(TW Sexual Assault) Disturbing Content/Discussion at Writers' Group
June 21, 2019 9:29 PM Subscribe
At my writers' group meeting this week, one of the submissions depicted a rape. During critique, the writer dismissed concerns about the submission's content by saying that the story was taking place "before the #metoo era," so concepts like consent and rape are anachronistic and irrelevant (?!). The rest of the group seemed split in terms of supporting the writer's stance (along the obvious age and/or gender lines). This is upsetting me. How do I handle this, both emotionally and socially?
TW: Sexual Assault
The submission was about a woman coming across an intellectually disabled man wandering in the street. The woman is acquainted with the man and at loose ends for the day, so she hangs out with him for a while and then decides to drive him home. When she tries to get him into the camper shell of her truck, he starts screaming in protest (he's nonverbal) and tries to fight her off. She overpowers him and shoves him into the truck bed, and then gets in right behind him. They have sex. The actual sex is only implied, but the writer confirmed that it's meant to be obvious. Up until this point, the whole piece is written from the woman's perspective, but in the post-coital scene it shifts to the man's perspective long enough for him to reflect that he feels "safe."
Another woman and I in the writers' group both thought it was unquestionably rape; not only did the man in the story seem incapable of giving meaningful consent, he had also resisted the woman as explicitly as he could. So we were looking at this piece as a (fictional) account of a rape. The submission writer and another man in the group dismissed the idea that it could have been rape, though, and scoffed at the idea that questions about consent and assault were even worth asking. The writer said that this was "before the #metoo era," so our concerns were misplaced/irrelevant (the story takes place in the 1950s US).
So I tried to be constructive and said that regardless of the morality of the character's actions, I didn't think that the woman's emotional journey through the piece made sense as things were, anyway, because I was really not understanding why she would go from driving along feeling vulnerable and reflective to suddenly raping the first person she sees on the road. Or why afterward, she and the man apparently both felt "safe," even though he was screaming, panicking, and struggling to get away from her up until she forced herself on him.
The other men in the group were saying things like that they thought maybe this was meant to be "compassionate sex" between two broken people, etc. They also gave constructive criticism to the writer about ways to change the overall dynamic between the two characters, and other aspects of the piece (imagery, structure, etc). Everyone in the whole group (including me) was joining in on those conversations, too, the whole critique wasn't all just about whether this story was about an assault. It's just that the shadow of the assault loomed over the whole critique regardless of whether we were discussing that explicitly. Also, to have NONE of the men in the room even be willing to say that they saw this as a depiction of a rape, too, was really upsetting and disturbing to me (and to the other woman who saw things as I did -- we talked about it after).
All through this, the writer was defensive (although he's always defensive, to the point that another group (male) member finally was like, "that's just my suggestion, you don't have to take it!" about another point). The writer and his most vocal supporter in this ended up saying that the woman character would want to have sex with this man because "he's probably the best she can do," and that was apparently meant to be explanation enough for why she would decide to assault him on impulse. The organizer thought that was sufficient explanation for the woman character's behavior, too, and became very vocal about it at that point. I think she mostly just wanted to shut the discussion down because she thought the two of us who were most concerned about the submission's content were being too "mean" to the writer.
This has really gotten under my skin. I keep thinking about it.
I don't feel unsafe in this group now, or even more self-conscious about my own submissions. But I do feel judgemental toward these men, especially the writer and his most vocal supporter. I'm very angry with them. Furious. I'm furious just typing this up right now. I'm also angry with these other guys for implicitly taking their side. (I'm also fed up with the organizer, but that's it's own separate thing). Anyhow, I want to stay in this group because it's been very good for my writing and there are people that I like and respect in it. Other members of the group have also pulled me aside to thank me for my contributions wrt their pieces, so I feel like I'm generally being a good group member myself. But I also don't know how to be OK with some of these people given what their attitudes about sexual assault apparently are. That's a very visceral reaction, so I keep telling myself that I don't know what the quieter people were actually thinking, etc, but that hasn't changed how I feel.
*How do I make myself OK with the writer of this piece and his very vocal supporter? At least OK enough to keep participating in the group with them.
*How do I make myself OK with the other guys who were in the room, and who seemed pretty sympathetic to the writer's stance but didn't actually say so? One of them had seemed like a nice guy before this, so I'm especially taken aback by his reaction (or lack thereof).
*How do I make myself OK with reading pieces like this, that I find upsetting for reasons that have nothing to do with writing skills?
*Is this something that I need to resolve internally, or something to talk about at the next meeting in order to clear the air? I think probably internally, but it's hard to be angry like this and just keep my mouth shut.
I basically want to know how to re-frame this so it doesn't hit me so hard, and whether/how I should talk to other members of the writers' group about it (whether one-on-one or as a group or both).
TW: Sexual Assault
The submission was about a woman coming across an intellectually disabled man wandering in the street. The woman is acquainted with the man and at loose ends for the day, so she hangs out with him for a while and then decides to drive him home. When she tries to get him into the camper shell of her truck, he starts screaming in protest (he's nonverbal) and tries to fight her off. She overpowers him and shoves him into the truck bed, and then gets in right behind him. They have sex. The actual sex is only implied, but the writer confirmed that it's meant to be obvious. Up until this point, the whole piece is written from the woman's perspective, but in the post-coital scene it shifts to the man's perspective long enough for him to reflect that he feels "safe."
