![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
megwritesYesterday I was, as I am often want to do, in Barnes & Noble because it's exactly two buildings down from where I work and I do get a lunch hour and lo, I am a *gigantic nerd*.
So I find myself in the SF&F, as I am also often want to do. And I'm doing what I like to call "grazing". I go, find a book that looks shiny, pick it up, give it a whirl for a chapter or two, see if anything gives me the jollies.
And I noticed, while I was browsing along, that there are a hell of a lot of novels that are about people having to save their kingdoms and they all sort of read the same. It's like a "saving the kingdom" subgenre. There's always a fight between two complicated factions with funny names who's histories and intrigues are kind of overdeveloped, and it's always a kingdom.
It's never someone trying to save the anarcho-syndicalist commune or the autonomous collective. No, no. It must be a kingdom.
Which made me wonder - maybe the reason we're (by that I mean mostly Americans) having such a problem convincing parts of the world that democracy is this great thing is because we're secretly a little uneasy about it ourselves?
We're awfully fond of kingdoms and empires which are, by their nature, dictatorships and the opposite of democracy. Makes me think of that Willie Nelson song, "Cowboys are secretly, frequently fond of each other", except replace cowboys with "Americans" and "romanticized monarchies".
Socio-political anxieties about the uncomfortable ramifications of true democracy as expressed through fantasy fiction, Y/N?
Ooh, ooh - AND - there's always a map. I just noticed that. There's always a map and I have never seen a map in a book that I actually needed or that was interesting. It's mostly "here are some mountains with romantic names" and "here are some rivers with equally romantic names" and in between is a bunch of pleasantly beige space that's about the color of wheat and parchment and possibly strained pears.
So I find myself in the SF&F, as I am also often want to do. And I'm doing what I like to call "grazing". I go, find a book that looks shiny, pick it up, give it a whirl for a chapter or two, see if anything gives me the jollies.
And I noticed, while I was browsing along, that there are a hell of a lot of novels that are about people having to save their kingdoms and they all sort of read the same. It's like a "saving the kingdom" subgenre. There's always a fight between two complicated factions with funny names who's histories and intrigues are kind of overdeveloped, and it's always a kingdom.
It's never someone trying to save the anarcho-syndicalist commune or the autonomous collective. No, no. It must be a kingdom.
Which made me wonder - maybe the reason we're (by that I mean mostly Americans) having such a problem convincing parts of the world that democracy is this great thing is because we're secretly a little uneasy about it ourselves?
We're awfully fond of kingdoms and empires which are, by their nature, dictatorships and the opposite of democracy. Makes me think of that Willie Nelson song, "Cowboys are secretly, frequently fond of each other", except replace cowboys with "Americans" and "romanticized monarchies".
Socio-political anxieties about the uncomfortable ramifications of true democracy as expressed through fantasy fiction, Y/N?
Ooh, ooh - AND - there's always a map. I just noticed that. There's always a map and I have never seen a map in a book that I actually needed or that was interesting. It's mostly "here are some mountains with romantic names" and "here are some rivers with equally romantic names" and in between is a bunch of pleasantly beige space that's about the color of wheat and parchment and possibly strained pears.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-17 12:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-17 01:18 pm (UTC)That's a great post.
My theory of fantasy kingdoms is...well, it's just coming into focus now because of your post, so it might be a little whacked out...
So my theory is that we do count on our democracies, but we don't necessarily trust them all that much, especially when a dictator like George Bush starts ransacking the Constitution. The essential Truth in a lot of fantasies is that the Monarch is good and intends the best for his/her people (and is then threatened by Evil, or whatever). Or the Monarch is evil and will be supplanted by the farm boy or girl, who IS good and will be a good and trustworthy leader, as proven by his/her adventures and quests. And variations on that.
Part of the purpose of fantasy--some kinds of fantasy, anyway--is to comfort, and one comforting thing is that we can trust the guy in charge.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-17 02:11 pm (UTC)Trust me, this is not at all a whacked out theory, and the thing is, though? The model America works on is actual a republican-democractic mashup, which is why we're actually DOING IT WRONG when we tell people to become democractic. We're not precisely democractic either.
George Bush was not democractically elected AT ALL. He was elected on a republican model (lower case, meaning the system not the political party). The majority of Americans physically wanted the other guy in office (both times IIRC) - but we have this little thing called the electoral college.
But in America, I think what makes democracy so uncomfortable for some people, at least on a subconscious level, is the thought that in a democracy the majority basically rules. Which means you're okay so long as you and yours are in the majority. But in a population like America that has such a dynamic population, especially a population who's demographics and values are in such obvious flux, the idea of a majority ruling is scary - especially when those who previously have been the unofficial ruling class stand to be ousted from power.
It's also scary when you have to worry about how to keep the majority in your favor. True democracy and true anarchy are scarily close to each other.
Or: You don't VOTE for kings!. I feel like I should be harvesting mud in a Monty Python movie somewhere.
And? Democracy works at, like, the speed of molasses running uphill as far as getting things done. Seriously. If you have a democracy and glacier on the same road? The glacier will pass the democracy on the right, honk it's horn, flip it the finger, and tell it to "get off the road, grandma!"
is to comfort, and one comforting thing is that we can trust the guy in charge.
[Insert joke about how trusting a politician really IS a fantasy]. I'd make one, but I'm not that witty. ;)
Seriously, though, you make good sense.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-17 01:25 pm (UTC)Great post! Oh, and you'd have to add that the books are three inches thick. With two sequels, or maybe three.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-17 02:15 pm (UTC)Oh, and you'd have to add that the books are three inches thick. With two sequels, or maybe three.
Or ten which continue on endlessly and never wrap up their threads and have the same kind of title which are vaguely heroic sounding. Usually the words "wolf" and "king" and "dark"/"light" come into play. Sword is also popular, as is the word "gods" and any permutation thereof.
I hope nobody gets offended at this though.
I kid because I love. Really, though. If I have to read fiction that has a formula? I'd rather my formula include dragons and mages.
Although maybe we could put a moriatorium on the use of "mages" for a while, because that word is quickly getting on my nerves. Apparently there's ALWAYS A POWERFUL MAGE as well as a kingdom.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-18 03:49 am (UTC)Oh, bad to the bone, because your comments about kingdoms and all were so delightfully pithy, and I'd just listened to that song a few minutes before. :-) It's a nice thing; though I guess it's sort of an old(er) lady thing, now.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-17 05:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-17 06:01 pm (UTC)I feel better about my novel now. It's someone trying to save the anarcho-syndicalist commune. Or, you know, something. They have a mayor, but nobody listens to him.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-17 06:14 pm (UTC)