Entry tags:
Upon browsing in "tha BN" (that's Barnes & Noble to the rest of you)
Yesterday 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
no subject
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)
no subject
Great post! Oh, and you'd have to add that the books are three inches thick. With two sequels, or maybe three.
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
no subject
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