Motivational Monday: Imagine the Stories

Taylorverse Books releases Sean Taylor's first poetry-only collection -- WHEN WE HAD NO FLAG!

 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Atlanta, GA -- Taylorverse Books releases Sean Taylor's first poetry-only collection -- WHEN WE HAD NO FLAG!

​While the book contains mostly new poems from 2004 and 2005, it also collects several of his poems going all the way back to 1994. All poetry collected in the book has a certain, specific attitude summed up by the opening quotes from the book:

“The opinion that art should have nothing to do with politics is itself a political attitude.”
—George Orwell

“All poets, all writers are political. They either maintain the status quo, or they say, ‘Something’s wrong, let’s change it for the better.’”
—Sonia Sanchez

“All stories are political; they involve power that has structural underpinnings and material consequences.”
—Judy Rohrer

"Make no mistake," says Taylor, "these are politically charged poems. There's no way around them. While they may contain the language of pop culture and religion, all these poems work together make a statement."

With references as varied as Bob Dylan, Langston Hughes, Rita Hayworth, and Mae West (among others), this collection has been a long time coming. 

"Sometimes you can't help but stop and write because the world forces you to have something to say, something you feel is important. WHEN WE HAD NO FLAG is that something for me," says Taylor.

​

​Sean Taylor writes short stories, novellas, novels, graphic novels, and comic books (yes, Virginia, there is a difference between comic books and graphic novels, just like there's a difference between a short story and a novel). In his writing life, he has directed the “lives” of zombies, superheroes, goddesses, dominatrices, Bad Girls, pulp heroes, and yes, even frogs, for such diverse bosses as IDW Publishing, Gene Simmons, and The Oxygen Network. Visit him online at www.thetaylorverse.com and www.badgirlsgoodguys.com.

# # #

[Link] Small Changes

by Emily Miller

There is obviously a political context to this post. A context that difficult things have happened and more difficult things are likely to happen in the future. For people like me, and maybe you, there is a sense of powerlessness, a sense of what we think and what we do doesn’t really matter. 

I also feel like I don’t recognize my country, or maybe that I just hate what my country has clearly become. It’s dispiriting, paralyzing even.

In the face of such challenges, this is not intended to be a pep talk. It is not intended to be a rallying cry (even I’m not quite so narcissistic as to think anyone would rally to a cry I made, I’m nobody). But, contrary to my parenthetic words, this brief article is about the things that a nobody like me – maybe like you – can do. And it’s not hypothetical, it’s based on small things I have actually done, small things I have actually achieved.

So, I write erotic literature if I am feeling pompous, and I scribble porn if I am in a more realistic mood. Some people expect me to be ashamed of this. I’m not. I think any form of consensual and legal sex is a blessing to be cherished and celebrated, not something dirty to be hidden. And it’s fun to write, I deal with real human emotions, as well as procreative bodily functions. 

What difference can smut make in the world? Well maybe not a lot, certainly with my limited audience, but not zero difference either. Here are four examples of small changes I have made in people’s lives through what I write.

Read the full article: https://emilymillerlit.wordpress.com/2024/11/07/small-changes/

[Link] Writing as Resistance

by Tim Waggoner

You’re a writer.

You live in a world that has problems – a lot of them – but you’ve always seen glimmers of light in the darkness, and they’ve encouraged you to keep writing, even if you sometimes wondered what the point was.

Then November 5, 2024 happened in America, and now you’re looking at January 20, 2025 careening toward us like an out-of-control freight train, and you see the famous line from Dante’s The Divine Comedy flash across your mind like the blazing letters on a Times Square jumbotron – “Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.” You’re well aware people sometimes quote that line as a joke, but you don’t feel much like laughing right now.

And you may not feel much like writing, either.

Dreaming dreams then translating them into words on a page (or screen) for others to read might seem like a ridiculous activity in the face of what’s coming, and I get that. But there are good – maybe even vital – reasons for you to keep writing.

Let’s talk about some of them.

