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.

[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.