Rob started the panel by talking about the reasons Gatsby was sent abroad, its canonization, and what that might mean for our panel. And, delightfully, he's put up a longer version of that in his newsletter, so that saves me so much typing right there.

Anyway, as Rob says over there, the first question was: "What book would create the most positive chaos if it suddenly appeared in every American household?"

Len: (who is a high school teacher, among other things): something Daniel Pinkwater, like Young Adults or The Education of Robert Nifkin

Ellen: mine! (Swordspoint, specifically.) because I've had a long time to collect reactions to it. remembers getting a negative reaction from Steven Brust, who said something like, "I didn't really like it, am I homophobic? No, everyone's just completely immoral and I couldn't handle it." Thinks some queer immorality would be good chaos. Also, even today still gets people remarking on how much of a difference the representation in it made to them

me: I don't know if it would be chaos exactly, but I had previously prepared the answer of Travel Light by Naomi Mitchison so I'm going to go with that, for the reasons in Amal el-Mohtar's essay: it's about a young girl who loses three homes and chooses the open road; it's beautiful, it's short, it's in conversation with other literature and a gateway into the author's other works.

Rob: Camp Damascus by Chuck Tingle, which is horror novel about gay conversion camp with demons.

(my notes are a bit of mess in terms of chronological order, I'm afraid, so I hope I haven't reconstructed things in a way that distorts)

me: I'm not sure how much I agree with the premise. when I was looking at just the text of this description and thinking about the panel—well, first I thought how great Thus Was Adonis Murdered is.

(we did talk about that, but for the sake of time and my hands, I'll refer you to my old booklog posts and move on. (Except that Ellen knew Caudwell! She met her on one of Caudwell's U.S. signing tours and then visited her in London. I was so starstruck.))

me cont'd: and I immediately started making rules for myself, because I'm like that, and one of the rules I made was that I could not use "this book could fix the world" as a criteria. partly because that's a hole I'd just never climb out of, and partly because it's just too unpredictable. books get misunderstood, they get taught to kids who aren't ready for them, people take away such personal things. of course books affect people, but maybe because I'm not a writer, my goal for this was much more humble: "wouldn't it be great if I could say to people, 'remember when Selena got super high at an orgy and ignored everyone in favor of reading Pride and Prejudice?', and they did."

me concluding: that said, when I eventually picked titles to write down, I deliberately chose all women authors. (I do not give myself a cookie, however, because they were all white.)

Ellen: I think a way to approach your objections is to think about ubiquity. everyone's read Gatsby (me: I haven't!); even if they haven't, it's part of assumed knowledge, the cultural conversation. (just to be clear: she was entirely correct about this and I was being a little bit silly.)

Ellen, a bit later: conversations about ubiquity have shifted to movies. Lord of the Rings has far more power/reach culturally now than it did except at its first wave of popularity in U.S. (where did massively influence environmental movement), and people always quote (Ian McKellen as) Gandalf saying, "All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us."

Ellen and Len also defended Gatsby as a work against the negative effects that Rob laid at its feet (see his essay).

Rob: mentioned something about A Tree Grows in Brooklyn being the second-most-taught book in the U.S., but I didn't write down the context for that

I think this is when Rob asked what the first book was that changed our lives/opened our minds/showed us what books were capable of?

Ellen: "'Repent, Harlequin!' Said the Ticktockman," by Harlan Ellison, for anarchy and chaos.

Len: The Dispossessed. the utopian impulse is not a thing to be dismissed. dystopia is culturally determined; what we have now in the canon is because people were disappointed by Stalin. it confirms shitty things we believe about people and self-propagates. instead foreground utopia. that said, discovered the book in a counterculture used bookstore, and canonizing things risks losing a lot of their charm

Len, later: did teach The Dispossessed to high schoolers and it went over like a lead balloon, they were just not interested in it.

(I did not jump in on this, though I thought of Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry, by Mildred D. Taylor, which I read like twenty times in fourth grade or so.)

me: asks Len about a passing mention he made of The Hunger Games being taught in high schools. that seems like a good thing? inequality is bad, and the revolution needs more than a single teenager?

Len: haven't taught it, but thinks that as long as make authority abstract, can depoliticize it. I'm sure there's a reading of The Hunger Games in which the Capitol are all SJWs.

Rob: Ender's Game is one of the most popular books to be taught. used to be (?) taught as leadership in Marine Corps University.

me: Some Desperate Glory is in conversation with Ender's Game and is very specific about the fascist nature of the leadership

someone: ideally read them together

Ellen: just found out about Nghi Vo's The Chosen and the Beautiful, with regard to Gatsby

maybe in here is when Rob asked about dropping something else in place of Gatsby in high schools?

Len: refers back to Pinkwater

me: Piranesi, because Travel Light seems a little young for high school; Piranesi is also short, wonderfully written, has lots to chew on, is in conversation with other works (specifically The Magician's Nephew), and: "The Beauty of the House is immeasurable; its Kindness infinite."

Ellen: wants to keep all the old difficult books being assigned in high school, because that's the only time get help reading them! know someone who was assigned Dan Brown in high school, come on

me: I had two books on my list that I thought were too dense and complicated, maybe I should put them back on! (Cyteen, C.J. Cherryh, and—of course, are you surprised by this point?—The Fortunate Fall, Cameron Reed) but also, some things seem like high school is just too early; shudder at idea Moby-Dick in high school, it's so long and I can't imagine the teachers would like explaining the chapter that's just a dick joke

Rob: Parable of the Sower

Rob to audience (copied from his essay): If you were designing a new book-distribution program for today’s challenges — climate change, polarization, technological disruption, nationalism — what would be your first five titles?

responses:

• never know what's going to speak to you, needs to be lots of titles (like the original)

• almost anything by Terry Pratchett (this was from Delia Sherman, and she and I discovered that we read Night Watch very differently in terms of what Pratchett, or more fairly the text, thinks of the revolutionaries in that book, which was delightful)

• Le Guin

• The Mahabharata! "it covers it all"

• of course books can change the world, Costa Rico has no standing army because a key figure there read Aldous Huxley. (I would love if someone could suggest more reading on this! Wikipedia is pretty bare-bones, and this article I found might be from a somewhat conservative-leaning publication?)

