In honour of 50 years of the British Science Fiction Association, Newcon Press published Celebration in 2008 (okay, I'm a bit behind on my reading). Edited by Ian Whates, it's author list includes some of the big names in British Sci-Fi (although there are notable absences) including Stephen Baxter, Ken MacLeod, Jon Courtenay Grimwood, Liz Williams, Brian Aldiss, Alastair Reynolds, and Ian R. MacLeod among others.
The first thing I expected from Celebration were stories of an up-beat nature. After all, I expected a celebration. In this regard, I was to be disappointed. The stories in celebration are, for the most part, visions of the future, but are almost exclusively dark. Once I accepted that idea, it wasn't difficult to sit back for the ride.
The anthology opens with one of the few non-futuristic stories, Jubiliee Plot, a Victorian, steampunkish tale about the importance of the rail system to the development of the UK by Stephen Baxter. It's an interesting story and well constructed yet somehow it took me a long time to get through. True Victorian/steampunk sci-fi is not my cup of tea, but I suspect, coming off unsuccessful attempts to finish his manifold series, that I'm just not enjoying Baxter's style. I do have one more of his books and that should let me decide one way or the other.
The first gem, for me, was The Killing Fields by Kim Lakin-Smith. A dystopian future where society has collapsed but the remnants of technology, or at least biotechnology, linger on. Human Scarecrows with inbuilt sonic weapons battle rogues of crop bandits and even those you save try to screw you. Think Mad Max meets Blade Runner. This is a beautifully written, dark tale with lots of action and I couldn't get enough.
The next beauty was The Crack Angel by Jon Courtenay Grimwood. While I've not read any of Grimwood's other work yet, and we didn't exactly hit it off in our brief meeting at Eastercon 2009, none-the less I enjoyed this story very much and it was exactly what I'd expected from researching his novels. Most of the story is a dark, first-person detective novel and I was wondering where the sci-fi was until quite close to the end (however, the monkey kept me believing the sci-fi would be there...).
For me, the final gem in the Celebration crown was Liz Williams' At Shadow Cope. This was more a fantasy than sci-fi, but I loved it anyway. It reads as a simple story of a well-placed sorcerer momentarily down on her luck who thus finds herself visiting an old and mystically hopeless colleague. While at his home she learns that that not all magical beings take obvious forms and that humans may sometimes be innocent by-standers in ancient feuds.
Other mentionables were: Peculiar Bone, Unimaginable Key by Brian Aldiss, an original take on the return of the messiah in a part of the book where there were a number of other less creative Christian stories; Alastair Reynold's Soiree an fun take on the singularity (and the post singularity galaxy). Unfortunately, I found it a little too predictable in key areas, which detracted somewhat from the enjoyment. And finally, The Man of the Strong Arm by Adam Roberts, which presents an interesting future of competing ideologies. A dominant totalitarian society with high tech and low moral against a free society with low tech but freedom and a knowledge of the past. My only disappointment here was that the story just seemed to get interesting when it ended. Too little background was developed for my taste.
All in all, Celebration is an enjoyable collection of modern SFFH, despite not living up to my interpretation of its name. The gems within more than make up for the few duds.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Movie Review: Avatar
In Avatar, paraplegic marine Jake Sully uploads his mind into an alien-hybrid Avatar in order to help The Company relocate the indigenous population and more easily acquire a rare metal.
I went into this movie having largely avoided the hype (although it's difficult not to be aware of it's existence). So my only experience was the trailer and the subsequent thought that James Cameron must be working a deal with Blizzard because I swear Avatar looks like WOW vs Starcraft.
The first thing that must strike any sci-fi movie fan over the age of 30 is the tie-ins to the Alien franchise (James Cameron produced Aliens, the second in the franchise and there was/is(?) rumor that he may be producing an Alien 5).
First, is the corrupt, uber-capitalist Company with a 'profit is the only consideration' mentality. In Avatar they attempt genocide of a nature-loving people and what is essentially a planet-mind (to acquire a rare, powerful metal). In Alien... they attempt to harness the most perfect bioweapon in the galaxy, ultimately unleashing it on Earth.
