![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kate_nepveuTidying up Tweets while I still remember what they are, which is not a great call given the time and that I have an 8:30 panel to moderate, but is still more efficient than the alternative. Or something.
Description
Questions of justice and injustice very often lie at the core of SF/F stories. As writers, how do we construct societies where these conflicts work well? What worldbuilding tools can we use to portray justice systems and their systemic - and often problematic - consequences in a society? How can we show those consequences in the actions and language of our characters?
M: K. Tempest Bradford. Charlie Jane Anders, Jennifer Marie Brissett, Anaea Lay, Juliette Wade
I missed all the introductions.
Tempest: sometimes justice systems are overt, punishments & laws etc. Not-formal justice systems come from way people in cultures treat each other and treat people from other cultures. Q: in your works, how did you address/begin to approach? Conscious choice, bubbling up?
Juliette: forthcoming work (I think) in Clarkesworld? About very complicated place, rule of law is assumed, can't just assassinate someone by talking to a dude in a bar. But wanted rule of law to be very problematic, 7 caste levels (something I missed). Huge question, wanted to make sure that was addressing it on a large-scale level but also on a group-by-group level, because of way social enforcement acts on people in groups.
Jennifer: remembers as a very feisty 17 year old in history class, had teacher ask them to think about justice in society; I raised hand, asked, how do you have a just society without just people? Still don't see how that's possible. What does justice actually mean? Think about it. Dictionary definition: ability to be just. Fairness etc. are very nebulous terms. When teaches worldbuilding, tells students we all think that we're right in a fight from our own POV. So this is why defining justice is hard, haven't thought about it much, and it evolves. How do we build justice? Maybe it's evolving society, people being more reflexive and (introspective?); mentions South Africa Truth & Reconciliation Commission. Long winded way of saying: I have no idea.
Charlie Jane: trying to think if ever depicted rule of law in work, don't think have, don't believe in it, believe in social pressure, conformity, the powerful doing whatever they want. In college, worked in homeless activism: described laws that are on books solely to give cops cover for gut feelings. That's not the rule of law. In forthcoming novella, country taken over by fascist thugs beating people up on every street corner and sending people off to camps, cops just let them do it. Seemed really plausible. Forthcoming novel, two cities, one of two cities allegedly has rule of law, but both really the same.
Anaea: learned about French Revolution at young & impressionable age. That's traumatizing. I have a deep fear of the French Revolution; forget about the Spanish Inquisition. Fixation on difference between ideal and (actual? missed). Agree with Charlie Jane but opposite takeaway: rule of law important because gives something to fight over, is the reality what we say it ought to be, or is what we're saying also completely bunk? Failure to live up to ideal and having the wrong ideal are different problems, people will disagree which you have. And then you have the French Revolution.
Tempest: no more French Revolutions, only Prince Revolutions.
Tempest q: are your works influenced by own experiences of justice in broken world, or what want to see? also, is conscious, or later look at say, oh look, I did that.
Jennifer: brings to mind, once went to meeting for Pete Hamill, author, reading at Tenement Museum: said liked Irish mob bosses because were alternate system that would serve them (unclear on who, sorry; found blog post that claims to have talk but audio file doesn't load) when proper system wouldn't. Mob bosses would dispense justice (in form of broken legs), loans (with very high interest rates), but would do it. Jamaicans didn't have this system but there is underground system for every immigrant group that are not seen. Book that just finished, kidnapped child, family can't have found through traditional system, turns to underground-y system which can go places and do things. Rule of law is for the people who can be seen. George Zimmerman finally got arrested, black people had to work really hard to achieve, really shocked when actually happened. So there are underground justice systems, and then corruption starts.
Charlie Jane: am very cynical. When talk about systems of justice in my work, want to talk about how to we get to justice, not so much through rule of law but through empathy, understanding, interrogating history. Good worldbuilding about justice is about digging into layers of history and understanding how they arose and continue to reverberate. Also: all about resource allocation, who has & doesn't, how to allocate them more fairly. Part of larger social conversation.
