A Fandom Fallacy

[benlehman]

A work of fantasy should only be evaluated and criticized based on its own internal world, not on the external real world that it was written and published in.

edit: Joshua has a great example

Let's say I make a fantasy novel. It takes place in a land called Uto. There are four races: the Maia (we call them "humans") and represent the vast majority of people, subjugated by the other races; the Oughal, who are cunning and ruthless, short and thick of stature, with dark skin and curly manes; the Ontali, a broad-backed people whose magic connects them (and converts to their religion) to their hive mind; and the Ikta, whose ancestors were Maia but are cursed because of an ancient betrayal. The story is about the indomitable spirit of the Maia and how, once they're united by King Anfil, fight a war agaist the machinations of the other, smaller races. Anfil leads the Maia army to victory over their oppressors and finally all Maia are granted the place of honor granted them by destiny.

It doesn't matter that this is swords and magic. It doesn't matter that the Oughal "really are" villainous, cunning, ruthless, and controlling, and that the only way for the people of Uto to achieve their destiny is by finally fighting back. Given the context of the 20th century, it's still Fascist fantasy.

Comments

[alexpshenichkin.livejournal.com]

Don't forget the external, real world that the work is being read in -- often different from the one it's written and published in, after all! (I'm not assuming that you've necessarily forgotten it. I just want to talk about it.)

As far as any kind of formal criticism goes, I think both external worlds are about equally important. For just thinkin' and chattin' about stuff, I tend to prioritize the one that's closer to home.

-- Alex

[alexpshenichkin.livejournal.com]

Another fallacy, fairly specific of sci-fi and fantasy fandom:

The internal thing is and must be a "world" in the concrete sense.

-- Alex

[matt-rah.livejournal.com]

areyououtthere and I don't quite get what you mean by this last--can you give an example?

Also, hi. We know lots of the same people.

Matt

[alexpshenichkin.livejournal.com]

I perceive fantasy and s.f. fandom as overly focused on the creation of alternate worlds. Like, these elaborately detailed fictional settings, existing almost for their own sake. (In RPGs, this manifests as "world-building," "canon," and giant campaign sourcebooks.) I don't think every work has to be all about a world. A lot of them set their sights on something else: a moment, an emotion, a person, an idea.

Also, hi. (Just for the record: I can't say I know Ben, just some of his work. He most certainly doesn't know me.)

-- Alex

[alexpshenichkin.livejournal.com]

Oh god wait I just realized we do know a LOT of the same people. Hi.

-- Alex

[emergent.livejournal.com]

If I follow you, I agree- but I'm not entirely sure I follow you. What does it mean to evaluatie and criticizing "based on an internal world" vs. "...based on the real world"?

Does it mean...

1) Text quality and 'interestingness' VS broader context?
2) Internal consistency and 'world coherence' VS some measure of 'quality'?
3) Making some comparison using the standards of the internal/local world VS broader standards?
4) Comparing only to other items in field/genre VS more global standards?

...or something else?

[evilmagnus]

I think (and I'm reaching here), that this is in reference to Dr. Horrible's Singalong Blog. There's been much Angst amongst the Whedonites (Whedonistas?) about how Joss has betrayed his feminist credentials because this one time, in this universe, the female character was not kicking ass and taking names.

i.e., because Joss is perceived as feminist-friendly in the real world, all of his works must be judged on that. And if he writes a character in a world that isn't in line with this, even if it's necessary for the story he wishes to tell and consistent to that world, then he has somehow failed his fandom.

[nikotesla.livejournal.com]

Jesus, people. This is an easy concept.

Let's say I make a fantasy novel. It takes place in a land called Uto. There are four races: the Maia (we call them "humans") and represent the vast majority of people, subjugated by the other races; the Oughal, who are cunning and ruthless, short and thick of stature, with dark skin and curly manes; the Ontali, a broad-backed people whose magic connects them (and converts to their religion) to their hive mind; and the Ikta, whose ancestors were Maia but are cursed because of an ancient betrayal. The story is about the indomitable spirit of the Maia and how, once they're united by King Anfil, fight a war agaist the machinations of the other, smaller races. Anfil leads the Maia army to victory over their oppressors and finally all Maia are granted the place of honor granted them by destiny.

It doesn't matter that this is swords and magic. It doesn't matter that the Oughal "really are" villainous, cunning, ruthless, and controlling, and that the only way for the people of Uto to achieve their destiny is by finally fighting back. Given the context of the 20th century, it's still Fascist fantasy.

[(Anonymous)]

Joshua has the whole of it.

yrs--
--Ben

[alexpshenichkin.livejournal.com]

To me, that work would still be Fascist fantasy even if it was written in 1780. ;)

-- Alex

[nikotesla.livejournal.com]

On a technical level, it couldn't have been, because Fascism is an actual political movement. But *repeating* the story *now*, with the context we have, makes it so.

To some extent, you have to look at the intent of the author, I think, because of hindsight's clarity — such an author might not have realized the implications of what they were saying.

But editors, publishers, readers, and enthusiasts of such a piece of fiction now, post 1930s, we don't have that excuse. Because hindsight is 20/20, and we can see what happened.

[sirogit.livejournal.com]

I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at.

Is the trait that you're criticizing: that the quote is stating that the primary emotional reaction to a work of fantasy should be based on its nearest real life counterparts? Such as say, I make a fantasy movie featuring a wonderful society that just happens to practice things like eugenics, constant surveilence of citizens, privatized health care and things that we know -just don't work-, but work in this context because of magic and fairies. Is that bad?

Or are you criticizng the idea that one should taken into account how people will be read into superficial connections to real-world cultures? Such as, the idea that before you make a fantasy race "dark-skinned", you should consider what your north american audience will read into that? (Nevermind that non-americans will be enraged that you made your goblins tuttis.)

[tundra-no-caps.livejournal.com]

I dislike the way some people use "Fallacy", can you prove it?

It's a matter of opinion, it's true or not based on what you think.
So it's wrong either way, as a universal claim; including a universal "Fallacy" claim.

[benlehman.livejournal.com]

I appreciate that my use of "fallacy" upsets you.

However, it is a correct use.

yrs--
--Ben

[tundra-no-caps.livejournal.com]

Which use (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fallacy) does it fit?

And if you say "1", can you show how the opposite view (that the external world should be taken into consideration) is more than a belief, and one that is merely a value judgement?

[benlehman.livejournal.com]

And if you say "1"

Hey Guy? Since you know what I'm going to say before I say it, apparently, how about you just have this whole argument yourself, declare yourself the winner, and then fuck off and leave me alone?

yrs--
--Ben