How to *show* a controversial reality without seeming like I'm treating it as acceptable and without making it explicit that this is wrong?
I have a story which has some controversial social problems, and my intention is to just show these issues (for drama) realistically and impartially (i.e. just showing the facts, without imposing any opinion).
But the problem is that, by doing just that, I can be accused of "making apology" to these things, as if I'm treating these things as acceptable/normal. So I need to show it with at least a slightly negative view on that, but I don't want to do it in a "Dewd, that's bad! Don't do that." kind of way, and without punishing the culprit characters in some way (such as making them go to jail), because, let's face it, most people who do these things go unpunished, unfortunately. Also, I don't want to deeply explore these subjects, as that's not the story's goal (it's just a substory).
So how can I just show these things without making it ambiguous if I'm in favor or not and without "preaching" that these things are bad?
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/33293. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
3 answers
You are accessing this answer with a direct link, so it's being shown above all other answers regardless of its score. You can return to the normal view.
Writing has been used to show the harm done to society by various beliefs and activities since the beginning of writing. First and foremost, writing is a transfer of knowledge, but it is also a transfer of wisdom.
Write a good story. As you revise, you'll see if it is sending the kind of messages you want. But if you worry too much about all these details and it prevents you from writing a good story, what's the point? If it has the perfect message and a garbage story, no one will read it. The message is just one of many things you have to balance, and that balance is only going to come through good writing and revision.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/33303. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
You do not have to preach they are bad. They are bad because they harm others in some way. If you wish to show reality, show that harm, whatever it may be, beginning or taking place or having already taken place with previous victims.
Don't tell us they are bad, show us they are bad. As the narrator, you can neutrally tell that tale. As an author, you won't be accused of being an apologist, because you did not show the outcomes as being neutral, but clearly bad for somebody, even if the perpetrators are happy with themselves.
If you are trying to avoid being an apologist and also trying to not show any harm being done, I don't think that is possible.
0 comment threads
You just show the consequences.
For example, people often say that the Bible supports polygamy. While it legally permits it and does not explicitly make moral prohibitions against it, I believe that it does not support it at all.
It makes its case by showing the outworkings: the jealousy and scorn shown between wives, especially in the common case of infertility; the jealousy and distrust between half-siblings resulting in murders, revenge killings, and even rape. Israel's most famous king, David, outlives most of his sons who died while fighting each other. When read as a whole, the laws permitting it are seen as a concession, and the polemic still stands.
Of course many people would dispute any inherent wrongness with polygamy, and would say that the Biblical stories are just showing that bad people are bad. I raise this to say that readers missing your intended interpretation is a risk facing any polemic which is less than completely explicit.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/33295. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads