Jump to content

Shoved Down Your Throat


Cantabile

Recommended Posts

Well, it was Raidne's comment about The Prince of Nothing shoving Bakker's viewpoint down her throat that inspired this topic, if that serves as an example for some (though I never once felt Bakker was shoving a view point, since all of the philosophy and politics are woven into the characterization and plot)

Another example is The Alchemist, which I've heard friend criticize for hitting them on the head with the same message over and over. Seeing as there's not really a plot to that novel, and it is entirely an exploration of a message, being a parable of sorts, I don't have an issue with that either.

Speaking of parables, perhaps our dislike of feeling that we're being preached to stems from getting so used to stories that are simply entertainment, so that when there is a strong message it contrasts too much. Parables and fables have become a lost art in this day and age, after all.

Or perhaps it stems with our cultural obsession with independence and not being told what to do.

The why of our negative rection to certain messages/means of expressing those messages is a pretty good question. We have an effect, but not a clear and definite cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see where Raidne is coming from with Bakker, though. The Prince of Nothing series is very good, one of my favorites, but there are times when it seems like Bakker reiterates a point a few too many times. There isn't as much of it in PON as there is in his other books. While he never reaches Goodkind levels of preaching, it can be pretty off putting if you just don't agree with the message. The only problems I've had with his other books is that the message is much the same even if it's delivered in a different way.

Also, I think Raidne mentioned that she was annoyed by the way Bakker described certain things in such detail. He does seem to revel in certain details. I usually ignore those but after a few rereads, some things become much harder to dismiss so I can sort of understand the feelings people might have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't mind reading a parable or a fable. For one, those are usually really short, and they're usually honest. A book that tries to turn into a parable or a fable when it hasn't been set up that way is like those movies that try to shoehorn a romantic subplot that neither the writers or the actors are interested in. It's disruptive, it usually shatters any dramatic tension or pacing the author managed to develop, and it often comes at the expense of meaningful character development. It is possible to construct a narrative that tells a message, even a preachy one, but in my view you have to set it up beforehand instead of doing the 11th hour sermon and you have to remember that you're still writing a novel and not a fricking Aesop's fable.

(Did you ever see Aesop writing anything that even approached the 300-page bunker-busters we're seeing on shelves today? Jesus Christ Himself never even considered rambling on for months in any of his parables; even the Son of God doesn't want to lose an audience.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of parables, perhaps our dislike of feeling that we're being preached to stems from getting so used to stories that are simply entertainment, so that when there is a strong message it contrasts too much. Parables and fables have become a lost art in this day and age, after all.

There are a lot of books that convey rather innocuous messages, like "Ruining someone's life may have negative consequences for you and your family in the future," or "People should talk about their problems rather than being secretive for no reason." Where do you draw the line between a theme and a message and a parable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, there are many subtle beliefs, emotional characteristics and motifs in fiction and writing more generally. Well-read people tend to have certain characteristics that imply they are passively educated by their pastimes.

If an author imparts sympathy and understanding that appears to the reader to be their own discovery or even better, creates or strengthens associations subconciously then they have conveyed their message effectively.

Political rhetoric and polemics can be difficult to couch though and I suspect that is where most of the reactionary dislike to 'preaching' comes in. If you know nothing of objectivism you're not likely to notice it so much in Goodkind - I know people who were surprised to hear my complaints about its politics. There's a balance between the writer's skill and the message she is trying to convey and the reader's experience and predictiliations.

Ostentiably a work of non-fiction, I could not get more than a third through Roger Penrose's 'Emperor's New Mind'. Pious scientists are clearly desperate for company, but religon isn't in the synopsis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This board is mixed SF and Fantasy readers, and that makes a pretty large difference for me. SF is often preachy by default, while fantasy is often escapist. A huge generalization with countless exceptions I know, but it's one of the reasons I prefer Fantasy to science fiction usually. I like being entertained and am not a huge fan of strong messages, whether I agree with them or not. I also find Narnia and His Dark Materials both too preachy, like previously mentioned here. I don't mind an authors ideas coming through but not if that's the focus of the novel. I'm shallow that way. :D

Funny enough, Tairy's a great example of this. WFR is just your average, crappy fantasy novel with some odd ideas in there, but it isn't overly preachy. It's just a story told by a guy with some wierd ideas. Once you get to about book 5, he's trying to force feed you those wierd ideas of his. It's when the series gets really, truly unreadable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This board is mixed SF and Fantasy readers, and that makes a pretty large difference for me. SF is often preachy by default, while fantasy is often escapist. A huge generalization with countless exceptions I know, but it's one of the reasons I prefer Fantasy to science fiction usually. I like being entertained and am not a huge fan of strong messages, whether I agree with them or not. I also find Narnia and His Dark Materials both too preachy, like previously mentioned here. I don't mind an authors ideas coming through but not if that's the focus of the novel. I'm shallow that way. :D

Funny enough, Tairy's a great example of this. WFR is just your average, crappy fantasy novel with some odd ideas in there, but it isn't overly preachy. It's just a story told by a guy with some wierd ideas. Once you get to about book 5, he's trying to force feed you those wierd ideas of his. It's when the series gets really, truly unreadable.

