my big problem with the democracy ending is that democracy has changed so much, and the books never show the actual philosophical/sociological debates that would allow even "maybe the people should choose who rules". Who is considered a citizen? Who is allowed to vote? How are the votes counted? Who can be elected?
Well the answer to those questions are easy: 1. people who live in the country 2. people of the right ethnicity 3. 1 2 3 4 etc 4. people of the right ethnicity
@@eiavops4576 Oh Boy, i sure do hope i am the RIGHT ethnicity then. And if we make the case that only a specific Ethnic Group in a country is allowed to vote, i think we should further reduce that number to only people that pay taxes.
1. Weirdly open given everything else here; I believe most countries have requirements and procedures e.g. live here for X time then file it and prove it to government office. 2. 4. How do you define ethnicity? Normally that tracks w/ lineage not just born in the country or whatever. Are we going to track the "purity" of people's lineage to determine whether they deserve a political say? That is screwy on a number of levels and brings back bad history and is like designed for oppression. 3. But like actually though. So many different ways and so many have *PROBLEMS* Method 1: "All in favor of person A" they raise a hand *person counting tallies* "All in favor of person B" ... Method 2: write name on paper, put it in a box, person counts it later Method 1 leaks voter information and may allow retaliation. Method 2 may require literacy which would add a requirement to vote(is that common in the setting) Who would count the votes? Are there independent procedures to verify? Have you heard of poll watchers?
I'm still amazed at how you can get your points across concisely without a script even despite the cut-ins haha anyway, always happy to see you popup in the sub box again!
**Slams down on the table my bachelor’s and soon-to-be master’s degrees in Political Science** Alright, let’s do this. The short answer is that writers don't understand how politics work. “Political fantasy is interesting to me because to evaluates humanity through morally gray characters, if there is a good vs. evil it becomes an adventure/war thing which is separate. It’s no longer about the politics of court and how to gain little steps of power to make changes to benefit your goals.” To nitpick you on an unscripted video, I don’t think calling it “war” is a proper term because war is an instrument of politics and wars are often very morally gray things. Look at World War I for example. I think it would be interesting for a fantasy story to show how wars are started and the gray morality that some wars can have. Following characters who unwittingly make decisions that they see are best for themselves and their constituency but in the end, it’s what leads them to war. Or a war where all sides have fair points and justifications for going to war. Having not read the Brass City books, I do completely agree that often there will be interesting political intrigue and then you have evil Satan man to give it that clean ending. Now onto your point about it never-ending satisfying, I’m not sure if I agree with that. Again, you could write a realistic war story where it shows the morality of sides on war. You could also do smaller but important political stories where the end goal isn’t establishing a new government. Most political issues don’t have “upending our entire political structure” as one of the options. Or you could go the realistic route where the public cares about a hot button issue for a while and then it slowly fades away and it’s never dealt with so we constantly have to deal with this issue popping up. Well, if you want some good political books *searches to see if you’ve Mistborn* Oh. Well. Hmmm. Man, and the second book even has what you wanted which is the transition from monarchy to democracy (kind of, I wouldn’t call it democracy but I can’t think of the better word for it and this post is already long). Maybe you should give it a second chance! Lol. Generally, I think Brandon Sanderson does politics well. Other books that do politics well...While I would have to reread Winter to give a definitive answered, I’d tentatively say that the Lunar Chronicles has pretty solid politics. Oooooooooo! Y’know what’s a story that starts off with the aftermath of a world transitioning out of an evil…*Empire?* Why it’s the Star Wars EU books! I’d recommend the Thrawn Trilogy, I remember there being some really good politics in that. I wasn’t even super familiar with Star Wars when I first read it.
You’re one of those people I could listen to forever. Both your voice and vocabulary makes it so enjoyable yet informative to listen to your opinions. Especially for someone whose first language is not english. I love that you’re so passionate about the topics you discuss, it makes it so much more fun! Love your videos!
I think the problem is a mix of these medieval setting wanting to abruptly conform to modern ideals without considering the world they've actual set up, and also most conclusions in political fantasy being from the perspective that all change is best done from the "top down". If there was real exploration of how society looked both in *and out* of court intrigue and effort from the part of characters on the "good" side to say, improve living conditions, look at how the politics of the big guys effects the little ones and instigate social change in that sort of mass way, then I think it'd be easier to acknowledge that regardless of the system of governance some satisfactory change for the better has happened. And then of course, you can have the politicians or the nobles or the various faction still have at each others throats :P But most fantasy in general comes from the perspective of Kings, Princes, Sorcerers, etc and under the assumption that individuals are the primary instigators of change. If they do pay attention to the majority of the average fantasy world, it's only via lip service. So of course from the POV, it would be hard to conclude the narrative of any sweeping, big stakes world lol. How can you, when you've only paid proper attention and given importance to 0.03% of it?
I think you make a valid point for sure! Definitely would be interesting to see more fantasies that tell the stories of periphery or "everyday" characters that aren't trying to defeat some big bad, but instead incite political change.
The funny Thing is that WE are guilty of this AS well No Matter how much arrogant modern people Claim they are so freeminded. Just Look at the entire Circus around the US Presidents all hated debates grand politics ,gigantic proclaimations of reforms, but ASK any of them do you know your local Mayor and None can answer it. And they are actually far more impactful on your Life than the next presidents next hot Take Sex scandal or Something else
In my writing, I like to practice the concept of the "Political Triangle" like a love-tiangle but with governments. It puts the characters in a high stakes game of stone-scroll-daggers, both in the battlefield and in commerce. The best example I can think of is The Expanse series, with their Earth, Mars, Belt factions.
this video made me realize that i have never really thought about how political fantasies kinda stop being political fantasies near the end. i always kind of thought that stories like that were meant to end with a message that was like “all political rivalries & alliances & plots & schemes are minuscule and/or must be put aside for the betterment of humanity in order to face true evils” or something like that. i definitely think magic or power creep can be a problem in stories & it would be cool to see someone just perfect a political fantasy’s ending. maybe one that focuses more on a world rather than specific characters or parties or houses could work? i honestly have no idea! but great video! super thought provoking, which i really appreciate! :)
I feel like you're crossing the wires between the "magic crawl" and the removal of moral ambiguity and how those affect the political machinations aspect. I also feel like those are mostly separate issues. There is something to be said about the quality of writing going down leading to abandoning political machinations (because those are hard to orchestrate) and losing moral ambiguity (because it's much easier to write good vs evil). However, I'm not sure these three issues are necessarily connected. I think you made the best argument for magic crawl and lack of politics being connected, but even then, I think that comes back to writing quality more than anything tbh. But overall, this is a super interesting conversation to have. (And I agree that the endings can't truly be satisfying)
I totally agree that they're not necessarily linked, however I do think they are often correlated. The moment super powerful gods, creatures, demons, etc. are introduced, then usually there is a shift away from the politics and vying for power within the system of governance to a larger threat, which oftentimes leads to a "good vs. evil/defeat the big bad" scenario. Definitely not always linked though!
YES about the democracy point!!! I find it funny that in a fantasy genre with limitless possibilities, people can only think of 2 forms of governance -monarchy vs democracy. Cmon, use imagination!!! Come up with something exciting and new!!! It doesn't have to be perfect, hell it doesn't even have to be a good form of governance, but it would definitely be interesting to see how it would play out.
I'm hate reading the newest acotar book and there's hints that an absolute monarchy (I guess they have an oligarchy normally?) is the solution to political infighting...lol. sjm said screw writing political intrique and screw the will of the people, let's make rhys a dictator instead
Your CEO vibe and aesthetics though. Anyways, one of the things about political fantasy is that, I wish they incorporate the magic system into the politics. I mean like, Red Queen tried to do that but kinda failed. For example, if a powerful user from this family marries into another family, it threatens the throne and I want to see not just the reaction of the ruling monarchy but the noble houses below them as well. Like, I think having magic come into the political scene basically would exacerbate things because it has potential for geopolitics too. Take for example a country experiencing drought. A family that has an ability to ease the drought would have a higher political power and can threaten the ruling family. I want to see something like that. As for the ending to a political fantasy, honestly, I think for endings that dismantle monarchy to establish democracy, an author can never fully show the transition. It's not a question about the author's ability; it's more about the falling action after the climax being too long that it might bore readers. There's also the factor that they have a limited word count to play with. A glimpse of the transition is plausible though. But well, if the dismantling and transition happens in the middle book and there's enough of the plot left for a third book, then it can be done well, I suppose. I agree that the destination is obvious and predictable so the only thing that matters in a political fantasy for me is the execution of it.
Yeah, agreed on both counts! And I didn't mean that the transition to democracy should happen in the falling action - I would love to see it in the middle or at the start of a series!
@0:00 - Intro to Pitfalls @2:30 - Best part of Political Fantasy @4:00 - First Issue: Political Fantasy turns into Adventure @5:15 - Why it's Interesting in the First Place @6:34 - Hilarious Commentary (aka Recap) @7:54 - Author Pressure to Include more Magic (power crawl). @11:12 - Second Issue (no good way to end/subjective). @13:00 - Show the transition between Government System. @14:46 - Clapping (sorry, I couldn't resist) @15:18 - Have the Politics Matter @15:46 - Hilarious Commentary (Part Deux). @17:00 - Closing Statement
I was so anxious going into this. My first foray into political fantasy was The Goblin Emperor by Katherine Addison. It covers the first 3 months of the new emperor's reign. The ending is about as satisfying as you can get. It's hopeful.
If a main character dies at the end, but their sacrifice contributed to the greater good, I consider that to be a satisfying balance of the happy and sad. I like stories depending on the strength of the emotions. Though I'm also the one who thinks romantic tragedy is more romantic than happy romance. The love is pure but they're being torn apart, whereas a happy romance tends to have crappy people who love because the other person is hot.
I have had a falling out with fantasy lately. I do read to see how humans would live and react to magical elements but so many times the fantasy elements hold center stage over the characters. Magic systems with incredibly detailed workings and dense lore on the histories of kingdoms and blah blah blah. This was fun to read at one point but the reason I loved ASOIAF is that the magic is used to have characters question their ideas about themselves and the world where in so many books its "I'm a mage and i can heal you" and then on to the next adventure
Lol, funnily enough I’ve been feeling burnt out from fantasy lately for the exact opposite reason: I read to see lots of magic and good world building but find that there is usually way too much focus on politics and character relationships
that´s because if there is a Night King, it will be one of the human character we already know; Euron Greyjoy, Stannis Baratheon or Jon Snow. one of them will be the Night King, if there is one at the end.
I've been searching for the next political fantasy after I finished asoiaf. I started reading the Daevabad tribology after you recommended it! The first book started really strong. Then in the second book, I felt some of the plot developments were "bend" in order to give way to the protagonists, because readers need to like them or believe they are badass, and therefore certain plots didn't strike me as being realistic or the stakes that previously stated in the book, as it later turned out, didn't quite matter. Personally, I'd prefer the protagonists to be more morally ambiguous than they are in the books, because that's how the world works and that's how politics work- compromise. It's interesting you mentioned GOT season 1-3 being the the strongest season. Season 4, especially the Daenerys part, did feel like she's given a free pass because she had dragons. In the book, her part is more nuanced and I think the changes were made due to GOT being a TV show. A lot of readers don't like the fifth book because Daenerys was entangled in the politics at Meeren. Her chapters were complicated with little payoff. But I think that's what makes it real- you can conquer a city with dragons, but you can only rule with people. I totally agree there's no good way to end political fantasy. Each form of government is flawed in its own way, including democracy. If the author acknowledges that, instead of striving for a perfect answer/ending, which almost inevitably leads to good vs. evil, then we might have a relatively satisfying ending.
