Is Fantasy Inherently Conservative?
A blogger who calls himself the SF Diplomat argues that fantasy is inherently conservative:
I would argue that the very tropes of fantasy itself, with its reliance upon violence and moral simplicity, make it impossible to escape the whiff of authoritarianism.

The reaction in the blogosphere has apparently been so apocalyptic that the gentleman has officially withdrawn himself from the commonwealth of fantasy. As I said in james_nicoll's blog, Sounds to me like he never actually got into the commonwealth of fantasy at all. In fact, he sounds like one of those tourists who complains that those foreigners speak a funny language and don't know how to make a decent American meal.

But I'm not interested in bashing this guy. I'm interested in the question he raises. Is fantasy essentially authoritarian? I've certainly seen a hell of a lot of brainlessly medieval settings for fantasy, but I've also seen far more moral complexity and subversiveness in fantasy than he seems to have noticed. The SF Diplomat seems to consider Epic Fantasy the only "real" fantasy, but I am interested in all sorts.

What do you think?

ETA Feel free to cross-post, drag strangers into the argument, list examples of subversive or authoritarian fantasy, create animated icons with the argument, etc.

Also, the mere existence of Terry Pratchett enormously complicates the argument. Does his class-conscious Discworld comic fantasy prove that great fantasy can indeed include "the ones who carried the magic kingdom's night soil and cleaned its floors" (Witches Abroad, loosely quoted) or prove that almost all fantasy doesn't include or respect those people?

And what aboutyuki_onna's subtle, brilliant The Orphan's Tales Or Peter Beagle? Or Ursula Le Guin?

(Post a new comment)

	scarybaldguy 2007-09-04 04:34 pm UTC (link)
	"Authoritarian" doesn't necessarily mean "conservative," unless by "conservative" you refer to the neo-cons, who are about as conservative as, say, Attila. (Reply to this)

	serrana 2007-09-04 04:35 pm UTC (link)
	I didn't know we had a commonwealth! I always thought it was more like a republic. When do I get my citizenship badge and my shiny tinfoil hat? (I will come to ALL the Commonwealth of Fantasy parades in my badge and my hat, I promise, really I will.) (Reply to this) (Thread)(Expand)

	faithhopetricks 2007-09-04 05:10 pm UTC (link)
	Nay, clearly, it is a Kingdom, and as such must have a Sovereign. Or at least a pound note. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - serrana, 2007-09-04 05:15 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - faithhopetricks, 2007-09-04 05:20 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - serrana, 2007-09-04 05:41 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - faithhopetricks, 2007-09-04 05:42 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - serrana, 2007-09-04 08:17 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - vito_excalibur, 2007-09-04 08:56 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - wordweaverlynn, 2007-09-04 07:29 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - faithhopetricks, 2007-09-04 07:34 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - wordweaverlynn, 2007-09-04 07:27 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - serrana, 2007-09-04 07:54 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - vito_excalibur, 2007-09-04 08:55 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - memegarden, 2007-09-05 06:57 am UTC (Expand)

cbpotts 2007-09-04 04:37 pm UTC (link)

Well, if you consider Necromancer and all of Gibson's stuff fantasy, I'd say there's a strong element of anti-authoritarianism in it. Dune (at least the Frank Herbert ones, not so much his kid's continuation thereof) deals with this issue in a huge way, and details where authoritarianism fails, eventually, and why it must. So perhaps fantasy of this nature is written in reaction to the concept of overwhelming authority -- so it has a presence, even if it's a negative one. I have little patience with Epic Fantasy lately (and by lately, I mean roughly anything since the mid-80's on) so I can't comment intelligently there. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	murnkay 2007-09-04 05:04 pm UTC (link)
	"Well, if you consider Necromancer and all of Gibson's stuff fantasy" Does anyone? Seriously? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - faithhopetricks, 2007-09-04 05:08 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - murnkay, 2007-09-04 05:09 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - faithhopetricks, 2007-09-04 05:15 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - murnkay, 2007-09-04 05:17 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - faithhopetricks, 2007-09-04 05:22 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - murnkay, 2007-09-04 05:25 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - cbpotts, 2007-09-04 05:08 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - murnkay, 2007-09-04 05:10 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - cbpotts, 2007-09-04 05:14 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - murnkay, 2007-09-04 05:15 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - cbpotts, 2007-09-04 05:18 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - murnkay, 2007-09-04 05:26 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - cbpotts, 2007-09-04 05:29 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - murnkay, 2007-09-04 05:45 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - abostick59, 2007-09-05 10:39 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - murnkay, 2007-09-05 10:50 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - faithhopetricks, 2007-09-04 05:19 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - murnkay, 2007-09-04 05:28 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - faithhopetricks, 2007-09-04 05:30 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - murnkay, 2007-09-04 05:46 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - sistercoyote, 2007-09-04 06:09 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - murnkay, 2007-09-04 06:11 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - sistercoyote, 2007-09-04 06:13 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - vito_excalibur, 2007-09-04 08:58 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - murnkay, 2007-09-04 09:03 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - hitchhiker, 2007-09-05 08:17 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - vito_excalibur, 2007-09-04 08:57 pm UTC (Expand)

