Writing about issues you care about

[Jabrosky]

As writers, we often tell each other that we should write whatever stories resonate with us personally and disregard how other people might react to that. However, I don't know if this applies to me as well as it might other writers. My problem is that a lot of the story ideas that I find most appealing of all have at least tenuous connections to real-world issues that I feel extremely passionate about. This by itself wouldn't be an issue except that I've always suffered from a tendency to see issues in black and white. I have a psychological need for one side to represent good or reason and the opposing side to represent evil or irrationality. Ergo, I cannot view the opposing side with any objectivity or respect whatsoever---in my view, they are irredeemably evil, stupid, deluded, or otherwise subhuman.

Obviously this wreaks a lot of havoc on my attempts at characterization. I cannot write my characters, especially my antagonists, as realistic and multidimensional if they owe their inspiration to real factions I support or oppose. For example, if I were to write a story inspired by the gay rights struggle for marriage equality, I would write the side representing the homophobes as savage, deluded troglodytes because that's how I subconsciously view homophobes in real life. I could never do justice to the issue's complexities or acknowledge that my opponents may have some legitimate points or an understandable perspective. This is all the more problematic given that readers these days frown upon simplistic Good-vs-Evil narratives.

On the other hand, I cannot commit to a story idea that has no relationship whatsoever to something I care deeply about. Such a story would come across as hollow even if I could force myself to write it.

 

[Chilari]

I know the feeling regarding presenting those with views opposing my own. It's very difficult to write a character whose views and motivations you cannot comprehend. It is a lot easier to assume that someone is, at some fundamental level, lacking in intellect when they refuse to acknowledge the evidence in front of them that disputes their side and supports mine. This is perhaps why I find it very difficult to write antagonists when I've got the protagonist chasing some cause or other - the antagonist's motivations are thin and flimsy, shallow, and it shows.

To take one recent example in my writing. For much of the summer and autumn last year I was working on a story where a character sought to change the laws and the means of cases being judged from a Draconian, unequal system to one which is more fair. And it fell down in part because I couldn't fathom how the system got like that in the first place. I mean, I had it all set out and written down - it was in response to social and civil unrest, growing population and falling land revenues for those in power at the time. I had even determined that certain of the (law-making) nobility opposed the changes, but had been outvoted - or intimidated to change their vote or abstain. But still the "bad guys" were faceless to me, vague shadowy entities, not real people with real motivations - not even negative motivations like greed or ambition, just sort of evil people.

So now I'm avoiding causes for the time being, because I can't be objective about it. The story I'm working on now is much smaller scale, a personal quest where what characters want has no impact on the world at large, it isn't about good and bad, it's about someone trying to get something she wants and those who oppose her having perfectly justifiable reasons to stop her - reasons like trying to protect their loved ones from harm and upset, or trying to protect their reputations in a society that cares about such things, because if they lose their good reputations they lose contracts and thus income.

As far as passion for the project goes, yes I can understand how it is harder to feel motivated to write something when it's not dealing with issues you feel are important. But I guess you have to find other things to motivate you - the desire to write, the desire to complete something, getting deep inside the character's head so you have to finish their story, something like that.

 

[Jabrosky]

As far as passion for the project goes, yes I can understand how it is harder to feel motivated to write something when it's not dealing with issues you feel are important. But I guess you have to find other things to motivate you - the desire to write, the desire to complete something, getting deep inside the character's head so you have to finish their story, something like that.

A major reason---maybe the main reason---I ever got interested in fantasy was the world-building aspect. I like designing settings, societies, creatures, and characters' visual appearances. Sometimes I can draw out my concepts, but whenever I can't, I write them down instead in the form of vignettes or episodic short stories.

In all honesty, I don't find the trials and tribulations of individual characters terribly engrossing by themselves. I may enjoy drawing characters' visual appearances, and I may like to imagine them engaged in visually exciting activities like fighting or sex, but the psychological side of character development doesn't concern me so much. Unfortunately most people don't want to read world-building notes, vignettes, or isolated fight scenes; they want the lengthy psychological stuff that I tend to gloss over.

