Return to Answer

I'd like to propose an addendum to Null's position: discussing political issues should be OK if it's necessary to analyse a SFF work, like Null says, but I want to add a constraint to that to better define the territory.

• Discussing politics is acceptable when it's necessary to analyse a SFF work, to the extent it remains well-connected and justified by citing clearly relevant canonical evidence, and clearly used as a vessel for analysing the SFF text, and no further than that.

The idea here is that this is good:

1. Here is a possible political view. This passage from this page of this book suggests this particular character very probably resonates with that specific political view.

I'll now discuss that political view a bit further, to the extent that it remains fully connected to what we've just established that character believes, because it will help me better explain that character. As I mention new stuff that doesn't correlate to what we've already established, I'll take care to provide new strong evidence it's actually relevant to the character.

This is not good:

2. Here's a deeply controversial political view. It's maybe vaguely possible a character might share it. [no citation]

This is also not good:

3. Here's a political view. This character probably resonates with that view (book + page evidence).

Now I'm going to go on a lengthier ramble about that political view, and most or all of what I'm saying won't be linked back to any evidence it's got anything to do with what we know the character believes.

Scenario 1 here is going into a political view while maintaining throughout relevance to explaining the character and/or story. At no point is a political view being discussed without clear relevance to that. Everything there is a clear means to an end of explaining the story itself.

Scenario 2 is a major problem. It explains a political view, but most or all of it is not established as being relevant to explaining the character. We should expect strong evidence that the character definitely is connected to those political views: quotes, book names, page numbers, chapter titles, etc, whatever's helpful for a citation. In this case no evidence has been provided, just a brief acknowledgement that it's maybe possible because there wasn't clear evidence to the contrary — this isn't anywhere near our quality standards. The political view is not a means of exploring the character; rather, the pretense of exploring the character is effectively more or less as an excuse to explore a political view.

Scenario 2 doesn't meet our quality bars, and is more or less a thinly described political statement or ramble or rant. It should be removed or heavily revised.

Scenario 3 is a bit of both. Some politics is clearly linked back to the character, and can stay. Some politics is described without linking it back to the story, however, and it's not clear it's necessary or relevant to analysing the SFF work. That portion of political dialog should be deleted, since it's not actually explaining or analysing SFF text — it's just espousing politics, apparently for its own sake.

I'd like to propose an addendum to Null's position: discussing political issues should be OK if it's necessary to analyse a SFF work, like Null says, but I want to add a constraint to that to better define the territory.

• Discussing politics is acceptable when it's necessary to analyse a SFF work, to the extent it remains well-connected and justified by citing clearly relevant canonical evidence, and clearly used as a vessel for analysing the SFF text, and no further than that.

The idea here is that this is good:

1. Here is a possible political view. This passage from this page of this book suggests this particular character very probably resonates with that specific political view.

I'll now discuss that political view a bit further, to the extent that it remains fully connected to what we've just established that character believes, because it will help me better explain that character. As I mention new stuff that doesn't correlate to what we've already established, I'll take care to provide new strong evidence it's actually relevant to the character.

This is not good:

2. Here's a deeply controversial political view. It's maybe vaguely possible a character might share it. [no citation]

This is also not good:

3. Here's a political view. This character probably resonates with that view (book + page evidence).

Now I'm going to go on a lengthier ramble about that political view, and most or all of what I'm saying won't be linked back to any evidence it's got anything to do with what we know the character believes.

Scenario 1 here is going into a political view while maintaining throughout relevance to explaining the character and/or story. At no point is a political view being discussed without clear relevance to that. Everything there is a clear means to an end of explaining the story itself.

Scenario 2 is a major problem. It explains a political view, but most or all of it is not established as being relevant to explaining the character. We should expect strong evidence that the character definitely is connected to those political views: quotes, book names, page numbers, chapter titles, etc, whatever's helpful for a citation. In this case no evidence has been provided, just a brief acknowledgement that it's maybe possible (maybe just because there wasn't clear evidence to the contrary) — this isn't anywhere near our quality standards. The political view is not a means of exploring the character; rather, the pretense of exploring the character is effectively an excuse to explore a political view.

Scenario 2 doesn't meet our quality bars, and is more or less a thinly described political statement or ramble or rant. It should be removed or heavily revised.

Scenario 3 is a bit of both. Some politics is clearly linked back to the character, and can stay. Some politics is described without linking it back to the story, however, and it's not clear it's necessary or relevant to analysing the SFF work. That portion of political dialog should be deleted, since it's not actually explaining or analysing SFF text — it's just espousing politics, apparently for its own sake.

