Ask Lemmygrad

Plenty of comrades have good answers to the actual question, I have an idea as to why English language literature can't seem to leave them behind.

In the tradition of literature in many parts of the world (I want to say canon but I'm not sure that's the right word) certain change took place not organically as time went on, but as the preeminent artists made conscious decisions on a certain direction. Sometimes genres were defined by the works of a few writers from a decade or two. Sometimes a couple famous poets started using a certain scheme and wrote on certain themes. I'm not saying this from a great man perspective, if the works of Asimov, Herbert or Le Guin has been published 50 years prior they'd have found no audience. I'm merely using the artist as a shorthand for the people and those who managed to reach them at the right time.

I believe the fascination with monarchies and especially the unconscious connection between pre-modern times and monarchies can only fade in the absence of a class that takes advantage of the divine rule of kings and with a bunch of artists willing to do away with the old preconceptions, to write about historical settings with modern societies, i.e. real democracies. The reactionary in the walls of my mind is softly rebelling against the concept, but I don't think there's anything preventing this eventuality. After all, 99% of medieval stories don't make use of our explore the feudal economic model their setting implies, meaning as long at the audience isn't hostile, they wouldn't question the potential anachronism deeply. After all, how many Tolkien fans actually investigate the modes of production?