# Taboo



## luckyscars (Jul 31, 2018)

I recently finished Ian McEwan's "The Cement Garden". An enjoyable yet disturbing read yet one that in hindsight I found more tragic than perverse. 

I often browse reviews of these sorts of books after I have read them to see what other readers' reactions are to the content and I was a little disappointed (though unsurprised) to see most reviewers overwhelmingly focused their attention on an incestuous subplot between the two characters, both of whom are in their mid teens. Most disappointing was how many responses included plenty of ad hominem critique of McEwan himself for having the audacity to write it. 

I think it is probably a net positive that people tend to judge a person by what he or she writes (there are worse things, aren't there?) but I do wonder what the consequences are. Good writing should push some sort of boundary. I am well aware of why it is most people consider even consensual incest more horrific than even the most brutal of murders (though it is little peculiar) and have limited interest in venturing down that rabbit-hole...however I am curious to hear thoughts on _how_ morality may impact _you_ as an author in choosing what subjects to include and what to avoid in your work.

Do you ever think of an idea that sounds like it may have potential, only to then find yourself second-guessing at how it might be negatively interpreted by some, or all, of your readership? Do you ever worry that including _that sort of thing _in your book may lead to criticism of you personally? Perhaps something that, whether true or not, you would rather not potentially have debated in a court of public opinion (as McEwan's attitude to sexuality often is)? Most crucially, are you a writer who will entertain writing about _anything _in pursuit of a better story, no matter how disturbing it is, or do you have certain boundaries? Red lines? Taboos? 

If the latter, what are they and why? How do you decide what is okay versus not okay to use in your story? Do you simply avoid any genres that may make you uncomfortable, or is there another way?


----------



## Pete_C (Jul 31, 2018)

I’ll write about anything if it makes a good story. If people want to make a moral judgement about me based on that, it means I must have done a good job.

Many years ago I wrote a comedic short story, Cock-A-Doodle-Doo, about a 12 year old boy who is molested by women from a Satanic cult. The boy turns out to be the manipulative one. I did have a periodical accept it, only to pull it at the last minute. The debate they had over whether to use it caused some internal strife. They ended up paying me although the story never was used.

Every now and again I send it out. I doubt anyone will publish the story, not because it’s crap, but because no one seems comfortable in having a child molestation story, especially one where the child is a manipulator. Interestingly, it’s one of the few pieces that usually gets a comment added to form letters. These comments predominantly are negative about me rather than the story. The vitriol seems to have increased in recent times, whereas a few decades ago when I wrote it attitudes were more tolerant to the subject matter.

I also once had some poems rejected with the comment that overt sex and violence had no place in poetry. 

I think in in modern times some people aggressively defend their right to be offended...


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 31, 2018)

Pete_C said:


> I’ll write about anything if it makes a good story. If people want to make. Amoral judgement about me based on that, it means I must have done a good job.
> 
> Many years ago I wrote a comedic short story, Cock-A-Doodle-Doo, about a 12 year old boy who is molested by women from a Satanic cult. The boy turns out to be the manipulative one. I did have a periodical accept it, only to pull it at the last minute. The debate they had over whether to use it caused some internal strife. They ended up paying me although the story never was used.
> 
> ...



Interesting, thank you.

One question that sprung to mind reading your response was whether the quality of writing and the story, as a story, might have still had something to do with it? That maybe it was simply a case that on balance the quality of the story was not quite enough to outweigh how disturbing it was?

I hope you do not feel I am casting any aspersions on your skill as a writer, that is definitely not the intent. What I mean is that we all know in theory the world's greatest chef could make just about any set of ingredients into something palatable for most people. It is definitely easy, and rather tempting, to assume that the reason your story was not accepted was because it was too shocking for the frumpy old farts of the editorial board. The problem though is then one would need to compare it with all the transgressive material that does get not only published but also manages to achieve mainstream success. One would need to figure out what taboos yours broke than theirs did not. I am thinking specifically about a novel like Nabukov's Lolita which certainly features child molestation rampantly (and the child in question is definitely manipulative...) or one like Levin's Rosemary's Baby. How did _those _make it through?

I wonder if your story actually was more shocking/graphic than those of Levin's & Nabukov's, or if those books were simply so good they ended up being flukes, or if there was a degree of bad luck involved OR if (and most depressingly...) the industry has actually become less open minded since those books were published...?


----------



## Pete_C (Jul 31, 2018)

luckyscars said:


> One question that sprung to mind reading your response was whether the quality of writing and the story, as a story, might have still had something to do with it? That maybe it was simply a case that on balance the quality of the story was not quite enough to outweigh how disturbing it was?



It may well be considered by some as poor quality. I have a style that suits a rather niche genre and I have no qualms about that. My work isn't a good fit for many markets, so I do accept that when it is rejected it might be because the style/content doesn't resonate. Personally I don't see it as poor quality, not because of my ego (ho hum) but because it was accepted by a decent paying market. Also, having earned my sole living from writing and publishing over the past 40 years, I do have a sense when I write something that's shit.

So rejections do come because it doesn't fit the mould.

Interestingly, the story isn't disturbing; well, I don't think it is. That could be where some of the issues spring from. The fact that the person most would associate with being a victim - the child - isn't the victim, the idea that they are an equal actor in the events, the suggestion that both parties are as bad as each other, seems to upset editors more than the actual subject. There's no graphic sexual scenes or violent confrontations. It's about mind games more than physical acts.

I don't tend to read between the lines when I get rejections. Given my genre I'm used to my work being a round peg trying to fit a square hole. However, if an editor writes a personal comment on a form rejection, I have to take that as their opinion. No one has ever added anything derogatory about the writing quality or story arc. Instead they question how I dare to suggest the child is not a victim, the child is a manipulator, or that the subject can be used in a comedic story. When you get something akin to: 'you are a disgusting person; have you thought about how victims of abuse will feel when they read your twisted story' or 'I hope you suffer like the victims suffer; you deserve it' I think it's fair to say that their gripe isn't an overuse of adverbs or split infinitives. 

Some less aggressive responses point me towards submission guidelines highlighting they do not accept pornography (there's nothing pornographic about it) or anything associated with paedophilia (again, nothing of that sort in it) or simply tell me to be more sensitive to the suffering of others (no suffering in it).

As I said, I don't send it out much; every now and again I dust it off and think, 'what the hell'.

What is interesting is that you questioned where people drew the line with regard to the taboo in the opening post. I provided my experience, mentioning that rejections often included a comment directed at me as the writer rather than the piece itself. You then questioned whether the issue was poor writing rather than the subject matter. It's almost as if you don't want to accept that today's literary world is, much like the real world, very precious and too ready to be offended.

With 40 years of writing the stories I do, I can say in my experience that the publishing industry and periodicals have never been as frightened of causing offence to readers than they are today. Ironically, the erotica market has boomed, highlighting how readers are more open to such material. However, for writers who are  stepping outside of the 'socially acceptable', too often editors fall onto the 'bleeding heart' side of the fence.


