# Republicans, Tea Party - Cliche' bad guys in fiction?



## Izzy Hammerstein (Jul 6, 2011)

Do you think it's fair in stories to portray Republicans as stooges for the rich and Tea party as hill billy gun owners?
Is it a cliche' or fair game to write about them as rich, mean spirited and haters of the poor working man and prurient about women?


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

Israel Hammerstein said:


> Do you think it's fair in stories to portray Republicans as stooges for the rich and Tea party as hill billy gun owners?
> Is it a cliche' or fair game to write about them as rich, mean spirited and haters of the poor working man and prurient about women?


You can write your characters the way you want. A lot of what you do will depend on the story, and your intended audience. Cliches are a way to write a shortcut, so it's best to make your protagonist and your antagonist rounded, believable people.

That said, you'd better be well-prepared for a backlash from readers who don't agree with you. And there will be a backlash. It could even be career-killing backlash, at least for that author name.


----------



## AngryGames (Jul 28, 2013)

It isn't any different than writing about liberals or democrats as bleeding-heart, welfare-stealing blah blah blah. The characters are yours, write them how you want. As for backlash...it's fiction. It probably would be a different story if it was non-fiction, but there's a ton of conservatives and liberals that write non-fic books that compete for your ideological appetite. 

If you get backlash in fiction...welcome to fiction. There will always be readers who don't like that your main character is black, female, gay, alien, Jewish, Scandinavian, tall, ugly, pimply, ginger, racist...whatever. Unless you write something so offensive that it causes massive outcry from the majority of the world...you won't harm your career. If this was true, there would be a TON of authors in both fic and non-fic that would never sell another book after their controversy, but they are doing all right (better than all right...better than most of us, I'd wager). 

A lot of a writer's characters bleed the same blood as the writer. If you are a liberal, your heroes tend to be liberal. If you are a conservative, your enemies tend to be liberal. Not always, but for the most part, this is true. Write for yourself, and write the stories YOU want to read. Don't worry about what anyone else will say about it (unless it is full of spelling, punctuation, grammar, and formatting errors, of course!). Writers who don't worry about critics or reviews and write the stories they would love to read usually write the best stories.


----------



## jhendereson (Oct 22, 2010)

JR Henderson, you wouldn't happen to have kinfolk living in Arkansas, do you?


----------



## brendajcarlton (Sep 29, 2012)

Bigotry against people who do not live in big cities is .........Bigotry.


----------



## RJ Kennett (Jul 31, 2013)

Technically, bigotry against bigots is also bigotry... but I digress.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

Literature is full of people who want to lower taxes and shrink government.  Deciding whether they're your protags or antags is a choice the author makes. Bad authors make the characters with political views contrary to their own into charicatures that insult the opposition and turn the book into a bad political spin program, the kind few people watch.


----------



## bhazelgrove (Jul 16, 2013)

I suppose it is all in what said of the aisle you sit  on.


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

I'm thinking that, as writers, we can get a little more creative than to stoop to stereotypes 
By using those cliches, you're creating very one-dimensional characters (unless you also show why they are on that side of the fence). 
And if the political landscape changes and things return to sanity more to the middle, you'll look like you're reaching. Or perhaps they'll burn your book in churches or use it for warmth around a camp fire.


----------



## David Adams (Jan 2, 2012)

I totally agree with Quiss.

In fact, sometimes I create characters to challenge myself. For example, a few people have reviewed Lacuna poorly out of perceived anti-American bias. So when the first American character shows up in The Spectre of Oblivion, who's from the deep south... I imagine everyone was bracing themselves for Yosemite Sam.

Instead he's cool, cooperative and level-headed. Perhaps that bias was just how Liao was seeing them.

Your villians, no matter who they are, should be complex. Their motivations should feel "real". I dislike moustache twirling thuggery; the reasons should be sound to the reader. You can make a "no taxes, ever" character who's a Tea Party member, and a bad guy, but they should have more than that. There should be something else.

You're a writer, man. Depth! Depth!