Anaea: official rule of law is kind of meeting minutes for conversation have as a society. Where did laws come from, who wrote them? Very few people write laws for fun. As one of them, let me tell you, it's a lonely hobby. Generally, people are trying to solve a problem (often only a problem to oppressors); so important to know why things arose (heavily paraphrased).
Juliette: thinking about fairness. Have 2 kids, they have definite opinions about it. I don't think that can empirically get to root of the idea of fairness. Some things that can quantify: it is not physically safe for you to do this thing, because even though you have the same amount of desire to do this thing as your brother, he will not be ripped limb from limb the way you would. Going back to Anaea: why is there a law forbidding riding naked on goat-back in center of town? You know why. Re: Charlie Jane about structures of society: can see ways U.S. society influenced by Civil War in lots & lots of ways. Lots of people have desire to create utopias, but utopia for one often dystopia for others. When setting up laws, will always be assumptions, overlooked people. Kelly Robson said GODS, MONSTERS, AND THE LUCKY PEACH is all about economics, and "economics is the physics of worldbuilding." So difficult for people setting up system to see the whole, and even if could, to tackle it. So when setting up justice, going to be setting up injustice.
Tempest: best piece of writing advice ever got, think through where every part of where money comes from. So much tech progress arrested by economic forces. Story: first iPad was obsolete the moment sold, because second iPad was ready to go, but had to sell first gen so as to leave something in reserve. Also story about Steve Jobs holding up (something) because didn't like icon. Both of those--but particularly first--holds back tech availability. For instance: as-seen-on-TV stuff is often assistive tech designed to aid people with disabilities, but can only be made in enough quantities if sell on late-night TV. One of first lessons about worldbuilding, is that authors don't think about these things enough. Justice doesn't just happen, has to be fought for, but don't see that in bad books.
Tempest q: when thinking about how to build in ideas about justice, not how it works but what kind you want to create, what are biggest considerations in deciding whether to do that? And building in "social justice" can be pedantic, how to avoid (I missed a bit of end).
Anaea: deep hate of didactic literature, so 70% of people reading my stuff have no idea what it's about. In short fiction, usually pissed about something and filed off serial numbers. In longer works, usually by time have a complete draft, can see what was trying to do there. Probably not good idea to make me god-emperor of anything, I like creating injustice . . . in fiction. As far as you know. So think about what want people to take away from story, then (build toward, I think).
Charlie Jane: generally super-lazy about worldbuilding, but reach point where characters are trying to do something and can't be frictionless, so have to think about what's in the way. This usually leads to backtracking and then considerable elaboration, (then down the hole of too much worldbuilding and why, to paraphrase), and then comes around to themes and what story means to me. In ALL THE BIRDS, everyone has idea of how to make world better and everyone is wrong.
Jennifer: this is really tough, don't really think consciously about creating just society because I don't live in one. If do think consciously, trying to reflect what see. Short story wrote many years ago, "The Executioner," had just seen documentary AT THE DEATH HOUSE DOOR about clergy person who repeatedly held hand of death row inmates pre-execution, which included various stories about inmates that I did not type to give my fingers a break. Documentary centered around inmate executed & later proved to be innocent. Then story about child in own Mass. neighborhood who was murdered horribly; immediately community push for death penalty; doesn't believe in it, but was tested. Then saw father of murdered child in documentary . . . against death penalty. I was floored that I saw him in this documentary. So I wrote this story, trying to find way to make death penalty fair: everybody has to have skin in the game. Now we are paying people to do it--clergy, warden guard. We get to sit back and pretend. In story, it's like jury duty, anyone can be called to be executioner, and (SFF element) have to physically touch that person to kill them. Was the most fair way I could think of to have death penalty, excruciating to write, because death penalty is wrong. Only way to have justice, because people are flawed, to add that bit of magic. Maybe why falls into their hands as writers of SFF, because only in those realms justice can exist.
