Life, the universe and everything

Categories: Books, Art, Writing, Creativity

Spent six hours today at “Life, the Universe and Everything”, BYU’s annual science fiction & fantasy symposium. Where to begin? First, overall impressions. I’d expected more people — standing room only, that kind of thing. Alas, none of the classes I went to was even half full. Well, maybe the keynote, but it wasn’t much over half. In fact, in the last class I went to there were only seven or eight of us. (It’s interesting how very small numbers — we started out with three panelists and three audience members in that class — totally change the dynamic of a class.)

Secondly, we’re all aware of the stigma attached to science fiction and fantasy. Even I, who love both, felt almost embarrassed to be seen at the symposium. It’s silly, really — heck, SF&F movies are almost always the most popular — but still I felt vaguely out of place. And overdressed. (Such is my lot in life. ;)) It’s not just the stigma, either. The people who do SF&F are often…different. Not all of them, mind you. And I’m not saying it’s a bad thing. Let me put it this way: you know how homeschoolers are often perceived as “different”? It’s the same with SF&F people. I have no idea why that is. What I do know is that there was a discernible difference between the people inside the classrooms and those walking around campus. Having said all this, I’m not really sure what I think. Thoughts?

Anyway, getting to the classes themselves:

Class #1: SF&F in the LDS Culture. (Panelists: Dave Doering, James Dashner, Eric Swedin, Julie Wright, Dave Wolverton, Lee Allred.)

First off, Lee Allred’s brother Michael is the one who did the Book of Mormon graphic novels I mentioned on Thursday. Small world. :) Dave Wolverton wrote The Courtship of Princess Leia, which I read years and years ago when I was heavily into Star Wars fiction. And Julie Wright wrote My Not-So-Fairy-Tale Life, which I saw in the BYU Bookstore a few months ago but still haven’t read. I’d never heard of the others before. Anyway, I took only occasional notes (one or two things per class), so these writeups will mainly be “things that stood out at me” rather than “detailed explications of what went on.” The latter are usual boring anyway. :)

I can’t remember who said it, but someone remarked (quoting someone else, I think) that fantasy is the last great bastion of religious literature. In mainstream fiction, miraculous healings and gifts of prophecy are laughed right off the stage. But in fantasy, they’re acceptable and even normal. Fascinating — I’d never looked at it that way.

Someone also brought up the scornful attitude some Latter-day Saints have toward SF&F — say, Harry Potter, for example. And yet ours is a faith which believes in worlds without end, in supernatural power, in things unseen. How ironic. :)

Class #2: The Case for Wonder: scientific literacy and science fiction. (Keynote: Julie E. Czerneda.)

This was one of my favorites, mainly because Czerneda is a very good and charming speaker and also because she showed a bunch of movie clips. :) I realized during her presentation that I haven’t read any science fiction lately (though I’ve been doing fine on the fantasy end with my Diana Wynne Jones marathon — I’m halfway through Hexwood now). That needs to change. I miss science fiction.

The keynote also made me want to start studying more science. Not necessarily to become a scientist, mind you, but to spend more time keeping abreast of the latest developments, to expand my horizons. I’ve been focusing on the humanities to the exclusion of much else. (And, tangentially, I really want to brush up on my math skills so I can start learning all the cool stuff I never got to, like linear algebra.)

Class #3: The Origins of Fantasy. (Panelists: Michael R. Collings, Kathleen Dalton-Woodbury, Scott Parkin, Dave Wolverton, Brandon Sanderson.)

Mainly a discussion on what constitutes fantasy. Sanderson said fantasy began in 1977 when Del Rey began publishing books as “fantasy” rather than as science fiction (or whatever it was they were doing), but he admitted that he was talking about “fantasy” as a word, since before then they called them “romances,” and they’ve been around in one form or another for a very long time. (They admittedly didn’t start to take on their modern form until within the past couple centuries, though.)

Class #4: Feeding the Soul: writing short stories and poetry. (Panelists: Julie Wright, Virginia E. Baker, Kathleen Dalton-Woodbury, Michael R. Collings.)

Collings mentioned that writers often start out as poets, then go to short stories, and then end up writing novels. To my surprise I realized that I’ve almost been following that route myself — most of my creative writing has been poetry (to my surprise!), and I’m slowly starting to write short stories, and eventually (hopefully soon) I’ll start writing novels. But it all began with poetry. How fascinating. It’s something I completely hadn’t realized about myself.

Two writing exercises they brought up: first, write 15-20 lines that start with the same word or phrase. (Like “Once I…” or “Seven” or something.) Second, and I think this was from Orson Scott Card if I recall correctly, write the thing that scares you most. That sunk deep.

Finally, someone (probably Collings, who taught poetry at Pepperdyne for 30-odd years) said something about Milton being condemned for sexism these days and how ridiculous it was to judge a 17th-century author by 21st-century standards. I liked that. :)

Class #5: Second-Class Citizens: the stigma of YA and Middle Grade authors. (Panelists: James Dashner, Stacy Whitman, Julie Wright, Rebecca Shelley.)