Another woman and I in the writers' group both thought it was unquestionably rape; not only did the man in the story seem incapable of giving meaningful consent, he had also resisted the woman as explicitly as he could. So we were looking at this piece as a (fictional) account of a rape. The submission writer and another man in the group dismissed the idea that it could have been rape, though, and scoffed at the idea that questions about consent and assault were even worth asking. The writer said that this was "before the #metoo era," so our concerns were misplaced/irrelevant (the story takes place in the 1950s US).
So I tried to be constructive and said that regardless of the morality of the character's actions, I didn't think that the woman's emotional journey through the piece made sense as things were, anyway, because I was really not understanding why she would go from driving along feeling vulnerable and reflective to suddenly raping the first person she sees on the road. Or why afterward, she and the man apparently both felt "safe," even though he was screaming, panicking, and struggling to get away from her up until she forced herself on him.
The other men in the group were saying things like that they thought maybe this was meant to be "compassionate sex" between two broken people, etc. They also gave constructive criticism to the writer about ways to change the overall dynamic between the two characters, and other aspects of the piece (imagery, structure, etc). Everyone in the whole group (including me) was joining in on those conversations, too, the whole critique wasn't all just about whether this story was about an assault. It's just that the shadow of the assault loomed over the whole critique regardless of whether we were discussing that explicitly. Also, to have NONE of the men in the room even be willing to say that they saw this as a depiction of a rape, too, was really upsetting and disturbing to me (and to the other woman who saw things as I did -- we talked about it after).
All through this, the writer was defensive (although he's always defensive, to the point that another group (male) member finally was like, "that's just my suggestion, you don't have to take it!" about another point). The writer and his most vocal supporter in this ended up saying that the woman character would want to have sex with this man because "he's probably the best she can do," and that was apparently meant to be explanation enough for why she would decide to assault him on impulse. The organizer thought that was sufficient explanation for the woman character's behavior, too, and became very vocal about it at that point. I think she mostly just wanted to shut the discussion down because she thought the two of us who were most concerned about the submission's content were being too "mean" to the writer.
This has really gotten under my skin. I keep thinking about it.
I don't feel unsafe in this group now, or even more self-conscious about my own submissions. But I do feel judgemental toward these men, especially the writer and his most vocal supporter. I'm very angry with them. Furious. I'm furious just typing this up right now. I'm also angry with these other guys for implicitly taking their side. (I'm also fed up with the organizer, but that's it's own separate thing). Anyhow, I want to stay in this group because it's been very good for my writing and there are people that I like and respect in it. Other members of the group have also pulled me aside to thank me for my contributions wrt their pieces, so I feel like I'm generally being a good group member myself. But I also don't know how to be OK with some of these people given what their attitudes about sexual assault apparently are. That's a very visceral reaction, so I keep telling myself that I don't know what the quieter people were actually thinking, etc, but that hasn't changed how I feel.
*How do I make myself OK with the writer of this piece and his very vocal supporter? At least OK enough to keep participating in the group with them.
*How do I make myself OK with the other guys who were in the room, and who seemed pretty sympathetic to the writer's stance but didn't actually say so? One of them had seemed like a nice guy before this, so I'm especially taken aback by his reaction (or lack thereof).
*How do I make myself OK with reading pieces like this, that I find upsetting for reasons that have nothing to do with writing skills?
*Is this something that I need to resolve internally, or something to talk about at the next meeting in order to clear the air? I think probably internally, but it's hard to be angry like this and just keep my mouth shut.
I basically want to know how to re-frame this so it doesn't hit me so hard, and whether/how I should talk to other members of the writers' group about it (whether one-on-one or as a group or both).
Best answer: But I do feel judgemental toward these men, especially the writer and his most vocal supporter. I'm very angry with them. Furious. I'm furious just typing this up right now. I'm also angry with these other guys for implicitly taking their side.
That sounds totally valid. Dude wrote a piece about rape that dehumanized both a female character and a disabled character. That's appalling.
It should hit you hard. I think you should be judgmental of these people. If you want to stay in a group with them because they help your writing, I think that's a valid choice, but now you know that they have ridiculous gaps in empathy and logic, and you should factor it into how you interpret their critiques of your work. It's also ok to decide that those are large enough gaps that you can no longer respect their critique of your work.
Basically, don't let them run you out of the group if the group is helpful to you. But don't feel like you have to minimize their offense in order to stay in the group. They fucked up and refused to acknowledge it. It's their responsibility, not yours, to deal with the fallout of that.
posted by lazuli at 9:58 PM on June 21, 2019 [30 favorites]
That sounds totally valid. Dude wrote a piece about rape that dehumanized both a female character and a disabled character. That's appalling.
It should hit you hard. I think you should be judgmental of these people. If you want to stay in a group with them because they help your writing, I think that's a valid choice, but now you know that they have ridiculous gaps in empathy and logic, and you should factor it into how you interpret their critiques of your work. It's also ok to decide that those are large enough gaps that you can no longer respect their critique of your work.
Basically, don't let them run you out of the group if the group is helpful to you. But don't feel like you have to minimize their offense in order to stay in the group. They fucked up and refused to acknowledge it. It's their responsibility, not yours, to deal with the fallout of that.
posted by lazuli at 9:58 PM on June 21, 2019 [30 favorites]
Best answer: The writer said that this was "before the #metoo era," so our concerns were misplaced/irrelevant (the story takes place in the 1950s US).
I'm not sure there's any category of deliberate ignorance big enough to compare this to. this is up there with the worst historical revisionist lies there are. and I mean the ones you probably think I mean. you can't reason with a man who thinks rape, and people minding it, was invented sometime after hashtags. you can't reframe a man, against his will, out of a moral pit he delights to be in.
as far as that goes, it doesn't matter if you misinterpreted the story, and it doesn't matter if there's room for differences of opinion on psychological realism and motivation. not if the quoted part above is a fair paraphrase of what he seriously said.
How do I make myself OK with reading pieces like this
learn to dissociate? but only if you must. if you can't evict him from your group or form a new one out of the people you do respect, and if you can't get any small satisfaction from telling him how repulsive his work is, the next best thing is not to read it.
posted by queenofbithynia at 10:00 PM on June 21, 2019 [14 favorites]
I'm not sure there's any category of deliberate ignorance big enough to compare this to. this is up there with the worst historical revisionist lies there are. and I mean the ones you probably think I mean. you can't reason with a man who thinks rape, and people minding it, was invented sometime after hashtags. you can't reframe a man, against his will, out of a moral pit he delights to be in.
as far as that goes, it doesn't matter if you misinterpreted the story, and it doesn't matter if there's room for differences of opinion on psychological realism and motivation. not if the quoted part above is a fair paraphrase of what he seriously said.
How do I make myself OK with reading pieces like this
learn to dissociate? but only if you must. if you can't evict him from your group or form a new one out of the people you do respect, and if you can't get any small satisfaction from telling him how repulsive his work is, the next best thing is not to read it.
posted by queenofbithynia at 10:00 PM on June 21, 2019 [14 favorites]
I am so, so sorry this happened. I have been in similar situations, and it’s pretty hellish.
If the group as a whole is beneficial to you and your writing, compartmentalizing may be the best option. I think your concerns about the story are spot-on. Please don’t let this experience undermine your faith in that or in yourself. Don’t let the number of people that disagreed trick you into thinking that you were wrong.
The shorthand I have developed when I need to coach myself through these moments is “don’t argue with flat-earthers”.
Identifying another person’s obviously incorrect belief is an achievable task. Convincing another person to change a belief, even an obviously incorrect one? Vastly harder. It sucks.
Practical advice? Value the group, and identify the members that are shitty and should be ignored on that basis. This includes bailing on a story if it goes into problematic territory.
You do owe the group a certain amount of emotional labor; you do not owe it to every member equally, IMO. Be selective in who you gift your energy to.
(On preview, seconding everything queenofbithynia said.)
posted by FallibleHuman at 10:33 PM on June 21, 2019
If the group as a whole is beneficial to you and your writing, compartmentalizing may be the best option. I think your concerns about the story are spot-on. Please don’t let this experience undermine your faith in that or in yourself. Don’t let the number of people that disagreed trick you into thinking that you were wrong.
The shorthand I have developed when I need to coach myself through these moments is “don’t argue with flat-earthers”.
Identifying another person’s obviously incorrect belief is an achievable task. Convincing another person to change a belief, even an obviously incorrect one? Vastly harder. It sucks.
Practical advice? Value the group, and identify the members that are shitty and should be ignored on that basis. This includes bailing on a story if it goes into problematic territory.
You do owe the group a certain amount of emotional labor; you do not owe it to every member equally, IMO. Be selective in who you gift your energy to.
(On preview, seconding everything queenofbithynia said.)
posted by FallibleHuman at 10:33 PM on June 21, 2019
Best answer: How do I make myself OK with the other guys who were in the room, and who seemed pretty sympathetic to the writer's stance but didn't actually say so? One of them had seemed like a nice guy before this, so I'm especially taken aback by his reaction (or lack thereof).
Honestly, if I went to my usual writing group and unexpectedly found myself discussing what constituted sexual assault of men by women, I probably wouldn't have said anything either.
There is a pervasive belief that real men always want sex and (in the counterfactual scenario where they didn't) are always strong enough to overpower a sexual aggressor. Even here as recently as 2016 we could not discuss sexual assault of men by women without immediately and permanently derailing into an analysis of the phrase "nagging and begging" that multiple male participants described as making them reluctant to discuss their own assaults.
And, yes, you were arguing in favor of calling it assault. There were people in that thread who agreed with me too. Still didn't make me want to get involved myself.
posted by meaty shoe puppet at 10:58 PM on June 21, 2019
Honestly, if I went to my usual writing group and unexpectedly found myself discussing what constituted sexual assault of men by women, I probably wouldn't have said anything either.
There is a pervasive belief that real men always want sex and (in the counterfactual scenario where they didn't) are always strong enough to overpower a sexual aggressor. Even here as recently as 2016 we could not discuss sexual assault of men by women without immediately and permanently derailing into an analysis of the phrase "nagging and begging" that multiple male participants described as making them reluctant to discuss their own assaults.
And, yes, you were arguing in favor of calling it assault. There were people in that thread who agreed with me too. Still didn't make me want to get involved myself.
posted by meaty shoe puppet at 10:58 PM on June 21, 2019
You don't have to be OK with this guy. Too many red flags. The edgy story, the defensiveness, the nasty comments about #metoo and suggesting that the protagonist couldn't do better.
If you want to continue in this group, I like Jeanne's suggestion about the submitter not getting to talk. Even a problematic person should recognize that if they're defensive about their writing, the writers' group can do nothing for them.
And if you don't, that's understandable! Maybe you could start a new group with the better ones in that group.
posted by zompist at 11:04 PM on June 21, 2019 [2 favorites]
If you want to continue in this group, I like Jeanne's suggestion about the submitter not getting to talk. Even a problematic person should recognize that if they're defensive about their writing, the writers' group can do nothing for them.
