‘Venomous’by Christie Wilcox. Loved every second of this book. (Here’s my review on Goodreads.)
History is tough to read.
Aside from the matter of finding a book that grabs your interest, you’ve got to determine the author’s expertise and biases, and look at the source material—knowing that it will always be complete because nothing survives forever—and in all honesty, I don’t think it’s fair to expect everyone to have the time and expertise to do it.
(Expertise? Yes. Without familiarity with various fields, my best proxy for questioning an assertion is whether or not both written and archeological sources support said assertion. On the occasions when I do read books dealing with eras and locations I’ve studied, I tend to find at least a few quibbles, which to me indicates that nothing should be taken at face value.)
History is tough to read, but that’s where we get our best lessons from.
Acknowledging the issues above, though, science fiction is the next best place to look.
Science fiction is well known for exploring contemporary issues, especially (at least to me) in the ’60s and ’70s. In science fiction we see what authors thought tomorrow would look like, and even when they don’t hit the bullseye there’s a lot to be said about their fears and hopes and how the issues would translate today.
I’m reading John Brunner’s ‘The Shockwave Rider’, written in 1975, and it’s almost insane to me how much of this book is relevant today. Private citizens have willingly handed over most of their data to the government in order for a more convenient lifestyle, which has led to people failing to stay in places as long and a culture that is centered on instant gratification, as well as shocking violence. There’s even a bit about how government officials are generally elected with 40% or less of the vote.
Of course, not all of this has come to pass as described, or will ever, but it’s worth considering that if science fiction in 1975 could be so prescient, what would works written today have to say?
I am October’s featured author at 365Tomorrows!
Pride – What do androids get addicted to?
The Sharing Economy – Your data or your life.
Rare Earth – Risk vs reward. Prompt from a friend: Tarot major arcana ‘The Fool’.
Spring, If There Were Still Seasons – The children are our future.
…but some degree of creative discontent helps.
Right around the time I vanished off the face of this account I switched jobs, and aside from no longer having the time during work to hammer out entire short fiction pieces, I went home every night and found I simply didn’t give a shit. Between martial arts and finally getting to do creative things at work (and, alright, drawing on the side), I was happy. It’s telling that a month away from martial arts is the first time I’ve completed anything new since last year.
In truth, I don’t see a real responsibility to produce content – no one is asking me to, and a million others post every day, many of whom are better than me – so it’s not a big deal. I’m an adult and after a full day of work, I feel pretty damn entitled.
That said, I do post all the time on Goodreads, always happy to friend new people if you do want to stay in touch.
…including but not limited to active disenfranchisement, displacement of indigenous populations, causing a preventable famine, covering up death tolls, etc, you’d think I was insane, delusional, or simply a horribly socially inappropriate, reactionary type of person.
And yet a subgenre has risen up around a culture which systematically, over the course of hundreds of years, helped drive multiple indigenous cultures to the verge of extinction, perpetrated massacres against the natives of various territories, and whose effects have directly contributed to conflicts continuing within those formerly invaded territories to this day. (And, yes, those things above, too.)
I’m talking, of course, about steampunk.
I feel a little bad saying this, because I do enjoy the aesthetic (gears! buttons! flounces!), but it’s not okay.
Rewriting the narrative so that everyone is empowered and the minorities aren’t treated like third-class citizens in their own country is about as useful as whitewashing a rotten wall. Sure, you might be able to sell the house now, but it’s still a shitty, rotten house. You should expose it for what it is, and then tear it down and build a new one.
And this wouldn’t be even close to okay if we were discussing the Nazi regime (I keep wanting to add other genocides here, but the Serbian massacre of 8,000 Muslim men and boys was recently denied status as a genocide, so how many of those other incidents are really known? Armenia, Cambodia, various Latin American regimes, various incidents in the Balkans, Rwanda, Sudan…for a good overview of genocide and the man who helped push the term into the UN’s official lexicon, see ‘A Problem From Hell,’ aka light reading per my AP US teacher.)
So why is it okay to paint over the egregiously mercantilist, self-aggrandizing policies of Victorian Britain, and a society that was both internally and externally repressive?