Agreed with all of your points! While I totally agree with your assessment of the second book of the Deavabad trilogy, there were still quite a few things I loved about it. However, it seemed to take a sharp turn in the third book. I've only read the first two GOT books but I definitely want to continue with the series to see how it diverges from the show.
@@JordanHarveybooks Oh no doubt! The second book is still very interesting. Just curious, what are some of other political fantasy series you would recommend? Or would you do a video for political fantasy in the future? 🤩
I think you make a good point about how magic can change the trajectory of the plot away from the political and more into traditional fantasy. It probably can work if the author doesn't make the struggle between good and evil. The main threat should in this case be more akin to a force of nature or some other force which isn't inherently evil.
That's true! I do think that regardless it can still render much of the previous politics and struggles for power within the world's system of governance irrelevant. It's definitely a delicate balance!
That’s why i like my political fantasies to have excerpts of in universe future history books. You get a glimpse of the consequences (how is tbe era named, who published this political analysis, what are their opinion on the previous system of government if it has changed…) and of how people remember the protagonists of the books from a distant perspective.
totally agree-I read a book recently which had all of the ingredients to become a fantastic political fantasy with a small side of magic and horror, but it forced this completely unnecessary twist at the end which basically threw out all of the subtlety and complexity of the politics and made it all "comically evil bad guy against the definitely good protagonists". I almost wonder if the format of a series vs a standalone is more conducive to the first pitfall you mentioned, in that the multiple books that require separate climaxes and resolutions result in the power crawl.
Super late to this, but I want to put a plug for The Sarantine Mosaic by Guy Gavriel Kay (2 book duology. Book 1 is Sailing to Sarantium, book 2 is Lord of Emperors). Kay is an outstanding author, and similar to a lot of good political fantasy there is a lot inspired by real world history (this series setting is based on 6th century Mediterranean powers). The twist, which avoids a lot of the concerns that you raise, is that the protagonist isn't one of the power players of the political folks but instead is a craftsman (a mosaicist) that is summoned and hired and gets to interact with the political players and gives us a different perspective on the politics and the impact of the politics on the people. The protagonist has his own concerns dealing with grief, craft, and his work - in addition to being pulled into some of the political actions because of his access to important people.
Game of Thrones was conceived from the beginning as a story (Song) about - Stage 1: Civil War between the Starks and Lannisters; Stage 2: The need for the kingdoms of Westeros to band together to face the outside treat from Daenerys Targaryen and her dragons (Fire); and Stage 3, the need for everyone to band together to face the White Walkers (Ice). So the problem of the escalation of magic (if it is one) was baked in to the Song of Ice and Fire from the conception.
So when it comes to Political Fantasy I can agree and disagree with your points here. On one hand you're right about the staleness of outcomes PFs tend to have and in truth they aren't really all too satisfying in their conclusions, either becoming a "Heir to" Monarchy, a Faceless Democracy or some kind of Shadow Republic. I think if we weren't so vehemently opposed to the idea of other potential political governments we would see different governing outcomes such as Socialism or Communism or hell even seeing the government fail and it fall to peaceful anarchic city states or devolve fully into small scaled governance. That would be an interesting idea that doesn't necessarily tie our protagonist to the fate of the Political sect while still being influenced by their development and decisions. Now for the kinda disagree...so I like magic, hard magic systems are the best for really delving into thorough world building and understanding the different values of the governing bodies citizens given what stresser and reliefs having magic can be for them. I do understand when the power creep gets to be too much and it loses its zest. I believe that a good way of dealing with this is normalizing the use of magic in the world and have it explained in a way that the Protagonist is able to utilize it to their benefit in unconventional ways from the prospective of the world at large. With these 2 way you can have a thought provoking political narrative while still introducing magical concepts that feel new and unique without having to always "up the ante".
" I think if we weren't so vehemently opposed to the idea of other potential political governments we would see different governing outcomes such as Socialism or Communism" Ahh, that would be a setup for a fantasy dystopia, nice.
@@SL2797 It doesn't have to be a Dystopia, there are working governments that function even outside of the personal investments of writers or characters. I mean look at the number of Medieval and Feudal systems of governance there are in may fantasy stories. I won't call that dystopian, even though Feudalism is a worse system of government than Capitalism or Socialism.
From what I have heard from my spouse, Dune is basically the only Political Fantasy story he enjoyed. Because it talks about all the messy nasty bits of politics. Everyone is out for themselves and what starts as a single character's revenge upheaves the entire system and then the story has to deal with the whole, "even the most justified wars will result in collateral problems... also you are the villain of other people's stories." Like we only root for people usually because they are shown to us as the protagonists, but remember every Stormtrooper you kill has a family.
Now I wonder how you'd enjoy The Poppy War trilogy because that avoids a lot of the pitfalls you talked about and in my opinion ends the series in a pretty satisfying and realistic way
please read the Queen's Thief series! The first book is not about politics at all, but starting from the second book, it gets super political. It's one of my favorite series of all time!!!
I read the first one and definitely plan to read the rest of the books eventually - it's my friend's favourite series and she would be very upset if I didn't read on haha
Its definitely my favorite series too😭 The political machinations are so well developed over the course of the series and it kept surprising me. Ngl, I didn’t know political fantasy was a thing until I watched this but I automatically thought of The Queen’s Thief.
For Game of Thrones and A Song of Ice and Fire, this video is kinda hilarious because fans complain that there is too much politics in the later books and not enough magic. The politics is too detailed, too complex, too realistic, etc. And readers want the pace to quicken and for the magic that has been promised to be more relevant
Honestly I just find it cringe when they go from absolute monarchism to like 20th century Liberal Democracy while ignoring the fact that it's just Oligarchy. More political fantasy should end with something better like Leftist ideology instead of milquetoast Neoliberalism in medieval trappings.
Or have Leftist politics playing out alongside Liberalism (with tensions) when Monarchy is dominant. Tensions can be both implied or explicit, the former expressed through characters you care about. I had a plot line where Construction Workers were being replaced by undead former construction workers as the live workers were killed. The undead were unwaged but under control of either necromancer formen or regular formen equipped with some trinket. The workers were expected to work alongside their dead former comrades. It combined the modern day issue of automation & loss of employment, along with showing Capitalists not caring much about workers if at all. You could have tensions between Capitalists focusing on building with skilled & live labor being undercut in price by those using Necromancers & death as part of their business model. I was thinking along the lines of Timber Workers making links with the shipwrights and stevedores. Where I got uncomfortable was the prospect of having scabs as players & I didn't want to deal with that.
That makes the most sense at the most with the Enlightenment and liberal ideas in the 18th century sense. they will go most likely to a constitutional monarchy. Except for the United States, Dutch Republic desires and attempted in France that would move towards Republic, and capitalism at the time was in its infancy
@@metachiralityNot necessarily. Just takes a bit more imagination to figure out how to make the leap. Either way, democracy is the secret sauce you need for either capitalism OR socialism to develop.
@@iExploder According to Marxism, and in particular, dialectical materialism, you need capitalism to happen first to get the class consciousness necessary for a socialist revolution, because you can have class consciousness without a class to be conscious! I mean, a liberal democratic revolution is already on thin ice when it comes to revolutions, e.g. the American Revolution was only so successful due to the fact that the Americans were already sort of governing themselves, skipping straight from feudalism to socialism is just absurd. Even one, as a non-socialist, can see that socialism was only developed in the context of what came before.
I'm watching this and a thought enters my mind - Jordan talks with the same intonation, pauses and stresses as I do, even though my native langue is not English and I also talk like that in my native language - and now I can't get it out of my head
in Asoiaf, there are societies whether outside or on the fringe of the Seven Kingdoms that represent their own forms of Democracy, the Night's Watch nominate and elect each other regardless of who they were before joining mean while the Ironborn will once in a few centuries elect who ever promises the most plunder from raids. The last example is the Triarchy of Essos who win votes from Property owners.
I do agree w your overall point about magic crawl and that certain series suffer from it, but ASOIAF's point was always that its actually stupid who sits in "that ugly iron chair" because there are more important things, so it really is about humanity coming together. It is a VERY pure fantasy tbh, despite how people say its "fantasy for people who don't like fantasy". GRRM loves fantasy. He LOVES it. Pure, classic fantasy. And he did a whole whole lot to play with it but in the end it was always going to be something like "the lost dragon princess must destroy the ice zombies from the heart of winter". But as he says he writes specifically "the human heart in conflict with itself" so I find that even as political intrigue turns to skin hanging and greenseeing, to dragon taming, to training to be a face changing assassin, it holds on to its humanity because it was always about the inner journeys. Whether the character deals with court politics, leading an army, newfound magical abilities, abuse, loss, the focus is always how they struggle internally. (***this is purely about the books I've seen like 3 episodes of got and that was more than enough, thanks. also I just love these books people should read em!!!)
I'm currently researching and watching as many videos as possible on how to write political systems. This was a great video! These topics on political systems doesn't seem to be talked about much, which seems crazy to me as it's such an important aspect which is gonna effect the characters if they go do anything in the world. The main system in my story from the beginning will be a democracy, although like all are, flawed. And keeping the magic from becoming the big bad at the end is definitely something I gotta watch out for.
I'm also exasperated by people assuming that "democracy" solves everything. It obviously doesn't, and I agree that it would be fascinating if someone studied historical transitions from monarchy to republic and wrote a fantasy novel inspired by that. Please someone do it so I don't have to.
it annoys me when changing political systems solves the problems immediately, since the period immediately after the transition is usually the time of most turmoil and upheaval, and yes, it would be amazing to see someone really get into the nitty gritty of that. I'd also like to see more fantasy political systems that start and stay democratic, both good and bad versions. Or a collapsing democratic system.
I’m currently writing a heist novel where there’s a monarchy (sort of; another country’s emperor has placed his niece/aunt as a regent on their throne to govern in his name). The regent in a lot of ways improved the country. But the people are oppressed, unsatisfied and silenced. The characters actions basically ignite the spark that starts a civil war. And over the course of three books (I think) the monarchy bleeds into a republic. But in said republic the rich (new money opposed to old money/nobility) still very much rule. The people have a lot more say, but I wouldn’t call it a democracy. More so an oligarchy. It’s very much inspired by the 80 years’ war between Spain and the Netherlands.
There’s a shift in the social hierarchy. The upper echelon consists of: Rich merchants, renowned scholars and powerful families that made their wealth in finance and the (fine) arts. Democracies take time. And democracies take different shapes depending on o.a. era, geography and culture.
I totally agree with your points. It's nearly impossible to find a solution for fictional political issues that feels emotionally cathartic and organically developed in the same time. I think that mostly stems from the fact that you need to "fix" the politics in order to give your protagonists a happy ending because both the political and emotional core of the story are intertwined (which was basically your first point I guess). Maybe it'd be possible to avoid this by writing a story in which the characters need to form a kind of state that is generally considered bad in the reader's mind (like a dictatorship) and will also be framed as such in the story itself. The characters would still have to deal with having done a bad thing to secure their personal well-being, but at least the pitfall of having a flimsily instated democracy or a "just and wise monarch"-character as the holy grail which saves everything could be evaded. I never finished writing a political fantasy story, and now that I think of it that's partly due to my inability to come up with a 100% satisfying ending. Will I ever find one? Probably not. This whole topic is complex enough to write a dissertation about it.
Short Retort: I’m working through Silvia Moreno Garcia’s Bibliography & she has a unique take on the political issues. It’s possible her use of class warfare inoculates her stories!? Also, I’m at the stage where I need GDT to option her stories to series or film... AND I’ll need her & GDT to give Canadian fantasy the attention she’s given Mexican lore. There is an untapped Pan American fantasy yet to be strip mined!
I know I'm a little late to the party on this one, but I think this is one of those subjects where you have to look outside your genre for the solution. There are plenty of political thrillers out there in books and movies that have very satisfying endings. Just to give one example: The Godfather. A story that's rife with intrigue from beginning to end. One could easily use that story and many others as a roadmap on how to deliver a satisfying ending to political intrigue regardless of genre.
As for the comment about endings, I think the best endings are fake endings. By this, I mean they don't really tie up everything into a neat little bow. They complete the relevant arcs for the main characters, but also give off the impression that life goes on. Political intrigue thrives on the idea that conflict is built into our nature. A neat ending throws all of that out the window. The Wire, while not fantasy, is a good example of an ending done well. (TV show).
War and politics are interlinked and attempting to divorce the two breaks the emersion. The problem is when the politics of war get set aside for epic battles.
Watching this more than 3 years after it was published: I think Raymond Feist's first Medkemia series (starting with Wizard: Apprentice) does a pretty good job of showing real human reactions to political conflict and at least some of the pitfalls of inherited rule. There's certainly an element of the conflict of the "good heir" vs. the "bad heir". But, especially as the series goes on, you see the flaws and virtues of both sides, and the costs of that kind of government. And that's without the comparison between European-style feudalism on Midkemia and the Tsurani East-Asian-style centralized empire that is such a huge feature of the series.
Suddenly I’m feeling so much better about my own fantasy story as I have done my best to make the politics realistic. I have done lots of research from real world history, combining different elements from different eras and places. I have also tried to make the people involved more realistic with different goals, not all of them altruistic but all of them valid even if they’re opposing. There is also no magic creep, no good versus evil, just humans being human which I find far more fascinating.
Currently writing a Political Fantasy podcast ( Fate of Korr) set in a 20th century world, which oddly gets around some of this. If I say how it would spoil the fun of listening ( we launch in November.) My season two, is the final season, which reduces magic ramp up, cause there isn't 7 seasons of fighting one new big bad after another, and I hope to leave the political system in the air. But for the main character his story is closed , and he takes, his personal next step on his own pursuing the want he wanted before the world was in trouble. Clicked in your video cause I am working to check myself to make sure these pitfalls are not present in this work. So thank you for expressing your criticism of the genre. So thank you.
This is what I love about red rising! The first three books are about dismantling the society and our main characters eventually taking power. But then the next three talk about how the transition to democracy was hard and brutal, and our characters change over time. New characters come up that have been wronged by our main characters and the new democratic system
I didn’t know I was writing about a political democracy until now. And throughout the video I was like I’m not writing one, basically in denial, but towards the end, you called out my book blow by blow, besides some other details. I feel called out 😳
An Ember in the Ashes politics are so complex bc villains and heroes intertwine almost but the history behind the world depending on what time period it is different people are villains/heroes. The way the magic is tied back to this world is really unique. The magic doesn't take over which is nice
Idk if you’ve read the Powder Mage trilogy, but it’s my list because 1) it’s fantasy set in an early modern-type setting as opposed to the default medieval setting of most fantasy, and 2) the first book literally starts with the monarchy having already been overthrown and the victors trying to figure out what the hell to do next, which sounds like the sort of thing you’re looking for.
The saturation of war sagas is sickening. We need royal court dramas, imperial harem dramas , civil revolutionary tales( peasant rebellions etc) , stories of exodus & stories of surviving persecution.
I enjoy when politics must come to a head to defeat a certain monster at the end of the book (be it actually a monster, or an event threatening everyone), and everyone has to rally together, despite their differences, to defeat a common enemy. This was done in Mass Effect, where over the course of the game, you get everyone's help to launch an assault on the Reaper invasion of Earth. Depending on how many people you convinced to join you from various galactic powers also suffering their own invasions, the better the event plays out (albeit, it's a largely hopeless situation to begin with, but at maximum readiness, you get the best ending).
My pinpoint of political fantasy are China Mievilles Bas Lag novels - distinctly political or politicised stories, but no (reached) goals or "happy endings", just constellations and unfolding and closing events. You might find some crisis and a new situation afterward, or the restauration of the old in a new form, but it's always just part of an ever ongoing undulation of society. No naivity, only complexity and open questions. And that would be my ideal conception of political fantasy: Don't try to answer the questions of society you cannot answer in reality, don't use fantasy just to make things simple enough for an unambiguous solution, or to just replicate the simple answers given by contemporary society; just depict constellations, movements and correlations and raise questions. Let the reader find answers and some possible applicability to real political conditions - or not. Use fantasy like a lab to create special constellations, and the novelization to focus on the impact of the political background on people.
I remember really liking how The Queen of Blood series by Sarah Beth Durst ended. It didn't end in Democracy (wow!) because the magic system literally restricts that from being an option, so it was interesting to see how it all came together.
The government system I have in my story is a federation, with duchies, baronies, provincial governors, and an Emperor... It started as two governments, but they married their royalty
I would look at the ending of House of Cards S2. Frank wins the game, and is in charge. The "monarchy" (in a literary sense functions more like a monarchy than a democracy) was overthrown and replaced with the protagonist. I think it can be a very satisfying and chilling ending to see the protagonist turn into the villain in order to achieve power. This is a common trope, but it is a satisfying common trope that fits for fantasy politics.
The magic and the politics need to be interwoven and interdependent for it to work well. You don't have to prioritize one over the other. Most authors just don't do that well--that's the real problem. And it's weird that writers haven't figured that out yet when the solution is pretty straightforward. That is, make the fantastical element(s) a stand-in for technology or militarization or theocratic power, etc., and then have the politics incorporate or contend with the fantastical according to how it would with these real world concepts. For example, as a starting point, you could have a world with competing fantastic superpowers who each had a sealed up ancient monster they could unleash on each other at any moment (basically Cold War era Russia and USA with their nukes). Then in your fantasy story you can explore all the political machinations these nations would engage in with the knowledge of the power they wield
Having read the Song of Ice and Fire books: There is indeed a magic creep, but it *never* creates the tonal whiplash and narrative problems that you’re describing from the show. The TV show famously *toned down* the magical elements significantly. In doing so, it took away a lot of the atmosphere. (As well as sensible character motivations). The feel of fear and mystery that permeates magic in the books is removed. The books avoid the feeling of magic creep in the show-despite having more magical elements-because of the way that the magic is written. In the books magic is inherently dangerous and unpredictable; and even those who partake in it don’t entirely know what they are doing. Sometimes to horrible consequences, because magic always has a price. Moreover, the magical creep is very much a *creep.* The setting of ASoIAF is one in which magic is slowly beginning to re-enter the world. Use of magic is less important as an established lever of power, and happens more as a curveball that the political players must adapt to or work around. But though actual instances of magic changing the political landscape is rare; its *presence* is increasingly omnipresent. A sort of looming in the background. Whereas, in the show, the “magical” elements remaining were just there to justify spectacle and explosive set pieces; And justify using plot armor for characters whenever D&D wrote themselves into a corner. Which (obviously) didn’t match with the tone of the early part of the show AT ALL. There was no real interest *in* the magic itself by the writers, beyond providing them an excuse for giant expensive action scenes; and it *shows.*
The first time I read a song of ice and fire (ten years ago) I thought it was a metaphor for climate change- while we all squabble amongst ourselves, “winter is coming”, meaning larger, global issues we choose to ignore in favour of the easier and more accessible infighting. That was just my take! It obviously didn’t end that way haha.
I would be so interested to hear your thoughts on the Realm of the Elderlings by Robin Hobb, specifically Farseer and Liveship Traders! I thought about these two series during your video and I feel like they pull off good political plotlines!
I really think you should read A Memory Called Empire, because the best aspects of that book are the political elements: what it means to be a colonized subject, what empires do to people and cultures, how you can love another culture whilst simultaneously acknowledging that said culture is destroying your own. It's less political fantasy and more political sci-fi, but its all court politics (there's no magic or 'epic adventures'). Very much deserving of its Hugo award
You could probably make a series longer than the Wheel of Time just about trying to transition from an absolute monarchy to a democracy. IT can take hundreds of years, especially if the original government is overthrown by violence. By the way, if someone wants to write a series like that, I'd read it.
I think the magic point is a bit more complex. if a character gains enough magical power they can become what is an essentially walking, talking and thinking nuke. Nukes completly changed our political landscape and if they were to be held only by one side, they would make any political intrigue obsolete as the question of victory over any adversary would be just a question of how much of them we want to use. If magic in the world has similar power, it does make sense that political intrigue is a bit sidelined, but granted it can still be done well and not-so-well so I get what you are saying.
Hi don't mind me, I'm just here to dump some of my favorite political fantasy book series: 1. The Daevabad Trilogy (the books Jordan's talking about here) 2. The Folk of The Air series 3. The Bridge Kingdom (this is a magicless fantasy)
Try light novels and comics from japan and south korea. IMHO, my faves are: Japan: 'Holy Grail of Eris' and 'Common Sense of a Duke's Daughter' S.Korea: 'Villainess is a Marionette'
thank you so much for this! I'm currently writing a political fantasy myself and this really helped me check in with my story and make sure it's not doing these two things. Of course, mine also has a magical aspect in it, but I've been working on keeping it not as the focus but as a partially influential element in the political aspect of my story - where magic helps but isn't the be-all end-all. And I hope mine has a good ending lol i'm at least trying to combine the magical and political aspect to the end of it. as well as the good vs. evil - i'm also trying to make mine neither, where even the main character can be interpreted as morally gray. it's hard lol but this helped me stay on track. but again, thank you for this! it was super helpful for me 😊
Your first point, imo, is spot on. I read a lot of novels and manga/manwha/etc, and one of my all time favorite genres is political intrigue. In western media a lot of the issues stem from the magic becoming way too important and way too integral to the actual story being told. The best political fantasy uses the magic system to create a world that is unique and allows for unique styles of government and administration, and then you play the political intrigue game that people DO actually really like. The genre would be, at least in my opinion, decently more popular if the majority of it wasn't so misunderstood by the authors themselves.
I think it's interesting that you want a "satisfying ending" or a "happy ending" with a political fantasy but you also don't want it to be a typical good vs evil thing. The idea that there can be a good political ending at all (whether that be overthrowing the old regime, or reworking the monarchy or what have you), implies the binary of good vs evil on some level. I think the reason you can't find a satisfying political ending is that politics are simply not satisfying nor do they ever end. Like you said we can't know what's coming in the next generation after the story ends (whether it ends with a monarchy or a democracy), and even the good guys in power can turn bad. I personally don't read fantasy for the politics, I read it for the character exploration. I think for a lot of fantasy the historical setting (use of monarchies) and the expansive use of magic just come with the territory, so the politics isn't necessarily even meant to be the focus it's just another part of the scenery. I personally don't mind that.
Interesting. I also did a video on political intrigue, but decided to keep it vague enough to apply to most settings and genres. If someone asks for more in-depth info, I will link them to you.
I disagree with you on Ice and Fire. I think magic plays a huge dynamic because it raises important moral questions about whether the ends justify the means. Besides, A Song of Ice and Fantasy isn't categorized as a political fantasy; it's categorized as an epic high fantasy with heavy political themes. It was never truly categorized as political fantasy. His story is focused more on personal conflict and character growth along with hard themes such as the horrors of war, (Especially considering the speech the one priest gives about war and how war turns good people into broken men who resort to becoming bandits). The books have a ton of magic, but magic always comes with a huge cost. Like with the fire priests, every time one person is brought back, they lose a piece of themselves.
