Tag Archives: SF


So.. I haven’t forgotten that I promised you Warhammer

I chose to head to this topic not as a gamer but as the friend and relation of gamers. As such I started from a position of understanding some of the structure, a little of the specific world-building practices and very little of the details.
It was fabulous. [Don’t get me wrong I’m not about to set up a 40k game but…] The first speaker, Alexander McAuley treated us to a paper on the notion of a Virgilian Divus Imperator in the 40k universe. His premise revolved around the methods of presentation of a God-Emperor in both Virgil and Warhammer – specifically an (Augustan) Emperor’s role as a figurehead that creates order amongst chaos. The Warhammer Emperor rules enigmatically over a system of provinces and cultic practice that mimics an image of an Augustus who is defined by his major battle and transformation into supreme leader. McAuley suggested that just as the eventual leadership of Augustus is understood to underpin the whole of the progression of the Aeneid even where it is not explicit so the Emperor’s rule is a ‘necessary’ implicit in all the other actions of the 40k story. He also pointed out similarities in the deification process and somewhat pre-empted the subsequent paper by suggesting parallels between the Horus Heresy (prequels) and the Octavian-Antony Civil War.

[This reading of Virgil managed (for me) to reiterate the points made by Rea about our discomfort with the violence and anger shown by Aeneas at the end of the poem and what we give up for ‘divine’ order- although I’m still not sure whether conclusions can be drawn from that]

The second paper was by a brilliantly passionate Luke Pitcher who took several of these ideas and developed them further in a paper entitled “The Promise of Progress? The Problem of the Roman Past in Warhammer 40k“.
Pitcher was particularly interested in the way that the figures of Julius and Augustus Caesar appear to have been blended together in order to give a more fitting legend to the figure of Roboute Guilliman (son of the God-Emperor and Primarch of the Ultramarines – in themselves an interestingly  Romanised fighting force). Guilliman’s backstory relies on both some of the Divus Imperator imagery discussed in McAuley’s paper and a story of avenging his foster father during a civil war….
One of the interesting facets of Pitcher’s talk was his use of the fact that in the Warhammer canon much of the material about the activities of the God-Emperor and his children was created after the initial world-building despite the fact they happen earlier in the temporal scope of the universe and as such the development of the mythos are appropriate metaphors for reception generally. Including the tension surrounding the idea that looking too much to the past can lead to a kind of stasis… He also touched on the issues relating to multi-authoring within the corpus (before less formalised fanfic is even considered) and the constraints that are potentially placed on interpretations of actions by other writers and notions of canon. He suggested that classical elements in the stories allowed writers to draw on their own existing experiences of interpreting a real shared past as they handled the stories as well as ensuring that they were using a common pot of material.

Although this was a slightly shorter panel than some of the others it provoked some quite lively discussion at the end and over coffee. Particularly of note was the role of fanfic and the way that understanding and corpus is developed through this process of multiple authoring but that because the Warhammer universe uses historical background rather than mythological the approaches of the writers varies somewhat from that discussed by Amanda Potter with relation to Dr. Who earlier in the conference.

The panel was followed by the final plenary of the conference- Edith Hall talking about Xenophon’s Anabasis in Space.
It is worth confessing up front that I have never read the Anabasis (in English let alone Greek) and as such my knowledge of it goes no deeper than the brief precis that Dr Hall offered by way of introduction. Fortunately, Dr Hall confidently took the audience through the imagery, structural nuances and tonal subtleties of Xenophon’s work that the writers of SF she picked out were interested in.
Hall highlighted how through translations of Verne’s Journey to the Centre of the Earth the imagery of soldiers/explorers reaching a somehow recognisable sea  (Thalatta! Thalatta!)  despite the ‘alien’ nature of the landscape they have been struggling through became a staple feature of Science Fiction and she chose to discuss 3 of the more extensive reworkings which cover a variety of styles: Andre Norton’s Star Guard, Weber and Ringo’s March Up Country & Kearney’s Ten Thousand.

The militaristic and ethnographic features of Xenophon’s work allow it to to be reworked in multiple modern genres and the strongly moral overtones appeal to a lot of writers. In Xenophon, not only are there  conflicting political ideologies between warring states but there are  also competing approaches amongst the ten thousand and this makes it possible to use the story to emphasise different aspects of any journey. More importantly, Hall also talked about the importance of the idea that Xenophon’s return is, despite having elements of both, not just an Odyssean journey home nor does it follow the Iphegenia in Tauris story arc  (she digressed slightly to show how Iph in Taur influenced Trader Horn, Road to… and ultimately Star Wars stories). What in many respects makes Xenophon’s narrative more potentially interesting for writers are the aspects of failure and loss around the initial endeavour and perhaps more importantly his own internal conflict about the notion of returning home.  If returning home is not easy or perhaps not desirable then one’s attitude to new territory is subtly shifted towards its potentials for a new start…

Hall was very clear in her preference for Norton’s version of the tale over the others that she had selected. Although (and I am surmising without having read any of them) Norton’s is almost certainly the most political and literary of the three I could not help but feel that in making such a personal aesthetic choice Hall didn’t offer her audience quite the depth of comparative analysis  she is capable of. On the other hand she made a lovely plea for more authors to attempt engagement with the ancient text, a very good case for using Xenophon as an inspiration and appeared to have been able to use the modern texts to help her find new interpretations of the Anabasis.
The paper was pleasingly thought-provoking for me, in that it engaged with a series of texts that stylistically I know very little about and brought them more into my world-view but it was not quite the end of the conference….

