Over here in the US of Holy Shit, we have a few problems. A few, big, huge giant, honking seven hundred billion dollar problems. Add to that a light-your-pants-on-fire contested presidential race (aren’t you glad I write a romance blog and not political punditry? I know I am) and you have one very exhausted Sarah who is more than ever grateful for every opportunity to take refuge in the “yes, it will end happily” world of the romance novel. The billionaires, they don’t lose their shirts or invest in sub prime mortgages in Harlequin Presents’ world. They don’t need no stinkin’ Dow. Their money is inherited and, since they’re worldy wise and brilliant, probably collecting more interest sitting in shoeboxes under the bed.
Anyway, over here, it’s crazy pants time. The election is a little over a month away, there’s debates on television (note: I think any candidate who does not answer the damn question asked of them should lose time to talk. There should be a moderator with time docking power, is all I’m sayin) and signs and ads everywhere, and the tension is only going to increase. Which leads me to my next question:
How do you feel about authors discussing politics? A few authors have emailed me privately with videos and links, and I’ve discussed the current presidential race over email with heaps of people, but more than once, I’ve had someone remark that they feel awkward saying anything on their blogs about the political situation. One author said she didn’t feel like she was in a position to get political: whereas it’s ok for actors to embrace activism, for authors of commercial fiction, it’s not ok at all.
My general reaction is, “Why not? Go for it. If you have something to say, say it.” Yes, it may alienate some readers. Yes, it may mean that people who don’t politically agree with you vow never to buy your books again! (Yeah, says I. Riiiight. I’ll believe it when I have access to their bookstore buying history.) Yes, it might raise a particular kerfuffle, but in the long run, these folks live in the same world I do and I am very curious as to what they think. But I mentally keep it separate from their work. They as people do a lot more in a day than merely writing the books I read. So of course they have things to say about taxes and war and expenditure and governmental oversight, etc.
But yet there’s that reticence. And I get it – I totally get it. But I am never comfortable keeping my own mouth shut because it might be better for someone else. John Scalzi agrees. When asked if fiction writers should write about politics, he replied:
The reader who believes a fiction author should keep his or her opinions to themselves is effectively (if generally unintentionally) saying “You exist only to amuse me. You are not allowed to do anything else.” To which the only rational response is: blow me.
I’m not going to hesitate to add my voice to the national dialogue on any subject just because someone somewhere might not be happy with what I have to say. And more to the point, I think it is bad and dangerous thinking for people to suggest that fiction writers should have to live in a black box of opinion.
[My apologies for not being able to remember who sent me that link. But you’re awesome!]
I concur heartily, and do want to hear what people think, or, at least, read about it. I think it’s a cousin to the Romancelandia culture of Be Nice Or Else that silences romance authors on the subject of politics when authors wish to discuss it – though obviously if you’d like to not talk about it, that’s totally understandable.
I’m always dumbstruck, though, by the idea that someone who sends me a video or web page that has to do with their political opinion often includes a “if you don’t support this person, I hope I didn’t offend you.” I am rarely offended if you disagree with me. Telling me I’m a horrible person with no moral compass because I disagree with you, well, that’s obnoxious to be sure. But disagreement itself isn’t offensive – just like offending someone isn’t the same as assaulting them (TM Robin). I hate that two people with different political viewpoints keep quiet when around one another because they might…disagree. Argue. Debate. Oh, shit, dialogue. That’s just terrible. Can’t have that. Holy crap.
So if you’re an author who is very politically exercised right now, do you keep silent on the subject? Do you keep your political commentary in a specific environment, such as your personal non-author-related blog? Does your political activism on your author blog extend to encouraging voting and political involvement but not discussions of a particular candidate? Does the relative prominence of your name as an author mean you’re less likely to be outspoken about your personal feelings about the current campaigns? Or do you prefer that romance be a politics-free zone, from the authors to their blogs?
What’s the fallout if an author you like takes a political stand that you don’t like, and really, does it matter? Is an absence of politics the only way to go when you’re trying to sell something, because we’re so polarized that alienating the sales base is bad idea jeans? What’s your take?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“You exist only to amuse me. You are not allowed to do anything else.”
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.
LMAO…oye, now THAT is an image.
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.
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.
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
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.
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!
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Were you doing the interview in 1940?
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
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.
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)…
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
Clare2e, I think you are awesome. Exactly what you said.
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.
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).
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 🙂
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.
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*
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.