And if you don't, that's understandable! Maybe you could start a new group with the better ones in that group.
posted by zompist at 11:04 PM on June 21, 2019 [2 favorites]
This is a 'bet' story.
And the bet is 'I bet you can't get away with writing a story for our writers' group where someone is raped and the victim of rape says no but enjoys it and the rapist isn't a monster, but is actually kind of sympathetic.'
There isn't a shred of good faith or integrity in this story. Disabled men and women and boys and girls are raped far more often than their abled counterparts, the vast majority of these rapes are committed by men, and these rapes leave the victims deeply confused and traumatized. Far from feeling 'safe' afterwards, virtually all the victims will need therapy if they're to have a chance of ever feeling safe again, which may very well never happen despite therapy.
I would try to find a therapist for disabled people who have been raped to address your writers' group about the aftermath of rape for a disabled person.
posted by jamjam at 11:37 PM on June 21, 2019 [13 favorites]
And the bet is 'I bet you can't get away with writing a story for our writers' group where someone is raped and the victim of rape says no but enjoys it and the rapist isn't a monster, but is actually kind of sympathetic.'
There isn't a shred of good faith or integrity in this story. Disabled men and women and boys and girls are raped far more often than their abled counterparts, the vast majority of these rapes are committed by men, and these rapes leave the victims deeply confused and traumatized. Far from feeling 'safe' afterwards, virtually all the victims will need therapy if they're to have a chance of ever feeling safe again, which may very well never happen despite therapy.
I would try to find a therapist for disabled people who have been raped to address your writers' group about the aftermath of rape for a disabled person.
posted by jamjam at 11:37 PM on June 21, 2019 [13 favorites]
But I do feel judgemental toward these men, especially the writer and his most vocal supporter. I'm very angry with them. Furious. I'm furious just typing this up right now. I'm also angry with these other guys for implicitly taking their side.
You're right and you should say it. They're wrong and incredibly gross. You don't have to feel okay with them anymore, ever again, as they've unashamedly revealed something horrifying about their personalities, their characters, that no one should overlook or brush aside.
posted by poffin boffin at 12:07 AM on June 22, 2019 [15 favorites]
You're right and you should say it. They're wrong and incredibly gross. You don't have to feel okay with them anymore, ever again, as they've unashamedly revealed something horrifying about their personalities, their characters, that no one should overlook or brush aside.
posted by poffin boffin at 12:07 AM on June 22, 2019 [15 favorites]
I don't think you can make yourself feel OK. This would make me angry and contemptuous, too. It's offensive and ignorant. And, as you point out, bad writing, indicative of what lazuli rightly calls "ridiculous gaps in empathy and logic." I would feel disaffected from the group and not be able to really trust or respect them.
If you really want to stay in the group, a reframing you could try is "What did I expect? Isn't that how most people see the world?" It doesn't excuse it, it just retroactively lowers your expectations. It files them away with all the other privileged, hurtful, ignorant people you've had to deal with, allowing you to tolerate them in the same way, learning what you can from them but not letting your guard down. In your everyday life, you probably deal with a ton of people who hold appalling views that just don't happen to come up.
Another reframing you could try (I'm just offering these because you asked for them) is that if you drop out, they win. They get the educational benefit of the group and you don't. The best revenge is becoming a better writer. Don't let them drive you off. In fact, it's people with good views, like you, who need all the support they can get so that good ideas get published and culture changes faster. (I'm not sure I believe this one, because I seriously wonder: would another group be a better place to develop?)
Before judging any single person's silence, I'd ask myself if it was possible that they or someone close to them had been a victim of assault.
posted by salvia at 1:24 AM on June 22, 2019 [2 favorites]
If you really want to stay in the group, a reframing you could try is "What did I expect? Isn't that how most people see the world?" It doesn't excuse it, it just retroactively lowers your expectations. It files them away with all the other privileged, hurtful, ignorant people you've had to deal with, allowing you to tolerate them in the same way, learning what you can from them but not letting your guard down. In your everyday life, you probably deal with a ton of people who hold appalling views that just don't happen to come up.
Another reframing you could try (I'm just offering these because you asked for them) is that if you drop out, they win. They get the educational benefit of the group and you don't. The best revenge is becoming a better writer. Don't let them drive you off. In fact, it's people with good views, like you, who need all the support they can get so that good ideas get published and culture changes faster. (I'm not sure I believe this one, because I seriously wonder: would another group be a better place to develop?)
Before judging any single person's silence, I'd ask myself if it was possible that they or someone close to them had been a victim of assault.
posted by salvia at 1:24 AM on June 22, 2019 [2 favorites]
I'm a bit confused about why everyone is assuming that this is an inevitable, monolithic Group that one either belongs to completely or abandons entirely.
There's a simple solution here: get the contact information (if you don't already have it) of the people from the group that you actually like. Maybe form a different group, with these as the base, if there is interest. Or maybe just develop some one on one relationships with these select members. Exchange writing over email, or have coffee once in a while and talk about what you're working on.
The rape writer and the rape apologist sound like people I wouldn't save if they were drowning. No reason to voluntarily expose yourself to that shit.
posted by nirblegee at 1:31 AM on June 22, 2019 [11 favorites]
There's a simple solution here: get the contact information (if you don't already have it) of the people from the group that you actually like. Maybe form a different group, with these as the base, if there is interest. Or maybe just develop some one on one relationships with these select members. Exchange writing over email, or have coffee once in a while and talk about what you're working on.
