Class, Heroism and mobility

[Tsavong Lah]

Chataya brought this up Friday night at ValleyCon with George. I think the discussion we had only touched on a very few of the facets of the discussions going on here, but I still find that it was interesting.

Essentially we are working on a handful of questions simultaneously here. Why is nobility used so heavily as our POVs in fantasy even though they are a small fraction of the population? Why don't our heroes ever go back to what they were instead of ascending to nobility/power? Why is the power never used to transform society rather than just ascend it?

The first two are the relatively easy ones. As Chataya said earlier and George confirmed on Friday night as his opinion, it only makes sense that the people with power to begin with are going to be more interesting. A serf has little to no time beyond what it takes simply for him/her to survive. There isn't the opportunity for intrigue or the point of view for the decisions that really make a difference. And once you've improved your lot in life, from that of barely surviving till the next spring comes to a life of security (at least in the sense of knowing you'll be fed, clothed, sheltered, etc.).

For the third part, I think it is important not to equate the ability to be the hero with the ability to change social institutions. Even small change is opposed vigorously by those on the top of a social system if it appears to in any way endanger the quality of their standing. And because they are already on top, they are the ones with the ability to actually influence that change. Even those on the bottom could, ostensibly, oppose change that would make their lives better. This happened in SoIaF after Dany freed the slave cities. Many of the slaves wished to return to being slaves because it was all they had ever known. It isn't easy to convince somebody that things will be better for them if they only give up the only way they've ever known to live. The ability to be "the hero" falls far short of the ability to change human nature.

In addition there is the issue that great social change has historically been brought about only when some great upheaval has made the previous system obsolete. Be it technological or political (a different kingdom conquers another and makes the second change to fit in with the conqueror's society) or through some other mechanism or necessity. Obviously I am not the first to state this in this debate, but it is important. And as also has been stated the existence of magic negates the need for technological advancement, severely limiting the ability for natural progress within a society.

Add to it that normally failings of a society are heaped upon the leader of the society and the model of society itself. It is a very difficult thing to admit that the way your people do something is wrong, even if it is obviously not good for you. Things could always just be better if somebody better was leading. If I were the hero, I'd think that perhaps I had the ability to be a better ruler and fix the problems. The role of lawgiver is one that has historically been taken up very rarely, and to expect it to manifest itself in the same person with these other amazing qualities that allow her or him to be the hero is stretching credulity on just how great a person can actually be without becoming a caricature.

[Jaak]

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.

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.

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.

We do hear from author that building of the Wall took millennia in fact.

One way of exaggeration may be inflating the actual numbers - like there was a debate whether Hoares arose 2000 or 4000 years ago.

But another is not noticing social changes.

Medieval, say, 13th century AD historians and singers had history going back 2500 years, to Trojan War and Moses. But when they talked in detail about the events 1000 or 2500 years ago, or depicted them in painting, they tried to depict life much as they knew it - knights, barons, etc.

The basics of social inequality, kings, wars and conquests was true 2500 years before, and the historians had preserved that. But the 13th century AD people did not necessarily realize how much the details had changed. A 13th century AD singer depicted the Trojan War very differently from a 7th century BC singer - and both were probably rather different from what actually happened in 12th century BC.

And while the medieval people at least knew the fact that Rome had been a republic before the emperors, how much did they understand and appreciate the politics of Roman republics? With no contemporary republics of their own?

Oh, and the most influential person in European history - in world history, probably - WAS a teenage hero. Brought up not as commoner, but as a rather minor noble. He was just 18 when his granduncle´s testament brought him out of obscurity, and just 19 when, in August 43 BC, he turned his legions on Rome. Was it luck, genius or hard work?

[Datepalm]

Even small change is opposed vigorously by those on the top of a social system if it appears to in any way endanger the quality of their standing. And because they are already on top, they are the ones with the ability to actually influence that change. Even those on the bottom could, ostensibly, oppose change that would make their lives better.

wow. I didn't know Marxism was legal in North Dakota.

[Krafus]

I will say again that what I criticized with Westeros was not that it wouldn't change, but that readers expected the old monarchy to come back and rule like before, just because they are the old kings and well... that's reason enough. There is overwhelming support for Targaryens rulers among the readership, and I don't understand why.

The Targaryens united Westeros, putting an end to the seemingly perpetual state of warfare between the Seven Kingdoms. That Westeros prospered under their rule cannot be denied; the kingdom's population is now much bigger than it was before the Conquest, as evidenced by the fact that the combined forces of the Kings of Reach and Rock at the Field of Fire numbered only 50k, a number the Lannisters can now field by themselves while the Reach can field about 100k.

