So? Even if they have a diametrically apposed view as seen through the story (note: PP Story Full Moon) it can still be great to learn what the opposing side has to say. You may not agree with it but, as the proverb goes "Know thy enemy".
I would never class a piece of fiction as an enemy. Nor would I class a person who thinks differently than I do as an enemy, unless the difference were to arise between my idea about my right to live in the world and their direct opposition to that idea.
I would also be wary of drawing conclusions about an author's opinions from their story. The text usually doesn't support such extrapolations, and they usually say much more about the person doing the extrapolating than the author. Frex, there's a number of reviews that object to Scalzi's pro-war (or war glorifying) stance. This position is deduced from an interpretation of the works. However, when you read his blog, and what he says outside the story, the pro-war stuff just isn't there.
Another frex, I listened to last year's Hugo nominee "A Clockwork Atom Bomb" very shortly after I had read Gourevitch's excellent book on the Rwandan genocide, and thus sensitized to issues of African politics, found it racist. I don't think it probably
is racist (and I don't think, as a white woman, I'm all that equipped to discern what is racist anyway), I just felt uncomfortably like it might be racist, in connection with some of the other things I was reading at the time. My discomfort with the story's tone and its portrayal had to do with my feelings about Africa, not with the story itself (which was very fine in other ways).
There's a lot of stuff in a story, and usually if you can unpack in such a way as to directly correlate it to what an author thinks politically, then the story itself isn't much good. Now if an author stands up and says "My story is a diatribe against meat-eating", then you can be pretty sure that's what they meant to put in as a message. Course it might not be in there even then, because stories -- good ones anyway -- are multi-faceted and complex things. You know,
Farenheit 451 not so much about the evils of TV as Bradbury thinks it is. There's a school of lit crit that actually disavows
anything an author says about their work, judging them unqualified to comment. I'm not that extreme, but there's what they wrote and what you read, and those are rarely -- if ever -- the same thing.