Five SFF Books in Which Valuable Is Not the Same as Powerful
https://www.tor.com/2021/12/07/five-sff-books-in-which-valuable-is-not-the-same-as-powerful/
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 11:07:35 AM UTC-7, James Nicoll wrote:
> Five SFF Books in Which Valuable Is Not the Same as Powerful
> https://www.tor.com/2021/12/07/five-sff-books-in-which-valuable-is-not-the-same-as-powerful/

Quite understandably, the stories you use as examples are striking illustrations
of this principle. The group of people who have a rare but valuable talent are
cruelly exploited and abused.

But this inspires me to ask: what is the opposite of this situation?

It's clear enough _why_ this situation exists so much in fiction; if the reader is
given a reason to feel sorry for the protagonist, then this causes the reader to
be emotionally engaged in the plot.

But in addition to being cruel, it is percieved as unjust. But how do we define
justice?

That is, I was inspired to consider _two_ alternatives:

- a society in which every individual is equal, versus

- a free-market society where, given that people are protected from
theft and exploitation... those with valuable talents may milk them for
all they're worth, and thus become wealthy and dominant.

But my goal here isn't to defend an oppressive situation as a legitimate
self-defense measure taken too far. In general, stories like those listed
have an autocratic leadership, one that exploits and oppresses the
workers and peasants... also benefiting and protecting itself by exploiting
and oppressing the protagonist and those like him (or, more likely, her)
with special talents.

That kind of reduces the significance of the genre. Autocrats control
everyone else, and that includes those others who have useful talents,
what else is new?

If the real-world example of women's reproductive ability is
considered, then of course "The Handmaid's Tale" is an example,
but one different from the more typical ones given that center
around psychic or magical powers. Another real-world example
has led to stories _less_ grounded in the real world than Margaret
Atwood's... one can find, even in the early days of science fiction,
stories where scientists, rather than forming a ruling priesthood
for a society (although that, too, is depicted in other stories) are
carefully supervised and controlled by a society that wants to use
them without trusting them.

The advanced scientific nature of nuclear weapons, and the
idealistic pacifism of many scientists, made this an element in
several stories set in Cold War politics, IIRC.

John Savard

On Saturday, 11 December 2021 at 04:38:08 UTC, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 11:07:35 AM UTC-7, James Nicoll wrote:
> > Five SFF Books in Which Valuable Is Not the Same as Powerful
> > https://www.tor.com/2021/12/07/five-sff-books-in-which-valuable-is-not-the-same-as-powerful/
> Quite understandably, the stories you use as examples are striking illustrations
> of this principle. The group of people who have a rare but valuable talent are
> cruelly exploited and abused.

English professional football players before
1961 worked under a maximum wage agreement
between clubs and a lifetime non-compete rule,
inasmuch as a player could switch clubs only by
consent, i.e. one club buying the player from another.

> But this inspires me to ask: what is the opposite of this situation?

Professional football players now being paid vast
sums of money to chase each other around a field?

Or, people with no skills of objective value at all,
succeeding in politics.

There's a bit in Bob Shaw's _Nightwalk_, I don't
remember exactly how it goes, but I think the
bad guys have a national maximum wage law.
And I think they cheat, but I forget how. There's
a discussion about a surgeon as an example
of a normally highly paid person. Or was it
hypothetical? Anyway, it feels like a political
digression.