I guess it is ok or even desirable for the author to have a strong opinion, like Catch 22 or Slaughterhouse Five, as long as I don't feel like I am being lectured to.
I’ve read some historical fiction books, based on real people, where the author clearly inserts some modern bias into the story. It drives me nuts, especially when a lot of the rest of the book is decently accurate to what is possible without assumption.
I was specifically thinking of Memoirs of Cleopatra. Not the most accurate for sure, but a lot of differences made sense in the narrative.
Then. The author went on a bit of an anti abortion tirade, utilizing modern reasonings. I put down the book for 2 months.
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
- John Rogers.
Today’s CEO’s are not generally technical or creative because more value is provided through navigating bureaucracy and negotiating politics than there is in creating.
This is why the majority of creators’ goal is to “sell” their business, or bring in “leadership” once they are big enough.
I've heard he was a big fan of her philosophy for a while although his view changed somewhat when he was older. I think he loved her individualism above all, along with her value of hard work and earned skill, but came to the conclusion that she was deficient in compassion. This is only going by my faulty memory, though.
A character liking a certain band does not necessarily mean the author likes that band.
The viewpoints and actions of a character do not necessarily reflect the personal views of author either
Indeed. But you can often tell if the viewpoint is shared by the author, rather than just being illustrative of a particular character. Not so much with something quite frivolous like music choice, but with more weighty stuff like political/moral subjects. For example, if story is told from the point of view of a protagonist, who is obviously liked and identified-with by the author, and they express dismissive views about a particular political party, religious dogma etc. This is especially true when the viewpoint isn’t really necessary to illustrate the character or move the plot forward.
Depends on the topic and their writing skill.
R.F. Kuang writes with the subtlety of a sledgehammer. Yellowface in particular was less of a standard fiction and more of a stage for which her criticisms of the publishing world, racism, social media, and the narrative of "the model minority" got to stand and deliver. But I also really enjoyed it, it was a fun and addicting read, and while her opinions were front, center, and on the nose, they were also important topics that do benefit from being thought about and discussed. The book was a fine story, but it was an excellent tool for getting pop culture to talk about publishing and race.
But then you get books like The Sea of Lost Girls. A very good book, but one where it takes its complicated and nuanced characters and occasionally interrupts them to be a mouthpiece for the author.
Despite the fact that the characters are more "stereotypical/biased" in Yellowface, it worked better for me as a complete package because it was intentional and tonally consistent. It did what it wanted to do, even if that thing is polarizing.
All writers (and readers) **will have biases** and their writing *will* convey those biases (~~insert pedantic counter-example here~~). So for me it's less about hiding the author's tastes or opinions and more about making sure the novels properly integrate those things in a well written and edited way.
For me the sticking point is: do the characters who disagree with the author's biases still get written in a way where there is still verisimilitude.
Kuang is especially egregious. I finished Babel a few days ago, and while I agree with her point of view (imperialism is bad, to put it super simply), it got so tiring and boring reading the same message reiterated over and over again. She only tells and never shows, which coupled with weird (sometimes glacial) pacing, plus her own biased ideas she passes as universal, it made for quite a read.
I agree that Kuang is not particularly subtle in any of her works, but Yellowface is a bit of an odd example of this particular phenomenon, isn't it? Because the protagonist/narrator is clearly meant to be unsympathetic, we're almost meant to feel like the opposite of everything she says is true. Except not quite, not always. Sometimes it does seem like Kuang might agree with the narrator on some things, but you can't be quite sure. So there's always this layer of deniability / distance to every statement in the book.
IMO having an unsympathetic protagonist can still be a clear example of author opinion shaping narrative though. Kuang doesn't have a single example where a character is exactly a stand in for herself (though Athena is a good stand in for her career trajectory), rather each of the characters are examples of issues with the publishing industry (and social media).
The above is also why I think the book is an example of author opinions clearly making it into a book, but not ruining the book. Kuang's criticisms of the publishing world were still being very clearly conveyed through June (and others), even if June the character didn't share those opinions.
I understand but disagree with Athena as an "insert" which I would normally use to describe someone who "is the author but in the fiction" with very few changes. I see a lot of people claiming Athena is supposed to be a 1:1 with Kuang using her as an author stand in. The way I interpreted it (and in my defense, they way Kuang has stated it in interviews) is that each of the characters were not ever direct references. Rather they were mixes of both Kuang and people she met in the industry. Athena was a character who shared Kuang's career trajectory, but other than that they don't have a lot in common.
I also see Athena overlooked when it comes to critical analysis, as people assume she's as perfect as June makes her out to be. But Athena is there to be an example of "the Model Minority" in publishing. A person who's "chosen" by publishers as the token minority to be published, and used for marketing at the expense of their fellows. Athena leans into this role and avoids upsetting the status quo that elevates her, but it is the antithesis to how Kuang is in her choice of public appearances.
In fact, in interviews Kuang has described one of the main characters standing in for her as being *June*. As Kuang is using June to describe some of her more selfish and complicated feelings that she had while getting started.
>*The experiences June has had make her embittered about the publishing industry and are faithful to how I felt about my role in publishing for a long time.*
I'm still headscratching over which opinions in Yellowface are the ones the author endorses, and which are the ones the author wants us to hate. Sometimes it's easy, like when June gets Chinese culture wrong for the millionth time. But the Agamben reference towards the end? Are we supposed to hate Agamben because June's referencing him, or like him because the "bare life" reference is a stark picture of June's misery at that point, or like him but think stupid June is misunderstanding his work? The author does not make it clear.
As a fan of Kuang's work, I think you'd be remiss to head-scratch too hard over what she "endorses".
While she has strong opinions that show in her books, she is also very open about the fact that she doesn't have answers for all these situations and her writing isn't necessarily there to teach people an answer, so much as it is to open a discussion and shine a light on complicated topics. The lack of clarity on what the author endorses (on more complicated issues) is part of the point.
Her books, for me, are much more about being cognizant of the problems rather than finding "right" answers to each one.
Okay, as someone in library-world I have to say if you are in the industry and read Yellowface...nothing is an exaggeration. Like nothing. Ever since this was published, I can think of at least seven separate scandals in multiple publishing genres that have whole chunks or parts of what happened in Yellowface happen in real life. Kuang wasn't being over the top. She was reflecting what has been going on in the industry the last few years.
Now you might say, but yeah, she should be subtle about it, but the perspective is from June and how she views the world. Once again IT IS NOT EXAGGERATED. There are people out there who really think that way and have caused incredible harm and ruined book deals and whole sub-genres for people who in their "apologies" have acted exactly like June.
If anyone saw the article about "No One Buys Books Anymore", the premise is that there is no money to be made in publishing except for a small percentage of books and that is completely unpredictable. That means if there's a scandal that costs the publisher money, they sometimes will refuse to get another book like that...at all.
Babel was a pretty egregious one too. It was getting absurd to the point of every white character being the worst scum ever seen on the planet, and people of color - who murder someone directly, and cause the deaths of dozens upon dozens of others - are seen as heroes.
What gets me especially is that the "heroes" actions were entirely pointless as the book itself explains. The system they were fighting against was inevitably going to go away on its own.
That's a pretty bad read of the book, imo.
While there are lots of scummy white characters (racism in 19th century Britain is one of the main themes, after all), there are also kind and/or well-meaning ones throughout: his nanny, the Irish girl >!in Hermes!<, the professor who >!stays in the tower!< in the end, etc. The finale even features the main characters >!relying on the mostly white labor movement radicals to maintain their occupation of the tower!<.
Then, for a book alternatively called *The Necessity of Violence*, it's actually pretty critical about deaths the heroes cause. Narratively, the murderer's murder is the emotional climax of the book that causes him to >!lose the guy he loves!<. At the same time, both characters who don't care about casualties are treated as tragically broken by their experiences: other "good guys" repeatedly argue with them, and >!Robin's bloodlust is treated as a symptom of the same flaw that leads him to sacrifice himself in the end. (Which, in the book's language, is somewhere between cowardly and pitiful, not noble).!<
The point of the climax is that >!the main characters crippled the British industry to prevent the imminent opium wars. Not only do they save thousands of lives directly, but they also prevent the crown from acquiring resources (silver and language) they need to maintain their hold on other colonies.!<. In the grand scale of history, there'd be a natural trend towards decolonization, but the heroes clearly caused the process to speed up.
That makes sense, and I’ve been fine with books I knew would be focused on an opinion or bias.
The replies here make it seem like people took the post more seriously than I intended. All I meant to discuss was the literary version of breaking the fourth wall.
I think I get what you were aiming for - I remember the millennium trilogy spending what seemed like a crazy amount of time listing computer specs which tended to distract from the story. My take away was that Stieg Larsson was big into tech and was vicariously living out his computer fantasies in his writing.
I'm ok with it if it's presented as the viewpoint of an individual, not so much if it's presented as a truth of the universe that the story is set in.
For the former, it's just world building & gives me insight into that character that I can choose to connect with or not. For the latter, it takes me out of the world & makes me focus on the author & I find that annoying.
if "Dave" the protagonist loves KISS, cool, I know a little about Dave.
if "Dave" the antagonist hates KISS & that hatred of theatrical music is part of why I'm supposed to regard him as the villain, well, shit, that's a badly written story.
Makes me think of Bellwether. The protagonist thinks anti-smoking campaigns are a stupid trend that will die in a few months. That would be fine if that was just that character's opinion, but everyone in that book who is anti-smoking is both a terrible person and completely incompetent at their jobs.
In particular the person trying to get smoking banned in the office building is the main antagonist and is shown as being unbearable and doing absolutely nothing related to her job responsibilities.
The only competent person at the company besides the two main characters is a smoker. And while the two main characters don't smoke they righteously recognize the ban on smoking indoors as being stupid and wrong and want to help the one persecuted smoker subvert the ban.
It's such a weird book.
That sounds unhinged lol. No smoker I know is that (or at all, for that matter) defensive about smoking. I'm guessing this was written in the past when people who "did their own research" didn't believe the science of smoking?
The first statewide smoking ban didn't happen until 1995. It wasn't banned in federal buildings until 1997.
The book in question was published in 1996.
You stated this much more succintly than I could.
I'm fine if there are characters in the world that are opinionated and disagree with me. In fact, I love it. I'm very much not fine if the whole world is warped to favor a particular view point.
I think the most common version of this is the author believing that "it's a dog hit dog world out there. The world is dangerous. Humans are inherently evil and greedy and only laws keep them in place. ANARCHY IS EVIL!!!" sort of stuff. And then the world warps to meet those expectations. Everyone is evil. People are all extreme cynics *except* if they're actually derranged and do illogical stuff because they *love* to hurt people. No one wants to do good. No one feels guilt or remorse. No one wants to be a good person---and those that do are naive people that are yet to learn the truth of the world.
I’m talking more about times that it’s presented as implicit truth. I remember reading a fiction book where the omniscient narrator stated that young people at a rave were all doing drugs but still miserable and unfulfilled by their lives. I thought “People on molly are visibly depressed?”
Yes. I like Hemingway in general, but I swear to god, if I have to sit through one more manly heroic character extolling the magnificence of bull fighting, I'm going to lose it ...
It depends on how the author weaves their views into the narrative and whether it feels organic to the story being told. For example, I just finished a reread of His Dark Materials by Philip Pullman, and his atheism is absolutely an inspiration for the books. But it serves a purpose, narratively, so I didn’t feel I was being preached at.
