# Are fantasy inherently safe and reactionary?



## Kasper Hviid (Feb 20, 2020)

I saw a few episodes of CARNIVAL ROW, a steampunk fantasy TV series with rather in-your-face political references to everyday issues like racism, war and migration.
While the series didn’t really speak to me, I was a bit surprised to find political stuff in a fantasy setting. Not that it hasn’t been done before, but it isn’t all that common. I did a search for reviews; people writing those always love showing off their cleverness. One I came upon had the really nice title How CARNIVAL ROW Balances Political Allegory with Romantic Escapism. I’m drawing attention to that particular review due to a single sentence which really got to me:

_“Its timely social commentary felt more like sci-fi than fantasy.”_

But it’s true, isn’t it? Fantasy has always had this safe air of escapism, recycling the same Tolkien tropes over and over again, whereas sci-fi is critical and challenging with works like 1984, BRAZIL and DARK MIRROR. Possibly, that’s why there are loads of sci-fi short stories, yet practically no fantasy ones, as the short story format works better for quickly pushing some entirely new idea at your face, a bit like a fictional TED talk. On the other hand, the 4rth entry in a fantasy series will pretty much stick to the same recipe as previous entries. Perhaps the protagonist finds a magical item that is different from the ones he found earlier, but we basically read the fourth book because staying in that universe feels comfy. We don’t read it to experience anything actually new.

The story of 1984 could easily have been told in a fantasy setting. It might have worked better in the long run. Today's surveillance society is closer to non-physical magical mechanics than it is to the dated technical solutions seen in the novel. But if fantasy can work for those kinds of stories, why is it that sci-fi seems to have this kind of monopoly?


----------



## Queshire (Feb 20, 2020)

Sci fi looks forward. It's easy for our fears for the future to be reflected in that, but it's equally easy for our hopes to be reflected there. Ah, I remember hearing something about the original Star Trek. It came out during the cold war, yet it presented an image of a unified humanity. It even had a Russian guy on the bridge.

In the same way, every generation that has ever existed has looked back at the past as better than today. "Back in my day..." and all that. It's equally easy for that to leak into people's writing.

Of course, there's nothing saying that's the only way. Discworld equated the first use of magic in a war to the first use of nuclear weapons, and if I remember correctly, it was easy to equate the use of mana in the book that gave us the term with the use of fossil fuels.


----------



## Yora (Feb 20, 2020)

Science fiction comes really in two types: Visions of a great future that might be attainable if we work for it, and warnings of an awful future that might happen if we don't prevent it. Since fiction is inherently about about examining the current state of society and making extrapolations of where it might lead. (Laser guns and space ships don't make something science fiction in my opinion.)

Fantasy is a completely different beast. While it is also set in worlds that are different from the present day world or historical environments, that is where the similarities with science fiction end to me. For some reason lots of people bunch the two together as something closely related, but I'm not really seeing any similarities. Fantasy is a completely different beast.


----------



## Aldarion (Feb 20, 2020)

Kasper Hviid said:


> I saw a few episodes of CARNIVAL ROW, a steampunk fantasy TV series with rather in-your-face political references to everyday issues like racism, war and migration.
> While the series didn’t really speak to me, I was a bit surprised to find political stuff in a fantasy setting. Not that it hasn’t been done before, but it isn’t all that common. I did a search for reviews; people writing those always love showing off their cleverness. One I came upon had the really nice title How CARNIVAL ROW Balances Political Allegory with Romantic Escapism. I’m drawing attention to that particular review due to a single sentence which really got to me:
> 
> _“Its timely social commentary felt more like sci-fi than fantasy.”_
> ...



Sci-fi also has safe air of escapism, it is just pandering to a different crowd. Just look at _Star Trek_.

One question is that of timeframe. Most of the fantasy is based in our past: medieval fantasy is most common, through there is also Roman fantasy and so on. When you are discussing historical societies, it is easy to see what has worked and what has not worked. Therefore there is very little free room left for radical experimentation, novel ideas and especially novel social systems. We have used more or less everything which has historically worked... and societies which used models that did not work either changed them or fell apart.

Sci-fi however is set in future. Future, by definition, is uncertain. We do not really understand what the hell we are doing right now, nor do we understand how technologies just being introduced are going to change the society. Even less do we know about possible developments in next few centuries. As such, almost anything can be justified - when it comes to development of society, _Warhammer 40 000_ is at least as realistic as _Star Trek_ is. Anything goes.

And fantasy is in fact highly political. It is just not up and in the face about it as sci-fi tends to be - it is far more subtle and sophisticated. Just read _Lord of the Rings_ and think about what it says about the qualities of a good ruler, and how idealism can easily lead to tyranny (case in point: Morgoth and Sauron, both were idealists who wanted to build a better world, and both ended up as... well). And if you want something less subtle and metaphysical, you can always read _A Song of Ice and Fire_.


----------



## A. E. Lowan (Feb 20, 2020)

I don't think it is, nor should it be, safe and reactionary. Speculative fiction - fantasy, sci fi, and horror - are all opportunities to explore powerful what-if's. From _The Lord of the Rings_, which spoke out against the perils of industrialization after Tolkien's traumas during WWI to the Star Wars franchise, which can be seen as a discussion against imperialism and totalitarianism, to the horror movie _Get Out_, which is a discussion of race relations, speculative fiction has always carved the way through the social issues of their time. It is both a reflection of our now and a rumination on our future.


----------



## Yora (Feb 20, 2020)

Though going by my intuition, I do agree that a great number of fantasy fans and writers are very much interested in "more of the same". They see something like Lord of the Rings, see some superficial aspects that they really like, and want to have more of it, or make their own version of it.
I believe this is much less happening with science fiction because sci-fi usually lakes the romantic pathos that much of fantasy has. Sci-fi tends to be more cerebral in nature, and sci-fi that lacks originality and some degree of depth is simply boring. When fantasy is unoriginal and shallow, it can still have some success as kitsch. Something that doesn't make you think, but simply triggers and automatic emotional response. Even when there is no substance to think about, the emotion by itself can still feel good enough to keep sticking to the story.


----------



## AMObst (Feb 20, 2020)

This is a very interesting thread indeed. I find myself drawn to fantasy stories where the author is using the setting to ask questions about our modern world. That can potentially  lead to some very dark and "unsafe" stories. This usually works best in fanstasy set in other worlds where you can play with history and social development.

For example, Kate Elliott, who in my view is a superb world builder, has written fantasy stories that deal with fairly big issues like racial tension, political power and refugees/mass migration, as well as imagining some matriarchal rather than patriarchal social structures.


----------



## oenanthe (Feb 20, 2020)

Kasper Hviid said:


> _“Its timely social commentary felt more like sci-fi than fantasy.”_



That person isn't really up on fantasy if they think that. If you're reading up to date fantasy by newer novelists, it's up to the eyes in timely social commentary.


----------



## skip.knox (Feb 20, 2020)

_Animal Farm_. The Conan stories (Howard was a sharp critic of modern civilization). Others.
True, much of modern fantasy is dreck without social or political commentary, but 70% of everything is dreck without social or political commentary.
I just made that up.

I dunno, I see plenty, mostly of social commentary, especially in the last decade or so. I'm not sure it means much. There's not a lot of social or political commentary in detective novels or mysteries or romances (there's some, of course). It's fine. The best place for such critiques, imo, is in realistic or literary novels that actually take place in the world they are critiquing. 

As for SF, that genre grew up in a world that was rending its own flesh with war and a new-found ability to destroy everything. Literature will always reflect something of the world around it (e.g., _Canterbury Tales _and _The Decameron_, both of which were affected by the Black Death), and SF did that. There was more short-form SF simply because there were more magazines where a writer could get an income than there are today. Today, Book 4 is like Book 3 not least because a series generates income better than standalone novels.

I saw _Brazil_ cited, a movie I love, but I'll reply with _Time Bandits, The Adventures of Baron von Munchausen, _and _The Fisher King_ as examples of social and political commentary done in a variety of fantasy settings. And that's just choosing from the same director.


----------



## pmmg (Feb 20, 2020)

I think it is a very effective tool to be able to combine things together, in this case political commentary and fantasy story telling. I have not seen Carnival Row, but I have seen many many shows, Fantasy, Sci-Fi, or otherwise, that use the backdrop to make commentary. I dont know that I feel Fantasy has been reactionary, most commentary I see seems more centered around progressive/left leaning principals, but its been that way my whole life, so...

I think it might be fair to say, traditional fantasy, like many things traditional, tends to look back. Fantasy of course, does not have to look back, but if you are looking at a world with princesses and knights and dragons, it does kind of point towards something feudal and from the past. Scifi, of course, tends to look forward at where our Technology might go, so its not hard to envision 50 or 200 years of more progressive thinking might lead to less traditional stuff and more social change having had occurred.

All of these stories are products of their times, and are reactions to, or building upon, the culure and values the authors are participants with. So, I dont know that Tolkien could have written Game of Thrones, per se, he did not have Tolkien to build upon... I think the real trick with stories is to try to capture something about the human story over all and something along the lines of universal truths to break out of today, and speak beyond our own time. There are not many who pull that off.

I am not suprised by the comment above, about the commentary making something feel more like Sci-Fi than fantasy. At first blush, a statement like that, I would imagine, would ring true to many, its just after a moment there is a--but on second thought--aspect to it as well.


----------



## The Dark One (Feb 20, 2020)

How annoying. I am writing an essay at the moment that touches on some of this, so the essay will not quite have the impact it may have had otherwise.

Never mind.

There is no reason fantasy (set in any comparative epoch) can't deal with socio-politics.

There's also the notion that people writing in a particular milieu can't help but reflect somewhat of their own nomos/superego (for want of a better word). Tolkien was very revealing of the values and prejudices of his time and while he says in the preface there is so hidden meaning to the work, it's pretty obvious to scholars that there is a meaning, even if it was hidden from Tolkien himself.


----------



## skip.knox (Feb 21, 2020)

If the author says there's no hidden meaning in a book, then there isn't. If a *reader* finds meaning there, then that meaning is hidden within the reader. They are seeing patterns and parallels, not meanings hidden within subtext. 

To put this another way, different readers will find different meanings from the same book. Therefore, the meaning isn't within the book itself, it's within the reader. If, otoh, an author says there's an intended hidden meaning, then there is.

Which raises the question, how exactly does an author go about hiding a meaning? The words are right there on the page. I've tried to stuff things between the lines, but I just end up making new lines. <g>


----------



## The Dark One (Feb 21, 2020)

Well, maybe Tolkien didn't think the manifold interpretations of his work were hidden.

What I was really talking about was the (almost) inevitable reflection of aspects of a milieu in the literature it generates. Often these things are easier for historians to see than the writer and his/her contemporaries.


