About Me

My photo
Author of queer, wry sci fi/fantasy books.
Showing posts with label literature. Show all posts
Showing posts with label literature. Show all posts

Sunday, 25 November 2018

Bad, Broken, and a Seed of Hope: How Dark Speculative Fiction Works

After I'd spoken to a client yesterday, I found myself binge-watching (and listening) to a number of short video essays about Greek and Roman history, and a bit of Egyptian history, on Youtube. The purpose was to help research and enhance our Dungeons and Dragons campaign's storyline and setting - which I should probably write about at some point - but it yielded a most unexpected fruit.

Last night, I found myself lost in a very enjoyable dream with a cohesive and interesting plot; as soon as I woke up, I did as I sometimes do after such a dream, and took notes as best I could, in hopes of capturing the story. But the story's setting was decidedly post-apocalyptic - not Greco-Roman in the least, at least not on the surface.

How did the one result from another? Well, I do have a developmental and line-edit of a post-apocalyptic book on the queue right now - a third installment in the superb and bold (and inclusive!) Eupocalypse series by Peri Worrell. (Other platforms to snag books can be found on a drop-down menu on the book's GoodReads page, so I'm including those henceforth.) Dealing with a potential future in which all plastics and petroleum products suddenly break down, the series is an enjoyable, elegantly written, and ultimately hopeful story about a tremendous, world-shattering catastrophe - as well as a cautionary tale about our reliance on plastics and petroleum products.

In my free time, I have been working through The Odyssey at a pace slightly slower than continental drift, but I recently read Emily St. Mandel's Station Eleven, and I'm currently reading Koko Takes a Holiday by Kieran Shea, a trashy but incisive work of dystopian cyberpunk (which may, admittedly, be a redundant phrase, as cyberpunk is seldom cheerful).

Now - how does all this fit together?


Well, here's the key - civilizations on Earth have gone through phases of development, growth and expansion, internal struggle, and ultimately, either collapse or transition. It happened for the august and remarkable Egyptians; it happened for the Greeks, and it happened to the Romans. Yet all of those peoples persist to this day, and while their populations have changed or interacted with invading or arriving forces, their cultures, ultimately, are not dead.

We have the benefit of thousands of years of history as a mirror, and perhaps it is unsurprising that we cannot but ask if we are participating in the same patterns. The answer is "probably yes, somehow" - but the conclusion is decidedly hopeful nonetheless.

The way we run through potential scenarios and hypothetical risks (not unlike the brain while we sleep at night, busily creating its illustrative dreams from scraps of our experiences) is through storytelling and fiction.

Surprise! I'm a writer, not just an editor 


As long-time readers may know, and as newer readers may not be aware, I myself write primarily in two genres - dystopian fiction and post-apocalyptic fiction, both of which fall into the broader categories of science fiction and speculative fiction in general.

Where speculative fiction broadly encompasses all fiction a) including at least one element changing the setting or reality from our own and b) subsequently asking, "What if?", its subset science fiction accomplishes these aims primarily by taking inspiration from biology, climatology and the earth sciences, technology, astronomy, psychology, and medicine. Magical, non-Earthly, or transhuman elements may also sneak in there. Fantasy does so by pulling both from history and (arguably) from non-scientific or trans-scientific ideas, usually based on magic (which is about going beyond the boundaries and limits of science).

But how do dystopias and post-apocalyptic fiction actually work? How do we define them exactly? A fair bit of digital ink has been expended on this topic, but I think it comes down to two very specific iterations of the question.

The question is, "What if everything changed?" In the case of a dystopian book, the question is, "What if everything got worse?" In the case of apocalyptic fiction, it's "What if everything broke?", and in the case of post-apocalyptic fiction, it's, "What do we do after everything breaks down?"

How these questions are answered, and how they change in specific instances - for the much maligned YA romances set in post-apoc or dystopian worlds, the question is, "How do we love after everything breaks/when the worst possible thing happens?"

