Tuesday, June 28, 2005

Farewell to Paradox

In the original Star Trek episode "City on the Edge of Forever," when a deranged Dr. McCoy has jumped through a time portal into the past, effecting changes that eradicate the existence of the Enterprise, Spock muses that perhaps time is like a river, with eddies and currents, and that if they likewise jump into the portal, these currents will carry them to McCoy's point of intervention.

Apologies to Harlan and Roddenberry both, but that is some lousy science. Or is it?

Later, when time is altered and then set right, our good Vulcan rationalizes their belief in one true timeline by suggesting that both the alteration and it's correction were predestined.

This was pretty much the Star Trek position for the original series, the original cast films, and into the start of The Next Generation, right up through the episode "Yesterday's Enterprise" (and Denise Crosby's only decent performance) . But then something happened. The Graham-Everett-Wheeler many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics finally broke through into the popular consciousness.

Then we got episodes like season seven's "Parallels," in which a quantum fissure in space-time propels Worf through a series of alternate universes. The episode's climax sees a myriad different versions of the Enterprise converging, all from their own realities, all equally "real" to their inhabitants, some radically different from our own. The singular time line is gone.

This plays out even more in Deep Space Nine, especially in the episode "Trials and Tribble-ations," in which we learn that - far from having it's own self-correcting mechanisms as Mr. Spock proposed a century ago - time actually requires Federation protection in the form of the "Department of Temporal Investigations."

By the time of Voyager's two-part episode "Future's End," the notion of one sacrosanct timeline has been shot all to hell, and the writers don't even bother with resolving or explaining the multiple temporal paradoxes they introduce. This will become a staple of Voyager episodes, with multiple stories showing the plurality of existence, and the subsequent loss of individuality that results. Of course, some of this is just lazy writing, but the impact of the Graham-Everett-Wheeler depiction of the multiverse was certainly still reverberating through the science fiction writers' zeitgeist.

And now this....

Physicists Daniel Greenberger of the City University of New York and Karl Svozil of the Vienna University of Technology in Austria claim to have demonstrated that the most basic features of quantum theory may inherently rule out paradox. Essentially, their argument resolves around a quantum object's ability to behave as a wave. Ordinarily, such an object split into component waves and traveling through space-time is most likely to end up in places where its component waves recombine "constructively." But, when the component waves travel into the past they behave surprisingly different, their various components "interfering destructively", canceling each other out and actively preventing anything from happening in contradiction to that which has already taken place. If I'm wrapping my head around this correctly, this means that you can travel into the past, but only that past which results in your future.

Basically, you can't alter the timeline, because the past you travel to is the one in which you don't.

It seems that all those heavy-handed, self-correcting mechanisms science fiction writers used to put in their stories showing the universe itself acting to prevent paradox might actually have a basis in reality. And Harlan Ellison's "river of time," far from looking like a hackneyed plot device to get Kirk and Spock where they needed to be, is seeming a bit damn prescient about now.

Fascinating.

Interaction World Science Fiction Convention Schedule

For those of you planning to attend the 63rd World Science Fiction Convention in Glasgow, Scotland this coming August, 4-8, 2005, and who feel they would enjoy seeing me run at the mouth about all things SFnal, here is my final panel schedule:

Saturday 12:00 noon, August 6th

Not the Hugo Award Panel

Lou Anders
Charles N. Brown
Ginjer Buchanan
Niall Harrison (M)
Gordon Van Gelder

What should win the Hugo Award in the fiction categories? Panellists discuss what they think should win and what the actual vote might be.

Sunday 11:00am , August 7th

Where is the Heart of the Genre?

Lou Anders (M)
Harry Harrison
Paul Kincaid
Ian R. Macleod
Stanley Schmidt

Is short fiction still the engine that drives sf or is the most exciting writing taking place at novel length?

Monday 1:00pm, August 8th
SECC Loch Suite, Boisdale-1 Room

Pyr Presentation

Lou Anders
Keith Brooke
Ian McDonald
John Meaney
John Picacio
Justina Robson
Chris Roberson
Joel Shepherd
Martin Sketchley

Come learn about Prometheus Books' new imprint, ask questions, meet our authors & artists (or at least those not too hungover from the previous three nights who are still lingering around), and see what's instore for the coming seasons.

Sunday, June 26, 2005

Batman Begins

When I was a child, for some inexplicable reason I couldn't pick up Batman on television, but my neighbors, Steve & Greg Sparks, just one street over, could. Relations with the Sparks kids were always a bit tricky, as the younger was a bit of a baby at times and the older had a mean streak, but I managed, as often as I could, to trek through the ravine behind our houses and a couple backyards to be in front of their television in the afternoon in time for the adventures of the Caped Crusaders. The uncertainty of this situation meant that my viewing was sporadic, and I saw plenty of Part One's without a Part Two and vice-versa. I faired better with The New Adventures of Batman, the animated series with the voices of Adam West and Burt Ward (and Lou Scheimer as Bat-Mite). I grew up hanging upside down on the swing set in a cape my mother sewed for me, passing the Bat Anti-Shark Spray down to my Robin (a Radar O'Reilly look-alike named Alan Eskew). And when I was the first in line at the World of Wheels, and Adam West called me a fellow crime-fighter, well, I was just too proud for words.

I still remember my first comic. It was a Batman Family, and it contained a story by Denny O'Neil that explained the Batman's abstinence from guns as a phobia resulting from a childhood encounter with the Shadow. (Sidenote: Since the Shadow was only temporarily licensed to DC, the brilliant Batman: the Animated Series replaces Wayne's childhood inspiration with the Grey Ghost, voiced, appropriately enough, by Adam West.) I misplaced the comic book at a young age, and it became my "long lost comic book" until I unearthed another copy at a flea market as a pre-teen.

But even as a small child, I was aware of the evolution of the Batman character. My parents had given me a nice hardcover volume called Batman: From the 30s to the 70s (Crown Publishers, 1971). It reprinted choice selections from the Darknight Detective's career, from his very first appearance (Detective Comics #27, "The Case of Bat-Man & the Chemical Syndicate"), to the first appearances of the Joker and Robin, and continuing through important moments such as Dick Grayson's departure for Hudson University and beyond. Pouring through this volume, my childhood self was exposed to the entire progression of the superhero genre in microcosm. I was able to track as both art and story grew in depth and sophistication, and though I lacked the vocabulary to describe it, I could sense how Bob Kane's genius lay in creating a character who was so visually memorable as to lend himself to a myriad interpretations across decades of writers and artists' work.

Introduced in 1939, the Batman was a noir vigilante, very much in the vein of the Shadow. In fact, he executed criminals without compunction with twin-six guns in a manner that would have made Lamont Cranston proud. But within a year, the Boy Wonder was introduced, WWII was looming large in the American consciousness, and dark-toned stories fell out of favor in lieu of more lighthearted fair. Batman and Robin soon revealed they had a code against killing, the guns were gone (in part to play down the inevitable Shadow comparisons), and their mythos rewritten such that the Batman had never killed. The Joker, first introduced as a somber serial killer who's death-pale visage inspired utter terror, quickly became a cavorting buffoon. In fact, he wasn't even officially crazy. (There was actually a comic whose resolution involved Batman and Robin convincing the Joker that he was going mad.)

Truth be told, through much of the 40s and 50s, Batman's comic book exploits were pretty much inline in tone and temperament with those of his camp 60s television show counterpart. In fact, Batman comic book scribe Bill Finger penned several episodes. To this day, you'll never find a better Penguin than Burgess Meredith or a truer rendition of the Riddler than that offered by Frank Gorshin. (Oddly, the only major Bat-villain to be absent from the television show was Two-Face, perhaps because his scarred countenance was too horrific. However, of all the stories from that era, it's interesting to note that the Two-Face encounters are the least camp, most poignant - drenched as they are in the character's guilt and steadfast refusal to believe in the possibility of redemption. As such, they hold up the best in light of today's more sophisticated readers' standards.

Appropriately, it was as the camp television show was in its final days that a writer named Denny O'Neil (born the same month and year as the Batman himself, May 1939) took over the reigns of the comic book and changed everything. Partnering with the soon-to-be-legendary artist, Neal Adams, who brought a hitherto unseen level of realism to the depiction of superheroes, O'Neil revamped the Batman legend, either reinventing the character or returning it to its 1939 roots, depending on your perspective. Robin (who was previously presumed to be thirteen) was swiftly aged and sent off to college. Gone mostly were the costumed villains, replaced by international terrorists, corrupt politicians, mafia bosses. O'Neil's Batman was a Darknight Detective, akin to Sherlock Holmes, who employed his wits and credible criminology methods in the apprehension of evil doers. Bruce Wayne moved out of Wayne Manor into a penthouse apartment atop the Wayne Foundation in the heart of Gotham, and the Batmobile itself was often depicted as little more than an unmarked dark blue sports car, not dissimilar from a Corvette of the era. Occasionally, it would have the suggestion of the Batman's cowl in the lines of its hood, but gone were the fins, bubble domes, rocket engines, and Bat-insignias of previous models. It was during this period that the Joker was reverted to the murderous maniac of his original appearance. When he was captured, it was not Gotham Penitentiary to which he was returned, but Arkham Asylum for the Criminally Insane (the name a nod to the horror fiction of H.P. Lovecraft). The mysterious Ras al Ghul was introduced at this time as well, his daughter & Batman-love interest Talia and his Himalayan headquarters both directly inspired by the James Bond film, On Her Majesty's Secret Service. O'Neil's era established the Batman (not Batman, but "the Batman" as he has originally been called) as a serious comic book icon, and remained for many years the quintessential depiction of the character.

But a three-decades long back-story weighs heavy, and in the wake of O'Neil's departure from DC Comics, the costumed villains, one by one, came marching back in. The late 70s and early 80s were a schizophrenic time for the character, with writers and fans maintaining the "seriousness" of Batman while parading out an assortment of costumed crazies, with everything from dueling versions of the Mad Hatter to the Calendar Man making an appearance. Slowly, the legend of the Batman began to ebb, if not back towards camp, towards a muddle from which little work of lasting significance emerged. (An exception to this is a brief but significant run in Detective Comics by Steve Englehart & Marshall Rogers, Detective Comics #471-476, August 1977 to March-April 1978, which revived the 1939 villain Professor Hugo Strange and mirrored the Joker's original killing spree from his first appearance.)

Then, in 1986, Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns burst on the scene. The tale of an aging Bruce Wayne emerging from retirement for one last showdown against crime and corruption, Miller chose to play up the "dark" in Dark Knight. His Batman was obsessed, seething with a barely contained rage that forced out any chance at companionship or peace and overwhelmed Wayne. To recount The Dark Knight Returns' influence and importance on the entire comics industry would take another essay entirely. The prestige format was created for its release, and it almost single handed launched the "graphic novel" format as well - to say nothing of the emphasis it caused to be placed on adult storytelling, nor the respect for comic books it engendered in the mainstream. But suffice to say that The Dark Knight Returns, along with Miller's later Batman: Year One soon became the definitive rendition of the character, and remain so to this day.

Ironically, it was the initial success of The Dark Knight Returns that prompted Warner Bros. to put forth a darker, "serious" cinematic version of the character - a comedy staring Bill Murray had previously been in development - that resulted in the 1989 Tim Burton film, Batman. Praised at the time for being the most serious depiction the Batman had yet received in film or television, and impressive in its striking visual surrealism, it nonetheless wasn't right in the eyes of many fans, prompting Frank Miller himself to say that there were many versions of the Batman character, and obviously he and Tim Burton were depicting different ones.

Truthfully, there are many different versions of the Batman, and the camp version portrayed by Adam West is no less valid than that of the frustrated Billionaire lashing out through his arsenal of "wonderful toys" as depicted by Michael Keaton. Right is and will always be subjective, and I wouldn't begrudge the six year old that I was, sneaking through the woods to the Sparks' house to watch the Dynamic Duo, one iota of his enjoyment. But we can speak in terms of levels of sophistication of various Batman interpretations, as well as pinpoint key works as having had the most profound and lasting influences on the canon, as determined by readers and writers. To do so means that something resembling a "more correct" version of the Masked Manhunter can emerge as a dialogue within the canon between the most significant and enduring works. To date these include O'Neil and Adams' original run, the aforementioned Englehart & Rogers collaboration, Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns and Year One, Alan Moore's The Killing Joke, the Batman: the Animated Series and related animated movies and spin-offs (Mask of the Phantasm, Batman Beyond, Justice League, etc...), and Jeff Loeb & Tim Sale's The Long Halloween and Dark Victory.

So it was with profound excitement that I learned that Christopher Nolan and David S. Goyer took as their inspiration these seminal works, relying heavily on O'Neil's original stories of Ras al Ghul, Frank Miller's Batman: Year One, and Loeb & Sale's The Long Halloween and Dark Victory. Star Christian Bale even kept copies of the latter works on set with him for reference when he needed help maintaining his focus on the character. By crafting what is the most faithful-to-the-comics adaptation of Batman to date on film, Nolan and Goyer have created in Batman Begins what very well may emerge as the new definitive rendition of the Batman, as well as raised the bar for comic book adaptations henceforth. (And here is a good time to give fair "spoiler warning".)

With allowances to the character's variegated history, and apologies to Adam West, a definitive portrayal of the Dark Knight must include:

1. A depiction of the extreme force of will of the character. Michael Keaton's Batman was a frustrated and confused little guy who suited up in stiff armor and used an arsenal of impossible gadgets to vent his frustration, then came home and had trouble sleeping. He was dark alright, but his anger was unfocused, his motivation unclear, his methods unrefined. The Batman of the comics, as he is portrayed today, is a "normal" human being who can enter a room full of super-powered beings and command their attention and send a chill down every spine there - despite having no powers of his own - by his mere presence and force of personality. As Ducard says to Bruce Wayne, "Your training is nothing. The will to act is everything." Neitchzean overtones intentional. This is a man who believes, as he says in The Dark Knight Returns, that "the world only makes sense when you force it to."

2. The Batman has something to prove. Legendary artist Dick Giordano once said of the Batman, "The Batman does what he does for himself, for his needs. That society gains from his actions is incidental, an added value...but not the primary reason for his activities." Young Bruce Wayne was the "prince of Gotham City," a billionaire's son living a life only the top one percent of the world could enjoy. Then, in an instant, his happiness and security was yanked away from him. That realization, the realization of the inevitability of death as the great equalizer, that no matter who you are, you can step outside and be hit by a bus, struck by lightening, choke on an olive pit, be shot by a petty thief, and it can all end - struck the young Wayne at an age way earlier than most of us ever encounter it. (I still remember being 17 and seeing how close I could drive my car to a retaining wall on a curving mountain road. And the exact moment, a year later, when I realized with stunning certainty that I was not immortal.) This knowledge (and fear) of death at such an impressionable age terrified him. Like Captain Ahab, who lost his leg (and more if you read between the lines) to the White Whale, Wayne set out to prove to the universe that death could not catch him unawares again. He chose as his territory Gotham City, and as his target the criminal underworld (as Ahab chose the whale), but his real target (and intended audience) was the cosmos itself. In a Batman story from the early 70s, a trained martial artist studies Batman in combat and then attempts to take him down. Later, looking out the window of Commissioner Gordon's office, Batman muses that somewhere out there, some other punk is readying himself to take his shot. "And that makes you depressed?" Gordon asks. "No," the Batman replies, "I can hardly wait!" In "Ghost of the Killer Skies," (Detective Comics #404, 1970), he even challenges a cornered opponent to a duel in the air in biplanes, a rather pointlessly bit of theatrics when a simple punch would suffice, until we remember his motivation - proving to himself and the universe that no matter what form death takes, it will find him ready. This theme plays out in full in Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns, in which every possible death is evaluated by the Batman until he settles on one grand enough to lay his spirit to rest - that of beating the Man of Steel, here very deliberately a stand-in for God, in a fist fight. (Note to criminals: If Batman is ever about to beat the tar out of you, challenge him to a game of Yatze. If he's never played before, you've just saved yourself a whoopin'.)

3. A refusal to kill and an aversion to guns in particular. Not to pick on him excessively, but in the second Burton film, Batman Returns, Michael Keaton's Batman sat inside the protection of his armored Batmobile and burned alive an unprotected man with a flame from his rocket engine, after the other ineffectually menaced him by breathing fire in a cheap circus stunt. This dick-wagging scene, which drew a chuckle from the audience I saw it with, not only flew in the face of 70 years of continuity, but was the most cowardly act the Batman has ever been seen to enact on film. By contrast, the Batman of Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns shuts off his weaponry and emerges from his Batmobile to take on a younger, stronger, seemingly superior foe bare-handed because, "I honestly don't know if I could beat him." (See point #2 above.) The Batman absolutely cannot kill, even in self defense. In fact, especially not in self defense. Since he is acting out of selfish motivation, as Giordano notes above, and placing himself into situations in which he must prove his superiority over death on a nightly basis, he would be a monster if he condoned killing in self-defense. His entire perception of his own sanity, and his ability to circumnavigate Gotham's laws in favor of a higher, personal justice, rests on this razor thin line. (Note: The one character in the Batman mythos who understands this as well as Batman himself is the Joker, who knowingly pours as much pressure on this line as he can in both The Dark Knight Returns and The Killing Joke.)

4. The understanding that, unlike the vast majority of costumed crime fighters, Batman's secret identity is not the core persona. Bruce Wayne, the millionaire playboy, is the disguise, whereas "the Batman" is his true nature. In Grant Morrison's Arkham Asylum, when asked by a henchman if they can unmask the captive Batman to see his true face, the Joker snaps, "That is his true face." In the animated spin-off series Batman Beyond, when criminals use a chip implanted in his skull to try to drive the elder Bruce Wayne insane by making him hear voices in his head, he confesses that he maintained his grip thusly: "The voices kept calling me Bruce. In my mind, that's not the name I call myself." Wayne is a prop, a place for Batman to hide during the day. Unlike other heroes, who fear exposure of their private lives, if Bruce Wayne were ever revealed to be the Batman, Wayne would merely disappear, and six months later another alter-ego would emerge to serve a similar function, but the Batman would continue unaffected. Rachel Dawes had it right when she said the face the criminals see was the real one.

So did they get it right with Batman Begins? In framing their film's theme in terms of fear vs. will, in maintaining Batman's compunction against killing, in recognizing the danger of becoming "lost inside the monster," in the acknowledgement that Batman was the true persona and Wayne the mask, in drawing on the seminal texts from O'Neil's late 60s work to Frank Miller's late 80s revision to the recent additions of Loeb & Sales, and , in stripping the franchise of its overblown sets and surrealistic excesses, and giving us a real Batman in a real city with a real motivation that matched and even in places exceeded the groundwork laid by the best of the comic books, Nolan and Goyer have given us the film that I for one have waited for half my life. Finally, the Batman has been presented on screen in a manner in accord with the best of his comic book representations. Did they get it right? Hell, yes they did! Forget Adam West, forget the Tim Burton films. Batman indeed begins here. Many happy returns!

Tuesday, June 21, 2005

Prometheus & Pyr's BEA Booth

Earlier this month I was in New York city for Book Expo America, the largest publishing convention in the United States. Courtesy of Chris Roberson, who had a very successful signing of his Here, There & Everywhere that weekend, here are some pictures of the Prometheus/Pyr booth:

On the first day, we had some very nice displays of give-aways. The stack of Sean Williams' The Resurrected Man is about three-quarters where it started. Every single book had disappeared by afternoon:

Meanwhile, Fiona Avery's The Crown Rose, which started out stacked as high as my sternum, had dwindled this far in little more than an hour, and was gone well before noon. There were a lot of wonderful comments about the book's cover, which was by the artist Caniglia:

Here, if you look to the left of my head, you can see Pyr's first season:

All in all, a very successful weekend.

Tuesday, June 14, 2005

Words of Wisdom from Frederik Pohl

Where the Mundane and the anti-Mundane might meet, in a broadly elegant definition of the genre and its importance:

Does the story tell me something worth knowing, that I had not known before, about the relationship between man and technology? Does it enlighten me on some area of science where I had been in the dark? Does it open a new horizon for my thinking? Does it lead me to think new kinds of thoughts, that I would not otherwise perhaps have thought at all? Does it suggest possibilities about the alternative possible future courses my world can take? Does it illuminate events and trends of today, by showing me where they may lead tomorrow? Does it give me a fresh and objective point of view on my own world and culture, perhaps by letting me see it through the eyes of a different kind of creature entirely, from a planet light-years away? - These qualities are not only among those which make science fiction good, they are what make it unique. Be it never so beautifully written, a story is not a good science fiction story unless it rates high in these aspects. The content of the story is as valid a criterion as the style.

Friday, June 10, 2005

FutureShocks

Just got this in today from the publisher, the cover to my next anthology, FutureShocks, due from Roc in January, 06. Another stunning John Picacio illustration:



Contributing to FutureShocks: Kevin J. Anderson * Paul Di Filippo * Alan Dean Foster * Howard V. Hendrix * Alex Irvine * CaitlĂ­n R. Kiernan * Louise Marley * Sean McMullen * John Meaney * Paul Melko * Robert A. Metzger * Chris Roberson * Adam Roberts * Mike Resnick & Harry Turtledove * Robert J. Sawyer * Robert Charles Wilson

Monday, June 06, 2005

Interviews with Pyr Authors

Barnes and Nobles' Explorations newsletter Spotlight Feature is an interview with Chris Roberson, in which he talks, among other things, about Here, There & Everywhere, MonkeyBrain Books, and his upcoming novel, Paragaea: A Planetary Romance.

Meanwhile, three interviews have appeared with Charles Coleman Finlay, discussing his new novel, The Prodigal Troll. Finlay is interviewed in Ideomancer, in Tobias S. Buckell's author newsletter, and on Maria Zanini's webpage, On Writers and Writing.

Update: Martin Sketchley, whose novel The Affinity Trap we are publishing in September, just informed me that he's also interviewed on the Alien Online, wherein he talks about his followup novel The Destiny Mask, but also about his N. American Pyr release.

Friday, May 27, 2005

Muggle SF

The brilliant and talented Ian McDonald has started a blog, wherein he recently responds to the equally talented and brilliant Geoff Ryman's Mundane SF manifesto.

