Is the Dwampyverse Sci-Fi?

Like specifically Phineas and Ferb and Milo Murphy's Law.

There's a main plot line with time travel.

They regularly use space travel.

Overall, they use (and create) technology slightly more advanced than what we have today.

Doesn't that make it sci-fi?

Edit: Actually I just looked it up, according to Wikipedia it's science fantasy. Which is pretty accurate. I just never thought about it before.

i think there's something to be said about what exactly it means to be "non-human" in a story that is as much about humanity as wolf 359 is, where even the dear listeners are defined less by their own perspective and more by what they fail to understand and therefore reflect about the human perspective - to the point that they don't even have their own voices or faces or identities that aren't either given to them or taken from humans. they speak to humanity as a mirror.

even pryce and cutter are "very much humans" - pryce defined by her resentment of and desire to transcend its limitations, and cutter by his aspirations to redefine and create a "better" type of human - and find the idea that they might not be human laughable. it's interesting that they have distinctly transhumanist aspirations when their goal is the narrative opposite of common science fiction fears: that we will expand the definition of humanity so much that we'll lose whatever it is that makes us human. pryce and cutter's transhumanism narrows the definition of humanity to the worthy and the useful, as defined by them; "there will still be a humanity; it'll just be our humanity."

in direct opposition to that, i think it's meaningful that the show instead expands the definition of humanity in ways that include lovelace and hera, who in another show with different themes might be considered (in the descriptive, non-moralistic sense) non-human. i will always make a point of saying that personhood and humanity are two often-related but meaningfully distinct concepts, especially when talking about sci-fi and fantasy. i am talking about humanity.

the question of how hera identifies, and what social pressures influence that, is a complicated one. i've talked about it before and i will talk about again. what's important for the purposes of this post is that i think the show considers her fundamentally human. think about her role in shut up and listen - consider jacobi's lion example and the concept of different paradigms - that even things that are close to humans, comparatively speaking, understand the world in different ways. whatever differences hera may have from the others, it's primarily in experience, not fundamental understanding. she shares their emotions, their concerns, their values, their thought patterns. she has an appreciation for music, which the show considers a hallmark of humanity. she fits within the framework of humanity as the show defines and is, in her own words, left feeling "uneasy" about how difficult it might be to communicate with beings who don't. and it's significant that this takes place in shut up and listen, of all episodes, specifically because the way she is clearly and unambiguously included in the show's understanding of what it means to be human highlights the ways she and lovelace are othered by eiffel's careless comments that suggest otherwise.

(i don't want to get too into these details for this particular post, but it's worth noting that hera will refer to 'humans' as a category, often when she is upset and feeling isolated, but has never said that she 'isn't human' - she has never been upset that people are treating her 'too' human. i've seen it said about the line "you need to get it through your heads that what goes for you doesn't always go for me", but that's a frustration related to ability and safety, not identity. far more often, she will refer to herself in 'human' terms - referring idiomatically to experiences or body parts etc. that she doesn't literally have - and is upset primarily with comments referring to her status as an AI. it does not diminish how being an AI influences her perspective and experience, but again, so much of that is in terms of ability that it feels almost inseparable from a discussion about disability.)

lovelace's humanity and hera's humanity are so interlinked and directly paralleled in the text that i think it's impossible to really argue one of them is "not" human without making implications about the other. in desperate measures, lovelace tells kepler he's "not human" and he responds "you're hilarious. on a multitude of levels." later, defending lovelace against kepler's repeated dehumanization, hera very pointedly uses the phrase "that woman." in out of the loop, hera says she's never met anyone who "worked so hard at being inhuman" as jacobi, who says "what do you know about being human?" hera very emphatically responds, "i know plenty." later, defending hera against jacobi's repeated dehumanization, minkowski pointedly uses the phrase "that woman." with the care taken towards language and the way scenes and turns of phrase will parallel each other, that's not a coincidence. it might seem strange to have the "non-human" characters be the ones to express criticisms based on perceived "humanity" (something hera will do in other contexts as well - "we don't have funerals for animals" etc.) but in the broader context of the show, i think it's the point.

