entering the whirlpool

Beastly: An Anthology of Shapeshifting Fairy Tales, ed. Jennifer Pullen. Sent to me for blurbing purposes. This is a cross-section of fourteen largely (though not exclusively) European tales themed around the "beast bride or bridegroom" motif, some of them very well known -- "Beauty and the Beast," of course -- and others more obscure. But Pullen casts a fairly wide net, such that transformations in general wind up here, e.g. with "The Little Mermaid" making an appearance. Each comes with some introductory context from Pullen as well as footnotes throughout, many of which are overtly more about her personal thoughts on the tales than academic analysis. On the whole, I'd say this is very approachable for a layperson.

A Thousand Li: The Fourth Fall, Tao Wong.
A Thousand Li: The Fourth Wall, Tao Wong. These two were actually separated by the following title, but I might as well talk about them together. Normally I make a point of spacing out my reading of a series -- especially a long series -- because I've realized that otherwise I tend to overdose and stop enjoying them quite so much. Since these are the final two books, however, I said "screw it" and read them very nearly back to back.

(. . . mostly the final two books. They conclude their series, but Wong has begun a sequel series. Which, ironically, is even more on point for the genre research impulse that led me to pick up A Thousand Li, so I guess I'll be reading those as well?)

I do appreciate how Wong maneuvers in the back half of this series to change up exactly what kind of scenario and challenges his protagonist is facing. In The Fourth Fall, it's international diplomacy: Wu Ying has to accompany a delegation to first secure an alliance and then attempt to negotiate an end to the ongoing war with a rival land. Since Wu Ying is not a great diplomat, this is definitely a challenge, but also he's not at the forefront of it, so he feels a bit peripheral at points. On the other hand, when things (inevitably) blow up into a climactic battle, there's a delightful "when life hands you lemons, make lemonade bombs to throw at your enemy" bit of tactics, which sets the stage for the final book.

As for the final book . . . I very much liked the beginning of it, which addressed the fallout from before (including with some good pov from the secondary characters), and the ending of it, which leaned into the philosophical elements I've always found to be one of the stronger parts of this series. The middle, however, felt a bit like it was there to keep the beginning and the ending from bumping into one another. It wasn't bad, but it felt less like vital connective tissue and more like "let's put some obstacles in the way of the conclusion."

I should note, btw, that apparently this series will be getting a trad-pub re-release. I'll be interested to take a look at the first book, because I'm curious whether it's just getting repackaged, or whether it will have gotten a thorough editing scrub first. I stuck it out for all twelve books first because it was a useful tour of the cultivation genre, then because it manages some genuinely good moments of genre philosophy along the way, but . . . well, the writing has always fallen victim to the self-pub trap of reading like it was pounded out very fast with essentially no time for revision. (I think it was the eleventh book that used the word "stymie" over and over again, sometimes where that was not actually what the word means, and in at least one place, misspelled.) I'm hoping the trad pub version will polish that up, and maybe also address the less-than-stellar handling of female characters early on -- which, I'm glad to say, improved as the series went along.

When the Tiger Came Down the Mountain, Nghi Vo. Novellas are interesting because sometimes they read like short novels, and sometimes they read like long short stories. This is the latter type, with the plot essentially consisting of "Chih and companions get cornered by talking tigers who want to eat them; Chih stalls for time by telling a story, during which the tigers argue with how they're telling it." The tension with the tigers was excellently done, as was all the arguing, but the result did feel a little slight for what I was expecting from a novella.

Mythopedia: A Brief Compendium of Natural History Lore, Adrienne Mayor. This is specifically a book about geomythology, a term for which -- as with Pullen above -- Mayor takes a broad definition. Sometimes it's "here's a story about these offshore rocks that clearly sounds like a mythologized record of the tsunami that likely put them there," and sometimes it's "here's a famous tree; now we'll talk about the lore surrounding that type of tree." Interesting fodder if you're the kind of person who finds such tidbits suggestive of stories!