Anyway, that was very fun and juicy.

The final book on my list, which I did not get around to mentioning, is The Interior Life by Katherine Blake/Dorothy Heydt, which Jo Walton reviews usefully and which is free to download.)

intros: say if bureaucrats and what kind

J.M. (Julia): born and raised in then-USSR, example of autocratic bureaucracy. immigrated over 30 years ago, USian bureaucracy in immigration. is opposite of bureaucrat, day job as academic scientist, pride self on being unruly

Laurence: R&D background, joined US Patent and Trademark Office as patent examiner last year, in feat of amazing timing

Victoria: day job, bureaucrat for 28 years at major research university. currently helping with grant applications, require great deal of finicky attention to detail. before that, a lot of university policies about purchasing and reimbursement

Shiv: first novel was cyberpunk bureaucracy (Domechild). bureaucracy experience in two separate countries. government of India in professional capacity, used to make ads for them; then immigration to US

Steve: career working with what people call bureaucracy, big government agencies. never really had to deal with Kafkaesque ever. really like the bureaucrats that has worked with, far-thinking and well-intentioned, hobbled by bad legislation and insufficient finances

Victoria: bureaucracy can be used for good or bad, don't really want to argue about its existence. organizing principle for any large human endeavor is basically bureaucracy. panel: have you read anything with fresh approaches, or suggest ways that bureaucracies can make good fiction

Laurence: bureaucracy implies stability in a way, even if malicious or oppressive, can hopefully find way to adapt to it.

Steve: bureaucracies have to handle issue of scale. organizations helping thousands of people, then bureaucratic structure starts to appear. Star Wars, "fear will keep the local stations in line," doesn't really work

Shiv: bureaucracy is model that is designed to only work at scale, which is unusual, can't scale down. useful to remember that was original meritocracy as envisioned, China created exams to select (and then ignored results for centuries). really cool moment in human history, did not previously have concept of best person for job gets job.

J.M.: bureaucracies are based on rules and order. range of perceptions about how fair rules are (also transparent). ideal cozy bureaucracy is heaven, also hell: rules are fixed, no arbitrariness. so many TV examples. Korean shows or Chinese, have a structure that's bureaucratic in essence, but at top is a deity: great turtle or ox that holds the world. innate sense of fairness comes from that non-human entity. reflects distrust of human, ideal of fairness. Nobody's Looking, Brazil: character figures out that little hamster in wheel powers the whole fair structure

Laurence: Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss are chaotic opposites

Victoria: comfort of predictability: in fiction, can make case for subverting that.

Shiv: challenge that predictability is one of core functions for bureaucracy. what about bureaucrats working within or against. Winston Smith in 1984 is one way

Steven: Miracle Workers: god decides to flush whole universe down toilet, two bureaucrats trying to save it

J.M.: absolutely, love it; god is not malevolent but absentee landlord, played by Steve Buscemi

Victoria: can be benevolent, non-benevolent, indifferent

Shiv: another reason challenging for story, bureaucrats are quintessential middle management.

Victoria: idea that bureaucrats go mad with power, even over really small stakes

Shiv: post-independence, India had bureaucratic system that was called License Raj, called that because was so fiendish like British still there. wanted car? go through government, takes years to be assigned one. takes years more to be assigned color ... even though there are only white cars

Laurence: bureaucrat has flexibility in interpreting the rules. once he has rejected application, can write examiner's note with advice, or suggest to attorney that have an interview so can explain conditions. some examiners like that, some don't. some green card interviewers like being kind, some get out of bed on wrong side. gives room to portray individual characters: what is their experience

J.M.: therein lies narrative tension, long for ideal bureaucracy that would be helpful and just, but only human. two problems: middle management is human, don't apply rules uniformly or at all; other side: cannot write the rules that are good enough. trying to cover all contingencies, becomes barriers

Shiv: private sector bureaucracy: try to file insurance claim. interesting, public bureaucracy designed to prevent worst-case scenario, private to prevent best-case

Steve: all worst experiences have been with private sector. (admits maybe sample is biased.)

Victoria: in private sector, people aren't rewarded for staying for long time in same job: leads to people doing things their way because institutional knowledge isn't there

V: fantasies of bureaucracy, affect how people think about government (treating government and bureaucracy as interchangeable for these purposes). how use them for positive effects?

Laurence: 20th century stories almost exclusively negative, lead to cynical and negative responses (which is not to say that not deserved). chicken and egg, Catch-22 or Kafka as responses to experiences maybe, but still cycle

V: showing bureaucrat going through daily lives and trying to do things well, goes along with seeing self in fiction. felt connection to people in Arkady Martine duology, also Murderbot experiencing different types of bureaucracy

J.M.: Star Trek itself, huge organization that works

Laurence: Iain Banks' Culture, see in interfacing with non-Culture

Shiv: Star Trek really good example, what matters is not that good, but least worse option available to you.

Steve: also Known Space, Niven, when successful, invisible. no narrative tension until fails. could do positive bureaucracy in untenable situation, e.g. natural disaster.

Shiv: how set baseline opinion of bureaucracy is during moments of non-crisis, which is difficult because stories are about overcoming obstacles. in a non-crisis, the obvious obstacle to overcome is bureaucracy itself, which is not message want to send

Victoria: trying to write post-conflict fiction, would be one way of doing it. Goblin Emperor, Hands of Emperor, consider both aspirational fantasies of bureaucracy: none of us have power of emperor, but what would I do with the power, especially since Maia (in Goblin) is so shy, downtrodden

Laurence: love Goblin Emperor, not sure best example since he is at top, many problems are because hasn't had chance to find feet. Witness for the Dead trilogy is maybe better example, very conventional church bureaucracy, protagonist working within that system; aspirational in that way too, because things do work out

Victoria: bureaucracy is background to and part of mystery plots in that trilogy

Shiv: Goblin Emperor: about to ruin, cover ears. at some point if don't draw line between politics and bureaucracy, going to have argue that Game of Thrones is bureaucracy novel. really about courtly politics

