What makes a story "mature"?

I think many writers fail spectacular when they think that "Adult" equals sex, violence, drugs and extreme pessimism as if darkness equaled matureness. The result? juvenile works much more immature than a Disney channel sitcom could be. Dealing with adult themes doesn't necessarily makes a story "Adult" in fact some stories feel like kids trying to be grown up.

That being said, what do you think separates a Mature and adult story from one that isn't?

Tact, and an appreciation for what it means to tackle "mature" content like rape and domestic abuse?

Research helps. For example, many a runaway fanfic feels immature because it's clear that the author didn't read much into what running away as a teen usually consists of. But tact helps too.

The same as what makes people mature: Responsibility. Responsibility to the things it depicts.

In genuinely mature works, there's also a good exploration of psychology and well-rounded casts/settings/backstory as opposed to LOL LETS HAVE ADULT SHIT HAPPEN BECAUSE I WANT AN EDGY STORY.

The Twilight series feels, among other things, immature. Despite being written by a grown woman, it's suffused with that tunnel-vision of inept romance and general whining that you'd normally see in teens or just-barely-twenty-somethings.

edited 14th Sep '14 4:01:42 PM by Sharysa

As facile as this sounds, I've always kind of felt that if you have to ask, you might as well not bother.

Not necessarily: words can be tricky things, and one might ask because of uncertainty over the usage or meaning of the word, rather than inability or unreadiness to apply its meaning.

To address the original question, I suppose that it's writing from a perspective that, as others have said, is tactful: it acknowledges one or more touchy subjects, but does so without giggling as an immature work might, and displays some degree of knowledge and empathy regarding those subjects.

I think it's mostly about content.

An Adult story contains things you wouldn't want your mom to see you looking at(or, something you wouldn't want your kid to read), this can be excessive violence, explicit sex or rape, or torture.

What makes a story mature is how you display and interpret things. Mature stories tend to glaze over the details of explicit scenes unless those details are what are being addressed. A mature story focuses more on communicating how something affected someone and what it changed about them.

One example would be Grave Peril, from the Dresden Files. It is heavily implied that the main character was raped, but never stated. It does, however, show that the event had a very lasting effect on him and is brought up multiple times as something traumatic that he doesn't wan to talk about.

I think adult stories and mature stories are different. You can have a mature children's story or an immature adult's story. The reason we usually combine mature and adult stories is simply because a maturely written child's story is going to be mostly lost on that target audience.

Adult- whether the story contains elements suitable for children (regardless of whether it is handled in a mature and well thought out manner, a story about rape isn't for children)

Mature- why the sensitive aspects are included and how they are handled ( e.g whether they trigger appropriate responses in characters or whether the repercussions are fully investigated).

edited 15th Sep '14 5:31:02 AM by aoide12

What makes a story mature? In a word - consequences. Every action and event, no matter how improbable or far-fetched, has its logical causes and effects, which build up a consistent narrative.

For example, Watchmen was a mature consideration on the circumstances that would lead to some people becoming costumed vigilanties, exploring just what sort of person would choose such a life, and how that choice would affect them, and society in general. It also looked at how global politics would be changed by the existence of a truly powerful superhuman, and how much tension would be created by his involvement in acts of war. The story was dark and sexual, but as a logical consequence of the themes themselves, and its darkness and sexuality in turn had consequences of its own.

To contrast, most of the gritty and rape-ridden comics that followed only had these themes as melodramatic backdrops around the same simplistic stories of good guys bashing bad guys. Their newly-darkened motivations and freudian excuses were still inconsequential in the long run. So as a result, they actually look more childish and immature than the happy-go-lucky tales of yore, since those at least didn't even pretend to be serious.

In a similar fashion, Star Trek is virtually cotton candy, not just because it breaks every law of physics it encounters, but because its morals and social circumstances are just as simplistic, with outcomes as rigid and predictable as any pulp sci-fi tale. Conversely, a borderline comedic show like Stargate had a lot of fun openly examining every cliche it encountered, which I'd say actually made it more believable in terms of human reaction.

In short, maturity is not so much about specific themes, but rather the logical framework behind them, and how it extends beyond them.

edited 15th Sep '14 12:31:41 PM by indiana404

Here's a good example of a mature children's story.

On a broad definition, I would say that a faux mature story feels like we're being treated like children, and a real mature story feels like we're being treated like adults.

