Over here in the US of Holy Shit, we have a few problems. A few, big, huge giant, honking seven hundred billion dollar problems. Add to that a light-your-pants-on-fire contested presidential race (aren’t you glad I write a romance blog and not political punditry? I know I am) and you have one very exhausted Sarah who is more than ever grateful for every opportunity to take refuge in the “yes, it will end happily” world of the romance novel. The billionaires, they don’t lose their shirts or invest in sub prime mortgages in Harlequin Presents’ world. They don’t need no stinkin’ Dow. Their money is inherited and, since they’re worldy wise and brilliant, probably collecting more interest sitting in shoeboxes under the bed.
Anyway, over here, it’s crazy pants time. The election is a little over a month away, there’s debates on television (note: I think any candidate who does not answer the damn question asked of them should lose time to talk. There should be a moderator with time docking power, is all I’m sayin) and signs and ads everywhere, and the tension is only going to increase. Which leads me to my next question:
How do you feel about authors discussing politics? A few authors have emailed me privately with videos and links, and I’ve discussed the current presidential race over email with heaps of people, but more than once, I’ve had someone remark that they feel awkward saying anything on their blogs about the political situation. One author said she didn’t feel like she was in a position to get political: whereas it’s ok for actors to embrace activism, for authors of commercial fiction, it’s not ok at all.
My general reaction is, “Why not? Go for it. If you have something to say, say it.” Yes, it may alienate some readers. Yes, it may mean that people who don’t politically agree with you vow never to buy your books again! (Yeah, says I. Riiiight. I’ll believe it when I have access to their bookstore buying history.) Yes, it might raise a particular kerfuffle, but in the long run, these folks live in the same world I do and I am very curious as to what they think. But I mentally keep it separate from their work. They as people do a lot more in a day than merely writing the books I read. So of course they have things to say about taxes and war and expenditure and governmental oversight, etc.
But yet there’s that reticence. And I get it – I totally get it. But I am never comfortable keeping my own mouth shut because it might be better for someone else. John Scalzi agrees. When asked if fiction writers should write about politics, he replied:
The reader who believes a fiction author should keep his or her opinions to themselves is effectively (if generally unintentionally) saying “You exist only to amuse me. You are not allowed to do anything else.” To which the only rational response is: blow me.
I’m not going to hesitate to add my voice to the national dialogue on any subject just because someone somewhere might not be happy with what I have to say. And more to the point, I think it is bad and dangerous thinking for people to suggest that fiction writers should have to live in a black box of opinion.
[My apologies for not being able to remember who sent me that link. But you’re awesome!]
I concur heartily, and do want to hear what people think, or, at least, read about it. I think it’s a cousin to the Romancelandia culture of Be Nice Or Else that silences romance authors on the subject of politics when authors wish to discuss it – though obviously if you’d like to not talk about it, that’s totally understandable.
I’m always dumbstruck, though, by the idea that someone who sends me a video or web page that has to do with their political opinion often includes a “if you don’t support this person, I hope I didn’t offend you.” I am rarely offended if you disagree with me. Telling me I’m a horrible person with no moral compass because I disagree with you, well, that’s obnoxious to be sure. But disagreement itself isn’t offensive – just like offending someone isn’t the same as assaulting them (TM Robin). I hate that two people with different political viewpoints keep quiet when around one another because they might…disagree. Argue. Debate. Oh, shit, dialogue. That’s just terrible. Can’t have that. Holy crap.
So if you’re an author who is very politically exercised right now, do you keep silent on the subject? Do you keep your political commentary in a specific environment, such as your personal non-author-related blog? Does your political activism on your author blog extend to encouraging voting and political involvement but not discussions of a particular candidate? Does the relative prominence of your name as an author mean you’re less likely to be outspoken about your personal feelings about the current campaigns? Or do you prefer that romance be a politics-free zone, from the authors to their blogs?
What’s the fallout if an author you like takes a political stand that you don’t like, and really, does it matter? Is an absence of politics the only way to go when you’re trying to sell something, because we’re so polarized that alienating the sales base is bad idea jeans? What’s your take?
The big thing for me is that a writers friendship should not be expected for buying their books. Maybe it is old fashion these days but that is why I love professional etiquette.
Not announcing your every opinion about Sex Politics or Religion while presenting your work allows me to appreciate and respect your work.
Just like when I review a book I make an absolute effort to separate the writer from the work I also like to see an author separate the author persona (Pen Name) from her private life.
When I see people mixing these things up I think it is a very bad idea on very shaky ground.
I’d been typing out this really long post about how I am not bothered by the politics of the authors I read, that as long as their views are expressed intelligently, I will continue to read their books. Living where I do (red state) and participating in a certain sport (trapshooting), I cannot shun people because of their politics as that would leave me with no friends at all.
Then I bumped into this thought:
What if, in a world spun off its axis, Suzanne Brockmann’s books were unequivocally anti-gay and she donated the proceeds from a book like All Through the Night to anti-gay causes?
Without hesitation, I can say that would be the end, for me, of my reader-author relationship with her. I can’t even think of a scenario in which I could continue to read her books because that (hypothetical and completely impossible) stance would offend me forever.
Clearly, I’m not who I thought I was.
I agree with everything SB Sarah said above. My original intention was to reassure the authors who posted today that I would respect their politics if they chose to share them and would not take any disagreement I might have with them to the bookstore. I still believe that, but apparently only as long as said politics don’t cross specific boundaries in my own.
I feel like such a hypocrite.
Yup. If I’m visiting an author’s website or blog, it’s probably to find out what you are writing next, or to get info on your backlist or a series’ order, not to get your insight on the election. But I don’t particularly care if you use your site for personal viewpoints.
