How do you like your politics in your fiction?

[Toby Frost]

I wonder whether part of the success of the political discussions in 1984 and Animal Farm is that nothing positive is really being presented. Neither of the books actually says "Democratic Socialism with a strong patriotic slant is good", which might be why 1984 is so often referenced by libertarian types who would have regarded Orwell as even more of a dirty commie than that Kenyan fellow in the White House. It's only really in his other writing, more particularly the essays, that Orwell makes any positive suggestions beyond "Don't let this happen". Similarly, reading just Brave New World, you might get the impression that Huxley was against drug use.

One of the standard defences to Starship Troopers (now there's a political rant!) is that Heinlein is just putting forward one possible viewpoint. I find it odd that someone would craft 200 pages of novel just to make a vague suggestion. But it's far easier to find holes in Heinlein's attempt to depict something good than Orwell's attempt to describe something bad in 1984.* Perhaps it's like imagining Heaven: it's hard to envisage anything except for daily life, except a bit easier and nicer. But of course, there are loads of different Hells...


*It's worth pointing out that I think that one of the books is way better than the other.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

This.

Spoiler

...

That.

 

[Grunkins]

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.

I know there's no such thing as pure art. It's always filtered through the human making it. And I think some writers who don't intend to add their own world view to the work are naturally less subtle or less nuanced, and it comes through more heavily handed because of their own lack of finesse. But there are plenty of writers who intentionally think they are going to teach the reader something, writing with an intended moral, and I think the result of that is almost always a demeaned finished work.

I can't make a sweeping generalization (though I did in the original post you quoted - my mistake), but I think it's true by and large.

I think the example of Iain M Banks is the inverse of the writer who tries not to include his world view, but just isn't subtle enough to pull it off. Banks sets up his world view as the background to his Culture books - the post scarcity, secular, anarchic utopia - but he is such a nuanced writer, and his stories are almost always a subversion of his utopic ideal, that his works are left largely unsullied.

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

I am embarrassed to say I haven't read Orwell (even when it was assigned in school). But my intuition says that his works are lessened by his addition of his message, even though the message may well be the sole purpose of writing the work itself.

 

[vanye]

I know there's no such thing as pure art. It's always filtered through the human making it. And I think some writers who don't intend to add their own world view to the work are naturally less subtle or less nuanced, and it comes through more heavily handed because of their own lack of finesse. But there are plenty of writers who intentionally think they are going to teach the reader something, writing with an intended moral, and I think the result of that is almost always a demeaned finished work.

Who would want art to be pure and why would you regard purity as a good thing? Pure to my mind always also means sterile. For fertility you need dirt. Lots of it and as dirty as you can make it.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Stories by Mack Reynolds and Lois McMaster Bujold both contain a lot of politics. But Reynolds' stories can be associated with the world today or with the 60s whereas Bujold's are mostly about some fictional, feudalistic throwback society.

Some of the attitudes of Bujold's characters may be comparable to today but much of the politics cannot be taken seriously.

Reynolds is more interesting for the politics and Bujold is more interesting for the characters. Overall I prefer Bujold but I think she is so much better as a writer.

psik

 

[GlasgowSpacer]

When it comes to conveying a message I think the major issue is the difference between demonstrating it through the story’s themes and narrative on the one hand and just turning it into a glorified essay on the other.

For an example of the former, let’s look at 1984. The story and politics are filtered through Winston’s point of view, so we’re always getting his perspective on its politics. However, Orwell avoids using him as a soapbox and makes it clear that Winston’s views don’t represent the message of the story as he’s often shown to be mistaken. He assumes Parsons will always be a loyal party stooge, only to find him arrested for secretly resenting Big Brother, and I don’t need to get into his stupidity in trusting O’Brien.

Ironically, while Winston thinks of himself as the only sane man in the world, he’s snared by O’Brien’s charisma, blindly follows him to the point where he’s willing to kill children and in the end is betrayed by him, mirroring how Oceania fell under Big Brother’s influence in the first place. Orwell uses this to show how people fall under extremist regimes without ever having to lecture the reader. This also means that we have to consider the story’s themes ourselves and draw out own conclusions, rather than simply accept the author’s views.

