Escape Artists
PodCastle => Episode Comments => Topic started by: Talia on June 28, 2011, 04:56:07 AM
-
PodCastle 163: The Landholders No Longer Carry Swords (http://podcastle.org/2011/06/28/podcastle-163-the-landholders-no-longer-carry-swords)
by Patricia Russo
Read by Ann Leckie (http://www.annleckie.com/)
Originally published in GigaNotoSaurus (http://giganotosaurus.org). Read along here (http://giganotosaurus.org/2011/04/15/the-landholders-no-longer-carry-swords)!
The elders claim life is better now.
Since the ascension of the young dukes, the landholders no longer carry swords, and we are no longer obliged to kneel in their presence. Taxes have been lowered; we can keep more of our grain, our olives, our limes. Obligatory civic work days have been decreased to five per month. Smile, the elders say. Raise up your heads. The sun has emerged after long, long years of rain.
Raise up your heads. That is the way they speak, on warm nights when work is over, and dinner has been plentiful, and a wineskin is moving from hand to hand. They laugh, and boast, so proud of themselves for having survived to old age. But let a landholder walk through the square, or ride to the fields to inspect the crops, or make an appearance at a wedding or a festival, jovial and swordless, and the elders duck their heads and mumble, the same as the rest of us.
You see? the Younger Son-in-Law says. They themselves do not believe that all is well.
Rated PG
-
Well, this was ... interesting. It threw me until I realized that social structure was basically Chinese. I think I would have liked it a lot more if I knew what the heck the landlords were really after. ARE they kid-eating monsters? What's their motivation (other than the obvious answer of "greed")? That bothered be more than the lack of a resolution, which I was OK with.
As for Anna's opening comments, I think
1) the reason so much of Fantasy - and especially so-called High Fantasy - has monarchy is because of its roots in the past. Ok, that looks like really obvious statement, but look at it really thoroughly. Fantasy draws on all sorts of things that we modern people simply aren't supposed to believe in.. it revels in Magical Thinking. Isn't it only natural that it also looks backward for a political order?
(natural, but not preferable for me. Probably another reason I tend to prefer Science Fiction over Fantasy. Not that all men - or aliens- are created equal *there*, either)
2) for Revolution, the only thing that springs to my foggy mind is the video game Fable III... which I've not actually played. I'm sure I'm forgetting stuff...
3) you'd think Magic was used more often in support of revolution or revolt, wouldn't you? Seeing as how it subverts the natural order of things....
-
The story was ok. It didn't move me, but it kept me interested for the whole ride to work. I liked the narration a lot and found it pleasantly soothing.
As for Annas questions:
1. Fantasy has its roots in Monarchy because it's easier to write about evil kings, tyrants, and despots that want to take over the world. We love hearing about how Prince Charming or Princess Aurora will save the day through grace and beauty and gosh-darned wholesome goodness. Its easy to believe that one kingdom will stand against an evil horde. It's also much easier to put all the blame on single evil person and then kill them. Yay evil person death!
2. For revolution... there are tons of books about revolt. Hell, I can't think of a single book that doesn't have to do with either overthrowing the evil kingdom or thwarting the plans of evil swallowing a good kingdom. All good books have conflict, and nothing sets the scene for conflict better than some sort of revolt or threat of conquer. Brandon Sanderon's "Mistborn trilogy", Glenn Cooks "The Black Company", David Edding's "The Mallorian" and Terry Brooks "Scions of Shanara", hell even Terry Goodkinds Sword of truth series... Ok I horribly misspelled half of those. Toppling a monarchy is fun and it feels right!
To be honest, I hate when stories get all preachy and self-righteous. I get turned off and bored. I don't read SF/F because I want political commentary and draw some sort of parallel between my world and this land of magic dragons. I read it b/c I want a brief escape from the likes of "Representative Weiner", "The Governator" and other completely corrupt officials that feel its just fine to live above the law. If you've ever seen the sitcom "Bones" I'm very much like the character of "Cam" in the sense that I hate taking work home with me and I dislike spending the few precious moments of 'me time' stressing myself unnecessarily.
-
This story moved me and captured my interest. Perhaps this is because I have spent so much of my life with ex-revolutionaries. I felt that I got so much insight into how news and rumors spread and how revolutionaries are created. It is not important for me as a reader to know what is true or false about the landlords, what is important is the POV of the narrator, her growing understanding of other narratives, and the changes she goes through herself. This piece had urgency and nuance that really drew me into the world.
This was one of my favorite pieces on podcastle. Thanks for publishing it.
-
This one fell in the middle of the road for me. I liked it overall, but I think it put forth rather simplistic characters, and there wasn't enough flavor or substance there to overcome the very simple and straightforward plot. Granted, the plot is not used much in fantasy fiction, but it is certainly used in other genres, and could have used some spice or twists.
-
The way I read this story, I feel sorry for the landlords. It seemed to me that the landlords are going about some business that the general public didn't quite understand. As people are want to do when they don't understand something, they fear it. Their fear led to irrational, and eventually destructive behavior. It is even more insidious, because the son-in-law manages to convince the rational mother character, and using her influence, the whole village.
