Trying not to sound like an Author Tract

My work takes place in a fantasy-constructed world. It doesn't feature 'era accurate misogyny' (it VERY LOOSELY takes place during a Renaisance/Enlightenment-like setting) Thanks to widespread and effective magical birth control, it has elements of a Free-Love Future type setting, plus the extended lifespans that many of the people have sometimes makes overpopulation a genuine issue. Women are in positions of power, most of society is fine with LGBT people and a few religious sects allow them to be joined in same-sex marriages.

• The society still has problems that all societies face (government corruption, power being bought, etc.) Certain aspects of their culture are called out on by members of other cultures
• There are some themes in this work that definitely cold be interpreted as (egalitarian) femistic. What I'm worried about is that this could turn out sounding like one long Author Tract (especially because I'm a sex-positive egalitarian feminist in real life and don't want the story being too tinted by my own perceptions and opinions) What I've thought of so far is avoiding having characters who disagree with the ideas coming out as Straw Men and such.

Personally, I've always been in favor of what I call "passive utopianism": creating a setting where various real-world inequities are solved without making that an active part of the story in any way. So I think the best way for you to go here would be to have these elements be part of the background without making direct narrative points about them. To that end, I'd recommend downplaying cultural clashes, or at least focusing them on other aspects of the society; sure, they might be an element of the background, but you don't have to focus on them if you're not interested in preaching about how this society is "better".

Having similar world-building, I've decided the best I can do is have the characters in-story not treat the rights they take for granted like anything special. For instance, if you'll pardon a personal example, my first-person protagonist's platoon commander is a woman. Rather than spend a paragraph or two saying why women can fight just as well as men, he describes the platoon commander the way you'd expect any soldier to describe their commander — he briefly mentions her appearance, but focuses mostly on their history in combat together and her leadership style. Carry on weaving the story, basically, and let the egalitarian details sort of enmesh themselves, undecorated, not highlighted, but ever-present, into the fabric.

edited 29th Jun '13 5:38:55 AM by KillerClowns

Pretty much and .

Pick stories that focus on the things that actually are problems (since they're fine with free sex, LGBT, and sexual equality, those aren't problems) such as the corruption, or someone's a rampant crook making everyone's lives a misery.

All the other stuff just provides background - that person's sleeping with six others, no one sees anything wrong with that, this person's over 100 years old and no one is surprised.

You can achieve a lot with lack of reaction to things that would normally prompt a major reaction from a less tolerant person/society or casual interest in things ("how're your lovers doing?" OK, maybe not that direct, but along those lines).

Show not tell. Instead of saying "due to the society being egalitarian, no one felt surprised that a woman would be the CEO of a major business", just make her the CEO and have people just accepting that. "Who's the CEO around here?" he asked. "I am," she said. "OK," he said, "I need to talk with you about something vitally important to the future of your company".

It can't become an Author Tract if you don't hammer the points home. Take ST:TOS as an example. No one says, "Gee, Uhura, it's great that true equality has been reached and you're treated as just good as any white male", they just show her as a character with rank whose contribution is listened to and valued.

And that from a program that once spent an entire episode beating us over the head with "the West and East should forget their differences and live in peace".

EDIT: Oops, my bad. Fixed

edited 26th Jun '13 10:29:40 PM by Wolf1066

You're thinking of Star Trek TOS, actually. But since you mention it, that's actually been my inspiration for the whole idea of "passive utopianism" in the first place: while it might have fallen more into Fair for Its Day on gender, I've always been convinced its mere depiction of a colorblind future in the 1960s probably did more good for racial equality than a dozen explicit aesops on the subject put together.

It would seem Martin Luther King Jr would agree with you on that score. I presume everyone here's aware of the story of his meeting with Nichelle Nichols.

The main 'culture clash' in this setting is between people who think that magically extending their lifespan (which must be done conciously) is fine and dandy and people who believe that magically extending your lifespan is wrong because of God/people/whatever. Even the people who don't have rheir lifespans extended live for a quite long time though thanks to magic (about 150-200 years). This isn't too much of a Social Issue (unless one was to interpret it as some sort of Space Whale Aesop) so it doesn't really have the opprotunity to be Anvilicious.

