November 2008

World in the Satin Bag

Research Award Received!

Just thought all of you would like to know that I am officially a recipient of UC Santa Cruz’s Humanities Undergraduate Research Award (HUGRA)! It’s given out to ten people each year who propose an interesting topic. My topic was on a science fiction subject. I’ll post my proposal if anyone would like to see it. I’m really excited about this. For the next seven or so months I’ll be doing research! (Don’t click the read more, there isn’t any more after this!)

World in the Satin Bag

Peggy’s Qs and My As (about science fiction)

I’m not sure if Peggy of Biology in Science Fiction wanted professional science fiction writers. If so, then I guess she can ignore my answers. If not, then here are my answers to her questions for science fiction writers (if you’re a science person, go check out her questions for science writers): Why are you writing science fiction in particular? What does the science add?I think the primary reason I write science fiction first and fantasy second is that science fiction seems to grab at my imagination in a more profound way than fantasy (which isn’t meant to be a slight on fantasy). The reasons for this are also my reasons for not clinging to a particular religion, and also being rather critical of religion: I’m a rational/logical/non-pseudo-supernatural-whatsit person. You can argue that I’m not rational or logical, but I do spend more of my time looking at things from a viewpoint born out of what is known and provable, to a certain extent, rather than looking at stuff that is, to put it bluntly, bunk. I find things like quantum computers or astronauts losing $100,000 tool bags in space far more interesting on a more consistent basis than TV shows about ghost hunters or listening to people explain to me how dinosaurs and humans lived together.So, from this perspective science fiction offers me a way of thinking “realistically” about the future. Science fiction is the literature of the future, whether that future be distant or near. I like being able to write about what the world could be like in 20 years, or 50 years, if one thing were to show up, or a new technology were to become a part of traditional culture, etc. I like how science fiction offers me a lot of ways of dealing with what interests me, such as human reactions to the other (in science fiction this translates to human reactions to aliens, cyborgs, clones, robots, human replicas, etc.).Perhaps what science adds, when I make an effort to really use it (and I guess I use science all the time in science fiction, but when I talk about really using it I mean actually going out of my own little box to find new concepts to work with or trying to portray a better grasp of something I don’t know a lot about), is a sense of reality. The idea that this story I’m writing could actually happen. That’s important to science fiction I think: that the science make the stories and imagined futures seem real enough for the reader to actually consider the possibilities. The science makes the fiction stronger. Part of this is my personal distaste for regular fiction. I like things that aren’t currently real. I like spaceships and aliens and bizarre future technologies, etc. To me, the science simply makes the fiction stronger by allowing for more complex themes than are present in “traditional” fiction. You could argue with me on this if you wanted to, but “traditional” fiction cannot do what science fiction does. Period. Science fiction is unique because of its ability to do what other fictional forms cannot do. What is your relationship to science? Have you studied or worked in it, or do you just find it cool? Do you have a favorite field?I consider myself a science enthusiast. I don’t claim to know everything about science and am honest enough to say that I probably couldn’t explain without flailing my arms around like a moron how basic aspects of science work. I don’t remember how to do most of things I learned in chemistry and I couldn’t easily tell you the specifics of every step of cell division. But I love science, even when I don’t understand it (and that happens a lot, because I have no idea how quantum physics works, or what string theory really means, or how the heck a computer works, etc.). I consider myself relatively knowledgeable, though, regardless of my weaknesses. I’m not Mike Brotherton, who is a scientist, and I would never take up arms against him on any scientific issue, because I would lose horribly.That said, I have studied bits and pieces of science. I think I know a bit more about biology and evolution than I do about, say, complex subjects such as the eleven dimensions or string theory or quantum theory. I have a lot of sociology-type experience in college primarily because I wanted to be an evolutionary biologist before I decided literature and writing was more up my alley. I really find myself fascinated by primates and how close they are to us (and if you researched you’d be absolutely astonished at how intelligent and “human” they really are). Outside of that, I utilize Google on a regular basis to keep myself as knowledgeable as possible about subjects I don’t know very well (such as physics, astronomy, etc.–although these subjects are actually fascinating to me, so I find myself learning more and more as I go along).If I had to pick a favorite field, I’d have to say astronomy. While evolution and primatology are all hot topics for me, I find the recent news in science regarding exoplanets, asteroids, deep space satellites, supernovas, dark matter, etc. absolutely astonishing. Whoever said we weren’t still advancing our at an exponential rate was a complete moron, because the things we’re learning from space are mind boggling. Pretty soon someone is going to be able to prove that that whole panspermia thing is real…imagine that day, eh? How important is it to you that the science be right? What kind of resources do you use for accuracy?This really depends. First off, I’m willing to make exceptions about certain tropes in science fiction for the sake of a story. Faster-than-light travel is still impossible according to our good friend Einstein. But, if FTL isn’t possible and you don’t want to be one of those folks who uses wormholes and other loopholes, then you’re pretty much screwed if you

World in the Satin Bag

Inside the Blogosphere: Question #11 (I’m in it!)

Well, here it is! We were asked to recommend sf/f books we’ve read this year that we think would make good gifts. I suggested several small press books, because that’s what I mostly read anyway. What sf/f titles would you recommend as gifts for the Christmas season? (Don’t click the read more, there isn’t any more after this!)

World in the Satin Bag

What’s that in the sky?

Is it a bird? A plane? An alien spacecraft?Nope. It’s not any of those things. Think about it for a moment. What’s shiny and flies by really fast in the sky?……Give up? Well here’s a video to explain it all: And if you don’t think it’s a big deal that this tool bag was lost, consider the fact that the darn thing cost NASA $100,000! Anywho! P.S.: To the folks who posted that video, if you could somehow provide me with a way to embed rather than upload your video, I’d appreciate it. This information was found via Universe Today. (Don’t click the read more, there isn’t any more after this!)

World in the Satin Bag

Quick Movie Reviews: Volume One

Quickie reviews are basically shortened, basic reviews with a rating of movies that have already come out and gone from the theaters in the last year or so. This is my way of playing catch up basically. (Other editions: Volume Two, Volume Three, Volume Four) Here Goes. Iron ManPros: Lots of action, decent storyline, and Robert Downey, Jr. is awesome. Plus, it’s actually a well put together action flick.Cons: It’s a little predictable at times, but generally speaking I don’t see anything really wrong with it. Surprisingly, I think it’s one of the more “perfect” super-hero/Marvel flicks.Rating: 4.5/5 Pineapple ExpressPros: James Franco plays a stoner and hilarity ensues. I laughed out loud a few times, which is good when I’m home by myself.Cons: A little long. About 2/3rds in the film started to drag a bit. I think they could have cut out about 20 minutes and it would have flowed better.Rating: 3/5 The Hulk (2008)Pros: Better than the Ang Lee version, but only because it’s an entirely different take on the green giant. Lots of good action, good characterization, and much better chemistry between Banner and Ms. Ross.Cons: Still falls prey to the annoying overuse of CG, primarily because there are two monstrous guys this time instead of one. Not much of a fan of Tim Roth in this one, but then again, I’m not usually a fan of Tim Roth.Rating: 3/5 Hellboy II: The Golden ArmyPros: Better than the first. I think they were smart to step back from the CG this time around because it helps make the film more authentic and visually stimulating. Hellboy is also awesome.Cons: The reduction in CG also meant that certain characters looking more “fake,” like in the first one where you could tell that mechanical puppetry was used. It’s slight in this film, but noticeable. Minor acting flaws with the bad guy, too.Rating: 3/5 The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince CaspianPros: A huge improvement from the first film. The kids have really come into their own and the story is well put together here. Excellent action, dialogue, and direction.Cons: I didn’t like the ending as much as in the first film. It’s not bad and I imagine it comes from the book, but I’m generally uninterested in deus ex machina. Still, the movie is damn good.Rating: 4/5 There you have it! More to come in the near future.

Scroll to Top