# We become what we behold, and I'm concerned about it.



## The Tourist (Sep 28, 2013)

As most of you know, I live in a very politically liberal area.  In fact, the mantra of the 1960s here was, "if it feels good, do it."  The problem is that many times that amusing throw-away line has been a driving force for behavior, and it's worming it's way into literature.

If I had to boil down the main theme of my book, I would characterize the plot as finding that you are not the star of your own story.  This comes from my abject disgust with social causes.  I don't think you could open a cotton-candy and falafel pushcart in my city without somebody trying to corrupt your intentions into something racist.  Not every nuance has to be a cause celebre. 

I begin to wonder what's next.  After they sanitize Mark Twain's works will PETA come after "Little Bo Peep"?  Must every literary vehicle to define a plot have to go through some bizarre filter?

I believe that try as we might, our values do bleed into our prose.  Heck, I try to minimize my own prejudices and simply become a balladeer or storyteller.  Even then I find editorial comment in my own works when re-reading the lines a few months later.

In short, the moment I smell the hint of an agenda in an author's work, I dump the book and pan the treatise to anyone who will listen.  I think you can tell a tale, impart wisdom or a new way of looking at things without draining yourself of every iota of testosterone and singing "Kumbaya" with a granola bar wedged up your butt.

A story might have a point of view, but not all social comments need to be stories.


----------



## qwertyman (Sep 28, 2013)

The Tourist said:


> In short, the moment I smell the hint of an agenda in an author's work, I dump the book and pan the treatise to anyone who will listen.  I think you can tell a tale, impart wisdom or a new way of looking at things without draining yourself of every iota of testosterone and singing "Kumbaya" with a granola bar wedged up your butt.
> 
> A story might have a point of view, but not all social comments need to be stories.



Amen to that...erm... can I say 'amen'?

Pass the granola bar.


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Sep 28, 2013)

I'm confused. First you seem to be saying that all novels/texts tend to betray the author's belief system--including your own--and then it sounds like you dump every book in which you detect signs of this. So how do you decide if the writer's trying to push an agenda vs. if his/her views just color the work? And what's left to read?


----------



## The Tourist (Sep 28, 2013)

qwertyman said:


> Pass the granola bar.



LOL.  It's an insidious trend, I can assure you.  Let me give you an example on how the trend du jour can influence content.  For that, consider the 1988 movie, "Die Hard."

Despite being a shoot 'em up with the lead character supposedly a weapons expert, Bruce Willis defines a Glock as handgun that does not show up on scanners.  Why?  Because that's what the public wanted to hear.  Glocks have never been made from ceramics and always show up on scans because, duh, they're made of metal.  I've owned three of them, they are steel with resin frames over a metal skeleton.  However, Hollywood has a schizophrenic view on this topic, action adventure movies are made by the gun control crowd.

(In a real bizarre twist, more than half of American police force now carry Glocks, the "terrorist weapon" of the 1980s.)

One of the best movies I've ever seen is 1962 classic, "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance."  While seemingly just another western, it softly impresses you with the sad fact that misconceptions become more important than truth.  One newspaper reporter even laments, _"This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."_

Because I love writing, I'm saddened by the fact that so many kindred spirits type buzzwords and not real ideas.


----------



## Outiboros (Sep 28, 2013)

The Tourist said:


> LOL.  It's an insidious trend, I can assure you.  Let me give you an example on how the trend du jour can influence content.  For that, consider the 1988 movie, "Die Hard."
> 
> Despite being a shoot 'em up with the lead character supposedly a weapons expert, Bruce Willis defines a Glock as handgun that does not show up on scanners.  Why?  Because that's what the public wanted to hear.  Glocks have never been made from ceramics and always show up on scans because, duh, they're made of metal.  I've owned three of them, they are steel with resin frames over a metal skeleton.  However, Hollywood has a schizophrenic view on this topic, action adventure movies are made by the gun control crowd.
> 
> ...


Okay, what? You first begin a pitchfork-and-torches affair against writers who push their own agenda's, and in the very next post you can't help but slip in a snarky comment on the 'gun control crowd'? Come on.


----------



## Sintalion (Sep 28, 2013)

I'm not saying this is true of anyone here, it's just what I think when it comes to subjects such as this.

There are people who will sue over anything. In that same sense, I do believe that there are people who can make an agenda out of anything. What's more, what the public perceives is not necessarily what the author's agenda might be. Sometimes they're just caught in the (often opinionated) crossfire. 

When I write, my sole agenda is to create a story worth reading. Everything within my story serves one agenda: the plot. It's not in there because I feel strongly about PETA (even in college they had to protect us undergrads by not including our names in lists and such, because of this organization and others like it). I didn't make a couple gay to speak up about my thoughts on the matter. It's for the story and the story alone. 

That said, I don't care what the reader takes from my story; I just care that they take _something_. Will I be annoyed and offended if they accuse me of having some sort of agenda? Yes, but there ain't nothing I can do about that. 

There are of course just as many writers out there who do have agendas and include them in their work. I don't care if they do, as long as it serves the story.


----------



## The Tourist (Sep 28, 2013)

Outiboros said:


> Okay, what? You first begin a pitchfork-and-torches affair against writers who push their own agenda's, and in the very next post you can't help but slip in a snarky comment on the 'gun control crowd'? Come on.



Fair enough.  But let me tell you how it plays out in the day-to-day life in my locale.

If I said "terrorist," most folks would imagine a drooling jihadist with a bomb strapped to his chest.  Not here.  Our terrorists are usually connected with the university crowd.

For example, the PETA nuts destroy laboratories.  Our eco-terrorists have caused so much damage and intimidation that one mine had to hire armed guards.  Over 70,000 unionists paraded around our Capitol Building for weeks "demanding to be heard."  And yet these same thugs surrounded the platform when Sarah Palin spoke, tried to drive off her supporters and shouted her down.  So much for the rights of others.

As for gun control, firearms owners are the most squeaky clean citizens here.  You cannot have a criminal record to buy firearms.  My concealed carry permit mandated that I submit credentials to the Department of Justice.  My purchases go through NICS.  Can you pass those standards?  Heck, the detractors, many of whom have felony destruction of property records from the 1960's riots cannot.  The peacenik often has the longer rapsheet.