SFF & Classics (2)

Morning Day 2:
So, slightly more settled and with much less to do I began Day 2 [Storified Here] with the Greek Authors panel.

The first paper of the day, Stephen Trazkoma‘s discussion of Chariton’s Callirhoe as alt. history. As a young classicist this was the paper that I found easiest to follow even though it has been several years since I studied Greek novel. Trazkoma’s thesis was that Chariton’s dating in the novel has been misunderstood as lazy, careless or ill-educated whereas in fact (in his opinion) since the accurate dates in the novel appear to relate to events before 1 set point and all the variations or inaccuracies occur after the variation at that set point (namely 413 & the Battle of the Great Harbour) Chariton was in fact experimenting with writing alternative history. He suggested that this style allowed Chariton to re-imagine history with his hero in the key events and create a new local power structure.
This was both a fascinating use of modern categorisations to re-analyse ancient material and a comprehensive argument about the imaginative scope of an individual writer. From my point of view it was extremely convincing but I would happily defer to people who know the text better to spot flaws in his list of dates and events – definitely looking forward to the book..

The second paper was by Brett Rogers on Orestes & Aeschylus in Half Blood Prince and the rest of the Harry Potter series. With the exception of Nick Lowe’s plenary, this was undoubtedly the most theoretically focused talk that I listened to over the conference. As well as demonstrating his theories about the structural and thematic parallels with the Oresteia (such as the Orestes/Pylades/Electra – Harry/Ron/Hermione link & issues around nature of tyrants or kin-slaughter) Rogers was keen to discuss models of reception in terms of equivalence, allusion & ‘ghosting’ [See also Keen’s breakdown of categories & later comments about N. Lowe].
Rowling is clearly an interesting author to do this kind of study with since her classical education is well known and the choice of a passage from Libation-Bearers in Deathly Hallows even more strongly encourages us to go back to that text as a reading aid. However, the question always remains: what is the purpose of discovering possible allusions and echoes – what does it add to our understanding of the texts?

Finally we heard from Robert Cape on Sophocles in Silverberg’s Man in the Maze. As someone who hasn’t read any Silverberg since she was in her early teens, devouring dozens of novels a week but paying attention to very few and who remembers even less of them I was struck by the explicitness of his reworking of the Philoctetes story. Cape commented on the fact that it is possible to trace some of his understanding of Sophocles’ themes to contemporary scholarship and especially looked at some of the ways these were re-written to reflect social concerns such as whether emotional disability is a social problem and what happens if the thing which causes isolation from society is also what society needs.
Overall, the paper suggested to me more ways or re-reading Sophocles – and reminded me just how gloomy some social commentary can be especially when it now feels outdated in its gender and racial politics…

Next up: Whedonverse. Whereupon I am back to more familiar ground.

SFF & Classics (Intro)

Swords. Sorcery, Sandals and Space: The Fantastika and the Classical World was a conference run by the Science Fiction Foundation and the University of Liverpool School of Archaeology, Classics and Egyptology, on the links between science fiction and fantasy and Classical Greece and Rome.  It took place Saturday June 29-Monday July 1.”

I want to write a series of posts about some of the things I learnt from the recent conference & possible next steps in the field.

Firstly it is important to point out that as a means for crossing barriers and creating connections in the various fields represented it was (I think) a resounding success. Even this social phobic managed to talk to a variety of people including several established scholars that I have previously been too embarrassed to talk to.
The conference not only demonstrated a wide array of intersections between SF works and classical material but it also encouraged dialogue about the methodologies of research and their different roles. The first was represented in approximately 60 papers and every conversation I had or heard and the second in several of those papers and especially in Nick Lowe’s Plenary session.

Secondly, I am keen to find out what happens next. I really hope that this picks up some kind of momentum – more conferences or symposia, journal articles and edited collections. Obviously on a purely selfish note I would like to be involved in this kind of research and to have spaces to do it in. There is some evidence that this will happen since, if nothing else, I respect the energy and enthusiasm of the people that I met and believe that they will work to spread the field.

Finally, I have come away with lots fascinating ideas but I only went to a fraction of the papers and know that I will not be able to express all of it coherently so I will also encourage you to read other accounts including: Liz Bourke and Liz Gloyn