The human colony on the planet Argo has long explored and exploited the technology left behind by an extinct alien race. But then an archaeology team accidentally activates a terrible weapon... Read More.
Praise for Star Dragon
"Seldom does a storytelling talent come along as potent and fully mature as Mike Brotherton. His complex characters take you on a voyage that is both fiercely credible and astonishingly imaginative. This is Science Fiction."
-- David Brin
"Star Dragon is terrific fare, offering readers a fusion of hard science and grand adventure."
-- Locus Magazine
"Star Dragon is steeped in cosmology, the physics of interstellar travel, exobiology, artificial intelligence, bioscience. Brotherton, author of many scientific articles in refereed journals, has written a dramatic, provocative, utterly convincing hard science sf novel that includes an ironic twist that fans will love."
-- Booklist starred review
"Readers hungry for the thought-provoking extrapolation and rigorous technical detail of old-fashioned hard SF are sure to enjoy astronomer Brotherton's first novel."
-- Publishers Weekly
"Mike Brotherton, himself a trained astrophysicist, combines the technical acuity and ingenuity of Robert Forward with the ironic, postmodern stance and style of M. John Harrison. In this, his debut novel, those twin talents unite to produce a work that is involving on any number of levels. It's just about all you could ask for in a hardcore SF adventure."
-- Paul di Fillippo, SCI-FI.COM
One of my old, fairly innocuous posts has been climbing up the popularity lists: The Importance of Science in Our Lives. It’s just a link to an article online with a little commentary. I see on my statistics pages that a lot of people arrive using google searches of “Importance of Science.” I wonder if this is a common school assignment for students, e.g., “Write about the importance of science in the modern world” or some other similar variation, and then off they go to google to get their answers rather than thinking for themselves. Maybe that’s too cynical. Anyway, I have been intending to follow up with some more specific and simply worded reasons that science is important to not just me (e.g., my income), but to our civilization today.
Science is important because…
1. …we don’t have to take someone’s word for something, we can test their claims.
2. …horrible diseases can be cured, or prevented entirely, and it can still provide hope for those with as-yet-incurable diseases.
3. …people who love each other can talk to each other whenever they want no matter how far apart they are in the world, and can be together the next day.
4. …science can show us what has caused mass extinctions and point the way to preventing similar catastrophes in the future.
5. …science can make us feel big and special for understanding the age of the Earth, the nature of stars, and the size of the universe, even if those things dwarf us.
6. …science saves lives.
7. …it has helped us to no longer need to worry about personal survival as our top priority, giving us more time for love, laughter, singing, and dancing.
8. …whenever one problem is solved another two rear up to take its place, so the need for science will never go obsolete.
9. …science gives us superpowers, like looking across the universe, seeing atoms, flying across the Earth or to the moon, moving mountains, and harnessing the energy of the sun.
10. …science, in the long run, is the only reliable way to figure things out in a world that is so seldom fair and impartial.
Well, those are ten of mine. I could elaborate or further justify each of these, but for now I will leave these here to ferment some more. There’s a darker version of this list that would talk about guns, nuclear bombs, and more, but I’ll pass on that for now. Violence isn’t nice, but it surely is important.
The Grass is always Greener, but you can Learn to Fertilize Your Mind
August 31st, 2010
This is a follow-up to a post from a couple of days ago, wondering if there was an ideal place for (science fiction) novelists to live, someplace with low cost of living and a culture rich enough in the right ways to keep them happy.
I live in Laramie, Wyoming, which has not been a mecca of science fiction writers although Connie Willis did live here for a time (her husband Courtney got his Physics PhD from my department). I bet we can get Connie an honorary degree from the University here at some point in the future…but I digress.
Laramie isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, but some people love it. I like a lot of things, but hate a few things, about living in Laramie. The two worst things are probably being a single professor in a college town (biggest dating pool is undergrads with a big age difference and a different phase of life, etc.) and the sometimes extreme winter weather (especially when you want to travel out of town). Some people wouldn’t like the small number of restaurants and shopping options. Some people would just find the place a little too boring.
Now, I’ve also lived in more popular places like Austin, Texas, and the bay area of San Francisco, California. Let me tell you, they are much, much worse than Laramie in some ways. In Laramie, your drive is ten minutes everywhere, or less. There’s no line at the DMV. You can have a house twice or three times larger than you could afford in those cities. A university provides enough culture in a small town, while trying to do every cool thing going on in the Bay Area will either destroy your time and money, or make you feel guilty for missing too many awesome opportunities. The air is clean. It’s 20 minutes to great hiking and world-class rock climbing. You can see the stars and the Milky Way at night. You can keep horses. You can get drunk and walk home at night without worrying about crime (blizzards are a different issue). You can go skiing for a half day for the price of a short car ride and a cheap lift ticket.
