The Sword and Laser discussion

Endorsing the right to rule by blood or divine right is a powerful trope in fantasy. And it's alive and well in Dragonflight at least.

I've only read the first third or so, but already there seems be to some consensus that while conquering holds is a bad idea for sure you need a strong man to lead each hold. Giving one man power is the only way to face adversity (like Thread).

In my mind this is what dates the book a lot. I feel like fantasy writers now have probably read people criticizing the genre for always being such monarchists so they wouldn't be as blatant about the need for autocracy as McCaffrey is in this book.

I think you make a valid point. That some people are "meant" to be in charge permeates dragonrider culture too, though that is quasi-militaristic, so perhaps less troubling.

I find a lot of the monarchist/good breeding aspects of the book retro as well. Sure, there are genetic markers for certain traits, but the assumption in this book is that blood will tell.

In the context of a novel, that's all well and good. However, I don't think anybody should read too much into it as a metaphor for the real world.

Gary wrote: "I find a lot of the monarchist/good breeding aspects of the book retro as well. Sure, there are genetic markers for certain traits, but the assumption in this book is that blood will tell."

Which McCaffrey then completely subverts. It's almost like she sets up the typical Fantasy society trope and then upends it just for fun.

However, I would point out that when she wrote this book (1967) we didn't have the glut of Extruded Fantasy Product that we do today. There weren't yet hundreds of Lord of the Rings imitators crowding the shelves. There was Gor and Thongor, but they were just horrible pulpy crap.

McCaffrey wrote this during the first flush of the New Wave, so Zelazny's first Chronicle of Amber book was a few years away from being written, and Moorcock had just started Elric with a few short stories. Andre Norton had just started Witch World and A Wizard of Earthsea by LeGuin was published the same year as Dragonflight.

I'm pretty sure most of us read more books in a year than significant Fantasy novels existed back in the 1960s.

Trike wrote: "However, I would point out that when she wrote this book (1967) we didn't have the glut of Extruded Fantasy Product that we do today. There weren't yet hundreds of Lord of the Rings imitators crowding the shelves. There was Gor and Thongor, but they were just horrible pulpy crap. "

Yep this is true for sure. But starting with LotR we see a lot of this sort of presumed autocracy and at least in Dragonflight the characters are working entirely in that framework. I think this books belongs as a good example of this issue in fantasy.

Of course I'm not saying McCaffrey was trying to make some sort of political statement about the fallacy of popular rule (Tolkien... I'm not sure!). She was just using Tolkien/Victorian sensibilities to create this throwback world.

I'm not at all saying that every fantasy book needs to be a Mistborn that grapples directly with these political issues. But if your story involves the blood-right person coming to power over the usurper... that's a little unsettling.

Gary says and it doesn't surprise me that this changes later... Pern was written over decades so I would certainly hope so. :)

Ulmer Ian wrote: "But starting with LotR we see a lot of this sort of presumed autocracy and at least in Dragonflight the characters are working entirely in that framework. I think this books belongs as a good example of this issue in fantasy."

It doesn't start with Tolkien, it's basically the default setting for storytelling for thousands of years. Tolkien was basically translated the old myths and legends into modern fantasy literature, and his shadow on speculative fiction has been so looming, it's dominated the genres. That's why we've had authors like Michael Moorcock, Norman Spinrad, Frank Herbert, and David Brin railing against it. But the "saviour king" sentiment was still pretty dominant in fantasy fiction at the time, and might still be. It may have been difficult to publish fantasy in the 1960s that wasn't consolatory. I'm just happy to hear McCaffrey herself addresses it in later books.

Yep true. OK I blame Gilgamesh. :)

The concept of "royalty" is so ingrained in fantasy fiction that it's not surprising that it should bleed out into something as closely related as sci-fi. Even oxymoronic concepts like "democratically elected" queens and princesses appear in Star Wars, or technologically advanced rulers exist in sci-fi like the dukes and barons of the Dune series.

