How Political Can You Get Without Blacklisting Yourself?

TBH, I dont' really find this very political. Unless I'm missing something, the message is 'dumb names are dumb and people don't like them.' I would think that as more a truth universally acknowledged. Which makes it less contentious than Jan Austen's universally acknowledged truth which completely snubs the LGBT crowd, and her books aren't exactly being blacklisted right now. Write it first, and if you're worried about it, get some opinions and edit after. Regardless of what it is, you will probably find a market for it if it's well written, and if you're worried about it affecting your future career, use a pseudonym.

Also, does this mean, what with Cher, Bono, Adele, Drake, Usher, Ice-T, Ice Cube, Skrillex, Raffi, Pink, Moby, Jay-Z, Ke$ha, Ludacris, Will.I.Am, Yanni, Enya, Flea, Sting, Madonna, Slash, Gotye, Bjork, Beck, Coolio, Eminem, Shaggy, Shakira, Prince, Seal, Sade, Rihanna, Donovan, Dido, Fergie, Oprah, Twiggy, and Scary Spice, that the Grammy's are really an annual worldwide meeting of supervillians?

ETA: Dio

 

Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice opener is sarcastic, in that it represents the old-fashioned attitude of the setting that the younger characters as representatives of a modernist generation challenge: intentionally and unintentionally, implicitly and explicitly.
Also I think the main issue would be the last lines reference to a certain end of the political spectrum. I don't know which end of it that is but the story probably makes that apparent therein is some potential to be perceived as a political attack.

 

What is this 'sarcasm' you speak of?

 

I liked Dio Sabbath as much as Ozzy. But Rob Halford is better than both.

 

Just write your story. If it's good enough you will find a publisher.

If you spend your time wondering how it will be received by a publisher before you even write it, you're wasting your time. Let your character be what he is and say what he must to make the story work. BTW, that particular paragraph doesn't strike me as objectionable to anyone in any way.

 

Well, if it's absolutely needed, I'll include it regardless. But if it's not, and I can further character voice in a way that'll be more marketable, I'll do that.

The goal isn't to write a story that I enjoy. It's to write a story that readers enjoy, publishers enjoy, AND I enjoy.

 

In the U.S people seem to be very sensitive and get upset easily, I learned this and it was awful to constantly not say what I wanted to say for fear of upsetting someone, it seemed in my country people accepted the opinions of others better.
Some people get upset about something someone has said and it's understandable other times it's just snowflakes. I'm not saying people in my country are perfect and don't get upset over anything, just that Americans seem to be more passionate. So it does depend a little bit on what country you live in as what's acceptable. Lolita was hardly candy floss but the author was gutsy enough to do it, and he got slander for it. So to touch upon sensitive subjects you have to expect something.
But it depends on what your characters views are. If it's say views on abortion I don't see a problem because we all have one and one side is going to agree with you. If it's denying the Holocaust most are going to get upset and rightly so.

If it's set in a different world then you can say things politically that have nothing to do with our world but let everyone know your character is outspoken by the other characters reactions. If you make these subjects different enough it wont hit home and offend anyone.

 

Oh, I know, VERY sensitive. I actually change the sentence from naming which side I was talking about, knowing that people would get butthurt (even though I'M not saying that, the NARRATOR was). And for people that think the author IS the narrator, that makes absolutely zero sense. I have a character with a specific voice that I want to convey. If that's character's personality lends itself to political jabs, it does.

But again, I still want my book to be as marketable as possible. If I was writing ONLY for myself, the entire need for a book (rather than just thoughts in my head) would be gone. The very act of writing and publishing means you're writing it for others to read. I don't see why some people have a problem with wanting to edit stuff out of my book that may make publishers shy away (though, I do agree that it's too early to worry about right now).

One last note is that I'll say that people here definitely are NOT passionate. They only care about something whenever it's plastered all over the big news networks. And it's usually a very lowly-informed opinion, anyways.

 

Totally disagree with this. The process of putting a story to paper/pixels changes it, usually for the better, and reading a story, even re-reading it, is a totally different experience that remembering it.

 

Eh, maybe. But I still write for readers, publishers, AND myself. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. If it just takes some minor changes that doesn't screw up the story to increase my reach tenfold, it's worth it.