Bitchin' Blog Posts
Romance in Politics, and Vice Versa
by SB Sarah | by SB Sarah | October 03, 2008 | Friday at 1:00 pm | 171 CommentsOver 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?
Filed: General Bitching, Random Musings
Tagged: writing, television, politics, history, harlequin, authors
storyofminajade.blogspot.com said on 10.03.08 at 01:19 PM • [link]
In my opinion, it is all right if an author is interested in politics (and expresses her or his opinion in their works). Most authors are interested in politics indeed, and I am not an exception.
This presidential election will be interesting, I do believe.
Ruth said on 10.03.08 at 01:35 PM • [link]
I’m ok with anyone in the public eye when it stays “this is what I believe.” When it crosses the line into “this is what I believe AND anyone that disagrees with me is uneducated and ignorant” then I hit the mute button.
I am also one of those people that stops financially supporting people when I think they are asshats. It’s happened with something I read here on this very blog. Haven’t bought another one of said author’s works since.
Ann Somerville said on 10.03.08 at 01:48 PM • [link]
Wow, suddenly everyone’s talking about that Scalzi article. I blogged about it here, and Jordan Summers did here.
And therein lies the problem for writers, especially women. Say what you like, but if we don’t like how you say it, then we’ll punish you for it. Funny how no one ever grandly tells John Scalzi they won’t ever read his books again because of his opinions.
Personally, I’ve decided I agree with Scalzi, I don’t give a monkey’s left testicle if people dislike my method of expression or the subject of my expression, and expecting authors to churn out stories and sit in a corner wearing a painted on grin and a gag the rest of the time, is an insult. Politics and opinions go with brains and talent and creativity. Deal with it.
And deal with the fact that what you think is the correct mode of behaviour in any given situation, is only applicable to you and possibly your offspring. Unless you’re my mother, don’t tell me how to talk and what about. ‘Wouldn’t it be nice if everyone was nice’ works in a Disney movie. It’s not the law of the land.
Now cue a whole bunch of people lining up to say, “oh, we believe authors should be able to say what they want, but we want them to be polite about it.” I’ve spent most of the day reading variations on that theme.
Yova said on 10.03.08 at 01:54 PM • [link]
Politics in romance novels ahs worked for me sometimes - like Karyn Langhorne’s Unfinished Business or Jennifer Crusie’s Strange Bedpersons. I think it was because those were both evenhanded: it wasn’t the author on a soapbox, it was two real characters with two really different opinions and netiher one was presented as being a terrible, evil person for believing that way.
But both of these books were explicitly about people who were exact opposites, including politics - and it even says that on the back cover blurb. In other situations, especially ones were a person’s politics are supposed to serve as shorthand for whether or not they’re a good person, it’s gratuitous and anoying. You know - “Jenny disliked him on sight - an oily, smarmy, slicked-back businessman who probably voted Republican and evicted babies in his free time.” Or the ones where the discussion has no connection to the plot and exists entirely for the author to stick their personal cause in your face. (“The jewel thief sighed as she pocketed the bracelet, and wished that more people would buy fuel-efficient vehicles.”)
elianara said on 10.03.08 at 02:00 PM • [link]
Romance novels often deals with difficult subjects like depressions, rape, childlessness and death. These are sensitive subjects, and if you are able to handle them, then why shy away from politics.
I as a reader don’t care if a favorite author thinks differently than me on certain matters, if I enjoy the books, I’ll still read them. And I might enjoy the debate.
Why shouldn’t authors be able to make their voices heard, when actors and other celebrities can? I would say, bring it on, express your opinion.
snarkhunter said on 10.03.08 at 02:05 PM • [link]
I am not an author. But this is an issue I’m struggling with in my own life as an academic.
I live in a key swing state (PA), and would love to volunteer for the Obama campaign. There are two problems with this. First, I’m OMGHOLYSHIT drowning in work. That’s the main problem. Second, I’m afraid my political activities, if discovered by students, could be used as an argument against me, should they decide to challenge their grades.
In the classroom, I do my very best not to show my strong preference for one candidate or political party over the other, to the extent that I think I sometimes overcompensate in trying to be nice about McCain. I’ve slipped up from time to time, like when one of my students said something about Hillary fans going for Sarah Palin, and I replied, automatically, “God, I hope not.” And then I apologized.
There’s still a lot of controversy over the supposed liberal bias in academia, and someone like me, just at the start of her career, has to be very careful about not coming off as attempting to “indoctrinate” her students. And because the university I’m at has faced a lot of scrutiny from David Horowitz’s academic “freedom” group, I feel like Big Brother is looking over my shoulder all the time.
(Heh. Not signed in, and my captcha? free31. Appropriate as always)
Angelia Sparrow said on 10.03.08 at 02:07 PM • [link]
I think authors are as entitled to take public political stands as anyone else.
In fact, many of my books end up political, even when they don’t mean to, simply because the characters are gay.
I post a lot about politics from the PoV of a queer, blue-collar pagan women. Because politics directly affect me, directly affect my kids (queer=/=not married) and directly affect my job.
I try to stay calm and level-headed because ranting and raving accomplishes nothing. I’d much rather read a well-thought-out piece that is totally wrong-headed than a piece I agree with that froths at the mouth and chews the walls.
And, of course, I reserve the right not to financially support authors whop are trying bring about my destruction. (Orson Scott Card, I’m looking at YOU!)
out38… yep. The bot nails it again.
Laura Anne Gilman said on 10.03.08 at 02:17 PM • [link]
my .02…
My LiveJournal is titled “where personal and professional life collide” for a reason—we cover a wide spectrum of topics, including food, politics, religion and yes, writing, mainly because those are all things I’m interested in.
My feeling is that I’m here to learn as well a pontificate, so I ask people to bring their best game to the discussion. The rules are simple: play nice, respect the other person’s idiotic opinion, and don’t be a schmuck. So far, it’s been working….
If a reader can’t differentiate the-person from the-books, then they probably should stay away from blog in the first place! There are a number of writers whose personal beliefs are so counter to mine as to be alien. They’re still fabulous writers and most of the time I can tune out what they’re saying and just read the damn book.
Keri Ford said on 10.03.08 at 02:22 PM • [link]
I keep my political thoughts AWAY from the computer because it is essentially my workplace. I think there’s time and place for everything, and voicing my political opinion doesn’t belong in my workspace. FOR ME. Not in the normal discussion that politics typical occur (which is usually off some tangent that didn’t have any point to the main blog thread). If I was to come across a political blog, then I’d be more likely to comment.
I also have the mindset that I don’t want to give readers a reason NOT to buy me when I do sell. It sounds farfetched, but it’s not. It’s happened with me with an author. There’s an agent I was liking. Until she started showing her political colors. In both cases it wasn’t WHAT they were expressing but how (as mentioned above) they did it that rubbed me wrong. I don’t want that rubbing against the grain happening with someone else because of me.
If I was established, I might have a different mindset.
right58. Hm. It’s my right to voice my opinion 58 times, or not if I don’t want to.
Shae said on 10.03.08 at 02:22 PM • [link]
Gotta love boredom at work - http://pics.livejournal.com/lezlishae/pic/0026zg75/
Rinda said on 10.03.08 at 02:24 PM • [link]
I’ve been struggling with this, discussing it with other writer friends who blog. We all go back and forth about the worry over alienating readers. I have very strong feelings about this election, but I’ve done little more than put up an Obama icon and twitter a bit during debates.
There are days I want to do a lot more, but my agent is currently marketing my first book and the possibility of alienating an editor is making me hesitate. I’ve worked too hard to blow it over my urge to run my mouth. ;) And right now, that can be so, so difficult. Especially when my children tell me the horrifying things kids are saying at school.
Maggie Robinson said on 10.03.08 at 02:24 PM • [link]
I blogged a little bit on my recent political awakening after I was lectured in my own basement by the furnace repairman. This is an extraordinary political year with a sharply divided nation. I’m pretty strong (if quiet) with my convictions, and I remember my parents telling me to NEVER discuss politics and religion. I haven’t always paid attention, but in this case, I think they’re right. There is little I can do to persuade someone whose mind is made up. There is another infamous pig saying—-never wrestle in the mud with a pig; you’ll both get dirty and the pig will enjoy it. I think it’s best to keep one’s politics to oneself in Romancelandia, particularly if you are published and don’t want to alienate readers/buyers. Maybe that makes me a chicken—-or a pig. But I’m doing a voter registration drive in the high school I work in.
Cheyenne McCray said on 10.03.08 at 02:25 PM • [link]
I’m going to look at this from a different angle. YES we all have the right to our own opinions and can blog about it all we want.
BUT I think we’re in the world of romance where readers want an escape from hearing about politics and even arguing about them. What are romance books? An escape. A chance to read something that will whisk us away from this world to another and has a HEA that makes us feel good. Then it’s time to go back to the real world and deal with real world problems.
Our job as romance writers is not to preach, but to give our readers something that makes them feel good.
Another thing is that all of these topics are being talked to friggin’ death on every TV channel, every radio station, every newspaper you read. God, can’t we have a friggin’ break?
IMO that’s what we provide. A break. For those who want to blog about it, go for it. But I think we’re doing a disservice to our readers who’ve had enough of all the $%&# going on right now that they need their “Calgon take me away” moments. I sure don’t want to hear about it everywhere, including romance blogs.
I sure hope SmartBitches doesn’t start providing info or debate on politics. I think this blog is just right the way it is. It’s fun, informative, and very rarely is there ever any kind of debate. Please, no more debates!
My word is wrong52, meaning mixing politics with romance readers is the wrong thing to do!
Faellie said on 10.03.08 at 02:28 PM • [link]
I think there is also a difference between “politics”, which is everything to do with how people and groups relate to each other and how the society and the economy in which we live works (and so natural territory for any writer of fiction), and “party politics” which is about factionalism and which individuals are up and down in a particular political party.
I suspect that too often people who say they are bored or alienated by politics, or who have the reaction “this person speaks/votes this way so I hate them” are thinking only in terms of “party politics”, not of politics in the wider individuals/society/government sense. And I can see that a “commercial” author might be worried that they could lose readers from these groups if they become known for political opinions. But it’s a shame.
And then of course there’s the whole “can’t tell the difference between real life and the actions/statements of fictional characters” issue.
SB Sarah said on 10.03.08 at 02:30 PM • [link]
Hi Ruth! I meant specifically that consumers would stop buying an author who held different political viewpoints - and expressed them. I am well aware of the asshat/consumer line. Trust me.
Nathalie Gray said on 10.03.08 at 02:30 PM • [link]
And I love how Scalzi concludes with a “blow me”. Ha!
Unless I’m tiptoeing around a friend’s feelings, I’ll say what’s on my mind. If it’s not acceptable to someone else, that’s all right. I’ll live. I also believe there’s a difference between sharing an unpopular opinion online and going totally crazy online. Still, I think both have the right to be immortalized on the internet, even if being linked to one is much preferable than being linked to the other.
Jane said on 10.03.08 at 02:32 PM • [link]
Angelia, I was just thinking about Orson Scott Card! There was a big fuss earlier this year in the American Library Association when he won an award for lifetime contribution to young adult literature. Librarians are a pretty liberal bunch, and there were a lot of people who felt that someone with his opinions didn’t deserve any kind of award, whether or not his opinions were apparent in his work.
I haven’t actually read any of his books (*blush*), although my husband loves Ender’s Game, so I don’t feel qualified to speak to whether his opinions show in his work or not. But it is an interesting case.
Carrie Lofty said on 10.03.08 at 02:33 PM • [link]
I hate that two people with different political viewpoints keep quiet when around one another because they might…disagree.
Except when visiting my folks, when this is essential. Craziness.
I start my shift volunteering in Obamaland today. Will I blog about it…? Maybe. I think my blog readers know where I stand, mostly coz of choice Daily Show clips I’ve featured, but I don’t make a huge deal out of it in public. Do I obsessively check wonkette and the numberstuds at 538.com? Yes, but that’s my own problem. Anyway, I’m not going to convince anyone via my blog. It’s antagonistic to those who’ve already decided, and my little fangirl squees when Obama takes his coat off (7:30 in on this clip) aren’t going to sway anyone who’s undecided at this point.
Joe getting choked up last night. *sniff*
Nathalie Gray said on 10.03.08 at 02:40 PM • [link]
Yeah, I’m looking at him, too.
Scalzi, he rocks. Been reading that dude’s blog for over a year and I still rub my hands with glee every time there’s a new entry on Whatever. He says what he wants to say without ever sounding like a frustrated fathead (unless he means to sound like a frustrated fathead).
Kathsan said on 10.03.08 at 02:40 PM • [link]
I think I agree with Scalzi’s article. I just draw the line when a story stops being a story and starts being a political endorsement. If authors have something to say, I think they should say it—isn’t that why they’re writing? But I can’t stand it when it turns from “this is what I believe” into “vote for [insert candidate] if you want to live.”
What I love is when authors use two or more characters to debate different views. When you can see both arguments and be informed about both arguments and then chose which side you’re on, that’s just cool.
Amie Stuart said on 10.03.08 at 02:51 PM • [link]
Except, or because maybe…by and far politically active actors make a lot more money than the average writer.
Lori said on 10.03.08 at 02:55 PM • [link]
Out of curiosity then: if a writer you really loved and bought the moment the books were released blogged that she always gave 15% of all monies she earned to political movements againstabortion/anti gay marriage/fill in your own hot button issue are you still going to buy her books?
Lori Borrill said on 10.03.08 at 03:02 PM • [link]
Aww, but din’cha hear? That’s what whose there mavericks do when a question gets a little un-comfy. They’s make up their own rules—and are darned proud of it, I’ll tell ya. Smile big and wink!
December Quinn/Stacia Kane said on 10.03.08 at 03:06 PM • [link]
I’m going to have to go with Cheyenne here. I never blog about politics; I don’t even like to talk about politics (although I do have very strong opinions and love watching debates/news commentators/whatever), and I dislike having someone else’s political opinions shoved down my throat. I think it’s rude. Didn’t our mothers teach us not to discuss politics or religion in mixed company?
When I go to an author’s blog I’m looking for stuff about their lives and their books. I want to get to know them better, I hope to have a little fun. I don’t want to be greeted by paragraph after paragraph of “That other party is a bunch of morons, and I can’t believe how much they lie, and they’re all wrong wrong wrong.” It turns me off. Even if I agree with their opinions it turns me off. And I very often won’t buy their books if they say something that really offends me.
I have a hard time believing that someone who can only see those who disagree with them as evil lying blackguards without brains will have the ability to create full, interesting characters in their work. It just strikes me as unimaginative, and why would I spend my money on that?
It’s not that I don’t think they have a right to discuss politics on their blogs. Of course they do, it’s their blog. They have the right to discuss purple-headed sheepcows on their blogs if they want. But I have a right to dislike it, and to stop reading their blogs and their books.
Frankly, I feel the same way about actors being activists. Shut up, I don’t care what you think. When I want to know who you think I should vote for, I’ll call you up and ask. Until then, talk about the movie, talk about your wonderful new marriage or tv show or dogs, and keep your opinions about who should be president to yourself. I’m perfectly capable of making my own decisions without consulting Matt Damon or Bruce Willis.
(Oh, and again as Chey said, I hope SB doesn’t go political. I love being able to hang out in non-political places when elections loom.)
Laura Vivanco said on 10.03.08 at 03:11 PM • [link]
I think we’re in the world of romance where readers want an escape from hearing about politics and even arguing about them. What are romance books? An escape. A chance to read something that will whisk us away from this world to another and has a HEA that makes us feel good.
Romances don’t generally have much about party politics, but they do have a lot in them which is political. Tycoons, billionaires etc don’t just appear out of nowhere: they’re part of the capitalist system. Dukes etc in historicals would have an automatic right to vote in the House of Lords and lots of inherited wealth and privilege. A heroine who has to acquiesce to the hero’s demands because she can’t afford to pay for the urgent operation her child needs to survive make me think about health care provision in whichever country the novel is set in. I recently read a novel in which walking, rather than taking the car, into the centre of a small town in the US was presented as an innovation. That made me think about dependency on petrol and what effect this has on climate change. There’s the almost complete lack of heroines who’ve had abortions but lots of heroines who accidentally get pregnant and then either have secret babies or marry for “convenience.” And then there are the many, many SEALS and other military romances. What do they have to say about the way the US sees itself in the world? Even what the characters eat can be revealing. How many vegetarians do you find in romance, for example?
