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.
Dabney Grinnan
Impenitent social media enthusiast. Relational trend spotter. Enjoys both carpe diem and the fish of the day.
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.
“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.”
That’s what I’m curious about, and although the prospect of a fourteen-year-old being sexualized turns my stomach, I put a hold on the first book at the library. I’ve read authors as different as Ayn Rand and Frank Peretti, so I can give this a try as well.
For those that have watched the show based on the Virgin River books, how different is it from the books?
It is a bit shocking in the series that the doctor won’t call social services about an abandoned baby and many townsfolk are very down on the nurse/midwife who eventually does call. Wouldn’t a doctor risk losing his license for doing that? I watched the first season recently and liked parts of it, and I especially liked all the diverse personalities, and was considering reading the series. So…is it pretty close to the show or are they completely different? Should I bother?
I haven’t seen the show, so I don’t know. Sorry!
The series premiered a while ago and I’ve only watched the first few episodes before I read the book, but from what I remember, there’s a Black character in the tv series whose race isn’t explicit in the book. In the book, the hero has an ambiguous sexual relationship with a local woman (not the heroine) and when I listened to a podcast about the tv show vs. the book (maybe Learning the Tropes?), they suggested that subplot is treated differently. I also had a problem with the abandoned newborn plot and the treatment of it is not improved in the book.
I found the first book in the series, Virgin River, interesting on a critical or clinical level, but I didn’t enjoy reading it. I wouldn’t recommend it, particularly if you’re looking for diverse protagonists or characters.
Yes to all of this. Whenever I read a Western Historical Romance or even a modern romance novel set on a deserted island, a secret cabin in the woods or some remote place my first thought is “OMG what if someone needs a hospital!?”
And, as an addendum to that, ugh! No flush toilets! Yuck!
(The part about no flush toilets can also be true in secluded cabins that are shut down by the homeowners for a portion of the year to prevent flooding and unnecessary expenses.)
I had problems with Carr’s Virgin River series for the same things, but I’ll add one more: it is populated by what I call martyr-mothers–women who are supposedly super into kids who nonetheless whine constantly about pregnancy and kids like they deserve medals.
Ohhhhh, that’s good to know. I’d been thinking recently that I just started the series with the wrong book.
Super topic!
Like most here, I do not want to be preached at, or shamed. Whether it is politics, food choices, environment or any other. That is a matter of bad writing, to me, just like other bad writing, it puts me off.
However, when the hero/heroine are truly espousing a cause, it has a huge impact on their life and is maybe central to some of the books conflict – then describing her values, or arguing them with someone, is central, and fits.
Mostly, Cece’s argument resonates with me.
When a book glorifies certain values, that I find fundamentally morally wrong, it ruins the book. Her examples work for me, though I have not read those specific books.
Politics I actually like to read about, as a setting. Just like big business, and international art world and such. These are types of settings and intrigue I can relate to better, than Navy Seals rescuing people, or small farming town feuds.
However, politics have recently become so very polarized, and contentious, especially in US ( I live in Central Europe) that it gets harder to imagine people that I would be interested in in a romance being in current Big politics, or very close to it. See argument above: if their politics are central to their lives, they would end up taking a lot of space, and the polarization and viciousness would spoil the book.
In older books, I liked that setting. President’s daughters, young idealistic politicians as heroes, even occasional Latin American revolutionaries – it was fine. I would probably read some small scale political setting today, too. I feel lucky that I am a bit more remote from US politics, though it is important even here. That could explain my more relaxed feelings, I would not immediately react to every small comment that is already a red flag to US readers immersed daily in US politics.
Also in HR I liked political machinations much more than wars – Roberta Gellis regencies and some of her medieval, even her crime series, had a lot of political thinking and action and I liked that in them. Joanna Bourne, too. Or Tracy Grant. I also enjoyed some very old stuff like Colleen McCullough’s Masters of Rome series (not romance!). I also enjoy more political fantasy /SF more than big wars. So politics as such= how to govern, how to convince, how to shape society – I actually like that.
