Discomfort

[Birol]

In some of the other threads, I've been reading posts, or reading into posts, that many of us are worried about offending our readers. I feel part of being a writer is sometimes making our readers uncomfortable. Not always mind, but sometimes. Often.

How do you feel about this? Are you capable of it?

[Maxinquaye]

My view is that we should always be truthful. It's the only contract we have with the reader; that we won't cheat, we won't lie (well, except for the fictional story), and that we won't avoid things because they are uncomfortable.

If we do that, I think the reader will follow.

If s/he doesn't, there are other readers that don't require us to give up our integrity.

[Bufty]

There's a difference between deliberately setting out to offend a specific group, and a specific group taking offense at something that was written within - and was part of - a fictional context.

I wouldn't worry if the reading of something I had written caused readers to feel uncomfortable by stirring up memories or feelings they preferred to keep suppressed, but I wouldn't deliberately set out to offend.

Am I capable of it? No idea. In my case it's hypothetical because I don't have any readers, :cry: but...

In some of the other threads, I've been reading posts, or reading into posts, that many of us are worried about offending our readers. I feel part of being a writer is sometimes making our readers uncomfortable. Not always mind, but sometimes. Often.

How do you feel about this? Are you capable of it?

[kaitie]

I think for me it depends on the kind of offending we're talking about. Some things I don't mind too much. If I write a book and characters have sex outside of marriage, there is a group of people who would probably be offended by that. The way I see it, they don't have to read my book. That sort of thing doesn't bother me.

If you're talking about writing something promoting racism or something of that sort, I'd avoid it at all cost. I try to stand up against inequality when I see it, and I certainly wouldn't be writing it into a book. The key word there is "promoting." I've written books about child abusers and bigots before, but the characters who were like that were the sickening ones that you hated, not the ones that you said, "Woohoo we should all be like him."

For me, offending and making someone question their outlook or opinions on certain things are not the same thing. I've got one story where the MC is a murderer. Yes, he murdered in cold blood. Yes it was premeditated. But he was also killing someone to protect a child. He was also influenced by the events of his own childhood. Do I want readers to say "What a great idea we should all be vigilantes?" No, not at all. But I would hope that it at least makes people think about what they consider acceptable and unacceptable, and why. Not everything I write has something like that in there, I suppose, but a lot of it does.

So I guess for me making someone uncomfortable doesn't mean offending them so much as making them think about their views and why they hold them. I think that's a fantastic thing.

[CaroGirl]

I'm not sure creating discomfort and causing offence are exactly the same thing. Creating discomfort could simply mean dealing with difficult subject matter in a frank way. Making readers squirm by forcing them to look at the world in a way they hadn't before. I think, for some writers, that's their job; that's what makes their work important.

That's quite different, I think, from deliberately using gratuitous gore and violence to make people squirm. Or espousing and presenting as fact a world view of glorified racism, Nazism or fascism (for example).

ETA: Cross-posted with kaitie, who seems to be saying much the same thing. :)

[Thump]

Think of books like A Clockwork Orange where the MC comes through as sympathetic and friendly while at the same time horrifies you by being a monster. Books should challenge people at least on some level. I don't mean we should all write literary fiction or memoirs but even Lord of the Rings had some of that (think Boromir). If everything's too clean-cut and acceptable to you, it might be fun but it won't really be memorable.

[Perks]

Hmmm. That's an interesting question. I've written things some people may not prefer to read (language or violence or whatever), but never with any intent to be provocative. Whatever it was that happened in the story, it's just what happened.

Many, if not most, readers of fiction expect something extraordinary to happen in a novel. Since overcoming an obstacle is central to most plots, and obstacles are generally an event, attitude, or adversary that is at least initially perceived as a negative, you're going to find that a lot of bad things (and sometimes with bad words or naked stuff) happen in fiction. That's sort of deliberately making someone uncomfortable, but they paid you to do it.

For me, I don't think I would deliberately tweak a story with the intent of discomfiting the reader. I always think of it as a meeting of the minds and I don't make an effort to set my own teeth on edge, although it happens organically with some of the stories that crop up in my head. I wouldn't treat a reader any differently.

