to shock people, well, see my comment above.
In general, however, about the profane treatment of other cultures' sacred objects or people: ask that newspaper in Denmark about cartoons of Mohammed!
Doug, when my first novel, Bound in Blood, came out, so did a similar one called, Vampire Vow, by Michael Schiefelbein. They both addressed the subject of vampires and gays, except that in Mr. Schiefelbein's book, the central vampire lusted after Jesus. Now, that sort of writing exists, I believe, primarily to push buttons or to say to the reader, "Aren't I naughty?" In other words, two attitudes worthless in fiction writing.
When I read your post, I immediately assumed you were joking to make a point. I hope so. I cannot imagine a storyline that would justify that collection of multiple personalities, other than in frat-boy fiction.
Jack Ketchum is a writer who can shock the reader in a beautiful, enthralling, literate and intelligent way. The "horror" of his situations is intended to stimulate the readers' thinking process. However, those same scenes and stories in lesser hands would be unjustifiable. Abusing the reader is no way to attain fame. When I say that there is a minute percentage wherein such extremity is justified, I'm talking about the skill of the seasoned professional in the glory of his finely-tuned sensitivity.
I think that's the crux of the matter. If the controversy is there just for shock value, then it's a gimmick. But if it's essential to the story, then it can oftentimes be done well.
Vio, we always risk alienating readers. I knew that by creating a universe wherein a vampire would have to seduce and drink the blood of a mortal of the same sex in order to achieve full potential, I would offend readers who would not read ANYTHING with a gay or lesbian theme--no matter how essential to the plot. Oddly, I thought (prior to publication) that it would be the gay community I offended by killing so many gay men. I never imagined that BOUND IN BLOOD would be a finalist for the Lambda Award!
But the thing is, too far for one reader isn't far enough for another. We have no way of telling. Take for example my absolute revulsion for violence against women. I'll refer to the scene in BinB when Jack finds the body of a mortal he had befriended. (Forgive me for being oblique, I'm trying not to spoil it for anyone who may want to read it.) I know you'll recall the scene I mean. The scene, as written, is fairly revolting. Many people have told me how they were upset by it. In the novel, however, I only describe the aftermath of the violence perpetrated upon her. I believer that "too far" would have been if I'd included the actual attack--in all its detail--in the book.
We have to know when and where to edit ourselves. I do not like to write sex scenes. I believe that adults already know what goes into where, and so, do not need me to refresh their memories. But for BinB, my editor requested 21 additional sex scenes, 19 of which I managed to write. Even so, I hardly mentioned what went where and looked for a description beyond the physical.
I had intended for Bound in Blood to be a brutal book. I felt that the vampire had become to "humanized" and had lost his monstrousness. I wanted to remind the reader that the vampire is a monster who takes lives. But, I thought I could convey the brutality without constantly bombarding the reader with torn limbs, viscera, and buckets of spilled blood.
In the same way, I think I would describe a rape scene by showing what was going on in the mind of the victim, rather than to her body. With an abused child, I'd most likely describe the appearance of the child in an emergency room, rather than the beating itself.
What would you consider essential? What do you consider controversial?
Let's say that my WiP's MC is a female cop who is in a commited but not monogamous relationship with another woman. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the plot (which would be a detective story) but has lots to do with her character and the secondary characters in the story. Would this seem non-essential then? Would it seem more gimmicky if there were sex scenes between the MC and her SO than if there weren't?
What about a fantasy society where a "family" isn't our nuclear type? If the plot doesn't somehow revolve around family issues, would you then think that the society has that structure only as a gimmick?
Joined: 31 Oct 2007 Posts: 203 Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 3:09 pm
Mervi wrote:
What about a fantasy society where a "family" isn't our nuclear type? If the plot doesn't somehow revolve around family issues, would you then think that the society has that structure only as a gimmick?
In the ideal situation, a writer chooses a different society, whether it be historical or created, because that society allows the author to say something about our own society in a clearer, or more effective way. Lord of the Flies, 1984, etc.
SF/F writers, I suspect, often create their societies because it's fun. Which leads to enthusiastic writing, but sometimes the society can be a distraction. How to draw the line between rich background and interference is a line every author has to be aware of all the time. The answer to your question only appears in the response of the individual reader, I guess.
Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 418 Location: Minnesota
Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:29 pm
My story, is about two groups of competing immortals -- for a lack of a better term. One of the immortals was born and placed into a boat and placed in the Nile where Pharaoh's daughter finds him. That is, he's Moses. He is the son of the law-giving god. Hence, he creates a religion with a bunch of rules. However, it doesn't work out like he wants, so he creates another religion - with a friend that he didn't know was Judas and on the other side. That is, Moses and Jesus were the same person. He goes on to create another religion filled with rules, IE Islam. Judas just so happens to be Atilla the Hun, Genghis Khan, Napoleon...
Thus, in the story, it makes sense that these people are really the same person. It is part of an important back story to current day, where the "end of times" is occurring. I was very sensitive and I did not necessarily spell out these facts, but they are clearly implied. Also, it wasn't done simply to be controversial. It was needed to define who the two groups were and why they were actually fighting. The two actually swap positions at the end, as the lawful ends up lawless and the lawless ends up Pope John Paul II. _________________ Douglas E. Gogerty
-----
Around the Campfire
"No, I'm from Iowa. I just work in outer space."
-James T. Kirk
Joined: 31 Oct 2007 Posts: 203 Location: Vancouver, Canada
How controversial is too controversial?
Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 5:15 pm
It sounds like Doug's 'controversial' plot line fits my criteria for 'essential to the theme'. The book sounds interesting. Immortality is a tough one to find something new to say. It obviously strikes a chord, because we all speculate what it would be like, but that's not enough to make it a story. Seems like Doug has something else going, though.
However, it is bound to offend somebody. He may be the next Salman Rushdie, and we can say we knew him when�
Joined: 21 Apr 2006 Posts: 649 Location: NSW, Australia
Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 6:14 pm
Mervi wrote:
Let's say that my WiP's MC is a female cop who is in a commited but not monogamous relationship with another woman. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the plot (which would be a detective story) but has lots to do with her character and the secondary characters in the story. Would this seem non-essential then? Would it seem more gimmicky if there were sex scenes between the MC and her SO than if there weren't?
How would her life differ from that of a hetero cop? From personal experience, I know the lives and times of gays are 99.9% identical to that of their straight counterparts.
Unless you intended to show LGBT prejudice (i.e set the story in Iran or somewhere) is a major theme in your story, then yes, the whole thing could be construed as a gimmick.
Personally, I don't find reading about a gay or bi protagonist remotely controversial, but that's me.
Joined: 31 Oct 2007 Posts: 203 Location: Vancouver, Canada
How controversial is too controversial?
Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 12:39 am
I agree with Peter, except�
Nobody writes straight detective novels anymore. If they ever did. In order to make the story more interesting, they always create good characters as well (Poirot, Miss Marple, etc.)
So if the personalities of your characters make the story more interesting, then go for it.
It would be nice if their individualities weren't completely separate from the job they do, or the mystery they are solving, or the theme of the story, or something. But that's just me being academic.
Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 418 Location: Minnesota
Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 4:50 pm
Quote:
However, it is bound to offend somebody. He may be the next Salman Rushdie, and we can say we knew him when�
Don't worry. I can never get anyone to actually read my stuff. It'll never make a big splash... I'm moving on to a Science Fiction Comedy. 4 guys at a comic book convention get sucked across time and space to an intra-galactic comic book convention. Hilarity (hopefully) ensues. _________________ Douglas E. Gogerty
-----
Around the Campfire
"No, I'm from Iowa. I just work in outer space."
-James T. Kirk
How would her life differ from that of a hetero cop? From personal experience, I know the lives and times of gays are 99.9% identical to that of their straight counterparts.
Indeed. If I were to write about that MC, my whole point would be that not-heteros aren't so different. Because many people still seem to think that they are.
Quote:
Unless you intended to show LGBT prejudice (i.e set the story in Iran or somewhere) is a major theme in your story, then yes, the whole thing could be construed as a gimmick.
Hmm. To me this seems a bit wrong. It feel like you can only write about not-hetero characters if you make their sexuality the biggest thing in their lives. Some years back it seemed that you could write about female characters only if you gave them some special gender-problems to deal with. I personally loath that. After all, I don't go about my day thinking "I'm a woman and so I must relate to everything in my life through my gender".
And I think that it's still quite easy to put a story to modern US (or Finland for that matter) and still show prejudice very well. Probably even better than if the story were set in a more extremely prejudiced country.
Quote:
Personally, I don't find reading about a gay or bi protagonist remotely controversial, but that's me.
Neither would I. However, I've gotten the impression over the years that quite a few people do seem to find not-hetero (and not-white for that matter) characters controversial.
Quote:
It would be nice if their individualities weren't completely separate from the job they do, or the mystery they are solving, or the theme of the story, or something
.
Of course but if, say, the MC cop's brother is one of the suspects that doesn't have anything to do with her sexual identity.
Let's say that my WiP's MC is a female cop who is in a commited but not monogamous relationship with another woman. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the plot (which would be a detective story) but has lots to do with her character and the secondary characters in the story. Would this seem non-essential then? Would it seem more gimmicky if there were sex scenes between the MC and her SO than if there weren't?
For one, I'm not a fan of any story where the personal relationships of the characters are secondary to the plot. For me the characters are the plot, and what drives them through their lives, what conflicts burden their souls... that's what the story is about. But detective fiction will be detective fiction.
