Fiction and Politics

[Susan Gable]

The recent antics of politicians from both sides of the aisle in regards to using their opponents’ novels (FICTION!) as a way to smear them, or point accusatory fingers at a huge “moral flaw” in them, has prompted me to write this. For those who’ve missed the fun-and-games as we hit the home-stretch to the latest election, check out Fred Head vs. Susan Combs (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061024/ap_on_el_st_lo/candidate_s_romance_novel), George Allen vs. Jim Webb (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200610/POL20061027f.html) and now the hoopla being made (again) over Lynne Cheney’s book



An Open Letter to Politicians of All Parties:

It has recently come to my attention that you all are having difficulty with the concept of fiction, so I thought I’d help you out.

Fiction is not real. Fake. You know, like some of that stuff you make up about your opponent. Like the figures you give the public when you want them to believe a certain way about a new program you’ve proposed. Fiction is also related to story-telling, a skill which I know all of you have.

Let’s say it together: Fiction is [U]not real.

When someone pens a piece of fiction, the characters do not necessarily reflect the values and opinions of the writer. I know that’s hard to wrap your little brains around. But it’s true. Often when a writer is working, the characters do and say things that the writer never would. That’s why we call it FICTION, and once again, fiction is not real. I’m getting tired of you slinging mud at your opponents who’ve written fiction by pointing to some act (generally sexual in nature) committed by one of the characters, and labeling it as a real moral flaw in the writer. It’s interesting that none of you have pointed to a serial killer/thriller’s author as having a warped and twisted mind.

We (fiction writers) are NOT our characters. Often our characters are not even based on a particular person. They’re made-up. Created. Fake. They have their own opinions and values, their own sets of behaviors. The things they do are also made up. (FICTION!) This is why, although Tom Clancy wrote a book about crashing a plane into Congress, he didn’t act on it. I’m sure he didn’t endorse the concept as a real behavior.

We don’t arrest people based on a story they wrote. (Yet. You all do have me worried, though. The exception to this is if you happen to be a high school writer. Kids have, unfortunately, been arrested based on nothing more than a story they wrote. This is why we really do need to enlighten you all about FICTION. )

What happens on the fiction page should stay on the page.

To recap, because I know you’re really struggling with these concepts:

Fiction is not real.
Characters in fiction do and say things that their writers never would.

We fiction writers may lie for a living, but at least we admit it. Hey, better yet, we know the difference between fake (fiction!) and real.

If you’d like to read some fiction, might I suggest you begin with 1984 and Fahrenheit 451? Oh, wait. Those books might confuse you even more.

Susan Gable, Novelist, Reader, and Fed-Up Voter

[aghast]

wait, you mean dinosaurs dont really romp amusment parks and stephen king doesnt like torturing and killing people - women and children included - and dan brown doesnt want to burn catholic priests? my minds gonna explode now

[TheGaffer]

wait, you mean dinosaurs dont really romp amusment parks and stephen king doesnt like torturing and killing people - women and children included - and dan brown doesnt want to burn catholic priests? my minds gonna explode now

Actually, OP was really only talking about those specific examples she referenced. Everything you asked about is true, so rest easy.

[dclary]

Well, I'd like to point out a few things for the opposition.

First, about writing, and being judged for what you write.

A) Write what you know.

B) A corollary to this is write what you'd like to be known for knowing. As writers we all have the responsibility of fully knowing and acknowledging that we will be judged by what we write, fact or fiction. Hell, Salman Rushdie had a million-dollar bounty put on his head for fiction.

C) If your content is morally questionable, your own morals will forever be under scrutiny. And your public (published) persona is going to be viewed as who you are. Robert Ludlum used to laugh because people expected him to be a major CIA/spy expert due to his novels, and yet when asked how he got such detailed information on them, would admit "I just made it up. It sounded like something the CIA would do."


Now, about Allen and Cheney.