Ausias March: Selected Poems, ed. and trans. Arthur Terry. Read because March is possibly the most famous Valencian poet ever, so this was research for the Sea Beyond. I have no problem with Terry choosing to translate March's work as prose, because I understand the very great challenges inherent in trying to balance the demands of meaning and style while also making it work as poetry. However, Terry has a comment toward the end of his introduction about how he makes no pretense regarding the aesthetic merit of his translations, and boy howdy is there none. This is the kind of "just the facts, ma'am" translation that's useful for being able to look at the original text on the facing page and see how they line up . . . but it made for stultifyingly boring reading, and in no way, shape, or form helped sell you on March being a great poet.

Pride and Prejudice, Jane Austen. Would you believe I never read this before now? We read Emma in high school, but that's it for me and Austen on the page. A friend linked to an interview with Colin Firth, though, which made me want to re-watch the A&E miniseries, and then for comparison I watched the more recent film adaptation, and after that I thought, hey, maybe I should read the book while those are fresh in my mind!

And, well, surprise surprise, it is very good. I know the A&E miniseries well enough that naturally I envisioned and heard all the characters as those versions, but that was in no way jarring, because it's such a faithful adaptation. It was delightful to see the bits that didn't make it onto the screen, though, like Elizabeth opining on the power of one good sonnet to kill off a love affair.

Star*Line 49.1, ed. John Reinhart. I am technically in this, insofar as there's an interview with me. Otherwise, quite a lot of SF/F poetry packed into a tidy little volume.

You Dreamed of Empires, Álvaro Enrigue, trans. Natasha Wimmer. This novel is bonkers. It's about Cortés in Tenochtitlan, and about how Moctezuma and the people around him responded to that, but it's got the kind of meta voice that feels free to wander omnisciently around and also to comment from a modern perspective, like when it explains the difference between Nahua and Colhua and Mexica and why some Europeans in the nineteenth century looked at that tangle and said "fuck it, we're just gonna call them all Aztecs." And then it goes trippy alternate history on top of all that.

Literally trippy, because a lot here hinges on the use of indigenous hallucinogens. I don't know this history well enough to tell if Enrigue is really playing up just how stoned Moctezuma in particular was, but here it's very much presented as part of the political turmoil in Tenochtitlan, with the huey tlahtoāni retreating into drugs rather than dealing with the problems around him. But don't worry, this book is here to show you the ugly underbelly of both sides of the conflict -- and also things that aren't the ugly underbelly; I very much appreciated how much time (in a relatively slender novel) is spent on exploring the agency and complicated dynamics of the various people involved, so you understand at least one interpretation of why Cortés was allowed to get far enough in to do what he did, and what different individuals thought they might gain from it.

If I have one objection, it's that Enrigue gives a strong impression that most of his key indigenous characters didn't really believe in their own religion, just went along with it because of tradition and social pressure. That's an angle I always side-eye, because it generally feels like modern mentalities failing to understand those of the past. But it's a small quibble for a book I very much enjoyed.

The Alchemy of Stars: Rhysling Award Winners Showcase, ed. Roger Dutcher and Mike Allen. This anthology collected the short and long form winners of the Rhysling Award (the biggest SFF poetry award) up through 2004. What's interesting about that is how it lets you see the trends come and go: there's a stretch of time where a lot of the poetry was very science-y (sometimes more that than science fiction-y), or the bit in the early 2000s which I can best sum up as "my kind of thing." I did skip a few that just got too experimental and weird for me to get anything out of them, but otherwise, good cross-section.

Women of the Fairy Tale Resistance: The Forgotten Founding Mothers of the Fairy Tale and the Stories That They Spun, Jane Harrington, ill. Khoa Le. This is about the French salon writers of the late seventeenth century, Madame d'Aulnoy and her ilk -- emphasis on "her ilk," because half the point of this book is to talk about the ones who aren't as famous. Harrington's general thesis here is that the fairy tales they wrote were their way of expressing the troubles they faced and/or imagining better worlds, e.g. where women could choose the husbands they wanted. Each chapter gives a short biography of one of the writers, including connecting her to the others who were perhaps relatives or friends, then retells one or more of their stories.

