The Revolution will be Appropriated

[Grogsmash]

I think Enders Game is an even better example, becuase it dosen't have speeches at all, but listen to most kids who've read discuss it - its has shaped, at least a little, their perception of the nature of the world and their place in it.

I have heard this complaint(compliment?) of Ender's Game quite a bit and I am not sure I understand the point. What worldview do you think Ender's Game is advocating?

[Datepalm]

But weren't all of them started by elitist groups? I have something of a hard time reconciling the image of Simone de Beauvoir hanging around with her bourgeois gang (Sartres, Vian...) in the Café de Flore and "mass ideology".

The actual widespread change in womens lives came about through masses and masses of women being willing to live their lives differently though. I'm not trying to make generalizations and pretend that I want to burn the intellectuals, and obviously theres a kind of two sides of the same coin push-pull between stuff coming up (say, widespread acceptance of gays in society) and stuff being handed down (legalization of gay marriage) but actual widespread change for the better, in the sense of the conditions of the lives of entire populations, has to also involve the changed conciousness of entire populations.

/threadjack.

Enders Game - The world view of crazy people. Ok, no, I'd say that its a kind of softball libertarianism, if I had to peg a political angle to it, which I don't think is the right way to look at it, but I think it does say that being smart and special puts you outside the rules, that if you feel wronged you can't possibly be wronging someone else, that feeling responsible for things done unto others is an unfair manipulation, off the top of my head. (Would you believe its been a few years since i've read it?)

[Lummel]

So Datepalm is it fair to suum up that you are annoyed at writers who make use of socialism merely as a marker to show certain characters as being 'cool' and not reflecting the mass nature of a socialist movement? What with your other wish for a fantasy novel with peasant s striving for a fair and balnced currency I really think you need to do a Disreali and start writing the books you want to read.

There are bound to be books reflecting a truer picture of what it's like within a movement for social justice but possibly not within fantasy. Afterall Unicorns are all upholders of the divine right of kings and dragons are just a bunch of scaly plutocrats.

[Datepalm]

So Datepalm is it fair to suum up that you are annoyed at writers who make use of socialism merely as a marker to show certain characters as being 'cool' and not reflecting the mass nature of a socialist movement? What with your other wish for a fantasy novel with peasant s striving for a fair and balnced currency I really think you need to do a Disreali and start writing the books you want to read.

Lol, probably. But annoyance aside, I find the uses and misuses of politics in fiction a really interesting thing to discuss. :dunno: I think its less about accurately showing mass movements, becuase, really, its probably not hugely interesting. ("Then Jaxia mounted her red dragon, flew south to Industrialton, and spent 14 months having really long conversations with thousands of people. She even had a slideshow. And leaflets!") but as merely using it as a sort of quircky character trait or an exotic background. Best case scenario, its kind of an eyeroll, worst case, its gratingly annoying. Its like reading a book where the author insists that they really appreciate, say, Native American culture, and then have their heroes meet a bunch of Indians who do nothing but speak sagely of the connection with nature and wear lots of feathers.

[mormont]

DP: I'm curious - which MacLeod books have you read?

[Mentat]

Banks does spend a lot of time poking holes in his own socialist utopia, but its more from the angle of the utopia than the socialism. ("oh, woe, our lives are effortless. Do they therefore have meaning.? Angst.")

I have a hard time seeing the Culture as either socialist or communist (if that's what you're refering to, otherwise please disregard this whole post).

It's a society (probably not the right word for it...) where there is no scarcity whatsoever, to the point that anyone can have anything they like, any job or occupation is little more than a hobby (with the possible exception of Contact and Special Circumstances), and there are no differences in class or status. The cause isn't political, though, but technological. The means of production aren't owned by the workers or have been centralized by a government or anything. There's just so much of everything it has ceased to be an issue.

Moreover, all important decisions are made by IAs. You could say it's a plutocracy or technocracy, I guess. Even in instances where human opinion or intervention becomes important, it's easy to see that IAs are so vastly superior intellectually that they can manipulate humans to do anything they want and still have them think it was their idea (most all Culture novels have an example of this).

While humans have an endless material wealth and sci-fi commodities such as drug glands or recreational sex-changes they have completely lost control of their collective destiny. They have sold themselves out. They're a political dead-end.

[MinDonner]

...there are no differences in class or status.