Yep. Something that book fans *tore the show apart for* is how-despite the show having fewer magical elements overall-the show’s magic ceased to have any consequences whatsoever. Like, they straight up brought Jon back from the dead, and had zero consequences for it. They might as well have had Jon just take a really long nap-for all the effect that his own DEATH had on both the plot and for Jon’s character personally.
@@bluecat1462 100%. I suspect Jon worged into Ghost and probably will come back more savage and brutal than he already became near the end of the last book, since he was already becoming more and more apathetic and far more manipulative. It's clear the TV show had no idea what the books were truly about. They didn't know how to treat the characters and they straight up butchered them, especially Jaime, Tyrion, Jon, Arya, Euron Greyjoy, The Dornish, and Dany. They dropped so many plotlines and things went nowhere. Like, what happened with Quaithe? They left out so many characters like Victarian Greyjoy and the red priest with the fire hand, Quinten, Faegon and Jon Cunnington, Marwyn, Lady Stoneheart, and so many other characters.
Oh, there is a series (well graphic novel/web series) that does exactly what you're saying....I'm just still in the process of arting all the pages. ;) So many pages... As a big proponent that subtext conveys human experience as the goal of story itself, I think the root of some of these problems is that the authors have very little interaction with policies that affect their lives and so, when they fall back on what they know, they tell it like a history book. What Aragorn's taxes or expansionist policies of Gondor are like are irrelevant to "behold this magnificent kingdom!" with magnificent being defined in the same way we look back on the Roman Empire and certainly is not from the view of the Easterlings he conquered. They stop at democracy=good because the author isn't in a place to play tour guide outside of their often comfortable worldview. Whereas I think if we had more authors in the genre (and part of that is the often limited exposure the genre provides due to its nicheness that makes it difficult for these alternative stories to really surface and get seen) that hold more awareness of the effects of policies on lives, outside of the trope of it being all a power game, the stories would be much more interesting and meaningful as they share the experiences of characters getting their day to day lives changed and how that shapes the socio-cultural world of the story.
I'm writing political/court fantasy RN. I think I dodged a bullet as none of this issues will aply (yay). My MC is princess becoming empress just before Inciting Incident, so no quest-for-power here. Twist is: it's already half way to constitutional monarchy. There's parliament that has much more power than she has (if you compare it to UK she'll have a bit less control than prime minister has, but more than queen Elizabeth had). They didn't progressed yet to actually voting for representatives, so only nobles have rights to do politics. Magic is severly limited and very much divided, so it's more in the background than playing great role in intrigues (used more like simple tool - magical evesdropping, blocking said magical eves dropping, magical communication devices, healing, etc.). You're giving me hope that maybe it won't be that bad after all XD
I *hate* the Cincinnatus trope! Let us have protagonists who *want* to be in charge because they think that they are going to be good at running the system! Especially in a genre that's so beloved by young women and full of young female protagonists, I'm sick to death of female characters being punished for desiring power and only being allowed to have power if they're reluctant to have it! I want a protagonist who has a 12 point economic plan and knows exactly which generals they're going to fire when they're in charge.
@@laisphinto6372 I mean yeah, it's interesting to see a character who does believe in themselves. I actually read a really fun sci-fi book that did this last year called The Stars Undying which is based on Cleopatra and the main character is so fun because she fully believes she deserves to be queen
I would love to see your thoughts on "Race the sands"By Sarah Beth Durst,i thought the author did some really interesting things with interconnecting the politics to the fantastical elements of the world. Ps. It's a stand alone
Ends with the opposing political faction splintering, parts joining the larger villain rule and others joining the allies. A king is eventually crowned, and the constitutional monarchy gets (yet another) constitution update.
This is a great discussion! You’re right, there is no good way to end a political fantasy... because there is no “good” political system. In the end, we are left feeling incomplete, because though this characters story has ended, we know it’s not the end of the story for the citizens and future generations. I’m going to mention GoT, but I speak only to the books (fuck the show) 5 books in and the magic is growing, but the magic is repeatedly beat down by the politics. There are still so many magical promises left to be fulfilled, but as a reader, I still question if magic is what is going to win in the end, or is it brute humanity. I think that’s why GRRM is taking so long to finish his books. He may have some ideas of how he’s going to end it, but he probably won’t be happy with it.
Political Fantasies seem to need the journey, twists & outcomes to be satisfying, and they should more often start without monarchies but instead small councils, where it isn't about setting up a democracy or monarchy, but instead seeing who is left standing and who has joined by the end. Perhaps setting it up in a similar vein to a murder mystery (like a less brutal version of "And Then There Were None").
You should read Fireborne by Rosaria Munda (she studied Political theory at Princeton!!!). The book starts after the revolution that establishes a meritocracy instead of a feudal system. It questions whether the new system is really better, and more, with incredible nuance. Plus, complex character dynamics with angst + dragons. 10/10
I think the issue with ending a political fantasy is that politics don't work like fairytails, and many fantasy books, even if they try to be more gritty, have very fairytail structure, where there has to be "and then they lived happily everafter" -ending. There's no end point to politics. There's no point when the work is done. I think only good ending for political fantasy has to be more or less open ended. Another problem that also comes from the fairytail tradition, is the individualism inherent to a hero of a story. The hero has to have the agency and has to be the one making the change, but real politics don't work like that. Real political change is not reliant on the agency of one person, it's collective work done for many generations. So like to actually write a story about overturning monarchy, or any other political system, it can't be the achievement of the one hero, it has to be something that started long before the story. Imo, to actually make a political fantasy interesting and satisfying, you have to strip a lot of agency from the main character(s) and give everyone, even those not named, agency. Writing the masses as mindless followers of anything the important characters tell them will rob the story of the actual dynamics of politics, which is chaotic, unpredictable and very complex because it's millions of people with real agency making decisions of their own. Political fantasy ending needs to be unsatisfying and anticlimactic in standards of traditional fantasy, where there's not full closure and the main characters aren't the ones making it all happen on their own. That's why I think political fantasy shouldn't be only about the politics. The central goal of the story and the characters should be different from their political aims (though connected to them), it should be more personal to them and smaller in stakes, so they could actually achieve it with their own agency and have satisfying ending even when the political situation is left open ended and mostly out of their control. Maybe they want to overthrow the monarchy because under the monarchy they can't achieve their goal, which could be gaining justice against some lord or monarch who is protected by the monarchy, or marrying their love interest which they can't because of political marriage, or freeing themself from an abusive political marriage, or gaining back their home which was given to a lord by the monarchy, etc. Firstly it makes the political stakes less abstract and more personal, and gives a much more achievable goal to cover in one story. That should be the a-plot, and the b-plot can be the larger political struggle for change. The b-plot then can end with a win for the larger movement, it can be a portion of the monarchy gaining independence, but it should be left open what will be the political system, because establishing that is a whole different story that takes a lot of time and a lot more political struggle. It could be disposing the monarchy, but again, what comes next is yet another wholly different story that doesn't fit the last chapter of a book, so should be left open. It could be forcing limitations to the monarch's power, for example establishing a parliamentary monarchy. Important thing imo to make the open endedness of the political plot satisfying and make it make sense, is to form the beginning establish that there are people advocating for different political systems and ways to go about them. Then the ending won't come out of nowhere and there's established some potential ways that the story would continue after the end.
I agree that I wish more books dealt with the transitions of power after the rebellion or what have you. 99% of books have the series build toward the overthrow evil king and then its just happiness and rainbows because the rightful heir/chosen one has come. Now I enjoy those stories (plus it's an easy narrative/series structure), but can we get something at least a little different. I have two book suggestions for you if you enjoy political fantasy. One is The Tethered Mage by Melissa Caruso. It's a trilogy which deals with a political system based on council rule rather than the typical monarchy set up as it's based off of Italy. And it deals with issues of the book world's version of slavery and how the system needs to change. And the other(s) are two "older ones" as the first one came out in 2016, Verse and Sword and it's sequel/ companion Dagger and Coin by Kathy MacMillin. They can be read as stand alones as the main POV switches between the books, but they work better as whole. The first deals with slavery and rebellion and the next one (which I like more) is all about how society changes and the mistrust and bias people still have even after the rules have changed. Wonderful video by the way.
I have a question that’s probably going to make me sound like a bonehead, but I’ll ask it anyways. Do all political fantasies specifically have to deal with the inner workings of government? Can the political aspects take place in civilian life, but with a government controlling everything as merely a backdrop? Maybe the book can deal with race relations, psychological issues, or educational upbringings from a layman’s point of view?
The "this is satisfying for now, but then what" is just a problem with happy endings. It would play out the same with other political systems, like a democratic win (sure, the good guys were elected... but somewhere down the line corrupt psychopaths are going to lie to get elected). But it also plays out in any "happy ending." There is no happily ever after in life, the happy ending of the book is artificial, only an ending because we intentionally stop telling the story at a high point. I would argue that you find the falseness of happy endings problematic not because they are less true in a political context, but that YOU are more cynical of happy endings in a political context than other ones. If you were just as jaded about romantic arcs, for example, you would ask yourself at the end of the book "Yeah, but when's their next argument going to happen..." Anyway, interesting food for thought, because I just wrapped up a fantasy adventure, and the sequel is a political fantasy that imagines the political and social ramifications of discovering another world and new magical forces.
If I took a shot every time the phrase baby girl was said I'd need new kidneys
Are you lost babygirl?
Are you lost babygirl?
What’s up baby gorilla
@@smolpeepee9756 🦍golira
New liver?
my big problem with the democracy ending is that democracy has changed so much, and the books never show the actual philosophical/sociological debates that would allow even "maybe the people should choose who rules". Who is considered a citizen? Who is allowed to vote? How are the votes counted? Who can be elected?
Well the answer to those questions are easy:
1. people who live in the country
2. people of the right ethnicity
3. 1 2 3 4 etc
4. people of the right ethnicity
@@eiavops4576United States moment
@@eiavops4576 Oh Boy, i sure do hope i am the RIGHT ethnicity then.
And if we make the case that only a specific Ethnic Group in a country is allowed to vote, i think we should further reduce that number to only people that pay taxes.
1. Weirdly open given everything else here; I believe most countries have requirements and procedures e.g. live here for X time then file it and prove it to government office.
2. 4. How do you define ethnicity? Normally that tracks w/ lineage not just born in the country or whatever. Are we going to track the "purity" of people's lineage to determine whether they deserve a political say? That is screwy on a number of levels and brings back bad history and is like designed for oppression.
3. But like actually though. So many different ways and so many have *PROBLEMS*
Method 1: "All in favor of person A" they raise a hand
*person counting tallies*
"All in favor of person B" ...
Method 2: write name on paper, put it in a box, person counts it later
Method 1 leaks voter information and may allow retaliation.
Method 2 may require literacy which would add a requirement to vote(is that common in the setting)
Who would count the votes? Are there independent procedures to verify? Have you heard of poll watchers?
I'm still amazed at how you can get your points across concisely without a script even despite the cut-ins haha
anyway, always happy to see you popup in the sub box again!
Haha thank you so much. Not sure I agree, but I appreciate the moral support 😅😂
Jordan: "This video is subjective, but I have evidence to back me up."
Me: "Yep, that sounds like the Jordan we all know and love. Welcome back."
