M. John Harrison asserts that “Every moment of a science fiction story must represent the triumph of writing over worldbuilding.”
Which is a bit like saying that every use of the hand represents the triumph of the body over the thumb. Rhymes conveniently with “dumb.”
He may mean that telling a story is an activity distinct from worldbuilding, and often at odds with the exposition of information about the invented world, a truism I expect is understood by everyone who’s had a stab at writing sf/f. Or he may be expressing hostility to the kind of fiction that requires significant world-building, as opposed to stories which occur in already furnished worlds: that’s what the rest of his entry suggests. (“Worldbuilding is dull. Worldbuilding literalises the urge to invent.” etc.)
He ends by associating world-building with the Bush administration, a rather timid and dishonest rhetorical move. This suggests a new corollary of Godwin’s Law: The more desperate someone becomes in their criticism of a target the more likely they are to associate the target with the Bush administration. In any case, even if the association were valid, it wouldn’t necessarily be relevant. Officials in the Bush administration also breathe. (I naturally exclude Cheney from this observation.) But MJH is not going to stop breathing just to differentiate himself from them, nor am I.
[The link to MJH’s blog glommed from James Nicoll.]
[Addendum ( 2/8/07): There is some further discussion of this at the Lotus Lyceum.]
Um, wow. This was a very good entry. My daily intelligence fix.
I guess you mean “guilt by association” in the end there? It’s not logical in any case. And this particular association wouldn’t work with someone who likes the Bush administration, I guess. He’d do better by saying that world-building is Nazism. 😉
Thanks!
“guilt by association” in the end there?
Sort of. But guilt by association should only apply (if it should ever apply) to people and things that are actually associated somehow, and I can’t think of anyone in Bush 43’s team that’s written a fantasy novel. (Though Scooter Libby did write a rather strange book with some weird scenes of bestiality, as I remember.) Guilt by purported association, maybe?
Craps, you’re right. He did associate world-building with the Bush administration, but I guess the association wasn’t really valid.
I knew I needed a daily fix (of learning from my mistakes!).
Don’t worry about it. Harrison’s piece didn’t really invite careful reading. Personally, I found my eyes rolling so much it was hard to stay focused on the text…
Eye-roller is right =). I don’t think many people would disagree with the statement “worldbuilding shouldn’t overwhelm plot and character or be laid on with a trowel”, but this…goes a little beyond that.
Heck, I’m not even sure exactly what he’s getting at. This sentence in particular befuddled me: “Worldbuilding gives an unneccessary permission for acts of writing (indeed, for acts of reading).”
“Acts of writing”? Erk.
“Worldbuilding gives an unneccessary permission for acts of writing (indeed, for acts of reading).”
I know what you mean about this particularly choice MJHism. It reminded me of some opaque pieces of “cultural theory” I had sentenced myself to read a few years ago.
I had no idea you were on LiveJournal! That clumping sound you hear is me friending you (unless you’d rather I didn’t.)
“I had no idea you were on LiveJournal!”
I’m not, really…I just got the account to comment on E. E. Knight’s blog, and now yours as well.
I’ll probably make a serious effort at blogging as soon as the ink is dry on my Big Book Contract ;).
I’m honored by the comparison to E.E. Knight. (And it’s no use telling me you didn’t mean it that way, because there’s no chance I’ll listen.)
May all your book contracts be big, with many zeroes after the integer.