Writing about controversial topics

You're welcome. I think it is pretty well accepted that controversy in a story is a good thing. I can see a writer getting passionate over it. The book still has to be well-written, and focus on the people, not the controversy. But some of the very earliest advice I got about writing was to "increase the tension." A controversial subject would accomplish that.

 

Do you write about controversial subjects too?

 

Thanks for asking! I only took up writing again after a hiatus about a year ago. Since then, I have been writing short stories and flash fiction. I guess I have written a couple of controversial things, but didn't give it much thought. Now, I am planning to write a novel and I want to make it very controversial! Advice welcomed!

 

I really don't think it's possible not to write about (or think about or discuss over coffee at work) controversial subjects. Every single aspect of this construct we call reality is debatable, questionable, uncertain and fragile. As writers and as people we can pretend it's otherwise, as we sometimes must do just to get out the door. But the controversy is still intrinsic to whatever the subject might be, we just shorthand our way around it, tapping into an accepted sense of order. If the story is a romantic journey where A meets B and they end up together, that might not be served by pulling apart what exactly A is, what B is, to whom are they these things and to others are they different, what their sexual adventures might mean, what is love, what happens when C enters the picture and on and on.

The choice really is whether the writer addresses the controversy or to what extent they bypass it (in part or fully) to get out the door with a completed story.

 

Having said that, I want to add that for any writer, they must believe in what they are writing. It must be true to them. I don't think it would work to fabricate controversy for controversy's sake.

 

Congratulations Moose.
I'm going to hazard a guess that

wasn't a phrase used in the pitch?

 

Interesting question - I write crime fiction and my last story involved a school shooting which I wrestled with for a long time. Funnily enough I wanted to avoid it out of fear or trivializing school shootings or offending people, and yet I'm more than happy to fill the rest of my book with people getting murdered. Go figure.

I couldn't for the life of me come up with an alternative for the story to progress. The short version is, I needed a child to die (a witness to another crime). My protagonist was a teacher, so she needed to be present. It couldn't look obvious or targeted at that child, so I needed collateral damage (two other children), and I needed a way for someone to commit the shooting from a distance (sniper from a hill), but then leave another person at that scene, and make it look like they were the shooter and committed suicide straight after. The obvious answer to the police was the dead guy who, among other health issues, was known to be disgruntled that he couldn't get custody of his child, so it looked like he took it out on the nearest school. It averted attention from who was responsible and it served its purpose.

My point is, I eventually got to a point where I thought 'Fu#& it! The scene works for my story. I'm not adding violence for the sake of it - it wasn't gory or overdone. It's serving a particular purpose to the plot, and shootings unfortunately are things that happen in the world, just like murder, rape, racism, etc.

 

I think what messes up most writers is they go in thinking they're about to divulge their truth on the matter but that's not a reason to explore a controversial topic. It's not about your truth as how you see it - but the truth - that only you can reflect.
If you go in with your truth it's going to get purple or trashy or weird since their is no real your truth only your opinion or your feelings. I mean you wouldn't ask V.C. Andrews to write about incest - if so you'll get a dilly of a horror/romance. But not a shred of truth about incest.
And given the era of Covid with it's rise of sadists, my opinion on the idea of writing controversial stories has changed somewhat, specifically because I think we're caught in a cycle of regurgitating ideas long hashed out without exploring them any deeper. What is anyone really going to say about racism - it's bad? whoop-de-do. Would anyone dare to tackle it from a different angle.
To be honest the above list of controversies seems done to death. For me real controversies might be - why is nothing beautiful anymore, why have animals replaced our responsibilities to our neighbors, why do I never see children playing on playgrounds? why are we being taught to hate our own countries? Why are men and women at each others throats?

 

I agree, and I’m hoping to look at racism and other issues from both sides with a variety of angles in my cat stories, becuase it can become easier to illustrate there without being too obvious right off the bat

In my trilogy the reader sees the side continuing the prejudice and how they use an us vs them mindset (some using it to fearmonger and secure their place in power by promising a solution) and , and the fear that turns into violence, but what’s also seen is the violence certain members have committed against the other party in this situation the idea is that not only do they fear this group of others and teach the younger generations to, they reject the problems they percieve in their society onto them and chaos ensues

And then there’s the other side of it, which is the rogues who view the other party as misguided and lacking understanding in their ways. Despite this, they’ve devised safe routes through the forest to avoid violent areas and have educated their brethren as to where you cannot be caught after dark. All in all they act as actual people and not the mindless killing machines the other party has made them out to be (the othering in the part of the other party occured in the beginning to ensure they would survive by not being too nice but it’s escalated to grisly extremes over the generations)

The difficult relations here are abetted by a cast of unreliable narrators, all unreliable in different ways (and of different political affiliations.) As is customary, the younger generation of characters is more accepting of the others. They were raised by a generation traumatized by war and haven’t been inundated with anti-rogue propaganda as much as they have even taught how to defend and be alert against their own people, in case somebody tries to launch a coup or something of that nature (which happens a concerning amount of times)

So in short cats are fun because controversial subjects like this can be handled with more grace and be less contrived

 

The way you have framed these questions/themes in fact reveal personal truths. My personal truths are different. I believe beauty still exists, I think neighbours come first, I see children playing on playgrounds, I do not believe we are being taught to hate our countries, and I do not believe men and women are at each other's throats.

Instead of beginning every sentence with "Why?" followed by the writer's personal truth, the theme can be stated to reflect a greater truth.

Following from your examples: Where do we find beauty? How do humans connect? What does a child need? What responsibilities does a nation have to its citizens? How do men and women best relate?

 

"A greater truth" is the most important.

I had illustrated this in one of my stories when two characters were debating the meaning of a poem. Both characters made sound arguments, but they couldn't find any common ground. Essentially, the argument could almost go on forever.

But an external character, not involved in the debate or its topic, took a book out of a shelve and placed it on a table. She then asked one of them to go look at its front cover, and the other to its spine. Then she asked them to, from their point of view, describe the shape of the book. Character A described it as broad and wide, while character B described it as thin and long.

She then took the book away and spun it around to illustrate the "ultimate truth" of how both answers were correct from their point of view, but incorrect from the broader, greater truth. By looking at the book with a third dimension instead of just two, she could find that.

And so what she essentially said was that both of their interprations of the poem were sound, but none of them were willing to reach a broader truth, and add up their answers to find the ultimate truth. Because yes, there can be multiple truths that can add up to one ultimate truth. And the way to distinguish an ultimate truth is to explain all previous answers using it. If you cannot, then you haven't reached an ultimate truth yet.

The book was just an oversimplification of reality. Of course, real life debates are much more complex, and finding an ultimate truth is not always possible. Often because the arguing parties aren't interested in doing so, they just want to stick to their "truth" without ever reaching a broader one. And so the debate goes on forever.

This is why an "external character" was necessary.

But I think there are simpler truths, as well. If a spoon falls down, there's no grander truth than that. It simply fell down.

 

Hopefully people aren't falling into the 2-party politics trap, or are getting themselves out of it. It's too oversimplified—nothing in reality is that simple or cut-and-dried. A major problem with that kind of polarized thinking is you fall into the trap of believing your side is always right, and all the bad guys are on the other side. You become nothing but a mouthpiece for a political ideology. Taken to its ultimate, this idea leads to totalitarian regimes where you must obey the party line or be punished (or killed). Critical thinking requires you to be able to see the strengths and problems on both sides (as if there were only two sides).

“If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”
― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956

​

 

There are a lot of Dutch "comedians" who do that. It puts one at risk of becoming that artist who only has veiled important issues instead of entertainment.

As for your original post. I don't deal with controversial issues for two reasons: I only dun did one book yet, and there wasn't any need for it in that book. I'm also not going to purposely make room for it in other books.
Everybody and their dog has a book out that tackles important social issues, or some poignant world view. It feels like social impact is strong arming entertainment value out the door. Without getting political about it, how big a chance would Black Panther have of being made if the BLM movement didn't gain the momentum they did.

That's not to say I'm against art with a social impact. All art has a place somewhere.
But I'm a middle-aged white guy with very few problems. I'll just be writing dumb entertainment.

I mean, if something controversial finds a way into my story, fine.
There's a jock who comes out as gay (though is that really controversial still?), but that's because the MC's love interest is described as so perfect that it would be strange for the jock to leave her otherwise. Plus, it was a convenient way to display my MC's openmindedness, thus making him more likable. Hopefully.
Of course there's some of my own ideology in there. I don't mind who likes who, so chances are my MC won't either. But at some point I'm also gonna need to write the antagonist and at least get a little bit in touch with why they feel, for lack of a better example, homosexuality is bad.
Since I believe just writing rhetoric only creates a cookie cutter bad guy, I have to imagine what I would do were I that bad guy, which begs the question: At what point is the bad guy's ideology also my ideology, and do I need a shrink?

 

A novel that is a mouthpiece for only one or the other side wouldn’t be honest. There are “greater truths” to explore. A novel that takes as its spine political partisanship might tackle some of these themes:

Throughout the world, political parties are increasingly seen as dysfunctional. There is disillusionment with the party system. Political protests are on the rise. Is it time to start visualizing a more open and direct form of democracy with less mediation by parties and elites? In what other ways can we hold governments accountable besides political parties? Have political parties outlived their usefulness? Is nonpartisanship the way to go? Does democracy depend on strong and organized political factions? Would chaos otherwise ensue?

 

Ugh. I would never write a story about politics. Stories are about people, and some of them might have strong political opinions, but the thought of making the politics the actual point of the story turns my stomach. If I was reading a story and that turned out to be the point of it, that book would meet a terrible fate, perhaps several of them. I'd use it like a voodoo doll that I hated, and then begin the torture on it.

More likely mine would be a harsh criticism of people who let politics rule their lives. Though I can't see even making that the main point of a story, maybe a sub-plot.

 

Totally agree. Any good story is about the people. Never meant to suggest otherwise. But the themes I raised might be the starting point for a political thriller

 

The masses are less and less likely to be influenced. The popularity of the two main parties has been steadily declining over the last twenty years. How people identified themselves:

In 2004 – 31% Independent, 33% Republican, 35% Democrat

In 2023 – 49% Independent, 25% Republican, 25% Democrat

https://www.axios.com/2023/04/17/poll-americans-independent-republican-democrat

 

I think you want to consider the controversial subjects of today and maybe even what other controversial topics they will lead to. You don't need to be so worried about hitting the subject on the nose. You job is to tell a good story that carries relevance to bigger stories. But it just starts with you telling a good story.

Just curious, but do you have some topics in mind you would like your novel to explore?

 

Yes, I think you're right. Writers have almost a responsibility to tackle such issues. It's all about the delivery.

 

If you're interested you might want to check out the book Newtown. I forget the author's name, but he was some journalist who spent a year in the community following the shooting to try and really tell the story of what happened. It's a short book and a fairly easy read except for the parts that get real heavy and might cause you to take a break. But like I said, it is a short read and I think a pretty good example of how to respectfully uncover and write about such horrible things.