Clearly, the Republican party is trying to paint Allen as a monster, because he has very graphic, pornographic images wordpainted in his novels. Is that right? Who knows. Is it accurate? I would say yes. Voters *have* to decide if they want to vote for a guy who has literally stopped to think "what is the best way I can phrase an oral sex scene between a man and boy?"

The most important thing to remember, though, is that Allen is a Senatorial candidate, running for public office. Everything he does or has done is appropriate for candid and intimate review. We deserve to scrutinize any of the 100 men and women who want to rule the nation.

Lynne Cheney is not a publically elected official. For the Democrats to try and lump her with Allen seems very dangerous and wrong here. I'm trying to decide what connection they're trying to make, because it seems to be "Dick Cheney should have had better control over his wife and kept her from writing what she wanted to write." And that just seems like something that would piss women off further.

[veinglory]

Allen is the accuser, James Webb is the accusee and the passage is one sentence in a Vietnam War story and hardly meets your description. Did you read Lost Soldiers (even the one page in question) before forming your opinion?

[Alan Yee]

We don’t arrest people based on a story they wrote. (Yet. You all do have me worried, though. The exception to this is if you happen to be a high school writer. Kids have, unfortunately, been arrested based on nothing more than a story they wrote. This is why we really do need to enlighten you all about FICTION. )



This is what bugs me the most, as a high school student who writes dark fantasy. When some people read a teenager's writing, they go on the assumption that it's based on something that happened to them personally. The book I'm writing is dark, obviously, and somewhat sexual in nature, and it's something I'm probably not going to start submitting until I'm at least eighteen. Why? Because people will clearly think something is seriously wrong with me and try to get me arrested.

But people have trouble realizing that it is fiction. Yes, I'm a teenager, and I can make up all sorts of crap just like adult writers do (and politicians apparently). And my characters aren't exactly clones of me. They're older, sexier, and much more troubled than I am. Characters can be completely made up too, you know.

It's sad that people have trouble understanding the concept of fiction. Really sad. I don't know what else to say, really.

[English Dave]

Well, I'd like to point out a few things for the opposition.

First, about writing, and being judged for what you write.

A) Write what you know.


That gives me no comfort.

[dclary]

Veinglory:

Thanks for the fix on the names. Out here in Californiya (Arnold-pronunciation) we don't pay much attention to east-coast politics.


I actually formed the 3 bullet points on writing a long time before Mr. Webb decide to run for office. Are any of them not applicable here?

Does having read his books or not change the fact that he's running for office, and Lynne Cheney is not?

I don't see how your question has any relevance whatsoever to the point I'm presenting.



From what I've seen in the news, the stories are rife with depravity -- certainly all of it justified because of the great mental conflicts his character must be under. But they're still there.

Let me make it more personal. I'm fleshing out a story that looks like it's going to need a rape scene dead-on at midpoint. Before I can write this scene, I have figure out how a rape happens, what it looks like, what it feels like, so I can do the scene justice. This requires, at the very least, thinking about it.

At the same time, I have to be *very* aware that if I write this scene, I'll be judged for it. It can and will be used against me in some forum somewhere in the future. This is the nature of politics. This is what Webb needs to understand about the literary choices he made. I'm not saying he made the wrong choice creatively to include them in his literature. But I am saying the opposition has the right to use it against him.

[veinglory]

The relevance is to this statement, I thought that would be apparent: "because he has very graphic, pornographic images wordpainted in his novels ... a guy who has literally stopped to think "what is the best way I can phrase an oral sex scene between a man and boy?""

This just is not true. The line in the book is arguably not sexual at all--that might be something the reader brings to it. I hate to digress from a good argument but introducing some facts. The page in question is easy to find on online--the role of the scene is showing the hero is distrubed by seeing a man in a public park kiss an infant's penis, his companion is not. If anything it is anti-child abuse in suggesting that the second character is lacking in humanity.

Like you most people will just accept the slur rather than either look at the book or decide that fiction just is irrelevant.

[dclary]

This is what bugs me the most, as a high school student who writes dark fantasy. When some people read a teenager's writing, they go on the assumption that it's based on something that happened to them personally. The book I'm writing is dark, obviously, and somewhat sexual in nature, and it's something I'm probably not going to start submitting until I'm at least eighteen. Why? Because people will clearly think something is seriously wrong with me and try to get me arrested.

But people have trouble realizing that it is fiction. Yes, I'm a teenager, and I can make up all sorts of crap just like adult writers do (and politicians apparently). And my characters aren't exactly clones of me. They're older, sexier, and much more troubled than I am. Characters can be completely made up too, you know.

It's sad that people have trouble understanding the concept of fiction. Really sad. I don't know what else to say, really.

Alan, consider this: maybe there is something wrong with you, and the topics you choose to write about reflect this.

I'm not saying that's so, because how could I know? But consider that it is. How would you even know? Insanity does not recognize itself.

[dclary]

The relevance is to this statement, I thought that would be apparent: "because he has very graphic, pornographic images wordpainted in his novels ... a guy who has literally stopped to think "what is the best way I can phrase an oral sex scene between a man and boy?""

This just is not true. The line in the book is arguably not sexual at all--that might be something the reader brings to it. I hate to digress from a good argument but introducing some facts. The page in question is easy to find on online--the role of the scene is showing the hero is distrubed by seeing a man in a public park kiss an infant's penis, his companion is not. If anything it is anti-child abuse in suggested the second character is lacking in humanity.

Yes, well, I tell you what, I'll look it up tonight at home. I'm sure as hell not going to search "penis in boy's mouth" on Google from work.

[veinglory]

Webb 'lost soldiers' excerpts -- will do it.

Bear in mind I think Webb is an *** and his fiction is war-glorifying and women-hating. But I would vote for him based, perversely enough, on his voting record in the house. (Pro-choice, pro-civil union). He can write vampire wombat snuff novels for all I care.

[DeniseK]

Alan, consider this: maybe there is something wrong with you, and the topics you choose to write about reflect this.

I'm not saying that's so, because how could I know? But consider that it is. How would you even know? Insanity does not recognize itself.

How mean!:rant:

[veinglory]

I think the "how could I know" is more to a point and applies to all of us... and Webb.

[dclary]

I agree with you here Vein, really, how do any of us know? But the point is that without knowing, we (as humans with cognitive brains that naturally extrapolate known data to draw unknown conclusions) are automatically programmed to make those associations.

[dclary]

Not meant to be mean, Denise. It's an honest, philosophical question, directed at Alan only because he raised the point, not because I think he's a troubled youth. If anything, his posts are always well-thought out, and I think he's got a good head on his shoulders. He'll be just fine.

Once we get a couple rounds of electroshock in him.

(I kid! I kid!)

;)

[Alan Yee]

Alan, consider this: maybe there is something wrong with you, and the topics you choose to write about reflect this.

I'm not saying that's so, because how could I know? But consider that it is. How would you even know? Insanity does not recognize itself.

I already know what's wrong with me. I'm mildly autistic. I write dark stuff because I know about fears, and how they feel. That's what I know. The rest of the book is made up.

[dclary]

As I said. Alan's got it going on. Excellent answer, sir.

[English Dave]

Not meant to be mean, Denise. It's an honest, philosophical question, directed at Alan only because he raised the point, not because I think he's a troubled youth. If anything, his posts are always well-thought out, and I think he's got a good head on his shoulders. He'll be just fine.

Once we get a couple rounds of electroshock in him.

(I kid! I kid!)

;)

nah, it was.

[dclary]

Shut up, crummy tooth!

[robeiae]

Allen is the accuser, James Webb is the accusee and the passage is one sentence in a Vietnam War story and hardly meets your description. Did you read Lost Soldiers (even the one page in question) before forming your opinion?Yet it was Webb that dragged Lynne Cheney into this with a cheap one-liner in an attempt to divert the criticism he was getting. So he's a putz at best, especially considering that Lynne Cheney is not an elected official (as Dave noted). I wouldn't vote for him under any circumstances because of this deplorable act. What he wrote or didn't write in a work of fiction is inconsequential, imo.