I'm not sure if the ambiguity, whether the landlords or the people were evil, was intentional, but I would like to know. As it is, the story is a good social commentary on the danger of giving into fear without having any real evidence.
-
I feel sorry for the landlords. It seemed to me that the landlords are going about some business that the general public didn't quite understand.
I would agree with this, if it weren't for the beating doled out to the two older farm hands.
-
What will I do when the landholders come for my children? Let's see....
First, I will make sure they actually ARE coming for my children. And that the revolution I've thrown my lot in is more than just the paranoid delusions of a unhygenic lunatic.
Second, I will do a little recon beforehand, to determine whether or not the reason the landholders stopped carrying swords is because they started carrying GUNS.
I couldn't get into this one. Maybe it was just the weird naming conventions for the characters that just took me out of it.
-
I would agree with this, if it weren't for the beating doled out to the two older farm hands.
This scene initially made me reconsider my theory as well, but the landlord was described as young and the men old. Young men tend to have hot heads and old men tend to be set in their ways. You could read it, as follows:
The old men were bowing, as that is how they have always treated landlords. The young landlord tells them to stop bowing, as new laws treat them more as equals. The old men don't stop, as bowing is what they were taught to behave, and how they have always behaved. The young landlord gets angry, and in his frustration beats the men trying to get them to stop bowing. While, this is abhorrent behavior on the part of the landlord, and the ends don't justify the means, we never know `why` the landlord attacked the old men.
-
This was a lovely elegy for heroes preparing for a revolution that they almost certainly can't win.
In our world, the landholders stopped carrying swords because they had better weapons, professional disciplined soldiers, and a cowed and ignorant working class.
It's good to see that Younger Son-in-Law is stirring the spirit of the people, although the chances are it will be crushed again by the Young Dukes' new armies, and it's good to see that Mother-in-Law has enough wisdom to both overcome her prejudices and cast doubt on some of the more dubious accusations. The family will need both bravery and brains to survive what's coming.
The rumours and fears about the landholders, though... they might be a predatory alien race feeding upon the people like cattle; or it might be a fitting metaphor for the economic reality; but it may also be a nasty blood libel, in which case I can see the aftermath of a successful revolution being just as horrific as the result of an unsuccessful one.
-
I'll leave this discussion to others, just mark me down for the "enjoyed it!" category and I'll be on my way. I love a good story about the underdogs fighting a battle that all logic and reason says they cannot win. Regardless of if they are actually victorious or not, at least they fought.
-
The only thing that bugged me about this story was the implication that the landholders really were nonhuman. I personally enjoy the complications that arise from such revolutions - rich people are people, too, no matter how hard they might try to make us forget it! - but this story made the power class out to be completely unsympathetic and possibly monsters. I'm about as left-leaning as you get, but this was a little simplistic.
Other than that, however, I also enjoyed the evolution of a modern political consciousness in a fantasy context. I might need to start thinking about writing my own take on the concept...
Finally, I want to say that I think I know the answer to the question posed in the introduction. Why does fantasy favor feudal governments? Two reasons:
Firstly, it's traditional. We're used to it. This is a bad thing, because it's boring. I happen to think that fantasy is, in general, plagued by a little too much Business As Usual.
Secondly, it allows individuals to be more heroic. This is a good thing. Consider that in the real world, no matter how heroic a president is, there's only so much he can do if the various offices of democracy are arrayed against him. How many wonderful, well-intentioned politicians have been rendered completely ineffective by congressional obstructionism? Lots. A story about a heroic prince who claims a magic sword and sets off to reclaim his father's kingdom... well, that's neat. A story about a heroic prime minister who makes speeches... and waits... and writes letters... and waits... well, I suppose that could also be neat in the hands of the right writer, but it certainly isn't fast paced, sexy, or adventurous.
I think there will always be a place for feudal systems in fantasy. That said, I hope we see a little more diversity in the future. As I wrote, fantasy has gotten pretty repetitive of late.
-
Once I got over the rather annoying way that no one had a name (though it was explained later in the story) and stopped trying to pick the story apart for political short-story tropes (confabulation from the introduction), I enjoyed it a little.
Ann's reading was good, although a bit fast at times, especially when the story wrapped up.
-
Why does fantasy favor feudal governments? Two reasons:
Firstly, it's traditional. We're used to it. This is a bad thing, because it's boring. I happen to think that fantasy is, in general, plagued by a little too much Business As Usual.
Secondly, it allows individuals to be more heroic. This is a good thing. Consider that in the real world, no matter how heroic a president is, there's only so much he can do if the various offices of democracy are arrayed against him. How many wonderful, well-intentioned politicians have been rendered completely ineffective by congressional obstructionism? Lots. A story about a heroic prince who claims a magic sword and sets off to reclaim his father's kingdom... well, that's neat. A story about a heroic prime minister who makes speeches... and waits... and writes letters... and waits... well, I suppose that could also be neat in the hands of the right writer, but it certainly isn't fast paced, sexy, or adventurous.
I agree. In particular, fantasy seems to be about the power of the individual, while SF seems to be about the power of the group. Or, more precisely, the power of the idea; but ideas tend to work best when they propagate through groups and societies.