I'd like to propose an addendum to Null's position: discussing political issues should be OK if it's necessary to analyse a SFF work, like Null says, but I want to add a constraint to that to better define the territory.

• Discussing politics is acceptable when it's necessary to analyse a SFF work, to the extent it remains well-connected and justified by citing clearly relevant canonical evidence, and clearly used as a vessel for analysing the SFF text, and no further than that.

The idea here is that this is good:

1. Here is a possible political view. This passage from this page of this book suggests this particular character very probably resonates with that specific political view.

I'll now discuss that political view a bit further, to the extent that it remains fully connected to what we've just established that character believes, because it will help me better explain that character. As I mention new stuff that doesn't correlate to what we've already established, I'll take care to provide new strong evidence it's actually relevant to the character.

This is not good:

2. Here's a deeply controversial political view. It's maybe vaguely possible a character might share it. [no citation]

This is also not good:

3. Here's a political view. This character probably resonates with that view (book + page evidence).

Now I'm going to go on a lengthier ramble about that political view, and most or all of what I'm saying won't be linked back to any evidence it's got anything to do with what we know the character believes.

Scenario 1 here is going into a political view while maintaining throughout relevance to explaining the character and/or story. At no point is a political view being discussed without clear relevance to that. Everything there is a clear means to an end of explaining the story itself.

Scenario 2 is a major problem. It explains a political view, but most or all of it is not established as being relevant to explaining the character. We should expect strong evidence that the character definitely is connected to those political views: quotes, book names, page numbers, chapter titles, etc, whatever's helpful for a citation. In this case no evidence has been provided, just a brief acknowledgement that it's maybe possible because there wasn't clear evidence to the contrary — this isn't anywhere near our quality standards. The political view is not a means of exploring the character; rather, the pretense of exploring the character is effectively more or less as an excuse to explore a political view.

Scenario 2 doesn't meet our quality bars, and is more or less a thinly described political statement or ramble or rant. It should be removed or heavily revised.

In scenario 3 is a bit of both. Some politics is clearly linked back to the character, and can stay. Some politics is described without linking it back to strong evidence the character identifies with that politics, however, and it's not clear it explains the character. That portion of political dialog should be deleted, since it's not actually being used to analyse text — it's just being used to espouse politics.

I'd like to propose an addendum to Null's position: discussing political issues should be OK if it's necessary to analyse a SFF work, like Null says, but I want to add a constraint to that to better define the territory.

• Discussing politics is acceptable when it's necessary to analyse a SFF work, to the extent it remains well-connected and justified by citing clearly relevant canonical evidence, and clearly used as a vessel for analysing the SFF text, and no further than that.

The idea here is that this is good:

1. Here is a possible political view. This passage from this page of this book suggests this particular character very probably resonates with that specific political view.

I'll now discuss that political view a bit further, to the extent that it remains fully connected to what we've just established that character believes, because it will help me better explain that character. As I mention new stuff that doesn't correlate to what we've already established, I'll take care to provide new strong evidence it's actually relevant to the character.

This is not good:

2. Here's a deeply controversial political view. It's maybe vaguely possible a character might share it. [no citation]

This is also not good:

3. Here's a political view. This character probably resonates with that view (book + page evidence).

Now I'm going to go on a lengthier ramble about that political view, and most or all of what I'm saying won't be linked back to any evidence it's got anything to do with what we know the character believes.

Scenario 1 here is going into a political view while maintaining throughout relevance to explaining the character and/or story. At no point is a political view being discussed without clear relevance to that. Everything there is a clear means to an end of explaining the story itself.

Scenario 2 is a major problem. It explains a political view, but most or all of it is not established as being relevant to explaining the character. We should expect strong evidence that the character definitely is connected to those political views: quotes, book names, page numbers, chapter titles, etc, whatever's helpful for a citation. In this case no evidence has been provided, just a brief acknowledgement that it's maybe possible because there wasn't clear evidence to the contrary — this isn't anywhere near our quality standards. The political view is not a means of exploring the character; rather, the pretense of exploring the character is effectively more or less as an excuse to explore a political view.

Scenario 2 doesn't meet our quality bars, and is more or less a thinly described political statement or ramble or rant. It should be removed or heavily revised.

Scenario 3 is a bit of both. Some politics is clearly linked back to the character, and can stay. Some politics is described without linking it back to the story, however, and it's not clear it's necessary or relevant to analysing the SFF work. That portion of political dialog should be deleted, since it's not actually explaining or analysing SFF text — it's just espousing politics, apparently for its own sake.