Every place has big pluses and minuses. I don’t think there is a perfect place to live anywhere in the world, for anyone. Jobs and career areas limit choices, sometimes family issues, if you prioritize those highly enough and they’re restrictive, and people can be uncomfortable trying to change cultures too much (even from one part of the US to another).
So, what do you do to make the grass look greener where you live?
You have to know about yourself and your likes and dislikes. You have to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of where you live. Then you have to figure out how to maximize the good things and minimize the bad things.
Some of my solutions for Laramie involve out-of-town travel, and I’ve had several long-distance girlfriends (who I hoped would become local but that hasn’t worked out just yet). I’m lucky in that I never get bored. When I manage to get some free time there’s always a book, movie, or game waiting for me. The internet provides a lot of community and shopping. In the winter when it’s not so easy to get out, I can enjoy staying in my nice, big home. Launch Pad was a way to enhance living in Laramie, for me, also, bringing in writers for a week every summer. I’ve learned to be more flexible about winter travel (especially after a highway crash in a winter storm). I should learn to embrace winter sports and rock climbing, but the truth is I’m happy running on a treadmill indoors while watching science fiction shows on tv (just finished season 1 of Stargate: SG1). I’m really a cerebral guy who thinks a lot about science, science fiction (duh!) and convenient living really helps me do that. I don’t have to spend time commuting, waiting in lines, searching for parking, or even shopping (amazon and you’re done).
Living in California, most places, or New York, may be stimulating and full of opportunity, but it is anything but convenient. Still, if I lived there, I would take advantage of what’s so great about them and try to find ways of enhancing my convenience. I’d try to work from home as often as possible, maybe order groceries, and certainly enjoy the rock concerts and museum shows when they came through. My online communities would be more likely to be face-to-face communities more often, with live critique groups and clubs to meet at. If all I could afford was a tiny apartment, I’d be out in the city more of the time, writing at coffee houses, enjoying restaurants and bars.
Now, it isn’t easy to change ourselves or our preferences. It is easier to recognize who we are, our preferences, and our environment. It is possible to change our environment to suit ourselves better.
Instead of saying “this place is too expensive and crowded” or “there’s nothing to do here” or just “this place sucks” I think it’s better to say “there’s so many people here I bet a lot of them are cool” or “I can think of something really interesting to do here” or “I live in my mind, and it doesn’t suck here — let me figure out how to make it cool and green.”
That’s ok. More astronomy on tv is a great prize, and I’m thrilled to see it. The show looks a little sensation, but still pretty damn realistic and scientific after watching Armageddon or those Transformers movies.
Where is the Science Fiction Writer’s Promised Land?
August 30th, 2010
When I was in Manila last month, I was happy to be able to meet fellow speculative fiction writer and blogger Charles Tan. Something he said resonated with thoughts I’d had over the years. Basically it’s this idea: if writers are paid a certain amount per book that depends on the market and their audience size, without consideration for their local cost of living, why not maximize their effective income by living somewhere cheap?
The context of my conversation with Charles was the Philippines, where it’s possible to live very inexpensively if you desire. There are also countries where writers pay no taxes, I’m told (as well as other artists in general). And inside the United States, there are a lot of places to live that are a hell of a lot cheaper than New York or California, but I’m one of only 3 SFWA members in Wyoming, and other states with low cost of living are not overly represented in writing. I suppose I could do an analysis of a group like SFWA, state by state, or even city by city, and see if writers maybe are seeking out cheaper places to live, but I doubt it from taking a glance at the state-by-state listings.
So many cool writers seem to live in expensive places!
I have little doubt that some seek the big, expensive city life for culture and stimulation. And if you’re an English writer and want to interact with others who write in English, you’d be unlikely to move as other English-speaking countries are not that cheap either.
So, if you’re a full-time American writer who doesn’t want to give up too much but does want to maximize that paycheck, what is there to do?
(This is hypothetical for me, as I’m tied to my University job and it outpays the writing — significantly.)
There have been movements by political and religious types to create ideal communities before to maximize their power and make over areas into utopias of a sort. There’s a “Christian Exodus” moving into South Carolina, for instance. For liberals who don’t want to move to Canada, there are the bluest options here. I believe I’ve heard about New Hampshire being targeted specifically by liberals and/or atheists, but I can’t find anything with google at the moment to support that recollection (anyone?).
So, I wonder if there is an ideal place to target for science fiction writers?
How about states without state income tax: Alaska, New Hampshire, Tennessee, Florida, South Dakota, Washington, Nevada, Texas, and Wyoming?
How about cost of living? The ten cheapest are Tennessee, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Nebraska, Georgia, Texas, Missouri, Kentucky, Alabama and Kansas. Cities within these states can vary quite a bit, however.
Probably want at least one decent university in town.
Home prices are also an issue.
Austin, Texas comes to mind as a good option based on the above information, but having lived in Austin I know it’s gotten crowded and expensive. A suburb of Austin, sufficiently far out, might be a good idea. Michael Moorcock and Elizabeth Moon are two writers in that situation, and Howard Waldrop, notorious for living on the cheap (once in an empty septic tank, I’m told), has lived in the Austin area.
