Just another day for you, you and me in Eastercon.
A number of interesting panel discussions today, but I've selected some interesting insights from one called:
Building a Mars Constitution
This panel discussion was, no doubt, instigated by the fairly recent announcements by Space X founder that they are drafting plans for a Martian colony with flights to start in the early 2020's. The idea we were encouraged to discuss was, what would a Martian constitution involve.
The session started with a description of constitutions and a bit of a rant against the US constitution and why the Magna Carta was better. Whatever. This was to set the stage for the idea that we would need a democracy, and one that probably started early on in the existence of the colony, so that it would set the ground work for structuring the entire colony's future.
As such a discussion is want to do, it degenerated numerous times, into mini-conversations on such tangents as primary vs. secondary colonists, how to construct a Martian colony, the moon is more practical unless we intend to teraform Mars, radiation and other biological considerations, and many more.
One of the more interesting asides to me was on how the colonists would be selected, and how the colony social structure would evolve. e.g. would there be drug dealers, prostitutes and police and if so, how soon? I found it especially interesting because it highlights the ideas that people have about society and how the real vs. ideal perceptions.
For example, one panelist was convinced that a starter colony of engineers and scientists would be an ideal colony of people that would be the best and most dedicated of humanity and, apparently, could not succumb to human weaknesses. He seemed to find it impossible to believe that such a colony would develop, e.g. their own drugs, or prostitution.
Apparently, some people have never met scientists or engineers.
Fortunately, most of the audience was somewhat more world-wise and we were pretty unanimous in our agreement that, when you leave scientists alone for several years with nothing to do for recreation, these highly skilled and capable people will make their own drugs and other recreational activities.
In short, while we may like to imagine nice, sterile, research colonies. The truth is that, if people are stuck there for the rest of their lives, they will create their own recreation with what they have available, and that Schwarzenegger's Total Recall is not that unlikely.
Insight and longevity.
Saturday, March 30, 2013
Eastercon Blog-A-Day 1: writing aliens
Why is it so difficult to write believable Aliens?
Firstly, I'm aware that this should have been prepared yesterday and that, technically, today is day 2 of the EightSquared Eastercon 2013. But, well, anyone who's been to a con knows what day one is like. 'nuff said.
Anyway, this Eastercon is no different from most in that they feature a program stream for writers, and day one had a panel discussion on that writers' bugbear of characterization. This is something non-trivial and deserves a post or many on it's own, but I'm going to leave you to do that research for yourselves. In very brief, the most important part of characterization is making your characters believable. This is not only to lend credibility to your story, but so that your readers can relate to your characters.
At the end of the session, one woman asked how you write aliens (implying intelligent aliens) because she had some in the book she was writing. The unanimous answer was "I don't". Or, if they were used, it was only to serve a plot purpose, not as full characters in their own rights. If one looks at aliens in literature, this is the general way they are dealt with (just think of that lovable Spock, who represents the pure logical, emotion-suppressed version of humanity).
So, why is this the case?
In brief, because, it most people seem to forget that aliens are, well, alien. In other words, it's not only their biology and culture that will be different, but their very thinking itself. So, first off, trying to imagine a completely alien thinking is incredibly difficult. Imagine different ideas of relationships, different thoughts of what may be important to life, different ideas of jobs or economy, or socio-political heirarchy. And all this with only humans as a sample set. Then, if you successfully manage, you have the challenge of conveying that to your reader, remembering that they've had much less time thinking about it then you have.
If you don't believe me on how hard it is, try it. I challenge you to create a truly alien alien. Once you do, have a close look. Are you sure your alien isn't just some caricature of humanity, some creature that highlights you most or least favourite human trait?
This is precisely why virtually all fictional aliens are intentional caricatures. Because, with a sample set of precisely ZERO aliens to use as examples, a caricature is the best fictional use of an alien.
But I'd still love to see your attempts, so feel free to drop them in the comments.
Insight and longevity.
Firstly, I'm aware that this should have been prepared yesterday and that, technically, today is day 2 of the EightSquared Eastercon 2013. But, well, anyone who's been to a con knows what day one is like. 'nuff said.
Anyway, this Eastercon is no different from most in that they feature a program stream for writers, and day one had a panel discussion on that writers' bugbear of characterization. This is something non-trivial and deserves a post or many on it's own, but I'm going to leave you to do that research for yourselves. In very brief, the most important part of characterization is making your characters believable. This is not only to lend credibility to your story, but so that your readers can relate to your characters.
At the end of the session, one woman asked how you write aliens (implying intelligent aliens) because she had some in the book she was writing. The unanimous answer was "I don't". Or, if they were used, it was only to serve a plot purpose, not as full characters in their own rights. If one looks at aliens in literature, this is the general way they are dealt with (just think of that lovable Spock, who represents the pure logical, emotion-suppressed version of humanity).
So, why is this the case?
