Since I touched the third rail of religion the other week, I’ll touch that of politics this week. I never fed anything remotely political into AI–usually I use Deep Research for my day job, like a presentation on the history of reimbursement for whole exome/genome sequencing. But for a larf, I decided to ask ChatGPT what it could infer about my political leanings from my book.
This is what it spat back:
Christian center-right, culturally conservative, anti-utopian, anti-imperialist, sympathetic to national identity and legitimate hierarchy, but distrustful of oligarchs, militarists, ideological zealots, and strongmen.
And I thought “hmm, not bad.”
What are the lessons of Son of the Borderlands?
I see them cutting both ways, in terms of modern politics. In the first chapter, we see that Anton Kazirian wants to “Make the Dragonlands Great Again,” nostalgia for an idyllic distant past. It is, plainly, not possible. The Mortal Realms have evolved in 2,000 years, empires rose and fell, and some even question his existence. He offers Agni the “devil’s bargain.” I will make you a mighty man of war, but one day you will serve my dream. It is clear that reviving Anton’s empire would spill rivers of blood.
But countering that, is my great skepticism that flawed humans can create paradise with the right governance structure. They say “to make an omelet, you need to break a few eggs,” but that always ends up with a mess of yolk, white, and shell, and nothing edible.
One could say the lessons cut both ways.
But the thread between the two is an observation that civilization lies on a knife’s edge, human nature is flawed, and we are all shaped by historical, familiar, and personal forces before we are aware of them. Agni is at the same time self-made and not–without his name, he would never have had his shot at glory, and it took both his own strength of will and Anton’s guidance to make him High General and Lord Guardian.
The great kingdoms of the Mortal Realms sit at an uneasy equilibrium. Anton dreams of a united Dragonlands under him, and all other realms paying him tribute. Even he cannot see “one world government.” The peoples are too different in values and worldviews to live as one nation. War and conquest are written into their DNA.
But war and conquest are bloody and ugly. I don’t shy away from death, torture, and rape as tools of war. Agni mocks nobles who sought war for riches or glory. The “small folk” suffer most, and die forgotten.There are no moral nations. Agni’s hunger for war comes from the tragic murder of his own mother and mental degeneration of his father, but he is not a “good guy.” Early in the book, he inflicts torture and brutality where it is not necessary. He is the protagonist but not the “good guy,” Solantia are not “the good guys.” No one is. Like in many intra-group wars, they and Blevenia each believe themselves favored of their god, and they are both wrong. Some races feel themselves superior to others–see Sara’s remarks about “lowborn” Kali and her “savage” tribe–but Agni, who saw the Aloi fight and bleed for him, berates her. Read the backstory Blood and Fire (linked above) and you will see Kali’s merit.
But despite every nation’s fallibility, they are necessary. I am no anarchist. Even a flawed, corrupt, unstable nation may be better than anarchy. We need law and authority–capitalism and trade are wonderful, but not sufficient to sustain a society.
All in all, Son of the Borderlands is not a modern political allegory, let alone an endorsement, but an acknowledgement of the timelessness of human nature even in a fantasy world.
Things truer than true.