When presented with issues that really matter, when presented with true human suffering, like genocide in Darfur the shipbreakers in India, or the downtrodden in Afghanistan, it's tough to know how to react. You may, like me, develop a literal ache in your gut.
Frankly, what is happening to so many of these people makes me angry - angry at those who have destroyed these people's lives, and angry at the rest of the world for not doing something.
And right there I stop in my tracks.
What, exactly, am I doing to aid these folks? Well, I've written letters to my representatives and I've always made a point to raise awareness, much to the annoyance of my peers. But really, what action have I taken that prevents a child from starving to death?
I haven't done one single thing to put food in the mouth of a child, or to provide clean water to a refugee. And, frankly, the amount of money I could donate is pitiful. While my $25 donation might make me feel better, and it might keep a child alive for a few weeks, it's really a drop of water in the desert. I'm not just fighting a losing battle, I'm fighting a hopeless battle. How, HOW do I make any long term difference?
Well, I came across something today that gives me a little hope. A company called Kiva is giving you and I the opportunity to fund entrepreneurs in the developing world.
This is all done by offering microloans. In this case, the loans are financed by you. That is, you provide as little as $25 in capital for a poor entrepreneur, and you will get that money back. Can you put 50 bucks on hold for a little while? Excellent.
The best thing about this plan is that it moves people toward a sustainable future, not continually based on aid or charity. My $25 might be part of making a family stable for years to come, and that, I think, is an admirable goal.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Tales of Ascension
I've been reading Forever Peace, by Joe Haldeman, and I've been continually assaulted by the feeling that I've read something much like this before. No, I'm not thinking of The Forever War, by the same author, though that was an excellent novel, and one I heartily recommend.
I've realized that it reminds me of Technogenesis, by Syne Mitchell
As always, it's entirely possible that I am being far less original that I imagine, and far more derivative, or at least repetitive. However, an idea, new to me, at least, has been developing slowly in the stew of my consciousness. As usual, the idea relates to an unexpected commonality between disparate things. I suppose, as science fiction novels, the subjects of my stewing aren't really terribly disparate... but enough of this. Let me actually get to the point.
The Forever War, Technogenesis, and others (perhaps Childhood's End by Clarke, or Blood Music by Bear, and certainly The Changeling Plague, also by Mitchell) are what I would like to call "tales of ascension". Generally these novels could be considered singularity fiction, but I contend that these examples are something else as well, and something worth keeping in our collective mental libraries.
I call them tales of ascension because they are hopeful but deeply frightening stories of the future of the human race. The mechanisms are different, from disease to gengineering, to AI, to alien races, but the result is the same: a fundamentally changed human race. A changed humanity, and one that is greater than that which we currently experience. Often there is an ascension to a higher or group consciousness. Sometimes humanity becomes one undifferentiated unit. Sometimes we are provided the opportunity to move beyond the current boundaries of our bodies and brains. Regardless, the hopeful tone of this huge accomplishment is always tempered by the sheer scariness of the new. One real problem with ascension is that in order to move up, you must abandon your current position. Most of us experience that fear of change (regardless of its apparent positive impact) in our own lives, and I think it is this personal anxiety about change that informs our visceral emotional reaction to a species-wide change on such a high level.
When expanded to the species, however, the issue takes on philosophical overtones. What, for instance, can we call this post-ascension species? Are they still human? In many cases, the ascension is not presented as a sudden event, but rather as something gradual, affecting some before others, or phasing in through our natural generations. In these cases, how do the unchanged react to the ascended?
...
Well, I'm not a writer. YOU go write it. Let me know how it goes.
-S
I've realized that it reminds me of Technogenesis, by Syne Mitchell
As always, it's entirely possible that I am being far less original that I imagine, and far more derivative, or at least repetitive. However, an idea, new to me, at least, has been developing slowly in the stew of my consciousness. As usual, the idea relates to an unexpected commonality between disparate things. I suppose, as science fiction novels, the subjects of my stewing aren't really terribly disparate... but enough of this. Let me actually get to the point.