As repugnant as I find the concept of royalty in the real world, it's fine in fiction. I don't mind imaginary dictatorships any more than magic or improbable science in a work of fiction. Within the context of a novel, it's the skill of the author and the capacity of the reader that suspends disbelief. However, it's mostly on the reader to recognize that the things that appear in the alternate universe of a piece of fiction shouldn't necessarily be in the real world.

Gary wrote: "Even oxymoronic concepts like "democratically elected" queens and princesses appear in Star Wars, or technologically advanced rulers exist in sci-fi like the dukes and barons of the Dune series."
Well that's why I said 'autocracy'. I got no problem with constitutional monarchies. ;)

Dune is a good example though. A major theme of the whole series is wielding power. In the first book you don't root for the Atreides because a fair and just Emperor granted them Dune. It's just power politics and it's obvious that the Harkonnens aren't nice. And then things get more complicated and gray in the next books.

As repugnant as I find the concept of royalty in the real world, it's fine in fiction. I don't mind imaginary dictatorships any more than magic or improbable science in a work of fiction.

So Dune doesn't ask the reader to temporarily set aside their ethics and morals, but quite the opposite, it actively examines issues of exercising power. So I don't really follow your reasoning at all. I'm OK with FTL drives, but why should I cheer on tyrants? You really are OK with books that are like "hooray, Fascism" as long as it's in the pursuit of fiction?

There's nothing wrong with having autocrats and so forth. Tigana is another example where they have kings, there's even the rebel 'rightful' king, but the Kay actively invites the reader to question that sort of thinking. I was actually uncomfortable with totalitarianism and jingoism of the Colonial Union in Old Man's War, but now Scalzi has used that as a starting point to go into a really cool direction in the subsequent books.

Hmm, if the Fascism is working, within the world of the story, and there isn't any obviously terrible things happening there, why not cheer it on? If a tyrant has a reason for becoming a tyrant other than being a power hungry monster, can the author show me some justification? Is forcing/coercing/threatening people into a certain behavior the only way to save the civilization? (as in Dune universe)

I enjoy exploring different ideas of how and why a certain way of organizing a culture has come into being. I'm impressed when an author can make an autocracy into something understandable, maybe acceptable, or even unnoticable (i.e. doesn't really affect the story).

Michele wrote: "If a tyrant has a reason for becoming a tyrant other than being a power hungry monster, can the author show me some justification? Is forcing/coercing/threatening people into a certain behavior the only way to save the civilization? (as in Dune universe)"

I wouldn't want to make a justification even if I thought there were one because outside the context of a novel, I don't think Fascism works. There are some short term benefits of such a system, which can make it more effective during that short term in dealing with a particular situation, but even in a limited timescale, the costs outweigh the benefits.

In the case of the Pern novels, the recurring and devastating threat of the Red Planet is surely how one might justify, but I don't think that's the message McCaffrey was trying to send. She wasn't presenting a kind of alternate world where an autocratic society is justifiable. Rather, she presented one where a few autocratic elements that paralleled real world autocracies existed, and then had her major characters go about dismantling them.

In the context of a piece of fiction, though, I'm OK with the concept of a benevolent dictator. After all, if we can accept dragons, unicorns, magic, human-like alien races, warp speed, psychic powers, etc. why should something as unlikely as a benevolent dictatorship be a deal breaker?

Gary wrote: "Even oxymoronic concepts like "democratically elected" queens and princesses appear in Star Wars, or technologically advanced rulers exist in sci-fi like the dukes and barons of the Dune series."

For the record, elected monarchies weren't uncommon. You had elected kings in many Greek city-states, pre-Republican Rome, the Germanic tribes, and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, for example. Most English-language/Western European fantasy fiction however is descended from French medieval literature, where the king is absolute, or British medieval literature, where the king is mostly absolute, but if he goes too far his nobles can go, "What the hell, guy?" And of course, Tolkien used the Arthurian theme of "the king and the land are one", so a lot of his successors did too.

