Conventional Counterinsurgency

It is interesting at how much an education can change your viewpoints on something. When I was in late high school, I picked up a book called Black Hawk Down, by Mark Bowden, which recounted the Battle of Mogadishu, waged by U.S. Special Forces and local militia forces as the U.S. military attempted to capture warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid. In the seventeen years since that initial battle, the firefight that occurred during that day which essentially provides a preview of what is to come.

Interestingly, the film adaptation of the book (and real life events) was released in December of 2001, just a couple of months after the attacks on the Pentagon in Washington D.C. and the World Trade Center buildings in New York City. Shortly after said attacks, U.S. Special Forces entered Afghanistan, and began was has been known as the Global War on Terror. Hindsight is a dangerous thing to use, especially when connecting major events, but looking back to the 1993 firefight in Somalia, it's clear that the U.S. simply wasn't geared towards fighting the type of warfare that presented itself in the Middle East and nearby hotspots. Throughout much of the recent history, the military had been positioned towards combating a major enemy, the Soviet Union, and subsequent international actions, such as the Gulf War of 1991, just a couple of years prior to the Somalia fight, seemed to affirm that warfare would remain as a style of centralized, organized warfare, against a static enemy who followed all of the rules. Somalia, a small action, seemed to be an abnormality, something that would be unlikely to happen again.

In his book, The Sling and the Stone, retired Colonel Thomas Hammes, of the United States Marine Corps, notes that this change in warfare was nothing new. The conventional nature of what is generally termed 3rd Generation Warfare, is a style of fighting that the United States had worked and became very good at, but historical evidence points to the emergence of a 4th Generation of warfare, which Hammes describes as a style of warfare that "uses all available networks - political, economic, social, and military- to convince the enemy's political decision makers that their that their strategic goals are either unachievable or too costly for the perceived benefit." (Hammes, The Sling and the Stone. St. Paul, MN: Zenith Press, 2006, 2). While he goes on to note that this style of warfare is an evolved method of insurgency, I believe that it is in fact the other way around - insurgency is a natural progression of warfare in this instance, and in a large way, 4th Generation warfare falls well within the general constraints of warfare as described by Carl Von Clausewitz in his book, On War:  "War is nothing but a duel on an extensive scale....War is therefore an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfill our will." (Clausewitz, On War, New York: Penguin Putnam, 1968, 101). Insurgencies, in this instance, seem to be made up of a new understanding of networks, combined with technology in unexpected methods to achieve a formidable resistance to an organized force.

The events that occurred in Black Hawk Down prove to be a good example of this style of warfare in action, but also the root causes that provide a valuable context for the conflicts that are ongoing. In the film adaptation of the book, a boy is seen to have alerted militia forces by holding up a cellular telephone to the sky as the Task Force Ranger helicopters flew overhead. Whether this happened or not, I'm not sure (paging through the book, I wasn't able to find mention of it), but the scene made me recall the November 2008 coordinated attacks in Mumbai, India, when several teams of insurgents, armed with guns and explosives, used mobile phones to help kill 173 and wound 308. The use of technology has become integrated with insurgency warfare, allowing for a low-key method for coordinating attacks and personnel without having the benefit of a major organized military. The fighting against Islamic fundamentalist forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and Pakistan are generally not at the hands of an organized military force acting on the behalf of a recognized government, but are representative of smaller political factions and warlords within established boundaries.

Despite this early evidence that there were changes in the ways that wars had been fought (Hammes cites Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia as examples of where this style of warfare had been seen), this ran counter to the then-nature of how the military conducted itself. "The essence of the American army, in the eyes of its career officers, is ground combat by organized, regular divisional nuts. Although the American army tolerates the existence of subcultures that do not directly contribute to the essence of the organization, these peripheral organizations do not receive the support accorder to the army core constituencies of armor, infantry, and artillery." (Nagl, Learning to Eat Soup With A Knife: Counterinsurgency Lessons from Malaya and Vietnam. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002, 6) The current War on Terror and ongoing conflicts is a demonstration of this, as the U.S. entered into major hostilities with Iraq and Afghanistan with one style and mindset of conducting the war, and discovering that entirely new methods were necessary when it came to countering insurgency forces.

Looking over the events of Black Hawk Down, there are elements of current counter-insurgency doctrine, or at least several best practices that highlight the differences between counterinsurgency warfare and organized maneuver warfare. Hammes notes that prior to the United Nations taking over the peacekeeping operations, U.S. Marines aggressively patrolled the streets of Mogadishu, talking with the local inhabitants, and recognizing when someone from outside that neighborhood entered. As the war in Iraq and Afghanistan have progressed, this has become a focus of the new Counterinsurgency doctrine, with soldiers encouraged to work closely with local inhabitants of neighborhoods and streets in an effort to remove insurgency forces from the local population, depriving them of population support. While watching and reading Black Hawk Down, I see a battle that was the result of a failure in vision and peacekeeping leadership. As Hammes notes, the decision to draw back into major bases, while leaving the population in the hands of militia forces was a drastic one that spelled out dire consequences for U.S. forces. At the same time, the leaders tasked with peacekeeping were unable to prevent insurgent and militia forces from operating and controlling the areas that they needed to protect. Similar actions would later occur in Iraq and Afghanistan, as the United States pulled out of the cities of Iraq in favor of major bases, only to find that violence levels dropped with the implementation of smaller bases amongst the populations. The so-called surge in Iraq was not simply more soldiers deployed to the country, but it was the change in tactics, with the manpower to carry out these changes.

In an article for Foreign Policy magazine, "The New Rules of War" March/April 2010), John Arquilla notes that the differences between conventional and unconventional warfare require entirely new methods of approaching warfare. Insurgency warfare (commonly referred to as 4G), allows for a far more decentralized style of fighting: Where prior approaches to countering insurgent forces had been to apply more force, "Nothing could be further from the truth, as the results in Iraq and Afghanistan so painfully demonstrate...the evidence of the last 10 years shows clearly that massive application of force have done little more than kill the innocent and enrage their survivors. Networked organizations like al Qaeda have proven how easy it is to dodge such heavy punches and persist to land sharp counterblows." (Arquilla, "The New Rules of War", Foreign Policy Magazine, March/April 2010)

The end result is that fighting a war the wrong way causes more problems, and ultimately fulfills the mantra of decentralized, networked insurgency groups: cause an invading power more problems than is worth it in order to convince their parent governments, and by extension, the population that supports it, that the efforts overseas are simply not worth it. The U.S. experience in Vietnam demonstrated that a massive conventional force had a lot of trouble fighting in ways that it was not prepared for. As a result, the U.S. military eliminated counterinsurgency planning and training in the aftermath, vowing to never again fight in a style of war that it was not prepared to fight. While a noble goal, it seems to have been a short sighted decision, even in light of continued successes of conventional military victories since then, such as with the British military against the Argentineans in the 1980s, and with United States forces against Iraqi forces in 1991's Gulf War. However, militaries do not get to pick how their opponents fight, and must be aware to all types of influences on warfare in areas that they are fighting: the methods of terrorist and militia style forces had existed for years, and examples such as Somalia demonstrated that these styles of fighting existed, and that adequate planning for such fighting had not been implemented. The result in Somalia was the death of 18 soldiers.

The results coming from Iraq and Afghanistan are much more dire, and I can't help but wonder what changes might have been made had the full context and lessons from Somalia had truly been learned by policy-makers and military thinkers at the time. As hindsight is much cleared now, it's easy to make such declarations, and even at this point, the future of warfare is still something that is very unclear. As such, the real lesson that the United States should learn is from the aftermath of Vietnam with the destruction of the planning and training for counterinsurgency fighting: planning and realization of conflicts is a key element in the military, as well as the ability to adapt far more quickly to actions and differences in fighting styles based on the long history that the United States has had with combat.

Politics and Speculative Fiction

Michael A. Burstein (via io9) highlights an interesting point when it comes to genre fiction in a post that looks at the politics of a writer and looking to the point where a reader is alienated. It's an interesting read, and I recommend checking out both his review, and the other review that he's referencing. The question arose though, that wasn't really addressed on a larger picture: When has science fiction been free from politics?

The very nature of the genre is one that can lend itself to political elements, on both the right and left sides of the house. Science Fiction is about the changing nature of humanity and people's work to understand the world around them, either in the future, past or present, but most of all, science fiction is influenced by the culture that helps to shepherd its creation. Looking over a couple of books that I've read and am somewhat more familiar with, there's a good selection of books that cover any number of larger political issues, either explicitly, or referentially.

The story in question in the original review is Fossil Figures, by Joyce Carol Oats in the anthology Stories, where a pair of brothers are made distinct: one is labeled a Demon Brother, and through the course of the story, it's fairly clear that he's a conservative politician, and by extension, it can be interpreted that Oats is deliberately labeling the Republican party as one of demons. (At times, I can't say that I disagree) Clearly, there is a political statement to be made here, and I felt that the distinction didn't feel out of place, but helped set the story in a modern, relatable setting that the reader will identify. This tends to fall along one of the more explicit references to modern politics, but other stories that have come out recently delve into some other hot-topic issues.

