This is another list of pitfalls in writing, but rather than focusing on the technique of writing, this focuses on the content. There are certain things in this world that are simply a touchy subject. This isn't necessarily a list of things you should never do. This is a list of things that you should know about fairly in depth before attempting to tackle.

And by "know about fairly in depth" I do not mean google it and read a wikipedia entry. These subjects are tense, and I see so many people, even in professional work, bungling them so badly that it is almost insulting. Also, the "my sister has it" argument still probably wouldn't be enough for me to consider you knowledgeable about a subject. Knowing one person who suffers from something really isn't enough to be able to write about it with your narrow and specific experience.

For example, some of you may have stumbled on my Living with SIDS book. I wrote three chapters of it and haven't added a new chapter for a while. Do you wonder why? It's because I don't think I'm knowledgeable enough yet to write any more on the subject outside of my personal experience. I lost a kid, and I have a biomedical degree, and I rotated in a laboratory that does research on breathing disorders, and I still don't think I have the right to tackle the subject yet. I plan to. I'm still reading, and adding papers every day, and learning, but I won't add more chapters until I feel my knowledge on the subject is sufficient to continue.

Young people especially, take heed of this, because just because you know a person with Down's Syndrome doesn't mean you understand Down's Syndrome and can write in the PoV of someone with Down's Syndrome. However, you could write as someone who knows someone with Down's Syndrome... presuming you write from personal experience, rather than from a wikipedia content page. Present experiences, not facts. You don't know the facts, and you're not here to teach them, so make sure your writing reflects that.

That's really the point of it. When you try to tackle a subject matter you don't understand, you end up insulting the people who actually have to deal with it. It leads to ridiculously over the top cures and conditional conditions that are just ludicrus to behold. In your attempt to portray something "accurately", you end up contributing to the spread of misinformation, stereotypes, and prejudice. Especially when you try to talk about things like...

Right off the bat to get my point across, we'll start with one of the worst offenders. Now, Rape has an interesting dynamic, because there is such a thing as a Rape Fantasy. I'm actually not going to talk about Rape Fantasies here. Girls writing about being held against their will and sexually assaulted by a guy are not a problem here.

I know there are many of you who will disagree with that statement, but I consider Rape Fantasy to be just that. It's a Fantasy. It's not representing real rape, any more than the Matrix represents real gun fights. It's why we don't go into PTSD every time we see a Rambo mowing down a million guys. We understand that it's power fantasy about a guy killing all the "bad guys" and we don't mind seeing hundreds of people die on screen without batting an eyelash. You can read a hundred Rape Fantasies and it really doesn't matter because they're not trying to be real and we all know that.

No, what I worry about is when people place rape in a story as a form of characterization, or as a means of trying to seriously tackle the concept of rape without actually doing so. How many stories have you read where a character is given "was raped" as a character quirk? Like it's something to make the character more edgy or three dimensional. The writer might use the knowledge or stress of having been raped to make them unreasonable to add drama and tension. Or perhaps worst of all, something happens in the plot and they 'get over it".

They confront their rapist, and either give him his comeuppance or forgive him. Or they come to the realization they ought to be less mopey, like they're milking being raped. It's disgusting, and people who write scenes like that ought to know it's disgusting. How many times has a main heroine ended up befriending her would be rapist?

How many heroines have you seen threatened with rape, sometimes so casually that it gives you whiplash? I've seen many male love rivals dropped from a story because they decide to rape the protagonist. For many authors, that is the go to. Have a rival love interest, but want her to have a good reason to pick the other guy? Make him rapey. Heck, that's basically what Stephanie Meyer did to Jacob.

This doesn't even cover the multitudes of sexual assaults that are perfectly acceptable in the names of romance and intensity. Forcibly kissing her. Forcibly holding her against her will. Forcing her to the ground.

The next time you think about it, seriously think about it. Don't just toss rape in there like a way to kill 30 pages or a way to add drama. Rape deserves a lot more thought than that.

This is another one of the more obvious issues. People introduce characters with ADHD or bipolar disorder, or Down's Syndrome, or autism, or Asperger's without really understanding what those disorders entitle... at least beyond what they can google in fifteen minutes.

I actually don't mind the inclusion of mental disorders all that much... except in two different circumstances. First, when it's used as a character quirk like above. Where you give someone some kind of bipolar disorder just to make them quirky, or Tourette's just to keep the writing interesting. The second is when a writer uses it as the hook.

This character has fallen in love, ooo, but she has autism! How interesting! Yeah, that's not okay. If you are going to write about a disorder, you need to understand that disorder very well. You need to build your character WITH the disorder, not build your character AROUND the disorder. In other words, you character isn't a walking person with Aspergers. They are a person with their own beliefs, their own lifestyle, who happens to suffer from Asperger's too.

And even saying that, I'm confident many readers will gloss over this with a passive understanding of a disease and think that qualifies them to write about it. We all think we know more than we do, and I'm sure that your cousin with Autism and that one month rotation in an autism health line makes you think you're an expert on the subject... and honestly, maybe you are.

Maybe you do know what you are talking about. Maybe you have studied this well and you do know the spectrums of this disorder and you genuinely and passionately want to write about this subject. But if your reasoning is that this character would be more interesting or less Mary Sueish if they had a mental disorder, then your reasoning is flawed.

Also, don't cure the disorder. Love does not cure mental disorders. Neither does the right Pixie BF. Nor does five minutes in a psychiatric office (in fact, the psychiatrist/couch thing is a stereotype that doesn't exist in most real world settings). Disorders are "handled", not cured. Any writing about a psychiatric disorder ought to mention the dozens of pills they take every day, the constantly changing prescriptions, and the effects those prescriptions are having on their body. Anything less, is just not realistic.

Child Abuse is the next one on the list. It's a running theme, but once again, this comes down to when you treat abuse like a character trait that it becomes an issue. Being abused as a child is not a quirk. Making abusive parents does not make your writing or characters more interesting.

From first-hand experience, I have to say that it really is a bit insulting when you treat parents like that. Parents have never adopted a kid "for the money." The $1000 a year tax break a parent receives does not even come close to the price of adoption, which is usually in the six figure range, let alone the cost of feeding a kid.

I've read stories where parents have hit kids, yelled at kids, been angry with them for no reason, even had a parent break a child's leg (only to have that child be able to limp around on it until it mysteriously became unbroken.) This kind of treatment just doesn't exist.

Yes, yes, before someone cytes an example from the child called 'it' or some newsfeed story about a kid kept in a closet, I'd like to specify the fact that the child was indeed kept in a closet. This is a unique, desperate, and horrific kind of situation, and most parents that beat and starve their kids tend to get caught unless that happen to be leaving the kids in a closet.

Keeping the kids from interacting with others is the key word here, because if they are interacting with others, eventually someone is going to notice the abuse this kid receives, and chances are that will happen long before they reach age 13-15 for the story to start.

That's not to say abuse stories can't be important and informative, but it really comes down to how you use it. If you use it as a means of making your character more interesting, pitiable, or simply as a means to an end, you're doing it wrong.

This might sit outside the range of a lot of Wattpad users, but I felt it was important to state nonetheless. 50 shades of Grey depicts BDSM horribly. There, I said it. Now, I'm not a major practitioner of BDSM, but I know enough to know what it involves, and how far it can go.

BDSM isn't some strange disorder. You're not messed up if you enjoy being tied up or pinched or slapped. Just like Rape Fantasies are a kink, so is BDSM. So don't take after EL James and write a story where she "cures" him of his bdsm. Where she practices some light spanking and calls that "intense" and then goes on for three books about how messed up the guy is. A guy who was also abused as a child and raped, which was handled with about the same finesse... so 50 shades really takes the trifecta on handling things poorly, which might help you understand why it's so universally hated.

Should I even repeat myself? Character quirk. It's not one. Don't give someone cancer because it makes them more interesting. Many people seem to use terminal illnesses as some kind of character growth. The worst cases are when a terminal illness gets cured! A disease that is bound to kill you in six months suddenly goes into remission thanks to plot convenience and your love of happy endings!

Don't give someone cancer to make them more interesting... and don't kill them from cancer to make them more interesting. Sudden deaths can be a great way to force your character to grow. It's a great way to fill the pages and to add drama. That's sarcasm, by the way. Those are not great ways, but they are the ways people use. Not to knock on popular stories, but that's basically the premise of a fault in our stars, although part of the reason it's well liked rather than a joke is because the cancer was actually handled pretty well in that story (I think, admittedly I haven't read it).

That said, I get why people kill off characters. A lot of people get stuck writing one dimensional characters, but in order for the story to work, the character needs to grow and evolve. Finding ways to make a character grow is difficult. People grow in the face of adversity, and what's more adverse than losing a loved one? So give the character a disease, or kill off their friend, or make them almost get raped... see! It's easy! (More sarcasm)

Killing off a side character to motivate the main character is used ALL the time... in ever media. Books, movies, video games all depend on this trope to make their story more interesting. Nothing motivates you to be a better than to watch your mentor die. Star Wars did it. On that note, did anyone else notice in Star Wars that Leia has to comfort Luke because Obi Won, an old man he kind of knew but only had a meaningful friendship with for like a few weeks died. Mind you, this was right after her home planet, and every one and every place she ever knew and loved with blown up, but it's Luke that needs comfort.

Sorry, got a little off topic. The point I'm making is that killing a character to motivate your main character is just lazy writing, and it probably should be acknowledged for being the lazy writing it is. Although, at the end, presentation is what matters.

I've read stories where a mother died from cancer, and a day later the girl is wondering about her relationship problems. You see, up that point, she'd been an emotional wreck because a guy she liked died (although it turned out he didn't die). Then her mom dies. And she's all like, Oh... wow... that was worse. I guess I can date again!

