Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom - Do you take whipped cream on your Wuffle?

[Rick]

I read this book last week on my vacation in Michigan and was very suprised by how engaging this story Was. I am very interested to hear what anyone else thinks of Cory's concept of 'Wuffle' as what seems to be essentially a replacement for money. Even though this book is pretty short there really are a lot of good themes here. I'd particularly like to know which concepts in the book others found most interesting.

[M.D.]

The Whuffie concept is interesting and strangely reminds me of Web2. This is not surprising since Cory Doctorow also started out as a blogger with his blog Boing Boing and became a sensation. Number of hits, comments, etc. all contribute to the success and yes, the standing of a blog and by extension a person. As a true SF writer, Cory took the idea and stretched it. Very clever.

[Keith]

Whuffie reminded me of Hollywood, or professional sports. The more Whuffie that an actor, actress, or sports star has translates into more money, better projects, or teams. If they lose public appeal they seem to fade or have to reinvent themselves.

[Sandi]

I just wish Whuffie had been explained better.

[[deleted user]]

I don't see whuffie as a commentary solely on sports or blogs or any one thing. It's a beautiful description of the ceaseless popularity contests that determine most of what happens in our lives. It's timely, yet timeless. Really, Adam Smith was writing science fiction (or at least fantasy), leaving us to wait centuries for economic theory to be invented. Do I sound bitter yet?

[Jon]

I'm only about a third of the way done with this novel. And I'm curious ... is Whuffie a representation of genuine empathetic (pardon the reference to last month's discusions) "coinage" or is it a reflection of the shallow adolescent clique'/pack popularity? Perhaps I'll know more when I get farther along in the story.

[Sandi]

John, I think it's a reflection of shallow adolescent clique/pack popularity. It seemed to me that everyone always had My Space online in their heads.

[Matt]

Sandi, as we have discussed prior, I totally agree with you.

My big question was what exactly determined the gain or loss of Whuffie? If it was some arbitrary sort of thing that strangers could do to one another, I'm afraid I would be docking folks all day long in busy traffic or when someone waited until everything had been rang up before starting to write their check out at the grocery store.:)

[John]

Tadpole, it seemed to work exactly that way! I can't remember the exact passage, but I seem to remember him talking about squandering all the Whuffie he'd gotten from one of his symphonies by hogging the library terminal and general jerkery.

It's never really explained, but it seemed almost like an automatic function of the interaction between brain, machine, and network, like it could read your regard for others and translate that into whuffie.

[Jen]

John, the way I read it, it's a whuffie is a combination of both genuine empathy and shallow adolescent clique'/pack popularity. I found the concept interesting, though a little unbelievable. It would have helped to have a little more history on its acceptance... how long it took, how people were drawn to it and why... that sort of thing. I also have to say, I just hate the term "whuffie." It needs a better name. Any clue as to what the term was coined from?

[Kristjan]

Jen said: I also have to say, I just hate the term "whuffie." It needs a better name. Any clue as to what the term was coined from?

Yeah ... I am not too crazy about it either. Here is what Cory has to say about it:

http://craphound.com/down/000263.html

Q: Where does the word Whuffie come from?

A: It’s just a made-up word we used interchangably with “Brownie Points” in high-school. Some people have suggested that it might have come from the Arsenio Hall show’s “woof woof woof” noises.

[M.D.]

John and Jen:

I think you both partly have the answer to Whuffie. I remember a scene in the book when he wants to sabotage the new Presidents Hall "Ride" and he sees his Whuffie go down in the face of Dan's disapproval at his actions. So empathy and the kind of judgment we regularly pass on other people's actions (disapproval, approval, disappointment, pride, respect, disgust, etc.) make up whuffie (Cory's brownie points) and they're tied in directly into the net. Whuffie is attached to actions, not thoughts.

It may sound shallow or infantile, but I think it's taking a taboo subject (the fact that, although we think we don't, or we wish we wouldn't, judge people's actions by comparing them to our own standards of what is acceptable) and airing it out. What I find interesting is that Cory has niftily separated societal acceptance and personal approval, and it creates conflict between thoughts and actions (especially in Julius's case) and creates conflict.

[Brooke]

So it's not REALLY MySpacey - for example, Tila Tequila, even though in our world she seems to have massive popularity, would not have much Wuffie because she doesn't really do anything that would garner social approval?

[Kristjan]

Brooke said: So it's not REALLY MySpacey - for example, Tila Tequila, even though in our world she seems to have massive popularity, would not have much Wuffie because she doesn't really do anything that would garner social approval?

That all depends ... whuffie is directly tied into popularity and is awarded based on activities which impact popularity. The fact that an individual may not do anything to earn social approval only comes into play if their popularity tanks. This can be seen with super stars, professional atheletes, etc. where people generally disapprove of their specific behavior, but don't really punish these celebrities because they put more weight or emphasis on how they perform.

I think that reputation (social approval) would actually serve as a buffer, making it harder to change a particular whuffie score (you have to change the rep along with it and that takes a track record).

[Brad]

I agree with your take on how whuffie works, Kristjan.

I'd also like to add that I really like what Doctorow has done, and it is a concept I completely buy in his world as a future projection of our own. What we're doing right here in this book club is a primitive form of whuffie. How many of us temper the things we say specifically because we don't want to offend others? That's a whuffie principle put into action.

And what of those people who come on these threads to be nothing but offensive. It's a whuffie decision, certainly.

[Jen]

Interesting way to think about it in modern terms, Brad. I also found the concept interesting and appealing... I just wish he had come up with a better term.

[Brad]

It is a strange word, Jen. I got used to it pretty fast myself, but I can totally see how it could annoy.

Something else that really struck me about Down and Out is the way it subtly explores the nature of morality. Things that we see as immoral today, in our own lives, have no immorality to the characters in Down and Out (smoking crack, Dan shacking up with Lil, which leads to some mildly hurt feelings but nothing more). The question I have been asking myself is why? And I think the answer is that in Doctorow's world mortality = morality.

[Sandi]

I don't know if it's so much of a mortality=morality issue. I think the world depicted in "Down and Out..." is debased by an excess of leisure time. It seems that no one has to work. They can work if they want to, but they don't have to. You're "paid" in Whuffies based on your approval ratings and popularity. The Bitchun Society reminds me of the old adage, "Idleness is the Devil's playground."

It seems that this is a world that could have been created by Paris Hilton. One can do what they want because they want to do it. There's no real purpose to life anymore. One can join an ad hoc that appears to have purpose, but it's an illusory purpose. The only characters who ever had purpose, Dan and Julius' ex-wife, lose their compass when they no longer have purpose. Julius' ex-wife goes crazy when she no longer has her work on the space station and Dan murders his best friend and sleeps with his girlfriend when he no longer has any holdouts to bring into the Bitchun Society.

[Brad]

Don't we simply place our current morality on the characters of Down and Out, though? For us it is murder and addiction and adultery. But if one can't die how can it be "murder?" If one can't die there is nothing immoral in doing substances that can kill one or those around one? If one is immortal, surely monogamy is no longer important either.

Certainly meaningful work is an important aspect of the book. I totally agree. But I don't see that search for work being a major player in the morality issue. It definitely appears as the deciding factor in "meaning," in "passion," and it is a huge motivator in characters' actions. No doubt about that.

But death, or the lack of death, alters the way Doctorow's characters see the world from the way we, mortal creatures that we are, read Doctorow's world.

I think one of the strongest aspects of the book is that Doctorow's characters (now I have to qualify this with the fact that I haven't finished) seem to have a morality that is specific to them rather than to us. It is a true success of Doctorow's imagination that he is able to pull that off, and it might explain why many people in this discussion seem to dislike the characters so much (beyond the valid feeling that the characters are self-centered).

[M.D.]

Jen,

I agree with you with the term Whuffie. It makes me think of a surround-sound speaker set.

[M.D.]

Brad,

Writers always start with a "what if." In this case, maybe Cory asked himself "What if no one could really die? What if you could replace your body and your inner self at will?"

The entire "morality" of the society would definitely be altered in a case like this. It doesn't matter what damage you do to your body, it's replaceable. It doesn't matter what kind of relationship you have, you can always start over.

Deadheading for me is also interesting. No one's really mentioned it, but I think it's also crucial to the society Cory has created and maybe a way to make us think about immortality: is there a finite number of experiences one can have? What is the purpose of immortality?

For anyone who's read Robert Heinlein's Time Enough for Love, this seems to be a reprise of the theme.

[This Is Not The Michael You're Looking For]

One of the most interesting deadheading issues was the flight: Jules chose to sit on a plane for three hours rather than be resurrected on the other side (if I understood right).

