I just finished reading two books, Maria Vale’s Season of the Wolf and Carl Hiaasen’s Squeeze Me. Both made me think about the role of politics in fiction.
In Vale’s The Legend of All Wolves series, the reader sees human incursion into nature and man’s love of sport hunting from the perspective of wolves. Vale doesn’t use phrases like climate change and habitat loss, but her point is inescapable: Humanity is wreaking havoc on the wild.
In Hiaasen’s Squeeze Me, the world is on a fast track to hell and a good portion of that can be blamed on the President of the United States–a not even thinly disguised Donald Trump–well into his second term. The President, known only as Mastodon, his Secret Service code name, would make a turkey look like a Nobel prize winning scientist, his ethics are on par with Boss Tweed, and his self-absorption makes Joan Crawford look like Mother Teresa. He’s a caricature of indolent evil. To read this book is to be advised, page after page, that the man in the Winter White House is a turd.
I’ve read other books by Hiaasen–he’s a fearsomely talented writer and while I enjoyed parts of Squeeze Me, I found much of it a slog. To read it was to be, albeit very humorously, hectored. Furthermore, after a day spent, in part, reading the news, encountering overt political messaging just made me, well, tired.
I didn’t have that sense while reading Vale’s books. There, the reader see the world as the wolves do and is left to, on her own, think about why the wolves are so threatened and what part we, those who live in the real world, might play in that. No story, and certainly not Vale’s, exists outside a political context. But in her fictional world, the political context is just that, context. It’s not the main message.
Reading both books made me realize–yet again–how little I like to be hectored in books. Squeeze Me felt like hyper-politicized idea masquerading as a novel. Season of the Wolf’s story, on the other hand, is a superb tale that just happens to make one think about environmentalism. I am a reader who vastly prefers the latter.
How about you? Do you like politics and political themes in your novels? What books do you think do politics well? Are there books you’ve felt harangued by? Let us know.
Nope. NPolitics has saturated everything around of us –or at least that seems to be the case. But no matter what is happening in my personal life or the world around me, I have always found a book to comfort me. They are my best friend, my healer, so any books with political topic or content, I’d avoid like the plague –and especially now with so many worries (my kids, my grandkids, the pandemic, the economic uncertainty, jobs, etc. etc. etc. I need my books to soothe me, entertain me, to make me smile, laugh or sigh. I’ll take tall, dark and handsome over any politics any day, thank you very much.
I think several posts have made it clear that it isn’t politics per se that many readers don’t like, it’s BAD WRITING. All too often, politics in fiction is badly written fiction.
I agree, it’s one subject where a lot of writers immediately get heavy handed and lose all sense of nuance.
Politics isn’t this thing separate from life. It’s not something that happens somewhere else. It’s the way a person thinks, feels, acts. It inevitably comes out in what a writer does, the attitudes she takes.
However, there is a difference between that, and preaching. That can be on almost any subject, not just politics. Religion is another culprit. So is morality, and sex. Some authors will do it on purpose, and others can tell a riveting story and still get their point across. Have you read “Farneheit 451,” “Animal Farm,” “Primary Colors,” or even “War and Peace”? They all have political attitudes. Even some journalists retelling a factual story can turn it into a cracking read.
Under another name I wrote a trilogy set in Washington, DC, where the heroine of one of the books was the daughter of the President. But I wasn’t writing about politics, I was writing an erotic romance, so I kept the politics in the background and kept them middle-of-the-road. I wanted to write about what happens when the daughter of someone who had a position to take in society decides she wants an alternative lifestyle.
Preachy books of any kind don’t stay on my bookshelf for long. Only long enough for me to identify them. It’s a form of telling-not-showing which can be very boring.
BTW, not relevant to this discussion, but your site is broken on Firefox. It’s just a bunch of text, no header or anything. Anyone else got that problem?
Switching from Chrome to Firefox….
Nope. No problems with the page for me using Firefox.
I agree about the preaching. I’m up for any book that educates me rather than preaches at me. Including inspirationals! ;-)
‘Politics in fiction’ paints with a broad brush. :-) Anybody picking up a Carl Hiaasen book has to know they are getting a polemic; he’s been doing that for a long time. (In other words if someone is *surprised* that a Carl Hiaasen book is a polemic, they have not done their homework.)
This came up tangentially in a few other discussions here recently so I see why it’s an Ask. Personally, I’m a tree-hugging hippie. I pick up litter, killed my lawn, feed the yard birds, and drive a hybrid, or at least I will if I ever drive again (have been remote-working for six months and husband still sees clients, so he does the hunting and gathering). I am a white woman married to a dark-skinned man, which informs my views, as does the fact that we hosted my sister’s wedding to her longtime girlfriend here in California because they couldn’t get married back home in North Carolina. I lived for 22 years in the state of Georgia, where I saw a lot of open racism, sexism, and homophobia. Now I’ve lived for 25 years in California, where I also see a lot of open racism, sexism, and homophobia – mostly outside the cities – but where the state government tends toward ‘let’s take care of each other’ not toward ‘every man for himself.’
