I learned a little something new this morning that got me to thinking on an interesting, tangential rabbit trail.

The origins of the lost city of Atlantis mythos can be traced back to the philosopher Plato.  He was teaching a lesson on the topic of the ideal society and concocted a discussion between Timaeus and Critias, two fellows who didn’t even live at the same time.¹ Ironically, Plato created Atlantis as an example of an evil empire, with Athens being held up as the shining example of the ideal utopia.  Plato described Atlantis as being a naval power out beyond “the pillars of Hercules,”, or what is know today as the Strait of Gibraltar, effectively somewhere out in the Atlantic ocean and beyond the then-known regions of the world.

So, this got me thinking – what made Europe so special that, from a technological standpoint, it advanced so much more quickly than the rest of the world?  We know from Columbus’ expeditions to the New World that there were people and large cultures already well established in both North and South America.  Most of Asia was, likewise, rich with culture and and great thinkers.  So what was it that sparked the Industrial Revolution in Europe, which served, in part, to launch the white man ahead of the pack? 

There was certainly no shortage of great minds in the rest of the world.  For instance, explosives evolved from the saltpetre and black powder of the Arabs and the flash powder of the Chinese and Mongols, but it was the Europeans who took that technology and truly weaponized it.  What made the difference?  Were the Europeans simply more aggressive when pursuing knowledge, and if so, why them and not some other culture? 

What would have happened had the Industrial Revolution first taken place with the Aztecs, in a land that the Europeans didn’t even know existed?  Columbus may have been in for a bit of a surprise had he landed on the shores of the New World to be greeted by people handling machines powered by coal and steam.  Orson Scott Card actually touches on this somewhat in his book Pastwatch: The Redemption of Christopher Columbus, where he rewrites history and brings the Europeans’ technology to the Aztecs and changes the balance of power in the world.

I’m sure the parameters that defined the rise of European power dominance were numerous and complex, but I find it terribly fascinating to think about the “What if?” questions that could have changed the face of the world if someone else had risen to power and technological advancement first.  There’s a story or three in there somewhere, I’m sure.

1. A contemporary comparison would be concocting a discussion between Einstein and Galileo.[back]

I’ve been neglecting my blog lately.  Heck, I’ve been neglecting almost everything that isn’t related to my job or the farm lately.  Life is just keeping me busy of late.  I even have story ideas I’d like to work on, one of them a short story idea inspired by Orson Scott Card himself.  Oh, I’m sure he doesn’t know it, but it’s an idea I read in one of his how-to-write books that’s been niggling at the back of my brain for a few years now.  I think I’d like to give the idea a shot and see if I can make something work.  I just haven’t had the time to sit down and pen something, and I’m not sure I see time opening up in the foreseeable future.  Such is life, right?

I’m having a day of snark – one of those where everything I want to write about involves some sort of sarcastic response toward ridiculous opinions and viewpoints.  Hazards of coming off a couple of sick days, I suppose – I tend to be a little less patient and tolerant.

For starters, in response to the shooting at Virginia Tech the other day, gun control outcriers have cropped again.  And they’re welcome to their opinions, of course.  But I still think they’re wrong.  There seems to be this mentality that allowing people to own and carry weapons will only cause the crime rate to increase, since guns will be that much more available.  Almost without exception, though, I find that those opinions come from folks who have had very little exposure to guns.  For those of us who have grown up with guns and have been taught how to safely handle them, we know that those folks who make the decision to 1) own guns and 2) earn the license that gives them the right to carry said guns are far more likely to handle them safely.  These are the people who respect these weapons enough to, get this, keep one with them at all times.  The people who go on these shooting sprees usually acquire their weapons by illegal means or, if they’ve acquired them legally, haven’t bothered to learn how to use them properly or gained the licenses necessary to carry them.  In short, shooters like this do not respect the laws that govern the use and ownership of guns.  It places those of us who actually do respect these laws in a difficult spot because the resultant fear from tragedies like these threatens the right of American citizens to own and carry guns. 

Recognize this – psychos like this Virginia Tech shooter will always be able to find guns when they want them, no matter what sort of legislation is in place to make it “impossible” to do so.  The black market will never be shut down.  All these gun control laws do is make it more difficult for honest citizens to put a quick end to a shooter’s spree should such a crisis arise.  Personally, I feel much safer with a licensed-to-carry citizen next to me than without.  But then again, I realize that said citizen has been trained in how to use that weapon and would never casually use said weapon unless there was no other option. 

The other thing that has my snark up right now involves Fox News apparent posthumous besmirching of Kurt Vonnegut.  Apparently, Fox News ran a story the other day that wasn’t terribly flattering to the late science fiction author.  Ultimately, I couldn’t care less what Fox News thinks of the author or how people are reacting to the news story.  I deliberately tend to avoid the news in any form exactly because the news seems to bring out the worst in people.