Karen Traviss's Wess'Har Wars deals heavily into environmental policy, from the first book, City of Pearl, where her main character, Shan Frankland, is set off on a mission to Cavanagh's Star, several hundred light years away, to locate a missing colony. As the story transpires, a weighty, pro-environmental message comes out, as Frankland comes across the Wess'har, an alien race that has very set opinions and beliefs on the sanctity of nature, and have gone through great lengths to protect Cavanagh's Star, to the point where they are willing to destroy entire races and species. This ties in closely with the futuristic world, and it is possibly one of the earlier books to be influenced on the modern attitudes of global climate change. Another author, Paolo Bacigalupi, has penned two novels (The often mentioned The Windup Girl and Ship Breaker), both of which deal with a closer time of climate change, and the influences that is has upon human society: there are major consequences. In Traviss's take, these consequences take the form of an alien race that's very dedicated towards rolling back some of humanity's mistakes with the climate: at our expense. Bacigalupi paints a very bleak picture of humanity as a sort of post-human individual, where people have adapted to literally eat rocks in The People of Sand and Slag.

Global Climate change is a major political issue at the moment, and I personally believe that this is the next major movement when it comes to science fiction themes and content, much as the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union sparked its own set of science fiction influences. Politically, Climate Change is one major issue, especially as its full effects aren't going to be instantaneous, but played out over a larger stretch of time. The future elements and implications associated with this have sparked the political world as people begin to think about how to plan ahead: the impacts on business and society are immense, and clearly, this is good trawling grounds for the near future. At the same time, a large number of people still harbor doubts about the concept, and in Bacigalupi's works, there's clearly a political message that will turn some people off, if a couple of the lower amazon.com ratings are anything to go by.

Going back a couple more years, a read through Philip Pullman's fantastic novel The Amber Spyglass, which took the story that had been set up by the two prior books in the series, and dropped an extremely thoughtful and controversial story within that addressed the nature of the fall of mankind and original sin. This largely anti-established religion story had been building throughout the His Dark Materials Trilogy since it the first book, but The Amber Spyglass was the fulfillment of most of those thoughts. Around the same time, J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series was aggressively attacked by people who fervently believed that the story was aimed towards converting children towards the occult, something I've always been puzzled by, especially with the release of Pullman's series, which could do a lot more serious damage to the Church itself with some of the ideas that were within it. Pullman's recent book, The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ, where Pullman himself noted that there was a deliberate attempt to rouse people in the name of free speech. (His comments are here.) The American political right and the much of the religious community seem to work very well together, and when it comes to fiction, religious is likewise ripe for speculative fiction, given the similarities between searching for meaning and context in one's life, or in the future. Pullman's words have certainly put off readers, given the content, but at the same time, there's quite a story behind those words, which readers would do well to think about.

One of the most notable examples of science fiction and politics merging is through Robert Heinlein, and his numerous books. Two of my favorites are Starship Troopers and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, both of which touch upon libertarian and the overall relationship towards government. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress struck me as being far more libertarian when I read it years ago (it's currently awaiting a re-read), with echoes of the American revolution within it, as the colonists on the moon sought to free themselves from a distant government, while Starship Troopers is notable for its anti-communist feelings, but also the responsibilities of people to be active in their society, contributing towards the good of the whole, rather than a government enforcing such values from the top down. These books came at a time when science fiction was heavily influenced by surrounding cultural occurrences, from the possibility of war to competing political ideologies.

The political elements of science fiction are generally shaped by the culture around it. I'll go back to the argument that I've generally made before, that art is created within a certain context, and that people will gain different appreciations for things at different points in time. Politics represent a major opportunity for authors because of the variety of underlying philosophies and outlooks that they tend to promote: conservative values look towards a smaller, less intrusive government, while liberal politics look to a more well structured and powerful central government, and the conflict between these two viewpoints has existed for as long as the country has been around. Doubtlessly, it will continue to rage on in the pages of science fiction novels as well.

Google Voice + Gmail Calling?

Internets! I need your help!

I use Gmail a lot, and just signed up for a Google Voice account, which has me thinking: I'm currently paying somewhere around $70-80 a month for my cell phone (which I use for home internet  as well), and I'm wondering if it would be worth dumping AT&T entirely and going over to Google, putting some of the money into getting internet at home (which is becoming increasingly needed) and getting a cheaper pay-as-you-go cell phone or jailbreaking my iPhone to do something similar.

A couple of questions for those who've used / done this sort of thing.

- How is Google Voice, and how do people use it? As a hub for any number of phones that you might have, or as a dedicated phone line? How's the quality?

- Can Google Voice be linked to Gmail?

- Can I concivebly jailbreak my phone and get a cheaper phone plan (small number of minutes, no data) with another phone company, or would it be worth buying a cheap pay-as-you-go phone and keep the iPhone as an iPod with a couple of apps on it? - Security-wise, what are the concerns?

Currently, I spend around a thousand a year on my phone. It's been a good investment for me since I got it about a year ago, but at the same time, if I can consolidate bills down to something much lower (or down to nothing, as Google Voice is free) that would be much more preferable, especially if I have wireless that can replace it? Given that my iPad and laptop would be a far more preferrable web browser than the tiny screen on my phone.

With the introduction of my iPad to the household, I've been using my phone differently - fewer games, more productivity and reminder applications (shopping lists, writing log, dictionary check book, etc, in addition to the text messages and phone calls that I get. The iPad has begun to handle most of the heavy duty writing (not that I did much writing on my phone), games, newspaper reading and when I can, web browsing.

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.

How I Blog

I have been blogging since the spring of 2003 or 2004 (I can't remember exactly when I started), but I really began serious writing about it for only a couple of those years, running and writing for a couple of different and diverse blogs out there. Writing online is a good thing, I'm finding, and if it is something that is incredibly easy to get started. Because of that, there are a lot of bad sites out there, from people who started doing pretty much what I started with, and I wanted to share what I have found that works.

Come up with a plan.

The first major step towards creating something that will be of public interest and a resource is knowing exactly what you are intending on writing about. This blog isn't really devoted to anything in particular: I cover a wide range of popular culture, from books to films, but I also touch on history of several areas (Military, Space, etc), or political commentary. It's decidedly not like my other blog, Carry You Away, which is devoted to various types of music, and while I'm not as active with it, I've maintained a very different sort of focus for it. I read a lot of book and music blogs over the course of a day, and the thing that some just can't step away from is what they're focusing on: books? Movies? Music?

But beyond the topic, the big goal is to fully understand what (or who) you are writing for. Coming up with a small strategic plan, which helps to lay out where you want the blog to go in a week, in a month, 6 months and a year, will help steer the focus of the blog, and thus approach your material in a prepared fashion, rather than off the cuff. This is especially important for sites that depend upon revenue to keep running, through ads and so forth. Growing a blog to gain a significant audience is especially good for reviewers, because A) People will respect and look to you for opinions while B) you can do a good service towards whatever community that you are writing for. Moreover, people tend to cluster based on their interests, and communities exist for science fiction, military history and music, and being able to write for these groups helps everyone by putting a good, polished opinion out there with sound reasoning.

Write well, don't write good

Grammar and spelling is important to writers. Once you understand what you are working towards, you must be able to articulate your opinions in a clear method in which you can address the topic at hand. In the case of a reviewer, you are talking about why a product is a good one, which comes down to two parts of the equation: what are the parts that make it worth spending money on, and what is not good? In the midst of that, you begin to speak towards elements of plot and style, characters and everything like that. When looking at literary theory and analysis, you will want to have a good background in what you're writing about: know your subject, read background material and come up with an argument that makes sense. In all cases, concrete evidence and sources are essential. In talking about a good book, I'm likely to do more than simply say that I liked the book: what specific instances make the book a good one, what element of history supports your argument. Gut feelings are good, but things to point to are even better.

Beyond writing well, it is also good to edit oneself. I have long since broken the habit of writing up a blog post in the actual window: entries and reviews are typed up in a different window, with a spell check, and with at least a read through to change things here and there. This extra effort goes a very, very long way. As someone at ReaderCon noted during a panel: “If you submit work to an editor, and they consistently find that they don’t need to change much, they’re likely to go to you again.”

Don't be a fanboy. (Or girl)

This falls more towards the annoying sites that I’ve come across, but whether this is towards a specific subject, author, publisher or reviews in general, don't be completely positive with everything, and try and write about more than one or two subjects: diversify. This comes in two forms: subject, and specific instances.

The blogs and sites that I like the most have a wide variety of material on them, and they can bring some of those things together over time in their arguments. I've largely passed on sites that shill a single type of book or film, simply because there's only so many times that I can read about X, Y and Z. While I'm a huge Star Wars fan, there's a lot of things wrong with the series, and a lot to nitpick. Specializing is one thing, overdoing it is another.

The same goes for any author or publisher. There are several authors that I've read extensively on, and reviewed, and while their material is good, it's not perfect, and it's better to point out these things, to be a bit critical, to avoid becoming someone who simply gives everything an A and moves. It destroys credibility, but it also weakens the review if there are things that the reviewer misses.

(This same sort of over-grading applies to graduate school and education in general, and it's something that is very, very annoying.)

Write a lot. Then write some more.