A single hero can realistically defeat a monarch; that same hero can't really defeat a society (unless he's Erekose). It takes an idea to defeat/transform a society, and a story about an idea will always feel more like SF than fantasy.
Discworld is an interesting compromise; Ankh-Morpork famously has no monarch, yet it has the despotic Patrician, who, it turns out, is mostly willing to let the city follow its fads and innovations so long as public order is maintained, and yet will stand in as an object of villification when the need arises. It's a lot more SF than it pretends to be.
-
Attempting to get back on topic (lest I go all "moderate" on you...:P) I'm not sure how I feel about this story. There was a lot of ambiguity about whether or not the landholders were actually evil and were actually trying to steal the children, so the conclusion of the story left me feeling pretty discomfited. I mean, what if the MC was right all along and now they've just incited the whole town to a lot of bloodshed and the inevitable punishments for their unwarranted rebellion? I definitely wanted more evidence that Younger-Son-in-law was right about all of his accusations. Plus, I couldn't shake the feeling that this was actually a thinly-veiled story about the controversial enclosure of common lands in England in the 1700s. :-\
-
Plus, I couldn't shake the feeling that this was actually a thinly-veiled story about the controversial enclosure of common lands in England in the 1700s. :-\
Really? For some reason I was picturing a twist on the Greek city-states. They kept referencing the mainland, I just thought they were speaking of Athens and Sparta.
-
Plus, I couldn't shake the feeling that this was actually a thinly-veiled story about the controversial enclosure of common lands in England in the 1700s. :-\
Really? For some reason I was picturing a twist on the Greek city-states. They kept referencing the mainland, I just thought they were speaking of Athens and Sparta.
And I found it entirely Chinese. I suppose the author should be complimented for so completely detaching it from an actual historical context -- or blending in a number of historical contexts.
-
So, I'm basically with the person above who complained that the characters were acting with little to no evidence, other than the beating (which, as someone else pointed out, was never explained, only described, and so isn't evidence of much of anything. I did, in fact, assume cyberlogi's explanation for it and was somewhat surprised when that was never made clear).
My perception of what the story was going to be about was very much influenced by Anna's intro (I'm too often much too easy to sway, though in this case it was also that I've got just about as big a liberal dick (http://forum.escapeartists.net/index.php?topic=5099.0) as either she or ElectricPaladin, thanks!) and so I kept expecting the story to be about that, but at the end I was seriously hoping that there was a ton of untold story that explained why these people suddenly took Younger Son-In-Law's (?) word for it all, rather than (say) sending messengers to neighbouring villages to confirm his stories, or possibly getting the elders to ask the Landholders why those two old men were beaten (and attempting to corroborate the veracity of the answer), and so on.
Because based on the rumours and paranoid panic-mongering they were going on, they were on pretty thin ice.
That said, I would love to see more fantasy stories that deal with (as opposed to simply taking place in) more up-to-date political realities. The Russian story was an interesting example.
Are you sure? I'm basically a communist. I also think that not only should gay and polyamorous marriage be legal, I also don't think the government should be in the business of marrying people at all. And I think that pot should be legal (but probably not cigarettes...).
So the government has no say in who or how people get married and pot should be legal, but no one should enjoy cigarettes? Anna might be more liberal...
I'm all for the legalization of most illegal drugs. Not that I think they're a good thing*, but that the amount of money we (as a society) spend on trying to prevent their use would go a lot farther if we spent it on preventing the harm they cause instead. As it is, I believe the (attempted) enforcement of drug prohibition, not to mention the price inflation - and subsequent attraction to get into the business - cause more harm than the drugs themselves do.
On the other hand, I shouldn't have to be non-consensually exposed to them. No drinker would consider forcing my jaws apart and pouring part of their bottle of beer down my throat, but smokers think nothing of contaminating my air supply. Go ahead and smoke 'em if you got 'em, but keep 'em in your own house, thanks.
*I don't subscribe to the notion that legal necessarily equals good, and illegal necessarily equals bad, nor its converse.
ETA: Link to political one-upmanship discussion.
-
I would wager that the ambiguity was purposeful. The whole point of the story was about how a revolution gets started, not whether or not a revolution is justified or wise. I particularly liked that the young landholder beat the old workers apparently because of their bows. Were they not bowing enough, or were they bowing too much? It's not stated, and the care the story took to AVOID stating it leads me to conclude that the uncertainty was purposely fostered. It's a feature, not a bug, in other words.
I was reminded a bit of "Interesting Times," an otherwise medium-to-good Discworld book that does do a good job portraying the various factors tugging on someone living in a repressive society, including the desire to just get on with their lives and not have to deal with the horrors of civil war or revolution. After the fact, we like to assign the white hats to one side and the black hats to the other, but in the moment it's often muddled, confusing, and generally hard to know what to do. Often, authors will go to the old "guerrilla insurgents or freedom fighters?" trope when they want to explore this dynamic. I liked seeing a "repressive regime or struggling progressivism?" meme crop up instead.
