Showing posts with label Presidential Election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Presidential Election. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 09, 2016

A Novelist's Take... Politics, Trump and the Presidential Race (Part I)


My apologies for not posting these past three weeks. CITY OF SLAVES is about to be released (April 6th) and I've been working diligently to ensure that everything goes smoothly. The writing side is one thing, but I'm a rookie when it comes to publishing. So thank you for your patience.

Over the next two weeks, I'll be posting a few blogs regarding current headlines. The easiest way to do this is the form of an interview with questions people have asked me on social media or questions that I would ask some of my favourite novelists. (My next blog will deal with current events in the sports world)



Q) Before I ask you about your view of the current political climate in the United States, you insisted on suggesting that you're answering these questions as a novelist. Why?

A) Because I've come to realize that my work influences my view, enough that it needs to be understood, if not clearly stated. Artists, as a rule, view the world through a different lens. They are humanity's great observers, if only because their work only matters when they're commenting on what they see. As a novelist, which is a very long art form, my view tends towards depth. And what it means in greater context. That doesn't mean I don't react when a presidential candidate like Trump makes a penis joke -- everyone reacts to that -- but it doesn't narrow the distance between what I see and how I perceive the election.

Q) You've stated your political tendencies, or at least suggested them, in the past. You have described yourself as a progressive. Does this hinder your ability to comment on what's happening in the Republican Party right now?

A) Well, I'm a Canadian first, so my commentary means little in the way of voting. As to a progressive commenting on the GOP, which have become a party of extremists, with perhaps the exceptions of people like (gulp) Jeb Bush and John Kasich, it is not only viable, but necessary.

Look, I understand the appeal of Donald Trump. He's outrageous, funny, and completely unpredictable. There's a reason he was a reality TV star. But he's also a misogynist, racist xenophobe. The comments he's made regarding Muslims and illegal immigrants are completely unacceptable and downright coarse. He has lowered the level of discourse. Worse, there are examples of schools and children, perhaps after listening to their parents glowingly talk about him, using him as a reason to bully other students with minority backgrounds.

If anything, this IS a progressive issue. Suggesting that a female reporter was "on her period" as a reason for his reactions during a debate are unconscionable. Ten years ago, such a comment would have been decried by both parties. It feels like we are taking a step backwards. And so yes, commentary by progressives is necessary.

Q) We have heard that from other progressives. But how does being a novelist alter your opinion? Or does it?

A) I write fantasy, which is basically like writing historical fiction on steroids. Most fantasists, myself included, use alternative worlds to comment on what is wrong in our society what we can do to change it. (While entertaining the reader, of course)

Everyone has seen the memes comparing Trump to Hitler, which sound outlandish until you start to dig. But as a novelist, the wide view goes much deeper. History is not linear. Progression of equality and civil rights do not move up a ladder. There are plenty of examples in history of countries and civilizations moving backwards.

Two thousand years ago it was acceptable for Egyptian women to initiate a divorce with their husband. They were also allowed to own land. During that same time, the Romans allowed no woman to speak with any influence outside the household. As we know, the Romans conquered Egypt. Their patriarchal view of society was the staple of European life for more than seventeen hundred years. And it was only until the last century that once again women were allowed to vote and hold land and not be subject to their husband or father.

Q) That seems like quite a stretch for this year's election. No one is advocating that women lose their ability to vote.

A) Again, a novelist takes a long view. Simply to have a presidential candidate suggest a woman's period as a reason for her supposed incompetence is significant. Rights are only rights because people fought for them, but they can be lost just as easily.

Look at Egypt now. With the movement towards Islamic fundamentalism in the early part of the 20th Century, those same people, who two thousand years ago offered a society that valued equality, was forced to undergo riots and recorded insults from Egyptian men telling them to "get back into the kitchen."

One step down the ladder is a big step, because it's harder to go up then down.

Q) Why are American politics so important to a Canadian novelist?

A) In Canada, like every other G-8 country, we offer free health care. This would seem to be a basic right. In the US, it isn't. And whether we like it or not, Americans dominate the media due to their size and influence. The US also happens to be our biggest trading partner and our best friend. About 70% of Canada's population lives with five hundred miles of the American border, and their economy drastically impacts our own.

More than that, however, is the possibility that such a culture presents. Let's say Bernie Sanders miraculously won the presidency. Republicans like to suggest he's a "radical," but his message is essentially a proposition to run the country the way Canada and other G-8 countries like Sweden and Norway operate. Countries that focus on equality and lowering income disparity. That would be important for any progressive! And what a platform he'd have to spread that to the rest of the world!