[Sevvy]

I'll throw in my lot with those who said that there's a difference between being offensive and writing things that are meant to make others think. I wouldn't go out of my way to be offensive in my writing.

There are characters who may be offensive, even going out of their way to offend other characters in the book, but I don't think that counts, and those sorts of characters aren't usually meant to be liked.

[Maxinquaye]

Another wrinkle... I believe you should portray the characters that you put in the villain role, or just bad characters generally, should be treated with respect. Ie you shouldn't gloss over for instance a raging homophobic clansman's racism and do a lecture about the badness of racism...

What I mean is, i think you should make an as strong a case as possible for his point of view. In his pov racism is good, homophobia is protecting the family, segratation or even outright persecution is for the benefit of all.

In the overall story arc you can of course show that racism and such is bad, mkay, but when you speak out of this character's pov, shouldn't you put forward his case and his views?

[defcon6000]

Absolutely, I'm all for offending the tender sensibilities of others. :tongue

You can't please everyone, and doesn't matter what you write, someone, out there, will get offended in some bizarre way.

[scarletpeaches]

In some of the other threads, I've been reading posts, or reading into posts, that many of us are worried about offending our readers. I feel part of being a writer is sometimes making our readers uncomfortable. Not always mind, but sometimes. Often.

How do you feel about this? Are you capable of it?I'm not worried about it at all, but I know it'll happen.

My first loyalty is to the characters. I write them as well as I can and sometimes cry (yes, really) because of the disconnect between what they whisper in my ear, and what I type. But I do my best. Even if my best is never good enough.

For every person who's offended by something I write, there will be someone who appreciates it. It's not that I intend to offend...I just acknowledge that I can't do anything about what someone else thinks of my work.

That said, I refuse to shy away from touchy subjects - adultery, abortion, religion, you name it. Only when appropriate to the story.

If the characters want me to write something, I will, regardless of possibly causing offence to a reader. That's not to say I don't keep the readership in mind - I'm always conscious of my genre and tailor the way I present the material accordingly.

But acknowledging your readership is far, far different from tiptoeing round a particular reader or readers.

[Ken]

... only great authors are capable of making readers truly uncomfortable. And since I am not great, or capable of ever being so in any sense of the term, the issue of making readers uncomfortable isn't of any concern for me.

I will of course continue to admire novels by the greats, like Dostoyevsky, who make me sublimely uncomfortable. That's their job. Not mine. And I'm perfectly okay with that. I am just happy to be able to tell a story, period, which some may enjoy and be entertained by :-)

[MicheleLee]

Some people want to be offended and you can't please everyone.

But that doesn't mean you shouldn't try to not be a racist/sexist/whateverist chump. I read in the other thread a nice line about how if we can write vampires and fairies and whatnot we should be able to write outside our sexual preference, identity race and sex. I think ultimately as writers it is our job to push ourselves into new places before we ever try to take readers there.

[CaroGirl]

I think you have to hope that your book reaches the "ideal" reader at least some of the time. Out of my betas, I had one who couldn't finish my novel. The subject matter was too overwhelming. I wasn't offended in the least. She wasn't my target audience and we both knew it. You can't please all the people all the time, and all that jazz.

[ChaosTitan]

I've never set out to intentionally offend anyone, but the simple fact that I write about a woman who comes back from the dead, vampires and any other number of nasty "evil" creatures, people who kill and like doing it, and have all sorts of violence scenes....well, those things offend some people. I have relatives who find what I write about offensive and have told me so. But they're not my target audience anyway.

I agree with the other posters who've said there's a difference between setting out to be offensive to a particular group, and just writing about something that someone will find offensive. You can't be true to yourself and your story if you aren't offending someone--there are people in the world who will use any excuse to take offense at something you say or do.

There is at least one scene in Three Days to Dead that I know many readers will find uncomfortable. I knew it because writing it made *me* uncomfortable. I debated leaving it, and I almost took it out. But in the end, the story needed it. The character needed it to have happened.

As a reader, I like it when an author makes me uncomfortable. I like it when they make me squirm--for a legitimate reason. Getting a visceral reaction from a reader is like the Holy Grail of writing for me, and I respect writers who get one out of me.

