What Won't You Write?

[Rath Darkblade]

Please note the word "gratuitously". I doubt anyone would care if I got the clothes or rivers slightly wrong. But if I wrote an Iceland with coconut trees and all-year sunny weather, where people roam free in the altogether, live in harmony with nature, and join hands and sing the Kumbayah ... then, I think, questions might be raised.

 

[deweyfisher]

Romance as a genre/driving plot point. As a side plot or the setup to some reveal, maybe, but most of the time I don't feel like it's necessary to enhance anything.

 

[Naomasa298]

Please note the word "gratuitously". I doubt anyone would care if I got the clothes or rivers slightly wrong. But if I wrote an Iceland with coconut trees and all-year sunny weather, where people roam free in the altogether, live in harmony with nature, and join hands and sing the Kumbayah ... then, I think, questions might be raised.

The question remains the same with or without the word.

Would they care?

If you wrote Iceland with coconut trees, that's not getting it gratuitously wrong. That's deliberately getting it wrong, or writing satire.

 

[Rath Darkblade]

Hmm. What would you call "gratuitously wrong", then? I'm curious.

Maybe, while the other 11th-century Vikings were wearing fur and leather etc., one of them - a rough, tough Viking warrior called Sven - could wear a leisure suit. And dance like John Travolta in Saturday Night Fever. (I mean, where would anyone find polyester back then?)

If I wanted it to be satire, I could have a lawyer in a pinstripe suit would pop out of nowhere and serve him a writ for performing moves that are copyright to Travolta. Meanwhile, the other Vikings would shrug, go off to a nearby cafe, and eat spam.

But since I'm trying to write historical fiction ... let's just amicably agree to disagree.

(Yes, "Viking" is a job description. I used it as a short-cut for "Norse-era Icelandic people").

 

[DLC]

'Viking' was a job description.

 

[Rath Darkblade]

'Viking' was a job description.

Yes, it was. Post cheerfully edited!

 

[Qvortable]

Characters who're inspired by some sort of ideal, high fallutin up in gaseous waste beyond the visible horizon. Or just plain idealistic (in its original meaning). Perhaps I would pick them as antagonist some day, but now I'm still enjoying on giving a sense of materiality in this abstracted make-believe I called my story.

 

[Pik]

There was one strict mentor that I had when I first started writing more often. And there was only one story I submitted that they really disliked (most of the submitted texts were one to two pages). It was written from the perspective of a person frustrated with words, a rant against the written word that this person believed was the cause of everything bad happening in the world. Though I tried to find funny or bizarre examples for such claims, and thought the story was amusing and like many other satyrical stories I read. This mentor's reaction was the first time I realized that (according to some people) not everything is allowed in writing. Even though it still sometimes confuses me why that particular topic, approach etc was problematic and not many other texts I wrote.

 

[Naomasa298]

(Yes, "Viking" is a job description. I used it as a short-cut for "Norse-era Icelandic people").

I know.

 

[Naomasa298]

Hmm. What would you call "gratuitously wrong", then? I'm curious.

"Gratuitously wrong" was your phrase, not mine. 99% of readers, unless they're historians with a specific knowledge of that culture and time period, won't notice and won't care. HBO's Rome was entertainment, not a documentary, so most people don't care that Roman soldiers didn't actually wear webbing. So if you want to give your Vikings winged or horned helmets, be my guest. Unless you're writing all the dialogue in Old Norse, you're already making a compromise in the first place.

My point is, by all means do all the research to get every detail as right as possible. Nothing wrong with that. But it's not nearly as important as you may think it is, not for most readers. Very few readers are going to care that your 1980s character living in London buys a Snickers instead of a Marathon.

 

[bACK iN mY dAY]

There was one strict mentor that I had when I first started writing more often. And there was only one story I submitted that they really disliked (most of the submitted texts were one to two pages). It was written from the perspective of a person frustrated with words, a rant against the written word that this person believed was the cause of everything bad happening in the world. Though I tried to find funny or bizarre examples for such claims, and thought the story was amusing and like many other satyrical stories I read. This mentor's reaction was the first time I realized that (according to some people) not everything is allowed in writing. Even though it still sometimes confuses me why that particular topic, approach etc was problematic and not many other texts I wrote.

