The Speculative Fiction Thread formerly Fantasy Thread

[Rounin Ryuuji]

It was his childhood religion. Tolkien convinced him that Christianity was true, I understand, but not necessarily of any specific doctrine, or that any specific form of it was correct. That it was his childhood faith probably drew him back towards it, rather than him starting over with a "new" form of Christianity.

[zompist]

Lewis tells the story himself in his autobiography, Surprised by Joy. Tolkien was a major influence but not the only one. Lewis downplayed Christian denominational differences— when he wrote Mere Christianity he had the manuscript reviewed by an Anglican, a Catholic, a Methodist, and a Presbyterian. Also FWIW he grew up in Northern Ireland, and though he was very friendly with Catholics I think he would have felt it weird to, in effect, go from Anglican (to atheist) to Catholic.

[foxcatdog]

I have watched a few Studio Ghibli movies all of which are fantasy (Nausicaa, Mononoke, Spirited Away, Kiki's Delivery Service and Totoro).

Of these Totoro seems to suffer from the things happenness of other bad movies while i enjoy Princess Mononoke the most. The story is about a man (the only male protagonist of the films i watched so far) of the Emishi (a people i know from Linfamy) who has gained a magical curse. His interactions with the titular princess could be read as romantic through it never ends up that way or at least is only shown too (nevertheless its probably the best romantic subplot i have seen so far (it's so good you can forgive it for not showing them kiss)). Besides that it has the overtly heavy handed environmentalism theme (wow why can't nature in our world just kill off all the businessman and redeem our capitalist women instead we are stuck with it just killing us eventually) and moral ambiguity (our main antagonist is of course a good person to the core and i kind of agree with her at least in some parts) also its got cooler mystique surrounding guns than the western genre (also of note is our wolves and boars aren't all good though i kinda favour our wolves more they seem to have more sense). Corruption in the movie is only resolved at the end not when you would expect which would lead to a bittersweet ending if we didn't see the whole plot of opposition unfold. Miyazaki is a stickler for moral ambiguity it seems since it also appears in Nausicaa or in Spirited Away Spiritsense (the non-human nature of spirits).

[foxcatdog]

Also for your short doses of Mystique we have this channel Worldbuilding Notes Worldbuilding Notes[/url] who also got me interested in Ursula Le Guin (The Ghibli film definetely clicked it in my mind that i have to read Earthsea).

[Raphael]

(Some afterthoughts...)

What I find odd is that leftist/leftish people often love Tolkien and hate C.S. Lewis— people whose were best of friends in RL and wrote rather similar books from a similar point of view.

In both cases I think a major factor is that people tend to discover them as kids. Then they grow up and learn that Aslan is (spoiler) a very thinly disguised Jesus, and they feel betrayed, as if religion is not allowed to tell stories that people like.

Well, that's one main difference to my own experiences right there. I do remember friends and acquaintances mentioning LOTR and The Hobbit to me when I was a very young child, but I don't think I really paid much attention to Tolkien myself before the first one of the Peter Jackson LOTR movies was released. I was raised by pacifists, so it seems unlikely that they would have given me war epics to read. As for Lewis, I don't think I even knew that he existed before I was in my late teens or early twenties (I may have first learned about him when he was mentioned somewhere on zompist.com).

Instead, my own childhood fantasy reading, aside from some complete unknowns, consisted mainly of Michael Ende (speaking of stuff that was racially progressive for its time but is rather offensively racist today).

[Ares Land]

So, superficially, the characters are progressive enough for contemporary readers to relate to them but the underlying worldview is still hidebound as hell. Tolkien didn't even make these kinds of concessions; his characters are monarchists through and through. Aragorn rules by right of royal descent and that's it. Despite this, one of the biggest Tolkien fans I know also has the most outspoken radical politics of any of my friends.

On the whole it's hard to read politics into LOTR. I've read Moorcock's essay but to me it feels artificial and strained.

I think you can sort of accept Aragorn as a legendary king in the vein of King Arthur, with only some very tenuous connection to actual kings.
Will Aragorn actually rule? It's implied that the Shire is self-governing with only tenuous and symbolic allegiance to the king.

From Tolkien's biography I got the idea that politics wasn't his thing at all, and he had little interest in it. He was pretty passionate about what we'd call the environment and the destruction of nature. It seems to be one of the few political topics he'd get worked up about.

[WeepingElf]

From Tolkien's biography I got the idea that politics wasn't his thing at all, and he had little interest in it. He was pretty passionate about what we'd call the environment and the destruction of nature. It seems to be one of the few political topics he'd get worked up about.

