Personal Belief vs. Writing Style

[Hastur]

In a previous thread, a discussion about the appropriateness of "adult" themes in writing led one of our people to ask:

CTDelude: Does it glorify Christ? Does it bring people closer to them in one form or another?

Let's expand that question a bit, as it's rather single minded in focus. How do you reconcile your writing style with your own personal beliefs? Do you write in a style that lets your beliefs stay comfortable? Or do you sometimes cater against them, so that the story may reign?

Bring it on!

[Coyote]

Fiction is exactly that: fiction. One of the things that always winds up getting pounded into people in speculative fiction is that the story has no bearing on the author's beliefs.

[Kid Ego]

I think it really depends on your goals as a writer. If you're wanting to use your talents as a writer to bring people closer to God, then your audience should be people that will read that. The thing about christian writing, and I'm using christianity as a basis because it's my personal belief and CTD's, is that the core audience are already christians. For instance, take the Left Behind series. Sold primarily in christian book stores, to people who have already accepted Christ. The author probably had the intention of telling a story of the rapture to non-believers, but ended up selling to the already-christian audience. I'm not saying that the series doesn't reach other groups of people, but that's not the primary focus. It generally helps bring christians closer to God while helping foster a better working relationship with Jesus Christ.

On a broader approach, your core audience isn't quite the same when you're writing to glorify the Lord. From a christian and religious standpoint, yes, you will be criticized by christian groups for pandering to the secular audience, but you need to come to terms with the type of writing you want to put out. If you are being called to write to a christian audience, by all means, you really should follow what that audience wants, and not stray. By straying, you alienate your core audience, therefore destroying their "faith" in you as the author, and their belief that you are indeed trying to minister to them on a christian level.

On the other hand, if you are writing "for money" or you're looking to expand your reign of influence, then you must write to what the audience expects. I don't believe that's compromising your beliefs, and I don't think it's going to hurt anything in the long run. If, due to your beliefs, you feel it's not the kind of writing style you should be doing, by all means, don't do it. One should only write to where he feels comfortable.

You shouldn't have to compromise anything. There are ways to reach the secular audience, and still glorify Christ {or hold to your beliefs, whatever they may be}. But to reach your core audience, you should really write to their level. If you are writing to what you believe, then you have already changed your audience to those people that believe the same thing. People like to read authors that help foster their own feelings/beliefs.

It's all in what you want to write, and who you want to write to, not in what you believe is right.

[Blofeld]

I'm in the middle of writing a piece that has been in my brain since high-school (and that's many years ago, ya bastards...). It has a rather theological aspect to the story, and I would be doing a disservice to the tale if I only wrote how I felt about the issues. You've got to have a point-counterpoint to the dramatic themes, or else the thing will be as thin as tissue paper.

Challenge your readers ... challenge yourself. Make the questoins tough, the answers tougher.

[Coyote]

"Sold primarily in christian book stores,"
...and Sam's, and Wally World, and Costco, BDalton's... Left Behind is everywhere.

Personally, I still think that if you're writing for anything other than telling the story, you're starting the descent into "Hack." Note: I said STARTING. It doesn't mean that if you change a bit here & there for an editor or to pander to the audience, or to try to get a point across...whatever...that you should get huge pangs of guilt for "betraying the craft" or such nonsense. As with everything, there's an art to the balance. REFUSING to EVER do something like that would sell yourself short, as well.
But, in *my* view of things, if you're honestly a storyteller, you should go where the characters and stories take you, and only take detours suggested to you if they make sense in the story, somehow.
If you're writing solely for money, you're a hack. Making decent money in this game as a storyteller is a rare occurance.
(Bear something in mind: To me, there is nothing wrong with being a hack. To me, it sounds like exceedingly boring and tedious work, but if someone is a hack, I have no problems with them. I don't use it as an isult like many people do on this board, or some people do with "whore.")

[Blofeld]

If you didn't read my "Dan Simmons signing" thread in Books forum, I bring forward a discussion he started.

Simmons had been offered a cool $1/2-million by publishers to write the next Bourne novel, in collaboration with Robert Ludlum (who is dead). He raised this as a discussion on writing and ethics. On one hand, he'd promised himself years ago when he first started that he would never "franchise" himself -- writing for hire (although when questioned about it, he did squirrel a bit during his justification of having written a Joker story). On the other, to write this Bourne novel would guarantee his appearance on the New York Times Best Seller List, and perhaps drive new readers to his back-list. The question, simply, was "Do I, or don't I?"

Simmons has already made up his mind what he's going to do, but it made for an interesting discussion.

[Coyote]

The answer is: Do you WANT to do it, as a writer?
If so, then yes.
If not, and the only reason would be the money, then no.
Unless you need the money, honestly. And if you need it that bad, you're just going to have to come to terms with it. But joining a franchise because you want to write for it isn't selling out. And he has the chance to collaborate with a legend from beyond the grave, if he wants to.

[Blofeld]

When the woman a few folks in front of me in the signature line said, "I'm looking forward to reading your take on Bourne," and he said, "I'm not going to write it," I said (when it was my turn), "I'm relieved to hear you say that. When all is said and done, I'd much rather have ONE MORE original Simmons work written during the time it would take you to write Bourne." That was his sentiment as well.

[Blofeld]

Part of the problem, for me, would be that you couldn't CHANGE A DAMN THING. Obviously, the publisher would like to have a series of successful Bourne novels ... so you couldn't kill him, alter him, whatever. The world would have to be the same at the end of the book as it was at the start. That's a tough shackle to bear, in my mind.

[Unbreathless]

I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum.
I DON'T belive in God, Angels, etc... BUT I include them in my writing and drawing all the time.

I like the Idea of them... but never belived in them the way that others do. Yet it's still an integral part of my work sometimes.

[Unbreathless]

I think it's all a matter of story telling.
what you want to be in the story is far more important than what you believe. A religious person isn't betraying their beliefs by writing things in a fictional environment.

fundamentalists may believe otherwise, but thoughts are not actions as i recall. the thought of rape, or murder or somesuch thing is just that... a thought....

swearwords are a part of everyday life. no problem there.

[Coyote]

One arguement for writing strictly adherent to your beliefs is this:
Many people apparently think we have to protect the impressionable.

They're almost right, but missed a word. We have to protect ourselves from the impressionable. We've been given a brain, whether by luck or design...we need to use it, and allow others to do the same. Sheltering them doesn't exercise the brain anymore than sitting on your couch watching Richard Simmons bounce all over the place like a superball on estrogen will cause you to lose weight. You have to expose them to ideas, and then allow their interactions with other people and ideas to happen. You wanna guide them, sure, feel free...because they're allowed to make their own decisions that way. But sheltering them by not exposing in the first place?
Who made you god, to decide what is and isn't something someone else should be exposed to?
The second half of the above blurb, in which we have to protect ourselves from the impressionable, refers to those folks who get an idea in their head, and run with it to the point of harming others. It happens. It's a small percentage, but it's enough to warrant an eye kept on them, to keep from getting a rusty nail attatched to a board from being introduced to your skin.