As someone who grew up in the Vietnam War era and saw first hand the damage that war did to the young men who fought it in, I struggle to read books with descriptions of war. I too prefer books about political machinations–I like to see how power is used and overthrown but not, typically, via the lens of war.
Yes! I couldn’t agree more. I love it when historical romances include the politics of their particular setting. It goes a long way towards historical world building!
I definitely want to steer clear of contemporary politics. I read romance to escape that viciousness. I’m fine with politics in historicals so long as it actually is the politics of the period, and isn’t pushing an anachronistic modern agenda. I also don’t need any lectures on feminism, no matter when the book is set. (Don’t try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs.)
As others said, I don’t need politics, especially pushy politics, in my fiction.
Nine years ago I read an SF book one of my brothers recommended that was very much to my taste in one way and totally off-putting in another. I really like stories with competent protagonists coping with sometimes difficult worlds, but the author pushed right-wing views to the point of bad caricature by making all liberals brainless & spineless and admiring the UK media company that is infamous for violating decency and people’s privacy.
You might enjoy The Reincarnation of Tom by Aden Simpson if you’re looking for SF/F that explores difficult moral dilemmas in a hysterical, thought-provoking fashion without beating the reader over the head with politics. I got it on a free giveaway through Amazon (it’s self-published, usually 99 cents) and had a lot of fun following the adventures of Tom as he reincarnates through different periods of history in various forms.
Why, Dabney, are you trying to start another kerfuffle on Twitter with this topic? ;)
Anyway, I agree with a lot of what has been said here already- politics in context, not as a main message in romance- if it even needs to be there at all. Heck, any fiction story (outside of possibly satire) should probably take that advice to heart. When I’m reading, I do get annoyed with heavy-handedness, and think a good deal of readers feel the same way.
Also, it irks me when it’s clear authors feel like they have to overcompensate within a given story when justifying characters with controversial attitudes, whether through adding in-story disclaimers, preaching at the audience, or making sure their protagonists are “woke.” In a way, I understand their worry. Now more than ever, a lot of people are ready to jump on Twitter to criticize what a fictional character says or does in a book- as though fictional characters’ opinions must reflect the author’s beliefs. I’ve said this many times before, but this kind of hostile environment encourages the flattening out of morally ambiguous and/or controversial protagonists rather than fostering nuance in portrayals. In short, when I’m reading, I want characters to feel like real people complete with flaws, foibles, and maybe sometimes surprising or shocking views rather than a bullhorn for the author’s beliefs. I’m not reading for the politics. I’m reading for the characters and story. Take me on a fun ride! Besides, if a character is well-drawn enough, I’m far more likely to stop and reflect on his actions and beliefs than if they’re rammed down my throat. Just because I’m having fun doesn’t mean I’m averse to looking at something in a new way. But I don’t want to feel like I’m being force-fed political vitamin pills while I’m reading.
Let me give you a specific example that made me sigh and roll my eyes for its heavy-handedness. I was reading a Harlequin Intrigue called Undercover Connection by Heather Graham. The plot was your typical “FBI agents/cops go undercover to bust up organized crime.” In this case, the hero and heroine were both trying to infiltrate Russian mobsters in South Beach. Okay, cool. I was game for some high octane fluff. But what did Heather Graham go and do? She made it a big frickin point- in text, as a lecture!- that, of course, not all Russians are affiliated with organized crime. Well, pardon my language, but no shit! This was obviously just butt-covering pandering from a likely scared author, editor, and/or publishing house. Can’t you trust grown-ups to use some common sense while reading instead of taking them out of the story with unnecessary and often condescending disclaimers? Honestly!
Not on Twitter….
Do you know how refreshing it is to see open discussion encouraged instead of “if you disagree with anything we say here maybe you need to find another place to go”?
The only way to change the world for the better is to make sure you’ve listened, really listened, to why people don’t want the changes you do. If you listen to them, and they listen to you, the chance that you can both work to make it better for all is vastly better than when we are siloed.
A POC reader was told just that last week and one of the mods was like “thanks for the support (to the person who told the POC to get lost) but maybe say it in a nicer way?”
