# Social Commentary in Your Writing



## Trollheart (Sep 19, 2019)

I think it would be fair to say that most, maybe even all of us write to be published, and to that end, write as if we are going to be published. By this I mean we write in the hope (vain or otherwise) that one day someone else - hopefully a lot of someone elses - will read what we've written.

So, picking up on a subject hinted at some time earlier by ironpony, do you think it's important to include social commentary in your writings, and do you, or do you shy from it? I usually try to address some issue in my own stories, though of course not always, and even then it's not always overt and in your face. Racism, sexism, terrorism, corruption, madness, senility, loss... all these and many more are issues we can draw attention to, or reference when we write. So I just wonder, do you consider this when writing, or do you actively try to stay away from it? Obviously, every story/novel is different, but just in general, I mean.


----------



## Amnesiac (Sep 19, 2019)

I'm writing a novel in which the MC is an anti-hero. He keeps a running commentary in his head on social issues like "career panhandlers," and he begins mining his fellow workers' social media accounts for leverage. One of his observations is quoting Thomas Jefferson, "An armed society is a polite society," and so forth and so on... For this particular character, I think it works. It also reveals that, although he's an asshole, to his logic, it makes sense.

Basically, if you choose to include social commentary, it's best (IMHO) that: 1. It serves the story. 2. It doesn't come off as preachy.


----------



## Umree (Sep 19, 2019)

I think all writing can provide social commentary if you wait long enough. Everything written at a specific time offers a snapshot of that time period and includes at least some commentary on a current event or lifestyle. Even if you try to avoid it, I bet that 50 years from now a freshman English class may analyze your work looking for overviews of what life was like back in the good ol' pre-2020s.

Like Kurt Vonnegut once said, "Don't write about yourself, at least if you want to write fast. You'll be writing about yourself anyway, you just won't know it"
You always include social commentary, even if you're actively trying to avoid it in your work.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Sep 19, 2019)

This is one of those things I intentionally try to include whenever possible. As umree said somewhat like this. Very late into the process I insert something in it. Since I usually write science ficiton I look for the political issues. One of my weaknesses is including some humanity in the characters. To make the reader care and identify with a character not through suffering necessarily but through likability. The best fantasy imo tries to moralize the issues in today's world. Like jewels of the forest by fritz leiber. It politicizes forests. It's a value imo when we make social commentary. It's also a part of the theme, the moral argument if you will. Do people become worse after going into prison? You bet they do. Some people need humane prison conditions. Mental illness abounds in prisons. Suffering shouldn't always be the right answer. The moment some people believe in taking away a life of a prisoner is because of the inefficiencies of the prison system. (retaliation to victims of a family is the I.E.)

Science fiction has social commentary often. Some consider it a literary genre or commercial or escapist. Some don't consider it literature. But it can illuminate the human condition which is how you write about theme. It's one of those take away points. Why is the story I am writing about important? How does it educate the public? Mind you little kids should be reading. I wish I could write to their audience. I feel like I am meandering writing through a story pointlessly when I abandon the theme.  Am I good externalizing it? I am not really sure. I don't try to sound preachy when I give it a try. For example, I've written about by opinions and the evils of patents as a theme for a story or my arguments.

Stories make us human. We need them for the social condition. I can argue that it isn't enough to simply entertain, but all art sells even though it may be appalling to our tastes.

People want to feel human. All story turns out to be social commentary at least imo.


----------



## Aquilo (Sep 19, 2019)

Yeah, I agree with umtree. I think every novel includes at least some degree of it, with the likes of _Animal Farm _being at the hard end of the scale.


----------



## Trollheart (Sep 19, 2019)

@Umree: one of the best uses, I believe, of social commentary without beating you over the head with it was the film _Silent Running_. Given that there was, pretty much after the first act, only one human character, I think it did an amazing job of making us think about ecological issues in the future, and presented two sides of the story really well. Had a great ending too, if somewhat (who am I kidding? I was bawling!) heartbreaking.

Other series that used issues of the day and (usually) did it well: _Star Trek _(mostly _Next Gen_ and _DS9_), _Babylon 5_ and _Battlestar Galactica _(the reboot, obviously). I'm sure there are plenty of others. Sci-fi gives a writer a chance to view the social issues of the day through the lens of history, like when in I think it was _Timeless_, they went back to 1930s America and the black character was arrested for picking up a white woman's handbag and "daring to talk to her". He couldn't understand it, and for us, knowing it had been like that, it was both shameful to remember and relieving to think that, mostly, that sort of attitude is now long gone. Mostly, I said, Mister Trump.


----------



## andrewclunn (Sep 19, 2019)

I personally love writing from perspectives that are vilified or actually marginalized.  A half-breed doctoral student lamenting the difficulty of dealing with their mixed racial identity?  How tired and lame.  A death row inmate unrepentant for his life of crime?  Now that's a view worth taking a look at!  Of course writing about something you know absolutely nothing about is a sure fire way to create garbage, but I dismiss notions of "authenticity" as if no artist or person should ever attempt to empathize with any other person's perspective for fear of misrepresenting it.

Of course if you write about a subject without actually presenting a realistic perspective on it, then get ready for a snooze fest.  Want to talk about racism?  Try having a character actually face racial discrimination without so much heavy handed author narration disguised as the character's inner monologue.  Or better yet, have a racist protagonist!  Now you're really getting into it.  Of course most "social commentary" rises to the level of "X thing is wrong or not wrong and I need to EDUCATE my readers into the correct opinion and should not explore these subjects any further for fear of it hurting my intended effect with nuance and realistic characters."

It's not that social commentary is bad, it's that the current wave of holier than thou Mary Sues in so much media (including written work) leaves a poor taste in the mouth of anyone who wants something real, true, and emotionally impactful from the things they read.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Sep 19, 2019)

Presenting both sides of the argument is worth mentioning again to emphasize why I think it can help us write theme. You've got to believe in the winning argument. It's something only you could think off. What are your convictions and beliefs? Basically in the story anything the character might be willing to sacrifice something for.

I don't necessarily mean essays, we can accidentally discover them if we have very big opinions concerning certain subjects that are strong. Our experiences inform us of what we live. Maybe this is the passion of writing something worthwhile. Movies are built of themes. They want you to take away a message. I would say stories aren't visually intensive but they have the same potential as movies. They are competing for people's attention like movies.


