Content vs. Creator

[Trish]

It's a trend I see a lot in reading groups and has been brought to my attention again recently:

People confusing perspectives and opinions within a story/character and the opinions and perspectives of the writer.

For instance let's say you write a story from the perspective of an atheist and then people start calling you an atheist (whether or not you are, doesn't matter). Or you write a story about someone who hates dogs and people assume you, the writer, hate dogs. Politics, racism, violence, kinks, whatever. Insert controversial or abhorrent view here.

How do you feel about that? And how do you deal with it?

From my perspective - it's bullshit. It's called creative writing for a reason, and I don't think many writers are accused of being murderers because there was a murder in their book. At least I hope not.

How about you?

 

[Naomasa298]

People confusing perspectives and opinions within a story/character and the opinions and perspectives of the writer.

For instance let's say you write a story from the perspective of an atheist and then people start calling you an atheist (whether or not you are, doesn't matter). Or you write a story about someone who hates dogs and people assume you, the writer, hate dogs. Politics, racism, violence, kinks, whatever. Insert controversial or abhorrent view here.

Well, it's true to some extent. People tend to write things they are most familiar with. And some pieces are written as propaganda pieces or to advance a certain viewpoint.

But yes, just because someone includes a certain thing in their writing, it doesn't mean they necessarily agree with it. It varies by writer and by story. Certain topics tend to engender the view more than others, and it also depends how it's written.

Just because Stephen King wrote a child sex scene in It, that doesn't mean he supports it. But Lolita does rather raise suspicions.

BUT - publishers know people will assume that, so they won't necessarily take a risk with work that might appear to support one viewpoint or another.

 

[Trish]

Well, it's true to some extent. People tend to write things they are most familiar with. And some pieces are written as propaganda pieces or to advance a certain viewpoint.

You don't have to agree with or believe in something to be familiar with it.

Let's use animal abuse as a horrific example: I find it abhorrent, but I am extremely familiar with it - from all angles. I'm familiar with the excuses and reasons animal abusers make and why. I'm familiar with the view animal control officers and vet med workers hold and why they feel that way. I'm familiar with the results to the animal. I could write a story from any of those views, because I'm very familiar with the mental, physical, and legal ramifications from all directions. Would I enjoy writing from the perspective of an abuser? Um... no. Not even a little. Could I do it convincingly? I'm quite confident I could. I'm fairly confident I could even make a lot of people feel sympathy for the abuser, as abhorrent as they are to me, because I have personally met some that it was difficult not to feel sorry for.

None of those things should bring up questions about whether or not I abuse animals, even if I did not have the background that I have, because it's fiction.

But yes, just because someone includes a certain thing in their writing, it doesn't mean they necessarily agree with it. It varies by writer and by story. Certain topics tend to engender the view more than others, and it also depends how it's written.

How does it depend on how it's written?

Just because Stephen King wrote a child sex scene in It, that doesn't mean he supports it. But Lolita does rather raise suspicions.

What suspicions does Lolita raise though? The suspicion that he supported it? I disagree, and even if I didn't, I would never assume Nabokov was a pedophile or supported them.

 

[Rath Darkblade]

Good question. *nod*

Once, as an exercise, I wrote a pretend-debate about euthanasia, first taking the pro-side, and then taking the anti-side. Does that mean that I am both pro-euthanasia and anti-euthanasia? Clearly not.

For one of my novels, I wrote from the POV of a protagonist who is a slave, but is comfortable in his slavery, and scared of the outside world. Does that make me pro-slavery? I would hope no-one thought so.

Then again, I once wrote about a chairman-of-the-board of an exclusive golf club who refuses to allow minorities in, purely for racist reasons. Does that make me racist? Again, I hope no-one would think so.

This reminds me of how brilliantly Sir Humphrey puts it in Yes, Minister:

The job of an author is similar. We don't have to believe in causes to be able to write about people who are passionately devoted to them (or passionately against them). That's what creativity is all about.

