Prometheus has Landed

Ridley Scott's addition to the Alien franchise has finally hit theaters following a fantastic marketing blitz. Prometheus is a good, but at points flawed, predecessor to his own 1979 start to the franchise. One of my more anticipated films of the year, I found it to be a decent film, living up to my somewhat lowered expectations, and certainly one that I'll watch again.

Prometheus follows a lot of similar formula as that of Aliens, with some notable differences. An archeological team comes up with a series of star maps that points the team to a distant world with extraterrestrial life. An interstellar expedition is assembled and financed, and sent off to a moon designated LV-223 in a far off system. Overseen by a robot overseer on the 200 day trip, the crew lands on the moon, and discover an unnatural feature. Suiting up, the scientific contingent set off to find what message might have been left behind. Helmets come off, people get lost and suddenly, chaos ensues as the relics infect the crew.

The key to enjoying Prometheus seems to be ignoring that the film is connected to the Alien universe. While it's not as good as Alien, I did enjoy it a bit more than Aliens, and when compared to your average summer blockbuster, Prometheus comes off rather well.

What's notable for Prometheus is how absolutely gorgeous it is: the design of the world is one of the best that I've seen, a spaceship that looks practical and well-rooted in the modern world, much as the Nostromo likely felt back when it was first released. Outside of the ship, the film is treated to a phenomenal opening credit scene, and continues to put together some wonderful planetscapes and general images. It's a slick, great movie, visually. Even the 3D, which I normally can't stand, worked exceptionally well throughout the film - there were none of the flat sections where the film reverts back to 2D outside of the action sequences. Here, it's seamlessly in the background, where it's never intrusive.

Prometheus's story is where the film begins to stumble, while also attempting some very ambitious things. There's a lot that Scott's tried to pack into the movie, ranging from overarching themes of science verses faith, the idea of maker-gods who have helped along the human race, to the responsibilities of science and technology. It's easy to see where the ideas are, and where they're attempting to go, but it's lost in a bit of a muddle. While watching the film, I got the distinct impression that there was quite a bit cut out of the movie to keep the run time under a certain level, and I can't help but wonder if somewhere down the road, we'll get the bits that were cut out, which will hopefully help to reinforce some of the characters and overarching themes.

Beyond that, some of the letdowns come with some of the really stupid things that the characters do throughout the movie. Characters take their helmets off at every point, even when it seems like it might be a really bad idea, quarantine protocols are ignored, and everything that should be done to keep a trillion dollar mission on schedule and safe really isn't done. This is where Prometheus is a disappointment: there's a lot of potential that's lost in the characters and their actions.

The characters frequently have their moments to shine: Charlize Theron does a fantastic job as Meredith Vickers, the Weyland Corporation rep, while Noomi Rapace's Elizabeth Shaw finally finds her legs towards the end of the film, after she's been pushed to the brink. Most notable, however, is David, portrayed by Michael Fassbender, the ship's robot who has some considerable issues when it comes to his maker, Peter Weyland. Frequently though, each of the characters are drawn with too broad a brush and the often come off poorly. Other characters, like Captain Janek and the bridge crew, have great appearances - Benedict Wong especially, but just little enough to make us want more.

Where the story really does work is looking at the big ideas, and I applaud the film for really trying something, rather than simply mirroring the audience's expectations. The idea of an alien race bringing their technology to seed a world, only to find that they've made a mistake is a rather epic idea, and I'm thrilled to see the ideas there: I simply wish that they'd been followed up on a bit more. The ideas of religion and science that come out of those ideas are similarly brought up, and not fully explored. While that's not great, I can't really think of the last major science fiction movie that put together interesting ideas with a dramatic story, (Maybe Inception?) and I'm happy to see a film at least try to do something a bit different.

Weirdly, this film felt very optimistic throughout: focusing on exploring and learning about our surroundings, it's an interesting change from many of the reactionary (and still excellent) science fiction out there, even up through the end. Where Alien was purely a horror film set in space, Prometheus feels more like a space opera film, with quite a few horror elements.

Looking back, the film is stymied by its lack of focus: there's several subplots, focusing on David/Weyland, the Engineers, and corporate intentions, all of which try to share the space with each other. The film never quite meshes in the way that it should have, and coupled with the extraordinarily high expectations set forth by the film's marketing contingent; it's no wonder that the film has received such mixed reviews. In a lot of ways, the film would have likely fared better if its connections to Alien had been completely severed, with it released as a stand-alone science fiction adventure. Here lies the major problem when attempting to bring back a well-worn franchise with an established fanbase: it's almost impossible to capture what everybody loved about it, and entrenched expectations really prevent the filmmakers from really innovating. Prometheus is able to get away from this a bit: I'm sure that continuity hounds and nitpickers will argue for a long time about this, but Scott really is able to pull out a good movie out for his return to the genre.

But, despite all of the issues with the film, I really enjoyed it. I'm a sucker for great imagery in the genre, and Prometheus certainly delivers here. But beyond that is a film that, once some of the extra baggage is ignored, is a decent film when you look at it against the lesser Alien films, or even the broad canon of summertime blockbusters. It doesn't quite stack up as high as Blade Runner and Alien do in the greater picture, but it's a good film that should have been great. I can live with that.

Ray Bradbury, 1920-2012

Over on the Kirkus Reviews Blog, I've written up a short sketch of Ray Bradbury's life, which you can read over here.

I'll forgo the usual sources that I've been posting: I've been seperated from my usual research materials (which are sitting on a shelf at home), and went for a number of obituaries, fan sites and articles about the legendary author.

For my part, Bradbury was a giant figure in my early science fiction years. I was first introduced to him while a student in High School, when my English teacher, Mrs. Page (seriously the best name for an English teacher), had us read Fahrenheit 451 for a class assignment. I blew through the book and paid more attention to class after that. At some point in class, we also read Soft Rains Will Come, and I was encouraged to read more of Bradbury's stories, particularly R is for Rocket and S is for Space. I picked up more of his books (although to this day, I've never been able to get through The Martian Chronicles), and whenever I picked up a new anthology, I always flipped to the Bradbury story first.

Bradbury's words always captured me and my imagination, bringing me out to Mars and back down to Earth, and there was always a story to fit whatever moon I was in when I picked up the book. Along with Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke, Bradbury was the most influential for my young, impressionable mind, and I shall always appreciate his prose and his exceptional mind.

The Reading List

I haven't done one of these lately, and it feels as though my reading list has accumulated a bit too much. Recently, I've picked up and finished A Handmaiden's Tale, The Stars My Destination, and New Scientists' Arc 1.1, all of which were very good. Here's what I'm currently reading:

Fiction:

The Quantum Thief, by Hannu Rajaniemi: This one's one that I've had my eyes on for a little while, but it was a review from Charlie Stross that got me more interested in reading it. It's gotten very good reviews from all over, which is great for a first novel, although his writing style isn't the greatest for an impatient and fast reader like me - I'm having to slow down for fear of missing things.

Roadside Picnic, by Arkady and Boris Strugatsky: io9 recently pointed this one out in a book review, and I loved the premise. It's a fascinating read, and from a science fiction era that I'm really not familiar with: Cold War Soviet SF. So far, I'm really enjoying it.

The Nemesis List, by R.J. Frith: I came across this one randomly right before the wedding, when I was supposed to be buying wedding gifts for people. I'd never heard of it, despite the plot, and picked it up on a whim. So far, it's not impressing me, reminding me a lot of The Gravity Pilot in terms of writing style.

Throne of the Crescent Moon, by Saladin Ahmed: I've heard almost nothing but good things about this novel, and decided it was about time to sink into it. On the way back from the Wedding, Megan and I stopped by Flights of Fantasy in Albany, NY, where I found it. Enjoyed the first couple of chapters.