For those who came in late, the Mundanes hold:

That interstellar travel remains unlikely. Warp drives, worm holes, and other forms of faster-than-light magic are wish fulfillment fantasies rather than serious speculation about a possible future.


That magic interstellar travel can lead to an illusion of a universe abundant with worlds as hospitable to life as this Earth. This is also unlikely.


That this dream of abundance can encourage a wasteful attitude to the abundance that is here on Earth.

That there is no evidence whatsoever of intelligences elsewhere in the universe.

That absence of evidence is not evidence of absence -- however, it is unlikely that alien intelligences will overcome the physical constraints on interstellar travel any better than we can.

That interstellar trade (and colonization, war, federations, etc.) is therefore highly unlikely.

That communication with alien intelligences over such vast distances will be vexed by: the enormous time lag in exchange of messages and the likelihood of enormous and probably currently unimaginable differences between us and aliens.

That there is no evidence whatsoever that quantum uncertainty has any effect at the macro level and that therefore it is highly unlikely that there are whole alternative universes to be visited.

That therefore our most likely future is on this planet and within this solar system. It is highly unlikely that intelligent life survives elsewhere in this solar system. Any contact with aliens is likely to be tenuous, and unprofitable.

That the most likely future is one in which we only have ourselves and this planet.

Now while I applaud the Mundaners their laudable concern for our own little blue marble, I believe that it is way-dangerous to make predictions that close the book on hitherto undiscovered technologies. This seems naive even without having to invoke the famous Charles Duell patent office legend. Nor, last I checked, has the jury yet come in on the multiverse. (See, for instance, physicist & science writer Michio Kaku's recent work, Parallel Worlds.)

Leaving aside these quibbles, they are partially correct in their criticisms of past and contemporary "Wide Screen Space Opera," as Ian concedes when he writes, "Whatever kind of humanity makes it into interstellar space is not going to be like us. It’s needs and ecological niche will be very different."

Claiming that we can't make it into space ever, at all, in any way, shape or form, however, is very different from asserting that we can not make it as we are now. The Mundanders seem, then, to be arguing a focus on near-future extrapolation vs. far future vision.

But Ian further comments, "If we confine ourselves only to the most likely near-future, does MSF run the risk of becoming almost a shared-world anthology, a future history?"

Bingo.

In the introduction to my 2003 anthology, Live Without a Net, entitled "Disengaging from the Matrix" I argued against what I perceived at the time as an apparent bottleneck in our speculative futures. I wrote then that, "one has only to read Wired magazine and Scientific American with any regularity to see that some form of that Gibsonian existence is barreling down upon us with ever-increasing speed. As advances in computerization, miniaturization, and neural interfacing are being made every day, it becomes increasingly hard for writers of speculative fiction to imagine near-future scenarios that do not contain at least some of the tropes of cyberfiction. "

Now, the anthology was a long time in the making, and I was really writing from a cusp-of-the- millennium perspective, talking largely about an American-only SF scene that seemed obsessed with VR simulations and post-cyberpunk and which had yet to embrace the New Space Opera, the full importance of the Vingian Singularity, the New Weird, et al. to the degree that swiftly followed. But I still hold that a restriction of imagination for whatever reason - whether internally imposed or externally compelled - is an undesirable thing.

Charles Stross makes the very good point in his comment wherein he says that "declaring that certain technologies are almost certainly not going to happen therefore we shouldn't consider the consequences of them is almost certainly about as wrong-headed as you can get..."

I think that the problem stems in part from the fact that science fiction has evolved to fulfill multiple roles, and each successive movement or manifesto that comes along seems to section off one of them in isolation from or opposition to the rest.

If I may...

Science fiction can serve as an actual communicator of science and the scientific worldview. As such, it may employ the rigorous application of current scientific principals, but it need not do so in order to communicate a general sense of the value of a rational (verses a superstitious) world view. (I would suggest that this is an increasingly-important function in America's current political climate. Intelligent Design anyone?)

Science fiction can serve as allegory, as social criticism, as a lens for examining the present by casting it in the future. As such it can employ loose or rigorous extrapolation, though it is not by any means obligated to do so and its extrapolation may be exaggerated for satirical effect. (Again, see parenthetical above as to the current importance of this aspect of SF.)

Science fiction can serve as predictor, as prognosticator of the future. As such it generally strives for rigorous scientific extrapolation, and as such, it is generally wrong. That it is often wrong is not the point. (And it is sometimes right!) But in that it serves as a community of forward-looking individuals in part dedicated to the idea that technology creates social change and to the examination of the ramifications of each new technological potentiality in advance of its actual development and implementation is value in and of itself. (A value which, one wishes, was paid more attention in light of the absurdity of certain Congressional debates on stem cell research and cloning. The work has already been done for you folks. If you only paid attention...)

Science fiction can serve as catalyst for the future. The number of SFnal devices that were later created by enthusiastic engineers and inventors is too numerous to list here, though examples range from Clarke's communication satellites to Captain Kirk's cellphone to Geordi LeForge's visor. The website Technovelgy is a good start for some contemporary examples. (In this regard, it seems clear that even bad science fiction can serve as the catalyst for invention.)

Finally, yes folks, science fiction can serve as entertainment. And that may be my most strenuous objection with the Mundaners. They seem to have forgotten that it's okay to have fun. (And in an age where science fiction literature is loosing rapid ground to its less-informed cinematic counterpart, sacrificing SF's entertainment value may be cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. It is certainly counter-productive to communicating one's message.)

I think I'm fine with any movement that seeks to describe one aspect of science fiction however they want, but I'm opposed to any movement that seeks to proscribe for the rest of us. And in closing, I want to summarize with a quote by Arthur C. Clarke who wrote, years ago, that "the limits of the possible can only be defined by going beyond them into the impossible." Like Lewis Carroll's Alice, I think we should all strive to believe three impossible things before breakfast. Maybe by lunch, one of them won't look so improbable after all. And by dinner time, it might even be a reality. And if not, we were still guaranteed an interesting day.

Thursday, May 26, 2005

Pyr's 2nd Season Preview

I'm please to announce that individual book pages for Pyr's fall/winter season have just been added to the Pyr website. This time, we're very proud to be publishing titles by Keith Brooke, Scott Mackay, John Meaney, , Michael Moorcock & Storm Constantine, Mike Resnick, Justina Robson, Martin Sketchley, and George Zebrowski. Covers are by the wonderful Dave Seeley, Jim Burns, Brian W. Dow, and John Picacio. Our current catalog is also available is as a PDF download.

Wednesday, May 18, 2005

Wascally Wabbits

Okay, this one is a bit far out, but it's short and sweet. You know how Bugs Bunny is always getting abducted by Marvin the Martian right? He's in his rabbit hole and a UFO lands on top, and he climbs up into its shaft - then he runs around on Mars stealing the Illudium Pu-36 Explosive Space Modulator. Well, on the surface it's just a harmless cartoon - funny rabbit gets abducted by UFO. Ask no questions and think no more about it, right? But what a weird connection - rabbits and UFOs. Could it be there’s something there – lurking just right below the surface, hiding in plain site, pointing us in the direction of hidden truths where we dare not go? You bet’cha.