Tennessee shows up on both state lists above. Maybe Nashville or Memphis? I don’t know of a concentration of SFWA writers there, however.
Maybe income tax and cost of living aren’t super critical, as long as you’re not in a place like California or New York where they are crazy high.
Someplace not too big, not too small, that is cheap to live, and ideally already has some core of professional writers in the area for critique groups, parties, and science fiction culture. I know a number of great writers in New Mexico, and it’s not too expensive. It’s a state that already hosts some great observatories including the VLA, national laboratories like Los Alamos, covering the science side. Heck, Roswell is there! That’s the state that comes first to mind. How about Albuquerque? Don’t take any wrong turns there, just stop and create a rich science fiction writing community.
Not much going on there? So what? You’re a writer. Get your ass in the chair and get back to work. Take a vacation somewhere exciting.
Well, I’m going to throw out a city near Austin, Texas or in New Mexico as my thoughts. There must be other great choices out there, so what are they? Inside the USA? Outside the USA?
Inspired by this list of the scariest foods (many of which I’ve eaten, including balot and rocky mountain oysters), I was thinking about scary science fiction foods like those live worms that the Klingons eat and decided to try to think of the really distinctive foods and drinks I’ve come across in science fiction. Not exactly the food of the future, but fun to think about, especially if you’re planning a science fiction-themed party. I’m not the first to think of it (here’s another webpage about food in science fiction and one from io9.com, and they also have one about science fiction drinks) but this will be my take on the memorable stuff.
There is an entire frakking wiki for the consumables of Star Trek. The Klingon living worm thing is called gagh. Duh, sounds like “gag” for good reason. For drink, my pick is Romulan Ale. I’ve made it for parties with this recipe: 1/3 Blue Curacao, 1/3 Barcadi 151, 1/3 Everclear. That’s 66% alcohol, and it will knock you on your ass. I bet you could use this website to create an entire Star Trek themed meal, or a decent facsimile thereof.
The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams has another classic drink: the Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster.
The best drink in existence is the Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster. The effect of drinking one of these is rather like having your brains smashed out with a slice of lemon, wrapped around a large gold brick. The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy will tell you on which planets the best ones are brewed, how much you can expect to pay for one, and which voluntary organizations exist to help you recover afterwards.
Take the juice from one bottle of the Ol’ Janx Spirit (see page 15 of the actual Guide).
Pour into it one measure of water from the seas of Santraginus V — Oh, that Santraginean seawater, it says. Oh, those Santraginean fish!
Allow three cubes of Arcturan MegaGin to melt into the mixture (it must be properly iced or the benzene is lost).
Allow four liters of Fallian marsh gas to bubble thrugh it, in memory of all those happy hikers who have died of pleasure in the marshes of Fallia.
Over the back of a silver spoon float a measure of Qualactin Hypermint Extract, redolent of all the heady odors of the dark Qualactin Zones, subtle, sweet and mystic.
Drop in the tooth of an Algolan Suntiger. Watch it dissolve, spreading the fires of the Algolan suns deep into the heart of the drink.
There is also the Restaurant at the End of the Universe (sequel to Hitchhiker’s Guide). What’s on the menu? Meet the meat! Hilarious! Bonus points for you if you can ID the Dr. Who actor in the scene.
The Space Merchants by Pohl and Kornbluth featured a hiding place under “Chicken Little” — a giant piece of vat-grown chicken meat. That thing always stuck with me. It’s a classic novel of 1950s science fiction, and well worth tracking down.
I love the dinner scene in Galaxy Quest. Look about 3 minutes into this clip. What’s worse? Gagh or Kep-mok blood ticks?
Star Wars doesn’t have much world-building when it comes to food, at least not in the movies. I mean, you get Luke nibbling on meat on a stick, blue bantha milk. There are websites highlighting Star Wars themed food (e.g., cakes in the shape of yoda) or discusson threads on Star Wars forums.
As a kid, I watched the original V miniseries, and this scene stands out:
The aliens in District 9 prefer cat food:
There’s Soylent Green, of course. And Soylent Green is…ah, I won’t spoil it. If you don’t know, go watch the classic film immediately, ok?
In a similar vein, there’s the classic Twilight Zone episode “To Serve Man” based on the short story by Damon Knight. Forgive me, I’ve embedded a condensed version of the episode below:
I think that’s a classic one to end with. Other great examples I forgot or don’t know?
You’ve got to ask yourself one question: ‘Do I feel lucky?’ Well, do ya [cyber/hyper/steam/etc]punk?