 

[Trish]

The job of an author is similar. We don't have to believe in causes to be able to write about people who are passionately devoted to them (or passionately against them). That's what creativity is all about.

This is exactly how I feel about it. Some seek to entertain, some want to make people think, and yeah, some try to sway people to their view, but I just don't understand the personal judgment of the writer based on the work and I'm curious how people come to those conclusions

 

[Naomasa298]

You don't have to agree with or believe in something to be familiar with it.

No, you don't, and I didn't say you did. What I said was, that people tend to write the things they are most familiar with. So people who write something have a higher chance of, or are perceived to have a higher chance of, agreeing with it, and there is some basis for that belief, whether it's true or not.

How does it depend on how it's written?

To take a simple example, if someone writes a child sex scene in a lot of loving, gratuitous detail, then chances are, they're writing it not as a plot device, but for gratification, which suggests they do support it.

I disagree

Which you're entitled to do. Opinions on that particular subject vary, a lot.

I'm using Lolita as an example. You don't have to agree with it. Let's take a different one. I don't think there's much doubt that Ayn Rand didn't agree with the views she espoused.

 

[Naomasa298]

Once, as an exercise, I wrote a pretend-debate about euthanasia, first taking the pro-side, and then taking the anti-side. Does that mean that I am both pro-euthanasia and anti-euthanasia? Clearly not.

If your piece clearly made one side stronger than the other and used rhetoric and logical fallacies for one side and not the other, then it would raise suspicions. I've seen plenty of such pieces purport to be neutral, but were clearly not.

 

[Trish]

To take a simple example, if someone writes a child sex scene in a lot of loving, gratuitous detail, then chances are, they're writing it not as a plot device, but for gratification, which suggests they do support it.

You don't think they could write it that way if, say, they were abused and were trying to inject a feeling of love into what they endured? Or that they knew or even loved someone who was a predator and had second hand knowledge on the way a person like that works? Or even, these days, didn't decide to join support groups or volunteer somewhere or interview people to get perspectives? Or that they were a cop who arrested one and spent 14 hours stuck with one in interrogation? Or maybe the writer was a psych major. You just go straight to "personal gratification"?

I'm sorry, I find that very strange.

 

[Naomasa298]

You don't think they could write it that way if, say, they were abused and were trying to inject a feeling of love into what they endured?

@Trish, please don't assume I meant something that I didn't actually say. If you want to question my points, go ahead and disagree with what I *did* write, not what I didn't.

I said (emphasis added):

To take a simple example, if someone writes a child sex scene in a lot of loving, gratuitous detail, then chances are, they're writing it not as a plot device, but for gratification, which suggests they do support it.

I didn't say it was proof. It is my opinion that a gratuitous scene that depicts it as a loving act, which does not later subvert that viewpoint, or clarify that it is what the character believed at the time but no longer does, *is* suggestive of agreement. You may disagree with that. You're entitled to do so.

 

[KBWrites]

It's a trend I see a lot in reading groups and has been brought to my attention again recently:

People confusing perspectives and opinions within a story/character and the opinions and perspectives of the writer.

For instance let's say you write a story from the perspective of an atheist and then people start calling you an atheist (whether or not you are, doesn't matter). Or you write a story about someone who hates dogs and people assume you, the writer, hate dogs. Politics, racism, violence, kinks, whatever. Insert controversial or abhorrent view here.

How do you feel about that? And how do you deal with it?

People can assume all they want about me. In the end, their opinion means nothing in the grand scheme of things. If a loved one brought up a concern it might be different. Jo Schmo off the street... Glad I could influence your day.

 

[Trish]

@Trish, please don't assume I meant something that I didn't actually say. If you want to question my points, go ahead and disagree with what I *did* write, not what I didn't.

I'll rephrase : do you think those things could be reasons for someone to write that scenario? Are those viable possibilities for you?

I didn't say it was proof.

