It’s another topic that fits under “Advice you Probably don’t need” and “on being an author” – I might have to make that its own category if this keeps happening. I’ve got a thing worth saying, but (for reasons I hope become clear) I’m going to have to be a little vague. Bear with me, and please don’t contact me demanding to know the author or dedicatee in question (again, for reasons I hope become clear). Last night, I pulled a book from my “to read” stash and, though I usually don’t pay strict attention to the dedication page, that happened to be where I opened it to. The author had dedicated the book to a contemporary (and, as it turns out, controversial) politician. I had wanted to read the book but found myself selecting another for myriad complex reasons. Not because of the controversial, contemporary politician… but because I thought the dedication itself was short-sighted, ill-advised, and a plain dumb thing to have done.
I also thought it was hypocritical. That same author had advocated for writers to adopt a writing style that appealed to both male and female audiences (in that, men like more action, women enjoy stories with more emotional content) and concluded that ‘why miss out on half your potential audience when you can craft a novel that could appeal to both?’ Well, exactly. So, this same author, while urging writers to be that mindful of their potential audience, had blithely dedicated a work of fiction to a controversial figure, apparently giving no thought to the twin risks of a) alienating readers who disliked said figure for political/idealogical reasons and b) alienating readers intellectual enough to find the dedication so blase that they would seek their entertainment elsewhere.
I know, dear readers, what I’ve said sounds reactionary and overly harsh, but hear me out. The keys here lie in contemporary and controversial and in the fact that we’re looking at a work of fiction. A work of non-fiction, for example, might bear such a dedication more easily. The controversial figure might have provided pertinent research materials, or aided the author with interviews or access to valuable information. The non-fiction work may actually be about the political person, or perhaps they played a key role in the events described in the non-fiction work. But dedicating a work of fiction to a political figure serves one primary purpose: to alienate potential readers. Even if that’s not the author’s intent, that’s the overriding outcome. Particularly because, unlike a deceased politician, whose controversial merits are, at least, finite, the still-living politician isn’t through doing things.
Perhaps the author admired this polician before controversy showed up on the radar, and made the dedication before enough polarized feelings had cropped up around the individual in question. Perhaps the author believes in the theory that people are, truly, more than what they appear (in the sense that, I’m the author of this blog, but that’s not all that I am… and any given politician may be the source of social angst, but that’s not all that they are). Or, perhaps, the author just didn’t care that the dedication might put readers off. Perhaps the author, though concerned enough about readership to adapt a style that would translate to both genders, wasn’t concerned enough about readership to account for the strength of political bias.
I’m not saying an author shouldn’t dedicate a book to whomsoever they wish. I’m saying that an author should care enough about readership bias and selling books that they ask themself “before I dedicate this book to [insert controversial contemporary politician here], am I absolutely sure I don’t mind alienating half my audience by drawing a line in the sand?” I do think everyone, authors included, have every right to their convictions (and to their dedications), but I think that when it comes to fiction, to entertainment, storytellers should stick to storytelling. Selling stories, and maintaining an alliance with a broader audience is (to me, at least) a better idea than using a moderate amount of fame to clamber atop the soapbox.
That why I’m not naming the author, or the politician. I’m not trying to criticize either person. I’m criticizing the choice to pick sides under the banner of entertainment. In fact, I’m not even criticizing that choice – I’m just saying it’s a poor approach when you’re trying to sell fiction.
Tags: controversy, fiction, politicians