The Sword and Laser discussion

I picked up a copy of Raising the Stones by Sheri Tepper a few days ago. I read this novel back in the 1990s at the height of Tepper's popularity in the genre. I want to re-read again to see if I will feel the same about the book as I did back then.

Tepper is known for her didacticism and feminist views in her novels. I recently heard a podcast where the host had interviewed Tepper several years prior and said she meant to be didactic in her books.

I find that an interesting admission and wondered if we would allow an author's didacticism in their works if we agree with their worldview. I can think of a lot of Christian and Fantasy SF that is being published these days and most non-Christians would not read those novels (regardless of quality) because they disagreed with that worldview.

How much didacticism should be allowed in a novel?

My official answer is "as much as the writer wants", because I do believe people should only write what they feel passionately about.

That said, very little if you want to interest me. I like my lessons in fiction to be a bit more subtle. Hell, I'd rather the lesson not exist than it beat me over the head. But, strictly answering your question, I don't think that it shouldn't be "allowed", even if I'm personally not gonna partake in it.

I love some Sheri Tepper. Many of her books are barely didactic, particularly her early stuff. Some tread a fine line. Some stomp all over that line with jackboots.

She has a couple that I've read (A Plague of Angels and The Gate to Women's Country) where it felt like every male is a rapist and every female is a rape victim which, as a male, I found very uncomfortable, particularly as the younger reader that I was at the time.

But when you say didactic, the person I think about is Neal Stephenson with his frequent "teaching moment" knowledge-dumps. Some people love that, others can't stand it. As with most things literary, it's very subjective.

Marion wrote: "How much didacticism should be allowed in a novel? "

Really, that depends on the author and what audience she/he wants to write to, but I think any didacticism needs to be an integral part of the story. If you could take a sharpie to the passage and not lose anything important to the story, then that passage should be taken out during re-writing.

Robert A. Heinlein does a masterful job of doing that in a lot of his later work. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is a particularly good example where he gets didactic in lots of places but it's (almost always) an integral part of the story.

I would say it's best to refrain from didacticism but when it is a necessary part of the storytelling, such as with a hot topic like the death penalty, just lay the issue out there for the reader and let him/her decide how they want to feel about it.

IMHO, the best writing provokes thinking/feeling, and gives the reader room to go wherever that leads them.

As much as they want, as long as they don't start laying it on too thick and start preaching their message and/or distorting the truth to suit their agenda.
Subtle is good, I can roll my eyes if I think their view is wrong and move on.

I'm not sure if didacticism quite means this. The most famous recent didactic novel I can think of was Jostein Gaarder's Sophie's World. It's meant as an introduction to western philosophy for young people and I think it does the job well. It interested my daughter anyway.

If you mean 'promoting an ideology' as opposed to 'teaching' it's another matter. I think whatever ideology it is, it may seem natural and transparent as long as it's our ideology, whereas we'll reject it as soon as it isn't. It helps if the author also takes it for granted, but it may not lie with the author at all. For example, a lot of science fiction promotes an ideology of the human future in space as natural, inevitable, and possibly desirable. Few of us balk at that, but a futuristic novel which promotes an ideology of ecological sustainability through asceticism and social discipline - that would probably find fewer takers.

Anfenwick: technically, you're talking about the difference between didacticism and polemicism. However, in practice the difference is debatable - any 'teaching' will be teaching from one point of view (there are philosophers who get quite angry about Sophie's World...)

In any case, the problem isn't having a point of view, it's being an incompetant writer.

For example, one of the most didactic writers I can think of is Terry Pratchett, whose characters (and narrators) are continually propounding philosophical and political ideologies for the moral betterment of his readers. He's written whole books that have no purpose but to expound his views. But nobody (or almost nobody) ever complains about this, because he's a very good writer. When his characters philosophise, it's in character; when his narrator philosophises, it feels like a natural response to what's going on in the plot at the time. Plus, he's writing about an absurd world, so he can always claim that what he says is true of his world, even if we don't believe it's true of ours. So people enjoy his writing, and swallow his beliefs often without really noticing.

