RoR: Forum

I believe the mysticism fiction is fine as long as you know this could never happen in real life and only in fantasy land. I think the harmful part is any anti-reason philosophy present in such books.

Post 1

Sunday, August 15, 2010 - 4:38pm

Sword of Truth series by Terry Goodkind.

Post 2

Sunday, August 15, 2010 - 5:19pm

I agree 100% that the setting of a story is the preference of the author and how it is told, how the characters are portrayed, whether and how the action is integrated to the plot are all more important.

That said, there was a time when fantasy was a subgenre of science fiction. Now it stands alone, even as it stands next to horror. I read two books by Stephen King. I wish I could write like that. But the popularity of his works and others has little to do with plot-themes and aesthetic theories.

Harry Potter was recommended to me by someone to whom I recommended Atlas Shrugged. An engineer and programmer who never liked fiction, he became a fan of Ayn Rand. He recommended Harry Potter on its virtues. So, I can grant that. We have seen all of the movies. We own several. But the sales of Rowling's books is tremendous. This is beyond Objectivists hungry for bootleg romanticism.

On the other hand, Star Trek cannot take itself seriously. The best science fiction movies are, like the best science fiction, from the Golden Age before the 1960s. The two antithesis films of that era are The Thing and The Day the Earth Stood Still. As different as they are in theme, their writing and presentation were never eclipsed. The defining third film was Destination Moon. It is not just that few films of our time were that good. (I remain partial to 2010: The Year We Make Contact starring Helen Mirren, Roy Scheider and John Lithgow.) Rather, it is the underwhelming social impact and market presence of such works.

On the other hand horror stories, slash films, and sorcery take the field. That, I think, reflects a deep reality about the nature of our neighbors.

Post 3

Sunday, August 15, 2010 - 8:04pm

Are people who read fantasy irrational? I know several counter-examples among my acquaintances.

I enjoyed reading non-reality based bedtime stories to my children when they were younger. Does a story based on a family of talking badgers, such as the Francis series, mean one is teaching irrationality, even though the plot gives useful hints about how best to conduct real life? Does Dr. Suess' "Horton Hears a Who" teach about irrationality, or is it a subtle way of teaching pro-life values?

I'd say no to the notion that fantasy is necessarily irrational, that Brandon's post 0 (sanctioned!) succinctly sums up my views.

Post 4

Sunday, August 15, 2010 - 9:13pm

I've posted a lot on this topic in the past, and don't have a problem with fantasy/sci-fi. I don't know the rhyme or reason for the poll, but if there's concern that the genre is not compatible with Objectivism, I'd thought I'd thrown in Rand's take:

On sci-fi, Rand is quoted in Ayn Rand Answers as saying that sci-fi is �a legitimate form of literature, but it's seldom good. Science fiction used to be original and sometimes interesting; today it's junk. I dislike it because it's too freewheeling. You can invent anything you wish and say that's the science of the future. They go too far that way."

And from The Art of Fiction, Rand's take on sci-fi, fantasy, and magic stories: "All of these forms are rational when they serve some abstract purpse applicable to reality."

"Stories like The Magic Carpet and Cinderella are justified even though the events are metaphysically impossible, because those events are used to project some idea which is rationally applicable to all human beings The author indulges in metaphysical exaggeration, but the meaning of the story is applicable to human life."

And, of course, she defends stories like Buck Rogers and such in The Romantic Manifesto. As Rand wrote, enemies of Romanticism try to convince the little space cadets that "to be like Buck Rogers means to wear a space helmet and blast armies of Martians with a disintegrator gun, and that he'd better give up such notions if he ever expects to make a respectable living." But she goes on to say that it is not the "impractical fantasy" they object to; it's not the Martians and ray guns that aren't possible, it's the striving for something better, the adventure, the passion that they feel is impossible."

(Edited by Joe Maurone on 8/15, 9:14pm)

Post 5

Monday, August 16, 2010 - 8:36am

On sci-fi, Rand is quoted in Ayn Rand Answers as saying that sci-fi is �a legitimate form of literature, but it's seldom good. Science fiction used to be original and sometimes interesting; today it's junk. I dislike it because it's too freewheeling. You can invent anything you wish and say that's the science of the future.

I'd say that is no longer true -- some great sci-fi has been written lately (along with the usual load of rubbish) -- read most any anthology of short fiction by Gardner Dozois for a taste of the good stuff.

Finishing up a "Culture" novel right now, "Use of Weapons" -- nothing there is necessarily impossible, unlike fantasy which veers off into things that can't happen.

The writer of the Harry Potter series is a socialist, IIRC, but then most writers are leftists -- to say that sci-fi or fantasy is * necessarily * anti-rational is an easily rebuttal assertion, as a reading of Heinlein's "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" would show. That is, it is a falsifiable theory that has already been falsified -- repeatedly.