[Susan Gable]

Well, I'd like to point out a few things for the opposition.

First, about writing, and being judged for what you write.

A) Write what you know.

Ummmm, okay. So you're saying anyone who writes a serial killer must KNOW serial killing? <scratching head>

I've written a story about a woman whose only child has died. Thank God I don't have first-hand knowledge about that. It wasn't something I knew. But it was something I could write about. Same book had a kid who'd had a heart transplant. It wasn't something I knew. But it was something I could learn enough about to write the story well enough.

Write what you know, when it comes to fiction, is bullsh*t. (Actually, that's what fiction IS. It's all our BS. <G>)

Do science fiction writers really know what life is like on other planets? Know about aliens? Wow, cool, I had no idea. Beam me up, Scotty.

B) A corollary to this is write what you'd like to be known for knowing. As writers we all have the responsibility of fully knowing and acknowledging that we will be judged by what we write, fact or fiction. Hell, Salman Rushdie had a million-dollar bounty put on his head for fiction.

Yes, by people we would generally not describe as behaving in a rational manner. This is NOT what I aspire for the people who are asking for positions of power in this country. The Danish cartoonists got bounties put on their heads, too. For a cartoon. That's just as illogical.

C) If your content is morally questionable, your own morals will forever be under scrutiny. And your public (published) persona is going to be viewed as who you are. Robert Ludlum used to laugh because people expected him to be a major CIA/spy expert due to his novels, and yet when asked how he got such detailed information on them, would admit "I just made it up. It sounded like something the CIA would do."

Again, I say, that's ridiculous. Do we ask the author who's writing thrillers that feature serial killers just how they got so much detail on killing? Do we expect that they've practiced somehow? Tried it out? That's the entire point of my post. As Robert pointed out, he MADE IT UP!

And you cannot judge MY morals by something one of my characters does or says in one of my stories. Because they don't represent me. If I write a murderer, does that mean I condone murder? If I write someone who engages in adultry, does that mean I condone adultry??? If I write a character who's had an abortion, does that mean I believe in abortion?

It's bloody FICTION! You cannot tell what I believe based on my characters' action/speech.

I'm trying to decide what connection they're trying to make, because it seems to be "Dick Cheney should have had better control over his wife and kept her from writing what she wanted to write." And that just seems like something that would piss women off further.

Ya think???

Susan G.

[dclary]

Ummmm, okay. So you're saying anyone who writes a serial killer must KNOW serial killing? <scratching head>Yes. I think that you have to have at LEAST spent the requisite amount of time thinking out your serial killer's motive, plotted out his kills, imagined how your cop hero can catch him. I didn't say you had to be or have been one, but you definitely need to know serial killing. This isn't really in dispute, is it?

I've written a story about a woman whose only child has died. Thank God I don't have first-hand knowledge about that. It wasn't something I knew. But it was something I could write about. Same book had a kid who'd had a heart transplant. It wasn't something I knew. But it was something I could learn enough about to write the story well enough.
Which is what I just said.

Do science fiction writers really know what life is like on other planets? Know about aliens?The best science fiction authors use the best science available to make credible assumptions, yes. KNOWING is NOT the same thing as HAVING EXPERIENCED IT. I had no idea.Now you know, and knowing is half the battle.

Yes, by people we would generally not describe as behaving in a rational manner. This is NOT what I aspire for the people who are asking for positions of power in this country. The Danish cartoonists got bounties put on their heads, too. For a cartoon. That's just as illogical.Of course. I used an extreme example to make a point.

Again, I say, that's ridiculous. Do we ask the author who's writing thrillers that feature serial killers just how they got so much detail on killing? Do we expect that they've practiced somehow? Tried it out? That's the entire point of my post. As Robert pointed out, he MADE IT UP! Yes. And the reason WHY he had to keep pointing that out was because people believed otherwise. It's in our nature.