Juliette: when trying to talk about justice issues with real people, via the story, without being preachy: depends on how many words have, because likes to create triangulation, different perspectives on same issue, really like everyone to be wrong differently. Like to use multiple POVs, but takes up a lot of space, so if can't, include lots of characters with different perspectives. Recent novella, main character noblewoman w/multiple kids, her caste has declining birthrates & response is not opening caste but oppressing women. Main character doesn't want to have more kids; partner is sympathetic, but different people contribute to her oppression, including her 2 year old kid. Also main character is very bigoted person & ignorant. Her servants of different caste, and a doctor ditto, are characters who don't see problem same way, and she does really horrible things. Important that someone fighting for justice in one way might not be fighting for justice in another way. Might not even notice--or add to--suffering of other.
Jennifer: want to go back to idea that there is no justice. Revised: maybe there is no justice, but ideal is that we try.
Tempest asks panelists for questions for each other.
Charlie Jane: modes of utopia and dystopia, lots of time arguing what's what; terms essentially meaningless, every society makes decisions about how allocate resources, utopia as some kind of hand-waving post-scarcity. Also thinking about Smurfs: in some sense perfect society, no homeless etc., but predicated on this ridiculous division of emotional labor and super homogeneous to boot. Important to interrogate utopian visions and find the Secret Smurf Sauce, the handwaving that goes into it. (much other Smurf-ness that I could not keep up with)
Anaea: going to respond by disagreeing with Charlie Jane by agreeing with everything said: important to know whether you're trying to create utopia or dystopia, if utopia, how did you do that; if dystopia, how did it break, how does it sustain itself. Not meaningful questions for reader, but as writer.
Jennifer: thinking about Le Guin, Omelas, teach that story and then tell students about (what must be, though it didn't sound like) cobalt that's mined by children in horrible conditions and in every one of our electronic devices, are you willing to walk away from them?
Audience questions:
Q: Can panel think of examples of protagonists who break their justice systems?
generally: lots of YA characters, entire subgenres (Hunger Games).
Anaea: every dystopian novel ever.
Jennifer: Killmonger almost.
Juliette: Hermione Granger.
Tempest: but don't break system enough, see the Epilogue for overly-narrow focus not on justice.
Anaea: actually really good example of being realistic instead of good storytelling. Fought the fight, thing made us nervous went away, so joined the Ministry that had been oppressing us. Read seven books wanting everything burned down, but that doesn't happen, except in the French Revolution.
Audience adds: NK Jemisin, Broken Earth, breaks lots of things including justice system.
Q: so are markets affected by desire to see satisfying breakage + fixing?
Charlie Jane: if going to make something the problem of the novel, do have to fix it.
(Anaea: I'm in so much trouble.)
Juliette: don't know, but society I've built is dystopia billed as non-, so hopefully will give me five books to fix it.
Jennifer: thinking Lord of the Rings; a whole world gets destroyed, but no-one thinks about the Orcs. (Anaea: they build socialist collective, reclaim Mordor, have amazing irrigation system.)
Q: examples of double-level, multi-level legal systems?
Anaea: space opera good for that, Kate Elliott's Jaran. Also Dune.
(also Martha Wells' ELEMENT OF FIRE, overlapping systems of court law and land law)
Anaea: also look up Space Linguist Princess. (I have absolutely no idea what this could mean, sorry.)
Q: any series where break system, then gotta spend 3 books fixing it, not just yay broke the end! beyond DS9.
panel: but such good ex!
Anaea: Imperial Radch. Character arc about fallout of starting civil war.
Jennifer: The Girl With All the Gifts, The Boy on the Bridge; world destroyed, rebuilt in second book. (Jennifer, Charlie Jane: and the movie is actually good!) The main character, yeah, she's a zombie. But she's really nice! and by second book, really seem to pull it together and build something fair.
Tempest: heard about this on a podcast, take with grain of salt: group of baboons; resort dumped trash in area; only alpha males ate the trash, got sick from disease, all died right away; females and beta males were, we can do things differently now, and they were better. Going forward, group was matriarchy with respectful males. Great basis for science fiction story. (Here's an NYT article about it.)
