How do you like your politics in your fiction?

[Nerds_feather]

There's been some discussion lately about some things being "message fiction," and this being a bad thing. But I think a lot of the time, what people object to isn't the presence of message, or politics, but rather the specific message or political perspective articulated. And people often don't notice politics or political messages when they are "bias confirming" or simply part of the background (which of course does not mean they aren't there).

At the same time, I think there are clear cases where message can subsume story, and some books are undeniably preachy (Ayn Rand, anyone). I tend not to like this, though I do like a good political allegory (especially, *gasp*, when I agree with the point being made).

So where do YOU draw the line? HOW do you draw the line?

 

[Silver Owl]

China Mieville shows his politics in his books! I'm told it is particularly prevalent in Iron Council (which I have yet to read). I actually largely agree with his politics so it doesn't really bother me.

 

[vanye]

I like my politics non-preachy, thank you very much!

 

[The Ace]

I find David Webber's politics a little hard to swallow, but he is American. I usually try toignore an author's views if I disagree with them.

As a genuine socialist, I often find US treatment of such matters ill-informed and distasteful, but their real-life politics are pretty diabolical anyway.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Nonexistant. Same for any worthy sentiment. I want to escape to a story. If I then choose to take something from that, it's up to me. But at the first sign of preaching at expense of a story, I'm gone. And I'd hate to write anything like that, too.

 

[Brian G Turner]

There's been some discussion lately about some things being "message fiction," and this being a bad thing.

Pfft! These privileged chattering classes, with nothing else to do.

And people often don't notice politics or political messages when they are "bias confirming"

Absolutely right!!

We don't condemn stories which reflect modern Western values, because we presume these to be the moral standard.

In the meantime, these stories - and their corresponding values - are exported into non-Western cultures.

So where do YOU draw the line? HOW do you draw the line?

My own spiritual philosophy plays a key role in my WIP. However, I am very mindful that readers may not want to be forced to accept this. So I provide ample room to remain disengaged from it:

1. The character who is a central to this refuses to accept it without question
2. Other characters, of equal importance, either ignore it or are outright hostile to it
3. The philosophy is drip-fed through a series, so it does not take over the story
4. I write about different religious/cultural approaches to faith and spirituality, so it doesn't stand out too overtly anyway.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

For me it depends if it is relevant to the story then fine if it is just a soap box then no.

My Cuckoo In Black Nest does have an older gay couple who get married at the end and a cross-dressing barrister which I guess works my view into it.

 

[Ursa major]

China Mieville shows his politics in his books! I'm told it is particularly prevalent in Iron Council (which I have yet to read). I actually largely agree with his politics so it doesn't really bother me.

I'm not sure about other people, but it is definitely the way something is written that bothers me more than what is being described. I don't agree with China Miéville's view of politics, but I enjoyed Iron Council. (What I didn't enjoy in the book was the over-the-top intensification of the magic -- throwing the kitchen sink in comes to mind -- although I thought the last bit of magic was rather clever.) I think the description of the politics works in the Bas Lag books because Miéville is aware of the complexity of politics and how different people use it and operate within it. (And this is where the tension is, amongst those opposing what is described -- by those opposing it, obviously -- as a horrendous system of government.)

I find the same with Ken McLeod's work: you can guess where the author's heart is (which is probably not where mine would be), but he doesn't write propaganda or cardboard characters; if a character is preaching, there'll be other characters disputing it, or at least expressing their doubts, and a preacher's blather doesn't usually win them over.


Compare this with the preaching in Stranger in a Strange Land, which almost stopped me finishing the book, mainly because real opposing arguments were absent or those arguing were soon won over. I don't know or care if Heinlein agreed with his serial preacher in that book, but that isn't the point; those parts of the book were just badly written -- in terms of the characters we were shown, that is, and their behaviour(s) - as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Nerds_feather]

I find David Webber's politics a little hard to swallow, but he is American. I usually try toignore an author's views if I disagree with them.

As a genuine socialist, I often find US treatment of such matters ill-informed and distasteful, but their real-life politics are pretty diabolical anyway.

This is uncalled for. The US is a very large country and home to very diverse political perspectives. Your post, whether intentional or not, is highly insulting and dismissive of people like me.

 

[Parson]

I think that if you write you will almost of necessity give your position away. Not necessarily in a "preachy" kind of way. (BTW I hate that analogy.) But what's in your heart will inevitably be seen in either subtle or crassly unsubtle ways.

I'm not sure that I've read any of China Melville's stuff, but I have read a lot of Weber's. My opinion is that Weber could write some convincing socialist propaganda, but that it would not feel right to him and upon close examination it would prove to be flawed, because that's not where his heart is.

Nerd's Feather: Any generalization about a group of people, to say nothing of a whole country, is always going to be nearly as wrong as it is right. Apart from slight differences, all of us are more alike than what we are different from each other.

 

[MaxGasola]

And people often don't notice politics or political messages when they are "bias confirming" or simply part of the background (which of course does not mean they aren't there).

Well-formed characters will have some political beliefs. That can add value to a story. However, if all the goodies agree on a political philosophy I find distasteful, don't expect me to like the story. I'll probably chuck it and read something else. I want to escape in it, not to argue with it.

 

[Nerds_feather]

I tend to like books or stories that pose difficult questions but don't provide easy answers. It's one of the reasons I love Iain M. Banks' culture novels--there is a moral dilemma that pervades the whole series, namely, whether the culture's "superiority" entitles them to meddle, manipulate and outright colonize neighboring states.

 

[Ursa major]

I tend to like books or stories that pose difficult questions but don't provide easy answers.

Me too, which is another good reason to avoid preachy books.

Such books are unlikely to be preaching about just how difficult it is to make the correct judgements in the real world**, where so much is complex and with a lot of grey, rather than a simple world where all is either black or white.


** - And don't we want to read about realistic worlds?

 

[TheDustyZebra]

I'll take either satirical/wry curmudgeon-ness or well-rounded, thinking characters on any side.

Unlike Ursa, I love Heinlein's curmudgeons -- all of them. And I see a lot of satire in David Weber's politics, although there are also thinking people with valid reasons (however distasteful some of those reasons may be) for their beliefs on all sides of the various arguments in Weber's books.

One of my favorite TV shows of all time is The West Wing, even though their politics mostly clashed with mine (same with the movie, The American President) -- they were all very human, very intelligent, thinking people, and the power of that overcame any arguments I might have had against some of the things they did.

I don't need everyone (or necessarily anyone) in a book or movie or show to agree with me, I just need them to be interesting people with thoughtful reasons for their actions.

 

[psikeyhackr]

In general I like the message the more subtle the better but I think I like stuff with a message better, even when I disagree with it, than stuff with nothing to say.

I like thinking about books long after I have read them, whereas books that I just enjoy at the time I read them I tend to forget.

I have read most of the Honor Harrington series and even though I am American I regard Weber as rather self-righteously jingoistic. But looking at the idiotic crap that happens in the real world sometimes I do wonder if he does a good job of portraying the idiocy.

I like Bujold better but she has a more anti-militaristic attitude in the background, and she has better characters.

Mark Twain: “Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it.”

How could it be put any better?

psik

 

[Ursa major]

Unlike Ursa, I love Heinlein's curmudgeons -- all of them.

It isn't the curmudgeon that was the problem; it was the lack of a credible debate, or even someone with a well-argued alternative view. That's the problem: the one-way "debate". Which is why it looked like, and was, preaching.

 

[vanye]

If you want self-righteously jingoistic, try Tom Clancy. Compared to him, Weber's a babe in the woods.

 

[End of Time]

There are three things in my country you don't bring up in a polite conversation: politics, religion, and how much money you make.

Because you always end up making an enemy.

I like my fiction to give equal strength to multiple views. I don't much care about one side being presented as the gloriously right side, while every other side is corrupt and vile and populated by filthy degenerates.

I want politics and religion to be subtle... brought to the reader in such a way that two people will be able to take two completely different things from reading the same story.

 

[Parson]

There are three things in my country you don't bring up in a polite conversation: politics, religion, and how much money you make.

But those three things will nearly always come up in stimulating conversation. One thing that appeals to me is to have different views presented passionately, but civilly.

*One of the reasons this is a great forum is that there are all kinds of us passionate oddballs out there who are more than willing to both talk and to listen to someone else's point.*

As long as we're throwing proverbs out there, here's one of my favorites:

"You've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything."

 

[Jo Zebedee]

There are three things in my country you don't bring up in a polite conversation: politics, religion, and how much money you make.

Because you always end up making an enemy.

Heh. Try living in Ulster...