August 26th, 2010
My friend Eric Nylund’s novel Signal To Noise, which I like a lot, came out with some marketing that called it “hyperpunk.” WTF? It was supposed to be some kind of next-generation cyberpunk, I guess. The term didn’t catch on, but a lot of other punks did…
Somehow, just like with Watergate and every scandal after being a “-Gate,” in science fiction prefix + “punk” has become a lazy labeling habit.
Cyberpunk was the first one, I think, epitomized by the work of William Gibson (e.g. Neuromancer) and anthologies like Mirrorshades, edited by Bruce Sterling. Some forerunners included Shockwave Rider by John Brunner. I’ve read the first two, while the last one has been sitting, waiting, for 15+ years even though I love John Brunner. Pat Cadigan and Walter Jon Williams, two recent Launch Pad attendees I might add, also wrote some early and influential cyberpunk. Cyberpunk is about a dark, gritty future where computers and cyberspace are an important aspect of life. I understand William Gibson wrote his genre-starting novel on a typewriter and had never touched a computer at that stage in his life.
I saw a post on facebook the other day from another novelist who mentioned the term “Decopunk.” I have no idea what that is. I’m a little afraid.
I think if Space Opera was invented now, it would be spacepunk. Maybe astropunk. Asimov would have invented robopunk. But I guess we couldn’t have punk before punk, in the late 1970s. I’ve seen some “fairy punk” costumes.
If hard science fiction was relabeled “Science Punk” do you think it would become more popular? Or would it just be a dark, gritty type of hard science fiction???
I miss any punks out there? I might have a bullet left in the gun, but, well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself.
It’s a generalization, talking about “Americans,” but generalizations can be significant. No one should ever think they apply to any given individual, but when enough of a demographic fits, we can say it. And boy, too many Americans believe some dumb things: Newsweek Slideshow.
Here are the science-related ones:
To mark the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth, Gallup thought it might be a good idea to poll Americans on their beliefs of the British naturalist’s theory. But the results must have had Darwin spinning in his grave, since only 39 percent of Americans believed in the theory. The good news: only a quarter said they didn’t believe it; the remaining portion either didn’t have an opinion or didn’t answer. (Also, only 55 percent correctly linked Darwin’s name with the theory.) However, it appears that views may, um, evolve: younger people believe in evolution at far higher rates than older ones.
You know, at this point the evidence for evolution is totally overwhelming, we see it happen, and it happens in broad terms the way Darwin proposed. There are a lot of subtle issues involved, and there’s still a lot to learn, but all within the basic framework of the theory of evolution.
It seems obvious that it’s not a good idea to put too much stock in withcraft. But it turns out that 21 percent of Americans believe there are real sorcerors, conjurers, and warlocks out there. And that’s just one of the several paranormal beliefs common among Americans, according to Gallup: 41 percent believe in ESP, 32 percent in ghosts, and a quarter in astrology. In fairness, the numbers in this poll are a little old—they date back to 2005. But then again, if people haven’t changed their mind since the Enlightenment, it’s not clear another half decade would make much difference.
Science has been testing claims of witchcraft, ESP, astrology, and more, and they’ve never passed any scientific test even though there’s a $1 million dollar reward out there for the taking. Magicians as well as scientists have to be convinced, which has made this an impossible reward to win.
Didn’t we clear this one up in the 16th century? Copernicus be damned, 20 percent of Americans were still sure in 1999 that the sun revolved around the Earth. Gallup, the pollster that conducted the study, gamely tried to dress it up by celebrating the fact that “four out of five Americans know Earth revolves around the sun,” but we’re not buying.
Ugh. This? I hope none of my intro astronomy students get this wrong ever again for the rest of their lives. It’s been about 400 years since the evidence was overwhelming, and hundreds of years since it was essentially proven. Maybe some fraction of the 20% are just not thinking or confused about the question. Maybe I’ll put this on my first exam this semester and punish the class if 100% don’t get it right!
The other items on the list are there due to ignorance and a general lack of education, or because of strong political or religious biases. Well, that’s probably true of the items above, too. There are right and wrong answers to some things, and no reason not to know which is which most of the time.
Now, this link is about Americans. I used to sort of assume Europeans were smarter, but my recent years of travel have convinced me that a large fraction of Europeans are ignorant of a lot of things, too, and just as biased (albeit in different ways) than Americans. Frankly, the rest of the world seems to be even worse.
I try not to get pessimistic about this. It just means I have some job security as a scientist and educator, and lots of opportunities for outreach. One of the biggest tricks is knowing why people are getting the answers wrong. If it’s ignorance, a simple lecture or article can suffice to fix the problem. If it’s a serious misconception or strong political/religious bias, it’s a tough road to go. You have to demolish the false idea before you can install the reality. That can be very challenging, and it’s hard to succeed.
Eric Nylund’s Latest: All That Lives Must Die….Not!
August 24th, 2010
Eric Nylund is a buddy of mine from way back, a great guy and a great writer. I’ve read all his books and liked them well, both the fantasy (from Pawn’s Dream, his first) to science fiction (e.g., Signal to Noise and several Halo novelizations). Last year I interviewed him about his new fantasy series starting with Mortal Coils. This past weekend I finished the second installment, All That Lives Must Die.