J.M.: Memory Called Empire also mostly court politics

Steve: respectfully disagree: Game of Thrones, Lord of the Rings are failed systems because don't have bureaucracy, whole purpose of which to prevent what happened. "Sauron should never have gotten a building permit." medieval delegation in Europe is start of bureaucracy there, limits power of kings/emperors

Victoria: Hands of Emperor, another imperial novel but POV character is career bureaucrat. same issue of having imperial power, but mostly looking at what things this single bureaucrat puts into motion, because emperor gives instructions but bureaucrat must implement. we see that change takes time. has been working on what's effectively universal basic income, see played out in different people's lives. odd novel, massive, kind of circles back on self, but very much about civil service

audience: friend who writes legislation read it, was furious: person who writes legislation shouldn't also be implementing! can you have fantasies of bureaucracy where protagonist is not limited or collective in some way? is that necessary feature? or can we indulge in fantasy of purely good bureaucrat

Laurence: fantasy of bureaucracy, to my mind, should be much more egalitarian, focused on middle management

J.M.: the classical Western narrative with a lot of agency, is kind of at odds with this

(me, to myself: Saiyuki Gaiden features very corrupt heavenly bureaucracy and is about failing to prevail over it)

Shiv: lot of pushback about personal anonymity for specific bureaucrats. as species we really don't like not knowing who said so

Laurence: in US Patent and Trademark Office, my name is on all the rejections and allowances

Victoria: federal grant agencies: applicants know reviewers, can request not-that-one

audience: short story about alien bureaucracy gone wrong, title of which I didn't get; what would look like for alien bureaucracy to go right?

Laurence: aliens often stand for mysterious unknown powers, so bureaucracy can be monster

Shiv: weirdly, really functional bureaucracy is in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, appoint President for everyone to yell at while others do work; works at so many levels. also, Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged is one-person bureaucracy, developed immortality and is very mad about it, has list to personally insult every person in universe

Victoria: probably somewhere in C.J. Cherryh

audience: comment on Laundry novels, Charlie Stross?

Laurence: fun, mockery of system that deserves to be mocked

Victoria: Going Postal is a good example of good bureaucracy. obligated to mention Andor, examples of bad bureaucracy

Laurence: Too Like the Lightning, only decent people are UN functionaries

audience: Alastair Reynolds Prefect series, whole system based on voting

(me, to myself: Kagan, Hellspark; whole apparatus to determine if species is sapient)

Victoria: Rivers of London, regular cop trying to get magic police bureau and other bureaus to work together

Steve: Jasper Fforde

Charlie: characters with this approach?

Caitlin: apologizes for inherent spoilers, because involves taking plot inherently different direction. Joffrey in Game of Thrones is legendary one (presumably this is Ned being executed)

Robert: choosing example is a little hard, because from writer's side of fence, want to create surprise yet inevitability. ones that stay with me don't feel like someone just said, we gotta shake this up, more organic

Shariann: once was given advice, when get stuck, blow something up: really very effective. but then have to put in a little foreshadowing (or might find that it was actually there all along and hadn't noticed). thinks shouldn't be as much a surprise on reader's side because not doing job

Sophia: back to initial question: as plotting and as character choice, very differently. character who realistically does that, can result in interesting plots. fascinating ones are who build up to that explosion: Stephen Graham Jones has done several times very effectively. Indian Lake series, series building to one direction, character that reader knew was going to break, does, though surprise to other characters. still, character just blowing things up can be fun, terrifying, both

Caitlin: Jason Mendoza is hot sauce, not main course

Sophia: yes, love him, but would be very different genre if he were the main character

Robert: The Scar by Sergey Dyachenko and Marina Dyachenko. lovely book. seductively awful self-absorbed rake kills boyfriend of next seduction target, target looks at him with completely indifference, which is perfect reader Molotov cocktail because all expectations upended

Charlie: is writing Jason Mendozas unique?

Sophia: had a manuscript that was very long, lot of stuff happening, each new development through new character being introduced. also had ghost character who definitionally had no sense of consequences, pure impulse. every time my agent said, this character feels a bit extraneous, decided, just going to throw ghost at it, figure out how she can get to the same end result. made it feel much less chaotic and tighter, also much funnier. that said, this was revision not plotting. if have this kind of character initially, helps have some sense of where story going, what is about, or accept that going to be messy first draft.

Caitlin: what percentage of process is plotter versus pantser (writing by the seat of your pants), since seems like would be pretty relevant?

Shariann: every writer has a unique process and can change over time, plotter and pantser is continuum. am far on pantser end, have to write to find out where it's going. so that's where blowing up comes in useful: things started to literally jam up, did not know where in plot to move next. looked to character who it would make sense to blow things up: said to character, sure, go ahead. took whole story in different direction and worked wonderfully well.

Robert: plans a lot at start, then departs; metaphorically working toward mountain seen in distance, but no satellite maps, have to find way

Sophia: generally need to have sense for arcs and themes, but doesn't frequently know plot.

Caitlin: very similar. has hideously wasteful process, can't tell whether detailed outline is right until written substantial chunk of it. example: realized climax needed to be at 1/3 point of book

Robert: Sophia re: Molotov cocktail as character versus approach to plotting, both have equally caught me by surprise as a writer

Caitlin: suddenly struck by metaphor that Molotov cocktail is literally fuel.

someone: use pitch to make stick to tanks

Caitlin: yes otherwise could just brush them away (as author)

Charlie: initially thought this was a trickster panel. can you have a stolid character who throws

Sophia: character who is very stolid isn't going to be throwing Molotov cocktail, but from plot POV can throw a lot of stuff at them

(me, to myself: Jason isn't stolid but he is very predictable, in that he always wants to throw Molotov cocktails!)

someone: character who starts showing crack in their stolidity

Sophia: love that

Caitlin: believe that can have character who's very stolid/solid and knows their mind, wants, limits: see them make actual decision to explode because intolerable line crossed. don't need to be inherently chaotic or unstable. throwing part of who they are

general agreement

Caitlin cont'd: setting up situation with unattainable goal, do reasonable things in the moment to reach, results in cascading consequences. example: Iron Widow: joins military to avenge sister, which accomplishes pretty early, but that shifts goals. at 2/3 mark, pushed to decide between survival and massively reshaping society, not goal but things escalated so fast. changes what problem of book is and what series is about.