*snicker* - eveningscribe, 2007-09-05 01:32 am UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - abostick59, 2007-09-05 03:41 pm UTC (Expand)

wild_irises 2007-09-04 04:38 pm UTC (link)

No, of course not. Fantasy is no more essentially anything than literature is. Fantasy set in a hierarchical context is usually hierarchical and sometimes subversive of hierarchy. Fantasy set in an authoritarian context is usually authoritarian and sometimes subversive of authoritarianism. The fantasy playing out in the 2007 White House is distressingly conservative (and subversive of traditional American values, or at least the values traditional Americans give lip service to), while fantasies played out in 1990s Cuba or contemporary South Africa are something else altogether. (Reply to this)

	angelbob 2007-09-04 04:43 pm UTC (link)
	Fantasy has a strong tendency to get its tropes from (often re-imaginations of) historical settings, particularly *old* historical settings, which *did* tend to be more conservative. So I'd say that in general, fantasy tends to be set against a more conservative backdrop, which doesn't tell you all that much about its message. (Reply to this) (Thread)

badgerbag 2007-09-04 06:15 pm UTC (link)

More conservative than what? As far as I've read, all of history is full of enormous political upheavals and revolts and rebellions and revolutions. But often history is framed by people with an interest in making the past sound "more conservative" than now. And some popular tropes of high fantasy do play into the narrow (and wrong) vision of history where anyone opposing a monarch is like, in league with evil spider overlords or something... (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - angelbob, 2007-09-04 08:31 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - vvvexation, 2007-09-04 08:35 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - vito_excalibur, 2007-09-04 08:59 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - vvvexation, 2007-09-04 10:19 pm UTC (Expand)

junglemonkee 2007-09-04 04:48 pm UTC (link)

I was just talking to my FIL about this yesterday. We were talking about the fact that most fantasy and science fiction seem inherently communist - communist in its purest form where nobody consumes more than they need (the good guys in fantasy are all startlingly modest-living), and when they do, you know they're bad guys. The good guys are most often concerned about the welfare of someone else (not themselves, and very often "their people," whoever they may be). The desired state in fantasy is always peace. The war is something that has to be endured to get back to the normal state of things. And the ruler that everyone remembers and loves was always benevolent and generous and made sure that all of his people were prosperous during his reign. The SF diplomat seems to be looking at fantasy through a lens of his own making. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	wordweaverlynn 2007-09-04 09:14 pm UTC (link)
	This is a fascinating point, and one that nobody else has brought up. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	renoir_girl 2007-09-04 04:48 pm UTC (link)
	It seems that Margaret Atwood has written some worlds with varying degrees of fantasy elements to them, and I wouldn't call her writing conservative. (Reply to this) (Thread)

alleahna 2007-09-04 05:39 pm UTC (link)

The definition of 'conservative' in the SF Diplomat essays relates to preserving and continuing the specific tropes established by Tolkien (since he uses Tolkien as the reference point), not a political state of mind. As an aside, Atwood gets quite shirty about her work getting tagged with the 'fantasy' genre title. Despite the fact some of it is clearly fantasy. *sigh* (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - renoir_girl, 2007-09-04 05:44 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - alleahna, 2007-09-04 06:42 pm UTC (Expand)