It seems to me there are two reasons regarding the latter.
a) America doesn’t do a particularly good job of teaching how devastating the impact of colonialism was – after all, this is the country which fought off the British (never mind that the people fighting happened to have helped eradicate the original inhabitants) – and frankly, a lot of the real human impact from that era still isn’t out in the open, because it was underreported by the entities in power during that era. (You could make a case for the fact that native collusion undermines the purely negative impact of colonialism, but I would point out that’s only at the outset, and does nothing to change the fact that the society itself was extremely biased. Rudyard Kipling, anyone?)
Since Americans dominate the English-speaking market, we have to be a major focus of change.
b) The countries in which these events occurred are still, by and large, still marginalized. I mean, the last time I recall a strong discussion of post-colonial impact was when the events of the Rwandan massacre were coming into full light – in, what, 2004, ten years after they had actually happened. (Yes, I’m aware that was Belgium, not Britain.) Anyway, we just don’t have it pushed in our face the way the Holocaust was and is – which isn’t to say there should be less of the Holocaust but rather more of everything else.
And there’s no reason that everyone who was affected by it should move to the Western world and enter Western industries to make a point.
They shouldn’t have to.
It is important to own a legacy.
Trying to reinvent a time period which was certainly not pro-woman or pro-minority is not owning that legacy.
(As far as glossing over the internal repression goes…that seems an attempt, albeit one which also does the disservice of failing to explore how strong women during that time period really found power, to criticize reality.)
If we aren’t willing to take an honest look at an era, then why is that era in the picture at all? I understand taking elements from things that exist – I do it myself; who wouldn’t – but not attempting to grab all the trappings of an oppressive time period and treat them as something wonderful, when that society’s rigid morals and classism influenced those trappings, too. I’m not sure anyone would take seriously a setting which looked exactly like ancient Athens and then try to set it up to have equally empowered citizens who only entered age-appropriate dalliances while still writing homilies to the lovely shape in the sand when a boy sits down and where the wealthy women remained inside the house – and even layers and layers of clothing. (Aristophanes’ ‘Frogs,’ I think, unless it’s ‘Clouds.’)
Social history is not independent of politics. Writers should not treat it as such.
I feel like I should say something to explain where I’ve been, but I don’t really have an explanation, or for that matter excuses. I still managed to read something like 50 books in 2014, I’ve already read 4 books this year—I’m scaling back other stuff so I start paying attention here again properly.
At this rate, I might even finish editing a piece and send it out for publication. O:
1. They don’t matter. NaNo novels aren’t finished products. They’re hideous messes. Yet, it’s a popular activity that many published authors engage in (probably). Why? Because they prove something to you. The social aspect of having a website and hashtag and, well, Interweb just obscure the fact that NaNo is as personal a venture as anything can be. It doesn’t take a village to write fifty thousand words.
2. Remember that “writing” thing? There’s no reason to write nothing until November. If anything, now is a perfect time to figure out your voice and practice with sketches or exercises so you don’t fizzle out and spend the rest of your month whining or looking for prompts on the forums. Plus, speaking from experience, you need a certain amount of detail in mind to reach novel length.
3. Performance anxiety. NaNo is about quantity, not quality. If you get everyone and their mom hyped up about your idea, how easy will you find crapping out the first draft of that story?
4. You need to be excited through November. Okay, maybe you are self absorbed enough (or… fine, have a long enough attention span) to still be excited and fresh on November 29. But for the rest of humanity…. Make yourself anticipate. Rev up the engine, don’t burn half your fuel half a month out.
5. No, seriously. I don’t care. Finished products are where it’s at. If you can’t deliver, don’t make the promise… and it’s not deliverable until it’s done.
Words change meaning all the time — and over time. Language historian Anne Curzan takes a closer look at this phenomenon, and shares some words that used to mean something totally different.
Words change meaning over time in ways that might surprise you. We sometimes notice words changing meaning under our noses (e.g., unique coming to mean “very unusual” rather than “one of a kind”) — and it can be disconcerting. How in the world are we all going to communicate effectively if we allow words to shift in meaning like that?
The good news: History tells us that we’ll be fine. Words have been changing meaning — sometimes radically — as long as there have been words and speakers to speak them. Here is just a small sampling of words you may not have realized didn’t always mean what they mean today.
- Nice: This word used to mean “silly, foolish…
View original post 802 more words