Propagandists in Author's Clothing

[J-Sun]

This post and those immediately preceding it about Goodkind and Hubbard made me wonder: what authors do you think are out there that are really just propagandists (left, right, n-dimensional) and do you think they started that way or became that way? IOW, was any storytelling just a con to draw in readers who would then have to listen to at least one book of preaching, or did they want to be a general story-teller and then just got carried away, or some other route?

I think most authors have a worldview and want to convey that though some want to tell as pure a "good story" as possible, so it's a fine line. If you write philosophically empty works, they're not likely to be "good stories". But do you think some authors clearly cross it and why do you think so?

And how do you react? Do you like someone who "tells it like it is" (if you agree) or enjoy the mental debate (if not) or do you react negatively?

(Note: I've read little Hubbard and no Goodkind so I'm not confirming or denying their places in this - just the comments about them made me think of the issue.)

 

[Anne Lyle]

The thing about SFF is that it gives the writer an opportunity to create entirely new worlds, and some writers use this to create worlds that express their own political/religious/philosophical views*. If those views match those of their readership, they are unlikely to be noticed - after all, most SF is implicitly pro-science and pro-technology, which is just another world-view when all's said and done.

It seems, though, that it is those writers whose views are contrary to general opinion who are most likely to indulge in utopian/dystopian writing. Sometimes that's a good thing, because general opinion may be wrong and the resultant books, by e.g. portraying an oppressed minority in a positive way, may contribute in some small way to increasing social justice. It's most noticeable, of course, in writers whose views are repugnant to many of their readership - like Goodkind. But it's a free country, so I think readers should vote with their pockets.

As for my own preferences, yeah, I hate it when an author gets up on a soapbox. It's particularly irksome when I don't agree with the thesis, but can be irritating even when I do agree. IMHO the role of fiction is to entertain first and enlighten second - if a writer switches those priorities around, I quickly turn off.

* I'm talking strictly about entire cultures and settings. To me there's a big difference between creating a world where X is right and good, and creating one where X is dominant but at least some aspects are opposed by some of the "good guys".

 

[StirlingNewberry]

All writers are propagandists, if nothing else, for the idea that writing and reading matters.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

One inevitably thinks of John Norman...

 

[Vertigo]

It's most noticeable, of course, in writers whose views are repugnant to many of their readership - like Goodkind.

I think that's a key point made by Anne there. I've nver noticed too many people complaining about George Orwell for example although I bet there were a few Stalinists that might not have been too thrilled with Animal Farm.

 

[RJM Corbet]

This post and those immediately preceding it about Goodkind and Hubbard made me wonder: what authors do you think are out there that are really just propagandists (left, right, n-dimensional) and do you think they started that way or became that way? IOW, was any storytelling just a con to draw in readers who would then have to listen to at least one book of preaching, or did they want to be a general story-teller and then just got carried away, or some other route?

I think most authors have a worldview and want to convey that though some want to tell as pure a "good story" as possible, so it's a fine line. If you write philosophically empty works, they're not likely to be "good stories". But do you think some authors clearly cross it and why do you think so?

And how do you react? Do you like someone who "tells it like it is" (if you agree) or enjoy the mental debate (if not) or do you react negatively?

(Note: I've read little Hubbard and no Goodkind so I'm not confirming or denying their places in this - just the comments about them made me think of the issue.)

I think it's like Bono from U2.

The fame gives him a platform to become a patronising pain in the a**

 

[D_Davis]

Yeah! Screw Bono for trying to make a difference in the world, contributing money and time to great charities, and using his fame as a way to get people to take notice of injustices! What a jerk!

 

[D_Davis]

Do you see a difference between an author being didactic (like Theodore Sturgeon, who almost always had an agenda - see Godbody, and The [Widget], the [Wadget], and Boff as examples) and an author who is a "propagandist?"

 

[J-Sun]

I think it's like Bono from U2.