The rape writer and the rape apologist sound like people I wouldn't save if they were drowning. No reason to voluntarily expose yourself to that shit.
posted by nirblegee at 1:31 AM on June 22, 2019 [11 favorites]
I apologise because I can’t read the whole thing so maybe this was addressed but my response to this
the writer dismissed concerns about the submission's content by saying that the story was taking place "before the #metoo era,
Is Yes but when was the story written? And then run do not walk to the nearest exit and please Jesus stop thinking you have any reason to try to be ok with this
posted by you must supply a verb at 1:53 AM on June 22, 2019 [1 favorite]
the writer dismissed concerns about the submission's content by saying that the story was taking place "before the #metoo era,
Is Yes but when was the story written? And then run do not walk to the nearest exit and please Jesus stop thinking you have any reason to try to be ok with this
posted by you must supply a verb at 1:53 AM on June 22, 2019 [1 favorite]
Best answer: You did the right thing. I don’t know how to be ok with it except that you can correctly categorize the writer of the piece as a rape apologist, the organizer of your group as weak, and the other people who refused to speak up as chickens. Sure, they might not have expected to critique a piece about rape (they certainly knew what the story was before the workshop, given that they would have read it), but that’s the writer’s fault, not yours. I mean this guy’s justification was that the woman in the piece wasn’t hot enough for sex, so she took advantage of a disabled man? This guy is a major league asshole.
posted by sallybrown at 3:36 AM on June 22, 2019 [4 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 3:36 AM on June 22, 2019 [4 favorites]
Best answer: The organizer's response (shut down discussion because you're being "too mean" to the writer??) not only is not true, but has she ever read a critical review in her life? Is the goal of this writers' group to work toward publication, or to stroke the writers' egos at their hobby? Because if this piece were published, it would certainly get well-deserved negative reviews, far more harsh than anything you've said.
You do not have to feel OK or forgive the writer or any of the other rape-apologists in the room. It is theoretically possible for a skilled writer to write a story about rape from the rapist's unreliable-narrator POV (in some ways, that's what Nabokov did with Lolita) -- but if the writer cannot acknowledge that it was rape, he's not that skilled of a writer. Someone who thinks that consent was invented with a hashtag is functionally equivalent to pondscum. nirblegee has a good suggestion about forming another group, either instead of or in parallel to, the current group.
I recently dealt with an incident like this (differences: national professional organization not hobby group, the story was racist not rape-y, played out online rather than in-person). Memail me if details would be helpful. Suffice it to say that I am still a member of that organization as it's a de facto professional requirement, but have left the subsection with the apologists.
posted by basalganglia at 4:05 AM on June 22, 2019 [4 favorites]
You do not have to feel OK or forgive the writer or any of the other rape-apologists in the room. It is theoretically possible for a skilled writer to write a story about rape from the rapist's unreliable-narrator POV (in some ways, that's what Nabokov did with Lolita) -- but if the writer cannot acknowledge that it was rape, he's not that skilled of a writer. Someone who thinks that consent was invented with a hashtag is functionally equivalent to pondscum. nirblegee has a good suggestion about forming another group, either instead of or in parallel to, the current group.
I recently dealt with an incident like this (differences: national professional organization not hobby group, the story was racist not rape-y, played out online rather than in-person). Memail me if details would be helpful. Suffice it to say that I am still a member of that organization as it's a de facto professional requirement, but have left the subsection with the apologists.
posted by basalganglia at 4:05 AM on June 22, 2019 [4 favorites]
So this is a writer’s group? Does it have any defined purpose? (Ie, “to help writers write better by providing constructive criticism”?)
It’s possible that the writer may have intentionally been trying to write something ‘polarizing’. Or that he wrote this as an exercise in “show not tell” in a manner intended to leave the actual events unclear in people’s minds. Maybe that stuff about “before #MeToo” was an idea he was experimenting with; one that flopped. I’m not trying to make excuses for him. But there may be a larger context to this that I’m not aware of.
In any event, if it’s a writer’s group and the writer in question was looking for feedback, it sounds like he certainly got some. If he’s a serious writer who wants to improve his craft, he’ll listen to what people said. If he’s one of those writers who’s in love with their own prose - who goes to the group to bless the rest of you with his heaven-sent talent - then he’s never going to make it as a professional writer. No editor will work with a “writer” who won’t accept criticism or changes.
People write about sexual assault, and it can be very disturbing. Just yesterday I read an excerpt from E. Jean Carroll’s new book and I had to take an Ambien to get to sleep.
posted by doctor tough love at 4:12 AM on June 22, 2019 [1 favorite]
It’s possible that the writer may have intentionally been trying to write something ‘polarizing’. Or that he wrote this as an exercise in “show not tell” in a manner intended to leave the actual events unclear in people’s minds. Maybe that stuff about “before #MeToo” was an idea he was experimenting with; one that flopped. I’m not trying to make excuses for him. But there may be a larger context to this that I’m not aware of.
In any event, if it’s a writer’s group and the writer in question was looking for feedback, it sounds like he certainly got some. If he’s a serious writer who wants to improve his craft, he’ll listen to what people said. If he’s one of those writers who’s in love with their own prose - who goes to the group to bless the rest of you with his heaven-sent talent - then he’s never going to make it as a professional writer. No editor will work with a “writer” who won’t accept criticism or changes.
