Watching Creative Brooklynites Squirm

After enduring cancer and infidelity, the family at the center of J. Robert Lennon’s novel, Broken River, leaves their arty life in gentrified Brooklyn for Broken River, a small town in upstate New York, home to a prison and not much else. As if the town’s name is not enough of an omen, the house they choose — where they’re going to repair their fractured family bond — was the site of an unsolved double homicide. There are moments where Lennon gives his characters the chance to change course, but cowardice is as inevitable as the gruesome conclusion. Over e-mail, Lennon and I discussed autobiographical fiction, regret after publication, and writing in the age of Trump. [ed. note — J. Robert Lennon is the Editor-in-Chief of Okey-Panky.]

Adalena Kavanagh: This is a novel about a troubled marriage between a writer and an artist. They’ve just moved to a house that was the site of a tragedy a dozen or so years prior and their pre-teen daughter has a growing obsession with that tragedy. Without giving too much away, in this novel there is an observer figure that hovers over the narration and seems to gain omniscience as it gains consciousness. How and or why did you come up with this conceit? Is it a commentary on third person POV and omniscience?

J. Robert Lennon: The opening chapter of this book is an impromptu riff that I tossed off one bleary morning… I had no idea what it was going to be. It started out as an exercise, an intentional echo of the middle chapter from To the Lighthouse, and it turned almost incidentally into a crime thriller. Anyway, the Observer was just a rhetorical device at first — I was trying out this floating-camera perspective, and then realized it could also serve as an emotional distancing tool during the murders that occur a couple of pages in. Later, when I realized I’d begun to write a novel, I figured I could give the Observer a kind of character arc, which, many drafts later, I expanded and refined with the help of my editor, Ethan Nosowsky. There’s definitely a bit of meta-narrative there; the Observer stands in, variously, for the reader, for the writer, for the unconscious motivations that shape our lives.

Kavanagh: Why would you want to create emotional distance during the murders?

Lennon: I’m not interested in writing horror! I couldn’t see the point of presenting a vivid closeup of rape and murder in the opening pages of a literary novel. The reader should understand that something terrible and traumatic has happened, but they needn’t be compelled to wallow in it. I didn’t want to write that, and I wouldn’t want to read it.

Kavanagh: In your story collection, See You in Paradise, the men are endearing fools, but the father here is drawn in a way that makes him less endearing, perhaps a bit more contemptible. At the very least, one doesn’t get the sense that he’s the hero of his own story. Was that a conscious decision to work against the types of men in your previous work?

Lennon: Not really. At the time, I was feeling guilty about my own shortcomings as a husband and father, and wanted to write about that in an indirect way. As with most of my characters, the result doesn’t resemble me much — I’m not perfect, but I’m by no means the kind of self-absorbed, lumbering cad I’ve created in Karl. He’s not the hero of his own story, but he sure thinks he is.

When my younger son was a toddler, he used to get night terrors that centered on this sinister character called “Daddy Man.” It was a monster version of me — vicious, hairy, bloodthirsty, a werefather! At the time, I read it as an expression of my son’s fear that good and comforting things could turn bad. I mean, he was right, they can, but you don’t tell a three-year-old that. “Yes, excellent observation, evil lurks within us all, now go back to sleep!” Anyway, it was hard not to feel wounded by the whole concept. Were these horrible characteristics things he saw in me, somehow? Things I couldn’t see myself? I think Karl has got a bit of Daddy Man in him; Irina, the daughter, almost lets herself see him this way, and calls him “Ape Dad.”

Kavanagh: Daddy Man! Sounds like a great premise for a comic. In this book the daughter secretly read her mother’s work, and the husband, after having *pretended* to read his wife’s work, finally does, and is surprised how much he likes it. Have your own kids read your work? Do you want them to?

Author J. Robert Lennon

JRL: I think my older son has read my collection of very short stories? I don’t believe either has ready anything else. My older was hanging around the apartment when the box of Broken River-s arrived, though, and I gave him one, so perhaps he’ll give it a spin. I don’t think they’ve read their mother’s work, either. Is that odd? I’ve never asked other writers this question. It’s strange that thousands of strangers might know me in this intimate way that my children do not. I guess I do want them to.

Kavanagh: I recently read somewhere that writers who aren’t from the jack-of-all-trades school (you know the ones — the ones who were part of the rodeo and did various manual labors before picking up the pen) struggle to give their characters work that isn’t writing-adjacent. Do you share that struggle? The father in this book is a sculptor. How did you decide on that profession?

Lennon: I do not share that struggle, I don’t think. The parts of this novel I enjoyed writing the most, in fact, were about a guy who manages a carpet warehouse. Though I tend to keep it out of my author bio, my family comes from working-class roots, and I’ve done a fair amount of manual labor. I feel pretty comfortable writing characters all across the class spectrum.

That said, I’m a book-writin’ Ivy-League college professor now, so I don’t pretend to have any special insight. In this case, I made everybody a creative artist of some kind because I wanted to think about the ways people invent their own realities, the way they narrativize their longings, and lead themselves into catastrophe. Everybody does this, of course, but there was something appealing about taking these creative Brooklynites out of their native environment and watching them squirm in the woods; their creative projects make for fun set pieces about their insecurities and delusions.

“There was something appealing about taking these creative Brooklynites out of their native environment and watching them squirm in the woods; their creative projects make for fun set pieces about their insecurities and delusions.”

As for Karl, his manipulation of glass and steel is an expression of his dumbass masculinity — or at least he believes it is. He likes to think of himself as Hephaestus or something, fashioning art out of the very earth with blades and fire! When what he really is, ultimately, is a guy selling knives on eBay. I’m tempted to think there’s a little bit of Trump in him.

Kavanagh: Was there any real life inspiration for this story and setting? I’m thinking of the house and its past.

Lennon: Yeah, the first house my ex and I bought was the site of a notorious local murder! She’s a writer, too, so this was practically a selling point for us. I hadn’t even been thinking about our old place when I started writing this book, but I’m sure it was somewhere back there, poking at my subconscious.

Kavanagh: I think it says something about you (besides love of a bargain) that you bought a murder house! I can safely say I will never knowingly buy a murder house. Some people don’t believe in coincidences (therapists come to mind) but you did subconsciously write about *a* murder house. I’ve been thinking about how writers and readers approach autobiographical details in fiction. It really shouldn’t matter for the reader at all, and it’s not their business — the text is their business — but it could be interesting for a writer to self-examine if they’re so inclined.

Have you ever been surprised by what a piece of writing revealed to you about yourself?

Lennon: Yeah, that does happen when I look back at old work — it always seems, in retrospect, so transparently of its moment in my life. I do have a treasured narrative about myself that I don’t write autobiography, and when I’m writing, I believe it’s actually true. But even a cursory review of my work reveals that I write about myself incessantly. I think I’ve just internalized the process of depersonalizing experience for the purpose of refining and repurposing it…I have to believe my own propaganda to get the stuff done!

Kavanagh: Have you ever published anything you regret publishing?

Lennon: My old stuff is mildly embarrassing, but for the most part I don’t regret publishing it — it’s just callow juvenilia, nothing to be remorseful about. I do wish I’d done more work on my novel Happyland; a bunch of the characters are lesbian college students, and one of them is Asian, and though they’re all sympathetic and I think earnestly drawn, I’m a lot more sensitive now than I was then to the nuances of writing characters different from me. I’d like to think we all are — the literary world is far from fully woke, but it’s been changed for the better in the past decade by an influx of strong nonwhite, non-straight, non-cis voices.

Also, one time an interviewer asked me if I thought I owed anything to independent bookstores, and I got annoyed at the question, which I found pushy and sanctimonious, and I replied that I didn’t owe anybody anything. I regretted that one instantly — it’s pretty fundamentally false. My career would probably be in the shitter without independent booksellers. The interview’s still out there somewhere on the internet, I’m sure, mocking me.

May I say my Hail Marys now?

Kavanagh: You said: “I’m a lot more sensitive now than I was then to the nuances of writing characters different from me. I’d like to think we all are — the literary world is far from fully woke, but it’s been changed for the better in the past decade by an influx of strong nonwhite, non-straight, non-cis voices.”

