Big things are happening on TV Tropes! New admins, new designs, fewer ads, mobile versions, beta testing opportunities, thematic discovery engine, fun trope tools and toys, and much more - Learn how to help here and discuss here.
An Author Filibuster is the unwholesome offspring of Writer on Board and Info Dump, where the plot stops dead in its tracks to give the author an opportunity to preach their message to the readers or audience, often very political or ethical in nature.
It's worth noting that writing a work of fiction neither adds nor subtracts evidence from a point of view. It may display evidence, it may make an argument using that evidence, it may convince the reader using that evidence. Authors should remember this though: a work of fiction doesn't prove anything. The fact that the author expects us to take their fictional world as instantly applicable to real life is part of what makes this trope so grating.
If this is the climax of the book, it's often a case of Talking the Monster to Death.
If a character is delivering the rant, it's also a Character Filibuster. If the author's opinion is the purpose of the work, it's an Author Tract. A main cause of Don't Shoot the Message. Whether or not any specific reader considers an Author Filibuster a good or bad thing is usually dependent on whether or not said reader agrees with the content of the filibuster, although this is not always the case.
Due in part to the Mind Screw, what exactly the Author Filibuster is arguing is a topic of hot contention in the fanbase
The general consensus is Hideaki Anno was on some form of antidepressants through a fair portion of the series. While End of Evangelion was a blatant anger response to fan backlash. Anno did not take criticism kindly.
In an early chapter of the Excel Saga manga, Il Palazzo takes a few pages to rant about how he feels Christianity has had a negative influence on the world. The anime parodies this by Excel suggesting they skip that scene to avoid controversy. A lampshade is hung by Excel in the manga: "I think we may have just offended a large portion of the world's population..."
Though given the nature of Excel Saga in general, it's hard to tell if this is an actual Filibuster, or just another joke that is pretty standard throughout the show.
The original Ghost in the Shell manga had an ending consisting of little more than the author's existential musings thinly packaged in abstract screen toned "art". However, this philosophical payload was cleverly hidden inside an espionage series, and anyone who didn't see where it was going after Kusanagi beheld the falling feather have only themselves to blame.
This is a common feature in all of Shirow Masamune's manga. He is famous for including extensive commentaries at the end of volumes, the 30-page commentary in Ghost in the Shell being the most famous example. He will also often break the fourth wall by adding his own personal comments in the margins, ranging from the technical aspects of gadgets included in the story, to subjects like the nature of human souls and the organization of Japan's military. These commentaries will often only have a loose connection to what actually goes on in the story. Ghost in the Shell II is probably the best example, as ~1/4th of all pages have some sort of commentary in the margins.
A chapter of Hajime No Ippo includes a several page long speech about how great the environment is, how everybody should do their part to protect it, and how pollution and industrial emissions are evil. It is then shortly followed by the introduction of a new character whose entire goal is to spread this exact message to the world.
The manga Gimmick! has a rather glaring example of this, after a flashback where Kohei takes a job to do special effects for a video game commercial, which turns out to be a government conspiracy that takes the commercial and re-edits it into a post-9/11 pro-war viral video. After the revelation that one of Kohei's friends from Hollywood joins the Iraq War because of it and gets killed, Kohei launches into a "Don't be fooled by images" rant about how Hollywood (and American media in general) is always sneaking subliminal messages into movies and commercials and such, saying how filmmakers just want to make movies, but executives keep interfering to cram their evil propaganda into every crack and crevice.
Hidekaz Himaruya tries to avoid this in his work. Although the closest he gets to this trope can be found in an Axis Powers Hetalia arc which bemoans Japan losing elements of his traditional culture, which is more in context of the changes brought about by Westernization rather than Nostalgia Filter.
Green vs. Red has Lupin.... Lupins chasing The Ice Cube, which turns out to be a source of nuclear power, and the creators use it to condemn the proliferation of nuclear weapons. All this seems out of place in a Lupin film until one remembers that Hayao Miyazaki has a similar anti-war, anti-nuclear stance.
Hellblazer has always been a quintessentially British series, and as such is usually penned by authors from the isles. Starting with writer Jamie Delano and including Garth Ennis and Mike Carey, pretty much all the authors the series has had usually end up using the series as a vehicle to criticize and point out the worst aspects of British politics, economics and popular culture. Many storylines cover Margaret Thatcher's economic policies and her handling of The Falklands War, for example, and the general woes of British society are firmly analyzed and represented as equal or worse than any supernatural threat the protagonist himself faces.
As Jhonen Vazquez's Johnny the Homicidal Maniac went on, more and more text began appearing that dealt with the main character's philosophical doubts, to the point that the panels would usually carry more text than drawings.
As part of the legendary Creator Breakdown during the run of Cerebus the Aardvark, Dave Sim replaced parts of his comic with fine-print screeds detailing his legendary misogyny, which even diehard fans who continued to read the comic do their very best to ignore.
Steve Ditko may be a master comic book storyteller, but when he does not have a collaborator like Stan Lee to restrain him, his stories are notorious for his Objectivist philosophical lectures that dominate his more personal stories. The "Mr. A" stories are by far the worst, though "The Question" could be just as bad at times.
The five issues long series Warrior, a licensed comic about every Professional Wrestling fan's favorite crackpot, The Ultimate Warrior, is one great big Wall of Text after another meant to elucidate the reader on Warrior's bizarre mystical-reactionary philosophy, and paint Warrior as Jesus. Between the sheer density of the text and the preponderance of made up words (just what in the blue hell is "Destrucity", anyway?)note The comic actually does provide a definition for the word, but somehow it causes the word to make even less sense than before., it confused its few readers so badly that both the third and the fourth issues had to open with an explanation of the previous issues (with the recap on the fourth issue being a footnote and unreadable due to being black text on black paper). The one issue this doesn't apply to? The Christmas special, a completely dialog-less issue in which Warrior goes to the North Pole, puts Santa in bondage, steals his clothes and possibly rapes him. There's a reason that every wrestling fan on the planet has agreed that the guy is nucking futs. It's bad enough to mess with the space-time continuum!
Matt Fraction's first issue of the Invincible Iron Man comic has young villain supergenius Ezekiel Stane, fresh from his latest round of building and selling WMDs to genocidal terrorists, stop to spend four pages testing out his latest weaponry on the board of directors of a tobacco company, while delivering a rant on a) the evils of smoking and b) why, despite Ezekiel's long list of crimes against humanity, he is still infinitely morally superior to people who grow and sell tobacco.
Oddly enough, the Doom comic (here) did this too, interrupting the plotless violence with a rant about how radioactive waste is killing the environment. This may well be a parody of the tradition, though, assuming that the comic is a parody to begin with.
Warren Ellis' Transmetropolitan, whose main character's inflammatory news articles, while only sometimes political, and definitely in-character (insofar as Spider is an homage to Hunter S. Thompson), are too long and detailed to NOT also be the author's viewpoint.
Alan Moore responded to complaints about Promethea by saying something along the lines of, "There are hundreds of comics out there that aren't a didactic on magic, isn't there room for just one that is?"
In Universal War One #5 and #6, various characters expose the author's political view on "American capitalism".
Garth Ennis can get into this. While it works in the context of the stories, Preacher having the protagonists discuss how any God who made the world must be evil, The Punisher having characters talk about the horrors of war and The Boys featuring long-winded Take That dialogue towards DC and Marvel-style super heroes, there are also random, out of nowhere ones. In Preacher, Cassidy raves at Jesse about his distaste for the word 'insecure'. The Boys also has a scene where Butcher claims that every straight man is homophobic and anyone pretending otherwise is just lying.
