Blogger: Janet Kobobel Grant
Last week in the comments to my blog post on social media as the new locale for public shaming, Carrie Padgett mentioned that a lively online discussion was taking place elsewhere about whether authors have a moral responsibility to speak out regarding their views on social and political issues.
If you’re an author, do you have a moral responsibility to express your views in open forums such as social media?
My answer: It depends.
To keep us from getting lost in philosophical deep weeds, let’s define what moral responsibility is and what moral authority is.
I see moral responsibility as an act deserving praise or punishment, depending on whether one has fulfilled one’s moral obligation.
Moral authority is the capacity to convince others of how the world should be.
So if a writer has a moral responsibility, that means the author has a moral obligation to express his or her opinions. In essence, the author has no choice but to speak out. Not to speak out becomes moral failure.
On the other hand, if a writer wields moral authority, that person has the ability to persuade others to see what should be done. The President has moral authority by the sheer power of the office he holds. Pastors, priests, even entertainers and comedians can have moral authority. That’s why film stars publicly support certain political candidates; they are exerting their moral authority.
New York Times best-selling memorist Ann Voskamp recently used her moral authority to raise $500,000 in three days to aid Iraqi women and children fleeing from ISIS. You can read her blog about what stirred her to raise the money here. I believe Ann would say that she felt a moral obligation to speak up, and she recognized she also had the moral authority to do so.
Those who regularly read Ann’s books and blog wouldn’t be surprised that she would take such steps. Her decision is true to the authentic, open-hearted, mission-minded person Ann is. She regularly takes trips to developing countries to help others build better lives, and she photographs the beautiful people she meets as she works to enhance their existence. We know this because we read her books and her blog and see her photos–all of which are depictions of her life as a nonfiction writer, mother, and wife.
What Ann did makes sense on every level. We experience no dissonance when we hear of her actions.
But what if you’re a novelist? Do you proclaim your views on social and political issues via social media? I don’t believe you should. When you chose to be a novelist, you might not have thought of it this way, but you slipped behind a veil. Readers know you through the imaginary world and made-up characters you’ve created. That world and those characters are your surrogates through which you speak. (By the way, one definition of surrogate is someone who is deputized.) Yes, readers see your photos on Facebook and read your newsletter, but what they look to you for is story. Plain and simple.
Now, you can–and should–confront all sorts of issues, beliefs and philosophies through your stories. But you’re always doing so in veiled ways. A novelist’s job is to keep from ripping down that veil and breaking the dream she has created in her novel.
We expect nonfiction writers to expose us to their ponderings, research, prognostications, and opinions. But novelists must preach their sermons through the filter of a great story and compelling characters. Moral authority–showing us how the world should be often is most powerfully delivered through story.
One final thought: If you believe that, as a writer, your moral responsibility is to express your views on social issues, how do you determine where to draw the line? Which of these topics, taken from today’s headlines, demand you tell us what you think is right? Why those topics and not the others?
- abuse (animal, human, sexual, emotional)
- natural disaster relief
- gay rights
- sexual identity
- racial prejudice
- equal pay
- religious equality
- immigration
- international trade agreements
What do you think? Do writers have a moral responsibility to showcase their social and political views online? Why? Have you ever thought about this before?
TWEETABLES
Do authors have a moral responsibility to tell us their opinions on social/political issues? Click to tweet.
Join the discussion: Should writers tell us their views on social and political issues? Click to tweet.
I’ve seen where authors have been blasted for expressing their political views. (Orson Scott Card comes to mind.) Back in the ’08 election, I stopped buying books by one author after seeing his blog post, but I also gained new loyalty to another author because of his stance.
In the long run, I think I’ll probably wait until I’m somewhat popular before I think about throwing my weight around morally. What hills I’ll fight on will depend on what hills, if any, God calls me to stand on.
I love the concept of fiction authors slipping behind a veil.
My first and foremost reason for not saying anything political on Facebook, or my blog?
I’m not American. Therefore, in my view, I don’t have the right to criticize current US politics in a public forum. The same way I don’t think that Americans have the right to publicly criticize Canadian politics. Not that anyone could stay awake long enough to get the basics in, trust me.
Oh my word, the scandal at the Wheat Board?!?!
Zzzzz.
I may privately give my opinion, if asked, but not in public.
UNLESS it’s my opinion on the eternal superiority of Canadian hockey. Even then, I think folks can clue in where I stand.
