Wednesday, July 11, 2012

Does worldbuilding have value? Or is it a subcultural "disease"?

This morning I read an article entitled "The disease of geek pride - worldbuilding and cultural appropriation." Frankly, I found the article interesting and yet ultimately unsatisfying. The author flamboyantly criticizes the worldbuilders of the geek culture as people who simply want to create "a bunch of useless made-up trivia" and invest them with special value whose validity is restricted to the geek culture itself. The author does mention that worldbuilding to serve a story idea or thought experiment has value, but resumes criticism when it comes to those worlds they've seen where cultures are "appropriated," i.e. used with less than full knowledge and treated as exotic, etc.

All right, yes, indeed. Some of these points are worth looking at a second time.

Worldbuilding, the author argues, "...is not culture, because it doesn’t contribute anything to any culture at large and generally relevant not even to all of SFF nerds, but to a select group: the specific fandom of a specific author or franchise." I understand this as saying that the cultures of worlds created by geeks don't contribute anything to real world cultures. This is a problem for me. Sure, thousands of worlds may be created that never make any impact on the larger culture of America or the real world as a whole. On the other hand, it's clear from looking at the enormous global popularity of certain worlds, like those of Rowling or Roddenberry or Lucas or Tolkien, that fictional worlds can and do have an influence on the larger culture. Their words get integrated into our language. Words coined by authors can be used by people who no longer even understand the story or the world in which they originated. The stamp of literature, both popular and classic, remains in our imaginations and in our language. The fact that this does not happen with all worlds ever created by anyone is unsurprising. In the world of inventions, or of songwriters, many inventions or songs fly by without notice, but some become so important they leave a lasting mark in the larger culture.

The author further argues that what's important to the worldbuilders they criticize is quantity over quality. Essentially, that a geek worldbuilder is more interested in every single last thought that Tolkien has had on a subject than in the quality of what was created. I've certainly heard people wax lyrical on Tolkien's virtues. I admire the man immensely, myself, because he was treading a path that no one else had, creating a work of art in the form of a language and animating it with culture and story. Sure, we can question his work in various ways, and ask how it might be more well-integrated, or better serve a particular cultural purpose, but essentially it is a work of art, and an extremely innovative one for its time. The question of how someone becomes inspired to create works of art has always interested me, and reading widely of that person's works, even of their notes, seems like something that might give some insight. The possibility that there might be any valuable motivation behind the avid consumption of a worldbuilder's works, thoughts, and notes is not considered by the author of the article.

Then there's the question of quality in the worlds created in this special group of worldbuilders. The author says, "it’s mostly gibberish, in long it’s identikit claptrap put together from a patchwork of sources that are themselves derivative. It’s a derivation of a derivation." The funny thing about this one is, it reminds me of the kind of thing I used to put together when I was first experimenting with worldbuilding. The first secret alphabets I ever used, which were substitution codes for our own alphabet. The first secret languages I created, which were substitution codes for English. And the names, oh, the names I made, all of which had accents on them! I wasn't so big into apostrophes, but I think you take my point: I was a learner. And indeed, I still consider myself a learner. Learners begin with imitation, and work their way up. Sometimes they get farther than others. But when you think about it, everything we ever do or say is derivative. I always thought of academic papers more as chorus performances where I was the conductor, using other people's words like instruments, bringing out some notes and keeping others more quiet, and then putting my own little flourishes on top. There is a process involved, of discovery and pushing further into what can be accomplished in worldbuilding. Still, though, I think it's important to keep thinking of it as an art form, because some people doodle with pencils, and others take pencils and create masterpieces. This doesn't mean that picking up a pencil and doodling (for hours, even!) is an activity to be scorned.

Apparently, though, geek culture itself is scorn-worthy. I wonder about this, honestly. Geek culture does get a lot of criticism from people entirely outside the sf/f area. And I can see the author's point that it makes little sense to claim (apparently stridently) that one's own canon of great works is better than The Great Works that have been recognized by history and by academia. "Better", though, is a very vague word. If it's a question of value within the subculture, of points gained by mention of one thing or another in conversation with a peer, I know I'd prefer to mention a part of the in-group canon rather than something outside. And in response to outsiders telling me that my preferred art form has no value, I don't doubt I'd get a bit defensive. Yes, I'd probably try not to mention works of outside literature that I haven't read as part of my argument, but still.

