![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kate_nepveuI had a lovely time at Readercon this weekend! And I had already scheduled tomorrow as a day off so that I can try to actually get all of my panel notes out while they are fresh, rather than run out of steam after I go back to work and leave them languishing forever.
The first report is for
Fantasies of Political Inagency
Lois McMaster Bujold famously proposed that many speculative fiction works are "fantasies of political agency." What about fantasies of political inagency? In the Hunger Games trilogy, Katniss wants to leave both the Games and the revolution; in two of Mo Xiang Tong Xiu's influential Chinese webnovels, the happy ending is addressing immediate injustices and then withdrawing from wider society. Might fantasies of political inagency counter the more imperialist tendencies of speculative fiction? Can Anglophone audiences find such stories satisfying?
Amal El-Mohtar, Charlie Allison (moderator), Rebecca Fraimow, Sophia Babai
I admit up-front that this is an idea I submitted and a description I wrote, because it was an idea that occurred to me that I couldn't take any further; and it exceeded my wildest expectations. I knew Amal and Rebecca are great, of course, and Sophia was just as enthusiastically intelligent as they are. I knew I was going to be lucky enough to be on panels with all three later and so it was a great way to start the con. (Charlie was also a very good moderator!)
Charlie: start: set stage by covering imperialist tendencies of SFF and its infinite horizon: examples, things to look out for Rebecca: baked into founding texts of genre. SF, constant expansion, destiny of finding new planet that will be our homeworld; fantasy, putting right ruler in place Sophia: tendency, especially in fantasy, to play up the Great Man theory of history, which is very rarely true. to degree this is built into Western storytelling, usually telling about 1, 2, maybe 6 people if feeling really spicy. idea that one person, usually through violence or magic, can change face of entire society. don't think can divorce from imperialism Amal: something from Tumblr: when people talk about time travel to past, worry about radically changing present by doing something small, but rarely talk about radically changing future by doing something small today. something activists talk about a lot, small actions scaling. in terms of fiction, not sure if it's necessarily imperialist stance Sophia: no, individual people changing world in Western fantasy tends to contain imperialist ideas because people aren't thinking of way that broader culture stems from imperialist roots Amal: think very natural to want to fix the world and fantasize about it. this is where I ask, have you read The Saint of Bright Doors by Vajra Chandrasekera Sophia: when was asked to be on this panel, said would probably just talk about it Amal: 100% my favorite book read last year, I needed it so badly when I read it, made excited about what fantasy can do, which is something need periodically as a critic. without spoilers, book that makes so much room for different kinds of approaches to changing a society or addressing injustice, none of which are inherently glamorous. premise is bunch of Chosen Ones having a therapy session over how suck at it (gift link to Amal's review at NYT) Sophia: yes, probably favorite book ever read, read 6 times and like it more every time, usually after 3 times start liking a little less. one thing really appreciated: protagonist has very little agency, which is different from power, because of enormity of what's happening, but trying is still really important. every time decides has to stop trying, either problem finds him or decides can't live with himself. so often fantasy is that we can do it, but here it's not whether succeed or fail, are you willing to keep going, do you feel it's important to keep going Rebecca: it's specifically political fantasy re: revolutionary change, but protagonist is not leader of revolution, is relatively small part of something no-one can see entirety of, even those spearheading change. much more realistic portrayal of how can get involved in changing society. maybe here last year, panel about revolutions in fiction, can you write a satisfying novel where revolution doesn't conclude, maybe just shows the middle; consensus was that it would be really difficult to do satisfyingly, which was surprising because felt like what was wanted to see Amal: think question of satisfaction is interesting one, goes to shapes of narrative. wonder if part of project of putting forward fantasy of political INagency = finding way to make dissatisfaction desirable, leave story on note of unscratched itch, needing to move from this shape to a different one. going back and forth on whether think fits, Hadestown: obsessed with it. it is a tragedy. English class way of looking at tragedy as catharsis Becca: but maybe it won't be next time! Sophia, Amal: yes! Amal: literally come out and tell you it's a tragedy, then make you forget that, then while you're sobbing, Hermes looks at you, says, why do we tell tragedies? connect that a lot to inagency, need to do the thing even if it's not going to accomplish what you want: so that failing doesn't crush you. so tying that to satisfaction Sophia: successfully brought up both of my favorite pieces of media, so thank you. Hadestown: one of amazing things, whole crux is that Hades and Persephone are unhappy in their relationship which is destroying entire world because weather. Orpheus essentially powerless, can't even finish the song. Hades all the power, miserably lonely. Orpheus loses woman he loves over course of trying to change the world. Sophia con't: Great Man, more colonialist than imperialist, power of one-ness. any story where don't win or maybe winning isn't issue, is rooted in community. in present day, things that keep going are community and art, which is what Hadestown is about, which is also achievable for most people Rebecca: one of things that makes Hadestown so satisfying is the circularity, now we're going to tell it again. what about when happy ending when protagonist walks away: now you get to take a break. (Hunger Games trilogy, TGCF/Heaven Official's Blessing per panel description.) honestly often find that less satisfying that the tragedy that continues, if it were me I'd want to stop, but sometimes disappointment to me to watch characters do, don't think is a good impulse but what feels. is building a community of two enough? Amal: I think I wrote a book about that. I'm saying that in a genuine ... I never thought of This Is How You Lose the Time War in that context. feel like slightly insufferable to go on about panel: but it is relevant Amal: arc of two people refusing to fight a war that is entrenched, permanent, literally