Well I am not about to be neutral about the strong messages in my books - bullying is not OK - stalking someone on the internet is never going to be OK - racism and homphobia in my books are not OK either. Admittedly the ending of my third book is very morally dubious.
But declining to spell out the message and spoonfeed it to the reader doesn't mean that you're condoning whatever bad behavior you're depicting. You don't want your narrator's message to sound like: "See that behavior? That's bullying. I have to tell you that, in case you're too stupid to figure it out for yourself. And - just in case you're too stupid to know this either - bullying is not a good thing." It's not as if you'll ever have a reader who says, "_Oh_! You mean bullying isn't the admirable behavior that I always thought it was? You mean it's _not_ something that I should try to excel at? Thank you for letting me know!" Unless your message is something that's so counter to standard thinking that it will shock merely by being stated, just stating it won't accomplish anything. Your reader is normally going to know that bullying, racism, homophobia, and so on, are frowned on by some or most of the population. So just telling a person who practices one of these things that "X is bad" won't communicate anything to him. Telling him, "X is bad because of Y" isn't appreciably more likely to do so. People are deaf to what they don't want to hear. That's why you need to show the message. If you tell them what they don't want to hear, they're warned, and they have time to put in their earplugs and put on their blinders. If you sneak up on them, some of your message might get through. ChickenFreak
I have already stated that the messages need to be part of the story and not pull the reader out of it. Have even used examples. However when I craft the story and show the reader I am not being neutral on the matter. When the teacher attacks my MC physically - it is not condoned later by the headmaster the behaviour through his speech is called reprehensible. (being the Abbot he can use words like that). The anger at the young girl that harmed is generated in my characters and the way they take liberties with the court cases etc. When Socrates and Fy are sent to the back of the restaurant it is the rules that are made to look stupid not them.
If you read my post again, I think you will find that I don't mention a 'wrong side' or a 'right side' side for that matter. The op's Q was 'How to communicate a strong message without sounding preachy' Whether that message was right or wrong was never mentioned. There are at least two sides to every argument. You can and do have debates with apposing opinions, where neither opinion is wrong, it is just a alternative opinion. (think politicians) They argue the toss and they each believe the ideas to be the best ideas, right or wrong does not enter into it.
The Forsyte Saga is a great example of a non-preachy series of books with a strong (and at the time controversial) message about love and sex. I think Galsworthy pulled off the non-preachy part simply by making all of the characters - even the ones he favored - flawed and life-like and by giving the ones he didn't favor the chance to speak for themselves.
people don't like to be told what to think. you just put the story out there and let people come up with their own thoughts. i think it is easier to be preachy by taking the opposite view of what you feel and writing satire ^ read anything by Bret Easton Ellis. he writes in the pov and about people he hates in American Psycho it is from the POV of a greedy, misogynistic, materialistic, shallow, and racist character -reading this you do not think how cool the narrator is, but how pathetic he is. a big point the protesters missed.
No, I haven't. Does it have a strong message while not sounding preachy? If so, how did the author pull it off?
Bingo. South Park does this to an A+ in my oppinion. If you want people to be ashamed of their behavior, showcase the behavior and put a magnifying glass over it.