Me: this is kind of WHO RUNS THE WORLD/XY, this year's Tiptree winner.
And that was the end!
Description
Questions of justice and injustice very often lie at the core of SF/F stories. As writers, how do we construct societies where these conflicts work well? What worldbuilding tools can we use to portray justice systems and their systemic - and often problematic - consequences in a society? How can we show those consequences in the actions and language of our characters?
M: K. Tempest Bradford. Charlie Jane Anders, Jennifer Marie Brissett, Anaea Lay, Juliette Wade
I missed all the introductions.
Tempest: sometimes justice systems are overt, punishments & laws etc. Not-formal justice systems come from way people in cultures treat each other and treat people from other cultures. Q: in your works, how did you address/begin to approach? Conscious choice, bubbling up?
Juliette: forthcoming work (I think) in Clarkesworld? About very complicated place, rule of law is assumed, can't just assassinate someone by talking to a dude in a bar. But wanted rule of law to be very problematic, 7 caste levels (something I missed). Huge question, wanted to make sure that was addressing it on a large-scale level but also on a group-by-group level, because of way social enforcement acts on people in groups.
Jennifer: remembers as a very feisty 17 year old in history class, had teacher ask them to think about justice in society; I raised hand, asked, how do you have a just society without just people? Still don't see how that's possible. What does justice actually mean? Think about it. Dictionary definition: ability to be just. Fairness etc. are very nebulous terms. When teaches worldbuilding, tells students we all think that we're right in a fight from our own POV. So this is why defining justice is hard, haven't thought about it much, and it evolves. How do we build justice? Maybe it's evolving society, people being more reflexive and (introspective?); mentions South Africa Truth & Reconciliation Commission. Long winded way of saying: I have no idea.
Charlie Jane: trying to think if ever depicted rule of law in work, don't think have, don't believe in it, believe in social pressure, conformity, the powerful doing whatever they want. In college, worked in homeless activism: described laws that are on books solely to give cops cover for gut feelings. That's not the rule of law. In forthcoming novella, country taken over by fascist thugs beating people up on every street corner and sending people off to camps, cops just let them do it. Seemed really plausible. Forthcoming novel, two cities, one of two cities allegedly has rule of law, but both really the same.
Anaea: learned about French Revolution at young & impressionable age. That's traumatizing. I have a deep fear of the French Revolution; forget about the Spanish Inquisition. Fixation on difference between ideal and (actual? missed). Agree with Charlie Jane but opposite takeaway: rule of law important because gives something to fight over, is the reality what we say it ought to be, or is what we're saying also completely bunk? Failure to live up to ideal and having the wrong ideal are different problems, people will disagree which you have. And then you have the French Revolution.
Tempest: no more French Revolutions, only Prince Revolutions.
Tempest q: are your works influenced by own experiences of justice in broken world, or what want to see? also, is conscious, or later look at say, oh look, I did that.
Jennifer: brings to mind, once went to meeting for Pete Hamill, author, reading at Tenement Museum: said liked Irish mob bosses because were alternate system that would serve them (unclear on who, sorry; found blog post that claims to have talk but audio file doesn't load) when proper system wouldn't. Mob bosses would dispense justice (in form of broken legs), loans (with very high interest rates), but would do it. Jamaicans didn't have this system but there is underground system for every immigrant group that are not seen. Book that just finished, kidnapped child, family can't have found through traditional system, turns to underground-y system which can go places and do things. Rule of law is for the people who can be seen. George Zimmerman finally got arrested, black people had to work really hard to achieve, really shocked when actually happened. So there are underground justice systems, and then corruption starts.
Charlie Jane: am very cynical. When talk about systems of justice in my work, want to talk about how to we get to justice, not so much through rule of law but through empathy, understanding, interrogating history. Good worldbuilding about justice is about digging into layers of history and understanding how they arose and continue to reverberate. Also: all about resource allocation, who has & doesn't, how to allocate them more fairly. Part of larger social conversation.
Anaea: official rule of law is kind of meeting minutes for conversation have as a society. Where did laws come from, who wrote them? Very few people write laws for fun. As one of them, let me tell you, it's a lonely hobby. Generally, people are trying to solve a problem (often only a problem to oppressors); so important to know why things arose (heavily paraphrased).
Juliette: thinking about fairness. Have 2 kids, they have definite opinions about it. I don't think that can empirically get to root of the idea of fairness. Some things that can quantify: it is not physically safe for you to do this thing, because even though you have the same amount of desire to do this thing as your brother, he will not be ripped limb from limb the way you would. Going back to Anaea: why is there a law forbidding riding naked on goat-back in center of town? You know why. Re: Charlie Jane about structures of society: can see ways U.S. society influenced by Civil War in lots & lots of ways. Lots of people have desire to create utopias, but utopia for one often dystopia for others. When setting up laws, will always be assumptions, overlooked people. Kelly Robson said GODS, MONSTERS, AND THE LUCKY PEACH is all about economics, and "economics is the physics of worldbuilding." So difficult for people setting up system to see the whole, and even if could, to tackle it. So when setting up justice, going to be setting up injustice.
Tempest: best piece of writing advice ever got, think through where every part of where money comes from. So much tech progress arrested by economic forces. Story: first iPad was obsolete the moment sold, because second iPad was ready to go, but had to sell first gen so as to leave something in reserve. Also story about Steve Jobs holding up (something) because didn't like icon. Both of those--but particularly first--holds back tech availability. For instance: as-seen-on-TV stuff is often assistive tech designed to aid people with disabilities, but can only be made in enough quantities if sell on late-night TV. One of first lessons about worldbuilding, is that authors don't think about these things enough. Justice doesn't just happen, has to be fought for, but don't see that in bad books.
Tempest q: when thinking about how to build in ideas about justice, not how it works but what kind you want to create, what are biggest considerations in deciding whether to do that? And building in "social justice" can be pedantic, how to avoid (I missed a bit of end).
Anaea: deep hate of didactic literature, so 70% of people reading my stuff have no idea what it's about. In short fiction, usually pissed about something and filed off serial numbers. In longer works, usually by time have a complete draft, can see what was trying to do there. Probably not good idea to make me god-emperor of anything, I like creating injustice . . . in fiction. As far as you know. So think about what want people to take away from story, then (build toward, I think).
Charlie Jane: generally super-lazy about worldbuilding, but reach point where characters are trying to do something and can't be frictionless, so have to think about what's in the way. This usually leads to backtracking and then considerable elaboration, (then down the hole of too much worldbuilding and why, to paraphrase), and then comes around to themes and what story means to me. In ALL THE BIRDS, everyone has idea of how to make world better and everyone is wrong.
Jennifer: this is really tough, don't really think consciously about creating just society because I don't live in one. If do think consciously, trying to reflect what see. Short story wrote many years ago, "The Executioner," had just seen documentary AT THE DEATH HOUSE DOOR about clergy person who repeatedly held hand of death row inmates pre-execution, which included various stories about inmates that I did not type to give my fingers a break. Documentary centered around inmate executed & later proved to be innocent. Then story about child in own Mass. neighborhood who was murdered horribly; immediately community push for death penalty; doesn't believe in it, but was tested. Then saw father of murdered child in documentary . . . against death penalty. I was floored that I saw him in this documentary. So I wrote this story, trying to find way to make death penalty fair: everybody has to have skin in the game. Now we are paying people to do it--clergy, warden guard. We get to sit back and pretend. In story, it's like jury duty, anyone can be called to be executioner, and (SFF element) have to physically touch that person to kill them. Was the most fair way I could think of to have death penalty, excruciating to write, because death penalty is wrong. Only way to have justice, because people are flawed, to add that bit of magic. Maybe why falls into their hands as writers of SFF, because only in those realms justice can exist.