For exemple: Batman is mature (most of the time) because Gotham is a rotten place, but Batman still tries to make Gotham a better place and still puts limits... And he is nice to children, and most of the vilains are dangerous yet intriguing. A faux mature story on the other hand has a dark grim hero who fights in a place that cannot be saved, and would kill a vilain without any remorse. Also obvious and annoying sex and blood.

And also, what makes the difference is in the wording. A faux mature story would put quotes without any good reason and puts elaborate words out of context, whereas a real mature story wouldn't bother.

Oh yeah, there's also a pretty stark contrast between explicit stories depending on the author's comfort with sex/violence—immature or uncomfortable authors either get too flowery or too profane if they even depict things at all, while mature writers can hint at things without sounding weird or squeamish.

I can feel if an author's squeamish around sex/violence. Scenes just won't flow right because they sound clinical, or they focus on the entirely wrong things.

edited 16th Sep '14 5:11:14 PM by Sharysa

Can anyone tell me this: Is a Cape-esque Hero like Superman or Captain America "immature?" Are they immature super heroes just because they have "ideals?"

I don't think so, no; I don't believe that an idealistic character would necessarily be immature. As with "adult" topics, such a character could, I think, be written in an immature manner, but is not necessarily immature in and of itself.

But here's the thing: You can have an emotionally mature story where the protagonist is not a good person and/or the overall situation is hopeless and horrific. Maturity is in how these things are handled and to what end they are depicted in that way.

I recently watched something which I would classify as being of that school, and you know what stuck out to me? The violence isn't fun, the sexual aspects are the opposite of titillating, the ending is tragic on every level—and it all felt worthwhile. I had not wasted my time, not a minute of it, but I was neither pandered to or insulted.

But that's very rare. It's important to tell your story with every detail necessary in place, but some things are simply unnecessary, and people who feel like they need to just throw more of what they do not need at the canvas to seem more adult or make their audience feel more adult are misunderstanding their craft.

Agreed. And a cynic can be terribly immature.

edited 16th Sep '14 6:22:05 PM by JHM

Usually no, but say you have a Superman-like character with no discernible flaws, no weaknesses, and who has everything fall into their laps. That character would be very immature, because there's no way for it to develop any further and no lesson to learn other than "If I had super powers my life would be perfect"

edited 16th Sep '14 6:22:29 PM by kingandcommoner

Did I mention that question was rhetorical? Anyway I think this clip sums up my feelings towards Superman: [1]

OP: You should understand that "maturity" is a relative concept- there are no objective criteria that clearly separate "mature" works from "immature" ones; every work is more or less mature than others, and which is which will vary depending upon the perspective of individual readers. Is Batman mature? Compared to what?

That said, I think Indiana 404 had it right. I would only add that in addition to every action (and inaction) having real consequences, the focus of a more mature work will be on the characters. In other words, on the "plot-driven" vs. "characterization-driven" scale, more mature works will lean toward characterization.

In addition, I think "maturity" and "literary" are near synonyms; or what we call around here Lit Fic (short for "literary fiction") "...characterized by an aspiration to literary merit and a greater focus on style, psychological depth and character - as opposed to the focus on plot and narrative typical of genre fiction." Like Lit Fic, mature works tend to focus on the emotional consequences of ordinary people doing ordinary things, and encountering other people along the way, and eventually undergoing some sort of personal transformation. This is usually intended to shed some light on real life issues and how people tend to react to them. "A family struggles with cancer. A man struggles with death. A couple struggles with alcoholism. A child struggles to become an adult" are all mature themes.

And you think genre fiction isn't "mature?" That stories that focus on the fantastical side of things don't have value?

No, I think not. Lit Fic's "maturity" is, by those standards, far too often an expression of the fact it has shallow, unmemorable characters dealing with shallow, unmemorable takes on problems memorable far too often only to people who've actually had to deal with them and don't want to see them again.

Lit Fic is weirdly like soap opera at times; far too often it builds characters and a world not by any flourish of or skill at writing but by sheer length.

edited 16th Sep '14 7:29:41 PM by Night

I found this rather interesting article. http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/220294/Can_joy_be_more_adult_than_violence.php

Genre fiction is limited in its's ability to handle these sorts of themes. Most people will not be inclined to take those sorts of attempts seriously, or find it awkward at best, hilarious at worst if, say, the mighty wizard Gibmelgramp defeated an army of demons and then died of cervical cancer, leaving behind a resenting son who never wanted to be a wizard and was estranged from his father at the time of his death.

And this doesn't make Michael Chabon and his works "literary?"

Only the literary stuff. In the eyes of critics, it's always that way. Genre fiction is the bastard stepchild of literature.