I absolutely loved it, and think it may be his best novel ever.
This series, which for better or worse has some features reminiscent of some other recent popular contemporary YA fantasy books like Percy Jackson and Harry Potter, promises to deliver an epic story on par with any in my recent memory. It’s a big story, with several books left to go, rich at every level. It’s more influenced by Roger Zelazny (think Amber) and a natural outgrowth of some of Eric’s previous work, so don’t think it’s derivative of the above series.
The Mortal Coils story documents the lives of twins Eliot and Fiona post, offspring of the eldest Fate Atropos and Lucifer the Prince of Darkness. The twins represent a mix of immortal and infernal heritage, two antagonist families enduring a precarious peace. This is not a simple good vs. evil story, or a simple world in which gods are real, but a complex, well-grounded world of intrigue. This second installment in the series focuses on their first year in a private high school, the Paxington Institute, which only gives Freshmen two initial classes: Mythology and Gym. Many students fail, and some even die. The challenges and stakes for Eliot and Fiona are even higher than that, however.
I don’t want to spoil too much…
Anyway, when you’re looking for a break from the science fiction, check out this series and get hooked. Monday was the first day of the semester, and I nearly wasn’t prepared because I couldn’t put the damn book down.
“There is a big difference in the movie superhero of today and the comic book superhero of yesterday,” Dr Lamb told the annual Convention of the American Psychological Association.
“Today’s superhero is too much like an action hero who participates in non-stop violence; he’s aggressive, sarcastic and rarely speaks to the virtue of doing good for humanity.
“When not in superhero costume, these men, like Ironman, exploit women, flaunt bling and convey their manhood with high-powered guns.
“The comic book heroes of the past did fight criminals, she said, “but these were heroes boys could look up to and learn from because outside of their costumes, they were real people with real problems and many vulnerabilities,” she said.
She’s a moron, plain and simple. It sure sounds like another case of, “Gee, things have gone to hell today compared to my generation when everything was better.” Including the superheroes apparently. You know how she did her research?
To understand how the media and marketing managers package masculinity to boys, Lamb surveyed 674 boys age 4 to 18, walked through malls and talked to sales clerks and came to understand what boys were reading and watching on television and at the movies.
She “walked through malls.” I don’t see her analyzing comic books or movies. I don’t see her actually doing any tests to see if boys exposed to current superhero movies change their behavior in negative ways compared to those that don’t. I call bullshit here. But I have a bigger bullshit to call later, again indicating that she’s not doing science, she’s projecting her own view about the world and how she doesn’t like some of the changes. Tough shit, lady.
She and her co-authors found that marketing managers take advantage of boys’ need to forge their identity in adolescence and sell them a narrow version of masculinity.
They can either be a “player” or a “slacker” – the guy who never even tries – to save face.
“In today’s media, superheroes and slackers are the only two options boys have,” said Dr Lamb. “Boys are told, if you can’t be a superhero, you can always be a slacker.
“Slackers are funny, but slackers are not what boys should strive to be; slackers don’t like school and they shirk responsibility.
“We wonder if the messages boys get about saving face through glorified slacking could be affecting their performance in school.”
WTF? Why is she going on about slackers now? Iron Man is a bad influence because he helps make boys into slackers? And I totally think she is creating a false dichotomy. Superhero or slacker. That’s it? Are you fucking kidding me??? It’s like Donnie Darko, but replacing the fear-love spectrum with a superhero-slacker spectrum. Right. And the idiot media apparently creamed their jeans to put her on tv with this nonsense. But let’s continue to the old fogey proof.
She said that original superheroes like Superman who was a reporter by day and the Green Lantern, who was a railroad engineer, were invented to fight for social justice and were a reaction to the rise of fascism.
But the new breed of superheroes only thought about themselves.
She said boys need to be taught from an early age to distance themselves from these images and encouraging them into finding the lies in the messages can help.
Yeah, she’s going back to the 1940s. Golden age Green Lantern, for instance.
This is basically a message that comic book movies are for boys only — no adult or females allowed — and that such movies should only have good wholesome messages approved by her and her ilk that are not “lies” like people act selfishly sometimes, guys like women, and use their money for big toys that go boom. Fuck her.
I had a girlfriend really upset when the Ralph Bakshi movie Cool World came out in the 1990s. It’s an adult-themed movie, but because there was animation (aka “cartoons”) the movie was for kids and had to be kid-friendly. Fuck her, too. We didn’t stay together.
Let’s take a look at things a little more carefully…it seems to me that the development of Tony Stark in the Iron Man movies was to move away from being a arms dealer and to use his wealth for the public good. Did she totally fucking miss that? YES. Because she’s a hack. A faker. A moron. And Iron Man, seems to me, has a drinking problem that he struggles with. Seems like a huge personal weakness to me.
