Hugo novellas, part 1

[cahn]

In order of how much I had to say about them:

-When the Tiger Came Down the Mountain (Vo) - Second Singing Hills novella about a cleric who collects stories. Not a Hugo nominee, but I wanted to read it so I could read the actual Hugo nominee (the third novella, which is currently on hold at the library). I liked it quite a lot, though not nearly as much as the first one, I think because it just didn't tap into my particular tropes quite as much (which is of course not Vo's fault).

-Ogres (Tchaikovsky) - Slight novella about a society in which the ogres lord it over the humans. It was pretty easy to figure out the main conceit, but I wasn't sure how it was going to end (and I liked the ending twist). Tchaikovsky continues to be a writer whose writing is very easy to read, which I appreciated.

The interesting thing about this one was I came away feeling like the novella was more deeply pessimistic about human nature than perhaps the author intended: humans can fix fairly dire problems, but humans are also infinitely corruptible, and in fact all the evidence available in the book is that these fixes only take place through profoundly hierarchical and subjugative means. Climate change and its horrors are overcome, but only by literally enslaving most of the people. A hero arises and fight back against some of the excesses of the slavery, but when offered a chance to be one of the masters... takes it.

The end is, I think, supposed to be hopeful, with its statement that sometimes you have to burn it all down. But given the events of the book, and that no one in the book seems to have thought at all about how to do it differently, I'm really not confident that what rises from the ashes is going to be any less hierarchical and subjugative than what was there beforehand... just that probably different entities are going to be at the top and the bottom.

-Even Though I Knew the End (Polk) - a queer noir story, set earlier in the last century, with a noir ex-warlock investigating murders in an alt-Chicago with demons and angels.

So the conceit is awesome, and I really enjoyed the writing here which I thought did live up to that conceit -- there is some lovely word-evocation and worldbuilding detail. My quibble is that I felt like there was something deeply incoherent about the worldbuilding and plotline.

-It is the Worst Thing Ever to bargain your soul away to the devil. The main character does so to save her brother's life, and then is treated like a pariah. It's really not clear why. It's her own soul, it doesn't affect anyone else, it seems honestly less bad on a societal level than, idk, littering. Is this supposed to be a parallel with being queer and homophobia? (...which is kind of a weird parallel, I don't think I'm quite comfortable with queerness equated with selling one's soul to the devil??) or is there something legit horrible that I missed?

-in general, I am having a hard time with a story where you can sell your soul to the devil, there are fallen angels and stuff, and yet the whole theological basis of selling your soul isn't at all a thing?? The author wasn't interested in going there, okay, it's my problem and not theirs, but it bothered me!

-The plot revolves around a fallen angel getting back to Heaven by killing people with no souls, which is (I guess) OK because they have no soul (note that the entire book is from the POV of the hero who sold her soul, and I can't tell the difference between her and someone with a soul), but the killing also involves taking control of a person with a soul, which effectively kills that person. It seems like that would, uh, invalidate the whole getting-back-to-Heaven part?? This is briefly alluded to, but not really addressed.

-I also called what the end would be too, which is that the noir hero sells her soul again so that her dead lover comes back. She and her lover are all "yeah, totally worth it" to be together for ten years (after which hero will die by the terms of the contract) even though it is also explicitly stated that hero is going to Hell and lover is going to Heaven. (Presumably forever!) Is ten years really worth forever? This could have been lampshaded for me very easily -- just give me a paragraph about how it is very different in Heaven than on Earth, maybe reference the scripture on how they don't marry or are given in marriage or whatever, I'd buy it! But as it was, I was like "uh, this seems like you are totally not thinking ahead??"

But even though those things bothered me, the writing was still strong enough that I liked it a lot!

Comments

[hamsterwoman]

I’ve only read the Tiger novella of these but am happy to report that I found Into the Riverlands to be much stronger than Tiger and a return to what I loved about Empress of Salt and Fortune. In fact I think Tiger is skippable in this sequence (when I recced Singing Hills to a friend of mine, I got her Empress and Riverlands, figuring she can catch up on Tiger later if she’s feeling completist). I don’t think it’s just that Tiger is about stuff that’s less interesting to me personally - I think it’s also just a good deal less complex than the other two in what it’s trying to do with narrative.

[cahn]

Oh good! It has been a while since I read the first novella, so I wasn't sure if it was actually more complex or if I just remembered it as such because I loved it so much. Glad to find out that the third one is stronger and more interesting! (and, ooh, I need to go pick up my hold!)

[cenozoicsynapsid]

I liked the Tiger novella (although, ok, I agree with Hamsterwoman that it's less narratively complex). But I liked the casual "we'll probably kill you in the morning" viciousness of the tigers, and the scholar/tiger romance was fun. To each their own.