When I see writers spouting heated political views all over their Facebook feed, I tend not to read much of what they have to say. A) it’s irrelevant to me, and B) it gets really old, really quickly.
Jennifer,
You are treading on dangerous territory (or should I say thin ice?) – I do a lot of Red loads of laundry – T-shirts with names like Yzerman, Datsuk, Osgood. 🙂
Awww, they’re almost as good as Crosby, Gretzky and all our Olympic hockey teams. 😉
Janet, public figures (actors, singers, pro athletes) frequently voice their opinions in social media, but that what they say should carry no more weight than that of my neighbors, who are an EMT and a banker respectively. Unfortunately, that’s not the way the general public perceives them. Despite this popular perception, I–as an author–don’t plan to use my social media “platform” like a bully pulpit. But I do anticipate continuing to write from a Christian worldview, and if some of my personal opinions are reflected there, well…so be it. Thanks for the post and for raising the question.
Richard, I completely agree with your thought that I should give equal weight to what people in my world think as to what public figures might espouse. Actually, I often give more credence to what people I know think about issues than celebs. But that may be because most celebrities stand diametrically opposed to me on most issues. 🙂
Richard and Jeanne, I agree as well that the opinions or views of celebrities should carry no more weight than those of any other person. Some celebrities do study the issues before speaking but others do not. Also, I believe firmly that those who have the ability to influence others because of their fame should think carefully–and study hard–before speaking on an issue. That said, ultimately it is up to the listener to decide how much “moral authority” to give to that celebrity’s views.
Oh, wow, Janet. This is gonna be fun.
I feel that, as novelists, we have both the moral authority and moral responsibility to fight for the causes, as ourselves, that we defend in the stories of our characters. Like actors, we become that which we portray, and we’re identified with the choices our protagonists make. Think of it this way – when a favorite author is interviewed on Good Morning America or Today, do you want to hear what they, as people and de facto role models have to say? Or do you shrug and pass by, saying, “Well, gosh, I’ll just read the next novel.”
If we think we’re behind a veil, we’re fooling ourselves. It’s a one-way mirror, and they can SEE us. They want to see us.
That said, there are some provisos that might be worth considering –
* Qualifications – the obligation we exercise should be focused on areas in which we have experience or expertise. I write and research marriage; I work in the area of animal abuse; I have PTSD, and I’m terminally ill, without access to meaningful medical care. I feel qualified to write about these things, and I have covered those which are relevant to my blog in that forum. I’m not qualified to talk about climate change or the nutritional value of school lunches, so I don’t.
* Relevance of Delivery – a well-thought-out blog post can develop ideas and invite discussion, but a sound-bite delivered as a Facebook status or Twitter tweet seems to me to be closer to venting; sharing an opinion because it’s MINE. It’s not to say that neither Facebook nor Twitter can be effective mechanisms for social action and change; obviously, they are. But for a writer, whose skill lies in exposition, the pithy aphorism that illuminates a cause is something of a waste of talent. Not because we can’t do ’em, but because the one-liner avoids the depth and nuance we are expected, through our professional work, to bring to an issue.
* Group Identification – Going back to Facebook and Twitter, it’s easy – too easy – to support a cause championed by a group which may have other activities with which we emphatically do NOT agree. As an example, a prominent animal-rights group which has fought hard against vivisection has also taken the public position that keeping pets should be forbidden, as it’s a violation of canine and feline rights. I agree with the former, and think the latter is lunacy.
* Congruity with Faith – I am a Christian, and write about marriage from a Christian perspective; one might thus expect that I would take a stand against same-sex marriage, gay rights, and gender identity issues…and one would be quite wrong. First, Christians have been and are persecuted, and I will not stand on the side of a persecutor, of any stripe. Paul enjoined us to live peaceably with those whose beliefs are different, and as long as homosexuals don’t abuse children or adults, I will not stand for their persecution in my hearing (heterosexuals abuse kids, too, and “50 Shades” dealt with heterosexual perversion and abuse). Second, the right to transcendental judgement has not been apportioned to me. My Christian life is badly flawed, with pride and self-justification rising every single day. Forbearance is required, I think; I can vote the way my conscience, informed by my beliefs, dictates, but I can’t heave the first stone from the top of my own moral pedestal.
* Acceptance of Consequences – We have to be willing to live the the consequences of what we say, and not try to weasel. In the previous paragraph I said some things with which some are sure to disagree; but I’ll stand by my words. Once you’ve seen someone beaten, bloody, and crippled for life because he happened to be gay, you’ve GOT to make a moral choice, and you’ve got to defend it…and them.
I was wondering if anyone else would bring this up, Andrew. I also don’t see a problem with novelists weighing in on issues and events IF they pertain to something the author has either recently written about, or consistently writes about, in their fiction.
For instance if you’d just released a novel about a disaster relief worker finding redemption and hope while working in a third world nation following some sort of catastrophic event, I doubt anyone would see it as inappropriate for you to promote relief work in Nepal.
It all depends on what you write. It’s perhaps a little easier for nonfiction authors to indentify their core themes, but if you’re self aware as a fiction writer I’d think you’d be able to figure out what your key subjects and messages are and comment in a fitting way.
Of course, as we learned in Janet’s last post on social media, discernment is everything!
The exercise of an author’s moral compass is really nothing new; Charles Dickens hated the conventions of his society that allowed (and profited from) urban poverty and the unsanitary condition that were associated with it. In addition to books like “bleak House”, he wrote numerous articles on the subject. Here’s a link you may find interesting –
http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/dickens/bleakhouse/carter.html
I agree with Andrew about the hiding behind the veil issue. It is a one-way mirror.
And today, everything is political from the type of vehicle one drives, the restaurants one patronizes (remember the Chick-fi-le controversy a couple summers ago), to the type of material one chooses to put his groceries in. I am tired of it all.
I’m saddened by the lack of time to digest information, so people can really understand what they are doing when they agree with the latest so-called moral authorities who Tweet from Hollywood or Washington.
Read Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 in which books were burned and narrowed down to mini-Cliff Notes with TV walls surrounding them and people voting based on appearance on the way a person’s name sounded (sure sounds like today–access 24/7 everywhere and on demand). The professor discusses with Montag one thing that the society needed was time. Time to digest information and mull it over. That book was fiction but Bradbury in his brilliance, was sure making a statement about us, wasn’t he? One that I see as more true today than ever.
Rod Serling said the same kind of thing when he wrote for The Twighlight Zone–that it was easier to have Martians and aliens making statements about human nature rather than a real person. The so-called novelist veil doesn’t exist.
Melodie,
Fahrenheit 451 is one of my favorite books and I recommended it to hundreds of students in my job as librarian. Could have Bradbury hit any closer to reality? That the book was published in 1953 when most families didn’t even have a small screen B&W TV is amazing – he nailed it.
And the tracking dog? How about drones.
Thanks, Andrew, for your thought-provoking response. And for each response to your comment. I used the analogy of a veil because I wanted the writer to picture himself as being removed one step from the reader–that’s the dynamic of novel writing. The novel is in the forefront, the author in the background.
And it makes complete sense for a novelist to speak about social issues that are raised in the novel.
Where the disconnect comes in is if the author speaks out about an issue that isn’t raised in his or her writing. Say, you write romantic comedy, but you take to the media to speak out against someone running for president. You clearly feel ardently about your views, but as a reader of your fun, light-hearted books, I don’t want to know about your political views. Every time I pick up one of your books, I’ll think about your political stance. If I agree with it, I’ll probably keep reading your novels. If I don’t, I’ll at least be tempted to stop reading them. THAT’s the case I’m making–when a writer steps out from behind the veil and breaks the dream of the novel by saying something that bears no relation to the characters and land written about, the writer puts a wedge between the reader and the reading.
Janet, I agree with you completely…the novelist’s expressed position on public issues has to be consistent with the worldview expressed in the fictional works, and informed by a degree of expertise. If we choose to “go there”, we owe our readers competent exposition, supported by independent data, and definitely not justified by emotion.
That makes a lot of sense–thanks for clarifying, Janet! And for yet another helpful, thought-provoking post.
That makes sense, Janet. Thank you for explaining further.
Andrew, I agree with you. If I write novels which portray women as valuable, intelligent, strong people but remain silent when young women are denied an education just because they are female, and I am aware that there are many women in the world who are abused, oppressed, mutilated, if I stay silent, am I not a hypocrite or a coward? I will say, though, that I have my personal Twitter and Facebook accounts and those are the places where I promote the justice issues that I feel passionately about. I would not use my author FB page, Twitter account, or website to promote my socio-political views UNLESS the topic related directly to a novel. Even then, I would want to think carefully before politicizing my author sites. I do agree with you about interviews, though I hope I would take my own advise (see my comment to Richard and Jeanne) and only speak on that which I had studied thoroughly.
Oh Janet, once again you call us to think deeply. And on a Monday morning, no less. Where’s my coffee?
I am a writer of Bible studies and Christian non-fiction. I am a pastor’s wife. Both roles put me in front of people, with a degree of moral authority. My ultimate goal is to move people closer to Christ. Under that banner, I have an obligation to put forth my ideas a way that opens doors. When I read certain Facebook comments and blog opinions, I hear doors slam closed. I personally agree with some of those door-slamming comments, but I can’t quite imagine those particular words coming out of Christ’s mouth. I try to express my views, in person or via my writing, in a way that invites dialog. And I’d rather that dialog be between the hearer/reader and God rather than them and me. It’s not about convincing people to agree with me. It is about getting them to talk with God.
“It’s not about convincing people to agree with me. It is about getting them to talk with God.” —I love this goal, Shirlee. ❀
Amen Wendy Ultimately we will all have to answer to Him
Shirlee, well said. Like Wendy, I loved your closing line.
Shirlee, I love the way you work to use your influence for God rather than for an agenda. I think one of the aspects of people using Facebook or Twitter to convey their opinion is that they can do so only in spurts. Who among us can be moved to rethink a long-held view through a few sentences? The affect is more likely to make the reader more entrenched–and angry at you.
I don’t fully agree with the given definitions of moral obligation, moral responsibility, and moral authority. I do not see the role of President as carrying any moral authority whatsoever – no more than Kim Jong Un or any other world leader. They have political authority, but moral authority must be earned.
I see moral authority as having earned the right to speak on a topic and take a firm stand because of a clear history of admirable choices in that area. For example, a philandering leader has no moral authority to condemn other philanderers or to speak on sanctity of marriage unless that person first repents, deeply learns lessons, and then admonishes others to beware the path he had taken. That same person may be a staunch environmentalist and therefore has the moral authority to speak on issues of pollution, etc.
Actors, writers, celebrities can sway young or shallow thinkers with their views, but I think overall they only reinforce the thinking of the like-minded, and put off those who disagree. However, a fictional character can have a great influence.
Lord Jeffry said of the self-published Charles Dickens classic: It has fostered more kindly feeling and prompted more positive acts of beneficence than all the formal Christmas sermons ever preached.”
I’d agree that political leaders don’t have moral authority, but it’s partially because the Fourth and FIfth Estates have withdrawn them. Kennedy certainly had considerable moral authority, and at least to a degree, he exercised it.
With the ascension of Johnson, and the deepening involvement in Viet Nam – a war that the press misrepresented (in my opinion) – the president’s moral authority was degraded, and ultimately lost in later years. Johnson’s actions caused part of this, but I suspect it really grew out of the resistance to drafting young men to fight in what was seen as someone else’s war. The moral authority used justify this was seen as bankrupt, and the leaders who attempted to wield it were seen as self-serving. None of this was completely true, but it was convincing, and above all, a society chooses its own moral arbiters. Lack of trust became associated with the position, as well as with the individual, and the flame was stoked by the press. Everyone loves excitement, and what better excitement than moral regicide?
In contrast, some celebrities – Angelina Jolie and Bono come to mind – have transcended the perceived shallowness of their professions to become effective voices for the causes they support.
With the tendency toward letting celebrities assume moral authority, a short aphorism comes to mind – “It’s always tempting to impute / unlikely virtues to the cute.”
Andrew, I view the presidency as you do. I think the individual who holds the office has the opportunity to wield moral authority, but some who have held the office lost many citizens’ respect through their behavior and display of lack of morality.
Other offices,such as pastor and priest, also carry moral authority. But not every pastor or priest fulfills that role.
With these positions, the moral authority is theirs to lose.
I agree, Sheila. I didn’t care for those definitions either. I wrote more in replying to Andrew’s comment.
This whole post made me think of role models and how some professions are placed more into that position than others. And some who don’t want that responsibility yet have that profession. Charles Barkley didn’t want to be a role model. Here’s the story from back in the day in 1993. http://www.newsweek.com/im-not-role-model-193808.
Yet what athletes, musicians, and movie stars say does make an impact whether we like it or not.
Thank you for sharing about Ann Voskamp. I had not heard that, and my heart is breaking this morning. I wrote an article for my church in Fort Worth a few years ago … it was picked up by several mission organizations sharing what was happening to ten year old girls in Nigeria. It crushed my heart to write about it … you can see a version of it here … http://www.ccmusa.org/Read/read.aspx?id=chg20100303. It’ll be hard for me to shift gears after reading Ann’s message. I’ve spent five minutes + trying to think of a valid comment to the heart of the message … and I’m just stuck.
