alien and ahistorical moralities

[Liadin]

Privileged? Seriously?

White Male Privileged now includes reading certain kinds of books?

Fucking christ.... :rolleyes:

I can't speak for Kat, but what I was referring to was the complaining that not enough books portray wife-beaters without using the domestic abuse to impugn their character in any way, and so on. You can read whatever you want, but saying that you want to see more of this as an "intellectual exercise".... yeah, kinda reeks of privilege.

[Shryke]

I can't speak for Kat, but what I was referring to was the complaining that not enough books portray wife-beaters without using the domestic abuse to impugn their character in any way, and so on. You can read whatever you want, but saying that you want to see more of this as an "intellectual exercise".... yeah, kinda reeks of privilege.

How does it "reek of privilege"?

Does reading a book about a place ruled by a dictator now reek of 1st World Democracy privilege? Does reading about war now reek of not getting killed in a civil war in Africa privilege?

It's a bullshit argument.

[Maithanet]

To bring things back to the original topic, I feel like the faeries in Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell have a very different morality system. I still have a couple hundred pages to go, but the faeries are more interesting than their human counterparts, and it is virtually impossible to figure out what it is they want and why they think certain things are and are not acceptable.

[Liadin]

How does it "reek of privilege"?

Does reading a book about a place ruled by a dictator now reek of 1st World Democracy privilege? Does reading about war now reek of not getting killed in a civil war in Africa privilege?

It's a bullshit argument.

You missed my point entirely, which was that it isn't about reading the books. It's about getting on forums and complaining that heroes don't beat their wives enough. Clear now?

[Shryke]

You missed my point entirely, which was that it isn't about reading the books. It's about getting on forums and complaining that heroes don't beat their wives enough. Clear now?

So if I complain that I want to read more books about people fighting in wars, THEN I reek of privilege?

[Mentat]

I'm not going to say "don't write about it ever". But since books don't come with trigger warnings on the cover, I would never feel like it was my place to say that I want to see more realistically portrayed, everyday violence, of the sort that people today still experience and still get fucked up by. As koolkat and Shryke mentioned, this is not merely a historical occurrence, and wanting to read about it more just for historical realism is a problematic POV if one doesn't check their privilege.

There's no good reason not to have a rating system for books just as we have for movies, videogames and music. That way people who are sensitive about certain subjects would be forewarned. There are certain things I don't enjoy, and might not want to read about if described in an excessively gratuituous way... but ultimately if SFF is literature and literature is art that means everything goes.

I also think the importance of historical accuracy in SFF is minimal. A setting only has to be consistent with itself, and historical accuracy only comes into play when you borrow stuff directly from history and don't bother to change it or adapt it at all. I wouldn't say the same about historical novels, though (like Gone with the wind, though I haven't read that so I can't really comment too much...).

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

You missed my point entirely, which was that it isn't about reading the books. It's about getting on forums and complaining that heroes don't beat their wives enough. Clear now?

That appears, however, to be a misconstruction of the arguments in this thread.

[Liadin]

So if I complain that I want to read more books about people fighting in wars, THEN I reek of privilege?

Well, to some extent I think all of us who haven't personally experienced war*, and in particular haven't been civilians in combat zones, are privileged in comparison with those who have been in these situations. (The norm throughout much of human history was to have quite a bit of this sort of violence, so in the modern western world we're lucky.) We are also privileged in comparison with the 1 billion or so people who live on $2 a day or less in third world countries. We usually forget about these people, which maybe we shouldn't, but unless we're actually interacting with them I don't know that we need to be super cognizant of our privilege. I wouldn't talk about my enjoyment of novels involving war to an Afghan refugee, but I see no problem talking about it on an Internet message board devoted to a violent series of fantasy novels.

But, the discussion was about morality and particularly wrt protagonists, and if you were to post something like, "I think more main characters in fantasy novels should commit war crimes without the narrative presenting them as bad people or their actions as wrong," then yeah, I do think that would be problematic. There is a difference there; including war in your novel isn't the same as condoning war crimes in it, any more than writing about a sexist society means you think that setup is ideal. Happy Ent said specifically that he thinks more "heroes" should beat their wives without it being considered wrong or the husbands bad people, and yes, that reeks of privilege. So I'm not taking issue with what someone wants to include in a book, but what someone wants to see presented as acceptable behavior.

* And for all I know you have been in a war, in which case you tell me if you have privilege.

[Marcelo Rebelo Firqoralas]

But, the discussion was about morality and particularly wrt protagonists, and if you were to post something like, "I think more main characters in fantasy novels should commit war crimes without the narrative presenting them as bad people or their actions as wrong," then yeah, I do think that would be problematic. There is a difference there; including war in your novel isn't the same as condoning war crimes in it, any more than writing about a sexist society means you think that setup is ideal. Happy Ent said specifically that he thinks more "heroes" should beat their wives without it being considered wrong or the husbands bad people, and yes, that reeks of privilege. So I'm not taking issue with what someone wants to include in a book, but what someone wants to see presented as acceptable behavior.

This is only true if you believe that the purpose of fiction is to morally educate people. It isn't, of course.

[Liadin]

This is only true if you believe that the purpose of fiction is to morally educate people. It isn't, of course.

It's not about morally educating people at all. It's about being sensitive toward the people all around us who have actually experienced some of the awful things some people in this thread want to see condoned as an "intellectual exercise."

[Shryke]

Well, to some extent I think all of us who haven't personally experienced war*, and in particular haven't been civilians in combat zones, are privileged in comparison with those who have been in these situations. (The norm throughout much of human history was to have quite a bit of this sort of violence, so in the modern western world we're lucky.) We are also privileged in comparison with the 1 billion or so people who live on $2 a day or less in third world countries. We usually forget about these people, which maybe we shouldn't, but unless we're actually interacting with them I don't know that we need to be super cognizant of our privilege. I wouldn't talk about my enjoyment of novels involving war to an Afghan refugee, but I see no problem talking about it on an Internet message board devoted to a violent series of fantasy novels.

But, the discussion was about morality and particularly wrt protagonists, and if you were to post something like, "I think more main characters in fantasy novels should commit war crimes without the narrative presenting them as bad people or their actions as wrong," then yeah, I do think that would be problematic. There is a difference there; including war in your novel isn't the same as condoning war crimes in it, any more than writing about a sexist society means you think that setup is ideal. Happy Ent said specifically that he thinks more "heroes" should beat their wives without it being considered wrong or the husbands bad people, and yes, that reeks of privilege. So I'm not taking issue with what someone wants to include in a book, but what someone wants to see presented as acceptable behavior.

But nobody is asking for these actions to be condoned, merely for them to be presented.

You are making this into some moral stance the book is taking or something. You are using words like "acceptable" and "wrong". We aren't talking about making a moral argument. These actions aren't supposed to be shown as acceptable, they are supposed to be shown as having occurred. They aren't acceptable to US, but they can/are/were acceptable to other people in other cultures and more books should reflect that. The author does not need to attach a moral framework to anything (and usually they don't), the author can simply show it happening.

And books are already full of this kind of shit, it's just they shy away from certain types of it, which is what we are talking about.

I mean, I'm reading Blood Meridian right now, where the protagonists are some of the worst people you'll ever meet. They go committing fairly indiscriminate violence for little to no real reason. But that doesn't mean Cormac McCarthy supports scalping Native Americans or that it thinks it's ok or that we shouldn't write about that because someone of Native American descent might read it at some point. It's just there and the reader is free to fit it into their own moral framework if they so choose, but the author is mum on the subject.

It's not about morally educating people at all. It's about being sensitive toward the people all around us who have actually experienced some of the awful things some people in this thread want to see condoned as an "intellectual exercise."

