Wiscon: Saturday

[calimac]

Arrived late Friday night, in time for one session, a group discussion on "Academics and Fans: Bringing Them Together." Much talk on why fans distrust academic writing on SF: they don't take it seriously as literature and write as if they're slumming, or as cultural anthropologists studying a curious tribe; or they do take it seriously and write impenetrable gibberish. But it's also acknowledged that we are, as I put it, "the rats in the walls" - many fans are themselves academics and write about SF both seriously and comprehensibly. Also some talk about marketing academic program items to a fannish audience: Mythcon experience came in usefully here.

On Saturday, three panels and a Tiptree bake sale. (Chocolate chip cookies with chunks of bacon in them, would you believe?) First panel, "Defining God." A lot of the usual. One panelist intent on describing the universe by information theory made the category error of saying that God, if existent, would have to be part of the universe being described. Discussion of the theory that the tendency to believe in an ordered universe and a supreme being is hardwired into the human brain. (marykaykare: "Not mine.")
Apparently an unspoken assumption that this analysis is evidence against the existence of God. Wonder if it ever occurred to the panelists that it might be evidence in favor, instead. I mean, also hardwired into the human brain is the desire to put foreign objects in one's mouth, and chew and swallow them, which is an awfully weird thing to do, objectively considered, but which does serve a useful purpose. (And yes, there are a few people who lack that hard-wiring too.)

Next, "Here's Where the Story Ends." How to write endings, where should the story end anyway. Supposedly a panel in the "Craft & Business of Writing SF" track, it was not at all an evidentiary "Here's how I done it good" panel but a solid consideration of both theoretical and practical considerations both from the writer's and reader's standpoint. A model for this kind of panel. Maureen McHugh, asked about her own (problematic, in some readers' views) endings, pointed out that her needs as a writer may differ from her desires as a reader. Some discussion of the role of episodes in arc storytelling.
Wish there was more, but that'd be a different panel. There's a marked reading (or viewing) difference between taking the new episodes one by one, as they're released, and viewing them all in a chunk later (e.g. the DVD of a TV series season). The later takes the emphasis off the episodes and puts it on the arc, which can be a wayward form of storytelling. (A lot of the Big Changes on BTVS were undone very quickly: Buffy ran off to LA! No, she's back. Giles is fired by the Council! No, he's back. Angel is damned to hell! No, he's back.)

Last, "What Can't We Forgive?" Masterminded by imnotandrei, who wanted a forum to express his burning resentment against RAH, OSC, and other authors whom he once loved but now considers offensive and manipulative. Panelists and audience testified to their loathing of these and other authors, Anne McC. and Spider R. also being frequently mentioned.
Thought ironically about the worshipful respect held for these authors in certain wider SF circles, and the incredulity these people would feel at being told of an entire panel at a regular SF con at which the default assumption would be dislike. I mean, I once read testimony that not only did the speaker love Ender's Game, he couldn't imagine anyone who wouldn't.
Thought about things I find unforgivable in SF. High among them, political debates consisting of one person pontificating while the antagonist either sputters "But ... but ..." ineffectually or chimes in with "Gee, I never thought of that." (Spider R., "Melancholy Elephants.") Also, books not written in English. With all the other reasons to dislike RAH, I still have to add the pseudo-Russian dialect of The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, which drove me up the wall and rendered the book unreadable. I won't even talk about Riddley Walker or Feersum Endjinn.

Also elsewhen at the con: Found davidlevine's collection, at last. Ate breakfast by browsing my way through the free cheese samples at the farmer's market, lacking either the ability to eat an entire block of cheese at one sitting or a refrigerated place to store it. Also grazed (with paying) on bison, venison, and ostrich jerky: ostrich by far the weirdest. For dinner, a "Wisconsin hamburger" with a slice of braunschweiger on top: also weird. Parties packed into a tightly congregated party hell: didn't stay long. Walked to favorite local classical CD store, but found nothing more that I wanted than a collection of Henk Badings symphonies for $13, which was several $ more than I was interested in it.

Comments

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

"One panelist intent on describing the universe by information theory made the category error of saying that God, if existent, would have to be part of the universe being described."

It's hardly a priori that this is an error. It seems reasonable to me, especially from an information theoretical perspective.

