Disagreeing with the author

Have you seen any works where you disagree with what the author is trying to imply or outright tell you? It could be the main premise, or a random Author Tract dropped into the story later on, or it could be a character intended to be likeable/relateable coming off as a real asshole (or vice versa) instead. And has the disagreement really annoyed you or pissed you off at the author's offensive views, or just mildly annoyed you?

For me, there's a couple. I once had to read Beowulf for college. There was a part where Beowulf killed the monster Grendel, and then Grendel's mother comes in to get revenge, and Beowulf kills her too. The story, which is epic poetry, then for some reason goes into detail about how Grendel's mother couldn't have stood a chance against Beowulf because she's a woman, and about how all women are weaker than all men, and so on, before resuming the story.

That annoyed me at first, though I have to find it kind of funny. For one, the narrative totally stops just so the author can get his views in. I mean, flat-out stops, making this expressing of a viewpoint seem to come out of nowhere. It just doesn't flow from the rest of the story. But what annoyed me was, besides the obvious misogyny of the time period it was written in, the fact that Grendel's mother is the mother of a giant monster. Being its mother, she'd presumably be bigger and therefore tougher than it. But according to the narrative, it was doomed just by being female. And finally, considering this was written 1300 years ago, why express what are presumably the views of most people of the time? Were they trying to stamp out equality movements even back then? If so, that's really offensive.

So there's one place I strongly disagreed with the author by far. I've got some others, but I don't want the OP to be too long, so I'll let you guys take over from here.

Yes, many times. It's usually because I disagree with the author's politics, but it doesnt affect my enjoyment unless the politics completely takes over the story, or the author tries to delegitimize other views.

An example that did not affect my enjoyment of the book: The Mote In Gods Eye is a really interesting look at first contact between humans and civilization that has a radically different code of morality. One of the major themes is the clash between the military and the scientific community over how to go about making contact. Where I disagreed with the authors was in their characterization of the two sides, and as a result I tended to dislike the characters that the authors obviously wanted to be most sympathetic and liked the characters that the authors wanted us to think were "wrong".

Example that did affect my enjoyment of the book: Beyond This Horizon by Heinlein. It was more his attitude towards guns and women than the politics. As a result I'm hesitant to read more by him, despite his fame.

edited 7th Jul '11 7:32:55 AM by MrShine

For some reason, I love to be preached to, whether I'm in the choir or on the other side of the battle line. Grapes Of Wrath is frankly a communist revolutionary tract, but oddly, that didn't annoy me nearly as much as the fact that Steinbeck doesn't get crop rotation.

This post was thumped by the Stick of Post Thumping

wuh?

It was a stupid point.

Ayn Rand. When I read her in High School I agreed with a lot of her ideas, but that's because I was an angry, angsty teenager with little understanding of the real world or other areas of thought. Although she is a clear and effective writer, many of her characters are either enormous strawmen or God Mode Sues IMHO.

Even in her nonfiction works, she seemed to have very bizarre ideas that don't accurately address the prevailing views of her "opponents" or any real-life thinkers that I'd ever heard of. It seems that she never bothered to read many of the most influential writers on politics, economics or philosophy but instead crafted her whole outlook based on her experiences in Russia.

I have a big problem when this happens, because you can't argue with a book. You can't point out the places where it got its facts wrong or its logic doesn't make sense, you can't posit hypothetical scenarios where its ideas don't hold up. The book just carries on, oblivious to any points you might bring up. It's like being in a debate with someone who ignores all your rebuttals and just keeps reading from their talking points: Annoying. As. Frick!

This is the problem I see with Anvilicious works in general. Unless you agree with the anvil, you're not likely to enjoy the work as a whole. Hence why I usually prefer Applicability.

It reminds me of my feelings toward Foucaults Pendulum: it's full of arcane occultism kind of stuff, which usually entertains me. But the main point seemed to be that that sort of thing is just useless nonsense, which sapped a lot of the fun out of it, for me. (I don't believe in occultism, exactly, but I'd rather that the author leave it ambiguous. It's more fun that way.)

A related topic: books where you agree with the author, but the view in the book is so extreme or the debate he puts forward is so sloppy that you want to yell at him Stop Helping Me

edited 7th Jul '11 11:13:48 AM by MrShine

IOW, Don't Shoot the Message?

edited 7th Jul '11 11:20:22 AM by Yej

Yeah exactly!

Wait what

I don't remember this.

What translation were you reading?

edited 7th Jul '11 1:10:09 PM by annebeeche

I remembered enjoying His Dark Materials till Pullman turned it into a tract.

On topic: I agreed with Ray Bradbury when he say Fahrenheit451 was about censorship and stuff.

Now he's arguing it has nothing to do with censorship and it was about how TV is bad all along. Goddamnit Ray Bradbury.

Happens pretty much any time the author stops having characters and starts having diatribes.

Old Ray Bradbury is correct. But I think saying that Fahrenheit 451 was *about* censorship is not quite right either. It was definitely a strong theme, yes. But there was just as much text in the book spent on the fear that mindless, disposable entertainment would crowd out interest in the classics and people would stop thinking. A kind of voluntary self-censorship.

edited 7th Jul '11 1:23:17 PM by MrShine

Beowulfs main problem, narrative wise, was that it was written by a six year old trying to make the main character as awesome as possible.

Deboss, always in with "Classics suck!"

I agree about His Dark Materials. Too much Neal Stephenson makes me feel like this too—yes, they're great books (and their tractiness varies), but by the end of Anathem I was really feeling like "Okay! You're a libertarian atheist! I get it!"

I also stopped reading the webcomic Ratfist when it became clear that it was just a libertarian tract.

See also: culture-shift. That's how myths worked in Scotland(?) circa 300AD.

@ Shine: Though it isn't fiction, that's exactly how I felt when I (had to) read Naomi Klein's execrable "No Logo." The prose was awful, getting through the book felt like slogging through molasses, you ended up begging for it to end, and while the point was one that probably needed to be made, she exaggerates everything to the point of absurdity. Yeah, the Nike corporation probably isn't all that fair to its workers, but I don't think it's a Complete Monster deliberately trying to screw people over, which is what she portrays it as.

I don't know the hero being stronger than everyone seems like a classic six year old plot. Reminds me of Axe Cop, but much suckier.

JRR Tolkien would beg to differ.

@Posts 10 and 11:

Yeah, been there, done that with John Ringo. For the most part I like his writing outside of the blatantly political, and in general I tend to lean towards his end of the political spectrum, but Good God! the straw liberals...

edited 7th Jul '11 3:36:32 PM by Nohbody