But the more I thought about dystopian and post-apoc stories in broad strokes, the more I came to a conclusion that surprised me: dystopian books, even the famously grim 1984 by George Orwell, always posit that change is possible. So in a sense, what the two genres have in common  - apart from literally meaning "bad world" and being about "a broken world" respectively - is that they both aim to answer, "and now, what do we do next?"




"It's not for you to know, but for you to weep and wonder, when the death of your civilization precedes you."

To cope with the loss of one's civilization is an almost unimaginable task, but that is what these types of fiction set out to do - and in the process, to ask, "How will we rebuild, and what will we create?"

And from that, as grim as it may seem, we can look to history and feel a sense of hope. As much as Percy Shelly wrote about Ramses in "Ozymandias" as a king's statue broken and abandoned in the desert, we still know and speak his name to this day. We know he was an exceptional and fecund king who brought peace to the Nile kingdoms and built great and beautiful monuments that have outlasted even Time itself. And we are learning more each year about our ancestors. So as much as the Egyptian civilization - which lasted five thousand years and was so old that Cleopatra lived closer to the discovery of flight and space flight than to the building of the pyramids - has fallen to ruin and dust and the sands of time, it's also fine. 

We remember. We speak the names of the fallen. And as Terry Pratchett, author of the magnificent Discworld series put it,

“Do you not know that a man is not dead while his name is still spoken?”
Even if the worst possible things happen, these dark and dire settings are about what we remember, and ultimately, what we rebuild. Post-apocalyptic and dystopian books aren't about the end of the world - they're about a disruption in civilizations and our worlds, and how we carry on and return to greatness.

***
Michelle Browne is a sci fi/fantasy writer. She lives in Lethbridge, AB with her partners-in-crime and their cat. Her days revolve around freelance editing, knitting, jewelry, and nightmares, as well as social justice issues. She is currently working on the next books in her series, other people's manuscripts, and drinking as much tea as humanly possible.

Find her all over the internet: 
The mailing list * 
Amazon * Medium * Twitter * Instagram * Facebook * Tumblr * OG Blog



Thursday, 13 November 2014

Frost and Other Stories

Now available on Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Apple iBooks, Smashwords, and Kobo eBooks






Containing a handful of short stories and the novelette 'Frost', this holiday anthology brings together stories about the dark side of the season. This blackly humorous and chilling collection explores aspects of the holidays you won't read about in Chicken Soup for the Soul. Get your whiskey; it's going to be a long night.

Friday, 10 February 2012

Why I Love Sci Fi: Part 1

Mass Effect 3 is coming out soon! I was going to cover this in fangirl squeeing, but then my brain kicked in, and I started to think about why I like it so much. Given that train of thought, I'd really like to talk about what makes for an excellent and well-developed universe, because sci fi game series exemplify it really well--and better, I think, than fantasy universes can. I realise that's a thorny topic, that people will disagree, and etcetera, but let me share my perspective.

I've enjoyed science fiction since I was a kid, and the reason for that has a lot more complexity than just the appeal of a certain kind of badass character and his shiny ship. I like aliens as much as the next person, of course. The ability to mix science and magic--something that is less common in a lot of fantasy writing, though that's changed around the fringes of the genre--is closer to the heart of why I love sci fi. Above all else though, it's the human conflicts and personal issues that get a chance to be more richly developed in this genre than any other.
I would argue that unlike fantasy--again, this is a generalization, and not true of some especially excellent authors, such as Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman--sci fi is less bound by conventional moral rules and human historical trends. It's harder than I'd like to find mainstream fantasy that isn't either a flavour variation of traditional D&D sword and sorcery, or some sort of awkwardly construed urban fantasy oriented around creatures like vampires, werewolves, angels, and fae. Things in the cross-genre area tend to be different, so for the sake of comparison, we'll stick to the settings and story types that the vast majority of the section is constructed from. Sometimes this stuff can be great. Who doesn't love a well-done fairy tale? Holly Black comes to mind. An epic yarn about heroic tales and castles and dragons is always a pleasure, but generally, with fantasy, you're a bit more rooted in old human prejudices and perspectives. And, I hate to say it, but the quality of writing, from a literary perspective, tends to be higher in sci fi than in fantasy. (That's a debatable point, though, and I'll be saving my infamous literary style analyses for another post.) Still, I find that sci fi tends to be about challenging preconceived notions and ideas about humanity and 'where we're at' more often than fantasy. Fantasy often focuses on the human story--not necessarily offering new morals or insights, and more often confirming what we already know.

Now, I've made my argument for sci fi as having a more open mind about than fantasy. Alternate life forms, societal forms, robots and other synthetic or semisynthetic creatures are fair play in sci fi; sometimes, human beings aren't even included as a species. The organic-based life forms tend to be more varied in shape; insects, mammals, amphibians, plants, reptiles, and semi-humanoids are all fair game for starring roles, whereas fantasy tends to stick to dragons, humanoids, and the odd monster or shapeshifter. Although quite a few universes--Star Trek is infamous for this--often fall through on delivering a diversified culture or well-rounded villains for protagonists to explore, there are lots of exceptions to this. Even when there is only one race working against/with humanity, they often get a good exploration, complete with ethical dilemmas--Larry Niven's Kzin series is a fine example of this. Stranger in a Strange Land by Heinlein is also an excellent example, with its careful and rich exploration of Martian culture, physiology, and thoughts. However, even when sci fi is set on Earth, and confined there, instead of allowing for 'kicks on a space ship',  there is plenty of variation. Even within the dystopian subgenre, everything from the satirical world of the Fallout series to the bizarre techno-nightmares of Phillip Dick and William Gibson is fair play. Sometimes, as in short stories in Asimov magazine, the world settings are well-developed enough that dystopia/utopia/realism/post-modern societal construction patterns don't even apply. Oh, sure, there is a certain human perspective that is hard to escape, but the world is bigger, and there are things you can do with aliens--especially in terms of environmental and physiological differences--that make for more different mind states than an all-humanoid cast can develop. The single-culture and interspecies racism thing is an issue in both genres, and can sometimes crop up as poorly done or artificial in both; it's not a sin of fantasy alone. Still, again, sci fi tends to explore more than just ancestral grudges leading to present-day conflict, something that even the finest fantasy series often fall prey to.

Hopefully that will give some grounds for my argument that sci fi settings are just better than fantasy settings. More flexibility leads to more creative possibilities and fewer limits. Changing up moral standards and settings, and greater variety in the same general flavours (i.e., long journeys, hostile and friendly races with lots of quirks, challenges that involve a greater scope than the hero's usual world, etcetera) means that you can do more because there are fewer things you aren't allowed to do. And that allows writers to be more relevant and challenging. The best universes and stories leave you with questions about your own to take home with you once you shut off your TV or close your book.

The finest work, of course, involves both genres blending, but exploring the ways that can be implemented would need a blog of its own. (You can count on some posts on that soon, though!) However, because this posting could go on almost infintely, I'll leave you with a teaser about subjects to be explored in future.  Magic vs. science, what it takes to make a universe believable, and some unabashed fangirl squeeing as a do a post-release review of both ME 1 and ME 2 in anticipation of ME 3's release. Excited yet?

Reading List: Here is a handy summary of the authors and series referenced in this post. Most of these authors have multiple titles published, and the series have multiple installments and episodes.

Authors:
Asimov (Magazine)
Holly Black: Tithe
Phillip Dick: Through a Scanner Darkly, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? 
Neil Gaiman: American Gods, Neverwhere 
William Gibson: Neuromancer
Robert Heinlein: Stranger in a Strange Land
Larry Niven: Kzin 
Terry Pratchett: Discworld


Series: 
Star Trek: 'Voyager' (a personal favorite)
Star Wars: 4, 5, 6 and extended universe

Games:
Fallout: 1, 2, 3, Tactics, New Vegas
Mass Effect 1, 2, & 3
Google+