In last week’s
blog Thriller Guy told about having to review a book in a series that he
doesn’t like in the first place, where the author excoriated the Democratic
Party and President Obama every chance he got, whether or not it had anything
to do with the plot or the characters. It was a pathetic performance on many
levels. But it underscored a basic problem in book reviewing: what if an
author’s beliefs – political, spiritual, whatever – are antithetical to those
of the reviewer? Obviously the reviewer has a responsibility to either turn
down the assignment, or, as TG does, attempt to remain scrupulously neutral,
judging no book by the personal beliefs of the author.
Let TG assure
you, it has not always been easy.
The big problem
is, when an author indulges him or herself by using his or her work to advance
a personal agenda, the resulting work almost always suffers. It is no secret
that many if not most bestselling authors these days have pretty much complete
freedom to write whatever they want. Publishers -- craven, greedy entities that
they have become -- simply turn their heads and continue to rake in the money
that they know will spill from the pockets of the legions of a particular
author’s fans. It has been clearly established that there seem to be no
editors, except the fawning, sycophantic cheerleaders, of these writers.
Manuscripts fly through the process with no critical evaluation and soon the
Advanced Reader Copy arrives on the critic’s desk. Fortunately, most of these
bestselling authors are actually pretty damn good writers. They, in particular
thriller writers, have learned the best ways to get the thriller writer’s job
done -- to write books that readers will find interesting and exciting. So they
probably don’t need much in the way of editing anyway. But there are still
those that defy common sense and the rules of fiction, those who have ridden to
the top of the financial heap no matter how bad, really bad, their work is.
TG has to admit
that in trying to remain absolutely non-judgmental of the author’s personal
beliefs, he probably errs by being too nice to many books that should be
excoriated. To those of you out there (TG’s wife included) that think that TG
is too nice to too many writers, he must repeat his reviewing mantra: TG’s job
(remember, TG is a thriller reviewer) is to tell those people who like to read
a certain type of book if this particular book is a good example, or poor
example, of that type of book that they like. TG has found that, even though it
may feel good for a while, it does no good to point out in a review that an
author doesn’t write very well when 98% of all readers are simply interested in
if the story is exciting. They really do not give a damn about the quality of
the writing, at least in this genre.
This does not
mean that TG simply rolls over and surrenders to bad writing, plotting,
characterization or any of the many sins that novel writers are prey to. In
most reviews where he is up against poor performance, he employs one or more of
his subtle tricks to point out problems while not making fun of the lack of
sophistication, knowledge or beliefs of the reader. TG is a book reviewer, not
God. (Even though he has many godlike characteristics.)
Several years
ago TG wrote a long article about political thrillers. As part of the article,
TG wrote to many well-known thriller writers, most of them bestselling authors,
and simply asked them about their personal politics. From this distance in
time, TG now thinks it was a pretty nervy thing to do, and he was surprised
that the writers were so accommodating. And he was also surprised that the
answers were so reasoned and, well, smart. It is no secret that the majority of
thriller writers, particularly the military thriller writers, skew to the right.
Some of them, personally, probably to the far right. And yet these guys (there
are very few women writing in this genre) know that obvious, blatant political opinions
are a mistake. Sure, they still get their bias in – because it’s the bias that
most of their readers espouse – but they know not to let it get in the way of
their stories. So, kudos for them, if for no other reason than reviewers love
to read a great story as much as anyone else. Trust me, it’s no fun to read the
ones that grate on your nerves, the bad ones. Most people can simply not start
or if having started put those books down and leave them unread. TG must grit his
teeth, gird his loins and plow ahead, always trying to be fair and at the same
time, honest.
By now you’ve
probably had quite enough of TG’s whining about how tough a job he has. (Has TG
mentioned how poor the pay is? Don’t get him started.) So lets move along to a
selection of the comments the bestselling writers gave about the place of
political opinions in writing novels. TG has decided that it will be best if he
doesn’t identify the writers. It was at least an imposition and at most
misguided (that’s putting it mildly) to have even asked the questions in the
first place. Thriller readers will be able to figure out who some of these
people are because they mention the titles of books they have written. Fine.
I’m not “protecting” their identities because they say anything wrong, quite
the contrary, I think every one of these guys is an excellent writer and every
one of these guys writes excellent books. And they’re smart. So here are some
thoughts from thriller fiction’s biggest names, when asked about putting their
personal political opinions in their writing.
Could you tell us your particular
political philosophy? Conservative? Liberal? Various shades of both?
While it's really none of anyone's business, I can
say I'm a social liberal, and a fiscal conservative, and by that I mean a
Rockefeller Republican, if anyone remembers what that is. Clinton was actually
one of those.
Some authors make their political views
plain in their fiction. Do you think this applies to you?
No.
Do you see any problems or downside to
this?
Personally, I don't believe an author's political
views belong in his or her novels. You want to express that, write non-fiction
or a memoir.
When you read a novel, if the author’s
politics are visible does this color your thinking about the book?
The moment it becomes clear, I throw the book across
the room. Unless the author is Phillip Roth. He's another story altogether
Do you think political agendas can be
advanced through fiction?
Not very successfully, from what I've seen.
***
Could you tell us your particular
political philosophy? Conservative? Liberal?
Various shades of both?
I’m a moderate,
progressive Republican in the tradition of Theodore Roosevelt and Nelson
Rockefeller -- fairly libertarian on social issues, center-right on fiscal
issues; a wing of the GOP, alas, now nearly extinct.
Some authors make their political views
plain in their fiction. Do you think
this applies to you? Do you see any
problems or downside to this?
I try not to
preach my political views in my fiction – mostly because doing so would kill a
novel’s power and effect. As Virginia
Woolf wrote in her classic 1924 essay “Character in Fiction,” “I believe that all
novels, that is to say, deal with character, and that it is to express
character - not to preach doctrines, sing songs, or celebrate the glories of
the British Empire, that the form of the novel . . .has been evolved. . .
[W]here so much strength is spent on finding a way of telling the truth the
truth itself is bound to reach us in rather an exhausted and chaotic
condition.”
However, when a writer creates a character with full
dimension, who exists rather than
merely functions, who drives a
narrative, the writer can use that character to convey truths, drive emotions,
and touch a reader’s soul. In The Accomplice, I strived for Woolf’s
approach in showing, for example, the dangers of political extremism of any
stripe.
When you read a novel, if the author’s
politics are visible does this color your thinking about the book?
Sure. I don’t want a polemic, but I’m glad to
launch into a political vortex where I can form my own judgment. Some artists can separate their views from
their narrative, as newspapers separate opinion pages from news. I admire Spike Lee’s film Do the Right Thing because Lee presented
a raw, racially charged scenario and let his viewers draw their own conclusions
even as he signaled his own.
Do you think political agendas can be
advanced through fiction?
Sure. That’s part of the reason that Plato in The Republic advised banning poets. Orwell’s 1984
offers a powerful example.
***
Could you tell us your particular
political philosophy? Conservative? Liberal? Various shades of both?
I started out pretty much as an independent, even voted for Reagan twice
and the first George Bush. It was the impeachment of Bill Clinton, and
the whole investigation involving the pompous special prosecutor Ken Starr that
really pushed me to the left. Mostly, the Republicans in congress flat
out disgusted me over that and have pretty much continued to disgust me ever
since. George W. Bush, Cheney, Karl Rove, the whole neo-con philosophy
for me was just another way of saying let's lie as much as we can get away
with. Now you have the Tea Party whack jobs and a Republican candidate
for president in Romney who reminds me of the guy who knocks on your door
trying to sell you something and not taking no for an answer. F. Scott
Fitzgerald once wrote that "the rich are different than you and I."
Truer words have never been spoken when it comes to Mitt Romney.
Bottom line: I'd be a centrist, if we had a center in this country.
But we don't. You're right or you're left and I come down squarely
on the left.
Some authors make their political views
plain in their fiction. Do you think this applies to you?