• Two minor reoccuring antagonists (who work ith eachother) are Noble Bigot s who have some hints of being Politically Incorrect Villian s (One crosses the Moral Even Horizon due to non PC related reasons and isn't redeemed, the other is left somewhat ambiguous) Any tips to make sure this doesn't get too Anvilicious?

I'm glad this thread was brought up because I'm thinking the same concerns with my story.

In it there's a bit of discussion about racism, I'm not racist by any stretch of the imagination and my main character is aboriginal, but part of it is playing the race card and claiming persecution based on skin color.

More prominent to the story is youth crime, specifically how the law seems lax in punishing young offenders, and the way the police operate (handled with the utmost respect to the police and not With All Due Respect,) but the criticism comes from Real Life such as confusion over the use of pepper spray for self defense, giving maybe bad advice (such as suggesting a restraint order but being unable to help and frustration when help is pursued,) and avoiding an area altogether as the solution to avoiding problems.

Most of this comes from something of a straw character, but could you give any advice on how to handle these issues?

The most obvious solution to avoid falling into Author Tract, I think, would be to present both sides of the argument, or to present the pros and cons of the view in question. It doesn't need to be completely objective or neutral. All it needs to show is that you, as the writer, have given thought about the subject matter and are aware that your opinion is not the only valid one; even though you personally feel that yours is the most "right" one. Show that you understand that others are not deluded simply for having opinions that differ from your own.

edited 29th Jun '13 9:27:42 AM by peasant

I've thought about it and here's where I'm trying to come from and what I thought to try to make these issues more sympathetic.

In terms of confusion over the use of pepper spray and saying to avoid an area, this is a case of Reality Is Unrealistic, police are confused whether or not it's legal, police have said to avoid areas and this is something I wish to address. One was I thought to do so is to make the officer who does this more sympathetic by having her say to avoid bad areas because she wants to protect the victim. Because of her inexperience she does not realise a restraint order is something the police cannot help with so I'm trying to work out how to put across the frustration of being pursued about it without looking like a straw character.

The same goes for trying to protect young criminals, the other young officer wants to try and stop them from going into a life of crime so it's less a case of trying to make Teens Are Monsters out to be innocent but more a bid to prevent it from happening.

As far as the youth crime itself goes, one of these days I will be able to sympathise with it. Today is not that day. Now I do try and involve the reasons why it happens but based on the experience of a minority I'm trying to put across the reason why this particular group of teens are monsters is not because of anything that would cause them to be that way, it's because they can.

That's why they play the race card, not because this is what people of different races do, it's to avoid the consequences of their crimes.

Might it help to post the scene where it happens for context?

My advice is to make sure that the elements of this society help shape the story and add onto the plot, and, if not, help flush out the setting to make it more interesting. For example, you mentioned how this is like a Free-Love Future. That might be significant if this is, say, a romance story, but it would have seemingly little significance if it was an action story.

I would also do what others above me have said and not treat it like a big deal. This is all the characters know, so they wouldn't be viewing it from the eyes of modern society. This is a rather difficult task, since you'll have to remove all of your biases and take it from the characters' point of view.

For example, you mention how some religious sects are "open to Gay Marriage", which implies that, at one time, they were not. If you want to continue making your society some sort of wish-fulfillment, then I would recommend just making it that an aversion to homosexuality simply never existed, or is at least very rare and considered odd. You could make it like Ancient Greek Paganism, which accepted homosexuality (and pedophilia, which was a major part of the Ancient Greek education system.) This is a Constructed World. You could base the entire culture around doing Mexican Hat Dances around plastic garbage cans filled with undead halibut if you wanted to.

Here is another thing to think about for this world's free-love universe: when does the "free love" line draw? What about pedophilia? Bestiality? Incest? Are those considered normal?

Along with what the above users said, don't go on to say that everyone is fortunate that they are so "progressive" and they've gotten over that age where those nasty prudes ruled everything. If the culture was always like this, they might find ideas like monogamy to be progressive if it's not what they're used to and it seems to make couples happier and more sexually satisfied.

I would also add some more serious problems to this world you are envisioning so it doesn't look like some sort of wish-fulfillment feminist paradise where those little prudes aren't around to get in the way of everyone's fun hook-up sex that doesn't cause psychological problems like real hook-up sex. A possible idea could be that this Magical Birth Control works far too well and it causes many people to become basically infertile unless they use some sort of magical antidote to have a child. This magical antidote must be obtained from some plant that soon becomes endangered, or there is some very unethical procedure in making it.

As for the "Age battles", the anti-life extension dudes should be a cult that worships a local Dark Is Not Evil Grim Reaper-like God that doesn't like it too much when people are muddling with his domain and cheating death.

Other advice, I noticed you said that you are "egalitarian feministic." If you want to try and enforce this, don't make it a case of a bunch of stupid, perverted men dicking around while a strong female protagonist goes and defeats all of the halibuts that threaten all of human society. Make the women just as powerful/awesome/Bad Ass as the men and leave it at that.

Finally, don't dwell on these aspects of your society. If your book is about a secret league of assassins that fight to deep the terrestrial cyborg halibut who want their dead brothers back from the Mexican Hat Dancers, then it should be about that and not pay attention to the aspects of how people have sex in this world. Then again, I'm pretty sure there are no armies of terrestrial cyborg halibut in your book.

So just try to keep the aspects really casual and try not to dwell on them too much? There's also a couple somewhat bigoted antagonists (A major plot point revolves around the fact one if them believes in No Bisexuals) (they aren't the main conflict, however) but as long I keep the main reason they're 'bad' as them "being unkind, unethical people regardless of a person's race/sexuality/immortality" rather than "They are stuffy, bigotted peolple with sticks up their asses who want to ruin it for everything else." it should be fine, right?

• And the super-effective birth control isn't just so people can do as much sexing up as they want. Due to the extended lifespans, people genuinely have to worry about overpopulation and the government has measures to prevent it. So people usually have only 1-3 children tops, if they do at all (people who have chosen to remain 'mortal' usually have more) Plus the birth control isn't 100% effective (one of the main characters is actually a product of a one night stand, and issues he had due to being raised by a single parent aren't glossed over) so accidents do happen.
• And for the egalitarian feminism thing, yeah I was planning on doing that anyway. I've seriously gotten tired of books with feminist themes that are full of needless misandry

edited 23rd Jul '13 11:03:42 AM by TheMuse

Have you considered giving the protagonists or other sympathetic characters bigoted views of their own? Granted, if you don't pull it off right people might think that the character is representing your own beliefs, but showcasing obvious moral standards in the society would make it hard to call preachy.

Well I was thinking of making one of my characters a somewhat rude anti-theist (there are some very kind and respectful religious people in universe, in addition to some Well-Intentioned Extremist) due to some Freudian Excuse that he eventually overcome and realized not all religious people were dicks. Originally I was thinking of making it mistreatement he recieved when he was young due to his bisexuality, but if I want to go the 'even religious people are okay with LGBT activities, except in rare cases' that wouldn't work out. The character himself happens to be a cynical, Brutal Honesty nihilistic person. I could always have him initially be prejudiced against non-immortals, but can anyone give me some aspects of a Politically Incorrect Hero that won't make a character immediately unlikable?

Simple: Make it normal for the society.

There are a lot of people in the past who would be viewed as bigoted by today's standards—virtually all of them, in fact. Maybe they didn't think women were as intelligent as men. Maybe they pitied those poor, uneducated savages who'd never even heard of British culture. Maybe they had slaves. Were they all evil? Did good people only start cropping up in the past three or four generations? Are our morals perfect?

There's no shame in being a product of your time.

Instead of deliberate mistreatment by the church, maybe an event could have happened in his youth that left him disillusioned with the whole concept of religion and deities in general. Like maybe someone close to him died because they refused a treatment that was against their beliefs, like a Jehovah's Witness (or equivalent thereof) bleeding out and dying on the operating table because a blood transfusion was out of the question. Or a gradual slide into disillusionment due to flaws in whatever religion it was starting to become apparent and irreconcilable with his moral compass. Or you could go with the classic "forced to wake up and go to church for every single damned Sunday and sit through a bunch of people shoving their morals down your throat" That sort of thing.

