Lecturing politics in fiction
Sun, 10 Dec 2023
Fiction, Opinion
=============================
I tend to enjoy many different types of fiction written by a
variety of authors. One of the most interesting aspects of any
fictional work is, in my opinion, the way it reflects the
character of the author. If there is something the author deeply
cares about, the it will undoubtedly show up somewhere in the
story they are crafting. Likewise, if a character appears whose
ideals are strongly contrary to those of the writer, the
end-result is often that these characters feel shallow and dim.
Good authors can feel the same passion for a given subject as the
author does. An exceptional writer will also be able to arouse
these feelings for subjects which the author is not personally
invested in.
All of that is to say: Fiction can make one care about things
which one would otherwise be entirely unconcerned with. In doing
so, I think fiction can have an impact on the word at large that
is powerful and unique. Fiction does not affect our beliefs in
the same manner as a lecture, or an argument. Instead, it stirs
our emotions to make us care about new things, or bring to our
attention new perspectives which we previously had no emotional
investment in. It is for this reason that I include many
references to fictional works in my professional academic
writing. It is for this reason also that I cannot politics in
many works for fiction, let me explain.
In many works of fiction I consume, be they books, video games,
movies or other side, there is this trend to present political
opinions are a sort of lecture. Whenever a particular political
viewpoint is brought up, the reader is assured of how
commonsensical or normal it is. I tend to find that liberal
authors are particularly persistent about this. Often lecturing
the audience that homosexuality, abortion, egalitarianism,
socialism, non-binary genders, sexual promiscuity, female power,
black power, and other such concerns are to be supported as the
entirely commonsensical and morally correct options. By telling
the audience these points instead of showing them, the work
becomes both less impactful and less realistic. I will first
cover the realm point, as this is -- by far -- the less important
of the two.
To demonstrate the point about realism, let me use an example:
There is a series of books which has been slowly releasing over
the past few years called: ``Tales of a new world'' by P.C. Cast.
One of the things which stood out to me in this book is the
treatment of homosexuality. In the first part of the series, a
big point is made by one of the characters about how normal
homosexual relationships are in their society, about how ``love
is love'', and how the choice of one's partner is only up to the
two people involved. These statements only really make sense in a
society where homosexuality is not yet full normalized. After
all, if you consider something truly normal, then one would not
really think to mention it.
For instance: I do not consider it exceptional enough to mention
that I use toilet paper, as this is normal in my corner of the
world. If I used a bidet, I would mention this as exceptional,
though perhaps not if I lived in some Asian countries, where
paper is the exception, and bidet's the norm. Imagine a work of
fiction where a character suddenly goes off on a two-page tangent
about how normal it is for them to be heterosexual. You would
find it strange that such an explicit mention would me made
right? In fiction you can even make use of this strangeness.
In the aforementioned book, there is a scene where two people of
different societies discuss relationships. We are told that their
respective societies accept homosexuality as nothing different
from heterosexuality, though homosexuality is given exceptional
treatment in the dialog. However, one can make use of the feeling
of surprise we feel when something we presume to be normal is not
considered such by someone else:
``With us it is customary for the male to present the female
with a gift to start a relationship.''
``Oh, but what if two females enter into a relationship? Is
there any gift giving then? And what of two males?''
---
``I tend to use toilet paper''
``Of course! Is there any other option?''
``Well, in my country it is customary to use bidets''
By using the notion of being surprised at a statement, shows
that, for the relevant character, it is entirely normal that two
same-sex people might enter into a relationship, or that one
would use toilet paper. I bring up the example of homosexuality
mostly because I grew up in an environment where homosexuality
was considered very normal, and therefore did not warrant special
coverage. Growing up, my mother would sometimes enquire whether
I had a boyfriend or girlfriend yet. At school, we would talk
about marriage; not gay-marriage and traditional-marriage, just
marriage.
Now, let me cover the second problem: that lecturing your
audience works against your intentions and detracts from the
power of fiction. I mentioned how fiction can make us *care* in
a way that other forms of media can not. When a story pauses to
affirm an stance, make an argument, or otherwise lecture the
reader, it takes away from this power, and to me it always feels
like such considerations are shoehorned into the narrative.
I lost count of the sheer number of fictional works I have read
which take time to affirm that the choice to terminate a
pregnancy is the inalienable right of the pregnant woman in
question. But simply affirming this will do nothing to convince
anyone opposed to your view, and those readers who already agree
will most likely just skip over this line. For me: I get annoyed
every time it rears its head in a story exactly because fiction
has the power to actually promote such beliefs!
Imagine if someone wrote a story which contained a young woman
who was struggling with an unwanted pregnancy (if I wanted to
convince as many pro-lifers as possible, I would make this a
sub-plot of a side-character). Use whatever narrative you like
here: she was young and did not oversee the consequences of her
actions, she was coerced into having sexual relations, she was
assured my a contraceptive agent which ended up failing, you name
it. If you show her personal struggle coming to terms with her
situation, allow the audience together with the character to
realize the fact that she is not ready to raise a child, and show
how this all impacts the girl's physical and mental well-being,
you might actually get typically pro-life people to *care* about
the situation this girl finds herself in. You might show, with
another supporting character the impact it can have on one's
well-being to have another person supporting them. This person
does not need to agree with the girl's decisions or feelings, but
must simply refrain from judging or shaming her.
Such as story can bring to the eyes of the audience the real
struggles involved in complicated moral issues. Struggles which
-- due to being highly emotional in nature -- are often not
brought up in arguments, debates, or generalized statements.
Bringing to light the sheer complexity of the issue will, at the
very least, make some people think a little deeper and harder
about their stance. The recipe above can also easily be adapted
for a pro-life argument, which will have much more impact than
forcing a statement such as ``abortion is murder'' into a work of
fiction.
I started writing this post because I was reading the final part
of Cast's ``Tales of a New World''. In this final book, I found
the lectured politics to be even more invasive than before. This
book preaches especially heavily about the superiority of women
as leaders. About how men caused the downfall of a society long
ago, how women are better because they are caring, calm, and
capable of bearing life, etcetera. Not only can I not detect any
actual passion behind the words of the various characters who
affirm these beliefs, I can in no way bring myself to care. If
the author instead showed a thriving society where women ruled,
one which thrives exactly because men are not allowed to rule,
then one might begin to entertain the idea. In Cast's book, one
it TOLD that various societies thrive because of their female
leadership, but Cast never SHOWS us this, thereby breeding no
investment in entertaining this idea. Instead, I think lecturing
like this just affirms the believes of radical feminists, and
just angers conservatives and egalitarians, thus allowing more
discord to breed between them.
Before I finish, I want to make one quick point of clarification:
I realized why reading over what I have written so-far that this
post sounds a lot like: ``liberal politics are ruining fiction
and I am upset about it''. In truth, I am upset, but not because
of the flavour of politics presented. I am upset exactly because
I care about many of the topics I am lectured about in the books
I read. It is because I care about these topics that I am so
dissatisfied with the lecture-approach. Fiction has a real and
unique way of influencing the world at large, but this is not the
way to do it. Instead, liberal authors are cementing people in
their beliefs, thus quite literally breeding conservative
sentiment.
