Rape, Art, Me

For the most part, my attitude can be found in a short-short I sold to Sword and Sorceress XXV.  Since it isn’t worth running out and buying the anthology just for that, I’ll state it here: For a long time now, I’ve been really tired of “strong female characters” who must have been raped in order to find their motivation to be strong.  I mean, c’mon.  Lazy much?  Or, for that matter, female characters who are raped only in order to inspire the male character to seek vengeance.  Stop making me vomit in my mouth and yawn at the same time; it’s messy.

So far, my opinions don’t challenge any orthodoxies, and you all know how much I hate that; let’s move on.

Have I ever depicted a rape in one of my stories? No.

Would I ever depict a rape in one of my stories? Maybe.  I’m unwilling to say that rape never belongs in a work of art.  Or even that it never belongs in a work of art created by a man.  For example, I think it’s pretty clear that the world would be poorer without Gimbologna’s “Rape of the Sabine Women.”

The thing is, whenever there is human suffering of any kind, you don’t want to make it cheap.  You don’t want to make it easy.  You don’t want to make it meaningless.  For fuck’s sake, there is enough meaningless suffering in the real world–one purpose of art is the struggle to find meaning in things around us that appear meaningless.

But, okay.  In my opinion, murder is a worse crime than rape.  There are people who have recovered from being raped; no one, so far, has managed to recover from being murdered.  I am willing to write about murder (in fact, a lot).  Why have I not been willing to write about rape?  Well, one answer is that it’s never come up; there has never been an occasion where I felt that the story called for it.  But that’s evading the question.

One of the things that most drives my work is a deep fascination for what’s happening in someone’s head in a moment of crisis, of danger.  In my arrogance, I believe I can successfully explore that when the danger is mortal.  My imagination runs free, and I put myself there, and I go, “what am I feeling, if I’m this person?”  One trouble with writing a rape scene, is that I’m not interested (or able? or willing?) to put myself into the head of the attacker or the victim deeply enough to do a competent job of it.

If I’m ever confronted with a situation where the story demands it, I don’t know what I’ll do.  I hope I won’t shy away from it.  I hope I’ll approach the subject honestly and respectfully, and not let myself be intimidated by a difficult subject, or by fear of social consequences from those who believe it ought never be written about, especially by a man.  On the other hand, if I never write a story that demands it, I’ll be just fine with that.

But I love the saying that, “Nothing human is foreign to me.” In my case, that is not a fact, but it is something of a goal (so long as it falls short of me having to be raped or murdered just for the experience; there are limits to what I’ll sacrifice for my craft).  In other words, I do not believe that rape, or anything else that is part of the human experience, is forbidden to anyone working in any of the arts.  I merely (merely!) demand that everything an artist explores be explored honestly, with all of the tools available, and that the artist avoid cheap, stupid tricks.

Now I’ll have to do another blog post about when and where I’m in favor of cheap, stupid tricks.  But let’s wait on that.

 

Are You A Dilettante?

After reading this post about what it means to be a professional writer and answering most of the questions no*, I got to thinking.  If I’m going to be a dilettante, then it seems to me I should take some pride in it.  And how can you take pride in something without rules that exclude other people?  Therefore, here is my quiz.  Ideally, you should answer “yes” to all ten questions, but I’ll cut you some slack if you plan to answer them when you’re inspired.  If you fail, then please don’t consider yourself a true dilettante.

 

*John Scalzi also answered most of them no.  His more serious take on the subject can be found here.  Neil Gaiman claims to have answered all of them no, but I think he’s just bragging.

 

1.  Do you regularly look at the next blank page of your manuscript and decide to take a nap?

2.  Do you have the strength of character to face the sober truth that, while Art is eternal, the demand for attention by your dog or cat is immediate?

3.  Do you often stare at the phone, desperately hoping for the news that some not-too-close-but-not-too-distant relative has become gravely ill and is now interestingly pale so you have an excuse to go to the hospital instead of working?

4. Does the idea of missing the next episode of “Burn Notice” or “Downton Abbey” fill you with such existential despair that the very idea of writing becomes absurd?

5. When you hear the term, “The solitary vice” do you immediately think of all the computer solitaire games you play instead of writing?

6.  Do you feel a burst of pleasure when a friend sends you a link to an amusing cat video that will occupy at least the next ten minutes of your writing day?

7.  Are your evenings spent playing poker and 4000 mile road trips to Alaska utterly unrelated to any sort of research having to do with your current project?

8. Do you consider your friends who also write or edit to be friends rather than “networking opportunities” and do you go to conventions because you enjoy going to conventions?

9. Do you spend more time figuring out how to explain what a professional writer is than writing?

10.

 

 

Making the Reader Work

Sometimes I get the complaint on my books that, early on, I give information without sufficient context to understand it, leaving the reader confused.  It’s true; I do this.  I do it for the simple reason that, as a reader, I love when writers do that and manage to pull it off.  When they fail to pull it off, not so much.  There is no simple formula to answer the question: how much work should I demand of the reader early on?  But there are some things to consider.

In general, this information falls into three types: 1) Trust me, I’ll get to it. 2) You don’t need to know. 3) If you need context for this, you’re an idiot.  I tend to give information without sufficient explanation or context when, with a first-person or a close third-person point of view, it would be out of character for the narrator to describe it, and that would knock me out of the story (I can think of numerous writers who do this; I shan’t name them).