Post 6

Tuesday, August 17, 2010 - 5:30am

Ayn Rand refered to a "cultural barometer." In our complex and literate society, people play golf and build ships in bottles; scan each other with positrons and serve each other coffee; and read and write all kinds of entertaining stories. Which of those is more popular reflects a summation of individual attitudes.

Today, murder mysteries are arguably the most popular genre. (Sales figures will be skewed by inflation.) In murder mysteries, we see justice carried out. How that happens is up to the author and not all writers are technically accomplished, or affirmative of human values. But the fact that the genre is popular reflects many aspects of American culture. The same is true of romances, westerns, science fiction, and all the others.

I differentiate fantasy from science fiction. I enjoyed the anthologies Flashing Swords 1 and 2. I read a couple of the original Conan stories. I also point to Robert Heinlein's insistance that in fantasy not anything can happen. For him, magic had rules -- and indeed in good magic stories, the rules are consistent and operative, whereas in bad science fiction, the solution comes deus ex machina. That said, the culture of fantasy is different from the culture of science fiction. Science fiction is always about the materially possible, and often about the materially probable. John Campbell set high standards for his writers. If you would contradict a known truth, you had to come up with a good explanation. Thus, to travel faster than the speed of light, we have warp drives powered by matter-antimatter engines dependent on dilithium...which you can run out of and need more of. The warp drive had an inventor. The invention had a production curve.

The Enlightenment spawned the novel and industrialism gave us the genres science fiction and detective fiction. Obviously, the western would have been impossible until the west was settled and put into the past. Note, however, that bad science fiction is "space opera" and bad westerns are "horse operas." The reason why is that truly there is no such thing as future fiction or historical romance. It is a perhaps impossible task to truly create characters from a different time and place and then make them comprehensible to us. Rather, all such -- and the worst of it -- is merely operatic dress-up with people from our time and place wearing costumes. For a writer, the farther you are from that, the more your hard work is paying off. But, the reader works as well.

Formula stories such as romances and modern fantasy require less work from the reader... ultimately, no work. The vocabularies are restricted, the plots are hackneyed and the characters lack depth, but the reader is seeking escape from their immediate world, not a literary experience. On the other hand, successful science fiction and detective fiction both engage the willing reader in continuous, conscious reflection and evaluation. In the golden age, Analog science fiction magazine carried a science fact column every month. Detective writers depend on encyclopedic knowledge of police procedures, the chemistries of poisons, and millions of arcane facts on which to hang a plot twist. The current spate of vampire stories offers none of that and this genre has displaced science fiction among young readers. Kids no longer look forward to exciting futures, but over their shoulders for monsters.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 8/17, 11:15am)

Post 7

Tuesday, August 17, 2010 - 11:53am

Joe Maurone quoted Ayn Rand: "Stories like The Magic Carpet and Cinderella are justified even though the events are metaphysically impossible, because those events are used to project some idea which is rationally applicable to all human beings The author indulges in metaphysical exaggeration, but the meaning of the story is applicable to human life."

Ayn Randism is not Objectivism. Rand did not understand science fiction and her horrible attempt at Galt's Motor proves that.

More to the point here, The Arabian Nights and Cinderella had totally different purposes, motives, audiences and meanings. In the Arabian Nights, Sinbad, Ali Babba, and Alladin succeed by bravery, intelligence, insight, and steadfastness. Their world is a wonderous place of great events. Besides, when those stories were invented (copied, actually, from the Greeks in many ways), it was not clear that flying carpets were metaphysically impossible -- after all we have airplanes today...

Cinderella is the opposite of that in every way. The best that can be said is that the nice girl marries the prince, so life is good (for them). They did nothing to achieve it. Cinderella would still be scrubbing the kitchen floor but for her Fairy Godmother.

Joe Maurone quoted Ayn Rand: And, of course, she defends stories like Buck Rogers and such in The Romantic Manifesto. As Rand wrote, enemies of Romanticism try to convince the little space cadets that "to be like Buck Rogers means to wear a space helmet and blast armies of Martians with a disintegrator gun, and that he'd better give up such notions if he ever expects to make a respectable living." But she goes on to say that it is not the "impractical fantasy" they object to; it's not the Martians and ray guns that aren't possible, it's the striving for something better, the adventure, the passion that they feel is impossible."

I understand Rand's point. She was speaking symbolically. She knew little of Buck Rogers, in fact. First of all, ray guns are possible, were probable then, and exist today. More to the point, Buck Rogers did not fight Martians (not at first), but rather, the story is an allegory for the geopolitics of the 1930s. In the movie serials, Killer Kane is a fascist dictator. The forces of democracy are fighting from the underground. That spin off was consonant with the possible (if not probable) world of Armaggedon 2419: the Han (Chinese; Huns) rule. In the companion series, Flash Gordon, our solar system is invaded by the Planet Mongo ruled by Ming the Merciless. Science fiction is always about the present.

