Romanticisation of Feudalism

[Jabrosky]

Absolutely. My problem isn't with having monarchies in a high fantasy setting, it's simply with the romanticisation of them or the system that supports them. I just want a few more fantasy writers to take a step back and think about the moral implications of the systems they're portraying.

It depends on the story.

One of the most stereotypical high fantasy plots is a violent invasion threatening the protagonists' homeland. Regardless of that homeland's system of government, most of us would consider brutal military aggression against it to be morally reprehensible (especially if they brutalize citizens other than the governing class).

I don't even think a democratic nation necessarily would have the moral high ground in a conflict with a monarchy. Just because a country has a democratic system for its own citizens doesn't mean their cultural norms respect foreigners, for example. If the United States of America were to nuke a peaceful African kingdom run by a benevolent monarchy to get its oil, and the American people voted in support of their government's decision (perhaps influenced by news stations or celebrities which receive government "rewards" for endorsing their agenda), I wouldn't say the US would qualify as the good guys.

 

[Gryphos]

I don't even think a democratic nation necessarily would have the moral high ground in a conflict with a monarchy. Just because a country has a democratic system for its own citizens doesn't mean their cultural norms respect foreigners, for example. If the United States of America were to nuke a peaceful African kingdom run by a benevolent monarchy to get its oil, and the American people voted in support of their government's decision (perhaps influenced by news stations or celebrities which receive government "rewards" for endorsing their agenda), I wouldn't say the US would qualify as the good guys.

Of course not. Democratic nations aren't automatically better, per se, than monarchic ones. They just have a fairer and more moral system of governing. In the same way, a monarch isn't necessarily worse at governing than an elected council, they just became the leader through a worse system.

 

[X Equestris]

It depends on the story.

One of the most stereotypical high fantasy plots is a violent invasion threatening the protagonists' homeland. Regardless of that homeland's system of government, most of us would consider brutal military aggression against it to be morally reprehensible (especially if they brutalize citizens other than the governing class).

I don't even think a democratic nation necessarily would have the moral high ground in a conflict with a monarchy. Just because a country has a democratic system for its own citizens doesn't mean their cultural norms respect foreigners, for example. If the United States of America were to nuke a peaceful African kingdom run by a benevolent monarchy to get its oil, and the American people voted in support of their government's decision (perhaps influenced by news stations or celebrities which receive government "rewards" for endorsing their agenda), I wouldn't say the US would qualify as the good guys.

I think the best example of something like this is in the infamous destruction of Melos by Athens during the Peloponnesian War, where Athens basically claimed that because they were stronger, they could do as they pleased.

 

[skip.knox]

If fantasy authors were to step back and reconsider politics, they would face some serious story-telling challenges. True, they could portray city-states on the model of northern Italy and southern Germany, but those systems were hella complicated and would utterly mystify most readers. Not exactly a major goal for an author. Moreover, given a pre-industrial but post-Roman society, having something other than kings would be even more disorienting for the reader. I don't say many authors are lazy, but one can't really blame them for not having to re-invent politics when they only want to tell the adventures of some ... adventurers.

Besides, as others here have implied, *all* political systems have moral implications. If an individual wants to talk about the relative morality of political systems, a fantasy story probably is not the best rhetorical choice. I'm not saying don't do it, but I am saying it's an unusual choice and one ought not blame the whole profession for generally not choosing it. Similarly, a scholarly political science paper probably isn't the best place to examine elves versus dwarves.

Maybe it's because I'm not outraged by monarchy. Scratch that: I'm not outraged that it has existed. If I lived under it, I'd be making placards and sharpening guillotines. It's not monarchy so much as aristocracy that curdles my skin.

 

[Feo Takahari]

Monarchy in fantasy doesn't bother me. Fantasy characters being born into inherently superior bloodlines bothers me. Monarchy is just one of the possible vehicles for "You're better than everyone else because you were born that way." (Notably, at least one of the authors who uses that blood stuff actually believes it's true in real life.)

 

[Mythopoet]

Possibly, but pretty much everyone today romanticizes democracy and representative government so... *shrug* Pretty much any form of government only really works well in theory. Once you stick actual fallible people in there it all goes to hell.

 

[stephenspower]

moral system of governing

Side comment: a non-theocratic government is not a moral body nor are its laws moral, although they may try to reflect a moral code or other ideal. Of course the theocratic-minded in, say, a democracy, will insist otherwise.

 

[Gryphos]

Side comment: a non-theocratic government is not a moral body nor are its laws moral, although they may try to reflect a moral code or other ideal. Of course the theocratic-minded in, say, a democracy, will insist otherwise.

A government may not be a 'moral body' per se (though it's arguable that it should be), but a system that it operates under can be moral. By that I guess I mean 'not immoral'. Democracy is 'not immoral' because in essence it is fair, whatever other flaws it may have.

Laws ... often definitely aren't moral. Sometimes they are (I think we can all agree murder's pretty bad). But what is undoubtable is that laws should be moral. They should be a code based on moral principles. Yes, I am aware that morality varies from culture to culture and person to person, but that's not really the point. The point is that a place with laws should base those laws on moral principles, whatever they may be.

 

[X Equestris]

A government may not be a 'moral body' per se (though it's arguable that it should be), but a system that it operates under can be moral. By that I guess I mean 'not immoral'. Democracy is 'not immoral' because in essence it is fair, whatever other flaws it may have.

Laws ... often definitely aren't moral. Sometimes they are (I think we can all agree murder's pretty bad). But what is undoubtable is that laws should be moral. They should be a code based on moral principles. Yes, I am aware that morality varies from culture to culture and person to person, but that's not really the point. The point is that a place with laws should base those laws on moral principles, whatever they may be.

Is democracy always fair, though? The Confederate States of America had a democratic government. It most certainly wasn't fair.

 

[Gryphos]

Is democracy always fair, though? The Confederate States of America had a democratic government. It most certainly wasn't fair.

The democratic process itself is fair. Whether the results of it are is a different matter.

 

[CupofJoe]

The democratic process itself is fair. Whether the results of it are is a different matter.

The democratic process in biased and unfair to many groups of people subject to it... In the UK I can think of several... those under voting age... those convicted of a crime... those that are homeless... those deemed mentally incompetent and many other groups [bankrupts I think are stopped from voting]. And I'm not even going to start in with the demographics of most politicians... [White, Rich, Middle/Upper Class and Male] Or how it is predicated on popularity that can be overtly and covertly manipulated by relatively small group of people/companies/entities for their own ends...
Or that to stand for election in the UK you have to pay [£500] to register...
I'm with Winston Churchill.... "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
Fantasy Stories often [too often perhaps] rely on a faux history based on times when Monarchy was the almost universal form of government. It is a story setting and maybe a plot device rather than a political commentary.

 

[Mythopoet]

The democratic process itself is fair. Whether the results of it are is a different matter.

I wouldn't call a system that has as its most basic structure that the majority gets what they want and the minority doesn't a fair process.

 

[Tom]

I don't like reading romanticizations of monarchy and fuedalism. It probably has something to do with my being American. Also something to do with the fact that I used to romanticize them myself, until I was hit with Limyaael's Rants, the fantasy equivalent of a sledgehammer.

Romanticization of monarchy and feudalism bother me because of the subconscious ideas they promote. In feudalism, peasants have no rights. They're basically slaves. The lord has all the power. A lot of feudalistic fantasies take that the next step by implying that the peasants are actually lesser than the nobles on a level that has nothing to do with class. The hero, though raised a peasant, often discovers that he's really a noble. That implies that your inherent worth as an individual lies in what class you were born into. That class distinctions--and the morals and beliefs that supposedly go with them--are written into your DNA. (And, as working class, I say "Screw that".)

Plus, many feudal fantasies ignore the nasty realities of feudal life and write all the peasants as happy and unrealistically healthy and well-educated (when in reality the life of a peasant was one of the harshest, most miserable, ignorant, and shortest lifes to lead), the nobles as fair and just, and knights as protectors of the people and the peace (did you know certain knights financed the Crusades by kidnapping people and holding them for ransom?). They also usually don't show how much influence superstition and fear of the supernatural influenced everyday life, and how the church discouraged medical practices such as surgery or dissecting dead bodies to study how the human organism worked, as well as spreading fear and resentment of the middle class and keeping the economy stagnant by forbidding interest on loans of any kind.

I won't talk much about monarchy. It irritates me too much, and I fear that if I get going on it it'll turn into a rant. Here's my one thought on the matter: I don't like monarchy because it's one person ruling many. One person simply cannot claim to speak for the will of the masses. Diversity such as sex, race, class, level of education, and religion negates that. Usually monarchy enjoys greatest success in a fairly rigid, uniform society that promotes conformity and places more worth in the collective than the individual. After all, the European Enlightenment (when the Classical idea of the individual>collective was rediscovered) is when monarchy started to falter.

 

[Gryphos]

The democratic process in biased and unfair to many groups of people subject to it... In the UK I can think of several... those under voting age... those convicted of a crime... those that are homeless... those deemed mentally incompetent and many other groups [bankrupts I think are stopped from voting]. And I'm not even going to start in with the demographics of most politicians... [White, Rich, Middle/Upper Class and Male] Or how it is predicated on popularity that can be overtly and covertly manipulated by relatively small group of people/companies/entities for their own ends...
Or that to stand for election in the UK you have to pay [£500] to register...
I'm with Winston Churchill.... "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
Fantasy Stories often [too often perhaps] rely on a faux history based on times when Monarchy was the almost universal form of government. It is a story setting and maybe a plot device rather than a political commentary.

Oh trust me, I've ranted to people enough about how shitty the current system is in the UK. When I say democracy, I mean the essence of the word, that being power to the people, elected leaders, etc. not any specific real world systems, because a lot of them have a terrible implementation.

 

[Gryphos]

I wouldn't call a system that has as its most basic structure that the majority gets what they want and the minority doesn't a fair process.

Well, it's fairer than the minority getting what they want and the majority not.

 

[Tom]

Well, it's fairer than the minority getting what they want and the majority not.

Exactly. What's happening right now in the US is that certain vocal minorities--on both sides of the aisle--are drowning out the majority. It's frustrating to see our system abused by politicians who have no interest in promoting the good of the people, and are instead focused on either promoting their own agendas, or catering to or stamping on certain minorities, or both. And again, this practice goes down in both the Right and the Left. We've taken a sharp turn away from democracy in the US, and I find that depressing.

 

[X Equestris]

Well, it's fairer than the minority getting what they want and the majority not.

I find the quote about "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for dinner" to be accurate sometimes. I love democratic forms of government, but their greatest weakness is that the majority can get not just what they want, but oppress the minority.

 

[CupofJoe]

Oh trust me, I've ranted to people enough about how shitty the current system is in the UK. When I say democracy, I mean the essence of the word, that being power to the people, elected leaders, etc. not any specific real world systems, because a lot of them have a terrible implementation.

But Democracy is a concept, an implementation of a theory... Flawed and usually far from ideal, from the Greeks on forward.
Imperfect and prone to error and corruption of that ideal... Hey humans are involved. We always screw up a good thing.
If we are going for the theoretical concept... I'm voting [] for a benevolent dictatorship or a humanist rationalist theocracy...a whole lot cheaper and more effective.

 

[Russ]

I find the quote about "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for dinner" to be accurate sometimes. I love democratic forms of government, but their greatest weakness is that the majority can get not just what they want, but oppress the minority.

Well, when it comes to collective decisions or rules that need to be done for a large group of people, and you think all citizens should have input, than democracy is about as good as it gets. Does it produce some "winners" and some "losers", absolutely. But there seems to be no better alternative that I am aware of.

The thing people don't talk about often enough in the "democracy" discussion is how real democracies work. Almost all of the well functioning democracies have a well constructed constitution that prevents the majority from screwing minorities too badly in the political arena.

Perhaps I should just say "I think constitutional democracies work pretty well."

 

[Russ]

I don't like reading romanticizations of monarchy and fuedalism. It probably has something to do with my being American. Also something to do with the fact that I used to romanticize them myself, until I was hit with Limyaael's Rants, the fantasy equivalent of a sledgehammer.

Romanticization of monarchy and feudalism bother me because of the subconscious ideas they promote. In feudalism, peasants have no rights. They're basically slaves. The lord has all the power. A lot of feudalistic fantasies take that the next step by implying that the peasants are actually lesser than the nobles on a level that has nothing to do with class. The hero, though raised a peasant, often discovers that he's really a noble. That implies that your inherent worth as an individual lies in what class you were born into. That class distinctions--and the morals and beliefs that supposedly go with them--are written into your DNA. (And, as working class, I say "Screw that".)

Plus, many feudal fantasies ignore the nasty realities of feudal life and write all the peasants as happy and unrealistically healthy and well-educated (when in reality the life of a peasant was one of the harshest, most miserable, ignorant, and shortest lifes to lead), the nobles as fair and just, and knights as protectors of the people and the peace (did you know certain knights financed the Crusades by kidnapping people and holding them for ransom?). They also usually don't show how much influence superstition and fear of the supernatural influenced everyday life, and how the church discouraged medical practices such as surgery or dissecting dead bodies to study how the human organism worked, as well as spreading fear and resentment of the middle class and keeping the economy stagnant by forbidding interest on loans of any kind.

I won't talk much about monarchy. It irritates me too much, and I fear that if I get going on it it'll turn into a rant. Here's my one thought on the matter: I don't like monarchy because it's one person ruling many. One person simply cannot claim to speak for the will of the masses. Diversity such as sex, race, class, level of education, and religion negates that. Usually monarchy enjoys greatest success in a fairly rigid, uniform society that promotes conformity and places more worth in the collective than the individual. After all, the European Enlightenment (when the Classical idea of the individual>collective was rediscovered) is when monarchy started to falter.

I don't read too many books that portray peasants as happy and healthy anymore.

It seems slightly unfair to me to criticize a historical phenomena from a modern perspective without putting it into context and considering the limitations of the time.

The whole system originated out of the fall of the Roman Empire that left people desperate for physical protection from invading people. People were more concerned about not being killed, their wives raped and crops taken than they were about abstract political rights. So the men who could protect their communities from violence, through their own use of violence rose to the top of the food chain. Bob other there who is telling me that he will teach my children to read is less attractive as a leader than Dave and his rather large well armed family who are telling me that they will keep the marauders from burning my house down and selling my children into slavery.

It takes a certain prosperity and infrastructure for a democracy to work well. That just didn't exist in the middle ages Even now in some third world countries where there are computers, cell phones, cars and roads it can take weeks for votes to be gathered and counted. Can you imagine what that process would be like in say Bavaria in 875? How does an illiterate pre-printing press culture get enough information to decide who to vote for for a national leader?

If someone was to suggest the modern US would be better off with a King, I would take that as absurd. If someone was to say that most of the time, the Habsburgs did a pretty good job running their empire...that is a much more nuanced question.

Like elected representatives, some monarchies were well run and effective. Some were not.

I also think you were a tad harsh on the church...but that is a different story.