----------



## brendajcarlton (Sep 29, 2012)

> I totally agree with Quiss.
> 
> In fact, sometimes I create characters to challenge myself. For example, a few people have reviewed Lacuna poorly out of perceived anti-American bias. So when the first American character shows up in The Spectre of Oblivion, who's from the deep south... I imagine everyone was bracing themselves for Yosemite Sam.
> 
> ...


Yes. For example, maybe the EPA shut down his walnut growing business because there is a rare frog in his creek, but he still has to pay taxes on the land that is now worthless and he went bankrupt. There really are two sides to every story.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

The world is full of cliches and their cousin, generalization. Point to any person in a crowd and someone can generalize about the person simply based on how that person looks: clothes, hair, etc. The fact that the assessment of that person is miles from the truth would be irrelevant, because the person _looks_ a certain way, so therefore must _be_ and _act_ in that same vein.

What a writer does with his characters is up to him. How a reader responds to that character is up to her. Both are absolutely correct in doing so.

(Note: obviously the "him" and "her' are generic and interchangeable.)


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

Quiss said:


> And if the political landscape changes and things return to sanity


Politics hasn't changed since the first government was formed. Only the media coverage has changed.


----------



## Redbloon (Mar 27, 2013)

People think and behave the way they do for a reason (or many reasons). You could write a father character who is incredibly liberal and never disciplines his child - resulting in the problems that brings in its wake -and all you get is 'wishy washy liberal'. Make him the son of an over disciplining spare the rod spoil the child type and he becomes a more interesting rounded character who is actively trying to overcome the upbringing he had. 

Basically work out the character's back story and you will find your Republican becomes more than just the political party but a character in his/her own right.

Good luck


----------



## Joshua Dalzelle (Jun 12, 2013)

I have my doubts that this is a legit question and more of a "clever" way for you to vent your vitriol (but maybe not), so I'll jump in before this gets locked.


If you make your characters into caricatures by playing to absurd stereotypes your work will suffer for it. Realistically you've just alienated at least half your potential readership since the country is more or less split down the middle by party. It could be argued there's not much difference between parties anymore, but that wasn't the question. Being bludgeoned by an author's personal politics in their fiction is exhausting for most readers. A little subtlety can go a long way... you can make your point without childish insults and cliched portrayals of real, complex people.


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

Redbloon said:


> People think and behave the way they do for a reason (or many reasons). You could write a father character who is incredibly liberal and never disciplines his child - resulting in the problems that brings in its wake -and all you get is 'wishy washy liberal'. Make him the son of an over disciplining spare the rod spoil the child type and he becomes a more interesting rounded character who is actively trying to overcome the upbringing he had.


Exactly. Conversely:
You could write a father character who is incredibly liberal and never disciplines his child - resulting in a caring, loving individual with a broad and tolerant worldview. Make him the son of an over disciplining spare the rod spoil the child type and he becomes a stunted and angry wife-beater who imposes his views upon others.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Y'all are doing a good job (for the most part) of keeping the discussion about the writing of clichéd characters and away from actual politics.  Keep it up!

Just wanted to let y'all know that this thread is part of the neighborhood watch system.



Betsy


----------



## nobody_important (Jul 9, 2010)

Israel Hammerstein said:


> Do you think it's fair in stories to portray Republicans as stooges for the rich and Tea party as hill billy gun owners?
> Is it a cliche' or fair game to write about them as rich, mean spirited and haters of the poor working man and prurient about women?


The fact that you even feel the need to ask is telling.

If you have no reason to make your stooges or hill billy gun owners Republicans or Tea Partiers, don't do it. Nothing annoys people like politics, so it's better to stay away unless you can do a really really good, nuanced job.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

Israel Hammerstein said:


> Do you think it's fair in stories to portray Republicans as stooges for the rich and Tea party as hill billy gun owners?
> Is it a cliche' or fair game to write about them as rich, mean spirited and haters of the poor working man and prurient about women?


Write whatever you want. Everything is a cliche anyway. This does smell like bait.


----------



## BRONZEAGE (Jun 25, 2011)

JRHenderson said:


> You know what? We should have a "Guess the thread that's about to be locked" competition....