Haha 😅
**Slams down on the table my bachelor’s and soon-to-be master’s degrees in Political Science** Alright, let’s do this.
The short answer is that writers don't understand how politics work.
“Political fantasy is interesting to me because to evaluates humanity through morally gray characters, if there is a good vs. evil it becomes an adventure/war thing which is separate. It’s no longer about the politics of court and how to gain little steps of power to make changes to benefit your goals.” To nitpick you on an unscripted video, I don’t think calling it “war” is a proper term because war is an instrument of politics and wars are often very morally gray things. Look at World War I for example. I think it would be interesting for a fantasy story to show how wars are started and the gray morality that some wars can have. Following characters who unwittingly make decisions that they see are best for themselves and their constituency but in the end, it’s what leads them to war. Or a war where all sides have fair points and justifications for going to war. Having not read the Brass City books, I do completely agree that often there will be interesting political intrigue and then you have evil Satan man to give it that clean ending.
Now onto your point about it never-ending satisfying, I’m not sure if I agree with that. Again, you could write a realistic war story where it shows the morality of sides on war. You could also do smaller but important political stories where the end goal isn’t establishing a new government. Most political issues don’t have “upending our entire political structure” as one of the options. Or you could go the realistic route where the public cares about a hot button issue for a while and then it slowly fades away and it’s never dealt with so we constantly have to deal with this issue popping up.
Well, if you want some good political books *searches to see if you’ve Mistborn* Oh. Well. Hmmm. Man, and the second book even has what you wanted which is the transition from monarchy to democracy (kind of, I wouldn’t call it democracy but I can’t think of the better word for it and this post is already long). Maybe you should give it a second chance! Lol. Generally, I think Brandon Sanderson does politics well. Other books that do politics well...While I would have to reread Winter to give a definitive answered, I’d tentatively say that the Lunar Chronicles has pretty solid politics. Oooooooooo! Y’know what’s a story that starts off with the aftermath of a world transitioning out of an evil…*Empire?* Why it’s the Star Wars EU books! I’d recommend the Thrawn Trilogy, I remember there being some really good politics in that. I wasn’t even super familiar with Star Wars when I first read it.
this comment is gold
Timothy Zahn is a gift. It is a better alternative universe where his books were picked for movie trilogies and he is script supervisor on set.
You are absolutely correct@@beardyben7848
Amazing remark.
The moon is a harsh mistress is a favourite of mine.
You’re one of those people I could listen to forever. Both your voice and vocabulary makes it so enjoyable yet informative to listen to your opinions. Especially for someone whose first language is not english. I love that you’re so passionate about the topics you discuss, it makes it so much more fun! Love your videos!
Wow, thank you so much!!
I think the problem is a mix of these medieval setting wanting to abruptly conform to modern ideals without considering the world they've actual set up, and also most conclusions in political fantasy being from the perspective that all change is best done from the "top down". If there was real exploration of how society looked both in *and out* of court intrigue and effort from the part of characters on the "good" side to say, improve living conditions, look at how the politics of the big guys effects the little ones and instigate social change in that sort of mass way, then I think it'd be easier to acknowledge that regardless of the system of governance some satisfactory change for the better has happened. And then of course, you can have the politicians or the nobles or the various faction still have at each others throats :P
But most fantasy in general comes from the perspective of Kings, Princes, Sorcerers, etc and under the assumption that individuals are the primary instigators of change. If they do pay attention to the majority of the average fantasy world, it's only via lip service. So of course from the POV, it would be hard to conclude the narrative of any sweeping, big stakes world lol. How can you, when you've only paid proper attention and given importance to 0.03% of it?
I think you make a valid point for sure!
Definitely would be interesting to see more fantasies that tell the stories of periphery or "everyday" characters that aren't trying to defeat some big bad, but instead incite political change.
Best comment!!! Nuanced and original IMO. Thanks a lot for your realism. This is THE way of thinking.❤
The funny Thing is that WE are guilty of this AS well No Matter how much arrogant modern people Claim they are so freeminded. Just Look at the entire Circus around the US Presidents all hated debates grand politics ,gigantic proclaimations of reforms, but ASK any of them do you know your local Mayor and None can answer it. And they are actually far more impactful on your Life than the next presidents next hot Take Sex scandal or Something else
floored by how beautiful this set up is
Omg thank you queen ❤️
carley has taste
In my writing, I like to practice the concept of the "Political Triangle" like a love-tiangle but with governments. It puts the characters in a high stakes game of stone-scroll-daggers, both in the battlefield and in commerce. The best example I can think of is The Expanse series, with their Earth, Mars, Belt factions.
Interesting idea.
this video made me realize that i have never really thought about how political fantasies kinda stop being political fantasies near the end. i always kind of thought that stories like that were meant to end with a message that was like “all political rivalries & alliances & plots & schemes are minuscule and/or must be put aside for the betterment of humanity in order to face true evils” or something like that. i definitely think magic or power creep can be a problem in stories & it would be cool to see someone just perfect a political fantasy’s ending. maybe one that focuses more on a world rather than specific characters or parties or houses could work? i honestly have no idea! but great video! super thought provoking, which i really appreciate! :)
I feel like you're crossing the wires between the "magic crawl" and the removal of moral ambiguity and how those affect the political machinations aspect. I also feel like those are mostly separate issues. There is something to be said about the quality of writing going down leading to abandoning political machinations (because those are hard to orchestrate) and losing moral ambiguity (because it's much easier to write good vs evil). However, I'm not sure these three issues are necessarily connected. I think you made the best argument for magic crawl and lack of politics being connected, but even then, I think that comes back to writing quality more than anything tbh.
But overall, this is a super interesting conversation to have.
(And I agree that the endings can't truly be satisfying)
I totally agree that they're not necessarily linked, however I do think they are often correlated. The moment super powerful gods, creatures, demons, etc. are introduced, then usually there is a shift away from the politics and vying for power within the system of governance to a larger threat, which oftentimes leads to a "good vs. evil/defeat the big bad" scenario. Definitely not always linked though!
YES about the democracy point!!! I find it funny that in a fantasy genre with limitless possibilities, people can only think of 2 forms of governance -monarchy vs democracy. Cmon, use imagination!!! Come up with something exciting and new!!! It doesn't have to be perfect, hell it doesn't even have to be a good form of governance, but it would definitely be interesting to see how it would play out.
Why do I have Legend of Korra flashbacks?
For avatar fans: on the other hand I think that Kyoshi novels have really well written political fantasy.
I'm hate reading the newest acotar book and there's hints that an absolute monarchy (I guess they have an oligarchy normally?) is the solution to political infighting...lol. sjm said screw writing political intrique and screw the will of the people, let's make rhys a dictator instead
Your CEO vibe and aesthetics though. Anyways, one of the things about political fantasy is that, I wish they incorporate the magic system into the politics. I mean like, Red Queen tried to do that but kinda failed. For example, if a powerful user from this family marries into another family, it threatens the throne and I want to see not just the reaction of the ruling monarchy but the noble houses below them as well. Like, I think having magic come into the political scene basically would exacerbate things because it has potential for geopolitics too. Take for example a country experiencing drought. A family that has an ability to ease the drought would have a higher political power and can threaten the ruling family. I want to see something like that.
As for the ending to a political fantasy, honestly, I think for endings that dismantle monarchy to establish democracy, an author can never fully show the transition. It's not a question about the author's ability; it's more about the falling action after the climax being too long that it might bore readers. There's also the factor that they have a limited word count to play with. A glimpse of the transition is plausible though. But well, if the dismantling and transition happens in the middle book and there's enough of the plot left for a third book, then it can be done well, I suppose. I agree that the destination is obvious and predictable so the only thing that matters in a political fantasy for me is the execution of it.
Yeah, agreed on both counts!
And I didn't mean that the transition to democracy should happen in the falling action - I would love to see it in the middle or at the start of a series!
@0:00 - Intro to Pitfalls
@2:30 - Best part of Political Fantasy
@4:00 - First Issue: Political Fantasy turns into Adventure
@5:15 - Why it's Interesting in the First Place
@6:34 - Hilarious Commentary (aka Recap)
@7:54 - Author Pressure to Include more Magic (power crawl).
@11:12 - Second Issue (no good way to end/subjective).
@13:00 - Show the transition between Government System.
@14:46 - Clapping (sorry, I couldn't resist)
@15:18 - Have the Politics Matter
@15:46 - Hilarious Commentary (Part Deux).
@17:00 - Closing Statement
I was so anxious going into this. My first foray into political fantasy was The Goblin Emperor by Katherine Addison. It covers the first 3 months of the new emperor's reign. The ending is about as satisfying as you can get. It's hopeful.
If a main character dies at the end, but their sacrifice contributed to the greater good, I consider that to be a satisfying balance of the happy and sad. I like stories depending on the strength of the emotions. Though I'm also the one who thinks romantic tragedy is more romantic than happy romance. The love is pure but they're being torn apart, whereas a happy romance tends to have crappy people who love because the other person is hot.
Lloyd Alexander's Westmark series is a pretty good depiction of transition from monarchy to parliamentary democracy.
I have had a falling out with fantasy lately. I do read to see how humans would live and react to magical elements but so many times the fantasy elements hold center stage over the characters. Magic systems with incredibly detailed workings and dense lore on the histories of kingdoms and blah blah blah.
This was fun to read at one point but the reason I loved ASOIAF is that the magic is used to have characters question their ideas about themselves and the world where in so many books its "I'm a mage and i can heal you" and then on to the next adventure
Lol, funnily enough I’ve been feeling burnt out from fantasy lately for the exact opposite reason: I read to see lots of magic and good world building but find that there is usually way too much focus on politics and character relationships
I think the magic point is definitely about execution. GRRM doesn't have a Night King in the books, at least not yet, so there is still hope.
that´s because if there is a Night King, it will be one of the human character we already know; Euron Greyjoy, Stannis Baratheon or Jon Snow. one of them will be the Night King, if there is one at the end.
I've been searching for the next political fantasy after I finished asoiaf. I started reading the Daevabad tribology after you recommended it! The first book started really strong. Then in the second book, I felt some of the plot developments were "bend" in order to give way to the protagonists, because readers need to like them or believe they are badass, and therefore certain plots didn't strike me as being realistic or the stakes that previously stated in the book, as it later turned out, didn't quite matter. Personally, I'd prefer the protagonists to be more morally ambiguous than they are in the books, because that's how the world works and that's how politics work- compromise.
It's interesting you mentioned GOT season 1-3 being the the strongest season. Season 4, especially the Daenerys part, did feel like she's given a free pass because she had dragons. In the book, her part is more nuanced and I think the changes were made due to GOT being a TV show. A lot of readers don't like the fifth book because Daenerys was entangled in the politics at Meeren. Her chapters were complicated with little payoff. But I think that's what makes it real- you can conquer a city with dragons, but you can only rule with people.
I totally agree there's no good way to end political fantasy. Each form of government is flawed in its own way, including democracy. If the author acknowledges that, instead of striving for a perfect answer/ending, which almost inevitably leads to good vs. evil, then we might have a relatively satisfying ending.
Agreed with all of your points!
While I totally agree with your assessment of the second book of the Deavabad trilogy, there were still quite a few things I loved about it. However, it seemed to take a sharp turn in the third book.
I've only read the first two GOT books but I definitely want to continue with the series to see how it diverges from the show.
@@JordanHarveybooks Oh no doubt! The second book is still very interesting.
Just curious, what are some of other political fantasy series you would recommend? Or would you do a video for political fantasy in the future? 🤩
@@jacqueline6650 I would recommend the Turner Diaries, it's excellent political fantasy.
