EL150: Digging Up Politics in Literature

Foster, "How to Read Literature Like a Professor" Chp 13

I really enjoyed, and related to, Foster's chapter on political messages within literature. This, once again, brings me back to my Art of Film class from last semester, where we sat down and analyzed possible political messages embedded in film. The same can go for more works of literature, and some of the time, it's actually easier to dig up.

I have to agree with Foster about obvious political messages ruining a story or poem. Being that I am rather interested in politics, I am instantly turned off from a piece of writing if I feel like I'm being force-fed someone else's beliefs. Most of the time, the story is compromised by the author's need to inject some sort of socio-political commentary. For example, Upton Sinclair's The Jungle. It's a hilarious book about immigrants being eaten by rats and meat grinders (at least, it was when I read it in high school)... but then you get to those last few chapters, where Sinclair goes hog wild and outlines every last Socialist message he can muster. Not only is it distracting and unnecessary, but it takes away from the story as a whole.

If you compare that with perhaps stories that contain political messages that aren't immediately obvious, like To Kill a Mockingbird or Brave New World, then you can clearly see which method is more successful. Both of the books I've just mentioned can be enjoyed at face value and stand up to analysis. The author's wrote these stories while reacting to the current events of the day, yet they managed to make their stories timeless and their messages unobtrusive.

Politics have their place in our society, and some literature can reflect the feelings or ideas of the time... but it's up to the author to carefully craft his or her tale to mask these political feelings. I realize that most people dislike political messages shoved in to their films and books, but do authors and filmmakers? Not really. The author's who have the strongest political opinions tend to be the worst at hiding them. Instead, they want their message to be brutally clear (so as not to be confused by anyone), so they spell it out as clearly as possible.

The film John Q with Denzel Washington comes to mind instantly. The movie is about a man who takes an entire hospital hostage in order to get the care his child needs to survive, because he doesn't have the right kind of health insurance to get the proper treatment. One scene late in the movie involves Denzel sitting in a lobby with a bunch of hostages, and everyone begins griping about HMO's. It was if the screenwriters could no longer figure out good metaphors and plot devices to get their messages across, so they infused their hate for HMOs into the characters. I can clearly remember being the only one laughing in the theater when this scene got into full swing. This is the kind of writing that Foster is referring to.

Just last night, I was talking to Danny about political messages in movies. He had spotted my DVD of To Kill a Mockingbird, and I had mentioned that it had been written about as being one of the most successful "liberal message" films in history. He say he didn't see any real politics in the movie; I explained about its historical context and the possible political interpretations found in the film. And I hadn't even read this chapter in Foster's book... So I definitely think he's right on the money with this chapter (and he has been for most everything else I've read by him so far).