Shut Up and Entertain Us: Moralizing in Authorial Works

[Drakon]

The title of this topic comes from a book title Shut Up and Sing by Laura Ingraham. In it, the author comments that entertainers should not use their media to convey their personal opinions and thoughts.

So my question is, do you agree with this sentiment?

 

[AetherX]

For entertainers perhaps, but not artists. Conveying personal thought is exactly what art is, and I'd consider myself as an artist well before an entertainer in terms of pretty much all of my creative output.

 

[Warrior of Fire]

For entertainers perhaps, but not artists. Conveying personal thought is exactly what art is, and I'd consider myself as an artist well before an entertainer in terms of pretty much all of my creative output.

Then what would that mean for music groups like the Rolling Stones and AC/DC? As performing musicians, they are entertainers, but their music can mean something they want it to, and music in any form (except rap, which I don't even consider to be anywhere close to music) is art.

 

[Mielikki]

I think this depends of the way the moral or opinion is provided to the reader (viewer, listener, etc. depending of the media). If you spoon-feed someone with your opinions and force them to the belief your opinion is the right one and all others are wrong, most of the people will be annoyed with it.

If it is said more subtle, or maybe it is never addressed directly, then why not, I think everybody is somehow influenced by their own way of thinking.

For example, I am not religious person. If I read some book where the main character is some super orthodox catholic and his/her most dominant character trait is being religious and likes to convert the others, I would probably stop reading that unless it is placed in let's say medieval times where it used be the norm. But if there were a book where the main character just happens to be christian but otherwise acts as sane person and maybe somewhere there were shown some christian practices or values I would be totally okay with that.

Maybe it was not the best example, but I wanted to say simply that in case the moral/opinion is there, but is not central focus of the story, I don't see a problem with it.
Also I hope I did not hurt anyone with the religious example, I have no personal problem with religious people if they don't force their belief on me (or someone else)

 

[Beth Pavell]

Should? No, insofar as I don't think there should be a "rule" banning authors from making points in their own works. The question should rather be a matter of appropriateness. First of all, the genre and purpose of the book matters. 1984, for example, is a book specifically written to make political points, so I think as a reader you can forgive such things as Goldstein's Book (For example. The Book is written out as an excerpt that stands right out from the text, only to be revealed that the infodump might not have been one at all).

Nobody likes being preached at where they don't expect it, so I would say that for the majority of works then subtlety is key. A character being played up to be wise and moral and ever so good proselytising abruptly is just going to get annoying. The events of the plot illustrating the author's point, or presenting valid counter arguments to let the reader decide makes for far more compelling reading

 

[Pokemon Gray]

This author of Shut Up and Sing, an entertainer, is trying to use her source of media, books, to convey her personal opinion and thoughts only to say don't listen to personal thoughts from entertainers. Hah! Ms. Ingraham, you're such a troll.

In all seriousness though, entertainers such as writers or actors are known for being knowledgeable about their craft. And using their notoriety to to persuade--be it indirectly or otherwise--others to share in their belief, especially when they are largely ignorant on the topic, feels like a misuse of their fame.

Then again, some works are all about an underlying theme, which is something a lot of writers do. So it's a toss up really.

 

[Elric von Bek]

Yes. I believe the author has the responsibility to be true to himself, herself and the reader. In fulfilling that responsibility, the author would be disingenuous to let the preferred set of values guide the work. The author must also present counterpoints that transcend the role of strawman and, in effect, leave the reader with an entertaining story that doesn't preach a single, dominant perspective or set of morals.

 

[The Dude]

First of all, Laura Ingraham is a horrible person and a Fox News pundit (but I repeat myself). So nobody should listen to a damn word she says.
Second, I think artists should be very careful about directly advocating a cause when they're performing.
On the other hand, they can make works of art that push their opinion, and it's cool as long as they're subtle enough about it, and don't try to be too pushy. For an example of someone who does that well, I recommend Terry Pratchett. Most of his books have "stealth philosophy", where he tells you his opinion on something, but in a way organic to the story, without preaching. I aspire to that, and I hope I can do that in my writing.

 

[Drakon]

I'm of the belief that moralizing is fine as long as you couch it in the context of the story and it's not incredibly blatant.

If the author is devoting paragraphs or worse, pages for disseminating their morals, I will get annoyed and probably stop reading the book.

Same applies if the author is using blatant strawmen.

 

[AceTrainer14]

I think that free speech allows for artists and entertainers to use whatever craft they specialize in to tell some sort of story, and stories should at the end of the day have a point to them, so I think that people should be allowed to convey their messages in whatever way they feel. I think, like others have said, that the context is important and subtlety with which the message is delivered: a fictional book, for example, should not solely be written to say that one thing is right and one thing is wrong and never give said 'wrong' thing the chance to express itself. Otherwise, I do not think there is anything wrong with it, especially if I a particularly good moral or lesson comes out of said work.

I am not familiar with this particular author, but I am aware that several childrens films have been criticized by Fox News in the past for having 'liberal agendas' in their plots, which I think is completely stupid and a tad pathetic.

 

[Dorothy LaRouge]

Seconding the sentiment that nothing Laura Ingraham says should be taken as reliable advice. That said, it's absurd to assert that a creator's personal beliefs and values shouldn't guide their work. To me, there's little point or value in a work if the creator does not infuse it with their own beliefs and their own opinions. A story, a song, a painting, any work of creative art should be a reflection of what the creator sees and feels, and while you shouldn't patronize or preach at your audience, you also shouldn't shovel them swill devoid of any sentiment.