But do you hear that?  Of course not, it doesn't fit how society wants to view itself.  And when we perpetuate the phony-baloney ideals of a society that never existed, it demonstrates that modern writers can't even access the google feature to do rudimentary research.


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Sep 28, 2013)

Okay, so what you're saying is--you only read books whose political agenda (as you perceive it) is one with which you already agree?

Seems limiting.


----------



## Myers (Sep 28, 2013)

My novel is about a woman who goes back home to take over her family's small farm when her parents are killed. She's struggling to make a go of it, and one of the reasons are the government policies that give advantages to the big agribusinesses and make it harder for farmers who want to grow and sell organic food to local markets. She develops an anti-government attitude and sees the big food companies as the enemy. I'm sure it might come across as an agenda to some, but it's just a reality of her situation. That aspect of the story is relatively minor and takes a backseat to her other personal struggles.

We’re all affected by social issues. I don’t think it’s automatically a bad idea to include how characters might be affected by them and show how they react, either negatively or positively. I’m sure someone who is determined to look for agendas will see one in my novel. Fine. Dump my book and tell all your friends. You can’t please everyone.


----------



## The Tourist (Sep 28, 2013)

lasm said:


> Okay, so what you're saying is--you only read books whose political agenda (as you perceive it) is one with which you already agree?
> 
> Seems limiting.



I have no problem with fiction.  But more and more I find fiction based on ideas that are based on politics.  After all, submarines weren't invented yet in Jules Verne's time.  But the book (and movie) has political themes.  My postulate is that the theme had basis in fact.

And I have no problem with creating your own future world based on whole cloth.  I did that very thing.  Most would agree that classic science fiction is actually editorial comment on present societal issues.  Roddenberry used that idea as his central theme.

But when you weave a untruth into a story to advance your career on the backs of others, that's where I draw the line.


----------



## Myers (Sep 28, 2013)

All this seems pretty vague. Why don't you give us a specific example of what you're talking about?


----------



## The Tourist (Sep 28, 2013)

Myers said:


> All this seems pretty vague. Why don't you give us a specific example of what you're talking about?



I live near a college town.  Even the news is filtered here for fear of racism. 

For example, we've had gang related shootings in broad daylight.  Not a whiff of social outrage.  Of course not, the shooters were black.  One idiot accidently fired a shot between his knees at a food court, even returned the next day and was still not arrested.  If you hear anything about such issues it's because of the unfairness and poverty in society, not the fact the guy's a thug.

Yikes, lots of people are poor, but few commit crimes.  You get a second job, you put yourself on a budget, you relocate to another city or go back to school.

So let me give you a fer-instance.  I knew real-deal Black Panthers in the 1960s.  They were the most violent, misogynistic, racists I have ever met.  Ever see a fictional depiction of that era using actual history as a plot arc?  

If you scrupulously hunted down every factoid, every first person witness, every news report and then included a bibliography almost as long as the story itself, do you think you'd ever get it published?


----------



## Myers (Sep 28, 2013)

This is a writing forum; this isn't about the news. In the OP, you said "hint of an agenda in an author's work." I'm asking for examples in recent published novels where the author is pushing an agenda, so we have something to discuss, not for speculation or a "fer-instance" about a book that hasn't been written.


----------



## qwertyman (Sep 28, 2013)

There's a difference between an agenda and a theme. 

An agenda is something you are promoting. Not something I want to read about in a novel, and something that doesn't have the remotest chance of entertaining me.

A theme is open ended, you just write about it, without promoting a point of view.

Evelyn Waugh's novels may have a Roman Catholic theme, but the theme would be described not championed. Anyway, it's always subservient to the plot.


----------



## The Tourist (Sep 28, 2013)

Myers said:


> This is a writing forum. In the OP, you said "hint of an agenda in an author's work." I'm asking for an example.



First off, you cannot prove a negative.  More to my point, I do not know how many topical books were rejected because of a liberal agenda.

But here goes...

I think The Hunger Games depicts a "haves and have nots" agenda that doesn't really exist.  In times of crisis, people actually do give freely and gladly.  Lots of good people even travel abroad to adopt unwanted children.  And giving Katniss a free pass smacks of Harry Callahan's comment that gunfights are okay as long as the right people get shot.

The TV show "Sons of Anarchy."  Bikes exist, guns exist, gun-runners exist.  But not altogether, every week, and for such a long period the bikers have gray hair.  In my area the thugs steel copper tubing which actually has a better street value.  Why are the SOA gun-runners and not unlicensed plumbers?

Any Dan Brown book, although I agree with him.

Now, that last comment is important.  I don't like stilted writing even when I agree.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander.  If I tolerate a sloppy attitude with the people to whom I agree, how is that different from simply targeting my opposition?


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Sep 28, 2013)

If you go looking for it, I doubt there's a single book ever written that could not be said to betray the author's beliefs in some way.

I'd agree that I don't often like novels that set out to teach me a lesson, but I think that's mostly because they do it in a ham-handed way. There are good novels written with a clear and intended message (_The Jungle_ comes to mind), and if I'm enjoying the book as a book, the message won't totally turn me off.

So what I'm saying is, I like good books. But bad books, not so much. Political books? They're all political.


----------



## Myers (Sep 28, 2013)

The Tourist said:


> First off, you cannot prove a negative.  More to my point, I do not know how many topical books were rejected because of a liberal agenda.
> 
> But here goes...
> 
> ...



That's the best you can come up with? I haven't read _Hunger Games_, but I suspect if it was about people giving freely and gladly, it wouldn't be much of a story. Haven't see SOA either. But do you think a series about unlicensed plumbers would fly? 

I think this thread is more about you getting up on your soap box and pushing your agenda, and that it doesn't have much to do with writing.


----------



## Jeko (Sep 28, 2013)

> _I think The Hunger Games depicts a "haves and have nots" agenda that doesn't really exist. In times of crisis, people actually do give freely and gladly. Lots of good people even travel abroad to adopt unwanted children. And giving Katniss a free pass smacks of Harry Callahan's comment that gunfights are okay as long as the right people get shot._
> 
> _The TV show "Sons of Anarchy." Bikes exist, guns exist, gun-runners exist. But not altogether, every week, and for such a long period the bikers have gray hair. In my area the thugs steel copper tubing which actually has a better street value. Why are the SOA gun-runners and not unlicensed plumbers?_
> 
> _Any Dan Brown book, although I agree with him._



To be honest, I don't think supporting stark literary jurisdiction with popular fiction is the way to go. 

