Why is the dragon evil? What is it doing that is evil? Why is what it is doing considered evil? (Making an assumption): does a man attempt to stop its evil ways? A woman? Individuals? A collective of some sort?

(Switching slightly to ideology, obviously one of the roots / informers of politics) There is, I doubt, anything outside of the realm of ideology, in regards to anything within human perception [a rock may be a rock, but a rock considered by the human intellect will always be something more, in one way or another]. And the deepest point of ideology (as with the old saw about asking a fish how the water is today) is when we don't recognize it at all.

So the valiant knight rescues the princess (a story that most [at least at one time] would find apolitical, common-sensical, and non-political and non-ideological). But if the princess rescues the princess, now we've become political. If the prince and princess get married at the end, the same. But if the prince and the prince...

cough Iron Dragon's Daughter cough

At this point I just translate "I want apolitical art" to "I want my politics re-affirmed" in my head. The majority of people are still stuck in the whole End of History/"We are post-ideological" trap and it is a remarkably sticky ideology. I'm not sure if it is the deepest point of ideology or just an innovation of this particular one that makes it very successful.

It isn't unreasonable to want to read some un-challenging escapist fiction after all, and if you have this world view you don't know how to express that. When admitting they are taking a political stance, especially a pro-status quo one, is itself a challenge to their politics ...

I hear you. There’s a time and a place for 3 level deep complexity and 4th wall breaking stuff but the majority of the things are best enjoyed without reading anything into it.

This is true. That doesn’t imply a lack of politics, though—I’d hazard a guess that it’s essentially impossible to have non-political narratives.

That is not what article is about. It is about novel describing point of view of characters that are not you and showing you the world ad they see it. Article uses example of janissaries who were military, but from point of view of their families boys kidnapped as kids and never seen again.

There is nothing complex about it.

Another similar example is pretty much when the same act is framed in one novel as cool prank and in other you see it from point of view of victims and cool dude suddenly looks like massive asshole.

agreed.

First, tell a good story. If the story can additionally be interpreted metaphorically to support specific viewpoints, so be it.

There are exceptions, but most of the time, when I reach for a novel, I am not looking for political commentary.

I hear this sentiment a lot (in all contexts, not just novels), but it's always unclear to me what the intention is. Novels should never have a political message? As rarely as possible? Who is arguing that novels should forgo telling a "good" story in addition to whatever else they're doing? I appreciate that there are certainly interesting points to make here, but unfortunately, it always seems like the majority of people making this case are just saying "I stick to my camp and hate hearing the opinions of the other camp" (not accusing you of this without more context).

Maybe so, but please don't post unsubstantive comments here.