Ziggy said on 10.03.08 at 03:16 PM • [link]
Lori said:
YES. I always fear this or something like it when I find a new writer that I really love. Could I love the work of someone who supported X party, or political way of thinking, when I am a fervent supporter of Y?
So far it hasn’t happened yet. The writers I really love seem to either keep their political thoughts private (like Neil Gaiman, correct me if I’m wrong) or write books which would seem to indicate that they think the same way as me (Terry Pratchett’s Jingo is a good example - but I don’t know, or really want to know, anything about his personal politics).
I would not buy books by someone who donated all monies to a cause which I disagreed with, but I would want and expect them to publicise that intention. I would wholly support their right to support that cause… just not with my money. In such a situation, I’d just buy their books second-hand, or borrow them.
Trix said on 10.03.08 at 03:16 PM • [link]
I’m not sure why people here are off on a tangent about authors discussing their politics in a novel: I think the point of the discussion is about authors expressing their views in other media, such as blogs, interviews and the like.
Although, even in novels, you can certainly get a flavour of someone’s political leanings - gays/blacks/whathaveyous are mentioned positively, women aren’t doormats, men aren’t all Alpha Fuckwits and so on. But I agree that a novel isn’t exactly the place for overt politics, unless it’s a satire or roman a clef - the author is creating a world that we should be entering into. Alluding to current events drops that illusion and really quickly dates the book.
Onto the actual topic. I’m happy if authors talk about their politics. They’re humans, citizens, who presumably have the right to vote (except in some states in the US if you’ve had a conviction 500 years before, apparently) - they also have a right to express their views. I tend to pay attention to how their views are expressed as well as the content. Someone can be a conservative Christian who yet has the proper charity for others and expresses that; yer Falwells et al can burn in the fiery pit they’re so quick to consign others to.
I won’t buy Orson Scott Card either, due to his stated views. But since I don’t like his writing - yes, his religious views seep through his fiction in the way I mentioned earlier (learning about his religious and political background was a big AHA! moment for me) - it’s no loss. I love Laurie R. King (in a pure-yet-authoriarily-devoted-way, and I am nodding along assiduously to her blog posts on various things, including her political views. Although her views are similar to my own, I also appreciate the fact that she doesn’t put others down. Expresses anger at the effects certain views have, yes, but doesn’t descend to their level.
Knowing someone has similar views to my own is just icing on the cake. I only stop reading if someone wants to deny me my civil rights or expresses those few views I can’t compromise with in any way, or is irredeemably sexist/racist/homophobic… and those things seem to show up in their fiction in any case, and renders it unpalatable enough without knowing the specifics.
Ann Somerville said on 10.03.08 at 03:21 PM • [link]
December, if authors can’t talk about politics, and actors can’t, then who can? Do you really want to leave politics to the politicians?
Political matters affect everyone, in every country. We non-Americans are passionately obssessed with the elections in the USA because it directly affects our future. Frankly, it’s insulting to tell anyone not to talk about something so important. Authors are some of the best educated, thoughtful and open-minded people in a society. Why would you not want them to have views and share them?
My politics, my views are core to who I am and what I write. If someone only wants to talk the bits of me that appeal to them as entertainment, and lock the rest away, then that diminishes my value to society to approximately that of an hour of the Simpsons. Bugger that for a lark.
Cat Marsters said on 10.03.08 at 03:24 PM • [link]
I don’t really talk about politics, in public or private, but that’s because my strongest opinion on the subject is that they’re all a bunch of asshats. At least in the US of Holy Shit you have an exciting election race: over here it’s all I can do to stay awake.
Issues are different to me than politics. I don’t really care which party you vote for, or if you vote at all, but if you tell me gay people should be shot and that you go out of your way to run over cats, I’m afraid I will have to eviscerate you in fiction. I’d eviscerate you in real life, but, you know, it’s really messy, and I have deadlines.
Nonetheless, I have learned that authors who express strong opinions often discover a pressing need to return to the day job. Disagree with a reader and they’ll swear to devote the rest of their life to making sure no one evah, evah buys your books again. Since I don’t write books aimed at petty children, I’m not terribly worried I’ll lose any devout fans, but I figure in general the reason authors keep quiet is that they have bills to pay.
spamfilter: brown57. How did it know Gordon Brown is the person I was thinking of specifically when I said politics made me sleepy?
Lynne Connolly said on 10.03.08 at 03:26 PM • [link]
I’m in the UK, so at least I get the option of other programs. We are watching open-mouthed, as the USA passes Socialist measures and moves further left, while China and Russia are moving to the right and becoming more capitalist than any other nation.
Weird times, folks.
And the US election seems to be going on forever. In the UK, when a General Election is called, the parties get three weeks (yes you read right, three weeks) to campaign and there’s a cap on their spending. Even that is a bit much sometimes, and you find yourself longing for them to just shut up and get on with it. The interminable year-long campaign with humungous amounts spent on balloons and such.
What I found the worst was the way they can phone you up in your own home and nag you for your vote. That was tried earlier this year by a political party, and the outcry was so bad nobody will try it again in a hurry. Bad enough to get junk mail, people at the door, TV, radio and such, but to call you on the phone?
Sarah Frantz said on 10.03.08 at 03:26 PM • [link]
I’m going to be truly awful and admit that if an author I knew and liked admitted that she was voting for McCain, I’m not sure how I’d feel. It hasn’t happened—although I haven’t really gone looking—so I don’t know how I’d react, but I can easily imagine a very negative reaction and an inability to read her books from then on. Then again, I might shrug and say “Oh well” and go on to enjoy future books. But I’m not sure. Does that make me a bad person? Or just partisan? And does that answer authors’ questions about whether they should blog about it? I don’t know.
Has Suzanne Brockmann lost more readers than she’s gained by being so open with her politics? Who knows. I know I still reader, but then, she’s supporting my guy. :)
Marsha said on 10.03.08 at 03:32 PM • [link]
I don’t care if people in general talk politics, declare their affiliations, openly support their candidates or whatever, no matter what the profession. I think that folks who wear their political hearts on their sleeve need to be aware, though, that not only might some not agree with them (and the sharers must be willing to take whatever consequences - if any - that might bring, whether they be emotional or financial; sharing of any kind is a risk, after all) but that some might merely shrug and not engage and really only end up interested in the book, music, movie, whatever. That has to be o.k., too. If I don’t have a political litmus test for authors, I’d like not to be subjected to one as a reader (or listener or viewer or whatever).
Elizabeth said on 10.03.08 at 03:34 PM • [link]
and I dislike having someone else’s political opinions shoved down my throat.
Why is someone discussing their political opinions on their personal blog shoving it down your throat? And how is it any different (aside from the fact that politics in this country is always divisive but that shouldn’t stop people from talking about it for fear they might alienate a reader) than someone expressing an opinion about a tv show or their favorite book?
Personally I believe if an author or an actor or anyone wants to discuss politics on their personal blog they can. If they express an opinion I just can’t agree with (e.g. if they are anti-abortion rights) then I’ll stop reading their blog (life’s too short to read the opinions of someone when I know it’ll just make my blood pressure skyrocket) but if it’s someone whose novels I really enjoy it’d probably take a lot more than differing political opinions to make me stop reading them.
If I have the right to blather on about politics in my own personal blog (which I do because it’s important to me) then I don’t see why authors should be required to stay quiet out of fear of offending a reader. Obviously, if an author chooses not to discuss such a hot button issue that is their right but I’m not going tell someone they can’t write about politics in their blog.
Lori Borrill said on 10.03.08 at 03:37 PM • [link]
Aww, see now, der I go, not answerin’ da queschun.
Me? I’d love to get political. I’d love to tell anyone who would listen what I think about this presidential race. Unfortunately, I also want people to buy my books, and until I’m making George Clooney money, I need to keep the 15 fans I’ve got.
Besides, I’ve never understood the celebrity=political authority equation. Despite who us Californian’s pick for governors, I can’t seriously see myself voting for anything short of maybe a piracy law because Susan Sarandon thinks I should.
Of course, Jon Stewart, well…he’s a totally different story…..
Colleen Gleason said on 10.03.08 at 03:38 PM • [link]
Great conversation, Sarah. I’m glad you started it.
I’ve stayed away from talking politics on my blog (at least overtly saying who I support, although if one reads carefully, one can easily figure it out~~especially from today’s post) for the most part.
It’s been a conscious decision not so much because I’m afraid of alienating readers, but simply because I like to keep things light and entertaining and I simply don’t want it to devolve into a flaming argument. That’s always been the purpose of my blog—light and fun.
However, I make no secret of my political affiliations in other public venues—such as Twitter, Facebook, etc., or even in my own yard. :-) It’s simply that I don’t blog about it, but believe me…I will talk and debate about it.
And by the way, Lori Borrill, you got a big-ass laugh out of me for this:
spamword: street32: how appropriate for my blog post today about yardsigns.
Btw: go to yardvote.com and register yard sign sightings. They’re trying to track political climate by looking at who’s putting up signs where.
KellyMaher said on 10.03.08 at 03:41 PM • [link]
I rarely express political statements because I’m one of those people who loathes politics as they are currently practiced in the US of Holy Shit. Frankly, I expressed to a co-worker last night that I wish our everyday accountants would rise up and wrest the books out of the hands of Congress and straighten them up. I had originally said business leaders, but the only business leader who seems not to have his head in his ass and therefore running his company into the ground is Warren Buffet. And so, the one political statement I will be expressing this year - and every time it’s time to vote about something - is VOTE. You have no right to complain about the state of things if you do not exercise your right to vote. Don’t care much who you vote for, but if you start nattering on about how this country is falling to pieces and then proudly proclaim that you didn’t bother to vote in the last election because what good would it have done/insert lame excuse here, then I have no patience for you.
AgTigress said on 10.03.08 at 03:47 PM • [link]
Absolutely. We certainly have the right to express an opinion, because we are affected. But try criticising either side of the American political spectrum (a somewhat limited spectrum that runs all the way from, umm, indigo to violet, since all American political positions are way to the right of centre), and they will all jump on you and sweepingly accuse you of being anti-American… I loathe most of our British politicians as well (and they are also all right of centre now) but that doesn’t mean I am anti-British.
It’s a bit like the way in which members of one family can quarrel bitterly amongst themselves, but will suddenly present a united front if an outsider dares to express a view.
Ocy said on 10.03.08 at 03:47 PM • [link]
Should authors be able to talk politics on their personal blogs without fear of repercussion? Maybe in an ideal world, but that’s not how it works in reality. There is also a difference between a personal blog and a professional one, and if an author is blogging on their official website or finds themselves mostly writing about their upcoming novel and their personal writing process, it may not “fit” to be suddenly proclaiming the virtues of Obama or McCain.
And on a more personal note, I don’t even live in the states, and I’m tired of hearing all the political hoo-hah. The whole thing is starting to resemble a three-ring circus. What crazy things will the candidates say today? Frankly, I’m more than happy to hang out around blogs where the American election is not the word of the day.
Silver James said on 10.03.08 at 03:51 PM • [link]
Wow. I’m definitely in the minority here. I just read so many things that concern me. It’s okay to buy a writer second hand because you don’t want to give up their books but you don’t want your money to support their causes? Why should an actor’s (or author’s) opinion count more than mine simply because they’re in the public eye? Why is it all my liberal friends are so rabid they jump on every ALLEGEDLY wrongheaded thing the conservative candidates have ALLEGEDLY done? SUPPOSED liberal bias in education? AND the media? Oh, yeah. It isn’t supposed or alleged. It’s there. Why does one party get away with being sexist when the other is accountable?
I hate when this posts before I was ready. Grrrr. Though I suppose that’s the Universes’s way of saying I should shut up now. By the way? I’m a Centrist. I vote for the candidate, not the party.
December Quinn/Stacia Kane said on 10.03.08 at 03:56 PM • [link]
I didn’t say authors and actors can’t talk about politics, I said I don’t care what their opinions on those things are. I don’t actually need to know what anyone else’s opinions on political issues are (save, of course, those actually running for office, because I’m very interested in what they have to say. There are a few pundits/analysts on both sides of the fence whose thoughts usually interest, amuse, or enlighten me, and I’ll sometimes read them to get a fuller understanding of the issue from both of those sides before I make up my mind). Actors are free to discuss politics anywhere they like. That doesn’t mean I have to care what they say, or that I am required to listen.
Actors are famous because they are very good at acting. So if I am interested in that topic, I will happily seek them out and listen to whatever they have to say on the subject; it is one in which they have proven expertise, so their thoughts on it have value to me. Their thoughts on politics, an area in which they have to my knowledge no proven expertise, do not. I don’t see a need to apologize for that; I’m not interested in Otis the barber’s political opinions either, and if he keeps talking about them while cutting my hair I’ll stop going to him for haircuts. Nor do I care if the girl checking out my groceries wants me to vote for Obama or McCain, or what my children’s teachers think, unless an issue comes up which specifically relates to teaching, grocery checking, or barbering. If that were the case, I would happily ask them for their input.
I feel perfectly comfortable expressing my thoughts on writing, and what makes good or bad writing. It’s something I know a little bit about. I don’t presume to think my readers want to know my thoughts on the big issues; I’m a writer. I write genre fiction. I love genre fiction, but I don’t think having even small success at writing it means people care what I think about the election, and I think it would be presumptuous of me to start talking/blogging about it incessantly as if my thoughts and opinions mean anything to them at all. Yes, by virtue of being a US citizen I am qualified to discuss politics; I have the right to. I discuss politics with my husband, and with my friends. But I don’t think the general public should be forced to hear what I have to think, when I am no better or worse, no better or worse informed, than they are. They come to my blog to read about my books, and my thoughts on publishing, and sometimes funny stories about my kids or my clumsiness or whatever. My job is to entertain them, and that is what I try to do. Suddenly getting political feels like a bait-and-switch.
And as far as those opinions being shoved down my throat, I can’t help but feel when I go to someone’s blog and it’s full of invective and shouting and “Only a moron would believe this guy”, it certainly feels like I’m choking on something.
willa said on 10.03.08 at 03:56 PM • [link]
I’m another person who won’t buy a writer’s books if I don’t like the writer. I might get the books out of the library, but I won’t purchase them.
And in fact, hilariously enough, John Scalzi IS one of the writers whose works I won’t buy!!! In that Bedlam-ish brouhaha over the Open Source Boob Project, Scalzi had a couple of really unfortunate posts about the whole thing, and it turned me off so bad that I’ve never bothered to read his stuff since, let alone pay for it.
It goes both ways, I guess. I won’t chide the author for having opinions. Don’t chide me for refusing to buy that author’s works. There’s no law that says I have to.
Cheyenne McCray said on 10.03.08 at 04:00 PM • [link]
I don’t think it’s a matter of telling authors what they can and can’t talk about. Or actors or musicians or any other entertainer. JMHO is that much of the public see us as entertainers and that’s what they need from us—entertainment. Not something they can see on television, read in a newspaper, listen to on the radio, read on the internet, read in books.
I’m fine with people expressing their opinions. Barry Eisler is an author with very strong political views and he blogs about them regularly. I like how he does it. First of all he makes a statement about what he blogs about and then he rationally discusses the topic like last night’s VP debate. http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=73911562
I think that’s key, too—if an author does want to discuss their opinions, do it rationally and professionally. As in not “J. Jones is such a fhead” but “I strongly disagree with J. Jones on X topic.” Or whatever.
Sure, flip out, be angry, shout your opinion—but think about your audience and what they are there to hear. Barry does a great job of it. A little snippet from his blog intro:
Barry is a NYT thriller novelist (former CIA and lawyer) and has a movie from his assassin series coming out in 2009 starring Gary Oldman.
Yes, he’s an author stating his political views. But he’s also not in the business of HEA like we romance authors are. I’ve been on a panel with Barry and he thought *he* had a lot of sex in his novels. We romance writers had him blushing. (Just a sidebar—he’s damned cute and nice on top of that.)
I SO believe in freedom of speech and anyone expressing their opinion. I just feel that in romance, a lot of readers need a haven, someplace they can enjoy themselves, get a laugh, find out something interesting about the author or her/his books. Romance is about HEAs. Arguing about religion and politics—some people like to argue. Some like to discuss. Some like to listen. Some would rather be some place else where they have a “safe place,” so to speak. And can just have fun and not have more negativity shoved in their faces.
