Fifty Fantasy & Science Fiction Works That Socialists Should Read

[khad]

Although I disagree with the inclusion of Jack London, who I think is a reactionary shitstain, this is a pretty interesting list from one of the better known contemporary socialist writers.

A list by author China Miéville

http://www.fantasticmetropolis.com/i/50socialist/full/

[Oktyabr]

You forgot to mention Rynd or whatever that woman's name is when you were mentioning reactionary shitstains. She sounds like a complete *****, and she was ugly to boot. Anti-collectivist-SOB. Even if we are supposed to "know our enemy", I'm not going to put my hands on anything written by her.

[rednordman]

You forgot to mention Rynd or whatever that woman's name is when you were mentioning reactionary shitstains. She sounds like a complete *****, and she was ugly to boot. Anti-collectivist-SOB. Even if we are supposed to "know our enemy", I'm not going to put my hands on anything written by her.:lol:how could you forget her!ha ha.

Mind you, she was a ridiculous idealist despite here 'iron fist' persona. When ever someone calls you utopian for being an anarchist or communist, just think about the sort of idiots who believe in her world vision are in power and parlament, and are trying to 'aspire:rolleyes:' to her ideals.

[Random Precision]

Surely we shouldn't be judging an artist's work by their politics. Lenin was an avid admirer of Tolstoy despite his reactionary "Christian Anarchism" and idealization of the Russian muzhik way of life, for instance. The Master and Margarita is a brilliant work of literature regardless of what you think of Bulgakov- though I can't remember him having much in the way of politics, except a vague anti-Stalinism.

And I think Jack London was one of the masters of the 20th century political novel. The Call of the Wild is brilliant as well, as are many of his short stories. His work stands on its own regardless of his racism.

Moral of the story: great literature is not necessarily written by people with great politics, nor are people with great politics always capable of writing great literature. Just read Marx's poems if you want to see how.

[khad]

Surely we shouldn't be judging an artist's work by their politics. Lenin was an avid admirer of Tolstoy despite his reactionary "Christian Anarchism" and idealization of the Russian muzhik way of life, for instance. The Master and Margarita is a brilliant work of literature regardless of what you think of Bulgakov- though I can't remember him having much in the way of politics, except a vague anti-Stalinism.

And I think Jack London was one of the masters of the 20th century political novel. The Call of the Wild is brilliant as well, as are many of his short stories. His work stands on its own regardless of his racism.

Moral of the story: great literature is not necessarily written by people with great politics, nor are people with great politics always capable of writing great literature. Just read Marx's poems if you want to see how.
Look, I don't know why people always come back to this point of artistic merit.

The list is a list of political books--ie, books socialists should read--selected for largely for political content. If it weren't for this focus, then, shit, we might as well tack on Lord of the Rings as a "must read book."

[Random Precision]

But Lord of the Rings has no real literary merit (though it does show the impressive determination of the author) and is of no interest unless you're into finding out about the history of fantasy literature.

While we're on the subject, Miéville has a great interview here (http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj88/newsinger.htm) where he talks about LoTR as the product of a backward-looking, petty bourgeois worldview, if you're interested.

I think what Miéville was trying to do was more along the lines of a list of fantasy and sci-fi books that socialists may be interested in rather than a list of books whose political message we're going to agree with 100%: "Those below are chosen not just because of their quality—which though mostly good, is variable—but because the politics they embed (deliberately or not) are of particular interest to socialists".

[khad]

But Lord of the Rings has no real literary merit (though it does show the impressive determination of the author) and is of no interest unless you're into finding out about the history of fantasy literature.

While we're on the subject, Miéville has a great interview here (http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj88/newsinger.htm) where he talks about LoTR as the product of a backward-looking, petty bourgeois worldview, if you're interested.
As do I. I hated the fucking thing. But then again, if you're talking about political engagement, this petit bourgeois nonsense is important, as this forms a the mainstream for a significant proportion of the fantasy tripe market.

I believe you remember Michael Moorcock's essays on the reactionary qualities of mainstream speculative fiction, both sci-fi and fantasy.


I think what Miéville was trying to do was more along the lines of a list of fantasy and sci-fi books that socialists may be interested in rather than a list of books whose political message we're going to agree with 100%: "Those below are chosen not just because of their quality—which though mostly good, is variable—but because the politics they embed (deliberately or not) are of particular interest to socialists".Point taken, though I stick by my point that Bulgakov was a reactionary whose only message was that it was foolish to change things--everything remains the same old shit.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Nifty list! Thanks. I'll be looking over it.

[Sean]

I don't see why a Scanner Darkly is there. Admittedly I only watched the movie. Notice the gormless distant expression of Keanu Reeves acting as a drug user is the exact same in all his movies regardless of the role. T'was good though.