----------



## QuixoteDelMar (Jul 31, 2018)

There is no plot device, characterisation, or element so taboo I won't consider it's inclusion if it improves the story. But, having said that, and in full awareness of a certain predilection toward flawed protagonists - I have one simple rule; to whit, No More Heroes - I have never written a racist, a rapist, a child molester. And as a protagonist I never will, since I believe those to be the most abhorrent crimes a person is capable of commiting. I can't bring myself to see the world through those eyes, no matter how amoral or criminal my protagonists get, and I won't ask my readers to sympathize with them.

As for the question of poor writing versus good taste - in our PC culture, even publishers get squeamish. I've had a couple submissions rejected for content, largely in the horror genre. Which is ironic, since there is nothing in my horror stories you wouldn't find in a Clive Barker or Chuck Palhanuik piece. My takeaway was that those established voices are safer prospects for publishers, who are less willing to take a chance on a new author whose subject matter might be alienating to an audience.


----------



## bdcharles (Jul 31, 2018)

luckyscars said:


> I recently finished Ian McEwan's "The Cement Garden". An enjoyable yet disturbing read yet one that in hindsight I found more tragic than perverse.
> 
> I often browse reviews of these sorts of books after I have read them to see what other readers' reactions are to the content and I was a little disappointed (though unsurprised) to see most reviewers overwhelmingly focused their attention on an incestuous subplot between the two characters, both of whom are in their mid teens. Most disappointing was how many responses included plenty of ad hominem critique of McEwan himself for having the audacity to write it.
> 
> ...



I know now that people like Irvine Welsh and Bret Easton Ellis are pretty far removed from the subjects they portray, but when I first read _American Psycho_ way back I did conflate author with work. I never did this with Stephen King though, perhaps because his work is very character-oriented. But whenever I've read some work that is just too much like the author is getting off on all the wrong things, I don't continue with it. Not because of the subject itself (well, maybe partly that) but mostly because I am sure it will be handled with crass insensitivity. I can't justify the presence of that in my life, and I feel no desire to.

I tend to make the antagonists handle all the really bad stuff. That way I can disown  them easily and keep my own nose clean, plus I (hopefully) get a good emotional payoff whilst having that character remain  relatively convincing. And if I do make a protagonist enact some wrongdoing, I make sure I give them enough humanising qualities throughout that people can still relate, and may be able to forgive them. It's a key theme for me, actually, is the notion of grey areas in morality. Absolutes aren't really my thing.


----------



## bazz cargo (Jul 31, 2018)

I'm not going to push any boundaries. I'm too busy having fun.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 31, 2018)

Pete_C said:


> What is interesting is that you questioned where people drew the line with regard to the taboo in the opening post. I provided my experience, mentioning that rejections often included a comment directed at me as the writer rather than the piece itself. You then questioned whether the issue was poor writing rather than the subject matter. It's almost as if you don't want to accept that today's literary world is, much like the real world, very precious and too ready to be offended.
> 
> With 40 years of writing the stories I do, I can say in my experience that the publishing industry and periodicals have never been as frightened of causing offence to readers than they are today. Ironically, the erotica market has boomed, highlighting how readers are more open to such material. However, for writers who are  stepping outside of the 'socially acceptable', too often editors fall onto the 'bleeding heart' side of the fence.



Thank you for your response, Pete.

If you go back and re-read, I never mentioned your story being poor. I believe I took pains to point out that I was not doubting your writing ability. What I suggested - and only suggested mind - was that it seems strange that some novels have always penetrated mainstream literature regardless of how offensive they were, and that there are plenty of examples of outrageous things being published. So while it _might_ be an issue of the literary world being sensitive it is more likely the case that _either_ your work somehow managed to cross a line that had yet not been crossed _or _those other books were simply able to out-muscle any moral objections on the strength of their content. 

I have no particular insights on "the world is too ready to be offended these days" other than I do not think it is necessarily true. I can say I have not encountered any overwhelming puritanical shift in publishing over the last 20-30 years I have been paying attention. Certain things (like incest, child abuse, etc) have always evoked much the same reaction while others (kidnap, murder) have always been oddly acceptable, no change there. 

There have certainly been changes in values of course, but art has always been poltiical. Where one might point to a lack of opportunity for books that use sexual violence or misogyny as plot devices for evidence of a prudish culture I would counter that is not the case at all: Sex in fiction is more mainstream and common than it ever has been as you point out. What has definitely changed is the way sex it is depicted, i.e people expect it to have a point beyond titillation and not feel exploitative.

 You might well call that being a "bleeding heart", and fair enough, but I think there's a decent case to be made that a politically aware readership is a good thing on the whole. For people to be able to look into the intent behind something and differentiate between things which offer insight and things which are just gratuitously obscene is a good thing, surely? The problem is when it becomes mishandled, work becomes misinterpreted, charges leveled irrationally and as a result we lose out on genuinely good stories. I definitely share your concern with that.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jul 31, 2018)

I don't have many taboos. But I do try to recognize the marketability of the idea.


----------



## Birb (Jul 31, 2018)

For me, there are absolutely zero boundaries as far as what I feel should be allowed. When we get into sexual things I get a little iffy on what I'd be comfortable reading, but for me if we put limits on what should be morally allowed then we potentially ruin a great story.

While some may want a story that takes them out of their world and into a better one, I want a story that makes me feel something beyond wonder. Whether it be fear or disgust or anger. I don't want a fairy tale, I want something gritty and horrible.


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 1, 2018)

QuixoteDelMar said:


> There is no plot device, characterisation, or element so taboo I won't consider it's inclusion if it improves the story. But, having said that, and in full awareness of a certain predilection toward flawed protagonists - I have one simple rule; to whit, No More Heroes - I have never written a racist, a rapist, a child molester. And as a protagonist I never will, since I believe those to be the most abhorrent crimes a person is capable of commiting. I can't bring myself to see the world through those eyes, no matter how amoral or criminal my protagonists get, and I won't ask my readers to sympathize with them.
> 
> As for the question of poor writing versus good taste - in our PC culture, even publishers get squeamish. I've had a couple submissions rejected for content, largely in the horror genre. Which is ironic, since there is nothing in my horror stories you wouldn't find in a Clive Barker or Chuck Palhanuik piece. My takeaway was that those established voices are safer prospects for publishers, who are less willing to take a chance on a new author whose subject matter might be alienating to an audience.



I think you make a really good point regarding the status of the writer as a factor in acceptability. It's another one of those inconvenient truths nobody likes to hear. There are bestselling authors out there who could probably write about _anything a_nd it would be green-lighted.

That may explain publishing inconsistencies as in Pete's case, but it doesn't explain ones among readers, which was my main focus. McEwan was already a very popular writer when he wrote 'Cement and yet personal judgments seem to be made while I know for fact there are many people who will not read Stephen King, Irvine Welsh, Nabukov and in some cases even writers like Dickens, Twain, D.H Lawrence because of perceptions of their work being deviant or immoral. These are not necessarily people who I would consider overly prudish or unintelligent, either. It's more of a feeling of discomfort at the subject matter and the perception of those writers it causes.


