

F&SF Cultures -- Who's Responsible?
I came across a comment by a reviewer that condemned [yet again] one of my characters [not Van Albert, surprisingly enough, who has taken much abuse over the years since The Ethos Effect was published] for killing "innocents" when she destroyed a city ruled by those who had inflicted great evil on others for generations. The evil wasn't questioned, but the extent of the "collateral damage" was, and it was questioned on the grounds that it was akin to condemning all Germans in WWII because Hitler was the German head of state.
Now, it could be that I'm just cynical and jaundiced because I spent some twenty years in and around national politics in
There's something about the road to Hell being paved with good intentions.
And the same realization should permeate good fantasy and science fiction. That evil king who tortured peasants and abused young women in ways too degrading to mention... did he do it all alone? Who supplied the torture tools? Who staffed the dungeons? Who grew the food that fed the castle? Who made the spears and swords? Were all his subjects so cowed by his army that they could do nothing? Perhaps, but what cowed the army and the generals? They had the majority of weapons, and why couldn't they suggest that torture wasn't a good idea? Besides upsetting people, it's really not very effective in getting accurate information.
The same questions arise in SF, in future high-tech terror states. Exactly who's behind all the spying, the loss of freedom, the
As I and others have noted, no government in history has survived against the will of the majority of its people. Many haven't even survived against the will of a small and determined minority. That does have a tendency to suggest that when evil individuals rule a land, fictional or real, they do so with either the tacit acceptance or the willing support of the majority of the populace. And under those conditions, just how innocent are the "innocents" who accepted the benefits of that government while claiming it wasn't their fault?
In short, does the responsibility for evil rest solely on the designated head of state? It's so convenient and reassuring to think so, but should we, as writers, really foster that comforting illusion?
The point is, until very recently with the addition of smart weapons into our arsenals, collateral damage has been a very big part of warfare. Now it is a bit smaller, but it is still there.
Besides, the character only destroyed a city, which had a culture of inflicting great evil for generations. As you said, the culture at least implicitly allowed it to happen...for a very long time. Long enough for it to probably be "normalized" in their psyche.
I haven't read the book in question, so I can't really judge the character's actions, but based upon all of the books of yours that I have read, she was probably justified! In fact, you characterize what that government did as "great evil", and you rarely seem to have entire cultures that black and white. So they must have been pretty bad. For the most part, the white mages of Fairhaven weren't evil, nor were the religious nuts in The Parafaith War and The Ethos Effect. The fact is, even Hitler didn't wake up in the morning and say to himself "what evil thing should I do today?" Deluded as he was, he didn't think that what he was doing was evil (although I wonder if, had he survived and been imprisoned for what he did, would he have seen it as evil in hindsight?)
The other question is: if the character in question did nothing, and let that government continue its evil ways, at what point would the destruction of the city be justified? Would it be better to let them inflict great evil? What criteria do people use to judge the evil of city destruction vs the evil of letting them abuse people?
To give my answer to your last question, I say "No". The head of state doesn't exist in a vacuum. They require support and assistance from people who are at least willing to let the leader get away with whatever it is they want to get away with. And writers should be making us question the illusions we live under (not to mention pointing them out to us), not just reinforcing them.
Warmest regards,
StevenH
Specious argument and sophistry is alive and well!
I suppose sycophancy should be mentioned as well?
Yeah smart weapons have kept the casualties in Iraq down to a relatively small number??
Dresden was a disgrace for any civilised country, the “ends justify the means” or “they started it”, appear juvenile and asinine arguments to back up the undertaking of an atrocity.
Governments do not exist in vacuums, but I notice how easy it is, for people who don’t live in fear for their lives under reasonably benign governance, to voice off about how people should revolt against evil regimes.
In addition the point seems adequately made in the recluce novels, that perspective also has a role to play. Some might say that Bush, was the head of an evil bullying superpower, who was not initially democratically elected. In addition kept that power by misinformation and scaremongering of electorate, to convince them any actions were justified, and the loss of personal freedoms reasonable.
The situation normally comes down to the actions of a small minority causing a powerful force to exact an atrocity that affects many innocents.
If Israel by firing missiles, kills a “terrorist”; but kills some women and children, well that just life or in that case death. Ho Hum
What it all goes to show, is how far from being civilised mankind still is. Still just a veneer that masks the inherent animal and barbarian underneath!
TTFN
Ian
I have to point out that although the church and other authorities must have known that torture doesn't work all that well, yet they still used it, for hundreds, thousands of years. It must have been used for something other than getting information. To instill fear and ensure the subjugation of the masses.
Things haven't changed much.
I have to point out that although the church and other authorities must have known that torture doesn't work all that well, yet they still used it, for hundreds, thousands of years. It must have been used for something other than getting information. To instill fear and ensure the subjugation of the masses.
Things haven't changed much.
<< Back to all Blog posts