In brief, because, it most people seem to forget that aliens are, well, alien. In other words, it's not only their biology and culture that will be different, but their very thinking itself. So, first off, trying to imagine a completely alien thinking is incredibly difficult. Imagine different ideas of relationships, different thoughts of what may be important to life, different ideas of jobs or economy, or socio-political heirarchy. And all this with only humans as a sample set. Then, if you successfully manage, you have the challenge of conveying that to your reader, remembering that they've had much less time thinking about it then you have.
If you don't believe me on how hard it is, try it. I challenge you to create a truly alien alien. Once you do, have a close look. Are you sure your alien isn't just some caricature of humanity, some creature that highlights you most or least favourite human trait?
This is precisely why virtually all fictional aliens are intentional caricatures. Because, with a sample set of precisely ZERO aliens to use as examples, a caricature is the best fictional use of an alien.
But I'd still love to see your attempts, so feel free to drop them in the comments.
Insight and longevity.
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Janet Jackson Superbowl 'Wardrobe Malfunction' Revisited.
'Sup? Raging against social insanity
Music: Just Dance by Lady Gaga
This time of year always brings me 'round to thinking about religion in all its craziness. For some reason this time I was thinking about how religion breed prudishness and just why would a universe-spanning omnipotence care whether we sleep with someone we're not married to, run around naked, or show a woman's nipple in public. The last, of course (?!), relates directly to that infamous 2004 superbowl event that has now been consigned to history. Yes, Janet Jackson's infamous 'wardrobe malfunction'.
Just to recap: during the finale of her superbowl show with Justin Timberlake, he sang 'I'll have you naked by the end of this song', then pulled off part of her jacket revealling a pastied breast. Regardless of the fact that the nipple was almost impossible to see even in the video, prudes and religious right all across America freaked. Like, in a big way. And, as has become all to common latsely, the media completely dropped the ball by playing along (oh for news shows with some metaphorical cajones).
Now, I'm not here to resurrect a nine year old controversy. What I am going to do is point out something that I don't recall was discussed in the fervorous hubbub of moral indignation. Namely, gender equality.
You see, given the type of music and the show (which I had never watched before) I was curious about something. Were there any male nipples showing?
That's right, in this age of gender equality and feminism, surely male nipples must be equal to female nipples in their shamefulness (or, more realistically, their lack thereof).
So I dug up the video on YouTube (trivial to find, so check it yourself) and watched it. LO, what did I find. Not one male nipple, but FOUR!! That's right, for the entire song, TWO men dance shirtless. THE SHAME!!! Four male nipples on display for the entire show, and one incredibly brief glimpse of a female nipple gets all the attention.
If that's not a dispicable example of gender inequality, I don't know what is. Why is it that women get all the pleasure of watching bare male chests, but we males are robbed of this, or made to feel like perverts for wanted to see female flesh? It's dispicable.
I DEMAND EQUALITY!!
Or at least reason.
Insight and longevity.
Music: Just Dance by Lady Gaga
This time of year always brings me 'round to thinking about religion in all its craziness. For some reason this time I was thinking about how religion breed prudishness and just why would a universe-spanning omnipotence care whether we sleep with someone we're not married to, run around naked, or show a woman's nipple in public. The last, of course (?!), relates directly to that infamous 2004 superbowl event that has now been consigned to history. Yes, Janet Jackson's infamous 'wardrobe malfunction'.
Just to recap: during the finale of her superbowl show with Justin Timberlake, he sang 'I'll have you naked by the end of this song', then pulled off part of her jacket revealling a pastied breast. Regardless of the fact that the nipple was almost impossible to see even in the video, prudes and religious right all across America freaked. Like, in a big way. And, as has become all to common latsely, the media completely dropped the ball by playing along (oh for news shows with some metaphorical cajones).
Now, I'm not here to resurrect a nine year old controversy. What I am going to do is point out something that I don't recall was discussed in the fervorous hubbub of moral indignation. Namely, gender equality.
You see, given the type of music and the show (which I had never watched before) I was curious about something. Were there any male nipples showing?
That's right, in this age of gender equality and feminism, surely male nipples must be equal to female nipples in their shamefulness (or, more realistically, their lack thereof).
So I dug up the video on YouTube (trivial to find, so check it yourself) and watched it. LO, what did I find. Not one male nipple, but FOUR!! That's right, for the entire song, TWO men dance shirtless. THE SHAME!!! Four male nipples on display for the entire show, and one incredibly brief glimpse of a female nipple gets all the attention.
If that's not a dispicable example of gender inequality, I don't know what is. Why is it that women get all the pleasure of watching bare male chests, but we males are robbed of this, or made to feel like perverts for wanted to see female flesh? It's dispicable.
I DEMAND EQUALITY!!
Or at least reason.
Insight and longevity.
