Republican Labels Star Wars Day as Wasteful Spending

Photo by Rob F. Some rights reserved.

Generally, the 501st Legion steers clear of politics. We’re not supposed to appear with political candidates or generally deviate from a charitable + costume-styled mission, but there’s points where we simply can’t avoid it.

The New England Garrison made an appearance in Senator Tom Coburn‘s annual Waste Book, a publication that points out what he considers wasteful spending. The document can be found here, and on page 84, at #52, there’s an entry titled ‘Return of the Jedi – (MA) $365, you’ll see members of the New England Garrison and Alderaan Base, from when we trooped at the Abington Public Library’s Star Wars Day. Our folks had a good time, and apparently the library’s patrons did as well.

The document goes on to say the following:

The Star Wars Day event, held at the Abington Public Library in Massachusetts, was paid for with $365 in federal funds, part of an $11,700 grant provided by the federal Institute of Museum and Library Services.

The Star Wars franchise has grossed over $4.5 billion over the past 35 years, so taxpayers may wonder why the government is subsidizing fan events for one of the most popular and successful movie series in the universe.

It’s enough to make my blood boil.

What immediately strikes me is just how misleading this entry is, or at the very least, the second paragraph. While it’s true that the films have grossed more than 4.5 billion listed, there’s no direct connection between Lucasfilm Limited and the library, or us, for that matter. We’re an organization that LFL works with, but we’re not employees. Moreover, this works to imply that the $365 (which compared to the national budget / debt is a microscopic part) that was paid went to LFL or us to pad the bottom line. You want to know what the money was probably used for?

The librarian on staff who’s position is funded through grants. At $15 an hour, that’s 24 hours, less than a full work week, and far less time than what was probably required to put together the event.

I didn’t work with this particular event, but I did work with another library event here in Vermont, where we worked to support the Star Wars club at the Brownell Library in Essex Junction. The grant that supplied a librarian to run the club had actually been cut, and we were there to help support that club. In all, we raised $290, which helped keep the librarian there for the rest of the year.

What bothers me the most is how absolutely clueless this entry appears, given the problems that the nation face, and it’s not this enormous debt, and it’s not that it’s completely off mark, but that whoever placed the entry had absolutely no idea what something like this does. It’s not a miniature Celebration, where fanboys can bask in the glory of Lucas’s franchise: it’s designed to get kids into the public library, where they can see, touch, and interact with all of the resources that are at hand for free to the general public. Libraries are the civilized world’s most crucial institutions, not just for the books that they hold, but for their center in the community, for the expertise that their staffs provide, and for the multiplier effect that they can have on one’s education. This sort of investment from the federal government is something that can do what is most important: assist in the education and self-betterment of our peers. Now, as the country is slowly inching along in its recovery, this is the type of institution that is evermore valuable, and evermore threatened. The Library Foundation of Hennepin County reported that in the 2002 recession, library circulation jumped 11.3%.

Looking long-term, we consistently hear arguments that the American child is falling behind relatively to their peers around the world, with the public school system often coming under fire for a poor education that public school children seem to be receiving. Those arguments aside for the moment, it’s a tiny snapshot of the resources that schools and libraries are pushed to go to. Without additional funding that host communities can’t provide, these important institutions simply cannot exist, and with them, any hope for sustained, meaningful economic recovery.

The Star Wars day that’s come under fire here is inconsequential, but it’s an important insight into how divided we are from the situation on the ground. This congressional member has likely never visited the library, or seen just how federal dollars are used, and what the direct impact on their constituents are. At the same time, the word ‘Military’ shows up three times. ‘Army’, 14 times, but most of those are in the footnotes. ‘Navy’? 23 times, with a couple of good points about military readiness, but also attacking a kid’s program about space and Mars. ‘Marines’ doesn’t show up at all, all institutions that eat enormous quantities of money. I will note, I’m not against military spending, but somewhere in the $1.030–$1.415 trillion, $11,000 was lost in someone’s couch cushions. I would argue, as Fermilab physicist Robert Wilson did in 1969, when questioned about the practical security value of a collider: “If only has to do with the respect with which we regard one another, the dignity of men, our love of culture… it has to do with , as we good painters, sculptors, great poets? I mean all the things we really venerate in our country and are patriotic about … it has nothing to do directly with defending our country, except to make it worth defending. ” (Rocket Men: The epic story of the first men on the moon, Craig Nelson, p.x) I don’t mean to imply that there’s an argument being made here that the same money should be put strictly to defense, but I don’t believe that this country should be on a path of bare bones financing, at the expense of the American public.

The elimination of this single event at this single library would be inconsequential in the greater scheme of things. But when you eliminate (or suggest to eliminate one), here, and another there, soon, there’s nothing left.

Again, I didn’t attend this event, but at the one that I did attend, I was greeted behind my helmet by over a hundred patrons: kids, parents and fans, all excited and all of them in the library. I saw a lot of children with books. Reading is an incredibly important skill for the modern world, and everywhere I look, I see evidence that this is something that’s far less valued as a whole, when it should be the most important thing that a child learns to love. Reading opens the doors to worlds previously closed to us, and allows for the creation of an innovative, creative generation that will spur this country to great heights, or down to dangerous depths from which we have little hope of escaping in the same amount of time.

It bothers me that the reality on the ground differs so much from the story that’s been concocted by a disinterested party, hellbent on their mission (which certainly has its merits) to the expense of all other concerns that come up along the way. It’s the programs like this, that build the country, little by little, into what makes it a great nation.

I for one am proud of what the 501st has done to support such events. This summer, we were inundated with over a hundred requests from libraries across New England for similar events, and I fervently hope that we will have twice as many next year.

EDIT, 10/23 3:20PM: NPR has a great post up on the reading habits of younger generations, and surprisingly, it’s not just ebooks and internet things, it’s regular, dead tree books and libraries. Read it here.

Barnes and Noble, No!

Since college, I’ve been using Amazon.com to buy a lot of books. Typically, I hit up the used sections first, where I can generally find decent products for quite a bit cheaper, but generally, for high quality books. In general, I would hit up some of the local bookstores in Montpelier (although now, in Barre, I’m left with far fewer options), Barnes and Noble in Burlington and a bunch of places in between. Amazon, however, has been causing problems for the independent and brick and mortar bookstore scene, and I figured that it wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world to start doing some of my online shopping somewhere else, at least for new books.

So, with a new X-Wing novel coming out, (Mercy Kill by Aaron Allston) I went to Barnes and Noble’s website, pre-ordered the book, and sat back to wait. Happily, there’s the option to pay with PayPal, which would help me break my habit of ordering from Amazon, which already has my credit card information, and makes the impulse buys all that much more easy. Release day rolls around, and … no book. Checking the website, I find that it hadn’t shipped yet, which is weird, because I had ordered the book last month – plenty of time to get the book out to me within the lower shipping level that I selected.

Last night, I received an e-mail from Barnes and Noble:

Dear Andrew L ,

We want to give you an update about the pre-ordered item(s) listed below. Unfortunately, we just got word that the release date for this item(s) has been changed. We expect to ship the item(s) soon and will email you when it is ready to leave our warehouse. If we cannot acquire the item(s) within 30 days, we will notify you by email.

However, if you would like to cancel this portion of your order, you may do so online at: …

We are working to fulfill the rest of your order as quickly as possible. Because we value you as a customer, we are sending the items that are currently available in your order now at no additional cost to you. Thanks for your patience.