At the risk of going off at a tangent, isn't this the point of socialism or communism? The workers rising up waving hammers is just a means to an end, and if this same end is achieved by using technological rather than political means, is it somehow less valid?

[Datepalm]

While humans have an endless material wealth and sci-fi commodities such as drug glands or recreational sex-changes they have completely lost control of their collective destiny. They have sold themselves out. They're a political dead-end.

Is this a bad thing?

Mormont - I've read The first two Engines of Light books and Newtons Wake. It was quite a while ago, but I remember sort of...not loving them. Newtons wake in particular I basically really enjoyed, (the funny communist bits too) until the detour into sitting around with eccentrics in cafes. I don't even remember if anyone had a hammer and sickle up on the wall, really, but I got the same vibe - this here is the progressive, radical, interesting element. The cool people.

[john]

I can't see how Ken Macleod or China Mieville (both former or current trotskyist activists) could be guilty of appropriating the commie sensibility. Surely they're entitled to it, if anyone is.

But really, I think quirky character traits and cool backgrounds are inescapable in fiction, whether it's politics or sword techniques. The problem is a product of fiction rather than a failure to illustrate the true value of a phenomenon. Or, at least, that the author (quite sensibly) chooses to lean towards the former rather than the latter.

re the Culture,

I think the whole point of that world is that they've moved beyond most forms of political analysis. They do whatever they want because they can, in response to idle whims or hideously complicated calculations rather than social or ideological pressures.

[Galactus]

It's a society (probably not the right word for it...) where there is no scarcity whatsoever, to the point that anyone can have anything they like, any job or occupation is little more than a hobby (with the possible exception of Contact and Special Circumstances), and there are no differences in class or status. The cause isn't political, though, but technological. The means of production aren't owned by the workers or have been centralized by a government or anything. There's just so much of everything it has ceased to be an issue.

That pretty much IS socialism, as Marx envisioned it. The idea was basically that productive forces are eventually going to become so productive that the capitalist mode of production becomes an impediment: Then we get a Revolution, and after that, no classes, since there's no scarcity. And rather than being forced into selling your labor to survive you can work for other reasons (like you find it meaningful, or just fun) if you need to work at all.

[Mentat]

At the risk of going off at a tangent, isn't this the point of socialism or communism? The workers rising up waving hammers is just a means to an end, and if this same end is achieved by using technological rather than political means, is it somehow less valid?

More valid, if anything, but not an act of policy, rather a by-product of humanity's irrelevant status in a society so technologically advanced. Both the words communism and socialism would be meaningless within the Culture, as would capitalism, for sure.

Is this a bad thing?

An extremely philosophical question, involving issues such as happiness and freedom. Similar, I guess, to 'Would you prefer to live in a wealthy state ruled by a benevolent dictator or in an impoverished and ineffective democracy?'. As such, possibly a matter of preference.

re the Culture,

I think the whole point of that world is that they've moved beyond most forms of political analysis. They do whatever they want because they can, in response to idle whims or hideously complicated calculations rather than social or ideological pressures.

Exactly

That pretty much IS socialism, as Marx envisioned it. The idea was basically that productive forces are eventually going to become so productive that the capitalist mode of production becomes an impediment: Then we get a Revolution, and after that, no classes, since there's no scarcity. And rather than being forced into selling your labor to survive you can work for other reasons (like you find it meaningful, or just fun) if you need to work at all.

Surely socialism is rooted in politics, or at the very least economical politics, and not merely a discussion on productive efficiency. Note that the mode of production is irrelevant to the Culture (and I could see it arising from a capitalist society through continual technological advances). There's also no mention of a revolution (and if there was one a technological revolution lead by elite scientists seems much more likely than a social revolution of the working class).

[Lyanna Stark]

I'm currently as far as the bit where they're on the run and going to meet various mysterious friends and allies. Some are right out commies (I thought the unionizing animals was twee beyond all belief) but others just kind of...have that aesthetic, is the best way I can describe it.

Ah, I think I can see what you mean. And LOL tweet, yes they sort of were, weren't they?

Especially in the latter part with meetings in slightly seedy pubs and everything, that could definitely be a bit of commie cool. Apart from that though, it felt in Kraken, the striking animals and the weirdo bikers were more inserted as a plot device than a commie cool device (if you get my drift). Overall it felt less commie motivated and more as a Gaimanesque romp.

I can agree that apart from the main character, his friends were all artsy and "cool", albeit not exactlty in the commie sense, but close enough.

