Change in Policy?

I must say that as I read this week's featured article, I could feel one eyebrow steadily creeping towards my hairline. I find myself reluctant to call this piece a writing article; I think "editorial" would be a better description.

All in all, I believe real-world politics and fantasy to be a little like, say, orange juice and pizza. Each is fine on its own, but mixing them together produces bad results.

 

I disagree to a point and agree to a point on this issue. I don't think that we can tackle specific issues in SFF, meaning things like police shootings, US tax problems, etc. But we can tackle broader issues and more abstract problems. There are, of course, exceptions. Like with urban fantasy I have a story in mind where in the climax a drone strike on US soil takes place, thus instigating a war with magical people across the world and in the US. This is meant to make people question the use of drones. I think it will fit quite well, but still it asks a broader question concerning reasonable use of force during a tense and potentially devastating scenario. It also asks what are we willing to sacrifice in order to keep the rest of us safe (in my book the death of 18 magic school kids).

However, I also believe that any such approach to a book needs to be balanced, I don't mean the two sides should have equal arguments and traction, I mean that the best arguments for both sides of the debate need to be presented. There can be no straw-men when you write a story dealing with these hot button issues. Only the best actual arguments should presented. I say this because to do otherwise would be to insult your reader's intelligence. Sure, you might appeal to the readers that agree with your opinion, but you will drive away others. For example, after reading the screeds of agnosticism and vegetarianism found in The Inheritance Cycle by Paolini I almost stopped reading. Only by virtue of my obsession to finish whatever I start did I finish the series. I felt like he was putting in his world view and was condescending to all other opposing views. That is what happens when you don't present cognizable arguments from a side opposing your world view. There's my two cents, adjusted for inflation it's more like 2.4¢ but whatever.

 

Yes, real-world political issues in fantasy can be done well, if they're approached from the right angle. I agree. I just have a tendency to regard politics in general as I would a fly in my coffee, so I read the article through the lens of my perspective.

 

And yet, questions of the validity of police-force authority could be seen as one of the essential underpinnings of, say, Robert Bennett's City of Stairs (imo one of the best fantasy novels of the last year or so). I am in favour of the exploring of the elements of and factors behind real-world politics, social issues and other Big Things, in order to inform better fiction. But the framing and context should probably be carefully considered.

 

On one hand, I agree with Russ. If its purpose was really to showcase how SFF authors should deal with real world issues, I'm sorry, but it missed the mark by several country miles.

On the other hand, the author got me to read it.

If you're looking for clicks, that's one way to go...

 

Black Dragon,

Often what the writer intends to convey isn't what the audience gets out of it. When that happens to me with a beta reader, I typically find that to be a great indicator that some editing is needed on my part.

Perhaps, given the way that some, including myself, are interpreting the article, maybe the wording/tone should be reexamined?

Again, to be totally and completely honest, the article came across to me as total clickbait. Not that there's anything wrong with that; websites live and die by clicks.

Since that's not the point, though, perhaps, again, it might be good to run it through another edit?

Thanks.

Brian

 

Black Dragon,

I dunno, I took what the author said at face value. I think though the sentiments found herein aren't about the piece itself but the results of the panel, which was really one-sided. Also, the panel failed to consider the culture and history of police work and crime that has led to the current situation we have. So my problem with the piece isn't that the writing itself is a political tract, but that the panelists used the panel as a soapbox instead of looking at a broader range of issues and looking at it from more than their own political paradigm.