It has just been suggested to me that, in order to garner the biggest possible readership, a writer should avoid hot-button issues. My contention was that the only subjects worth writing about are controversial. It then occurred to me that there might be other perspectives on this, which, of course, spurred me on to find out. Do you write for the widest possible audience? Or do you have a particular group in mind? Or do you address one special person? Or just write for your own amusement? Therapy? Self-fulfillment? Maybe you don't even care who might like it and who might find it offensive...
Eh...it's not as if everyone reads everything and will only refrain from reading those things that they find offensive. No person reads more than the tiniest, tiniest fraction of what's out there. So a book or story will need more going for it than lack of controversy. (That's ignoring the fact that controversy sometimes gets a book or story read more.)
Garnering an audience for news media consumption / ratings, or for pop culture are two different things, with different strategies. In the US, toning things down and not making waves usually achieves the widest audience for things like books, music, and movies, because the goal is to not offend anybody, so they like what you say. For that, middle of the road is what tends to sell, other than the occasional sensational breakout that made news headlines. That's because... ...if we're talking news ratings and headlines and making something go viral, it's all about controversy. There's a lot of competition between news outlets and social media to get eyeballs. I write both fiction and non-fiction, so the answer depends on what I'm writing. My non-fiction pieces follow the specific demographics of where the piece is intended to land, and the needs of that demographic. For fiction, it depends on whether I have any hope of it being commercially successful. I do set my intention for the piece at the beginning of writing each piece, though. For my current WIP, a novel, that one is for me, and my intention is to learn how to write a novel and see what the boundaries are, so I'm breaking a lot of rules to learn what I can get away with. If I was focusing on making it sell, I'd tone some things down and cater to the audience more.
No. I write for me and for a story that is begging to be told. I'm not avoiding hot-button issues and my current work-in-progress deals with several to include homosexuality and incest. I'm not actively thinking about being controversial; it's just that the story requires these things in order for the actual meaning to come across (at least in my opinion). I think avoiding controversial issues is something that shouldn't be done on any level. People need to read, see, and hear about realistic portrayals of things that would earn a trigger warning. If we avoid the controversy then we avoid a great portion of humanity. I would like to sell my book and make some sort of income off of it, but it's not the reason I write. I have a story that needs told and not all stories are sunshine and buttercups.
Simplest answer: Your stories can be about anything, and the audience will will determine if they wish to read it or not. You don't have to avoid/add things to make it more tailored to that audience unless it works with your narrative. Just don't add/subtract the controversial elements because they are not popular at the moment. All you can do is write your stories, and hope that there is at least someone that will read it. Even the big kids that are household names don't write masterpiece after masterpiece, and even then they don't have the same audience as others in the same genre.
As a writer, you share the culture that you learned from all the books you read and movies you watched in the past. Your likes and dislikes are largely related to the media you already consumed. So, if you write what you want to read, other people will want to read it too. It's hard to do better than that on purpose.