Charlie: moving goalposts one entire field at time

Caitlin: and on reader too

Robert: as much as in love with surprise (don't think would be able to finish anything if not wondering what going to happen in next chapter [I think that this was, finish writing, rather than reading, but I'm not sure]), satisfying rug-pull on reader expectations needs balancing own indulgence with a lot of planning. just a set of encounters is not satisfying

Caitlin: Jason Mendoza not very intelligent, but definitely changes substantially over course of series. perpetual chaos muppet will eventually become tiring to reader

Sophia: keep in mind that stories are always about something. Jason is fundamentally important to theme of show, is kind caring person who does a lot of dumb and destructive things. he breaks not just plot but ideas of what goodness means. chaos so meaningful in broader sweep of story

Caitlin: writers are not being chaotic

Sophia: single most "and then THINGS HAPPEN" is Rakesfall by Vajra Chandrasekera, which is also most intentional book ever read. need to build trust and rapport with reader. easy way to do that is tropes, much harder to say, don't know where going with this but trust me.

audience: Sophia mentioned teaching Molotov cocktail method, is that more than Chandler's "and then someone burst in shooting"

Sophia: working with burnout or writer's block people, one of goals is to make writing feel as fun and low-stakes as possible, especially since lots are writing about trauma. method: first know driving force of scene. what is the weirdest, funniest, most frustrating, etc. etc.—pick superlative, actually has a checklist—way could possibly achieve. then do that. not necessarily what final draft will be, but goal is enjoying process. which is something that Jason really has!

audience: example of Molotov cocktail compounding is Jim Butcher's Dresden Files. main character treated like walking time bomb for 12 books, 13th goes off in way he didn't expect, readers either. permanently changed dialogue between readers, author. do you consider that?

(me to myself: this is tangential but I will always remember "The building was on fire, and it wasn't my fault." as a first book line (to Blood Rites))

Robert: any time telling story, it's about raising of expectations and then what do with them. can't pretend that haven't been raised. to subvert, have to have planted seeds that really wanted other thing all along

Shariann: relationship between author, reader, character, and the arc of character. reader buy-in mostly through identification with character. if arc is compelling, well, people are changing all the time, which is what makes story interesting. psychologist once said that change in belief happens quickly but was building all along.

Caitlin: as author, have duty to not pretend to naive about impact on reader.

Barbara asked for the panelists' deep read with their intros.

Rebecca: Eight Days of Diana Wynne Jones podcast.

Barbara: tend to deep read a lot of 19th century lit repeatedly, or SF dense enough that resembles

(me, in my notes: have you heard about The Fortunate Fall??? (I will come back and link when I make the post about that panel, but it was in the last slot of the con, so it'll be a little bit.)

Gregory: podcast began with deep dives. current: Murderbot; repeated: Lord of the Rings (and now teaches) and everything surrounding, taught importance of seeing layers even decades later

Lark: how exactly do you deep read?

Rebecca: hard to do on first read, can't see shape of whole book, so has to be on second read. have page of notes or Google Docs with quotes, end up with kind of red string theory about book as whole

Barbara: Dickens fan. when first read as young, for plot, skipped over boring parts. now every time read very prose-heavy books, find something new. naturally quick reader, will force self to sound out each word to slow down. Aubrey-Maturin, do need secondary sources for ship terms etc. but usually just rereading

Gregory: very similar. in academic work, obviously, eye toward teaching. when doing deep reading "on my own," not doing that: like waves passing over at beach, absorb something new every time. recently starting teaching [one of this year's Readercon Guests of Honor] P. Djèlí Clark: initially read because interested, before started teaching started picking up inter-book connections, which are either intentional or designed to make it appear so: valuable for own writing

Rebecca: yes, valuable to deep read into not just book or author's work, but broader context; really helpful for themes and ideas within the work itself

Lark: so downsides?

Barbara: two offhand: not spending time finding new authors; hit book 5 or 6 and suddenly realize that you don't like it.

Gregory: that's the bargaining stage. risk of tunnel vision. if after Murderbot, go to another series where voice is not as prominent, "this would be awesome if it were Murderbot!" though sometimes breath of fresh air; example of Dune and then the Witcher series, much different prose speeds. wants to downplay slightly risks of this, because value: get one of greatest joys, understanding of how sausage is made, which can be not just valuable but moving

Rebecca: doing Eight Days means has to put a "nickel in the Diana Wynne Jones jar" every time refers to. but another peril, become glutted with it: read bunch of Guy Gavriel Kay in row, started feeling like could finish sentences for him. haven't tried to push through that feeling, probably possible but ...

Lark: disagree slightly with Gregory: John Wiswell's talk on "How I Wrote Someone You Can Build a Nest In," mentioned that had very minimal edits: would like to have not know that, remain furious that book love so much just came out that way (Lark later made super-extra clear that this was a joke)

Rebecca: things wish I didn't know about favorite books: reading deeply can lead to realizing that don't like as much. Witch Week: DWJ essay explaining it as metaphor for racial bullying, reaction: oh this doesn't work. think a different way about book and now have more complicated enjoyment

Barbara: had that with Dickens, Oliver Twist: Fagin, okay going to pass by problems with character because love book so much. then reading more, learned that friend of Dickens' pointed out problems, wrote Our Mutual Friend with "good" Jewish character (Rebecca: he was doing his best)

Gregory: this is why biographical criticism is dangerous. authors are not accurate always about impact of work on wide audience. Tolkien was wrong about Lord of the Rings not being about WWI. also sometimes write beyond what they as people are like (Shakespeare being able to write more nuanced characters than his personal prejudices likely would have indicated)

Rebecca: sometimes have to read as deeply what authors are saying about own work, as read the work itself

Lark: what's difference between being a deep reader and being a Trekkie or Swiftie for whatever you're reading? just being a huge fan?

Gregory: very dangerous question to answer. couple of responses. being a huge fan is extraordinarily valuable because reflects passion and identification. not minor, important. largely come to reading for emotional impact first. that said, can be uncritical acceptance, thinking everything from artist is equally good. deep reading is trying to really engage on own terms, not just author's, which often means critical in analytic sense. nuance: doesn't invalidate deep love of the work. and can be both at different times.

