Know WTF You're Talking About

This post is going to be a little more anecdotal than usual, and also ranty, but bear with me.

A little while ago I read a book and found one of the non-protagonist main characters was said to have bipolar disorder. I started cringing but tried to keep an open mind.

I basically didn't stop cringing.

It was one of the more offensive portrayals of mental illness I've read in recent memory, perhaps because it seemed the author tried to humanize this character. The trouble was that she was clingy, volatile, irrational, conniving, paranoid, and downright abusive to the one person who was supposed to be her friend (which other characters pointed out). That would be fine--lots of people are like that, including bipolar people--if the explanation given for her behavior didn't boil down to, "she's off her meds."

Hey, sure, when I'm having an episode (which, contrary to fictional depictions of the disorder, are just that: EPISODES--they occur between periods of fairly stable moods), I can be irrational and volatile and paranoid. But the core of who I am--loyal, compassionate, smart, creative--is still there as well. I don't suddenly start drowning kittens when I'm manic or depressed.

ALL of the horrible abusive traits this character had--the reader was told repeatedly in the text--were symptoms of her bipolar disorder when she was off her magical meds. Bipolar disorder figuratively turned her into a monster who was possibly capable of murder.

I am willing to bet money that the author looked up bipolar disorder on Wikipedia, read a few possible characteristics, and left it at that. And if I can get pedantic for a moment, one of the reasons I believe this is because the character was supposedly on unspecified "antidepressants", which five minutes of reading or any doctor will tell you is a risky proposition (had the author said "mood stabilizers", I would've given her the benefit of the doubt). Further, nothing about the character suggested she was depressed or manic; while she was "off her meds", if anything she came across as being in a constant mixed episode. Probably because the plot required it, not because the writer knew what a mixed episode even is. The writer could have, in fact, simply passed off *all* this character's personality flaws as "because she's on her period" and it would've been just as believable.

Julie, in her last post, absolutely has an excellent point about not getting caught up in the details; my caveat would be that you absolutely have to know in detail what you're talking about when you are portraying people who could be damaged by your depictions of them.

Don't take on mental illness if your only exposure to it is the bad guy of the week on Criminal Minds or Wikipedia. Spend some time reading from the perspective of those you're writing about, even if they're secondary characters. Diversity is important, but so is NOT contributing to stigma.

As writers, we often say the story is most important and as long as that gets across, it's okay to fudge certain things. But "it's just a story" is not a defense when you're contributing to the overall narrative that makes life more difficult for marginalized groups. Daily, people like me have to push back against the idea that our mood disorders makes us dangerous, and that the only way to function and not be violent is to medicate (and that pills are magical). Mine is an illness with an 85% survival rate, in part because it's so isolating and stigmatized, which makes it extremely difficult to reach out for help. Fiction that contributes to stigma and inaccuracies stacks more weight on everyone's shoulders, and it makes for lazy fucking storytelling.

The "story" does not exist in a vacuum; it exists in a world where all things are not equal.

It's your responsibility to educate yourself about people in the world around you and to question your own depictions of them. It's on you, the writer, to get shit as accurate as possible and make an ATTEMPT to know what the fuck you're talking about.

And editors? Beta readers? Same thing to you. Because I've no doubt half a dozen people saw this book (and books like it) before it was published and not a single person called out an offensive depiction of mental illness. Whether it's a plot hole or inaccurate medical information, you should be asking the writer to know what the hell he or she is talking about as well.

Why Negative Nancys Look Like Douchey McDouchealots

Bitchstress here, a day late.

Okay, a few weeks...*cough*months*cough*...late. Yes, yes, stuff and things. I do the website stuff here too and I'm TIRED and I'm BUSY and JUST STOP STARING AT ME.

I have a series of posts I'll be starting soon, Editing 101 with Mama Bitchstress. There'll be some theory, some practical things, and probably homework because that's how I roll.

But that is not today.

Today I want to tell you about how you're probably being a douche.

An agent I follow tweeted the other night about being put off by queries where people gleefully declare their book isn't like X, Y, Z (in this case it was that it didn't have porn or vampires). Others have said this as well and it was one of the first things I noticed in acquisitions way back when: a lot of people, either unintentionally or intentionally, insult other books, authors, publishers/editors/agents, and entire genres in their queries.

This is not a way to make friends and influence people, and we shall count the ways.

1. You say your book is nothing like Popular Book X. Well, what if I like Popular Book X? What if my authors/clients write similar (or DID write) Popular Book X? 

What I hear is, "My book is better than that other stuff," and if I LIKE that other stuff, I don't like being insulted. If I DON'T like that other stuff, I don't like people who think they're better than everyone else. I know this isn't always intentional. I know you probably think it's GOOD to say your work isn't Fifty Shades of Fanfic, and all this vampire bitching: yes, there's vampire fatique going on, but a lot of people still dig them.

The solution? LET YOUR WORK STAND FOR ITSELF. Draw a specific, favorable comparison (my book would appeal to fans of X, Y, and Z) and for the love of god, don't bash anyone.

2. You say your book isn't porn. Well, sugar, say what you mean: erotic romance. And erotic romance? It is popular, especially with many a lady these days.

