Torque Control

Announcement

So it turns out I’m useless as a blogger. This blog has basically been all Niall for the past couple of months, so it’s about time I made it official and gave up pretending I’m still a contributor here.

This is probably also an opportune moment to mention that I’ll shortly be standing down as co-editor of Vector. The official announcement will be made in the editorial of the forthcoming issue 249, so this is just a heads up that after that issue I’ll be leaving the magazine in Niall’s capable hands.

You will now be returned to your scheduled broadcast.

Geneva

An Open Thread

I’ve set up a static page as a forum for general comments; you can find it here.

This is something of an experiment. I don’t know if anyone will feel inspired to use it (or, indeed, if anyone will even notice it, though it is right at the top of the sidebar), but it seems like it can’t hurt to have the option available. So there it is.

Twenty Years of the Arthur C. Clarke Award

It’s that time again: there’s a new BSFA mailing out. Vector 248 is a celebration of 20 years of the Arthur C. Clarke Award. As usual, we’ll be posting some articles and reviews from the issue on the website over the next couple of weeks, but for now here’s the table of contents:

Torque Control — editorial
Finding Tomorrow’s Futures — Angie Edwards on the history of the Clarke Award
Twenty Years After — a retrospective by Paul Kincaid
A Brief Survey — perspectives on the Clarke
Preface to The Arthur C. Clarke Award: A Critical Anthology — by Neil Gaiman
Air by Geoff Ryman — an extended review by Andy Sawyer
The Clarke and Me — by Geoff Ryman
Clarke Award Has Winner Written All Over It — by Tom Hunter
Archipelago — reviews of short stories by Clarke-winning authors
First Impressions — book reviews edited by Paul N. Billinger
Particles — by Paul N. Billinger
The New X: All Shall Have Prizes — a column by Graham Sleight

As the editorial of Vector and an article in Matrix explain, we’ve been having ongoing problems with printing and distribution, so this issue is appearing somewhat later than originally planned. (I don’t want to tempt fate by saying that everything’s ok now, even if it is.) As chance would have it, though, that means it’s appearing at more-or-less the same time as The Arthur C. Clarke Award: A Critical Anthology (alternate link), a collection of essays about Clarke-winning books that should be well worth your time and money. (Much like the BSFA.)

Another result of the delays is that this issue is the first to announce the existence of this blog. So if there are any BSFA members checking in for the first time, welcome! Feel free to have a poke around. Some things you may find of interest:

The RSS feed for entries is here, and for comments is here; if you have a livejournal, the feeds are syndicated here and here, respectively.

Libraries

The Velcro City Tourist Board wants to know your thoughts on libraries:

Over the last week we’ve been doing a survey of library users – I’ll leave my thoughts on the methodology employed to the side, as I’m not a sociologist (or indeed a ‘proper’ librarian). The survey is designed to uncover people’s ’satisfaction levels’ with the service we provide. Which is all well and good, but it strikes me as intrinsically limited in that it only covers people who actually come into the building.

I assume that most regular visitors to VCTB are regular readers of books, of whatever type. What I want to find out is what people who are passionate about books (to the extent that they read websites about books) think of the modern library service, as they have experienced it. So I’d like to ask you all a few questions:

And here are my answers.

Do you use your local library, or any national libraries (eg British Library)?

I barely use my town library. I occasionally still use Oxford’s libraries.

If you do use libraries, how often and what for? What do you feel would make your local library even better than it already is, as far as fulfilling your own personal needs is concerned?

I use libraries for reference, rather than for fiction. I have used my town library to look up local history, when researching holidays, and for other similar matters. What I would like to have access to a library for is more specialised material: scientific journals (both work-related and non-work-related), american and other non-British sf, and non-fiction about sf. None of which are particularly well-served by my local library. On the other hand, I don’t think my local library necessarily should be trying to serve those needs, because I’m probably the only person in town that has them.

If you don’t use libraries, why not? (Don’t be afraid to be seriously critical here, I want to know the truth – do the buildings suck, are the staff rubbish, do they never have what you want, do you prefer to buy your own books?)

I don’t use my local library either because it doesn’t have the material I’m interested in (scientific references, american sf) or because I don’t need to (pretty much any sf, which I can usually get for review if I put my mind to it), or because I don’t want to (most other fiction, including sf that I don’t review; I like owning books).

The staff have seemed friendly and capable whenever I’ve used my local library. The building itself doesn’t seem terribly friendly — it’s big and brown and seventies — although that may be a hangover from visiting it as a child, and being overawed by it.

What do you feel libraries represent? Or to put it another way: what is the prime function of a library, in your opinion?

To provide public access to as much information as possible as easily as possible. Libraries are good things.

What would you like to see change in the way library services are provided for you?

Online subscriptions to journals and the provision of cheap printing would be one way of providing me with access to the scientific materials I want, without making absurd demands on storage space, even more so if they could provide library members with some way to remotely log in; but I suspect it would still be prohibitively expensive. For reasons noted above, though, I’m probably not typical of users of my local library.

Now it’s everyone else’s turn. If you’re going to take it as a meme for your own blog (and please do!), please remember to also email your responses to info[at]velcro-city.co.uk.

Forty Signs of Links

  • The Science Fiction Foundation will be launching an annual Masterclass in sf criticism in 2007:

    The first Masterclass will take place from June 19-22, 2007 at the University of Liverpool. Each full day of the Masterclass will consist of morning and evening classes, with afternoons free to use the SFF Collection. Class leaders for 2007 will be Andrew M. Butler, Joan Haran, and Brian Stableford. Delegate costs will be £180 per person, excluding accommodation; accommodation (at a local hotel) will be booked through the Masterclass with current rates being £59.50 (single)/ £79.50 (twin).

    Applicants should write to Farah Mendlesohn at farah.sf[at]gmail.com . Applicants will be asked to provide a CV and writing sample; these will be assessed by an Applications Committee consisting of Farah Mendlesohn, Paul Kincaid, Andy Sawyer, and Roger Luckhurst.

    Completed applications must be received by 28th February 2007.

    Spread the word.

  • A review of Helix issue 2. Be sure to check out the charming letters column
  • What is the uncanny?
  • Benjamin Rosenbaum writes about AI and sparks an immense comment thread
  • New blog: biology in sf
  • On reading new books or old books: one, two
  • The shape of the litblogosphere

Heroes

Rarely have I approached a new tv show with as much goodwill as I approached Heroes. My desire to see it succeed can basically be attributed to one thing: the sense that most of the recent glut of superhero films, and in particular the Bryan Singer (and, latterly, Brett Ratner) X-Men films, good as they have often been, are still irretrievably hobbled by their medium. Superhero stories, especially superteam stories, as told in comics, do not fit neatly into 90- or 120-minute installments arriving once every two or three years. They are serials. They sprawl. They should be a natural fit for tv, yet in recent years we’ve had to make do with shows like the fits-and-starts Smallville, or the frankly dire Mutant X. It has been frustrating, to say the least: a good superhero epic reaches parts that other stories just don’t.

So it is with a certain caution, and the knowledge that my glasses may be somewhat tinted, that I say that on the basis of the first two episodes, Heroes, which I heard about a couple of months ago and have been looking forward to ever since, seems to actually be what I want it to be: a naturalistic ensemble show about the first people to develop superpowers. Like all superhero stories, it begins with a Beginning. The first episode (or the first chapter, “Genesis”, as it is inevitably labeled) is essentially a collection of origin stories, set mostly in America, but with occasional visits to other continents to convince us we’re watching a global event.

Admittedly, the beginning of the beginning is not terribly auspicious. Series creator Tim Kring seems to be trying just a little too hard. Not only do we get a poorly-written opening crawl (“In recent days, a seemingly random group of individuals has emerged with what can only be described as “special” abilities … Volume One of their epic tale begins here”), immediately afterwards we get an almost-as-poorly-written voiceover (“Where does it come from, this quest, this need to solve life’s mysteries? … perhaps we would be better off not looking at all, but that’s not human nature. Not the human heart”), to one of the great visual cliches of superhero stories: someone stepping off the edge of a building. And it turns out to be a dream sequence.

The rest of the episode is not without its limitations, either. There is some cringeworthy dialogue, notably from Professor Mohinder Suresh (Sendhil Ramamurthy, trying his best), as he enthuses to his class about the potential “next step” in human evolution, and between the dreamer, Peter Petrelli (Milo Ventimiglia), and his pragmatic, running-for-office-and-proud-of-it older brother Nathan (Adrian Pasdar). Some of the characters seem to be low-watt bulbs, or at least have their motivations unfortunately shorthanded: mother-turned-stripper Niki Sanders (Ali Larter), for instance, has borrowed a large sum of money from the mafia to pay for her genius son Micah (Noah Gray-Cabey)’s education, with (a) no apparent means or plan to pay it back, and (b) predictable consequences, at least until her superpower, which appears to take the form of a death-dealing mirror twin, asserts itself. The web of connections between the cast is at times, inevitably, somewhat contrived, and the convenient solar eclipse that looms over all the threads of the story is a rather heavy-handed way of giving them unity.

But on balance, within the constraints of a plot that’s darting back and forth between various locations (which looks likely to be a temporary constraint, since most of the characters are rapidly gravitating towards New York), it’s nowhere near as incoherent as might be expected. Particularly enjoyable are the introductions of invulnerable Texan cheerleader Claire Bennet (Hayden Panettiere) and teleporting Tokyo salaryman Hiro Nakamura (Masi Oka). Bennet we meet through camcorder footage filmed by her friend, as she climbs up on top of some abandoned mining machinery, and throws herself off to land with an all-too-convincing thud. After standing up and wrenching her dislocated shoulder back into place, she looks into the camera and says, with a cool detachment that seems inappropriate to her years, “This is Claire Bennet, and that was attempt number six.” Not test: attempt. The irony is clear and black: she found about her invulnerability because she was trying to kill herself. She wants to self-destruct, but can’t, which is not exactly your stereotypical cheerleader character arc. By contrast, Hiro is endearingly excitable, and the comics geek of the bunch to boot (even if it’s a little improbable that he’s a fan of Western comics, rather than the home-grown variety). It’s Hiro who makes the obligatory X-Men reference, Hiro who babbles about “breaking the space-time continuum”, Hiro who is eager to grow into his powers. He’s the opposite end of the spectrum to Claire. “You don’t understand,” he tells his colleague, “I want to be special.” (“We are not special,” his colleague retorts, “We are Japanese!”)

Moreover, the show looks the part. We’re not talking Unbreakable levels of moodiness here, but the aesthetic is pleasantly subdued. You sense that costumes are and will remain off-limits, that being able to teleport won’t also miraculously make these characters olympic athletes, and if they get hurt, they will bleed. Dave Semel’s direction is good; the camerawork, particularly in its framing of New York City, is stylish without being obtrusive. And if the powers are somewhat off-the-shelf, the depiction of them isn’t always, and mostly knows when to nudge the viewer: the futures that Isaac Mendez (Santiago Cabrera) finds himself painting while high, for instance, are the scenes of death and destruction that might be expected, including an apocalyptic conflagration that looks like being the Heroes’ first job to prevent … and are captured in the bold strokes of comic-book panels.

The cliffhanger that ends episode one is another example. Peter stands on top of a building, recapitulating the dream sequence we saw fifty minutes earlier. Everything we’ve seen throughout the episode leads us to believe that he’s going to step off the building and soar — one of Isaac’s paintings seemed to capture Peter in mid-flight — but when he does, it’s Nathan, the one who doesn’t care, doesn’t believe — the one who already has everything — who catches him. It works because it seems so wonderfully, tremendously unfair, which should (I think) be one of the show’s key messages: life ain’t fair. So it’s a bit of a disappointment when, half-way through episode two, the show goes back on what it seemed to tell us. It turns out that Peter flew as well. I suppose it would be genetic.

Actually, the end of the beginning (“Don’t Let Go”; the best that can be said for the titles is the way they’re plastered on bits of scenery) is a bit of a mess all around. This is not unexpected, given its genesis — by all accounts, the pilot was originally 75 minutes long, a third of which was later chopped off and shunted into what was episode two — but it’s hard not to feel it should have been better than it ended up. Between repeating material from the pilot to reintroduce the existing characters and introducing two new ones (Matt Parkman, a genial, telepathic cop, based in LA; and Mohinder’s father’s perky neighbour), the episode’s actual plot development is pretty vestigal.

Claire’s adoptive father — who at the very least has been keeping an eye on Mohinder and his father, and may have had something to do with the latter’s death — gets his hands on the tape she’s been making of her suicide attempts. Niki’s mysterious twin provides her with an escape route from Vegas in the form of a car, a map, and a mutilated corpse. Various characters stumble on references to “Sylar”, who appears to be a mutant serial killer with a taste for brains: Mohinder discovers a voicemail suggesting that his father somehow ‘activated’ Sylar; Parkman overhears a detective speculating that a gruesome crime was Sylar’s work. As for Hiro, on arrival in New York he is, predictably, deliriously happy, at least until he discovers a comic book that tells exactly the story he’s just lived (no prizes for guessing the artist), stumbles into another crime scene with Sylar’s apparent MO, idiotically picks up the gun lying nearby on the floor, and promptly gets himself arrested by roughly half the local police force. Despite the contrivance involved, it’s Hiro story that saves the episode, just about, by providing a second killer ending.

And this time it’s not a cliffhanger. It’s impossible to know, of course, but it feels like the natural end of the pilot, and you get the sense that everyone would have been better off if they’d stuck with the original 75-minute version and not tried to chop it and stretch it into two unequally weighted but more-or-less equally long parts. So I’ll be watching on, probably at least up until Christmas, because a lot of what’s bad about Heroes feels like teething troubles, and what’s good about it — some of the characters, some of the acting, the general premise — could be enough to make something special. It hasn’t used up my goodwill yet.

In The Forest of Forgetting

A couple of weeks ago, Abigail Nussbaum reviewed Theodora Goss’s debut collection, In The Forest of Forgetting, for Strange Horizons. I’d also just read the collection (and written a review, for Vector, which won’t appear until 2007), and we ended up having a discussion about our differing reactions to the book. Abigail’s now posted the conversation over at Asking The Wrong Questions. As she says, it’ll make more sense if you read her review first. And I’ve just realised that there is a bit about why I like one of Goss’s stories, “The Rose in Twelve Petals”, in my review of Feeling Very Strange:

What about “The Rose in Twelve Petals” (2002) by Theodora Goss? That’s a retelling of a fairy story—Sleeping Beauty, to be precise—and surely fairy stories, even twice-told ones, have to be considered traditional?

Here comes the Prince on a bulldozer. What did you expect? Things change in a hundred years. (p. 239)

Guess again. Goss’s tale is astonishing; it would be worth slogging and hacking through the overgrown bramble of every other reimagined fairytale out there to get to, but here it is served up on a plate. As the rose has twelve petals, the story has twelve parts, and though they start traditionally enough—a witch, a king, a queen, a princess—that doesn’t last. While the Beauty sleeps, time really passes. Things change. The transition to now is vertiginous, almost harrowing: we are forced to watch the old world thinning, and our modern world coming into being. These days we have to find our own ending, Goss is telling is; may we all be lucky enough to escape from our own pockets of time.

If you were wondering, I had a few reservations about the collection as a whole, but I think it’s very much worth reading.

Also, I can neither confirm nor deny that I fight crime.

What is space opera?

Here’s a thought: there’s no such thing as the new space opera. — Jonathan Strahan

Of all sf’s subgenres, “space opera” seems to attract the most definitional fervour. Everyone seems to have an intuitive sense of what the term means, and no two people seem to have the same intuitive sense — as demonstrated in the comment thread on Jonathan’s post, where Ellen Datlow says

I find the current use of the term “space opera” exceedingly annoying and confusing.

To me “space opera” was and always will be simple adventures in space.

David Hartwell and Kathryn Cramer, of course, have argued, in an essay and in their recent mammoth anthology, that most of the confusion comes from the fact that the meaning of the term has shifted.

Space opera used to be a pejorative locution designating not a subgenre or mode at all, but the worst form of formulaic hackwork: really bad SF.

[…]

Many readers and writers and nearly all media fans who entered sf after 1975 have never understood the origin of space opera as a pejorative and some may be surprised to learn of it. Thus the term space opera reentered the serious discourse on contemporary SF in the 1980s with a completely altered meaning: henceforth, space opera meant, and still generally means, colorful, dramatic, large scale science fiction adventure, competently and sometimes beautifully written, usually focussed on a sympathetic, heroic central character, and plot action [this bit is what separates it from other literary postmodernisms] and usually set in the relatively distant future and in space or on other worlds, characteristically optimistic in tone.

Not everyone accepts this historical account (notably Brian Stableford in his NYRSF review of The Space Opera Renaissance), but the idea of a “new space opera”, which probably started either with Iain M. Banks’ Consider Phlebas (1987) or with Colin Greenland’s Take Back Plenty (1991) (and with M. John Harrison’s The Centauri Device [1975] as an ancestral text), has gained enough currency for there to have been an issue of Locus that focused on the topic a couple of years ago. But among other things, this version of NSO seems to get conflated with the so-called “British Boom”.

In a second post, Jonathan asks for other peoples’ definitions of space opera. My own previous attempt at wrangling with some space operas, from a couple of years ago, can be found here, but it sort of sidesteps the question of definition. I like the definition that Jonathan quotes in the comments — “lovesongs to the way the future was” — since an awful lot of modern space opera does seem to have that sense that we can’t get there from here. But he also lists “[Alastair] Reynolds, [Iain M.] Banks and [Stephen] Baxter” as definite space-opera writers, and while I think the first two are probably fair associations (granting that both have also written non space-opera work), I’m not so sure about the third.

In fact, Exultant is the only Stephen Baxter novel I’d really call space opera. The majority of his output is something else. An awful lot of his books certainly take place in space — Timelike Infinity or Titan, for instance — or have a vast cosmological scope — The Time Ships, Time, Space. But he’s also written a lot of less expansive books, from Voyage and Coalescent to this year’s Emperor.

I think you could make a case for Ring as a space opera, but I don’t think I’d be convinced by it myself, and thinking about why leads me in the direction of a definition of space opera I’m more comfortable with. Ring deals with a group of last humans touring the far-future ruins of the galaxy. It probably qualifies, just about, as “epic space adventure”, although that implies a rather more upbeat tone than I remember the novel having.

But I wouldn’t call it space opera because of how the setting is handled. One of the thumbnail definitions of hard sf that’s sometimes used is that in a hard sf story, the universe is a character. Ring fits this definition: the nominal “bad guys” in the story are the enigmatic and extraordinarily powerful Xeelee, but they never come on-screen, and there’s every indication that they pay as much attention to humans as humans pay to ants. In fact, what the characters in Ring are struggling against is the cold infinity of the universe. You could say that there is a space opera story going on — the Xeelee have their own enemies, the photino birds — but we’re not a part of it.

Exultant, though set in the same sequence, is much more a space opera, to my mind. For starters, it has space battles. Lots of space battles. Space battles that have been going on for thousands of years on fronts hundreds of light-years across. There’s lots of gosh-wow physics, and some nods to how big and unfeeling the universe is, but the universe isn’t a character in Exultant: it’s a stage set. At heart Exultant is a human drama, in exactly the way that Ring isn’t. So space opera, we could say, cuts the universe down to size.

None of which, of course, tackles Jonathan’s original suggestion, that there’s no such thing as the new space opera. I’m not sure I buy that; at the very least I think that the post-Banks or post-Greenland British space opera is new, if only because, Harrison, Dan Dare, and Journey Into Space aside, I have real trouble thinking of British space opera written before about 1980. Suggestions are, of course, welcomed.

The Links At Hand

BSFA Awards: Best Artwork

It’s that time of year again. At last night’s meeting, Ian Snell, the BSFA Awards Administrator, handed round forms to remind everyone to start nominating for the BSFA Awards. For any new members reading, it works like this: there are awards for Best Novel, Best Short Story, Best Non-Fiction, and Best Artwork; for Best Novel the work has to be published in the UK, otherwise they can be available anywhere; you can nominate as many things as you want in each category; the five in each category with the most nominations go forward to form the shortlist, which is subsequently voted on (by STV). In short, you don’t have to wait until the end of the year; you can nominate whenever you encounter something you think is worthy of shortlisting. Continuing the theme of last night’s meeting, I thought I’d throw up some potential artwork nominations.

The artwork award is open to any single science fictional or fantastic image that first appeared in 2006. Again, provided the artwork hasn’t been published before 2006 it doesn’t matter where it appears.

As with most things related to the BSFA, the definition of “single science fictional or fantastic image” tends to be pretty flexible. Admittedly, the last couple of winners (Pawel Lewandoski’s cover for Interzone 200, and Stephan Martiniere’s cover for Newton’s Wake) have been traditionally science-fictional landscapes, but in the same period nominees have also included a Frank Quitely double-spread from We3, and even a photograph of the Millau Bridge.

So here’s what’s been catching my eye.

Magazine covers, left to right: Interzone 206 (let’s be honest, you can’t go wrong with a giant robot), Farthing 2 (although covers for the other issues have been nifty, too) and Postscripts 6 (probably the least exciting of the three, but nicely composed, I think). Illustrations for individual stories (such as those occasionally used by Strange Horizons, or as standard in recent issues of Interzone) are also worth looking at.

Book covers, left to right: US cover for River of Gods; Stephan Martiniere doing what he does best. I love the washed-out look of the Rainbows End cover (if you ignore the text all over it, anyway), and the UK cover of Black Juice struck me as being much more evocative of the stories it contains than the US or Australian editions. The cover for Nova Swing left me cold the first time I saw it, but it’s grown on me. Irene Gallo’s blog often features rather lovely covers … but fairly often they’re rather lovely covers for books that aren’t published yet.

And finally, whatever the merits of the film, I do love this poster:

Now, here’s where I throw it open to the floor. What artwork has been grabbing your attention this year? Don’t worry if you’re not a member; maybe someone who is will like your suggestion, and end up nominating it. That email address in full: BSFA.Awards@gmail.com.