Blog Post: You Don’t Know Me

[From Our Blog]

New blog post by Claire G

You Don’t Know Me

On The Honest Authors’ podcast, Gillian McAllister once mentioned that she was asked, “Do you really think that?” about something controversial she’d written in one of her novels. Her answer: “No, of course I don’t!”

But at least in this instance she was asked. I’ve had occasional situations where readers have just assumed that I am like my characters, or that ideas and opinions explored in my novels must be beliefs that I hold, even when they know they’re works of fiction.

Does this phenomenon have a name? If not, what could it be? Ficto-sumptions?

When a negative assumption is made about me based on the content of my writing, I try to stay courteous, to be understanding that putting two and two together and coming up with five is how the human brain can sometimes work. But when the tone is accusatory, I end up feeling p*ssed off. Should I really have to justify myself? I’m not writing a new gospel for the Bible here.

It makes me wonder if Thomas Harris gets mistaken for a serial killer empathiser, and if some readers think Stephenie Meyer believes in vampires who twinkle in the sunlight.

But. But, but, but.

However hurtful these assumptions can be, I must remember that readers bring their own baggage with them when they step into the world of a novel. That no one is a blank slate. I must understand that people sometimes interpret the motivations of others based on their own experiences and perceptions. I must self-reflect and consider the message I may be giving to readers, however unintentional that message may be.



Final Thoughts

Do you hold any assumptions about authors based on the fiction that they write?

Have assumptions been made about you based on your writing?

What is your opinion regarding how sensitive authors should be to potential reader interpretation, i.e. should certain themes, character types etc be avoided?
---

* Like this post? Please share here​

* Start your own blog here​

 

[Vagabond Heart]

Had the opposite problem, to be honest. Wrote a blog when I was travelling, detailing all the stupid shit we did. When we visited the UK and I caught up with my mates, one of them said, "of course, I take everything you write with a pinch of salt". She, basically, didn't believe we could be that witless. Which is complimentary, but also weird.

 

[Rich.]

Does this phenomenon have a name? If not, what could it be? Ficto-sumptions?

It's the biographical fallacy, I think (Wikipedia link). But your term is better.

Have assumptions been made about you based on your writing?

The first thing I ever posted for critique (not on Litopia), which was written in first person, resulted in one critiquer forever after treating me as if I were the story's protagonist, which was odd given that he was a Victorian naturalist with the emotional range of a brick.

 

[Rich.]

(Sorry for the double post.)

What is your opinion regarding how sensitive authors should be to potential reader interpretation, i.e. should certain themes, character types etc be avoided?

This is a really interesting question, and I want to say that authors should be fearless, but I expect that these days an author's boldness is often tempered by how much shit-from-social-media they're willing or able to put up with.

That's a bit of a knee-jerk answer. The question probably deserves a deeper response.

 

[Claire G]

(Sorry for the double post.)


This is a really interesting question, and I want to say that authors should be fearless, but I expect that these days an author's boldness is often tempered by how much shit-from-social-media they're willing or able to put up with.

That's a bit of a knee-jerk answer. The question probably deserves a deeper response.

I think you make a very good point! xx

 

[Sedayne]

Interesting blog post. Lots to think about.

It think it's a hazard of creating consumable product generally. Some people see only what's in front of them and not what's behind the process. They can't separate the creator from the creation - countless incidents of mistaken identity of Frankenstein and his monster. Actors associated with particular characters, especially long running dramas, must get this all the time. Comedians and their personas too. (Jim Moir has a successful second career as an artist, but I heard people in a gallery referring to his paintings as being by Vic Reeves.)

Do you hold any assumptions about authors based on the fiction that they write?

I can tell something about the moral stances of some of my favourite authors from how and what they write. It's then interesting to read interviews that confirm these assumptions. But it's perhaps more an indication of my own political and ethical leanings that I am drawn to the works of Ian McEwan, John Irving, Patrick Gale, Ruth Ozeki, etc. I probably wouldn't get very far with anything right wing.

Have assumptions been made about you based on your writing?

I have no idea! But my main characters are all aspects of myself, so any assumptions are probably true. Apart from Neil's cleaning fetish. I don't know where he got that from, but it wasn't me.

What is your opinion regarding how sensitive authors should be to potential reader interpretation, i.e. should certain themes, character types etc be avoided?

I don't believe any subject is out of bounds, but I think the way it is handled is important.
I recently cut an abortion storyline from my second book because I feared I couldn't handle it effectively without foisting my political viewpoint. Maybe with more experience, I could do it justice, but for now I'm happy with my decision not to. I don't want story to be skewed by polarising debate, because it's not that kind of book.
If I were to tackle any controversial topics, I'd rather let readers infer my MC's opinion than spelling out their stance (which would probably be mine too).

 

[Sedayne]

btw, I love the term fictosumptions

 

[Rich.]

I don't believe any subject is out of bounds, but I think the way it is handled is important.

I agree and think that this is the key point. I guess there is an exception when what is written butts up against the law – hate speech in a democracy or government criticism in an authoritarian state, for example. Those examples are not equivalent of course, but in both cases an author would have to make a decision about the consequences of publishing their words because they would be legally out of bounds.

Putting those extreme examples aside, I suppose an author's decision to write about a particular subject is always a moral one at some level. By their actions characters explore the rights and wrongs of a situation, and as you say:

my main characters are all aspects of myself

Which can include the negative of an aspect – I'm not a natural cleaner, so this character will be. I think that's true even when the thought process that leads to a particular character trait is a subconscious one.

More broadly, writing fiction is contractual, isn't it? – in the sense that you have a contract with yourself to write something with which you're satisfied, and you have a contract with the reader to deliver a particular kind of story. Nobody wants a teen romance that suddenly becomes a police procedural, or a piercing work of the avant garde that devolves into a hunt for a dragon. At the beginning of a story you set up reader expectations, and if you subvert those expectations too much, you'll lose your audience. I put the "too much" in italics because how much is too much? is the magic sauce, I reckon. That's the bit where we the writer draw a line in the sand and say:

I don't want story to be skewed by polarising debate, because it's not that kind of book.

So I suppose what I'm groping towards here in this rambling post is an idea that certain subjects may be out of bounds for this story because I-the-author don't think they're appropriate. The more general, and idealistic, notion that nothing should be out of bounds is just that, an ideal, something to shoot for, to live up to, a useful reference point with which to undergird a worldview. But more practically, things often are out of bounds because – for inchoate or deeply-probed reasons of our own – we just don't want to write about them.