Writing about controversial topics

Glad you asked, Louanne. I write to provide a much-needed alternative to the mainstream view that has caused a lot of suffering, things that even a lot of church leaders won’t touch. My readers are quite grateful to me for my work. They tell me it makes a real and positive difference in their lives. It’s a service that I believe God has called me to provide; there aren’t many writers like me.

 

No to the first, but the second is the short definition of a belief. I believe 2+2=4, and anyone who doesn’t is wrong. That isn’t a judgment against the person, but rather, the person is making a mistake with regard to facts.

 

I was wondering the same things too. I have been a little anxious leading up to publication about some of my pieces. I'm not in it trying to make friends or enemies because of my work, but I also know both things have happened through it as well.

@Homer Potvin -- I think what you said a few posts back about capturing the mundane is a really good approach for writing about controversial topics. That really resinates with me.

 

You have found a purpose, and that is a good thing. We all feel called by something, I believe, and if you want to identify it as God, no skin off my teeth.

But at the same time, it's only fair to be inclusive of other views.

 

You are conflating beliefs with facts. Which do you mean? A belief is not supported by evidence, a fact is. I suspect that the facts to which I subscribe are different than your "facts."

I want to bring this back to the OP. Is it your contention that the writer should present their take on things, without consideration for the other side, and only term it "wrong."?

 

Sorry, but I think being so sure of anything can make you miss out of the conversation happening through art and writing. Personally, I rather tell a good story that adds to and becomes part of that conversation than stand on any sort of soapbox claiming to have all the answers.

I think it's also pretty rare to know what readers think. I'm not saying it doesn't happen. People write letters to the editors of which some are published in certain magazines and such. I did have a university professor reach out to me to let me know that she was using some of my writing in her class about marginalized voices in literature. It was cool that happened and everything, but I have no idea how the class discussion of my work went. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall in that room. Some editors have told me about when they've received feedback or how many clicks some pieces have gotten, but most of the time I don't hear much of anything. However, I do know what kind of weight places I publish hold. I think the bigger the publication the more nervous I get about what I'm saying and what people think. I did not feel this way as a journalist, but I do feel this way as a creative writer.

 

I think we’re having a miscommunication based on different understandings of the nature of belief, opinion, etc., plus the different media in which we work. What constitutes being inclusive of others’ beliefs? I can’t exactly write a poem defending X and then turn around and make the last stanza say Not X. A poem, unless it’s a long one that tells a story (like a verse novel or an epic poem like The Odyssey), doesn’t exactly have room for complex debate; it takes a look at one thing and expressed the poet’s thoughts on it; even if he expresses doubts about his idea (as in a Petrarchan sonnet, where that’s part of the structure of the form), it’s only to confirm it at the end.

Nuanced issues are more the domain of fiction. When I write my short stories, I take care to present all sides as they would realistically speak, whether I agree with them or not. But I still make my point through the story. When liberals write stories and feature conservative characters, even as villains, I want to be able to say, “Yes, that’s exactly what I would say, think, and do.” When I write characters who disagree with me (and not all my stories have clear heroes and villains), I want people who hold their opinions to be able to say the same.

Anyway, to answer your concern, deadrats, I’ve had direct feedback from some of my readers telling me that my poems have changed their lives for the better. They’ve said it’s brought them closer to their families in different ways (my writing is very pro-family) and helped them step away from influence of detrimental mainstream ideas. This kind of thing is why I see what I do as a service.

I think of myself as an American version of those poets in Muslim and Communist countries who protest the unjust governments under which they live, except I also write against the thinking that unjustly governs us, since, as Einstein said so wisely, “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” I have two friends who write the same genre of poetry as I write; I consider them among my influences.

 

Novellists are obliterated from history. As well as language editing itself in its manifestation (which is drafting), there is a macro-level outside the writer that deletes:- works that weren't novel enough; the novellists from the ones that were; the thoughts of all of them; and whatever historical context the thoughts would have been about.
Username Required mentioned Homer's Odyssey. That still has an alleged name and some other myths and conjecture about its composition attached to it - like rat-droppings to the manuscripts - but very soon it will delete its writer and be ready for the last stage of its journey.
Well I hope there is a further stage: deleting the readers as well. As the Odyssey crystallizes into the true structure - a little like a stalagmite - the readers only injure it. It must become incomprehensible, and be forgotten, in the process of becoming permanent.
For writers the only obligation is not to miss the point - of the stalagmite to which we're carrying our little burdens of dissolved language - which is character.