[DWSTXS]

No matter what I write, I strive to make the character realistic. If my character is racist, then I try to make his racism as realistic as possible. If someone is offended by that, then they are being offended by my character, not by me.

In my novel, Blue-Eyed Son, one of the characters is violent towards women. It doesn't mean that I am, (I am not) and in the end, this nasty character gets his comeuppance.

So, the readers who were offended by my character, get to see justice done in the end.

[IdiotsRUs]

The only discomfort I have is that I can't write it well enough

It's not that I'm worried about offending someone per se ( bound to, I mean I unintentionally offend people quite regularly!), but offending people because I've not done a good enough job at portraying whatever it is I'm trying to portray - for instance as I said in the other thread, it's not that I'm worried that writing a gay protag might offend people - but the thought that if I do it badly, then gay people would be offended....

If you see what I mean.

It's just sort of a niggle at the back of my mind.

Making readers squirm cos I've written something that makes them uncomfortable would actually be a bonus - as long as it was because I'd written it well :D

[maestrowork]

I don't set out to offend people, but I also understand that some people are going to be offended. Heck, some people are easily offended and I know they're not going to be my target readers. I also write about things that could upset people but these things are essential to my stories. I do think that drama is inherently uncomfortable (we're out to hurt our characters!) I'm writing about war, and there are certain things that upset ME, and I assume it may upset my readers as well, but I didn't write them thinking, "How do I do it to offend my readers?"

We can't please everyone. We can't even please some people all the time. As a writer, I feel that my job is not to "please" everyone but to tell the truth, and tell it entertainingly.

[Fredster]

What I mean is, i think you should make an as strong a case as possible for his point of view. In his pov racism is good, homophobia is protecting the family, segratation or even outright persecution is for the benefit of all.

No matter what I write, I strive to make the character realistic. If my character is racist, then I try to make his racism as realistic as possible. If someone is offended by that, then they are being offended by my character, not by me.
Agree wholeheartedly with these sentiments.

I was chastised over the weekend by someone who read a scene from the point-of-view of one of my characters who is a sociopath. He was excited at the prospect of killing a child, because he'd never done that. The comment I got was that it "made the reader sympathetic to him" and that she didn't think I wanted to do that.

Heck, I thought that meant I was doing my job. :) I told her everyone is the hero of his own story, and a scene from his point-of-view will invariably paint him as the good guy.

[Birol]

And what if, aside from their beliefs about the color of one's skin, the racist is just like the person next door? Someone you'd have to dinner and trust to watch your kids? What if the racist was just like your ideal reader? What if the racist didn't believe they were a racist?

<Substitute word of choice for 'racist'.>

[DWSTXS]

And what if, aside from their beliefs about the color of one's skin, the racist is just like the person next door? Someone you'd have to dinner and trust to watch your kids? What if the racist was just like your ideal reader? What if the racist didn't believe they were a racist?

<Substitute word of choice for 'racist'.>

I believe that to truly write a realistic portrayal of a racist, is to show him as feeling completely justified in his views, (as a lot of them feel) and therefore, your racist neighbor probably wouldn't have a problem with it.

Just my opinion though

[Summonere]

Being true to the story is all that matters. If that makes readers squirm, then it's working at its highest levels. That's not to say that every story must evoke squirmage (moving readers for any reason is good), but to point out that the power of the story is in its truths. You start watering that down because of your perception of what may offend (notice that I said “perception”), then you damage what is strongest in the writing.

What are these truths? They're emotionl, psychological, and even philosophical, but that absolutely does not mean you have to belive them. You only have to make them true in the context of the story.

Now, have I muddied the water?

Here's an example. Write about a serial killer who believes that what he does is for the absolute good. No one in their right mind will agree with the bastard, but if you're going to be true to the story and that character, you're going to make him one absolutely convincing son of a bitch. If you don't, he's just going to be one more of those one-dimensional “he does it cause he's kuh-kuh-kray-z” villains we've all seen and depsise not becaue of their villainy, but because writing shallow is a copout. If you don't dig into that nutball to find out what makes him tick, and if you don't put it on the page, you're not doing your job.