Good one. Instead of this easy P*ssing contest, let's talk about the rash of misused apostrophes loose in the world. Some of us are tired of navelgazing and gender confusion and the Issue Du Jour for the bourgeois pseudo-oppressed.

Meanwhile emails and blog posts and mainstream media are choked with unnecessary apostrophes cluttering up words which are simply plural. Or, homeless apostrophes that are stuck into the word its as in possessive (not the contraction for it is).

Wise up, people. Basic skills will be gone by January 2014. The death of the semicolon is next.


----------



## Guest (Oct 3, 2013)

As others have said, it's your story. Do what you want with it. 

However, the characters that are in said story should develop out of that story and not a political agenda. If you do that, you run the risk of stereotyping characters instead of having a certain character be squirrelly for a myriad of reasons. 

In other words, writing one book where a member of a certain group is a bad guy is acceptable. If you do it in all your books, well, you will be stereotyping and not expressing your fresh, new character's voices. You'll just be expressing yours over and over again and that tends to get boring and tired very quickly.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

JRHenderson said:


> You know what? We should have a "Guess the thread that's about to be locked" competition....


Thread winner!


----------



## George Applegate (Jan 23, 2013)

Not sure about the agenda of the OP, but writing straw man characters that will anger half the readers could draw quite a few 1-star reviews. If, however, there are characters in the story that point out and attack the cliche, those offended may feel vindicated enough not to give drive-by reviews. It's sometimes possible to present political issues in an ambiguous way so that both sides think the presentation makes their case. 

I recently had a discussion with a friend about a political news website that posts news clips and articles from both sides. He liked that the site supported his views and ridiculed the opposition. What may actually be happening, however, is that the site simply displays extremes on both sides, and he saw the opposition material as self-parody. Both liberals and conservatives may smugly see their opponents views presented without comment as looking ridiculous.


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

BRONZEAGE said:


> Good one. Instead of this easy P*ssing contest, let's talk about the rash of misused apostrophes loose in the world. Some of us are tired of navelgazing and gender confusion and the Issue Du Jour for the bourgeois pseudo-oppressed.
> 
> Meanwhile emails and blog posts and mainstream media are choked with unnecessary apostrophes cluttering up words which are simply plural. Or, homeless apostrophes that are stuck into the word its as in possessive (not the contraction for it is).
> 
> Wise up, people. Basic skills will be gone by January 2014. The death of the semicolon is next.


Your so wrong! Its apostrophe-hating pedants like you who will bring this country to its knees!!!!11!
(wait a minute. I'm in Canada...)


----------



## Daizie (Mar 27, 2013)

I'm not a Republican or a Tea Partier--I'm not quite sure what that is these days because it keeps changing faces--but you are painting with a broad, offensive brush, my friend, and your use of "fair game" and gun-toting hill billies tells a lot about your belief system. While authors can certainly write about whatever they want, if you are trying to make a point or share a world view or position, it should be _shown_ as much as possible so it doesn't come across ham-fisted, like you are preaching to the reader about how Republicans and like this and that. It's dangerous and ignorant to make such a broad generalization. You could have a _group_ of Republicans, like the powers-that-be in the Church in _The DaVinci Code_, or a collaborative of Neo-cons, but I'd avoid writing about the evils of the Republican party in a book, which sounds like it will be just an outlet to spew your gripes. _The Chamber_ is a book by John Grisham in which his position is very anti-death penalty, and he shows why he feels it's wrong, and even that, though he showed it, comes across as preachy, where it's very obvious that that's his stance. So, I'd be careful. But there should definitely, definitely be a reason for this point to be postured in your book.

Writers should feel free to write about the things they feel strongly about, but subtly goes a long way, and you will be less likely to offend half of your potential readership if you hint and show rather than bludgeon.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

I think it depends on whether you can write GOOD hillbilly gun owners. I mean hillbillies (it's one word and the fact that you spelled it wrong makes me uneasy) exist. Gun owners exist. They aren't all the same and they are people like everyone else in the world. If you assume some nasty stereotypes about them, well... you will probably write caricatures rather than characters. But there are novels with hillbilly gun owners that are excellent. 

Do it well and you're fine. Do it badly and you're not.


