The Second OUSFG Award

[coalescent]

So, OUSFG has an award. This is its second year. It's voted on by the membership, and given to the best speculative fiction book receiving its first UK mass-market paperback publication in the preceding academic year. This is actually fairly straightforward--it's for books students will be able to find and afford. Last year Coalescent by Stephen Baxter won. The current shortlist is:

Ted Chiang, Stories of Your Life and Others (January 2005)
Susanna Clarke, Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell (September 2005)
David Mitchell, Cloud Atlas (February 2005)
Ian McDonald, River of Gods (April 2005)
Audrey Niffenegger, The Time-Traveler's Wife (January 2005)

Some notes: it's obviously not just for science fiction; it's obviously not just for novels; and goddamn, that's a hell of a list.

I mention this because this evening there is a balloon-debate discussion meeting, starting at 8pm, in the Lady Brodie Room in St Hilda's College, which means I'm going to have to decide how to rank them. And man, that's hard.

(On the subject of St Hilda's deciding to admit men ... I don't know what the reasoning behind the decision was, but I'm somewhat surprised that it happened, and it seems a bit of a shame, really.)

(And just to leave on a controversial note: I've finally got around to watching Deadwood--I'm about halfway through the first season at the moment--and I'm not terribly impressed. I think partly it's how stylised everything is; the dialogue bears as little resemblance to how people actually talk as that in The West Wing or Buffy, but where those shows were consciously presenting its characters as smarter-than-life Deadwood is constantly at pains to tell you how Real it is, how True To Life. The style doesn't mesh with the content, for me, in other words. Of course, that could just be a fancy excuse made up to cover the fact that I find all the characters except Jane excruciatingly boring; the episodes I've enjoyed most so far have been when circumstances have forced them to do something, as in, say, 'Plague'.)

EDIT: the ranking determined by the panel, in reverse order:

5. Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell
4. Cloud Atlas
3. The Time-Traveler's Wife
2. River of Gods
1. Stories of Your Life and Others

And those placings were almost all hotly contested. It'll be interesting to see whether the official result (announced Saturday) is the same or not.

Comments

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

I'm not exactly au fait with the details of the American West, but I did know where and how Wild Bill died, so that wasn't a surprise (though it was a shame--Carradine was one of the best things about the show). But by Real and True To Life I emphatically didn't mean historically accurate, because the show clearly isn't that. Rather, I meant that the show attempts to convey a sense of frontier life as a dirty enterprise, and that it tries to present its characters as psychologically real. Neither of which ring true for me, the former because it doesn't actually get very dirty, and the latter because of the conflict between the style and the content.

It is pretty, though, I'll give you that.

And just to make you mad:

Nice try, but I'm on record as saying that the early part of the second season of The West Wing is fatally wounded by the excessive patriotism (the scene on the steps of Josh's apartment is a particular offender; Ainsley's reaction after her first visit to the White House is another). But that's a different problem to Deadwood, I think; The West Wing always idolises the political life, and early S2 is a case of going too far, rather than there being a fundamental conflict between what it's saying and how it's saying it.

5. Audrey Niffenegger (is it a rule that every good ballot has to have at least one stinker on it to even things up?)

Well, consensus in the room was that there wasn't a stinker; and Niffenegger did much better than I expected her to...

[veggiesu.livejournal.com]

a fundamental conflict between what it's saying and how it's saying it.

You mentioned this in your original post, but I'm not sure what you mean?

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

The show wants me to believe in the characters as psychologically real, and believe in their world as dirty and dangerous. Their dialogue and behaviour doesn't support this: they act and speak like characters in a story, and because of it they feel safe.

[veggiesu.livejournal.com]

Hmmm. Judging by the books I've read, people did speak in a much more formal, more stylised manner a hundred and thirty odd years ago. As Iain mentioned upthread, it's possible that the characters in Deadwood tend to speak more as people *wrote* back then, but I don't see that as undermining their psychological credibility. Can you explain in what ways it's not working for you? Or perhaps, in what ways this is different to any other TV show - certainly the dialogue feels far less artificial to me than, for example, Buffy, VM, TWW, etc.

And certainly their behaviour is "dirty and dangerous" - surely?

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Or perhaps, in what ways this is different to any other TV show - certainly the dialogue feels far less artificial to me than, for example, Buffy, VM, TWW, etc.