In which case, I would say that putting sex scenes into detective fiction, whether gay or straight, that aren't essential to solving the crime is a gimmicky grab for audience interest. The common reader likes sex scenes, or thinks they like sex scenes, and so these are often included extraneously to satisfy readers. In the current fiction market I would say that whether your characters who have extraneous sex scenes are gay or straight speaks to your choice of market. Gay/lesbian commerical fiction tends to get confined as its own sub-genre. Same with a lot of commercial fiction about minorities. Whereas fiction about white straight people is considered general fiction. Whether this is fair... who knows. On the one hand, targeting minority fiction to minority audiences seems closed minded, on the other hand, they are hot genres with eager audiences and a new writer may have a better chance of making a splash by targeting to minority markets. Just depends how you look at it.
So, unless a writer known for writing about straight characters suddenly switches up and writes about gay characters (thus duping poor unsuspecting straight folks into reading gay sex scenes... oh, the humanity!), then I don't think that gay extraneous sex scenes are any more gimmicky than straight ones. It's a matter of audience. _________________ Violet "Violanthe" Kane
[email protected] ARWZ.com: A Magazine of Alternative Reality Fiction
Joined: 05 Nov 2007 Posts: 22 Location: Pennsylvania
Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 5:32 am
David Thomas Lord wrote:
Vio, we always risk alienating readers. I knew that by creating a universe wherein a vampire would have to seduce and drink the blood of a mortal of the same sex in order to achieve full potential, I would offend readers who would not read ANYTHING with a gay or lesbian theme--no matter how essential to the plot.
...
We have to know when and where to edit ourselves. I do not like to write sex scenes. I believe that adults already know what goes into where, and so, do not need me to refresh their memories. But for BinB, my editor requested 21 additional sex scenes, 19 of which I managed to write. Even so, I hardly mentioned what went where and looked for a description beyond the physical.
I agree with you that somebody is bound to be offended by nearly anything one could write. However, should we be forced to edit ourselves? Sure, to the point of not submitting a work like that to a children's magazine. But your point about not liking to write sex scenes personally? If you did like to write them, does that mean you should stop yourself from doing so in any situation? Shouldn't we let our art express our real selves?
Violanthe wrote:
For one, I'm not a fan of any story where the personal relationships of the characters are secondary to the plot. For me the characters are the plot, and what drives them through their lives, what conflicts burden their souls... that's what the story is about. But detective fiction will be detective fiction.
...
So, unless a writer known for writing about straight characters suddenly switches up and writes about gay characters (thus duping poor unsuspecting straight folks into reading gay sex scenes... oh, the humanity!), then I don't think that gay extraneous sex scenes are any more gimmicky than straight ones. It's a matter of audience.
I enjoy character-driven stories much more than procedural type ones as well. I also agree, it's a matter of audience. But I don't think it's necessarily any more gimicky for a writer known for one thing to try something new. One possibility to avoid upsetting readers is using a different pen name for different types of work; do you think this is a good solution?
Now, I gotta get on my soapbox a little... I'm a believer in 100% freedom of speech. I don't think you could convince me that any type of writing fits the legal definition of obscenity or should be censored. And I've been in situations as an editor where this issue has reared its head, and it was my decision to publish or not. However, I admit (somewhat reluctantly!) there are certain things which editors should choose not to publish, for the "greater good" for lack of a better explanation. It all depends what your audience is.
Personally, I find "controversial" stories more entertaining much of the time. Playing devil's advocate - It doesn't have to be central to the plot. Some people like reading about GLBT issues, rape, child abuse, and other controversial things. If nothing else they may like the idea of exploring a theme from all sides so that they can make educated arguements against it. "How I Learned to Drive" by Paula Vogel is a play that deals with pedophilia. Maybe you could argue it's central to the plot... but on the surface, it's about driving lessons. (admittedly, there may be better examples of that) J.K. Rowling said Dumbledore is gay. Who's to say what is metaphor and what is unncecessary description? I don't necessarily avoid things that don't push the envelope, but I do enjoy reading about and identifying with characters who aren't necessarily mainstream.
Writing is art, and good art is frequently controversial. I don't think we should censor ourselves, there are enough people out there to try it for us.
Joined: 07 Sep 2007 Posts: 523 Location: Upstate New York
Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 2:48 pm
Violanthe wrote:
I think that a savvy writer will censor him/herself wisely because leaving too much uncensored can limit your market and your audience.
Ah! The point about sellability to markets. Good point!
I've sold a couple of speculative poems to a Christain speculative market. I would never dream of sending a graphic homoerotic horror piece to such a market. Not that I've written such a piece anyway (or would - it's just not me), but I'm just using that as an extreme example. I know plenty of markets that state they don't want submission containin graphic gore or sexuality - and it's not just the Christain markets either.
Become too controversial, and you're possibly limiting your potential markets. This is something a writer writing for publication must keep in mind. Writing something controversial for art's sake might not be compatible with sellability. _________________ "I'm going to do what the warriors of old did. I'm going to recite poetry!"
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Alternative Reality Web Zine: ISSN# 1559-3037
All materials on these pages (including fiction, poetry, essays, articles, interviews and opinion pieces) are copyrighted to the original authors and may not be reproduced without permission.