Rick Remender had Havok give a very controversial speech in Uncanny Avengers. Due to the speech's controversial nature, and likely also due to his response to many people who took offense with it (namely, by telling these people to go 'drown in hobo piss'), Remender then stops the plot dead in its tracks for three pages in a later issue, just to have two characters debate the matter. He uses the Scarlet Witch as his Author Avatar, with her being portrayed as levelheaded and reasonable, while Rogue, who represents those who don't like the speech, is snippy and blinded by emotion. As you'd guess, the Scarlet Witch is portrayed as being correct.
The same thing happened in All-New X-Men, with Brian Michael Bendis having Kitty Pryde rant about the same subject, siding with those who don't like the speech, although she's much more accepting of those who do agree with it.
The 1990-91 Foolkiller miniseries, appropriate as it was written by Steve Gerber himself. He considered this his opportunity to really expunge on what the character is all about. Especially since he seemed to be little more than a cheesey character (albeit, one with an Awesome Mc Cool Name) that most people remember for the Zorro-like outfit and his battle with Spider-Man.
The last issue of Marvel's G.I. Joe series (Issue #155): A Letter From Snake Eyes. Larry Hama is in full force and pulls no punches as this is the first time we ever get into the mind of the most mysterious Joe of all. Hama, being a former soldier knows what he's talking about when he says War Is Hell. This is definitely considered one of the better uses of this trope, given the high value of this issue in the collectors market.
Ultimate Sleepwalker: The New Dreams has a one-scene filibuster that illustrates the author's hatred of the C-List Fodder trope, as well as the frequent depiction of C- and D-list characters as losers or otherwise ineffective in the official comics. A villain who's considered an A-list psychopath in the official comics gets into a fight with a villain who's a D-list loser at best, and the scene throws traditional expectations out the window by having the D-lister win. The D-lister then points out to his dying opponent that a character's ranking on some glorified pecking order doesn't necessarily reflect their true potential.
Cosmo gets a short one in Sonic X: Dark Chaos about how religion is bad because it divides people and prevents them from working together to solve their problems. Fortunately, it's incorporated into the narrative so it isn't as jarring as other examples.
Seagal commonly ends his movies this way. The trend started in his very first movie, Above the Law, where he spends the finale battling corrupt government agents, then after all is said and done, just before the end credits, he gives a short voice-over about how even in real life, the further up the chain of command you go, the more people you find that think they're...above the law. The key word here being "short"; On Deadly Ground was his directorial debut, presumably to make room for his ego.
Charlie Chaplin's The Great Dictator, in which the entire closing monologue is a statement of Chaplin's anti-war beliefs, though it is very appropriate (and moving) in context.
Parodied in Woody Allen's Bullets Over Broadway, in which David Shayne simply cannot help but write what he thinks is "important dialogue", but everyone else thinks is turgid.
Cheech: "A maze beset by brutal pitfalls!" Hey, Olive, I memorized it, and I'm tellin' ya, it comes to me all the time, and it stinks on fuckin' hot ice!
In the last 10 minutes of ClerksKevin Smith's voice hops from one character to another every time someone opens their mouth. In fact, this tends to be the method by which he concludes all his films.
During a flashback scene in Saw VI, Jigsaw is standing in the office of William, an executive at a health insurance company who had just denied him coverage for an experimental treatment of his cancer (and who is the subject of the film's main trap). This causes Jigsaw to go into a rant attacking the health insurance industry, saying that they do the very same thing that conservatives fear socialized medicine will do — namely, take life-and-death decisions away from doctors and their patients by denying them coverage. He doesn't say "conservatives" or "socialized medicine," but the message is clear, and is repeated throughout the film, especially with the way that William gets killed. As Cracked pointed out, the message would be a lot more compelling coming from someone who wasn't a serial killer that forced people to make brutal life and death decisions himself with his various traps.
Black Hawk Down suffers from this at points, where all of a sudden, one character or another will give a little speech to whoever's around justifying "why we're here", which is no doubt because it was Backed by the Pentagon.
Birdemic twice brings all other activity in the film to a dead stop to lecture about environmentalism. These are just the densest clumps of the movie's almost relentless "message".
The sequels in The Matrix film franchise, The Matrix Reloaded and The Matrix Revolutions, were heavily criticized for being full of lengthy philosophical pontificating by several characters, including Councillor Hamann, The Oracle, The Merovingian (twice), Agent Smith, and Morpheus. And the Architect. He talks for SO LONG. Parodied by George Carlin and Will Ferrell.
Cecil B. DeMille's The Greatest Show on Earth (1952), which was ostensibly a backstage drama about a season at the Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus, keeps interrupting itself with various segments that have little to nothing to do with the characters, including unself-conscious circus performances (with many, many in-universe audience reaction shots that tend to undercut the fourth wall) and pure documentary scenes showing what carnival workers do, the latter of which are accompanied by verbose and frankly pompous descriptions by a "voice-of-God" narrator. The movie in general can't seem to decide what it wants to be, making it a fine mess. And yet it won Best Picture.
Atlas Shrugged has the definitive Author Filibuster in "This Is John Galt Speaking," where Ayn Rand gives her protagonist an opportunity to lecture the reader for sixty pages on end (eighty pages in the paperback edition); since he's taken over all channels, the Strawman Political villains are made to sit through it for three hours of plot time. There are several shorter examples in the same book, such as the sermon explaining that "If money is the root of all evil, then what is the root of all money? Virtue is the only thing that can give money any value. Is virtue the root of all evil?" In an example of artistic license, Ayn Rand, in Atlas Shrugged, claims John Galt's radio monologue is only three hours. No one has ever been able to read, clearly and distinctly, the entire monologue aloud in less than SIX HOURS.
This gives rise to the joke: "In the first half of Atlas Shrugged, you're asked the question 'Who is John Galt?' For the second half, you ask 'when will John Galt shut the hell up?'"
It also leads one to wonder how the hell they plan on translating that to film - although it would decrease the required budget significantly, at least.
Howard Roark of The Fountainhead also gets such an opportunity in his courtroom scene, and the last chapter of Anthem is essentially devoted to this purpose (Ayn Rand seems to do this a lot). These examples aren't quite as extreme as Atlas Shrugged — in book form. In the movie adaptation of The Fountainhead, Rand demanded that Roark's courtroom speech be performed exactly as she had written it (the version Rand wrote for the film's screenplay was significantly shorter than the book's version), resulting in a nearly six-minute long speech, one of the longest in film.
The Illuminatus Trilogy parodies the filibuster in Atlas Shrugged with Telemachus Sneezed, mentioning that the last hundred and three pages are a soliloquy on the importance of guilt.
Louisa May Alcott admits in Little Women that she was guilty of this at one point. Her Author Avatar Jo's literary exploits include, in a backlash against Executive Meddling insisting that True Art Is Angsty, writing a book that failed because "it might more accurately have been called an essay or a sermon, so intensely moral was it". There's also a multi-page plea to accept and respect spinsters (one of whom Alcott was herself) and several digressions on appreciating and loving the "angels of the home" while they live (brought on by Alcott losing Beth's namesake, her sister, very young), among other authorial musings.
In Deception Point, Dan Brown has several characters expose the pros and cons of letting NASA monopolize space exploration instead of opening it up to the private sector (though the arguments supporting NASA greatly outnumber those against it).
Tom Clancy espoused his world view at length in The Bear and the Dragon.