(Deleted post)

(no subject) - renoir_girl, 2007-09-05 12:22 am UTC (Expand)

	mama_hogswatch 2007-09-04 04:51 pm UTC (link)
	Yes. The Return of the King (Reply to this) (Thread)(Expand)

	gramina 2007-09-04 06:04 pm UTC (link)
	Guards, Guards! is also fantasy... while we're thinking of the Discovery of the Lost Heir trope. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - mama_hogswatch, 2007-09-04 06:07 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - zillah975, 2007-09-04 06:15 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - mama_hogswatch, 2007-09-04 06:20 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - zillah975, 2007-09-04 06:31 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - mindstalk, 2007-09-04 07:42 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - mindstalk, 2007-09-04 07:53 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - mama_hogswatch, 2007-09-04 07:56 pm UTC (Expand)

Book? - dakiwiboid, 2007-09-05 12:23 am UTC (Expand)

Re: Book? - mama_hogswatch, 2007-09-05 12:24 am UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - eveningscribe, 2007-09-05 01:53 am UTC (Expand)

ronebofh 2007-09-04 05:05 pm UTC (link)

This reminds me of the talk about what the ruling power on Earth in the Star Trek universe would be like. I think that simplistic fantasy is absolutely authoritarian; hell, there's so much goddamn monarchy in it anyway, it's a short step. Good fantasy looks to the wrinkles of society, simply because it makes for a better story. But give me simple heroic crap and, yeah, i can hear the jackboots. Even the story of people rising above an evil power seems poised for a sequel where today's savior is tomorrow's villain. Since much of fantasy exists in a setting that simulates the part of history when authoritarianism was, more or less, the law of the land, it's difficult to escape it. I think that my own fantasy writing is influenced by authors such as Pratchett and Brust precisely because their writing is not typically conservative; despite the authoritarianism described in their œuvre, it is a plausible thing and one that is deployed sensibly and for the greater good. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	mactavish 2007-09-04 06:11 pm UTC (link)
	I still want to know who, in the ST universe, does the crappy scut work. I never see it happening. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - ronebofh, 2007-09-04 06:20 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - bright_lilim, 2007-09-04 09:35 pm UTC (Expand)

faithhopetricks 2007-09-04 05:07 pm UTC (link)

I would argue that the very tropes of fantasy itself, with its reliance upon violence and moral simplicity, make it impossible to escape the whiff of authoritarianism. I have heard this kind of argument before, and it was smashed fairly effectively, but I don't remember where. I think the standard argument is Fantasy = Feudalism = Bad, while SF = Libertarianism = Good. Or something like that. (Reply to this)

faithhopetricks 2007-09-04 05:09 pm UTC (link)

I would argue that the very tropes of fantasy itself, with its reliance upon violence and moral simplicity, make it impossible to escape the whiff of authoritarianism. Also, v obviously, this person has never read, say, Tehanu (altho I think the Earthsea books as a whole do go into the question of power, but with Tehanu it is Blindingly Obvious). Ditto Angela Carter and so on. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	murnkay 2007-09-04 05:12 pm UTC (link)
	Yeah I mean putting forth the argument at all kinda said to me "This human hasn't actually READ anything in the genre, have they?" It's the kind of statement made by people who listen to others, leap to conclusions based on those overheard moments and then decide they are 100% right and based on reality. (Reply to this) (Parent)

sophiaserpentia 2007-09-04 05:21 pm UTC (link)

I can sorta see what he was getting at. In fact lady_babalon and i have had some interesting discussions about the classism and heteronormativity inherent in a lot of the classic high-fantasy tropes -- such as the 'high-born' son who, though he grew up being raised by a poor family, learns of his destiny to be king. The unspoken assumptions include, among many others, (1) the idea that a king is someone of special descent who has a magical right to rule, rather than someone who grabs a authority through violence, and (2) the prominence of male heirs. It's unfair, though, to dismiss the entire genre because some of its authors buy into this scheme. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	wordweaverlynn 2007-09-04 09:21 pm UTC (link)
	Yes, and I'm interested in delving into this -- I'm definitely interested in class, gender, and orientation issues in any kind of fiction. Hmm, I should post a link to this discussion to the Plunkett Award community. (Reply to this) (Parent)

adrian_turtle 2007-09-04 05:39 pm UTC (link)

