Links : "It's like a cliche... on acid! LOL"

It has been a few weeks so I feel justified in putting out another links post.  This week we're going to be looking mostly at goings on in the world of Science Fiction.  While in this case it means that I'm going to be pointing and laughing at two posts by Lou Anders, I'm also going to be complaining about the absolutely hideous state of genre TV and suggesting a way forward.

Come One, Come All...

  *   I'll kick off this installment with something that annoyed me on a number of different levels.  The irritant in question is a review of Justina Robson's Keeping it Real (an unconvincing tale of action and elf shagging clearly written for the money by an author who really should be doing better than Laurell K. Hamilton knock-offs).  In his Entertainment Weekly review, Will Boisvert describes said book as being "For Fans of Tolkien, had he gone electric, dropped acid, and discovered Tantric sex".  Firstly, saying something is like someone else on acid is a terrible cliche and a complete falsehood.  This Much has been scientifically demonstrated by Lee and Herring.  Secondly, it's one thing for an organ as well known as Entertainment Weekly to publish reviews by woolly-headed hacks like Boisvert, but it's quite another for such hackery to be encouraged by people in the SF field.  To whit, the editorial director of Pyr, Lou Anders who "loves" the line about Tolkien on acid.  This is a man in charge of an SF imprint and he thinks "it's like Tolkien on druuuuuugs" is funny.  He'd probably have a fucking heart attack if he saw Dad's Army! (via Bowing to the Future)

  *   A lot has been said about how YouTube is full of teenaged twats lip-synching to rubbish pop songs.  To a certain extent this is true, but occasionally a teenager with something interesting to say manages to slip through.  Aidan is 14 and from Scotland and as I'm sure you'll agree, he's a cut above most of the shit on YouTube.  In fact, having seen some of this year's Comic Relief, he's actually better than a number of professional comedians.  His earlier films are a bit shaky but his Big Brother parody nails the show's contrived exploitation perfectly with the line "Aidan has gone mad.  Big Brother has supplied him with an axe". (via Verbwhores)

*   MSN has a nice article by Don Kaye about SF's rather difficult relationship with film.  The article explores why the movie industry sees SF as nothing more than Space Opera and details some of the absurd lengths that directors go to in order to distance themselves from the label.  It also does a good job of pointing out the few proper SF films that did manage to get made such as Pi and Primer. (via /.)

  *   Are you as fed up as I am with the bloody Stargate franchise?  The first series, SG-1 has been running since the late Renaissance and the invariably execrable Atlantis is still going too.  This article suggests that there's going to be a THIRD series, but thankfully it'll only appear once the two films have been made.  The implication is that SG-1 will finish with the films and that Universe will take over afterwards.  Firefly didn't make it through a whole series, Carnivale got two series, Angel barely made it to syndication but Stargate has Trek-like levels of success.  Consider that fact and tell me there's a God... I dare you.  People really will watch any old shit as long as there are a few explosions in it. (via /.)

  *   Norman Spinrad has been thinking about Hard SF in his Asimov's column.  He wonders whether Hard SF can continue as a commercially viable genre and, in the light of the disgraceful treatment Peter Watts got from his publishers, I think it's a reasonable question (especially as Blindisght is arguably the finest work of Hard SF since Stephen Baxter's original XeeLee cycle).  It's quite a meandering and boneless piece that seems to be more of an attempt to tie a number of book reviews together into an article rather than a concerted effort to write about Hard SF.  However, one thing I agree with him about is that Edelman's Infoquake is practically fantasy.  Infoquake is an enjoyable enough thriller that's interesting by virtue of it being essentially about people striving to make money in a corporate world.  Compared to other tales of corporate ruthlessness such as the one embedded in the contemporary strand of Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon, Infoquake is unbelievable and under-written.  It lacks any real conceptual narrative such as a discussion of the nature of capitalism or even the psychology of business.  I'd put it on pretty much the same level as the work of Matthew Riley. (via Bowing to the Future)

  *   My final link to Gabe Chouinard's Forum.  Conceived as a place for the genre critical community where we can talk to each other and swap ideas and resources, the place has been rather quiet until an explosion of activity this week.  We've got a reviewers' circle of judgement where people submit reviews in order to get feedback from others and very frank discussions about the world of reviewing.  If you have an interest in genre criticism I suggest you drop on by.