Redshirts: A Novel with Three Codas, by John Scalzi: I've been waiting to get to this one since it was announced. I enjoyed Scalzi's last novel, Fuzzy Nation, and this looks to be pretty similar in style and tone, and having a nice, breezy novel to blow through will be excellent.

Nonfiction:

Spacesuit: Fashioning Apollo, by Nicholas de Monchaux: This book rocks. It's absolutely stunning in its detail, covering the creation of the space suits used in Apollo, but taking in a greater view of the space race as it does so.

The Unforgiving Minute: A Soldier's Education, by Craig M. Mullaney: Megan recommended this one to me as I was doing some writing, and it's an interesting read thus far, looking at the education of a West Point soldier who went on to Iraq.

Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife: Counterinsurgency Lessons from Malaya and Vietnam, by John A. Nagl: This one's one that I've been picking away at for a couple of months. It's a short but dense book on counterinsurgency. Very enlightening.

Edgar Allan Poe and Jules Verne

My latest column for Kirkus reviews has just been posted! While doing some reading on Edgar Allan Poe, I came across an interesting point: Poe only wrote a single novel, The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket, which was later picked up upon by legendary science fiction author, Jules Verne in An Antarctic Mystery. In a large way, it was one of the first works of fan fiction! You can read the connection between Poe and Verne over on the Kirkus Reviews Blog.

For this piece, I used the following sources:

Billion Year Spree, by Brian Aldiss: Aldiss's first history of the genre, this book goes into extensive critical length for the roots of science fiction, and provide an excellent basis for Poe and his influences. While Aldiss doesn't regard Poe as the founding author of SF, he does count his influence. The Cambridge Companion to Edgar Allan Poe, edited by Kevin J. Hayes, and in particular, Extra! Extra! Poe invents science fiction, by John Tresch: this critical series covers Poe's literature, and this section by Tresch looks at his forays into science fiction, particularly Arthur Gordon Pym.. The Dreams Our Stuff is Made Of, by Thomas M. Disch: Another survey of the genre, which looks to Poe's status as an 'embarrassing ancestor'. Disch in particular labels Poe as one of the key figures in the history of Science Fiction. The History of Science Fiction, by Adam Roberts: Robert's history of the genre notes both Disch's and Aldiss's opinions, he doesn't quite go along with them, although he does outline in excellent detail the achievements that Poe did put forward and likewise places Poe high on the list of superior influences for authors to come, because of his writing and vision. Israfel: The Life and Times of Edgar Allan Poe, by Henry Allen: this excellent volume is a detailed account of Poe's life, and provides a great background in the events that surrounded Poe and his works. Survey of Science Fiction Literature, Vol 3, by Frank Magill: Magill's series is an excellent one, and this particular volume provides a critical account of Arthur Gordon Pym and the influences that helped to bring it about. Oddly, there isn't an entry for Verne's An Antarctic Mystery that I could find.

Finally, something that I came across while doing some of the research, this cartoon by Hark! A Vagrant, sums up the Poe - Verne relationship nicely:

Review: Caliban's War

Caliban's War, James S.A. Corey's follow-up to the Hugo-nominated Leviathan Wakes takes readers back to the well-realized world of The Expanse. It's an all guns blazing thrill-ride that ups the stakes in the Expanse and keeps me wanting more.

Picking up several months after the events of its predecessor, we find James Holden, who had survived the Eros event and started a system-wide war between the various planetary factions, is now running missions for the Outer Planets Alliance. At the same time, Earth and Mars have returned to an uneasy relationship, with their forces ready to open up on one another across numerous fronts. Praxidike Meng, a botanist on the breadbasket of the Outer Planets, Ganymede, finds his daughter has been kidnapped after a mysterious threat is encountered by UN and Martian Marines. The two groups of Marines are attacked, leaving a single survivor: Gunnery Sergeant Bobbie Draper, who is ordered to accompany Martian diplomats to Earth to sort out what happened. There, she meets Chrisjen Avasarala, a UN politician working to prevent outright war between various factions of the Solar System.

Where I'd describe Leviathan Wakes as a robust space opera story, Caliban's War strays far closer to the Military Science Fiction subgenre. This book is packed with quite a bit of military action from the get-go, and throughout the novel, it's approached in a well-thought-out way. When the bullets aren't flying, we see a considerable amount of political work that help make up the backend of any military action, which keeps up a certain amount of tension and adds depth to the book as a whole. The result is a military science fiction novel that gets both the action and the motivations for fighting right on.

Following the end of Leviathan Wakes, with the death of one of the central characters, Corey introduces a number of new characters: notably, Bobbie, the Martian Marine gunnery sergeant who survives an early encounter with what appears to be a new form of the protomolocule. In addition to Bobbie, Praxidike Meng, a botanist from Ganymede plays a key role in the search for his daughter and Chrisjen Avasarala, a UN Undersecretary of Executive Administration have come in to accompany New Characters, trying to get everyone to listen to one another. As a whole, the entire group of new faces is a welcome one, keeping the relationships between the existing characters interesting. Each are nicely assembled with some familiar parts: the tough as nails Marine, the somewhat clueless scientist, and the hard ass politician, and have some other points that round them all out nicely: Bobbie suffering deeply from the loss of her platoon, and Avasarala's about face personality when it comes to her grandchildren. Bobbie Draper in particular has become one of my favorite characters in the series thus far. Tough and determined, Draper is a great example of a strong female character that doesn't really conform to a lot of the molds, and one that wasn't thrown into the series to simply fill out the gender balance.

Caliban's War follows a similar formula as Leviathan Wakes did: a girl vanishes, people attempt to find her, Holden tries to broadcast information to the solar system, all while big picture political elements are at work towards their own nefarious ends, before quite a lot of action happens. It's not a bad formula to follow, and while the story doesn't retell the first one, it does make it predictable at points. Following an exciting opening, the predictability allowed some of the necessary setup to slow down the book for a while, before the last act brings all of the diverse elements together and end the book with a bang. As the story accelerates towards the finish line, so to does the stakes, and this second novel becomes a fantastic bridge for the rest of the presumed trilogy. (There are a further four books and several short stories planned at this point). A major cliff-hanger moment down to the last line of the book makes me hope that at some point, HBO will pick up the books for a television series.

Like Leviathan's Wake, the two authors who comprise James S.A. Corey, Daniel Abraham and Ty Franck, have done a knock-out job when it comes to the world that they've created. Hearty, durable and dripping with details, Caliban's War gives you all of the major food groups and desert. They layer on some new details that weren't extensively covered in the first book through the new characters, and we're privy to new parts of the Solar System that open up the world even more. If anything, Caliban's War does an even better job with working in the world, sustaining the storyline while not having to introduce the reader to a completely new world and storyline. If anything, it's more focused and to the point, while covering a lot of ground towards what is building up to be an epic time in the solar system.

I really enjoyed Leviathan Wakes, and Caliban’s War is a fantastic addition to what I suspect will be a great series of books. For all of the talk about science fiction going away in favor of urban fantasy or some other spectrum of speculative fiction, it does a great job showing that the stories that can be told in space aren’t going anywhere, all while blending great storytelling and characters, and giving us a new world to look forward to revisiting.

Thank You!

Megan and I had our wedding on Saturday. While we were officially married a year ago in June, we had planned on holding our wedding at the same time, so that our families and friends could celebrate with us. I'm finally getting back to the world after taking a couple of days away from everything, but, to everyone who came, thank you.

Thank you to Sam, Eric, Dan, Karyn, Krista and Amanda, for being part of the wedding party. Thank you to Bart, who was our officiant, to our respective parents, Joy Worley-Charles and Ellen and Alan Liptak, for their support and assistance. Thank you to Erich, for the sounds, and Michelle, for the pictures, and a major thank you to the weather patterns across Lititz for holding off on the clouds.

