Real-life ideas in fiction?

[ljwrites]

What do you think about using political, social, religious and other ideas in fiction-writing? Do your beliefs find their way into your work, and if so how? Alternately, do you believe enjoyable fiction is free of ideology and partisanship?

These questions were touched off in me when members of another comm that I admin were quite open about expressing political and moral ideas through their works. I've given a lot of thought to this issue, too, for instance in a long rant about a post by Holly Lisle on her website, in my review of Changes by Jim Butcher, my review of Frozen, my review of Kingdom of Heaven and... oh, let's face it, everything I've ever written, including fiction. Especially fiction. As I noted in the Changes review, my political views are inextricable from the literary.

That's not to say my goal is to preach or proselytize, quite the opposite in fact. I believe the role of fiction is to tell a truth that lies beyond and below facts. Having an uncompromising agenda tends to distort the truth, and if a writer finds herself going into contortions to make her side look good then she has some issues to work out before she can write to her full potential. On the other hand, truth doesn't exist free of viewpoints, and every work of fiction has some moral standpoint no matter how well or poorly expressed. That's the way I see it, anyway. What do you think?

Comments

[inevitableentresol]

every work of fiction has some moral standpoint no matter how well or poorly expressed

Yes, I believe that also. I like it when writers are honest about the fact that they're partisan. There is no such thing as absolute morality.

I hate it when writers start a work of fiction deliberately intending to preach on an ethical/political/religious subject. That makes for really bad writing as the conclusion is already fixed. It's the opposite of honest writing which allows the characters to come to their own endings. Having to kowtow to a plot line too tightly either warps the characters, or makes them two-dimensional to start with.

Writers who do it well: Ursula K Le Guin in nearly everything.
Writers who did it badly: Jack Vance in "The Gray Prince".

[sarillia]

I don't believe in the separation of "politics" from everything else. For a lot of people the divide seems to be "If I think it's important then it's an important aspect of life that needs to be talked about and if I don't care about it then it's 'just politics' and should be kept out of most things". Whether or not something counts as "an issue" is often a matter of perspective. Even the fact that I write about gay people in happy relationships without condemning them can be seen as a political act. And in fact it would be seen as political by certain relatives who are the main reason I like the idea of writing under a pen name.

My beliefs definitely show up in my work. I don't often set out to write about them but sometimes I realize that a story could be read in a certain political light and that shapes how I finish the story. For example, one of my current projects is a fantasy that involves two characters who are both connected to assassins and I realized that their differences in opinion could be seen as a commentary on the death penalty. I didn't mean to write a main character who agrees with me on that issue but it ended up that way.

[agilebrit]

I've written several stories with recognizably Biblical angels and demons in them, and they certainly reflect my own ideas on how such things would "work" in the "real world" were they more obvious. In fact, I daresay that I would be constitutionally unable to write something that went astray from my deeply-held beliefs in that regard, at least in any meaningful way. It's a major reason why most fiction that stars angels leaves me cold--I can't suspend my disbelief enough to actually enjoy the story.

And there's nothing wrong with that. "Write what you love" is and always has been my mantra.

That being said, it all depends on the story you're trying to tell. I have other stories in which my religious viewpoint is conspicuously absent, and in which characters act in ways (such as killing an antagonist who is down and helpless) that are the opposite of what I would do--but are true to what that character would do.

In the end, all fiction is message fiction. The problem comes, in my view, when Story is sacrificed to Message, and where Message is shoehorned down our throats with a garden trowel. Most of the time, I have no idea what Message I'm aiming for until the story is actually complete.

[lunabee34]

I think that who you are as a person naturally informs your writing. It's the same for teaching for me. I don't talk about my religious beliefs (or doubts and lack thereof) in the classroom, but I know that my moral and ethical beliefs color my pedagogy. It would be impossible for them not to.

I tend to not like Religious Message stories like the Left Behind series or something like that, but I don't think that deliberate kind of of storytelling is the only way in which a person's beliefs might end up in (or be subverted by!) a story she writes.

