A libertarian anarchist named Dan Clore has published a reading list entitled Essential Science Fiction and Fantasy for Libertarians. In his prefatory remarks, he says: “Many works of science fiction and fantasy portray libertarian societies or otherwise bear relevance to libertarianism; this list names some that I consider the most essential reading for anarchists, anti-authoritarians, libertarians, and whatnot.” He also provides some story notes for each entry.
I am not a libertarian, nor particularly anarchist, but I think he’s come up with a very interesting list. Here's what’s on it:
Poul Anderson, “The Last of the Deliverers.” (I’ve read a lot of Anderson but don’t remember this one. From his description, it seems to describe a post-scarcity society.)
J. G. Ballard, The Atrocity Exhibition.
Marie-Louise Berneri, The Journey Through Utopia. (Non-fiction; I am not familiar with this one.)
Alfred Bester, The Stars My Destination.
A whole raft of William S. Burroughs and Philip K. Dick books.
Anatole France, The Revolt of Angels.
Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress.
Ursula K. Le Guin, The Dispossessed and The Wind’s Twelve Quarters.
P.M., bolo’bolo. A work with which I am not familiar, though it sure has an interesting Wikipedia write-up.
William Morris, News from Nowhere.
J. K. Rowling, the Harry Potter series. (Who knew that it had an “increasingly libertarian message”?)
Rudy Rucker, Peter Lamborn Wilson, & Robert Anton Wilson, eds. Semiotext(e). Clore says, “Perhaps the greatest anthology of original SF ever published.”
Eric Frank Russell, “Late Night Final” and The Great Explosion.
Jonathan Swift, Gulliver’s Travels.
J.R.R. Tolkien, The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings.
Jack Vance, Emphyrio.
H.G. Wells, Men Like Gods.
Robert Anton Wilson & Robert Shea, the Illuminatus! trilogy.
Yevgeny Zamiatin, We.
He also includes a list of other authors he might have reasonably included and notes, in conclusion, that he has intentionally excluded Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged.
My reaction when skimming was, wow, what an interesting list! For a list composed with the intention of furthering a political agenda, it has a remarkably strong aesthetic agenda. (It usually works the other way around: ostensibly aesthetic lists, ballots, and tables-of-contents sometimes manifest strong political leanings.)
One certainly would have a wild time reading these works back to back, whether alphabetically, chronologically, or at random, coming out of it with an altered perception of reality.
What aesthetic, exactly, are we looking at here? Are its politics what he says they are? Despite his inclusion of fiction by Le Guin and Rowling, if he were publshing this list as an anthology, these days he would probably be criticized for underrepresentation of women.
And if we think we understand what he’s really doing, what has he left out? Authors he lists as others who might have been included are “Iain M. Banks, Barrington J. Bayley, Anthony Burgess, Cyrano de Bergerac, Harlan Ellison, Harry Harrison, Stanislaw Lem, Ken MacLeod, Michael Moorcock, Thomas Pynchon, Mack Reynolds, Kim Stanley Robinson, Norman Spinrad, A. E. Van Vogt, and Kurt Vonnegut; also, the initial-middle-name-last-name trio of J. Neil Schulman, L. Neil Smith, and F. Paul Wilson.” But given the dominant aesthetic, it seems to me that Lewis Carroll perhaps should have been in the mix.
Also, where are Tiptree, Delany, and Sterling?
In any case, I find this a thoughtful and thought-provoking list. Is there such thing as aesthetic libertarianism? And is this it?
VIEW ALL BY · Tuesday September 09, 2008 05:54pm EDT
What I think is lacking in this list are some of the great dystopias. Shouldn't anarchists be interested in Nineteen Eighty-Four and the like?
VIEW ALL BY · Tuesday September 09, 2008 05:55pm EDT
VIEW ALL BY · Tuesday September 09, 2008 06:33pm EDT
VIEW ALL BY · Tuesday September 09, 2008 07:15pm EDT
VIEW ALL BY · Tuesday September 09, 2008 07:22pm EDT
I also wonder whether the list should be expanded to include graphic novels. How about V For Vendetta or Watchmen even? Those both have strong anarchist themes.
Tuesday September 09, 2008 08:38pm EDT
Tuesday September 09, 2008 08:51pm EDT
VIEW ALL BY · Tuesday September 09, 2008 09:04pm EDT
VIEW ALL BY · Tuesday September 09, 2008 09:36pm EDT
Drak Bibliophile
VIEW ALL BY · Tuesday September 09, 2008 09:41pm EDT
Drak Bibliophile
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday September 10, 2008 12:24am EDT
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday September 10, 2008 07:52am EDT
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday September 10, 2008 09:34am EDT
It might be worthwhile to so-called libertarians to obtain some classical education first. The word "utopia" was essentially coined by Thomas More for his eponymous alternate-history travelogue as a pun roughly meaning "the good place is nowhere". Morris and Samuel Butler got it (compare the titles of their polemical travelogues). Le Guin offers a number of homages to this approach, in particular in the title of the one story in The Wind's Twelve Quarters that seems at least at first reading to fit this meme. And Bester? Oh my...
Wednesday September 10, 2008 12:43pm EDT
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday September 10, 2008 02:14pm EDT
Regarding libertarian appreciation of fiction, I'm not sure how many times I've hear winners of the Prometheus Award privately confide, "They gave me the Prometheus Award, but really I'm not a libertarian." I think it's a a strength of SF's libertarians that they can appreciate the ideas in books whose authors do not agree with them.
One of the things I like about Clore's list is its lack of ideological purity. I'm not going to argue individual cases. But my own lists, such as the TOC for The Ascent of Wonder, are similarly ideologically ecelectic. (I don't thing Benford will ever forgive David Hartwell & I for including Ballard in an anthology of hard SF.)
The aesthetic and ideological collisions here are among the things that make this list good. Collections of the usual suspects are what you get on Wikipedia pages trying to define genre. But in my own aesthetic universe, it is the outliers, the collisions, and the unexpected resonances that really make arguments about genre work.
And Clore is making an argument for the existence of a subgenre, it seems to me. I'm not sure if it flies, but it's an interesting argument.
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday September 10, 2008 02:45pm EDT
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday September 10, 2008 02:50pm EDT
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday September 10, 2008 05:32pm EDT
I suspect at least some people get to Hogan's book and think "do I really want to be seen recommending a book by a fellow who thinks the work of Arthur Butz and Mark Weber is "more scholarly, scientific, and convincing than what the history written by the victors says [1]"[Nicked from wikipedia]? Then they pass on to authors who don't have the phrase "holocaust denier" associated with them.
Not that people whose politics is, ah, not entirely mainstream can't write interesting material. People still read Ezra Pound, after all.
1: http://web.archive.org/web/20060503084516/http://www.jamesphogan.com/jphcommentarchive.shtml
VIEW ALL BY · Thursday September 11, 2008 10:26am EDT
...which is, I suppose, part of the point I was trying to make. It's one thing to say that a reading list represents a broad spectrum of views on a given aspect of literature. It's another entirely to put forth works on that list that contradict the purported aspect without acknowledging the subversion. That's an all-too-common form of intellectual dishonesty, which I see in law even more than in literature, or even in cryptolibertarianism (which is the only kind that seems to exist in the US today).
VIEW ALL BY · Thursday September 11, 2008 11:23am EDT
At first I wondered why the Tolkien was included, but after further consideration, figured that the Shire is the idealistic vision of what libertarianism could achieve: a self-regulating peaceful community unhindered by heavy authority.
These two works alone offer a startling set of bookends for libertarian SF.
I also believe Neal Stephenson belongs in this list.
VIEW ALL BY · Thursday September 11, 2008 01:22pm EDT
I suspect the Shire only looks ideal because Tolkien insists on presenting it that way; Hardy looked harder (although not hard enough) at the peasants' lives.
VIEW ALL BY · Thursday September 11, 2008 01:27pm EDT · amended on Thursday September 11, 2008 01:28pm EDT
VIEW ALL BY · Thursday September 11, 2008 03:18pm EDT
Heck, I've seen Jerry Pournelle tagged as a libertarian on occasion; but I know people who tag themselves as libertarians that would recoil at the thought of him being in their crowd.
VIEW ALL BY · Thursday September 11, 2008 04:29pm EDT
Thursday September 11, 2008 07:15pm EDT
Concerning the Shire, William H. Stoddard discusses some of these points in his essay "Law and Institutions in the Shire" at Troynovant.
Friday September 12, 2008 01:40am EDT
As a member of the LFS which awards the Prometheus Awards I would like to expand on this point. The LFS does not consider the political views of an author; the focus is on the particular book not the political positions of the author. And yes we have been criticized for this position a few times but I feel it is the proper approach. It is also the most pragmatic and workable for the obvious reasons.
VIEW ALL BY · Saturday September 13, 2008 11:05pm EDT