How do you like your politics in your fiction?

[TheDustyZebra]

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.

Oh, yes, Heinlein has quite a few characters who preach, such as Jubal Harshaw in Stranger and other books, and Lazarus Long does a lot of it as well. And not much in the way of debate, either. But I love them anyway.

I suppose I get enough debate just talking to myself. I'm usually on at least two sides of everything.

 

[JonH]

I have to agree with Ursa. Stranger was a good book despite the preachy character. I got through Time Enough, but by the time I got to I think it was Friday or Job, I was done with Heinlein and never read him again.

I want to have both sides of the argument credibly represented. If one side believes what they do wholly because they without reason or are stupid and can't see the obvious, the story is probably going to bore me.

Polemic pretty much has to be very funny to stand a chance of working for me.

 

[The Ace]

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.

Sorry NF, no insult was intended. All we get to see this side of the pond are two right-wing parties, neither of which would be able to keep a deposit in Scotland. Obama is constantly labelled a socialist by his opponents, but would be perfectly comfortable in the Conservative party over here.

 

[Nerds_feather]

Sorry NF, no insult was intended. All we get to see this side of the pond are two right-wing parties, neither of which would be able to keep a deposit in Scotland. Obama is constantly labelled a socialist by his opponents, but would be perfectly comfortable in the Conservative party over here.

That's okay--the part I objected to was the idea that his politics are worrisome simply because he's American. I understand that wasn't what you meant to say, and I appreciate your clarifying that. It's just good to remember that there are 320 million people here, and that even when the politics get worrisome, the fact is that many of us aren't on board. The 2000s were a political nightmare age for many Americans, as in the UK and elsewhere.

As far as political parties go, the Democrats are probably most similar to New Labour, but the GOP is considerably to the right of the Tories. It wasn't always that way--both parties have shifted to the right since the 1980s. But only about 55% of Americans identify with these parties (25% GOP, 30% Democrats).

Anyways, enough of that...

 

[psikeyhackr]

I want to have both sides of the argument credibly represented.

The trouble with debates in the real world is that usually both sides are dishonest. But you have to go looking for what is missing to figure that out.

What is the point of the economics debate over the ideas of Keynes versus Hayek? Is there any use to giving a fair hearing to both sides?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk

Double-entry accounting is 700 years old. When have economists debated whether or not it should be mandatory in our high schools? When have they debated whether or not to talk about planned obsolescence? But they haven't said much about it in the last 50 years.

Listening to both sides of debates is not as useful as I thought when I was younger.

Reading a supposedly fair debate in a science fiction book sounds really weird to me. Do you know of any book like that?

psik

 

[The Ace]

Oh yes, the independence debate here is a perfect example.

The, 'No,' camp are trying to frighten people (we won't be able to use the pound, we won't get into the EU or NATO) while ignoring the issues that people actually care about (austerity measures, child poverty, food banks, nuclear weapons on Glasgow's door-step, governments we didn't elect). They're even trying to tell us that producing more oil than Dubai is a bad thing.

While the, 'Yes,' camp are trying to stress Scotland's potential (we didn't say it would be easy, we said it would be worth it), they do come across sometimes as being a bit too optimistic.

The kicker for me is the, 'No,' camp's trumpeting about how, 'Yes,' can't provide definitive answers to;

a) The future (who can ?).

b) Matters which can only be resolved by negotiation with Westminster (The EU is a case in point. David Cameron could settle the matter with a single 'phone call to Brussels, but he won't - until the referendum is over) - and Westminster has already stated that negotiations can only begin after a, 'Yes,' vote.

I'm not questioning Westminster's right to defend the status quo, merely its insistence on asking questions which no-one can yet answer.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Oh yes, the independence debate here is a perfect example.

The, 'No,' camp are trying to frighten people (we won't be able to use the pound, we won't get into the EU or NATO) while ignoring the issues that people actually care about (austerity measures, child poverty, food banks, nuclear weapons on Glasgow's door-step, governments we didn't elect). They're even trying to tell us that producing more oil than Dubai is a bad thing.

The funny thing about all economics debates is that double-entry accounting was invented in Italy 700 years ago but with all of the chatter about education no one can suggest that accounting be mandatory in the schools.

I had an accountant tell me that he had no objection to the idea as long as it was not done for another 6 years after he retired.

I had a Swedish Socialist high school teacher object on the grounds that the math would make Capitalism seem logical.

But the Laws of Physics do not care about ideologies. Cars wear out all over the planet. When have you heard an economist talk about the total depreciation of all of the cars in any country?

Debates keep things complicated to keep most people confused.

Sci-fi is more fun even when it is biased.

Subversive (1962) by Mack Reynolds
DigiLibraries.com - eBook: "Subversive" by Reynolds, Mack

psik

 

[Ursa major]

The trouble with debates in the real world is that usually both sides are dishonest. But you have to go looking for what is missing to figure that out.

But we're not talking about the real world, we're talking about fiction, where the inner motives of the protagonists may be seen, if the author writes it that way.


As for things that are missing: in some books, one side of an argument may be entirely absent.

 

[The Ace]

The funny thing about all economics debates is that double-entry accounting was invented in Italy 700 years ago but with all of the chatter about education no one can suggest that accounting be mandatory in the schools.

I had an accountant tell me that he had no objection to the idea as long as it was not done for another 6 years after he retired.

I had a Swedish Socialist high school teacher object on the grounds that the math would make Capitalism seem logical.

But the Laws of Physics do not care about ideologies. Cars wear out all over the planet. When have you heard an economist talk about the total depreciation of all of the cars in any country?

Debates keep things complicated to keep most people confused.

