Giving Birth to Science Fiction

 The origins of science fiction are not very clear. Probably because there is a dispute as to what it has to include. At its heart science fiction has to have an element of science to it. It is fiction based on scientific theory or extrapolation. It can either delve deeply into the science or it can push the science to the background and make use of science in a more general sense. If we can determine how much science a story needs at present to be considered science fiction, we can reach back into history to find stories that rely on science to a similar extent and those would be the earliest science fiction stories.

There is competition between hard science fiction and soft science fiction. Many maintain the standards of hard science fiction to be the true standards of real science fiction. In this type of story, there is no extrapolation of what science might lead to in the future, only what modern science has proven and what technology based on that might be. There is no attempt to include theoretical science, though theoretical technology is allowed. This is all well and good, but historically, this is only a very limited slice of the greater genre. Historically (and we only have to look to Jules Verne and H.G. Wells, often cited as the first writers of modern science fiction) that has not been the case. Wells in particular imagined time machines, alien life forms, advanced technology well beyond any science of the day, and much more. So from the outset, science fiction has let in a bit of fantastical imagination. As long as it is grounded in science. The golden age of science fiction was full of fictional advances in human understanding and technology. Stories took us to the moon in scientifically plausible vehicles, traveled in time, took us to far away worlds with strange aliens, brought us alien monsters, robots that can pass as human, humans with amazing powers, imaginings of zero gravity generations before the first real traveler in space, and so many more things that were not then or still are not a reality.

And we must draw a clear line between what is science fiction and what is fantasy. Fantasy is not any fantastical story. Fantasy is grounded in magic. The magic may follow rules, but there is no attempt to ground the magic to reality in any way. Arthur C. Clark postulated that a sufficiently advanced society would appear magical to a sufficiently less advanced society. But that is not what fantasy is about. Fantasy is magic. There is no advanced society. It is magic used by members of the society. There may be attempts to make the magic behave in a logical and orderly manner, maybe even a quasi scientific explanation to the magic, but ultimately it is magic and not science.

A few bend the borders between these. Terry Brooks and Mark Lawrence both wrote fantasy based in a future world. Robert Jordan’s Wheel of Time series is set in a world where science and magic have worked together in the past. But it is clear with the way these stories are written that the focus is magic and any science is in support of the magic.

George Lucas muddied the waters by calling Star Wars science fantasy. He also correctly labeled it space opera. Like the paragraph above, the Force in Star Wars, and the occasional tropes borrowed from fantasy, are used in support of the science based, futuristic setting. Star Wars is a direct descendant of the planetary romance genre of the early 20th century. The Force is just an offshoot of the ESP based mental powers so often used in early science fiction literature. The light saber is a sword based on advanced technology that can cut anything. Its very setting swirls with technology. Robots are some of the main characters. The story is taken from myths and legends much like a lot of early science fiction of the golden age. The adventures of Northwest Smith make the adventures of Luke and Han seem tame. Star Wars is based on the mythic hero’s journey and so many early science fiction stories are based on Greek mythology. The problem with the parallel science fiction is that it is soft science fiction. When you listen to George Lucas talk about Star Wars, he is clearly using science fantasy to make a clear break from hard science fiction, not all science fiction.

With these difficulties and with both science fiction and fantasy (and to some extent horror), some group them together in a larger genre called speculative fiction. Most of the truly old stories that get cited as early science fiction are more properly speculative fiction. That is because the science is not clear. They are imagining the future, but it is not always based on technology or science, but just a general speculation. The Wikipedia page on the history of science fiction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_fiction) is full of references that on further examination are more speculative fiction that science fiction. and the Wikipedia page on the history of fantasy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_fantasy) makes it clear that the two genres follow distinct lines.

With the advent of some modern subgenres like steam punk, as well as examining older works, it becomes necessary to think of science fiction and fantasy in different terms. Science fiction is about the wonders of technology and science. Fantasy is about the wonders of magic and enchantments. So today you can have a science fiction story set in a medieval setting and a fantasy story set in the future. But it is clear from the lineage to which each belongs (unless the author is deliberately blurring the lines of the genres). And horror is clearly about one of the other of these two gone wrong. Frankenstein and the movie Alien are both horror more than science fiction, though both clearly are filled with the imagined wonders of science and technology. But both are more about the nightmare than the science. But all are speculative fiction. All come from different roots but have become so similar and intertwined in some ways that the lines are blurred and sometimes hard to distinguish.

Horror, like fantasy, is not based in reality. Where you could call fantasy a dream, horror is a nightmare. It tends to the occult, demons, murders, and such. Many of the seminal works came out of the 19th century. From Frankenstein to Dracula and so many other tales in between. In many ways the reason that we call the greater genre speculative fiction is that there are so many stories that cross boundaries or at least are clearly neighbors. Frankenstein is also considered science fiction. Dracula is also considered fantasy. The Invisible Man is science fiction and The Picture of Dorian Gray is fantasy. But only if you ignore the horror element.

In many ways all components of speculative fiction have always been historically intertwined. They all require that the writer let their imagination go and dream something into existence that does not exist. Science, legends, nightmares, they all have something to add. But the birth of science fiction is tied to science and reason and extrapolating what those could lead to. The first true science fiction writers were Jules Verne and H.G. Wells. There were writers who came before, but often the science is clouded. Looking to the future does not make a work science fiction. Traveling in space with aliens does not make a work science fiction. It must have that science component. It must have technology that is based on science. It may not delve very deep into science, but it must have that component. Cyrano de Bergerac writing about a voyage to the moon hints at the imaginings that would become science fiction. Frankenstein has our first mad scientist. But are these really science fiction? I challenge you to read them and see for yourself. I challenged myself to read more from the golden age some years ago and stumbled on Northwest Smith. In those stories I could see Han Solo and Captain Kirk. I could see the mix of adventure and scientific based speculation on the future. Mixed with a healthy dose of myths and legends.

I will not say anything is definitively not science fiction. In fact my chief argument is with those proponents of hard science fiction who refuse to acknowledge the wider history of science fiction and claim works that are softer on science and offer more speculation are fantasy rather than science fiction. That is most definitely a false claim. Those works are clearly science fiction. And historical works from before the mid 19th century are harder to categorize. It isn’t until the golden age that we can start to clearly see the genres we know today. Before that the names were different. Tolkien is almost singlehandedly the father of modern epic fantasy, even though there were quite a number of authors with similar tales going back a century before The Lord of the Rings was published. But while they laid the groundwork, their works are not as widely know. Shelly, Poe, Verne, Wells, and Tolkien are the names people will recognize. Speculative fiction would not be the same without them. Before that lies a history of works that led up to modern speculative fiction, but it was a growing period and classifying those older works is problematic. I feel that we should acknowledge the contributions of the past that led to each genre, but not worry too much about how well those old stories fit with the modern genres. They aren’t supposed to. They are what came before - the history and lineage. It is rich and complex and hard to categorize.

I will suggest that speculative fiction as we know it was born in the 19th century. The different varieties were born of different traditions. Their origins are different and they are different today, but they are distinguished from other forms of literature by their speculative nature. It just depends on whether your speculation is about science, magic, or nightmares.

Finding Balance

For me the world is about balance. We have to balance our time on a day to day basis and we need to keep our views balanced. We are hopefully coming off of a period of great inequality and gaining our balance again as we allow people to live their lives without others telling them what to do. I have learned that a great many civilizations around the world used to have this balance, but many have lost it. Some of the Native American tribes saw gender as more fluid than we do today. Parts of the world that today is death to try to live the LGBTQ life used to be haves to those very same people more than a century ago.

An area where I see balance desperately needed is in the process of rectifying the mistakes of the past. I have seen what doing it the wrong way leads to and it really makes the situation worse. We can’t correct the past. We can’t try to right the wrongs by bending the opposite directions. What we need to do is move forward to create the world we want to see. To do otherwise causes a whiplash effect that leads to more suffering.

Native people’s around the world have had it rough. But in studying world history through the many thousands of years of historical and archaeological information, I would say they have come away lucky. So many civilizations have been wiped of the face of the planet with little trace. I was just reading about the waves of immigration into Europe. The Neanderthals were there first, for hundreds of thousands of year. Wiped out by the first wave of modern humans except for the faint 2% trace that is left from interbreeding with modern humans. The second wave lived side by side with the first for a while, bringing farming techniques from the middle east. But the first wave slowly vanished. The third wave, the one we have even more information on since all but a handful of the modern languages of Europe come from them, were the Indo-Europeans from the Steppes of Russia who brought horses and mead. But even though their culture came to dominate, genetically the previous three waves still survive. Modern Europe is a mix of those and others who came later in smaller numbers (such as the Jews in the first centuries of the modern era and the Moors in Spain).

