• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

Are fantasy inherently safe and reactionary?

“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?
 
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

Auror
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.
 

Aldarion

Archmage
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

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.
 
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
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.
 
Last edited:

CupofJoe

Myth Weaver
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.
 

Yora

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

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.)

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.

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...
 
Last edited:
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? :sneaky: 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

Maester
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

Scribe
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. :sneaky:
 

pmmg

Myth Weaver
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.
 
Last edited:

Chinaren

Scribe
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! :LOL:
 
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

Archmage
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

Archmage
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.

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.
 
Top