Veteran’s Day

Today is a day to remember the sacrifices of those who had died for one’s country. In the United States, November 11th has been designated as a day to reflect and celebrate the sacrifices of American Servicemen, while in the Commonwealth, Remembrance Day likewise commemorates the those who made the ultimate sacrifice. November 11th was selected because of a worthy anniversary: the end of the First World War, on November 11th, 1918, the conflict that had shocked the world so much, that many hoped that it would be the last.

Sadly, this never came to fruition, as humanity has continued their destructive streak across the century, and will likely to far into the future. In many ways, the trials of soldiers in the far future have provided some of the more interesting science fiction tales.

When thinking to military science fiction, the first book that often comes to my mind is Starship Troopers. Robert Heinlein’s masterpiece has the right tone and the right messages throughout about not only the plight of the soldier, but the responsibility and honor that veterans upheld because of their service. In one particularly early scene in the book, when Johnnie and Carl go to join the service, they are bluntly told that military service isn’t the romantic adventure that seemed to have been the perception. This doesn’t come too much as a surprise, as Heinlein himself was a Veteran, having graduated from the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis in 1929, and served as an officer until 1934, when he was discharged. As the Second World War roared into the lives of Americans, Heinlein worked once again for the military as an aeronautical engineer, alongside two other notable science fiction authors, Isaac Asimov and L. Sprague de Camp. Starship Troopers realistically and in a relatable fashion, sums up the soldier’s experience in wartime, and demonstrates that Science Fiction can be used as allegory in a number of instances.

Another remarkable example of military science fiction is Orson Scott Card’s Ender’s Game and related books that take place during and after. Card’s character, Andrew ‘Ender’ Wiggen, a tactical prodigy and statistician, is a prime example of a soldier who has a varied experience with warfare – and a mixed legacy in the years following his and humanity’s successes over the Buggers at the end of the book – a nearly complete and utter destruction of the alien homeworld. Ender’s Game is brilliant in its use of characters – Ender proves himself in Battle School, where he uses unconventional tactics to ultimately succeed and demonstrate that he has a superior mind for this style of warfare. A second series of supposed tests are designed to prepare Ender for the invasion of the Bugger’s homeworld, only to find that there was no tests – his battles were real, and he was ultimately responsible for the destruction of an entire race. Ender’s story is an interesting one, compared to other soldiers, in that he never hit the front lines – rather, he was orchestrating the war from light-years away. Despite this, the war had a profound impact on Ender for his actions – a similarity that is shared with American soldiers who pilot UVAs, according to P.W. Singer in his book Wired for War.

The franchise that embodies warfare in space is Star Wars. Love it or hate various elements of it, I’ve been greatly impressed with the stories that have been told about the Grand Army of the Republic, through a couple of different sources. The first is the Clone Wars television series, for really emphasizing on the troopers who fought on the part of the Republic. However, the real person who deserves attention for the portrayal of the troopers is Karen Traviss, with her fantastic Republic Commando series. Traviss had quite a lot of experience with the military to draw upon. As a result, Traviss goes far more into the mentality and motives of the soldiers, bringing them far more into view as people, not merely clones. Even better, the events of Order 66 seem very relevant throughout, and Traviss works hard to not only ensure that their motives for following those orders are explained in a logical fashion, but as to the intentions of the soldiers entire existence. The Clones are in a unique position here – bred only for the purpose of war fighting. For them, they’re not volunteers, and they aren’t expected to live beyond the war – something that the TV series touches on a little bit as well.

While thinking of Traviss’s Star Wars books, another good look at war comes with her book City of Pearl and the follow-up novels in the Wess’Har Wars, which examines interstellar conflict over several systems and many thousands of years. Two of her races, the Wess’Har and the Isenj, have been at war over conflicting lifestyles – the Isenj are rapid colonizers, due to a high birthrate, and did so at the cost of their environment, while the Wess’Har believe heavily in the natural world and literally applied a scorched earth policy to planets that they felt were out of line – there’s a heavy environmental message here, but it does help to reinforce a point that theorist Carl von Clausewitz made, that Warfare is an extension of policy, and thus, fought on the terms of one’s society. The soldiers here are deeply affected by the conflict, as several are essentially immortal, because of a parasite that they had picked up, one that ensures their survival. The long term toll of warfare on these soldiers is an interesting one, and several are noted to have killed themselves (prior to the events in the books) because of the stresses associated with their condition.

When it comes to interstellar warfare, as well as the potential for long term and dedicated purpose, John Scalzi’s Old Man’s War is another prime example of this sort of Science Fiction. This book, the first in a series (I have the follow up book, but haven’t gotten around to reading it yet), sees a world where old men and women are taken, because of their life’s experiences thus far, and had their minds transferred to a new, enhanced body. There are many similarities to Starship Troopers and The Forever War (another one that I have, but have yet to read), and Scalzi has an interesting take on the enhanced soldiers and their purpose. One argument in the novel is that these soldiers have been given an artificial lease on life – the best that they can do is to continue to fight. However, in this instance, they aren’t necessarily fighting for any particular cause, just the broad, overarching idea of ‘humanity’, as their citizenship on earth has been terminated by joining the fight in space. This somewhat bothered me, and a couple of the main characters, but highlights another, important aspect in warfare – soldiers, foot soldiers, are trained to fight for one another, to preserve their squad and fellow soldiers, and that message rings heavily through Old Man’s War.

Timothy Zahn has also addressed the idea of enhanced soldiers, through his books Cobra and Cobra Two, where a group of soldiers have been enhanced with a number of internal improvements – better skeletons, weapons, a sort of commando unit that are nearly unstoppable in urban combat on alien worlds. However, what really struck me with these books is that the focus is not necessarily on the fighting, but the lives of the soldiers afterwards – these soldiers, with permanent enhancements, had to adapt to civilian life where they were mistrusted and abused because of their abilities, enough to cause conflict in their homes and enough to force the entire Cobra population off world to better offerings.

