What would you refuse to do for money?

[NTG]

Another forum hosted the question of who would be willing to suffer for their writing. A common response was some version of "I'm not a journalist, I'm just writing for pleasure. I have no desire to suffer for it."

That's a fair answer. Honestly, that's what I would say.

But what about this: What if writing something that you found wrong or distasteful were guaranteed to help you sell that novel, or sell a lot more copies of it? Would you do it, or not?

I'll start.

I want to write to build people up. Especially young people. I hope to write well enough to make money on the merits of my work. But if I thought I could only sell a book by "just giving the kids what they want" and that meant entertaining them with tales of power without responsibility, wealth without hard, honest work, immorality without consequences, and success without consideration for others, then I'd rather not write at all.

I hope I can find a success point somewhere between those two stark "either/or" extremes. What do you all think?

Nathanael

[ClaudiaGray]

There's nothing under the sun "guaranteed" to make you sell more copies of a novel, so I don't know that it's a fair question.

And although I agree with the principles you're standing by, the fact remains that there are people who have power but not responsibility, who have attained wealth without hard work, who do immoral things without facing the consequences and who gain success without consideration for others. There are plenty of people like that. It may suck, but it doesn't make them any less real. I don't want to glamorize that, but if I pretend it doesn't exist, young people aren't going to be uplifted -- they're going to know I'm a liar.

All you can do is believe in your characters' virtues and face their flaws, I think. I don't know what I "wouldn't do for money," exactly, because I can't quite imagine the scenario in which that would come up, but even in my most fantastical tales, I want the characters to feel true.

[Will Lavender]

If my writing harmed my name or reputation, or my family's reputation, I would not write even if I knew a million-dollar paycheck were waiting for me at the end.

Your writing has to stand on its own after the money is long gone. When you write something, you are putting it out into the public. Your name is on the cover. Your words and notions are between the covers. That product lasts forever, veritably.

There's something much more weighty to that than there is to money. Money is transient. The power of a book, however, is much more powerful. There's no taking it back once it's done.

[WildScribe]

As a content writer, I no longer write articles praising the virtues of things like Hoodia. I feel like a whore, even though my name is not on the articles in question. I actually have refused a few of these articles (for pay) because of just that. I also try to avoid things that bore me to tears, but I put a fun spin on them when I can't get around it.

[pepperlandgirl]

Nothing. I'd write anything, for anybody, if money was involved. Why not? I like to eat and pay the bills.

[Devil Ledbetter]

I've refused to write grant proposals for causes I'm against.

This year I did a bunch of work for a library millage renewal campaign. There is no way I would have worked for their opposition, not for 10 times what the library committee paid me.

[SpookyWriter]

Nothing. I'd write anything, for anybody, if money was involved. Why not? I like to eat and pay the bills.I like this answer. One, because I don't think writing fiction requires us to dig deep down into our souls to answer ambiguous moral questions. If you write a good story that is compelling then the work should stand on its own. You make money from sales. Two, the content of your novel is within your control. I don't see how this is an issue if you have a choice what goes inside the jacket cover. :Shrug:

[Will Lavender]

I like this answer. One, because I don't think writing fiction requires us to dig deep down into our souls to answer ambiguous moral questions. If you write a good story that is compelling then the work should stand on its own. You make money from sales. Two, the content of your novel is within your control. I don't see how this is an issue if you have a choice what goes inside the jacket cover. :Shrug:

Yes, but your characters make moral and ethical choices. There is that old adage that goes "The narrator is not the writer" or "The chracters are not the writer," but I have seen writers who write some sickening stuff, stuff that goes beyond entertainment and enters into a sort of literary sadism.

If asked to go there (and I never will be; all of this is hypothetical), I wouldn't.

An example:

My novel is "finished." It has gone to the editor, and the ARCs are being printed up. My wife, however, objected to a scene that was suicide-related. Suicide is a touchy subject in our family because my sister-in-law committed suicide at twenty. My wife didn't like how I described a scene of violence, and she broke down in tears and begged me to change it.

I did.

Obviously, that doesn't risk any money. I've signed the contract and have been guaranteed an advance. But still: it changed the book, and I would do it again.

Words mean something. Always. And it's my opinion that you have to be careful when you use them.

[NTG]

There's nothing under the sun "guaranteed" to make you sell more copies of a novel, so I don't know that it's a fair question.

And although I agree with the principles you're standing by, the fact remains that there are people who have power but not responsibility, who have attained wealth without hard work, who do immoral things without facing the consequences and who gain success without consideration for others. There are plenty of people like that. It may suck, but it doesn't make them any less real. I don't want to glamorize that, but if I pretend it doesn't exist, young people aren't going to be uplifted -- they're going to know I'm a liar.

All you can do is believe in your characters' virtues and face their flaws, I think. I don't know what I "wouldn't do for money," exactly, because I can't quite imagine the scenario in which that would come up, but even in my most fantastical tales, I want the characters to feel true.