Thank you to each and every one of our guests who came from California, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Washington DC, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey and Ohio. You brought gifts and cards, but most of all, you brought some fantastic memories. Cards will be in the mail shortly, and I apologize for missing people throughout the course of the day.

The day was fantastic with great weather and a bunch of surprises: walking in to music from Star Wars: A New Hope, with everyone waving tiny lightsabers. Our photographer was wonderful, and I had a fantastic day with my favorite person in the world.

I couldn't ask for a better celebration - thank you everyone.

Complicated History

A couple of months ago, I went to the Sullivan Museum and History Museum at Norwich University for a talk by one of the history professors, Dr. Steven Sodergren, as part of an exhibit series on the Civil War. His talk was about the specific motivations for individuals on each side of the Civil War, refuting the idea that there was a uniform block of support behind both the Union and Confederate governments. Some Southern states, when the decision came to vote on the decision to split from the United States, had a close majority: no more than 55-60% of the population supporting the idea, leaving a substantial chunk in opposition.

The idea behind the talk was a sound one, taking on the idea of the very nature of taught history: it's not as simple as it's made out to be. History is a difficult topic to convey to a large audience: big, complicated and multi-facetted, the very instruction of the field is just as enlightening as a separate topic. The Civil War was never quite as clear cut when it came to the motivations of the soldiers on the field: according to Sodergren, it was a deeply personal and difficult choice for everyone who took up arms. More recently, a talk on VPR with Vermont Historian Howard Coffin noted that looking at enlistment numbers is important: high initially, support dropped off following the first major battles when bodies began to return home.

I recently presented a paper at the New England Historical Association, where I talked about Norwich University's efforts during the Battle of the Bulge. My panel's commentator noted that between the papers, there's a high level view of history, with the strategy and big decisions, and the ground level, with the individual soldiers fighting: my paper bridged the gap, telling the story of the Bulge through the soldiers who fought there, but also how their actions played into a much larger story. Their own actions were far from singular: they spanned the entire command structure, from a Private First Class to a Major General. In our continued study of Norwich History, my wife and I have found soldiers who enlisted in foreign militaries prior to the United States' entry into the Second World War, while others were drafted.

A recent article by Slate Magazine caught my eye: How Space-Age Nostalgia Hobbles Our Future: Contrary to popular belief, public support for space exploration in the 1960s was far from universal. It's an interesting read, presenting a very contrary view to the supposed popularity of the Apollo program during the 1960s-1970s. Far from the major popular support that we perceive, the public approval rating for the program only hit a majority around the time that Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed on the moon, and individual accounts from around the country shows that there was a wide range of opinions as to the value of the program. Support for the space programs also varied wildly depending on age group, and undoubtedly, on location as well.

Looking at political records from the time, there's also an important story when it comes to how Congress approved wartime funding: the public easily remembers President John F. Kennedy's speech at Rice University. The reality of actually funding the space program is far more complicated, with competing national priorities. Even Kennedy's speech, while influential, isn't so clear cut: it was designed in the aftermath of the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion, and was issued to help divert attention away from the administration's blunder.

A book that I particularly detest is Victor David Hanson's Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power, an enormously popular and reviled book on the nature of culture and war: he outlines that the very nature of democracy makes a standing military inherently stronger, because the individual soldiers have a stake in their government and by extension, their destiny. It's a very appealing, straight-cut assumption, and one that breaks down when one considers the enormous complexity inherent in a democratic nation: no sane person makes the decision to take up arms for their country lightly, and Hanson's text does a disservice to the historical community by overly simplifying a situation that shouldn't be simplified.

In a lot of ways, this falls under the same public mentality that spawned the Greatest Generation from the Second World War and the Lost Cause line of thinking from the Civil War. Looking even further back into our nation's history, the War for Independence was likewise far from universally supported! Another specific example from one of my instructor's talks was the Boston Tea Party: essentially a rebranded name in an age of nostalgia to smooth over the fact that the 'Destruction of the Tea' was committed by political radicals.

I often wonder as I hear political reminiscing about the space age or the greatest generation or of Lincoln's efforts, whether people throughout the ages understand that the rosy memories upon which we build the future on is really nothing more than a shared fabrication, and why we reject the complicated story for something that has been watered down to the point that it's contrary to the original message.

History is our most wonderful, complicated Mandelbrot set that continues to bring out new levels and stories. Dr. Sodergren's talk highlighted a key point in how we approach history: it becomes defined by its major outcomes, as opposed to the actions that lead up to them, and increasingly, it feels as though the lessons that we can learn are missed, overlooked or simply ignored.

Who knows, though? Maybe we need the simple stories.

A Meeting in Geneva: The Birth of 'Frankenstein'

My first column on Science Fiction / Fantasy history is now up on Kirkus Reviews! For this first post, I couldn't think of a better place to start than Mary Shelley's creation of Frankenstein in 1816 during a summer trip to Geneva, Switzerland. Frankenstein isn't the first root of the genre, but it is a solid one that has since been built on. You can read the article here on Kirkus Reviews.

A couple of books that I used for the research for this article were:

• The letters of Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley by Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley and edited by Betty T Bennett. A three volumn collection of Shelley's letters, which provided a great insight into her life around the time of her writing the book.
• Survey of Science Fiction Literature, by Frank Northen Magill. This is an academic survey that I recently picked up that has essays from thousands of SF/F novels up to around the 1970s. Great series of reviews of books, which also provides an incredible amount of background on the author and a critical look at the literature.
• Frankenstein (Norton Critical Editions) by Mary Shelley and J. Paul Hunter. This edition provides the original text of the novel, plus extras: commentary, a couple of letters, and several reviews of the novel from when the book was first published.

Historical Science Fiction

Contracts have been signed, the post has been scheduled, and I can announce this now: I've been brought on board Kirkus Reviews as a columnist, where John DeNardo of SF Signal has been writing for the last couple of months. I'm pretty excited about this, because it's an opportunity where I can blend two of my long-standing interests together: History, and Science Fiction.

Starting in June, I'll be heading up a bi-weekly column that will examine (in small bites) the history of the science fiction genre by looking at the authors, books, trends and notable events that impacted the speculative fiction genre.

Science Fiction history is something that I've picked away at little by little over the years, and I can trace my interests back to a book that I bought in the fall of 2002: Men of Tomorrow: Geeks, Gangsters, and the Birth of the Comic Book, by Gerard Jones, which expertly traces the history of the comic book industry from before its inception, all the way to the 1980s. Since then, I've picked up books over the years, various biographies of some of the greats, scholarly books on the history of the genre, light reading, and things that typically revolve around the inner workings of Science Fiction and Fantasy. To be able to start putting it together, a couple of times a month, is something that I've long wanted to do, but never really had the outlet to do so.

Studying the history of anything is important. The present day is a product of the past, and everything that has come before has left its fingerprints in everything that we do. To view anything in a vacuum is to strip it of meaning, and I hope that I'll be able to put together a resource that will inform and enlighten.

The first post will be up May 3rd, focusing on Mary Shelley and Geneva. Stay tuned!

2012 Hugo Thoughts

This past weekend, the Hugo award nominations were announced, with some great things on the ballot. The full list can be found here, and it's well worth checking out some of the entries on there.

Novels: I'm annoyed that Soft Apocalypse, by Will McIntosh didn't make the cut; it's the best novel that I read last year, and it's one of those books that blew me away twice. I'm also a little surprised that Charles Stross's Rule 34 didn't make an appearance, as well as Ready Player One, by Ernie Cline. (That's not a bad thing, because RPO really isn't a good book.) Of the ones on the list, I haven't read Among Others, Deadlines or Dance with Dragons, but I'm betting that Embassytown will take the trophy. I do hope, however, that Leviathan Wakes will be the winner: that book drips with awesomeness. Edit: Another novel that was overlooked? Lev Grossman's The Magician King. I'm stunned that that novel didn't make the cut.