Hmmm, that’s not how I remember it.
I seem to recall the original poster’s contribution was to say how much they hated what other people posted and the site because management doesn’t censor comments they don’t agree with.
One other poster said sarcastically “bye bye” to them and to enjoy the sites where free discussion isn’t allowed.
‘A mod then asked the second commenter to use a nicer tone (even though they were the ones defending AAR) as the Mod wanted everyone to feel welcome posting, including the people who come just to say how lousy they think AAR is.
Please show me a comment by ANY Mod here saying someone wasn’t welcome to post. I’ve seen them take the most insulting and blistering posts from people and still say “thank you for your opinion”.
I can find countless posts at other sites by the Mods saying “if you don’t like what we say, then maybe you’d better go”.
The posts are still up, so it’s pretty easy to go check- as AAR, again unlike other sites, doesn’t remove posts that criticize or disagree with them.
It is interesting to see how even asking such a question incites ire. #Twitter
I love a good discussion or a debate but I am so very, very tired of ire.
Yes. When you’re my age, it’s hard to have much enthusiasm for anger which, in general, destroys rather than builds.
I hate politics in my fiction. I don’t even watch the news as much anymore because it’s filled with ‘expert analysis’ masquerading as news. But then, I didn’t grow up in the US, so even after living here for more than 2 decades, I’m still baffled at this country’s obsession with politics. It’s on talk shows, in novels, on TV series, in the movies, etc, etc. Even on vacation overseas I would encounter American tourists discussing politics next to my beach lounger or next to my dinner table, bleh!
However, a good author will know how to handle it well. Feminism / women’s rights, for example, is a common theme in romance novels, but not all authors can write the topic seamlessly into the main story and make it a good book.
This is my big gripe nowadays in the US, if you want to watch news you have to pre-pick what skew you want on it.
I end up watching conventions, debates and big political events on C-Span because I am capable of forming my own opinion. I don’t need to be told how to think or feel about an issues. If I want to explore it more I would like some facts please.
Oh, I love C-span! They present it to you as is and let you take it from there. Plus watching the political debate on it is fun! I remember watching Tony Blair presenting and defending his Iraq War support to the British parliament and was totally riveted.
I remember that!! Sometimes BBC Parliament station is the best entertainment of the day, especially at Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesdays!!!!
C-Span is wonderful. It presents an uninterrupted event with no one telling you how you should feel about what is being said.
Wow, Tony Blair. That’s a name you don’t hear on the U.S. News anymore.
Cf the outrage here in the UK at even the “sainted” BBC. Newsreaders have now been scolded and told to stop posting strong personal opinion, “moral outrage” and comment on social media, etc. They are paid by the taxpayer to read news, not their opinions, from the auto-cues. These days I despair, even with access to news broadcasting all round the planet, at finding objective, non-filtered news anywhere.
Should have clarified the scolding was for giving personal opinions ON air as well as social media, etc. where some may feel they should be allowed more say.
The same here in Germany. Morale and opinions instead of neutral news. Many people are getting angrier and angrier about our public service broadcasting authorities.
I read primarily historical romance, though I’ll also try a contemp if it sounds like it might be interesting or comes highly recommended.
Historical Romance: Case by case basis. If the HR is not trying to cram some sort of 21st-century “woke” message down my throat, I’m usually good with that.
Also, if it’s not an HR set in the U.S., I’m probably a little more forgiving because I’m hazier on non-U.S. historical politics, TBH.
U.S. politics in a contemp romance is a hard pass for me. I will avoid a book with a title such as “The Senator’s Daughter” or with a back-cover blurb that indicates that I can expect politics to be featured in the story. Not surprisingly, it ticks me off when an author sells me a love story about the cute and quirky characters inhabiting in a charming American seaside resort and then has the characters unexpectedly (and unnecessarily) make snide comments about this or that political party. It’s triggering. (This is exactly what ruined Sally Malcolm’s “Love Around the Corner” for me.)
“If the HR is not trying to cram some sort of 21st-century “woke” message down my throat, I’m usually good with that.”