Racism, sexism, and homophobia are moral *and* political issues. If recognizing that these and other social injustices exist and believing that they are social problems properly addressed at the governmental level makes me ‘woke,’ then yeah.
All of which says nothing about politics in romance fiction. :-)
Politics in America are and always have been a flashpoint because this is not your average nation. There is no other country made up of fifty-three separate political entities which have been stitched together in less than 250 years. The US survives despite a civil war that many still think ought to have ended differently. Historically speaking, we are overdue for another such war. We should be GLAD that people are talking about things. Talking (even arguing) is always superior to war.
Writers are entitled to have a point of view. If I happen not to care for the way they express it in their fiction, the solution is easy: don’t buy books from that author.
I hear you, but in my defense I’d say I’ve read about ten of Hiaasen’s books and this is the first one I felt this way about.
Yes, and I realized – too late to edit – how tactless that sounded. Like ‘OMG that sounds like I’m calling out Dabney’ which was not what was intended. I’m sorry! I’m with you, by the way – I enjoyed a few of Hiaasen’s earlier books but the last one I picked up I was like No.
NO WORRIES!!!
I am not interested in reading fiction about politics. Politics are about party platforms, campaigns, and congressional infighting, among other things. If I’m interested in that sort of reading, I turn to nonfiction books and articles. I do like some political content on tv series now and then, though. Shows like The Americans (so underrated!) or The West Wing can present political issues thoughtfully without losing dramatic content, great writing, and marvelous acting, as well as watchability, but they are few and far between.
Social issues, on the other hand, such as child abuse, drug use, women’s rights, racism, etc., can be effectively written about in many kinds of fiction. I don’t want to be beaten over the head with with anyone’s agenda, but a romance novel with a protagonist who works with runaway teens (or any group of marginalized people) can be moving and profound while still being romantic. I’ve read plenty of romance books where someone realizes someone else is being victimized and helps them, or gets involved in social justice issues and those books can still be enjoyable and sexy. The skill of the author makes a huge difference in books like that.
Right now though I read to escape, so I don’t want any heavy topics. I want comforting, even predictable, stories with humor and heart. I’m re-reading favorites these days precisely because I know how they end, and I know if there is angst or violence or despair.
I don’t want to repeat myself because I already posted at length under another discussion, but I was indulging in some super silly escapist romance reading and was completely thrown out of it when the author started bringing in very explicit references to current politics. Even though it was set with aliens on another planet. When I read something completely escapist I don’t want to think about current events or politics. I take in a huge amount of news and have political discussions all the time so a lot of my romance reading is escapism.
That being said, if the story is a more serious one and the issues are truly felt and handled intelligently, then it can add to a book. I personally think it works best if it is not super current politics because those don’t seem to age well. By the time a book is edited and published it can seem immediately out of date and serve to “date” the book the way ones from the 80-90’s that mention out of date technology do.
I enjoy it also in historical romance if it is done well. Joanna Bourne is an author who writes English Napoleonic era spies but managed to write convincing reasons why some of her French heroines didn’t automatically decide to join the English side and what the freedoms and attractions of post revolution France were. It certainly didn’t make me start rooting for Napoleon, but it was a very intelligent examination of why (apart from patriotism alone) people would support him and his regime.
One thing I’ve noticed from the comments is that people seem to mind politics in books -mostly when it doesn’t align with their political beliefs. I read across the spectrum so the politics itself doesn’t bother me as much as how it’s presented.
I know that Linda Howard skews conservative in her books and her views so I expect that in her writing and if that’s a problem for people then I’d say probably avoid her stuff. Same with Penny Reid -who is very liberal in her views and if that bothers other people then just know that going in and maybe don’t read her if it bothers you. Same with Suzanne Brockmann. I read them all and don’t mind it in a book unless I feel like I’m being hit over the head with something or there’s something really outrageous.
One author that I think tries to have it all ways is Lisa Marie Rice. She writes these Uber-male, super hero, heavily armed, bossy, ex-military tough guys with very conservative views who have to rescue the women and save the day because they know how to deal with evil and the real world. The women are all usually very talented and successful in their way, but they definitely need the men with their military skills to save and protect them. Which is fine and a popular genre, but then she will have the women talk about the men and how they probably “vote Republican” while the women are liberal and decide it’s OK to be with them as their votes “cancel out” the mens’ “wrong” votes. So I’m left to wonder is that the author’s own cynical view? Is she writing books in a genre with heroes she disagrees with but they sell well? Or does she side with the men but feel she has to throw the women’s comments in to keep people from thinking they are too conservative? I’m not sure. Kristen Ashley has done this as well with the women arguing against the guys conservative views, but the guys are the ones who are the saviors, really together etc. I know Ashley is liberal in her politics (and I think writes kinda loopy heroines based off of herself) so maybe doesn’t see that the heroines aren’t best examples of her views.