The Forever War, Technogenesis, and others (perhaps Childhood's End by Clarke, or Blood Music by Bear, and certainly The Changeling Plague, also by Mitchell) are what I would like to call "tales of ascension". Generally these novels could be considered singularity fiction, but I contend that these examples are something else as well, and something worth keeping in our collective mental libraries.
I call them tales of ascension because they are hopeful but deeply frightening stories of the future of the human race. The mechanisms are different, from disease to gengineering, to AI, to alien races, but the result is the same: a fundamentally changed human race. A changed humanity, and one that is greater than that which we currently experience. Often there is an ascension to a higher or group consciousness. Sometimes humanity becomes one undifferentiated unit. Sometimes we are provided the opportunity to move beyond the current boundaries of our bodies and brains. Regardless, the hopeful tone of this huge accomplishment is always tempered by the sheer scariness of the new. One real problem with ascension is that in order to move up, you must abandon your current position. Most of us experience that fear of change (regardless of its apparent positive impact) in our own lives, and I think it is this personal anxiety about change that informs our visceral emotional reaction to a species-wide change on such a high level.
When expanded to the species, however, the issue takes on philosophical overtones. What, for instance, can we call this post-ascension species? Are they still human? In many cases, the ascension is not presented as a sudden event, but rather as something gradual, affecting some before others, or phasing in through our natural generations. In these cases, how do the unchanged react to the ascended?
...
Well, I'm not a writer. YOU go write it. Let me know how it goes.
-S
Saturday, May 10, 2008
State of Hypocrisy
I have long condemned Crichton's novel State of Fear as a long, drawn out anti-environmentalist rant poorly disguised as a novel. "Paugh!" I said, (that's to be pronounced phonetically, with the 'augh' involving a stereotypically German level of phlegm.) "Doesn't he have the creativity to write a real work of fiction, instead of a redundant neocon editorial disguised as a thriller?"
Recently, a friend of mine has been actively pursuing my recommendations on novels, particularly the serious reading, as opposed to the fluff. For this reason, I've been confronted with my taste for Dystopian novels, cautionary tales, and social commentary. (Feed, The Handmaid's Tale, and, of course, Fahrenheit 451 number amongst my favorites, in case you were interested).
Pause.
Yes. While more sophisticated than Crichton's lambast of the environmental movement, each of these novels is, essentially, a rant (or social commentary, if you prefer) delivered via fiction. That is, the novel is a platform for these authors to express their political views. Now, this is somewhat less obvious in my favorite novels, since the politics espoused tend to be somewhat more transcendent than Crichton's 600 page jab. However, literary merit and staying power aside, Crichton and Bradbury appear to be utilizing their fiction in a similar manner - as a platform for their soapbox preachings about social ills.
Can then, the difference between my feelings toward Atwood and Crichton be reduced to mere political differences? My goodness, that makes my earlier criticisms somewhat hypocritical, does it not?
Well, yes and no.
My earlier criticisms are certainly less valid in light of my own literary preferences, but, the more I consider it, the less I think that hypocrisy was my problem (sheesh, rationalize much?). Instead, I appear to have misunderstood exactly what it was about the novel that raised my ire. Obviously it wasn't the politicization of fiction, since that's exactly what some of my favorite novels do. Instead, I'm becoming more convinced that I'm offended by the co-opting of science.
Part of why State of Fear is such a long novel is Crichton's extensive use of footnotes, charts, graphs, etc. They make the novel feel less like a novel, and more like a patronizing speech - thus my original complaint. However, I think my real problem is Crichton's pretension of scientific expertise. I don't think I need to really delve into why such a delusion is foolish as well as pretentious, but there's one part of his novel that really sums it up.