But first…

Read the full article: https://writinginthedarktw.blogspot.com/2024/11/writing-as-resistance.html

Poetry Corner: When We Had No Flag

by Sean Taylor

When we had no flag 

There were only white sheets, hanging on clotheslines 

Flapping on windy days, 

Waving greetings like so many neighbors on so many dusty paths

White not for surrender 

But for sleeping, for rest because white was easy 

Easy to bleach our odors away, 

Dirt and sweat from one person's work, one man's labor, one woman's toil

One day we  painted bars deep red

Crimson with the blood of the people who lived here first 

But there wasn't enough

So we added more from the backs of the people we owned

And so we painted what was left blue

Blue with the bruises of our slaves and red with their stripes 

Even if we had to wrench the paint out of the whips after use, 

Twisting leather until our fingers too were as calloused as theirs

We found some white remained

But it was not for sleeping, not anymore; it was for the Virgin Innocent

Our children who would inherit a world 

Built on the paint dripped from the wounds of those we had  conquered

Perhaps it's time again

Wash day for the flag, with fresh bleach to clean away the red and blue

To allow the colors to surrender and fade

And once more flap greetings in the wind

Perhaps you, or me, 

or that woman over there, the one in all the colors of the rainbow

Or that vermin, that enemy, that animal,

Could be the bleach to get the job started

To speak the change we all should hear

Whistling in the wind

That blew when we had no flag

(c) 2024

Visit my poetry.com site.

Poetry Corner: Punk Rock

They busted the windows on Wall Street today
Trash cans filled with garbage and old food made the first crack
And sent all the happy people in nice suits scurrying
For once thinking about something other than the numbers
That make them better at ignoring the rest of us.
They stepped over the banana peels and potato chip bags
The crushed soda cans that should have been recycled instead 
On their way to the exits, the only light they were
Suddenly focused on—But that kind of thing isn’t really my style. 

They’ll gather up a million men and women tomorrow
And put them in matching T-shirts that say “Not Going Back”
With rapidly practiced chants, call-backs to great leaders
Of yesterdays gone by, times we thought we had moved beyond
Times we assumed we had put behind us. I can join them
Of course I can. It’s the least—the very least, if I’m honest—
I can do, right behind merely sending money on my phone
While I stream Agatha All Along on Disney Plus. But
It still doesn’t quite feel like the thing I was created to do at this time.

They dyed their mohawks in rainbows and shoved the middle finger
Into the air while their fans screamed and moshed and bled
Showing camaraderie, empathy, solidarity the only way
They understood fully, with anger, with energy, with activity. 
And it felt amazing to jump, and yell,  and raise my fist, and shout obscenities 
At the powers, and yet… Even when they kissed—tongues and leather 
And lace and fingers and hair—Man on man, woman on woman, 
Man on woman, trans on trans, Trans on straight
Straight on till sunrise… It still was not enough. 

Yesterday I am a writer. Tomorrow I paint in words. Today
I have words or many colors, many spectrums that correspond 
To those that swirl in the sky, dance in the puddles, blur through smoke
“Vandalize” city walls with slogans: Trans rights are human rights.
Abortion is healthcare. Gay and proud. Black lives matter.
I have all these, and my keyboard has been selfish, complacent,
Too satisfied in my place of safety. But no more. 
I cannot break windows. My knees may give out on a march. 
My money can only go so far. My shouting can be drowned out by other music. 

But I can write. And by God, I will. We are not going back. 

(c) 2024 Sean Taylor

Visit my Poetry.com site.

Sharing Information Online Responsibly (i.e., Don't Be a Douche)

Here's your periodic reminder not to be irresponsible or manipulative when sharing links. Knowing is half the battle before you start spouting bad sources:

News -- This is news. It is fact-checked, verified, and references credible, relevant sources or interviewees specific to the story or event. It strives to be as objective as possible, sticks to actual data parsed by multiple experts, and always provides a counterpoint(s) for credible discussion (questioning an interviewee who claims the earth is flat or continuing to cite debunked theories about massive scale election interference isn't a credible opposing point, for example). It focuses on the who, what, where, and when of a story or event.

Analysis -- This is not news. This is someone's breakdown of what he/she/they feel are the takeaways from actual news or some event. This one confuses many people because the person presenting the opinions is usually some kind of expert in a matter related to what he/she/they are analyzing, such as pundits discussing a presidential debate or a legal expert discussing how a court case plays out. However, even though the analysts are experts , they tend to have a vested interest in promoting one side of an issue over the other side, such as a conservative pundit for a conservative news station or a climate change attorney for climate change rulings. The best examples of this include a variety of experts who can discuss and even disagree with each other, providing the experts are peer-respected, tenured, and credible (again, there's no point in including flat earth "scientists" for a credible discussion of geology or a pillow salesman or pop star for a discussion of world politics). 