so, whether hera would ever call herself human, or be comfortable with that, is a complicated question for another time and depends on a lot of other factors. but wolf 359 is a show about humanity, it includes her within its definition of what it means to be human, and i wouldn't be comfortable definitively saying she's not human because of that. it can't be a neutral statement within the particular context of this show.

okay it turns out writing fic is hard so i have made a PHOTOSTORY of the Dark Lokius fic that i would write if i wasn't lazy and a coward:

This [The fantasy Map of India in Immortals of Meluha] is a fairly common addition to texts published in the fantasy fiction genre, particularly since it attempts to construct a world whole-cloth for uninitiated readers. Unlike a standard map, the visual technology behind this one is slightly different: it is not part of the colonial project that enables mastery. Instead, this is a map that is deliberately attempting to reimagine a past for the country – reconstructing the territory along fantastical lines that allow the author full freedom over the world of the text. While analysing the iconography associated with the geobody of India, Ramaswamy discusses the “enchanted cartographies” that come to define Bharat Mata. This is a slightly different project: the map is attempting to lay claim to the imaginative space of a fantastical India. This is an India that never was and would never be – but it could be. The text is laying claim to the very possibilities that fantasy represents, and through the image of the map, allows a kind of dominance over the space of the world.

Ramaswamy has noted in her essay that cartographies of this order engender a specific kind of male citizenship, that later changes into iconography that imagines the country as female. That The Shiva Trilogy (and a large number of texts in the fantasy fiction genre) relies on the trope of the promised king says a lot about the mastery that is demanded on this imaginary land. Nor is it an accident that a Hindu God is reimagined for this role. Tripathi’s own leanings towards a pro-Hindutva politics aside, fantasy has long been a repository for right of centre politics. Carroll’s essay contains, perhaps the most succinct analysis of this phenomenon: “Many fascist intellectuals believe that time is cyclical or nonlinear, which means that archaic elements from previous eras might recur again once more when the present epoch is over. Frequently the alt-right draws upon popular media set in ancient history or pseudo-medieval fantasy worlds to try to convey what this might look like. The alt-right fights so hard over these genres because they want to lay claim to imagination’s potential to transcend the here and now” (Carroll).

The question, then, is what kind of world order is the text of The Shiva Trilogy imagining? There is no doubt that the text of the novel posits the grand attempt at civilisation that is Meluha (in itself a very masculine endeavour) as the correct mode of existence. Shiva, coming from mount Kailash and having lived in a homeland that supposedly is caught in strife, says, “‘The tribes in my homeland were no better than animals. They didn’t even want to live a better life!’” (Tripathi 110). And the civilisation with the correct moral order is a Hindu one. There is little to no conversation about this fantasy land being secular or not: this is a world order that is pre-secular to begin with. What requires correction are the hierarchies found in modern Hinduism, which have been reimagined in inventive ways. In this world order, “Tribal” people such as Shiva are easily assimilated into the mould of Hinduism, with some of their traditions and Gods being posited as having been sourced in Upper Caste Hinduism to begin with. For instance, when Shiva describes the concept of Shakti (apparently a common philosophical belief amongst his people), a surprised Brahaspati comments, “‘Interesting. That word has not been used to describe energy for many centuries. It was a term of the Pandyas, the ancestors of all the people of India. Do you know where your tribe came from? Their lineage?’” (Tripathi 74).

In many ways, this hints at a common past for all the socio-religious identities of India. This is a Hindu project, and that it has seen resonances in other texts published in India (see footnote 1) only speaks to a certain kind of anxiety that demands this elaborate reconstruction of India.