To that, I have to say... wtf? Look, the death of a loved one doesn't fix your life. It doesn't help you get over emotional trauma and it doesn't cancel out other heartache. If you're using it to help your character make life decisions... know that most people experiencing loss of that magnitude aren't fit to make any life decisions.

My life was in tatters for months after my son's death. It was years before even thinking about him didn't hurt. I suffered financially, I suffered emotionally, my job was rocky. It was not a good situation. So, don't include scenes like that if you're not going to handle them properly and maturely.

Don't give a character a terminal illness unless you understand and cover the emotional weight. You give a character's mom cancer... that character is NOT going to be going to parties and worrying about boys and pretending everything is just dandy. If they do, they're going to come across as emotionally shallow and selfish. Your character needs to deal with the experiences that you put them through as if they were actually dealing with those experiences. Your character doesn't exist in a bubble world, and you can't hide their emotions behind adrenaline and stoich facial features like movies do. It's a book, and we know what they are thinking, and if they are thinking about boys a chapter after their friend died, then there is something seriously screwed up with how they think.

I'll put this out there right now. Everyone thinks they are more unpopular, uglier, and fatter than they actually are. Few people, especially teenagers, are exactly flowing with self-confidence. We all think we aren't good enough. We all think we don't have too many friends. We're all nervous and unconfident and scared.

This creates a holier than thou attitude where people misgauge how badly there situation is. A term that we use that entitles this pretty well is "1st world problems" or "1st world entitlement". The idea goes a little something like this. You complain about how horrible your life is because your iphone broke, then someone pops up and says how lucky you should be that you even can own things like an iphone because in "insert third world country" that kind of stuff isn't easily accessible.

How does this translate to Wattpad stories? Every week I run into a story about some sad, poor, pathetic girl. She's so unpopular. Not like the popular girl, the bitchy one that is just mean to everyone.

Then, miss unpopular... who has two completely loyal friends, and is the love interest of at least two more rich and popular guys, has to come to turns with how unpopularly popular she is. Do you get where this can be kind of offensive?

I'll just get this out of the way... there are people who have no friends. I had few friends in high school. I had people that I sat nearby... sometimes... but not people that I met after school. There were no people I went to parties with (I was never invited). There were no friends I hung around all day. There were no people that I tried to make sure I had classes with. None of that. And I still don't consider myself unpopular. I did have an on and off again friend and we would hang out occasionally, and I did date a few before I was dumped in less than a month.

So before you throw out how unpopularly unpopular your protagonist is, think about the entitlement. You can make your character entitled, sure, but know that whether you try to or not, if you have a character whining about their popularity or their looks while having tons of friends or having hot guy's throw themselves at them, you're missing something. Your character will be shallow, unlikeable, and annoying.

The same can go for weight and attractiveness too. The "She's All That" transformation where throwing off your glasses and brushing your hair turns you into a supermodel is just clichéd and poorly constructed. It's insulting to people who actually do have problems, and it's something you should be aware of.

Don't write a character who is horribly obese by taking a glance at a BMI chart. People have really skewed ideas on weight, mostly because other people lie about their weight constantly. There is a nice little site called mybodygallery which gives images of what real women look like. (Some warning, a few woman aren't wearing clothing when they show pictures of their body) It lets you pick a body type, a height, and weight and you can look at what a real person actually looks like when they are that weight.

You'd be surprised. A 5'4'' 200 lbs person is not grotesquely fat. They'll look maybe a little chubby, certainly not in shape, but not the homor simpson bulging from every orifice a lot of your probably imagine. They may be obese compared to a BMI, but BMI's are a broken, inaccurate system that has long since been discarded by doctors. Only fitness guru's that stand to make money off of hitting your self-confidence still use the BMI.

Beauty is another thing that is hard to judge. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, which is a fancy way of saying everyone can be attractive or no one is. In some ways, She's All that is kind of right. All an 'ugly person' needs to do to be attractive is to lob on gobs of makeup and you can essentially paint on a face that doesn't represent you. And for images? Photoshop can do the rest.

****

So the point of all of this is that these seven criteria are things you should approach with respect. They need to be approached with care, and understanding. Do your research, and that research better be more than a quick google search. When in doubt, actually talk to people who DO know what they are talking about. There is no harm in handing your story with an autistic character to someone with autism so they can see if you're handling it properly.

If you don't take the time, and the character, and the respect that these criteria need, chances are you'll end up offending people. More than offensive, you're perpetuating stereotypes and myths. Too many, you'll look like a fool, and if your stuff is offensive enough, it will turn your work into a joke. But I worry more about the people that take these works seriously... because they're taking ideas that are un-researched, and applying them to their knowledge base. I read a book with an autistic character who doesn't act autistic, and suddenly I think I know what autism is, and will continue to perpetuate those falsehoods.

There should be a reason you do anything, and touchy areas should be thought out and done for a good reason. So keep it up, good luck, and happy writing.