reality defining, trying to find new way of being that involves connection and relinquishing great deal of power to be on the run forever. that's where it ends! I as a writer was satisfied by it. Amal con't: Hadestown: way ending is staged, look for this: reset stage to beginning but with small costuming changes: Hades slightly different costume, Orpheus has a flower already; things we saw happen have had an effect. something has carried forward. seed of possibility that you can carry out of theater Charlie: Deathless, Valente, about how stories replicate themselves, Koschei the Deathless. someone explains to the protagonist: to become a demon, is to wear a groove in reality just through repetition. something to this about talking about everyday changes, radical change not sexy, not top-down power, really appropriate to moving away from traditional stories and institutions Charlie con't: re: Hunger Games: is this because we only see from Katniss' POV? Sophia: read a MDZS fic that was beat-by-beat retelling of Time War, then couldn't read Time War; also have not read Hunger Games; understanding is that walking away in both of those was the action. Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas, choosing to walk away from complicity. find more dissatisfying: Les Miserables, nothing works but this one rich couple get to run off and be happy Rebecca: often has a lot to do with the system being walked away from. In Time War, don't think reader thinks, they should keep fighting that war! then there's, we failed to fix unjust system, not going to keep trying Amal: Omelas, remarkable staying power, people wanting to engage with it in literature. first Le Guin read when very small, love that can keep coming back to it and really get it, again and again. where is your certainty, in walking away from or where going? last line's ambiguity: leaving, or has to be something better and they are going to find it? (there was in fact a panel about responses to Omelas later in the con that sadly we were scheduled against) The Day Before the Revolution, different Le Guin story; prequel to The Dispossessed, story of woman who wrote all these philosophical books about ways to change the world, which have been having effect but it's a lifelong process. leave it there, without spoiling or sobbing, very short, should all read it and talk about it on the internet and make the world a better place. tremendous to encounter as companion to Omelas. audience questions: how deal with prequels and constraint of how knowing where end up, that kind of inagency, for example, Max Gladstone's Craft sequence, prequel means that revolution can't go too far in any particular book Amal: amazing question, think so many layers to answering. creative layer, challenge in small-c craft to making prequel justify own existence. bad example is every Tolkien movie & TV show other than Lord of the Rings. good version: Day Before the Revolution. also interesting philosophical question, how much determinism want to put into your world, do you want to destabilize the work you wrote first Rebecca: don't necessary say good, but interesting: Clone Wars, really interesting that prequel to a prequel, lot of moments Anakin does something that looks like standard great man protagonist thing ... tinged by valence that know ends in becoming Darth Vader. reframes lot of more classic heroic beats. dramatic irony, makes look at differently because know prequel Sophia: Rogue One: know that all going to die but that mission will succeed in way that will change face of everything, tragedy for characters and success for greater cause, usually prequel is other way around, because plot usually dealt with in the earlier-written work. such an interesting story, able to linger in characters way that big action movies don't usually Amal: Going Rogue podcast, unbearably charming, brilliant researcher; personally thinks movie has many fascinating failures, podcast explains brilliantly. Andor, prequel to Rogue One, what it is accomplishing = creating breadth and depth that (live action) Star Wars didn't have, stakes and granularity in world where supposed to experience explosion of planet as comprehensible, which you can't, the films don't make room for that. Rebecca: talking about Star Wars: prequels, side stories, all let broaden scope when have narrow palette me: Les Mis is about failed revolution because it's Hugo trying to convince readers to have another revolution, it's propaganda; any works that think similarly work (or not) in that way? Sophia: Rakesfall also by Vajra Chandrasekera; brilliant and totally structurally different from Bright Doors; amazing, made angry about all over again about its subject (Sri Lankan civil war) even though knew it because it killed my family (Edit: per Sophia on Bluesky: "Quick correction: the Sri Lankan Civil War did not kill my family — I’m no longer sure what I did say I was angry about though, due to post-con brain-dead") (I apologized to them after the panel for assuming they didn't know Les Mis the book rather than just the musical/movie) audience question: what about violence resulting from inagency, things that happened in second and third books because Katniss refused to act Amal: framing of violence: if you are the protagonist, for example the Doctor, there is never an impasse, looks like you have to do a violent thing or another violent thing will happen, but you don't, because you're the Doctor and you're magic and you just get to opt out forever and tut-tut at anyone who didn't. violence always framed as a failure and can't exist in tandem with ethics, just can't. literature's imagination broadly often fails to conceive of that. fascinating and frustrating, love to see that challenged. Bright Doors challenges in really interesting ways, protagonist refuses to engage in violence, refusal sort of tenderly honored by people finding other ways to enact violence in course of resistance Rebecca: Westmark trilogy, putting rightful heir on throne at end of book 1 and revolution nevertheless needs to happen because problems are not fixable by Great Man theory. one of only things think has that, would love to see more that deal with longer arc of problems Sophia: somatic therapist, work pretty heavily with refugees: violence is the inherent result of political inagency (though not only reason for violence by long shot), whether against someone else or themselves, just a truism, what fight or flight is. as someone who cares very strongly about peace, frustration about discussions: lot of deeply traumatized people, trying to jump right to peace when violence still in their bodies. which does not mean more violence is answer but needs to be addressed panel notes
If I missed something, mischaracterized something, or left something too cryptic, please let me know!
+1 (thumbs-up, I see you, etc.)?
