

Standards in F&SF and Politics
Over Memorial Day weekend, I went to CONduit, the science fiction and fantasy convention held in Salt Lake City, and the convention that qualifies as my "local" convention, because it's the closest -- if anything some 260 miles away is ever exactly local. One of the panels I was on dealt with the topic of "foreshadowing" in fiction, the idea that an author needs to set up events occurring farther along in a book so that the reader doesn't get to that later event and throw the book across the room -- or worse -- vow never to read another of the author's books.
Another panel was on political commentary in science fiction and fantasy, and one of the points brought up was that authors should generally refrain from pontification and empty rhetoric and that we should use the events and actions in the story to demonstrate and illustrate how political acts influence society and people and what those effects will be. As an author, I very much agree with that point, and although I must confess to an occasional lapse, generally perpetrated by my alter-ego Exton Land, I do make a deliberate and conscious effort to show my readers what will happen as a result of political decisions and acts.
But...as I was driving home, I began to think about the confluence of those panels -- and there is more than enough time to think on a 260 mile drive through the sparsely populated mid-section of Utah. It struck me that those of us who are authors are being held to a far higher standard by our readers and the public than our politicians are. Politicians can mislead their constituents day after day, year after year, by promising a happy ending through higher federal benefits, greater environmental protection, lower taxes, or laws that conform to the religious beliefs of their constituents... if not all of the above. What's more, over ninety percent of them get re-elected.
If I, or any other author, tried to foist that kind of a happy ending on my readers, especially if I did so following 300 pages of the kind of obfuscation and misdirection practiced by the vast majority of politicians, after one book I would have almost no readers left. And again, I must confess to past errors, because for all too many years I was one of those political staffers who created speeches, letters, policy papers, and speeches all designed to suggest a political happy ending through blind faith in a given politician.
As an author, I don't have that luxury. I have to produce an honest ending, and if I don't, I won't be able to make a living from writing fiction because my readers expect that degree of professionalism from me. Neither will most of the other authors I know. Yet we're authors, just people who try to sell stories for entertainment.
We haven't been elected to make or change laws that have national and world-wide consequences. People pay far less for our books and stories than they do in the taxes that support government and their elected politicians. But as authors,we're still held accountable for what we produce and do.
So why don't people expect and demand the same degree of professionalism from their elected representatives?
Another panel was on political commentary in science fiction and fantasy, and one of the points brought up was that authors should generally refrain from pontification and empty rhetoric and that we should use the events and actions in the story to demonstrate and illustrate how political acts influence society and people and what those effects will be. As an author, I very much agree with that point, and although I must confess to an occasional lapse, generally perpetrated by my alter-ego Exton Land, I do make a deliberate and conscious effort to show my readers what will happen as a result of political decisions and acts.
But...as I was driving home, I began to think about the confluence of those panels -- and there is more than enough time to think on a 260 mile drive through the sparsely populated mid-section of Utah. It struck me that those of us who are authors are being held to a far higher standard by our readers and the public than our politicians are. Politicians can mislead their constituents day after day, year after year, by promising a happy ending through higher federal benefits, greater environmental protection, lower taxes, or laws that conform to the religious beliefs of their constituents... if not all of the above. What's more, over ninety percent of them get re-elected.
If I, or any other author, tried to foist that kind of a happy ending on my readers, especially if I did so following 300 pages of the kind of obfuscation and misdirection practiced by the vast majority of politicians, after one book I would have almost no readers left. And again, I must confess to past errors, because for all too many years I was one of those political staffers who created speeches, letters, policy papers, and speeches all designed to suggest a political happy ending through blind faith in a given politician.
As an author, I don't have that luxury. I have to produce an honest ending, and if I don't, I won't be able to make a living from writing fiction because my readers expect that degree of professionalism from me. Neither will most of the other authors I know. Yet we're authors, just people who try to sell stories for entertainment.