Have you ever read Animal Farm? That's full of agenda, and I love every single ounce of it. George Orwell outlines four key reasons for writing fiction in one of his essays (can't remember the title), and one of them is (paraphrasing) 'political' leanings/agendas. One of the reasons people write books is to disagree with other people who think differently to them; to possibly change minds. It's something I admire in an author, whether I view their opinion as right or wrong.

Just to be clear, since the first post was very confusing: what point are you trying to put across?


----------



## Olly Buckle (Sep 28, 2013)

> I begin to wonder what's next. After they sanitize Mark Twain's works will PETA come after "Little Bo Peep"?


 Have ever read him? Pudding head Wilson, A Yankee in the Court of King Aurther, Huckleberry Fin ? How are you going to sanatise him? The man was an outrageous liberal for his day, he was also an excellent writer who could put forward his thesies about such things as class systems, race and slavery without the reader feeling anything more than entertained.

Your arguments do seem a little confused; I think lasm has about got the measure of it, some people do it well and it seems natural, others are ham fisted and you feel something is being shoved down your throat.


----------



## Morkonan (Sep 28, 2013)

The Tourist said:


> ...A story might have a point of view, but not all social comments need to be stories.



Of course they don't. But, just because a written story is chosen as a medium to be used to convey a message qualifying as "social commentary" doesn't mean it's bad. In fact, many such stories make the best-seller list and some even become classics to be studied in Universities by large-headed people who have nothing better to do than to vivisect someone else's work...

John Lennon wrote "Imagine." Harsley painted "The Banker's Private Room: Negotiating a Loan" (Had to look that one up.  http://www.artclon.com/OtherFile/Th...ting-a-Loan-1870-xx-John-Callcott-Horsley.jpg ) There's also plenty of social commentary in poetry. (Not a big poet guy, here.)

But, you spend a heck of a lot more time reading through a book than you do glancing at a painting or listening to one song. You have to spend all that time in order to receive the full message. And, once it comes, do you feel cheated if the author stands on a soapbox and proclaims their opinion regarding the world's ills? Well... pretty much, most people do. Who's fault is that? That one's easy - It's the author's fault!

If the author does nothing more than present a platform from which to spout their barbaric yawps across the rooftops of the world, then anyone would likely be offended at having been used in such a way. BUT, if the author manages to still accomplish that feat while also managing to entertain the reader, then where is the victim? That's the key, isn't it? It's really not about whether or not a particular written work contains social commentary or is some sort of vast morality play. It's the fact that a reader feels taken advantage of if they're forced to listen to the grunts and howls of an author who lured them into expending so much effort for so little entertainment value.

Bring back the Personal Essay! (You know, those things that were like blog entries long before there were blogs?) If there were more of a paying market for the Personal Essay, you'd probably find far less in the way of hamfisted attempts at social commentary, like "Hunger Games."


----------



## The Tourist (Sep 28, 2013)

Myers said:


> That's the best you can come up with? I haven't read _Hunger Games_.



Granted, that example was a slam dunk.  THG is essentially a "The Running Man" rip-off, an act of such blatant plagiarism I'm surprised that Stephen King didn't file a lawsuit--and win.

But the ideology is sound, whether the book was good, or as in this case, dismal.  Now granted, there was a time when people studied literature and language and weren't swayed by ignorance and their passions.  That era has sadly passed.

But connect the dots.  There was an old comic strip called "Pogo."  It was famous for the line, _"We have met the enemy and he is us."_  If the only books that are successful and marketable are drivel it's because we keep buying them.  

_My entire argument is that if a good book can enrich a person's life and perspective, then certainly a sloppy tome with a shaky agenda can damage another_.

Then again, perhaps Morkonan is onto something.  People are stupid.  Not only will many not get the idea, but some might take a brainless, yet easy to understand misconception and assume it's gospel.  I'd like to believe we're better than that, but the Darwin Syndrome proves itself daily.


----------



## Jeko (Sep 28, 2013)

> _My entire argument is that if a good book can enrich a person's life and perspective, then certainly a sloppy tome with a shaky agenda can damage another._



Put a twihard and a literary scholar in the same room and say 'good book' and you'll get a slight difference of opinion. 

Likewise, there is no monopoly on the definitions of what is 'enriching' and what is 'damaging'. Having dispositions against certain aspects of literature is fine, though what one person finds enriching may be what another finds damaging.


----------



## The Tourist (Sep 28, 2013)

Cadence said:


> Likewise, there is no monopoly on the definitions of what is 'enriching' and what is 'damaging'. Having dispositions against certain aspects of literature is fine, though what one person finds enriching may be what another finds damaging.



I understand your position, I just disagree.  Segments of our society are living petri dishes.

Take your normal, average whitebread kid, cut him off from most human contact so he has no interpersonal skills or a chance to learn them, shove junk food into his body, indoctrinate him (and his conscience) with violent video games, and then put him into any societal situation of stress and inductive reasoning.  If he turns on you, take a wild guess why it happened.

Then again, give a kid good nutrition, a loving family, duties and responsibilities that are age appropriate and perhaps a mentor.  Now see what happens.

I'm not just parsing your idea.  I'm speaking from life.  My mom was a drunk and my dad was a wealthy enabler who could afford to keep her quiet.  I was socialized in a motorcycle club.  Guess how I dealt with the "inconveniences of life"?

GIGO.  Too many zombies, not enough Zukofsky.


----------



## Jeko (Sep 28, 2013)

You didn't mention books in that post; you gave easy archetypes. I'm not sure how this disagrees with what I said.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Sep 28, 2013)

> Now granted, there was a time when people studied literature and language and weren't swayed by ignorance and their passions. That era has sadly passed.


I don't believe this, I believe there was a time when most of the people who knew anything about literature and language knew quite a lot because they were a tiny elite, and the rest of the population knew nothing, so nobody heard of them or remembers them. This started to change during the first half of the twentieth century. Now those who know a lot are a relatively large elite and almost everybody knows something. There is plenty of room for improvement, there always is, but I can think of people I know who read and discuss books whose ancestors a hundred years ago would have been ignorant and illiterate, and they are not isolated individuals.



