I've been mostly reading LitRPG these days, which is a subgenre of scifi/fantasy...
I realized I was reading a lot of translations of Korean, Japanese, Chinese stories with similar themes.. But many of those aren't fully translated so I was getting tired of only getting the beginning of the story. LitRPG seems like the western equivalent (and many of the authors seem quite familiar with the same material).
I've been enjoying them, I think partly because I like the 'for want of a nail' type fics. Or rather, I like a little bit of good chaos... You know, subverting tropes, jolting people out of their mental ruts. Seeing someone with an entirely different way of thinking come into a story and having an impact just because their background and experiences make them act differently from normal is fun. (also there's plain old escapism, and the fantasy of not being another cog in our modern capitalist machine. It's sad that so many people feel so disempowered that isekai stories and the like are so popular, but whatever. I won't get into that right now)
Of course, LitRPG isn't just isekai stories. There's also a lot of system ones (ie earth gets integrated into a multiverse system, with game like elements where you can level. Generally there's also magic, or tech indistinguishable from magic, so it's rather apocalyptic in that the economy is in shambles and everyone has to learn how to live in the new world).
Anyways, much though I do enjoy them, I realized there's... Sub themes? Ideas that actually are kind of concerning?
Generally for the same reasons the boogaloo boys are... Which is that generally the apocalyptic fantasy is about people who excel and thrive when a massive disaster strikes, mostly by becoming the biggest and baddest thing around when the thin veneer of civilization is torn and only strength matters. Really, it's like the debate over force theory, how governments have to maintain a monopoly on violence... Which, I've long had some thoughts about but... Maybe I haven't actually posted about?
Okay, it's a tangent but I suppose it's important enough to discuss.
There is a point of view which says that basically might really does make right.
That if you look past our norms and expected behavior, they're ultimately backed up by force. The police. The army. The FBI.
Same for international relations... No matter what feel good ideals you hold, they aren't going to become reality unless someone with real power supports it. (this also gets into the transactional mindset, as well as why some countries don't believe our human rights interests are sincere and consider any such thing a ploy for something else. I think it's actually a rather depressing take for a lot of reasons, but I understand why they think it's true. And just like with optimists and pessimists, you'll find evidence to support that belief if you expect to find it).
I see some of their points, but I think it's more complicated than that...
Because it ignores two things.
First, the power of cooperation, and second how our choices impact strength.
Let me give a little story and then I'll try to explain.
In the anime Samurai Champloo, one episode centers around a town controlled by the yakuza. The old school yakuza leader was a criminal ofc, but he had a sense of honor and honestly acted more like the government itself. But a rival gang came to town and was threatening his hold. I would say the rival gang represented the 'might makes right' point of view. They didn't care about silly things like 'honor'.
I don't want to spend too much time on the plot, I just wanted to focus in a character that had seemed pretty minor at first - Ishimatsu.
Ishimatsu had been a follower of the original yakuza boss, but left for the rival gang because he thought his old boss was weak. In the course of the story, it appeared as though the rival gang was going to win,especially after the original yakuza leader died - but it was going to happen in a very dishonorable way. So Ishimatsu changed his mind, and in doing so led to the defeat of the rival gang.
Ishimatsu was a powerful character - and who he supported ultimately determined who led the town.
When all he cared about was 'strength', it appeared as though the rival gang would win.
But when he cared about honor, ultimately the son of his former boss won.
Since our ability to cooperate can make one side stronger than another, who we choose to support can determine which side is 'strong'...
So who has the strength may determine who wins, but who we choose to support can determine who has that strength.
When enough people feel the same way. Especially the ones 'strong' enough to make a difference, though large numbers of people carry a strength all their own.
To bring this back to LitRPG... When you have a world with a system in which people gain levels, and the people with the highest levels are basically powerful enough to take on armies, everything I said above becomes a little less true.
Which is why so many of them seem to veer into authoritian types of governments (not that our protagonists actually care that much about ruling... But as the biggest, baddest around they pretty much determine what happens).
Its great fantasy when you think you're the protagonist, but honestly it's pretty awful for those who aren't.
Oh, also... Leveling systems seem to have a subtheme of 'people dedicated to leveling can and will, so the ones falling behind did it to themselves'.
Which again is fine for a fantasy... Well, maybe not fine but not often something relevant to the plot. Since ofc our beloved characters are working hard (generally by killing monsters, because as much as they decry the system for being set that way, most of them do level you up the most for defeating monsters. And people, but killing people for xp just isn't cool in a protagonist so generally that only happens in self defense).
Its like... They're fun stories as fantasy? But there are undertones of themes that are actually pretty awful in the real world.