----------



## seigfried007 (Sep 19, 2019)

What Umree said. 

I don't think it's avoidable so much as inevitable. Eventually, everything becomes commentary--intentionally or otherwise. 

That said, I don't shy from it. Better to be offensive than boring. Better to sharpen a mind than dull it. Better to inspire conversation instead of silence.


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (Sep 19, 2019)

I like to write satire so yes, I do want to write commentary in my writings. My one unpublished novella deals with a reporter's experience in Hell and I certainly cover religion, or at least the way humans distort it in their own ways, in that book.When I do start writing for real again, I hope to tackle some of the age old conspiracy theories out there.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Sep 19, 2019)

I frequently include social commentary, as well as cultural references.
The story I sent in this morning was about a pig-like race that plants humans on planets to terraform it, turn it into a pigpen so the Pig-people can move in.
Apparently the humans have a perfect record of doing this...they have made a pig sty out of every world they have been used on.
But this one single time, the humans of a small blue planet have failed in their design.
And that is the irony (and fiction) of the story...that humans fix their environment.


----------



## Trollheart (Sep 19, 2019)

andrewclunn said:


> Or better yet, have a racist protagonist!  Now you're really getting into it.


Got one of those. 


Theglasshouse said:


> Presenting both sides of the argument is worth mentioning again to emphasize why I think it can help us write theme. You've got to believe in the winning argument. It's something only you could think off. What are your convictions and beliefs? Basically in the story anything the character might be willing to sacrifice something for.
> 
> I don't necessarily mean essays, we can accidentally discover them if we have very big opinions concerning certain subjects that are strong. Our experiences inform us of what we live. Maybe this is the passion of writing something worthwhile. Movies are built of themes. They want you to take away a message. I would say stories aren't visually intensive but they have the same potential as movies. They are competing for people's attention like movies.


I also think it's invigorating to have your character (MC or otherwise) be, or seem to be, or being unable to avoid being swayed by the arguments of the "bad guy" as to why his view is right, a kind of (for the sake of simplicity, and to borrow from Aquilo's idea) Jack the Ripper explaining how he's actually performing a social service, and how his "work" results in the police being more diligent and the plight of prostitutes being highlighted. 


seigfried007 said:


> What Umree said.
> 
> I don't think it's avoidable so much as inevitable. Eventually, everything becomes commentary--intentionally or otherwise.
> 
> That said, I don't shy from it. Better to be offensive than boring. Better to sharpen a mind than dull it. Better to inspire conversation instead of silence.


The same as it's better to be a band who writes about deep issues than one that only writes love and party songs. Even if the latter make more money.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Sep 19, 2019)

I remember reading somewhere that some quotes and aphorisms are good sources of themes (what I like to refer as social commentary; however sometimes people write from theme first). I bought some books on the subject of what is a theme over the years. Which for me means something if it reflects can be something you must prove. Sometimes the argument is polemical and you need to prove it. Where's your reasoning "behind all that glitters" is gold. It could be that appearances are deceiving. Fiction with monsters can reflect these themes. Its from Shakespeare. We can say first impressions are full of deception. Or the physical and emotional appearance. Are beautiful things worth justifying only because of happiness? What if you take happiness out of the thought of it being beautiful? How does that worsen the argument? It ceases to be something you can say is worth pursuing.  When you create something or anything admired should it be destroyed? For fear people will see beauty in a person's ideas. Whichever way we interpret it. It can lead to some creativity if planned. Then you think you believe it you could always try writing a situation full of conflict. Some news stories are themes of life. When revenge is something covered in a newspaper. Or when someone becomes a martyr for a cause. But in remembering the martyr they build a statue and could end up wanting to not depict this person. It reminds me of a news story not long ago which I read. The religious fundamentalism idea is based on this somewhat. When people need to prove something they can try to use experience. Those were the terrible September 11 consequences. Social commentary will make for compelling reasons for me at least to write what I want.


----------



## Rojack79 (Sep 19, 2019)

My whole story is one big social commentary on how to treat each other. It's also a story about the dangers of unrestrained science in the hands of those not worthy of wielding it.


----------



## Ma'am (Sep 19, 2019)

I don't recall deliberately writing fiction as social commentary but I'm sure my opinions/concerns/whatever get included anyway.


----------



## Cephus (Sep 19, 2019)

It depends on how it's done. There's nothing wrong with putting in social commentary that serves the story and doesn't overwhelm the plot. There's everything wrong with stuffing social commentary into a story that effectively is the plot. As soon as it becomes heavy-handed and preachy, that's where a lot of people sign out. I don't think I ever purposely include social commentary, but that's not the audience or the subject matter I'm writing. I write for people to enjoy it, not to learn anything.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Sep 19, 2019)

An art without a theme is impossible. In a painting there is a subject. Social commentary if I tried hard to say something agreeable to others and to me at least is the stretching of the writer's voice. Because we it gives a personality to a work. The difference between theme and social commentary will vary with each person. But some of the Pulitzer prizes if not all in fiction isn't for entertainment purely (one award was for autism when there was no diagnosis, another one I am not sure was a work that seemed to me to be about old age). Literature teachers teach this sort of literature. Raymond bradbury's Fahrenheit 99 teaches kids things important about society. About where would we be without books? Thus where is your voice. Ursula had it since she was a feminist and started science fiction even though her credentials sold her work as well. But look at the career it spawned and of people after her? She won the national book award. Speaking of the current times helps the reader care about issues. It's had undeniable effect on readers and people who are influential. Maybe those who give those awards have agendas, but they will not give a award without caring about the world at large and when literature is taught in schools. It is meant to teach things. Empower a minority, make a novel on Indians and injustice. Time magazine made a reputation on caring about larger than world issues.  They wrote about the injustices of native american indians. When you speak your mind about a subject it should move someone who is reading your book. So far it seems that is the purpose of those awards. Whether you believe it helps a writer is not for me to decide for anyone to make up their minds about. I can try to convince. There is a history and body of work showing evidence of what readers and writers or both do like. It's in history. Erase the stigma of divides, and you can probably win new readers. You'd make them a fan maybe.


Though for entertainment anything sells. Work is up to personal taste. It is true a story's writer can have other priorities imo. But to me this makes sense. I can't speak about others.  I am speaking about what I think. This is my experience. So to me what makes sense make not have logic for someone else.