> My entire argument is that if a good book can enrich a person's life and perspective, then certainly a sloppy tome with a shaky agenda can damage another.


I can't see this holds, the good book is capable of engendering change, but why should the bad one have the same ability? I don't think it will, it may reinforce an existing prejudice. Is the proposition that 'popular, 'bad', books cover subjects like superstition, mysticism, politics and stereotypical relationships, about which people have preconceived ideas which are reinforced' a valid one?


----------



## The Tourist (Sep 28, 2013)

Cadence said:


> You didn't mention books in that post; you gave easy archetypes. I'm not sure how this disagrees with what I said.



Fair enough.  I'll make it personal.

As you know, my childhood home life wasn't a pleasure cruise, I felt trapped and outgunned most of the day.  I happened across Hunter Thompson's book on the Angels.  It changed my life--for good and ill.

Thompson wrote that Sonny Barger was only 5'7" but would fight anyone.  I was fourteen at that time, and already a head taller than that.  I figured if Barger could succeed, then so could I.  I immersed myself in the culture.

(BTW, next spring I will turn 64.  When I get my bikes out then it will be 50 years since that stage of my life, half a century.  My, how time flies!)

Well, my life did change, for the better I thought.  People got out of my way.  Braggadocio can be mistaken for confidence, so I had plenty of women.  I even became a first rate bill collector, and made plenty of money.  By my early thirties the wheels were coming off, and what worked as a kid was now the thing that brought me failure.

But I had always been into creative writing.  So along with my own book, I read the works of others.  I was exposed to new ideas, even the Bible.  I read a lot of Stephen King, he was the man of the hour, but some of his sentence structure and description(s) astounded me.  I started reading anything with words embossed on it!

Creative, positive ideas.  Literature with a style.  Stories depicting lands beyond the horizon.

Now I go to B&N almost daily with my wife for coffee after we attend the gym.  I read magazines, books in the bargain bin, the current best sellers--and granted, 90% of the time I never make it past the first chapter.  For every worthwhile book like "Musashi" there's a brain-deadening puff piece like "Angelology."

But my life is better.  I truly believe it's the magic bullet.


----------



## Jeko (Sep 28, 2013)

Okay. Still don't know how this disagrees with what I said.


----------



## The Tourist (Sep 28, 2013)

Cadence said:


> Okay. Still don't know how this disagrees with what I said.



Well, I believe what is "good" and what is "bad" is very clear, painfully clear, clear to a toddler.


----------



## shadowwalker (Sep 28, 2013)

I'm just disturbed by any author, published or otherwise, who feels readers are dumb. Seems a rather pompous attitude. I read "good" books; I read "bad" books. I know the difference and I read different books for different reasons. Because I read "bad" books makes me dumb, apparently, but then when I read "good" books I'm suddenly smart again. I guess. 

Books with obvious agendas will really influence no one. People who already agree with the stance will shake their heads smugly and those who disagree with shake their heads in disdain. The only change that might occur is that someone might decide that they should do something instead of just shaking their head - but again, it will be in accordance with their already established beliefs anyway. But most times, it takes a large group of people communicating with each other to do any damage one way or another, so a book would only get the ball rolling, and whether it keeps rolling would have nothing to do with the book.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Sep 29, 2013)

> I happened across Hunter Thompson's book on the Angels. It changed my life--


 I can see how that would affect your view, but it is what is known as 'anecdotal evidence', a single event can be very significant to the individual but it does not make a general rule. I think it says more about your state of mind age 14 than it does about the book. I read Hornblower and The Untouchables at a similar age. They were very significant, but becoming a Naval Officer or a Policeman was never more than a passing whim, the more general lessons about life I maybe picked up.


----------



## Sam (Sep 29, 2013)

What you're talking about is not an 'agenda'. You're talking about pandering to a reader; about attempting to proselytise them to something the writer feels strongly about, whether it be politics or the local fast-food chain. At least that's what I'm discerning from your posts. To an extent, I agree. Tom Clancy became stale for me when he forwent the techno thriller and embarked on a socio-political rant about his stance on republicanism. That kind of thing infuriates me. Perhaps not to the degree where I'd boycott his work, but pretty close. In fact, I haven't read anything of his in three or four years, but that's probably because the Clancy of the 80s and early 90s is long gone. His work now doesn't even offer the service of being refuse, in my opinion. 

You make an interesting point. I certainly don't intend to have agendas in my work, but sometimes a message may creep in.


----------



## Blade (Sep 29, 2013)

Sam said:


> You make an interesting point. I certainly don't intend to have agendas in my work, but sometimes a message may creep in.



It looks to me like *intent, in my opinion, be *makes the world of difference here. Most peoples social or political beliefs are reasonably complicated and would have to be directly addressed to draw the readers attention. I certainly would not want to spend my time reading a diatribe of some sort unless that were the advertised intent of the work. Sneaking stuff in would, in my opinion, be somewhat offensive and likely move me to drop the reading.

Just keep ideology in its place.


----------



## Jeko (Sep 29, 2013)

> Well, I believe what is "good" and what is "bad" is very clear, painfully clear, clear to a toddler.



Sorry if I'm being blunt, but to believe something like that you must be oblivious to the whole world and all of history.

I agree that certain 'agendas' in books can be infuriating, but authors have the right to put them in. It's their choice and their gain or loss depending on how it affects the reception of their work.


----------



## The Tourist (Sep 29, 2013)

Cadence said:


> I agree that certain 'agendas' in books can be infuriating, but authors have the right to put them in. It's their choice and their gain or loss depending on how it affects the reception of their work.



Oh, and I agree, but with one proviso.  We think of ourselves as writers here, but we are also readers, meaning consumers.

I have a certain level of name brand loyalty to any consumer goods or services I buy.  I like Colt automatics, Smith revolvers, Harley motorcycles and Japanese hammered and folded steel.  Lots of times I will step out of my comfort zone--I did try and read THG, after all.  There's 17 minutes I'll never get back!

But reading for me is fun, not research.  I can walk right by an entire B&N rack of knitting magazines, cat fancy periodicals and gossip rags and not feel a shred of guilt.