He finishes State of Fear with an afterward. In the afterward Crichton explains to us why the book's heavy-handed message is, in fact, true. So here Crichton is frankly and openly admitting that he believes the thematic basis of his book, a theme that he supports with what is essentially fake evidence.
In fact, Scientist Peter Doran wrote "... our results have been misused as “evidence” against global warming by Michael Crichton in his novel “State of Fear."
Hopefully this prolonged rationalization session has been successful. Perhaps I've convinced you, along with myself, that not only am I not hypocritical, but I'm also justified in my righteous indignation.
Take that, Crichton!
Recently, a friend of mine has been actively pursuing my recommendations on novels, particularly the serious reading, as opposed to the fluff. For this reason, I've been confronted with my taste for Dystopian novels, cautionary tales, and social commentary. (Feed, The Handmaid's Tale, and, of course, Fahrenheit 451 number amongst my favorites, in case you were interested).
Pause.
Yes. While more sophisticated than Crichton's lambast of the environmental movement, each of these novels is, essentially, a rant (or social commentary, if you prefer) delivered via fiction. That is, the novel is a platform for these authors to express their political views. Now, this is somewhat less obvious in my favorite novels, since the politics espoused tend to be somewhat more transcendent than Crichton's 600 page jab. However, literary merit and staying power aside, Crichton and Bradbury appear to be utilizing their fiction in a similar manner - as a platform for their soapbox preachings about social ills.
Can then, the difference between my feelings toward Atwood and Crichton be reduced to mere political differences? My goodness, that makes my earlier criticisms somewhat hypocritical, does it not?
Well, yes and no.
My earlier criticisms are certainly less valid in light of my own literary preferences, but, the more I consider it, the less I think that hypocrisy was my problem (sheesh, rationalize much?). Instead, I appear to have misunderstood exactly what it was about the novel that raised my ire. Obviously it wasn't the politicization of fiction, since that's exactly what some of my favorite novels do. Instead, I'm becoming more convinced that I'm offended by the co-opting of science.
Part of why State of Fear is such a long novel is Crichton's extensive use of footnotes, charts, graphs, etc. They make the novel feel less like a novel, and more like a patronizing speech - thus my original complaint. However, I think my real problem is Crichton's pretension of scientific expertise. I don't think I need to really delve into why such a delusion is foolish as well as pretentious, but there's one part of his novel that really sums it up.
He finishes State of Fear with an afterward. In the afterward Crichton explains to us why the book's heavy-handed message is, in fact, true. So here Crichton is frankly and openly admitting that he believes the thematic basis of his book, a theme that he supports with what is essentially fake evidence.
In fact, Scientist Peter Doran wrote "... our results have been misused as “evidence” against global warming by Michael Crichton in his novel “State of Fear."
Hopefully this prolonged rationalization session has been successful. Perhaps I've convinced you, along with myself, that not only am I not hypocritical, but I'm also justified in my righteous indignation.
Take that, Crichton!
Friday, May 9, 2008
Collective Editing?
Some good conversation going on here.
Basically, my take is that the "collective filter" idea as proposed by Lexy is spot on. However, it could be of great benefit to many individual writers (and therefore the web fiction community as a whole) for an editing process to be developed for writers of web fiction.
Yes, there is a certain level of community editing that occurs in the comments of the more successful serials, but small time authors never see it. And, anyway, those comments basically amount to copy editing, and what I'm suggesting is something different.
A good editor helps to fine tune and shape up writing in a multitude of non-grammatical ways. Editing can help an author recognize the relative strengths of his or her work, and how to push those, while minimizing the weaker parts of the manuscript.
Certainly, there are some examples of web fiction readership aiding an author in this way, but in my experience, this isn't the norm. Generally, the author gets some good copy editing alongside some crummy copy editing, and has to sort out the conflicting advice for themselves.
So, what am I suggesting?