People write about sexual assault, and it can be very disturbing. Just yesterday I read an excerpt from E. Jean Carroll’s new book and I had to take an Ambien to get to sleep.
posted by doctor tough love at 4:12 AM on June 22, 2019 [1 favorite]
[I missed the Edit window. I just want to add that I re-read the original question, and the way this guy responded to criticism implies that he’s never going to be a pro writer. If he’s arguing with constructive criticism from his writer’s group, he’s doing it wrong].
posted by doctor tough love at 4:24 AM on June 22, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by doctor tough love at 4:24 AM on June 22, 2019 [3 favorites]
You do not have to make yourself okay with the writer, his supporter, the other guys, or reading pieces like this.
You could set boundaries, not read bullshit work and offer no feedback or very limited feedback. I like jamjam's assessment - it seems like the guy wants attention and fuss and is trying to troll the group more than he's trying to improve his writing. In the future you could limit your feedback to calling it out. "this seems like a stunt piece to see if you can get by with X and Y, this kind of stuff isn't why I'm here so I didn't read it."
Meantime, start looking around at other writing groups to see what else is out there in case the situation doesn't improve.
Ideas from other creative genres based on my own experiences and my friends':
* Have a conversation with the organizer. What kind of group does he want? If it comes down to it, would he rather lose you or the problematic guy? I had a very intense debate with an instructor about another student who brought up assault in a way that was really horrible. I asked him to take those kinds of subjects off the table, especially for beginning students. He disagreed with me and we argued for a long time about it, but he must have changed his mind later because at the next class, he announced boundaries. (Most likely he remembered that I was one of the most reliable, most committed students and losing me would mean losing otherwise guaranteed money/participation, while losing a jerk who wasn't planning to take multiple classes was not much of a loss).
* Set boundaries for yourself. For singers this sometimes means "I'm going to sit out this one choral piece with racist overtones but I'll sing the other stuff." For the situation I described above, it meant that if the instructor wouldn't set the boundaries I was asking for, I planned to tell the other students "Do what you want, but I won't participate in X or Y."
* Leave and find or start another group with people who share your vision of a good, productive group.
posted by bunderful at 7:19 AM on June 22, 2019 [2 favorites]
You could set boundaries, not read bullshit work and offer no feedback or very limited feedback. I like jamjam's assessment - it seems like the guy wants attention and fuss and is trying to troll the group more than he's trying to improve his writing. In the future you could limit your feedback to calling it out. "this seems like a stunt piece to see if you can get by with X and Y, this kind of stuff isn't why I'm here so I didn't read it."
Meantime, start looking around at other writing groups to see what else is out there in case the situation doesn't improve.
Ideas from other creative genres based on my own experiences and my friends':
* Have a conversation with the organizer. What kind of group does he want? If it comes down to it, would he rather lose you or the problematic guy? I had a very intense debate with an instructor about another student who brought up assault in a way that was really horrible. I asked him to take those kinds of subjects off the table, especially for beginning students. He disagreed with me and we argued for a long time about it, but he must have changed his mind later because at the next class, he announced boundaries. (Most likely he remembered that I was one of the most reliable, most committed students and losing me would mean losing otherwise guaranteed money/participation, while losing a jerk who wasn't planning to take multiple classes was not much of a loss).
* Set boundaries for yourself. For singers this sometimes means "I'm going to sit out this one choral piece with racist overtones but I'll sing the other stuff." For the situation I described above, it meant that if the instructor wouldn't set the boundaries I was asking for, I planned to tell the other students "Do what you want, but I won't participate in X or Y."
* Leave and find or start another group with people who share your vision of a good, productive group.
posted by bunderful at 7:19 AM on June 22, 2019 [2 favorites]
Well, the story being set in the 50s could mean the character doesn’t see it as rape (or even now, frankly), but if he doesn’t have a time machine, any readers are going to be post #metoo, so it’s nonsensical to say issues of consent don’t matter.
I’ve had similar issues come up in a writing group around a poem I said was racist (stereotyped Black character). The group was split in terms of seeing it that way (we’re all white), but the author of the piece was at least able to listen to me, even though he didn’t agree. And we moderate ourselves, so there’s no authority figure. Your organizer is the person who concerns me here, since this person seems to act as an authority figure. While it’s possible that a woman would rape a disabled man for these reasons, it doesn’t sound like that was in the story itself, and that should be a concern in any writing group, not whether you can invent a justification out of thin air.
I would also ask if it’s possible to form a new group with the less problematic people. It’s possible to vehemently disagree and still have a workable group, but that’s not what’s happening here. Alternatively, can you have a separate conversation with the organizer about what happened and why it bothers you.
posted by FencingGal at 8:30 AM on June 22, 2019 [1 favorite]
I’ve had similar issues come up in a writing group around a poem I said was racist (stereotyped Black character). The group was split in terms of seeing it that way (we’re all white), but the author of the piece was at least able to listen to me, even though he didn’t agree. And we moderate ourselves, so there’s no authority figure. Your organizer is the person who concerns me here, since this person seems to act as an authority figure. While it’s possible that a woman would rape a disabled man for these reasons, it doesn’t sound like that was in the story itself, and that should be a concern in any writing group, not whether you can invent a justification out of thin air.
I would also ask if it’s possible to form a new group with the less problematic people. It’s possible to vehemently disagree and still have a workable group, but that’s not what’s happening here. Alternatively, can you have a separate conversation with the organizer about what happened and why it bothers you.
posted by FencingGal at 8:30 AM on June 22, 2019 [1 favorite]
The writer said that this was "before the #metoo era," so our concerns were misplaced/irrelevant (the story takes place in the 1950s US).
If he were planning to publish it in the 50s, he might have a valid point. Since he's presenting it to people who live in today's culture, he gets to deal with today's understanding of relationships, interpersonal conflicts, and rape.
