Zompist Bboard Again

Torco wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 12:27 pm

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 10:06 amWe had Kay-Bee Toy and Hobby. It was a sign of progress when playbooks and modules began to appear at Waldenbooks.

names don't mean anything to me, but like... are they general-purpose bookstores?

Waldenbooks was; it was bought by Borders in the 90s and liquidated in 2011.

Kay-Bee was a toy store (the "hobby" part of the name referred to things like model railroads). I'm not sure why they were the first major retailer in our area to carry Dungeons and Dragons books. I guess since they also carried board games and D&D started out as a wargame played with miniatures? Eventually, RPGs became big enough that my hometown could support one or two dedicated gaming stores, but that was after I'd moved away.

malloc wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 12:37 pmI should have noted that this is merely my personal and subjective opinion and not intended as an objective repudiation of fantasy. None the less, I find it way easier to imagine AI taking over the world or space colonization becoming a reality than magic being shown to exist. I worry everyday about AI becoming too powerful for us to control, whereas I've never once worried about a dragon laying waste to my hometown.

This take shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the entire purpose and function of fiction. Scifi novels aren't technical manuals; they're just a form of speculative fiction with technological trappings. Fantasy novels are speculative fiction with magical trappings. (And science fantasy is speculative fiction with both.) Speculative fiction is what happens with the writer asks themselves, "Yes, but what if..." and then tries to follow that to its logical conclusion.

There's a famous quote from LeGuin which I think sums this up very nicely:

LeGuin wrote:The purpose of a thought-experiment, as the term was used by Schrödinger and other physicists, is not to predict the future--indeed Schrödinger most famous thought experiment goes to show that the "future," on the quantum level, cannot be predicted--but to describe reality, the present world. Science fiction is not predictive; it is descriptive. Predictions are uttered by prophets (free of charge), by clairvoyants (who usually charge a fee, and are therefore more honored in their day than prophets), and by futurologists (salaried). Prediction is the business of prophets, clairvoyants, and futurologists. It is not the business of novelists. A novelist's business is lying.

So reading a novel about a future dystopia where AI has run amok and thinking that this has prepared you to live in a future world where AI has run amok is naïve to say the least. The best it can do is to give you some things to think about. But you're going to need some pretty crunchy understanding of what our real-world AI is like (and how that differs from the novelist's depiction of it) in order to apply those thoughts to real-world circumstances.

A lot of novelists say that their subject is humanity or the human condition. The best ones, IMNSFHO, are the ones who really understand people, their aspirations and motivations, their limitations and inhibitions. A lot of "Golden Age" authors were--to put it mildly--not great at this and, as a result, their work doesn't hold up. You can learn as much about humanity and its behaviour from a well-written fantasy novel as you can from a well-written science fiction novel or work of literary fiction. Fantasy novels, for instance, have powerful nonhuman intelligences which humans attempt to make do their bidding, with mixed results. How they attempt this, what they expect to achieve, and what the actual consequences are directly relevant to pondering what humanity's interaction with powerful AIs might look like. (Similarly, dragons--depending on the writer's conception--are either powerful environmental threats humans attempt to ward off or mighty weapons of destruction they attempt to wield. How the characters in a fantasy novel go about this tells you a lot about how the author thinks people are deal with powerful threats or wield dangerous weapons, and this information is as relevant to living in the present day as a similarly talented scifi author's take on cyborgs or laser cannons or whatever.)

Well ok, fair enough. I was never trying to destroy the entire fantasy genre, just stating my personal tastes. I do find it interesting that my disinterest in fantasy sparks such an intense reaction when the original posters distaste for science fiction went unnoticed. [Another issue is that fantasy skews conservative given its focus on romanticized feudal worlds whereas science fiction has more opportunities, if not always taken, to lean left. Certainly, I've never heard of an overly left wing fantasy work.]

malloc wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 1:20 pm [Another issue is that fantasy skews conservative given its focus on romanticized feudal worlds whereas science fiction has more opportunities, if not always taken, to lean left. Certainly, I've never heard of an overly left wing fantasy work.]

