http://foxpudding.wordpress.com

No, my mom used the term T.H.I.N.K. and I wasn’t claiming it as mine, just recommending it as a useful test. What needs to be made clear is that writers need to just consider the cost of being divisive. Sometimes that is part of the platform. For instance, Howard Stern creates contraversy. So, for him to be contraversial serves his purpose. There are writers who address contraversial topics in their fiction–transsexuality, honor killings, incest, whatever. Their platform is contraversial so topics that incite fiery opinions are part and parcel.

But, there are a lot of writers out there scrabbling for topics to blog about and contraversy IS NOT part of their platform. Ranting about Obama or the Tea Party has nothing to do with a YA fiction about dragons. My blog post was to make writers consider what the blog’s purpose was in the context of their overall platform before they posted and needlessly fractured a platform. And I am not giving any advice an agent wouldn’t give. This is a job and if we are getting in Twitter fights and ranting in blogs about topics that don’t help our platform and it is painting our books in a negative light, we will face consequences.

Thanks for taking the time to comment, 🙂

Secondly, while you reviewed this writer’s website, I’m not sure I can agree with your take in imagining what “most” or “some” of his reader’s think. The wonderful thing about a blog is that you can say what you feel, and it’s your forum to do so. They may not appeal to everyone, but they may also not be expecting to do so. Personally, I find it fascinating to see what subjects serve to create passion for some people. I don’t have to agree to recongize their passion, and I certainly don’t expect them to tone down their words to please some who “may” be offended-it’s very difficult to know how people will respond. Indeed, a blogger may come off completely bombastic, but then again, that reveals a great deal. It’s up to the reader to discern if they want to agree or not.

To take a Pollyanna approach and assume that everything should be shiny and happy is not realistic-some bloggers tackle subjects that are difficult and controversial. A reader has the option to simply move on-they aren’t locked in. Similar to an editorial or a letter to the editor in a newspaper: we can move to another topic if we disagree. But the ability that the editor or letter writer has to vent/rant/etc is an important part of free speech.

I’ll give an example of my own: there’s a website group that is very active in book reviewing/publishing/general chatter. I get a great deal of useful information from them, but I personally am often offended by their free use of obscenities, graphic sexual innuendo, and some of their political beliefs. Do I expect them to change to comfort my sensibilities, or take the good with the bad? As an adult, I find it possible to take what I want, buffet style, and ignore the rest. I also have the choice to avoid them like the plague. It’s up to me.

I completely agree with you in the sense of an author’s page: certainly they don’t want to alienate anyone. But for bloggers in general, their content is their choice. And sadly, it’s often someone that we disagree with politically that we tend to complain about…whereas someone on our side of the spectrum might not bother us at all.

I appreciate the message you are sending…it’s useful to anyone from email to social media…tone reveals all. But, I’d much rather read a fiery tirade with feeling than a subtle attempt at being manipulated through sweet talk.

And thanks very much for the kind words about us!

Martina (and Marissa)
@4KidLit