Brief Thoughts on The Apex Book of World SF 2 (Table of Contents)
The fine folks over at Apex recently released the table of contents for their upcoming second book in the Apex Book of World SF series. Before I throw in my thoughts, here is the list: Rochita Loenen-Ruiz (Philippines)–Alternate Girl’s Expatriate Life Ivor W. Hartmann (Zimbabwe)–Mr. Goop Daliso Chaponda (Malawi)–Trees of Bone Daniel Salvo (Peru)–The First Peruvian in Space Gustavo Bondoni (Argentina)–Eyes in the Vastness of Forever Chen Qiufan (China)–The Tomb Joyce Chng (Singapore)–The Sound of Breaking Glass Csilla Kleinheincz (Hungary)–A Single Year Andrew Drilon (Philippines)–The Secret Origin of Spin-man Anabel Enriquez Piñeiro (Cuba)–Borrowed Time (trans. Daniel W. Koon) Lauren Beukes (South Africa)–Branded Raúl Flores Iriarte (Cuba)–December 8 Will Elliott (Australia)–Hungry Man Shweta Narayan (India)–Nira and I Fábio Fernandes (Brazil)–Nothing Happened in 1999 Tade Thompson (Nigeria)–Shadow Hannu Rajaniemi (Finland)–Shibuya no Love Silvia Moreno-Garcia (Mexico)–Maquech Sergey Gerasimov (Ukraine)–The Glory of the World Tim Jones (New Zealand)–The New Neighbours Nnedi Okorafor (Nigeria/US)–From the Lost Diary of TreeFrog7 Gail Har’even (Israel)–The Slows Ekaterina Sedia (Russia)–Zombie Lenin Samit Basu (India)–Electric Sonalika Andrzej Sapkowski (Poland)–The Malady (trans. Wiesiek Powaga) Jacques Barcia (Brazil)–A Life Made Possible Behind The Barricades That’s one heck of a diverse list, don’t you agree? The thing that I love about it is that it brings in countries that even by World SF standards are usually not represented (Malawi, for example, although this is based on my admittedly limited exposure to world SF). I only have one suggestion for future editions. While I understand that the project is to bring works by people who are traditionally ignored by Western magazines, I do think it would be interesting to see a U.S. and a U.K. story in the mix, not because I want such an anthology to be “fair,” but because I think seeing the contrast between all of the cultures presented above would be fascinating. This is, after all, an anthology of World SF, which says to me that it is occupied by an incredibly broad view of SF across various cultures and perspectives. One could illustrate a very interesting point by showing the differences and similarities between all of the cultures that have participated in SF, now and in the past. But that might be a trivial point to bring up, since one could say that Western SF is readily available to those of us in the West (and elsewhere). So be it. I just want everything in one convenient package, and I would be willing to pay extra for such a book. Otherwise, this anthology looks amazing. I will likely purchase it when it comes out in 2011. For now, I’ll have to look at the first edition!
A. Lee Martinez’s Marriage to the Internet (or Why the Internet is a Walking Contradiction of Good/Bad)
If you haven’t seen it already, A. Lee Martinez has come out in defense of the Internet. You see, folks are bashing the poor Internet, and someone needs to come out and say how good it really is, because, after all, the Internet is wonderful and it makes things all rainbows and flowers. Okay, so that’s an unfair look at things. I’m being facetious, or attempting to be anyway. A. Lee Martinez is right that there has been an inordinate amount of anti-Internet stuff lately. Hell, there has been anti-Internet stuff flooding the, well, Internet for a while now. See for yourself. Even The Atlantic has provided some interesting thoughts on the “it’s making us stupid” argument. The thing is, there are probably truths and falsehoods on both sides of the argument. There are real consequences for the changes the Internet has brought on us. As a teacher (new though I am), I have seen what many of these changes look like: there is an increased reluctance to “search on.” I wouldn’t say that this is somehow making us dumber so much as making us progressively more ignorant. That is a problem all on its own. The only thing I take issue with in Martinez’s post is this: But for all its unpleasantness, stupidity, and absurdity, the internet has done the unimaginable. It has given nearly everyone a voice. (Except for the very poor, who always, always get screwed.) It has taken the ability to express yourself and made it such a common thing that we don’t realize how amazing it is. It’s allowed us to tap the collective knowledge of mankind without having to even leave our homes. I find it amusing that this paragraph begins with what is not necessarily “good” by default, and then ends with an overwhelming positive. Yes, the Internet has completely changed how we share knowledge, and for all the bad things that the Internet does to us (I challenge the “stupid” assertion, though), the fact that it has made information, vital and trivial, instantly available to a much larger portion of the world’s population than every before is a monumental feat. Yes, our world is still imperfect; the poor still do not have access to the Internet, even in the United States. But we’re getting there. There will be a time when almost everyone will have access. The more knowledge we have at our fingertips, the greater the possibility that we can be informed about the things that really matter. The Internet, more or less, makes that possible. The problem, though, is this idea that providing everyone with a public voice is somehow a good thing. I challenge this notion because we have seen the consequences of this in the book world. Anyone can say anything about a book these days. There are rarely consequences for what we say, except consequences that go in the opposite direction (poor sales, for example). The “expert” opinion seems to have been supplanted by the “amateur” one. There are certainly amateurs who have valuable things to say about a subject, but there are also seas of individuals who have nothing productive to add to the conversation, and yet still feel as though they should somehow be granted the same attention given to the adequate amateur or the “expert.” I’m not suggesting that “experts” are always correct, or even always good at what they do. They get things wrong all the time, as do “amateurs.” But they are right more often than the folks who write one line critiques on Amazon.com or incoherent blog posts about why *insert President here* is evil and should be impeached. Even positive critiques from these folks are meaningless in the long run. So, I challenge this idea that providing a space for everyone to say whatever they want in public is inherently good. There are consequences: the quality of rhetoric drops drastically, false information is easy to spread, and so on. It’s great that we have more voices, because diversity is always a good thing, but a limitless diversity is problematic. The Internet, for all its wonders, has no way to deal with this. It is powerless to what is eating it alive from the inside. I don’t think it will ever gain the power to do something about the problems it has created either. I think we’re stuck with them, for good and for bad.
Polarized Politics and How Republicans Can Earn My Vote
If the title didn’t give it away, I’m stepping into politics again. Paying attention to the news makes one intimately aware of just how polarized the political process in the United States has become; this isn’t anything new, but it is something that I think we should be highlighting more and more when we try to talk about politics. We’re victims to it–the political process. Even when we attempt (by “we” I mean a good portion of “everyone”) to engage in “fair” politics, we inevitably are sucked into polarized rhetoric or thought processes: namely, the “us vs. them” mentality that so defines American politics today. But while I say the above with all seriousness, I do think there is a fundamental problem with viewing polarized politics as inherently negative. The problem in the U.S. isn’t necessarily that there is an unfair level of polarization which creates its two primary parties, but that the view of the political element here has been one that limits itself only to the “us vs. them” and not to the real question that needs to be asked: if we must choose a side, which side is the one offering a solution? Regardless of what we might think about the solutions proposed by Democrats, the fact of the matter is that they are offering a solution, one that is fairly concrete, if not difficult to understand due to the monumental nature of it. Democrats have, from fairly early on, offered solutions to the environment, the economy, healthcare, LGBT rights, and much more (immigration seems to be the next on the list). Republicans, however, seem to offer a platform based entirely on preventing their “opponents” from doing anything whatsoever. Where they have ideas, they are kernels, rather than full-fledged plans (though some plans have been suggested, and summarily executed by budget councils who pointed out that the “fiscally responsible” version of a bill will in fact prove to be more costly in the long run). With all of this in mind, I’d like to offer a list of things that Republicans can do to steal my vote away from the Democrats. Note that almost all of the following requests are, in some way, being countered by Republican lawmakers, lobbyists, and so on in this country: An economic policy that does not revolve around extending Bush-era tax cuts, but instead focuses on reasonable methods for creating jobs, protecting middle and lower class individuals, punishing business owners and so on for poor behavior (such as the banks), and preventing the continued expansion of the gap between the rich and the not-so-rich. If trickle-down economics worked, then we would have seen it do so in the last twenty years. As it stands, the poverty level hasn’t dropped down to 25 million (where it was before Reagan) since the recession of the 1980s. No such platform exists. A rejection of all anti-gay rhetoric and an acknowledgement that homosexuals are a) not morally inferior people, and b) deserving of the same rights as myself (a straight man), even in a country dominated by Christians. Republicans need to acknowledge that gay people deserve the same protections as people of color, that denying marriage to them is a violation of their civil rights, and that a country that fights to prevent or destroy existing homosexual families is a country flirting with the edges of fascism. No such platform exists. An environmental policy that acknowledges that global warming, whether caused by humans, or accelerated by them, is a reality and that regardless of our beliefs, it is a signal that we need to restructure our entire transportation model so as to usher America into a future completely independent of oil, foreign or otherwise. It also must seek to protect, preserve, and maintain the pristine beauty of our various parks, ecosystems, waters, and so on. No such platform exists. A social policy that readily acknowledges that racism, sexism, colonialism, imperialism, and so on, in all their forms, have not ended, and that we still have much work to do to protect people from the wrongs other people would do to them. It must be a policy that seeks to mend the lingering social, economic, political, and emotional scars/echoes of a lost era. No such platform exists. A healthcare policy that offers detailed and reasonable solutions to our healthcare problems in this country, that finds ways to reduce the cost of healthcare so that everyone can afford it, and that does so without resorting to the rhetorically empty phrase “let the private sector take care of it.” Republicans need to acknowledge that the private sector is not a sea of morally or ethically sound individuals. No such platform exists. An educational policy that seeks to push us away from test-culture into a “hands-on” culture, that pays attention to and amends key issues in schools in regards to funding and race (i.e. schools with predominately non-white students are also often the poorest, or in the poorest areas, and, thus, are often under-served by the government), and that reasonably provides a flexible blueprint by which students can learn the necessary critical thinking skills that will foster mental growth and produce a generation of Americans ready to take America forward into a very competitive future. No such platform exists. An acknowledgement that science, however flawed, continues to provide us with wonderful advancements in all fields, that creationism is not science by any stretch of the imagination, and that it is absolutely crucial that we build up a generation of able-minded scientists in all fields to improve the intellectual and technological value of America. No such platform exists. A publicly stated refusal to support any bill, amendment, or public school district that seeks to violate the rights of its patrons and students by teaching religion as religion in public schools. Religion is and should remain private. No such platform exists. Finally, a public and private refusal, under any circumstances, to lie, misinform, misdirect, or otherwise lead astray Americans in any political/public engagement, and