Opinion/Editorial -- This is not news. This is someone's opinion (quite often a complaining, partisan one) about some issue or event. I'm surprised how often I see people reference these as facts or news because they are quite often clearly identified as just Op/Ed in the papers or sites they appear in/on. (Although some sources do incorrectly and irresponsibly let these appear alongside news stories as a counterpoint to news.) Sadly, this can often masquerade as Analysis and confuse those who are looking for quick, easy "facts" (not actually facts though) to support their preconceived beliefs.

Review -- This is not news. This is an assessment by a professional critic regarding (typically) some published media. 

Political Memes -- Not only are these not news, they are often flat-out lies and falsehoods. Unless they cite a credible source in the meme, these are typically unverified and intentionally misleading or designed to elicit an emotional, knee-jerk response. If it has no source, just don't share it. You could do more harm than good. If it does have a source, check it out before sharing it. Chances are the source is made up to provide false credibility or designed to take an actual quote or fact out of context. And trust me, we've all been fooled at least once by these pesky critters. 

Most YouTube sources fall under Analysis, Op/Ed, or Review. There are some that actually do the work of journalism to present news.

Most podcasters tend to fall under the Analyst-Op/Ed-Review category as well, though there are a few credible investigative journalism podcasts that report relatively unbiased news.

It's okay to share Op/Ed and Analysis articles. But please don't source it as news. Always be sure to explain that it is merely an opinion, albeit in some cases a more informed opinion, but an opinion nonetheless. If you intentionally imply that such a source is news or is a factual account of a story or event, you are irresponsible at best and outright spreading lies and trying to manipulate others at worst. 

Most partisan sources that identify as such promote bias and don't actually cover news. They inject a lot of Analysis and Op/Ed into so-called news stories.

Narrowing the Target -- Publishing with a Single Audience in Mind

Let's talk about the idea that certain types of stories are traditionally for specific genders or targets. For example, romances were clearing published throughout much of publishing history with women readers in mind. Men's adventure magazines clearly wanted to appeal to the manly man (or those who imagined themselves to be) market.

Today, with our focus on diversity and inclusion, we have books that are targeted to fill in gaps traditionally missed in publishing, such as books specifically for certain racial audiences or for lesbian, gay, and trans markets (different things to marketers). And then there are books published (even fiction) for those of a certain political bent as a reaction to real or perceived slights in the culture (I'm looking at you, Comicsgate). 

What does all this mean for us are writers and readers? I was lucking enough to get some time from two of my favorite folks -- HC Playa and John L. Taylor -- to pick their brains about just this issue.

Traditionally single publishing has been divided along gender lines -- adventures for men, romance for girls. How do you see that changing? Are those divisions beginning to fade as men and women are reading similar things? Or do they still control a significant place in the publishing world?

HC Playa: So I am mostly answering as a reader vs as an author. I literally started writing BECAUSE so much fiction aimed at women seemed to be formulaic or focus only on romance and the writers I admired most found a way to write a damn good story with good characters and a dash of romance only made it that much better.

On gender division--TBH it rather depends on how our society progresses or regresses. Thanks to some big name authors (Like Laurel K Hamilton, Sherrilyn McQueen and many others that I don't know off the top of my head) many a male reader discovered that so-called "romance novels" were just adventures with some spice and well crafted characters. The gender division in writing reflected society. "Men's fiction either excluded women in the plot or used them as plot devices whereas "women's fiction" paints larger than life men that can do all the things AND treats their women right...well mostly. There are plenty of project-save-an-a**hole plot lines 🤣 in books out there. It was never that women only wanted to read romances or cozy mysteries...it's all that was marketed to them. The divide is and was a pillar of mysogeny, the idea that men and women are so inherently different that she can't possibly be interested in adventures and vice versa that a man can't possibly want to read a story that puts him in touch with emotions.

I think to some degree there will always be a market for fiction aimed at specific audiences. There are are plenty of people that find a reading genre niche they like and stick with it, but I don't know that hard and fast gender-divided marketing has as much a place as it once did.

John L. Taylor: As a horror writer, I feel this very much as huge amounts of the genre are aimed at young men. So here are my takes. I don't see my genre as becoming any less gender focused in writing, just more youth focused. Series like Goosebumps and Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark were some of the bestselling horror books of the last 30 years, and I'm seeing renewed interest in youth driven projects. Those seem to trend more in a gender neutral direction. But in terms of gender specific genre fiction, I'm seeing more self aware or apologetic works. Men's Adventure specifically seems to be in the doghouse with editors right now. Titles like the Executioner were discontinued by Harlequin recently, and I see this continuing. 

Do you see single audience publishing becoming more propagandized and/or reactionary rather than driven by markets? Are new single issue or single audience models becoming more based on reactions against the way the world is changing or are publishers just trying new directions in an ever changing world?

John L. Taylor: Yes, in many ways. Horror in particular has a reputation for misogyny it's fighting to shake off. That has been of mixed success. While "post horror" movies are going strong and producing amazing films like Midsomer and Get Out, it's a genre trying to fit into a culture where it's traditional tropes are simply no longer relevant to it's core market (lower middle class men ages 16-25). Most genre fiction is becoming more message/virtue driven, as is media in general. Romance is also in a tug of war at the moment. with trope bending progressive narratives aimed at a media savvy urban readership or an ocean of Amish bonnets and "All American Country Girl" romances aimed at rural Evangelicals fight for shelf space while competing with Harry Potter for the same audience. I believe the emphasis of message over substance is really hurting their appeal right now.

HC Playa: I hadn't given this much thought before and to be honest the idea is rather frightening. I write views that speak of tolerance and I admit that I have a hard time enjoying anything that smacks of misogamy or racism or anything along those lines. So I suppose the answer is: quite likely.

Art reflects life, so unless we as a society become less polarized, then yes.

Let's look into the future. Of the single audience markets that are trending nowadays, do you think many of them will still be around in the next 20 to 30 years? Do you think that proves that the markets are a good idea for publishing or that as a people we will continue to divide along cultural lines and publishers will still be trying to keep up?

HC Playa: I have no idea what's trending. I am always late to the game or do it absurdly early and then like 20yrs later people are like, ooooh this is cool. 👀

Trends come and go, so give it enough time and the answer is always yes, it'll again be popular.

John L. Taylor: Some single audience fiction will never fade totally. The longing for adventure, romance, and horror are to deeply ingrained in the human psyche to lose appeal. The subgenres, however, will change quite a lot. Westerns will die off. There's no way to separate those themes from a very dark period in U.S. history. Military adventures will take their place, as well as things like Sword and Sorcery and Sword and Planet will take their place. Master Chief is the new Mack Bolan, it seems. Post Horror will continue to grow and explore new themes and audiences, as horror always does. Romance, I believe will find a new, untapped market: Men. Many young men are socially isolated and dream of genuine emotional connection, and editors will soon realize this. New classics are on the way that will be cherished for decades. But I think this is all about ten years down the road from now. Works from the period between 2014 and 2025 will not age well, in my esteem. They'll be a perfect time capsule of the Culture Wars era, but I don't see any of them having the timeless appeal of what came before. Hell, the bestselling movies in America right now are based on Marvel comics from 30+ years ago. I doubt material being produced right now will have that kind of staying power. 

Here's the big one. What are the "good" uses of single audience markets? What are the "bad" uses of it? Or is it just way too complex to be defined that narrowly?

John L. Taylor: Defining good or bad uses of single audience fiction is based on a logical fallacy: that it was ever single audience. Every genre has some crossover appeal. For example, despite the male nerd stereotype, half of the Dungeons and Dragons players I know are middle class women with college degrees. They like the appeal of adventure outside the office, as men before them did. Tapping that longing, with whomever it lies, is the way forward.

HC Playa: Good uses: well as a parent I liked age demographic lines at least until they graduated out of easy readers and small chapter books and into actual novels.

I don't really pay the slightest attention to how a book is marketed. I read the blurb and the first page or so and if it intrigues me, it's a sale.

I suppose some good uses can be to market more diverse fiction, so that people see that there ARE stories out there that they connect with. Bad uses would be to spread propaganda and hate.

[Link] What Our Biggest Best-Sellers Tell Us About a Nation’s Soul

by Louis Menand

The “canon” in the title of Jess McHugh’s “Americanon” (Dutton) consists of thirteen American books, from “The Old Farmer’s Almanac,” first published in 1792, to Stephen R. Covey’s “The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People,” which came out in 1989. It includes Webster’s Dictionary, Dale Carnegie’s “How to Win Friends and Influence People,” “Betty Crocker’s Picture Cook Book,” and “Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex* (*But Were Afraid to Ask),” by David Reuben.