Juliette: when trying to talk about justice issues with real people, via the story, without being preachy: depends on how many words have, because likes to create triangulation, different perspectives on same issue, really like everyone to be wrong differently. Like to use multiple POVs, but takes up a lot of space, so if can't, include lots of characters with different perspectives. Recent novella, main character noblewoman w/multiple kids, her caste has declining birthrates & response is not opening caste but oppressing women. Main character doesn't want to have more kids; partner is sympathetic, but different people contribute to her oppression, including her 2 year old kid. Also main character is very bigoted person & ignorant. Her servants of different caste, and a doctor ditto, are characters who don't see problem same way, and she does really horrible things. Important that someone fighting for justice in one way might not be fighting for justice in another way. Might not even notice--or add to--suffering of other.
Jennifer: want to go back to idea that there is no justice. Revised: maybe there is no justice, but ideal is that we try.
Tempest asks panelists for questions for each other.
Charlie Jane: modes of utopia and dystopia, lots of time arguing what's what; terms essentially meaningless, every society makes decisions about how allocate resources, utopia as some kind of hand-waving post-scarcity. Also thinking about Smurfs: in some sense perfect society, no homeless etc., but predicated on this ridiculous division of emotional labor and super homogeneous to boot. Important to interrogate utopian visions and find the Secret Smurf Sauce, the handwaving that goes into it. (much other Smurf-ness that I could not keep up with)
Anaea: going to respond by disagreeing with Charlie Jane by agreeing with everything said: important to know whether you're trying to create utopia or dystopia, if utopia, how did you do that; if dystopia, how did it break, how does it sustain itself. Not meaningful questions for reader, but as writer.
Jennifer: thinking about Le Guin, Omelas, teach that story and then tell students about (what must be, though it didn't sound like) cobalt that's mined by children in horrible conditions and in every one of our electronic devices, are you willing to walk away from them?
Audience questions:
Q: Can panel think of examples of protagonists who break their justice systems?
generally: lots of YA characters, entire subgenres (Hunger Games).
Anaea: every dystopian novel ever.
Jennifer: Killmonger almost.
Juliette: Hermione Granger.
Tempest: but don't break system enough, see the Epilogue for overly-narrow focus not on justice.
Anaea: actually really good example of being realistic instead of good storytelling. Fought the fight, thing made us nervous went away, so joined the Ministry that had been oppressing us. Read seven books wanting everything burned down, but that doesn't happen, except in the French Revolution.
Audience adds: NK Jemisin, Broken Earth, breaks lots of things including justice system.
Q: so are markets affected by desire to see satisfying breakage + fixing?
Charlie Jane: if going to make something the problem of the novel, do have to fix it.
(Anaea: I'm in so much trouble.)
Juliette: don't know, but society I've built is dystopia billed as non-, so hopefully will give me five books to fix it.
Jennifer: thinking Lord of the Rings; a whole world gets destroyed, but no-one thinks about the Orcs. (Anaea: they build socialist collective, reclaim Mordor, have amazing irrigation system.)
Q: examples of double-level, multi-level legal systems?
Anaea: space opera good for that, Kate Elliott's Jaran. Also Dune.
(also Martha Wells' ELEMENT OF FIRE, overlapping systems of court law and land law)
Anaea: also look up Space Linguist Princess. (I have absolutely no idea what this could mean, sorry.)
Q: any series where break system, then gotta spend 3 books fixing it, not just yay broke the end! beyond DS9.
panel: but such good ex!
Anaea: Imperial Radch. Character arc about fallout of starting civil war.
Jennifer: The Girl With All the Gifts, The Boy on the Bridge; world destroyed, rebuilt in second book. (Jennifer, Charlie Jane: and the movie is actually good!) The main character, yeah, she's a zombie. But she's really nice! and by second book, really seem to pull it together and build something fair.
Tempest: heard about this on a podcast, take with grain of salt: group of baboons; resort dumped trash in area; only alpha males ate the trash, got sick from disease, all died right away; females and beta males were, we can do things differently now, and they were better. Going forward, group was matriarchy with respectful males. Great basis for science fiction story. (Here's an NYT article about it.)
Me: this is kind of WHO RUNS THE WORLD/XY, this year's Tiptree winner.
And that was the end!