There is a natural human tendency to want to sort things into categories. It's one of the most basic algorithms our brains perform, in fact. We like to see good guys and bad guys, a clear winner and a clear loser. I think that ties into the enduring paradigm of monarchy in fantasy, as well; as others have noted, it enables a much more simple binary dynamic to form the basic structure of the conflict. It also hearkens back to several other regrettable tendencies of the brain, such as the belief that our actions have significant effects on the complex systems they interact with, and thus one strong and potent leader (that you agree with) is "better" than seeking consensus. People want a Big Man to come and lead the way to truth and right and happiness forever. That's simple. That's clean. That's easy. And most importantly: that makes sense to our befuddled monkey-brains. Bad things and good things need to have clear and obvious causes. We don't deal well, as a species, with ambiguity (though we're better at it than most other species, admittedly, in that we can perceive it at all) or complex events in chaotic systems. We can process ambiguous situations, but we don't like them. It makes us uncomfortable. The idea that a Good King can solve all the problems is very, very tempting to the monkey and the lizard that live in your head, underneath that thin layer of human.
-
It also hearkens back to several other regrettable tendencies of the brain, such as the belief that our actions have significant effects on the complex systems they interact with, and thus one strong and potent leader (that you agree with) is "better" than seeking consensus. People want a Big Man to come and lead the way to truth and right and happiness forever. That's simple. That's clean. That's easy. And most importantly: that makes sense to our befuddled monkey-brains.
Makes sense to MY befuddled monkey-brain. Seeking consensus in any system of government is a fool's errand: even in the best of times, you can't get everyone to agree. That's why most democracies run on a majority vote rather than a unanimous one, otherwise nothing would get done. Of course that means that no matter what decisions a government makes, it's going to offend SOME part of its body politic, which leads to further dissent, which leads to instability, which leads to...well, we've seen it before. The alternative to this state of affairs is not much better: trying to reach a compromise to make everyone happy, which almost always results in some half-measure that doesn't really satisfy anyone or accomplish anything. It almosts makes you wish for some Thomas Carlyle-esque Great Man to knock some heads together and get things working right.
Of course, that has its own laundry list of problems too...so...I don't I have a solution. Erm, were we talking about a short story? Oh yes...
-
Story was a waste of my forty minutes. But I enjoyed the dick-size-war. ;D
-
I mean, look, what I'm trying to say here is that my liberalism dick is enormous. Anna's liberalism dick is probably mighty large, but I doubt it's larger than mine ;).
How about we use political compass scores instead of penises, since I don't have one of those?
Go ahead, post your score.
Wait... so you are saying Anna has a giant.... this place is AWESOME!
Political compass scores are probably the better measuring method. I suggest everyone going to the same test for the sake having some sort of common denominator. Otherwise we'll probably have the usual 'girth' vs 'length' argument that always leads down the path of scarring youtube videos and public indecency arrests.
Steering clear of the political peni waving for a moment, I gotta agree with a lot of the sentiments that have been expressed previously, especially Wilson Fowlie, Scattercat and Anarquistador. I think that fantasy as a genre gravitates towards monarchies and feudal systems because its fun to read a story that can easily be categorized and filed without wasting cycles on how a government works. Princes can absolutely go off on heroic quests, kings and queens can disguise themselves to walk among the people and it's easy to paint a kingdom, a noble family or even just a monarch as being bad and evil.
Now... most science fiction uses modern governments, complete with all the committees, representatives, etc. I can't think of too many science fiction stories that all have some sort of monarchy. I *guess* Star Wars is the only one, but between the magic of the force and the awesome of spaceships, it blurs the lines of science fiction and fantasy.
Also.... this perplexes me:
The idea that a Good King can solve all the problems is very, very tempting to the monkey and the lizard that live in your head, underneath that thin layer of human.
Monkey AND Lizard? Where's the Lizard from?
-
Now... most science fiction uses modern governments, complete with all the committees, representatives, etc. I can't think of too many science fiction stories that all have some sort of monarchy. I *guess* Star Wars is the only one, but between the magic of the force and the awesome of spaceships, it blurs the lines of science fiction and fantasy.
Dune. And the beginning of the Foundation series, when there's still an Empire... and Scott Westerfeld's Risen Empire .. and... I'm old and senile...
-
Star Wars has queens who are elected who can hope to one day serve as intergalactic senators. Or something? It all made more sense when I was a lot younger...(or until the prequels came out)
-
Well, there's a difference between being a head of state and being your government's representative in the Republic Senate. That's how Padme got to be first one and then the other. I'm not sure what the whole "electing" queens was about, though. Or why they choose teenage girls for the position. But hey, that's politics in another Galaxy for you.
-
The comments on this story have far surpassed this story in and of itself for me.
My thoughts on the story itself are as follows: "Meh....."
-
Well, there's a difference between being a head of state and being your government's representative in the Republic Senate. That's how Padme got to be first one and then the other. I'm not sure what the whole "electing" queens was about, though. Or why they choose teenage girls for the position. But hey, that's politics in another Galaxy for you.
No, that's just what I like to call, George Lucas' "POA" style of world-building.
-
But hey, that's politics in another Galaxy for you.