I can't say much about the Novella and Novellette categories: I hope that Ken Liu takes Novella, and I hope that Charlie Jane Anders takes it for Novellette: the only stories that I've read on the list, but they're both excellent.

Best Short story: I'm sad that none of Lightspeed's stories made the cut, because there were some excellent ones there, but I'm rooting for Ken Liu's The Paper Menagrie, which is an absolutely brilliant short story. If you haven't read it, you really should do yourself a favor. John Scalzi's April Fool's Joke, Shadow War of the Night Dragons: Book One: The Dead City: Prologue is a hilarious nomination, because it's technically a fun bit of writing. I liked Liu's story much better though.

Motion pictures: I wish that people would stop nominating Doctor Who every year for short form: there's quite a bit more when it comes to science fiction television. The pilot for Outcasts would have done nicely, as would several episodes of Fringe. I desperately want to see the episode of Community win, because that was one fantastic episode. Long form, I've no doubts that the entire run of Game of Thrones will win that one, although I would like to see Source Code win.

And, most exciting, Lightspeed Magazine picked up two nominations: Best Semiprozine and Best Editor, Short Form - John Joseph Adams. I've known about this for a couple of weeks, and while I'm not surprised, I think it's fantastic that the outfit has been recognized for the fantastic stories that it's put out. Being part of the Lightspeed team for just about all of 2011, it's also great to contribute to such an outlet.

I also write for SF Signal, mainly with book reviews, but also some columns, Mind Melds and Podcasts, and I was beyond excited to see the site nominated for the first time for Best Fanzine, and Best Fancast (SF Signal Podcast). Likewise, it's fantastic to have contributed a small part to such a fantastic site.

Is Military Science Fiction Nationalistic?

I've got a new piece up on io9, based around a question that I'd come up with after reading a book on counter-insurgency and institutional learning, Learning to Eat Soup With a Knife: Counterinsurgency Lessons from Malaya and Vietnam, by John Nagl. While reading it, I had a couple of points click into place when it came to how different countries approached warfare: there's a mix of history and internal learning that helps inform the present. Science fiction has a very similar effect: the genre is affected in turn by the ways that warfare is perceived.

A key point of Nagl's book is that a nation's own military history helps to inform the ways in which said nation will go to war and use its military. The United States has a different makeup of conflict DNA than Canada, the United Kingdom and Japan and accordingly, we have a different perception of not only the ways in which the military should operate, but also philosophically; how and why wars or battles should be fought. In the science fiction world, the stories are reactionary, typically looking at lessons learned from a past conflict, such as colonial battles (War of the Worlds), World War II / Korea (Starship Troopers), Vietnam (The Forever War), Iraq / Afghanistan (Control Point / Germline). Military science fiction has a passionate following, but I often wonder if at points, if some variety should be added to the mix. We know how we like to do things, but what about how others go about doing the same thing?

Predominantly, military science fiction is an American-centric genre: Most of the really big names in military science fiction, such as Joe Halderman (The Forever War), John Ringo (A Hymn Before Battle), David Drake (Hammer's Slammers) and David Weber (the Honor Harrington series) all served in the United States military, (as well as some of the newer authors, such as Myke Cole and D.B. Grady) whom have drawn upon their experiences and knowledge accordingly for their stories. Other authors who work in the genre, such as John Scalzi (Old Man's War), David J. Williams (Autumn Rain trilogy) and Orson Scott Card (Ender's Game), also hail from the United States and are likewise influenced by their home country. Indeed, the landmark entries in the genre from the US are remarkably consistent when it comes to the doctrine and style of warfare that the US has traditionally engaged in: overwhelming force for a clear, decisive objective.

You can read the full article here.

Norwich & Progressive Education

Norwich University is holding a Pride week, which has been met with mixed responses from alumni and current students alike. As a two time graduate of the school, I'm happy to see that Norwich is continuing its tradition of progressive reforms that keep it at the forefront of military education. With the repeal of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, everyone is permitted to serve the military, and events like this help to break down some of the barriers and promote understanding. Knowledge and advancement cannot occur without open dialogue, and a willingness to see another point of view, even if it's not a position that one understands or supports.

I would like to think that there's a component of those in opposition to this that aren't as caracatured by the media and much of the left spectrum of politics: my friends who didn't (and I would assume don't - I haven't talked with a lot of them lately about this) support same-sex marriage initatives weren't throthing at the mouth in hatred, nor do I think that hey wish any ill-will upon them: they just want things as defined within their own comfort level. That's fine: I don't believe that everyone should blindly support such changes, and that questioning it is a positive thing in the long run. What I don't agree with is the notion that things will never change or that they should never change; that as they are now is the way that things always will be, ad infinitum. It should be noted that there's also a difference in opinion over a pride week and some of the specific events that are being held. One of the lightning rods for the controversy was an event called the Condom Olympics, something to do with safe-sex practices. It's not a particularly tactful title for an event (and apparently hosted by an outside group), and I'm a little puzzled about it: why not just call it what it is? Safe-sex education?

This isn't the first time that popularly held concept has been challenged by the school, overturning tradition with a radical change in education. In 1916, Harold 'Doc' Martin was admitted to the University on the recommendation of a Boston-based scholarship committee. He would do well at NOriwch, graduating four years later with a degree in Electrical Engineering, becoming the first African American student in Norwich's history. This came a full thirty years before President Truman worked with military leaders to officially desegregate the U.S. military.

In 1974, Norwich once again made history when the first class of women were admitted to the University, two years ahead of the service academies. The school had admitted women two years earlier to the Vermont College Campus down the road in Montpelier, but the intigration with the school's Corps of Cadets was a first in the nation, which ultimately would lead the way for other schools, such as West Point, to follow suit.

Neither decision came without controversy. While recently researching the 2nd World War, I came across letters written to school officials decrying the admission of women to the school. Undoubtably, there are others for Cadet Martin, who would go on to work with the Tuskegee Airmen.

Norwich's founder, Alden Patridge, established the school to provide a liberal education, revolutionizing the American education system as he did so, and setting the role for the Citizen Soldier model that persists to this day. The country is not homogeneous in its composition, and I believe that everybody should have the ability to serve and recieve the tools that they need to serve and lead our armed forces. The Pride Week is one method amongst many that helps to reinforce community and understanding.

I'm saddened by some of the messages that I've recieved over the last couple of days: it shows that the message hasn't reached everyone, and that there's more work to be done. But, considering that I see a large mix of women and representatives of various races walking around Norwich's Vermont campus whenever I go up there, it's clear that the message will eventually take hold. I for one, am happy that my alma mater has taken this direction: I believe that it will only further strengthen Norwich as we step into the future.

Armored: Coming to a Combat Zone Near You

Tomorrow, John Joseph Adam's latest original anthology, Armored, hits stores. I'm pretty excited for this one, because I've read most of it already. Last year, the book was announced, and I got to help out a bit with some of the behind the scenes work in getting the book up and running: slush reading, some recommendations, and thoughts that I had about the stories that I read.

This anthology really blew me away. There's a stunning cast of authors present here, each of them with some really great stories about characters in powered armor - or the powered armor itself. What I really liked above all else is that there's a real mix of unconventional takes on the power armor idea, and this anthology might surprise readers a bit: it's not all pure action (although there's plenty of that), and there's more than just straight up military sci fi here: there's a couple of genres mixed in here.

You can buy Armored here, take a look at some of the behind the scenes stuff over on John's website, and like the page over on Facebook. If you like power armor and some great military SF, this is the anthology to buy.

Out of the Ashes: How an Irish Episcopal Priest Saved Norwich University

I've sold a new article to the Norwich Record, titled Out of the Ashes: How an Irish Episcopal Priest Saved Norwich University. This was one of the projects that I was working on last fall, and shortly after the start of the New Year, I submitted my final draft. The research phase was interesting: going through archives and piecing together a rather interesting and diverse man that was a central, but forgotten figure in Norwich University and local Vermont history.

