"Modern Politics shouldn't be in Narrative". "Narrative shouldn't be didactic", and "Authors shouldn't insert their own opinions into their work" are three arguments that irritate me. Mainly because they are reductive and illogical positions.
There is a great amount we can discuss, dissect, critique, and engage with when works exhibit any of these things, but their presence in literature, film, and television, are not indicators of poor quality, bad books, and these creators and authors have every right to include these things.

But a few of my reasons for objecting to these particular statements are:

Firstly, because they conflate what we personally might enjoy in a story with an overreaching universal criteria that should be applied to all literature and narrative, when clearly that isn't true.
Secondly, these arguments disregard the vast swathes of literature (both historical and contemporary) that do these things (or have done them) and are great stories.
Thirdly, there are entire genres and subgenres in which all these practices are not only common but also desirable.
Fourthly, personal expectations and preferences about one genre or even subgenre, are not foundational grounds for any of these statements.

So I may have been in a bad mood when discussing these points, but a few people that I respect made variants of these arguments and I got irritated and wanted to discuss my perspective.

But hey, this is just my opinion, so I guess that is just as valid as someone else's opinion.

If you would like to buy me a coffee or a book, Support me on KoFi: https://kofi.com/criticaldragon

Intro and Music by Professor Trip.