Courting controversy in chapter 1

[whdean]

I've been thinking about the first chapter of one of my WIPs lately because I believe it will alienate some readers. They'll take what the MC says as a lecture from me. No doubt about that response. But it will resonate with others. I'm soliciting feedback to get a feel for how many I may be alienating. I'm banking on the primary audience for the book-Americans-being more sympathetic. But I may be wrong. I don't want to post the whole chapter; though, admittedly, that might be the only way to give reliable feedback. Anyway, here's the idea.

The chapter opens in a contract instructor's office in a university. (Note: It's important for the tension that he's a contract instructor not a tenured professor: he has no de facto protection from complaints by students; so any ticked off student is a problem for him.) The lecturer teaches military history. He's being confronted by radical female student who's challenging the grade on her paper. She was supposed to write a historical assessment of the Allied bombing campaign in WWII. Instead, she wrote a short manifesto on the evils of war and the "cycle of violence."

Normally, the lecturer would try to keep the focus on the paper and how the student went off topic-try to de-escalate. He invites outrage and a complaint to the dean if he actually engages the student in a debate. He knows this. But for reasons that aren't relevant, he decides to set her straight. Now, his response isn't Jack Nicholson's "You can't handle the truth!" speech from A Few Good Men, and he doesn't fly into an indignant rage. But he does make his case frankly along the lines of "the men who stand on the wall," etc.

I'm most concerned about the "men" part. Even though the MC doesn't denigrate the student or even mention her gender, it might be a bridge too far because some people will see the MC as sexist anyway. At the same time, I think saying "men and women" or "people" or "soldiers" will compromise the naturalness or authenticity of the MC's remarks and the contrast between him and the other character. Unless I change the speech drastically, the "men and women" edit would read to me like the author or a nervous editor stepped in and softened the speech for purely commercial reasons.

One final thing. The speech isn't actually sexist, and it's meant to be a sort of trans-historical counter-argument to the cycle of violence view. Yet some people will interpret it as sexist because he refers to soldiers as men. As well, I hould mention that the upshot of the speech is that she's a spoiled brat, not that she's a she.

[Becca Mills]

This seems like a tough one to me.

First reaction: I'm a feminist, so if you want a feminist reader reaction to the actual text, I'd be happy to supply one. That said, I don't know how typical a reader I am, and now that you've described the issue, it would be hard to read naturally instead of with an analytical eye toward this particular issue.

My second reaction would be questions along these lines:

- Is there no gender-neutral terms that would sound natural? Troops? G.I.s? Brave souls? Whatever?
- Could you have the instructor say something like, "... men -- and I'm using that word because you seem to be forgetting that there were no female troops, much less combat troops, in that era ..." In other words, have the instructor sound self-aware about his reference to males.
- Is the student making a feminist argument (men and their wars!), or just some sort of pacifist argument? The latter would be safer.
- Could you make the instructor a feminist (not at all an unrealistic political identity for a male humanities professor), an identity he could claim during his conversation with the student or at another time? If you don't want to give him that label, are there ways you could illustrate his non-sexism?
- Can you have the instructor begin with WWII and then draw an analogy from the present day, in which combat troops are much more diverse? ("In WWII, _________________________________. And this continues today: __________________________________________.")

Don't know how helpful these are. Again, happy to read the actual material.

Incidentally, I've had a few encounters like this with students (not just about gender issues). In my case, they haven't been spoiled brats, but people who were so passionately committed to an idea or cause that it gave them tunnel vision about everything else. It's extremely hard to handle.

[Becca Mills]

P.S. My WIP starts with rats. Is that going to turn people off?

[whdean]

Thanks for the feedback. I’ve royally screwed this up. I should’ve just posted an excerpt without comment on the problem to see whether anyone noticed—that’s all I was concerned about: someone honing in on it. Now that I’ve drawn attention to it, posting an excerpt won’t work.

Anyway, the student makes a “cycle of violence” argument (of sorts), which is Marxist. Feminism is never raised at all. It’s that the MC decides to give a matter-of-fact, un-PC lecture about military history. The “men” thing comes up because he starts out his account by talking about the “men who” and then adds the “men—yes, men—“ to make it clear that he didn’t misspeak when he referred to soldiers as “men.”

I more worried that the remark is more incendiary than I think it will be. Some off-hand remarks about this sort of thing in the WC got me thinking about it.