In that vote with my wallet I do two things.  I vote for large displacement American motorcycles and against pedantic YA attempts at fiction.  I don't have to provide my passport, recent arrest record or retina scan to the check-out girl to prove I've given any and all genre of the written word a fair and equitable perusal.

Let's be honest here, B&N is a nice store, I like the latte' and I have my tight little circle of friends and baristas.  But great googly moogly, 75% of their merchandise is unadulterated drek.


----------



## Myers (Sep 29, 2013)

The Tourist said:


> Well, I believe what is "good" and what is "bad" is very clear, painfully clear, clear to a toddler.



I think this in an insult to toddlers everywhere. I think what you really mean is that your idea of what's good and bad is clear to you. You might not want to presume to speak for the rest of the planet.


----------



## The Tourist (Sep 29, 2013)

Myers said:


> I think this in an insult to toddlers everywhere. I think what you really mean is that your idea of what's good and bad is clear to you. You might not want to presume to speak for the rest of the planet.



I answered that aspect in my response above.  I read/buy books for myself.

Now, if I had minor children at home, I would buy their books, as well.  I'm not advocating running your reading list through a filter.  You're an adult, and you can invest/waste your entertainment dollar as you will.

But there are always costs in making choices. And sometimes the choices of a mob become laws--good or bad.  And pulling a voting handle based solely on a GIGO principle seems foolhardy.


----------



## Myers (Sep 29, 2013)

Well, I think most people here would agree that with a few exceptions, most things made for mass appeal and consumption aren't very good. That applies to everything from fast food to movies to TV, and literature too. I'd say that's a pretty banal observation.

And so you chose to "vote with your feet" and consume things that you feel have some value to you, that meet your standards of quality. And that includes books without an obvious or heavy-handed agenda. I think most of us here would be on board with all of that.

Other than that it seems important to you to tell us your life history, how awful most of the people are where you live, and that you like motorcycles and guns etc; what's your point?


----------



## The Tourist (Sep 29, 2013)

Myers said:


> So what's your point?



It might be a schizophrenic attitude, but I believe that every piece of worthless tedium in YA, or bizarre zombie rehashes, and bodice ripping formula novels should be readily available to everyone at any time.

I also believe that in enjoying that freedom we should be a bit more careful as to just what we put in our bodies.

I love cheap, vanilla cream sandwich cookies.  I also go to the gym everyday (since 1978 and haven't eaten red meat or bacon in darn near six years.  I do have an open package of cookies in the frig, and I sneak one periodically.  I don't dine on them, however.

We gush and wax about freedoms and then give a minor sniff to individual responsibility.  And let me give you a very real example.

I don't know if you like traditional Japanese cuisine, but some folks like fugu.  There is a very dangerous toxin in that fish, and in minor doses it gives the restaurant patron a minor "high" and tingling extremities.  Just a tad too much toxin and the diner is dead before he hits the floor.

I polish sashimi knives, like the yanagiba, for a living.  As an adult, I have the right to smoke marijuana in jurisdictions that permit it.  (I never was a pot user, my drug of choice was 100% blue agave tequila, but you get the point.)

So, a sushi chef smuggles in some fugu, calls you on the phone to verify your reservation, and drops off his favorite hammered and folded Shigeki Tanaka.  I'm pretty toasted when I run the waterstones over the edge that's going to prepare your dinner.  I might have missed a few rough spots, the kind that nick the poisonous fish organs...

Dramatic opinion, no doubt.  But we place our lives in the hands of cardiac surgeons, bus drivers and politicians (who have launch codes) during every day.

Do you really want to trust your safety to a congressman on a security committee who spent the night reading a trashy spy novel on middle-eastern terrorism, and now thinks nuclear incineration might be a good idea?  Heck, my social security checks are now based on a kid in a paper hat that spent all of last night pursuing on-line gaming.

Your life, your health and your opinions are based on what you consume.


----------



## Myers (Sep 29, 2013)

The Tourist said:


> Your life, your health and your opinions are based on what you consume.



That’s your point?

Well, it’s true, but only to a degree. We’re also influenced by example and environment; especially in the developmental stages, probably more so. We’re also NOT influenced by a lot of what we consume, especially when it comes to entertainment, not in ways that actually affect our behavior. You can look to the tired arguments about violent video games and movies as evidence for that. And obviously our health is impacted by what we eat. (I'm also assuming your congressman bit is meant to be funny, because we probably both know that's not how it works.)

So sorry, you’re not really making much of a point, not one that goes any deeper or provides any insight beyond what most of us here already know. In some ways, you're preaching to the choir, but it's a pretty dull sermon.


----------



## The Tourist (Sep 29, 2013)

Myers said:


> So sorry, you’re not really making much of a point, not one that goes any deeper or provides any insight beyond what most of us here already know. In some ways, you're preaching to the choir, but it's a pretty dull sermon.



It's the reason that I used examples of food and books.  In the case of the fugu example, perhaps only you, your wife and her sister died--and you never really liked your SIL, anyway.

In the case of books and ideas, over 4,000 American soldiers have died in the middle-east because of this "boots on the ground" ideology--and I bleed red, white and blue.  It was a foolish, deadly pursuit that brought us nothing, and it was all based on an "idea," one that doesn't really exist.

Our Constitution says, "provide for the common defense."  To my knowledge, a Bedouin has never threatened me.  Coupled with that is the admonition to avoid foreign entanglements.  My opinion is that someone in congress is watching too many Lone Ranger reruns.

So which proved more lethal, the deaths of three fugu diners or 4,000 soldiers?  In many cases the application of books and their ideology is more dangerous than poison.


----------



## BobtailCon (Sep 29, 2013)

This thread sounds more like an argument then differing opinions.....


----------



## Myers (Sep 29, 2013)

The Tourist said:


> It's the reason that I used examples of food and books.  In the case of the fugu example, perhaps only you, your wife and her sister died--and you never really liked your SIL, anyway.
> 
> In the case of books and ideas, over 4,000 American soldiers have died in the middle-east because of this "boots on the ground" ideology--and I bleed red, white and blue.  It was a foolish, deadly pursuit that brought us nothing, and it was all based on an "idea," one that doesn't really exist.
> 
> ...