People can be bored. Stories have innate a power in them since cave dwellers. Also don't forget about the oral telling of stories and far back into the past. What can change an opinion of a book can be as simple as showing you have some personal conviction and opinion. Maybe there is a big difference between how hollywood treats theme and social commentary.  In either case I like to see a voice that has something important to say. Instead of having nothing to say and be quiet and the voice doesn't have a good impact.

That's what they look for in magazines it seems to me based on rejections. They want something positive about the world and a happy ending.

I bet if you support a community they will buy your books. Maybe charities will even help you promote it. How's that for marketing your work?


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 19, 2019)

I loathe social commentary that tries to be social commentary. Had its day years ago, now it's usually just an excuse for pretentious philosophy-students-with-a-day-job-at-pizza-hut to spout off some mish-mash of politics and/or existentialist birdseed under the roughest pretense of a story. The kind of people who read a little Dostoevsky once and now think they're enlightened. The vast majority of overtly modern 'poltiical' novels I come across have no characters, no plot, no real sense of setting or time, and no heart. They smell of Ax body spray, oven fries, Jordan Peterson, cans of Mountain Dew, unwashed scrotums, and middle-class privilege.  

The great irony, of course, is that all good stories are social commentary. In order to write well, you have to capture people accurately. When you capture people accurately, you end up capturing society (your society) accurately, and when you do that well - you start to create a commentary, even if you don't mean to. 

A novel like Pride & Prejudice has a ton of sharp points about 18th century social customs and morality. It can be read as a social commentary novel, but I don't believe Austen ever intended her book to be like that. Certainly it doesn't have to be read that way. She doesn't wax into allegories or rants or anything. It's just the product of some inspired writing.

No doubt a few novels are really good at overt social commentary. Dickens, most obviously. Victor Hugo. Orwell, another obvious one (I particularly recommend "Keep The Aspidistra Flying' and 'The Road To Wigan Pier' - much better than 1984 or Animal Farm), Atwood's Handmaid's Tale, that sort of thing. But all of these are primarily good books. They have fascinating characters, creative worlds, all the things that matter much more to most readers. They aren't solely, or even mostly, about the _commentary._


----------



## Theglasshouse (Sep 20, 2019)

You shouldn't tell your thoughts to the reader. It's a case of show and tell applied as nuanced brush strokes in a story. Subtle nuances. Political novels are a broad category and shouldn't preach anything. You write often because you have something to say (imo as for me the reason to write) and in some cases people prefer entertainment. But overt examples of political novels violating this rule that are bad can't possibly extol the virtues or positive qualities of what makes good fiction great. As social commentary can give a theme an opinion of the writer and a story depth. Fiction is a fictive dream that has sub-context and should try to imo reach for a higher message. It can't be interrupted by messages of the narrator explaining in detail why the world's social and political issues are ruining the world.  When I think of political causes I don't necessarily think of it as social commentary. It's applying a theme. More direct explorations are considered contrite of fiction. I think there is a confusion with saying political novels tell a lot. The characters serve as the backdrop to any story social, manners, political, science fiction and so on. Poor characterization isn't because of the exploration of a theme. Because if you try to fit a theme, into your story. It represents a class of people, maybe even personalities. A novel with a theme should be unpredictable. Because of complaining of characterization of say science fiction stories is an unfair complaint. People can write whatever they want. But writing with an approach to instill values is not what I am trying to say. Art according to a famous philosopher called John Dewey educates. He may have been the most important educational philosopher in that area (the arts).

Social commentary is a by product of our intentions coming across subtly, and also the same goes for other fiction when written correctly. Because like umree was saying all good fiction is social commentary, or leads to as anyone might want to say to an unintended effect on the audience. But that extends to a big misnomer. Political novels can be any genre. Almost any to my mind.

When I write my own. I don't politicize. I use allegories since I write fiction or a metaphor for experiences in story. Of course that means you can add meaning.

The future is yet to come yet I write to make a point by showing the social commentary of what the future will look like. Things like that. While fantasy employs it in the plot.
That's a different context for social commentary one would expect. The definition suggests it applies to all novels.


> *Social commentary can very broadly be understood as expressing an opinion on society. In film, it can be used both implicitly and explicitly and every genre has its own approach to incorporate commentary. Comedies may use humor to take on real-life issues in the form of satire*


https://picturemotion.com/blog/why-horror-films-can-make-for-the-best-social-commentary

I think when things get misunderstood is when the style of a writer gets in the way of telling the lie that must be hidden and then they destroy the artifice. But saying my novel will be about this.

By using no deductive logic to explain the definition this became my own personal opinion since there's no one accurate definition for all phenoma of social commentary in many genres. There's social commentary novels very old and the examples today have new genres that have been added. Then there is social commentary. Social and political novels as according to definitions in different genres such as drama.

Charles dickens believed in social commentary since he wrote about poverty, illness, and the injustice of government. It is not propaganda. One needs to indirect in exploring themes if that helps. 

I say all fiction is social commentary because its about an opinion. Characters need societal conflict, that is often what moves the plot of a novel.



> Rebellion—against family expectations, social norms, governing bodies, and the like—is one of the most common themes in literature. When one or more characters rebels against the expected behaviors or codified structures of their society, this is called the character vs. society conflict.



An excerpt from margaret atwood (master class) who has won booker prizes for the blind assassin maybe another novel which is a "social novel." But that has science fiction elements. Not to mention her book about the handmaid's tale. Who supposedly writes social commentary in its many incarnations (appearances). She's a divisive writer though who refuses to label her work science fiction. To be fair and yet readers will decide those labels.

So according to that person any opinion is fair game when considered social commentary in any fictive work.

History will repeat itself by seeing such commentary in novels. Some are invisible, but a lot of good novels do in fact have a theme. That can share an opinion by fictionalizing the situation.


----------



## bdcharles (Sep 20, 2019)

Trollheart said:


> I think it would be fair to say that most, maybe even all of us write to be published, and to that end, write as if we are going to be published. By this I mean we write in the hope (vain or otherwise) that one day someone else - hopefully a lot of someone elses - will read what we've written.
> 
> So, picking up on a subject hinted at some time earlier by ironpony, do you think it's important to include social commentary in your writings, and do you, or do you shy from it? I usually try to address some issue in my own stories, though of course not always, and even then it's not always overt and in your face. Racism, sexism, terrorism, corruption, madness, senility, loss... all these and many more are issues we can draw attention to, or reference when we write. So I just wonder, do you consider this when writing, or do you actively try to stay away from it? Obviously, every story/novel is different, but just in general, I mean.



I don't shy away from it but I would be hesitsant to call it "commentary". That's too preachy for me. Instead, whole setting about their narrative doings my characters simply go through things that other people might go through, and the idea is that those characters both demonstrate, via the plot, the problem and a possible solution. But I try to minimise any monologguing about it. The key to enagaging the readers, imo, is to get the characters as relatable as possible, and then get them to act in as realistic a way as possible. This includes any antagonists, so the problem can then be fully understood. Stick all this in fantasy dragon land and then hopefully no-one will know that it's really a manual showing how to deal with such and such a situation 

I do find that social commentary elements help me when the plot gets a bit meh though. I can have a whole subplot about, say, male suicide, even as Epic War [SUP](TM)[/SUP] looms.


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 20, 2019)

The thing is, that unless you have an original take, nobody gives an Edwardian enema about _commentary. _That's why I typically hate it so much. That's one of the big reasons why so many publishers want minority voices and everybody else bitches. But it's not about anybody actually favoring Polynesian Lesbians or Transgender Muslims or whatever, it's about the fact that there are far too many people ranting about 'society' and most of it comes from the same general crowd. A crowd who, all too often, has a very limited, one-sided view.

There's such a glut of opinions out there - not just in fiction, but in the media generally - and so few of them are original or interesting or both that the endless procession of writers who Have Something To Say becomes tiresome. There's far more opinion in the world than interest demands. Now, if a writer has something really important to say AND dreams up a method of delivery that is also a good story, there's always a market for that. 

The big problem, though, is when you set out to write a story with some sort of specific message in mind, the result is usually pretty crap. The simple reason for that is no well-written story ever ends up the way it is first imagined. Good characters have their own agency, certain plot points that sound good in an outline turn out not to work or - ooh! - a better one pops into your head. The process of writing is the process of letting characters breathe, and breathing is a volatile thing. When you write with a preformed conclusion ("I want this story to be about the evil influences of Christianity on society") you inevitably will end up manipulating much of the narrative and character development to fit the brief. I don't think that's a good idea.


----------



## Aquilo (Sep 20, 2019)

I think it's like with anything: done very well, it overtly fires the reader's brain cells to make the connections, done badly, it assumes the reader has no brain cells only an 'insert author opinion here' sign sticking out the ears. I love subtlety, even if my brain cells are missing a few spark plugs at times.


----------



## bdcharles (Sep 20, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> The thing is, that unless you have an original take, nobody gives an Edwardian enema about _commentary. _That's why I typically hate it so much. That's one of the big reasons why so many publishers want minority voices and everybody else bitches. But it's not about anybody actually favoring Polynesian Lesbians or Transgender Muslims or whatever, it's about the fact that there are far too many people ranting about 'society' and most of it comes from the same general crowd. A crowd who, all too often, has a very limited, one-sided view.
> 
> There's such a glut of opinions out there - not just in fiction, but in the media generally - and so few of them are original or interesting or both that the endless procession of writers who Have Something To Say becomes tiresome. There's far more opinion in the world than interest demands. Now, if a writer has something really important to say AND dreams up a method of delivery that is also a good story, there's always a market for that.
> 
> The big problem, though, is when you set out to write a story with some sort of specific message in mind, the result is usually pretty crap. The simple reason for that is no well-written story ever ends up the way it is first imagined. Good characters have their own agency, certain plot points that sound good in an outline turn out not to work or - ooh! - a better one pops into your head. The process of writing is the process of letting characters breathe, and breathing is a volatile thing. When you write with a preformed conclusion ("I want this story to be about the evil influences of Christianity on society") you inevitably will end up manipulating much of the narrative and character development to fit the brief. I don't think that's a good idea.



It depends what we mean by "commentary" and how we comment. You have something to say here, so it could be worthwhile to dream up a method of delivery for it that's also a good story, or part of one. Why not pick from the other side and redo that limited, one-sided paradigm? You never know - some people might read it and learn something. I'd be game. Right now I think there is a need for multiple sides of every situation to be out there, calmly but passionately, and novels are a relatively conflict-free way of doing that. At the very least it can give writers some extra off-the-shelf drama and depth. Of course if you don't care for the opinions of the opinion (or its holder) you can give their character a little grim fortune to lighten your load.  That's what I do with niche opinions and uncomfortable conclusions I might dredge up from my 2AM subconscious - come daybreak I simply give them to some bastard antihero or antagonist to sink or swim with.

My thinking is that opinions might not be original but they might be current, and the nuances of them may be familiar to one generation but not another. In other words, worth re-exploring now and again. But I entirely agree that writing with these messages foremost in mind can easily go full overt/preachy mode, which is ... usually a bit shit. I just stick mine to a character to prattle on about from time to time while getting on with the more important business of escaping into super mythic dragonland and battling beasties.


----------



## Dluuni (Sep 20, 2019)

My _existence_ is viewed as social commentary. I can't _not_ include what will be seen as social commentary. If I write about characters like myself acting normally, it's a social comment.
So I don't worry about it.


----------



## Trollheart (Sep 20, 2019)

I guess it's all about how heavy-handed you are with it. In a lot of the original (and later) Star Trek, you didn't need Kirk or Picard or whoever giving a homily at the end, basically explaining, underlining or hammering home the point. Yeah, I get it man: war is bad, complacency is bad, discrimination is bad. I can make those determinations for myself, I don't need someone grabbing me by the arm and saying "Look! See! THIS is what I was saying! See how i said it? How clever I was? Aren't you glad now I showed you that rape is evil (or whatever)?" Gimme a break.

But if it's subtle, it can work. Maybe Dickens did it best. He never actually SAID sending kids out to thieve or treating the poor like shit was bad, but you definitely got the message through both his scenarios and through the characters.

The worst I ever saw was in a comic, where a Russian submarine shot at a flying saucer and was destroyed by it. The  smug American captain of another sub opined "Typical! If that Commie sub hadn't fired at that flying saucer, it wouldn't have attacked him." I wonder where the message is there? I've been searching for ... oh. Never mind.
:hopelessness:


----------



## bdcharles (Sep 20, 2019)

I think one of the best social commentaries is the movie _Gremlins_. Yes, _Gremlins_. It's a Cold War / East-vs-West allegorical parody, with unsuspecting yet overly gore-happy Americans beset at every turn by both their own fondness for cute fluffies, and by armies of yammering, funny-eyed critters (and their decidedly Far Eastern handlers) who are not to be trusted but feared. Watch this fun, accessible and smart satire-slash-homage with this lens. In an era of reboots, someone should reboot this and, gosh, take some national tension levels down a notch or something.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Sep 20, 2019)

Social commentary sells.
That's what editors and agents mean when they say they are looking for _'timely material.'_


----------



## Trollheart (Sep 20, 2019)

I guess everyone likes to read stuff they can relate to. Probably why Meyer has such a big following, and why _Buffy_ was so popular: kids look and say "oh hey! I go through those very same issues!" and can then identify more easily with the characters. It's also, I believe, one of the major reasons why_ GoT _was so successful on TV. Sure, the books have a massive following, but who would have guessed that a basically high fantasy series would pull in such a diverse audience? And it's not only the violence (though there's plenty of that) or the sex (ditto). I think people relate(d) to it because, take away some of the fantasy elements and you could almost be talking about people you know. One person summed it up very well on TV: "they talk just like us!" When you can relate to something, see something of yourself in it, you're going to engage with and therefore enjoy it more. Or so I believe.

So a story set in a totally fantasy world, or on a distant planet or in a time far in the future or the past will of course be interesting to some, many in fact, but won't appeal to a wider demographic, to whom it will have no relation. I guess that's why crime dramas do so well; they're based in a world we all inhabit every day, and the underlying theme is "this could happen to you or in your town". That makes it more attractive, even if it makes it slightly scarier.


----------



## bdcharles (Sep 21, 2019)

Trollheart said:


> So a story set in a totally fantasy world, or on a distant planet or in a time far in the future or the past will of course be interesting to some, many in fact, but won't appeal to a wider demographic, to whom it will have no relation.



It can do - the characters and situations can still be relatable despite happening in some other land.


----------



## CyberWar (Sep 21, 2019)

I think my favourite theme to comment on in my works is the base, animal nature of human beings along with the fleeting character of the benefits of civilization, and all the things that people these days take for granted and feel entitled to.

Somebody once said that even in the most advanced society, chaos and anarchy is never more than a few missed meals away. So it's easy to talk about high and noble moral principles and look down upon those who don't have them on a full stomach from the safety of one's warm home far away from conflict and danger. But when the proverbial shit finally hits the fan, all those so-called principles and morals, all that thin veneer of civility, instantly goes out the window and man reverts to his true, animalistic and savage nature to survive. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, as those who cling to their preconceived notions of propriety don't usually survive the breakdown of civilized society whose existence is the prerequisite for these notions to be valid.

Which is why my works at first generally tend to pass for bleak, grimdark and nihilistic. Everyone is cynical and oftentimes corrupt if not downright evil in some form, even the protagonists being barely better than the villains. But what if that really is just the natural state of humanity? If ruthless, amoral self-interest in a never-ending cycle of Darwinian competition is what enables one to survive, why even view it as a bad thing? Why not embrace it? What if the never-ending battle for survival of the fittest is what being alive is really all about?


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 21, 2019)

CyberWar said:


> Which is why my works at first generally tend to pass for bleak, grimdark and nihilistic. Everyone is cynical and oftentimes corrupt if not downright evil in some form, even the protagonists being barely better than the villains. But what if that really is just the natural state of humanity? If ruthless, amoral self-interest in a never-ending cycle of Darwinian competition is what enables one to survive, why even view it as a bad thing? Why not embrace it? What if the never-ending battle for survival of the fittest is what being alive is really all about?



Whether or not it’s the natural state of humanity is irrelevant. That’s a psychology or sociology question. Social commentary is about saying something new. 

What is new about saying “people are self-serving bastards and that’s it”? Nothing. Even novels that are essentially explorations of nihilism, something like A Clockwork Orange say, have to show humans as being more than just ruthless and amoral. Otherwise all you are left with in terms of story material is shock, and that is invariably boring as shit. 

I haven’t read your work...but, assuming you’re a good writer, I doubt your stories are as straightforward as you say. If they are I would maybe revisit that. Stories that focus on bleakness are fine, but there has to be an emotional core, a heart, a sense of moral complexity and struggle.


----------



## seigfried007 (Sep 21, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> Whether or not it’s the natural state of humanity is irrelevant. That’s a psychology or sociology question. Social commentary is about saying something new.
> 
> What is new about saying “people are self-serving bastards and that’s it”? Nothing. Even novels that are essentially explorations of nihilism, something like A Clockwork Orange say, have to show humans as being more than just ruthless and amoral. Otherwise all you are left with in terms of story material is shock, and that is invariably boring as shit.
> 
> I haven’t read your work...but, assuming you’re a good writer, I doubt your stories are as straightforward as you say. If they are I would maybe revisit that. Stories that focus on bleakness are fine, but there has to be an emotional core, a heart, a sense of moral complexity and struggle.



"The struggle is real."

Without it, there's no story, no conflict, nothing to read about. Becomes shock value and depressive navel gazing.


----------



## Trollheart (Sep 21, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> Whether or not it’s the natural state of humanity is irrelevant. That’s a psychology or sociology question. Social commentary is about saying something new.
> 
> What is new about saying “people are self-serving bastards and that’s it”? Nothing. Even novels that are essentially explorations of nihilism, something like A Clockwork Orange say, have to show humans as being more than just ruthless and amoral. Otherwise all you are left with in terms of story material is shock, and that is invariably boring as shit.
> 
> *I haven’t read your work...but, assuming you’re a good writer, I doubt your stories are as straightforward as you say.* If they are I would maybe revisit that. Stories that focus on bleakness are fine, but there has to be an emotional core, a heart, a sense of moral complexity and struggle.


Take my word for it (or don't; read them) they're not, and he is. I've enjoyed his writing the most of anything so far that I've read here. In fact, I'd go so far as to say they're the most enjoyable I've read in a long time, full stop (period to you 'Muricans). Well worth a read. Total talent.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Sep 22, 2019)

Speaking of social commentary, I'm watching the new season of The Ranch, and one of the characters is suffering from opioid addiction. That would qualify as timely material.