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 1, 2018)

Birb said:


> For me, there are absolutely zero boundaries as far as what I feel should be allowed. When we get into sexual things I get a little iffy on what I'd be comfortable reading, but for me if we put limits on what should be morally allowed then we potentially ruin a great story.
> 
> While some may want a story that takes them out of their world and into a better one, I want a story that makes me feel something beyond wonder. Whether it be fear or disgust or anger. I don't want a fairy tale, I want something gritty and horrible.



The issue I have with what you just said is not that I disagree with it. It is that it seems too idealistic and inconsistent with what gets out there.

For example: If you will write about _anything _with _zero boundaries _with the only thing that matters being _a great story _then why not write a novel based on the life of Roman Polanski? A charismatic character with an unbelievable gift, a holocaust survivor, a true rags-to-riches story and clearly a tortured genius with an interesting romantic life. Sounds perfect...Oh, but wait, the man is an admitted child rapist.

Where is the Osama Bin Laden biopic that sympathetically explores his complex and evolving relationship with his own faith amid the socio-political backdrop of Saudi Arabia? In terms of a life story, that would be superb character in many ways. Where are the books exploring what drives someone to purposefully infect their lover(s) with AIDS? Why are there books and movies exploring the murky worlds of gangsters, pirates, drug traffickers and even serial killers with a vaguely sympathetic bent but far less fiction that explores something as common as the life of a high school bully? Is it really about what is more interesting, or is there selectivity dictating an author's creative process that pays no regard to creative merits? If so, what is such selectivity based on?

I think the reality is there are many great stories out there but only a small fraction are actually ones that most writers are prepared to write - for reasons uncertain. Fewer still that ever make it to market. It is easy to say "I'll write anything for the story" but much harder to do.


----------



## Pete_C (Aug 1, 2018)

luckyscars said:


> If you go back and re-read, I never mentioned your story being poor.



Apologies; the reply wasn't meant to come across like that. I wanted to point out that I wasn't suffering from delusions of grandeur, but did have some basis to believe that the quality of the writing was less of an issue than the content.



luckyscars said:


> I can say I have not encountered any overwhelming puritanical shift in publishing over the last 20-30 years I have been paying attention. Certain things (like incest, child abuse, etc) have always evoked much the same reaction while others (kidnap, murder) have always been oddly acceptable, no change there.



A fair point, but are you submitting or selling the types of work that challenge taboos? I could, for example, say I see no evidence of racism being prevalent in modern society, but as a white male I'm unlikely to do so. I won't make an assumption as to what you write, but unless you're stepping over those lines you won't see the backlash. I regularly have editors and readers making moral assumptions based on my content. Yes, there were always prudish readers or religious folks who had something to say, but the increase in offended editors is noticeable nowadays. 



luckyscars said:


> There have certainly been changes in values of course, but art has always been poltiical. Where one might point to a lack of opportunity for books that use sexual violence or misogyny as plot devices for evidence of a prudish culture I would counter that is not the case at all: Sex in fiction is more mainstream and common than it ever has been as you point out. What has definitely changed is the way sex it is depicted, i.e people expect it to have a point beyond titillation and not feel exploitative.
> 
> You might well call that being a "bleeding heart", and fair enough, but I think there's a decent case to be made that a politically aware readership is a good thing on the whole. For people to be able to look into the intent behind something and differentiate between things which offer insight and things which are just gratuitously obscene is a good thing, surely? The problem is when it becomes mishandled, work becomes misinterpreted, charges leveled irrationally and as a result we lose out on genuinely good stories. I definitely share your concern with that.



I find your choice of words interesting. What is growing in popularity is erotica, and erotica might be indicative of more open attitudes but erotica doesn't break boundaries. However, you see work outside of acceptable erotica in a dim light. For example, you say, 'people expect it to have a point beyond titillation and not feel exploitative'. I would argue that good work that confronts taboo subjects won't be solely for titillation, nor will it be exploitative. If it's badly written, it may be both, but that's a case of poor writing.

You go on to state that there is a difference between work that offers insights and that which is 'gratuitously obscene'. However, you use that statement as a general argument as to why editors and/or readers might reject work that confronts taboos. However, such work is often not 'gratuitously obscene'. People might say it is because they are uncomfortable with it, but the rhetoric is that of the morally offended. Yes, there is gratuitously obscene work out there, but that's not what you started the thread to discuss. Defining work that makes some people uncomfortable in such a way is unacceptable in the context of this discussion.

Pornography has always existed, and it always will. Bad literature has always existed and it always will. Neither has any relevance to work that challenges readers on moral grounds, any more than it does to mainstream literature. Think on this: even in today's internet-connected world, if either of us sold books in the quantities that pornographic magazines still sell, we'd be paying some underling to type these posts for us.



luckyscars said:


> I know for fact there are many people who will not read Stephen King, Irvine Welsh, Nabukov and in some cases even writers like Dickens, Twain, D.H Lawrence because of perceptions of their work being deviant or immoral. These are not necessarily people who I would consider overly prudish or unintelligent, either. It's more of a feeling of discomfort at the subject matter and the perception of those writers it causes.



To be honest, I'd consider such people in the same light as those that threaten actors because their character killed another in a soap opera. If they are the mainstream, then I don't want to play in that pool. If, as writers, we let the lowest common denominator rule our content, we might as well give up.



luckyscars said:


> I think the reality is there are many great stories out there but only a small fraction are actually ones that most writers are prepared to write - for reasons uncertain. Fewer still that ever make it to market. It is easy to say "I'll write anything for the story" but much harder to do.



It's very much a personal thing. I wear three hats; one publishing and two writing. Two of those hats pay the bills and keep me and Mrs C happy, the other is something I am passionate about. As a result, I do understand a lot about how to sell books. If I wanted to step outside of my work life and become an author that sells well, I know how to do it. Through work, I know the people that can help me do it. However, I don't want to write mainstream fiction. I write things that interest me, that intrigue me.

The best selling book in my genre is ranked at 860,000 on Amazon UK and 1,800,000 on Amazon US. The leading authors in the genre have social media followings that rank in the low thousands (3,000 is average). I know I'm not going to get rich or become a household name, but I don't care. The story is by far more important than that.

Literature has always had its outsiders, both in terms of writers and readers. It's not hard to write anything for the story; I think it's more a case of the majority of writers seeking the fame and the rewards, but not wanting to admit to it. Filter them out, and there are plenty of good writers who regularly challenge taboos and have no intention of stopping.


----------



## Kyle R (Aug 1, 2018)

I've written about rape/molestation in the past, though back then, I did it merely for shock value. That kind of subject matter hasn't found its way back in my writing since—not because I think it's something that a writer should avoid, but because I just don't find myself eager to write about it, nor to subject my reader to it.

If I _were_ to have a rape/molestation scene, though, I'd certainly handle it lightly, with a closed door, or with the victim going somewhere else in their mind during the act.