The works are all mega-sellers. McHugh tells us about the McGuffey Readers, textbooks first used in nineteenth-century homes and schools; they sold more than a hundred and thirty million copies—and, since most copies had multiple readers, the total circulation was even larger. Carnegie’s book came out in 1936, has sold more than thirty million copies, and is still in print. Louise Hay’s “You Can Heal Your Life” (1984) has sold more than fifty million copies, and Covey’s “The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People” has sold more than forty million. Betty Crocker’s cookbook has sold more than seventy-five million copies. At least a hundred million inquiring minds have read “Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex.*”

These sales figures are way beyond the range of even the most acclaimed fiction. Some of the books, such as “The Old Farmer’s Almanac” and Emily Post’s “Etiquette in Society, in Business, in Politics, and at Home,” which was first published in 1922, are continually updated and reissued, and still maintain market share. McHugh says that “Etiquette” used to be the second-most stolen book from the library after the Bible (which presumably is taken by people unfamiliar with the Ten Commandments).

Fifty-seven million copies of Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary have been sold (I have a copy of the fifth edition, owned by my mother, which was published in 1936), and there are some two billion word searches on Merriam-Webster’s apps every year. The books in McHugh’s canon are not books so much as appliances. They are not read; they are used. And probably many of them have been bought by people who do not otherwise buy many books.

The term “canon” is also, well, loaded. Canons define a tradition, a culture, a civilization by excluding things that don’t belong to it. The claim of “Americanon” is that the enormous and enduring sales numbers of the books McHugh discusses mean that they can be understood to be promoting a national ideology, or what she calls a national myth. She does not think that this is a good thing.

Read the full article: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/06/07/what-our-biggest-best-sellers-tell-us-about-a-nations-soul

My Thoughts on Patriotism Here on Inauguration Day

Here on the day when Joe Biden is inaugurated as the 46th president of this great country, I have some thoughts about what patriotism means to me. 

I've actually been asked if I don't support Trump how can I dare call myself an American and say I love my country. 

Well... I'm glad you asked.

I love my country. Period. It's a blessing to live in a country with so many liberties even though we aren't where we need to be yet.

I love America enough to want to make it better, more welcoming, compassionate,  and provide equal possibilities for all people regardless or race, gender, religion or sexual leaning. 

I want to make the country I love a place where people all are considered innocent until proven guilty and not prejudged by the color of their skin or the neighborhood they live in or the God they choose to serve. 

I love my country enough to want all faiths or the lack of them on equal footing with no preferential treatment given to any one of them in terms of monuments, plaques, or school prayers. 

I love my country enough to want to change the improper perception that poor means lazy.

I love my country enough to believe that the wealthiest citizens should love it too enough to bear their responsibility to fund a still greater share of jobs and security to those who can't. Rather than that extra 100 million they could never spend.

I love my country warts and all and want to work with it to make an even more amazing place for all of us to live together. 

I love my country not just because I love the idea of the USA but because I love the people, all races, all religions, gay, straight, bi, trans, cis, etc., native born, immigrant, refugee, rich, poor, those needing help and those able to help,  of my country.

I love my country because of its people, not its history. I love my country in spite of its history, like I said, warts and all.

I love my country because it is the great melting pot experiment of blending ideals and people to embrace and define all of us.

I love my country not because of what it is, but because of what it's capable of being.

And I will always vote for the candidates I believe can best deliver that world, whether left, right, middle, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green, etc., whether DC insider or outsider.

Why? 

Beacuse I love the USA.

Political Correctness and New Pulp Fiction

=====================================================

Take your seats, boys and girls and all shades in between. Today we’re going to talk about political correctness in genre fiction, particularly stories set in our less than culturally sensitive past.

But let’s back up first and walk before we try to run, as the cliché goes. When we talk about political correctness, we’re not really talking about politics at all. We’re talking about cultural exclusivity/inclusivity and cultural sensitivity, and most commonly we’re talking about culture clashes (and that’s where politics gets involved). In particular, we usually are talking about the “good ol’ days” bumping heads with the new-fangled days of integration and acceptance of things like interracial relationships, homosexuality, transgender issues, counterculture (pierces, tattoos, and the like), etc.