I would say the same for Narnia (although I wouldn't call Lion, Witch, Wardrobe a crappy fantasy novel). But if one just read the L,W,W the religious nature is not really noticeable. But once you read more than one, it becomes obvious and then obnoxious. The Last Battle and the Magician's Nephew were obnoxiously preachy.

Like others have said, if while reading a book I get to a point where I am consciously thinking "yeah, i get it" it is annoying. Agree with the point, or not. It takes away from the narrative, and if your goal is to spread your message and not tell a story, then write non-fiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it does. My view is that most reasonable sane people have views that roughly overlap but are different in specific details. Say a slightly right-of-centre guy and a slightly left-of-centre guy write a fantasy novel each. Chances are that it will be hard to tell their politics from what they write: you can work out that Tolkien, for instance, is some kind of British traditionalist, but where he stands on free health care I don't know. That to me is absolutely fine, since the guy writing the story will probably come across as a reasonable guy just by writing a story where the good characters behave fairly well. I could read Oliver Twist or Animal Farm, say, and know that they were by reasonable people without knowing the politics of the authors.

Where I have a problem is with more extreme politics. The more extreme the politics the more ranty the books tend to get, partly because specific situations have to be crowbarred in to fit the author's political points into the story. "Of course the people get free healing spells here in Yuropia." "That's wrong, you Cultist of Commonism, and here's a lecture why!" (I also suspect it is because more extreme writers tend to be more ranty and neurotic anyway). When it gets to the point where normal decent people wouldn't do the stuff the author lets the heroes do unquestioned (Jaw-kicking, anyone?) there is a problem. For me, anyway.

There does seem to be more of a problem with right-wingers than left-wingers here. Maybe left-wingers like Mieville write more about oppressed people trying to overthrow dictators, which a lot of people can sympathise with (it's what happens after the revolution that's the problem!). Right-wingers tend to spend a lot of time telling the reader why they are correct and everyone else, characters and real world, are dumb. Or perhaps more right-wing nutjobs see print.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A writer can have a heavy hand. The amount of heavy-handedness that a person's willing to entertain varies from person to person, and varies from context to context. If one tries to sort out a mythical "typical reader", though, I'd say the evidence suggests that Bakker has managed to severely limit his readership despite his obvious skills and talents, and that though are a number of factors to this, his heavy-handedness must surely be a part of it.

Having a message is great. Failing to convey it effectively is not so great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There does seem to be more of a problem with right-wingers than left-wingers here. Maybe left-wingers like Mieville write more about oppressed people trying to overthrow dictators, which a lot of people can sympathise with (it's what happens after the revolution that's the problem!). Right-wingers tend to spend a lot of time telling the reader why they are correct and everyone else, characters and real world, are dumb. Or perhaps more right-wing nutjobs see print.

This is an interesting point, and is possibly one reason the right-wing rhetoric jars more than the equivalent from the left - often it's just wrong. If anyone's been following the Rockson books, you'll have seen how it's the Commies who own slaves, live in luxury while subjecting their underlings to squalor, etc etc, while the noble capitalists are all equal and co-operative and strive together in harmony. Makes for very odd reading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What was the message in Bakker, again? :unsure:

As a serious response, the message I got is that free will is an illusion, and that what we think of as our freely-made choices are merely what we've been told to think by religion, politics, and history.

As a less serious response, that alien rape demons are cool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of which, isn't it kind of ironic that the dunnies are trying to create a self-moving soul (IE: Something that is not bound by casuality) through conditioning?

Doesen't that kind of defeat the point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I prefer far more an author who has the courage of his opinions than one who thinks of being subtle and sly.

The same as I prefer upfront honesty to manipulation.

What I want is a complex and deep message, not a complex and deep surface/mystification. The merit of things rather then their presentation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Mindonner. Perhaps, if you reduce them to really simple terms, left-wing political slogans sound nicer than right-wing ones. "Let's all be equal" sounds better than "Let's conquer everyone" or "I want to be able to make lots of money". Of course any slogan can be made into something evil. I'm not saying left is immune or even more resistant to misuse than right. Few SFF books, after all, go into real political details other than a friendly king is better than a cruel one. Still a king, whatever that means.

The other thing is that when they're preaching a point a lot of right-wing books are basically saying "be like this or there'll be trouble". Starship Troopers seemed like this: it didn't accept that there could be any alternative to a world in which you were second-rate until you'd earned your place. Other countries might run their military differently but just as well.

Maybe the problem comes when you start preaching too much for something rather than more generally against something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...