It started to become really obvious with Executive Order.
In a Tom Clancy book, John Clark thought to himself that a movie, implied to be Air Force One (which in reality did pretty well with critics), was a stupid movie that makes airport security overly diligent. This is most likely an indirect Take That at Harrison Ford, whom Tom Clancy had hated as Jack Ryan.
Also in the genre, the protagonist in the W.E.B. Griffen book, The Hostage, Charley Castillo, thinks to himself that he likes Mel Gibson movies, and goes into detail about why, which has no relevance to the plot. It would come off strongly as product placement if Gibson was a product.
State of Fear left approximately half the key plot points unresolved in favor of the heroes making every rant possible on the subject of global warming. There was also a huge Big Lipped Alligator Moment where one character has to babysit some guy who begins espousing social and media theories that have nothing whatsoever to do with global warming or anything else in the rest of the book (yet end up being what the book is named after).
Jurassic Park, Ian Malcolm spends better than half of his scenes in the book making pages-long speeches about the evils of modern science, despite the fact that he is supposedly dying at the time (and a scientist himself). There is occasionally a Hand Wave, like when Malcolm is cranked out of his mind on morphine, and is just babbling whatever thoughts come into his head. The Lost World (1995) also contains long philosophical digressions.
Next warns of the dangers of Big Genetics, hamfisting the point in at every available opportunity, with an epilogue followed by a didactic author's note, just to make sure that the subtlety of his point could in fact cause a concussion.
And let's not forget depicting one of the more prominent critics of State Of Fear as a child molester.
Wakefield by Andrei Codrescu does this over and over on a wide variety of subjects, but at least has a certain self-knowledge. Kudos for when, after the main character gives a lengthy speech about the relationship between art and money, another character tells him he's "full of shit".
Bill O'Reilly 's fiction book, from before he was really famous, Those Who Trespass, is one after the other, from two characters that essentially play two sides of his personality, one of which is a cold blooded killer who takes revenge on those who fired him from television, while the other is an Irish cop who blabs on about the errors he predicts in the OJ Simpson trial, which was a few months away in the book's time.
Emmanuel Goldstein's book in 1984, plus a drunken proletarian's rant against the metric system. The story of the novel is largely a Framing Device for Orwell's vision of the Dystopia, and said book-within-a-book can be skipped by the reader without missing anything important to the plot. He also spends about ten pages near the end of "1984" driving the message home, just in case the reader missed the thinly-veiled metaphor of the first hundred or so pages.
The plot of Moby-Dick is an excuse for myriad Author Filibusters about whaling, whaling culture, the anatomy of whales, and lots of sperm-wringing. Plus all the classical references. Then there are those that interpret the whole book as an Author Tract about religion, where Ahab was trying to kill God by using Moby Dick as a substitute.
Vegetarians get their say in the second book of the Inheritance Cycle. Humorously, Paolini seems to have changed his mind in the mean-time, as Eragon rationalizes about eating meat in the third book. The anti-religion message was just as bad or worse. It looked like it was forced in—plot going on, scene change, random out-of-nowhere scene where Oromis makes some relatively basic atheism arguments that are treated as fact, scene change, back to the story's actual plot.
And then Eragon changes his mind about that as well!
It seems to go both ways. Elves tend to be a lot wiser and more attuned to nature than any other creature because of the nature of their magic that bound their whole race in their blood oath with the dragons. As a result, they can't eat meat any more than a person could eat their own hand because they can feel the emotions from all the life around them, and if a creature dies, it feels like they themselves are dying along with it. They singnote they speak in the ancient language combined with a flow of magic. The singing part is just their own artistic flair. to the trees to harvest fruits and vegetables that grow all the nutrition they need, so there's no need to butcher animals. With all their needs taken care of, the elves don't fight wars and most are content to keep to themselves and pursue whatever they fancy, be it writing, painting, or being a fish. However, when pressed, they will rise up together to fight off whatever force threatens them.
Dwarves, on the other hand, have their central religion and set of customs and traditions that probably vary between the clans and deep dwellers and can get very riled up if their beliefs are challenged, but they also have the most marvelous and luxurious empires in the entire continent, and as a social collective, they seem to have a lot more fun in life than the elves. On top of all this, dwarves might actually be right about their religion; in Brisingr, Eragon actually sees what could very well be their god.
Parodied in the original novel of The Princess Bride, when author William Goldman (in his guise as the alleged "editor") discusses how he cut out scores of pages of boring political lectures and discussions from the "original book".
Goldman parodies his own parody in the excerpts from Buttercup's Baby, (the sequel) that are provided in some editions of the novel - he describes in detail how a major stumbling block in getting his annotation of the sequel off the ground is the fact that Morgenstern's estate took a dim view of his chopping away Morgenstern's filibustering, as they view that as an integral part of the original work.
The final third of Upton Sinclair's The Jungle is a rambling treatise on the virtues of socialism. Most readers only noticed his nauseating descriptions of contemporary meat-packing practices. As Sinclair himself noted, he'd aimed for the country's heart, but missed and hit it in the stomach.
The last third of Glory Road is essentially a long libertarian diatribe.
War and Peace has one of two epilogues of the novel devoted to espousing Leo Tolstoy's view of history. If you have read the book beforehand, there's no real need to read that particular epilogue.
The majority of Tolstoy's output is this trope. One of his earlier, shorter works is a Take ThatFix Fic to a woman who rejected him (oops), while Anna Karenina turned from a straightforward bit of realist fiction to an epic due to Tolstoy's decision to add a second plot complete with an author avatar to expound on the joys of mowing.
The 4th Maximum Ride novel by James Patterson. While, in the first 3 books, the main characters were always on the move and in danger, fighting for their lives against evil scientists, and keeping a low profile, in this one Max and the flock are brought to Antarctica to combat global warming. The global warming commentary is there but not overwhelming until the last few pages of the book (before the epilogue) which has Max making a speech to the US Congress (a literal filibuster) concerning global warming and referencing the current big thing about compact fluorescent light bulbs (that if every house replaced one normal bulb with one of these, it would be "like taking a million cars off the road"). The protagonist of this series was the subject of kidnapping and human experimentation, but goes out of his way to state that global warming is worse than those things. The speech also contains a lot of America-bashing (pig-headed, short-sighted, arrogant, etc). To finish it up, the very last page has 5 facts/tips about "Saving the world. Wings not required" which is more global warming / recycling commentary (and is signed "—Max").
The Seven Basic Plots by Christopher Booker contains a lengthy rant on why Lady Chatterley's Lover is an awful book.
Book Three of Native Son, particularly toward the end, and at its absolute worst during each of the two speeches during Bigger's trial, especially by Bigger's attorney; each of these speeches went on for over 20 pages of the book. The longest one was exactly 24 pages.
The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire contains a lot of Gibbon's anti-religious sentiment (he blamed its fall on the Church.)
Charles Dickens could never resist the temptation to embellish his characters' actions via moralistic asides, sometimes lighthearted, more often disgusted. Since his books tend to contain Loads and Loads of Characters, he does this a lot, in his later, socially-aware novels especially.
The Executioner series of action novels was written by Don Pendleton in the 1970's in response to the anti-war and "violence doesn't solve anything" attitudes of the time. Its hero, Vietnam veteran turned vigilante Mack Bolan, spends entire chapters pondering the morality of violence and the nature of his "war everlasting".
People familiar with the musical version of Les Misérables are certain to be rather confused by numerous dissertations on such things as local linguistics, Hugo's thoughts on convents, the life of a side character bishop, the governance of a town, the Battle of Waterloo, and the Paris sewer system in the original work.