Military Science Fiction has its share of veterans, and examines, as a whole, not just the cool elements of science fiction, such as powered armor, lasers, epic ship to ship combat and the like, but also the impact, and continued impact that warfare will have on those that are asked to do the fighting, for whatever reason. The concept is such a large one that it is interesting to find a number of different themes – all of which might be found with any given soldier in a real military – have essentially been separated out amongst a number of novels, and examined in depth. The overall message that can be taken from this is that the hopes following World War I were unrealistic, and that humanity will continue to fight – wars large and small will continue, and no doubt, that will continue when we reach the starts. However, it is important to remember the human cost of warfare, not just on society, but upon those who ask to serve their countries, or even worlds.

iPhone

The future is here, I’m sure of it. For the past couple of years, I’ve owned a variety of Apple iPods to keep up with my growing interest in music. Looking back at my record with the devices, I’m a little surprised that I actually stuck with the product – since my first one, I’ve gone through five. Two 3rd generation Classics, 2 2nd generation Nanos and a 2nd generation iPod Touch, which has since been swapped out for an iPhone. Fortunately, I’ve only paid for a couple of these, because of Apple’s fantastic warranty, which covered the first couple devices when their hard drives broke.

I resisted the idea of buying an iPhone for a while, which was one reason why I bought the Touch from a fellow 501st member earlier this year. That was where I realized that there was quite a lot to these devices, and partially the reason why I went out and got a phone. The sheer functionality of the two devices have been a very interesting one, and I believe that it’s something right out of science fiction.

I’m finding that the iPhone is an invaluable tool – just carrying it around with me allows me ready access to my calendar, a camera, my e-mail, a calculator, notebook, dictionary, thesaurus, first aid guide, an e-book reader, maps, a compass, the weather, and the internet, among other things, as well as being my phone and music player. I’m slowly getting into the habit of tracking my bills, 501st and work events, concerts and a bunch of other things by using it as a planner, while noting down my food shopping list, interesting books as I browse and looking up the occasional word when I come across something I can’t readily remember.

Essentially, what I can hold in my hand is an entirely new method of communicating with the world. I know I’m preaching to the choir here on the Internet. But I’m absolutely astounded that I can check my e-mail, various discussion forums, the news, weather and so much more, practically everywhere I go. (Given AT&T’s crappy coverage of Vermont, my options are pretty limited in places). Thinking back to my family’s first mobile phone, a clunky, bulky thing that could hardly be put into a pocket, and could only do one thing: call another phone. Here, calling another phone is almost an afterthought.

Star Trek is largely credited with the idea of a hand-held communicator, and the idea has been used throughout the SF genre for years. Taken back to the 1960s, an iPhone, even without having any form of cellular network to operate on, would still be a pretty handy device – it already would be more powerful than the Apollo spacecraft, and considering that the computers of the time were the size of a room. No wonder that the idea of a handheld, wireless communications device would have been a radical idea at the time, and even throughout the next couple of decades, this sort of thing can be used as a prop in the genre.

What interests me more is that for such a rapid development in our society, the influence of something such as a smart phone doesn’t seem to make its appearance in Science Fiction as prominently as it might have been. During the Golden Age of Science Fiction, the knowledge that someday, people could walk around, constantly in contact with one another via an impossible technology would have made prime story material for some of the authors. Indeed, some of the effects of these devices would probably fulfill some science fiction authors worst nightmares about a healthy society. The declines in reading, the mutilation of reading and writing abilities, the shorter attention spans and other, similar troublesome trends that we are seeing now help provide the need for such devices.

I for one, have noticed the changes in my own behavior with my phone. Before, I existed without internet at my apartment, although I could check my e-mail on my prior phone. I didn’t have television and most of my news updates came from my commute to and from work. Now, I find myself checking my messages every hour or so, while being able to access an incredible amount of information whenever I think of it. Should I want to learn anything about the Faroe Islands (an island group in Northern Europe between Norway and Iceland), or if I need to look up the meaning for the word ’causerie’ (light informal conversation for social occasions) or tomorrow’s weather, (Mostly sunny, highs in the mid 70s, Light and variable winds…), I have it at my fingertips. I’ve made a conscious effort to fill my phone with things that are useful, and as such, I’ve found that in this regard, the phone is a very powerful tool, akin to the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, or the Encyclopedia Galactica. But at other times, I just want to put it away, and just read a book.

Unfortunately, the phone has that covered. I downloaded the iPhone’s version of Amazon.com’s Kindle technology, which further adds to its already impressive array of uses by turning it into an ebook reader. I’ve downloaded a handful of the free offerings from the website. I’m currently reading Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein, Naomi Novik’s His Majesty’s Dragon, Kim Stanley Robinson’s Red Mars and China Mieville’s Perdido Street Station, which is sure to keep me occupied at the next time that I am stuck in a line or away from my books. I can’t say that I’m sold on the idea of an ebook reader, but with the option, and the occasions when I’ve found myself away from whatever I’m reading, I find it to be incredibly useful.

A couple years ago, this sounded like something out of a science fiction novel or film – the advances in technology and miniaturization over the past couple of years has the potential to change how we learn, access information and communicate with one another, but it doesn’t change the way in which we interpret that information – it just gives us more and more as people’s appetite for information over knowledge increases, which I find more worrying. I like to think that I have customized the programs in my phone be of use, for communications and information access, as well as for entertainment, and as a result, it’s by my side constantly. It’s handy, but I’m happy that there is one feature on it that has been a staple of all computers since their creation: an off switch.

“Shoot for the moon and if you miss you will still be among the stars.”

Air Canada says it has accepted 2300 reservations for flights to the Moon in the past 5 days.
– Cape Canaveral, July 24th, 1969, in the morning news report to the crew of Apollo 11.

After the successful launch, journey and lunar landing, Apollo 11 safely touched down in the Pacific Ocean on July 24th, 1969, the final successful note to one of the greatest adventures in human history. Apollo 11 was the touchstone of the entire space program, and on that day, the three astronauts on board, and the entire NASA workforce fulfilled President John F. Kennedy’s mandate that had been issued eight years ago. Man had landed on the moon, and returned safely to earth, with five months to spare. Between 1969 and 1972, NASA sent six additional missions to the moon, one of which ultimately failed. On December 14th, 1972, Astronaut Gene Cernan became the last human being to set foot on the moon.

In the thirty-seven years since we last stepped on another worldly body, we have yet to break out of lunar orbit, despite the fantastic momentum that had been built up in the years preceding the Apollo program, and bringing the constant question: When will we return?

There are two major reasons for the lack of further lunar missions, one folding into the other. The first is the very nature of Kennedy’s mandate. We would go to the moon, land there and return safely by the end of the decade. As far as a mission goes, it translates well into the American public – there is a where and a when, and that was it. Following the Apollo 11 mission, public interest in the lunar missions waned to the point where major news networks refused to air the crew’s broadcast during Apollo 13. Far fewer people took interest in the later missions, and the planned missions for Apollo 18, 19 and 20 were scrapped, despite having the hardware, crews and support staff in place.

This lack of interest, and extra hardware moved NASA to a different direction. In 1972, preliminary funding for the Space Shuttle orbiter was announced, and in 1973, Skylab, the US’s first space station, was launched, the result of the Apollo Applications Program, which was designed to modify Apollo hardware to fit other uses. With the launch of Skylab, and the move towards orbital shuttles, NASA transitioned from an agency designed to break barriers and explore new ground (figuratively) to one that was designed towards scientific endeavor and research. This mode of thinking provides an impossible environment for the planning of the types of missions that lunar or even eventually, Martian missions require.

Mercury, Gemini and Apollo were carried out in a highly logical, stepping-stones manner that allowed us to reach the moon. Unfortunately, it did not allow for us to continue returning to the moon after the initial missions were carried out. An Apollo-type program is needed for our eventual return – new rockets are under construction, as well as a new lander and spacecraft, with the intention to return to the lunar surface by 2019 with the Orion 15 mission.

What is lacking is the proper environment in which space travel and lunar missions can thrive. We reached the moon because we were attempting to beat the Russians to the surface, ending the Space Race readily. It was competition, with a sense of national pride and honor at stake that allowed for the massive budget and organization that allowed NASA to go to the moon. Now, with things such as healthcare, terrorism and other major national issues crowding the legislative agenda, there is little desire to go to the moon, it would seem, as there are pressing matters here on earth to do.

I’m often skeptical of such assertions. While yes, a lunar mission is a costly affair, (the Apollo project cost $135 billion, adjusted), the current war in Iraq has cost $669 Billion dollars. That sort of money could easily be used to spend on health care, paying down the national debt and other notable things, but it is the projects such as this that make the United States what it is, and provides a reason for people to continue to imagine, and to provide something absolutely splendid for the country to point at and look upon with pride. Apollo was an absolutely stunning national achievement, one that makes everything that we do worth living for, and to defend.

We will return to the moon, and we will eventually travel to Mars, to Io, and Titan, whether brought there by NASA or by private enterprise, but it is within human nature to travel and to explore.

Technology & Pirates

Last night, on my way home from work, I ended up listening to a couple commentators discussing the recent rise in piracy off the coast of Somalia. This has been of particular interest here in Vermont, as Captain Richard Phillips is from Underhill, and recently was returned home safely after a 5 day standoff with the pirates who took him hostage. 

The article in general was examing a number of high tech ways that vessels, which generally don’t like to arm their crews (for safety reasons), are adopting to fend off pirates. These items range from types of foam that can prevent someone from climbing up on a ship, water cannons, directed sound and light emitters that deafen or blind combatants, all of which have had some use in the seas already. Most of these things I remember being developed by the military for non-lethal warfare, and they seem to be pretty effective at repelling boarders, which is hoped will help to stop piracy in that region. 

I don’t think that it’s going to work, however. 

A short while ago, I did several reviews and an interview with Wired for War author Peter Singer, and I think that there are several parallels between this high-tech approach to taking on 21st century pirates, and our new, high tech ways to taking on insurgents in a 21st century world that Singer has outlined. Additionally, there were several points in my own studies on methods of warfare that give me some pause when it comes to new and high-tech gadgets being put into combat situations. 

On the more obvious side, technology seems to be the silver bullet for warfare. Soldiers nowadays have enormous capabilities compared to their historical predecessors. Our soldiers can fight in the dark, can shoot a person from over a mile away, can fly over a hostile combat zone from thousands of miles away, and talk to one another while fighting in a way to coordinate their movements. These advances have allowed our military personnel to be far more effective in combat, and as a result, more people come back alive than before. There is very little downside to this. 

What I fear, however, is that our military, and indeed, our society, has come to expect far more from fighting forces, and are more willing to utilize technology as a method of warfare. While covering the 2009 Colby Military Writer’s symposium here at Norwich University a month ago, the panel discussion brought up the point that President Eisenhower noted in his fairwell address in 1961, warning against the rise of a military industrial complex, noting that going to war nowadays is far easier, because the personnel required is smaller, with technology being percieved as making up the difference far better than humans can. 

This has certainly been a big issue for Iraq, and numerous talks and people I’ve spoken with have noted that the human element to warfare is something that cannot be underestimated or eliminated. Author Alan R. King, noted that many of the problems that we had in Iraq was a failure to understand the human element within the country, with in turn cause the situation to worsen. Peter Singer also noted that a number of human rights groups have looked into the idea of utilizing unmanned drones in genocide areas, such as Sudan’s Darfur, in an effort to stop the violence, and former CIA operative and author Robert Baer has noted that for all the satellites in orbit, having an operative in a room with someone is the best way to gather intelligence, because they can see, hear and feel everything that it going on, things that robotic solutions cannot do at the present moment. These ’solutions’ are really not solutions. 

So, when it comes to the rise in Piracy in Somalia, technology is certainly going to deter some pirates. But, what happens when they aquire a water cannon of their own, or use goggles and ear plugs to counter the countermeasures? The same thing is happening in Iraq at the present moment with children armed with spray paint – an expensive robot is taken out of commission by a far cheaper solution. The other issue that I see with extensive countermeasures against pirates is that this could up the ante when it comes to the pirates themselves, and they have already threatened to do so following the deaths of the three pirates who took Richard Phillips the other day. Simply killing and deterring pirates at this point is a short-term solution, as we have found killing insurgents. Where there are people who have taken up arms, there will be people to follow, and the situation will escalate. 

President Obama has recently said that they will be putting a stop to the rise in piracy over there, but what exactly does that mean? Will we send in a carrier group to cover a large amount of ocean, while not addressing the underlying problem? Or will he go the route that will be unpopular and attackable by working with the remains of the Somali Government to try and control the problem through economics, which will ultimately solve the problem? The pirates are the symptom of a country in dire need of help, and working to alleviate that symptom will not bring about any sort of long term solution.

