Why all the caution?

Plenty of people have made this point in those threads you mentioned.

IMO, novels are not art. Novels are writing. Novels must tell a story, and that story can be told in many different ways. Even if that means cutting out violence and rape that may strengthen the novel.

What if the novelist cannot, or feels that s/he cannot, effectively write such a scene? If the writing is weak, then it effects the novel in a negative way. This is more of a disservice to the novel than cutting out scenes.

Ultimately, I think the goal for many is publication. For that, the book must be salable. Novelists will tend to shy away from anything that may make their work less salable, unless their work is meant to be a ground-shaker.

The gist of this post is: the author should do whatever s/he wants, whether that's keeping the graphic scenes or losing them.

I agree with you Darklight, but not simply on the specific topics you are ranting about. I agree with you in general. I have always felt that the only way to learn is by doing, and that really, well with writing, anything goes if it is done well. I do get frustrated by the questions, but less by the questions themselves, but by the need that drives people to ask them. We are so eager to please, to be perfect the first time round, that we censor ourselves without even trying first. It's as if making a mistake is the worst possible thing you could do, when really I think it's the best.

That's why my little tagline under "Toothpaste" is "Just do whatever". Seriously, just do it. See what happens. Stop looking for validation and take a risk. And if you fail, dude, who cares? (the general "you", not talking to anyone in particular.)

This bothers me because I am one of those people who has written a novel that fits into that category. I have had bites from three agents on my first novel, two partials and one full. Two of the agents have told me that I have written something that is too controversial and pushes social boundaries. They also told me that for a first time author I will probably have trouble getting my work published unless I find an agent/publisher that is willing to take a chance. I was told my work was not bad and perhaps I should rethink some things about it and rewrite some scenes. One of those agents told me to resubmit to her if I wrote something else. It made me feel if I write something that steps on a part of society's toes it will never be published. Murder, rape, political corruptness, and being unsatisfied with ones religion is reality to me. All were in my novel, but none were glorified. I can't believe I'm the only person out there that is not offended by reading about these things. Oh well, I'm now working on manuscript #2 which is more socially acceptable.

I think new authors do worry if they're doing the right thing, and they want to make sure. They want to be published and they wonder if having too much of this and that, or not enough, or if they write in 1st person instead of 3rd or whatever... that their chances of getting published will be diminished.

What they don't know is that there really is not one way to write. The standard answer to all these questions is: IT DEPENDS.

Write a damn good story - engaging, riveting, mesmerizing. Then figure out your market later.

I think that the people who ask those sorts of questions should read more novels, if only to see how it's been done before, and if it's been done before. If it hasn't, they need to ask, should it?

And I disagree with Esopha. Writing well is an art. Storytelling is an art. I do agree, however, that not all novels are artistry on paper. But some novels are. I still miss Owen Meany, and that says a lot. That novel could be words on paper, or it could be something that sticks with me for a very long time. Creating characters out of gray matter that come to rest in other's gray matter takes artistry.

I don't think it's as much caution as a realization that there are right ways and wrong ways to write a novel. Some things work and others don't. You know a gem when you read it, but you can't always recognize what works and doesn't in your own writing. So you go outward. Ask others. It's natural.

ETA: In terms of subject matter, anything CAN work, in the hands of a talented writer/story teller.

Esopha said:

IMO, novels are not art. Novels are writing. Novels must tell a story, and that story can be told in many different ways. Even if that means cutting out violence and rape that may strengthen the novel.

Click to expand...

Uhh... And writing is not an art form?

This is not even worth arguing about. There's fine art and commercial art; there are literary novels and commercial novels. Both are art.

What if the novelist cannot, or feels that s/he cannot, effectively write such a scene?

Click to expand...

Then what is s/he doing writing that story? Unless you're talking about a staff writer who writes what s/he's assigned to write, the question makes no sense to me.

Ultimately, I think the goal for many is publication. For that, the book must be salable. Novelists will tend to shy away from anything that may make their work less salable, unless their work is meant to be a ground-shaker.

Click to expand...

Ah, now I think we've gotten to the core: fear of rejection, fed by bogus "spokespeople" for "the people."

