Literary agent Rachelle Gardner recently raised the perennial question faced by writers: To Blog or Not to Blog. She lists the pros and cons of a writer blogging and, at least to me, Rachelle seems to tip the scales away from blogging. She summarizes:
[For a writer] a blog is not required, and if you can’t do it well and you don’t love it, don’t do it. A strong, professional website, with occasional content updates, can serve your purposes just as well.
I’ve pondered the pros and cons of blogging before. In a post entitled Schizo-Blog, my ruminations landed me firmly… in the middle. Yes, blogging interferes with my actual writing, saps ideas and can became a major distraction. However, blogging also keeps me writing, stimulates ideas, and connects me with readers and like-minded individuals. Go figger.
But then Rachelle comes along and lists a new reason not to blog:
If you’re trying to be honest and authentic on your blog, and you spout off about religious views, politics, your views on parenting or any other controversial topic, you risk alienating potential buyers of your books simply because they disagree with one of your personal viewpoints.
This notion that you shouldn’t express opinions about “religious views, politics, your views on parenting or any other controversial topic,” lest you lose readers, bothers me. For the record, I love Rachelle’s stuff and think her blog is one of the better resources for Christian writers. Perhaps my annoyance is indicative of a stubborn, non-professional attitude. But I think the premise itself — more opinions, less readers / less opinions, more readers — is inherently faulty.
For one thing, the Christian publishing business is built on the transparency of opinions. That’s why people shop CBA stores. They go there expecting to find “Christian” stuff. The memoirs of a Scientologist, an atheist, a gay rights advocate, or an active abortionist, should not be found in a Christian store. Why? Because “religious views” do matter to some people! When it comes to Christian publishing, what an author actually believes — about religion, race, morality, ethics, politics, society, family — is important. In this sense, an “opinionated” blogger can actually forge readership and build a platform
Secondly, we must separate the art from the artist. Good art can be made by bad people… much less, people I disagree with. Does Mel Gibson’s drunken, anti-Semitic incident make The Passion of the Christ any less special? Does Oscar Wilde’s homosexuality make The Picture of Dorian Gray any less important? Stephen King is a Red Sox fan, but that doesn’t keep me from reading his books. Steven Spielberg is a liberal, but that doesn’t keep me from watching his movies. Bruce Springsteen is a Democrat, but that doesn’t keep me from enjoying his music. Sure, I might grumble through them. But the “goodness” of a piece of fiction / film / music has nothing to do with whether or not its creator meets my ideological standards.
I was recently criticized on another blog for saying that Chris Martin — lead singer, liberal voicepiece, temperamental milksop for the mega-band Coldplay — discouraged me from purchasing their new album because of his opinionated political stances. Still, I had to concede. The person who eschews art based simply on the artist’s politics or religion is snobbish, narrow-minded and potentially puritanical. Half-breed Samaritans can do good deeds (and make good art), despite what the religious gatekeepers say.
So anyway, I bought their new album.
All that to say, building a readership and marketing yourself is obviously a tenuous thing. Like many walks of public life, the broader the audience, the more we must temper what we say. To what degree we temper our opinions is another story. Either way, people come to fiction, film and music for what it does for them, not the political, ideological views of the artists. Of course, some of those views may or may not expand their audience. Still, a good story, well told, trumps ones political affiliation.
At this point, I can’t say I’m decided about blogging. But as far as voicing my opinion…
If those political, religious, etc. views which I cannot support permeate the art of writers, filmmakers, etc., then I will inevitably not buy/see their work. If their work does not reflect their prejudices and demonstrates their God-given talent/gifting, no problem.
I don’t expect an atheist to desire to read all but one of my novels: they easily fit into the “Christian” novel category. However, there are characters who are unbelievers in the stories, and they are not judged in the writing for their unbelief. They are simply a part of the story. Real, honest portrayals, good and bad.
As far as blogs go, mine was therapeutic for the first year. Now it’s more difficult to sustain meaningful posts. I am who I am, and that’s who people get to see if they want. I rarely do fluff (except for today 😉 ). But I’m committed to it–at least for awhile longer. I’ve gotten to “know” some valuable people who’ve become friends. That’s always worth the endeavor.
I think there is a good argument to be made for keeping your mouth shut and letting your art speak for itself. On the other hand, there are TONS of artists who are transparent AND popular. In fact, one might say that one’s art is an organic part of who the artist is: although the reader can separate the two, the artist can’t really separate his opinions from his artistic output.
I’ll put it a different way: the artist, esp. the Christian artist, needs to be authentic with his audience. While Rich Mullins may have fallen out with some of the “right people” because of his opinions, his art grew and touched more people because of his authenticity.
I certainly didn’t agree (on earth) with everything Rich believed, but I certainly found him to be one of the most enriching Christian artists that I’ve had the pleasure of having in my life.
If, however, the opinion either supercedes the art, or is a requirement for its enjoyment, this can be really problematic. I’m thinking Dixie Chicks here: their politics became a litmus test for their (dwindling) fan base. That isn’t art. That becomes propaganda (even, surprisingly, if the opinion itself is one that is shared!)
Rachelle knows something about publishing and book sales, so I’m not going to dispute her thesis. All I know is that some of my favorite artists (Christian and non) are people with whom I disagree with frequently, and happily so. The artists I shy away from are those whose art is merely a vehicle for their opinion. Furthermore, there are artists whose personal beliefs I’ve never seen expressed who I nevertheless don’t care for because of the content of their art, usually, on my part, due to a perception that their philosophy, at some level fails.
Your art is going to express its own opinion, which is going to self-select your readers. It would be a shame if your personal opinions further culled the herd of potential customers (which is what I believe the astounding Ms. Gardner is arguing), but at least in my experience, that doesn’t happen between me and the artists I enjoy.
I think how a blogger handles a controversial subject has a lot to do with whether or not readers will leave. I’ve left blogs (and been asked to leave one) because of the tone of the conversation. I don’t mind controversy, as you probably know by now. 😉 What I don’t like is the kind of reaction that says those who disagree are stupid, morons, half-wits, dimwits, and worse.
I don’t mind someone sticking to their position, defending their position, or questioning the opposing position. I learn from those conversations, even when I don’t change my fundamental views. If nothing else, I come to understand the people who hold the opposing position.
All that to say, I agree with you, Mike. Controversy isn’t something to shirk, but the host sets the tone as to what is or isn’t acceptable in a discussion, I think.
Becky
Like I mentioned before, it all depends on who you’re offending. If it’s someone you have to talk to in everyday life, you’ll be less willing to court controversy.