I made my views very plain in STRONG AT THE BREAK in which my female
Texas Ranger character Caitlin Strong goes up against a right-wing militia
movement plotting a second civil war. Boy, did I get some angry e-mails
on that one! The thing that was strange about those e-mails is that they
totally ignored the facts. I based the book on actual data and general
mindset of the way these people think. But the hate mail I got chose to
focus instead only on my treatment of Dick Cheney and the neo-cons, ignoring
the very real danger these groups represent and the hatred that dominates their
movements. It seems typical of people with a conservative mindset to just
ignore facts and live in a bubble blown up by Fox News. That said, I'm a
storyteller first and foremost, so I doubt you'll see my politics make their
way onto the page again.
Do you see any problems or downside to
this?
Sure, that being when you become a political spokesman instead of a
storyteller, you risk alienating and/or losing your readers. That's not
why people pick up fiction in general and thrillers in particular. We're
entertainers and we need to stick to entertaining. As the great Sam
Goldwyn once said in the early days of Hollywood, "if you want send
a message, use Western Union."
When you read a novel, if the author’s
politics are visible does this color your thinking about the book?
That's a real good question. Call it the "24" effect
after the great Fox television show. Hey, there's probably never been a
more right-wing series ever, but I absolutely loved it. I love Vince
Flynn and Stephen Hunter's books, but they're probably as right wing as I am
left. I stopped reading Tom Clancy even before I knew how far out on the
lunatic fringe he was, so that had nothing to do with his politics--I just
didn't think his books were very good any more. I couldn't tell you the
politics of Lee Child, James Lee Burke, Michael Connolly, David Morrell, James
Rollins and almost all other writers I love to read. I think ours is an
apolitical industry and that's one of the things I love about it.
Do you think political agendas can be
advanced through fiction?
Wow, great question and I don't really think so because of the points I
made directly above. People are picking up fiction for the same reason
they watch television or go to the movies: they want to escape, be
entertained. They don't want to think, never mind argue. So the
question isn't so much can political agendas be advanced through fiction, as do
political agendas really have any place in fiction
***
Could you
tell us your particular political philosophy? Conservative? Liberal? Various
shades of both?
LB: I started
out in the '70s and '80s as a conservative, but I haven't always voted
Republican. I'm much more politically active now, and have volunteered in the
last two presidential campaigns. It's not like rooting for a sports team. If
you want your guy to win, you've got to help out. And save me from ideologues
and people who think they've got THE answer.
JD: I consider
myself a realist as well as an independent. My voting record is all over the
place. Most people would probably consider me a hawk on foreign and defense
issues, though to my mind I'm a moderate.
Some authors
make their political views plain in their fiction. Do you think this applies to
you?
LB: No,
although a little bit of the writer has to go into every character. If it
matters at all in a novel, the people in a story should have politics consistent
with their characters and their function in the story.
JD: I start
with story, not politics or philosophy. I think the majority of my
characters' politics are either ambiguous because it's not relevant to the plot
or book, or along the lines of [renegade FBI agent] Andy Fisher's in The
Helios Conspiracy: "The good ones are bums and turds. The bad ones are
worse." I'm not as extreme as that - I've known a few very honest and
hardworking politicians, from town councilmen to congressmen. But I think I agree
more often than not with Fisher's cynicism, if not quite
his phraseology. For me, the characters come first. They express their
worldview, not mine. If it's appropriate, then their politics come through in
the story. I think that I can write a character who has liberal views as well
as I can write a character who has conservative views, and vice versa.
Do you see any
problems or downside to this?
LB: No. My
politics may shape the narrative in some way, but my only goal is to tell an
interesting story and deprive my readers of a good night's sleep. When I watch
a movie, I don't care about the actors' politics. The same applies to books.
JD: I think
you run the risk of turning people off if the politics are one way or another.
That's unfortunate, but if that's what the story calls for, that's what you
have to do. In the Red Dragon Rising [my series with Larry Bond], we tried to
imagine what would happen if global warming and climate change led to a war.
Some people decided they didn't like the series because they don't believe that
global warming is taking place. By the same token, I think a lot of people are
attracted to the Rogue Warrior series [which I write with Richard Marcinko]
because the character is anything but politically correct. (I should probably
note that the heroic president in Red Dragon is partly modeled on John McCain,
and that the Rogue Warrior character has worked with both Republican and
Democratic administrations, and not had nice words to say about either.)
When you read a
novel, if the author’s politics are visible does this color your thinking about
the book?
LB: Yes,
because it's a distraction. I want to read a good story. A novel isn't about
the author. I don't care about his personal politics any more than his religion
or his shoe size.
JD: Only if it
gets in the way of the story.
Do you think
political agendas can be advanced through fiction?
LB: I write to
entertain, not share Great Ideas. Books like that have been written, and have
had tremendous effect. If an author shares his thoughts, that's his choice, and
the reader's choice as to whether or not they're worth anything. A person's
political philosophy must be evaluated in the real world, not in the artificial
context of a novel.
JD: Very rarely.
Ayn Rand is an obvious exception.
***
Could you tell us your particular
political philosophy? Conservative? Liberal? Various shades of both?
I am
conservative. I believe in a strong military, less government, balanced
budgets, no federally mandated healthcare (or most any other program), and a
greatly revamped flat tax system with few deductions or subsidies.
Some authors make their political views
plain in their fiction. Do you think this applies to you?
It's in there,
but I don't make it a prominent feature of the plot. I try to present both
sides of an issue and point out the strengths and weaknesses of both sides, and
then I pick the correct one.
Do you see any problems or downside to
this?
Oh yes, lots
of them, especially if the story gets bogged down by the politics or if you get
too personal. I think you can write about issues fairly freely as long as you
don't point out a particular person's deficiencies. I was talked by a publisher
into creating a president much like Bill Clinton (including a strong First Lady
like Hillary) and was roundly criticized by many readers for doing so. Like the
old Hollywood saying goes, "If you want to send a message, call Western
Union--don't put it in your script."
When you read a novel, if the author’s
politics are visible does this color your thinking about the book?
Oh yes, even
if I agree with them.
Do you think political agendas can be
advanced through fiction?
Like any
ingredient or device an author employs, if it interferes with the flow of the
story, it doesn't belong. If you're writing a military techno-thriller,
political scenes that aren't germane to the story only interfere and frustrates
the reader. They need to be tossed.
***
My answers to the questions (in I hope a
sort of coherent fashion):
I think the
terms "liberal" and "conservative" have been so abused by
the business of getting elected they are almost meaningless. I've been a
Senate staffer and a political reporter -- most recently for AOL's PoliticsDaily.com.
I think of myself as actively independent.
I think that
with the demise of private space and any frontier, "politics" now
encompasses everything we do from brushing our teeth to pulling the lever for
who we want to be President. I think the "politics" that comes
through in my fiction is my belief and hope for the individual, for truth, for
justice.
I have
occasionally been stunned to get hit with a political diatribe in the middle of
a novel, one that is clearly not the character's -- acceptable and necessary --
but is instead the author's poorly veiled propaganda, no matter how sincerely
felt. There are great dangers in this, most easily illustrated by a
thriller published about 1973 in which Richard Nixon is by name cast as a moral
and just and naive gracious leader. The truth is,
"contemporary" fiction under the old ways of publishing when a book
could take a year to get into the readers' hands from the editor's desk
rendered writing about fiction and "contemporary" events absurd.
Think of the "thrillers" that got rendered moot and boring
because that were published the week before 9/11 after being in development for
five years.
I question
whether "political platforms" can be advanced through fiction, though
our history is replete with fiction advancing political consciousness
leading to political action. To name a few: UNCLE TOM'S CABIN, THE GRAPES OF WRATH, ATLAS SHRUGGED, ALL THE KING'S
MEN, ONE DAY IN THE LIFE OF IVAN IVANOVICH, SLAUGHTERHOUSE FIVE. Good
fiction always tries to turn lights on in the readers' imaginations, and when
the lights come on, we see political, social and personal perspectives.
But starting any work of imagination with a "political agenda"
rather than an artistic intent is creating propaganda. And it shows.
No comments:
Post a Comment