 

[AceTrainer14]

I for one do enjoy entertainment for the sake of entertainment every so often: there is nothing wrong with turning your mind off and enjoying something that is a bit silly and a bit of fun without having to try and think about the hidden messages or work out the meaning. I also find that a lot of movies in particular I have seen recently that are all about the message generally have not made the message particularly clear, and it ends up being rather frustrating to watch.

 

[Beth Pavell]

I for one do enjoy entertainment for the sake of entertainment every so often: there is nothing wrong with turning your mind off and enjoying something that is a bit silly and a bit of fun without having to try and think about the hidden messages or work out the meaning. I also find that a lot of movies in particular I have seen recently that are all about the message generally have not made the message particularly clear, and it ends up being rather frustrating to watch.

I agree with that. The opposite of the thread topic is also true - authors should not be obliged to moralise either. I seem to recall that Game of Thrones has been criticised for the level of violence towards women shown in the show, which strikes me as absurd. Especially in a fantasy world, authors should not be obliged to present their characters with the same values and ethics as the reader.

As to films trying to be too clever, I thought that about the very last shot of Inception. I really love that film, but the last shot was just trying that little bit too hard

 

[AceTrainer14]

I agree with that. The opposite of the thread topic is also true - authors should not be obliged to moralise either. I seem to recall that Game of Thrones has been criticised for the level of violence towards women shown in the show, which strikes me as absurd. Especially in a fantasy world, authors should not be obliged to present their characters with the same values and ethics as the reader.

I think that is generally just because a lot of people in Western society only view things from a modern Western standpoint. While violence against women is not okay, it was a large part of the type of society GRRM is writing about and should not be censored for the benefit of modern audiences.

 

[Karpi]

I make a decent effort to steer clear of politics in my stories, with the one notable exception of my imperialism-based pokemon story. That sort of IS the plot. I feel like in that case it's completely fine to include political ideas that arise from that situation (not that this is the focus of my story. It's still an adventure fic about teenagers), because you know what you're getting into within one chapter of starting to read it.

Basically, I feel like it's fine to be political if it serves an actual purpose in your story. I mean, my story could be condensed to "Imperialism is bad, mmkay!", but there's a plot on top of that. If I'm going to write about a war, I'm going to give believable motivations to the characters.

So that's fine. But what I wouldn't create a journey fic that inexplicably takes place in a utopian anarcho-communist society and has villains representing fascism and capitalism. That's not a journey fic, that's a political narrative with a pokemon theme.

Basically think of it like having your character go to the bathroom. Don't include it if it doesn't improve the story. That's just my opinion and what I personally follow. There are some people who do go the blatantly political route and it turns out great, though!

 

[The Dude]

I agree with that. The opposite of the thread topic is also true - authors should not be obliged to moralise either. I seem to recall that Game of Thrones has been criticised for the level of violence towards women shown in the show, which strikes me as absurd. Especially in a fantasy world, authors should not be obliged to present their characters with the same values and ethics as the reader.

I think that is generally just because a lot of people in Western society only view things from a modern Western standpoint. While violence against women is not okay, it was a large part of the type of society GRRM is writing about and should not be censored for the benefit of modern audiences.

I believe that Martin's intent is to expose the misogyny of our society in an allegorical way. He could very easily have turned his female characters into stereotypes, but instead he's written some of the best female characters in the whole fantasy genre. Arya, Sansa, Catelyn, Cersei, Brienne, Ygritte, Asha, Daenerys, and Melisandre are all terrific, dynamic characters, and Martin mostly does well by them. Of course, sometimes he screws it all up, but I think it's manifest that his intent is sort of feminist.

 

[AceTrainer14]

I believe that Martin's intent is to expose the misogyny of our society in an allegorical way. He could very easily have turned his female characters into stereotypes, but instead he's written some of the best female characters in the whole fantasy genre. Arya, Sansa, Catelyn, Cersei, Brienne, Ygritte, Asha, Daenerys, and Melisandre are all terrific, dynamic characters, and Martin mostly does well by them. Of course, sometimes he screws it all up, but I think it's manifest that his intent is sort of feminist.

We have an ASOIAF thread where we can get into the deeper discussions of those aspects, BP and I were just using it as an example for this discussion.

 

[Persephone]

I am a poli sci/econ nerd so most of my recent stories have had some political thriller element, if only in the background. I am perfectly fine doing this so long as the villains or heroes or whomever happens to represent an ideology are actually solid and well-constructed characters who hold the version of their ideology that the people who follow it actually hold. I just finished character notes on a Neoliberal dictator, the leader of a revived Comintern, and a Fascist militia commander to form part of the Big Bad ensemble of the work I'm writing. While they oppose the protagonists for a variety of reasons, from their own perspective they are justified and at points are even right, or at least not wrong. My goal is to present actual aspects of the world in at least some of their complexity and let readers come to whatever conclusions they will, which I think is the best way to handle charged (political) issues in fiction.

 

[ShadowDRGN]

Personally, I don't write for entertainment, I write because I have a story I want to tell, and sometimes that leads to my personal views showing up in the work. Despite that, I do try my best to include other points of view into my work, and I am very careful to make sure that it's never a case of "The protagonist has the exact same views as me and the antagonist is everything I hate and completely the opposite."

 

[Baby Seals]

I have stories that are commentaries on the entertainment industry and how it ruins people's lives, which reflects my opinion that Hollywood often brings misery into celebrities' lives instead of happiness (ESPECIALLY on its child stars). I also have a story that criticizes the Quiverfull movement as harmful to women (in the story, the main character's mother dies giving birth to her seventeenth child).