- The Promised King: Rewriting India and Other Masculine Fantasies in Indian Publishing

They hate me for my overanalyzation of the sociopolitical aspects of fictional worlds that “aren’t that deep”

mash watching discourse is ignoring the 'passively watch random reruns on television as you grow up + that one time your dad brings home a dvd that has like. 5 episodes from season 6 from the library' method

If you want another book suggestion before you even start the one you have - The Traitor Baru Cormorant by Seth Dickinson is a political hard fantasy. Maybe because I picked it up a few years after it’s release but i truely haven’t seen enough discussion around it

oh I love hard science-fiction, its something about the constraints of possibility that makes a character 's choices made in a tight spot so compelling to me. so naturally as a fan of political intrigue, this sounds right up my alley. thank you for the rec! I will definitely check it out

Like many, I gawked at Joyce Carol Oates’ recent thread about genre distinctions. “Materialist” vs “special personal destiny” is a genuinely interesting distinction between different sorts of settings and stories, I think, but giving those two types the same names as two vast genres that don’t map to them precisely* is a recipe for Hot Takes(TM). 

Anyway, to me the most ~interesting take on the thread came from one of Oates’ supporters, who says “Sherlock Holmes would not attend a séance.” 

To which I can only say, my good lady, while it’s true Holmes doesn’t seem to have attended a séance in the original stories, Arthur Conan Doyle was a member of the SPR - I almost suspect Holmes never went to a séance because his creator didn’t want to share hobbies with his personally penned albatross.

*”Hey Sage, what’s a materialist, uncaring fantasy universe you could name?” I’ll point you to a genre I know Oates has written in, Lovecraftian cosmic horror (many people misunderstand this, leading to subpar cosmic horror).**

**Except when the special personal destiny is Oedipus Rex, which is a very cosmic horror play. But not Lovecraft’s version of cosmic horror.

actually when i look back i was so into supernatural/science fiction/horror stuff even as a young kid. like back when youtube wasn't a copyright hellscape i'd just watch episodes of the twilight zone on there and i was so into it

The Star Eater by Kerstin Hall is a really good book. Extremely fresh and unconventional and gripping and horrific but the Goodreads rating doesn't reflect that at all. It's a little diamond

The novelist writes from inside. I’m rather sensitive on this point, because I write science fiction, or fantasy, or about imaginary countries, mostly—stuff that, by definition, involves times, places, events that I could not possibly experience in my own life. So when I was young and would submit one of these things about space voyages to Orion or dragons or something, I was told, at extremely regular intervals, “You should try to write about things you know about.” And I would say, But I do; I know about Orion, and dragons, and imaginary countries. Who do you think knows about my own imaginary countries, if I don’t? But they didn’t listen, because they don’t understand, they have it all backward. They think an artist is like a roll of photographic film, you expose it and develop it and there is a reproduction of Reality in two dimensions. But that’s all wrong, and if any artist tells you, “I am a camera,” or “I am a mirror,” distrust them instantly, they’re fooling you, pulling a fast one. Artists are people who are not at all interested in the facts—only in the truth. You get the facts from outside. The truth you get from inside. OK, how do you go about getting at that truth? You want to tell the truth. You want to be a writer. So what do you do? You write.

--Ursula Le Guin, from the "On How To Become A Writer" at LitHub, from The Language of the Night (via @neil-gaiman)

One of the things I’ve noticed working in a bookstore is that a surprising number of people are completely unfamiliar with the normal way books are organized.

(I mean, in the part of the store where we keep the used books, I frequently have to assure people that the books are organized at all, but that’s because we have way more books than we have shelf space and there’s no way to handle that without it looking a bit of a mess.)

On one hand, we get customers who are apparently a completely blank slate in this area. I frequently have to walk people through, like, “Okay, it’s organized by subject / genre, then by author. Oh, ‘by author’ means in alphabetical order by the name of the author. No, their last name.” (Most of the people I give this talk to are, I think, college kids — it’s a bit strange to me that you can reach that age without knowing how bookstores work, but then again, I can kind of see how these days it’s possible to mostly get your books online where you just use a search function.)