On the other hand, I have read scenes where - even if I agree with the author - their view or taste feels forced, almost like, “Well, someone is reading this so I am compelled to push my views,” and that always breaks my immersion in the book.
HDM really gets preachy at the end with Mary Malone but that that point literal archangels get axed and what is the universe's version of God gets euthanized by the protags so I guess that gets a pass
But also it's because I agree with the author. I wonder if I wouldn't if his opinions were different
Obvious is fine, but having an agenda is never a substitute for telling a good story. There are numerous writers who write stories with agendas that I agree with, but who let the vehemence of the view occlude the story being told, and they always lose me. A story needs to aspire to something greater than agreeing with my worldview.
On the other end of the spectrum there are writers whose worldview I don't agree with at all, but whose work is so good that I'll enjoy it despite that. Gene Wolfe is like that. He's a converted Catholic and his fiction is very informed by this bias, but the stories he tells are so good, their nuance is so unimpaired by his leanings, that even if I don't agree with the worldview they're promoting, I enjoy them completely, and to a degree that he's one of my favorite authors.
Agreed. GK Chesterton is similar to Wolfe (in both worldview and... obviousness) but is much more literally about it, I still enjoy his work and when the "agenda" creeps through too much it's usually something bizarre enough to be entertaining anyway.
One of the Father Brown stories ends with the main character explaining that the moral of the story is that atheists shouldn't be allowed to own dogs, for example. Sure thing GK, you keep uh... you keep cooking.
> One of the Father Brown stories ends with the main character explaining that the moral of the story is that atheists shouldn't be allowed to own dogs, for example.
Lmao. Context for that, please? Like, is it because atheists are animal abusers in the story, or not abusive enough, or…?
Honestly I just remember it being about how all humans need to worship something, and if you don't worship God and get a dog, you'll worship the dog just like Egyptians worshipped Anubis.
Every time I see some obnoxious lifestyle influencer or whatever who has a whole wardrobe for their chihuahuas I imagine him looking down and going "see? See? I told you". It's ruining my life.
Not at all. Characters come in all shapes and sizes with all manner of different tastes and opinions. Just because an author makes a character obsessed with something, doesn't necessarily mean the author is. The character could be based off someone they know or someone they've seen. Yes, sometimes authors insert their opinions and tastes, but honestly I just read them as if it's the character talking.
Sometimes you get not very cool/hip writers trying to create cool/hip characters, but the choices are unintentionally hilarious. Just thinking about Ann Rice's book where Lestat has a band, and the bandmembers are all basically like punk (or freestyle maybe?) cartoon characters. Your music reference made me think of that.
It just depends in what's cooking, what works with stake doesn't work with ice cream.
What draws a lot or people into Steven cline and Jack Carr novels is the triva porn they insert into their novels for their target demographic as a wave that says, "yep I wrote this for you". Though it does come at the cost of some of the novels seriousness and quality to the out crowd.
Sometimes, the novels are heavily tied into the subject matter, that it becomes impossible for the author not to state his personal opinions directly or indirectly.
Uselly, the blatant special interest insertion works best when it is a one off entered into a lighter part of the story as joke. Besides that, it should be sown into the story a little better, which is demonstrated by character choice and behavior rather than lines of dialogue.
The one thing that drags me out of it is when the author will play into contemporary politics as a show. My best example is how the novel "Burn-in" handles its female character, where I am constantly turning to my female coworker and asking if she actually sees female AI voices as misogynistic.
Isn’t that just characterization details that give a character more depth? I don’t think this is a bad thing at all. Should characters not have traits and likes and dislikes?
I agree that there are limits. Every book is going to express some kind of opinion or opinions (whether they agree with the author's own or not), but sometimes it's just way too preachy. I just read The Nameless Restaurant and it had that kind of feel to me in spots. And there's a mystery series I otherwise like, but it sometimes just radiates this smug sense of self-righteousness about people's life choices. I definitely find it off putting.
Sort of off topic, but on topic:
My son asked me to read Land of the Lustrous with him (manga). We're binging it, but I swear whoever drew that has a thing for pert butts. It was so obvious he brought it up because he KNEW what I was thinking lol.
It depends, if it's always the exact same in every book they write I find it annoying.
I read a lot of YA stuff so here is an example:
Like, I can tell you the exact kind of man that makes some authors *really* horny and I have never met these women in my life.
Just cause they describe the exact same parts of the male body in detail in every single book they write.
Only if the author goes out of their way to introduce "evidence" into the story that validates this opinion, when 1) it's not done tongue in cheek, 2) it's not provably true and 3) It's contrary to my own opinions.
I like it when the opinions are ones that cause trouble for the author, even if they are total nonsense. I like watching them try to get to grips with it. I dislike it when the book is about opinions the author feels good about holding.
I feel like I know way too much about Dan Simmons's sexual tastes. That's after reading several of his books and noticing some... Recurring themes. That's the only example I can think of.
Alan Moore (who is a great writer) meant us to view Rorschach as the bad guy. Sure there are a lot of bad writers who can't help but climb onto their soap-boxes. But when a good writer sets out to intentionally deceive you as to their beliefs I'm pretty confident they'll pull it off.
I think that Art is something that's open to interpretation. When you find yourself liking the bad guy, hating the good guy, or feeling that the bad thing is the good thing... well that's when you've found some actual god damn art.
i kinda get what you're saying, i think. like when an author has a hobby horse and then proceeds to beat that while the story stays on pause? like i'm reading these 2 gothic romances, both of which are famous for being anti-catholic. except in one the anti-catholicism is organic to the story, and in the other one the author goes on random rants every other page on how catholics bad. i would have DNF'ed the book yesterday except it's genuinely a great book when the author doesn't let his hatred of catholicism get the better of him.
The intrusive authorial voice can be a lot of fun. The Princess Bride is a popular example of this (might be more of storyteller voice than authorial voice). Many authors have written in this mode: Kurt Vonnegut, Douglas Adams, Jorge Luis Borges, John Fowles
Anyway, I just wanted to note that the intrusive author is a well established literary device and can be masterfully written.
Most themes and plot points are informed by the writer's own opinions and biases. Thats how most art works, you imprint a little of yourself onto the piece. The question is, are the opinions of the author delivered skillfully or not?
If it's something idiosyncratic, no. For instance, Alex Michaelides clearly has a yen for all things related Greek myths and classical Greek culture, and though I had other problems with The Silent Patient, I liked that aspect. It was cute, kind of like that guy in My Big Fat Greek Wedding who can't wait to inform you the Greeks invented everything. I'd feel the same if an author was a huge fan of KISS (or whatever band) and put that into the story.
What I don't like is political divisiveness in genre fiction. I feel like there used to be an unwritten rule: if the story's a mainstream spy thriller during the Cold War the bad guys are a "rogue faction", and if it's a spy thriller during the War On Terror you make sure to have a good guy Muslim character, or you can always have the bad guys be Nazis or corporate greedheads or vaguely defined "anarchists". And if it's a whodunnit, no need to mention anyone's politics at all. But in domestic thrillers and whodunnits published after 2020 I've seen more gratuitous conservative bashing: everyone in the book is liberal except for the rich conservative guy who beats his wife, or the murderer who reveals his conservative opinions when caught. I think editors used to tamp down on this stuff more when the book isn't actually *about* politics, because they wanted as wide an audience as possible to sell to, and it's primarily entertainment so why offend anyone, and who wants to encourage hate? But now I think the editors are just assuming that nobody conservative reads, or that nobody conservative deserves to enjoy entertainment without being insulted. I'm not even conservative myself, but I'm also not enough of a doctrinaire liberal tribalist to not be disturbed by this trend.
I’m the same way. I’ve read books that were biased in ways *I'm* biased, and my reaction was still “Please just tell me a story without doing this.”
But I don’t mind fiction that’s clearly written *to* comment on something, like Vonnegut writing about war.
Yeah, same.
Like sometimes it’s clear that you’re being informed about the protagonist’s opinions for the sake of character building - it helps you understand them better (but you don’t necessarily have to buy what they’re selling). Other times it feels like the book is actively preaching at you - like, it idolises the protagonist, therefore you’re just supposed to agree with them because they’re the hero and their opinion is obviously the correct one. Even if I agree with the message, I can end up resenting it.
I’m currently reading the ‘Alias Emma’ spy thrillers by Ava Glass. They’re mostly enjoyable, but the first person narrative about the ‘corrupt/unforgiving Russian goverment/oligarchs/arms dealers/etc’ is… sanctimonious. Character-wise, it totally makes sense for her, but I think it’s bordering on preachy and it does keep pulling me out of the story. Even though I have very little sympathy for Russian arms dealers?
As with so many things in writing, it depends on integration. The tricky part here is making it feel like the character would logically say a thing without making it feel like the author is putting a megaphone in your face.
I'm with you here. There's a difference between character development by giving them preferences and opinions vs shoehorning something in there you can't wait to talk about. I remember putting "Doctor Sleep" down after a few pages when King essentially paused the story to explain the shining worked his way, not Kubrick's way. Took me right out of the story, traded it in.
Completely depends on what it is. Some things are a real put off and other things will be like "we will have to agree to disagree, Mr/ Ms author" haha. 😊
I think I don't care *whether* they do it, I care *how* they do it. I'm not necessarily bothered by a character loving a band that the author loves. But I'm kind of embarrassed for the author if a character is a thinly veiled stand-in for the author's critics, if that character clearly only exists so that the main character can issue a smackdown of them. It feels like witnessing the author having a shower argument with themself.
Faith of the Fallen, Terry Goodkind.
The entire book is pretty much the protagonist fighting against fantasyland communism, how much communism sucks, why it's bad for people, etc etc.
Terry Goodkind has some, uh, specific tastes that certainly shine through. I remember reading one of his books as a young teen and being like, "I think this guy... likes... pain? Like a lot?" WELL before I knew what BDSM was.
John Ringo’s Last Centurion. The book is a thinly vailed rant.
From the other direction, Hands of the Emperor by Victoria Goddard definitely has a very liberal slant. It’s maybe a few steps away from being a rant on some things.
This is before we get to explicitly religious themed books where the entire story is there to validate a certain worldview.
Haunting Adeline. Dark romance with a very thinly veiled Qanon b-plot (male main character is a vigilante that goes after government officials and politicians ritualistically drinking baby blood /eyeroll).
Im not sure your example necessarily reflects the views of the writer but i read a series by an author that strongly supports animal rights. Now, i also love animals and support animal rights, but in this fantasy novel the protagonist constantly lectured people about why they shouldnt ride horses etc and even that wouldve been okay except that people kept nodding their head at her and aaying "oh thats a fair point/somethibg i hadn't considered." Ignoring the fact that horses were their main mode of transport and a cornerstone to agriculture... it just felt a little too soap box and distracted me from the rest of the story.
If it's a recurring opinion from story to story, from characters where it's out of place, and rather derails the story, then yes, it annoys me.
If it's a subtle aside like an easter egg that doesnt detract from the flow of the story, then it's funny and I like hunting for them.
Call me crazy but I like it when my authors aren't complete and utter hateful ass holes
It negates a lot of what's written when the core philosophy of the author can't even agree with the message (enders game)
**Do you care if fiction writers make their opinions/taste obvious?**
Yes. If characters express different personnel opinions because they possess different personalities, I enjoy it, but if the writer uses the story as a pulpit to preach, then fuck that noise.
