I want to talk about politics in science fiction and fantasy. But first, a story…
I spent the summer of 2000 in Croatia, a country most people now associate with sun, wine, seafood—fun stuff. But in those days the first thing that sprung to mind, for most people at least, was war. And an ugly war at that—one that pitted neighbor against neighbor; the one that gave us the term “ethnic cleansing.” But the war was over, and Croatia in 2000 was an undeniably nice place—full of all that fun stuff people think of now. And I loved it. People were incredibly hospitable, the food was fresh and delicious, and the Dalmatian coast…well, it’s something everyone should see in their lifetimes. But the war still cast a long shadow.
One time, some friends and I were on the road from Zagreb to Zadar. We stopped at a small café to eat. Behind the café was a meadow, and in the middle sat a derelict bus covered in graffiti—good graffiti too, like you used to see on New York subways. I took out my camera and made my way over to get a decent shot. When I was maybe 50 feet from the bus, though, I noticed a sign planted in the grass:
Warning: unexploded ordinance in vicinity.
Landmines.
A slow panic washed over me. I took a deep breath and decided to retrace my steps. Only, I couldn’t be sure I had it right. Every time my foot hit something other than grass or soil, my heart jumped. Eventually I made it back to the café, unnerved by the experience and ashamed of my own carelessness. I never even took the photo.
Of all the things I learned from that incident (and there were many), one was to acknowledge that political conflicts don’t just end—they reverberate long after, and in ways that often feel casually indifferent to you, the individual. Naively, I had gone to Croatia looking for fun and adventure. Yet there I was, the oblivious, photo-snapping tourist literally wading into a minefield.
Now, my focus here—the political messages encoded into science fiction and fantasy literature—is quite mundane in comparison to the aftereffects of war. Still, I’m struck by how well that incident serves as a metaphor—because in many parts of the world, and at most times in history, that casual indifference has been an unavoidable fact of life. And yet here we are, in 2015, arguing over whether science fiction and fantasy “should” or “shouldn’t” address political issues or explore political themes.
Underlying the debate are two distinct, albeit complementary, understandings of what a political message “is” and where it comes from. For some, it is defined by the existence of an explicit, purposive attempt to convey said message—what Mike Duran calls “message-driven fiction.” For others, though, pretty much anything is “message fiction,” because the assumptions/choices operative in worldbuilding, characterization and narrative are implicit messages in and of themselves. Really these are two forms of political messaging—distinct from one another and not at all equivalent, but nonetheless related. All books contain implicit political messages; only a select few contain the explicit ones.
And then there are, of course, questions of: (a) quality, i.e. “is this message being conveyed effectively”; and (b) alignment, i.e. “do I like or agree with the message conveyed.” Unfortunately, readers often confuse (b) for (a).
Take Ayn Rand, for example: I’ve yet to hear a committed libertarian dismiss her for writing “crappy message fiction,” even though she is undoubtedly the clumsiest message writer in modern literature. Why? Because there’s a tendency to elevate ideas over story when those ideas appear to confirm pre-existing biases. Not always, sure, but it’s par for the course inside the ideological bubble, whether that bubble sits on the left, right or is off the map. So, really, when you hear talk about “crappy message fiction,” it’s really code for “the wrong kind of message fiction,” however defined.
No one is completely insulated from such effects, but I’d argue there are clear benefits to engaging with message fiction from outside your home bubble. For example, though I’m not a libertarian myself, I’ve read and enjoyed an awful lot of books on the Prometheus Award list. And though some winning authors, like Charles Stross, Cory Doctorow or Ken MacLeod, aren’t really libertarians either (whereas someone like Vernor Vinge probably is), the voting members of the Libertarian Futurist Society clearly think that the political messages contained within Glasshouse, Homeland or The Stone Canal (and A Deepness in the Sky) render the books more compelling than if they had contained no significant political commentary. I tend to agree.
Now, the Prometheus Award is political by definition, so perhaps they care more about the content of the message than the adventure that delivers it. But I’d argue that these books, as well as others from across the spectrum, demonstrate that political messaging and “good, old fashioned fun” can and often do coexist quite happily, even when the messages drive the story, and even when they are not bias-confirming.
The open-mindedness I’m advocating for here, of course, has its limits—limits that individuals have to set for themselves. I, for one, can’t deal with books that demonize others for the circumstances of their birth, or for being born/raised in the wrong part of the world or galaxy. But stories in which asteroid miners construct a fair and just society without public institutions? I don’t need to buy into it in order to get something out of it.
So that’s what I’ll be looking for in the coming months: the messages, explicit and implicit, embedded into the fabric of science fiction and fantasy literature. And I’ll be specifically looking for the political messages in popular science fiction and fantasy, by which I mean the stuff that sells well and/or is marketed primarily to a genre audience.
My Approach to Message Fiction
Now, since everyone has their biases, let me tell you a bit about what I like and don’t like when it comes to “message fiction.”
