Write What You Like?

English: Symbol of the "New York Society for the Suppression of Vice", advocating book-burning. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

There are two pieces of advice that career around the writing world and, it seems to me, often conflict with each other. We are advised to ‘write what you would wish to read’ and, by the same advisor, ‘write for your readers’. On the face of it, these two exhortations can either conflict or make perfect partners. It depends, I think, on your reason for writing.

For me, they often conflict. Perhaps that’s because I write from compulsion and as a way of expressing ideas, making the world aware of my thoughts and opinions on a multitude of subjects. I write because, deep within me, there’s a teacher, even a preacher, trying to get out. Of course, I have to make the best effort to disguise my message without burying it, otherwise my stories will come across as proselytising, and most readers have no wish to be lectured to. A resistance I fully understand and share.

So, for me, the idea that I can write what I want to read whilst, at the same time, writing for readers is fraught with difficulty. I love children and the young, but I no longer live in their world and have no wish to do so, but my favourite genre is one where it seems almost obligatory to write for young adults. I’m talking about fantasy, of course.

I’m currently editing the second volume of a huge epic fantasy, so far unpublished. My problem with the conflicting advice, then, is that I’m writing very much for an adult readership, not for callow youths. I have something to say about sex, nudity and the way in which organised religion has distorted the human view of these two natural aspects of life. It seems to me that I can’t, with any honesty, tackle these themes in a book made suitable for developing minds. Not, that is, unless I’m prepared to cause offence to a large part of the population.

Many adults, especially of a religious persuasion, consider discussion of sex, reference to nudity, topics unsuitable for young minds. If I’m to develop stories that do justice to the subjects, I need the freedom to be truthful in my depiction, I need, under certain circumstances, the freedom to show events, refer to actions, that might be considered obscene by many readers.  Such freedom wouldn’t sit easily with most of the religious community. Though I do note that most erotic literature is produced by the US, a country with the highest number of Christian extremists. (but that’s a matter for another time).

My dilemma, therefore, if I stick to the advice I read, is whether to bowdlerise my story or whether to continue to make my tale open and honest, as I’ve always done in the past. Except, it isn’t a dilemma for me. I will, as I always have, take the route to honesty and if that reduces my readership, offends some potential readers, even loses me followers and virtual friends, so be it. Because, for me, honesty is what matters most. I’ll continue to write the trilogy for adults but place a warning there to let parents know that, whilst the content is not intended to be erotic, it does have many references to sex and nudity. That’s my choice as a writer. Such honesty of purpose is essential to me as an artist.

At the start of this piece, I suggested there were circumstances in which both pieces of advice are apposite. If you write for money, if you see your work as a product to be sold like cans of beans, then the advice to write for your audience will naturally coincide with that to write what you would like to read. Since your driving motivation will be entirely to do with numbers and with sales. Naturally, as a would-be best-seller writer, you will gravitate toward the subjects, style and language that will gain you maximum readership. If you’re writing erotica, you can indulge in any form of sexual distortion with impunity, knowing your readers will be eager to pursue their given proclivities. If you write crime, you can choose the strand that allows as much gore as you wish to portray. And if you write fantasy, you can include the necessary elves, dragons, magicians and, apparently much-lauded thieves, without ever worrying such things might be considered bad influences on young minds emerging into the adult world.

The choice is yours. To write for maximum readership. Or to write what you would like to read. If you write to honestly suit your own tastes, the former instruction is unlikely to apply. But if you write specifically as a way to turn out the next block-buster, you will be obliged to make sure that your writing conforms to certain rules and remains confined within specific boundaries. I repeat; the choice is yours.

I’ve made mine. Have you made yours?

The American Election: a View From Over the Pond.

IN MY VIEW

Why should I care what happens in the USA Presidential election? It’s a sad fact of life that the USA has a hugely inflated influence in the world. US foreign policy impacts far more deeply, far more widely than the nation deserves, with its inward obsession. And that’s the problem: US policies, regarding the world as a whole, are entirely based on what’s best for the US, rather than what’s best for the world.