All true. But I used the hypothetical "what if" just to help define positions. No, there are no guarantees, but if there were, would it affect what you write? For example, would you write a rich, mean-spirited, power-abusing politician who uses people, throws them away, and lives happily ever after, if your pet astrologer assured you that the book would be a runaway bestseller, or would you faithfully portray that character--maybe even give her some human virtues--and then give her her "just desserts" to show that cheaters aren't really winners in the end, and settle for selling a very modest number of books? (to take just one possible scenario.)


Nathanael

[ClaudiaGray]

If my pet astrologer can see the future, screw predicting my fiction sales: I want stock tips.

[WildScribe]

Hey! You give me my pet astrologer back!

[SpookyWriter]

Yes, but your characters make moral and ethical choices. There is that old adage that goes "The narrator is not the writer" or "The chracters are not the writer," but I have seen writers who write some sickening stuff, stuff that goes beyond entertainment and enters into a sort of literary sadism.
Granted. And since our antagonist can portray (make) faulty moral or ethical decisions so why not exploit those faults to the best of our ability.

As for the suicide scene you described. I think the writer needs to feel comfortable and the reader needs to feel involved with each scene and the level detail provided. Do we really need to get into the act of suicide for a scene to become believable? How much detail is too much remains a question that the reader will come back with an answer.

...tales of power without responsibility, wealth without hard, honest work, immorality without consequences, and success without consideration for others, then I'd rather not write at all.I think of these as themes that can be used to show the human faults of our characters. The reader can judge the honesty of our portrayals by how believable these faults are in comparison to their own perceptions. Yes?

[Kentuk]

I'm out of money so I'm open to propositions.

[herdon]

Not sure what journalists have to do with it. I fancy writers suffer more for their writing than journalsists do.

As for writing something distasteful, it would depend on just what I was writing and how much money is involved. I think most people delude themselves with questions like this but, really, writing something for money is no different than working at a 7-11 for money. I doubt there are many people working at 7-11 that actually like it and feel it is their goal in their life, most probably dislike it -- but they still do it for money. Writing isn't any different. So long as no one would be harmed (i.e. I'm not writing a manual about how to maim someone) I'd write just about anything for money so long as I thought the money was good enough. (I wouldn't come cheap.)

[DeadlyAccurate]

I wouldn't make up stuff about my family and try to pass it off as real, no matter how much money I could make doing it. In fiction, I probably wouldn't describe a sexual assault in graphic detail (I don't even describe consensual sex in graphic detail) nor would I describe the brutal murder of a child in graphic detail. Other than that, my characters make immoral choices all the time, often with no negative consequences. Writing amoral characters doesn't bother me.

[scribbler1382]

I wouldn't do it if I was uncomfortable with the subject matter. I've made this choice before and I stand by it. Heck, I'm still making it. The story I'm working on is based on a real event which involved not only a husband and wife, but a two-year-old child. I edited the kid out of the storyline. Just couldn't bring myself to turn a toddler into a zombie...even if most of them act that way everyday. :)

I think our lines in the sand shift through life, as well. For instance, if I was writing this story years ago, before I had kids, I might not have had a problem with it. A few years from now, there's probably something I wouldn't write that today I would (like maybe a possessed Depends undergarment plague or something). But really, if you're writing fiction just for the money, you might be better off selling herbal supplements door-to-door.

[Julian Black]

But what about this: What if writing something that you found wrong or distasteful were guaranteed to help you sell that novel, or sell a lot more copies of it? Would you do it, or not?I'll play pretend and assume that something like that could ever guarantee sales.

I couldn't write a novel that completely objectified and dehumanized certain people or groups of people (especially women and people of different racial groups) and presented that as perfectly natural, with no consequences, no dissent, and no sense of outrage. There's no way I would be able to write that as acceptable.

I'm also unable to write anything where violence against another person is presented in an eroticized way. I don't mean simply that the character inflicting the violence finds it erotic; I mean that violence is written with the kind of pacing, language, and lingering attention on specific body parts that is almost identical to writing about sex. Usually, this sort of eroticized violence is inflicted on women in rape scenes, but I also used to come across it back when I was reading a lot of novels about serial killers. The descriptions of the torture, mutilation, dismemberment, and display of female victims by their killers were written as titillating as well as terrifying, and about halfway through one particularly ghastly example I stopped reading the genre entirely.

...if I thought I could only sell a book by "just giving the kids what they want" and that meant entertaining them with tales of power without responsibility, wealth without hard, honest work, immorality without consequences, and success without consideration for others, then I'd rather not write at all.I imagine that would be the literary equivalent of trying to talk to Paris Hilton, who for all her celebrity is dumb as a bag of hammers (and that's after someone came along and stole the hammers).

Besides, I don't think that kind of fiction is what kids really want. Where's the conflict? Where are the characters they can like and identify with? Where's the challenge that drives the plot? What you've described above would make for some boring fiction, populated by unsympathetic characters--not entertaining in the least.

At the other end of the spectrum, the books I loathed most as a kid were the ones that made a point of preaching about the virtues of hard work, responsibility, and morality. Somehow, learning these lessons turned even halfway-decent characters into simpering fools by the end. Instead of making me a better person, they made me want to do drugs and be a rock star--anything not to be so prim and boring as the kids in those books. Hell, even thinking about them now makes me want to follow Keith Richards' sterling example and go snort my dad's ashes (and he's not even dead yet)...[laughs]

[scarletpeaches]

I dislike it when writers moralise about the content of their work.