And then there's the fact that so far the Targaryens' replacements have done a rather crappy job. Robert may not have plunged the realm into war after ascending the throne, but he did put the kingdom heavily into debt. And we all know about the Lannisters' misrule since Joffrey took the throne. So the Targaryens are arguably not ideal rulers, but they can seem to many readers to still be better than the alternatives.

[Jaak]

Chataya brought this up Friday night at ValleyCon with George. I think the discussion we had only touched on a very few of the facets of the discussions going on here, but I still find that it was interesting.

Essentially we are working on a handful of questions simultaneously here. Why is nobility used so heavily as our POVs in fantasy even though they are a small fraction of the population? Why don't our heroes ever go back to what they were instead of ascending to nobility/power? Why is the power never used to transform society rather than just ascend it?

The first two are the relatively easy ones. As Chataya said earlier and George confirmed on Friday night as his opinion, it only makes sense that the people with power to begin with are going to be more interesting. A serf has little to no time beyond what it takes simply for him/her to survive. There isn't the opportunity for intrigue or the point of view for the decisions that really make a difference.

And Martin does have commoner PoV´s, that never become anything different. Three of the prologue PoV-s - the ranger Will, the steward Chett and the acolyte Pate.

Good for giving exposition, but the heroes make better PoV-s, so since they do most of feats and important decisions, they make up most but not all PoVs. Maester Cressen and Merrett Frey are also non-heroes.

We do have commoners who rise in society. Davos, Bronn, Duncan. Bronn is not a PoV, Davos and Duncan are. Davos points out that while he is disdained as Onion Knight and illiterate, his sons are playing with the sons of old nobles and will be accepted as equals.

And once you've improved your lot in life, from that of barely surviving till the next spring comes to a life of security (at least in the sense of knowing you'll be fed, clothed, sheltered, etc.).

For the third part, I think it is important not to equate the ability to be the hero with the ability to change social institutions. Even small change is opposed vigorously by those on the top of a social system if it appears to in any way endanger the quality of their standing. And because they are already on top, they are the ones with the ability to actually influence that change. Even those on the bottom could, ostensibly, oppose change that would make their lives better. This happened in SoIaF after Dany freed the slave cities. Many of the slaves wished to return to being slaves because it was all they had ever known. It isn't easy to convince somebody that things will be better for them if they only give up the only way they've ever known to live. The ability to be "the hero" falls far short of the ability to change human nature.

In addition there is the issue that great social change has historically been brought about only when some great upheaval has made the previous system obsolete. Be it technological or political (a different kingdom conquers another and makes the second change to fit in with the conqueror's society) or through some other mechanism or necessity. Obviously I am not the first to state this in this debate, but it is important. And as also has been stated the existence of magic negates the need for technological advancement, severely limiting the ability for natural progress within a society.

Add to it that normally failings of a society are heaped upon the leader of the society and the model of society itself. It is a very difficult thing to admit that the way your people do something is wrong, even if it is obviously not good for you. Things could always just be better if somebody better was leading. If I were the hero, I'd think that perhaps I had the ability to be a better ruler and fix the problems. The role of lawgiver is one that has historically been taken up very rarely, and to expect it to manifest itself in the same person with these other amazing qualities that allow her or him to be the hero is stretching credulity on just how great a person can actually be without becoming a caricature.

It isn´t, quite. But there needs to be a perceived need for lawgiving.

Jaehaerys the Conciliator was a lawgiver. People accepted that something had changed (Targaryen Conquest, suppression of Faith Militant) and wanted things to change for the better rather than worse. Jaehaerys was in position to direct what exactly should change (e. g. abolition of jus primae noctis, New Gift...).

It would have been difficult for, say, Aerys II to change the arrangements if Jaehaerys I even if he thought Jaehaerys should have done better.

Yet perceived need is not sufficient for good lawgiving. Cersei had the opportunity and motive to restore the Faith Militant and trials by Faith, and we see how it worked out...