Don't read it then. Slap some rating systems on books if you wanna go that far, sure. But beyond that, it's an irrelevancy.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

But, the discussion was about morality and particularly wrt protagonists, and if you were to post something like, "I think more main characters in fantasy novels should commit war crimes without the narrative presenting them as bad people or their actions as wrong," then yeah, I do think that would be problematic. There is a difference there; including war in your novel isn't the same as condoning war crimes in it, any more than writing about a sexist society means you think that setup is ideal. Happy Ent said specifically that he thinks more "heroes" should beat their wives without it being considered wrong or the husbands bad people, and yes, that reeks of privilege. So I'm not taking issue with what someone wants to include in a book, but what someone wants to see presented as acceptable behavior.

Are fantasy heroes only permitted to be Champions of Modernity? Are heroes not held by the societal expectations of their culture and their own cultural bias? I am earnestly curious about the answer to these questions. It's something I am presently pondering over. So if anyone wants to chime in, please do so.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

Honestly? I think yes, to an extent. Main characters can champion anything they (or the author) wants, but a hero? Someone with whom the reader is supposed identify, presumably more than any other character? Someone the reader should be cheering on? I think that writing someone whose beliefs are so opposed to the reader's can be challenging, and it can even be enjoyable, but I don't think it'll make the character likeable. And fundamentally, I think a character has to be likeable before they're really "a hero", at least in a modern story.

(I think if you're defining hero as 'doer of great deeds', that's something else, and then my answer would be "it varies, tending towards no.")

[Marcelo Rebelo Firqoralas]

It's not about morally educating people at all. It's about being sensitive toward the people all around us who have actually experienced some of the awful things some people in this thread want to see condoned as an "intellectual exercise."

One of the strengths of literature is that it can put the reader inside the head of other people, be they good or bad. Since few people are the villains of their own story, even if they do reprehensible things, and since many things that we find unacceptable have been accepted in other societies, it follows that a less judgemental attitude is sometimes necessary to achieve a more convincing depiction of a society or person.

There are those who are interested in experiencing these alien mindsets for their own sake or or just not convinced when a more modern perspective is applied than what seems internally realistic, and to me it seems questionable to limit their possibility of doing so because there are others who might find the same issue less interesting or perhaps even upsetting.

Would you take issue with people wanting more books with spiders in them? I mean, it could be problematic for those with arachnophobia.

[Shryke]

Honestly? I think yes, to an extent. Main characters can champion anything they (or the author) wants, but a hero? Someone with whom the reader is supposed identify, presumably more than any other character? Someone the reader should be cheering on? I think that writing someone whose beliefs are so opposed to the reader's can be challenging, and it can even be enjoyable, but I don't think it'll make the character likeable. And fundamentally, I think a character has to be likeable before they're really "a hero", at least in a modern story.

(I think if you're defining hero as 'doer of great deeds', that's something else, and then my answer would be "it varies, tending towards no.")

But you don't really need those kinds of heroes in your stories. Tons of stories don't have them.

And again, the interesting thing is that it doesn't matter what horrendous shit these "heroes" do, so long as they don't think women are inferior to men or that smacking your wife around is ok or whatever.

[Galactus]

But you don't really need those kinds of heroes in your stories. Tons of stories don't have them.

And again, the interesting thing is that it doesn't matter what horrendous shit these "heroes" do, so long as they don't think women are inferior to men or that smacking your wife around is ok or whatever.

Not really, a hero is a kind of protagonist, not the only useful one or anything like it, but part of what being a hero is all about is kind of conforming to some kind of value of moral rectitude.

[Liadin]

But nobody is asking for these actions to be condoned, merely for them to be presented.

[...]

And books are already full of this kind of shit, it's just they shy away from certain types of it, which is what we are talking about.

Maybe part of the confusion here is that I'm conflating your opinions with Happy Ent's. He said that he wants to see certain behaviors, like domestic abuse, coming from heroes, in the interests of historical accuracy. If you just want to see difficult issues presented, I certainly agree that there's a place for that, but I'm hard-pressed to think of any sort of reprehensible behavior that isn't presented in fiction. If you think that the genre suffers from a lack of heroes engaging in such reprehensible behavior, then I don't agree with you at all.

Maybe another part is that I get the impression, from some of your posts, that you think your particular preferences are superior to everyone else's--as in, people for whom these issues are real and personal are somehow lesser because they don't especially want to encounter it in their fiction. OTOH, it could be that we all project that attitude once we start debating something.

Don't read it then. Slap some rating systems on books if you wanna go that far, sure. But beyond that, it's an irrelevancy.

Ratings usually just tell you the level of the language and violence, so while that might not be a bad idea, it's not especially relevant here.

Are fantasy heroes only permitted to be Champions of Modernity? Are heroes not held by the societal expectations of their culture and their own cultural bias? I am earnestly curious about the answer to these questions. It's something I am presently pondering over. So if anyone wants to chime in, please do so.

It seems like every epic fantasy I've read has found some sort of compromise, and that's basically what you have to do: it would hardly make sense to have a quasi-medieval hero espousing representative democracy and free speech, but it's probably impossible for a modern writer to really recreate the medieval mind, and even if you did, readers probably wouldn't like it. And let's stop pretending it's just about gender roles: it's also about superstition and violent religiosity, about extreme anti-Semitism, and a caste-based society and so on. And let's not pretend that if we just tweaked society a bit, fantasy would be an accurate portrayal of medieval life. Would you like to see more cholera epidemics as well?

And again, the interesting thing is that it doesn't matter what horrendous shit these "heroes" do, so long as they don't think women are inferior to men or that smacking your wife around is ok or whatever.

I think you say this because we talk about gender issues a lot, but it's simply not true. What Measure is a Mook is one of my most despised tropes, it just doesn't come up as much.

[Kat]

koolkat accurately described the point of my previous post.

The Garuda counts, as do the Inchoroi.

But what I would like is a good guy with premodern sentiments.

....

But what would be important to me is that an otherwise good character believably follows a pre-modern set of rules in a way that is not used to taint his character. The Inchoroi are indistinguishable from unspeakable evil, exactly because of their extreme hedonism. And the Garuda is even more modern that we are because of the Garudean ideas of choice theft.

We were having a bit of discussion about this in the "Male Author/Female Character" thread.

I think there's just alot of people who don't like reading that kind of thing. They don't like to read about people who they are supposed to cheer for not being people they can agree with and like. (You see it sometimes with complaints that people didn't like book X because they didn't like the protagonist.)

...

Which isn't to place ALL the blame on the reader since I think many (most?) authors are equally guilty of this too. They themselves don't seem to want to imagine "hero" characters too far outside their own moral compass.

All of this (1) for aesthetic reasons: to improve my reading experience, and (2) for political reasons: to remind myself about the uniqueness of the culture we live in.

I guess what I'm wondering is: why? What do you actually get from reading fiction in which someone is describing a real historical or foreign attitude that they don't share? (As opposed to someone writing about their own culture or experiences, like most of mainstream fiction in any country.)

Is the simple act of feeling that moral dissonance what you're after? In which case, I guess I have a hard time wanting that on my own. Having friends who have been in abusive relationships, and knowing that there's always the possibility that I could be in one myself, for instance, makes it extremely unlikely that I would ever be able to sympathize with a "hero" who did this. I would find it neither entertaining, nor a particularly interesting or valuable intellectual exercise.

Maybe it's just that, from my privileged modern POV, there are an endless number of actual historical figures who I could read about, such as Thomas Jefferson, who displayed actual pre-modern attitudes and actually led pre-modern lives complete with good deeds and bad ones. What do I gain in reading fiction over history?

