Jump to content

Shoved Down Your Throat


Cantabile

Recommended Posts

Inspired by a comment about a certain author shoving his point of view down the reader's throat.

I've heard this criticism about many novels in my lifetime, with people saying things like, "The book had a cool message, but the author just kept pounding me over the head with it. After a few hundred pages I got the point already, jeez!" and I'm sure all of you have heard similar or felt that way about a particular book before.

But where do we as readers draw the line between an author expressing a message and developing it, versus shoving it down our throats? What makes a novelist preachy, and why is that a bad thing?

My opinion is that if a novel is trying to express and develop an idea or theme, then "shoving it down the reader's throat" makes perfect sense, as the author will want to repeatedly present it in as much context, with as many details, supporting evidence, and explanations as possibly, or their idea is simply not developed. Whether or not someone enjoys the book will just be subjective to whether or not they enjoyed the message, and how it was explored.

Many readers prefer there to be no point of view of the author, but to me that makes a work meaningless. If a novel is simply a compilation of characters peforming actions, then it's nothing more than entertainment to pass our time. Our opinions, thoughts, and beliefs are not questioned, society is not analyzed, and it contributes nothing to our actual outlook on humanity or life. It's just a "good read" like mindlessly watching the boob tube.

But if it's a novel then we expect that entertainment aspect. It's a requirement. If we just wanted messages we'd be reading essays and studies, not novels, after all. So how does an author blend a story with a message, or use a story as an exploration of a message, without being considered preachy by his audience?

And should we, as an audience, even complain about whether a book focuses heavily on a theme or point of view? Is that really something to critique, or simply a taste?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well in terms of telling a story, it generally is a bad idea. Because if you're trying to ram through this one point of view, your characters might stop like talking like actual people, your plot might swerve from what seems natural, and in general it can easily detract from the story, which is usually the reason people keep reading your novel.

Obviously tons and tons of novels are successful at expressing ideas, but to integrate the idea and the story is hard, and if you really want to bludgeon your reader with an idea, integration might verge on the impossible. At that point you'd better hope you have a really interesting idea, otherwise you're alienating readers who don't already agree with you.

As for whether simply having a point of view or not is a good/bad thing, I think that's taste? I enjoy both as long as they did a good job (though there are some points of view I probably wouldn't be able to read).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's an extremely fine line for an author. Err to far on one side and be accused on bludgeoning your readers; fall too far to the other and you'll be relegated to the ranks of "meaningless entertainment."

I feel it's a matter of taste and sensitivity. Some readers see meaning everything, and others don't. Books are like boxes of chocolates...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I consider it a failing when the message is clear to the point of, "Okay, I GET it."

The Narnia series bothered me for that reason. And lest you consider me one-sided, His Dark Materials bothered me just as much for the very same, albeit opposite view.

Let me draw my own conclusions. I'm not totally daft, y'know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, once you start going "Okay, we know you're a libertarian/socialist/environmentalist/christian/atheist/conservative just GET ON WITH THE DAMN PLOT!" that's the breaking point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, once you start going "Okay, we know you're a libertarian/socialist/environmentalist/christian/atheist/conservative just GET ON WITH THE DAMN PLOT!" that's the breaking point.

I don't really think that thats where the message of a book lies, y'know? Obviously, there too, but to figure out that Ayn Rand thinks unions are evil and China Meiville thinks unions are cool isn't really all that interesting. The real deal is in where a work of fiction manages to send your sympathies, what it makes you abhor and what it makes you long for, what ways of seeing the world it makes you contemplate, all of which are not always what it says on the tin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really think that thats where the message of a book lies, y'know? Obviously, there too, but to figure out that Ayn Rand thinks unions are evil and China Meiville thinks unions are cool isn't really all that interesting. The real deal is in where a work of fiction manages to send your sympathies, what it makes you abhor and what it makes you long for, what ways of seeing the world it makes you contemplate, all of which are not always what it says on the tin.

But, for me, when the book overdoes the message it stops my sympathies going that way because I become annoyed with the author for being ham-fisted about getting the message across (messages not bad, badly done messages bad). Even if the book's message is one with which I disagree, I'm capable of sympathising with it in the book - widening of perspective, I suppose - but if it's overdone, I turn off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, for me, when the book overdoes the message it stops my sympathies going that way because I become annoyed with the author for being ham-fisted about getting the message across (messages not bad, badly done messages bad). Even if the book's message is one with which I disagree, I'm capable of sympathising with it in the book - widening of perspective, I suppose - but if it's overdone, I turn off.

Well, quite, I think. I fairly firmly despise what I percieve as the messages in Enders Game, for example, but I can't deny that its a powerful and effective book. Compare to Goodkinds much more plainly, openly stated message - total mess thats more likely to turn people against the messages unless they've come converted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My opinion is that if a novel is trying to express and develop an idea or theme, then "shoving it down the reader's throat" makes perfect sense, as the author will want to repeatedly present it in as much context, with as many details, supporting evidence, and explanations as possibly, or their idea is simply not developed.

Disagreed completely. If he wants to do that, he can write an essay instead of a story. "Evidence" is important to science and critical thinking, not storytelling and fiction. If a talented storyteller is really going to have a "message" to his story, he is going to be subtle about it, unless he's writing children's fiction. But fiction targeted at adult should respect the reader's intelligence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disagreed completely. If he wants to do that, he can write an essay instead of a story. "Evidence" is important to science and critical thinking, not storytelling and fiction. If a talented storyteller is really going to have a "message" to his story, he is going to be subtle about it, unless he's writing children's fiction. But fiction targeted at adult should respect the reader's intelligence.

If he writes an essay instead of a story, then not only does it reach a fraction of an audience, but an audience that already has some idea of the subject of the content; people do not randomly search out essays on random subjects they are not familiar with. Through a novel an author can have a message read by people that otherwise might never be presented with the subject. What is the point of subtlety? If a message is too subtle, then it is not perceived by many readers. I don't see it serving much purpose other than to stroke the ego of those who can decipher it and think to themselves, "Aha, I caught onto this subtle message! Aren't I so clever."

If an author is blunt rather than subtle, then his message reaches a wider number of his readers, and he can elaborate and develop the message in greater detail than if subtlety is used.

As for it irritating readers that just care about the plot, what about novels where the plot is simply a manifestation of the message? If an author's intended message is how global warming is going to doom the planet, and their plot is entirely based around global warming, and that's why the author wrote the book, then why on Earth would he want to be subtle about it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for it irritating readers that just care about the plot, what about novels where the plot is simply a manifestation of the message? If an author's intended message is how global warming is going to doom the planet, and their plot is entirely based around global warming, and that's why the author wrote the book, then why on Earth would he want to be subtle about it?

If the intended message is that global warming is dooming the Earth, simply setting the book into a globally-warmed and horrible future is enough to make the point (so long as other reasons why the world has been splatted are ruled out). Why belabour it?

A novel should be able to both entertain and make whatever point its author wants. I agree that a book that doesn't make any points falls into the froth category. I profoundly disagree that the entertainment should be reduced to accommodate preaching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, for me, when the book overdoes the message it stops my sympathies going that way because I become annoyed with the author for being ham-fisted about getting the message across (messages not bad, badly done messages bad). Even if the book's message is one with which I disagree, I'm capable of sympathising with it in the book - widening of perspective, I suppose - but if it's overdone, I turn off.

I have to agree with this. I don't think anybody likes the feeling of being force-fed a certain viewpoint, and personally, I also dislike it because there's no obligation for the author to be realistic or back up his preaching with facts. For me, any message that is not very subtle or nicely intertwined with the story (and therefore doesn't stand out) is overdone. I think that there are better ways than writing a fiction novel to get your message to the public; 90% of the time, your message will just irritate readers (unless you wrote it as written above). I don't think that wanting to tell the world about your strong convictions regarding global warming/society/religion/anything, really, is a good enough excuse to write a novel - not that it's wrong to include your personal convictions into your novel, but writing solely for the purpose of preaching and then advertising it as fiction is not OK with me. It feels too much like writers of propaganda trying to trick me into reading it - I disliked Atlas Shrugged for that exact reason.

However, I also think that messages of fiction novels are overrated and that primary function of fiction is entertainment, so I might be a bit biased.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, quite, I think. I fairly firmly despise what I percieve as the messages in Enders Game, for example, but I can't deny that its a powerful and effective book. Compare to Goodkinds much more plainly, openly stated message - total mess thats more likely to turn people against the messages unless they've come converted.

That's my point I think. Ender's Game has a message (several ones, arguably) but it never makes me stop up and go "STOP: PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT: SOCIALISTS ARE EVIL." Or anything.

At least it didn't when I read it last time, might be more grating the next time around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, quite, I think. I fairly firmly despise what I percieve as the messages in Enders Game, for example, but I can't deny that its a powerful and effective book. Compare to Goodkinds much more plainly, openly stated message - total mess thats more likely to turn people against the messages unless they've come converted.

Ender's Game worked as a book because you could draw different conclusions from it. I thought the story was a great example of why it's wrong to do horrible things even though the perceived ends are good, and why your motivations don't matter one bit if you kill people - they're just as dead anyway. Even though Card probably thought he was writing a book with quite the opposite message, it still left enough open questions to answer yourself - did the generals do the right thing? Did Ender? Did Peter? Why or why not?

That, I think, is the golden rule for how to present a message in a story: make the reader think. A novel should pose questions, not answer them. That doesn't mean you can't ask leading questions, but you have to present them in such a way that the reader can reach a conclusion of his or her own. Speaking of Orson Scott Card, his second novel in the series, Speaker for the Dead, is a total failure precisely because the main protagonist explains his ethics in detail (and it's highly dubious, to say the least).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Through a novel an author can have a message read by people that otherwise might never be presented with the subject. What is the point of subtlety? If a message is too subtle, then it is not perceived by many readers. I don't see it serving much purpose other than to stroke the ego of those who can decipher it and think to themselves, "Aha, I caught onto this subtle message! Aren't I so clever."

There's probably some truth in the suggestion that a lack of subtlety can get more people reading the book - see Dan Brown's success for an example. However, your original question was why some readers dislike unsubtle preachy books, even if an author's lack of subtlety might be a sensible decision in appealing to a wide readership, that doesn't mean everyone has to like the book.

You ask the point of subtlety, I find it odd that you'd even question that, you might as well ask the point of good characterisation or good prose or plots where the outcome of the book isn't obvious from the first chapter. A quick glance at the bestseller lists would show that they're not necessary to get a lot of people reading and enjoying an author's work, but I'm still glad that there is good characterisation and prose and subtle storytelling out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another problem readers often seem to have is differentiating between a character expressing a message, versus the author expressing it. Sometimes an author channels his voice through characters, and it's grating, but other times it's simply a part of their characterization, and has no reflection whatsoever of the author.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I'm having a hard time thinking of examples where I felt the author was shoving a "message" down my throat. There's Ayn Rand and Goodkind, and I can think of a couple books for younger readers that weren't subtle, but adult books? There are some where some non-essential point (like "all good people adore babies") becomes annoying because I don't agree with it, but stuff like Ender's Game.... when I read it as a teenager I didn't notice any real message.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...