@@hoominbeeing I'd go check it out! Thanks for the suggestion!
I think you make a good point about how magic can change the trajectory of the plot away from the political and more into traditional fantasy. It probably can work if the author doesn't make the struggle between good and evil. The main threat should in this case be more akin to a force of nature or some other force which isn't inherently evil.
That's true!
I do think that regardless it can still render much of the previous politics and struggles for power within the world's system of governance irrelevant. It's definitely a delicate balance!
That’s why i like my political fantasies to have excerpts of in universe future history books. You get a glimpse of the consequences (how is tbe era named, who published this political analysis, what are their opinion on the previous system of government if it has changed…) and of how people remember the protagonists of the books from a distant perspective.
totally agree-I read a book recently which had all of the ingredients to become a fantastic political fantasy with a small side of magic and horror, but it forced this completely unnecessary twist at the end which basically threw out all of the subtlety and complexity of the politics and made it all "comically evil bad guy against the definitely good protagonists". I almost wonder if the format of a series vs a standalone is more conducive to the first pitfall you mentioned, in that the multiple books that require separate climaxes and resolutions result in the power crawl.
Super late to this, but I want to put a plug for The Sarantine Mosaic by Guy Gavriel Kay (2 book duology. Book 1 is Sailing to Sarantium, book 2 is Lord of Emperors). Kay is an outstanding author, and similar to a lot of good political fantasy there is a lot inspired by real world history (this series setting is based on 6th century Mediterranean powers). The twist, which avoids a lot of the concerns that you raise, is that the protagonist isn't one of the power players of the political folks but instead is a craftsman (a mosaicist) that is summoned and hired and gets to interact with the political players and gives us a different perspective on the politics and the impact of the politics on the people. The protagonist has his own concerns dealing with grief, craft, and his work - in addition to being pulled into some of the political actions because of his access to important people.
First time I've heard of political fantasy
Most of Game of Thrones is political fantasy - basically it just means fantasy with a focus on politics haha
Game of Thrones was conceived from the beginning as a story (Song) about - Stage 1: Civil War between the Starks and Lannisters; Stage 2: The need for the kingdoms of Westeros to band together to face the outside treat from Daenerys Targaryen and her dragons (Fire); and Stage 3, the need for everyone to band together to face the White Walkers (Ice). So the problem of the escalation of magic (if it is one) was baked in to the Song of Ice and Fire from the conception.
So when it comes to Political Fantasy I can agree and disagree with your points here. On one hand you're right about the staleness of outcomes PFs tend to have and in truth they aren't really all too satisfying in their conclusions, either becoming a "Heir to" Monarchy, a Faceless Democracy or some kind of Shadow Republic. I think if we weren't so vehemently opposed to the idea of other potential political governments we would see different governing outcomes such as Socialism or Communism or hell even seeing the government fail and it fall to peaceful anarchic city states or devolve fully into small scaled governance. That would be an interesting idea that doesn't necessarily tie our protagonist to the fate of the Political sect while still being influenced by their development and decisions. Now for the kinda disagree...so I like magic, hard magic systems are the best for really delving into thorough world building and understanding the different values of the governing bodies citizens given what stresser and reliefs having magic can be for them. I do understand when the power creep gets to be too much and it loses its zest. I believe that a good way of dealing with this is normalizing the use of magic in the world and have it explained in a way that the Protagonist is able to utilize it to their benefit in unconventional ways from the prospective of the world at large. With these 2 way you can have a thought provoking political narrative while still introducing magical concepts that feel new and unique without having to always "up the ante".
I totally agree on both points!
" I think if we weren't so vehemently opposed to the idea of other potential political governments we would see different governing outcomes such as Socialism or Communism"
Ahh, that would be a setup for a fantasy dystopia, nice.
@@SL2797 It doesn't have to be a Dystopia, there are working governments that function even outside of the personal investments of writers or characters. I mean look at the number of Medieval and Feudal systems of governance there are in may fantasy stories. I won't call that dystopian, even though Feudalism is a worse system of government than Capitalism or Socialism.
From what I have heard from my spouse, Dune is basically the only Political Fantasy story he enjoyed. Because it talks about all the messy nasty bits of politics. Everyone is out for themselves and what starts as a single character's revenge upheaves the entire system and then the story has to deal with the whole, "even the most justified wars will result in collateral problems... also you are the villain of other people's stories." Like we only root for people usually because they are shown to us as the protagonists, but remember every Stormtrooper you kill has a family.
Now I wonder how you'd enjoy The Poppy War trilogy because that avoids a lot of the pitfalls you talked about and in my opinion ends the series in a pretty satisfying and realistic way
That's actually been on my to-read list for a while! I'll have to check it out for sure
@@JordanHarveybooks yessss you have to read it if you want a really good political fantasy
late finding this, but this is exactly the discussion of fantasy i want. awesome video!
please read the Queen's Thief series! The first book is not about politics at all, but starting from the second book, it gets super political. It's one of my favorite series of all time!!!
I read the first one and definitely plan to read the rest of the books eventually - it's my friend's favourite series and she would be very upset if I didn't read on haha
@@JordanHarveybooks your friend has 1000 IQ
Its definitely my favorite series too😭 The political machinations are so well developed over the course of the series and it kept surprising me. Ngl, I didn’t know political fantasy was a thing until I watched this but I automatically thought of The Queen’s Thief.
For Game of Thrones and A Song of Ice and Fire, this video is kinda hilarious because fans complain that there is too much politics in the later books and not enough magic.
The politics is too detailed, too complex, too realistic, etc. And readers want the pace to quicken and for the magic that has been promised to be more relevant
Honestly I just find it cringe when they go from absolute monarchism to like 20th century Liberal Democracy while ignoring the fact that it's just Oligarchy. More political fantasy should end with something better like Leftist ideology instead of milquetoast Neoliberalism in medieval trappings.
Or have Leftist politics playing out alongside Liberalism (with tensions) when Monarchy is dominant. Tensions can be both implied or explicit, the former expressed through characters you care about.
I had a plot line where Construction Workers were being replaced by undead former construction workers as the live workers were killed. The undead were unwaged but under control of either necromancer formen or regular formen equipped with some trinket. The workers were expected to work alongside their dead former comrades. It combined the modern day issue of automation & loss of employment, along with showing Capitalists not caring much about workers if at all. You could have tensions between Capitalists focusing on building with skilled & live labor being undercut in price by those using Necromancers & death as part of their business model.
I was thinking along the lines of Timber Workers making links with the shipwrights and stevedores. Where I got uncomfortable was the prospect of having scabs as players & I didn't want to deal with that.
That makes the most sense at the most with the Enlightenment and liberal ideas in the 18th century sense. they will go most likely to a constitutional monarchy. Except for the United States, Dutch Republic desires and attempted in France that would move towards Republic, and capitalism at the time was in its infancy
you need capitalism before you get socialism lmao
@@metachiralityNot necessarily. Just takes a bit more imagination to figure out how to make the leap. Either way, democracy is the secret sauce you need for either capitalism OR socialism to develop.
@@iExploder According to Marxism, and in particular, dialectical materialism, you need capitalism to happen first to get the class consciousness necessary for a socialist revolution, because you can have class consciousness without a class to be conscious!
I mean, a liberal democratic revolution is already on thin ice when it comes to revolutions, e.g. the American Revolution was only so successful due to the fact that the Americans were already sort of governing themselves, skipping straight from feudalism to socialism is just absurd.
Even one, as a non-socialist, can see that socialism was only developed in the context of what came before.
I'm watching this and a thought enters my mind - Jordan talks with the same intonation, pauses and stresses as I do, even though my native langue is not English and I also talk like that in my native language - and now I can't get it out of my head
in Asoiaf, there are societies whether outside or on the fringe of the Seven Kingdoms that represent their own forms of Democracy, the Night's Watch nominate and elect each other regardless of who they were before joining mean while the Ironborn will once in a few centuries elect who ever promises the most plunder from raids. The last example is the Triarchy of Essos who win votes from Property owners.
I do agree w your overall point about magic crawl and that certain series suffer from it, but ASOIAF's point was always that its actually stupid who sits in "that ugly iron chair" because there are more important things, so it really is about humanity coming together. It is a VERY pure fantasy tbh, despite how people say its "fantasy for people who don't like fantasy". GRRM loves fantasy. He LOVES it. Pure, classic fantasy. And he did a whole whole lot to play with it but in the end it was always going to be something like "the lost dragon princess must destroy the ice zombies from the heart of winter". But as he says he writes specifically "the human heart in conflict with itself" so I find that even as political intrigue turns to skin hanging and greenseeing, to dragon taming, to training to be a face changing assassin, it holds on to its humanity because it was always about the inner journeys. Whether the character deals with court politics, leading an army, newfound magical abilities, abuse, loss, the focus is always how they struggle internally. (***this is purely about the books I've seen like 3 episodes of got and that was more than enough, thanks. also I just love these books people should read em!!!)
Omg queen jordan is back ❤👑 very good points, you always make me think. ❣
I'm currently researching and watching as many videos as possible on how to write political systems. This was a great video! These topics on political systems doesn't seem to be talked about much, which seems crazy to me as it's such an important aspect which is gonna effect the characters if they go do anything in the world. The main system in my story from the beginning will be a democracy, although like all are, flawed. And keeping the magic from becoming the big bad at the end is definitely something I gotta watch out for.
Currently outlining a political fantasy set in a more industrialized, almost WW1 setting, this is helpful for thinking about my plot
How is it going?
@@marcusappelberg369 slow progress, but it's moving along! Tyvm, I'm having a lot of fun with it
That is awesome! I would love to read such fantasy!@@dontchewglass
I'm also exasperated by people assuming that "democracy" solves everything. It obviously doesn't, and I agree that it would be fascinating if someone studied historical transitions from monarchy to republic and wrote a fantasy novel inspired by that.
Please someone do it so I don't have to.
it annoys me when changing political systems solves the problems immediately, since the period immediately after the transition is usually the time of most turmoil and upheaval, and yes, it would be amazing to see someone really get into the nitty gritty of that. I'd also like to see more fantasy political systems that start and stay democratic, both good and bad versions. Or a collapsing democratic system.
I’m currently writing a heist novel where there’s a monarchy (sort of; another country’s emperor has placed his niece/aunt as a regent on their throne to govern in his name). The regent in a lot of ways improved the country. But the people are oppressed, unsatisfied and silenced. The characters actions basically ignite the spark that starts a civil war. And over the course of three books (I think) the monarchy bleeds into a republic. But in said republic the rich (new money opposed to old money/nobility) still very much rule. The people have a lot more say, but I wouldn’t call it a democracy. More so an oligarchy. It’s very much inspired by the 80 years’ war between Spain and the Netherlands.
There’s a shift in the social hierarchy. The upper echelon consists of: Rich merchants, renowned scholars and powerful families that made their wealth in finance and the (fine) arts.
Democracies take time. And democracies take different shapes depending on o.a. era, geography and culture.
I totally agree with your points. It's nearly impossible to find a solution for fictional political issues that feels emotionally cathartic and organically developed in the same time. I think that mostly stems from the fact that you need to "fix" the politics in order to give your protagonists a happy ending because both the political and emotional core of the story are intertwined (which was basically your first point I guess). Maybe it'd be possible to avoid this by writing a story in which the characters need to form a kind of state that is generally considered bad in the reader's mind (like a dictatorship) and will also be framed as such in the story itself. The characters would still have to deal with having done a bad thing to secure their personal well-being, but at least the pitfall of having a flimsily instated democracy or a "just and wise monarch"-character as the holy grail which saves everything could be evaded.
