Worldcon 2019 panel notes: Thursday
Aug. 28th, 2019 11:58 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
schneefinkPart one of my panel notes, of various length.
Crime and punishment in the age of superheroes
Superhero TV shows repeatedly borrow the structures and tropes of cop shows, with many superheroes being ‘Cowboy Cops’ –operating according to the Rule of Cool with a sketchy adherence to notions of due process and civil rights. Can these hybrid narratives really acknowledge the ways in which real law enforcement is tangled up with race, class, and so on, and what do they reveal about attitudes to contemporary policing?
Panelists: Chris M. Barkley(M), Rachel Coleman, Dan Moren, Aliette de Bodard
This was a great panel (and I think the one I have the most notes for, great place to start.) All the panelists were good, but I especially appreciated Aliette de Bodard, who e.g. more than once reminded the panel that there are other laws in non-US countries.
The panel started with Chris Barkley (CB) stating that in our world, superheroes' secret identities wouldn't last 15 minutes; the only reason why people don't find out in their worlds must be because they're not very imaginative. Facial recognition software would also make things difficult: "hey, why did Facebook tag Clark Kent on my picture of Superman?" Superheroes would be hunted, and some states (e.g. France) outlaw wearing face masks, and you need to be able to present an ID and confirm your identity at any time. "Officer, he says he's a bat…" Generally, there are no vigilantes in the US (apart from Phoenix Jones), and the police doesn't like others doing their jobs for them.
Superheroes play into ideas of exceptionalism, escapism, wish-fulfilment of holding bad people accountable (especially since 2016…) But they can also be very savage. Rachel Coleman (RC) recalls that she loved to see Venom eat people when she watched the movie, and only later considered that his actions were maybe a bit extreme.
Then the question was what Peter Parker would be prosecuted for if he was arrested after stopping the rhino. Different states/countries have different laws about self-defense.
About rehabilitation for supervillains: Sportsmaster could be hired by a hockey team, Catwoman could do community service, Poison Ivy park service, Loki work as a political consultant…
Someone mentioned that the MCU has somewhat dealt with these questions, e.g. in "Daredevil" and "Civil War." Dan Moren (DM) said that he loved the Civil War storyline and both sides had good points: you need accountability but also the ability to react when needed. Aliette de Bodard (AdB) pointed out the similarities to hegemonial power structures and that "Black Panther" mentioned some of it. All the panelists were unhappy with practical aspects of the Accords: this is not how the UN works, and where is the oversight?, etc. DM said that we all enjoy "sticking it to the man," which can be problematic.
Then someone asked about how in "The Flash" the heroes put a supervillain into a tiny solitary cell, and the discussion turned to law enforcement. What should be done if current law enforcement is not enough to deal with supervillains? Due process could still be followed, they could be given a lawyer etc. The treatment of mental illnesses is also a problem; Arkham is mentioned and how there's both a fascination for 18th century asylums and that it can be difficult to change established canon later on.
How could supervillains be securely imprisoned without it becoming inhumane? Someone suggests putting them on the moon. RC recalls the plastic prison for Magneto; AdB would start with "a way that is not torture." DM: It's a quick leap from "powered" to "not human", which is very dangerous, especially since the existing prison system is already bad at humane treatment. Psychiatrists for supervillains would need danger pay. AdB says villains would be arrested not on suspicion but deeds, e.g. they killed people (which seems quite optimistic to me…) Hard to say if these people could be reintroduced to society, but writers often set it up as unsolveable from the beginning. AdB mentions the "Earthsea" books where people have to deal with the darkness within them. CB would consider Peter Parker less of a danger than Bruce Wayne.
Someone from the audience rec's the book "Superheroes and the Law." DM recalls that in "Arrow" there was a storyline where vigilantes were deputized, but it didn't work very well. AdB would prefer people with superpowers to do other stuff, e.g. help with construction, or provide clean energy.
If superheroes decided that they'd rather make the law instead of obey it, they could conquer the US. There's a Justice League story like that: power corrupts. "The rules don't apply to you" is always a bad start; separation of powers exist for a reason.