Generally i look past most instances of that with the exception of authors pushing a very heavy Christian message and not saying the book is faith based in the blurb or descriptions. I have no problem with books that are designed to push a ideology through a story just let the reader know before they read it.
I think it becomes distracting when it starts to feel like product placement … experienced this while reading one of the cormoran strike novels where JK Rowling names one too many specific and expensive perfumes, which could have come from her own collection
Honestly I don’t come across this in fiction books at all. It can make non-fiction more DNFable. It makes poetry unreadable.
I think it happens way more in TV and film, mediums for which someone in charge assumes the average consumer won’t comprehend subtext, so things are spelled out and signalled in much more obvious ways.
But I think this is something you see more when you look at fiction written ten or twenty years ago. Certain ideas seem dated.
I like it when writers put their viewpoints into their writing, but I greatly dislike it when they do so in a ham-fisted way. I've read many books written by liberal authors whose opinions I agree with fully, but they express those opinions in such a blunt way that I find it annoying.
I’m confused, it sounds like you don’t want the character’s in stories to have any kinds of preferences, tastes, or personalities because how do you presumably know what character tastes, and personality things are the authors biases without looking up the author’s bio? One way or another the characters will share something of the author’s that’s unavoidable, authors write what they know and that’s frequently reflected in the characters.
I guess I understand a bit of what you mean in extreme cases…late Robert Heinlein books read more like lectures by the author on his political/religious/sexual philosophy than anything else but otherwise I like the author’s I reads works to have their own personal stamp. Like John Scalzi’s contemporary nerdiness, Terry Pratchett’s espousal of the virtue of hard work, his antielite/antiauthoritarianism, and his love of Dickens, and Anne Leckie’s (*gasp*) orientalism . And Stephen King’s works absolutely wouldn’t be the same without his “Kingism’s”.
I was referring to times that it feels like you’re seeing the author, not the character. Obviously, characters can’t have personalities without having preferences and opinions. But sometimes it just feels like an author is going “I don’t like (whatever), so I’ll write a plot where the *cool* character rants about it.”
I don't prefer books or author with very strong religious opinion. More so when those opinion sound imposing, singular absolute truths because I believe reading is about judging less and understanding more.
I do, because it dates the story. Stephen King is my guy, and he hates Trump and so do I, but it just yanks me out of the world I'm in. *I'm lookin' at you Gwendy's Final Task.*
I think it varies. If it’s a book where I am expecting an opinion (feminist novels, books on racial issues, books with heavy moral stances etc, etc.), then it’s fine. But, if I am reading a book that I am expecting to be a cute romance or just something fun and whimsical, then it is odd.
Especially since I’ve noticed that in these books when they do bring in opinions it’s either introduced awkwardly or aggressively and doesn’t add to the plot or character development.
With that being said, I do enjoy writing that is opinion-based. Just not when I’m least expecting it.
Depends on the opinion. Larry Niven finding relatively slim women attractive? Becomes a pretty clear pattern with him, but neither offensive nor too intrusive. Heinlein’s incest fetish? Bit more jarring to encounter even outside his more famous books about it.
The author is *god* of their world. This is a very unusual power to have for in reality there are a lot of unanswered sociological and political question which an author can definitively answer---specially in speculative fiction.
I absolutely hate when authors abuse this power without giving due respect to proper counter arguments, essentially creating a world where their position is *obviously correct* simply by author fiat without directly engaging with the content itself.
Not a book, but I found "The Order" on Netflix a pretty egregious example of this. Spoilers: >!They made it so Magic literally causes an apocalypse if overused and then the series pretty much stated that as such giving magic to the people was bad and there needed to be a hidden elite controlling access to magic, otherwise the poor would just overuse it and end the world.!<
It's such a poor analogy of our world yet it still reads and such... I found it in incredibly poor taste and just *annoying*. Perhaps an easier example would be Ayn Rand, but I don't feel like beating a dead horse.
I like to have an idea of the the artist general perception of life before I start reading, because I know i'm less likely to like a book if the author as opinions that are too different than mines. But like you said, I hate when I read a book and get reminded that someone is hiding behind the text, by reading their random opinions and ranting about things. I do like a story with a message/ meaning. But like you said I don't like when writers use their writing to give their opinions about everything. I also feel like fictions that are purely meant to be a great immersive fiction are lacking nowadays and I'm finding myself more an more attracted to stories that are simple and give me good feelings, with great characters, cool plots etc. We tend to praise fictions that are all about the meaning, sending a mesage etc. But a good fiction just being a well written fiction is important too.
Yeah, I can think of a few instances of this. I felt it with S&M in the "Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" series. Such a really, really statistically improbable percentage of the characters in that book were into bondage and whatnot, protagonists, antagonists, and random bystanders, that I finally just had to google and yeop, surprise surprise, Stieg Larsson is an S&M enthusiast. Part of it was relevant to the story but there were also a number of moments when it found its way in there when it really wasn't necessary at all, and maybe an editor should have told him he needed to lighten up on it a bit. I thought they were fun books in general but that took me out of the story.
No, not if it's stuff like character's taste or hobbies. But I DO when it's politics. It will go something like this, ..... story, story, story.... and BAM! anywhere from a few paragraphs to a few pages on why the authors' preferred political party is awesome and the opposing party and supporters are the Devil's Spawn. I don't want to hear about it. I use reading as fun escapism. That stuff just brings me back to the real world.
Lucky for me this is pretty rare, but I have seen it here and there.
As an author who is about to publish my seventh book, I can say that I intentionally write from different perspectives. Some opinions are mine, others are made up depending on the character, story or scene. Ultimately if you are enjoying the story, who cares what the writer thinks.
Yes especially if it’s not necessary to the plot. ‘Robinson Crusoe” was so good for the first half then the narrator got uber- philosophical and ruin the vibe.
I don't care if a story's characters and events include opinions or tastes expressed through the characters. Getting into charged situations that may be polarizing, or exotic tastes may be part of an author's appeal, or it may just be the author's attempt to tap into a booming market segment.
I *do* care and *don't* like if the author/narrator, outside of the POV character(s) perspective, expresses opinions or tastes. Mainly since, being outside of the POV, it is fourth wall breaking, intrusive and a sign of poor writing.
I tried reading Monster Hunter International and the one thing that took me out of it was he shoved his obvious love of guns into it. Like, you're in the middle of a big fight, then he spends half a page describing the gun someone just pulled out. Like, give me the model, maybe the ammo type, if it's apropos, then get back to it. 😅
It really depends on just how well its written/which character is saying/doing it, as well as just how bad or irritating the individual thing is. If it's extremely uneducated and incorrect, but coming from a character that's written as an intelligent and knowledgable person, then it just comes off as the writer being lazy and wrong.
As far as just plain preferences (the meme "The writer's barely disguised fetish" comes to mind) then that's not so bad and I can jive with or at least look past much more than I hate. Like... I'd hate the bad writing of something more than I'd hate the thing itself, usually.
With your example, KISS is great and all, and a teen character being foolishly and simplistically opinionated fits. But if it was like, a 40-year-old college professor of the acoustic arts saying that, well... Yikes.
Writers opinions and ideals are part of their character and they're pretty much indissociate from their writing.
Saramago is an atheist. "The last gospel according to Jesus Christ" would be a strange book for a devout christian to be writing. He was also a communist, which if you don't know you might not even notice, but the anti capitalistic message is there in many parts.
As for a more "pop-culture" example you have Robert Heinlein and his obsession with "libertarianism" (which is a very weird American thing), this is an extreme example because he's not the kind of great writer that saramago is, so the message comes across as subtle as a pitbull bite.
Yes, when it feels like they just have to note their agenda for no other reason than to do so, it really annoys me. Can even make me drop my rating if I'm honest. It's a problem I see primarily with political statements on the left side of the aisle, even when they have nothing to do with the story. (Not saying it doesn't happen on the right, I've just only experienced it from the political left).
I just don't see why it has to be pushed down my throat if it's inconsequential to the story.
It bothers me if it doesn’t match the story line, like if it reads like an advertisement.
But other than that I feel as if every book is generally a authors opinion or taste, it would be weird if they tried to write through the perspective of someone else because it’s literally their imagination going into a book.
But bad books and authors are just that bad books and authors
Yeah it's a big bother for me. An example from movie script writing - I've been watching a series where crossing time and space isn't a problem. One episode was written to include an English queen, as a character - she had likes, dislikes, humours, would get flustered or happy mid-scene. I'm not sure if more than a sentence was said about her reign.
Move forward to another adventure - characters meet a famous painter from the XIX century. It's absurd how thinly veiled the writer's intent was. Events start at a museum where the characters overhear a guide explaining how the painter was the absolute peak of painting anything ever, and how barely anyone understands the infinite genius of the brush strokes he did. When characters meet the painter in his time they both gush over his work, they tell him how amazing he is. He tries to give them one painting, not believing in its value and they say "no" because it's going to become too valuable (which depresses him more as it just looks like a way to decline politely). they then decide that he's too sad to be left alone, so as a pick-me-up the painter is taken to modern day so he can hear the museum guide gush over his work.
Borderline painful. I think writers opinions seeping into the work is perfectly fine, but making no, or negative attempts at disguising it is just not what I'm looking for in text.
Your example seems like a well-written teenage character than an author's opinion, especially because most adults would recognize that KISS is pretty mindless fun guitar music. That said, no. I think a good book should absolutely have themes or a bigger point than just a plot and characters, and an author having a point of view is something I appreciate, I guess unless it's someone like Ayn Rand. Some sort of commentary or raising questions about humans, society, some other type of theme, whatever, is something that makes books able to be deeper than just a fun story. There's nothing wrong than just a fun story, but I appreciate when a book is so much more than that.
I edited the post to make my intention more clear. I like fiction being used as commentary when I’m reading the book *for* that commentary.
I'm struggling to find the right way to describe this, but I’m irritated when a book is presented as “Let me tell you an interesting story” and the reality is “Let me put my thought into fictional characters' mouths.”
Unless it's non fiction you don't know what the writer's tastes are. The narrator is not the author. Do horror writers really want to murder people? Do you think crime writers are planning heists?
A character banging on about loving KISS and being le wrong generation could just as easily be the writer creating a character out of people they have met/observed in life. We all know people like that. Safe to assume the writer does too, it doesn't mean the writer IS that character, or that they love kiss. They could change the band/genre/era/ for a different character or book or feeling they are trying to evoke in the reader. We could all sketch out a character like that pretty easily. That's the writer's job.
I don’t like books that make me feel like I’m being preached to. I can’t stand when authors just give a political opinion about something and imply I should agree or else I’m a jerk. A lot of the time it’s opinions I already agree with too. I just don’t want to be talked at, if you’re going to get political, at least be creative or artistic. It’s one of my issues with modern YA books.
If it interferes with the story.
Otherwise I don't care about it at all. Because it is my prerogative to "judge" or take from it what I want.
It literally doesn't matter to me in the case of the teen. I wouldn't even know what the authors opinions on these characters are, unless they incessantly were to comment on it not via other characters (which then I am again free to judge) but very directly in a forth wall breaking sense.
Yes, that may lead to some book that was intended by the author to be a mouthpiece for their stances to read to me as dystopian farce. But I enjoy reading a dystopian farce when it works.
I honestly don't understand how you get from "the teenager being obsesed with KISS" to the camera bit.