As for giving him anti-theist views without making him totally unlikable, have him dislike all religions equally, regardless of their political stances. The mention of gods, goddesses, or any other religious concept by any other character just causes a knee-jerk negative reaction. Don't have him go on tirades at random, do it at relevant moments. People who hate everything are also a gold mine for dry and observational humor, so if you make him the funny kind of jerk, your audience may forgive his more extreme moments.

Misandry? I learned a new word today. I knew there was a word to describe the silly ranting by my Straw Feminist Facebook friends and now I know it. Your comment reminds me of "anti-racist" stories that try to set up an Aesop of equality, only to go and talk about the "evils" of a specific ethnicity. I can't think of many stories like this, but I do know a lot of people that think in this manner.

Treating their values as casual is the best way to handle them and the most logical. Unless all of these movements that made this possible just happened a few decades ago, nobody's going to be saying things like "I'm so glad about X". Do people now go around saying "I'm so glad we don't think imperialism and slavery good anymore" just casually on the street? No. That would be ridiculous!

Also, stop using the label "Religious People". It makes about as much sense as using the label "Politically Active People". There are specific groups that you are referring to. Especially when it comes to your Constructed World. I have no idea what the religions present in this world are like, so they might as well be those Mexican Hat Dancers with the undead halibuts I was talking about.

Don't write about things you want. Don't write about things you don't want. Hard to get tractual then.

I think this risks falling into the Golden Mean Fallacy. Accounting for a lack of certain types of bigotry in society by making protagonists bigoted seems a bit pointless - if that bigotry doesn't move the plot along it seems counterproductive.

If you keep the society in the background and don't have characters bust out Walls of Text about why sex-positive egalitarian feminist society is so much better than the stodgy old patriarchy, it sounds fine. Basically, I agree with what njrxll and Killer Clown have said.

I'd definitely avoid inserting bigoted characters just to show you're balanced or something, it may be Darker and Edgier but I don't think it makes your story better. Furthermore, it risks your work overemphasising different prejudices in our culture/s and inserting them in another universe, rather than creating a different universe with different cultures and norms(which seem to be what you want to do).

edited 24th Jul '13 12:01:55 AM by editerguy

There is a situation where two close (straight) male friends are forced to pretend to be a married couple for plot relevant reasons. Some of it is Played for Laughs, but most of the humor/conflict is from creating an elaborate backstory so they won't be found out and confusion with figuring out how to look like you have romantic chemistry when you really don't, rather than cheap Queer People Are Funny jokes and two dudes punching eachother in the shoulder while assuring eachother "NO HOMO, RIGHT?"

edited 24th Jul '13 8:51:49 AM by TheMuse

But then there's the fact that, due to homosexuality never being an issue, one probably wouldn't immediately assume that someone was straight (I'm refering to in-universe) Would a good way of pulling this off be just have everyone assume that Everyone Is Bi until proven otherwise?

Wouldn't they just have no assumptions, or assume they are straight because that's still the majority? Kind of like how if you see a letter addressed to you from a 'Jason' in my country you would either accept you don't know what his ethnicity is, or guess he is white for statistical reasons.

But if bi is the majority I think what you said makes sense.

Honestly I'd expect a pair of straight males to at least drop one "no homo" moment.

Yeah it does happen a couple times, but it's more than just the "I DID SOMETHING THAT COULD BE CONSTRUED AS NON-PLATONIC BY SOME PEOPLE SO IT'S TOTALLY HOMOEROTIC. BUT I'M NOT GAY. TOTALLY NOT GAY. ]]Not That There's Anything Wrong with That! BUT WE'RE NOT GAY!"

• Or the good ol' "THEY'RE ACTING 'gay' SO IT's AUTOMATICALLY FUNNY"

• But yeah, it's basically treated like two people who end up being in a situation where they need to be physically (I mean like kissing and sharing a bed) intimate with each other, even though they aren't particuarly comfortable with it.

edited 23rd Aug '13 8:19:35 PM by TheMuse

Well, due to the fact that there literally is no taboo against same-sex attraction and such, I think it's plausible that people would be more likely to experiment and if they happened to be something like a 2 on the Kinsey scale (either a bisexual with a preference for the opposite gender or a straight person who identified as 'heteroflexible' they'd be more likely to recognize/admit it. Not to the extent that Everyone Is Bi, but yeah...