You now know that several of the participants in the writing group think rape is okay if the people involved don't have the words to describe how consent works. Some also think that ugly women can't get laid, that it's reasonable to assault someone for sex if you can't find a willing partner, and that men love the physical aspects of sex so much that they would never refuse to consent to it.
That may or may not change whether the writing group is useful to you, but it's definitely worth knowing before bringing up any stories involving relationships or sex.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 12:32 PM on June 22, 2019 [1 favorite]
If he were planning to publish it in the 50s, he might have a valid point. Since he's presenting it to people who live in today's culture, he gets to deal with today's understanding of relationships, interpersonal conflicts, and rape.
You now know that several of the participants in the writing group think rape is okay if the people involved don't have the words to describe how consent works. Some also think that ugly women can't get laid, that it's reasonable to assault someone for sex if you can't find a willing partner, and that men love the physical aspects of sex so much that they would never refuse to consent to it.
That may or may not change whether the writing group is useful to you, but it's definitely worth knowing before bringing up any stories involving relationships or sex.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 12:32 PM on June 22, 2019 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: Thank you, everyone. I marked answers that gave a perspective that hadn't occurred to me or that mentioned ways of improving the workshopping process that I think might be viable. Everyone's answers were helpful, though. I'm reassured to find that I'm not actually living in a parallel universe where rape is some confusing, newfangled idea not relevant before 2017. And not distressing at all to read about and discuss, no siree. But OK, deep breath, I'm getting angry again so I'll go on!
A writing group needs either social consensus or rules on how to deal with potentially triggering or offensive content - and it needs rules or social consensus about how to deal with defensiveness and arguing in critiques.
Thank you for splitting up the two problems (content concerns and workshopping concerns). And thank you for offering to send me a copy of your advisor's guidelines, I'd appreciate that.
I've been in many workshops and writers' groups before, and in nearly all of them, we've had the same rule that the writer doesn't speak until the end of the critique. In the first meeting of this group, I actually suggested that the writer stay silent during discussion, too, but the organizer cornered me afterward to say that she was offended because she thought I was criticizing how she led/conducted the critiques. To be fair, I guess I sort of was, but I stand by it. Anyhow, I'll raise the suggestion again next meeting. I'll also be submitting for the next meeting and plan to abide by that rule when it comes to my own piece, regardless. Aside from anything else, I think it makes for a better critique.
The group has only been active for a couple months and is still in its growing pains stage, but the organizer said that one option for the future is for us to split up into genre-specific groups instead of staying in this one big group all together. I'd prefer that for a lot of reasons, but at least one of the men there the other night works in my genre, and arguably the submission writer's most vocal supporter does, too. So even then, the issue wouldn't just disappear.
Right now, I don't want to spin off a splinter group because the organization sponsoring this has a lot of resources and is providing a lot of support (free use of a nice facility, etc), and I don't really want to cede all that. Also, the group has been active for such a short time that everyone is still getting to know each other. I'll reassess in a couple months, though.
Also I hope, post-#metoo that he gave you the story with a content warning.
He apparently doesn't think the story even depicted an assault, let alone that other people would appreciate a warning before reading about one. So I think that content warnings are a nonstarter, at least on the pieces that could most use them.
That's one of the most worrying aspects about this to me. I'm not planning to read any more of this guy's work, and possibly the work of his most vocal supporter. But now I'm nervous about what else might come down the pike. My naive little self didn't think to worry about reading a rape apologetic before it happened, so who knows what might be next.
I guess I just need to be more ready to quit reading and disengage if a piece is too disturbing.
If he were planning to publish it in the 50s, he might have a valid point. Since he's presenting it to people who live in today's culture, he gets to deal with today's understanding of relationships, interpersonal conflicts, and rape.
I think he still wouldn't have a valid point. Lolita was written and published in the 1950s, yet its narrative doesn't dismiss consent and rape as irrelevant anachronisms. They're central to the story. Humbert Humbert's behavior is depicted as explicitly predatory and his effect on Lolita is explicitly harmful.
If the submission writer cared about being true to history, then he probably would have spent more time thinking about how an unmarried woman might feel after having unprotected, impulsive sex in the years before readily available birth control. The writer in this case really wasn't thinking about things from either characters' perspective, not even the rapist's. I don't think he can hide behind his choices being "true to the period." It's bullshit all the way down.
posted by rue72 at 2:25 PM on June 22, 2019 [3 favorites]
A writing group needs either social consensus or rules on how to deal with potentially triggering or offensive content - and it needs rules or social consensus about how to deal with defensiveness and arguing in critiques.
Thank you for splitting up the two problems (content concerns and workshopping concerns). And thank you for offering to send me a copy of your advisor's guidelines, I'd appreciate that.
I've been in many workshops and writers' groups before, and in nearly all of them, we've had the same rule that the writer doesn't speak until the end of the critique. In the first meeting of this group, I actually suggested that the writer stay silent during discussion, too, but the organizer cornered me afterward to say that she was offended because she thought I was criticizing how she led/conducted the critiques. To be fair, I guess I sort of was, but I stand by it. Anyhow, I'll raise the suggestion again next meeting. I'll also be submitting for the next meeting and plan to abide by that rule when it comes to my own piece, regardless. Aside from anything else, I think it makes for a better critique.
The group has only been active for a couple months and is still in its growing pains stage, but the organizer said that one option for the future is for us to split up into genre-specific groups instead of staying in this one big group all together. I'd prefer that for a lot of reasons, but at least one of the men there the other night works in my genre, and arguably the submission writer's most vocal supporter does, too. So even then, the issue wouldn't just disappear.