No, that's just what I like to call George Lucas' "POA" style of world-building.
Position of attention?
Public Order Act?
Puppeteers of America?
Power of attorney?
Pakistan Olympic Association?
Prison Officers' Association?
Purchase Order Acknowledgement?
Prisoner of Azkaban?
(Thanks, Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POA)!)
-
But hey, that's politics in another Galaxy for you.
No, that's just what I like to call George Lucas' "POA" style of world-building.
Position of attention?
Public Order Act?
Puppeteers of America?
Power of attorney?
Pakistan Olympic Association?
Prison Officers' Association?
Purchase Order Acknowledgement?
Prisoner of Azkaban?
(Thanks, Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POA)!)
Piece of Ass?
Peace of Ass?
Perhaps it's a typo of POS?
-
But hey, that's politics in another Galaxy for you.
No, that's just what I like to call George Lucas' "POA" style of world-building.
Position of attention?
Public Order Act?
Puppeteers of America?
Power of attorney?
Pakistan Olympic Association?
Prison Officers' Association?
Purchase Order Acknowledgement?
Prisoner of Azkaban?
(Thanks, Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POA)!)
My guess was "Pulled Out of your Ass"....
-
My guess was "Pulled Out of your Ass"....
...and InfiniteMonkey wins the cigar!
-
Hi guys, I have moved the political discussion here. (http://forum.escapeartists.net/index.php?topic=5099.0) Thanks!
-
The idea that a Good King can solve all the problems is very, very tempting to the monkey and the lizard that live in your head, underneath that thin layer of human.
Monkey AND Lizard? Where's the Lizard from?
We were lizards and amphibians before we were mammals. That little bit right above the spinal column? They call that the lizard brain. That's the part we have in common with scaly things and wriggling things that live in the mud.
-
The idea that a Good King can solve all the problems is very, very tempting to the monkey and the lizard that live in your head, underneath that thin layer of human.
Monkey AND Lizard? Where's the Lizard from?
We were lizards and amphibians before we were mammals. That little bit right above the spinal column? They call that the lizard brain. That's the part we have in common with scaly things and wriggling things that live in the mud.
Ahh... very cool. I've never heard of that before, thank you. :)
-
you've never heard of evolution? ok, you have some catching up to do.
I enjoyed this story, but not as much as i would like to. I like my revolutions to be in the spirit of liberalism, like the French or the American, not in the spirit of socialism, like the Russian or political rumblings of the British lower classes from the late 18th century pretty well to the present day. Probably because I'm a liberal, not a socialist
for the record I also took this as an analogy for the British political unrest around the time of the agricultural revolution.
-
When it comes to analogies in fantasy, I agree with Lewis and Tolkien.
'X is an analogy for Y' is a less useful statement than 'X is Y if Y had happened in Z'.
-
you've never heard of evolution? ok, you have some catching up to do.
That seems a bit harsh. It's perfectly possible to have heard of evolution without knowing some of the specific conclusions that it leads to.
-
you've never heard of evolution? ok, you have some catching up to do.
That seems a bit harsh. It's perfectly possible to have heard of evolution without knowing some of the specific conclusions that it leads to.
In this case, it's just neurology - the brain structures are the same, which is why we can study our brains by dissecting flatworms and snails - and evolution provides the explanation as to how and why. :-)
-
you've never heard of evolution? ok, you have some catching up to do.
That seems a bit harsh. It's perfectly possible to have heard of evolution without knowing some of the specific conclusions that it leads to.
In this case, it's just neurology - the brain structures are the same, which is why we can study our brains by dissecting flatworms and snails - and evolution provides the explanation as to how and why. :-)
It's ok Wilson, I thought it was more tongue-in-cheek than anything. I was gonna throw down with some silly Adam and Eve stuff to start a huge tangent thread, but I'm too tired too atm. :)
What I meant by "I've never heard of that before" was that I've specifically never heard of the "lizard brain" in reference to human brain structures. It seemed like a strange reference so I asked. I don't mind admitting ignorance now and again. Of course I know about evolution, the basic principles blah blah blah, but honestly, it's nothing I spent a boatload of time studying and its been a long long time since I've sat in a classroom with some ivory tower dweller. Oddly enough, I was listening to George Carlin and he was doing a joke on the reptilian part of the brain and it made me laugh harder.
As far as dissecting random invertebrates.... it's been awhile since I've pulled apart something that's been sitting in formaldehyde. The only thing I've been cutting into lately has been some killer barbeque.
-
purely tongue in cheek, maybe a little more cutting that intended.
-
In the end this story was a decent listen, but for me, it was hard to get into for a few reasons.
First, the build-up part of the story came off as "Transcription of Arguments Between Mother-in-law and Son-in-law, Volume XIV." I can see how this device was used to tell the narrative, but the back-and-forth arguing got to be a bit much for me.
Second, the use of names like "younger son-in-law" was disorienting. It made it hard to identify with the characters. Maybe the goal was to emphasize family ties or the familial dynamic, but using titles (which all sound similar) for a dozen related characters made it hard for me to track who was who.