There were so many questions that could have been answered or explored. For example, what's to stop someone from doing a backup then immediately having a dozen clones of themselves created? What restricts them to just one?

[Sandi]

That's a good question, Michael. Earlier today, I got to thinking about the similarity between the way people are resurrected in "Down and Out..." and the concept of re-sleeving in "Altered Carbon" by Richard K. Morgan. Morgan's concept is practically the same as Doctorow's, but he is much more detailed about the particulars. In "Altered Carbon," one has to be able to pay for clones or other sleeves. So, money has a lot to do with it. As for multiple copies, it's not done because the differing experiences of the two copies will essentially turn them into different people within hours or days and the copy can't be re-integrated.

I suspect in Doctorow's universe, there's some social convention against making duplicates. The next question would be; if you fail to make frequent backups, is the new you really you?

[Jen]

M.D.,

I couldn't agree with you more about Heinlein's Time Enough for Love. Personally, I thought Heinlein made the theme a bit more interesting, but this is still an interesting take on it.

Deadheading was definitely one of the more interesting concepts dealt with in this book for me. Any book that has ever brought in the "power" of immortality has had to deal with the ultimate monotony of life, and deadheading is certainly an interesting/viable way of average people "living" with immortality.

Michael, as for flight, that was something that bothered me a little bit. Deadheading has to be a bit of a process (though it is unclear what exactly is involved) and I found it hard to believe that no one would ever opt out of it in favor of just dealing with a short flight. Especially since the author has the characters talk about deadheading with such seriousness. A short flight is so inconsequential that it just seemed like a silly use of such a major event for someone.

I guess on the other hand, it does show how commonplace the practice has become.

[Brooke]

M.D.,

I got the sense that Julius was adverse to deadheading and that this point of view was very contrary to how most people felt about it. Of course, I'd been a few weeks now since I've read it, so I could be remembering wrong, but he seemed to regard it very seriously while the rest of the characters seemed to think it was no big deal.

[Mark]

>>>>There were so many questions that could have been answered or explored. For example, what's to stop someone from doing a backup then immediately having a dozen clones of themselves created? What restricts them to just one?

Michael: There was an excellent episode of the new Outer Limits series that explored a related topic. (I think it was based on a short story, but I don't recall whose.)

The premise is that you can travel between Earth and other planets using a transporter that scans you here, transmits the info, and creates you at the other end. The transporter operator is required to kill the original if it's not automatically dematerialized (so that there aren't two travelers roaming around). (Apparently there are dire consequences of some sort if the original isn't destroyed.)

But something goes wrong one day and the operator doesn't get confirmation that a transfer was successful. He's being ordered to kill the original, but she's pleading not to die--what if the transmission was unsuccessful? He'd be murdering her. For whatever reason (I don't recall what it was), it was urgent that he kill her before finding out whether the transfer was successful.

It was a gripping episode. (I wish I could remember the title. I tried to look it up on IMDb, but didn't see it.)

Mark.

[[deleted user]]

I wonder if we would find Down and Out so uncomfortable if someone other than Julius were the narrator. That is, do Julius's prejudices against flaky kids create our own distaste for them or does it serve as a warning not to impose our own crotchety values?

[Jon]

I'm reading an SF classic for the first time The Left Hand of Darkness. I was intrigued by Le Guin's use of shifgrethor, which seemed very similar to wuffle.

A bit of research online and I found a definition of shifgrethor: Prestige, face, place, the pride-relationship the untranslatable and all-important principle of social authority on Karhide and all of Gethen.

Perhaps not quite what wuffle was in Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom but still similar enough for me to ruminate about. :)

[Kevin]

I fould left hand of darkness to be very unsatisfying.

Much , not all< of le Guins work seems to be incomplete. Almost like she got bored with the story an quit just before completing the work.

I very much like the loose ends tied up. That does not happen in life but it prefer it in my fiction

[Jon]

While I liked her Earthsea novels, and Lathe of Heaven was good (although it's been decades since I read either), I'm struggling with The Left Hand of Darkness. It's probably just me. :)

[Sandi]

"The Left Hand of Darkness" is a very dense work. I liked it because of that.

[Jen]

I really enjoyed the Earthsea novels when I was younger, but Left Hand of Darkness was definitely more work. Regardless, I thought it was an excellent book and worth the effort. It did seem a little dated to me (funny for a science fiction book) in terms of it's language and even it's concepts, but it's a deserving classic.