In the Shadow of the Status Quo--Fantasy literature and conservativism

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tracker,

In other words make the progressive issue to be addressed integral to the story.  Don't, without prior build up and discussion have the hero's journey be completed with the hero insisting upon uninization of all labor or that the State, in the name of the people, take control of all means of production.  Make the story gel.

I've attempted to give two examples, from the same author of poorly and well done efforts to bring progressive issues into fantasy novels. What I see you doing is nitpicking the poorly done example while ignoring the example I provided where I thought the progressive issue was properly integrated into the story.

[The Marquis de Leech]

52 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

Referencing the Rule of Cool reinforces my point; dragons are unrealistic, and so is a world in which technology almost never advances, but they are awesome while social justice is meh. Tells you a good deal about the genre, huh?

Dragons *are* the speculative element - the "what if" assumption that makes the genre what it is. Social justice isn't speculative, at least not in the normal use of the term: if you write social justice fiction, you've got realism, not fantasy. In fantasy, what you would need to do is draw causal connections between the secondary world (which includes magical critters and stuff) and political ideology.

For instance, where does the idea of social justice arise in this setting? Is it religiously-based? Is it actually a form of inter-species conflict (e.g. the dragons have enslaved humans, and the humans plan an uprising?). Is it based off secular theories, like real-world liberalism and socialism? If so, how are those ideas propagated? Et cetera.

Curiously, if you have a magic system that pretty much ensures equality of gender and sexual orientation (because lesbian sorceresses will kill you just as quickly as straight wizards), you might not have much push for womens or gay rights - since they the default social assumption will regard such equality as axiomatic.

[C.T. Phipps]

2 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Curiously, if you have a magic system that pretty much ensures equality of gender and sexual orientation (because lesbian sorceresses will kill you just as quickly as straight wizards), you might not have much push for womens or gay rights - since they the default social assumption will regard such equality as axiomatic.

Interesting, the presentation of injustice in a setting is actually progressive in its own way. Part of the issue of many fantasy settings is the white-washing elements or the invisibility. George R.R. Martin got a bunch of praise for Westeros because we got to see the ugly nasty side of the treatment of women and privilege which made it a statement on the romanticism of the Middle Ages.

While it was ham-fisted, badly-written, and distracted from the issue of social justice of the Sparrows, the show did comment on the very real in RL idea that Loras' harmless homosexuality was a horrific crime on par with everyone else's actual atrocities and what a ludicrous notion it is.

[polishgenius]

We seem to have somewhat strayed off the original subject which seemed to me to be about the presence, consciously or otherwise, of conservative trends and bias in fantasy into an entirely different arena of discussion which seems to center around the (to me, ridiculous) premise that authors apparently have an obligation to not just incorporate but actively present 'progressive' trends in their work.

[Jo498]

Frankly, I do not see what should be the use of showing the "nasty treatment of women" in a made-up pseudohistorical setting for readers in 1996-2016 except to feel smugly superior (to a made-up middle age?!) in the "Connecticut Yankee" fashion. ("How could they be so incredibly stupid/backward/nasty and isn't it great how far we have come since then?" I really admire Poul Anderson for subverting this stance in several of his stories)

If one thinks there are important social issues NOW and one wants to treat them in a work of fiction (rather than in a political manifest) isn't it usually superior to address such issues realistically instead of in such an oblique fashion?

E.g. Sapkowski has "racist" treatment of non-human races in the witcher books. Does anyone think that people who are still racists in the 2000s after >200 years of liberation movements would be revising their attitudes because of badly treated elves in some made-up pseudo-premodern world? Or that the non-racist people of 2016 would have to be permanently reminded of how bad racism is and that fantasy books were a suitable instrument for that?

For good literature one needs conflicts. Repression by a caste system, a foreign oppressor, racist/classist/tribal tensions are a good background for such conflicts (think Romeo & Juliet). So keep them coming as long as they are plausible in the setting (isn't it often strange why the "good guys" have those strangely modern liberal attitudes despite having grown up in exactly the same repressive system as the baddies? how did they become so enlighted?) But I believe that grafting 2016 social issues onto a fantasy setting will in most cases appear incoherent and annoyingly preachy.