I don’t hold authors to a different standard than I do actors, musicians, sports stars, the op-ed writers in my morning paper, the dude next door, or my ca-razy father in law. If you write/say something intelligent and interesting, I might be interested in hearing/reading it, even if I don’t agree. If you literally or figuratively screech in my ear, get hateful, reference unsubstantiated chain e-mails, ignore stuff that has already been proven/disproven, and don’t check your facts, I’m tuning you out. And yes, my opinion of you in general may drop, and that might affect how much time I spend with you (and in an author’s case, your books).
Ditto Teddypig. I kind of feel like, having invited readers to my blog (which I have done, for all intents and purposes), I owe it to them to not start discussing subjects which may offend them or make them uncomfortable. My blog is part of my job; I wouldn’t walk into my boss’s office and start going on about my political views, so I don’t do it to readers either.
I get enough of that in my private life, where I’m fairly outspoken. But I would no sooner discuss politics with strangers than I would discuss my sex life with them.
Ahh, got it. I should read more carefully.
No, I generally won’t dismiss someone’s work simply because they have different political viewpoints than I do.
I would not purchase the work of people who, like someone mentioned above, stated that they give 15% of their profits to a cause that I am morally opposed to.
I don’t quite understand why that seems to be a contentious issue. People seem to assume that “freedom of speech” actually means “freedom from all reprecussions.” If I choose to vote with my $$, that’s just me exercising my freedom of speech. I don’t have an obligation to buy anything from anyone, but I’m getting the vibe from some people that refraining from a purchase is some kind of evil.
It’s not. I don’t buy several manufacturers because of their ethical practices, so it’s not at all a problem to vote with your wallet. Sometimes that’s the only vote I have.
What I am mocking is the histrionic “OMG AS GOD AS MY WITNESS I WILL NEVER BUY YOUR BOOK AGAAAAAIN!” dramafuffle that pops up every now and again over any number of discussions, even and especially when the author in question has merely disagreed with a poster, not thrown a massive hissyfit to the detriment of small puppies and kittens everywhere.
It’s that asshat line again – both cross it, the authors and the readers.
Anyway, I think the contention you may be sensing is (a) my not having made clear whom I was poking at, and (b) the idea of political opinion coming up against the increasing discomfort a lot of authors feel when being asked to be the celebrity spokesperson of their book. Used to be the book was the item of sale. Now authors are called upon over and over to represent themselves, their books, their backlist, and their lives/lifestyle/personal style/apartment backdrop/family life are part of the marketing package. Having the authors as representative of the book is, I believe, a relatively recent phenomenon and it makes a lot of people ponderous and uncomfortable.
So flipping that over to the political discussion, there’s this demand for authorial spokespersonhood coming up against the rejection of political commentary from the author in question – and how does one balance one against the other?
I’ve never stopped buying an author because of online asshattery or differing political opinions; as a reader, I’m interested in the work itself. I’m not comfortable with the notion that we should consider whether to financially support a *person* with our reading, as if some don’t “deserve” to earn money. People all “deserve” that much, and again, it has no bearing on my response to a book.
However, I do adjust my lifestyle and consumption to match my beliefs. What authors do with their earnings is none of my business, but if an author puts ME in the position of actively supporting a specific cause that I disagree with, I won’t buy the book.
That’s the balance I’ve come to; it may look inconsistent and, well, it is. I feel strongly about separating the work from the author, and about matching my lifestyle to my principles. Compromise is the only way I can negotiate that combination.
AgTigress, I’d make the distinction that it’s this type of “sweeping” generalization that some of us tend to jump on, rather than the political discussion itself. As I said on another topic here yesterday, I’m increasingly tired of American exceptionalism (from Americans and non-Americans) and of the monolithic views I see espoused about many nationalities (“Americans are”, “Italians are”, “Brits are”). When any of that is introduced, in my experience there’s a good chance the conversation will become predictable and circular. So yes, I will bat back when I see this type of statement, much harder than if you criticized *politics* rather than “all” Americans, Chinese, or whoever.
I also think the venue and style of the conversation makes an enormous difference to how we express our politics and interpret others’ politics. For example, in these discussions I often stand up—passionately at times—for opinions I don’t share. I’m fairly certain that that occasionally gives others a false impression of my politics. I don’t mind that, unless it creates assumptions about where I’m coming from and makes conversation grind to a halt.
I dislike author political talk. Doesn’t make you feel like picking up an author’s book when they start calling your political views stupid or ridiculous or otherwise. I also sometimes dislike that other book blogs (including this one) delve into politics. I really just want to go to a book blog to read about books and the publishing industry. Not opinions on politics. If I want that, I will go directly to my preferred sources.
But I think authors going off on politics is a very very bad idea. The relationship between reader and author is a very personal one. So why drive a wedge between you and your audience?
Aside from agreeing with Laura Vivanco in that romance novels are a lot more political then meets the eye, I do something a little bit different in terms of authors’ views vs. book purchases.
Nowadays, I usually read the book I want to buy from the library unless it’s an author I’m sure will write an A+ book, so voicing their political standing doesn’t bother me.
Also, if I like a book, I like the book. Authors may be doing something they love, but it doesn’t change the fact it is still a career. I’m not going to ignore my co-workers just because I disagree with them or vice versa. Heck, even my family members are in intense debate these days. Just because an author may be overly conservative for my taste, or having their characters having 10+ babies running afoot rather than have their characters use birth control (such as those wonderfully available french letters), doesn’t mean I’m going to stop buying a book I enjoy by them. Most of the time, it’s just a plot ploy to create those loooonnnnnggggg family related tales of that family.
It’s more likely for me to stop buying a book with too many logical/common knowledge/typo errors. Example, a wonderful author I love I just can’t read after she wrote that AB positive blood types can only get AB positive (there were many many MANY other inaccuracies, but this was the last straw). Um…no. Everyone and their grandmother knows that unless it’s negative, AB blood types are universal recipients. I’m positive. I asked a doctor, two medical students, and 3 science teachers.
