# Major Peeve: Authors Hiding Behind a Genre So You Read Their Preaching



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

I'm so frustrated with one I'm currently reading. It started out really good. I don't know why it was in horror. It's a thriller or suspense. I don't buy horror so something tells me it was in a different genre when I got it from Bookbub. Anyway, It starts out fantastic. Soon, though, it starts preaching to me. The "good" character is all natural. All organics, all herbal medicines. She is also connected with "God". Her husband, who is one of the "bad" guys, is of course not connected to God. And he isn't organic or into herbs. Of course, as his life spins out of control, guess what? He feels the need to go to church with her and I'm treated to a sermon in church.

Look, I don't care if people write about their social/political/religious beliefs but I DO care when you tell me a book is one thing and then it ends up being something else. I feel deceived when a person hides behind a genre to all of a sudden jump out and pound away on the God thing, the organic thing, etc. Hey, I might eat organic. I might go to church. I might have a herbal store in my basement, but when I download a thriller, that's what I expect it to be. If I wanted to read Christian fiction I'd have bought it. It's dishonest, which goes against the belief system they so desperately want to shout from the rooftops.


----------



## Alain Gomez (Nov 12, 2010)

I know those feels.

There's a very fine line.  But it's annoying when it crosses into preaching.


----------



## Kirkee (Apr 2, 2014)

Writers on a soap box? No good. Whether it's politics or religion or sex. I say: Just tell your story & leave the axe grinding to the preachers and politicians.


----------



## ZombieEater (Nov 2, 2010)

Caddy, how would you characterize the use of allegory in fantasy?  I'm thinking Chronicles of Narnia and books like that.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

If you are asking if I'm a fan of C.S. Lewis, let me assure you I am not. Besides being preachy, his books are sexist. That doesn't mean he doesn't appeal to some people. I just don't happen to be one of them.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

My first thought was AMEN,  sister.
Caddy we found something to agree on.  I wouldn't even finish the book once they started the preaching.  
My major pet peeve is put your books in the correct categories.


----------



## WordNinja (Jun 26, 2014)

Thank goodness there are book reviews to warn readers about this.


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

Well, at least there is one truth ... they are selling it as fiction ... unlike scam artists that will tell you all you need for pancreatic cancer is herbs and God. (Bangs head on desk.) 

Definitely return it.


----------



## Diane Patterson (Jun 17, 2012)

I've read a number of political thrillers in which there are good guys and bad guys. The good guys are very definitely of one political persuasion and everyone else is basically evil or an idiot.

It's tiresome.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

C. Gockel said:


> Well, at least there is one truth ... they are selling it as fiction ... unlike scam artists that will tell you all you need for pancreatic cancer is herbs and God. (Bangs head on desk.)
> 
> Definitely return it.


I can't return it as I've had it on my kindle for about a year. I had bought a bunch from Bookbub and I always read my favorite indies first, they keep putting books out, too...so some of these Bookbub ones I don't get to for quite sometime.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

omada said:


> Caddy, how would you characterize the use of allegory in fantasy? I'm thinking Chronicles of Narnia and books like that.


The only saving feature of Chronicles is that is known to be Christian polemic although I don't know if that's how it was originally presented. It's too bad because Lewis was a good writer.

I definitely echo what Caddy said. But I hate it other ways such as picking up a 'romance' that turns out to be erotica or a 'mystery' that ends up actually a thriller. I am not in a hurry to forgive authors who deceive me. But the preaching thing is particularly annoying.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

OH, and of course her sister has everything, and is one of the good people,  BUT has turned away from being connected with nature, God and church. So guess what? She goes on a trip the "better" sister can't afford, with a husband that makes much more money and not only gets deathly ill but there's a hurricane.  Of course.  Had she eaten an organic peach, taken an herbal medicine and gone to church before leaving that hurricane would have stayed away AND she wouldn't have eaten something bad because we all know organic food is NEVER harmful. (And I do eat some organics but I'm not stupid enough to forget how many times there have been salmonella recalls on ORGANIC greens, too.)

I am now taking bets. Who bets the sick sister in the hurricane comes back to God and either gets well or is "saved" before she dies? 

Again, I wouldn't be sarcastic or have posted at all had this book been in Christian fiction, or health, too. OF course, I'd wouldn't have read it as I have my own beliefs, thank you, and don't care if they are like or opposite another author's beliefs and I don't generally read health books for relaxation.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

I stopped reading Robert J. Sawyer because of his not so subtle political digs in his books.

That said, sometimes readers see political preaching when there wasn't any intention of doing that. I guess I'm sensitive because I've been burned on a few reviews of people accusing me of an agenda--even though they couldn't be further from the truth. The views they _think _I hold are actually completely opposite of what I think. Maybe I tried too hard NOT to show my own political colors and went too far in the other direction. Oh well. I'm not even very political--I just wanted to tell a story and had to do some research for it, and I can't help it if the research showed some possibilities that made what happened in the story somewhat plausible. I'm a writer and when I saw things suggested in declassified documents, I was like, "Ooh! I can use that in my story!"


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

> I am now taking bets. Who bets the sick sister in the hurricane comes back to God and either gets well or is "saved" before she dies?


Maybe you can tell Amazon you want to return it because it is humor and was miss-categorized, and how can you be blamed for that?


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

C. Gockel said:


> Maybe you can tell Amazon you want to return it because it is humor and was miss-categorized, and how can you be blamed for that?


LOL!


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

JRTomlin said:


> I definitely echo what Caddy said. But I hate it other ways such as picking up a 'romance' that turns out to be erotica or a 'mystery' that ends up actually a thriller. I am not in a hurry to forgive authors who deceive me. But the preaching thing is particularly annoying.


It seems like this is becoming more common, especially with Indie books where stories don't always fit neatly in a box but sometimes might straddle two genres. Thinking a mystery with thriller elements for instance. Admittedly though, even though I love reading all three, it's not crystal clear to me how mysteries, thrillers and suspense differ from one another.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

PamelaKelley said:


> It seems like this is becoming more common, especially with Indie books where stories don't always fit neatly in a box but sometimes might straddle two genres. Thinking a mystery with thriller elements for instance. Admittedly though, even though I love reading all three, it's not crystal clear to me how mysteries, thrillers and suspense differ from one another.


I have that trouble with thriller and suspense. Plus, my latest continuing saga is psychological either thriller or suspense...and depending on what definition I read it could be both. Very frustrating.


----------



## wtvr (Jun 18, 2014)

I know what you mean. When I found out what the Narnia books were I felt tricked. When my kids read them I explained the subtext first. (They read what they like but I read them too so we can gossip about the characters. lol)


----------



## Jana DeLeon (Jan 20, 2011)

Narnia is for kids. They don't get the subtext. They only hear the story. Good versus evil is an age-old trope. Kids are not influenced by those stories any more than I was swayed to communism by the Smurfs (that accusation was a real one and came from a small-town preacher). 

But I absolutely loathe when I can clearly tell when the characters stop speaking for themselves and become talking heads for the writer's agenda. I will stop reading the book and never read the author again. Politics and religion should only fit with the character. Nothing else. Ever.

Now, that being said, if I purchase an inspirational book, I would expect it to be faith based.


----------



## bobbic (Apr 4, 2011)

cinisajoy said:


> My first thought was AMEN, sister.
> Caddy we found something to agree on. I wouldn't even finish the book once they started the preaching.
> My major pet peeve is put your books in the correct categories.


YES! That's mine, too. It makes me so mad to find a book in a completely different category, and you know the author just put it there because they know that one is more popular than theirs. And totally agree about the religious stuff. If that's what you want to write, there are plenty who want to read it. Label it "Christian" or "inspirational" fiction.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

I read a pretty good post-apocalyptic book about three years ago. I ignored the Christian slant for the most part, the ending of it was ridiculous and had nothing to do with the apocalyptic part. I think I gave it four stars because of the beginning, but I ended up hating the preachy tone by the end of the book.


----------



## Maggie Dana (Oct 26, 2011)

MaryMcDonald said:


> I read a pretty good post-apocalyptic book about three years ago. I ignored the Christian slant for the most part, the ending of it was ridiculous and had nothing to do with the apocalyptic part. I think I gave it four stars because of the beginning, but I ended up hating the preachy tone by the end of the book.


@Mary, I think I read the same one. Can't remember many details, but a cornfield was involved.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

So Aslan was clearly Sidharta Budda, right? His suffering opened the way for others to achieve enlightenment.

And Santa Claus was Hephestus, weaponsmith of the gods.

Caspian is very clearly Gilgamesh

The wardrobe is also obviously a piece of Yessgdril (sp) the world-tree, which connects Asgard, Midgard, Jothenheim and all the other various worlds.

And the Ice Queen is Persephone, whose (emotional) absence dooms the world to periods of cold and lifeless darkness.


----------



## Gone 9/21/18 (Dec 11, 2008)

Sorry. I think I typed a whole post into the wrong thread.

As for preachy, it will get me to slam my Kindle shut too, although I admit I'll do it faster if I disagree with the author.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

ellenoc said:


> Sorry. I think I typed a whole post into the wrong thread.
> 
> As for preachy, it will get me to slam my Kindle shut too, although I admit I'll do it faster if I disagree with the author.


I think I'm less forgiving of preaching when it's actually something I more-or-less agree with. Because my gut reaction is sort of "Why are you going on about something so obvious?" 

I think it's easier for me to forgive -- or maybe laugh at and ignore -- the preaching* that I think is just stupid.

Though it's probably also true that, while I might finish one such book, I won't pick up any more if it's a series.

*could be religious, political, paper vs bits & bytes, Mac vs PC, Coke vs Pepsi, . . . . . read a book once where there were so many mentions of Dr. Pepper that I figured the company had paid to have it as part of the plot.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

I read a lot of alternate histories and a lot of apocalyptic fiction. Both are rife with authors pushing a particular worldview that often, but not always, disagrees with my own sociopolitical opinions. Most are unreadable because they are little more than political screeds with a Mary Sue main character here to save the day. Of course, there is a difference between agreeing with the author that x is a realistic result of y and agreeing with them that it's because of my political views on z.

For example, Kim Stanley Robinson is an author I've liked for a long time as a hard science fiction writer; his series, _Science in the Capital_ trilogy was about the effects of climate change and the political fights that occurred as the climate went insane, the polar vortex shifted into North America and the Gulf Stream slowed. It was all very pro-Green Party, anti-climate denial and heavy handed and just annoyed me for that heavy-handedness because I agreed with the politics more than I disagreed and found my eyes rolling regularly.

At the other end of the spectrum, S.M. Stirling's _Emberverse_ series is post-apocalyptic and he picked winner and loser groups to vilify or glorify but picked groups that are often very unusual ones such as a Wiccan coven, the Faculty of Oregon State University, the Society of Creative Anachronism, a boy scout camp, Buddhist monks, Benedictine monks, the Unabomber, the State of Iowa, etc. They are all groups he pushes and molds the same way these other authors do but doesn't glorify them or push an underlying agenda so it all works....


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

On the other hand, I have been getting less and less patient with the all bad people are Christians trope that seems to be more and more common. I had to give up on an excellent series  because I just couldn't ignore the every Villian is a hypocritical mean Churchgoer. Stephen King's books seem to be doing that pretty regularly lately too (The Fog and Under the Dome)


----------



## AngryGames (Jul 28, 2013)

Huh. I read stories and enjoy them or not based on the story. Every book has a political or religious or some kind of agenda, according to every reader I've ever met (including the readers in this thread). Books that you enjoy you never notice the agenda or the preaching. Books that you don't enjoy, the preaching / agenda seems in your face. The truth is... it's a story. A story is a story is a story. 


Stop reading so much into stories. They're just stories. If you don't like the story, that's cool, but don't run around yelling about how an author is trying to shove an agenda down your throat. Authors write stories. You are an author? You write stories? Then take your own advice and write a nice, bland, boring, lame, wooden, gray story so that it cannot have an agenda. 

If you don't write it that way, you are writing your agenda, your personal beliefs, your morals. Right? Because this is kind of what I've read throughout this thread. You can write your stories because they're just stories, but other books better not have no godd*mn agenda or pushy personal beliefs!


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

Angry, of course all authors include their personal opinions to one degree or another in their novels. It's the rare author that can write convincingly from a completely polar opposite worldview and do it well, IMO. But I disagree with our assessment that is comes down to whether or not the reader 'agrees' with the author's worldview as to whether or not they automatically call it preaching or an agenda.

Now, there certainly are those who are so caught up in a particular ideology that they do exactly as you claim. However, to state that all people do that painting with a rather broad brush. _A Canticle for Leibowitz_ is written from a strongly Catholic perspective by a strongly Catholic author. I have various opinions about The Church - some good, many not so much. However, I think that book is brilliant and I've read it several times.

I don't think an ability to appreciate things written from a viewpoint that disagrees with my worldview to be at all unusual.

There is a difference between writing from your worldview and pushing an agenda and I don't think it's that difficult for rational, thinking people to know the difference.


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

Well, Christian Fiction can fall into other categories. Christian fiction that is set in historical times is also historical fiction. But yes, I do believe Christian Fiction should be clearly categorized as such or make it clear in the summary. People who aren't interested in Christian Fiction aren't likely to sudden love it just because they mistakenly picked one up. Target the appropriate audience for crying out loud.

If it's not categorized in Christian or Religious Fiction on Amazon, check Goodreads for how people have shelved it and also check the publisher. Some common Christian Publishers include:

Howard Books
Thomas Nelson
Zondervan
Bethany House
Tyndale

If you're unsure, just Google the publisher name and the description of the company usually comes and indicates if it's a Christian/Religious publisher.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

I may be heading off on a slight tangent here, but for me, I tend to prefer fiction that asks questions as opposed to gives answers (especially pat answers). Complex issues by their nature do not have simple solutions, and as such, those are the issues I'm more likely to find interesting. Any author who writes a novel that seems to be telling me s/he _knows_ the only right solution, is more than likely not going to interest me (unless everything else about the book is amazing?).

I like shades of gray (though maybe not 50 of them  ) in characters, themes, and plots; such that I may think things while reading such as, "What would I have done?" or, "I don't agree with what that character did, but I understand and empathize with his choice." But there have been several times when I've put a book aside when I begin to sense the author is trying to tell me what to think, instead of asking me, "What do you think?"


----------



## John F (May 19, 2014)

I was sure someone was going to mention Ayn Rand. Now I have.


----------



## Marie Long (Jan 11, 2014)

I'd love to read Christian fiction, but I fear most of the stuff out there is very preachy in that the author is trying to get their hidden agenda across -- agendas that I don't particularly agree with. Sometimes they mix politics in it, which is even the worst. I'm a Christian, and I've learned that there are different types of Christians who have different beliefs and interpretations of the same religion. But I think this is the case with most religions out there.


----------



## JFHilborne (Jan 22, 2011)

Diane Patterson said:


> I've read a number of political thrillers in which there are good guys and bad guys. The good guys are very definitely of one political persuasion and everyone else is basically evil or an idiot.
> 
> It's tiresome.


I agree with this, which is why I usually avoid political thrillers. The author's political (or religious or whatever) opinions should never come through to the reader in a book, unless advertised as such.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

JFHilborne said:


> I agree with this, which is why I usually avoid political thrillers. The author's political (or religious or whatever) opinions should never come through to the reader in a book, unless advertised as such.


I would disagree _somewhat_, as I feel there's a difference between getting a feel for what the author believes/thinks, versus an author ramming it down my throat in any sort of "my way is the only right way" manner. And I think it _does_ matter to some extent how much an author's views mesh with a reader's. I love reading Terry Pratchett, and he certainly lets a lot of his personal philosophy show through in his novels (I think it's critical that it's mostly showing, not telling), though I think he avoids preachiness, in general; but then I think the Ven diagrams of our world views have a high degree of overlap, so it never grates on me, while I can imagine there may be some people in the world who would find it annoying/offensive. (Plus, most things that he pokes fun at, he pokes at with a smile.)


----------



## Adrian Howell (Feb 24, 2013)

I enjoy reading stories that contain opinions and world views that I don't agree with. I'm totally cool with a protagonist that I strongly disagree with on moral grounds, political grounds, or any grounds for that matter.

But there's a real fine line between that and books that insist on "fixing" you. That kind of thing should be limited to self-help books where the reader actually wants to be changed.


----------



## Susan Alison (Jul 1, 2011)

Heh - apologies in advance for going off-topic. Well, sort-of. Not completely. But this kind of thing always reminds me of the film, 'Waterworld' starring Kevin Costner - and it always makes me laugh. 

The film was made in 1995 when the anti-smoking movement was getting under way. So - the baddies in the film are called........ Smokers!!!

And they are soooooo bad they even blow smoke into the faces of little girls.

Preachiness is everywhere!


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Waterworld was also a... water world because of the hole in the ozone--which is the opposite of what causes global warming. Also, the hole in the ozone (and the attendant non-heat radiation) melted everything, but everyone was doing just awesome in short sleeves and no sunscreen.


----------



## Susan Alison (Jul 1, 2011)

Yep - attempted environmental preachiness - the leader of the Smokers - the really, really bad guy played by Dennis Hopper - his ship turned out to be the Exxon Valdez - which really, really shows what a bad guy he was AND he was a chain-smoker.

Heh - I'm grinning at the thought of it now, but I must look it out and watch it again. I enjoyed it.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

There was a clever bit about the Smokers though. In a world where no more tobacco can be produced, controlling the remaining supply and deploying nicotine's addictiveness is actually an excellent way to control a small, unstable population.

Gotta keep that in mind for when it actually happens by 2040. I'll be in my 60's by then and 'brutal dictator of a dying world' sounds like a nice fallback for retirement.


----------



## Susan Alison (Jul 1, 2011)

Yep. Sounds like a good plan to me. 

*buys up all coffee beans in readiness*


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Geoffrey said:


> I read a lot of alternate histories and a lot of apocalyptic fiction. Both are rife with authors pushing a particular worldview that often, but not always, disagrees with my own sociopolitical opinions. Most are unreadable because they are little more than political screeds with a Mary Sue main character here to save the day. Of course, there is a difference between agreeing with the author that x is a realistic result of y and agreeing with them that it's because of my political views on z.
> 
> For example, Kim Stanley Robinson is an author I've liked for a long time as a hard science fiction writer; his series, _Science in the Capital_ trilogy was about the effects of climate change and the political fights that occurred as the climate went insane, the polar vortex shifted into North America and the Gulf Stream slowed. It was all very pro-Green Party, anti-climate denial and heavy handed and just annoyed me for that heavy-handedness because I agreed with the politics more than I disagreed and found my eyes rolling regularly.
> 
> At the other end of the spectrum, S.M. Stirling's _Emberverse_ series is post-apocalyptic and he picked winner and loser groups to vilify or glorify but picked groups that are often very unusual ones such as a Wiccan coven, the Faculty of Oregon State University, the Society of Creative Anachronism, a boy scout camp, Buddhist monks, Benedictine monks, the Unabomber, the State of Iowa, etc. They are all groups he pushes and molds the same way these other authors do but doesn't glorify them or push an underlying agenda so it all works....


Agreed. I can't stomach books that drop in political commentary. That also goes for political commentary I agree with. Actually, I find the opinions I agree with more cringe-inducing in fiction than those I don't agree with.

I was surprised by the little pieces of politicking in the Jack Reacher books. I would've thought the publisher would've scrubbed it all out before they went to press. Who knows, maybe there was a lot more before they got to the manuscripts...

I also agree that there's a big difference between an author's political and religious orientation and preaching and politicking in books. Saying that everyone has an agenda, therefore all books are political, is like saying there's no difference between Hitler and Lincoln because they were both politicians-yes and yes, but everything important is in the details.


----------



## Lcthulou (Dec 6, 2013)

I usually don't read Christian fiction, but I like Ted Dekker and have read a lot of his work. There's something satisfying about sitting down to read a thriller and not having to worry about overt sexuality, violence, or rape scenes. And I'm a BIG Horror fan- it's not like I shy away from graphic sexuality or violence. If Ted preaches, he does it quietly. His people are good people in bad situations, and if they even mention their faith, it's just that it helps sustain them.

That being said, I can't read almost anybody else's Christian Thrillers. It's too in-your-face, too much Evil Secularists vs. Good Believers. And then when this proselytizing bleeds into mass market thrillers, it turns my stomach. I'm seeing it more and more... the Mary Sue who's righteous and right-leaning, vs. the sniveling cowards on the left who are in thrall to the Beast... Yuck. Or, Even Worse, the Noble Social Justice Warrior out against the backwards Mainstream Religious Cult slowly indoctrinating and taking over the world... Can't we just admit there's good and bad people on both sides?


----------



## UnicornEmily (Jul 2, 2011)

I tend to be more tolerant of preaching that I agree with.  But I still sigh if they're grinding my face in it.

If I adamantly disagree, then I want to throw the book across the room, or at least quit reading.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

(


> You are an author? You write stories? Then take your own advice and write a nice, bland, boring, lame, wooden, gray story so that it cannot have an agenda.
> 
> I*f you don't write it that way, you are writing your agenda, your personal beliefs, your morals. Right?* Because this is kind of what I've read throughout this thread. You can write your stories because they're just stories, but other books better not have no godd*mn agenda or pushy personal beliefs!


Umm, no. Not right. My morals are much different than Gastien's because we come from two different backgrounds for one thing. I think a good writer can write believable characters that are often way different from their own morals or beliefs. That's what good character development is. And Gastien isn't "nice", nor is it lame or wooden. Nor is my story on sex trafficking. But thank you for responding.

Having a character with strong beliefs is WAY different than having a story where everything mentioned pushes an agenda down your throat. I'm sure you're understand the difference. After all, you write.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

gentle reminder that this discussion is in the Book Corner.  Discussion on the topic regarding how one ought to write to avoid 'preaching' should be in the WC. Thanks!


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Ann in Arlington said:


> gentle reminder that this discussion is in the Book Corner. Discussion on the topic regarding how one ought to write to avoid 'preaching' should be in the WC. Thanks!


Yeah, _you_ moved it here, from the Writer's Cafe where it _started_. 

Since I had bookmarked the thread I would never have noticed if you hadn't "reminded" me.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

Yes, I had posted in the Writers' Cafe because I wanted to discuss this with writers. They are readers and I wanted to know if agendas bothered them and other readers, plus I wanted to know how authors felt about agendas in author's books. Could this please be moved back to where it started so that could be done?


----------



## BTackitt (Dec 15, 2008)

But many readers who don't write would then not see it or be able to comment, as while writers (hopefully) read, not all readers write, and many feel uncomfortable sticking their heads in the WC.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

BTackitt said:


> But many readers who don't write would then not see it or be able to comment, as while writers (hopefully) read, not all readers write, and many feel uncomfortable sticking their heads in the WC.


While I completely sympathize, some of us feel uncomfortable sticking our heads outside the Writer's Cafe. And it seems we're not allowed to discuss writerly things here.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

I personally, as a reader, have no problem with discussing how writers might address this. I think the line in the sand in The Book Corner is when writers start discussing their own specific works here. If you feel that is how you need to discuss this (i.e. specific references to your own work), then yes, it probably belongs in the W.C. Of course, there's no reason you could not simply start a new thread there with a specific topic/description indicating you'd like it to be a sort of "writers' workshop" on avoiding alienation of readers by stating your philosophies too strongly. 

Anyway, as a reader, I'm probably not all that interested in reading books (at least non-fluff books) that don't reflect themes of special interest to the author. I have no doubt there are good ways and bad ways to do that, but I also have no doubt that if the author's views on certain subjects are too far away from mine, I probably won't care that much for the book no matter how they write it.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

NogDog said:


> Of course, there's no reason you could not simply start a new thread there with a specific topic/description indicating you'd like it to be a sort of "writers' workshop" on avoiding alienation of readers by stating your philosophies too strongly.


