Liking books that go against your politics

[Who's Wee Dug]

I generally don't agree with the politics in Ken Macleod's Science Fiction books, which generally tend towards either libertarianism or communism or some odd combination of the two, but I still like most of the novels. I never really felt he was preaching about a particular ideology or trying to portray a particular political system as perfect.

But there again you are not Scottish or have a dislike like of M. thatchter and what she did to Scotland with the poll tax, I am not right wing but I do enjoy his books.

 

[Werthead]

But there again you are not Scottish or have a dislike like of M. thatchter and what she did to Scotland with the poll tax, I am not right wing but I do enjoy his books.

William is, in fact, Scottish. He attitude towards Margaret Thatcher is not known to me

 

[steve12553]

A Science Fiction or Fantasy novel, almost by definition, should not be taken at face value. Within the author's created political system there may only be a small idea that we are meant to absorb. The rest may just be setting. There are of course preachy books but they tend to be obvious. The other part of looking at the politics of a book is that most peoples own politics tend to shift over time. I know that over the last half century, I've been all over the map and I expect it to change many times over the next few hundred years.

 

[williamjm]

But there again you are not Scottish

I'm not? That's news to me, I thought I was...

He attitude towards Margaret Thatcher is not known to me

I'm not sure I can claim to have a particularly informed opinion, having been 9 years old when she was deposed from power. I don't think I would have voted for her, though, and the poll tax does sound like a really bad idea, badly implemented.

 

[Werthead]

It's understandable. Obviously we still keep the perfidious Scots locked up behind the impenetrable fortifications of Hadrian's Wall. The idea that one could slip through and live south of the border is obviously implausible

I had something similar when someone on Malazanempire started going on at me for being Irish. I wouldn't mind but it was an old-school poster who I'd had discussion with before the move and should have known I wasn't

 

[kaelcarp]

I think one of the things that makes political books tolerable, even if they are preachy, is an even-handedness to the approach. In other words, they don't just make it some sort of utiopia but show all the ugliness that comes along with the political view being put forth. China Mieville is a good example of this. Even the Wright books I mentioned, do to some degree, though they are very heavily Libertarian and pretty much say that Libertarianism is the only logical conclusion one can ultimately come to (which is, I think, intellectually dishonest, yet the books were great anyway).

 

[williamjm]

It's understandable. Obviously we still keep the perfidious Scots locked up behind the impenetrable fortifications of Hadrian's Wall. The idea that one could slip through and live south of the border is obviously implausible

That's just what we want you to think... We've made a secret deal with the Geordies so they turn a blind eye when we slip through

I would make some joke about our slipping through Hadrian's Wall undetected being part of a subtle long-term plot to seize control of your government, but I think we've done that part already

 

[Urlik]

I'm not sure I can claim to have a particularly informed opinion, having been 9 years old when she was deposed from power. I don't think I would have voted for her, though, and the poll tax does sound like a really bad idea, badly implemented.

almost as bad as the Council Tax

but enough of RL politics

one of the things I like about the political set-ups in RAH's work is that they all seem plausable and workable,

 

[manephelien]

Possibly, but I still disagree with many of his concepts: i.e. only people who had done military service would be allowed to vote (Starship Troopers), or that the only societies not condemned to stagnate and die would be pioneer ones with very little government and everybody for himself (most Future History books, especially TEFL). I'm not very comfortable with TANSTAAFL either, and don't get me started on his views on women...

 

[Ursa major]

...or that the only societies not condemned to stagnate and die would be pioneer ones with very little government and everybody for himself...

I also find this hard to believe: people do all sorts of things for a variety of reasons, most of them completely unconnected with the politics and organisation of their state. (The most obvious exception is where things are outright banned (as opposed to regulated), and even then that doesn't stop people thinking.)

 

[Urlik]

or that the only societies not condemned to stagnate and die would be pioneer ones with very little government and everybody for himself

I think that it is more along the lines of "when society is there for the benefit of government, then it is doomed"
to me, RAH seems to remind us that government is there for the benefit of society and that when the balance shifts the other way, we get increased security and a loss of civil liberty and the seeds of destruction have been sown for that society. although it may take many years before the effect is fully realised, maybe two or three hundred years, depending on how many liberties and pleasures have been taken away from the plebs in the street.

 

[manephelien]

Umm yes. But I dislike Heinlein's notion that only people who can make it on a pioneer planet are worthy of survival. I know I couldn't in a million years. He was also personally probably in too ill health to make it on a pioneer planet. Besides, the function of government should be to protect the weakest (not let them die as individuals unfit to live), and to make sure the rights of the strongest don't completely overrun those of the weakest.

 

[Fried Egg]

For me though, its not necessarily the presentation of the authors political views that I dislike merely the use of their books as a pulpit through which they can demolish straw men who can't fight back. Put it this way - political science and philosophy are very well respected disciplines, with hundred of books and academics and journals dedicated to them yet we are supposed to expect that a fantasy book will tell us something that they can't, while at the same time telling an entertaining story.

I strongly take issue with this. Fiction, especially science fiction, can be a great way to explore philisophical and political ideas that have never been tried in reality. The author, in exploring such ideas, is forced to consider how such esoteric theories would actually work in practice and the real problems that they might face.

That's what I liked about "The Dispossessed". One can gain an insight into how an anarchic society might actually work and the problems it would face that one would not easilly grasp from reading dozens of essays on the theory and philosophy of anarchy.

 

[Urlik]

Umm yes. But I dislike Heinlein's notion that only people who can make it on a pioneer planet are worthy of survival. I know I couldn't in a million years. He was also personally probably in too ill health to make it on a pioneer planet. Besides, the function of government should be to protect the weakest (not let them die as individuals unfit to live), and to make sure the rights of the strongest don't completely overrun those of the weakest.

I don't think that is RAH's agenda.
in my opinion, he is more against the people who have a romantic notion that pioneering is an easy alternative to a life in an established civilisation.

and as I said in my previous post, he reminds us that government is there for the benefit of society, especially those who can't fend for themselves, as opposed to those who won't fend for themselves or think they are above working for a living.

as my interpretation of RAH has changed as I've got older and reread most of his books many times, I have come to the conclusion that he is an anarchist at heart, but he always states that the fundamental rule of society is to protect women and children and put their safety above that of any man in the group. and whether you believe this to be a sexist or outdated view, it is fundamentally the only secure and sound base for a society. once society's priorities shift from their protection to the support of government, then that society has doomed itself in the long run as it is no longer protecting humanity's greatest assets and is just propping up an elite.

I find it strange that Moorcock (another of my favourite authors) seems to have missed this side of RAH's writing.

 

[Clansman]

My view of RAH's writing is that he routinely used the satirical model to make a point. I found Starship Troopers to be highly satirical, both the book and even the not-so-good movie. To interpret his work as the author actually holding the views expressed therein is a misapprehension of his intent. Heinlein was trying to illustrate the dangers of government control and the erosion of civil liberties.

Just take a close look at the US, with the problems created by The Patriot Act and the manner in which Guantanamo Bay prisoners are being tried (no disclosure, lack of access to counsel, interrogation techniques that are not only illegal, but criminal, in any regular court in the US, etc.). When government starts treating its constitution as an inconvenience, and even an obstruction, the best interests of the citizens are the first casualties. It is usually the power structure that is being protected, not the country itself, and it is this point that Heinlein routinely made in his writing.

I don't think anyone thought that Orwell, when he wrote 1984, thought that totalitarianism was a good thing. Or that Evelyn Waugh thought that the British aristocracy should be maintained. Heinlein wrote in this kind of tradition, but used science fiction to really blast open the scope of the satire.

Science fiction and fantasy are excellent mechanisms for doing this sort of thing, because the author can treat the subject matter with the gloves off. In my view, that is what Heinlein did, and he did it really well.

 

[Ursa major]

Heinlein was trying to illustrate the dangers of government control and the erosion of civil liberties.

The first half of Stranger in a Strange Land would definitely fit this analysis; I'm not sure it applies to the second half though.

 

[Connavar]

I agree with Clansman and Ulrik you miss the point of RAH if you think the different political ideas of his books was his real ones. That he in real life thinks the weak is not fit for survival is not something i have read in the books mentioned here.

Clansman and Ulrik put it perfectly why RAH works so well.


Also i wonder why you think only RAH had the views of women he had that was product of his time ? I have read women written by other SFF of his time and they werent any better in that aspect. Why does only RAH get diss for that ?

 

[Urlik]

Also i wonder why you think only RAH had the views of women he had that was product of his time ? I have read women written by other SFF of his time and they werent any better in that aspect. Why does only RAH get diss for that ?

I think it's because he wrote them as strong central characters, right up to the end when he got on his soapbox.
because they are capable and able to think, rather than scream and wait for a hero, and are often superior to the males in various ways.
other SF has the females as supoorting roles for the protagonist whereas RAH had them as protagonists who didn't need some special voodoo or gadget to beat the odds, but wrote them as people, just as real as the male characters.
there is an empathy towards them and when there is an injustice towards them, we feel that injustice.
but look again at Stranger and study the case of Jubal's secreteries.
he is an old tyrant demanding 24 hour a day attention, but he hires 3 secreteries and gives them the freedom of his home as well as the freedom to set their own schedule. he threatens them with improbable punishments but happily allows them to backchat him, tease him and otherwise act in an insubordinate manner.
he constantly worries about their safety and welfare before his own as they are under his roof and he takes full responsibility for his household.

an underlying theme of RAH is that women are there for men to cherish.
RAH suggests that women deserve more than equality and states that men should protect them, not because they are weak or less capable, but because they are humanity's greatest asset.

 

[Connavar]

Thats another reason i think he should be praised for the role he gave women in his SF.

I have read several other old SF stories where the women are only there to scream and wait for the hero. Wait for the hero to fall in love with them.

I was surprised in Moon is a Harsh Mistress how he had a female main character who was very independent and strong.

 

[Urlik]

I would love to see RAH cleared of the negative views he has been acredited with.

ok he did write a few unnessecerry kinks into his books, but even then, the situations aren't totally unbelievable, and there is also a real emotion between the characters. in real life, consenting adults get up to some far more experimental behaviour and a lot of other writers go into far more unnessecerry detail, and far more often.

there is something else that RAH states (in TEFL, I think) and, paraphrasing, that is;
sin is anything which causes harm to someone else if there is an alternative that causes harm to no-one.

that is a truely profound definition of sin in a general sense, and if everyone lived by that, we'd all be living in a Utopia with no laws.