The panel is asked what they'd do if they had superpowers. RC would love to remove certain people from power. DM would rescue kittens.
There's a question I didn't quite get about air control. AdB has strong feelings about superheroes not filing flight plans. (There could be reserved flight corridors like for flight planes, but that would endanger secret identities.)
A public defender in the audience points out that "vigilante" is not a legal term, just a term used by the police, and that not all interference is illegal, e.g. citizen's arrests, and wearing masks is only illegal when planning to commit a felony. AdB is quick to point out that laws differ a lot by country, e.g. jaywalking is not a crime in Ireland.
Someone asks about using telepathy to brainwash supervillains into being good, and the panelists immediately worry about the huge consent issues.
There's a question about superhero narratives being used to justify actions against vulnerable people, and the panel agrees. Being arrested often becomes synonymous for losing rights. AdB hates the phrase "killing innocent people" – it doesn't matter if someone was innocent or not, they're still dead, and who has the right to decide anyway? This is especially a problem with marginalized groups. RC says that putting faith in single people is generally not helpful and we need systems to address systemic issues.
Someone says that the plastic prison necessary to imprison Magneto humanely is expensive, how to justify the expense? The money for the prison system exists, it would just need to be reallocated and priorities re-assessed.
How to build an evil empire
So you want to build an Evil Empire? Using examples from film and literature, our panel of evil geniuses will help you avoid the pitfalls of previous empires with handy hints and tips, such as: don’t build an exhaust port that can set off a chain reaction leading to the reactor, which will destroy your brand new Death Star.
Lee Harris(M), Diane Duane, Verity Allan, Steve Jackson
From the vague panel description I should have expected this one not to be very deep, but it was fun, and Diane Duane was great.
It started with the question of how to define an evil empire (henceforth EE.) For example, the Empire in Star Wars is certainly evil from a leftist perspective, but would most citizens agree? There don't seem to be many rebels so the average subject is apparently not dissatisfied [or too scared to rebel.] Keeping its subjects fed & happy could be a deliberate strategy. (Almost) No EE believes that they are evil; the basic human position is "I am blameless," and it's very rare that people realize "I am the bad guy" and it's often horrifying to them, so they prefer to think along the lines of "look at these planets we run, they don't starve – -ish," and any faults are surely just due to bureaucratic excesses. People are good at finding excuses for themselves. On the other hand, of course the Empire is evil, look at their uniforms. Also, some EE delight in it, e.g. the Daleks.
How to build an EE? You need minions, e.g. evil mailroom guys and project managers. (LH: "This is a recruitment room.") Do the minions need to be evil themselves or just accept the evil? If they accept it they are evil. Though you have to consider what their employment status, severance packet, and job security is like.
An EE needs opposition, ideally another EE because they are predictable and share your goals.
Are there self-aware evil villains? DD mentions a king O??? by David Eddings. SJ mentions the Skylark series and Duke Cain who is evil but honorable. VA mentions the late Master.
Doctor Horrible thinks he wants to be evil, what's the attraction? For one thing, it's easier than shared positive values. "I can do whatever I want today" is very attractive, as is the fantasy about solving problems by shooting one person. It's a slippery slope that starts at "I want them seriously inconvenienced." First, falling over, then, in prison for a long long time…
When would some extra care have avoided catastrophe for an EE? If the Black Riders had been successful in their first attempt against the Fellowship, if Voldemort had monitored his horcruxes, if there had been a better data system in Rogue One – speaking of, why did the rebels even believe that intel? DD: "It's a trap" is a loaded term in that 'verse… Intel goes first, after infrastructure. Forethought isn't very visual, and avoiding things happening is hard to see. We don't see Sauron doing a threat analysis on Mordor with his people.
The definition of an EE depends on the PoV. Same with good empires – how do they differ in resource deployment? Control is always an issue, especially of key information. EE wants to control all information. You also need to be alert to unexpected circumstances – sometimes something turns out to be evil.
What about education? EEs need a minimum level of education for their indoctrination programs to work and people to file forms. Maybe not all people need to be literate. Education is fine as long as people don't become self-aware and start having ideas. But you do need engineers for things like a Death Star and its maintenance.
