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.
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.
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 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 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 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.
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.
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.
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.)
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?