The filibustering seems to take up more space than the actual storytelling.
Parodied in Mason & Dixon, when Dixon goes on a several page speech about the mythological Lambton Worm, and by the time he gets to the end, he can't remember what his point was in bringing it up.
In The Ethical Assassin, the title character says almost nothing that isn't Author Filibuster. The last conversation sounds like it's the assassin delivering the jacket blurb.
In some of John Norman's later Gor novels, what little plot there is halts AT LEAST EVERY TWO PAGES for a character to go on another rant about how a woman's proper place is kneeling at his feet.
Poul Anderson's otherwise pretty good collection of loosely-related short stories, The Boat of a Million Years veers into this trope. The author apparently can't help himself from launching into angry rants against liberalism and expressing the view that libertarianism is the best thing ever.
A short story that Dan Simmons posted onto his website is a rant on how Islam will destroy the world if left unchecked.
In the original 1818 version of Frankenstein, during the scene in which Elizabeth and Victor are visiting the condemned Justine Moritz, Mary Shelley allows Elizabeth to go into a completely inappropriate rant against the inhumanity of the death penalty (Shelley and her husband Percy were strongly against it) - inappropriate for that dramatic moment, anyway, because Elizabeth is meant to be there comforting and consoling her friend who's just been condemned under the death penalty. This led one editor of the 1818 edition to remark that Elizabeth isn't the sort of friend you'd call on to cheer you up if you've had a bad day...
Mary Shelley was fond of these. Frankenstein has no fewer than three separate narrators (even more if you count the letters from family members that Victor quotes verbatim), and all of them to some degree deliver little sermons on topics that are only tangentially related to the novel's theme. Oddest of all, the story proper is recounted in the form of a series of letters written by (fictional) Arctic explorer Robert Walton, whose ship is trapped in ice as the novel begins (which, for modern-day readers, must amount to the greatest Fake-Out Opening in history). Mary in fact began writing her story with the creation of the monster itself, but was encouraged by her husband to expand it to full length, belatedly adding Walton and all the rest.
Making History by Stephen Fry contains at least one conversation full of remarks the author himself has made in interviews. The line "Just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean science knows nothing" stands out. There's also the "beautiful words" sketch from A Bit of Fry and Laurie, which is all filibuster by an Author Avatar character. He did a podcast where he makes many of the same points, only seriously.
Neal Stephenson does this a lot. He keeps you on your toes, too - sometimes he's just rambling about Restoration Comedy for no good reason, but sometimes the five-page demonstration of van Eck phreaking will turn out to be a key plot point. Stephenson's filibusters tend to be less telling us about his political views (though that does show up—science and free markets are good, and academic liberalism and postmodernism are bad, according to Cryptonomicon, The Baroque Cycle, and Anathem) and more about his almost obsessive desire to show his work (think the long discussion on Sumerian religion in Snow Crash).
Terry Pratchett has succumbed to this in later Discworld books, as he began to use the series to express his views on the world. A major example is the argument between Sacharissa and William in The Truth on the true purpose of news media, in which William may as well be holding a card that say "VIEWPOINT OF TERRY PRATCHETT".
Pratchett is an atheist and a humanist, something that won't surprise anyone who has read Small Gods or the exchanges between Granny Weatherwax and Oates in Carpe Jugulum.
Like so many other things of the literature scene, this gets heavily satirized by Walter Moers in many of his books through his Bunny EarsAuthor Avatar Hildegunst von Mythenmetz (Optimus Yarnspinner in the English translation). The plot of the books are actually a story inside a story, that are told by Hildegunst who is constantly breaking the fourth wall (which is in fact, an in-story fourth wall) to comment on the story he is currently writing down. Moers hangs a giant lampshade on it by having Hildegunst invent the Mythenmetzian Tangent, a literary device in which the author stops telling his story and instead talks about something entire else. Be it the interior decoration of his study, or a rant directed at his most hated critic, or just entire pages of the word "Brumli". Hildegunst does however fail to explain the purpose of this device, which is completely intentional.
Just A Couple Of Days by Tony Vigorito is entirely made out of this trope. The fact that the author attempts to justify this via the protagonist complaining about how depressed or scattered he is feeling is embarrassing at best and infuriating at worst.
Don Quixote: Parodied and lampshaded by Cervantes. The critics said that the chivalry books were plagued by a lot of lengthy discourses from a lot of different abstract themes, immobilizing the action and discouraging the reader. Cervantes was a great writer, so maybe his intent at author filibuster could not be boring, but the reactions of the people who listen to them are very realistic: Don Quixote talks for nearly two pages in the "Discourse on The Golden Age", Part I, Chapter XI, and for almost six pages in the "Discourse on Arms and Letters", Part I, Chapter XXXVIII. The first filibuster is lampshaded: "All this long harangue (which might very well have been spared) our knight delivered because the acorns they gave him reminded him of the golden age; and the whim seized him to address all this unnecessary argument to the goatherds, who listened to him gaping in amazement without saying a word in reply." and in the second the action really never stops, because all the other characters have their dinners while Don Quixote talked... for 6 pages and 2 chapters!: "All this lengthy discourse Don Quixote delivered while the others supped, forgetting to raise a morsel to his lips, though Sancho more than once told him to eat his supper, as he would have time enough afterwards to say all he wanted."
The Silver Skates devotes lengthy chunks of the book - including a long side-story only little related to the main plot - to facts about the country of Holland, its culture and history, and why it is just completely awesome.
The Left Behind series has this in spades. Each of the 16 books bring the narrative to a full stop on at least one occasion to provide sermons that are several pages in length. The final book, Kingdom Come, is especially bad as it spends a chapter retelling the stories of 3 Old Testament figures.
Similar to Left Behind, the Christ Clone Trilogy has some serious author fillibustering. There's hardly any in the first 2 books, but the 3rd book, Acts of God, frequently gets bogged down in Christian sermonizing.
Professor Michael Murphy in the Babylon Rising series frequently lectures his students, friends, and acquaintances on the correctness of his conservative Christian views. It just so happens that Murphy's creator, Tim La Haye (of Left Behind fame) is a conservative Christian.
John Varley's Gaea Trilogy frequently lapses into this trope, whenever the characters get preachy about sexual politics and/or religion. There's also a weird lecture in Demon about how the "real" rock-and-roll genre of music died out in the disco years, and how 80s-era rock (i.e. music from when Demon was written) was sold-out overhyped garbage. As this digression is uttered by an alien centaur from the 22nd century, and one who's performing brain surgery at the time, it's about as out-of-place as this trope can get.
Red Thunder has a long speech about how the space program was ruined by Kennedy's challenge to reach the moon before 1970 and how space travel should have progressed.
Anne Rice is simply magnificent at this trope, especially in her The Vampire Chronicles series. It's obvious when its happening because a conversation between two characters (usually involving religion) can span chapters (Lestat and Marius' conversations near the end of The Vampire Lestat spring to mind), and often go over the same points over and over and over again.
Lestat does this quite often, especially in the later Chronicles books; the worst example is when he takes time in the preface of Blood Canticle to complain about the fans' reaction to Memnoch the Devil, saying more-or-less that he gave them a glimpse into the mysteries of Heaven and Hell and all they wanted was "the fancy fiend" with glamorous leather and heavy motorcycles. He assures them that there's plenty of traditional badassery to go around but that he'll get to it when he's good and ready. Chapter 7 of the same novel has nothing to do with the plot or the series, but is a three page rave about the new Pope and the canonization of Juan Diego, the first indigenous American saint.
