Writing in Controversial Times
I distinctly recall, as a child in the mid-seventies, seeing something shocking. The male driver in the car next to us wore pink nail polish. I was old enough to know this was very out of the ordinary, but young enough not to understand the full significance or lack thereof. When I asked my mother, “Why?” she did not answer, leaving me perplexed.
Back then, many topics were taboo, and it was impossible for a single person who was not rich or famous to expose something controversial. There was such a widespread cover-up that no newspaper or television station would dare risk backlash from exposing hushed topics. The only sources were shady bookstores or organizations that distributed mimeographed pamphlets.
Still, people knew about controversial topics, and on rare occasions they entered the public sphere of knowledge, such as when a famous person was confirmed beyond a doubt to have a controversial aspect. And even then, the facts were often watered down to make them palatable for the masses.
The internet and social media have opened a large hole in what was once taboo. This, in turn, opened up what is presented to us (socially acceptable). This technology also allowed anyone to be a publisher or primary news source. To complicate matters, we now have fake news and AI-generated slop.
Fortunately, something good has come out of this information explosion. Today, even a nobody can have a tremendous influence. That is assuming that the individual has the creativity/drive to fake something, happened to catch something profound, or present a controversial topic well enough that the public latches on. Want some proof that a humble person like me is a news powerhouse?
Back then, many topics were taboo, and it was impossible for a single person who was not rich or famous to expose something controversial. There was such a widespread cover-up that no newspaper or television station would dare risk backlash from exposing hushed topics. The only sources were shady bookstores or organizations that distributed mimeographed pamphlets.
Still, people knew about controversial topics, and on rare occasions they entered the public sphere of knowledge, such as when a famous person was confirmed beyond a doubt to have a controversial aspect. And even then, the facts were often watered down to make them palatable for the masses.
The internet and social media have opened a large hole in what was once taboo. This, in turn, opened up what is presented to us (socially acceptable). This technology also allowed anyone to be a publisher or primary news source. To complicate matters, we now have fake news and AI-generated slop.
Fortunately, something good has come out of this information explosion. Today, even a nobody can have a tremendous influence. That is assuming that the individual has the creativity/drive to fake something, happened to catch something profound, or present a controversial topic well enough that the public latches on. Want some proof that a humble person like me is a news powerhouse?
I suppose it is a good thing that normal people have tremendous power, because it levels the playing field, allowing normal people to access unlimited resources to conduct world-class research and shed light on important topics. The flip side is that we are blasted from every angle with all kinds of filth, misinformation, and issues we do not care about. It is a lot to take in and certainly feels overwhelming.
There is more good news. We can address information we do not like through bad reviews, emails to website/social media operators, petitions to advertisers, informing our government/peers, and legal action. And normal people are getting more powerful abilities to inflict their displeasure. Yes, we can now use AI to write a nasty letter quickly. Yay? Plus, it seems society is producing more unscrupulous people who feel better about themselves by hurting others. Boo!
To make matters worse, society is inventing new offensive topics/words every day. Did you know the word apple is a racial slur? I randomly learned about this meaning six months ago, and had I not uncovered this information, I could see calling (writing) somebody an apple because the word sounds so innocent. Fortunately, I made the discovery and will be sure to use the word correctly.
This brings up another point. Because society is rapidly changing, past works can be reclassified as offensive. Consider the book, Gone with the Wind, by Margaret Mitchell. It was widely celebrated as a terrific achievement when released, but we now view the material as racist.
All combined, the battle space known as the public is a dangerous place to write. A slight mistake will lead to devastating reviews and harsh comments. In the worst case, multiple lawsuits. Yikes!
How do I navigate through this highly complex environment without getting burned to a crisp? Here is an example. I discovered that my hero author, Neil Gaiman, has been accused of abusing multiple women. The news shocked me, and I immediately deleted a prior article praising his writing. I felt more was needed and wrote an article expressing my disappointment.
I knew before writing that Neil, his publisher, or his fans would be offended by harsh remarks. Thus, I took great care to craft an article that would not offend. This meant not citing the allegations because they were unproven, nor did I make accusations because I had no direct information. Instead, I flatly stated my disappointment with mild words and went no further.
Still, it was a minefield of an article that I went over multiple times, looking for any aspect that might elicit an adverse reaction. This was done through research on the topic from numerous sources, considering how readers might react, and by entirely avoiding issues I felt were off-limits. To do so, there are many risk-versus-reward decisions.
An example of one forbidden topic is politics. I only lightly touch them on rare occasions. For instance, in two of my books, the President of the United States is a character, but I would never identify their political party. Why? It is basic marketing. No matter what my choice, I would alienate 50% of my readers.
In addition, I did not describe any presidential behavior that might reveal their political party. This eliminates topics like: unions, taxes, social programs, military spending, healthcare, immigration, or minimum wage. Yet, in an upcoming book that is hopefully going to be published in two months, I do take a deep dive into the economy, and this is undoubtedly a political topic with the potential to offend.