Today we are trying to honor the displaced cultures and help them flourish in our mixed up modern world. The days of suppressing native languages and cultural practices is over. We do our best to live in a diverse nation. Prior to certain recent political occurrences I thought we had made more progress than we evidently have. But that is not unique. I think of England and the plight of those with red hair. Almost worse than being from the Indian subcontinent. Old animosities and prejudices still linger. To gain proper balance these must be dealt with.

I carry that over to my writing. I don’t care to divulge just exactly when my stories are set, but they are well over 5000 years in the future I have envisioned a very unified human race without care of race. Not only that but without care for species. Not a perfect world - I’m not trying to recreate Star Trek after all - but relatable and minus bigotry except in rare instances.

But back to restitution. There is an area that I think this can be done. We signed on to many treaties with the native peoples in the US and over time we have failed to honor those. But many of those lands are now in the hands of the Federal or State governments. I think those lands should be returned in some form. Not paid for, but returned. Perhaps maintain a management system. I admit it is not a well thought out idea, but that is where community discourse comes in.

But another situation has arisen in the last few years. One where I can’t seem to side with the native people. In Hawaii on Mauna Kea there exists an observatory complex. They have been trying to build a new 30 meter telescope there to peer deeper into the blackness of space to peel back the billions of years of time to the earliest light. The native Hawaiians have been protesting and have delayed the construction for the last 6 years. I have researched it and it appears that the Hawaiians have a blanket claim to the entire mountain being sacred. But modern Hawaii is not just Hawaiians. It is the most diverse state in the nation and one of the most diverse places I’ve ever visited. Immigrants from American, Japan, China, and many other places have give it a very diverse modern culture. It has been those voters who have elected leaders who have made the decisions that have finally approved the telescope to go ahead. Everything is in place for the lands on the mountain not in the observatory area to be preserved and protected in terms of being sacred and in terms of the environment.

What seems to have happened is your typical bureaucratic nonsense. In other words a total failure to do what was promised. Probably due to lack of funding. I haven’t fully researched all areas of this yet. But what it boils down to is that many native Hawaiians are of the mind that they have had enough promises not kept and they want the observatory gone and definitely no new telescope. I have an issue with this. This is not balance. This is a whiplash effect due to years of broken promises. Balance is taking stock of the situation and making sure that funding is tied to telescope time (making all the researchers who use them pay equally) to hire the people to do what is needed to properly conserve the environment and any sacred sites on the mountain. And the people hired should be native Hawaiian. But those who want to see the observatory removed I feel have taken a far from balanced approach. The observatory benefits all of us and it doesn’t make a profit. No one is getting rich off those telescopes except in terms of the amazing discoveries that they have led to (and hopefully more discoveries to come).

We cannot rewrite the past. We cannot erase things that have happened. We must move forward and build the world we want to see and avoid doing things that lead to bad feelings. Yes, some groups have oppressed others (I’m not just talking the US here so I’m not being specific) and restitution needs to be made. We going so far that the former oppressors feel oppressed in return, while it feels good in the short term to get revenge, results in the oppressors becoming more entrenched in their bigotry and teaching new generations rather than new generations learning to live in a proper, balanced world. Everyone, regardless of race, gender, nationality, gender identity, sexual orientation, or any other meaningless label, should be treated equally. They should get equal pay for the same job. The should get equal consideration for any job. We are all human and we should all be equal to each other. We need to let the past go and move forward to the future. Dwelling on the past is a curse that will eat your soul until you become that which you hate. Don’t try to oppress your former oppressors. Live with them as equals. That is the best revenge of all. That is balance.

Time Marches On

I guess writing is a discouraging business. I just tried to peruse a bunch of fellow writer blogs to see if they had Instagram (since I am new on there - https://www.instagram.com/srseldon/) and I found that virtually none of them are still around. One moved so the others might have also, but they left no trace. It's kind of depressing. Nearly everyone I encountered as I was forging my world and writing my first 6 novels (sorry that number 6 isn't out yet - it is written, but not edited) has not continued. I may have been on hiatus for the last few years, but I have not quit and have plans for more books, life has not been kind with time so planning, much less writing and editing, has been sparse. I look to get back in the swing of things in the near future. I hope I can get to my next project before George R.R. Martin finishes his Song of Ice and Fire series.

How many others out there have seen old compadres in writing hang it up and vanish? While being self-published has been hard, the reviews have been good and at some point I may still find a way to reach a wider audience. I think of a line from one of my favorite movies, Galaxy Quest - Never give up, never surrender. I didn't start writing to tell just a couple of stories. I started because I have far too many stories to every get written. And I'm not done with Ven yet.

So never fear, my blog and my site will stay up as long as my host exists. At some point I should buy a domain, but for now, this works.

Until next time....

Missing Things

My sporadic posts create an incomplete picture. I've skipped writing about a few things even though life has not stopped.

I completed the sixth installment of the Zaran Journals. It was such a relief to reach that point and I didn't have another project in mind that I just started coasting and once coasting, as Newtonian Physics teaches us, I just kept coasting. I have been working a bit. I feel some of my early work is a bit rough and needs some cleaning up and updating, but that is hard work. Harder than writing it in the first place. I have gotten some good feedback and have made some good progress on the first book, but nothing else has been going on. I have a few ideas for new projects, but I have been engrossed in some non writing projects that have taken what little creative energy I have. I hope to get back to writing new stuff soon.

The world has not stopped turning and movies and TV have continued to roll on and I have kept up with them, though not kept up writing about them. I did not stop watching Doctor Who or Star Wars.

In brief, here are my thoughts. Disney bought Star Wars. All well and good. They hired J.J. Abrams to do the first film. Not so good. The end results is full of Abrams worst faults. The plot is derivative and the ending is weak. He inserted his mystery box nonsense. He created some good characters and wrote some great scenes and dialog, but the story for The Force Awakens feels more like a prologue than a full story.

Then we have the animated series, Rebels. A great feast of storytelling. Great characters, great cast, great writers. For the first time we get to see badass Vader in action. Darth Maul living is resolved. It came and ended with four seasons of great stories.

Then there is Rogue One. The long mystery about the spies who stole the Death Star plans is revealed and it is marvelous. So much better than The Force Awakens on so many levels. And very different for a Star Wars film. While the story is uniquely Star Wars and doesn't feel derivative of anything, the feel of the movie is that of a hopeless mission in WWII, which has been done many times. Yet that idea in the Star Wars universe comes off as fresh and full of unexpected twists.

The Last Jedi caused controversy. Why, I still am not sure. I found it to be superior to The Force Awakens and a proper continuation from Return of the Jedi. Leia shined and finally got to use the Force and Luke had fallen back to his bad habits (as is common after a tragedy of that magnitude) and had to be pulled up again. While in some beats it is similar to The Empire Strikes Back, the story went in its own direction and grew the characters and put them on the road to complete the saga. I was totally engrossed the first time I watched it and I still have found no flaws, the first time since Return of the Jedi that I can say that about a saga film.

Solo came out too soon after The Last Jedi. At the box office it suffered from backlash, timing, competition, and a feeling that only Harrison Ford can play Solo. But when I went to the film, I found a movie that was true to the spirit of the old Expanded Universe. Brain Daley penned three Han Solo books and then later Ann C. Crispin dived even deeper. This story stays true to that character even though it goes in a different direction. Some points are repeated and some new things are added. Lando has a different droid, but has been on the same adventures that L. Neil Smith wrote about. Han is burned in love and is setup to be the person we meet in A New Hope, even if he isn't there yet. It was just the Han Solo film I have been waiting for since Brian Daley wrote his books.

So Star Wars started out rocky but has had 3 roaring successes as far as I'm concerned. I have yet to get into the new animated series, Resistance, but from the premier, it has the same potential Rebels did. But with a more Anime feel to the animation.

I have kept on top of Doctor Who. I last reported on Clara's last season. Wonderful. Capaldi's third and last season culminated with our first multiple Master story as the last two incarnations of the Master kill each other. Typical of the modern era, Capaldi lasted 4 years and 3 seasons with only a Christmas special in the skipped year. Capaldi's Doctor sends off River Song on their final encounter before she goes off to her first appearance and death. We get a superhero story. A season with Bill. A wonderful and complex character who is totally different from Clara. And Nardole. The glimpse from his first appearance wasn't enough and we get him for a whole season. A wonderful addition.

