D&D General Settings of Hope vs Settings of Despair

[Hussar]

As a teacher I can tell you that a lot of "students of" trot out jargon without any understanding of it's origin or original sense, and don't think to critique orthodox dogma.

As a fellow teacher, I’m still pretty baffled that anyone who claims to study SF has never heard these terms before. It would be like someone saying they’ve never heard of postmodernism. Sure if you’ve never done any lit crit I’d understand. But it would be weird to see someone claim it does not exist.

On what planet is this “orthodox dogma”? How? In what way? This is bog standard basic stuff. How is this controversial in any way?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

As a fellow teacher, I’m still pretty baffled that anyone who claims to study SF has never heard these terms before. It would be like someone saying they’ve never heard of postmodernism. Sure if you’ve never done any lit crit I’d understand. But it would be weird to see someone claim it does not exist.

On what planet is this “orthodox dogma”? How? In what way? This is big standard basic stuff. How is this controversial in any way?

Literature does not have the same standardised jargon that science does. Have you considered that geography might be an issue? As for me, I have heard the terms, used in ways that would be completely unrecognisable to either Wells or Verne. Jargon is often used as a substitute for thinking (or reading the books, when it comes to literature students).

 

[Hussar]

Again, you understand the point I’m making. It’s not controversial at all but for some bizarre reason you keep banging on about the terms instead of actually addressing the point.

Since you have no problem with the pint, choose terms you like and I’ll use those. I am certainly not wedded to the terms. Tell me what terms you want.

 

[Hussar]

Ok, in the interests of trying to move past this stumbling block, let me try to explain my point without resorting to any jargon.

In SF, there are two (note, this does not mean that there are ONLY two, just that these are two among many) common themes. In the first theme, science can resolve the problems that we face. In the other theme, science cannot solve our problems and, in general are typically the source of our problems.

Take two fairly well known SF TV series (which also exist in other formats, yes, that is true, but, I'm trying to stick to just the two tv series) - Battlestar Galactica and The Expanse. Both are fantastic shows. Very well written. I believe both have one numerous awards. So, they're both very well received. But, they do typify pretty clearly the two schools. In Battlestar, science is the problem. The Cylons are defeated, not by science, but by faith and humanity's spirit. OTOH, in The Expanse, the main characters constantly use science to resolve problems. There is certainly elements of the metaphysical in The Expanse, of course. But, at the end of the day, our heroes prevail through reason.

You can see these two schools in all sorts of SF works. They are, IMO, the foundation upon which SF is built. Most SF works can be categorized in one or the other school.

Now, since fantasy as nostalgia was brought up, I'll be the first to admit my own bias. I don't particularly like most fantasy. I never have. Which is weird because I prefer D&D for roleplaying. I never pretended to be consistent. But, I find most SF to be too close to revisionist history. They, as was rightly pointed out, mythologize the past. The King has Returned. All Hail the King! Never minding that we've just spent the last several hundred years trying to get rid of kings because, well, monarchy tends to be a very bad thing. All the horrors of the past are elided. We don't have fantasy stories where 3/4 of the children die before they hit the age of 5. We don't see the constant disease, famine and ignorance. We tend not to have scenes of Galadriel washing her hair in her own urine. That sort of thing. I dislike fantasy because fantasy almost always pretends that the past was this wonderful place where knightly knights go forth to do knightly things.

Even more grounded fantasy is still far too sanitized AFAIC. Which is why I don't read it very much. I read a lot more SF than I read fantasy for exactly this reason.

But, to roll this all, very lengthy pontification back on track, instead of defining our settings as hope vs despair, one could define them by the means in which things get resolved. Both settings could be very dark. Very grim. Very brutal. But, in one setting, it isn't really the PC's who fix the world. They become the focus of provenance. Whereas in the other approach, the PC's are more in the driver's seat. It's directly through their actions that the setting changes.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

No. Have you even read any of the works I mentioned earlier? Science Fiction can no more be cleanly divided into two camps like that than you can say all of fantasy is about nostalgia for the past (or even that science fiction is always about the future, considering how big of a genre alternative history is).

I mean, there are plenty of dichotomies you can use, as long as you recognize that these things are always a spectrum, and there will always be works that simply don't have a spot on the scale because it doesn't apply to them.

Consider Apollonian vs Dionysian, or "hard" vs "soft" sci-fi, or "hard" vs "soft" magic systems. All of which definitely are terms that have existed for ages now and have generally understood meaning--and as long as a work is "sci-fi" of some kind, you can probably put it somewhere on a sliding scale of hard vs soft. That first one goes back to Nietzsche at the very least, possibly earlier, and drives at the very heart of what the author is trying to communicate; e.g. Asimov was inherently an extremely Apollonian writer, while Le Guin was a very Dionysian writer. It's rare for a sci-fi or fantasy author to fall entirely outside that scope.

Whether Vernian corresponds to hope and Wellsian to despair, I don't know. Doesn't seem the most relevant argument to wage, whether or not there's a solution waiting on the other side.

I do think that @Remathilis is on the right track with Jettsons vs Terminator though. For all the follies and foibles and problems, the Jettsons live in a positive world where things can get better, and folks who stand up for the right thing, even if they aren't directly rewarded, know that they're contributing to that. For all its chrome and (after the first) action-packed resistance, the Terminator franchise is about a world doomed to face the war of Skynet vs Humanity; even Skynet, the horror that will inevitably darken the future, is trapped, incapable of redirecting its future, and possibly even incapable of preventing its own demise at the hands of John Connor's resistance.

In breaking out of the limitations of modernism (which is what the Jettsons arises out of, ultimately), we've also framed everything in the darkest tones. Of course, that break coinciding with breaking out of things like the Hays Code and the Comics Code Authority and similar censorship schemes that enforced the atomic-family-white-picket-fence world didn't help on that front. Positivity was associated with all the negative things that censorship brought with it: conformity, thoughtlessness, submission, hollow platitudes, designated "heroes" who look quite a bit less heroic if even slightly examined or questioned.

But the unfortunate conclusion that was drawn from that was: Anything dark is always superior to anything bright. Bright is stupid, naive, actually or unintentionally propaganda, censorious, childish, etc., etc. Dark is smart, daring, realistic, straight-talking, adult, etc., etc. Neither of these conclusions is correct, but in the limited context of a world that was finally breaking free of a censorious regime, yes, it was true that adding darkness to stories was a great way to give them more depth and maturity. Because that was adding darkness to things so whitewashed there wasn't any color left in it. But "Add darkness, it makes things better" is a bad maxim when applied universally....and that's exactly what happened. It's been applied so universally, damn near everything is dark now. Darkness is presupposed. Cruelty is presupposed. Stupidity, malice, cowardice. Every smile hides a dagger, every good word is a hollow facade.

That isn't any more realistic than the former state of things! But that's where we've ended up. Of course, just as the censorious BS of the previous era couldn't completely stifle everything, the overwhelming cynicism of the current era can't completely stifle everything either. That doesn't mean it isn't oppressively dark though. The new Superman and Fantastic Four movies were such a breath of fresh air because they, themselves, are deconstructing the deconstruction.

When power is wielded by the cruel, compassion is punk.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Ok, in the interests of trying to move past this stumbling block, let me try to explain my point without resorting to any jargon.

In SF, there are two (note, this does not mean that there are ONLY two, just that these are two among many) common themes. In the first theme, science can resolve the problems that we face. In the other theme, science cannot solve our problems and, in general are typically the source of our problems.

Take two fairly well known SF TV series (which also exist in other formats, yes, that is true, but, I'm trying to stick to just the two tv series) - Battlestar Galactica and The Expanse. Both are fantastic shows. Very well written. I believe both have one numerous awards. So, they're both very well received. But, they do typify pretty clearly the two schools. In Battlestar, science is the problem. The Cylons are defeated, not by science, but by faith and humanity's spirit. OTOH, in The Expanse, the main characters constantly use science to resolve problems. There is certainly elements of the metaphysical in The Expanse, of course. But, at the end of the day, our heroes prevail through reason.

You can see these two schools in all sorts of SF works. They are, IMO, the foundation upon which SF is built. Most SF works can be categorized in one or the other school.

Now, since fantasy as nostalgia was brought up, I'll be the first to admit my own bias. I don't particularly like most fantasy. I never have. Which is weird because I prefer D&D for roleplaying. I never pretended to be consistent. But, I find most SF to be too close to revisionist history. They, as was rightly pointed out, mythologize the past. The King has Returned. All Hail the King! Never minding that we've just spent the last several hundred years trying to get rid of kings because, well, monarchy tends to be a very bad thing. All the horrors of the past are elided. We don't have fantasy stories where 3/4 of the children die before they hit the age of 5. We don't see the constant disease, famine and ignorance. We tend not to have scenes of Galadriel washing her hair in her own urine. That sort of thing. I dislike fantasy because fantasy almost always pretends that the past was this wonderful place where knightly knights go forth to do knightly things.

Even more grounded fantasy is still far too sanitized AFAIC. Which is why I don't read it very much. I read a lot more SF than I read fantasy for exactly this reason.

But, to roll this all, very lengthy pontification back on track, instead of defining our settings as hope vs despair, one could define them by the means in which things get resolved. Both settings could be very dark. Very grim. Very brutal. But, in one setting, it isn't really the PC's who fix the world. They become the focus of provenance. Whereas in the other approach, the PC's are more in the driver's seat. It's directly through their actions that the setting changes.

This gets toward the "dark vs bright" and "grim vs noble" dichotomies folks talk about online. No idea if those have any relation whatsoever to proper criticism, but they're widely discussed online.

Almost everyone has their own individual definition, but mine would be...

Grim: Society is what it is; the best you can do is protect your space.
Noble: Society can be changed, even by just a few people ("heroes") doing the right thing.
Dark: The world sucks, people suck, the arc of the world points down.
Bright: The world has a lot of good in it, people are usually good, the arc of the world points up.

You can combine these. Everyone knows grimdark ("In the grim darkness of the far future, there is only war.") Noblebright is its diametric opposite: a good world with good people, and heroes help keep it that way. But you can also have grimbright and nobledark! In a real sense, Tolkien was in the direction of a "nobledark" world. The arc of his world does point down, in the long scale, because the glories of past ages genuinely cannot be reclaimed. The beauty passes away. The Elves shall go into the West. Etc. But for a time--sometimes, a long time!--that beauty can be preserved, in some form, even if reduced, as long as good people stand and fight for it. The Last Alliance of Elves and Men was a desperate gamble, but it worked. The War of the Ring was a horror, but they won. The magic will fade, but until it does, we can enjoy its beauty. "Then leaf subsides to leaf./So Eden fell to grief,/So dawn comes down to day,/Nothing gold can stay."

Conversely, a "grimbright" setting actually looks something like 4e's Points of Light setting. The apocalypse has already happened...more than once, even. The heavens are a shattered remnant, broken and unmoored. There's a spike of evil eating a hole in the bottom of the cosmos. Multiple great and beautiful empires have come and gone, and you get the pleasure of living in the wake of the most recent kinda-sorta-big-ish empire's collapse. But the titular points of light remain: towns, cities, maybe even regions, which can be protected and sustained, even in this dark time. You, a great hero, probably cannot un-do the fall of Nerath; you probably can't even forge a new nation out of the scattered city-states that all think you're a decent sort. But you can keep things going, just a little longer, in the hope that society can figure itself out in the next century or two and maybe get better.