Thank you for sharing this poignant link, Shelli. I’m grateful for people like Ann Voskamp and others who reach out to those in true need—they remind us to look beyond ourselves. ❀
Shelli, better for the blog post to take your heart to such an important issue than to get shuttled into other aspects of the conversation going on here.
Can we speak up? Sure. Should we? Not always. I personally don’t like seeing post after post of political or religious opinions on my Facebook feed. I’ve seen some posts lately, specifically to do with the transgender subject, that made my head spin – “You said WHAT?” Honestly. I think it goes back to the whole think before you hit post, because once it’s there, sure you can take it down, but probably not quick enough. I have no problem with someone like Ann Voskamp using her huge support network to do something good. That’s awesome. But I agree that fiction authors may fall into a different category – I think we could do similar things to use our ‘fan base’ if you will, for good, the ice bucket challenge comes to mind, but I’d do this sparingly. I have no problem discussing my views on any topic in a private conversation but I don’t believe in airing them on social media, (with the exception of saying something about 50 Shades of Gray because I couldn’t help myself, but even there I was pretty careful 🙂 ), but I do have say I’ve been surprised about what people do post. Thanks for making us think about this again.
Cathy, yes, the transgender online conversation has been one I’ve chosen not to even read. So many opinions, so little information.
Of course writers should express their thoughts on a matter in a conversation or a personal exchange; it’s in the public forum that writers should think about how they’re using their influence.
Janet, I have thought a bit about the question of to tell or not to tell my social views online. On my blog I have written about abortion several times in a gentle and compassionate way. My readers don’t all hold the same world view I do—so my goal is always to create respectful dialogue. I was pleased with the comments I received. The response showed me it’s possible to talk about a sensitive topic without alienating one side or the other. Respect is the key.
I like the idea of having a veil for broaching topics that may not be safe for me to talk about openly (every family has secrets). So I plan to use my novel writing for introducing subjects readers may not have looked into before. I’ve come across things in novels which have sparked my interest and followup research. I love the idea of facilitating someone’s first step into recovery, vicariously.
Blessings ~ Wendy ❀
Wendy, exactly right – respect is the key. In my novel “Emerald Isle” (and I’m still trying to figure out what to do with that thing) I dealt with abortion, and realized that to make the story plausible and not polemic, I had to understand the ‘other’ point of view. The people who’ve read it liked that, and commented on it.
And facilitating a person’s first step to recovery is a wonderful feeling. If I may be permitted a small brag…”Blessed Are The Pure Of Heart” has been purchased in quantity by people working with PTSD victims. That made the effort in writing it more than worthwhile.
Congratulations, Andrew. How wonderful for your words of encouragement and truth to be spread so widely. I can only imagine the depth and poignancy of your writing, as even your comments evoke deep pondering. I suspect I miss much of the message between the lines of your contributions here. You serve us premium steak to chew on. Blessings to you both. ❀
Wendy, thank you so very, very much.
Wendy, I especially appreciate that you chose to take on a controversial topic by respecting the other perspective and through inviting dialogue. We all change and see things differently if we talk to each other and really listen.
Janet, Great insight. I loved this. As a non fiction writer I still hesitate to share my views. I am definitely not afraid to do so. I pray first and allow the Lord to lead me. I agree with Jessi I allow the Lord to show me what hill to stand on.
Janet, you got me thinking. As you so often do. I’ll need to think more on what you’ve shared today, but here are my initial thoughts.
I don’t tend to be one who airs my opinions in social media venues. In part because I tend not to like confrontation, but also in part, because I’m not sure that most people would really care one way or the other. I strive to be gracious in the way I convey thoughts, as people tend to be more open to “listening” to honeyed words than vinegar-ed words.
I read Ann Voskamp’s post a few weeks ago, and the way she shared about the hardships Iraqi women and children face was moving without being “in your face.” I believe that is a hard line to walk for most of us.
I like the idea of fiction writers being “behind a veil.” We have the opportunity to weave themes and thoughts about current issues within the context of our stories. Of course, these shouldn’t take over the story, but when done well, people think about issues after they’ve finished our books.
I’m still pondering what you’ve brought up. Thank you for making me think about this.
Jeanne, it’s so true that a novelist can portray a complex issue in her writing, but she always has to be careful not to let that issue take over the book. Next thing the reader knows, he’s feeling harangued.