And then came the triumph of Capaldi's era - Twice Upon a Time. The First and Twelfth Doctors meet. We get two Tardis's and two Doctor, and the return of Bill. And if this outstanding story wasn't enough, the Doctor regenerated into something new. My feelings on that probably should be a post of its own, but suffice it to say that after 6 episodes of this new Doctor, she has nailed the part and is the Doctor. I'll leave a review of her first season until it is finished. But so far it has a couple of history based episodes that are among the best of the revived series.

I've already covered Star Trek and The Orville, so that about covers the things I've been thinking about.

I've also read some incredible stories. The Binti series by Nnedi Okorafor is outstanding. But the best thing I have read in years has been the new trilogy by Ann Leckie. Ancillary Justice, Ancillary Sword, and Ancillary Mercy form one of the best space opera trilogies I have ever read. She took a unique tack that doesn't detract from the story. She only uses the female pronoun as the society she is writing about only uses one pronoun for everyone. It creates a unique perspective on humanity. But the story is that good on top of it. Completely new and fresh and outstanding. So pick up both series and enjoy. They are my type of science fiction.

Well, that covers a lot of what I missed. I hope to keep up again and get back into gear. Time to turn my creativity to words again.

A War Among The Stars

It is sad when people claiming to be fans of a property instead tear it apart. In the last 7 months, we have had two Star Wars movies. The first, The Force Awakens, was Episode 8 in the greater Star Wars Saga. The second, Solo: A Star Wars Story, took on the origin story for Han Solo. Both have caused great controversy.

The Force Awakens was written and directed by Rian Johnson and he put pen to paper (or whatever process he uses) during the post production phase of The Force Awakens. He took the story and where each character was left at and crafted a story to carry them further and see them grow to prepare them for the final installment. Between when he wrote it and when it came out, fans went nuts with theories and ideas. Even myself. And when The Force Awakens delivered something different, some called it the worst Star Wars movie ever made. In reality it just didn't fit what they had imagined the next chapter to be. Many cited Luke as the big issue. But Rian Johnson showed genius in tapping into that whiny farm boy from A New Hope in how Luke ended up in self imposed exile on this tiny island on a remote world. The thing is, George Lucas put him there and J.J. Abrams left him there for the first movie leaving it to Rian Johnson to pick up the story. Luke wants to be the hero, but what happens when the hero becomes that greatest threat to the galaxy. That is where Luke is at when the story picks up. It takes both Rey and Yoda to wake him up.

And worse yet, some did not like the new character of Rose. While story wise she is exactly what Finn needed to get him in the right place to be the hero the finale of this saga needs, some pick on her and the actress who played her because they think she did something wrong. Some of it I'm sure is her race and gender. That has become a real problem lately. But most of it is just rude fans. The same thing happened to Jake Lloyd. Neither one is being treated fairly. Any perceived flaws in the movie are not the fault of the actors. If you truly love the Star Wars franchise, respect the actors and their work even if you don't like the character they create. Ultimately the flaws of any movie lie with the director.

For Solo, the issues are different. Han Solo has a long history of his own spin-off stories. Yet some thought this was not grand enough for him. Not exciting enough. Too full of call backs to other areas of the Star Wars universe. Yet everything smoothly tied in to craft a story that was true to the character and in keeping with the spirit of those spin-off stories. The production was troubled with the Directors fired near the end of filming. Reports are that 70% of the film was reshot. Considering what we got was vintage Han Solo, I'd say they did the right thing, but the Box Office is not what was expected and there may be fallout for that. But had the original directors had their way, they were trying for a comedy and that would have flopped big time and the fans would have rebelled at such a beloved character being treated that way.

Instead we got two beautifully crafted stories that I feel time will treat well and will become beloved pieces of the franchise. I think in time people will come to love The Last Jedi as they did The Empire Strikes Back (at the time considered the worst of the original trilogy and now considered the best). I don't think any movies in the franchise will ever compare to the original three, but what is being produced today is quality work that will stand the test of time.

So lets be civil and not treat each other or the cast badly. Let's rise above this and follow the lead of our departed princess and respect each other even if we don't agree. Let's put this war among the stars to bed and be a community.

Discovery vs. Orville - which trek to take

This television season has brought us two new series. They are very different.

I came late to Star Trek fandom, but when I arrived, I arrived big time. I would say the first inkling of my fandom came with Star Trek: The Motion Picture (the Enterprise cutaway poster hung on my wall for years), but it didn't reach full force until we moved and I had daily reruns of the original series. I also found conventions. I was always big on the tech side and the story side. My first ever completed story was Star Trek related and I lived for plans, blueprints, and technical manuals.

When they announced Star Trek: The Next Generation, I was excited. New stories in series format. I was not disappointed. The series got better and better until they split the writing team to start Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Babylon 5 also started at about the same time. It is really telling that I could ignore some of the lower production values of Babylon 5 in favor of its superior writing. Also telling were how many classic Star Trek writers who wandered over to that series. I finally gave up on Deep Space Nine and Voyager when Trials and Tibbleations aired. I found it sad that the best episode of Deep Space Nine was one that revisited a classic story. They had fallen that far. Even the movies made about that time were lacking. I liked them, but they did not sing like some of the original cast movies. And I still remember Patrick Stewart praising the series finale and being more cautious about commenting on Generations.

So we come to 2017. Star Trek is 51, The Next Generation is 30. Babylon 5 is 24. New on TV is Star Trek Discovery and The Orville. Being a fan of Star Trek for more than 35 years, and being a writer myself, I am aware of what made Star Trek great. Some give sole claim to Gene Roddenberry, but without NBC's input, his creation would not have been nearly so successful. They were right, they public wanted action. The turned down his original pilot, The Cage, and when he made the first movie, he again returned to that format and while it was a hit in its day, that film pales next to the others. Don't get me wrong, I think it is a great film and the story is far better than many in the original series or even the later series, but it fails to capture both aspects of what is Star Trek.

The good movies manage to capture both. Gene wanted a Utopian future where we had gotten past money, bigotry, petty squabbles, etc. NBC wanted action adventure. Put them together and you have success. Gene's vision alone is too cerebral. NBC's vision is just your average science fiction. When J.J. Abrams came in to do the new Star Trek movies, he got the cast right and then failed three times on the writing. All three of those movies are NBC's vision only. Nothing of Gene's vision can be found. When you look at Star Trek Discovery, that is what you find. And the worst part is they claim to have returned to the original timeline while at the same time rewriting things like they were doing a reboot. On the other hand, The Orville is a reboot that manages to capture both Gene's vision and NBC's action adventure to create the closest thing to Star Trek in years. And it manages to do it with some humor thrown in.

So if you are a fan of Star Trek as Gene Roddenberry, Gene Coon, Robert Justman, Nicholas Meyer, or Rick Berman made it, then you need to watch The Orville. If you like the J.J. Abrams films, watch Star Trek Discovery. Discovery is good science fiction and a nice reboot of Trek in an action adventure sense, but The Orville is the trek you are looking for, hitting deep issues and currently relevant questions in the way Star Trek should.

Comparative Technology

I feel the need to be nerdier than usual.

A video on YouTube has sparked a topic that I think about from time to time. Many fans wonder, seriously or in jest, how the technology of various science fiction universes compares. I thought I might delve into four of my favorites. Oh, and when it comes to who would win, the answer is always the Doctor. But technology is a different matter.

I'll tackle Star Trek first. They set out from the beginning to have a higher level of technology so you have phasers and photon torpedoes for weapons. The ships carry a variety of deflector and shield systems designed to go from avoiding space debris to protecting from weapons. This elevates the level of damage these weapons can do to a different level.

Then came Star Wars. While Lucas refers to lasers and laser swords, in universe they are rarely referred to in that way. Also, the effects do not correspond to the way lasers works leading me to have a different explanation. The weapons are called basters or turbo lasers and we can see the beam travel leading me to believe they are a plasma based weapon very similar in effect to a laser, but more powerful. We do get some description of deflectors and shields but don't really get to see much of them. There is also armor plating. What you do get is a sense that the larger ships are heavily built.

Battlestar Galactica (the original - the only one I've seen) basically copied Star Wars for the level of technology, omitting lightsabers. But basically the same effects as Star Wars and the same solid designs. Not surprising since Ralph MacQuarrie was behind the conceptual design of both. This places Battlestar Galactica and Star Wars on nearly equal footing.

Then there is Babylon 5. This gets more dicey because we aren't dealing with just one technology. There are really three levels. first you have the Earth Alliance. These are lower level weapons solidly built ships. Then you have the Centari, Narn, and Mimbari at the mid level. They are pretty equally matched in most ways and superior to the Earth Alliance. But they are inferior to the Vorlons and Shadows. They represent an entirely new level, one that has more firepower at their fingertips than anyone else.

When you start to pit these various technologies against each other you get some pretty varied results depending on who is doing it. My outlook is to take the level of damage into account and the size of the ships and the damage weapons do. Then I look for parallels. One parallel is the merchant ship at the start of Star Trek III and the Millennium Falcon. They are similar in size, both appear to land on planets. The Falcon has armor plating and deflectors. The other ship seems to have been caught with its guard down. The Klingon Bird of Prey destroys the ship with one volley of fire from its phaser-like weapons (often called disruptors but that name doesn't always seem to fit the effect). So, what would a Bird of Prey do to the Falcon? I think the results would be similar, but it would take more shots to cut through the armor plating. Now, in Star Wars we see the Falcon take a lot of hits on the deflectors and suffer no real damage (other than some overloaded systems) so if the deflectors were up, it would take the Klingon ship some work. But the Falcon's weapons are no match for the Bird of Prey's shields.

As I continue to put the pieces together, I come to realize that the Star Wars weapons are almost as powerful as the Star Trek ones. Similarly compatible to the Mimbari weapons from Babylon 5. So in terms of dealing out damage, they are all quite similar. But it is when you get to shields that things become more clear. The Star Wars ships seem to rely on ruggedness and armor rather than shields. Their shields are weaker than the Star Trek or Mimbari ones. And Battlestar Galactica doesn't seem to have any shields except around the bridge. So when it comes to damage they are almost all equal. But when it comes to the ability to sustain damage, they are not.

I would put the Earth Alliance as the weakest. They've got the spirit and tactics, but not the equipment. They need luck and skill to even hold their own with the others and a hell of a lot of both to beat them.

Then Battlestar Galactica. They have no defensive systems. Their capital ships have missiles that can blow the others away, but bringing them to bear would be difficult.

The Mimbari, Star Trek, and Star Wars all seem to be pretty equivalent. Star Trek ships have stronger shields, but they rely on those shields for most of their defense. The ships can't take much damage. the Star Wars ships are hearty and can take a pounding. The Mimbari seem to have the best technology and make use of fighters. That seems to be a key difference in Star Trek and Star Wars tactics. Star Trek lacks fighters. If those ships focus too much on the fighters they could put to much effort into the small targets and neglect he larger targets and lose the battle. All things considered, I think the Mimbari would come out on top.

But then there is something else to consider. The Death Star is an order of magnitude higher than the rest. But so are the Vorlons and Shadows. The Death Star can blow apart a planet, something the Vorlons and Shadows can't quite match. But the Death Star is easy to take out. Since the Vorlons and Shadows were loathe to act unless things became serious and really were only in the mood to fight each other, this pretty much negates any need to really consider them (they'd win if you did).

What it boils down to is what ships could take the pounding from the others and still dish it out. The Galactica took more hits than any Star Destroyer we witnessed so for capital ships, I'd vote her the winner for endurance. But Star Trek ships have pretty powerful weapons and advanced shields. Unless an enemy can take such a pounding and still dish it out, the Star Trek universe would have to win as the most powerful. It would be a tough battle between them and a fleet of Battlestars, but I think a TNG era Federation fleet would win. They are fast, maneuverable, with the firepower to do the job. The Battlestars and Baseships would have a hard time dealing out any damage, but they could take a huge amount and that might give them the time to get in shots to take down the Federation shields. After that the Federation ships wouldn't stand a chance, but I don't think it would go that far.

Black Holes Aren't All That Complicated

Seriously, they aren't. Some physicists make them out to be these incredible things, but really they are just hugely massive gravitational bodies and they act in very predictable ways. The recent detection of Gravitational Waves and what they detected just proves my point.

There is this big question among those who study black holes as to what happens when matter is sucked in. Some say it is destroyed and some say it cannot be destroyed because of the law of conservation of information. Well, both points are ridiculous and pointless. Might as well talk about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Why do I say this? Well, the mass. When matter gets sucked into a black hole, the black hole gains mass. Not all matter may get sucked in, some may get converted to energy and some may be flung away before it enters the event horizon.

One scientist was so desperate to prove that information was not lost that they resorted to measuring the surface area of the black hole, noting, much as the known increase in mass, that the size also increases and so the surface area goes up. Sometimes I think these specialists scientists get too focused on the minutiae and forget to let logic and reason in.

Okay, so what proof do I have. Well, the math. Now, I'm not going to put down how all this is calculated, or even what the precise final equations are that can be compared. For one it is hard to do in a blog. Another, either you are a physicist and can look them up or you aren't and they wouldn't make sense to you even if you saw them. Michio Kaku covered it well in his book Hyperspace. But anyway, I digress. When you calculate what a black hole should look like you get a strange result. It doesn't make a lot of sense even if you are an expert. Interestingly enough, you get a very similar result when you do the same calculations for the big bang singularity.

So what does this mean. Well, that depends all on the theory of the Big Bang you follow. I find string theory compelling. The added dimensions make a lot of sense. When you look at it that way, in the moments after the big bang, new dimensions come into being and matter is created from those dimensions. Generally it is described as the vibration of a string, which is why they call it string theory. But the crux of the idea is the the change in the dimensional nature of the universe leads to the creation of matter, first at the quantum level, then at the atomic level. From the nature of the math results, I have concluded that the process inside a black hole is so similar to the conditions during the big bang, just moving in the opposite direction, that the dimensions get crushed. This answers the conservation of information conundrum because it means that a state that started with the Big Bang is being reversed on a small scale. Yes that means matter would cease to exist, but not the dimensions and vibrations that created it in the first place. It is hardly different than the observable states of matter - gas, liquid, and solid and the change between them. It is just a more fundamental change under conditions that are hard for us to comprehend. The temperatures and pressures within a black hole are extreme.

As a result, black holes become quite easy to understand. They are just mini-reverse-big-bangs. Nothing hard to comprehend and nothing that requires a great mind to figure out. Black holes are not gateways to other places, they are just huge chunks of matter that gobble up any matter that gets too close. They convert matter back into its constituent components and grow in mass and in the diameter of their event horizon. Now, as a gravitational body off extreme size there are bound to be some interesting things going that could produce some of the interesting tales SF authors have proposed, but the only thing you'll get by crossing the event horizon is absorbed into the black hole and your matter converted into a higher state.

Is Science Fiction Dead? or Merely Asleep

Some have lamented the death of Science Fiction. The great pioneers of the 30's and 40's predicted a lot of things that are now a part of our daily lives. The visions of the future have largely come to pass, with the exception of space exploration which we now know will take longer than any of those early visionaries thought. There also seems to a trend to stick to the facts and not really push the boundaries of technology when telling a story (this has traditionally been called Hard Science Fiction).

So, is Science Fiction dead? Well, that depends on the fans and the writers. For some it may well be, but those people lack imagination. They tend to be fans of Hard Science Fiction and eschew the softer, and previously greatly popular, side of the genre. Don't get me wrong, there is a place for Hard Science Fiction, but let's face it, that is not where Science Fiction came from. It may be hard to grasp when you go back today and read the works of the Golden Age that most of that stuff was not even considered possible. Today it seems like they knew what they were talking about. Heinlein's description of zero gravity in Orphans of the Sky was frighteningly accurate and written decades before anyone had experienced it. Traveling to the moon, much less another planet, was so far fetched in the world that read the Golden Age books that it could not be considered anything but Soft Science Fiction. The Golden Age was full of dreams of the future that few thought would actually come to pass.

But today, with so many of those inventions of the imagination a reality and some of the dreams pushed further into the future, it must seem like the genre is dead. But it isn't. We have just forgotten to dream. One set of dreams came true and we need to find new ones. There are still many possibilities out there, we just need to dream them up and write about them. Science has advanced so far that some feel that we know too much and there is no room left for dreams, but we still do not have humaniform robots, we still don't have space colonies, theories concerning faster than light travel have advanced taking relativity into account, science has investigated the transporter, and then there are the many social issues that we have yet to deal with. We are not where we could be and it is up to Science Fiction to show us where we can still go. To do that, we need to dream. We can't stick to the facts of Hard Science Fiction, we have to push the boundaries and question what can and can't be done. If we don't question our understanding of things as they did in the Golden Age, it leaves no room for imagination. We are only limited by our imagination and if we reign that in, we have no place to go.