 

[Steerpike]

It would be a problem for me as a reader, Jabrosky. The truth is, there are intelligent and reasonable people on various sides of most political and social issues. If I read a work that deals with those issues, I expect the author to handle it with acknowledgment of this and to do so skillfully. I've put down books and stories where the work is a thinly disguised diatribe against people with opposing views rather than advocacy of a position. I think one of the most important skills a writer can have is the ability to see the world through eyes that are not their own and to empathize with that viewpoint.

 

[Amanita]

I tend to avoid the issues I'm the most passionate about because I don't think I could do them justice for this reason. In my case, that's mainly misogynsim. Some of my societes are or used to be quite patriarchal but I'm not focusing on it and it's not at the centre of the conflicts. It affects the female main character from one of those nations of course but it's quite subtle or so I hope. I don't have any misogynist villians who want to keep her from doing what she's supposed to do or anything like that. This would become too preachy too quickly and I dislike that in other people's books therefore I'm not going to do it myself.

So I can only give you the advice to look for something that interests you intellectually but doesn't inspire such a strong emotional response.

 

[BWFoster78]

I agree with Steerpike on this one. If you let your story become a lecture, you're going to lose readers.

It is good that you recognize this as a problem, however, and can work to either avoid the situation or fix it. I"d suggest reading a lot of arguments for the other side of the fence. Even if you don't agree, you can at least incorporate that reasoning as a part of the character.

 

[SeverinR]

As writers, we often tell each other that we should write whatever stories resonate with us personally and disregard how other people might react to that. However, I don't know if this applies to me as well as it might other writers. My problem is that a lot of the story ideas that I find most appealing of all have at least tenuous connections to real-world issues that I feel extremely passionate about. This by itself wouldn't be an issue except that I've always suffered from a tendency to see issues in black and white. I have a psychological need for one side to represent good or reason and the opposing side to represent evil or irrationality. Ergo, I cannot view the opposing side with any objectivity or respect whatsoever---in my view, they are irredeemably evil, stupid, deluded, or otherwise subhuman.

Obviously this wreaks a lot of havoc on my attempts at characterization. I cannot write my characters, especially my antagonists, as realistic and multidimensional if they owe their inspiration to real factions I support or oppose. For example, if I were to write a story inspired by the gay rights struggle for marriage equality, I would write the side representing the homophobes as savage, deluded troglodytes because that's how I subconsciously view homophobes in real life. I could never do justice to the issue's complexities or acknowledge that my opponents may have some legitimate points or an understandable perspective. This is all the more problematic given that readers these days frown upon simplistic Good-vs-Evil narratives.

On the other hand, I cannot commit to a story idea that has no relationship whatsoever to something I care deeply about. Such a story would come across as hollow even if I could force myself to write it.

I think that realizing you have a problem is the first step to fixing the problem.
There are people of every attitude for or against every issue. Being against or for an issue rarely is based on inteligence. No matter what the issue, the opposition is always portrayed as ignorant, bigoted, and below to the average person.
When opposition is usually more along the lines of moral upbringing, or based on traditional social norms.
Basically, if you write the standard character, it would be cliche.

 

[wordwalker]

It would be a problem for me as a reader, Jabrosky. The truth is, there are intelligent and reasonable people on various sides of most political and social issues. If I read a work that deals with those issues, I expect the author to handle it with acknowledgment of this and to do so skillfully. I've put down books and stories where the work is a thinly disguised diatribe against people with opposing views rather than advocacy of a position. I think one of the most important skills a writer can have is the ability to see the world through eyes that are not their own and to empathize with that viewpoint.

Amen. The most ambitious writing is always about putting people in other shoes, and in any case the building blocks of a story are people-- as long as they seem to be acting like people, not cardboard cutouts.