Part of writing, even fiction, is a writer making comment on their world. Sometimes we do it in a direct manner, other times we parody the real world. Social commentary is a key component to making your work timely.


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 22, 2019)

Ralph Rotten said:


> Speaking of social commentary, I'm watching the new season of The Ranch, and one of the characters is suffering from opioid addiction. That would qualify as timely material.
> 
> Part of writing, even fiction, is a writer making comment on their world. Sometimes we do it in a direct manner, other times we parody the real world. Social commentary is a key component to making your work timely.



I think that form of social commentary is fine. Necessary even. 

In the novel I am working on, set in 2017, the main character is a troubled loser, a drug-addict and petty criminal. He's also a Millennial (an older one) - mid-thirties, lower middle class, white - and it was important for the story to make sense that he was identifiable and authentic. For that reason, I picked his drug-of-choice to be methamphetamine and other 'topical' narcotics and his line-of-crime as being scamming pension funds from the elderly, because most younger people now will be more familiar with these forms of chemical addiction and crime. If I'd made him a drunk or a crack fiend, a la eighties Stephen King, it would have jarred because young people these days tend to drink less and it's not a vice that is necessarily as identifiable or as polarizing. Likewise if I'd had him steal car stereos or rob banks or trains. People these days among this demographic...don't do that very often.

So...I think there's an important difference between social commentary being done passively and actively. Active social commentary seeks to educate, on some level. The Dickens stuff, the Atwood stuff, the Orwell stuff. That's writing 'with a message', writing about [issue]. Sometimes it works, often it doesn't, and its certainly not necessary to write a good story. Passive social commentary is just recognizing the zeitgeist accurately and reflecting it in the characters and setting.


----------



## Cephus (Sep 22, 2019)

Ralph Rotten said:


> Speaking of social commentary, I'm watching the new season of The Ranch, and one of the characters is suffering from opioid addiction. That would qualify as timely material.
> 
> Part of writing, even fiction, is a writer making comment on their world. Sometimes we do it in a direct manner, other times we parody the real world. Social commentary is a key component to making your work timely.



I don't even consider that social commentary most of the time. It's just a story element that happens to be timely. When I say bad social commentary, it's spending the whole show going "drugs are bad, mkay?" every five minutes.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Sep 22, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> I think that form of social commentary is fine. Necessary even.
> 
> In the novel I am working on, set in 2017, the main character is a troubled loser, a drug-addict and petty criminal. He's also a Millennial (an older one) - mid-thirties, lower middle class, white - and it was important for the story to make sense that he was identifiable and authentic. For that reason, I picked his drug-of-choice to be methamphetamine and other 'topical' narcotics and his line-of-crime as being scamming pension funds from the elderly, because most younger people now will be more familiar with these forms of chemical addiction and crime. If I'd made him a drunk or a crack fiend, a la eighties Stephen King, it would have jarred because young people these days tend to drink less and it's not a vice that is necessarily as identifiable or as polarizing. Likewise if I'd had him steal car stereos or rob banks or trains. People these days among this demographic...don't do that very often.
> 
> So...I think there's an important difference between social commentary being done passively and actively. Active social commentary seeks to educate, on some level. The Dickens stuff, the Atwood stuff, the Orwell stuff. That's writing 'with a message', writing about [issue]. Sometimes it works, often it doesn't, and its certainly not necessary to write a good story. Passive social commentary is just recognizing the zeitgeist accurately and reflecting it in the characters and setting.




Meth is a 2005 drug. Opioids are a whole other family of drugs.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Sep 22, 2019)

Cephus said:


> I don't even consider that social commentary most of the time. It's just a story element that happens to be timely. When I say bad social commentary, it's spending the whole show going "drugs are bad, mkay?" every five minutes.




Then you have a definition issue.


----------



## Winston (Sep 22, 2019)

A certain percentage of the population carries the Don Quixote gene.  They gotta tilt at every windmill they see.
When these people write, this recessive trait manifests itself when social commentary and editorializing gets inserted in places where it has no logical place.  

I'm mature enough that when I see this, it doesn't bother me.  But it does show a lack of attention and respect to one's craft.
To assume that your readers are malleable sheep-like creatures that you can mold and direct with your superior writing skills is the height of hubris and progressive dogmatic nonsense. 
Entertainment and exploration, good.  Sectarian bloviating, bad.  Respect your reader, respect your work, and don't pollute them with ham-fisted nonsense.


----------



## Cephus (Sep 22, 2019)

Ralph Rotten said:


> Then you have a definition issue.



Someone does anyhow.


----------



## Irwin (Sep 22, 2019)

Social commentary is fine as long as it's not preachy, which it often is.  :encouragement:


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 23, 2019)

Irwin said:


> Social commentary is fine as long as it's not preachy, which it often is.  :encouragement:



Define 'preachy'. It's probably harder than you think...


----------



## seigfried007 (Sep 23, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> Define 'preachy'. It's probably harder than you think...


One person's "truth" is another person's "propaganda." "Commentary" is easily viewed as "sermonizing." 

Not sure where the threshold even for individuals is between "This thing illuminates some aspect of human life" and "I wanted a story--not a sermon." I suspect it's somewhere between "This author has a strong opinion," and "This author does not acknowledge the validity of differing opinions."


----------



## JustRob (Sep 23, 2019)

Theglasshouse said:


> You shouldn't tell your thoughts to the reader. It's a case of show and tell applied as nuanced brush strokes in a story. Subtle nuances.



Quite so. A story may imply social comments within particular readers' minds by what it shows but that is distinct from openly declaring them. In my solitary novel where I felt that the story line was leaning too much towards a particular interpretation I made a character act as devil's advocate to neutralise the imbalance. Below is an extract from the novel at a point where the characters are stranded outside of time in the time capsule called the Pumpkin because they have acquired information about future events which could seriously disrupt the course of events if they returned to present reality and revealed it to others. Their leader Adrian suspects that it isn't what they know but what they intend to do with that knowledge that is stopping them from returning to reality, so the solution may simply lie within their own thoughts. The social aspect is that many readers might think that simply making promises in one's own mind can't be expected in itself to affect events if there is no-one on some ethereal plane to hear them, i.e. God.