Have you ever heard of Robert A. Heinlein or Orson Scott Card?

Also, aren't Ursula Le Guin's fantasy works most certainly left-wing fantasy?

I don't depreciate malloc's reasons for preferring "sci-fi", although it's a bit simplistic to stereotype all fantasy as containing wizards or dragons. Might it perhaps be more appropriate to view "fantasy" and "sci-fi" as points or regions on a continuum or two, characterised by among other things the number of ass-pulls the author needs to make their point and the number of deviations from the Real World™?

the weird thing about heinlein and OSC is that their works are not that conservative, though they very much are. some of heinlein's work are fascist, others are kind of borderline pro-pedophilia, certainly many have a clear right-wing vibe, same with OSC, especially in the sequels to the ender books he really goes balls deep in the 'nationality is in the soul' vibe, but in more of a dumb way than in a supremacist way. when I say not conservative, i'm using conservative narrowly. right-wingers who write scifi, I find, always have a strong 'you know, obviously society should be different than it is' vibe.

in more commercial stuff, genre fiction i think they call it, you do see a more conservative vibe of "look, galaxy spanning empires are going to be either totally evil or politically the same as the US of A".

___

I think I share malloc's vibe here: sure, what's commonly called scifi is actually fantasy with bolts and lasers, but for whatever reason I seldom get very into fantasy with trees and swords, and it's very easy for me to get into fantasy with lasers and starships. I have no beliefs, currently, as to why this should be the case. And yes, if you've not heard of leguin... I don't know, I'm told she's amazing but I something in my brain just doesn't click with her. I've tried audiobooks, the movies, and the book books, and it hasn't happened that I've falled for her.

One good thing that I think the science fiction genre has done, simply by existing, independent of any specific works in it, is to get people used to the idea that the future will be different from the past and the present. When people are used to the idea that the future will be different from the past and the present, they might handle it better when the future, eventually, does end up being different from the past.

Raphael wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 3:36 pm One good thing that I think the science fiction genre has done, simply by existing, independent of any specific works in it, is to get people used to the idea that the future will be different from the past and the present. When people are used to the idea that the future will be different from the past and the present, they might handle it better when the future, eventually, does end up being different from the past.

The big impression I have gotten from 20th century science fiction is that the future has happened, but it isn't the future that they predicted. On one hand, aside from satellites, space probes, and the ISS we're pretty much stuck on Earth, and all signs point at that this situation will last for quite some time. On the other hand, they really did not predict the full extent of the Digital Revolution and the Information Age and just how they drasticallly would impact every corner of the Earth within a span of just a few decades.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 4:03 pm
The big impression I have gotten from 20th century science fiction is that the future has happened, but it isn't the future that they predicted. On one hand, aside from satellites, space probes, and the ISS we're pretty much stuck on Earth, and all signs point at that this situation will last for quite some time. On the other hand, they really did not predict the full extent of the Digital Revolution and the Information Age and just how they drasticallly would impact every corner of the Earth within a span of just a few decades.

Arguably, the best prediction for the 21st century was Jamiroquai's. We do, in fact, live in a future made of virtual insanity.

malloc wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 1:20 pmWell ok, fair enough. I was never trying to destroy the entire fantasy genre, just stating my personal tastes. I do find it interesting that my disinterest in fantasy sparks such an intense reaction when the original posters distaste for science fiction went unnoticed.

I didn't engage seriously with foxcatdog because he didn't seem to be making a serious argument. You were, and I responded to it as such. If you want to call that an "intense reaction", fine, but would you rather have folks take your ideas seriously or would you prefer they just dismiss them as shitposting?

malloc wrote:[Another issue is that fantasy skews conservative given its focus on romanticized feudal worlds whereas science fiction has more opportunities, if not always taken, to lean left. Certainly, I've never heard of an overly left wing fantasy work.]