The other obvious tie-in is Sigourney Weaver's tough character. In the Alien franchise, we learned she was a clone, so the storyline in Avatar fits well with this.
However, for me at least, a third tie-in seems to exist in the form of the tough female Mexican pilot in Avatar. Michelle Rodriguez's character Trudy Chacon in Avatar is highly reminiscent of Jenette Goldstein's character Pvt. Vasquez in Aliens. Other characters that seems similar to me are Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) and Cpl Dwayne Hicks (Michael Biehn).
Okay, so once I overcame the 'Aliens' connection, the next thing that stuck me was sheer beauty and realism of the planet and the amount of imagination and detail that went into bringing it alive. True, most lifeforms were recognizable as Terran variants, but it could be argued that was as much for story and saleability reasons as any. Regardless, I found it a truly beautiful experience to watch the characters stroll through the jungle planet (especially in 3D).
The beauty of the planet is necessary to the story, as was the length of the film (2hr 40min). The audience requires this time to truly experience the new culture, the beauty of the planet, and to become properly empathetic with the people when all that is destroyed in the name of money.
I won't say any more specifically about Avatar except to say that I found it very enjoyable, well-written and well-produced. I did find it interesting that Hollywood has release two 'upload' movies this year (Surrogates & Avatar) when the last one that I remember as such was The Matrix series (1999-2004). The 'upload' ideas is, arguably, becoming more sophisticated in the current movies, as the uploads involve 'improving' human life through enhance bodies.
Putting on the futurist hat for a moment, it's not difficult to see that such 'uploads', if possible, would be the way forward for humanity. Our frail human bodies would have difficulty surviving, let alone adjusting, to the rigors of space or extra-terrestrial planets. Mechanical and/or alternative organic avatars/surrogates may very well be the only way forward if we are to spread into the galaxy (otherwise, it's difficult not to believe that machines are the only future). Thinking as the optimist, it may also be a way for peacefully liaising with any intelligent alien cultures we find.
So, not only is Avatar an wonderful film, but it provokes much thought on the future directions of humanity.
Edwin
I went into this movie having largely avoided the hype (although it's difficult not to be aware of it's existence). So my only experience was the trailer and the subsequent thought that James Cameron must be working a deal with Blizzard because I swear Avatar looks like WOW vs Starcraft.
The first thing that must strike any sci-fi movie fan over the age of 30 is the tie-ins to the Alien franchise (James Cameron produced Aliens, the second in the franchise and there was/is(?) rumor that he may be producing an Alien 5).
First, is the corrupt, uber-capitalist Company with a 'profit is the only consideration' mentality. In Avatar they attempt genocide of a nature-loving people and what is essentially a planet-mind (to acquire a rare, powerful metal). In Alien... they attempt to harness the most perfect bioweapon in the galaxy, ultimately unleashing it on Earth.
The other obvious tie-in is Sigourney Weaver's tough character. In the Alien franchise, we learned she was a clone, so the storyline in Avatar fits well with this.
However, for me at least, a third tie-in seems to exist in the form of the tough female Mexican pilot in Avatar. Michelle Rodriguez's character Trudy Chacon in Avatar is highly reminiscent of Jenette Goldstein's character Pvt. Vasquez in Aliens. Other characters that seems similar to me are Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) and Cpl Dwayne Hicks (Michael Biehn).
Okay, so once I overcame the 'Aliens' connection, the next thing that stuck me was sheer beauty and realism of the planet and the amount of imagination and detail that went into bringing it alive. True, most lifeforms were recognizable as Terran variants, but it could be argued that was as much for story and saleability reasons as any. Regardless, I found it a truly beautiful experience to watch the characters stroll through the jungle planet (especially in 3D).
The beauty of the planet is necessary to the story, as was the length of the film (2hr 40min). The audience requires this time to truly experience the new culture, the beauty of the planet, and to become properly empathetic with the people when all that is destroyed in the name of money.
