Class, Heroism and mobility

[The Marquis de Leech]

Did Steerpike ever purport to be striking a blow for the working classes? I don't remember him claiming to be motivated by equality. Did he even justify his ambitions to himself? He had a streak of mental illness. Like Alfred the butler said, some men just want to watch the library burn.

He infamously declares "equality is everything", while pulling the legs off a beetle.

[Datepalm]

Also, at present, the Federation is back on the latinum standard. The Ferengi own 60% of the Martian shipyards, the Klingons do the merc work in the Cardassian sector, where the UFP regime is just as corrupt as the Dominion was. Trapped between the Dominion, the Borg, and the Romulans, the Federation is a failed empire, in debt, paranoid, and overextended.

What are you regarding as "present"? End of Voyager? To the best of my rather poor star-trek knowledge, thats as far as anything has gone chronologically. Not that i'm necessarily disagreeing, mind.

Yes, exactly, that's what I wanted to say. And more: it is curious that the world-threatening events of the books, that can not happen in reality, always have a pretty mundane outcome, usually "and they lived happily everafter".

I think thats a tension present in ASOIAF, (and even more in WOT*, which has tons of mass immigration and technological progress) thats not there in Belgariad/Shannara type stories (There's some political change in Dragonlance, now that I think of it) "What will everything look like once this is all over?" and it won't necessarily be going back to glorious olden times or even the previous status-quo, and it might not be all that good. Monarchy enamoured fans aside, I don't feel like the text of ASOIAF is leading us to expect a Targaryen resoration will be all dandy - the rebellion is shown as justified, if complex, and Dany's coming invasion has an ominous air to it. Moreover, its not clear whats going to happen with magic and with the wall.

*Though Rand does turn out to be nobility, for no particular reason thats hugely relevant to the overall story at all that I can figure out.

[Jaak]

For me, there is no problem with the idea that those with power, perseverance, courage, charisma and will to use their skills (sung heroes, in short) end up as leaders/rulers/upper class, if they were not already in these spheres.

What I have a problem with, and it's linked, is the ubiquitous idea seemingly inherent to anything fantasy-ish (comic books included) that these positive traits are rare, inherited and allow for such discrepancies in individual possibilities that they make environment irrelevant. Learning, experience and hard work seldom work in fantasy, but teenagers save the world and become tyrants kings of it. It implies that social rank is dependant on birth, and it's a throwback to the days of royalty (even if you want to call that "aura of legend", it's still the same thing). We killed our nobles, their blood runs as red as ours, and rulers are never young idiots, no matter how much potential they have.

France is famous for a lot of revolutions. And hereditary monarchy came back a lot of times. While Louis XVIII was restored by foreign conquest, Napoleon I was homo novus, and III made his career in France, too. And the IIIrd Republic was only founded because the majority of people who wanted Bourbons back could not agree on candidate.

As for nobility, Napoleon I and III created a lot of nobles by their own authority.

The other point, maybe more minor, is that the typical fantasy actually validates the iniquitous social structure in place, even with great power nobody breaks it. If someone is a working class hero, what he will do is move up the ladder but actually keep what made him miserable in the beginning totally in place. The young street urchin never becomes George Washington, he always becomes George III (only, he's good, you see), the scullery maid never leads a revolution, she just integrates with the power in place.

France of 1788 had majority of people feeding themselves by farming. And also supporting a minority of rich and middle class.

This did not change much in a hundred years. It basically could not be changed with the available technology. The biggest conceivable change might have been to destroy the whole upper classes and ensure that 100% of people would have been subsistence farmers - but then France could not have supported army and navy and would have been vulnerable to any neighbouring society able to field an army that did not all go home for harvest.

Nevertheless something did change. For example, while ancien regime France did have some peasants who owned their lands outright and had no lord but King and his taxes, most peasants did have lords, and paid for their lands.

In 1793, the Convention made the peasants owners of their land without compensation for landlords. And this was something no one could ever retract, even at restoration.

Despite the Restoration of Bourbons, ancien regime was not restored. The France of 1815-1830 was something new, not a mere return to ancient regime. Napoleon III was not a mere restoration of 1st Empire.

But even innovations appealed to history. A lot of French Republican rhetorics talked about the virtues of the heroes of Roman history - of Roman republic. In a sense, they had to talk about past to figure out what their options were and to explain themselves to the targets of their propaganda. It is only in 20th century that politicians are no longer interested in restoring Roman Republic and explicitly seek to found something new and previously unheard of. But nevertheless, French 1st Republic was new, because Roman Republic could not be exactly copied in new conditions, just as ancien regime could not be restored after just 25 years.