I did like getting to read tales less familiar than "The White Cat" (which also shows up in Pullen's book), but I wish Harrington had gone more for translation than retelling, or at least had tried to adhere to a more period tone. I feel like her "yay early feminism, so relatable" mission statement led her to modernize the language more than I would have preferred, and in the cases of the stories I don't already know, that leads me to question whether the plots have also been presented in a more "updated" fashion. And while she does have an extensive bibliography at the end, the way she talks about "rescuing" these writers from obscurity does give a self-aggrandizing whiff to the whole thing, as if Harrington is the first person to pay attention to this topic. Wound up feeling like a bit of a mixed bag.

The Ode Less Travelled: Unlocking the Poet Within, Stephen Fry. Yes, that Stephen Fry, the actor. Didn't know he wrote poetry? That's because he writes it purely for his own enjoyment, not for publication. (He mentions toward the end of the book that, among other things, he knows his celebrity status would warp how those poems are received, and he'd rather just not deal with that.)

His comedic skills shine through here, as this is a highly readable introduction to formal poetry -- meaning not "poetry always about serious subjects," but "poetry that adheres to a particular form." The introduction is not shallow, though: when he leads you by the hand through meter, he doesn't stop at showing you the different feet and explaining how to count them. Instead he talks about things like the different ways you can futz around with iambic pentameter, where a trochaic substitution will sound okay vs. weird, and what effect it has if you put a pyrrhic substitution in the third foot vs. the fourth. (Though right after reading this, I came across a blog post that characterized what Fry considers a pyrrhic substitution very differently: same phenomenon in the end, but a good demonstration of how there's no One True Answer for a lot of this stuff.)

Be warned that this book is unabashedly opinionated. Fry says there are free verse poems he likes, but on the whole he has a very poor opinion of modern poetry being just about the only art where people are told "Don't worry about rules or technique! All that matters is that you ~*express yourself*~!" He thinks that acquiring a solid handle on meter and rhyme is equivalent to a visual artist learning the rules of perspective: they're vital skills even if you wind up breaking those rules later. When he gets to the section discussing particular forms, he's also unafraid to bag on the ones he doesn't think very highly of -- mostly modern syllable-counting forms like the tetractys or nonet, but also elaborate stunts like the sonnet redoublé, where you'd better be damn good at what you're doing for it to seem like anything more than a stupid flex.

The guidance, though, is very thorough and I think very accessible -- though admittedly I come at this as someone who's never had trouble figuring out how meter or rhyme work, so I'm not the best judge of that. He gives copious examples from literature, and also practice exercises for which he provides his own demonstrations: the exception to him not making his poetry public, but only a quasi-exception, because he says outright that these are pieces meant to practice the basic skills, with no expectation of them turning out good. And that is useful in its own way, because it helps chip away at the notion that poetry is some mystical, elevated thing, rather than an art whose basics you can drill without worrying about whether you've produced immortal verse.

Highly recommended for anybody who would like a solid entry point into writing poetry!

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

Uprisings. Revolts. Insurgencies. Rebellions. Civil wars.

What are the differences between all these things?

The gradations can be quite fine, in no small part because they're often as much a question of public relations as one of technical definitions. (Especially in a historical context, before political scientists started making technical definitions.) They're all forms of internecine strife, differentiated by how organized they are, how violent, how acknowledged by the official government, and so forth. And so, rather than trying to separate all the possible strands, I'm just going to talk about them in a lump here.

Genre fiction loves the idea of the Big Rebellion. A plucky band of idealists gather together, maybe fight a few battles, kill or capture the king, and put somebody new in charge: Mission Accomplished! A phrase George W. Bush famously used rather prematurely after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, and I deploy it here quite with deliberate intent, because of course the situation is unlikely to be that simple. Regime changes rarely go that quickly and smoothly, and even if the guy who used to be in charge dies, is that really the end? His loyalists, instead of laying down arms, are liable to find someone else to rally around: a brother, a son, somebody claiming to be a son, etc. It took about thirty-one years for the fighting to end after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 deposed James II & VII from the thrones of England and Scotland, and Henry VII had to deal with multiple pretenders announcing themselves as various lost royal relatives after the Wars of the Roses.

