Lois Tilton over on Deep Genre has a problem with libertarianism in stories. Though I think in her reaction, she’s a bit heavy-handed herself in two ways:
- She implies that getting too political or philosophical in fiction makes the reading less enjoyable, and more a rolling-of-the-eyes.
- She oversimplifies libertarianism as an Ayn Rand-ian, anti-social, “greed is good” selfishness, and in the process shows her own true colors a bit strongly — see number one.
Speaking of tautological knee-jerk reactions, I played the Bioshock demo and noted much of the same. The antagonist in the fictional underwater city of Rapture is one Andrew Ryan (Ayn Rand – Andrew Ryan, get it?) and of course the player is lambasted with sound bites that echo of Gordon Gecko in Wall Street.
Let me guess, because at the end of the game we’ll find out we’re all in this together, and we’re all obligated to serve one another out of shared humanity whether we like it or not, right? And if you disagree, then it’s off to the gulag for you! /Sarcasm Off
I’ve read on several writing blogs that authors shouldn’t use their stories as a front for their politics. I disagree on a fundamental level, not because novels should be vehicles for politics but because all ripe forms of primate conflict stem from some kind of politics. It doesn’t matter whether they be personal and petty or on an international scale found in Ludlum’s Bourne series. Read The Spy Who Came In From The Cold by John Le Carre, and tell me honestly if you think the story would be better without the political intrigue.
Stories are better for having political conflict IF the themes and material are handled in an entertaining matter. Key word being entertainment. Your job as a fiction writer is to entertain, not lecture. Fifty six page speeches are more the realm of non-fiction than fiction, and while they don’t make Ayn Rand a bad person, they may safely qualify her as a poor storyteller.
No speeches, ever? I wouldn’t go that far. The scene should not last the entire length of the speech. Think in soundbites. Also, think on several layers. It’s not so much about the character proselytizing what they believe. Consider these questions:
It’s not really about the politics, morals, or beliefs. It’s about the characters.
The politician who slams his fist on the podium in moral outrage is outrageous himself for having pocketed bribe money five minutes before the speech. It almost doesn’t matter what he gives a speech about. The more moralizing the speech, probably the better if the person is downright corrupt. Rile the reader up a bit!
Inconsistency of the character is key. Just because they believe a certain thing is justified does not mean they will act accordingly every single time. Humans are fragile, and deeply flawed creatures subject to all kinds of whims and irrational behavior. Don’t codify a character’s beliefs like the grid on a waffle iron. The waffles shouldn’t come out perfect every time.
Show the themes from different angles and zoom in on human foibles of both your hero and your villain. Whatever it is they believe (or you believe, as stated in thesis through them) — be brave enough to be wrong, and let your characters be wrong some of the time.
Concede a few philosophical points to the villain. Make them seem right, in at least a few small instances. And let others be duped by that righteousness, and fall victim to the villain’s machinations. Sometimes people have the best intentions, and they still end up exploiting others.
Politics are a source of more conflict, and mo’ conflict equals mo’ better. A conflict requires two sides, and providing a little counterpoint will strengthen it.
“mo’ conflict equals mo’ better”
I agree. Anything to get the internal and external conflicts rising is good stuff.
Well said.
Utopists of any stripe are amusing or boring. There are no pure systems.
The Mongols, Huns and Visigoths were pastoralist anarchists. But soon enough, the appeal of settling down and having steady supplies instead of scavenging created the early Dark Age empires.
Libertarianism is not anarchism, and those who confuse the two, inside and out, are trouble.
hi nice post, i enjoyed it
I think when people complain about politics in fiction, what they’re really complaining about is one-sidedness. To take that one step further, what they’re complaining about is bad writing.
I think TV shows are a good model for politic-infused writing. Shows like Battlestar Galactica or The 4400 keep you guessing. One week, you’re totally on the side of a specific character until something new is revealed that places their motivations into question. Suddenly, their nemesis seems like a more appealing character for a while, until the tables are turned yet again.
Based on this… a better way to portray politics would be to slowly reveal the dangers of all extremes, per character/faction and to put the main characters in the middle of all that somehow — forcing both the character and the reader to simultaneously wonder, “What IS right? What IS wrong?”