There are several points of view when it comes to these clashes.

One says don’t sweat it because the good ol’ days were good, and even things like racism and sexism and homophobia can be overlooked because it was a different time and that makes it all right.

Another says history is filled with bad things like racism and sexism and homophobia, and those memories must be purged and hidden so future generations don’t know they ever existed.

Still another says sure, those things were there, and we can learn from them, but let’s cut our elders some slack. They just didn’t know any better.

Yet another says reparations. The sons and daughters of those former generations owe something special because of the actions of their grandparents and forebears, whether in the form of public apologies or in political and economic changes.

Still others say that when we revisit that racist and sexist past, we must use our creativity to recreate that past with culturally sensitive stories in our art, even to the point of rewriting the past so that characters in the 30s are as culturally sensitive with blacks and women voters as we oft believe ourselves to be today.

Others beyond even those have views that combine some of these already mentioned, often in personally confusing ways that don't always line up logically in their worldviews. Hence the struggle, as they say, is real.

Where does all this leave us as writers of new pulp and genre fiction? Do we have a responsibility to the truth of the past, the values of the past, the values of the new culture, the dictates of the market, or somehow to all of these things and more?

A few days ago, a fellow writer of new pulp put forth the following on one of the pulp groups I'm a member of:

At [a con] two weeks ago, I participated in a panel on “Cops and Crime in New Pulp Fiction.” An audience member raised a question concerning political correctness and its impact on NPF. I commented at the time that writing period fiction entails bringing along the baggage of the era, including attitudes and epithets. I also suggested that a part of the nostalgia that fuels the re-emerging pulp fiction market is the joy of reading fiction free from the iron bands of PC.

I recommend reading the new novel by Christopher Moore (Love Bites, Fluke, Island of the Sequined Love Nun, etc.) titled Noir (New York: Harper Collins, 2018), a tongue-in-cheek take on the old the pulp detective genre.

Moore's Author's Note at the beginning of the book reads thus: This story is set in 1947 America. The language and attitudes of the narrators and characters regarding race, culture, and gender are contemporary to that time and may be disturbing to some. Characters and events are fictional.

Well said, Moore.

Frankly, gang, we as pulp writers are not the United Nations, and we need not be all inclusive, nor do we need to be sensitive toward giving offense to any given mainstream reader or special interest group. We write for a niche market, not some public library reading circle or the Weekly Reader Book Club. Write what is genuine.

End of Sermon.

I agree... to a point.

What are our priorities as modern writers of old-style stories? What are our responsibilities as contemporary authors writing about older times and character of previous generations?

We have a responsibility to research and to history to portray our settings (place, time, etc.) as accurately as is needed for our stories. That’s the often hard work (but still fun for those who enjoy it) of writing—research. We do that because we value accuracy. We want out fiction to be as real as we need it to be from story to story.

For example, a cop thriller needs to get its setting—and particularly the police work of its time—right. But, if you're writing an urban fantasy set in the 1920s, then it's far less important to be as accurate—unless you really want to stress the dichotomy between the two worlds. If not, the accuracy of the Valentine’s Day Massacre or police procedure isn’t as important to a world where a wizard and vampire operate as founders of the FBI.

The same could be said for cultural issues. If you’re dealing with an alternate take on historical reality, your 1920s Chicago or New York can be a super-happy world where everyone loved everyone else and no man ever slapped a woman for hysterics. It’s about the story context.

For this topic though, let’s assume a more real world example and story. A cops and robbers thriller (or even a private detective mystery) or a wartime pilot adventure needs to be fairly accurate to the time period. Racism was rampant. Sexism too, and being gay could get you killed if people found out—among other things.

As a writer, you don't have the luxury to pretend these things didn't happen. However, you also don't have the luxury of reshaping them in to harmless tidbits of history. You have to face them for what they were and are.

A caveat… Some among us are writing what equates to a “benevolent” form of propaganda, such as in the religious publishing world. For example, your audience demands that you don’t use “bad” language or (let’s just say) uncomfortable situations. That’s not my calling, and for most of my readers here, that’s not the case either. But if it is yours, you have rules for your market and you must follow them. But even that doesn’t necessarily prevent you from hitting some of these more heavy ideas in a more tactful way.

