Liking books that go against your politics

[kaelcarp]

A couple of years back, I read The Golden Age trilogy by John C. Wright. It was a fantastic series from start to finish, a great story with great concepts and a strong character to follow.

However, as I read it, I realized it was effectively an Ayn Rand story set in the far future. It's all about the enlightenment of pursuing one's self interest and all that, very overtly.

I am not what you'd call an Ayn Rand fan. I haven't read a whole lot of her stuff. It's too maddening for me. But I've read enough (one novel and a bunch of essays) to have a pretty good grip on Objectivism and all that. It's a worldview that I consider to be as unworkable as its antithesis (Soviet Communism) and, as someone who is pretty left wing, it goes against many of my core beliefs.

However, I couldn't help but love the series, despite its very overt political leanings. I wonder, if I'd known about the politics in advance, whether I would have given the books a chance. I'm certainly glad I did.

Has anyone had a similar experience with books or other media?

I'd imagine there may be some right wingers who read, say, Iron Council by China Mieville and couldn't help but like it, or some similar stories.

 

[The Ace]

I used to enjoy Robert Aspirin's, "Myth Inc," series until the crew discussed breaking up a trade union. Only scum do that.

 

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

I have to say, I enjoy stories that go against my core political beliefs all the time, with small novels like 1984, We, The Giver, and stories like that I can enjoy, though the idea of mind-controlling totalitarian government goes against everything I believe in and hope for.

 

[manephelien]

Most of Heinlein's novels go against my political opinions, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying them.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I have to say, I enjoy stories that go against my core political beliefs all the time, with small novels like 1984, We, The Giver, and stories like that I can enjoy, though the idea of mind-controlling totalitarian government goes against everything I believe in and hope for.

But it seems to me that all of those books are in agreement with what you believe, Manarion -- each one condemns totalitarian government in very memorable and compelling ways. In what way, then, do they go against your core political beliefs? The setting of a book is not at all the same thing as the message.

 

[Ursa major]

I thought it would be easier to see which books I don't like because of their politics (given that I try to give a book a chance and then let it disappoint me ). In trying to do this, I realised that the politics were not the problem. SF (and, I assume, Fantasy) is full of appalling societies that I, as a democrat, would hate were I to live there. None of that stops me from reading these books, even where little or no attempt is made to improve the situation. I don't recall, for example, much of a movement towards democracy in Dune and its immediate sequels, but I enjoyed reading (most of) these books.

What does spoil a book, though, is intellectual dishonesty. I hate it when I sense that the author is manipulating the politics and the narrative to put forward the "inevitability" of some view or other. Human society is too complex for anything to be inevitable about it. (Something truly alien is another matter, as long as the author does not hint that what may work for the aliens would always work for humans.)

To me, "inevitability" of this kind comes across like the plots of those stories that have to rely on ever more unlikely coincidences to come to a conclusion, something else I do not like.

I recall reading a review of a play (in this case, left wing) that, the reviewer stated, "proved" some more or less obscure point of politics. He or she was wrong: fiction cannot prove anything; the best it can hope to do is to make us think, not accept anything put in front of us.

 

[Kissmequick]

Most of Heinlein's novels go against my political opinions, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying them.

Same here, although a quote from Stranger in a Strange Land very nearly put me off.

Jill says 'Nine times out of ten, if a girl gets raped, it's at least partly her own fault,'
Seriously, I almost got the matches out.

 

[Ursa major]

Speaking of Stranger in a Strange Land....

I also don't like books that become a pulpit from which the author preaches at the reader at great length, setting up straw men and, surprisingly enough, knocking them down with ease. (Claims that it's black humour don't impress me; somewhere in the book, Heinlein fell in love with his own voice and that spolied it for me.)

 

[Fried Egg]

I read and thoroughly enjoyed The Dispossessed by Ursula Le Guin despite knowing in advance that it was as contemplation of the viability of an anarcho-communist society (which, I beleive, reflected her own political beliefs).

Personally, comming from the perspective of an libertarian-capitalist, this obviously presented a challenge to my views (although not entirely because I am also anti-state). I remember one bit in particular jarring when Shevek briefly read some economist literature whilst on the planet Arras and throwing it down in disgust, dismissing it as nothing more than the apologistic, rationalisation of capitalists. Also, I believe she grossly underestimated the problems a society of that size would face in the absense of markets and prices to allocate resources.

However, despite that, I thought it did a great job and confronted honestly many of the problems that such a society would face and how it could actually work from quite a pragmatic perspective.

Generally speaking, much science fiction and fantasy to tend to be written from a more socialist perspective because they reflect the views of the majority of authors so I often run up against such things but it rarely, if ever, prevents me from enjoying a good story for what it is.

 

[Urlik]

Most of Heinlein's novels go against my political opinions, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying them.

RAH is a strange case as far as politics goes, for me at least.
sometimes I read him and I feel that he is very right wing, while other times I find him anarchic. usually I get this flipping of political polarity when rereading a book, so it may be that as my worldview changes, my perception of meaning in literature is also changing, or it m ay be that on the reread, I am picking up on subtle points I missed the first time.

 

[Urlik]

sorry, double post

 

[Fried Egg]

RAH is a strange case as far as politics goes, for me at least.
sometimes I read him and I feel that he is very right wing, while other times I find him anarchic. usually I get this flipping of political polarity when rereading a book, so it may be that as my worldview changes, my perception of meaning in literature is also changing, or it m ay be that on the reread, I am picking up on subtle points I missed the first time.