----------



## brendajcarlton (Sep 29, 2012)

> I think it depends on whether you can write GOOD hillbilly gun owners. I mean hillbillies (it's one word and the fact that you spelled it wrong makes me uneasy) exist. Gun owners exist. They aren't all the same and they are people like everyone else in the world. If you assume some nasty stereotypes about them, well... you will probably write caricatures rather than characters. But there are novels with hillbilly gun owners that are excellent.
> 
> Do it well and you're fine. Do it badly and you're not.


My son shot a rabid raccoon that was attacking the family dog. He does not live in an area that would typically be called by the H word, but nonetheless if you live half an hour away from the nearest state police barracks a gun is simply a necessary piece of equipment. You can't beat a rabid raccoon to death with opinions. (By the way, the dog was saved and did not get infected.)


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

vrabinec said:


> Literature is full of people who want to lower taxes and shrink government. Deciding whether they're your protags or antags is a choice the author makes. Bad authors make the characters with political views contrary to their own into charicatures that insult the opposition and turn the book into a bad political spin program, the kind few people watch.


This

I think you lose it when you go from "this character is a gun toting hillbilly" to "All republicans/conservatives/Tea Party/InsertpeopleIdon'tagreewith are stupid gun toting hillbillies." This would pretty much limit your audience to rabid opponents to that side who enjoy having their opinions stroked with caricatures and strawmen.

The good news is there might be enough of those to give you good sales.....


----------



## BrianKittrell (Jan 8, 2011)

Why not buck the trend and write both sides as good guys? We tend to lose sight of the very real possibility that the guys on the other side of the spectrum are human beings who are trying to do what they think is right.

Or go with the other trend: portray them all as the bad guys corrupt with special interests. lol

(I guess the former might apply best to YA, while the second might best apply to the adult market.  )


----------



## JonDavis1 (Apr 11, 2012)

Just expect the bad reviews. But otherwise, it's the same as making a Cardinal a bad guy for Catholics. Or a Calvin or Southern Baptist Minister evil for Evangelicals to see.
Life happens. We can't always create something out of thin air, especially when 'bad' guys are in the news all the time, and you're writing modern day or near future genre adventures or books.


----------



## Joshua Dalzelle (Jun 12, 2013)

BrianKittrell said:


> Or go with the other trend: portray them all as the bad guys corrupt with special interests. lol


That's just reality right there...


----------



## Lizbooks (Mar 15, 2013)

BrianKittrell said:


> Why not buck the trend and write both sides as good guys? We tend to lose sight of the very real possibility that the guys on the other side of the spectrum are human beings who are trying to do what they think is right.


This is a great idea. It goes along with the saying that every villain believes he's the hero of his own story.

A lot depends on your audience. If your audience is largely liberal, go for it. If you have more of a mixed group of readers, you're likely to piss off a lot of them and lose your fans. You can't be all things to all people, so if your desire is to target left-leaning readers, don't be afraid to do it. (That said, of course relying on stereotypes and cliches can be a sign of lazy writing. Whatever you do, do it well at least.)


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

brendajcarlton said:


> My son shot a rabid raccoon that was attacking the family dog. He does not live in an area that would typically be called by the H word, but nonetheless if you live half an hour away from the nearest state police barracks a gun is simply a necessary piece of equipment. You can't beat a rabid raccoon to death with opinions. (By the way, the dog was saved and did not get infected.)


I know some hillbillies who claim the term with some pride. Like many terms that are considered insults, the people they are used against sometimes claim them as their own. (But I would take care in using it about someone else  )

The assumption that because someone is a country person, especially an Appalachian, that they are stupid, uneducated or unsophisticated is, to put it mildly, fallacious and offensive. And even if they happen to fit that description, they are still people--human beings worthy of respect, even when I don't like their politics.


----------



## CEMartin2 (May 26, 2012)

Israel Hammerstein said:


> Do you think it's fair in stories to portray Republicans as stooges for the rich and Tea party as hill billy gun owners?
> Is it a cliche' or fair game to write about them as rich, mean spirited and haters of the poor working man and prurient about women?


Depends on the genre you're writing in. In Men's Adventure, Warren Murphy has satirized liberals since the early 1970s (and occassinally some "RINOs"). His series, The Destroyer (Remo Williams, in the movie version) is still going strong, with 150th book released this year. Bashing the left doesn't seem to hurt.

That being said, if Mr. Murphy had a stroke and suddenly hated the Right, he'd lose most of his fans. And the fact that his left-bashing satirical jabs don't seem to hurt sales is a strong indicator it's Republicans/Conservatives reading the books.

If you're thinking of writing in a similar genre, I think it'd be a bad move. Other genres it might work really well though. Do some research before you risk angering the larger demographic for your genre of choice.


----------



## brendajcarlton (Sep 29, 2012)

> I know some hillbillies who claim the term with some pride. Like many terms that are considered insults, the people they are used against sometimes claim them as their own. (But I would take care in using it about someone else Wink )
> 
> The assumption that because someone is a country person, especially an Appalachian, that they are stupid, uneducated or unsophisticated is, to put it mildly, fallacious and offensive. And even if they happen to fit that description, they are still people--human beings worthy of respect, even when I don't like their politics.


Yes. It is just as stereotypical as the reverse, assuming that everyone who live in a city is a murderous drug dealer. And by square mile, there is, shall we say, most of a continent that is not Appalachia or a big city.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

This is why I love writing future stories. You can change the party system to a coalition government with multiple parties, imply the current major parties are minor in the 'present', then create new parties with abhorrent policies to be your bad guys.

And since the new bigotry targets are superhumans and cyborgs, no one can get mad at you even when you're writing about _literally the same policies_ just with new targets. I changed a particularly awful dude into a woman, used some of the lines he used in real life (only about superhumans instead of other folks) and no one has noticed in the two years she's appeared in stories.

Speculative Fiction: Teach Through Allegory.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Israel Hammerstein said:


> Do you think it's fair in stories to portray Republicans as stooges for the rich and Tea party as hill billy gun owners?
> Is it a cliche' or fair game to write about them as rich, mean spirited and haters of the poor working man and prurient about women?


As a pretty far left person, I still gotta say that Republicans aren't all the same, or even mostly the same. Write about individuals, not groups.

If you're going to cast a person with a political position as an evil individual, it's easier to do it from the same side, however. For instance Vegetarian Tree-Huggers get to see the foibles of their own kind much closer (and be more annoyed by the prissy obnoxious folks in their midst) than anybody else.

The problem is if you're only depicting one person from a group, people may interpret that as representing the whole group. TV always resorts to having a second character in the same group lecture the bad apple with "You're the kind that give our people a bad name!" Which is something that mostly doesn't happen in real life. Better to have someone who has similar views who is simply more reasonable and complicated. Understand where they are coming from.

In other words, be fair, and you can usually get away with anything.

Camille


----------



## Amy Corwin (Jan 3, 2011)

It is TOTALLY a cliche! Please don't do it.
I am so sick of books that feature the following as automatic bad guys:
Rich people (when was the last time a poor person gave you a job, started a new industry, gave to charity, or funded the discovery some new vaccine?)
Southern people
Christians
Gun owners/hunters
Tea Party folks - I would note that there was no violence at the Tea Party rallies. The same can't be said for other rallies.
Big corporations

I've actually stopped reading books just because of the way they portray those groups, as if any person who hunts (or is a member of any of the above groups) must be evil.
Come on. Can we get a little less cliche-ridden?

How about making your hero a hunter?
Now THAT would be original.

Finally, I just want to say that I am not a member of any of the groups I mentioned. I just hate seeing the way good people who are members of one or more of the groups above getting shafted by everyone. I feel like we are on the verge of actual persecution of those folks and it makes me quite ill.

We're supposed to encourage political and social diversity. How about actually doing that?


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

BrianKittrell said:


> Why not buck the trend and write both sides as good guys? We tend to lose sight of the very real possibility that the guys on the other side of the spectrum are human beings who are trying to do what they think is right.


Totally this.
I don't think a lot of people get up in the morning and say "Yep, I'm a bad guy and I like it". Most have a reason, even if only in their own heads, to do and think what they do.