Please accept our sincere apologies for the delay.

– Barnes & Noble

Well, for one, the book’s release date hadn’t changed: Amazon still lists it as August 7th, as does Barnes and Noble. More importantly, Random House, the book’s publisher, lists it as August 7th. Weird. I really want to read this book, so I go ahead and follow the directions to cancel the order. If Barnes and Noble isn’t going to ship it to me, I might as well go back to Amazon, who I know will.

Amazon sends me an automated book ordered e-mail, and because I ordered it directly from them, rather than from a 3rd Party, I’m pretty sure it’ll ship out ASAP. Barnes and Noble sends me another note:

Dear Andrew L,

We have received your request to cancel your order #.

We regret that we are unable to complete your request because your order has entered the shipping process or has already shipped. We apologize for any inconvenience.

If you wish to return this item, you may return your purchase for a refund within 14 days of delivery by following the instructions we included in your package.

For more information regarding returns please click …

So, which is it? Delayed, or in the shipping process? Barnes and Noble, I followed your directions, and you’re not able to go through with even that? Color me unimpressed. So, Amazon’s order is cancelled, and I’m simply going to have to wait for this to arrive on my doorstep later than expected.

There’s more to my indignation here than entitled fanboy demands: it goes to show just why Amazon has been doing so well with the online market, and why Barnes and Noble has not been doing well. To be fair, if I’d gone up to Burlington’s B&N outlet, I’m reasonably sure that I would have been able to pick up the book off the shelf – Star Wars new releases tended to be pretty high profile in the bookselling world, at least when I worked at Borders. But, Burlington’s a good 45 minutes up the road from me, and I don’t typically go up there unless I’m doing several things to make the trip worthwhile. I doubt that the local bookstore, Next Chapter, has anything in stock, with such a small SF/F selection.

What bothers me the most is that Barnes and Noble has had time to perfect their customer supply chain and management. Working at a bookstore during and after college demonstrated some of the principles of how CSM policy worked, and working at a college with a real start up / business flair demonstrated how it was essential for retaining business. What Barnes and Noble is doing is not great. It’s not the worst that I’ve seen, but it’s left me deflated and disappointed that I don’t have a book that I was really looking forward to reading. On one hand, it’s a good lesson in patience, and another opportunity to turn to another book. On the bookseller / CMS level, it’s a customer who took (well, tried) their money somewhere else that was faster, more reliable, and most importantly, happy to take their money.

What bothers me the most is the disconnect between their messaging. Following their directions, I wasn’t able to cancel the order as I’d tried to do: attempting to do so providing me with a completely contrary message, which suggests that there’s a disconnect somewhere in their system. As of writing this, the book is still listed as pending shipment, and for all I know, it could be waiting for me at home or two weeks away. It’s troubling, because my confidence in their ability to actually do what they’re supposed to do: take my money and put a book in my hands.

The problem that this has revealed is an issue with automated systems. In an ideal world, Barnes and Noble would use their physical stores as their greatest asset: when an online order goes out, their system routes the order to the nearest store to your location, and has them fill the order, dropping it in the mail from their store location. This saves time for the buyer, but more importantly, a real, live person puts the order together and drops it in the mail. In a world increasingly filled with automated systems, people in the loop are incredibly important, because they can do what machines can not: recognize and solve a problem that is unexpected. Any bookseller who paid attention could find that this wasn’t a problem, and act accordingly.

This element is crucial to Barnes and Noble’s successes as a book retailer. Borders certainly failed to act as a good customer service company: their policy of twisting their customer’s arms to buy selected books was one of many reasons why Barnes and Noble is still standing. Amazon has proven that it is far superior when handling automated orders: their supply chain is nothing short of remarkable, and it’s going to serve them well into the future. Barnes and Noble’s key strength is a physical location, and they would do well to keep people in the loop when it comes to their day to day operations.

When it comes to comparing Amazon to the thousands of booksellers across the country, there’s almost no doubt in whom I’d want to buy from: the physical retail stores, from a bookseller who knows what they’re doing. The face to face interaction with an employee, even when I don’t need their help, is a key part of the buying experience that Amazon.com simply cannot replicate. The recommended titles are simply based off of similar data profiles from customers, going up against a bookseller who can tell you whether or not the book that you’re looking for is something worth buying – I know that I’ve made the case and sold books that I felt invested in. What Barnes and Noble should do is carry this same thinking over to their online world, bringing someone into the loop.

But first, they need to send me my book! In the meantime, I’m going to attempt to learn a valuable lesson in patience, and read something else in the meantime.

Captain America & World War II

The best part of the latest Marvel film, Captain America, is the end credits. Bold propaganda posters with bright, 1940s colors, jumping out of the screen in the best display of three dimensions in the entire film, the credits capture everything that’s to know about the entire film. Fun, splashy, with more than a little propaganda splashed in there somewhere, it’s everything that America remembers broadly about the Second World War: a classic fight against unmentionable evil, where the good guys win in the end.

Captain America as a superhero film felt like a mixed product for me. One part advance marketing for the 2012 Avengers film, helmed by Joss Whedon, another part superhero origin story and the last bit war film. On the whole, it’s a fun ride: Chris Evans is spectacular as the titular character in Red, White and Blue, with one of the better origin stories set to celluloid (or gigabyte as it were), up there with the original Spiderman and Iron Man films. Yet despite that, the film is torn between missions, and fell pretty far from my expectations, which surprised me, given the praise that the film has garnered from a lot of outlets that I generally trust.

One of the film’s strongest and weakest points was its setting of the Second World War. It’s a fantastic place to place a superhero origin, given the near supernatural nature of the war itself, not to mention accurate to the character’s origins. World War II has taken on a mythological status within the United States, as it’s arguably the one point where the country displayed its absolute best, and absolute worst (necessarily – I’m not being revisionist!).

The movie is good – great even – when we’re introduced to a scrawny Steve Rodgers getting booted from his physical, and given the opportunity to prove himself with some medical experimentation that turns him into the only super soldier that the United States is able to create. Johnson sets up a good arc for Rogers as he’s selected not for his physical strength, but for his purely American character of being a well rounded individual: good of heart, smart, resourceful, all traits that live up to a supposed ideal American that the modern right wing would point to. It’s an admirable goal, to be sure: Steve’s a nice guy, and he saves the entire Eastern seaboard, but it’s a simple vision for how the United States and her allies collided with the Axis powers in Europe. (Japan is barely referenced.) The film builds as Rogers is put onto promotional detail, and it’s not until he reaches the front that he realizes his full potential as a soldier. Once there, he gets one awesome costume / uniform that I love.

It’s the wartime action part of the film that drags the film down. Full of tired action scenes with the all-token American team, the film never really materializes as any type of war film: it’s a collection of sequences against a faceless (literally!) enemy who serves as a stand-in for the Nazi and German soldiers on the front lines of the war. Part of this is from the fact that this is a comic book film in a bizzaro Marvel universe, but I can’t think that the reasons for why we didn’t see Nazis in the films: The Hydra soldiers could have hardly beat out the SS troops as ridiculously cartoonish in and of themselves, and there’s an incredible opportunity missed here when looking to set up a story of American good vs. evil. The action scenes feel as if they’re there for their own sake, penciled in by the screenwriters because they couldn’t be bothered to pick up a Stephen Ambrose story, or any one of the other millions of tomes released in the last decade about the Second World War. As a whole? It’s also pretty boring: Cap hits people with his shield, bounces around Europe to take out the Hydra baddies, and jumps over things on his motorcycle.

In a way, this feels very much as how the United States sees and views the Second World War: we know the basics: the US was attacked, went overseas to far-off battlefields against an enemy who displayed a real disregard for any type of human dignity (not that there’s much in war to begin with, but there’s certainly a line drawn at human experimentation and outright murder), where we won by the strength of our soldiers with a moral imperative to win the war. Rogers / Captain America certainly fit this bill to a T.

My argument here is that it’s just too simple, much as Captain America is, and that the film is basically a reflection of our own understanding and our collective desire to understand the war. The United States faced an enemy that really outgunned and out trained our soldiers for years on the battlefield, bound by a strong nationalistic sense of duty that bordered on fanatical in some instances. The United States largely won the war by outsupplying their armies, slowly improving the training and equipment of our GIs and keeping to a strategy that outmaneuvered the Axis powers, rather than simply outfighting them at every turn by our own prowess, strength and will to fight. This in and of itself is a bit of a simplification, but the study of World War II is akin to a complicated onion, with layers upon layers: it was truly a global war, with innumerable facets.

The Superhero archetype that Captain America displays is something that we commonly believe as a country: it’s a nice narrative, and in a way, Captain America is us, or at least, the parts that we really want to see. The conflict set up between him and Red Skull is horribly underplayed: all things equal, the only differences between the two men are their inner natures: Captain America is good, Red Skull is evil, and it’s a fight that’s set up with some real promise, but ultimately never goes anywhere meaningful, beyond action sequences. Not that the film needed much more than that: it’s designed as a fun action film, so this works, but other Marvel films such as Iron Man really demonstrated that a strong character film is possible: Iron Man succeeded wildly as a story of a self-examination and role within the nation’s character. Captain America never quite does this, although it does a far better job at it than Superman, another type of national hero, does.

Finally, I’m personally tired of the Avengers crossover that seems to be bleeding into every film. Before, we just had to content with the trailers as the beginning of the film: now, they’re in the movies themselves, and while I’m just as excited to see everything next year, I hate the amount of pandering that Marvel is displaying for the film: there’s connections to Iron Man and Thor here in this film, and for someone who hasn’t seen every film, it doesn’t feel so much like connecting stories as trying to bleed the audience dry. The film also hints rather overtly that the next main storyline will be the Winter Soldier run, with the (spoiler!) off-stage death of Bucky.

Captain America is a fun film, but it’s no Iron Man. Well acted (Chris Evans is a superb Captain America and Tommy Lee Jones has some fantastic comedic moments throughout, as well as some of the supporting cast) at points, but the film’s unable to really capitalize on the 2nd World War beyond turning it into one giant series of action sequences that does little to move the characters forward, or even make the audience care about them. The real shame is that I’ve seen people point to this as the ultimate sort of patriotic film, which annoys me because it’s not much more than a regular run of the mill summer blockbuster, just wrapped up in the flag.

Like the end credits, it’s propaganda, a self-fulfilling mythos that we perpetuate ourselves to remind us of how great we are. That bothers me, a great deal. Still, it’s fun to see quasi-Nazis get hit in the face with a red, white and blue shield. That never gets old.

I love and hate Genre Arguments

Do you want to read my 2nd person, post-modern, colonial YA alt-noir post-cyberpunk, apocalyptic futuristic novel where virtual reality steampunk zombies battle in a biopunked militaristic dystopian world with elements of space opera crossed with pre-singularity, post-slipstream hard horror science fiction while contrasting alternate reality world views with a magical realistic vampire-inhabited sword & sorcery, non-western utopian fantasy past?

NO!

Open letter to US Airways

Dear US Airways,

I wanted to register a complaint with the level of service that I received for a business trip overseas between May 19th and May 27th. I’ve never had any major issues with flights in the years that I’ve flown with a variety of airlines, but upon each step of the way, I was met with inadequate, unprofessional and poor customer service and organization from your airline, which seriously impacted the trip that I undertook, and ended up costing money that I had not budgeted out for the trip, necessitating several discussions with my bank, landlord and employer, which comes as a serious embarrassment to myself and how I am perceived professionally. I have hoped that in the days since my trip, I would have found some explanation for what I’ve come up against, but I’ve failed to do so: I remain exceedingly angry.

Some of these problems are ones that are excusable due to weather and other extreme problems that cannot be predicted or easily worked around: every step along the way, the people placed into the positions on the ground were the problem.

My first flight was from Manchester’s airport (MHT) to Philadelphia (PHL), on US Airways Flight 3988 on May 19. I arrived at the airport in plenty of time, and waited for boarding, when we were told that the flight was delayed due to an airport closing due to severe weather. The personnel in Manchester were by far the most helpful of the entire trip – they were unable to get a flight into Philadelphia, but they were able to get a flight from Boston to Philadelphia the next day. I missed the next leg from Philadelphia, flight 750, that day. (I believe that it was delayed for the night.) Already, I have missed a day that had been booked at the hotel where I had been booked, which was not recoverable from the hotel.

On May 20, I was forced to arrange three separate car rides from people who generously took time from their day to get me from person to person, and I arrived at the airport on time for the next flight from Boston to Manchester. (The flight is not on my itinerary, and I don’t remember the number – I’m sure that I’m in your records.). I was bumped up from the afternoon flight to the mid-morning flight, and arrived in Philadelphia with no issues.

The afternoon flight from PHL to BRU (Brussels) arrived late, and was further delayed from Philadelphia – US Airways flight 750. The flight itself was comfortable, but a rearrangement of seating meant that the entire airplane had to be reseated, and my ticket didn’t have a seat listed – there was a considerable wait to rebook the flight and to get seats, which caused further frustration amongst my fellow passengers. Here, there was little direction or announcement in the terminal, and had I not asked, I would not have known until the last minute that there would have been an issue. Because of the delay in the aircraft, I missed the last shuttle to my hotel, and I was required to hire a car to get from the airport to the hotel, further cutting into the money that I had budgeted for the trip. I had hoped that I would be away from further problems with flights.

On May 26, for my return, I arrived at the airport early, went through security and arrived in time for projected boarding of my flight. Again, there was little direction broadcast to the passengers in the terminal: orders for boarding by Zone, which resulted in a long line of people unsure of where to go, as many were still getting out of security and had missed the original announcements: Again, had I not asked, I would not have found out what to do. Flight 751 was supposed to take off at 10:45, but several hours later, the flight was still boarding, and a problem had been discovered with the fuel, and there was a considerable amount of time spent waiting for the final checks. We were soon ordered off the plane and to return a short time later, as a part was being replaced. Several additional announcements were made throughout the afternoon as to the status of the airplane, and by 3:30 or so, we were permitted to reboard: we did so in ten minutes, with the understanding that if the plane did not push off at 4:10 in the afternoon, the crew would be grounded. 4:10 came and went, and we were once again ordered off the plane. Many wondered why there was such a delay in getting the passengers onboard and with the crew’s readiness at the same time: it seemed like a poor use of time. I would have happily sat on the plane for extra time (if we’d been seated earlier) to accommodate the crew. Indeed, we were not even informed that the flight would not take off: we saw the 1st class passengers getting up to leave. The aircraft staff were extremely unhelpful.