Sometimes. But I'm not comfortable doing so. Writing vanilla demotivates me, has me feeling I'm addressing a child, a prude or kowtowing to some prescriptive request by what'er publication I may wish to submit the piece to (one day). < I'm not on about the subject matter alone here, I mean my writing style too; avoiding what may be seen as faux pas where my glasses portray them as literary devices. Sometimes. It was pointed out to me I'm not as rare a beast as I think I am—and that if I like the sound of my own writing voice, there's 77,000 people out there that will too (a sciencey person did some calculated speculation that chimed with my thinking, so I optimistically adopted it). Sometimes. But nothing too obvious, all by way of allusion (this should be in the confessions thread). Sometimes. I have leaves abound in the old writing shed with genuine mould on them—practice papers I guess, notes, stories to self that only share daylight with my own eyes. All have played a part in sharpening my quill (which alas, I still consider blunt). This is writing nirvana. *Unrestricted, unleashed. I think some of the best stuff I've ever read has been born from a free mind. I'll read anything...get offended? Hmm, rarely but maybe. Put it down to life experience, wouldn't rant about it (so negative). Reading after all is a private matter. Usually no-one can see what you're reading, no-one can picture the scene your mind is creating from those unseen words. And if you don't read it, or it's glossed over all prissy in the way it's written then you miss out on the full spectrum/complexities of the human condition and all the subject matter that sails with that. Yes, censorship for the TV—fine; I feel awkward even if a pair of breasts pop up on the screen when in the co. of others (family mainly), but with books of one's choosing, no watershed eh. Not bang on topic this, a re-paste of a quote that's glued to me. "if your work is trying to shine light in the human psyche’s deepest, darkest, illest places, then you have to go there, and be it, and that’s no casual undertaking." — David Mitchell I guess it picks away the last dregs of innocence you may have but the tradeoff is wisdom and more string for your writing bow. I'm not conflicted nor consider myself deranged and so would naturally depict the contentious and the taboo neutrally and dole it out accordingly. * rehash of an old post
I've certainly found some books offensive - not so often for content as language. But I have actually burnt one - an exceptionally vile holocaust denial; I didn't want it getting loose in the world through my hands: that would have made me feel complicit. Far more often, I just put them down for lack of interest. I have so little time to read now, and such poor eyesight, that I can't waste it on pap, vulgarity, violence, mindless sex, superstition or tedium. However, every time I do put aside a book that's made it to my bedroom shelves, or pass on a work submitted here, I send a subliminal message to the author: "I appreciate your effort - it's just not meant for me."
My genre is pretty niche, so by default I'm limiting my audience quite a bit, even among romance readers. I'd sell a lot more books if I was willing to write straight romance, but as writer it just doesn't get the muse going.
Basically me. Keep in mind, I'm not published. I haven't even finished my first book yet. But as someone who's thought about what will happen when the book is finished, that statement is me. I write what I want to write. If I cover a controversial topic, that's my choice, and so be it. My stories will always have an audience, which is me. And I'm fairly sure that I'm not so "one of a kind" that I will be the only audience it ever has. If someone finds my book awful or disgusting or whatever, they are more then welcome to put it down. Can't please everyone.
My m/m sells better than my m/f, generally. I think there are a lot more m/f readers, but there are also a lot more m/f writers, so it all balances out...
I've been eyeing this topic, and I think there's a major problem with it. So I'm going to be direct. Listen up, because I'm about to grab my soapbox. Let me make sure I've got this right. This is what you're saying: Writing about controversial subjects means less people will buy your books. You aren't sure which is more important: writing honestly, or having a big audience. That's the question, right? The problem is, writing about controversial subjects doesn't shrink your audience. I don't know where that idea is coming from. Like... imagine if you're running a bakery. You want to make chocolate chip muffins, but some people don't like chocolate, so you leave out the chocolate chips. Some people don't like nuts, so you leave out the nuts. Some people don't like raisins, so you leave out the raisins. Now you have a muffin with nothing in it. It's bland. It's boring. Now you have an entire bakery full of bland muffins. That sounds like a pretty dumb muffin shop, right? I think Fifty Shades of Grey is actually a good example, here. BDSM is controversial. It's taboo; most people don't do it; many people believe it's immoral, or at least bizarre. Imagine if E.L. James took BDSM out of her books. Her books wouldn't even have anything left in them; they'd be empty. It'd be a book about two boring vanilla people staring at each other. It's a cultural phenomenon because it's subject matter is taboo. If you writing something controversial, you will have readers who get angry at you, who write negative reviews, who hate your book. That doesn't mean your audience will be smaller. That person heard about your book and bought it.
There's a similar topic going in another thread right now, but I'll say the same thing here that I did there: I'm not good enough to write for a specific market. I write what comes to mind, what my muse brings me, and hope that I can find someone or several someones who like it. I could try and stare down my nose and mutter things about "the purity of my art" and "people who just don't get me," but that would be bullshit, I'd love it if the words came so easily to me that I could sculpt them into YA or thriller or whatever at the drop of an agent's hat. Not going to happen, at least not right now.
BDSM has not really been all that Taboo. It just hasn't been all that public. Sure it might have been seen as extreme and taboo in the 20's-50's, but it has largely been unrecognized because of people not understanding it. Fetlife was around a few years before 50shades ever came onto the scene. Hell in the late 90's and early 2000's there were many only groups devoted to BDSM. I think most see it more as a fad now a days, but don't really understand that its core values really are. Believe me there is a lot more involved than simply tying up someone and whipping them for an hour. In fact since it has become more 'mainstream', plenty still dislike it. Granted most don't think about it or even care to. But since it has become more out in the open, it has lost a lot of the original stigma around it, despite being highly misunderstood as a Sub-Cultural phenomena.
Sort of. Since hardly anyone buys my books anyway, it won't make any difference. Actually, I didn't mean to please everyone and offend no-one, or avoid all controversial issues. I was wondering particularly about very touchy subjects - the kind of thing they warn you not to discuss at the dinner table: religion and politics. In the US, both of those are madly divisive right now. Thing is, I often stray into those preserves without meaning to. I'll be strolling along, thinking I'm on the public right-of-way, when some big burly guy comes out of nowhere, shaking his crook or gavel at me, claiming that I've trespassed on his territory. I wouldn't need to be dishonest to avoid such confrontations, because, contrary to a flippant remark I made, most of my stories are mainstream vanilla. I just started wondering how other people think about this.
Well, my WIP has a guy who has been mistakenly summoned as a demon, who falls into the company of an imp, who explains to him that the forces of Hell are just there to provide opportunities for evil, and that all the really, really bad stuff like genocide all comes out of humanity and really quite sickens him (the imp). Stole some of that from Good Omens, but I don't think you can copyright specific blasphemies.
Schopenhauer is my favorite philosopher and Neville Shute was my favorite prophet, but recent events have switched me over to Paolo Bacigalupi.
Depending on the genre you pick would play a large part on narrowing your audience. I suppose if you want to appeal to the maximum amount of readers you'd need to come up with a crossover novel. The holly grail of novels so I'm told.
No. If I wanted to do that I'd write a book about a sexually frustrated middle class suburban housewife with a low-level alcohol problem and a traumatic past who secretly cheats on her Milquetoast dentist husband with the mechanic who fixes her pointlessly large BMW 4x4. The Richard and Judy set would be all over it and it would snapped up by book clubs all over the place, were it not for the fact I'd have battered myself to death with my own keyboard halfway through writing the first chapter.
I'm just reading this book by Phillip Pullman (who is rapidly becoming a favourite author of mine) containing essays and the texts of speeches he's made regarding 'what' he writes. (Daemon Voices.) He's a bestselling author who has never compromised his own vision, and has also taken a very unique path. Children can read most of his books, but by heck, the man sure knows how to craft a tale for all ages to enjoy and think about. https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B076J32HCW/?tag=writingfor07a-20 Me? I write only because I have a certain story to tell. I do it to the best of my ability, but that's it. I try to make improvements that will help my readers follow the story and understand where I'm coming from with it, but I make no compromises as to content or theme. People can like or dislike it as they want. It's my story. Why would I want to write somebody else's story?
Though I enjoyed Pullman's 'His Dark Materials' books, but perhaps not the third book so much as it was too weird and otherworldly for my taste, I do however fault him for not giving beliefs outside his own philosophy (particularly in regards to God & Religion) a fair shake. The story turns into a harsh polemic and a platform for his unending ridicule of all things God. Aside from his beliefs, which I find abhorrently one-sided, he never does explore the failings of secularism and humanism within his story. To me that speaks of a coward so secure in his self-righteous atheism that he can't see the sky for all the clouds.
Me neither/either – whenever I recall my Pullman months I'm imbued with...not sure of the exact description: he wrote pretty, he wrote sharp, he had good ways to says things. I enjoyed admiring his craftsmanship. Sweet's my imbuence [word?]—he wrote sweet. Not worthy of the rhetoric/vitriol given out in those last two sentences.