How have you consciously or unconsciously changed your approach to writing characters different from you? What resources or people have informed this shift? How might writing difference best be addressed in MFA programs like the one you teach at?

Lennon: You know what — I think the main resource for my own education has been Twitter. Gamergate and Black Lives Matter got me following more African-American and vocally feminist personalities, and I’ve been slowly absorbing the things these writers talk about, and reading the things they link to, and the books they recommend. To be honest, at this stage, I think I’ve become more averse to wading in, especially when it comes to race — I think I’m less likely to try to write nonwhite characters than I once was. I’m starting to understand how little I understand. And, at the moment, writers of color are doing extraordinarily strong work that obviates the need for input from people like me. On the other hand, I’m much more comfortable now talking with people different from me, and I think I know better than I once did what I can and can’t bring to the MFA workshop table, to help students of color. Or at least I’ve learned how to listen better.

I don’t think I’d encourage a white student writer to inhabit characters of color, right now. Obviously, there are no rules; and in my experience, students are usually respectful and tolerant of each other’s forays into unfamiliar territory, and forgiving of mistakes. But…it’s hard for even the most empathetic white writer to avoid the pitfalls of privilege, while trying to write themselves out of it. The important thing, to me, is that all of us write things that are meant to be read by all, that our work invites people into our worlds.

Kavanagh: You have creative interests outside writing (for example I know you’re a musician and have an interest in photography). Do these creative pursuits inform the writing in any way?

Lennon: Perhaps? Mostly, it’s that I always feel restless when I’m not making something, and I get burned out easily on my writing, and then have to shift my drive to other things. Even reading for pleasure is hard for me; I keep wanting to get up and play the guitar or cook some food.

Kavanagh: Earlier you mentioned the crime thriller elements in this novel. Do you have any desire to write a straight crime novel? If so what would the allure and difficulties be?

Lennon: I did write one! It’s called Born Again. It’s a police procedural. I almost sold it, but ultimately it didn’t work out. I sort of want to revise it and self-publish it as a pseudonymous ebook. The allure was that I love police procedurals and read them all the time — their rhythms are close to my heart. But I lack the aptitude for a good puzzle. The plot’s frictionless, that’s the book’s problem.

Kavanagh: Imagine a book tailor-made to capture your interest RIGHT NOW. What is it?

Lennon: A quasi-science-fictional narrative about a psychological conundrum, told in a dry, straightforward style. Maybe I should write it myself!

Kavanagh: How is your writing going these days in light of our new President and the unfolding events? It feels similar to a post-9/11 moment. You either have to write from “before” or write differently. Has it changed how you write?

Lennon: Ben Winters asked me to contribute a short story for Slate’s Trump Story Project, which he was editing, and I’m very glad he did. I ended up doing a cover of Nabokov’s “A Visit to the Museum,” and it felt good to use that story’s dreamlike logic to channel my anxieties about current events. My work since inauguration — only a few months’ worth — has been more hallucinatory, less realistic, than other recent work. Maybe that’s the way forward.

The Trump transition has maybe been less difficult for me than the 9/11 one was — this time, I feel like there’s something I can actually do about it. 9/11 just made me sad. I know it was highly politicized eventually — devastatingly so — but at the time, all I felt was grief and helplessness that were hard to write through.

But Trump? Man, he’s our very id made real. He’s the monster white America created out of all our faults — sexist, bigoted privilege that got bitten by a radioactive spider. Literarily speaking, he feels inevitable — right in my wheelhouse, I’d venture to say. And though there’s nothing good about Trump, his rise has energized all the best people. I’d like to think writers are among them.

From Bieber to Embalming and Back Again

George R. R. Martin Talks about the Game of Thrones Spin-off Shows

HBO is considering multiple “successor shows” to the smash hit Game of Thrones

While fans are still waiting for The Winds of Winter — book six of the A Song of Ice and Fire series — to finally be published, that doesn’t mean author George R. R. Martin isn’t busy. Already this month news has broken that SyFy channel is adapting one of his novellas and that HBO is considering four different Game of Thrones spin-off shows with Martin involved in writing them. Yesterday, Martin took to his LiveJournal to elaborate on the Game of Thrones sequel shows:

It was stated in some of the reports that I am working with two of the four writers. That’s not quite right. I’ve actually been working with all four of the writers. Every one of the four has visited me here in Santa Fe, some of them more than once, and we’ve spent days together discussing their ideas, the history of Westeros and the world beyond, and sundry details found only in The World of Ice & Fire and The Lands of Ice & Fire… when we weren’t drinking margaritas and eating chile rellenos and visiting Meow Wolf. […]

And there’s more. We had four scripts in development when I arrived in LA last week, but by the time I left we had five.

Martin stressed that none of these shows are spin-offs in the sense of “Joey or AfterMASH or even Frazier or Lou Grant, where characters from one show continue on to another.” Instead, the shows will feature different characters and possible entirely different settings than Game of Thrones, while still taking place in the same world. This means we sadly won’t be seeing the continued adventures of Arya and the Hound, or even a prequel show about Robert’s Rebellion. Martin also said adaptations of his prequel Dunk & Egg novellas was not in the works.

What the shows will be about is still a secret, and it’s impossible to know how many (if any) of them will get made. As for fans of the books? Martin had this bolded message:

And yes, before someone asks, I AM STILL WORKING ON WINDS OF WINTER and will continue working on it until it’s done. I will confess, I do wish I could clone myself, or find a way to squeeze more hours into the day, or a way to go without sleep. But this is what it is, so I keep on juggling. WINDS OF WINTER, five successor shows, FIRE AND BLOOD (that’s the GRRMarillion, remember?), four new Wild Cards books, some things I can’t tell you about yet… it’s a good thing I love my work.

Against Worldbuilding

How Do Writers Find Their Voice?

The Blunt Instrument is a monthly advice column for writers. If you need tough advice for a writing problem, send your question to blunt@electricliterature.com.

Dear Blunt Instrument,

What is your best advice for new writers looking to find “their voice”? I was reading Bird by Bird and while it’s an amazing book full of knowledge and great tips — I am still having a tough time finding it. I want to find a happy medium between who I am as a person and my writing voice/style.

Thanks!

Maria Portuondo

Dear Maria,

First, let’s take a minute to establish what I think you mean by your “voice,” which is not exactly equivalent to your writing. Your voice is the style that people would recognize you by — your tone, your syntax, your quirks of vocabulary, your structure and organization, your point of view, where you focus and where you don’t — and, one hopes, the style you want to be recognized by. In other words, your voice as a writer is something you cultivate and protect.

As a new writer, you may be at a stage where you’re producing writing, but you don’t yet feel that your writing is distinctive or recognizable, or, even if it is, you don’t yet feel prideful ownership of, or that you have meaningful control over, whatever your stylistic quirks are. So how do you get to that place where you understand and command your own style?

The easiest answer is that you get there simply by writing

The easiest answer is that you get there simply by writing, and trusting that your voice will emerge through greater experience with the medium, which will lead to greater control. Tennis players (probably?) don’t worry too much about how to “find their serve” or “find their forehand” — even though professional tennis players do have distinctive strokes and playing styles — they just play a whole lot of tennis, almost every day, to get better at the game, and those styles naturally come about. They even do the equivalent of reading when they’re not writing, by watching lots of tennis. Writing is the same! The more you write (and read), the better you’ll get at writing (and reading), and the more you’ll find that you’re developing a style. Even if you don’t recognize it, your readers will.

They’ve found their voice, why haven’t you?

So yeah, you should write more. That said, I can offer a few specific tips that are more directive.

You mentioned that you want to find a medium between who you are “as a person” and your writing voice. My advice: Don’t strive to make your writing voice much different or more special than the way you speak. You’ve been talking for longer than you’ve been writing, and you probably already have an innate “voice.” So start by writing (roughly) the way you talk or, if you prefer, the way you think, when you think in language — but with better grammar, because writing can be edited, and with more structure, because writing can be planned. I always think you can tell when someone’s prose is labored over because they want you to think they’re a stylist — there’s a contrived extra-ness that usually feels like poorly imitated maneuvers you’ve seen used by more famous writers. Don’t try to add style like a top coat! A great bit of writing should come to you like a thought — that’s not to say it’s going to be easy, but that you may need to spend more time thinking to find the thoughts that will shape your voice.