What I am a little bit surprised by is Fox News’s deliberate mention of Vonnegut being a ‘leftist.’ Well, of course he was a leftist – most science fiction authors are.  Read just about any science fiction novel, and you’ll see worlds in which religion is all but dead, with God having been debunked and traditional and historical forms of morality having been given up in favor of less restrictive and more ‘liberating’ personal values.  These are worlds where anything goes, guilt-free, so long as others are not harmed in the process.  This is the ideal of 21st-century man, to live as he desires rather than being bound to a set of rules set down by a third party, whatever that third party may be.  This view is liberal and leftist, and for some reason this viewpoint, this hopeful future, goes hand-in-hand with science fiction.  The shirking of religion, with all its rules and regulations, is seen as progress for mankind, and science fiction embraces this hope with vigor, eagerness, and passion.

What I’d like to see is science fiction where the future world doesn’t look all that much different to the world we see today, with the obvious exception of more advanced technology.  I’d like to see some science fiction where, if anything, morality and religion have become more entrenched, just to see what that kind of world would like.  I wouldn’t mind seeing such worlds built in both a positive and negative light, since either outcome is equally likely, in my opinion.  Essentially, I’d like to see a more deliberate exploration of such universes.  And just once, I’d like to see a world of the future where religion isn’t the demon that it’s made out to be today, where religion is actually beneficial and productive.  Stephen Lawhead attempts this in his Empyrion set, and Orson Scott Card presents another version in his Ender series.  But these are the exceptions, rather than the rule.  I just tend to think that science fiction does not necessarily need to be divorced from religion and morality in order to be good and exceptional.  But since many times science fiction expresses the ideologies of each writer, they tend toward a certain brand of preachiness against religion that grows wearisome after a while. 

So that’s a bit of the snark factor bouncing around in my brain today.  And now that it’s out there, perhaps it’ll leave me alone.

Interview with Orson Scott Card – Nice little interview with one of my favorite authors.

I’ve got a rather well-rounded speculative fiction reading list to start off the new year, courtesy of my wife and sister.  Wanna see it?

• Forever Odd – I’ve been a fan of Dean Koontz’s work for years.  I’ve always enjoyed his ability to cross genres in nearly every single book.  In high school and college, I’d collected a number of his titles.  My interest scaled back in recent years, however, as some of his more recent books seemed, well, a little boring (i.e. Ticktock, Intensity, etc.).  And I was disappointed that (to my knowledge) he never completed the Fear Nothing trilogy – he left far too many questions unanswered at the end of the second book.  His Odd Thomas trilogy, however, is fascinating and has drawn me back to his work.  My wife bought me the second book in the trilogy, and it’s high on my priority list of books to read.
• By the Light of the Moon – Continuing with the Dean Koontz theme, this book again adds to my Koontz collection.  (I really need to take stock of my Koontz books again and figure out which ones I still need to get copies of.)
• Eldest – My sister thrilled me by giving me a Limited Edition copy of Christopher Paolini’s second novel.  Now, there are folks who think it’s ridiculous that adults have been so captivated by YA fiction like the Harry Potter and Eragon series.  Critics further complain that both series read like a junior high writing assignment.  In Paolini’s case, it should be noted that he wrote Eragon while still in high school and self-published it.  Later, it was discovered by an editor of a major publishing house and reprinted on a large market.  As such, I don’t mind the writing style of the first book.  It’s a fun and interesting story, and I’m looking forward to digging into Eldest and seeing how Paolini continues the story.  I will, of course, have to re-read Eragon, though, since I need a refresher on events that have happened there.
• The Protector’s War – This one is the sequel to S.M. Stirling’s Dies the Fire.  An unknown extraterrestrial force has rendered all technology on Earth useless, forcing people to fall back to more primitive ways of living.  Dies the Fire tells how people come together in tribes in order to survive.  The Protector’s War takes place eight years later, as one particular warlord seeks to destroy two tribes and take their lands.  It’s an interesting and fascinating story, and I’m looking forward to checking in with some familiar characters again.
• Old Man’s War – I’ve been eager to get my hands on some of Scalzi’s books since I stumbled across his blogs this past year.  OMW is the first in a trilogy and is Scalzi’s debut novel.  It is followed by The Ghost Brigades and The Last Colony (forthcoming), both of which I’ll be looking to lay hands on later this year.  He’s also written a rather tongue-in-cheek novel titled The Android’s Dream that’s just hit bookshelves in the last couple of months.
• Elantris – I first heard about Brandon Sanderson’s debut novel through Orson Scott Card’s writings.  He had talked about it in one of his semi-frequent reviews, and being the OSC fanboy that I am, if he endorsed with such high praise, then it was something I definitely wanted for my own library.  I was finally able to land a copy of Elantris, and I’m eager to tear into it.