[sologdin]

element of the story

but it's not intrinsic or essential. uncritical monarchism and the divine right of kings as presented in fantasy literature are the results of a political decision masquerading as aesthetics, to wit: the rentention of such things without comment because of their alleged nonseverability from the generic conventions inherited from actual monarchists who wrote mythologies and faerie stories. the comment about this stuff need not be tendentious--a word to the wise should suffice.

perhaps the necessary and sufficient word is monarchy itself--a politics thoroughly discredited--or the invocation of any divine right of monarchs doctrine--also an idea whence the world has progressed. that's fairly debateable. but the question then becomes a determination of the decision to use monarchism and/or divine right doctrine as narrative device or a setting component or whatever in the first place--especially when presenting them as a necessary part of the eucatastrophe (i.e., the return of the king, say).

Marxism was legal in North Dakota

dude, it's not.

but commies always already function best in the avant-garde illicit underground. i.e., the revolution always arises from the drow.

[Max the Mostly Mediocre]

Wait, all this talk about revolutions and no one has mentioned Iron Council?

but commies always already function best in the avant-garde illicit underground. i.e., the revolution always arises from the drow.

Win.

[Datepalm]

Wait, all this talk about revolutions and no one has mentioned Iron Council?

Iron Council is explicitely political, and in the sense of this thread, not really that interesting. Its no surprise a self proclaimedly marxist author setting out to write a book about revolution is going to be reasonably progressive. The question is, why is the genre at large filled with these absurdly dated and opressive conventions. (By any modern standard, not merely a lefty one.)

but commies always already function best in the avant-garde illicit underground. i.e., the revolution always arises from the drow.

Lol. But. You'd think? here it comes back to the OP - even entire marginalized societies in fantasies are really just waiting for a better king.

Carol Berg's "Transformation" has enslavement and eradication of an entire people (it also reads exactly like slash fan fic, with a fetish for whippings. Not that thats necessarily a bad thing.) and the good ending is when a new, good, king lets the remaining handful stay alive in their hidden valley, not doing anything about all the rest of the slaves - and they seem to be quite happy with that. Though the hero is pretty working class originally (and then a slave and then a nobleman of sorts, but hes mostly a slave in the book.) unfortunately, he spends the entire book fawning over how incredibly amazing new-king-guy is. (ocassionaly while being whipped.)

Bah, I think we've arrived at nothing in this thread except that, gasp, many contemporary authors are incapable of writing outside a classist setting, contemporary capitalist ethic dolled up as fairytale monarchy, usually.

[KAH]

I'd prefer a humble scullery maid who goes off to be a hero and then comes back and leads a worker's revolution overthrowing the repressive class-system... :hat:

But yeah, the issue isn't quite that, the issue is that the correlation ends up being that hero=upper class. Which creates the negative reversal that if you're not upper-class you're not a hero, and thus, in the grand scheme of things, no good.

Well, as the thread already suggested in numerous posts, part of the problem is logistics. Choosing to be an active superhero entails some tough life choices even if you're rich...and adds yet another problem if you aren't.

Even though you are a superhero, you got to eat (unless you don't). Of the poor superheroes, you could largely divide them into two categories, Ordinary Joe Hero and the Martyr.

Spidey fits the first one, of course - almost always caught on the back foot, he tries to keep together work, relationships and being an active superhero all at the same time. Throw studying in there for good measure. It's a wonder he get's time to sleep at all.

He's trying to combine work and superhero stuff, but that's not easy - the best bet is his freelancing, and it just about gets him enough dough to get by. Making money of your abilities while also being a superhero is not easy, because of the need of staying incognito. Parker tried his hand at wrestling ("In whose name am I writing out this check, sir?"), and also tried being 'hero-for-hire' (Silver Sable, IIRC...it's been a while) and part of a hero group, which no doubt allows for generous stipends. Both of those ended shortly afterwards, I believe. Other than those, I imagine he would have to set up a dayjob scheme for himself - "Want something ridiculously heavy transported fast? Call 1-500-SPIDEY, and look into our Saturday Night Special price offer!". While some companies would like the publicity, the fact that Spidey is a target for some rather nasty baddies would make them think better of it before you can spell 'Collateral damage'.

The other category, well, for lack of a better representative, I'll suggest the Punisher as Martyr. This guy has more or less no life outside hunting down and killing criminals. As such, time is not an issue, and other resources are usually scavenged from the criminals he kills (largely drug money, weapons at times). He has few prospects outside what he is doing at the moment, any CV would have to be faked, IIRC he has a criminal record himself, and his best bet would seem to intercept a huge drug money transfer, and either just retire or set up some small business for himself, preferrably somewhere abroad where questions won't be asked. I won't even begin on his suitability for re-entering family life, with his traumas. Basically, a rather bleak and one-dimensional figure, but if he was politically motivated he's probably make an excellent revolutionary. :P

Of course, if you enter enough money into the equation (inherited, self-made, whatever) you can reduce the logistics problems. If you don't have to worry about whether Aunt May gets to eat, or whether you get to have a life, well, that gives you more leeway to do hero stuff.