But even when they came out originally, those space operas were light years behind the best science fiction of the times. (See Before the Golden Age, edited by Isaac Asimov.) Science fiction is different from Cinderella along many dimensions. First of all, science fiction depends on an invention. Generally, science fiction shows the affect of an invention (or discovery) on the lives of people. This was impossible before the age of invention. And the people change. They experience external events with changes of fortune and circumstance, of course, but those causes changes within them, at least in the best stories, they do.

Post 8

Tuesday, August 17, 2010 - 12:09pm

"Ayn Randism is not Objectivism."

Since I never said Randism is Objectivism, I'm not sure why this was even brought up. I'm assuming that this is not to say that I implied it.

(If anything, I thought it was clear, but in case it isn't, that the quotes I posted were to show that Rand and/or Objectivism is not hostile to the sci-fi/fantasy genre per se, if that was the concern of the reason for the poll).

Anyway, carry on...

(Edited by Joe Maurone on 8/17, 12:10pm)

(Edited by Joe Maurone on 8/17, 12:12pm)

Post 9

Tuesday, August 17, 2010 - 12:16pm

Does the popularity of Harry Potter, Twilight, Lord of the Rings, etc., reflect truly deep and widespread roots in irrational beliefs?

Yeah, and playing D&D teaches you real spells and makes you worship the devil! http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.asp

Post 10

Tuesday, August 17, 2010 - 12:29pm

Joe,

Ayn Rand and others gathered in her living room to watch the first Star Trek episodes when they came out and were both pleased and excited by some of them. Anyone who has read Atlas Shrugged and chooses to think clearly knows that Ayn Rand was not opposed in any way to good science fiction - old or new. She loved heroes and heroic struggles no matter what the genre.

Michael, for whatever reason, seems to need to attack Ayn Rand in small ways on a fairly regular basis. I imagine that most readers will get a chuckle over him engaging in literary criticism of her :-)

Post 11

Tuesday, August 17, 2010 - 12:40pm

Please note that it's Expelliarmus not expeliorum or whatever the author wrote. If you don't say it properly it won't really work :-P

Post 12

Wednesday, August 18, 2010 - 5:59am

JM: "(If anything, I thought it was clear, but in case it isn't, that the quotes I posted were to show that Rand and/or Objectivism is not hostile to the sci-fi/fantasy genre per se, if that was the concern of the reason for the poll.)"

It was not the reason or the concern. If you read the actual words of the actual question and suggested replies, you will see that. Also, in my first post, I granted all the usual premises that we objectivists share about aesthetics and literature.

I know that it was said that Ayn Rand enjoyed Star Trek. That is consonant with her views of bootleg romanticism on television and, after, all, who among us is not a trekker. (I failed the expelliamus spell, but I got the anti-matter core right.)

Those are not the questions. The topic is the widespread popularity of fantasy as distinct from science fiction. I keep differentiating them, you keep reintegrating them. I think that you are wrong in doing that. You are misidentifying the essential distinguishing characteristics. But we can discuss that.

No one replied specifically about Twilight. Do you not see it everywhere in the bookstores, the theaters, the video rentals? Vampires are all the rage. To me, they tie in also with the "Dawn of the Dead" genre and from there to horror. All of them are distinct from science fiction, not only in content but in intent.

The LOTR movies received rave reviews among Objectivists, and for all the right reasons. While it is true that Peter Jackson stole much of Ralph Baskshi's work, Jackson's still stands well for what it presents on its own merits. We appreciate the clear morality, the triumph of good over evil by combination of intelligence, courage, wisdom, determination and strength. But that is not the question.

Not everyone who with a "Frodo Lives" bumper sticker is an aesthetic romanticist -- or an economic capitalist, or a metaphysical objectivist. And these are not isolated works, sitting alone on a rack surrounded by Ann Coulter, Oprah and Tom Clancy. Hundreds of these titles are out there. The genre has exploded as it diverged from science fiction over 25 years ago. We have a full generation of it now.

Obviously, our society is complex. Few trends dominate. Even President Obama affects much less than he or you might guess and for all the immediacy, may prove to be more like Millard Fillmore than Franklin D. Roosevelt. So, too, with spooky stories. On the one hand, who cares? On the other... apparently millions of readers do... Maybe that does not cause you concern. Myself, I wonder what it means to think about economic news from the assumption that blood-sucking ghouls will pop out of the ground and try to eat your brain.

Post 13

Wednesday, August 18, 2010 - 6:07am

Did you create the poll, Michael? Just curious; I'm not clear if that's what you're saying.