I’ll be writing reviews for all these books as I complete them, so stay tuned here.  Currently, I’m in the midst of Peter F. Hamilton’s 6-volume Night’s Dawn Trilogy, so once I complete that, I’ll begin working my way through the rest of these.

I’ve got a little bone of contention to pick with book marketers.  You see, my wife gave me a gift card for Barnes & Noble for Christmas.  Perfect opportunity to knock some of those titles off my “Must Buy” list, right?  Well, it’s a nice theory.

One set of books I’m interested in is Nick Sagan’s Edenborn/Idlewild/Everfree trilogy.  The first two, at least, are in paperback now; I’d seen them on shelves not too long ago, and I found them again today.  Standard price for paperback novels is between $6.99 and $7.99, right?  Not so.  Apparently, it’s a popular idea nowadays to take a novel from a $25 hardcover and then dress it up in a $15 paperback that is taller than your standard 7-inch paperback.  Both the price tag and the size are awkward.  Obviously, some genius thought this would be a great way to milk consumers for a few extra bucks, and it must work, since they keep using it.  It’s just my ill fortune to be interested in some books that are still new enough to only have a couple of editions printed, none of which are cheap enough for me to maximize my financial resources.  Unfortunately, I bypassed Nick’s books this time around, choosing instead to wait until the next – and smaller, cheaper – edition is printed.  I also passed up Orson Scott Card’s Magic Street for the same reason – the smaller $7 version wasn’t available yet.

If this is a marketing technique that works, it works on someone else.  This consumer refused to pay $15 for a paperwork that he’ll be able to get later for $8 cheaper – and he’s patient enough to wait for it.  I’m disappointed, of course, but $20 will only go so far.  I’d rather get three new books, rather than settling for just one or two.

Update: Turns out, those larger versions are called Trade Paperback Editions, and they follow immediately after Hardcover Editions.  The types of paperbacks I apparently prefer are called Mass Market Paperbacks.  You learn something new everyday.

writefantastic – Why Fantasy?

And on the heels of the article I wrote yesterday, Mark Chadbourn has an interesting article.  This one’s actually been in my queue for a while, but the timing is good for me to actually finish writing it.

Mark’s primary argument is that writers of speculative fiction need to make sure that their stories are actually about something.  He says that writing works of fiction should about more than the story itself – it should be about saying something.  This ties directly into what I said yesterday – the reason that sex shows up so much in fiction and literature is exactly because these writers often believe that the way of life presented in their stories is exactly the way we ought to be able to do things.¹ Essentially, they have a philosophy, a worldview that they are presenting, and they are using their fictional work as a means for communicating that message.  This is exactly what Mark suggests that writers ought to be doing more of, instead of shying away from. 

I tend to agree with Mark.  One of my favorite authors has always been Orson Scott Card, and one of the reasons why I love his writing so much is because he makes me think hard about a wide variety of issues and topics.² That’s the kind of writing I aspire to, the kind I would like to emulate.  I would like to write a story in such a way that when my readers are done, they can say, “Huh, I’d never thought about it quite that way before.” My complaint with the sexual mechanic is that I think it actually takes away from this intellectual process, interrupting the flow and the philosophy and replacing it with sensation and titillation. 

So, writers who use the sexual mechanic are free to do so as a means for communicating their message, their philosophy, but I am just as free to write without using that mechanic and striving for a different kind of – and hopefully better – story.³

1. Sorry, I’ll get off this theme soon.  I think I’m almost done with it now.[back]
2. He also does so without using the sexual mechanic.[back]
3. I am also free to not read that author again, as I have opted to do in some cases.[back]

Ok, I love Orson Scott Card’s new online speculative fiction magazine, Intergalactic Medicine Show.  The stories are first-rate, the free articles are fantastic, and the extras are a lot of fun.

The biggest gripe I have with it right now?  They seem to being major problems actually sticking to a publication schedule.  The IGMS is supposed to be a quarterly publication.  This means one issue every three months.  Since the IGMS launched last October, there have been two – count them – only two issues published.  Issue 3’s publication date was pushed back from July to August, then from August to September.  Now we’re into October again – one year since the magazine opened its doors – and we’ve yet to see Issue 3 come online. 

Much as I respect OSC (he’s my favorite writer and probably my number one influence in my own writing), he seems to be having quite a bit of trouble running a magazine.  I wonder how much of this is due to turning the editorial reins over to Mr. Schubert and how much is due simply to poor planning.

Mr. Card, your readers really do want to support your magazine.  How about giving them something to actually get behind?

I don’t usually get a lot of enjoyment from reading fiction that is laced with a lot of profanity.¹ Such language is course and rude, and while the inclusion of such dialogue is generally reflective of the way a lot of people talk, in my experience it usually only serves to detract from the telling of the story.  I can deal with the occasional curse word here and there, placed strategically for emphasis, but as a general rule, I think that the inclusion of profane and curse words in a story is completely unnecessary.

It’s probably no secret that I’m something of an Orson Scott Card fanboy.  Of all the authors I read, his books are always at the top of my list to read and to buy.² One of the things that so endears his writing to me is that he is able to create these rich, complex characters without ever resorting to profanity in their dialogue.  I tend to think that writing cursing into character dialogue is a shortcut, a cheap way to demonstrate an aspect of your character’s personality.  But I think that some of the best writing makes it very clear that your character just swore without ever specifying what it was that the characeter specifically said.

I’ve always felt that cursing is a rather base behavior.  I don’t think I’ve ever seen a place where its presence ever contributed anything useful or productive to the situation.  It only seems to take and never give, and this is definitely true of literature.  For me, at least, my reading experience is greatly enriched when I don’t have to filter and sort out all kinds of dialogue that makes me uncomfortable.  So, keep the profanity out of your writing.  I know I sure will.

1. One of my favorite authors is Stephen King, and most of his works are notorious for foul language.  I do love his tales, to the extent that I will read him anyway, and skip past the garbage as best I can.[back]
2. I’ve even bought a couple of Ender’s Game t-shirts and the mousepad.[back]

Willful Grace: And Your Point Is?

Grace has written another wonderful article that hits you right in that soft, sensitive spot of pride.  Ouch.  But it does give me pause to finally write about a topic that’s been on my list for a while now and that I just haven’t quite found time to talk about yet.  So, before I get started, go read what grace has to say (and comment if you feel led to do so) and then come back and we’ll chat a bit further on the subject. 

Go on, go.  I’ll wait right here.  Go, now, I mean it!

....

....

....

Done?  Wonderful.  Now here’s my two bits on the topic:

It is impossible to judge a man until you’ve walked in his shoes for a while.  This is a phrase that we are probably all familiar with, yet it is also one that most of us conveniently forget.  We forget that the reasons for an individual’s actions are usually multifaceted and complex.  It is only in understanding the person that we are able to understand his actions.  Orson Scott Card points to this complicated interpersonal relationship in his Ender series, where the brilliant Ender Wiggin must defeat his enemies by understanding them so thoroughly he is able to predict what they will do and why.  In so doing, however, Ender also comes to love the very enemy he destroys because he knows and sees them as they see themselves.

Most of us are oh so quick to pass judgment on another.  We see the way a person dresses, the way they speak, the way they act and behave, and we pass judgment on them, particularly if we disapprove.  The individual never gets a chance to prove the reasons for his actions because we have already decided for ourselves that they are not worth more than the dirt on the bottom of our shoes.

There are two similar but subtly nuanced ways in which we judge an individual.  First, we cannot judge what a person is made of until we have walked in their shoes.  To put it a different way, we can’t know what drives them, what motivates them, what inspires them to do certain things or act in certain ways, until we have spent some time trying to understand what their needs are, what dreams they hold and have, what ideals are important enough to them to shape their behavior.  We tend to assume that everyone else is like us, that they have the same values we do, that they think and believe the same way we do.  We project our own personality traits onto these other people and then expect them to act and behave the same way we would, and when they don’t, then we criticize and condemn them and push them in a category that we consider to be the Untouchables.  Yet, when we are (rarely) faced with the opportunity to learn the true motives behind an individual’s actions and discover that they are driven by, say, desperation, for example, we are ashamed of rushing into judgment and feel guilty for not considering other alternatives for this person’s behavior.

The other way in which we judge was hinted at in the previous paragraph.  We cannot pass judgment on an individual until we truly know and understand the why of their actions.  Now, we are all aware that we should not judge, yet we still do so.  It’s part of our fallen nature, I think, to pass judgment on another, rather than simply seeing them as a fellow human being.  The interesting thing about learning what a person is really about is that it usually forces us to revise our judgment of them.  We have categorized them as Untouchable, as someone to be shunned because they did or said something that we consider shameful.  It’s not fair because we would be terribly upset if someone were to do the same to us, yet we find ourselves falling into that trap all too easily.  But when we find out why the individual in question did something, we realize that we might just as easily have acted in the exact same manner for the exact same reasons.  We find that our judgment was unjust and unfair, and we (hopefully) begin to view this person in a new light – with compassion, mercy, and grace.

We cannot judge what a person is made of or judge the justness of their behavior until we have walked a day (or more) in their shoes, until we have seen the world as they see it, through their eyes, through their need, through their desperation.  We would want others to take the time to try to understand the motives behind our own actions.  Why, then, can we not extend the same courtesy to others, no matter how Untouchable we may feel they are?