> ‘Perhaps you should just tell us what you’re suggesting that we do now, Adrian, and see if that makes sense to us.’
> 
> ‘Okay, I suggest that we decide which information we could reasonably take back to reality and which knowledge we should forget, or at least decide never to reveal for a very long time. If we all agree on the same items and convince ourselves that we’ll stick to our intentions, then if my theory is right we may shift the balance of probabilities and create a possible future for ourselves. I think that’s all it takes, but from C-C’s embarrassing experiences in the past we know that the Pumpkin reads even our subconscious thoughts, so we have to convince ourselves completely, not just pay lip service to the idea.’
> 
> ...



In effect here Yvonne was speaking for the reader, asking the question that I suspect they might ask the writer if they could. I think that it makes sense to view the reader as an imagined character who is effectively involved in a dialogue with the writer through the characters in the story acting as surrogates. In my implied dialogue with the reader I am stating that they can regard the events as having religious implications if they wish but that is not my explicit intention, so I am not making any social comment.


----------



## Amnesiac (Sep 23, 2019)

I think Chuck Palahniuk's novels are excellent in the way he paints social commentary. At times, it can feel like being clubbed over the head, but the for the most part, he's pretty good at painting with a lighter brushstroke, as it were.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Sep 23, 2019)

I know I haven't read your novel Just Rob. But if he is stuck in a different reality that can see the future like the garden of eden then he is in a paradise? Does this mean when he leaves he is mortal? Thanks for posting your novel excerpt. It may be "fantasy" but it got me thinking. I know your point was about your intentions. I agree with your point because even if we don't write with social commentary in mind. It's an effect of our writing background. It's a product of culture the environment and more. It seems to be a feeling we care about or emotion that is hidden. When done when being obvious it cannot work even in good hands.

The difference is compared to some other people is that sometimes I like to hide it like an Easter egg without commenting what it means. To make the reader guess. That's even though I plot it out with a social issue as the theme. I also agree that it must be when more obvious than an easter egg or clue, that it should be plotted out as a conflict. I haven't read many opinions on the conflict (based on a social problem) in this thread. If the conflict is based on the theme, would this be a good idea? Plays need themes to appeal to social issues for instance.


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 23, 2019)

Amnesiac said:


> I think Chuck Palahniuk's novels are excellent in the way he paints social commentary. At times, it can feel like being clubbed over the head, but the for the most part, he's pretty good at painting with a lighter brushstroke, as it were.



It's a very selective commentary, though, isn't it? I mean, I agree, Palahniuk is a good writer and he does capture a certain...perspective. But it all basically comes down to a certain generation, class, and demographic, and one that is frankly over-represented in a lot of social commentary: White, male, American, middle class, generally nihilistic. I don't typically find his protagonists, or for a matter the world he paints, particularly identifiable. 

Tom Spanbauer, who coincidentally influenced Palahniuk, writes in a similar way but I think does this stuff better. A lot of stuff about sexual identity in difficult places - Idaho and shit.


----------



## Amnesiac (Sep 23, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> It's a very selective commentary, though, isn't it? I mean, I agree, Palahniuk is a good writer and he does capture a certain...perspective. But it all basically comes down to a certain generation, class, and demographic, and one that is frankly over-represented in a lot of social commentary: White, male, American, middle class, generally nihilistic. I don't typically find his protagonists, or for a matter the world he paints, particularly identifiable.
> 
> Tom Spanbauer, who coincidentally influenced Palahniuk, writes in a similar way but I think does this stuff better. A lot of stuff about sexual identity in difficult places - Idaho and shit.



I'll have to check him out. Thank you!


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Sep 23, 2019)

I keep hearing defeatist voices among y'all.
One minute we are talking about social commentary in writing, and the next someone is complaining about how it can be preachy if not done right.

Well duh! Anything can be written badly, but that's no reason to avoid it.
The idea is to write it well.
Just because someone once wrote something that came across as preachy or heavy-handed is no reason to not use social commentary. You should use that example to learn from their mistake and write it better.

Just because someone once failed at a thing is no reason to abandon it.
Overcome, write better, do it right.
But don't become defeatist.


----------



## JustRob (Sep 23, 2019)

Theglasshouse said:


> I know I haven't read your novel Just Rob. But if he is stuck in a different reality that can see the future like the garden of eden then he is in a paradise? Does this mean when he leaves he is mortal?



No, he is always mortal in a sense. The Pumpkin is just a time capsule standing outside of time where people from different times can meet. Normally it is battery powered and returns those inside it to their own times when the power runs out, but somehow it becomes powered by an unlimited source which prevents this safety feature from operating. If the people stranded in the capsule can't find a way to return to reality then eventually they will die one way or another although their lives will carry on in reality as though they had never left it. The concepts of identity and self-awareness are central to the story and the simple conventional idea of one body, one mind and one life is inadequate to understand it, so mortality isn't an absolute concept. There is an unwritten rule for those who work in the Pumpkin that if they die at work they get the rest of the day off. The rule is virtually meaningless though as the Pumpkin stands outside of time during working hours anyway.

Incidentally the chapter containing the extract that I quoted is entitled "The Unforgiving Eternity", which is an oblique reference to "the unforgiving minute" mentioned in Kipling's famous poem "If ---". The difference is that Kipling expected a man to fill every unforgiving minute with meaningful activity while those stranded outside of time in my novel apparently have nothing that they can constructively do in an unforgiving eternity. Contrary to Kipling's view in the poem, sometimes in life there simply is nowhere to run. If that can be considered to be a social comment then it is well hidden albeit in plain sight, but how many readers even notice chapter titles? It isn't necessary to notice such details to understand the story but they are there for those readers who want to look at it more carefully.

I will give a copy of the novel to anyone interested in reading it although it is just part of a much longer story that I never completed.


----------



## Trollheart (Sep 23, 2019)

Ralph Rotten said:


> I keep hearing defeatist voices among y'all.
> One minute we are talking about social commentary in writing, and the next someone is complaining about how it can be preachy if not done right.
> 
> Well duh! Anything can be written badly, but that's no reason to avoid it.
> ...



[video=youtube;tB3vCyuMxCg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tB3vCyuMxCg[/video]


----------



## Theglasshouse (Sep 23, 2019)

I could try to read it. I don't consider myself a good critic of a writer's work. I try to offer suggestions. 

