From the McAnallys List

[annathepiper]

Someone posted the URL to an article David Brin wrote on Tolkien, which I found interestingly thought-provoking. I also found Jim Butcher's reply on the matter of interest, and will share that here too...

"If I was a cynical type, I would probably do something like point out that
Brin's premise concludes with a somewhat sweeping statement--that science
fiction is responsible for bridging the socio-psychological gap created by
centuries of political and social turmoil. There is a very popular notion
in SF circles today that science fiction has the power to predict, even
shape the future--a notion which I generally feel is both vastly overstated
and somewhat arrogant. Several authors would immediately chime in
agreement with Brin's point of view after reading that conclusion, but to
me it smells like teen agenda. :)

Furthermore, I would probably bring up some point about the inherent evil
of the modernism-side of the gap--the dissolution of personal
responsibility in the face of the will of the masses. I mean, yeah, the
average GI Orc probably came from a bad home life and all, and they
probably have a genetic predisposition to enjoy violence and whatnot, but
when Joe Orc is trying to burn and pillage my farm, I don't really
CARE. Either that Orc chose to sign on with the Dark Lord (whose freaking
name should PROBABLY tip even an idiot off that he wasn't a very nice
person JUST MAYBE), or else the Orc didn't have a choice in the matter,
since he serves out of a genetic imperative. Either he's chosen to try to
kill me, or he's an animal with no free will of his own, and either way,
there's no philosophical qualms in my mind that would keep me from getting
Second Age on his *ss. Play ball, kill 'em all, let Elendil sort 'em out.

After THAT, I would probably say that sometimes a hobbit is just a hobbit.

However, I try not to be cynical. :)

I don't disagree with either Brin's history or with his entire essay, but I
do have a fairly different perspective and found myself reaching
conclusions different from his own while reading. A decent counterargument
would probably require me to go to the library for research and to plot out
a carefully structured rebuttal, which would take two or three days of
effort at the least.

Screw that. I'm going to see Two Towers instead. ;)"

Comments

[avram]

I just glanced at this article, since I still have a bad taste in my head from Brin's old Star-Wars-vs-Star-Trek article Salon ran a few years back, which relied on ignoring a whole bunch of inconvenient facts to shoehorn the two fictions into his premise.

Re:

[annathepiper]

I saw references to that, I think, in the thread on the McAnallys list. I haven't gone and read it though; not sure whether or not it would annoy me. :)

There are some points Brin raises that I agree with -- to wit, the "surely all orcs can't be evil?' question, as it has (as I have commented in the past) always perturbed me that so much fantasy seems to be of the notion that if you're a certain race, you're obviously going to be a certain way. ;p And to some extent I can get what he's saying about the "boo hiss industry is bad, bring on the King, feudal monarchy is good" attitude in Tolkien. You don't see too many fantasies written set in democracies and republics, after all...

Though, this does sort of ignore the whole subgenre of fantasies which are set in the real world with supernatural add-ons. Which certainly legitimately count as fantasies... though even there you'll find a lot of the attitude of "magic good, science bad".

On the whole, I think I'm more in sympathy with Mr. Butcher.