That first Warner Bros cartoon was originally broadcast in 1948. "Haredevil Hare" was broadcast before any claims of human abduction in UFOlogy, well before, in fact, the famous 1961 abduction claims of Barney and Betty Hill. So now our Bugs Bunny cartoon is somewhat prescient, and we've got a genuine rabbit-UFO connection. Let's look a little further, shall we?
Would you believe that MUFON - the Mutual UFO Observation Network in Evanston, IL - has records of scores of cases in which farmers claimed that UFOs and weird humanoids were stealing the rabbits out of their hutches? They do. And then there are reports of processions of rabbits seen just before UFOs land, and country folk out hunting for rabbits spotting UFOs, and even one case of jack rabbits dancing before a UFO encounter.

So - at least as far as UFO lore is concerned - Marvin's Martians really do abduct bunny rabbits. There's even a name for this field of study - Lepufology! I kid you not.

Now, go back and watch E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial. Notice that when E.T.'s spaceship first lands - it's greeted by a rabbit. And rabbits run across the road before the second UFO sighting in Steven Spielberg’s classic film Close Encounters. And take a closer look at the Teletubbies too while you’re at it. Those weird alien babies with televisions in their bellies – and don’t try to tell me they’re not aliens. They all live underground in a partially buried space ship! But when they come out to play on their impossibly green, perfectly manicured rolling lawn - they're surrounded by bunnies! Real live bunnies hopping all over the place. There’s really something going on here folks.

On a scarier note, there have been a score of dead rabbits found in Central America, all connected with their bloodsucking monster down there - El Chupacabre.

So what's the deal folks? Is Marvin really after Bugs? Well, back in the 1970s, the L-5 Society - the organization trying to foster interest in space colonization and research - published the results of a study that proclaimed that rabbits were the ideal space livestock - given that they produce the most meat for the least feed. So maybe it really does make since that Marvin would stop by the third rock from the sun if he needed to restock his pantry before a long trip.
But just in case you want some more proof – he’s a bit of weirdness from the history books: Fact - the only US President to ever go on record as having seen a UFO was Jimmy Carter - and he was ridiculed in the press for this admission and for one other very strange occurrence. Do you remember what it was? On April 20, 1979, while on a fishing trip in Plains, Georgia, President Carter claimed to have been attacked and said that he had to fend off his assailant by beating at it with his oar. What did our President claim it was that attacked him, "hissing menacingly, its teeth flashing and nostrils flared"? You got it, folks - he was attacked by a "Killer Rabbit."

Eh, what's up Doc?

Friday, May 06, 2005

Complete History of the Hugo Awards in the Best Professional Artist Category

The following study of the Hugo Awards for Best Professional Artist has come to my attention, and I pass it along.

Bold type denotes a Hugo-winning Artist.

The years listed next to the artist denote a Hugo nomination in that year.


1. Jim Burns -- 1987, 1990, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999. 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005

2. Thomas Canty -- 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999

3. Bob Eggleton -- 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005

4. Don Maitz -- 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000

5. Michael Whelan -- 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002

6. David Cherry -- 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1997, 1998, 2003

7. Donato Giancola -- 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005

8. Nick Stathopoulos -- 1999

9. Frank Kelly Freas -- 1955, 1956, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1987, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005

10. Frank Frazetta -- 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1974, 2004

11. James Gurney -- 1990, 1993

12. Tom Kidd -- 1985, 1987, 1988, 1990

13. J.K. Potter -- 1987, 1988

14. Barclay Shaw -- 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987

15. Rowena Morrill -- 1982, 1983, 1984, 1986

16. Vincent Di Fate -- 1972, 1973, 1974, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1985

17. Val Lakey Lindahn -- 1984, 1985

18. Darrell Sweet -- 1983

19. Carl Lundgren -- 1982

20. Steve Fabian -- 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981

21. Paul Lehr -- 1980, 1981

22. Boris Vallejo -- 1979, 1980

23. David Hardy -- 1979

24. Rick Sternbach -- 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978

25. George Barr -- 1976, 1977

26. Tim Kirk -- 1975

27. John Schoenherr -- 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975

28. Jack Gaughan -- 1963, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974

29. Mike Hinge -- 1973

30. Jeffrey Jones -- 1970, 1971, 1972

31. Leo & Diane Dillon -- 1969, 1970, 1971

32. Eddie Jones -- 1970, 1971

33. Vaughn Bode -- 1969, 1970

34. Chesley Bonestell -- 1954, 1968 (his win is a retro-Hugo, awarded in 2004)

35. Gray Morrow -- 1966, 1967, 1968

36. Ed Emshwiller -- 1953, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965

37. Virgil Finlay -- 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964

38. Roy Krenkel -- 1963, 1964

39. Mel Hunter -- 1960, 1961, 1962

40. Alex Schomburg -- 1962

41. Wally Wood -- 1959, 1960

42. H.R. Van Dongen -- 1959

43. Hannes Bok -- 1953

44. John Picacio -- 2005

Frank Kelly Freas has the most nominations ever in the Best Professional Artist category, with 26.

Michael Whelan has the most wins ever in the Best Professional Artist category, with 13.

In the 50-year history of the Hugo Awards, only 15 different artists have won the Hugo for Best Professional Artist. Only 44 artists have been nominated.

Interesting, no?

Monday, May 02, 2005

Evenly Distributed Godhood

Robert Anton Wilson had a lot to do with helping me formulate and articulate my problems with organized religion when I was in my early 20s. I was heavily into both his fiction and nonfiction then, though it's been years since I've read anything by him. Nonetheless, the following RAW quote came to my attention today, and I was struck with how eloquently and simply he has encapsulated some of my own ideas about how the Internet provides us with new analogies
for understanding a potentially interactive Universe:
I don't believe anything, but I have many suspicions. I strongly suspect that a world "external to," or at least independent of, my senses exists in some sense. I also suspect that this world shows signs of intelligent design, and I suspect that such intelligence acts via feedback from all parts to all parts and without centralized sovereignity, like Internet; and that it does not function hierarchically, in the style an Oriental despotism, an American corporation or Christian theology. I somewhat suspect that Theism and Atheism both fail to account for such decentralized intelligence, rich in circular-causal feedback.

Monday, April 25, 2005

Recent Rave Reviews

This last week or so has brought in a flurry of positive reviews for various Pyr books. So much so that I can't resist aggregating them here.

B&N's Explorations newsletter calls John Meaney's Paradox a cerebral science fiction thriller of the highest order and a substantial novel in every sense of the word. While SFSignal's review called the book a fast-paced, immersive space opera that's sure to please... a very good mix of adventure, sense of wonder and good, old-fashioned fun and added that the sequels are not something I want to miss.

Chris Roberson's time-travel adventure novel, Here, There & Everywhere, receives a rave review from Michael Berry at SFGate.com. Michael writes that Roberson displays an infectious enthusiasm for the conventions of pulp adventure fiction and sufficient wit and skill to maneuver around their pitfalls. His book is always fun, thoughtful and clever in the way it uses the latest theories about cosmology to rationalize Roxanne's multidimensional sojourns, and says that Here, There & Everywhere is an enjoyable romp by a promising new voice in science fiction.

Earlier last week, Entertainment Weekly gave Roberson's novel a grade of B and said: Roberson's irreverent alternate histories of the Beatles, Sherlock Holmes, and H.G. Wells are a welcome stitch in the age-old time-travel tradition. While the Library Journal wrote: Roberson's deceptively lighthearted take on the phenomena of time travel and alternate universes features a likable heroine whose quick mind and caring heart should appeal to adult and YA fans of sf adventure with a conscience. And Jonathan Cowie of The Science Fact & Fiction Concatenation called the novel a gem and a cracker and an accomplished treatment of a trope in his review. Furthermore, Steven Silver's Reviews says: while many of the ideas Roberson plays with in the novel will be familiar to many readers of science fiction, whether through the writings of Robert A. Heinlein ("By His Bootstraps"), Isaac Asimov (The End of Eternity) or H.G. Wells (The Time Machine), Roberson combines the elements in an interesting and often unique way. When paired with Roberson's writing style, it makes for an entertaining and intriguing novel.

Meanwhile, Sean Williams' The Resurrected Man, a crime novel set in a near future of matter transportation, receives a grade of A and a rave review from Paul Di Filippo on SciFi.com. Paul writes: His book is in fact the first truly rigorous and envelope-pushing attempt in a long time to deal with this trope. Not only is Williams meticulous in teasing out all the implications of such a device, but he embeds his tale in a future world that's truly different from ours, yet a rational extension of many current-day trends (such as the growing tug-of-war between privacy and full-disclosure demands)...for sheer speculative bravado and tale-telling power, this novel ranks high not just among the subset of matter-transmitter stories, but among recent SF in general.

The Resurrected Man was also highly recommended by Laura Lehman of BellaOnline who called the novel a fast-paced blend of science fiction and mystery. Earlier, School Library Journal said: this book raises interesting and unique questions of legality, technology, and identity. Slightly reminiscent of Philip K. Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (Ballantine, 1996), it’s sure to thrill readers.

Charles Coleman Finlay's The Prodigal Troll received some good love from Kirkus, who proclaim: up-and-coming author Finlay expands one of his popular stories...into a fresh and affecting first novel with echoes of Tarzan of the Apes and The Jungle Book...unusually intriguing and satisfying work from a writer on the rise.

Booklist describes Fiona Avery's The Crown Rose as a noteworthy historical fantasy, and goes on to say that: sage readers probably won’t be surprised to learn that they have been deeply drawn into yet another fantasy based on the legend of the Holy Grail. Indeed, they will likely feel it is such a good one that they just must continue reading it to the end––and look forward to coming back for a possible sequel. Even better, the Library Journal calls The Crown Rose essential for lovers of historical fantasy. And Publishers Weekly describes the book as a superior historical fantasy. Meanwhile, Fiona Avery has launched a website in support of her novel worth checking out at www.thecrownrose.com.

Perhaps more a preview than a review of The Healer, Rick Kleffel of the Agony Column says of Michael Blumlein that he is an author on the order of Jonathan Lethem or Jonathan Carroll and praises him for being the sort of author who manages to make all sort of left, right and U-turns when you least expect them.

Obviously, we're thrilled with the overwhelmingly postive response Pyr's first season continues to receive, and we promise good things in season two as well.

Monday, April 18, 2005

Oh, the Agony!

Rick Kleffel of The Agony Column Book Reviews and Commentary has just posted a fairly longish interview with Yours Truly entitled "Being Smart: An Interview with Lou Anders." Despite being slightly embarrassed by his too-gracious title, I'm very proud of the piece. Rick got me to open up on a few things I hadn't anticipated addressing, and the interview that results is a fairly comprehensive assessment of my career thus far and my views on such things as the nature and purpose of SF, the ongoing debate about fantasy vs. SF, Pyr's editiorial vision, the dreaded media tie-ins, etc... There are also a few pictures from the set of Babylon 5 that I don't think anyone's ever seen before.

Sunday, April 17, 2005

Pyr's Second Season and related

A number of Pyr related items if I may:

First, our second season catalog is now up for download as a PDF here. I'm thrilled with the line up, which features books by Keith Brooke, John Meaney, Michael Moorcock & Storm Constantine, Mike Resnick, Justina Robson, Martin Sketchley, and George Zebrowski, and also very excited about the cover illustations from the talented Jim Burns, Brian W. Dow, Dave Seeley & John Picacio.

Second, we have posted a short Q&A with Charles Coleman Finlay about his novel, The Prodigal Troll, at http://www.pyrsf.com/prodigaltroll.html.

Third, we've just received our second Entertainment Weekly review, this time for Chris Roberson's Here, There & Everywhere, which was given a B grade and concludes: Roberson's irreverent alternate histories of the Beatles, Sherlock Holmes, and H G Wells are a welcome stitch in the age-old time-travel tradition.

This follows earlier reviews in Publishers Weekly, Kirkus, Locus, Library Journal, and the Florida Sun-Sentinel, the last of which called Here, There & Everywhere "the Bridget Jones of time travelers."

Sunday, April 10, 2005

Golden Tickets to Hell:Willy Wonka – Tour Guide of the Abyss

In 1971, Warner Bros. released Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, the now-famous children’s musical based on the book by celebrated author Roald Dahl (and shot from his own screenplay).[1] Directed by Mel Stuart, the film starred Gene Wilder as the eccentric, slightly sadistic, famous candy maker, Jack Albertson as Grandpa Joe, and Peter Ostrum as Charlie Bucket.

In the story, Charlie is a poor boy living with his mother and four grandparents, none of whom have been out of bed in twenty years (and, unpleasantly, it’s the same bed). Charlie is bravely struggling to support his family when he hears that the famous recluse Mr. Willy Wonka has placed “golden tickets” into five of his candy-bars. The finders of these special items will be given a full tour of Wonka’s famous candy factory – the inner workings of which are a tightly kept secret – and a lifetime supply of chocolate.

Charlie wants to win more than anyone, and encouraged by Grandpa Joe, foolishly spends his money on a single bar of chocolate, which, sadly, is ticket-less. He is heartbroken when the news reports that all five tickets have been found. But later, when the fifth ticket turns out to be a hoax, he risks it all on one more chocolate bar, and viola – the coveted fifth ticket is his.
Before the big day, however, he is approached by the villainous Arthur Slugworth, rival candy-maker, who offers big bucks in exchange for a sample of Wonka’s latest creation, an everlasting Gobstopper. A stranger Tinker also appears, warning Charlie in a bizarre poem about “little men”. These forebodings are soon forgotten, however, amid a media circus in which the five winners are ushered into the candy-maker’s world.

Upon entering the Chocolate Factory, reality is checked at the door, as Wonka’s abode is a psychedelic wonderland full of chocolate rivers, giant edible mushrooms, lick-able wallpapers, and sanctimonious orange midgets (the Oompa Loompas[2]). And yes, each child is given their own Gobstopper, a candy that can be licked forever without ever dissolving away.
As the tour progresses, the four other children reveal themselves to be gluttonous, greedy, spoiled, and ill-behaved; traits that backfire, bringing bizarre disasters down upon their heads. One by one, the small tour is reduced in number, until only Charlie Bucket and Grandpa Joe remain.

They mistakenly assume they’ve won the promised lifetime supply of chocolate, but are told that their own drinking of an off-limits experimental soda has disqualified them, and they are curtly dismissed. Grandpa Joe is incensed, promising to get even with Wonka no matter what it takes, and encourages Charlie to hand over the secrets of the Gobstopper to the rival Slugworth. But Charlie has a heart of gold, and returns the Gobstopper to Wonka despite the money it could mean for him. “So shines a good deed in a weary world,” says the candy-man, who explains that this was all a test to find a good and worthy child.

Wonka admits that he was looking for a replacement, and that in addition to the chocolate, Charlie will get the entire factory to run on Wonka’s behalf. Then they get in the Great Glass Elevator (the Wonka-vator, actually), and blast off into the sky, presumably to live happily ever after. [3]

Considered a classic now, most parents view the film as a good lesson in morality, as children are shown the errors of greed and poor impulse control. However, this view ignores the fact that many adults, when they recount their own impressions of the film, admit that it scared the bejeezus out of them as children. Only later, in adult life, do they revisit this film and enjoy it for its sophisticated humor on multiple levels. In fact, Wonka himself displays a very sinister edge, taking a perverse glee in the sufferings of some of the children and showing a dispassionate apathy to the plights of others, as witnessed by his line when Augustus Gloop is stuck in a pipe, “The suspense is terrible. I hope it will last.”