No right-minded person would think, "This author writes such-and-such! Therefore they condone it!"

Does anyone seriously believe that Martina Cole is a rapist, or Ruth Rendell a murderer?

It's our job to entertain, not to preach.

[scribbler1382]

Speaking for myself, that's not what I meant at all. It's not what readers would think and feel that would stop me, but what I think and feel. Readers have to be considered in most cases, but in this instance I wouldn't give a rat's left nut what they thought.

[scarletpeaches]

I'd write anything if you paid me well.

Everyone has their price.

It's not necessarily money.

[pconsidine]

I'd write anything that I could write. Simple as that.

[Jamesaritchie]

I'm not at all trusting of answers to such questions. What a given person will do for money often depends on how much that person needs money. If you have no bills to pay, which means someone else is probably paying your way, it's easy to say you wouldn't do this or that for money. If you already have plenty of money, it's easy to say you wouldn't do this or that for money. If no one offers you the opportunity to do something for money, it's easy to say you wouldn't do this or that for money.

But if a person is dead broke, with the rent due, with a family about to be put out on the street, or with a hungry sick/child, and there's no one to borrow from, then, and only then, can anyone, including that person, know for sure what he would or wouldn't do for money.

As for suffering, I'm darned if I know what being a journalist has to do with anything? This really underestimates fiction. I don't think anyone who's sane has a desire to suffer, but anyone who makes his own way out in the real world should know that just about everything may have a price tag attached, and those who wouldn't pay a price if called upon probably have nothing to offer the world anyway.

[IThinkICan29]

This is an interesting question. I wouldn't take a life for money {unless it happened to be one of my characters}, and I wouldn't eat stinky cheese for all the money in the world. Umm..yep that's about it.

[Shadow_Ferret]

But what about this: What if writing something that you found wrong or distasteful were guaranteed to help you sell that novel, or sell a lot more copies of it? Would you do it, or not?

I can't think of anything that I view that wrong or distasteful that I wouldn't write about it. Especially if I knew I was going to be paid and paid well for it.

It's still fiction.

I want to write to build people up. Especially young people. I hope to write well enough to make money on the merits of my work. But if I thought I could only sell a book by "just giving the kids what they want" and that meant entertaining them with tales of power without responsibility, wealth without hard, honest work, immorality without consequences, and success without consideration for others, then I'd rather not write at all.
Personally, I find that kind of writing reprehensible. I write to entertain, not to build people up or make morality plays where being nice wins over naughtiness.

So I guess if I was expected to write happy thoughts and "Boy's Life" or "Highlights for Children" kind of things, no I couldn't do it.

[scarletpeaches]

Agreed, SF. Some perhaps think fiction also has to be 'self-help'. It doesn't.

[Devil Ledbetter]

But if a person is dead broke, with the rent due, with a family about to be put out on the street, or with a hungry sick/child, and there's no one to borrow from, then, and only then, can anyone, including that person, know for sure what he would or wouldn't do for money.

That's a good point, except it changes the question from "what would you do for money?" to "what would you do for money if you were dead broke and and your child was starving?" Yes, the wealthier you are, the easier it is to say "oh, I wouldn't do that." And you're right, that doesn't equal morality. However, pointing out that most anyone would lower her moral standards to survive starvation does not prove that everyone's immoral.

It only proves that morality is relative. After all, the person who lets her child starve to death because she isn't willing bend some personal morality of her own has probably committed a worse moral transgression.

[Sassenach]

I want to write to build people up. Especially young people. I hope to write well enough to make money on the merits of my work. But if I thought I could only sell a book by "just giving the kids what they want" and that meant entertaining them with tales of power without responsibility, wealth without hard, honest work, immorality without consequences, and success without consideration for others, then I'd rather not write at all.



What you're referring to sound more like sermons than novels.

[scarletpeaches]

What's wrong with giving people what they want anyway? It's them who pay your wages. Of course, that's exactly what this thread is about - money. But if you refuse to write certain things for money, despite needing to pay the rent, then why not look for another job you're morally able to do?

[Jamesaritchie]

That's a good point, except it changes the question from "what would you do for money?" to "what would you do for money if you were dead broke and and your child was starving?" Yes, the wealthier you are, the easier it is to say "oh, I wouldn't do that." And you're right, that doesn't equal morality. However, pointing out that most anyone would lower her moral standards to survive starvation does not prove that everyone's immoral.

It only proves that morality is relative. After all, the person who lets her child starve to death because she isn't willing bend some personal morality of her own has probably committed a worse moral transgression.

That's pretty much it. But the main thing is that I don't believe any of us really know what we would do for money until and unless we're actually tested. And if you already have money, it isn't a test.

I've always believed that people who are the truest and strongest morally are the same people who understand we all have weakness and almost irresistible temptations. Likewise, those who believe themselves to be absolutely untouchable, to be paragons of moral certainty, are often the quickest to sin when really put to the test.