From this point on, I found the biggest failures in your organization: there was absolutely no direction from the flight crew and US Airways airport staff as to what the next steps were. We were told to report to the desk. There were no instructions for baggage, and a number of people waited at the carousel for bags that simply didn’t come. The contractor in charge of the bags informed me that I had to check out with the US Airways desk, and that I would be able to collect the bags afterwards, a half-hour later. Moving upstairs, we came across a line that was four hours long. By the time that I had gotten off the airplane and through the line, I had spent 5 hours – 5 HOURS – waiting for more information. I did not know if I would be able to get a place to stay for the night, when my next flight would take off and what to do next. A fellow passenger in line, Eric Stoltz, found that his bags (he was moving back to the US, and had 6) were left unguarded and unsecured downstairs, and I retrieved mine, quickly. Anybody could have walked into the room and picked up what was mine. This was unacceptable.

After four hours in line, around 9:30, we were given vouchers for a nearby hotel, and caught the last shuttle to the hotel, hoping to get dinner before their restaurant closed for the night. If they had not held their doors open, we would not have eaten at all.

The next morning, more problems surfaced. I arrived with my fellow passengers the next morning, we were again confronted with a multiple hour line as the computer system was down, and we were left waiting, once again, with no explanation as to the delay. I heard passengers yelling, and there was a lot of frustration on our part. Getting through line and through security, the flight was once again delayed from 10am to 1pm, where we were informed that the aircraft had undergone further repairs. We had been under the impression that the flight had been fixed, and that the flight would be safe: my faith in the mechanical abilities of the aircraft was now shaken: if the crew had claimed that the plane was safe to fly last night, why had they continued repairs, and were their claims honest the second time around? The flight did indeed take off, but with a revised landing time: 3:30, when my next, rescheduled flight would be boarding. I would still have to go through security, immigration and put my bags through, then go from A to F terminal. The staff on the airplane were once again extremely unhelpful, and did not put my mind to ease when I asked them what to do next: I was essentially told that I would miss my flight and that I’d have to be bumped again. Given that we landed at 3:00 and that I’d gotten out of security by around 3:30, I most likely could have made my flight.

Getting off the plane, we came across a table with people who had missed connections. Once again, there was no indication of this from our flight crew, and people easily could have missed it. When Flight 751 landed, two people manned the desk, and displayed the more inappropriate and rude behavior that I’ve seen all trip. They shouted at the passengers, were incredibly rude to myself, and according to my fellow passenger Erik, slapped his hand away when he saw his name. This is unacceptable for an organization that interfaces with customers. I was shocked, and stunned, that after the past couple of days, we could come up across something like this. I can understand shouting to be heard over noise, but this was different altogether: these two individuals were rude and abrasive, and should be fired.

Indeed, I had also been bumped from my flight, from the 4:00 to Manchester to the 6:15. I went through security and passport control and waited for my flight – we were bumped to another gate, and by our boarding time of 5:45, our flight crew had not shown up, although the person at the desk informed us that they were in the building. Our flight was to depart at 6:15, and our pilot and crew only showed up at that point, where we had to wait further for them to prep the cabin. We boarded, and had to wait 20 spaces on the tarmac for our turn to take off. This normally wouldn’t have been a problem, but our plane had been turned off, and until we were in the air, we were told, the air conditioning would be ineffective – it was 80-90 degrees outside, and extremely warm. The flight attendant did hand out water, but came very close to running out. By the time that we had taken off, we were already extremely late, and landed in Manchester around 8 or shortly thereafter. On top of all this, my ride, who had been watching the website for updates, noted that the flight was still registered as not having taken off by the time we landed, and I had to wait for them to pick me up – they were embarrassed to have left me hanging.

In short, I held boarding passes for nine flights: every single one was cancelled, delayed or changed, with considerable problems along the way. Why, in Brussels, did we have to wait by an entire row of empty consoles to reach a desk that was staffed by two people for over 200 passengers. Why were we not given clear instructions on where to go, and why does there appear to be no contingency plan for unexpected problems such as these on your part, causing a major disruption in the plans for your customers? I hold a customer service-oriented job, and had I caused a comparable problem in my own company, I would have been fired. Why were your personnel in Philadelphia, greeting Flight 751, so abusive and rude to us? Why does it appear that your company has such a low expectation of your customers that you treat them as such? I sincerely want answers to these questions, so that I can understand what I went through over the course of my travels with your company. I have trouble imagining that I will ever willingly fly US Airways again, because of this experience, and I believe that I am either owed an explanation or my money back for the work time that I missed, and the money that I had to expend above and beyond what was budgeted. I certainly did not receive the value that I expected – and have received, from your competitors – indeed, I did not get what I paid for, as I was not delivered to either Brussels nor Manchester on time. I expect some problems when it comes to air travel, but not to this magnitude.

Please let me know if you have any questions. I look forward to your e-mail and explanations.

Sincerely,

Andrew Liptak

Watson

A lot seems to get lost in the minutiae when it comes to science fiction and fantasy: we were supposed to have flying cars, disregarding that most people can’t drive when limited to two dimensions, space exploration will be our salvation, despite the fact that our odds of reproducing and successfully colonizing anything outside of Earth is extremely limited at the present moment, and that when robots and computer systems can best a human, it’s the beginning of the end of humanity.

I’ve been thinking of this since I read Ted Chiang’s novella, The Lifecycle of Software Objects, dealing with the education and development of a viable A.I., and the complexities that arise when putting together such a thing. Chiang rejects the notion that a computer that’s rigidly programmed will automatically produce a superior being: rather, intelligence is far more complex, and anything that is truly intelligent in the same way that we are could potentially come about in the same ways that people can.

Why all the fuss about Watson? It’s an interesting programming trick, to be sure, but hardly the end of humanity as we know it. One of the books that I’ve been fascinated by over the last couple of years is P.W. Singer’s Wired for War, which examines the development of robotic combat systems, a science fiction concept in and of itself. Every time a new type of robot is deployed, the internet inevitably shits itself predicting that Terminator is right around the corner, and that it’s time to start stocking up on canned goods for when the robotic rebellion comes barreling down on our squishy, organic heads.

The future is rarely as predicted: look at the accuracy of weathermen. Within science fiction, we take far too much that’s designed for entertainment as gospel, and very rarely will a science fiction film actually see some realistic predictions. 2001: A Space Odyssey missed by a long shot (we were supposed to have habitable moon bases), Terminator predicted our demise years ago, and Minority Report, one of the only films that seems to have gotten a lot of things right, overestimated things by half a decade: we’ve got our motion controlled computers, except that it’s in gaming consoles.

The pace of technology doesn’t live or die by our expectations of entertainment and wonder: indeed, the truly visionary science fiction films understand that our surroundings are build around how we will use things. Moon‘s director, Duncan Jones, noted that when building the sets and equipment for his film, they wanted to make sure that the designers built it with practicality in mind. Steven Spielberg gathered a bunch of technology experts into a think tank for the world-building of Minority Report.

To date, we don’t have servant androids, daily moon flights or Zeppelins, for the simple reason that there’s either no practical daily use for such things, or there’s a better alternative. True, robots do exist in people’s homes, in the form of iRobot’s Roomba, but these aren’t multiple-purpose devices: they exist to fill a certain function. I wouldn’t trust it (as much as I’d like to) to cook me dinner, fetch the mail or put away things out of order, simply because I can do those things myself, and at a far less cost than such a thing would run me otherwise. Commonplace spaceflight, while on the brink of actually happening to the general (if wealthy) public, is not for business or industry, but entertainment, simply because we haven’t found any other way to make it profitable for investors, while airplanes can do everything that an airship can faster and cheaper, because the infrastructure and needs of the economic world are in place for it.