And the movie superheroes of today…including Superman and Batman, and forthcoming is Captain America. Seems like the new superheroes are the same as the old superheroes designed to fight fascism!
And the ones with the big guns out for vengeance… The last Punisher movie I saw was rated R. If “boys” are seeing that it isn’t because it was targeted at them.
What I really hate is this false outrage designed to bring attention to further oneself. Politicians do it all the time, and some hack “scientists.”
What we’re seeing, if anything, is a wider range of superheroes today because they’re popular. And they’re not identical, so the more you have, the more you’ll have that don’t act like the boy scout known as Superman. Did she actually do any real analysis? Here’s what one smarter guy commented on fark.com:
I am taking “todays” superhero films to be 1990s and 2000s.
Today’s superhero films[1]:
1990: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Darkman, Captain America
1991: TMNT2, Rocketeer
1992: Batman Returns
1993: TMNT3
1994: Fantastic Four, The Shadow
1995: Batman Forever, Mighty Morphin’ Power Rangers, Darkman 2
1996: The Phantom, Darkman 3
1997: Turbo, Batman & Robin, Spawn, Steel
1998: Blade
1999: Mystery Men
2000: X-Men, The Specials (which was awesome, by the way), Unbreakable
2002: Blade 2, Spider-Men
2003: Daredevil, X-Men 2, Hulk, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
2004: Hellboy, Punisher, Spider-Man 2, Catwoman, Blade 3
2005: Electra, Batman Begins, Fantastic Four, Sky High, V for Vendetta
2006: X-Men 3, Superman Returns, My Super Ex-Girlfriend, Lightspeed, Zoom
2007: Ghost Rider, Spider-Man 3, FF: Silver Surfer (SHUT UP! I’m only including it to be thorough!), Underdog
2008: Superhero Movie, Iron Man, Incredible Hulk, Hancock, Hellboy 2, Dark Knight, Punisher: War Zone, The Spirit
2009: Watchmen, Wolverine
2010: Kick-Ass, Iron Man 2, Jonah Hex Total Number of films listed: 61
TFA’s list of undesirable patterns of behavior, and films from the list above that could arguably[2] be categorized into one or more of these patterns of behavior:
1. aggressive (assuming aggression beyond typical “right hook to the bad guy’s jaw” level of superhero violence)
2. sarcastic
3. rarely speak about the virtue of doing good for humanity
4. exploit women
5. flaunt bling
6. convey their manhood with high-powered guns
Films:
Darkman
Darkman 2
Darkman 3
Spawn
Blade
Mystery Men
The Specials
Blade 2
League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
The Punisher
Blade 3
Electra
V for Vendetta
Ghost Rider
Iron Man
Hancock
Punisher: War Zone
The Spirit
Watchmen
Kick-Ass
Iron Man 2 Total Number of Undesirable Superhero Films: 21 (34.4%)
So, by my estimate, the number of films that portray superheros as sufficiently virtuous and/or altruistically-motivated is right around double the number of films that portray superheroes as insufficiently-virtuous.
I’d go a bit further. We shouldn’t include R-rated films which are targeted at older audiences. Take out Watchmen, Punisher, etc., and the statistics skew even more. Spider-man is about great power bringing responsibility, or maybe the Spider-man films don’t count. Fantastic Four? The human torch usually burned his bling, and Mr. Fantastic nearly sacrificed his relationship to do the right thing. Daredevil…Batman…yeah, I remember how they decided not to take vengeance in the end, or adopt bling, sarcasm, or playboy lifestyles except as cover.
Geez, WTF is this insane woman actually talking about? Is it about movies/tv? Which ones? Or is it about what comic book store managers told her? Because that’s totally scientific. Comic Book Guy is always right and reliable!
There are some good psychologists out there. I know a few, and have read some good research. This doesn’t belong in that category. This is Crap.
Bite me, Dr. Lamb. I’m being aggressive, but not sarcastic, ok? You’re a hack and should quietly retire before you have any more effect on the world that you already do. Everyone with a brain hates you, old fart. In your day Green Lantern’s “real personal problem” was wood. Seriously. That’s a good lesson for the boys. It won’t be much better with the new Green Lantern (yellow), but they’ll probably add on some kind of characterization so he’s more interesting than the pieces of wood you think boys should be watching and emulating. You don’t have a clue and should quit before all your peers realize it. Because now, with the media attention, they just might.
“Frak Me, Ray Bradbury” she sings. Poll: What Do You Think?
August 19th, 2010
I suspect that a lot of people who visit here might have seen this already. It’s a not safe for work video and it doesn’t use the Battlestar Galactica word “frak.”