(me: life is a rich tapestry, my brain is always being analytical, cannot make it stop even when I want to)

Rebecca: part of deep reading is looking at it past your own emotional response, maybe that's the difference.

Barbara: somewhat disagree with Gregory, Trek fans can wildly disagree, not uncritical. may disagree with self in half hour, but not sure that so much different

Gregory: does this happen even within an individual book? my father always thought that Twain suffered failure of nerve in Huck Finn when Tom Sawyer reentered narrative. engaged with it as a fan because so good until that point: hit speedbump, thrown off; deep reader asks, why did he do that.

Rebecca: hard to become a deep reader if not already a fan!

Gregory: no hate deep reads?

Rebecca: not done hate deep reads, but "I didn't quite get this" deep reads, come back a year-ish later, other people liked and I don't see it

Gregory: Fargo, watched 4 times, can't stand it

Barbara: next year's panel, things everyone likes but you

(it's now in my list of things to send in!)

Rebecca: brainwashed self into liking Frankenstein by reading 4 times, now very protective of (the monster, I think)

Gregory: book that rewards deep reading

Rebecca: a book that you can have an interesting fight with will always reward deep reading

Lark: would you want someone to deep read you??

Gregory: yes please! if was intending layers, nice that noticed; if not, emotionally invested that want to engage in process, amazing. what authors don't want is apathy

Barbara: what he said. one of favorite memories is someone saying, you meant to do x, y, z; no, didn't, but great that brought own experiences

Rebecca: huge compliment to be thought worth fighting with. would love it as authors if our attitude were, yes come fight with me

Lark: but not fistfight! we at Readercon do not condone physical violence on-site!

Rebecca: once dreamed that Madeleine L'Engle was coming to punch me in face

Gregory: of all authors, least surprised

audience: professional deep reading versus that might do as "ordinary" "fan", "just a reader" (quotation marks are mine)

Gregory: "professional" involves going through for targeted reasons, particular elements to bring up in class and so forth. when fully invested in work and rereading—example of his father's books, where he annotated emotional reactions (meet Gollum in The Hobbit, "don't trust him," answering riddles ahead of time). but also making connections to other works etc.

Barbara: only kind of deep reading I do is personal

Rebecca: if just for myself, not podcast or book review, tend to hyperfocus on what interests me: running list of all best insults in Iliad just to share with friends

audience (me): risk that will have opinions about author as person? I have Diana Wynne Jones opinions just from listening to the podcast

Rebecca: high. risk that hearing the ghost of author standing next to you saying things, not just work itself. not sure that mastered that challenge

Barbara: depends on author. it's my problem. Dickens: then found out how treated wife, relatively recently, but couldn't stop enjoying, so invested in literature: will use to reinterpret but not stop reading. other authors, would not enjoy works if found that were problematic. some Heinlein books "make me absolutely insane." not very consistent

Gregory: probably true for me too. okay to understand that going to form opinions, as long as doesn't substitute for work you're reading. can struggle to get back into work for author because still around. doesn't teach Gaiman any more. but important for students to understand that can write beyond self, that individual circumstances are not predictive of work can produce.

Rebecca: death of author is so much easier when author is literally dead.

audience: just done 4th reread of Terry Pratchett, love spending time with him. have discovered that certain books don't wear as well as others. when done deep read of favorite writers, ever say "I loved, past tense, this"

Rebecca: that's called the Suck Fairy (see A Visit from the Suck Fairy and A Visit from the Context Fairy). every book is created between reader and text

Barbara: find most often re: children's literature that read as child, especially 19th century. sometimes think should not go back and reread

Gregory: conversely, delight when things hold up. but: Dragonlance, don't hold up. however, when read, mattered to you in the way that they did, spoke to you: don't cringe, did best could at time

Rebecca: even if book itself doesn't hold up, understand what about yourself at that age that spoke to you

audience: apply this to poetry?

Gregory: don't know why this has become a my father panel, but he ran a small poetry press. most moving poems are ones that revisit, and engage with in similar way

Barbara: don't tend to deep read poetry, totally emotionally thing

Rebecca: feel intimidated by prospect, think doesn't understand way constructed in same way as fiction, but having conversations with poet who has same feelings has been very useful.

Tom: in 1960s, 1970s seems like more tolerance, or joy, for really bad ending. why that and why feel like it's changed?

John: easy answer, resistance to being told certain kinds of truths from stories when want something else, can get bad endings anywhere in 2025 (I'm not sure I followed this)

Emmett: sees polarization rather than general preference

Shariann: society changed, then was more economically egalitarian, so idea of everything falling apart was titillating rather than terrifying, or just momentarily terrifying. now, can be satisfying but as reflective of way have to deal with lives. sometimes want something that takes away from what have to face, looks at world from different direction (even if still bad)

Delia: depends on what kind of book, written for so many different reasons. trained by Disney to think fairy tales/folklore ought to have happy ending; expect romance and children's books to have happy endings as well. [me: that's definitional for one of those examples] have seen SFF that's very dark all the way through, reaction: satisfaction, it's an arc and finishes the way supposed to. been like that in 1960s too, always been sad endings. that said, tragedy is narrower, person you can see making consistently bad decisions and bringing upon self

Shariann: Greek tragedy very different definition, choice between two right things that can't be reconciled. find that fascinating challenge, way to delve into character.

John: got distracted, but talking about different kinds of Shakespeare tragedies, inward-facing like Othello, or world-facing where world kills us like in Lear (I think). SFF proclaims itself to be interested in stories where world changes

Tom: asks Emmett about horror.

Emmett: by proclaiming itself as genre about tragedy, self-selecting audience. emotional catharsis comes from sole survivor's redemption, or that there will be a kernel of something that remains. but also all stripes of endings in genre.

Tom: unremittingly grim stories. any favorites among? how explain where no optimism at all? haunted by end of 1984.

Emmett: Texas Chainsaw Massacre, one of most grim and nihilistic movies, love it, something about acknowledgment of anxiety and worst-case scenario, seeing that played out, was emotional catharsis.