The goal of commoners and heroes in fantasy to restore some past ideal condition should not obscure the probability that exact reproduction would prove impractical, and that what the heroes set up might actually be an improvement of what had been destroyed.

Plus, of course, change of the persons on top.

[Errant Bard]

France is famous for a lot of revolutions. And hereditary monarchy came back a lot of times. While Louis XVIII was restored by foreign conquest, Napoleon I was homo novus, and III made his career in France, too. And the IIIrd Republic was only founded because the majority of people who wanted Bourbons back could not agree on candidate.

As for nobility, Napoleon I and III created a lot of nobles by their own authority.

I know, that's even taught in school around here, if you can believe that :P

That's the reason Fantasy's lack of change is grating. For better or worse, with various justifications and goals, with a back and forth sometimes, things always did change a great deal. Fantasy has 8000 year old middle ages, unexploited magic, and a position of stability consisting in low level technology, and a divine right overlord, that about noone challenges or even makes evolve.

And that's not because we use Rome in some arguments that the situation does evolve towards Rome v2. Some raging conservatives like RT do it all the time, and even if they had their way, they wouldn't change society to what it was.

Oh, yeah, the point you quoted was about the innate skills and perks granted to bloodlines in fantasy, visible in teenagers, not about how one can become emperor with hard work, ambition, and skills (and being a member of a rich, noble, well connected family) at 30.

[Arthmail]

Well, in regards to technology not changing, it could be that magic has simply taken its place. In fact, i would not be surprised to see those of the craft hindering or slaying proponents of new tech just to keep the foundations of their power base strong.

As for no change in social class, yadda, yadda, yadda - real notions of revolution and the concept of the working man as equal to the noble one are arguably tied in with advances in technology. The industrial revolution was what helped to see the middle class gain power over the upper class. So if magic exists, and there is no real need to push towards technology because of what magic can do (or there is an active dislike of technology), then yes, i can see social status staying fairly stagnant.

[kuroishi]

What I don't really get is why some people seem to take the political situation/history of fantasy secondary worlds so seriously. Of course, I don't say that you're taking it too seriously, I guess that all of you are just midly irritated by it and that you'd just like to see some series/novel to tackle it in a better/more realistic way, and I get it.

But for me it's all up to the author's choice. If he thinks that his story will work better in a world that has been stuck in Middle Ages for 8000 years, well, that's up to him. It's on the same point that chosing to set it in a world where magic and dragons exist, or where royal blood really has some divine qualities. That's fantasy for me.

Of course it can be frustrating sometimes, but would any story work as well ? What about the Silmarillion if the Noldors had been fighting Morgoth with clubs and stones while the RAF of Gondor has been struggling to keep Mordor at bay ? And would ASOIAF be as thrilling without its millenias of legends, prophecies and long-forgotten Northern Threats ?

I loved Dianna Wynne Jones' Tough Guide To Fantasyland for pointing out some ridiculous tropes in fantasy, but I still think that most of them are up to the author to decide to use or not.

Yeah I'd like to see some somehow politically/historically/economically accurate or original fantasy once in a while, but I really don't think that any fantasy secondary world is worse for not being realistic in those ways (especially when you know that they won't be realistic in a lot of other ways... I mean dragons ? magic ? undead people ? 700 feet high ice walls ?)

[Jaak]

What i'm trying to say is that whatever drove them to those acts of heroism in the first place, an underlying foundation would have to be the willingness to work hard to achieve their goals. Unless they come back from whatever they were doing a broken and blasted shell, why the hell would they suddenly forget the work ethic that allowed them to accomplish what they did? Likely, seeing all that they could accomplish, why accept anything less. And at the moment of triumph, it is very likely that those around them would seek to reward them for doing a job well done. The motivations for the reward may be nothing more than a political move to be closer to the hero of the hour, but it seems unlikely that the hero would say..."No, thank you. I will not accept the Duchy of Hoity-Toity and all of its accompanying honours and privelages. I would prefer to go back to mucking horses and living in abject poverty. Thanks though."

A hero would not want to go back to living in abject poverty. However, not accepting the duchy might be not implausible.

Also, as has been said, i don't buy the farm boy learning to become a master swordsman only a year after having been found, the rest of his life consisting of navel gazing and chasing the local skirt.