In my space opera, the rebels are the bad guys.
For this current WIP, I am actually going to write a story about hopefully likable characters fighting ON the rebel side, unaware that they are, in fact, "bad guys". Going to be an interesting exercise.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Amy Corwin said:


> It is TOTALLY a cliche! Please don't do it.
> I am so sick of books that feature the following as automatic bad guys:
> Rich people (when was the last time a poor person gave you a job, started a new industry, gave to charity, or funded the discovery some new vaccine?)
> Southern people
> ...


When was the last time a poor person gave to a charity? I BEG your pardon? Statistically, the poor actually give to charities more often than the rich even if they can't do it on the scale of Bill Gates. And plenty of industries were started by people (the _Scot_--I couldn't resist--Andrew Carnegie for example) while they were still poor. You seem to have your own cliches to deal with.

ETA: Most if not all of us have biases to deal with. I have a hard time writing an English person who isn't an evil oppressor. I've been struggling with Henry V who I just plain loath but he's been sneaking up on me and maybe he has a good side. (Sorry to the English on the forum. I do try to overcome this admitted bias) We do need to be aware that what we're dealing with is a bias and try to write our characters as characters not cliches.


----------



## Guest (Oct 3, 2013)

I depends on your target demographic. One can make money pandering to the extreme left or right with a book. Pundits and politicians do it all the time. If you are specifically going to promote the book on far left-wing websites, then it would make sense to make all of the bad guys Republication. It is low hanging fruit. The world is full of people who get their political news from Facebook memes. You can pander to the lowest common denominator for easy sales if you want.



> Rich people (when was the last time a poor person gave you a job, started a new industry, gave to charity, or funded the discovery some new vaccine?)


"The rich" do not create jobs. Consumers create jobs through demand. So the poor do have an impact on employment by virtue of where they spend their money. The poor also give a larger percentage of their income to charity than do the rich (note I said _percentage of income_ not more in total) and tend to give to human service charities (homeless, children, social services). The rich, on the other hand, tend to give to cultural charities. Also much of the donations made by the rich are to trusts that actually sit on most of the money and only give out a small portion of it each year. And insofar as funding vaccines, the rich actually have very little to do with this en masse. Most research is either handled through government funding via grants or for-profit institutions.

I only mention this because I think you showed your hand politically in your post even as you claim to be championing against cliches. You pretty much stated that the poor are useless and have no value. THAT is a bit cliche as well, don't you think? You did the same thing with your Tea Party comment. There is a political implication in your comment about "the same can't be said for other rallies" that most certainly plays to stereotypes.

And really, can someone point me to this rush of books about evil hunters and Tea Party people? I can't say I have seen them on a wide scale. I mean, there are tons of action movies where the hero is a gun owner (by virtue of the fact that he uses every conceivable type of gun known on the planet. For every show that depicts a Southern poorly, I can find three that portray urban blacks as thugs. For every incident of a Tea Party person being portrayed negatively, I can find equal measure of incidents of a liberal being portrayed negatively.

This isn't a political discussion. It is a discussion of otherness. "The Other" is easily portrayed as evil. "The Other" is always the negative, whereas our group (whatever that group might be) is the norm. I highlighted the above quote because it plainly illustrates the issue of Otherness. It is wrong and a cliche to portray OUR group in a negative light, but it is acceptable to speak negatively of "the other."


----------



## BrianKittrell (Jan 8, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> I have a hard time writing an English person who isn't an evil oppressor. I've been struggling with Henry V who I just plain loath but he's been sneaking up on me and maybe he has a good side.


lol Weren't all English people before the Beatles just mean old bitter things? I couldn't resist.

But in your case, you're sort of stuck with one of the classic 'bad guy groups' of the Middle Ages. I think some of them actually did wake up in the morning and think, "I'm bad, and I like it," to reference Quiss's comments on the subject above.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Amy Corwin said:


> when was the last time a poor person...


...gave you a job: Yesterday when this lady on social security paid me to teach her how to use a computer.

...started a new industry: Didn't Bill Gates start out building computers in his garage?

...gave to charity: I... I don't even... WHAT?!