Tom: Hadestown explicitly asks, why the sad stories?

Delia: tremendously human. should think about choices, shouldn't make promises can't deliver on. repeating story, keeps idea of hope and frustration of hope alive. gives empathy which deepens understanding of means to be human.

Tom: marketing aspect: Shariann was told could sell more if had happier endings. also thinks of Peter Watts.

Shariann: I'm not in control. if built world right and characters are truly the characters, can't push them into doing something else.

Emmett: matter of making juice worth the squeeze, journey feel worthwhile.

John: writers hoping to attract and please audience are necessarily becoming skilled in art of counterfactual. people don't want unrealistic, but don't want depressing, but world is so complicated don't know where we are let alone in a story. (I think that's what he was saying.) very difficult to know how to read any story we encounter, have to give great praise to any writer who tries

Tom: protagonists are commoners now unlike classical tragedies, good examples?

John: character in Cities in Space (I think I must have mis-typed this for the Cities in Flight series by James Blish), what happens to him?

Delia: maybe strange example, but Lord of the Rings ending is not exactly what might call a jokefest. one of things about, is persistence in face of despair. experience never leaves Frodo, but world has possibility of healing.

John: what makes us feel that world is going to be better?

Delia: the Shire, we're shown it. also appendices.

(I was not sure what this exchange was about, as it hardly seems possible that John Clute does not know the ending of LotR)

audience: black comedy, The Day of the Locust for example, satire. can something be truly tragic if find it funny?

Tom: "A Boy and His Dog," Harlan Ellison.

audience: Gilliam's Brazil.

John: when get into satire, very likely to be transgressing genre expectations; Handful of Dust (I presume this is the Evelyn Waugh novel?)

audience: "Hell Is the Absence of God," Ted Chiang

audience: fascinated by bad endings that anticipate and come true: Shute, On the Beach. then, Night of Living Dead, where bad ending is surprise, doesn't seem deserved, yet fantastic movie because of that ending.

John: generic (genre-ic) thing. Beach: pleasure of having expectations fulfilled very well.

Emmett: sudden abrupt ending serves to jolt audience out of complacency. Night of Living Dead, signposts social commentary that had been throughout story.

Tom: historical fiction, tension of foreknowledge

audience: as readers, what are elements in tragic endings that keep thinking about or make you come back—your reader patterns

Tom: Beneath the Planet of Apes when blow up planet, can't stop fighting each other even though causes it

John: King Lear, doing everything possible to make the world that the play faces absolutely real, terrible, completed rather than gestured at

Emmett: endings in which brought to care so deeply in main character. Alien.

Shariann: Antigone. might have been in part because it was a girl. but still held own power and held true to herself.

John: not going to come to conclusion unless decide that all stories are one story. thinks distinguishing characteristics of stories: "stories really really desperately want to get told." "next, they want to be twice told. no story wants to be a story that sits alone."

Karen: simple: conflict and resolution, but that's not very personal warm cozy explanation. sometimes think all stories are about death because ultimately progress to an end, what's at the end? horror, death; mysteries, death; a lot of things that can (be related to?) concept of death in stories

LJ: relationships. character's with other, place, idea, self, desire.

Walter: an exploration of mystery. mystery may be death, sex, relationship: but looks into great unknown and attempt to make sense of it.

Stephanie: also had idea that all stories are really mysteries in prior essay. answer for today: all stories about confrontation. not necessarily resolution, sometimes can end on unresolved note, just raises: confronting secret, truth. when do workshops, so often react that this story is about capitalism, which is another way of talking about power, hierarchy of relationships.

Stephanie: hearing: talking about story on craft/mechanical level, thematic level. is there any kind of craft thing necessary to make it a story instead of some other kind of work?

John: feel like a fox in coop here, find each of these interesting and appropriate in different contexts. each story is about something, seems to be second-order observation after what decide in heart what story is. story is grammar, which is amoral. until realize that raw undefinable circle in grass that is (something) about consciousness, not going to be able to come to answer (as probably comes across, I did not understand what John was saying here)

Karen: had been talking about tools. what story really requires is emotional investment from the reader.

LJ: what is purpose of story? why humans drawn to? impulse and absolute necessity of social communication and fact that we are meaning-makers, how we're wired. investment (I think, emotional investment), can have in a poem and don't think that is a story; other kinds of artistic expression, are they all story?

Walter: flip on head, recognize that all are questioning creatures, basis of how we learn. all true but ignores fundamental curiosity that brings reader to work, which is another form of exploration. allows works that don't have satisfying endings to bring you into deeper thinking.

Stephanie: do answers change depending on length of piece?

John: do seem to be talking about contemporary written or oral stories. but? almost every story that is told, is a retelling. deep itch that is being scratched may be that it's been retold. Kim Stanley Robinson talking about slingshot ending, which has two or three different endings and leads in multiple directions: that's a 20th century artifact. (then something, didn't quite get, about needing background to communicate against)

Walter: Jungian, ancient stories about historical figures turning into (I think) myth. all of us are too educated to create something truly original. (though Naked Lunch is)

Karen: fairy tales, very often retold: most are lessons on how to survive in society. is a story a lesson of some kind?

LJ: went through period of time where reading nonfiction books of the pattern, here is the story of world as told through salt, sand, dogs. could make argument that same with story, all of answers are correct, depends on lens viewing it

Stephanie: how do we choose lens at any given time, all said "well my answer today is". do you have a lens gravitated to at point in career, or chose for specific reasons?

Walter: need to have a deep theme

LJ: ideas are everywhere and cheap, but if story is only idea, doesn't go far, unless has character and relationship

John: in end what I see is rewriting, retelling, managed to get story partly told before. cannot think of successful story that close to that hasn't been birthed out of itself

Karen: but that's a good thing, been told before gives it more weight, recognizability, authority

LJ: like sourdough starter

Stephanie: fairy tales, relationships: are all stories really about our relationship with society? do answers shift depending on genre?

LJ: don't think stories differ based on, genre is window-dressing

Walter: ditto

John: as far as reading concerned, always looking for story in which final word is full recognition of what story is about. (self-described boast: contrived to do that in one novel that wrote)

Stephanie: any examples of stories that changed mind about what stories can do?