While school boards and other politicians may still be trying to remove Catcher in the Rye, Huckleberry Finn and Brave New World from libraries, book buyers and publishers do not demonstrate such delicate sensibilities.

I hate torture, but I was not put off by the gruesome torture in Shogun, as I gather a few million book-buyers weren't, either. It was bothersome to read, but if it weren't, I'd be one sick puppy. It was included to convey the real world the classical Japanese inhabited, and it did. It didn't make Clavell seem like a sicko for including it.

Write what the story demands. If you can't write what the story demands, you're writing the wrong story. There's a market for stories about fuzzy bunnies, too.

joyce said:

This bothers me because I am one of those people who has written a novel that fits into that category. Oh well, I'm now working on manuscript #2 which is more socially acceptable.

Click to expand...

It sounds to me like you just need to find the right agent.

If done well you can say anything.

I don't really bother worrying about stuff like that. I just tell the story in my head. As it stands I have a 3 way in the first chapter of my first novel. It's not in depth, because it doesn't have to be, but it's obviously there. After that the series is pretty tame (no sex, no extreme violence) for about a novel and a half. That's just the way it ended up. ::shrugs::

I figure, if it's in my story, there's a good reason. If there's not a good reason, I cut it, controversial or not.

I like stories about fuzzy bunnies.

It's all a subjective notion, be it novel or film - if it's artistic or if it's exploitative. Ultimately, it's a decision the author must make through a soul-search of what their intentions are, and from there it's finding a like-minded publisher and a like-minded portion of readers to keep the thing in print. Not easy by any means, but being anti-censorship myself I would have to say that the artist should never have to sacrifice the meaning in his or her own work just so the Christian ladies reading circle won't squirm (no offense to any members of a Christian ladies reading circle).

It's interesting that the argument for art is that it does push social barriers, making people angry, etc. I honestly believe that art is an expression of feeling, and not a soapbox to argue social issues. Unfortunately, even in the published world, people don't seem to get this.

A story is compelling because it reaches into a part of the reader. It could be anger, it could be laughter, it could be romance or tragedy. But real writing, real art, is an extension of that feeling. Just writing about shocking topics doesn't make it art. Throwing a rape into a story just to have a rape doesn't mean that the story isn't better without it.

SO for those of you who may not be happy with what a reader/agent/publisher suggests about removing a scene, check to see if the scene is paramount to the basic story and emotion you are trying to invoke. If not, even if it is a shocking scene of social taboo, then it may be a good idea to remove the scene, for the sake of your art.

Course, I'm not published yet, so perhaps my point of view is not valid. ^_^

Scrawler said:

I like stories about fuzzy bunnies.

Click to expand...

My husband bought me a book called The Book of Bunny Suicides. Lots of fuzzy bunnies. Pieces of them anyway.

Scrawler said:

I like stories about fuzzy bunnies.

Click to expand...

Eh? Did someone call?

Azraelsbane said:

My husband bought me a book called The Book of Bunny Suicides. Lots of fuzzy bunnies. Pieces of them anyway.

Click to expand...

Oooo... where is this book?

I think the comment in this thread that sums it up almost entirely is the one about novels not being art.

This is the attitude that results in the OP's frustration. I won't rant about that particular state of things, but we are in a kitsch state where only the most basic sentimental and romantic feelings are acceptable, so anything that might throw this false order out of whack is attacked, whether it's not using quotation marks or playing with structure or having a hero who refuses to act as the narrative conventions demand.

Writing and other mediums have become finite, where before it was infinite. I don't blame anyone for using this caution. I use it myself. It's sad and it's selling out, but I don't care. I want to write and have people read what I write and maybe get paid for it. If it means I have to use caution in order to get started, I guess I'll have to stick it out.

I think this is just another one of those stupid cycles, and isn't eternal, despite what kitsch men want us to think.

Scrawler said:

I like stories about fuzzy bunnies.

Click to expand...

Right on! There are so few fuzzy bunny stories out there. Save the genre! Write a fuzzy bunny story today.

I write what I'm comfortable with. Which means a bizarre juxtaposition of lots of zany comedy, giant lizards, cyborgs, a hot girl with wings, giant bugs, sex, zombies, guns, cigarettes, and the message that we all don't know what we're doing when it comes to religion.