Along those same lines, some among are writing a less religious but equally "benevolent" propagandized fiction in which the writer caters specifically to his or her cultural worldviews. These can include revisionist histories that "nice" up the world for "safer" reading or doing what can come across as a sort of “reverse racism” that often comes with a “let’s see how they like it” tone induced to elicit social change. Just like religious fiction, these have their place and thir markets, but let’s not confuse them for truth in setting.

Don't read so much negativity into the word "propaganda" at this point. I mean it purely in the sense that the writing is intentionally out to influence or indoctrinate.

Others (hopefully not among us) are writing a less benevolent form of propaganda, literally trying to rewrite the world to our POV or our ideals. For example, I know of some who are writing historical stories that makes slaves and owners commonly out to be good friends from opposite sides of the cotton field. And yeah, maybe that was true for some (maybe), but that wasn’t the general truth of the world and portraying it as such is simply trying to rewrite the truth of the historical record. Even if your hero lives such a life, you have a responsibility as a writer to make sure the readers knows that his or her life makes him or her different from the rest of the world.

Outside of those caveats, we contemporary writers have a responsibility to modern readers to be sure that things we understand are bad now, like racism, homophobia, and sexism, while accepted at the time, are in fact bad things.

So, how do you write them?

For me, it gets down to character. The characters who occupy my stories are always on a sliding scale—starting somewhere between pure good and pure bad, and constantly sliding back and forth toward one or the other.

Those bad things from history are great ways to build my non-heroic characters. Your villains can be filled up with these things. That’s fair game. If your villain is a racist bastard who beats women and sees them as less important than a man, that's one thing, but if your hero has the same ideas and the same nature, then you may have a problem when it comes to modern readers.

Your heroes can also be struggling with some of these issues, but usually will be more enlightened in the others. Or at the very least, your hero, if he believes these ideas, must be struggling to better himself against them or to begin to learn the wrongness of them.

Let’s say your hero is on a case that involves a man killed because his rich uncle found out he was gay and it would bring shame on the family name. Let’s say your hero can totally understand that reasoning but is learning throughout the case that maybe that kind of violence is never the answer in such a situation. It may not be a full enlightenment, but it is a step toward the light, so to speak. And that works for a modern reader, particularly if the character’s further adventures continue his progression toward being a better human being.

Be careful though, because the further your hero is from full enlightenment in terms of today’s standards, the harder the sell will be for a contemporary audience. That said, readers have always been and continue to be suckers for a good change-of-heart or redemptive story.

It’s important to mention that these issues also involve questions about marketing. As a writer you may have the ability to write whatever the hell you want, but as a marketer who wants to sell books, you have a responsibility to write what will appeal to your market. And most modern readers don't want an abusive hero.

Now, these are all issues that are near and dear to my fiction writing career. After all, my first published story was about the legacy of an African-American boy who was rescued from a hanging by a still somewhat racist Southern sheriff. These kind of inclusive characters who still struggle are very important to me because they ring true. I don’t know anyone who is pure Lawful Good or pure Chaotic Evil (to use the gaming terms). And I love to write the gradations between those two points.

I think that's one of the reasons people respond so well to the Rick Ruby stories (The Ruby Files Volume 1 and Volume 2). Rick is a man of his time (the 1930s), but he's also a man in a mostly black world. He sees and lives with all the stuff that Belle and Broomstick and Evelyn put up with, and all that he has seen has changed him into a better man of his time. It's there, and the writers in the series don't shy away from it. But, Rick's world feels the pressure from it, and he has to watch out to keep his damn mouth shut when he wanders out into the rich white world of his clients.

Also, Rick is a philanderer (a bad thing), but his reasons are based in those same pressures. He's in love with Evelyn, a black woman who sings at Belle’s club, but they both understand their relationship won't work in that world, in that time. Therefore, he struggles because he can't commit to the one woman he really wants to, no matter what, and it sends him out to other women to try to get around that loss.

The truths of his world make a good man do bad things, and I think that's the difference, that's the important story Rick is telling in his adventures.

And I think that’s a good way to wrap this up. The standards and truths of the time must influence your stories if you choose to set them there. You ignore them at your peril as a writer, and you risk missing out on the really important stories that might be waiting to come out.

Nugget #106 -- Don't Surrender Your Stories to Propaganda

Writers are committed above all else to the story. But when

writers surrender stories to the express purpose of changing

the world through social and cultural order, they become propagandists and they pollute the very nature of telling stories.