After reading the comments on this thread and elsewhere on All About Romance, I’m hesitant to add my thoughts because it seems as if commenters here have a much more conservative worldview than my own, but I’ve read a handful of romance novels this summer that surprised me in their treatment of politics so here it goes…
In this discussion, I’d draw a distinction between what I understand as a moral issue (feminism, equality for Black, brown, and queer people, environmentalism) and what’s definitively political (the President, political parties, televised debates). So, in the post above, I’d say that the environmentalism in Maria Vale’s “The Legends of All Wolves” series is a moral discussion whereas Carl Hiassen’s Squeeze Me is inherently political. For me, it feels like apples and oranges.
Of course, there are issues that are both, but I find I usually stop reading on moral grounds rather than political ones. For instance, the depiction of abortion in Stephanie Meyer’s “Twilight” series. In the U.S., abortion is still considered both a political and moral issue, but I didn’t stop reading because I disagree with Meyer politically, I stopped reading because the story became a thinly veiled attack on women’s reproductive freedom, which I see as morally imperative.
At the same time, I’m a liberal Democrat who didn’t agree with the politics of the Bush administration, but I loved Curtis Sittenfeld’s American Wife, which is a thinly veiled, fictionalized biography of former First Lady, Laura Bush.
This summer, I read Kennedy Ryan’s Queen Move and Synithia Williams’s Forbidden Promises and both novels feature characters who are professionally involved in politics, but the authors never mentioned which political parties the characters were affiliated with. It was a great way to include politics, without excluding anyone.
I also read Robyn Carr’s Virgin River in July. Even though, on the surface, it never explicitly mentions politics like Queen Move and Forbidden Promises do, I found it the most overtly political romance novel I’ve read in a long time. And, again, I don’t have a problem with it’s politics, but I was horrified by it’s failures to empathize. Virgin River implicitly argues against the necessity of universal healthcare, any government-run social services, and gun control while simultaneously condemning legalized marijuana, urban gun violence, and the epidemic of hopelessness in rural America.
I don’t have a problem with politics in romantic fiction generally and I wouldn’t say that I read romance to escape into a fantasy that’s devoid of political realities. I do have a problem with any novel that argues on behalf of policies or politicians who seek to do harm to people, animals and/or the environment.
That’s an excellent distinction to draw re moral vs political issues. I also don’t have a strong issue with reading politics in romance novels, but I will DNF a book which I feel vehemently harms any group of people.
Thank you. Haha, you said it much more concisely than I did!
Please don’t be hesitant to post your thoughts. I’d say there are a few more conservative posters than you would generally see on a romance board -because AAR actually encourages comments from everyone. But in general I’d guess more posters here skew liberal than conservative based on past discussions. In any case, all opinions are welcome and I personally like to hear all views. I find it very edifying.
Completely co-sign. I’d say many, many of our readers are left of center. And what makes AAR, I hope, an interesting place to discuss things is that we try and deliberately make space for varying viewpoints. I hope you will continue to contribute!
I love AAR for this reason as well. All other websites I have encountered, whether romance or otherwise, have a distinctive political bent that commenters are expected to believe or else get harassed or chased off of the site. Yesterday, I heard a good quote to this effect from YouTuber Blaire White who said, “Honestly, I feel like more and more of the world is like… even more so than divided into left and right, conservative and liberal. The world is definitely right now divided into people who can have a meaningful, nuanced conversation about sensitive issues and people who can’t.” That’s a great quote that sums up a lot of the problems going on in the world today, especially on the internet. AAR thankfully falls into the former category. This is a real safe space where we can have intelligent, adult conversations as long as we are polite and respectful to one another. And it’s also okay to say, “All right. This is hitting a little too close to home for me. I’m going to duck out and take some time to calm down.” We need more of this type of discourse on the internet as opposed to, “If you don’t like it, leave.”
(Full disclosure: I realize that as a conservative transwoman, Blaire White is a controversial figure who heartily defends J.K. Rowling’s comments. But I would like to think her spot-on quote about the importance of meaningful, nuanced conversations is welcome here- or her too if she decided to make an appearance at AAR. :))
As for romance readers in general, I would be curious whether the audience as a whole leans politically left or right. I don’t believe for a minute that AAR, SBTB, or other romance reader sites represent a majority of romance readers, just based on how major romance publishers stick to tried and true tropes that tend to lean more conservative. Harlequin, for example, publishes only m/f romances in their main category lines and has several lines that are Christian-based and/or sex free. Books with higher heat levels and queer pairings (or multiples) are tucked away into Avon and Carina Press. From a marketing perspective, I totally get why they would do this. Obviously, a strong or exclusive preference for m/f pairings is not necessarily indicative of conservative political leanings. But I wonder if there would be a row among their fan base if Harlequin Historical started including same-sex romances in the line, or their inspirationals expanded to include other faiths. It’s difficult to say.
Nan: not sure you could ever get a broad brush interpretation on how the romance audience leans politically because we are globsl and come from numerous countries and cultures where “conservative” or “liberal” may mean different things. A personal example, as a dual citizen for many years, I voted Democrat in US elections in which I was entitled to vote but Conservative in the UK. When talking with friends about this in both countries, I always dragged out the old “apples & oranges” analogy.
Very true, Elaine S. I think even defining the “average” romance reader would be a bit difficult these days considering the very definition of romance has (thankfully!) expanded so much.
I agree, especially with the ease and anonymity that buying ebooks or books by mail provides. There’s no worry that a consumer is going to be “caught” at the checkout line with a book that has a shirtless Fabio on the cover.
Books like 50 Shades of Grey, no matter what your thoughts on its quality or merits, also likely expanded the demographics of the romance novel market.
This is all true, and I feel the definition of what is “liberal” in the U.S. has changed dramatically.
The ACLU was considered the definition of “liberal” and an enforcer of free speech (even speech most people considered ugly and hateful). This was epitomized by their work in Skokie in the late 70’s where they actually represented a Nazi group’s right to demonstrate in a town that was full of Jewish Holocaust survivors. A Jewish leader at the ACLU actually was the one who worked with the Nazi group to uphold First Amendment rights because he felt so strongly about upholding the Constitution as much as he personally loathed and detested them.
Now many of the ideas and ideals of what is “liberal” has shifted so they are actually advocating for laws the ACLU actively fought *against* back in 1978.
That’s the real litmus test right there. Supporting freedom of speech doesn’t mean anything unless you are willing to defend the right for people to say ugly, hateful things that turn your stomach. Because if you don’t, it’s only a matter of time before things you believe become the next taboo topic.
This is the sword I am willing to fall on every time.
I think it’s so interesting that the ACLU has said that the laws that the government and people were trying to pass to keep the Nazi demonstration out of Skokie in 1978 would also keep Black Lives Matter Groups from protesting today because of the language used.
It’s the same argument for everyone being entitled to a legal defense and a defense attorney. These laws are so crucial and fundamental to society.
Just last week a POC reader was told to “go back to SBTB” so … idk what “all views are welcomed here” means. Perhaps it’s like “all lives matter”?
I hope so.
Please see my comment above.
Yup, two posters disagreed after one came to post that basically they think this site stinks.
I can go to absolutely any other site and find about 50 examples of far worse talk between posters.
Unlike other sites, you cannot find ONE example here of a Mod telling someone they, or their opinion isn’t welcome here.
They will be told not to use certain language, be overly personal or aggressive or to modulate their tone out of common courtesy but not “this isn’t the place for you”.
Go look up the discussion, which I did read. It’s better not to use second hand information because it’s rarely complete.
Just for the record, I’m also a POC, and I’ve never felt anything other than welcomed here.
It’s interesting you bring up the Virgin River books. I’ve read a few and I was so struck by how pioneer like that world seemed. People survive by the grace of the small community they live in and see the government with suspicion. A nurse there is better than a big hospital in the big city which I’d say, as someone enmeshed in modern medicine, is fine for cuts and bruises but not what I’d want if I had pancreatic cancer or life threatening kidney problems.
Exactly! Virgin River is unabashedly nostalgic for a Manifest destiny version of the American West that prioritized whiteness, masculine vigilante violence, independence, and self-reliance above all else. I also think it’s interesting, in light of how many romance readers here express frustration with a modern project or perspective transcribed on a historical setting, how that novel does the opposite. It’s a contemporary romance through the lens of an imagined vision of the historical past.
I’m actually curious about the Virgin River books now – not because I agree with their politics, but because I’d like to see what this conservative (for lack of a better word) viewpoint is like, especially in a contemporary romance.
It’s a fascinating book, it would also make a great read for a book club or reading buddies. The slow burn romance really worked for me and I was particularly impressed with the hero’s maturity and communication skills. But, there’s also a racist dog whistle within the first few pages and the text consistently and explicitly sexualizes a 14-year-old child.
The conservative viewpoint (for lack of a better word) is central, but I wasn’t as bothered by that as I was by the way the novel acknowledges characters who are harmed — as well as situations that are perpetuated — by the same policies and perspective that the novel is endorsing. The lack of empathy was tough.
And again, if you’re someone who has noticed how historical authors use a contemporary progressive lens, it’s interesting to see how the opposite is done. Carr used the “conservative” lens of a historical Western in her contemporary romance.