Ray Bradbury is a great writer. If people, especially hot girls, can get excited for other artists like rock stars who aren’t very attractive (Kid Rock?!?!?!), I think science fiction writers as legendary as Bradbury should get some “love” too. Well, this is obviously more comedic than serious, except for perhaps in the metaphoric sense (I understand the video girl is a fan), and in my book all is fair in comedy.
I’m on one email discussion list of science fiction novelists, and the reaction was split about half and half from what I could tell from the comments. Half thought it was funny and amusing, a commentary on society today, and a natural form of expression for younger generations. Half seemed to be squicked out and disturbed, not finding it funny or even liking it at any level (although I think the tune is catchy).
Most comments I’ve seen around suggest a lot of people find it funny, more than half. Maybe more writers have a problem with it because they more easily identify with Bradbury and imagine themselves being the target. Maybe they’re more aware that he’s still alive and think it’s inappropriate, even if he is a public figure. Maybe my email list has more humorless, politically correct folks who don’t like profanity or sexual forwardness in the open like this.
Loading …
Whatever you all think, I think it’s funny and believe that Bradbury would approve of people out creating at the top of their lungs.
Here’s Bradbury’s take on artistic endeavors:
Don’t think. Thinking is the enemy of creativity. It’s self-conscious, and anything self-conscious is lousy. You can’t try to do things. You simply must do things.
Ray Bradbury
We are the miracle of force and matter making itself over into imagination and will. Incredible. The Life Force experimenting with forms. You for one. Me for another. The Universe has shouted itself alive. We are one of the shouts.
Ray Bradbury
You’ve got to jump off cliffs and build your wings on the way down.
Ray Bradbury
Then again, Bradbury also said this:
Touch a scientist and you touch a child.
Ray Bradbury
Ewww! I think we all should be squicked out by that sentiment and that bastard Bradbury deserves this video and more!
Amazon Best Books of the Month, August 2010: John Smith has just arrived in Paradise, Ohio, just another stop in a string of small towns where the 15-year-old has been hiding out from the Mogadorians. Those terrifying aliens are hellbent on destroying him and the other nine Loric children who have sought refuge on Earth. The Mogadorians are picking off the surviving kids in numerical order. The first three are dead and John’s number is up. Will his Legacies, his defining super powers, develop in time for him to fight against the enemy? I Am Number Four is a breathless page-turner of a sci-fi novel that will have readers rooting for the teen alien who must unleash his fire power to save himself, his human friends, and the planet. This is the first of a slated multi-book series that, judging by this first book, will help reinvigorate a traditional YA genre that’s grown a bit light on strong character development. So, gear-up sci-fi fans, the battle for Earth is on and there’s a new kid in town! –Lauren Nemroff
I read the book over the weekend and liked it pretty well and can recommend it for those of you who like YA. It is NOT HARD SCIENCE FICTION. It falls into what I think of as superhero science fiction — the adherence to physics isn’t really there, and as long as you treat it as science fantasy, like a superhero comic book, it’s quite enjoyable.
With the strong initial sales, the strong push, and the movie in the works, it has the prospects of being a science fiction version of Harry Potter. I don’t think it’s quite as well done or as rich as Harry Potter, unfortunately, but I would love to see there be a YA series to be effectively a gateway drug into more adult science fiction. This is the closest thing I’ve seen in a while.
Book Trailer:
Videos about the movie, which is coming in February of 2011:
This could well be the face of science fiction for the younger generations in coming years. Anyone else read it yet?
By “expert” I mean world-class, whether or not you’re super smart or super talented.
I’m starting to lose my faith in innate “talent” after some recent reading. Two of the books are Talent is Overrated and Outliers. I’ve got another book on this topic coming, too, more on the inspirational side of things. Some of the basic points I’ve been thinking about are also covered in The Ten Thousand Hour Rule, and other variations floating around the internet for a few years, too.
When I was six, I thought that the thing that distinguished humans from the rest of the animal kingdom was our intelligence, so I decided that being smart was important. I am classically smart, and have a high IQ. That helps a little with some things, especially on the beginning steep part of the learning curve, but that advantage doesn’t compete well against sufficient deliberate practice.
I’ve climbed the hill of expertise several times in my life, although I don’t know that I’ve managed to put in 10,000 hours of serious work into anything. Maybe astronomy. Maybe writing. But I doubt it. It takes about ten years of serious hard work to get to the 10,000 hours, and without serious effort to improve the hours don’t count much.
I was good at drawing as a kid and considered going to college for art, and had aspirations to draw comic books. I like fine art, but I know what I love. I had a solo show of my drawings and paintings my senior year of high-school. As a teenager, I won prizes at science fiction conventions in the art shows. I kept up a bit in college and grad school, and have a few pieces that are good, but I knew how far I still had to go to attain a professional level of skill, and I lost my inspiration. I started requiring classes to draw, whereas I was writing nearly every day without outside prompting.
