Text 142, 75 rader
Skriven 2004-12-26 19:25:28 av Robert Bull (2:250/501.4)
    Kommentar till text 141 av Roy J. Tellason (1:270/615.0)
Ärende:  Hello
==============
Hello, Roy;

20 Dec 04 12:07, Roy J. Tellason wrote to Robert Bull:

 RT> Wow,  an actual discussion of some SF,  and not one of the side-trips
 RT> that seemed to take over this echo for a while!  :-)

I take the point  ;-)  OTOH, no off-topic traffic would have meant 
virtually no traffic, especially with Bob fallen silent.

 KS>> CBIP: _Paladins_ by Joel Rosenberg.  Almost didn't read this one

 RT> I haven't bought any of his stuff in ages,  and then recently acquired
 RT> one -- "Not Quite Scaramouche",  if I'm remembering right.  I've had

I don't think I've even heard of him before Kay's message.

 RT> it for a while now and still haven't been able to bring myself to
 RT> start it.  And was less so after looking it over and realizing that it
 RT> was one of a whole series of "Not Quite..." titles.  Maybe I'll get
 RT> into it at some point.

Previous experience left you unenthusiastic?

 RB>> Elliott still didn't answer another puzzle.  Why are so many
 RB>> American fantasy authors, all of them presumably firm believers
 RB>> in democracy,  apparently so obsessed by hereditary kingship?

 RT> Because they're _not_ firm believers in democracy.  If you look around
 RT> that sort of stuff really does pervade our culture,  though I for one

I'd heard that America has its own form of class structure, including New 
England old money, but didn't realise Americans weren't necessarily 
instinctive democrats?

 RT> don't care for it much.  Anglophilia as well.  Think "cultured" here
 RT> and you're likely thinking about someone who talks with an
 RT> "upper-crust" british accent,  or at least what's envisoned as such
 RT> here.  We as a culture should have gotten over that a LONG time ago,
 RT> and it might make for some interesting speculation to try and figure
 RT> out why whe haven't.

Maybe hierarchies, which ultimately have a head, are the normal way for 
human society to run?  Most African or whatever tribes seem to have a head 
man, and they're as close as we have now to a picture of hunter-gatherer 
times.

I think Britain has either largely lost its traditional upper crust, or at 
least, they only seem visible in the horsey county-set types that seem to 
surround the Queen, and dress up in red coats to hunt foxes.

 RB>> Why should that always be the best way to rule fantasyland?

 RT> Because the author can't come up with a plausible-sounding story that
 RT> would make it happen here?

The odd thing is I've recently read a string of British fantasies set in 
cities, where the government is either not the main focus of the story, or 
is bad, and in any case is nothing like a monarchy.  These would include 
China Mieville's three recent novels, Ian MacLeod's THE LIGHT YEARS, 
Jonathan Stroud's two juveniles THE AMULET OF SAMARKAND and THE GOLEM'S 
EYE, and Marcus Sedgwick's juvenile THE BOOK OF DEAD DAYS.

 RT> Sounds closer to the reality of it to me -- they're *ALL* run by
 RT> groups of what amount to organized criminals.

But what's the alternative?  Anarchy, which would devolve into "might is 
right?"

     Regards,

              Robert.

--- GoldED 3.00.Beta2+
 * Origin: The Luminous Void (2:250/501.4)