They say “kill your darlings,” but I think darlings are your voice — your favorite parts, the parts you’d admire even if you didn’t write them. Why destroy what you love?

In service of that, be on the watch for moments where you recognize something great in your own writing — a moment where you stop and think, “yes, that’s a great sentence, that’s exactly what I wanted to say, and if an editor wanted to change it, I’d argue with them.” They say “kill your darlings,” but I think darlings are your voice — your favorite parts, the parts you’d admire even if you didn’t write them. Why destroy what you love? If you feel that strongly about something you’ve written, pay attention! That’s a sign that you’re establishing a voice. If people are telling you your darling isn’t working, it may just be that you haven’t found the right setting for your darling, a context that’s worthy of its greatness.

Getting good at recognizing your own moments of greatness will change your life as a writer — you’ll be exponentially better as a self-editor. You’ll be able to tell the difference between a shitty first draft and something you can’t wait to show people. That doesn’t mean your writing won’t need to be edited, but you’ll get better at “editing up” — understanding when to push back on an unnecessary or detrimental edit. You may also run into situations where you just can’t work with an editor, because their edits run too counter to the piece you want to write. Once you know your voice, and you know an editor hates it, you can just decline to work with them, rather than trying to make them happy if it means ruining the piece by your own lights.

If you’re looking for more direction on figuring out your own standards for greatness, check out my answer to another writer’s question: How do you know if your writing is any good?

Best of luck,

The Blunt Instrument

The Blunt Instrument on Dealing with Rejection & the Anxiety of Publishing

Three cats singing by Louis Wain

From Bieber to Embalming and Back Again

According to a DJ on K92, Justin Bieber — a Canadian pop star and heartthrob who’s afraid of elevators and clowns and who once got an F in school but changed it to a B so he wouldn’t get in trouble — is taking a much-needed vacation in Hawaii, where he’ll stay at The Water Falling Estate: a mansion that sits at the edge of a promontory overlooking the Pacific. For $10,000 a night, you too can enjoy the amenities of The Water Falling Estate, which includes a rooftop helipad, a central Daytona 52-inch round pneumatic air-compression elevator that allows access to all floors of the main house, a basketball slash tennis court with stadium style seating for 450 spectators, and a trail leading to a naturally-occurring, three-tiered waterfall. According to Pinnacle List, which markets luxury real estate to affluent buyers and is likely correct in assuming that its potential customers prefer residences that “evoke an unforgettable experience of living life beyond the limits of ordinary luxury expectations,” the Water Falling Estate is available for purchase at the cost of 18.9 million dollars. I know this because — using the World Wide Web — I looked inside of it. Its interior appears to be made of mahogany and marble and looks a little as if it had originally been designed as the World’s Largest Funeral Home. Nothing about the phrase “Service Corporation International” suggests that it is — and it is — the world’s largest funeral home and cemetery conglomerate, which may be the reason it operates under the name “Dignity Memorial.” According to an article titled “Ten Companies that Control the Death Industry,” death in America generates over 15 billion dollars in revenue a year for companies that supply bereaved humans with flowers, stones, plaques, caskets, urns, crypts, and funeral home equipment. Though you may be familiar with the concept of “embalming a corpse,” did you know that the fluids drained from bodies are likely to enter your local public sewage systems? Grief management pioneer Erich Lindemann argued that bereavement can become complicated for those who never had the opportunity to view the body of a dead person they loved; this may have something to do with our country’s longstanding, if highly invasive, insistence on corpse preservation. As effective as modern-day embalming practices are in ensuring that cadavers remain “life-like,” bodies filled with formaldehyde will — like those preserved by ancient Egyptians, who believed souls would return to adequately preserved bodies — eventually deteriorate. The best and most environmentally responsible option for the disposal of dead bodies might involve alkaline hydrosis, during which the deceased is placed into a chamber of water and lye, and heated at a high pressure to 160 degrees — a process that results in green-brown liquid and porous, easily crushable bone fragments. The fluid is then discarded, and the remains pulverized using a Cremulator, a machine invented by a company called DFW Europe, one that separates ferro and non-ferro metals (that is, metals that contain appreciable amounts of iron and those that do not) while automatically filling an urn with the resultant “ash.” The home page of DFW Europe — which, as you might guess, has nothing to do with David Foster Wallace, the bandana-wearing, tobacco-chewing author of intellectually challenging literary fiction, who committed suicide by hanging himself from a patio rafter — features a photo of a series of three cremation furnaces: chunky, symmetrical, stylized blocks that look as if they might’ve been designed by avant-garde German architects; into one of these furnace chambers, an ivory casket appears to be in the process of entering the red-hot mouth of an incinerator. Humans are rarely pictured on DFW’s site, and when they do appear they look friendly and pleasantly engaged, as do the people on the company’s “Training/Course” page, who are wearing all black and enjoying tea while learning about the theory and practice of operating a cremation furnace, during which time the presenters will explore “the question of what is exactly meant by a calamity and how to deal with it responsibly.” I can’t be the only person on earth who hears the word “calamity” and thinks immediately of Calamity Jane, the American frontierswoman whose vices, according to one of her friends, “were the wide-open sins of a wide-open country — the sort that never carried a hurt.” Jane may not have been quite as daring as she claimed, and her exploits likely did not include the shooting of Indians; nonetheless, she made appearances in so-called “dime museums” across the United States. In 1892, Kohl and Middleton’s Globe Dime Museum, in which Calamity Jane was once featured, ran an advertisement in the Chicago Tribune that announced: FIRST TIME ON PUBLIC EXHIBITION, 6 PEOPLE TURNING TO STONE, LIVING PETRIFIED, FAMILY FROM IDAHO, THE GRANDFATHER OF THIS REMARKABLE FAMILY IS A SOLID MAN TURNED TO ROCK, HE HAS NOT BREATHED FOR 20 YEARS, SLUMBERING WITH THE GREAT MAJORITY. This beguiling caption was accompanied by a somewhat primitive cartoon of a group of smiling figures who appeared to be unable to bend their knees or elbows. If “slumbering with the great majority” rings at all familiar to your ears, it may have something to do with a section of a nine-part poem by Edward Young titled “Night-Thoughts,” which includes the following observation: “Life is the desert, life the solitude, death joins us to the great majority.” Such words might prove comforting to those who fear the unknown: everyone who has ever lived has emerged from it; to it everyone will return. Most of us, however, will remain, as ever, somewhat troubled — if not downright afraid — by the thought of our eventual demise, and because we will continue to seek solace where we can find it, we will be grateful when we turn on our radios and hear one of our country’s beloved pop stars crooning his most current hit, a tune that came to him on one of those nights when, after taking a single hit from a water pipe — a lungful of Jack Flash his bodyguard scored at a Denver marijuana dispensary, and which The Cannabist had described as “astounding in every way… flavor, yield and mind-body potency are virtually unparalleled” — the young man swam to the edge of the Water Falling Estate’s 25-meter Olympic-size infinity pool, noted the sound of distant waves crashing on the rocks below and the moonlight glimmering like a thousand knife blades upon the Pacific, said a prayer for all the blessings of his improbable — if admittedly ephemeral — existence, and began — without thinking too much or even at all about where he was going — to sing.

My Name Is Moonbeam McSwine

I, Borne

In early 2016, a twitter account called “Paperback Paradise” went viral by replacing the titles of cheesy paperback books (Nancy Drew, The Hardy Boys, etc.) with hilariously crude substitutes. Some of the cover art includes gems from the 60’s/70’s age of pulp science fiction, which practically begs for parody: Science fiction is always trying to predict the future, the artistic interpretations often become dated faster than books from any other genre. But as comical as theses covers are (my favorite is the one simply entitled, “Run Faster, you Bipedal Bitch”), do these parodies prove that some concepts are just too weird to be good? If your cover art features a vampire taking over a space station, a UFO shooting a pterodactyl in space with a laser, or a Grecian hero riding a giant Cat-man across a Martian landscape, does that mean that the text couldn’t possibly be emotionally complex or a rich exploration of the human condition?