On the other hand we have Starship Troopers, where Heinlein’s walking steakhouses endlessly browbeat the reader with paragraph after paragraph after paragraph paragraph after paragraph after paragraph paragraph after paragraph after paragraph paragraph after paragraph after paragraph yes service is good paragraph after paragraph after paragraph bugs paragraph after paragraph after paragraph tesostorne poisoning paragraph after paragraph after paragraph paragraph after shut up shut up shut up paragraph after paragraph we get it lready paragraph after paragraph after paragraph this is not a bloody lecture hall paragraph after paragraph after paragraph paragraph after paragraph after paragraph paragraph after paragraph after paragraph about militant philosophy, without a trace of irony and with dialogue that makes Eastenders look like Martin Scorsesse.

 

[JoanDrake]

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.

I have to wonder about that. I generally like Orson Scott Card's stories but really disagree strenuously with his politics. I read a lot of his stuff before I even knew what his politics were.


OTOH once I did know what his politics were, I saw that reflected in his stories and didn't like those that I saw this in. This sort of supports your contention but also supports the idea that maybe writers aren't wise to let their politics be all that well known, as it may be just a question of interpretation.

 

[logan_run]

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

me I like unbiased politics in fiction.

 

[Parson]

me I like unbiased politics in fiction.

That sounds like the ultimate oxymoron.

 

[psikeyhackr]

me I like unbiased politics in fiction.

Fiction has to be plausible. Reality just has to happen. - Harry Turtledove, Homeward Bound

Homeward Bound (Turtledove novel) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What fictional politics has a Sarah Palin or a George Bush?

This is what I like about science fiction. Authors throwing up these really cool intellectual nuggets that trigger a lot more thought. It is not the writing style that interests me.

psik

 

[Karenia]

Like many have said. The important part is if it is preachy or not. I really like it when it isn't black and white, and it's more analys of different political views.

 

[César Izurieta]

I believe that politics go well beyond political parties. I prefer books and movies where they don't prefer one party to another but it's hard for an author to leave that outside of his or her discourse. This is more obvious in contemporary stories (or parallel universes) than in stories placed far in the future.

 

[psikeyhackr]

The politics reflects the culture. Voyage from Yesteryear by James P Hogan handles it best.

Left, right, liberal, conservative are antiquated crap.

psik

 

[BAYLOR]

Even though I don't agree with political views , I found Ayn Rands book We the living to be a really good book.

 

[galanx]

Two good books that are extremely preachy are "The Dispossessed" by LeGuin, and Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" both of which are anarchist semi-utopias, left-wing and right-wing respectively, but still essentially stories.

OTOH "Always Coming Home and "Starship Troopers" by the same authors are basically lectures with frame-stories (though I like them both too.)

 

[Extollager]

The sometimes conservative American magazine National Review has (in its online site) some interviews that would interest some of y'all, including with Ursula Le Guin, Jeff van der Meer, Neil Stephenson, Gene Wolfe, Tim Powers, Susan Wolfson on The Annotated Frankenstein, and others.

Ursula K. Le Guin on Lavinia | National Review Online

 

[Randy M.]

How do I like politics in my fiction?

Illustrated by setting, incident and character: Dramatized, dramatized, dramatized.

I agree with those who have said the author's choices as a writer are filtered through her/his politics, and would add also through her/his social, cultural and religious background, and probably through other things I'm not thinking of that provide the context of her/his life. But when the mode of conversation chosen is fiction, the driving force should be to make the argument dynamic through dramatization and recognition of the complexity of human life and how any one answer doesn't answer all questions.

I don't seek out political novels, but one of the great ones I've read is All the King's Men by Robert Penn Warren. I suspect I wouldn't agree with much of Penn Warren's politics, but in that novel he recognizes and conveys the complexity of the South of his time.

Might be good to note, though, that fiction dealing abstractly with politics tends to get interesting and competing interpretations: The 1956 movie Invasion of the Body Snatchers was taken up by critics who saw it as subversive commentary on McCarthyism. The director, Don Siegel, was conservative and intended it as commentary on Communism. Sixty years hindsight and I think both sides were right.


Randy M.