here is a concept that I’m still trying to flesh out: medieval science fiction.
not, of course, aliens land during the middle ages, though I’ve read and enjoyed that, but something much more difficult to execute, if it’s possible at all: space opera (exempli gratia) as written by Bede or Gildas or Geoffrey of Monmouth.
The challenge is, of course, that you have to get into the medieval mind (ok, I know that talking about “the” medieval mind is fallacious) and figure out what they’d keep from their world and what they’d think to change – what is the analogue to ‘50s writers giving us faster than light travel & radioactive planets & psionics and still having gender and family politics that are identical to ‘50s middle class American politics? I have a feeling it’s the Church – it’s true that there are several books with Space Popes, but it tends to be a rebirth of the Papacy. I doubt a medieval science fiction writer would have the Church decline or even guess at the Reformation.
Also, sci-fi tech tends to be, both aesthetically and functionally, an extension of tech the society it’s from already has – does a medieval space ship look like a siege tower? How do they envision the instant communication I’m sure they’d have to have as working? Would it be through magic (which is often the case in modern sci-fi)?
And what would the spirit of it be? I would argue that, while you can’t really generalize over an entire field, and there is certainly some bleak sci-fi, the general tenor of American sci-fi is hopeful & enamored of the human spirit. Is the point of medieval space travel to find God*? Will leaving Earth leave behind Original Sin? Are we going to convert the Martians?
DO they need instant communication? I mean, even star wars still has people carrying thumb drives around. There could be a pigeon analogue – sleek little machines flitting between the stars carrying messages, or perhaps creatures already native to the higher spheres suited to the task. Venusian swallowtails, mercurial spirits.
I’d love to see the heavenly spheres as a setting for this all on its own, too. What’s the first moment a traveler hears the music like?
I could see a lot of it through the lens of knights on impossible quests – why not ascend the sky? Knights riding on bright steeds of golden fire known as comets. Knights finding allegorical realms on the various planets, like the Kingdom of Love from Capellanus’ Treatise on The Arts of Courtly Love, but set in the golden mountains of Venus, and you could have a Kingdom of War and a Kingdom of Wit and a Kingdom of Time on Mercury and Mars and Saturn. Prester John could be from Jupiter!
I’m not sure about the ways I would expect medieval scifi to be subversive, but I might look at Marie de France for ideas, she plays a lot with expectation and obligation and the implications of gender in her Lais, in very clever ways.
medievals didn’t have the concept of vacuum, let alone know that space doesn’t have air. everything is open ships and space sails. gravity isn’t oriented to the planet, there’s a universal ‘down’. engines are driven by people or animals or wind or water, not burning fuel; your space chariot is pulled by cloud horses or sun lions.
other planets are not other earths, they’re allegorical locations populated by allegorical creatures. angels, demons, dreamers, cannibals, a planet of all women and a planet of all men – but not for 1950′s bikini shenanigans, more as a parable about how the sexes can’t get along without each other because men’s work and women’s work are both necessary. no concept that men could do women’s work and vice-versa, or at least do it competently. the men on the men’s planet would like, grow children in their fields, but wean them on burnt bread soaked in beer because they’re terrible at milking cows and kneading dough, or something like that.
there’s a Renaissance thing, Orlando Furioso, in which the knight Astolfo gets to the moon in Elijah’s burning chariot. (He goes to the moon because everything that has been lost on Earth can be found there, including Orlando’s sanity, because of course.)
I think I’d argue that theological allegory, like the Divine Comedy or the Vision of Piers Plowman, pretty much is medieval science fiction: speculations and warnings and encouragement, based on what is known-or-believed-to-be-known. As I understand it, the general opinion of medieval European scholars was that theology was THE most important thing to know about; studying the Creator more fervently than the creation was considered pretty much the same degree of Obviously Sensible as, say, studying birds doing bird things and being birds instead of just looking at empty nests and eggshells would be to us, like, why study mere side-effects when you can study The Entire Truth And Cause Of Everything? So I would argue that theology is the medieval version of twentieth century rocket science and atomic physics as The Coolest Thing To Know About, and thus spec fic based on it is the equivalent of science fiction.
You guys might enjoy a book I remember reading ages ago…Richard Garfinkle’s Celestial Matters. I honestly can’t remember whether I liked it or not, but it’s basically “What if ancient astronomy was totally legit? Okay, adventure time.”
And, going in the opposite direction, for a modern example of someone writing in the style of a medieval travelogue but as if it were true science, check out Umberto Eco’s Baudolino. If you love history and sly wit, Eco’s your man.