I was kinda disappointed I didn't work zombies into E.L.F, which had everything else AND cyborgs.

There are millions of people out there, all of which read. Some don't like reading mysteries, some don't like erotica; I could go on forever. The point is, if we don't write something because of the small handful that wouldn't like to read that book, we're losing out on writing a great story. And if it wasn't great, oh well. We can put it aside and start another. But not giving up on that first story either. We should waste our valuable time worrying about the what ifs and the people who don't like this genre or type of story. If we are interested in the story than we must write it. We first write for ourselves, then for the others who like to read. If we didn't like it, we're in the wrong profession.

Sex, violence, rape, murder, and all the rest are done all the time. So what if one out of one hundred doesn't like that one book. There are 99 left who do. Focus on them not the one. There will always be someone who doesn't like this or doesn't like that. Don't let it stop you from doing what you love. I won't.

I'd compare this dilemma to that of the distinction between the graphic works of Alan Moore and Frank Miller. They're both hailed as forerunners of the "adult comic revolution." Their respective material however, is very different in its handling of adult themes.

Frank Miller: His work is self-consciously adult. Plenty of sex, profanity, and violence. Often serves little to no purpose, but it's a trademark of Miller's: the "Whores and Guns" subgenre of pulp comic books. It tends to be fairly flamboyant in its presentation of taboo subjects, almost to the point of satire.

Example: In Miller's 'Batman: Year One,' Selina Kyle (Catwoman) starts out as a dominatrix. It plays on the concept of Catwoman as a sexually dominating feminist figure, whilst also standing out as a trademark of Miller's sleazy style. The sexual context is purely for the sake of articulating his style.

Alan Moore: You have your sex, you have your violence, and you have your colourful language, but there isn't a border drawn around these themes in Moore's work. A child would probably pick up a copy of Watchmen and find it boring. For a superhero story it lacks a great deal of action (in fact there is only one character who has superpowers in the entire novel). Watchmen, in essence, is not a superhero story: it's a psychological study of those who choose to become costumed adventurers, and the consequences that those choices have in the long-run. It answers the most important question of all five W's - "Why?"

Example: In the second Volume of 'The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen,' Alan Quartermain and Wilhelmina Murray have a passionate and semi-graphic encounter. Murray has fantasised about Alan since she was a little girl when she read the accounts of his adventures, and Alan is an old man that has been in hiding for some years; no doubt been deprived of a little crumpet. They go to bed because there is an attraction, not because there is a necessity to reinforce the comic's adult treatment of the source material.

To conclude: Frank Miller's work is adult out of a necessity to conform to his trademark style, whereas the explicit content in Moore's work puts things into their fitting context. In Sin City people have sex because they have to, but in V For Vendetta people have sex because they want to.

The Point (at long bloody last!): If the material demands it like Miller's, then don't shy away from it. To hold back is to deprive your material of its meat. If it comes across naturally like Moore's, it's clearly inherent to the work and it may be risky to axe it (there are ways, but the trick is to leave no scars).

Gauge how explicit the treatment needs to be depending on your material.

Writing most definitely is an art form.

As for material such as rape, violence, abuse of children, swearing, bloodletting...they're all suitable for novels. Why? Because they're all facts of life. Anything a human being can experience is suitable material for a novel. Who gives a shit whether people will like it or not? Write it in such a way that you'll make them like it! Take an uncomfortable subject and write it well, so that an agent takes it on and sells it. How many books about mental illness can you name? Murder? Torture?

There's no such thing as a subject you can't write about.

The only things we need worry about are the technicalities. Spelling, grammar and the like. Dialogue. Exposition. In those cases, there is a right way and a wrong way.

When it comes to how you write, ask questions. Learn. Teach others what you learn. But as for what you write? Anything goes.

Why do I get so cautious and overly protective? It's not because this story is my baby (I just spend the last two weeks ripping it apart and looking for anything ugly in it so I could replace it, I probably hate the story more than anyone else ever could) but I do want you, everyone, to give me a chance.

I know that's unrealistic.

But I'd do anything to get someone just to read the first few pages. I'm find if they put it down after the first sentence, if they don't like it, but I hate the thought of someone not reading it because it's a "thirller" or a "fantasy."

Silly, silly, silly of me, I know.