...you are aware that writing something doesn't make someone a bad person? You know Stephen King isn't a murderer, for example?

Hm. If Steven King's characters were written in such a way that murder was honourable and worthy, invoking him in this discussion would be appropriate.

Would it make you happy if I asked if Elinor Lipman's books are a tad antifeminist?

I’ve not read this book. But, I will say that writers who portray problematic behavior in a realistic situation as if it were admirable might have some problematic beliefs about that kind of situation.

So if you’re getting that vibe, you might be correct. Of course it could surprise you by the end, but maybe not.

Ideology functions differently than Stephen King writing about murder, though.

Writing about an action doesn’t mean you’ve committed that action, of course. But writing about an action that normalizes it or approves of it is different. It has a persuasive power that other forms of writing don’t have as much of.

This is why Stephen King is so criticized for making a teenage gangbang a cathartic moment in It. But in his responses to criticism he still is confused about why he can write about murder and not be criticized.

No, it's not different. It's fiction. Not real. Make believe.

By your logic my friend must be a rapist because she's got a rape kink and likes to read books and fanfiction where that contains it. It's complete nonsense.

If somebody writes a work of fiction, and you can't tell that apart from reality, that is a you issue. Not an author issue, or a publisher issue. A you issue. What you believe in and what you decide to act on are your personal responsibility, not the responsibility of the creator who made a fictional work.

This is nonsense. Depiction in fiction does NOT equal endorsement in reality. It's like saying all those movies where the killer wins means the creators are pro murdering innocent people.

I'm not saying depiction=endorsement—you're right that that would be nonsense. I'm saying writing positively about something bad might indicate a belief that that bad thing is not as bad as it is.

For example: take a writer who consistently portrays women as sexual objects for male MCs, and those women are not characterized in any way other than as sexual objects for masculine pleasure. I think it wouldn't be a stretch to suppose that that writer might be sexist.

No, I explicitly said "Writing about an action doesn’t mean you’ve committed that action, of course." So your friend is not a rapist just because she has a rape kink.

Do you think fiction has persuasive power? I mean, do you think that maybe there could be a discourse surrounding a certain topic, and that discourse contains things that are wrong, morally and/or factually? I do. I think that's a huge problem, in fact, with both television, books, news media, and whatever else.

Here's an example. Suppose all those forms of media have a common rhetorical angle that suggests that white people in the USA are the subjects of an ongoing genocide. That pervasive rhetorical angle in various forms of media is sure to influence some (white Americans') belief that they are in fact suffering from an ongoing genocide. This angle can be expressed in fiction, film, online communities, political speeches, news, and anywhere else where there is language.

I think you are right that it is a "you problem," i.e. a problem with the audience. But it's also a creator's problem and a publisher's problem because the author and publisher are also audiences of other expressions of that discourse.

Or maybe they like to write about sexy women, or maybe they're a bad author. I don't know why malice is always attributed to these things. And yeah, saying it night indicate a bad belief is attributing malice because usually people use that as an excuse to accuse authors of being bad people.

Malice is an intentional desire to do something bad. Many beliefs like sexism are not intentional, but are a product of being socialized to think something is normal. We're not conscious of every one of our motivations for all of our actions, especially what we create. This is nothing new in feminist theory.

Feminist theory tends to call everything under the sun sexist so it's not something I'd call a valid source. People often use it as an excuse to call people sexist just because they wrote something.

I read On Turpentine Lane and loved it. I started reading Good Riddance and did not get any kind of anti-feminist vibe. Elinor Lipman also graduated from a women's college so I doubt she has anti-feminist views - it's probably for the sake of the story (others have mentioned how the author and the main character are not the same person as well).

I'd be interested to see how the book ends...does the main character put everyone in their place and stand up for herself?

I've started reading Good Riddance also. I'm optimistic.

Thanks for weighing in.