[splinteredstar]

Nothing is apolitical. Sometimes things look that way, but only because they fit into the way they they're expected to be. Deviations from the main political atmosphere are simply more noticeable.

Moral judgements are what make a story. Even things like "liars get caught" or "murdering your king will damage your mind" are moral judgements, but no one is calling out Macbeth for being political. (Even though they should, but that's another history lesson.)

I think the main problem with preach fiction is.... it tends to come off like the author doesn't care about the characters. They're just there to make a point rather than be people. And that's bad writing whether or not you agree with the point.

It's a point made in science circles, especially the social sciences - /nothing exists outside of bias/. We cannot separate ourselves from our perspective. We simply do not have access to objective reality, much less how we interpret that reality. (One person's goddess figure is another person's pornography.) All you can do is acknowledge the bias, and acknowledge that everyone else has their own justifiable views as well.

[inevitableentresol]

it tends to come off like the author doesn't care about the characters

That's my main problem with bad writing, as well. I feel a bit bad about this sometimes, because I'll read any old rot with terrible morality, as long as the writing is good and the characters feel halfway real.

It's like when I was asked by someone who doesn't read much what my opinion was about that 50 Shades series (of which I'd read a bit of the original fanfic for free online) and whether they should buy it for someone as a fun sexy present. The message in that book is dodgy, but I'm of the opinion that no one book will sway an intelligent adult and turn them into a gibbering idiot. The writing, however... oh wow, it was so bad. That offends me much more than any crazy skewed morality, and it's what I gave my advice based on.

Life's too short to read bad writing.

[serria]

I think it depends on the type of work in question, and what the ultimate goal is. Myself, I despise obvious preaching - but my priority in a story is, well, story. I tend to find characters-as-mouthpieces or plot politics to be inauthentic, and when I read a story, I want to read about real people dealing with a situation that also feels "real" (no matter how magical or illogical). I'm not sure I agree with the notion that it's impossible to separate politics from a good story. At very least, the politics can be subtle enough where symbols are only there if one squints.

That being said, I think good literature will almost always deal with themes. Women overcoming social obstacles, the sacredness of nature, the brutality of war, enduring love or friendship, and so on. Is this preaching? I don't quite see it as the same thing. Themes seems like a vague concept of a presumably common value, or at least a value that most people could probably relate to. It's when these themes become detailed and really shadow real world events or complex philosophies that I think it becomes inauthentic. But on the flip side, without any themes at all, the story feels shallow and pointless.

I guess I can't personally say what the line is. Of course, I'm more likely to be forgiving of political/social/religious agenda in writing if it's something I agree with myself. But I think of all the stories I've read where maybe, I even enjoyed the story at first and didn't make any connections to real world ideas, and upon learning the author's intended symbolism I was really disillusioned with the work - like in The Sword of Truth or Orson Scott Card's sci-fi books. And even sometimes when I agree, for example, Marion Zimmer Bradley's work often felt just too... feminist, and I'm a feminist.

[dhampyresa]

My first priority when I write is to be true to the characters *writerly jazz hands*. That said, the simple fact that I write about LGBTQ people (for example) can be construed as a political act, but you know what? That's fine with me. I grew up not seeing me in the books I read (and perhaps more importantly, not knowing that's what I was looking for or what the me I was looking was) and I don't want that happen to anyone else.

[ljwrites]

That's a very insightful point about agenda-driven fiction being a particularly obnoxious type of plot-driven story.

I agree, the works of Le Guin (or Granny Le Guin as I call her, as a term of endearment and respect) are excellent examples of fiction with a point. I haven't read Jack Vance but I've always thought of Ayn Rand as Le Guin's evil counterpart, an ideological writer who let her agenda overrun her art. The Dispossessed and Atlas Shrugged are like textbook examples of how and how not to handle political philosophy in science fiction, or any fiction for that matter. I don't say that with reference to their placement on the left-right spectrum; In fact I've met leftists who are narrow-minded ideologues like Rand and conservatives who are as morally courageous and compassionate as Le Guin, and I consider the latter and not the former my people even though I'm a lifelong progressive myself.