One customer responded to the above explanation with “oh, it’s the Dewey Decimal System!” and I had to be like… no. Similar in broad concept, yes, but the Dewey Decimal System is a very specific thing (involving… decimals) and it’s really only used in libraries, not bookstores, because it kind of requires you to label the spines of your books, which bookstores generally don’t like to do for obvious reasons.

On the other hand, we also get customers with pre-existing incorrect assumptions, which are so often similar that I think they’re being imported from other media (though I’m not sure what).

People seem to expect the organization of Fiction to be much more granular — e.g., “where’s historical fiction?” “oh, that’s just in with general fiction.” I think some of that comes from movies (people ask where the “rom-com” section is, and that’s definitely a movie thing), but I’m not sure that’s always the reason.

(Admittedly the fiction organization is a bit more granular in the Used Books area than it is in the New Books, but that’s because there are certain genres that we get tons of from people selling us their old books, but we don’t buy enough of on purpose to justify giving them their own section in New Books.)

At the same time, people have the opposite assumption about Non-Fiction — i.e., they expect there to be one singular section labeled “Non-Fiction”, which is not the case. I’ve had multiple conversations that go like:

Customer: Where can I find non-fiction books?

Me: You’ll have to be more specific.

Customer: You know, non-fiction.

Me: [gesturing at the signs hanging from the ceiling that say things like “science”, “philosophy”, “art”, “history”, etc.] All of these are non-fiction in their own special way.

I try to be nice about it, but I don’t think I always succeed, just because I’m so often legitimately surprised and confused when someone just doesn’t know How Do You Books. I’m getting used to it now, but I’ve been working there for almost five years, so there’s been quite a long adjustment period in between.

Anyway. Just some observations.

There is, I think, no arguing that contemporary genre art has a character distinct from previous decades. I also think that while there are big shifts in aesthetics somewhat aligning with each decade of the 20th century, here in the 21st things have definitely slowed down — I feel like the look of genre art has fossilized somewhat in the last 20 years. I don’t have a good explanation for why. Sometimes I wonder if I’m blinded by nostalgia, and that there really aren’t any obvious objective differences at all.

Worlds Beyond Time: Sci-Fi Art of the 1970s (2023) is a compelling argument, I think, that there ARE definite differences. The book, by Adam Rowe (and spinning out of his social media accounts dedicated to, well, ’70s science fiction art) looks at both artists and thematic categories of art from the period, mostly from paperback covers, and offers commentary and historical context in the text. The result is startling: a body of work by a variety of artists working in their own styles that nevertheless seems visually unified. With the exception of a couple outliers, this stuff all feels of the ’70s. The fact that there are some inclusions from both the ’60s and ’80s makes this even clearer.

I think the most interesting thing about this is how bizarre some of the ’70s art seems to be. A lot of these artists appear to be entirely off the leash, delivering work they WANTED to produce rather than what they were directed to produce (you can see a shift toward clearly pairing the cover art with the content of the book in the later part of the decade). There was also more money in the work, then, so speed wasn’t quite so big a part of the equation as it is now.

And, greater questions of genre art aside, Worlds Beyond Time is still a mesmerizing collection, worthy of your time even if you just want to feed pictures to your eyeballs.

The history of Solarpunk

Okay, I guess this has to be said, because the people will always claim the same wrong thing: No, Solarpunk did not "start out as an aesthetic". Jesus, where the hell does this claim even come from? Like, honestly, I am asking.

Solarpunk started out as a genre, that yes, did also include design elements, but also literary elements. A vaguely defined literary genre, but a genre never the less.

And I am not even talking about those early books that we today also claim under the Solarpunk umbrella. So, no, I am not talking about Ursula K. LeGuin, even though she definitely was a big influence on the genre.

The actual history of Solarpunk goes something like that: In the late 1990s and early 2000s the term "Ecopunk" was coined, which was used to refer to books that kinda fit into the Cyberpunk genre umbrella, but were more focused on ecological themes. This was less focused on the "high tech, high life" mantra that Solarpunk ended up with, but it was SciFi stories, that were focused on people interacting with the environment. Often set to a backdrop of environmental apocalypse. Now, other than Solarpunk just a bit later, this genre never got that well defined (especially with Solarpunk kinda taking over the role). As such there is only a handful of things that ever officially called themselves Ecopunk.

