posted
A variation on the 'Good or Successful' post and an adjunct to the 'Golden Compass' post.
All this controversy made me wonder. If you had a great idea, that you knew would make a great and very successful book, but would make certain (unnamed) sections of the community/world really 'annoyed' with you. Would you write or would you stay one of the many unsung writers struggling to break out--never achieving any real success?
Salman Rushdie for example.
(If it gets heated--and I hope it won't--let's do coffee instead.)
posted
The answer, for me, is easy: I'd write it. Even without the capability of having a "great idea, that you knew would make a great and very successful book, but would make certain (unnamed) sections of the community/world really 'annoyed' with you", I have the D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. approach. I don't care if anyone else likes what I'm writing, when I'm writing. If, after I'm done, someone will buy it and publish it...it's out of here. I'll deal with the consequences later.
Look at how Stephen King felt guilty after Columbine for writing Rage. He didn't stop writing his next novel. He may have felt guilty because the idea was in print because of him, but that doesn't make him responsible; it makes him human and shows he has a conscience. Pullman--regardless of what his characters do--can't kill God or the Catholic church. Lord knows, if Dan Brown couldn't do it, some fantasy epic won't.
Those people who act or react from art (from songs, books, games, movies) have been given an escape from culpability. When does the results of someone's actions become their own responsibility again? Why should an author be afraid to explore any idea in a fictional story?
[This message has been edited by InarticulateBabbler (edited November 24, 2007).]
If the idea would annoy a group because the book treated them unjustly (such as including unfair fabrications about them), I would not do it, no matter how much I did or didn't like the group. If, however, it treated them justly, but still annoyed the heck out of them, I would probably go through with it.
I also wouldn't go for cheapening the group gratuitously. In other words, I wouldn't make every person of a group stupid and selfish--even if that is what would make it sell.
So, if I were Dan Brown, I wouldn't have written DaVinci Code--at least not the way he did. I would not have made all of the Catholics stupid and selfish the way he did (even if I didn't like them), and I would not have made up the gross misrepresentations of Catholic history in the book.
There is a particular group that I would be a bit hard on if I wrote about them--which I might do. However, I would not write falsehoods about their history, and I would definitely portray a fair number of them as very intelligent and selfless in their way.
In other words--I would endeavor to write *honorably*. When you make up falsehoods about a group's history and treat them all as if they are stupid and selfish, I think you are actually writing *dishonorably*. It is with your enemies that honor is truly tested.
posted
I think Mark Twain proved that someone can be quite successful because they're controversial. I say, as long as you truly believe what you are writing, then you're always better off to write it than not. And by better off I mean more at peace with your conscience and yourself, despite what others might think or say.
Posts: 2195 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
I wouldn't go out to deliberately piss people off. But I wouldn't shy away from writing the story I want. If an agent tells me they can't sell it because of certain sections, then I'd cut them as long as they didn't harm the book.
To me, it's not a question of 'Write what you want' or 'be successful'. It's a question of writing what I believe in.
It reminds me of the arguments on style. Some people say they're trying to develop a style, or emulate a style they like. I say, just write the story and let the rest take care of itself. I think if you're true to the story, a lot of people will forgive you. Though if you try to have an agenda, people won't like it.
posted
I wouldn't care if anything I wrote was controversial or not, just my opinion. We write what we like though some writers and authors out there do tend to put their views on the world and religion into their books.
I am a fairly open minded individual and as such I don't use my stories as a means to get my view of the world out there, hell I don't even think I am skilled enough at the moment to be able to lay a hidden message in my writing.
I don't have anything against any religion or person, I do have a thing against people who do the wrong thing, whether or not they're religious or not.
posted
There are always people that will tell you you're going to hell for writing magic. It's like the woman from Georgia trying to get Harry Potter banned from the school library -- without even reading them!
The same thing with the guy from the 700 Club saying HP is evil, but CS Lewis is okay. Didn't they both write magic?
posted
Listen I already piss off people of my acquaintance who are fundamentalist because I write fantasy. Pissing off more wouldn't bother me at all. However, I don't write fantasy because it pisses off fundamentalists. It just amuses me as an added benefit.
I certainly admire Mr. Rushdie for having the guts to stand up to the bullying tactics of so many people of his own religion. If the threat were that serious, I'd hope to have his courage.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited November 24, 2007).]
posted
I'd do it if it was honest. I wouldn't, say, make Jesus or another great religious figure out to be a child abuser, since there's no evidence that any of them were. But I wouldn't pander to prejudice. If it was going to cause vast upset, say, to make a religious leader gay, I'd do it anyway, since gays aren't exactly rare, and there are plenty of them in religious offices.
Posts: 185 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
I'm inclined to go for it, though I'm not sure I'd push it as far as the torches-and-pitchfork stage, maybe just up to tar-and-feather. As soon as I think of it, I'll go and do it.
There's a lot of controversy attached to a lot of books, though. Different levels. For example, the "Literary Establishment" has by-and-large rejected J. R. R. Tolkien, despite his impeccable academic credentials. Look how they react when The Lord of the Rings gets picked "best book" in various polls. (Of late there's some sign of a new generation embracing Tolkien, but there's a long way to go.)
*****
I've often wondered about Salman Rushdie. The Satanic Verses was one of those books I tried and just couldn't get into---it's a fairly dense read. I extracted what he said about Mohammed, though---but I know lots of other books that have said things just as raw, without provoking anything. (One was a "Star Trek" book.) Muslims (or, more likely, the radical wing thereof) are probably the most thin-skinned when it comes to comments about their religion---look at the series of world-wide riots over cartoons, the Pope's quoting a Byzantine emperor, and imaginary Koran-flushing.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