Bryan Dondero to Depart the Nocturnals

According to Vermont’s largest daily newspaper, Bassist Bryan Dondero is departing from the popular VT band, Grace Potter and the Nocturnals, raising some issues that he had with the band and their creative direction. The recent move has forced the band to cancel several shows (Revolution Hall in Troy, NY on March 25th; The 8×10 in Baltimore, MD on March 26th; and Mr. Small’s in Millvale, PA on March 27th) that were coming at the end of the month, although there is no word as to whether the band will continue at Bonnaroo.

The article cited Dondero’s displeasure with the band’s move to a major record label in 2007 for their fantastic album This Is Somewhere, which marked a noted change from funk-soul in the band’s style to something more along the likes of classic rock. In the article, he stated: “I was always a little skeptical, they’re owned by Disney.” He then goes on to note that he and Potter disagreed on several points, and that he felt that he was going to be asked to leave the band.

This is a bit surprising, at least to me. I’ve been a huge fan of the Nocturnals since I started listening to them several years ago, and being from the same place, and indeed, attending the same high school as Grace, it’s been absolutely fantastic to see the band grab so much attention as they have in the past couple of years. The group has largely been seen to have been a great creative force, and it’s unclear as to how this will affect the band, especially as they are working on their next major record label album.

This also brings up the argument about indie vs. major label records. Obviously, there is far more creative control when it comes to an independant record, as the band found with their first two albums, which gained them quite a bit of notice around the state, and only with the major record, were they able to gain even more attention on a nation-wide level, especialy with appearances on Jay Leno, Grey’s Anatomy and One Tree Hill.

That being said, Potter’s latest single, I Want Something I Want is a huge departure from her normal style, and even I’ve been a little disapointed with the stylistic change here – it’s an incredibly shallow and pop-ish song, far below what we’ve come to expect from her. It’s not a bad song alone, but within the context of what we’ve heard before, it doesn’t come close. However, the Nocturnals are on the rise, and it should come to no surprise that they will have to sacrifice some style and independance for the attention. While it’s not a good situation, they can do far more later on, as well as with their live shows, which are incredibly energetic and exciting to watch.

I really hope that the Nocturnals will find another bassist in the near future, so that they can continue to play around the area, as well as complete their new album, but I hope that they won’t forget their Vermont roots and where they came from, because that would be an enormous amount of talent that would be squandered with the regular, consumer level music. The Nocturnals are much better than that. I also hope that this doesn’t spell any more problems for the band, because I’ll be very, very sad if they break apart.

(Originally posted to Carry You Away)
Image from Flickr

Borders Books & Music and The Science Fiction Genre

A number of authors have posted up on their personal blogs what appears to be a disturbing trend when it comes to one of the nation’s largest booksellers: Borders Books & Music. It seems, that because of profitability, the Borders chain is cutting back on a number of SciFi titles that they used to carry, which has several authors up in arms, because if one of the biggest retailers doesn’t stock their books, that represents a huge cut in their own profitability.

Author Greg Frost seems to have started this with a blog post here. In it, he notes that his book, which went back to the printers a couple times and received good reviews, is not being picked up by Borders anywhere. This is because the first book in the series didn’t sell well. Through the rest of the article, he brings up several points that are both indicative of the industry and of the genre, disturbing trends alike. (I have to say, that after reading this, I’m tempted to pick up the first book and see how it is. )

I used to work at a Walden Books, which is owned by Borders, and I’ve noted a couple of problems with the chain that several of these authors highlight. I don’t see this move as malicious intent on the part of the book chain – I see it more as misguided business models that are designed more towards profitability than towards promoting books and reading. Yes, this is a business – a very big one – but for all the need for Borders to make money, I’ve always seen a book store as a place where people can find something new, exciting, invigorating and fun, mainly through the joys of reading. This is far easier when it comes to a smaller, local bookstore, because they have the narrow shelves, creaky floors and obscure books, and generally, the knowledge and enthusiasm. As Frost points out, the book selling industry has never been a hugely successful one, but it’s held up and kept moving by people who have a passion for books and reading. In my opinion, that’s how it should be, and while this is largely unrealistic, it’s still a nice thought to have.

Several other authors have chimed in about this. Pat Cadigan slammed the company in her blog, Ceci N’est Pas Une Blog with this post.  She notes that a lot of these stores tend to stock primarily movie edition scifi books – I, Robot and Minority Report as two examples, but not so much some of the lesser known, but equally just as good, authors. I think that she misses some of the bigger picture here when it comes to the business, but I do agree with several of the things that she says when it comes to losing our culture.

While I don’t think that we’re losing culture (any sort of culture that involves buying or selling is generally pretty superficial anyway), it is drastically changing because of the internet. Some things that we hold dear, such as browsing a bookstore has been lost to clicking away on a computer screen, while the books that really sell are the rapidly written movie novelization for the genre movie of the month.

Andrew Wheeler chimes in as well with a more balanced blog post here, and takes far more into consideration that bookstores are businesses, and that a lot of this is an effort to move over to online sales, in an effort to compete with the juggernaut Amazon.com. He also explains something about why the big chain stores are in business, and how that has changed some of the landscape, and how that seems to be coming back to bite authors and consumers at this stage. Larger chain stores, when introduced, were big, had a lot of stock and introduced discounts and a fairly consistent inventory to the equation, which some of the more independent bookstores didn’t have. Here in Vermont, I can tell you that there are a number of smaller bookstores near my house – Bear Pond Books is great, but they have a very, very limited selection of Sci-Fi and fantasy books. Rivendell has a slightly better selection, while the Northfield Book Store also has a fairly limited selection. The Walden Books where I used to work up the hill has four or five times the selection of SciFi books, than all of those stores, and they can order just about anything on the market.

Bookstores and culture is changing, mainly because of the internet. Major websites such as Amazon.com sell books very cheaply, offer a ton of options and are incredibly fast. Brick and mortar stores are struggling to keep up, and have had to really expand the selection of things that they sell, which is why you now see items such as candy, movies, cafes and discount cards. I’m not trying to defend Borders – I have several issues with some of the things that they do, but this is something that seems to be across the board when it comes to these big stores.