The Doctor Who book Night of the Humans is essentially one long rant about how awful and evil every single religion is.
Every time someone is mentioned as using pot in The House of Night series the plot gets temporarily derailed so Zoey and her friends can rant about how doing pot is so uncool and stupid. In Betrayed, we find out that Neferet specifically chooses students to feed to the red-eyed vampires just because Zoey ratted them out to her as having used pot. When the police confront Zoey about the deaths, Neferet tries to blame it all on the victims falling in the river after being high, which sounds uncomfortably like "they were asking to die a brutal death!" And while Neferet is the bad guy, Zoey in no way ever contradicts or debates that argument, and since younger generations tend to have a more liberal attitude about pot (with most thinking that while it may not be good, you can do worse things to yourself) it comes off as even more dissonant.
Sisterhood Series by Fern Michaels: Well, this series has gone into this trope a number of times. The book Payback portrays a Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) as scum of the earth who suck up your money like leeches, use that money to pamper themselves, and will simply stand back and not lift a finger to help you as you die of a life-threatening illness. The book Vendetta portrays China as a Crapsack World that cheerfully brings Yellow Peril wherever it goes! The book The Jury has one character Nikki Quinn tell the other characters about the vicious cycle of abuse between spouses. The book Fast Track portrays the World Bank (particularly its president) as a money-sucker that will leave poor countries to rot and die. The book Under the Radar portrays a polygamist sect as a cult made up of the Corrupt Hick, rapists, and pedophiles hiding behind religion and treating women as a Baby Factory.
Mat Coward's Success... And How to Avoid It is a funny book about being a freelance writer, which periodically breaks off the jokes to talk about how Margaret Thatcher was out to ruin Britain and referring to her time in office as the "Time of Evil".
David Weber does it sometimes in Safehold, especially in later books. Sometimes war-ridden, fast-paced narrative come to halt and we are treated to a chapter that is nothing but yet another Maikel Staynair's lecture on the evils of Corrupt Church.
In John Ringo's Troy Rising series, much of the third book is about how South Americans are lazy and entitled to the point of suicidal negligence. It's also brought up near the climax that Afghani citizens are taught to make explosives at their grandfather's knee, and are second to none when fighting in caves.
In Joseph Heller's novel Good as Gold, the narrative stops dead for about forty pages while the author delivers a massive rant about Henry Kissinger, how he's a lying, murdering scumbag and how, worst of all, he isn't even really Jewish.
Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness (1902) is a psychological thriller masquerading as an African adventure story, but even before the psychological element takes center stage, the novella's protagonist, Charlie Marlowe, veers away from pure narrative at times to talk about his spiritual awakening (or spiritual death, as the case may be) while in the Congo. For several pages at a time, we come upon extensive philosophical treatises that were considered long-winded and dull even in Conrad's time. Partly justified by the fact that Marlowe is actually, in-story, speaking to a group of friends on a boat, and it is an unnamed first-person narrator listening to Marlowe who both opens and concludes the whole thing.
The Marquis de Sade was quite fond of this trope, interposing his famously depraved sex scenes with just as many, if less famous, lengthy rhetorics about the pointlessness of morality in a Godless universe and the glories of hedonism. Philosophy in the Bedroom is probably the most blatant example.
This is actually something of a subversion: in De Sade's day, the word "philosophy" in a book title used to be code for "porn". The title (and his then-already-infamous name) capitalize on this — only to show readers a woman walking into a brothel, picking up a pamphlet lying on the piano... which is then given in full length, eclipsing anything else in the story.
Even in 120 Days of Sodom, which was allegedly written to be a catalog of different "passions", he can't help his philosophizing and the first part of the book (the 400 pages that were actually written, as opposed to just notes researchers have found) intertwines "tame" (for de Sade, that means water sports/scat, by the by) non-penetrative sexual scenes with why the four main characters are justified in their future torture and murder of their guests.
This was Stealth Parody of the day's aristocracy and those who they share power with, and an example of how an Overly Long Gag can still be Author Filibuster.
While it's probably impossible to ignore the subject completely in a book specifically centered on Real Lifeserial killers, John Douglas spends a little too much time in Mindhunter telling the reader that he is an avid supporter of the death penalty and that anyone who isn't, should be.
A good deal of Petr Beckmann's A History of Pi is, by word count, rants against the Soviet Union. In a book about mathematics. It isn't quite as misplaced as you'd think: Beckmann viewed the Soviet Union as the benchmark for anything and everything irrational, so whenever he would discuss cranks who try to "square a circle" or some such, he would inevitably compare them to official Soviet policy (a bit hypocritically, as Beckmann was a major crank himself.)
An early chapter of Flashman and the Redskins has the protagonist encounter a group of well-off liberals discussing the ill-treatment of Native Americans. Flashman spends the next five pages or so haranguing them on why they are idiots for entertaining an absurdly romanticized view of the American West.
Dutch children's book De Griezelbus ("The Spooky Bus") involves an author of scary stories telling a number of his stories to a class of schoolchildren on said bus. (Said author later turns out to be a werewolf who intends to eat the children.) At one point, one of the children asks him why doesn't tell real scary stories, like those movies his brother watches in which "arms and legs are flying around". The author replies, and is presumably channeling the author of the book here: "That's not scary, that's disgusting!"
The story line of the print-on-demand historical novel The Alsatian stops in the middle for a two-chapter synopsis of the causes and early campaigns of World War I. The author considered deleting it, but decided that a thorough knowledge of the conditions at the time was necessary for the audience to understand why the protagonist shoots himself in the foot to escape from battle.
Stephen King takes a fair bit of page time at the end of the first act of 11/22/63 to have his protagonist internally monologue about how greatthe year 1958 is and how bad 2011 sucks in comparison.Justified in that the character believes himself to have become trapped in the year 1958 and may simply be trying to talk himself into being okay with it. He also tries to soften it later on by admitting that 1958 has its downsides, in particular the outrageous levels of racism that are still common, and asking the reader to remember that the next time he starts gushing about how much he loves the time period. He further admits that he's personally exempt from one of the greatest drawbacks of living during the Cold War - he knows that there won't be a nuclear war, whereas other characters have to live in fear of it.
Near the end of Robots and Empire, Isaac Asimov put in an Anvilicious and story-derailing diatribe against nuclear fission power. It is stated that the the Three Mile Island accident forever turned the world against its use, to the extent that humans would rather burn oil or coal instead. Even the name of the place is taboo to mention centuries afterwards. This doesn't bear any resemblance to the real world even when the book was published (in 1985, six years after the accident).
The English Dragon: "Our Freedom is being eroded. Those bastards in government are taking it from us stealthily and insidiously. Our culture is being eroded. You can't be English any more. They'll make it illegal. '1984' said it all" says Oliver. More still when Oliver imagines himself as Dante in Hell: "Oliver reserved the first circle for the writers of novels who censored their own work so as not to fall foul of politically correct editors... The second circle would be reserved for the editors and publishers who were scared of anything that wasn't politically correct... In the next circle he put cowardly politicans... In the next circle - always getting tighter and fouler he put the television presenters who voiced only one point of view... Oliver thought about the next circle [and] [p]eopled it with social worker busybodies".