And you cannot judge MY morals by something one of my characters does or says in one of my stories.Sure I can. Everyone does, to one extent or another

If I write a murderer, does that mean I condone murder? If I write someone who engages in adultry, does that mean I condone adultry??? If I write a character who's had an abortion, does that mean I believe in abortion?No, nor did I say it does. But it DOES mean that you've thought about murder, adultery, abortion. And at some point you've made the imaginary leaps of logic that a real person might have made, for the purposes of advancing your character's story.


Ya think???All I think is that you're getting very riled up over something that's not all that controversial. I can't help but wonder why.

[Ol' Fashioned Girl]

Not meant to be mean, Denise. It's an honest, philosophical question, directed at Alan only because he raised the point, not because I think he's a troubled youth. If anything, his posts are always well-thought out, and I think he's got a good head on his shoulders. He'll be just fine.

Once we get a couple rounds of electroshock in him.

(I kid! I kid!)

;)

BS. I'm with DeniseK and English Dave. It was uncalled for and completely out of line.

[dclary]

It's really not.

[English Dave]

It's 3 against 1. Fvck off clary!!!"!


:)

[dclary]

Well, I guess that's the democratic way.

/trudges off.

;)

[Ol' Fashioned Girl]

We now return you to our regularly scheduled discussion...

[aghast]

Yes. I think that you have to have at LEAST spent the requisite amount of time thinking out your serial killer's motive, plotted out his kills, imagined how your cop hero can catch him. ...

But it DOES mean that you've thought about murder, adultery, abortion. And at some point you've made the imaginary leaps of logic that a real person might have made, for the purposes of advancing your character's story.


thinking abut all that stuff doesnt mean you identify with it - people think a lot of stuff, when i see a story about something i get fascinated and i want to know how someone kills or rapes or whatever but it doesnt mean i want to do it and the same goes with fiction, we need to differentate what imagination or research means and i think the susans point is that to say if you write it you must believe in it or it reflects your moral value is just bogus and as writers we must object to it because then no one is going to write about murders or evil or whatever because others are going to say ah ha hes a sick bastard in real life and it doesnt matter if its novels or movies - i sure am not going to go up to martin scorcese and say you sick f*** keep your distance from me - maybe its human nature to assume but it doesnt make it right and to use it as politcal weapon is simply idiotic

[dclary]

thinking abut all that stuff doesnt mean you identify with it - people think a lot of stuff, when i see a story about something i get fascinated and i want to know how someone kills or rapes or whatever but it doesnt mean i want to do it and the same goes with fiction, we need to differentate what imagination or research means and i think the susans point is that to say if you write it you must believe in it or it reflects your moral value is just bogus and as writers we must object to it because then no one is going to write about murders or evil or whatever because others are going to say ah ha hes a sick bastard in real life and it doesnt matter if its novels or movies - i sure am not going to go up to martin scorcese and say you sick f*** keep your distance from me - maybe its human nature to assume but it doesnt make it right and to use it as politcal weapon is simply idiotic

I didn't say you had to identify with it. You just have to know it. Nor did I say you want to do it.

[aghast]

the question is why should the writer be judged by the 'fictional facts' he presents - i mean if a journalist writes about rape she is not going to be judged and have people say shes morally corrupt because she just writes about this poor woman getting beaten up and raped so why is it different for fiction writers if hes reporting on the 'facts' of his stories simply because he made it up - doesnt making it suddenly makes the guy morally corrupt - i think thats the question and you can say thats how people are but i will say it doesnt have to be and for crying out loud dont use it as a political argument, thats just dumb, especially if they just pull out passages without context

[TheGaffer]

Lynne Cheney is not a publically elected official. For the Democrats to try and lump her with Allen seems very dangerous and wrong here. I'm trying to decide what connection they're trying to make, because it seems to be "Dick Cheney should have had better control over his wife and kept her from writing what she wanted to write." And that just seems like something that would piss women off further.