“This novel is a stunning example of science fiction, but more than that, it is the most human book I’ve read in years.”

The answer is no. Just because the concept of a story is bizarre on the surface has no bearing on the quality within, and writers of genre fiction know this best. As proof, I submit to you Jeff VanderMeer’s Borne: A post-apocalyptic story of two scavengers, a shape-shifting tentacle monster, a magician, and a skyscraper-sized flying bear. This novel is a stunning example of science fiction, but more than that, it is the most human book I’ve read in years. This result is counter-intuitive to say the least, but when you lay out the factors that have borne Borne, it is easy to see why. Science Fiction does not have to be a vehicle for simple allegory and metaphor. At its best, sci-fi stories can be touching, profound, and shockingly beautiful, no matter how many eyes a person has.

VanderMeer and his partner, Ann, are without a doubt the de-facto experts of all things sci-fi — in 2016, they co-edited The Big Book of Science Fiction. This incredible tome not only features stories from famous authors, but a well-researched history of the genre and the people who helped create it. Along with an extensive writing career that spans decades, he’s also the author of the critically-acclaimed “Area X Trilogy,” comprised of the books Annihilation, Authority, and Acceptance. Under the title Annihilation, this trilogy is currently being adapted to film.

This considered, Borne has quite a bit to live up to, but don’t let that cloud your judgement before reading it. The fact is that Borne is a spectacular, meticulous, and gorgeous novel — much like the creature Borne itself, it is utterly complex and yet presented in relatable and riveting form. With Borne, VanderMeer capitalizes on his knowledge of biology to create his own mythos, beyond the common tropes of spaceships, laser guns, and talking robots. The world of Borne is one in which wounds are healed by worms inside your body, door locks are created from insects, self-protection comes from hand-held spiders, and you can wind down from a long day by swallowing some alcohol minnows, culled from the few sources of water not contaminated by chemical waste.

The First In Tiller’s Encircling Trilogy Doesn’t Disappoint

Rachel and Wick live in the Balcony Cliffs, an apartment stronghold they’ve created to protect themselves from the danger of a planet ruined by the rampant biotech experiments of the Company. They both have their strengths: Wick is a former scientist who worked with the Company, and has an intimate knowledge of the biotech that can help and harm them. Rachel is an experienced scavenger, able to pull useful food and supplies out from the wreckage of the world and set traps for the dangers that would try to follow her back. Together they have a semblance of a life, a relationship based on need and, after a time, trust.

Wick helps make ends meet by dealing memory beetles to the stricken remainders of the destroyed city, who love nothing more than to stick one in their ears and be flooded with the memories of someone else for a while. Always there is the danger of Mord, a giant bear created by the defunct Company before the world went to hell. He dominates the land and sky, destroying whatever he wishes, and becomes an omnipresent part of life for those who dwell in the city ruins.

Some people take it upon themselves to worship Mord as a god, but others, like Rachel and Wick, simply acknowledge him and grow somewhat accustomed to his presence. Rachel even takes it a step further, becoming comfortable enough to scavenge what she can from the shaggy fur of Mord, knowing where his blind spots are. It is during one of these scavenging missions that she discovers Borne, at that time a small pod tangled up in the hairy mass, an enigma ripe with possibility.

From the beginning, Rachel is protective of the strange pod, asking Wick to not take it apart when she returns. As the thing begins to grow and change, she gives it the name “Borne” taken from something Wick had told her about the creation of his infamous fish project at the Company: “He was born, but I had borne him.” Just listen to one of her initial descriptions of them —

“He had abandoned the sea-anemone shape in favor of resembling a large vase or a squid balanced on a flattened mantel. The aperture at the top had curled out and up on what I chose to interpret as a long neck, sprouting feathery filaments, which almost seemed like an affectation.”

Like a parent might do, Rachel is already assigning personality traits to Borne, even though he is physically the farthest thing from a human child. Soon Borne is able to speak, and after initial fear and skepticism, Rachel is soon teaching Borne everything she knows, about her own life and the world around them. Borne’s speech and curiosity grows exponentially, often resulting in stumbles in context and syntax. These mix-ups range from the humorous — one can just imagine a toddler in Borne’s place when it exclaims “Long mouse!” at a picture of a ferret — to odder things, like Borne claiming it “knows” the lizards it eats.

Wick is much more skeptical of the developing creature, pointing out the sinister things Rachel chooses to ignore, like the fact that it never excretes anything. As a former Company employee, Wick is distrustful of any biotech he doesn’t understand, particularly when the unprompted Borne begins to ask if it is a weapon. Rachel responds with a telling line, “You are a person, but like a person, you can be a weapon, too.” Despite all her affection and projected humanity toward Borne, she simultaneously recognizes that it is still a great unknown, one that seems to be growing (physically and mentally) without a very clear explanation.

Through Borne’s awkward adolescence, Rachel continues the mother-child dynamic, even when things begin to unravel. Borne soon surpasses the phase of “not knowing any better,” becomes evasive about his movements and behavior, and even moves into an apartment of his own. Paranoia rises with Wick, who believes Borne knows more about itself than it is telling, and confrontations erupt that mirror that of typical childhood drama. Borne continually surprises Rachel with his increased diction and emotional capacity, far more than he could have learned from the library at Balcony Cliffs.

“Okay,” Borne said, and his eyes formed a kind of reproachful smile. “I don’t always understand, Rachel. I love you, but I don’t understand.”

Pressures from outside begin to take their toll as well. A new force in the city, simply known as the Magician, is consolidating power and holding leverage over Wick through unknown means. Mord extends his rule over the city through the Mord Proxies, bears which are normal-sized, but incredibly fast and equipped with venomous claws and fangs. Mutated feral children, some equipped with emerald-green wasp eyes and other horrors, become bold and more organized in their attacks. Yet even as things get worse, in regards to Borne and the world around them, Rachel goes against her survivalist instinct and protects Borne from the fears of Wick and the new dangers. She does this because of what Borne has done for her, the light in her life which only an innocent mind could create —

“Borne didn’t know it was all deadly, poisonous, truly disgusting. Maybe it wasn’t, to him. Maybe he could have swum in that river and come out unscathed. Maybe, too, I realized right then in that moment that I’d begun to love him. Because he didn’t see the world like I saw the world.”

Couldn’t any parent, any human being, find even the hardest of hearts softened by this presence of innocence, and the peace that it brings them on a chaotic planet?

This is Science Fiction doing what it does best. VanderMeer has created a narrative familiar and close to the hearts of many — the struggles of parenthood — and enmeshed the reader emotionally in these characters, despite the weirdness of the premise. His master-stroke waits down the line, as he takes this amazing world he has built and manipulates it in gut-wrenching ways.

Borne makes the readers question their own relationships, the reality of trust, and the nature of family in a devastated world. Like a clever biotech creature, VanderMeer has lured you into a trap, one in which you are drawn to with floral, familiar scents and has left you utterly vulnerable. “I prefer the old betrayals, the kind based on trust,” Rachel quips toward the end of the book, within a climactic conclusion that confirms that the fault is truly not in our stars, but in ourselves.

VanderMeer has created an encompassing, original world, filled with concepts that are seemingly alien but disturbingly familiar, like the bizarre creatures of Wayne Barlowe’s Expedition. More importantly, Borne addresses questions we as a species will need to consider when the biological things we create start talking back to us: Things that can learn from us, but must experience life in very different ways. Simply put, Jeff VanderMeer is doing for biotech what Isaac Asimov did for artificial intelligence.

I have no doubt that Borne will be considered a giant of Science Fiction, alongside masterpieces like Dune, the Lilith’s Brood trilogy, and Childhood’s End. I believe that it is the duality of its nature that makes it special — it is fantastic and familiar, silly and mysterious, epic and down-to-earth. What’s more, it does not try to include these things in a haphazard way. The elements of Borne fit together perfectly, a strange little thing filled with wonder and secrecy, hinting at even more complexity just out of sight. Borne will dazzle you with its wonders and horrors, revealing itself as another piece of the puzzle, a reflection on the terror and beauty of being alive.

