I read a comment stating that authors should not preach in fiction books. I found that a rather interesting statement, not least because I did not agree with it. The commentator suggested that all the author was doing was reciting monologues through characters on whatever subject concerned them, be it race, sex, religion, etc. I know that some writers in the past have been guilty of what might be termed ‘preaching’ because they have a certain point that they want to push and they lack the skill to do it in a subtle fashion, but this is not true of all scriveners.
In all of my books I have presented arguments on subjects that interest me, but there’s the catch; they are all arguments, not sermons. An argument needs a minimum of two sides, therefore, two people. In Eugenica, I tacked the subject of eugenics and examined how it devolves into dysgenics, the negative form. I did this by holding a fictional international congress of eugenics at which the various views of eugenicists were presented. It began with the original positive intention of improving the human race and developed into the later dysgenic approach seen in Nazi Germany. I am opposed to eugenics for various reasons, not least being a disabled person, and I wanted to express my opinion on the subject, not as a long and boring monologue but as a series of arguments that the reader could consider for themselves. I was not preaching, I was, in my opinion, educating people on the subject.
Other authors have done the same thing. Charles Dickens influenced social politics in Britain during the 19th century through his writings. Emile Zola did the same in France and Mark Twain in America, and there are many more examples from other countries. Their very success raised them to the status of international writers and influencers. A good story does not exist where all the characters either do not hold a single strong view or, even worse as it seems to reflect the current world that we are living in, are afraid to express it. A reader does not have to agree with everything that the author writes, just be open-minded enough to consider what is being said. If they really do not agree with a particular theme of a book, they can simply close it, put it down, and never read it again. That is their prerogative. I do not accept, however, that simply not liking a subject, or disagreeing with someone else’s interpretation of it, is grounds for dictating to writers what they should or should not present to the reading public. If the reader has freedom of choice in their reading material then the author should have the same liberty concerning subjects they write about and which style they use.
Peter C Whitaker 
To me, this harks back to freedom of speech….people are afraid of the WOKE culture these days…afraid to use certain words, afraid to express an opinion if it doesn’t comply with the current WOKE trend….which by the way seems to change so often it’s hard to keep up. Poor JKRowling who was vilified because she created a character that offended….our history is being abused, our culture eroded. If we hide or deny our past, how can we compare with today? How can we see our development? How can we see if lessons have been learned. I feel every new-fangled group/gender/ etc is being appeased at the expense of common sense. Freedom of speech is now questionable, tolerance of others is expected, but not I find, practiced by the so called minorities who dictate what we should or should not be saying or writing. I feel very frustrated by the current ambiguity of the situation.
LikeLike
Perhaps the key word is preach. I don’t preach in my books, but my likes, dislikes, beliefs and philosophies are often presented, sometimes not in a positive way, but they’re there. Sharing what we know and believe are what stories are made of.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree. If people all held the same views and opinions then there would be very few stories worth writing. On the use of the word ‘preach’ that is open to interpretation I think. I might not think that I am preaching when writing my opinions into the fabric of my book, but a reader may infer that I am, especially if they disagree with what I am saying. If, as reader, I find myself in that situation the I know that I have a choice, I can either continue reading or I can stop. I have never felt the need to censor a writer.
LikeLiked by 1 person
True. I didn’t take into account the snowflakes with labelling machines who don’t agree with an idea and call it preaching. I don’t care about them. They don’t live in my world. I don’t write books for them. They can complain all they won’t, and I ignore them. That’s what everyone needs to do: ignore them. Don’t give them airtime, don’t give them web space, don’t let them claim real estate in your brain.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have a principle for online debates; don’t feed the trolls! That is, do not respond to them. They want people to engage but if you ignore them then you starve them.
One thing that I would say is that I have had my opinion on some subjects changed as a result of reading something that I did not initially agree with or even like, but then that is one of the benefits of keeping an open mind.
LikeLiked by 1 person