I didn't say you did that I'm aware of.

It is my opinion that a gratuitous scene that depicts it as a loving act, which does not later subvert that viewpoint, or clarify that it is what the character believed at the time but no longer does, *is* suggestive of agreement. You may disagree with that. You're entitled to do so.

Okay, so you did say that. Cool. What I'm understanding from this is that if the character does not repent in some way this would represent, in your opinion, the authors support of the perspective of the character?

I think the issue you're not understanding is that I don't want to disagree. (I do, obviously, but that's not the point)

I'm trying to understand your perspective. Consider it research. I don't understand the perspective and I don't like not understanding things. I can understand the reasoning behind it without it changing my personal view and that is my goal here. To understand the things that support this opinion for you. I'm looking for insight, not an argument.

 

[Naomasa298]

I'll rephrase : do you think those things could be reasons for someone to write that scenario? Are those viable possibilities for you?

They might be. I don't know. But from my understanding, sexual abuse survivors tend to prefer not to relive their abuse in loving, gratuitous detail, and I'm not aware of any such narratives written in that way by one.

 

[Trish]

They might be. I don't know. But from my understanding, sexual abuse survivors tend to prefer not to relive their abuse in loving, gratuitous detail, and I'm not aware of any such narratives written in that way by one.

Ah, I see. It's actually quite common in the dark romance genre. Those are the ones I personally stay away from because it's not something I stomach well at all. I'm not assuming anything, I'm talking about authors who have made those facts known. It's also quite popular because so many readers who were victims say they find reading it helps them to process things. I wouldn't know if that's the case on either side, but I also don't think I'm in a position to judge whether or not it's true and I take them at their word.

 

[KBWrites]

To clarify.....

My first 4 stories were deep into Dom/sub erotica. Not because I live the life or even dabble in it, but because I spent a lot of time researching. Sometimes to the determent of my sanity. If a reader assumed I fell on either side of that spectrum, then I did my job correctly as an author and wrote a convincing story. I would take their assumptions as praise for my abilities.... but that is as far as it would go.

If I allow myself to go down that rabbit hole then King and Koontz are mass murderers

 

[Trish]

To clarify.....

My first 4 stories were deep into Dom/sub erotica. Not because I live the life or even dabble in it, but because I spent a lot of time researching. Sometimes to the determent of my sanity. If a reader assumed I fell on either side of that spectrum, then I did my job correctly as an author and wrote a convincing story. I would take their assumptions as praise for my abilities.... but that is as far as it would go.

If I allow myself to go down that rabbit hole then King and Koontz are mass murderers

As a fellow erotica writer (that's what most of my older shorts are) - yep. I totally understand. That's why I'm so curious as to how some come to those conclusions. If I could only write things I had personally experienced a good chunk of at least half of my stories wouldn't exist. Certainly none that are written from a male POV, lol. If I could only write what I believed in, that number would be cut a lot more.

 

[Stuart Dren]

It's a trend I see a lot in reading groups and has been brought to my attention again recently:

People confusing perspectives and opinions within a story/character and the opinions and perspectives of the writer.

For instance let's say you write a story from the perspective of an atheist and then people start calling you an atheist (whether or not you are, doesn't matter). Or you write a story about someone who hates dogs and people assume you, the writer, hate dogs. Politics, racism, violence, kinks, whatever. Insert controversial or abhorrent view here.

How do you feel about that? And how do you deal with it?

From my perspective - it's bullshit. It's called creative writing for a reason, and I don't think many writers are accused of being murderers because there was a murder in their book. At least I hope not.

How about you?

It was surreal hearing about it for the first time. It's not just in writing. Actors get hate mail for the actions of the fictional characters they portray. I think it aligns with people who lean into parasocial relationships. I don't know if there's a word for it other than unhinged.