That depends on what being a master swordsman is.

It might be years of training, from early childhood of a noble boy. It might be inclination for hard work.

Or it might be something that depends on having stronger muscles, quicker reaction, better coordination - something which is inborn and not through virtue of the owner.

If thousands of farmboys are mobilized to army and given swords to train with, some will be better than others and a few will be outstandingly good. Those few do not necessarily have to be successful in their prior civilian life as farmboys, if the work of a good farmhand requires hard skilled work rather than quick reaction.

And when the war is over, many will have fallen. Many will come home tired, with distant experiences and time lost from their life. And a few come back as heroes.

There is nothing implausible about a hero finding himself out of his element when the war is over, and spending the rest of his life bragging, brawling, drinking and skirtchasing. Like, say, Robert Baratheon in ASOIAF.

[fionwe1987]

Galactus:

Am I right in assuming that you think this trend is not something all authors consciously seek to enforce, but is an implication of the tropes these authors follow?

Thing is, even if this is mostly true, there are other aspects of this trope that kind of negate these implications that equate class and heroism. In fantasy (and even Sci-Fi like Dune) the Hero becomes ready for his ultimate destiny only after he becomes connected with the roots of humanity, by spending time as a commoner/beggar, etc.

Look at Paul Atrides, or for that matter Arya, Sansa, Egwene, (probably) Rand... all their stories strongly imply that one is ready for power only after connecting with and becoming a part of the common people.

I'm not a major comic book fan, but aren't Clark Kent's small town upbringing and Bruce Wayne's time among criminals and Buddhist monks cited as the driving forces for their commitment to fighting crime?

Doesn't this trope imply that only by being a commoner can you be ready to be a leader? Doesn't this balance the implication that only the upper classes can be heroes?

Now, with respect to "working class" heroes... wouldn't, say, Harry Potter qualify? He's treated like royalty, but when he's against the law, he's treated like crap. He doesn't end the story by becoming the leader of the world or anything, he and his wife continue to work, and while he does gain a high position, he isn't top dog. Ron and Hermione too, are normal working people.

As for the absence of change...

In WoT...

Rand has definitely changed the world, with many aspects of the old order completely destroyed. Lands where Nobles could tax as much as they want and kill any peasant without repercussion have had to change because Rand has told them to.

Egwene is likely to change things so that the power structure of the Tower is more inclusive and open. With Rand's cleansing the Taint, men, who are the lower class, are in a position to revolt against the traditional female authority. Nynaeve has always rebelled against the amount of power the AS wield, and has worked to empower the Kin so that they don't act subservient.

In aSoIaF...

The nobility is facing a challenge from the common people in the form of... hell what are they called?... the church's soldiers, and Catelyn's band.

Yeah, the hero is still secretly nobility, but that seems to be a mere token presence of the trope. It doesn't mean anything anymore. The nostalgia for days gone by, the goal of maintaining the status quo... I think these things are dissapearing from fantasy.

[Galactus]

Am I right in assuming that you think this trend is not something all authors consciously seek to enforce, but is an implication of the tropes these authors follow?

Obviously.

[GenlyAi]

What I don't really get is why some people seem to take the political situation/history of fantasy secondary worlds so seriously. Of course, I don't say that you're taking it too seriously, I guess that all of you are just midly irritated by it and that you'd just like to see some series/novel to tackle it in a better/more realistic way, and I get it.

Well, look. I'm certainly not saying everything needs to be the way I want to see it, but I'm also not saying my only problem with divinely-mandated monarchy is that it's unrealistic. The problem is that it communicates something when nobody questions tyranny, and it communicates something when the only way to be successful is from the circumstances of your birth.

I won't go into the political argument any more, because Errant Bard has done a great job already, but this also teaches you something on the personal level. Like when I was 10, 11, 12, I read a lot of Belgariad-type things, and I think I really internalized the idea that some people are born special, and then there are the rest of us. So whenever I succeeded at anything, I was like "maybe I am special," and whenever I failed, "I guess not." I knew this was unrealistic and unscientific, but I worried about it anyway. It took a long time for me to take responsibility for myself, and it wouldn't have if those books hadn't all been about farmboys with hidden destinies.

It's a trope, and I don't want it gotten rid of, but it's certainly worth questioning. Of course you can use the "it's only fantasy" defense, but frankly, fantasy does have meaning, and I prefer the authors that think about what they're communicating.