Walter: yes, if read a lot of Japanese stories discover not driven by conflict. Kafka on the Shore (by Haruki Murakami), very typical of 4-act kind.

John: anyone remember Seiun Awards, ceremony would present awards and then second half was rehearsal in reverse. works that have temporal movement spiraling to different place.

LJ: not sure exactly answer to question, book comes to mind was frustrating, Life of Pi (by Yann Martel): loved until last chapter which enraged because will go anywhere with author if they believe in story, "really all a dream". lack of trust in audience by author.

Karen: Steppenwolf (by Herman Hesse), during reading it, decided had to have sex for first time, and did.

Walter: ... another good answer to what stories are about, sex.

audience: sounded like answers from Western tradition, other than Walt's answer, any additional?

John: didn't have room to make cartoon of what story does for human beings

Walter: why useful to go back to very very early pieces like Gilgamesh because where Western stories began to develop from

John: Gilgamesh, may have been written by first woman writer, also really fragments of it, but our instinct to intuit story highly relevant

Stephanie: answer in a negative form, reading Craft in the Real World (by Matthew Salesses), one of big critiques of The Workshop is its focus on individual triumph and individual versus world, very Western way of looking at world

audience: since story is so malleable, any thoughts on what is story's antithesis or definitively not

other audience: "This Is Not A Story," Denis Diderot

John: very hard, like vampires, can't stop seeing stories everywhere

LJ: our minds are good at holographical process, seeing little piece and filling in whole

Walter: only way nonfiction can succeed is as story

audience: thinking of own answer, which would ideally be correct across all genres and medium: pursuit of wants versus needs. then: does that make it a good story? new thought is depends on reader, what want to get out of. so question: what is one thing you are looking for, needs to be there, to find satisfying?

LJ: emotional journey

John: kind of always, when reading first time, looking for point where beginning to read it for the second, where feel like starting to get it.

Karen: opposite, if story stops surprising me probably going to put it down

Melissa: any response or original that made panelists want to be on this panel?

Michael: uncertain about panel's focus, explain?

Melissa: immediately thought of The Dark Descent of Elizabeth Frankenstein (by Kiersten White), fabulous re-imagining of Frankenstein; Hester Prynne's appearance in I, Tituba: Black Witch of Salem (by Maryse Condé), which is brief but great

Michael: thought panel was about reading contemporary works and how affect precursors. essay by Borges, Kafka and His Precursors

If I am not mistaken, the heterogeneous pieces I have listed resemble Kafka; if I am not mistaken, not all of them resemble each other. The last fact is what is most significant. Kafka’s idiosyncrasy is present in each of these writings, to a greater or lesser degree, but if Kafka had not written, we would not perceive it; that is to say, it would not exist.

(quoted from a PDF article called "Re-reading 'Kafka and His Precursors'" hosted by the Borges Center)

Rebecca: how later memetic impressions affect. adaptation versus in conversation: get different things out of them. adaptation, what someone pulls out from original; go back and see, hadn't noticed that before. conversation, sometimes argument, His Dark Materials v. Narnia

Greer: film script for Little Women turned understanding of book, which has known for so long, on head. script branches Jo into one that's in the book and one who is writing the book Little Women. very odd way makes it science-fictional, branched off

Melissa: holds society in which Alcott was existing accountable in way. Mansfield Park film adaptation, fleeting but powerful moment that contextualizes it re: race & colonialism

Michael: is that unfair in a way? undermining book, making think that it is something that isn't

Rebecca: one of things that's really exciting about reading about books in conversations. reading a lot of Great Gatsby adaptations, now going back to original which hadn't read since high school: what people are pulling out that hadn't noticed when reading at 16. in Nghi Vo's The Chosen and the Beautiful, a character is actually paper: can see how that character in original isn't characterized. also see things that aren't being picked up by adaptations: there are three moments everyone does and some that no-one does, very interesting

Melissa: "fairness," such fraught word, how we dare read or write in these ways

Rebecca: we call it fair use

Melissa: Winnie the Pooh slasher film, definitely not what Milne intended, at same time, for those of us who thought kid in Giving Tree a horror show...

Rebecca: getting mad at responses can tell you something about original as well

Michael: matters what order encounter in. if read Tolkien first, then Old English literature: see where Tolkien got all ideas. other way: Tolkien seems like watered-down Old English Literature.

Greer: speaking of order, read Sir Thomas Browne before Moby-Dick. going back to Browne writing about sperm whale washed up on shore, he's trying to describe first contact. also realized that this is before they know how to use whales, sudden rush into world where weren't hunting

(me, to myself: also Moby-Dick was before Origin of Species, which makes the classification chapter read a lot differently!)

Rebecca: read Railsea before Moby-Dick, which contains riff where all captains talk about their obsessions and understand that white whale is a metaphor and an idea. then read Moby-Dick, yes, whale is a metaphor, I understand

(me, to myself, because I'm like that: yes, but also "for the last time the whale is real and it ate my husband")

Michael: are we saying that shouldn't read in context of time?

Rebecca: put multiple lenses on a thing, very rewarding

Melissa: we are of our own time, never going to be able to put self perfectly in reader of time

Michael: why do we want to do these things? "distort"

(me, to myself: I truly cannot tell if he is genuinely objecting or is exploring ideas)

Rebecca: not distortion to lay two interpretations against each other and see where they differ. new Green Knight movie: half people I know considered it very medieval, half not. thinks movie's thematic concerns points out the (different) ones of the original

Greer: "things just happening" was a medieval structure. very difficult effort to get head entirely Gawain-poet's mind: bits of you that don't fit, weren't educated to have those feelings. can reconstruct them, "that's the worst dishonor in the world," but difficult--wonderful thing to try

Melissa: have been talking very much about contemporary re-imaginings of older texts, but lot of older texts did same with even older

Michael: it's also criticism. T.S. Eliot said (I think) that each new work shifts our understanding of works in the past, that's not static. once Raphael was considered great artist, but sentimental works after him make look him like kitsch

Rebecca: one of reasons excited about revisiting: if only seen kitsch, the shock of looking at original and finding that still has power. reading The Iliad for first time, not at all what expected to be

Greer: always been interested in artistic and literary fakes, constantly true that it looks great--at the moment. Kenneth Clark looked at Botticelli and said, "that's a silent film star," and it was, but at time was the ideal of beauty. [I think these two comments were not connected, since Clark seems to have been a critic rather than a forger.] sometimes places where you're standing, can't see what book or work of art is, have to be in it or further away for it. "the 18th century had some damn weird Gothic," that is what they saw [clearly I missed something here, sorry]

Melissa: Gothic chapbooks, or bluebooks, were frequently rushed copies of original higher-production texts, which permitted accessibility to public which didn't have to original. anyone who went to see Beethoven symphony when he was alive, would never hear again, transience. is that affecting how responding?

