Let me preface this blog post by saying that I'm not a socialist. Unlike one of my friends, I should add, who claims that watching Downton Abbey turned him into one. I don't lay awake at night worrying that some people have more than others. But I have come to realize that genre stories, especially fantasy ones, are incredibly classist, dominated by the economic and social elite. To a ridiculous degree. Quite frankly, I don't think readers would put up with it in any other genre.
In general, novels are a little classist; there are a lot more novels about lawyers than construction workers. And more novels about doctors than nurses or EMTs. I think this has something to do with the popular impression that higher paying jobs are more interesting, and have more potential to create better stories. Also, more money does not mean more problems (seriously, if you think that, I'd be happy to take over some of these potential problems for you), but it does mean more leisure time. And more leisure time means more opportunity for ...whatever.
But fantasy takes it to an extreme. Characters are almost always part of the hereditary aristocracy. Take a look at one of the classics, Lord of the Rings. Even among the humble, simple hobbits, three out of four of them are members of the aristocracy; only one of them actually seems to, you know, work for a living. And Samwise's place is as the servant, the lackey, the loyal follower who never abandons his master. At one point, IIRC, he's described as dog-like, and it's intended as a compliment. Seriously?
Granted, the Jackson movies do a much better job of recognizing Sam; by the time of RotK, it's clear to the audience that Sam is the Big Damn Hero. And the fact that Sam happens to work for Frodo is just glossed over; their relationship is defined by their friendship, not master/servant. And still, the name of the movie is called Return of the King; Aragorn is still the one who merits mention in the title. Why not Samwise Versus Mordor? :)
Now, it's true that Lord of the Rings was written years and years ago. I would point out, however, that when it was written the British aristocracy had already passed into uselessness. What about more modern stories? Bujold, Brust, Jordan, Martin, Sanderson, Keyes, Feist, and Butcher, just to name a few: all dominated by the aristocracy. Even when a character seems to come from humble origins, chances are pretty good they have some hereditary link to the powers that be (like Rothfuss). Even if not, the nobility of the world will probably find some way co-opt these people into joining their ranks.* And even then, their defining characteristic will be their humble origins.
The few, the elite, the rich, the powerful. Why are these guys so vastly overrepresented in fantasy? I say guys, but if anything, women characters in fantasy are much more likely to be nobility or royalty than anything else (except a victim). Part of it, I think might be that the knights, kings, and queens are exotic; it's not like we have any of that stuff in modern society. Part of it is baggage from history. I can't figure out the rest.
Books, written today, are typically judged with modern morality, even if they take place far in the past, far in the future, or in some alternate fantasy world. I'm not decrying this practice, of course; we need to like the protagonists. But fantasy characters are judged by our standards Except when it comes to the nobility. The hereditary aristocracy controls the lives of countless people, gets rich off their sweat because they inherited the land, and will typically send soldiers and conscripts off to die in wars for the most pointless of reasons.
I probably don't need to make this argument, but think of the various minor wars in Wheel of Time, or the big war in Song of Ice and Fire. I don't think any of the common people's lives are going to be different if Duke X wins, instead of Prince Y. It's all about concepts like 'honor.' And for whatever reason, readers are basically fine with the conceits of main characters who think that because of who their fathers were, they're better and more important than everyone else. Crazy.
To me, the default assumption would be that any kind of hereditary aristocracy that enjoys special treatment, rights, etc.would be the bad guys, people the protagonists would struggle against. In my fantasy novel, No More Kings, the argument is made that it's not there are tyrant kings, but that kings are, by definition, tyrants. That the behavior and assumptions necessary to enforce your will and stay in power are evil. Hell, look at the behavior of historical monarchs: Henry VIII wasn't willing to live by the rules of his own religion, so he created his own church, put himself at the top, and made whatever rules he wanted. Oh, and killed a friend of his who tried to stop him. That's not just villainous, it edges into over-the-top super-villainy. (I hope that by criticizing the behavior of political figures hundreds of years ago, I can avoid the annoyance and division of contemporary politics).
And it's not that you need to have the characters be nobility, either. Even in historical societies, the hereditary aristocracy weren't the only ones calling the shots or doing interesting things. Yet the fantasy genre continues to have its characters pigeonholed by this trope. That was actually my principal motivation (other than just wanting to finally write a fantasy novel) for creating No More Kings: to have a fantasy novel where none of the main characters were nobility; they didn't act like it, and they didn't want to be nobility. And then, they led a revolution against the monarchy, since the magic of the world acted as a sort of gunpowder that could equalize armed forces.
Damn, I think I've written books shorter than this. Well, I'm done. Maybe next time, I'll be breaking down my friend's book, which he's promised to email me by the end of today.
*At first, in Way of Kings, I had to give Kaladin heaps of credit for not joining with the nobility when he had the chance. It was kind of dumb, but true to his character. Then he agrees to work for one of them...is that really any better? Especially since good noble was more than willing to use the bad noble's tactics for his guys, as long as his hands weren't dirty? But hey, some of my ideological/philosophical problems with Sanderson should be another post. :)
No comments:
Post a Comment