This.
Also, it’s fine for characters to have political positions and opinions, but I don’t want to go into a story already knowing what those will be because I know what the author’s opinions are. I don’t want to know in advance that the villains will be unredeemable racists, misogynists, etc. while the good characters will wholeheartedly support women’s rights, civil rights, etc. Nor do I find this much fun to read when there’s no nuance (e.g. characters never change, because they start out either “woke” or bigoted and that’s how they remain) or when the story is beating me over the head with its message.
On the other hand, there are books like Malorie Blackman’s NOUGHTS AND CROSSES. This is set in a world where Noughts are whites and Crosses are blacks. Noughts are second-class citizens. Callum, a Nought teenager, gets into an exclusive Cross school. During a history lesson the teacher gave the names of three or four people I’d never heard of (including Matthew Henson) and asked what these people accomplished.
Callum answered correctly but then added, “What about Robert Peary?” And I thought, Hey, I’ve heard of him! The teacher said, “Who?” and Callum replied, “Robert Peary. He reached the North Pole with Matthew Henson.” The teacher scoffed and said, in that case, why don’t the textbooks mention this Peary guy?
That was the most powerful scene in the book to me, because it was startling and effective without being in-your-face RACISM EVIL It’s also made clear, later on in the book, that the teacher has mixed blood and is terrified of anyone finding out he’s part white, hence his reaction.
Of course, NOUGHTS AND CROSSES is a much more political book than the average historical romance, so there’s that to take into consideration, but I also appreciated that it neither demonized the upper class nor glorified the lower one. The people in it felt like individuals, rather than vessels for the message. I’d love to see more of this.
“The people in it felt like individuals, rather than vessels for the message. I’d love to see more of this.”
You’re not the only one, Marian. I promise. :)
This is very much how Vale’s wolves feel to me.
Noughts and Crosses is one of my favourite books! I read it when I was 12 and it is honestly one of the most thoughtful and nuanced novels on race, at least in terms of children literature.
I read romance to escape the real world so I prefer not to have political events or overt statements intrude on that fantasy world. If I want to read about politics, I’m going to consult other media or non-fiction for that.
I enjoy reading books that Have Things To Say to a point. Romantic suspense books I’ve read have tackled topic such as human trafficking, drug trafficking, law enforcement or judiciary corruption, the plight of homeless teens, climate change, or lgbtq+ and race issues, for example. I’ve recently read several #ownvoice books dealing with autism and other disabilities and learned a lot. I prefer books that fold the issues into the plot instead of shouting an agenda.
That said, politics is something I avoid in books, not just in the past few years, but pretty much forever. I keep up with political issues and candidates in real life, but it’s never a pleasant task for me. It takes emotional energy, especially in the last 10 years or so. When I read fiction, I want escape from that kind of drain. I don’t mind being educated and made to think, but at least right now, politics isn’t entertaining, it’s hard work.
I agree with all of this, politics is hard work right now.
I usually avoid political themes in fiction and most definitely in romantic fiction where I am not sure it is needed. Fiction written by an author keen to drive through their beliefs and make a statement is difficult right now with cancel culture, woke-ism, #metoo, etc. I would have to be in the right mood to seek out and embrace this style of fiction and would read it most probably after reading a review and knowing what I was getting into. I read romantic fiction for escape from a lot that surrounds me and that is casting shadows over our world so don’t want overt messages assailing me. However, having said all of that, I am by nature a political animal and have very deep interests in it but prefer it in non-fiction or polemical works where a well argued POV is interesting even if I totally disagree with it. And, I do like politics in film and TV series such as Billions, Chernobyl, West Wing or even The Crown, etc.
I think a lot of times for politics to work in novel or story it has to have a bit of history or distance. 10 years IMHO would be best. As I said in my post, super current topics age quickly and what can be a big deal in one or two news cycles can seem irrelevant even a year later.
When my children were small I simply could not read a book where a child was abused, tortured, and kidnapped. Hard pass.
Now that they’re in their 20s, those book aren’t as verboten. Context really is everything.