No. Fantasy is not essentially authoritatian. However, there are enough authoritarian fantasies in the world for a fantasy reader to read just that. It would be *easy*. If you wanted to read just sexualized vampire fantasies, you'd have to really work at it, deliberately setting aside lots of popular books that are obviously sold as fantasy. (Almost all the Arthur variations, for instance.) But a whiff of authoritarianism is extremely common in fantasy. It's common in all the fiction I know of, except "theater of the absurd" sorts of things. The wrong people being in charge leads to catastrophe. If only the right people were in charge, it would be so much better! That's the straightforward story, and it can be as appealing in fantasy as anywhere else. (Dickens is good at this, and he's not usually classified as fantasy. Sometimes he puts the right people in charge, sometimes the same people stay in charge and just have a change of heart.) There are certainly fantasy books and movies that problematize "If only the right people were in charge, what would happen next?" in one way or another. _The Princess Bride_ or Robin Hobb's work is just cynical, but not cynical in a direction opposed to authoritarianism. It's possible to read bits and pieces of George R.R. Martin and think it's all about glorifying authoritarian monarchy. With dragons, or sandkings, or whatever. But, um...not exactly. Naomi Kritzer has an interesting epilogue in _Turning the Storm_, to the effect of it always being more complicated. There is morally complex, liberal, anti-authoritarian, unusual fantasy. There is morally complex, liberal, anti-authoritarian, unusual fiction of all genres. How likely is a person to find it? Well, for mainstream fiction, most people have a few morally complex works (at least on the order of _To Kill A Mockingbird_) pointed out to them in school. And if your friends are liberal weirdos, interested in moral complexity, you can recommend books to each other. But if you're just randomly poking around the library or bookstore? And you stumbled on something by Eddings or Jordan or McCaffrey ten years ago, and enjoyed it enough to ask librarians for more books like that? No...someone in that situation is a lot less likely to find non-authoritarian books. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	vito_excalibur 2007-09-04 09:02 pm UTC (link)
	I think this is an excellent explanation of the problem. (Reply to this) (Parent)

zillah975 2007-09-04 05:45 pm UTC (link)

I'm not sure I understand the question. I mean, yes, some fantasy is authoritarian, in that it deals with authoritarian cultures. Some isn't. Same can be said for science fiction, general literature, Harlequin romances, and just about any genre. I think even epic fantasy is arguably not authoritarian by nature. I mean, what does "authoritarian" mean in this context anyway? Here's the Webster def: Main Entry: au·thor·i·tar·i·an Pronunciation: o-"thär-&-'ter-E-&n, &-, -"thor- Function: adjective 1 : of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority 2 : of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people - authoritarian noun - au·thor·i·tar·i·an·ism /-E-&-"ni-z&m/ noun So, is he suggesting that fantasy by its nature espouses authoritarian political structures, or that by its nature it reflects or portrays them? In either case, he's wrong. There are a great many examples of fantasy literature that portray authoritarian regimes in order to argue against them, and there are also a great many fantasy stories and novels that do not portray authoritarian regimes at all, unless you insist on reading the "constitutionally responsible to the people" part literally, rather than as meaning, for the purposes of the discussion, that the government is responsible to the people in some way. If he's using some other definition - like, some made-up, "Authoritarian: that system in which some party or parties holds authority of some kind" - then okay, there probably aren't that many fantasy novels that are truly anarchic (although The Road would count as one, unless you decide that fatherhood is authoriatarian, and because the cause of the end is never revealed, I'm inclined to classify it as more fantasy than SF), but he needs to define it. And I'm not usually real wild about people giving new made-up definitions to existing words without some pretty compelling reason. Wikipedia says, Authoritarianism describes a form of social control characterized by strict obedience to the authority of a state or organization, often maintaining and enforcing control through the use of oppressive measures. Authoritarian regimes are strongly hierarchical. In an authoritarian form of government, citizens are subject to state authority in many aspects of their lives, including many matters that other political philosophies would see as erosion of civil liberties and freedom. There are various degrees of authoritarianism; even very democratic and liberal states will show authoritarianism to some extent, for example in areas of national security. Usually, an authoritarian government is undemocratic and has the power to govern without consent of those being governed. By that definition, nearly all literature is "authoritarian" if the simple fact that it's set in a society with authoritarian elements is enough to make it authoritarian itself. Regardless, the SF Diplomat isn't really a diplomat as regards the fantasy genre because he makes no good-faith effort to understand it on its own terms or in all its complexity. He seems more like President Bush, knowing what he wants and expects to see, and he rejecting anything that conflicts with that. I don't know what his trauma is, but I'm glad he's taking his crap opinions and leaving the genre to those of us who love it. (Reply to this) (Thread)