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Writing for Young Adults - The Parent Trap
'Sup? Prep'ing for the next ice age
Music: Judas by Lady Gaga
There's no denying that the Young Adult (YA) market is one of the hottest book markets of the last decade. Kicked off by the Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling and followed by the more genre-defining stories of the Twilight (Stephane Meyers) and Hunger Games (Suzanne Collins) series, YA is talked about in all the writing circles (probably even the literati, where it's no doubt derided for being mind-mush and the cause of much of our youths' social problems). Everyone in the industry either loves it, hates it, or want to write it.
It it not within the scope of this post to discuss the merits and negatives of the YA genre. As a recent writer and, by extension, reader of YA, I'm here to discus some observations I've had regarding a specific aspect of the genre, namely, parents. I may discuss other aspects in future posts, but parents is where I'll start because, love'em or leave'em, parents are a big influence on any teens life.
The first thing you should know about YA is that there are no hard and fast rules. While the genre has some tropes that seem guarenteed blockbusters, it is too early to tell whether they will continue. My guess is that, like our young themselves, the genre will constantly and quickly continue to evolve and what is a blockbuster today will be passee in a decade. Or less. For this reason, you need to make your own opinion on what I'm saying based on your own reading, and your own decision on how to approach your novel, if you're a writer. What I will do here is provide you with what seem to be current trends and rules, specifically regarding the existence of parents in YA stories, how to deal with them and what it means to the story. After all, you must know the rules before you can break them.
With that said, let's move on to Parents in YA or, The Parent Trap.
Why The Parent Trap? because contrary to what teens may think, the presence or absence of parents has a vitally imporant influence on the them. It affects everything from their economic status and health (mental and physical), and therefore what resources they have at hand, to their curfews and dress codes. In writing terms, what they can and can't do without conflict, in the literary sense.
Since conflict is the heart of any story, and parents are major gatekeepers for a teen's access to conflict, it's vitally imporant that the author decides how to use the parents in the story. For example, a teen who's parents give them everything and constantly bail them out from all trouble will have an entirely different set of conflicts from the teen who's parents don't pay any attention to them or argue all the time with them.
Essentially, the level of control or permissiveness of the parents' influences, is chosen to support the type of story. As a general rule, the more fantastical a story, the less the need or desire for the parents to be around in a supporting role (however, there still seems to be a lot of room in the genre for parents to be direct villains, but it would have to be done well so as not to seem farcicle). Whereas, the more literary or mundane a story, the more persistance and direct influence the parents are likely to have.
Of course, while it might be obvious, it bares mentioning that the parent becomes a plot device for creating, but never resolving conflict. These are YA stories and the teen MUST be directly instrumental in the final plot resolution, perhaps even despite the parents.
This same rule applies to all other adults in the story. As a general rule, adults are (1) usually the villains, (2) occassional helpful, but (3) commonly, a hinderance to the YA protagonist.
Here are a few general considerations and means for dealing with parents and adults in a YA story. Each has been used in popular novels, in some cases multiple techniques have been used (see especially Metawars 1.0, Jeff Norton).
Death
A very common way of removing one or more parents from the story is through their deaths, either when the protagonist was born, or shortly before the story. Usually such a death relates directly to the story's plot. The death of Harry Potter's parents at the hands of his mortal enemy Voldemort are probably the most well-known deaths of any characters in a children's/YA series. Their deaths set the stage for Harry's entire life. Not only forcing him to live with his nasty muggle in-laws, but setting up his role in the prophecy and creating a connection between him and Voldemort. His mother's sacrifice even posthumously saved him from Voldemort's minion when getting the philospher's stone.
Disappearance
Parental dissappearance is obviously not as final as death, and therefore it always leave open the possibility of return. It's nature leads to multiple possible plot uses.
One example would be separation of the parents such that the protagonist lives with only one. The effect would be a potentially strained relationship with the remaining parent (and perhaps the distant one also, depending on authorial wishes) as the single parent struggles to cope with all the necessities of the household, job, and teen.
Another example would be a straight-out disappearance of the parent for no apparent reason, as in the movie Jumper (Stephen Gould). In this case, the mother's disappearance when the protagonist was five, related directly to his burgeoning powers and the overall story (although only in a small way to the plot of that particular movie). This is also used in the Gone series, where all adults (indeed everyone over 15) simply vanishes. The most obvious use of this device in plot would be the creation of a mystery surrounding the disappearance (in addition, of course, to following the characters through their experience of immediately needing to grow up to survive). More literary uses could be in the exploration of the emotional effects on such a teen.
As mentioned, the major difference between parent death and disappearance, is that the latter can leave the reader with hope for a future reunion between protagonist and parent. The author needs be aware of this, and not forget to resolve the disappearance (in which ever direction they choose) or they may fail in fulfilling their 'contract' with the reader.
Incapacitation
A YA writer can call on incapacitation to take some adults out of the picture. There are strong and weak ways of doing this. If the adult is incapacitated from the start of the story and it plays to the plot, it is a strong method. Why is the adult incapacitated? What effect does it have on the teen? How can the teen live with or perhaps resolve the incapacitation? Unfortunately, it's far too common to read examples of adult incapacitation immediately before a climactic sequence. In this instance, it feels very much like a weak authorial device. I would personally recommend trying to avoid the latter example unless you put a lot of thought into it.
Imprisonment
Similar to incapacitation, imprisonment can be a major plot device--i.e. a wrongfully imprisioned parent. Or it can be used simply to remove characters from the plot (as in Metawars 1.0). Unless done very well, it is something best left to use on minor characters that most readers won't worry about. Or the author risks the same problem as with incapacitation.
Frequent Interaction (Persistant Parents)
An example of a frequent interaction might be a parent who teaches at the main character's school. This is a challenging situation for both parent and teen, and the parent will undoubtedly have made their own rules on how they intend to interact with their teen in order to avoid either coming down too hard on them or, equally important, to avoid the appearance of favouritism. Either case would commonly cause a teen to rebel more strongly against the parent unless there is an incredibly powerful bond at home. The teen, however, may not understand this, or even resent it.
In John Green's A Fault In Our Stars, the parents are persistent, after a fasion, and can be downright creepy in their niceness. It is necessary, as the protagonist has terminal lung cancer and requires regular attention in addition to omniprevalent oxygen canisters. So the parents are clearly doing the best they can to manage their own emotions while dealing with this situation, and it shows us something of their own characters and internal conflicts.
So there are many types of persistent parents, and therefore many uses for them in a story. Each has a reason, and consequences to the character and story.
Mix and Match as Neccessary
Now that you have some idea of the necessary considerations and options for dealing with parents, and generally supportive adults, in a YA story, feel free to mix, match, or play with the 'rules' as you see fit. It's only important to realize the natural consequences of the parent-teen relationship you decide because regardless of the subgenre, that is the one thing that must feel real to the reader. And remember, the beauty of YA at the moment, is that it's a genre full of experimentation.
As one example, Metawars 1.0 by Jeff Norton used 5 different methods for removing parents and other helpful adults from the picture so that only the teen protagonists remained for the climax. (1) Five years before the story, the protagonist's father was killed in plot related events, (2) his mother was later killed during the story, (3) his father was later resurrected in an incapacitated form to provide limited help, (4) other helpful adults were either imprisoned or (5) incapacitated to pave the way for the protagonist to shine during the story's climax.
Whichever method you use, I hope this has prepared you to think through the plot consequences and how it will affect the teen protagonist. Keep writing!
Suggested Reading
Twilight - Stephanie Meyers
The Hunger Games - Suzanne Collins
Little Brother - Cory Doctorow (available as free e-book, or in print, published by Tor)
For The Win - Cory Doctorow (available as free e-book, or in print, published by Tor)
A Fault In Our Stars - John Green
Harry Potter series - J.K.Rowling
Gone -Michael Grant
MetaWars 1.0 - Jeff Norton
Pretties - Scott Westerfeld
Jumper - 2008 movie (also, the 1992 book by Stephen Gould, although it has significant differences in plot)
Consider the role of parents / adults as you read these novels, and practice what you learn in your own writing.
Insight and longevity.
Music: Judas by Lady Gaga
There's no denying that the Young Adult (YA) market is one of the hottest book markets of the last decade. Kicked off by the Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling and followed by the more genre-defining stories of the Twilight (Stephane Meyers) and Hunger Games (Suzanne Collins) series, YA is talked about in all the writing circles (probably even the literati, where it's no doubt derided for being mind-mush and the cause of much of our youths' social problems). Everyone in the industry either loves it, hates it, or want to write it.
It it not within the scope of this post to discuss the merits and negatives of the YA genre. As a recent writer and, by extension, reader of YA, I'm here to discus some observations I've had regarding a specific aspect of the genre, namely, parents. I may discuss other aspects in future posts, but parents is where I'll start because, love'em or leave'em, parents are a big influence on any teens life.
The first thing you should know about YA is that there are no hard and fast rules. While the genre has some tropes that seem guarenteed blockbusters, it is too early to tell whether they will continue. My guess is that, like our young themselves, the genre will constantly and quickly continue to evolve and what is a blockbuster today will be passee in a decade. Or less. For this reason, you need to make your own opinion on what I'm saying based on your own reading, and your own decision on how to approach your novel, if you're a writer. What I will do here is provide you with what seem to be current trends and rules, specifically regarding the existence of parents in YA stories, how to deal with them and what it means to the story. After all, you must know the rules before you can break them.
With that said, let's move on to Parents in YA or, The Parent Trap.
Why The Parent Trap? because contrary to what teens may think, the presence or absence of parents has a vitally imporant influence on the them. It affects everything from their economic status and health (mental and physical), and therefore what resources they have at hand, to their curfews and dress codes. In writing terms, what they can and can't do without conflict, in the literary sense.
Since conflict is the heart of any story, and parents are major gatekeepers for a teen's access to conflict, it's vitally imporant that the author decides how to use the parents in the story. For example, a teen who's parents give them everything and constantly bail them out from all trouble will have an entirely different set of conflicts from the teen who's parents don't pay any attention to them or argue all the time with them.
Essentially, the level of control or permissiveness of the parents' influences, is chosen to support the type of story. As a general rule, the more fantastical a story, the less the need or desire for the parents to be around in a supporting role (however, there still seems to be a lot of room in the genre for parents to be direct villains, but it would have to be done well so as not to seem farcicle). Whereas, the more literary or mundane a story, the more persistance and direct influence the parents are likely to have.
Of course, while it might be obvious, it bares mentioning that the parent becomes a plot device for creating, but never resolving conflict. These are YA stories and the teen MUST be directly instrumental in the final plot resolution, perhaps even despite the parents.
This same rule applies to all other adults in the story. As a general rule, adults are (1) usually the villains, (2) occassional helpful, but (3) commonly, a hinderance to the YA protagonist.
Here are a few general considerations and means for dealing with parents and adults in a YA story. Each has been used in popular novels, in some cases multiple techniques have been used (see especially Metawars 1.0, Jeff Norton).
Death
A very common way of removing one or more parents from the story is through their deaths, either when the protagonist was born, or shortly before the story. Usually such a death relates directly to the story's plot. The death of Harry Potter's parents at the hands of his mortal enemy Voldemort are probably the most well-known deaths of any characters in a children's/YA series. Their deaths set the stage for Harry's entire life. Not only forcing him to live with his nasty muggle in-laws, but setting up his role in the prophecy and creating a connection between him and Voldemort. His mother's sacrifice even posthumously saved him from Voldemort's minion when getting the philospher's stone.
Disappearance
Parental dissappearance is obviously not as final as death, and therefore it always leave open the possibility of return. It's nature leads to multiple possible plot uses.
One example would be separation of the parents such that the protagonist lives with only one. The effect would be a potentially strained relationship with the remaining parent (and perhaps the distant one also, depending on authorial wishes) as the single parent struggles to cope with all the necessities of the household, job, and teen.
Another example would be a straight-out disappearance of the parent for no apparent reason, as in the movie Jumper (Stephen Gould). In this case, the mother's disappearance when the protagonist was five, related directly to his burgeoning powers and the overall story (although only in a small way to the plot of that particular movie). This is also used in the Gone series, where all adults (indeed everyone over 15) simply vanishes. The most obvious use of this device in plot would be the creation of a mystery surrounding the disappearance (in addition, of course, to following the characters through their experience of immediately needing to grow up to survive). More literary uses could be in the exploration of the emotional effects on such a teen.
As mentioned, the major difference between parent death and disappearance, is that the latter can leave the reader with hope for a future reunion between protagonist and parent. The author needs be aware of this, and not forget to resolve the disappearance (in which ever direction they choose) or they may fail in fulfilling their 'contract' with the reader.
Incapacitation
A YA writer can call on incapacitation to take some adults out of the picture. There are strong and weak ways of doing this. If the adult is incapacitated from the start of the story and it plays to the plot, it is a strong method. Why is the adult incapacitated? What effect does it have on the teen? How can the teen live with or perhaps resolve the incapacitation? Unfortunately, it's far too common to read examples of adult incapacitation immediately before a climactic sequence. In this instance, it feels very much like a weak authorial device. I would personally recommend trying to avoid the latter example unless you put a lot of thought into it.
Imprisonment
Similar to incapacitation, imprisonment can be a major plot device--i.e. a wrongfully imprisioned parent. Or it can be used simply to remove characters from the plot (as in Metawars 1.0). Unless done very well, it is something best left to use on minor characters that most readers won't worry about. Or the author risks the same problem as with incapacitation.
Frequent Interaction (Persistant Parents)
An example of a frequent interaction might be a parent who teaches at the main character's school. This is a challenging situation for both parent and teen, and the parent will undoubtedly have made their own rules on how they intend to interact with their teen in order to avoid either coming down too hard on them or, equally important, to avoid the appearance of favouritism. Either case would commonly cause a teen to rebel more strongly against the parent unless there is an incredibly powerful bond at home. The teen, however, may not understand this, or even resent it.
In John Green's A Fault In Our Stars, the parents are persistent, after a fasion, and can be downright creepy in their niceness. It is necessary, as the protagonist has terminal lung cancer and requires regular attention in addition to omniprevalent oxygen canisters. So the parents are clearly doing the best they can to manage their own emotions while dealing with this situation, and it shows us something of their own characters and internal conflicts.