*THIS* thread was started in the Writer's Cafe. It was moved here by a mod. Why would anyone start a new thread if it's likely to be moved again?

Another confusion: If you use the "My Bookmarks" function, you hardly notice a thread has been moved, so a lot of us may have thought we were still posting in a thread in the Writer's Cafe because it started there.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

Andrew Ashling said:


> *THIS* thread was started in the Writer's Cafe. It was moved here by a mod. Why would anyone start a new thread if it's likely to be moved again?
> 
> Another confusion: If you use the "My Bookmarks" function, you hardly notice a thread has been moved, so a lot of us may have thought we were still posting in a thread in the Writer's Cafe because it started there.


I understood that completely -- just saying there's still nothing stopping anyone who wants to have an authors-only (mostly) discussion on this without the restrictions imposed by being outside of the authors' WC could still do so, makin it explicit from the start that it's intended for such a discussion. Yes, the mods could move this back to the WC, but then those of us readers who find it interesting would probably no longer follow along, which would be at least a bit of a loss, in my personal view -- not that I want to impose my personal viewpoint on anyone!


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

NogDog said:


> I understood that completely -- just saying there's still nothing stopping anyone who wants to have an authors-only (mostly) discussion on this without the restrictions imposed by being outside of the authors' WC could still do so, makin it explicit from the start that it's intended for such a discussion. Yes, the mods could move this back to the WC, but then those of us readers who find it interesting would probably no longer follow along, which would be at least a bit of a loss, in my personal view -- not that I want to impose my personal viewpoint on anyone!


The fact that OP posted it in the Writer's Cafe should have been an indication that it was intended for such a discussion. 

And, by the way, you are of course welcome in the Writer's Café. We're stark raving mad, but we don't bite (most of the time).

Unless every thread that could possibly be of interest to non-writing readers is moved here, there's no telling what stuff you might be missing.


----------



## BTackitt (Dec 15, 2008)

ok, but the OP didn't talk about writing style. It is strictly a reading post. She wrote how she felt about reading someones agenda, and asked how others felt about reading agendas. Not about the craft of writing at all.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

Please reread my last post. I didn't want to talk about the craft of writing. I wanted to hear from other authors about how they feel when authors do this. And, if readers joined in to say if it bothered them or not, that would be great, too...but I wanted to know if other authors felt strongly about it. Not to say reader opinions aren't important, but as a writer I was curious if many of my cohorts considered doing this a normal or acceptable thing.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

Are we really having this argument now?  This thread was moved in mid-August.  It's October.  It was over a month before there was apparently any issue with the move.

It's over and done with.  Live with it.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

I think there's a difference between a book having a perspective and the main character simply being a mouthpiece for the author's views. The main character becomes all-virtuous, and the people who don't agree are shown as not only wrong, but have all sorts of vices heaped on them.


----------



## Jonathan C. Gillespie (Aug 9, 2012)

OK, this is one I've thought a lot about before, and I guess this is what I think about it.

Some of the best fiction was that which might be rightly called "preaching". Let me give you some examples using just the plots, as written by someone who might have thought they, too, were ripped off:

_So I think I'm buying a murder mystery centered on this small-town and this courageous little child that gets in over her head with her own suspicions. But wham, before I know it, I'm reading all about this lawyer and his standing up for an oppressed minority. What the heck happened? I was wanting to read a whodunit, and before I know it, I've been roped into someone else's feelings about Civil Rights!_

Let's try another:

_Look, I bought this book because it was a dystopian, right? I mean, that's what I showed up for. But halfway through it, the main character starts reading this forbidden book that was written by the grand poobah of this thing called the Brotherhood. And the guy's going on and on about capitalism and class warfare and all this other dreck, and I'm like GET ON WITH IT._

I could do this all day!

_Killing bugs. That's all you have to do when you wrote this thing, is give me futuristic soldiers killing space bugs. I didn't want a diatribe about how the rights of the criminal became more important than the rights of the victim, and how bad 20th-century America was, and why you think this new Neo-Fascist thing is really something the reader should hear about for twenty-some-odd pages. Give me a break. Label the book properly next time._

There are a host of great writers out there that get political in almost every work they make. Coming from spec fiction, I'm used to there being a strong progressive slant on many of the titles that come out of it. Cory Doctorow, for example, is a great writer, but his works are often heavy with the "preaching". I'm OK with it, though--I think the open court of ideas is very important, and I think speculative fiction in particular has a special burden to be challenging. We should never grow so comfortable in our ideas that we don't allow them to be nudged now and then.

If I turned down every book I found myself disagreeing with (in terms of ideology, politics, etc), I'd have some gaps in my bookshelf.

But one can go overboard, and that leads to folks having an experience like Caddy's. I do think--on some level--Caddy is having a reaction to Christian content that is a little over-the-top. That's not a slam--I just get the impression this content struck a nerve. But on the other side of the coin, the author fouled the ball. It's a rare author that can get away with being hamfisted. You need Orwellian skills for that.

I think the better approach, usually, is to go subtle, and invite thought by threads of the plot. I'm reminded of _Lo_, a great little movie that came out a few years back, which made its points using metaphor, in a way that blew away the hamfisted approach of the vastly bigger-budget _Avatar_.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

Yeah, Cory Doctorow has been too "obvious" in his "preaching" for my tastes, so I've pretty much avoided him since trying a couple of his books a few years ago. If I were curious enough and introspective enough, it might be interesting to see if I could figure out the precise reasons his writing went past some mental line in the sand for me while I was able to read _Starship Trooper_ (a couple times), all the while realizing Heinlein was preaching to me. (Though to be honest, I wasn't always sure which things Heinlein was prescribing and which he was proscribing via satire -- maybe that's the key?)


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

I do agree that Doctorow gets right up to the line with preaching but his books don't bother me (and not simply because I tend to agree with his world view) although he has gotten close ... Margaret Atwood can be very open with her opinions in her fiction, as can Sheri S. Tepper or William R. Forstchen. None of them bother me. I think it's partially because their main characters are fully realized people with all the strengths and flaws that entails. they're not Mary Sues come to save the day. Their antagonists also tend to be more fully realized and not just a collection of evils.

In Atwood's _The Handmaid's Tale_, Serena Joy is definitely one of Offred's antagonists but she's also a sympathetic character in that she got exactly what she wanted and she was now trapped in it. But there are others who would have written that character as nothing but a shrill, hateful witch.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Jonathan C. Gillespie said:


> There are a host of great writers out there that get political in almost every work they make.


Well, that begs the question. You say they're great writers in spite of their politicking. Some of us clearly think they're not great writers because of it.


----------



## Jonathan C. Gillespie (Aug 9, 2012)

Generally speaking, a great number of the classics were inflammatory upon release.


----------



## Adrian P (Aug 5, 2014)

Diane Patterson said:


> I've read a number of political thrillers in which there are good guys and bad guys. The good guys are very definitely of one political persuasion and everyone else is basically evil or an idiot.
> 
> It's tiresome.


Ah, this. There are SO MANY WAYS that stories become author tracts. I keep that in my mind when reading ANY book. Even when authors don't preach at you, I don't think it's even possible for the way an author views the world not to effect the world they write. Stories can be wonderful ways to gain insights on various things...but you've always got to be on guard as to whether this is something _*you*_ want to agree with...or whether this is simply something the author *wants* you to agree with, that you don't believe after all.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Jonathan C. Gillespie said:


> Generally speaking, a great number of the classics were inflammatory upon release.


Some books are classics because they _are_ political: Orwell's _1984_ and _Animal Farm _come to mind. I don't think anyone's disputing that either. What's at issue is really is different levels of politics and different abilities in treating political material. You (and some others) seem to be saying that Orwell's approach is no better or worse than the thriller writer who seeds his books with clumsy partisan shots and political gripes of the day (e.g., "If only the stupid Republicans had passed Bill __, we wouldn't be in this mess!") because they're both political in the most abstract sense of the word. I say the difference between Orwell and that guy is the difference between Aristotle and Snooki commenting on politics--one's worth reading and one should shut up.


----------



## Tony Richards (Jul 6, 2011)

Geoffrey said:


> I do agree that Doctorow gets right up to the line with preaching but his books don't bother me (and not simply because I tend to agree with his world view) although he has gotten close ...


Yeah, Doctorow can be preachy, especially in The Book of Daniel. But he's such a terrific writer that I let him get away with it.

The writer Caddy is describing, though, sound very considerably worse, and in my opinion should be drummed out of the Writer's Union. If we had one. Which we don't.


----------



## Alessandra Kelley (Feb 22, 2011)

I'm a reader, not an author, if that's any help to the conversation.

I don't mind stories with an agenda, but I can't stand when an author uses politics as an excuse to make one side all genius Mary Sues and the other all moronic evilmongers.

I actually felt ill once when it dawned on me that a science fiction author I was reading had introduced characters from a subculture I'm affiliated with solely to be idiots, jerks, and ultimately corpses the reader was supposed to feel good about. I knew this person was of a political affiliation unlike mine, but until that moment I had trusted him to write honestly three-dimensional characters.

I wince at political Mary Sue characters, whether I am supposed to agree with them or not. It doesn't make me any happier when characters spout my political beliefs while they trounce thin, flat caricatures of opposing beliefs.



Geoffrey said:


> I do agree that Doctorow gets right up to the line with preaching but his books don't bother me (and not simply because I tend to agree with his world view) although he has gotten close ... Margaret Atwood can be very open with her opinions in her fiction, as can Sheri S. Tepper or William R. Forstchen. None of them bother me. I think it's partially because their main characters are fully realized people with all the strengths and flaws that entails. they're not Mary Sues come to save the day. Their antagonists also tend to be more fully realized and not just a collection of evils.
> 
> In Atwood's _The Handmaid's Tale_, Serena Joy is definitely one of Offred's antagonists but she's also a sympathetic character in that she got exactly what she wanted and she was now trapped in it. But there are others who would have written that character as nothing but a shrill, hateful witch.


Yes, exactly. I am open to reading works by authors with many opinions, even ones with heavy agendas. But they had best write their characters with honesty.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

PamelaKelley said:


> It seems like this is becoming more common, especially with Indie books where stories don't always fit neatly in a box but sometimes might straddle two genres. Thinking a mystery with thriller elements for instance. Admittedly though, even though I love reading all three, it's not crystal clear to me how mysteries, thrillers and suspense differ from one another.


Well a mystery has to have...a mystery. I'll forgive thriller elements but there better fricking well be a mystery. *snarls*

Oops. Sorry. Off my soapbox.



AngryGames said:


> Huh. I read stories and enjoy them or not based on the story. Every book has a political or religious or some kind of agenda, according to every reader I've ever met (including the readers in this thread). Books that you enjoy you never notice the agenda or the preaching. Books that you don't enjoy, the preaching / agenda seems in your face. The truth is... it's a story. A story is a story is a story.
> 
> Stop reading so much into stories. They're just stories. If you don't like the story, that's cool, but don't run around yelling about how an author is trying to shove an agenda down your throat. Authors write stories. You are an author? You write stories? Then take your own advice and write a nice, bland, boring, lame, wooden, gray story so that it cannot have an agenda.
> 
> If you don't write it that way, you are writing your agenda, your personal beliefs, your morals. Right? Because this is kind of what I've read throughout this thread. You can write your stories because they're just stories, but other books better not have no godd*mn agenda or pushy personal beliefs!


I honestly can't disagree more. Having an agenda does NOT make books less boring and many of us write about stuff that is NOT our beliefs. If you are writing to push an agenda, that means the agenda is more important than the story and that you can't write about anyone who doesn't share your particular political/religious beliefs (except to make them villains). Now THAT is boring. Those are the people who turn characters into cardboard cutouts. There is a line because a novel can in fact represent our beliefs but when the beliefs trump the story telling we are in serious trouble.


----------



## Jonathan C. Gillespie (Aug 9, 2012)

WHDean said:


> Some books are classics because they _are_ political: Orwell's _1984_ and _Animal Farm _come to mind. I don't think anyone's disputing that either. What's at issue is really is different levels of politics and different abilities in treating political material. You (and some others) seem to be saying that Orwell's approach is no better or worse than the thriller writer who seeds his books with clumsy partisan shots and political gripes of the day (e.g., "If only the stupid Republicans had passed Bill __, we wouldn't be in this mess!") because they're both political in the most abstract sense of the word. I say the difference between Orwell and that guy is the difference between Aristotle and Snooki commenting on politics--one's worth reading and one should shut up.


No, I think we're on the same page. The impression I got from the OP and subsequent posters was that preaching of any kind is something to be avoided. My point is yours--that it can actually make for a great book if the writer is sufficiently skilled. Plus--and maybe this is just me coming from the world of spec fic--I like fiction to be challenging. For example, while I thought most of what Neil Gaiman was saying (and it was him saying it) in _American Gods_ was utter bunk, he had the chops to still pull off a pretty good book. I want fiction that isn't afraid to dabble into the open court of ideas. That's all I'm saying.


----------



## Guest (Oct 17, 2014)

WHDean said:


> Some books are classics because they _are_ political: Orwell's _1984_ and _Animal Farm _come to mind. I don't think anyone's disputing that either. What's at issue is really is different levels of politics and different abilities in treating political material. You (and some others) seem to be saying that Orwell's approach is no better or worse than the thriller writer who seeds his books with clumsy partisan shots and political gripes of the day (e.g., "If only the stupid Republicans had passed Bill __, we wouldn't be in this mess!") because they're both political in the most abstract sense of the word. I say the difference between Orwell and that guy is the difference between Aristotle and Snooki commenting on politics--one's worth reading and one should shut up.


In addition, I think it is a matter of transparency. Animal Farm was never marketed as a children's book. It was always clearly political. Whereas what I often see with Christian fiction is that it is actually marketed as something else entirely. If a book is Christian fiction, label it such so people who enjoy it can find it! Don't label it horror and then spend 300 pages basic basically implying that I am going to Hell. I freaked out on an author recently who sent me an excerpt for inclusion in my 30 Days of Indie Horror promo for a book labeled "horror" that was clearly a religious scree with no attempt at subtly or nuance at all. THAT is the sort of stuff that as both a reader and author will set me off. Don't try to "trick" me in an attempt to convert me.

There is a difference between the trickery, however, and authors who just don't understand what different genres are for. The horror genre is cluttered up with paranormal romances because people figure if they have a vampire or werewolf boyfriend, the book should be in the horror section.  A lot of writers don't bother to learn the differences between a mystery and a thriller or the difference between high fantasy and urban fantasy and just cram their books into as many categories as possible. That is annoying, but a matter of ignorance and not outright deception.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> In addition, I think it is a matter of transparency. Animal Farm was never marketed as a children's book. It was always clearly political. Whereas what I often see with Christian fiction is that it is actually marketed as something else entirely. If a book is Christian fiction, label it such so people who enjoy it can find it! Don't label it horror and then spend 300 pages basic basically implying that I am going to Hell. I freaked out on an author recently who sent me an excerpt for inclusion in my 30 Days of Indie Horror promo for a book labeled "horror" that was clearly a religious scree with no attempt at subtly or nuance at all. THAT is the sort of stuff that as both a reader and author will set me off. Don't try to "trick" me in an attempt to convert me.
> 
> There is a difference between the trickery, however, and authors who just don't understand what different genres are for. The horror genre is cluttered up with paranormal romances because people figure if they have a vampire or werewolf boyfriend, the book should be in the horror section.  A lot of writers don't bother to learn the differences between a mystery and a thriller or the difference between high fantasy and urban fantasy and just cram their books into as many categories as possible. That is annoying, but a matter of ignorance and not outright deception.


I can't speak to that example because I haven't come across one, though I'll take your word that it happens. All the same, I still think execution is more important than misclassification. That book would probably suck no matter where it was placed.

An example of good execution is Heinlein's _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_. People often cite this book as an example of an author "being political" because the Loonies are libertarians and H. was a libertarian. But this characterization glosses over all the important details--not to mention commit the genetic fallacy. The book isn't an argument for, or defence of, libertarianism. It's fairly obvious, for example, that the Loonies are libertarian by default. There's no law on Luna beyond the warden's regulations because no one cares what they do so long as the grain gets shipped on time (and the grain gets grown and shipped because they'll starve without it and the income it brings in). At the end of the book, moreover, Mannie points out that the Loonies started introducing laws against everything immediately after the revolution. H. has him say something to the effect that it's human nature to create laws to control one's neighbours--so it's not like libertarianism finally had its day in the sun and everyone lived happily ever after.

I could add a dozen more examples, but I think the idea is simple enough. Heinlein uses libertarianism to make the story; he doesn't make the story to advance libertarianism.


----------



## Jonathan C. Gillespie (Aug 9, 2012)

WHDean said:


> I could add a dozen more examples, but I think the idea is simple enough. Heinlein uses libertarianism to make the story; he doesn't make the story to advance libertarianism.


And I think the key thing to notice there is that Heinlein isn't just portraying an idea, he's being reflective about it.


----------



## timskorn (Nov 7, 2012)

Whatever.  People take things too personally.  Its not all about you.  Enjoy the story for what it is.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

PamelaKelley said:


> It seems like this is becoming more common, especially with Indie books where stories don't always fit neatly in a box but sometimes might straddle two genres. Thinking a mystery with thriller elements for instance. Admittedly though, even though I love reading all three, it's not crystal clear to me how mysteries, thrillers and suspense differ from one another.


This is often a complaint heard in bookshops, 'Where are we going to put it?" There should always be a category for general fiction, especially with all the new Indie titles, because many of them do not easily slot into the usual genres.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Jonathan C. Gillespie said:


> And I think the key thing to notice there is that Heinlein isn't just portraying an idea, he's being reflective about it.


Not advocating, at any rate. I think it might simply be a case of "writing what you know." Heinlein was a libertarian, so it was easy enough for him to leverage that knowledge.


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> There is a difference between the trickery, however, and authors who just don't understand what different genres are for. The horror genre is cluttered up with paranormal romances because people figure if they have a vampire or werewolf boyfriend, the book should be in the horror section.


But that's where our local book store puts them. Last time I looked, there wasn't much else in the horror section. Writers aren't the ones putting them there.


----------



## LaraAmber (Feb 24, 2009)

Great topic.  That's where Terry Goodkind falls apart for me.  When the story stutters to a stop so the main character can preach at others, when anyone proposes an opposing viewpoint the only arguments they are allowed to present are paper thin, and when there is no room for acknowledging the weaknesses of the "correct" ideology I'm no longer reading a compelling story.  

Real life has nuance.  Real life recognizes that "one" answer won't work for everyone and that sometimes blending really gives the best results.  Real life doesn't give you simple problems that could be fixed if everyone would just fall in line.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

LaraAmber said:


> Great topic. That's where Terry Goodkind falls apart for me. When the story stutters to a stop so the main character can preach at others, when anyone proposes an opposing viewpoint the only arguments they are allowed to present are paper thin, and when there is no room for acknowledging the weaknesses of the "correct" ideology I'm no longer reading a compelling story.
> 
> Real life has nuance. Real life recognizes that "one" answer won't work for everyone and that sometimes blending really gives the best results. Real life doesn't give you simple problems that could be fixed if everyone would just fall in line.


I've heard that from a lot of people who've read him, and I admit that I've avoided reading him for that reason. Then again there's probably a whole fan base that reads him because he preaches. Who knows.


----------



## Maria Romana (Jun 7, 2010)

Sorry for reviving an old thread, folks, but I had been following this one when it was fresh, and it immediately sprang to mind last night. I was all curled up in bed with my Kindle, knowing I didn't have to get up early and work today, when I began to get suspicious. Imagine my disappointment when I picked it up again today and my suspicions were confirmed -- the new book I had picked out to read over the holiday weekend was secretly a sermon in disguise. There was not one word in the description that even hinted at a religious agenda; it was marketed as a romantic adventure about an archeological dig in the Middle East. Fortunately, I just bought it, so I can return it, but I can't get back the night of unstressed-no-alarm-set reading!


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

Maria Romana said:


> Sorry for reviving an old thread, folks, but I had been following this one when it was fresh, and it immediately sprang to mind last night. I was all curled up in bed with my Kindle, knowing I didn't have to get up early and work today, when I began to get suspicious. Imagine my disappointment when I picked it up again today and my suspicions were confirmed -- the new book I had picked out to read over the holiday weekend was secretly a sermon in disguise. There was not one word in the description that even hinted at a religious agenda; it was marketed as a romantic adventure about an archeological dig in the Middle East. Fortunately, I just bought it, so I can return it, but I can't get back the night of unstressed-no-alarm-set reading!


Will you be doing a review to warn other readers? That's when reviews are useful.


----------



## Maria Romana (Jun 7, 2010)

Jan Hurst-Nicholson said:


> Will you be doing a review to warn other readers? That's when reviews are useful.


I'll tell you, Jan, I wanted to. I even penned a calm and fair warning review to that effect, but then thought better of it. My Amazon account has my name on it, so I've stopped leaving any negative reviews for books there, for fear of backlash from another author's fans. It's an unfortunate side effect of the whole fake review problem that now we authors are afraid to express any but the most bland opinions online.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

Maria Romana said:


> I'll tell you, Jan, I wanted to. I even penned a calm and fair warning review to that effect, but then thought better of it. My Amazon account has my name on it, so I've stopped leaving any negative reviews for books there, for fear of backlash from another author's fans. It's an unfortunate side effect of the whole fake review problem that now we authors are afraid to express any but the most bland opinions online.


Fully understandable. 
I thought there was a big readership for Christian fiction, so I'm surprised that the author didn't advertise it as such.


----------



## Maria Romana (Jun 7, 2010)

Jan Hurst-Nicholson said:


> Fully understandable.
> I thought there was a big readership for Christian fiction, so I'm surprised that the author didn't advertise it as such.


I think there is, so I don't know why she wouldn't market the book to the folks who would love to read it! If there's one thing I've learned in four years of self-publishing, it's to be very clear about what you are offering. Trying to "trick" people into reading your stuff will net you a lot more disgruntled customers than accidental fans.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

Maria Romana said:


> I think there is, so I don't know why she wouldn't market the book to the folks who would love to read it! If there's one thing I've learned in four years of self-publishing, it's to be very clear about what you are offering. Trying to "trick" people into reading your stuff will net you a lot more disgruntled customers than accidental fans.


Too true!!
Perhaps you can leave a review just saying that it will appeal to readers of Christian fiction.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

A gentle reminder that, being the Book Corner, this is for discussing things from the readers' pespective.  If you want to discuss it as an author, this thread in the Writers' Café has a similar theme:
http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,202794.0.html

Thanks!

Betsy
KB Mod


----------



## martyns (May 8, 2014)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> A gentle reminder that, being the Book Corner, this is for discussing things from the readers' pespective.  If you want to discuss it as an author, this thread in the Writers' Cafe has a similar theme:
> http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,202794.0.html
> 
> Thanks!
> ...


Sorry Betsy, removed the post. I've read the other thread, but my post didn't seem to fit the discussion there, so I don't think I'll paste it in.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> A gentle reminder that, being the Book Corner, this is for discussing things from the readers' pespective.  If you want to discuss it as an author, this thread in the Writers' Cafe has a similar theme:
> http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,202794.0.html
> 
> Thanks!
> ...


A gentle reminder that this thread was started by a writer in the Writer's Cafe, so this subject could be discussed from a writer's perspective. 

It was then moved by a mod to the Book Corner.

Really? You "gently remind" the original poster(s) they now can't discuss the subject anymore from their own perspective (although they started it in the appropriate forum) because it was moved, without consulting them and against their wishes, to a forum they hadn't intended it for?

Should a writer relaunch this subject in the Writer's Cafe? But in that case, what if a mod moves the subject again?


----------