Same thing with any other part of a story that may seemingly cause offense. Dig into it. Expose it.

Your heroic characters, if the exist, will duly counterpoint, and the squriming will subside.

(P.S. I'm the one in the slow lane, not you. :) )

[Topaz044]

Then I recommend that the issue of the neighbor's racism is addressed in the novel. It doesn't have to be resolved, but it should at least be mentioned. If it's overlooked, then the reader will be more than happy to point it out for you.

[Maxinquaye]

Being true to the story is all that matters.

This. As writers we have only one thing going for us - the readers desire to believe what we say.

If we break that trust with the part that makes us uncomfortable, then we'll make everything else we say in the story unbelievable.

[Ken]

And what if, aside from their beliefs about the color of one's skin, the racist is just like the person next door? Someone you'd have to dinner and trust to watch your kids? What if the racist was just like your ideal reader? What if the racist didn't believe they were a racist?

<Substitute word of choice for 'racist'.>

... may be wrong about this, but I think there are certain lines writers just can't cross if they want to be published by the mainstream press, and portraying a racist in a completely positive way is one of those taboos. You can of course portray racists, but you also have to blunt that racism and undercut it, somehow. Again, I may be wrong about this, but I personally have never read a book of such sort in this day and age, that glorifies racism, though I'm sure there are small presses that may put out such titles. Most editors would honestly be like, "Yuck."

[Mara]

I'm not afraid of "offending," but I do try to avoid "hurting." Generally, I think writers should avoid anything that actually encourages real-life violence or oppression. Most of us will never be influential enough to do that, but it's still a basic moral obligation. If any of us write something like The Klansman (directly responsible for rebirth of KKK, causing torture and death of a lot of innocent people), we have to take some responsibility for that.

But these days, you're generally not going to get published by mainstream press if you write, say, a novel that's basically "kill all the gays in real life" in story form, and even if you did, a lot more people would protest against it.

EDIT: So, basically, it's not something you probably have to worry about unless you're writing another Mein Kampf or something.

[Maxinquaye]

Well, it's not so much writing THE KLANSMAN. I couldn't write that kind of book. It would not be truthful if I did.

But if there's a racist in your book, i think you should treat the racist with the same respect you afford your MC or any other character that you like. And that includes presenting his POV in a truthful fashion, including the fact that he's pretty okay with and have a logical and even rational reasoning behind his racism.

[ishtar'sgate]

In some of the other threads, I've been reading posts, or reading into posts, that many of us are worried about offending our readers. I feel part of being a writer is sometimes making our readers uncomfortable. Not always mind, but sometimes. Often.

How do you feel about this? Are you capable of it?
Definitely. I don't set out deliberately to make readers uncomfortable but if the story requires me to move in such a direction then I do. I used to hesitate but found that when I just went for it people weren't as offended as I thought they'd be anyway.

[Lady Ice]

I ask if my work comes off as offensive not because I want the reader to have an easy comfortable time but mainly because some things are just bad taste. They're not shocking or subversive. They're just cringy.

[seun]

A few weeks ago, this subject was touched on in another thread and I made a crack about my next book being about the Pope wiping his bum on the Turin Shroud.

I wouldn't write such a scene because I can't imagine such a state of affairs occuring in a believable manner. That's not the same as saying I wouldn't write it because it would offend plenty of people. Obviously I know that's true, but being honest, that wouldn't be the top of my list of concerns just as it wouldn't be if I planned a scene featuring Allah going to the pub with Jesus. It's not honest. It's not real. It would just be bollocks which I have no interest in writing. Even as a fantasist, I want to be truthful with my writing. I want to be true to my story. Causing offence is a secondary concern - BUT as has been said by others, I don't set out to cause offence.

[Birol]

... may be wrong about this, but I think there are certain lines writers just can't cross if they want to be published by the mainstream press, and portraying a racist in a completely positive way is one of those taboos. You can of course portray racists, but you also have to blunt that racism and undercut it, somehow. Again, I may be wrong about this, but I personally have never read a book of such sort in this day and age, that glorifies racism, though I'm sure there are small presses that may put out such titles. Most editors would honestly be like, "Yuck."

