Message Fiction or Not?

Tomas Diaz has an interesting analysis of A Princess of Mars (which I happened to reread this week).  While I mostly agree with what he’s saying, I have a problem with the use of “message fiction.”  Diaz is using it to mean “fiction that has a message.”

Wiktionary, which was the only thing with a definition of the term I found in a quick search, says it means “Fiction that attempts to convey a sociopolitical message, as opposed to mere escapism.”

The term as I have heard it used seems to mean “fiction where the message is more important than the fiction.”  Mostly used in a derogatory manner.  Obviously there may be examples were such fiction is good.  Castalia House had a post from a few years about decrying boring message fiction, and offers this commentary on what message fiction is:

What distinguishes message fiction from other kinds of fiction is that it is primarily agenda-driven. That is to say, message fiction is created first and foremost for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person. Since authorial intention is often unclear, we tend to only notice the blatant cases — the ones with long-winded preachy sermons by one-dimensional characters who are only heroic by virtue of their cause. Nevertheless, message fiction is propaganda within a narrative wrapper, where the story, whether well crafted or not, is merely the delivery mechanism for the message. This definition applies to message fiction that is conservative or liberal, Christian or pagan. A good story, i.e. one with a compelling plot, theme, characters, and style, can still be message fiction if and only if the author wrote it to deliver a message.

I wonder actually if the “message” Diaz talks about is a conscious message at all.  Did ERB write this scheming that he was going to put in a how-to for heroes or is the story simply a reflection of the mores of the time?  Or maybe he was just trying to write the most awesome thing he could.  There’s more of an argument to be made for deliberate message insertion for the anti-socialist/communist and anti-eugenics elements of the story, but those messages are slipped in there and not shoved in your face.  If you’re going to say, however, that having any kind of message in your fiction makes it message fiction, then I think it can be argued that there’s hardly anything out there that isn’t message fiction.



6 thoughts on “Message Fiction or Not?

  1. Burroughs said more than once that the primary purpose of fiction was to entertain, and I think his work shows that he meant that. But I think that you and Tomas Diaz are correct, that there is a message in his books. It isn’t an over-arching scheme that deals with politics or social science; it is much more basic, more emotional than that. I think Burroughs is talking to his children, and in effect to any young person who might read his books.

    ERB was in his late 30’s when A Princess of Mars and Tarzan of the Apes were published. He had two children (a son and a daughter, with another son on the way) and he was a failure. His books offered an opportunity for him to pass on to his children what he had learned in a rough life (including service in the US Cavalry against the Apaches), and what he believed they needed to know to help them to be happy. Burroughs does have something to say about socialism, communism, eugenics and other things (his opinion of Hollywood is both amusing and acidic), but I think the real message was for his children.


  2. I’ve said for decades that ERB had a SUBTEXT of social commentary/satire running through his fiction. He usually didn’t hang with one particular topic through an entire novel, instead making some commentary on one thing and moving on.

    As Correia has said, you can have “message” in your fiction, just make sure it’s entertaining fiction. If an author begins writing a work with the INTENTION of conveying a message FIRST rather than telling an entertaining story, that writer has automatically failed. As Burroughs said: “Fiction’s purpose is to entertain.”


  3. Pingback: SENSOR SWEEP: Regard for the Past, Mimetic Revolution, Infectious Fun, and Myth-Illiterate Comic-Fan Writers –

  4. Pingback: Message Fiction: Some Comments | Pulp Catholic

  5. Pingback: The Wrong Kind of Message | Nixon Now

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s