The fame gives him a platform to become a patronising pain in the a**

Yeah! Screw Bono for trying to make a difference in the world, contributing money and time to great charities, and using his fame as a way to get people to take notice of injustices! What a jerk!

*lol* I actually agree with you both.

The thing about SFF is that it gives the writer an opportunity to create entirely new worlds, and some writers use this to create worlds that express their own political/religious/philosophical views*. If those views match those of their readership, they are unlikely to be noticed - after all, most SF is implicitly pro-science and pro-technology, which is just another world-view when all's said and done.

I wish I could find the SF you're reading. It seems like pro-science/tech SF is an endangered species to me.

It seems, though, that it is those writers whose views are contrary to general opinion who are most likely to indulge in utopian/dystopian writing. Sometimes that's a good thing, because general opinion may be wrong and the resultant books, by e.g. portraying an oppressed minority in a positive way, may contribute in some small way to increasing social justice. It's most noticeable, of course, in writers whose views are repugnant to many of their readership - like Goodkind. But it's a free country, so I think readers should vote with their pockets.

But you make a good point - fish aren't impressed with all the water they breathe. Still, I think some authors fail to create a seemingly self-animated world. I think people get most upset when they see the strings on the puppets. IOW, it's not so much the content as whether the fictional structure can support it.

 

[thaddeus6th]

There's nothing wrong with authors having views which inform their writing to an extent, but when a book effectively becomes an argument for a political (or other) position it's propaganda.

I agree that Bono is a patronising ar**. Apparently when he was on stage once, clicking his fingers and saying "Every time I click my fingers a child dies" some witty fellow in the audience shouted "Stop clicking your ****ing fingers then!"

 

[J-Sun]

Do you see a difference between an author being didactic (like Theodore Sturgeon, who almost always had an agenda - see Godbody, and The [Widget], the [Wadget], and Boff as examples) and an author who is a "propagandist?"

Got distracted and missed your post. Are you asking me or others in the thread? It's been a long time since I read either but I'd say I do see a difference which hinges on part of my last post - Sturgeon usually manages to infuse his fiction with his theme - the structures support his points - and he's generally somewhat complex in portraying variants. His range of characters tend to show people in different proximity to what might be his "point" and aren't demonized or simplified for being farther away from it. If that makes any sense.

 

[Extollager]

It seems (I am not thinking of anyone who has commented here!) that, often, readers object to "propaganda" selectively. I don't think there's anything wrong with recognizing that, in fact, we do tend to appreciate writings that jibe with opinions and beliefs that we cherish, and that we are uncomfortable with ones that diss the same. I feel that I see a lot of bad criticisms of Lewis's Narnia books as "propaganda" in which the issue really seems largely to be that the critic dislikes Christianity. (Here's a test that I propose: Distrust any critic who rants on about the Susan-going-to-hell-because-she-wore-lipstick-and-nylons thing. First, the incident may be misrepresented just on the level of what the original says and, second, it is a tiny thing in one corner of a seven-book set. I myself think that it is a good stroke from a purely artistic point of view. It supplies a hint of loss, of tragedy, that helps to keep the series from what might otherwise be a finally too cheery thing, in the conclusion especially.) What the critic needs to do is make an argument that the series is artistically compromised by the way some material is presented. Thomas Hardy expresses a pessimism about the universe and man in his novels. A reader who disagrees with this outlook should still be able to appreciate Hardy's artistic achievement; but the reader may also point to some passages in which Hardy overdoes it, as artistic failures. One more example: Algernon Blackwood's "The Willows." A great work of supernatural terror. Unfortunately it has some stretches of occultism in expository form: alla sudden the two canoe guys sound like members of a London circle that meets to talk about metaphysics. So one should be able to distinguish between the story as an imaginative expression of Blackwood's metaphysics (with which one might or might not agree) and the artistic success or (in the is case) failure of some parts of the story.