Where did I suggest one glorify racism?

I ask if my work comes off as offensive not because I want the reader to have an easy comfortable time but mainly because some things are just bad taste. They're not shocking or subversive. They're just cringy.

And what is wrong with cringy?

[Shadow_Ferret]

I write horror and dark fantasy. I'm TRYING to make them uncomfortable.

[LuckyH]

I found that when I started writing seriously, I was troubled by self-censorship and a curious desire to appease, not to offend. It made my writing flat, but luckily a wise agent took the trouble to tell me so.

I’m not sure that I’ve thrown off all the shackles, but I became braver as my writing progressed. I write what I know; that old well-worn cliché that haunts writers, and don’t censor as much as I used to.

If a book that I’m reading doesn’t make me feel uncomfortable at times, I don’t enjoy it, and I try to write with as much courage as I can muster. I’ve come across extreme racism, searing homophobia, gratuitous violence and most human frailties in my life; and I’ve written of them, and will continue to write of them, because it’s what I know.

Luckily, I know love too, and will always write about that too.

[PoppysInARow]

It depends.

I wouldn't write a protagonist that was promoting anti-semitism, but I might write an antagonist that does so. Making your antagonist offensive in some ways can really anger a reader and make them root for your protagonist even more.

The fun part is making your antagonist make sense in his arguments. Make him seem completely infallible. That's what pisses people off.

Offending people is great, you just have to do it in the right way.

[Ken]

Where did I suggest one glorify racism?

... not that you suggested it, but posed it as a possibility one might explore. That's what I thought you were asking in your post:

And what if, aside from their beliefs about the color of one's skin, the racist is just like the person next door? Someone you'd have to dinner and trust to watch your kids? What if the racist was just like your ideal reader? What if the racist didn't believe they were a racist?

<Substitute word of choice for 'racist'.>

You seem to be posing the possibility of having a racist character who is presented normally in a completely positive light and a presentation of that sort would be glorifying racism I'd say, similar to if the Stepford Wives had not had an explanation behind it and women just served at the beck and call of their husbands for no reason, making it seem like that was normal. So the neighbor in your hypothetical example would be glorifying racism in the same way the wives in the Stepford movie would be glorifying sexism, if I'm understanding your example about the neighbor. Perhaps I'm not? Sorry, if so.

[Birol]

No. What I'm suggesting is that all racists are not skinheads. That sometimes the racist looks and acts just like you and I. That they are the person next door and that we can't tell them from anyone else. I'm also suggesting, or trying to, that if you write them that way, it will make your readers uncomfortable because they will see themselves and their neighbors in the character you portray, even if they'd rather not. That can make readers squirm and cringe; it might even make them angry. That isn't glorifying racism (substitute word of choice here). It's shining the light on it and reflecting it back to the reader in a way they'd rather not see.

If, in real life, you go into the grocery store and look around, you cannot tell who is racist (substitute word of choice here) and who isn't. And when we write that way... when we make our characters just like the people around us... that is discomforting to readers.

More often than not, that is why people are offended by books. It's not the gruesome gore, it's not baby killing, or portrayals of atheism, or sexual activities that makes them angry. It's because they don't like what it says about them.

[Maxinquaye]

No. What I'm suggesting is that all racists are not skinheads. That sometimes the racist (or sexual predator or rapist or serial killer or abuser) looks and acts just like you and I. That they are the person next door and that we can't tell them from anyone else. I'm also suggesting, or trying to, that if you write them that way, it will make your readers uncomfortable because they will see themselves and their neighbors in the character you portray, even if they'd rather not. That can make readers squirm and cringe; it might even make them angry. That isn't glorifying racism (substitute word of choice here). It's shining the light on it and reflecting it back to the reader in a way they'd rather not see.

I think that's the essence of being truthful with fiction - to not create a stereotype shorthand of the clansman that is easy to hate, but to respect the character you're trying to create by making him the hero of his own story, the knight in shining armor that is trying to do what he perceives is good.