I think an editorship collective could be an invaluable tool for web fiction authors. Perhaps the participants could be restricted to authors, or to writers, or other folks who put their words on the web, or perhaps anyone could participate. I certainly have neither the time nor expertise to coordinate something like this, but I would happily support any of you who chose to do so.
Basically, my take is that the "collective filter" idea as proposed by Lexy is spot on. However, it could be of great benefit to many individual writers (and therefore the web fiction community as a whole) for an editing process to be developed for writers of web fiction.
Yes, there is a certain level of community editing that occurs in the comments of the more successful serials, but small time authors never see it. And, anyway, those comments basically amount to copy editing, and what I'm suggesting is something different.
A good editor helps to fine tune and shape up writing in a multitude of non-grammatical ways. Editing can help an author recognize the relative strengths of his or her work, and how to push those, while minimizing the weaker parts of the manuscript.
Certainly, there are some examples of web fiction readership aiding an author in this way, but in my experience, this isn't the norm. Generally, the author gets some good copy editing alongside some crummy copy editing, and has to sort out the conflicting advice for themselves.
So, what am I suggesting?
I think an editorship collective could be an invaluable tool for web fiction authors. Perhaps the participants could be restricted to authors, or to writers, or other folks who put their words on the web, or perhaps anyone could participate. I certainly have neither the time nor expertise to coordinate something like this, but I would happily support any of you who chose to do so.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
CatchMe Drafts
Somebody shot this link my way. The author only has one story up so far, called "Off Guard," but it's a fairly intriguing entry. It's awfully short for a short story, but a bit long for microfiction (about 600 words). Regardless, it's an odd little tale, and I can't quite remember what it reminds me of.
I'm really not certain I agree with the point it makes about love and relationships, but, then again, I'm not certain the author does either, just the protagonist (antagonist? Like I said, it's a confusing little story).
Off Guard
I'm really not certain I agree with the point it makes about love and relationships, but, then again, I'm not certain the author does either, just the protagonist (antagonist? Like I said, it's a confusing little story).
Off Guard
Friday, May 2, 2008
Winnie and Walter
Warily we wondered what worth was wrapped within "Winnie and Walter."
The entire story is like that. It doesn't seem very impressive until you read all 450 words of it. It's wearying.
Much credit to the unknown 19th century author who generated this gimmicky gem.
The entire story is like that. It doesn't seem very impressive until you read all 450 words of it. It's wearying.
Much credit to the unknown 19th century author who generated this gimmicky gem.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Friday, April 25, 2008
reCAPTCHA
Those of you who run your blogs independently should really consider replacing your normal CAPTCHA (Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and Humans Apart) with reCAPTCHA.
reCAPTCHA uses people's responses to their CAPTCHAs to help transcribe old books to text format. Unlike the image formats that you often find old books in (the pdf copies and such), the texts resulting from reCAPTCHA can be copy & pasted and ctrl-F'ed (not to be confused with "F'ed up").
I bring this up for two reasons. First, I've been meaning to for a while, especially since I strongly support their goal, and seriously wish that all my books were compatible with the ctrl-F feature. Second, I just discovered that stumble upon uses reCAPTCHA, which pleases me greatly. I hadn't realized that reCAPTCHA was well enough known to catch the attention of the folks at Stumble.
I would use it myself if I didn't host this blog on Blogger. Speaking of which, how 'bout we switch over to reCAPTCHA, guys?
reCAPTCHA uses people's responses to their CAPTCHAs to help transcribe old books to text format. Unlike the image formats that you often find old books in (the pdf copies and such), the texts resulting from reCAPTCHA can be copy & pasted and ctrl-F'ed (not to be confused with "F'ed up").
I bring this up for two reasons. First, I've been meaning to for a while, especially since I strongly support their goal, and seriously wish that all my books were compatible with the ctrl-F feature. Second, I just discovered that stumble upon uses reCAPTCHA, which pleases me greatly. I hadn't realized that reCAPTCHA was well enough known to catch the attention of the folks at Stumble.
