swan_tower: (Default)
In these days of climate change, the notion of coastal areas going underwater is a familiar fear. But it's not a new one; we have stories of drowned lands going back for thousands of years.

The famous example, of course, is Atlantis. Which Plato wrote about for allegorical purposes, not literal ones: he was making a point about society, building up Atlantis as a negative foil to the perfections of Athens. That hasn't stopped later writers from taking the idea and running with it, though, with interest particularly surging after Europeans learned of the New World. That's one of many locations since identified with Atlantis, with considerable effort expended on identifying a real-world inspiration for Plato's story (Thera leads the pack) . . . alongside wild theories that build up the sunken land as a place of advanced technology and magic. The supposed "lost continents" of Lemuria and Mu -- which may be the same thing, or may be synonymous with Atlantis -- are later inventions, discredited by the development of geological science.

We don't have to lose whole continents to the ocean, though. The shorelines of northern Europe are dotted with legends of regions sunk below the waves: the city of Ys on the coast of Brittany, Lyonesse in Cornwall, Cantre'r Gwaelod in Wales' Cardigan Bay. Natural features can contribute to these legends; the beaches of Cardigan Bay have ridges, termed sarnau, which run out into the ocean and have been taken for causeways, and environmental conditions at Ynyslas have preserved the stumps of submerged trees, which emerge at times of low tide. The so-called Yonaguni Monument in Japan and Bimini Road in the Bahamas are eerily regular-looking stone formations that theorists have mistaken for human construction, again raising the specter of a forgotten society drowned by the sea.

Many of the examples I'm most familiar with come from Europe, but this isn't solely a European phenomenon. I suspect you can get stories of this kind anywhere there's a coastline, especially if the offshore terrain is shallow enough for land to have genuinely been submerged by rising sea levels. Tamil and Sanskrit literature going back two thousand years has stories about places lost to the ocean, which is part of why some modern Tamil writers seized on the idea of Lemuria (supposedly positioned to the south of India). It doesn't even have to be salt water! A late eighteenth-century Russian text has the city of Kitezh sinking into Lake Svetloyar: a rather pyrrhic miracle delivered by God when the inhabitants prayed to be saved from a Mongol invasion.

Some drowned lands are entirely factual. Doggerland is the name given to the region of the North Sea that used to connect the British Isles to mainland Europe, before rising sea levels at the end of the last glaciation inundated the area. Archaeological investigation of the terrain is difficult, but artifacts and human bones have been dredged up from the depths. If we go into another Ice Age, Doggerland could re-emerge from the sea -- and if it had been flooded in a later era, what's down there could include monumental temples and other such dramatic features. We're robbed of such exciting discoveries by the fact that it was inhabited only by nomadic hunter-gatherers . . . which, of course, need not limit a fictional example!

Doggerland was submerged over the course of thousands of years, but most stories of this kind involve a sudden inundation. That may not be unrealistic: after an extended period in which the Mediterranean basin was mostly or entirely cut off from the Atlantic Ocean, the Zanclean flood broke through what is now the Strait of Gibraltar and refilled the basin over the course of anything from two years to as little as a few months. Water levels may have risen as fast as ten meters a day! Of course, the region before then would have been hellishly hot and arid rather than the pleasant home of a happy civilization, but it's still dramatic to imagine.

Then there are the phantom islands. I have these on the brain right now because the upcoming duology I'm writing with Alyc Helms as M.A. Carrick, the Sea Beyond, makes extensive use of these, but they've fascinated me for far longer than we've been working on the series.

"Phantom island" is the general term used for islands that turn out not to be real. Some of these, like Atlantis, are entirely mythical, existing only in stories whose tellers may not ever have meant them to be more than metaphor. Others, however, are a consequence of the intense difficulties of maritime travel. Mirages and fog banks can make sailors believe they've spotted land where there is none . . . or they see an actual, factual place, but they don't realize where they are.

To understand how that can happen, you have to think about navigation in the past. We've had methods of calculating latitude for a long time, but they were often imprecise, and a error of even one degree can mean your position is off by nearly seventy miles/a hundred kilometers. Meanwhile, as I've mentioned before, longitude was a profoundly intractable problem until about two hundred and fifty years ago, with seafarers unable to make more than educated guesses as to their east-west position -- guesses that could be off by hundreds and hundreds of miles.

The result is that even if you saw a real piece of land, did you know where it was? You would chart it to the best of your ability, but somebody else later sailing through (what they thought was) the same patch of sea might spot nothing at all. Or they'd find land they thought looked like what you'd described, except it was in another location. Well-identified masses could be mistaken for new ones if ships wrongly calculated their current position, especially since accurate coastal charts were also difficult to make when your movements were at the mercy of wind and current.

Phantom islands therefore moved all over the map, vanishing and reappearing, or having their names reattached to new places as we became sure of those latter. Some of them persisted into the twentieth century, when we finally amassed enough technology (like satellites) to know for certain what is and is not out there in the ocean. There are still a few cases where people wonder if an island appeared and then sank again, though we know now that the conditions which can make that happen are fairly rare -- and usually involve volcanic eruptions.

The sea still feels like a place of mystery, though, where all kinds of wonders might lie just over the horizon. And depending on how much we succeed or fail at controlling global temperatures and the encroachments of the sea, we may genuinely wind up with sunken cities to form a new generation of cautionary tales . . .

Patreon banner saying "This post is brought to you by my imaginative backers at Patreon. To join their ranks, click here!"

(originally posted at Swan Tower: https://is.gd/kKc80k)
swan_tower: The Long Room library at Trinity College, Dublin (Long Room)
You probably don't much like thinking about death. It's understandable: death is sad and scary, and few of us look forward to it coming for us or anybody we love. But believe it or not, reminders of death have not infrequently been baked in as a cultural practice -- in a couple of cases I'm going to discuss, literally baked!

There's a grim reason for this, which is that death was far more of a looming threat for historical people than it is for us. Obviously it's true now, as it was then, that everybody eventually dies; the difference is that the average person today can expect to enjoy decades of life first. But life expectancies in the past were much lower -- which is not the same thing as saying that most adults died by the age of thirty! The reason average life expectancy was so much lower is that the odds of surviving your first few years were horrifyingly low. Childhood diseases like the measles tended to kill almost half of all children born before they reached the age of ten.

Which means that nearly every family in existence, rich as well as poor, suffered the repeated grief of seeing life cut short before it really had a chance to start. Then, for those who made it to adulthood, men often had a meaningful chance of dying in war, and women faced the recurrent risk of dying in childbirth. On top of all that, there's the experience of death: people were more likely to die at home, rather than off in some hospital, and ordinary people had the task of caring for them in their final hours and preparing their bodies for funerary rites afterwards. They saw and touched and smelled the effects of death, in a way that most of us today do not.

One of the ways to cope with this is to look death squarely in the eye, rather than flinching away. The Latin phrase memento mori, an exhortation to remember that you must inevitably die, has come to signify all kinds of cultural traditions intended to remind people of the end. Our modern Halloween skeletons and ghosts used to have that function, even if few of us think of them that way anymore; let's take a look at some other approaches.

A few memento mori traditions are things you do rather than objects in your life. Buddhism, for example, has traditions of "foulness meditation," in which a person is encouraged to contemplate topics like disease and decay -- sometimes in cemeteries or the presence of corpses. After all, Buddhism tells us the nature of the world is impermanence, and what illustrates that more vividly than death? Islamic scriptures likewise exhort believers to think about death, and some Sufis make a habit of visiting graveyards for that purpose. I'm also reminded of a fictional practice, which I think might be based on something in the real world, though I can't place it: in Geraldine Harris' Seven Citadels quartet of novels, the Queen of Seld holds banquets in what will eventually be her tomb.

Speaking of banqueting, the Romans had a rich tradition of memento mori (as you might expect, given that we got the phrase from their language). In the early imperial period, it was fashionable to dine in rooms frescoed with images of skeletons and drink from cups decorated with skulls. The message, though, was far from Buddhism's reminder not to become attached to impermanent things: instead it was, as the poet Horace wrote in that same era, carpe diem. Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow you may die. These macabre decorations were meant to heighten the transient pleasures of life.

Other classical thinkers took it in a more Buddhist-style direction, though. Stoic philosophy is full of injunctions to curb the pleasures of life because you and all the people around you are mortal, and there are accounts which claim a Roman general celebrating a triumph was accompanied by someone reminding him that eventually he would die. We find the same sentiment echoed in the Icelandic Hávamál, with its "Cattle die, / kinsmen die, / all men are mortal" -- though that one goes on to praise the immortality of a good reputation.

Christian tradition leaned heavily into this for centuries, because of the theological emphasis on the dangers of sin and of dying unshriven. To have any hope of heaven, a Christian was supposed to live with one eye on the ever-present possibility of death, rather than assuming it must be far off and you'd see it coming, with time to prepare. Memento mori took every shape from tomb decorations (don't forget that many wealthy people were buried inside churches) to clocks (time is inexorably ticking away) to paintings (the genre known as vanitas emphasizes the vanity, i.e. worthlessness, of impermanent things) to jewelry. The devastation of the Black Death undoubtedly bolstered this tradition, as seen in the Danse Macabre artistic motif, where the Grim Reaper summons away people from all walks of life, kings and bishops alongside peasants.