Jabrosky, here's a throwaway thought if you're more interested in the world's shapes than its people: try a setting where Things Have Already Happened, a war or apocalypse or the aftermath of one, and most of the characters are already forced into sides by events. Characterization becomes mostly day to day struggles in the shadow of it, plus one or two big but carefully placed mysteries and ironic revelations about What Could Have Driven Someone to push the button.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

It can be a problem, but it doesn't have to be. Many writers have fun lampooning some of their characters. Caroline Graham from the Midsomer Murders books had a wonderful time poking fun at Seargeant Troy's parochial, mysoginist, narrow minded ways, and at a lot of the various villagers, most of whom she had murdered horribly!

I agree, no reader is going to want to be lectured, and you do need to give some depth to even those minor characters, even if they don't appear much or die off early. But that doesn't mean you can't have a little fun with them.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[SeverinR]

Hi,

It can be a problem, but it doesn't have to be. Many writers have fun lampooning some of their characters. Caroline Graham from the Midsomer Murders books had a wonderful time poking fun at Seargeant Troy's parochial, mysoginist, narrow minded ways, and at a lot of the various villagers, most of whom she had murdered horribly!

I agree, no reader is going to want to be lectured, and you do need to give some depth to even those minor characters, even if they don't appear much or die off early. But that doesn't mean you can't have a little fun with them.

Cheers, Greg.

Good point.
You won't change the minds if someone if you make their beliefs to be totally idiotic, make them out to be a monster, or belittle them in other ways.
Just glorifying your position will make others that agree with you feel good and be no benefit to the cause.

If you give a good attempt to consider the position others have taken without being abusive, you might actually get readers to consider your points.
If you do have a traditional bigot, I would suggest having a more reasonable character to show your not just belittling the people you don't agree with. Because the cliche characters are that way for a reason, they are the least common denominator.

 

[Steerpike]

Ultimately, it is a form of prejudice in and of itself (by definition), and like most prejudices it can be cured with information. People I know who are really bad about this (and I'm not saying the OP is), tend to read only those things they already agree with, associate only with people who share their viewpoint, and so on. It's a lot easier to fool oneself about other people when you have no association with them.

I'm a strong supporter of gay marriage, for example, but I have friends and family who don't support it. They're smart people, and they're also good people. Knowing that, it is hard to create a stereotypical caricature of everyone who differs from my viewpoint.

One bit of information I like to relate on these subjects concerns a friend and former co-worker of mine. The guy is the most conservative person I've ever met in my life. He makes conservative talk show hosts look liberal in terms of his viewpoint, and so we're far apart on most issues (we may agree on a handful). The guy has a degree in Mathematics, a Ph.D. in Philosophy, and J.D. in law. In other words, he's neither stupid nor uneducated. The kicker is that he's also just about the nicest person I've ever met in my life. He's not prone to anger, I've never heard him say a bad or insulting word about another human being, and he gives both of his time and money to help others.

The points is, that's a real person. Many of your readers will know plenty of real people on all sides of the political and social spectrum, so if you are creating caricatures in your fiction they're going to see through them in a hurry. Many probably won't want to continue with it.

A story where all conservatives are unenlightened morons, or where all liberals are naieve, unrealistic fools (and I've seen more than one of each of these) is ultimately no better than a story where all blacks are portrayed as stupid, or all whites as privileged and rich. These stories don't reflect the world, but rather the author's irrationalities or extremely limited exposure to the real world and the people in it. I won't read them. I'm not sure why anyone would. But if someone writes a piece with thoughtfulness and real human perspective, I'll read it whether I agree with the point the author is making or not.

If you're going for satire or comedy, things change (as noted above). If you're trying to write a serious story that makes a point about an issue you care about, the shortcut of demeaning the characters who present the alternative viewpoint won't gain you anything. A few who share your views might be gratified, but most, regardless of philosophy, will rightly see it as rather thin. On the other hand, if you go out of your way to understand the other viewpoint, and to understand that there are real and intelligent human beings representing those viewpoints, but in a way that still advocates your view, maybe you'll even change some minds. Literature can do that.