Now consider if someone like Trump, or Cruz, are elected. Their extreme conservatism would set the docket for equality back light years. Both believe in the Military Industrial Complex that has trapped the American economy for years and neither would be interested in setting equality, whether its between classes or gender or race or sexuality, as a top priority.

Q) I would ask you about Canadian politics, but you seem more invested in the presidential election. Is that true?

A) Yes. For now. I like to take a wait-and-see approach to our current governing party. Conservatives love to slam Prime Minister Trudeau, but lets check back in a year and see what he's done or what he's failed to do.

Q) Do you have a prediction for who wins the presidential election?

A) I think Clinton will win. Sanders is going to damage her, but he'll also push her left, which is a good thing. Trump is going to win the Republican nod, and I just think there are too many Americans who are too scared to elect him. His unpredictability is amusing, but it wouldn't be amusing as a leader. I do think the race will be closer than people think, however. Clinton is a polarizing figure. I would love to see Sanders win, but I don't see that happening.
















Sunday, February 07, 2016

Hitler Liked Dogs; Creating Nuanced Characters

If you've been following the American presidential election at all, you might have noticed a pattern in the political process, a pattern that has always been there, but has sharpened in the last twenty years. Politicians -- and their campaigns -- no longer debate issues, they demonize their opposition. And this isn't simply between parties, it happens within the party itself.

Look at the Democratic battle. If you like Bernie Sanders, Hillary is a lying scumbag and the worst possible option for president. If you're a Republican, your competitors are "losers." And this is not the fault of the politicians. I repeat, it is not their fault. If they don't do this, if they do not go "full negative," it is very difficult to win. (Everyone would suggest that Obama is the exception, but in 2008 during the primaries, his camp vilified Clinton.)

It is unfortunate that the electorate finds this negativity so compelling, but it does. Here in Canada, our new PM, Justin Trudeau, had only been in office for a few days before the Conservatives started taking shots at him. Days. Not years or even months. Days.

The Importance of Nuanced Characters

This is also true in fiction. There are still many writers, particularly those who write genre fiction as I do, who insist on having "evil" characters and "good" characters. It's one thing to find this extremism in politics, it's another to find it in a novel. It suggests that the writer either doesn't understand human nature or has a very narrow view of the world, neither of which is helpful for producing stories that not only make us think, but give us a better understanding of human nature.

The purpose of any story is to help us understand ourselves and our world and our place in it. It isn't simply to provide entertainment. If the only goal is entertainment, then the story will be simple, and not in a good way. (Think about all those empty blockbusters that we see during the summer, the ones with great special effects and laced with a story we forget as soon as we walk out of the theater.)

That's not to say that every character needs to be an anti-hero, either. Generally, you want your protagonist to be likable, but you also want to be able to identify with that character. That means flaws.

The flip side to that means your antagonist must have moments of likability. Or in the very least, you must provide some understanding of why said character is acting in such a manner. Most novelists do well enough presenting flawed heroes. The same is not true for their "villains."

I cannot tell you how many books I've edited where my first message to the authour is to create more nuance in their characters. At first, this sounds like a daunting task, but it's really not. All that's needed is more thought about what the character is like. Some authours use a sheet listing characteristics, some create a bio or resume, others do an entire family background. Whatever works. In my case, I try to emphasize at least one point of honour for every villain (I don't love that term, but you know what I mean) in at least two scenes in each novel.

Hitler Liked Dogs

For example, if I was writing about Hitler, who was indeed a vile human, I would have a scene with him caring for his dogs. The reason we do this isn't to make Hitler look good, but to emphasize his humanity. What we're looking for is the contrast, not between good characters and evil characters, but the contrast of good and evil within the character.

This develops nuance. It also makes your story more unpredictable. If I know that character A always acts a certain way, the story becomes predictable. And boring.

Ultimately  the reader is looking for is someone they can identify with, someone who reminds them of themselves. When a critic says that the characters "leap off the page," this is what they're referring to.

I don't think our politics are going to change any time soon. But it is possible for the electorate, for us, to do a better job communicating with those who see the world differently. We writers need to do a better job of this as well. Not only to create better stories, but to help our readers see the depth in the world and in people that the twenty-four hours news cycle will never show us.

Listen, we live in an age of memes and six second vines and 140 character opinion pieces. As writers, we need to do a better job pulling people out of the cycle of false dichotomies. It's true that some people are more helpful than others and others are are more selfish. But we're all human.

And there is nothing simple about being human.