LJ Idol, Topic 23: "Silence and Darkness" [fiction]

[dslartoo]

Weak.

Worthless.

Useless.

Stupid bitch.She hunches her shoulders, pulling into her shell, preparing for another blow. He never hits. Says that any man who would beat up on a woman is total scum. He never even raises his voice to her. But the impacts come in an endless stream, nevertheless. The scorn in his tone, the carelessly tossed phrases,

Comments

[whipchick]

So I'm really conflicted! This is a very well-written piece - your images are very vivid, your phrasings well-turned, the story has a clean structure, and your motivation is very sound. And, reading the comments, the piece has clearly hit home for quite a few people, so it's reaching your intended audience. But it still feels a little like torture-porn to me. Not like a Saw movie, where ew-gory-gory-let's-watch-naked-chicks-get-sliced-up, but in the sense that it appeals to our desire for the wailing and the gnashing of teeth and the oh-how-horrible-it-all-is. So rather than politely saying "well-written!" and shutting up, I'm hoping I'm not offending you but I'm interested to discuss more :)

I guess my question is this - what do we as artists add to a realistic story when we tell it, and what do we need to do in terms of context or POV or modeling desired behavior or something else entirely, to make it art and not reportage? Because this isn't reportage - you made it up (and made it very truthful) - and yet, you could certainly report a real-life incident and have the story be identical in all but the particulars. So why make fiction about it? What does the fiction add or contextualize or prove or model or enlighten that we don't get from interviewing a woman who killed her abusive husband? What makes it more than a Lifetime Movie of the Week? Was "Janie's Got A Gun" worth composing? Was there something specific to the time period of "The Burning Bed" that made it important (I seem to recall that people hadn't heard much about victims killing abusers up to that point) or was that purely for vicarious drama?

What do you think?

[jem0000000]

Not everyone realizes that emotional abuse is still abuse. A lot of people think that as long as he (or she) isn't physically attacking them, it's okay. And it is very difficult to build someone's self esteem back up when the person who is most important to them is busily tearing it down. Writing about emotional abuse realistically gives those of who are not-so-quietly praying on the sidelines (and, quite frequently, walking a fine line between alienating our friend and accepting the negative feedback that they're getting) a sort of impartial reinforcement -- both for us, when we start to wonder if we're overreacting (particularly as there is nowhere near as much community support available as there is for physical abuse), and for the friend, who may think that we have simply developed an irrational dislike of their significant other (or other abuser). So I think the first part of this is still very much a story that needs to be told.

And while there are a lot of emotional abuse situations that never turn physical on the part of the abuser, the second half is a very common scenario within relationships where both parties are adults.

I can't comment on the movies, as I haven't seen either of them. In general, though, I think it's different when it's a company rather than a person putting things out there. A company, I think, frequently has the means to do more than say "I understand" or "I agree", and so it often sounds hollow when they do it -- whereas coming from another person, "I understand" can be a wonderful thing.

[Just out of curiosity, though -- my entry was also neither new, nor different, nor in service of any greater literary purpose; and, IMO, could probably be justifiably labelled "emotion porn". Did it read like that to you? Would you have reacted to it differently had I chosen to present it as fiction? (And thank you again for the feedback. :) )]

Is there a point where something is not new but still additive in that it brings another voice into play? Are some voices less valuable than others? If so, how do you decide which ones? (My opinion here is that all voices are valuable. I do think that not all voices are additive, but the ones I find non-additive are the ones that simply aren't clear or are misinformed, neither of which applies to this entry.)

Also -- if something does not serve a greater purpose, can it still be enjoyed as art? If not, where do we draw the line between a smaller purpose (such as choosing to write something we've never written, or choosing a genre that a friend told us they particularly enjoyed) and a greater one?

[dslartoo]

One of the reasons I like this "contest" is seeing the discussions that often crop up between the commenters (at least, hopefully, if I've done my job right). I am always happy when people take something different away from the pieces I post.

See my comments to whipchick just below regarding "Janie's Got a Gun" and "The Burning Bed", in case you want to learn a bit more about those.

Is there a point where something is not new but still additive in that it brings another voice into play?

This, I think, was my main point to whipchick. The fiction pieces I write are done in the service of the story, to tell a good tale. They may not necessarily be breaking new ground, or be significantly different, but as long as they are well-done then I'm happy with the results. This may not be the most enlightened attitude, but it's my own. :)

I appreciate you chiming in here!

cheers,
Phil

[jem0000000]

Oh, yay! I was wondering if this was quite appropriate. :)

I did, thank you; and I bet I can probably find "Janie's Got A Gun" on YouTube, so I will look that up. Mostly songs are on there.

I like to be new and different, but I write on average one to two things a week. There's only so much new and different out there. The vast majority of mine is going to tell a story that has already been told, and I'm okay with that. Actually I'm okay with writing anything that helps me grow as a writer.

The other thing is fiction vs. non-fiction; I think we are frequently a lot harder on fiction, in terms of demanding artistic or literary merit from it, especially when it tells a story that can be told with non-fiction. (That's why I mentioned mine above -- mine deals with fear rather than abuse, but it is non-fiction and tells basically the same thing that any other story dealing with phobias does. So I am wondering if the difference in her reactions might have something to do with fiction vs. non-fiction. (Or maybe if it was the same and she didn't want to say that; but she left me very nice concrit, so I dunno there.))

You're welcome! Thank you for hosting the discussion, and sorry to have taken so long to get back to you -- I ended up scrambling to finish my reading this week, and didn't have time to respond immediately.

*off to YouTube now*

[dslartoo]

Wow, a very thoughtful and in-depth set of remarks (hardly surprising from you). I greatly appreciate you taking the time to leave your thoughts on this piece. Let's see if I can address some of what you've brought up here.

Firstly, I never get offended at criticism, so no fears there. If you post something online, you're going to invariably run into people who don't like something you wrote, for whatever reason. Valid, well-thought criticism helps me to improve my work (and simple stuff like "you suck" just gets consigned to /dev/null). I'm also glad you thought the piece was well-written even if it didn't quite meet your expectations for what art should be. :)

Okay, let's see. What do we as artists add to a realistic story when we tell it? I like to think that we add layers, emotions that aren't always clear in other media, turns of phrase that get lost in pictures/video/paintings, that sort of thing. You can talk about somebody's inner thoughts in a fiction piece, whereas in a movie or stage play you have to get that info from their body language or their acting abilities. Writing lets your "audience" construct their own theater of the mind and get what they will from it.

More importantly, you asked, "why make fiction about it?" The answer to that one is complex and multifaceted, but in the end, for me, it boils down to a simple fact: when I'm writing a fiction piece, it's because I want to tell a story. It's not because I'm trying to create "art", or because I'm writing with an eye towards the Pulitzer Prize, or because I'm thinking of all the acclamation I might receive. It's because I want to tell a good story, something that captures your attention, or makes you think, or redefines your preconceptions, or brings you to a new understanding of something that you'd found confusing previously, or......you get the idea. I want it to affect the reader, one way or the other -- whether they are intrigued, revolted, annoyed, left sobbing, left rolling on the floor laughing, left dead inside, horrified or whatever.

I write for story. Story more than anything else. Whether something has literary or artistic merit, whether it is deserving of conversion to film or stage play, whether it's new or groundbreaking, is something with which I rarely, if ever, concern myself. I want it to be well-told and well-constructed, and if I succeed at that then I've met my goals.

[Part II below; I think Livejournal is refusing to post this because the original comment is too long.]

[dslartoo]

What makes it more than a Lifetime Movie of the Week? Maybe nothing. I told the story I wanted to, and let everybody else have their own reactions. Maybe the story's hackneyed, or maybe it doesn't say much that an interview with a real-life victim doesn't. If so, well, I think it's still a tale that stands well on its own, that provokes a reaction of some sort from the reader and keeps them interested enough to keep going from start to finish. That's my intent, and it's always my intent.

Regarding "Janie's Got a Gun": yes, I think it was worth creating. "Janie" appeared in a medium (popular music, and in the hard rock subset) where discussions of domestic abuse are few and far between. It got people talking about abuse because it was pretty unusual for a popular song to discuss that sort of thing; also because Aerosmith was riding high on a popularity crest when it was released and were very much in the public eye. And -- the important thing to me -- it was a well-constructed song, with catchy hooks, vaguely unsettling diminished choral overtones, slightly dissonant chords, and tasteful orchestrations. Had it been a piece of crap, it could have been easily discarded, or its message overlooked, but because it was well-done, a good song, people got thinking about what it said, and discussed it with their friends, and so on.

Regarding "The Burning Bed": I recall the fuss over this one when it appeared on television. It got massive acclaim for a number of reasons: firstly, Fawcett's extremely powerful acting (even people who thought the story was crap gave her kudos for her performance); secondly, its graphic nature (her husband wasn't just shot, or poisoned, he was SET ON FIRE); thirdly, because (as you noted), at the time, domestic abuse was one of those things that "people just didn't talk about". It was just as much a problem as it ever was, but it was talked about in whispers, instead of screamed to the heavens as it ought to be. A film where the woman took her power back, where she fought back, where she refused to be destroyed and retaliated against her tormentor -- that sort of thing hadn't been done before. It was a story, in other words, that DID add to the discussion, provoked new and interesting views on the subject, but mostly went where others hadn't gone before. So it fits more of your criteria for being "art" than mine, say, does. :)

This got very long-winded and I'm hoping you didn't give it up as a "gah, too long" sort of thing. Mostly what I'm saying is that I write fiction in service of the story. I used to hate in high school when my English teachers would have us analyze and re-analyze a story until every last drop of underlying structure had been stripped away. "Theme" here and "portrayal" there and so on. It would particularly annoy me when they would dwell on things that I felt relatively certain the author never put there in the first place. "Can't you people just let a story be a story?" I would cry, echoing Stephen King's character Bill Denbrough in "It". Sometimes -- most of the time -- that's all I want. To just tell a good story.

Thanks for adding your voice to the discussion, and I'm glad you at least thought the piece was well-written. :)

cheers,
Phil

[xo_kizzy_xo]

:nodding:
:nodding:

I found reading "The Burning Bed" much more horrifying than watching the movie. As you said, in writing you can add layers and thought processes which aren't as easily accessible in other mediums. For me as a reader, I need to understand the motivations behind the characters -- with TBB, for instance, it wasn't enough for me to watch Francine set the bed afire, and it wasn't enough for me to watch the abuse within her marriage. Same thing if I watch something violent and not necessarily abusive -- I want to know the why. What is it about this person/character that puts him/her in such a situation? What is it about him/her that keeps him/her there? The book answered those so vividly that I found that more terrifying than the actual physical/emotional abuse.

So many times the media makes stories like this into torture-porn-Lifetime-movie-of-the-week. I can understand why from their viewpoint. The sad thing, in making that viewpoint, many people miss the message. Aerosmith could have done that easily with "Janie's Got A Gun", but they didn't, and my respect for them shot up thousandfold when that video came out.

[dslartoo]

I haven't read the book. Perhaps I should have. Never seen the movie, either; I just remember the storm of opinions it caused when it was released. But you've definitely got the point I was trying to make -- that when writing something you can add things to the story that you can't in other mediums. Nice to see I made it clear for at least one person. :)

Oh hey, and thanks for coming by, too.

cheers,
Phil