Here is an apocalyptic vision that I quite like that I found on Designzzz, an art-type blog where more fantastic art can be found. I don’t really go for this air-brushed style computer art stuff, but I quite like some of this stuff. It will make nice wallpaper on my desktop anyway…
Art work by alexiuss.
Recently, in my inane rambles around the world-wide-wub, in the dank subterranean worlds of the mediasphere, such as forums and blogs, such as the one you are reading: where lonely and potentially psychotic individuals rant and rave like inmates in one of Queen Victoria’s less salubrious institutions, I’ve become increasingly aware of a debate, perhaps the debate, which has been haunting philosophers over the ages since the dawn of man; subliminally weaving its way through the subtext of the Gilgamesh, Plato’s Republic, Kant’s ’sublime’ and Dan Brown’s stinking Code. What is this debate which has been setting cyberspace on fire, you say? No, not the War in Iraq, nor the fuckin’ Credit Crunch, not Swine Flu, an no not even bookmarking vs. dogearring. No, none of these. No, the debate that has been springing mostly to my attention is the humble and strangely eternal debate of ‘why do the toffs hate science fiction?’ By the toffs I mean the literati: the mainstream: academia: the bourgeois – call them what you will. By science fiction I mean everything from horror to fantasy to, yes even science fiction. The whole speculative spectrum.
In fairness I’m not sure how many people have really been engaging in this debate. And when I say ’set cyberspace on fire’ I perhaps would have been more honest to say caused it to smoulder – briefly. But Kim Stanley Robinson’s recent criticism of the, ever shite, Booker Prize has certainly stirred things up a bit, but, let’s be honest, beyond a few cantankerous individuals jousting with semantics on a few forums and a few equally narky lit. crits jousting in the broadsheet press, there has been little new to this debate, other than it has made me think more about the problem of genre a bit more than I previously had. However imagine my surprise when, what do I see on the ever pretentious late-night review show, the News Night Review, decides to dedicate a whole half-hour programme on all things SF, while even touching upon the war of words surrounding the innate prejudice of the Booker Prize! Shit! Things must be getting serious. What next? Will the BBC have it’s own science fiction affairs correspondent to cover Obama’s intervention in peace talks between Kim ‘Arafat’ Robinson and the expansionist state of Man Booker?
However, what last night’s News Night Review science fiction special really showed was the total lack of respect that those pretentious cunts have for the subject. The panel, hosted by Kirsty Wark, consisted of Jeanette Winterson, who obviously fancies herself to be Margaret Atwood or some such, Natalie Haynesa, a sexy geekete comedian, and, perhaps the most moronic, banal and wretchedly bad film-maker of all time, Kevin Smith: a man whose films are so fuckin’ bad that he makes Guy Richie look like Kurosawa for fuck sake! Okay it was obvious that all three were loosely familiar with SF – more so in Kevin Smith’s case who turned up in his dressing gown in homage to Arthur Dent – but surely a single dedicated SF author/pundit wouldn’t have been beyond the Beeb’s grasp. They covered the popular rise of SF film and TV (specifically FastForward and District 9), which they seemed to equate with a qualitative rise, they covered the Kick-Ass comic and they covered the new Hitch Hicker’s sequel. Hardly inspiring. Most of the show was dominated by the latest kewl offerings. There was a brief segment upon the status of SF literature, which made the most intelligent points of the show, but other than that they treated the genre with the total lack of respect it deserves (yes, I do mean that in the main SF deserves the lack of respect it gets), by not covering anything beyond the most banal and populist forms and by being unable to discuss SF without also stigmatising it with so-called geek-culture. I think the points the raised about the post-Micro Soft rise of the geek were valid, but I fail to see why they took such a cultural studies stance to SF when the News Night Review as a whole tends to take a more traditional literary art criticism standpoint when reviewing almost every other subject. When did they last cover the latest Shakespearian offering at the Globe theatre by stereotyping the Globe’s demographic as the brown-rice munching, silver-spoon, conservative ass-wipes that they so obviously are? Never. Absolutely never. Instead they have a predominately textual discussion, which is at it should be.
Now I’m probably overstating the level of offence I took at the show. In fact I took none (I just like the sound of my own rant). SF and geekdom are intricately linked and the genre is dominated by kewl yet banal products, so it’s coverage was probably about right. However I think the attitude of the News Night Review helped sign-post the real problem with genre: they (the literati) have no fuckin’ idea what the fuck SF is. The Natalie Haynes tried to establish her SF credentials by saying that comparing all SF to the lowest common denominator is like hating Pride and Prejudice because you don’t like Mills and Boon novels. A fair point. But one undone by her going on to name check War of the Worlds, Brave New World, etc… as good examples of SF literature and saying that it would be wrong to dis these novels just because someone doesn’t dig the worst of the genre. Again a fair point, but one I’m afraid that underlines her own total lack of knowledge of the contemporary SF. All the books she mentioned come before the widespread division between the pulps and literature, and the eventual artificial birth of genre. All the books she mentioned are widely considered classics among the literati already and can hardly be said to be excluded. She, and (not wanting to just target her) no one else on the show, failed to mention any examples of current SF literature in the discussion, instead concentrating on the popular forms of film and TV. No mention of Iain M. Banks or China Mieville or any of the other current wave of genre writers, which really just emphasises Kim Stanley Robinson’s point. Now I’m not saying that SF’s current crop of authors are necessarily comparable to the proto-SF mentioned in the show, but not to discuss any contemporary SF novels, other than the comedy cash-cow sequel to Hitch Hiker’s and a brief mention of Kim Stanley Robinson in regards to the Booker Prize, only shows the panellist’s colossal ignorance. Why were they, and they alone, on the panel? Why no Kim Newman, Brian Aldiss or Iain Banks? All of whom are regular SF pundits in the media? Even the inexplicably ubiquitous Mark Gattis would have been a more knowledgeable improvement. I’m not wanting to dis the panel entirely. They all have at least some knowledge and obviously like the genre. But they blatantly weren’t good enough.
Anyway, as I said, for a while I’ve been thinking about the little problem of Sf and genre. And I don’t think the problem lies wholly at the door of the lit. crits. As some one whose name I can remember on the News Night Review’s Booker Prize featurete said last night: SF’s ghettoization stems both from the prejudice of the mainstream and from the appalling low standards of the genre’s fandom; a fact which I’m sure will be received like an angry elephant’s cock up the ass for many SF fans, but something they desperately need to hear. Yes, almost everything you like isn’t actually good enough to win the Man Booker Prize! Yes, it is also true than almost everything that wins the Man Booker Prize shouldn’t be good enough to win it either, but don’t assume that it is just prejudice which is stopping Peter F. Hamilton’s latest space opera from gaining mainstream respectability. It might have something to do with it, but it’s not the whole story. I think the widely touted myth that the only thing which separates Ringworld from Slaughterhouse Five is acceptance by the mainstream is wholly wrong and utterly moronic. Don’t get me wrong, I love both pure genre SF (well some of it) and the other stuff which has some how gained acceptance in the mainstream (well, again, some of it), but I think it is wrong to say that 1984 is just Dune that got lucky is simplistic and actually undermines the case for SF.
I think the problem stems from the fact that genre SF has been terribly diagnosed, both by its idiotic fan-base and the ignorant mainstream. Few definitions seem to satisfy me. Of course distinctions between genres are wholly artificial and subjective, but as Bruce Sterling says in his intro to Mirrorshades: labels are both ‘a valid as a sauce of insight’ and ‘great fun.’
We all label things anyway. Feminism has labelled (ha ha) all objectification as evil, but in reality we all do it and rarely is any harm done. Let’s face it, we have to objectify. To take every human being as an individual, all the time would be exhaustive. Our assumptions are great for time saving, if nothing else and can save us a huge amount of hassle. ‘He looks like a nutter, I’ll cross the road.’ But from our assumptions prejudice can raise its ugly head. Labelling genres is the same, although admittedly the results are exponentially less significant. The SF section in a second hand bookshop allows me to bypass all the guff I couldn’t give a shit about. We all use labels all the time. Yes, even Kim Stanley Robinson does when he belittles historical fiction. SF authors slag of fantasy novels all the time. Of course labels are subjective, but that still doesn’t reduce their validity. Anyway, I’ve written up some thoughts on genre and have come up with a definition which satisfies my own criteria. Only problem is it’s about 10 pages of A4 long, which is too long for anyone to read online, so I need to cut it down a bit before I post it. But as I’m one of those lonely and psychotic individuals who occupy the depths of the media-wub , I feel it’s only right that I too have my say…
Found this link on the Clark Ashton Smith forums: The Most Alien Looking Place on Earth. A place called the island of Socotra, somewhere off Yemen.
Frankly, I want to go!
Here’s the lovely cover for the SSS Stories cover – clicky on pic to follow link to buy or download the anthology as a free pdf! Yes, it looks as lovely and retro on the inside as the out and the story selection is excellent.
Here be a press release from the mighty StarShipSofa podcast…
The wonderful StarShipSofa podcast will soon celebrate their 100th show on the 16th of September. To celebrate, they are releasing a Print-on-Demand anthology called StarShipSofa Stories Volume 1. There will also be a free PDF of the book available to download and a new website. All monies made from the books and donations from the PDF will go into keeping StarShipSofa in the skies.
Here’s the table of contents:
StarShipSofa Stories Volume 1
1. “Into The Blank Where Life Is Hurled” by Ken Scholes
2. “London Bone” by Michael Moorcock
3. “The Second Coming Of Jasmine Fitzgerald” by Peter Watts
4. “Lest Young and The Jupiter’s Moons’ Blues” by Gord Sellar
5. “Vampire Kiss” by Gene Wolfe
6. “Vinegar Peace (or The Wrong-Way Used-Adult Orphanage)” by Michael Bishop
7. “Godzilla’s 12 Step Program” by Joe R Lansdale
8. “Jesus Christ, Reanimator” by Ken MacLeod
9. “The Sledge-Maker’s Daughter” by Alastair Reynolds
10. “Mars: A Travelers Guide” by Ruth Nestvold
11. “The Empire of Ice Cream” by Jeffrey Ford
12. “The Ant King: A California Fairytale” by Benjamin Rosebaum
13. “In The Olden Days” by Spider Robinson
14. “Tideline” by Elizabeth Bear
Although I’ve not hear all of them, it looks like a pretty amazing collection to me. Best tales on it in my opinion are: London Bone and the Ant King. Not sure what the price is, but it could be worth snuffling up. Pity there is no Ted Chaing or Larry Santoro on it, as they, in my opinion, have been the two main highlights of the podcast in recent years.
Your result for Test who’s REALLY in control of your mind…
-1 World_saver, 11 Impulsive, -1 Technological and -3 Mystique!
Somewhere, not far from where you live, there is a small kid (less than three years old) with powerful psychic powers. Most people are aware that some people have the power to influence other people’s behavior with their minds. The government does, of course, find these people and make them work for the nation, but these things take time and before they’re discovered, these children often find a “toy”, a human being whom they use to explore their powers. You appear to be such a toy. That’s why you’re so impulsive and don’t care much for adult things. A toddler is in control of your mind. Congratulations.
What your score means:
World saver: All scales range from -15 to 15. At 15 on World saver you’re the kind of bastard who wants to shove your saintly ways down everyone else’s throats. At -15 you’re the kind of bastard who’d never care for anyone who isn’t useful to your egocentric purposes. Then there are lots of bastards in between. You got -1 on this scale.
Impulsive: At 15 on this scale you’re the annoying kind of person who’s completely lust-driven and extremely hard to predict. At -15 you’re the annoying kind of person who can’t scratch your nose without making a detailed action plan a week ahead. Then there’s lots of annoyance in between. You got 11 on this scale.
Technological: Is technological even a real word? Anyway, at 15 on this scale you’re the kind of sick techno-fetishist who’d have sex with a cell-phone if sex wasn’t too organic for you. At -15 you’re the sick kind of nature loon who thinks that fire and the wheel are too hi-tech. Then there’s loads of sickness in between. You got -1 on this scale.
Mystique: At 15 on this scale you’re the weird kind of person who’s shrouded in mystery to the extent that people doubt your existence whenever you’re not around. At -15 you’re the weird kind of person who is completely down to earth, to the extent that people might think you’re a machine or something. Then there’s a lot of weirdness in between. You got -3 on this scale.
Take Test who’s REALLY in control of your mind at HelloQuizzy