Ruth had mentioned that freedom of speech does not mean freedom of repercussions, which I think is an important point of the recent political situation. Everyone’s different. That goes for ideas, political standings, as well as actions made because of disagreements.
If an author is brave enough to state their thoughts on highly controversial matters, then I applaud them, but it rarely changes my opinions of the books written. There are times when I think certain authors are completely awesome people but I just cannot get into their books. Well, I still love said author and I’ll hang out and buy them food, but no way am I buying that book. Whereas, I do have a few authors whom I don’t quite care for due to their attitudes, but I still love their writings ergo, I buy certain books I like, but will probably avoid any sit-down situations with them.
Of course, being human, the authors I get along with and still love their books, well…I usually just auto buy. Hehe.
And as Nadia points out, authors are just people too. They have every right to say what they want, but I would prefer to read eloquent and intellectual discussions rather than some angry rants (not that they don’t have the right to do so, I just don’t read them).
Besides, I feel as if that most forms of media in America are highly conservative. Until you have the money, clout, or support to say “I disagree with ________,†there’s going to be people whom will disagree with their actions on top of harsh and rude words.
Just my two cents.
Sure it is up to each individual in a democracy to share their views or not, but I argue that to be a responsible member of society there has to be some level of interaction with politics and other people’s views.
I feel that all people have a responsibility to talk in a respectful and well researched way about how politics affects their lives to those who they interact with regularly. For example, as a queer woman it is my responsibility to speak up about how policies negatively affect me, and which politicians are actively trying to harm me further. People who care about me should know when their vote is likely to do me direct harm. Of course, they can then go out and vote however they feel is right, but they will do so with the knowledge of how their vote can have direct impact in the life of someone they personally know, not just an anonymous ‘them’.
This same principal holds true not just for queer people, or minorities, or people with children in the public schools, or small business owners, or people with disabilities, or people in the military, or families who want to be able to control how many children they have and when, or people who love hunting, or people who can’t afford to pay rent while working full time for minimum wage, or, or, or. Politics affects everyone in this country, in many many ways.
While I would be open to talking about how politics are personal with just about anyone on the street I am well aware that that is a personal choice. I don’t think that we have a responsibility to talk to people we have just met and/or may never interact with regularly about the way politics affects our lives. But, in an internet age it can be hard to determine who counts as someone you interact with regularly: I think it really just comes down to your own comfort levels.
I will say, however, that I feel that those with a wider sphere of people who theoretically feel they have some kind of relationship with them/care about them, those in the public eye however they came to be there, have a GREATER responsibility to share how their lives are affected by a policy or politician.
AgTigress wrote that “all American political positions are way to the right of centre” and Robinjn replied that this
By strong left-leaners do you mean people who would consider themselves socialists? Like AgTigress, I’m from the UK, and it’s true that some “American views are obviously not getting out to a worldwide audience,” at least, not this particular member of the worldwide audience, since I hadn’t heard of the Democratic Socialists of America until I started Googling just now. I did have the impression that there were some anti-capitalists in the US because of the Seattle protests against the World Trade Organisation, but in general I don’t think I’ve come across much mention of this part of the spectrum of American political views in the media over here. I’d agree with AgTigress that by UK standards, and despite the Labour Party’s shift to the right, the Democrats and Republicans (as represented in the UK media, but also judging from what I’ve read on US blogs) both give the impression that they’re fairly right-wing, though I also have the impression that the Republican Party is further right than the Democratic Party.
However, Lynne Connolly, further up the thread, who is also from the UK, wrote that “We are watching open-mouthed, as the USA passes Socialist measures and moves further left.” I have to say that I don’t perceive anything that’s happened in recent days as “Socialist measures” or an indication of a move to the left. So clearly there isn’t a consensus among those of us from the UK posting to this thread.
RfP, the ‘spectrum’ comment was a bit of casual levity that I should probably have avoided, since anything remotely flippant tends to annoy somebody, or even everybody, in a political context.
It is true, however, that political choice in both the USA and the UK at the moment is very limited indeed: there are no significant political parties in either country that are either economically left of centre or socially libertarian. This is one of the reasons why many people in our societies don’t bother to vote: they don’t see much to choose between the parties. The scope and nature of the differences of ideology and policy that I remember between our Tory and Labour parties in the 1950s-1970s were substantial, but they have melted away completely. The whole boiling of ‘em are what I would call Tories today.
On ‘sweeping statements’: to some degree, stereotypes are one of the ways in which we make sense of the world around us, by classifying things. Intellectually, stereotypes should always be examined and questioned, but we cannot function if we encounter each new situation, each new person, as a completely new and unknown quantity that must be analysed from first principles. We apply our inbuilt classificatory framework, which is based on ‘received knowledge’ and personal experience, and then, rather than leaving it at that, we should test the new thing, person or experience against that information, because our expectations might be completely mistaken. But there is nothing wrong in having expectations which may be based on stereotypes. What is wrong is to cling to those perceptions even when evidence shows that they are false.
Sorry, Sarah,
I have to agree with Teddy Pig on this one. While there are no absolutes, and as much as I hate to say this, the publicist inside me is screaming Holy WTFBBQ! What are you doing?!?!? whenever a client wants to spout off about any of the three: sex politics or religion. (And by sex in romancelandia, we’re not talking bout the act itself that might get people bent out of shape, but sexual preference that’s the hot button.)
Do I think people should be able to voice their opinions? The writer in me says hell yes, it’s a fundamental right and if you don’t like what I have to say, don’t listen. The publicist shrieks and goes into a foaming fit thinking, what the hell did I spend all the time teaching you about message points and how to stay on them if you are just going to get sucked into a debate you can’t win and blow your entire image?
Here’s why (and it impacts author brands and how to know when you should have more than one name to write under). There are some basic belief patterns that people aren’t going to be swayed about and get testy if you mess with them – they are, you guessed it, sex, politics and religion. It doesn’t matter what you say, if they agree or disagree, pretty much you can be assured that it’s going to fuck you over when you get into a debate about any of these hot button topics. And unfortunately, people do vote with their wallets. If they don’t like what you have to say, and somebody somewhere won’t guaranteed, you are messing with your paycheck.
Is it right? No. Is it the way things are? Yes. It’s the exact same reason why a publisher will ask an erotica writer to use a different pen name for her Christian Young Adult books. The image people have of you is directly impacted by what you are associated with.
It would be like Coca-Cola saying they support a particular political candidate. Now seriously politics doesn’t have anything to do with how the soda tastes, where you can buy it and if you enjoy it, but can you imagine the number of people that would stop buying Coca-Cola because of that simple annoucement?
Same thing. Twisted. But there you go.
So TeddyPig, right on. If you are in your “author suit” really, I don’t think you want to splotch it up with discussing hot button topics unless you’re on a television or radio show where you know they are going to do that to you in an interview ahead of time, then controversy is golden. (See, even in this there are no absolutes.)
spaminator: seems13 (it does seem a bit teenagerist, don’t you think?)
No, of course they are not ‘socialist measures’! There is not a smidgen of true socialist thinking involved.
🙂
Recently I read a science fiction series I liked and found out later that the author was a very conservative person. I’d still like to own the series. However, will it make me unhappy that someone who otherwise seems so very intelligent really isn’t? Yes, it will.
I think it judicious to avoid stereotyping. I’m not sure being conservative equates to a lack of intelligence. Bigotry exists (trust me on this) across the board. If you’re a woman in this country who doesn’t subscribe to a certain set of beliefs you are subjected to numerous (unkind) labels. People can share a gender without sharing a single brain. Opposing views do not make you less intelligent, less of a woman, a religious zealot, or the product of a male dominated society.
Is it? Does it have to be? When did this expectation arise, and who established this expectation? I think this plays into what Sarah referred to in this quote:
As an aspiring author, I find this erosion of professional and personal boundaries to be uncomfortable indeed. To me, the book is still the item of sale. My perspective hasn’t changed, but given the number of author promo classes I see for people like me, it seems that the market’s has. Where did this arise? Why? And has any hard data been produced which attributes increased book sales to non-writing activities such as blogging and creating book trailers? Neither of which do anything to influence MY purchasing decision? Anybody?
Haven’t read the previous comments, don’t quite have time to do more than skim, so many apologies for sounding like an asshole for repeating what other people have said, but here are the first thoughts that kind of fell out of my brain when I poked at it after reading this piece: From what I’ve observed, silence on politics seems more common with romance novel authors than authors of many other sub-genres—SF/F authors don’t seem especially shy about wearing their political beliefs on their sleeve, for example (for two ends of the spectrum, see John Scalzi vs. Orson Scott Card). There are a few romance authors whose political opinions I have no trouble gauging—Laura Kinsale and Jennifer Crusie, for example—but generally speaking, I feel that political discussions tend to be more stifled among the romance community than not.
I think part of it’s due to the nature of on-line romance forums, where there’s this sense that you Must Be Polite And Nice; part of it’s also due to how most of us are more interested in talking about the books and literary tropes than the politics in and of themselves. But a lot of what we talk about is hugely informed by political stances anyway. When we talk about hero roles vs. heroine roles, or the portrayals of sexual purity, or any other damn thing that tries to figure out what sorts of constructs we can tease out from the fictional framework that’s reflective of some inner truth, we’re engaging in discourse that may have nothing to do with stumping for a political candidate but that’s regardless deeply political in nature.
More than the economic punishment of “OMG YOU’RE FOR/AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE I’M NEVER BUYING A BOOK FROM YOU AGAIN” and the 500-thread trainwreck that sort of discussion can generate, though, I think the romance community refrains from speaking out because we want to liked—we want approval. (General “we,” here. I’m not talking about you in particular, or me in particular. Just wanted to make that clear so that the long lines of mavericks who are unashamed of our man-titty don’t pipe up and go “But that doesn’t apply to meeeeeee.” Fact is, it applies to enough of us that there’s a chilling effect on this sort of discussion.) We’re already the bastard stepchildren for reading and writing what we do. We stick to disagreements and debates we’re mostly comfortable with; political opinions can be incredibly polarizing, and there’s a tendency to over-personalize disagreement on-line as it is. Shit, if we have a difficult time not reading “You’re an asshole and an idiot for liking this book” into “Holy shitdamn Christ this book was incredibly stupid,” what happens when we’re talking about something that REALLY hits home, instead of whether alpha heroes are creepy or hot?
As for whether I’m interested in reading an author’s political opinion on their blog: It would entirely depend on the nature of the blog. Do they cover a wide range of topics about what’s going on in their brain, or is it explicitly set up as an industry blog? I fully expect John Scalzi to skewer big political dust-ups, but I’d find the same sort of thing jarring on Word Wenches.
I haven’t made it through all the comments yet, but each of them causes me to want to respond to it, which makes for a fun discussion.
I’m undecided about the whole question of authors revealing their politics. I prefer my authors to remain fairly anonymous so that what I know about them doesn’t colour my response to their work.
On the other hand, I’ve mostly found that the authors whose political views disgust me so much that I’d consider not buying them are authors I don’t enjoy anyway. Yes, Orson Scott Card. I was sold Ender’s Game by a young fellow in a book store, and the book hung around my piles for about two years before I finally admitted I’ll never get past the first page, and I gave it to the Library. (What turned me off of him was his endless, patronizing, pompous, wrong-headed bullshit diatribes on his website.)
Likewise, I stopped reading Piers Anthony when his Author’s Notes got to be longer than the novel they were attached to. (And, um, better written than the novel, if wrong-headed, pompous, etc.)
The politics do colour a story. I’ve been enjoying Lora Leigh, until I got to Naughti Dreams. It opens with the heroine being TORTURED. As a plot device. It’s not BSDM, she’s a spy caught by the enemy, and she’s being tortured.
I’m disgusted and disturbed that it’s become okay for torture to be a plot device in an erotic romance. It threw me right out of the story, and I haven’t been able to pick it up again. It sent me into a political diatribe, which I then inflicted on SB Sarah (sorry about that, I hope it wasn’t too incoherent), because I had to make my feelings KNOWN. It made me think less of the author, and less of people who read her, including me.
And yet, I’m still going to pick up Mercury’s War as soon as it becomes available in my town.
I was also enjoying Catherine Mann’s HQN series. I think she does the best job of portraying soldiers as real people (as opposed to superhero cut-outs). However, in Blaze of Glory, the mission they were on was psy-ops training in which they were in a South American country, trying to impact how the populace would vote (for SpongeBob SquarePants). And that really bothered me. What is the US military doing in another country, campaigning in a sneaky, underhanded way for one party or another?
And yet. I still enjoy her writing, and most of her stories. I kind of miss that Wingmen Warrior series, I’m not enjoying the millionaire Desires nearly as much.
Okay, back to reading everyone else’s comments.
Also, pretend that I said something clever here about the implicit political worldviews of romance novels vs. the explicit expressions of same by the authors, eh?
I don’t know. But it just is. Maybe not to you, but to me, it is exists. And I know I am not the only one who feels this way. Tv and film, there is distance from the medium. But reading is much different. An author writes and gets you inside a character’s head…or inside several characters’ heads. Look at the discussions going on about “Twilight.” Readers get very attached to fictional characters. And I don’t think there is quite a rabid defense of character for tv or film. There’s more emotion there. More personal feelings.
And, come on, who wants to log on to a favorite author’s blog only to read that her political views are for asshats only? Um, not me. And, yes, I would take it personally, because it becomes some strange form of elitism or separation. A sort of ‘club’ for those who believe author’s stance only. And here I am by the sidelines hoping nobody notices when I tiptoe away. Nobody wants to feel like their beliefs are ludicrous, stupid, or uneducated. Please tell me why I would happily buy Author X’s books anymore if she just called me and those who have my political beliefs “idiots”? Every time I put up that $7.99, I’d be thinking about her blog posts. May not be ‘fair,’ may not be what should happen in an ‘open’ society where everyone has the right to their opinion. But just like that author has the right to her political opinions, I have a right to be offended by them and seek to go elsewhere for entertainment.
I don’t go to fiction writers for my political info. Wish they would think about that more often.
Karmelrio already picked up on this comment by KG, but I want to address it, too:
It doesn’t have to be. I, for one, would argue that it shouldn’t, any more than the relationship between actor and viewer should be personal, or singer and listener. Robin’s talked a lot in the past about how romance readers more than many have a tendency to unhealthily personalize the authors, and I think it’s important to separate our experiences with the book from our experiences with the author.
I’m not saying that an author’s political stance shouldn’t have anything to do with your reading enjoyment or purchasing decision. We’re political creatures, and having a distasteful implicit worldview foisted on you in a work of fiction can be jarring and unpleasant. Similarly, not giving your money to, say, Orson Scott Card for being utterly wrong-headed about gay people (guess you could discern my particular stance on THAT issue, ha!) is no different than a decision to not shop at WalMart because of their policies about selling the morning after pill. I’m just saying that the personal relationship should exist between the reader and the book, NOT between the reader and the author. Our experience with the author is still there, but it’s completely mediated through the book—which in turn is filtered through a fictional construct AND various layers of editors. Ultimately, it’s the book that matters most.
I think someone else mentioned this general idea up above…
I’m noticing some people are talking about whether they ‘can’ or ‘can’t’ do this.
You CAN do anything you’re physically or cognitively able to accomplish. You MAY do what you’re given permission to, by someone with authority and power to stop you.
(I have a 4 y.o.—I am keenly aware of the difference, and the difficulty of enforcing it.)
So, yes, as authors, we CAN spout off on any particular opinion, be it politics or the economy or current ‘Brane theory and the Word of God.
And we MAY do it, too, b/c readers don’t have the authority or power to stop us. (Unless they bomb our publisher, which doesn’t really count. We’re talking legit power/authority)
Therefore, I’m somewhat surprised at the vehemence expressed by some at the notion that a reader would decide not to buy someone’s books, b/c s/he doesn’t agree with the politics/actions/etc of the author.
They CAN do that, and they MAY do that.
Them doing that does, in no may, mean you CAN’T speak your mind. You CAN and you MAY. There’s no coercion involved, no oppression.
Somehow, I think we’ve got this mucked up. We think we should be able to do whatever we want, with no untoward or unwanted consequences happening. And that, if those consequences *do* happen, that means someone was Trying To Stop Us From Speaking Our Mind!
No. They just didn’t like what your mind had to say. No need for outrage.
So, speak your mind. Do whatever seems right to you to do. And deal with the consequences.
Action-reaction.
You say something political, well, someone’s not gonna like it. Maybe they’ll stop buying your books. Okay, so now you have a decision to make. Do you want to keep doing it? Totally up to you.
(It’s also quite likely an equal number of other people will suddenly buy MORE of your books for the same ideas. So, do you decline those readers? Look down on them b/c they are somehow letting the politics of the author affect their decisions? Doubt it.)
No one’s trying to 2-D us into being only pieces of amusement for their entertainment, somehow diminishing us so we have no more relevance to the real world than a Simpsons episode (haven’t watched it for years, so I don’t know if it still offers pretty sharp social commentary at times). Or, if they *are* trying to do that, well, whatever. They CAN and MAY try to. I won’t let them do it to me.
And a reader not liking my opinion, and choosing not to buy my books b/c of it, is NOT THE SAME as trying to shut me down as a person.
Just my 2 cents.
Kris
That’s assuming that an author presents her political beliefs in that polarizing manner. I’ve seen some authors who are prone to that sort of “My way is bestest and the rest of you just haven’t pulled your heads out of your asses yet” style, but many others are good at teasing out nuances and make a case for their beliefs without insulting the beliefs of others.
Something that seems to be seriously clouding this discussion is that we haven’t drawn a distinction between ‘being a name-calling, patronizing, jerk’ and ‘writing about politics’.
These things are not one and the same.
In fact I would say that calling someone a stupid asshat is not political commentary. It is just being a jerk, it might be jerkitude about the subject of politics, but people can be jerks about anything. It’s all over the internet but nobody seems to think that ‘U SUCK! UR GAY & STUPID’ counts as writing about books (or anything else).
I got that. It was the “all”s later.
I absolutely agree. As I said, my argument wasn’t with the politics but the “sweeping”s.
I agree in principle. But in practice I think it’s often impossible to gather “evidence” or be certain of our interpretations. Given that, I think there’s a strong onus on us (heh) to question our expectations a priori, and even in the absence of evidence.
All this is part of why I sometimes feel that romance depicts an alien, lopsided world. It’s also why most of my friends don’t read romance: if you’re not accustomed to it, and you pick up the most visible romances at the grocery store, the blinkered worldview can be startling. (Abortion is more common in chick lit, BTW.) It’s also why discussions of “realism” and “world building” in romance often strike me as missing the big picture, because it’s all within the tiny bubble of the author’s idealized political landscape.
I think you raise a good question about what these patterns say about the US. However, another starting point—that I think is implicit in many of these romance sites—is to question whether these patterns faithfully represents “the US” or what the whole potential reading market wants. It seems to me that national identity (particularly American, English, French, and Italian/Mediterranean) is carefully constructed in the romance genre (more often than it’s an un-orchestrated reflection of the authors’ views). So I tend to wonder more about what such patterns say about the publishers that select so specifically for those worldviews, and about the role of expectations: after reading fifty romances with similar worldviews, does an author assume that mindset is a genre convention? (I also wonder about the readers, including me, who read the books despite those views… or is it in part because of…?)
This circles back to what you’ve written about romance as propaganda for capitalism and romantic love. It also ties in with my wistful reaction to Ann Somerville’s comment above:
I would love to think so, but my gut says that most authors’ politics are just like everyone else’s: partly inherited, partly selfish, partly principled, partly parochial, partly longterm, partly informed, partly thoughtful, largely shaped by our immediate circle.
Coming in a bit late here…
No. I don’t buy products at the grocery store if I think the money is going to a company with questionable practices; I won’t support actors who support Scientology (personal reasons) (I should leave the country for a few months now). If an author has politics that I don’t believe in that’s fine, but if if I know that s/he is giving some of their earned money to causes I disagree with, then I won’t give them my money. I don’t see why I should hold authors to a different standard – to me it all comes back to where my money might be going. Would I be disappointed if one of my favorite authors religiously gave money to a group I didn’t believe in? Hell yes. Hugely – since I wouldn’t be buying their books anymore. But I also wouldn’t give that author my money anymore either. That’s my choice to make.
I don’t discuss politics but the decision doesn’t really stem from being an author.
I didn’t get into political discussions before I was published either. I just don’t care to. I don’t even discuss politics with my family and I don’t see that changing either.
Okay, let me try to address this:
Let me first say that I’m not really a political animal, in that I feel very strongly about some issues but haven’t really studied politics. Or, in other words, I could make a complete fool of myself here and sound like I have no clue what I’m talking about, because I may not! So try not to laugh and point. 🙂
Socialism is just a very bad word in the U.S. If you say “socialist” here, there is an immediate visceral leap to “communist,” which is an even worse word. So I think it’s more fair to say there are people in the U.S. who agree with some socialist policies but who would never *say* they were socialists. Instead I say that I am Liberal, and here, Liberal means Left. Some of my beliefs are socialist, such as believing we need to have some sort of socialized medical system. I, and many of my friends (who are almost entirely middle aged, college educated, unmarried females) believe in choice, equity of opportunity and pay for women, gay marriage, saving the environment. Some of us think that nobody needs to have their own personal assault rifle. We believe in a strong government and intervention rather than just throwing people in jail to rot. Some of us are against the death penalty. Most of us think invading Iraq was a big fat mistake. Some of us are absolutely horrified at Bush’s decision that it was okay to invade countries even pre-emptively to “spread Democracy.”
To me, that’s a very liberal-left viewpoint (Jon Stewart is my Personal God). However, I’ll freely admit that we would chafe badly against some of the government overview seen in Europe. So we’re a bloody independent lot too. I don’t know what that really makes us, I’ll just say that the stuff parroted by the powers that be for the past 8 years does not in any way, shape, or form reflect the way many of us feel.
Since Authors are creating a world for their readers, yes, their political opinions do change my mind. It makes me go back and think about what they wrote and whether or not it was politically motivated. It’s the same if an author is very religious. It just makes me look at their work differently.
BTW here are some authors expressing their choice in a different way.
That doesn’t mean I can’t separate their views and their stories BUT I do like to analyze and annihilate occasionally. Like with a certain young adult romance vampire novelist. As an example.
I was never a particularly political person until I met the love of my life; indeed, I had fine-tuned the art of never admitting or denying anything about my personal life—-in other words, I fine-tuned the art of deception, diversion and distortion.
And then one day, I had to, wanted to, bring the love of my life into my business life for a social event. It would turn out to be the first of many business social events we attended together. Although I’ve always been a writer (mainly a journalist and public relations/publicity person), what I always wanted to be was a fiction writer. So, I wrote a book. It died: A dignified death on the highest shelf in my library, alone, righteous to the end, and so unpublished the real books were embarrassed. Kind, but embarrassed. Dead is so damn dead.
And then, this love of my life, who reads (I always knew there was something missing in those other people!), said to me: You’re a good writer. I love your writing. Finish this book.
I had showed her several first chapters of a trilogy of things begun but never finished. She pointed to my favorite first chapter, the beginning of an historical romance. I’m a third of the way through it and enjoying every word. OK, every line. And most importantly, I have my very first fan.
But here’s how it got political. A friend talked me into starting a blog. I didn’t want to do it, didn’t understand what blogs were for and thought it would take too much time away from my “real†writing—-which is already being worked into my day career, which pays the mortgage. But once I kind of got the hang of it, I enjoyed the blog, especially as a way to let our families know what was new, in a different and entertaining way. I think I only have 9 readers, but those nine really like the blog, and, as it turns out, some days I have to take a break from the book, but I still need to write. The blog and email fulfills that need. And this blog and about 20 others!
Then came Proposition 8, in California. The love of my life wanted us to get married, and I wanted it too. So we did. The photos are on my blog. Right under the wedding picture post is a bit I did about Mildred and Richard Loving, who took their right to have an inter-racial marriage right up to the Supreme Court. And they won. I thought their story was fitting for our special day, too. As I knew that not everyone in our two families are completely comfortable with our marriage, adding Mildred and Richard Loving to the mix probably put them right over the edge. But on a personal level, everyone in our families is very happy for us. They aren’t all that familiar or comfortable with posting, but they read what everyone else says.
So, here’s the thing: it’s almost impossible, in this country, to be a woman, to be a gay woman, to be a gay woman in upper middle management in the corporate world, to be a gay woman who writes historical romance (with gay and straight characters) and NOT be political. It has become part of the fabric of my life, whether I wanted it to be or not. It seems to me that pictures of my wedding should have nothing to do with politics. Not happening in this world, this year. I do find myself hurting when I see a political candidate, especially a woman, revealing a distinct misunderstanding of the difference between tolerate and tolerance.
If I become a published novelist, I really don’t think it will be important to me to write political essays on my blog. Similarly, I don’t intend to hide who I am, which I realize is its own political essay of sorts. Like most people here who have said they don’t want to be hit over the head with someone’s hammer of politics, and/or they don’t really care to know, I feel essentially the same.
At the same time, sometimes the hammer one is holding is the heart one loves. Life is political, my friends, and that is why, for me, historical romance holds such fascination.
I like to think of it as part history, but I’ve studied history enough to realize that history is largely the study of political systems at work during a specific era. And culture, fashion, language, civility, or lack of, the acquisition of wealth, power, class standing, etc. are all functions of the political system at work during a specific era.
Indeed, even the re-telling of history, what is included, what is left out, can be and has been a function of the political atmosphere. I have to restrain myself when I read or hear reviewers claiming a fiction author’s treatment of a subject is full of anachronism—-full of things that couldn’t possibly have happened during a certain historical period. And they know that how? Aside from a work of fiction being, it would seem, a work of fiction, historians and authors have discovered authentic historical records that have contradicted, enhanced, clarified, and made a modest mockery out of some of our most cherished, but untrue or inaccurate, histories.
There’s absolutely no overt personal politics in my novel, and yet it silently threads itself through every chapter because it threads itself through every era, including the turn-of-the-century period about which I write. In that regard, historical romance resembles my life. That plus the HEA! Sorry this got so long.
We realise that this is the perception in the USA, but of course, it is completely untrue. Communism is as authoritarian as Fascism on the ‘authoritarian/libertarian’ scale, but it holds a completely different position on the economic ‘left/right’ scale, which is equally important. But Communism and socialism are not, and never have been, the same thing! Do have a look at the ‘political compass’ website to which I provided a link some way back (http://www.politicalcompass.org).
Under the woman Thatcher, serious and subversive attempts were made to hoodwink Brits, too, into thinking that ‘socialism’ is a dirty word and an exact equivalent of Communism, but those who care about language, as well as about morality, resisted this blatant and cynical manipulation.
I know that there are many Americans who have generous, progressive, liberal and ethical views about society and government; I am personally acquainted with some of them. But I don’t think many of them are represented amongst your successful politicians, those who exercise power. The same is now true, alas, of Britain.
Candy opined:
I heartily agree. But I think technology, in part, has driven a change in this landscape, and it’s not all positive. Ten years ago, very few people had email addresses, internet access, websites… much less expected to be able to communicate with their favorite authors that way. Fans had to make do with the US Mail – Did you get my letter, Stephen King? Blogs didn’t exist yet. Lest you think I’m a technophobe, this is not the case. I work in high tech, and I have come to see privacy, anonymity, as an increasingly precious and rare commodity.
It can be increasingly difficult for readers to “separate our experiences with the book from our experiences with the author” – a healthy separation, IMO – when the very methods we use to promote our work seem to invite people into our electronic living rooms. But ask some of our erotica authors about the precautions they take to establish a safety zone for themselves, lest someone, as Candy puts it above, “unhealthily personalize(s) the authors.” Ask Stephenie Meyers or Laurell K. Hamilton how much they spend on security. Ask yourself how much of your privacy – and potentially your safety – you’re willing to risk to sell books.
Sarah, I have royally f-ed up in not being more specific in my response.
I 100% understood what you were saying and actually completely agree. I was more referring to what Ann Somerville said with this:
I’ll freely admit that we would chafe badly against some of the government overview seen in Europe. So we’re a bloody independent lot too.
Europe’s pretty diverse. What sort of things does your media tell you about governments in Europe? It seems to me that the biggest recent intrusion on the part of the governments here is the move towards biometric passports, and as far as I know, they did that because the US Government was pushing for it.
I wouldn’t say that we’re all lacking in independence across here. There was pretty impressive opposition to the Iraq war, for example, and French farmers are extremely well known for their protests. And the National Health Service in the UK, which you might describe as “some sort of socialized medical system” was set up in the aftermath of the Second World War, when I think the UK had demonstrated pretty effectively its desire for independence. So I don’t think it’s really a question of Europeans being less independent-minded than Americans. It seems to me it’s more a question of differences of opinion about when, and at what level, we (i.e. the majority of the voting population) think collective action is required.
Well this hinges on my other life, my real passion, which is training and showing dogs (and very occasionally, breeding). There are several issues which appall me in the UK and in Europe, especially Germany, issues which I feel are a government interfering with someone’s personal rights. Those include the right to humanely dock and crop but also even more frighteningly, the right to own certain breeds and/or breed them. I find the UK ban on Pit Bulls intrusive and horrific (and fight breed bans in the U.S. as well). In some European countries other breeds are banned.
In Germany all breedings are supervised by a breed warden who can force you to cull (kill) parts of a litter if they feel it’s too large for the b*tch (usually any number over 5). I just cannot imagine bowing down to some government official telling me I have to kill off half a litter.
To me as an American, this is Government interfering in my personal life in a way I find totally unacceptable. We do fight breed bans here as well, the Animal Rights activists use breed bans as a way to try to stop all breeding of all animals. So far we’re winning for the most part but it’s a constant battle.
I have to work a little to get news about European governments unless they’re doing something that involves Canada or the States.
Conversely, I have to work a little to avoid news about the States. Next-door neighbours, media saturation, and all that.
And last night, the first EIGHT channels on my tv were live broadcasts of political debates from both sides of our border. Gah.
Speaking of stereotypes and generalizations, I recently watched a documentary rebroadcast that had been made in the 1970’s (hosted by Patrick Watson) that was a sort of “Let’s Take a Closer Look at that Interesting Creature, the American” kind of thing.
Watson used the phrase “extremely conformist, fiercely individual” (or something to that effect) to describe Americans in general, which I thought pretty much nailed it.
The thing about North Americans that my European friends have pointed out is that we (N.Ams) just really don’t participate in lively discussions, or debates. We seem to think that disagreeing with somebody means we don’t like them. “Yes” means I like and agree with you. “No” means I don’t like you, you’re ugly, and your mother dresses you funny, and it is MY DUTY to correct and educate you.
I know that I have NOT spoken up at certain social events because of the presence of some ass who won’t stop talking until you admit that they’re right, you’re wrong, and they’ve won the conversation.
Now see this I completely disagree with. I think our lively discussions are different than seen in Europe from what little I know. So, for instance, I’m often put off by the sheer amount of yelling I hear in Parliament. But this blog alone is a sterling example of Americans capable of having lively discussions where we disagree and still like each other, and there are thousands upon thousands of them.
I think for the most part Americans who “get it” tend to be very polite in their disagreement. We know the difference between a debate and a flame. But even in debate we can get pretty darn lively.
It really bothers me when people say that a famous person (actor, author, whatever) should shut up about their political opinions. I think that in a democracy, it’s a person’s duty practically to be informed, to care, and to have an opinion. If we can’t discuss and try to persuade people to agree with us, what’s the point of having a democracy? For people to say that because a person happens to be famous for their job, they don’t have a right to voice their stance seems anti-democratic to me.
On the other side of things, though, I also think it remains the right of the consumer to say, if you hold certain views, I refuse to support you in that. Just because I believe everyone has the right to voice their political stance, doesn’t automatically entitle them to get my money.
I have no subterfuge, no hidden, dark, secret side of me—if a reader wants to know the things I am most passionate about in politics and world views, all she needs to do is open one of my books. I’m pretty sure that most of my readers don’t think of me as a ‘political’ writer—but my beliefs in freedom of speech, support for the arts, health care, women’s rights, gay rights and everybody’s rights are all out on my literary sleeve so to speak. But just as I’m hoping I never get that e-mail from someone telling me that my beliefs are sick and wrong, I hope that by having my political beliefs encapsulated in the fictional lives of characters that people love, my work inspires contemplation and not offense.
When I hear people call sci-fi/fantasy or romance ‘pure escapism’ I want to jump up and down and beg them to watch ‘Star Trek’ or ‘Eureka’ or ‘Quantum Leap’ or hell, pretty much nearly any science fiction or fantasy show ever produced. The people who understand the most about ‘pure escapism’ are the people who hated the injustices in this world enough to create really spanking worlds in which to escape. Gene Roddenberry didn’t want to live in a world with racial prejudice any more than J.D. Robb wants to live in a world where the stay at home parent can’t get his or her due.
And as for teaching? I’m teaching American literature—much of my subject matter invokes some sort of political opinion. I tell my students up front what I believe—and I make it absolutely crystal clear that in one of the most culturally diverse schools in a culturally diverse state, it is absolutely imperative that they are under no obligation to agree with me. The same goes for my goofy, inconsistent religious beliefs. In a room with between four and ten religions, ‘pantheism’ is almost a blessing.
Ya know, I read fiction for entertainment, if I have to wonder about an authors agenda then it’s not entertaining anymore.
I have no problem with any author taking their portion of the $7.99 I paid for their book and doing whatever they want to with it. Just don’t have our billionaire well hung vampire cowboys yell “VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE” at the end of their happy time. That would bore me LOL.