----------



## Terry D (Aug 1, 2018)

I've never shied away from taboo subjects in my writing when the need arose. I don't start out thinking about boundaries to break, but sometimes I end up at those edges. I've written about cannibalism, child molestation, infanticide, and more and the only topic whichever received comment from readers was when I wrote about dog fighting. I try to deal with sensitive subjects in a way that is not exploitative, much of the action taking place 'off-screen'. That might be why the dog fighting scenes in my book disturbed some people, they took place front and center.


----------



## liminal_luke (Aug 1, 2018)

I`m not a fiction writer but if I was to try my hand, I don`t think I`d start with a story about a sympathetic child molester, terrorist, or sadomasochistic fetishist. In the unlikely event that my story was published, eyebrows would be raised, and I`m not that kind of courageous.  But should people write such stories?  Absolutely. I admire writers with the _cajones_ to do so.  Luckyscars wrote that "some people consider incest more horrific than even the most brutal of murders."  This statement rings really true for me, and at the same time I totally don`t get it.  In my book, murder is worse than any kind of sex.  

I`m not a big believer in absolute good or absolute evil; people are mostly admixtures.  I want to read about the good side of the child molester next door and the bad side of Mother Teresa.  It`s interesting.  It`s broadening.  We should be reading and writing about the way people really are rather than locking them away forever in little semantic boxes of good and bad.


----------



## Birb (Aug 1, 2018)

While I would have troubles sympathizing with a pedophile/child molester  I agree with Luke. Characters, especially ones like Osama bin laden or others can be full of depth and be very interesting to read about. Anybody can wrote a totally evil person who just likes killing because death. A good writer would have a villain that you can understand. Not necessarily sympathize with, but one that can be boiled down to more than just an antagonist


----------



## QuixoteDelMar (Aug 1, 2018)

Since someone mentioned it, I'll go ahead and share my views on good and evil. I'll preface this by pointing out that the systematic opression, dehumanization and slaughter of my people was literally just a couple of generations ago: in brief, I believe some people are just evil.

This is going to sound preachy and a little overzealous, especially since the only Jewish thing about me is my family name. But people who share my background were rounded up and tortured, were stripped of thier humanity and treated worse than animals, were separated from family and friends, and killed - slaughtered - for reasons as unimportant as faith, sexuality, race. The men who did this were evil. The men who continue to believe this was _right_, this was _just_, are evil. There is no amount of good they could accomplish that would erase that stain.

Anybody who strips away the will, the happiness, or the autonomy of any person - be it through subjugation, slavery, or assault - is evil.

Now lest you think I'm diverging from the point of the conversation, I'm not saying that the world is black and white and any work of fiction (and I stress fiction, because non-fiction should be impartial) that sympathises with these people is itself bad, wrong, or evil. It's simply a point of view.

In fact, evil is fascinating. Evil can even be fun, if the subject matter is handled with grace or tact. But to say good and evil are semantics, to say everything is a shade of gray, I don't buy that. Because I have seen the effects of actual evil.

There are grays out there - that's how a spectrum works. There is always a darkest point, as well as a lightest. For instance, I believe that love is the best thing we do, as humans - is incest inherently abhorrent if the participants genuinely love each other? Does the purity of one balance out the debasement of the other? Not my call. I know how society sees it. I certainly find it icky. But you're going to be judged no matter which way you fall.

Because that's actually the problem - especially for fiction writers. We put so much of ourselves in the story, and readers invest so much of themselves in our plots, our characters, our contrivances, that you have to judge an author based on what they've written. No matter how divorced from your work you are, your fingerprints are all over it. It carries your DNA - it is something _of_ you, born from _your_ mind.

So ultimately, people will think you're a sick bastard if your subject matter deviates from the norm. And whether you would do the things you write about, whether your own characters disgust you, whether you love or hate the things your creations do, represent - it all came from you. So in a way, we're all a little sick.

But my point was this: Humbert Humbert is the bad guy of Lolita, and any other reading reveals more about you than it does Vladimir Nabokov. People are unreliable gauges - what one person considers a love story will twist another's stomach.

So write what you want and hope the right audience finds your work. Good or Evil be damned. Just understand that readers don't always think that way.


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 1, 2018)

Pete_C said:


> Yes, there were always prudish readers or religious folks who had something to say, but the increase in offended editors is noticeable nowadays.



So what glorious time are we talking about where publishers being afraid of causing offence was less of an issue than it is now? 

300 years ago you would have likely been condemned for even mentioning the paranormal. 200 years ago you couldn't write anything remotely sexual and the definition of pornography at that time would have landed most writers now in prison under various obscenity laws. 100 years ago you might have been lynched for mentioning the idea of interracial marriages while 50-70 years ago people like Arthur Miller were ostracized as a communist, etc. Moral panics reached their zeniths in the 20th century. Even within my own lifetime I have distinct memories of material as diverse as Jerry Springer: The Opera and Rushdie's Satanic Verses causing mass offence and, in some cases, censorship. I suppose  one could differentiate between offence felt among the general populace and publishing opportunities, but what difference does it make if work is published if the majority of people are going to be afraid of reading it? If libraries won't stock it and schools ban it from the book club it is essentially the same as being unpublished...

I think you are definitely right that in years gone certain things flew that these days would be more closely analyzed in subtext - particularly with regard to gender, race and sexuality - however on the other hand one these days is free, encouraged even, to write protagonists of unconventional races, genders, sexual orientations, etc which in previous years would have been more difficult. It's always worth bearing in mind, I think, that just because one doorway gets smaller doesn't mean others do not get bigger, right? We are inclined to seek the negatives in any cultural shift. Perhaps _your _work is more difficult to publish now, but other writers' work may have actually found the industry is more welcoming? In any case, tarring the current industry with the brush of being morally skittish seems presumptuous and over-simplified.  



Pete_C said:


> I find your choice of words interesting. What is growing in popularity is erotica, and erotica might be indicative of more open attitudes but erotica doesn't break boundaries. However, you see work outside of acceptable erotica in a dim light. For example, you say, 'people expect it to have a point beyond titillation and not feel exploitative'. I would argue that good work that confronts taboo subjects won't be solely for titillation, nor will it be exploitative. If it's badly written, it may be both, but that's a case of poor writing.
> 
> You go on to state that there is a difference between work that offers insights and that which is 'gratuitously obscene'. However, you use that statement as a general argument as to why editors and/or readers might reject work that confronts taboos. However, such work is often not 'gratuitously obscene'. People might say it is because they are uncomfortable with it, but the rhetoric is that of the morally offended.



My point was simply that a lot of writers _do _write transgressive work that has no purpose other than to shock and I believe those writers need roundly shamed for their lack of taste and tact when it counts. This is particularly true in modern horror where many tropes have been worn so thin (satan worship being a good example) that the writer feels the need to focus on increasing debauchery to the point it becomes, at best, comical and, at worse, unreadable. We have probably all read something like that at some point and it is often rather depressing.