But there's a distinct issue -- leaving aside our personal feelings, where and how in a given literary work does "propaganda" constitute a literary defect? Where and how do we see a work of propaganda -- perhaps acknowledged as such -- nevertheless the vehicle of a genuine artistic achievement?

 

[Ursa major]

Do you like someone who "tells it like it is" (if you agree) or enjoy the mental debate (if not) or do you react negatively?

The trouble is, the ones who appear** to be propagandists not only tell it as it is (though they add straw-man arguments to "represent" opposing views), but then contort the plot to "prove" that they're right.

(I'm looking at you, Heinlein, with particular reference to Stranger in a Strange Land.)




** - With a good propagandist, e.g. one who avoids obvious preaching, the reader shouldn't know that they're being influenced.

 

[Pyan]

One inevitably thinks of John Norman...

...with a light shudder...

 

[Anne Lyle]

I wish I could find the SF you're reading. It seems like pro-science/tech SF is an endangered species to me.

TBH I don't read a lot of SF - I was thinking back to Asimov and the Golden Age. Maybe that's why I don't read much SF - everyone's become disillusioned wih progress, so there doesn't seem to be much joy in SF any more.

As a writer, I acknowledge that it's impossible to separate one's own world view from one's fiction. I'm sure it will be obvious from my writing that I'm pro-tolerance (of homosexuality, of religious differences, etc) - but it's all incidental to the story, I hope. I think propaganda becomes a problem when, as has been said, the story is distorted to prove a particular point. If the point was that convincing in the first place, the distortion would not have been necessary.

 

[Tillane]

Hmm. Propagandist or polemicist? George Orwell was certainly the latter, and quite possibly the former. He was certainly very clear on what was wrong in the world, even if he never really put forward anything in the way of a contrary ideology...

 

[D_Davis]

Hmm. Propagandist or polemicist? George Orwell was certainly the latter, and quite possibly the former. He was certainly very clear on what was wrong in the world, even if he never really put forward anything in the way of a contrary ideology...

That's what I was getting at, although I used "didactic" instead of polemicist, which is a much better way of describing it.

That is really what I look for in SF - that's what makes SF such an amazing genre. It's a genre all about ideas, and using an unbridled imagination to extrapolate on an idea.

I think a great SF author should have an idea, and should be somewhat didactic and a polemicist. I would point to something like PKD's A Scanner Darkly as an example. It is most definitely an anti-drug novel, and one of the all-time great works of the genre.

 

[TheTomG]

I also think it can be fun when you, as a person, have two or more opposing views and you let them take form in different characters and then watch how they deal with each other. As human beings, we are generally not as holistic and integrated as we like to think, and there are contradictions in us, things that are almost-opposites to each other.

I think it is useful for the author and the reader when that happens, it's not really arguing one side or another, but letting both (or more, depending on how many sides you pause and consider) compete against each other.

There are some things in life which I am just not certain about, where I can see different viewpoints. The end result of such a novel doesn't even have to draw a conclusion or have one side be the victor and the other a loser, it can just explore.

This is why I read and why I write, I love to explore

 

[RJM Corbet]

Yeah! Screw Bono for trying to make a difference in the world, contributing money and time to great charities, and using his fame as a way to get people to take notice of injustices! What a jerk!

You can't be standing up in front of the UN the morning after riding a motorbike in a hotel corridor? Sorry, it's just not rock and roll ...

 

[blacknorth]

There's nothing wrong with authors having views which inform their writing to an extent, but when a book effectively becomes an argument for a political (or other) position it's propaganda.

I agree that Bono is a patronising ar**. Apparently when he was on stage once, clicking his fingers and saying "Every time I click my fingers a child dies" some witty fellow in the audience shouted "Stop clicking your ****ing fingers then!"

lol, that's an oft-told joke in Ireland and it never fails to raise a laugh.

Bono has been widely despised here since he moved his tax affairs overseas - it seems the prospect of paying taxes to the Irish exchequer during his country's hour of need was a little too much for him.

Good riddance I say.