You've never heard of Terry Pratchett's Discworld?

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 5:09 pmYou've never heard of Terry Pratchett's Discworld?

Well ok, I will grant you that one. It always struck me as more a parody or pastiche of fantasy than a serious entry in the genre (like Austin Powers for spy thrillers), but it technically counts.

In general, I've noticed that you take a sterner line with me than with other people on this forum, even the outright fascists and such. Is there any particular reason you dislike me so much?

malloc wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 5:47 pm even the outright fascists and such.

Aaaaaand scene!

That's a wrap, people. Good work. Excellent discussion, beginning to end. Put it in the can. Break for lunch.

"Given that the Material (material world) is stable with no fluctuations in reality (unlike our own) and the Immaterial (psychic world) reacts to observation and thought like a dream we can deduce the Immaterial/Material split has existed since the dawn of the universe or the Immaterial is much older since it contains the possibility which lies inherently in the coin flip of creation we can also deduce it is the source of ultimate conciousness and that Bots (robots) lack conciousness due to not reacting to i"

Bamn i'm writing Science Fiction instead of Space Opera who knew it was that easy?

I'm a bit like malloc; I love fantasy but I think I like sci-fi more. Part of it is I like the speculation about technology; also, let's be frank, like Elon Musk I have a think for big exploding rockets.

I have the impression there used to be a bit more sci fi than is published these days. That said there are a lot of works that blur the lines between the two, which is something I like a lot.

I should point out that fantasy only rarely and incidentally involve actual dragons.

More random thoughts:

A lot of golden age SF is basically fantasy. Dune is fantasy, in a way
I'm a bit surprised to see fantasy described as right-wing. It's usually SF that gets that reputation. Whether it's deserved is another question.

Heinlein sometimes ends up accidentally leftist. I re-read The Moon is A Harsh Mistress recently. Despite the Ayn Rand references, it's still about a bunch of free-love anarchists organizing a revolution to avert environmental disaster.
I think Orson Scott Card politics moved frankly to the right sometime in the early 2000s? His early work was a lot more tolerant (and also a lot more interesting IMO)

Most of the Discworld series isn't really parody. I think only a few of the early books in the series fit. For that matter, several books in the series, while fantasy, are about the implications of technology (Going Postal, for instance) or societal change (the Watch series) so again, it's hard to draw a line between SF and fantasy here.

Oddly enough, I kind of agree with foxcatdog's initial "no mystique" complaint. Unlike for foxcatdog, for me it's not a dealbreaker, but it's still a downside. I you asked me to make a list of the pros and cons of science fiction, I'd list "no mystique" on the "cons" side. Not enough of a problem to keep me from enjoying science fiction, but still one of the cons.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 4:00 am I'm a bit surprised to see fantasy described as right-wing. It's usually SF that gets that reputation.

Well, there's the often-repeated argument, made, for instance, by malloc here in this thread, that fantasy often glorifies the social structures of medieval, or, more generally, pre-1789 Europe. I kind of agree with that point, though, again, it's not enough of a problem to keep me from enjoying fantasy. And of course, as Linguoboy has pointed out, there are works of fantasy that don't fit that description anyway.

I suppose i like fantasy because i like magic and dragons particularly dragon gods (seems like the ultimate fusion of beings of power and might and dragons of course make reptiles cool). Magic of course is symbolic which is why the Bindingverse functions on ideas (and the most basic of spirits are basic ideas leading to extreme abberance in behaviour from a human perspective) and of course the Mythic World i also am in the process of creating is influenced by the character of its creators and gods the Dragons. There's a lot you can do in fantasy you cannot do without (try writing harry potter or lord of the rings and set it in the real world). And symbolism is the best kind of storytelling in my mind. Also at least from what i see Tolkien is a better worldbuilder than a writer but i suppose that is fantasy too.