While I greatly respect the efforts of the Hard Science Fiction community, they do not represent true Science Fiction. The heart of the Genre is imagining the impossible possible and that goes against the very nature of Hard Science Fiction, but it lies at the core of all Golden Age stories. We need to dream and dream big. We need to write stories that inspire the imagination and let young readers dream big. For only by dreaming big and being inspired to discover what is possible do we get that gleaming core of scientists who take the stories they grew up with and make them reality. Science Fiction writers need to get back to dreaming big so that the inspiration of our imagination can inspire the science of a new generation. That is what Science Fiction really is. And I'd have to say that if we can't find that voice of dreams again, that the genre might be truly dead. But I don't think it is. I dream and aspire to inspire and I know others writers do as well.

Doctor Who Series 9 - 2015

My silence does not mean I have not been watching. I have, but this season has been a little tough to review on an episode by episode posting. Now that the season is complete I feel I am ready to comment.

This series returned to giving us 6 stories, the common number for a great many years of the Classic Era. There are 4 two parters, a one parter, and a three parter. The stories have been amazing. After what Clara has been through, she is now the ideal companion for the Doctor. She is as daring as he is and isn't afraid to make some of the same tough choices he often makes. In that end that does her in, but it makes for some great story telling along the way.

The first story features Daleks. The Magician's Apprentice/The Witches Familiar sees the Doctor run off, leaving his last will and testament (the Galifreyan version) for Missy. The first episode ends with the audience thinking Clara is dead. But then it the second episodes goes on to tell us that the way she survived is the same as how Missy survived the Cyberman in last season's finale. It was nice seeing the old Daleks along side the newer ones. I believe the "classic" Daleks were from An Adventure in Space and Time, but there was also an appearance of the Special Weapons Dalek from back in the Classic Era.

The second story, Under the Lake/Before the Flood, is a spooky tale of ghosts. It also ends with death, this time the Doctor. But in the end that turns out to be a technological trick. The story telling in multiple times makes it a very fascinating story and the action and real seeming danger keeps you on edge to the end.

The Girl Who Died/The Woman Who Lived is almost not a two parter but more of two companion stories. In the first, we meet Ashildr and her village, beset by aliens. They are defeated, but Ashildr is killed. But, the aliens have been so kind as to bring along some advanced medical technology that the Doctor uses. He ends up making Ashildr immortal. In the second episode we catch up with her in the 17th century where we find that she has had great sadness, but also great success. Her memory is not equal to the task of so many years so she has kept a journal. Clara isn't in the second episode so she doesn't get to see what Ashildr has become. She is now hard. The Doctor manages to break her shell, but not quite like he hoped. She takes it as her mission to protect the people of Earth from the Doctor, the self proclaimed protector of the Earth.

The Zygon Invasion/The Zygon Inversion finally, after a series and a half, picks up the story from the 50th anniversary. The Zygons are living among us in peace, but one faction of Zygons threatens that peace. The Doctor, Clara, Kate Stewart, and Osgood (which one we never know, but probably the Human one... the original) strive to quell the faction and restore peace. Much as in the previous story where the Doctor showed Ashildr her heart, he makes the leader of the Zygon oppositon see the reality. The leader finds a new purpose by taking on the role of the second Osgood, so again we will not know who is who and the peace will continue.

Sleep No More is an instant classic story of adventures in space and time. In the not so distant future they have found a way to compress our sleep into just a few minutes to make our lives more productive, A scientist has been working to push that even further with terrible consequences. The Doctor wins the day, but there is a very real danger left hanging that that might not be the end of it.

Like the third story, the last story is really three companion stories. Face the Raven/Heaven Sent/Hell Bent chronicles the Doctor losing Clara. In the first installment, we meet up again with a character from last season who has a unique issue - a tattoo that is counting down. They find a hidden street in London and that the young man is accused of murder. Because he is a new father, Clara cannot let him die so when she learns that if the person under sentence and someone else mutually agree, the "tattoo" can be transferred so Clara takes it. Ashildr is back and she is in charge on this hidden street. She has setup strict rules to hold the peace. But it turns out that this case was just a trap for the Doctor, but because Clara took the "tattoo", her fate is now out of Ashildr's hands. Clara is killed and the Doctor gets sent somewhere. In the second installment, the Doctor is alone, completely alone, in a strange castle that is designed to imprison him and extract knowledge from him. He finds a wall that is made of a substance several times harder than diamond and clues. In a nearly never ending cycle he steps out of the transmat, races through the castle, finds clues, only to every time end up at the wall, trying to break it down only to be found and killed by the wraith that hunts him. But Timelords don't die quickly. Each time he has enough life left to restart the process over again. Billions of years pass before he finally breaks through and finds himself on Galifrey. In the third installment, the Doctor returns to the barn we previously saw in Listen and The Day of the Doctor. On Galifrey, he has a reputation and after Lord President Rassilon (in a new regeneration - probably brought on by his defeat in The End of Time) tries to have him executed, it is obvious who holds the real power. The Doctor banishes the Lord President and the High Council and assumes the office of Lord President once more (referencing Doctors Four and Five). He then uses Timelord technology to pull Clara out of her time stream one heartbeat before her death. Then he tries to go on the run again, revealing how he managed to get in the position to steal a Tardis and learn a terrible secret that made him run from Galifrey. As he and Clara flee in another stolen Tardis (with the classic white interior and roundles from Hartnell's Tardis) we learn of the Hybrid, a being born of two races who will threaten to destroy Galifrey. The Doctor ran because he is the Hybrid - referencing that line from the 1996 movie where the Doctor claimed to be half human on his mother's side. There are several possible alternate explanations, but the Doctor does specifically say that he (implying alone) has become the Hybrid. His plan was to wipe Clara's mind and deposit her back in her old life, but Clara reverses the polarity with his sonic glasses. He doubts she can do it, but she did and his memory of Clara is wiped. She, with Ashildr, picks up the Doctor's Tardis and deposits the Doctor in Nevada where he meets her in the cafe we saw in The Impossible Astronaut. They talk but he has no memory of her. She leaves the room and enters a Tardis control room and the diner vanishes from around the Doctor and there is his own Tardis. Clara is off, bound to return to Galifrey to meet her end, but she will go the long way and Ashildr is along for the ride.

There is a lot packed in this finale and it really ties the entire series together. Death and various ways to cheat death are explored, culminating in the Timelords and a really unique way to do it that the Doctor and Clara abuse. Typical of his time with Clara, the she saved the Doctor again from himself. Once nice thing about Clara is that she could always turn up again. She went to Trenzalore and stepped into the Doctor's time stream and was splintered throughout time to help the doctor. I like the last advice she left him with - "Run you clever boy, Run. And be a Doctor."

What Kepler is Really Telling Us

A couple of days ago, NASA posted an interesting video on the APOD site. Science deals with direct discoveries and NASA's report of the Kepler exoplanet finds are just the straight finds without any link to the larger meaning. If you watch the video, it shows a bunch of the exoplanet system squeezed together with an overlay of our solar system and its planets with the distance of each planet to its star in scale. Give the nature of the Kepler observations and the length of time they have been doing it, there are a few conclusions to be drawn. First, it is only detecting exoplanets in systems where the planet passes in front of the star. That is going to be a fraction of the star systems out there. Second, few of the planets lie far from their parent star. The further planets will have orbits in many Earth years and Kepler hasn't been looking long enough to uncover any more distant planets, unless they just happen to pass in front of the star. Most of the planets detected so far have passed in front of their parent star multiple times, solidifying the results.

The end conclusion to draw from this is that Kepler isn't finding more than a fraction of the planets out there. This galaxy is teeming with planets yet awaiting discovery. Some of them in these very same systems. But even with the fraction so fare discovered, there have been plenty of discoveries to question our theories of planetary formation. Some break the rules. Who knows how many other oddities lie out there.

So for us writers, Kepler isn't limiting, it is freeing. We don't have to be limited to these "close to the star" finds or just to the star system Kepler has shown have planets. Ones that it can't see planets in just means the angle is wrong, not that there are no planets. Other methods of detecting planets will have to be discovered before we need to feel limitations from these discoveries.

The real wonder of Kepler is just how many planets that might support life it has found in such a small search area. And when extrapolate that to the Galaxy and the universe, it is astounding.

Down Eros, Up Mars!

When Sad Puppies (later joined by Rabid Puppies) hijacked the Hugo Awards and declared war on the organic nomination process of the world's most prestigious literary award for the science fiction and fantasy genres, did they really expect to be welcomed and accepted and for the rest of us to not fight back? Who knows.

But the results are in and the Puppies have lost. (Results) The only categories where their selections were not below No Award were in the Dramatic Presentation categories. Those were also the only categories where they didn't put forward some of their own. The only Puppy winner was Guardians of the Galaxy, and let's face it, that was a damn good movie.

So, those of us who champion diversity and quality have pronounced the puppies defeated this year. But wait, when you read what they have to say, they won. How is that? Well, they are deluded. They put forward a slate of candidates and the voters said no. Both sides got out the vote and when it was all tabulated, they lost. Yet they claim victory because of the use of No Award, yet that is the very mechanism of their defeat. This sounds so familiar. It is like the Confederacy or Nazi Germany where the stragglers and misfits of the losing side cling to the dream of a rematch and eventual victory.

The Puppies will be back, that is for certain, but I seriously doubt that they will have this level of success again. They claimed that World Con did not represent fans and they fans came out to vote and the fans said that yes, World Con does represent them. The slates lost, organic nominations won.

But we who worked for this victory must not relax. We cannot prepare our own slates for next year or it means the Puppies have won. We must encourage readers to get out and put forward their favorites in the nomination process and then participate in the voting. Their voices must be heard. The only way to defeat the Puppies and save the Hugos is to spread the word and get people to participate.

A Look At Space: 1999

Star Trek took us to the brink of interplanetary travel, going off the air just months before the July 20, 1969 moon landing. Star Wars would not premier for 8 years. During this time American only had one real heir to the SF throne, Space: 1999. It is definitely a heir to Star Trek, even sharing the same executive producer that Star Trek had in its third season, Fred Freiberger. Another tie to Star Trek was that both Leonard Nimoy and Martin Landau both worked on Mission: Impossible.

Space: 1999 lasted for two season, each with a different feel and some cast changes. The first season is far more cerebral, with very metaphysical stories. The second season is more action oriented with a lot more violence. Most of the cast remained the same, but several characters left to be replaced with new ones, most notably the science officer. In season one we have an older, reliable and cautious man. In the second, we have a bright, intelligent, shape changing, alien woman.

The stories are very good for the most part, but it is hard to compare this series with the great science fiction series like the Star Trek franchise, Babylon 5, Firefly, etc. It is definitely a product of its time. Nothing wrong with that. There was a lot of good entertainment in those years and Space: 1999 is among them.

I won't do a rundown of every episode. That is best left for my favorites. I enjoyed watching Space: 1999, but it did not become a favorite. It is good, but not quite up to my standards. I found it a bit lacking in several areas, mainly the types of stories they told. While at the same time the acting was stellar and the special effects were outstanding. While the character of the stories changed from the first season to the second, there is a uniquely Space: 1999 character to all the stories. I'd it is this character that is unique that doesn't really appeal to me. Just not my type of series. But has I been an SF fan when this series was on, I would certainly have watched it and enjoyed it. A very worthy fill in between Star Trek and Star Wars.

Being a fan of Star Trek, Doctor Who, and Star Wars, it was a lot of fun to watch this series. It was filmed in England for broadcast in the US. It was intended to be a British SF show, but the two principle characters were cast with American actors (Martin Landau and Barbara Bain). It had a nice mix of American and British influences and is definitely the jewel in the American TV SF crown of those days. This mixture ended up creating interesting parallels with Star Trek and Star Wars. You can see how Star Trek influence Space: 1999 and you can see how Space: 1999 influenced Star Wars. Oh, not in the sense of story or setting, but in the design aesthetic. The Moonbase Alpha sets feel like they could be a redress of some rebel outpost set. They all feel connected, like part of the same family. In many ways they are.

And the actors just add to that. I didn't take note of any major Star Trek guest star, but the number of people who appeared in Space: 1999 and either Star Wars or Doctor Who (or both) is amazing. Brian Blessed is a case in point. He appeared first in Space: 1999, then later in Doctor Who, and finally in Star Wars Episode 1. Red leader and gold leader both appeared toward the end of the second season.

I mark Space: 1999 as a pivotal classic of 70's science fiction. It filled in a gap, advanced ideas and technology, and is enjoyable and entertaining. A definite must watch if you haven't seen it. Even if you don't find it to be one of your favorites, it is good and a valuable use of your time.

Interstellar Is Just That

It is not often that a movie can really impress me. Interstellar is such a movie. I love behind the scenes stuff so I usually watch all the special features. Being a writer, I get lots of insights into the creative process. While Interstellar as a movie is probably the best SF film I have seen in a long time, after watching the special features it has to be one of the most incredible movies every made.

With a legacy of quality effects that goes back to Kubrick's 2001, it is easy to get jaded about the nature of the special effects and the science behind the story. Interstellar just raised that bar to a brand new level. Most movies have noticeable special effects and holes in their science. Interstellar was flawless. Mainly because of how many effects they achieved in camera. It's science is impeccable. It should be with a gravitational scientists on the crew. They went to such lengths that they actually made some interesting discoveries about how light bends and how objects would look.

Not only are the effects and science great, but the story is great as well, with just enough that goes beyond the pure science in to scientific speculation that this is the epitome of what science fiction should be. At the heart of it, it is a father daughter story set in space and abounding with science. But you don't need to be a scientist for the story to make sense.

This film most certainly deserves the Hugo award this year. It is what the Hugo is all about. It is, unfortunately, on the Sad Puppies list. I'm quite sure it would have been nominated anyway. In other areas it has received many awards, beating out the other Hugo Nominees. And it is really quite funny that the puppies would nominate this film. They are so against stories with a message and if you don't get the messages in this film you have to be brain dead. As against the puppy slates as I am, I am forced to concede that this is indeed the best SF film of the year and I must put it first when I vote. I just have to. From the emotional, enjoyment, box office response, and industry award perspectives this film comes out on top among those nominated. If you believe in the spirit of the Hugos, you won't let the source of a good nominee that deserves to win cloud your judgement. Of course, not all will agree that this is the best offering, but from my perspective, I have no choice.

The effort that went in to making this an outstanding production is amazing. The music scored before and during production, the front projected backgrounds that the actors saw out of the windows, the full size props used as effects models, the painstaking attention to the science behind wormholes and black holes and the amazing rendering of those objects faithful to the science, not to mention the serious warning that if we ruin our planet it would take a miracle (the wormhole in this case) for use to survive. And underneath it all, a story about one man sacrificing his family to save humanity and the ripples that causes. Amazing story telling and an amazing production resulting in the best SF movie I have seen. Better than 2001, better than Star Wars, better than Star Trek. Absolutely amazing.

Has Star Trek gotten too Star Trekky?

According to Simon Pegg, who is penning (of is it co-penning) the next Star Trek feature film, at the moment titled Star Trek Beyond, he has had to make it less Star Trekky. What does this mean? Is this a good or bad thing. My take is that it is a good thing and here is why.

We have had Star Trek for over 50 years now (the final shots of The Cage, the shots of the Enterprise, were filmed early in 1965). But it is not a unified body of work. There are some distinct versions of Star Trek. It, of course, started with Gene Roddenberry's vision of Star Trek. Gene was a dreamer and crafted this utopian future where the crew of a ship would travel around and get into adventures. His dream is fully realized in The Cage, starring Jeffry Hunter as Christopher Pike. He had a chance to give us his pure dream a couple of other times, but let's keep this chronological for now.

Well, NBC like his concept but they wanted some changes. Gene made them. Some might argue that this diluted Gene pure idea, but I would argue that the success and popularity of Star Trek is directly linked to the changes NBC requested. They wanted more action, more relateable drama. What we got was the original Star Trek series starring William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, and DeForest Kelley, plus an animated series, and a series of 6 feature films. This is Star Trek, but is it really Star Trekky? I would say no. Read on.

Gene's second shot at Star Trek was Phase II (not to be confused with the fan production of the same name). Phase II had scripts, sets, costumes, test shots, a model of the Enterprise, and new cast members. Phase II turned into the first movie. The sole script used was In Thy Image, reworked into a "welcome back" movie. It is again that very cerebral story that we had in The Cage. It isn't looked to favorably on by most Star Trek fans. The second film, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is a return to the action packed style of story from the original series. And why? Nicholas Meyer sat down and watched the original series. The following 4 films followed that pattern.

Then Gene had his third and final chance to give us his vision and Star Trek: The Next Generation was born. This is Gene's vision. The pilot, Encounter at Farpoint, is the third installment of Gene's undistilled vision. Except that this time, what followed was something completely different. Star Trek: The Next Generation was unique. A magic feat of casting led to a group of people who were as close when the cameras were off as their characters were when the cameras were on. But Gene was fading. His name was carried on the episodes as executive producer, but as the series progressed, Rick Berman took on more of the production duties and the stories that were produced became more his vision than Gene's. Star Trek: The Next Generation became a second unique produce of the Star Trek franchise. It was followed, before it even ended, by Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. And as soon as Star Trek: The Next Generation wrapped and moved on to feature films, Star Trek: Voyager joined the franchise. All three of these had strong 7 year runs. They were followed by Enterprise, which had a truncated 4 year run.

But what has happened? Why has Star Trek been out of production for so long. After more than 15 years in constant production, there is no Star Trek. Why? Now we come to the issue. As it went on, Star Trek took on a quality that I grew to dislike. I'm a big fan of the original series and The Next Generation, but the others failed to grab me. It became formulaic and seemed distant, not only from the Star Trek that started it all, but even from Gene's vision. That unique mix of what Gene wanted and what NBC wanted was lost. It took on a pattern that I feel exemplifies the label of Star Trekky. It is what is expected, what fans think they want, what the franchise is perceived as. But that is NOT Star Trek. It is what we got, however twisted, in the latest two feature films. Roberto Orci is an avowed Star Trek fan. It is clear from what he gave us, along with Abrams wild ideas, is the type of story that Deep Space Nine, Voyager, and Enterprise gave us. But when you paste those ideas onto the original 1960's characters, it really shows the flaws that have crept into the franchise.

What is sad is that the best episodes of Deep Space Nine and Enterprise are the ones that harken back to the original series. Trials and Tribble-ations and In a Mirror, Darkly bring back that action of the original series. So what has happened to Star Trek? Well, it has become its own worst enemy. It has become a franchise with an expected format. NBC's changes to Gene's vision have become the enemy. But what we have is NOT Gene's vision, it is other people's interpretation of it. Too much emphasis is placed on doing what Gene wanted. Why? He had three chances to give us his vision. It is great, but it is not what garnered all the fans. And more importantly, it is not what the studio wants in a film. Why did Star Trek Into Darkness not bring in the money? Well, sucky writing, to start with, but it had action and effects, and the original characters. But the biggest thing was it was hampered and derailed by that ghost of the franchise. Orci constrained how the story was told.

Now take a look at Star Trek: New Voyages/Phase II and Star Trek Continues. What are they giving us that Abrams and Orci didn't? They have returned to that original format. Essentially it is Gene's universe with NBC's storytelling. That gold combination isn't that hard to return to. NBC wanted the same thing that Paramout wants. They want something that is highly successful that reaches the widest possible audience. Gene's vision was in the sort of future we are going to have. It isn't really Star Trek if you leave that out (and frankly Abrams and Orci seemed to miss that part). But it also isn't really Star Trek, not Kirk's Star Trek, if you abandon that goal that NBC forced Gene to adopt. The magic happened from the mix of Gene's creativity and vision and NBC's experience of what worked and desire for commercial success. That was repeated in 1982 with Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (6th highest grossing movie that year), in 1986 with Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (5th highest grossing movie that year), and even to some extent in 2009 with Star Trek (7th highest grossing movie that year). If Paramount is to have a success with the new Star Trek, they have to do a different direction than Star Trek Into Darkness. They need that mix of Gene's vision and the action adventure that NBC originally asked for. You can't do that just by having a big action movie and steal some scene from the most popular Star Trek film. You have to understand that Gene's vision reflects the culture of the Federation and that you can then have a huge action adventure story that can carry those ideas.

So in my estimation, Simon Pegg saying the new film with be less Star Trekky is a good thing. He is a Star Trek fan himself and he knows how to make awesome films, so with that combination, I'm hoping he will be able to produce something more worthy of the legacy of Star Trek and at the same time less franchisey.

Weary of Insults by the Stupid and Ignorant

When I get into political discussions, I get called a liberal and socialist. When I get into similar discussion on science fiction and fantasy I get called a SJW (social justice warrior). I get that these people are trying to insult me and usually act accordingly, but what I rarely talk about is how accurate these terms, when applied with their correct meanings, are.

I have been a science fiction and fantasy reader since.... well I can't really remember. At first I read both, not really having a preference, but gradually I dove into science fiction. I think the wide variety of quality media had a lot to do with it. The fantasy options in movies and TV left a lot to be desired back in the 80's. I started out with Star Wars, then Doctor Who, and then (even though my mother had been trying since I was born) Star Trek. When I found Star Trek I become a huge fan. I watched the original series religiously on weekdays and Battlestar Galactica on weekends.

And I read. Asimov, Heinlein, Norton, the Star Trek Pocket Books series, and a host of others. I always had a book with me or was scribbling my own story attempts in notebooks. I am a great fan of behind the scenes stories and I have absorbed the influences, inspirations, and goals of Gene Roddenberry and George Lucas.

What that all culminates in is me. I am a product of what I read, of my family background, of where I grew up. And as a result, my politics are viciously moderate. I do not put up with either extreme conservatives or extreme liberals very well. I don't tolerate bullies or liars or people who twist things around to suit their telling of the story.

So where does that leave me today? I am a firm believer in equality for all. A lot of my beliefs were tempered by Star Trek. Anyone who actually paid attention to what Gene was doing will know that he didn't hold with the racist and misogynistic attitudes of the 1960's. While it is hard to see it to day, he cast the most ethnically diverse and gender equal cast of the decade. He poured his idealism into the Vulcans and their ideal of IDIC (Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations). Star Trek featured the first interracial kiss and the first same sex kiss on television. It starred a mixed species character. Gene wanted it to feature a woman as second in command, but that went to far for 60's sensibilities.

From the written word I got more of the same. Equality, diversity, justice, doing what is right, fighting those who don't want things to change. I seriously don't believe that science fiction can exist without the so called 'SJW's because so much of the genre has focused on that for so long. Heinlein's first novel from 1939, For Us, The Living, touches on all this. Asimov challenged us to find the robot, Andrew Martin, human in Bicentennial Man. Time after time, story after story, this is what I have read. This idea by one group that SJW's are a new thing and have "taken over" the genre and are redirecting it from its roots is asinine. This so called SJW movement IS the genre of science fiction. It always has been. The people who use SJW or the more ridiculous GHH are the ones trying to change the genre to suit their political beliefs.

I have this nice chart that shows the voting habits of our US government and it clearly shows how far our government has descended into madness. The right has gotten more and more radical over the last 40 years to the point where even trying to discuss things with those of that bent is an exercise in frustration. This movement that accuses science fiction of being taken over by SJW's seems to stem from the same right-wing insanity. Yes, the stories have gotten more daring, with more homosexual and transgender characters, with more equality for all, but isn't that what we have been building towards? Isn't that what Gene Roddenberry saw in our future? Is that not what Star Trek portrayed? Is that not what the writers were striving for in the constraints of their time?

So I fail to see the danger in what these people fear because it is what the genre has been striving for since its inception. And who cares if a year or two sees more women winning awards than men? We've had it the other way for far too long and it is about time the majority gender gets its due? So if anyone cares to call me an SJW for these viewpoints, or a liberal, or socialist, I see no point in taking it as the insult they mean. It is time to own up that even as a moderate, I have causes to fight and equality of all is a big one.

On one final note, this post/rant was inspired by a blog post by David Mack (http://www.davidmack.pro/blog/?p=5219) that finds him dealing with this issue with someone who has no clue what a social justice warrior Gene Roddenberry was.

Redshirts - A Very Funny and Thought Provoking Novel

With all the conflagration surrounding this year's Hugo Awards, the winner of 2 years ago, Redshirts by John Scalzi, has come up as a title that may not have deserved the award. After reading it, I have to say that it did deserve the award.

An award winning science fiction novel should do a number of things. Namely tell a good story, but the really good ones make you think as well. Redshirts is very clearly inspired by Star Trek and the many one-off characters who died in the course of those 79 episodes (most of them sporting red uniform tunics). But it takes that idea to several new levels. One, it is about a copy cat show that isn't even supposed to be very good. Second, the characters come to know they are in a show and then set about changing things.

The romp through the fictional world was fun and filled with things that made me laugh out loud. It was one of the most fun books I've read in years. It was obvious from the outset (with even the title warning you) that needless death was at hand, but the way it was handled was superb. Scalzi has crafted an epic tale that will stand the test of time. You don't need to be a fan of the original Star Trek, but it helps.

So Redshirts now takes its place with the many other Hugo Award winners and it fits right in. The nature of the story, the excellently detailed universe, the philosophical ideas covered, all lead to an excellent novel that is worth the read and deserved the Awards it was honored with.

That Special Component That Makes A Classic Epic

Epic films are nothing new. In many ways, most science fiction films try to be epic. Most of them fail and I have stumped upon the single element that leads to that failure or success.

Fans of Star Wars almost universally agree that The Empire Strikes Back is the best of the saga. There is a reason for that. I used to consider the first film (titled simple Star Wars or A New Hope depending on your level of purism) the best and in many ways it is, but it was really eclipsed by its sequel in virtually every way save the ending. Empire is the middle chapter, yet it holds its own. The secret lies in the choice of director. Irvin Kershner was known for his personal, intimate style. He didn't tell epics, he told stories of people and that is what Empire is.

If you take a look at the Star Trek films, you find much the same thing. Why were the second and fourth movies the best? They told very personal stories. The second even manged to do so without having the two main opponents on the same set. A brilliant piece of story telling. The fourth film does it by making it about this small crew going home to face the music for what they have done and finding a way to save the planet in the process. These films are about the people. Plus they tell a pretty great story.

When the creators of a film realize this little secret, they hit gold. William Wyler did this for MGM in 1959 with Ben-Hur. He was the director of very intimate, personal movies. Yet here he was making the largest and biggest budget epic to date. That was the success of the film. That is why so many films fail. They fail to realize that a good story is first and foremost about the people that inhabit it. When the creators of a film realize this, the film succeed because all their choices are focused into telling the best story they can and if the background is epic, the picture is epic.

This holds true for the written word as well. All stories are about the characters and their journey. A well crafted tell can tell anything on top of that and can do so with many characters at the same time. Movies usually need to pare that down a bit and focus on just a few, but a few rare movies can capture that even with a large cast. But no matter the scale, the film needs to be intimate. You need to get close to the characters. You need to feel their journey. When you watch Han and Leia fall in love, you believe it. When Leia reveals her feelings, there is no doubt because the stage has been set. Han responding with "I know" just tops it all off.

Love, is of course, not the only intimate tale to tell, but it is a very common on. Stories fail when they fail to make the story intimate and personal. In Battlestar Galactica (1978), you care about the people. You quickly get invested in their journeys. In Galactica 1980, the characters have great adventures, but you don't get to know them at all. There are no moments when the characters reveal themselves.

Generations have followed Frodo to Mordor because Tolkien invested his tale with intimate moments where the characters come alive. Yes, the story is of great adventure and he was a great world builder, but the success comes down to the reader caring about Frodo and the story being so much about him and his companions more than the War of the Ring.

Same for the original Star Wars trilogy. We care about Luke, Han, Leia, and the others, because the movies are intimate. Here they are toppling the great Galactic Empire of Palpatine, and they story is not just about the battles they fight, it is about their friendship, their relationships, the other events in their lives, as much as the battles.

So great story telling, no matter the medium, is that intimate connection to the characters that bring them, not just to life, but close. Like you know them personally.

Watching the Classic Battlestar Galactica Again

I've had the DVD's sitting on my shelf for ages, but I had not fully watching the series in quite some time. And for full measure, I watched all of it, including the 1980 series. But I finally got around to it and just finished the final episode yesterday.

In many ways, Battlestar Galactica was just another studio's answer to Star Wars. It was originally slated to be a TV movie, but ended up being show theatrically (which is how I first saw it). Then it blazed onto the small screen. But it only lasted a season before it was cancelled. It came back a year later, but with a mostly different cast and just wasn't the same. Fast forward a couple of decades and it was rebooted and came back as a series that was allowed to run its course. I just couldn't get into that one. It lacked the visual style of the original and the story went directions that were too out there for my tastes.

But it was born in 1978. Looking at it today compared to its compatriots, Star Wars, Alien, Battle Beyond the Stars, Star Trek The Motion Picture, and others, the sets and effects hold up very well. They started out with high production values and they kept that up for the first series (to some the only real series - and understandable viewpoint). The stories were well written. When you consider that it came on 10 years after Star Trek's third season, it is frankly an amazing series.

The DVD includes several special features which reveal a lot about the series and probably a bit about why it didn't make it. The series had great production values on screen, but they were rushing things. They had intended to do a TV movie and maybe later a series, but the network wanted a series and they gave them one. With the actors getting scenes minutes before they were to be shot and everything happening at the last minute, some things about the series are less than stellar. Sometimes the acting leaves a bit to be desired, sometimes there are goofs. But when you compare it to other contemporary series, it is very good. Supremely good, but maybe a bit before its time. It arrived in the wake of Star Wars, but it wasn't Star Wars. Glen A. Larson mixed a bunch of his interests together and crafted an idea that was unique and stands up to time. But like many series (dare I bring up Firefly), it didn't find its audience fast enough and it went off the air. The network had them do another series - something more familiar - and Buck Rogers was on the air for 2 years (next up in my viewing schedule). So it wasn't the production, it was the story. I got it, but not enough people did. Plus the little issues that brought the show down a bit.

But 37 years on, it is still outstanding. It can hold its own with Star Trek, Babylon 5, and Firefly. At least that is until you add in the 1980 series.

Many will automatically go "yuch" at the mere mention of Galactica 1980, but it did not turn out to be quite what they had envisioned it to be and had to change course after the pilot story. It was to be a time travel story and it ended up being a Colonial Scouts story. You really can't put it in the same category as the first series. It just isn't up to that standard. Plus it wreck's the continuity. That said, I have seen a lot of bad movies and bad TV series and Galactica 1980 isn't that bad. It is cheesy, but that was not unusual in 1980. It is just so far below the first series that few of the fans could appreciate it. Watching it now, 35 years later, I found that I did appreciate it. At least for what it is. It is flawed, deeply flawed, but the premise has merit and the execution was normal. I find it far more watchable than Knight Rider, though not nearly as good as Airwolf. But it certainly didn't find its audience. 10 episodes in it was cancelled. Probably for the best, though I think the production team was just getting the hang of the new format they had been forced into.

One of the most fun things is the final episode. While it is set in the framing story of Doctor Zee telling Adama about a dream, the episode is about Starbuck. It gives the entire series an end on a high note with one of the best stories of all of them (definitely the best of Galactica 1980). I shouldn't wait so long to watch it again.

Ann Leckie - What A Hugo Award Winner Should Look Like

I've been reading F/SF for over 35 years. I have a lot of past Hugo Award winners that number among my favorites so I am well versed in what constitutes an award winning story. Last years Ann Leckie's Ancillary Justice popped onto my radar when it won not only the Hugo Award, but the Nebula Award as well. It went on to win several other awards as well.

It features an interesting set of premises - that the point of view character is the last remaining component of a ship AI and the culture that it comes from makes no gender distinction. Consequently all the pronouns, except when using a different language (noted in the text as such), are feminine.

I have a feeling the pronoun usage might get in some people's way in enjoying this work, but I found it very alien and that it added to the world building immensely.

When you get down to the story, it is a truly epic space opera set far in the future - in terms of unspecified thousands of years. Everything is fleshed out, painting a brilliant picture of the world in the author's mind. You feel what it might be like to have different pieces of yourself. You can feel the Ancillary's pain and confusion when that is cut. And brilliantly, the author not only portrayed the former AI that way, but also the leader of the people. How else do you control a multi-system empire except to divide yourself and be everywhere at once.

And past the events of the story itself are the character interactions and development. The characters come alive and are more than the words on the page. I felt like I had lived the story with them. A brilliant feat of writing.

I have to say that this was as good, if not better, than some of the great stuff I read many years ago. Hugo Award winning (and Nebula Award winning) are markers of quality and this novel fit right in.

I quickly followed reading Ancillary Justice with the sequel, Ancillary Sword. It was as good and as engrossing, bringing with it new aspects of the universe and the characters. If a sequel ever deserved as many awards as the original, this one certainly does. It is a magnificent world given to us by a magnificent writer. I can't wait for the third book. I definitely have a new author to add to my list of favorites. I can't wait to see what she does next. Her nomination for this year's Hugo Awards is justly deserved.