by James Scott Bel
@jamesscottbell
“One may achieve remarkable writerly success while flunking all the major criteria for success as a human being. Try not to do that.” – Michael Bishop
Maybe it’s just me, but has anyone else noticed things are getting a bit, er, heated out there in the arena we call media, both social and news?
I use “arena” advisedly, as it hearkens back to ancient Rome and the bloodthirsty crowds cheering the gladiators in their fights to the death, or the lions tearing apart adherents to a certain religious sect.
Today we have the madding crowd (not maddening crowd, please! Thomas Hardy is turning over in his cubby at Westminster Abbey on that frequent misuse) on X and Meta and Insta and TikkyTak. (Remember talk about YouTube, Twitter and Facebook merging into one site called YouTwitFace?)
Many a writer has added fuel to the fire, which invites (not “begs” please! Though that ship has sailed) the question: is it worth it to risk reputational capital by becoming just another flamethrower on the conflagration of discontent?
I’ll hazard a theory: you lose more readers than you gain that way.
Now, I quickly add that there is a place for calm and cool repartee in social media over issues of moment. If you feel you have to say something, go ahead. Just keep it classy, and be very aware that it’s bloody difficult to keep from getting sucked into tit-for-tat with haters, on their terms. “I learned long ago never to wrestle with a pig,” wrote Shaw. “You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.”
So if you’re a writer trying to make a living, or at least some reliable side income, count the cost and weigh the potential ROI before diving into the fray.
That does not mean silence. Writers write. Many a novel has started with the author burning about an issue.
One author asked himself some questions: “Should aggression be opposed by force? How shall an individual stand against tyranny? When is an individual or society to involve himself or itself in another’s affairs? What exactly is the true nature of justice?” That’s why Walter Van Tilburg Clark wrote the classic, The Ox-Bow Incident.
But note that Clark said his purpose was to “not only write as much as I could in dialogue, but to find my way into a typical western story situation, with all the typical western story people, and see if I couldn’t make the people come to life and the situation say something that could still be heard.”
Make the people come to life. That’s the key.
Orwell was impassioned in his essays, but how much more influential are his novels, 1984 and Animal Farm?
Ray Bradbury once remarked that he did not write to predict the future, but to prevent it.
So of course write a story about an issue that burns inside you. But make sure of the following:
- Filter everything through characters who are not mere hand puppets for your hobby horse (how’s that for mixing metaphors?)
- Give every character his or her due, even the bad guys, because—
- Bad guys don’t think they’re bad, they think they’re justified.
- Make sure your dialogue is organic and believable, not part of a “false triangle.”
- Draft angry if you must, but edit serenely. (And please don’t misquote Hemingway, who never said “Write drunk, edit sober.” That would have made him angry!)
- Think long and hard about what you post on social media. It’s going to be there forever.
Or you can write a poem, as I did recently:
Sometimes in life we find ourselves
Engaged in tense exchanges,
In meetings or at social fetes
That someone else arranges.A stranger offers his opinion,
As if it were quite factual.
You beg to differ, have your say
With real facts, quite actual.But then instead of answer calm
You’re accused of being wicked,
And told in no uncertain terms
Where your opinion can be stick-ed.Thus it is, in Twitter world
That conversations vex.
There is no thought or listening,
There’s only scrambled X.Some day perhaps we shall go back
To conversations civil
Where substance is the main concern,
Not vitriolic drivel.And so I say, my angry friend,
Fear not a new opinion.
Better far to think than get
A right-cross to your chinion.
There. I feel better now. Comments welcome.
I’m not sure what others would say, but since I focus primarily from the historical perspective, I think that helps give appropriate distance as I write. And for mystery, thriller and suspense writers, we can and do deal with themes such as justice in what we write, which I hope gives a level-headed perspective as we create our stories.
You note “Give every character his or her due…” To me that’s not just about something such as a bad guy thinking he’s justified in what he’s doing. This also means not letting a crit partner “woke” your writing. Several years ago I had someone read a chapter from a historical piece who wanted to make it go woke, totally denying the reality of life in that period (and I’m not talking about any inflammatory content–just portraying life as it was in the time and with the given people). I never used that crit person again.
To me the whole point of reading, and studying history, is what I can learn from it, make comparisons to past experiences, or ask myself what I’d do in such and such a situation. And if you write true to your characters and story situation and setting, a reader can easily do just that.
That is a real problem right now, BK, subjugating history to some philosophical perspective. That’s better left to spec-fic.
Excellent advice. The other day, when Deb asked about pet peeves, well after the fact, I realized one of mine has recently become people who post undocumented “facts” on social media, spreading misinformation and triggering heated diatribes.
The quest for truth in all the noise is going to be an ongoing problem, esp. w/fakery so pevelant.
Ah, do I detect an Ogden Nash influence, Sir?