I won't say any more specifically about Avatar except to say that I found it very enjoyable, well-written and well-produced. I did find it interesting that Hollywood has release two 'upload' movies this year (Surrogates & Avatar) when the last one that I remember as such was The Matrix series (1999-2004). The 'upload' ideas is, arguably, becoming more sophisticated in the current movies, as the uploads involve 'improving' human life through enhance bodies.
Putting on the futurist hat for a moment, it's not difficult to see that such 'uploads', if possible, would be the way forward for humanity. Our frail human bodies would have difficulty surviving, let alone adjusting, to the rigors of space or extra-terrestrial planets. Mechanical and/or alternative organic avatars/surrogates may very well be the only way forward if we are to spread into the galaxy (otherwise, it's difficult not to believe that machines are the only future). Thinking as the optimist, it may also be a way for peacefully liaising with any intelligent alien cultures we find.
So, not only is Avatar an wonderful film, but it provokes much thought on the future directions of humanity.
Edwin
Reviews & Commentaries
I've been wanting to vary the content of the blog for a while now and I thought it would be useful to add book and movie reviews. These will primarily centre around science fiction works, but I will also review other interesting or useful samples. In addition, I'll attempt to add some commentary re: the science fiction ideas presented, trends they represent, and ideas they may suggest in the future. I'll keep the title of reviews of the simple format Book (or Movie) review: title so they are easily searchable.
As always, I'm open to comments. Feel free to post if you have something to say, or want to see something on the sight.
Edwin
As always, I'm open to comments. Feel free to post if you have something to say, or want to see something on the sight.
Edwin
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Assassins' Canon Anthology Available!
Finally, Assassins' Canon is online, in press, and available for order in time for Christmas--at least, that's what the printer claims (minus disclaimer, however, in my experience, Lulu deliver ahead of schedule most of the time). You can order a perfect bound trade paperback version for £9.99 or, if you can't wait, download a PDF version for half price (£4.49).
Here is the link to our storefront.
A big thanks goes out to the editorial team: acquisition editors Nicole Smith, Stephanie Cassey and Amanda Irazusta; assistant editor Alice Shevitz and copy editor Sarah E. Holroyd.
Also, a big thanks to all the authors who submitted stories, and especially those whose stories we liked :-)
Links to all editors and authors webpages (as much as they exist) can be found on the Utility Fog Press site.
Once again, thanks to all and I hope you enjoy.
EH Rydberg
Chief Editor
Utility Fog Press
Here is the link to our storefront.
A big thanks goes out to the editorial team: acquisition editors Nicole Smith, Stephanie Cassey and Amanda Irazusta; assistant editor Alice Shevitz and copy editor Sarah E. Holroyd.
Also, a big thanks to all the authors who submitted stories, and especially those whose stories we liked :-)
Links to all editors and authors webpages (as much as they exist) can be found on the Utility Fog Press site.
Once again, thanks to all and I hope you enjoy.
EH Rydberg
Chief Editor
Utility Fog Press
Monday, November 23, 2009
Nature vs. Nurture: a Simple Thought Experiment
The nature vs. nurture issue seems to be making its way around again. Not sure why, perhaps the birthday of Origin of the Species, perhaps someone selling their own book or promoting new research, who knows. I must admit, I can't understand why there's any real discussion and my only thought is that we live in a society where people want everything black and white, ones and zeroes.
Well, sorry, but it's not.
For the record, I'd just like to present a little thought experiment I came up with to show the importance of the two. First a disclaimer: obviously we don't fully understand our developmental biology or how our genes turn into, well, us as people (as opposed to us as snarling bags of vicious, thoughtless flesh). But I believe this thought experiment will still be convincing enough to most, regardless.
Thought Experiment: Nature vs. Nurture
Hypothesis: I exist now, in this time, and who I am is a function of both my biology and my environment.
Experimental goal: separation of nature and nurture to study effects individually
Experiment A (nurture): take another, genetically unique, individual and subject them to as similar as possible environmental factors during development from birth.
Comments: this is essentially the case with fraternal twins of the same sex. Few, if any, claims have ever been made that fraternal twins are too similar to differentiate. Of course, it must be noted that their nature will affect their interpretation of their nurture (i.e. who they are genetically, affects how they interact with their environment). This seems obvious when viewed in this common context and is the point of this experiment.