AgTigress said on 10.03.08 at 04:03 PM • [link]
On the general subject of political opinions, anyone who is not yet familiar with this site
http://www.politicalcompass.org/
ought to have a look, do the test, and look at some of the other material. Interesting, enlightening,often surprising, especially in terms of national and international perceptions.
ME2 said on 10.03.08 at 04:05 PM • [link]
whereas it’s ok for actors to embrace activism, for authors of commercial fiction, it’s not ok at all.
Ummm….says who? The media?? ‘Nuff said.
December Quinn/Stacia Kane said on 10.03.08 at 04:06 PM • [link]
Oh, and just as an afterthought, perhaps it feels shoved down my throat because it seems very few people discuss anything but politics these days, or at least, people have no compunction about discussing politics with strangers. I grow increasingly weary of meeting new people and having them make political jokes or comments within the first few minutes of our acquaintance, and going on and on about their particular viewpoint. Since odds are I disagree with them at least half the time, I’m forced to either smile weakly and change the subject, or disagree and face an argument. It’s rude, and priggish, and I really wish people would stop doing it.
I’m all politic’d out, frankly.
Jackie said on 10.03.08 at 04:09 PM • [link]
Before this election, I avoided talking politics on my blog. I didn’t want to alienate readers or potential readers who disagreed with my political views, so I just kept my thoughts to myself.
But this election is too damn important for me to remain silent.
So yes, on my blog, I’ve been blogging about certain candidates and my impressions, all the while linking to sources to back up my statements. And I’ve gotten accounts at political blogs and have started commenting there as well. Regarding the economy, which is such a key issue in this election, I’m encouraging people to go out and read, read, read the numerous blogs dedicated to explaining what these otherwise overwhelming things actually mean, and then come to their own conclusions. We can’t make informed decisions, let alone have informed opinions, unless we understand the argument from all sides.
I realize that blogging about my reaction to specific candidates may alienate some readers, and may even have the net result of me losing readers. That’s a risk I’m willing to take.
That being said, I won’t discuss politics on other people’s blogs (except, cough, when asked for my opinion about authors discussing politics).
ME2 said on 10.03.08 at 04:12 PM • [link]
I SO believe in freedom of speech and anyone expressing their opinion.
I am as well. What I am against is “celebrities” who state their opinion and IF/WHEN their “fans” voice their dissent, said “celebrities” get totally bent out of shape and bemoan the fact that they’re not entitled to their opinion. @@
Teddypig said on 10.03.08 at 04:15 PM • [link]
If there is one thing I learned in the military is I think that authors are probably very correct not to talk about three things that I won’t talk about in a professional environment either.
Sex
Politics
Religion
If anything I think we know waaaaay too much about other peoples opinions about these things in the wrong places.
I think making a revealing comment on any of these topics in maybe a blog devoted to talking about those subjects is one thing but presenting it on a professional blog devoted to your books and your livelihood is another.
Your opinion does matter in my view but in the appropriate context not at the office.
ME2 said on 10.03.08 at 04:15 PM • [link]
I grow increasingly weary of meeting new people and having them make political jokes or comments within the first few minutes of our acquaintance, and going on and on about their particular viewpoint.
My mom and dad told me early and often, NEVER discuss politics and/or religion with anyone! Easiest/quickest way to lose friends and make enemies.
Cheyenne McCray said on 10.03.08 at 04:18 PM • [link]
I’m with you, Lori! And Colbert right along with Stewart.
December, I’m right there with you at this point. Is it time for the election yet so we can express our opinions at the polls? I wish. One more month . . . We need to get our butts out there and VOTE, VOTE, VOTE!
karmelrio said on 10.03.08 at 04:18 PM • [link]
Writers, like actors, singers and others in the public eye, are CITIZENS, and are entitled to express their opinion. However, as Natalie Maines and The Dixie Chicks found out, sometimes expressing those opinions has consequences. The Dixie Chicks received death threats, their children were physically threatened, and they were certainly hit in the pocketbook when people didn’t agree with their statements. On the other hand, some of us DID agree with their statements, appreciated their guts in speaking up, and actually bought their records when we otherwise might not have. This cuts both ways.
Ultimately it’s up to each citizen, artist or not, to decide which consequences they’ll accept, what they’ll risk, by speaking their opinions or beliefs aloud. These opinions might lead me to some conclusions about a writer’s personal worldview that I might not agree with, but if the writing’s good, the writing’s good.
Sparky said on 10.03.08 at 04:19 PM • [link]
I don’t mind the author talking politics, in fact I encourage everyone to talk politics! The more people talk politics the more informed everyone is (if nothing else, they research to present a rebuttal to their opponents)
However, here’s my hypocrite card - though I encourage authors (and everyone) to talk politics, I desperately avoid reading the views of ANY author I love. Whether it’s on politics or anything else for that matter. I hate it when i love a series of books then I read something the author has said and it make me cringe or enrages me. If it’s really bad it would colour the books for me and I’d never be able to read them the same way again
LauraKCurtis said on 10.03.08 at 04:25 PM • [link]
Lori asked:
Nope. I’d take her books out of the library if I wanted to read them, but I wouldn’t give my money to causes I actively oppose. (Which is why I don’t belong to Curves.) Now, obviously, people give money to all kinds of things, and usually we don’t know what they are. But if an author takes a stance that she’s going to promote those causes—which is what she’d be doing making a statement like that on her blog—that’s different from giving to them privately.
Naturally, a writer with considerable commercial success already has less to worry about than one who’s on the beginning of their career. One with multiply bestsellers is less likely to suffer the consequences of, for example, putting a “donate to defeat California’s Proposition 8” button on her website than is an author with a shorter history.
I tend to think authors should keep ranting politics off their blogs, or put them in a separate section so that those who are interested in seeing that side of an author can do so, but those who are not don’t have to. If you feel strongly about something, you do want the freedom to express that, but it doesn’t have to be on the front page where people who come for a little escapism have to deal with it. Perhaps an internal page called “political ramblings” or something, so that people who want to know what feel can find out.
One thing that’s notable here—authors fall into one distinct political persuasion most of the time (as long as we mean American party politics). You’ll see it in your comments here, too. I’d be interested to see if the readership splits down similar lines. Or if the political beliefs of readers are related in any way to the kinds of books they read or subgenres of romance. Obviously, paranormal romance, for example, won’t appeal to someone with a hardline Christian conservative voter, but I wonder if there are other differences that make it more or less dangerous to talk about your beliefs because it is more or less likely to alienate your audience.
SB Sarah said on 10.03.08 at 04:26 PM • [link]
TeddyPig: what’s interesting to me about your comment is that in general company, that’s totally true. But in RomanceLandia, there’s already a weird presumption of intimacy between readers and authors because the authors are writing about two very intimate topics: sex and relationships. Think of how many readers tell erotica authors about their sexual escapades, or how many readers feel a true kinship with their favorite authors (and then accompanying feelings of betrayal if they disagree). The mixed intimacy of the reader/author relationship in Romance is very peculiar.
So mixing politics into it becomes problematic for a lot of reasons, like dark spots before a soap bubble pops. The sexual discussion is frequent and appropriate in context, but the intellectual intimacy of discussing and debating political views is not.
Darlene Marshall said on 10.03.08 at 04:29 PM • [link]
I sometimes express political opinions in my professional blog, but I usually keep them confined to my personal blog. People who know me know how I feel.
I did post a link at my Darlene Marshall Facebook fan page to “SayNo2”. I don’t think mean spirited amendments that penalize adults—gay and straight—for who they love belong in our Florida state constitution.
Teddypig said on 10.03.08 at 04:30 PM • [link]
Sarah, I honestly wish I knew less about my politicians on these subjects too.
Nothing floored me more than McCain and Obama talking at a Pastor’s Forum in Southern California like it was a debate.
I thought church and state was supposed to be kept separate? Why do I get a bad feeling that we are turning into a theocracy? I don’t want a Religious Right or a Religious Left.
I want “answers to hard questions” in plain language from both candidates but I guess that’s like this Bailout Bill a bunch of high dollar promotion and pork without much actual realistic solutions.
From Forbes.com
I think this intimacy thing is more about wanting to feel like best buddies and professionally I think that is not appropriate and fake.
Teddypig said on 10.03.08 at 04:34 PM • [link]
Sarah, I honestly wish I knew less about my politicians on these subjects too.
Nothing floored me more than McCain and Obama talking at a Pastor’s Forum in Southern California like it was a debate.
I thought church and state was supposed to be kept separate? Why do I get a bad feeling that we are turning into a theocracy? I don’t want a Religious Right or a Religious Left.
I want “answers to hard questions” in plain language from both candidates but I guess that’s like this Bailout Bill a bunch of high dollar promotion and pork without much actual realistic solutions.
From Forbes.com
I think this intimacy thing is more about this misguided need of wanting to relate to an author and professionally I think that is a mine field. I am not saying “Don’t be nice” or “Don’t be supportive” or “Don’t be yourself” I am just about keeping an appropriate distance. Especially on the internet.
SB Sarah said on 10.03.08 at 04:35 PM • [link]
From an email from an author who wishes to remain anonymous:
Teddypig said on 10.03.08 at 04:37 PM • [link]
Sarah, I honestly wish I knew less about my politicians on these subjects too.
Nothing floored me more than McCain and Obama talking at a Pastor’s Forum in Southern California like it was a debate.
I thought church and state was supposed to be kept separate? Why do I get a bad feeling that we are turning into a theocracy? I don’t want a Religious Right or a Religious Left.
I want “answers to hard questions in plain language” from both candidates but I guess that’s like this Bailout Bill a bunch of high dollar promotion and pork without much actual realistic solutions.
From Forbes.com
I think this intimacy thing is more about this misguided need of wanting to relate to an author and professionally I think that is a mine field. I am not saying “Don’t be nice” or “Don’t be supportive” or “Don’t be yourself” I am just about keeping and maintaining a certain distance of respect. Especially on the internet.
Jen C said on 10.03.08 at 04:46 PM • [link]
I am a little conflicted here. On the one hand, I absolutely believe that all people should follow politics and vote. On the other hand, it irritates me when people want to vote for McCain. There, I said it. I haven’t run into any authors who mentioned this fact, but it would irritate me, and I am not sure I could read the books without remembering the fact. I read a enewletter from an author who mentioned her strong Christian beliefs that led her to believe (small minded, bigoted thing) and that ruined the likelyhood that I can read her books without throwing them against the wall.
I feel the same way about religion. I am an atheist, and I tend to assume most people in the US, romance writers included, are some form of Christian because statistically, that’s probably what they check off on the census. However, Jesus talk on your blog makes it unlikely I am going to come back.
I wouldn’t. This wouldn’t be terribly difficult for me, as I don’t buy that many books brand new- and the only way the author could donate that 15% was if I bought the book brand new. It would disappoint me if, say, SEP’s secret baby fetish was the result of a loathing of abortion. I can’t say I would burn my signed copy of It Had to be You, but rereading it, I would probably be a little soured, and notice more things that bugged me and judge it harshly.
Laura Vivanco- absolutely agree. Romance novels are very political in ways we don’t necessarily pay attention to. I have a difficult time reading about heros or heroines in the military, but I might be the only one, given how many books there are. The fact that there are so few gay characters says something about the world these characters inhabit, or the lack of bisexuals, or interracial couples. I can’t think of a single bisexual in a romance novel (evil killers excepted, Cheryl Holt). The way that no one ever says, hey, the condom broke, let’s go get Plan B. The apparent lack of buses. Its really irritating.
Leslie H said on 10.03.08 at 04:47 PM • [link]
I think I prefer a separation. When I am “novelist” I am creator of my own mental backyard where I let others come and play. It is a secret identity I put on to be in my happy place. In my own backyard I am benevolent dictator and queen of all I survey.
In politics I am just another voter. If I am writing about politics for purposes of publication, I am writing non-fiction; that is a whole different gig. As in GHOSTBUSTERS I wouldn’t cross the streams.
Using celebrity in one to try to substantiate the other strikes me as weak minded and sloppy. It would be like saying, “I am a pharmacist so I am also a good cook” that goes right back to your symbolic logic from yesterday’s discussion. It just doesn’t pan out.
If you want to talk about politics, join a political chat or blog or twitter or whatever. If you want to PURSUE politics, make a MySpace for that. A link between them would be fine. If a reader pursues my political mumblings through a link and gets offended, he asked for it.
One final (incendiary) thought. If you think there is no difference as a writer between writing good fiction and good non-fiction, you have another think coming.
Good non-fiction requires an extreme mental and verbal clarity that is its own gift; creating a realistic, believable fictional world whether it is Victorian London or the Dreadful Planet Snookums is a different one. (Not mutually exclusive)
Heather said on 10.03.08 at 04:56 PM • [link]
I actually don’t care one way or another if the authors express their political opinions outside of their books. I mean, if you’re just reading a person’s working for the sheer entertainment value and a happily-ever-after, why are you even paying attention to what they say in a blog or anywhere else? If that’s all you’re looking for from the authors, just put an alert on amazon.com or some other similar site so you know when they have a new book coming out and go along your merry way. There’s nothing saying that you actually have to pay attention or read about what an author’s doing or supporting in their personal life. It’s the same with actors - I know this might be a shock to some people, but ALL TVs have an off button. If you don’t want to hear it, you don’t have to listen to it. I do feel they should be calm and rational about it rather than insulting, but I believe that of EVERYBODY, no matter what line of business you may be in. People are more likely to listen to and respect your opinion if you state your opinion in a logical manner, even if they don’t agree with you.
As for having it in the books… Well, I’m a political science major in college right now. I love politics. I see it as a way of life - it affects EVERYTHING in our world. Most people don’t see it but it does, in everything from what we are legally able to do down to the price of our groceries. Because it’s a topic I enjoy, I’m honestly more likely to purchase a book if it has a bit of politics in it. My ideal happily-ever-after includes a behind-the-scenes political career and success for my personal causes. It thrills me to death when I actually find it or something similar in a book. I realize this is my personal preference, but that’s the great thing about books - if you don’t like the topics addressed in one, you don’t have to buy it. There are PLENTY of options out there at the bookstores.
Lori Borrill said on 10.03.08 at 05:00 PM • [link]
Just for the record, 100% of all the monies I earn on books goes directly to shoes.
Madd said on 10.03.08 at 05:00 PM • [link]
So it’s ok for someone to say what they like, but I can’t express my disagreement by withholding my financial support? That sounds somewhat uneven. If someone expresses an opinion in a manner that makes me think less of them, what is so wrong about choosing not to support them? For me it’s not about punishment, I don’t expect someone to change who they are or what they think because I stop buying their book, but it is about not helping fund someone who I dislike. It’s my money, I should be able to decide who I want to give it to and why.
Personally, I think celebs/authors have as much right to their opinion as anyone else. And I reserve the right to dislike them and/or their opinion just as I would anyone else on the street. True, I don’t effect most people’s income when I choose to disassociate myself from them, but then most people I meet don’t make their money from me.
I try not to buy products from companies who’s practices I disagree with, why should an author’s product be any different?
Honestly, though? I don’t pay much attention to an author’s political, religious, or sexual preferences. It’s not really my business. It would only really effect me if they they were using the proceeds of books to fund something I disagree strongly with, because then it’s kind of like I’m supporting that cause when I wouldn’t want to.
Tibbles said on 10.03.08 at 05:02 PM • [link]
Everybody has an opinion about politics. That is just life. And no one should be punished because he/she isn’t in agreement with someone else.
Just so y’all know I am usually die hard republican.
However, this race is one that is hard to choose. Both candidates are worth their weight in gold. It has been a long time since we saw truly good candidates (not whiners and puppets; how I viewed our last election) and sometimes we need someone else’s negative and positive viewpoints so that we don’t miss things. Constructive criticism is a GOOD thing!
The only time I get upset (not angry) with an opinion is when A) it is being shoved down my throat big time or B) someone doesn’t have all the facts and refuses to quit attempting to shove something at me when it may be not the whole truth. Notice I say whole because political statements always have some truth.
As to writers being punished? I will continue to buy books from any author I like until their writing style turns into something I don’t. (Not naming names; have had a couple authors who took a left turn and left me behind because I didn’t like where they were going. None of those were political changes). And honestly, politics adds a whole new dimension for some books that can make it even more interesting.