Post 14

Wednesday, August 18, 2010 - 6:17am

ED: Yeah, and playing D&D teaches you real spells and makes you worship the devil!

We bought a D&D starter set many years ago, but only did a few hours of it. Our interest came from computer games. We were therer for Pong and within a decade, there were Moria on the DEC VAX and Rogue on the PC. My wife, daughter and I each independently got to the Amulet of Yendar and back to the surface. Moria was harder. I don't think any of us got past the mid-teen levels. Our daughter settled into being an Elf Mage, harder to get started, but more powerful at a game which is essentially about spells and magic. (The professor I am working for this summer is also an old gamer and he agrees with her, also playing an Elf Mage.) Myself, I'm a middle of the road kind of guy: I play a Human Ranger. Some magic, some fighting, some strength, some wisdom.

Gaming out of real-time teaches a lot about thinking, planning, weighing and measuring. Real-time games demand more and some educators tout Grand Theft Auto, etc., as a tools for learning how to manage your resources on the fly. I am not so sure, but I am not a great debater, either: I like to sleep on questions. With computer versions of D&D, you can do that.

Anyway, Ethan, I appreciate the barbed dart, but I have a lot experience points in this game.

... I am starting to see trolls in this cave...

Post 15

Wednesday, August 18, 2010 - 6:21am

JM: "Did you create the poll, Michael? Just curious; I'm not clear if that's what you're saying."

Yes, yes, yes! I confess! I did it!! And I am not sorry. I have no remorse. I would it again.

Post 16

Wednesday, August 18, 2010 - 6:27am

MEM: "Those are not the questions. The topic is the widespread popularity of fantasy as distinct from science fiction. I keep differentiating them, you keep reintegrating them. I think that you are wrong in doing that. You are misidentifying the essential distinguishing characteristics. But we can discuss that."

Who's "you?"

That aside, ok...I understand that the poll is highlighting fantasy as distinct from sci-fi. Having worked those sections in the bookstore for long enough, I'm aware of all the arguments and agreements. But my purpose in posting selections from Rand re both fantasy and sci-fi was to highlight that she was open to both forms as legitimate. (That will teach me to build bridges...). I was going for a larger essential.

MEM: "The topic is the widespread popularity of fantasy as distinct from science fiction."
Well, if you created this poll, fine. But I didn't see that you did. I didn't get that from the poll question, having taken it at face value (Does the popularity of Harry Potter, Twilight, Lord of the Rings, etc., reflect truly deep and widespread roots in irrational beliefs?) I didn't see any rules, stipulations, or guidelines...

(Edited by Joe Maurone on 8/18, 7:01am)

Post 17

Wednesday, August 18, 2010 - 9:18am

I concur with the dislike of linking science fiction with fantasy - it is as a conservative links limited government with religion, and just as fraudulent... true, Ayn did not condemn fantasy - but only in so far as it was considered as an allegory... true, fantasy was the oldest, beginning back when knowledge was little and misinformation large, where fears roamed beyond the comfort and safety of the fire - and that is where it should have stayed, with the primitivism it is a part and partial of, for no matter how euphemistic it is presented,it still remains non-real, and an affront to objective reality, and the objective knowing that if something does not exist it can have NO value... science fiction, properly, is projection of the possibles - which means, however the sense of life, it COULD possibly happen... the oft cited claim that life would be poorer without fantasy implies a claim that life, reality, is less than it could/should be, and that somethings are better expressed in fantasy than reality - that, in other words, there is a claim that fantasy has as such a value not achievable in reality - despite that objective recognition that the non-real has and cannot have any value... what so-called values seen in fantasy depend on the non-fantasical parts, with the other fleeced over as if an integral part, when it is nothing of the kind, just very poor plot writing... [note, when am speaking of fantasy, am NOT speaking of allegorical writings]

Post 18

Wednesday, August 18, 2010 - 8:02pm

MEM: "... I keep differentiating them, you keep reintegrating them. ...
JM: "Who's "you?"

Just as A is A, you are you, Joe Maurone.

In #4: And from The Art of Fiction, Rand's take on sci-fi, fantasy, and magic stories: "All of these forms are rational when they serve some abstract purpse applicable to reality."
In #8 "... Rand and/or Objectivism is not hostile to the sci-fi/fantasy genre per se..."

JM: I didn't get that from the poll question, having taken it at face value (Does the popularity of Harry Potter, Twilight, Lord of the Rings, etc., reflect truly deep and widespread roots in irrational beliefs?) I didn't see any rules, stipulations, or guidelines...

All three were fantasy; none was science fiction. Mathematical induction says that if you can prove a theorem for x, x+1, x+2, then you can prove it for all x. Perhaps that synthetic truth is analytically falsified by your failure to see the pattern.

Post 19

Wednesday, August 18, 2010 - 8:33pm