So there are many types of persistent parents, and therefore many uses for them in a story. Each has a reason, and consequences to the character and story.
Mix and Match as Neccessary
Now that you have some idea of the necessary considerations and options for dealing with parents, and generally supportive adults, in a YA story, feel free to mix, match, or play with the 'rules' as you see fit. It's only important to realize the natural consequences of the parent-teen relationship you decide because regardless of the subgenre, that is the one thing that must feel real to the reader. And remember, the beauty of YA at the moment, is that it's a genre full of experimentation.
As one example, Metawars 1.0 by Jeff Norton used 5 different methods for removing parents and other helpful adults from the picture so that only the teen protagonists remained for the climax. (1) Five years before the story, the protagonist's father was killed in plot related events, (2) his mother was later killed during the story, (3) his father was later resurrected in an incapacitated form to provide limited help, (4) other helpful adults were either imprisoned or (5) incapacitated to pave the way for the protagonist to shine during the story's climax.
Whichever method you use, I hope this has prepared you to think through the plot consequences and how it will affect the teen protagonist. Keep writing!
Suggested Reading
Twilight - Stephanie Meyers
The Hunger Games - Suzanne Collins
Little Brother - Cory Doctorow (available as free e-book, or in print, published by Tor)
For The Win - Cory Doctorow (available as free e-book, or in print, published by Tor)
A Fault In Our Stars - John Green
Harry Potter series - J.K.Rowling
Gone -Michael Grant
MetaWars 1.0 - Jeff Norton
Pretties - Scott Westerfeld
Jumper - 2008 movie (also, the 1992 book by Stephen Gould, although it has significant differences in plot)
Consider the role of parents / adults as you read these novels, and practice what you learn in your own writing.
Insight and longevity.
Thursday, March 7, 2013
March Give-Away!
I appologize for being a bit late with this, but it's here finally, The March Give-Away.
This month it's a bit of swag in the form of an original Zombie Apocalypse T-Shirt (image by me, loosely based on the Public Enemy album cover Fear of a Black Planet).
All you need to do to have a chance at winning, is to follow this blog and leave a comment in one of the March posts. The winner will be drawn at random from all qualifiers at the end of the month. Best of luck.
Insight and longevity.
This month it's a bit of swag in the form of an original Zombie Apocalypse T-Shirt (image by me, loosely based on the Public Enemy album cover Fear of a Black Planet).
Insight and longevity.
Monday, March 4, 2013
Science. What is dat thing anyway?
'Sup? The Devil's in the Details
Music: Heavyweight Champion of the World by Reverend and The Makers
I believe it's crucially important, especially as we move into the brave new world that is the future, that everyone understands what science is. Because, far too few people seem to, and this lack of understanding in many difficulties and even hardships for society.
I have heard claims that scientists sit in their ivory towers and make decrees, we've seen in the papers the use of a few errant e-mails to attempt to discredit the work of thousands aroun the world. These attacks on science originate either from the misinformed or from those with an agenda, but in both cases, the complaint is not valid. Yes, scientists are human. But science, by its nature, rises above human weaknesses. Eventually.
First off, science is not some council of wizards sitting in a tower deciding how the world should work. Nothing could be further from the truth. Such beliefs are often put forward by the religious who seem largely upset at the perception that another 'viewpoint' supercedes their own. Of course, science is not a 'viewpoint'. But more on that soon.
Nor is science dependent on, or created by, the views, or manipulations on a few individuals. The strength of science is that, in principle, anyone is able to confirm or deny conclusions of even the most well respected scientists. Of course, that doesn't happen much. Not because said scientists are put on pedestals and untouchable, but because, more often than not, their work, their understanding of their chosen field, and their research, is impecable. But one does not get to this stage in science by decree.
It's also important to note that science is not physics, nor biology, nor chemistry. Science is not Newton's laws of motion, or the laws of thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, electromagnetism, or even evolution. These are aspects of nature put into forms that humans can understand and use and science has helped us uncover and understand them. But they are not science, only the outcome of science.
Because science is not a thing, but a process. It's not a belief, but a method. Science is an objective means for interogating the world, ourselves, even the nature of reality. Although science is not a religion, it does require you have one believe. Namely, that humans are capable of understanding reality. Or at least that our ability will grow with our knowledge so that future generations will have insight and understanding that we currently lack.
This wonderful thing called science can be summed by the following simple process that is available to everyone for immediate use:
1) Make an observation about something of interest
2) From the observation, make a hypothesis of why it is that way
3) Test the hypothesis in an objective, non-biased manner
4) Revise the hypothesis based on the tests
5) return to step one
The cycle continues, carried out by the initial investigator and any or all other interested parties, until a hypothesis is arrived at the matches all data on the subject as close as possible.
Even then, future observations and experiments can overturn the hypothesis if they are conducted very well, and shed new light on the subject.