The Borders rewards card is a particular problem – it was when I worked there and it still is. Employees are given a percentage goal for the number of purchases made with a card, and how many people are to sign up. The idea is customer loyalty – If a customer gets coupons from Borders or benefits because of these cards, they’re going to shop there more. The problem that I’ve always seen is that the required percentages are insanely high, and it’s very hard to obtain for a cashier, and I know several people who have resorted to scanning in blank cards just to try and keep up – at the cost of their jobs. Borders tends to be pretty draconian about their business policies, and one of the things that really took the rosy hopes that I had for working at a bookstore right away from me. I didn’t like worrying about my sales figures  more than telling a customer about a book that was really good – it became more of a how can I get this customer to buy more stuff? While again, this isn’t a surprise or something unexpected when it comes with retail sales, it runs against everything that a bookstore should be. Bookstores have to remain in business, but the corporate structure really doesn’t lend itself well in this case.

The biggest problem when it comes to science fiction authors is that these cuts, at an attempt to become more profitable, are being hurt for the sheer superficial reason that they don’t sell enough copies, and much more of the genre, as I’ve ranted before, is moving more towards media tie-ins rather than the purely original stuff. While this isn’t bad, it is leaving the genre with more of an image that its just a pile of crappy novels based off of this movie or that video game. Across the board, media tie-ins aren’t as good as regular fiction, in my point of view. There are exceptions here, and a couple authors who would disagree with me, but when it comes to the genre, I would much rather see original works, not based off of any franchise, get the shelf space, rather than a work that’s largely a product (even though it might very well be a good product) advertising for something else, like a movie. This lessens the genre. This added step from Borders doesn’t help things at all when it comes to authors who haven’t gone and written for the media tie-in market, either because of personal choice or because they haven’t been able to work their way in yet.

Increasingly, I’m finding it harder and harder to find what look like good reads on the bookshelves of stores, which is a real tragedy, because this is one way that the newer and upcoming authors can really break out and get an audience. I’m not advocating for a boycott of Borders, because that doesn’t really help things – if nobody buys related genres from there, the sales go down and you’ve made the problem worse. Supporting your independent bookstore is generally the best thing to do, if there is still one around, but the main thing is to continue to follow authors and follow up on new ones, and order their books from somewhere, even if it requires jumping through several hoops. Because in the end, you want to read the book, and the effort to get it should make it all the more worthwhile.

Edit: Wednesday: Neil Gaiman has chimed into the argument from his blog here.

Bookshops have neither infinite shelf-space nor infinite financial resources, and if you only have space and resources enough to put out on the shelves five new SF or Mystery or Horror books this month, then the sixth and the sixteenth books that come out in that field aren’t going to get bought or shelved. And even if they are, a lot of them are going to vanish next month, and it’s a rare author who remains popular enough to hold his or her shelf-space forever.

Sci-Fictional

A while ago, I wrote about a show that was coming out that I was pretty excited for – Fringe. The show’s been out, and it’s pretty much what I’ve expected, and it’s certainly a fun program to watch. The main thing is though, you really can’t take it too seriously.

Popular mechanics went and did a feature on the bad science in the show. From both episodes that I’ve seen, they’re really taking liberties with what’s going on here, and theyve acknowledged that – J.J. Abrams has said that they would pretty much jump the shark each episode, which makes me think that the creators just want to have as much fun as possible before the ratings plummet.

One of the readers on the PM website left this comment:

” It’s science fiction, not science fact. there’s no point in wasting time and effort to debunk something that isn’t real in the first place”

This made me think a little bit – to what extent is Science Fiction about made-up science? To some extent, there’s quite a bit, when you look at some of the things that SciFi has covered over all the years. We see aliens from mars, aliens from other star systems, worm holes, cloning, robotics, robots that look like people, robots that look like people and want to be people, hyperspace, and so forth, nothing that really has any real-life counterparts, unless you subscribe to the aliens landed at Roswell thing. So there’s a lot of science fiction that utilizes made up items in order to tell its story.

But how much of this is merely a plot device and how much is just technobabble? This, in my mind, is what seperates the good science fiction from the bad. The best science fiction stories that I’ve read and watched have some of the more absurd things happen to some of the characters. Takeshi Kovacs is a super soldier who’s trained to switch bodies by means of a Stack, a small carbon device implanted in his brain (and much of the rest of the population) to prolong life. Shan Frankland was infected with a parasite that allowed her to survive a trip into the vacuum of space for months before being revived. Martin Springfield is an agent for a super intelligence known as the Eschaton, and works to prevent causality breaks designed to eliminate the Eschaton. Dr. Susan Calvin is a robopsychologist for US Robotics and Mechanical Men, and … you get the idea.

In each instance, the science here is a secondary element, although generally, very well thought out, given the level and sophistication of knowledge at the time of the book’s publication. The characters and story are the primary movers here. The same goes for two of my favorite TV shows, Firefly and Battlestar Galactica, where a lot of the science that could, and has been traditionally dropped in as technobabble, has been eliminated in favour of a character driven story.

To me, this is what really makes or breaks a story, when an author or creator can place people in improbable or impossible situations, and make them react in a way that entertains, or enlightens us, rather than a useless explaination for something that doesn’t exist.

This isn’t to say that all science fiction utilizes fake science, and with time, science catches up to the literature. Charles Stross’s Halting State (reviewed here) utilizes MMORPG and Social Networking as part of its storyline, showing off a near future that’s quite frightening. Karen Traviss’s Wess’Har series utilizes some likely technology throughout the story, and presents some very real problems, such as Global Warming and Climate Change several hundred years from the present day, and provides a fairly realistic-seeming future for society after that happens. The film Minority Report actually utilized a think tank to try and figure out where technology would go, and in the years since its been released, much of what we saw seems likely. The list goes on and on.

The big question is, when does some of the more fantastic things, like Cloning, Artificial intelligence, flying cars and jet packs become non-fictional? We’ve already had a couple of those things happen.

In short, there’s a lot of Science that will be perceived as fake, but necessary. In Fringe’s case, it’s the fantastic explanation that’s undermined by bad science. This really doesn’t set the show apart from things such as the X-Files or Star Trek, but it is fun to watch.