So I don't think it's a very good idea to say I absolutely would not do this or that for money. I hope I wouldn't, but I've been poor, destitute, and had people relying on me. While I've never done anything for money I'm ashamed of, it may have been only because I never had to do so. I always found a way out before it came to this point.

[Devil Ledbetter]

But the main thing is that I don't believe any of us really know what we would do for money until and unless we're actually tested.Yes. And there are different kinds of tests. Are you the kind of person who'd let your child starve for the sake of some moral ideal? Or would you convolute your morals to finally afford that BMW you've had a chubby for?

At the time I turned down certain grant writing jobs, my kids weren't starving and we were making the mortgage, but I was also driving a 14 year old car with close to 200,000 miles on it and had my baby in cloth diapers. I could have used the money.

However, grant writing is probably a bad example here when we're talking about novels. Grants direct money towards certain causes, and I wouldn't want to direct that flow towards a cause I believed immoral. My fiction characters smoke weed, have premarital sex, bar fights and all kinds of fun so I'm definitely not trying to create inspirational role models.

[pepperlandgirl]

Does anyone seriously believe that Martina Cole is a rapist, or Ruth Rendell a murderer?

It's our job to entertain, not to preach.

Probably the same sort of person who thinks Johnny Cash really shot a man in Reno just to watch him die.

[FredCharles]

Honsestly, if I had to write something that I was not into, it would be end up being complete crap. I can only write about things that interest me, or that I'm passionate about.

[NTG]

Personally, I find that kind of writing reprehensible. I write to entertain, not to build people up or make morality plays where being nice wins over naughtiness.

So I guess if I was expected to write happy thoughts and "Boy's Life" or "Highlights for Children" kind of things, no I couldn't do it.

Agreed, SF. Some perhaps think fiction also has to be 'self-help'. It doesn't.

Reprehensible? (Forgive me if I'm assuming too much, but when I think of something as reprehensible, that means I believe that nobody should do it. Child abuse, for example, is reprehensible. Is that what you meant, or did I take your remark the wrong way?)

I think we've wandered a bit from the question, which is what we would or would not write, not whether we approve of other people doing it. Nobody said fiction had to be uplifting. Leastways, I sure didn't. Although I plead guilty to preferring that it not glorify the gutter, the way some music and some video games do.

Also, there's an invalid connection implied here, I think. "Uplifting" may be sappy and schlocky (is that a word?), but it doesn't have to be. If it's well-written and readers enjoy it rather than fly into a SPiBWiS attack with it, what's wrong with that? For example, one of the most popular book/movie hits of all time has: the Good Guys win (and we know who they are!); the Bad Guys die; the Baddest Bad Guy repents and is saved; personal loyalty is more important than money; True Love finds a way. Schlock? Maybe, but it sure was popular. I refer, of course, to Star Wars (which, by the way, had nary a single naughty body function or sex word in it, by conscious choice of George Lucas. Did it harm sales any? Didn't seem to. . .)
:Coffee:

[Jamesaritchie]

What's wrong with giving people what they want anyway? It's them who pay your wages. Of course, that's exactly what this thread is about - money. But if you refuse to write certain things for money, despite needing to pay the rent, then why not look for another job you're morally able to do?

Looking for a job isn't always finding a job, and there isn't always time to look, anyway, or a job to be found if you do have time to look. Situations change. Would you have suggested to those during the great depression that looking for a job was a possible way to avoid doing something they found morally repugnant?

[Jamesaritchie]

I dislike it when writers moralise about the content of their work.

No right-minded person would think, "This author writes such-and-such! Therefore they condone it!"

Does anyone seriously believe that Martina Cole is a rapist, or Ruth Rendell a murderer?

It's our job to entertain, not to preach.

Not to preach, but while entertainment is a must, good fiction is always more than mere entertainment, at least in some level. It's a prostitute's job to entertain, as well.

Money is important, and I wouldn't write if I could not be paid. Entertainment is important, and if my fiction doesn't entertain, it won't be read. But if money and entertainment is all fiction is about, if this is the 100% of it, the writer may as well be a prostitute.

[scarletpeaches]

Would you have suggested to those during the great depression that looking for a job was a possible way to avoid doing something they found morally repugnant?

Yes I would. Nothing stops you looking for a job and it is a possible way to avoid doing something else.

[scarletpeaches]

Not to preach...

Oh of course not.

I think you missed my point. I didn't deny that good fiction is more than mere entertainment - I was saying that whatever you write about isn't always an indication of your own moral standards.

Certainly it isn't with me. I've written people doing things I've never done and would never choose to do - such as murder.

[Shadow_Ferret]

I think we've wandered a bit from the question, which is what we would or would not write, not whether we approve of other people doing it. Nobody said fiction had to be uplifting. Leastways, I sure didn't. Although I plead guilty to preferring that it not glorify the gutter, the way some music and some video games do.

