Let's talk about anger.
We all feel it. Right now, with everything going on in the world, you're probably feeling higher levels of it. I'm no psychologist, and what I know about anger comes mostly from my own experience and how in the movie
Inside Out Anger is described as caring about "what's fair."
Which makes sense to me. We get anger when we think we or someone else have been wronged. This wrong can be real and perceived, and in a world with lots of unfairness, there's a lot of reason to feel angry.
What does this have to do with writing? Well, writing comes from powerful emotions, and anger is a powerful emotion. It's stirring, and it feels
so good to be angry about something we see as a good cause. It feels righteous and good to write a story using anger as a driving motivation, to address an unfairness we see in the world.
Okay, good. Lots of great writing has come out of anger, I'm sure. Get upset about something, and watch the realistic emotions roll down to the page. Let that anger become constructive and do what you can to fix the problem.
But I think anger can become dangerous to a writer. Sure, sometimes anger causes the writer to look deeper and find a story they need to tell, to either fix something in the world or simply remove the burden from themselves. After all, we all have things that irk us that aren't really major societal issues, too. However, there comes a point when the anger becomes a hindrance and the writing becomes Bad Writing. And there is no excuse for Bad Writing, especially when it's supposed to be used to fix a problem.
(Bad Writing solves nothing. Bad Writing undermines author and intent and might not even get read. The best action is always Good Writing.)
So, here's a list of ways you can tell that the author may have been a little TOO angry when writing, and that anger has turned to destructive, Bad Writing:
1. The Whole Story is Revenge Porn
Now, we all like a good revenge story. There are lots of great ones out there. We relish justice and when a story is about a hurt party taking revenge on their attackers/oppressors/just garden variety jerks, we love it. It can be empowering and cathartic.
I'm a fan of the TV show
Leverage (Which is coming back!), which uses a lot of the tropes of a revenge story. Some big, powerful scum-of-the-earth wrongs an innocent party, using wealth or status, and the Leverage team absolutely annihilates that guy and gets justice for their clients.
It's a great show. But here's the thing: it focuses first on story and character, and it keeps the cathartic element in place. The characters who are taken down are large and powerful, and they're hurting people indiscriminately. When we the viewers see the ending, we feel good because what happened is just. These people needed to be stopped, and since they'd built their empires on suffering, of course those empires had to fall or be taken away, too. It's justice.
It also doesn't hurt that every so often, it complicates the theme of "bad guy deserves to go down hard" because hey, that's Good Writing.
Anyway, that's when it's done well. When a writer was a touch too angry, the story can become revenge porn. This is when the story is not about justice, or even about the characters at all. It's about making someone pay.
This is destructive "lashing out" through fiction: someone made the writer angry, and since this is the writer's sandbox, they'll rain down pain on this person, to the detriment of the character and story.
So, here's an example. We have a
Leverage-esque story where a wealthy CEO fires and humiliates an employee simply because he's rich and he can. Go ahead and imagine any motivation you like here. So the employee uncovers the CEO's darkest secret and uses it to undermine the CEO's credibility and gets him fired.
And then the employee burns down the office building with people inside, framing the CEO for the arson. The employee also takes personal reparations from the CEO's personal bank account, leaving his whole family destitute. And then...
You see what I'm getting at? This story ceases to be a narrative about someone getting revenge on someone who deserves it. The collateral damage stacks up, so now employees who did nothing wrong are endangered and killed, just to get back at the CEO. The CEO's family, who are likely innocent, are attacked as well, simply for the crime of being associated with the CEO.
This is every revenge fantasy taken to an extreme. To the reader, the protagonist starts to seem worse than the villain, although the ethical questions here are never asked. We're just supposed to believe this is all fine because the hero is the "good guy" and was wronged that one time.
This can also be characterized by a removal of normal narrative conventions to facilitate the revenge fantasy: no try-fail cycle, no character development, no anything other than the revenge. The author is living out a fantasy, and by golly, nothing's going to stop them.
I don't see this story very often on shelves, but I have seen it in student work and in tales on the internet. It always leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth. Aren't we supposed to like the protagonist?
So, in short: if the story becomes more about the author living out an extreme revenge fantasy, the author may have been too angry to write well. The anger undermines the character, and we lose the ability to relate to him or her.
2. The Characters are Flat Caricatures
I have seen this one in books I've read. The author has an Axe to Grind, and as a result, they create a story that is all about that Axe. It's not about characters, so there's no reason to have characters who are deep and complex. Might as well paint them with a broad brush, especially if they're our villains.
Here's an example of this. I read a YA fantasy book not too long ago that had a feminist message. Not too bad, but, as a result, every single man in the story was a sexist, violent predator.
Every
.
Single.
One.
Let's step back from a moment on why that's not great, and then look at the women in the book. As a result of being oppressed by these men, every woman was submissive and scared, resigned to their fate.
Every.
Single.
One.
(With the exception of the protagonist, who only is submissive and scared until the very end when she realizes her true power.)
Okay. This is not good writing, and here's why.
The problem here is that the Issue is being recast as characters, with no concern for realistic character development. The men became the Problem, and that left the women to be the Victim. They had to all act the same way or they weren't really showing the issue. Think of this on a smaller scale: high school. Every jock is a brainless jerk because they're the Problem, and therefore the Victim, the nerds, have to act in the same way. Because that's what the Issue looks like.