Jeff VanderMeer & Cory Doctorow Discuss the Future of Sci-Fi & the World

The First In Tiller’s Encircling Trilogy Doesn’t Disappoint

From the first pages, “Encircling” hits that tantalizing pace of a classic whodunit. For every question author Carl Frode Tiller answers, five more are posed, forcing the reader to tear through this Nordic thriller.

It’s partly the precision of the chapter titles: “Saltdalen, July 4th, 2006.” Or how the story oscillates very slightly around small windows of time. Or that the book is broken up into three successive perspectives, each of which is narrated in the first-person and then in a letter addressed to the same mysterious David character, who has lost his memory and needs friends to send their recollections to him in the hopes of his recovery.

The culmination of these skills is a dark narrative and exacting treatment that will have readers squirming from start to finish.

At times the story is intensely self-wrought, with whole paragraphs devoted to a character’s intentions, which are often not their subsequent actions. This inscrutability can make the dialogue feel halting, but also reflects the awkwardness of human interaction with an accuracy that most literature misses.

A Modern Novel for the Modern Condition

The gap between a character’s intent and what they actually communicate is largest with Jon, the first character that Tiller introduces. After being kicked out of his band, melancholy Jon heads back to his home-town of Namos to spend time with his mother. The difference between what Jon says or wants to say and how others perceive him is jarring; the reader sees a sweet thoughtful man who, to his family and friends, appears as a curmudgeon loser.

In addition to acting as an interesting form of exposition, this distance between fact and fiction becomes one of the biggest themes of this dark tale. Aside from the psychological implications, the methodical building on this theme until it crescendos in the final paragraph is tremendous and speaks to Tiller’s foresight as well as talent.

At times the prose drags with the weight this introspection, but moments of clarity are injected with Tiller’s specific descriptions, in in excepts like this —

“[H]e looked exactly as you would expect a laborer to look: big, burly and with a way of talking and acting that spoke of a strange innate blend of arrogance and inferiority complex.”

Next the reader is introduced to Arvid, David’s semi-estranged step-father who is dying alone in the cancer wing of a hospital. Arvid’s melancholy narrative paints a different picture of this absent loved one, remembering him as a lost young boy working to define himself against the stagnancy of small town life.

Although his portion is the shortest, it acts a bridge between David’s two best friends and lovers, who are the other narrators, providing a sounding board.

By the time we arrive at Silje’s tale, David is more of an enigma than ever. This trick is clever: the more we learn about this central character the less we know. Is he a tortured, closeted teenager stuck in a small town? Or a kind young boy who is upset about his mother remarrying? Or a straight Romeo who is saddled with a whiny, gay friend? David simultaneously appears to be whatever the other characters needed from him.

Paired with sinister hints at his dark personality, like his collection of small animal bones or knack for re-invention, David’s looming figure rises like a specter from the pages. His mysterious figure is clearly the heart of this tantalizing series.

The slow unraveling of truths makes every fact suspect to the reader, and this constant questioning of a truth both moves the plot forward and leaves the reader with an overwhelming sense of foreboding.

This gradual, slow and steady tension would be the ultimate tease if this weren’t the first book in a trilogy. And that would be one of the only critiques of the work: that it feels more like an introduction than a work of its own. To be sure, the final twist gave the tale enough heft to stand alone, but it feels thin compared to what seems to be coming down the pike.

And with a little luck and work from Graywolf Press, English readers won’t have to wait too long for the next in this electrifying series. This reviewer is counting down the days.

The Minds of Earth-Bound Astronauts

Spoiler alert: The Wanderers is a space exploration novel that never leaves Earth. That’s not really a spoiler, but the book’s cover art — and comparisons to The Martian — might give you the wrong impression. Luckily, the terrestrial nature of Meg Howrey’s latest novel makes it no less fascinating than fiction set among the stars. In fact, The Wanderers should be required reading for anyone interested in becoming an astronaut.

In the near-future, three astronauts train for the first manned mission to Mars by spending 17 grueling months in the Utah desert, trapped in claustrophobic copies of their space modules. Where The Martian focused on science, The Wanderers explores the human psychology of space travel — not just how it affects astronauts, but the toll it takes on their families as well.

Meg Howrey was a professional ballet dancer at the Joffrey Ballet and the City Ballet of Los Angeles before co-writing City of Dark Magic and City of Lost Dreams with Christina Lynch, under the pen name Magnus Flyte. I recently spoke with Howrey via email about space, Mars, writing from so many distinct points of view, and the future of NASA and private space exploration.

Adam Morgan: Why was it important for you to write about a training mission on earth, instead of an actual mission to Mars?

Meg Howrey: The inspiration for the book’s setting was an experiment I read about: a simulated Mars mission designed to study the physiological and psychological effects of long duration missions in space. At that point, I knew very little about space science so what really stuck me was the simulation aspect. Simulations are troubling and fascinating. Jean Baudrillard has suggested that part of our unease with them comes from the fear that, “Simulation…always leaves open to supposition that, above and beyond its object, law and order themselves might be nothing but simulation.” Along with law and order we might add “love” and “sense of self.” There’s also — in this case — the element of observation, and being tested and evaluated. All of this was territory I wanted to explore.

Morgan: What did your research process entail? Did you approach NASA or any private space companies for help?

Author Meg Howrey

Howrey: I was nervous about what I was doing and half-drowned myself in research for a while. I read. I practiced every form of note taking: the index card, the highlighter, the color-coded binder. I attended a one-week astronomy workshop for writers called Launch Pad, run out of the University of Wyoming. I toured some facilities and went to lectures and symposiums. After reading a lot of astronaut memoirs and interviews, I became too much on the side of the astronaut to want to conduct an interview with one myself, especially as I was decimating the privacy of my fictional astronauts. If I were an astronaut, I would not want to tell me anything either. After I finished the book, I asked two space scientists to vet for errors, and they couldn’t have been kinder or more generous.

Morgan: As a former ballet dancer, what drew you to astronauts? Would you ever volunteer for a trip to space?

Howrey: I thought I was venturing far, far out of my backyard when I started thinking about astronauts, but comparing the two professions is a fun experiment. Let’s see: dedication to precision, ability to withstand endless repetition, the presence of constant scrutiny, necessity of lifelong training, stoicism in the face of physical discomfort, much more time spent rehearsing than performing, permanent damage to the body, early retirement. Ballet dancers aren’t generally risking literal death when they step on stage, but they have a similar prayer: Please don’t let me f — k up. (Or whatever version of that you can print!) I wonder if ballet technique would be helpful for things like space walking, or negotiating different gravities? I volunteer to test this.

Morgan: Did you spend time in Utah to help with the book’s sense of place?

Howrey: The astronauts’ time in Utah is either spent inside their crafts, or, when they’re outside them, under significant virtual enhancement, so I stayed inside the simulation with them and worked mostly from photographs of Mars. I also made a lot of drawings of the interiors of Primitus and Red Dawn. But I wish I had gone to Utah. Also Mauna Loa, where they’ve a Mars analog mission program called HI-SEAS. Oh, and also, Devon Island, in the Canadian Arctic. Let’s add Mars while we’re at it.

Morgan: Writing from multiple perspectives — particularly when the points of view are so diverse — is a tall order. How did you find and maintain so many different voices?

Howrey: More than anything, writing convinces me that free will is an illusion. At a certain point, every character comes to feel inevitable and you don’t feel you are crafting them, it’s more a process of recognition and acknowledgement. For years the people of my book were my constant companions, and I’m still lonely for them. I can see that it’s a risk to divide a narrative seven ways, but it couldn’t have happened any other way. And every time I switched over, I felt such excitement. “Oh, HELEN.” “Oh, Luke, how ARE you?” I act everyone out while I’m writing, including accents and physical gestures. I write at home, so as to not frighten others.

“More than anything, writing convinces me that free will is an illusion.”

Morgan: Based on your research, are you more excited or apprehensive about the future of real-life space exploration in the next 20–30 years?

Howrey: Space science right now is wildly exciting, but given the current political climate, it’s hard not to be apprehensive about all possible futures. One thing to be noted about human missions to Mars, though, is that they’ll almost certainly require an international collaboration. It will have to be “Discovery First.” Scientists and artists tend to be very good at that, so that’s where I allow myself to hope.

Ted Wilson Reviews the World: My TV

★★★★☆ (4 out of 5)

Hello, and welcome to my week-by-week review of the world. Today I am reviewing my TV.

After my traditional TV succumbed to the ravages of time and a mouse, I made a bold decision. Rather than replacing my TV with a fancy flat-screen or one of those tiny portables you see being used in places other than living rooms, I replaced my TV with a mirror. Now every show I watch stars me!

On the surface it may sound like a lot of work to produce entire episodes of television and perform them all in a mirror as my eyes watch. It’s much less passive than the typical TV viewing experience, but there are many upsides.

The most notable advantage to having a mirror for a TV is that I can watch literally any TV show at any time of day. That episode of Family Ties where Tom Hanks plays a pedophile? Yep! That episode of Family Ties where Alex P. Keaton mourns over a dead friend? Yep! That episode of Family Ties where Alex P. Keaton becomes addicted to speed? Yep! Or any episode of Family Matters.

It doesn’t matter if it’s an old show or a contemporary show, a classic episode or an episode that hasn’t aired. Last week I watched all 18 seasons of Game of Thrones. It was hard to act out a lot of the sex scenes alone, but not impossible.

If an actor passes away and the character has to be written out, no it doesn’t. I have complete creative control. Anything I want to have happen can and will. I don’t want to say it’s like being a God because honestly I don’t know what that’s like. It’s more like being Eddie Murphy.

Most of the shows I watch are commercial-free, although I do sometimes act out a commercial as well, for a more authentic experience. Unfortunately no one is paying for these commercials, but I’m certain they have to be worth something.

With pirated content being such a big deal these days, I worry I could be sued by copyright infringement. Please, please do not tell anyone about my amazing TV that gets all the channels and all the shows free of charge. And if you work for a television company, by reading these words you have legally agreed to not sue me.

The only downside to my TV is that every time I pass a mirror, suddenly the TV is on. I wish there was an off switch.

BEST FEATURE: The more TV I watch the better an actor I become.
WORST FEATURE: I was watching an episode of Friends and a man appeared in the window behind me. That was the worst episode of Friends ever.

Please join me next week when I’ll be reviewing spinach.

Late to the Party: Stephen King’s IT

More Thoughts about Worldbuilding and Food

Last month, I wrote an article about how I find the concept of “worldbuilding” to be overrated, which has generated a lot of discussion, some interesting responses, and a fair amount of angry tweets.

Since the article continues to be read and talked about, I want to expand and clarify a few points. If you aren’t interested in some meandering and possibly pedantic thoughts about craft and genre, you might want to click away now. However, if you want to argue with me about dwarves and aliens, let’s dive in!

Although before you do, please read my original essay:

Against Worldbuilding

Chopping Down One Tree in the Forest

Before I get into defending my arguments, the near perfect example of the attitude that baffles me came across my Twitter feed recently. It was RT’d as an essential thread “for worldbuilders” to read. It began:

Now I don’t know Ellis, and I’m not trying to single this tweet storm (or the author) as particularly egregious. I’m quoting them because I find them typical of the attitude that baffles me. You can read the whole thread here. Everything Ellis says is correct, if you assume realism is the goal of these shows and movies. But here’s the rub: there’s not a single remotely realistic thing about something like The 100! That show follows a group of teens sent back to earth after a nuclear war made the planet uninhabitable. Deer are mutated. Normal people die in seconds from the radiation. To pick one example of the absurdity of the show — the 100 teens are said to have “evolved” immunity to the nuclear radiation that instantly kills normal humans (some of whom live in a nuclear shelter and are the primary antagonists of one season)… after three generations! Needless to say, that’s a little quick for evolution.

Indeed, the fact that teenagers are wasteful instead of intelligently saving every scrap might be the single most realistic part of the entire show. Here’s the realistic worldbuilding version of The 100: the teens are sent to earth and all die quickly and painfully. The end.

When we critique a work (and there are plenty of reasons to critique The 100 or Waterworld), we need to do it on the terms of the work itself. Those terms aren’t always realism, scientific accuracy, or historical accuracy.

Against Worldbuilding, Not Against SF/F

Some readers assumed I was a snobby literary fiction author who hates genre fiction. I promise you this isn’t the case. My own story collection has zombies and Lovecraftian monsters. I count Bradbury, Atwood, Delaney, Ballard, Butler, and many other SF/F authors as among my all time favorites, and consider them every bit the match for my favorite so-called “literary” authors.

Here’s the realistic worldbuilding version of The 100: the teens are sent to earth and all die quickly and painfully. The end.

Nor do I think that worldbuilding fiction is inherently bad. There is a place for all kinds of narrative houses in the vast city of fiction! My argument is that worldbuilding is overrated and overused. That a concept that’s useful for certain kinds of fiction (such as epic second world fantasy or role-playing games that require clear rules for gamers to follow) is being inappropriately applied to all fiction genres. That expectations for worldbuilding in all genres have become a problem, causing readers (and critics) to focus on background details while missing the essential aspects of a story and leading to quick dismissals of different fictional modes.

Since I made the mistake of listing some literary counterpoints to worldbuilding, let me pick an unquestionably SF one here: William Gibson discussing game makers who wanted to turn Neuromancer into a board game:

“They set me down and questioned me about the world. They asked me where the food in the Sprawl comes from. I said I don’t know. I don’t even know what they eat. A lot of krill and shit. They looked at each other and said it’s not gameable. That was the end of it.

“The Peripheral is not gameable. It has a very high resolution surface. But it’s not hyperrealistic down into the bones of some imaginary world. I think that would be pointless. It would be like one of those non-existent Borgesian encyclopedias that describe everything about an imaginary place and all of it is self-contradictory.”

And a bit more forcefully, here is SF author M. John Harrison:

“Every moment of a science fiction story must represent the triumph of writing over worldbuilding.

“Worldbuilding is dull. Worldbuilding literalises the urge to invent. Worldbuilding gives an unnecessary permission for acts of writing (indeed, for acts of reading). Worldbuilding numbs the reader’s ability to fulfil their part of the bargain, because it believes that it has to do everything around here if anything is going to get done.

“Above all, worldbuilding is not technically necessary. It is the great clomping foot of nerdism. It is the attempt to exhaustively survey a place that isn’t there. A good writer would never try to do that, even with a place that is there.”

Do we need more terms for imagined worlds?

In my essay, I made a distinction between the common concept of worldbuilding (the idea that worlds should have clear rules the reader can understand, that authors should work out the realistic workings of their world beyond the scope of the story, and the idea that more details = better fiction) and what I called worldconjuring (evoking a world through thematic and resonant details without being overly concerned with whether the world could truly exist).

One common critique of the essay argued that worldconjuring was just a type of worldbuilding, a minimalist version that didn’t need its own term. It’s a fair argument. I’m not planning to write a non-fiction book on worldconjuring, and the term isn’t a hill I’m trying to die on.

That said, different terms are often necessary for things that exist on a spectrum. What’s the difference between a pebble, a rock, and a boulder? The size cutoff between those terms is largely arbitrary, and yet it’s still useful to distinguish a pebble from a boulder. So too, I think, is it useful to distinguish creating a world through thematically resonant details and expecting the reader to fill in the gaps, and trying to flesh out a “real” version of a fake world that explores how changes to the world would “really” affect it. This is more than semantics. From a creative point of view, I believe it affects how one writes.

What’s the difference between a pebble, a rock, and a boulder? The size cutoff between those terms is largely arbitrary, and yet it’s still useful to distinguish a pebble from a boulder.

Think of William Gibson again. Many SF readers, myself included, would consider the Sprawl trilogy to have one of the most memorable SF worlds… and yet, as he says above, Gibson rejects the idea of a hyperrealistic, fleshed-out world. Instead, Gibson created a future noir aesthetic that took tropes from hardboiled detective fiction and spun them into a futuristic setting. He did this by picking details, set pieces, and characters that fit the themes and atmosphere he wanted to create. A different writer who was focused on creating a realistic and fleshed-out world would have written an entirely different book. A version of Neuromancer built on modern principles of hyperrealistic worldbuilding wouldn’t necessarily be a bad novel. It might be great! But it would be a very different novel, which is why we need different terms and different ways of critically evaluating different types of fiction.