To me it feels just as artificial, but the world the show creates feels like it's trying to be less artificial. With the three shows you mention, the stylised dialogue matches the stylised environment. With Deadwood I just don't think it does.

And certainly their behaviour is "dirty and dangerous" - surely?

Nah. It's TV dangerous.

[abigail-n.livejournal.com]

And certainly their behaviour is "dirty and dangerous" - surely?

Nah. It's TV dangerous.

You're going to have to explain that (or, alternatively, just remind me never to visit your home town).

[grahamsleight.livejournal.com]

Nah. It's TV dangerous.

You're going to have to explain that (or, alternatively, just remind me never to visit your home town).

The thing you have to realise is that, by Maidenhead standards, Niall about as streetwise as they get.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

I mean that it feels curiously weightless. The stakes never feel like they really matter, I never feel like any of the violence is going to really affect any of the main characters. That sort of thing.

[immortalradical.livejournal.com]

Don't understand this at all. Unlike many shows, the consequences of violence - Trixie's injuries, or Bullock's - remain on show for large chunks of the season, and do not get swiftly forgotten. Other main characters - Wild Bill, for instance, or Brom - are actually killed. Still more - Cy and Al being the most obvious examples, but also Dan or Charlie Utter - are shown to have varying relationships to the crimes they perform, their violence have internal as well as external effects. As in Dostoevsky (and, yes, Shakespeare), violence has a physical and a metaphysical effect, and not ones that can be denied, either.

It occurs to me you've approached the show with the deliberate intent of standing outside of it.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Other main characters - Wild Bill, for instance, or Brom - are actually killed.

Except they're not main characters, are they? They're red shirts: it's obvious from day one that they're both going to die. Just as it's obvious that the child is not going to die. The point is not that the violence in Deadwood doesn't have consequences, it's that those consequences don't carry any weight. The whole thing feels like it's just going through the motions.

[immortalradical.livejournal.com]

Oh, come off it. Carradine's in the opening credits. You can't say, 'violence has no weight in Deadwood because I knew Wild Bill was going to die'. The show takes the time to build up that character - they could have just given him a walk-on role. His death has weight. Similarly, Brom is a major character in the episodes he's in - to say, 'well, the dude was obviously always going to buy it' proves only that a man like him probably can't survive in Deadwood, not that your particular definition of 'proper people' will never die.

I seem to remember a wonderful hullaballo when Jesse was killed off in 'Buffy's' pilot. I fail to see the difference between him and Brom, except that Brom gets decidedly more screentime.

Precisely who would have to die to give the show 'weight'? Bullock? Al? You're deliberately setting the bar of 'realism' so high as to force failure on the show. Speaking of realism, let's not ignore the fact that most of the show's characters are based on historical figures who actually - gasp! - did survive. Presumably, by your logic, this means that Deadwood in 1876 was actually a terribly cosy place to live.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

proves only that a man like him probably can't survive in Deadwood

Yes. Chalk one up for well-rounded characters and undermining stereotypes. No, wait ...

Presumably, by your logic, this means that Deadwood in 1876 was actually a terribly cosy place to live.

No, it means the show fails to get me to suspend my disbelief. To answer your question from the other subthread about artificiality, and to annoy you by using an sfnal term at the same time, it feels like a failure of worldbuilding. The characters, the stories, and the presentation of those characters and stories don't match up. It's as though Neal Stephenson had written the Baroque Cycle with anachronistic dialogue but everything else done with a straight face.

[immortalradical.livejournal.com]

Chalk one up for well-rounded characters and undermining stereotypes. No, wait ...

Because your position, of course, is that you would make it perfectly fine on a sink estate in Glasgow. And that this, and this alone, makes you not a stereotype. Uh huh.

to annoy you by using an sfnal term at the same time, it feels like a failure of worldbuilding.

Actually, no, you merely vindicated my suspicion that you see everything through a single lens. :P I actually referred to 'world-building' in my Season 1 essay, and concluded that the show doesn't worldbuild in the sfnal sense. [1] So it doesn't surprise me at all that it doesn't work for you.

[1] Because world-building isn't an sfnal term. You just don't use it or consider it in any other context or by any other method.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

We didn't see any depth or interest to Brom. Hence, stereotype.