I've not read any Heinlein's work but I'm wondering why you consider anarchic and right wing to be necessarilly mutually exclusive?

 

[Connavar]

I dont care which political idea a book is about as long the book is good.

RAH is one of my absolute favorit writers cause he can make most of his ideas into a very good book. I can easily forgive him for some backward ideas that was common in his day. Like how he saw women.


Although i agree with with most political ideas in Moon is a Harsh Mistress, i wasnt keen on the ideas behind Starship Troopers who was totaly the opposite Moon is a Harsh Mistress and against many things i believe in. Didnt stop it from being the most perfect Military SF book i have read and a book i rate very highly.


I would never read books like Mein Kampf though, and similar nun fiction books where people preach and raise their ideas as universal thruth.

 

[williamjm]

I generally don't agree with the politics in Ken Macleod's Science Fiction books, which generally tend towards either libertarianism or communism or some odd combination of the two, but I still like most of the novels. I never really felt he was preaching about a particular ideology or trying to portray a particular political system as perfect.

 

[Werthead]

Ditto with China Mieville. Although I think even Mieville knows that his brand of socialism isn't really entirely workable in practical reality and some of that cynicism comes over in his books.

 

[DeepThought]

Orson Scott Card's Books, especially The Tales of Alvin Maker and to a lesser extent all his novels, not strictly politics here but the religious beliefs; OSC was criticized of being overly preachy (Mormonism?) in these books but it didn't stop me from enjoying them. I think that sometimes we have to overlook such things (and enjoy the story) because every author is different and has different and sometime very specific opinions on life; politics, religion etc. and its a sure thing that when he writes, these views will creep in without him/her even knowing. But for us reading it we might think that author is having an agenda even though the author is just being earnest and doing what comes naturally to him. In the case of OSC he is a religious person, so it is no surprise that his fiction will be heavily influenced by it.

Cheers, DeepThought

 

[chrispenycate]

If I only read people whose ideas I already agree with, what am I learning?

And not all books reflect their authors' ideals, either; sometimes the best way to kindle a healthy debate is to bring up contradictory evidence. There's always the risk it will be taken at face value, but if the argument was that strong it deserved an airing, anyway.

I read lots of books with whose base philosophy I am wildly at variance, but consider that if the conclusion makes me angry, it's something that requires further investigation. It might even force me to write a refutation.

But since my personal philosophy contains certain contradictory elements at the best of times (and is an individualised debating society at the worst) I see no danger in attempting to understand how others see the world.

 

[Tansy]

Can you like people who have differing political views to your own? Does having a different political view make them a bad person? Does a different political view in a book make the story bad?

I love diversity and seeing things from different viewpoints. As long as I know who I am and what I believe then I think it's essential to challenge that belief. Only by doing this can you grow. Maybe you will find yourself agreeing with certain new aspects or vehemently opposing them. I like to know what drives people to believe what and act as they do.

When reading fantasy I expect the politics/beliefs to be different as I am reading about a diffent world or culture and I don't expect them to have the same historical/moral/religious/cultural references as I do so therefore why would they have the same political leanings as I do?

Also as stated above - not all writers share their own beliefs in their work, often it may be the story is set somewhere or the character's background is somewhat conflicting to their own, and as they are telling the character's story and not their own personal one they may suspend what they believe to walk in another's shoes. Sometimes they will take a stand that they don't believe in either to promote discussion or for shock value, for me, at the end of the day, it is the characterisation, plot and story telling that matters. As long as I understand why key characters behave and think as they do then I'm not really bothered if their views conflict with mine or if the author's views do.

 

[Clansman]

I used to enjoy Robert Aspirin's, "Myth Inc," series until the crew discussed breaking up a trade union. Only scum do that.

Yikes! What about where the trade union is corrupt and top heavy with management, gouges its members with massive fees, and does more to inflict damage on the business for which its members work than it does to protect the members' jobs?

Surely that is a union that could be broken up without labelling the breakers "scum"? And yes, they have and do exist.

Mostly, I like unions, because they are important. Here's hoping Wal-Mart gets a union in Canada.

I have yet to read a book that I liked that went against my politics. Usually, because my politics do not apply in fantasy reading, as the politics there tends to be absolute or council-based monarchies. However, I did choke my way through an Ayn Rand book once, and although it was only about 250 pages, it took me six months because I really, really hated the author's point of view. I forget the name of the thing, but it was the one where the woman is in just post-revolutionary Russia, and everything that happens to her and her boyfriend, and how she tries to escape in the end.

I can not stand self-reliance/objectivism as a philosophy. One of the reasons I hate Sword of Truth as much as I do.

 

[Mechaniik]

Ditto with China Mieville. Although I think even Mieville knows that his brand of socialism isn't really entirely workable in practical reality and some of that cynicism comes over in his books.

Yes, especially in Iron Council. (spoiler)

Spoiler

I respect the author a lot more for not simply having the free commune triumph as you would expect it to, given the own author's worldview (although I too think that Mieville was always speaking of it as an ideal, not something likely to be realised).

For me though, its not necessarily the presentation of the authors political views that I dislike merely the use of their books as a pulpit through which they can demolish straw men who can't fight back. Put it this way - political science and philosophy are very well respected disciplines, with hundred of books and academics and journals dedicated to them yet we are supposed to expect that a fantasy book will tell us something that they can't, while at the same time telling an entertaining story.

Even with more feted authors such as Bakker (whose books, taken simply as novels are great) I can't help but feel that I would rather read a philosophy textbook if I wanted to learn about such things.