Disagreeing with the author

I very much agree with this. I want more stories where the writer doesn't slap Kick the Dog on the antagonist(s) just to make sure we don't root for them.

Thirding this. As someone who has an occasionally bothersome penchant for writing everything as black vs. grey or white vs. grey vs. black vs. orange, I really appreciate when someone manages to pull off making both sides completely reasonable.

^^ Seconding Euro, but to make it more specific, I want the Villain with Good Publicity to behave in such a manner that it's reasonable that he has good publicity. If he's Obviously Evil, it seems ridiculous that he can get so many not-evil people to follow him.

Obviously Evil is very cartoonish. It just seems strange that, for instance, a leader would take advice from someone who looks like a cartoon villain, and stuff like that. Depending on how it's done and the context, it can really annoy me.

One thing I think is dumb is when we, the audience, are expected to trust an Obviously Evil character, only to have their true nature be "shockingly" revealed to us later on, as if we couldn't see it coming a mile away.

Except the fictional characters probably think "This Is Reality; just 'cause someone wears black cloaks, has sharp teeth, and laughs maniacally doesn't mean they're actually a bad person."

Don't discriminate against goth people! They're human beings too!

I used to devour humans are Bastards/Crapsack World type fiction, but now I tend to not like these things unless done really well. It's just...I get enough endless negativity from the media today, I don't need more of it in my escapism.

I don't read Stephen King for this exact reason. His stories actually seem interesting, but a few pages into "It" and we're already playing the "homophobia" and "all Christians are evil and/or hypocritical" cards.

Oddly enough, I'm about as conservative as it gets, and I don't have any love for Dean Koontz either. His stories are the exact same goddamn thing over and over and over and over for one, and for another (and this also applies to non-fiction political tracts and Christian non-fiction), there's only so much preaching to the choir I can take before I start to feel like throwing up. And don't even get me started on Christian fiction, which can be summed as, "THE VILLAIN IS A DEMON!!!! PRAY FOR JESUS TO SAVE OUR ASSES!!!" Gah.

Isn't King at least nominally Christian?

I've only read one book by Dean Koontz, and I couldn't stand his repeated interjections of "don't give money to beggars, they'll just spend it on drugs", a one-page rant about how all ravers use Ecstasy (I know it's a pretty widespread problem in the scene, but all?), and this general idea that if anyone commits a crime, Just Shoot Them. He's fine to have these views, but it was not necessary to put them in the novel.

I've stopped reading all John Ringo because of his right-wing-nut issues. I hope David Weber and the rest of the Baen stable don't slide into the same swamp.

Weber started out there.

Perhaps we have different ideas of "right-wing-nut" , but it's easy to tell who the bad guys are in the Starfire novels, and to a slightly lesser extent the Honor Harrington novels; they're politicians. Pretty much everyone in the military, on whatever side, is a decent, upstanding sort, while anyone in politics is a conniving weasel. The HH novels did a better job of avoiding this in its entirety, but even there, the good politicians support the military and the bad military types got there due to political patronage.

Still Eric Flint and Lois Mc Master Bujold are still writing for them, so it's not too bad.

I've never read the Starfire novels, but I thought HH ones did a decent job, or at least more nuanced than most military sci-fi, of portraying the various sides' politics and how they varied. Yes the good guys support the military but there is by and large no disdain for liberals in general. Out Of The Dark was more like Ringo on the other hand...

True though regarding Bujold and Flint.

edited 21st Oct '11 2:39:43 AM by Falco

Yeah, Weber's view of politics is a tad simplistic, though it works better when it's the military people themselves thinking these things from their POV; of course military officers think that pro-military politicians are the good guys, because they agree with their worldview. The problem is that this point-of-view is treated as objectively true rather than at most arguably so.

If an author tries to sell me on a worldview that's largely positive about humans then I disagree with them. I need a certain level of realism in my fiction to ground it, even in Sci-Fi and Fantasy. If certain aspects of the human condition/nature aren't inherent in a story, or there's not a damn good reason they're absent, it takes me right out.

Pure heroic, black vs white escapism comes off as a Chick Track to me, only with better advertising behind it.

And to the poster on the previous page who thinks "depressing" novels like Notes from Underground are hilarious, well, give it time is all I'm going to say on that.

edited 21st Nov '11 12:00:22 PM by MildGuy

Well, keep in mind, plenty of people see dark and gritty as very unrealistic as well. It's all a matter of perspective.

I did not state otherwise. Yeah, I know, my subjective tastes might be in the minority around these here parts, but that doesn't mean I need to be reminded of it constantly.

Fiction is not about what's realistic, it's about achieving verisimilitude. It needs to be fortified with some truth, or lies a reader takes as truth, for a reader to engage with the work. Humans need to see something of themselves in every story.

I want to believe the things that provide verisimilitude in a story for me reflect something I hold true about the universe. That they aren't merely comforting or affirming lies. But the things I like might be ignorance I hold dear.

For example, I will disagree with authors who present rather slanted right-wing or left-wing political worlds, where the other side consists of baby eating, sneering strawmen.

It's not about being more Grimdark than thou. I disagree with an author anytime they make things too easy for the other side. Good intentions and the roads paved thereby... The treason of the human perspective on what's right and wrong. Bad things happening to good people and good people doing bad things sometimes. What's so unrealistically dark and gritty about that?

edited 21st Nov '11 1:58:13 PM by MildGuy

The biggest case of this for me was in James P. Hogan's Giants series. I really enjoyed the first two books Inherit the Stars and The Gentle Giants of Ganymede, which were both very idea-oriented S.F. Why is this happening? How does all of it work?

I literally threw the third one in the trash when it became clear that part of the premise is that religion (not one particular religion, but religion in general) was imposed on mankind by hostile aliens as a way of keeping us down. Yes, Hogan, one of the deepest and most common human impulses was obviously artificially forced onto us as a method to control us.

I don't mind reading atheist authors, I really enjoy some of their books, but don't be an asshole about it. (As I say this, I must regretfully acknowledge that some (many? (please, God, not most??)) Christian authors are assholes about people outside.)

edited 27th Nov '11 8:01:50 PM by ZaklogtheGreat

Mine's already been said more than once. The ultrapolitical side to John Ringo's writing. Both sides have their good and bad points John, learn the good on the other side and add it to your depictions. And avoid one hundred page author tracts. That really killed any re-read value Last Centurion held for me.

OH JOHN RINGO NO.

On the plus side, as a result of that meme, he did get involved with a charity that helps ex-sex workers. Which is a fairly Pretty Cool Guy thing to do, despite the author tracts.

Too often, people read "These particular people are completely screwed up" as Humans Are Bastards.

Very, very often. Typically it's politics (particularly if the setting makes no sense, especially regarding economics, which is kind of my thing.

I wonder if this has come up already—The Hunger Games. Though it's less a case of the author implying something, as much as slapping me in the face with it while wearing an iron gauntlet. It didn't really affect my enjoyment of the books, but I can be quite forgiving/oblivious and tend to only be annoyed about these things in retrospect. That said, I disagree with Collins, not because of the content of her particular anvil, but the delivery. Don't Shoot the Message, indeed.

edited 24th Nov '12 4:59:55 PM by Alma

What about the delivery bothers you, out of curiosity?

I think the subject of the tragedy of war has been handled with far more skill and subtlety than in The Hunger Games. It was cool when it was about the games. Who doesn't enjoy a bit of child murder? Then it stopped being about the games and started being about the message. There's a neat fan theory which says that Collins deliberately wrote the books in a way that casts the reader as a Capitol resident/viewer of the games—that is, the first book makes the games seem exciting and entertaining, and the next two are about brutally deconstructing that fantasy, so that the reader is forced to realize that they're no better than someone from the Capitol for enjoying the games. It's simultaneously brilliant and extremely sleazy.

The handling of the romance plot also irks me, although this is partially the editor's fault. Collins' original plan was to have Katniss wind up with neither love interest, but the editor convinced her to change it. However, I thought the dismissal of Gale as a love interest was handled quite well. It wasn't said outright, but the implication (or at least, my interpretation) is that Katniss and Gale are over because of Gale's role in Prim's death. Katniss can never forgive Gale, even though what happened is only marginally his fault, and Gale is proud and wise enough to not back down from what he thought was right at the time.

edited 24th Nov '12 5:19:34 PM by Alma