At the same time, the things that are the most science fictional in our world go almost unnoticed, either because they aren’t dramatic in any particular way: the number of computers and electronics in an automobile, for example, to the tablet computer that I’m typing this on. Take anything from the modern day and transplant it into the golden age of science fiction, it would most likely shock the world. Even things like Amazon.com, Facebook and Twitter fall under these categories, developed in response to how people interact and use the internet: technology has an almost organic development, changing in response to other, prior changes that pave the way for own existence. Twitter, for example, most likely never would have existed but for the happy coincidence of the prevalence of text messaging and Facebook’s own introduction of status updates. Amazon.com was an outgrowth of business’s ability to consolidate and the introduction of wide-spread internet use. When looking at the future, it’s often the really little things, rather than the dramatic, that define our lives.  There are exceptions to this: major terrorist attacks such as on September 11th radically changed things in a lot of ways: most likely, some technologies and political or business environments would have altered how things went, much like the industrial boom that was sparked by the Second World War changed America’s stance amongst the other nations on the planet.

Singer’s book comes to mind in all of this, because of the way that robotics have developed for the battlefield throughout the War on Terror in Iraq and Afghanistan. He rejected the idea that we’ll ever have a ’3 Laws of Robotics’, simply because they get in the way of a combat robot, but also because we really don’t have robotics in the same way that we thought we might have: automatic responses and programming, with a person in the loop to direct how it carries out its mission. Robotics, rather than multi-purpose, are task-specific, much as Watson is on Jeopardy. He might be able to put together a lot of information and connect the dots, but that’s what he’s supposed to do: world domination most likely won’t occur to him, and even if it did, I doubt that it could be carried out. Now, should he have the ability to learn, and apply the fact connection to a desire in a highly complicated and sophisticated manner, we could have a very different story.

We were supposed to have robots in the future. Instead, we have iPads, surveillance cameras, global positioning systems and quite a lot more, because of needs that weren’t predicted back in the middle of the century, predictions that were influenced by the optimism that only a wealthy nation full of technology could bring.

Were these predictions bad? No. Unfounded? Nope. 2001: A Space Odyssey, came out at the beginnings of the Space Race, unsure of what would happen. In 1969, we went to the moon and discovered a magnificent, but empty expanse on the Moon, and haven’t looked back. Blade Runner saw a future that was more grounded: a lived-in world, mired with the same human problems that have been the constant throughout our history.

When it comes to predicting the future, we might very well still have a lot of these things: we’re making early steps towards civilian spaceflight, environmental costs might predicate the elimination of airplanes, and household robotics will likely be more sophisticated. However, the steps towards this direction will always rest on the requirements of the people using them. We simply don’t need a supercomputer to take over the world: we needed one for entertainment.

 

Customers Aren’t Idiots

While driving home over the Thanksgiving weekend, Megan and I talked about our respective retail experiences. I had worked at Waldenbooks/Borders for several years, while she had worked at Borders, Fashion Bug and Weis, a grocery store in the Pennsylvania area. It’s not a stretch to say that we’re both fairly disillusioned with how things worked in each of the stores, but I don’t believe that the retail experience has to be bad for either the customer, or the people working there. There are certainly plenty of examples of places that are fairly decent to work for, and there were points in both of our stores where we felt that we enjoyed what we did.

The crux of the problem seems to lie in a band between the upper management to direct the strategic concerns for whatever company you’re working with, and the people on the ground level: the middle manager level seems to be the biggest issue, because it allows for the priorities, directions and strategy from the upper echelons to be interpreted, translated and carried out, and in each of our cases, this was where things went very wrong.

We both had several stories of how our individual stores had fairly competent people working in them: employees and sales people who genuinely wanted to sell the products that we were selling, with a number of additional requirements handed down from up on high. In my own experience, booksellers had the directions to not only greet a customer when they entered the door, but to follow them around the store to be available. If a person asked for a book, we were to lead them to the book, place it in their hands, and do the same for any number of recommended titles. At the register, there was the usual script of asking if the customer had a loyalty card (Rewards Card, sorry), and if they were interested in any of the numerous ‘key items’ that were located near the register.

If I was a customer walking into the store for the first time, I’d never return.

Stores that sell non-essential items like books, films, clothing and other related things generally mean that the customer isn’t pressured to buy something – they’re there voluntarily, rather than by necessity, and as such, the customer should be treated as someone other than a source of income for the company: stores such as Borders, F.Y.E., Fashion Bug and numerous others have the wrong approach by forcing items into the hands of customers. The difference that I can see here is in how the customer is viewed by the respective companies: rather than a sales focus, the people on the ground, in the stores should adopt a better customer service model that would allow them to accomplish the same goal without harassing the customers.

I cannot begin to count how many people refused, and have gotten annoyed, or even angry at me for asking if they had the Rewards Card. Several years ago, Borders began their rewards card system, which allowed someone with a card to accrue a certain percentage of their purchases for the holidays and for every hundred dollars, they’d earn $5 back. It’s a good system, and I can see the logic behind it: people who use a card will have an incentive to return.

The problem here comes with the requirements and quotas laid down by the company: with a finite pool of people to receive the card, the percentages of new signups will come down over a set period of time. The opposite reaction occurred: quotas went up, and several of my friends were fired as a result, for either signing up blank cards, using the same one over again, to keep up with the demand. Looking back, it’s a problem that existed within the company, without taking into consideration the human element: the program turned from something that enticed customers (and continued to do so for the people who did sign up) but also estranged those who weren’t interested in the card from day one. The card and the policy behind it failed to adapt to the changes in the environment: as more people signed up, better, more realistic expectations should have been set, and further goals for retention should have been examined.

The problem here, and with the instructions to place books in people’s hands, seem to have come from a company that looked only at the numbers, rather than the people who were coming into the store. While I suspect that such practices worked; pointing out books to customers will gain a couple of sales, and should be continued, this only further reinforced the idea that more aggressive policies will equal a resulting sales figure. That comes across to me as being extremely shortsighted: costumers, fatigued with pressure from an aggressive sales front, will go elsewhere, so that they’re not bothered or pressured into getting things that they don’t want. From where I stood in the company, it seemed as though the management on the district level used a heavy hand when it came to selling their products: push as much out through the door, rather than retaining a population of customers that would return to the store because of the selection of products, the attitude of the sales staff and someone who was satisfied out the door.

As an employee there, I had very little customer service training: no poorly acted videos, program, probationary period, with little idea of the goals and ins and outs of the company as it stood. Quality customer service comes with the people at the front, and the goals that were established for them. Essentially, we were the people handing over the books to the people who wanted them, with little interest in anything else.

There are other companies out there that have done things far differently: Apple, AT&T, Zappos and Netflix all come to mind, as their models are more oriented towards customer satisfaction, rather than sales. Through the job that I currently have, I’ve attended several webinars and read up on the subject, and it’s clear that any business – especially in an environment where consumers are more discriminating with their money. These companies, either in their stores, or over the phone (AT&T is horrid over the phone) are generally very good with their front of the line sales – this breaks down a bit depending on the issue, but for the most part, these places are ones that I’ve had fairly pleasant dealings with.

