Pseudonym when writing novel with obviously biased viewpoint

Is it a good idea for an author to use a pseudonym when writing a novel in which he or she will probably be perceived as having an obviously biased viewpoint?
Example: Pakistan and India are rivals in real life. If an Indian author were to write a fiction novel depicting military combat between Pakistan and India (over the disputed territory of Kashmir), with India being depicted as the good guy and Pakistan being depicted as the bad guy, then he would probably be accused of having obvious bias or agenda. Under such circumstances, should the Indian author use a pseudonym, some name that does not sound Indian?
But then again, there are American authors who write about the United States fighting against Russia or the Cold War-era Soviet Union, and they don’t seem to be affected by “Hey, you’re American, so of course you’d depict America as the good guy and the Russians as the bad guys” perception, so maybe it’s not a real big deal?

But still, does it give more credibility to an author if he is perceived as neutral (“Here is someone with a Scandinavian-sounding name, writing about a war between India and Pakistan”) as opposed to "“Here is someone with an Indian-sounding name, writing about a war between India and Pakistan, he must be biased?”

Since when are fiction writers supposed to be unbiased and objective?

Well, of course, many novels are biased. But still perhaps an author would just come across to his audience better if he weren’t perceived as having some obvious stake in the game?

Is this author in America? Or in India?

America, - I’m not seeing the need.
India, - maybe give it some thought!

ISTM in practical terms, an Indian or American author writing primarily for their respective enormous domestic market would have little or no reason to be circumspect about writing a book wherein their home country is portrayed in a more positive light. * “America, We’re Number One, Hell Yeah!*” would sell pretty well in the US market and what does he author care if the book critics at Mother Jones or the professors at the Writing Seminars at Berkeley hate it, when he’s writing the check to buy his yatch.

Similarly, Russian authors may write fiction in which the Russian protagonist is the representative of righteousness against decadence; old-time British/American/European writers wrote about the White Man taking civilization to the benighted savage races; a Latin American author may write a book in which who cares who the hero is as long as the USA’s the villain or fool or both :wink: , etc.

Or to take out out of geopolitics a moment: there are novels overtly about promoting or attacking an ideology – Atlas Shrugged, for example. Sometimes an author *wants *to be propagandistic and is proud of it.

A biased viewpoint is not going to make any difference, so that’s no reason to use a pseudonym.

Now, if you were in North Korea and you smuggled out a novel critical of the regime, you can bet you’d use a pseudonym. There is a long history of authors using pen names for political safety (e.g., Voltaire). There are other authors who use pen names because they don’t want their employer to know they’re writing.

But I can’t think of any examples of what you’re talking about.

True, but a neutral 3rd party witness is usually more credible than the plaintiff or defendant, to borrow a legal analogy, because he/she has no obvious stake in the game. And someone with a Scandinavian name wouldn’t be immediately assumed to be pro-Indian, whereas a reader might think of an Indian author, “Of *course *he’d praise India and slam Pakistan. He’s Indian.”

Yeah, I still don’t think “neutrality=credibility” is something that’s relevant for readers of fiction. If it’s a non-fiction book about the struggle between those countries, then your pseudonym idea might apply. Generally, I think readers of fiction want their authors to have “stake in the game”, and to present that stake to them as convincingly as possible. They might not accept the author’s ideology, but they want to see that the book means something to the author.

I think a better practice is to address your biases up front. Every single one of us is biased. If you are concerned about transparency, it’s best to be upfront with them.

Especially when as the question is posed the book itself makes no effort to be neutral. Look at the thread title: Writing a novel with an obviously biased viewpoint. By “obviously biased” in fiction what I understand is not just that the plot arc is contrived so that India/USA/Christians/Objectivists are in the right and prevail in the end, but that the plot and characterization is transparently dedicated to show their superiority and deny any alternate POV any even break (if not be downright demonized) from page one. An “obviously biased viewpoint” does not become less repugnant to those it may offend because some “outsider” is writing it, heck, people may in fact be *more *suspicious of the work if the conceit is that the author is such an outsider, because then *why *is he so biased?

If things are as the OP suggests, then even if he/she wrote a pro-Indian novel under, say, an English-sounding pseudonym, wouldn’t everyone in Pakistan assume the author was really Indian anyway?

I don’t mean that blatant - Tom Clancy doesn’t portray Soviets as monsters, for instance, but his novels clearly show US = good side that wins, USSR = bad guys that lose.

Not necessarily, there are plenty of non-Indian people in the world who might depict Pakistan as a villain country.

In that case, still unnecessary – Clancy had no need to pretend to be a disinterested outsider for his novels to be well received, did he?

It might have been even better received among a US audience (in theory.)
Because then, instead of, “An American writer thinks America is better than Russia - no surprise,” it might be received as, “Even a Scandinavian (or German or Argentine etc.) writer thinks America is better than Russia, so if even an outsider thinks that, the USA must be a pretty good country.”

Ah, but: the American audience for Cold War espionage-terrorism thrillers were not looking for that. That audience would care about whether the action is thrilling and (if Clancy) the technogearhead armaments-catalogue passages are good geekporn. The reader of Patriot Games or Clear and Present Danger or Sum of All Fears is not looking to a paean to the greatness of America, he’s looking for Jack Ryan and the cast to overcome great hazards and hardships to save America and freedom and kick commie/terrorist ass.

Besides, and to turn it right around, the way Clancy portrayed mass destruction striking against the US home soil (Nuke Denver? Annihihilate the entire US Government by crashing an airliner onto the Capitol [in 1994!!] during a Joint Session presidential address? Ebola attack?), were he not a fellow American someone would have wondered if he was not doing so with a little too much relish :wink:

All in all and again: with fiction, that the author be seen as an outside observer to the milieu in the book is seldom something the audiences look for or are very impressed by.

Good point.