[Ken]

... not sure, Birol. I agree with you that it is okay to portray a racist as having good qualities, alongside this obvious bad one they have, e.g. that they can be devoted parents and trusting friends. One only has to look to the South 150 years ago for evidence of that. The majority of the population in those states were racist, then, and while they did treat Afro-Americans abominably they were genially to one another and sacrificed their lives at times to save their neighbors during the war.

What I'm in disagreement, or at least doubt, about is that alongside these good traits I think writers also have to somehow convey an overall negative sense about the character in question: that though they may be okay in many ways there is an overall pervading nastiness about them, particularly if the character is central to the story. If a writer doesn't do that the character and the work as a whole will seem off and rather than readers feeling resultantly uncomfortable, they'll feel turned off, which is not desirable.

So I agree with you up to a point, and on the surface, perhaps entirely. For that pervading sense that something in Denmark rots can be gotten across in subtle ways. But subtle or overtly it must be gotten across, imo. And writers who fail to do this will have difficulty peddling their prose.

ps And I did misunderstand your post, in part, so I apologize about that.

[Birol]

Ken, try substituting another word for racist in any of my posts. Racist is just a word. Try, just for instance, inserting "homosexual" or "black" into any of my posts. Maybe that will help you see what I'm saying.

[JoNightshade]

Creating discomfort could simply mean dealing with difficult subject matter in a frank way. Making readers squirm by forcing them to look at the world in a way they hadn't before. I think, for some writers, that's their job; that's what makes their work important.

This is, essentially, my raison d'etre. ;)

Another wrinkle... I believe you should portray the characters that you put in the villain role, or just bad characters generally, should be treated with respect. Ie you shouldn't gloss over for instance a raging homophobic clansman's racism and do a lecture about the badness of racism...

What I mean is, i think you should make an as strong a case as possible for his point of view. In his pov racism is good, homophobia is protecting the family, segratation or even outright persecution is for the benefit of all.

In the overall story arc you can of course show that racism and such is bad, mkay, but when you speak out of this character's pov, shouldn't you put forward his case and his views?

100% agreed. Of course the level to which you "balance" out a character's wacky views/behavior depends on your choice of perspective. In some instances you might be able to do it directly, as the narrator; if it's first person, you might not be able to do it at all.

I just finished reading the Godfather, and I have to say Puzo does a FAN-FRICKIN-TASTIC job of this. If anyone is looking for a way to make "undesireables" sympathetic, check this book out. He had me on "The Family's" side from page one. Even though I know the Mafia is a criminal organization which does horrible things I would never condone. Characters kill, they subvert the law... and somehow all of it is RIGHT. To them. And you buy it.

... may be wrong about this, but I think there are certain lines writers just can't cross if they want to be published by the mainstream press, and portraying a racist in a completely positive way is one of those taboos. You can of course portray racists, but you also have to blunt that racism and undercut it, somehow. Again, I may be wrong about this, but I personally have never read a book of such sort in this day and age, that glorifies racism, though I'm sure there are small presses that may put out such titles. Most editors would honestly be like, "Yuck."

Have you seen Gran Torino? I didn't feel that the MC's racism was undercut in any way. He was who he was. Also, portraying something accurately from that person's POV is not "glorification." It is simply a portrayal. That is all. Glorification is, rather, the opposite of undercutting. It is lifting up something above all else. I think usually the writer's job is to show things as they are... not to hold them up or knock them down.

[maestrowork]

No. What I'm suggesting is that all racists are not skinheads. That sometimes the racist looks and acts just like you and I. That they are the person next door and that we can't tell them from anyone else. I'm also suggesting, or trying to, that if you write them that way, it will make your readers uncomfortable because they will see themselves and their neighbors in the character you portray, even if they'd rather not. That can make readers squirm and cringe; it might even make them angry. That isn't glorifying racism (substitute word of choice here). It's shining the light on it and reflecting it back to the reader in a way they'd rather not see.

In real life, a lot of racist people are "regular folks." My parents could be described as racists, but they're some of the nicest people you will meet... They are just people trying to live their lives in peace -- they couldn't help to have prejudice because that was how they grew up (someone brought up Gran Torino and it's a great example). To me, I think if the readers start feeling uncomfortable and wondering "am I a racist" then they're already more aware of racism than most people...

