[image description: the silhouette of a curly-haired woman against the orange sky of a sunset.]
This post contains an affiliate link.

Stay out of politics? Ridiculous. When has a writer ever managed to avoid politics? Every story is political. Tell a soul the story they want to believe and you can change the world.
– A.J. Hackwith in her book The Library of the Unwritten

I rarely write posts that contain spoilers, but this one can’t really avoid it. If you’re planning on reading Ask Again, Yes by Mary Beth Keane be warned that there are spoilers in this post. Also, all the trigger warnings! This post discusses triggering topics, including gun violence and mental illness.

Okay, with that warning stated, the ranty panties are coming on.

I want to start off by saying I really enjoyed this book! I think it’s smart, relevant, well-written, and not quite like anything else I’ve ever read. I’m super impressed and will probably read more of Mary Beth Keane’s books.

My ranty panties didn’t get pulled out of the drawer until I went on Goodreads to learn about Mary Beth Keane’s other books and came across her author page. Goodreads has this nifty feature where you can ask a question and the author can respond if they like. I’ve seen authors do this when promoting a new release.

I came across this question from someone who read Ask Again, Yes:
So many writers have a political and moral agenda. This book was such a pleasure to read because not once did I ever feel like I was being preached at. It was simply a compelling and well-written story that everyone can relate to. How hard is it to remain politically and morally neutral when you are creating a story?

And Mary Beth Keane answered: 
THANK YOU! This comment means a lot to me because being preached at is the thing that most annoys me when reading fiction. I don't think readers ever want to be told how to feel, or what to think. I try to avoid describing emotions whenever I can, or directing reader responses in any way. I'd rather all the revelatory emotional stuff to happen inside YOU, and I figure if I pick the right details to report, you'll get there.

Here’s why her answer warranted me putting on ranty panties:

Literally every person that has ever been or ever will be has a political and moral agenda. I’ve got one, you’ve got one, everyone’s got one. There is no such thing as neutrality. People have been striving at it since time immemorial and have always fallen short. I think some people think things are neutral because they don’t perceive the ways in which it’s not neutral. Think about the last time you learned something that made you think, “wow, I’m not as woke as I thought I was.” It’s like that.

If you can think of something that’s truly neutral, I’d love to hear about it because in my reading 100+ books a year, I have yet to find one that’s neutral. Nor have I ever seen any other truly neutral media.

It’s true that no one wants to be preached at. However, not preaching doesn’t mean that an agenda isn’t being subtly pushed. There’s a wide gulf between preaching and neutrality, and a lot can happen in that gulf.

Every piece of writing directs reader responses. EVERY one. My favorite example to trot out about this is the Broadway musical Rent. As you’re watching Rent and hearing the actors sing “We’re not gonna pay… We’re not gonna pay… We’re NOT GONNA PAY last year’s rent, this year’s rent, next year’s rent!” You’re cheering along with them and thinking, “Fuck yeah! Fuck paying rent! You should get to live in that building in New York City for free!” And when the musical is over, you’re going to go home to the apartment you rent that you’ve paid your landlord for and that you’ll continue to pay your landlord for. Even if you’d never intentionally not pay rent yourself, you still see folks not paying rent as the heroes of the story.

Because the Broadway is told from that specific perspective, that of the squatter protagonists, you empathize with them and see things from their point of view. For a moment, at least for the duration of the musical, if you’re agreeing that these folks shouldn’t pay rent, then you’re espousing socialist views––even if it’s only temporary. You’re able to temporarily shift your perspective to one that’s the antithesis of your reality and lived experience. That’s an intentional mindset shift the author of Rent made. All authors make the choice of whose perspective to tell the story from, knowing that the consumer of that media will empathize with whoever that person is.

Ask Again, Yes is told from the perspective of multiple characters. And any time you hear someone’s story in their voice, they are humanized. Themes of the novel include gun violence and mental illness. Am I to believe that when Keane wrote from the perspective of the mother who has schizophrenia and shot her neighbor in the head, then went on to get treatment and lead a mostly normal and productive life that I’m not supposed to feel empathy for that character? Am I really supposed to believe Keane didn’t intentionally humanize this character to her readers?

Furthermore, this character was written into a novel at a time when there are mass shootings on the reg and mental health is often erroneously blamed as the cause. And I’m supposed to believe that’s not a politically motivated––or at least politically inspired––choice?

As a writer myself, I know that every choice made in the storytelling process is intentional. There are no arbitrary details or plot points. Everything is conscious. Any writer who would argue that it’s not doesn’t seem to think highly of themselves or their craft.

Whether she wants to admit it or not, in “picking the right details to report,” as Keane puts it, she is actually directing reader response. There’s nothing wrong with that, but to not be cognizant of the ways fiction writing as a craft works seems silly at best and willfully ignorant at worst.

I don’t think Keane is a bad person or intentionally malicious, unlike most of the people who are subjected to my ranty panties posts. I just don’t see the point in pretending like writing a good work of fiction is some kind of happy accident. Just because she may not be aware of the ways her political or moral agenda shows up in her writing (though I find that hard to believe because I don’t think good fiction is born of ignorance) doesn’t mean it’s not there.

I think there’s actually something deeper going on here. In answering the reader’s question in the way she did, Keane accepted the premise that having a political or moral agenda is inherently a bad thing. But is that actually true? Why should neutrality (or the perception that neutrality is an achievable goal) be the default assumption?

What I’ve noticed is that the only time people have a problem with a political or moral agenda is when it runs counter to their own. When it’s a political or moral agenda they agree with, the story is simply relatable and real. I’ve also noticed that the only time people seem to take neutrality as a compliment is when being “neutral” is used to imply that the person or what they’ve created is better than others.

I know this because no author, not even Keane who says she doesn’t want to direct reader responses, wants readers to feel neutral about their work. No one creates any kind of art with the goal of having people think it’s just okay. They want you to think. And it’s about what they want you to think that the political and moral agenda comes in.

Another thing to consider: Who does neutrality serve? Who does striving to avoid a political or moral agenda help? Who does it harm?

We could do an experiment here where I say I’m not going to attempt to answer these questions because in doing so I’d be guiding my blog’s reader responses. But isn’t just the fact that I asked them guiding you somewhere?

Every story is political because every person is political. Every story has an agenda because every person has an agenda. I believe that with my whole heart and I don’t believe that it’s a bad thing.