That sounds great and I would be fascinated to see what it was like. Hell, 1984 is in part about the bastardization of words. And sure, we all have 'taste limits', but I would typically expect those to be much, much worse then someone hating the written word. Did they think you were writing your own opinion?

 

[bACK iN mY dAY]

I will say that there was a time in my life where I had the perspective of 'if you can write about murder and violence and every other heinous thing, why not rape?'. I had the belief that, approached properly, it shouldn't be off limits. And at the time I was writing a dark comedy which started from the desire to skewer rapists on all that old rhetoric that acts to implicitly justify it.

I think over the years looking back my feelings on it have changed, and I struggle to see myself going back to that work. I can't quite put my finger on why, except that I maybe think it's an especially heinous scar to inflict on someone and I don't need it in my life, and in all likelihood neither does anyone else.

 

[Homer Potvin]

I will say that there was a time in my life where I had the perspective of 'if you can write about murder and violence and every other heinous thing, why not rape?'. I had the belief that, approached properly, it shouldn't be off limits. And at the time I was writing a dark comedy which started from the desire to skewer rapists on all that old rhetoric that acts to implicitly justify it.

I think over the years looking back my feelings on it have changed, and I struggle to see myself going back to that work. I can't quite put my finger on why, except that I maybe think it's an especially heinous scar to inflict on someone and I don't need it in my life, and in all likelihood neither does anyone else.

I honestly don't understand it. Rape exists. Abuse exists. Vile, horrific shit exists and happens all the time. We're not supposed to write about because... why? It'll go away if it's ignored? By not writing about it, we can pretend it's not real? I'm not sure if that's naively pragmatic or suicidally idealistic. I understand that people don't want to read about things that upset them, but isn't that kind of a head in the sand cop out? I just feel that the worst thing a society can do is not talk about the worst things society is capable of.

 

[Mikal672025]

Romance novels. Too corny.

 

[Mikal672025]

I honestly don't understand it. Rape exists. Abuse exists. Vile, horrific shit exists and happens all the time. We're not supposed to write about because... why? It'll go away if it's ignored? By not writing about it, we can pretend it's not real? I'm not sure if that's naively pragmatic or suicidally idealistic. I understand that people don't want to read about things that upset them, but isn't that kind of a head in the sand cop out? I just feel that the worst thing a society can do is not talk about the worst things society is capable of.

I think that we are all very aware that these things happen in every day life because most of us are exposed to them in some way, shape, or form even from childhood. Bringing such things up in a story when it doesn't push forward the plot in any way is just alittle disgusting imo, and suspicious as to why you thought it was necessary to inflict that kind of imagery on your audience in the first place?

 

[DLC]

Maybe that's what the story's about?

 

[Catrin Lewis]

Very few readers are going to care that your 1980s character living in London buys a Snickers instead of a Marathon.

Unfortunately, that's the kind of thing I'd notice, myself. I've started listening to a mystery novel set in London (written by an American), and it jarred me when a very British character referred to sneakers instead of trainers.

Before that she'd had someone in a late 18th century flashback write a note to a shopkeeper on parchment and not on foolscap or other cheap paper.

I'm almost afraid to go on. What other bloomers will she subject me to?

 

[Hammer]

What other bloomers will she subject me to?

Well if it's set in the C18th, bloomers would be a bloomer... didn't really come into use until C19th

 

[Catrin Lewis]

Well if it's set in the C18th, bloomers would be a bloomer... didn't really come into use until C19th

Stepped right into that--- those--- didn't I?

 

[Naomasa298]

Unfortunately, that's the kind of thing I'd notice, myself. I've started listening to a mystery novel set in London (written by an American), and it jarred me when a very British character referred to sneakers instead of trainers.

Ah yes, that would get me too (although these days, some of those young whippersnappers do like to refer to them as sneakers, thanks to the interweb), but that's the difference between British English and Americanese.

The thing I was referring to is more of a minor historical curiosity - Snickers (the chocolate/nougat/peanut bar) was called Marathon in the UK and Ireland until 1990, when it was renamed to fit with the global name.