Through countless iterations, science ends up producing interpretations of the world that subsequently fit future observations. This is its strength. But science, itself, is only the process.
It is crucially important that the distinction be made between process and product. Because, in all instances, the former drives the latter. Science is often compared to and challenged by religion.
Religion began as science, as humanity's attempt at understanding the world and the universe in ways that were accessible to our level of understanding at the time. Spirits, gods, all seemed valuable explanations of events that were beyond our control or understanding. But religion lacked the rigorous approach of science. It lack the contstant questioning--or perhaps the speed of human development was simply too slow at the time--and due to its nature, it was prone to abuse by those seeking power. It stagnated, stalled, and grew into an immobile means for control that no longer has any interest in questioning anything.
All endeavours to better humanity, all endeavours to understand our world, to improve our situation, are prone to abuse by those seeking an advantage over others. That includes the use, and products, of science. But the power of science is that every person is capable of doing science, and every person can challenge previous studies, previous findings, previous understandings.
Science depends on questions and questioning. From everyone. Including its opponents. Anyone and everyone can and should do science. Even if it is basic science. We can't all understand quantum mechanics, molecular biology or physical chemistry, but we can all do science in our everyday lives. We are all capable of questioning, capable of interpretting our observations, and capable of revising our hypotheses in light of new observations and understanding.
Religion fairly quickly became a top-down system, in which the powerful decree, and the faithful believe. Science is, by its nature, a bottom-up system. Understandings of the world derived from scientific investigations are dependent on many, many independent observations. That necessitates as many people as possible being involved, and their results filter up.
The results, of course, can be supressed by the powerful, by those with an agenda, temporariliy, but the reality they uncover remains. A great quote from Canadian rock band Rush sums it up:
So if a government, or a religious body, decrees x = y, it doesn't mean x = y, it just means that everyone will act as if x = y. Often with disastrous consequences. For example, mid-20th century biology in the Soviet Union stagnated because of such decrees, harming their agriculture and leaving their people starved for food and their research starved for answers.
Another example is the climate change issue. It's easy to ignore, or to decide it needs more study and to decree that an influencial country won't have any part in reducing emmissions, Even going so far as to attempt to discredit a few scientists working on the project. But reality won't budge. And there will be unprecedented glacial melting, and record numbers of tornadoes, and record-breaking hurricanes, giant snow storms, and ten-times the number of record high temperatures as record lows. Because reality doesn't care what humans think.
To be fair, there have been several examples in the last few decades to highlight bad science, to demonstrate that scientists are human, that they are susceptible to the same temptations as everyone else. But these same cases demonstrate the strength of the scientific approach and that it transcends human weeknesses. Each case is eventually called out by other researchers studying the same topics who are unable to replicate the experiments. When enough people are unable to reproduce the data, the fraudulent claim can be culled.
So, if everyone practices science, then everyone will question. Everything. (in reality, just everything that interests them personally, but that is enough). And when everyone questions everything, in an intelligent manner, then falsehood and fraudulant claims cannot thrive. It's only when we accept, without thought, what we're told that we are subject to being abused, taken advantage of, and maniupulated.
I cannot stress this enough. We are strongest when everyone questions everything. Always. Intelligently and without agenda. And this is precisely what science is.
Reality doesn't care what humans think. This is why science, in all its objective glory, is so powerful. Because science uncovers the truth about reality (at least, as far as we are currently able to understand it, but that also improves with each iteration).
So please remember, Newton's laws, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, chemistry, biology, modern medicine, computers, cars, rockets, satellites, television, none of these are science. But they are all a testament to the power of the scientific process and what we can accomplish with an objective understanding of the world.
Insight and longevity.
Music: Heavyweight Champion of the World by Reverend and The Makers
I believe it's crucially important, especially as we move into the brave new world that is the future, that everyone understands what science is. Because, far too few people seem to, and this lack of understanding in many difficulties and even hardships for society.
I have heard claims that scientists sit in their ivory towers and make decrees, we've seen in the papers the use of a few errant e-mails to attempt to discredit the work of thousands aroun the world. These attacks on science originate either from the misinformed or from those with an agenda, but in both cases, the complaint is not valid. Yes, scientists are human. But science, by its nature, rises above human weaknesses. Eventually.
First off, science is not some council of wizards sitting in a tower deciding how the world should work. Nothing could be further from the truth. Such beliefs are often put forward by the religious who seem largely upset at the perception that another 'viewpoint' supercedes their own. Of course, science is not a 'viewpoint'. But more on that soon.
Nor is science dependent on, or created by, the views, or manipulations on a few individuals. The strength of science is that, in principle, anyone is able to confirm or deny conclusions of even the most well respected scientists. Of course, that doesn't happen much. Not because said scientists are put on pedestals and untouchable, but because, more often than not, their work, their understanding of their chosen field, and their research, is impecable. But one does not get to this stage in science by decree.