Also, there's an invalid connection implied here, I think. "Uplifting" may be sappy and schlocky (is that a word?), but it doesn't have to be. If it's well-written and readers enjoy it rather than fly into a SPiBWiS attack with it, what's wrong with that? For example, one of the most popular book/movie hits of all time has: the Good Guys win (and we know who they are!); the Bad Guys die; the Baddest Bad Guy repents and is saved; personal loyalty is more important than money; True Love finds a way. Schlock? Maybe, but it sure was popular. I refer, of course, to Star Wars (which, by the way, had nary a single naughty body function or sex word in it, by conscious choice of George Lucas. Did it harm sales any? Didn't seem to. . .)
:Coffee:

I have no problem with the good guys winning. I have a problem when someone beats me over the head with the morality of it all. When the focus isn't the story, but instead is some preachy message. Star Wars didn't beat us over the heads with its morality. It was space opera. Good old fashioned fun story telling.

If you found it uplifting, that's fine, but it wasn't trying to deliberately be an uplifting morality play. It was simply trying to be a homage to the science fiction serials of the 40s.

I feel the same way about violence, or as you call it, stories that glorify the gutter. If that's the whole point, if the focus is just on the violence or the distasteful, if the author is trying to shock me, then I'm not interested in it either. I don't like being beaten about the head by anything, the good, the bad, or the ugly. It's preaching in either case and I don't like it.

The focus must be the story and the morality or the immorality shouldn't be so obvious that I end up shouting, "I see you!" and throw the book across the room.

What the heck is a SPiBWiS ?

[imagegod]

I'd refuse to write a piece of crap. Would I write 'crap' to sustain my survival? Perhaps...but I'd do everything in my power (just as I've actually done to this point) to make sure that possibility never came close to occuring.

[Mud Dauber]

I want to write to build people up. Especially young people. I hope to write well enough to make money on the merits of my work. But if I thought I could only sell a book by "just giving the kids what they want" and that meant entertaining them with tales of power without responsibility, wealth without hard, honest work, immorality without consequences, and success without consideration for others, then I'd rather not write at all.

There are worse things one could aspire to than to want to write to build young people up. I think it's admirable, actually.

Kumbaya, everyone.:D

[Devil Ledbetter]

What the heck is a SPiBWiS ?

Scarlet Peaches Book Wall Syndrome. As in, throwing a book against the wall because the writer has committed a literary sin, such as naming her protagonist Kate. (No, wait, that would be DLiBWiS)

[Shadow_Ferret]

I'd refuse to write a piece of crap.
One writer's crap is another writer's fertilizer.

[scribbler1382]

Can't....post. Locked in space ferret's death ray goggles...vocabulary dwindling...pithy comebacks exploding in my brain....ARRGHHHH!

[maestrowork]

I don't need to pay the rent with my writing. I'm in no hurry of losing my house and first-born because I can't sell my literary work. So, my answer is this: I really don't give a rat's ass if you pay me gobs of money if I don't happen to enjoy what I do and what I write. Fortunately, I enjoy quite many different things: genres, plots, shorts, novels, poetry, etc. so I won't run out of things I want to write and, hopefully, people want to read. Someone I know write "to market" books in fewer than four weeks, feeding mostly on caffeine and cigarettes, cutting his life short by about 20 years. I told myself: I would never do that.

[Anthony Ravenscroft]

The first (serious!) answer: I'm willing to consider an offer.

Mostly, I wouldn't write something -- ad copy, promos, press releases, other propaganda -- to promote a practice that would (if implemented) decrease my enjoyment of life. That grouping subsumes petty or heavy-handed moralising.

[Joe270]

Right now, NTG, I face the end of my writing road.

I got bankruptcy on the one hand or a bail-out with slavery on the other.

S-Corps protecting your assests is a lie, if you didn't know. I now know. This sucks. Bad business decisions now enslave me for the rest of my life.

Hell, yes, if I could write anything for two hundred grand right now, I'd do it. Writing is just words on paper, like the loans I am now getting quite buggered with.

Yes, I'd take any writing job that'll get me out of this hole. Anybody got a job for two hundred grand they just can't write for moral reasons, send it my way.

All of you, get off your moral high horses and smell the manure.

Writer will write for food. Anybody got something worth some cash they can't lower themselves to write about, send it my way. I'd rather write crap than flip burgers.

[scarletpeaches]

It's usually those who don't have any immediate money worries and who are quite comfortably-off who say money doesn't matter to them.

[Raphee]

Writing would probably be the worst way to try to fend yourself from starvation.

I am comfortable today, if tomorrow my life was on the line I would write porn to save myself.
But not today.

[Shadow_Ferret]

The first (serious!) answer: I'm willing to consider an offer.



Oh, they wanted a serious answer?

I have no taboos that I can think of. If it fits the story, if it's necessary to the telling of the story, I'll write it -- regardless of pay scale.

My only taboos are societal ones, which means, no one would be willing to pay me for them anyway so that never comes into question.

[Aprylwriter]

I agree with IthinkIcan.

Also, I wouldn't defame anyone, or do anything else that's illegal. Money doesn't always equal happiness.

Apryl

[janetbellinger]

I wouldn't write anything that made funof other people or incited hate and I wouldn't write porn. Maybe I limit myself too much. Maybe that's why I have yet to find an agent or publsiher for my novel. I think sometimes I hold myself back by fear of wr iting the w rong thing.