Um, but there's also the matter of Lynne Cheney criticizing James Webb for what he wrote when she's written books with somewhat explicit passages as well. That's more the point with Cheney, not that she's an elected official, but that she's throwing stones in glass houses. She's made specific criticisms, and yet she's written her own explicit material as well.

[aghast]

the point about cheney is not to compare politicians with their wives but to point out the inherent idiocy and hyprocricy on both sides, and when the dems did the same thing as a rebuttal we all see how truly ridiculous it is, so i think you are missing the point or just blinded by partisan politics if you argue about webb mentioning cheney - hes jsut saying, look this is rididulous and if you want to commit character assassination like that why not start with your own clan, like the vps wife for example, and point to the obvious hyprocricy because if you start arguing that its ridiculous criticizing cheneys wife, then you would see how ridiculous it is to criticize webb (you can criticize him on his politics, policies etc but not his moral standards based on his novels) - the 'elected official' argument is just a red herring

[dclary]

hes just saying, look this is rididulous and if you want to commit character assassination like that why not start with your own clan

You have many hilarious arguments in your reply. This one is the funniest.

"Hey, if you want to assassinate someone, why not one of your own?"

Not too keen there on how assassination works, are ya?

:ROFL:

[robeiae]

...so i think you are missing the point or just blinded by partisan politics if you argue about webb mentioning cheney...You're right, it was a class move on Webb's part to bring up a twenty-five-year-old book written by the wife of a politican (who he's not even running against) as a means of answering questions about his book. He's a paragon of virtue and honour...pa-thetic.

[TheGaffer]

If the issue in and of itself is stupid, which it is, it's not a bad response at all, really. I mean, the whole thing is ridiculous to begin with, to come out, suddenly, with the Claude Rains act with these novels.

[Papa'sLiver]

If L. Cheney wants to insert herself into the argument, then she becomes fair game.

It was a bad move to pick on the guy's books, just like it was a bad move to make fun of Libby's book.

Plus, Lynne Cheney is a shvt writer.

That is all.

I do have to say, that I find it funny that during the whole Foley thing, Clary and Billy were not to found, if barely, but now?

:roll:

[dclary]

That would be because we agree Foley's an idiot. I happen to like the Cheneys, and am willing to step up to defend them.

[aghast]

You're right, it was a class move on Webb's part to bring up a twenty-five-year-old book written by the wife of a politican (who he's not even running against) as a means of answering questions about his book. He's a paragon of virtue and honour...pa-thetic.

he has answered questions about his book which is stupid to begin with, the same as susan's diatribe about 'why cant you undertand the nature of fiction' yes, his jab at cheney may not be classy but hes just giving it back to his attackers - he didnt start the friggin fight - so what is your position on allens insane accusation? you seem to keep saying webb is pathetic and yet fail to talk about how pathetic allen is but instead say 'its irrevelant' - how can you call yourself a writer if you think such character assassination on a writer (whether its related to poltics or not) is irrelevant but jump on the bandwaggon and say oh yeah webb is blah blah, youre still flaunting that red herring - this whole thing might be poltically driven but it should offendds writers everywhere just out of principals

[robeiae]

you seem to keep saying webb is pathetic and yet fail to talk about how pathetic allen is but instead say 'its irrevelant' - how can you call yourself a writer if you think such character assassination on a writer (whether its related to poltics or not) is irrelevant but jump on the bandwaggon and say oh yeah webb is blah blahI said nothing whatsoever that even remotely resembles "its irrelevant" with regard to Allen.

And I don't think what's in a work of fiction should have anything to do with an author's qualifications to hold public office. And something to that effect was all Webb needed to say, imo. But he didn't. Instead, he anwered a meaningless and classless attack by dragging someone else's name into it that had nothing to do with the campaign. So yes, he's pathetic. He has no class.

Now try and follow what I said carefully and respond to it-how can you call yourself a writer when you say blah blah as a response?

[Sheryl Nantus]

I'm just glad I'm Canadian.

heck, no one ever even TRIES to assassinate our leaders. We tried to have a rebellion once, but everyone went to the pub and got drunk instead.

I kid you not.