But it's also somewhat rare for a rebellion to sweep in and put somebody totally new on the throne, at least in the kinds of societies we tend to write about. Changes of dynasty do happen, but where there's a strong expectation of titles being inherited within a bloodline, claimants often grasp for some fig leaf of lineage or marriage to a suitable spouse to cover their naked ambition. Winning legitimacy on charisma alone is not unheard of, but it's much less common. Most civil wars within a kingdom look more like the English Anarchy, with the previous king's daughter fighting his nephew for the crown. (She lost, but her son wound up inheriting anyway after her cousin died.)

There are other reasons for civil strife, though, and they tend to be much less explored in science fiction and fantasy.

In particular, a whole swath of this subject can be placed under the header of "listen to us, damn it!" The famous Magna Carta of England was the product of rebellion by a group of barons against King John -- but they weren't trying to replace him. Instead they wanted him to confirm the Charter of Liberties proclaimed by Henry I about a century before, which protected certain elite rights. (Magna Carta itself is not about the rights of the common man, either, though people in later centuries assumed for a while that it was.) If war is the continuation of policy with other means -- the actual phrasing used by Clausewitz, often somewhat misquoted -- then revolts can be a way of angling for leverage in a political dispute.

This is especially true of peasant revolts. It is extraordinarily rare for the common folk to rise up and effect a regime change all on their own; in fact, it is rare enough that I can't think of any ironclad examples. (If you know of one, I welcome it in the comments!) The American and French Revolutions were heavily led, at least in the first instance, by relatively privileged men; even the Haitian Revolution likely would not have succeeded if the rebels hadn't received support from outside. Peasants, slaves, and other such folk simply do not have the resources or knowledge necessary to stand unsupported against people who hold every advantage against them.

But most peasant revolts aren't aimed at installing a new king or swapping monarchy for some other system of government. They're attempts to redress specific grievances, like unfair taxation or judicial corruption, or to achieve improved rights, such as through the abolition of serfdom (one of the goals of Wat Tyler's Rebellion in 1381). And if we're being honest, goals like that are a lot more important to the average farmer in his field than who exactly is ruling the country! Kings come and go, but taxes remain.

The relative achievability of those goals doesn't mean they get achieved, though. Governments have a loooooong and inglorious history of viewing any such resistance as treason, and they put it down with extreme force. Nor is this solely a thing of the distant past: in more modern times, labor organization has been viewed in a very similar light, as a rebellious disobedience to the law, posing a great enough threat to the stability of the nation that it justifies violent or even lethal response.

Nonviolent resistance isn't unheard of in historical eras, but large-scale acts of it have become more common over the past century or so. I wonder -- this is entirely my own thought, not anything I've read, and it's not a subject I'm deeply familiar with -- if its success relies at least in part on mass communication. While nonviolent groups have existed before, as a tactic in effecting widespread social change it seems to be mostly new, and that makes sense when you think about the role played by optics. As I said above, governments tend to respond with force to those who disobey, and that excites a lot more sympathy and support for peaceful protesters when the news can be widely circulated. (Particularly if the event is captured on video.) Of course, routine interpersonal violence has also declined over time, so most disputes these days are less likely to break out into fights, let alone fatal ones.

Civil strife has absolutely not gone away, though, nor do I think it's likely to do so any time soon. Right now in my own country, we have widespread resistance to the authoritarian government of Donald Trump, ranging from peaceful protests in the streets to acts of low-grade sabotage against the secret police of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arresting and deporting anybody who looks too brown. It's not a revolution to throw him out ahead of schedule and replace him with somebody new, and it certainly can't be accomplished with one climactic fight and a quick denouement . . . but perhaps we could use more fictional examples of how this kind of struggle is fought.



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