By painting every member of a group with the same brush, not only are you stereotyping your characters, both good and bad, you miss
the nuances in the system. If you're trying to show sexism, like in the book I read, you can
have a deeper, more interesting story when
some men are violent
and predatory, but maybe others are more patronizing, carrying the
"don't worry your pretty little head" opinion about things. Or maybe
other men sympathize but aren't willing to lose face in front of their
friends by helping the women.
As for the Victim, you lose the different responses. With our high school example, maybe some nerds take their beatings silently. Some others seek adult help. Others may fight back, and still others might straight up not care. That doesn't mean that all these solutions work. It just means you have humans acting like humans, exploring lots of options.
Of course, if you're writing an allegory, then nuance can go out the window. But only if you set out to write an allegory. If not, subjugating story to get a Message out there is never a good idea. It weakens its characters and can even undermine the Message, especially if that message has anything to do with not judging or stereotyping others. It also feels preachy, which brings me to...
3. It's Didactic
Aha, one of the general sins of writing. This is not limited to angry writing, by any stretch. This is something I tend to see in books that deal with Big Issues of Our Time, or in books for kids (since kids' books tend to require some kind of theme).
A didactic book is about teaching some lesson or proving a point. It's not about character or story, and if you read this blog (or even read this post this far) you know I think story and character should be the main focus. A good book lets theme grow out of itself, and this is often far more interesting than going in with, "I have something to say."
Not that "I have something to say" books are inherently bad. Many turn out very well. We have shelves of classics that "had something to say" (a lot of them are by Charles Dickens).
But that's because the author didn't just leave the story at the message. They went deeper and looked at how the issue affects people and what makes it anger-inducing. The story deals with realistic character and plot. It's not an angry rant thinly disguised as a narrative.
This is obvious in books when you can't go two pages without a character waxing eloquent about whatever point they're trying to make. Imagine reading a YA book with an introverted character who, at any point of dialogue, needs to explain why introversion is good and people should just let him be who he is. It's preachy and it breaks up story.
It's also totally unnecessary. A good story shows its theme through the plot and characters. It doesn't need to expound for pages on it.
Also, we can see it
through plot and character, in unrealistic ways. Hero is the good guy and can do no wrong, and Bad Guy can do no right. The Hero is always wise and good and the Bad Guy is always despicable. Once again, characters flatten. Plot can also be used unrealistically to reward the Hero and punish the Bad Guy.
Personally, I find this writing insufferable, as characters who have flaws and nuances are far more interesting, especially in dealing with things that anger people. And, again, this can undermine the story's message by annoying the heck out of the reader.
4. The Story Wants to Hurt, Nothing More
There is a place for stories that sting. When people in power are too comfortable, they may not see the unfairness others find blatant, or maybe they choose to ignore it. Books that sting and hurt can raise awareness for things that frankly need awareness.
But when a writer is too angry, the point is no longer to fix the problem. It's to hurt others. It's to lash out.
What does this look like? The protagonist wins by realizing his/her inner power and using it to smash the crap out of every person who ever wronged him/her and leaves.
(I've recently read two books that do this. Both YA.)
The reason I hate this: what does this say about the author's intent? The character is doing literally the same thing they've been fighting against the whole book. This doesn't show the badness of the anger-inducing thing; it only shows that the hero has now bought into that philosophy themselves.
Yes, this can be an interesting story: the hero is brought down by their circumstances and become the monster, too. But don't expect me to cheer the hero if this happens.
And yes, stories where the hero achieves some power to fight back against what angers them (or the author) are wonderful to read. We want the hero to succeed. We're disappointed when they don't. But succeed in what? In hurting people the same way they've hurt?
Too often I read a book that ends with everyone hurting. The bad guys were dealt a blow by the hero, who apparently only learned that violence and hate answers violence and hate, but the system remains intact, and other people who are suffering are still in it, likely about to be harmed more as punishment for the protagonist's escape. Only the hero has escaped, but they've escaped by becoming what they fought against.
Again, this is a fine story, but don't expect me to feel triumph at the end.
Why not? If I'm supposed to feel like the hero was triumphant, the story's whole point was undermined. If this behavior is bad for one person to do, what makes it okay for the other person? If you don't want this kind of philosophy in the world, why reward another character adopting it?
Contrast this with a story that models good behavior. The hero rises above. They take power, but use it to protect themselves and others. Maybe dole out some needed justice, not revenge. They show the following:
This is how to act.
This how to be an ally.
This is how to use power when you have it. And,
this is how you heal after you've been hurt: not by lashing out, but by rising above.
I admit this last section has a lot of my personal preferences for stories. I prefer books written out of hope, not anger. Books that aren't blind to social issues or unfairness but seek to inspire fairness in the future. There's a place for the books that end badly, showing the flaws in society in bleakness so people flinch away from that kind of life. They're not my favorite books, but there is a place for them. When they're written
well.
Too long, didn't read? Or you want the wrap-up? Basically what these 4 things boil down to are:
1. The author was so angry they ignored good plotting and characterization in pursuit of making a statement.
2. The author actually undermined their own message with their need to lash out.
Basically, the author forgot how to write well. Strong emotions should create better art, not debilitate the author.
If you have something you're angry about and you just need to write about it, never forget that you are a writer. You have power because you can craft stories and characters that move people. You can explore themes in cohesive ways without undermining yourself. Forget that, and you lose your power to do anything to change the thing that is angering you.
Agree? Disagree? Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments!