 

[Jabrosky]

The problem in my case is that I know very few people of any political persuasion in the offline world. The vast majority of my day-to-day social interactions occur on the Internet, which doesn't allow me to understand how people tick beyond what they say online. Sure, some of the people I've argued with online might act all right in their offline lives, but it's hard to appreciate that when they're screaming slurs at you on a message board (as has happened to me many times).

 

[wordwalker]

You won't change the minds if someone if you make their beliefs to be totally idiotic, make them out to be a monster, or belittle them in other ways.

Words to live by, for unpleasant characters or anyone else. The only way to do a character justice is to get into the not-crazy side of what makes him the way he is, even if you aren't working out how to change him.

(There's also a real-life rule: always start with the notion that the other guy isn't insane. Amazing how often that changes a conversation....)

 

[Steerpike]

The problem in my case is that I know very few people of any political persuasion in the offline world. The vast majority of my day-to-day social interactions occur on the Internet, which doesn't allow me to understand how people tick beyond what they say online. Sure, some of the people I've argued with online might act all right in their offline lives, but it's hard to appreciate that when they're screaming slurs at you on a message board (as has happened to me many times).

Yeah, the Internet isn't the best place a rational exchange of political ideas

EDIT: One thing you can do, instead of getting in discussions on forums, is look for well-reasoned articles available online that support the opposing view. Those aren't usually too difficult to find via search engines.

 

[wordwalker]

One way to look at it: in theory, all people want the same things and are aware of the same parts of the equation, they mostly weight them differently. A "liberal" knows guns might help if you're mugged but doesn't trust that side of it as much as the "conservative" does, or the latter might be convinced laws can't disarm criminals while the former thinks they might. (At least, until someone stops seeing a person or reason as worth anything.) If you can see people as building their attitudes from a different balance of the same things, you can start working out how those building blocks work.

Of course, the classic Net rant is someone running on about one or two of their most/least favorite factors in isolation, because they can.

 

[BWFoster78]

The problem in my case is that I know very few people of any political persuasion in the offline world. The vast majority of my day-to-day social interactions occur on the Internet, which doesn't allow me to understand how people tick beyond what they say online. Sure, some of the people I've argued with online might act all right in their offline lives, but it's hard to appreciate that when they're screaming slurs at you on a message board (as has happened to me many times).

The internet IS a great place to try out ideas. Have you considered finding political forums and joining a discussion as an opponent to your normal viewpoint? It may help to sharpen your skills in looking at the other side of things.

Personally, I enjoy the intellectual stimulation of a debate regardless of whether I agree with the viewpoint I'm arguing or not. I once argued with a friend's wife for thirty minutes and took the side that The Man Show was not sexist. I had a lot of fun doing it.

Seriously, presenting both points of view is important. In my WIP, one of my beta readers pointed out how whiny one of my characters sounded when I didn't intend the portrayal to depict that trait. Do you know why? Because I concentrated on the protagonist's side of the argument so much that the character in question sounded unrealistic. By strengthening that character's argument while giving the protagonist emotional reasons for his views, I corrected the situation.

Bottom line: The best fiction depicts well-rounded characters who have reasons for what they do and how they believe. Learning to argue all sides of an issue will help you create better characters.

 

[Steerpike]

Have you considered finding political forums and joining a discussion as an opponent to your normal viewpoint?

You can do that at USMessageBoard, which is very active and has people of all persuasions. It is not always for the faint of heart, however.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

There are a couple really great points in the above comments.

We have to realize that understanding is the key. While we may not agree with, condone, or support a particular viewpoint, we may still understand it. To be a truly good writer and integrate the complexities of the human condition , the ability to understand is crucial.