I never finished writing a political fantasy story, and now that I think of it that's partly due to my inability to come up with a 100% satisfying ending. Will I ever find one? Probably not. This whole topic is complex enough to write a dissertation about it.
Short Retort: I’m working through Silvia Moreno Garcia’s Bibliography & she has a unique take on the political issues. It’s possible her use of class warfare inoculates her stories!? Also, I’m at the stage where I need GDT to option her stories to series or film... AND I’ll need her & GDT to give Canadian fantasy the attention she’s given Mexican lore. There is an untapped Pan American fantasy yet to be strip mined!
I missed you doing book analysis!
I’m glad you’re back.
Also I’m living for the new set up. It’s fab.
Thanks!! I missed doing it!
Unfortunately the set up was temporary, but I am back to making content for the moment!
I know I'm a little late to the party on this one, but I think this is one of those subjects where you have to look outside your genre for the solution. There are plenty of political thrillers out there in books and movies that have very satisfying endings. Just to give one example: The Godfather. A story that's rife with intrigue from beginning to end. One could easily use that story and many others as a roadmap on how to deliver a satisfying ending to political intrigue regardless of genre.
As for the comment about endings, I think the best endings are fake endings. By this, I mean they don't really tie up everything into a neat little bow. They complete the relevant arcs for the main characters, but also give off the impression that life goes on. Political intrigue thrives on the idea that conflict is built into our nature. A neat ending throws all of that out the window. The Wire, while not fantasy, is a good example of an ending done well. (TV show).
War and politics are interlinked and attempting to divorce the two breaks the emersion. The problem is when the politics of war get set aside for epic battles.
Watching this more than 3 years after it was published:
I think Raymond Feist's first Medkemia series (starting with Wizard: Apprentice) does a pretty good job of showing real human reactions to political conflict and at least some of the pitfalls of inherited rule. There's certainly an element of the conflict of the "good heir" vs. the "bad heir". But, especially as the series goes on, you see the flaws and virtues of both sides, and the costs of that kind of government. And that's without the comparison between European-style feudalism on Midkemia and the Tsurani East-Asian-style centralized empire that is such a huge feature of the series.
Suddenly I’m feeling so much better about my own fantasy story as I have done my best to make the politics realistic. I have done lots of research from real world history, combining different elements from different eras and places. I have also tried to make the people involved more realistic with different goals, not all of them altruistic but all of them valid even if they’re opposing.
There is also no magic creep, no good versus evil, just humans being human which I find far more fascinating.
Currently writing a Political Fantasy podcast ( Fate of Korr) set in a 20th century world, which oddly gets around some of this. If I say how it would spoil the fun of listening ( we launch in November.)
My season two, is the final season, which reduces magic ramp up, cause there isn't 7 seasons of fighting one new big bad after another, and I hope to leave the political system in the air. But for the main character his story is closed , and he takes, his personal next step on his own pursuing the want he wanted before the world was in trouble.
Clicked in your video cause I am working to check myself to make sure these pitfalls are not present in this work. So thank you for expressing your criticism of the genre.
So thank you.
This is what I love about red rising! The first three books are about dismantling the society and our main characters eventually taking power. But then the next three talk about how the transition to democracy was hard and brutal, and our characters change over time. New characters come up that have been wronged by our main characters and the new democratic system
I didn’t know I was writing about a political democracy until now. And throughout the video I was like I’m not writing one, basically in denial, but towards the end, you called out my book blow by blow, besides some other details. I feel called out 😳
the closest I got for a satisfying ending for a political story was arcane because its not a good ending really but it fits and is gut wrenching
An Ember in the Ashes politics are so complex bc villains and heroes intertwine almost but the history behind the world depending on what time period it is different people are villains/heroes. The way the magic is tied back to this world is really unique. The magic doesn't take over which is nice
Oh nice! I'll have to read it. It's been on my radar for a while now.
Idk if you’ve read the Powder Mage trilogy, but it’s my list because 1) it’s fantasy set in an early modern-type setting as opposed to the default medieval setting of most fantasy, and 2) the first book literally starts with the monarchy having already been overthrown and the victors trying to figure out what the hell to do next, which sounds like the sort of thing you’re looking for.
theres nothing I love more than new video from u
The saturation of war sagas is sickening. We need royal court dramas, imperial harem dramas , civil revolutionary tales( peasant rebellions etc) , stories of exodus & stories of surviving persecution.
I enjoy when politics must come to a head to defeat a certain monster at the end of the book (be it actually a monster, or an event threatening everyone), and everyone has to rally together, despite their differences, to defeat a common enemy. This was done in Mass Effect, where over the course of the game, you get everyone's help to launch an assault on the Reaper invasion of Earth. Depending on how many people you convinced to join you from various galactic powers also suffering their own invasions, the better the event plays out (albeit, it's a largely hopeless situation to begin with, but at maximum readiness, you get the best ending).
My pinpoint of political fantasy are China Mievilles Bas Lag novels - distinctly political or politicised stories, but no (reached) goals or "happy endings", just constellations and unfolding and closing events. You might find some crisis and a new situation afterward, or the restauration of the old in a new form, but it's always just part of an ever ongoing undulation of society. No naivity, only complexity and open questions.
And that would be my ideal conception of political fantasy: Don't try to answer the questions of society you cannot answer in reality, don't use fantasy just to make things simple enough for an unambiguous solution, or to just replicate the simple answers given by contemporary society; just depict constellations, movements and correlations and raise questions. Let the reader find answers and some possible applicability to real political conditions - or not. Use fantasy like a lab to create special constellations, and the novelization to focus on the impact of the political background on people.
I remember really liking how The Queen of Blood series by Sarah Beth Durst ended. It didn't end in Democracy (wow!) because the magic system literally restricts that from being an option, so it was interesting to see how it all came together.
The government system I have in my story is a federation, with duchies, baronies, provincial governors, and an Emperor... It started as two governments, but they married their royalty
I would look at the ending of House of Cards S2. Frank wins the game, and is in charge. The "monarchy" (in a literary sense functions more like a monarchy than a democracy) was overthrown and replaced with the protagonist. I think it can be a very satisfying and chilling ending to see the protagonist turn into the villain in order to achieve power. This is a common trope, but it is a satisfying common trope that fits for fantasy politics.
The magic and the politics need to be interwoven and interdependent for it to work well. You don't have to prioritize one over the other. Most authors just don't do that well--that's the real problem. And it's weird that writers haven't figured that out yet when the solution is pretty straightforward. That is, make the fantastical element(s) a stand-in for technology or militarization or theocratic power, etc., and then have the politics incorporate or contend with the fantastical according to how it would with these real world concepts. For example, as a starting point, you could have a world with competing fantastic superpowers who each had a sealed up ancient monster they could unleash on each other at any moment (basically Cold War era Russia and USA with their nukes). Then in your fantasy story you can explore all the political machinations these nations would engage in with the knowledge of the power they wield
Having read the Song of Ice and Fire books: There is indeed a magic creep, but it *never* creates the tonal whiplash and narrative problems that you’re describing from the show.
The TV show famously *toned down* the magical elements significantly. In doing so, it took away a lot of the atmosphere. (As well as sensible character motivations). The feel of fear and mystery that permeates magic in the books is removed.
The books avoid the feeling of magic creep in the show-despite having more magical elements-because of the way that the magic is written. In the books magic is inherently dangerous and unpredictable; and even those who partake in it don’t entirely know what they are doing. Sometimes to horrible consequences, because magic always has a price.
Moreover, the magical creep is very much a *creep.* The setting of ASoIAF is one in which magic is slowly beginning to re-enter the world. Use of magic is less important as an established lever of power, and happens more as a curveball that the political players must adapt to or work around. But though actual instances of magic changing the political landscape is rare; its *presence* is increasingly omnipresent. A sort of looming in the background.
Whereas, in the show, the “magical” elements remaining were just there to justify spectacle and explosive set pieces; And justify using plot armor for characters whenever D&D wrote themselves into a corner. Which (obviously) didn’t match with the tone of the early part of the show AT ALL.
There was no real interest *in* the magic itself by the writers, beyond providing them an excuse for giant expensive action scenes; and it *shows.*
The first time I read a song of ice and fire (ten years ago) I thought it was a metaphor for climate change- while we all squabble amongst ourselves, “winter is coming”, meaning larger, global issues we choose to ignore in favour of the easier and more accessible infighting. That was just my take! It obviously didn’t end that way haha.
I would be so interested to hear your thoughts on the Realm of the Elderlings by Robin Hobb, specifically Farseer and Liveship Traders! I thought about these two series during your video and I feel like they pull off good political plotlines!
I really think you should read A Memory Called Empire, because the best aspects of that book are the political elements: what it means to be a colonized subject, what empires do to people and cultures, how you can love another culture whilst simultaneously acknowledging that said culture is destroying your own. It's less political fantasy and more political sci-fi, but its all court politics (there's no magic or 'epic adventures'). Very much deserving of its Hugo award
You could probably make a series longer than the Wheel of Time just about trying to transition from an absolute monarchy to a democracy. IT can take hundreds of years, especially if the original government is overthrown by violence.
By the way, if someone wants to write a series like that, I'd read it.
I think the magic point is a bit more complex. if a character gains enough magical power they can become what is an essentially walking, talking and thinking nuke. Nukes completly changed our political landscape and if they were to be held only by one side, they would make any political intrigue obsolete as the question of victory over any adversary would be just a question of how much of them we want to use.
If magic in the world has similar power, it does make sense that political intrigue is a bit sidelined, but granted it can still be done well and not-so-well so I get what you are saying.
As someone who writes political fantasy, this video is gold. Thank you.
I'm in a notebook taking notes and from the perspective we're seeing her in, I feel like her therapist and I'm like, 'mhmm... Oh? Oh! Wow...mhmm'
“And perhaps..unhinged” 👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿 summary of my mental health
Hi don't mind me, I'm just here to dump some of my favorite political fantasy book series:
1. The Daevabad Trilogy (the books Jordan's talking about here)
2. The Folk of The Air series
3. The Bridge Kingdom (this is a magicless fantasy)
That was a really good video :)
I am wondering : Why there is always a monarchy in medieval fantasies ?
Try light novels and comics from japan and south korea.
IMHO, my faves are:
Japan: 'Holy Grail of Eris' and 'Common Sense of a Duke's Daughter'
S.Korea: 'Villainess is a Marionette'
thank you so much for this! I'm currently writing a political fantasy myself and this really helped me check in with my story and make sure it's not doing these two things. Of course, mine also has a magical aspect in it, but I've been working on keeping it not as the focus but as a partially influential element in the political aspect of my story - where magic helps but isn't the be-all end-all. And I hope mine has a good ending lol i'm at least trying to combine the magical and political aspect to the end of it. as well as the good vs. evil - i'm also trying to make mine neither, where even the main character can be interpreted as morally gray. it's hard lol but this helped me stay on track.
but again, thank you for this! it was super helpful for me 😊
Your first point, imo, is spot on. I read a lot of novels and manga/manwha/etc, and one of my all time favorite genres is political intrigue. In western media a lot of the issues stem from the magic becoming way too important and way too integral to the actual story being told. The best political fantasy uses the magic system to create a world that is unique and allows for unique styles of government and administration, and then you play the political intrigue game that people DO actually really like. The genre would be, at least in my opinion, decently more popular if the majority of it wasn't so misunderstood by the authors themselves.