----------



## Aldarion (Feb 21, 2020)

skip.knox said:


> If the author says there's no hidden meaning in a book, then there isn't. If a *reader* finds meaning there, then that meaning is hidden within the reader. They are seeing patterns and parallels, not meanings hidden within subtext.
> 
> To put this another way, different readers will find different meanings from the same book. Therefore, the meaning isn't within the book itself, it's within the reader. If, otoh, an author says there's an intended hidden meaning, then there is.
> 
> Which raises the question, how exactly does an author go about hiding a meaning? The words are right there on the page. I've tried to stuff things between the lines, but I just end up making new lines. <g>



I would (somewhat) disagree with that. We are shaped by our experiences and beliefs even if we are not ourselves aware of them. Tolkien himself was quite open about how both himself and his work were shaped by a) his Catholic beliefs and b) his experiences in First World War. But that may not be obvious to the readers, and will thus acquire the status of "hidden meaning". Conversely, Tolkien himself may have included some aspects within his work on a purely subconscious basis.

Hidden meaning I think is all about patterns. Just like history is all about patterns - yet humans ignore these patterns and make all the same mistakes of their predecessors in their ultimately idiotic belief that they are somehow smarter than their ancestors.


----------



## Prince of Spires (Feb 21, 2020)

I think you will always see something of the writer reflected in the work. But that doesn't mean that something should be interpreted as a hidden meaning, just that that is the reality from which the author is writing. In lord of the rings for instance, there is the master-servant relationship between Frodo and Sam. For me that was always just something that reflected a reality from around the time Tolkien grew up. But you could see it as some commentary on how Tolkien views what the ideal reality would be like. 

I'm also wondering where you draw the line between an author simply using a reality as a starting point and the author hiding some meaning in his work. Terry Pratchett is an interesting case study here. Many of his works take an everyday situation and magnify it into the absurd. There's everything from gender roles in Equal rites and Monstrous regiment to the effects of technology on society in Moving pictures and fake news in the Truth. 

But they never read to me as having a hidden meaning that the author wanted to get across. It simply used an existing situation as an interesting premise. 



Aldarion said:


> I would (somewhat) disagree with that. We are shaped by our experiences and beliefs even if we are not ourselves aware of them.


We might be getting at a definition issue here. If a hidden meaning is so hidden that the author himself doesn't see it, is it then still a hidden meaning? 

For me, for there to be a hidden meaning, the author must actively want to make a point. Otherwise it's simply the story. Even more so for a work to be a commentary on some issue. For a work to be commentary on some issue, the author must have intended to make it a commentary. Otherwise it is a reflection of society (as almost all writing is), but not a commentary. 

It reminds me of a story a friend once told me. He had a literature class in high school where they were discussing some literary work. The teacher had found all kinds of meanings and hidden story lines in the book. My friend knew the writer lived close to him, so he contacted him to discuss the book. When my friend told the writer about all the meanings the teacher had found the writers reaction was something like "Do people really find that in there? Cool. I must use that next time someone asks me about my book. It makes it look much more intelligent and deliberate that way."


----------



## The Dark One (Feb 21, 2020)

But what writer actually sets out to hide a meaning?

I could point to a book like my own Straight Jacket which is certainly full of texture, but that doesn't mean meanings are hidden. It just means they require a bit of work by the reader. And I know readers will find meanings I never intended. That's just the nature of literature. Applies to me the same as it applied to Tolkien


----------



## Yora (Feb 21, 2020)

Fiction can reveal quite a lot about writers that the writers don't see themselves. People do it all the time. Every time something begins with "I am not racist, but..." you know it's racist even though the person denies it. Or people who believe they are devoted to a religion based on love and forgiveness but constantly spew hate and call for violence. They don't see any contradiction there.
It's normal for people to not really know what they are thinking. The human mind is a funny accident of evolution, that is just good enough to have avoided going extinct so far. Human thinking does not have to make sense or be consistent.

Whether Tolkien was aware of it or not, The Lord of the Rings is apologetic for the divine right to rule. It's basically a story if the white man's burden, except that in this case it's the noble whites having a duty to protect the common whites who don't have the mental capacity to care for themselves. If left to their own devices, those commoners in Gondor and the Shire will only be corrupted and seduced to do evil because they don't know any better. What they need is the Noldorian master race to rule benevolently over them.
"The Return of the King". If you just put someone of superior breeding in power, everything will be alright again.

Of course I see these things based on what I believe and think about the world. But it's still based entirely on things that Tolkien chose to put into it in the believe that it makes a good story.


----------



## Aldarion (Feb 21, 2020)

Yora said:


> Or people who believe they are devoted to a religion based on love and forgiveness but constantly spew hate and call for violence. They don't see any contradiction there.



Not just religion. That sort of behaviour is normal for any political ideology, _especially_ those who preach things such as universal love, human rights et cetera. Reason, I think, is simple: if you believe that your beliefs are or should be universal and universally applied, then anyone who believes anything different from your own beliefs is automatically a threat. If you do not, then you will be happy to live and let live.



Yora said:


> It's normal for people to not really know what they are thinking. The human mind is a funny accident of evolution, that is just good enough to have avoided going extinct so far. Human thinking does not have to make sense or be consistent.



That just goes back to what I wrote before: _We are shaped by our experiences and beliefs even if we are not ourselves aware of them._ This means that humans will not just have different opinions and conclusions, but also different _patterns of thought_. Therefore, same input will produce different output. Which means that two perfectly sane, logical individuals may reach completely opposite conclusions.



Yora said:


> Whether Tolkien was aware of it or not, The Lord of the Rings is apologetic for the divine right to rule. It's basically a story if the white man's burden, except that in this case it's the noble whites having a duty to protect the common whites who don't have the mental capacity to care for themselves. If left to their own devices, those commoners in Gondor and the Shire will only be corrupted and seduced to do evil because they don't know any better. What they need is the Noldorian master race to rule benevolently over them.



Actually, it is not. I am planning to write about it someday, but in fact Gondor is the only state in Lord of the Rings where you have "divine right to rule" - and even there, it was Stewards, not Kings, who led Gondor through its times of greatest tribulation.

And your entire thesis about Lord of the Rings being "story of white man's burden" is also completely incorrect and based on wrong premises. I will just list all the things you misinterpreted in a bullet point list, it is easier that way:

Noble whites (Numenoreans) who have the duty to protect the common whites are only noble because they were given "promised land" shaped by God, and taught things by Valar and by Eldar.
Common whites are time and again shown to be not inferior to said "noble whites" in any ways that are inherent to humans, as opposed to coming from external source. Rohirrim do just fine without input from Gondor, even before they come to Calenadhorn. Earlier, Edain reached elves on their own.
Numenoreans have been repeatedly shown to be no more resillient to corruption than normal men - perhaps even less so, in fact, as all the gifts they had been given made them much less willing to accept death. Three out of Nine Nazgul are Black Numenoreans, while on the other hand majority of population of Gondor has absolutely no Numenorean ancestry. So much for "commoners" being inferior.
Noldor themselves... oooh boy. In fact, the entirety of First Age can be described as "how Noldor screwed up, and then screwed up _again_". Noldorin "master race" had been repeatedly shown to be worse than humans on their worst. The only difference is, Noldor live for basically forever, so they have thousands of years to reflect on and learn from their mistakes.


----------



## oenanthe (Feb 21, 2020)

I'm scratching my head over the fact that the question was, "is fantasy inherently safe and reactionary?" and the response of the forum was to talk about a story that's old enough to collect a pension.

don't any of you read anything recent?


----------



## Aldarion (Feb 21, 2020)

oenanthe said:


> I'm scratching my head over the fact that the question was, "is fantasy inherently safe and reactionary?" and the response of the forum was to talk about a story that's old enough to collect a pension.
> 
> don't any of you read anything recent?



Lord of the Rings essentially codified High Fantasy, and High Fantasy is the most visible - and common - form of fantasy today. And many other forms of fantasy are themselves spawned from High Fantasy - such as Grimdark Fantasy. Even Martin cannot escape the Shadow of Tolkien. All of this means that Middle Earth Legendarium is a logical starting point for such a discussion.


----------



## Steerpike (Feb 21, 2020)

Prince of Spires said:


> We might be getting at a definition issue here. If a hidden meaning is so hidden that the author himself doesn't see it, is it then still a hidden meaning?
> 
> For me, for there to be a hidden meaning, the author must actively want to make a point.



Why?

Almost anything a person does reveals something about them, including unconscious biases and things they don't even realize about themselves. A work of fiction does the same thing. A work of fiction can provide insight or meaning never intended by the author, particularly when seen through the lens of time.


----------



## skip.knox (Feb 21, 2020)

>don't any of you read anything recent?
That would be your cue to contribute something.

I have to take more exception to the line about divine right. There's nothing in LotR about divine right to rule. A good many kings ruled for other reasons and justifications and there's no particular reason to select this early modern European theory as being what Tolkien meant. Chances are good, he didn't bother to think about it one way or the other. A long-lost rightful king returning to restore order to the world was exactly the sort of old European story Tolkien and his friends were deliberately trying to resurrect. 

Of course, if a person wishes to make that interpretation, then certainly can. But that's on the reader, not on the author.


----------



## oenanthe (Feb 21, 2020)

starting, sure.
but when's it going to move on?


----------



## skip.knox (Feb 21, 2020)

>safe air of escapism
I'd be interested to know what the OP means by this phrase. What is meant by escapism here, and in what way is escapism safe? What would be unsafe? And in what directions would the OP want to push fantasy in order to reach unsafe grounds?

Certainly fantasy in recent years has gained something of a reputation for "realism" or at least for gruesome grit. Are such works what the OP means or is it something different? Is it ok to write "safely escapist" fantasy still? And is there some third or fourth path authors might take, paths that lead neither to escapist nonsense nor to the bloody halls of grimdark?


----------



## pmmg (Feb 21, 2020)

I don't know, I find it odd that we are asking if it is inherently safe and reactionary, and then complaining that the example is not recent enough...wouldn't it follow that if it was inherently safe, it would lend itself to a safe example? But, I also find no useful value in a different example. If it is inherently safe and reactionary, it would be so in any example, and if its not, it would take only one to show it, would it not? To studiously answer this question, I would have to include all fantasy from Gilgamesh to Game of Thrones, so by that example, LOTR is relatively recent... I think its a fair example. If you like, I could use a different one, but if the point is only to say...yes, I see it here too, or not I don't... LOTR would suffice as well as any other. Since the arguments implies an all or nothing type of reasoning, we ought to know already that that will prove false, it will take only one exception to show that.

I did not see LOTR taking on gay issues, for example, but I see plenty of fantasy doing so today. Is that reactionary? Was Xena reactionary? Female hero in ancient Greece...I don't think it had a lot of reactionary themes in it. Maybe... More likely, it was a mix, and probably more so leaned liberal.

Anyway...

The question of showing oneself in the work....

In fact, I don't think many can make a forum post without revealing a bit about themselves. Add another 100,000 words, and I am sure it will bleed out. I have to submit that many write with a hidden agenda and hope to sneak values in. Some do so overtly, to be sure, but when one has an unpopular idea, and a medium from which to speak, it would seem ripe for saying something (high reward) in a way not meant to be noticed (low risk). 

It is certainly true that some will come to find meaning in an art form that the artist did not know was there, and I am sure upon reflection, they would find that super cool (unless it said something they did not want...). But when we are telling stories, and those stories are about the human condition, or the universe and what is true, it is bound to connect itself to things with bigger themes and bigger meanings. I don't think it can be avoided.