Experiment B (nature): in a century, clone an individual and raise him/her as normal in that century. Compare that individual with the one living today.
Comments: in this case, the nature is exactly the same, barring any changes that happen as an effect of the environment. It seems obvious that the two individuals will be grossly different. Their knowledge will be vastly different, their health may be different, their relationships will be different. It would be surprising if these two individuals would even recognize each other, in a similar way that the same individual a century in our past would not recognize a contemporary clone.
Given these examples, it seems clear to me that both nature and nurture play a crucial part in determining the individual. The way I usually view it (rightly or wrongly) is that, a person is born with a 'potential range' with regards to each trait. For example, on a scale of 0-->100 person J might be born with a potential snarkiness (I believe the actual term used is 'agreeableness') of 35-->65. Where they end up falling later in life is determined by their experiences during life; everything from the first time their parent yelled at them, to their first kiss, to the country they were born in.
Incidentally, something that seems often to be overlooked: The environment plays a multifaceted role in development. The obvious meaning of 'environment' when spoken of in the context of this argument is in relation to the influence of other people, other minds, or macroscopic events such as accidents, on the individual. However, it is well known that the environment also affects the biology through access to needed resources (minerals, vitamins, food in general) for continued well being, and through the influence of hormones, which can affect us at anything from a genetic to a physiological level (yes, there are hormones that are transcription factors). Although the latter is an idea that has only been resurrected rather recently, it is vaguely Lamarkian in principle (remember that name from high school biology?). Only now, we can imagine an actual mechanism for it, in certain cases.
Edwin
Well, sorry, but it's not.
For the record, I'd just like to present a little thought experiment I came up with to show the importance of the two. First a disclaimer: obviously we don't fully understand our developmental biology or how our genes turn into, well, us as people (as opposed to us as snarling bags of vicious, thoughtless flesh). But I believe this thought experiment will still be convincing enough to most, regardless.
Thought Experiment: Nature vs. Nurture
Hypothesis: I exist now, in this time, and who I am is a function of both my biology and my environment.
Experimental goal: separation of nature and nurture to study effects individually
Experiment A (nurture): take another, genetically unique, individual and subject them to as similar as possible environmental factors during development from birth.
Comments: this is essentially the case with fraternal twins of the same sex. Few, if any, claims have ever been made that fraternal twins are too similar to differentiate. Of course, it must be noted that their nature will affect their interpretation of their nurture (i.e. who they are genetically, affects how they interact with their environment). This seems obvious when viewed in this common context and is the point of this experiment.
Experiment B (nature): in a century, clone an individual and raise him/her as normal in that century. Compare that individual with the one living today.
Comments: in this case, the nature is exactly the same, barring any changes that happen as an effect of the environment. It seems obvious that the two individuals will be grossly different. Their knowledge will be vastly different, their health may be different, their relationships will be different. It would be surprising if these two individuals would even recognize each other, in a similar way that the same individual a century in our past would not recognize a contemporary clone.
Given these examples, it seems clear to me that both nature and nurture play a crucial part in determining the individual. The way I usually view it (rightly or wrongly) is that, a person is born with a 'potential range' with regards to each trait. For example, on a scale of 0-->100 person J might be born with a potential snarkiness (I believe the actual term used is 'agreeableness') of 35-->65. Where they end up falling later in life is determined by their experiences during life; everything from the first time their parent yelled at them, to their first kiss, to the country they were born in.
Incidentally, something that seems often to be overlooked: The environment plays a multifaceted role in development. The obvious meaning of 'environment' when spoken of in the context of this argument is in relation to the influence of other people, other minds, or macroscopic events such as accidents, on the individual. However, it is well known that the environment also affects the biology through access to needed resources (minerals, vitamins, food in general) for continued well being, and through the influence of hormones, which can affect us at anything from a genetic to a physiological level (yes, there are hormones that are transcription factors). Although the latter is an idea that has only been resurrected rather recently, it is vaguely Lamarkian in principle (remember that name from high school biology?). Only now, we can imagine an actual mechanism for it, in certain cases.
Edwin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)