Such interactions, with people, rather than an anonymous sales figure or customer service representative are essential. People react positively within their own networks, and generally trust sales and information received from people who they know personally: this is one of the biggest strengths of using social media (and utilizing it well), because people will listen to their friends, and will talk about issues. The same logic can be applied in stores, with a customer sales person that works to make the customer happy, rather than simply filling the company’s bottom line. Essentially, information and innovation needs to move from the sales floor up, with a staff that has the latitude to work as needed, rather than from top down requirements. Store and company policy should be informed by the experiences that the employees see.

One of the reasons, I suspect, that the larger book stores are facing hard times is because they haven’t needed to understand this dynamic when it comes to their customers, because of their size, and as such, haven’t fostered a loyal following. People don’t tend to stick with the same stores out of loyalty: prices will help, but the experiences that a person has at any given store will help more. If they’re not satisfied, they’ll move to a competitor. As such, companies need to be able to adapt to the changes in the market place, and the changes in customer requirements. I suspect that sites such as Amazon.com have raised these expectations somewhat: having pretty much every item ever produced available, not to mention remembering what you purchased and searched for last time. This isn’t practical in a brick and mortar store, when it comes to stock, but what stores should be doing is focusing on creating a loyal base of customers, one that caters more to what they are looking for, with the intent on bringing them the best experience possible, and going about that in an intelligent fashion. The bottom line comes down to understanding the customer: they’re not idiots.

Understanding good customer service is something that will be essential in the future: companies that can’t adapt will simply fade away, while others, with more flexibility, will earn the money that the customers are willing to part with. At the end of the day, Megan and my experiences were similar: the front-line sales staff weren’t able to contribute or implement changes that were needed on our level, changes that could have contributed and translated to a better customer experience. It’s no wonder that some of these places aren’t able to compete.

I Care If Han Shot First

I saw this earlier today: “I’m a diehard ‘Han shot first fan’.”

I couldn’t care less. Go away.

Last night, the news broke that LucasFilm Ltd. intended to re-release (rererelease?) the entire Star Wars series to theaters in 3D in 2012. There’s no further details beyond that, except that the first film to be released again will be The Phantom Menace. The announcement has the usual complaints and accusations coming, from: “George Lucas is raping my childhood!” to “How can they make it better?! Leave it alone!” which evolves into: “Han shot first!” I just don’t care.

Re-Releases aren’t intended to be better. The usual argument of any remake, reboot, or extra special edition looks to the quality of the film, which isn’t really the right thing to look at. In the case of a complete remake of a film, it’s a different interpretation of the same story, generally within a new context or with the new technology that’s available. In the instance of George Lucas’s updates to the film (or the other notable re-releases of Blade Runner, Abyss, Lord of the Rings and so forth) goes towards updating scenes based on new technology, or adding in deleted or altered scenes, generally to better fit with the filmmaker’s vision of what he wants the film to be.

This brings me to my point about Han Solo shooting first. I first saw the films with the special edition, but that one shot didn’t really leave any lasting impact on exactly which one shot first. The point is, Han kills Greedo. Lucas’s rationalization for the switch was that he wanted Han to be a more likable character by making him less of a ‘bad guy’, which has always struck me as odd: Han still fries the Rodian, kills several Sand Troopers in the spaceport (and later Death Star), to save himself and his friends. Making the switch, then, really doesn’t make any significant difference in what people thought of Han. He’s the lovable rogue, shooting first or whatever, and the only way to really make a major impact would be to turn Han into a vegetarian and someone concerned with the Falcon’s fuel mileage. The same goes for some of the other changes that were made: the run into Mos Eisley, the introduction of the digital Dewbacks, Jabba the Hutt and so forth: there’s nothing that really changes the film beyond its aesthetics. Similarly, I don’t believe that adding the third dimension into the mix is going to significantly change anything in the film, beyond the visual appeal.

The real question will be: will it look good? Star Wars was filmed in a certain style, and there are points where the new CGI sections look somewhat out of place, and the conversion over to 3D is a complicated, expensive process, and I’m not holding my breath that it will be as good as Avatar’s 3D, which was filmed natively. Still, it seems that the studio isn’t rushing into this conversion, but will be working on it over the next couple of years (if they haven’t started already).

Star Wars is a commercial empire: look at the recent diagram of where most of the money has come from for the franchise, and that’s from merchandising, which strikes me as a smart move: it creates an incredible brand that people continually go to for all sorts of different things, from playing with the toys as a kid, to wearing a shirt or reading one of the books. It acts as a self-replicating advertising machine, and looking back, there’s been a continual release of Star Wars works since the first movies were released. The prequels in 1997 set the stage for the prequel films, which in turn have been continued with The Clone Wars, bringing in a whole new generation to the franchise, who will be right at the proper age to enjoy the films in the theaters again in a couple of years. In all likelihood, we’ll see a whole new marketing campaign to go along with this. I wouldn’t be surprised if the live-action television series would follow in the mid 2010s, potentially with a new series of films following that. The long and short of it is, Star Wars isn’t going anywhere, and with the attention span of the average consumer nowadays, it’s no surprise that the franchise has kicked into overdrive. The franchise is now going into its 3rd decade, competing with films such as Avatar, which James Cameron has said is hoped to become a franchise on par with the likes of Star Wars and Star Trek. Economically, Star Wars has a major upper hand, but if given a choice, would the current rising generation go for Star Wars, or Avatar? I know which, and it isn’t Star Wars.

3D is the next logical step in this move, given that studios can make a couple of extra dollars per ticket, but also because I’ve thought that Star Wars would be a fun thing to watch in 3D, going back to the visuals over storyline. (And if you don’t believe me, go watch the prequels again) 3D films capitalizes on new technology, and will make the franchise grow even more: people will still going to go out and see them in droves, no matter the sputtering of the fanboys who can’t see that the films aren’t designed for broad introspection: they’re blockbusters on a military scale, and the studio executives who have kept Star Wars a house-hold name for over thirty years, and multiple generations are doing their job well.

This isn’t to say that everything that has been released with the Star Wars logo has been high quality: far from it. The prequel trilogy was lack-luster at best, with The Clone Wars series matching that for the most part. The books and comics have likewise been of mixed quality, but quality has never been a huge concern: it doesn’t have to be. (It should be, but that’s another argument altogether) The franchise has raked in billions (yes, with a B) based on the material that’s been released, under the current formula, because of the efforts that have been made when it comes to branding and its awareness, not to mention its large fanbase. It really has no equal when it comes to popular culture influence: the book that I’m currently reading, The City and The City by China Mieville, just had a main character drop the ‘Force is not with me’ line a couple of pages ago, and any time that I’ve been out in armor, I’ve found that even if a person hasn’t seen the films, they know exactly what I’m from.

To the people who say: “George Lucas is raping my childhood!”, I say: George Lucas is not raping your childhood. Your childhood was back in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, and shouldn’t be defined by a single film series. Childhood is a series of rose-colored memories that include things such as Star Wars, and the impressions that you had of any film will change with time as you learn and actually grow up. The original films was something that I watched countless times after school, and over the years since, as I’ve graduated from high school, college and graduate school, has drastically changed as my outlook on life and the world has changed along with everything else. Attempting to hold onto the past through reliving it seems like a sad proposition. I certainly wouldn’t return to my childhood, as much as I treasure most memories. When all fails, there’s certainly nothing that compels someone to go and alter their impressions of the films, and you *don’t* have to turn over that $10-$15 for a movie ticket, buy the next book, action figure or whatever.