To the teacher further up, though we appear to stand on opposite sides of the fence here, I am truly sorry to hear that you have to suppress your political feelings at your job. A university should be more open in my opinion. Everyone needs to be heard regardless of his/her stance
Rita said on 10.03.08 at 05:08 PM • [link]
Respect for a diversity of opinion should be a hallmark of political discourse. In my opinion that is where a disconnect often occurs. I love interacting with people that see things differently from me….as long as they don’t demean me in the process. Sadly, when discussions turn to politics or religion, many individuals exhibit alarming intolerance for people who strongly disagree with their point of view. Frankly, no one segment of society has cornered the marked on intelligence or rational thought.
Kismet said on 10.03.08 at 05:27 PM • [link]
Hmmm… I try to remember to subscribe to Voltaire’s view on democracy, but in our society it seems to have been forgotten by supporters of both sides. Whatever happened to
(or write, depending on which translation we are dealing with)?
I am fine with other points of view. I may debate them but I try to remain respectful. Polarization is one of the downsides of a two party (as opposed to multi-party) system. But I cannot respect the hate that seems to spew from some (on both sides) when their stance is questioned… if we did not have someone to take the opposing stance, then it would not be a democracy would it?
Considering this involves both books and politics (and recent discussions here), an on topic debate could be banned books, and the firing of Librarians who oppose censorship.
Tina C. said on 10.03.08 at 05:30 PM • [link]
I have to say that I agree. I don’t really frequent the personal boards and blogs of authors, in general. It’s not a conscious decision, because I have gone to a few author blogs. However, I find that I don’t tend to frequent them regularly, if ever, after the initial visit. Conversely, I stop by SBTB several times a day. Thinking about it, I think it’s because I simply don’t want to know. If I love someone’s work, I don’t want to know that they are voting for McCain or think Palin is just the bestest thing ever. I don’t want to know if they are stridently vegan or donate 50% of their earnings to PETA. I don’t want to know if they think that the earth is flat or that dinosaur bones are God’s way of testing your faith because the earth is only 5000-6000 years old. I don’t want to know if they are planning a visit to my lovely state just so they can finally take in the wonder that is The Creation Museum (The must-see vacation spot for people who think that The Flintstones was a documentary, apparently.)
On the whole, I don’t really think it’s my business what the author, as a person, thinks or believes or enjoys. I’m pretty much the same way about actors and singers, too. (Though, admittedly, it’s a lot harder to not hear far more than I want to about some celebrities and, sadly, in some cases, I really have a hard time separating the actor as a character versus the actor as a person when I see them in a movie or tv show because of it.) That said, I whole-heartedly endorse an author’s right to think or believe whatever he/she chooses and to talk about it and blog about it and if I come across it in the message boards I frequently, I’m fine with it. I just don’t go out of my way to seek out these opinions because I just want to enjoy their work without having anything color my enjoyment, good or bad.
tracykitn said on 10.03.08 at 05:31 PM • [link]
I think what bothers me most about politics in general and the presidential election in specific is that it sometimes seems like the greatest proportion of the general populace completely slept through their government classes in high school. People act like every single thing that comes out of our federal government, good or bad, is absolutely and incontrovertibly the president’s fault (or triumph, whichever.) Sometimes, it’s like the Senate and Congress don’t even exist! And, granted, the president is responsible for a fair proportion of legislation, but not All Of It. Quite a bit comes out of the other branches, and they don’t all make decisions based on party lines. I understand that the president is a figurehead for the government as a whole, but I feel that there’s not enough emphasis placed on the rest of the system—maybe it’s because this is the only election in which both myself (in Washington) and my three closest friends (in Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Tennessee) all have the exact same candidates?
I’ve also noticed a tendency among my acquaintance to vote by party, No Matter What, even when they disagree with the actual candidate on most major issues. I think that is where a lot of arguments happen among friends; when one feels that the other is acting hypocritically, and is trying to understand their position. Unfortunately, dogmatic individuals don’t operate under normal rules of logic, and get defensive when someone points out that they’re being…well, dogmatic.
Lynn M said on 10.03.08 at 05:46 PM • [link]
The only time a writer expressing an opinion on a controversial topic will ever offend me enough to stop buying his or her work is if he/she implies that I’m in any way inferior because I don’t hold that same opinion. I respect everyone’s right to think and believe as they will as well as their right to express those beliefs. It’s one of the attributes that I think makes America…well, America. But I expect to respected in turn, and only those who are so egocentric as to believe otherwise will turn me away from anything having to do with them. I’m more likely to lose respect for a person - writers or anyone - based on their attitude towards other’s differing opinions and how they express their own beliefs rather than the beliefs themselves.
Too, as I expressed on my blog this morning, I think writers, as people with the special ability to express themselves eloquently, do a service to other writers when they express their opinions in well thought-out ways. By showing us viewpoints that differ from our own, other writers can help us break away from our own thinking to create characters that differ from us when the knee-jerk is to default back to our own beliefs when creating characters from scratch.
Lovecow2000 said on 10.03.08 at 06:01 PM • [link]
I think this is indicative of Americans’ desire to be nice and liked. Politics is far more openly discussed in other countries.
Would I buy an author’s work if I disagreed with their politics? I think it depends on what the issue is. I find homophobic/ racist/ elitist authors hard to read, but wouldn’t avoid the works of someone who is a fiscal conservative or libertarian. I don’t tell others how to live and expect others to respect my privacy as well.
Elizabeth said on 10.03.08 at 06:04 PM • [link]
My parents so didn’t subscribe to that rule. I’ll discuss politics and religion with anyone who wants to discuss. This doesn’t mean I’m going to start a discussion with strangers on the street (if I’m somewhere reading watching something about politics and someone comments on what we’re watching I won’t tell them to shut up, but I like getting into such discussions with people I don’t know) but if I’m in a group of people and the topics come up I’m not going to tune out or keep my opinions to myself.
And, somehow, I’ve yet to lose friends because I don’t believe in religion and they all do or because they’re all Republicans and I’m not. But this is probably because I’m sane and can respect their views even if I disagree with them and vice versa.
Ultimately I think it’s just a matter of what you enjoy. A lot of people don’t like or want to discuss politics and so when it’s election time and that’s the topic of the day it becomes obnoxious and people just don’t want to see the word politics anymore. I am not one of those people so I say let every one talk about politics if they want to and I’ll pick what I want to read and what I don’t.
Mel-O-Drama said on 10.03.08 at 06:08 PM • [link]
I struggled with this myself, but I finally plunged in because this race is so important to me and I needed an outlet.
I’ve stated clearly on my political posts that opposing views are welcome and encouraged but there will be no flaming of any kind… I’ve had one anonymous post who disagreed with me but wasn’t ugly or inflammatory.
My biggest message overall has been to get out and vote, although I did jump in and explain why I’m voting Obama. And then my Obama yard sign was vandalized so I had to blog about that. Also, i went to oxford for the debate and I blogged about that with pictures.
I am of the mind that it’s okay if you disagree with my politics. I respect you if you’ll respect me. I’m not going to stop buying someone’s books because they’re voting for McCain. I would hope the fact that I’m an Obama girl wouldn’t stop someone from buying my books.
karmelrio said on 10.03.08 at 06:15 PM • [link]
Tina C. said:
I don’t either. Authors whose work I enjoy AND who write or blog about craft or the business of writing might get a hit or two from me, but otherwise… (shrugs).
I guess it’s about boundaries. As a reader, I don’t expect an author to be my friend. I don’t have to feel I have a up-close-and-personal relationship with a writer, or have deep insight into their personal life, to appreciate their work.
Marilyn said on 10.03.08 at 06:36 PM • [link]
Political views are a matter of that person’s opinion. My own family has very diverse political views. I’m not going to stop loving my brothers because they believe and vote opposite of me. I’m going to go out and vote and cancel out one of them’s vote. Would I buy an author if they voted different than me on candidates or issues? I absolutely would. My requirement from an author is to tell a story that I can relate to. Do that and I’ll happily support you until the writing doesn’t appeal to me anymore. And in fact I do heartily support the right to arm bears. :-)
willa said on 10.03.08 at 07:02 PM • [link]
Me neither. I’ve been on a bunch of authors’ blogs whose writing I loved loved loved and then over the course of reading the blog became very… disenchanted? I dunno. Blogging is a very strange animal. People’s personalities and characters are betrayed. It’s kind of weird. I often would end up reading a writer’s blog and going, “Holy crap, I wish I hadn’t read that” and then kind of frantically click on the X at the corner of the web page.
I’ve learned my lesson. There are a handful of writers/other public people whose blogs do not end up making me think I’ve just caught them naked and scratching themselves in the kitchen. That handful of blogs I will read. The rest, I avoid like the plague.
(Amusingly, I wonder how much posts like this reveal my e-dentity, such as it is, naked and scratching myself in the kitchen, for all the world to see. LOL…)
Chrocs said on 10.03.08 at 07:04 PM • [link]
Not totally related to the issue, but I stopped watching Mel Gibson’s movies after The Passion of the Christ and his drunken tirade after being arrested. He actually makes me physically ill when I watch him on TV and he used to be my favorite pretty faced actor. The point that I’m trying to make here is that if an author/musician/performer expresses an opinion that is radically against what I believe to be right, I just can’t enjoy their work anymore.
Political/sexual/religious preferences different to mine? As long as they are respectful to others, I don’t mind at all.
Elyssa said on 10.03.08 at 07:04 PM • [link]
I think it’s a personal choice for any author—or person—to make whether or not to discuss politics or not. For me, I do, but my family also talked politics. People are going to like you or not based on your books, and if they chose not to like you because you support one candidate over another, then that’s their choice. As to me, it’s a matter of retaining my rights as a woman, having equality for all people, and other issues I am deeply concerned about—-I support Obama all the way. If people chose to not like me or read my prospective books because of that . . . well, so be it.
robinjn said on 10.03.08 at 07:12 PM • [link]
I find AgTigress’ words really fascinating from a non-American perspective:
What’s interesting to me is that a) she’s right in a way because I was immediately a bit offended by that post, and b) it illustrates that a lot of American views are obviously not getting out to a worldwide audience.
I honestly don’t think it’s true that all American political positions are way to the right of center. I think those to the left have fallen into the trap of pandering to the right in speechifying, but I do think there are some pretty strong left-leaners out there in office and a LOT of strong left-leaners in the populace in general. AgTigress, there are a lot of us who are quite liberal indeed.
As far as authors posting their own views, I think an author should feel free to express herself or himself however they want. But realizing that standing up and expressing a strong viewpoint may indeed have some backlash. I’m sure all of us have certain hot-button issues that are polarizing for us. But for the most part, unless that political view is also jammed down my throat in the writings of that author, I can let it go.
Real world example, I almost didn’t read past Karen Traviss’ City of Pearl because it was so vegan/animal rights oriented and that’s a hot-button issue for me (I’m very pro animal welfare, anti animal rights). I decided the books were worth it and let it go, but it was a struggle.
kass said on 10.03.08 at 07:28 PM • [link]
Depends on the definition of “matter.” Will it change my book reading/buying habits? Not necessarily. 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. And if that person also invests in political campaigns that, e.g., work to keep gay people from having the right to visit their sick partners in the hospital, then damn straight I won’t buy their books directly from the bookstore. I’ll try to get them used or in some other way that won’t enrich their anti-gay (or whatever) activities. Conversely, while I admire Suzanne Brockman’s support of gay rights, I find her books disappointing and will not buy them to support her correct view of this issue.
Teddypig said on 10.03.08 at 07:39 PM • [link]
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.
darlynne said on 10.03.08 at 08:04 PM • [link]
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.
Nadia said on 10.03.08 at 08:09 PM • [link]
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).
December Quinn/Stacia Kane said on 10.03.08 at 08:09 PM • [link]
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.
Ruth said on 10.03.08 at 08:12 PM • [link]
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.
SB Sarah said on 10.03.08 at 08:20 PM • [link]
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?
RfP said on 10.03.08 at 08:26 PM • [link]
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.
KG said on 10.03.08 at 08:29 PM • [link]
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?
Alice said on 10.03.08 at 08:33 PM • [link]
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.
tornadogrrrl said on 10.03.08 at 08:44 PM • [link]
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.
Laura Vivanco said on 10.03.08 at 08:45 PM • [link]
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.
AgTigress said on 10.03.08 at 08:49 PM • [link]
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.
Theresa Meyers said on 10.03.08 at 08:51 PM • [link]
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?)
AgTigress said on 10.03.08 at 08:56 PM • [link]
No, of course they are not ‘socialist measures’! There is not a smidgen of true socialist thinking involved.
:-)
Terri said on 10.03.08 at 09:01 PM • [link]
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.
karmelrio said on 10.03.08 at 09:03 PM • [link]
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?
Candy said on 10.03.08 at 09:07 PM • [link]
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.
Suze said on 10.03.08 at 09:10 PM • [link]
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.
Candy said on 10.03.08 at 09:13 PM • [link]
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?
KG said on 10.03.08 at 09:26 PM • [link]
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.
Candy said on 10.03.08 at 09:27 PM • [link]
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.
Kris Kennedy said on 10.03.08 at 09:28 PM • [link]
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
Candy said on 10.03.08 at 09:33 PM • [link]
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.
tornadogrrrl said on 10.03.08 at 09:43 PM • [link]
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).
RfP said on 10.03.08 at 09:44 PM • [link]
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.
Kate said on 10.03.08 at 10:03 PM • [link]
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.
Shiloh Walker said on 10.03.08 at 10:04 PM • [link]
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.
robinjn said on 10.03.08 at 10:17 PM • [link]
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.
HaloKun said on 10.03.08 at 10:26 PM • [link]
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.
ttthomas said on 10.03.08 at 11:02 PM • [link]
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.
AgTigress said on 10.03.08 at 11:02 PM • [link]
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.
karmelrio said on 10.03.08 at 11:10 PM • [link]
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.
Ruth said on 10.03.08 at 11:30 PM • [link]
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:
Laura Vivanco said on 10.03.08 at 11:39 PM • [link]
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.
robinjn said on 10.04.08 at 12:04 AM • [link]
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.
Suze said on 10.04.08 at 12:07 AM • [link]
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.
robinjn said on 10.04.08 at 12:21 AM • [link]
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.
cecilia said on 10.04.08 at 12:45 AM • [link]
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.
amy lane said on 10.04.08 at 01:20 AM • [link]
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.
rebyj said on 10.04.08 at 01:43 AM • [link]
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.
DS said on 10.04.08 at 02:41 AM • [link]
It’s not a blog and it’s not in the US, but Ruth Dudley Edwards, a conservative Irish (?) commentator writes mysteries that I find to be hilarious and at time thought provoking. However, she is my favorite type of conservative in that she has no problem with Race and sexual preference.
The only author I can think of that I stopped reading due to politics, I stopped reading because I couldn’t stand the way a character (ex-wife ) went from being a pretty nice person and the female protagonist’s friend to a crazed killer who (OMG) had an abortion and didn’t tell her husband about it so she must be some kind of monster—right?
Looking objectively at it, the real reason I stopped reading her was because of lazy writing and not politics at all.
Wryhag said on 10.04.08 at 03:03 AM • [link]
It is intensely frustrating to feel silenced on issues of import. I’ve always been lippy—used to embarrass my parents, in fact, by mouthing off about things that mattered to me—but with age and experience come a degree of wisdom. And that includes discretion.
Part of that wisdom is the ability to “read” one’s audience. Friends and family might be willing to engage in a spirited sociopolitical debate . . . but fans, by and large, couldn’t care less. Fiction writers don’t exist to feed them propaganda. We exist to help them escape propaganda.
So, yeah, I often still my fingers. As I should. Do I want to shriek about Fox “News” being nothing more than a mouthpiece for the conservative branch of the Republican party? Hell, yes. Do I indulge that impulse?
Only here. :-)
“own19”—I am owning my viewpoint the way I did in college, when I was 19 and got a face full of tear gas for doing so.
RfP said on 10.04.08 at 03:14 AM • [link]
Robinjn, your list of Lefty beliefs reminds me of one of the difficulties in defining left and right in the US these days. The louder branches of the Democratic and Republican parties have on some issues almost completely swapped sides within current voters’ lifetimes, leaving a number of people’s self-identification very muddled as their party and their beliefs on issues have diverged.
For example, one of the major planks of conservatism used to be, predictably enough, conservation (of natural resources, the environment, waste not want not, planning for future generations…). More recently it’s been the Democratic leadership using those phrases; my sense is that there are quite a few greenie-conservationist Republicans who would like to have that issue back.