*laughs helplessly* gerriwritinglog 2007-09-04 10:30 pm UTC (link)

This man...ye gods. Does he know _nothing_ about history? History is full of authoritarianism. He's really bought into the "All men are created equal" belief and seems to think that no other thought paths are correct, when most of fantasy deals with the "divine right of kings" basis or other such moral ground. Epic fantasy, especially, is set in pre-Declaration of Independence type cultures, and all of them were authoritarian. Yes, even the Athenian democracy had its authoritarian aspects. That, and he doesn't see the authoritarian nature of the modern world, either. Hello, Middle East, anyone? Hello, Southeast Asia? *shakes head in disgust* This man belongs in the idiot category. LIFE is authoritarian. Parents, teachers, police, politicians...And that's just in the U.S., the place I'm most familiar with. The SF Diplomat is a spoiled wanna-be literature geek who doesn't understand the fundamental basis of any writing: The experience of the writer and the society that the writer is in. Until he gets off his high horse and stops his pretentious attempt at intellectual masturbation, he's pretty much a worthless source for any information. Great to point and laugh at, though. (Reply to this) (Parent)

fakymcfakerson 2007-09-04 06:18 pm UTC (link)

I think that there may be some inherent authoritarianism within the genre, but only inasmuch as there is an authoritarian overtone in any fictional world. Fantasy and sci-fi authors create their own worlds, yes? And their own characters. There is an emotional investment in seeing those worlds, those characters, interact well and those worlds to succeed (to at least some extent). IMO, the author creates governments for basically two puposes: to work smoothly and well in service of the protagonist (thus leading to some light government-worship/authoritarianism), or in service of the antagonist (thus feeding into a anti-authoritarian vibe). This, of course, is applicable only when the government is in evidence at all- as yet, however, I have not run into a fantasy or scifi novel without a present government. (Reply to this)

	ronebofh 2007-09-04 06:27 pm UTC (link)
	Given the comments so far, it's pretty clear that it's an impossible discussion to have without first clearly defining fantasy and its tropes, and defining authoritarianism. At first i merely wanted to answer your question, but now i want to read what this guy has to say. So far, i think he's making good points. (Reply to this) (Thread)(Expand)

	mactavish 2007-09-04 06:50 pm UTC (link)
	And clearly defining fantasy and its tropes is more elusive than the grand unified theory. There are fist-fights in the lobby at cons about this. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - ronebofh, 2007-09-04 06:52 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - eveningscribe, 2007-09-05 02:12 am UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - abostick59, 2007-09-05 03:53 pm UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - abostick59, 2007-09-05 03:55 pm UTC (Expand)

alleahna 2007-09-04 06:33 pm UTC (link)

Having read through the essays at SF Diplomat, I agree with some of what he says and disagree with other parts. The whole thing blew the top off my head because he'd articulated things I hadn't done for myself, yet. That said, I would disagree with the premise that fantasy is essentially authoritarian. You can point to China Mieville, Neil Gaiman and Mary Gentle, as a fer'nstance of authors whose work challenges authoritarian tropes or does away with them altogether. The assumption could be made, based on the most popular fantasy in the book stores right now (Tolkien, Jordan, Martin, Goodkind and Brooks). These authors write in worlds that are authoritarian to a great degree and that authoritarianism remains unchallenged or the characters strive to shore it up in some fashion. You can't extrapolate that all of fantasy is authoritarian from only these authors, however, and the lack of reading experience by the essay writer at SF Diplomat shows in this case. (Reply to this) (Thread)

mindstalk 2007-09-04 07:49 pm UTC (link)