The Polk one really annoyed me! To the extent that I didn't rec it to the person I rec lesbian genre fiction to (they once complained that there was no good lesbian genre fiction, little knowing that they were doomed to get recs every time I read one for years after). I think theology is fascinating. Fully built-out theological conceits are wonderful, and bad theological worldbuilding really grates for me. And, as you say: what the heck is a soul? What are heaven and hell? Should we feel that there is some sense of moral correctness to the judgements that send people one way or another? If so, why? If heaven is all that great, isn't resurrecting someone from it, even temporarily, the worst thing you could do to them? (See Buffy, season 6. Only... don't, because it had a few good episodes but it was overall very bad. But it did ask this question!)

[cahn]

Fully built-out theological conceits are wonderful

Ha, I was really hoping you had read this so we could talk about it, and I hadn't articulated why to myself but it is exactly this! As I got more into the novella I found the theological conceits really intriguing and I really wanted to hear more about how they worked and how that did or didn't change the quality of the AU, and then I didn't get any of that. (eta: lol, with all of that I probably would have recced it to someone who was asking for lesbian genre fiction, but with caveats -- but again to each their own :) )

Have you read -- I'm sure you have -- Ted Chiang's "Hell Is the Absence of God"? I read that when a lot younger but I remember being very angry with it on first read! And yet I feel that disagreeing violently with some of the axioms he had laid down was better than feeling like there were no axioms -- I still remember the story, after all :)

If heaven is all that great, isn't resurrecting someone from it, even temporarily, the worst thing you could do to them?

I haven't watched any other Buffy but I did watch "Once More with Feeling"! (I am a complete sucker for musicals, and loved it.) And yeah, because of that I kept waiting for a character in the Polk to bring up that they missed Heaven... but no.

how can I get you to write me (more) theological conceit for yuletide, hmmmmmm
(seriously, though, this is the time to ask: is there a canon that you'd be interested in writing that I should read before nominations start? :) )

[cenozoicsynapsid]

I absolutely have read Chiang's story, and you're not even the first person to re-recommend it to me this year. I love all of Chiang's work that I have read, including both collections. The man is just brilliant.

Once More With Feeling is also awesome. Sadly, it is a diamond in the wasteland that was Season 6. I liked the idea of 6 (Buffy is an adult now, with adult problems, like rent and a crappy wage-slave job, and there's no "happily ever after", just "another day, another dollar", which is noble in its own way). I hated the execution.

I forget if I have ever told you, but I don't really pre-plan my Yuletides and have never nominated. I mostly look at the nominations and hope for serendipitous fandoms I wouldn't have thought of on my own. So, let me turn this around: is there something you think I should read, but might not have? Now's a good time to put it on library order! (It is a gigantic compliment of course &c.)

Something I was thinking about mainstream Christian theology (it is my understanding that eschatology in the LDS church is totally different) is that there is a kind of continuum of understandings of heaven and hell. The orthodox version, as I understand it, is that God punishes some people by sending them to hell, a punishment they share with Satan, who, since he fell the furthest, is the most wretched of all. On the other hand is a kind of folk dualism where Satan is king of hell, a position he will only lose at the Last Judgement, and chooses to torment the damned there because he is evil. This shades into the more modern trope where heaven versus hell is an analog to a modern cold war between states, with God and Satan as rival kings who don't stand for anything in particular except preserving and extending the reach of their own power. I've been watching Good Omens season 2 recently, and even that doesn't seem to know quite where it comes down on this continuum. (Hell seems evil much more than heaven seems good. It's not clear why anyone would want to go to Good Omens heaven, except that the other place is so awful.) Polk just doesn't seem to have thought about her world on this level, but a lot of Christian folklore seems to be a bit of a blend.

[cahn]

I ADORE Chiang! I feel like his stories are just so well crafted. I would have been shocked if you hadn't read Chiang :)

I didn't realize you don't nominate! Heh, that's... very different than the way I do Yuletide :)

Hm, this makes me realize I don't actually know what the position of D's church (Lutheran) is on Satan -- I know its position on God, that God is omnipotent and therefore that Satan is not to be compared with him, but whether Satan is the uber-sinner (as in Dante) or a kind of folk-dualistic king of Hell as you put it (as in Screwtape Letters) I don't know. I suspect the official answer would be something like "we don't know and it's not something we should think that much about," which, fair.

(LDS view on Satan is -- well, as you said, its view on Hell itself is very different, but Satan is definitely cast as, mm, something a bit in between: a sort of rebellious teenager (but a very powerful one!) who wants everyone to be miserable like himself, and so is actively striving to drag people down with him. It happens less than it did 10-20 years ago, but it's not uncommon for someone in a church context to bring up Satan as the reason why things are as bad in the world as they are. Though there's been more of a shift towards realizing the "natural man" has issues to begin with.

The actual idea of LDS sons-of-perdition (or, I guess, terrestial kingdom, which is a different level) doesn't seem to be one where Satan is personally tormenting anyone, but rather the idea Chiang ran with of the absence of God. In the last Orson Scott Card Memory of Earth book -- which I love, but which I don't recommend to non-LDS folk unless one really wants to think about Card's deconstruction of the Book of Mormon in particular and theology in general -- he posits that the absence of being known/understood/loved by God is the thing that makes it horrible.)