DS, I think she’s the shock jock of mystery. I find her thought-provoking and often funny, in that take-your-breath-away painfully jabbing style that says there are Big Issues there to think about. A couple of her books worked so hard at offending that I felt they lost the plot (or did she succeed in offending me and I’m the one who lost it?) but several are gold.
robinjn said on 10.04.08 at 03:25 AM • [link]
I think you’ve got a good point, though I did take the test at political compass.org and ended up smack dab in the middle of Libertarian Left.
I really don’t like authors who strongly push any political view in their books, no matter what it is. For instance, though I love dogs and agree with many of the positions Susan Conant’s fictional character takes I can’t stand the books because they’re so darned preachy. It’s like reading a 250 page lecture. Thank you no.
But I think there’s a line. I think characters in novels should be allowed to have positions and stick to them, but those positions should have a place in the story and serve the plot. I forgave Shan Frankland her radical animal rights viewpoint in the Karen Traviss Wess’har series because it informed her character and drove the plot. But to just spout off to spout off in a novel, thanks no.
And if an author is radical IRL and posts on a blog or whatever then yeah, it might influence whether I buy their work. But I’m not at all sure authors should sit on their hands and cater to ME for fear of offending me. If you feel strongly about something, speak up and let the cards fall where they may.
Bronwyn Parry said on 10.04.08 at 03:26 AM • [link]
I rarely discuss politics on my writing blog, because the aim of my blog is to communicate with readers and the broader community about my writing and books - news, process, context, inspirations - and about romance, popular fiction, and reading in general. I won’t say that I’ll never discuss politics on it, because political issues may have some relevance to the types of stories I tell and the settings (regional Australia), and to the publishing industry, so I can see how I might comment on some issues, but political expression is not the primary purpose of my blog, or of my writing.
I guess I see my writing blog as part of my professional, public, author persona. That does not mean that I want to hide or deny my political or other beliefs, but rather that I’ll raise issues only when they’re relevant to the event or question at hand, and where I have some level of expertise/knowledge to comment from. If I’m asked outright questions in interviews, I’ll answer with my honest thoughts - which probably would normally start with… ‘it’s a complex issue..’ because I do tend to see a lot of sides to arguments! (Although I was almost floored recently when a radio interviewer asked out of left (or probably right!) field whether I thought girls should continue with their education past high school. That was not a complex issue for me :-) )
Those are my choices, with regard to how I’m shaping my author presence/brand/professional profile or whatever you’d like to call it. I do sometimes comment on political issues in other forums - eg other author blogs where politics are discussed, so it’s probably not hard for any looking to guess what my views are.
I enjoy political commentary on other blogs if a) it’s well-thought out discussion and exploration of issues, inviting dialogue or b) witty and clever or c) an honest, personal reaction to an event that does not slam the opposite view point.
Christine Merrill said on 10.04.08 at 03:36 AM • [link]
“You exist only to amuse me. You are not allowed to do anything else.â€
rebyj, I’ve been thinking about this quote too.
Why should someone be surprised, after choosing to go into an entertainment industry, that their job is “to amuse”. In genre fiction, that’s pretty much it.
Not to say that lit can’t be amusing, or genre can’t make you think. But I feel that my job is “to amuse” and to entertain. I’m happy with that. There is nothing demeaning about it. You don’t want to be an entertainer? Go work somewhere else. There are plenty of other jobs. Don’t be surprised or insulted that entertainment is all a lot of people want from an author.
Since it is my job, I’m not obligated to do it 24/7. No one is prohibiting me from having an opinion. But there is also no requirement that I spout every idea and opinion in my head, just to keep the audience informed. There is nothing about being published that will make my political opinions have any more value than the average person. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.
The only real position I have is this:
If the election is too important to sit by and do nothing:
Read factcheck.org or some other objective site, and all the news and interviews you can.
Make an informed decision.
Vote.
Then, do something.
Donate.
Volunteer.
Work at a polling place, or on a campaign.
Follow local elections and vote in all of them.
Run for office.
Or find some other worthy cause and participate.
Arguing politics and sharing opinions is all well and good. But there are things we could be doing that will make a much bigger difference in the world than talking about the issues, or worrying about other people’s positions on them.
Shiloh Walker said on 10.04.08 at 04:58 AM • [link]
LMAO…oye, now THAT is an image.
Lucinda said on 10.04.08 at 05:10 AM • [link]
This is a touchy question for several reasons. In no particular order, my ten cents worth (inflation, you know…)
1 - Any author is just as entitled to their personal opinions about any given political issue or candidate as the taxi driver, the school teacher, the store owner, the housewife, and the lawyer in the same town (or any other given citizen).
1a - That said, I would far rather hear/read someone’s opinion stated in a rational manner - “I support candidate 5 because I have confidence in their economic plan and their voting history is consistent with what they’re saying” as opposed to “I support 5 and unless you’re a wrong-thinking nut-case, so will you!”. My biggest question isn’t which candidate do you support as “Can you explain to me in a few calm sentences why you support 5?” I may not support 5, but I’ll be much happier with a logical reason - ‘I agree with their view on issue 6, I like their voting history, I think they know what they’re talking about with _____’. Those are much better reasons than ‘a vote for 5 is a vote against 2!’ or ‘because I’ve always voted ____ and 5 is their candidate’ or ‘because 5 has a cool name’. Telling me that I’m stupid, ignorant or crazy for not agreeing with you (you in this case being any random obnoxious politically frothing person) will irk me on that topic and life in general.
1b - with recording and the internet, what you say will probably be around to haunt you forever. Try to say whatever it is intelligently, so that in six months, or six years you won’t be ashamed and appalled to have said whatever it is that just came out of your mouth.
2 - Being an actor doesn’t make someone an expert on how this country should be run, inheriting a fortune doesn’t, teaching sociology doesn’t (though that can give a better idea of how things are and have been), having a talk show or writing novels don’t make you an expert on how to fix the economy or run the nation. If I want an educated and informed opinion about the economy, I would look to an economist, or someone who has made a substantial amount of money through business & finance. If I want to hear an educated discussion about acting, then I’ll talk to actors/directors. I am frustrated by some people acting like acting in a movie (even a great movie, or a movie that makes major money) makes someone’s political opinions any more valid than the taxi driver, the airport security, or the hair-dresser’s. For that matter, wasn’t there a certain acting personality who claimed that if ___ was elected, the actor would then leave the country? I am dismayed when celebrities attempt to dictate the opinions of others by such publicity stunts (as I recall, ____ was elected, and Actor stayed put in Hollywood…) Say what you want, hopefully in a smart way, but don’t use anything but reason and logic to change my mind.
3 - that said, if I go to the site or blog of an actor or author, I’m not going to see who they want as the next president, I want to know about their next/current project. I don’t really want to know how they feel about the latest political activists or who they want as their local politicians (who probably are all in a different city/county/state than me). Of course, I also don’t want my kids teachers or bus drivers trying to tell them or me who should be the next political leader. This is America, I’m allowed to make up my own mind about who I vote for and you don’t have to know who I picked, damn it! There were huge fusses and debates and long campaigns to make it so. My enjoyment (or not) about their movie/book set in Victorian England shouldn’t depend on how they feel about candidate 6. And a piece set in Victorian England shouldn’t have debates about candidate 6 unless it’s a Victorian election.
4 - YES, I do feel like there is a terribly large amount of campaigning everywhere for a very, very, very long time. Especially from people who want to be the president and the people campaigning on their behalf. I’d be delighted if we didn’t start hearing about it two years before the election. That said, when Nov 4 rolls around, go vote (for all Americans 18 or older). Vote for the one you feel best suited (whichever one you feel that is. And for many of them, they won’t even be on my ballot.) for the office. But vote - or don’t complain about who is elected and what they do. Nov 5 can’t get here soon enough, because then all the political signs, ads and hoopla will go away.
5 - Ideally, any author, actor or entertainer could state their political opinion without any negative results. And ideally, Jack an Diane could get married and live happily ever after, and Gina at the diner could be happy with her love, and nobody would get bent out of shape because of the color or gender of someone’s significant other. And little children wouldn’t have birth defects or get cancer. Unfortunately, we don’t live in an ideal world. While you should be able to freely and safely say what you want (free speech is a great idea!), sometimes voicing your opinion has consequences, sometimes more and worse than what is/would be fair. This isn’t an ideal world, and life isn’t always fair. Think carefully before you speak. (and this is something I need to remember as well.)
5a - and yes, someone with 300 million dollars has fewer consequences if they say or do something stupid than Jack the football captain. Then again, more people are likely curious about what someone with 300 million dollars has to say. (still doesn’t give them more than one vote or make their opinion any more informed or better than mine. That only happens if they do their research about the issues.)
6 - Someone could have the exact same political opinions as you or me or Jesse and still write a horrible book. Or they could have opinions that are just about as opposite as you can get and write a great book. I prefer my reading materials not to beat me about the head with the author’s own political leanings. Use issues in the setting, but use them in a logical and well written fashion, please! A sci-fi setting where everyone lives in artificial domes would be a good place to fiddle with population controls, or extreme forms of birth regulation. It wouldn’t be a place to talk about the red-crested flitterwing and their shrinking habitat in the forest of Wherzat. Use you political views as a seasoning or a tool in your world-building, not as a weapon to assault the reader! (no, I’m not pointing any fingers.)
.... and now I’m going to try to be quiet and go back to non-political stuff. Too much politics can raise your blood-pressure and turn your stomach.
Selma said on 10.04.08 at 05:27 AM • [link]
I agree with Cheyanne McCray on all that she has posted.
Personally, I don’t want to know the political beliefs of my favorite authors. I look to my authors/books for an escape. And if I found out my favorite author happened to believe the total opposite of what I believe (politcally), it would ruin the escape for me.
And, by the way, I think both VP candidates did a remarkable job in the debate.
Wilma Howe-Bennett said on 10.04.08 at 05:39 AM • [link]
Hi, all:
I write a political blog (now you ALL know my dirty little secret!) and I LOVE it when an author takes a stand and gets INVOLVED. This is probably the single most important election that this country is EVER going to have and the lines of demarcation could NOT be clearer: A fake hero and his CLUELESS moll on one side, and an idealistic reformer and his sober, objective sidekick on the other. A liar on one side and a dreamer on the other. Which choice do I make? GEE, that’s a toughie: hope over fear. NO contest.
I’d like to see the authors themselves start a blog where they could put forth their views and the reasoning behind them. I realize that most of them are afraid of offending the folks that buy their books - or, worse, of looking foolish or partisan in their views. What they don’t realize is that their political views are already incorporated with their world view that they are writing about. Basically, if they’re comfortable being political, then they SHOULD be. If they aren’t then they shouldn’t say anything.
Blessings,
Wilma
Julie Leto said on 10.04.08 at 05:40 AM • [link]
I rarely talk about politics, and never on my blog. Wanna know why? Because I don’t know enough about it to make a good argument against someone who challenges my views. I’m very open-minded and listen to both sides and frankly, can see the good/bad of both candidates. I think the authors who are intelligent on the subject, and passionate (and not just passionate) should go for it if they are so inclined. But me? I’ll just post comments here and there.
HappyCat said on 10.04.08 at 07:18 AM • [link]
Now this is the kind of objective, levelheaded analysis we need in this election! Avoiding loaded words and opinion statements and striking at the heart of the matter with facts, statistics, and credible references. Persuasively said, indeed!
anu said on 10.04.08 at 07:24 AM • [link]
Well…yes. Why should readers see authors in any other light? I don’t know authors like their parents, children, neighbors or the PTA might know them. My relationship with the author is based on the product—the book—that they chose to put into the marketplace. Why am I obligated to care about authors’ opinions on anything beyond the products they sell and the industry in which they operate in?
Yes, authors are in a creative field, they’re uniquely positioned to comment on the world around them. But I have no obligation to hear them out. Does this mean I’ll rail against the author who expresses opinions on politics, knitting, gardening or the fluffiness of clouds? No. For the most part, I’ll simply ignore the posts while I try to find the author’s backlist. I honestly don’t care about most authors’ POVs and don’t want to care—and I can change my mind about that based on a whim.
But don’t tell me that I am obligated to see authors as anything more than creators of books I love. I don’t expect authors to care about my politics or my life, so you don’t get to guilt me into attending to yours.
Straight up: Romance authors are businesspeople. You’re selling a product. It is your responsibility to judge your audience, your environment, your content, your choices, your needs, your desires and your risks. And you don’t get to hold readers responsible for any of it.
Ann Somerville said on 10.04.08 at 08:40 AM • [link]
I’ve been thinking about Cheyenne’s comment for a while, and what I’ve realised is that not only is there a different tolerance for authorial opinions between romance and other genres, there’s a difference between subgenres within romance.
The m/m community started very largely in fandom with slash fiction. I’ve never seen slashers shy away from politics - in fact, they throw themselves into it enthusiastically, especially on issues about gay rights, feminism and racism. Anyone who told a slash writer that they need to shut up because their readers are all about the HEA (which, though not as mandatory as it is in het romance, is still largely expected by slash readers), would be mocked and end up being fandomwanked. Loudmouths are the norm in fandom, and the Big Name Fans hold forth and hold court with explicitly stated opinions on just about everything.
So to start writing original slash fiction - m/m - and suddenly find that nuh uh, you can’t talk about that kind of thing, and you certainly can’t be emphatic about it, and omigosh, you said ‘fuck’...well, it’s been enlightening, if not especially pleasant. Slashers just don’t get told, keep your mouth shut or we won’t read your stories (unless they’re expressing unpleasant opinions like black people are inferior or some such, which sadly does happen).
I think this is why I don’t feel Romance as an overarching umbrella is a particularly good fit for m/m authors. Yes, we write romance, but we don’t really write Romance. A lot of the rules imposed on traditional writers about fidelity, monogamy, and HEA, work awkwardly in gay stories (not that you can’t have all three, but you can have a perfectly good m/m story about guys who screw around before their HEA, and stories about unfaithfulness that don’t lead to breaking up).
I don’t know. All I know is that I really feel it’s a real imposition to be told that I have to shut up and be demure, if I want a career selling m/m stories. M/m and slash is a transgressive genre - we’re writing about relationships still not widely accepted in many societies, and sexual acts which are actually illegal in many places, not to mention women writing gay sex in teh first place raises a lot of eyebrows - and forthright views on politics and other social issues, to me, goes naturally with that.
Robin said on 10.04.08 at 10:14 AM • [link]
Reading through these comments, bleary-eyed from working, I’m struck by the weariness of political talk I’m encountering. Because I’m thrilled beyond thrilled that people are so full up with emotion and passion about this election that they cannot contain it. To me that signals that this country is finally *waking up* and getting engaged in the political process again after more than a decade of everything from passive functioning to overwhelmed bewilderment to catatonic despair.
Is it strident and off-putting and angry at times? Hell, yes. But I think that’s because we’re so out of practice as a country in talking politics that we’ve lost our stride and our sense of how to engage difference without division. The more practice we have, the better we’ll do, IMO.
Which leads me to the question about authors expressing their political views. In general, I think there are people who are comfortable expressing their views - period - and people who aren’t. Those who aren’t should not, IMO, force themselves to speak out, because they will just not feel comfortable with the process and may inadvertently create the very conflict they wish to avoid. Those who are comfortable speaking out will likely do so because that’s part of who they are, and that talk will be met with varying degrees of appreciation, criticism, questioning, etc.
Ultimately, I think those who are comfortable with speaking up and out are helping to create *a culture* of speaking out, and that with more practice, more participants, and more opportunities to participate, the Romance community will become better at having productive and constructive discourse around difficult topics and issues. And that if will be seen as less controversial for authors to speak out.
As it stands, though, perhaps because there’s still some newness in this online environment (and because those who blog are still early adopters to some degree) or because we’re out of practice, we’re seeing some of the same kind of stridency and conflict and weariness in Romancelandia that we see in all the political talk. And maybe it’s a sort of waking up, too, a different type of consciousness around how we can talk about things of and not of the genre.
IMO, if we’re patient and persistent, we’ll continue to grow into a community that is better practiced and more knowledgeable about how to argue and disagree and appreciate not only genre-specific issues but human-specific issues and social-specific issues, too, including sex, politics, and religion. Where we can embrace a much broader definition of civility (that is extends pretty darn far beyond politeness), a higher tolerance for tougher, harsher voices and opinions, and less anxiety about who’s “mean” (in fact, we probably politicize so-called meanness and niceness more readily than anything else, which is interesting in and of itself).