Yes. He was what we Germans call wertkonservativ, literally 'value conservative'; I think the English word is preservationist. That's a wholly different ideology than Tory conservatism. And I think his ideal form of government was some sort of constitutional monarchy, as shown in the Shire, which was headed by a hereditary Thain with ceremonial functions and an elected Mayor who actually ran the country. So not very different from modern Britain.

[zompist]

I think you can sort of accept Aragorn as a legendary king in the vein of King Arthur, with only some very tenuous connection to actual kings.
Will Aragorn actually rule? It's implied that the Shire is self-governing with only tenuous and symbolic allegiance to the king.

As it happens Charlie Stross's blog for today is a response to this.

Or as Dennis in Monty Python and the Holy Grail put it, "Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"

[Ares Land]

I think you can sort of accept Aragorn as a legendary king in the vein of King Arthur, with only some very tenuous connection to actual kings.
Will Aragorn actually rule? It's implied that the Shire is self-governing with only tenuous and symbolic allegiance to the king.

As it happens Charlie Stross's blog for today is a response to this.

Or as Dennis in Monty Python and the Holy Grail put it, "Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"

People in Scotland seem a bit sore about the monarchy. The definitive statement on British royalty I heard from a guy in a pub in Edinburgh : 'the royal family are like burglars that come into your home, burn everything, rapes your dog and then you go 'oh if it wasn't for them we wouldn't have a house"

I think British republicans may be over-idealistic; at least that one guy was. He was convinced boulevard Saint-Germain in Paris all belonged to the people. He was extremely disappointed when I told him most of it probably belonged to oligarchs.

[Raphael]

I think British republicans may be over-idealistic; at least that one guy was. He was convinced boulevard Saint-Germain in Paris all belonged to the people. He was extremely disappointed when I told him most of it probably belonged to oligarchs.

I did once read an online discussion about the British monarchy in which one British (I think) republican argued that, since the British monarch is the thing holding the British class system together, without the monarchy, that class system would collapse. That idea, while well-intentioned, makes about as much sense to me as the idea that you can physically hurt a person by burning an effigy of that person.

[Travis B.]

To me blaming the British class system on the monarch does not make much sense. Look at America and France - they don't have monarchs, yet they very much have class systems!

All in all, I think that the negatives of a British-style constitutional monarchy are both understated (by monarchists) and overstated (by republicans), while in general in the case of American-style presidential republics and French-style semi-presidential republics their negatives are generally understated. Of course, if one is not going to go full-on worker council, a German-style parliamentary federal republic with a ceremonial president would be my preferred form of government. If they were to get rid of the monarchy in Britain, I think that the way to go would be to replace the monarch with such a ceremonial president (of course I do have issues with the way the parliament works in Britain, e.g. FPTP, but that is another story).

[Raphael]

If they were to get rid of the monarchy in Britain, I think that the way to go would be to replace the monarch with such a ceremonial president (of course I do have issues with the way the parliament works in Britain, e.g. FPTP, but that is another story).

Not sure that's necessary. I'm kind of partial to the post-1994 South African system of having a president who is basically a parliamentary prime minister in all but name (elected by parliament, and subject to removal by parliament). Then there's the system used by the individual German states - no official head of state at all, and ceremonial stuff is divided between the president of the legislature and the head of the executive. Imitating this, the British could make the Speaker of the House of Commons their ceremonial head of state.

[bradrn]

If they were to get rid of the monarchy in Britain, I think that the way to go would be to replace the monarch with such a ceremonial president (of course I do have issues with the way the parliament works in Britain, e.g. FPTP, but that is another story).

Not sure that's necessary. I'm kind of partial to the post-1994 South African system of having a president who is basically a parliamentary prime minister in all but name (elected by parliament, and subject to removal by parliament).

Oh god, South Africa… I’ve just spent a month in South Africa (mostly visiting family), and I can tell you that nothing in their electoral system is working properly at the moment…

That being said, this particular bit does seem fairly sane; I too am partial to a system with a PM-in-all-but-name. (Indeed, as an Australian who’s had 6 PMs in the last 12 years, I’m tempted to say that the South African system fails in making it too hard to get rid of the ‘president’.) The important thing is to make sure that if the president has real power, there’s some way to kick them out early.