Right now, I don't want to spin off a splinter group because the organization sponsoring this has a lot of resources and is providing a lot of support (free use of a nice facility, etc), and I don't really want to cede all that. Also, the group has been active for such a short time that everyone is still getting to know each other. I'll reassess in a couple months, though.
Also I hope, post-#metoo that he gave you the story with a content warning.
He apparently doesn't think the story even depicted an assault, let alone that other people would appreciate a warning before reading about one. So I think that content warnings are a nonstarter, at least on the pieces that could most use them.
That's one of the most worrying aspects about this to me. I'm not planning to read any more of this guy's work, and possibly the work of his most vocal supporter. But now I'm nervous about what else might come down the pike. My naive little self didn't think to worry about reading a rape apologetic before it happened, so who knows what might be next.
I guess I just need to be more ready to quit reading and disengage if a piece is too disturbing.
If he were planning to publish it in the 50s, he might have a valid point. Since he's presenting it to people who live in today's culture, he gets to deal with today's understanding of relationships, interpersonal conflicts, and rape.
I think he still wouldn't have a valid point. Lolita was written and published in the 1950s, yet its narrative doesn't dismiss consent and rape as irrelevant anachronisms. They're central to the story. Humbert Humbert's behavior is depicted as explicitly predatory and his effect on Lolita is explicitly harmful.
If the submission writer cared about being true to history, then he probably would have spent more time thinking about how an unmarried woman might feel after having unprotected, impulsive sex in the years before readily available birth control. The writer in this case really wasn't thinking about things from either characters' perspective, not even the rapist's. I don't think he can hide behind his choices being "true to the period." It's bullshit all the way down.
posted by rue72 at 2:25 PM on June 22, 2019 [3 favorites]
So many of the answers are good here and it sounds like you have a good handle on what to do next. You are totally sane, and totally right to be angry at the actions on the part of the group members. I would be SUPER uncomfortable to be around any of the people who didn't label that as rape, even just to pass the time with. I feel angry just reading about your experience!
I'm hearing you say that the group is valuable and helps your writing -- you already know this, but I want to make sure that you know it's also true that you could leave the group and find other people to share your work with, and still grow as an artist. You wouldn't be a quitter, weak or "too emotional". It's not your responsibility to stay and make the group better -- you can choose to do so, and that will be great if you do, but if you leave, it will also be great. Take good care of yourself.
posted by rogerroger at 3:16 PM on June 22, 2019 [3 favorites]
I'm hearing you say that the group is valuable and helps your writing -- you already know this, but I want to make sure that you know it's also true that you could leave the group and find other people to share your work with, and still grow as an artist. You wouldn't be a quitter, weak or "too emotional". It's not your responsibility to stay and make the group better -- you can choose to do so, and that will be great if you do, but if you leave, it will also be great. Take good care of yourself.
posted by rogerroger at 3:16 PM on June 22, 2019 [3 favorites]
Yeah, you're right...this wasn't right. The writer of the pieces responded incorrectly, by a long shot.
It's a delicate thing, these days, to write something that is historically correct while also staying (dare I say it? I don't mean it pejoratively) politically correct. The writer has to find a way of balancing the attitudes of the time (yes, the story was set before #metoo) with the attitudes of modern readers (who are reading it after #metoo). I'm not sure how to do that in this situation, but it presents an interesting challenge to a writer, and if I was to try it I would certainly not present the work with a "this doesn't matter because" attitude. I most definitely would have presented my criticism of the piece in from that perspective, though I don't expect the writer would have had a different reaction.
As someone who has both given and received critiques for many years, I always come back to what I consider a cardinal rule of critiquing: the giver of criticism should criticize the work, not the writer, and the writer should accept the criticism as being directed at the work, not them personally. This may be hard to do in real life; most of my experience is online. It's certainly a problem when the writer decides the criticisms they don't like, don't matter.
posted by lhauser at 6:56 PM on June 23, 2019
It's a delicate thing, these days, to write something that is historically correct while also staying (dare I say it? I don't mean it pejoratively) politically correct. The writer has to find a way of balancing the attitudes of the time (yes, the story was set before #metoo) with the attitudes of modern readers (who are reading it after #metoo). I'm not sure how to do that in this situation, but it presents an interesting challenge to a writer, and if I was to try it I would certainly not present the work with a "this doesn't matter because" attitude. I most definitely would have presented my criticism of the piece in from that perspective, though I don't expect the writer would have had a different reaction.
As someone who has both given and received critiques for many years, I always come back to what I consider a cardinal rule of critiquing: the giver of criticism should criticize the work, not the writer, and the writer should accept the criticism as being directed at the work, not them personally. This may be hard to do in real life; most of my experience is online. It's certainly a problem when the writer decides the criticisms they don't like, don't matter.
posted by lhauser at 6:56 PM on June 23, 2019
This thread is closed to new comments.
This is a group problem and I do have some ideas about how the group can address this. A writing group needs either social consensus or rules on how to deal with potentially triggering or offensive content - and it needs rules or social consensus about how to deal with defensiveness and arguing in critiques. (The traditional rule is that the writer doesn't get to talk until the very end. Memail me if you want a copy of my graduate advisor's workshop model, which I think is a good one.)
I think it's worth the effort to find or create a group that has procedures and practices that work for you, even if that means leaving the group you're in now.
posted by Jeanne at 9:54 PM on June 21, 2019 [5 favorites]