At the same time, though, the same sort of thought was picked up in the Brazilian science fiction scene, where the idea was further developed. Both artistically, where it got a lot of influence from the Amazofuturism movement, but also as an ideology. In this there were the ideas from Ecopunk as the "scifi in the ecological collaps" in there, but also the idea of "scifi with technology that allows us to live within the changing world/allows us to live more in harmony with nature".

Now, we do not really know who came up with the idea of naming this "Solarpunk". From all I can find the earliest mention of the term "Solarpunk" that is still online today is in this article from the Blog Republic of Bees. But given the way the blogger talks about it, it is clear there was some vague definition of the genre before it.

These days it is kinda argued about whether that title originally arose in Brazil or in the Anglosphere. But it seems very likely that the term was coined between 2006 and 2008, coming either out of the Brazilian movement around Ecopunk or out of the English Steampunk movement (specifically the literary branch of the Steampunk genre).

In the following years it was thrown around for a bit (there is an archived Wired article from 2009, that mentions the term once, as well as one other article), but for the moment there was not a lot happening in this regard.

Until 2012, when the Brazilian Solarpunk movement really started to bloom and at the same time in Italy Commando Jugendstil made their appearance. In 2012 in Brazil the anthology "Solarpunk: Histórias ecológicas e fantásticas em um mundo sustentável" was released (that did get an English translation not too long ago) establishing some groundwork for the genre. And Commando Jugendstil, who describe themselves as both a "Communication Project" and an "Art Movement", started to work on Solarpunk in Italy. Now, Commando Jugendstil is a bit more complicated than just one or the other. As they very much were a big influence on some of the aesthetic concepts, but also were releasing short stories and did some actual punky political action within Italy.

And all of that was happening in 2012, where the term really started to take off.

And only after this, in 2014, Solarpunk became this aesthetic we know today, when a (now defuct) tumblr blog started posting photos, artworks and other aesthetical things under the caption of Solarpunk. Especially as it was the first time the term was widely used within the Anglosphere.

Undoubtedly: This was probably how most people first learned of Solarpunk... But it was not how Solarpunk started. So, please stop spreading that myth.

The reason this bothers me so much is, that it so widely ignores how this movement definitely has its roots within Latin America and specifically Brazil. Instead this myth basically tries to claim Solarpunk as a thing that fully and completely originated within the anglosphere. Which is just is not.

And yes, there was artistic aspects to that early Solarpunk movement, too. But also a literary and political aspectt. That is not something that was put onto a term that was originally an aesthetic - but rather it was something that was there from the very beginning.

Again: There has been an artistic and aesthetic aspect in Solarpunk from the very beginning, yes. But there has been a literary and political aspect in it the entire time, too. And trying to divorce Solarpunk from those things is just wrong and also... kinda misses the point.

So, please. Just stop claiming that entire "it has been an aesthetic first" thing. Solarpunk is a genre of fiction, it is a political movement, just as much as it is an artistic movement. Always has been. And there has always been punk in it. So, please, stop acting as if Solarpunk is just "pretty artistic vibes". It is not.

Thanks for coming to my TED Talk, I guess.

I have a friend who isn't anti-porn but it makes her sad that fanfic has a reputation for being porny and usually not very good. I'm fine with both those things and my views mostly align with that of AO3. I disagree with the idea that porn and badness are treated as equivalent, but for most people that's just how they think. But I was wondering if youve ever written something about this?

There is a lot of smut at AO3.

There is a lot of bad writing at AO3.

There's a lot of badly written smut at AO3.

...None of those are problems except for the people who think there is something wrong with those existing, or that there needs to be some external value that "balances" those that make those acceptable to exist as unwanted side-effects of "the good stuff."

The badly-written smut is also "the good stuff."