I was pretty good at chess, too, in high school and college. The first six masters I played I drew. I drew former world champion Boris Spassky (while he was playing 49 other people simultaneously). I had a closet full of trophies. I was the Missouri State Amateur Champion in 1986. I won a $500 chess scholarship. I let myself quit in college — I didn’t have the time to get better, and spending the time took away from my studies and social life. Six years of effort into chess, and I was on track to make master within another four I believe (I quit rated 1950, 250 points from master level). Also, I realized that there were some chess masters who weren’t very bright outside of chess — they tended to live in their parents’ basements and study chess a lot.
More recently, I put in the training to run a marathon. Serious hours per week, over about five months. I improved my running a lot, and did the marathon in about four and a quarter hours. My dad, an experienced marathoner in his day, thought I had the potential to run 3:30 if I kept working at it. I didn’t. Too time consuming. Serious runners, even quite old ones in their 40s and 50s, talk about seven years to reach their peak ability.
In fiction, we talk about writing 2 million words of crap before we get good. Most “new” writers are in their 30s and 40s, and 30 is a pretty normal age to break in after years of effort. Reading, writing, and critiquing for 10,000 hours over ten years it what it takes for most of us. I haven’t written 2 million words of fiction yet, although I may have written over 2 million words total. Writing 2 million words in 10,000 hours is a leisurely 200 words an hour — a little slower than I write and I’m not the fastest. Ballpark, it’s 10,000 hours to work through the crap. Again, I know some pro writers that I wouldn’t consider even of average intelligence, except they’re nearly geniuses at writing.
In astronomy, and the physical sciences, grad school is usually 5-6 years, and then there’s usually another 3-6 years of postdocs before getting a faculty position. That’s ten years, and while that’s also probably more like 40-60 hours a week, it’s probably more like 20-30 hours a week of the kind of practice that helps one improve. There are a lot of other things to do, too, in academia. And there’s the danger of getting good enough in a niche to stop pushing hard learning. I’ve seen a lot of professors, myself included, who hesitate to put in the hard work to learn new software, or keep up with the latest in the scientific literature, because we can coast on our past experience. I’m going to work harder on that in the future.
In the books cited above, they talk about chess masters who can play blindfolded and remember all the pieces on the board at a glance. I was able to do that when I quit chess. They also talk about more general expertise, developing mental models, patterns, that let larger quantities of information in the expertise to be grasped and retained easily and quickly — and I have experienced that myself with astronomy and writing both.
So, I don’t think I’m saying anything here too insightful compared to the books above, or the other blogs I’ve read about the ten thousand hour rule. I’m just putting my personal experiences up against those ideas, and finding they match up.
What I think my belief at six years old really let me do was to develop an attitude of relentlessness. I wouldn’t quit. I wouldn’t admit that I was too stupid to solve a problem. One of the books talks about how quickly people give up on math problems before deciding they’re “too hard” to do. American students give up after a few minutes, Asian kids after something more like ten minutes. In college and grad school, perhaps even high school, I worked on individual problems for DAYS until I understood them inside and out and had good solutions. That’s the kind of deliberate practice that brings expertise. One expert at math teaching said math ability was more a matter of attitude than innate talent.
The other thing I have had going for me is passion. I’m really deeply interested in things. I like to learn and to study, if it’s something I care about.
On the other hand, having too many interests has been my downfall at some level. I’m a good astronomer and a good writer, but I feel like I could be great if I focused more. Boy, that’s hard though, isn’t it? Once you’re married with kids and a steady job, it’s hard to have the time required to train yourself to expertise. Even within your job, the situation is not always conducive to get better at. People get good enough, then many have a tendency to phone it in, doing well enough but not improving. Improving takes hard work, extra hours.
I’m 42. I still have time in my life to develop another expertise, or to reinvest in one of my partially developed areas and try to take it to master level (although it won’t be chess — I like the game now but my passion is gone). I still love the astronomy and writing, and they are the two things I’ve invested the most effort in and have paid off the most for me. I have to acknowledge that I am driven in part by outside recognition, and getting tenure as a professor and publishing novels has taken the edge off the push. I have to find the energy to want to be great for its own sake in a position in life where I’ve already been recognized as pretty good, much better than most, at a time when I am also considering marrying again and having a family while I’m still young enough to properly manage it.
Anyway, this is some reflection and soul searching on my part. There are a limited number of hours in my lifetime left to do this, and everything else I like to do (socializing, traveling, playing games, etc.). This is the really hard part, knowing its there if I want it, and having to make the decision to go for it. Again, or continuing, without settling for good enough.
And for those of you reading this, know that you can become world class at almost anything, physical limitations permitting, if you put the work into it. You may not become the best in the world, but you can compete with them, or just make a decent living in a dream job, or perform for adoring crowded of some size. But you have to make that time, and there’s sacrifice. I remember skipping movies with friends in grad school in order to go to work. I remember turning off the tv in order to get my three hours of writing time in. I remember seeing the chess set waiting for me in my room when I finished my homework.
Loading …
