I always struggle with the role an author should play in political discussion. Okay, that’s not true—I struggle with the role I should play in those discussions. I’ve always believed that my novels should speak for themselves—that I should be this invisible person behind the book. I really try to leave much of my novels (especially my YA) open to interpretation—I want the reader to come to his or her own conclusions about certain topics, especially social policy and politics. I don’t want anything—my political affiliation, my race, or even my gender—to influence what a reader thinks or feels about my work.
However, just because I choose to be ambiguous in my novels doesn’t mean that I don’t have an opinion. Not by a long shot.
There’s certainly been a lot going on in the world recently, but two items in particular resonated with me: Texas Senate Bill 5 and the Trayvon Martin case.
I’m not going to get into my position on those matters here, but I will say that I spoke out “actively” on both on Facebook and Twitter. Active is relative, of course. Others posted and tweeted far more than I did. But as I generally avoid such things, it was enough for a few people to notice.
I’m sure I upset some people.
Actually, I know I did.
But I’m okay with that.
Yet I have to accept that there are always repercussions to having a political stance. I can be very stubborn when a company or “celebrity” does something that really offends me, and I show my displeasure with my wallet. It’s only fair to expect others to do the same.
I’m not sure if my opinion will change in the future, but for now, I’m comfortable with speaking up when compelled. However, I also don’t think I have to fight every battle.
While that won’t sit well with everyone, that’s just fine with me. At the end of the day, that’s probably the most important thing.
Quirk and Quill 
While I have very strong political opinions, I have chosen (so far) not to share them on social media. I think people on Facebook and Twitter are often vulgar and reactionary when presented with different opinions….much more so than if/when having a face to face conversation. There is no structure to maintain civil decorum and common politeness. While I think strongly on these issues, I would rather not have uncensored arguments with my friends and family. I save those discussions for my living room, where some common decency and respect can be upheld, even when we disagree.
Varian, the backstory to your post has me verrrrrrry curious!
I experience this conflict often. I think for me, the line comes down to issues I feel so strongly about that I don’t think they should be up for debate. For instance, I don’t see marriage equality as a “political” issue. I see it as a human rights issue. I’m really comfortable owning that position, and I’m comfortable pissing off anyone who disagrees with me. There are other issues where I feel equal conviction, but where the issues have more confusion and complication around them (for me), and I’d hate for my position to be misunderstood. On those topics I generally avoid social media, but sometimes I break my own rules because I like engaging in conversation online, and opinions want expressing. It’s hard to figure out where to draw those lines.
Pingback: The Difference between “Activist” and “Almost Activist” | Almost Activist Waitress
I’m another person who usually keeps my mouth shut about politics. But sometimes (Texas SB5 for sure) I feel like I’m part of the silent problem. Maybe people think I’m on their side because I haven’t said anything. So, sometimes I do speak out but I try to save it for stuff that really hits home. And I keep it to the more “private” side of my life on social media; not necessarily for public consumption. But it sure is hard sometimes.