When assigned to this project, I was a little skeptical: what exactly were the links between the Episcopal Church and how would something like this be relevant to today's reader and Norwich alum? After reading up on Bourns, it became clear that there are some interesting things that he has to teach us today.

Out of the Ashes: How an Irish Episcopal Priest Saved Norwich University

The year 1866 was a pivotal one for Norwich. In March, a fire destroyed the school’s primary building—the Old South Barracks—and the University’s future lay in jeopardy. The disaster represented the biggest challenge to date in Reverend Edward Bourns’ tenure as president, a career that had shepherded the young school through fifteen years of adversity, including hostilities from the citizens of Norwich and Hanover, crippling debt, and four years of civil war. Yet, under the immensely popular Irishman’s steadfast guidance and vision, the University would not only survive, but thrive.

NO ORDINARY MAN

Reverend Edward Bourns was well-equipped to run a college. A learned man, he not only held the office of president, but served on the faculty, teaching ancient languages and moral sciences. An ordained Episcopal priest, he held religious services on Sundays.

The reverend’s lack of military training in no way hindered his leadership abilities. Described by Adelbert Dewey as “a man of peace by profession, better versed in canon law than cannon balls,” he had nevertheless acquired “the swinging stride of the modern soldier.” An insatiable reader renowned for his “incisive and delicate wit,” it became a saying among the cadets “that no one could enter the doctor’s rooms on the briefest of errands and not depart wiser than he came.” An imposing presence at six foot two, Rev. Bourns was respected by all, and perfectly suited—both as a shrewd administrator and genial leader—to steer Norwich safely through perilous times.

Born October 29, 1801, in Dublin, Ireland, Bourns entered Trinity College in 1823, but put his education on hold to serve as a private tutor, completing his degree a decade later. Ellis’ History of Norwich University describes him as “a man of learning and acumen,” and at Dublin he won numerous book prizes for scholastic achievement.

From Dublin he moved to London, where he engaged his skills as a writer and reviewer, working alternately in the publishing industry and as a teacher. In 1837, he journeyed across the Atlantic to the United States, where he became acquainted with a fellow Irishman, the Reverend William DeLaney, Provost of Pennsylvania University. Shortly after, Bourns followed Reverend DeLaney (now the Bishop of Western New York) to Geneva, where he enrolled at Hobart College, earning his MA and becoming an adjunct classics professor. By 1841, having received his LLD from Hobart, he was ordained Deacon of Geneva’s Trinity College. Four years later, after a short stint as a fully ordained priest, Dr. Bourns resigned his professorship at Hobart and left for Brooklyn, N.Y., where he taught ancient languages for five years.

You can read the full article here.

Can't Wake Up: Awake

The show opens with a calm moment, as lights pass over the grass on the edge of a road and just before a screech signals imminent disaster. It's this moment that sets up the entire premise of Awake, starring Jason Isaacs (whom most people will remember as Lucius Malfoy from Harry Potter). At the wheel is Michael Britten, a homicide detective who's about to have the worst imaginable tragedy: he collectively loses his wife and son in the accident. He's a man between two worlds: in one, his wife is alive, but his son has perished. In the other, his wife has died, but his son still lives. Britten lives each day by alternating: going to sleep in one world means waking up in another.

The pilot episode for Awake is stunningly brilliant: it's beautifully shot, directed by David Slade, with a great eye towards the visual styles that separate out the two worlds. One is soaked in bright shades where Britten's son is alive, while the other is clad in darker, moody tones. To keep them apart, Britten wears a wristband that corresponds with the two worlds: red for his son's reality, green for his wife's.

The premise of Awake has an incredible amount of potential: In each world, Britten works with a psychologist in each world, trying to figure out why he's experiencing each reality, and trying to cope with the idea that each presents to him: the other world is most certainly the imaginary one, a construct in his mind designed to cope with the loss of one of his loved ones. There are a number of elements touched on here in the show: trying to remember which world he's working in, trying to move on from the accident, and above all, trying to continue on with his life. Britten comes to the determination that the only way to move forward is to accept the situation: where this is the type of problem that would be the first impediment in front of the character, Awake looks elsewhere for story ideas.

This is the crux of where Awake has turned from what could be an interesting genre television show, and into the potential for a great one: it takes on some very heady issues: what is the real reality, how do you come to terms with losing the people important to you, and how do you react to trauma? It's delivered with smart writing and fantastic acting, scenes that had me at the edge of my seat while watching it a couple of weeks ago.

The high quality of the show reminds me of some other high-concept shows: NBC's 2009 show Kings, and ABC's 2007 show Daybreak. Unfortunately, both shows had limited runs: they ran for less than a season before they were cancelled due to low audience numbers, and I worry that this same fate might befall Awake before it gets a running start. Hopefully, excellent reviews in the New York Times, NPR, LA Times and Hollywood Reporter will help give the show the critical legitimacy to push it up over the edge.

What I have enjoyed so far in the show is that there is no clear or easy answer for Britten that has been painted out by lazy writers: the characters here are ones that are well crafted, and it's painful to think of what might happen to them, much like George R.R. Martin has demonstrated with his own characters and their inability to remain alive. Awake has an excellent cast that makes me dread some of what might be coming up for them. This also isn't one of the numerous LOST clones, trying to shock the audience into sticking with the show: questions and possibilities arise throughout in ways not seen since that show, but here, it feels far more organic, rather than the product of a writer's room.

Regardless of the length of Awake, it's something that I hope remains around because of the fantastic writing and acting that we've seen, not just because I'm looking to get to the end of the story. This is television at its very best, and for that reason, it's something that you should check out tonight when it airs at 9pm.

TRSF: The Best New Science Fiction

  While over at Boskone the other weekend, I resolved to not buy much from the convention market, and I was able to hold myself to that. I made a single purchase: Technology Review's 1st Science Fiction magazine: TRSF. I bought it because I'd heard good things: Ken Liu in particular, was a draw, and the full lineup of authors is a particularly strong one: Cory Doctorow, Joe Haldeman, Elizabeth Bear, Ma Boyong, Tobias Buckell, Pat Cadigan, Paul DiFilippo, Gwyneth Jones, Geoffrey Landis, Ken Liu, Ken MacLeod and Vandana Singh.

What I bought stunned me. Almost every story was gold: brilliant narratives that dripped with ideas, and each and every one sucked me right in while I rode back and forth to the convention on the T.

Cory Doctorow's story The Brave Little Toaster, depicting smart appliances was unexpectedly funny and relevant, while Indra's Web, by Vandana Singh was facinating. Lonely Islands (Tobias Bucknell), Private Space (Geoffrey A. Landis), Gods of the Forge (Elizabeth Bears) and The Flame is Roses, The Smoke is Briars (Gwyneth Jones) all hooked me from the get go, and made me think about the world around me in a lot of ways.

But then there were the stories that are still stuck in my head, ones that I've read a couple of times already: Real Artists, by Ken Liu, where a video student finds out just where the intersection between film art and business lie; Complete Sentence, by Joe Halderman, that takes a really frightening look at the mind and the punishment for crimes could lead (this one reminded me a little of Inception); The Mark Twain Robots, by Ma Boyong, which was a nice, modern take on Asimov's Three Laws; Pat Cardigan's Cody, involving data storage and biometrics; The Surface of Last Scattering, by Ken MacLeod, which was heartbreaking in more ways than one; and Specter-Bombing the Beer Goggles, by Paul Di Filippo, a nice look at apps and virtual reality (fit nicely with the book that I was reading at the time, David Louis Edelman's Infoquake).

The key thing with each book is the uniform quality of each of the stories: while published by Technology Review, none of these stories are necessarily about the cool technology that's available to the characters, but about how the characters have been impacted by the technology that surrounds them. In addition to that, it's not a book that's bound by the borders of the United States, and there's a real international flair in both the stories and the authors, which lends the book a certain credence as well. Each story is excellently realized when it comes to the worlds around them. Frighteningly, in most cases, the scenarios are very plausible, if not around the corner from the present day.

The entire issue is well worth the time to purchase and read through. This is one of those rare collections that's proven it's worth ten times over, and I absolutely can't wait to pick up the next issue. If you're a science fiction fan, you owe it to yourself to give this a read.

Boskone 49 Recap

This past weekend was Boskone 49, a science fiction / fantasy literature convention down in South Boston. After great experiences at ReaderCon the past couple of years, I decided to head down and partake in the fun for the spring, hitting up a bunch of panels and getting to meet up with people that I've largely talked to online over the past couple of years.

Stepping in the door (after a typical Boston driving experience) on Friday afternoon, I saw one of my former college professors, F. Brett Cox, and Lightspeed publisher John Joseph Adams, which was nice, before heading off to the first of several panels: Science Fiction, Fantasy and Horror in the Classroom, led by Brett, where they talked at length about the recent acceptance of the genres in the academic field. Since Cyberpunk has become a subgenre, it's become relevant, but with the addition of several literary heavyweights, such as Michael Chabon and Margaret Atwood, it's become more acceptable.

Typically, short fiction seems to be one of the best ways to get the literary themes across, but novels and films are also well used. What everyone seemed to agree on was that students really took to the genre, regardless if they were fans: students seem to identify with it quite a bit more than other genres.

Someone on the panel had a great quote, one that applies to more than just learning, but also critical reviewing and thinking as well: "I get to look under the hood and see how this works."

The next panel was Occupy SF: Corporations in Science Fiction, which was a fascinating talk. Charles Stross opened with some interesting things to think about: what holds up value in an interstellar empire? Apparently, this is the topic of his next book, and it drove discussion a bit early on, with some discussions about the very nature of money and economics. In comparable situations, letters of credit have been used on Earth, but how does this work when distances across space can be hundreds, if not thousands of years? Stross also suggested that if we're going to use metals for currency, we should simply use plutonium: it literally burns a hole in our pockets, and if we have too much, we can simply blow it up.

Finally getting to the point of corporations, they were likened to that of a hive: individuals carry out instructions on the behalf of the corporate hive, for its own (and presumably theirs), betterment. This is fine, in theory, but when you have an unchecked capitalist model, it will simply consume itself, because people aren't good at looking and planning in the extreme long-term: corporations simply work to make money and continue their operations (good and bad).

Leadership followed this discussion, and the point to which we've gotten represents a major change in how corporations were led: a very good point was brought up about who leads these places and what governs them: corporate behavior rewards psychopaths, and interestingly, a set of objective rules are set up to govern success: the value of experience has been lessened, because the rise of the MBA degree essentially has made corporate leadership interchangeable. Top earners are promoted and valued, regardless of how they become those top earners. As someone in the audience commented, that undermines what the customers think of the corporation. Long-term, that matters, but not so much in the short term.

This was an enlightening talk, and it was one of a couple that were very, very thought provoking for me personally, and gave me some great, solid ideas for a couple of projects that I've got in the works.

Saturday morning, I started with SF As a Mirror on Society, which I came in for about half of. Fortunately, this time, I left my car in Cambridge and rode in on the T, which reminded me that I dearly miss public transportation. I wish that I could ride a bus, subway or train to work. As I entered, I came in on a discussion of the 'Other', and some discussion on how some of the neglected characters should be handled: essentially, not embellished.

Following that, it was off to lunch, with Theodore Quester and John Joseph Adams, the Lightspeed crew present at the convention. Good times.

Lunch went a bit long, and when I got back, I got into a panel a bit late: Robocop Futures. This was a fascinating panel. As I got in, there was some discussion on the the role of people in systems: increasingly, we're living in a world that's guided by policy, rather than human intervention. I was reminded of something that P.W. Singer talked about when talking about robotic systems: people in the loop. People are increasingly out of the loop, where they're able to defer responsibility.

This is connected to law policies: increasingly, there are mandatory sentences and policies. One of the panelists mentioned a case where a Briton was prevented from entering the US because of a tweet. In this instance, everybody involved knew that it wasn't a serious or credible threat: policy demanded that the airport report it to law enforcement, who was in turn forced to investigate it, despite knowing that it wasn't a serious or credible threat. In the same manner, mandatory minimums for certain crimes: people aren't able to use their judgment in the process.

This discussion ended up on automated systems, which parse our conversations online. Increasingly, we've found ourselves turning to automated systems that absolve us of responsibility. Fortunately, computers are pretty bad at making sense of human relations. At the same time, people in the system are the weaker links that can potentially be exploited.

After a short break, Table Top Games in the Digital Age was the next one, with Ethan Gilsdorf moderating. This one was really one of the bigger letdowns: I'd been hoping that there would be some discussion about how table-top gaming might make the jump into the digital age, but there was a lot of lamenting about how the day of face to face gaming seemed to be going by the wayside (from the audience as well). It felt very oppositional to me, rather than a group looking at what was both inevitable coming, but also how to work the social aspects into the gaming world. This was covered, but briefly.

The next panel was fascinating: War of the Worlds and Dracula, compared. Both novels are ones that I read a long time ago, back in college, and I've been meaning to revisit them at some point. Discussion started right off with a look at both novels as reactions to Britain's place in the world: essentially, they're both reverse colonization novels, with two different models that tapped into an undercurrent of fear from British society:

1. Invade, and replace the inhabitants with your own people.
2. Invade, and change the inhabitants into your own people.

As someone noted early on, the Martians did to the British what the British did to the Zulu: invade, use overwhelming force and wreck havoc. In addition to these two novels, there was an entire subgenre of invasion novels from around the 1870s, right around the same time that Germany had begun to gain power in Europe. Britain's place in the world had begun to fall, and that's expressed in these novels: it's not too unlike the Cold War between the USSR and US. Both novels feature bloodsuckers feeding on Englishmen.

Something that I realized shortly after that both novels relied on the inherent strengths within the British lifestyle and culture: The British prevailed because their very biology helped them in War of the Worlds, while Dracula was hunted down with modern technology, which again taps into the patriotic element of both books. It was a fantastic panel, one that I learned a lot from.

The panel on Cover Art was an interesting talk, and the last for the night, with representatives from Tor Books and Baen. Baen's was interesting, where they have a particular style to their covers, but it was interesting to see their rational behind the art. Tor had some great cover examples, and overall, it was fascinating to see everything that goes into the covers of a book, and how it's used as a marketing tool.

On Sunday, Joshua Bilmes (Agent), David G. Hartwell (Editor), Patrick Nielsen Hayden (Editor), John Scalzi (Writer) and Toni Weisskopfgot (Editor / Publisher) together for their Top Ten Tips for the Prospective Writer, which was a interesting talk for anyone who is looking to become a professional author. There were actually more than ten tips, but they were all good ones. In short form:

• Be a good writer.
• Get used to sucking. You're at the beginning of a journey through incompetence. Keep writing until you don't suck.
• Divest yourself of attachment to writing times/locations: set aside a time, and write where ever. You'll have a new excuse everywhere you go to not write.
• A writer can do anything, provide its not what he's supposed to be doing.
• Write every day. Now is a good time to write.
• Two things: you can be a writer, then you can be a published author.
• Treat it like a job: be professional about it, and commit to it.
• Write to entertain someone else, not you.
• Know your audience.
• Who's going to be your first audience? Your editor and publisher.
• Give yourself space with no other intention other than to learn. Write so that you know how to put together a story.
• Publishers want to see a manuscript that you care about: they don't want to see your nanowrimo novel.
• Acknowledgments are a good roadmap.
• Understanding the industry are extraordinarily important. You have a better chance sending things to the right people. However, it is a moving target: trends change quickly. Urban fantasy was big four years ago. Much smaller now. If something's hot, it's too late.
• Write the book that you'd like to read.
• Half of your money that you earn goes to taxes.
• There will be people who are better than you and some who are worse. Publishing isn't fair.
• Publishers will put money where they think they'll get a return.
• Workshops are good, but make sure that you apply the advice that you get. Do some work shopping and then stop. The same workshop will ultimately give you the same advice over and over again.
• Your submission manuscript that's accepted is your final one: you're in the pipeline, not your writing workshop. Don't make drastic changes.
• Wheaton's law: don't be a dick.
• Scifi has an unusual amount of flow between pro and fan. Be nice to others.
• Esteem of your peers: nice to have it, but it's not essential.
• Don't be distracted by non-paying things that don't help you.
• If you enjoy it, you should do it. Don't do it if you don't like it.
• Write the best that you can, understand that everyone else is writing the best that you can, and don't crap on people. Admire the good works of others.
• Learn how to apologize and learn how to do it sincerely.

Good primer of advice there from some people who know that it works.

I got to wander around a little, before ending up at John Scalzi's reading, where he read from his upcoming novel Red Shirts and his non-fiction book, 24 Frames into the Future.

Redshirts sounds hilarious, and I'm glad that I've been watching Star Trek, because it's got a lot of inspiration from that particular franchise. It'll be interesting to see what Trek fans think once it's published. John's got a very fun style when it comes to panels, and this one was rapt with attention and a healthy dose of dry wit. Unfortunately, he wasn't able to stick around, due to a death in the family. I didn't get my copy of Fuzzy Nation signed, but that's okay: I got my copy of Rule 34 signed by Charles Stross, and The Warded Man by Peter Brett (which I'm going to read soon!), which was very cool.

With that, it was a good convention: I'm not sure I had as much fun as Readercon, but it was a good time, where I got to meet up with some very cool people: Myke Cole, F. Brett Cox, Peter Brett, John Scalzi, Charles Stross, Ian Tregillis (who's book Bitter Seeds is now on my to-read list), John Joseph Adams, Genevieve Valentine, Theodora Goss, Irene Gallo, and a whole bunch of others that I'm forgetting. Already, I can't wait to go back next year.

501st New England Garrison XO

Every year, the 501st Legion goes to the polls to elect new leadership for the group. This year, my friend Mike Brunco and I decided that we were going to run for the leadership roles, with Mike taking on the Commanding Officer position, and with me taking on the Executive Officer post.

Last night, at 7pm, Mike gave me a call and gave me the news: We'd won, and for the next year, the New England Garrison will be led under our command staff. Needless to say, we're thrilled and happy to be given the opportunity to lead the group.

Our reasons for running are mixed: we've both been troubled by levels of drama that have escalated in the group over the past year, and a lack of direction for the group as a whole. We're hoping to fix both. Interestingly, my day job has contributed to this: the past couple of years have been ones that have emphasized how an organization works, and how effective leaders lead. We're looking forward to putting some of the lessons in place. Despite our status as a volunteer organization, and that a lot of us do this sort of thing for fun, the coordination and direction for a group is a complicated, dedicated thing to undertake. We don't want to have an organization that just continues business as normal: that's a failure point for a lot of places, inside the business world and outside of it. We have a mission and passion that we want to keep going into the future, and we need to make that happen ourselves: I've no doubts that we'll be able to do that.

Lots of work in the meantime, though: we have ten days to get everything we want to do in place from a new way of bringing in recruits, putting our team together and so forth. It's going to be a good year, I think.

Lightspeed Magazine: My Year One

John Joseph Adams might have released his first anthology celebrating Lightspeed Magazine's first 12 months of outstanding stories, but Friday marked my own Year One with Lightspeed, and man, what a year it's been, working first as a slush reader, and now as one of the magazine's Editorial Assistants / Social Media person. I was a bit reluctant at first when asked, worried that I might be sucked into a world of terrible stories that I'd never get over. I found the contrary: slush reading has been an outstanding lesson in and of itself on what goes into an outstanding story, and there's a lot of good fiction that gets submitted. Over the last year, I've read hundreds of stories: some great, some bad. Over the last year, I've learned a couple of things from my work there:

First, a couple of disclaimers:

1. This isn't a how-to guide on how to get a story directly published in Lightspeed Magazine, other than that “write really well” is sort of the catch-all for every publication out there.
2. This is just my viewpoint, not Lightspeed's.

Rejections happen... a lot.

Lightspeed Magazine currently has 96 slots for fiction. Scratch that, half of those are reprints. You're left with 48 slots of original fiction. If you only write in one genre, cut that in half again: 24 slots for new, original science fiction stories and 24 slots for new, original fantasy stories. On the other end? There's a lot of authors submitting stories for those precious few slots every single day. That's a large pile of stories that comes to us, far more than we could ever hope to publish. The result is a ton of letters going out saying thanks, but not this time.

Getting past the slush readers requires one thing: a story that blows us away from the first page, and holds our attention. It has to hold the attention of others at the magazine: what works for one person might not work for someone else. Ultimately, the stories run the gauntlet, and are whittled down. The intended effect here is that we come out with a stable of short fiction that we're willing to stand behind. The result speaks for itself, I think: I've seen a ton of our stories on the “Best of” lists and end-of-the-year anthologies in the last couple of months. The magazine was nominated for a couple of Hugo Awards in its first year, and I've little doubt that we'll be listed in the next year. (I've got a couple of stories that I'd love to see win a shiny rocket, personally.)

Your Best Work Matters

Personally, I'm a stickler for detail, and the slush work has improved my own stories quite a bit, and my own submissions process:

1: refer to Christie Yant's blog post on cover letters and submitting, and follow it to a T. When I'm reading a story, it's useful to know if you've attended Clarion or you've been published in X, Y and Z magazines, but not things like “'I'm sure this will be rejected, but you never know'”: you don't need to give us reasons to reject your own story ahead of time.

The same diligence goes for grammatical errors, spelling mistakes, weird formatting and so forth. This is a fantastic guide to refer to when it comes to the format of a manuscript. The font doesn’t bother me (provided it’s readable), but it’s good to make sure that you’ve read it through more than once, and that it’s not overly difficult for someone to read. Spelling and grammar can be easily fixed, but broken stories are harder. Remember, you're asking the magazine (at least, if you're submitting to a magazine that pays money) to buy something from you, which they in turn ask people to buy in a bound package, printed or otherwise. If someone hasn't put in the effort to carefully read over their story and put it through the ringer, what else haven't they done their due diligence on? Characters? Dialogue? Worldbuilding? If my faith in the story is shattered early on, it's hard to regain that as I read on.

2: After submitting, wait for a response, and then repeat. And repeat again.

Structure, characters, ideas, story

In 2008-2009, I wrote a handful of stories, and half-heartedly submitted them to a couple of markets, where they were pretty promptly rejected. I did the same thing when I was in high school, and received a couple of rejections before getting dejected myself. I've since written stories in 2011 that I'm much, much happier with.

Slush reading has done a couple of things for me: it's shown me that there are stories that go out on their first submission and get bought pretty quickly. (It doesn't happen often, but when it does, those stories are pretty amazing.) There's other authors that dutifully submit numerous times, improving each time, before we find something that we like. There are also a lot of stories that get a read through and are rejected. There are lessons to be learned from both: a story that's published is a great example of what it takes to be published. A story that's rejected is a great example of where there's something wrong with the story.

Plausibility is a big thing for me. Fiction is a window into our everyday lives, with an idea behind it that helps us better understand the world around us. The individual actions of the characters, what they say to each other and their motivations all contribute to some central point that is revealed through what happens. Often times, I come across stories where something doesn't quite fit: the character's motivations aren't clear, the dialogue isn't there or something along those lines, but underneath all of that, there's something in the world that the author has created that doesn't line up for me. Sometimes, it's as simple as a plot device that, when under scrutiny, doesn't make sense: A cyberpunk story where technology is obviously advanced, but the thinking behind the story hasn't caught up with the technology. Thinking to myself “why is this happening” isn't generally something that should be happening while reading it.

In other instances, I find myself asking the following question: how is this contributing to the style of story that it belongs to: does a time travel story warning of the dangers of killing one's grandfather add anything new or different to that? If no, I have to find a way to justify recommending it. (That's not to say that we won't get a story like that, that's worth publishing.)

In my own writing, I've found that I spend a lot of time planning out what's going to happen, trying to figure out what the best intersection between the idea that I've had fits with a set of characters, the world and its own rules, and what the characters do to best display said idea. A lot of ideas end up in the trash, or filed away for later. I'm still working at it.

Keep at it & learn from your mistakes

I see authors submit multiple stories, and I see people who've submitted for the first time. What I love seeing is an author who submits a story, and soon, comes back after with another story that's better. I hope, that once we reject a story, an author will go ahead and take a look over it again: something happened that made it a poor fit for the market, and in between my own submissions, I go re-read stories and see if there's something that's tripping them up somewhere. Even once a story is accepted somewhere, it goes through an editorial process that will further change the story. From my own experience with various military history projects, there's always something to improve, depending on the day, the mindset that I'm in, and so forth.

My own efforts at fiction are long processes: I plan, write and set aside for a month or two. I go back, revise (or throw out) and repeat. The story goes to a couple of beta readers, and comes back with edits. I try and get stories that improve from story to story. Hopefully, I'll look back on what I've written now at some point and find that I've improved from that point on, either with greater experience, different mindset or writing ability.

The key point is to continue to submit, and to realize that rejections aren't some sort of personal vendetta, but reinforcement that nothing less than the best will cut it. With that in mind, I go back, edit and try again, until I can get to that point.

Even once a person has sold a story, there's no guarantee that I'll like their next story; it's happened before.

I've yet to attend a writing workshop (recently - I am a very happy alum of the Champlain Young Writer's Conference, held every year in Burlington, Vermont's Champlain College), or writer's group, but the best educational experience that I've had is by far working in the middle of a slush pile. It's provided me with tons of examples of what not to do, what to do better, and what absolutely every story needs to have: a reason to turn to the next page. I'm looking forward to what the next year will bring.

(And, if I haven't scared you away with all that, submissions have changed.)

Everybody’s Going to the Moonbase

During a campaign stop in Florida in advance of the next Republican Primary, former speaker of the house Newt Gingrich promised the moon and the stars to Florida voters: "By the end of my second term, we will have the first permanent base on the moon, and it will be American."

It's one of the few things that I've heard from Gingrich that I've liked: returning to space with the full backing of the United States government. With a real perception that the United States has begun to fall behind other countries when it comes to programs in space and with NASA facing budget cut backs and the loss of its most visible program, the Space Shuttle, it’s a nice thing to hear, especially for those who focus on US efforts in space. However, it’s also an empty promise on Gingrich’s part, designed simply to gain traction against his rival, Mitt Romney in advance of the debates.

The Florida ‘Space Coast’ relies much on the infrastructure that's been built up around NASA's launch facilities: the demise of the Apollo Program in the 1970s led to massive layoffs, while the more recent Space Shuttle cancellation has led to further reductions of demand for the highly skilled work force that the industry requires. It's easy to see why Gingrich would propose such a program in Florida: it means hundreds of thousands of new, high paying jobs. At the same time however, it means a complete reversal of personal philosophy, because it would require a massive government program and spending to rebuild the space program to the point where not only reaching the moon, but also establishing a logistical system to support it, would be the first steps. Once established, it's an expensive, ongoing effort to build, maintain, supply and staff a permanent habitation on the lunar surface.

United States space programs have an odd effect on domestic politics: Republicans, traditionally the supporters of limited or restrained government, support such programs: it's heavily tied to defense and national pride, while Democrats typically see the money that's going off-planet as something that can be used to help solve the numerous problems back on the ground. Gingrich, attempting to fulfill his own fantasies, would never get far with a right-of-center government that is looking to bring down government spending (presumably), while the money that is left over would be fought over by those who's programs are being slashed.

The drive to go to the moon wasn't a whim of the U.S. public: it was the result of a carefully crafted argument made for its existence: national security. The development of rockets that could take people and equipment up to space were in place to support Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, as a check against Soviet power growing in Europe and elsewhere in the world. A highly public and dramatic example of the progression of U.S. technology, the existence of a space program capable of reaching the moon was a powerful indication of what the country could do. Certainly, if NASA could send people to walk around on the moon, the Soviet Union was well within reach of the U.S. Strategic Air Command and its nuclear arsenal.

NASA's budget began at a relatively small amount in 1958: $89 million, $488 million as of 2007. This would steadily grow from .1% of the US budget to 2.29% of the federal budget following President Kennedy's speech at Rice University in 1962. The budget for NASA would then double to 4.41% in 1966, during the height of the Gemini and Apollo programs, and would steadily decline. By the time we landed on the moon in 1969, it was back down to 2.31%, or $4.2 billion dollars. ($21.1 billion today). As of 2007, NASA's budget was around $17 billion dollars, but at the equivalent of .6% of the entire US budget. With the entire economic health of the United States in question, it's a program that's largely seen as non-essential and expendable when it comes time to tighten the belt. To reach the moon, NASA would likely have to return to spending levels seen in the 1960s: twice the budget that's been on the books, for sustained periods of time, and on top of that, maintain public engagement for the same amount of time.

Returning to the moon isn't something that can be picked up after forty years, requiring an entirely different mindset and mission stance than the low-earth orbit work that's been done since the early 1980s. New rockets would need to be constructed, and an entirely new logistical support system would need to exist to support such a mission.

This is all before one asks the next question: why return to the Moon and why set up a permanent base on its surface? The original lunar missions were exploratory in nature, and the first people over the finish line in an international race. The Cold War is long since over, the United States has proved that they could reach the moon, and the American public returned to their lives back on Earth. A self-sustaining moon program simply cannot exist for the sake of its own existence, and cannot exist as a show to the rest of the world. A graduated, strategic plan for going to the Moon and beyond, for a concrete, supportable purpose is the only way that the United States will work to go beyond Low Earth Orbit.

There are potential resources in the skies above Earth. Asteroids contain a number of metals, and there's quite a bit of scientific knowledge to be gained, but somehow, I don't think that Gingrich had anything in mind other than restoring the glory days of the United States.

Gingrich isn't going to go far with this plan: already, Romney has slammed him for his plan: "That's the kind of thing that's gotten this country into trouble in the first place." I disagree with Romney's assertion: going to the Moon brought about quite a lot of technology and a sense of security. As Craig Nelson noted in his 2009 book, Rocket Men: The Epic Story of the First Men On The Moon, going to the moon was one of the great endeavors that makes the country worth defending. But, there's a lot of competition for that sort of thing, and I don't foresee a serious, government-backed program coming to fruition in the near future during the current economic climate.

Romney's words indicate that a space program under his administration would fare worse, and of the two, Gingrich's attitude is the best of the group - if he was serious about it. Of course, if he was serious about it, he'd have serious questions about his self-proclaimed description as a 'Reagan-style conservative'. Either way, the Obama administration's move to bring about a space industry using private enterprise seems to be to be the best way to foster the growth of a sustainable American presence in space, something that seems like it would be far more in line with what a Republican administration would back.

Returning to space should be a priority for the country: it’s a means to accomplish great things, from walking on another planet’s surface, to discover incredible things, and to advance the human race far beyond its imagination. At the same time, it’s a way to ensure an industry that is advanced and highly skilled, which is something that will keep us in space even longer. Because of that, I don't believe that it should be a political football, simply to score a couple of percentage points.