A pebble strikes Earth

Literary people can write entire books on the different effects of 1st person voice or 3rd person voice, and fans have endless arguments about a dozen different SF subgenres. I think we could stand to have more than one term to describe the making of fictional realities.

Semantics Schemantics

A perfect example of why I think a term like worldconjuring is necessary can be seen in the rebuttal article Emily Temple wrote for Lit Hub. (Full disclosure: I know and like Temple IRL.) Unsurprisingly (it’s a rebuttal, after all), I take issue with most of what she says. For example I started my essay saying that that worldbuilding is used everywhere from universities to video game reviews as evidence that it was a term worth discussing, not to “clutch pearls” about fantasy terms being used in college classes. (As a professor, my syllabuses include Ursula K. Le Guin and Kurt Vonnegut!)

But Temple’s main argument is that worldbuilding means, well, any and everything. Let me quote her fully:

When I use the term worldbuilding with creative writing students, I use it to mean the existence of an internal logic, mood, or yes, set of descriptions that gives their work a sense of context — which may or may not be a spatial or historical context. For instance, I find the voice in Claire-Louise Bennett’s Pond to be as much a kind of worldbuilding as her descriptions of the landscape, because the world of the novel has so much to do with her mind. Michel mentions Kobo Abe’s The Woman in the Dunes as a novel that would be ruined by worldbuilding, and he’s right that it would be ruined by any more worldbuilding, but honestly Abe does a fairly thorough job of building the world of the hole, which is also the world of the novel. It’s a monotonous world, but it’s a complete one. This is only true if you subscribe to a wider definition of the term, of course.

Temple uses the term worldbuilding to encompass, as near as I can parse, every aspect of a story. If mood or voice are part of worldbuilding, then certainly characters (e.g., the archetypes of hardboiled fiction), plots (e.g., the quests in epic fantasy), setting, atmosphere, and everything else is as well. Is such a broad definition useful at all?

If I said a novel’s worldbuilding was faulty you’d know that the mechanics of the world weren’t properly thought out. If I said I wished a story had more worldbuilding, you’d know I wanted more details about how the fictional world works. With Temple’s definition, though, if I said the worldbuilding was faulty, I could be referring to anything from inconsistent narrative voice to a lack of atmosphere. What does it mean then to say Abe’s novel would be “be ruined by any more worldbuilding”? More voice would ruin it? More mood? If everything is worldbuilding, worldbuilding is always at its limit and is either simply good or bad but never less or more.

Immersions

immerse yourself in the world

Some readers said that worldbuilding creates a more immersive world, and helps the reader slide into the story easier. Different readers need and want different things, so this is surely true for some people.

For me, however, I’ll say that excessive worldbuilding tends to take me out of the story, because the worldbuilding is conveyed unrealistically and the focus on the worldbuilding details only highlights how impossible worldbuilding actually is. By “conveyed unrealistically,” I mean the painful exposition where characters explain their world to each other in a way that nobody would ever do in real life. If you simply tell me someone has X implausible SF weapon, I may go with it. If you spend 10 pages explaining the workings of X, I’m way more likely to be thinking about how the explanation doesn’t really make sense.

In my original thread, I noted how often fans poke holes in massive, worldbuilding works like Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, or A Song of Ice and Fire. I also notice plenty of holes in the plot and worlds, and it’s hard not to think that they’re so glaring precisely because the works spend so much time worldbuilding. By contrast, Stephen King’s Dark Tower series — especially the first book, The Gunslinger — just throws crazy shit at you without stopping to pretend it could really work. I never stopped to wonder about the workings of The Gunslinger’s world, because King wasn’t asking me too.

Is Realistic Fantasy Worldbuilding Even Possible?

If you are writing near-future SF, you can, if you want, give a realistic picture of how our society might be changed by some technologies. You’re likely to be completely wrong — like the historical SF that obsessed over flying cars yet never imagined the internet— but you can do so in a logical way. When it comes to far future SF, or most fantasy, the picture is dicier.

Going back to A Song of Ice and Fire as an example, the worldbuilding problems in that series are countless, if you care to focus on them. As I noted in my first essay, a continent that gets pummeled with decades-long winters would not have the same flora and fauna as Western Europe. Hell, why are the characters eating any food items from earth? A different planet with a different evolutionary history would have entirely different creatures regardless of seasons.

But there are plenty of other problems too: the technological and political development gaps between Westeros and its near-neighbors in Essos are implausible, the entire raven communication system is bunk, the size of Westeros (roughly South America) wouldn’t allow for the political system it has or the troop movements described, it’s highly implausible that so many noble houses would have reigned in unbroken lines for thousands of years (especially when almost every noble house is on the brink of extinction after a few years in the books!). And on and on.

You know nothing about the logic of magic ravens, Jon Snow

The problem is that even the slightest change to our world would cause countless ripple effects. Even if a writer could fully explore all of them, the book would simply be boring to read. It’s much easier to have Westeros be filled with wolves and ravens and lamprey pies, for both the writer and the reader.

My least favorite example of this is fantasy that imagines magical creatures living and influencing human history. Since the existence of tons of werewolves (or wizards or vampires or whatever) would drastically change cultures, historical events, and daily life, writers have to bend into logical pretzels to explain how these powerful beings have either (a) hidden themselves away so as not to influence the world (and when have those with power ever done that?), or (b) the authors rewrite history to make it so that the Nazis were really vampires or the witch trials killed real witches. This is both silly and somewhat morally offensive, witch-washing away the real human evil our species has done to itself.

There may be some hard SF works that worldbuild in a nearly complete and realistic way, but I’d submit that there’s essentially no popular work of SF or F that holds up to any real worldbuilding scrutiny: Star Wars, Dune, Game of Thrones, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, The Walking Dead, etc.

But none of this is to say I don’t like works about, say, werewolves. I do. Stories like Le Guin’s “A Wife’s Story” or Nathan Ballingrud’s “Wild Acre,” among countless others, tell great stories about traditional werewolves. They do so by telling the individual stories of a few characters, though, not by rebuilding our reality to include werewolves in life and history.

Always try the lamprey pie

Whatever Works Is Whatever Works

I’ll end by saying that most of my focus here, and in the original essay, has been focused on the reading side of books: how fans and critics think and talk about literature. The writing side is a whole different question. People often complain that SF/F works are too stuffed with exposition and focus on the details of the world over the details of the characters or story. I think that can happen, and I do think the focus on worldbuilding encourages it.

But it is also certainly true that whatever works for a writer is the only thing that matters. Some writers may eschew thinking about the logic of their world entirely, others may need to write an encyclopedia of worldbuilding details before understanding what they are writing (even if few of those details make the final text). The process of writing a book is a whole separate thing from the process of evaluating one. If writing on napkins, creating fake languages, editing in a hot tub, drafting with urine on a snowbank, or anything else helps you make a great piece of fiction then go for it!

Build your worlds in whatever way works for you.

Discovering the Subconscious of Santiago Ramón y Cajal

I am not a neurologist nor have I studied the intricacies of our nervous system in a way that would even come close to those who consider themselves neurology enthusiasts. Benjamin Ehrlich is one such enthusiast; having co-founded a blog entitled “The Beautiful Brain,” which focuses on dialogue between neuroscience, art and other fields of inquiry. Ehrlich’s most recent work is the first English translation of the dreams of Spanish born neuroscientist Santiago Ramón y Cajal, who discovered that the nervous system is made up of the individual cells we know today as neurons. By virtue of his work, Cajal is often referred to as the “father of modern neuroscience.” When I ask Ehrlich if he himself studied neurology I find that his expertise began at the same level as my own.

“I started investigating the sources of my mind after college. I studied Comparative Literature. I knew nothing about science. Then I had, for lack of a better term, a nervous breakdown. One doctor sketched a neuron for me on a cocktail napkin. It looked like a stupid cartoon. I coopted the theory of reductive materialism to identify some concrete object for me to blame. Modern neuroscience seems to believe that that the mind emerges from the brain. My life was in shambles, and so it had to be my brain’s fault.”