Obama at least has an awareness and an interest in what happens beyond the shores of his own continent. I fear not only for the women and the poor of America, but for the world as a whole if Romney succeeds in gaining the post of the most powerful man in the world.

Where Obama displays concern for the poor and disadvantaged, and tries his best, against strong opposition from the right, to do what he can for them, Romney has shown himself indifferent or even worse in his attitude to society’s victims. The wealthy have stripped the poor of their resources and rights for centuries and Romney belongs to that class of people who hold the view that the poor deserve to be poor. He has no conception of the realities of life for those without personal wealth. His attitude to women is appalling: his many statements demonstrate that he has no interest in the views of women and simply wants them to remain silent and under the control of men. This cowardly stance is fed, of course, by his religious background, which, in common with the backward paternalistic culture of many third world countries, considers women as second class citizens or, worse, as no more than goods and chattels. It staggers me that any woman could even consider voting for this man who appears to reside in a Hollywood version of the stone age, where men are depicted as superior beings and women are no more than decorative slaves expected to pander to male whims and fancies. Of course, it’s probable that such women have been brain-washed, often via extreme forms of religion, into not only accepting their subservient role but into evangelising this Neanderthal philosophy.

I hope, without any expectation of satisfaction, that the women and the poor of America will rise up and demand their rights by voting for Obama, kicking the right wing in the teeth for their lack of compassion and their inhumanity regarding all underdogs. There are just two days to go before the momentous decision is made. I appeal to all women, disadvantaged citizens, and right-thinking folk of the wonderful land of America to go out and vote for President Obama. The rest of the world will applaud you if you do. If you wonder how I know this, follow this link.

Is Society Organised for Business or for People?

International Money Pile in Cash and Coins (Photo credit: epSos.de)

An odd question, or one you think should be considered? I suspect your view will be influenced by your basic attitude to the place of money in society.

Why would I even ask the question? I look at the world around me and view the priorities cited by government, commerce and those with a real interest in environment. What I see is a society slewed toward the making of money as a primary purpose. But isn’t money supposed to be the tool, the helpmate of humanity? Isn’t trade, and all those services involved with manufacturing, production and delivery, intended to serve mankind?

When I look at the world, I see that the production of wealth is actually the prime purpose of most commerce. Now, I fully understand that we can’t live in a society where barter takes the place of currency, but I do question the value we place on the process involved in increasing wealth. Businesses appear to exist primarily for the benefit of their shareholders, so that their customers are, in fact, at best a secondary consideration rather than the primary cause of activity.

Banks are probably the best illustration of what I mean: Banks were set up to provide a service that would allow the lending, borrowing and security of the funds of their customers to operate to the benefit of those customers. But the current system benefits primarily the bankers and those institutions and individuals who hold equity in the business itself. The customer who wishes to take advantage of the lending system is now seen more as a threat than a natural client. Customers are viewed as a source of extra income, often by the employment of questionable schemes to extract more money from them to be placed into the banks’ coffers. (There are many examples of this, the recent scandal of mis-sold PPI is simply the most obvious).

Sport is another area where money has become the prime purpose of participation. Football, in particular, has fallen victim of the money men. What used to be local clubs, with locally trained and selected teams, and whose object was the raising of local pride in association with the clubs’ successes, have now become simple businesses. They no longer have any real connection with the locality in which they reside. The teams are made up of international ‘stars’ of questionable value who are paid obscene amounts of money in order to progress their teams to gain more money for the club owners. In the rush to make more and more money from sport, all ideas of sportsmanship have receded to be overtaken by cynical gamesmanship. And this change is so pervasive that many of the fans and players aren’t even aware that cheating, play-acting and tricks are damaging both the sport and society in general. And all this because huge sums of money are on offer from the various media companies who distribute the product to the masses.