As for encounters with the university’s Moral Police, yes, I’ve had more than a few. No doubt they have tunnel vision (tunnel vision caused by the sweet taste of self-righteousness). And it’s clear from the depiction of the character—which, trust me, is based on reality—that she’s “one of them.” The spoiled brat bit comes out of the account of military history (basically, she can indulge in the idea that soldiers cause wars because soldiers are protecting her—along those lines).

[Becca Mills]

Well, just speaking hypothetically, I don't think I'd get set off by the language you're describing (“men who” and then adds the “men—yes, men—") in reference to WWII, since there were no female combatants, so far as I know. It's not unPC to speak factually about exclusively male combatants in the 1930s and '40s, I don't think. Just mentioning that fact does not mean you're denying or denigrating women's role in the war effort, or something. They weren't combatants, and that's that. If he's making the point more generally (you're only alive and free to be a pacifist because there're soldiers out there protecting you), I'd want more gender-neutral language since it seems to be describing the state of affairs now.

[Suzy]

I read the first bit really quickly (I'll read all of it later when I have time)

The one term that stood out for me and made me bristle was 'radical feminist'. If you're going to spell that out, you've lost me as a reader. I'm sort of feminist but not particularly radical. I hate this feminist label. But the idea of the argument sparked my interest. So having a conflict between a chauvinist and a modern woman would be interesting.

Back later for more in-depth comments.

P.S do you want me to put in a members only critique section? This might be better there.

[vrabinec]

You're overthinking this. It makes no difference whether the reader views the argument as being sexist as long as the argument being made is true to the character. The reader will pick a side, and root for one or the other. If YOU'RE worried as coming off as sexist, who cares? If the CHARACTER'S worried about it, then you better make that clear and taylor the diatribe to suit.

[Becca Mills]

Feb 11, 2014 8:42:57 GMT -5 vrabinec said:

You're overthinking this. It makes no difference whether the reader views the argument as being sexist as long as the argument being made is true to the character. The reader will pick a side, and root for one or the other. If YOU'RE worried as coming off as sexist, who cares? If the CHARACTER'S worried about it, then you better make that clear and taylor the diatribe to suit.

But the concern about turning the reader off is legit, I think. People won't be able to appreciate your characters' integrity if they put the book down. Writers do manage to make people read books about characters they don't like, but it's mighty hard.

[vrabinec]

You can't please every reader. There will always be someone out there who doesn't like the character. If you make the character a PC type that guards his words and tries his damndest not to offend someone by referring to them as 'radical feminist" then there will the types of readers out there that get offended by what they perceive as political correctness run amok, and will put the book down, same as the ones who will put it down if the character isn't PC. You can't win. So, what's the character telling you? What makes for a more interesting story? Not, what makes for the safest story I can tell?

[Suzy]

I have set up a critique board in the members only section. WH, why don't you post the excerpt there as an attachment?

[whdean]

BECCA,

I probably just got a little paranoid that the reader would get distracted by the MC’s remarks after reading some comments about other books. He’s not putting down the student or women. He’s setting her straight about the nature of human conflict because he wants to disabuse her of nonsense (instead of letting her have her illusions because it’s easier for him). And what he and the student say foreshadows what happens in the book—or, rather, their positions mirror the dynamics of the story’s conflicting sides. That means the dialogue between them isn’t just a throw-away intro that can be modified too much and why I don’t want the “gender issue” to distract from it.

I thought of making the student male to skirt the issue altogether, but it seems wrong to me because the character is based on a real person (right down to the rust-coloured dreadlocks and eyebrow rings).

SUZY,

Hold on now, Suzy! I didn’t say “radical feminist,” I said “radical female student,” as in radical (campus) politics. Her gender is inconsequential. One assumes she would also be a feminist (it goes with the territory), though that doesn’t really figure into it. Again, I don’t want the genre issue to distract from the foreshadowing in the dialogue.

As for women in the book, there are three main ones (the student doesn’t “go beyond” the first chapter): the MC’s wife, who’s sensible but outside the drama for reasons I can’t explain; an older woman who plays a mentor role (she sits in on the main “war council” with the MC), and a 30-something woman who’s done a bad turn by the villain, though she ends up doing something “non-stereotypical.” I mention all this because I want to be clear that there are no anti-female or stereotypical female characters. That’s another reason I’m concerned about people getting distracted by the intro.

