Hamfisted, heavyhanded, pussyfooting, tiptoeing, beating around the bush.

We all know what these look like. Maybe it's just my background, but most of them conjure up memories of sermons. I'm sure you have some specific images from your own past. If you don't, watch a televangelist or local newscast.

The problem isn't (necessarily) the subject matter nor the presenter. The issue is preparation and approach. This is where I try and tie the idea I put in your head to the writing process. <- Hamfisted

The stories we write are manipulations. We work to induce attachment, love, hatred, ire, disdain and so on. We work to bring out the hard parts, where the soul rends, where beards are torn out and where ashes mat the hair. We work to elevate the joys of relationship and solitude, both; the elation of creation and destruction, both. We work to manipulate our reader into experience.

This can be a shared experience with a main character. This can be the experience of cognitive dissonance, where the story runs counter to the reader's expectation. This can be an experience of catharsis, or an increase in pent-up emotion that demands exploration.

Now, don't read this to be saying that all fiction must have its head up its hind-end and the writer believe that all the world's ills will be solved if only this one story were broadcast by flying speakers. I'm not saying that. And I fear I may have lost my thread, but I will do my best to find it again.

Some fiction can get away with flat characters, overwrought sentimentalism and hackneyed tripe for plots. Several types of fiction depend on stock characters and familiar tropes and glosses, but writers in these fields also do their best work while riffing on an old standard.

Readers read books to be manipulated. I know I do. But I don't want to feel manipulated. Does that make sense?