Finally, I was not a big fan of the low fantasy content. The landowners *might* be slightly supernatural, they *might* do unspeakable things in an ambiguous way, or they might just be trying to buy land. Other than that we have a preindustrial society in which electricity was just invented. I can see how it fits in the genre but nothing "fantastic" jumped out at me.
On the plus side, though, the written portrayal of the protagonist was very compelling, as was the reading/narration. Good writing and good voice for the character. I could feel heart-felt emotion being infused into her account of events. A little bit of mother-in-law-ish annoyance, a big streak of concern for her family, and a healthy dose of pragmatism. I liked the character, I just didn't care for the storytelling method or turns of events.
-
Finally, I was not a big fan of the low fantasy content. The landowners *might* be slightly supernatural, they *might* do unspeakable things in an ambiguous way, or they might just be trying to buy land. Other than that we have a preindustrial society in which electricity was just invented. I can see how it fits in the genre but nothing "fantastic" jumped out at me.
I'd question this comment (I agree wholehearted with everything else you said). I'd question how, exactly, you would define 'fantasy'. From your post i'm implying that there needs to be something magical or out-of-the-ordinary. While I would say that these things most certainly are fantasy, I'd disagree that fantasy must have something in some way magical. This story takes place in a world which is not our own. It is a pseudo-historical setting that has similarities between at least three different cultures as already identified in this thread, but is not set in a definable historical setting. The world is invented, it is a fantasy. Sure it's a less elaborate, less different fantasy than we are used to, but it is still a world which is identifiably not our own. To me that is purely and simply fantasy.
To say this has a low fantasy content seem, to me, to miss the point of the genre. I'd argue that urban fantasies, or historical fantasies, which portray a world very much like our own, but with magical elements woven in, have a far lower fantasy content that a story set entirely in a fantasy world, but a world in which there is no or very little magic. The fantasy may play less of an important role in the story, but it's still there in a fairly high concentration.
-
While I listened to this, my brain was rushing around, trying to put all the pieces together, sort it out and so forth. Then we came to the end and suddenly my brain went 'DING!' and jumped the possibilities out further. This story could have been set as a medieval sort of setting, but could it have been as easily been one set in a world where the Landholders weren't the same species. They could have been an 'enlightened' race who simply came to 'help' the indigenous race.
-
I was half-expecting the landholders to be humans, and the peasants to be weird alien things.
But that's a hoary old cliche so I'm kind of glad they didn't.
-
So, you know how I always complain about stories not having endings? This one doesn't even have a MIDDLE. This isn't even a story, it's the first chapter of a story. Half an hour or whatever of set up with ZERO payoff.
It's a good thing I listened to the unicorn story right afterward or I'd have been irritable all day. That story has a beginning that's intriguing, builds on itself, and builds, and builds, and then rewards the listener with a predictable but still satisfying payoff.
Also the characters had names.
I have piles of notes all over the place with half-finished outlines for stories, and that's what this felt like to me. A rough sketch with some interesting ideas, but none of the important details filled out, and no idea where it's going.
*edited to remove me being crankier than was necessary. Sorry, it was a long day at work*
-
Hah, never mind. I removed my post too (for those who got a notification). All good now. And thanks Dave. :)
-
I'd question how, exactly, you would define 'fantasy'.
...
To say this has a low fantasy content seem, to me, to miss the point of the genre.
Thanks for your response. I completely understand your point, and I agree that it's not very fair or useful to define "fantasy" particularly narrowly. We shouldn't think that only stories with wizards and dragons in them are fantasy.
After thinking about it, maybe this story is "political fantasy." Not fantasy like "what if there was magic?" or "what if the Egyptians invented clockwork golems?" but more a fantasy of what might happen in a fantastical culture with a fantastical government, and what might happen given a few turns of events.
I'm just a traditionalist in some ways, and I like my fantasy to have a little magic, my scifi to have some spaceships, and my horror to stay on podcasts I don't listen to, except I guess it can visit at Halloween.
-
I haven't read this whole long thread yet, so if I repeat something already said, please forgive me.
There were two things about this story that annoyed me:
1. The lack of character names. What kind of person refers to her family (her family!!) as numbers? I can understand trying to distance oneself from sons/daughters-in-law that way, but from her own children and grandchildren? No, I'm sorry. That doesn't work and it prevented me from identifying with the protag.
<EDIT>
Once I got over the rather annoying way that no one had a name (though it was explained later in the story)...
When did that happen? Did I miss it?
</EDIT>
2. I need to re-listen to parts of the story to make sure, but I'm almost positive that there was a tense switch in the middle of the story. Most of the story was being told in the present-tense, and then suddenly it switched to past tense. That is an amateur mistake that should have ben drilled out of us in middle school. Aside from that, it made me question everything that had happened until now in the story and try to reconcile it. Flashbacks? Is this part a flashback? Again, I need to re-listen to make sure, but at the time this stuck in my mind and bothered me.
Most of the above can be made up for with the ending (also, that got drawn out for too long). I particularly hate it when people revolt, have a single successful battle against overwhelming odds (whether militaristic or in their minds) and then think it's smooth sailing from then on. I am very glad that the heroes of this story knew that the real battle was still ahead of them, and that even if they won this one, the worst is still to come.
