eftychia: Me in kilt and poofy shirt, facing away, playing acoustic guitar behind head (Default)
Add MemoryShare This Entry
posted by [personal profile] eftychia at 05:26am on 2007-02-07 under

"I once also said in a discussion in a friend's LJ that it seemed to me that all fantasy was moral fiction, that is, fiction the point of which is to discuss morality. I've been meaning to get back to this topic for, uh, years now, I think. :) "

"Fantasy (including the super hero genre) is the genre of moral hypotheses and arguments. It does for questions of values what hard SF does for hypotheses of fact. We respond to fantasy to the extent it makes good moral arguments -- that is, both is logically effective in making its case and well rhetorically formed, such that the moral dimension is readily apprehended and it's message lucid." -- [livejournal.com profile] siderea, 2006-11-30

There are 6 comments on this entry. (Reply.)
redbird: closeup of me drinking tea, in a friend's kitchen (Default)
posted by [personal profile] redbird at 01:47pm on 2007-02-07
Not just fantasy, of course. Dorothy Sayers had Lord Peter Wimsey claim that detective novels are "our most moral literature" because in them evil is pursued and punished. And when I explain that I don't read Sheri Tepper anymore because she sets up what are presented as moral questions and then rigs them, people understand. They may disagree with my assertion that she's rigging things, or they may say "well, yes, but it's interesting anyway," but she's clearly claiming to present moral questions.

Conversely, there's fantasy that isn't doing any more of that than other genres. Elizabeth Lynn's Chronicles of Tornor come to mind (as fantasy I like a lot that isn't mostly doing that, but it's not quest stuff, it's more coming-of-age stories).
siderea: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] siderea at 08:12pm on 2007-02-07
And when I explain that I don't read Sheri Tepper anymore because she sets up what are presented as moral questions and then rigs them, people understand. They may disagree with my assertion that she's rigging things, or they may say "well, yes, but it's interesting anyway," but she's clearly claiming to present moral questions.

Ooo! Yes, she's clearly primarily or exclusively interested in moral questions, but I'm curious what makes you say she rigs them. I haven't read too much of her stuff -- I don't have a taste for her flavor of horror. Care to say more?
redbird: closeup of me drinking tea, in a friend's kitchen (Default)
posted by [personal profile] redbird at 08:40pm on 2007-02-07
I can't answer this as clearly as I'd like to, because I can't remember the title of the book that crystallized this. (I've read some of her sf; I'm not a horror reader.)

This book was set on an extrasolar colony planet. She was trying to make a point about the flaws of "non-interference" as an ethical policy. The problem was that the central government's actual policy was to tolerate any oppressive or evil regime or situation, and destroy any benign or democratic one, and call that "non-interference." Which is like arguing that Christianity is evil because George Bush calls himself a Christian.
siderea: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] siderea at 09:03pm on 2007-02-07
That's Sideshow, and I think it's her best and most interesting argument. :)
 
posted by [identity profile] realinterrobang.livejournal.com at 11:23pm on 2007-02-07
Which is like arguing that Christianity is evil because George Bush calls himself a Christian.

Aside from the fact that it's logically invalid, I don't find that an entirely unconvincing proposition... As far as I'm concerned (because I'm an outsider, and it's all petty sectarian squabbling to me), if you call yourself a Christian, you are a Christian -- I don't go around counting the pleats in the kilts of the True Scotsmen one always finds in such discussions.
 
posted by [identity profile] realinterrobang.livejournal.com at 11:20pm on 2007-02-07
Stephen King, writing in Danse Macabre said something almost exactly alike, except he didn't couch it in the language of morality. As is his wont, he said that "horror is Republican" (meaning in this sense "conservative," not "drooling horrors from beyond the River Strauss") because the characters who behave decently almost always come out well in the end, and the characters who don't usually get creamed before the middle of the second reel, so to speak. (Harlan Ellison is a departure from the form, because often with his stories, as one of his cover blurbs said, "there are no winners or losers [and s]ometimes there are no survivors.")

I rarely ever notice that aspect of a story, however, since I'm more or less utterly uninterested in questions of morality per se. To me, "moral" and words related to it have been so abused, they've pretty much become meaningless, aside from the generalised meaning of "behavioural standards imposed by an outside socialising agency." To me, the behaviours of the socialising agencies, and the agents affected by them, are much more interesting than the codes themselves. *shrug*

Links

January

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24
 
25
 
26
 
27
 
28
 
29
 
30
 
31