Snarkhunter: Perhaps you can talk to your department chair or school dean about what is and isn’t expected of you as junior faculty. Institutional cultures differ, of course, and faculty absolutely have reason to be concerned about being watched these days, but if your department chair is someone you can trust, s/he might be able to provide some guidance on how overtly active you can be outside the classroom.
Spam word: running37
Jocelyn said on 10.04.08 at 10:17 AM • [link]
You know, for all that I love Romance novels, when I’ve read too many all in a row, I tend to want to break into Romancelandia and start screaming about all the things that I feel are completely ignored (or at least skimmed over) in most romance novels - am I the only person that has ever wanted to break into a secret baby novel and start screaming about abortion? Or into a forced seduction scene and yell that you can’t change abusive men? Or at least pop by and give all those bluestocking spinsters books on codependency and a lecture on stalkers? I think that the complete avoidance of politics in Romance doesn’t just lead to authors avoiding politics - it leads them to avoid talking about anything politicized, which I think insults the readers, and cheapens the genre. Yeah, we all want our HEA but we live in the real world and any HEA is better for existing in something sort of.. y’know… close to a real world setting? I mostly read contemporaries, so this might be rougher on me than in historicals where you can write off not knowing about that shit as “period accuracy.”
At the same time, I don’t want to be led to one party or another by an author in his or her novels - I’d take that as a violation of my trust. In fact, I’ve never bought another Mary Janice Dickenson novel after reading “Heroine is a Republican member of PETA, and that totally makes sense.” (paraphrased, hopefully that’s obvious). So, color me a hypocrite, I guess.
Robin said on 10.04.08 at 10:35 AM • [link]
Do you think that Romance avoids politics or merely disguises them (or attempts to sublimate them)? As Laura Vivianco (I think) pointed out, there is much in Romance that has political significance. IMO it’s the pretense that the genre isn’t political that is a problem, because IMO that ironically invites and facilitates a politically-informed, even politically-centered reading of the books. And yeah, it can be cheapening, too.
Kercelia said on 10.04.08 at 12:16 PM • [link]
The fact that an author holds a position in which to reach so many people is all the more reason they should not hesitate to voice their opinions. They have a stake in our country just as their fan base has. I have knowledge of at least one famous author who is not shy about making his voice heard in the political arena. If entertainers can get involved I see no reason authors should not do the same. I would never hold an author’s political position against them if I liked their work.
Angelia Sparrow said on 10.04.08 at 03:27 PM • [link]
What Ann said in regard to m/m. Just giving a same-sex couple a HEA is a small political act, a rebellion against the scripts and laws that say “you must be miserable, closeted and die young.”
Jocelyn, I’m right there with you. I read a couple of the “secret baby” genre and just about screamed. The heroine slid into TSTL territory by never even having the thought of abortion cross her mind.
IMO, if readers don’t want my personal opinions, they should stay off my LJ. Go play in my nice, mostly noncontroversial writing blog. And if they have a problem with gays, they don’t need to be reading me in the first place.
snarkhunter said on 10.04.08 at 04:36 PM • [link]
Were you doing the interview in 1940?
Clare2e said on 10.04.08 at 10:10 PM • [link]
I’m so late to this party. I DO want to read about real issues being handled within the framework of fiction, and that may mean a character takes a position that conforms with one political camp or another, but that’s legit and interesting as long as it’s a good story and the character motivations feel true. Do it in a sophisticated way and you might even get me thinking.
No one agrees with me on every issue and it’s no biggie or personal affront. But I get tired of the knowing wink-nod jokes of people who assume I must agree (because I don’t look like a drooler or inhuman monster), so aren’t we all having a good laugh at the expense of the Others du jour, who are condemned for being stupid, judgmental, evil, etc. I think people don’t realize how pervasive that is these days. I’m exhausted from flinching when someone who somehow thinks they’re being even-handed and good-natured or using that catch-all for rudeness of “just kidding” is taking pieces out of my hide with their ISSUE-based swipes in whatever direction. “Hey at least this isn’t as bad for you as XXX is for the country, right?” I’ve got a thick hide, but weren’t we talking about cheese danishes? I find it so fatiguing, and I’m looking for some relief from the snarky asides.
I may support certain candidates and causes and vote, but I’m not going to argue, and don’t plan to try to change anyone’s mind unless it’s the right venue. That disengagement may be seen as cowardice or being too-nice. It feels like self-preservation and keeping my powder dry for the times that matter.
I DO dislike when famous people shout their loud opinions on topics unrelated to what made them famous from their oversized soapboxes. I hate that condescencion when someone is using their platform to “clue you in” on something that they can just tell you must know nothing about, because they never knew until last week, and they’re acting like they’ve discovered a new planet. Yes, you have a makeup trailer, therefore you know everything first and better. There can be a real vibe from people willing to inflict their enthusiasms on you that they have special, secret knowledge, and if only you understood X like they do, of course you’d agree. I don’t want all my leisure time filled with exhortations from people whose going-in assumptions given their tone (and it’s the tone that kills me, not the content) seems to be that I’m ignorant, unengaged with anything worthwhile already, and well behind their curve. By all means, put the donation or support buttons on your websites, and even sidebar to good, reputable sources that influenced you, but I’m really turned off by diatribes and polemics. My tolerance has worn thin enough that I may not be as open-minded and fair toward the author as I should be either.
I’m not trying to squelch anyone’s rights to their own views or to sharing them, but I think popular, even emerging, authors ought to realize their ability to disseminate their personal and possibly inexpert opinions is vastly superior to their audience’s (despite us all only getting one vote apiece), and be accordingly grateful and careful.
own18- My own 18 cents’ worth of angst
Bronwyn Parry said on 10.04.08 at 10:56 PM • [link]
Nope, Snarkhunter, it was just last month. To be fair, though, this came at the end of a long (half-hour) interview where we’d talked about a range of things to do with the genre, including some of my PhD survey results, which are rather handy to blast the mythology (prevalent here) that romance readers are dumb, incapable housewives without lives. It was actually a very good interview - one of the two guys in particular had researched very well, which is great, as it was a community radio station and both were volunteers. I think that the context of the question - and the guy did preface it by saying ‘this is going to sound a bit odd’ - came from the fact that we’d been talking about women’s books and reading and portrayals of women, and I’m guessing that there’s a local issue about school completion rates in their area. I’m fairly sure he wanted me to respond with ‘yes - finish school, go to uni, achieve your dreams and rule the world!’ Which I mostly did - although I emphasised the work for your dreams, whatever they are, and don’t forget to dream big.
So, while no politicians or political parties were mentioned in the course of the interview, as others have pointed out, there are many social/political issues implicit in the genre and in the reading and writing of it. I’m comfortable with that fact, and happy to talk courteously about those issues as relevant.
spamword: serious28 Yep, that’s about as serious as I’m going to get on a Sunday morning, and I am 28 - at heart, if not body.
sallahdog said on 10.05.08 at 05:01 AM • [link]
I personally don’t give a crap what a persons politics are… Its interesting, but doesn’t affect me one way or another… I am a democrat married to a republican and I still manage to sleep with him…
Heck, I would still read LKHs books if she wrote a good one, even if I think she is strange…. For me its about the book… But I admit to rarely visiting authors I like, blogs… Mainly because I am not that interested in the writing process… Now I do like authors who write about where they live, (i live in kansas, its pretty boring, even mundane in another state sounds pretty good to me)...
aby said on 10.05.08 at 09:08 AM • [link]
If someone would have asked me a year ago, I never would have thought an author’s political views affected my ability to read their book. But that all changed with Brockmann. After being slapped upside the head with her leftist comments, and assaulted by her OMG OBAMA IS THE SHIT!!!! message board posters, I can no longer buy her books. Maybe I’ll borrow from a friend who got it from the library. I love her characters, her story lines and her witty writing (the gay thing doesn’t bother me at all, btw)... but knowing how strongly she supports Obama makes me throw up a little in my mouth. Personally, I would prefer not to know about an authors personal life. If I hear something or read something even by accident, it can’t be erased from memory. If it’s a good thing, that’s fine. If it’s a bad thing (as percieved by me) it ruins the story. All I can think about while reading is that bothersome thing. And in this free (so far) society, I’m free to NOT buy her books.
In my opinion, political views don’t belong in professional atmospheres…unless you’re in Congress. Like the teachers who are openly supporting Obama. If I found out my child was in a class where the teacher preached about one Party or another, that child would go to a new school. I choose to teach them conservatism, and as a parent I still have that right. Authors and their blogs are along the same lines. If their blog is a personal one, not directly connected to their books, then hey, shout your views from the wi-fi mountain top. If they blog about their books, book tours, characters, etc… then politics should be left for other areas of their life. Actors are a different breed alltogether. They run off at the mouth for exposure, so free press will always trump tact and dignity.
There are a lot of comments here that mention discussing politics, religion or sex in mixed company. I was also taught not to broach those subjects if you want to keep a conversation civil. In this political climate, that’s even more true. I find it hard now to speak to several extended family members because of their blind lust of Obama and his used car salesman empty rhetoric. They refuse to listen to any dissenting word but yet couldn’t give one solid example of what he’s done that they liked besides Hope and Change. I could talk for an hour about his scary, freedom squashing, Government Will Save You - Just Give Us More Power ideology that would make their hair curl, but I don’t. I tried to explain once that racism, sexism, inequality in the workplace and high taxes are hallmarks of Democrats, but that almost blew up the house. The fact that I like McCain only a little more doesn’t come up either. So basically I’ve found that freedom of speech is a thing of the past for the most part, unless you agree with whomever you’re talking to. So I’ll just vote quietly and pray that liberals don’t get control so they can tell this bitter clinger how to live, and hopefully stay in the dark about my other favorite authors political views.
a
December Quinn/Stacia Kane said on 10.05.08 at 10:22 AM • [link]
Clare2e, I think you are awesome. Exactly what you said.
Trix said on 10.05.08 at 01:01 PM • [link]
Just returning to this again, there are two more points I want to make. I understand if people are expecting a neutral “this is how I write” blog, they might get disappointed by finding a more personal one. But if that is an author’s consistent blogging style, then I really don’t think people should quibble too much. If a publisher wants to restrict content that an author posts on a publisher’s sponsored site, fine. If an author started off a blog on the writing process and switched streams halfway through to do personal rants, that would be annoying. But if it’s clear what the blog style is, it’s consistent, and you think of it as TMI, fine, you’re welcome not to read.
But I don’t think people like Laurie R. King, Nicola Griffith or Ursula K. LeGuin are any less “professional” than those who choose not to discuss their political leanings (explicitly or implicitly).
As for refusing to buy books from an author whose views you disagree with, how is reading about them in a blog any different to hearing about them via other means? Celebrities have always done interviews, voted and discussed their votes, written letters to the editor, attended church and so on, in the public eye. Blogs just make dissemination of views easier - and I think that’s a positive thing.
Trix said on 10.05.08 at 01:19 PM • [link]
aby, I don’t think anyone on any side of the political spectrum would like teachers presenting their views in the classroom. What they choose to do outside the classroom is entirely up to them However, you get people presenting their religious views inside US and overseas classrooms all the time. I think that’s diabolical, personally - if people want their children to be religiously indoctrinated, that’s what church/the home is for. And so too with politics.
As for your assertion of racism, sexism and inequality in the workplace being hallmarks of Democratic administrations (I think most people could actually stand to pay more taxes, especially the rich, so I’ll grant that one, although I believe the tax burden went up under Bush), that’s an interesting point of view. When was the last time a Republican govt passed legislation addressing any of those areas positively? Lincoln? (I’m not trying to be facetious - I’m at a genuine loss).
But fair enough if you found an author’s blog offputting (even if it didn’t come across in her fiction) - I think if authors are willing to state their views so forthrightly, they are undoubtedly willing to risk a drop in readership (although I think pro-gay-rights and pro-Republican would be a fairly small group).
Ann Somerville said on 10.05.08 at 01:37 PM • [link]
Yup. And since I’m writing in a genre which isn’t going to appeal to conservative christians, I’m very happy to have my liberal credentials front and centre. Frankly, if readers find authors’ political views offputting, they should be aware that their own can skeeve us the hell out too. No way do I want someone reading my stuff who thinks anyone on the left or of a liberal inclination is evil, and I’m damn sure if anyone told they enjoyed my writing and thought Tina Palin was a great VP pick, I’d probably spew pea green soup all over them, Exorcism-style.
It’s funny though, how you can travel through life, insulated in your own little bubble. I hang with people who vote Tory and Labour (that’s Republicans and pretend socialists for you Americans), who have wildly differing opinions about things like taxation and regulation, but all of my circle are either atheists, or extremely tolerant people of faith. We’re all pro gay marriage, pro equal rights for all, pro choice. All well-educated, well-read and curious about the world. It’s really shocking to step outside that and realise hey, there are people who read and write similiar stuff to us, who think gay people are evil, won’t vote for Obama because he’s black, and think Sarah Fey is perfectly right about abortion. It takes some adjusting - the first reaction is get those people away from me. Largely that reaction never disappears. Sometimes, however, someone can articulate their opinion in a way which doesn’t persuade me to agree with them, but helps me understand how good, well-meaning people can hold views so utterly at odds with my own.
Unfortunately, all it usually does when someone tries to explain why gay marriage is a bad thing is make me want to beat them with a club. But I can’t see what harm there is in making alternative viewpoints available. The books and stories are all we’re selling. The blogs are free optional extras. If the possibility that an author might not agree with you is that distressing, then just don’t read the blogs. Seems simple to me.
cold77 - not in Queensland :)
Liz said on 10.05.08 at 04:06 PM • [link]
Aby, this made me laugh and laugh.
At the risk of getting into a history debate, one of the presidents who did the most for civil rights and women’s rights in the workplace and out was Franklin D. Roosevelt. What party was he? Oh yeah, Democrat. What did JFK do? I forget. Oh yeah, he championed civil rights in this country at a time when it was extremely unpopular to do so. What was that bill he introduced? The Civil Rights Act?
Neither Democrats and Republicans are blameless when it comes to ignoring or flat out promoting racism, sexism, and inequality but, hell, I can’t let a statement like that pass.
On the other topic. I think what bothers me about this belief that authors should keep their opinions to themselves for fear of alienating readers smacks of a kind of censorship. If an author has a blog on a publisher’s website and it is purely supposed to be about their books and their writing then they should keep personal opinions about politics, religion, sex, the dinner they ate, etc out of it. But many authors these days have blogs on websites they own. They’ve established a precedent of talking about their writing process and books, yes, but also of talking about their personal life, the things they believe in, the things they like much like the average person with an online blog or journal does.
If you made it a point to read their blog, non-professional topic posts and all, then I don’t see how you can suddenly decide they shouldn’t discuss politics because it might offend you or turn you off.
The “dance, monkey, dance” “you’re only here for my entertainment” idea bugs me. You aren’t obligated to read an author’s, or anyone else’s opinion on politics, but neither should that person be obligated to ignore that topic if it’s something they feel passionate enough to talk about on their personal blog.
It’s like, ok let’s say I have a personal blog but I’m also a professor of civil rights history (I’m not) and I often used that blog to discuss that topic, the courses I’m teaching, the research I’m doing for my next book or article. My readers know that’s my profession and they read those posts with interest and questions. But it’s also my personal blog so sometimes I use it to discuss topics outside my professional capacity, as one does. We all talk about things that have nothing to do with what we do as professionals. To say “oh don’t discuss politics/religion/novels/movies I only want to read about your job as that’s all that interests me about you” is insulting.
We are not the sum total of what we do for a living, regardless of how much we love doing it, and no one, even if they’re in the public eye, should be prohibited from expressing a personal opinion on a personal blog for fear someone they don’t even know might not like it. Certainly they should do so in a rational and logical manner because there’s no reason to needlessly piss people off.
snarkhunter said on 10.05.08 at 05:35 PM • [link]
I *think* Aby’s referring to affirmative action—the argument that affirmative action is both racist and sexist is a common one, especially among conservatives. Of course, that’s a particularly sticky argument, and I don’t really have a strong sense one way or another about its merits. I can see how preference for one race or sex is bad, but at the same time, it is a fact that most places will hire a white man above a woman or a person of color (or especially a woman of color) if all the other qualifications are equal. So.
Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe equal pay for women is sexist. *eyeroll*
Clare2e said on 10.05.08 at 06:33 PM • [link]
DecemberQuinn/Stacia- Aw Shucks, that’s nice. And here I go saying no one ever agrees with me : )
middle97- thank odin’s underpants we’re past the middle of the election season, because it already feels 97 years long.
Kathleen O'Reilly said on 10.05.08 at 08:03 PM • [link]
I think a writer has to decide which is more important to them, professing a political belief and campaigning in a spirited manner for one candidate, or growing their readership. If you look at the map of romance sales, there’s a LOT of red state territory, and although I have no stats on the subject of Republicans for Romance vs. Democrats for Romance, I would bet that they are either split in half, or even tilting to the Republican side of the political fence (except in m/m, f/f, or f/f/m—notice the exclusion of m/m/f and I did that on purpose, because I think you would be surprised).
Of course a writer is entitled to express their opinion in their blog. This is America (well, my computer sits in America, YMMV). Even more important, this is the Internet, where anything can be said, it does not need to be factual, and yes, it will be google-able for eternity.
However, a writer should speak out fully realizing the consequences of such freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is never free, and it’s disingenuous for people to believe that it is. Some of your readership will agree with you, but a good 50% probably will not, no matter what you express, except possibly Novelists for the KKK, and then, hey, you’re probably pissing everybody off, so good luck with that. A writer should decide in advance, do I care about that other half of my potential readership? Do I care whether they read my books or not, and more importantly, can I afford to risk that hit in sales?
Never assume that the entire world agrees with your political/religious/sexual beliefs. It will bite you in the political Ass, or Elephant, depending on your choice of cute animal mascot.
IMHO, this isn’t censorship. Censorship is someone else telling me I can’t express my beliefs, a publisher, a contract, or whatever. If I choose not to talk about my beliefs, it’s my right to keep my mouth shut, just as it’s my right not to.
We all like to think we’re above the fray, but there is fray in politics. Much fray.
Jana Oliver said on 10.05.08 at 08:27 PM • [link]
I have close friends who have cautioned me not to discuss politics on my blog. I do anyway. I try to remain reasonably respectful to those I am dissing, and I point fingers at any and all, no matter of party distinction. You act stupid, you’re fair game (myself included). There may be readers who will not agree. So be it. Just because I’m an author doesn’t mean that I can’t express my views.
As of inserting politics in my novels—I don’t do that. I write about the bigger themes: poverty, social responsibility, prejudice, Big Brother, etc. and allow the readers to work matters out for themselves.
LiJuun said on 10.05.08 at 08:35 PM • [link]
As someone who is wholeheartedly voting 3rd party (I hate both our “top” two picks), I couldn’t possibly be that picky when going to the bookstore. Just about everyone is picking either Obama or McCain, so I wouldn’t have anything left to buy if I decided to get all uppity about not buying someone’s work if they are “wrong.”
I love it when people have political opinions, even when they’re different than my own. I hate political apathy to such a great extent that I would probably avoid buying someone’s work if they were asked who they were voting for and said, “Oh, I don’t really care about that sort of thing.” I just want to see people involved.
Kathleen O'Reilly said on 10.05.08 at 08:58 PM • [link]
Jana,
IMHO, it sounds like you’re handling yourself well, and as long as any author knows what they’re doing, and understands the risks involved, it’s definitely their choice, as if should be. Honestly, I don’t condemn anybody for speaking out, but I think there is a subset of people who speak in such a manner that I don’t think they have fully grasped what they’re doing.
Diane/Anonym2857 said on 10.05.08 at 10:06 PM • [link]
Clare2e and December and others who so ably expressed similar views: Word. Preach it, sisters! So often it’s not the opinion itself, it’s the tone that grates.
Most of my friends and coworkers are hard-core yellow dog democrats and proud of it. I laughingly tell them I’m the ‘token conservative’ they keep around so they can claim diversity of thought. While some would tell you that I’m just slightly left of Attila the Hun (and compared to them, I probably am! LOLOL), I’ve always considered myself to be on the conservative side of moderate – fiscally conservative and basically libertarian in other ways. I register as a republican because it allows me to vote in the primaries, and generally end up going the GOP route in the end, but it’s not because I am fond of the party. It’s because, especially in our predominantly two-party system, in order to get anything accomplished, party will always trump person. And if I must claim one over the other, I’ll usually go the conservative route, as to me the far left fringe is much more uncontrollable and therefore scarier than the far right. I had a good laugh when I took the test AgTigress recommended, as I’m even more moderate than I thought I was. Pretty much dead center, in fact. Whodathunkit?
Which makes me wonder, considering how often the elections have been splitting almost 50/50 for years now, how many others out there are like me.
I am of above-intelligence, well-read, and opinionated. I know what I believe, and I know why. I can defend my opinions when asked, but my ego doesn’t rest on whether or not someone agrees with me. By all means – disagree! Your opinion is just as important as mine. I have no problem disagreeing with a person’s opinion/ideology/religion/lifestyle, etc, and still accepting their right to have a differing POV. They are just as entitled to their convictions as I am to mine. That doesn’t make me intolerant – it simply means I disagree. And I should be allowed to do so…if not, the other person is the intolerant one, not I. I personally am not so concerned with ‘what’ people think as I am concerned ‘that’ they think at all. Give me someone who thinks for themself over a lemming spouting the popular talking point du jour any time. Everyone is entitled to their opinion – even when they are wrong. I just want them to know what they believe first, and be able to defend it with reason instead of name-calling.
I am a news junkie. I follow all the networks, and my mind boggles every time I hear someone (speaking generally, not addressing any specific person here) claim that the American mass media is not more liberal-leaning than conservative. If your facts come only from the Daily Show, clever though it is, then I would respectfully suggest that you broaden your media viewing and look/listen with detachment and objectivity. With the exception of Fox, the networks are all liberally-skewed, no matter how objective they claim to be. Newspapers, radio and internet are (guessing here) at least 90% liberal. Which begs the question, if the country is as left-leaning as the liberals claim, why is it that the elections have been so close for years, and why are these relatively few conservative outlets so successful? And why are the liberal ones so threatened by that success? Maybe there is a real hunger for a differing perspective.
Perhaps one answer may be because those of us in the middle are tired of all the anger and patronizing comments, and having our opinions discounted as being ignorant or less worthy. If you drop the more extreme ends of the media conversation (Air America on the left, Limbaugh and Hannity on the right, for example) and look at the tone of the remaining conversation, the majority of the anger, bitterness and denigration seem to come from the democratic side. Which is fine for those who agree with you, but very off-putting for those who don’t. If you doubt me, scroll up and objectively look at the tone of most of the posts above, and it’s hard to argue that most of the anger and insults are directed from the democratic toward the republican side. I’d wager there is a large, mostly silent group in the middle who don’t agree with either end of the spectrum, but are turned off enough by the behavior of the most vocal democrats that it benefits the republicans. Is that your intent? I doubt it.
And that large, mostly silent middle will also be the group most likely to be offended by comments they consider overbearing – enough to perhaps impact sales of books. That’s not a matter of censorship, just reality. We are all free to think/feel/say/do what we choose, but must accept the consequences of our actions when others disagree.
By all means, tell me what you think, and why. But please don’t insult my intelligence by assuming your position is the Only True Voice of Reason and I am utterly clueless. And give me specific examples; don’t just call the other person an idiot. This isn’t junior high. We’re all adults here – chronologically, anyway. While I don’t think everyone should be required to ‘play nice,’ I definitely think there is room for a modicum of civility in our discourse. It is possible to attack a principle or idea without attacking the person who states it. And if one starts a dialogue with a personal attack, the communication part of the conversation has pretty much ended already.
I don’t generally get involved in political conversations because frankly, it’s not a ditch I’m willing to die in, and therefore not worth the energy. Besides, the people yapping the loudest and most insulting are usually least inclined toward logical thinking. And if one dares to question their logic, they’ll just yell louder. IMO, that’s not debate… that’s exhaustion.
Diane
aby said on 10.05.08 at 10:10 PM • [link]
If you take an honest look, it’s been the Democrat Party who consistently show their true colors when it comes to racism. Democrats portray anyone who opposes affirmative action as racist. But affirmative action, as currently practiced, is based on the assumption that African-Americans are incapable of competing with whites. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton profess to want to uplift African Americans, but racism is big money. They would go out of business if the topic of race was ever truly put to rest. Democrats professed to ‘help’ the minorities of America with welfare programs and social services… look where that got them. Instead of lifting up individuals to help themselves, to better themselves with hard work and determination and the freedoms America offers for unlimited successes, they say “Here, take this handout from the Government and keep voting Democrat because we’ll take care of you.” It’s patronizing and shameful. Democrats have been in control of most inner cities for the last 40 yrs and people are still unhappy with conditions there, and yet at every election Dems blame Republicans for the conditions and incite people to cast a protest vote against Repubs. They want minorities to stay angry and bitter at Repubs.
You also need to learn a few things about what JFK did. He is said to be a supporter of civil rights, but he voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act as a senator. After JFK became president, he opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King. JFK and Bobby had King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist to undermine him. During his time in the presidency, he appointed 5 supporters of segregation to the federal judiciary. He wasn’t a supporter of the Civil Rights movement, but would have been outed as a racist if he was openly against it because the public opinion tide made it’s passage inevitable. It was purly political self-preservation.
And on Roosevelt… If you’ll do some research, Roosevelt wanted passage of the New Deal. He couldn’t afford to offend Southern Dems by challenging the Jim Crow system. He didn’t want to support civil rights and his admin was quiet about it until the 30’s when Eleanor began to speak up about black Americans. With the attack on Pearl Harbor creating a national attitude in favor of ensuring freedom for all people, Roosevelt was pressured to curb discrimination of minorities and women. To avoid embarasesment of a racial protest in Washington, he issued Executive Order 8802 in 1941, which had to do with fair employment. Without Eleanor’s persisitent influence and WW2, the goals of civil rights and equal employment would never have been his legacy.
In current news, an example too. There were umpteen Republicans who opposed the governments strong-arming of lending institutions giving sub-prime loans to people who couldn’t pay it back in the late 90’s and into 2000. A lot of these people getting sub-primes were minorities, and the Democrats social agenda pushed banks to give them loans against common sense banking practices. Republicans who opposed this were branded as racists because they were said to not want minorities to get a house. Was this racist of Repubs? No way. It’s smart lending in the financial world. But now look where we are. Dems once again ignore the consequences of governmnet handouts and the economy falls. Now we’re another 700T in debt. Dems love to point fingers, don’t you think that if one Republican was responsible for this mess that they’d be behind bars by now? This falls in the lap of Dems but where are the hearings? Where are the investigations? There won’t be any. They’ve protected their own and put control of Fannie and Freddie back into the hands of the idiots who broke them.
I’m one of those non-racist, gay rights, womens choice, limited religion conservatives (yes, there are a lot of us out there). I believe in personal responsibility and government getting OUT of the way of free Americans. This will be my last post, because I’m sure you disagree with every fact and we could go on forever. And the Bitches would probably get annoyed. And I have housework to do. Happy weekend, all.
a
RfP said on 10.05.08 at 10:49 PM • [link]
And that’s the difficulty of having a civil conversation on politics. I don’t see bashing specific American political parties as remotely what this post was about, but sometimes it’s difficult to discuss issues without making sweeping statements, and sometimes it’s difficult to discuss what’s next without pointing fingers, and pretty soon we have an internet clusterfuck.
Liz said on 10.05.08 at 11:10 PM • [link]
Aby, you’re right, of course. I let my political opinions and my dislike at being lumped in with the “racism, sexism, and inequality in the workplace” that’s the “hallmark” of the Democratic party, even though I’m sure that wasn’t your intention, get in the way of history.
I have, by the way, researched and studied FDR and his New Deal polices. I am aware of Eleanor Roosevelt’s influence and of the influence of other prominent men and women in getting FDR to enact changes that benefited African Americans and women. Of course, it has also been 3 years and a lot of research since then so I’ve forgotten some specifics.
I am also aware that Democrats did oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1957 largely for political reasons. But there is a reason many Southern Democrats eventually jumped party to the Republican Party, and that’s because they saw the Democrat Party as becoming too liberal, it was changing from the party of the 19th century into the party we know it as today. LBJ opposed the CRA of 1957 because he couldn’t afford to lose the support of the Southern Dems who were, I’ll admit it, composed of a large number of people who were racist and sexist but that still doesn’t negate the fact that it was a Democratic administration that pushed through the far more broad CRA of 1964 even if that same decision was politically motivated. Of course it was. I’m not dumb.
This will be my last post, because I’m sure you disagree with every fact and we could go on forever.
I don’t disagree with every fact. I merely disagree with your interpretation of some of those facts.
Alpha Lyra said on 10.05.08 at 11:16 PM • [link]
I’m not a published writer, but I have a blog with about 50 readers where I talk about writing, books, and family life. Lately I’ve been making some political posts. I feel like I can hardly help it—the campaign occupies tremendous mindspace. I think about it a lot, and I always want to talk about what I’m thinking about. Furthermore, I’m thrilled to see political posts from my own blogging friends. I’m very interested right now; I look forward to those posts. And since there aren’t enough political posts to satisfy my thirst for them, I’ve added political blogs to my reading list.
I try not to post too often about politics on my blog because I feel it’s a bait-and-switch for my readers. These people came to my blog for the writing, books, and family content, not for politics, so I try to limit myself to one political post per week. It’s just hard to resist. I’m not really campaigning for anybody (though my candidate preference is obvious to those who read my blog), but blogging is a way of getting my thoughts in order. I have to organize my thinking on something in order to write a coherent blog post on it, and then the comments I get in response help refine my thoughts further. I had one person unfriend me over a political post, but that turned out to be a hidden benefit. I didn’t like him and was relieved to have him off my list.
If I were a published writer, I’d probably keep two blogs, one like the one I write now, and one just for writing-related posts. I know several authors who do this. And when I subscribe to one of those author’s blogs, I always choose the personal one.
snarkhunter said on 10.06.08 at 12:52 AM • [link]
Diane—you know, I have always believed this to be true, but have recently come to question that belief. And what made me question that belief? Bristol Palin.
The news outlets, liberal-leaning and conservative-leaning (which is to say all of them and then Fox, respectively), fell over themselves to say that it showed Sarah Palin’s normalcy, that her family deserved privacy, blahblahblah.
But then I imagined another young woman, about Bristol’s age when she was really in the public eye, and what would’ve happened if she’d gotten pregnant. I’m thinking of Chelsea Clinton. And if Chelsea had gotten pregnant, the media would have excoriated the Clintons. They’d have been strung up in the town square as proof of our country’s declining morality. And while Fox might’ve led the charge (with General Bill O’Reilly at their head), CNN and all of the other networks would’ve followed. (MSNBC, which is really the Fox of the left, would have brought up the rear.)
Think I’m exaggerating? Why is it that when a Republican politician is caught out engaging in illegal sexual behaviors (Mark Foley, anyone?), there’s little more than a few days’ worth of commentary and relatively few repercussions. But when Clinton, who is admittedly not someone I’d want to be alone in a room with, participates in consensual sexual activities with another adult, there’s literally a years-long federal investigation, with the media salivating after the scandal. (And, yeah, he lied under oath. But let’s not pretend that was the real reason why the majority went after him.)
In short, I am not sure I believe in the media’s bias (with a few notable exceptions, including MSNBC, Fox, and, yeah, Air America, which doesn’t even pretend to be unbiased). The media as a whole are looking for ratings, and they’ll do what it takes to get those ratings. Party politics be damned.
Jana Oliver said on 10.06.08 at 01:02 AM • [link]
Kathleen
I one of those who believe you should speak truth to power, no matter whether they be Dems or Republicans. Not that they listen, mind you (smirk) but it does make me feel I’m doing something, at least. Besides voting, that is.
Jana
Robin said on 10.06.08 at 02:29 AM • [link]
IMO the widespread belief that the media has a liberal bias is one of the most successful—and politically profitable—lies of the last 30 years. I mean, we still believed this after we found out that the New York Times sat on the domestic spying story FOR A YEAR at the request of the White House, after it took the British Observer and the BBC to break the story of voter purging (i.e. perfectly legitimate voters—mostly democrats, mostly Blacks—purged from the voting rolls) in Florida during the 2000 election (as well as other instances of state purging during the 2004 election), after CBS edited those McCain interviews to cover some of the worst mistakes, after ABC and the Washington Post got caught omitting poll information that was favorable to Obama during some of their poll reporting on the two presidential candidates.