[Vomaxx]

What if writing something that you found wrong or distasteful were guaranteed to help you sell that novel, or sell a lot more copies of it? Would you do it, or not?

I would refuse to type my work in Courier. :tongue

[glutton]

For enough money, like enough to support me for the rest of my life or to start my own publishing company with good distribution for the novels of mine I want to actually get read? I'm hard-pressed to think of anything I wouldn't write, that someone would actually pay for...

[glutton]

Besides, writing something "immoral" in a novel is hardly equivalent to killing someone or raping them. With enough money, I'm sure one could do enough good to balance out the bad... like publishing those morally uplifting novels you want people to read.

[freshpencils]

I would never rule out writing characters who are immoral, undeserving, dishonest slackers. And everything I write is not going to be a morality tale. I'm not sure how you could write fiction if all your characters were perfect role models and your endings all gold at the end of the rainbow.

Maybe I misunderstood your question.

[freshpencils]

Absolutely I would, "write a rich, mean-spirited, power-abusing politician who uses people, throws them away, and lives happily ever after..." if I could come up with a good story about this guy. The way you state it, it doesn't sound like a very good story.

[freshpencils]

Uh, KTC, I've got some overdue bills here. Would you be interested in giving me some of your meaningless money so I can pay them?!

hee hee

[freshpencils]

KTC - I don't think anyone disagrees that a Star Wars-type outcome can make a good story. But at the same time, I think we are saying we wouldn't restrict ourselves to it.

Also I think there is confusion about your question because a lot of us don't see a connection between our morality and beliefs and those of our characters.

[freshpencils]

That's so true. Back when I had a good, secure job and savings account, I couldn't imagine what I'm facing now. ($70 a month for cable TV! You've got to be kidding me. $1.99/pound for fresh lettuce? Count me out!)

[DeadlyAccurate]

It's usually those who don't have any immediate money worries and who are quite comfortably-off who say money doesn't matter to them.

Nah, I've said the same thing when I was very, very poor. I've quit jobs on principle even when we were just making minimum wage and had bills and rent to pay. We don't have children, though.

Don't get me wrong: I like having money. Given the choice between rich and poor, I definitely take rich. But I've been poor for more years than I've been well off, and I'm not bothered by poor.

There's stuff I don't write now I'd probably write if I needed money, like porn. (I'd probably suck at it, since it's not something I'm interested in.) There aren't too many things I have a moral objection to (in writing), but the few I do have, I can't honestly see myself budging on, no matter what the circumstances.

[Mac H.]

I'd write anything if you paid me well.Ok - a hypothetical situation.

The 'man boy love' organisation (whose aim is to promote the acceptance of what is called 'pedophilia' by narrow minded people) have decided that novels are an excellent way to promote their lifestyle as being socially acceptable.

They offer to pay you to write these novels - which will show (in a fictional setting) that romances between dirty old men and prepubescent boys can be an uplifting, positive experience for the child.

Will you write the novel for them?

Mac
(PS: Yes, it is obviously a very fake situation. It would NEVER happen.

eg: "In 2005, a NAMBLA member and self-professed pedophile, Kevin Brown .. [stated that he would finance a play]... which sympathetically depicted romance between adults and children")

[Pat~]

I wouldn't write something that wasn't 'true.' I'm a non-fiction writer, but in the same sense, I think I'd have a hard time being 'untrue' in fiction writing. I wouldn't write crappy, unbelievable writing. What would be the point? If it's not personally fulfilling, there are a lot of better paying jobs out there (waitressing, working in a toll booth, city sanitation, etc.).

[Alvah]

>But if a person is dead broke, with the rent due, with a family about to >be put out on the street, or with a hungry sick/child, and there's no one >to borrow from, then, and only then, can anyone, including that person, >know for sure what he would or wouldn't do for money.

I agree. No one has ever offered me lots of money for my writing, so I don't really know what I'd be unwilling to do. I hope I would refuse to write gratuitous sex scenes or violence just for the sake of violence.

I would not write about a person who does bad things without suffering the consequences. An earlier post pointed out that there are many people who do harm without any consequences to themselves. I don't think that's true. Of course a person may not suffer any legal consequences, but there may be internal psychological or emotional consequences. So, for example, I could write about a murderer who
escapes detection by the police, but that murderer would have to be changed by his deed.

I also don't want to write stories that leave the reader feeling bleakness or despair at the end. This doesn't mean a story must be vapidly cheerful and sunny; tragedy is fine. But there has to be some catharsis or insight or reason for hope. Otherwise what's the point of writing?

For example, Stephen King's story "All That You Love Will be Carried Away" is very sad. But it is not bleak or hopeless because the reader is rooting for the man who is contemplating suicide.

Alvah

[Shadow_Ferret]

I wouldn't write anything that made funof other people ....

But that's so much fun! :D

[scarletpeaches]

I would refuse to be bummed by a bear for money but I'd do it for cake. :D

[BuffStuff]

ScarletPeaches,

Testing that statement is now #57 on my list of "Reasons Why BuffStuff needs to make 50 Million Dollars by 2010".

[AdamH]

I won't write anything that would compromise my morals. It's not that I can't write things along those lines. It's that the negativity would show up in my writing. I could pretend to hide my distaste of whatever that subject would be but people are smart. They'll be able to read between the lines and figure out I'm a fraud.