That said, anyone who's had to study an author for school has probably been encouraged to make deductions about the author's life and beliefs based on his fictional writing. Michael Crichton was pretty famous for 'insert' characters who spewed out what were likely his verbatim opinions. Or hell, maybe Ian Malcom was actually supposed to be an out-of-touch mathematician too lost in abstract theories to properly grasp a situation and we all read him wrong. Tiny elephants are cute!

My own humanist tendencies do inform my work. Can I be that disappointed or outraged if someone correctly fingers my weft and weave based on my writing? Perhaps not. So... I should only be annoyed if they get it wrong?

 

[KBWrites]

As a fellow erotica writer (that's what most of my older shorts are) - yep. I totally understand. That's why I'm so curious as to how some come to those conclusions. If I could only write things I had personally experienced a good chunk of at least half of my stories wouldn't exist. Certainly none that are written from a male POV, lol. If I could only write what I believed in, that number would be cut a lot more.

I believe some people want to label everything and put it in a box, and it doesn't matter what it is. It makes them feel good about themselves. You'll never change them. I've given up trying.

If they want to believe something, I'll let them. My ex wife is a perfect example. She made accusations, and when I provided her tangible proof that challenged her belief she refused to look at it. Some people are hell bent on believing what they want to believe.

Due to that 10.5 years being a waist of my time and energy, I've started telling family that I'm a published author in the erotica genre..... and all I get is that's cool, I didn't realize you write books. Not the scorn I was sure to rain down on me.

It will still be written under a pen name because I'm not sure I want them to have that much access into my mind

 

[wearywanderer64]

If they believe that, then Stephen King must be a serial killer. Or Mary Shelley actually created a human from dead body parts. I could go on.

 

[Naja Noir]

Interesting discussion.

I can see how some horrific things would make people question a writer. But by and large, I typically don't put much thought into doing so, with a few exceptions.

I also don't put thought into people writing what they know. I don't know about riding in an alien mobile to get to the in-between. Nor am I able to go through any portals leading to other worlds. That's simply having an imagination.

Though I think many including myself have put bits of themselves (sci-fi wip about a lunch-lady that loves the beach) into at least one story, I don't think the bulk of most people's writing is really about them and their tastes at all.

Having said all that, I think it's fair to acknowledge that at some point, things go from being merely gruesome to becoming torture porn, and yeah, I'd wonder what the writer was thinking. Maybe they simply have found a niche that pays well. Maybe they suffered and it's a relief for them to get it out. Or maybe they are demented. Who's to say. But if and when (rarely) I encounter such things, I simply put that writer in the "never read again" pile and move on. I've never even thought of harassing anyone over such things.

 

[Rath Darkblade]

If your piece clearly made one side stronger than the other and used rhetoric and logical fallacies for one side and not the other, then it would raise suspicions. I've seen plenty of such pieces purport to be neutral, but were clearly not.

Hmph. True, I have my own opinions, especially on controversial subjects. But in this case, I tried to present both sides equally, with five convincing (if not to say conclusive) arguments on each side.

Whether any of the arguments make either side "stronger" or not, I am not in a position to judge. But since the point of the piece was to take first one side and then the other, I made it my business to specifically stayed away from logical fallacies and other things that would destroy either argument.

Since issues such as euthanasia are controversial, I saw it as my job to present both sides equally. Whether I succeeded or not isn't up to me to say.

If they want to believe something, I'll let them.

If I may I be crude for a moment, please: I have heard it said that opinions are like arseholes: everyone has got one, and everyone believes that theirs is the only one that doesn't stink.

Putting crudeness aside, people can believe anything they like. It's not as if we can control people's thoughts. That path leads to tyrannical regimes, both real-life (communism and Nazism spring to mind) and fictional (e.g. Orwell's 1984).

If we want to live life as we see fit, rather than as anyone else deems correct, then we must allow them the freedom to believe whatever they like, despite our own thoughts on their beliefs.

And why am I wearing a cat on my head? Because I think that giving you interesting mental pictures may help to internalize my earlier serious points.