I promised you baked goods, though, didn't I? Malta celebrates the Month of the Dead in November and commemorates the season with ghadam tal-mejtin, "dead men's bones," a type of cookie filled with sweet, spiced almond dough. And in Sweden, there was a nineteenth-century tradition of funerary confectionery, wrapped in paper printed with memento mori images -- though the candies were often meant to be saved instead of eaten, and some manufacturers bulked them out with substances like chalk to cut costs. You could break a tooth trying to bite into one.

We might even count death omens as a type of memento mori. Most of the ones I know about are European, and take forms ranging from spectral voices in the night to black dogs to a double of the person who's about to die -- with a certain amount of ambiguity around whether encountering such a thing causes you to die (perhaps with some way to avert it), or whether it's merely a signal that death is at hand. To these we might add plague omens, which I know of from both Slavic lands and Japan: people or creatures who appear to warn a town that an epidemic is about to sweep through. The Japanese ones usually promise that anyone who hangs up an image of the creature will be protected from disease, which is certainly helpful of them! (And yes, there was a resurgence in that tradition when the Covid-19 pandemic began.)

These days we are more likely to enjoy death imagery as an aesthetic rather than a philosophical practice. Our life expectancy is vastly higher -- in part because we're far more likely to survive childhood -- and thanks to modern medicine, even an ultimately fatal injury or illness stands a higher chance of giving us time to prepare for the end. But notwithstanding the fever dreams of some technophiles, we have yet to defeat death; immortality remains out of reach. Until that changes, mortality will remain an inescapable fact for every human born.

Patreon banner saying "This post is brought to you by my imaginative backers at Patreon. To join their ranks, click here!"

(originally posted at Swan Tower: https://is.gd/JVBlEI)
swan_tower: (Default)
I have fallen out of the habit of doing these posts! I stopped for a while when I couldn't talk about Sea Beyond research, then failed to really ingrain the practice again. But no time like the present to start up once more!

What if the Moon Didn’t Exist? Voyages to Earths That Might Have Been, Neil F. Comins. I would not call this book well-written on a prose level, but it's conceptually interesting. Comins goes through a number of different astronomical scenarios and looks at, not just what that would look like now, but how it would (likely) affect things such as the evolution of life. For example, if the moon were closer to Earth, tides would be much stronger, greatly increasing the distance covered by the tidal zone, which would make it harder for sea life to transition onto dry land.

Worth noting, though, that this was originally published in 1993, so it doesn't take into account more recent advancements in astronomy and biology. We'd just barely confirmed our first exoplanet sighting back then, and also Comins very much assumes that "life" must look like it does here. On the other hand, it's sort of charming -- in this age of climate change -- to see his final chapter explore a doomsday scenario where we've completely wrecked the ozone layer, which was a major concern at the time. (In fact the "ozone hole" is healing now, and we should be back to 1980 levels within the next couple of decades.)

Comins has another book along these lines, What If the Earth Had Two Moons?, which I may pick up. Dry prose notwithstanding, these are very interesting to read with an eye toward designing different kinds of worlds!

And Dangerous to Know, Darcie Wilde. Third in a series of Recency mysteries I started reading last year, which are very fun -- though demerits to the author, or perhaps her publisher, for the fact that A Useful Woman is NOT the first book of the "A Useful Woman" series, though both that series and this one, the "Rosalind Thorne Mysteries," involve the same characters. It's more than a little confusing.

But anyway! The premise here is that Rosalind Thorne is of a good family that (thanks to her father) fell on hard times a while ago, and so she scrapes by kind of being an assistant-slash-fixer to ladies of quality, handling everything from sending dinner party invitations to hushing up minor scandals. Naturally, the series involves her getting involved with rather more large-scale problems, which bring her into contact with both an attractive Bow Street runner and her former suitor, who unexpectedly inherited his family's dukedom and so couldn't possibly wed a gentlewoman teetering on the edge of being utterly fallen.

This is the third volume in the "Rosalinde Thorne Mysteries" series, and as the title suggests, it tangentially involves Lord Byron -- specifically, some indiscreet correspondence with him which has gone missing. (Byron himself does not appear, which I think is probably for the best.) I suspect you could hop into this series wherever you like, but there's no reason not to start at the beginning.

Copper Script, K.J. Charles. I very much enjoyed Death in the Spires and All of Us Murderers, so I went hunting for other books of Charles' that are more mystery than romance, the latter being less my cup of tea. I'm pleased to say that Copper Script breaks from the similarities shared between those other two titles -- not that the similarities were bad, but it was going to start feeling predictable if all of them followed similar beats. This one is likewise set in the early 20th century and involves a m/m romance that has to maneuver around the prejudices and laws of the time, but the main characters (a police officer and a man who, having lost one hand in WWI, now ekes out a living by analyzing handwriting) are not former lovers who had a bad falling-out some time ago, etc. The story this time is also sliiiiiiightly fantastical: the handwriting analysis slips over the line into psychic perception. Apart from that, though, it's a satisfying non-speculative mystery, with police corruption and blackmail and murder.

Some by Virtue Fall, Alexandra Rowland. In one of the months I didn't report on, I read Rowland's A Conspiracy of Truths, which is a very odd book -- the main character spends essentially the entire novel imprisoned or being shuttled between prisons, only able to affect things through the people he talks to. I enjoyed it, though certain things about the ending left a sour taste in my mouth; I'm pleased to see that the sequel may address those things.

But this is not that book! Instead it's a standalone novella (I think in the same world), focused on the cutthroat world of Shakespearean-style theatre in a land where only women, not men, are permitted to act upon the stage. The rivalry between two companies gets wildly out of hand, and mayhem ensues. The main character was slightly difficult for me to empathize with, being very much an "act first think later if ever" kind of person, but I felt it all came together pretty well in the end.

Isabella Nagg and the Pot of Basil, Oliver Darkshire. Straight-up one of my favorite things I've read recently, and also (I am not the first to make this observation) the most Pratchett-esque thing I've read not written by Terry Pratchett.

But that doesn't mean it's just a Discworld knockoff! Darkshire has built a similarly bonkers world -- e.g. the sun beetle does not travel at a steady pace across the sky and sometimes decides to turn around, making the length of a day rather difficult to guess at -- but his leaping-off point is a story from the Decameron, and the overall vibe is much more medieval English smashed into the Romantics (a Goblin Market plays a large role in the story). You'll know if you want to read this one about three pages in; either you vibe instantly with the voice or you don't. I did, and I'm looking forward to the sequel even though the protagonist of that one is a thoroughly unsympathetic antagonist from this book.

Audition for the Fox, Martin Cahill. Novella about a character who needs to win the patronage of one of ninety-nine gods and has already failed with ninety-six of them, so she tries the trickster fox god. Surprise, he throws her a curveball! She winds up in the past, assigned to make sure a key event happens in the revolution that freed her country from the grip of its invaders.

I loved the folkloric interludes here (stories of the Fox and other gods), and the fact that Cahill doesn't have his heroine single-handedly win a war. Her job is merely to facilitate one specific event, which is one of many dominoes whose fall started decades of fighting. Which doesn't make it not important! I love how that part played out. But it's also not One Person Saves The Day, which is very, very good.

The Wordhord: Daily Life in Old English, Hana Videen. I had managed to overlook the subtitle, so I thought this book was primarily about language; turns out it's halfway between that and the kind of daily life book I read on the regular anyway. Videen digs into different aspects of life and looks at the words used back in Anglo-Saxon days, seeing how they do and do not map to the words we use today, and how vocabulary reveals the ways things got categorized and connected and what this means for how people lived. Being a language and culture nerd, naturally I found this right up my alley!

A Letter to the Luminous Deep, Sylvie Cathrall. My other favorite thing I've read recently! I think it's no accident that both this and Isabella Nagg and the Pot of Basil are very quirky in their premises and voice-y in their execution.

Here the voice is Victorian-style letter-writing, and the premise is a world (you're soon able to guess it's a colonized planet) where, thanks to a catastrophe in the distant past, everybody has to eke out a living on an ocean where there's basically only one landmass of anything like meaningful size. Society is organized around Scholars in different fields -- a concept that extends to things like art -- and the main body of the story is the correspondence between a Scholar of Boundless Campus (a fleet of migratory vessels) and a woman who lives a shut-in life in the underwater habitat built by her eccentric Scholar mother. Around that you get a second set of letters between the siblings of those two, who are trying to piece together what led up to the explosion that destroyed the habitat and caused the main characters to disappear.

Cathrall does have to indulge in a bit of contrivance to get the whole story into letters, diaries, or other written documents, and to control the pacing of reveals. But I didn't mind, because it all just felt so original and engaging! This is the first book of a duology, and I promptly ordered the sequel, which is sitting on my desk as I type this.

City of Iron and Ivy, Thomas Kent West. Disclosure: this book was sent to me for blurbing purposes.

Alternate-history fantasy, in an England where floral magic is put to uses both trivial and epic, both fair and foul. The era is essentially Victorian, but West acknowledges in the afterword that he's taken a number of liberties with the period. That includes the Reaper, who is obviously meant to be an analogue to Jack the Ripper (the story starts in 1888), but -- and for me, this was crucial -- is different enough that it didn't trip my very strong opinions about how to handle the historical evidence of those murders.

But it is not entirely a story about murders. Elswyth, a scarred young lady, has to come to London to seek a husband after her more beautiful and sociable sister Persephone disappears, because otherwise she'll have no future and her father's entire estate will go to a loathesome cousin. Only Elswyth is convinced her sister's disappearance has to do with the Reaper, and furthermore that the Reaper is probably a gentleman or noble, so her attempt to navigate that world is cover for her investigation.

I read the whole thing in about a day, and very much appreciated the ways in which the ending eschews some of the easy resolution I anticipated. I don't know if there will be a sequel, but some dangling threads are left for one, while the main plot here resolves just fine.

The Tinder Box, M.R. Carey. Disclosure: this book was also sent to me for blurbing purposes. (I read three such over the holidays, but finished the third after the New Year.)

Labeling this one "historical fantasy" is kind of interesting, because it both is and it isn't. I'd almost call it Ruritanian fantasy, except that term means works set in a secondary world without magic, whereas this is more Ruritanian in the original sense of the word: it takes place in an imaginary European country (circa the late 18th century), and then adds magic to that. If it weren't for a couple of passing references to real places and the fact that Christianity is central to the tale, it could almost be a secondary world.

Anyway, genre labeling isn't the important thing here. The story involves a soldier demobbed from his king's stupid war due to injury, who finds that making a living back home is easier said than done, thanks to the peasantry being squeezed to the breaking point and beyond by said war. He's employed for a time with an unfriendly widow, only for everything to go haywire when a giant devil falls dead out of the sky and the widow, who turns out to be a witch, pays him to loot the body. He pockets one innocuous-seeming item for himself -- a tinder box -- which of course turns out to be exactly what the witch was looking for, and so begins a chase.

I think of this book as being anti-grimdark in kind of the same way I used that term for Rook and Rose: it starts out there, but it doesn't stay there. Mag is living on the edge of starvation and then makes a variety of incredibly stupid decisions in how he uses the tinder box (in fairness, partly due to repeatedly not having time to think things through), while Jannae, the witch, is deeply untrusting of everyone and everything. Meanwhile, the tinder box turns out to contain three trapped devils, and I'm often leery of "deals with the devil" type stories. But I loved the direction Carey took this in, and the ultimate trajectory is toward hope and healing rather than pyrrhic victories. It's a standalone, and absolutely fine that way; you get a complete meal here, without being teased with anything more.

(originally posted at Swan Tower: https://is.gd/TE2qj6)
swan_tower: (Default)
We've touched on sacred objects before, as they're often integrated with other aspects of religion, but we haven't looked at them directly. We're going to do that now not only because it's a key element of practically every religion, but because these turn out to be the hook upon which cultures have hung some fascinating behaviors!

Anything can potentially be a sacred object, but there are some general patterns. In many cultures, an image of the deity, whether painted or sculpted, is the example par excellence -- but that's not universal; Islam and Protestant Christianity are both notably aniconic. A cross may remind the faithful of Jesus, but it's not a direct representation of God the Son. (Sometimes aniconism rises to the level of being an outright prohibition of any material representation, meaning that crucifix or a painting of Jesus would be blasphemous.) In some cases the deity is believed to be present within the image, either as a constant state, or when temporarily invited there by ritual. If the presence is constant, there may be a rite at the end of the crafting process that brings the image spiritually to life: sanctification, painting in the eyes or the pupils of the eyes, blowing on it to give it breath, or some other moment of transition.

Saints' relics are a special case of representation. While some relics are objects associated with a deity or sanctified person -- things they once owned or touched, which acquire a numinous aura as a result -- Catholicism famously has a tradition of body parts as relics, be they locks of hair, bones, vials of blood, or even the foreskin from Jesus' circumcision. Seen more broadly, though, this isn't unique to Catholicism; ancestor veneration, for example, may include enshrining and making offerings to the skulls of ancestors. To outsiders this may seem morbid, but after all, nothing is more intensely personal than bodily remains.

What's fascinating to me is the question of how much it matters whether the body part is actually that of the person in question. We may understandably chuckle at hearing that the Fourth Crusade looted two different heads of John the Baptist from Constantinople (and four places claim to have it today!), but not everyone historically considered the multiplicity of relics a logical problem: either it was seen as a miracle, or the significance ascribed to the object mattered more than the what we would consider the factual reality, especially if the relic was documented as producing wonders. Of course, this opened the door to all kinds of scam artists selling what they knew were forgeries!

Bits of bone are hardly impressive to look at, though, and if there's one common thread with sacred objects, it's that we frequently want them to appear special. Sometimes this is by having the object itself be something elite, like a sword, but very often it manifests in materials and craftsmanship. Gold and silver, gems, precious wood, intricate carving, and more all give glory to the divine through the money and effort invested in the item -- though periodically you get a backswing in the other direction, with movements that champion simplicity and humility. If the object itself must be humble, as with a saint's relic, then it's liable to be housed in a much fancier box, elevating it by means of its surroundings.

A special nature can also lie in how the object is treated. It is hugely common for sacred objects to be hedged about with restrictions, such that only certain people can touch it, or only at certain times, or only after purifying rites, or all of the above. This can even apply to looking at the thing! Year Seven's discussion of sacred architecture mentioned the layers of restriction that can apply as you move deeper into a holy site; at the extreme end, Judaism's First Temple kept the Ark of the Covenant in the Holy of Holies, a room only the high priest was permitted to enter, and even then only on Yom Kippur. Sacred Shintō objects, the shintai or "divine bodies," may be natural features visible to anybody, but they may also be artifacts permanently shrouded in silk and elaborate cases -- to the point where no one, not even the priests of a shrine, has seen that object in generations or centuries, and may not even know what form it takes! But as with the multiplicity of relics, an insistence on knowledge and observation misses the spiritual point.

Sometimes these items get to go on a trip, though. Lots of religious festivals involve bringing sacred objects out into the streets for the faithful to see -- or at least to see the boxes that hold them, if not the things themselves. This might be an annual celebration, or a ceremony of thanksgiving for a one-off event like a military victory, or a desperate measure taken in times of calamity, like a plague. Even when the object is normally visible to the ordinary worshipper in a temple or church, it's still a special occasion; when it's less accessible than that, it might be a memory someone treasures for the rest of their life. Nor is this limited only to local display: particularly famed or wonder-working objects might be sent out through the countryside, bringing them to visit people who could never journey to their usual home.

. . . or the journey might be more permanent. During the Roman Republic, certain wars included ritual of evocatio or "evocation," which promised better temples and offerings if the enemy's deity came over to Rome's side instead. This could be inflicted on a defeated or surrendered foe, taking a sacred statue away to its new Roman home, but the non-material stage could also be a form of psychological warfare during a siege: We're bribing your gods out from under you. I can't find a source for this now, but I recall reading that ancient Mesopotamian societies had a similar practice -- though whether they did or not is beside the point from a worldbuilding perspective, as you're free to put it into a fictional setting!

The Inca turned this into a full-on hostage situation. I believe the official rhetoric was that the Incan emperor was showing honor to the deities of their subject peoples by removing their sacred objects to Cuzco, but in actual practice, it was comparable to having children or important people as "guests." Any misbehavior on the part of a conquered society could result in the icons of their gods being destroyed: a loss of far more than just the materials and labor that went into those relics. When you believe in the power of such things, the consequences of losing them may be devastating.

Me being the sort of writer I am, this kind of thing is absolute catnip. We have plenty of stories where the religion of a subjugated people is persecuted or prohibited, but what about a god that's been tempted away or kidnapped? Of course a sacred object is rarely seen as being the whole existence of a deity, but if it's the channel through which prayers are conveyed, the point of connection between the mortal world and the divine, then losing that is tantamount to losing the deity themself. Which makes a story about trying to get that back far more than a simple challenge of getting a gold icon off a pedestal without triggering a booby trap. The spiritual dimension can be the seed of an entire plot on its own!

Patreon banner saying "This post is brought to you by my imaginative backers at Patreon. To join their ranks, click here!"

(originally posted at Swan Tower: https://is.gd/EI2tlh)
swan_tower: (Default)
Man was this an unusual year for me and publications.

Not the part where I didn't have a novel out. That's happened before, and it will again, thanks to the vagaries of scheduling; I have years with multiple novels out which more than make up for it.

And not really the part where I only published two short stories, thanks to a drop-off in my production of new stories (after an absolute flood of short fiction writing for a few years prior). Those are:



No, the unusual part is where I published EIGHT POEMS in 2025. There are plenty of poets who outpace that, but for me it's a lot! All are either free to read online, or out of their period of exclusivity so I have made them available myself:



. . . actually, I published nine poems, but one of them is a piece I tucked into one of my own self-pubbed collections as a bonus piece. There were two such collections this year:



So that's it for 2025! I have three things slated to come out in January, though -- a short story and two poems -- so I'll be hitting the ground running next year. Let's see what else 2026 has in store!

(originally posted at Swan Tower: https://is.gd/9nTgOX)
swan_tower: (Default)
I've been talking about the preservation of history as a matter of written records, but as a trained archaeologist, I am obliged to note that history also inheres in the materials we leave behind, from the grand -- elaborate sarcophagi and ruined temples -- to the humble -- potsherds, post holes, and the bones of our meals.