So how do we account for this sinister streak in the candy-man, as well as the frightening nature of some of the stories elements? I submit to you that Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory is nothing more nor less than a decent into the abyss, a journey through a dark, stygian underworld, a descent into the depths of Hell.

Leaving Hollywood aside for the moment, let us jump back in time to the 14th Century. Written from 1306 to 1321, Dante Alighieri’s Divine Comedy[4] is generally considered one of the greatest poems in world literature. Comprised of there parts, Inferno, Purgatorio, and Paradiso, the first section, Inferno was published independently in 1314 and is the most widely read and studied.

The poem begins when Dante the Pilgrim, halfway through the journey of his life, suddenly finds himself lost in a dark woods without knowing how he came to be there. Three savage beasts – a leopard, a lion, and a she-wolf – arise to menace him. But then Dante sees a hilltop “shawled in morning rays of light sent from the planet that leads men straight-ahead on every road.”[5]

Virgil, the famous Roman poet, appears, and offers to guide Dante on his path, but Dante learns that in order to go up, he will have to go down first. They enter into the Vestibule of Hell, a nowhere place of souls who have lived a life without blame or praise, and now suffer a pointless, eternal existence. The pair then confronts Charon, the boatman of Hell, and convinces him to ferry them across the river Acheron into Limbo, the first level of the Inferno.

The Inferno of Dante’s poem is a vast funnel, with nine ledges, each of which comprises one of the levels of the underworld. As the journey progresses downward, Dante seems example after example of sinners suffering for their crimes, all punished in appropriately matched and fiendishly imaginative ways. For example, the soothsayers, those guilty of foretelling the future, have their heads twisted around backwards so they can no longer see in front of them.

At the very center, Lucifer is bound, his body half submerged in a frozen lake. The pair must climb down the devil’s hairy body. Midway through their climb, gravity reverses itself. They have passed through the center of the earth, and now make their ascent towards Purgatory and Heaven.

Chances are, aspects of this story are already starting to sound familiar to you. Returning to WonkaLand - we have five children, escorted by their guide through a magical realm. Along the way, one child at a time falls victim to their own vice. Augustus Gloop drinks from the forbidden river and falls in, become stuck in a pipe. Violet Beauregarde snatches an experimental gum and is transformed into a giant blueberry. Veruca Salt[6] threatens to throw a fit if she isn’t given everything she wants immediately, and falls down a shoot for bad eggs into an incinerator. Mike Teevee, rushing in to be the first person “sent by television”, is shrunk to a mere few inches tall.
Finally, only Charlie Bucket is left. And although Charlie isn’t blameless, he is repentant. Even when rebuffed by Wonka, Charlie does the right thing, returning Wonka’s Gobstopper despite the fact it represents much needed money for his family.

Wonka, Charlie’s Virgil in this retelling of the Inferno, then rewards the boy for making it through Hell, by taking him up in the sky – ie. up to heaven – in the great, glass elevator, just as Virgil lead Dante through the Inferno and up to Purgatory and Paradise.

Roald Dahl has cleverly taking the classic medieval poem and transposed it into the setting of a children’s novel. But when deconstructed, its roots in the Inferno are painfully obvious. In fact, at one point in the film itself, the veil of metaphor is completely torn away and Wonka actually tells us where we are. Standing beside a Chocolate River, the tour group sees a wonderful boat – the Wonkatania – crewed by Oompa Loompas. Leaving the wonderful candyland receiving area behind (the Vestibule of Hell), they cross the Chocolate River by ferry. Here, the Chocolate River is no less than the River Acheron itself, as Willy Wonka, now in the guise of Charon the Ferryman, makes plain as he sings out, “Not a speck of light is showing, so the danger must be growing. Are the fires of Hell a blowin’? Is the grisly reaper mowing? Yes!”

Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory truly is Dante’s Inferno, a slice of Hell served up with a sugar coating.

[1] Roald Dahl also wrote screenplays for two Ian Fleming films, the James Bond movie You Only Live Twice and the film of Fleming’s own children’s book, ChittyChitty Bang Bang.

[2] Though uncredited for their performances in Willy Wonka, several of the Oompah Loompas had illustrious Hollywood careers, appearing in such films as Star Wars, Return of the Jedi, Labyrinth, and Time Bandits, and cult classic TV shows like Doctor Who and The Prisoner. One of them, Norman McGlen, continues our Dahl-Fleming connection by appearing in the James Bond film On Her Majesty’s Secret Service as a janitor in underworld leader Draco’s office. Alas, McGlen isn’t credited for this role either.

[3] The film ends there, though in the follow-up novel, Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator: The Further Adventures of Charlie Bucket and Willy Wonka, Chocolate-Maker Extraordinary, they travel to space and meet such creatures as the Gnoolies and the Vermicious Knids. Oddly, it is interesting to view Wonka in context of a contemporary British television show. As a bizarre eccentric, sporting pseudo-Victorian dress and looking for the perfect child companion to take on a journey into outer space in his magic flying box, he certainly resembles the BBC’s popular creation, Doctor Who.

[4] Originally titled only Comedy, “divine” was presumed to have been added to the title later by Renaissance writer Boccacio, who repeatedly refered to Dante as a “divine poet.”

[5] Lines, 15 – 16.

[6] The rock group Veruca Salt took their name from this character.

Sunday, April 03, 2005

Hobbits in Hyperspace?

I'm happy to report that I have an article examining the impact of the rise of fantasy on the science fiction genre running in the April 4th edition of Publishers Weekly. The article, "A Hobbit Takover?" (not my title - I prefer the one above) has been placed online here. They clipped a few of my more "opinionated" comments where I suggested that the fantasy boom might have some detrimental repercussions, but otherwise I'm very happy with the piece and very proud to be in PW.

Friday, April 01, 2005

Cowboys and Trotskys and Golems, Oh My!

Recently, I was asked by an old friend and new editor at the Believer if I had any interest in writing for them. Now, it's been a few years since I made my living as a journalist, but as it turns out, The Believer is one of my all-time favorite magazines, and so I said that I would if and only if I could interview one of my all-time favorite authors. The piece that resulted appears in their April 2005 issue, on stands everywhere this week, but it's also been posted to their website. So, with fair warning that it contains some minor spoilers, here is a piece of journalism that I'm as proud of as anything I've ever done, my interview with China Miéville.

Monday, March 28, 2005

Award News

There was a flurry of award and award-related announcements, Hugo and otherwise, this past weekend, and I'm thrilled with the results. A big congratulations to both Chris Roberson for his Campbell nomination, and John Picacio for his Best Artist. Meanwhile, I see that Mike Resnick is up for not one, but two, Hugo nominations in the short story category - "A Princess of Earth" and Travels with My Cats"- both of which we'll be collecting in New Dreams for Old, a book of Mike's short fiction slated for Pyr's third season that keeps getting fatter and fatter. And I couldn't be happier for Ian McDonald. Not only did River of Gods take a British Science Fiction Association award for Best Novel, but a Hugo nomination as well. Both are richly deserved. We'll be releasing a US edition in Pyr's third season. Meanwhile, here's a press release we put out earlier today:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Jill Maxick
800-853-7545 jmaxick@prometheusbooks.com

March 28, 2005

Here, There & Everywhere Author and Illustrator
Honored With Award Nominations


Cover Designer John Picacio up for Best Professional Artist Hugo® and Author Chris Roberson nominated for John W. Campbell Best New Writer Award

Amherst, NY—The acclaimed new imprint Pyr™ is proud to share announcements that honor both the content and the cover of the novel Here, There & Everywhere (Pyr™, April 5, 2005.)