Explicit Political Messaging
In short, I like it when authors problematize their own assumptions, the assumptions of their readers or the assumptions of their characters. I don’t like it when the messages are just lockstep regurgitations of whatever dogma the author favors.
I like it when books recognize that most contestants in political conflict believe or convince themselves that they are “fighting for what’s right.” I don’t like it when books present contests as objectively “good vs. evil”—conveniently ignoring that most conflicts derive, first and foremost, from competing interests.
And I like unflinching, honest explorations of real world problems through imaginative and science fictional metaphor, whereas I can’t stand either ham-fisted preaching or lazy reproductions of real world problems without meaningful engagement with or exploration of their consequences.
None of the positives are necessary for me to enjoy a book, though in most cases they add to my enjoyment. Similarly, none of the negatives are deal breakers—if, that is, everything else about the book works. But in general that’s what I look for and what I look out for.
Implicit Political Messaging
I judge implicit political messaging according to different criteria. Simply put, I want it to meld into the background of the text, so it’s almost unnoticeable. But I also want it to pique my interest in the world presented, and I want it to reflect good choices—even when those choices are not consciously political.
As general rule, I like it when the social fabric in my speculative fiction is just as speculative as the science, and just as imaginative as the magic in fantasy—provided everything is intuitive and internally consistent. It should feel “natural” and “realistic,” if not by any supposed “rules” of our world, then within the “rules” set out by the author, whatever those are.
The Black Company as “Message Fiction”
With that in mind, let’s explore the political messages in an important work of fantasy. Glen Cook’s The Black Company is rightly considered a forebear of the gritty turn in epic fantasy and sword & sorcery. It centers on the exploits of a mercenary band (the eponymous Black Company), which has been hired by a tyrant to defend her empire from a popular rebellion. And though the series takes several significant turns in later volumes, the original entry is tightly focused on how men of violence navigate a dirty war.
While the Company’s motley collection of warriors and sorcerers are complex, relatable and sympathetic people—from thoughtful Croaker to the brooding Raven, and from reliable sergeant Elmo to feuding wizards One-Eye and Goblin, whose comical rivalry is both scene-stealing and masks a deep affection forged under near-constant threat of death. And there’s a clear “band of brothers” dynamic at play, which celebrates both the bond of companionship and essential humanity of those who fight.
Yet The Black Company explicitly and directly rejects the simple good vs. evil dynamic that has traditionally defined heroic fiction, whether fantasy or not. The Company’s war is not one of righteous truth or glorious conquest, but a war of survival and a war of profit. It is a civil war, and one whose primary victims are unarmed civilians—the exact kind of war, one notes, that has predominated in our world since 1945. And that means this “band of brothers” isn’t quite like the one from the HBO series, which faced terrible odds in a bid to save civilization from the least ambiguous bad guys of all time. Rather, it’s the one trying to stay alive in Vietnam, fighting a war that seems increasingly pointless, but from which there is no clear exit strategy.
Cook may not have actually fought in Vietnam (he served in the Navy just prior), but Steven Erikson is right to note how close The Black Company feels to the books written by veterans of that war. The Company knows it’s fighting for the wrong side, but what’s “right” when the White Rose commits the same atrocities as the Lady? The Black Company suggests “rightness” is at most relative, and more likely a comforting illusion. Extracting “good” from “evil,” the book seems to argue, is nigh impossible when the object of contestation is power.
Sure, the series shifts focus later on, and begins to feel more like a subversion than deconstruction of the heroic paradigm. But The Black Company, considered alone, is positively exhilarating in the force of its rejection. And the gritty fantasy authors who dominate the genre today—George R. R. Martin, Steven Erikson, Kameron Hurley, Joe Abercrombie, and others—all show signs of Cook’s influence, whether directly or indirectly.
I imagine readers familiar with my previous (now quite dated) essay on “grimdark” fantasy may find this love of Glen Cook surprising. But it’s never been dark tone, gritty approach or underlying moral relativism that’s bothered me—it’s how those things are treated in the text. As a reader, I want to explore the roots, effects and aftereffects of violence in meaningful ways. I don’t find the base assumption that everyone is terrible and the world is indeterminately hellish to be all that interesting, but I do want to explore how and why good people do terrible things, and how once nice places descend into hellfire. And I want to explore how and why bad people try to redeem themselves, and how everyone picks up the pieces once the gunfire dies down. The Black Company does all those things, or at least points in their direction.
That said, some of The Black Company’s implicit politics grate on me, not least of which the near absence of women. Those who do enter the narrative are all highly competent individuals of considerable power, but it’s not until the final volume of the trilogy that we begin to see meaningful character development from the Lady or Darling, who is the sole female member of the Company and, in this first volume at least, is mainly there to be protected by Raven. It would have been nice to see some woman warriors in their ranks—someone like Vasquez from Aliens, only with a sword. But then again, the book is also 30 years old, and there were different standards in those days. Notably, a lot of recent work that owes a debt to Cook, from Malazan to Best Served Cold and Mirror Empire, do a better job with gender.