Cultural myopia is easy to criticize, but really it's the default state. It's hard to "see" one's own culture, to hear one's own accent, without having experienced others first. And since culture comes on multiple nested levels, one can argue that we'll ever entirely escape. This is why Sheila Finch and I have often argued that actual communication with aliens is unlikely to be achievable. The fundamental assumptions that we have about communication are so embedded in our cultures, and in our own world, that we struggle to see outside the bubble. Let me make clear: the outside view is always worth striving for, but it's a case of bubbles within bubbles - and depending on the social context, expressing an in-group membership has far more social value than an external viewpoint.

The author of the article also argues that people should strive for a viewpoint that is not limited by cultural frame. When taking on the question of cultural appropriation, they argue that "the root cause is geek culture, geek pride (and also the white western hegemony, but that is a given): the tendency to latch onto “cool” stuff without delving any further than that." I'll agree here. Delve further. Look for the meta-view, and at the same time, strive for the details. But then the article goes into criticizing authors for not getting their cultures right. Honestly, I'm in two minds about this one. One side says, "If you're not going to get it right, don't do it at all." The other side says, "If you don't do it at all, you're losing an opportunity." Are we going to argue that an author should never try to portray a country that he or she does not know as a native? Will we argue that an author should never try to portray a character who does not belong to his or her own culture (or subulture)? Why, then we'd be pushing people toward an even more culturally myopic form of storytelling than ever. When Paolo Bacigalupi states in an afterword that the culture he's portraying is a futuristic imagining of Thailand rather than Thailand itself, that to me suggests he's doing something like what ethnographic researchers do - which is to say, including in their work some indication of the cultural perspective out of which it came, so that readers can understand clearly what kind of limitations the research might have as a result. I'm not saying that there is no urge to seize on the cool without thinking about what lies beneath, but part of what happens when you include elements of an unfamiliar culture is that you can make people curious to learn more. Yes, the portrayal of the Other is problematic - that's been said by many more people than me. Yes, we should strive for more depth. To my mind, though, if we want those things, we shouldn't heap insults on those people who are taking steps into this arena. Perhaps some are only looking for shiny things, as this author implies. But some are being daring, opening a door into a world that few have yet experienced, giving them an opportunity to ask more should they choose to (and we'd hope they would choose to, but we can't make them). Doing their best to bring something of the real, with respect, into a fictional work, and opening themselves to derision of their artistic creation and efforts.

There is another culture being indirectly referred to here, in fact, and that is the culture being enacted by the writer of the article (and, yes, by this author). That is the culture of internet criticism. I suppose internet criticism is part of the larger culture of criticism (literary, pop cultural, etc.). There is a distinctive stream in criticism - more strongly in internet criticism, I think, but also in criticism as a whole - that glories in the spice of language, and in particular relies on the use of flamboyant language and insult to spice up a rhetorical argument. The author of the article I've cited here is engaging actively in that subculture, and here's an example:

"Prepare to drown in a deluge of mindless praise for Tolkien’s Finnish copypasta, the maps, the letters, the unpublishable writing that gets published anyway because the Tolkien Estate is hungry for cash, the minutiae in the appendices and basically, the verbal vomit of his “legendarium” (and this word will crop up a lot: when you see it, run)."

I think that we've all been done a service when someone engages a valuable question, as this author has. However, I had to fight through a deluge of aspersions such as "mindless," "vomit" and "diarrhea" in order to get to the value there was in the article. And furthermore, the author's advance declarations of not caring if someone "throws a fit" in response call into question their desire for any reasonable engagement with these arguments.

I hope that we can see beyond the subculture, and do better than that.

30 comments:

  1. Sounds like an angry wanker to me. He can use all the shiny words he wants to say it, but reading between the lines probably says a lot more about him than his prose conveys.

    This is basically like saying "If Da Vinci wasn't going to finish the Mona Lisa, why did he even bother?"

    Here's a thought that may not have occurred to him "worldbuilding is as much for the builder as it is for the target audience". I have been worldbuilding for a few years now and I don't game, publish, or otherwise share my stuff. A few friends have seen it because we jabber about creativity and like to banter ideas. But the point is we're doing it JUST TO BE CREATIVE!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your comment, Realmwright. I was actually corrected on my misassignment of gender to the author, and have gone back to correct that. I wrote this post because I felt the underlying argument was one I wanted to engage with in different terms. I appreciate your contribution.

      Delete
  2. I clicked over, but couldn't finish the article you're examining. I could criticize hard-core football fans because football brings nothing to my life (except for free samples in the grocery story around Super Bowl weekend). But just because I don't get it doesn't mean no one else should like it.