[Sassenach]

I don't know what your financial situation is, but if you really want to continue writing, you will.


Right now, NTG, I face the end of my writing road.

I got bankruptcy on the one hand or a bail-out with slavery on the other.

S-Corps protecting your assests is a lie, if you didn't know. I now know. This sucks. Bad business decisions now enslave me for the rest of my life.

Hell, yes, if I could write anything for two hundred grand right now, I'd do it. Writing is just words on paper, like the loans I am now getting quite buggered with.

Yes, I'd take any writing job that'll get me out of this hole. Anybody got a job for two hundred grand they just can't write for moral reasons, send it my way.

All of you, get off your moral high horses and smell the manure.

Writer will write for food. Anybody got something worth some cash they can't lower themselves to write about, send it my way. I'd rather write crap than flip burgers.

[swvaughn]

Well, I wouldn't clean all the toilets in Grand Central Station with my tongue. Probably.

Oh wait... you mean what wouldn't I write for money?

Nothing, then. I'll write for money. Yep. Sure will. Whatever you want.

For some things, though, it'd better be a LOT of money...

[laurel29]

Ok - a hypothetical situation.

The 'man boy love' organisation (whose aim is to promote the acceptance of what is called 'pedophilia' by narrow minded people) have decided that novels are an excellent way to promote their lifestyle as being socially acceptable.

They offer to pay you to write these novels - which will show (in a fictional setting) that romances between dirty old men and prepubescent boys can be an uplifting, positive experience for the child.

Will you write the novel for them?

Mac
(PS: Yes, it is obviously a very fake situation. It would NEVER happen.

eg: "In 2005, a NAMBLA member and self-professed pedophile, Kevin Brown .. [stated that he would finance a play]... which sympathetically depicted romance between adults and children")

That is the sort of thing I wouldn't write. Having had personnal experiences with that sort of behavior, I'd have a hard time not hurting the person making the proposal. I would write about the topic, but not in a positive light. If my kids were starving I'd do something else to make the money. There a few things that are hot buttons for me and, even if I wanted to portray them in a way contrary to my nature, I doubt that I would be able to do it convincingly.

[glutton]

even if I wanted to portray them in a way contrary to my nature, I doubt that I would be able to do it convincingly.

It's not that I can't write things along those lines. It's that the negativity would show up in my writing. I could pretend to hide my distaste of whatever that subject would be but people are smart. They'll be able to read between the lines and figure out I'm a fraud.

Yes, but if you disagree with the viewpoint you are supposed to be writing on behalf of, why would you want to be convincing? Surely, you don't want to make people think pedophilia or whatever is all right, but if you'll be paid anyway to argue it poorly (maybe even so poorly that you'll make people more strongly anti-pedo/whatever), why not? If you write it that bad, it'll almost be a slap in the face of the cause you're against. ;) Of course, that assumes you'll be paid for bad writing, but the thread ever specified you had to do it well. :D

[maestrowork]

That is the sort of thing I wouldn't write. Having had personnal experiences with that sort of behavior, I'd have a hard time not hurting the person making the proposal. I would write about the topic, but not in a positive light. If my kids were starving I'd do something else to make the money. There a few things that are hot buttons for me and, even if I wanted to portray them in a way contrary to my nature, I doubt that I would be able to do it convincingly.

But what if the story dictates that? I'm just playing devil's advocate here... let's set aside personal preferences (I know, I know -- this thread is all about personal preferences), values, and morals, or legality for a minute. Is there a subject that cannot be written? One person's taboo is another person's gospel, perhaps? Whether it's rape, murder, treason, marriage, saving the world, homosexuality, heterosexuality, simply sexuality, man-woman love, man-man love, woman-woman love, man-boy love... the list goes on and on and on.

We're still talking about fiction, right? When do personal values depart from fiction writing? When do they merge? Does what I write about necessarily reflect what I believe in? Why can't I write about something even if that something makes me uncomfortable, nauseated or even frightened about my own soul?

I was just reading this story about this writer who is a husband and a father, who wrote a novel filled with hot gay sex. His family didn't even blink. There are works in which the bad guy/murderer/rapist gets away -- they are cautionary tale without the authors passing judgment: they leave that up to the readers. Their job is to tell a good story.

I do think it's interesting when a writer says, "You can't pay me enough to write that." As a writer, I am not sure if I want to draw that line so quickly...

[laurel29]

But what if the story dictates that? I'm just playing devil's advocate here... let's set aside personal preferences (I know, I know -- this thread is all about personal preferences), values, and morals, or legality for a minute. Is there a subject that cannot be written? One person's taboo is another person's gospel, perhaps? Whether it's rape, murder, treason, marriage, saving the world, homosexuality, heterosexuality, simply sexuality, man-woman love, man-man love, woman-woman love, man-boy love... the list goes on and on and on.

We're still talking about fiction, right? When do personal values depart from fiction writing? When do they merge? Does what I write about necessarily reflect what I believe in? Why can't I write about something even if that something makes me uncomfortable, nauseated or even frightened about my own soul?

I was just reading this story about this writer who is a husband and a father, who wrote a novel filled with hot gay sex. His family didn't even blink. There are works in which the bad guy/murderer/rapist gets away -- they are cautionary tale without the authors passing judgment: they leave that up to the readers. Their job is to tell a good story.

I do think it's interesting when a writer says, "You can't pay me enough to write that." As a writer, I am not sure if I want to draw that line so quickly...

I think we all have different taboos. That was a very specific example asking me to write something to promote something I find disturbing on a personal level. That is something I would be unwilling to do. I could tackle the subject matter, just not in the way desired in the example. What I find impossible to condone might not bother anyone else and vice versa. I don't have many ideas that I think I wouldn't write. I could write them, I just don't want to. I write because I enjoy it -- I wouldn't try to write something that I felt that disgusted by in a positive light. If I was going to write a story about the brutal murder of children I wouldn't make it seem like that was a good thing. It goes against my nature.

If I tried to force myself I'd feel like a prostitute, and If I was going to prostitute myself I'd rather just be a regular prostitute... that would take a lot less mental effort :D.

P.S. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that others would be prostituting themselves -- that is merely how I would feel about the situation. I can't stand feeling like that... well, except during spousal negotiations :D.

[maestrowork]

Anytime someone pays you to do something you don't want to, for whatever reason -- it's a bad deal. It doesn't matter if it's Christian gospel or kinky gay sex.

But on a higher level, I do think that as long as a writer doesn't have any qualms about writing something, it's not for us to judge whether he should or shouldn't, no matter if money is involved, no matter what the subject matter is and how it is handled. As readers, we have the right to not buy and read such a book.

I guess I'm arguing about Mac H.'s point: "...and what about <fill in the blank>?" It's a dangerous question whenever we become "specific." I mean people write about murder all the time, and sometimes putting it "in a good light." Fiction are stories that expose human conditions, and it doesn't always end happily or as we "want it to."

[Joe270]

Sassy, I don't think I could stop writing.

I won't have much time to write, however. We'll see, but the road just got a shitload rougher.

[aruna]

But what if the story dictates that? I'm just playing devil's advocate here... let's set aside personal preferences (I know, I know -- this thread is all about personal preferences), values, and morals, or legality for a minute. Is there a subject that cannot be written? .

But that's not the OP question, I think? If we are discussing fiction then of course there will be charaters of all types. I've had child abusers, mass murderers and rapists in my novels, and yet I can certainly say that I won't write anything for money.

I understood that the question was would we write something promoting a stand or an issue that we were ethically against, and I donlt do that. My readers will certainly get it that the weirdos are just that and are not to be emulated without the Wrath of God descending upon them!

A novel can certainly have an inner truth without moralising or being preachy. I could never write a story which gave out a message that such behaviour (say, Jim Jones and the Jonestown cult) was OK. That is just who I am.

Similarly, I would never take a job, say, writing ads for cigarettes; I won't write porn or anything promoting violence or racial or religious hatred. If that was the only writing availaible for money then I'd stop writing and do something else.



I do think it's interesting when a writer says, "You can't pay me enough to write that." As a writer, I am not sure if I want to draw that line so quickly...

Well, I did draw the line and I don't regret it. I turned down a lucrative publishing contract because I did not stand behind what I was expected to write. And yes, I suffered the financial consequences, and still do. Yet I still don't regret it. My kids aren't starving but the wolf is still howling outside my door.

But you know what? I believe that staying true to your own convictions will in the end "pay out"; I believe I became a stronger writer somehow, whereas if I'd taken the easy route I'd have become a hack in no time. Now I am just concentrating on writing better and bigger stories, and I'm convinced that that is what readers REALLY want.

[scribbler1382]

A new series on Fox...

Write

We've got your wife.

The phone in your package will ring soon. If you ever want to see your wife again, follow the instructions. When it rings, drop everything and immediately get behind your keyboard. Don't stop to pack or play solitaire. No matter what subject it gives you, just write.

There will be other writers trying to beat you to The End. It could be anyone -- that waitress, the commuter with the headphones or the skaterboy who looks so fine and simple. Don't let them. If they beat you, she dies. If you procrastinate, she dies. If you infodump or get lost in a subplotting backstory exposition, she dies. There is only one option...

Write.

[Raphee]

I currently do not write porn, erotica or anything similar.
I may have sadist characters, murderers, rapist in my story to prove a point or to progress the story. The issue is how you portray them.
The pedophilia question says that you have to put pedophiles in a good light. That is something I would never do for any amount of money and under any circumstances.
I wouldnt be judgemental though on others writing. I will have an opinion though and that is a different issue. Morality is relative for all of us. There are lines that I cannot cross and others can and vice versa.

[ChaosTitan]

A new series on Fox...

Write

We've got your wife.



Meh. It'll gain a rabid fan following, air ten episodes, and then get cancelled on a cliffhanger.....

Cuz that's what FOX does. ;)

[Sassenach]

Most of the hypotheticals I've seen posted are silly and obvious and implausible. It's good to know that most of us aren't available for freelancing gigs for pedophile neo-Nazis.