Now that you have your direction, you have your topics, and you're taking care to review things carefully, the final step is to keep plugging away with content. This is where I have issues with most reviewer blogs, because of the sheer volume of books that are reviewed by a single person. A variety of content is good, mixing reviews and analysis, because it demonstrates that there is a synthesis of what you are reading with commentary based on the same (or similar) subject. More content generally means more people coming in to see if you've written something new, and the big sites such as io9 and SF Signal upload a lot of content throughout the day.

When I blogged extensively in the music world, I saw a definite uptick of hits when I write every day for the site - the same is true for this page as well: more posts = more readers. If it's not practical to write every single day, regularity is key. I know that I check into Post Secret like clockwork on Monday morning after the page has been updated. People fall into habits, even with things like Google Reader and RSS feeds.

The point of all this isn’t to feel magnanimous about my meager efforts writing, but because it’s something that I’ve come up with over the past seven years through a lot of trial and error. I have only come to begin writing professionally in the past year or so, and in that time, I have met a lot of people who are in the same position that I am in – people with big aspirations. Hopefully, we will all reach that point someday. In the time being, writing is like any profession: it takes a lot of work, effort and persistence.

The Legacy of Star Wars

Starting today, Orlando Florida becomes Lando Florida for the multitudes of Star Wars fans flocking to Celebration V. When it comes to Geek History, the Star Wars franchise represents a formative element of popular science fiction in theaters, and helped to define the modern blockbuster movie. 2010 marks the 30th anniversary of The Empire Strikes Back, and even three decades on, the series gains a considerable amount of face recognition from the general public. Often, when I have suited up in Storm Trooper or Clone Trooper armor, I've found that people might not know what character I am, what film I'm from, but undeniably, they know that I'm from the Star Wars films. With its release, Star Wars has changed both popular culture and the film industry that created it.

When the first Star Wars film was released in 1977 by director George Lucas, most expectations from the production companies was that the film would not do very well, but within the first three months of its release, Star Wars reined in over $100 million, becoming one of the highest grossing films ever. Subsequent releases in 1980 (The Empire Strikes Back) and 1983 (The Return of the Jedi) continued the series, bringing in new fans to the series by expanding the story and pushing the boundaries when it came to special effects. When Lucasfilm Ltd. returned to the franchise in 1997 with a re-release of the original trilogy with updated special effects, and in 1999 with The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones (2002) and Revenge of the Sith (2005), it became clear that the franchise had endured in public memory and financially, were highly successful, even it was widely felt that the Original Trilogy were superior films.

In 1977, the first Star Wars film was filmed in a period of time when special effects were still in their infancy. The largest special effects film previously had been Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey in 1968, almost ten years earlier, a period of time which saw many special effects experts who had pioneered effects for that film retired. Thus, Lucas and his crew were forced to pioneer their own effects in motion capture on their own while they filmed the film, utilizing models and cameras together in very new ways. The Empire Strikes Back utilized its own advances in motion capture for several of the battles, and puppetry, as did Return of the Jedi when it came out. These advances helped to lay the groundwork for future films, and in the 1980s, a number of special-effects driven science fiction films were released, capitalizing on the successes of Lucas' trilogy, providing fans with more visual spectacles in the years since.

The Star Wars franchise is a notable one for retaining such a strong core group of fans throughout the years. Much of this success can be attributed to the branching out from the films as the single source of canon story. Marvel comics created their own Star Wars line, while the original Han Solo and Lando Calrissian book series have attained a sort of cult status. The introduction of Hugo award winner Timothy Zahn to pen a trilogy in the early 1990s launched an enormous series of books, many of which have been best sellers, continuing the story with new characters and transformations of the universe. This is after the huge numbers of toys, action figures and other collectables. In addition to pioneering special effects, Star Wars and Lucas pioneered the marketing of a film to a diverse and receptive audience, which keeps them in touch with the films long after they have left the theaters, whether its children reenacting their favorite scenes or readers wanting more stories after the credits have rolled.

The recent release of the prequel trilogy and the ongoing Clone Wars television series is another element to this continued marketing for the larger franchise as a whole. While the prequels don't match up with the originals for fans that grew up with them, it's irrefutable that they have been extremely popular, especially with younger generations. Their creation not only continues (or in this case, adds to) the story, but it works to revitalize the original films by introducing new fans who have yet to watch a series of films that most younger viewers will find outdated compared to what they will be used to with other, current films.

The notable element that this all leads to for Star Wars is the incredible fanbase that has been created as a result. Each Star Wars Celebration pulls in tens of thousands of people from across the world, while millions of others watch the films, read the books and listen to the soundtracks. Entire fan groups have come to life, from Theforce.net's FanForce, to the New York Jedi to the 501st Legion, which has just had its 5,000th member join. While numerous films and franchises look to create a comparable group of fanatics, the Star Wars franchise is the only one that comes to mind that regularly sees groups acting on their own in public, in costume to various charitable causes or fan gatherings. Personally, I'm a member of the 501st Legion, from behind my own helmet, it's very clear to see that the franchise remains because of the efforts that have been made to keep the fans happy with new content and stories.

The original Star Wars film that started all of this represented a number of changes in the way that films were marketed to fans, how the movies were filmed. George Lucas' creation alone is likely responsible for much of the current film industry that most science fiction fans (those who like the movies, anyway), which in turns helps to inform much of the public consciousness when it comes to science fiction in all genres.

David J. Williams' Burning Skies

A couple of weeks ago, I finished David J. Williams' second book, The Burning Skies, and came away with about the same reaction that I had with his first novel, The Mirrored Heavens: I liked it, but at points, I completely lost sight of the overall picture of what was happening in the novel. The second book of his sleek Autumn Rain trilogy, The Burning Skies is a thrill ride right to the end, and for anyone who's into cyber-punk and military science fiction, this is probably the trilogy for you.

Coming hot off the heels of The Mirrored Heavens, The Burning Skies picks up a number of the storylines that were left hanging. Where the first book could have easily been a standalone novel, this one isn't, picking up and leaving off with loose ends that need to be tied up. The Autumn Rain had been though to have been destroyed in the first book, but it comes back with a vengeance, going for a power grab that sees a massive gunfight in an orbital facility where the Hand (The President) has holed up. The aims of the Rain isn't wanton destruction: they represent a whole host of post-humanity interests with the idea of bringing mankind into some sort of evolutionary advance by taking control of planetary networks.

The breakneck speed of this book is complimented by Williams' writing style, which takes a little getting used to. I found myself reading through the book very quickly once I got the hang of the tense and what was going on, and writing in the present tense, as he does, allows for an unprecedented view of the action that is going on in the book. With much of the book action, it makes for an interesting read. Williams' has noted that part of his background is in video games, and for gamers, this book will most likely feel very familiar: it's quite the adrenaline rush.

At other points, however, the breakneck speed hampers the storytelling: there's a lot of points where I found myself having to re-read a chapter or two to bring myself up to speed with why the action was happening, as I'd lose sight of the goals of the characters and the story as a whole.

What I really appreciate about this trilogy as a whole is Williams' attention to detail when it comes to geopolitical elements, which should be a proper backbone in any military science fiction novel. In a lot of ways, he's done his homework conceiving of the future that he wants his story set up in, and worked on a lot of background material that helps to establish a baseline, telling a story within that context, something that not every military science fiction novel does. The result is an interesting one: the theme here is the complexity of political power, even in the future.

This sort of background is essential, especially for a book that is as fast-paced and complicated as William's trilogy. Fortunately, between the books and his website, there is quite a bit of background reference material that's been put into place, with diagrams, explanations, character lists, and so forth. The first two books have set up a fun ride. Soon, it'll be onto the last novel, The Machinery of Heaven, which promises to be a read that's just as exciting as the first two.

Kirby Krackle and Nerd Rock

There is a growing music scene that I've been hearing more from lately, Nerd Rock. There's been several artists that I've really liked: 'Weird' Al Yankovich, They Might Be Giants, Jonathan Coulton, Paul and Storm, John Anealio, The Decemberists, amongst others. A new find of mine, Seattle-based duo Kirby Krackle, joins this genre with their two albums, their self-titled debut disc (Kirby Krackle, 2009) and their latest release, E for Everyone (2010).

E for Everyone is possibly one of the best examples of Nerd Rock, with a great alternative – rock sound that sounds incredibly polished and energetic, with songs about superheroes, comic books, video games and geek life. Within minutes of finding the band’s name on twitter, I was able to listen to a couple of their songs off of their website, and within minutes, I had both of their albums off of iTunes. Of all of the bands that I’ve listened to, they’re one of the more exciting, with a great sound and some fantastic lyrics.

The album starts off with Vault 101, about the video game Fallout 3, with a good kick, but the really good start comes with On and On, a song about Wolverine from X-Men, and his own struggle with immortality, thanks to his rapid healing. The rest of the album is a fairly diverse grouping of songs that is much better than their first album. Secret Identity is as it sounds (about a guy with a secret identity – it’s not specific to any one superhero), Roll Over feels like a party song that references just about every 1980s cartoon that I can think of, while Henchman follows a character trying to be a henchman for a super villain – asking some good questions: what are their hours, and what can they offer for health insurance? – Ring Capacity opens with a bright sound and looks to Green Lantern for inspiration. Can I Watch You? Is a funky song about Uatu and Take it from Me is about Mega Man. The last three songs on the album, Great Lakes Avengers, Dusty Cartridges and Long Boxes and Going Home are some of the best songs on the album, if not Nerd Rock in general. Great Lakes Avengers is plain fun: a character tries to join the X-Men, Justice League, Fantastic Four, Green Lantern Corps, (amongst others), while trying to avoid the eye of the Great Lakes Avengers, who are apparently a disaster, being some of the worst superheroes of all time. The album turns from lighthearted fun to more serious fair with the light ballad Dusty Cartridges and Long Boxes, a sweet story of a geek in love with a geeky girl. Going Home ends E for Everyone on a great note about the joy of attending a convention, describing it in the best way that I’ve heard: “We're on the road, we're going home/To the place where wild nerds roam/With pretty girls and dudes in capes/Going to cons is our escape.” The sound is chalk-full of energy and feels perfect for blasting over the speakers as one drives over to any given convention. For all of those thinking of attending the upcoming Celebration V or Dragon*Con, this will be a good one to start off with.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqtjJOsLGYs&feature=player_embedded]

Nerd Rock is something that I’ve been looking for, and as I’ve looked, there’s a good variety of material out there. The internet is a good medium for aspiring artists, and in a number of cases, there’s a lot of material that wouldn’t normally work its way through the music industry: as people are able to make music on their own, there seems to be a greater variety of music, which bodes well for the larger geek-community. Artists such as John Anealio and Jonathan Coulton both have had success with their own music, self-released, about various subjects in the speculative fiction genres. Kirby Krackle doesn’t seem to have the same exposure to the fan community, but has gone with their own route, essentially self-publishing their music and selling it through iTunes and their own website, gaining fame in their own circles.

The album succeeds on its own because it’s not a gimmick. Singer-songwriters in general are at their best when they’ve put together a song that they and their audience can get behind and relate to: that’s exactly what Kirby Krackle seems to have done with their two releases, and E for Everyone feels like a refinement over their first album. They’ve found exactly what they want to sing about, and people who will listen to, and they’ve taken off from there. This album exudes confidence, skill and some very good songwriting behind the sound.  The duo, Kyle Stevens and Jim Demonakos, have some serious geek credit with them: Demonakos founded Emerald City ComicCon and has penned a graphic novel and founded a chain of comic book shops in Washington, while Stevens has released six albums with other groups. More importantly though, it sounds like they’re having a good time on stage.

This sub-genre of Nerd Rock is a positive thing for fandom: music is a fantastic venue for telling stories on its own (and Kirby Krackle does this with a couple of songs: Henchmen, Great Lakes Avengers, Dusty Cartridges and Long Boxes and Going Home) but is also a good venue for humor, reflection, and something in the music world for fandom to relate to. The inclusion of science fiction and fantasy elements in songs isn’t a new thing: just look at some of Iron Maiden’s songs for music about Dune, Lord of the Rings, D-Day and quite a bit more, but new artists bring fresh air to fans. I’ve gotten a kick out of a number of songs about some of my favorite things, and a new venue for speculative fiction is a very good thing, because music tells stories differently than prose or video.

The bottom line is: Kirby Krackle is on a roll with E for Everyone, and they’re a band that I hope to hear a lot more from in the coming years. In the meantime, they’ve left me with a fantastic album to listen to over and over.

The Dawn of the Nuclear Age

Today marks the 65th anniversary of the detonation of 'Little Boy', the first nuclear warhead in the U.S. arsenal to be used as an act of war, and changing the world upon its use. The bomb, which was followed by 'Fat Man' on August 9th, caused casualties in the hundreds of thousands, with its effects lasting far into the present day. The United States marked a change in policy earlier today when Ambassador John Roos attended the reemergence ceremony earlier today. The onset of nuclear warfare marked a massive change in the structure and hierarchy of the world.

The culmination of the Manhattan Project and the subsequent implementation of nuclear arms into the U.S. arsenal was the result of years of work and research on the part of the United States, and one that remains fiercely debated to this day. The first, and only use of the weapons over Japan sparked much attention, but in and of itself was a single element in a larger strategy that was used to extend U.S. military power abroad. Earlier bombing runs, notably with the switch from conventional explosives to incendiary explosives on the part of the Army Air Force over Japan yielded similar results to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings: a high number of civilian casualties and military targets were directly attacked, killing hundreds of thousands. The nuclear warheads are in and of themselves notable because of the sheer destructive force, and the ease to which an opposing force can destroy a comparable target when examined alongside prior methods. Previously, it required a large bombing force over enemy territory, where planes were susceptible to anti-air craft fire and mechanical breakdown. With a single air craft, the ability to do the same appeared.

It would seem that with the smaller force, and ease of destruction, that nuclear warfare would be an inevitable end to civilization as we know it. Large military forces require far more expenditure, logistics and manpower to accomplish their goals, with steep casualty costs, as seen in the casualty rates of the airmen who ventured over Axis-occupied territory during the Second World War. This misses the point, I believe, of the ease of destruction often predicted by science fiction authors. The scary thing itself isn't the bomb itself, but the system in which deploys it. The Second World War industrialized warfare to an incredible degree due to military necessity, and as a single nation almost untouched by war on its own borders, the United States found itself with the manpower, equipment and weapons in which to enforce its will across the world. When the Soviet Union joined the nuclear club, it acted as a balance of power, but one that tread upon very uneasy ground, as the potential for nuclear warfare grew immensely, and teetered on the edge at such moments like the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Fortunately, the fears of apocalypse never came to pass: cooler heads prevailed, and the implimentation of strategy that was designed to deter, rather than to destroy outright came to pass, but the introduction of nuclear weapons demonstrated that the balance of power had changed in a profound way: nations could enforce their will through the threat of force, and advances in science and technology allowed for a continued strategy on the part of the countries that were involved in the Cold War. In a real sense, with such advances, the world became a truly global, interconnected place, and affairs that had once been inconsequential now became important to the world as a whole.

The Nuclear age arguably never began with the Japan bombings, but earlier, as military strategy attempted to find ways in which to end the threat to U.S. interests. In doing so, unprecedented measures were undertaken: cities were destroyed, in what can be looked at as the closest thing to apocalypse and speculative fiction one has ever seen, and examining the aftermath provides for some almost surreal accounts: it is no wonder that people believed that the world would end with a flash of light, and it is uncomforting to realize that this sort of threat is one that is ongoing: the Cold War has since ended, but the threat of nuclear power is still one that will exist while such weapons exist, and will undoubtedly continue to influence those who look towards the future. What needs to be determined from policy makers and strategists as to the true risk, and to determine if the stakes are high enough.

The Original Mad Scientist: Nikolas Tesla

When looking at the roots of the modern world, one needs to not look further than one man, Nikolas Tesla, for a notable example. A bright mind from an early age, Tesla defines the term 'genius', and from an early age, demonstrated an ability for innovation and invention, and would later go on to enlighten the world: literally.

Born in January of 1856 in Croatia (then the Austrian Empire), Tesla's intelligence and intellect exhibited itself at an early age. In his autobiography, My Inventions, he noted that "suffered from a peculiar affliction due to the appearance of images, often accompanied by strong flashes of light, which marred the sight of real objects and interfered with my thought and action. They were pictures of things and scenes which I had really scene, never of those I imagined." He attributes this ability to strongly conceptualize and visualize as a key element in how he was able to invent various things, and early on, was frightened by this perceived ability. From an early age, he began to invent various objects: a hook to catch frogs, air powered guns, as well as dismantled clocks and at one point, fixed a fire engine's hose during a demonstration to the town.

Following this, at the age of six, he attended the Higher Real Gymnasium Karlovac, finishing out his time there in three years, instead of the four generally required. After he had finished, Tesla was stricken with Cholera. This incident encouraged his parents to send him to school for science and engineering, where they had previously hoped that he would join the clergy. Recovering, Tesla was permitted to join the Austrian Polytechnic in Graz in 1875,  where he further excelled and became further interested in physics and engineering, becoming interested in creating motors, a particularly early step in his work in alternate current.

In 1880, he relocated to Prague, Bohemia, at the Charles-Ferdinand University, before realizing that his academic pursuits were putting a strain on his parents. Leaving the school, he sought work at the National Telephone Company, before moving in 1882 to Paris, where he worked for the Continental Edison Company, working on electrical equipment, and two years later, he travelled to the United States, seeking to work for Thomas Edison. In a letter of recommendation from Charles Batchelor, a former employer and friend of Tesla's, it noted that "I know two great men and you are one of them; the other is this young man". This was a rather positive start to a relationship that would quickly sour. Tesla went to work for Edison, who had promised him $50,000 for his work to upgrade and repair generators, but shortly after the work was done, Edison claimed that he had been making a joke, and Tesla, furious, left the company.

Telsa then formed his own company, Tesla Electric Light & Manufacturing, where be began to work on his method of Alternate Current, which he believed was far cheaper and safer than the Direct Current that was used across the world by this point, but due to issues with the company, he was soon removed. In 1888, he began work under George Westinghouse at the Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Company, where he worked on his alternating current and studied what were later understood to be x-rays. Over the next several years, Tesla continued his work in electronics and physics.

