I have no idea who ESR is (should I?), but he writes an intriguing post about the sci-fi culture war:here. At the crux of his argument, he says, “No, I judge that what is dessicating and poisoning the Rabbit version of SF is something distinct from left-wing political slant but co-morbid with it: colonization by English majors and the rise of literary status envy as a significant shaping force in the field.”
Although I have an English degree–or because I have one–I can concur with his posit. However, I believe there is more to be said on this discussion. He makes the point that humanities departments are filled with and/or run by lefties, which is why we confuse the culture war for a political one. Well, perhaps. But what do we really mean when we bring up divisive terms such “leftist politics”? It is my opinion that what is really at heart is a foundation of postmodern philosophy. ESR hints at this when he says, “[English major literary fiction types] love them some angst.”
The very essence of postmodernism is angsty. Before postmodernism brought us the universal truth that there is no universal truth, that all truth is relative, modernism brought us a forward-looking world of scientific optimism, which devalued a need for God. Science fiction sprang from modernist philosophy and served as a necessary critique thereof, and in its later years was probably a reaction against postmodernism. Daniel Eness discusses this in his article A Good Weird is Hard to Find. Scroll down to the comments section, and you’ll see I’ve practically quoted him: “What is interesting is that science fiction provided some of the earliest critiques of modernism as well as a viable alternative to postmodernism.”
Fantasy, by comparison, is a return to the kind of myth brought to us by the premodern era. Much of what some people call “pink” sci-fi is also an attempt at returning to the tropes of premodern mythology. However, the grand majority of it is painted with postmodernism, which insists that truth is relative–even truth that has been wired in the human soul for eons, such as the balancing and necessary aspects of masculinity and femininity. What postmodernist fantasy has attempted to do is skewer premodern archetypes, thereby rendering them meaningless. To be honest, I can see this same kind of postmodern painting in my own urban fantasy book, Anna and the Dragon, which I self-published a little over a year ago. While that may be true, I’m operating off a fundamentally different worldview, one in which there is, indeed, universal truth. So what I was attempting may have been influenced by my stint at university and my upbringing in a postmodern world, but in the end, the book is about an angsty postmodern protagonist who must go on a soul journey in order to wake up the masculine in her life, which allows her to also wake up her feminine nature.
That is quite possibly the first and last literary critique I will do of my own work. I may have failed miserably in my attempt at writing fantasy, but at least I can gain some self-awareness from the venture. Ripping out the roots of postmodern philosophy will be essential to my growth as a writer because it will allow me to be honest about human archetypes, what they are and what they represent in humanity. Without that kind of understanding, I’ll be stuck writing the kind of poor excuse for sci-fi that SRE discusses in his essay, one that doesn’t resonate with the human soul because the human soul is wired with universal truths.