Michele wrote: "Is forcing/coercing/threatening people into a certain behavior the only way to save the civilization? (as in Dune universe)"

Is it? In Dune, if the Harkonnens had succeeded and the Atreides were completely wiped out, why wouldn't the Imperium continue on exactly as it had?

Dune's a perfect example of this not working, since by the opening of the second book, (view spoiler)[Paul's already a worse monster than the Harkonnens ever were. And by the opening of the fourth book, his son is an immortal god-king who has ruled with absolute power for almost 4,000 years (hide spoiler)]. Of course, there are many people who like the first Dune story but not the sequels, because they're used to the traditional Messiah-king story, and can't accept how Herbert completely upends and deconstructs those tropes in the sequels.

Gary wrote: "In the context of a piece of fiction, though, I'm OK with the concept of a benevolent dictator. After all, if we can accept dragons, unicorns, magic, human-like alien races, warp speed, psychic powers, etc. why should something as unlikely as a benevolent dictatorship be a deal breaker?"

Because it's a cheat. I don't generally care for stories that are resolved by deus ex machina, whether it's magic, a superweapon, a literal god, some power or skill literally pulled out of the hero's hindquarters unless the author has done a really good job of setting it up (cf. Sanderson's First Law). I want to read stories where the heroes struggle but succeed through their own skill and guile and determination, within the rules of that universe.

But most of these stories are populated by human beings not really different than you or I. And governing human beings is a messy business, because human beings aren't a hive mind. Governing them generally requiring hefty amounts of brutality, bribery, burglary, bamboozling, and bureaucracy. For a hero to be given power and just be able to rule a stable, prosperous society without having to deal with dissent, or economics, or rules and limitations, is as much a narrative cheat as having the hero defeat the Dark Lord just by pulling out the Magic Doodad of Triumph.

Joe Informatico wrote: "Because it's a cheat. I don't generally care for stories that are resolved by deus ex machina, whether it's magic, a superweapon, a literal god, some power or skill literally pulled out of the hero's hindquarters unless the author has done a really good job of setting it up (cf. Sanderson's First Law). I want to read stories where the heroes struggle but succeed through their own skill and guile and determination, within the rules of that universe."

Ah, well, that's an equine of another hue, though, isn't it? A fantasy element like a benevolent monarchy is very different from deus ex machina as a story device.

If an author presents a world in which there are actual gods (or just A god...) to embody various aspects of nature or human concepts like good/evil, and then proscribes a connection between the divine and a ruling family then I'm OK with that. It's part of the given values of that alternate reality. Heroes still can (and I think you're right: should) operate within the rules of that universe, but the fantasy benevolent dictator is then one of those elements.

It can be a problem if people then draw a parallel between the fictional world and the real one like, say, Ayn Rand and her followers.... But that's a third shade of horse.

Ulmer Ian wrote: "Endorsing the right to rule by blood or divine right is a powerful trope in fantasy. And it's alive and well in Dragonflight at least. ...
In my mind this is what dates the book a lot. ..."

There is nothing particularly 60s about hereditary monarchy. It has been one of the most common forms of government throughout history, especially European history. Nor is there anything particularly modern about not having kings; the Greeks, except the Spartans, got rid of theirs in pre-history, and even the Spartan kings had no political powers other than serving on the council.

" I feel like fantasy writers now have probably read people criticizing the genre for always being such monarchists so they wouldn't be as blatant about the need for autocracy as McCaffrey is in this book."

I don't see McCaffrey saying anything about autocracy being necessary, even if it's fair to characterize Pernese governments that way. It's just the form of government adopted by the Holds. Actually, we aren't shown enough details to really know if all Holds have hereditary rulers, although that is likely. The Weyrleader is certainly not a hereditary position.

Joe Informatico wrote: "For the record, elected monarchies weren't uncommon. You had elected kings in many Greek city-states, ..."

Which ones? Outside of Sparta, the Greeks got rid of their kings in pre-history.

"... pre-Republican Rome, ..."

Rome's kings are legendary, although the Romans probably did have kings at one point. But I have never heard that they were elected. If they were elected, why did they have to be thrown out?