I'm not going to get into a big thing about Iraq and Afghanistan. But a  lot of people were sold a bill of goods following 9/11. It was about  supposedly fighting terrorism and the notion that you can force-feed a  country democracy, and unfortunately, a lot of people bought it  wholesale. In part they were influenced by the media, but it didn't have  anything  to do with what people were reading in books or ideas that came from  books;  at least not directly, or some general "boots on the ground" ideology.  That's about tactics, it's not an ideology in itself. 

I would bet that  the vast majority of books Americans read don't have anything directly  to do with any political ideology anyway; or they don't read between the lines, if they read much at all, so I'm  not buying that many opinions are influenced or formed by reading  books; or movies or TV shows for that matter. (And that goes for politicians too.) And don't forget, a whole lot of  people were opposed to the invasion of Iraq. So what you're saying just  doesn't hold water.

Anyway, this is beginning to look a lot like a debate, which isn't allowed. Plus, I can't see that's it's really worth debating. 

Cheers for now.


----------



## Jeko (Sep 29, 2013)

You seem to qualify your views on books and certain readerships with confusing tangents and anecdotes; it would be easier to understand where you're coming from, and talk about it, if you used books as the focal point of what you're talking about. 

Unless this is a thread about the very nature of life and the world itself. If so, I have nothing to discuss.


----------



## Sam (Sep 29, 2013)

A reminder that debates are not allowed on WF. By all means, discuss, but leave the debating for somewhere else.


----------



## bazz cargo (Sep 29, 2013)

> T*he Tourist.* We become what we behold, and I'm concerned about it.


 Please don't be concerned; I'm sure I can continue running my own life. Admittedly I could make less mistakes, but I have always learned best by falling flat on my face.


----------



## WechtleinUns (Sep 29, 2013)

Sounds to me like The Tourist doesn't like it when authors are forced to be politically correct. Makes sense to me. Books that are flagrantly politically incorrect might get into legal trouble and what not. Having said that, a book can be politically incorrect and still be garbage. A book can also be politically correct but still pretty good. In that respect, I think you can tell if a book is garbage or not, regardless of the politically correct nature of its contents.


----------



## ppsage (Sep 29, 2013)

> Do you really want to trust your safety to a congressman on a security committee who spent the night reading a trashy spy novel on middle-eastern terrorism


Not sure why we should worry about them reading thriller fiction, when they have all those spooky national security council white papers immediately to hand. Even ones which aren't public yet. Seems like the fiction would at least have a tendency to humanize and personalize, which the official studies lack entirely. Also, I don't really see how one becomes less of a libertine by choosing to eat fugu, instead of choosing to read trash. About equal, in my book. And neither likely, in the end, to have much lasting effect.


----------



## WechtleinUns (Sep 29, 2013)

hear, hear! ppsage, the voice of reason. 

Personally, though, I am a bit worried about book censorship. I'm not sure if it's legitimate, but are they really going to whitewash Huckleberry finn? That's kind of counterproduct, since Mark Twain was writing those words as satire.


----------



## ppsage (Sep 30, 2013)

> Personally, though, I am a bit worried about book censorship. I'm not sure if it's legitimate, but are they really going to whitewash Huckleberry finn?


Silly, more than dangerous. No doubt many fairly accurate copies will persist, for future analysis. See Alfred P. Smyth on Alfred the Great, for considerably more robust textural vagaries, which we've managed to weather quite nicely. This intriguing history of a thousand-year old_ impeachable _source is well worth the 700+ pages spent. One does what one can, to right the course in one's own time, but the jostling of historical forces, on the artifacts of culture, is simply going to remain a given.


----------



## shadowwalker (Sep 30, 2013)

There was a discussion, whether here or on another board I can't remember, about certain parties wanting to remove the "n" word from HF and replace it with "slave" - which makes no sense, really, and I'm not sure if the changed edition ever became a reality.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Sep 30, 2013)

shadowwalker said:


> There was a discussion, whether here or on another board I can't remember, about certain parties wanting to remove the "n" word from HF and replace it with "slave" - which makes no sense, really, and I'm not sure if the changed edition ever became a reality.


As stupid vandalism that compares with Victorians cutting the sexual organs off two thousand year old statues and replacing them with fig leaves, there should be some respect for integrity even after copyright has expired. 


> Books that are flagrantly politically incorrect might get into legal trouble


 Really? What for? I don't think we actually have 'thought police' yet.


----------



## WechtleinUns (Sep 30, 2013)

Good point, Olly. I don't think any books have had their authors landed in criminal courts yet, which is good. Although I think some groups have been trying to sue authors of some books or something like that. To be honest, the details are real fuzzy, and maybe I wasn't paying too much attention to it. But I think there was some group that was all offed because their "Human Rights" were trampled.

Now that I think about it, doesn't make all too much sense, it doesn't. :/


----------



## The Tourist (Sep 30, 2013)

Censorship and drek are actually opposite sides of the same coin.  (And I would put "political correctness" at the top of the drek list.)

Not only do these concepts tell you what to think, ultimately it creates a belief system unto itself that conveys the idea that you have to "check a list" to see what's trendy, accurate or socially viable.

I can understand how someone might hate bikers, The Klan or Nazis.  But even that statement shows a glimmer of why I hold the opinions I do.  If society permits some "good hating" then it has delivered to you a pre-approved enemies list.  Permission to loathe.  Shorthand to extermination.

Why can't I say "molon labe" to the autocrats of my time?  Isn't a despot a despot whether he's a ancient Persian living-god or just a modern tinhorn liberal apologist?  Why is one bad because he's over 2,000 years old, yet the other, with the same ultimate goals for any "properly functioning society," good because the new guy wears Armani and carries a cell phone?  It's the same face of oppression.

Thinking for yourself is the most dangerous thing you can do.  In fact, it's the central theme of "The Wizard of Oz."  They had problems with autocrats and the gold standard--the "yellow bricks."  And Dorothy's slippers were not ruby, but silver--the supposed savior of their new world order.

A bomb thrower is an idiot.  The real terrorist launches ideas.


----------



## shadowwalker (Oct 1, 2013)

Oppression is oppression whether it comes from the left or right. But I'm not sure what the discussion is about, really. We read what we want and we write what we want (okay, within very very _very _broad bounds). If someone doesn't like what I'm reading, so what? If someone doesn't like what I'm writing - someone else will. I don't think any writer wants someone else deciding what they should write or how they should write it - even other writers.