[jurble]

Read the book Outliers, it's good, the people who end up doing awesome in real life, tend to be born into privileged life. The rich get richer, as it were. Only time in history where poor guy could go to rich dude, was the industrial revolution. He gives an example of Chris Langan, smartest man in America, IQ wise, dude's a college dropout and lives on a small ranch in Montana, I think, pretty much his intellect was wasted because of his poor family background. He's compared to J Robert Oppenheimer who got away with attempting to murder his academic adviser due to his background.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Genly,

How is showing someone doing the same thing with their life without chage in any way a story you would want to read?

[Maia]

So it would be cool to have heroes that are either a) not depicted as total saints but want power for themselves and do the bad things the "dark lord" did (which, I think you will agree, never happens)

Well, I wouldn't say never, but it happens more rarely than it should.

or b) revolutionaries.

Tough to honestly depict a victorious revolution sympatethically, as in most cases it involves and is followed by hair-raising atrocities and power-grabbing by some of its heroes and extermination of the others. I mean, sure, French Revolution was massively romanticized in the last 2 centuries, but seen objectively... it doesn't lend itself to a largely positive outcome that seems to be expected from a fantasy book. Now, for a tragedy...

Well, you just said it, and many others say the same. It's the default assumption for a Fantasy reader that nothing changes,

Not true. Even in LOTR a lot changes. Elves leave, magic fades, other intelligent races decline and the Age of Men begins. Restoration of Gondorian kingship and immediately following period of prosperity is just the last flash of departing epoque.

In WOT, a lot of changes are clearly incoming as the society seems to be moving towards industrial revolution.

Etc.

that readers expected the old monarchy to come back and rule like before, just because they are the old kings and well...

I am sorry, but Westeros just isn't ready for a different form of government. IIRC the Swiss were the only country IRL other than the city states that managed to stably exist without the monarchy before the industrial revolution. And they were massively favored by their georgraphy and geo-politics of surrounding areas.

Westeros is very far from industrial revolution indeed, with it's much lower density of town and cities than Europe at comparable stage IRL.

But will it be the same monarchy? Not IMHO. The conditions created by invasion of the Others may closely mirror those that followed Black Death in Europe IRL. Something like Magna Carta and parlament would be plausible.

There is overwhelming support for Targaryens rulers among the readership, and I don't understand why.

Because Targaryens actually brought progress to Westeros? And in the person of Dany are likely to bring more? Maybe enough to kindle their version of Renaissance. Not the kind of progress you like, perhaps, but still, it is our beloved Starks who are force of the "old regime" and restoration of the kingship of the North would be a true regression.

that society does not stagnate 8000 years doing nothing.

Well, AFFC suggests that the 8 millenia are a massive exaggeration along the lines of practiced by many RL cultures. And well, invention of iron-working gets pushed back ever further in the past IRL. I have seen dates as early as about 16th century BC. What did _we_ do for 3K years? And most of societies outside Europe would have continued doing it too, if left to their own devices. The spark in Europe that changed our world was very likely a huge fluke.

I have to say that this discussion reminds me of the old Soviet habit of sticking a revolutionary ending into all possible classical (fairy) tales and theater plays including Macbeth and Hamleth.

[kuroishi]

(EDIT : I'm answering GendlyAi, sorry.)

I get your point, and it's a fair one (for the report, my previous point was not really "it's only fantasy", but "it's the author's world and you have to play by his rules").

But then, I'm not really sure I'll agree with the whole fantasy authors should take responsability thing. Of course they can do it if they want, and once again I'd be delighted to read such a trope-subverting book. And I would be one of the last to criticize a book underlined with left-wing ideas of equality and equity.

But I really don't think that it's a mandatory thing and that fantasy author that stay within the traditional boundaries of the genre are wrong to do it. Sometimes, one just wants to tell the best story he can, and if for that story he prefers to have very special individuals and families as heroes, well that's his call.

I don't believe that every story should have to convey a set of ideas or take care of not communicating any ideas because it could influence some people.

Hell, I think that ASoIaF is good in part because GRRM is not trying to let his political or personal ideas of how the world should work interfer with his story. The better proof of that is that there are people of political background totally opposite to his on this forum.

On the other hand, I loved Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials more and Narnia less because of the messages and the point of view on the world these two series represented. But I'll defend the right of any author to write any story within the classical tropes of the genre.

Of course, if a fantasy series tried to pass off slavery, racism, homophobia or misogyny as something normal and acceptable, then I wouldn't accept it, because it would obviously pursue a social or political agenda.

Well, that's my point of view anyway, I understand perfectly well that some would rather see every artist take a stance, but that's a really big debate there. (one that I don't feel I could have in English :) )

[Tarapas Amran]

The problem is that some ideologies take "not-taking-a-stance" as taking a stance of the opposite. If that's your outline, one have to accept the axiom of that ideology just to have the debate and that's pretty harsh to demand from everyone that A) don't belive completly in the given ideology or B) Can't accept such a worldview. C) Certain ideologies sees everything as a dualistic struggle, were "positive" hate is the cornerstone of all progress and which without no change is possible. What one discuss is not the matter at hand but the ideology itself, which makes the cultural/literal discussion harder. Or so I think at least.

[Datepalm]

Of course, if a fantasy series tried to pass off slavery, racism, homophobia or misogyny as something normal and acceptable, then I wouldn't accept it, because it would obviously pursue a social or political agenda.

But the divine right of kings you view as an apolitical issue?

Granted, it might not be an obviously hugely pressing one for most contemporary westerners, but the issues it alludes to wrt tyranny, democracy, equality, class and reaction are still quite relevant.

Fantasy is rife with misogyny too, but its justified under it being "that kind of world". And alternatively, no one is complaining about the historical inaccuracy of medievalish worlds filled with women soldiers/warriors/mercenaries.

[Errant Bard]

How is showing someone doing the same thing with their life without chage in any way a story you would want to read?

Wasn't he saying that he just wanted some hero that was no hidden heir and who sometimes failed, even if he still won in the end?

Tough to honestly depict a victorious revolution sympatethically, as in most cases it involves and is followed by hair-raising atrocities and power-grabbing by some of its heroes and extermination of the others. I mean, sure, French Revolution was massively romanticized in the last 2 centuries, but seen objectively... it doesn't lend itself to a largely positive outcome that seems to be expected from a fantasy book. Now, for a tragedy...

The problem being that what heroes do as they are right now is also heavily (very heavily) romanticized. You won't make me believe that what, say, Rand does would not end up with a carnage worse than French revolution's worth if it could happen in reality. Given that, I don't see why we have to only read one romanticized story about how the hidden heir with superpowers takes the throne of his parents/ancestors and heals the land and not about how the charismatic guy with no special blood grows up to be the leader of the resistance, founds the republic, and helps healing the land with his organisation.

This being said, when I talked of revolutions... I mentioned the Long Price before, and I would say Otah is a revolutionary. It doesn't have to be drastic or bloody, it just has to move forward, and I mean really move, not just cosmetic like "we call our horses trains now, all hail the king of the multi-millenia empire". And the series wasn't even a tragedy.

Not true. Even in LOTR a lot changes. Elves leave, magic fades, other intelligent races decline and the Age of Men begins. Restoration of Gondorian kingship and immediately following period of prosperity is just the last flash of departing epoque.

In WOT, a lot of changes are clearly incoming as the society seems to be moving towards industrial revolution.

LOTR, in many respects, is above my criticism. Contrary to vanilla Fantasy à la Eddings, Brooke or what have you, Middle Earth is well crafted and carries a great sense of evolution, and the hidden heir, even if he is great, has to work hard and wait a lot in order to pretty much only marry the girl he likes and die in a failing kingdom, watching the world go past him. Time doesn't go back with Tolkien.

WoT is cool too in that respect, but in some way, it does impress the idea that there is no real change possible with the wheel and the pattern. Time does go back, people are special because they have special souls, and all that crock.

Either way I said it was the assumption, the will of the reader, the trope, not what always happened.

I am sorry, but Westeros just isn't ready for a different form of government.

Why isn't it? Because it was written like that. Is that a defense against the criticism that Fantasy writers tend to create societies that they won't make change?

But will it be the same monarchy? Not IMHO. The conditions created by invasion of the Others may closely mirror those that followed Black Death in Europe IRL. Something like Magna Carta and parlament would be plausible.

I sincerely hope so. After all other countries around already have what basically amounts to renaissance governments (or even 17th/18th century western ones), no roman or chinese equivalent though, no art anywhere, and religious/ideological organisations are very subdued.

Because Targaryens were actually brought progress to Westeros? And in the person of Dany are likely to bring more?