We haven't been elected to make or change laws that have national and world-wide consequences. People pay far less for our books and stories than they do in the taxes that support government and their elected politicians. But as authors,we're still held accountable for what we produce and do.
So why don't people expect and demand the same degree of professionalism from their elected representatives?
Comments:
<< Back to all Blog posts
I, personally, expect far greater returns on my time invested into politics than any representative has ever given. However, my letters of complaint to my representatives go unheard (maybe someone tipped off the guys in office that I didn't vote for any of them . . .) It is sad that authors are held to higher responsibility, but in some ways that can be a good thing. By an author accepting such responsibility, they teach the public, who then translates what they read into their real lives. Hopefully, this will create a society of readers, who now understand their own responsibility for society. Hopefully . . . some of your readers will grow up to be responsible politicians.
All right, I'll add something here. As someone without your depth of experience, but who majored in political science in college and interned two summers at Interior and Sen. Pell/RI in the 70s (and whose grandfather was undersecretary of commerce under FDR), I tend to take a slightly different view. It seems to me that politicians must necessarily represent the people in their districts, as well as not angering powerful interest groups. As a result, they feel they must portray themselves to different groups of their constituents as not only totally in sympathy with contradictory or illusory beliefs, but also living a fantasy life -- as in the Clinton impeachment hearings, where, not surprisingly, you find that many of the accusers themselves had problematic personal lives. And we can cite several cases where stepping too far away from those "principles" cost the politician dearly: Aboureszk of North Dakota, voted out fundamentally because he questioned aspects of our support of Israel; Cleland of Georgia, pariplegic Vietnam-war veteran voted out because he was not sufficiently "patriotic" in support for Iraq, etc.; the 1992 ousting of Democrats for "corruption", only to discover, twelve years later, that, astonishingly, the opposite party could be just as corrupt.
The real danger, it seems to me, is that in representing the people this way, the politician comes to convince himself that the veneer he/she puts on is the truth. I am reminded of a boss I had once who lowered the time estimate for a project in order to get funding. I pointed out to him that the lower time estimate was unlikely; oh, yes, he said, it's just to get money, I won't forget. Later, he reassigned a follow-on project to people in England; why? "Because you didn't meet the time deadline on that project." Or Mark Twain's story of the man who started a rumor that there was gold in Hell; later a friend found him packing; "well," he told the friend, "I got to thinking there might be something in it." At least having to deal with 50 or 230 equal colleagues can remind you that to get something done, you need to take into account other places' points of view.
Still, I do agree that those representatives who are non-delusional could often do more than they actually do. I am reminded of HH Munro (Saki)'s lines in (I think) Why England Slept, where he says: "The art of the politician is to know just exactly how far to go -- and then to go just a little bit farther." I think most do not go as far as they can; much less a little bit farther.
Post a Comment
The real danger, it seems to me, is that in representing the people this way, the politician comes to convince himself that the veneer he/she puts on is the truth. I am reminded of a boss I had once who lowered the time estimate for a project in order to get funding. I pointed out to him that the lower time estimate was unlikely; oh, yes, he said, it's just to get money, I won't forget. Later, he reassigned a follow-on project to people in England; why? "Because you didn't meet the time deadline on that project." Or Mark Twain's story of the man who started a rumor that there was gold in Hell; later a friend found him packing; "well," he told the friend, "I got to thinking there might be something in it." At least having to deal with 50 or 230 equal colleagues can remind you that to get something done, you need to take into account other places' points of view.
Still, I do agree that those representatives who are non-delusional could often do more than they actually do. I am reminded of HH Munro (Saki)'s lines in (I think) Why England Slept, where he says: "The art of the politician is to know just exactly how far to go -- and then to go just a little bit farther." I think most do not go as far as they can; much less a little bit farther.
<< Back to all Blog posts
© 2006-2007
by Tom Doherty Associates, LLC. Tor® and Forge® are
trademarks of Tom Doherty Associates, LLC, and are
registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.