It's part of the reason AO3 exists. It's not intended to be an archive for "the high-quality fanfic that could be published if it weren't about characters that someone else wrote first"; it's an archive for "what fanfic writers want to write." That makes the terrible writing and the tacky porn and the badly-written tacky porn part of the reason the archive exists.

Tangent 1 (I'll connect these points later): Theodore Sturgeon said "90% of everything is crud." He was more-or-less referring to the science fiction field in the 50s, but it definitely extended to politics, business, and writing outside of science fiction.

...He was talking about published books in the 50s. Turns out, a lot more than 90% of writing is crud when there aren't any gatekeepers between it and the readers. But also:

Tangent 2, from the book "Art and Fear":

[A] ceramics teacher announced on opening day that he was dividing the class into two groups. All those on the left side of the studio, he said, would be graded solely on the quantity of work they produced, all those on the right solely on its quality. His procedure was simple: on the final day of class he would bring in his bathroom scales and weigh the work of the “quantity” group: fifty pound of pots rated an “A”, forty pounds a “B”, and so on. Those being graded on “quality”, however, needed to produce only one pot — albeit a perfect one — to get an “A”. Well, came grading time and a curious fact emerged: the works of highest quality were all produced by the group being graded for quantity. It seems that while the “quantity” group was busily churning out piles of work – and learning from their mistakes — the “quality” group had sat theorizing about perfection, and in the end had little more to show for their efforts than grandiose theories and a pile of dead clay.

You don't get to "quality writing" without going through a lot of crappy writing.

That doesn't mean the crappy writing is garbage to be thrown out. If you make 50 pots or bowls or vases, and only one of them is The Good One... most of the rest are okay. Maybe not sale-quality good, but your-kitchen-table quality good. Maybe some aren't that good and are kids-toy-in-the-sandbox level good.

Bad writing has a purpose for the writer: they can use it as practice to get better. It has a purpose for the reader: It can serve as inspiration ("I can do better than that") or grammatical instruction ("that...does not work; why doesn't that work?") or just as entertainment ("eh, so it's missing a few commas; I can still understand it").

Smut and porn writing works the same way. It's of some value to the writer, and some to the readers.

It's not of value to everyone. That's what tags and filters are for, and why there's a summary and list of stats (like word counts)--so you can figure out if you're one of the readers for whom this piece of writing is useful or interesting.

But AO3, like any library, is not there to take the top 5% of Excellent Writing and provide it a showcase. It is absolutely for all 50 lbs of pots.

If your friend wants to read the good stuff, there are rec lists and collections to help her find it.

If she already manages that, and is just annoyed at how much of the not-good stuff (however she defines that) exists... she's picked the wrong battle. She's arguing with the ocean that it has too many kinds of fish and some are poisonous a lot of them are ugly.

I find it so funny how adaptations and pop culture for Frankenstein feel the need to paint “Dr. Frankenstein” as either a batshit crazy old man or a hot mentally unstable guy in his 30s, when in reality Victor Frankenstein in the original novel is just a sickly gay autistic teenager, who does definitely not have a doctorate, written by a 17-year-old goth girl who created the genre of science fiction.

It’s just so funny to me how pop culture is just like, “yeah, Dr. Frankenstein, the ‘ooOoh my peers criticised my science but I’ll show them!’ And ‘it’s alive!’ guy.” when in reality Victor Frankenstein just shows up to class fully “uhm, achtually 🤓☝️” style, then proceeds to rant about his boyfriend best buddy and how hot and amazing he is for pages and pages and pages. What peers? His classmates who probably just know him as “oh, that one.”??? The man is a twink who dropped out of university and due to his avoidance of consequences (not his “whining”, bad character analysis, I see you) by the end he’s driven himself so far to his own demise that he’s just an absolute sopping wet cat of a man. Stop trying to age him up at the beginning or make him hotter or “more mature”, the public deserves to know this twink like we do. And please stop making the creature an inarticulate mess with literally no character to him whatsoever, give us our edgy “i just read this Bible fanfic and Satan is just like me fr” lad we know and love