If I thought I knew something that was true, and could demonstrate it, I would likely include it in one of my stories, but then I would fear no one would understand it, so it would be lost. My observation of the world is that everyone is viewing the world through filters, many seem unaware of it, and unable to understand that theirs is not the only filter from which to view. If one could adopt a different filter, the world would seem entirely different. Some can do this, some cannot, and some don't even know that its even there to look at. If I could, I would say try a different filter, and some things that don't make sense in one context, might make sense in another.

I too am wondering if reactionary is the properly chosen word for the quote, and what they meant by it. Sadly, we don't have exact definition of words, and so this game of planting our thoughts exactly into the brains of another can never quite work. Language is insufficient.

What would you, OP, like to see from this conversation? It seems you are not seeing it.


----------



## Aldarion (Feb 21, 2020)

skip.knox said:


> >safe air of escapism
> I'd be interested to know what the OP means by this phrase. What is meant by escapism here, and in what way is escapism safe? What would be unsafe? And in what directions would the OP want to push fantasy in order to reach unsafe grounds?
> 
> Certainly fantasy in recent years has gained something of a reputation for "realism" or at least for gruesome grit. Are such works what the OP means or is it something different? Is it ok to write "safely escapist" fantasy still? And is there some third or fourth path authors might take, paths that lead neither to escapist nonsense nor to the bloody halls of grimdark?



What is interesting to discuss is current tendency towards "grimdark" in fantasy. George Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire is hailed as "realistic portrayal" of medieval life and politics, when in fact Westeros would be - by standards of actual Middle Ages - extremely violent, dishonourable, dysfunctional and backstabby society. Basically orcs, except with political system that doesn't really work on any level - and that is before you get into sheer size of the continent. And societies of Slaver's Bay are such carricature-ish ObviouslyEvil societies that, in real world, none of them would have lasted half a generation. You want to look at realistic society, as in, a state that could actually exist and function? Tolkien's Gondor - he doesn't go into detail, true, but what he does describe shows eminently workable and functional social and political systems at work. Except Gondor is not GrimDark, so today's audiences tend to dismiss it as an idealistic fairy tale society, when it is - in reality - none of these things. Just realistic and well thought-out.


----------



## skip.knox (Feb 21, 2020)

Realism is overrated. <g>


----------



## Nighty_Knight (Feb 21, 2020)

Anyone read any of the Witcher series. I’m halfway through total and it hits quite a bit of topics. Not reactionary at all. Things like racism between humans and nonhumans (even the Unicorns seem to hate and distrust non Unicorns), gray area in politics, not so easy choices and the possible results of what seems like a pretty clear cut choice, dealing with monsters who may just end up being victims of magic. One of the main female protagonists has a sexual relationship with another female. This was all written starting in the late 80s with the short stories, then the main saga was written in the 90s. 
LOTR is always brought up, but there are far more fantasy series than just that which often do hit socio and political topics. I know the drizzt do'urden series tackles issues with him being a Drow Elf who is generally a good hearted elf, who most others see as just an evil dark elf.


----------



## WooHooMan (Feb 21, 2020)

Queshire said:


> Sci fi looks forward.
> 
> In the same way, every generation that has ever existed has looked back at the past as better than today. "Back in my day..." and all that. It's equally easy for that to leak into people's writing.



My perspective is that sci-fi looks outward and fantasy looks inward.  You can’t know where you’re going unless you know where you’ve been.

Lord of the Rings was a man examining his own heritage and history - as a Catholic English linguist.
Myths and legends and even fairy tales have often been about people trying to make sense of their place in the universe, not to make sense of the universe itself necessarily.

Of course, that’s IF you have to create some kind of thematic duality to them, which you definitely don’t have to.

People who look down on fantasy for being backwards escapism with nothing meaningful to say are (in my perspective) mostly dorks who wrongfully think social commentary is the highest possible value of art.
That’s why the jokers who wrote that article in the original post are salivating over Carnival Row - they see it as a sign that the genre is changing into what they want.


----------



## Yora (Feb 22, 2020)

Aldarion said:


> What is interesting to discuss is current tendency towards "grimdark" in fantasy. George Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire is hailed as "realistic portrayal" of medieval life and politics, when in fact Westeros would be - by standards of actual Middle Ages - extremely violent, dishonourable, dysfunctional and backstabby society. Basically orcs, except with political system that doesn't really work on any level - and that is before you get into sheer size of the continent. And societies of Slaver's Bay are such carricature-ish ObviouslyEvil societies that, in real world, none of them would have lasted half a generation. You want to look at realistic society, as in, a state that could actually exist and function? Tolkien's Gondor - he doesn't go into detail, true, but what he does describe shows eminently workable and functional social and political systems at work. Except Gondor is not GrimDark, so today's audiences tend to dismiss it as an idealistic fairy tale society, when it is - in reality - none of these things. Just realistic and well thought-out.


It's a general development since the 90s that dismisses any genuine believe in something that is good and right as silly nonsense. There really are two main types of fiction in the present day: Either good does not exist and everyone are terrible bastards, or characters opposing evil do exist, but the story is constantly making jokes about itself to make sure nobody takes any of it seriously.


----------



## FifthView (Feb 22, 2020)

Aldarion said:


> Sci-fi also has safe air of escapism, it is just pandering to a different crowd. Just look at _Star Trek_.



I haven't followed this entire discussion but...Star Trek has had a tendency to provoke _thought_, addressing controversial (or potentially controversial) subjects. I've been re-watching, for the third time, all the _Voyager_ episodes, and the number that address some sort of quandary relating to morality and ethics, political systems, social issues, philosophical briars and so forth is astounding. I remember similar approaches from the other Star Trek series, but many of them aren't as fresh in memory.

Now then, two points:


Possibly, _Star Trek_ is designed in a way that allows a sort of "escapism" —into these idealistic _what if_ situations reflecting our own world's issues. Seeing these quandaries play out _there_ is safer than seeing them play out _here_ in real life. But isn't this true of all fiction, all topics or subjects that might be considered, to use scare quotes, "dangerous?" If so, then every dangerous narrative in fiction is a kind of escapism; we are given a safe space in fiction to explore these things.
Knowing myself as well as I do, I can safely admit that I do very much love the comfy repetition in things like comfy murder mysteries, Star Trek (which has plots so often relying on mystery),  police/crime procedurals like _Bones_, _The Mentalist_, _Psych_, and _CSI_. I love, love, love these.  And I also enjoy the familiarity of various fantasy tropes, story archetypes, etc.,  far more than I enjoy the weirdly new stuff. So I'm perhaps not the best person to comment on this subject, heh, although I hope my observations might add something decent to the conversation? I can also fall into reading about the same fantasy characters, novel after novel after novel, probably due to this love of the familiar and....safe? Well, maybe it's just the kind of safe space I recognize or identify with personally, _only_.


----------



## Kasper Hviid (Feb 22, 2020)

My headline was written to grab attention with a dash of hyperbole. You know, one of those headlines where the question mark shall be read as an exclamation point. When I claimed that fantasy is “inherently safe and reactionary”, I was doing it for attention. But I do kinda believe it.

Of course, just because a story fails to comment on the issue of racism does not make it reactionary. Lots of stories don’t focus on racism at all. Should all of those be reactionary?

Yes, kinda.

I remember reading a story by Wodehouse. Plenty good read, entertaining as always. Until I came upon a sentence where the protagonist good-humoredly admitted that he was “as superstitious as a coon”. The absence of race in what I had read previously suddenly came into focus. What was the author saying by not saying anything?

Here’s a thought experiment: Let’s imagine that all stories—movies, tv serials, novels—all of them stayed clear of the topic of race. Wouldn’t that make them pretty reactionary?

Following that thought, when science fiction has as its hallmark to delve into social issues, and fantasy has as its hallmark to stay clear of those, then the latter is, overall, verging more towards reactionary values than the former.

Most fiction has some sort of dark underbelly. Being aware of it doesn’t mean that one can’t enjoy the stuff. I remember someone who claimed that zombies were a substitute for the foreign other. He actually made a compelling argument. At least I bought it. Still love zombies!

I should probably mention that I love escapism. I love to delve into this little safe universe, like FTL or the PSYCH tv serial, and let reality slip away. Fantasy has a potential for escapism that surpasses anything else. It digs right into the D&D nostalgia and there is a sort of safety in letting the story take place in an alternate version of a time long gone.

My status as OP grants me some kind of wacky authority, but look, I just recently got sure enough that this cleft between sci-fi and fantasy was a thing, and found it worth sharing. I’m just pointing at something, saying “Look at that.”


----------



## FifthView (Feb 22, 2020)

Kasper Hviid said:


> My status as OP grants me some kind of wacky authority, but look, I just recently got sure enough that this cleft between sci-fi and fantasy was a thing, and found it worth sharing. I’m just pointing at something, saying “Look at that.”



The cleft is very, very interesting. I often have pondered it, but I'm not sure I've ever felt confident enough to state anything definitive, heh.

For me, the cleft has always looked like this:

*Science Fiction:*  Progressive, Politically "Left"

*Fantasy:* Conservative, Politically "Right"

Heh. This is sure to cause controversy. In fact, I'm not married to this distinction, not at all. It's just one of the things that pops into mind when I think about them, particularly when I think of fantasy and wonder what it _is_ about the kinds of fantasy I like...It's removing all the politically correct stuff and just beating a group of bandits into the dust, heh. Oh, they're poor? The system sucks, forcing them into this lifestyle? Meh, stop whining; just pound them. Take them back to the castle and hang them.  Of course, if the MC is a member of the bandit group...well, yeah, there are inequalities in the system..._but_, we're not going to become activists trying to change the system, pointing out the inequalities, protesting....heh. Nope. We're going to attack the nobility. Pound _them_ into dust. Might kinda makes right; it's Darwinian social justice, Ayn Randian, Libertarian, if the MC is the outcast fighting back—but if the MC is the prince or princess fighting the bandits, its ye old dreams of meritocracy wedded to aristocracy, so another kind of conservatism.

There are *so.* *many.* _*features*_ of fantasy, at least the medieval-ish varieties, that just feel "conservative" to me. Just for a couple more examples, the way religion is handled and the way families—particularly, "family values" if that term can be stomached here—are depicted.  And I'm not particularly politically conservative myself, in real life. But I do love the...regressive, safe space, of going back to a time when the world was "great," using fantasy to make the world...great again! (Sorry. Can't help it. But yeah, it's relative here.) Of course, the world never was that great, and these fantasy worlds are escapes into a particular sort of  idealism. Our modern world has so many hoops we must jump through, so many real hindrances toward accomplishing anything; why can't we just pound our problems into the dust with our bare hands? (Or, with magic. Or, with many hands in the form of a fellowship, or a bandit clan or an army or whatever.)

Naturally, there are examples of "conservative Sci-Fi" and "progressive fantasy." This is one of the reasons I can never stop at that dichotomy above, why I'm in no way married to it. But....I can't entirely dismiss it either. And this irritates me.


----------



## Yora (Feb 22, 2020)

Not quite sure if I would call fantasy inherently right wing (for a certain perception of what the right is), but it is quite definitely very conservative as a whole. It's an almost universal notion in fantasy that "the old ways are the right ways" and that all the problems and conflicts come from something having changed the old ways, and things will be set right again when everything returns to the old ways.
In pretty much every case, the past was always much better, and even if whatever evil is threatening the world is defeated and the old ways are being restored, it will never be as good as it used to be originally.