Ehrlich began engaging in conversation with two good friends who were studying neurology, often arguing about the nature of things. One of them turned him on to Cajal. He was mesmerized with Cajal not only as a neuroscientist but also as a person. Ehrlich checked out books from universities on Cajal and asked friends to do so when he no longer had access, sent blind e-mail inquires to leading Cajal scholars, listened to lectures on iTunes University and Academic Earth, met with top neuroscientists to pick their brain, and made flashcards to test the retention of his self-taught science course.

“His life and work are great gifts that I am continuously exploring,” Ehrlich tells me when we chat about the book.

Ehrlich’s work is divided into two parts and indulges neurology experts as well as stirs a curiosity in those, such as myself, who have a vague understanding of this branch of science. The Dreams of Santiago Ramón y Cajal is both a portrait of Cajal’s legacy as well as a testament to the beauty and vulnerability that occurs when our brain and body communicates.

Though Cajal’s legacy is monumental; he is lesser known than his pioneering counterparts such as Newton, Darwin, and Einstein. For those who are unfamiliar with Cajal, the first part of the book reads as a biography. Readers become acquainted with his life and work, which are heavily intertwined. Before Cajal, the brain was seen as a “continuous web” as opposed to the individual units known as neurons that Cajal discovered them to be through his use of the Golgi stain. He, as well as Golgi, received the Nobel Prize for his groundbreaking work on the structure of the nervous system in 1906.

One of Cajal’s most interesting qualities was that he was a visual learner with an innate artistic ability. His initial desire was to become a professional artist. Cajal’s talent is evident in his sketches that Ehrlich has included in the book.

Courtesy Cajal Legacy, Instituto Cajal (CSIC), Madrid.

“The moment when I saw his drawings was like an awakening for me. They were intricate, fragile, and more astounding than I ever could have imagined. I thought about what Nabokov said about the “sob in the spine.” It was like my nervous system was speaking to me, like my neurons were finally recognizing themselves.”

Courtesy Cajal Legacy, Instituto Cajal (CSIC), Madrid.

In fact, his medical artistry from what he discovered beneath the microscope is still used today in many textbooks. His father, Justo Ramón, a local surgeon, was less enthused by Cajal’s artistic inclinations. He expected Cajal to follow the same medical career path as he had.

Courtesy Cajal Legacy, Instituto Cajal (CSIC), Madrid.

“Cajal’s father treated Cajal’s artistic impulses as symptoms of psychological disease, which he tried time and again to eradicate,” Ehrlich writes.

He attempted to persuade his son to study medicine via numerous methods throughout Cajal’s life. Ramón would confiscate any artwork of the young Cajal and destroy it. He had also banned works of fiction in their household, the only type of reading Cajal was allowed to indulge in were medical books. However, Cajal was still an avid reader of fiction despite his father’s efforts. His mother would pass novels to him in secret and he also sought books outside of his home.

Double Take: Joan of Arc in a World of Endless War

Perhaps one of the most drastic attempts by Ramón to persuade his son to study medicine occurred when Cajal was sixteen years old. His father brought him to a local cemetery where they exhumed a corpse and Ramón demonstrated dissection. This experience successfully ignited an interest in anatomy within Cajal and he began to connect his love of art with science. He eventually enrolled in medical school. In a sense, Justo Ramón’s expectations for his son had been fulfilled however, when Cajal left his hometown of Zaragoza, he never returned to see his father.

The heart of the biography draws parallels between Cajal and Freud who were contemporaries. Freud’s theories fueled Cajal’s desire to begin recording his dream diary. Cajal began taking notes on his dreams at sixty-six and continued to do so for the next sixteen years. He recorded his dreams in opposition to Freud; his objective was to counter the theories of psychoanalysis, which he believed to be “collective lies.”

Freud and Cajal are perfect complements. I thought of their relationship in terms of geometry. They were almost exact contemporaries. But their career arcs seem almost inverse and reciprocal to each other. Freud started as a neurobiologist (few people know about that phase), and Cajal started as an experimental psychologist (fewer people know about that phase). Each represents the foundation of a modern discipline — psychoanalysis and neurobiology — still vying, a century later, to define the nature of the human mind. I think that the biographies of these two men provide a lot of insight into their theories. It is impossible to separate the ideas from the human beings, in my opinion. The takeaway from this diary, for me, is that the two of them clearly needed each other. Cajal, with all of his unresolved issues with his father, might have benefitted from the analyst’s couch, while Freud, with his wilder and more speculative theories that departed from empirical fact, might have been wise to heed Cajal’s call for more scientific rigor and discipline.”

The last chapters of Part One give insight into the emotional aspects that Cajal has omitted in his dream records. Ehrlich fills in the blanks for us, of Cajal’s deteriorating health, his acute depression and reminds us of the things and people that Cajal loved. Around the time when Cajal started recording his dreams, his health had badly declined and he was advised by his doctors to stay indoors. A man who often found joy in nature was confined to his home for much of his old age. He withdrew from society, even declining to attend a ceremony celebrating Cajal’s legacy organized by the King of Spain.

“He was deeply wounded, and his was suffering was intense. That came through loudly and clearly. To some, Cajal is almost mythic. He propagated that image himself, from time to time. Despite Cajal’s best efforts, his vulnerability in this diary is everywhere. He notes his pain only glancingly, to insist that it isn’t painful. His wife dies, his health deteriorates, and his childhood trauma haunts him. It was and is an emotional document, signified by total absence of emotion.”

When I begin Part Two, Cajal’s translated book of dreams, I am reading his words with the knowledge that Ehrlich has provided me about Cajal’s disposition — how he pushes away emotion in an effort to seek logic. Ehrlich also notes that this practice may have also been done in an effort to salvage and protect his scientific mind in the wake of his ailing health. However, his seemingly stoic sentences carry more depth and struggle than one would initially think. He addresses dreams or rather nightmares that involve personal tragedies with a certain amount of distance. One dream in particular involves him seeing his dead wife and despite the love that Ehrlich has outlined in the first part of the book, Cajal makes no mention of the pain of missing her. In other dream entries, he concludes them with his own judgments with final notes such as “pure nonsense.”

When I discuss which of Cajal’s dreams had the biggest impact on Ehrlich he mentions another that involves family and loss, in which Cajal attempts to save his drowning daughter.

“The drowning dream sheds light on his suffering and that loss. That dream, which actually recurs once more, was all that I needed to read. It gave me a deeper respect for grief and how it might show up.”

Cajal never published this work and upon his death, left all his belongings & research to the university or his family but his dream diary was given specifically to his former student, psychiatrist José Germain Cebrián.

“If he wanted to destroy the work, because he felt that it did not succeed, because it was a weak rebuttal of Freud in the end, he could have tossed it into the fire himself. It is that old Kafka question. Then, to give it to someone else before he died, rather than publish it while alive, seems like he’s denying himself the ego gratification that spurred him to take up arms against Freud in the first place. Did he want it to be printed, or not? Did he want to be healed? That is the question.”

Germain, who ironically became an advocate of Freud, typed up the dreams, which had been written on loose notes and in the margins of magazines, into a proper manuscript. He held onto it after he fled Spain during Franco’s rise to power. His manuscript was recovered in 2013 and published in Spain in 2014.

Though Cajal recorded these dreams with the intention to test them against Freud’s theories, it is challenging not to interpret them through a Freudian lens. It’s hard to separate the man that we learn Cajal to be in Part One of the book from his subconscious we encounter in Part Two. This falls in line with Ehrlich’s motivation to bring a deeper understanding of Cajal’s legacy to readers as well as whom he was, and what he endured, as a person.

“I hope readers can be moved by the intimacy and vulnerability of the dream diary itself. It is challenging, in a way, because on the surface Cajal offers only the facts and not much emotion. Yet just behind the image that he is desperately trying to present, is all of this negative space, an ocean of sadness and longing. All that I wanted to do with my introduction was to help readers access this level by decoding some of the references and providing the necessary background. More than anything else, though, I want people to love and appreciate Cajal and his humanity, what he accomplished — which was incredible — and how.”