How soon is too soon?

[avantman42]

In this thread, user mattlynn mentions a new book he's written set during the recent unrest in Libya. He's been criticised, though I'm glad to note that the discussion stayed civilised

I don't really want to talk about that particular book, but I do want to ask the question: how long should an author wait before writing a novel set during tragic events? Or, for that matter, a non-fiction book about those events? There are lots of novels set during WW2, and lots of non-fiction covering various aspects of the war, and I've never seen any of the authors criticised for trying to make money from other people's suffering.

I'm guessing that the events in Libya are too recent, and that's why this book has been criticised. I may be wrong, of course - those criticising might feel the same way about a book set during the Wars of the Roses, say.

So, should an author wait for a while before writing a novel set during, or a non-fiction book about, traumatic events? If so, how long? Is the period the same for fiction and non-fiction?

[vulcan_girl]

I think for fiction, it might be easier to tap into the immediate emotion of the moment if a book is written and released soon after, and for non-fiction, there's always some need for current data. That said, there is always some type of information that is revealed later that may shed more light on the situation, or the situation changes so quickly that a lot of times the non-fiction book is irrelevant soon after publication.

[Phogg]

No one has any moral or ethical right to demand some topic not be addressed.

The people attacking the book have a plank in their own eye, to quote an over used but accurate biblical metaphor.

If they don't want to read it, fine. If they wish to debate the particulars, that is fine too. But shut up its not okay to talk about it? If someone is wrong here it is not the author.

[Ron.]

I see no reason to wait, if people do not want to read it no one is forcing them too.

[Catlady]

I think the main advantage to waiting is that one gains some historical perspective and context for the events. I expect something different from a book than I do from newspaper reporting.

[jbcohen]

My only oppinion is that the author should state his/her credentials for writting the book, for example the author lives in Lybia and/or fought in the recent revolution or fought on brotherly leader gadafi's military (by the way, I saw that on wikipedia that was gadaffi's formal title http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muammar_Gaddafi).

[fjtorres]

It is strictly a matter of taste and approach; there is nothing inherently immoral or unethical in writing about recent or ongoing affairs. But *how* you go about it will make a difference.
It is all about perception.

As a baseline, non-fiction can be as current as can be as long as it is not *perceived* as exploitation or propaganda but rather information. Of course, since one person's "information" is another's "propaganda" or "disinformation"... It is possible to be too current and be presenting incomplete or inaccurate portrayals to people who "know" different.

Fiction has all those downsides but magnified as it is not generally assumed to be informational so the kneejerk reaction of the masses is that a too-current subject or setting is exploitation and intentional provocation. Mostly because it *has* happened in the past.

How soon is too soon?
World War II is generally safe because most of the participants are dead and there is a "consensus" of sorts as to who were the white hats and the black hats. So pretty much anything is fair game. (Just don't bring up Dresden. And be careful how you portray the nazis if you don't want to be banned in Germany.)

Afghanistan? It is an ongoing, shadowy affair that tramples pretty much everybody's sensibilities for one reason or another so you'd better be careful or out to provoke.

Everything else in between?
Depends on whose sensibilities are at stake and whose politics are impacted.
And since these days pretty much everything is political...

"There be dragons..."

[jbcohen]

fjotes is correct there is no moral implications here, however if the author states up front that this is one person's oppinion and account of the events I don't think anyone would falt the author. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and no one can fault the author for leaving things out or not interpreting things the way they do becuase no one has a full appreciation for all aspects of the events in lybia.

As an undergraduate one of the things that I took classes in is the retoric of argument, which means the art of argument. One of the things that we learned is to point to an excepted authority of certain aspects of the issue at hand such as Mirriam and Webster, who is excepted as the authority on the definition of words. Where I am going with this is to suggest using wikipedia as an authority on the history of lybia and reference wikipedia as it is generaly an excepted authority on history and it will talk about the brotherly leader's rise to authority.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by jbcohen

As an undergraduate one of the things that I took classes in is the retoric of argument, which means the art of argument. One of the things that we learned is to point to an excepted authority of certain aspects of the issue at hand such as Mirriam and Webster, who is excepted as the authority on the definition of words. Where I am going with this is to suggest using wikipedia as an authority on the history of lybia and reference wikipedia as it is generaly an excepted authority on history and it will talk about the brotherly leader's rise to authority.

PLEASE learn the difference between the words "accepted" and "excepted". Contrary to what you believe, they don't mean the same thing, and make your posts very difficult to understand.

[Michael Wallace]

I have to admit that I felt squeamish about 9/11 books written soon after the attacks, but at some point we have to have discussions about all events. The Holocaust has been fertile ground for writers for several decades now and there are few events that maintain the power to shock over generations.

[E. S. Lark]

I don't think you can write something too soon after an event. Looking back on 9/11, books came out shortly after it happened. Thing is, everyone has a choice. If the subject is still too raw for them to address, they don't need to read the book right away. However, some individuals heal faster when they have something they can read or relate it.

I think it all comes down to what one wants to do as a writer.

[Hellmark]

The only problem I can see with writing a book based on an extremely recent event, is you can easily date yourself. For instance, with a book set in Libya, if in real life we find out 6 months from now that Gaddafi has been dead for years, and it really was a body double being used in a form of a puppet government, but the book was written before this any subsequent reads will make the book stand out as flawed to most readers, especially if the book is written in such a way to enforce the older "It's really him" view.

[ucfgrad93]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I think the main advantage to waiting is that one gains some historical perspective and context for the events. I expect something different from a book than I do from newspaper reporting.

I think another benefit to waiting is often times the initial news reports or facts can be inaccurate.

[Daithi]

Originally Posted by HarryT

PLEASE learn the difference between the words "accepted" and "excepted". Contrary to what you believe, they don't mean the same thing, and make your posts very difficult to understand.

That's taught in graduate school Harry.

[TGS]

...issue at hand such as Mirriam and Webster, who is excepted as the authority on the definition of words.

Who is Mirriam and Webster, what is she?