- Joined
- Jan 22, 2008
- Messages
- 8,095
I wonder if there is a distinction to be drawn here between “message fiction” and “inclusive fiction”. I don’t much want to read “message fiction”*: firstly, the message is usually crudely presented, which harms the story, and secondly, the message itself is often crude. A story whose message is “being oppressed is bad” is morally absolutely right, but may be so blatantly right that (a) it leaves out all the subtleties of the issue and (b) it probably won’t convert anyone weird enough to disagree. And, while all “message fiction” doesn’t have to be crude, a lot of people are simply repulsed by being given a moral, or being preached at. Obviously there are a lot of degrees of grayness here and the example I have given would definitely be on one end of the spectrum.
On the other hand, I’m all for “inclusive fiction”, where the story is told in a setting informed by certain (correct!) morals. This usually means a genre story (which could be the “pulp” that the Sad Puppies claim to want, although I wonder) where the diverse makeup of the cast is taken for granted. Fury Road or The Force Awakens would be good examples. Where I think the difference lies is that the key roles in those films aren’t stock parts for “woman” (usually hero’s romantic interest) or “black man” (usually sidekick). It’s hard to imagine how you would discuss a specific “experience” in that format but not impossible, provided that the required level of action, intrigue, romance etc was kept up. It’s also worth noting that a story like that would potentially have a much bigger audience than a message story even if its analysis wasn’t as deep. It wouldn’t be preaching to the converted, at least not entirely.
Part of this issue with pulp and diverse characters is, I think, that a grown-up reader doesn’t need to see him/herself literally represented in a story. If I watch Aliens, or Blade, say, I take it for granted that Ripley and Blade are “my guy”. It would be churlish not to. Perhaps it sounds superficial, but I think there’s merit in getting people used to accepting characters who aren’t exactly like them but do fit within the range of acceptable heroes (I’m unlikely to support a film whose hero is a wife-beating terrorist, say). For what it’s worth, personally, I don’t see “people like me” portrayed well or heroically very often in films, at least not in SFF. If there is a person in a film who looks and talks like me, they will usually be a villain, a buffoon or a mentor who is guaranteed not to survive. I’m sure Scots, Welsh and other readers would agree, too, although their list of options is different and probably even narrower.
*I’d make a further distinction between fiction that is specifically arguing for something, which I'd call "message fiction" and dystopian fiction that presents a bad future but doesn’t make one particular argument as to how to avoid it, such as The Handmaid’s Tale or 1984, which I wouldn't.
On the other hand, I’m all for “inclusive fiction”, where the story is told in a setting informed by certain (correct!) morals. This usually means a genre story (which could be the “pulp” that the Sad Puppies claim to want, although I wonder) where the diverse makeup of the cast is taken for granted. Fury Road or The Force Awakens would be good examples. Where I think the difference lies is that the key roles in those films aren’t stock parts for “woman” (usually hero’s romantic interest) or “black man” (usually sidekick). It’s hard to imagine how you would discuss a specific “experience” in that format but not impossible, provided that the required level of action, intrigue, romance etc was kept up. It’s also worth noting that a story like that would potentially have a much bigger audience than a message story even if its analysis wasn’t as deep. It wouldn’t be preaching to the converted, at least not entirely.
Part of this issue with pulp and diverse characters is, I think, that a grown-up reader doesn’t need to see him/herself literally represented in a story. If I watch Aliens, or Blade, say, I take it for granted that Ripley and Blade are “my guy”. It would be churlish not to. Perhaps it sounds superficial, but I think there’s merit in getting people used to accepting characters who aren’t exactly like them but do fit within the range of acceptable heroes (I’m unlikely to support a film whose hero is a wife-beating terrorist, say). For what it’s worth, personally, I don’t see “people like me” portrayed well or heroically very often in films, at least not in SFF. If there is a person in a film who looks and talks like me, they will usually be a villain, a buffoon or a mentor who is guaranteed not to survive. I’m sure Scots, Welsh and other readers would agree, too, although their list of options is different and probably even narrower.
*I’d make a further distinction between fiction that is specifically arguing for something, which I'd call "message fiction" and dystopian fiction that presents a bad future but doesn’t make one particular argument as to how to avoid it, such as The Handmaid’s Tale or 1984, which I wouldn't.
Last edited:
