(Very random, but I always wanted to see what would happen if someone took one of those perfect societies where everyone is always having all the sex they want, all the time, and set an STD loose in it. Alas, in such worlds all diseases are usually extinct already).
Dude! So, like, teh ebbil quasi Christian chastity belt type people can totally pwn this society of sex by having one of their mages or something set loose an STD - or hell, having someone magically create an STD for the sole purpose of screwing that society over.
Hmm.
(As I’ve said before, I think emotions perfectly controlled by magic or genetics are cheating, unless you’re going to explore the really fucking dark side of what would happen in a society full of people who couldn’t feel angry or sad or upset with each other, and/or where some people could enter and tinker with others’ thoughts).
They could. But I think it's more fun if it's a natural STD. That leads back to the theme that some of the time there are bad things happening in the world that aren't the fault of evil or stupid people.
How would that work...?
? Not sure what you're asking. I'm saying that if there is a society where mages tamper with emotions to soothe over all internal conflicts, and that's why there's no racism, I think it would be more interesting to see what else the mages get up to in people's heads. If the society is one of those where the author is claiming that his/her created species never gets angry or has any internal conflict because it's against their genetic nature to do so, then I want to know what wrong things could spring from that. (Though I still think it's cheating).
They could. But I think it's more fun if it's a natural STD. That leads back to the theme that some of the time there are bad things happening in the world that aren't the fault of evil or stupid people.
I'm not a wide fantasy reader, so has there been any stories where people just magically create a whole new disease from out of thin air? Not things like calling on the plague or that white fungus spiel Neres did in that one story of yours, but where...like...creating a disease was an artform. I'm not sure why it would be, but I bet there would be people who would love to do that.
I'm saying that if there is a society where mages tamper with emotions to soothe over all internal conflicts, and that's why there's no racism, I think it would be more interesting to see what else the mages get up to in people's heads. If the society is one of those where the author is claiming that his/her created species never gets angry or has any internal conflict because it's against their genetic nature to do so, then I want to know what wrong
( ... )
Well, I've read books where Dark Lords create plagues, but that's about the limit of it. Not read diseases as an art form that I can recall.
I've talked with a few unpublished writers who have species that apparently never experience anger. But it seemed to be mainly a means of explaining problems away, not dealing with them.
Re: I babble at you. At length. *INFLICTS!*limyaaelAugust 17 2006, 01:29:57 UTC
I like the label "culturalism." And it's one I think does actually show up in a lot of fantasy- except that, of course, the culture that the main characters believe to be evil/inferior actually IS evil/inferior, because of the way they treat their women or similar. Admitting the main characters' biases would probably make a lot of fantasy more complex and tangled than it is. And I think it's possible to write people who make "wrong" decisions but are still likeable, sympathetic, and fundamentally decent. If there's a judgmental authorial voice hanging around, of course, it's much harder
( ... )
Re: I babble at you. At length. *INFLICTS!*onyxflameJanuary 14 2007, 23:48:24 UTC
His reasons are internally solid, but given the readers' likely background, I'm not sure they'll be sympathetic, you know? *makes face* Which, I am aware, makes it my job as the author to make it so, but still. Coming from a culture that emphasises individuality, individual wants, individual lives and rights, is "home is where they speak my language, talk about things the way I do, wear the right clothes, believe the right things and where I am part of an immortal collective" a "real reason"? It is for Piotr; he misses "belonging" like bleeding hell. And I look at him and go, dude, they SCREWED YOU, that's why you left, remember?Sounds like my guy. His home life more or less sucked...his mom never seems to care about his (or anyone else's) feelings, half the time there isn't enough food or cigarettes, there's a bunch of crackheads in the area who fight all the time, etc etc etc. And he still moved back down there because when all is said and done, he has a kind of belonging there that he didn't get in Colorado where even cheap
( ... )
On the other side of the liberal humanism thing, of course, is the people who make societies unreasonably cutthroat -- key word being unreasonably. I figure the bottom line is that societies, like organisms and anything else, become what they need to be to survive stably, and adapt when their needs change. Liberal humanism is hypothetically a societal form that stays stable without massive build-up of pressure and violent change: but the prevalence of various forms of oligarchy through human history shows that oligarchy with the occasional power shift and violent toppling has in fact been a very viable structure.
However, I have to contest one point with you, which is that liberal humanism is a bias that needs to be rooted out to write well. Certainly it should be recognized that it as a philosophy has not always been prevalent; however, I think that can veer dangerously towards "the majority believes/believed it = the majority is/was right."
I think you can, for example, write about a slaveowning society accurately and without demonizing any particular group in it on a large scale, while still acknowledging (even just in the framework of your story) that it is not a good thing. Understanding and not condemning on a personal level doesn't have to be the same as condoning.
Besides, when you start talking about "societal" attitudes in an oligarchy, what you usually mean is the attitudes of those in power; one would find that peasants do not so much favor the feudal system as the gentry might. That sounds obvious, I know, but I think that treating all people on more-or-less even ground is very much a humanist viewpoint, and also one that you
( ... )
It's coherent. And I do agree with you. It's just that I've so rarely read fantasy books that have that problem, because most of the time, the author agrees with the protagonist- or, rather, the other way around. And that leads into a lot of problems, not least the too-utopian nature of the world, but also magical/metaphysical rewards for the protagonists for being right (what the telepathic animals often turn into), people who argue otherwise and only have stupid and ineffecient arguments, and preachiness in which a character suddenly becomes the author's mouthpiece
( ... )
No, I know what you mean about Thud. I think he reached a good peak with Night Watch and Monstrous Regiment, and I'm also worried about his next books. We'll see how they go.
And I totally agree with you on all your points -- I think we're really just looking at different problems that can come from different sides of the spectrum. I definitely like to write about societies with elements that present-day Americans would generally find reprehensible -- but are a very real part of our cultural history nonetheless -- and I think they are extremely interesting.
God knows it's true that too many authors demonize anyone who holds a less than modern-day-PC viewpoint, which is also ridiculous because it absolves them of having to look at any prejudices their blindingly whitewashed protagonists may also hold. I have, however, seen an opposite trend in so-called "dark" fantasy, where all judgment is withheld in the name of shock value and hierarchy is glamorized if it's pretty and, well, darque. Which is dumb and irritating.
1) I don't know. I would think there would still be people who don't believe in the crisis, or didn't see how it affected them, or just refused to fight it because other people would be fighting it. Look at how many people today don't tend to believe in environmental crises, though those can be truly said to be problems that will affect everyone in the world. At the least, I'd expect some people to be plotting to move immediately once that crisis was over.
I don't know if I want to do the "problems in apparently utopian societies" one, if only because I think dystopias are a pretty dry subgenre.
Look at how many people today don't tend to believe in environmental crises, though those can be truly said to be problems that will affect everyone in the world.
There is also disagreement about the best response to the environmental crisis would be. Unfortunately, nuanced debate tends to get drowned out by the screaming matches of the duelling pundits. Besides, all-or-nothing makes better TV.
Which leads back to the point of: not everyone is going to be on the same page, even when they're on the same side. Different people are going to come up with different solutions, perhaps equally plausible ones. Cue the conflict.
On your #1: There's bound to be someone who decides that the crisis is the fault of another group, call them out on it, and then declare war or something when they deny it. ^_~
Comments 73
Dude! So, like, teh ebbil quasi Christian chastity belt type people can totally pwn this society of sex by having one of their mages or something set loose an STD - or hell, having someone magically create an STD for the sole purpose of screwing that society over.
Hmm.
(As I’ve said before, I think emotions perfectly controlled by magic or genetics are cheating, unless you’re going to explore the really fucking dark side of what would happen in a society full of people who couldn’t feel angry or sad or upset with each other, and/or where some people could enter and tinker with others’ thoughts).
How would that work...?
Reply
How would that work...?
? Not sure what you're asking. I'm saying that if there is a society where mages tamper with emotions to soothe over all internal conflicts, and that's why there's no racism, I think it would be more interesting to see what else the mages get up to in people's heads. If the society is one of those where the author is claiming that his/her created species never gets angry or has any internal conflict because it's against their genetic nature to do so, then I want to know what wrong things could spring from that. (Though I still think it's cheating).
Reply
I'm not a wide fantasy reader, so has there been any stories where people just magically create a whole new disease from out of thin air? Not things like calling on the plague or that white fungus spiel Neres did in that one story of yours, but where...like...creating a disease was an artform. I'm not sure why it would be, but I bet there would be people who would love to do that.
I'm saying that if there is a society where mages tamper with emotions to soothe over all internal conflicts, and that's why there's no racism, I think it would be more interesting to see what else the mages get up to in people's heads. If the society is one of those where the author is claiming that his/her created species never gets angry or has any internal conflict because it's against their genetic nature to do so, then I want to know what wrong ( ... )
Reply
I've talked with a few unpublished writers who have species that apparently never experience anger. But it seemed to be mainly a means of explaining problems away, not dealing with them.
Reply
And it's the one we're living in.
Reply
Reply
Reply
We call Him God.
We then stuffed it up by sinning.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Reply
I think you can, for example, write about a slaveowning society accurately and without demonizing any particular group in it on a large scale, while still acknowledging (even just in the framework of your story) that it is not a good thing. Understanding and not condemning on a personal level doesn't have to be the same as condoning.
Besides, when you start talking about "societal" attitudes in an oligarchy, what you usually mean is the attitudes of those in power; one would find that peasants do not so much favor the feudal system as the gentry might. That sounds obvious, I know, but I think that treating all people on more-or-less even ground is very much a humanist viewpoint, and also one that you ( ... )
Reply
Reply
And I totally agree with you on all your points -- I think we're really just looking at different problems that can come from different sides of the spectrum. I definitely like to write about societies with elements that present-day Americans would generally find reprehensible -- but are a very real part of our cultural history nonetheless -- and I think they are extremely interesting.
God knows it's true that too many authors demonize anyone who holds a less than modern-day-PC viewpoint, which is also ridiculous because it absolves them of having to look at any prejudices their blindingly whitewashed protagonists may also hold. I have, however, seen an opposite trend in so-called "dark" fantasy, where all judgment is withheld in the name of shock value and hierarchy is glamorized if it's pretty and, well, darque. Which is dumb and irritating.
Reply
Reply
I don't know if I want to do the "problems in apparently utopian societies" one, if only because I think dystopias are a pretty dry subgenre.
Reply
There is also disagreement about the best response to the environmental crisis would be. Unfortunately, nuanced debate tends to get drowned out by the screaming matches of the duelling pundits. Besides, all-or-nothing makes better TV.
Which leads back to the point of: not everyone is going to be on the same page, even when they're on the same side. Different people are going to come up with different solutions, perhaps equally plausible ones. Cue the conflict.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment