Slashdot Mirror
Singularity Sky
The main idea of the story, that a semi-sentient information-gathering alien system called the Festival comes to a backward farming planet and begins granting wishes -- in the form of advanced technology -- in exchange for stories and information, is only the seedbed for the larger exploration of the societally backward planetary system and what happens when the revolution you hoped to lead finally comes and it doesn't need you.
As a lifelong reader of science fiction, I hate that most SF is just as backward-looking as most Fantasy. Part of the problem with recent SF work is that we've come to a point in science where a lot of what made science fiction new has been done and what's coming is almost impossible to imagine, which I'll get to in a second. Space exploration can still be exciting but most new space stuff has been infected with the Star Trek Syndrome, as I call it, where everyone is boring and has no flaws, and the status quo rules. People just don't look to space exploration as exciting in real life so that translates to the SF work that people do. Real life science is changing so fast that it leaves even science fiction people in the dust. The result is the rise of 'Fantasy with robots and aliens' and 'Space Opera,' two facets of SF that seem to be dominating the landscape. Even Neal Stephenson, who was at the forefront of real technological future SF with The Diamond Age and Snow Crash has gone backward with Quicksilver and to a lesser extent Cryptonomicon.
The issue is The Singularity. This is Vernor Vinge's idea that technological progress proceeds at an exponential rate until there is a complete break with what came before. The End Of History, as people call it. This comes with the creation of a human-level AI that quickly proceeds past human-level, the invention of Upload technology that will allow us to live in computer systems and artificial bodies, something of that nature that we can't imagine. The problem with writing futuristic work in the time before a Singularity is that you can't see beyond it. Everything is different, so much so that all we can hope for is the fire up our imaginations to the point where we can begin to think in new ways.
One of the main goals of science fiction as I see it is to prepare us for the future. You can't hope to cope with the future if you've never been innoculated with new ideas. Singularity Sky is one of the first post-Singularity novels I've read that takes the idea seriously and examines it, allowing us to open our minds to the vast possibilities. Stross doesn't shy away from it like so many others. He uses the Festival's coming to show the speed of the change that comes with a technological Singularity and what happens to people in the aftermath. He also shows a culture trying desperately to hang on to old ways and the futility of doing that in the face of such rapid change.
There are problems with the book, mostly in the perennial bugbear of science-fiction, character development, but the rush of ideas glossed over that for me. This is only Mr. Stross's second book, I believe, the first being a collection of short stories called Toast: And Other Rusted Futures, that is high on my Must Read list. Charles Stross is a name that you will hopefully hear a lot more from in the coming years. His imagination is up there with the best and brightest and with his work as an accelerant my mind can't help but burn with new ideas. I hope more science fiction writers see this book and decide to move forward to meet him.
You can purchase Singularity Sky from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
Play nice with Piers Anthony. While Anthony's sci-fi books are definitely space opera, without his work, I would never have become the sci-fi reader I am today. His "Bio of a Space Tyrant" series was my first glimpse into some of the ideas that would germinate into a lifelong love of science fiction. He's an enthusiastic writer, and really does interact well with his fans, as evidenced by the fan correspondence he includes at the end of his books. Finally, at least it's reading and it's fun - I think the tradeoff for my hours is well worth it.
Reviewer needs to get off his high horse. It's fine that you experienced a loss of faith or whatever the smeg changed for you, but don't insult the rest of us who still like the sci-fi you sneer at (ooohhh, space operas, how amusingly plebeian- give me a break).
It is easy to knock the guy if you think he is 100% Xanth. However, this is the same guy responsible for "Macroscope" (Nebula award nomination). The Cluster/Tarot series is also a worthy effort, with imaginative aliens that beat Niven's creations. There is also "OX", a decent attempt to make a novel around John Conway's "Game of Life".
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
The whole "magic is indistinguishable ..." bit, as well as 'uploading' yourself into a computer, as well as 'let's see what happens when old fashioned cultures collide with new cultures' is all old hat. Already been done many times before.
This is nothing new. The man you extol as being a fresh creative force for the beleagured sci-fi genre is doing the same thing every author has done for the bast 80 years.
If you think that the majority of scifi sucks these days, you aren't looking very hard. Try Iain M. Banks, anything of his, and then look me in the eye and tell me scifi sucks. Ditto for Stephen Baxter, or David Brin, or Greg Bear or Gregory Benford. Hmm...that's a lot of B's....
---- El diablo esta en mis pantalones! Mire, mire!
...you'll look back on your Slashdot submission and realize what a pretentious uptight snob you were, and you'll wish you had the time back you spend shunning things that were actually entertaining.
Based on your review, I'll take Anthony over Stross:
There are problems with the book, mostly in the perennial bugbear of science-fiction, character development, but the rush of ideas glossed over that for me.
I'm sorry, I prefer a few good ideas and good characters versus poor characters and many ideas.
If anybody is interested in seeing a glimpse of what this author can produce, his short story "A Colder War" is available online for free at http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/stories/colderwar.ht m.
This story is one of the best I've ever read, and it's the only work of fiction I have ever encountered, on paper or on the screen, that actually managed to give me nightmares. Go read it if you haven't!
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
I do have one good thing to say about Pierce Anthony. I was reading him one day and suddenly a little thought balloon formed over my head which read: "This is crap." I threw the book down in disgust and learned a valuable lesson: it's not a moral failing to give up on a bad book. Quite the opposite, it a sin to reward a horrible writer by plowing threw dreck just to finish it.
Sci-Fi has always been a bit difficult for me. I love the ideas of building new technology, visiting new worlds, and finding out new things about the Universe. Above all though, it still should be entertaining.
Unfortunately, most Sci-Fi writers fall into two categories:
1. Taking the "human condition" to the extreme. Futures where sex is the only thing driving humanity. Of course, they're so much more advanced than us because everyone has sex with everyone.
I hate to break it to the authors, but this sort of society would quickly degrade due to a lack of scientific focus. Not to mention that human feelings on the subject are actually pretty immutable. (No matter what anyone says.)
One way or another, these books are no more entertaining than a porno flick.
2. Fantasy dressed up as Sci-Fi. I personally don't like Fantasy books all that much. But these books make it that much worse. Most of them have space travel as a background to get to a fantasy-like world. After that, forget about the Sci-Fi.
Once on the fantasy world, the laws of physics no longer apply. There aren't even social-political issues to work out. There's just some big quest for something. Or a, "look at how much better they are than humans." Blech.
Personally, I thought Heinlen's juveniles were the best examples of Sci-Fi. Rocket Ship Galileo, The Rolling Stones, and Time for the Stars inspired those of us who wanted to some day reach the stars. Which is amusing since so many of his adult books fell into the categories above.
Here's what I'd like to see: Someone should write a series of books on what space would be like if we developed nuclear engines. (Orion, NERVA, GCNR, M2P2, NSWR, etc.) Build a grand story around the concepts and push the public to make it happen. We always see space as far in the future. It doesn't have to be!
An even better bit of Sci-Fi would be a television movie showing the conflicts of developing the first nuclear launch methods. The struggle between the pro and anti nuclear groups. Showing how far people are willing to go for their beliefs. And the results of finally reaching the stars.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Pshaw! next you'll try to tell us that not all reality television is real, or that pro Wrestling isn't a sport.
Most of everything is not the Best of anything. Get a clue. It's reading the rest that makes the best such a treasure.
And lay off Piers Anthony. He ain't Heinlein or Asimov, but neither is William Gibson. Nobody is. That's why Heinlein and Asimov are important.
Sorry sir, you lost me.
Your introduction slams other authors for no aparent good reason. If you are reviewing a book you can easily say it is better or worse, in your opinion, than some other works.
It is not necessary to drag in some other persons works and knock them down.
comment directly in my journal
My main problem is not the stories themselves, but the quality of the writing. That many of them are written for 14 year olds doesn't help (although this in itself doesn't make it poor writing).
We need SF book for adults, for people who have actually become somewhat literate in their dotage. I know they're out there, because I own a few.
You may want to stop reading the Internet, then.
--
Piers Anthony will never see another dime from me. He wrote in one his newsletters last year that he can't see "why some people get so outraged about protections on digital works". He often claims to hate tyranny and love personal liberty but is completely unable to see the connection those things have to DRM.
I had an email back and forth with him and he brushed off as completely unimportant:
Forced format changes
Locking independents out of the market
Forced choice of platforms
Retroactive changes of licensing terms
Rewriting history
Every other thing about DRM that is problematic.
Oh and he completely doesn't get that what one clever human can do another clever human can undo which ultimately makes the so-called benefits of DRM moot.
He seems to think that DRM is his only hope of getting paid in the future. I got the distinct impression that to him Disney and the *IAA are completely reasonable aggrieved souls. For all of his professed love of liberty and justice, he comes off like Jack Valenti when it comes to his wallet. His works emphasize his dislike of censorship. He hasn't seen anything yet and he has no idea that he is now an advocate of censorship. If he likes DRM then he'll have to like everything that comes with it.
This is fine. I won't misappropriate his stuff online but I won't fund him anymore.
Hi there.
If you want to read more of my stuff, there are some (older) stories on my fiction pages.
If you want to know when the sequel, "Iron Sunrise", is due out (and the other books I've got coming), see my books FAQ.
And there is of course the obligatory weblog, but because it's CGI-mediated and my server's decidedly on the elderly side I'm not going to post the URL here. (If you want it badly enough and you're clueful you'll find it :)
It's quite fascinating. I saw the article on /., and decided to read it. But most of the comments that have been highly moderated (forgive me, but I cruise at filter +2) are comments either attacking or defending Piers Anthony instead of discussing Singularity Sky and the talents of Charlie Stross.
/. staff decided to let it in (assuming timothy isn't on the /. staff himself - I wouldn't know).
/. editors.
/. staff should consider this story to be an example of a failure of editing, and should consider the idea that it's better to leave the personal attacks /. readers instead of posters and editors.
Why did this happen?
It happened because the submitter, timothy, decided to attack Piers Anthony in his post as a target of opportunity, and the
Why was this attack posted? If timothy had submitted a post entitled "Piers Anthony Sucks" it wouldn't have been accepted by
At this point it seems that nobody cares about Stross's novel, which is a shame.
For these reasons, I think that the
144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!