A writer should always make sure he knows what he’s doing and why in a story. Do I use rape in my stories? Yes. Do I rely on it as my first choice? No. I always scrutinize the scene and consider why it’s there. If the story will stand without a certain bit of disturbing content, I shred it and try again. Even the rape that remains is off-screen, usually in backstory.

Indiana Jim
However, I have to agree with Shane a smidge. While I agree rape is overused, the idea of a woman feeling guilty for having multiple partners (to varying degrees and varieties) is extremely common, and in fact more likely than the other angle. I think men who have multiple partners are slutty too, so how’s that for equal time?

Call me a Puritan if you like, but I actually agree with Indiana Jim on thinking multiple-partnered men every bit as slutty as multiple-partnered women. That said, I do realize sex outside marriage is common. While my characters overall reflect my belief that sex belongs inside marriage, I do my best to balance my characters. I don’t strictly follow “girl virgin = good/not virgin = evil” stereotype. That’s as rude as the “any deeply religious conservative person is a Bible-thumping fanatic” stereotype. Which I endeavor not to take personally.

Irony is harder to pull off than writers like admitting. If you have to TELL me that you intended to be ironic (or anything else, for that matter), then your writing needs work. Go practice until I know what you’re doing without you telling me you’re (failing at) doing it, then keep at it until someone who doesn’t write herself can figure it out, too.

Indiana Jim
I kind of get pissed when fiction writers do the “men are all stupid and self-absorbed” bit, and also the whole “I could tell you this one simple fact which would explain my position, but I won’t. Instead, I’ll let this character continue to be pissed at the other for no real apparent reason other than it provides conflict” thing. You know?

Yeah, those drive me batty, too. The movie Mr. and Mrs. Smith was fun, but it really demonstrated the entire silly guy vs. smart girl cliches. Seems like in a lot of works, either the man or the woman has to be right ALL the time. Why not sometimes the girl, sometimes the guy?

In a similar vein, what about the idiot parents vs. savvy kids trope? Older CAN be wiser. (Of course, now I think of YA books that agree with me, there, and pull it off well.) Now, I realize that it’s difficult to have the reader know what’s REALLY going on without making the ignorant narrator seem like a complete idiot. But “difficult” has a different meaning than “impossible.”

And seriously, there’s such thing as trying too hard. I won’t name names, but I recently read a novel with a character who’s a murderous sociopath–and the writer’s writing was screaming “Wow, look at HIM! Isn’t he so COOL?!” Um, no, he’s a murderous sociopath, and I think I’ll quietly excuse myself and hope I never meet you at a convention.

No offense intended by any of this reply.

My comment is, however, that any advice–professional or otherwise–that blankets a subject with “Stop writing this” is dangerous advice. We’re all allowed to have opinions, we’re allowed to roll our eyes when we come across another trope we feel has been done to death, or poorly executed, or handled without care. If it’s in a slush pile, one sets it aside and prepares a “Thank you, but no thank you” reply. As an editor, that’s part of the job. Reading lots of stories, appealing or otherwise.

But any and all writers should filter advice through their own sensors. In the blog world, usually a rant about pet peeves is simply that.

My particular trite pet peeves are:

1. Eyes of a startling color. The whole fiction world is populated with people who have “startling green” or “ice blue” eyes and all that does is conjure up images of The Village of the Damned.

2. Tortured animals and pets. Yeah, boy. This is done over and over and over. Yes, sociopaths practice on animals in reality. People also wipe their butts in reality and we don’t need to see it in detail unless it moves the plot forward–and chances are, it doesn’t. There’s no bloody screetching whimpering dog scene that you can do that will out-bloody and out-shock the one Stephen King wrote. Best let a bunch of that stuff happen off-camera, as Hollywooders do–such as with Peter Moore Smith’s brilliant Raveling or with Elizabeth Hand’s very good Generation Loss.