And I saw what you did there… following the Bradbury with “…an issue that burns inside you…”
I have put the “draft angry, edit serenely” advice into play with e-mail – too often I’m afraid – by deleting the addressees while venting my spleen as trying to write serenely whilst irritated only backs up said spleen. Once the reply has been toned down acceptably, then the e-dresses are loaded and off it goes… much like you can’t unring a bell, you can’t unsend an e-mail, despite the “recall” function…
I think a large part of this virtual vitriol is because there’s not a lot of real face time as opposed to FaceTime, and rants and raves are directed at avatars. I believe that most of the time nobody would say what they say to anyone on the phone, let alone with in fists reach – except maybe back on Jerry Springer… But that’s just my change from a nickel…
Kudos, George, for picking up the Ogden Nash influence. Definitely!
Your comment is right on in all other respects.
We had several anthologies of Ogden Nash at home. One I recall was titled, “A Golden Trashery of Ogden Nashery.”
Love the poem, Jim! And yes, I have noticed the anger “out there.” Some days, it’s hard to escape it. Hence why I allow myself plenty of down days, when I don’t open social media or watch the news. The problem is, getting back online after an extended break.
Yeah, Sue. It’s like jumping again into that subterranean river of slime in Ghostbusters II, the slime that collects all the New York anger and hate.
Since I’ve blocked so many political posts FB doesn’t put them in my feed anymore. And I’ve cut the cable…I choose what I read in the newspaper (yes, I still take the paper, two in fact) and I ignore the clickbait on political ads. Amazing how much lower my blood pressure is.
Also I never ever post anything political. Contrary to political pundits, there are no undecided out there. And nothing I say will change someone’s mind if they don’t agree with me. The era of polite debate is gone.
Oh, for the days of Kennedy/Nixon when debates were about policies, not personalities; issues, not insults; insights, not interruptions.
Jim, soooo true!
Glad you mentioned the Kennedy-Nixon debate. I was just talking with the father of a high school senior who had watched the recent debate. She looked at dad with questions in her eyes. “What do I say to her?” he asked me. I suggested they watch the Kennedy-Nixon debate on You Tube. Indeed, what does a parent say to their child in today’s world?
I wonder how today’s attention spans would handle a real, thoughtful debate. Maybe the next presidential debate will be held on TikTok.
Noooooo!
Hahahahaha!!
…ancient Rome and the bloodthirsty crowds cheering the gladiators in their fights to the death, or the lions tearing apart adherents to a certain religious sect.
I have used this exact analogy to describe the current state of affairs in the world.
I try not to get all frothy about what I see posted on SM, because you know what? It’s probably a bot anyway, so why bother?
And I agree with Patricia. I can’t really change anyone’s mind by arguing. I couldn’t even do that with my kids, for crying out loud!
What I’m getting heartily sick of is the feeling that I’m never told the truth about anything. It’s like being continually hawked at by a traveling salesman making wild claims about their bogus product. There. I feel better now… 🙂
I guess in our writing, our characters are allowed to “tell it like it is”, but with circumspection and restraint (even though they’d probably like to use that right cross, too…).
Happy Sunday!
Deb, you gave me a great idea for a phrase. “Stay frosty, not frothy.”
A slight revision of Seb Gorka… 🙂
Social media not only boosts anger and extends its range, anger seems to get the most response on social media, which is extremely unfortunate. I prefer kindness and forbearance.
I try to apply that to my cozy library mysteries as well. Yes, there is tension, conflict, anger, and of course, murder, but there’s also kindness, and I try to not go too far in making the murderer or the victim caricatures, though some of that goes with the subgenre territory, so to speak.
Kindness is a good word, Dale. Also, courtesy. Doesn’t mean you can’t criticize. But the best criticism, IMO, has some wit to it. Mencken, Tom Wolfe. A scalpel with a smile.
Excellent post! Timely and relevant. Sadly so.
Even with book reviews. There is a writers’ forum where they believe everything and anything are acceptable in book review, even foul language and death threats. I made the mistake of disagreeing. Threatening to kill someone simply because you didn’t like their book? Really? Commenters stated I was too sensitive. Right.
I can see where I could spin that experience into a story. Oh wait. Maybe Stephen King already has. 😉
Anyway, thank you for reminding me that storytelling not only entertains, but it also can educate and inform, if done right. No author voice disrupting the story.
Oh, thou speakest truly, Cecilia. The ability to hide behind avatars is a major problem.
And reviews on Amazon should be limited to verified purchasers, IMO.
True, but sad, commentary on our world. I don’t post political opinions on any social media site. Nothing to gain, but lots to lose. If I want to complain, I write my senators and representatives.
I was just listening to a podcast this morning about how anger helps athletes. The interviewee said disparagement about one’s performance makes you want to train and work harder. Too bad it doesn’t work for anything else.
I loved the poem. Especially liked “scrambled X.” 🙂
Poetry doesn’t pay, but it’s a great way to work some writing muscles. And fun, too. I may have to do more. Maybe a line of greeting cards?
I’ll buy.
I’m skeptical about anger having any value for training or athletic performance. I recently saw a clip of a football (pointy ball) game where a player blind-sided an opponent after the play was dead, leading to his ejection from the game and probably other penalties. That’s anger.
Regarding disparagement to be a motivator is one of those glib, non-factual beliefs that blow thru the sports world for a year or two, only to be ridiculed eventually, then replaced with another, equally silly, shoot-from-the-hip slogan.