Voldemort is pretty effectively evil, who else? Orwell is mentioned and also "Shades of Grey" by Jasper Fforde.
Which are the panelists' favorite/best EEs, RL examples allowed? North Korea, Old Assyria, and the British Empire. Important criteria/actions are ruthlessness, hiring evil people, and exploiting resources.
What's the ideal size of an EE? Continued war is a good tool. Fascism always needs a war and needs to be the underdog, so it needs to find or make one. (see e.g. North Korea.)
How much of an EE needs to be evil? You can't have a free press, of course, especially not one that is taken seriously. You need to distribute decision-making in a scalable way, so you need evil managers.
How do you prevent your officers from rebelling, but still have competent underlings? Have a committee structure and/or secrecy. Do you need personal loyalty for an EE?
Is there such a thing as a Good Empire? The United Federation of Planets is mentioned, and Iain Banks' Culture.
How to be an effective EE? Someone mentions a story with an accidentally evil insurance broker.
Does an EE need a population? If someone can do it alone, they probably will, that would be very efficient.
There's a question about Ego in GotG2. Mafia bosses don't think in terms of good or evil, just how good they are at their job.
Is there such a thing as a Neutral Empire? Only if they were very very careful. It'd be easier to be neutral on average.
Favorite fictional Evil Overlords? VA mentions the "Machineries of Empire" series, DD someone by David Eddings again [maybe King Cthoros?], and SJ gives it to Darth Vader on style.
The Evil Overlord List is mentioned as recommended reading.
A portable kind of magic: Why we love books-about-books
Whether it’s a library of every book ever written, a compendium of magical creatures, or a hitchhiker’s guide to the universe, we’ve always loved a good story-about-a-story. What is behind our fascination with books and libraries, and why does it translate so well to SFF? How does the history of book-making connect to our myths and legends, and what shape will our meta-stories take in the future?
Genevieve Cogman(M), A.J. Hackwith, Tasha Suri, Miriam Weinberg
This panel really benefited from the fact that there were actual librarians on the panel; I'd also never really considered the library vs. archive distinction.
To begin with, all panelists agree (unsurprisingly) that libraries are special places.
Is there something special about books in particular, or is it the same for all kinds of recorded media?
MW: Books are special in their tactile nature, and you can also think about all the people who've held and read this particular book before you.
AJH: While everyone has their favorite medium, libraries are places of possibilities and possibilities can come in many forms; ebooks are also special.
TS: There's a certain power to a physical book, books have powerful cultural significance, see e.g. the "Book of Kells." But online spaces don't take that magic away, there are also music libraries, and also e.g. textile libraries. Libraries as portal fantasy that open new worlds.
AH: A library is the most agile institution, from knowledge- to community center.
MW: The magic of a library is also the sense of unimpeded record of when/by whom etc. something was written.
GC: Both physical and electronic books are subject to destruction.
TS: Many famous libraries were destroyed, e.g. Alexandria, Baghdad. Also, a library is not an archive! Libraries get rid of books constantly, they're not everlasting and permanent, everything dies.
AH: Which physical copy do you keep? What do we see as valuable? Libraries as places of justice: attempt to preserve things for history.
MW: actual vs. metaphysical libraries; magic: what is included at that specific time, idea of the compendium, unattainable perfection
GC: Before the card catalogue, there was an index book of books. Should future libraries be libraries or archives?
MW: There's room for both, it's more about how it's engaged with, or how the author engages with it. She mentions Jo Walton's series (including "Just City)
AH: Authors tend to archive-style libraries. She mentions her own book, which features a library of unwritten books in hell that is technically probably also more an archive. She'd like to see it explored more that libraries are more than books, but also a space.
TS: There are different types of libraries and many of them don't often appear in fiction, e.g. more communal spaces. Libraries combine both the idea of a communal space and "precious, don't touch," so are both accessible and not
GC: You can't really damage ebooks – are ebooks more accessible, "just"? What about digitization?
TS: Digital presence also degrades, and because of copyright issues etc. ebooks are often less, not more accessible, and way more expensive for libraries to buy because they need to buy licenses. Digitization has unfortunate implications.
AH: Tech has great possibilities for accessibility, but that's often not considered. "The future is here, just unevenly distributed."
MW: When writing/talking about it, do we acknowledge that our libraries are romanticized?
GC: Her Invisible Library in her books was definitely also wish-fulfillment and wouldn't work as an actual library.
AH: She also wrote about a library in hell because she loved the idea of preserving unwritten stories, stories living on without their writers, and all stories having value.
TS: Throughout history, whether libraries existed or not, people have found ways to share & preserve & disseminate knowledge.
GC: Even in ST:TNG, there's a computer but also bookshelves.
Q: Do we like books about books because they're books about readers, i.e. about people like us?
AH: We always talk about readers when we talk about stories, and share what a story does to us.
MW: It's about ascribed importance. Readers "buy in" to books about books because they too love books, so kinda double-project their own emotions.
Q: There are magically changing books, they are both physical but also adaptable, is that the best of both worlds?
AH: Every story changes depending on the reader and their time in life.
Q: In Germany there are public book closests, bookshelves in buses etc., so libraries moving out into the community
GC: That shows the restricted PoVs of the panel on what is a library
TS: Those aren't really libraries though, those are bookswaps. There's always also a political aspect with libraries because e.g. they give access to computers; funding libraries is also about power. Spaces like these are necessary, the more the better.
GC: There's one culture in the Vorkosigan Saga [Beta Colony] where it's in the constitution that "access to information shall not be abridged."
How to manage finite natural resources
The world has finite natural resources, yet we appear to be consuming them as if they were infinite. Political and economic inertia has led us to expend minimal effort in the effective use of our resources, to the detriment of the environment and our species. Our panel will explore what we can do to manage the resources that we have, and whether we can do so to the benefit of all species on this planet.
Vincent Docherty(M), Sazib Bhuiyan, Nigel Quinlan, Annalee Newitz, Cliona Shakespeare
This panel suffered from a very uneven choice of panelists. Basically, you had one guy (SB) spouting off about the benefits of veganism (and on a very basic level), one guy (NQ) only talking about the eco-village he and his friends built, while the two women talked about more interesting stuff like technological/social/global developments., but it never became a very good conversation. I'll concentrate on the latter two in my notes.
The necessary basic resources are food, water, and energy. What are individual steps we could take? (Become vegan, life in self-sustaining communities), vote. Humans are lazy, so if acting in environmentally conscious ways (e.g. biking) is easier, then people will do so. History shows that many cities were abandoned because of environmental changes. There's no one solution, it depends on local circumstances. But a global approach is needed that not only considers humans but also nature and animals. It's practical to start with city politics because that's a) easier, and b) cities are very important and becoming even more so. (AN mentions a book series about a global community made up of cities but I didn't catch the name or author; and "Bannerless" by Carrie Vaughn, SF focused on sustainable villages.) Starting with small steps is still good.
What will have to happen? Several aspects of culture will have to change, e.g. the fashion industry, from short-lived fashion to clothing that is meant to last longer, and we'll need to consume less. In general we need to step away from the principle of maximizing profit and shift to a more long-term perspective, and share wealth better.
It's also possible that there will be technological solutions. AN is convinced that humanity will survive either way, just possibly without computers. The way to a fossil-fuel-free future is renewable energy: CS is particularly excited about artificial photosynthesis. Not only energy creation but also energy storage need to be considered. Rare metal are also finite resources, but scientists are working on finding ways to replace them. Innovation doesn't have a timeline. In the long-term you need to e.g. move away from cars in general, and figure out e.g. sustainable sewer systems.
Talking animal characters in SFF
Science fiction and fantasy have a long history of anthropomorphic animals in both children’s and adult novels. What is the attraction of talking animals? Can they be seen as a commentary on the human condition? What are the pitfalls and opportunities offered by this anthropomorphism?
Lise Andreasen(M), Robert V. S. Redick, RJ Barker, Virginia, Adrian Tchaikovsky
Another interesting panel that I liked a lot, and it fit together well with a panel on non-human and interspecies communication I went to on Saturday.