    I can think of a dozen arguments against the article -- how studying Quenya taught me linguistics, how fiction led me to read about the real world -- but I'll offer this story instead. Once upon a time I was in charge of a class of nine five-year-olds. One of the little boys hated coming. He was disruptive. His parents were worried. When he was crawling under the chair one day, I asked him what he was doing.

    "I'm being a Caterpie!"

    "Like the Pokemon?" I asked.

    His eyes lit up. He sat in his chair. I spoke his language; I was accepting of his interests. I had less experience than every other adult there, but my hours of playing Pokemon cards was what that kid needed. Even after I left, he loved coming.

    I think there's great power in not writing off other people's interests as trivial. Mocking and bullying does nothing but alienate -- and I can't help but wonder if some of the author's intent was to say "I'm not that type of nerd; don't mistake them for me". I can understand that football's important to some people, even if I don't get it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MK, thanks so much for commenting! I entirely agree with your idea that engagement in the fictional can lead to curiosity about the workings of the real world (and never even require leaving the fictional behind!). That was a great story. Thanks for sharing it.

      Delete
  3. Actually, "Requires Hate" is a she.

    This article did make me angry and my armor is in the shop at the moment.

    I felt b!tchslapped.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the correction, Paul. I've actually eliminated the gender references that slipped through. I think the title of the blog makes clear what kind of social community she is aligning herself with. I think that self-questioning and examination is a vital activity but a lot of the value of that was lost in her chosen style of over-the-top insults.

      Delete
    2. To elaborate, the MO of RH is to attack, and with vitriol. Its a style of engagement that I dislike intensely. And there are good reasons to worldbuild, especially for the pleasure of doing it.

      Cultural Appropriation is one of her hot buttons, and people as far ranging as Liz Williams and Paolo Bacigalupi have come under her fire.

      Remember Racefail! It's her continual MO. I don't deny that she often has valid points, but I feel like nothing I could ever do would meet her standards. Ever.

      Delete
    3. Strangely, while she seems interested in authenticity, there are two counterintuitive effects of insisting on cultural perfection - first, it creates an isolationist model of art where people cannot be inspired by elements of other cultures for fear of getting it wrong, and second, it moves us away from the speculative element of speculative fiction by seeking accountability to real-world details.

      Delete
    4. Juliette, I agree with you--to a certain extent. We most certainly shouldn't be isolationist, and RH is certainly extremist in her views that no outsider can accurately depict a culture far from their own (for a given value of "accurate"). However... I share some of RH's annoyance at the basic mistakes that so many people make when they draw inspiration from a culture not their own. It's people not bothering to get the first names of characters right; taking bits and pieces of languages and sticking them together in sentences that make no sense; depicting badly or disrespectfully religions that are still practised today; propagating harmful stereotypes of foreigners (like the robotic Japanese speaking broken English in Tricia Sullivan's otherwise awesome "Double Vision")...
      I have nothing against people taking stuff from other cultures. It's, however, hard to ignore how badly or insensitively such "inspiration" is often drawn, and I have lost count of the books that either mangled French in their very first pages, or proceeded to depict Paris from the point of view of a tourist who had very clearly never lived in the country (a non-genre case is "The Da Vinci Code", which didn't even bother to check its street locations against Google Maps!). This then becomes problematic when such books are held up as shining examples of how to depict "other cultures", and most of us in said cultures just repress a desire to reach for our flamethrowers...

      Delete
    5. Aliette, you and I have discussed this before, and there is certainly plenty of room for annoyance (I have felt it myself, plenty of times, as you know!). At this point in the development of our awareness, both of cultural difference and of the damage done by colonialism and orientalism, we should be able to strive for better than basic mistakes of language, geography and culture. To me it seems best addressed point by point, work by work - it's distressing to me to see the entire exercise damned because some people are careless and because not everyone can achieve the ideal. Inspiration is different from accuracy, and there are different levels of success in any endeavor. I think it's great that there are people like you out there to urge everyone to set the bar higher for the effective depiction of world cultures and variants thereof. Progress is made through constructive criticism at each step of the way. Of course there's a long way to go. There will also always be a range of performance on any scale. I'd hope that those on the most successful side of the scale continue to get better, and maybe bring along some of those on the less successful side as well.