Furthermore, we must be actors of a sort, cast to play a multitude of roles within our own stories. I'm currently writing a story with 5 POVs. One of these is an pubescent girl, trying to come to grips with some very difficult life changes. I have no experience being a young woman...none. Outside of the commonalities all people share, I chose to research likely obstacles & feelings for this character. I questioned my wife, my sister, mother, sister in law, mother in law, molding some of their thoughts and experiences into the psyche of this girl's character. Now, when I write from her perspective, I'm acting.

Learn to understand. Learn to reach out & grasp differences. Learn to act. Those skills will take your characters & writing a long way.

 

[Shockley]

I am all of these things: Very, very liberal. Atheistic. Pacifistic. Hardcore environmentalist (you don't even know). A democrat and a Democrat. I also had the distinct pleasure of growing up in a community (north Texas) that shits, regularly, on every single one of those ideas.

Now, my characters are not that. They are misogynistic, conservative by definition, war-like, monarchical, theocratic, etc. and they community they live in encourages that mindset. They are Nietzschean archetypes and are steeped in Evolan mysticism.

I can do this because, to me, my characters are more than just the opinions they have - they are the sum total of experiences, just as I am and just as you are. Had something in our lives happened differently - and this is true for characters and proper characterization - we'd be very different people. It's not lack of information or idiocy that leads anyone to their opinions - but their set of experiences. Characters are more than their opinions - they are family members, laborers (of some kind), etc. They are people, and that has to come before bad opinions.


Let me give you a really great example of this from history of someone intelligent whom I really disagree with and even respect: Martin Heidegger is probably the greatest single philosopher of the 20th century, and is responsible for shepherding a lot of intellectuals. One of those thinkers he encouraged was Hannah Arendt, a German-Jewish writer who broke down the social and political cause/effect of the Third Reich and of totalitarianism in general. She was also Heidegger's lover. That said, despite his massive intellect, his understanding of the world, his constant exposure to intellectuals and even his Jewish mistress, Heidegger was a full out Nazi. Even after the end of World War II, with the full horrors of the Nazi regime laid bare (and this was also when his relationship with Arendt resumed) he still refused to recant his Nazism. He never did - he went to his death (in 1976) a Nazi.

This was a guy who, again I have to stress, was incredibly intelligent and not even close to what we could call a 'troglodyte.' Yet he turned in his fellow professors if he thought they were disloyal to the Reich. Not only did he target people who were currently not Nazis, he targeted people who had been pacifists during World War I or otherwise not supportive of the old Kaiser. Those he couldn't get removed but was suspicious of he had blacklisted. He banned Jewish students (including Arendt) from attending his university, and even betrayed his old mentor to the Nazi cause. Years later, after the war over, he still defended Nazism - saying that there was a good Nazism and a bad Nazism, and the only real problem he had with the Holocaust was the method of execution (He thought the Jews should have been killed in some form of conflict, for whatever reason).

So yeah, someone can disagree with you and even be a total monster, and be the most important intellectual force int he 20th century. Strange thought, that.

 

[Penpilot]

To the original question, I say try digging deeper into the viewpoints you don't agree with. If you can't understand how someone can hold that opposing viewpoint, then I'd venture that you haven't dug deep enough into the subject matter or the individual and their past. You don't have to agree with what they think, but IMHO most of the time, there are fairly reasonable reasons for a person's belief. There maybe minor and even major flaws in the reasoning, but it's a perch that's strong enough to hold some weight. And remember if a person holds a strong opposing viewpoint, chances are just as you attribute flaws that they can't see or acknowledge to their stance on the matter, they attribute flaws that you can't see or acknowledge to your stance.

As for what you can do flex your mind, try reading some philosophy, or take a philosophy course or two. Exploring some really mind bending ideas will let you develop that ability to shift view points and see things from different angles and argue against and for them. I took some courses where we explored the various definitions of art, and explored arguments for and against the existence of a deity, etc.

Also try exploring our own world's history. There are countless instances where seemingly illogical things happened for very logical reasons. How do things like the Salem witch trials happen? How does the Nazi party come into power? How did apartheid come about in South Africa? History is littered with stuff like this.