Karen Traviss does this in her Halo novels (Glasslands, The Thursday War, and Mortal Dictata) regarding Dr. Halsey and the SPARTAN-II program. This is usually done from the viewpoint of Margaret Parangosky, the head of ONI, and Serin Osman (one of the SPARTAN-IIs whose augs failed). As far as Parangosky (and Traviss, of course) is concerned, Halsey is Dr. Mengele for having abducted innocent children and replacing them with clones that got sick and died shortly after. Traviss expects the readers to believe that Parangosky, who claims to know everything that goes on in UNSC and in her own ONI, somehow had no idea that Halsey was planning on using clones instead of simply abducting children (NOTE: she was perfectly fine with abductions, it was cloning that was a problem) for the program. Even Chief Mendez suddenly decides that he has always thought that Halsey was a monster, even though in Ghosts of Onyx (different author) he was glad to see her on Onyx. Interestingly, Traviss has no problems with the SPARTAN-III program, because the kids for that program were not abducted but were merely orphans. Just to be clear, Traviss doesn't have a problem with using child soldiers, as long as they're given a choice. What she fails to point out is that these children have recently lost their parents to the Covenant, and ONI is, basically, telling them "Wanna avenge your Mommy and Daddy? Just sign here." Also for reference, the S-2's survival rate is fairly high, whereas the S-3's, which Halsey had no involvement with, were basically cannon fodder who were designed to be cheap and expendable.
For reference, a good number of Halo fans hated Traviss's books because of this. This also applies to developers.
In Cold Days, the 14th book of The Dresden Files, Harry and Titania suddenly have a discussion on Harry's thoughts on gay people, where Harry says that he have no problem with them and doesn't care what they do behind closed doors. While an agreeable message, a number of readers have commented that it feels shoehorned in.
The First Battle devotes its entire last chapter to telling the reader why war is Objectively Wrong, and the characters are horrible people for fighting (even to preserve their own lives). It's made even more jarring when the murderous Big Bad is suddenly totally convinced by proto-StarClan that he should give peace a chance- despite violently opposing the idea a day ago.
Spectral Shadows got this with Serial 11, which serves as a vehicle for the author to do various "Take That!"s to, well, anything they didn't like. Somewhat of a subversion in that while the author does use the plot and characters to express her view points the story doesn't grind to a halt. The closest you get to the plot stopping are characters discussing ideas for a few minutes of plot time.
Live Action TV
Very common in American TV cartoons and sitcoms during the 1980s and well into the '90s, with the characters (or, sometimes, the actors portraying them) Breaking the Fourth Wall at the end of the episode to advocate on behalf of a cause with which the episode had fictionally dealt. For more on this phenomenon, see And Knowing Is Half the Battle or check your local library.
When Brookside was canceled, the show's creator Phil Redmond had his final say in a rebellious scripted rant about how 'TV and society's not like it was' voiced by its longest-running character.
In Boston Legal, starting with season 4, there would be one or two closing arguments in EVERY EPISODE that were perfect examples of this. It would always be a very left leaning take on an issue of the day, even those who agreed with the viewpoints found them a bit much.
Lampshaded somewhat when Denny says "How come the other side always has short closings?"
There were a very few occasions when they ended up getting shot down by the end of the episode, though that was phased out as the series went on.
It's true of most David E. Kelley productions. Check out Picket Fences, Chicago Hope, etc.
A non-moral example from Dan Schneider, the creator of iCarly: one episode of the show portrays Shipping and shippers in a bad light, then finally stops the show so Carly can tell them that the point of the show is comedy, not who is dating who.
What made this especially infuriating for some fans, is that the very next episode they filmed was a 'secret' episode which ended on a nuclear level shipping cliffhanger, with the first 4 episodes of the next season being a romantic Story Arc following the cliffhanger.
Specific example of this being the rant by Judd Hirsch's character in the teaser to the very first episode of Studio 60 - that's very much Aaron Sorkin talking directly through his mouthpiece (and lifting from Network as he does).
Unlike other shows that portray this trope, The West Wing doesn't fit very well considering that in its essence it is a political show. Each episode usually has several ongoing plots that deal with politics, because they work in the White House, and it's their job. Since their politics inevitably tends to dovetail exactly with Aaron Sorkin's view on the situation, in another sense it fits here like a glove.
The speeches that move the plot escape this trope, even if they are Anvilicious and match Sorkin's views, since the speeches are situated within ongoing events (e.g., Bartlet's talk at the end of the first season) or part of the plot (e.g., the State of the Union). The filibustering is much more apparent when, for example, Josh begins expounding on the virtues of an erudite president to his assistant for roughly two full minutes of screentime. When a character begins ranting and isn't cut off for preaching to the choir, it's frequently this trope.
When it comes to Sorkin, there are aversions, subversions, and straight examples everywhere, sometimes within the same scene. Since several of his works explicitly allow for this trope, your mileage will vary.
More of a "Host Filibuster," but after learning that The Dennis Miller Show was going to be canceled, embittered host Dennis Miller began to break show format in the few remaining episodes to air his personal grievances on a number of social and political issues. His biting, humorous rants, dotted with his trademark obscure references, became the foundation for his follow-up show, Dennis Miller Live, in which he performed a scripted rant in each episode.
The Shield season five had a major moment (Claudette Wyms being promoted to Captain of the Farmington Precinct) interrupted for an Author Filibuster in the form of Internal Affairs officer Jon Kavanaugh interrupting the meeting where Claudette gets her promotion, to deliver a foaming at the mouth rant where the character (serving as the voicebox for Shawn Ryan and the rest of the writers of the series) goes off on the Misaimed Fandom of the Vic Mackey character.
Which works in story, as Vic purposefully builds and maintains this adoration (by both fellow cops and the audience themselves) to continue doing things his way. That the audience are the only ones who truly see how horrible a human being he is, were as he merely "bends the rules" or plays just dirty enough to not get in trouble by his co-workers, only makes their admiration more suspect.
Parodied in Garth Marenghis Darkplace, which frequently had awkwardly inserted scenes about such diverse topics as how great it would be for someone to make a school for psychic children, or what an underappreciated writer Garth Merenghi is. Most fitting the trope was the episode where numerous characters discuss at bizarre length the benefits of buying name-brand batteries from a reputable retailer. Seriously, they spend like ten percent of the show on it.
The leviathan arc in Supernatural was basically one long rant about the evils of big business. The show's writers had done minor political Take Thats before, but this was the first time they'd let it take over the entire season. Supposedly these monsters are worse than anything the Winchesters have ever faced.
In a 1945 Little Orphan Annie strip, Annie soliloquizes about the dreadful foster home she's been placed in. She sleeps in the attic, dresses in a cut-down maid's uniform, is allowed no friends or recreation, and has to take every irksome task from serving dinner to shoveling coal — she is treated as a slave or unpaid servant — but as she observes, it could be much much worse, because at least she's not in an orphanage sponging off the taxpayers.
About seventy-five percent of all Doonesbury strips engage in this, though it generally sets up the "punchline".
In the final years of Chester Gould's Dick Tracy, the stories were notorious for the main character yammering about due process restrictions on the police to the point where the villains dropped dead just from this.
Given that the character is the creator's Author Avatar, it's not hard to hear all of Elly Patterson's old school preaching, like how she doesn't like computers or malls taking away downtown commerce, and believe that it's Lynn Johnston speaking.
Bill Watterson would sometimes do this with Calvin and Hobbes. It was better-executed than most versions, in part because the themes were frequently apolitical, in part because Watterson went after multiple targets, and in part because of Watterson's innate storytelling skills. It also didn't hurt that Watterson occasionally engaged in Self-Deprecation and made himself the target of the occasional filibuster.
Fit the Eleventh of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is largely a filibuster about — of all things — the fact there are too many shoe shops around, and the shoes they sell are all rubbish, suggesting that eventually we will reach the Shoe Event Horizon, where it will be economically impossible to make or sell anything except ill-fitting shoes. Apparently, Douglas Adams wrote it after failing to find a decent pair of shoes in Oxford Street.
Rifts: Kevin Siembieda enters Author Filibuster mode regularly. He instructs gamemasters in "the only right way" to run their games. It ranges from core game mechanics ("There are no neutral alignments") to ethical matters ("Faction A is intrinsically evil because..."). Most players just ignore these statements and run things their way, which only fuels further Author Filibusters.
Tony Kushner's Angels In America has a number of these, except that the rants are not about Kushner's views, they're about his character Louis's views. This might sound pretty weird—the guy is gonna waste our time with long rants that don't even say something he believes?—but it's actually a characterization device, to depict how obsessed Louis is with politics and religion.
How much Kushner agrees with Louis is uncertain.
Louis is to some extent (by Kushner's own admission) an Author Avatar — but in a pretty self-deprecating way. Louis goes on at very neurotic length about his views, often exposing his own hypocrisy and blind spots.
Some published versions of Arthur Miller's The Crucible (commonly used in schools) contain notes from Miller himself interrupting Act One. Most of them discuss the Real Life characters who have just been introduced, but one devolves into practically a treatise on the Red Scare.
Even William Shakespeare can fall to this; the middle of Hamlet is interrupted by a discussion between Hamlet and the Players that serves no dramatic purpose but to give Hamlet a chance to rant about spoiled child actors and how they're ruining the art and the business of theater today (that is, in 1601).
And the entire "Speak the speech I pray you" monologue is usually seen as Shakespeare's critique on the typical acting methods of the day.
Some academics think it was originally intended as an in-joke. Hamlet has no theater experience whatsoever yet there he stands, lecturing a roomful of actors on how to act. It's suspected to be a send-up of the late Earl of Essex, Shakespeare's first patron and a well-known egocentric loudmouth.
Child actors/children in theater is a reference to Boy's Theater, a form of English theater that was outside the patent rules that Shakespeare and his contemporaries had to follow. Only two theaters in ALL of England were legal for centuries (The Admiral's and King's Men); however, Boy's theaters were outside these boundaries and many of the regulations did not apply (also the city of London which hated theater could do nothing against Boy's theater). So, a rant by Shakespeare on the topic of "spoiled" child actors is perfectly valid; they were his biggest competition right next to bear-baiting.
Subverted in Three Sisters. Vershinin gives a big long speech about how nobody really wants to be happy; they just want to want happiness. And then Tuzenbach asks if there are any chocolates left, deflating Vershinin's entire point: Tuzenbach, at least, wants to be happy now.
Holy Musical B@man!: Batman gives Superman a pep talk that enthuses about just how awesome superheroes are and defends less serious characters like Robin that tend to get a lot of bashing from fans.
Batman: ...Some people think that Robin’s stupid. But those people are pretentious douchebags, because literally the only difference between me and Robin is our costumes! Robin’s cool. Krypto’s cool. Ant-Man is cool. The Atom is cool! Plastic Man... uh! Gloves, capes, masks... oh, superheroes are cool, man! Helping people is cool. And you? You’re goddamn great at helping people.
Harry: We spent time here, we made friends here, and that's a part of us. 'Cause Hogwarts is bigger than us, it's bigger than any of its founders. And it's gonna be around long after we're gone. Maybe we'll see our kids come here one day. That's the thing about Hogwarts: no matter how long you're away from it, there's always a way back.
This happens a lot in the Metal Gear series. As a sly apology, more often than not it's the villains blathering on, and the protagonist greets their speeches with irreverence, frustration or bewilderment as appropriate. You get to beat them once the cutscene's over.
That said, in the final cutscene of each game, there's a character that always espouses for Hideo Kojima for a while. In MGS1 it's Naomi Hunter, in MGS2 it's Snake, and in MGS3 it's EVA (sort of, she doesn't nearly break the fourth wall). And you never get the chance to beat any of them up, because it's the final cutscene.
That's because the Villainous filibusters are actually Character Filibusters, with the later Author Filibuster at the end being a disagreement with it. He's generally not wanting you to agree with the villains, which is why their plans fall apart at the end and you get to cream them.
In Deus Ex, JC can match wits with a Hong Kong bartender who has a lot to say about the nature of government and the consent of the governed. The monologue of the NSF leader met in the Statue of Liberty also qualifies.
Sinfest typically shows Tatsuya Ishida's liberal leanings both in the comics themselves and the rants. In particular, after the 2004 election, he posted a rant about how he "knew" George W. Bush had stolen the election because there was no way he could have won fair and square. And then he went from "liberal leanings" to "hardcore feminist," and the levels of filibuster... increased.
In Small Potatos Shaenon doesn't doesn't show anything of the episode, instead sitting on the couch and telling the readers her feelings about it.
In Firewalker she engages into lengthy lecture on the implausibility of killer fungi, only to be thrown into a volcano for her troubles.
R.H. Junior, the man behind Tales of the Questor, apparently thought that the subtle right-wing Christian elements of his comics and his very political journal weren't enough, and decided to interrupt his cutesy Narnia-like allegory about an adventuring raccoon kit with a completely out-of-the-blue ramble. He quickly stopped doing this, though, and relegated it to a separate section - presumably too many people complained.
Also happens in his other comics Nip and Tuck and Goblin Hollow.
The Last Days of FOXHOUND is a bit different from these. Instead of a moral dilemma and controversial subject, Decoy Octopus goes on a rant for a whole page about... why the Red Sox suck.
And this, about the 2004 national elections: this strip.
Subnormality often features a level of verbosity rarely seen in its medium. Perhaps the most filibustering example is this one. (If you don't want to read the whole thing, here's a summary: "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem".)
It's no coincidence that Subnormality's subtitle is "Comix with too many words since 2007."
VG Cats has the infamous Nerd Rage◊, and several others almost equally non-subtle.
Penny Arcade had one, noteworthy for being "too urgent" to wait for the regular update and drawn only on line paper, featuring nothing but a melancholy Tycho lecturing the audience.
Ozy and Milliewas often interrupted by its author so she could rant on various subjects and air her left-wing opinions. What makes this odd is the fact that the author also had a political comic running around the same time with which to do this.
One El Goonish Shivestrip interrupts some exposition involving the effects of a particular bathroom's design on the events of the previous scene so that Dan can rant about why all bathrooms should be designed like that (summary: People are Goddamn disgusting). While he's dead serious, the way he presents the rant, with comic!Dan nearly foaming at the mouth, makes it an amusing aside rather than a truly jarring interruption.
Sonichu, especially during the troll-influenced issues, usually have the eponymous character or the Author Avatar complaining about stuff the author hates, mostly trolls and homosexuality. Issue 10 is the worst of the bunch, with at least three filibusters and, at one point, Sonichu even tells Chris to stop and get on with the story!
In early chapters of Lightbringer, Lewis Lovhaug would often have the titular hero espouse his opinions taking up a good chunk of each page particularly on his belief of an objective morality. Lovhaug has since expressed regret at using the comic to soapbox.
NerfNow has had these, especially prevalent post 2012. Early strips about Nerf NOW!! were cutsey things and game humour, but a lot of recent strips have been the author giving her opinion about something in the form of some political cartoon, or even adding some particularly Anvillicious commentary. (Thoughs ometimes, they really dropped.
