What Won't You Write?

[Homer Potvin]

That is a commendable, compassionate attitude that eliminates just about every subject under the sun, including romance. My job is to write the story, not to avoid upsetting anyone with the content.

I'm with you. If you're not upsetting/offending somebody, you've probably written a very boring story. No need to do it intentionally, but life is rough.

 

[Luxuria]

The problems arise, of course, when something truly awful is taking place (e.g. rape, child abuse, spousal abuse etc). But these are, again, intensely painful subjects for many people, and I don't want to harm my readers by unintentionally bringing up bad and/or possibly repressed memories.

As @CatrionaGrace said, doing this eliminates so many topics to write about. I think of I was forced to remove all things that make a reader uncomfortable, or 'causes harm', I'd just give up writing. Also, I feel the idea that something you read can cause 'harm' is a bit... weird as a theory. One I don't believe in. If you don't like something, it's not the author's responsibility to not write it. It's your responsibility to either not read to book or stop reading the book. But that's all I'll say on the matter.

But it is kind of you to 'think of other people'.

 

[Louanne Learning]

Ugh. I will judge all I want- and you can too!

I agree, that it's hard to keep the writer's viewpoint out of it. But the writing may be more compelling if you show both sides, and then show why one side or the other might be better.

 

[Luxuria]

I agree, that it's hard to keep the writer's viewpoint out of it. But the writing may be more compelling if you show both sides, and then show why one side or the other might be better.

Honestly, a writer is allowed to have bias, I feel. A writer does not need to be impartial.

 

[Louanne Learning]

A writer does not need to be impartial.

That's not what I meant to suggest. I'm not even sure if it is possible to keep the writer's bias out of it. I suppose the writer needs to ask themselves what's their purpose in writing it. If it to be persuasive, showing both sides and then reasonably rejecting one, probably works best.

 

[Rigor Mortis]

Even if you're writing impartially, you're doing it from the point of view of what you view the partisan positions to be and how that can be rendered unbiased. Whoever is writing it will still put forward a personal slant on good/bad, positive/negative or whatever oppositional forces occupy the writing. I don't know that it's possible to remove authorial bias at foundational level and don't think it's something worth striving for.

 

[Trish]

Hmm. Human sexuality (of any kind - hetero, LGBTIQ+, ace etc.) isn't something I touch in my writing. Not, I hasten to add, because I'm a prude or anything, but because that stuff is intensely personal and private for so many people.

Besides, what business is it of mine, as long as it takes place between consenting adults? As Trudeau (Pierre, not Justin) said when Canada decriminalised homosexuality in the 60s, "Government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation".

The problems arise, of course, when something truly awful is taking place (e.g. rape, child abuse, spousal abuse etc). But these are, again, intensely painful subjects for many people, and I don't want to harm my readers by unintentionally bringing up bad and/or possibly repressed memories.

I've also heard the advice "Don't be judgmental", but sometimes ... OK, often ... this is unavoidable. Take -- I dunno -- just about any movie made in Hollywood (please). The antagonist (fancy word for villain) always gets his/her comeuppance. Especially in action films. ;P

Why does this happen? 'Cos humanity is vindictive, and loves to see an asshole/bully/whatever get what's coming to him (and sometimes to her). It doesn't happen often enough in real life, but it can happen in fiction, dammit!

What's left to write about? I don't mean that to be glib or rude, it's a genuine question. I don't know a single person in my real life who hasn't been touched, at the very least indirectly, by some type of trauma. At least not anyone over 20 (and probably much younger).

For some, reading about a character going through similar things, especially the emotional side of them, is extremely helpful. For others it can be traumatic, yes. That is what trigger warnings were created for though.

Also, I feel the idea that something you read can cause 'harm' is a bit... weird as a theory. One I don't believe in. If you don't like something, it's not the author's responsibility to not write it. It's your responsibility to either not read to book or stop reading the book. But that's all I'll say on the matter.

I love romance. I love to read it and write it. I prefer my romance with messy fucked up people because that's real, no matter what setting you put it in. Past trauma, baggage, miscommunication, etc. I sometimes read "dark" romance. Now, there are levels to it, but let me tell you- some of it is downright horrific, even to me, and if you knew me, well that is saying something. I recently read book 1 of a duology. It has quite a following. People praise it all over. They LOVE it. It went viral.

It made me vomit. Literally. There is nothing romantic about those books. They are absolutely terrifying, and it's heart breaking that people find the content in those books to be "one of the greatest love stories ever written". I'm not even talking about how horribly written it is, how the characterization is non existent, and the paper they're printed on has more dimension than the characters. I'm talking about the content of the "relationships" within those pages. And unfortunately, people are being traumatized by those books regularly because the author LIED in her trigger warnings and that's unforgivable. Some people do genuinely find them to be helpful for them though and the author writing them, well, she certainly has the right to write them, but writers can cause harm.

I'm not saying I was traumatized by what is in the books. I actually don't have anything I can't read to be completely honest, but I also recognize that's not normal. Unlike me, most people who read "dark romance" and "dark romantasy" rely on the authors to be up front about content. What made me vomit was the thought of all the people who checked for the specific trigger warnings that they knew they would have an issue with and then started reading these books. Not realizing what was in them until they were already in it.

 

[Luxuria]

What's left to write about? I don't mean that to be glib or rude, it's a genuine question. I don't know a single person in my real life who hasn't been touched, at the very least indirectly, by some type of trauma. At least not anyone over 20 (and probably much younger).

For some, reading about a character going through similar things, especially the emotional side of them, is extremely helpful. For others it can be traumatic, yes. That is what trigger warnings were created for though.


I love romance. I love to read it and write it. I prefer my romance with messy fucked up people because that's real, no matter what setting you put it in. Past trauma, baggage, miscommunication, etc. I sometimes read "dark" romance. Now, there are levels to it, but let me tell you- some of it is downright horrific, even to me, and if you knew me, well that is saying something. I recently read book 1 of a duology. It has quite a following. People praise it all over. They LOVE it. It went viral.

It made me vomit. Literally. There is nothing romantic about those books. They are absolutely terrifying, and it's heart breaking that people find the content in those books to be "one of the greatest love stories ever written". I'm not even talking about how horribly written it is, how the characterization is non existent, and the paper they're printed on has more dimension than the characters. I'm talking about the content of the "relationships" within those pages. And unfortunately, people are being traumatized by those books regularly because the author LIED in her trigger warnings and that's unforgivable. Some people do genuinely find them to be helpful for them though and the author writing them, well, she certainly has the right to write them, but writers can cause harm.

I'm not saying I was traumatized by what is in the books. I actually don't have anything I can't read to be completely honest, but I also recognize that's not normal. Unlike me, most people who read "dark romance" and "dark romantasy" rely on the authors to be up front about content. What made me vomit was the thought of all the people who checked for the specific trigger warnings that they knew they would have an issue with and then started reading these books. Not realizing what was in them until they were already in it.

I appreciate your thoughts. But I will politely disagree again and stand by what I said earlier.

I will let this matter rest as I do not wish to begin a debate.

 

[Trish]

I appreciate your thoughts. But I will politely disagree again and stand by what I said earlier.

I will let this matter rest as I do not wish to begin a debate.

Perfectly fair. I intended my comment as a different perspective/instance and not at all to start debate.

 

[DLC]

I don't do 'trigger warnings.' Not that I've written anything that needed them. Still wouldn't if I did.

 

[Seven Crowns]

Politics.

Or . . . authorial intrusion in particular, which often turns political. You have to switch that part of your brain off and commit yourself fully to the story. You're no longer "out there" living in today; you're within the story world. Now if you want to include a political character, that's fine, but they have to make sense and propel the characters/plot. They can't be in there so that you can preach to an unsuspecting audience or punish stand-ins for people in the real world.

I don't mind violence/sex/language, but if it's being used as a distraction then I'm not impressed. Whatever is on the page needs to deserve to live there.

I'd say that I would write about anything, but I know that's not really true. There are some subjects out there that are just too distasteful to me. I mean, I've avoided certain infamous books because I looked at a brief synopsis. I crossed those titles write off my list. Never . . . So if I wouldn't read it, I know I wouldn't write it.

 

[Naomasa298]

I wouldn't write about teeny goth vampires. Or ninjas. Except as parody and satire.

 

[Rath Darkblade]

As @CatrionaGrace said, doing this eliminates so many topics to write about. I think of I was forced to remove all things that make a reader uncomfortable, or 'causes harm', I'd just give up writing. Also, I feel the idea that something you read can cause 'harm' is a bit... weird as a theory. One I don't believe in. If you don't like something, it's not the author's responsibility to not write it. It's your responsibility to either not read to book or stop reading the book.

What's left to write about? I don't mean that to be glib or rude, it's a genuine question. I don't know a single person in my real life who hasn't been touched, at the very least indirectly, by some type of trauma. At least not anyone over 20 (and probably much younger).

For some, reading about a character going through similar things, especially the emotional side of them, is extremely helpful. For others it can be traumatic, yes. That is what trigger warnings were created for though.

OK. I should've listened to Treebeard and not have been so hasty. (Or politically correct).

I have written about contentious issues before: abandonment and adoption (both in the same story and with the same MC), imprisonment and slavery (and what happens to a person has been a slave for so long that he gives up any hope of escape, because he's more afraid out the outside world than he is of staying a slave) ... and on the lighter side, how magic can work in a non-magical world, etc.

Come to think of it, my first finished novel tackles abuse of both women and children: after defeat in a war, a woman is kidnapped and forced to marry against her will, and separated from her child (who is adopted). The child grows up unaware of his true heritage, but when he grows up, he finds out the truth and tries to figure out what to do about it. She doesn't know he's alive, and believes he may have died. (It's a long story, and I don't want to spoil it, but it has some painful scenes).

And now that I think of it: boy, I hope it has a happy ending. I love a happy ending.

 

[X Equestris]

For me, sexual violence detailed “onscreen”. Few other subjects need such a delicate touch or come with so serious a risk of actual harm to some readers. I doubt I could stomach being so close to such an abhorrent act long enough to do it justice. Especially not now that I’m involved with a woman who’s a survivor.

Besides, those scenes often come across as gratuitous. There are better alternatives if I ever want to deal with sexual violence.

For similar reasons, I don’t do torture porn/gorn/splatterpunk/whatever you want to call excessive blood and guts. Now, most of my fiction includes violence. I’m not averse to bloodshed in realistic detail. But I want those details to serve the story, not become the story.

 

[Catrin Lewis]

. . . the paper they're printed on has more dimension than the characters.

Ooh! That is a line and a half. I treat you to a beer.

 

[Catrin Lewis]

On a macro/cosmic level, I won't write anything that outright states or strongly implies that the God of the Bible is not the Creator and Sovereign of the universe. That doesn't mean everything I write is overtly Christian. Considering my short fiction output in particular, every last story is just people being their flawed, human selves, with no higher powers brought into it at all. But I can't and won't have the sympathetic narrative voice communicating that God is just one deity among many, or has checked out, or never existed.

I can't/won't write sex scenes that get clinical or overly descriptive. They draw too much attention to themselves. There's plenty of sexy times in my novels, yeah, but I've always got a scene break that covers the act itself. I call it "adult" fiction--- adults will know what's going on in that bit of white space, and the kids don't need to till they're older.

I won't write sloppy, badly-researched historical fiction, which is one reason why I write so slowly. It has to be accurate, or as accurate as I can make it. And if I include real, historical figures, I won't make them do anything the record shows they didn't or wouldn't do. This goes for crimes in particular.

You won't catch me writing "romantic heroes" whose behavior should get them a restraining order in real life. No way am I contributing to that lie.

I can't and don't write epic fantasy, but that's more because I'm too lazy to do the ex nihilo world building. Besides, I've got too many story ideas set in this world. I do like a little urban fantasy and definitely I'll write horror, but when I do, the vampires, werewolves, demons, etc., are all nasty, and I'm not shipping any of them with the heroine. Not unless I dislike her a great deal.

And no angels having relations with women on earth. Gag. I know Christian authors who do that, but it's just so wrong.

 

[Naomasa298]

I can't and don't write epic fantasy, but that's more because I'm too lazy to do the ex nihilo world building.

Personally, I usually don't bother with all of that when writing epic fantasy. I just concentrate on building the locations I need, and the details I need. I'm not going to waste time on creating a whole load of stuff my reader is never going to encounter, or throw in phrases of some invented language, given that all my characters invariably speak English anyway. I might write to imply a greater world, but I'm writing to tell a story, not writing to try and show off to the reader "look at this wonderful detailed world and magic system I created". I learned the hard way that the readers' reaction is usually "So what?".

 

[Pik]

Hmm. Human sexuality (of any kind - hetero, LGBTIQ+, ace etc.) isn't something I touch in my writing. Not, I hasten to add, because I'm a prude or anything, but because that stuff is intensely personal and private for so many people.

Besides, what business is it of mine, as long as it takes place between consenting adults? As Trudeau (Pierre, not Justin) said when Canada decriminalised homosexuality in the 60s, "Government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation".

The problems arise, of course, when something truly awful is taking place (e.g. rape, child abuse, spousal abuse etc). But these are, again, intensely painful subjects for many people, and I don't want to harm my readers by unintentionally bringing up bad and/or possibly repressed memories.

I've also heard the advice "Don't be judgmental", but sometimes ... OK, often ... this is unavoidable. Take -- I dunno -- just about any movie made in Hollywood (please). The antagonist (fancy word for villain) always gets his/her comeuppance. Especially in action films. ;P

Why does this happen? 'Cos humanity is vindictive, and loves to see an asshole/bully/whatever get what's coming to him (and sometimes to her). It doesn't happen often enough in real life, but it can happen in fiction, dammit!

Few years ago I was working on a text about abuse and one of the comments was to have the female protagonist that was a victim of abuse become the abuser in the finale scene. Considering these topics were often in the news (femicide etc) I didn't feel like I should portray the protagonist in that way. In terms of the craft I think it was a good advice but in terms of what I wanted to say not as much.