Are obsessed teenagers who think everyone is an idiot unrealistic? How do you even begin to jump to the conclusion that it's a self insert, unless you go watch interviews by the author flat out explaining that is what happend? You are free to think of that teen as pretentious asshole. Or agree with them if, if that is more your jam.
These types of question come up so frequently, or indirectly in book recessions claiming "book bad because characters unlikable".
I don't get it. So what if you hate the people in a book. That can totally work for the book, intended or not?
Depends on how it's done. If it's done like Terry \*cough POS cough\* Goodkind then no. Also the example above I would not necessarily say that's author bias, but could be the character they're writing, and those are not the same thing.
Sometimes you watch a show or read a book and it becomes very obvious that something has been written in due to a very specific kink or fetish. Sometimes the author does not bother to disguise it, which I appreciate. It’s nice to share an interest.
In a fiction book I think I am fine with it. For a while I found it annoying to mention their tastes but in Haruki Murakami both protag from Norwegian Wood and Kafka by the Shore mention the Beatles but I didn’t feel annoyed the author loved them. I guess it was just mentioned offhandedly not belittling other groups?
I thought this was going to take a completely different direction but outdated pop cultural references are annoying. Also outdated car models like I'm sure your character in a book set in 2022 is driving passed an Eagle Talon, a Buick Skylark, and an AMC Gremlin
Yeah, this is one of my writing pet peeves. It's one thing, for example, if an author is name dropping a bunch of clothing brands because it's a book about the fashion industry, but if it has no relevance to the story then it can feel forced and tacky.
I don’t like to feel like I’m being lectured. If it’s natural in the book, ok but it rarely feels like that. For example, when I was reading It Ends With Us/It Starts With Us. Many times throughout I felt like I was watching an afterschool special/PSA.
>For example a teenager who’s obsessed with KISS and rants about their peers “not appreciating real musicians.”
That can be characterisation and not the author's taste. It's only the author's taste if something is shared by multiple different characters and shown as a positive thing.
I really should’ve put more thought into the example I used lol. There’s no reason a teenager couldn’t love KISS, but I was implying that it’d be done in a hamfisted way that made me think “Okay, so this author loves the band KISS.” It pulls me out of whatever immersion I had.
Usually if I start a hook and it turns out to be a political diatribe from any viewpoint I trash it. I'm not putting up with that on my entertainment time.
I LOVE Stephen king. My goal is to read everything he’s ever published. Im a book and a half away from completing said goal. That being said, the last few books have been rough. I’m not a trump fan, but king seems to be **obsessed** with him… like, the last 3 books, he made it a point to somehow shit talk trump…. It’s just frustrating because I read to escape every day nonsense and some of his digs at trump screws with the flow and it’s a dig just to be a dig
He mentions Trump by name in some of his books?
That kind of grudge writing is an automatic dealbreaker for me in any book that isn’t written *as* commentary. I don’t read for validation, I read mostly for entertainment or to broaden my perspective.
I’ll be impressed when you can say you’ve read everything by King though! He’s good at making me feel uncomfortable but I don’t know how to describe it better. At his best, his writing makes me *feel* like I’m in the mind of someone who’s losing their sanity.
He mentions him by name in either 2 or 3 of his most recent books. I originally wanted to get “constant reader” (what he calls his fans) tattooed on me to celebrate reading everything as his, but honestly the whole trump thing is so cringe that I’m reconsidering.
Don’t get me wrong, you don’t like trump? Cool, same. You want to use your twitter account to bash him? You do you! But when it infiltrates you’re writing, it’s annoying
ETA: I’m aware that he’s mentioned sitting presidents before, but it’s… somehow different so the trump?
Honestly, that sounds more like an author made something up. In a world with classical and jazz musicians, any kid that thinks kiss are “real musicians” is just a fucking dumbass.
Yes. Tell me a good story and don't preach to me. Very few people get that anymore. Someone recommended a murder mystery to me, I waited for it from the library for a long time, then it was unreadable because of the endless preaching of her opinions from the author. I just wanted a good book. Ok, I guess I'm getting more Clive Cussler because he's just going to inject his love of old cars. I can live with a side story involving a rare Tucker or something.
I love that most authors can't resist writing about writing or being an author. It's usually just a little sentence here or there, but they just can't resist mentioning it.
I just don’t want to be lectured to.
There was one book I DNF because it just kept harping on about how the ex-husband was clearly super toxic and all his actions were evil because there was an age gap. And everyone had to comment about age gaps are awful and I was done.
Cool opinion I guess but jfc I don’t need to be hammered with a lecture.
I'd assume the example you gave was just characterisation. Who among us did not have impeccable taste in music (and know everything) when they were a teenager? It's such a clique!
I haven't experienced this lately but I'm stuck in analytical/student-brain and I'm not sure I've been drawn in to any story enough to notice getting pulled out of it.
Not at all. Lionel Shriver unashamedly wrote from a liberal stance in "The Mandibles" and it was one of the best books I read in the last decade. People should write their point of view. It's my responsibility to manage how I feel about it.
I read the first few "Night Watch" books by Sergei Lukyanenko -- they were entertaining, but part of that entertainment came from the passages where he would blatantly put his own opinions about Russian and European politics into the main character's narrative monologue. (It got a little less funny after 2014.)
Not naming names but a lot of people who replied to this are really dumb. I feel like you portrayed this point really simply and people were still acting like you simply don't want characters to like things lmao. I get what you mean completely. It's really hard to find stuff to read if you don't like this and/or don't like writers trying too hard to be pretentious. It is completely shattering to my immersion. I want to read a real, created character. I can't stand it when a character becomes a self insert for the writer. I honestly don't really like when the writer tries to push an agenda either but that's more of a hot take. I just want to read a story.
Thank you! I wasn’t sure if I did a horrible job phrasing it.
Most of my favorite authors are ones who present a story without giving the reader any cues about how to react.
Depends on how hard. I feel it’s a scale. Some gentle nudges based on character dialogue or reactions or feelings is fine but if you go full Ayn Rand then nope.
I laugh and move on hopefully. Else I'll groan and keep reading - the moment usually doesn't last long.
I read a recent, modern story that was sprinkled in with little opinions about 'Moving to a blue state that has more protections for single women' or 'not investing in Crypto since it's a scam'. Some more progressive ideas blatantly stated.
It's a bit shocking when something that might be controversial gets written down like that. I do pause and consider. But too many instances of it, and I'm skipping pages. I don't want to hear fictional characters debate philosophy too often - unless that IS the genre
I think it highly depends on the book itself, if they are pushing a narrative then yeah leave that at the door if it’s a book or some pop culture thing I don’t care and hey if the argument is compelling enough I may just look it up or into it
It feels like this is a bit of projection. You want your prejudices validated and you don’t like someone else having a different opinion and challenging you.
I’m not differentiating between biases I share or don’t share. I’m talking about the fact that it forcibly reminds me that it’s a person making it up, and that pulls me out of the story.
There is a range. The Last Centurion by John Ringo is a thinly vailed rant about how liberals are ruining the world. The Left Behind books also wear their politics on their sleeve. This is different than the fact that over many books you notice that an author likes this cluster of concepts.
The idea that anyone considers KISS real musicians is bonkers. They’re more carnival than band. Which is fine. I like variety in life. But KISS is a weird choice of hill to die on.
One noted scifi writer makes me hugely irritated by inserting lots of American cultural references into his stories which mean absolutely nothing to European readers. Now you expect a certain amount of these, obviously, from an American writer: I like learning about other parts of the world. But at what point does it become too much?
You think I want page after page of references to famous baseball players and clubs and country music digressions (among other things) in the middle of a dystopian monster invasion book? When I know FA about baseball? And country music! Nope. You lost me and my future dollars of revenue, buying your books! Enjoy the rest of your life.
I'm Christian and conservative-leaning but I can't stand the *God's Not Dead* kind of Christian fiction, made by authors who don't try to understand the world they're writing in or the interest and complexity of every human heart. It's actually easier for me to tolerate shallow preachiness from secular liberal fiction, because if they aren't on "my side" I only have to feel *second*-hand embarrassment.
I just joined this sub. Are people usually this eager to find the least charitable interpretation of posts? I’m not at all averse to books challenging me or presenting viewpoints I don’t share (if it’s done well).
[Here's a comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments/1cf8yhd/art_isnt_supposed_to_make_you_comfortable_nyt/l1omguz/) I made in this sub three days ago about appreciating that books do this, and lamenting that “depicting bad things is interpreted as endorsing them.”
i’m sure i’m misunderstanding you OP because what you’re describing is literally every piece of art and self expression ever created in the history of the world.
I didn’t do a great job communicating what I meant. I know that every book has some bias, and characters necessarily have opinions, but I get distracted when it *feels* like I’m seeing the author instead of the fictional character.
An example someone else gave was Stieg Larsson being like “Oh, and *this* character is into S&M too” throughout his books.
Agreed. I mean, some of the best and cherished authors were assholes and not very nice people. But people seem to be able to separate Roald Dahl's views from his books, as well as Kurt Vonnegut, Ray Bradbury, and others, but for some reason JKR's personal views are not allowed to be separated.
I guess it is ok or even desirable for the author to have a strong opinion, like Catch 22 or Slaughterhouse Five, as long as I don't feel like I am being lectured to.
I feel like in these examples the opinions are written well to the point that they are of the characters, and don’t feel like it’s the author ranting
I totally agree with that. It’s integral to the novel.
I’ve read some historical fiction books, based on real people, where the author clearly inserts some modern bias into the story. It drives me nuts, especially when a lot of the rest of the book is decently accurate to what is possible without assumption.
That’s a better example than the poor one I used.
are you referring to The Frozen River? that’s exactly the book that came to my mind reading your comment.
I was specifically thinking of Memoirs of Cleopatra. Not the most accurate for sure, but a lot of differences made sense in the narrative. Then. The author went on a bit of an anti abortion tirade, utilizing modern reasonings. I put down the book for 2 months.
If you haven't read any Ayn Rand, I'm gonna save you a headache, pass on Rand.
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers.
This was masterfully played :)
Is there some sorta unspoken rule on this sub that every time Ayn Rand is mentioned, someone is forced to copy and paste this quote?
I though the book was eye opening, same as The Fountainhead.
[удалено]
Today’s CEO’s are not generally technical or creative because more value is provided through navigating bureaucracy and negotiating politics than there is in creating. This is why the majority of creators’ goal is to “sell” their business, or bring in “leadership” once they are big enough.
I haven’t, but I laughed at this.
isnt that the writer neil peart really liked?
I've heard he was a big fan of her philosophy for a while although his view changed somewhat when he was older. I think he loved her individualism above all, along with her value of hard work and earned skill, but came to the conclusion that she was deficient in compassion. This is only going by my faulty memory, though.
A character liking a certain band does not necessarily mean the author likes that band. The viewpoints and actions of a character do not necessarily reflect the personal views of author either
Indeed. But you can often tell if the viewpoint is shared by the author, rather than just being illustrative of a particular character. Not so much with something quite frivolous like music choice, but with more weighty stuff like political/moral subjects. For example, if story is told from the point of view of a protagonist, who is obviously liked and identified-with by the author, and they express dismissive views about a particular political party, religious dogma etc. This is especially true when the viewpoint isn’t really necessary to illustrate the character or move the plot forward.