I'd like to propose an addendum to Null's position: discussing political issues should be OK if it's necessary to analyse a SFF work, like Null says, but I want to add a constraint to that to better define the territory.

• Discussing politics is acceptable when it's necessary to analyse a SFF work, to the extent it remains well-connected and justified by citing clearly relevant canonical evidence, and clearly used as a vessel for analysing the SFF text, and no further than that.

The idea here is that this is good:

1. Here is a possible political view. This passage from this page of this book suggests this particular character very probably resonates with that specific political view.

I'll now discuss that political view a bit further, to the extent that it remains fully connected to what we've just established that character believes, because it will help me better explain that character. As I mention new stuff that doesn't correlate to what we've already established, I'll take care to provide new strong evidence it's actually relevant to the character.

This is not good:

2. Here's a deeply controversial political view. It's maybe vaguely possible a character might share it. [no citation]

This is also not good:

3. Here's a political view. This character probably resonates with that view (book + page evidence).

Now I'm going to go on a lengthier ramble about that political view, and most or all of what I'm saying won't be linked back to any evidence it's got anything to do with what we know the character believes.

Scenario 1 here is going into a political view while maintaining throughout relevance to explaining the character and/or story. At no point is a political view being discussed without clear relevance to that. Everything there is a clear means to an end of explaining the story itself.

Scenario 2 is a major problem. It explains a political view, but most or all of it is not established as being relevant to explaining the character. We should expect strong evidence that the character definitely is connected to those political views: quotes, book names, page numbers, chapter titles, etc, whatever's helpful for a citation. In this case no evidence has been provided, just a brief acknowledgement that it's maybe possible because there wasn't clear evidence to the contrary. The political view is not a means of exploring the character; rather, the pretense of exploring the character is being used being used more or less as an excuse to explore a political view.

Scenario 2 doesn't meet our quality bars, and is more or less a thinly described political statement or ramble or rant. It should be removed or heavily revised. (I will also point out that "it's vaguely maybe possible the character just might have this political stance, based on nothing really" is nowhere good enough for our quality standards.)

In scenario 3 is a bit of both. Some politics is clearly linked back to the character, and can stay. Some politics is described without linking it back to strong evidence the character identifies with that politics, however, and it's not clear it explains the character. That portion of political dialog should be deleted, since it's not actually being used to analyse text — it's just being used to espouse politics.

I'd like to propose an addendum to Null's position: discussing political issues should be OK if it's necessary to analyse a SFF work, like Null says, but I want to add a constraint to that to better define the territory.

• Discussing politics is acceptable when it's necessary to analyse a SFF work, to the extent it remains well-connected and justified by citing clearly relevant canonical evidence, and clearly used as a vessel for analysing the SFF text, and no further than that.

The idea here is that this is good:

1. Here is a possible political view. This passage from this page of this book suggests this particular character very probably resonates with that specific political view.

I'll now discuss that political view a bit further, to the extent that it remains fully connected to what we've just established that character believes, because it will help me better explain that character. As I mention new stuff that doesn't correlate to what we've already established, I'll take care to provide new strong evidence it's actually relevant to the character.

This is not good:

2. Here's a deeply controversial political view. It's maybe vaguely possible a character might share it. [no citation]

This is also not good:

3. Here's a political view. This character probably resonates with that view (book + page evidence).

Now I'm going to go on a lengthier ramble about that political view, and most or all of what I'm saying won't be linked back to any evidence it's got anything to do with what we know the character believes.

Scenario 1 here is going into a political view while maintaining throughout relevance to explaining the character and/or story. At no point is a political view being discussed without clear relevance to that. Everything there is a clear means to an end of explaining the story itself.

Scenario 2 is a major problem. It explains a political view, but most or all of it is not established as being relevant to explaining the character. We should expect strong evidence that the character definitely is connected to those political views: quotes, book names, page numbers, chapter titles, etc, whatever's helpful for a citation. In this case no evidence has been provided, just a brief acknowledgement that it's maybe possible because there wasn't clear evidence to the contrary — this isn't anywhere near our quality standards. The political view is not a means of exploring the character; rather, the pretense of exploring the character is effectively more or less as an excuse to explore a political view.

Scenario 2 doesn't meet our quality bars, and is more or less a thinly described political statement or ramble or rant. It should be removed or heavily revised.

In scenario 3 is a bit of both. Some politics is clearly linked back to the character, and can stay. Some politics is described without linking it back to strong evidence the character identifies with that politics, however, and it's not clear it explains the character. That portion of political dialog should be deleted, since it's not actually being used to analyse text — it's just being used to espouse politics.