I love Mieville's writing more than the next two or three people here on the board, but it would be interesting to see him try his hand at something without inserting stuff about workers' rights or artsy people meeting other artsy people. :P

[delete this account pls]

I thought the whole familiars unionising in Kraken was mainly played for laughs, myself, and was probably deliberately twee. Thats part of why I really liked Kraken, the sheer ammount of funny, or clever, or imaginative ideas Mieville just threw into it. Kraken was like Mieville times ten.

[Lyanna Stark]

Oh absolutely. His references to Star Trek and all sorts of TV shows, comics, books, music etc. were just hilarious. :) I actually squeed FOR REAL when he referenced Lexx. Such an underappreciated series.

And the i-Pod amulet made me giggle. Especially the music choice. :P

[Datepalm]

I can't see how Ken Macleod or China Mieville (both former or current trotskyist activists) could be guilty of appropriating the commie sensibility. Surely they're entitled to it, if anyone is.

I know! Right! Its like "who am I to question China Meivilles commie credentials" sometimes, but, hey, thats an egalitarian movement for you.

But more relevantly to the point, i'm a reader and I am annoyed - now I need to figure out what about this writing is annoying me. Maybe i'm jealous. Maybe i'm secretly not a commie at all and i've never admitted it to myself. Maybe its an in-commie ideological split: Its not the writing but the doctrine thats annoying me...but for various reasons I tend to discount those, and the ideology of the storytelling clashing with the ideology its proffesing works. Its also interesting in general to hear other peoples thoughts on, hence, thread.

Especially in the latter part with meetings in slightly seedy pubs and everything, that could definitely be a bit of commie cool. Apart from that though, it felt in Kraken, the striking animals and the weirdo bikers were more inserted as a plot device than a commie cool device (if you get my drift). Overall it felt less commie motivated and more as a Gaimanesque romp.

I've still got half the book to go, (really slowly. This might go down as my least favorite Meiville book.) but I thought those were the weaker parts. So far Billys existence as museum guide and the police unit and and Danes open religeous fundamentalism (and struggles therein) are by far the most compelling bits of the story. The background 'ooh, cool secret underground/supernatural London' feels a bit, well, background. I mean, theres some neat imagery and ideas, but overall its not really captivating in the same way New Crobuzon was in PSS. I wish he'd let his main characters breathe a bit rather than drowning them in a hodgepodge of lengthy stories from the eccentrosphere.

I love Mieville's writing more than the next two or three people here on the board, but it would be interesting to see him try his hand at something without inserting stuff about workers' rights or artsy people meeting other artsy people. :P

I loved the City and the City, which has very little of that, (and then I thought it was almost mocking, albeit gently) but nevertheless I thought was the most deeply - and interestingly - political of Meivilles books that i've read.

[Eyelesbarrow]

Datepalm --

This thread reminded me of my lit classes in college. One class was about revolutionary writings. I live in the country where a rebel group of Marxist-Maoist-Leninist persuasion still operates in the regions for about 50 years now, despite the State's interventions (hard/military or otherwise). It's one of the longest communist revolutionary movements existing and they have a fairly active underground literary scene (if you know where to look).

That class was enlightening in so far as it gave me a glimpse of how the revolution is presented by mainstream and underground writers. It is hard to pull off a "correct" ideological stance. Even those ones written by the cadres can be guilty of stereotyping the revolution and romanticizing it, much like the mainstream writers. Or even if they got the whole revolution right, their portrayal, say, of women, is still patriarchal.

ETA: I haven't read Mieville's books mentioned here. The first book I read by him was King Rat and I thought the writing was subpar. Plus, he dissed My Bloody Valentine there. Boo.

[mormont]

Mormont - I've read The first two Engines of Light books and Newtons Wake. It was quite a while ago, but I remember sort of...not loving them. Newtons wake in particular I basically really enjoyed, (the funny communist bits too) until the detour into sitting around with eccentrics in cafes. I don't even remember if anyone had a hammer and sickle up on the wall, really, but I got the same vibe - this here is the progressive, radical, interesting element. The cool people.

I think you're right about that being the least enjoyable aspect of Newton's Wake, which is a really clever and funny book mostly, but not perhaps MacLeod's absolute best.