EDIT (20/06/2023 1022)
Apologies for this afterthought, but I couldn't bear to let Mary Shelley go unbludgeoned, and she's a good example of literature responding and adapting to polemic.
She thought Frankenstein was cool because he's a perfect mouthpiece for an argument between mankind and the creator - when really he's cool because he comes back from the dead and he's stitched together out of corpses. By some miracle, Boris Karloff stepped in just 113 years later (which is almost immediately) and single-handedly plugged all the holes in the character-writing. Screenwriters went on to realise that the Dr. Frankenstein character had been sheared off from the monster to create a Controversy (or 'dialectic') and boldly recombined them into Frankenstein-as-received, leaving behind a mad scientist stock character. So there we have literature editing out polemic threads in a work of fiction, by means of adaptation and audience reception in a seamless and natural process. We should pause to admire literature's fingerprints, too: the way Frankenstein is resurrected and recombined (medium becoming the message) and so resembles Orpheus, or Osiris, or any number of other precursors

 

I don't write about controversial subjects. I write about whatever comes to my head, scene, character, story (if such). Sometimes there may be things that require a sensitive touch, by my estimation, and the effort is made to apply sensitivity. It's other people might deem it controversial.

Fully rounded characters are the optimum, though not every character needs the same attention to detail. If writing from pov of someone who experiences monstrous behaviour perpetrated by another character, it's not entirely necessary to show the monster playing with his infants or rescuing kittens, unless that's something important to the piece. The monster may well play with his infants while rescuing kittens, but these aspects of character may be outweighed by predatory or brutal acts of violence. The notion of showing both sides is entirely erroneous and, rather than disappearing, the author inhabits the story from first word to last, both in fiction and non-fiction. Then the reader takes a turn and similarly attaches themselves to each word, phrase, thought.

It's been my observation that people sometimes lean left or lean right, but when you lean far enough in whatever direction guess who you're going to share space with ? We live on an orb, after all.

Is there a prize for skipping all the other stages to arrive at this pinnacle?

 

Yes, and this is what I had in mind when I started this thread. For want of a better word, what is the responsibility of the writer to their art? Is it to explore the human condition in its fullness, or just to say, "This is how it is, and anything else is wrong."

Does that attitude capture the way things really are? Or are we relying on dogma rather than the intricacies of what it means to be human?

Yes, I probably would, too. [example redacted by moderator]

This raises the question: How important is it for the writer to understand all their characters?

 

Yes, for me, my focus is on character when I am writing. It's through character that I tell the story.

 

By my assessment, neither daughter is character but merely a vehicle for some philosophical point the author wishes to make. I think this an important distinction, going to the core of what it's all about. My preference is for jagged edges, where resolution is incomplete or impossible, because that's more congruent with my understanding. In any case, your proposal doesn't represent the views of someone opposed to euthanasia, merely a façade of inclusion.

 

Sometimes things really are wrong no matter what. Hopefully we all agree (to use an extreme example) that the Nazis were wrong to commit mass murder. If I were writing about the Nazis, I would portray the characters realistically, but I would not portray the Nazis’ worldview sympathetically. I might show how someone could get caught up in the craziness, possibly through an antihero. But I would not go so far as to imply that he was not responsible for his choices, or that he had no obligation to choose to suffer or even die rather than commit evil.

Sometimes, with less extreme topics, the point is that there isn’t a clear-cut solution to a problem once someone is entangled. Hence I once heard a fellow Christian respond to the question, “What would Jesus do?” by saying, “Jesus wouldn’t have gotten into this situation in the first place.”

I’m a huge believer in the saying “write what you know.”

 

I have to agree. When a character changes his mind in the end, and this is a happy ending, it’s the author saying the character was wrong before and came around to see the light (though being opposed to euthanasia myself, I would not agree with that).

