This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I admire the Farseer books, although I found them frustrating as a boy. The weakest parts are, as you say, the hamfisted social commentary. Hobb could not have been more blatant about the analogy between closeted gays and wit-bonders if she tried.
What fascinated me was her anti-fantasy approach. From just the plot synopsis, FitzChilvary seems to have gone on a standard set of fantasy adventures and achieved a standard set of fantasy great deeds. And yet he never gains status. Near the very end of the series, he is the equivalent of the CNA in a group care home. No one knows his name. Those who do have a low opinion of it.
But Hobb doesn't present any wallowing by FitzChivalry as valid. He was acting out of selfless intentions, not for personal glory... right?
I thought her basic take on this was original and good: the royal family needs assassins, but who do you trust? Well, your own family. But if you give them that kind of ability, and trust them with those kind of secrets, what's to stop them from deciding the crown would look as good on their head as on yours? You make sure they can't inherit. Thus you have a line of bastards who can't inherit because they're not legitimate, but they are close enough in blood to be amenable to the demands of the royal role.
That's clever. But the way it worked out was poor - so you need people with the royal blood but not too close to the throne? That's what the minor branches of the family are for, as every noble house knows. Put the poor relations to work this way! You don't need to have bastards. And bastards can be recognised and legitimised, this has also happened historically. The set-up where "okay, main line prince, go out and have a bastard or two for us to have our new pool of assassins" was clunky. It could work in a Machiavellian world, but this world was supposed to be" if you're named after a heroic virtue, you embody that virtue" and that doesn't work well when you have honourable people as royals. Prince YesI'mHorrible can do that, but not Prince Generous or Prince Noble or whatever.
But that didn't suit Hobb, because she wanted the "Alas! 'Tis so tragic, the selfless heroism of the exploited bastard who is never valued or given his proper due!" bit, and after a couple of books it grated on me. Fitz was so groovy he should have been acknowledged as a legitimate royal but that's not going to happen because the main line are so ungrateful and they prefer to cynically use him to get his hands dirty so they can keep their hands technically clean.
But that's okay because Fitz is so noble himself, he only did it for the greater good and not for personal gain, even though he totally could have tricked them all and taken over because he's so smart and capable and and and....
Yeah, I get it, he's Marty Stu.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link