The way I approached economics was to flatly state that external forces were manipulating it, and the plot revolved around uncovering the source. I did not offer any internal (government) solutions, such as raising/lowering taxes, because this would alienate readers.
Still, I like to have some measured fun, and in one scene in a different book, a character records their political party (Republican/Democrat) on a form. To me, it read funny, and I felt my readers would have the same reaction. Yet, I made sure not to mention any political traits in the rest of the book.
Another rule I strictly follow is not to use (quote) any other author’s work because readers are 2000% unforgiving in this area. Yet sometimes, in articles, I must use an excerpt, and I keep it short and always credit the author. I have only stayed outside this once in a book, where I have a single uncredited sentence from my favorite band. The message is supposed to be the pinnacle of sacred society’s wisdom, and the character states, “Sounds more like song lyrics.” I did this small test to see if anyone would catch on.
To expand on the above point, I do not write anywhere near prior plots, which has radically limited my scope. For example, I would never write a traditional romance story because they have all been covered. Meaning that there is a 100% chance that no matter how imaginative my work would be, it would be directly compared to multiple well-established stories.
And this happened in my first book, which was compared to Stephen King’s Misery. Apparently, if a character is an author and anything bad happens to them, it is a total plot rip-off. Who knew?
Obviously, I am a conservative (not the political meaning) writer who does not tackle controversial topics, but I need to attract readers. This means that my words went a little too far a few times. Honestly, I did not realize how fickle society is. It seems like no reader can take a joke or see the other side of an argument. I have had several articles and the first edition of my second book that brought me harsh reactions.
My biggest problem is making a mistake because I am unaware of something. Once published, there is no “undo” button. And something unexpected has happened. This is working! Yes, I am slightly popular. Think 10 grains of sand in the Sierra Desert. Yay! This means more people will read my work, leaving more to be offended. Yay?
Fortunately, I have a few aces up my sleeve in the form of endless self-edits, my beta reader, editor, and proofreader. And if that is not enough, I can release a second edition to correct flaws. However, that is not the biggest ace I just got.
It turns out that AI is really good at identifying material that might offend. It only takes a minute to pop an article in with the prompt: “Identify anything controversial.” AI will produce a fine report and even offer corrections. Yet…
I have coined the phrase, “Writing bland books leads to bland sales.” Meaning, I have to explore topics I know are minefields. So, yes, I write about intimacy, problems I see, things I wish were better, personal issues I have, and random ideas that people might not appreciate. The result is strong (at least in my mind) but tame material. Well, there are all kinds of controversial material out there. How do other authors do it?
Many writers jump headfirst into topics that would break my keyboard. How? They have four traits I do not have. The first is a far greater ability to handle criticism, bad reviews, and refusals from publishing platforms. The second is that they care less about negative feedback. “You did not like my last article; that’s your problem.” The third, these types of authors seem to enjoy being negative. “Wow, I really ticked a bunch of people off. Cool!” And the fourth? They are willing to sacrifice some readers in exchange for the possibility of attracting others. That is a path I dare not go down because the path of success for general fiction is slow and hard-fought.
Yet, I can see that for some authors, there is a certain power in the bad-boy mentality. When I was a kid, I met a local news sportscaster, Ted Leitner, at a bookstore. He was a bold, controversial person who spoke his mind every night. Our conversation made me think that he enjoyed the negativity. Yet, I got the impression that when he did not know a topic, he spoke with even more confidence—a memorable conversation.
What advice or techniques do I have for fellow authors? The fine line between praise and hateful comments is blurry and moving. Thus, I do not have any advice because today’s writers are in an endless minefield, and only a few of the biggest mines are visible.
You’re the best -Bill
January 21, 2026
There is more good news. We can address information we do not like through bad reviews, emails to website/social media operators, petitions to advertisers, informing our government/peers, and legal action. And normal people are getting more powerful abilities to inflict their displeasure. Yes, we can now use AI to write a nasty letter quickly. Yay? Plus, it seems society is producing more unscrupulous people who feel better about themselves by hurting others. Boo!
To make matters worse, society is inventing new offensive topics/words every day. Did you know the word apple is a racial slur? I randomly learned about this meaning six months ago, and had I not uncovered this information, I could see calling (writing) somebody an apple because the word sounds so innocent. Fortunately, I made the discovery and will be sure to use the word correctly.
This brings up another point. Because society is rapidly changing, past works can be reclassified as offensive. Consider the book, Gone with the Wind, by Margaret Mitchell. It was widely celebrated as a terrific achievement when released, but we now view the material as racist.
All combined, the battle space known as the public is a dangerous place to write. A slight mistake will lead to devastating reviews and harsh comments. In the worst case, multiple lawsuits. Yikes!