...funded the discovery of a new vaccine: When as a rich person personally done that? We ALL do that collectively because our taxes pay for the CDC.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

BrianKittrell said:


> lol Weren't all English people before the Beatles just mean old bitter things? I couldn't resist.
> 
> But in your case, you're sort of stuck with one of the classic 'bad guy groups' of the Middle Ages. I think some of them actually did wake up in the morning and think, "I'm bad, and I like it," to reference Quiss's comments on the subject above.


They may have. Or at any rate some of them woke up and thought, "What's mine is mine and what's yours is mine so deal with it." 

But I still try not to fall into total stereotypes.


----------



## brendajcarlton (Sep 29, 2012)

> "The rich" do not create jobs. Consumers create jobs through demand


That could be argued forever. You can't just state it as a fact. The richest man in China owns a dildo factory. (Really!) Why don't all the people who are crying because there aren't enough jobs start dildo factories? There is plenty of demand. A human still has to make it happen. The factory doesn't just open itself.


----------



## Joshua Dalzelle (Jun 12, 2013)

> "The rich" do not create jobs. Consumers create jobs through demand. So the poor do have an impact on employment by virtue of where they spend their money.


Consumers do not create jobs. Consumers create demand, but it still takes venture capitalists and investors to start or expand businesses to fill the demand. The "rich" very much do create jobs and in a direct and measurable way. That's not so much political as it is a reality of economics.

This stark definition people are using here of "rich" and "poor" is only creating more confusion. Statistically people who make $50k-$100k year donate 6% on average, but those in the upper 1% donate around 4.7%. So you can say that the lower income brackets donate "more" by 1.3%, but the difference is that the highest brackets are donating millions and millions of dollars as well as creating infrastructure to manage it. But, like Julie said... people like Gates tend to give on a global level and, of course, to cultural causes if for nothing else than to have an arts center named after them.


----------



## Guest (Oct 3, 2013)

brendajcarlton said:


> A human still has to make it happen. The factory doesn't just open itself.


But you need not be rich to do that. Every indie author here is a jobs creator. We hire editors, proofreaders, cover artists, formatters. Most of us did not start out at this rich. Many of us started out with little more than a computer and an internet connection. Some of us didn't even had that and used a library computer or a friend's computer to upload. When was the last time Bill Gates bought a pre-made cover?


----------



## BrianKittrell (Jan 8, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> But you need not be rich to do that. Every indie author here is a jobs creator. We hire editors, proofreaders, cover artists, formatters. Most of us did not start out at this rich. Many of us started out with little more than a computer and an internet connection. Some of us didn't even had that and used a library computer or a friend's computer to upload. When was the last time Bill Gates bought a pre-made cover?


Some of us started out with more money than we have now from doing this. lololol

What is with me today? I must be in a mood again. hehehe


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Folks, it seems to me we're getting a bit far afield from the problems of writing cliched characters...

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S2 using Tapatalk 4


----------



## George Applegate (Jan 23, 2013)

Some fascinating research has been done into the (possibly heritable) mental makeup of conservatives and liberals, and employing this information could make political characters more realistic. Both sides have spun the results to give themselves the moral high ground. 

My take on the results is that "conservatives are worried about the long term effect of change, and feel that while liberals want to do good, they don't think things through" and "liberals compassionately pursue rapid change for the better, are distrustful of unregulated human nature, and have little understanding of, or concern for, why conservatives think the way they do." I think it makes for more interesting characters if each thinks they're doing the right thing.


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

Vaalingrade said:


> ...started a new industry: Didn't Bill Gates start out building computers in his garage?


Bill Gates wasn't poor (AFAIR his father was a lawyer, and his mother a business director), he didn't build computers to sell, and didn't start a new industry (micros had been around for years before he got the IBM PC DOS contract, and he bought in the DOS from a third party rather than write it himself).

As for the original question that started the thread, yes, it's a cliche, and I generally won't buy any book that is built around that cliche. But, that doesn't matter, so long as you aren't trying to sell those books to me. There are plenty of people who will buy those books because they are built around that cliche.