B

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

Problem is, the Christians I've read on this subject define God as existing outside the universe, rather as an author's existence is outside the novel. Analyze the unlikelihood of God as a part of the universe, and they'll reply, "Fine, but the being you're trying to disprove doesn't fit the specifications we mean by God, so it's totally irrelevant."

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

Right. But you said that the error was based on information theory, not on theology. That's what I was responding to.

From an information theoretical perspective, there is no outside the universe.

B

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

you said that the error was based on information theory, not on theology

Not at all my intent.

From an information theoretical perspective, there is no outside the universe.

From an information theoretical perspective, then, there is no God, thus providing a pre-set answer to the question we're here to discuss.

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

I don't see how that follows. But my guess is that the phrase "information theory" has a different meaning to mathematicians who actually study it than it does in the vernacular.

B

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

It follows because God is defined (by theologians - and they're the ones who get to do the defining) as a being outside the created universe. If you define God as part of the universe, you are defining a being that theologians do not recognize as God. Evidence of its nonexistence is of no significance.

Taking the metaphor of God being to the universe as an author is to a book, redefining the book as including its author does such violence to both the concepts of "book" and "author" as to render their study meaningless.

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

No argument. But theologians don't -- at least none that I've read -- define god from an information theoretical perspective.

(I don't think this is worth the time to go back and forth on. I don't think we have any actual disagreements.)

B

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

"Discussion of the theory that the tendency to believe in an ordered universe and a supreme being is hardwired into the human brain."

There's a lot of research on this out there. I've read Pascal Boyer's Religion Explained, and am currently in the middle of In Gods We Trust: Evolutionary Landscape of Religion. Darwin's Cathedral is the other book on the topic that I have. It's all good research, an alalgamation of cognitive psychology, evolutionary psychology, neuroscience, anthropology, sociology, with a little game theory and behavioral economics thrown in.

This could be a fascinating con. Do people actually know about information theory and the neurobiology of religion, or do they just like to talk about it?

B

[scribblerworks.livejournal.com]

There are interesting studies going on in neurotheology. Me, I'm with calimac in considering the existence of the hardwiring as indicating the possibility of God's existence. Not that I need objective proof.

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

Of course. The science doesn't speak to that question at all. How could it possibly?

B

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

The specific panelist seemed somewhat versed.

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

Fascinating.

B

[nellorat.livejournal.com]

Darnit! I've already been feeling all left at home, but this is the first entry from Wiscon that really, really made me wish we'd gone. Not that there was a chance of that, since SATs are in two weeks. *sigh*

I think there's more good sf criticism out there from academia than people think: did people in the audience read Extrapolation and JFA? (I personally like Science Fiction Studies, but maybe it does get a bit jargon-heavy.)

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

Allusion to the existence of in-field academic journals. Though no titles were mentioned, some of us knew what was being referred to.

[whumpdotcom.livejournal.com]

I don't get what you mean by:

I mean, also hardwired into the human brain is the desire to put foreign objects in one's mouth, and chew and swallow them, which is an awfully weird thing to do, objectively considered, but which does serve a useful purpose.

I could google when the first alimentary tracts appeared in animals, but you're talking about a feature that developed at least a hundred million years ago.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

This kind of explains my meaning.

[richardthe23rd.livejournal.com]

"Melancholy Elephants" can hardly be described as a story; barely even a dialogue; more aptly, a lecture, or an opinion piece.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

Were it one openly, as "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" is, rather than stuffed into dialogue-story format, it'd work better, because it's a great idea (ironically enough, considering what the great idea says).

[irontongue.livejournal.com]

Hmm. My chorus sang some Badings songs last year. I should look for that symphony set.

[sparkymonster.livejournal.com]

(Chocolate chip cookies with chunks of bacon in them, would you believe?)

*cackles*

I made them!

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

You did? Fascinating idea. A bit burned on the underside, alas, but otherwise tasty. People asked me what it was like, and I said, "chewy."

[sparkymonster.livejournal.com]

I realized a bit too late that bacon fat makes the bottoms burn faster. Alas.

The instigator is this blog
http://neverbashfulwithbutter.blogspot.com/2007/12/experiments-in-deliciousness-bacon.html

For this batch I used a chewier base cookie (Alton Brown's "The Chewy), no glaze, and dark chocolate chips.

[ide-cyan.livejournal.com]

Do you mind if I add your WisCon-related entries to whileaway's memories?

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

If you think it fits whileaway's relevance guidelines ...