My personal view, and feel free to disagree, is that writing that tackles unpleasant subjects must justify itself. Probably more than 'vanilla' work. It is absolutely fine to write it, though, this thread was intended in part to discuss how best to do that. I mentioned the McEwan book as an example of how I think deeply transgressive topics can be weaponized into story and in seemingly pursuing a higher goal than just a brother-sister sex scene vindicates the author. I would put Rosemary's Baby in that category, and even something like The Exorcist (which I did not enjoy) because as unpleasant as both may be at times there are clearly bigger issues that are being explored and the stories are excellent. 

On the other hand, work which is poorly written and that details grotesque, obscene or otherwise obviously offensive material in a graphic way is for me much more objectionable than work which is poorly written and does not. I cannot explain that, other than to say I think it is a view quite easily shared and based on some degree of perceived _intent_. In that case I do think it is permissible - natural actually - to make assumptions about the author's character. Poor style, plot holes, etc are bad enough in a book about kittens but they are far more aggravating in a tale of, I don't know, baby rape and I make no apologies for it. If a writer is going to 'go there' with that sort of content they better do damn near a flawless job. 

...Which is all to say that I do not wholly buy arguments along the lines of "the merits of a piece of writing is related to the standard of its style and narrative and has nothing to do with how obscene it is" which is broadly the feeling I am getting from your position. Yes, bad writing exists regardless of subject matter, butbad writing that seeks to emotionally trigger and/or purposefully disrespects or debases the mental well-being of its reader with no clear justification is far worse.


----------



## ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord (Aug 2, 2018)

There's a difference between having evil in a story and glorifying it, I think. I've never read the book mentioned, so I wouldn't know what category it falls into, but, for me, as long as a work is showing evil as evil, and not painting it as good, it has not crossed any moral line. (There are some topics I personally wouldn't want to delve into, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to delve into them)


----------



## liminal_luke (Aug 2, 2018)

QuixoteDelMar said:


> Since someone mentioned it, I'll go ahead and share my views on good and evil. I'll preface this by pointing out that the systematic opression, dehumanization and slaughter of my people was literally just a couple of generations ago: in brief, I believe some people are just evil.
> 
> This is going to sound preachy and a little overzealous, especially since the only Jewish thing about me is my family name. But people who share my background were rounded up and tortured, were stripped of thier humanity and treated worse than animals, were separated from family and friends, and killed - slaughtered - for reasons as unimportant as faith, sexuality, race. The men who did this were evil. The men who continue to believe this was _right_, this was _just_, are evil. There is no amount of good they could accomplish that would erase that stain.
> 
> Anybody who strips away the will, the happiness, or the autonomy of any person - be it through subjugation, slavery, or assault - is evil.



I said earlier that I`m not a big believer in absolute good and absolute evil, but reading the above I find myself wanting to agree: there is real evil in the world.  I still believe that _most_ of us are admixtures. Some people, however, truly are bad apples through and through.  I think there ought to be room to read and write about the whole spectrum.

There`s a question I think this whole topic of taboo subject matter is dancing around, and that`s this: is all writing, on some level, autobiography?  If I write about child molesers does that mean that I have been molested or am a molester?  If I write about murder, is a reader justified in thinking that I`m murderous?


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 2, 2018)

ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord said:


> There's a difference between having evil in a story and glorifying it, I think. I've never read the book mentioned, so I wouldn't know what category it falls into, but, for me, as long as a work is showing evil as evil, and not painting it as good, it has not crossed any moral line. (There are some topics I personally wouldn't want to delve into, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to delve into them)



So the idea of a story told from the point of view of an evil character is wrong?


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 2, 2018)

liminal_luke said:


> There`s a question I think this whole topic of taboo subject matter is dancing around, and that`s this: is all writing, on some level, autobiography?  If I write about child molesers does that mean that I have been molested or am a molester?  If I write about murder, is a reader justified in thinking that I`m murderous?



That's a great observation, and you are correct that was somewhat the question.

There's a quote somewhere that "all paintings are self-portraits". I might be seriously fumbling that, but the gist is that in a close analysis of any given painting, regardless of its subject matter, one can learn a great deal about the artist. Even when of something mundane a painting reveals what they see, how they see it, and what is important to them thematically. From that we can infer certain assumptions about their character as though for a moment we were "looking through their eyes".

It is something of a cliche, but I think anybody who has ever taken an interest in an artist like Van Gogh can definitely see that theory in action. Even studying a relatively innocuous painter like Monet one can see a huge difference in his later paintings than his earlier ones, not least because his vision began to suffer. The artwork, in that way, becomes autobiography.

Books are more complicated because in most fiction the author is supposed to be strictly behind the scenes and rather anonymous. A painting is usually about creating in visual form a subjective interpretation of reality but fiction is about creating a new reality. Lying, in other words. The nature of lying means is always difficult to extrapolate origins with any exactness and unless the author admits it you will always be guessing. And who is going to admit to being a child molester? Nobody.

I do strongly believe there is an element of the author in every character, though. Why the hell wouldn't there be? Like Monet's paintings of lily ponds even characters who you may find evil are still _you _to the degree that they are based on your perceptions of what evil is and a writer's ego demands control. A lot of true life "evil people" felt equally conflicted about their own actions.

I do NOT think it is at all correct to say that to write about murder makes you murderous, however it is also fair to say there probably isn't as much mental distance as we would like to believe between imagining oneself doing terrible things through the proxy of character and considering doing them ourselves. This is probably a big reason why it is still relatively few writers who can write about incest, molestation, etc.


----------



## Pete_C (Aug 2, 2018)

luckyscars said:


> ...Which is all to say that I do not wholly buy arguments along the lines of "the merits of a piece of writing is related to the standard of its style and narrative and has nothing to do with how obscene it is" which is broadly the feeling I am getting from your position. Yes, bad writing exists regardless of subject matter, butbad writing that seeks to emotionally trigger and/or purposefully disrespects or debases the mental well-being of its reader with no clear justification is far worse.



Now, I have no wish to challenge you personally, but the final paragraph of your reply highlights something of a deeply seated bias, whether you realise it or not.

You state that you do not, 'wholly buy arguments along the lines of "the merits of a piece of writing is related to the standard of its style and narrative and has nothing to do with how obscene it is"'. Who mentioned obscenity? You did. Confronting a taboo subject does not mean the piece has to involve obscenity or be in any way obscene. Indeed, such is the argument usually put forward by people who - for their own reasons - do not wish certain subjects to be raised or challenged. 

I have written about child molestation. Was it addressing a taboo subject? Yes. Was it obscene? No. I have (and do) write a lot of stories that confront the hypocrisy of organised religion. Is it taboo? In the way I do it, yes. Is it obcene? No. I have written stories that challenge people's perceptions of poverty in the first world. Is it taboo? Yes. Is it obscene? No.

Writing about taboo subjects can be challenging. It can make the reader put aside preconceptions and understand a different angle. It can also enrage, upset or offend them. Often the difference has little to do with the writing and more to do with the mentality, confidence and empathy of the reader.

Writing about taboo subjects does not equate to obscenity. You seemingly think it does. Either that or you imply it does to suit your argument.

Taboo is defined thus: A social or religious custom prohibiting or restricting a particular practice or forbidding association with a particular person, place, or thing.

Obscene is defined thus: (of the portrayal or description of sexual matters) offensive or disgusting by accepted standards of morality and decency.

There is, I am sure you will agree, some difference there.

You finish by stating, 'Yes, bad writing exists regardless of subject matter, but bad writing that seeks to emotionally trigger and/or purposefully disrespects or debases the mental well-being of its reader with no clear justification is far worse.'

I had made the point that good or bad writing wasn't a point of argument about taboo subjects. While true that bad writing can make something seem worse, the reality is that addressing taboo subjects with bad construction does not make the content more offensive. I accept that there are people who write obscene materials and pornography and work designed to shock and offend, but those issues are not part of debate according to the original question. So, even if a writer creates poorly constructed work, your view is that they have set out to 'emotionally trigger and/or purposefully disrespects or debases the mental well-being of its reader'.

To me, that's the sort of rhetoric associated with book burnings and hate mobs. I write about taboo subjects and at no point do I set out to 'disrespect or debase' my readers. Such a claim is solely based on your own internal bias and has no basis in reality.


----------



## bdcharles (Aug 2, 2018)

Fiction writers observe people, and we can be quite perceptive and empathic, so it is relateively easy for us to write an evil person without being one, particularly when we may have seen them in action and they may have had a notable impact on us. We might want to write them to expose their real motivations to the world, where the world doesn't appear to see those. We might want to write them to help us understand just how such a person comes to be. Take Lolita. I have not read any more than extracts. But was Lolita written from a place of first-person desire, or from a fine understanding of the exact mechanics of another? I believe that Nabokov considered Humbert Humbert a "hateful wretch" - but then isn't that the sort of deflection Humbert himself would use? Should we even try to understand these people? What's the effect it might have on us? I don't know. In a way, there are no answers, only points to explore, but even in fiction that depicts the nastiest of nasty individuals, at least no one gets hurt and hopefully some understanding comes of it, though whether that understanding leads to a reduction of the problem is another challenge. 

Empathy is a blessing and a curse; a powerful strength and, in the wrong hands, a terrible weakness  that can wreak havoc.


----------



## bdcharles (Aug 2, 2018)

liminal_luke said:


> There`s a question I think this whole topic of taboo subject matter is dancing around, and that`s this: is all writing, on some level, autobiography?  If I write about child molesers does that mean that I have been molested or am a molester?  If I write about murder, is a reader justified in thinking that I`m murderous?



This is exactly the point I wanted to make. Isn't some writing also the product of observation and sensitivity?


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 2, 2018)

Pete_C said:


> Now, I have no wish to challenge you personally, but the final paragraph of your reply highlights something of a deeply seated bias, whether you realise it or not.
> 
> You state that you do not, 'wholly buy arguments along the lines of "the merits of a piece of writing is related to the standard of its style and narrative and has nothing to do with how obscene it is"'. Who mentioned obscenity? You did. Confronting a taboo subject does not mean the piece has to involve obscenity or be in any way obscene. Indeed, such is the argument usually put forward by people who - for their own reasons - do not wish certain subjects to be raised or challenged.
> 
> ...



This is not a personal debate, Pete and I have said numerous times that writing about taboo subjects is absolutely fine. I think we mostly agree. I am unsure why you keep wanting to bring this back to your work when clearly I have no opinion on that. If you would like to send it to me I would be happy to have a look and then we can discuss how it fits, otherwise please set it aside in this discussion.

My only requirement personally is that breaking taboos in writing is to be a means to an end not an end in itself. That is actually my only major point in this entire thread. I don't want a book _about _incest (does any normal person?) but I am happy to read one that uses it to make a more powerful point beyond smut as McEwan did.

Where I differ with your position as I have understood it (and I freely acknowledge I may not have understood it correctly...) is that you _seem_ to be suggesting that offensive or highly controversial material in general should be accepted according to the same standards as "vanilla" work is by publishers. And that applying any additional scrutiny or judgement or demanding more from a quality standpoint to compensate for a unpleasant subject matter choice is symptomatic of an easily-offended culture. You seem unhappy with that. Offended, even.

I can understand this discontentment, and have shared it in the past, but I don't think it is necessarily rational. I think in a society where you are more or less free to write and submit stories about anything (and can even publish yourself too) it is the readers, and therefore the publishers', right to say "You can send me the story with the child molester, but it better be phenomenal because otherwise I am going to throw it in your face" and that holding that position is not unreasonable. More importantly, it reduces the likelihood of bookshelves becoming freak shows for the idle fantasies of sociopathic young men (it usually is young men) who believe themselves to be some modern variant of the Marquis de Sade but whose work is actually at best mediocre. And mediocre in terms of the child molester impacts most readers differently than mediocre in PG-13 subjects. It just does.

So yes, you are right that I do indeed have bias, but it is reasoned bias in my opinion. I think it's normal to have it and I consider your references to this being in any way related to "hate mobs" and "book burning" to be at best hysterical and at worst uncalled for. Bias is not out and out closed mindedness but simply applying standards selectively according to one's moral compass. Unconventional subjects require unconventional levels of storytelling quality. My bias is saying _if you are going to write a story about pedophilia I am going to judge it a lot more harshly than I am if you write something of the same literary quality about wizards_.._.also if you, the writer, fail to justify your decision to go heavy handed into a controversial topic and fail to execute well I am, probably, going to judge it as you feeding your own psychopathy_. And suddenly we are in a position of judging people personally, which nobody wants. But I make no apology for judging writers for reprehensible output and I think it strange if anybody says they do not.

I am not going to get into unnecessary semantic arguments about whether it is correct to talk about X being obscene versus taboo. I would like to point out you missed (or chose to exclude) a second definition of the word "obscene" (Merriam Webster) which reads thus: *containing or being language regarded as taboo in polite usage *which very much widens the net as far as what can or cannot fall under the correct usage of this word. I do _not _think the two words are exactly synonymous in context - obviously - however I recognize, as should you, that virtually anything that one describes as "taboo" could also be described as "obscene" depending on who you ask, and vice versa.


----------



## Pete_C (Aug 2, 2018)

luckyscars said:


> This is not a personal debate, Pete and I have said numerous times that writing about taboo subjects is absolutely fine. I am unsure why you keep wanting to bring this back to your work when clearly I have no opinion on that.



Why do I bring it back to my work? Because you asked me to.

From your opening post (the bold is mine):


luckyscars said:


> Most crucially, are *you* a writer who will entertain writing about _anything in pursuit of a better story, no matter how disturbing it is, or do *you* have certain boundaries? Red lines? Taboos?
> 
> If the latter, what are they and why? How do *you* decide what is okay versus not okay to use in *your* story? Do *you* simply avoid any genres that may make *you* uncomfortable, or is there another way?_



Now, that seems to me to be an invitation for people discuss what they do and why they do it.

Unlike some, I will not presume speak for other authors, living or dead, and have no need to given the initial request. That's why I mention my work. I hope that clarifies the matter and alleviates your concerns.

I stupidly thought the intention here was to have a discussion of how we, the members of WF, handle taboo topics. However, as it seems to be more about a singular view on the matter, I'll leave it where it is.


----------



## ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord (Aug 2, 2018)

luckyscars said:


> So the idea of a story told from the point of view of an evil character is wrong?



No. You can tell a story from an evil person's perspective and still do so truthfully. Death Note is seen from Light's perspective (mostly), but it doesn't justify his actions. I can empathize with terrorists and Nazis--that doesn't make them right.


----------



## JustRob (Aug 2, 2018)

I just checked what Lisa Goldman wrote on this subject in her book _The NO RULES Handbook for Writers_, the only book about writing that I have ever actually bought. In it she takes common rules of writing and considers whether there is another approach to them. In the chapter on "Rule 27 - Obey the arbiters of taste" she suggests that an alternative rule would be "Influence the taste of the future." One can see her point. Isn't one of the purposes of fiction to propose new directions in which reality could go so that society can review whether that would be a good thing or not?

I have only had minor qualms in this respect. The novel that I wrote in 2011 appears to have a joke about the Holocaust in it and I thought long and hard about whether to keep it in, but there was a serious message within the text. The apparent joke arose because a young child misunderstood just what the Holocaust was and his ignorance in turn arose from the fact that people preferred not to talk about it, especially in front of young children. I decided that if any reader interpreted it as a joke then that was their fault for being superficial in their reading, not mine for allowing them to do so. 

There are several ways in which a writer may seek to distance themself from what they have written. One is to take the attitude that it is a character who is responsible for breaking the taboo, not the writer. If this is taken to the extreme then I don't think that it is valid. My angel and I used to watch a crime series on TV that portrayed appalling treatment of humans, but apparently the justification for doing this was that it demonstrated how vile the criminals were and it didn't matter as they were brought to justice in the end. We didn't buy that and gave up watching the series. We could have tolerated the atrocious events if they were in proportion to the rest of the stories, but they were dwelt upon so much that they created a serious imbalance and the good guys leaping into action to catch the baddies in the last few minutes didn't restore the balance.

Maybe balance is the key arbiter of whether one can cross a line then. Years ago I wrote a poem to post here which appeared to be on the subject of necrophilia. It's still here somewhere. In fact this was another situation like my apparent Holocaust joke where I allowed the reader to imagine things that weren't really there. The problem with innuendo is that people may be offended by it because it highlights their own mental tendencies and they feel the need to defend themselves. Personally I think that if other aspects of the work balance out the innuendo then the work as a whole has sufficient merit.

When writing some draft chapters for the potential second novel in my planned trilogy I produced some extremely strange erotic scenes which I had distinct doubts about when I read them back later. However, I was writing what amounted to a fantasy at that stage and I'm not sure whether sexual acts which are obviously physically impossible can be regarded as taboo. In most cases I was keen to include them in the novel because they were just so funny to me, but whether readers would see them that way I didn't know. The real killer was that one of the scenes was absolutely essential to the ending of the story, so I couldn't possibly leave it out. I had apparently painted myself into a corner and i have never completed that novel.

I think that if one is going to take Lisa's advice then one should think very carefully why a subject is taboo and whether it is based simply on current taste that could be changed in the future or something more fundamental. In fact if one analyses my writing right down one can see that it asks the fundamental question "What exactly is it that makes us human and how far can we go in abandoning what at first appears to be essential before we aren't?"


----------



## Theglasshouse (Aug 2, 2018)

Anti-hero charcaters have been done well, some must have been evil. The stars my destination had a big one and is considered by critics to be one of the best of all time of science fiction(and is character centered). To be honest I think time judges better than critics and the public. When to kill a mockingbird was published because of the authors views of the south, she did somehting big. She erased a taboo.

Also coincidentally the demolished man had an evil character (same author).

Do I recall good books praised becuase of taboos? Sadly I do not since literary writers and others and I don't know them well, but they write of the positive and negative experiences of life without using a taboo. Taboos are usually reversed in the story in a dramatic piece.

Most guidelines I have read don't like taboos. I'd play it safe and not use it, if I were trying to write. But that is just me. I think literary theory looks for beauty in expression and language and not just that but truth. I read a little bit of a book by Terry Eagleton recommended by someone in the forums.

However comedy can allow for taboos and certain genres, but I don't want to drag myself in this discussion. All I want to do is contribute to it and see if it does inform someone.

Taboos can be emotional scars in drama. Movies whatever form of entertainment always seem to want to use some universal plots.

People can be sensitive, I feel people have a right to write what they want. But be careful.


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 2, 2018)

Pete_C said:


> Why do I bring it back to my work? Because you asked me to.
> 
> 
> From your opening post (the bold is mine):
> ...




I appreciate and have greatly enjoyed some of your points, Pete. I will ignore what seem to be veiled accusations regarding my intentions. I will assume they are not meant how they read.

I suspect you must understand that persistently referring to a work nobody has read in order to back up what you are saying is not terribly helpful and certainly not "what I asked you to do" either. I asked for your opinion on the topic, that is correct, and assumed it went without saying that any examples cited in the name of an opinion would be drawn from sources that were accessible to everybody, just as I myself referenced a famous book by a famous author as an example of mine.

 I would not ordinarily mind either way, but it tends to wear thin when done over and over in conjunction with ever more impassioned accusations of perceived bias. How can I be biased against what you are saying when I am not entirely sure what you are referring to? It isn't. Equally it isn't "speaking for other authors living or dead" to refer to published work to support an opinion. If it was every English scholar and literary critic in the world is guilty of doing such a thing routinely.

Please consider this tangent closed with my apologies for any upset.




ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord said:


> No. You can tell a story from an evil person's perspective and still do so truthfully. Death Note is seen from Light's perspective (mostly), but it doesn't justify his actions. I can empathize with terrorists and Nazis--that doesn't make them right.




I am confused. You said "you can tell a story from an evil person's perspective" but then gave an example of, I think, a story where an evil character (Death Note) is viewed from the perspective of a good character (Light) thereby contradicting -- or at least not supporting -- the first sentence. 


When you talk about empathising with "terrorists and Nazis" are you acknowledging that it is acceptable to tell the story entirely from their perspective (as in, from their point of view and not through the lens of another honourable character) or not? I just want to understand your argument because it reads as contradictory. Do you think it is acceptable to write a fictionalized account of World War Two from, say, the point of view of an SS Kommandant?




bdcharles said:


> Fiction writers observe people, and we can be quite perceptive and empathic, so it is relateively easy for us to write an evil person without being one, particularly when we may have seen them in action and they may have had a notable impact on us. We might want to write them to expose their real motivations to the world, where the world doesn't appear to see those. We might want to write them to help us understand just how such a person comes to be. Take Lolita. I have not read any more than extracts. But was Lolita written from a place of first-person desire, or from a fine understanding of the exact mechanics of another? I believe that Nabokov considered Humbert Humbert a "hateful wretch" - but then isn't that the sort of deflection Humbert himself would use? Should we even try to understand these people? What's the effect it might have on us? I don't know. In a way, there are no answers, only points to explore, but even in fiction that depicts the nastiest of nasty individuals, at least no one gets hurt and hopefully some understanding comes of it, though whether that understanding leads to a reduction of the problem is another challenge.
> 
> 
> Empathy is a blessing and a curse; a powerful strength and, in the wrong hands, a terrible weakness that can wreak havoc.




I think analyzing a book correctly is rather like analyzing a crime -- little of what is important is in the nuts and bolts of what can be seen at first glance.


It is dangerous ground, of course, because none of us wishes to be coerced nor frankly judged for what occasionally spills from our imaginations. And yet, there is a good argument to be made that we reveal most of ourselves through our stories. Because fiction is by definition about deception and pretence it provides the perfect cover. I won't pretend otherwise: The ability to do anything I wanted to anybody I wanted without any real-world harm or consequences is the main reason I started writing in the first place. Because I was never going to be whatever I wanted to be, so the best I could do was emulate it through a form of induced self-delusion and bonkers fantasy. 


However, as adults who have written for awhile we all know it isn't that simple. People do judge and always will. Some things are 'icky'. Which means we have to draw lines and sometimes find workarounds. Which means the whole "I'll write about whatever I want and I don't care -- I just want to tell a good story" however heartfelt and well-meant can lead to some truly nasty consequences and ignorance is no excuse.


----------



## QuixoteDelMar (Aug 2, 2018)

@luckyscars - I'm not the target of the question, but I have a bad habit of butting in. Is it acceptable to tell a story from the perspective of an SS Kommandant during The Second Great War?

Yes.

In fact, I would very much like to read it. In fact, I've already read something very much like it - _Commandant of Auschwitz: The Autobiography of Rudolf Hoess_. The key here is to be clear about your intentions as an author. Are you condemning these men? Celebrating them? Showing them as they were? Glorifying them?

It isn't the subject that matters - it's how the subject is handled. I for one found the writing of Hoess instructive. I read it alongside _Night_ by Elie Wiesel. It taught me a lot about writing villains.

But that wasn't the point here. The point was you absolutely should write a story following the evilest, vilest people you can imagine. But you should also be clear in your intention, and your _target audience._ if you write about racists, expect racists to hold up your work as some kind of ideal. Expect people to conflate you with fascism. They will. People who never read a word you wrote will blame you for things beyond your control.

Look to Stephen King and his Bachman novel _Rage._ Do you know how many school shootings it was blamed for? Moral panics have always and will always be a thing.


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 2, 2018)

QuixoteDelMar said:


> @luckyscars - I'm not the target of the question, but I have a bad habit of butting in. Is it acceptable to tell a story from the perspective of an SS Kommandant during The Second Great War?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> ...



I largely agree. I also prefer, when discussing if breaking a taboo is acceptable or not, to talk about intent.

 As mentioned in the response to bdcharles, I think intent is nine tenths of the question across the board. This applies beyond fiction and into most aspects of every day life. For example in a legal setting intent is hugely important in determining criminality: Think about something as seemingly clear cut as one person killing another. This could be either heroic (as in a war), justified (as in defending from a home invasion), neutral (as in a fair fight with no obvious culprit) or it could be evil. And even when it is evil, there are degrees aren't there? Degrees of murder, manslaughter ETC. The net result is always the same: A dead body. What motivates is what matters. Why shouldn't a similar process be used to weigh the merits of a book about pedophilia?

A book about an SS Kommandant could certainly be excellent. Life-changing even. It could also be utter tripe, in which case the writer deserves everything that comes their way in my view. A film like _Der Untergang _(_Downfall) _is certainly dicey as it explores the last days of Hitler from an entirely Nazi perspective and yet nobody would say it isn't a great piece of cinema because it has historical value. Schindler's List is a little more Hollywood-friendly but still could be construed as a film that glamorizes the holocaust to the degree we are watching Ralph Fiennes in an SS uniform shooting Jews. But the intent is honest. I think it is every bit as silly to base decisions concerning the merits of a book solely on the quality of writing and story-as-a-story as it is to base moral decisions concerning dead bodies on how effectively and imaginatively a human being can be killed.  In these cases the merits of the story as far as its writing can and does become largely irrelevant. 

Taken to extremes, we can see where that thinking leads. It is possible that some of the propaganda films that were made by Goebbels in Nazi Germany were quite good.  Certainly I know for a fact that D.W Griffith's "_The Birth Of A Nation" _is excellent as far as technical film making as I have seen it. The problem is that in both cases the intent behind the work is so obviously despicable, admiring something like that (let alone creating it) becomes an immoral act in itself. We can prove this by, for example, the spike in KKK lynchings that took place following that film's release. Lines must be drawn intelligently. That may sound like a squeamish position, but I think it is quite normal.

As far as the less extreme and more morally ambiguous work we see commonly today - your Stephen Kings or Ian McEwans - that is probably where it becomes an individual judgment/case-by-case item and my question initially was actually to explore those matters of individual judgement to see what processes are used by the members of this forum. School shootings is an interesting topic. It is certainly a subject I would feel conflicted about bringing into fiction. On one hand the issues surrounding school shootings (adolescent angst, bullying, etc) are obviously relevant and I could see exploring the psychological nature of a school shooter as being of public, as well as artistic, interest. On the other hand, we know glorifying these things, however inadvertently, is not only immoral but flat out irresponsible. 

_Rage_ is an interesting book to bring up, actually. I have not read it, but I do know King let it fall out of print precisely because of the reasons I mentioned above and I believe he has expressed regret writing it. Intent in that case was irrelevant since at least some of the readership was too stupid and juvenile to understand it. And you know what? I think that's right.


----------



## V.N. Henderson (Aug 3, 2018)

I remember back in the day when I wrote a fanfiction where Jack Sparrow and the female character I had created had sex at 12 years old. Mind you, there was no description of the sexual acts and had taken place after the act itself but most of the reviews let me have it. My argument was that it was a different era and that twelve year olds in the 1500s to 1800s were the equivalent to 16 year olds today. It's an uphill battle but you write what you want, just be prepared to fight people about it.


----------



## bdcharles (Aug 3, 2018)

luckyscars said:


> _Rage_ is an interesting book to bring up, actually. I have not read it, but I do know King let it fall out of print precisely because of the reasons I mentioned above and I believe he has expressed regret writing it. Intent in that case was irrelevant since at least some of the readership was too stupid and juvenile to understand it. And you know what? I think that's right.



As a teenager, _Rage_ was one of my favourite novels/novellas. In fact it was probably a little too much of a favourite. That’s about as far as it went thankfully - but that was just me, just one person. And yet I’m glad I read it. It helped me appreciate the vitality of the outsider. In context, of course, this sounds nuts, but even then, it seemed that in glamourising such people, you humanise them, and in doing so, you can empathise, understand, and from there, help, and fix. Needless to say, people being people, it could all just as easily go the other way and readers can be subject to a lot of malign influence. That leaves us with the question of what happens to them? What can we do? You have to cut right to the bone in order to have any stakes in the problem. It’s a very fine line, which is why it needs sensitive handling, from both readers and writers. And sometimes the risk is too high.


----------