The Dark Knight

I saw a screening last night with a couple of 501st friends, and all I can say is that I was completely blown away by the movie. It held such an intensity, darkness and brilliance that I’m not at all reluctant to say that it’s possibly my favorite comic book movie to date. As a friend of mine mentioned, nobody is going to care about a drunk in a tin-can after this one.

Plot details are everywhere, so I don’t think that I will have to say what the film is about. What really makes the story here is it’s intense plot that is very twisted and packed with subplots and characters. It’s a little overwhelming, and I think that it’s the one drawback to the film, because point A at the beginning is nearly forgotten from point q way at the end. That being said, it’s an amazing ride between those points, and it’s nice to see a film that doesn’t pander down to an audience, but takes them along for a wild ride.

Everyone is singing the late Heath Ledger’s performance as nothing short of brilliant, and I’m inclined to agree. Ledger’s Joker is a far cry from Nicholson’s performance, fitting the style of the new franchise – dark, gritty and completely without social inhibitions of right and wrong. He is, essentially, the perfect counterpoint to Bale’s Batman. One is a source of justice, the other is one of chaos and anarchy. As Alfred, played by the great Sir. Michael Cane says, some men just want to see the world burn, and that is what Ledger’s joker is all about.

The usual suspects, Bale, Caine, Freeman and Oldman are in top form as they were in Batman Begins, and are joined by Maggie Gyllenhaal, who makes a far better Rachel Dawes, and Aaron Eckhart, who plays Harvey Dent, who pulls out a brilliant performance as Gotham’s new DA and later as the villian Two Face. There’s even a short appearance from Cillian Murphy as the Scarecrow, which was a nice touch, and Heroes’ Eric Roberts as a crime lord was also a cool appearance. I also spotted William Fichtner from Prison Break in the beginning, which was cool.

What the Dark Knight shows the world is that comic book films are not necessarily something solely for a younger audience. This film is dark and bloody, intelligent and borders on something like a horror film at times. It’s a far cry from other batman movies such as Batman and Robin or the Fantastic Four. Like Iron Man, which came out earlier this summer, it wraps real world relevance with the fantastic.

Additionally, the movie delves much more into superhero mythos than most films or comics that I’ve read, really exploring the nature to which good and evil interact, as well as the intentions and consequenses of those actions. The Joker is a force for anarchy, but to what extent has be been brought into being by the mere existance of Gotham’s Dark Knight? Caine’s character tells Bruce Wayne that this is somewhat the result of his existance:

Bruce Wayne: I knew the mob wouldn’t go down without a fight. But this is different. They crossed the line.
Alfred Pennyworth: You crossed the line first, sir. You hammered them. And in their desperation they turned to a man they didn’t fully understand.

This is mirrored (no pun intended) by the introduction of Harvey ‘Two Face’ Dent in the form of Aaron Eckhart. The DA of Gotham is a force for good, but essentially becomes enamored of the idea that there is two sides to everything, and this is shown a lot in the movie, especially after half of his face is burned off. It goes to show that the best of the best can have two sides, and that the good can become the worst type of evil. The Joker is essentially a catalyst, and knows it – he tells Batman that he’s out there to give Gotham a better class of criminal. Two Face represents a more organized, type of evil, and I wonder if this, as well as the villification of Batman at the end, foreshadows some of what might come up in the next Batman film, which would be interesting.

The film is downright brilliant, and hopefully, I’ll be able to catch it in theaters again at some point.

Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog

Joss Whedon’s done it again – created something geeky, cool and downright addicting, and which has completely sucked me into. Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog.

The premise is fun – a up and coming super villain in LA has a blog, where he answers reader mail, talks about his plots of world domination and the girl that he’s too shy to talk to, Penny, whom he sees at the laundry. Intermixed with the dialogue is some catchy songs, turning this short miniseries into a sort of geek musical.

It’s stripped down, simple, but very fun and interesting to watch. I predict that in the very near future, we’ll see people put together the costumes and perform this as a fan musical at a convention somewhere. It’s short and easy enough to do that it wouldn’t be difficult. Whedon’s not a stranger to musicals either, nor are some of the cast – Neil Patrick Harris is a Broadway alum, and Whedon’s done at least one musical episode. The songs are light and catchy. I’ve had a bunch of them floating around in my head for the past couple of days now. Whedon’s assembled a nice cast of albums from his shows, which is all the more entertaining to see fan favorites.

“With my freeze ray I will stop… the world.”

Like many of Whedon’s creations, there’s a good mixture of well crafted characters. We’ve got the archetype good and bad guys, but the good guy has his darker sides and the bad guy has his good sides. Along the way we meet Moist, who can make things slightly damp, and Bad Horse, “Who rules the league with an Iron hoove.” It’s another fun foray into the superhero genre, which seems to be getting more and more popular outside of comics. I’ve been getting more and more interested in this sort of thing, and this really reminds me of Soon, I Will Be Invincible and to some extent, Heroes.

This comes at an interesting time, because NBC just released the first of a series of minisodes for the show Heroes, called Postal, following a mail man with a very loud voice. The first episode features him escaping from a doberman and a couple of company agents. Minisodes are an interesting thing that really doesn’t seem to have caught on to a wider audience. Battlestar Galactica, Eureka and a couple of other shows have released these, and Heroes marks the latest in the intigration of mainstream media to user-generated content and viral marketing.

Thus far, Dr. Horrible is a success. The site crashed on the first day of the miniseries release, and has been brought back up again, and the second episode hasn’t given me any issues. The first episode hit the #1 spot on iTunes as well, and I’m reasonably sure that the 2nd episode, whenever that it released via iTunes, will do the same thing. Then, on the 20th, the free content will be pulled, and a DVD release will follow. Will this experiment work? It seems to be. Hopefully it’ll be successful enough for Whedon to continue to do this sort of thing, and according to at least one source, they’ve considered a sequel series.

This comes at an interesting time – the release of the Heroes minisode, and of course, this week is the one that marks the release of The Dark Knight, easily my most anticiapted film of 2008. I declare this week to be Superhero week. Next episode will be released on the 19th, this Saturday. I absolutely can’t wait to see how they wrap this up. Will Dr. Horrible take over the world and get the girl? Or at least join the League? Will Captain Hammer have his way with Penny? Will there be more catchy songs and witty dialogue? Undoubtably.