Comments

[A.R.Yngve]

Man, this is like a review blog on aci --
*BONK*
Ow!

;-P

But seriously... I'm with Spinrad on the "nanotech" trend. For years now, I've been hesitating to use the device in any of the stories I write... it just seems too much like a magic lamp (or "magic dust").

Also, there is the problem which Michael Crichton took up in PREY: If nanotechnology really worked as well as it's depicted by its fans, it might easily become an uncontrollable menace.

In fact the more I think about it, it would be better for all if "nanobots" turned out to be a pipe dream.

Consider this: If several of all the civilizations in the universe developed nanotechnology... and just ONE of these civilizations created self-replicating nanomachines which went totally out of control... just ONCE in the history of the entire universe... they might proceed to devour whole galaxies.

Only the constant expansion of the cosmos would prevent runaway nanomachines from eating all planets everywhere.

Think about it, will ya?

[Jonathan McCalmont]

Yes, well, the other problem with nanotechnology is that it's essentially a setting-killer.

Once you introduce nanotechnology into a setting, it's then very diffcult to justify not using it to solve every outstanding plot problem. Weirdly enough, Star Trek Voyager fell into this by having 7 of 9's Borg nanites solve every problem but also Hamilton's Reality Disfunction books which had nano technology but only in the medical sphere and it never really made sense.

[A.R.Yngve]

Precisely: Nanomachines take all the fun out of writing.

[Lou Anders]

Actually, the part of the line I like is "for fans of Tolkien, had he gone electric." I am a big Bob Dylan fan, particularly of the Royal Albert Hall bootleg. I am indifferent to the bit about acid.

[Jonathan McCalmont]

I'm much relieved to hear it Lou... you had me worried for a second there ;-)

...JUDAS!

[Lou Anders]

Ha - yes!

I remember seeing a poster for a game that described itself as "like Lewis Carroll on Acid" back in 1996 and thinking it a cliche then too. But, of course, getting the book into EW is the important thing, moreso than what they say about it. Their reviews are edited down to soundbytes. I wish they were accorded more space, but it is what it is.

[Max Cairnduff]

Out of control nanotech on a runaway vector is basically the plot of Bloom isn't it?

Which makes a reasonable fist of it as a plot as it happens.

Generally though, Norm has a bit of a point I think. Interesting link.

[Jonathan McCalmont]

I also think that it features in the back-ground of Al Reynolds' books... certainly the second one.

In those cases it's bearable as it's like a natural disaster. Something the characters have to overcome. The problem is when nanotechnology gets used as a tool. It means that the characters can re-sculpt the world atom by atom and that doesn't really make for much tension in a plot.

[Max Cairnduff]

You're correct about Reynolds.

I think the difference is between nanotech as background plot creator, as in Bloom and Reynolds, and nanotech as magic wand.

In Bloom and Reynolds we have the classic SF concept of taking a development and playing with the implications. In many works however nanotech is just handwavium, magic by another name.

Nothing wrong with magic, but it's presence takes you right outside any concept of hard sf.

Are those writers trying to write hard sf though? I suspect not, we may be criticising them for not adhering to genre constraints relevant to a genre other than that they are writing in. SF is not hard sf, magic handwavium technology can't be present in hard sf but it certainly can in general sf as Star Trek all too plainly demonstrates.

[Jonathan McCalmont]

Yeah, that's one of the things that bothered me about the article and made me suspect that it was just an attempt to tie together a number of unrelated book reviews.

The only book in the list which is undeniably hard SF is Blindsight. Infoquake isn't even remotely Hard SF and as a result the use of magic isn't overly bothersome.

In fact, one could argue that there really is very little difference between fantasy and SF because most stuff like FTL drives and transporters and lazer guns are about as scientific as magic swords and teleportation spells.

The odd one out is hard SF as that sub-genre is really about engaging with scientific thought rather than using scientific ideas as set dressing.