NOTE: Don't read this if you don't want to know specifics about the book before reading it.

http://www.sfreviews.net/empire_osc.html

This review, like a lot of others, points out the political nature of the book, which is integral to the plot and subsequent events that unfold. This seems to overshadow a lot of readers and reviewer's take on the book, and the main thing they point out.

Now, understand that I'm not writing this thread to discuss this one book in particular, or author even though this is OSC's site, but rather would like to hear what others here think of the dangers of using their own political and religious views in their fiction writing. When is it going too far, and what makes it beneficial, rather than a problem to the reader? Even if an author's views are middle of the road, do you dare write a book that even appears to be from a viewpoint of out on the fringe, or is that just asking to annoy a lot of readers?

John's the judge who will rule on whether a nuclear plant can be built at Sandy Bottom. His wife Susan is adamantly opposed to nuclear power. He's not sure he should intervene, but...he had an affair last year, and he's sure she suspects, and ever since they've become more distant. At this point, *anything*, he fears, might be the last straw, and she'll leave him. If she tells the press about what he did, so much for his career. He hates himself for thinking of such petty concern -- and even more for thinking how much easier it would be for him if she just disappeared.

OR

Corporate goons (or, if you prefer, eco-terrorists) have threatened him, but there's no way John will give in on the nuclear power plant at Sandy Bottom. He knows of the horrendous danger if he gives in to the bad guys. Can he and a heroic reporter get the information to the public before environmental disaster strikes?

The tragedy of politics is that most people have already made up their minds very firmly on the subject. It isn't a good sell unless you're planning to "preach to the choir". Why should this be the case? Because there are always plently of writers, journalists, and other public figures already hard at work making sure that everyone hears their message. In the end, any book about current politics is doomed to get lost in the noise unless it is actively sponsored by an existing political movement. If you don't pick a choir, and stay on message, then you won't get the kind of backing a political book needs to succeed.

If you happen to belong to a choir and don't mind playing the obedient mouthpiece now and again, then it isn't a bad way to sell a few books. But you'll have to compromise your art to stay on the message.

When it's bad, that's often because the story seems biased. The characters that hold viewpoints that are opposite of the "good guys"' beliefs are caricatures of the vast majority of people who _really_ hold those beliefs.

It's really nothing more than the same problem you have with stereotypes in general. If your characters are well-developed for the most part but every religious believer looks like Dave Koresh, or every atheist looks like Adolf Hitler, or everyone in the middle looks like an indecisive weasel, then every part of the story they touch risks descending into triteness or even idiocy.

On the other hand, it is possible to put politics into fiction. Like Spaceman says, it has to be subtle, and fit the characters and be relevant and essential to the plot, or show something important about a character. If those factors aren't there, then it just becomes a framework for spouting the author's beliefs.

But there are plenty of authors who do so, and some more bluntly than others. Look at Michaal Crichton's "State of Fear." It's been a long time since I read a novel that slanted, and he seems to have done just fine.

Then again, he is a very well established writer, so perhaps that plays into it.

I think if you're honest and true to your characters, the audience will accept that any political issues belong to your characters, not you. But it's very easy to let your own political views slip in, and if you do, I think you could put off some readers. Let your characters make a statement if that is how they are, but don't make the statement yourself....

I don't think that it really qualifies as an "if this goes on" type of story either, because such a story is based around a single commonplace trend extrapolated much further than anyone would reasonably supposed it could go. Repent, Harlequin, said the Tick-Tock Man has a milieu based entirely on the idea that tardiness has become a capital offense. One thinks of how we've blurred the line between entertainment and political exercise in both directions. It clearly comes into play in terms of the idea of how the Progressives mech army functions. But it isn't a stretch of the same level, we already see all kinds of extreme protest tactics which are basically artistic law-breaking in the pursuit of political change.

I personally think that the story would have worked better without the mechs, which were included because of the contract under which Card wrote the book. If the baddies had used "stock car" militarized vehicles or something then it wouldn't have had a significant impact on the story arc but would have avoided the plausibility hurdle altogether.

I have not read Empire, but based on its premise, well, I thought it looked more than a little ridiculous. My immediate thinking was it was an outlandish concept and probably something Card didn't qualify, in my mind, as an expert on. So I'd already made up my mind, quite unfairly, what it was about and that I didn't like it. I didn't want to.

Then I read that review. Though the reviewer makes the occassional good point, ultimately his criticisms of the book and Card's philosophies in them drew my interest and I found myself defending Card in my mind. Maybe I'm a natural-born devil's advocate, but...

I guess what I take from this is that even negative attention toward writing can elicit a positive response from some audience, no matter how small.

To me, Empire reads as a chilling story of the terrible dangers of "moderation" in politics. It's really weird that Card spends so much effort claiming that we should all be more moderate, given the story he weaves. Frankly, the Progressive Restorationists come off as martyrs more than as villians, because at least they try to fight for something they believe.

Heinlen was a complete and utter loon but his books always made me think because they were so socially off-center.

I stopped reading OSC when I thought he was getting preachy - this is long before I knew he had LDS influence. But I dont see OSC as a loon.

Who sells more books? Who has had a greater influence on the human condition?

The answer to both questions is Heinlen.

Its better to teeter on the far edge of socio-politico-religious consciousness. So stick your neck out as far as it will go. As long as you are consistant and thorough, you might just influence the next generation. That's not to say you'll make them think as you do. But, you might do one better and help them understand themselves better.

I think that's somewhat similar to my own point, but that could just be because I'm having difficulty parsing your argument otherwise.

My favorite books deal with issues that are apparently close to the heart of the author and intended audience, whether or not they agree with me. Of course, very often in overtly political books (particularly those which are actually published in the end) you see authors allowing their nominal group affiliation to override their own deeply held beliefs and feelings.

Which somewhat describes Empire, a book billed as being about the dangers of extremism, but to me it read as being about the dangers of moderation, most particularly of political compromise. I have to wonder whether Card is conscious of the schizophrenic thematic clash in the plot as it develops. On the one hand I think he must realize it, but on the other hand he doesn't strike me as the type to carry out such an elaborate ruse in all his public statements about the book. But then, I don't know him personally or anything.

I don't mind politics in books, but I prefer it to be pretty detached from anything remotely modern. For example, GRRM's books are full of politics, but they deal with kings and queens, so it's not like he's trying to forward any agenda.

I have stayed away from Empire because I find OSC's personal politics to be in the extreme opposite to my own, and I was worried that I would just be subjected to political situations and viewpoints that I disagree with, and hence don't want to spend my valuable reading time wallowing in.