(This not not apply to "alien" moralities that do not have historical or modern analogues, because of the extreme unlikelihood of anyone ever reading about life on the surface of a neutron star and suffering from it.)

I'm not saying books shouldn't be written. I am, however, questioning what the point of advocating for more of this is.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

Honestly? I think yes, to an extent. Main characters can champion anything they (or the author) wants, but a hero? Someone with whom the reader is supposed identify, presumably more than any other character? Someone the reader should be cheering on? I think that writing someone whose beliefs are so opposed to the reader's can be challenging, and it can even be enjoyable, but I don't think it'll make the character likeable. And fundamentally, I think a character has to be likeable before they're really "a hero", at least in a modern story.

(I think if you're defining hero as 'doer of great deeds', that's something else, and then my answer would be "it varies, tending towards no.")

But how many "heroes" in history, novels, and epics lacked their own vices or antiquated societal prejudices? If you have seen Rome, what of Julius Vorenius and Titus Pullo, both of whom are generally considered "likable" but uphold an unquestionably pre-modern morality?

I was dumbstruck the first time I watched John Wayne's The Quiet Man. At the climactic end, Bob Thornton goes to the train station to retrieve his wife so he can finally settle the feud between her and her brother over her family fortune. He forcibly drags her back. But this was the part that gave me pause: an older woman picks up a large stick and tries to give it to Bob Thornton so that he can "properly discipline" her. (I seem to recall that he ignores the 'kind' offer and continues to drag and push her back.) While this takes place in a modern context and not a fantastical one, it does demonstrate that many cultures held less than contemporaneous expectations about household relations. Yet in fantasy, white male privilege or not, where characters live what are supposed to be pre-modern contexts there is no pressure for them to conform to pre-modern behaviors. Pre-modern behaviors, expectations, and worldviews are often bizarrely absent even in heroes, who are just as much products of their social prejudices as anyone else.

Maybe part of the confusion here is that I'm conflating your opinions with Happy Ent's. He said that he wants to see certain behaviors, like domestic abuse, coming from heroes, in the interests of historical accuracy. If you just want to see difficult issues presented, I certainly agree that there's a place for that, but I'm hard-pressed to think of any sort of reprehensible behavior that isn't presented in fiction. If you think that the genre suffers from a lack of heroes engaging in such reprehensible behavior, then I don't agree with you at all.

Maybe another part is that I get the impression, from some of your posts, that you think your particular preferences are superior to everyone else's--as in, people for whom these issues are real and personal are somehow lesser because they don't especially want to encounter it in their fiction. OTOH, it could be that we all project that attitude once we start debating something.

Perhaps we should table this particular point of discussion until we are more certain whether or not HE intends "hero" or "protagonist."

It seems like every epic fantasy I've read has found some sort of compromise, and that's basically what you have to do: it would hardly make sense to have a quasi-medieval hero espousing representative democracy and free speech, but it's probably impossible for a modern writer to really recreate the medieval mind, and even if you did, readers probably wouldn't like it. And let's stop pretending it's just about gender roles: it's also about superstition and violent religiosity, about extreme anti-Semitism, and a caste-based society and so on. And let's not pretend that if we just tweaked society a bit, fantasy would be an accurate portrayal of medieval life. Would you like to see more cholera epidemics as well?

Yes, or some sort of outbreak of disease, and with people pointing fingers to supernatural causes. That would honestly be fantastic.

Maybe it's just that, from my privileged modern POV, there are an endless number of actual historical figures who I could read about, such as Thomas Jefferson, who displayed actual pre-modern attitudes and actually led pre-modern lives complete with good deeds and bad ones. What do I gain in reading fiction over history?

Historically speaking, Thomas Jefferson is incredibly modern.

[jurble]

I'm not saying books shouldn't be written. I am, however, questioning what the point of advocating for more of this is.

Because it'd be interesting to read.