Sci-fi is more fun even when it is biased.

Subversive (1962) by Mack Reynolds
DigiLibraries.com - eBook: "Subversive" by Reynolds, Mack

psik

That's the irony - both sides admit that an independent Scotland is economically viable.

 

[psikeyhackr]

But we're not talking about the real world, we're talking about fiction, where the inner motives of the protagonists may be seen, if the author writes it that way.

This thread is about politics in fiction. Is there any doubt that many authors are putting their thoughts about the politics of the real world into their fiction? Are some using their fiction for propaganda purposes?

Isn't that what some people regard as good about 1984?

psik

 

[Nerds_feather]

I don't think "showing both sides equally" is the answer, but I think "showing complexity" and "not offering simplistic answers" might be. I like it when authors help us understand the motivations of characters whose views or actions we find abhorrent, and also like it when authors (e.g. James Cambias in A Darkling Sea) present multiple sympathetic viewpoints.

But most of all, I just don't like soapbox speeches and ideological SF. I don't like it when it's explicit, as in Ayn Rand, and I don't like it when it's implicit, as in Larry Niven. I prefer when authors present complexity and nuance, as in Ursula K. LeGuin's The Dispossessed (where the "best" political system is really just the least bad of available options) or Iain M. Banks' aforementioned culture novels. I find straight utopias and dystopias easy to erect and difficult to believe, but political systems that do some things well but are worrisome in other respects both more realistic and more interesting. I mean, if you read on daily life under Stalin, you realize that even this genuine real-world dystopia was a lot more complex (and chaotic) than the shorthand narrative would have one believe. Still thoroughly awful, mind you, just more complex.

 

[Ursa major]

I don't think "showing both sides equally" is the answer, but I think "showing complexity" and "not offering simplistic answers" might be.

I agree. Where I may have appeared to be complaining about unequal treatment, I was actually concerned that one side was barely getting a cursory outing, i.e. no real outing at all.

I like it when authors help us understand the motivations of characters whose views or actions we find abhorrent....

Otherwise we can be left with white-hat characters versus black-hat characters. The rest of a book has to be very good to overcome this disadvantage.

But most of all, I just don't like soapbox speeches and ideological SF. I don't like it when it's explicit, as in Ayn Rand, and I don't like it when it's implicit, as in Larry Niven. I prefer when authors present complexity and nuance, as in Ursula K. LeGuin's The Dispossessed (where the "best" political system is really just the least bad of available options) or Iain M. Banks' aforementioned culture novels. I find straight utopias and dystopias easy to erect and difficult to believe, but political systems that do some things well but are worrisome in other respects both more realistic and more interesting. I mean, if you read on daily life under Stalin, you realize that even this genuine real-world dystopia was a lot more complex (and chaotic) than the shorthand narrative would have one believe. Still thoroughly awful, mind you, just more complex.

Again, I agree. (Even psychopaths will have reasons for the things they do and the choices they make. They may not be reasons of which we'd approve, or that we'd easily understand, but they exist.)

This thread is about politics in fiction.

Actually, it's about how we, as individual readers, like the politics to be presented in the fiction we read.

 

[Glitch]

This thread is about politics in fiction. Is there any doubt that many authors are putting their thoughts about the politics of the real world into their fiction? Are some using their fiction for propaganda purposes?

Must authors views on any subject will undoubtedly filter through into the fiction they write.

By wanting the protagonist to win out against the antagonist. You are agreeing with one side of the argument.

 

[psikeyhackr]

But most of all, I just don't like soapbox speeches and ideological SF. I don't like it when it's explicit, as in Ayn Rand, and I don't like it when it's implicit, as in Larry Niven.

I tried Ayn Rand's Anthem twice. The politics wasn't a problem she was just boring. But then maybe her politics is boring.

I suppose Niven was a kind of Libertarian but I just enjoyed his stories and mostly ignored the politics.

It needs to be presented reasonably enough for me to think about regardless of whether or not I agree with it. I think Heinlein did it well.

psik

 

[Grunkins]

Authors promulgating their own politics always degrades the work.

 

[Victoria Silverwolf]

Authors promulgating their own politics always degrades the work.

The other side of the coin is that I think it is impossible to write any kind of fiction without presenting your beliefs, even if you think you are being completely apolitical. Just the way you depict characters and what is important to them is going to reflect what you believe.

 

[psikeyhackr]

The other side of the coin is that I think it is impossible to write any kind of fiction without presenting your beliefs, even if you think you are being completely apolitical. Just the way you depict characters and what is important to them is going to reflect what you believe.

Yeah, a work that is truly apolitical would almost have to be shallow and unrealistic in a novel. A short story might get away with it.

psik

 

[Bick]

Authors promulgating their own politics always degrades the work.

Do you really believe this - it's a bit sweeping isn't it? What about authors like George Orwell?

 

[Ice fyre]

I've got to say Ive read from all round the political Spectrum. Mostly the authors just sort of drop a political point or two, which I can handle, its when it becomes a full blown rant like John Ringos the last Centruion I get a bit annoyed.

Its near future tale of a group of American servicemen who are fairly much left for dead by a semi corrupt left wing female president. I had to finish it just to count the rubbish spouted. Though it was nearly thrown out of the window a few times. Quite frankly it starts with a healthy dose of homophobia and sinks lower every chapter.

I enjoy a good book, written well, then politics of the Author generally dont bother me, I like to hear all views even if they dont mesh with mine. But political rants just annoy me.

 

[Ursa major]

I enjoy a good book, written well, then politics of the Author generally dont bother me, I like to hear all views even if they dont mesh with mine. But political rants just annoy me.

This.

Spoiler

...