While I'm in a complaining mood....
There is a lot of dead space at the end of Podcastle episodes. Never less than 30 seconds, and often closer to a minute. While I appreciate that some padding is necessary, usually 2-5 seconds is enough. This vast desert of silence often leaves me wondering if my battery had died or if I had run into the end of my playlist. And not to mention the annoyance this can be. Posit: I'm jogging, happily listening to my favorite podcasts, and then it gets real silent. I don't want to hear the noises of the street/gym, but fiddling with little buttons on my device while jogging and trying to watch where I"m going can be tough. What do I do?
-
While I'm in a complaining mood....
There is a lot of dead space at the end of Podcastle episodes. Never less than 30 seconds, and often closer to a minute. While I appreciate that some padding is necessary, usually 2-5 seconds is enough. This vast desert of silence often leaves me wondering if my battery had died or if I had run into the end of my playlist. And not to mention the annoyance this can be. Posit: I'm jogging, happily listening to my favorite podcasts, and then it gets real silent. I don't want to hear the noises of the street/gym, but fiddling with little buttons on my device while jogging and trying to watch where I"m going can be tough. What do I do?
Pop quiz, hotshot. You're at the gym lifting weights and/or running when the latest PodCastle episode runs out, and there's thirty seconds of dead silence. It's deafening, it's knocking you off your routine, it might even make you fall over, but you can't fiddle with the buttons.
What do you do, hotshot? What do you do?
(I think Depeche Mode wrote a song about this? And it didn't have anything to do with shooting the hostage.)
Actually, I mention it to our sound producer. I don't think that's happened to the latest episode...but then again, I hadn't noticed it before, either.
-
While I'm in a complaining mood....
There is a lot of dead space at the end of Podcastle episodes. Never less than 30 seconds, and often closer to a minute. While I appreciate that some padding is necessary, usually 2-5 seconds is enough.
Max, did you start listening to Podcastle at episode 162? Otherwise, I wonder if there might be a problem with your device. I just listened to the ends of the last 20 or so casts in Windows Media Player (so I can skip directly to the end), and this is what I heard:
| Regular | | Flash | |
| # | Silence1 | # | Silence1 |
| 151 | 2 | 61 | 2 |
| 152 | 0 | 62 | 3 |
| 153 | 0 | 63 | 4 |
| 154 | 3 - 8 2 | 64 | 1 |
| 155 | 3 | | |
| 156 | 5 - 10 2 | Other | |
| 157 | 8 3 | Spotlight #1 | 0 |
| 158 | 2 | Promo4 | 8 3 |
| 159 | 5 - 10 2 | | |
| 160 | 3 - 10 2 | | |
| 161 | 0 | | |
| 162 | 25 (!) | | |
| 163 | 36 (!) | | |
| 164 | 1 | | |
| 165 | 2 | | |
These numbers match my own experience when I originally listened to these (except for the two really long ones, 162 and 163, where I honestly didn't notice the long silence).
Anyway, be assured that all (two) of the episodes after this one have a shorter trailing silence. I can't speak for the episodes before 151 because I haven't specifically checked them, but I have never noticed this issue before. (That may not be saying much, though, because I didn't notice it at the time with 162 & 163.)
That said, there is often quite a lot of the music 'bed' at the end of an episode, so if your player isn't very loud, you might not be able to hear that over the noise at your gym. My player has that problem and I had to get a pair of noise-reducing earbuds to be able to hear softer tracks over just the traffic noises when I'm walking around outside near where I work.
1 All measurements in seconds, and approximate.
2 A time range indicates a fadeout; the perceived amount of silence depends on the level of ambient noise in your gym/car/keep/magical treehouse.
3 Not actual silence; cricket sound effect at the end of the music track.
4 Promotion for the Alphabet Quartet
-
<EDIT>
Once I got over the rather annoying way that no one had a name (though it was explained later in the story)...
When did that happen? Did I miss it?
</EDIT>
There was a throwaway line about "use-names". Blink your ears and you'll miss it.
-
I've been rather busy lately, and do have some catching up to do.
It therefore turned out that I had listened to 162 and 163 back-to-back followed by some other podcasts.
This probably gave me a skewed perception of how much padding and in how many episodes this was.
Also, Dave, I prefer running outdoors. And trying to keep a steady pace, dodge vehicles, small children and dogs while your adrenaline addled brain tries to get your fingers to manipulate little buttons is harder than it sounds.
When are we going to get mind-reading mp3 players?
-
When are we going to get mind-reading mp3 players?
Hopefully, sooner than we get jetpacks and flying cars! ;)
-
It shouldn't require mind-reading. For a player that has a simple microphone that can pick up changes in the level of ambient noise and automatically adjust the volume level appropriately, not unlike noise-canceling headphones, the tech already exists. Just requires someone to put it all together.
-
And I found it entirely Chinese. I suppose the author should be complimented for so completely detaching it from an actual historical context -- or blending in a number of historical contexts.