----------



## The Tourist (Oct 1, 2013)

'Walker, I'm not talking about the tail wagging the dog.  I believe you should write what you want and when you wish.

I'm talking about being selective in what you read.  In a mall you might have a health food store and a donut shop.  Both are legal ventures.

But you do not live a life of all donuts.  You're an adult, and if you want to live a life of good choices then you seek out good literature.

It might sound simplistic on a minor issue.  If so, why all of this nonsense on censoring Huckleberry Finn?  There are agendas afoot, and restricting what you read and denigrating what they do not wish you to read is flat out indoctrination.


----------



## Blade (Oct 1, 2013)

shadowwalker said:


> Oppression is oppression whether it comes from the left or right. But I'm not sure what the discussion is about, really. We read what we want and we write what we want (okay, within very very _very _broad bounds). If someone doesn't like what I'm reading, so what? If someone doesn't like what I'm writing - someone else will. I don't think any writer wants someone else deciding what they should write or how they should write it - even other writers.



I would go with *especially *other writers.:encouragement:

I have no issues with oppression or censorship in our society as it is clear sailing relative to even the not so distant past. My issues would be with placement. If someone wants to write something like _The Evolution of Conservative thought in West Texas 1920 - 1925 _they should feel free to go ahead, preferably in non-fiction venues. There is a place for political thinking but I just do not think that it is in creative writing. If I am reading poetry, short stories or a novel I really do not want to hear about it. The fact is that I find almost all of it boring rehash and would prefer due warning if the threat of being exposed is imminent.:uncomfortableness:


----------



## The Tourist (Oct 1, 2013)

Blade said:


> If I am reading poetry, short stories or a novel I really do not want to hear about it.



And that's where it gets murky.  As I stated, The Wizard of Oz is political, it discusses themes of agrarian political movement.  Heck, most traditional nursery rhymes are political.

Sometimes I think "murky" is deliberate.  I believe most patrons viewed the movie "300" as a live action extension of the graphic novel.  And I sincerely wonder just how many people knew it was a fictional adaptation of a real event.

I don't have a lick of problems with Aesop's Fables.  I do have a major problem with movies like "Primary Colors" which twists lying to Congress into a bucket of popcorn and good fun for the entire family.  After all, we don't have a Seth MacFarlane romp entitled "Hitler, His Genius and The Autobahn," at least, not yet...

I can understand why writers want to protect the craft.  I think we could do that creating the best products we can.  However, Henry Mencken stated, _"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."_  We now have editorials posted on the front page of newspapers marked as "editorials" because I'm not sure folks understand the difference between opinion, slant and news.

I sincerely believe that I could write a successful book in the YA genre applauding genocide if I included enough simplistic description(s) of pop clothes and culture, and made the most sinister characters fashion plates utilizing volumizing hair-care products.

My contempt grows daily.


----------



## BobtailCon (Oct 1, 2013)

From what I'm hearing, this just sounds like a lot of bickering....


----------



## The Tourist (Oct 1, 2013)

The free exchange of ideas is never bickering.  We are discussing ethics, freedoms, quality and standards.

If it helps you find meaning in the debate, imagine the NSA seizing your manuscript and lap-top because of your seditious beliefs.  When you raise issues of freedom, they cite the example on page 127 of your hero in a Hmong quickie-mart as racially inflammatory.

You mention contacting your lawyer and they inform you that subversives don't get representation at Guantanamo.

Now if you think that's impossible, just remember that there are books pulled from library shelves everyday.  It's never the crappy ones in the bargain bin at B&N, but classics and those tomes with ideas.

But like most freedoms, it's a "tempest in a teapot" if it's Huckleberry Finn, and a civil rights issue when it's you.

The argument is twofold.  If you fill your head with crap then you don't know much except who won "best dressed" on Entertainment Tonight.  Then, when it becomes time to defend or expand important ideals, you'll simply fall for whatever nonsense is the buzzword of the day.


----------



## Jeko (Oct 1, 2013)

> We are discussing ethics, freedoms, quality and standards.



I thought we were discussing books.


----------



## The Tourist (Oct 1, 2013)

Cadence said:


> I thought we were discussing books.



At its base, then what is a "book"?

I would proffer it's a set of ideas and comments depicted by an author in a separate reality.  The idea of contemporary themes set in a future scenario is a staple of science fiction.

Even THG makes a social comment, albeit just "The Running Man" with hair-care products.

Without any ideas or vision from an author a book is just a written version of Three Stooges slapstick.


----------



## shadowwalker (Oct 1, 2013)

The Tourist said:


> Without any ideas or vision from an author a book is just a written version of Three Stooges slapstick.



But then an author should have every right to include their political/religious/whatever beliefs in the story, and readers should have every right to read or not read that story. Whether you as an individual think some books are crap doesn't mean they are, or that readers are stupid for reading them. Is HF great literature because you agree with the political/social message? I would say no, because someone else could complain about the blatant message/preaching and say they wouldn't read such stuff.

I would posit that writers need to respect readers, respect their intelligence, and not judge them because sometimes they read what that writer doesn't like. As my mother used to say, "Each to his own, said the maid as she kissed the cow.".


----------



## The Tourist (Oct 1, 2013)

'Walker, and for about the fourth time, I'm not telling you what to write and I certainly wouldn't tell you what to read.

You're an adult.  If you want to gorge yourself on chocolate icing and cookies until your pancreas explodes, that's your business.  If you want to read YA until you forget every multi-syllable word ever divined, that's your business, too.

We all know the consequences of such behavior, whether you're free or not.  I intend to fill my days with healthy food and good books.


----------



## shadowwalker (Oct 2, 2013)

I'm just trying to figure out what this whole thing is about. Is it just another writer's diatribe against "bad literature" or is there actually some kind of discussion you're trying to have here? Because frankly you've been all over the road and I'm not sure where you're heading.


----------



## dakota.potts (Oct 2, 2013)

The Tourist said:


> As most of you know, I live in a very politically liberal area.  In fact, the mantra of the 1960s here was, "if it feels good, do it."  The problem is that many times that amusing throw-away line has been a driving force for behavior, and it's worming it's way into literature.
> 
> If I had to boil down the main theme of my book, I would characterize the plot as finding that you are not the star of your own story.  This comes from my abject disgust with social causes.  I don't think you could open a cotton-candy and falafel pushcart in my city without somebody trying to corrupt your intentions into something racist.  Not every nuance has to be a cause celebre.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure where you're coming from. You lament the censoring of Mark Twain yet look down on youth playing violent video games? Video games are a form of writing as well. 

I am pro-gun (believe the private citizens should have M60's up to Howitzers if they can finance them) so I share your disdain for that but I'm not sure how that's influencing the literature you're talking about. If I read a book with an anti-gun character, so what? It's a character. I've read about rapes and murders and torture, but I'm supposed to shy away from an opposing political message? Granted, I probably wouldn't read a book that was an allegory for gun control (unless to prepare for a debate or consider the other side's argument) but that doesn't make the writing any less valid. 

Just because I'm an atheist doesn't mean I can't connect to a spiritual character. It probably means I won't read Christian fiction, but what's wrong with other people reading it? 

I'm just not sure I'm understanding your point of view.


----------



## Myers (Oct 2, 2013)

shadowwalker said:


> I'm just trying to figure out what this whole thing is about. Is it just another writer's diatribe against "bad literature" or is there actually some kind of discussion you're trying to have here? Because frankly you've been all over the road and I'm not sure where you're heading.



It's an ego thing; you can point your finger at all the stupid people who read "bad literature" and feel a little better about yourself. The thing is, all kinds of people enjoy light reading, to relax or escape for a few minutes etc. It's not a measure of intelligence or success or anything else. Judging people by what they read is a kind of low-grade bigotry, harmless I suppose, but still pretty annoying.


----------



## Jon M (Oct 2, 2013)

Myers said:


> It's an ego thing; you can point your finger at all the stupid people who read "bad literature" and feel a little better about yourself. The thing is, all kinds of people enjoy light reading, to relax or escape for a few minutes etc. It's not a measure of intelligence or success or anything else. Judging people by what they read is a kind of low-grade bigotry, harmless I suppose, but still pretty annoying.





> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Myers again.


----------



## The Tourist (Oct 2, 2013)

Myers said:


> It's an ego thing; you can point your finger at all the stupid people who read "bad literature".



My point is the other way around.  "Stupid" is the wrong word.  I would say 'ignorant.'  That does not mean that you do not have the capacity to learn, it states that you are as yet unschooled.

In another thread we talk about health and taking good care of yourself and how that applies to writing.  I think you should pay the same attention to what you put into your head.

Just exactly what kind of adult is created when the boy he had been just read YA, listened to misogynistic rap music, and learned most of his social skills from "Grand Theft Auto"?

I will admit to some confusion here.  We exchange posts and threads all trying to make our stories clearer and more interesting.  If "drek" is a valuable literary commodity, why don't we just create that genre?   After all, it would be a lot simpler to take a bodice-ripping format, stuff the pages with buzzwords and Dr. Feelgood social causes, burn your Thesaurus and only have to type monosyllable words.  Oh, we'd have to discuss hair and make-up for the 'tweeners, but if that's all I have to do, it would make both research and my life a lot easier.

We have writing contests here, why not start a competition to see which one of us can create the most mind numbing, historically inaccurate, cerebellum bubblegum where acne cream becomes a ninja weapon.  With my luck, some publisher would see it and it would make it to the best sellers' list.


----------



## Jeko (Oct 2, 2013)

> "Stupid" is the wrong word. I would say 'ignorant.



So are they ignorant because they read 'bad literature', or do they read 'bad literature' because they are ignorant?


----------



## shadowwalker (Oct 2, 2013)

Well, yeah... so this is just another rant about people being badly influenced because they're doing all the "wrong" things and they just need to be "educated" into living their lives the way the rantor thinks is best, and literature was just the jumping off point.


----------



## The Tourist (Oct 2, 2013)

Cadence said:


> So are they ignorant because they read 'bad literature', or do they read 'bad literature' because they are ignorant?



You're not using the word correctly.  You are ignorant on anything you do not study.

Personally, I'm ignorant on nuclear fusion and automatic transmissions.


----------



## Myers (Oct 2, 2013)

Mister Tourist pleez PM me a list of wot you read so I kin edumacate and better mysef.

*wipes drool off chin*


----------



## The Tourist (Oct 2, 2013)

Myers said:


> Mister Tourist pleez PM me a list of wot you read so I kin edumacate and better mysef.
> 
> *wipes drool off chin*



Why, do you service automatic transmissions for a living?  LOL.


----------



## Jeko (Oct 2, 2013)

> You're not using the word correctly.



My apologies. I was confused by your post, since you appeared to say that you were substituting a word in Myer's post:

_It's an ego thing; you can point your finger at all the ignorant people who read "bad literature"._

Then the two are not linked, they just happen to be coincidental? 

So what are these people, who you know so much about, ignorant of?


----------



## The Tourist (Oct 2, 2013)

And I stand by the statement.  What is means is that an unschooled person who has never been exposed to classics and good literature will watch "The Little Mermaid" video 500 times in a row figuring they just got to the top of the heap.

I'll be honest about my experience(s), like most boomers I discovered good books because I was "forced" to read them.

The Greeks opined that there are only five dramatic themes, each new tale is just a variation.  No matter what your preference, there's a good book out there for you, and almost no reason to ingest crap.


----------



## Terry D (Oct 2, 2013)

Bronte, Whitman, Poe, Dickens, Huxley, Salinger, all were accused, by the 'thinkers' of their day, of writing crap. Crap, or classic; it's all subjective.


----------



## Jeko (Oct 3, 2013)

> What is means is that an unschooled person who has never been exposed to classics and good literature will watch "The Little Mermaid" video 500 times in a row figuring they just got to the top of the heap.



That's an incredible generalization. If you know that much about the world you should write a book about it. Otherwise you don't, and you're just giving broad, easy conjecture.

It's easy to look down on people. My personal ethic is that anything easy, unless it is for pleasure, is likely working against what you should be working towards.

And you didn't answer my question.


----------



## The Tourist (Oct 3, 2013)

Cadence said:


> And you didn't answer my question.



And frankly I don't think you've read my responses.  I've typed the same blasted thing half a dozen times.  I think you're trolling, just arguing for the fun of arguing.

But here's my final word, read what you want.


----------

