Human Decency…where did it go?
This has absolutely nothing to do with science fiction or fantasy, but after my recent experience at the gas station I feel it necessary to rant about this particular subject. Now, I’m new to the Santa Cruz area, and I’m also new to the concept of directed traffic at gas stations. I’m used to a small town environment where lines at the pump pretty much don’t exist, and when they do it’s very clear where you can go to get in line and people, generally, don’t care about the direction of traffic so long as they end up at the pump at some point in the day. Well, this is apparently not the case in Santa Cruz. Now, because I’m so unused to this new concept of directed traffic at the pumps, I pulled up to the Safeway pump, go behind a lady who was pulled in to a spot in the opposite direction of the cars on the other end. I assumed that “hey, I can pull in behind her and be set to go”, thinking there weren’t really that many cars on the other side since I couldn’t see beyond the lights of the station. I didn’t see the sign that directed traffic, because I am not inclined to look for a sign since I’ve never seen one in my life anyway. On a side not, almost every gas station in the entire city of Sacramento that I had the pleasure of going to don’t have signs either, and I don’t get this sort of treatment there either. Now, it’s clear that I have made a mistake and pulled into the station incorrectly. I can acknowledge this and I am sorry that I cut in line, even though it wasn’t intentional. Well, when I pulled up to the pump after this lady left, I thought I was okay. I pulled in, started pumping my gas, and all the way until the 12th gallon (since my car takes 13 or some such) the gentleman in front of me decided he had to say something. Prior to this someone had made a comment about making sure idiots don’t pull in there, which didn’t make sense to me at the time, because I wasn’t aware the whole time I was sitting there that I had broken some law and committed treason against the United States of America. Anyway, so this gentleman decided to ask me at the end of my pump “do you always cheat people out of their gas?” Firstly, I didn’t know that pulling into the pump cheated someone out of gas if they were going to be able to get gas at some point that night anyway (actually, in a matter of minutes really). Then it dawned on me. “I’ve pulled in the wrong way, oh my gosh…” (I said that within my head in an apologetic manner). The problem here is that this gentleman addressed me with disrespect and indignation, and a slight touch of hatred, something I’m also not used to at a gas pump, and apparently this sort of behavior is rampant in the bay area (which is making me dream of the day I can move the hell out of here). So I start to apologize, because I am sorry that I messed up here. His response? “Well, can’t you read?” while pointing in an obscure direction as if from my vantage point I’d be able to see some magic sign that isn’t facing me in the first place. Again, I tried to apologize, not realizing what is going on, but he continues on with his rude behavior, treating me like I’m some illiterate buffoon who is incapable of any sort of remorse. By this point, I almost don’t care anymore. In fact, I have an entirely different approach to this situation now. Why hadn’t this man, if he cares so much about all these people behind him, politely come up to me while I was sitting and waiting and gently explained to me that I was pulling in wrong? Maybe then he would have known that I’m just a new person to the area, because I would have said so, and I wasn’t used to having signs and the like, and that I’m terribly sorry. After that I would have pulled around to the line and waited my turn accordingly. Or, he could have gently explained to me as I pulled up what was up. He had more than enough opportunities to get his point across without having to be rude and indignant, and without proving himself to be a proponent of the increasingly frequent destruction of human decency in this country. But he did none of these things. Neither did any of the people who supposedly were upset at my accidental mistake, or anyone else at the pump. Neither did the lady who was in front of me who I thought was pulled in correctly in the first place. In fact, this man did nothing to help correct a mistake. He assumed that I was being a complete jerk without figuring out that “oh hey, he’s just a new kid, not used to this sort of thing and maybe I should simply explain to him what is going on”. No, no such thing happened. I was labeled and treated like a pile of garbage, as if I weren’t even human anymore. I’ll be honest in one thing. When someone begins to treat me like crap, I get upset, but I don’t show that emotion. My stomach gets tied in knots, sometimes I get a little ill, and immediately any remorse I once had at that particular moment is completely gone. I literally don’t care anymore and I actually have a sick moment where I am glad that I’ve done something wrong as if perhaps I’m going to prove a point. But no such point is ever proven. People can’t forgive others in this country any more (that might be too general of a statement). To be honest, my mistake
SFWA: The Aftermath