"... the Germanic tribes, ...

Maybe some of them, at some times, but I am not sure they would qualify as kings instead of chiefs or warlords or whatnot.

" ...and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, for example."

You've got me there; I've never heard of it.

I think Sparta still counts as an elected ruler.

However, I'd argue that there's a difference between democracy and elections. Democracy has elections, but not all elections are democratic. An election of a ruler from a small pool of oligarchs isn't really a democracy. An election amongst a tribal or even clan-sized group of voters isn't really a democracy.

I suppose if I'm cutting the definition closely, an election with only male voters isn't a democracy either.... Is there a term to replace demos in that word? Androcracy? Anthrocracy? Meh.

Gary wrote: "I think Sparta still counts as an elected ruler."

Except the Spartan kings were hereditary. There were two of them, from two different families, the Agids and the Eurypontids, at any one time.

"However, I'd argue that there's a difference between democracy and elections. Democracy has elections, but not all elections are democratic."

Sure. The Holy Roman Emperor was elected by seven Electors.

" An election amongst a tribal or even clan-sized group of voters isn't really a democracy."

Why not? Can't a tribe or clan be a demos?

"I suppose if I'm cutting the definition closely, an election with only male voters isn't a democracy either."

I think that's much too narrow a definition. Won't someone else say that you can't have a democracy unless babies can vote?

Michael wrote: "I think that's much too narrow a definition. Won't someone else say that you can't have a democracy unless babies can vote?"

I doubt anyone will suggest babies need the vote, but there is a valid criticism to be made about how we think of republicanism and democracy originating in the Roman and Greek days. More recognition needs to go the disenfranchisement of everyone but land-owning white males in the Greek democracy. Similarly, the American exceptionalism of uncritically viewing our Founding Fathers and the Constitution as infallible, despite being written by people who still believed in slavery is a problem.

As for the discussion about books. I'd like to point out that we should be looking at structures in books on their own terms. For instance, to look at Tolkien closer, Aragorn is a "chosen one," but because of a history of monarchy. And "his" kingdom has been held in stewardship by Denethor/Fararmir's line for the Return of the King. Aragorn is only the chosen one because circumstances, ie the War of the Ring/Rise of Sauron, put him in a position to reunite Gondor/the kingdom. Similarly, Frodo is not a "chosen one" in any sense of the word other than the Ring fell into his hands, and at the Council of Elrond he takes on, by choice, the burden to walk into Mordor. There's a lot of complexity there. Gandalf similarly, as an Istari, is also known to be one of the Maiar, or the lesser Ainur, ie Angels. So it is the action of the divine powers in the universe coming to the aid of the people, albeit in disguise. Tolkien's inspirations were The Prose Edda and Old English texts such as Beowulf, etc. His purpose was to fashion a new mythology for England, because fairies and the old mythologies, in light of the development of mass warfare and bombs, were not relevant. There is plenty of great late 19th-early 20th century literature dealing with the death of tradition/it's lack of relevance in the aftermath of the Industrial Revolution. Thus, it's not surprising with his sources, his interests, and his purpose that Tolkien chose monarchy. It should also be noted that the Shire, with it's Mayor, Thain, Postman, etc., seems despite the lack of a large bureaucracy to be something like a modern democracy.

Having said all that, I would appreciate a bit of diversity in political systems in fantasy/sci-fi. But I don't think, when he was basically inventing the modern genre, Tolkien had any onus to choose democracy. Just as kings when they overstep their authority turn into tyrants, Polybius, an ancient Roman historian, gives us a name for democracy gone bad: "rule of the mob." I'd say that's what a lot of modern democracies have devolved into.

Michael wrote: "There is nothing particularly 60s about hereditary monarchy."
I'm talking about literary tropes, not history. Having wise or wicked kings is a feature of "consolatory" fantasy. Which is fine, but it's good to have some discussion or thought to whether it makes sense to have kings at all. You often see that in contemporary fantasy.