      Delete
    6. Juliette, I was just "passing by" your web site on another purpose (I'll send you some info via email...) when I happened upon this discussion. Very interesting and personal to me, as you know. I am in the midst of working on some panel possibilities for some anthro and archaeological conferences for next year having to do with cultural appropriation, including by those that believe they are really 'honoring that culture' even when eviscerating it. It is a topic that is a very hot, deep, contentious one in the native american cultural community. Most, I think, would be surprised by the breadth of viewpoints in that community, ranging from adamant opposition to anyone outside the community using (and thereby, in their view, "abusing", since it is not "theirs") cultural content, to those who are not concerned in any way with whatever others 'borrow', with just the hope that they at least acknowledge where it came from. I am somewhere in the middle, but not staying in any fixed point for long. Too often, it depends what I read or heard that day! The swing can be pretty dramatic as there are almost daily discoveries of abuses, while much less frequent instances of respectful uses. As a practical matter, I don't see much point in yelling at people to not use what you don't understand, people will do what they want. I see the point you raised about progress that is fashioned through constructive criticism and agree with it - but grudgingly so. I also feel deeply the pain inflicted on the subject culture during that process. In the case of the CA indigenous culture that I am familiar with, this pain is not inconsequential, and is a continuation of a cultural assault that has been occurring for centuries. For an individual at this point in our recent social history, it may not seem so significant, but in the context of a community that sees it lasting across generations with no end in sight yet, it is very bitter pill to swallow to be told - and agree that it needs to happen - to 'allow' cultural borrowing' to continue so that learning by others can occur. I just wish that the learning would step it up and transition into deeper and more pervasive respect amongst all "borrowers." Hope that ramble made sense . . . Thanks for letting me borrow the soap box for a moment!

      Delete
    7. Gregg, I'm really glad to see you weigh in on this topic. Thank you so much for giving us so much of your insight. I take your point about the pain inflicted in the process of this lengthy struggle, and honestly, I wish I knew of a more effective, quicker and less painful way to bring people into a place where they can be genuinely respectful. My own best suggestion is that if you are ever trying to borrow, try to go directly to a source native to the culture, so that you can understand the factual details most accurately, but also so that you can understand and avoid some of the most injurious easy mistakes. Again, thanks so much for commenting.

      Delete
  4. Someone who criticizes worldbuilding as inherently useless does not understand worldbuilding. It's pointless to argue with someone about a topic he - or in this case, she, whatever - does not understand, because any sort of point you can make will be lost on her.

    Also, did anybody tell that person that blogging doesn't contribute anything to our culture either? I certainly remember a time when we looked down on bloggers (because we weren't allowed to put them out of their misery). Funny how times change, no? :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nils, thanks for your comment. I didn't at all interpret her approach as claiming that worldbuilding was inherently useless. An argument put forward out of complete ignorance has no teeth, whereas I felt this one had enough bite to be engaged with. Because blogging is a public activity, and bloggers and their readers have developed a social community with its own unique value (as you note), I felt it was important for me to engage with the topic even if the original author were to have no interest in what I've said. Thanks again.

      Delete
  5. I find it very telling that people whose cultures are mindlessly used for creating exoticizing and insulting narratives are expected to take the insult gracefully. If not, then the authors are in their right to dismiss criticism. Oh, but RH was rude. Sure, that automagically would make The Windup Girl a showcase of research and care.

    If in reality the book screams 'I don't give a damn about Thailand' from every page, then who was rude in the first place?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. nextfriday, thanks for your comment. I believe I understand something of your position. Certainly, using a setting in an existing world country by name has lots of potential for exciting detail, but is also fraught with cultural dangers of the nature you indicate. A similar problem comes up in alternate history (and I tend to see alternate future as related to alternate history) becaue there also, authors are frequently taken on about accuracy in the original setting. On the other hand, part of the whole point of alternate history is those changes, and the future too is by necessity speculative. As for the question of whether The Windup Girl is a showcase of research and care, I haven't done the necessary research myself to fact-check - my statements about the article I read online have no bearing on that novel's content. As I understand it, when writing a novel, authors often make setting choices that relate integrally to the chosen conflict of the book. As to whether the portrayal was rude, I can only say that Mr. Bacigalupi appears to have been trying to be respectful. I know from my own experiences in other cultures, however, that it is easy to be rude without intending to do so. One's own desire to be respectful can have little bearing on the insult that can be felt by someone else. In any case, I appreciate you sharing your views.

      Delete
    2. You can't be trying to be respective by using every major stereotype that exists.

      It's easy to be rude when your intention is only to appear to be trying. Some people will be able to tell the difference.

      Delete
    3. Well, I admit I'm not an expert on every major stereotype that exists. The Windup Girl is on my TBR pile, and perhaps one day I'll be able to take an analytical look at the cultural language in it, to have a sense of what he's doing in the text.