 

Well, I'll have to write the story, then we'll see!

But seriously, I'm having trouble understanding how a writer can keep their philosophy out of it. It's implicitly there, whether intentional or not. And I can't see a problem with creating a character as a vehicle for a philosophical point. That's not to say that's all there is to them, but in a character's arc, it's possible to show them growing and learning, coming to realizations, without being heavy-handed or unnatural.

 

That's kind of what I said in my previous post on this thread. Even with my jagged edges, I too am orienting things around to an order that fits my understanding. I just think it's disingenuous to suggest alternative viewpoints are being represented when that's not really what's going on. We all have quirks/beliefs/practices and even when we try to resolutely portray a character who thinks and acts differently to what we deem acceptable, that's still distilled through our interpretations.

I personally don't particularly enjoy being preached at in my reading material, but will seek things that challenge and stimulate.

 

Agreed. I don't think anyone would enjoy being preached at. Something for the writer to consider. Ultimately, what a writer wants to show is the journey a character has made, no matter in what direction it takes them. Hopefully, the journey widens their world rather than constricts it. I guess not all characters have to learn something in their arc, but it's interesting if they do.

 

I don't think that's what people are saying necsssarily. Why would it need to be the monster? He represents one particular aspect of the issue (this is character web). Meanwhile someone else could show the positive benefits of puppy-playing and baby-kissing, like say the good doctor's fiance (until she's brutally murdered by the baby-hating monster). Things are shown through contrast—you only understand one character is bad because another one is good. Or that one has lost all hope because another one is brimming over with it. Without that contrast, if every character were hopeless and nihilistic for instance, most readers would fail to see hopelessness as a theme. If the entire piece is saturated with a particular quality, that quality becomes the new normal in the piece. I learned this principle in visual art—if you want a picture to look dark you must have at least a small area of bright light somewhere for contrast. Otherwise the entire framework you've provided is dark, and so nobody notices how dark it really is. This is the importance of contrast.

 

So are you saying your way is the only right way, and all others are wrong? Inquiring minds want to know. Personally I do prefer a more nuanced approach that considers more than one side, but some of us are built in such a way that we understand and respond to that, and some aren't. In fact from studying psychology I know it requires a stable, well-balanced frame of mind to be able to enter into that subtle nuanced mindset and understand things in a nuanced way. Even those of us who do can't do it all the time. That tranquility of mind is shattered easily by anything that upsets us or by any form of trauma, and in fact excessive trauma permanently changes a person's brain so they see things in strict back and white terms. It plunges someone into survival mode permanently—and in survival mode we don't see subtlety or nuance, only Good and Bad—only Us and Them (and of course Us Good, Them Bad).

So are we saying "Only subtle nuanced writers, who haven't been subject to too much trauma, are Good writers, and all others are Bad? That in itself seems to lack subtlety and nuance of understanding. Not everyone is capable of such balanced views. Should the ones who aren't (or who choose to write differently) be locked out of Good Writing?

I think this is another discussion where we should be each stating our own viewpoints, and maybe engaging in some healthy discussion about them, but let's try to keep it out of the debate room and not judge other writers too harsly on things they probably can't help.

That said, it is important to present these ideas and to have the discussion. Partly because some budding writers might not understand it yet, and can benefit from it. I just don't think it's very helpful to point fingers and accuse some writers because they can't or don't do what you can. Some literally aren't capable of it. There's a big difference between saying "I prefer writing that does this," and aiming accusations against other members for not doing things the way you do.

 

A valuable device, and showing the contrast between two characters is one way to up the tension in a story.

What other elements of a story might we use contrast for? maybe setting?

 

Not at all. I was saying that's probably not the best way to write a story.

 

I'm in agreement that it makes for a richer story when you show the many sides of an issue. It's a fuller picture of humanity.

 

I guess I'm still having trouble understanding why I should care about how the reader feels about any of the motivations or attitudes of my characters. My story, my world. I think sometimes we get a little self-important about being 'authors' and overestimate not only our own importance, but the extent of the effect we have on readers. We're storytellers. A worthy endeavor, but no more than that.