And this really comes down almost entirely to two people: Tolkien and Plato. Tolkien with his ever declining ages of Middle-Earth, and Plato with his concept of the great Golden Age of the past.


----------



## Gospodin (Feb 22, 2020)

Kasper Hviid said:


> ... But if fantasy can work for those kinds of stories, why is it that sci-fi seems to have this kind of monopoly?


Having skipped all the prior posts…

_Inherently_? No. But I do feel like Fantasy offers some “safe rooms” in its grand house that are not so easily accessed in the House of Science Fiction.

I also think we have to really know what flavors of Fantasy are being invoked in this question? Are we going with the common man’s assumption that it’s all just _*The Adventures of The Five Races in Faux Northern Europe*_, or are we including other deployments such as Urban Fantasy, which is much closer to home and often makes use of The Masquerade trope, which requires the presence of muggles, regular folk, with all our foibles? Perhaps the South American/German tradition of Magic Realism is also in the mix? Magic Realism has, as part of its basic narrative toolbox, the expression of a particular cultural facet (real world culture, mind you) that the author is asking be engaged in a sympathetic light. In the year 2020, “please engage my cultural facet sympathetically” feels like a silver Troll Whistle made by PRADA. Not very safe at all these days.

But again, I don’t think it’s about inhereintness, which sounds almost like inevitability. I think it’s just that the range is there to divest oneself completely of attachment to real-world concepts. That’s not the same as saying you can’t engage real-world concepts in Fantasy. Of course you can.

ETA: And I do feel the sentiments raised by prior respondents that Fantasy's tendency to reach back in time, where Science Fiction reaches forward, would seem to be an intuitive route to Fantasy being more invested in conservative (reactionary) concepts, where Science Fiction reaches for progress and change. The opposite of reactionary is radical, and in truth I don't necessarily feel that either genre is so extreme in approach. They can be, but it's certainly not obligatory.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Feb 22, 2020)

skip.knox said:


> If the author says there's no hidden meaning in a book, then there isn't. If a *reader* finds meaning there, then that meaning is hidden within the reader. They are seeing patterns and parallels, not meanings hidden within subtext.
> 
> To put this another way, different readers will find different meanings from the same book. Therefore, the meaning isn't within the book interpretations, it's within the reader. If, otoh, an author says there's an intended hidden meaning, then there is.
> 
> Which raises the question, how exactly does an author go about hiding a meaning? The words are right there on the page. I've tried to stuff things between the lines, but I just end up making new lines. <g>



Tolkien is a prime example of people seeing what they want. All of art is that way. The movie Patton was filmed as anti-war flick but military units will watch the flick cheering and see it as inspirational bad assery. My books have absolutely nothing to do with modern immigration and refugee issues, but oh yeah! People see it and have conflicting interpretations... it’s actually more Tral of Tears and Moses... and the end of the series I’m writing right now will no doubt be said to reflect on modern issues, and I suppose it will, but that was never its real intent. It’ll be funny when two sides of a single issue like the same ending.


----------



## skip.knox (Feb 22, 2020)

I find these recent comments interesting because they don't align with my experience at all. I'm happily left-wing radical, but I've never read fantasy as inherently anything this way or that. The field is too broad, the range of authors too wide. Fantasy to me has always been a genre focused on the individual, anyone from Conan to Rand al'Thor to Arya, and running them through a series of fantastical gauntlets. 

The bit about what if fantasy never mentioned race is a straw man. Fantasy does in fact address race, along with other issues, so at most one can say this or that particular author does or doesn't, but it doesn't imply anything intrinsic to the genre itself.

>Fantasy has a potential for escapism that surpasses anything else.
And I have to disagree with this. How about romance novels? What about Westerns? Thrillers are pure escapism. I've said earlier I'm suspicious of the word itself and think it either is irrelevant or at most that it must be applied to all forms of literature and indeed all forms of art.

I will repeat a question I asked earlier. If fantasy is inherently safe, what form of literature would be called inherently unsafe? And what does "unsafe" mean in this context?


----------



## Yora (Feb 22, 2020)

Unsafe is anything that includes ideas about society that you don't agree with. Anything that dares to suggest that your believes might be wrong.


----------



## Insolent Lad (Feb 22, 2020)

skip.knox said:


> If fantasy is inherently safe, what form of literature would be called inherently unsafe?


Poetry. We poets aren't trustworthy at all. Or so we like to think.


----------



## Aldarion (Feb 22, 2020)

FifthView said:


> I haven't followed this entire discussion but...Star Trek has had a tendency to provoke _thought_, addressing controversial (or potentially controversial) subjects. I've been re-watching, for the third time, all the _Voyager_ episodes, and the number that address some sort of quandary relating to morality and ethics, political systems, social issues, philosophical briars and so forth is astounding. I remember similar approaches from the other Star Trek series, but many of them aren't as fresh in memory.
> 
> Now then, two points:
> 
> ...



Your perspective may be different, but I have always found Star Trek to have been unrealistically optimistic... especially _The Next Generation_ (DS9 less so, and I really lliked it for that). For one, it rarely shows consequences of a problem of the week, though there are exceptions. Second, Federation is shown as kinda-sorta utopia, with only rarely exploring issues such as 1) what does it take for such utopia to function, and 2) what are unintended consequences? I remember thinking, in some episodes, "wow, everyone _must be_ on drugs here". Many of the problems which _Star Trek_ does explore are external to Federation, which is a shining beacon in the galaxy... and as I said, the price of creating such a beacon is rarely explored.

I think that neither is fantasy inherently conservative nor is science fiction inherently progressive, but they do tend to align, for simple reason of mentality. Consider:

*Conservatism:* humans are inherently flawed, and even the best system will not solve the problems inherent in human nature
*Progressivism: *humans are inherently good, problem is the system which forces them to be bad


*Fantasy: *past is worth preserving because future is uncertain; as often as not, future is one of loss and decay, in large part due to flaws inherent to humans
*Sci-fi:* humanity will not go extinct in next few hundred years, and will in fact continue to progress; technology will solve many of our issues, and humans themselves will overcome their flaws
Personally, I am definitely on conservative/fantasy side of the divide - humans became as successful as they are because we are psychotically violent apes who murdered all competition. Big brain was just an enabler. But back to topic, this is not actually a clear divide: the above is just a trend or tendency. But you will find a lot of conservative-mentality sci-fi, and a lot of progressive-mentality fantasy - Warhammer 40.000 for the former camp, A Song of Ice and Fire for the latter camp. And that is fine, though I personally have trouble reading progressive-camp works (according to the divide outlined above), especially sci-fi, simply due to their tone. But on the flip-side, conservative authors tend to protray the past as excessively rosy, while progressive authors tend to portray it as excessively bad (George Martin, again); but this tendency is not as pronounced in fantasy as it is in sci-fi, since we actually do have data on historical societies, so playground is automatically narrower.


----------



## Kasper Hviid (Feb 22, 2020)

skip.knox said:


> I find these recent comments interesting because they don't align with my experience at all. I'm happily left-wing radical, but I've never read fantasy as inherently anything this way or that. The field is too broad, the range of authors too wide. Fantasy to me has always been a genre focused on the individual, anyone from Conan to Rand al'Thor to Arya, and running them through a series of fantastical gauntlets.


I think, at least in the nineties or so, fantasy was considered something which existed outside the political sphere. It was part of the suspension of disbelief that this just wasn't something you had to worry about here.


skip.knox said:


> The bit about what if fantasy never mentioned race is a straw man. Fantasy does in fact address race, along with other issues, so at most one can say this or that particular author does or doesn't, but it doesn't imply anything intrinsic to the genre itself.


Hey, as I said, it was merely a thought experiment! If ALL novels in existence stayed clear of the topic of race, that _would _make them rather reactionary, right? Even if none of those novels could be blamed individually.
Likewise, if fantasy collectively is less keen to take on various social topics compared sci-fi, then this says something about fantasy as a genre. You don't need to call that something "reactionary", you can call it something else.


skip.knox said:


> I will repeat a question I asked earlier. If fantasy is inherently safe, what form of literature would be called inherently unsafe? And what does "unsafe" mean in this context?


The way I'm thinking of safe and unsafe here, is how much the book challenges the reader with new stuff. A lot of the appeal of fantasy and sci-fi is the discovery of that strange new world. New stuff! But this is offset by the safety of a plethora of well-known tropes. Fantasy dealing with social issues feel "unsafe" since it doesn't allow the same escapism from the real world. Remakes are designed around giving you a nostalgic return to a piece of entertainment you had 30 years back, so high safety value here.


Yora said:


> Unsafe is anything that includes ideas about society that you don't agree with. Anything that dares to suggest that your believes might be wrong.


Yeah, that too.


----------



## Steerpike (Feb 22, 2020)

Kasper Hviid said:


> I think, at least in the nineties or so, fantasy was considered something which existed outside the political sphere. It was part of the suspension of disbelief that this just wasn't something you had to worry about here.
> .



This was never really true, though, except maybe at the level of the most commercial fiction. Take a look at the fantasy stories of Angela Carter, for example (1970s, 80s, and early 90s). They're heavily laden with political and social commentary. It's the whole point of her stories. I'd suggest the same is true of Tanith Lee. Certainly of Sherri Tepper, though she may be better known for her SF than fantasy work.

People debate whether Storm Constantine's Wraeththu books (1980s and 90s) are fantasy or science fiction, but they are certainly social and political commentary.

Terry Pratchett's fantasy novels can certainly be seen a social commentary.

And, depending on how broad you want to define things, look at books like The Black Company books (1980s/90s). The rejection of conventional good/evil morality, common now, was much less so then, so these books are a de facto commentary on conventional fantasy morality.

As you may have guessed, I think you can go back through decades of fantasy and find plenty of sociopolitical commentary. The idea that fantasy, or any writing or art, was entirely free of such things at any point in history seems to me a fiction.


----------



## valiant12 (Feb 22, 2020)

Queshire said:


> Sci fi looks forward. It's easy for our fears for the future to be reflected in that, but it's equally easy for our hopes to be reflected there.



Not all sci fi.For example David Weber's  Honor Harrington books  are heavily inspired by real world history. Stargate is inspired by the past/mythology.  Alternative history is a type of sci fi, unless it is a alternative history fantasy.
In general sci fi is a very broad and diverse genre.


> But you will find a lot of conservative-mentality sci-fi, and a lot of progressive-mentality fantasy - Warhammer 40.000 for the former camp, A Song of Ice and Fire for the latter camp.


Warhammer 40k is not inherently conservative.  Warhamer 40 k is a grimdark fantasy IN SPACE.


----------



## skip.knox (Feb 22, 2020)

Insolent Lad said:


> Poetry. We poets aren't trustworthy at all. Or so we like to think.


Yah, you're just trying to make yourselves feel important. <g>

Poetry was very nearly my first literature. I think I was reading SF when I was 13, but I know it was poetry by 14.


----------



## Aldarion (Feb 23, 2020)

Kasper Hviid said:


> The way I'm thinking of safe and unsafe here, is how much the book challenges the reader with new stuff. A lot of the appeal of fantasy and sci-fi is the discovery of that strange new world. New stuff! But this is offset by the safety of a plethora of well-known tropes. Fantasy dealing with social issues feel "unsafe" since it doesn't allow the same escapism from the real world. Remakes are designed around giving you a nostalgic return to a piece of entertainment you had 30 years back, so high safety value here.



What would "new stuff" be though, and what would be considered "unsafe"? That too is individual. For a conservative, progressive ideas are "new stuff" and often "unsafe"; for a progressive, conservative ideas are "new stuff" and often "unsafe". And what if I write a book explaining how Byzantine Empire was, in fact, more democratic than most modern states? That would be "new stuff" to conservatives and progressives both, I think.


----------



## Kasper Hviid (Feb 23, 2020)

Aldarion: conservative ideas are something I have heard before. My brain already has neat little structures in place to categorize and archive them. So they seldom have much New Stuff to them. I will readily admit that they make me uncomfortable, but I think this is mostly for different reasons.

This topic of New Stuff and political views reminded me of this TED talk: The moral roots of liberals and conservatives

If we imagine safe escapism on one end of a scale, and challenging New Stuff at the other end. Is this really a new idea? It sounds so basic that I would have thought there were plenty who had already named and debated it long ago.


----------



## Insolent Lad (Feb 23, 2020)

skip.knox said:


> Poetry was very nearly my first literature. I think I was reading SF when I was 13, but I know it was poetry by 14.


I blame reading Hiawatha at age eight for my love of both fantasy and poetry.


----------



## The Dark One (Feb 23, 2020)

Someone above wanted a definition, or distinction between fantasy and sci-fi.

Magic. There's no magic in sci-fi (except for a few hybrid ideas like the use of The Force in Star Wars).

So if the presence or absence of magic defines the genres, what does that say about their political basis?

Off the top of my head, it _could _mean that some people (users or controllers of magic) are special and that justifies a nomos in which they are privileged. The existence of privilege is an inherently right wing concept.

Where there is no magic, there is still power, whether that be technological, physical or whatever, and the prevailing tropes will prefer to make the MC subject to that power - seeking to overcome that power, which is an inherently left wing idea.

And of course these are massive generalisations.

There are plenty of sci-fi books that I would call right wing. Most of Heinlein's work is pretty right wing - especially Starship Troopers.


----------



## Steerpike (Feb 23, 2020)

The Dark One -- I agree that magic makes a work fantasy, but fantasy doesn't require magic. There are fantasy books on the shelves that don't have any magic.


----------



## WooHooMan (Feb 23, 2020)

The Dark One said:


> There are plenty of sci-fi books that I would call right wing. Most of Heinlein's work is pretty right wing - especially Starship Troopers.



Heilein was a Democrat for most of his life.  He ran for office as a Democrat before writing ST and most of his work afterwards, particular Stranger in a Strange Land.

In fact, Starship Troopers is liberal.  It was explicitly meant to be.  Most people just don’t know what liberalism actually is.  Or they don’t know how ST works or what it’s actually about.


----------



## The Dark One (Feb 23, 2020)

Being liberal doesn't mean it's not right wing.

The fundamentals of right wing / left wing tend to be that the right seeks to maintain the status quo (with its existing privileges) and the left is trying to change the status quo.

Starship Troopers imagined a militarist and heavily qualified democracy in which people had to undertake military service to acquire citizenship rights. The MC struggled for advancement within that system, not to change the system so, yeah...I'd call that right wing.


----------



## WooHooMan (Feb 24, 2020)

The Dark One said:


> Being liberal doesn't mean it's not right wing.
> 
> The fundamentals of right wing / left wing tend to be that the right seeks to maintain the status quo (with its existing privileges) and the left is trying to change the status quo.
> 
> Starship Troopers imagined a militarist and heavily qualified democracy in which people had to undertake military service to acquire citizenship rights. The MC struggled for advancement within that system, not to change the system so, yeah...I'd call that right wing.



I think it's very dangerous to ascribe political leaning to a work of fiction with the criteria that if the main character seeks to change the status quo, then it's left wing.  Otherwise, it's right-wing.

I also disagree with your defining of left/right-wing and your summation Starship Troopers and its setting applies more to the movie than the book.  But neither of those topics have much to do with this thread topic.


----------



## Aldarion (Feb 24, 2020)

The Dark One said:


> Someone above wanted a definition, or distinction between fantasy and sci-fi.
> 
> Magic. There's no magic in sci-fi (except for a few hybrid ideas like the use of The Force in Star Wars).



Star Trek begs to disagree. It is chock-full of magic. Star Wars has magic as well (Force!), Warhammer 40 000 _*runs*_ on magic yet is considered sci-fi...



> So if the presence or absence of magic defines the genres, what does that say about their political basis?
> 
> Off the top of my head, it _could _mean that some people (users or controllers of magic) are special and that justifies a nomos in which they are privileged. The existence of privilege is an inherently right wing concept.
> 
> ...



That however would still depend on nature of magic - is it biological inhertiance, or is it learned? And again, in (leftist) sci-fi you also have special people - just look at Star Trek, again (Vulcans, Betazoids, _Wesley Crusher_). Starfleet is an extremely powerful and extremely privileged organization, essentially a state-within-a-state, and Starfleet officers have huge influence on Federation politics and policy. They are likely the most privileged military seen in any pseudo-democratic state. In fact, it kinda reminds me of Soviet Union.

And when it comes to "overcoming power", I would not say it is inherently left-wing idea. _Lord of the Rings_ is all about "overcoming power".

Also, I am not certain I would define Starship Troopers as right-wing. Personally, I define "left" and "right" in regards to their approach to tradition, and Starship Troopers would be centrist at best, I think.


----------



## The Dark One (Feb 24, 2020)

WooHooMan said:


> I think it's very dangerous to ascribe political leaning to a work of fiction with the criteria that if the main character seeks to change the status quo, then it's left wing.  Otherwise, it's right-wing.
> 
> I also disagree with your defining of left/right-wing and your summation Starship Troopers and its setting applies more to the movie than the book.  But neither of those topics have much to do with this thread topic.


That's a bit of an over-simplification of my massive over-generalisation.

My L/R wing definition is fairly standard in academic circles.

And I think it's a perfectly legitimate part of this discussion. Reactionary forces are those that seek to deflect, dilute or disarm progressive forces; ie those forces seeking change.


----------



## Yora (Feb 24, 2020)

Star Wars and Warhammer 40k are not sci-fi at all. They are straight up fantasy with lasers and space ships. Space along is neither a required, nor a sufficient defining elements of sci-fi.

Star Trek is simply bad sci-fi. 

Lord of the Rings is certainly about overcoming power. Overcoming the wrong power and restoring the right power. Returning things to the good old days before "progress" (a very loaded term in itself) messed everything up is certainly not a progressive theme.


----------



## Aldarion (Feb 24, 2020)

Yora said:


> Lord of the Rings is certainly about overcoming power. Overcoming the wrong power and restoring the right power. Returning things to the good old days before "progress" (a very loaded term in itself) messed everything up is certainly not a progressive theme.



Indeed. In fact, if you look deeper, _Lord of the Rings_ is highly conservative, but also highly _anti_-authoritarian work. Sauron is bad not only because he is emissary of a Satan, but because he wants to take away the free will. In fact, I would say that traditionalism makes authoritarianism unnecessary, as common culture, identity, tradition, origin etc. means that society can function without government controlling every single aspect of life. It is only multicultural progressive societies which require authoritarian/totalitarian governments, as multiple cultures and mentalities present, along with disrespect for tradition, mean that you _have_ to have somebody (government) force a set of rules onto society, instead of rules being something self-understandable.

Just to give an example, Croatia is (for now) still a fairly traditional and homogenous country. I can, without shame, say that I am not familiar with a *single* law or regulation passed by the government; yet I have never had any problems.


----------



## Yora (Feb 24, 2020)

I don't know. Aragorn and Galadriel seem to be praised to high heavens with everyone of their subjects loving them. There is no indication of the people having any participation in government, which makes them come across as absolute monarchs.
But it is alright because they are good and the people all love them. There is no need to use force when the people are inherently obedient. When the people know their place and are grateful for their lot in life.


----------



## Aldarion (Feb 24, 2020)

Yora said:


> I don't know. Aragorn and Galadriel seem to be praised to high heavens with everyone of their subjects loving them. There is no indication of the people having any participation in government, which makes them come across as absolute monarchs.
> But it is alright because they are good and the people all love them. There is no need to use force when the people are inherently obedient. When the people know their place and are grateful for their lot in life.



Hardly. We do not see enough of their rule to know how it works in practice. What we do see, however, is significantly anti-authoritarian. Denethor consults a council before making decisions. People had no problem rebelling when they did not like a monarch - hence Kinstrife. Now, it is true that Numenor and its successor kingdoms had no _legal _limits to monarch's powers, but that does not mean there were no _customary_ limits. This is much like Byzantine Empire of Middle Byzantine period - absolute monarchy in theory, republican monarchy in practice. Gondor in particular had highly decentralized system of political _power_ combined with highly centralized system of political _authority_; that is, king was supreme in theory, but in practice his subjects had a say - again, rather Byzantine system. You can see this from its military organization. In Arnor, both political power and political authority ended up decentralized, hence its division.

And this is before we get to non-Numenorean systems. Shire - which is Tolkien's "ideal society" or as close as it gets to one - is a representative republic; not a monarchy at all. Mordor is a totalitarian theocratic dictatorship, as are its dependencies, Angmar and Melkor's state. So overall, I would say that Tolkien did not like absolute monarchy - but he also was aware of difference between political _system_ and political _process_. Monarchical political system does not prevent you from having democratic political process, and likewise, having democratic political system does not mean you are actually living in a democracy.


----------



## The Dark One (Feb 24, 2020)

Well that's an interesting take on Tolkien, but it does ignore the plain and obvious fact that much of TLOTR was about restoring the divinely appointed system. The rightness of the king's return was based in a mystical magical force for good. That kinda trumps mundane things like representative government.


----------



## pmmg (Feb 24, 2020)

The Dark One said:


> Well that's an interesting take on Tolkien, but it does ignore the plain and obvious fact that much of TLOTR was about restoring the divinely appointed system. The rightness of the king's return was based in a mystical magical force for good. That kinda trumps mundane things like representative government.



Perhaps it can be that multiple things are true at once. I think it is that the Shire was supposed to be ideal, and the only one portrayed as not sharing power was Suaron.... Anyway, I am not sure Tolkien was really trying to show any of that, or make a timeless statement on the divine right of kings (I suspect he would not have supported the divine right of kings...). Could be that it is just the consequence of the story he was telling, and not his hidden aim. Many stories seem to contain more than the authors intended, and perhaps some authors would be surprised at the stuff people see in their works. If the story is very well done, and shows a diverse world, I suspect it will capture a lot of ideas. I thought the overall point of LOTR was something like Evil unchecked will grow, and good people must stand up to it. Which to me, has always been the principal value of fantasy, that it can move philosophical concepts into tangible entities, and ask big questions about it. In the real world, there really is no Sauron on Mount Doom, issues are less black and white. Stories, and particularly Fantasy stories, let us get to imagine such things, figure out what they would mean, and help us to define ourselves by them.

I always saw LOTR in the light of WWII, with Hitler being the dark lord, and the allegory of good peoples (shire folk) being affected by it and everyone having to unite to stop it. The good people will regain their power, but must be ever vigilant.

Anyway, it is neat that people read the story and come to such different conclusions about it. IMO, that makes it a better story than most, because it means things much differently to individual readers. I am left to say what a rich piece of work that it can lend itself to it. It also seems to provide us with a microcosm of the world, as so often reasonable people see the same events and walk away with very different impressions of them. It brings me back to the filters we use, but...timeless works seem to have this effect. LOTR seems to be one of them.


----------



## FifthView (Feb 24, 2020)

Kasper Hviid said:


> “Its timely social commentary felt more like sci-fi than fantasy.”



Even if trying to divide sci-fi and fantasy along political lines is fraught with problems—not least, due to an unclear definition of terms such as liberal, conservative, left, right, radical heh—still, this one line is interesting when viewed outside the theoretical political divisions.

I do believe secondary world fantasies in particular, and most particularly medieval-ish settings, do not spend much time trying to offer social commentary _about our contemporary world_...but, there may well be commentary _about the past_. So it's not timely, per se, heh. What are some examples? I can't come up with specific examples off the top of my head, but things like slavery, poverty, poor medical care, and so forth may enter the spotlight in some stories.  Repressive religious traditions might be examined. (But can these be considered relegated to the past, after all?)  The plight of women might sometimes be examined. (What about a story like Mulan?) 

Beyond that, fantasy can look at the _human condition_. The best always does. And maybe this is...timeless?


----------



## The Dark One (Feb 24, 2020)

My comments above were only about proposing definitions (and also the tendency of all literature to reflect somewhat of it's milieu).

I would guess very few writers of sci-fi or fantasy would purposively write fiction to push a political barrow. It's mainly about entertainment and sometimes playing with socio-political ideas in fiction is just another form of entertainment.


----------



## WooHooMan (Feb 24, 2020)

The Dark One said:


> I would guess very few writers of sci-fi or fantasy would purposively write fiction to push a political barrow.



I don't know about that.
It seems like a lot of people think giving a work of fiction a soico-political bent somehow gives their work greater meaning or weight (or makes the work worse if they don't like the bent).  Or they believe there's a moral imperative to include socio-political themes to their works.
And most people don't seem very capable of even-handed, subtle and undidactic socio-political themes.

Just so we're clear: I'd love to be wrong about this.


----------



## The Dark One (Feb 24, 2020)

WooHooMan said:


> I
> 
> Just so we're clear: I'd love to be wrong about this.


Relax, I'm sure you are.

As I said, political ideas in fiction can be just another form of entertainment.


----------



## Aldarion (Feb 25, 2020)

The Dark One said:


> Well that's an interesting take on Tolkien, but it does ignore the plain and obvious fact that much of TLOTR was about restoring the divinely appointed system. The rightness of the king's return was based in a mystical magical force for good. That kinda trumps mundane things like representative government.



And that is not necessarily bad. Monarchies (e.g. Byzantine Empire) were oftentimes more free, more democratic, than modern-day democracies. A guy I had discussion about this on another forum wrote two good posts on a third forum:
https://www.twcenter.net/forums/sho...chy-vs-Democracy-A-Critical-Look-at-Democracy
https://www.twcenter.net/forums/sho...y-vs-Democracy-The-Case-for-Feudal-Monarchies

I will tackle the topic someday myself. But basically, democracy:
a) creates an _illusion_ of freedom, and in that way takes away actual freedom by essentially incentivizing people to tolerate abuse of power
b) creates belief that all issues can be solved by a piece of paper
c) creates incentive for politicians to focus on short-term issues in order to get votes
d) creates incentive for politicians to destroy their own society in order to get rich in short time they are in power
e) destroys social structures which functional society depends on
f) creates incentive for excessive control, as all the bureocrats need to do something to live - end result is totalitarianism (e.g. EU)
g) creates incentive for centralization (see f)
h) pushes psychopaths into positions of power



pmmg said:


> Perhaps it can be that multiple things are true at once. I think it is that the Shire was supposed to be ideal, and the only one portrayed as not sharing power was Suaron.... Anyway, I am not sure Tolkien was really trying to show any of that, or make a timeless statement on the divine right of kings (I suspect he would not have supported the divine right of kings...). Could be that it is just the consequence of the story he was telling, and not his hidden aim. Many stories seem to contain more than the authors intended, and perhaps some authors would be surprised at the stuff people see in their works. If the story is very well done, and shows a diverse world, I suspect it will capture a lot of ideas. I thought the overall point of LOTR was something like Evil unchecked will grow, and good people must stand up to it. Which to me, has always been the principal value of fantasy, that it can move philosophical concepts into tangible entities, and ask big questions about it. In the real world, there really is no Sauron on Mount Doom, issues are less black and white. Stories, and particularly Fantasy stories, let us get to imagine such things, figure out what they would mean, and help us to define ourselves by them.
> 
> I always saw LOTR in the light of WWII, with Hitler being the dark lord, and the allegory of good peoples (shire folk) being affected by it and everyone having to unite to stop it. The good people will regain their power, but must be ever vigilant.
> 
> Anyway, it is neat that people read the story and come to such different conclusions about it. IMO, that makes it a better story than most, because it means things much differently to individual readers. I am left to say what a rich piece of work that it can lend itself to it. It also seems to provide us with a microcosm of the world, as so often reasonable people see the same events and walk away with very different impressions of them. It brings me back to the filters we use, but...timeless works seem to have this effect. LOTR seems to be one of them.



No, Lord of the Rings has nothing to do with World War II. It was informed by Tolkien's experiences in World War I., and before that, by his experiences with industrialization and destruction of environment which originated from it. That is what Mordor is - a heavy-industry depersonalized state where individuals are just cogs in a machine. It shows dehumanization caused by the modern society, and also dehumanization caused by the total war - both of which, having fought in World War I, Tolkien experienced on his own skin. Shire in particular is an idealized vision of Tolkien's early life in rural England.


----------



## The Dark One (Feb 25, 2020)

Aldarion said:


> I will tackle the topic someday myself. But basically, democracy:
> a) creates an _illusion_ of freedom, and in that way takes away actual freedom by essentially incentivizing people to tolerate abuse of power
> b) creates belief that all issues can be solved by a piece of paper
> c) creates incentive for politicians to focus on short-term issues in order to get votes
> ...


I suspect you're just being contrary for the fun of it, but there's no way I can let that go unchallenged:

It took the human race millions of years to evolve full dilution and sharing of political power (ie, modern, parliamentary democracy under the rule of law) but unfortunately there are people out there trying to disrupt democracy in the name of what? You'd seriously give up the hard won share of power that billions must have dreamed of over the millennia? Yes, there are issues with the way some democracies are being gamed and exploited, but that's why they say the price of freedom is eternal vigilance (and action where necessary). The warlord is forever chafing at his democratic chains.

To go through your enumerated points:

(a) how is democracy an illusion of freedom? Within a modern parliamentary democracy you are (as Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau would say) surrendering a portion of your innate personal sovereignty (ie obedience to law and custom) in return for residual political rights, personal security and property rights. And if you don't like the law you can vote to change it.
(b) do you mean a constitution? If yes, they can, for the most part - but that's why we have police forces and armies (controlled by parliament) to deal with the rest.
(c) yes, that can be a problem - especially in my native Australia where the Cth government gets a measly three years - which effectively means we're always in election cycle. But that's a detail. Longer terms (with some means of removing a bad government before time) are preferable. Even a lousy democracy is better than any alternative where political power is by definition concentrated in fewer hands.
(d) there are laws against that. There are no laws against the whims of warlords who don't need to worry about the rule of law.
(e) destroys social structures? Seriously? You'll have to give examples I'm afraid. No ruling class, no matter what flavour, has any interest in destroying social structures. Even slaves have to be looked after to some extent.
(f) this is where you're truly confused. It is the lack of oversight and lack of being subject to the law that leads to totalitarianism. Democracy and totalitarianism are polar opposites. You can only get to totalitarianism by abandoning democracy.
(g) this is not always bad, but the socio-political and geopolitical trend of the last 40 years has been towards extranational bloc at the macro end and a fracturing of subcultures at the micro end. I suspect that's changing again but the likelihood is that we will see further fracturing. We seriously need to go on rediscovering what it is that we have in common to go on maintaining viable communities, because a community not fighting for common goals is fighting itself.
(h) and there were no psychopaths in power before democracy? At least we can vote them out! Any other system you're stuck with them. One of our great tragedies is that psychopaths are most attracted to political (and other) power. They say that those with sociopathic tendencies are four times more likely to be found at the top of organisations than they are at the bottom of the pyramid - something I reckon most people who've ever had a boss can relate to.

So there you have it. What would you prefer - life in a parliamentary democracy where EVERYONE is subject to the law, or life under the warlord, where you are eternally subject to HIS whim. Or even life in a state of nature - nasty, brutish and short.

I choose democracy, and thank my lucky stars I am allowed to choose. The vast majority of the 40-odd billion who've lived on earth could not.


----------



## CupofJoe (Feb 25, 2020)

I think the discussion has gotten stale. No-one is going to change the option of anyone else. 
But I do like it when the EU is described as Totalitarian. It brightens my day.


----------



## The Dark One (Feb 25, 2020)

Finally, some sanity...


----------



## Yora (Feb 25, 2020)

The Dark One said:


> I would guess very few writers of sci-fi or fantasy would purposively write fiction to push a political barrow. It's mainly about entertainment and sometimes playing with socio-political ideas in fiction is just another form of entertainment.


I absolutely would.

The whole point of both telling stories and creating fictionally worlds is to make a statement about values. Fictional conflicts are created to show examples of what is right or wrong. If you don't have anything to say about how people are interacting with the world around them and what your opinion is about it, you don't have a story.
A hypothetical fantasy world in which there are no social issues or disagreements is potentially possible, but that's also a statement about isolationism and utopian thinking.

All fiction makes value judgements about society. That's inherent to storytelling.


----------



## The Dark One (Feb 25, 2020)

But is it politics or entertainment?


----------



## FifthView (Feb 25, 2020)

This conversation is moving at a fast clip; I'm not sure I can keep up! I'll address multiple views here...



WooHooMan said:


> It seems like a lot of people think giving a work of fiction a soico-political bent somehow gives their work greater meaning or weight (or makes the work worse if they don't like the bent). Or they believe there's a moral imperative to include socio-political themes to their works.



While I think this is true, I also think we might be creeping up to another "cleft" or divide:  Those writers of fantasy fiction who _don't_ purposely set out to do this, and those who do. These two groups can be distinguished in this way also: the former tend to be far more successful in their careers than the latter.

Heh. There are of course exceptions; but I'd bet those exceptions only prove the rule.

Plus, anyone can write whatever she likes and define success in her own way. I'm just saying that polemic doesn't sell well (with very rare exceptions.)



The Dark One said:


> I would guess very few writers of sci-fi or fantasy would purposively write fiction to push a political barrow. It's mainly about entertainment and sometimes playing with socio-political ideas in fiction is just another form of entertainment.



Yeah, here's where the lines blur a little bit. For my part, when I've commented here on conservative or liberal elements in fantasy and sci-fi, I've meant mostly the "playing with" realm or entertainment realm. _These two areas of speculative fiction seem to speculate differently_, heh. I do think we'd be much better off, for this discussion, looking at them through this lens of entertainment rather than through the narrower lens of conscientious polemic. Commentary of one sort or another is bound to occur regardless; this is what can make an author's voice her own.



Yora said:


> The whole point of both telling stories and creating fictionally worlds is to make a statement about values. Fictional conflicts are created to show examples of what is right or wrong. If you don't have anything to say about how people are interacting with the world around them and what your opinion is about it, you don't have a story.



I also agree with this. I guess I'm an agreeable fellow today.

BUT, I wouldn't dismiss the entertainment value of reading stories that address values. I've got a couple of aged parents who spend hours a day watching a particular cable news channel—watching the political commentary is for them a form of entertainment. I think they like having their values reaffirmed. And novels can do this, right? Is this _what novels are supposed to do?
_
That might be a tricksy question. [Insert Gollum voice there.]  My point would be to ask whether entertainment/enjoyment requires that certain values be expressed, perhaps even ranked and set up in a massive battle for hierarchy. Heh. You may be entertained by something that doesn't entertain me, then. We might even generally agree about some values, if asked out of context; but even if we agree on values in general, maybe I prefer to contemplate some more than I like contemplating others. For instance, a reader of romances might prefer to see this struggle over values expressed through a certain set of values, whereas a reader of epic fantasy might prefer to see the conflict between a different set of values. (I'd bet there is some overlap, like loyalty and fidelity and betrayal. But this might be like a Venn diagram...)

But here we come back to the fantasy vs sci-fi divide, maybe...


----------



## FifthView (Feb 25, 2020)

WooHooMan said:


> Or they believe there's a moral imperative to include socio-political themes to their works.



Just an addendum to my last comment.

This (above) is something I've noticed more and more as I've aged. Perhaps that means I've been moving out of that belief, heh. Have I grown more conservative with age, accidentally?  Probably. But there is this sorta new wave—may be getting old now, it's been around some time—of younger writers who are pushing the traditional limits of various aspects of their narratives. Most particularly, sexuality and gender are expanded beyond the traditional norms. I'm in favor of this. However, there is this corresponding movement (may be slightly different set) of those who then critique any sort of traditional treatment as inherently bad, even dangerous to the real world. And I do not agree with the most radical advocates of this belief. _Representation_ is such a loaded word these days.

This does revisit the sci-fi v. fantasy topic, and the issue of whether entertainment and enjoyment can be created for any given reader....

But there's the devilish part of me that wants to include a song here, y'know the one with the refrain, "Here we are now, entertain us!"


----------



## Yora (Feb 25, 2020)

FifthView said:


> BUT, I wouldn't dismiss the entertainment value of reading stories that address values.
> 
> That might be a tricksy question. [Insert Gollum voice there.]  My point would be to ask whether entertainment/enjoyment requires that certain values be expressed, perhaps even ranked and set up in a massive battle for hierarchy. Heh. You may be entertained by something that doesn't entertain me, then. We might even generally agree about some values, if asked out of context; but even if we agree on values in general, maybe I prefer to contemplate some more than I like contemplating others.


The examination of values IS the entertainment!

Stories are entertaining because they confirm our own values, and optionally expand on them or even improve on them in ways we like even more. Even the most brainless action spectacles make a statement. "These dudes are awesome and it would be great if we were more like them" is absolutely a subjective judgement about virtuous behavior and a condemnation of contrary views.

When people say they don't want messages in their entertainment, what they really mean is that they simply want to keep getting the same message they already like. What they don't want is messages that are contrary to their values. Though once you get to more critical levels, there are also valid complains about preachy soapboxing. Though that's also not a criticism of political statements and social values, but about low quality storytelling. Preachy narration is just another case of "show, don't tell". Good storytelling has the values of the story being expressed indirectly. When you have to spell out the message to the audience, it's bad writing.


----------



## Chinaren (Feb 25, 2020)

_ was a bit surprised to find political stuff in a fantasy setting._

...I don't agree.  There's tons of political stuff in many fantasy stories.  Just look at *Game of Thrones,* off the top of my head.  That's pretty much all political!  

Political intrigue is meat for many fantasy tales, just as many other genres.  I mean, when story telling it's important to have a 'world background', and this may well include the 'ruling classes' stories.

That said, I've watched Carnival Row (very good after a slightly slow start), and it is very steam-punkey, Victorian-ish style.  The 'racism' is obviously a big issue there as well.  

Still, personally I don't let political issues get in the way of a good yarn.


----------



## pmmg (Feb 25, 2020)

Chinaren said:


> Still, personally I don't let political issues get in the way of a good yarn.



Well, I would, with a notable exception as to how one might define a good yarn.

But, if the tale is just serving as window dressing so someone can make an argument, I will likely detect it and think less of it for trying. Further, if its thick, mundane, un-thought out, poorly veiled, and/or preachy, I will very likely put it down and not return. Some notable exceptions may be if I knew about this going in, and/or I had reason to believe there was something else of value. If the story is very one sided, such that I feel other positions are being set up, or presented only to make one side look good, or inaccurately portrayed (more so if I feel its intentional), the story has little chance of me getting to the last page.

Beyond that, it also has to pass a category of believability. It the story keeps trying to make something true, I know is not true, I wont give it much play after that. For me, that is probably the biggest killer of stories, that it cannot make me continue suspension of disbelief. I would not say avoid politics, politics is part of the big human experiment, but don't come in ham-fisted and think its going to resonate.


----------



## Chinaren (Feb 25, 2020)

pmmg said:


> Well, I would, with a notable exception as to how one might define a good yarn.
> 
> But, if the tale is just serving as window dressing so someone can make an argument, I will likely detect it and think less of it for trying. Further, if its thick, mundane, un-thought out, poorly veiled, and/or preachy, I will very likely put it down and not return. Some notable exceptions may be if I knew about this going in, and/or I had reason to believe there was something else of value. If the story is very one sided, such that I feel other positions are being set up, or presented only to make one side look good, or inaccurately portrayed (more so if I feel its intentional), the story has little chance of me getting to the last page.
> 
> Beyond that, it also has to pass a category of believability. It the story keep trying to make something true, I know is not true, I wont give it much play after that. For me, that is probably the biggest killer of stories, that it cannot make me continue suspension of disbelief. I would not say avoid politics, politics is part of the big human experiment, but don't come in ham-fisted and think its going to resonate.



I totally agree to all of that.  Well put.  But a if a story was such, it wouldn't be a good yarn!


----------



## The Dark One (Feb 25, 2020)

Of course, it does depend on what you are trying to achieve. Are you writing a book with a political plot? Or are you trying to make a point regarding real life? Or a bit of both?

My next book coming out is highly political in some of the things it addresses - especially refugee politics in Australia - but you won't find any pro-refugee discourse in the novel. All of the politics (such as it is) happens in the head of the reader in response to the appalling antics of the characters.

I can't abide sledgehammer messages in fiction.


----------



## Miles Lacey (Feb 25, 2020)

I found the original poster's use of the phrase safe and reactionary to describe fantasy interesting.  I deliberately held back from commenting until now because I wanted to see how many people had grasped what the terms  "safe" and "reactionary" meant in the context of fiction.

The terms "safe" and "reactionary" isn't necessarily about politics.  They're also used to describe something that is hostile to change.

It's true that some writers have opted to go for Byzantine, Hellenic, Roman or other pre-medieval settings but it doesn't mean much.  The settings are still very much Euro-centric and pre-industrial.  Nearly all regimes are autocratic or benevolent hereditary monarchies and the hero/ine is usually a person of great note such as a warrior, knight, noble, aristocrat or an ousted member of the ruling dynasty.  

In this sense fantasy is very much safe and reactionary.  The tropes are pretty much cemented in place and the abuse that people face if they dare to suggest these tropes are anything but great can sometimes be scary.   Also,  there can often be a hostility or contempt towards fantasy where readers might be asked to look more deeply at anything that might be construed as too political.  

On the other hand the grip of the Tolkien and D & D fanboys on fantasy has been loosened in recent years and a small but growing number of readers and writers are looking at settings that are not pre-industrial, characters who come from a more diverse range of backgrounds and story lines that are willing to tackle issues that might be construed as too political.  Some of them are even daring to suggest that the sun doesn't shine out of Tolkien's arse, that _Lord of the Rings _is boring as hell and D & D wasn't that great a game.

Fantasy is evolving all the time albeit slowly.  New sub-genres are emerging all the time.  Many readers are demanding fantasy that is more diverse and more writers are meeting that demand.  Other writers are taking risks by taking fantasy places where no fantasy has gone before.

As an aside I don't mind playing role playing games with a pseudo-medieval setting and all the other predictable medieval tropes such as the Elder Scrolls series but, like food, I like a bit of variety in my fantasy whether it's in books, games, TV series or films.


----------



## Aldarion (Feb 26, 2020)

The Dark One said:


> I suspect you're just being contrary for the fun of it, but there's no way I can let that go unchallenged:
> 
> It took the human race millions of years to evolve full dilution and sharing of political power (ie, modern, parliamentary democracy under the rule of law) but unfortunately there are people out there trying to disrupt democracy in the name of what? You'd seriously give up the hard won share of power that billions must have dreamed of over the millennia? Yes, there are issues with the way some democracies are being gamed and exploited, but that's why they say the price of freedom is eternal vigilance (and action where necessary). The warlord is forever chafing at his democratic chains.
> 
> ...



1) To give up power, power must be yours to give up in the first place.

a) That is the theory. In practice, and especially today, there is little people can do to change the situation peacefully. You have a choice between two groups of idiots, both of whom follow more-or-less the same ideology, and will continue doing the same thing regardless of who you chose. And are more than willing to ignore will of the people. Majority of people in Croatia voted against gay couples being able to adopt kids, yet politicians used legalese to allow it anyway. Majority of people in Europe are opposed to mass immigration, yet European Union is doing its best to enable mass immigration.
b) Not constitution, but rather voting list. Constitution solves nothing, and is largely irrelevant anyway.
c) It *is* a problem *everywhere*. Why do you think left-wing politicians support mass immigration? It is not because they believe mass immigration is good for society, good for economy or anything - they don't, and they _don't care_. They support it because they hope to use immigrants to gain votes. The end. Not too long ago, it was Left who was against immigration and globalism because they knew what impact it has on precisely the groups they claim to support - the working class, the poor etc. They started supporting it merely to gain more votes and to differentiate themselves from the Right.
d) No, there are no laws. Politicians create laws, remember? At best, there are some laws against largely irrelevant stuff, and which are easily bypassed besides.
e) Just take a look at the West today. Family is the basis of a functional society, yet basically everything is set to destroy family and reduce basic social unit to individual. Capitalist exploitation - _both_ parents have to work like mules, where in reality it would be enough for just one parent to work to feed the entire family. Children spend more time at kindergarten than at home, and what they spend at home they spend looking at a bloody magical box instead with parents, because parents cannot give them time of the day. And then of course you have this - not _as_ big problem as the previous, maybe, but one that is being actively promoted as opposed to being inherent in the society.
f) Totalitarianism is defined as "centralized control by autocratic authority". _Which is to say, literally excess of control_. How you got that "lack of oversight and lack of being subject to law" leads to totalitarianism, I don't know. Mind explaining?
g) Well, yeah.
h) There were. But modern political system - specifically, elections - is based on competition and marketing. It basically ensures that the best liar, greatest psychopath, will win. Humans are notoriously bad at seeing when somebody lies, especially today when they have no time to keep track of all the BS being thrown around. Read the links; they explain issues in detail.

2) You are not allowed to choose. You think you are, but you have less practical freedom than average person living in Byzantine Empire.


----------



## The Dark One (Feb 26, 2020)

OK, well...we'll just have to agree to disagree.


----------



## pmmg (Feb 26, 2020)

I don't see anything wrong with anything Aldarion has said, only that is some parts among many. All of that can be true, while whole lot of other stuff can be true as well. I would stop short of calling everyone idoits, but then, maybe everyone is? It can be true that the Democracy is an illusion, while it is also true that people are giving up a portion of personal sovereignty return for some set of agreed upon rights. And also be true that democracy creates an illusion that the voters matter when individual votes don't matter much at all. It can also still be a better system than others. But there is good and bad in every system, so one should expect that whatever the bad, some will notice it, and what ever the good, some will praise it. It would bring me back to choose your filter...


----------



## skip.knox (Feb 26, 2020)

I would like very much if, regardless of the opinions expressed, they could be tied to the writing of fantasy. Otherwise, this is just reddit fodder, or at least Chit Chat.


----------



## skip.knox (Feb 26, 2020)

To return yet again to the OP, fantasy is (not are) not inherently safe and reactionary. Or it is.

Take either assumption. Now, what do we do with that? What does that mean for me as an author working on my current book? My own reaction is that it doesn't mean much one way or the other. The question and all possible replies has more to do with me as a reader; maybe it leads me to select or reject certain books to read. But as an author, I can only try to tell my story as best I know how to do, and terms like safe or reactionary don't help in that endeavor.


----------



## WooHooMan (Feb 26, 2020)

pmmg said:


> I don't see anything wrong with anything Aldarion has said, only that is some parts among many. All of that can be true, while whole lot of other stuff can be true as well. I would stop short of calling everyone idoits, but then, maybe everyone is? It can be true that the Democracy is an illusion, while it is also true that people are giving up a portion of personal sovereignty return for some set of agreed upon rights. And also be true that democracy creates an illusion that the voters matter when individual votes don't matter much at all. It can also still be a better system than others. But there is good and bad in every system, so one should expect that whatever the bad, some will notice it, and what ever the good, some will praise it. It would bring me back to choose your filter...



The way I look at it: democracy means the majority is the ultimate power.  Not all individual people, that would basically be anarchy.
In America, the constitution (or law, in general) is the ultimate authority.  Not a perfect system but I trust written words more than I trust masses of people.  Maybe that’s the writer part of me being biased.

This brings up a point though: most fantasy settings don’t really bring-in the rule of law as a factor in society.  I guess because it’s a more modern idea: that those in power are subject to the rules of a constitution and they’re are checks and balances to ensure that all institutions stay within the limits set to them by the constitution.
Also, it makes for a better story to have the higher powers of a country being characters rather than concepts and laws.




skip.knox said:


> To return yet again to the OP, fantasy is (not are) not inherently safe and reactionary. Or it is.
> 
> Take either assumption. Now, what do we do with that? What does that mean for me as an author working on my current book? My own reaction is that it doesn't mean much one way or the other.



Agreed but politically-charged internet discussions never end this cleanly.


----------



## skip.knox (Feb 26, 2020)

>most fantasy settings don’t really bring-in the rule of law as a factor in society.
Agreed, and I sort of understand why, but it's another place where writers miss opportunites to explore. Because laws were vitally important in traditional societies.

But pre-modern societies sometimes had a more subtle understanding of law than do we moderns. The Romans, for example, talked a lot about _mores_ which we would translate more or less as custom. In the Middle Ages, too, there was widespread understanding that a society was regulated not only by law but also by tradition.

The word constitution serves as a good illustration. We think of a document, but the word itself just means how things are constituted. How they stand together. The Roman Constitution of the Republic, for example, was never a written thing, but everyone in Rome knew what it was, and yes that understanding was ... er ... flexible. 

A medieval king was very much bound by tradition. Breaking custom--introducing "new laws"-- was in fact grounds for rebellion. Of course, if you were determined to rebel, that was an easy justification to claim.

But in terms of introducing conflict, such a traditional understanding of power is ever so much more interesting than the usual absolutist nonsense found in many fantasy novels, because it allows for ambiguity, opposing interpretations, and disastrous misunderstandings. The stuff of story.

All we poor moderns get is "broke the law".


----------



## The Dark One (Feb 26, 2020)

James Clavell's brilliant Shogun contains the following exchange (paraphrased):

Toranaga: There is no justification for treason!
Blackthorne: Unless you win.

_Toranaga stares, thunderstruck, then laughs uproariously._

Toranaga: Unless you win...yes, that is the only justification for treason.


----------



## Aldarion (Feb 27, 2020)

skip.knox said:


> >most fantasy settings don’t really bring-in the rule of law as a factor in society.
> Agreed, and I sort of understand why, but it's another place where writers miss opportunites to explore. Because laws were vitally important in traditional societies.
> 
> But pre-modern societies sometimes had a more subtle understanding of law than do we moderns. The Romans, for example, talked a lot about _mores_ which we would translate more or less as custom. In the Middle Ages, too, there was widespread understanding that a society was regulated not only by law but also by tradition.
> ...



I think that is another consequence of misunderstanding of nature of rule in premodern societies. I have all too often found statements to the effect that "Byzantine Empire was an absolutist monarchy" or similar. But, as you have noted, that is not true. Emperor did have power to introduce new laws. But that power was not unlimited: he was very much bound by the tradition, by custom, by morals and by possibility of rebellion (Byzantines were rather fond of those...). Which means that, despite _external appearance_ of an absolutist or at least authoritarian monarchy, the Empire's _internal workings_ were, at most, those of a parliamentary monarchy, if not an outright democracy.


----------



## pmmg (Feb 27, 2020)

Honestly, I don't very often think of the Byzantine Empire, so I don't think I would likely be confused on them one way or another. Ultimately, I think every ruler is something less than absolute. If any of them upset enough of the wrong people, they wont stay in power very long. Poetically, I've seen a number of works liken leadership to a cage that cant be escaped. I suspect there is truth to that. While it may seem one has a lot of power, their power is almost certainly limited by what their culture and people will accept.


----------



## Aldarion (Feb 27, 2020)

pmmg said:


> Honestly, I don't very often think of the Byzantine Empire, so I don't think I would likely be confused on them one way or another. Ultimately, I think every ruler is something less than absolute. If any of them upset enough of the wrong people, they wont stay in power very long. Poetically, I've seen a number of works liken leadership to a cage that cant be escaped. I suspect there is truth to that. While it may seem one has a lot of power, there power is almost certainly limited by what their culture and people will accept.



Byzantine Empire was just an example, because I am most familiar with it. But same could be said for all monarchies, _*especially*_ those before Renaissance/Humanism and consequential absolutism. Middle Ages were, in general, not just in Byzantine Empire, one of less authoritarian eras of human history, simply due to lack of administrative ability required for authoritarianism.

EDIT: Problem with feudal societies, and unlike Byzantine Empire, was that there were numerous low-level lords who could, in fact, enforce their rule; but these statelets were extremely numerous, and rulers were not too safe, so there were still limits to degree of opression they could emplox. But I cannot say for sure how much of an impact that had, as I am much more familiar with Byzantine Empire than with Western Europe.


----------



## skip.knox (Feb 27, 2020)

A distinction should be made between claims and practice, and also between authority and power. In many medieval kingdoms it was widely understood that kingship was divinely ordained, which is to say that kingship itself as an institution was something that God had put here on Earth for good governance. It didn't mean this or that king had a divinely-sanctioned claim to the throne, but that the existence of thrones was approved by God. This of course implied nothing about the extent of royal power.

How much power a king could yield was largely regulated by custom as expressed by a competing riot of voices from the nobiity. Kings naturally always claimed to have the right to exercise more power, while nobles tended to try to limit the king's reach. Especially as it applied to themselves. As the Middle Ages went on, the claims to power by kings went up and out. Their practical reach did expand, but this proceeded erratically, depending much on the nature of the king and circumstances of his rule, and it should be kept in mind that this whole dynamic of authority and power, claims and practice, was playing out at the level of dukes and counts and other nobles as well, and even in some cities. It's not like kings were the only ones reaching.

The connection to divinity could have interesting consequences, though. If kingship were divinely ordained, what did it imply when kingship was in some way limited? Was that an affront to God? This was not a theoretical question, for messing with the divine order had direct consequences on worldly order. So, for example, the struggle between popes and kings (and emperors) was viewed as having profound impact all across society. Viewing it as "just power politics" grievously misunderstands the players and the stakes.

Desperately trying to return to the OP, I still can't find a way to believe fantasy is inherently safe or reactionary. But the nature of the understanding of the Middle Ages by most authors can lead them to create worlds that are little more than cartoons of the past. It may or may not be safe, but it's familiar and easy, and that's nothing to sneeze at when you're trying to churn out three books a year for your series.


----------



## Kasper Hviid (Feb 27, 2020)

skip.knox said:


> Desperately trying to return to the OP, I still can't find a way to believe fantasy is inherently safe or reactionary.


The phrase "safe and reactionary" was a bit confusing. I simply meant that fantasy is less opinionated on Big Issues than science-fiction. Which it looks like you kinda agree on:


skip.knox said:


> the nature of the understanding of the Middle Ages by most authors can lead them to create worlds that are little more than cartoons of the past. It may or may not be safe, but it's familiar and easy





skip.knox said:


> that's nothing to sneeze at when you're trying to churn out three books a year for your series.


I did NOT mean to attack any fantasy series. Sorry if it came off that way.  In my OP, I should probably have added a paragraph about how much respect I have for pure fantasy escapism. I discovered fantasy a long time before I had any ideas about politics, so to me, the core of fantasy is that childlike escape to the world of D&D. Yet, as an adult, even if I still have this pure vision of fantasy, I also know that there is a political reality beyond that. So naturally, I can't help bringing focus to this notable absence.


----------



## Yora (Feb 27, 2020)

As a generalization, I think that seems very likely.

I feel that most science fiction really looks like the whole creation process started with someone wanting to write about an issue. There seems to be little sci-fi that feels like it was created with the intention of "I like lasers".
In contrast, there seems to be much more fantasy that is primarily interested in aesthetics and atmosphere and not really sure what it wants to say, if anything.


----------



## skip.knox (Feb 27, 2020)

>I did NOT mean to attack any fantasy series. Sorry if it came off that way.
It absolutely did not strike me that way. Sorry if I gave that impression.


----------