Halfway through the class, Dashner asked everyone who was writing a novel to raise their hand. Practically every hand went up. He then asked who had actually finished a novel. There were four or five. None of those was mine. That needs to change. :) I don’t say that because it’s some kind of competition — it’s not me against other writers, it’s me against myself. Writing a novel is my Everest. Or Kilimanjaro for variety. :)

Class #6: Creating a World Visually. (Panelists: Howard Tayler, Steve Keele, Brian Hailes.)

After getting all excited about matte paintings early this morning (a story for another time — I’ll probably blog about it on BenjaminCrowder.com soon), it was nice to go to a class on art. The main thing that stuck with me was the need to do lots of studies before creating the actual artwork. It’s something I understand intellectually, but inside I keep thinking that real artists just whip things out with ease. I’ve got to get rid of that philosophy…

A few closing words

(I needed some way to set this last bit off from the rest. There wasn’t a class called “A few closing words.”) So anyway, I’m glad I went. It reminded me just how much writing and art are a part of who I am. And it was an intense creative jolt, inspiring me to get moving and stop slacking off.

One last thing: some guy in the audience had a t-shirt with a digital clock built into it. I’d seen some of the LED-ish display shirts, but a real clock? — very, very cool. And he happened to turn towards me just when I was wondering what time it was. :)

 

Comments

 
1. Connor

Someone also brought up the scornful attitude some Latter-day Saints have toward SF&F — say, Harry Potter, for example. And yet ours is a faith which believes in worlds without end, in supernatural power, in things unseen. How ironic. :)

I don’t think it ironic at all. Ours is a religion that embraces these things through proper channels only, all too aware (esp. for those who have been to the temple) that Satan uses counterfeits and degenerate, corrupt forms of the same symbols, powers, and patterns to further his own agendas. So any type of witchcraft, sorcery, or anything of the like (such as that found in Harry Potter) would naturally be viewed with an amount of skepticism and disdain from an LDS point of view.

Verdad?

 
2. Stacy Whitman

I completely disagree. I don’t think Harry Potter should be looked upon with skepticism or suspicion by LDS people. It should be looked upon with the knowledge that it’s FICTION. Which is much, much different. Fiction can be a metaphor, something we find deeper meaning in, and it can be entertainment, neither of which we look upon with skepticism in the broader theology of the LDS Church.

We seek to find truth and beauty in everything, no? I think the 13th article of faith really helps LDS people to be *more* open to fantasy than other conservative Christian denominations.

 
3. Ben

I agree with Stacy: fiction is something different. Each work of fiction creates an insulated world where what-if’s can be thought through all the way from conception to consequence. We step inside the bubble for the duration of the book, seeing things with new eyes, and when we turn the last page we step out again into normal life, hopefully a changed person.

What about books with skewed perspectives? Yes, they’re more dangerous. But we can still learn from them. Take, for example, a book that presupposes the nonexistence of God. I don’t believe that, but I wouldn’t avoid the book because of it. Reading such a work has the benefit of showing us what the world would be like if God doesn’t exist — a dark, bleak, miserable contrast which makes God’s reality all the more beautiful. Perhaps we don’t really appreciate God until we realize how awful life would be without Him. Crime and Punishment showed me what it’s like to be inside the head of a murderer. It was unpleasant, yes, but I learned a lot about how heavy guilt can be (and then about the wonder of redemption).

To avoid misinterpretation, let me clarify what I mean: I don’t think we should condemn a book because it espouses a different worldview. But if the Spirit tells us we shouldn’t be reading it, then we had darn well better put it down and far away from us. That’s a no-brainer. I’m not saying anything goes. What I am saying is that we in the Church too hastily shy away from anything different, and that’s not a good thing. (To be fair, it’s understandable why we do it — because there is a lot of evil in the world, and we don’t want to let it seep into our lives.)

From the other end of the spectrum, if we’re only reading “dangerous” works, then we’re in trouble. I’m assuming that said books do not constitute the majority of one’s literary diet. What I’m saying is that I don’t think I would go to hell for reading Mein Kampf or The Communist Manifesto or what have you. (Granted, these aren’t fiction, but I think much of what I’m saying applies. Besides, you could almost read them as fiction anyway, especially Mein Kampf. ;))

I don’t mean that you need to go out and read anti-Mormon literature or anything like that — there are many kinds of different perspectives that aren’t devil-inspired. And I think that Harry Potter is one of them. The magic at Hogwarts really has almost nothing to do with real witchcraft and sorcery. It’s far closer to fairy-tale magic. Yes, we all know it’s not real. That’s why it’s called fiction. :)

Not to name drop or anything, but Elder Uchtdorf did quote Dumbledore in a stake conference eight days ago, and he’s read all six. (No, I’m not basing my position on what Elder Uchtdorf says or does; principles and not people guide my beliefs, unless the person is God or Christ. But knowing that an apostle feels comfortable enough reading Harry Potter to quote it in a church meeting and to say he’s read all six books — surely someone that close to the Lord wouldn’t even touch the stuff if they truly were Satanic.)

 

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

 
 

Leave your mark

You can use these HTML tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>