Nobody really took much of an interest in that latter end of the spectrum until fairly recently, but museums for the fancier stuff are not new at all. The earliest one we know of was curated by the princess Ennigaldi two thousand five hundred years ago. Her father, Nabonidus, even gets credited as the "first archaeologist" -- not in the modern, scientific sense, of course, but he did have an interest in the past. He wasn't the only Neo-Babylonian king to excavate temples down to their original foundations before rebuilding them, but he attempted to connect what he found with specific historical rulers and even assign dates to their reigns. His daughter collated the resulting artifacts, which spanned a wide swath of Mesopotamian history, and her museum even had labels in three languages identifying various pieces.

That's a pretty clear-cut example, but the boundaries on what we term a "museum" are pretty fuzzy. Nowadays we tend to mean an institution open to the public, but historically a lot of these things were private collections, whose owners got to pick and choose who viewed the holdings. Some of them were (and still are) focused on specific areas, like Renaissance paintings or ancient Chinese coins, while others were "cabinets of curiosities," filled with whatever eclectic assortment of things caught the eye of the collector. As you might expect, both the focused and encyclopedic types tend to be the domain of the rich, who have the money, the free time, and the storage space to devote to amassing a bunch of stuff purely because it's of interest to them or carries prestige value.

Other proto-museums were temples in more than just a metaphorical sense. Religious offerings don't always take the form of money; people have donated paintings to hang inside a church, or swords to a Shintō shrine. Over time, these institutions amass a ton of valuable artifacts, which (as with a private collection) may or may not be available for other people to view. I've mentioned before the Padmanabhaswamy Temple in Kerala, which has eight vaults full of votive offerings that would double as an incomparable record of centuries or even millennia of Indian history . . . if they were studied. But making these things public in that fashion might be incompatible with their religious purpose.

Museums aren't only limited to art and artifacts, either. Historically -- especially before the development of the modern circulating library -- books got mixed in with other materials. Or a collector might equally have an interest in exotic animals, whether taxidermied or alive, the latter constituting a proto-zoo. More disturbingly, their collection might include people, individuals from far-off lands or those with physical differences being displayed right alongside lions and parrots.

What's the purpose of gathering all this stuff in one place? The answer to that will depend on the nature of the museum in question. For a temple, the museum-ness of the collection might be secondary to the religious effect of gifting valuable things to the divine. But they often still benefit from the prestige of holding such items, whether the value lies in their precious materials, the quality of their craftsmanship, their historical significance, or any other element. The same is true for the individual collector.

But if that was the only factor in play, these wouldn't be museums; they'd just be treasure hoards. The word itself comes from the Greek Muses, and remember, their ranks included scholarly subjects like astronomy and history alongside the arts! One of the core functions of a museum is to preserve things we've decided are significant. Sure, if you dig up a golden statue while rebuilding a temple, you could melt it down for re-use; if you find a marble altar to an ancient god, you could bury it as a foundation stone, or carve it into something else. But placing it in a museum acknowledges that the item has worth beyond the value of its raw materials.

And that worth can be put to a number of different purposes. We don't know why Nabonidus was interested in history and set up his daughter as a museum curator, but it's entirely possible it had something to do with the legitimation of his rule: by possessing things of the past, you kind of position yourself as their heir, or alternatively as someone whose power supersedes what came before. European kings and nobles really liked harkening back to the Romans and the Greeks; having Greek and Roman things around made that connection seem more real -- cf. the Year Eight discussion of the role of historical callbacks in political propaganda.

Not all the purposes are dark or cynical, though. People have created museums, whether private or public, because they're genuinely passionate about those items and what they represent. A lot of those men (they were mostly men) with their cabinets of curiosities wanted to learn about things, and so they gathered stuff together and wrote monographs about the history, composition, and interrelationships of what they had. We may scoff at them now as antiquarians -- ones who often smashed less valuable-looking material on their way to the shiny bits -- but this is is the foundational stratum of modern scholarship. Even now, many museums have research collections: items not on public display, but kept on hand so scholars can access them for other purposes.

The big change over time involves who's allowed to visit the collections. They've gone from being personal hoards shared only with a select few to being public institutions intended to educate the general populace. Historical artifacts are the patrimony of the nation, or of humanity en masse; what gets collected and displayed is shaped by the educational mission. As does how it gets displayed! I don't know if it's still there, but the British Museum used to have a side room set up the way it looked in the eighteenth century, and I've been to quite a few museums that still have glass-topped tables and tiny paper cards with nothing more than the bare facts on them. Quite a contrast with exhibitions that incorporate large stretches of wall text, multimedia shows, and interactive elements. Selections of material may even travel to other museums, sharing more widely the knowledge they represent.

It's not all noble and pure, of course. Indiana Jones may have declared "that belongs in a museum," but he assumed the museum would be in America or somewhere else comparable, not in the golden idol's Peruvian home. When colonialism really began to sink its teeth into the globe, museums became part of that system, looting other parts of the world for the material and intellectual enrichment of their homelands. Some of those treasures have been repatriated, but by no means all. (Exhibit A: the Elgin Marbles.) The mission of preservation is real, but so is the injustice it sometimes justifies, and we're still struggling to find a better balance.

Patreon banner saying "This post is brought to you by my imaginative backers at Patreon. To join their ranks, click here!"

(originally posted at Swan Tower: https://is.gd/WA5QzG)
swan_tower: (Default)
Thanks to my research for the upcoming Sea Beyond duology, I became aware of something called the "Alexander Romance." Like Arthuriana, this is less a text than a genre, an assortment of tales about how Alexander quested for the Water of Life, slew a dragon, journeyed to the bottom of the ocean, and so forth.

Yes, that Alexander. The Great.

How the heck did we wind up with an entire genre of stories about a Macedonian conquerer who died young that bear so little resemblance to the historical reality?

The answer is that history is much easier to forget than we think nowadays, with our easily mass-produced books. However much you want to lament "those who do not remember the past" etc., we know vastly more about it than any prior age could even aspire to. The legendary tales about Alexander arose quite soon after his death, but by the medieval period, his actual life was largely forgotten; more factual texts were not rediscovered and disseminated until the Renaissance. So for quite a while there, the legends were basically all we had.

Historians tend to not like the phrase "the Dark Ages" anymore, and for good reason. It creates assumptions about what life was like -- nasty, brutish, and short -- that turn out to not really match the reality. But while plenty of people have indeed used that term to contrast with the "light" brought by the Renaissance, one of the men responsible for popularizing it (Cardinal Cesare Baronio, in the sixteenth century) meant it as a statement on the lack of records: to him, the Middle Ages were "dark" because we could not see into them. The massive drop in surviving records had cast that era into shadow.

How do those records get lost? Year Two went into the perils that different writing materials and formats are vulnerable to; those in turn affect the preservation of historical knowledge. Papyrus texts have to be recopied regularly if they're to survive in most environments, so anything that disrupts the supply of materials or the labor available to do that recopying means that dozens, hundreds, even thousands of texts will just . . . go away. Parchment is vastly more durable, but it's also very expensive, and so it tended to get recycled: scrape off the existing text, write on it again, and unless you were lazy enough in your scraping that the old words can still be read -- think of a poorly erased blackboard or whiteboard -- later people will need chemical assistance (very destructive) or high-tech photography to see what you got rid of.

And when your supply of written texts shrinks, it tends to go hand in hand with the literacy rate dropping. So even if you have a record of some historical event, how many people have read it? Just because a thing gets preserved doesn't mean the information it contains will be widely disseminated. That is likely to be the domain of specialists -- if them! Maybe it just sits on a shelf or in a box, completely untouched.

Mind you, written records are not the only way of remembering the past. Oral accounts can be astonishingly precise, even over a period of hundreds or thousands of years! But that tends to be true mostly in societies that are wholly oral, without any tradition of books. On an individual level, we have abundant research showing that parts of the brain which don't see intensive use tend to atrophy; if you don't exercise your memory on a daily basis, you will have a poorer memory than someone who lives without writing, let alone a smartphone. On a societal level, you need training and support for the lorekeepers, so they act as a verification check on each other's accurate recitation. Without that, the stories will drift over time, much like the Alexander Romance has done.

And regardless of whether history is preserved orally or on the page, cultural factors are going to shape what history gets preserved. When the fall of the Western Roman Empire changed the landscape of European letters, the Church was left as the main champion of written records. Were they going to invest their limited time and resources into salvaging the personal letters of ordinary Greeks and Romans? Definitely not. Some plays and other literary works got recopied; others were lost forever. The same was true of histories and works of philosophy. A thousand judgment calls got made, and anything which supported the needs and values of the society of the time was more likely to make the cut, while anything deemed wrong-headed or shocking was more likely to fall by the wayside.

The result is that before the advent of the printing press -- and even for some time after it -- the average person would be astoundingly ignorant of any history outside living memory. They might know some names or events, but can they accurately link those up with dates? Their knowledge would be equivalent to my understanding of the American Civil War amounting to "there was a Great Rebellion in the days of Good President Abe, who was most treacherously murdered by . . . I dunno, somebody."

In fact, there might be several different "somebodies" depending on who's telling the tale. John Wilkes Booth might live on as a byword for an assassin -- imagine if "booth" became the general term for a murderer -- but it's equally possible that some people would tell a tale where Lincoln was murdered by an actor, others where a soldier was responsible, and did that happen at a theatre or at his house? (Booth originally planned to kidnap Lincoln from the latter; that detail might get interpolated into the memory of the assassination.) Or it gets mixed up somehow with Gettysburg, and Lincoln is shot right after giving his famous speech, because all the famous bits have been collapsed together.

Even today, there are plenty of Americans who would probably be hard-pressed to correctly name the start and end dates of our Civil War; I'm not trying to claim that the availability of historical information means we all know it in accurate detail. But at least the information is there, and characters who need to know it can find it. Furthermore, our knowledge is expanding all the time, thanks to archaeology and the recovery of forgotten or erased documents. Now and in the future, the challenge tends to lie more in the ability to sift through a mountain of data to find what you need, and in the arguments over how that data should be interpreted.

But in any story modeled on an earlier kind of society, I roll my eyes when characters are easily able to learn what happened six hundred years ago, and moreover the story they get is one hundred percent correct. That just ain't how it goes. The past is dark, and when you shine a light into its depths, you might get twelve different reflections bouncing back at you, as competing narratives each remember those events in variable ways.

For a writer, though, I don't think that's a bug. It's a feature. Let your characters struggle with this challenge! Muddy the waters with contradictory accounts! If you want your readers to know the "real" story, write that as a bonus for your website or a standalone piece of related fiction. Then you get to have your cake and eat it, too.

Patreon banner saying "This post is brought to you by my imaginative backers at Patreon. To join their ranks, click here!"

(originally posted at Swan Tower: https://is.gd/Tnyzpz)
swan_tower: (*writing)
I suppose it's fitting that a poem about language should attract some attention from translators after it wins the Hugo Award, but I didn't see it coming.

Cuentos para Algernon has published my work once before, a translation of "Waiting for Beauty" as "Esperando a que Bella . . .". A little while ago, Marcheto came back to ask if she could also translate "A War of Words" -- a query that left me staring in a bit of surprise at my computer screen, because I'd legit never thought anybody would be interested in translating my poetry. The result went live today, as "Pillaje de palabras."

Nor will that be the only one! There's also a Romanian translation in the works!

But this one is a little special, because as you may recall, I spent 2024 bludgeoning myself up to something like reading proficiency in Spanish so I could do broader research for the Sea Beyond. When Marcheto asked to translate "Waiting for Beauty," I could kinda read the result, but mostly because I already knew what it said. This time around, I was actually in a position to collaborate more actively with her: the translation is Marcheto's, but I read a draft and gave feedback, suggesting some slight alterations to bring it more in line with my original intent.

This was a fascinating process. Every translator knows there are always choices to make -- and they're not right or wrong choices, just questions of priority and style. For example: if you were to translate the title for its literal meaning, it would be "Una guerra de palabras," and that's what Marcheto originally went with. She proposed "Pillaje de palabras" as an alternative, though, because I had mentioned at the outset that I wanted to preserve the elements of alliteration within the poem if it could be done naturally in Spanish. It's a less direct translation, but one that emphasizes the poetic quality of the title.

Or take the places where languages can't quite re-create each other's effects. Marcheto originally translated "raid" as "incursión," which is of course completely reasonable. In reading the Spanish draft, though, I became aware of something I'd done entirely on reflex when writing the poem: the text leans heavily toward short, simple, Germanic-derived words, rather than Latinate ones, because the former tend to sound more direct and harsh than the latter. What do you do, though, when the language of the translation is Latinate through and through? I suggested, and Marcheto agreed with, "ataque" instead, which sounds a little sharper (and assonates with "arrebatada" to boot). The same happened with "existe una palabra" becoming "hay una palabra": she said, and I believe her, that "existe" doesn't sound at all high-flown to Spanish speakers, the way that "a word exists" sounds fancier in English than "there's a word" . . . but "hay una" flows off the tongue a little more smoothly, so that's what we went with.

All told, my suggested alterations were few and minor. (There were also a couple she stood her ground on -- which was entirely fair; she's the native speaker!) But it was a really intriguing process, the first time I've been able to meaningfully contribute to the translation of my own work. It makes you think a lot about what you did and why you did it, and if you have to choose between two different priorities, which one matters to you more.

If you read Spanish, I'd be delighted to hear your thoughts on the translation!
swan_tower: (*writing)
A screencap of a sonnet titled "The Novelist Laments in Verse" by Marie Brennan:Shall I compare me to a wrung-out rag?I am more limp, more grimy, and more drained.The labor of a novel makes me sag;my fervor for this enterprise has waned.Sometimes -- ofttimes -- I’ve craved a restful week,in which no scenes or chapters I compose,no useful details in my reading seek:but sans those things, a novel never grows.So my eternal labor must go on,in word by word and day by tiresome day,until the moment when, quite pale and wan,I can, arm raised in feeblest triumph, say:I may be brain-dead and completely beat,but after all these months, my book’s complete.

(I have finished a draft of The Worst Monk in Omnu, just in time to kick back for the holidays!)
swan_tower: (Default)
Philosophy is one of those topics where, if you're intending to explore it in detail in your fiction, you probably already know more about it than I do.

The way we talk about it nowadays, it's the exemplar of a rarefied field of study, the province of intellectuals who hardly engage at all with the world around them. As a result, you're unlikely to center philosophy in your worldbuilding unless you know quite a bit about it to begin with (as I, freely confessed, do not). But I do know this much: philosophy is far from disengaged with the world. Indeed, its purpose is to consider why the world works the way it does, how we should engage with it, and other such fundamental and vital questions. So even though my own knowledge is limited, it's worth taking a bit of time to unpack just what philosophy is.

We've touched on parts of it already, because philosophy is not fully separable from other topics. The Year Six essays on sin and salvation? Those got grouped under my broad "religion" header for obvious reasons, but they're also philosophical topics -- specifically the branch known as moral philosophy, which concerns itself with ethical questions like what is good and whether one should weigh intentions or consequences more heavily in evaluating an action. For many people, religion has long been the foundation of moral philosophy . . . though the notion some hold, that a person can't really be moral without faith to enforce it, is utterly without foundation.

Last week's science essay also touched on philosophical matters, because philosophy asks questions like "what do we know and how do we know we know it?" This branch is known as epistemology, or the study of knowledge itself. That revolution in thinking I mentioned before, where the Royal Society said nullius in verba and started testing long-held dogma to see if it was right? That was an epistemological shift, one that declared sense experience and experimental procedure to be the proper basis of knowledge, rather than deference to authority.

Science also ties in with the logic branch of philosophy. How do you know if someone's reasoning is sound? Among specialists, different logical methods often get discussed in very abstract, dry-sounding ways, but we use them all the time in daily life: if you come home to find toilet paper shredded throughout the house and the only living creature who was there is the dog, ergo you conclude the dog is to blame, you're applying logic. Science, medicine, and the law all share the task of looking at the evidence and attempting to formulate an explanation that adequately explains what you see -- or, alternatively, to show that an explanation fails that test. Because, of course, the flip side of logical reasoning is the fallacy: incorrect reasoning, which fails at one or more steps in the chain.

The fourth major branch is metaphysics, and it's the hardest to pin down (thanks in part to the definition changing over time; that's what happens when your field of study has been around for thousands of years). This, I suspect, is what most people think of when they hear the word "philosophy," because metaphysics is the branch asking questions like "why does reality exist?" But here, too, it loops around to touch on other areas of culture, as the beginning and end of the universe fall under this header: religion-themed topics you'll again find in Year Six.

Enough of the abstractions, though. What does this mean for fiction?

Whether you mean it to or not, philosophy is going to soak your fiction, because it soaks your thinking. If your student at magic school decides to experiment with different ways of casting spells to see if what the teacher said is true or not, that's demonstrating a certain epistemological stance, one that says experimental results are the most valid way to answer a question. If your protagonist investigates a mystery and comes up with a theory about what's happening, they're using a specific logical approach. If your villain is pursuing a potentially admirable outcome by really terrible means, they're subscribing to a consequentialist view of ethics, the one commonly shorthanded as "the end justifies the means."

If you don't make a conscious effort to worldbuild the philosophy of your setting, its philosophy is likely to default to yours. Which is not necessarily a bad thing! But it can feel anachronistic or otherwise out of place. If the protagonist in your medieval-esque story approaches questions of knowledge and logic like a modern scientist, they're going to feel a bit like a modern person dressed up in fancy clothes. If the good guys all do that while the bad guys adhere to different philosophical stances, now you're adding an implied moral dimension to the result.

And I suspect that for most stories, it's that ethical dimension of philosophy where this influence becomes most obvious and, at times, problematic. Protagonist does a bad thing, but it gets brushed off because they've got a good heart and that makes it okay? The story is presenting a philosophical argument, whether the author thinks of it that way or not. When the chips are down and a character has to make a hard decision, which way do they jump? Will they bend or break a principle to help someone in need? Will they sacrifice their own desires for the sake of upholding that principle? This is the stuff of deep personal drama, and simply recognizing it as such -- and thinking about what stances the various answers would express -- can result in more powerful stories, rather than simple ones where the supposed hard choice is really a no-brainer.

But especially on that ethical front, it's going to be difficult to write a story that endorses a philosophy you, the author, do not support. Deontology, for example, is the field that looks at ethics from the perspective of obedience to rules . . . and for many of us, that rapidly leads to "lawful evil" territory. We'd have a hard time writing a sincere story in which the protagonist virtuously obeys a terrible order because their duty requires it -- not as anything other than a tragic ending, anyway. It could be the basis of a villain or an antagonistic society, though, and in fact we often deploy these elements in exactly that fashion.

So even if you don't have a degree in philosophy, just dabbling your toes in the shallow end of that ocean-sized pool can help you become more aware of what message your worldbuilding and plot are sending. And that, I think, is worth it!

Patreon banner saying "This post is brought to you by my imaginative backers at Patreon. To join their ranks, click here!"

(originally posted at Swan Tower: https://is.gd/fDGUFl)
swan_tower: (Default)
In the beginning, there was the list.

Some of our oldest written texts are, in fact, just lists of things: types of trees, types of bird, that sort of thing. They may have been used for teaching vocabulary in writing, but they also serve as a foundational element for knowledge, one so basic that the average person today barely even thinks about it. But how can you learn about Stuff if you haven't first thought about what Stuff is out there?

The Onomasticon of Amenope goes a step further. Not only does this Egyptian text from three thousand years ago set out to help the student learn "all things that exist," but it organizes them into loose categories, summarized by Alan Gardiner as things like "persons, courts, offices, occupations," "classes, tribes, and types of human being," and "the towns of Egypt." This is a vital step in scholarship, not only in the past but the present: even today, we wrestle with questions of categorization and how best to group things, because there's no single "right" answer. What system is best depends on what you want to use it for, and how you approach this issue reveals a lot about where your priorities are. (Think of a grocery store: what's revealed by having dedicated shelving for things like "Hispanic foods" and "Asian foods," and what items could arguably be placed among them but aren't.)

Another very early category of scholarship is travel writing or travelers' reports -- basically, accounts of ethnography and natural history covering foreign lands. These have often been highly fanciful, reporting things like people with no heads and their faces in their stomachs, but why? It's hard to say for sure. In some cases the information probably got garbled in the transmission (think of the game "telephone"); in others, the observer may have misunderstood what they were seeing; sometimes the teller deliberately jazzed up their material, and sometimes they made it up out of whole cloth, perhaps to support whatever larger point they wanted to make. From our modern perspective, it often looks highly unreliable . . . but it's still a key element in laying the foundations of knowledge.

Once you have foundations, you can start building upon them. Much ancient scholarship takes the form of commentaries, works that aim to explain, expand upon, or contradict existing texts, often by pointing at another text that says something different. You also get textual criticism, which is our modern term for a practice going back at least two thousand years: when works are copied by hand, there is significant need for scholars comparing the resulting variants and attempting to identify which ones are the oldest or most accurate. Basically, undoing that game of telephone, lest things get garbled beyond comprehension.

What you don't tend to get -- not until more recently -- is research as we think of it now. There absolutely were people who attempted to explain how the world worked, but they largely did so by sitting and thinking, rather than by actively observing phenomena and testing their theories. That doesn't mean they weren't curious about things, though! How the heck does vision work, or smell? Why do objects fall down? What makes the planets seem to "move backward" through the sky, rather than following a straight path? What engenders disease in the body? People have been trying to answer these questions for thousands of years. The pop culture image of pre-Enlightenment science is that people just said "it's all because of the gods" and stopped there, but in truth, pre-modern people were very interested in finding more specific answers. Yes, it was all due to the gods, but that didn't mean there weren't patterns and rules to the divine design. Even medieval Christians, often assumed to be uninterested in or afraid of asking questions (lest the Church come down on their heads), argued that better understanding the mechanics of God's creation was an expression of piety, rather than incompatible with it.

But it's true that they largely didn't conduct experimentation in the modern, scientific method sense. Science and philosophy were strongly linked; rather than aiming to dispassionately observe facts, much less formulate a hypothesis and then see whether the data bore it out, people sought explanations that would be in harmony with their beliefs about the nature of existence. Pre-Copernican astronomy was shaped by philosophical convictions like "the earth we humans live on is supremely important" and "circles are the most perfect shape, therefore the one ordained for the movement of heavenly bodies" -- because why would divine entities arrange things any other way?

Scholarship and science were also strongly shaped by respect for past authority, to the point where luminaries like Aristotle were practically deified. (Or literally deified, in the case of the Egyptian chancellor Imhotep.) It marked a tremendous sea change when the English Royal Society in the seventeenth century adopted as its motto Nullius in verba, loosely translated as "take nobody's word for it." They resolved not to accept the wisdom of yore, not until it had been actively tested for veracity . . . and if it failed to hold water? Then out it went, regardless of who said it and how long it had been accepted as dogma.

This is, of course, a highly simplified view of the history of science. Not everything proceeded at the same pace; astronomy, for example, has an incredibly long history of precise observation and refinement of instrumentation, because correctly understanding the sky was vital to things like the creation of calendars, which in turn affected everything from agriculture to taxation. Biology, meanwhile, spent a lot longer relying on anecdata. But it's vital to remember that things which seem completely obvious to us are only so because somebody has already done the hard work of parsing the mysteries of things like the circulation of blood or the chemistry of combustion, which in fact were not obvious at all.

And this opens an interesting side door for science fiction and fantasy writers. The history of science is littered with theories eventually proved incorrect -- but what if they weren't wrong? Richard Garfinkle's novel Celestial Matters operates in a cosmos where Aristotelian biology and Ptolemaic astronomy are the reality of things, and develops its story accordingly. There's a whole Wikipedia list of superseded scientific theories, which could be fodder for story ideas! (But tread carefully, as some of those theories have pretty horrific implications, especially when they have to do with people's behavior.)

It's also worth thinking about what theories we hold today will look hilariously obsolete in the future. We like to think of ourselves as having attained the pinnacle of science and everything from here on out is just polishing the details, but you never know when an Einstein is going to come along and overturn the status quo with a new, deeper explanation of the facts. Of course none of us know what those future theories will be -- if we did, we'd be the Einsteins of our generation! But if you can spin a convincing-sounding foundation for your theory, you can present the reader with a world that contradicts what we think we know today.

Patreon banner saying "This post is brought to you by my imaginative backers at Patreon. To join their ranks, click here!"

(originally posted at Swan Tower: https://is.gd/jG7X6K)
swan_tower: (Default)
It may seem odd that I'm following up a discussion of segregation on the basis of sex with one on pornography, but bear with me: they're not as unrelated as they seem.

Pornography is notoriously difficult to define. There's even a Wikipedia page for the phrase famously used by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Steward to describe hard-core material: "I know it when I see it." Subjective? Definitely. But then, what counts as obscene or purient material has always been subjective. In one society, the sight of a lady's ankles might be titillating; meanwhile, over in Moche Peru, potters were busy making ceramics depicting anal sex, fellatio, and other explicit acts.

What is licentious is closely linked with what is hidden from common view. I recall reading a mystery novel written by an author living in Saudi Arabia, where the male protagonist mentally chides himself for gazing too long at a woman's hands, the only part of her not covered by her burqa. He also overhears conservative imams on the radio railing against women "seducing" men with the mere sound of their voices. When almost everything is hidden away, the few scraps remaining become massively charged with sexual potential.

This means that, believe or not, what's considered pornographic or titillating is a place for worldbuilding! Holly Black made great use of this in her Curse Workers trilogy, a contemporary fantasy where magic requires contact between the bare skin of someone's hand and another person. Because this ability is widespread, gloves are a standard part of the dress code for everybody, a way of signaling that you're safe to be around . . . and at one point in the series, the teenaged protagonist, snooping on his older brother's computer, finds a stash of soft-core porn featuring women tugging their gloves off all sexy-like for the camera. We think nothing of seeing somebody's bare hands, but when they're normally concealed? You bet that would become an erotic sight.

By contrast, that which is routine will carry much less force. We tend to hide female breasts from view enough that even breastfeeding in public can be controversial, but in tropical regions where women traditionally wear nothing on top, it's not a non-stop pornographic show: that's simply normalized. Greece and Rome in antiquity were full of representational dicks -- worn as jewelry, carved on buildings, molded into lamps, used as wind chimes -- but those were to turn away evil, not to get people aroused.

In addition to shaping what is pornographic, your worldbuilding specifics will affect what kind of pornography is available to people. The Moche may have left behind a lot of sexually explicit ceramics, but those would have been elite objects; the average peasant toiling away in his field wouldn't be able to acquire elaborately molded works made by skilled artisans, regardless of their subject matter. For most of history, pornography has largely been the domain of the wealthy.

Some things are ubiquitous. We've had the ability to scratch simple depictions of genitalia into wood, stone, or clay for tens of thousands of years, and boy howdy have people done that! But how often was it done for the purpose of titillation? That, we don't know. It's easier to be certain when we find sexualized graffiti in appropriate contexts, like the walls of brothels in Pompeii. We also have examples of extremely phallic objects going back to the Upper Paleolithic, though the earliest we can be sure of any of these being put to sexual use is ancient Egypt (where we have artwork depicting it in action). Was that use purely recreational, or somehow ritual in nature? Again, we often don't know.

What really makes pornography take off, though, is printing technology. Prior to that, your smut had to be artisanally hand-crafted -- expensive in both labor and resources. The common person could really only afford dirty talk and maybe some crude pictures scratched into a wall. Once you have woodblocks, though, and later on, movable type, it becomes possible to mass-produce both images and text for all kinds of purposes. Of course, early printing was often highly regulated, with governmental censors eager to quash anything that might corrupt public morals. We don't have a great surge of obscene material from the late medieval and early modern periods. As printing became cheaper and more widespread, though, so was born an underground industry in pornography. Later on, audiovisual media did the same thing for sexual performances, allowing them to be enjoyed in privacy rather than only at live shows.

It isn't all about getting people off, though. Some sexual works are created with an eye toward education, e.g. for married couples who needed to learn how to do the deed, and maybe even how to enjoy themselves better along the way. The Kama Sutra is an extremely famous example of this, though it's much broader in focus than its pop-culture image presents; it's more like a forerunner of the entire relationship-advice genre. Meanwhile, Edo-period shunga (erotic pictures) in Japan kept getting regulated not because the shogunate disapproved of salacious art in general, but because the artists kept slipping political commentary into their works!

Regulations have run the gamut. In puritanical eras, the government usually tries to eliminate pornography entirely -- with limited success at best. Such things will still circulate via private networks, especially among the elite, who have the wealth and influence to buy both the material and escape from the consequences of having it. In other times and places, normative heterosexual pornography is fine, but anything considered "deviant," like homosexual acts, faces censorship. Or pornography is permitted, but it has to be packaged in a fashion that marks it out for what it is, e.g. with a plain paper cover in a certain color. Or it's high art if it takes certain forms, like sculpture, but low art and banned if it's available to the masses.

But again, bear in mind: what's considered licentious will be entirely defined by social norms. Thomas Edison made a film in which a man and a woman kissed; some people considered that obscene when it came out in 1896. In 1999, it was judged culturally significant enough to be preserved in the National Film Registry. And whether licentiousness is a priori bad will also be culturally relative: some Hindu temples not only depict sexual acts, but are intended to arouse the viewer, because sexual desire is entirely compatible with religious experience. So from the perspective of a fictional world, it's entirely up to the writer where they set their parameters . . . but how that's received by their real-world audience will be another matter entirely!

Patreon banner saying "This post is brought to you by my imaginative backers at Patreon. To join their ranks, click here!"

(originally posted at Swan Tower: https://is.gd/dP9kgS)
swan_tower: (Default)
Segueing on from eunuchs and the notion of them guarding harems, let's talk about contexts in which people tend to get separated on the basis of sex. Or gender -- but in the types of contexts were this segregation happens, the concern is often very specifically about bodies, and what they're carrying downstairs. When biological sex and social gender do not align, the dynamics get more complicated, as we're seeing in the present day.

Some kinds of sex segregation are situational, being focused on a specific event. Rites of passage in certain types of society are often focused on initiating boys into the company of men and girls into the company of women; it therefore makes sense that the other group shouldn't be present. Childbirth is another event that may be restricted only to women, with men having their own traditions to perform elsewhere. Even a girls' slumber party may be off-limits to boys, any such intruders being driven away with shrieks of outrage and maybe some thrown pillows. But once that event is over, the space opens up again; the living room where the slumber party was held is not forbidden to men forevermore.

Where the separation is more about the space than a specific event, it's most likely to happen in contexts that are both bodily and communal. Locker rooms and bathing facilities, for example, involve individuals stripping down in the company of other people, so we tend to have separate ones for men and women. The communal part is particularly important here: nobody thinks twice about the fact that toilets at home or on airplanes are all-gender by default, because they're also single-occupancy. It's only when the space is shared that hackles rise over a lack of segregation -- though proponents point out that all-gender communal restrooms tend to be built in a way that offers more privacy to everybody, and that's a good thing.

For many of us, it probably makes sense that anything which involves baring intimate parts of the body should be veiled from the opposite sex, outside special circumstances. But the "bodily" part of the above equation also extends in directions that may be less obvious to my average reader . . . like eating. We think nothing of men and women eating together, even in public! But in other places and times, women have taken their meals separately from men, even within the walls of their own homes -- and a restaurant is right out. Regency England considered it barely acceptable for a woman of quality to dine in a private room at a commercial establishment, especially if she was traveling, but out in public? That was scandalous. (The French, ever risqué, thought it was just fine.)

The other broad category in which segregation may rear its head is religious contexts. Mosques very commonly have separate sections for men and women, for the very practical reason than Muslim prayer involves kneeling and bowing one's head to the ground, which leads to a lot of time with the rear end of the person ahead of you being right in front of your face. In mixed contexts, it's easy to see how this can get socially awkward and may distract people from the religious matters that should be their focus. Orthodox and some Conservative Jewish synagogues likewise maintain separate sections for men and women, again for reasons of modesty and improved attention to God.

Depending on the place in question, this division can be accomplished in a number of ways. The different sections can be marked by anything from segregated doors to a rope to a low wall to a curtain, depending on the degree of privacy required. This may run laterally through the space, so that the women are (usually) behind the men, or it may run axially, placing them side-by-side -- the latter carrying a great symbolic connotation of equality, as it allows both sexes to be equally close to the front. Or the separation may be greater, with women in a balcony (echoed by the Women's Gallery that used to allow English ladies to observe the doings of a wholly masculine Parliament), in a different room, or even in another building entirely, one constructed for their sole use.

Of course, when we think of sex segregation, we think above all of purdah -- using that as a generalized term for the seclusion of women from public view, via clothing, architecture, and behavior, in all contexts rather than only specific ones. On the sartorial end, veils can hide a woman's hair, face, or even eyes from view, while long skirts, long sleeves, and perhaps gloves conceal everything else, depending on the degree of concealment required. On the architectural end, pierced wooden screens serve a dual purpose: environmentally, they permit some air circulation while blocking most light, and socially, they prevent outsiders from easily seeing into the house, where the women are.

In English we tend to equate the word "harem" with a man's collection of wives and concubines, but properly speaking, it's the private part of the house, which by the principle of metonymy came to also indicate the women there. Male outsiders and servants may not enter; even male relatives may be restricted, with only the closest or those under the age of puberty allowed across the threshold. Meanwhile, the women themselves often face restrictions on their ability to leave -- which, in extreme cases (like the wives and concubines of a ruler), might extend as far as prohibiting that entirely.

To be clear, although we associate this with the Muslim world, and perhaps with India, that's not its only context. Noble and royal women in East Asian countries, for example, might only converse with men from behind a screen, because it was improper for them to be viewed directly. Early modern Spanish writings are full of the idea that women should stay within their houses and not go out, only grudgingly allowing for things like church attendance -- indeed, Europe more broadly agreed that women should not be out in public any more than strictly necessary. Where there is patriarchy, there will be a desire to control the visibility, movements, and activities of women.

At least for elite women. Because let's be clear: this kind of segregation is ultimately a luxury, and therefore not equally affordable by all classes. Somebody has to go out for food, water, and other necessities, and that work can't all be done by men, because they're busy with their own jobs. The private seclusion of upper-class women relies on the public activities of slaves or paid servants, many of whom will be female. Meanwhile, households living closer to the poverty line can't afford that kind of help; their women might have to work at agricultural or commercial tasks just to make ends meet. They may still be barred from certain contexts, forbidden to attend the theatre or take a meal in a tavern, and they may be required to observe strict forms of modesty while they're out and about, but they can't be hidden away entirely.

Ultimately, then, while limited and context-dependent forms of sex segregation can be very commonplace, the blanket sort indicated by the term purdah is an expression not only of gender ideology but of economics. It can only occur where there is the wealth to support it, along with the will to enforce it.

Patreon banner saying "This post is brought to you by my imaginative backers at Patreon. To join their ranks, click here!"

(originally posted at Swan Tower: https://is.gd/ZQlmSn)
swan_tower: (Default)
As you can imagine, this essay will continue with a frank discussion of genitalia and modifications to same.

A eunuch is generally understood to mean a man who has been castrated, i.e. whose testicles have been cut off. Sometimes, though, he has been fully emasculated -- meaning removal of the penis as well; this was usually the case with Chinese eunuchs -- while on other occasions, the term refers to any man who is unable to procreate (e.g. because of impotence or chemical castration), even if he is intact. Unsurprisingly, it can also be slung as an insult against a man, questioning his virility.

We probably got the idea of eunuchs from animal husbandry, where castration of males is common enough that we often have separate terms for the two types: steers vs. bulls, geldings vs. stallions. Among livestock, it brings a number of benefits to their human owners; castrated beasts are less likely to attack people or other males and less likely to break down fences to try and get at females, while the small number of reproductively capable individuals makes it easier to control the population size and arrange for advantageous breeding matches. Neutered animals, female as well as male, also tend to live noticeably longer.

