Recently in Analysis Category

In response to An Open Letter From The Arthur C Clarke Award:

What value does the Award bring to the SF community and what role should it play in its future?

I love the fact that's it's juried, not a popularity contest but an honest assessment of what was good in SF that year. It's my must read shortlist, and I know that's the same for a lot of other SF fans. It helps fans discover new novels and opens a discussion about those they've read. In the future I think that's a perfect thing to carry on doing.

How important is a UK focused prize in an increasingly international and digital marketplace?

The UK focus provides a great sense of community. It's something around which UK SF fans can gather and discuss and feel part of. It doesn't feel remote like The Hugos often do, it feels relevant and in touch. It's also simple, no complicated rules like some other awards. I'd be wary of opening the award up to non-UK published authors, it would loose the simplicity. Not sure how a digital publication would qualify. May be we could ignore the eBooks and hope they go away ;-)

What more could the Award do as part of its broader advocacy remit to promote science fiction?

Not sure. More press I suppose, but otherwise keep in doing the same thing and producing shortlists of quality, interesting Science Fiction novels. There's a danger in looking to expand, it's that evil capitalist idea that everything should grow. I don't agree, The Clarke Award should focus on what it does well and keep doing it.

How much does the success and the credibility of the Award depend on it having a cash prize?

As a fan, not a lot. As an author I can't say, but if I had to guess, I'd guess that the prestige is worth more than the money.

What new partnerships and opportunities could we create to generate seed funding for the future?

I don't know, but the idea of attracting a big name science or technology company as a sponsor sounds like a good idea.

In short, I love The Arthur C. Clarke Award as it is, yes, very conservative of me! More of the same please.

Over at SF Signal, John posted a set of questions about eBooks, for people who aren’t keen on eBooks. If you’ve been listening to Wordpunk you’ll know that I’m not the greatest fan, so I thought I’d try and spell out why, using the questions as my framework:

Have you ever tried reading an eBook?

Yes.

If so, on what device?

I’ve read a book on a Nokia 6230 which is not recommended, the screen is tiny and the experience is terrible. I’ve also read portions of eBooks on laptops, but generally I end up printing them out to finish them. I’ve tried out in shops various E-Ink readers and was unimpressed with the display and the refresh. I’ve read web pages on an iPad, I couldn’t imagine reading a book on it. No, I haven’t read anything on a Kindle.

What's your single main reason for not reading eBooks?

An inferior reading experience to proper books. I spend all day at work staring at a computer screen, the last thing I want to do is read another screen in the morning or evening. Reading from paper is relaxing. Plus the form of a paperback book is far superior to current eBook readers, they’re small, portable, zero-boot time, you can drop them on the floor, put mugs of tea on top, generally not care about their safety, flick back and forwards etc. etc.

Are there any other reasons you don't usually read eBooks?

Cost, both of buying an eBook reader device and of buying the actual eBooks. Instead of buying a Kindle I can buy at least twenty paperback books.

What would it take to get you to read eBooks?

A good reason. If eBooks are as expensive as paperbacks, or sometimes more expensive, and if the reading experience is, in my opinion, inferior, why would I? The often quoted reason is that you can carry lots of books around with you. For music I can understand that, on average a song lasts four minutes, you need a few to keep you listening for a while. But a book? On holiday I might finish a book in a week, but usually it takes longer. I don’t need to carry lots of books around with me.

What do you think is a fair price for an eBook?

Less than a paperback. I’ll probably regret saying that when my first novel is published, but as a consumer I don’t see why I should pay more when I get less physical stuff. Yes, yes, I know all the arguments about production costs, marketing, on and on. That argument played out in the music business a while ago, and the result is that the price of a digital album needs to be less than that of a physical CD. Same for books. Arguing the point is delaying the inevitable.

In a recent comment thread over at Torque Control I said "There seems to be a common feeling with people coming into SF that you need to know real science to write good SF. Which is of course rubbish." The comment was in response to Catherynne M. Valente posting about writing Science Fiction.

Following that Athena Andreadis wrote a post titled Science Fiction Goes McDonald's: Less Taste, More Gristle on The Huffington Post and said she was surprised at the agreement with which my statement was greeted.

I think the key point here is that there are degrees of accuracy.

As an example Dr. Andreadis rephrases my statement to use historical fiction as an example:

Let me rewrite that statement for another genre: "There seems to be a common feeling with people coming into historical fiction that you need to know real history - or at least the history of the era you plan to portray - to write good historical fiction or alternative history. Which is of course rubbish."

Cell phones in a Renaissance novel? Tudor court ladies on mopeds? Why should anyone notice or care?

So first of all we'll make the assumption that the author of the historical novel is not attempting anything modern or funky or surreal and is going for an accurate historical novel. I agree that if I was expecting an accurate historical novel then phones and mopeds in a Tudor court would jar with me. However, I am not a scholar of history, or even very well versed in many periods of history. But then who is? Who is an expert in every slice of history? So when it comes to a historical novel such as The Baroque Cycle, guess what? I have no idea what Neal Stephenson made up and which bits were taken from primary sources. And I don't really care. The novel evoked the period to me, I loved the story and I could, if I wanted to, try and find more academic sources to read.

