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

[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

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

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.

Well, she's equally stereotypical, but it's blindingly obvious that she's got the measure of the town much better than her husband and is likely to outlast him by some time.

Would you care to provide a definition, cos I doubt you think the person who wrote the Wikipedia page does either.

You're right, that page is nonsense. Worldbuilding is anything an author does to make the world of their story more convincing. All stories worldbuild, as Dan is so very fond of pointing out; but historical/geographically remote stories typically need more worldbuilding than contemporary stories, and fantasy/sf stories typically need to convey more information again. It's not a unique characteristic of sf, then, but the term tends to be predominantly used in sf circles because sf often has to work harder at it than other kinds of fiction.

So to say 'it doesn't worldbuild in the sfnal' sense is meaningless. There is no sfnal sense; there's just more worldbuilding or less, and good worldbuilding or bad.

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]

So to say 'it doesn't worldbuild in the sfnal' sense is meaningless.

No, it isn't. You believe worldbuilding to be exclusively about the world. This is why you find Carnivale interesting, and it's why you find Ben's situation interesting - because we start with the world and move out to the characters. But worldbuilding can start with the characters and move out to the world. We are introduced to the world as it is created by the characters. SF doesn't do this. Mimetic literature, by and large, does. Deadwood follows suit.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

You believe worldbuilding to be exclusively about the world.

Well, it's kind've in the term. But part of worldbuilding is convincing characters who are particularly shaped to their environment, sure.

[immortalradical.livejournal.com]

But part of worldbuilding is convincing characters who are particularly shaped to their environment, sure.

You're doing it again - placing environment above character. The characters in Deadwood are not shaped. They are shaping. That's the whole point of the show.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

No, all characters do both at the same time. The characters in Deadwood are shaping in the sense of building a community; but they are shaped in that they exist, at least at the start of the show, in the absence of community.

[immortalradical.livejournal.com]

No, all characters do both at the same time.

Right. But the emphasis on Deadwood is more on one; the emphasis in, say, Angel is on the other. Some fiction prizes character, some environment. This is so self-evident that it's a pointless debate even for us.

It's also getting us away from the point, which is: you think the characters in the show don't fit their world; I'm baffled by this because their world is the characters. Why I'm saying you must be standing outside the show is because you're essentially say, "I think their world should look and sound like this - it isn't, therefore it isn't convincing." I'd agree with you if only one character spoke like Iago - but they all do (and yet each has their own voice). I'd agree with you if I thought it was impossible to discuss depravity without choosing a depraved diction, but that's an obviously nonsensical position.

I'm surprised by your reasons for disliking the show, to be honest - they seem to be 'this isn't realistic enough'. From you, that's shocking stuff. :P

Also, shouldn't you be seeing Tim at the minute?

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

It's also getting us away from the point, which is: you think the characters in the show don't fit their world; I'm baffled by this because their world is the characters.

See other comment. The world does come first, I'm afraid.

And let's not underestimate the importance of the fact that the characters are boring in my apathy. And it is apathy not outright dislike--I'm only halfway through the season, after all, and I don't like leaving things unfinished.

And Tim done gone left me. But he fixed my router first (eventually).

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

See other comment. The world does come first, I'm afraid.

Or to put it another way: focusing on the characters can't construct the world, but it should reveal the world. The trouble with Deadwood is that the world implied by the characters doesn't match the world the show actually gives us.

[immortalradical.livejournal.com]

The trouble with Deadwood is that the world implied by the characters doesn't match the world the show actually gives us.

I simply do not understand this. Because they speak in iambic pentameter? That seems a terribly dogmatic quibble. How does Al not fit in his world? How does Bullock?

It doesn't help that you're defense of TWW's similar sin is entirely unconvincing - sure, TWW was clearly set in a parallel world. So is, erm, Deadwood. I don't understand the difference, except you like TWW but not Deadwood. For subconscious reasons other than those you're stating. Or something. :P

[immortalradical.livejournal.com]

The world does come first, I'm afraid.