Why do we like talking animals? We respond to animals on a deep level because deep in our brains they are a sign of life. Talking is very important, and the idea that animals can share that is powerful. Animals are also basically "aliens on Earth": they are much more complicated than long believed, and it's fascinating to think like "the other." We also often wonder what our pets are thinking and project our own emotions. Animals communicate with each other, and we want to join in. Talking to animals is a mythic staple in many cultures – what secrets could they tell us? Sometimes it's also used for fun, e.g. Gaspode in Discworld.
What about the logistics of animals talking? Some animals don't talk in sounds but e.g. with their bodies, gestures, vibrations, colors etc (see e.g. AT's books); birds don't use their beaks to talk They also only communicate what's important to them. Biologically, when animals talk like humans, either they've mutated or it's magic (e.g. telepathy.) Entering the mind of an animal means accessing a special kind of Otherness. Does it "count" if they only talk to each other? Cats already talk to us, "meow" has different meanings, which is partly learned from/for humans.
What's more interesting, animal-like animals or animals thinking like humans? It's interesting to explore the animal condition, and the human condition through their reaction to them. There's fascinating research about the evolution of dogs. Book rec: "The Companion Species Manifesto." "Watership Down" is basically a book about rabbit-y humans, same with Mr. Beaver. Other books focus more on technologically uplifted animals.
What are pitfalls when writing talking animals? It can be wish-fulfillment. Readers are happy with both more and less anthropomorphic animals, as long as they are done well. There's a huge range from science to magic. Most monsters are based on human&animal combinations. So much of human history&stories are based on/around animals; our minds came from an environment with animals in them. Some of these stories come with stereotypes, e.g. the evil weasel, and trends, there are e.g. not many talking cows. Book rec for "Bête," which has talking agricultural animals.
Are there examples of animals being able to speak multiple languages? Cats, basically (see also Diane Duane's Feline Wizards.) Kipling e.g. has one universal animal language.
When animals are used to depict e.g. imperialism, it makes it easier for people to digest, but there's a danger groups are represented by different animal races.
Stories about animals change depending on how people interact with/encounter these animals, e.g. wolves and bears are seen much more positively now. (Maybe we should be careful about teaching kids to hug bears though…) We also know now that the "alpha wolf" is bullshit, that is a fascinating example of scientific anthropomorphism.
Are there examples of humans learning animal languages? Arthur Dent, Doctor Doolittle, Granny Weatherwax… (RR: "That never occurred to me, because I'm English.")
If you could say one thing to an animal: RR: "To my dog, what would you even do with the squirrel?"
There are stories where only some animals are sentient, the "Peppa Pig goes to the zoo" conundrum, or Donald Duck eating turkey for Christmas. Sometimes this is intentional, a kind of cognitive apartheid, e.g. CS Lewis.
Worldcon in twenty years will see the same panel, but most panelists are animals talking about how to write humans.
And after this I played a game of the TinyD6 game "Guardians," where I played a stuffed bear toy who was also a wizard, and together with other stuffed toys we had to defend a child and defeat evil toys in a store. One of the players had never played an RPG before, and he picked the flying character who was also very impulsive, and he got into character very quickly ^^ It was a lot of fun. The game is very easy, which has advantages but also disadvantages (it was kinda disappointing that I made the same amount of damage when I tazed the monster as when I ran out of charges and just hit it with the tazer.) We also came up with ideas what the monsters could be (gundams!) that the DM said he would use in future sessions. Sorry not sorry, future players.
no subject
Date: 2019-08-28 10:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2019-08-29 03:22 pm (UTC)Thanks for the confirmation.
no subject
Date: 2019-08-29 02:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2019-08-29 03:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2019-08-29 03:48 am (UTC)The David Eddings ‘self-aware’ king is probably Otha, who was the first worshipper of the god Azash and is said to be steeped in perversion and knows that his soul entirely belongs to his (violent and perverted) god.
Not sure who the King 'Cthoros' is...
no subject
Date: 2019-08-29 03:27 pm (UTC)I got King Cthoros from googling: she mentioned him twice and the first time my notes say "Orobro??" and the second time "Goros??" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