[Chaircat Meow]

13 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

It might just be the old-school Marxist historian in me, but the first question I'd ask is what material things, what technological differences, have created the social forces required to have a medieval progressive movement? It's not a matter of "historical accuracy" (daft in a fantasy context), but rather establishing causal relationships between fantasy elements and the politics of the setting.

As for speculative fiction - it's not about snobbery. It's about having a nice convenient umbrella term that you can throw around without having to worry about whether steampunk is fantasy or science-fiction. 

I agree with this.

'Medieval progressive movement' is rather vague, but assuming Tracker means something like 'a pseudo-medieval movement promoting 21st century liberal western values' the question of causation is obviously raised. You do not have to be an economic determinist to believe that social structure and technology set certain limits to what can be done or thought, especially on a large scale.

[TrackerNeil]

2 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

I agree with this.

'Medieval progressive movement' is rather vague, but assuming Tracker means something like 'a pseudo-medieval movement promoting 21st century liberal western values' the question of causation is obviously raised. You do not have to be an economic determinist to believe that social structure and technology set certain limits to what can be done or thought, especially on a large scale.

So we can accept that a society can have almost zero technological progress over 6,000 years, but the idea that the same society could have breakthroughs in terms of social justice is beyond the pale? That's what I don't understand here. In fantasy many of the rules are suspended in terms of life forms and the way they operate, but when you try to extend that suspension to social issues you get push-back because "it's just not realistic." If we're to start using realism as a basis for how fantasy worlds function, then Westeros should have antibiotics, the steam engine, and firearms.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, TrackerNeil said:

So we can accept that a society can have almost zero technological progress over 6,000 years, but the idea that the same society could have breakthroughs in terms of social justice is beyond the pale? That's what I don't understand here. In fantasy many of the rules are suspended in terms of life forms and the way they operate, but when you try to extend that suspension to social issues you get push-back because "it's just not realistic." If we're to start using realism as a basis for how fantasy worlds function, then Westeros should have antibiotics, the steam engine, and firearms.

I think progressive elements in Westrosi history would be interesting provided that such elements are integral to the story being told and not tacked on such that the progressive elements don't fit organically with larger story.

[Durckad]

3 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

So we can accept that a society can have almost zero technological progress over 6,000 years, but the idea that the same society could have breakthroughs in terms of social justice is beyond the pale? 

I guess the question is "why is this important?"

How does including "social justice" in a literary work improve its quality other than for readers to wank about how progressive they are? Not every literary work's main objective is to confront social injustice and including it just because you can might be detrimental to the overall work.

Confronting the perceived or real conservative bias in sci-fi/fantasy seems to be a far better use of one's time than including progressive-style politics just to prove that you're, well, a progressive. It's likely going to come across as needlessly preachy unless well handled.

[TrackerNeil]

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I think progressive elements in Westrosi history would be interesting provided that such elements are integral to the story being told and not tacked on such that the progressive elements don't fit organically with larger story.

You speak as if diversity were something alien that must be fit into a story. Diversity is the default setting of the world, and stories that exclude women, people of color and sexual minorities are actually pushing back against that. I don't understand why we can have dragons and ice walls and dire wolves, but we dare not imagine a world in which the structures of society honor the natural diversity of humanity.

[TrackerNeil]

1 minute ago, Durckad said:

I guess the question is "why is this important?"

How does including "social justice" in a literary work improve its quality other than for readers to wank about how progressive they are? Not every literary work's main objective is to confront social injustice and including it just because you can might be detrimental to the overall work.

Confronting the perceived or real conservative bias in sci-fi/fantasy seems to be a far better use of one's time than including progressive-style politics just to prove that you're, well, a progressive. It's likely going to come across as needlessly preachy unless well handled.

So stories in which women are chattel, people of color are exotic, and sexual minorities are erased are the norm, while something else would be "preachy"? Again, this tells you an awful lot about the genre, doesn't it?

[Chaircat Meow]

17 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

So we can accept that a society can have almost zero technological progress over 6,000 years, but the idea that the same society could have breakthroughs in terms of social justice is beyond the pale? That's what I don't understand here. In fantasy many of the rules are suspended in terms of life forms and the way they operate, but when you try to extend that suspension to social issues you get push-back because "it's just not realistic." If we're to start using realism as a basis for how fantasy worlds function, then Westeros should have antibiotics, the steam engine, and firearms.

IMO Martin's super long history is a mistake but one that is usually kept in the background and works on a superficial level (I sometimes complain when it gets used to support arguments about character/theme/strategy). Still, I don't know that there is a set rate of technological progress. Worth remembering that more time elapsed since the first dynasty of Egypt and the time of Alexander the Great than has passed since the birth of Jesus. I do not think we would notice any remarkable progress in Egypt, in technological terms, during that earlier time. 

And 21st liberalism is, I think, very much a product of enormous changes in the economy, social structure and technology since the 1800s. This is not to say that those changes led inexorably to the values held by so many now, but they were, I suspect, an essential precondition. So kind of like giving your fantasy creations firearms but insisting that there is no gunpowder.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

8 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

You speak as if diversity were something alien that must be fit into a story. Diversity is the default setting of the world, and stories that exclude women, people of color and sexual minorities are actually pushing back against that. I don't understand why we can have dragons and ice walls and dire wolves, but we dare not imagine a world in which the structures of society honor the natural diversity of humanity.

Tracker,

You keep missing my point.  I think we can.  Hell, I've provided examples of where it has been done.  I'm simply saying it is up to the authors who write such stories to make them believeable and not (to paraphrase Durckad) "fanwank".

[Durckad]

Just now, TrackerNeil said:

So stories in which women are chattel, people of color are exotic, and sexual minorities are erased are the norm, while something else would be "preachy"? Again, this tells you an awful lot about the genre, doesn't it?

You're evading the question. Stories which show such things are not necessarily promoting those things. If you're writing a historical story set in a specific time and place, it would break the suspension of disbelief to include things that were not necessarily a part of the setting ie including tanks in a story about the Byzantine Empire or nukes in a story set in feudal Japan. You are correct that fantasy has more leeway in approaching the suspension of disbelief but even then, the suspension of disbelief can still be broken. In ASOIAF, we are willing to accept that dragons, wights, and blood-mages exist, but would you be willing to take the setting seriously if Dany shows up in Westeros with tanks and howitzers at her back?

If it is an integral part of the work, if saying something about the status of wealth, inequality, gender, and sex is an important part of your work, then yes of course, include it. And you know, maybe you're right. Maybe fantasy needs to have more progressive-style works out there, maybe the genre needs to approach such topics more often rather than defaulting to mere escapism with dragons, tits, and wizards. But, it needs to be handled carefully just like any topic. Does every film, every painting, every book, every song need to promote social justice? No, they do not. If you're including it just for the sake of including it, to proclaim your progressive-cred, then your work is going to be a preachy mess. 

And that benefits no one. Unless you want to be known as the Tairy Goodkind of progressive values.

[C.T. Phipps]

2 hours ago, polishgenius said:

We seem to have somewhat strayed off the original subject which seemed to me to be about the presence, consciously or otherwise, of conservative trends and bias in fantasy into an entirely different arena of discussion which seems to center around the (to me, ridiculous) premise that authors apparently have an obligation to not just incorporate but actively present 'progressive' trends in their work.

For those of us who are progressives in real life and actively believe the world should work to become a better more tolerant place and that fiction by nature is an important social force, it's not at all a ridiculous assumption. Fiction is more than just entertainment and should be used as a force for social change.

Basically, I have just nothing but eye-rolling contempt for people who don't think fiction actually makes a difference in the world. 1984 and Brave New World had a major effect on the world and served not as propaganda but informative works which helped shaped the public perception on certain issues. The Handmaiden's Tale DID have a major effect on people who were unable to parce what feminists were afraid of and what they were worried about. STAR TREK has influenced huge amounts of society in terms of what we should be striving toward as a society as well as encouraging people to become better.

Do you have an obligation to do it?

No, hell no.

However, when I write about Black, Jewish, Hispanic, and gay characters in my book and I get letters from people who say, "Thank you for including people like me" then I feel like I've done a good thing. I also am less likely to buy the works of someone who doesn't include diversity than one who is because I'm actively contemptuous of those who don't reflect the real world.

For example, I admit to having a personal bugbear. The F***ING WESTERN. Like 1/3 cowboys were black in the Real WorldTM and do you ever see that? No, because people want to use it as the cornerstone of the myth of white manliness. It still annoys the hell out of me Red Dead Redemption doesn't have a single Black main character.

[polishgenius]

3 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

For those of us who are progressives in real life and actively believe the world should work to become a better more tolerant place and that fiction by nature is an important social force, it's not at all a ridiculous assumption. Fiction is more than just entertainment and should be used as a force for social change.

 

It would be a sad world indeed if no-one used their fiction for this sort of purpose but by going down the path that they should have to we run the risk of turning entertainment into an instrument of thought control and arriving at 1984 from the other direction.

 

There is and should be a place for entertainments and fictions that are just entertainment, and also for those that are concerned with other things than social progress.

[TrackerNeil]

59 minutes ago, Durckad said:

If it is an integral part of the work, if saying something about the status of wealth, inequality, gender, and sex is an important part of your work, then yes of course, include it. And you know, maybe you're right. Maybe fantasy needs to have more progressive-style works out there, maybe the genre needs to approach such topics more often rather than defaulting to mere escapism with dragons, tits, and wizards. But, it needs to be handled carefully just like any topic. Does every film, every painting, every book, every song need to promote social justice? No, they do not. If you're including it just for the sake of including it, to proclaim your progressive-cred, then your work is going to be a preachy mess. 

What I would say is that every work should reflect the fact that the world is not made up of straight white dudes doing most things of importance. And I'm saying that every fantasy work need not assume that the European feudal system is all that would exist, and would exist relatively unchanged for millennia. Diversity is the way of the world, and it's distressing that a good deal of fantasy doesn't recognize that. So what you call "preaching" and "proclaiming progressive-cred", I call recognizing that since the world is composed of people of varying backgrounds and viewpoints, the stories we tell should do the same. In other words, It's not about what you include, but what you omit.

I think I'm going to drop out of the discussion, because I think we're confronting the basic difference in default settings between people. My default settings are that fantasy stories should not be limited to certain assumptions (an eternal feudal system in which every everyone who isn't a straight white dude is at a social disadvantage), but clearly others have different settings. Nowhere to go from there, really, so I'll stop trying. In any case, we address this best in the paper linked from page 1 of this thread. Read that and you don't need to hear any more from me.

[Darth Richard II]

I'm mostly with trackerneil on this one. To zonked to type long on the phone but I also agree with the above that sometimes entertainment is entertainment.

[AncalagonTheBlack]

1 hour ago, Durckad said:

Unless you want to be known as the Tairy Goodkind of progressive values.

Can anyone point me to such a work or author ?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

36 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

What I would say is that every work should reflect the fact that the world is not made up of straight white dudes doing most things of importance. And I'm saying that every fantasy work need not assume that the European feudal system is all that would exist, and would exist relatively unchanged for millennia. Diversity is the way of the world, and it's distressing that a good deal of fantasy doesn't recognize that. So what you call "preaching" and "proclaiming progressive-cred", I call recognizing that since the world is composed of people of varying backgrounds and viewpoints, the stories we tell should do the same. In other words, It's not about what you include, but what you omit.

I think I'm going to drop out of the discussion, because I think we're confronting the basic difference in default settings between people. My default settings are that fantasy stories should not be limited to certain assumptions (an eternal feudal system in which every everyone who isn't a straight white dude is at a social disadvantage), but clearly others have different settings. Nowhere to go from there, really, so I'll stop trying. In any case, we address this best in the paper linked from page 1 of this thread. Read that and you don't need to hear any more from me.

Tracker,

For the third time.  I think you are correct.  My only concern is that the progressive element be added well.  I am not assuming it cannot be done.