Tolkien: and then the Good King came and cast out the Evil Stewards who were corrupt because they ruled without the correct bloodline. Everything was peaceful after that and there was no more evil. There are two women in this story. Monarchy is good. The actual singular God who created everything wants you to be ruled by a 300 year old nobleman. The End.
GRRM: Feudalism is inherently destructive. Even the Noble Good Guys cause unimaginable suffering due to the structures of the system they operate within. Women are no more than brood mares under Feudalism. There is a Good King whose father was deposed. This Good King has spent his life living amongst the common people in order to become a good ruler. He is being manipulated by cynical actors and will bring devastation to the world when he begins his conquest. Thirty years ago the Hero of Prophecy acted to save the world from the Great Evil. He unleashed devastation on the land, died, and destroyed his own dynasty, possibly dooming the world. There are no gods, only powerful forces beyond our understanding that operate through the power of blood. Once upon a time there was a Good King who ruled justly. He brought peace to the land and improved the common folks' lot tremendously. Due the nature of Feudalism, the succession crisis that succeeded his reign led to the most bloodshed in 300 years. No one who wants war understands its cost.
People who dislike things because they're popular: Wow these are exactly the same!
I'm a massive fan of Dune (the original author's works anyway), and while I wouldn't call it a leftist work, it explored similar ideas of power with an emphasis on the dangers of messianic figures and their consequences, and I enjoyed it greatly in my formative years for what it was.
Dune had sexual violence as a plot point (most notably Baron Harkonnen and his encounters with the Bene Gessarit), but unlike GRRM, the narrative focus didn't keep going back to that again and again and again and again under pretenses of illustration and realism. The point was made, and then the story moved on.
A story doesn't have to be fundamentally leftist for me to enjoy it, but at least Dune had the courage to show actual radical and even destructive long-lasting societal change instead of framing revolution as naive, hypocritical, and silly. There's only so many times that GRRM's novelties in 1995 can or should be excused until they just seem repetitive except to himself and to his already locked-in fandom that wants more of the same.
Dune may not be leftist but the campbellians still have ambitions toward scientific history so Herbert made a lot of effort in that front.
There is even a revew of dune in lecture format by Peter Turchin. If you whant to know what someone who studies historical dynamics thinks of it.
Oh I know it. I didn't say that Dune had nothing to say, far from it, but that I was making no flattering pretensions that every comrade had to read Dune as a supplement to theory.
Yhea. Campbellians are definetly not leftist.
I do find more in comon with them than with libs. For some reason.
Herbert also became single-mindedly fascinated with "barrier" ecosystems, specifically how a specific plant at the edges of deserts seemed to deter the desert's ongoing encroachment. That singular importance of that plant species lead to the idea of the spice melange.
Interesting i was not aware. So the spice is the equivalent of that but for space travel. That is an interesting ecological concept. I wonder wat conditions lead to such an arrangment. Would mangroves be a similar type of plant?
It's been a while, so I don't remember which specific plant caught his attention, but whatever it was, that was the basis of the space melange as a central and pivotal and necessary element that everything else depended upon.