Even Tolkien can be problematic as an "authoritarian" world. The Shire seems practically anarchic, with a loose veneer of democracy (the Mayor) and old aristocracy (Tooks and Brandybucks.) The Master of Lake-Town was elected, I thought, though perhaps not by all the adult humans. Bree has no obvious government. Much of the rest of the world is monarchic, but also in decline, unlike the hobbit lands. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - alleahna, 2007-09-05 12:01 am UTC (Expand)

(no subject) - mindstalk, 2007-09-05 02:21 am UTC (Expand)

cinchntouch 2007-09-04 08:14 pm UTC (link)

I think there is too much variation to really say. That said, I think a lot of "high" fantasy slavishly follows LOTR's which was both conservative and authoritarian. I think the question that might be raised is, Are conservative and authoritarian impulses always wrong? In the context of fantasy novels I am not sure that these impulses are wrong. On a certain level, I think the whole concept of the "hero" could be argued as conservative since the hero defies all challenges and finds success. In some ways it could be argued that the "hero" is always a bit of the Horatio Alger. (Reply to this) (Thread)

jsburbidge 2007-09-04 08:29 pm UTC (link)

Although I agree that what imitators have carried away from Tolkien has often been a naive authoritarian model, I don't think that it's actually true of Tolkien himself. The general context of his Middle-Earth narrative arc is pretty bleak and isn't exactly friendly in general towards monarchs (note especially Feanor and his sons and the decline of Numenor, to say nothing of the messy history of the Kings in both Gondor and Arnor in the earlier part of the Third Age). Aragorn is in many ways an isolated uptick, and (it's hinted) represents a period which will soon have its own falling-away. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - cinchntouch, 2007-09-04 08:38 pm UTC (Expand)

vito_excalibur 2007-09-04 09:06 pm UTC (link)

I think there is a tendency to authoritarianism and conservativism in fantasy, and it drives me up the fucking wall. But to claim that it's necessary for fantasy is dumb on the level of his complete misreading of Song of Ice and Fire. (I'm not saying the guy is dumb; I'm saying his analysis of the book(s) is dumb because based on a superficial reading of an incomplete part of the story.) (Reply to this)

mrknowitall 2007-09-04 10:39 pm UTC (link)

Good question. Short answer: no. Long answer: Fantasy is no more conservative (or authoritarian) than any other form of literature. Any form of literature can be that way if it is written by a lazy author taking lots of shortcuts. (Or a good writer wanting to honestly examine an authoritarian world.) Think about mystery writers whose cops and detectives routinely break the law, supposedly in the pursuit of justice. Think about historical drama writers, with their war-centric perspectives. Think about romance writers with their testosterone-pumped "love" interests and all the torn bodices all over the place. On the other hand, how about Orwell's Animal Farm? They don't get less authoritarian than that. Or how about Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land? Yes, it's supposedly science fiction, but let's be serious. That's a fantasy novel if there ever was one. And it's about as antiauthoritarian as you can get. (Reply to this)

patgreene 2007-09-04 10:41 pm UTC (link)

You mention Terry Pratchett. I think any writer whose most memorable character is a man who has such very strong anti-monarchical and anti-authoritarian leanings as Sam Vimes has can be safely said to be non-authoritarian. I can't speak to the genre generally, because my reading of fantasy is pretty much limited to Pratchett and Gaiman (neither of which strike me as either conservative or authoritarian) and Tolkien (which, unfortunately, does). Well, there is Lewis, but I see Narnia as being so rife with Christian allegory that it becomes hard to place it in a "political" context. (Reply to this) (Thread)(Expand)

	"Give us your crown!" bellatrys 2007-09-05 12:16 am UTC (link)
	Spot the ObRef? (Reply to this) (Parent)

