Wanted: some Professional Fantasy Authors

Time for a break from politics. In fact, I need a break from a lot of things. My brain is thrashing from too many tasks these days and as a result I am getting less done. Tim Ferris, the great deprecator of multi-tasking, suggests reading fiction at the end of the day to get free up the brain for a good night’s sleep.

I need a good bedtime story.

I used to read science fiction, and still do at times, but I’m getting old. Cyberpunk and singularities disturb me, and the latest generation of British SF writers (Reynolds, Banks) are downright gross. These days I just want to escape.  I like the sense of wonder of SF, but I have enough of computers in my day job. Thus, my current hankering for fantasy.

So, I go to the local Books a Million and see what looks popular. Hmmmm, 5 volumes so far and each one is 600 pages…that’s a lot of bedtime stories…I’ll give this one a try…and come of with a real STINKER.  I have started four difference series by four different authors and quit each a fraction into the first volume. I’m stunned by the sheer awfulness of the writing.

I started with The Sword of Shannara by Terry Brooks. It’s a cheap Tolkien ripoff. That’s OK. I bought it expecting a cheap knockoff of The Master. A variation on a good theme is good enough for me. I just want a decent bedtime story. But I want a story! Not an outline of a story!! The writing in this novel is bad. Stunningly bad. I wrote better in high school. This is not a boast. My stories back then were all rejected by real magazines and rightfully so.  The standards for science fiction short stories were higher than for fantasy epics at the time it would seem. Had I skipped writing science fiction stories and gone straight to fantasy novels I might be a wealthy author today.

So I go back to the bookstore and pick up the first book in David Eddings Belgeriad.Paragraph for paragraph the writing is a bit better, tolerable even, but the story is abysmal. His dark lord is evil because he wants some box or something that he isn’t supposed to have. Why anyone cares is left unsaid. The prelude gives us too much information so we can anticipate every “revelation” many pages before our hapless main character gets the news. After following a child getting kept in the kitchen and otherwise herded around by an aunt who is obviously a great sorceress from ancient times for a hundred pages or so, I quit. Spoiler alert (for those with sub room temperature IQs): the main character is the last of a royal line hidden away from bad guys.

So I tried Terry Goodkind’s Sword of Truth series. Lot’s of people like it according to shelf space his works take up. Here, at least, we start with a bit of action, and the dark lord is actually a bad guy. And so our hero, who conveniently turns out to be THE ONE, teams up with the great wizard in exile, and a ranger character who carries enough weapons to weight down a gorilla. It’s as if an eleven year old were to write a high fantasy novel and then a team of Associated Content writers paid by the word flushed it out.

My latest attempt is Tad Williams’ Shadowmarch. The reviews say he can write. Well, so could Edward George Bulwer-Lytton, I guess. Shadowmarch wins hands down for sheer quantity of similes per page. Like Eddings, Williams reveals way too much in his two clunky preludes before getting on with the actual story. I harrumph as only a middle aged over caffeinated PhD physicist can harrumph and File 13 this one with the rest.

What’s the deal? Years ago I was once apologetic to the English major types I knew for reading science fiction instead of “real” literature. To me a good story was about a gripping plot and interesting ideas vs. flowery language and subtle characterization. Little did I know! Even H. Beam Piper at his worst (cf. Space Viking) was positively Shakespearean compared to the above. I can think of no science fiction  novel as poorly written as these four fantasies.

Why are today’s heirs of Tolkien, Zelazny, and Vance? Who today can write at least as well as Robert E. Howard? I am not asking for perfection or even excellence, just a decent bit of escapism. I could even settle for Robert Jordan if someone could edit out the reams of clothing descriptions and bickering sessions that crowd out his (rambling and inconsistent) story. I actually made it through a half dozen or so of his Wheel of Time books before throwing the last in the fire when the author decided to stretch one day’s “action” into an entire volume.

Before ya’ll label me a complete grump, let me mention two excellent fantasy authors I have come across in recent years. George R.R. Martin had a truly gripping story going with his Song of Fire and Ice series. Alas, I despair of his ever finishing it. Patrick Rothfus’ The Name of the Wind is most excellently written, and it isn’t warmed over Tolkien by any stretch. I’ll pay for the hardcover of Book 2 when it comes out.

But it isn’t out. So I need something else in the meantime. Who else is good?

My Critique of Objectivist Morality V1

Among my most recent article updates is Objectivist Ethics, a Critique. I suspect it is unsettling to my many Objectivist friends, so I am offering them a chance to critique back. But my self-interest in the matter extends beyond preserving friendships. I want to make the article better. Ideally, it should persuade Objectivists to update their philosophy from merely following Ayn Rand — errors and all — to using her works as inspiration to produce something better.

As a start, I’d like to focus on making sure I am not doing a straw man argument. In the static article, I summarized her derivation of Objectivist ethics as follows:

  1. Existence exists.
  2. Living beings must act in order to exist. The plant seeks light, the cow chews cud, the tiger hunts, etc.
  3. Man is a rational animal.
  4. Reason is man’s basic tool for survival, just as claws are for a tiger, etc.
  5. Since man is not governed by instinct, he needs rules to live by. He needs ethics.
  6. Morals thus derive from self preservation, from self interest.
  7. However, rational self-interest is socially benevolent. To steal, mooch or be a useless playboy is to violate intellectual integrity, causing the mind to melt down like a computer in an old Star Trek episode. Rational self-interest produces a drive for productivity and trade. (But not necessarily for charity towards the disabled.)

Do I have this correct? Step 7 is perhaps the most problematic. Is the Star Trek reference too cute? Obviously, Rand did not claim an immediate mental meltdown results from rejecting rationality. The destruction claimed  is considerably slower. So at the very least I intend to add “(only slower)” to the second sentence.

Also, can anyone give me a reference where Rand lays out her derivation of Objectivist ethics with all the steps intact. The first essay in The Virtue of Selfishness skips quite a few to say the least. If not, has anyone else written up such a derivation with citations of the relevant bits of Ayn Rand’s works?

Welcome to the Holistic Politics Blog

I have finally done it. After 7 years I have given in to modernity and set up a blog on this site. That said, do keep an eye on the main site. I am still updating the static articles, and that is the true home of the more timeless content.

I have started this blog to:

  • Post drafts of future articles and updates of older articles.
  • Provide a place for readers’ comment on the static articles (TBR).
  • Comment on timely matters, sites I have found interesting, etc.
  • Provide an RSS of updates to the main site

Who knows? Maybe after using WordPress enough, I’ll give in and use a CMS for the rest of the site. My current system of editing in Microsoft Word, extracting with a ruby script, tidying up with tidy, and ftp’ing to the server is a bit old fashioned…