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]

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.