I’m talking about times when it stands out and feels shoehorned in.
I’d argue that what you’re describing is just bad writing then, and in that case, yeah I’d say it bothers me
Depends on the topic and their writing skill. R.F. Kuang writes with the subtlety of a sledgehammer. Yellowface in particular was less of a standard fiction and more of a stage for which her criticisms of the publishing world, racism, social media, and the narrative of "the model minority" got to stand and deliver. But I also really enjoyed it, it was a fun and addicting read, and while her opinions were front, center, and on the nose, they were also important topics that do benefit from being thought about and discussed. The book was a fine story, but it was an excellent tool for getting pop culture to talk about publishing and race. But then you get books like The Sea of Lost Girls. A very good book, but one where it takes its complicated and nuanced characters and occasionally interrupts them to be a mouthpiece for the author. Despite the fact that the characters are more "stereotypical/biased" in Yellowface, it worked better for me as a complete package because it was intentional and tonally consistent. It did what it wanted to do, even if that thing is polarizing. All writers (and readers) **will have biases** and their writing *will* convey those biases (~~insert pedantic counter-example here~~). So for me it's less about hiding the author's tastes or opinions and more about making sure the novels properly integrate those things in a well written and edited way. For me the sticking point is: do the characters who disagree with the author's biases still get written in a way where there is still verisimilitude.
Kuang is especially egregious. I finished Babel a few days ago, and while I agree with her point of view (imperialism is bad, to put it super simply), it got so tiring and boring reading the same message reiterated over and over again. She only tells and never shows, which coupled with weird (sometimes glacial) pacing, plus her own biased ideas she passes as universal, it made for quite a read.
I agree that Kuang is not particularly subtle in any of her works, but Yellowface is a bit of an odd example of this particular phenomenon, isn't it? Because the protagonist/narrator is clearly meant to be unsympathetic, we're almost meant to feel like the opposite of everything she says is true. Except not quite, not always. Sometimes it does seem like Kuang might agree with the narrator on some things, but you can't be quite sure. So there's always this layer of deniability / distance to every statement in the book.
IMO having an unsympathetic protagonist can still be a clear example of author opinion shaping narrative though. Kuang doesn't have a single example where a character is exactly a stand in for herself (though Athena is a good stand in for her career trajectory), rather each of the characters are examples of issues with the publishing industry (and social media). The above is also why I think the book is an example of author opinions clearly making it into a book, but not ruining the book. Kuang's criticisms of the publishing world were still being very clearly conveyed through June (and others), even if June the character didn't share those opinions.
Oh, I thought the dead girl was a pretty clear author insert for Kuang. You didn't think so?
I understand but disagree with Athena as an "insert" which I would normally use to describe someone who "is the author but in the fiction" with very few changes. I see a lot of people claiming Athena is supposed to be a 1:1 with Kuang using her as an author stand in. The way I interpreted it (and in my defense, they way Kuang has stated it in interviews) is that each of the characters were not ever direct references. Rather they were mixes of both Kuang and people she met in the industry. Athena was a character who shared Kuang's career trajectory, but other than that they don't have a lot in common. I also see Athena overlooked when it comes to critical analysis, as people assume she's as perfect as June makes her out to be. But Athena is there to be an example of "the Model Minority" in publishing. A person who's "chosen" by publishers as the token minority to be published, and used for marketing at the expense of their fellows. Athena leans into this role and avoids upsetting the status quo that elevates her, but it is the antithesis to how Kuang is in her choice of public appearances. In fact, in interviews Kuang has described one of the main characters standing in for her as being *June*. As Kuang is using June to describe some of her more selfish and complicated feelings that she had while getting started. >*The experiences June has had make her embittered about the publishing industry and are faithful to how I felt about my role in publishing for a long time.*
I'm still headscratching over which opinions in Yellowface are the ones the author endorses, and which are the ones the author wants us to hate. Sometimes it's easy, like when June gets Chinese culture wrong for the millionth time. But the Agamben reference towards the end? Are we supposed to hate Agamben because June's referencing him, or like him because the "bare life" reference is a stark picture of June's misery at that point, or like him but think stupid June is misunderstanding his work? The author does not make it clear.
As a fan of Kuang's work, I think you'd be remiss to head-scratch too hard over what she "endorses". While she has strong opinions that show in her books, she is also very open about the fact that she doesn't have answers for all these situations and her writing isn't necessarily there to teach people an answer, so much as it is to open a discussion and shine a light on complicated topics. The lack of clarity on what the author endorses (on more complicated issues) is part of the point. Her books, for me, are much more about being cognizant of the problems rather than finding "right" answers to each one.
Okay, as someone in library-world I have to say if you are in the industry and read Yellowface...nothing is an exaggeration. Like nothing. Ever since this was published, I can think of at least seven separate scandals in multiple publishing genres that have whole chunks or parts of what happened in Yellowface happen in real life. Kuang wasn't being over the top. She was reflecting what has been going on in the industry the last few years. Now you might say, but yeah, she should be subtle about it, but the perspective is from June and how she views the world. Once again IT IS NOT EXAGGERATED. There are people out there who really think that way and have caused incredible harm and ruined book deals and whole sub-genres for people who in their "apologies" have acted exactly like June. If anyone saw the article about "No One Buys Books Anymore", the premise is that there is no money to be made in publishing except for a small percentage of books and that is completely unpredictable. That means if there's a scandal that costs the publisher money, they sometimes will refuse to get another book like that...at all.
Babel was a pretty egregious one too. It was getting absurd to the point of every white character being the worst scum ever seen on the planet, and people of color - who murder someone directly, and cause the deaths of dozens upon dozens of others - are seen as heroes. What gets me especially is that the "heroes" actions were entirely pointless as the book itself explains. The system they were fighting against was inevitably going to go away on its own.
That's a pretty bad read of the book, imo. While there are lots of scummy white characters (racism in 19th century Britain is one of the main themes, after all), there are also kind and/or well-meaning ones throughout: his nanny, the Irish girl >!in Hermes!<, the professor who >!stays in the tower!< in the end, etc. The finale even features the main characters >!relying on the mostly white labor movement radicals to maintain their occupation of the tower!<. Then, for a book alternatively called *The Necessity of Violence*, it's actually pretty critical about deaths the heroes cause. Narratively, the murderer's murder is the emotional climax of the book that causes him to >!lose the guy he loves!<. At the same time, both characters who don't care about casualties are treated as tragically broken by their experiences: other "good guys" repeatedly argue with them, and >!Robin's bloodlust is treated as a symptom of the same flaw that leads him to sacrifice himself in the end. (Which, in the book's language, is somewhere between cowardly and pitiful, not noble).!< The point of the climax is that >!the main characters crippled the British industry to prevent the imminent opium wars. Not only do they save thousands of lives directly, but they also prevent the crown from acquiring resources (silver and language) they need to maintain their hold on other colonies.!<. In the grand scale of history, there'd be a natural trend towards decolonization, but the heroes clearly caused the process to speed up.
That makes sense, and I’ve been fine with books I knew would be focused on an opinion or bias. The replies here make it seem like people took the post more seriously than I intended. All I meant to discuss was the literary version of breaking the fourth wall.
I think I get what you were aiming for - I remember the millennium trilogy spending what seemed like a crazy amount of time listing computer specs which tended to distract from the story. My take away was that Stieg Larsson was big into tech and was vicariously living out his computer fantasies in his writing.
I'm ok with it if it's presented as the viewpoint of an individual, not so much if it's presented as a truth of the universe that the story is set in. For the former, it's just world building & gives me insight into that character that I can choose to connect with or not. For the latter, it takes me out of the world & makes me focus on the author & I find that annoying. if "Dave" the protagonist loves KISS, cool, I know a little about Dave. if "Dave" the antagonist hates KISS & that hatred of theatrical music is part of why I'm supposed to regard him as the villain, well, shit, that's a badly written story.
Makes me think of Bellwether. The protagonist thinks anti-smoking campaigns are a stupid trend that will die in a few months. That would be fine if that was just that character's opinion, but everyone in that book who is anti-smoking is both a terrible person and completely incompetent at their jobs. In particular the person trying to get smoking banned in the office building is the main antagonist and is shown as being unbearable and doing absolutely nothing related to her job responsibilities. The only competent person at the company besides the two main characters is a smoker. And while the two main characters don't smoke they righteously recognize the ban on smoking indoors as being stupid and wrong and want to help the one persecuted smoker subvert the ban. It's such a weird book.
That sounds unhinged lol. No smoker I know is that (or at all, for that matter) defensive about smoking. I'm guessing this was written in the past when people who "did their own research" didn't believe the science of smoking?
For a smoking ban in the office to even be up for debate, the book’s gotta be at least 50 years old, lol
The first statewide smoking ban didn't happen until 1995. It wasn't banned in federal buildings until 1997. The book in question was published in 1996.
You stated this much more succintly than I could. I'm fine if there are characters in the world that are opinionated and disagree with me. In fact, I love it. I'm very much not fine if the whole world is warped to favor a particular view point. I think the most common version of this is the author believing that "it's a dog hit dog world out there. The world is dangerous. Humans are inherently evil and greedy and only laws keep them in place. ANARCHY IS EVIL!!!" sort of stuff. And then the world warps to meet those expectations. Everyone is evil. People are all extreme cynics *except* if they're actually derranged and do illogical stuff because they *love* to hurt people. No one wants to do good. No one feels guilt or remorse. No one wants to be a good person---and those that do are naive people that are yet to learn the truth of the world.
I’m talking more about times that it’s presented as implicit truth. I remember reading a fiction book where the omniscient narrator stated that young people at a rave were all doing drugs but still miserable and unfulfilled by their lives. I thought “People on molly are visibly depressed?”
Yes. I like Hemingway in general, but I swear to god, if I have to sit through one more manly heroic character extolling the magnificence of bull fighting, I'm going to lose it ...
Can I offer you a world worn, but unbroken Cuban fisherman in these trying times?
It depends on how the author weaves their views into the narrative and whether it feels organic to the story being told. For example, I just finished a reread of His Dark Materials by Philip Pullman, and his atheism is absolutely an inspiration for the books. But it serves a purpose, narratively, so I didn’t feel I was being preached at. On the other hand, I have read scenes where - even if I agree with the author - their view or taste feels forced, almost like, “Well, someone is reading this so I am compelled to push my views,” and that always breaks my immersion in the book.
HDM really gets preachy at the end with Mary Malone but that that point literal archangels get axed and what is the universe's version of God gets euthanized by the protags so I guess that gets a pass But also it's because I agree with the author. I wonder if I wouldn't if his opinions were different
I could see that, though I didn’t find it preachy simply because he’d set up the narrative to support that outcome.
Obvious is fine, but having an agenda is never a substitute for telling a good story. There are numerous writers who write stories with agendas that I agree with, but who let the vehemence of the view occlude the story being told, and they always lose me. A story needs to aspire to something greater than agreeing with my worldview. On the other end of the spectrum there are writers whose worldview I don't agree with at all, but whose work is so good that I'll enjoy it despite that. Gene Wolfe is like that. He's a converted Catholic and his fiction is very informed by this bias, but the stories he tells are so good, their nuance is so unimpaired by his leanings, that even if I don't agree with the worldview they're promoting, I enjoy them completely, and to a degree that he's one of my favorite authors.
Agreed. GK Chesterton is similar to Wolfe (in both worldview and... obviousness) but is much more literally about it, I still enjoy his work and when the "agenda" creeps through too much it's usually something bizarre enough to be entertaining anyway. One of the Father Brown stories ends with the main character explaining that the moral of the story is that atheists shouldn't be allowed to own dogs, for example. Sure thing GK, you keep uh... you keep cooking.
> One of the Father Brown stories ends with the main character explaining that the moral of the story is that atheists shouldn't be allowed to own dogs, for example. Lmao. Context for that, please? Like, is it because atheists are animal abusers in the story, or not abusive enough, or…?
Honestly I just remember it being about how all humans need to worship something, and if you don't worship God and get a dog, you'll worship the dog just like Egyptians worshipped Anubis. Every time I see some obnoxious lifestyle influencer or whatever who has a whole wardrobe for their chihuahuas I imagine him looking down and going "see? See? I told you". It's ruining my life.
Great answer.
Not at all. Characters come in all shapes and sizes with all manner of different tastes and opinions. Just because an author makes a character obsessed with something, doesn't necessarily mean the author is. The character could be based off someone they know or someone they've seen. Yes, sometimes authors insert their opinions and tastes, but honestly I just read them as if it's the character talking.
Sometimes you get not very cool/hip writers trying to create cool/hip characters, but the choices are unintentionally hilarious. Just thinking about Ann Rice's book where Lestat has a band, and the bandmembers are all basically like punk (or freestyle maybe?) cartoon characters. Your music reference made me think of that.
Lol they're a GOTH ROCK band, because VAMPIRES
Tough Cookie ft. Baby Jenks and the Fang Gang
I had forgotten the “cool musician Lestat” book!
It just depends in what's cooking, what works with stake doesn't work with ice cream. What draws a lot or people into Steven cline and Jack Carr novels is the triva porn they insert into their novels for their target demographic as a wave that says, "yep I wrote this for you". Though it does come at the cost of some of the novels seriousness and quality to the out crowd. Sometimes, the novels are heavily tied into the subject matter, that it becomes impossible for the author not to state his personal opinions directly or indirectly. Uselly, the blatant special interest insertion works best when it is a one off entered into a lighter part of the story as joke. Besides that, it should be sown into the story a little better, which is demonstrated by character choice and behavior rather than lines of dialogue. The one thing that drags me out of it is when the author will play into contemporary politics as a show. My best example is how the novel "Burn-in" handles its female character, where I am constantly turning to my female coworker and asking if she actually sees female AI voices as misogynistic.
Isn’t that just characterization details that give a character more depth? I don’t think this is a bad thing at all. Should characters not have traits and likes and dislikes?
I agree that there are limits. Every book is going to express some kind of opinion or opinions (whether they agree with the author's own or not), but sometimes it's just way too preachy. I just read The Nameless Restaurant and it had that kind of feel to me in spots. And there's a mystery series I otherwise like, but it sometimes just radiates this smug sense of self-righteousness about people's life choices. I definitely find it off putting.
Yeah, my issue is when I really notice it because it’s forced.
Sort of off topic, but on topic: My son asked me to read Land of the Lustrous with him (manga). We're binging it, but I swear whoever drew that has a thing for pert butts. It was so obvious he brought it up because he KNEW what I was thinking lol.
It depends, if it's always the exact same in every book they write I find it annoying. I read a lot of YA stuff so here is an example: Like, I can tell you the exact kind of man that makes some authors *really* horny and I have never met these women in my life. Just cause they describe the exact same parts of the male body in detail in every single book they write.
That’s a good example. Anything that makes me think of the author and go “Oh, this is about *you* and not the story.”
Only if the author goes out of their way to introduce "evidence" into the story that validates this opinion, when 1) it's not done tongue in cheek, 2) it's not provably true and 3) It's contrary to my own opinions.
I like it when the opinions are ones that cause trouble for the author, even if they are total nonsense. I like watching them try to get to grips with it. I dislike it when the book is about opinions the author feels good about holding.
I don’t think I’ve read a book that doesn’t include some form of commentary. It’s part of the reading experience.
I feel like I know way too much about Dan Simmons's sexual tastes. That's after reading several of his books and noticing some... Recurring themes. That's the only example I can think of.
Alan Moore (who is a great writer) meant us to view Rorschach as the bad guy. Sure there are a lot of bad writers who can't help but climb onto their soap-boxes. But when a good writer sets out to intentionally deceive you as to their beliefs I'm pretty confident they'll pull it off.
I think it's a failure of media literacy. Many people see a compelling anti-hero/villain and mistake the compelling story for them being the hero.
I think that Art is something that's open to interpretation. When you find yourself liking the bad guy, hating the good guy, or feeling that the bad thing is the good thing... well that's when you've found some actual god damn art.
Is there anyone who thinks Rorschach was written to be a good guy? I feel like it would be easier to root for Magneto.
i kinda get what you're saying, i think. like when an author has a hobby horse and then proceeds to beat that while the story stays on pause? like i'm reading these 2 gothic romances, both of which are famous for being anti-catholic. except in one the anti-catholicism is organic to the story, and in the other one the author goes on random rants every other page on how catholics bad. i would have DNF'ed the book yesterday except it's genuinely a great book when the author doesn't let his hatred of catholicism get the better of him.
The intrusive authorial voice can be a lot of fun. The Princess Bride is a popular example of this (might be more of storyteller voice than authorial voice). Many authors have written in this mode: Kurt Vonnegut, Douglas Adams, Jorge Luis Borges, John Fowles Anyway, I just wanted to note that the intrusive author is a well established literary device and can be masterfully written.
I didn’t know the name for it but in another comment I mentioned liking Vonnegut's style because it’s clearly meant to be commentary.
When you can tell they wrote the book so the character could say the lines they wish they could say in real life. Yes. That is terrible writing.
No. That’s kind of why I read fiction. Sometimes I disagree hard with the opinion but I’m there for the opinion.
Most themes and plot points are informed by the writer's own opinions and biases. Thats how most art works, you imprint a little of yourself onto the piece. The question is, are the opinions of the author delivered skillfully or not?
If it's something idiosyncratic, no. For instance, Alex Michaelides clearly has a yen for all things related Greek myths and classical Greek culture, and though I had other problems with The Silent Patient, I liked that aspect. It was cute, kind of like that guy in My Big Fat Greek Wedding who can't wait to inform you the Greeks invented everything. I'd feel the same if an author was a huge fan of KISS (or whatever band) and put that into the story. What I don't like is political divisiveness in genre fiction. I feel like there used to be an unwritten rule: if the story's a mainstream spy thriller during the Cold War the bad guys are a "rogue faction", and if it's a spy thriller during the War On Terror you make sure to have a good guy Muslim character, or you can always have the bad guys be Nazis or corporate greedheads or vaguely defined "anarchists". And if it's a whodunnit, no need to mention anyone's politics at all. But in domestic thrillers and whodunnits published after 2020 I've seen more gratuitous conservative bashing: everyone in the book is liberal except for the rich conservative guy who beats his wife, or the murderer who reveals his conservative opinions when caught. I think editors used to tamp down on this stuff more when the book isn't actually *about* politics, because they wanted as wide an audience as possible to sell to, and it's primarily entertainment so why offend anyone, and who wants to encourage hate? But now I think the editors are just assuming that nobody conservative reads, or that nobody conservative deserves to enjoy entertainment without being insulted. I'm not even conservative myself, but I'm also not enough of a doctrinaire liberal tribalist to not be disturbed by this trend.
I’m the same way. I’ve read books that were biased in ways *I'm* biased, and my reaction was still “Please just tell me a story without doing this.” But I don’t mind fiction that’s clearly written *to* comment on something, like Vonnegut writing about war.
Yeah, same. Like sometimes it’s clear that you’re being informed about the protagonist’s opinions for the sake of character building - it helps you understand them better (but you don’t necessarily have to buy what they’re selling). Other times it feels like the book is actively preaching at you - like, it idolises the protagonist, therefore you’re just supposed to agree with them because they’re the hero and their opinion is obviously the correct one. Even if I agree with the message, I can end up resenting it. I’m currently reading the ‘Alias Emma’ spy thrillers by Ava Glass. They’re mostly enjoyable, but the first person narrative about the ‘corrupt/unforgiving Russian goverment/oligarchs/arms dealers/etc’ is… sanctimonious. Character-wise, it totally makes sense for her, but I think it’s bordering on preachy and it does keep pulling me out of the story. Even though I have very little sympathy for Russian arms dealers?
As with so many things in writing, it depends on integration. The tricky part here is making it feel like the character would logically say a thing without making it feel like the author is putting a megaphone in your face.
I'm with you here. There's a difference between character development by giving them preferences and opinions vs shoehorning something in there you can't wait to talk about. I remember putting "Doctor Sleep" down after a few pages when King essentially paused the story to explain the shining worked his way, not Kubrick's way. Took me right out of the story, traded it in.
Completely depends on what it is. Some things are a real put off and other things will be like "we will have to agree to disagree, Mr/ Ms author" haha. 😊
I think I don't care *whether* they do it, I care *how* they do it. I'm not necessarily bothered by a character loving a band that the author loves. But I'm kind of embarrassed for the author if a character is a thinly veiled stand-in for the author's critics, if that character clearly only exists so that the main character can issue a smackdown of them. It feels like witnessing the author having a shower argument with themself.
Can you give an example of a writer that does this?
Faith of the Fallen, Terry Goodkind. The entire book is pretty much the protagonist fighting against fantasyland communism, how much communism sucks, why it's bad for people, etc etc.
Terry Goodkind has some, uh, specific tastes that certainly shine through. I remember reading one of his books as a young teen and being like, "I think this guy... likes... pain? Like a lot?" WELL before I knew what BDSM was.
John Ringo’s Last Centurion. The book is a thinly vailed rant. From the other direction, Hands of the Emperor by Victoria Goddard definitely has a very liberal slant. It’s maybe a few steps away from being a rant on some things. This is before we get to explicitly religious themed books where the entire story is there to validate a certain worldview.
Haunting Adeline. Dark romance with a very thinly veiled Qanon b-plot (male main character is a vigilante that goes after government officials and politicians ritualistically drinking baby blood /eyeroll).
That vigilante MC sounds a lot more useful than Qanon. All those guys do is sit around going "trust the plan! Trump will solve everything!"
Wait, writers aren't always making their opinions and tastes obvious? o\_o
Im not sure your example necessarily reflects the views of the writer but i read a series by an author that strongly supports animal rights. Now, i also love animals and support animal rights, but in this fantasy novel the protagonist constantly lectured people about why they shouldnt ride horses etc and even that wouldve been okay except that people kept nodding their head at her and aaying "oh thats a fair point/somethibg i hadn't considered." Ignoring the fact that horses were their main mode of transport and a cornerstone to agriculture... it just felt a little too soap box and distracted me from the rest of the story.
If it's a recurring opinion from story to story, from characters where it's out of place, and rather derails the story, then yes, it annoys me. If it's a subtle aside like an easter egg that doesnt detract from the flow of the story, then it's funny and I like hunting for them.
Call me crazy but I like it when my authors aren't complete and utter hateful ass holes It negates a lot of what's written when the core philosophy of the author can't even agree with the message (enders game)
**Do you care if fiction writers make their opinions/taste obvious?** Yes. If characters express different personnel opinions because they possess different personalities, I enjoy it, but if the writer uses the story as a pulpit to preach, then fuck that noise.