With that in mind, a lot of the arguments that people have made against the prequels, rereleases and upcoming rerereleases are essentially meaningless, simply because this franchise doesn’t really need, or really care about what the fans really are looking for in the series: they’ve put together a good product, and it’s something that people are willing to dump a lot of money into. While they’ve done so, they’ve found ways that the films and books have given them meaning, direction and inspiration in life, which is fantastic. But that meaning and understanding that people find isn’t what drives the bottom line: it’s their wallets.  Does it matter if Han shot first? Not really, in the greater context, and even then, it doesn’t impact the story in any significant way. So long as people are continually arguing and talking about it, LFL is happy.

Am I going to see the re-release in a couple of years? Probably. I distinctly remember coming out of Avatar thinking: Star Wars would look pretty damn cool in this format, and I think that the visuals will be worth it, especially on the big screen. Star Wars has always been about flash over substance, and watching the films again in theaters is easily worth my time and money for that thrill. Plus, it’ll more than likely mean some prime trooping opportunities for the 501st.

So, don’t tell me that Han shot first. I really don’t care; it’s irrelevant, annoying and honestly doesn’t have that much of an impact on the film’s story. There’s going to be more Star Wars throughout the rest of our lives.

* Required listening for this rant should be MC Chris’s ‘Han Solo’.

Opposing Viewpoints

And by we, I mean book bloggers, science fiction aficionados and other assorted freelancer writer types. Earlier today, I had an interesting talk with fellow blogger and podcaster Patrick Hester, (@atmfb) where we had an interesting debate about the role that the book blogging community plays within our little world of speculative fiction, authors, conventions and publicists. This had been sparked by several comments on another blog that equated to: I disagree with Author X because of a) politics b) personal attitude or c) religion, etc, which I think is a somewhat ridiculous attitude to have. This tangentially connects to a couple of exchanges that I’ve had with people in the recent past about the entire purpose of blogging in general, which leads back to the question: why do we do this? And more importantly, how should we do this?

Science fiction and its related genres are akin to commercial art. As such, they tend to be incredibly complicated works that draw upon numerous influences and elements, hopefully in a nice, commercially friendly package that will sell in numerous units to a willing public and make the publisher just a bit wealthier. Over the course of the discussion that Patrick and I had today, we looked at the ways in which people approached books.

One example here was that reader X didn’t like Orson Scott Card, because of an opposing political viewpoint that Card has that vilifies homosexuality and equates global warming to a sort of conspiracy. I vehemently disagree with Card on a lot of political issues, but I’m generally curious as to how people associate a writer and their own personal politics with what they write. In some cases, there’s quite a bit of clear influence amongst a writer’s works. Heinlein looked towards libertarian viewpoints, for example, and so forth (I’ve just written about this recently, for other examples). While clearly, there are elements of personal belief within every book that any such author writes. However, the privilege of having an opposing viewpoint does not equate condemning the book or an author simply because of someone’s personal politics, especially if someone is acting as a reviewer or interviewer for said author. Books should be judged on their merits, not on the author’s personal habits.

In the course of our conversation, how then does one avoid reviewing a book without any sort of outside influence? Should a book be able to stand on its own, completely free from its author’s beliefs, offensive as they might be to the reviewer? There’s a considerable amount of grey area here, and I suspect that there is no good answer to this problem. As a historian, dislike the idea of judgment of past actions, simply because said ideas don’t match up completely with my own. (The same goes for music reviewing. Some bands sound amazing on concert, and recorded, but what happens when you find that in reality, they are some of the most annoying, pedantic, irritating people in the world who don’t give two seconds thought to their fans or those who care about those who essentially worship them as minor deities? Or the actor/artist/writer who does the same? Certainly, there is an amount of fanboy disappointment when one’s idols don’t meet up to one’s expectations – I’ve had that happen a lot.)

The duties of a reviewer, interviewer, and critical thinker are to examine said works. I myself tend to be a curious person, and I find myself wishing for more information about the book. What influenced this novel, or sparked this author’s imagination to set these words down on paper? This sort of process is not something that happens completely independent of any sort of outside influence, especially in the science fiction genre. It is this sort of core understanding that I believe is essential to the arts: the drive for understanding, not only of the book itself, or merely for entertainment, but because we relish stories. The earliest stories were incredible teaching tools, ones that undertook the task of teaching ethics, demonstrating to others a slightly easier path in the race to the finish. The better stories are the ones that get away with the teaching before you realized something was up, whereas the bad ones simply expound upon their morals until you throw the book away.

Interviews are another topic all together, and it was suggested that during an interview, the conventional topics such as religion and politics should be completely avoided during an interview.  I disagree with that assessment, because such things are often a major influence on a person, especially in the case of speculative fiction. What are the responsibilities of a book blogger, beyond the usual business of product placement? I firmly maintain that any form of information dissemination is a style of journalism, and as such, has the ability to influence opinion, and has a number of responsibilities therein. As Stan Lee said through Peter Parker: “With great power comes responsibility”, and as such, reviewers, interviewers and critics have the responsibility to weed out the bad and point out the notable. They should examine the influences upon the works that they look at, ask questions and consider any and all possibilities. This obviously happens to a varying level of completion and attention, but reviewers should at least consider how their actions benefit a greater audience.

Thus, I believe that ignoring the influences upon a book, no matter what the underlying values are, does a grave disservice to the author and potential readers that follow. This is not to say that there are numerous books out there that are not worth reading, but that evaluating a book based on a few, selected criteria is not an honest look at said book and story. While I disagree with the opinions of Dan Simmons or Orson Scott Card, that doesn’t mean that completely ignoring or disregarding will do much better. Reading and attempting to understand such viewpoints is far better, and does not mean that one advocates such positions.

Beyond that, books, like people, have a complicated genesis, and evaluating a book on a single issue or merit belies the complexity and background that any sort of reviewer should be judging a book on. This, I believe is the beauty of our intellect and abilities to communicate. No single person has a monopoly on what is right, and what is wrong. In the grander picture, we really know very little at all, and denying the chance to learn more or to understand is a poor action indeed.

The Sky Isn’t Falling: Science Fiction as a Genre

Lately, it seems like there have been numerous article and opinion pieces on the state of the science fiction genre, as opposed to the fantasy and horror genres, with science fiction losing out to both and declining as a field. More women make up the total readership, and tend to read more towards the fantasy genre, while commercial ready fiction such as True Blood, The Dresden Files and Twilight have pushed their respective genres towards audiences that are highly receptive towards what they have to offer. Speculative fiction as a genre is not going away: rather, it seems to be growing stronger, with more ties towards the literary fields and with a growing readership. Science fiction is not a genre to be counted out, but it is a style of fiction that will need to undergo much thematic change in the future in order to remain relevant to readers.

Science Fiction as a whole is one that covers a wide range when it comes to themes and topics, and simply stating that the genre as a whole is failing is a rather meaningless, if somewhat dramatic statement. To say that people will stop writing about the speculative future is to say that people will stop imagining what will happen next: that is simply not going to happen. Rather, it is more realistic to assume that some of the more traditional stories might go away as our understanding of the world around us changes: this is a natural expectation.

Science Fiction is a genre that acts as a mirror for the present. It acts as a rare opportunity for creators to examine commonplace issues in a way that it relates to the present; viewing current events out of context as a way of examining them from afar. This is something that I don’t believe is new or revelatory when it comes to analyzing the genre, but it is something that bears reminding as people attempt to predict the future of the genre as a whole.

The future of science fiction isn’t limited to literature.

Amongst other articles that I’ve heard reiterated most often is the decline in the fiction that is presented in book (or soon, in virtual book) form. While that might be the case, especially compared to the rise of competing genres, science fiction is not limited to the printed page. As technology progresses, new avenues have presented themselves as methods for the genre to thrive. Content-wise, science fiction is a genre that fits very well with any number of video game systems, and the rise of games with larger story arches, such as Mass Effect, Halo, Gears of War and others demonstrate that science fiction has moved forward with interactive stories that have appealed to a very large audience. I don’t believe that I’ve seen a comparable success with the any sort of video game that follows ‘high-browed’ literature style to tell a dramatic story.

Similarly, while the same isn’t true with films, it’s very clear that while they don’t win awards as consistently as dramatic films, they can still do very, very well when it comes to earning money for their creators and generating a wide following. One doesn’t have to look far beyond Star Wars, Star Trek, Lord of the Rings and Avatar in recent years to realize that people do like science fiction and fantasy in large numbers. Even looking at the critical reception of films such as Inception, Moon, District 9, and Pan’s Labyrinth to see that the genres are capable of being far more than ‘just’ crowd pleasers, but can also act as an introspective on the problems and conflicts that surround us in everyday life, addressing themes on identity and culture, morals and ethics, just to name a scant few.

Speculative fiction hawks have to get away from academic acceptance.

Listening to a piece on NPR the other day, I listened to Margaret Atwood note that it paid to be somewhat cautious when labeling works of fiction. She herself was caught up in a bit of drama when she characterized her works as being speculative fiction, rather than science fiction, characterizing her work as speculative fiction, creating a distinction between the genres, which rubbed numerous science fiction fans the wrong way, prompting a lot of speculation as to the nature of the genre. Reading over numerous book blogs and talking with fellow readers, it’s clear that there is a large rift amongst people as to how to accept science fiction.

Science fiction seems to largely be unclaimed by the literary academic fields, dismissed from major awards on numerous grounds. I noted the bitterness in an acquaintance’s words that a literary award was left devoid of science fiction and fantasy works, and I have had to wonder there is such attention paid to the status of the genre in these fields as other books have gained considerable attention in the mass media, such as Cormic McCarthy’s post-apocalyptic The Road to Lev Grossman’s The Magicians, both of which seemed to fall under a more mainstream section of the genre, while enjoying what appears to have been quite a lot of critical and commercial success. At the same time, other books, such as Cherie Priest’s Boneshaker, and Scott Lynch’s Lies of Locke Lamora seem to have done very well within their speculative genres, if the outcry of fans over the delays in the third book of Lynch’s stories and the quick sellout of Priest’s sequel novella are anything to go on.

Obviously, labels matter to an extent, but only when it comes to the marketing of said fictions, which makes the complaints about the literary discrimination seem only stranger to me, from both sides of the spectrum. While Atwood’s remarks seemed remarkably short sighted for an established storyteller, numerous science fiction novels that line my shelves are ones that I can point to as superior works of literature, groundbreaking even outside of their own genres. Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials was a series that provided some profound philosophical and religious points for me as a high school student, while Ray Bradbury’s novel Fahrenheit 451 provided an understanding and appreciation for knowledge that remains with me to this point. The fantastic fiction that is out there provides argument and understanding on par with numerous works of literature, and I heartedly believe that genre snobbery is something that is largely baseless and short sighted.

Despite the labels that are out there, books like The Road and The Year of the Flood demonstrate that there is a leaking out of the genre to other genres, and one doesn’t necessarily have to go to the science fiction section of the bookstore to find books that could largely fall within the genre. The label on the back of the book matters very little, and readers should be more aware of what else is out in print, especially as regular fiction catches up to the present. Given that we are increasingly living in a world that is science fictional, it stands to reason that some of that will bleed into our entertainment.

That all being said, the genre has survived for going on a century at this point, often as a crowd-pleasing genre, and one that certainly wouldn’t attract any academic or critical interest at various points in its history.

Fans need to understand that Speculative Fiction is about change… and it is changing.

If there is any one lesson that Science Fiction as its own, self-contained sub genre can impart, it is that the future is going to present a changed reality for all of those who inhabit it. The stories tend to follow how the protagonists can change their world for the better, usually based upon their actions. (This is a broad assumption, but one that I feel is valid) As such, it needs to be understood that the environment that fostered the genre in its earlier, formative days has given way to a world that has been drastically changed by economic, environmental and political events that leaves the current generation of readers with a vastly different understanding of the world as opposed to those who grew up during the Cold War.

Science fiction of the recent past was heavily influenced by world events: a book such as A Canticle for Lebowitz is one that likely could not have been written in the present day, ground breaking as it is. Fiction generally relates to its surrounding cultural contexts: It comes as no surprise that a film such as District 9 would succeed commercially and critically in today’s present environment, whereas a film such as Star Wars did the same in the 1970s.

As such, the works within the genre should be expected to change with times, as our understanding of the present (as well as our understanding of technology and the things that surround us) changes. Works of epic space opera such as Isaac Asimov’s Foundation Trilogy and some of the minor space arcs such as Timothy Zahn’s Conqueror’s Trilogy or Ender’s Game fit within their own contexts.

A common argument that has been talked about is that the futures presented in the past tended to be optimistic, with people believing that the future held a brighter future for humanity, which in turn translated into works of science fiction. Today, the opposite seems to be true, and as such, the fiction that tends to look backwards towards better days – fantasy – seems to be on the rise. At the same time, the science fiction that seems to be garnering more attention is the dystopia stories: Paolo Bacigalupi’s The Windup Girl and assorted stories, Cormic McCarthy’s The Road, and the multitudes of zombie novels that predict our demise in the rise of undead and lone libertarians seeking to preserve the American way of life out on their own. In a way, the most successful form of science fiction to come is likely Steampunk, which presents a darker form of science fiction, set in the past, where readers can feel comforted that their current world of advanced technology (or at least medical science) leaves us much better off than in the Victorian world.

Science fiction isn’t dying, dead or going anywhere.

I don’t believe that this is the case, at all: science fiction is a genre that has been seen to present some utterly fantastic and relevant stories for readers, addressing concerns of the present day in a twisted context. Looking beyond the artificial walls that genre terms provide, it’s likely that the stories that we grew up with are likely going to change a bit: the random adventure in a space ship with strange aliens and laser guns might not be quite as common in the wider genre world, but they’re likely to be replaced by stories that offer far different visions and interpretations of the future, by simple virtue of being written and created in the present day. ‘Real life’ is rapidly becoming something out of a science fiction novel, with hand-held computers, global positioning sensors and advances in all sorts of other technologies.

While some of the subject matter is changing, so to is the mediums that we can see the genre, and by this virtue alone, science fiction and fantasy is a genre that is here to stay, simply because it is a resilient genre that can fill numerous forms. Life itself spreads and survives on numbers, so to does the speculative fiction genres, where massive franchises of video games, movies and tie-in fiction enthralled millions of fans each day, generating excitement at the box office, blogs and conventions, where people look to the next really cool thing that they can take in. In its popularity, it is already bleeding into the mainstream consciousness through any number of forms. At this point, do mainstream literary awards matter for the genre as a whole, or signal some form of mainstream acceptance of the genre? I doubt it.