However, killing a fictional president you make up, go for it! All sorts of conflict and controversy there.
Even Tom Clancy did it, and that President wasn’t even a horrible one that you wanted to see offed. Makes for all kinds of turmoil.
Just remember, it really messes with the spirit and soul of a nation when their leader is killed. Be sure to incorporate that into your planning.

http://mbarker.livejournal.com/126639.html

Just don’t write one about killing the President. Not only is it in bad taste, it gets you on all sorts of lists that you REALLY don’t want to be on.

Hey, if Stephen King can do it, you can too! You just have to make sure your president is fictional and completely disastrous so that people can sympathise with the idea that terrible means are necessary to stop them. Your protagonist also usually needs to be the only one in on some sort of dire conspiracy for that sort of plot, of course. Stephen King handled it by letting his protagonist have the unexplained ability to see the future, I believe.

In short: It’s only in bad taste if you don’t concoct a really good exception to the rules that would normally make it in bad taste.

Just don’t write one about killing the President. Not only is it in bad taste, it gets you on all sorts of lists that you REALLY don’t want to be on.

It’s merely the controversial issues as a form of sub-plot that I’m concerned about. They’re important in effect to the main plot, and it’s a subject I really want to tackle.

Sounds like you shouldn’t have anything to worry about if you’ve handled your subject and your writing well, Jessica. If it ties in well with everything and you research it adequately to treat the subject with respect, only a fool would reject it for being controversial.

Wow. THANK YOU for directing me to those, especially the bottom two links! That’s where my concern was, spot on.

I feel SO much better about things. I’m back at full confidence again, and I’m really looking forward to traditional publishing. (It’s just that I have controversial subject matter, which is where I base most of my fears.)

The current project I’m on is actually in its 12th phase, and it’s a totally different story than when I started on it. In that sense, it’s been a killed darling 11 times because none of the ideas were good — I thought they were good, but when I look back at them, they were ugly. I’ve hacked the living heck out of many really good scenes, too, without even looking twice at them once I realized they didn’t fit. So, I guess in essence, it could be summed up to 12 different stories. I have no ambition to change tracks; it’s only that I’ve become objective enough through all those re-writes. I’m not “attached” in the form of Mary Sue-ism or anything like that. It’s merely the controversial issues as a form of sub-plot that I’m concerned about. They’re important in effect to the main plot, and it’s a subject I really want to tackle.

That reminds me. They should totally do a podcast on story length (word count, number of pages, etc.). That’s one I would like to hear.

I stopped my first project for the very reasons you are talking about and have gone on to work on improving my craft because of the lessons of that podcast.
One day I may revisit my dream project, but I have had so many other wonderful ideas since and have grown quite a bit as a writer because of learning to let go.
The publishers try and get you to make the changes they do BECAUSE it will make your story or book better. They want to get people to read what they publish and come back for more.
Really, is that a bad thing?
I would also refer you to the episodes on publishing and editing.
http://www.writingexcuses.com/2008/09/02/writing-excuses-episode-30-talking-revision-with-moshe-feder/

http://www.writingexcuses.com/2008/08/24/writing-excuses-episode-29-talking-publishing-with-lou-anders/

The primary reason I wish to self-publish is that I can avoid the publishing house’s content editor and art direction. I’ve based a LOT of what I write on characters I have created through artistic means, and it would be horrifying–downright appalling like the death of a family member–to have a weird, malformed, misidentified character on the cover that does not AT ALL represent the one the story was based off of. This would crash the vision I had for this project, and would be the death of me (figure of speech).

Writing should not be limited to “writing.” Art should not be limited to “art.” Why can’t an artist create a whole vision that is acceptable to a publishing house? Why can’t they honor the two as a whole unit from one person?

Are there any traditional publishing houses that exist, that fully honor creative expression at all? That won’t chop up and hack away precious writing that ISN’T filler? I mean, are their content editors in publishing houses that actually respect the whole writing, and only edit content if it’s something vital like a glaring plot hole? Do traditional publishing houses let authors communicate with in-house art directors? How much leeway do they give to authors regarding any of this?