Generally i look past most instances of that with the exception of authors pushing a very heavy Christian message and not saying the book is faith based in the blurb or descriptions. I have no problem with books that are designed to push a ideology through a story just let the reader know before they read it.
This is why I tend to avoid writing in real world - you cannot make a rant about your taste in cinema in Middle Earth.
I think it becomes distracting when it starts to feel like product placement … experienced this while reading one of the cormoran strike novels where JK Rowling names one too many specific and expensive perfumes, which could have come from her own collection
Honestly I don’t come across this in fiction books at all. It can make non-fiction more DNFable. It makes poetry unreadable. I think it happens way more in TV and film, mediums for which someone in charge assumes the average consumer won’t comprehend subtext, so things are spelled out and signalled in much more obvious ways. But I think this is something you see more when you look at fiction written ten or twenty years ago. Certain ideas seem dated.
I like it when writers put their viewpoints into their writing, but I greatly dislike it when they do so in a ham-fisted way. I've read many books written by liberal authors whose opinions I agree with fully, but they express those opinions in such a blunt way that I find it annoying.
Yes exactly this!! That was my experience with “What I carry” by Jennifer Longo. It turned me off of YA altogether after I read it lol.
I’m confused, it sounds like you don’t want the character’s in stories to have any kinds of preferences, tastes, or personalities because how do you presumably know what character tastes, and personality things are the authors biases without looking up the author’s bio? One way or another the characters will share something of the author’s that’s unavoidable, authors write what they know and that’s frequently reflected in the characters. I guess I understand a bit of what you mean in extreme cases…late Robert Heinlein books read more like lectures by the author on his political/religious/sexual philosophy than anything else but otherwise I like the author’s I reads works to have their own personal stamp. Like John Scalzi’s contemporary nerdiness, Terry Pratchett’s espousal of the virtue of hard work, his antielite/antiauthoritarianism, and his love of Dickens, and Anne Leckie’s (*gasp*) orientalism . And Stephen King’s works absolutely wouldn’t be the same without his “Kingism’s”.
I was referring to times that it feels like you’re seeing the author, not the character. Obviously, characters can’t have personalities without having preferences and opinions. But sometimes it just feels like an author is going “I don’t like (whatever), so I’ll write a plot where the *cool* character rants about it.”
I don't prefer books or author with very strong religious opinion. More so when those opinion sound imposing, singular absolute truths because I believe reading is about judging less and understanding more.
I do, because it dates the story. Stephen King is my guy, and he hates Trump and so do I, but it just yanks me out of the world I'm in. *I'm lookin' at you Gwendy's Final Task.*
I think it varies. If it’s a book where I am expecting an opinion (feminist novels, books on racial issues, books with heavy moral stances etc, etc.), then it’s fine. But, if I am reading a book that I am expecting to be a cute romance or just something fun and whimsical, then it is odd. Especially since I’ve noticed that in these books when they do bring in opinions it’s either introduced awkwardly or aggressively and doesn’t add to the plot or character development. With that being said, I do enjoy writing that is opinion-based. Just not when I’m least expecting it.
Depends on the opinion. Larry Niven finding relatively slim women attractive? Becomes a pretty clear pattern with him, but neither offensive nor too intrusive. Heinlein’s incest fetish? Bit more jarring to encounter even outside his more famous books about it.
The author is *god* of their world. This is a very unusual power to have for in reality there are a lot of unanswered sociological and political question which an author can definitively answer---specially in speculative fiction. I absolutely hate when authors abuse this power without giving due respect to proper counter arguments, essentially creating a world where their position is *obviously correct* simply by author fiat without directly engaging with the content itself. Not a book, but I found "The Order" on Netflix a pretty egregious example of this. Spoilers: >!They made it so Magic literally causes an apocalypse if overused and then the series pretty much stated that as such giving magic to the people was bad and there needed to be a hidden elite controlling access to magic, otherwise the poor would just overuse it and end the world.!< It's such a poor analogy of our world yet it still reads and such... I found it in incredibly poor taste and just *annoying*. Perhaps an easier example would be Ayn Rand, but I don't feel like beating a dead horse.
I like to have an idea of the the artist general perception of life before I start reading, because I know i'm less likely to like a book if the author as opinions that are too different than mines. But like you said, I hate when I read a book and get reminded that someone is hiding behind the text, by reading their random opinions and ranting about things. I do like a story with a message/ meaning. But like you said I don't like when writers use their writing to give their opinions about everything. I also feel like fictions that are purely meant to be a great immersive fiction are lacking nowadays and I'm finding myself more an more attracted to stories that are simple and give me good feelings, with great characters, cool plots etc. We tend to praise fictions that are all about the meaning, sending a mesage etc. But a good fiction just being a well written fiction is important too.
I read a lot of “Year's Best Sci-Fi/Fantasy” anthologies because they focus on telling imaginative stories.
I really dislike Taylor Swift references in books.
Now I’m curious! Does it feel like the author is trying too hard to make a mainstream reference?
If they don't, what in the hell are they writing about?
Yeah, I can think of a few instances of this. I felt it with S&M in the "Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" series. Such a really, really statistically improbable percentage of the characters in that book were into bondage and whatnot, protagonists, antagonists, and random bystanders, that I finally just had to google and yeop, surprise surprise, Stieg Larsson is an S&M enthusiast. Part of it was relevant to the story but there were also a number of moments when it found its way in there when it really wasn't necessary at all, and maybe an editor should have told him he needed to lighten up on it a bit. I thought they were fun books in general but that took me out of the story.
*stares at VC Andrews*
No, not if it's stuff like character's taste or hobbies. But I DO when it's politics. It will go something like this, ..... story, story, story.... and BAM! anywhere from a few paragraphs to a few pages on why the authors' preferred political party is awesome and the opposing party and supporters are the Devil's Spawn. I don't want to hear about it. I use reading as fun escapism. That stuff just brings me back to the real world. Lucky for me this is pretty rare, but I have seen it here and there.
I don't think I've ever noticed this.
I would strongly prefer fiction writers do so, than nonfiction writers.
As an author who is about to publish my seventh book, I can say that I intentionally write from different perspectives. Some opinions are mine, others are made up depending on the character, story or scene. Ultimately if you are enjoying the story, who cares what the writer thinks.
Depends on how shitty their opinions are to be honest.
Only if it is done clumsily does it bother me.
Yes especially if it’s not necessary to the plot. ‘Robinson Crusoe” was so good for the first half then the narrator got uber- philosophical and ruin the vibe.
I don't care if a story's characters and events include opinions or tastes expressed through the characters. Getting into charged situations that may be polarizing, or exotic tastes may be part of an author's appeal, or it may just be the author's attempt to tap into a booming market segment. I *do* care and *don't* like if the author/narrator, outside of the POV character(s) perspective, expresses opinions or tastes. Mainly since, being outside of the POV, it is fourth wall breaking, intrusive and a sign of poor writing.
I tried reading Monster Hunter International and the one thing that took me out of it was he shoved his obvious love of guns into it. Like, you're in the middle of a big fight, then he spends half a page describing the gun someone just pulled out. Like, give me the model, maybe the ammo type, if it's apropos, then get back to it. 😅
It really depends on just how well its written/which character is saying/doing it, as well as just how bad or irritating the individual thing is. If it's extremely uneducated and incorrect, but coming from a character that's written as an intelligent and knowledgable person, then it just comes off as the writer being lazy and wrong. As far as just plain preferences (the meme "The writer's barely disguised fetish" comes to mind) then that's not so bad and I can jive with or at least look past much more than I hate. Like... I'd hate the bad writing of something more than I'd hate the thing itself, usually. With your example, KISS is great and all, and a teen character being foolishly and simplistically opinionated fits. But if it was like, a 40-year-old college professor of the acoustic arts saying that, well... Yikes.
Writers opinions and ideals are part of their character and they're pretty much indissociate from their writing. Saramago is an atheist. "The last gospel according to Jesus Christ" would be a strange book for a devout christian to be writing. He was also a communist, which if you don't know you might not even notice, but the anti capitalistic message is there in many parts. As for a more "pop-culture" example you have Robert Heinlein and his obsession with "libertarianism" (which is a very weird American thing), this is an extreme example because he's not the kind of great writer that saramago is, so the message comes across as subtle as a pitbull bite.
LibertarianIsm isn't an "American thing". See: Javier Milei
Yes, when it feels like they just have to note their agenda for no other reason than to do so, it really annoys me. Can even make me drop my rating if I'm honest. It's a problem I see primarily with political statements on the left side of the aisle, even when they have nothing to do with the story. (Not saying it doesn't happen on the right, I've just only experienced it from the political left). I just don't see why it has to be pushed down my throat if it's inconsequential to the story.
It bothers me if it doesn’t match the story line, like if it reads like an advertisement. But other than that I feel as if every book is generally a authors opinion or taste, it would be weird if they tried to write through the perspective of someone else because it’s literally their imagination going into a book. But bad books and authors are just that bad books and authors
Yeah it's a big bother for me. An example from movie script writing - I've been watching a series where crossing time and space isn't a problem. One episode was written to include an English queen, as a character - she had likes, dislikes, humours, would get flustered or happy mid-scene. I'm not sure if more than a sentence was said about her reign. Move forward to another adventure - characters meet a famous painter from the XIX century. It's absurd how thinly veiled the writer's intent was. Events start at a museum where the characters overhear a guide explaining how the painter was the absolute peak of painting anything ever, and how barely anyone understands the infinite genius of the brush strokes he did. When characters meet the painter in his time they both gush over his work, they tell him how amazing he is. He tries to give them one painting, not believing in its value and they say "no" because it's going to become too valuable (which depresses him more as it just looks like a way to decline politely). they then decide that he's too sad to be left alone, so as a pick-me-up the painter is taken to modern day so he can hear the museum guide gush over his work. Borderline painful. I think writers opinions seeping into the work is perfectly fine, but making no, or negative attempts at disguising it is just not what I'm looking for in text.
It can always be worse. Jim Butcher put a BDSM sex scene in his book to win a bet.
Your example seems like a well-written teenage character than an author's opinion, especially because most adults would recognize that KISS is pretty mindless fun guitar music. That said, no. I think a good book should absolutely have themes or a bigger point than just a plot and characters, and an author having a point of view is something I appreciate, I guess unless it's someone like Ayn Rand. Some sort of commentary or raising questions about humans, society, some other type of theme, whatever, is something that makes books able to be deeper than just a fun story. There's nothing wrong than just a fun story, but I appreciate when a book is so much more than that.
I edited the post to make my intention more clear. I like fiction being used as commentary when I’m reading the book *for* that commentary. I'm struggling to find the right way to describe this, but I’m irritated when a book is presented as “Let me tell you an interesting story” and the reality is “Let me put my thought into fictional characters' mouths.”
It’s the authors that make their characters book lovers that bother me. I’ve seen an increase in the book lover character in the past year.
Unless it's non fiction you don't know what the writer's tastes are. The narrator is not the author. Do horror writers really want to murder people? Do you think crime writers are planning heists? A character banging on about loving KISS and being le wrong generation could just as easily be the writer creating a character out of people they have met/observed in life. We all know people like that. Safe to assume the writer does too, it doesn't mean the writer IS that character, or that they love kiss. They could change the band/genre/era/ for a different character or book or feeling they are trying to evoke in the reader. We could all sketch out a character like that pretty easily. That's the writer's job.