Religion has joined the rush for money, in spite of the injunction to the faithful that they should eschew material riches in favour of spiritual rewards. The Roman Catholic church is an obscenely rich organisation that begs for more income from its impoverished congregations whilst keeping its leaders in ostentatious luxury. The Church of England cries out for public funds to repair and support its many crumbling buildings, whilst remaining one of the richest landowners in the country.  I don’t know much about the Jewish and Islamic institutions, but I’m willing to bet they are similarly wealthy whilst many of their adherents remain in poverty.

I could go on with examples, but that would be pointless. My concern is with the way in which we have allowed money to become our master and, in the process, allowed those who own the most money to have power over the vast majority who have little or none. What was intended as a tool to aid interaction and prevent chaos in a growing population has become a weapon in the hands of a very few powerful institutions and individuals. A weapon of control, which promises to become eternally self-perpetuating unless we do something radical to overturn the supremacy of money in the use and abuse of power and return governance to the mass of people.

It is demonstrably unjust that there are individuals who have personal incomes and wealth greater than the GDP of some small nations. It is demonstrably absurd that some individuals have colossal wealth when there are many who have none. We have been sold the idea that those with wealth have somehow deserved it, that they are solely responsible for the good fortune that has happened their way. Please don’t spout the old chestnuts about ‘getting what you deserve’ and ‘work hard and you’ll succeed’ at me. I touched on those two lies a while back and the links (one below) will take you to my arguments.

The simple fact is that no individual ever has been or ever will be deserving of wealth disproportionate to their efforts. The tycoon who claims to be a ‘self-made man’ conveniently forgets that he could not even have risen from his bed in the morning without the help and input of a multitude of other people. For those who find this concept difficult to grasp I feel I must give an example. We all need food to survive. Let’s take the basic loaf of bread, without which our tycoon could not perform, due to hunger. Someone has first to plough and till the ground so that it can be seeded with grain. The crop has to be gathered and transported along roads, made by many more individuals using the tools and machines made by other individuals. At the bakery, more people are involved in turning the raw material into a food product, using machinery and electricity that depends on other individuals for manufacture. Once baked, using power derived from sources mined or generated by yet more people, the product is transported, using fuel and materials produced by other individuals. Eventually, the loaf arrives in the shop to be sold and is there dispensed by even more people. Along the way, we have also to consider the road sweeper who keeps the highway clear to permit the transport to move, the rubbish collector who disposes of the waste that would otherwise clog up the works, the teacher who educates all the people involved in the various process, the nurse who cares for those who fall sick along the way, the unpaid parents who ensure the children get to school…do I need to go on? The reality is obvious. But we seem to have fallen into the trap of believing that certain individuals somehow contribute a great deal more than the rest of us. It simply isn’t true.

The only real difference between the wealthy and the poor is often due to luck, preferential birth circumstances, the possession of a peculiar talent or the wicked selfishness and greed that allows some to ignore the needs of those over whom they wield their power.

Of course we need to reward those who initiate those ideas that are of benefit to the mass of humanity. Of course we must recognise those who possess rare and valuable talent. Of course we should ensure justice for those who accept high levels of responsibility. But none of these people is worth the huge difference in value that is ascribed to them.

In the UK, and I suspect, elsewhere in the world, there is a minimum wage, set so that unscrupulous businessmen cannot exploit too heavily those who produce their wealth for them. If a minimum wage is a sensible barrier to excessive poverty, then a maximum wage can easily be made a similar barrier to excessive wealth. It requires only political will. But, as long as we have a system of government that depends only on the value falsely accorded to money, we will have a control system that prefers the wealthy over the vast majority of hard-working people. Is that what you want?

Related articles

• 'Work Hard And You'll Succeed'; The Biggest Lie?
• The living Wage: Wealth and Romney's Goose
• Do Americans truly understand 'redistribution of wealth'?
• The Weaving of Illusions and Myths.