Michael: Milton was Christian epic poet, until Blake came along and turned Paradise Lost into romantic outcast story. happens all the time. book about a devastated city [title of which I missed] which turns into climate fiction (to a present-day reader)

Rebecca: also exciting when see thematic affiliation that was always there. Iliad: scene where throw up wall in one night; WWI poets always referencing that in making trenches. then Some Desperate Glory (by Emily Tesh) now is looking at WWI poets.

Greer: sometime an artist will go back to younger self, say, no, that's no longer my world. LeGuin returning again and again to Earthsea, asking self, where is the feminism. TH White returning to The Sword and Stone, now this is about fascism.

Michael: complicated. example comes to mind, Henry James, rewrote story to make much more prolix, some readers think original better. artist can decide what version want to send down to history, but is artist best judge? was LeGuin betraying younger self?

Greer: first three Earthsea books are things of beauty. Shakespeare went back to Lear and made it grimmer [note: I am not sure if this is, Shakespeare revisited King Lear in a later play, or Shakespeare was revisiting an earlier play in Lear, or Shakespeare was making the story of Leir grimmer]

Michael: Tehanu, powerful but didn't belong to the first few books.

Melissa: tension between us as consumers of texts and the rights the artists have to their opinion. never fact-checked professor who said that on opening night of Mother Courage and Her Children, Brecht was appalled because audience gave Mother Courage a standing ovation: he ran through audience boo'ing trying to get them to boo

(me: was audience applauding the performer not the character??)

Michael: does that mean he failed as artist, by not achieving his intent

Melissa: but we still read and perform. important: when respond, saying, this exists and should be read. kind of resurrection of work if fallen out of favor/public mind

Rebecca: theater opposed to novel. play always continually reinterpreted, always possibility. don't think that that's as far away from novel as might think. engagement and conversation is always happening, having a text to point you to that conversation is generous and valuable, invitation to join

Michael: are there are certain books that are strong, archetypal, have so many possibilities. The Odyssey. Little Women, so attuned to questions of gender, we want to make these texts fit our views. Shakespeare, should we perform as in Elizabethian times, have we lost something otherwise? very uncertain when came to panel

Greer: (comment about tug of war between something and artist's soul that I could not get down)

Melissa: Michael had asked earlier (in comment I didn't transcribe) if this question was something new, maybe that's what: aspects of text that weren't celebrated at time

Greer: Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, turns it inside-out

Rebecca: doesn't take anything away from Hamlet that R&G exists. dream is to watch back to back with same cast

Melissa: Wide Sargasso Sea

Michael: asks Elizabeth Hand (in audience) to talk about her Hill House book, A Haunting on the Hill. what did you think about when decided to do this?

Elizabeth: first thing I thought was, "oh no." told Estate going in that not going to do pastiche, backstory, explanation. wanted to write an Elizabeth Hand novel set in Hill House, is that okay? yeah, go for it. otherwise would not have been able to write, because those characters were Jackson's characters; so was Hill House, but it was also archetype in way that humans are not, because they don't have iconic stature that house did. own characters inhabit House and riff off of Jackson's.

Elizabeth cont'd: listening to panel and thinking, why do we do this? return to work of others we admire? really don't know. fiction in last 20-30 years become much more malleable (like plays) than used to be, artists and writers and fanfic writers. very exciting time, I too enjoy reading all riffs on Great Gatsby

Rebecca: one of foremost ways to keep a work alive, responses to it. le Carré's son just put out new novel about Smiley, father said to him on deathbed, please keep people reading Smiley, so guessed only way to do it is write new one

Michael: Pratchett took total opposite approach

Melissa: q to Greer: did you read Little Women as child?

Greer: oh yes, very picky about it

Melissa; my theory is based on small children. anyone experienced a 3 year old, whatever book they land on, need to have backup copies and will be so sick of by time they're 4. but most comforting thing in world to them.

audience: response to Michael: modern mindset cannot see The Merchant of Venice in way original audience did. that said, The Tamer Tamed, written by Shakespeare collaborator 10 years later: frequently seeing those two performed together

audience: thinking about "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" and its many responses: works that people find challenging and want to respond to, moves people, makes them want to think, wants to have conversations. hoping to hear about those kind of stories

Rebecca: if come away from book wanting to argue with, feel like has internalized better. thinks why a lot of works are in conversation with Dorothy L. Sayers.

audience: fanfic is entirely in conversation.

Rebecca: some fans of TV show The Terror have become fans of historical polar explorers. fandom helped find bones because read original journals after being mad about way portrayed in show. (note: a quick look hasn't turned up a link on this, can anyone help?) fandom can drive changing responses to original.

Greer: found Richard III, did not change narrative of Richard III in some people's minds

audience: when read good book, look at what author read to write that, works well. (separately:) took 15 years after watching Howl's Moving Castle to know that Diana Wynne Jones existed. as authors, how can we convey importance of works that are adapting. (examples cite are all films)

Greer: talk to Marketing?

(me, to myself: surely this is what author's notes are for)

Rebecca: wish books came with annotated bibliographies. reading about Alan Garner who over course of life, got more and more resistant to mentioning that was responding to something, felt was failure of work. in Owl Service, mentions the Mabinogion, but in Red Shift, have to know it's Tam Lin

audience: thinking about being in engineering school and taking science fiction class, reading "The Cold Equations", other student wrote about how stupid the engineering design was. really think about how see engineering now as opposed to when written. other works like that?

sadly, no, because we were out of time.