Fiction and Politics (Why Fiction is Dying)

When you google "political fiction" or "politics in fiction" you get directed to articles and books that are (literally) about political figures, political intrigue, Washington dramas or maybe even Tom Clancy stuff. That's not what I'm thinking about at the moment.

My thought was this: that LIBERAL politics infuses (nearly) all "literary" fiction with it's message, assumptions, earnestness, and morality. "Good" people in literary fiction tend to me against War, against "the" war (of the moment), against Republicans, conservatives and "fundamentalist" Christians. They tend to assume we all agree that global warming is the biggest threat, that the war on terror is built on exaggeration and racism, that "green" is good (unless Republicans are involved), that one's essential "goodness" is in line with "progressive" politics. They tend to be against business, against hunting, suspicious of "macho" activities and personalities, positive about women's issues, gay rights issues, etc.

Of course this is logical.
Literary fiction is supported primarily by higher education where you'd be hard pressed to find a conservative (or even centrist) in an English or literature department. The writers that are attracted to these programs, the ones that survive and get the good marks, are in tune with their professors views. Sure there can be differences but they tend to be "within the family" for example, how much drug use is permissive, is S&M acceptable in sexual relationships, and is it acceptable to kill an abortion doctor. OK, I'm stretching with that last one, but you get the point.

Our literary writers are products of the university system, but so are the agents and minions at the publishing houses. These are English majors who got "practical" and found themselves in the book business not unlike the (shocked) fine arts majors who end up working retail at Dick Blick Art Supplies. Even when their publisher bosses (scornfully referred to as "the accountants") prod them to be even more practical (i.e. consider books that will make money even if they might appeal to creationists or Republicans) they hold grudges. They remain vigilant for that new "Zadie Smith" type--a woman of color, preferably sexually ambiguous, though beautiful and brilliant. Harvard or Oxford educated is good, but the "zadie" should retain an immigrant or underclass authenticity that brings beauty of language and the progressive eye to some diverse corner of the world demonstrating how cruel and stupid people like Thatcher and Bush et al are.

I conclude that it is difficult to find literary writers that do not wear their progressive politics on their sleeve. One that comes to mind is Cormac McCarthy. He's given a pass because he's an apocalyptic, i.e. thinks we're imminently ruining the world (see "The Road") by our greedy antiecological lifestyle. He might (we don't know) disagree on some aspects of the progressive agenda like pacifism (one wonders after reading "Blood Meridian" if he doesn't believe humans are essentially natural killers) but since progressive auteurs of Hollywood like the Coen Brothers have canonized him, any disagreement the liberals have with him can be chalked up to his "cranky individualism."

There are hardcore liberal authors like Vonnegut who have expressed libertarian (if not conservative) thoughts (such as questioning egalitarianism as a goal in his short story "Harrison Bergeron") and they are forgiven like William S Burroughs and Hunter S. Thompson are forgiven their penchant for gun play. As long as you sign onto the main tenets of liberalism you can get a bit of wriggle room.

And people wonder why fiction reading is dying.