(no subject) - kayshapero, 2007-09-05 08:32 am UTC (Expand)

	firecat 2007-09-05 08:27 am UTC (link)
	It's easy for fantasy to slip into conservative, authoritarian ideas, but anyone who has read Laurie Marks's Fire Logic would not say fantasy is inherently conservative or authoritarian. (Reply to this)

dichroic 2007-09-05 10:07 am UTC (link)

I wouldn't say it's inherently authoritarian. I would say it's ... not inherently moral, but more prone by its nature to explicitly deal with morals. (Ditto for mytery fiction.) And since morality is too often assumed to be something only conservatives care about (a perception I think and hope is changing) and since the most vocal of those do tend to be very authoritarian, I can see where there might be confusion. But I think he's wrong. (Reply to this)

abostick59 2007-09-05 04:20 pm UTC (link)

There are two meanings of "conservative" dancing around here: one is the political sense of "the political program of Edmund Burke" with its establishment and maintenance of a hereditary ruling elite supported ideologically by a commitment to "tradition"; the other is the one of writing things like what one has read, doing what is known to work rather than innovating, being more interested in the past -- the literary past -- rather than the present or future. (I can frame the two meanings thusly: "The political program of Edmund Burke" versus "The literary program of Lester Del Rey.") There are many counterexamples to the claim that all fantasy is conservative, in either sense. (China Mieville, Terry Pratchett, Laurie Marks, Ursula Leguin, etc.) But I think it is worthwhile to ask this question: If a writer is not consciously and deliberately working to do otherwise, if they set out to write a "fantasy" story, is it liable, simply through the conventions of the genre and the writer's and readers' assumptions, to adhere to either or both of the Burke or Del Rey paradigm? If so, is it more liable to this tendency or less than writing in other categories? I think this is an open question, worth exploring. (Reply to this) (Thread)

tchernabyelo 2007-09-05 05:08 pm UTC (link)

What is a "fantasy" story, in this sense? There is certainly a section of fantasy - and a very successful one - that revolves around the lost heir/orphan king/etc (Tad Williams and Robert Jordan have done very nicely out of it), and which can be argued to be inherently "conservative" with the idea of a "rightful king" based on birthright. But there is also a wealth of other fantasy that skirts or subverts those concepts. You could argue that if all you do is copy the most obvious examples of the genre, you'll come up with a conservative result, but that's a long way from saying the genre is inherently conservative. I've got WIPs that approach issues of social structure and class and the nature of rulership and moral responsibility and all that kind of crap. They may be set against authoritarian societies but that doesn't make them inherently conservative, any more than 1984 was inherently conservative. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - abostick59, 2007-09-05 10:33 pm UTC (Expand)

You know, literary fiction/fantasy is often authoritarian dakiwiboid 2007-09-05 06:05 pm UTC (link)

Personally, I roll my eyes in exasperation at any author who doesn't just set out to write a damned good work of fiction. I've been thoroughly ticked off for years by the authors who say that they don't want to be associated with any sort of genre fiction, and then settle down to borrow a number of themes from SF, fantasy or mysteries to write novels that often turn out to be boring, dystopian, extremely derivative or simply interminable. These novels gain a lot of critical praise, of course, because they're by authors of literary fiction. It's probably not entirely fair of me to pick on P.D. James, but I'll bet that Children of Men would never have sold if a novice SF or fantasy writer had tried to pitch it to a publisher. It's simply not a very good novel, and yes, it includes a strongly authoritarian strain, what with the Council of England and all. Of course, they're the baddies, but there they are. Chris Adrian's The Children's Hospital is another derivative bit of literary fiction. He kills off everyone in the world except all the inhabitants of a children's hospital to make all of his points in the artiest way possible, and then keeps breaking the fourth wall in order to remind the reader that this can't possibly be a fantasy or SF novel. Oh, no, it couldn't be! If it were a fantasy or SF novel, the reader might be allowed to enjoy the plot and characters in peace! Ugh. Everything in the hospital is as tightly structured as a concentration camp, either by the hospital administration or by the angels in charge. Needless to say, I do not recommend this novel. A lot of consciously literary novels simply do not read well. They're lumpy and bumpy and uncomfortable for the reader. They seem to be written to allow the author to feel smug and superior about his manipulation of his readers and characters, not out of any joy in the story at all. Bleah. (Reply to this)

---