For a more detailed list of examples, check out Eric Alterman’s book “What Liberal Media? The Truth About Bias in the News.” Of course Alterman’s been dismissed by some as a liberal operative, but that’s part of the beauty about the liberal bias argument. It’s more subtle beauty is that the media is so sensitive to this oft-repeated refrain is that they now go out of their way to NOT look biased, which pushes them in another direction entirely.
So much of the US media is corporatized these days, I think we need to re-think the whole notion of politics as it relates to the *production* and *consumption* of news: the lack of real competition among media outlets, the way profit impacts corporate-owned, conglomeratized media, and the fundamental tensions between democracy and the free market, and the way those tensions intersect right at the point of the mainstream press.
Diane/Anonym2857 said on 10.06.08 at 03:07 AM • [link]
Snarkhunter,
I agree with your breakdown about some media outlets being more biased than others. I also agree that the main goal is ratings. However, I don’t think the two points have to be mutually exclusive. I’m more inclined to believe that there is media bias – just that ratings and revenue will always trump that bias. They’ll all lead with the story that will get them the ratings, but will still manage to skew it to their way, at least as much as they possibly can.
As to the Bristol/Chelsea comparison, it’s impossible to know how that would have panned out. It would probably depend on how the Clintons had handled it. Undoubtedly, the Bill O’Reilleys of the world would have had a field day with it regardless, but I would hope (she says in best Polyanna voice, LOL) that most of the media would do largely what was done this time – make their snarky comments, point out any hypocrisies they think they see, then leave the kids out of it. Especially since it really could happen in any family, regardless of politics, these days, so there’s not a lot of room to throw rocks amid all the glass. Besides, I think that part of the reason the media backed off relatively quickly, harsh though they were (or not harsh enough if you wish), in regard to Bristol was because of the example that the Clintons set with Chelsea. Their policy always was to ‘say what you want about them, but leave their little girl out of it.’ I respected them (and anyone else in the same position) for doing that. I still remember the SNL skit that took place shortly after the Clintons came into office in which Wayne and Garth made some comments about how Chelsea lacked the ‘hotness’ of previous White House daughters, but she was young and hopefully she’d outgrow her homeliness. I remember cringing when I watched, as I could just imagine how hurtful that would be to a pre-teen girl, but I doubt it was specifically said out of political malice. Hillary went all medieval on the network, and it was edited out by the time the west coast feed aired. Mega props to her for defending her kid.
And I personally believe that when a politician or other public person of trust, regardless of party, is caught in illegal/unethical behavior, they should be publicly called out and shamed at very least for their hypocrisy, and even booted out of office and/or prosecuted if the offense is egregious enough to warrant it. Should they have impeached Clinton? I dunno. My gut reaction is that it sets a really bad example when the highest ranking politician commits perjury and is allowed to get away with it, so yeah – there was reason. But it was also definitely a witch hunt, and a costly one at that. Ironically, had he just said, ‘yeah, I did it – get over it,’ rather than denying it and daring them to prosecute, it probably would have ended right there. At least from a legal perspective. The media would have kept it going, regardless, and spun it toward whatever direction gave them the best ratings.
So, yes, there’s definitely bias, IMO (and Robin, I would cynically consider Alterman a liberal operative, just like there are plenty of conservative operatives out there who will promote it from the other side). It’s the nature of the beast. Like when CS Lewis, discussing a different ‘beast’ in The Screwtape Letters , explains how the devil is so successful: it’s really easy to go about the devil’s work when no one believes in the devil anymore.
I just think we should all think more critically, and be a bit more open-minded in what we see, read, and hear. Not so open-minded that our brains leak out, but at least have enough room in there to be able to think about the other POV, process and weigh it against our own inclinations, rather than just discounting it w/o consideration.
But that’s digressing from the point of whether authors and celebrities should share their political views, eh? Not to mention no doubt raising the blood pressure of the Clinton fans, which I honestly wasn’t even trying to do… sorry. I’ll shut up now.
Diane
Diane/Anonym2857 said on 10.06.08 at 03:08 AM • [link]
well damn. that’s what I get for attempting to put codes in there.
Sorry for all that bold type, everyone.
Diane
stepping away from the keyboard now…
snarkhunter said on 10.06.08 at 05:23 AM • [link]
I totally agree with this point. I just disagree with the assumption that ALL media (except Fox, of course) automatically have a liberal bias. Bias, yes. Absolutely. But a total liberal bias? Even if all journalists skew left, there would still be a contingent of good, honest journalists who would try keep that out of their reporting.
I also feel this way b/c of the supposed liberal bias of academia. Yes, the majority of college professors are left-leaning, and I know there have been instances of anti-conservative bias against both students and faculty, both of which are and should be unacceptable. However, I am also aware, as someone within the culture, that being left-leaning does not automatically make one biased. Or, perhaps more accurately, owning one’s biases at least means one can, like the honest journalist, do one’s best not to let them interfere with teaching. So when I hear that 75% of college professors (or whatever it is) are Democrats, I fail to see how that’s a problem, unless there’s definitive proof—or ANY proof!—that all or even most of those people are discriminating against conservative voices in the classroom.
Tina C. said on 10.06.08 at 03:43 PM • [link]
The following is a quote from a column in my local newspaper from a minister that writes a Faith & Values column every Saturday.
I rather think that he’s right—trying getting more than a couple of people to agree on the simplest thing, let alone a vast conspiracy involving thousands of people, is like trying to herd cats. How would they enforce such an agenda? How would they keep the disgruntled and/or undoctrinated from breaking ranks? Wouldn’t you have to churn out your reporters and pundits in some sort of Stepford Leftie Reporter factory to achieve such widespread results? Unfortunately, as seen in “experiments conducted by political scientist John Bullock at Yale University,” “misinformation can exercise a ghostly influence on people’s minds after it has been debunked—even among people who recognize it as misinformation. In some cases, correcting misinformation serves to increase the power of bad information.” The Power of Political Misinformation
It leaves me baffled as to what anyone can do to dispell the myths, misinformation, and outright lies.
I don’t know—you’ve got one basis of comparision to how they might have reacted. Think Jamie Lynn Spears.
What Bill O’Reilly said about Bristol Palin:
What O’Reilly said about Jamie Lynn Spears:
Two things—you can say, “Well, that’s just Bill O’Reilly.” True, but it’s not like he was the only one jumping on that particular bandwagon. He wasn’t even the most egregious. And second, of course, is that Sarah Palin isn’t Lynne Spears by any stretch of the imagination. But really, does anyone think that O’Reilly would have fallen closer to the Bristol Spears commentary if it had been Chelsea Clinton than to the Jamie Lynn Spears version? He and others of his ilk would have vilified her, the Clintons, and their entire “liberal, left-wing” constituency for attempting to further corrupt the youth of America. Meanwhile, I somehow doubt that the rest of the media would have been much kinder. But maybe that’s just my cynicism showing.
Lee Rowan said on 10.08.08 at 04:59 AM • [link]
TTThomas..I’ll have to look up your writing. Congratulations to you both—beautiful wedding!
Do I stop buying books or films if someone supports a cause I find repellent? Absolutely. No Curves, no Mall-Wart, no Gibson—I stopped reading one mystery writer when she had yet another ‘crazed environmentalist’ as a villain. (To me, an eco-terrorist is someone who poisons a river with cyanide while mining the gold upstream. I like this planet.)
To the “liberal media bias” folk (and thank you, Robin, for the references)—95% of the media is owned by the 5 corporations that own the Republican party—-which, I agree, is not what it was when I started voting and could in good conscience vote for people in both parties. “Conservative” used to mean something worthwhile back then; there were moderates and liberals and conservatives in each party.
I am, for the record, socially liberal and fiscally moderate. I don’t think either party has a perfect record. But I think the Republicans have been hijacked by the Dominionists, and those people are determined to turn the US into a religious state (I would not say “Christian” because they essentially are old-testament fundamentalists.) Sarah Palin belongs to one such church; the Human Rights Campaign went to Alaska to find some of her ‘gay friends’ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfL2l1dk8nA) and could hardly find anyone willing to speak on-camera.
Liberal media? In 2000, I was appalled at the TV images of republicans storming the polling place in Dade County and interfering with the elections. It made me think of Brownshirts. By 2004, ads for Democrats were censored in Columbus, Ohio, where I lived—the Republican-owned network stations literally would not air ads that rebutted the false claims being made against Democratic candidates. Same in 2006. In 2008, the only place one could find out that journalists were being barred from the GOP convention and even arrested (Ellen Goodman was arrested and held for days) was on the Internet. We saw the war in Vietnam, in the 70’s; it galvanized the nation. Today…? How many thousands dead, and we don’t even see the flag-draped coffins, and Ted Koppel is blacked out when he wishes only to read a list of the war dead. Censorship is a reality, and many people do not even realize it’s happening.
And, please—can we let Franklin Roosevelt—who only got the country out of its last Republican depression—rest in peace? The issue at hand is the last 8 years of economic disaster, and it wasn’t Bill Clinton’s blow job that caused that, though any minute now I expect someone to claim it was. If we want Pols Behaving Badly, how about Warren G Harding, darling of Marion, Ohio, who scammed the nation with the Teapot Dome scheme—more rich boys skimming off the cream for themselves—and knocked up his teenage mistress in the Oval Office? Republicans have a monument to him up in Marion that looks like a damned Greek shrine. Do I care about WGH? Not in the slightest; his shenanigans have no relevance to the current mess and neither do JFK’s. I’m just fed up with the one-sided snark.
Back to what TTT said; I am female and married to a woman, the finest human being I have ever known; we moved to Canada to legalize our relationship after a bunch of liars pushed an anti-gay-marriage amendment through in Ohio. Liars? Yes. There were ads circulating that told deadbeat dads they’d be free of child support and alimony if Issue 1 passed, and that was only one of the many false claims being made… just the way equality opponents are now spreading rumors in California that churches will lose tax-exempt status if the anti-equality amendment fails. And gee, isn’t it interesting? During the casino scandal, it came out that they’d used the gay-marriage issue to “bring out the crazies” to vote them into office. That is a direct quote from the record of one of the Republicans involved in the casino bribery scheme.
Look at the tactics: The “Obama is a terrorist/Muslim/BLACK, OMG!! propaganda is not based on facts. But the fact is that McCain was indeed involved in the Keating scandal and got off damned lightly, he has voted with Bush on nearly every issue and he is running on a platform that promises business as usual. And his running mate is no more qualified to be President than I am to fly a 747.
By the way, everything that I have mentioned above can be substantiated with research. The Ohio vote scams are things I personally witnessed.
Re actors/writers/etc expressing an opinion—if Ahnold can run for Governor, why the hell shouldn’t Al Franken rn for Congress? My view is that writers often do what’s called “Research” as part of our job; that is, we find out facts. Actors often travel to places most of us never see, and their observations can inform their actions. Do “entertainment” people have opinions? Sure. Can any human being be mistaken? Absolutely. But… do we not, if we have any ability at all to communicate, have a responsibility to communicate when we see wrongdoing occur?
I believe we do.
I put information about my books and my writing on my website. If that’s all anybody wants to know about me, that’s just fine. If they feel a need to know more about me—that’s their choice.
My livejournal is more personal, and hell, yes, it’s political. Bland and chirpy just ain’t my style. My life is political—and it is a life, not a lifestyle.
I have left the land where I was born for the same reason my grandfather left Europe ninety years ago—to find a country where I could live with the same civil rights as any other person, because the government has, over the past 8 years, turned “faith and values” into code for “I want everyone to live by my tiny-minded fundamentalist beliefs and YOU’D BETTER DO WHAT I SAY.” Am I angry that the bully-boy attitude of the “southern strategy” has allowed a few of the very rich to loot the entire nation? You bet. Am I angry that the attitude in Congress has become “We’ve got to do this FAST! instead of “We had better do this RIGHT?” Yup.
And it’s interesting that the response is so often, “Oh, you Democrats are so ANNNGRY!” Or, if one is not angry, the Democrats are wusses. Just shut up and do what you’re told… or shut up and entertain me—same difference.
There are times when anger is an appropriate response. Even the Dalai Lama says anger can be helpful if it motivates one to stand up against injustice. I can imagine the average Joe or Susan in Colonial America…. ‘Oh, that Patrick Henry—he’s so angry! Why can’t he just shut up and pay the tea tax?’
Might I lose readers for speaking out? It’s possible—there are Log-cabin Republicans who have so identified with the party that sells glbt folk out every time that they continually make excuses for it, like a beaten wife keeping an ugly secret. The Republican party used to believe in privacy, in fiscal responsibility, and in respecting the other party—at least some of the time. Now it believes in demonizing anyone who disagrees.
But most of my books are about gay men living in repressive times… the sort of times the neocon-fundies would like us to go back to. And y’know—if they write the laws, nobody would be able to buy my books if they wanted to.
From where I stand, I’d better speak up now while I still can. The Equal Rights movement has a slogan: “Silence = Death.” It’s never been more true.
“choice95” ... Yep. Speaking out is a choice. No regrets.
Ann Somerville said on 10.08.08 at 05:10 AM • [link]
Beautifully said, Lee.
Sparky said on 10.08.08 at 01:34 PM • [link]
*applauds* well said Lee, well said indeed
Rebecca said on 10.09.08 at 06:52 AM • [link]
I’m coming late to the party (no pun intended) but I wanted to respond to something Aby said about teachers mentioning political preferences in the classroom, because it’s an issue I’ve dealt with a lot personally, and I know from experience that it’s not as clear cut as people outside the profession think.
I’m a high school English teacher. Aside from the fact (that someone mentioned earlier) that practically all valid literature has a political point of view which needs to be explained and discussed with the students, and which they will relate to more easily if they can relate it to current events, I have faced open curiosity from the kids about who I am supporting in various elections. As in, a senior who is about to turn 18 saying, “So, Miss, who are you voting for?” (I have also had students ask me about my religious beliefs, and say “Miss, do you believe in God?” “Miss, do you believe masturbation is a sin?” etc.) In those circumstances, I have tried to develop what I believe is an ethical (and what I KNOW, thanks to a course in education law, is a legal) response: I answer the question, as concisely and directly as possible, and PREFACE the statement with: “This is JUST a personal opinion. I am NOT speaking as a teacher, but as a PRIVATE CITIZEN, whose opinion is of NO special value beyond anyone else’s.”
I think this is a reasonable response, because it steers a course between two important values: on the one hand, I believe my students have the right to debate important issues with adults without having us slam the door to discussion in their face. On the other, as a teacher in a public school I am a “state agent.” That means that any speech I make *with the imprimatur of the school* can be construed an official endorsement of a position, to an essentially captive audience. (FYI, this is the argument against teacher-led prayer in schools, as opposed to a teacher being a faculty advisor of a *student* led prayer group.)
But these are relatively straightforward problems, that anyone with a little good will can solve. The more subtle ones come up because I teach language, and language itself is political.
For example: I assume that everyone agrees in theory that students should be taught to write without errors, and that teachers should correct mistakes in spelling and grammar. But I notice that Aby uses the phrase “Democrat party,” and I’ve seen that usage consistently among conservatives. To me, as a grammar nit-picker, “democrat” is a noun. “Democratic” is an adjective. So I would correct a student paper that used the phrase “Democrat party” the same way I would correct the phrase “Republic party.” IF a politically aware student consciously intended to use the preferred conservative term, I might be accused of “imposing” my views, since language usage is to some extent fluid over time. But if the student is unaware of the difference between a noun and an adjective (sadly probable), it’s my job to make that correction. One could bring up similar political arguments about the usage of “their” as a gender-neutral (but grammatically incorrect) substitute for “his/her,” or about the capitalization or non-capitalization of the word “God” and so on.
Since word choice is political, writing and speaking are, of necessity, political too. So the idea that writers “aren’t political” in their writings is nonsense. And the idea that teachers are “neutral” is at least highly problematic.
So, Aby, what can a “good” teacher do, besides agree with every parent in the school (an impossible task if the parents disagree)? And AgTigress, if you’re reading this, I know that you have an interest in language use, on both sides of the Atlantic. What do you think? (And anyone else who wants to jump in.)
Care to comment?
Comments are now closed for this post.
Subscribe to These Comments