This shades into the more modern trope where heaven versus hell is an analog to a modern cold war between states, with God and Satan as rival kings who don't stand for anything in particular except preserving and extending the reach of their own power.

*nods* That's a good point. I definitely think of that as the predominant modern trope, which is funny to me because I don't know any mainstream Christian (or even LDS!) belief system where that wouldn't be treated as heresy!

ETA: I hit the submit button without answering your question about reading! Which I will have to think about later, because it's bedtime. But I will think about it :)

[cenozoicsynapsid]

I think the modern trope is definitely a heresy in any Christian denomination--- folk dualism may have its roots in Manicheanism (which is off-brand Zoroastrianism) but even those religions pretty clearly believe that the good God is good and the evil God is evil. I don't know if I'd call it the most popular version. I see it in two contexts, I think--- partly from people (Phillip Pullman, say) who are against Christianity or religion in general. Modern Satanism and whole centuries of anti-Catholic propaganda provide a lot of useful tropes for "those people's God is actually evil, they just have better publicity." But also some modern works (Good Omens, clearly) that want the Heaven/Hell conflict to be a metaphor for the Cold War, with the Apocalypse standing in for WWIII.

I don't really plan out my Yuletide in detail. Part of what I like about it is the serendipity--- never knowing exactly what I'm going to get until the lists come out. I also don't offer or request the same fandom multiple years running! However, I will say part of the issue of making an offer for me is that I have to trust I can do the canon review with plenty of time to spare, and not planning my offers over the summer shortens the time window a bit. But I'm a fast reader with access privileges to a very good library, so I'm usually fine.

[cahn]

Heh, I sat down and tried to think of some and, as you say, of course there's Pullman, and Good Omens, and... let's see, this is so embarrassing to admit but I remember the Piers Anthony Incarnations of Immortality being along those lines to small!me (I am a little afraid to look back to check to see if I'm remembering correctly). And then there's The Good Place -- I think it's a little hard to shove into any of these boxes because of the way it's set up, where (I think I remember) the Judge seems to be the one with the control but not be associated solely with the Good Place.

partly from people (Phillip Pullman, say) who are against Christianity or religion in general

I agree with that, and would add people who want to go a little more pan-religion than straight Christianity but still retain some of the worldbuilding of Christianity (which is I think what's going on in The Good Place). But maybe not so much as I had imagined?

Heh, I have exactly the opposite approach to Yuletide, where I plan it out in immense detail and then more often than not, I end up very interested in fandoms that were totally not the ones I nominated! A year or two ago I actually had too many and ended up not requesting one of the fandoms I nominated (although fortunately someone else requested and it was written -- that was The Traveller in Black), although that's the only time that's happened.

I still don't have a lot of thoughts on canons for you. There's a chance I may request Little Eve, and speaking of theology/faith, I'm reasonably likely to request Brother Thomas from A Solitary Blue.

In the realm of stories I know you have read, it's too bad though that the Yuletide mods have said I can't request anthologies any more, because this whole discussion is making me think that it would be fun to request Chiang in general. Maybe "Story of Your Life" or "Hell is the Absence of God" or "Anxiety Is the Dizziness of Freedom." Or, now that my mind has gone to short stories, "Love Is the Plan the Plan Is Death," where I've always wanted sequel fix-it where, idk, maybe Leelyloo's becoming a supermother actually works somehow?? maybe it makes her more able to pass the message on?? maybe their children are able to do the same and stay cave-dwelling sentients?? (I just hate it when entities try their best and it's all for nothing, which, yes, reading Tiptree is basically self-flagellation.)

(And I should have said before, I absolutely don't expect you to write for me! If it happens, it will be lovely! But if it doesn't, it will also be lovely -- I would never have requested archy or Name of the Rose, after all!)

[cenozoicsynapsid]

Yeah, I... also read Incarnations, and also don't remember very much of it.

It's fun to see people who want to retain Christianity's worldbuilding but not have Christianity be literally true dancing around questions like "what repels vampires". (Stephen King had "any symbol the bearer has enough faith in", which raises as many questions as it answers.) Jim Butcher has an organization literally called "the Knights of the Cross", which, iirc, one member joins through the redemptive holiness of Star Wars fandom.

Thanks for the canon recommendations! Not to worry--- your prompts are amazing and I always check them, but if we don't end up on the same page in any given year, I wouldn't think either of us would be offended.

[cahn]

Haha, you know you've lived through the 80's when you've read entirely too much Piers Anthony to feel at all comfortable...

Hm. Have you read John M. Ford's The Dragon Waiting? Which has a fifteenth-century magic AU in which Christianity never got a foothold as a major religion, and is rather a minor sect. It was written in the 80's, so has aged somewhat, and also Ford was one of those writers I was extremely into in my formative high school/college years so I probably can't talk about him in an unbiased way... but I'd be interested to know what you thought.