I actually referred to 'world-building' in my Season 1 essay, and concluded that the show doesn't worldbuild in the sfnal sense.

All this shows is that you don't understand the meaning of the term 'worldbuilding'. Not that I've read the essay yet, but I'm sure it's comprehensively wrongheaded. :p

[danmilburn.livejournal.com]

We didn't see any depth or interest to Brom. Hence, stereotype.

One might point out that at the start Alma is equally stereotypical and on the face of it just as unlikely to last long in Deadwood.

All this shows is that you don't understand the meaning of the term 'worldbuilding'

Would you care to provide a definition, cos I doubt you think the person who wrote the Wikipedia page does either. Unless you're of the opinion that the show would be immeasurably improved by including maps and historical notes with the DVDs. :P

[immortalradical.livejournal.com]

the world the show creates feels like it's trying to be less artificial

If everything in the show feels artificial to you, why are you left with the impression that the show wants to be anything but? Is it perhaps that you've read what people have written about the show and have thus approached it with baggage?

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Is it perhaps that you've read what people have written about the show and have thus approached it with baggage?

On the grounds that I haven't read anything about the show except Su, Lizbeth, and occasionally Iain saying 'this is great!' ... no, not really.

[immortalradical.livejournal.com]

So would you like to answer the first question, too? :P

[veggiesu.livejournal.com]

With the three shows you mention, the stylised dialogue matches the stylised environment. With Deadwood I just don't think it does.

But isn't the stylised nature of the dialogue in Deadwood a reflection of the way that people actually used to speak (or at the very least, write?). Si it is a reflection of the environment, given that the environment is 1876.

It's TV dangerous.

...

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

re: language

From its debut Deadwood has drawn attention for it use of extremely explicit, modern profanity, especially among the more coarse characters. It is a deliberate anachronism on the part of the creator with a twofold intent. As Milch has explained in several interviews and on the DVD commentary tracks, originally the characters were to use period slang and swear words. Such words, however, were based heavily on the era's deep religious roots and tended to be more blasphemous than scatological. Instead of being shockingly crude (in keeping with the tone of a frontier mining camp), the results sounded downright comical (Milch says it "..made everyone sound like Yosemite Sam.")

[immortalradical.livejournal.com]

So your problem is the profanity?

[veggiesu.livejournal.com]

I already knew that the swearing was symbolic rather than representative. When I've said that the dialogue is stylised, I was referring to the cadence, the lyricism, the formality - not the swearing.

So my point was, people spoke (or at least wrote) in those complex, formalised, multi-claused sentences a hundred and thirty-odd years ago (check out books from the period for exemplars). That's not artificial, that's How It Was, surely?

[iainjclark.livejournal.com]

Yes, the dialogue in Deadwood does two things for me.

One is that it apes the actual style of the period, adjusted for a modern sensibility. It creates a sense of genuine historical period. So if you watch Ken Burns' The West or The Civil War documentaries and listen to the quotes, you can recognise that formalised, convoluted manner of expression. It's slightly theatrical, but it creates a very particular universe for the series, one with real historical flavour but also a certain matter-of-fact eloquence.

Secondly it reflects the relative status of the characters. Civilised folk like Alma speak in a formalised way without obscenity. Swearengen meanwhile apes the same formalised sentence structure, but un-self-consciously peppers it with the most foul obscenities, without any awareness that there's a discrepancy between the two modes of speaking. He's a pompous lowlife who is aspiring to a certain kind of respectability; we're left slightly smiling at the justaposition of genuine eloquence, faux respectability, and innate earthiness. Farnum of course is the Fool to Swearengen's King, only without any hidden wisdom: he sees what Swearengen's speaking style is about, but lacks the education to mimic it. Then lastly you have people like Jane who just speak plainly and obscenely with little formalisation.

It's not only relatively true to the period, it's also interesting and amusing in equal measure. There's a definite pleasure to be had in seeing Al launch into a sentence of Shakespearean ambition while sat in a seedy backroom and peppering his language with brutality and obscenity.

[veggiesu.livejournal.com]

Absolutely agree with all of this; I only wish I'd been able to put it quite so comprehensively and conherently :-)

[iainjclark.livejournal.com]

Thank you. :-)