But even those academic sources have elements of doubt. Presumably much of history cannot be pieced together form primary sources? I don't know, I'm out of my depth talking about history already.

The same is true even when moving to science: this year I read A Quiet War by Paul McAuley, there's some interesting science in the novel: biology and ecology. To be honest I had no idea whether it was accurate or not. Like history, I know very little biology. It didn't really impact the story, McAuley sounded like he knew what he was talking about.

So let me switch to something I (used to!)  know about, physics.

Say you want to write a Hard SF novel. You research the state of the art in string theory, or brane theory, or whatever. You stick to your exacting research. The number of people who will know whether you are accurate or not is tiny, a small group of physicists who have spent years buried in maths. And let us not forget that those theories are just that, theories! They could be disproved within a year if the LHC delivers some nice data.

Even with experimental physics, nothing is ever really proved to be the absolute truth. Physics is just a model of the universe that we can conveniently use. You can never discount that some experiment will come along and highlight a flaw in your glorious model. Yes, of course some models have gathered such impressive experimental proof that they can be taken as "correct", but my point is that it's not black and white.

So as a SF writer you have to decide how deep you want the facade to go. The deeper you go the narrower the audience that will be able to spot your flaws. If you want a shallow facade it does not mean you can't write Science Fiction, it is after all, fiction.

Well, the Torque Control Short Story Club is over (for now) and I’ve found it an enjoyable journey into analysing my own short story tastes.

I’ve read stories that I never would have read (those Fantasy ones) and whilst I don’t think my tastes have changed, I think I now have a clearer idea of what I do like. And looking at that smallish chunk of taste makes me want to push the boundaries a bit and find something surprising.

There’s so much choice when it comes to reading a short story that it was quite nice to be told what to read, and when. Having Niall pick the stories was like skiing around a resort with a guide: less time looking at the piste map and worrying whether you’ll get lost, and more time looking at the wonderful scenery and enjoying the thrill.

The regularity has also been a pleasant surprise. Usually I read short stories in bursts: an anthology, or an award short list. Reading at least a story a week has been a very good habit to get into, and, as is the way with habits, has resulted in positive feedback. I’ve found myself reaching for a short story to read these past few weeks more than reaching for a novel.

And also one can’t underestimate the enjoyment of discussing the story with others (even if that discussion only involves reading others comments). It’s the sort of discussion that doesn’t really happen online with novels, because everyone reads them at different speeds and times. There’s no deadline like in real world book clubs. Which is why conversation seems to congeal around TV episodes rather than literature. It seems like it takes an award short list to galvanise a discussion of novels.

Anyway, a success!

I think I’ll stick to reading at least one short a week.

• New Doctor Who episode, where are you? Emptiness.
• New Doctor Who episode announced! Yay! Hurray! And yay again!
• Trailer for new Doctor Who episode revealed. Oooh, looks awesome.
• Trailer for new Doctor Who episode is on heavy rotation on the BBC. Looks even more awesome.
• David Tennant is on every TV and Radio show in the universe, talking about the new Doctor Who episode. Sounds even more awesome.
• New Doctor Who episode tomorrow!
• Watching new Doctor Who episode, started well.
• Oooh.
• Oh. The ending was rubbish.
• Let down. Exciting, cool but  that ending. Oh I can’t forgive you.
• A year passes.
• New Doctor Who episode nominated for lots of awards.
• New Doctor Who episode endlessly repeated on BBC3.
• Oh, that old Doctor Who episode is on BBC3, time to watch it again.
• Not as bad a the memory. Ending still rubbish.
• New Doctor Who episode, where are you? Emptiness.

Can you think of any Science Fiction films that haven't dated as the years have passed since its release? This conversation came about as a spin-off from the James Cameron conversation and was sparked by the statement that Aliens hasn't dated at all.

So off the top of my head, here are a selection of timeless SF films:

Aliens

The non-stop crazy scary action on an alien world is still futuristic and plausible. The setting is expertly timeless.

Back To The Future

Whilst definitely of it's time, Back To The Future never looks dated to me. Instead it looks like a wonderful comparison of two past eras.

The Matrix

Forget the terrible sequels, the original film still looks amazing, feels fresh and is stunningly cool

Star Wars

Episode 4? A New Hope? Or just Star Wars. The only thing looking slightly dated in the film are the haircuts. Otherwise the past in a galaxy far away still looks pretty good. Bizarrely the remixed Special Edition looks terribly dated due to horrible Jabba The Hutt CGI.

Planet Of The Apes

Still enjoyable and looking good. Circumvents the haircut issue by putting the astronauts on a ling trip. You'd expect the apes to look terrible, but they don't. And the ending is still cool.