[Torco]

Which makes it even odder that one of my gay friends, a former academician and progressive activist, has a huge hard-on for his works. (He is a Boomer, though, and seems to be unreflectively drifting toward conservatism as he grows steadily more isolated and embittered.)

well, there are more reasons to like an author other than he being progressive. heinlein's weird af, and pretty problematic, but he's pretty damned good i think.

In both cases I think a major factor is that people tend to discover them as kids. Then they grow up and learn that Aslan is (spoiler) a very thinly disguised Jesus, and they feel betrayed, as if religion is not allowed to tell stories that people like. Tolkien by contrast is incredibly coy about God— as one reviewer pointed out, there's more overt Catholicism in Harrow the Ninth than in LOTR.

Tolkien's allegory and/or religious parallels *are* a lot more subtle, but there's still a magic man who is sent by god to save mankind, comes back from the dead, wanders the wilderness alone and does random acts of magic kindness to those around him, is betrayed by one close to him etcetera. Still, and this may be a case of me discovering tolks but not lewis as a kid, the former *feels* a lot less religious, I don't know exactly why...

___

to me the system of governance of the shire almost felt anarchistic, in the vein graber an wrenwrow describe some premodern societies (or the way papuan big men have been described to me): there *are* authorities, but they're more like the neighbours electing an administrator that takes care of the faff of administration, rather than properly speaking a state. I suppose it's part of the "simple folk leading wholesome lives" fantasy that tolks wants to depict with the hobbits.

[Linguoboy]

Which makes it even odder that one of my gay friends, a former academician and progressive activist, has a huge hard-on for his works. (He is a Boomer, though, and seems to be unreflectively drifting toward conservatism as he grows steadily more isolated and embittered.)

well, there are more reasons to like an author other than he being progressive. heinlein's weird af, and pretty problematic, but he's pretty damned good i think.

Except that Heinlein's politics seem to be a major part of his appeal for him, judging from the conversations we've had and the types of pull-quotes from his work that he shares to his social.

to me the system of governance of the shire almost felt anarchistic, in the vein graber an wrenwrow describe some premodern societies (or the way papuan big men have been described to me): there *are* authorities, but they're more like the neighbours electing an administrator that takes care of the faff of administration, rather than properly speaking a state.

The political organisation of the Shire struck me as fairly typical of a D&D-type fantasy role-playing setting: fine as background but which doesn't make much sense if you examine it too closely. (A lot of aspects of life in the Shire are like that, e.g. Bilbo's umbrella.)

I'm not sure why Lewis' work never held the same appeal for me as Tolkien's. I remember watching the 1979 television adaptation and being enthralled by it but I never read the books even though we had them around. Despite being just a few years younger than me, my brother and sister read the entire series. My younger brother even ran a D&D campaign based on Voyage of the Dawn Treader. (Similarly, I grew up watching and loving The Wizard of Oz, but I never read a single Baum book whereas my sister owned and read that entire series too.)

[Torco]

Except that Heinlein's politics seem to be a major part of his appeal for him, judging from the conversations we've had and the types of pull-quotes from his work that he shares to his social.

ah, then... if you find out how to abort someone's descent into the darkness let me know, i've lost a few people to it as well... I suppose heinlein is, in a way, emotionally adjacent to progressivism/leftism: like, he's not a prog, but reading him feels kind of like becoming a prog feels: realizing the world is all stupid and everyone is stupid except you who is smart, kind of like when one was 14 and realized religion was bullshit or something. i suppose that makes him an especially excellent first dip into becoming a fash: he feels familiar, but exposes you to new ideas (about how only ex-military should vote or whatever lmao). and in a way, i think that's why one reads scifi, or at least it's a lot of why i read scifi.

come to think of it, that's possibly a difference between fantasy and scifi (carved wood fantasy v milled aluminum fantasy, i suppose)... not necessarily, but in general, i don't think fantasy explores weird ideas that much (?).

like, compare 'what if there's this vast galactic empire, and it falls... how would such a thing fall? oh, and look, what if someone invents like a matemathical theory of sociology? what impact does that have? how would you distinguish such a thing from an elaborate hoax in order to gain prestige? versus what if battle of absolute good versus absolute evil, but the battle is won by the travails of a humble, insignificant person and a single act of kindness. The latter is a beautiful idea, don't get me wrong, but it's not an *interesting* idea: these are two distinct aesthetics, and carved wood fantasy tends towards the latter, whereas milled aluminum fantasy towards the former. (even though there are exceptions, i.e. star wars)

[Linguoboy]

like, compare 'what if there's this vast galactic empire, and it falls... how would such a thing fall? oh, and look, what if someone invents like a matemathical theory of sociology? what impact does that have? how would you distinguish such a thing from an elaborate hoax in order to gain prestige? versus what if battle of absolute good versus absolute evil, but the battle is won by the travails of a humble, insignificant person and a single act of kindness. The latter is a beautiful idea, don't get me wrong, but it's not an *interesting* idea: these are two distinct aesthetics, and carved wood fantasy tends towards the latter, whereas milled aluminum fantasy towards the former. (even though there are exceptions, i.e. star wars)

I can tell from reading this that you haven't read much fantasy.