A mild example occurs in Sailor Nothing, when at one point Shin bursts into a long rant about DVD regional lockout and copy protection. This is actually exactly in character for her, given the situation, but it's a little jarring and has nothing to do with the plot whatsoever.
Zero Punctuation's spent the better part of one video pointing out that calling rappers dipshits is not racist– the fact that they're mostly black didn't even enter into it– complete with the phrase "Unfunny Soapbox Bit" scrolling in the background.
Yahtzee has also taken the same stance against the Sonic the Hedgehog series by taking time out of his review of a Sonic game to remind viewers that Sonic is beyond the point of saving and how Sega should just put Sonic out of his misery.
And if it's any sort of shooter game (usually involving the American military, but that's not a hard and fast rule), expect a rant about how America is imperialistic and mean and sucks.
Yahtzee's review of The Legend of Zelda: A Link Between Worlds spends less time making fun of the game and more time making fun of Nintendo's business practices, accusing them of relying on nostalgia and gimmicky peripherals to sell consoles/games.
Movie Bob has a REALLY long extended rant on Megan Fox in Jennifer's Body- it isn't until the 2-minute mark that he starts talking about the actual film because he feels he has to get off his chest his annoyance at how overrated she is as either an actress or a sex symbol.
His Star Trek review also included a long rant against the Tyler Perry cameo.
Bob got a column at the Escapist. He gleefully announced in his first video that the new series would just be his personal soapbox.
Linkara has a tendency of interrupting his comic reviews to remind us of how very much he hates One More Day, and at one point adds a caption saying he will not be getting over it any time soon. He has the decency to make it funny.
He tends to also go off on political/social rants sometimes in his videos. A good example of this is the lengthy tirade about nuclear weapons in the Superman IV review. Some of it's justified given the movie's Clueless Aesop but it still comes off as Anvilicious at certain points.
He also gave a rant about blatant and/or inappropriate Fanservice in modern comics to start off his "Athena #1" review. He cited examples such as Vicki Vale's ass shot, a Wizard magazine outright saying women should be drawn sultry, and a shot at Stephanie Brown's ass when she was being tortured by Black Mask (among others) as examples. Given how many comic artists still don't get this, it usually comes off asSome Anvils Need to Be Dropped.
Averted in his review of "Superman #592-3"note The one where Superman and Big Barda are mind-controlled into filming a porno, where instead of ranting about the use of rape as a plot device he links to a website that already has one (the source of the page quote for Gratuitous Rape) and recommends that people read it instead.
However in his review of Frank Miller's "The Holy Terror" he gives quite a moving one about how people in power should treat others well and compassion isn't a weakness, in reaction to the methods used by the Designated Hero of the book and the very Unfortunate Implications in their treatment of Islam.
Animated web series Broken Saints, steeped as it is in political and religious themes, comes dangerously close to this several times.
Alpharius from PRIMARCHS spends a chapter doing this at the end of the 2nd arc. Not only is this lampshaded by the stage directions (Alpharius...Alpharius again...Alpharius still isn't shutting up) but the chapter itself is titled "I Think This Qualifies As An Author Filibuster"
They Made Me Watch This videos end with long written rants, although he's noted that's the time people can turn the videos off if they want to.
Todd in the Shadows' review of Chris Brown's 'Turn Up The Music' was about 30 seconds of actual review, and the rest a long rant about why Chris Brown and Team Breezy sucks.
He's also stopped to explain why he hates "White guy with acoustic guitar" songs so much on occasion.
Batman: The Brave and the Bold has a Bat-Mite episode which cuts away to a comics convention where Bat-Mite explains to the audience that the version of Batman with goofy villains is as valid a use of the source material as the grim Batman.
Interestingly enough, the episode in question was written by Paul Dini, who not only wrote the best known grim animated Batman for quite some time, but even uses the episode to playfully take a jab at himself. Let's just say he doesn't look good in spandex and leave it at that. Regardless, if this had come from anyone else, it might not be nearly as effective.
Archer seems to do this when Archer and Krieger discuss the former's use of his medical marijuana. Archer, for no reason, goes on about how he endorses and encourages the use of it. Subverted when Krieger asks if he's talking about it's medicinal properties, something Archer didn't even know about.
Family Guy has done a lot of this in its post-revival episodes to express the writers' generally left-wing views, usually without any self-parody. There is one example of a parodical usage in the episode "Boys Do Cry", however. The message itself is completely sincere, but the way it's delivered is comedically heavy-handed, infused with Reality Subtext:
"Like, for instance, if you're watching a TV show and you decide to take your values from that... you're an idiot. Maybe you should take responsibility for what values your kids are getting. Maybe you shouldn't be letting your kids watch certain shows in the first place if you have such a big problem with them, instead of blaming the shows themselves. [long pause] Yeah."
One particularly egregious example has an episode defending OJ Simpson and in the closing scenes there's an explanation about how it's wrong to judge others and it ends with OJ stabbing three people. The Broken Aesop infuriated many viewers who felt that they had just had a half hour of time stolen from them.
A particularly horrifying example of a literal filibuster came from the same episode where they used up 5 minutes of their show playing... a Conway Twitty music video.
The DVD commentary for that episode announces gleefully that they put it in for its whole ~5min run because people would assume that Fox was just not playing Family Guy. They know how it is inappropriate for the show, and put the whole thing in to piss off the people who watch.
Parodied in The Road To Germany when Stewie mocks Brian after he said an obvious Take That towards the war in Iraq.
Ironically, South Park's actual morals are usually sarcastic and insincere, lampshaded in several episodes where the characters predict and rant against an upcoming moral following a series of misadventures. The sappy music as one of the characters (usually Stan or Kyle, though Cartman and other characters are sometimes given the moral for purposes of comedy and irony) lectures the entire town on some topic underscores the further aversion of this trope. It's possible that due to South Park's increasing reliance on themed episodes and their extremely rushed work schedule, this formula may just be a reliable way to end episodes.
In the 2005 Ninja Turtles episode "Sons of the Silent Age," Donatello goes off on a rant about nuclear power and how awful it is. At one point he even makes a comparison between the Purple Dragons and a nearby power plant (which they destroy during the episode).
Meanwhile, there is a guy on Mirage staff who is very much an environmentalist and has mentioned working some of his views into scripts in the comics and cartoons. This may very well be an example.
The writer in question, Steve Murphy, was responsible for both the cited episode and the original comic from which it was adapted.
From the annals of the United States Supreme Court we have Justice Harry Blackmun's seven-page paean to the sport of Baseball opening his majority opinion in Flood v. Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258 (1972),note Note to baseball fans: This decision indirectly led to the development of free agency in baseball. after which the whole thing becomes quite technical.note To summarize: Justice Blackmun says, basically: "As I noted for seven pages, many baseball players have been repeatedly screwed over by the antitrust exemption, and really, baseball doesn't really deserve to have it, but we don't have the usual ways to get out of stare decisis, so we're just going to have to uphold the stupid old decision that established the exemption in the first place. Sorry, ballplayers; you'll have to go to Congress to fix your problem." While to be fair the case was about the antitrust exemption granted to MLB (and by extension several other major sports leagues), everyone thought that this was unbecoming of a major judicial decision. The justices who joined in Blackmun's opinion explicitly noted that they did not join in the opening seven pages. Blackmun defended himself by saying that he intended to show how baseball players were affected by the issues in the case, and that the Court had started to take itself far too seriously and needed to lighten up a bit and show some humanity.