I’ll mull over posting the chapter. I haven’t really polished it.

FRED,

You’re right that the characters are what they are, for the most part. But it’s different with the MC. People need to identify or at least sympathize with him. And since I don’t have an axe to grind on “gender issues,” I don’t want to trigger a response that’s just a distraction. Put another way, I don’t care whether people hate it (or me) for what it is; but I want to do my best to prevent them from hating it for what it isn’t.

[vrabinec]

Hmm, seems like a petty reason to put a book down.

[Suzy]

WH, I'd love to read the chapter now.

[whdean]

Feb 11, 2014 11:01:59 GMT -5 vrabinec said:

Hmm, seems like a petty reason to put a book down.

It does seem petty. But I read some comments the other day at KB and they got me thinking that what I take to be inoffensive probably isn't the best baseline. I've got rhino skin and I'm not really "sensitive" to these issues anyway.

[Suzy]

I think you must write whatever feels right for the character. And for being PC, that's very difficult. Some people are offended by stuff that others wouldn't even notice. I have quite a lot of swearing in my two last books and drinking and sex too. Could offend some people. And it has been mentioned in one or two reviews.But I couldn't tone it down just to please 'some' people.

[whdean]

By the way, I’m not trying to portray myself as Mr. Enlightened Gender-Sensitive Male Who Cares Too Much to Express in Words. I’m not (ask my wife for proof). The reality is that I don’t write (or try not to write) stereotypical female characters because it’s lazy and it makes for unrealistic and uninteresting stories. In fact, I’ve observed that it’s easy to add interest to a story by having interesting female characters because people are so used to expecting weak and stereotypical ones.

[Suzy]

Feb 11, 2014 11:26:20 GMT -5 whdean said:

By the way, I’m not trying to portray myself as Mr. Enlightened Gender-Sensitive Male Who Cares Too Much to Express in Words. I’m not (ask my wife for proof). The reality is that I don’t write (or try not to write) stereotypical female characters because it’s lazy and it makes for unrealistic and uninteresting stories. In fact, I’ve observed that it’s easy to add interest to a story by having interesting female characters because people are so used to expecting weak and stereotypical ones.

Very true. I find those sweet, weak, clingy female characters very boring. Mine aren't But then I often get reviews (that I don't look at anymore) complaining about bitchy women...

[vrabinec]

Feb 11, 2014 11:26:20 GMT -5 whdean said:

By the way, I’m not trying to portray myself as Mr. Enlightened Gender-Sensitive Male Who Cares Too Much to Express in Words. I’m not (ask my wife for proof). The reality is that I don’t write (or try not to write) stereotypical female characters because it’s lazy and it makes for unrealistic and uninteresting stories. In fact, I’ve observed that it’s easy to add interest to a story by having interesting female characters because people are so used to expecting weak and stereotypical ones.

Is that the stereotype? These days, it's almost the opposite. The tough, bossy woman who doesn't take shit from men has become stereotypical.

[Becca Mills]

I think you should post it, WH. Talking about it hypothetically just isn't going to do the trick. Altogether, we probably represent a bunch of readers with different outlooks on things, so you'll get reactions from different angles.

Making the student male would be a good solution. Feeling you have to stick so fully to her/his real-life inspiration, such that you can't change genders, might be putting you into an unnecessary quandary. Think of it this way: I bet Rusty Dreadlocks was really, really annoying, eh? Now you've given her a new way to cause you trouble. Why let her control who *your* character is?

[Becca Mills]

Feb 11, 2014 11:46:53 GMT -5 vrabinec said:

Feb 11, 2014 11:26:20 GMT -5 whdean said:

By the way, I’m not trying to portray myself as Mr. Enlightened Gender-Sensitive Male Who Cares Too Much to Express in Words. I’m not (ask my wife for proof). The reality is that I don’t write (or try not to write) stereotypical female characters because it’s lazy and it makes for unrealistic and uninteresting stories. In fact, I’ve observed that it’s easy to add interest to a story by having interesting female characters because people are so used to expecting weak and stereotypical ones.

Is that the stereotype? These days, it's almost the opposite. The tough, bossy woman who doesn't take shit from men has become stereotypical.

For sure true in my genre. I mainly write against that stereotype, while trying not to fall into the one WH mentioned.