Exactly what I was trying (poorly) to convey. 🙂 One of my mentors early on told me not to let my stories be agenda-driven, but story-driven.
The bard actually spoke to this issue, and our obligations, in describing the actions of Gloucester’s “First Servant” in King Lear. Servants are expected to remain in the background, but on seeing his master blinded by Cornwall and his henchmen, the First Servant takes a stand.
He will not have this, and attacks, wounding Cornwall with a sword before being killed.
There’s rather a nice poem by Burke Johnston that describes this…the asterisks denote stanza breaks.
*The power-maddened beast with bloody claw
Ready to pluck out Gloucester’s other eye
Paused, startled that a slave should dare defy
His fury and appeal to higher law.
Horror is kept at bay by twin-flamed light
Held in the godlike maker’s shaping hand.
One flame the servant’s sacrificial stand,
And one the blinded Gloucester’s inner sight.
*The servant drained the cup of bitter wine,
Giving prime life to set and old man free:
Of some three thousand lines allotted nine
To speak for mankind against cruelty,
Transfigured from the nameless to divine,
He makes the dunghill kindred to the tree.
Sometimes I wonder if the US is a part of planet Earth or exists in a parallel universe? There are few places of free speach left today, the media is well the media, pop stars only sing about blank space, so its left to authors to fill the knowlege gap. Remember this started with Shakespear, who wrote plays about politically sensive subjects in Italy and Scotland, where the Queen lost her head. More recently the injustice of the Industrial revolution was highlighted by Dickens in “Please Sir can I have more?” You know this outlet of magical mystery has gone on for for decades, so what’s the purpose of the question? If you don’t believe fiction authors should comment on events in todays world you are missing the whole purpose of writing!
Actually, what I’m trying to say, apparently not clearly, is that novelists should channel their desire to affect society into their books rather than into two-liners on Twitter. Story is the most powerful way to sway people to see social issues a certain way, and Dickens used it to great effect. So, too, should novelists today.
(I haven’t read all the comments, so I’m only responding to the original post.) This thought provoking post made me think of one author (unnamed) in particular. I enjoyed his writing and the faith expressed in his books. After following his professional author page for several months, I reached out and “friended” him on FB. His personal profile was completely different, including long tirades on both theological and political topics–many of which I vehemently disagreed with. I finally deleted the friendship and went back to just following his author page. Now when I read his books, I can’t help but question everything he says. That was an eye-opening experience for me about social media. To use Janet’s analogy, the veil was ripped away.
Karen, thanks for sharing about your experience as a reader. That particular writer apparently assumed everyone who personally followed him on Facebook, as opposed to his author page, wanted his full-throated opinions on any number of subjects. But readers often don’t want that unvarnished look. Authors truly do have a public image, which needs to be thought about if they open their private Facebook page to anyone.
Authors don’t have moral responsibility to express their views and I respectfully submit that if they want to reach as many readers as they can, then they should keep quiet. Authors are running for political offices. Once authors take sides in political and social issues, they immediately antagonize people who have the opposite views. Authors can express their views if they wish to do so, but they don’t have the moral responsibility to do so more than other human beings.
Great post, Janet! I hadn’t thought of fiction writers being “behind a veil,” but you’re exactly right. And now with the internet and social media, readers have opportunities to get to know their favorite authors far better than before. That can be a great blessing and a boon to promotion, but it also allows us to see a bit more of the “real” person than we might actually want to.
Exactly, Carrie. If I love a novelist’s books, I don’t want to find out that our world views are diametrically opposed. My enthusiasm for the writing would diminish.I find that happens to me sometimes when an actor appears on a talk show to promote his new film. I’ll find myself think, Wow, you’re kind of a goofy person. Good thing with acting you have a script to follow.
So true!! My hubby enjoys Castle and really liked the Beckett character. Until he saw the actress on a talk show sharing some political feelings. He was so disappointed he watched, LOL!
In a world that is politically charged, it is hard to voice your OPINION on anything and not have it separate from your life, work, friends, etc. Opinions are in constant attack, instead of being open to other’s viewpoints. That is a sad commentary about such a free nation that holds the liberty of freedom of speech so highly. I have many friends who have varied opinions on issues, yet we can still appreciate and love one another for them and in spite of them. I believe that is the way it should be. But, we do not live in that luxury right now. So, unfortunately, if we are to enter into the public arena…which we do as authors, we need to be careful.