I’m drawing a blank at how many people in Medieval Europe knew the Earth was round, and coming up with the possibility of a Universe shaped like an hourglass of sorts, with Earth as the flat plane through the smallest point in the middle, and the Infinite Heavens above and the equally-infinite Infernal Hell below, with “space travel” in two parts: man flying up to the realms of angels and heavenly spheres below the gates of Heaven, and man flying down to the realms of demons and diabolical spheres and, eventually, the gates of Hell.
These spheres would be I suppose something like the Death Star: round castles without an internal center of gravity, composed of layers on which people (or other entities) live and work. There would be spheres ruled by particular angels and demons, saints and noteworthy sinners, whose populace, society, and behavior are all based on that particular entity’s attributes.
The heavenly realms would have a lot of abundance and flying around on angels’ wings, and the infernal realms would have a lot of torture and riding on chariots of fire, and there would probably be a lot of stories focusing on what happens when a person from one side is displaced to the other, sometimes with them settling into (or succumbing to) their new environment, other times reshaping it into something more like themselves (an angel gets taken to hell, takes control of a sphere, and it rises into Heaven, full of rejoicing former-sinners filled with the Love of God, or a demon is brought to a celestial sphere by someone who wants to show off their power, and the demon carefully subverts the whole population and they rejoice as their sphere sinks down into Hell), and other times escaping back to their own place, or just travelling—perhaps there are Captain Jack Sparrow style characters that simply wander through and cause chaos through their “corkscrew in a world of straight lines” breezing through rules not meant to apply to them.
Dammit I want to write like six books’ worth of this now.
Tag: interesting
For the record:
How do you know you can trust a creature/machine who’s main attributed ability is to get into your head and relay information directly? And not just their specific paladins: Blue sends that image of Voltron’s complete form to all of them.
Equally worrying, they can do so without it being an obvious hallucination. After all, Shiro didn’t know that they’d never left the hangar in Space Mall. The information felt completely natural and from his own perceptions. Experiences are the way in which humans, at least, develop their opinions and reactions, and those are highly tied to emotions.
Kinda puts a new spin on the fact that not one paladin or member of the team has ever found the lion’s abilities more than passingly odd, huh? Even though it came from the same place that corrupted Zarkon and Honerva. Even though they’ve seen monsters form out of that energy. Even though it made Honerva deathly ill.
Not one person has ever gone ‘maybe this stuff isn’t safe to be around’.
Or, if they have, they don’t remember.
Another thing! Why is Dex seen as the violent little ball of fist fighting? I really want to see pacifist Dex, who has seen a lot of violence. I really want pacifist Dex who grew up with a brother whos fist’s where always bloody. I really want pacifist Dex, who get’s really angry but can’t throw punches, because his mom already has one son in prison for assault, she does not need another one.
A Dex that has seen what war can do to a man, as his father went to war to help support his family. A Dex that has so much rage, and expresses it through creating computer programs, because that is an art in itself. A Dex that doesn’t ever drop his gloves on the ice, because he can’t afford to lose this scholar ship. A Dex who has seen so many good men go bad because of one punch- because really, all it takes is one punch, and then your throwing another one.
A Dex that can yell and scream and shout, but will never raise a finger to anyone, because he just can’t. A Dex that hates the fact that he can’t but also loves it, because it proves he beat the game. A Dex that will take a beating, but won’t dish it out, and when Nursey asks, “Dear god, Will, why didn’t you fight back?” He doesn’t have a ligament answer. A Dex who once got slapped for being unintentional homophobic (he had a genuine question, he wasn’t taught all these things. I know that this happens, it happened to me.) , and when everyone in the haus was just waiting for him to slap back, he kinda just left.
A Dex that will raise his voice, but never a fist.
On Internet Community Drama
Most of my friends have been on the internet, and I’ve spent many years as part of various internet communities, many of which I have moderated as either part of the mod team or the sole creator.
There’s a pattern that inevitably emerges, something like this:
- Community forms based off of a common interest, personality, value set, etc. We’ll describe “people who strongly share the interest/personality/value” as Opossums: people who like talking to specific people. These people have nothing against anybody, they just only feel a strong sense of community from really specific sorts of people, and tend to actively seek out and form niche or cultivated communities. To them, “friendly and welcoming” community isn’t enough to give them a sense of belonging.