What I hear is, "I'm better than people who write a lowly genre I don't like." And that "lowly" genre? Making hand over fist money instead of yours, sweet cheeks.

The solution: say what it is, and don't bash people's reading tastes. (Noticing a theme here?)

3. You say you're querying the editor/agent because you had problems with your last publisher.

What I hear is, "If we have a difficult working relationship, I'm going to advertise my problems with you to total strangers." You COULD have legit problems (although I'm going to say it now: if you bitch about multiple publishers you're with, the problem isn't them, it's YOU). But the person to discuss your issues with is your spouse, your lawyer, or maybe your editor/agent if it comes up as something important to share.

The solution is shut yer damn trap. You don't go on a first date and bash you ex-husband; you don't cold query a stranger and bash your ex-pub.

We're basically seeing repeats of idiotic, douchey behavior people should've left behind in middle school.

Negative Nancy mutters insults as the cool kids walk by (didn't we all?). Does that make her more popular? Has it EVER made anyone more popular? "Wow, that's so awesome how you sound bitter because you're not cool--let's be friends!" <--- Said no one EVER.

Or how about Gossipy Gabby who talked shit about everyone the moment they were out of earshot? Who thought she'd make a few friends by knocking someone down a few pegs for the shoes she's wearing, or who she dated, or whatever? Of course you do: everyone knows That Girl. And let me tell you something about Gabby: anyone with a brain knows that if she talks about Debbie and Susie and poor, poor Nancy over there, SHE'S GOING TO TALK ABOUT YOU.

I'm not saying you have to pretend to like what you hate or that you can't share bad experiences ever; I'm saying that publicly, in front of professionals, it is probably not a good idea to go about insulting the people you either hope to work with or hope will be your fans. Don't tell me what your book is NOT; SHOW ME what it IS.

Negativity and gossip does not a professional make. It makes a DOUCHE.

Don't be one.

Following The Crowd

It's pretty well known in the writing community that if one intends to commercially publish, they shouldn't write to trends. By the time you finish your book and get it out there, the trend will be over.

There have been a slew of highly-publicized, huge-amount book deals for trendy things lately. What's the trend?

Fan fiction.

You heard me. The latest is Penguin offering a 16-year-old an e-book deal based on boy-band fanfic. The now infamous 50 Shades of Gray started out as Twilight fanfic. Gabriel's Inferno also began life as Twilight fan fiction and was ALSO bought by Penguin for seven figures. 

Depressing, I know. With all this money being offered for what was once considered the least professional, basically junk food of writing, it's easy to take one look at your manuscript and think, "Why the hell am I wasting my time on this?"

Well, I'll tell you why. Because these examples are TRENDS. They're exceptions to the rule. They're what people want NOW, but in six months? A year? Who knows? Next month they might want ninja mermaid aliens from Neptune (totally my idea by the way) or cranberry farmer/mushroom hunter CSI riffs. Unless you can see the future, you just don't know what will be the Next Big Thing, and you can't constantly stop and start new projects trying to keep up with whatever it is people are buying now.

Write what YOU want to write. What YOU want to read. You can't write to trends. Book trends are like any other – they come and they go. Remember stone-washed/acid-washed jeans back in the 80s? Remember? (Look, just go with me here. I realize I'm dating myself.) Jordache and Guess jeans were the big favorites. Swatch watches (about six or more worn at once was the thing). Crimped and feathered hair. Trends, all of them. They came and they went.

This too shall pass. Jersey Shore has finally been cancelled (but not before one of the, uh, "celebrities" got a book deal) but has been replaced, regrettably, by Honey Boo Boo (just when I thought television could sink no lower). Twilight is finally sinking into obscurity (please, please, please).

And why is all this happening?

Because it's what people want right now. People want to watch "reality" television and eat junk food. Sure, there are several people who want to watch other things (or nothing at all) and eat better stuff, but the majority don't. And therein lies the problem. It's all about what sells (you know, money), and ice cream sells way better than frozen yogurt. In a battle between Cheetos and carrot sticks, guess which one most people are going to choose?

Consumers set trends, and what the consumers want right now is the literary equivalent of a sheet cake. (Mini rant: DEAR ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY: STOP ENCOURAGING HORRIBLE CHOICES BY MAKING THEM SEEM "ACCEPTABLE!" STOP IT! NO MORE TRAIN-WRECK TELEVISION OR BULLSHIT "BOOK" DEALS, DAMN IT! THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE ARE NOT ONLY CAPABLE OF BUT WILL INDEED LIVE UP TO EXPECTATIONS GIVEN TO THEM AND YOU'RE GLAMORIZING IDIOCY AND TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR! STOP IT! /rant) Pretty soon, though, they'll get tired of the frosting and want something that actually satisfies more than their sweet tooth. You can't eat cake forever (it's not like PIE!). Eventually consumers (readers) are going to want something more, and when they do, you need to be ready.

Someone awesome once said to me, "There's always going to be an audience for penny dreadfuls. It doesn't negate the need for good stuff."

I couldn't agree more. So don't pay attention to trends. And don't stop growing your carrots because people want Cheetos. There are always people who want carrots, even if it's just to make carrot cake.

And now I'm hungry.