I just thought I’d show everyone who reads this blog just how bad the reinstatement of Mr. Burt really is. Here is the aftermath just in this first day: Tobias Buckell, an author I deeply respect as some of you know, has decided to cancel his membership to SFWA. Read his full post here. You should read it because he offers a lot of insight into all that is going on, including an lovely link to what I’m about to link you all to. Mr. Burt has put a post on the SFWA livejournal that has sparked a lot of very angry comments asking for his resignation, including some posts from Scribd and members challenging his view that people should give him a chance even though his post is clearly one of bitterness and an example of his disinterest in keeping friendly relations with Scribd, even though Scribd is working on efforts to keep illegal posting of artist material at bay. That’s all for today. More will likely spring up over the following days though. You can be sure of that. Don’t get me wrong. I like SFWA. It is a good organization, in general, but right now I’m not too happy about their policies either. (Don’t click the read more, there isn’t any more after this)
SFWA Strikes Back…Like A Poorly Made Prequel
Who would have thought that after SFWA’s earlier debacle, which I discussed here, would only lead to further debacles of complete idiocy? I certainly wouldn’t have. Apparently SFWA has renamed its e-piracy committee and, against just about everyone else’s wishes, has reinstated as its chairman the very man who caused the whole Scribd issue in the first place–Andrew Burt. To put Burt’s reputation as an authority figure into perspective, Cory Doctorow has put it wonderfully in his post: Last August, Andrew Burt, the vice president of SFWA, sent a list of thousands of works that he alleged violated the copyrights of Robert Silverberg and the Isaac Asimov estate. This list was compiled by searching the Scribd site for the words “asimov” and “silverberg” and it included my own novel Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom, a teacher’s guide to great science fiction for young readers, and the entire back-catalog of a science fiction magazine whose editors had placed their work on Scribd. Burt sent an email to Scribd’s management in which he said that this list wasn’t “idle musing, but a DMCA notice.” This is the man that SFWA has put back into the position he was in before, only under a new title. How wonderfully idiotic. So, to prove that it intends to change its policies, SFWA has done nothing at all to change its policies. You see the unmoving logic in that statement right? Obviously some changes have been made on paper, but with Burt returned to the throne how can SFWA expect those textual changes to be acknowledge when clearly Burt has a serious lacck of good judgment in the first place?Charlie Stross has also blogged on this issue, saying something that I agree should happen if SFWA is going to make decisions such as this: Under Dr Burt, the new copyright committee will almost inevitably devolve into a reincarnation of the old piracy committee. If I thought it’d do any good I’d be resigning in protest right now; only the expense of a life membership purchased a couple of years ago is restraining me right now. Clearly the current executive of SFWA is making damaging decisions and ignoring input from committees it appointed, and and in view of this I call on SFWA president Mike Capobianco and the rest of the SFWA executive — including Andrew Burt — to resign immediately. Meanwhile, I’d like to call on all other SFWA members who don’t want to see their organization commit public relations suicide to make their voices heard. At this point I don’t think any of the people running SFWA are going to be resigning, although by all accounts they should if this is the way they are going to think. What exactly is the point of this? Burt has clearly hurt SFWA’s reputation, which it has gone through great pains to earn back, but now they’ve decided to put Burt back where he was? And of course the wonderful Scalzi has weighed in on this issue while providing interest insight to how Burt got to his position in the first place: That said, I think the board choose puzzlingly, to use as polite a word as possible, in its choice of chairman for the new committee, for some of the reasons which Charlie outlines in incendiary but not unreasonable fashion. It would not have been my choice, for those reasons and a few others (the suggestion in the board’s statement that our committee recommended installing the chairman of the new committee is quite obviously in error). I believe the situation was additionally complicated by the fact that the once-and-future chairman is on the SFWA board, and voted on the recommendations, and voted for himself as chairman of the new committee; had I been him, I would have chosen to recuse myself from the deliberations. I think what Scalzi is hoping for is that people like Burt will have considerable amounts of personal integrity. Clearly that isn’t the case, and if such people sit on the thrones of SFWA, what can we expect in the future? Probably more problems not only for writers, but for fans too. Read the posts I linked because they can give you a lot more information than I feel entirely adequate or authorized to discuss, seeing how I am not a published author or a member of SFWA. Still, my opinion is worth something.
Aldiss and Ridley Scott on Modern SF/F
(A lot of this applies to fantasy as well, so that’s something to consider when reading this post) As per usual it seems like there is plenty of criticism of science fiction out there, especially amongst those who have some pull in the world of literature. Brian Aldiss has brought up the interesting question of ‘why are science fiction’s best writers so neglected‘? Why indeed? We have all headd of Isaac Asimov, Ray Bradbury, Frank Herbert, etc., but what about all those others who may have once written superb works that seem to have been lost in the wake of more prominent authors? And what exactly constitutes something being ignored? Does Aldiss mean works that aren’t discussed but still sold relatively well? Or does he mean any work that is actually good but for whatever reason never got any attention from sales or from the public? I think for this we’ll have to assume he’s mostly talking about works that have sold at least decently, but are forgotten.No matter how you look at literature there will always be something that is ignored. I think it would be impossible for any one person to read every single SF or F book that is printed in the United States alone. Maybe it could be done if such a person had no job or personal life. In any case, all SF books published can’t sell millions of copies or be critically acclaimed. So I think the crux of the matter is how books are chosen to be remembered. Do we remember Isaac Asimov because he was better than Kornbluth? Bradbury because he was better than Bester? Perhaps what makes authors like Asimov and Bradbury into science fiction icons is the stories that they told. Asimov developed the laws of robotics, which even today we consider with great interest as our technological achievements in robotics and artificial intelligence flood the market with new technologies. Bradbury presented us with a world where books are burned and it is illegal to read or own them. Do any of us remember the worlds of Kornbluth or Bester? What about Del Rey, Lafferty, or Gernsback? And why don’t we remember?Perhaps some aspect of this has to do with the fact that science isn’t taught as readily as it should be in schools. If high schools (or whatever would be in the equivalent in your country of origin) brought SF and F to the front, we might see a wider appreciation for the genre. More people will read Bester and Kornbluth, Asimov and Bradbury. College programs could really address the golden age of science fiction, an era that seems so forgotten in this ‘age of style’. For some of us the authors I mentioned are remembered, even if we have not read their work, but they aren’t remembered the same as the bigger names and I wonder why that is. Any thoughts? Any idea why we have forgotten Wagner in literature, but remember Tolkien? I’m interested to know what you all think out there. On a side note, Ridley Scott recently criticized the state of science fiction in film, which I found to be rather amusing. First, I have to make a point in saying that Scott didn’t write the novel that Blade Runner is loosely based on. Philip K. Dick did and it was called “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” On the subject of forgetting SF authors has Scott forgotten who is responsible for Blade Runner? All Scott did was bring the story to the big screen, and in a very artistic manner, which had to have been difficult back in the day. Regardless, it’s not Scott’s story and for him to pretend that it is, which he makes it very clear he thinks he wrote it in the above link, actually disgusts me. Maybe Philip K. Dick wouldn’t care, but I know I certainly would.But, that’s a difference discussion than what I was originally talking about. Now, Scott brings up a good point about how science fiction on TV and film is becoming almost repetitive–like horror films you might think. In a lot of ways this is very true. With shows like Battlestar Galactica and Bionic Woman, both remakes of originals which, while I believe different from their origins, still fall prey to common problems in science fiction film. Then there are the many Star Trek incarnations and the different Stargate series. We are seeing a lot of elements repeated in today’s SF that were original, or at least seemingly original, so many years ago. As Scott says, “where do all the writers go?” I don’t know either. I think there is a lack of truly deep SF right now in the media. We need to work on that.