But anyway, I think literature is supposed to be mirrors for people of all backgrounds. If such portrayal makes these readers squirm and cringe and feel agree by questioning, "Is the author saying I, like the character, is a racist?" I think it's actually a good thing. Personally, I like it when literature makes me think, makes me wonder about myself, etc.

Now, it also depends on how the author presents it. If the author presents it in a such a way that he's condemning normal, regular people who may be racist (for example, these people end up going to Hell and burn for eternity) then the readers might wonder if the author is preaching.

There are all kinds of things that may offend people, but I think when the author preaches and gives messages like "if you're <racist/homophobic/sexist/fill in the blanks> then you're scum and you deserve to burn in Hell" then likely the author has crossed a line....

Just a thought.

[Ken]

... interesting way of looking at it, Birol, by substitution. It does give me a different perspective on the matter. But I don't think the comparison entirely holds up.

What is wrong about a racist is their racism and that's something that remains unaltered at the hand of a writer portraying them. The only thing wrong about a homosexual on the other hand is the negative stereotypes that have come to be associated with them and that's something that is altered at the hand of the writer portraying them.

So a racist and a homosexual are in this regard polar opposites. They are comparable in the way they are portrayed in that writers add or subtract traits to render more realistic portrayals, but whereas with the homosexual the initial negative is removed (the disparaging connotations) the racist on the other hand retains his negativity (hateful attitude).

As such it still seems to me that the racist should therefore be presented, negatively, in some manner, notwithstanding the comparison. Hope that makes some sense. Could've expressed it better. Complicated stuff.

[Ken]

I think usually the writer's job is to show things as they are... not to hold them up or knock them down.

... maybe so. I could be wrong. It's just my own impression, based on novels I've read. And as I haven't read a ton of novels I can't claim to be any authority on the matter. So take what I've said in view of that. Even if my view doesn't fully reflect the market I believe it has basis, at least ethically. And since ethics will always weigh heavily in the assessment of all human endeavors it may well have a great deal of basis. Give it some though, and I'll do likewise with all of your own views. I'm here to learn ... along with spouting out opinions from time to time ;-)

[maestrowork]

As such it still seems to me that the racist should therefore be presented, negatively, in some manner...

But why? Why must anything be presented "negatively"? To appease someone? To appear politically correct?

Why can't the writer present these characters and their qualities without any judgment or predefined consequences? Can't Archie Bunker be a great, wonderful guy who happens to be prejudiced.... and let the readers make up their own judgment?

[Ken]

... well Archie is a textbook example of my point. His racism is undercut by his stupidity, or in his portrayal as a fool at times, alongside his good qualities. But times have changed and perhaps as Jo and Birol and you indicate such mitigation is no longer needed ... though I retain doubts about that.

[maestrowork]

Archie Bunker is just an obvious example of "a good guy who happens to be racist." What I'm saying is, I prefer stories that don't "tell" us we should think "negatively" about certain things. Or worse, that "if you're racist, you must be a moron" type of characterization. Instead, leave the judgment to the readers. So Grannie is wonderful and loving and intelligent but she also grew up thinking Black people are lazy people... that's how she was brought up. Why must that be presented as a "negative" instead of being part of who she is, just like her blue eyes?

In my case, I have a character in my WIP who happens to be homophobic. That's the way he was brought up and that's his belief. I can't help if some of my readers would think less of this character because of that, but the thing is, that's the character, that's his background and that's his belief, and I try to present that side of him as neutrally as I can, much like how I would describe his physical attributes, without me passing any judgment or leading the readers to feel one way or another. To me, it's up to the readers to think for themselves.

[Mara]

I will say that as a historian, I've found that media portrayals of racists have been rather inaccurate. While racism and other forms of bigotry are stupid, there are many bigots that are rather intelligent overall. Quite a few of them are nice to anyone who's not in a group they dislike, and some are even reasonably polite to people within those groups.

I also understand what the point of portraying racists as idiots was. To counter overly positive portrayals of racists and racism in general. It was a noble goal, and it did help the problem a good bit.

So I guess writers have to be aware of both points of view, regardless of where they stand. You don't want to get blindsided by either one.