      Delete
  6. This might be a place to pause and remember Sturgeon's Law (or, more properly, Sturgeon's Revelation):

    "90% of science fiction is (badly done).

    But then, 90% of everything is (badly done)."

    (I think originally Sturgeon used somewhat stronger language than "(badly done)", but I don't want to derail.)

    So the author of the piece is absolutely correct that 90% of worldbuilding and/or cultural appropriation is badly done. But then, 90% of everything in science fiction and fantasy is badly done... from dialog to the physics, biology, and linguistics.

    This is not meant to excuse it, but simply to put it into perspective.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good point, Calvin. I think that's a very important thing to remember. Thanks!

      Delete
  7. Why do you posit that "actual communication with aliens is unlikely to be achievable" ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous, thanks for asking. I've addressed this on the blog before, but essentially, the issue is that our own language is so dependent on both physical and social context, and on basic assumptions about the nature of reality (the existence of objects, for example). We can't guarantee that aliens will share any of that physical or social context, and thus communication is likely to be prohibitively difficult. As a real-world example, I'd offer the question of dolphin communication, which is very complex and which we have been trying to "break" for years. These are creatures who live on our own planet. I suspect that with actual aliens, all bets are off. Fortunately, this doesn't mean that we can't write good stories positing that such communication would be possible!

      Thanks so much for your comment.

      Delete
  8. I wanted to reply directly to the post, but it seems that your javascript is broken, so I can't:

    " I think the title of the blog makes clear what kind of social community she is aligning herself with."

    The title of her blog is actually a quote from Warhammer 40,000. I know that seems odd but she's a fan of Dan Abnett (who isn't?)

    I know she's quite confrontational and all that, and it can be upsetting to think about privilege when you benefit from it, I've gone through that myself. She's so harsh because she's angry, and justifiably so. Even if I don't agree 100% with her, I get something to think about from everything she writes.

    In the end despite the vitriol, I feel that acrackedmoon's article's point really is just "It's not ok to be offensive towards cultures because your Not-Africa isn't really Africa. It's just as offensive."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lugh, thanks for your comment. I entirely understand her point. I've been in many conversations related to this cultural question; I understand my own social position in the grander scheme, both in terms of privilege and lack thereof (relative to different social borderlines). I can't deny that anger is justifiable. The vitriolic style, however, does obscure otherwise solid underlying arguments in a way that I find unfortunate. The question of what kind of art is appropriate vs. insulting is always difficult. The intent of an author or artist is easy to guess, but the accuracy of those guesses is not at all guaranteed. There are a lot of different ways to take inspiration, and none of us can be completely informed about every possible insult we might inadvertently make. Does that mean we should stop making art for fear of stepping on toes? I don't think so. Does it mean we have an obligation to do our best to make our research thorough and meaningful? Absolutely. I don't think there's any call for people to say someone is "too sensitive" if they feel offended, i.e. to deny the validity of their feelings. On the other hand, it's no good reason in my view to shut the artist down or denigrate the entire premise of their art. Thanks very much for joining the discussion.

      Delete
    2. I'm sorry, but criticising a cracked moon because you don't like her vitriol? One hopes that you have heard of Tone Arguments and understand that these are frequently used to shut down or belittle the rightful commentary of people outside the majority -- people of colour, women, etc.

      For your reference:
      http://theangryblackwoman.com/2008/02/12/the-privilege-of-politeness/

      Delete
    3. Very familiar with those, as I believe I mentioned in my previous comment. And I'm not trying to belittle the author, just provide another perspective on her argumentation and invite discussion. Because of my background, I can't help but be struck by the contrast between arguing for cultural understanding by attacking people of another culture. I sincerely hope that many are moved to positive action by her words. And I hope by engaging with them myself to get more people thinking about this important topic.

      Delete
  9. I see. You are starting from the assumption that contact with a sentient race able of interpersonal communication within their own race may lack the desire to work to overcome issues and work toward communication with an alien race possessing similar sentience and communication ability. I find that problematic. Beings which wish to interact will find ways to communicate. Note that those same dolphins do try to communicate, and humans are making obvious efforts to understand them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I make no statements about presence or lack of desire to communicate. I merely am skeptical of our ability to recognize communication as communication when it is based on fundamentally different parameters.

      Delete
    2. Except that you cite examples wherein humans have recognised that there are *different* methods of communication. We obviously are speaking past each other, so I shall end this here.

      Delete
    3. I'm sure our difference of opinion grows out of our different knowledge backgrounds. Thanks for your comments.

      Delete