- This community becomes successful and fun
- Community starts attracting
Otters: People who like talking to most people. They can find a way to get along with anybody, they don’t have specific standards that cause them to enjoy someone’s company. They’re mostly ok with whatever sort of community comes their way, as long as it’s friendly and welcoming. These Otters see the Opossum community and happily enter, delighted to find all these fine lovely folk and their interesting subculture.
(e.g., in a christian server, otters would be atheists who want to discuss religion; in a rationality server, it would be members who don’t practice rationality but like talking with rationalists)
- Community grows to have more and more otters, as they invite their friends. Gradually the community grows diluted until some otters start entering who don’t share the opossum goals even a little bit – or even start inviting opossums with rival goals. (e.g., members who actively dislike rationality practices in the rationality server).
- Opossums realize the community culture is not what it used to be and not what they wanted, so they try to moderate. Sometimes a constitution, laws, and removal process, usually involving voting, is formed after way too much discussion about it, and mostly because the mods are too scared to make everybody as angry as they are threatening to be. This just staves off the problem. Alternatively, the mods just outright kick and ban who they don’t like, which leads us to:
- The Otters like each other, and kicking an Otter makes all of the other Otters members really unhappy. There are long debates about whether or not what the (opossum) moderator did was the Right Thing and whether the laws or constitution are working correctly or whether they should split off and form their own chat room
- The new chat room is formed, usually by Otters. Some of the members join both chats, but the majority are split, as the aforementioned debates generated a lot of hostility
- Rinse and repeat
—
One problem is when Otters misinterpret Opossum ideology. It takes a lot of people very unhappy to get Otters to kick people out, and so when they see Opossums doing kicking, they assume all of the Opossums are very unhappy too, and take it personally.
Otters and Opossums tend to get into the “is elitism good” discussion – Otters will generally say things like “I want an inclusive and tolerant environment” and “I don’t want people to have to watch their every step” and “The thought of testing or filtering people for being good enough for admission here makes me really uncomfortable.”
Opossums are on the other side, saying “but you can’t just have a free for all,” or “this community is here for a specific purpose and it’s ok to get rid of people who don’t want it” and “I like having strict admission standards.”
I think at the core of this is Otters interpreting Opossum censorship as something personal, because their standard for feeling a sense of belonging is just ‘human decency’, and it’s difficult for them to empathize with a motivation of exclusion based on other things.
–
I don’t really have a point with this, but I am interested in methods we can take to help preemptively solve this inevitable Otter vs. Opossum clash and the dilution of group members. One idea is to have a periodic ‘chat splitting,’ where every 3-6 months (or when membership hits a certain number) there is a new forum/chatroom made, and people have to choose which group to join. This would help separate the Otters from the Opossums in a way that is inevitable and hopefully creates no hard feelings.
Also, possibly normalizing the social differences between Otters and Opossums and loudly labeling chatrooms by their spectrum on the Otter-Opossum scale. That way, if someone knows they’re stepping foot into an Opossum room, they know that being kicked is more likely, and it’s also probably not personal at all.
There’s also lots of ways to try to filter out Otters from joining in the first place, like tests for entry, interviews, and trial periods.
If you have any more proposed methods for avoiding culture dilution, I’d love to hear them!
This is fascinating. We’ve been having forum drama recently, and honestly, kicking people out was not one of things that would have occurred to me. I guess we did sorta do the “here’s what we’re trying to do” thing, which is sorta like the “Constitution” described, but the idea of trying to “enforce” it strikes me as really weird.
Serial tweetstory: Monsters under the bed
“Dad, there’s a monster under my bed.”
“Yes, I know. That’s why I’ve trained you. Here, your sword.”
“But-“
“Be bold, my girl! Save us all!”“Um,” she said, feeling very silly. “Still there?”
“Yes,” the monsters under the bed hissed.
“I’m moving, to uni. Um. Will you come?”
“Yes.”“Where is he?!”
“Eaten.”
“You ate him?”
“We are monsters under the bed. We are your greatest fear.”
“I don’t fear you.”
“You feared him.”“My son has monsters under his bed.”
“Yes.”
“Can you… chase them away?”
“Let him fight, like you fought us.”
“He can’t.”
“You can teach.”“Monsters,” she whispered, “are you still there?”
“Yes.” A whisper from under her hospital bed.
“I fear death.”
“Join us?”
She slipped away.
The last four posted as a serial chain, but I was thinking of it as a sequel to the first, even if I didn’t reply to that. I posted that too long ago (January 13, 2015) to find in my client, but then I remembered I could find it here on Tumblr.