In the end, I consider this a notable flaw, but it doesn’t negate my admiration for what the book accomplishes. In short, it’s awesome. It’s political. And it’s full of messages, explicit and implicit. But, The Black Company also has action, intrigue and a healthy dose of twisted humor. In fact, it’s one of the funniest SF/F novels I’ve ever read.
So What’s Next?
Well, I’ll be reading a lot of political SF/F—new releases, classics, works from across the political spectrum. And I’m always open to suggestions; so if there’s something you think I should check out, please do let me know in the comments!
The G is founder and co-editor of the group blog ‘nerds of a feather, flock together’, which covers SF/F and crime fiction, comics, cult films and video games. He moonlights as an academic.
The interesting thing about Ken McLeod is that during his life he’s
been both Libertarian and Trotskyite, and so tends to deal quite even
handedly with both. A good example woulf be how some of the people and
political systems in The Stone Canal are treated when they come up again
in the Cassini Division.
Yet there I was, the oblivious, photo-snapping tourist literally wading into a minefield.
That reminds me of a friend of mine who visited the Falklands recently.
He commented that while “Keep away from the penguins” signs are frequently ignored by tourists, the ones saying “Keep away from the penguins … or die” accompanied by stark landmine signs are remarkably effective. The penguins are too light to set them off, unlike people or the occasional sheep, so the colonies are left virtually undisturbed.
Regarding message fiction in general, I think one of the best quotes I saw went along the lines of :
Theme is a general principle. Justice. Truth. Compassion. Fate.
Message is a specific example of that theme in action.
And where message fiction falls through for me is where that example is poorly executed, or particularly unsubtle.
When a theme for a work is used to drive the work’s exploration of a world, the work usually benefits. When a message is used to drive the work, the work usually suffers, because a single message is a shallow exploration of the underlying theme. Ideological fiction tends to be flawed in this way, where the message they wish to send dominates over the reason that the message existed in the first place.
I think a lot of the skill in an author is in how they let a theme resonate in a work without making it obvious – the implicit message – so that the reader takes away the message without consciously realising it.
Also, I want to plug a link to Steven Erikson on the subject.
http://lifeasahuman.com/2011/feature/steven-eriksons-notes-on-a-crisis-part-x-if-it-hurts-like-hell/
Very interesting series.
Regarding quality and alignment, I noticed that what I hated about some fiction where the author’s politics appears is not the alignment itself, but how manicheist the author is in the work. Take A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court, for example, by Mark Twain. The message is: nobility was very bad until the French Revolution, the Catholic Church was also very bad, and the ideal of nobility can be an excuse for a lot of abuse (like the Confederate States of America in the Southern USA). I agree with all those messages. Yet I hate A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court. To me the message was conveyed in a manner that was way too manicheist for my liking. Everyone except the main character (that comes from “the present”, late 19th century) is very stupid or evil.
Other fiction where the author’s politics kind of made me stop reading it was Terry Goodkind. The book that made me stop reading has a very good quote at the beginning, about evil coming in the guise of good, but a very poor handling of the story. Again, too manichaean to my taste.
I was totally waiting for somebody to mention Goodkind. I actually kind of loved those books (despite not being of the same political mindset of him) but I could definitely see where he was basically filibustering (as an aside, I have found a lot of the great Russian ‘classics’ tended to do this as well! Huge swaths of text devoted to the main character rambling on and on and on about the author’s pet belief). And there were definitely times I thought he made some good points, even if I wasn’t going to become an objectivist by any means. But I do love myself some sprawling fantasy series that take the time to just wander off and explore stuff that doesn’t involve the main characters. (Although – not related to the ideology – I did also find that his magic system was a little too ‘pull stuff out of your ass in time for the climax’ and not really logically thought out like, say, something in Sanderson).
I also greatly enjoyed Pullman’s His Dark Materials series despite having very different views on religion…but I can appreciate a good story, and one that makes me think.
I’m reasonably sure that in the first sequence of books the Black Company, with their skull insignia and grim esprit de corps, are supposed to be the Waffen SS, with the Lady’s empire as Nazi Germany and the Dominator as the forces of communism. Cook’s politics as expressed in his books are generally pessimistic-conservative, and “A Matter of Time”, which has the closest he’s come to a contemporary setting, features communist mind-control and a minor heroic role for the John Birch Society.
Libertarian here. Ayn Rand writes TERRIBLE fiction. It took me ten years to finish Atlas Shrugged after my b-i-l gave it to me and told me to read it. It was one of the most poorly written things I’ve ever read. The characters, the prose, the plotting, the horrifyingly schlocky romance, the pacing, there was nothing that couldn’t have been improved 100-fold. Frankly, I’ve never met a Libertarian who didn’t agree with me on that. Some of the ideas in it are worth considering. I wish she’d written a 20 page pamphlet on them instead.
