On Writing Dangerously

I’m feeling a bit philosophical, so this post is a screed against those who desire to enforce their version of reality on everyone, blended with some practical writing advice.

A social media group was discussing an interesting topic, and it was one about which I had an opinion that resulted in this post. Here’s the question that started the thread (I’ve paraphrased it for conciseness): “Due to my trepidation about being attacked by members of another group for asking about this, I’ve come here to ask: How important is the concept of message in stories? There is a general relationship between message and theme, but I’d like to know how much of your personal or social values do you put in your writing?”

I read through the thread and concluded that, in general, the consensus was it’s okay to put your values in your stories as long as you don’t preach and actively shove them in the reader’s face. Overall, the responses were thoughtful and not hysterical.

Here’s my opinion on the question: You cannot help but instill at least part of your values in a story since your values are both a result and a cause of how you view the world, and your worldview informs your imagination. To rephrase this idea, it’s impossible to divorce personal values from storytelling. The beliefs and worldviews of the author naturally seep into their narratives, influencing themes and character motivations.

I’m not saying it cannot be done, but I think it shouldn’t. Trying to suppress who you are while writing is tantamount to lying to your readers. They will, at some level, realize that and feel your story is inauthentic. That may be enough to steer them away from your work in the future. That is a result an author should strive to avoid. Readers often appreciate this authenticity but can be put off by overt preaching or didacticism.

On the other hand, I agree that you shouldn’t proselytize. That quickly gets boring for most readers. At least some of today’s readers have become sensitized by cultural trends and education to the point that they can easily find something to offend them in any opinion or story that varies from what they’ve decided to believe. My stance against proselytizing aligns with the consensus that stories should entertain first and foremost. While stories can subtly influence perspectives, forcing a singular agenda risks alienating readers. This nuanced approach respects the reader’s autonomy while acknowledging the impact of narrative on worldview. Unfortunately, in their efforts to be culturally relevant, critics and awards programs often reward such efforts to influence readers.

Styles of writing change and evolve, however. Modern fiction is mainly intended to entertain, but in the past, novels focused on particular values and often dropped them with all of the subtlety of hitting the reader on the head with a hod of bricks. Mark Twain used this analogy in one of his essays wherein he writes of a man who was killed by a bricklayer’s apprentice accidentally dropping his load from the roof. Twain wrote that humans were susceptible to such events, but dogs were not. That is because, as he observed, a dog would know enough to look up and get out of the way. His point is that modern man is primarily preoccupied and unaware of his surroundings. This is even more so in today’s information-glutted world.

People apparently find it easy to ignore the basic principles of reality, and they are encouraged by groups pushing ideologies based on proprietary visions of the world. Reality, in my definition, means that which, when ignored, sneaks around and bites you on the ass…at least figuratively speaking. The Paleolithic hunter in the attached drawing wouldn’t survive long by denying the existence of a prowling Giant Short-faced Bear, the apex predator of the North American Pleistocene. Today, you can’t blindly walk out into traffic without risking some negative consequences, nor can you pretend your own genetics don’t affect your life on a long-term basis.

Twain’s dog’s foresight, if exercised by overly sensitive individuals, would forestall much of the criticism directed at authors who don’t follow popular guidelines. In other words, if the book offends you, just put it down, but at least have the grace to allow others to make up their own minds about the value therein. Screaming for help and working to assemble an attack group to harass the author is the act of a cultural barbarian. If humans always condemned creative or different ideas and the action was effective in suppressing the condemned idea, we would be sitting in a cave watching a fire and scratching flea bites.

Communicating cultural values is the main point of telling stories. It always has been, clear back to hunters clustered around a campfire in paleolithic times, listening to tales of a past hunt. Authors write stories because they love to entertain others (and would like to make money at it…just sayin’). They usually don’t set out to create morality plays, except in the case of some factions.

There are specific groups who are actively writing science fiction and fantasy (I speak of the genre in which I write since I don’t read much else) who find it necessary to slam the reader in the face with their ideas about inclusiveness and diversity. Generally speaking, such tales quickly become tedious and are often unreadable. However, I will defend the author’s right to write what they want. Let them proceed, and let the market sort out the winning stories from the losers. Authors should have the liberty to explore diverse themes without fear of censorship or undue criticism, trusting that readers can discern and engage critically with differing viewpoints.

Let’s approach the issue from another angle. It is possible to move your readers’ worldview gradually, provided you tell a compelling story. That’s why I opt for positive character arcs that allow the protagonist to develop more self-responsibility. I firmly believe that is the first step in taking control of your life–stop being a victim of circumstances and others. Victims languish and complain. Those with a modicum of self-responsibility will take action to change their results in life. There is no honor or glory in allowing oneself to be a victim since we always have a choice. Stories should offer some form of positive impact on readers, and authors should have a commitment to meaningful storytelling. Whether through horror, inspiration, or other genres, stories can provoke thought and encourage personal growth, albeit in varied ways depending on the reader’s perspective.

I firmly believe that a great author will always intend to bring something good to the reader from the story. I realize this is subject to challenge, but overall, I think it is true. It’s just that “good” can be defined in many different ways. Readers of horror stories find some value for which they seek, just as do readers of inspirational literature.

This viewpoint has gotten me in trouble with some ideological readers who are intolerant of any challenges to their worldview. (Fair warning: My stories are based on my love of self-responsibility, liberty, and the belief that reality is what it is and ultimately cannot be denied without adverse repercussions.) That bothered me at first because I naturally wanted to please everyone. Then I decided that my primary position is that if they opt to be offended, it’s their choice, not mine. I’ve found that anything in life that you cannot handle — anything that upsets you — will continue to present itself until you learn to deal with it with equanimity. As a result of my decision, I sometimes describe myself as a “dangerous” writer (although this is probably self-flattery) in the hopes that sensitive types will be warned.

As an object lesson, consider that cats always try to sit on the lap of the person in a group who most dislikes them. They’re brilliant that way and will make a great effort to help humans cope with their biases. Some dogs do the same but with less regularity and forcefulness. The correct response here is to accept the cat’s attention and pet them. They will consider their job is done and get on with other catness-related activities.

Ignoring a cat can work, but they often become importunate. In that case, you can always leave.

This strategy also applies to critics. The general rule that all writers should understand is the same one that should be used with trolls in comment threads. That is to say, don’t engage with anyone who gives a hateful review. It only serves to validate their feeling of self-righteousness and stimulate them to further attacks. Of course, ignoring them may incite them, but you don’t have to suffer their insults that way. This practical approach to maintaining artistic integrity and personal well-being is based on emphasizing self-responsibility, and the choice to engage or ignore negativity resonates with the broader theme of personal growth amidst creative expression.

A person actively decides to be insulted or to ignore perceived slights. One can be offended by an entirely innocent remark directed at someone else, but that is a choice, not a mandatory requirement. Many people do not seem to understand that self-responsibility is required for personal growth, civil discourse, and progress.

Keep in mind that a willingness to provoke thought while acknowledging differing viewpoints reflects a balanced approach to navigating the complexities of modern storytelling, and this should be the goal of the aspiring author.

Namaste!