I think it's interesting that you want a "satisfying ending" or a "happy ending" with a political fantasy but you also don't want it to be a typical good vs evil thing. The idea that there can be a good political ending at all (whether that be overthrowing the old regime, or reworking the monarchy or what have you), implies the binary of good vs evil on some level. I think the reason you can't find a satisfying political ending is that politics are simply not satisfying nor do they ever end. Like you said we can't know what's coming in the next generation after the story ends (whether it ends with a monarchy or a democracy), and even the good guys in power can turn bad. I personally don't read fantasy for the politics, I read it for the character exploration. I think for a lot of fantasy the historical setting (use of monarchies) and the expansive use of magic just come with the territory, so the politics isn't necessarily even meant to be the focus it's just another part of the scenery. I personally don't mind that.
Interesting. I also did a video on political intrigue, but decided to keep it vague enough to apply to most settings and genres. If someone asks for more in-depth info, I will link them to you.
I disagree with you on Ice and Fire. I think magic plays a huge dynamic because it raises important moral questions about whether the ends justify the means. Besides, A Song of Ice and Fantasy isn't categorized as a political fantasy; it's categorized as an epic high fantasy with heavy political themes. It was never truly categorized as political fantasy. His story is focused more on personal conflict and character growth along with hard themes such as the horrors of war, (Especially considering the speech the one priest gives about war and how war turns good people into broken men who resort to becoming bandits). The books have a ton of magic, but magic always comes with a huge cost. Like with the fire priests, every time one person is brought back, they lose a piece of themselves.
Yep. Something that book fans *tore the show apart for* is how-despite the show having fewer magical elements overall-the show’s magic ceased to have any consequences whatsoever.
Like, they straight up brought Jon back from the dead, and had zero consequences for it. They might as well have had Jon just take a really long nap-for all the effect that his own DEATH had on both the plot and for Jon’s character personally.
@@bluecat1462 100%. I suspect Jon worged into Ghost and probably will come back more savage and brutal than he already became near the end of the last book, since he was already becoming more and more apathetic and far more manipulative.
It's clear the TV show had no idea what the books were truly about. They didn't know how to treat the characters and they straight up butchered them, especially Jaime, Tyrion, Jon, Arya, Euron Greyjoy, The Dornish, and Dany. They dropped so many plotlines and things went nowhere. Like, what happened with Quaithe? They left out so many characters like Victarian Greyjoy and the red priest with the fire hand, Quinten, Faegon and Jon Cunnington, Marwyn, Lady Stoneheart, and so many other characters.
May I recommend Mercedes Lackey Foundation? It's the start of her spies of Valdemar series and I think might appeal to you.
Oh, there is a series (well graphic novel/web series) that does exactly what you're saying....I'm just still in the process of arting all the pages. ;) So many pages...
As a big proponent that subtext conveys human experience as the goal of story itself, I think the root of some of these problems is that the authors have very little interaction with policies that affect their lives and so, when they fall back on what they know, they tell it like a history book. What Aragorn's taxes or expansionist policies of Gondor are like are irrelevant to "behold this magnificent kingdom!" with magnificent being defined in the same way we look back on the Roman Empire and certainly is not from the view of the Easterlings he conquered. They stop at democracy=good because the author isn't in a place to play tour guide outside of their often comfortable worldview. Whereas I think if we had more authors in the genre (and part of that is the often limited exposure the genre provides due to its nicheness that makes it difficult for these alternative stories to really surface and get seen) that hold more awareness of the effects of policies on lives, outside of the trope of it being all a power game, the stories would be much more interesting and meaningful as they share the experiences of characters getting their day to day lives changed and how that shapes the socio-cultural world of the story.
I'm writing political/court fantasy RN. I think I dodged a bullet as none of this issues will aply (yay). My MC is princess becoming empress just before Inciting Incident, so no quest-for-power here. Twist is: it's already half way to constitutional monarchy. There's parliament that has much more power than she has (if you compare it to UK she'll have a bit less control than prime minister has, but more than queen Elizabeth had). They didn't progressed yet to actually voting for representatives, so only nobles have rights to do politics. Magic is severly limited and very much divided, so it's more in the background than playing great role in intrigues (used more like simple tool - magical evesdropping, blocking said magical eves dropping, magical communication devices, healing, etc.). You're giving me hope that maybe it won't be that bad after all XD
Maybe try Mistborn Era 1. That allows you to see multiple variants of government although its not necessarily a political fantasy.
I *hate* the Cincinnatus trope! Let us have protagonists who *want* to be in charge because they think that they are going to be good at running the system! Especially in a genre that's so beloved by young women and full of young female protagonists, I'm sick to death of female characters being punished for desiring power and only being allowed to have power if they're reluctant to have it! I want a protagonist who has a 12 point economic plan and knows exactly which generals they're going to fire when they're in charge.
So you want A Caesar or Livia?
@@laisphinto6372 I mean yeah, it's interesting to see a character who does believe in themselves. I actually read a really fun sci-fi book that did this last year called The Stars Undying which is based on Cleopatra and the main character is so fun because she fully believes she deserves to be queen
@@laisphinto6372 also thanks for commenting on my reply because i had forgotten watching this video and now I got to enjoy it all over again!
I would love to see your thoughts on "Race the sands"By Sarah Beth Durst,i thought the author did some really interesting things with interconnecting the politics to the fantastical elements of the world.
Ps. It's a stand alone
I feel like I'm seeing this video from your therapist's POV 😆
hahah omg
No, if anything I am the therapist with the cardigan and my legs crossed like that
Ends with the opposing political faction splintering, parts joining the larger villain rule and others joining the allies.
A king is eventually crowned, and the constitutional monarchy gets (yet another) constitution update.
The next kingdom becomes a tyranny so yeah.
This is a great discussion! You’re right, there is no good way to end a political fantasy... because there is no “good” political system. In the end, we are left feeling incomplete, because though this characters story has ended, we know it’s not the end of the story for the citizens and future generations.
I’m going to mention GoT, but I speak only to the books (fuck the show) 5 books in and the magic is growing, but the magic is repeatedly beat down by the politics. There are still so many magical promises left to be fulfilled, but as a reader, I still question if magic is what is going to win in the end, or is it brute humanity. I think that’s why GRRM is taking so long to finish his books. He may have some ideas of how he’s going to end it, but he probably won’t be happy with it.
Political Fantasies seem to need the journey, twists & outcomes to be satisfying, and they should more often start without monarchies but instead small councils, where it isn't about setting up a democracy or monarchy, but instead seeing who is left standing and who has joined by the end.
Perhaps setting it up in a similar vein to a murder mystery (like a less brutal version of "And Then There Were None").
You should read Fireborne by Rosaria Munda (she studied Political theory at Princeton!!!). The book starts after the revolution that establishes a meritocracy instead of a feudal system. It questions whether the new system is really better, and more, with incredible nuance. Plus, complex character dynamics with angst + dragons.
10/10
I think the issue with ending a political fantasy is that politics don't work like fairytails, and many fantasy books, even if they try to be more gritty, have very fairytail structure, where there has to be "and then they lived happily everafter" -ending. There's no end point to politics. There's no point when the work is done. I think only good ending for political fantasy has to be more or less open ended. Another problem that also comes from the fairytail tradition, is the individualism inherent to a hero of a story. The hero has to have the agency and has to be the one making the change, but real politics don't work like that. Real political change is not reliant on the agency of one person, it's collective work done for many generations. So like to actually write a story about overturning monarchy, or any other political system, it can't be the achievement of the one hero, it has to be something that started long before the story. Imo, to actually make a political fantasy interesting and satisfying, you have to strip a lot of agency from the main character(s) and give everyone, even those not named, agency. Writing the masses as mindless followers of anything the important characters tell them will rob the story of the actual dynamics of politics, which is chaotic, unpredictable and very complex because it's millions of people with real agency making decisions of their own.
Political fantasy ending needs to be unsatisfying and anticlimactic in standards of traditional fantasy, where there's not full closure and the main characters aren't the ones making it all happen on their own. That's why I think political fantasy shouldn't be only about the politics. The central goal of the story and the characters should be different from their political aims (though connected to them), it should be more personal to them and smaller in stakes, so they could actually achieve it with their own agency and have satisfying ending even when the political situation is left open ended and mostly out of their control. Maybe they want to overthrow the monarchy because under the monarchy they can't achieve their goal, which could be gaining justice against some lord or monarch who is protected by the monarchy, or marrying their love interest which they can't because of political marriage, or freeing themself from an abusive political marriage, or gaining back their home which was given to a lord by the monarchy, etc. Firstly it makes the political stakes less abstract and more personal, and gives a much more achievable goal to cover in one story. That should be the a-plot, and the b-plot can be the larger political struggle for change. The b-plot then can end with a win for the larger movement, it can be a portion of the monarchy gaining independence, but it should be left open what will be the political system, because establishing that is a whole different story that takes a lot of time and a lot more political struggle. It could be disposing the monarchy, but again, what comes next is yet another wholly different story that doesn't fit the last chapter of a book, so should be left open. It could be forcing limitations to the monarch's power, for example establishing a parliamentary monarchy.
Important thing imo to make the open endedness of the political plot satisfying and make it make sense, is to form the beginning establish that there are people advocating for different political systems and ways to go about them. Then the ending won't come out of nowhere and there's established some potential ways that the story would continue after the end.
Isn't the phrase Power creep?
I agree that I wish more books dealt with the transitions of power after the rebellion or what have you. 99% of books have the series build toward the overthrow evil king and then its just happiness and rainbows because the rightful heir/chosen one has come. Now I enjoy those stories (plus it's an easy narrative/series structure), but can we get something at least a little different. I have two book suggestions for you if you enjoy political fantasy.
One is The Tethered Mage by Melissa Caruso. It's a trilogy which deals with a political system based on council rule rather than the typical monarchy set up as it's based off of Italy. And it deals with issues of the book world's version of slavery and how the system needs to change.
And the other(s) are two "older ones" as the first one came out in 2016, Verse and Sword and it's sequel/ companion Dagger and Coin by Kathy MacMillin. They can be read as stand alones as the main POV switches between the books, but they work better as whole. The first deals with slavery and rebellion and the next one (which I like more) is all about how society changes and the mistrust and bias people still have even after the rules have changed.
Wonderful video by the way.
Is it power crawl or power creep?
I think maybe either? I've heard different names for it. I linked two other videos that do a better job of explaining power crawl than I did haha
I have a question that’s probably going to make me sound like a bonehead, but I’ll ask it anyways. Do all political fantasies specifically have to deal with the inner workings of government? Can the political aspects take place in civilian life, but with a government controlling everything as merely a backdrop? Maybe the book can deal with race relations, psychological issues, or educational upbringings from a layman’s point of view?
3 minutes in, this is so great, subscribed
Great topic, you illustrated it nicely!
The "this is satisfying for now, but then what" is just a problem with happy endings. It would play out the same with other political systems, like a democratic win (sure, the good guys were elected... but somewhere down the line corrupt psychopaths are going to lie to get elected). But it also plays out in any "happy ending." There is no happily ever after in life, the happy ending of the book is artificial, only an ending because we intentionally stop telling the story at a high point. I would argue that you find the falseness of happy endings problematic not because they are less true in a political context, but that YOU are more cynical of happy endings in a political context than other ones. If you were just as jaded about romantic arcs, for example, you would ask yourself at the end of the book "Yeah, but when's their next argument going to happen..."
Anyway, interesting food for thought, because I just wrapped up a fantasy adventure, and the sequel is a political fantasy that imagines the political and social ramifications of discovering another world and new magical forces.