I disagree. It wasn't so much Chinese as Feudal. All the stuff about oldest & youngest daughters, sons, and son-in-laws do seem Confucian, however. The strict social laws and association of swords with aristocracy actually struck me as Japanese to be honest. I agree about the use of socio-political themes from history. Too many fantasy stories seem to focus only on princesses, knights, and dashing brigands. The author deserves kudos for making his MC an old matriarch.
-
I wanted to like this more than I did, but ultimately it felt like an overly-simplistic story about revolution. It didn't really get into the political messiness of such things in reality; when it came time to man the barricades, it sounds like everybody who said they would show up actually *did* show up, and they brought friends, and nobody sold anybody out to the landholders, nor did anybody get into local disagreements about who ought to be in charge, etc. Which, okay, it's a short story, and that kind of messy complexity is hard to do in a few thousand words. But it also failed (at least for me) to do the thing short stories can do really *well*, which is to dig into the characters at the moment of transition. I never felt invested in the narrator or the Younger Son-in-Law, never felt a sense of them being really torn or afraid or outraged or any of the other really meaty, awesome emotions that ought to come with a shift like this. (I think the lack of names contributed to this; it made me see all the characters as mouthpieces instead of people.) On top of that, the setting felt vague. People here have seen shades of a bunch of different societies in it, and that works for a thought-piece, but I don't find it makes for compelling narrative. So the end result is that I thought the story was really preachy, and not very compelling at all.
As for monarchy, my thoughts are too long to fit here, so: http://www.swantower.com/essays/philosophy/monarchy.html .
-
I would wager that the ambiguity was purposeful. The whole point of the story was about how a revolution gets started, not whether or not a revolution is justified or wise.
Thank you Scattercat for stating this. I am surprised by the number of respondents who don't like the story because they don't have a more complete point of view (pov) or have a problem with the politics. For me what is so compelling is precisely the limited pov, that we don't have the complete picture. I find fascinating what the story's detractor's find disturbing. It was well-done and rigorously limited.
-
I love the narration of this one, but not so much the story itself. I kept getting confused over who was who. And the protag was so skeptical throughout the story, her change of heart at the end felt abrupt to me. In fact, the entire ending felt like it came out of left field. I almost wished that the 2nd (third, last i dont know) son was wrong, or that the landowners were doing something completely different, like fighting aliens or something. I don't know. Conspiracy theorist always rubbed me the wrong way, and that's what this story did,too. But great narration, though.
And speaking of conspiracy theories, uh...Wilson? Please don't tell me you were sitting at your computer day and night, waiting for someone, anyone, to post to the forums about the dead air after podcasts just so you can whip out that spiffy chart. Or at least tell me you only spent at the maximum five minutes working on it...
-
And speaking of conspiracy theories, uh...Wilson? Please don't tell me you were sitting at your computer day and night, waiting for someone, anyone, to post to the forums about the dead air after podcasts just so you can whip out that spiffy chart. Or at least tell me you only spent at the maximum five minutes working on it...
Well, about 5 minutes listening to the episodes listed and marking down the dead air times.
Probably about 5 times that, making a pretty chart. Not wasted time, in my opinion, as it was something I'd never done before so was happy to have the chance to try my hand at. (Not that I'd never done anything like it before - I've made HTML tables, so it didn't take as long as it might have otherwise.) Also, the superscripting took some time to make look good.
-
For those of you who want democratic revolutions in your fantasy, check out today's The Big Idea entry (http://whatever.scalzi.com/2011/10/04/the-big-idea-lee-arthur-chane/) in John Scalzi's Whatever blog.
In the real world, restoring absolute monarchs to power is generally not seen as a good thing. I mean, an absolute monarch is just a dictator with a jeweled hat, when you come right down to it. In the real world, we (well, most of us, at least) celebrate the overthrow of tyrants…even the ones that have been, perhaps, less tyrannical than some of their peers.
Where, I asked myself, are the democratic revolutionaries within fantasy fiction?
I decided to create some.
-
More political fiction. Yay...
I gave this one a fair try, but I'll admit that the head's up that it was a political story biased me against it. I listened for a while, and it just never got my interest. From the intro and comments I assume that a revolution starts based on the wild and unbased speculation at the beginning, but I got sick of listening to them arguing about things that no one has actually seen. And, the non-name naming scheme drove me absolutely nuts. Presumably there's a reason for it, but it made it hard to keep any of the characters straight or get any feeling for personality or even count. After a while I realized I was doing nothing but trying to count how many different non-names were used, which was more interesting to me than the argument they were having.
-
This seemed like another uprising in the feudal trope of fantasy. It was way to long and not done nearly as well as Borgis. I was underwhelmed with this one.
-
THREADOMANCY!!!!
Saw this on SF Signal (http://www.sfsignal.com/archives/2012/07/mind-meld-monarchies-in-fantasy/) and was reminded of Anna's question in the intro.
-
THREADOMANCY!!!!
Saw this on SF Signal (http://www.sfsignal.com/archives/2012/07/mind-meld-monarchies-in-fantasy/) and was reminded of Anna's question in the intro.
Nice! Lots of great perspectives represented, and of course lots of insight as well. :)