[Libbie]

Good thread. This has been on my mind a lot lately.

I wrote a book with a main character who's thirteen at the beginning of the story. She is married at this age, and is expected to consummate her marriage -- totally normal in Egypt, 3500 years ago. Back then, thirteen was practically middle aged, and thirteen-year-old females who were menstruating were considered women. Not young women, not girls. Women. To my main character, in the time and place she lived, she was an adult woman.

There is some sex in this book, and some near-sex takes place when she's only thirteen years old. It occurred to me recently that this will probably make some readers uncomfortable. In considering more about this situation, I realized that most other authors with similar books kept their female characters from sex until they were about seventeen or eighteen. This seems disingenuous to me. Imposing modern morals onto ancient peoples seems to me disrespectful of those cultures, and perhaps unconcerned with the facts of these people's lives: Life spans were much shorter. Thirteen didn't mean the same thing to them as it does to us. I feel that I represented the culture fairly (as well as I can tell) in many respects, and this is one of them.

I'm sure it will make some readers uncomfortable. Maybe if it gets published I can include an author's note about the situation, and why I chose to do it. But I don't want to change it, and represent the ancient Egyptian world unfairly just to avoid weirding some readers out.

[Libbie]

And what if, aside from their beliefs about the color of one's skin, the racist is just like the person next door? Someone you'd have to dinner and trust to watch your kids? What if the racist was just like your ideal reader? What if the racist didn't believe they were a racist?

<Substitute word of choice for 'racist'.>

I very strongly recommend Ted Kosmatka's short story "N-Words" for more insight into the kind of discomfort Birol is talking about here. It's an astonishing and very moving story.

[Libbie]

Well, it's not so much writing THE KLANSMAN. I couldn't write that kind of book. It would not be truthful if I did.

But if there's a racist in your book, i think you should treat the racist with the same respect you afford your MC or any other character that you like. And that includes presenting his POV in a truthful fashion, including the fact that he's pretty okay with and have a logical and even rational reasoning behind his racism.

I agree. If you choose to have a POV character like this, you must be truthful to that character.

[Birol]

N-Words by Ted Kosmatka (http://cdn4.libsyn.com/escapepod/EP_198_Nwords.mp3?nvb=20091124044345&nva=20091125045345&t=0edeee113e8ad2d621c6f)

[Cliff Face]

I wrote my first book trying not to offend anyone. It was a fantasy comedy. I made sure I didn't swear, have gratuitous violence or sex. I was mostly thinking of my grandparents reading it.

They liked it well enough, but I think there's a small chance I offended them anyway. I made mention of Pagan gods as actual characters, and in hindsight this was probably worse than if I had put in a scene where a woman was raped while screaming "Fuck" at the top of her lungs, at least to them, being the most Christian people in my family.

They've never said anything about it, but I have to wonder.

My current WIP, there swearing, sex, violence. Quite a bit of all three actually. There were only 2 scenes that made ME uncomfortable, and that is because they were a little too familiar. But on the whole, I think while some people still might be offended, it's less risque than glorifying Pagan methods in a heavily Christian environment...

Am I worried about offending people anymore? Not a bit. As long as it is a well written and engrossing story, I'll tell it loud and proud, sort of thing.

Although I must admit I'd avoid glorifying things - that's probably the main failing of my first MS, the glorification of magical practices in a real world setting.

Meanwhile, this tread gave me an awesome idea for a book - it's a development from an idea that was half worked out, but now I know how I want to show it, and it's already giving me goosebumps. It should make people plenty uncomfortable, especially if they read enough in a row. I'm very happy, not for the chance to offend or make uncomfortable, but for the fact that I just worked out what was missing from one of my ideas. :)

[Rhoda Nightingale]

I don't worry about offending people. What people decide to get tetchy about is their problem, not mine. However, I do sometimes worry after that fact that some parts of my writing may, unintentionally, portray me as having some prejudices that I really don't have. Like if I suddenly realize that none of my characters is anything but Caucasian, or that my vehemently anti-Christian character will make people think that I'm anti-Christian, or something random that I didn't even notice until the eighth read-through. I worry about those things a little, but offending people in general--not so much.