Geez, it that old bug-a-boo still a staple of sci-fi?
Writers still try the concept because it's really hard to pull off right. Describing post-singularity people / beings has to have the feel of a child describing adults- "we don't understand them, but they understand us and can predict our actions; they make arbitrary rules (Eat the Cauliflower! Don't eat the dirt!); they carry us about without much choice on our part"- with the "child" being intelligent adult humans. They aren't published that often, but when they are- Five Star Mental Dining: McLeod, Egan, Vinge, Benford (present topic, Diaspora, Fire Upon the Deep, Great Sky River...).
SF, to be SF, must be a logical continuation or extrapolation from what we know is possible given our science, or plausible given our behavior (with perhaps one suspension of disbelief allowed per universe, a coupon often redeemed for FTL travel. The best writing feels plausible and doesn't require the SoD). Post-singularity fiction usually is flavored with a mix of four events or behaviors we've experienced:
Country creates colony. Colony turns against it. Fight ensues, hideous results follow, perhaps even reaching country's soil. (Britain, US; France, Algeria; Belgium, Congo)
Person thinks up technology. Technology used in unintended and unwanted ways. (Guillotine, Westinghouse/Tesla (and the electric chair), Einstein)
People thinks up technology. They don't expect where it goes or how large it gets (arpa, computers, most of science and technology)
Child contemplates adults, adults can be good or bad.
The older-style "monster turns on master" books tend to not be this complex. They'll have the feel of only one event: Arm the barbarians, the barbarians take over civilization and ruin it. There is little sense that the new beings inhabit a word that is bigger than ours- more science, more complex interactions between beings, things happen that we can't quite understand.
So yes, its still around, although not as a "staple"- books this rich can't be done by the ordinary line chefs of SF.
From their position it is denial of service. They have limited staff, time, and phone lines. They want to hear from their constituents. Lots of out-of-state contact means the constituents don't get through, the voicemail system is clogged up and 3,000 more emails than average sit in the Inbox. They get annoyed. They think that some out-of-state special-interest group is having a fax & phone crusade, and instead of thinking 1 call = 20 voters, they think 20 calls = 0.01 voters. This is worse than not calling at all.
...If we're not careful. In California a few years ago the legislators were about to reject a bill banning junk faxes. The direct marketers wanted to be sure it was rejected, so they faxed letters- many, many letters- to all the legislators urging them to reject it.
The bill passed by an unsurprisingly wide margin and remains the law today.
Legislators probably don't have a good opinion of 'the sorts of people who read Slashdot' right now-- to them we've likely associated with piracy (DVDs), crackers (dos attacks)and the Seattle riots (just because). Too many calls from us will be a dos attack to them, tying up their phones, ruining the value of subsequent calls. If thousands of Slashdotters are going to contact their reps, fewer calls / more letters = more value / improved opinion of tech people.
(Even better, letters on company letterhead starting with "I'm the chief network engineer/ DBA/ Other Title of company X, with Y employees," or visits or calls that begin with "Hi, I'm the CEO of a company worth a billion dollars. I want to talk with you." And find some non-tech people to write- local college presidents or religious leaders automatically get a +2 on letters.)
No not always, unless you have really good handwriting. I've known several people who've worked at the capitol in Sacramento. When an office gets flooded with mail, the staff will moderate letters- and "easy to read" = +1. You want your letter to do more than add to the pro/con count. You want it too be seen by the top people.
A printed letter is worth at least 100 emails. Put your credentials somewhere in the letter- let them know you live/work in the state. If they start getting out-of-state mail, they'll end up deciding its a "copy this text, sign, send" campaign (spam, really. It's bulk. And if you're from out of state, it's unsolicited).
Give them reasons why you care, not just that you don't like it. Make at least one of those reasons economics..."Our company could waste thousands of dollars on bad software if reviewers have to get permission to publish." Most of them know that the pro-UCITA lobby donates a lot of money. Remind them that the anti's have money too. (be subtle. you don't have a track record, the lobbyists do.)
Tailor your reasons to the legislator's politics and focus on the undecided first. A few minutes of research per letter can save you from useless (or worse than useless) arguments. "Forcing the US have the same rules as other countries" might sound good to some and new-world-orderish to others. "EULA's are wrong" won't help with the ones who think EULA's are what you say at a funeral.
Yeah, the math Bell curve today holds relatively few women on its flattest furthest reaches. Perhaps this isn't just due to nurture: we don't yet know*. But...
It is irrelevant to this discussion, regardless of the cause. How many programmers regularly deal with math that's more complex than the equations in Cryptonomicon? Where's the O'Reilly books on topological field theory? Yes, the basics of calculus and stats and diffequ are important, and genius math and programming math do overlap in a few places, but understanding manifolds of chiral supersymmetry in n-space usually isn't necessary to write good code. A difference in the Bell curves might explain why most Nobel winning physicists are men, or even explain a 10% or 20% higher count of men in CS. It doesn't explain OOP classes with 30 men and 5 women.
* There's a catch-22 in the whole differences between women and men in math thing. We will be able to do good studies on it iff we have a generation or two where nobody believes in the difference (or at least can act like they don't**). If this happens, with most students pushed to the limits of their math capacity, we can see if/what the difference is. It's difficult to study now; the interference from the belief is significant.
** Let it be absolutely unremarkable that a girl has the best math grades (no "you can think like a boy, that's good" lines like some girls hear. It's not a compliment.). That students with math aptitude are encouraged to consider any of a large list of math-intensive jobs. (no "if you don't like math or physics don't bother with math" speeches). That a person's academic choices reflects only on that person, and isn't considered evidence of group behavior ("he dropped because he was bored" vs. "she dropped...well, she tried hard for a girl"). Then we can do good studies of gender and math or race and math... for now (absence(evidence)!=evidence(absence)) should hold.
If you want new AEVV equivalents, read some of the SF magazines and then get subscriptions to the ones you like. A few bucks now gets you great writing- decades ahead of most SF movies and TV (which tend to have the sophistication of 1950's SF stories)- and supports the best novels of a few years from now.
The great writers of science fiction exist because of the magazines. Few writers this century sprang up ex novelo; they developed their talents and reputations with shorter stories published first. And most would continue to write short stories after their novels are published- it keeps the mind sharp, because a good short story is the most difficult type of writing. The stories also create a fan base and a track record that both contribute to a publisher's willingness to accept a novel.
Recent anthologies like "The Year's Best Science Fiction" contain stories that rival anything from the golden age of SF in intensity, cutting-edgeness, and sheer old-fashioned numinous sense-of-wonderness. Notice where the stories came from: Asimov's (probably the largest single source), SF Age, Analog, SF&F...all good magazines. And look at awards lists of recent Hugo and Nebula winners/nominees. Authors first show up in the lists with shorter story nominations, and then the novels appear.
Start with short stories. They let you find favorite authors and styles of writing, all while reading the very best SF has to offer. Few authors write novels than are better than their short stories, so discovering what you like through magazines and anthologies gives you both a more concentrated experience as well as more authors to discover. Start with:
"The Year's Best Science Fiction," Gardner Dozois (ed). Title says it all, and the front essay also covers the best novels from that year. They go back to the mid-eighties. Usually has the Hugo and Nebula nominees (except the novels, of course).
"The Science Fiction Hall of Fame," three books found in libraries and collections everywhere, including many school libraries. (No sex, so librarians think its not dangerous for growing minds. Ha! Reading it around age 11 was my "first sample is free...") The Weapons Shop. It's A *Good* Life. (Shudder) The 9 Billion Names of God. Algernon. Twilight. The Cold Equations. Good stuff, and the drawbacks of early SF is less apparent- far less annoyingly stereotypical female characters, for example- than the era's novels.
Magazines: Try both Asimov's and Analog to find which one you prefer: each publishes for a somewhat difference audience. My parents gave me a subscription to Asimovs when I was 13, and its where I discovered most of my favorite modern authors: Egan, Swanwick, Willis, Marusek, Robert Reed, W.J. Williams...
Analog is known (stereotyped) for a hard-sf, idea carries the story style, while Asimov's for a more literary, idea-is-necessary-not-sufficient style (for example, social sciences count (think Arneson or LeGuin's anthropology)). I'd vote for Asimov's because it carries more types of writing and gets more Hugo / Nebula awards, while Analog is for a more specialized audience. I think of Analog as the fast-fun read, Asimov's for the 'can't stop thinking about it' (can't fall asleep afterwards, sometimes) who knows whats next read. Yes, I'm biased. Try at least 3 issues of each before giving up on either, though.
"Best of..." anthologies. Expand out from the SF Hall of Fame. Frederick Brown, Jack Vance, Alfred Bester... not as well known today, but still a good read.
Slashdot Mirror
Writers still try the concept because it's really hard to pull off right. Describing post-singularity people / beings has to have the feel of a child describing adults- "we don't understand them, but they understand us and can predict our actions; they make arbitrary rules (Eat the Cauliflower! Don't eat the dirt!); they carry us about without much choice on our part"- with the "child" being intelligent adult humans. They aren't published that often, but when they are- Five Star Mental Dining: McLeod, Egan, Vinge, Benford (present topic, Diaspora, Fire Upon the Deep, Great Sky River...).
SF, to be SF, must be a logical continuation or extrapolation from what we know is possible given our science, or plausible given our behavior (with perhaps one suspension of disbelief allowed per universe, a coupon often redeemed for FTL travel. The best writing feels plausible and doesn't require the SoD). Post-singularity fiction usually is flavored with a mix of four events or behaviors we've experienced:
The older-style "monster turns on master" books tend to not be this complex. They'll have the feel of only one event: Arm the barbarians, the barbarians take over civilization and ruin it. There is little sense that the new beings inhabit a word that is bigger than ours- more science, more complex interactions between beings, things happen that we can't quite understand.
So yes, its still around, although not as a "staple"- books this rich can't be done by the ordinary line chefs of SF.
The bill passed by an unsurprisingly wide margin and remains the law today.
Legislators probably don't have a good opinion of 'the sorts of people who read Slashdot' right now-- to them we've likely associated with piracy (DVDs), crackers (dos attacks)and the Seattle riots (just because). Too many calls from us will be a dos attack to them, tying up their phones, ruining the value of subsequent calls. If thousands of Slashdotters are going to contact their reps, fewer calls / more letters = more value / improved opinion of tech people.
(Even better, letters on company letterhead starting with "I'm the chief network engineer/ DBA/ Other Title of company X, with Y employees," or visits or calls that begin with "Hi, I'm the CEO of a company worth a billion dollars. I want to talk with you." And find some non-tech people to write- local college presidents or religious leaders automatically get a +2 on letters.)
No not always, unless you have really good handwriting. I've known several people who've worked at the capitol in Sacramento. When an office gets flooded with mail, the staff will moderate letters- and "easy to read" = +1. You want your letter to do more than add to the pro/con count. You want it too be seen by the top people.
A printed letter is worth at least 100 emails. Put your credentials somewhere in the letter- let them know you live /work in the state. If they start getting out-of-state mail, they'll end up deciding its a "copy this text, sign, send" campaign (spam, really. It's bulk. And if you're from out of state, it's unsolicited).
Give them reasons why you care, not just that you don't like it. Make at least one of those reasons economics..."Our company could waste thousands of dollars on bad software if reviewers have to get permission to publish." Most of them know that the pro-UCITA lobby donates a lot of money. Remind them that the anti's have money too. (be subtle. you don't have a track record, the lobbyists do.)
Tailor your reasons to the legislator's politics and focus on the undecided first. A few minutes of research per letter can save you from useless (or worse than useless) arguments. "Forcing the US have the same rules as other countries" might sound good to some and new-world-orderish to others. "EULA's are wrong" won't help with the ones who think EULA's are what you say at a funeral.
It is irrelevant to this discussion, regardless of the cause. How many programmers regularly deal with math that's more complex than the equations in Cryptonomicon? Where's the O'Reilly books on topological field theory? Yes, the basics of calculus and stats and diffequ are important, and genius math and programming math do overlap in a few places, but understanding manifolds of chiral supersymmetry in n-space usually isn't necessary to write good code. A difference in the Bell curves might explain why most Nobel winning physicists are men, or even explain a 10% or 20% higher count of men in CS. It doesn't explain OOP classes with 30 men and 5 women.
* There's a catch-22 in the whole differences between women and men in math thing. We will be able to do good studies on it iff we have a generation or two where nobody believes in the difference (or at least can act like they don't**). If this happens, with most students pushed to the limits of their math capacity, we can see if/what the difference is. It's difficult to study now; the interference from the belief is significant.
** Let it be absolutely unremarkable that a girl has the best math grades (no "you can think like a boy, that's good" lines like some girls hear. It's not a compliment.). That students with math aptitude are encouraged to consider any of a large list of math-intensive jobs. (no "if you don't like math or physics don't bother with math" speeches). That a person's academic choices reflects only on that person, and isn't considered evidence of group behavior ("he dropped because he was bored" vs. "she dropped...well, she tried hard for a girl"). Then we can do good studies of gender and math or race and math... for now (absence(evidence)!=evidence(absence)) should hold.
The great writers of science fiction exist because of the magazines. Few writers this century sprang up ex novelo; they developed their talents and reputations with shorter stories published first. And most would continue to write short stories after their novels are published- it keeps the mind sharp, because a good short story is the most difficult type of writing. The stories also create a fan base and a track record that both contribute to a publisher's willingness to accept a novel.
Recent anthologies like "The Year's Best Science Fiction" contain stories that rival anything from the golden age of SF in intensity, cutting-edgeness, and sheer old-fashioned numinous sense-of-wonderness. Notice where the stories came from: Asimov's (probably the largest single source), SF Age, Analog, SF&F...all good magazines. And look at awards lists of recent Hugo and Nebula winners/nominees. Authors first show up in the lists with shorter story nominations, and then the novels appear.
Now for a re-read of Weapon Shop...
Start with short stories. They let you find favorite authors and styles of writing, all while reading the very best SF has to offer. Few authors write novels than are better than their short stories, so discovering what you like through magazines and anthologies gives you both a more concentrated experience as well as more authors to discover. Start with:
"The Year's Best Science Fiction," Gardner Dozois (ed). Title says it all, and the front essay also covers the best novels from that year. They go back to the mid-eighties. Usually has the Hugo and Nebula nominees (except the novels, of course).
"The Science Fiction Hall of Fame," three books found in libraries and collections everywhere, including many school libraries. (No sex, so librarians think its not dangerous for growing minds. Ha! Reading it around age 11 was my "first sample is free...") The Weapons Shop. It's A *Good* Life. (Shudder) The 9 Billion Names of God. Algernon. Twilight. The Cold Equations. Good stuff, and the drawbacks of early SF is less apparent- far less annoyingly stereotypical female characters, for example- than the era's novels.
Magazines: Try both Asimov's and Analog to find which one you prefer: each publishes for a somewhat difference audience. My parents gave me a subscription to Asimovs when I was 13, and its where I discovered most of my favorite modern authors: Egan, Swanwick, Willis, Marusek, Robert Reed, W.J. Williams...
Analog is known (stereotyped) for a hard-sf, idea carries the story style, while Asimov's for a more literary, idea-is-necessary-not-sufficient style (for example, social sciences count (think Arneson or LeGuin's anthropology)). I'd vote for Asimov's because it carries more types of writing and gets more Hugo / Nebula awards, while Analog is for a more specialized audience. I think of Analog as the fast-fun read, Asimov's for the 'can't stop thinking about it' (can't fall asleep afterwards, sometimes) who knows whats next read. Yes, I'm biased. Try at least 3 issues of each before giving up on either, though.
"Best of..." anthologies. Expand out from the SF Hall of Fame. Frederick Brown, Jack Vance, Alfred Bester... not as well known today, but still a good read.