Amazon’s Kindle: Great Invention or Waste of Money?
It’s all over the net here, here, and here, and everywhere else. Amazon has released probably the only e-reader that has the potential to take off. While I am very interested in this product, I can tell you now that I’ll never buy it. We’ll get to that in a minute. Now, the Kindle is a rather remarkable little tool. It’s better than some of the other readers because it looks easier to navigate, is not too complicated, and has a lot of features. I’m not going to get into the details of what it can do. If you want details read the links that I’ve given. If any reader to date has the potential to make e-reading a market-holding fad, it’s the Kindle. But, like Sony’s reader, this too has a high likelihood to flop. Why? Because it’s $399 USD. That’s 193 British Pounds, 270 Euros, or 393 Canadian…err bills (sorry, I don’t know exactly what you guys call it over there). The Kindle is currently only available in the US, but still, that’sone hell of a price. You also have to take into account that the ebooks that you will be buying will cost the same as buying them in paper format. $9.99 US for bestsellers, etc. Another point we’ll be getting to in my reasons why I’m not buying it. However, the good news is that it actually looks very well put together and does seem to have a look that could provide for a decent reading experience. The Amazon folks have gone at this project with the intention of creating a reader that will allow you to get immersed in a book without you realizing that you’re looking at a screen. If they have succeeded in doing this then perhaps this thing will take off, or it will do what the Dreamcast did for online console gaming–spark a wave of new products that do it better. Now to why I’m not going to buy it. First off, it’s $399 USD! Why the hell would I spend that kind of money on something that lets me read books when, like Scalzi pointed out, I can easily buy fifty paper format books for that–or alternately I could buy almost a hundred used books, which I would rather do with that kind of money anyway. That’s absolutely ridiculous to me. For that price you could buy an Xbox 360, or a PS3, or a Nintendo Wii, or even a new computer. That’s a sizable chunk of change if you ask me, especially for something that is only replacing the avenue for reading. How many people read three or four books while sitting in the airport? How hard is it to simply bring a couple books with you or buy one at a kiosk? The next reason I’m not going to buy it is I cannot stand reading novels on the screen. Yes, I do critiques and the like through the computer, but the difference is that critiques don’t involve doing entire novels at one point in time. When I read I like to read a lot. If I get immersed in a paper format book I can end up reading for hours and not realize that so much time has passed. I can’t do that with a screen. My eyes hurt after a little while and I have to walk away. There are a lot of online magazines that I really want to read, but I just can’t bring myself to do it because reading online is just so bothersome. I’m talking fiction. I read blogs and the like on here, but blog posts are generally short and to the point. Stories and novels require attention and thought. Another reason, for me, is a concern about piracy. Perhaps the DRM format that the Kindle is going to use will protect the files, but in all honesty, how long is it going to take for someone to figure out how to get around that? A week? Maybe two? I fear for the authors who find that their work is being cast out into the abyss we call the net to be scooped up like a blockbuster movie. Authors don’t get a lot of money for their work in the first place–at least new authors or ones that aren’t bestsellers like Stephen King don’t get a lot–and to lose funds because someone has pirated the hell out of a work would really suck. I realize that you shouldn’t write to be rich, but what if someone depends on their royalties for survive? In the end, I just can’t bring myself to spend that kind of money on this product. I’d rather hold a real book in my hands anyway. I’m old fashioned I suppose. Does anyone else have thoughts on this product?
The Future of SF?
I recently found this link over at the lovely SF Signal. It’s an article in the Guardian by Brian Aldiss that discusses where the future of SF is. The article is called “Our Science Fiction Fate” with a caption that reads “The planet’s dire state makes the imaginative leaps of dystopian SF writers redundant”. First off, I don’t know if Aldiss is proposing that Al Gore is correct on his assertions that we, human beings, are screwing up our planet and it’s our fault that things are changing, or that the climate is changing, but the means by which this is happening are up for interpretation. He does posit that there are too many of us here, which is very true. Things are changing on this planet. People like Gore, who may think they are doing something for the betterment of mankind, are the wrong sorts of people to tell us about climate change. Why? Because when we first started listening to people who are hypocrites, we ended up with the skewed and failing governmental system we have today. Regardless, there are changes on this planet and it is ignorant for any of us–being humans–to assume that we know what the hell is going on. We know nothing. None of us have lived through a warming period and our history is nothing but a blip on the Earthen screen. The evidence that is constantly presented is skewed. First it was those saying nothing was happening at all. These were the same people who took all the evidence that supported their argument and ignored anything that suggested otherwise. Then things changed, and we ended up with these Global Warming enthusiasts, people that don’t really know anything about the state of the planet, but ignorantly assume that everything told to them in the 100% truth. The sad thing is that the same narrow minded, oppressive view that their predicessors had is present here in these new world thinkers. There is a lot of evidence to show that the planet is changing, and some evidence to suggest that it has something to do with humans, but in the wake of that is a mountain of evidence that suggests that humans have little influence on the direction of the planet. This evidence is ignored. People assume that it is conservative propaganda when really it is evidence provided by a group of very well minded scientists that are more concerned for the well being of our planet than the Global Warming enthusiasts are. Why? Because they have taken into account that radically changing worldwide policies will have adverse effects on everyone. Wouldn’t you want to be 100% sure before making changes? Imagine this is making the decision to shoot someone because they are evil. If your evidence is 50% that he is evil and 50% that he’s not, would you feel okay shooting him anyway? I fully understand the logic that change needs to occur and I am in no way proposing that we don’t make societal changes. Inevitably we have to make changes because oil is growing thin and we need sources that can easily be replicated and will not disappear. But I also understand that if we’re wrong and we make radical decisions, we could inadvertently destroy millions of lives and have to live with that on our consciences when the truth comes to the front. Now, Aldiss, it seems, is making the argument that science fiction writers have a problem with addressing what he calls ‘global threats’–Global Warming probably being the main thing to consider here–and with recycling ideas. To the first point: I cannot say that I agree with this, but only because I’m not overly familiar with any SF being written that addresses global catastrophes that we believe are around the corner. Certainly movies like The Core and The Day After Tomorrow–one that I refuse to see and one that I thought was rather entertaining–are examples of science fiction in the film industry. I can’t imagine that nobody is writing about Global Warming though. Perhaps what is happening isn’t that people aren’t writing about it, but that people who wouldn’t be considered SF writers are putting out books that are labeled as mainstream rather than SF. If that’s the case, then it’s no wonder we’re not hearing much about it in the SF world. I’ve seen some books that weren’t labeled SF about global catastrophe. So it seems that books on this subject exist, but perhaps not in the frequency that Aldiss would like, or at least not in the manner that Aldiss would agree is definitively SF. The second point: How does one avoid redundancy in any type of fiction, not just SF? When we look at fantasy, for example, there is a great tendency to be redundant because people constantly repeat the same basic things over and over. What makes it good is the writers. Someone can take a story about elves and make it really fascinating. Alternately, someone can write a story about traveling to Mars and do the same. But the argument seems directed towards dystopian redundancies–what I call commonalities. This is very true that dystopian ideals are repeated ad naseum. But this is the nature of SF. Our future seems very bleak, for good reason. Aldiss even points them out–the cold war, nuclear war, etc. When we look at it, we are constantly devising new ways to destroy ourselves, our governments are corrupt and manipulative, wars are being waged that shouldn’t, wars are dehumanized for those with technology, etc. We live in a world that is dystopian, as Aldiss has pointed out. Does this make for redundant SF though? I can’t say that it does, at least not in any different sense than the fact that fantasy is redundant too. The fact is that it’s human. SF simply addresses it a lot. There are still wonderful stories being told with gloriously fascinating futures intermixed. Another question that should be asked is whether people are even interested in other forms of SF.