I would use it myself if I didn't host this blog on Blogger. Speaking of which, how 'bout we switch over to reCAPTCHA, guys?
Monday, March 17, 2008
More on Spaghetti Sauce
I don't know if he reads this blog or not, but shortly after my last post, Jeff Harrell over at Lies That Are True posted about Malcom Gladwell's spaghetti speech at TED.
At first, I was somewhat put off by the title of his post, assuming that it was a negative post criticizing Gladwell's message in his lecture, but I was incorrect.
Instead, what Jeff is doing is suggesting another positive change he would like to see. I'll leave you to read his post yourself, but I will mention that a certain Amazon.com service is the closest we've gotten to his suggestion in the retail world.
At first, I was somewhat put off by the title of his post, assuming that it was a negative post criticizing Gladwell's message in his lecture, but I was incorrect.
Instead, what Jeff is doing is suggesting another positive change he would like to see. I'll leave you to read his post yourself, but I will mention that a certain Amazon.com service is the closest we've gotten to his suggestion in the retail world.
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Synthesized Happiness, Intellectualism, and the Elite
Watch it.
It'll be interesting to see how many people don't buy it. I do. 100%
In fact, I really love the TED conference. There's so much great stuff going on there, and they really do bring together the foremost minds of our time (as well as some of the most optimistic and proactive). In addition to synthesized happiness, you can see talks on Cheetahs vs Hippos, Spaghetti, sliced bread, and the history of violence. These are just some of those that I have watched and enjoyed, but there are many videos available, and I advise that you browse through them.
The ranty side of this post is brought on by the idea of a gathering of the elite. You may have noticed, as of late, that "elite" has become something of an epithet - particularly in the realm of politics, but in general as well. Somehow, believing that your years of training, thought, and research somehow give you a greater understanding of the intricacies of an issue is not OK. Your opinion couldn't be any more valid than mine, because we're all equal. Well, if you buy the Lockian philosophy that the US of A is founded on, all men were created equal (notice the lack of women...). What those men (or people, as I prefer) do with themselves after that is a matter of circumstance and their own volition - and that's if you accept the premise, which I'm not certain I do.
In other words, when I am getting surgery, I would prefer the surgeon who has been through med school and has years of experience - that is, the elite surgeon. The same thing goes for any other area of human interaction. That surgeon is not an elite mechanic, which is who I would prefer to work on my car. When we get together a lot of elites in fields relating to thought and ideas, I would expect some pretty good ideas to surface, and that is exactly what we see at TED.
It'll be interesting to see how many people don't buy it. I do. 100%
In fact, I really love the TED conference. There's so much great stuff going on there, and they really do bring together the foremost minds of our time (as well as some of the most optimistic and proactive). In addition to synthesized happiness, you can see talks on Cheetahs vs Hippos, Spaghetti, sliced bread, and the history of violence. These are just some of those that I have watched and enjoyed, but there are many videos available, and I advise that you browse through them.
The ranty side of this post is brought on by the idea of a gathering of the elite. You may have noticed, as of late, that "elite" has become something of an epithet - particularly in the realm of politics, but in general as well. Somehow, believing that your years of training, thought, and research somehow give you a greater understanding of the intricacies of an issue is not OK. Your opinion couldn't be any more valid than mine, because we're all equal. Well, if you buy the Lockian philosophy that the US of A is founded on, all men were created equal (notice the lack of women...). What those men (or people, as I prefer) do with themselves after that is a matter of circumstance and their own volition - and that's if you accept the premise, which I'm not certain I do.
In other words, when I am getting surgery, I would prefer the surgeon who has been through med school and has years of experience - that is, the elite surgeon. The same thing goes for any other area of human interaction. That surgeon is not an elite mechanic, which is who I would prefer to work on my car. When we get together a lot of elites in fields relating to thought and ideas, I would expect some pretty good ideas to surface, and that is exactly what we see at TED.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