Whereas a bad writer either:
a) sits the reader down in the middle of events and lectures them, in a way that doesn't seem to relate to what's going on
b) lets the reader realise, while reading the book, that the book only exists for political reasons, and that the plot and the characters are all in service to that politics, and would have no solidity if you took the politics out. [Whereas if you took the ideology out of Small Gods or Hogfather, you'd be left with an entertaining plot and coherent characters acting believably, you'd just lose the sense of purpose behind it all]

Wastrel wrote: "Anfenwick: technically, you're talking about the difference between didacticism and polemicism. However, in practice the difference is debatable - any 'teaching' will be teaching from one point of ..."

This is a really big part of it. Another thing that I think is important is having characters that aren't an obvious stand in for the authors opinion or a strawman.

The big thing that annoys me about readers is not when they refuse to read a politicalish work. But when they correlate a major POVs politics, with the authors politics unless it's repeatable stated that this is bad. It's like when a character is living in generic fantasy world and has generic fantasy world beliefs and isn't magically a 21st century person, but this will bother a lot of people.

As far as nobody noticing, I mean I can't be the only one who realized that the first Mistborn trilogy has extremely strong LDS theming and roots to the point where I would consider it LDS Fantasy.

Wastrel wrote: "For example, one of the most didactic writers I can think of is Terry Pratchett, whose characters (and narrators) are continually propounding philosophical and political ideologies for the moral betterment of his readers. He's written whole books that have no purpose but to expound his views. But nobody (or almost nobody) ever complains about this, because he's a very good writer. ..."

I think this may be transparent to me, perhaps because I come from the same culture as Pratchett. I cant think of much his characters say, do, or believe which strikes me as anything other than normal and middle-of-the-road or at least 'typical' (allowing for variations between them).

I can see how Men at Arms might tick off Americans.

Aaron wrote: "As far as nobody noticing, I mean I can't be the only one who realized that the first Mistborn trilogy has extremely strong LDS theming and roots to the point where I would consider it LDS Fantasy...."

But he wove it in so well one would not notice it unless you were fairly familar with Mormon teachings. Again it goes back to skill and how heavy a hand the author has.

Lindsay wrote: "But when you say didactic, the person I think about is Neal Stephenson with his frequent "teaching moment" knowledge-dumps. Some people love that, others can't stand it. ..."

I thought I was the only one. My mind went straight to Stephenson when I saw this topic.

Walling off whole chapters as an info dump shows an inability to weave world building into the actual narritive of the story.

It depends on what the author is being didactic about. I don't think I've ever read Sheri Tepper, but am a feminist so I think I'd like her books in which she's didactic about feminism. But I don't think I'd like a book where the author was heavy-handedly being didactic about being a Christian. (I am a Christian, just not a fundie.)

Didacticism implies a moral or ethical component to the teaching so I'm not sure Stephenson's info dumps fit that description.

I'm with Tommy in that 'allow' is the wrong way to phrase this as it implies an a priori limit on the author. I'd allow anyone to write anything they want. That doesn't mean I have to read it.

I personally have a fairly low tolerance for the author exercising his or her ethics in ways that are told and not shown. Similarly, I don't have a lot of patience for the author working out their physiological quirks on the page either. Do those things as you show me a good story? Fine. Do them in ways that are transparently the author preaching to me? Not fine. Either should be allowed... but I don't have to read them.

Rick wrote: "Didacticism implies a moral or ethical component to the teaching so I'm not sure Stephenson's info dumps fit that description..."

But any excuse to complain about Stephenson should be taken no doubt :) .

Yeah, I do wish he'd get an editor. But he sells, so... (I loved Snow Crash and Diamond Age... past that, meh.)

Authors can put in as much as they want. If I read them or not is a different matter.

Olivia wrote: "It depends on what the author is being didactic about. I don't think I've ever read Sheri Tepper, but am a feminist so I think I'd like her books in which she's didactic about feminism. But I don't..."

A lot of feminists have turned on her due to her other views related to race, eugenics and overpopulation. See Rachel Swirsky for instance.

The Just City by Jo Walton was both didactic and a commentary on the merits of didacticism, and I thought it was really great. So I guess like lots of other devices, it can be great if it is used in a thoughtful, self-aware way and terrible if used by Terry Goodkind.