[ljwrites]

For a lot of people the divide seems to be "If I think it's important then it's an important aspect of life that needs to be talked about and if I don't care about it then it's 'just politics' and should be kept out of most things".

This totally gets my goat, that mainstream, majority political/moral/social positions are somehow considered "neutral" and "default" and everything else is considered "politicized." This is exactly how prevailing power structures hide from sight and remove themselves from public discourse. When gays and trans* people are erased in favor of heteronormative gender binaries, that most definitely is a political and moral statement yet the practice hides behind the veil of normality and inures itself from criticism. It's like straight people have no sexuality, as Jackson Katz once said. (He was building on the work of female feminists, as he fully acknowledged, yet he's the one I remember and quote just as he predicted. I am most certainly not immune from prevailing social attitudes and assumptions. That's why these systems of thought are so scary, you look it straight in the face and it still gets you.)

[ljwrites]

In the end, all fiction is message fiction.

That would seem to be the money quote for this thread. I would also argue that the most effective message is the story itself--that is, story given the freedom to reach its own organic conclusion and mean different things to different people, which is as story should be.

[serria]

Yeah, most of my characters are gay or bisexual, and I suppose critics could accuse that of being "political". I don't honestly think it's any more political than having a cast without a single gay person at all, though I guess it could get sort of preachy if the story is all about LGBT issues and tolerance. But I write about gay characters because I'm more interested in gay relationships than I am straight relationships, and I'm gay myself. And as you said, there are so few gay characters in media, I don't mind being accused of being political if I'd like to broaden representation a little bit, too.

[dhampyresa]

I don't mind being accused of being political if I'd like to broaden representation a little bit, too.

THIS! I mean, I can only think of two trans* characters in anything I've read, ever (Robin Hobb's Fool and Sir Ystin from Demon Knights), for example. That's not fair.

My stories are not even remotely about LGBT issues, because I write in the fantasy genre, unless "help, I've fallen in love with the general of the of the invading army" suddenly counts as an LGBT issue if they're both women (I would say no).

[serria]

Same! I honestly don't have a lot of interest in "LGBT issues" fiction. I am, however, interested in other genres that feature characters who just so happen to be gay. I write in the fantasy genre, too, and my main story stars a female warrior and a queen, who are gay. But the fact that they're gay just isn't the point of the story, even if at some points it does affect the plot. It isn't "activist writing" or even meant to be political, I'm just writing the story I'm interested in developing.

[ljwrites]

unless "help, I've fallen in love with the general of the of the invading army" suddenly counts as an LGBT issue

I would say that all "issues," done right, are universal and human issues. Love between enemies pits personal feelings against group loyalty regardless of the genders of the characters. Even a tale about LGBT tolerance, if well told, wouldn't be a simplistic Very Special Episode saying "X are people, too!" with X being gay and trans* in this case. Rather, the story would be about fear, morality, identity, pain, rage, visibility, power, and belonging, told through the specific characters and setting of LGBT people in a certain society.

[dhampyresa]

Yes! I also much prefer "characters who are also LGBT" to "LGBT characters".

[dhampyresa]

I'm not sure how to interpret that your icon seems to be head-deasking at me.

In any case, "I would say that all "issues," done right, are universal and human issues" is what I meant. I want to read/write about people who are LGBT instead of LGBT characters or even LGBT issues.

[ljwrites]

That's not my headdesk icon--this is my headdesk icon! :D The last icon is actually nodding, though eventually it turns out to be nodding off. (After three or four nods there's a snore-bubble from its nose.) It's meant to be a self-deprecating gesture, as in I'm pretending to be sage but really I'm just slacking off. Or something. Icon fail, eh?