Watch the episodes here.

Memorable quotes:

Part 1

- Captain Hammer, corporate tool. He dislocated my shoulder…again… last week. (Billy/Horrible)

- I received a letter of condemnation from the deputy mayor. That’s gotta have some weight. (Billy/Horrible)

– I love your hair (Billy/Horrible)
What? (Penny)
No, I love the…air…(Billy/Horrible)

- Just a few weeks away from real, audible connection. (Billy/Horrible)

– Armored car? (Moist)
Courier van. Candy from a baby. (Billy/Horrible)

- Need anything dampened, made soggy?

- Why not cut off the head? (Billy/Horrible)
Of the human race? (Penny)
It’s not a perfect metaphor. (Billy/Horrible)

It’s curtains for you. Lacy, wafting curtains. (Captain Hammer)

Part 2

- You’re kidding, what a crazy, random happenstance. (Billy/Horrible)

- Billy? You’re driving the spork into your leg. (Penny)

- I say successful that I archived my objective. It was less successful as I inadvertently introduced my arch nemesis to the girl of my dreams. (Billy/Horrible)

- Which it will, because I hold a PhD in horribleness. Peace. But not literally…(Billy/Horrible)

- I also need to be careful about what I say on this blog, because the LAPD and Captain America are among it’s viewers. (Billy/Horrible)

- Captain Hammer threw a car at my head. (Billy/Horrible)

- At my most badass, I make people want to take a shower. (Moist)

- The only signature he needed was my fist. But with a pen in… that I was signing with… (Captain Hammer)

America’s Declining Lead in Space

This article came across the Washington Post earlier today that I found facinating:

U.S. Finds It’s Getting Crowded Out There
Dominance in Space Slips as Other Nations Step Up Efforts

By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 9, 2008; A01

China plans to conduct its first spacewalk in October. The European Space Agency is building a roving robot to land on Mars. India recently launched a record 10 satellites into space on a single rocket.

Space, like Earth below, is globalizing. And as it does, America’s long-held superiority in exploring, exploiting and commercializing “the final frontier” is slipping away, many experts believe.

Although the United States remains dominant in most space-related fields — and owns half the military satellites currently orbiting Earth — experts say the nation’s superiority is diminishing, and many other nations are expanding their civilian and commercial space capabilities at a far faster pace.

“We spent many tens of billions of dollars during the Apollo era to purchase a commanding lead in space over all nations on Earth,” said NASA Administrator Michael D. Griffin, who said his agency’s budget is down by 20 percent in inflation-adjusted terms since 1992.

“We’ve been living off the fruit of that purchase for 40 years and have not . . . chosen to invest at a level that would preserve that commanding lead.”

In a recent in-depth study of international space competitiveness, the technology consulting firm Futron of Bethesda found that the globalizing of space is unfolding more broadly and quickly than most Americans realize. “Systemic and competitive forces threaten U.S. space leadership,” company president Joseph Fuller Jr. concluded.

Six separate nations and the European Space Agency are now capable of sending sophisticated satellites and spacecraft into orbit — and more are on the way. New rockets, satellites and spacecraft are being planned to carry Chinese, Russian, European and Indian astronauts to the moon, to turn Israel into a center for launching minuscule “nanosatellites,” and to allow Japan and the Europeans to explore the solar system and beyond with unmanned probes as sophisticated as NASA’s.

To some extent, I’m not surprised by this at all. I really think that NASA has essentially lost its purpose as a sort of exploration and science type of organization while focusing extensively on science that, for all intents and purposes, is interesting, but out of touch with the vast part of the American public. Putting an Astronaut on the moon is something that is tangible, but also exciting, it captured the imagination, much as the first space walks and excursions did. Once people became used to the idea that humanity can touch the stars, life returned to normal.

While the United States has been making incremental progress in space, its global rivals have been taking the giant steps that once defined NASA:

· Following China’s lead, India has announced ambitious plans for a manned space program, and in November the European Union will probably approve a proposal to collaborate on a manned space effort with Russia. Russia will soon launch rockets from a base in South America under an agreement with the European company Arianespace, whose main launch facility is in Kourou, French Guiana.

· Japan and China both have satellites circling the moon, and India and Russia are also working on lunar orbiters. NASA will launch a lunar reconnaissance mission this year, but many analysts believe the Chinese will be the first to return astronauts to the moon.

· The United States is largely out of the business of launching satellites for other nations, something the Russians, Indians, Chinese and Arianespace do regularly. Their clients include Nigeria, Singapore, Brazil, Israel and others. The 17-nation European Space Agency (ESA) and China are also cooperating on commercial ventures, including a rival to the U.S. space-based Global Positioning System.

· South Korea, Taiwan and Brazil have plans to quickly develop their space programs and possibly become low-cost satellite launchers. South Korea and Brazil are both developing homegrown rocket and satellite-making capacities.

This explosion in international space capabilities is recent, largely taking place since the turn of the century. While the origins of Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Israeli and European space efforts go back several decades, their capability to pull off highly technical feats — sending humans into orbit, circling Mars and the moon with unmanned spacecraft, landing on an asteroid and visiting a comet — are all new developments.

I really hope that these recent developments will help push the United States back into a mindset where we need to return to the moon. With the incredible advances in technology, I imagine that it would be somewhat easier and cheaper to return, especially with a lot of the initial groundwork that was laid with the Apollo program already under our belts. I can see the Chinese as huge contenders for the next men to walk on the moon, with the rate at which their nation is developing. I think that it’s just a matter of time.
I firmly believe that space travel will be, and should be taken out of the hands of the US government and NASA. Advances in space travel from this point on will likely not be taken by said groups – it’ll be firmly in the hands of non-governmental organizations. Incentives such as the X-Prize and the Google X-prize are just the first things to come, in my opinion.
The problem with NASA is not that they don’t do a good job – they do, and they have the world’s leading space program at the moment – but they are currently being held back by constraints such as Congress and budgets – by people who are too scared to try, and where setbacks such as a shuttle disaster such as Columbia or Challenger seem to indicate to policy makers that the road to space is far too difficult and too dangerous. Interestingly, the 6 MILLION car accidents in 2005 hasn’t prompted policy makers to shut down the vast US interstate system.

In contrast to the Cold War space race between the United States and the former Soviet Union, the global competition today is being driven by national pride, newly earned wealth, a growing cadre of highly educated men and women, and the confidence that achievements in space will bring substantial soft power as well as military benefits. The planet-wide eagerness to join the space-faring club is palpable.

China has sent men into space twice in the past five years and plans another manned mission in October. More than any other country besides the United States, experts say, China has decided that space exploration, and its commercial and military purposes, are as important as the seas once were to the British empire and air power was to the United States.

The Chinese space program began in the 1970s, but it was not until 2003 that astronaut Yang Liwei was blasted into space in a Shenzhou 5 spacecraft, making China one of only three nations to send men into space.

“The Chinese have a carefully thought-out human spaceflight program that will take them up to parity with the United States and Russia,” Griffin said. “They’re investing to make China a strategic world power second to none — not so much to become a grand military power, but because deals and advantage flow to world leaders.”

Meanwhile, other nations are pushing to increase their space budgets. Ministers from the European Space Agency nations will vote in November on a costly plan to begin a human space program. David Southwood, ESA’s director for science, said human space travel has broad support across the continent, and European astronauts who have flown to the space station on U.S. and Russian spacecraft are “extremely popular people” in their home nations. “It seems highly unlikely that Europe as a whole will opt out of putting humans into space,” he said.

NASA and the U.S. space effort, meanwhile, have been in something of a slump.

The space shuttle is still the most sophisticated space vehicle ever built, and orbiting observatories such as the Hubble space telescope and its in-development successor, the James Webb space telescope, remain unmatched. But the combination of the 2003 Columbia disaster, the upcoming five-year “gap” when NASA will have no American spacecraft that can reach the space station, and the widely held belief that NASA lacks the funding to accomplish its goals, have together made the U.S. effort appear less than robust.

The tone of a recent workshop of space experts brought together by the respected National Research Council was described in a subsequent report as “surprisingly sober, with frequent expressions of discouragement, disappointment, and apprehension about the future of the U.S. civil space program.”

Uncertainty over the fate of President Bush’s ambitious “vision” of a manned moon-Mars mission, announced with great fanfare in 2004, is emblematic. The program was approved by Congress, but the administration’s refusal to significantly increase spending to build a new generation of spacecraft has slowed development while leading to angry complaints that NASA is cannibalizing promising unmanned science missions to pay for the moon-Mars effort.

NASA’s Griffin has told worried members of Congress that additional funds could move up the delivery date of the new-generation spacecraft from 2015 to 2013. The White House has rejected Senate efforts to provide the money.

Although NASA’s annual funding of $17 billion is large by civilian space agency standards, it constitutes less than 0.6 percent of the federal budget and is believed to be less than half of the amount spent on national security space programs. According to the Futron report, a considerably higher percentage of U.S. space funding goes into military hardware and systems than in any other nation.

At the same time, the enthusiasm for space ventures voiced by Europeans and Asians contrasts with America’s lukewarm public response to the moon-Mars mission. In its assessment, Futron listed the most significant U.S. space weakness as “limited public interest in space activity.”

The cost of manned space exploration, which requires expensive measures to sustain and protect astronauts in the cold emptiness of space, is a particular target.

“The manned space program served a purpose during the Apollo times, but it just doesn’t anymore,” says Robert Parks, a University of Maryland physics professor who writes about NASA and space. The reason: “Human beings haven’t changed much in 160,000 years,” he said, “but robots get better by the day.”
Satellite Launches Fall

The study by Futron, which consults for public clients such as NASA and the Defense Department, as well as the private space industry, also reported that the United States is losing its dominance in orbital launches and satellites built. In 2007, 53 American-built satellites were launched — about 50 percent of the total. In 1998, 121 new U.S. satellites went into orbit.

I foresee US and even global space interests resting in the hands of commercial ventures, with bodies such as the European Space Agency or NASA largely becoming regulatory bodies. The X-Prize has proven that private interests without governmental aid can reach the skies, and I’m sure that the Google X-Prize will prove that we can reach the moon as well. Governmental aid will certainly help this process, but a private industry of satellites and space stations, as well as the means to reach them could be very profitable, not only for the scientific community.

In two areas, the space prowess of the United States still dominates. Its private space industry earned 75 percent of the worldwide corporate space revenue, and the U.S. military has as many satellites as all other nations combined.

But that, too, is changing. Russia has increased its military space spending considerably since the collapse of the Soviet Union. In May, Japan’s parliament authorized the use of outer space for defense purposes, signaling increased spending on rockets and spy satellites. And China’s military is building a wide range of capabilities in space, a commander of U.S. space forces said last month. Last year, China tested its ground-based anti-satellite technology by destroying an orbiting weather satellite — a feat that left behind a cloud of dangerous space debris and considerable ill will.

Ironically, efforts to deny space technology to potential enemies have hampered American cooperation with other nations and have limited sales of U.S.-made hardware.

Concerned about Chinese use of space technology for military purposes, Congress ramped up restrictions on rocket and satellite sales, and placed them under the cumbersome International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). In addition, sales of potentially “dual use” technology have to be approved the State Department rather than the Commerce Department.

The result has been a surge of rocket and satellite production abroad and the creation of foreign-made satellites that use only homegrown components to avoid complex U.S. restrictions under ITAR and the Iran Nonproliferation Act. That law, passed in 2000, tightened a ban on direct or indirect sales of advanced technology to Iran (especially by Russia). As a result, a number of foreign governments are buying European satellites and paying the Chinese, Indian and other space programs to launch them.

“Some of these companies moved ahead in some areas where, I’m sorry to say, we are no longer the world leaders,” Griffin said.

Joan Johnson-Freese, a space and national security expert at the Naval War College in Rhode Island, said the United States has been so determined to maintain military space dominance that it is losing ground in commercial space uses and space exploration. “We’re giving up our civilian space leadership, which many of us think will have huge strategic implications,” she said.

“Other nations are falling over each other to work together in space; they want to share the costs and the risks,” she added. “Because of the dual-use issue, we really don’t want to globalize.”

Article Source