Of course, but only implicitly by necessity. That is, if the characters behave in X way, then the world produces people who are X. Whereas you prefer if the world is explicit - not that we learn about it through the characters, but that we learn about it and then place the characters in that context.

Did you go see your film? Did you share a box of Maltesers?

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

... and for the record, I don't think this is an sf thing, but a "having studied genetics" thing. Shaping/shaped isn't a chicken and egg situation: we are all shaped by the world we grow up in--which is what I meant when I said that part of worldbuilding was having characters shaped to their environment--and then, if we're lucky, we get to do a bit of shaping later on.

[immortalradical.livejournal.com]

Right. But what happens in Deadwood is that people come to a new world (hur hur) - the ways in which they were shaped are to varying degrees actually pretty useless to them now. (Bullock's buttoned-up moralism, Alma's East Coast Lady act, Mr Wu's everything.) They have to excercise their agency. (This is where opinion diverges on the second season - the characters' are robbed of their agency a little, and some think this weakens the show.)

I think we're getting back to where we were - you suspect that these characters aren't sufficiently shaped by their world. They don't feel to you like products of it. It's like, to use the genetics metaphor, they've been seeded by some alien race. My point, simply, is that if the characters behave like this, the world has produced them like it. You think you know what that world produces. You don't - Deadwood does.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

They don't feel to you like products of it. It's like, to use the genetics metaphor, they've been seeded by some alien race.

ObBaxter: his talk at the AGM was about the history of his home town. He noted that there was massive urbanisation--like, a seven-fold increase in population--in the five or six years before his birth, that essentially paved over all the history that was there before. He likened it to being the first-generation child of a generation starship crew. :)

You think you know what that world produces. You don't - Deadwood does.

And it doesn't make its argument well enough to convince me.

[immortalradical.livejournal.com]

I was reading some local history book the other day, and in 1900 this rode was nowt but fields. Leik, rlly! So I, too, am the first-generation child of a generation starship crew. I can't tell you how happy this makes me feel. :P

And it doesn't make its argument well enough to convince me.

And my problem is that I still don't know what argument could have convinced you.

[veggiesu.livejournal.com]

Dudes, this road (and all the ones hereabouts) was nowt but fields fifteen years ago. Does that make me some kind of pioneer?

I apologise for the lack of the word "cocksucker" in this post

[immortalradical.livejournal.com]

pioneer

Not a sufficiently SF term. Niall gives you ZERO BAXTER POINTS.

Cocksucker.

[veggiesu.livejournal.com]

Not a sufficiently SF term.

\o/ *preens*

Swegen!! Cock-sucka!!

[danmilburn.livejournal.com]

While I can accept that that might be a useful definition of the term, I'm having trouble with the notion that it's particularly common, cos every reference I can find on the interwebs uses it in the more literal sense.

It also seems to me that you're taking precisely the opposite position here than you do in the debate about whether speculative fiction is a useful term or not. You just said, basically, that all stories worldbuild, but some do so more and differently than others. So why is it not acceptable or useful to acknowledge and label those differences?

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Well, the internet is full of wrongheads, I hear. ;-)

I meant to look at what the SF Encyclopaedia says on the matter last night, but forgot. Dammit.

So why is it not acceptable or useful to acknowledge and label those differences?

I think it's perfectly acceptable, because it's a useful way of looking at how a text does what it does. But I don't think the different strategies of worldbuilding map to different types of fiction. I agree with Dan that you can worldbuild by showing the characters first or showing the world first; I disagree that one strategy is 'sfnal', or that it's meaningful to talk about 'sfnal worldbuilding'. I think both (all) strategies have been used in all kinds of fiction.

[danmilburn.livejournal.com]

I disagree that one strategy is 'sfnal', or that it's meaningful to talk about 'sfnal worldbuilding'. I think both (all) strategies have been used in all kinds of fiction.

Undoubtedly they have. That doesn't change the fact that, by and large, SF focuses on explaining to the audience how it's world works and non-SF focuses on it's characters. That doesn't mean that SF can't do character or that non-SF never has to explain it's world, but that difference in approach and emphasis seems to me a reasonably good way of distinguishing the two.