Often it also helps you to make the most out of your abilities. Spidey is very much a local hero, dealin with stuff as it comes to his city. If you're rich, you often have the ability to be at place X to meet Supervillain Y and be back for lunch at the hacienda by your own steam. Of course, Spidey often gets out anyway, usually but not always by piggybacking (zapped to another dimension, sent to Berlin on work detail, etc), so I guess it's not that big a deal.

As for the staying in the upper-class rung - I don't know if that's necessarily always true, although for story purposes it may. If you're thinking of ending your superhero career, you may not want to be a scullery maid, but leadership and wealth need not enter into it either. I would think a lessening of responsibility might be appreciated. "Yes, I got this patch of land here, and I'm planting radishes. And yes, it's boring, dull work, but at the very least all that happens if I screw up is that I will be out of radishes, it's not the end of the FREAKING UNIVERSE!!!! *gibber* *foam*" I find this to more often be the case with secondary heroic characters, however, the Dormant Hero waiting to be brought out of retirement by some cataclysmic event.

[Maia]

Its no surprise a self proclaimedly marxist author setting out to write a book about revolution is going to be reasonably progressive. The question is, why is the genre at large filled with these absurdly dated and opressive conventions. (By any modern standard, not merely a lefty one.)

Because unlike Mieville vast majority of fantasy authors don't write in a setting in throes of industrialization? You can't have a revolution when a setting doesn't allow for it, but just for bloody and purposeless peasant's rebellions and religious wars - neither of which lend themselves to a positive ending that seems to be de rigeur in fantasy. I have to commend Iron Council for avoiding it, BTW. Not that Mieville went for the dismal truth, but at least he didn't graft a fake "feel good" ending onto it.

Monarchy is convenient for fantasy and space operas because it allows single individuals to wield a lot of power, yet either to start from the low rungs or to be young and inexperienced - both beloved tropes. Couple this with the penchant to go for huge, world or at least country-threatening threats and it is clear why monarchy is so convenient.

Now, if we could move back from the main protagonists necessarily being primary movers and shakers of the plot, then we'd have more leeway with political systems.

Not to mention that monarchy was the dominant government form for like 90% of human history. So, if you borrow from history, as fantasy and some SF does... well.

Other historical examples like Roman republic or Greek democracies actually allowed _less_ upward mobility to the highest levels of power than most of monarchies. That was the tragedy of Gaius Marius and the main reason why he had to dismantle so much of Republican Rome. And _he_ didn't start as a slave or a laborer.

[Happy Ent]

Bakker, again, is our New Hope.

The class system of the Empire is transformed by the new king, to the point of this becoming a plot-driving movement in Judging Eye. Kellhus’s erosion of class and caste is made utterly explicit already in the second book; this goes so far that we actually see him rewrite the law, and give a speech about meritocracy! It’s really ham-fisted. (Of course, we on this board are witness to the fact that Bakker isn’t nearly ham-fisted enough.)

Of course, the Anasurimbor is still a descendant of a king, and he’s still Promised. But Bakker does exactly what we are soliciting: the traditional bastard-to-king hero and his rags-to-riches queen actually have implemented a lot of changes, transforming the faux-Byzantine society into almost-Sweden. So much that those who are invested in the traditional class-based society rise up against the New Empire.

[Galactus]

Bakker, again, is our New Hope.

The class system of the Empire is transformed by the new king, to the point of this becoming a plot-driving movement in Judging Eye. Kellhus’s erosion of class and caste is made utterly explicit already in the second book; this goes so far that we actually see him rewrite the law, and give a speech about meritocracy! It’s really ham-fisted. (Of course, we on this board are witness to the fact that Bakker isn’t nearly ham-fisted enough.)

Of course, the Anasurimbor is still a descendant of a king, and he’s still Promised. But Bakker does exactly what we are soliciting: the traditional bastard-to-king hero and his rags-to-riches queen actually have implemented a lot of changes, transforming the faux-Byzantine society into almost-Sweden. So much that those who are invested in the traditional class-based society rise up against the New Empire.