How do I navigate through this highly complex environment without getting burned to a crisp? Here is an example. I discovered that my hero author, Neil Gaiman, has been accused of abusing multiple women. The news shocked me, and I immediately deleted a prior article praising his writing. I felt more was needed and wrote an article expressing my disappointment.
I knew before writing that Neil, his publisher, or his fans would be offended by harsh remarks. Thus, I took great care to craft an article that would not offend. This meant not citing the allegations because they were unproven, nor did I make accusations because I had no direct information. Instead, I flatly stated my disappointment with mild words and went no further.
Still, it was a minefield of an article that I went over multiple times, looking for any aspect that might elicit an adverse reaction. This was done through research on the topic from numerous sources, considering how readers might react, and by entirely avoiding issues I felt were off-limits. To do so, there are many risk-versus-reward decisions.
An example of one forbidden topic is politics. I only lightly touch them on rare occasions. For instance, in two of my books, the President of the United States is a character, but I would never identify their political party. Why? It is basic marketing. No matter what my choice, I would alienate 50% of my readers.
In addition, I did not describe any presidential behavior that might reveal their political party. This eliminates topics like: unions, taxes, social programs, military spending, healthcare, immigration, or minimum wage. Yet, in an upcoming book that is hopefully going to be published in two months, I do take a deep dive into the economy, and this is undoubtedly a political topic with the potential to offend.
The way I approached economics was to flatly state that external forces were manipulating it, and the plot revolved around uncovering the source. I did not offer any internal (government) solutions, such as raising/lowering taxes, because this would alienate readers.
Still, I like to have some measured fun, and in one scene in a different book, a character records their political party (Republican/Democrat) on a form. To me, it read funny, and I felt my readers would have the same reaction. Yet, I made sure not to mention any political traits in the rest of the book.
Another rule I strictly follow is not to use (quote) any other author’s work because readers are 2000% unforgiving in this area. Yet sometimes, in articles, I must use an excerpt, and I keep it short and always credit the author. I have only stayed outside this once in a book, where I have a single uncredited sentence from my favorite band. The message is supposed to be the pinnacle of sacred society’s wisdom, and the character states, “Sounds more like song lyrics.” I did this small test to see if anyone would catch on.
To expand on the above point, I do not write anywhere near prior plots, which has radically limited my scope. For example, I would never write a traditional romance story because they have all been covered. Meaning that there is a 100% chance that no matter how imaginative my work would be, it would be directly compared to multiple well-established stories.
And this happened in my first book, which was compared to Stephen King’s Misery. Apparently, if a character is an author and anything bad happens to them, it is a total plot rip-off. Who knew?
Obviously, I am a conservative (not the political meaning) writer who does not tackle controversial topics, but I need to attract readers. This means that my words went a little too far a few times. Honestly, I did not realize how fickle society is. It seems like no reader can take a joke or see the other side of an argument. I have had several articles and the first edition of my second book that brought me harsh reactions.
My biggest problem is making a mistake because I am unaware of something. Once published, there is no “undo” button. And something unexpected has happened. This is working! Yes, I am slightly popular. Think 10 grains of sand in the Sierra Desert. Yay! This means more people will read my work, leaving more to be offended. Yay?
Fortunately, I have a few aces up my sleeve in the form of endless self-edits, my beta reader, editor, and proofreader. And if that is not enough, I can release a second edition to correct flaws. However, that is not the biggest ace I just got.
It turns out that AI is really good at identifying material that might offend. It only takes a minute to pop an article in with the prompt: “Identify anything controversial.” AI will produce a fine report and even offer corrections. Yet…
I have coined the phrase, “Writing bland books leads to bland sales.” Meaning, I have to explore topics I know are minefields. So, yes, I write about intimacy, problems I see, things I wish were better, personal issues I have, and random ideas that people might not appreciate. The result is strong (at least in my mind) but tame material. Well, there are all kinds of controversial material out there. How do other authors do it?
Many writers jump headfirst into topics that would break my keyboard. How? They have four traits I do not have. The first is a far greater ability to handle criticism, bad reviews, and refusals from publishing platforms. The second is that they care less about negative feedback. “You did not like my last article; that’s your problem.” The third, these types of authors seem to enjoy being negative. “Wow, I really ticked a bunch of people off. Cool!” And the fourth? They are willing to sacrifice some readers in exchange for the possibility of attracting others. That is a path I dare not go down because the path of success for general fiction is slow and hard-fought.
Yet, I can see that for some authors, there is a certain power in the bad-boy mentality. When I was a kid, I met a local news sportscaster, Ted Leitner, at a bookstore. He was a bold, controversial person who spoke his mind every night. Our conversation made me think that he enjoyed the negativity. Yet, I got the impression that when he did not know a topic, he spoke with even more confidence—a memorable conversation.
What advice or techniques do I have for fellow authors? The fine line between praise and hateful comments is blurry and moving. Thus, I do not have any advice because today’s writers are in an endless minefield, and only a few of the biggest mines are visible.
You’re the best -Bill
January 21, 2026