I am myself afraid of trying to write longer stories since it is a lot of work. I just went through an ordeal reviewing my own story (which I fixed today for the last time; I was needed a good title). I settled on Mother Nature for that short story. I finished it despite taking a long time. I could beginning on the 26th if you need a reader to give an opinion on each chapter. That would give me time to read a few chapters per day. I will use a text to speech reader. Let me know. I am serious about this. If you need more opinions. I can offer them. As long as I make a important difference I would be more than willing to read it. If not let me know. I am a very bad reader imo so I will use text to speech to make sure I become productive. Sometimes I am doing nothing. So maybe it could be a good idea. Please let me know. I don't mind if it is long. I play card games and this would be much better for me.


----------



## BornForBurning (Sep 24, 2019)

I think that good social commentary is probably more descriptive than prescriptive. In the sense that we are emotionally shown how people react to social pressures without passing moral judgement (I know that casts social commentary in a very specific context but whatever). So we understand why the society of _Starship Troopers _is constructed the way it is even if we aren't fascists. We _get _it. We understand and sympathize with why people do what they do even when we disagree with their actions.


> I think one of the best social commentaries is the movie _Gremlins._


It's legitimately brilliant. I also like how the xenophobic old man ends up being right about everything.


----------



## Mish (Sep 24, 2019)

Trollheart said:


> So, picking up on a subject hinted at some time earlier by ironpony, do you think it's important to include social commentary in your writings, and do you, or do you shy from it? I usually try to address some issue in my own stories, though of course not always, and even then it's not always overt and in your face. Racism, sexism, terrorism, corruption, madness, senility, loss... all these and many more are issues we can draw attention to, or reference when we write. So I just wonder, do you consider this when writing, or do you actively try to stay away from it? Obviously, every story/novel is different, but just in general, I mean.



Most of my writing is at least partly inspired by social commentary. I sometimes view writing as an outlet for things that have gone wrong in the world. (or that otherwise might)


----------



## Theglasshouse (Sep 24, 2019)

Mish said:


> Most of my writing is at least partly inspired by social commentary. I sometimes view writing as an outlet for things that have gone wrong in the world. (or that otherwise might)


I know exactly what you mean by "wrong in the world" and for those reasons I write science fiction.


----------



## Irwin (Sep 24, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> Define 'preachy'. It's probably harder than you think...



It's the difference between describing how things are vs. how things should be. (Preachy is the latter.)

That's one definition. Another is: you know it when you hear it, but that's pretty vague.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Sep 24, 2019)

BornForBurning said:


> I think that good social commentary is probably more descriptive than prescriptive.




Mic drop.


----------



## JustRob (Sep 26, 2019)

Theglasshouse said:


> I could try to read it. I don't consider myself a good critic of a writer's work. I try to offer suggestions.
> 
> I am myself afraid of trying to write longer stories since it is a lot of work. I just went through an ordeal reviewing my own story (which I fixed today for the last time; I was needed a good title). I settled on Mother Nature for that short story. I finished it despite taking a long time. I could beginning on the 26th if you need a reader to give an opinion on each chapter. That would give me time to read a few chapters per day. I will use a text to speech reader. Let me know. I am serious about this. If you need more opinions. I can offer them. As long as I make a important difference I would be more than willing to read it. If not let me know. I am a very bad reader imo so I will use text to speech to make sure I become productive. Sometimes I am doing nothing. So maybe it could be a good idea. Please let me know. I don't mind if it is long. I play card games and this would be much better for me.



My apologies for not getting back to you on this sooner. I'm not writing any more, certainly not at the moment and maybe never again, so I don't need comments on my novel myself. I only offered it in case anyone wants to satisfy their curiosity about it. It is the only story that I truly understand, so I often quote from it when responding to subjects rather than quoting from published works that I have read as some other members tend to. WF is to my mind more about how well one of us might tackle a particular challenge than how any established writer would. I always pay more attention when a member quotes from their own work and not somebody else's that they think they understand. 

It is the same principle that explains why I drag my long-suffering angel onto an empty dance floor to dance whenever the opportunity arises. Seeing really good dancers take to the floor and put on an impressive exhibition is not an incentive to anyone else to join them, but when spectators see my angel and I dancing they feel that they can make at least as good a job of it as we can. Also we are enjoying the opportunity while they are just watching, so they do something about it. In the same way quoting from an acknowledged good writer may not be that encouraging to try doing the same, but reading my feeble efforts may make others think that they can do at least as well and possibly even better. 

As I quote from my novel so often it is only fair to give members the opportunity to read all of it if they want to. I often get the feeling that all the best scenes from a film are shown in the trailer, but I don't want others to think that I am only willing to quote the bits of my novel that I think might impress them.

Hmmm, did I just put some social commentary on a thread about including social commentary in one's writing? Interesting, but then as I mentioned I'm not writing now ... ?


----------



## Irwin (Sep 26, 2019)

My current WIP is mostly social commentary. One of the characters is preachy by design, and she's in prison for her actions where she's trying to change society. Other characters pontificate about the state of society, which has been thrown into turmoil by a serial killer.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Sep 26, 2019)

@just rob: ok that is an understandable point of view. I think if you plan on ever revising it and need a second opinion and change your mind I will be available to help.


@anyone else who decided to read this opinion:
I think there is a danger of speaking out of line, is my concern with dialogue being used as social commentary. The character must want something important in that scene to avoid being preachy. Iron pony gave some examples of his work and its worth learning from. I tried giving advice. I think social commentary can be tricky to pull of in dialogue; a character must want something and talk as if it were related to the conflict. If you digress and talk out of line about the dangers of rape that might sound preachy to others. Because the story gets interrupted. That is just my opinion of course. Making a character more sympathetic and likeable and a hero might be the better way to deliver the comments. Or someone from the subplot, serving the theme.


----------



## Dluuni (Sep 26, 2019)

The book I have coming out in a month or so has a lot of talk about a specific ballot measure that was voted on in 2018. Because issues like that are important in and to the lives of my audience. I can't avoid being political. The ability to avoid being political it's a thing that only a certain demographic can claim to enjoy. I'm not writing for that demographic. Everyone outside of that demographic is going to have their lives affected, possibly in life-threatening ways, by political and social trends. We think about it, we think about it a lot, it affects our lives, so I write about it. Because it's part of our everyday existence.


----------