If anything he *further extends* the issue: The message of the story (thus far at least) seems to be that change can only come from the outside (Or maybe even The Outside?) The issues aren't brought to a head from the internal contradictions of the systems itself, and internal critique, but by an "enlightened" outsider, someone who is not at all a part of the society he comes from.

[Happy Ent]

but by an "enlightened" outsider, someone who is not at all a part of the society he comes from.

Good point. But that’s a pretty narrow order, right? You want not only revolution, social mobility, modernism, abolishment of class and caste, you also want that revolution to follow the marxist narrative.

[Galactus]

Good point. But that’s a pretty narrow order, right? You want not only revolution, social mobility, modernism, abolishment of class and caste, you also want that revolution to follow the marxist narrative.

Not really, I would also not mind more tragic stories (where our hero might succeed but not get his reward).

[Datepalm]

Good point. But that’s a pretty narrow order, right? You want not only revolution, social mobility, modernism, abolishment of class and caste, you also want that revolution to follow the marxist narrative.

But...It wouldn't make any historically realistic sense any other way. :leaving:

Forget Marx (hah!) for a second then - the underlying principle is simply "The idea that some people are inherently better than some other people, and social order reflecting this, is wrong." So ubermensch elitist outsiders alone being capable of making things better for the antlike common folk has the enviable 2-for-1 of being both elitist and bolshevik. Nice.

I should probably point out I remeber tdtcb very poorly, and that I really hated it.

Not really, I would also not mind more tragic stories (where our hero might succeed but not get his reward).

Nooooo! Class mobility is not a reward! Not becoming rich != tragedy!

[Marcelo Rebelo Firqoralas]

Good point. But that’s a pretty narrow order, right? You want not only revolution, social mobility, modernism, abolishment of class and caste, you also want that revolution to follow the marxist narrative.

Though going straight from a basically medieval society to a modern egalitarian one isn't really in line with a marxist view of history, is it? In that case you would have to go through an equally oppressive capitalist and imperialist phase first. Having a walking deus ex machina do it seems like the only possible handwave.

[Galactus]

Class mobility is not a reward! Not becoming rich != tragedy!

I should have put "reward" in quotation marks. Because that was actually the entire point of the thread.

[Datepalm]

I should have put "reward" in quotation marks. Because that was actually the entire point of the thread.

Thats why I wondered if you'd gone and sold out on us*.

Though going straight from a basically medieval society to a modern egalitarian one isn't really in line with a marxist view of history, is it? In that case you would have to go through an equally oppressive capitalist and imperialist phase first. Having a walking deus ex machina do it seems like the only possible handwave.

This thread is a bit of a different question from the perennial "fantasy=reactionary?" debate though. The question isn't whether the author presents an egalitarian society - its whether he presents those values in the text s/he's writing.

To use sexism as an example again - Westeros is extremely sexist. To make a medievalish society anything else would harm the realism and the type of story GRRM wants to tell - but despite this it still features women as equally important as men to the reader, gives them agency and makes them the heroines of their own stories and by and large decries the situation where women are second class citizens, etc, - without this ever coming out of the mouth of any of the characters.

But finding a similar situation regarding class is much rarer. Why not have the hero, after all is said and done, settle down, with the loe of his life and his newfound self awareness, in a nice small town someplace and, unalienated from his labour, make exquisite handcrafted furniture, or brew different flavours of cider or work as a midwife or something, rather than get money/the kingdom**.

Basically, If poor people were women, they'd usually either be extremely minor characters, die, or turn into men by the end of the book. After all, why would they want to stay women?

*Like, all three and a half of us.

**especially since they've been claiming to want that all along.

[Artas]

I couldn't let this pass...

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.

No, you don't recall correctly.

The Dutch Republic, 1581-1795

The republic was a confederation of seven provinces, which had their own governments and were very independent, and a number of so-called Generality Lands. These latter were governed directly by the States-General (Staten-Generaal in Dutch), the federal government. The States-General were seated in The Hague and consisted of representatives of each of the seven provinces.

[Bellis]

But finding a similar situation regarding class is much rarer. Why not have the hero, after all is said and done, settle down, with the loe of his life and his newfound self awareness, in a nice small town someplace and, unalienated from his labour, make exquisite handcrafted furniture, or brew different flavours of cider or work as a midwife or something, rather than get money/the kingdom**.

To be fair, there are a number of readers who would much prefer Jon choosing to live out his days on the Wall. I for one will be throwing the book against the wall if he does end up ascending the throne.