“John Picacio is one of the most exciting new illustrators working in the field today, and I’m overjoyed to see him receive more of the recognition he so richly deserves,” comments Pyr™ Editorial Director Lou Anders, “Meanwhile, I’ve known from the start that Chris Roberson was phenomenally talented, and it’s immensely gratifying to learn that others share my opinion.”

Cover illustrator and designer John Picacio has been nominated for a Hugo Award for Best Professional Artist. The Hugo Award® is the leading award for excellence in the field of science fiction and fantasy and he is truly thrilled at the honor of a nomination. In 2004, Picacio was a World Fantasy Award nominee, and in 2002 he received the International Horror Guild Award for Best Artist. This is his first Hugo nomination.

John Picacio and Pyr™ have quickly established a successful collaboration. The Pyr™ titles for which Picacio has designed or will be designing covers are:

  • Star of Gypsies by Robert Silverberg (March 2005)
  • Here, There & Everywhere by Chris Roberson (April 2005)
  • The Resurrected Man by Sean Williams (April 2005)
  • Silverheart by Michael Moorcock & Storm Constantine (September 2005)
  • Silver Screen by Justina Robson (October 2005)
  • Starship: Mutiny by Mike Resnick (December 2005)
  • Macrolife: A Mobile Utopia by George Zebrowski (January 2006)

Here, There & Everywhere is the debut novel of writer Chris Roberson, who has been nominated for the John W. Campbell Best New Writer Award. The John W. Campbell Best New Writer Award is given to the best new science fiction or fantasy writer whose first work of science fiction or fantasy appearing in a professional publication was published in the previous two years.

Previously, Roberson’s story “O One,” won the 2003 Sidewise Award for Best Short-Form Alternate History, was listed as an Honorable Mention in the 21st Annual Year's Best Science Fiction, and was short-listed for the 2004 World Fantasy Award for Short Fiction. Roberson and his business partner and spouse Allison Baker also run the independent press MonkeyBrain Books.

Roberson will sign copies of Here, There & Everywhere at the Prometheus Books booth at Book Expo America on June 4, 2005.

The Hugo Awards and The John W. Campbell Best New Writer Award will be presented at the 63rd World Science Fiction Convention (WorldCon) in Glasgow, Scotland, August 4-8, 2005.

Saturday, March 26, 2005

An SOS to the Word: The Writer as Myth

“If you want to send a message, use Western Union.”
I think the first time I heard that particular phrase said it was spoken by David Lee Roth, in response to a charge about the superficiality of his lyrics. Though I was a die-hard Van Halen fan in the early 80s, even I couldn’t argue with fellow high school classmate Landers Severe (what a cool name!) that his preferred rock’n’roll band Led Zeppelin, with their allusions to Celtic mythology and Lord of the Rings, was infinitely deeper.
When I was a child, I spake as a child, and so, my musical preferences—which now center on David Bowie, Bob Dylan, the Counting Crows, and Robyn Hitchcock—have matured quite a bit in the past twenty years.
Likewise, my opinion has changed somewhat about what I thought was a witty retort from the man who once bragged about his paternity insurance. That platitude now galls me like hot coals in my belly. Forgive me, but I really despise that line. To the point where, when I hear a writer utter it (as I did recently), it can turn me off to his/her work.
Now I know that propaganda isn’t art, and a lecture is not a narrative. I know that the author is often the last person who should be consulted when looking for the meaning of his work, and that themes can sometimes arise almost as if they are emergent properties of a story, rather than deliberately crafted elements. But when I hear this particular sentiment expressed, more often than not it is being offered as an excuse, a justification for a tale of pure escapism without higher thematic value. Even when it isn’t, it’s an inelegant clichĂ© and I expect those who make their living as wordsmiths to express themselves with more sophistication.
Why? I am a slow and careful reader – I can easily spend two weeks to a month with a single novel – and when I devote that amount of precious time to a writer, I need something for it. I expect them to take me somewhere I haven’t been before and can’t get on my own. I expect them to show me worlds I can’t imagine for myself; present me with new ideas I’ve yet to encounter (or new takes on old ideas); teach me concepts that push the limits of my universe; help me to bring clarification to nebulous thoughts which may be bubbling unexpressed in my own subconscious. It’s very simple. I read to learn. I read to improve. I read to expand my world and worldview. Simply put, I demand that my writers be more intelligent than I am. Now, that intelligence can manifest in a particularly skillful and seductive prose style, or that intelligence can manifest in the presentation of an idea that enlightens my mind or expands my imagination. And yes, I read to be entertained. But entertainment for me is not a shallow pursuit.

Or, as Gene Wolfe puts it, "My definition of good literature is that which can be read by an educated reader, and reread with increased pleasure. ... there is a level on which a lot of fiction these days is expected to give everything up first time to somebody, whether he knows something about the subject or not. You do not do that."
I grew up in the state of Alabama, attending an all-white elementary and high school, a school which was heavily associated with a fundamentalist church, amid children (and even adults) who told off-color jokes about race and gender. Thankfully, I had a father who forced a science fiction book into my hand when I was an adolescent and forced me to read it (despite my protests). I am not as I very easily could have been because I read. (In fact, it was John Irving’s The Cider House Rules which directly altered my position on the abortion debate, just as it was Robert Anton Wilson’s The Illuminatus! Trilogy that helped me codify my own problems with organized religion). Reading opened up my world and opened up my mind, and I think I approach the written word with a sense of awe as a result that others reserve for religion.

Recently, neuvo-gonzo journalist Eric Spitznagel ran an interview with Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in the pages of The Believer magazine (March 05 issue). Okay, it was a medium claiming to channel the famous creator of Sherlock Holmes, and I give him about a point oh oh oh one percent chance of having actually succeeded, but nonetheless I found the interview to have a few things of value above and beyond its obvious humor content.

Sir Arthur, speaking through the person of Hawaiian trance medium Arthur Pacheco, had quite a lot to say about writers and the afterlife. In fact, he had quite a lot to say about writers and the afterlife.
“I have only praise for anyone who takes on the role of writer or author. Did you know that writers are leaders as seen from our point of view? The writer is a leader indeed, in that he carries a torch of a particular type, and believing in his own topic, he dares to lead others down the lanes of what can eventually be their own enlightenment.”

Pretty insightful for a guy who dropped dead in 1930. I hope I am as elegant when I have shuffled off this mortal coil.
I recall recently reading a noted British author observing the way in which writers are revered in the UK but disregarded here, where our adulation is reserved for television stars. I think I still labor under the myth of the writer as an important social figure, a person with something of value to communicate, whose opinions and observations of the world matter. Who was it that said, "Books used to be written by writers and read by everyone. Now they are written by everyone and read by no one?"
So when I hear that aforementioned clichĂ©, a warning bell goes off. That’s a teacher who’s just informed me they’ve nothing to teach. I might as well grab a bottle of beer and plunk Dumb and Dumber in the DVD, for all that I’ll get out of their work. Such is of no interest to me. My time is valuable—all time is—and when I read these days, I need the author to be a damn sight more erudite that good ol' Diamond Dave.