Write a controversial opinion

[AwkwardMD]

I should probably also clarify that (and I can only speak for myself here) when I say I can be purposeful, and I can be intentional, and I can control reader reactions, I believe that this is true for somewhere between 90 and 99% of my readers. Obviously, not every story is as successful as every other story because I'm always trying something new, but I don't feel that "3% of my audience walking away with the wrong impression" is my responsibility. At those kind of numbers, they are the exception that proves the rule. 10% is, to my mind, the upper limit for being able to claim the same.

I don't have specific numbers to back this up, just a general sense of how my stories perform over time (views and scores) plus the general vibe of comments and how they align with my intentions (which are usually fixed before I start writing).

Obviously, there's a ton of bias there. Potentially load bearing bias. However, I think that what I write is different enough from the average Lit story that my success must at least partially stem from how I do what I do.

 

[alohadave]

If you never defend the speech of people you disagree with, then you don't really believe in free speech.

To a point. Not all speech is defensible or nor should all speech be defended.

Free speech does not mean freedom from consequences of that speech. It means that the government doesn't restrict speech.

I'm never going to defend hate speech to meet a philosophical ideal condition.

 

[Off_base]

Coffee is better than tea.

 

[alohadave]

"Death of the author" is a one-way street. It means that we can't control how an audience perceives our work, it doesn't absolve us of what we create.

Death of the author is how readers interpret your work. You can't control how anyone will react to, or interpret what you create.

How you take ownership of what you write is on you and no one can take that away from you as the author.

They are conflicting positions. Whether you take readers opinions in mind or how much stake you put in them is something you figure out for yourself. Sometimes you care deeply about what you've made and when readers get it 'wrong', it affects you more. Sometimes you are more open to alternate interpretations.

 

[iwatchus]

Tea is better than coffee

 

[alohadave]

They are the children of allegory.

And that treacherous spoon.

I like the passage. It's evocative.

 

[SimonDoom]

To a point. Not all speech is defensible or nor should all speech be defended.

Free speech does not mean freedom from consequences of that speech. It means that the government doesn't restrict speech.

I'm never going to defend hate speech to meet a philosophical ideal condition.

Well, of course. But if in practice you regard all speech you disagree with as hate speech, and therefore not worth defending, then you don't believe in free speech.

The point of my comment is that the test of whether you REALLY believe in free speech is whether you EVER stand up for speech you don't agree with. It's easy, and also not meaningful, to stand up for the free speech rights of those you agree with.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Death of the author is how readers interpret your work. You can't control how anyone will react to, or interpret what you create.

How you take ownership of what you write is on you and no one can take that away from you as the author.

They are conflicting positions. Whether you take readers opinions in mind or how much stake you put in them is something you figure out for yourself. Sometimes you care deeply about what you've made and when readers get it 'wrong', it affects you more. Sometimes you are more open to alternate interpretations.

So, the ACLU was wrong to defend the Nazis in Skokie?

 

[Britva415]

I couldn't give cites, but I feel like most of the time when I've seen this in fiction it's been as part of an intentionally facetious tone. That works for me but it'd probably feel stilted if used unironically.

I see it in fiction on Lit where it doesn't seem intentionally facetious at all, what it seems like is unintentionally clumsy. There are a lot of authors who, when they write, they seem to be writing with some kind of idea in mind about "what writing sounds like," and they wind up putting cliches from nonfiction styles into their fiction narration and their fictional characters' dialog—situations where these constructions are jarringly out of place.

 

[Britva415]

The point of my comment is that the test of whether you REALLY believe in free speech is whether you EVER stand up for speech you don't agree with. It's easy, and also not meaningful, to stand up for the free speech rights of those you agree with.

Yeah, you're still doing it: You're still saying something which sounds like "stand up for the content of their speech" when what (I hope) you mean is "stand up for their right to say it."

 

[alohadave]

But if in practice you regard all speech you disagree with as hate speech,

That's not at all what I stated.

 

[TheRedChamber]

Inspired by another on-going thread...

There is nothing essentially wrong with fiction being 'middle-class' (or even upper class)

Even more controverisal...

There is nothing essentially wrong with 'punching down' as long as it focuses on behaviours rather than innate traits.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Inspired by another on-going thread...

There is nothing essentially wrong with fiction being 'middle-class' (or even upper class)

Even more controverisal...

There is nothing essentially wrong with 'punching down' as long as it focuses on behaviours rather than innate traits.

The whole concept of "punching up" and "punching down" is a stupid way to try and protect favored parties and has nothing to do with up or down.
"Up" just means, "people I don't like"
"Down" just means "people I like"

 

[SimonDoom]

Yeah, you're still doing it: You're still saying something which sounds like "stand up for the content of their speech" when what (I hope) you mean is "stand up for their right to say it."

Yes, I mean stand up for the right. I don't mean to endorse the content of bad speech.

 

[Statius]

If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding.

 

[Statius]

Tolkien once said he hated all forms of allegory when he became old enough to recognize it.

 

[AwkwardMD]

Highly controversial opinion: sometimes I am full of shit.

 

[SimonDoom]

Tolkien once said he hated all forms of allegory when he became old enough to recognize it.

In his forward to The Fellowship of the Rings, Tolkien expressly disavowed any intention to have his work viewed as an allegory. It's easy to read things into it, but I think it's fair to take him at his word. The story is best appreciated as a story on its own terms, rather than as an allegory for something else. It's different in this sense from the Narnia stories by his friend and colleague C.S. Lewis, whose stories are clearly intended as Christian allegory. It's one of the reasons I think Tolkien's work is far more satisfying.

 

[SimonDoom]

Highly controversial opinion: sometimes I am full of shit.

Join the club, doc.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

In his forward to The Fellowship of the Rings, Tolkien expressly disavowed any intention to have his work viewed as an allegory. It's easy to read things into it, but I think it's fair to take him at his word. The story is best appreciated as a story on its own terms, rather than as an allegory for something else. It's different in this sense from the Narnia stories by his friend and colleague C.S. Lewis, whose stories are clearly intended as Christian allegory. It's one of the reasons I think Tolkien's work is far more satisfying.

The full context of his statement is important.

“I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history – true or feigned– with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse applicability with allegory, but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.”​

― J.R.R. Tolkien

It isn't an allegory, but it isn't meant to be "just a story" either.

 

[DeMont]

Highly controversial opinion: George Clooney is not in Pulp Fiction

@AwkwardMD,
Arrrrrgh!!! I said that, I said that! Bad, bad,bad,naughty DeMont - of course not. "From dusk 'til Dawn"... and his sterling role in "Burn After Reading" of course. I shall now go into the corner and put the dunce hat on!
Respectfully,
D.

 

[Levorotatory]

Mind control category is pure rape

It can be, but it doesn't have to be. Character A forcing character B to do something they don't want to do by taking control of their mind is not the only option. The mind controlling entity could be a third party that knows character A and character B secretly desire each other, and gives them a push to get them together. Or there is the "sex pollen" trope where the mind alteration is a result of a chance environmental exposure and not a malicious sentient being.

 

[TheLobster]

Coffee is better than tea.

Tea is better than coffee

Alright, I think we can call the thread here. It cannot possibly get any more controversial than that.

 

[sister jenny]

Writing is very subconscious and the last thing I want to do is think about it.

- Cormac McCarthy

 

[M_K_Babalon]

We don't get enough space aliens, clones, dinosaurs, androids, or genetically engineered sex specimens in our erotica!

You should read Spare Parts, then.