In The Incrementalists, for example, the first of those has to do with the nature of the world we’ve created, and special terms used in and about that world.  With this, it is the author’s responsibility, not to explain, but to earn the reader’s trust enough to convince the reader that, if you just keep going, all will be well.  The second has to do with things like poker terms.  These will often read as if they are the same as the first; the difference emerges later, when the reader realizes that they’ve never been explained and it doesn’t matter.  For the third–if I’ve given you a date, and said that the guy is watching the news, then mention some news stories, well, sorry; you have everything you ought to need and if it bugs you that’s your problem.

The big question for a writer is: How do I earn the reader’s trust? Interestingly enough, one the best ways involves creating more confusion.  That is, if on the very first page, there are terms and concepts the reader couldn’t possibly be expected to understand, the reader will have the reaction, “Well, clearly I’m not meant to get it, so the writer must be doing this deliberately, so I’m in good hands.” Zelazny was a master of this technique.  Another way is to simply make the events that are clear, or the narrative, so compelling the reader feels the need to continue, no matter what.  Zelazny didn’t suck at that, either.

The question remains, though, just how far to push reader confusion.  There’s no simple answer.  It’s a balancing act, and one of the things that determines how well a given reader will like a given writer is how strong a match-up there is on this balance.  Too little explanation and I get confused and frustrated.  Too much explanation, and I get bored and insulted.  Hit it perfectly, and one of the joys of story opens up, as I go, “Ah!  THAT’s what’s going on!  Cool!” and I realize that, had it been laboriously explained, I’d have been denied the epiphany.

But the fact is, for some readers, nothing is going to work except a careful, step-by-step explanation of each new concept.  For those readers, all I can say is, there are plenty of other writers who will provide that, so I suggest you read one of them.

ETA: David Wohlreich (@wallrike on Twitter) said it beautifully: “When a fish explains what water is, I’m unhappy.”

Anthem of the SFWA-Fascists

We’re the SFWA-fascists, all of us agree
On every single subject as long as it’s PC.
We follow every liberal fad.
But we aren’t ALPHA, which makes us sad.
We are the SFWA-fascists within the SF world.

We control all publications as you can plainly see.
We won’t let you speak if we think you disagree.
All SFWA officers are in cahoots,
Goosestepping in rainbow striped jackboots.
We are the SFWA-fascists within the SF world.

We get special treatment from each publisher in town,
And if you don’t agree with us, why, we will shut you down.
Sign our petition for your royalty checks;
Mystery and romance will be next.
The evil SFWA-fascists who run the SF world.

Mainstream publishing we will redesign;
To write we have to see your name on the dotted line.
Our liberal agenda will leave you awed.
We even ignore the voice of God.
Concieted SFWA-fascists who run the SF world.

We’ll shut down all the flirting, but that is just the start.
If you talk to anyone we’ll move you two apart.
No mercy no quarter and no truce
Till the human race can’t reproduce.
That’s how the SFWA-fascists will rule the SF world.

The SFWAs were created for the straight white males.
We must hound them to oblivion until publishing fails.
Gould and Swirsky head the lists
With all those other socialists.
We are the SFWA-fascists who are the SF world.

——————————————————————

Tune: Lily Marlane/D-Day Dodgers

Lyrics: Steven Brust

Thirty Years of This Shit

About thirty years ago, my first book, Jar-head, came out.  This is a good time to take a look back.  It would be an excellent time to reflect on the changes in the publishing industry if, in fact, I had ever paid attention to the publishing industry.

It is a privilege.  I have held, since 1986 when I quit my day job, that writing well enough to publish is a matter of hard work and dedication, and making a living at it is a matter of dumb luck.  I had a lot of dumb luck.

I’ve gotten lucky in my covers (I mean, holy shit have I gotten lucky in my covers).  Early on, a lucky break (that I still don’t entirely understand) gave me what is called a “lead spot” sooner than skill or sales ought to have provided it.  I’ve had amazing editors, who know what I’m trying to do, and want me to do it better, and know how to help.  I’ve had an absolutely amazing critique group that did the same.  Above all, I’ve gotten lucky that, when I tell the next story I wish someone else had told, it turns out that enough other people like it to keep a roof over my head, food in my mouth, and the lights on.

I’ve had the opportunity to learn from some of the best.  I’ve had the opportunity to teach (which, as anyone who has ever taught can tell you, is one of the best ways to learn).  And learning is a joy.  I’ve been a process geek for almost the whole thirty years; I’ve developed a fascination for what makes a story work, what makes it fail to work, and where there are boundaries that can be pushed.   Of all the emotional changes writing has put me through, “bored” has never been one, and I think that is in part because I happened (there’s the luck again) to have a deep fascination for process that constantly plays into my love of story.  Sometimes I think of a cool story idea and I go, “I must tell that.”  Sometimes I think of a cool way to tell a story and I go, “I must try that.”  Sometimes I think of a really cool line: “I must write that.”  Sometimes I think of a fascinating thematic question: “I must explore that.” Sometimes I think of a fascinating person: “I must follow him around.” All of these things bounce off each other, and keep me interested, and indeed, delighted.

Yes, writing has been good to me.  Professionally, ten years ago I promoted myself to senior writer, and five years ago I gave myself a corner office, so it’s all good.  Maybe in ten years I’ll give myself a gold watch.  Writing makes me proud and keeps me humble.  It makes me crazy and keeps me sane.   I make a living doing something I love.  It sometimes infuriates me that so few people have that opportunity.   I hope and believe that someday that will change.  In the meantime, for as long as I’m able, I’ll keep writing the next sentence.