Sure, that's the most hackneyed high-fantasy plot known. It's also pretty much the plot of the first Star Wars series. Space opera is filled with evil empires which are taken down by a heroic character (whether Unlikely Hero, Elf of Destiny, or something else). It wouldn't be hard to translate either of your scifi plots into fantasy plots: What is the practical difference between a galactic empire linked by FTL travel and a maritime empire linked by sailing ships, in terms of actual plot mechanics? A mathematical theory of sociology is impactful to the extent that it makes valid (or seemingly valid) predictions; how does that differ substantially from a magical gift of limited prophecy? And so forth.

There are scifi readers who get comfort from reading different versions of the same classic plot and there are fantasy readers who enjoy being challenged by weird ideas. Probably the proportions aren't exactly the same, but it's a big publishing world and there's room for a wide range of works.

[zompist]

carved wood fantasy v milled aluminum fantasy

That's nice, I may borrow that some time.

but in general, i don't think fantasy explores weird ideas that much (?).

From 30,000 feet up, maybe not... my rule of thumb is that fantasy is about character, power, and spiritual struggle, where things are merely mcguffins; and sf is about ideas, where people are merely mcguffins.

But there are so many mixtures and subgenres that these generalizations are as misleading as they are helpful.

like, compare 'what if there's this vast galactic empire, and it falls... how would such a thing fall? oh, and look, what if someone invents like a matemathical theory of sociology? what impact does that have? how would you distinguish such a thing from an elaborate hoax in order to gain prestige?

This would be a better example if Asimov weren't so bad at actually telling the history and examining the ideas. I mean, his big idea for how the empire falls is "just like the Roman Empire, to the degree of having people with the same names", and his social ideas run toward "Romans vs. Americans with techbros as a special faction." And omigod don't get me started (again) on R. Daneel Olivaw.

[Torco]

I can tell from reading this that you haven't read much fantasy.

Honestly, not that much, no. I try, honest to Tolkien I try, but I just get... the word is not bored, but I need for a book to catch me, and tbh whether a book catches me or not is as much about me as it is about the book. But yeah, agreed, some women are hairy and large and some men are hairless and small, but the overall pattern is still there, no? Now, I agree with you vis a vis Star Wars, and on the general vibe of like... foundation *could* have been written to be set in a version of feudal japan with dragons and elves, or even in the exact roman empire, but the thing is that they generally don't set foundations (or Dunes) in feudal japans with dragons do they? the opposite is I think more common: gundam wing, for example, might as well be romance of the three kingdoms, and I'd be surprised if that's accidental tbh.

but in general, i don't think fantasy explores weird ideas that much (?).

From 30,000 feet up, maybe not... my rule of thumb is that fantasy is about character, power, and spiritual struggle, where things are merely mcguffins; and sf is about ideas, where people are merely mcguffins.

I like that, I may borrow it sometime yeah, borrow away... someone (you, perhaps?) quoted some quote about how fantasy has leaves and scifi has nuts or bolts, and I thought yeah, that's a good sentiment, but it needs to be simpler. good candidates to replace carved wood are bricks and cobblestone. I don't know about more misleading than illuminating tho, other than with space operas as notable milled aluminum. I don't think there's a lot of... carved wood scifi ? though I think I'd like to make some.

Also, I think me being a sociology undergrad when I read the foundation books really made it more fun for me: as psychohistory slowly unveiled itself as [spoilers?] clever scam, that made the whole thing more fun, not less. I agree that the galaxia thing was about as close as an author can get to shooting his book series in the brain: a painless and uninspired way to end it, and daneel olivaw is the worst mary sue I think I've read, and not even in the name of a cool idea.

[Raphael]

And omigod don't get me started (again) on R. Daneel Olivaw.

You could always simply refuse to acknowledge the canonical status of the post-interregnum Foundation novels. That's what I do with the post-high-school seasons of Buffy.