I also know plenty of Republicans who have few good things to say about Republican politicians, so you might even hit that demographic if you do it right.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Edward M. Grant said:


> Bill Gates wasn't poor (AFAIR his father was a lawyer, and his mother a business director), he didn't build computers to sell, and didn't start a new industry (micros had been around for years before he got the IBM PC DOS contract, and he bought in the DOS from a third party rather than write it himself).
> 
> As for the original question that started the thread, yes, it's a cliche, and I generally won't buy any book that is built around that cliche. But, that doesn't matter, so long as you aren't trying to sell those books to me. There are plenty of people who will buy those books because they are built around that cliche.
> 
> I also know plenty of Republicans who have few good things to say about Republican politicians, so you might even hit that demographic if you do it right.


I believe the poster confused Gates with Steve Jobs--an interesting error. 

I'm not sure either Jobs or Wozniak quite qualified as "poor" but when they started Apple, they certainly weren't rich either.


----------



## LeonardDHilleyII (May 23, 2011)

“Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.” ―Mark Twain


----------



## brendajcarlton (Sep 29, 2012)

Rich people start businesses should be people start businesses and then sometimes if the businesses are wildly successful they become rich. The debate is over whether they should be punished or thanked for that contribution to the economy. The all rich people are evil stereotype takes one side, obviously. There are other just as valid ways you could write it.


----------



## Guest (Oct 3, 2013)

While it is important to avoid cliches, it is also equally important to not ignore reality. There was an interesting study done last year on the connection between empathy and wealth. This report didn't come out of the blue. It actually supports research from previous studies. And no, this isn't about the rich being "evil" per se. But lack of empathy can have the same impact on others as outright evil. The higher someone is up the proverbial food chain, the less empathy they have for those below them.

It also needs to be noted that the rich have more capacity to do bad things and _not suffer the consequences_. If I run a red light and clip someone on a motorcycle, I'm in big trouble. If a millionaire runs a red light and clips a motorcycle, his lawyer will handle it for him and he may not even have to appear in court. A lack of consequences often breeds a lack of empathy. When there is no social mechanism in place to prevent you from doing something or punish you for the action, it becomes easier to perform the action. The more wealth you have, the further you are removed from the consequences of your action. If Jane Doe small business is fined $100,000 for polluting, that may bankrupt her. If DuPont Industries gets fined $100,000 for polluting, that is the cost of doing business.

So it is not just a black and white issue. It isn't that the wealthy are evil by default. The issue is that they are insulated from the consequences of their actions, or the consequences are insubstantial to them because of their resources. A $70 traffic ticket is a week's groceries for a poor family. It's a casual lunch for the ultra rich.

The rich also have more resources with which to engage in bad acts. If I tick off John the Janitor making minimum wage, he is limited insofar as what he can do to me. Usually, the most he can do is a direct attack. He might shoot me or physically attack me. John the Corporate Banker, however, can call in favors to get me fired from my job, screw up my credit, my kid expelled from school, and who knows what else.

The truth is rich villains are great because they have the resources to be evil. Poor villains are going to be fairly boring because they are limited insofar as what they can actually do.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Joshua Dalzelle said:


> I have my doubts that this is a legit question and more of a "clever" way for you to vent your vitriol (but maybe not), so I'll jump in before this gets locked.
> 
> If you make your characters into caricatures by playing to absurd stereotypes your work will suffer for it. Realistically you've just alienated at least half your potential readership since the country is more or less split down the middle by party. It could be argued there's not much difference between parties anymore, but that wasn't the question. Being bludgeoned by an author's personal politics in their fiction is exhausting for most readers. A little subtlety can go a long way... you can make your point without childish insults and cliched portrayals of real, complex people.


What country?

Besides, I'd love to be a bestseller in half of Russia. Or even in half of "the country."


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> The truth is rich villains are great because they have the resources to be evil. Poor villains are going to be fairly boring because they are limited insofar as what they can actually do.


A government bureaucrat on $10 an hour can do more harm to most people than Bill Gates can.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Locking while we discuss. Chill and read the dinosaur erotica thread.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S2 using Tapatalk 4

EDIT:  As the OP has not been back to the thread since he posted, we're going to leave it locked.  Israel, if you want the thread reopened, PM me and we'll discuss.

Betsy


----------