It's also important to note that science is not physics, nor biology, nor chemistry. Science is not Newton's laws of motion, or the laws of thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, electromagnetism, or even evolution. These are aspects of nature put into forms that humans can understand and use and science has helped us uncover and understand them. But they are not science, only the outcome of science.
Because science is not a thing, but a process. It's not a belief, but a method. Science is an objective means for interogating the world, ourselves, even the nature of reality. Although science is not a religion, it does require you have one believe. Namely, that humans are capable of understanding reality. Or at least that our ability will grow with our knowledge so that future generations will have insight and understanding that we currently lack.
This wonderful thing called science can be summed by the following simple process that is available to everyone for immediate use:
1) Make an observation about something of interest
2) From the observation, make a hypothesis of why it is that way
3) Test the hypothesis in an objective, non-biased manner
4) Revise the hypothesis based on the tests
5) return to step one
The cycle continues, carried out by the initial investigator and any or all other interested parties, until a hypothesis is arrived at the matches all data on the subject as close as possible.
Even then, future observations and experiments can overturn the hypothesis if they are conducted very well, and shed new light on the subject.
Through countless iterations, science ends up producing interpretations of the world that subsequently fit future observations. This is its strength. But science, itself, is only the process.
It is crucially important that the distinction be made between process and product. Because, in all instances, the former drives the latter. Science is often compared to and challenged by religion.
Religion began as science, as humanity's attempt at understanding the world and the universe in ways that were accessible to our level of understanding at the time. Spirits, gods, all seemed valuable explanations of events that were beyond our control or understanding. But religion lacked the rigorous approach of science. It lack the contstant questioning--or perhaps the speed of human development was simply too slow at the time--and due to its nature, it was prone to abuse by those seeking power. It stagnated, stalled, and grew into an immobile means for control that no longer has any interest in questioning anything.
All endeavours to better humanity, all endeavours to understand our world, to improve our situation, are prone to abuse by those seeking an advantage over others. That includes the use, and products, of science. But the power of science is that every person is capable of doing science, and every person can challenge previous studies, previous findings, previous understandings.
Science depends on questions and questioning. From everyone. Including its opponents. Anyone and everyone can and should do science. Even if it is basic science. We can't all understand quantum mechanics, molecular biology or physical chemistry, but we can all do science in our everyday lives. We are all capable of questioning, capable of interpretting our observations, and capable of revising our hypotheses in light of new observations and understanding.
Religion fairly quickly became a top-down system, in which the powerful decree, and the faithful believe. Science is, by its nature, a bottom-up system. Understandings of the world derived from scientific investigations are dependent on many, many independent observations. That necessitates as many people as possible being involved, and their results filter up.
The results, of course, can be supressed by the powerful, by those with an agenda, temporariliy, but the reality they uncover remains. A great quote from Canadian rock band Rush sums it up:
You can change perception, but reality won't budge.
So if a government, or a religious body, decrees x = y, it doesn't mean x = y, it just means that everyone will act as if x = y. Often with disastrous consequences. For example, mid-20th century biology in the Soviet Union stagnated because of such decrees, harming their agriculture and leaving their people starved for food and their research starved for answers.
Another example is the climate change issue. It's easy to ignore, or to decide it needs more study and to decree that an influencial country won't have any part in reducing emmissions, Even going so far as to attempt to discredit a few scientists working on the project. But reality won't budge. And there will be unprecedented glacial melting, and record numbers of tornadoes, and record-breaking hurricanes, giant snow storms, and ten-times the number of record high temperatures as record lows. Because reality doesn't care what humans think.
To be fair, there have been several examples in the last few decades to highlight bad science, to demonstrate that scientists are human, that they are susceptible to the same temptations as everyone else. But these same cases demonstrate the strength of the scientific approach and that it transcends human weeknesses. Each case is eventually called out by other researchers studying the same topics who are unable to replicate the experiments. When enough people are unable to reproduce the data, the fraudulent claim can be culled.
So, if everyone practices science, then everyone will question. Everything. (in reality, just everything that interests them personally, but that is enough). And when everyone questions everything, in an intelligent manner, then falsehood and fraudulant claims cannot thrive. It's only when we accept, without thought, what we're told that we are subject to being abused, taken advantage of, and maniupulated.
I cannot stress this enough. We are strongest when everyone questions everything. Always. Intelligently and without agenda. And this is precisely what science is.
Reality doesn't care what humans think. This is why science, in all its objective glory, is so powerful. Because science uncovers the truth about reality (at least, as far as we are currently able to understand it, but that also improves with each iteration).
So please remember, Newton's laws, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, chemistry, biology, modern medicine, computers, cars, rockets, satellites, television, none of these are science. But they are all a testament to the power of the scientific process and what we can accomplish with an objective understanding of the world.
Insight and longevity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)