Point of Hearts (Astreiant, volume 6) by Melissa Scott

[james_davis_nicoll]

To save the city from a dire plot, Rathe and Eslingen must first elude those who think the true threat to Astreiant is Rathe.

Point of Hearts (Astreiant, volume 6) by Melissa Scott

Comments

what's the deal with royalty?

[(Anonymous)]

Why is so, so much fantasy and SF found in settings where royalty rules the day and alternative political philosophies seem badly underdeveloped? Is it writing to the expectations of audience (and editor)?

Or is it something else?

Even in the age of European absolute monarchs their absolutism was qualified by regional assemblies, free cities, conflicting agendas with the church, traditions of consultive decision making at the local level, the limits of their treasury and ability to take loans, etc. And there were alternatives, both on-the-ground and in the literature. Republics, elective monarchies, established regional privileges, etc. abounded; let alone systems described in the historic and philosophical literature. Even Wikipedia provides many examples in the entry, "List of republics."

Yet we get story after story, both in fantasy settings or set in fantastical sci-fi futures, where even a Marcher Lord would look around and wonder why the political system was so rudimentary and underdeveloped.

So, is it a lack of imagination? Is it writing to (perceived) market demand? Is it a lack of historical awareness? Is it wish fulfillment like much of the thought that passes for libertarian philosophy?

wes

[princessofgeeks]

Thanks for this! I had missed that there was a new book in the series this spring!

[(Anonymous)]

Re footnote 2, if you're willing to wait a few hundred million years

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/news/north-america-is-dripping-down-into-earth-s-mantle-scientists-discover/ar-AA1CakXg?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=208a1e25d9944491b442cd20228cfe22&ei=24

Re: what's the deal with royalty?

[(Anonymous)]

There's another and less nefarious possible reason*: similar to why characters' every meal and bowel movement rarely get noted in the text, absolutist systems get a lot of as-you-know-Bob political explanation out of the way of the plot - e.g. the entire explanation of the Ankh-Morpork political system for at least the first half of the Discworld books: "One Man, One Vote. The Patrician was the Man; he had the Vote."

These can operate in parallel, of course - trying to write a medieval fantasy and not knowing that they were _definitively_ not absolute monarchs** and therefore accidentally throwing out all the political machination that should be in the book is an extremely plausible thing for someone to do.

* what has happened to me and/or the world that I'm not the maximum blackly cynical responder? Rhetorical question, please don't answer, we all know the answer to the latter at least.

** we shall leave the "how absolute were the absolute monarchies, given Louis XIV created Versailles essentially as a giant mirror for the French aristocracy's collective budgie" question for another day. :-)

Re: what's the deal with royalty?

[benbenberi]

All of the above, probably. And also the fact that monarchy is a convenient narrative device because it's easier to write about individuals than corporate groups, and often it's dramatically more satisfying to focus on individuals with agency and the power to shape events around their decisions and character rather than the committees, institutions, election cycles, and interest groups that dominate the world of representative democracy. There are certainly exceptions, but most genre fantasy chooses not to write those sorts of stories. (Also note the recent IRL swing toward authoritarian regimes with individuals or very small groups at their center: blunt narrative simplicity has broad appeal, it would seem, in many contexts.)

[benbenberi]

Pretty cover. But obviously the artist was never informed that the lead roles are played by Martin Shaw and Lew Collins, or it would be even prettier.

Re: what's the deal with royalty?

[rwpikul]

I suspect that the main reason is that it's easy: With a strong monarchy, you can go "here's the king, his two sons, and his schemer of a brother," and you're pretty much done explaining the political system.

Unless you're doing something that requires something more complex, going with an absolute monarchy or a feudalish strong monarchy gives you something people understand without having to spend a couple kilowords.

Re: what's the deal with royalty?

[patrick_morris_miller]

what has happened to me and/or the world that I'm not the maximum blackly cynical responder?

Alas, I'm no longer in touch with the people who used to tell me not to be such a pessimist, and am therefore in no position to demand satisfaction.

Re: what's the deal with royalty?

[patrick_morris_miller]

As explained elsewhere, plus: how the hell are you supposed to have an election when it takes more than half a year to send precinct returns from Jewell to Capital?

Re: what's the deal with royalty?

[felila]

But Astreiant is far from a simple monarchy. Every book delves into the push and pull of aristocrats and merchants and regular folks. Each of those groups splintered into various groups.

Re: what's the deal with royalty?

[(Anonymous)]

I would think dueling is a hobby for optimists.

--
Nathan H.