I do recall there being some popular socialist action and mobilisation by ordinary working people in the second book of Engines of Light, which sounds as if it's more of the sort of thing you're looking for, but I think there may be a paradigmatic problem here: fiction, especially Western genre fiction, is very individualistic. It does tend to focus on the exceptional actions of exceptional characters in exceptional times. And by and large, this seems to be what readers want to read, as well as what writers want to write. The stories of heroes and villains, rather than the history of social movements. You're probably right, though, that this means the inclusion of socialist revolutionary rhetoric by those aforementioned protagonists produces a somewhat jarring contrast.

[Galactus]

I think you're right about that being the least enjoyable aspect of Newton's Wake, which is a really clever and funny book mostly, but not perhaps MacLeod's absolute best.

I do recall there being some popular socialist action and mobilisation by ordinary working people in the second book of Engines of Light, which sounds as if it's more of the sort of thing you're looking for, but I think there may be a paradigmatic problem here: fiction, especially Western genre fiction, is very individualistic. It does tend to focus on the exceptional actions of exceptional characters in exceptional times. And by and large, this seems to be what readers want to read, as well as what writers want to write. The stories of heroes and villains, rather than the history of social movements. You're probably right, though, that this means the inclusion of socialist revolutionary rhetoric by those aforementioned protagonists produces a somewhat jarring contrast.

Which is kind of funny, I'd think SF would be the genré that *the least* needs dynamic characters.

I mean, Asimov's stories are some of the best SF written, and he barely *has* characters. (they're flatter than cardboard most of the time) and he's all about the inevitable effects of historical forces.

[john]

But more relevantly to the point, i'm a reader and I am annoyed - now I need to figure out what about this writing is annoying me. Maybe i'm jealous. Maybe i'm secretly not a commie at all and i've never admitted it to myself. Maybe its an in-commie ideological split: Its not the writing but the doctrine thats annoying me...but for various reasons I tend to discount those, and the ideology of the storytelling clashing with the ideology its proffesing works. Its also interesting in general to hear other peoples thoughts on, hence, thread.

Maybe you need to spend more time in smoky dungeon cafes, telling cool stories. Don't begrudge all the fun stuff about socialism. Otherwise it's just behaving like a decent human being and sharing your stuff and where's the joy in that?

But style over substance is a problem in a lot of media and yeah, Mieville is often guilty of it although i find it usually dilutes the plot of the novel rather than whatever point he's trying to make.

Which is kind of funny, I'd think SF would be the genré that *the least* needs dynamic characters.

I mean, Asimov's stories are some of the best SF written, and he barely *has* characters. (they're flatter than cardboard most of the time) and he's all about the inevitable effects of historical forces.

Good point. You'd think SF should be able to evoke a response by drawing on broad themes rather than the kind of thing DP's talking about. Some of Borges' short stories don't bother with any kind of narrative device and read more like the outline to a short story than the story itself. But it's still cool just to read the concept he came up with. It doesn't seem to happen much anymore.

[Datepalm]

The stories of heroes and villains, rather than the history of social movements

Maybe you need to spend more time in smoky dungeon cafes, telling cool stories. Don't begrudge all the fun stuff about socialism.

Well, I know those smoky cafe people, and lets face it, I mostly can't stand them. Cool stories are fine and all, but they're also essentially self serving. You don't get to decide on an agenda and the pursue it becuase you like it while ignoring actual peoples needs, becuase socialism isn't, contrary to popular opinion, about the faceless masses, but about the fact that each member of the mass has a face and is an individual. Thats why all those lives being wasted in poverty and lack of opportunity is a tragedy, not becuase we think that doing things in lockstep is really lots of fun.

Come to think of it, my favorite commie books are pretty much character studies, but they're character studies that acknowledge that people are shaped by their enviorment and draw attention to what a destructive enviorment can do to a person. (hence, the need to change the enviorment. Hence, the revolution)

My problem with the cafe dwelling beret weaters that their coolness comes from how uninfluenced by their enviorment they are (everybody else is a brainwashed capitalist, but they're above all that, liberating the masses or drinking organic tea) which is just un-socialist, really. Which is ok, since I don't mostly read fiction for ideological fodder - I like reading about the cool eccentric rebels (henceforth CER's) as much as anyone - but its at least a bit escapist, and so annoys me when instead of being the CER's because they're genetically engineered space pirate ninjas on the run after robbing the space empires treasury and kidnapping the heir, they're the CER's because they're socialists trying to create an egalitarian society. Its like the literary version of wearing a really expensive Che Guevara shirt.

:tantrum:

:commie: