Let’s be clear: Wars cause harm. Novels do not. Literature may raise uncomfortable questions or explore unpopular viewpoints or establish reasons to empathize with a character a reader might otherwise find repugnant. A novel’s story, characters, politics and theme may not appeal to a particular reader. That reader does not have to like those books or read them to begin with. One need not like or agree with the author, either, to appreciate the person’s work.
But novels need not appeal to or appease a political constituency. Those works of fiction written purely as political dogma in disguise tend to suffer the consequences with critics and readers. That said, even overtly political fiction and the novelists who write them should not be subjected to the passions incited by global conflicts.
Centrist NYT columnist Pamela Paul wrote the above this week.
It–and this will surprise no one–resonated with me. A novel, and especially one found in genre fiction, does not need to change the world or its readers’ perspectives. A novel also does not need to write to current sensibilities. Books are not here to validate our perspectives of the world. They may, but it is not required.
That said….
A book that does illuminate societal wrongs or shape our understanding of the experiences of others, when done well, can be breathtaking. Erin Langston’s Forever Your Rogue opened my eyes to the horrors of coverture and made me even more determined to work to empower women to make decisions about their lives and bodies. Long Bright River by Liz Moore helped me see addicts and those who love them in a more informed–and forgiving–light. Leon Uris’ Trinity showed me a complex and heartbreaking Ireland I’ve never forgotten. Denise Lehane’s masterful Small Mercies hammered home the truth that, in America’s cultural wars around race, it is almost always the wealthy and powerful who win.
All of these novels were beautifully written and engaging to read–none sacrificed storytelling over the ethical messages they conveyed.
What romances have done this for you? Do you need for your books to have an ethical context that speaks to you? Or do books that are overtly political turn you off?
A Seditious Affair by KJ Charles is a masterclass. It works on every level and the political aspects are integral to the characters and their story. Just incredible.
That was my first thought, too. I’m hard-pressed to think of many other HRs that incorporate real life politics and events into the storyline in such a seamless way.
Stella Riley’s Civil War series combine political drama and romance very well. Black Madonna, in particular.
I was thinking of that series as well. I’m glad you mentioned it. I learned so much about the English Civil Wars reading them.
That is a brilliant series with sympathetic portrayals of both Cavaliers and Roundheads—and negative a portrayals as well . Maybe the more distant the events, the easier it is to appreciate both sides of the conflict.
Unfinished Business by Karyn Langhorne. Two people from polar opposites politically, one white, one black. He is a Southerner, a US Senator, very conservative and she is a political activist. A wonderfully told story of two people with interesting pasts who find that love and loving overcomes much in life. It’s been on my keeper shelf ever since I read it.
This is not precisely political in the contemporary sense, but when I was in high school, I was much addicted to the novels of Sir Walter Scott. What his romantic version of the past taught me was that no matter how good change is, not matter how necessary, something of value is always lost, and that people are complicated, never completely evil or completely good.
Also, that the minor characters are generally more interesting than the hero and heroine, but that’s a whole different topic.
Adriana Herrera’s American Dreamers series really brought home some political and social issues, and integrated them so beautifully and powerfully into the central romances. Only KJ Charles has done something similar in my reading.
Oh thanks! Adriana Herrera’s books look intriguing!
Sally Malcolm’s books Rebel and King’s Man take place before and after the Revolutionary War and address a subject which is not really covered in American schools: What happened to those who were considered loyal to England? Taking place prior to the start of the American Revolution, Rebel movingly tells the story of two young men who fall in love. One wishes to rebel against England, and the other is opposed to rebellion. The Loyalist is targeted by a local rabble rouser who is also a revolutionary, and he turns the mob against him. It shows the costs of absolutism, intolerance and mob rule, and when I reread it recently, I felt the lessons were universal. The black and white thinking, the suspicion of anyone who does not think as we do, the intolerance of differing opinions, the consequences of taking the law into our own hands, using our goals to justify violence….
In King’s Man these former lovers meet again many years later. They have not seen one another since the terrible events at the end of the first book. The loyalist’s feelings of anger, hurt and betrayal are palpable and justified. It’s to Malcolm’s credit that she finds a way for these characters to confront their pain and work through their issues so they can make their way back to each other despite all that has gone before.
I found their story both gripping and powerful but also very romantic. Malcolm does such a good job showing us how and why they fell in love in the first book, I was able to root for reconciliation despite all the heartache that occurred.
I don’t know why I didn’t think of this one right off the bat since I put King’s Man on AAR’s Best of spreadsheet recently. These books are superbly written and the emotional termoil of the main characters is palpable. I’m glad you mentioned them!
I also added King’s Man to the spreadsheet, but when there is a Best Series list, I’ll definitely suggest these two books, as I feel it’s really essential to read Rebel first to get the whole story.
Agreed!
One of the strengths of historical novels is explaining history and being sympathetic to both sides. When we read KJ Charles’s books about historical male romances, we absorb its political beliefs almost by osmosis, not a direct drenching.
“Gone with the Wind,” with its cliched portrayal of slaves and its glorification of the Lost Cause of the Confederacy has not stood the test of time, whereas “To Kill a Mockingbird” has (so far, anyway). Both have political themes. Both were loved instantly when they were published.
I am pretty liberal, but I have stopped reading Courtney Milan because her recent books were just vehicles for her political beliefs, which to me, were self-evident.
I used to think that writer’s block was when the writer couldn’t think of a decent plot, but now believe that the best writers channel a mysterious voice which almost dictates the book as they write. Maybe a book written only to champion a political belief silences that inner voice.
Yes, you phrase that so well. I’ve also stopped buy Courtney Milan, as much as it pains me not to support a fellow Asian American. In contrast, the marvelous Beverly Jenkins still manages to make her points while having her characters and scenarios feel authentic to the period.
Agreed. The best historical fiction/romance incorporates the history of the period in a way that is subtle – it permeates the story and doesn’t feel like an add on, which is what KJ Charles, in particular, does so incredibly well. There’s a political element to almost all her books precisely because she creates characters and situations that are of their time – even as she finds a way for two men to have a realistic HEA when they couldn’t be open about their relationship. A Seditious Affair has already been mentioned, but you could also cite The Will Darling Adventures for the way it takes a hard look a the situation faced by soldiers returning from WW1.
I still regard Courtney Milan’s Brothers Sinister series as one of the real high points of HR of the last few decades – but it seems that in her most recent books she’s become so preoccupied with political tub-thumping that she’s forgotten to actually include a romance. (I may be on the same side of the political spectrum, but I don’t want to be hit over the head with it every few pages.)
Although they’re on my bookshelf, I haven’t read them yet, but doesn’t Kennedy Ryan’s The King Maker duology have a political setting? I know the heroine is Native American and is fighting against an oil pipeline crossing her ancestral land. The hero’s family are the owners of the oil company.
Yes, they are!
Want to add…. There are a number of historical romances that deal with suffrage, feminist and labor issues as well as historical events of a political nature.
Off the top of my head, there’s Bringing Down the Duke by Evie Dunmore, Striking Romance by Lindsey Brooks, and Sweet Rewards by Melinda McRae among many others.
Also, Chanel Cleeton’s novels about Cuba have a political bent, I think, starting with Next Year in Havana.
There are also a number of historical romances set during the American Revolution.
“Meet You In The Middle” by Devon Daniels – about two Washington staffers, one working for a Republican Senator and one for an opposing Democrat Senator. It’s Devon’s debut novel but SO GOOD!
Also Kennedy Ryan’s “All The Kings Men” series is so DELICIOUS, heroine is Native American and the hero’s family are oil barons who want to drill on sacred native land.
I loved Meet You In The Middle too! I have been waiting for Devon Daniels’ 2nd book and it is coming out on Nov 7th – The Rom Com, billed as a battle of the sexes between 2 journalists.