Perhaps it’s that I don’t like message fiction. My definition of that is fiction where a writer thinks they’re being subtle but shoves a message in your face at ever turn.
I also don’t like fiction where you’re reading along and the author decides to throw in some political or religious comment that adds nothing except her or his point of view. Sloppy.
But I love fiction that explores ideas and lets the reader find her own message. Those are books worth reading.
Mercedes Lackey also had a habit of having her characters take time to deliver very important messages. Despite agreeing with her politics, I’m cautious about reading her new books. She gets a bit too over the top some times.
I fully expected to disagree with this article, but instead there’s a lot here I think is very on point. Personally I don’t care for message fiction, even if I agree with it, unless it’s a good story. I don’t mind implicit messages, or even explicit ones as long as there’s good writing, a strong plot, developed characters, and an interesting setting. And even if you have that, if you spend half your book preaching to me I’ll probably lose interest. (Looking at you Goodkind.) There are authors I like all across the political spectrum, and what they have in common is the ability to entertain with a good story and sometimes make you think.
@3: manicheist: “You keep using that word, I don’t think it means what you think it means.”—Inigo Montoya
@5: Somebody who knows a lot more about military history than I ever will (or care to!) once told me that the Black Company is actually patterned on John Hawkwood’s company in the 14th century. Which of course doesn’t preclude you being right…
Sam Dodsworth:
An interesting theory, but I don’t think it’s that straightforward. Clearly Cook is playing with the idea of a story written from the perspective of the “wrong” side (though not the “wrongest” side), as well as the notion of there being multiple wrong sides (in the first book, at least, there is clearly no “right” side). But the Waffen SS were a distinctly “Nazi” force, even if they did eventually expand to include conscripts (out of need not design). The Company, by contrast, are mercenaries with little driving them beyond the promise of a big payday and a certain esprit de corps. And the Lady’s forces aren’t very Nazi-like; they are brutal in warfare, true, but seem to have more in common with traditional, pre-modern despotism (where violence was demonstrative and ad hoc) than the systematized violence of modern totalitarianism.
Also, the Dominator is positioned as something “returning,” rather than “something new,” and the Domintor and Lady represent feuding factions of the ancien regime, with no ideology to speak of, outside the accumulation of power.)
So the “Nazis vs. Communists” thing doesn’t really work for me. Even the Vietnam analogy is only of limited use–a reference, really, to a modern war in which “right” and “wrong” were ambiguous and fluid. But I think, beyond that, Cook was just trying to tell a good story and mess with the heroic formula.
auspex@5 – Calling it the Black Company does suggest a riff on Conan Doyle’s White Company at the very least. But as you say, I don’t think that’s incompatible with my reading.
nerds_feather@10 – My own view is that it’s not so much the historical Waffen SS as the revisionist version presented by the further fringes of the Right during the Cold War, with the Nazi ideology downplayed. (I’ve not read Ringo & Kratman’s notorious “Watch on the Rhine”, but I gather it does something similar.) For me, the clincher was “A Matter of Time”, which he’s said in interview is a favourite among his books.
On the other hand, his other favourite is “The Tower of Fear” which is probably his most nuanced rejection of simple “good guys vs bad bad guys”. (If nuance is quite the right word for something so cheerfully cynical – it’s also my favourite of his books.) So you could certainly make a case that the resemblance of the Black Company’s war to the eastern front – magic-carpet stukas and all – was just a useful frame to hang the story on.
I enjoyed the Black Company as a novel and series. I didn’t find the absence of female characters at the start that big a problem, if that’s the way his world was designed, and in which period. It’s quite plausible a dirty, ill-tempered group of men wouldn’t attract too many female applicants. Later books in the series included a lot more high-profile and self-actuating female protagonists and antagonists.
The Black Company appealed to me for a lot of the reasons you speak to above: it was gritty, underplayed magic as a problem solving tool for the Company, and had them quite-believably changing their stance on points of honour based on if being honourable was going to get them killed or not.
And that’s what really appealed to me in terms of the Black Company as “message fiction”: the very real moral struggles of the characters.
I’m all for freedom of speech, but I don’t know if I’d stand in front of a tank to protect it. Will I ever be placed in that situation? What would I do? What are the consequences?
Nobody in the Black Company was interested in stepping in front of the tanks either. In fact, I think they drive the tank on a number of occassions under threat of death. Live to fight another day! But at a number of points, they do draw the line and risk their lives. Why? What drives a person in either direction.
Message fiction that adheres to dogma to the detriment of believable characters doesn’t do it for me. The concept of “suffering for one’s beliefs” needs to be evident. There needs to be a cost, and someone willing to pay it, for a message to carry weight for me. “This value or ideal was worth standing up for.”
The Black Company is certainly full of exploration on the consequences of standing for something (or not), and that’s what has me rereading at least the first trilogy every couple years. The choices they make speak to today as easily as they did any of the preceeding decades since being written.
What, no mention of the Gor series? : )
I’m a committed libertarian.
Ayn Rand wrote crappy message fiction that’s painful to read.
You may now correct that part of your article to read “I have only heard 1 committed libertarian criticize Ayn Rand for…” Don’t take my word for it, but I’m not the only libertarian who believes this, either.
Sam Dodsworth: Tom Kratman based many of the characters in Watch on the Rhine on former Waffen SS that he met when serving in Germany in the late seventies – early eighties, so it’s not revisionist but based on talks with actual people that wore the twin Sigels on their collar. And it also sounds like you are dimissing the book based on skewed reviews of people that didn’t even read the book. So get out of your comfort zone and read the book, and don’t follow the herd.
#6 shellywb and #14 Matthew L
Now I know two! (Or, at least, am acquainted with you via your comments on this post.)
Glad to hear you both can’t stand Rand–she’s an *objectively* terrible writer. ;)
My point, of course, was just to say that people are generally oriented to things that confirm their biases, and are often appreciably less critical of that kind of stuff than they might be of other things.
Speaking personally, I try to be critical of bias-confirming stuff, just as I try to be open to things outside my own “bias-confirmation zone” (e.g. libertarian and anarchist SF). Don’t always succeed, mind you, but I do try!
I am a committed Libertarian (who joined the LP in 1975). Ayn Rand wrote crappy message fiction. (OK, with some great speeches — notably NOT the John Galt Radio Speech). But, yeah, crappy message fiction.
So now you are up to at least two.
Nice mischaracterization of the issue. There’s nobody arguing that political messages should be banned from SF/F. Rather, the question is should the message subsume the story. I have yet to meet a person who argues that Atlas is good fiction. A book ‘you need to read’ from multiple sources, but never ‘a good book’. As for your position that ‘it would be nice’ to see women warriors in the Black Company, given that the series at least attempts a level of combat realism, that’s pretty much impossible between the fact that women are a third less strong and have a lower VO2max. This doesn’t even get into the increased negative effects of sleep deprivation on women which would be VERY common for a merc company. Thus, the only woman warriors would have to be the absolute best of the best. Not the type to run around with the Black Company in other words.
I can claim to have actually written fiction with a rather strong message; and although it’s only Flash Fiction, the same thing applies: the story is all, even if it’s only an incident in your character’s life, and the message must be borne out by that story, or you’re wasting your reader’s time – even if all you’ve written is 500 words of dross …
ht tp://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/10063/20070101-0000/www.antisf.com/stories/story06.html
ht tp://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/10063/20120504-0022/www.antisf.com.au/the-stories/free-air-for-sale.html
ht tp://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/10063/20130404-0048/www.antisf.com.au/the-stories/to-bear-arms.html
(I wrote “To Bear Arms” as my response to the Sandy Hook shootings, as if you really want to know.)
Tiger Tomcat@15 – Thanks, but “A Hymn Before Battle” convinced me that Ringo is not for me. My taste in conservatism runs more to the cynicism of Glen Cook or early David Drake. (And speaking of cynicism, I’m not sure why you assume “actual people that wore the twin Sigels on their collar” wouldn’t revise or mythologise their past. Everyone else does, and they had more reason than many.) It’s a big world, though, and there’s room for all kinds of stuff.
@15 and 20
The Watch on the Rhine isn’t a bad read exactly – it’s basically Hell’s Faire with Heroic Germans instead of Heroic Americans, and upgrades to the Maus instead of Bunbun.
The French are still cowardly appeasement eco green surrender monkeys however, as are the green wing of the German government, and Poland promptly gets overrun due to obsolete tech which is a little on the nose in terms of blatant politics.
I have a feeling Kratman wanted to rewrite WWII geopolitics in our current environment.
They make a fairly good argument as to why they want to rehabilitate the Waffen-SS, and it holds true *for the world of the novel*.
Which I think of as a parallel world to our own, so it didn’t bother me too much – it still felt like a Posleen novel, and Ringo really does know how to write good action sequences.
Reading Kratman on his own however … yeesh. All message, no medium. Definitely not to my taste.
Going back to The Black Company though, what really comes through in terms of theme is the underlying cameraderie of soldiers – they may fight with one side or another, but they truly fight *for* each other. Loyalty to the Captain, the ferocious rivalry of Goblin and One-Eye and the continuous gambling by everyone else on every possible outcome – it’s the internecine squabbles of a family writ large. The larger world of the Taken vs the Circle is very much Grey vs Grey than black vs white.
I also like the sheer implacability of the Taken – The Limper is effectively a human terminator with magic, and Soulcatcher is worse.
The later books definitely draw heavily on Vietnam – the Nyueng Bao are fairly straight exports of Vietnamese culture, but mix it up with a lot of India, especially Rajasthan.
I like message fiction where the message is an integral part of the fiction. What I find insulting is preaching fiction. Where they insert a sermonette that has nothing to do with the story or the plot into the text to give their view point. It would be like doing a version of Sleeping Beauty and inserting a section on the joys of polygamy, between Sleeping Beauty and the Dwarves, and not changing the ending. (After all now the Dwarves would be losing their ideal woman.)
Does the message given move the story along? Does it add anything to story? IF it does not then it does not belong.
I hate that I can not edit….. I said Sleeping Beauty when I obviously meant Snow White.
I wish there was an edit button.
@brad
Register with the site, and you get your name in a different colour and a handy edit button on your posts.
I don’t think that the Germany/Russia conflict and motives were the main motivators of the conflict in the world of the Black Company. Rather, Glen wanted to make some comments on the nature of the everyday soldier to command structures and motivation in general and note that these things reoccur in every conflict. Good and Evil are more amorphous than we like to think of them. Everybody is the hero of their own story. The guy who is good is the guy who has your back in the thick of things.
Richard K. Morgan’s work, particularly his Takeshi Kovacs series (“Altered Carbon” et al.) is very political. And, even with Morgan’s gritty noir style, it’s the politics that make his work worthwhile and – to my mind – captivating. I’d really be interested in what you had to write about Morgan’s work.
#26 mburuanyk
Altered Carbon is indeed on my longlist!
There are some writers whose exploration of topics in their fiction shows a rather heavy-handed bias: All the wise, insightful, heroic protagonists champion something, while those who oppose that thing are venal or foolish. A society constructed along non-standard lines shows only the positive, while ignoring the internal contradictions that could make it unworkable. Yes, I’ve seen this even in some outstanding and superior writers, but there are less skilled writers who do the same thing and who might as well be preparing a meal of sawdust and cardboard.
The Sword of Truth series, taking an example not at random, has a contradiction in tone between preaching the glories of the human spirit in one chapter (yes, yes, I got it the first time, and the second, and the third, but this is the fifteenth already. Enough, for pity’s sake) and wading in gore the next. (My side is in an almost hoplessly outclassed struggle for truth, justice, freedom, and virtue: your side is good for nothing but cannon fodder. Ick. That’s propaganda, not art.)
An author who combines heavy handed biased, preachy, and repetitive has a better than average chance of writing a wallbanger. That is, if anyone can get past the blurb and the first page.
You know, I don’t disagree a lot that this battle is between explicit and implicit messaging. But I will say that whether or not something blends into the text is partially culturally based.
Commited Libertarian here, Ayn Rand is a terrible writer
I found Ayn Rand’s writing compelling even with horrible editing. “Atlas Shrugged” is one of my all time favorites.
To the main point: Message anything you want, but make it a damned good story. There is always something out there for everyone – because it’s ALL about the reader for whom there is no accounting for taste.
You hardly ever hear someone complain that The Left Hand of Darkness is “crappy message fiction” either.
The problem here is not with “message”, it’s with “crappy”. LHoD isn’t crappy, and it did a fairly amazing job of calling the whole gender think into question.
I won’t quibble with most of what you said, close enough that any disagreements would be quibbling. I do wonder why so many ill informed people want sword swinging female barbarians in medieval fantasies. Certainly in a grunt mercenary company. There are good physiological reasons why you don’t hear about the glorious women leading the charges at the breaches of castles. Yesthere are a few women who can match the average man when it comes to hand to hand combat. you certainly cannot get a squad of them for any unit of any historical army. A woman in a medieval combat setting would be a camp follower, not a combatant. Postulaing that they should have these Amazons in every story shows a basic lack of knowledge of what one is talking about. And citing Mulan or Joan of Arc or Molly Pitcher is disingenuous. A handfull out of a couple of thousand years of history, and they didn’t serve as shock troops but as leaders.
@Sanford
I’m not disputing the acknowledged ratios of men to women in the military forces of our history. Some reasons are physical, some political, many social, and many relate to who did the writing of that history.
However I do find it amusing that your key complaint about a piece of fiction involving magic, flying carpets, walking trees, wereleopards, physical incarnations of gods, and migrating between worlds on flying broomsticks to avoid killer shadows … is that the presence of women in the armies is clearly unrealistic.
I’ll just include a link here to Kameron Hurley’s rather good essay which if you explore some of the links might open your eyes some.
http://aidanmoher.com/blog/featured-article/2013/05/we-have-always-fought-challenging-the-women-cattle-and-slaves-narrative-by-kameron-hurley/
@The G, @nerds_feather
Are you going to make a Goodreads list or something? Maybe even one where we can suggest works or vote on works?
Classic SF from the 50s and the 60s is rife with the politics of the Cold War. Ender’s Game is an amazing post-Viet Nam series too. Paolo Bacigalupi’s Windup Girl is brilliant too. SciFi has it pretty eas, since it is often a commentary on the present.
Fantasy on the other hand is a bit tougher. By definition is it supposed to be “escapist”… the messaging tends to be a lot more hidden, or just the passive embedded kind. Which is okay, but sometimes I get down on fantasy for not being “meaningful”. I will have to give Black Company a read.
I intensely dislike utopia books that proclaim they have the answer, and read like a badly re-worked college thesis paper.
I did like Anne McCaffrey’s Ship Who Sang — based on euthanasia for malfomed infants and encapsulating people with malformed bodies but intact mind. Note that the choice is made by the government, bureaucrats, not those affected or their parents.
Elizabeth Moon has a sub-story line in Engaging The Enemy, part of Vatta’s War series. Corrupt Captain Furman is convicted of discourtesy, and sentenced to death. Our hero is given an option to spare Furman’s life that would require her to take responsibility for a Furman reconstructed to be incapable of discourtesy; a diminished capacity individual that would be a permanent ward of Ms. Vatta. The Vatta’s War conflict is based on the conflict between ever-extended patents and whether they serve the community while stifling innovation and competition.
The authoritarian/socialized corrupt government of F.M. Busby’s Young Rissa was pretty stark. The colonies encountered through the related novels seem an apropos mix of organizational possibilities.
The class antagonism and stark authorianism in David Feintuch’s Midshipmen’s Hope relayed a future that we should hope to avoid.
Wen Spencer’s A Brother’s Price has men barefoot in the kitchen, tending the toddlers — but I am not sure there is actually a message there. It feels more like a playful twist for the sheer joy of it.
It was in Memory Dance, I think that Lois McMaster Bujold has Miles Vorkosigan note that people loyal to a principle are more likely to commit atrocities than those loyal to a person. She doesn’t argue for feudalism, yet fealty is an integral part of her story.
And I would counter John Norman’s Gor (an exploration of BDSM fantasies) with Leo Frankowski’s mens adventure, Cross Time Engineer. The Frankowski series contrasts authoritarian, democratic, and socialist values left and right — while making a reasonably enjoyable tale. And it is more consensual.
I like women warriors in my fantasy because I just *do,* is all. If there can be dragons, or magicians real enough for a mercenary company to pay them, then there can be women warriors. I don’t see all this worrying about vO2max when it comes to something the size of two elephants flying under its own power or a wizard producing a fireball’s worth of energy out of his hat–why is that, do you suppose?
And in actual fact it turns out that a lot of the Viking ” warriors” (so-called because they were buried with swords) were women. Being buried with a sword was enough to call them a warrior when people thought they were men–but when people realized from their bones that these were women, suddenly a different standard was applied. Makes you wonder how often women warriors are edited out of history by people who thought they knew “that can’t be right.”
Correia’s response to Beyond Binary Gender (subtitled “How To Murder Your Writing Career”) and Torgersen’s “Nutty Nuggets” essay have given a number of people, I think understandably, the impression that they did indeed believe message fiction was bad, at least at the time. I have not seen either one admit to changing their minds.
Ooo, and if you’re going to look at the politics of “The Cross-Time Engineer” make sure you look at how the author has the women in the stories behave. Look hard. There are some real doozies of political messages there, and I’d *love* to see them …analyzed in some depth.
The only thing is I think you might need to read several books in the series to see them play out properly and I’m not sure you want to spend much time on it.
Wonderful article, thank you very much!
Thank you so much for this essay! It’s clear and gets at points I’ve been struggling to make. Yes, all fiction is message fiction. Some of the messages are implicit, some explicit, and there are differences in stories that do it well for any political persuasion at those that do it poorly (generally with a big stick, though there are other ways to do it poorly). What makes me sad, though, is that there really is no reason given the fine distinctions and examples to mention “good old stories” outside of a current, vitriolic discussion. How does this category help at all or add anything to what you’ve said? I’d argue it doesn’t add or clarify. It functions as its own big stick.
For fantasy I recommend you check out Alexandra Erin’s Tales of MU series. The characters include people with quite different political points of view — including historians with pretty different historical approaches — and they get to have arguments. And the author’s intersectional feminist approach definitely comes out in the text, in a way I generally find pleasing.
In science fiction comics, Kelly Sue DeConnick’s and Valentine De Landro’s Bitch Planet is so message-y it literally features a feminist essay at the end of each issue. I’m enjoying it so far.
Scifi novels: Constellation Games by Leonard Richardson is partially about anarchism and coercion (and about aliens and video games). And Jo Walton’s Small Change trilogy has quite a message, about fascism and the limits of our empathy.
Great thoughts here. I think the fiction that matters transcends ideology and that’s why we’re able to admire a work with a viewpoint that we disagree with. I also think that authors sometimes say more than they know. On the surface Robert E. Howard can be labeled a racist. Yet his horror story “Pigeons From Hell” is, below the surface, a commentary on the corrupting force of racism in the Old South. The decay and the violence and the haunting in that story are attributable to the legacy of slavery and white supremacy.
Since you said that you welcome suggestions for future posts in your comments section, please consider Marleen Barr’s Oy Feminist Planets: A Fake Memoir (NeoPoiesis Press) re its discussion of science fiction and feminism.
Thank you for this very balanced looked at perception and reception of political messages in SF&F.
One of the experiences I find most memorable and intellectually fruitful for me as a reader is encountering a well-written book that contains much I agree with along with some very significant ideological differences. A couple of examples for me are C. S. Lewis’s Till We Have Faces (which is rather too Christian for me) and Olaf Stapledon’s Odd John (and most everything of his I’ve read, which is rather too eugenic). These are books I find myself arguing with, with a certain degree of frustration that the author refuses to argue back! But they are also books I truly learn from, not least about my own assumptions and their defensibility.
Besides explicit and implicit, I’d also make the distinction between intentional messages and accidental messages.
For instance, one thing that has always bothered me is the oft-repeated “insight” that superhero stories are fascist/individualist/conservative. It’s repeated so often that it’s almost accepted as gospel in some places, but I also think it’s bogus, at least when applied to most superhero stories.
Fascist – Because superheroes try to solve “social problems” by violence or physical action. But that is an accidental message. Superheroes use violence because it’s far easier to write thrilling adventure fiction that features violence than it is to show the travails of a pacifist superhero that engages his opponents in well-thought debates. The writer that creates the superhero story (usually) doesn’t believe in a fascist solution to crime or social unrest.
Individualist – Because it’s about one person or a small group of persons saving the world. Again, that is just because it’s easier to focus on a few main characters in adventure stories. That is a “problem” not only with superhero stories, but with all fiction. Even in fiction that pretends to be progressive and communitarian, you GOT to focus on some characters. It’s next to impossible to craft fiction that focus on a whole movement of thousands of people.
Conservative – The whole argument about superheroes protecting the status quo, never changing society, etc. Again, that is usually not because the writers intend any conservative message, but because they want to keep the fictional world recognizable and stable for storytelling purposes to avoid problems like “No, you can’t have this character with cancer in Spider-Man, because the Fantastic Four cured cancer years ago.”
So all those political ideas people associate with superheroes are all accidental messages. While it’s very interesting to read superhero stories that break away from these constraints (“Watchmen”), it’s not very fair to say these unconventional superhero stories are criticizing the genre’s usual conservatism or something.
Well, I certainly enjoyed reading The Black Company and the books that came after it. I think I might have a thing about novels involving mercenaries, however, since I am a huge fan of David Drake’s Hammer’s Slammers books and stories, as well as, Pournelle’s Falkenberg’s Legion.
Drake’s work, of course, speaks to Vietnam, since he was in Viet Nam as a member of my regiment, the 11th ACR. The stories, according to him acted as a catharsis, helping him to cope. The stories spoke to me on an extremely personal level and, oddly enough, so did the Black Company books and Pournelle’s Falkenberg’s Legion stories.
I find the same feelings and emotions being stimulated when I read John Ringo’s Posleen War books or David Weber’s Honor Harrington books and stories. I don’t always agree with Ringo’s politics, but I just loved reading those works, the Grunt’s eye view of war. As for Weber, I’ve never met a Weber book I didn’t like and they are full of politics.
I, also, thoroughly enjoy the Ring of Fire series by Eric Flint and friends.
Another, older work, relatively speaking, is Heinlein’s Starship Troopers. I’ve lost count of the number of times I have reread that book and so many others by him.
Do all of these books have messages written into them, either explicit or implicit? I think they most likely do. One of the things I’ve always liked about Sci-Fi, in general, is that it can be used to explore History and social institutions and morality and push the envelope of exploration.
I could go on and on about this and all the books and authors I’ve read over the past forty years, but I won’t. I’ll just mention two more things, for now.
Philip K. Dick. Enough said.
Andre Norton. She is the one that got me going. My grandmother used to force me to go to the library every other week and get a book to read. This was torture in the extreme for me. I did not enjoy this at all, for I had other things to do, but I never went against Grandma’s wishes, so I dutifully did as she wished. Then I stumbled across THE game changer. I read Andre Norton’s “The Stars Are Ours.” I was eight. After that they couldn’t get me to stop reading if they tried. I think that one was rather messagey, too.
(Sorry for the late response!)
Thanks to everyone for the kind words, constructive criticisms and, of course, the recommendations–I’ll take them all into account!
@@@@@ Rene Pavan
That’s an important distinction–intentional vs. unintentional (perhaps accidental is a little too strong, as it implies pure contingency). I think both are captured in the “implicit messaging” category, but I see where you are coming from and think that’s an excellent way of distinguishing things.