What progress? And what exactly are they the only ones to be able to do? I just can't see the logic. It's like wishing for a divine right monarch, but a Napoleon is not good because he's not a Bourbon. (Oh, yeah, the Bourbon brought progress to Europe, similarly, on the whole)

We're talking of reader's wishes here, and they know very well that anyone could bring the "progress" you say Dany or Jon bring. Littlefinger himself would bring more societal change than the daughter of the king restoring her family "rights". The author just has to have the balls to write it, as it's definitely possible.

Well, AFFC suggests that the 8 millenia are a massive exaggeration along the lines of practiced by many RL cultures. And well, invention of iron-working gets pushed back ever further in the past IRL. I have seen dates as early as about 16th century BC. What did _we_ do for 3K years?

We changed, and that wasn't brought about by teenager genius messiahs. Change isn't only technological advance.

I have to say that this discussion reminds me of the old Soviet habit of sticking a revolutionary ending into all possible classical (fairy) tales and theater plays including Macbeth and Hamleth.

Why does it have to be one way or another and not a bit of each?

[jurble]

People want a Targ restoration because dragons are awesome. If Hot Pie had a dragon, I'd want Hot Pie for King.

[kuroishi]

But the divine right of kings you view as an apolitical issue?

Granted, it might not be an obviously hugely pressing one for most contemporary westerners, but the issues it alludes to wrt tyranny, democracy, equality, class and reaction are still quite relevant.

Fantasy is rife with misogyny too, but its justified under it being "that kind of world". And alternatively, no one is complaining about the historical inaccuracy of medievalish worlds filled with women soldiers/warriors/mercenaries.

I do not see it as an apolitical issue, but as something that has been part of fantasy stories for as long as they have existed (just look at the greek or norse mythologies) and therefore belongs in it like magical swords (on a side note, does the presence of "good" weapons in fantasy strikes anyone as being a pro-gun stance that shouldn't be enforced by sensitive authors ?), mythical creatures etc.. It is an element of the story. That is not the case for racism or homophobia, which are things that would obviously come from the author's own point of view.

Granted, my case is lighter on misogyny :). The "Damsel in distress" case could be seen as a trope in fantasy, and it's always existed in it too. But I still feel that there is a difference in nature between these two elements.

The Monarchy thing has at its roots a magical composant, that should protect it from being a direct allusion to Real Life tyranny (and there I disagree with you), whereas the "Damsel in distress / women need men to save them because they can't do a damn thing by themselves" thing is at the same time more direct and more insidious. More direct because it can be directly applied to real life, more insidious because being it can't really thrown out with all the "not real, only applicable to fantasy itself" things.

Am I being clear ? I guess not. :unsure:

I'll agree that this point is arguable, but I still believe that there's a difference at the core of these ideas and I just hope that someone will back me up on this and express it in a better way !

And that person won't be me, 'cause I should be sleeping now...

[GenlyAi]

(EDIT : I'm answering GendlyAi, sorry.)

I get your point, and it's a fair one (for the report, my previous point was not really "it's only fantasy", but "it's the author's world and you have to play by his rules").

But then, I'm not really sure I'll agree with the whole fantasy authors should take responsability thing. Of course they can do it if they want, and once again I'd be delighted to read such a trope-subverting book. And I would be one of the last to criticize a book underlined with left-wing ideas of equality and equity.

But I really don't think that it's a mandatory thing and that fantasy author that stay within the traditional boundaries of the genre are wrong to do it. Sometimes, one just wants to tell the best story he can, and if for that story he prefers to have very special individuals and families as heroes, well that's his call.

I don't believe that every story should have to convey a set of ideas or take care of not communicating any ideas because it could influence some people.

[...]

Well, that's my point of view anyway, I understand perfectly well that some would rather see every artist take a stance, but that's a really big debate there. (one that I don't feel I could have in English :) )

Yeah, I think we're coming from the same place in terms of whether all authors should have to "take a stand". Definitely not. I'd just like to see it done a little more frequently. The thing is, though, if just that element were just left out, most of these stories could remain pretty much the same. So to me it reads as taking a stand when they leave it in.

And let me ask this: if there's a farmboy who's going to save the world and become the king, is the story more exciting if God comes down at the beginning and tells the reader he'll do it because it's his right, or if he has to use his own skills and wits to get there? In ASOIAF, where "anyone can die" because "Martin will do anything", do we really think that Dany or John is going to die, at least before the two of them meet? Even in this "no plot armor" book, they have plot armor, because they're the hidden heirs. So I don't think we can defend this practice just because it makes the story better.