Nice stuff over at Votaries of Horror (great name for a band). An excerpt:

There are few things in this world as bizarre as listening to a liberal tell you how horrible and close-minded and disgusting conservatives and Republicans are and then, in the same breath, tell you how much the said liberal hates various groups. (And no, I’m not exaggerating.) When in my master’s program, I would refer to this attitude–”whatever I say is tolerant no matter how intolerant it sounds because what I’m saying is de facto tolerant”–as Calvinism although maybe that’s unfair to Calvinists. Still, the approaches bear a similarity: rather than behaving a certain way, one adopts certain attitudes or positions. If I gain a conviction that I am saved, I must be saved. And this attitude, oddly enough, dovetails into a completely different subject I’ve been thinking about lately: the belittlement of the science-fiction and fantasy genre by “sophisticated” writers. I used to read articles by Orson Scott Card and Stephen King about so-called sophisticated writers belittling genre literature, and I’d get all worked up about it, but in my heart of hearts, I didn’t believe it was that big a problem. However, in just the past few years, I’ve had similar experiences whereby I encountered “sophisticated” writers declaring that fantasy and science-fiction pieces are just soooo childish–not real and reputable and profound and sophisticated like the stuff they write and read. I have found these experiences bewildering, to say the least, since the attitude doesn’t seem to be based on anything remotely intelligent. I always thought “sophistication” meant a knowledge of the world which, unless one ignores most of history and World Literature, includes fantasy and science-fiction (the first English novel was a fantasy: Arcadia by Sir Philip Sidney, and you could argue that The Tale of Genji is fantasy although in a somewhat different vein). Knowledge, by the way, doesn’t entail liking. I have no trouble with someone who doesn’t care for fantasy, who prefers, for example, Henry V to Midsummer Night’s Dream, but there is little to no point in saying, “Midsummer Night’s Dream would be so much better if it wasn’t for the fantastical element.” What, the lovers are supposed to take a road trip across America and find themselves instead? I’m sure Shakespeare could have written that sort of thing if he’d known about it, but it would kind of ruin the play. (And despite assumptions to the contrary, it wouldn’t automatically make it more insightful.) I’ve decided that Calvinism and what Goldberg defines as “smug self-confidence” is at work here. Rather than formulate intelligent, sophisticated arguments about the immaturity or non-insightful nature of fantasy and science-fiction, supposedly sophisticated critics and writers have simply decided to define fantasy and science-fiction by those terms. (This is marked by the fact that when they do decide to like a piece of fantasy, they redefine it as “magical realism.”)

Update: Nicely put, from a reader:

Indeed, your reader isn’t fair to Calvin, who dealt in matters spiritual. Our perception of such is directly related to our attitudes and beliefs. Vis-a-Vis his argument that “whatever I say is tolerant” is Calvanism is flawed because Calvin didn’t regard himself as the standard, but rather God. God *is* good because he is the definition of good, not because he does things that are good by our reckoning.
Liberals assert their goodness in the same way God asserts His goodness; therein lies the problem.