During this time, both he and Edison became adversaries, with Edison invested in his Direct Current technology, while Tesla and Westinghouse backed Alternate Current. Edison implemented a public campaign against AC power, touting accidents and the fact that AC power was used for the first electric chair. The tide turned, however, when Westinghouse's company was awarded a contract to harness the power of Niagara falls to generate electrical power, which resulted in a positive, highly public and practical test of AC power, while the 1893 Chicago World Fair likewise utilized Tesla's power system in a highly public fashion. The result was a shift from the utilization of DC power to AC power, which allowed for a greater range for power, and over the next century, DC power was phased out.

In 1899, Tesla moved to Colorado Springs (where he was portrayed by David Bowie in Christopher Nolan's film, The Prestige), where he continued his experiments with electricity. He created several methods for transmitting power wirelessly, and in 1900, he began work on the Wardenclyffe Tower with funds from J.P. Morgan, a wireless transmission tower. The tower was completed, but the project ran short of funds, and was eventually discontinued. Tesla lost several patents at the same time, and in the years that followed, he continued scientific research, designing things such as a directed energy weapon, but found little support for his plans. In the last decades of his life, he began suffering from a mental illness, and passed away in 1943 at his home in New York City.

Tesla is a figure that has captured the imagination of the geek community, but is at the same time someone who is almost single-handedly responsible for the transmission of power that covers the nation, a necessity in modern life. In fiction, he has been portrayed several times (the aforementioned appearance in The Prestige is a good example), but is known for his intellect and forward thinking in science and technology. Several of his inventions, such as a death ray and wireless power, are still elements that belong to the science fictional realm.

What is most astonishing, reading over Tesla's 36 page autobiography, is his ability to conceive of projects and carry them out, understanding them almost completely. He appears to have had a very rare gift, one that borders on the supernatural, or to some, some sort of mental illness or disability that allowed him unprecedented abilities. In the truest sense how I see geekdom, Tesla fits all of the marks, a textbook case of following a passion extensively, and changing the world as he did so.

Defining Geek History

Before looking at exactly what 'geek history' is, the term must be defined, to give the term relevance, but also the content that should be looked at. With those elements in mind, an examination of the history behind the Geekdom becomes much easier, but also allows for someone to look at the greater significance for how exactly Geek History is in any way important.

A couple of years ago, Ben Nugent published a book titled American Nerd: The Story Of My People, a short book that was part biography, part history and part examination of culture. While I wasn't particularly impressed with the book as a whole, there were a number of very good ideas there, particularly in how he defined a geek or a nerd-type person. It boiled down to a fairly simple concept: a geek/nerd (minus the social connotations) is someone who is extremely passionate about any given subject, learning all that they can about it. They tend to be readers, and because of this attention, there's a tendency to miss out on some social elements that most people take for granted. The subject itself doesn't necessarily matter, and I've generally assumed that geeks/nerds tend to gravitate towards the science fiction / fantasy realms because the content is more appealing.

By this definition, education, literacy and an attention to detail are paramount, defining elements in how geeks and nerds are defined. In a country where education seems to be a point against an individual, it's even more important to understand the role that such things play with the public, and to recognize the importance of individuals in the past, and how their actions and knowledge has helped to define the present that we now know today.

In a large way, looking at geekdom in history is akin to looking at major historical figures who have the largest impact because of their contributions to events through conception, rather than just actions. These are people who help to develop ideas in a number of different stages, either formulating designs, concepts of plans, or helping to see some major thing through. With the Geek definition in mind, people such as this also tend to be very hands on with a lot of their work, being directly involved with their projects, or singlehandedly putting something together that changes how people think about the world afterwards. In some cases, this is a simple person to pick out: an author of a notable book, or a director of a film. Other instances, where science and industry are involved, this would be slightly more difficult, given the collaborative nature of some of these projects.

Looking at Geek History, then, is looking at the people who change the future because of their ideas, rather than predominantly implementing these changes themselves. These creators were instrumental in putting items in place that likewise changed how people interact with the world, and in addition to examining the people behind the advances, it's also important to look at how their works, whether they're inventions, novels, films or even events, helped to transform the world into a much different place.

Geek History largely comes down to the history of knowledge and ideas. Given the general rise in popularity in geek things, I tend to think of this style of history as one that looks to the past hundred to hundred and fifty years, simply because of the general proximity of the modern day, and more highly relevant to the modern sort of geek movement. However, there's elements of this line of thinking that extend far more into the past, mixing science and social histories that can likely go back to the beginning of the examination of thought itself.

The study and appreciation of the modern geek movement should look at the roots and elements that make up the modern geek, from the tools that are used to the entertainment that we soak up to the way that we think and approach the world. It's far more than the stereotypes, it's in everything that makes up those stereotypes.

Geek History Month

Website Asylum.com wrote yesterday that August should be Geek History Month, a time to examine the history in all things geek. It's not a website that I have any experience with: the brief announcement that they made had been retweeted from their own feed by several of the people that I follow, and it seems like a good idea.

Geek things seem to be on the rise, from the movies and books that have become increasingly popular with mainstream audiences to the President of the United States dropping in references to photo ops and speeches. Reading over the news every day, I feel like I am reading stories of advances, events and situations that can only exist in a science fictional universe, and it seems that a dedicated month (while somewhat silly) looking over some of the people, events and works that have created the world that we live in a good thing, and a good excuse to write about it.

A society where geeks, and more importantly, their passion for knowledge, science, literature and technology, are valued is something to be treasured indeed. A love for knowledge is something that drives people to achieve great things. In the past century, there has been a remarkable boom in technology, science, and literature that has completely redefined our understanding of the universe, and our very existence.

Earlier last month, I brought along my iPad to my grandmother, as I'd loaded some pictures from my Brother's wedding onto it, and wanted to demonstrate what it would do, as she had been talking about some alternatives to her current internet system, WebTV, which has become increasingly outdated. When I left, I remembered that she had been born in the 1930s, when radio reigned supreme for the public, and since that time, she has seen much in the way of technology, from the first atomic bombs to the first men into space and onto the moon, from when computers once filled a room, to ones that could fit into one's hands and from the first films on the silver screen to the digital theaters' ability to bring just about anything to life.

Looking back at the history of the twentieth century, it seems that much of what has happened over that time is the product of advancements of knowledge, and the people who pursued knowledge, took risks, and sought to entertain, and along the way, defined our nation, and our world, by their actions. It's entirely appropriate that these achievements be looked back upon, as everything that has happened in the past has influenced the present and beyond, creating the geeks of today.

The Upcoming Film Slate

Inception was amongst my most anticipated film of 2010 for this summer, and having seen that film in theaters (although I would very much like to see it once or twice more, soon), focus inevitably moves towards the next big thing to watch. With San Diego Comic Con over, and with it, a large rush of new trailers and films announced, or at least expounded upon. Looking at what's coming up, there are a couple of films that have caught my eye, which will be released in the next year or so. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows: Part 1

When it comes to Harry Potter, I've enjoyed the books, but I've really disliked the movies. The first and second films were simply abysmal, childish and completely didn't mesh with my vision of what the books were, while The Prisoner of Azkaban was marvelous, film-wise, but lacking in terms of adaptation. I haven't seen the movies that follow, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, The Order of the Phoenix and the Half Blood Prince, and I've heard varying degrees of quality from the lot of them. Still, the films look like they are getting better, and hopefully, I'll catch up with the films in order to see the first of the last Harry Potter film in theaters. Overall, I've really liked what I've seen from the trailers, in terms of film quality and the story, and if anything, it'll hopefully be fun to watch.

Tron: Legacy

I first watched the original Tron earlier this year, and I was absolutely blown away by it. The graphics are certainly outdated, but that hardly matters. Now, the original cast is back, aged in real time, and along with it, a stunning new version of the computerized universe, which, from all appearances by the trailers and VFX reels, looks simply stunning. This film has me left with some extremely high hopes, and I'm interested to see where they can go with the story, twenty or so years later. With the release of the first film, there was a certain understanding as to how computers and cyberspace was used. Now, in the age where computers are a major part of entertainment and work, that understanding has changed, substantially. Hopefully, the film will change with that change in understanding.

Battle: Los Angeles

This film is one that has seen the occasional news, but with Comic Con, there were several major announcements, and a trailer released, which has gotten me very interested in what this one will be about. The basic premise is that the film will mesh Independence Day and Black Hawk Down, as the Marines confront an alien invasion in Los Angeles. My guess is that this film will be approached much like we did District 9, with an original story, marketed with an interesting viral marketing campaign, similar film styles and so forth. The basic premise, marines vs. aliens, is already a fun one. What's gotten me more interested is that this film is being approached as if it were a war film. The aliens will be organized, logical, and aren't going to be destroying things like monuments. Plus, there will be combat. It should be a fun ride. No trailer yet, but that should be coming soon.

Sucker Punch

The trailer for this new Zach Snyder film looked just plain awesome. I have very little to go on: a trailer that combines dragons, Samurai, rockets, Nazis, alien planets, and a bunch of girls, and a description of 'Alice in Wonderland plus machine guns.'. The film doesn't look like it's going to be anything that's going to be thought provoking or anything like that. This looks to be the film that will be balls to the wall action, coupled with Snyder's fantastic visual style that he's worked on in 300 and Watchmen.

Thor

The trailer for this film leaked this morning, and honestly? It looks much better than I thought it might. Thor was a film that I wasn't all that interested in watching, but it looks like it could be quite a bit of fun, especially as Marvel dips further and further into the Avengers arc that will be tying all of their films together. There is enough action and familiar characters to make this film appear to feel very much at home with the universe that's being created, and it's just one further step in a bigger plan that Marvel has going.

Monsters

Titled Mexico's District 9, this film has also been on my radar, with a couple of short teasers and photos. The premise follows a NASA satellite that had been searching for life crashes south of the United States border, bringing with it something, which blankets all of Mexico in a quarantine zone. A journalist has to bring someone across the area to the U.S., and they'll be coming across these aliens. It looks like there'll be a bit of a pointed message with it, and that worked well with District 9. Plus, it's an original/independent film, which has me even more interested, getting some fresh voices to the genre.

Source Code

The last film on the list is Duncan Jone's Source Code, which has wrapped filming in Montreal, and according to Jones, should be out early in 2011. Jones created the fantastic film Moon, which has become one of my all time favorites, and is putting together a story of a soldier who has to go into the minds of the victims of a train bombing in order to discover who the perpetrator was. Jones is going to be someone to watch with the genre, and I have a feeling that this film will be a very interesting one to watch.

The To Read List

With a couple of books finished and out of the way, it’s time to move along with the next book on the reading list. Currently, I’m reading a couple of books for online assignments, and after that, there’s a couple of more, which I haven’t started yet.

Now that I have a very portable computer, I decided to walk around the apartment and see exactly how long my To-Read list really is. And it’s pretty long…

Currently Reading:

How To Live Safely In A Science Fictional Universe, Charles Yu

The Last and First Men, Olaf Stapledon

At Bat:

Ambassadors from Earth, Jay Gallentine

Footprints In The Dust, Various

Whirlwind, Barrett Tillman

Stories, Neil Gaiman, ed.

Infoquake, David Louis Edelman

Kraken, China Mieville

River Of Gods, Ian McDonald

Masked, Lou Anders

The Left Hand of Darkness, Ursula K. LeGuin

Snow Crash, Neal Stephenson

Nights of Villjamur, Mark Charan Newton

The City and the City, China Meville

Next Up:

Shadowbridge, Gregory Frost

The Dervish House, Ian McDonald

Johannes Cabal: Necromancer, Jonathan Howard

Woken Furies, Richard K Morgan

Avandari's Ring, Arthur Peterson

The Shariff of Yrnameer, Michael Rubens

The Lovely Bones, Alice Sebold

The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrun, JRR Tolkien

The Machinery of Light, David J. Williams

I’ll get to these… Sometime.

Makers, Cory Doctorow

Stardust, Neil Gaiman

World War Z, Max Brooks

Use of Weapons, Ian Banks

The Player of Games, Ian Banks

Matterhorn, Karl Marlantes

The Gun Seller, Hugh Laurie

Miles from Nowhere, Nami Mun

The Day of Battle, Rick Atkinson

The Battle for Spain, Antony Beevor

D Day, Antony Beevorr

War Made New, Max Boot

Fatal Decision, Carlo D'Este

The Big Burn, Timothy Egan

Race of the Century, Julie Fenster

The Sling and the Stone, Thomas Hamms

1959, Fred Kaplan

The Power Makers, Maury Klein

The Echo of Battle, Brian Linn

Paris 1919, Margaret Macmillan

Triumph Forsaken, Mark Moyar

Combat Jump, Ed Ruggero

The People's Tycoon, Steven Watts

Grave Peril, Jim Butcher

Summer Knight, Jim Butcher

Death Masks, Jim Butcher

Blood Rites, Jim Butcher

Dead Beat, Jim Butcher

Small Favor, Jim Butcher

The Amber Wizard, David Forbes

Good Omens, Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett

The White Mountains, John Christopher

Dead Until Dark, Charlaine Harris

Inherit the Stars, James Hogan

A Game of Thrones, George R.R. Martin

A Storm of Swords, George R.R. Martin

A Fest For Crows, George R.R. Martin

A Clash of Kings, George R.R. Martin

Trading in Danger, Elizabeth Moon

Command Decision, Elizabeth Moon

Marque and Reprisal, Elizabeth Moon

His Majesty's Dragon, Naomi Novik

Revelation Space, Alastair Reynolds

Redemption Ark, Alastair Reynolds

Red Mars, Kim Stanley Robinson

The Ghost Brigades, John Scalzi

The Last Colony, John Scalzi

Zoe's Tale, John Scalzi

Atonement, Ian McEwan

The Book on the Bookshelf, Henry Petroski

How to Build Your Own Spaceship, Piers Bizony

Vampire Taxonomy, Meredith Woerner

Edison's Eve, Gaby Wood

Dry Storeroom No.1, Richard Fortey

Hot, Flat and Crowded, Thomas Friedman

The Purpose of the Past, Gordon Wood

Soylent Green

My girlfriend and I have begun a sometimes-weekly thing, where we'll pick out an old science fiction film and watch it, a sort of date night in. A while ago, I solicited my Facebook networks for a list of such movies that I needed to watch; the list grew immensely, and ever since, I've been picking up a lot of these older films as I find them. I've found a couple thus far: Planet of the Apes, 2010: The Year We Make Contact, Alien(s), Omega Man, Logan's Run and recently, Soylent Green.

I had picked this film up, because it was on sale, but also because it has coined one of the absolute classic phrases in the genre: "Soylent Green is people!", screamed at the end of the film by the lead star, Charlston Heston, after he discovers the truth about the food that people have been eating all along. Most of these films, I've found, have been highly entertaining ones, watched simply for their status in the genre. But with Soylent Green, I found, there's a very relevant message in the film: when people and nature compete, mankind will do what it takes to win, even if by winning, mankind turns to somewhat drastic things in order to continue to survive.

Oddly, I was somewhat reminded of one of my favorite (and frequently mentioned) books, The Windup Girl, by Paolo Bacigalupi. Both works feature near-future societies, where human populations have overrun their natural food supplies, and in a large way, are dependent upon larger companies to feed the larger population. The Windup Girl does this in a sophisticated, modern manner, while Soylent Green demonstrates the food shortages in a particularly excellent scene when Heston's character, Thorn, confiscates a stash of food from a rich murder victim's apartment, bringing it home for his elderly friend Sol.

At the onset of the film, set in 2022, the Soylent Corporation is the leading manufacturer of processed food, and is the only thing between the starving, overcrowded New York City, and total chaos of a hungry mob. Introduced is Soylent Green, created from plankton, which is rationed out to the people in the streets. Investigating the murder of William Simonson, Thorne discovers (from a report in Simonson's home) that the oceans have become depleted, and that the man had been a prominent member of the food company. The murder trail leads to a horrible conclusion: unable to cope with a vanishing resource, the company began to take dead people, and processed them as the namesake foodstuff. Unable to cope with what the company had been doing, Simonson arranged his own death.

At the heart of the action and dystopia that is presented, the film is an excellent cautionary tale, one that has an exceptionally well thought-out world that is frighteningly realistic. Recently, Charles Stross wrote an interesting blog post about the number of people that it would take to maintain the current level of society. Where most of everything that we do is supported in high percentages, from the design of the cars that we drive to the medicine that keeps us alive. When it comes to food, he notes that in the 1900s, it took around twenty to thirty percent of the work force to provide food for the entire population. Now, however, it takes .5 to 1% of the population, with an additional couple or percentage points to distribute it all, to do the very same thing. Just go to your grocery store and look at what is available at  your arm's length to see the variety of food. The logistical elements that go into creating everything there is enormous, automated and the nightmare of every green-eco activist who advocates for a clean living. With the preservatives, chemicals and emissions from cows that go into the whole process, there's a major impact to the world around us that just isn't visible to the average consumer. This makes the entire process far more scary, and in my mind, brings us quite closer to the worlds that have been presented in these sorts of bio-punk stories.

As climate change occurs and becomes more noticeable, it's likely that the science fiction genre will begin to look far more closely at this sort of science and dystopian future as a means of creative origin. Already, it's fairly easy to point to Bacigalupi's fiction, but in other venues, such as Lightspeed Magazine, there's already been a story about a similar future, and as these stories will undoubtedly become true, it's entirely likely that a lot of these authors will see their stories come true, in some form.

I don't think that I'd like to see the overpopulated world of Soylent Green or of The Windup Girl. The huge numbers of people, competing for food, and at the mercy of the food corporations is a frightening vision of the future, but in some ways, it's already becoming reality.

#1b1t

Earlier this year, Wired Magazine tried out something using twitter, #1b1t (1 Book, 1 Twitter), based off of a Chicago literary program called 1 Book, 1 Chicago. The first book chosen by vote was Neil Gaiman's American Gods, published in 2001, and which has since gone on to receive wide acclaim. It was a book that I had picked up while I was in high school, and had read, over the course of several years, picking it up and putting it away as other distractions came up. Ever since, I've been looking for a good excuse to pick the book back up and re-read the entire thing (especially now that I pay far better attention to what I'm reading), and this seemed to be as good an opportunity as any.

American Gods is an absolutely stunning novel, and one that I've grown to like over the past couple of years as I've gone back to remember what it was about. Re-reading the book this time around proved to be an enlightening experience. My opinions about the book have not changed, and indeed, having now fully understood the story, and with more of a head for storytelling, characters, writing and everything else that goes into a novel, I was impressed once again with the rich story that Gaiman had put together.

The book is the story of America, reaching deep into the roots of the country and providing one of the best examples of Americana that I can think of. Gaiman examines the spiritual core (or lack thereof) in America, spinning a story that pits new gods against old, with Shadow, an ex-con fascinated by coin tricks, at the center of it all. Interludes go back into the past and present of various gods incarnated, walking amongst the people, struggling to reclaim their former glory. Norse, Egyptian, Slavic and others populate the story, as Shadow, and his handler, Wednesday, go to gain support for the older gods, who run the risk at being pushed aside by Modern society and all that it brings. While doing so, Gaiman layers on an intense story that carries multiple facets, with smaller storylines ultimately supporting the larger ones, in a very rewarding fashion. The book is a rich literary soup, and is one to be savored. I have no doubts that I'll return in the future for more.

The crowdsourcing efforts that had been put together was an incredibly interesting one to me. While I doubt that everyone on Twitter was reading the book (maybe a fraction?), it was interesting to watch the updates fly past as people around the world read the same thing that I did, at the same time (or roughly the same time - I suspect that there are still people finishing up the book). What I liked the most about it though, was that this didn't come across as a major viral marketing scheme, publicity stunt or some other event that was designed to sell books to readers. This is the value of the internet at its heart, allowing people to gather, discuss and connect across the world over common subjects. It's a little wishy-washy, (and I'm sure that Gaiman and his publishers are quite thrilled at this), and I believe that it served as a good avenue for discussion, that's user-borne, rather than organization borne.

American Gods, I thought, was a surprising choice for such a project. The book had been out for just under a decade, and in the speculative fiction genre, but, about America, a place that is just one of many that twitter extends to. Reading over the book, however, I can see that this was probably one of the best books to have started such a project with. While taking place in America, the book is about other places, all brought together in a void in the world: America, where Gods did not exist naturally, and where they cannot stay. Despite what a lot of people think about the country, it is still a melting pot, and I suspect that even overseas readers found a bit of their home transplanted with their long distant relatives who have come across to the country.

At the same time, I finished this book right after I finished another classic author of Americana: John Steinbeck's To A God Unknown, of which this book is an almost perfect companion to, looking at the nature of faith and of higher power, and my feelings on American Gods were undoubtedly helped along by reading that book.

If you haven't read it, Gaiman's book is easily one of the best that I've ever read, and easily an early classic in the genre, one that I cannot wait to return to. If you have, you should read it again. The story of faith, living gods and folklore make this a superb, thought-provoking read.

The Ground Zero Mosque

There has been controversy over the Islamic community center and mosque that has been approved in downtown Manhattan, near where the World Trade Centers once stood. Given the events that have transpired there almost a decade ago, it's certainly a project that was expected to gain a bit of attention. However, the conduct of elected, or otherwise public officials has been inexcusable, intolerant and misinformed as to the very nature of the war that the United States is currently engaged in.

People have been urged to protest and resist the introduction of the mosque and center because it represents an unnecessary provocation, and an insult to the survivors and families of those who have perished there, which is utter nonsense, and only highlights the ignorance of said officials and those willing to blindly follow them. The war abroad was most certainly begun by radical Islamic militants, acting in the interests of a foreign organization, which does elevate this conflict to a war, when two parties attempt to seek out some sort of political and practical gains by entering into hostilities. At the same time, such sentiments lump together the entirety of a global religion, of which these radical elements are only a small part.

As of 2009, it was believed that almost 23% of the global population identified themselves as Muslims, or about 1.57 billion people, across the globe, with a fifth living in countries where the religion is not a dominant one. Given the fairly localized nature of the fighting, with occasional strikes towards the western societies and the nature of the fighting, it's fairly clear that there is far more that characterizes this war than simply a lot of religious people getting really angry. The global war on terror is an incredibly complicated act against a specific number of political groups, who use their faith to guide them and provide some set of misguided reasoning to support their political beliefs.

Depending on which wartime theorist that you subscribe to, warfare is generally a political act on the behalf of one group against another, and from everything that I have seen over the past couple of years, that is exactly what some of the larger and more well known groups are doing, from Al Qaeda to the Taliban to Hezbollah. Even more worrisome is their ability to convince young Muslims, who come from a poorer, disenfranchised area of the world, to blow themselves up. It's a hell of a way to vent some misguided frustration and anger. It demonstrates incredibly poor government and leadership in those areas, where problems are directed elsewhere, and not addressed at their source.

The source of the World Trade Center destruction was Al Qaeda, not the people who want to build a community. I suspect that Palin's words are deliberately inflammatory, designed to gain as much attention as possible, for the political beliefs of her own personal self, and that of her party, seeking to gain approval from the anger of those who don't comprehend the differences between political terrorism and a religious community. To be sure, this religious community does harbor some very bad people, some angry people, and people looking for direction, which makes it prime for recruiting for overseas terrorist groups. But, one must also take into account the real anger and violence that boils up elsewhere, either singularly or in larger groups. There have been several attacks against federal authorities over the past year from angry people, but there is a discrepancy between the reactions taken in each case.

The real anger and action for the 9-11 attacks must be taken against those responsible, while we must all take the time to fully understand the nature of the conflict that is brewing around us, rather than blindly following misguided chatter from those who seek power, on both sides.

ReaderCon Wrap Up

This last week, Tor.com has posted up eight of my panel recaps from ReaderCon. The convention was quite a bit of fun, and the panels that I attended (and the book room) was quite a bit of fun to go to.

Here's what I wrote about over there:

ReaderCon Panel Recap: “How I Wrote The Hundred Thousand Kingdoms”

At a convention that featured so many writers, and aspiring writers, panels that helped to illustrate the workings of a book were invaluable help to all interested, but also to those who really enjoyed the books in question. Jemisin’s talk about The Hundred Thousand Kingdoms felt like a behind-the-scenes look at what I thought of as a very good book.

ReaderCon Panel Recap: “Everybody Loves Dirigibles—Science For Tomorrow’s Fiction”

Additionally, it is good to keep in mind that not all technologies last, a couple examples being talking cars and vending machines, which were noted as being highly irritating, but somewhat futuristic. At the same time, things such as the eight track tape, laserdisc and high definition discs have also gone by the wayside because of consumer demand. The same can reasonably be expected of other technologies. They might be fairly good ideas, but that in and of itself might not be an indication of longevity.

ReaderCon Panel Recap: “The New And Improved Future of Magazines”

...good magazines required good editorial oversight regarding its selection of stories and authors in order to bring about a certain level of quality for the magazine or anthology as a whole. This, rather than the specific format in which the stories are released, is the more important factor in gaining readers and retaining them.

ReaderCon Panel Recap: “Citizens of the World, Citizens of the Universe”

One of her main assertions was that science fiction had become formulaic. Going back as far as the classics of the 1970s—with works by notable authors such as Arthur C. Clarke—she found that there was a predominantly American outlook on the world. This did not make sense simply because the world is far too diverse and different between cultures.

ReaderCon Panel Recap: “Interstitial Then, Genre Now”

Genre, according to Michael Dirda, is really a creation of the marketplace, an artificial wall that helps publishers and marketers push towards dedicated audiences. This is a topic that I’ve covered a couple of times in my own writing, and the concept of a genre not an unfamiliar one - it is a term that is really tacked on afterwards, based on the story elements that are put together in the story.

ReaderCon Panel Recap: “Folklore and its Discontents”

...folklore, as a definition in a form of nostalgia, is a way of looking into the past to undocumented claims or stories—things people believed to be true as opposed to something that was empirical and well documented. Someone on the panel probably said it best when they said: “A folk song is something that nobody ever wrote.”

ReaderCon Panel Recap: “Global Warming and Science Fiction”

nuclear warfare was generally regarded as an event that was outside of the general population’s control, removed by several levels of authority, while the nature of global warming is something that is really the cumulative result of the general population. Where one is a wholly dramatic, singular (or limited) event with massive consequences at the onset, global warming is something that has arisen slowly, with little attention paid to it and with the general population not likely to take any major steps to change until there are catastrophic results.

ReaderCon Panel Recap: “New England, At Home to the Unheimlich”

A lifelong New England resident, I can attest that there is something that certainly adds to the feeling of horror and gothic wonder that seems to have been a major influence for some of the seminal works in the genre, and ever since taking a class offered by Brett Cox, I have felt very differently about my state of Vermont, with a sense of wonder for the mountains, small towns, rivers, and the weather here.

Inception

Christopher Nolan's latest film, Inception, is one of the best films that I've ever seen, combining an original story with a compelling future, providing a cerebral science fiction thriller that represents the very best of what the genre is supposed to do: provide a compelling and entertaining narrative.

Inception is an event that is a beginning, and describes the goal of the characters of the film. As the film opens, Leonardo DeCaprio's character, Cobb, is caught while trying to break into a businessman's (Saito, played by Ken Watanabe) dreams, and is offered a job to plant an idea into someone's head. Cobb specializes in a particular form of theft: entering a person's mind during their dream state, and stealing particular secrets in a form of corporate espionage. Cobb is a haunted character, who's own guilt and demons have been coming back to haunt him. Exiled from the United States, his new job, to plant the idea of breaking up a corporate empire in the mind of an heir Robert Fischer (Played by Cillian Murphy), is the only thing that will allow him to return home to his children, after being forced away from the U.S. after the death of his wife: her suicide had appeared to be at his hands. Assembling a team of specialists: Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Arthur, the point man, Tom Hardy as Eames, the forger, Ellen Page, Ariadne the Architect, and Dileep Rao as Yusuf, the Chemist. They go to work building a complicated dream state for their target, with the plan to plant an idea deep inside his consciousness, where it would take form and provide the target with the motives to break apart his inheritance.

Inception is a complicated, fantastic and brainy film, and is unequivocally a brilliant work of fiction, tying together different story elements: the job at hand, placing the idea into Fischer's head, and looking at what makes up an idea, all within several different worlds that have been created within the minds of the characters. While viewers are generally used to any number of time jumps to help tell the story: flashbacks, jumps forward and so forth, this is the first story that I've seen tell several stories within concentric time spans (i.e., one within the other), with each running at a different speed. The story moves forward in a fairly straightforward fashion as the team moves deeper and deeper into Fisher's unconscious mind to plant their own inception: Fischer must break apart his business.

One of the things that works the best with this film is the subtle, science fiction elements that are placed in the film throughout. There is unnamed technology that allows for the shared consciousness, referred to as a military project for training soldiers, but something that seems to have branched out into the larger world. In one particular scene, Cobb and Saito visit Yusuf, the Chemist, who demonstrates his drugs by revealing a sort of opium den of dreamers, people who have spent too much time in the dream world. The scene, lit by bare bulbs and dim shadows, is as hauntingly beautiful as another demonstration scene in The Prestige, one of Nolan’s prior films. The soft touches here show restraint, but at the same time, reveal a near future world that has elements of science fiction and cyberpunk, but in a way that is far less radical, and in my mind, more realistic than other stories.

At the story progresses, Cobb is haunted by his wife, who died after remaining in the dream state for far too long. Cobb noted that she has been causing problems with some of his work, sabotaging his efforts, and as Ariadne prepares for building the heist, she learns the very real dangers of the dream state, and of inception in the first place: Mal and Cobb had entered a deep dream state, one where they remained together, building and rebuilding their own world, and eventually, losing their grasp on reality. As Cobb worked to get her to leave the dream world, he planted the idea that if she were to kill herself, she would awaken. Upon returning to the real world, she continued to believe that she was in the dream state, and once again, killed herself. This plot element is one that grows alongside the heist, and proves to be one of the most interesting elements of the film: what is reality?

This question is something that has long been asked from the science fiction medium, from films such as The Matrix, and television shows such as Life On Mars/Ashes to Ashes. The film takes an interesting look at what the perceptions of one's reality are. Within the dream state, people tend to operate within that context, and accept that reality for what it was. Inception does an interesting job with this line of thought, and it does look at this question in a different manner than some of the other works. Here, the characters know full well that they are operating within a different world, but even then, there are real risks in what they are doing. This is assuming one of two possible endings for the film: that Cobb returns safely to his home, reunites with his children and the story closes off normally. The alternative is that Cobb himself has remained in the dream world, and that the entire film had become a reality that he’s unable to escape from, and essentially, he is lost within his own mind. The ending itself brings the film from a good one to a truly great one, something that is sure to keep people thinking and talking about the movie for years to come.

Despite the film's obvious strengths, there are some weak points in the film. The chief among these is the characters, who get very little in the way of the essential back-story that allows them to become relatable characters. Most of the team, while they get some time, are just fixtures against the background, where they operate simply to fulfill plot elements. Cobb is really the only character who has any sort of treatment towards this, and then, it is really only along the lines of putting major plot elements into place.

Secondly, for a film about dreams, the internal mechanics of the dream world seemed to be fairly well in order. While this can be argued away as some sort of side effect of having someone create the world in the first place, there is very little surrealism that is generally experienced with dreams. Certainly, with my own, I have a feeling of confusion, followed by: "I thought that was really happening?", given how strange some of them can be.

At the end of the day, despite some of the drawbacks to this film, it falls under the same list of films that I love for many of the same reasons: they are original, intelligently written, acted and conceived of; movies such as Moon, District 9, The Fountain, Pans Labyrinth, Minority Report, and a couple of others. Inception easily meets the same requirements of those films, and I have no doubt in my mind that Inception will be just as highly regarded as these films are.

To A God Unknown, John Steinbeck

One of the latest books that I've read recently is John Steinbeck's To A God Unknown, his second novel, and a recipient of the Nobel Prize in Literature. The story, which looks to the Bible, ancient myths, paganism and several other influences, weaves together a story about belief and faith, mixing reality and fantasy in what I would really call a speculative fiction novel.

Set in the 1800s, the book follows the story of the Joseph Wayne, a Vermonter, who yearns to go out west, and receiving the blessing from his father, he does so, only to learn that his father has passed away shortly after he settles in California. At that moment, Wayne believes that his father's spirit and soul has become imbued with the giant oak tree next to the house, and in his own way, be worships the tree. His three brothers move out west to his farm, and for a time, the valley is teeming with life. The brothers come across a rock in a glade, with a stream coming out of it, and discover that it is a sacred place to the Indios. Soon thereafter, Benjy, their youngest, alcoholic brother, is killed in a scuffle by Juanito, one of the farmhands, who vanishes.

One brother, Burton, is a devout Christian, and becomes angry with his brother for his interactions with the oak tree, believing it to be of darker powers at work, which go against his own beliefs. He leaves the farm, but not before killing the tree. This has dire consequences for the valley, which begins to dry up as a drought sets in, which begins to kill the land. More accidents come. Joseph's wife, Elizabeth, falls to her death at the rock, and Joseph and Thomas decide to leave the farm, bringing their cattle to greener pastures. Joseph stays, and is rejoined by Juanito, who convinces Joseph to visit the local priest. When Joseph tries to get the priest to pray for the land, he refuses, and tells Joseph that he is sick, and offers his own help. Joseph returns to the glade to find that the stream coming out of the rock has dried up. When he decides to leave, he gets cut. Inspired, he climbs on top of the rock, cuts his wrists open, sacrificing himself, and soon after, it begins to rain.

I have long been a fan of John Steinbeck, ever since I first read his short novella, Of Mice and Men in Mrs. Page's English class at Harwood Union High School, and I moved on to a number of his other books - Cannery Row, Travels With Charley, The Pearl, The Red Pony, and The Grapes of Wrath - I've long loved the Americana element of his writing, and for me, he is one of the quintessential American writers, one who touches deeply on themes of the country. Recently, I've become interested in reading more of his books, and while browsing through the bookstore, I came across this book, and was interested because at a first glance, it fell squarely within the speculative fiction range, retelling elements of the Bible, older religions and myths to bring about an interesting story. There are a number of pure fantastic elements as well, right down to the last actions of the book, when Joseph dies, and his spirit renews the land from his soul and belief.

I've long believed that stories aren't really defined by their physical story elements - the characters, locations and items that they use - but by the ways in which the characters perceive their environment around them, and use the actions of the story to learn. To A God Unknown is about belief and faith of the strongest type: the intangible, the unknowable, and the impossible. Throughout the story, Joseph is a character that believes strongly in the land and its well being, and perceives of some higher power in ways that are not, to say the least, traditional, and raising the ire of his family and community members. Yet, while reading, Joseph's actions demonstrate that he has the most honest and raw form of belief: he believes in the land, and sees his actions rewarded in any number of ways, and punished in others. For me personally, this was an interesting book because I'm not sold on the concept of God, as proscribed by any number of religious institutions. My beliefs lie somewhere with Josephs: God, or any higher power that escapes definition, is something that is unknowable, intangible and mysterious.

The last pages of the book were by far one of the most important that I read, in almost anything, when Joseph goes to a priest, looking to help save the land. The priest refuses, saying that his job is to ensure the salvation of the human soul, not that of the land, setting up a major divide between the anarchical views that Joseph takes, as opposed to a major institution such as the Catholic Church. In a way, Joseph believes in the entirety of the universe, which felt far more basic and universal than the Church, which looks simply to one of God's (If there is one who created everything) creations for their own benefit. This has never, and still doesn't, sit well with me, and I prefer Joseph's more universal, general view on how the world runs. This falls with a number of other world views, and it's interesting to see this all presented in a novel such as it was. Steinbeck has created a wonderful, fantastic novel with To A God Unknown, and one that has left me thinking far more than I thought it would have.