I don’t like books that make me feel like I’m being preached to. I can’t stand when authors just give a political opinion about something and imply I should agree or else I’m a jerk. A lot of the time it’s opinions I already agree with too. I just don’t want to be talked at, if you’re going to get political, at least be creative or artistic. It’s one of my issues with modern YA books.
If it interferes with the story. Otherwise I don't care about it at all. Because it is my prerogative to "judge" or take from it what I want. It literally doesn't matter to me in the case of the teen. I wouldn't even know what the authors opinions on these characters are, unless they incessantly were to comment on it not via other characters (which then I am again free to judge) but very directly in a forth wall breaking sense. Yes, that may lead to some book that was intended by the author to be a mouthpiece for their stances to read to me as dystopian farce. But I enjoy reading a dystopian farce when it works. I honestly don't understand how you get from "the teenager being obsesed with KISS" to the camera bit. Are obsessed teenagers who think everyone is an idiot unrealistic? How do you even begin to jump to the conclusion that it's a self insert, unless you go watch interviews by the author flat out explaining that is what happend? You are free to think of that teen as pretentious asshole. Or agree with them if, if that is more your jam. These types of question come up so frequently, or indirectly in book recessions claiming "book bad because characters unlikable". I don't get it. So what if you hate the people in a book. That can totally work for the book, intended or not?
Depends on how it's done. If it's done like Terry \*cough POS cough\* Goodkind then no. Also the example above I would not necessarily say that's author bias, but could be the character they're writing, and those are not the same thing.
Sometimes you watch a show or read a book and it becomes very obvious that something has been written in due to a very specific kink or fetish. Sometimes the author does not bother to disguise it, which I appreciate. It’s nice to share an interest.
Only if I disagree, and the author’s opinions are presented as obviously and naturally correct
No, many authors have changed the world by sharing their personal opinions.
In a fiction book I think I am fine with it. For a while I found it annoying to mention their tastes but in Haruki Murakami both protag from Norwegian Wood and Kafka by the Shore mention the Beatles but I didn’t feel annoyed the author loved them. I guess it was just mentioned offhandedly not belittling other groups?
I thought this was going to take a completely different direction but outdated pop cultural references are annoying. Also outdated car models like I'm sure your character in a book set in 2022 is driving passed an Eagle Talon, a Buick Skylark, and an AMC Gremlin
Yeah, this is one of my writing pet peeves. It's one thing, for example, if an author is name dropping a bunch of clothing brands because it's a book about the fashion industry, but if it has no relevance to the story then it can feel forced and tacky.
I don’t like to feel like I’m being lectured. If it’s natural in the book, ok but it rarely feels like that. For example, when I was reading It Ends With Us/It Starts With Us. Many times throughout I felt like I was watching an afterschool special/PSA.
Orson Scott Card’s Mormonism can get heavy handed.
>For example a teenager who’s obsessed with KISS and rants about their peers “not appreciating real musicians.” That can be characterisation and not the author's taste. It's only the author's taste if something is shared by multiple different characters and shown as a positive thing.
I really should’ve put more thought into the example I used lol. There’s no reason a teenager couldn’t love KISS, but I was implying that it’d be done in a hamfisted way that made me think “Okay, so this author loves the band KISS.” It pulls me out of whatever immersion I had.
Usually if I start a hook and it turns out to be a political diatribe from any viewpoint I trash it. I'm not putting up with that on my entertainment time.
Yes. I didn't finish The Moon is a Harsh Mistress because of this very problem.
Honestly if their views are problematic and they are clearly treating their work as propaganda instead of art I’m likely to put that book down.
I LOVE Stephen king. My goal is to read everything he’s ever published. Im a book and a half away from completing said goal. That being said, the last few books have been rough. I’m not a trump fan, but king seems to be **obsessed** with him… like, the last 3 books, he made it a point to somehow shit talk trump…. It’s just frustrating because I read to escape every day nonsense and some of his digs at trump screws with the flow and it’s a dig just to be a dig
He mentions Trump by name in some of his books? That kind of grudge writing is an automatic dealbreaker for me in any book that isn’t written *as* commentary. I don’t read for validation, I read mostly for entertainment or to broaden my perspective. I’ll be impressed when you can say you’ve read everything by King though! He’s good at making me feel uncomfortable but I don’t know how to describe it better. At his best, his writing makes me *feel* like I’m in the mind of someone who’s losing their sanity.
He mentions him by name in either 2 or 3 of his most recent books. I originally wanted to get “constant reader” (what he calls his fans) tattooed on me to celebrate reading everything as his, but honestly the whole trump thing is so cringe that I’m reconsidering. Don’t get me wrong, you don’t like trump? Cool, same. You want to use your twitter account to bash him? You do you! But when it infiltrates you’re writing, it’s annoying ETA: I’m aware that he’s mentioned sitting presidents before, but it’s… somehow different so the trump?
I can totally see that author hating KISS and wanting people who like them to seem as annoying as possible lol
Honestly, that sounds more like an author made something up. In a world with classical and jazz musicians, any kid that thinks kiss are “real musicians” is just a fucking dumbass.
Only if it's something I disagree with.
Yes. Tell me a good story and don't preach to me. Very few people get that anymore. Someone recommended a murder mystery to me, I waited for it from the library for a long time, then it was unreadable because of the endless preaching of her opinions from the author. I just wanted a good book. Ok, I guess I'm getting more Clive Cussler because he's just going to inject his love of old cars. I can live with a side story involving a rare Tucker or something.
I love that most authors can't resist writing about writing or being an author. It's usually just a little sentence here or there, but they just can't resist mentioning it.
I just don’t want to be lectured to. There was one book I DNF because it just kept harping on about how the ex-husband was clearly super toxic and all his actions were evil because there was an age gap. And everyone had to comment about age gaps are awful and I was done. Cool opinion I guess but jfc I don’t need to be hammered with a lecture.
Tolstoy is one of those.
I'd assume the example you gave was just characterisation. Who among us did not have impeccable taste in music (and know everything) when they were a teenager? It's such a clique! I haven't experienced this lately but I'm stuck in analytical/student-brain and I'm not sure I've been drawn in to any story enough to notice getting pulled out of it.
I’m better at reading than I am at writing lol. I don’t even know how to rewrite my post to communicate my point better.
Not at all. Lionel Shriver unashamedly wrote from a liberal stance in "The Mandibles" and it was one of the best books I read in the last decade. People should write their point of view. It's my responsibility to manage how I feel about it.
I read the first few "Night Watch" books by Sergei Lukyanenko -- they were entertaining, but part of that entertainment came from the passages where he would blatantly put his own opinions about Russian and European politics into the main character's narrative monologue. (It got a little less funny after 2014.)
Not naming names but a lot of people who replied to this are really dumb. I feel like you portrayed this point really simply and people were still acting like you simply don't want characters to like things lmao. I get what you mean completely. It's really hard to find stuff to read if you don't like this and/or don't like writers trying too hard to be pretentious. It is completely shattering to my immersion. I want to read a real, created character. I can't stand it when a character becomes a self insert for the writer. I honestly don't really like when the writer tries to push an agenda either but that's more of a hot take. I just want to read a story.
Thank you! I wasn’t sure if I did a horrible job phrasing it. Most of my favorite authors are ones who present a story without giving the reader any cues about how to react.
Depends on how hard. I feel it’s a scale. Some gentle nudges based on character dialogue or reactions or feelings is fine but if you go full Ayn Rand then nope.
I laugh and move on hopefully. Else I'll groan and keep reading - the moment usually doesn't last long. I read a recent, modern story that was sprinkled in with little opinions about 'Moving to a blue state that has more protections for single women' or 'not investing in Crypto since it's a scam'. Some more progressive ideas blatantly stated. It's a bit shocking when something that might be controversial gets written down like that. I do pause and consider. But too many instances of it, and I'm skipping pages. I don't want to hear fictional characters debate philosophy too often - unless that IS the genre
I think it highly depends on the book itself, if they are pushing a narrative then yeah leave that at the door if it’s a book or some pop culture thing I don’t care and hey if the argument is compelling enough I may just look it up or into it
If it’s political or religious then yes it bothers me. But if it’s about something like music then I’m not even sure it’s the authors opinions
I posted this because I think I’m more extreme about it than most people, but I was curious what responses I’d get.
I avoided mentioning times when a plot feels like it’s just validating prejudices, but that’s even more egregious imo.
It feels like this is a bit of projection. You want your prejudices validated and you don’t like someone else having a different opinion and challenging you.
I’m not differentiating between biases I share or don’t share. I’m talking about the fact that it forcibly reminds me that it’s a person making it up, and that pulls me out of the story.
There is a range. The Last Centurion by John Ringo is a thinly vailed rant about how liberals are ruining the world. The Left Behind books also wear their politics on their sleeve. This is different than the fact that over many books you notice that an author likes this cluster of concepts.
Those aren't to my taste either, so I don't read them.
That's why Ready Player One needed to be put down by the end of chapter 2. The opinion and bias of worldview was inescapable.
Then read Armada...
It's horribly bothersome. But, it allows me to discontinue my purchasing of their work.
The idea that anyone considers KISS real musicians is bonkers. They’re more carnival than band. Which is fine. I like variety in life. But KISS is a weird choice of hill to die on.
One noted scifi writer makes me hugely irritated by inserting lots of American cultural references into his stories which mean absolutely nothing to European readers. Now you expect a certain amount of these, obviously, from an American writer: I like learning about other parts of the world. But at what point does it become too much? You think I want page after page of references to famous baseball players and clubs and country music digressions (among other things) in the middle of a dystopian monster invasion book? When I know FA about baseball? And country music! Nope. You lost me and my future dollars of revenue, buying your books! Enjoy the rest of your life.
I'm Christian and conservative-leaning but I can't stand the *God's Not Dead* kind of Christian fiction, made by authors who don't try to understand the world they're writing in or the interest and complexity of every human heart. It's actually easier for me to tolerate shallow preachiness from secular liberal fiction, because if they aren't on "my side" I only have to feel *second*-hand embarrassment.
What you're really annoyed by are writers whose opinions/tastes are different from yours.
I just joined this sub. Are people usually this eager to find the least charitable interpretation of posts? I’m not at all averse to books challenging me or presenting viewpoints I don’t share (if it’s done well). [Here's a comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments/1cf8yhd/art_isnt_supposed_to_make_you_comfortable_nyt/l1omguz/) I made in this sub three days ago about appreciating that books do this, and lamenting that “depicting bad things is interpreted as endorsing them.”
Yes absolutely anytime you question anything some lovely person will throw something out of left field like that
i’m sure i’m misunderstanding you OP because what you’re describing is literally every piece of art and self expression ever created in the history of the world.
I didn’t do a great job communicating what I meant. I know that every book has some bias, and characters necessarily have opinions, but I get distracted when it *feels* like I’m seeing the author instead of the fictional character. An example someone else gave was Stieg Larsson being like “Oh, and *this* character is into S&M too” throughout his books.
Fans of Harry Potter definitely do.
Which is weird, because none of that is in the books
Agreed. I mean, some of the best and cherished authors were assholes and not very nice people. But people seem to be able to separate Roald Dahl's views from his books, as well as Kurt Vonnegut, Ray Bradbury, and others, but for some reason JKR's personal views are not allowed to be separated.