Small afterthought re: Heinlein: I haven't read him myself, for reasons I explained a while ago, but from what I've heard and read about him, I've got the impression that he was right-wing in the way that the platypus is a mammal: clearly a member of the group, but not necessarily a typical one.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 4:00 am Heinlein sometimes ends up accidentally leftist. I re-read The Moon is A Harsh Mistress recently. Despite the Ayn Rand references, it's still about a bunch of free-love anarchists organizing a revolution to avert environmental disaster.

They're not anarchists, they're libertarians. Heinlein is not exactly a conservative: he is extremely hard on racists and religious people-- which means he probably wouldn't like the current GOP. But he's pretty much a techbro. He likes tech guys-- he basically wants to put them in charge. He's not keen on democracy-- in Moon his term for politicians is "yammerheads" and most of the book is how the techbros completely avoid democracy. They rig an election, fagawdsake. Some of his other books are even harder to take-- that authoritarian impulse can get very strong.

zompist wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 5:15 am

Ares Land wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 4:00 am Heinlein sometimes ends up accidentally leftist. I re-read The Moon is A Harsh Mistress recently. Despite the Ayn Rand references, it's still about a bunch of free-love anarchists organizing a revolution to avert environmental disaster.

They're not anarchists, they're libertarians. Heinlein is not exactly a conservative: he is extremely hard on racists and religious people-- which means he probably wouldn't like the current GOP. But he's pretty much a techbro. He likes tech guys-- he basically wants to put them in charge. He's not keen on democracy-- in Moon his term for politicians is "yammerheads" and most of the book is how the techbros completely avoid democracy. They rig an election, fagawdsake. Some of his other books are even harder to take-- that authoritarian impulse can get very strong.

I like Moon for the worldbuilding. I know it was meant as a libertarian tract, but he was honest about the implications which means the books goes some unexpected places.
It doesn't feel right-wing the way some of his other books go, or you know, what Baen Books usually publishes.

What feels very wrong and jarring is how it turns out 'ideal government' ends up being 'the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independance.'

Raphael wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 4:42 am Small afterthought re: Heinlein: I haven't read him myself, for reasons I explained a while ago, but from what I've heard and read about him, I've got the impression that he was right-wing in the way that the platypus is a mammal: clearly a member of the group, but not necessarily a typical one.

From what I read about his real life politics, they were pretty disappointing compared to his fiction. He was kind of obsessed about nuclear war with Soviet union, nukes, more nukes and fallout shelters.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 4:00 amI have the impression there used to be a bit more sci fi than is published these days.

I have the complete opposite impression. But perhaps that comes from following the editor of an SF magazine on FB. (We're old college friends.)

Ares Land wrote:A lot of golden age SF is basically fantasy. Dune is fantasy, in a way

A lot of it is space opera, which as others have pointed out is essentially fantasy with lasers.

Ares Land wrote:I'm a bit surprised to see fantasy described as right-wing. It's usually SF that gets that reputation. Whether it's deserved is another question.

"Hard SF" definitely has that rep. I'm not sure SF as a whole does any more in the wake of the whole Sad Puppies debacle.

I can kind of understand the charge. USAmericans in particular have a fascination with royals (and aristocracy in general) and love the princess fantasy of living in a castle with servants. They don't want to think through what this would mean for the servants, naturally, and a lot of commercial fantasy caters to this contradictory worldview. (You see it particular in Hollywood fantasy films and historical dramas where our heroes are often aristocratic or end up aristocracy by the end, but their actions always have to be framed as being "for the people" so we can think of them as good people according to our modern sensibilities.)

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.

Ares Land wrote:Most of the Discworld series isn't really parody. I think only a few of the early books in the series fit.

Even if it were, I love that a fantasy parody is considered only "technically fantasy". As if the genre hasn't been shot through with parody for years. (Xanth, anyone? Okay, maybe not. MythAdventures then?)