Among humans, the physical effects are similar. The removal of the testicles generally reduces sexual desire and its associated behaviors, while preventing reproduction. If performed before puberty -- as it usually is with animals -- the subject's voice will remain high, he won't grow facial hair or develop male pattern baldness, he'll put on less muscle and retain more fat, and he may wind up tall and long-limbed, as castration interferes with the hormonal changes that stop bone growth. He also stands a good chance of living longer. Males castrated after puberty, by contrast, will generally keep the changes already experienced, though they too will not progress to baldness.

The social effects, though . . . those get very complicated.

Castration or emasculation can be a punishment, not only for the individual, but for the lineage they're no longer able to perpetuate. As such, in a society where a crime taints the whole family, a male criminal might be executed and his sons castrated, stopping the line in its tracks. We've also often seen it as a fitting consequence for sexual crimes -- a category that at times has unfortunately included being gay. Of course, reduction in sexual desire doesn't necessarily mean its elimination entirely, not all sexual crimes are driven by desire in the first place, and there are ways to rape people without functioning testicles (or even a penis). And while there's some evidence that castrated men are less likely to re-offend, it's too scant for us to be sure of a firm causal relationship. Still, in some jurisdictions, convicts are offered a choice between castration (surgical or chemical) followed by release from prison, and serving a longer sentence while keeping their bodies intact . . . and some of them do indeed choose the former.

On the other hand, castration has sometimes been a thing people voluntarily seek out. Transgender women, of course, may pursue it in the interests of bringing their bodies in line with their self-image. Historically, boys with particularly pure singing voices might either be castrated or undergo a procedure that made their testicles atrophy, so they would retain their childhood range into adulthood; where women were forbidden to sing, these castrati took their place in music. And then in certain places and times, becoming a eunuch could actually be a route to opportunity, wealth, and power.

Though our modern democratic societies tend not to think this way, in cultures more organized around lineages and inheritance, a man who can't procreate is seen as lacking the motivations that drive people to amass power for themselves, their heirs, and their broader kin groups -- meaning that he can be relied upon to serve the interests of his lord instead. In East Asia, eunuch officials were often seen as extensions of the king's or emperor's will, in contrast with scholar-officials who might oppose it. How true this was in reality, of course, depended on the rulers and the officials in question!

That's one kind of trustworthiness; another involves women. Unsurprisingly, eunuchs have also been trusted among sheltered female populations in ways that intact males were not. Probably the most common image of them in the West is as harem guards, because they were less likely to engage in sexual behavior with the women there, and incapable of siring children on them even if such transgressions happened. That's not inaccurate, but it's incomplete, as eunuchs served in a variety of domestic and bureaucratic roles related to such environments. They were the point of contact between male and female worlds, their own liminal status allowing them to cross over into both.

Liminal -- and in many cases, lowly. Eunuchs were commonly servants or even slaves (with castrated slaves sometimes fetching a higher price), and as many of us know from other contexts, high-ranking people easily fall into the trap of forgetting just how much the servants around them are overhearing. Assumed loyalty plus invisible ubiquity makes for a great combination: is it any wonder that eunuchs sometimes doubled as spies? Of course this was not without its dangers; a servant or slave can easily be executed if caught snooping, and that loyalty may not extend in both directions. Still, knowing everyone's secrets and passing them on to the right ears can be a route to power.

Eunuchs didn't only wield power from the shadows, though. In both the Muslim and Chinese worlds, they could also rise to incredibly high rank -- including military rank! The advantage of a eunuch general is that there's not much point in him staging a coup to overthrow the ruler: what's he going to do, start a dynasty that ends when he dies? Few people will flock to that usurper's banner, given that they want stability, not a new civil war a few years or decades down the line. (I do wonder how many of those eunuch military officials were castrated as adults instead of as boys. I suspect more of the former, as they would have the benefits of puberty-induced changes to their bodies -- useful if they're expected to fight personally, instead of just directing the soldiers -- but I don't know for sure.)

In speculative fiction, eunuchs have tended to serve precisely one role: to code a society as a certain kind of "decadent" court, usually modeled on something like Muslim caliphates or the Ottoman Empire. They guard harems, and that's it. But that's been changing a little of late, with characters like the spymaster Varys in George R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire or the general Ouyang in Shelley Parker-Chan's Radiant Emperor duology, which is historical fantasy set in the transition between the Chinese Yuan and Ming dynasties. Both of those characters are singular, rather than belonging to extensive traditions of eunuch service, but they both reflect genuine dynamics around the roles castrated men can fill that aren't guarding harems. I doubt we'll see a flood of eunuch characters in Anglophone fiction any time soon -- if only because it's a topic that tends to make a lot of male readers uncomfortable -- but it would be interesting to get some continued variety!

Patreon banner saying "This post is brought to you by my imaginative backers at Patreon. To join their ranks, click here!"

(originally posted at Swan Tower: https://is.gd/3vKXuV)
swan_tower: (Default)
Nine years and eight months ago, I earned my black belt in shōrin-ryu karate.

Today, I became a second degree black belt.

It was supposed to happen sooner. But right when the head of my dojo began saying that maybe it was time for me to prep for testing, a pandemic started. Which put a dent in my training. And even once classes began again, various factors meant I wasn't able to go regularly. And then 2024 was, in hindsight, a rather abysmal year for my health. And and and, spring of this year rolled around, and I realized I was in danger of it being ten years since my previous test, and dammit, I did not intend to let that milestone pass without me at least trying to take the next step.

There were more than a few hurdles along the way. I've had wrist problems for years that meant I hadn't been doing kobudo (weapons training), but you're expected to do that as part of your test. So starting in August I began a crash course, scraping the rust off the sai kata I was expected to perform -- not too bad; it was one I used to know well -- and, uh, learning from scratch a long and difficult bo kata that I did not know in the slightest. I went so gung-ho on that, in fact, that I managed to give myself a repetitive stress sprain in my right ankle five weeks before the test (bear in mind that sprains take about six weeks to heal . . .). And then, to put the cherry on top of that sundae, I caught my big toe against the mat nine days ago and basically re-activated the hellacious sprain I had in that joint some years previously.

As I put it to several people, by the time I got to the test, I felt like I was being held together by chewing gum. Not even duct tape: that would have been an upgrade.

But these higher-level tests can only be done when our dojo's founder is in town (he moved back to Okinawa a few years ago), and his next visit will likely be for the seminar in April of next year. That would be past the decade mark I was determined to beat. So, come hell or high water, I was going to drag my sorry carcass through the test -- and I did! And, barring a couple of utterly bone-headed errors brought on by nerves (which got knowing nods of "yep, that happens" from other black belts later), I did acceptably well. I faced down literally an international panel of seven sensei -- Shihan being in from Okinawa, and also we have a contingent of Germans from one of our sister dojo here for the fall seminar -- whose collective belt rank totaled well over forty degrees, and I achieved ni-dan status.

You don't get a new belt, of course. It's still the same black belt as before. But there's kind of a joke that a truly experienced black belt becomes a white belt again, because over time the black threads fray and break, revealing the white canvas core underneath, so that a truly high-level sensei's belt can be tattered indeed.

And this afternoon, after I passed my test . . .

. . . I glanced down at my belt . . .

. . . and I found a tiny frayed spot on the corner of one end where the white canvas is peeking through.

I consider it my ni-dan badge. ^_^

(originally posted at Swan Tower: https://is.gd/u7LBNv)
swan_tower: (Default)
Nearly all of the essays for the New Worlds Patreon this month are going to be talking about genitals or other explicit topics, beginning this week with circumcision. You have been warned; now comment over there!

(originally posted at Swan Tower: https://is.gd/hYcOsz)
swan_tower: (*writing)
On November 12th, 8 p.m. Eastern (5 p.m. Pacific, 1 a.m. UTC), I'll be the Guest of Honor for a session of the Electric Sheep online reading series -- for poetry! Yep, I'll be reading my Hugo poem, "A War of Words," and possibly something else if time permits. But I won't be alone: my fellow finalists Mari Ness, Ai Jiang, Angela Liu, and Oliver K. Langmead will be joining us, along with Brian U. Garrison (the president of the Science Fiction Poetry Association) and Brandon O'Brien, who was Poet Laureate for the Seattle Worldcon. So it's a heck of a lineup!

Attendance is free, but you do have to register in advance, and space is limited. If you're interested in joining us, sign up now!

(originally posted at Swan Tower: https://is.gd/DgpOvt)
swan_tower: (Default)
It seems fitting for Halloween that the traditional fifth-Friday New Worlds Patreon theory post should focus on weird critters -- but in this case, real ones! Let's talk about drawing inspiration for science fictional and fantasy species from the aliens we share a planet with: comment over there . . .

(originally posted at Swan Tower: https://is.gd/HJO91g)
swan_tower: (Default)
How many people have ever been able to afford to retire, and what has "retirement" meant through the ages, anyway? The New Worlds Patreon has some thoughts -- comment over there . . .

(originally posted at Swan Tower: https://is.gd/79omGz)
swan_tower: (Default)
Insurance is rather a hot-button topic these days, especially (but not only) in the field of healthcare. How did it even get started? That's the topic this week at the New Worlds Patreon -- hint, it involved ships sinking at sea. Comment over there!

(originally posted at Swan Tower: https://is.gd/N18vHc)

Profile

swan_tower: (Default)
swan_tower

January 2026

S M T W T F S
    1 23
456 78 910
1112131415 1617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jan. 19th, 2026 08:19 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios