From Matthew Cheney, on the blog of literary agent Colleen Lindsay, comes advice to young writers (and older writers still finding their groove), of the following flavour:

Actually, I might have been happier if I had been able to give myself permission to study something in college other than writing. But I was convinced the only way to become a good writer was to major in it. Not so. For many people, in fact, the best way to be a good writer is to spend some time doing things other than studying writing. My writing benefited more from my time working in a high school on Manhattan’s Lower East Side than it did from the classes I was taking when not at work.

That passage in particular rang true for me. I remain rather puzzled how I came to be ‘naturally’ a much better writer (or so I kid myself) by the time I started up again a year ago, despite having produced only a few thousand words of fiction in the previous decade. The magic is breadth and depth of experience, I suppose.

Read on, MacDuffs.

Michael Crichton died yesterday, at the age of 66. He was almost without peer as an action/thriller writer who knew how to communicate aspects of the frontiers of current science. The rampant success of his work almost created the hard-science techno-thriller genre.

Ultimately, though, I think the flavour of most of Crichton’s science fiction was ‘faux-hard’. (This is not to denigrate his work; I loved it and clearly lots of other people did too.) He pushed boundaries of mainstream fiction by introducing contemporary hard science themes, but he was at his best when he was free to weave fiction together with fact without being beholden to the latter. For example, the chaos theory strand in Jurassic Park was at best a metaphor; if I’m not misremembering it, nothing in the actual plot really had anything to do with chaos theory. On the other hand, managing that kind of metaphor is an achievement in itself. With State of Fear he seemed to forget that — it was based on old science that was obsolete before the book was published, and he set himself up for a fall by presenting it as anything other than pure fiction.

An interesting thing about so many of his books was that all the action happened somewhere remote. This gave his stories an aura of plausibility — the idea that they could be going on right now, and we would never know. It was, I’m sure, a good part of his books’ appeal. The theme of science and technology as double-edged swords is also highlighted by this approach; unfettered research is the threat, and we’re lucky, the stories seem to say, that these crises can be averted with a little help from the maverick scientist-hero.

Having just had a very long weekend, and feeling particularly overwhelmed with so much new stuff to keep a track of, I’m reminded how important it is to get enough sleep. With everything from the US elections to my new writing group happening right now and need my attention right now, there’s always a strong temptation to stay up late and just read that, do that, watch that, write that.

Note to self: go to bed!

(Well, not now, but at the appropriate time.)

Unfortunately, I often need reminding that getting enough sleep is critical. If I even hope to do what these days I try to do — perform more than just adequately at my day job while also becoming a writer — I have to wake up relatively fresh 9 mornings out of 10. Apart from the substantial negative effects on cognitive function of sleep deprivation, any creative activity requires some degree of alertness. Both my ‘normal’ work in science and fiction writing are creative industries, albeit of rather different sorts. Neither is achieved simply by sitting down and cranking out the hours (though that helps). Each is a process as much as a product, and I can’t just tread water in either if I want to achieve the kinds of things I want to achieve — publications and sales, grants and commissions, recognition and, well, recognition.

So sleep is one of the keystones of my lifestyle. If I stay up late, it’s actually something of a set-back, and that is doubly true if I stay up late doing something essentially useless, like reading blogs. (That’s not to say that reading blogs is always a waste of time, but I can almost guarantee that if I’ve got Google Reader in front of me after 10 PM, I should probably call it a night.)

The problem is, it’s always very tempting to stay up late doing useless things. This breaks down, for me, into two nefarious strands. First, it’s the Internet, man. There’s always something new, interesting, exciting, surprising, challenging, entertaining or just plain weird to see, even among the relatively few sites that I follow. I could probably sit at my computer 24 hours a day reading blog posts and news items and science sites and this and that and the other.

Second, there’s the spectre of tomorrow. No, this isn’t some dystopian vision that I’ve got stuck in my head like the music of a manufactured pop band. It’s the simple fact that tomorrow, there are Things to Do. These Things might not be particularly onerous, time-consuming or challenging, but nonetheless they must be Done. In my little subjective world, going to sleep brings them that much closer, so not going to sleep is a form of procrastination. In fact, I think it might be the most insidious and destructive form of procrastination that I know (and I consider myself something of an expert) because it makes it more difficult to ensure that the Things get Done. There’s also the vicious cycle in which staying up late makes it harder to resist the temptation to stay up late the next night.

Note to self: underline previous note to self, then go to bed!

If you’re reading this past 10 PM, I can tell you with some degree of certainty that the only way this won’t have been a waste of your time is if you close your browser, shut down the computer, and go to bed.

And don’t forget to brush your teeth!

'Maison tournante aérienne', Albert Robida, 1883

Welcome to the second Libertas in Silico. This series briefly reviews recent free online science fiction and fantasy stories. I’ve got a particular interest in overtly speculative pieces, but personal genre preferences aside, this week’s Top Pick stands as testament to my belief that great stories will out — even to partisans such as myself.

Got a dissenting view (or any view) of your own on these stories? Leave a comment; I’d love to hear from you.

After all, comment is free… and so are these stories.
 

 
TOP PICK!

PodCastle: This week’s story, “Grand Guignol”, by Andy Duncan, is the macabre and utterly beautiful story of a actual 1920s Parisien theatre which specialised in realistic, gory productions with plots gleaned from the exploits of madmen. It was originally published in Weird Tales. This story is astonishingly good: to my mind, “Grand Guignol” is the one of the very best to emerge from either PodCastle or Escape Pod. I found a kind of sublimity in the experience of listening to this tale, not least thanks to the marvellous, numb-lipped timbre of the voice of narrator Frank Key.

This is not fantasy, horror, or even speculative fiction, but I was glad of it. I actually realised, part way through, that I was dreading the eventual fantastic twist. Thankfully, it never came. I listened a second, enraptured time to enjoy “Grand Guignol” in the absence of that anxiety. Whatever your fictional persuasions, listen to this story.
 

 
‘Zines:

• Subterranean Magazine: Novelette “Mirror of Fiery Brightness”, by Chris Roberson, is thickly layered with an alternative history of the Americas and stuffed with many a riddle for the amateur geographer or geopolitics enthusiast. I found the plot rewarding in the end (if a mite predictable) but it didn’t have me entirely convinced along the way.
• Weird Tales: the complete July/August issue as a PDF! I might try to cover some of the stories in forthcoming posts.

 
E-Books:

• Tor.com’s free e-book this month is Spaceman Blues: a love song, by Brian Francis Slattery. I’ve read only a few pages, and from that I doubt that anything I might say could possibly be adequate. Instead, why not read Matthew Cheney’s review? Definitely worth registering with Tor.com to get your hands on.

 
Podcasts:

• Well Told Tales: The serialised podnovel/podplay I Killed Awesome Man, written and produced by Finn Colgan, is made of awesome! Its pulpy goodness goes down pretty smooth, though the episode 1 cameo by Mur Lafferty did stick in my teeth, which is a shame because it would have worked well if not for the intrusive and repeated references to her recent podcast-to-print novel (Colgan’s idea, not Lafferty’s, according to comments on the post). Seems they sorted that one out, though, because episodes 2 and 3 were just great fun. Voices by Norm Sherman, Steve Anderson and others all hit the right notes. Episode 4 is due 30 October, and each is only 10-15 minutes long so you’ve got more than enough time to catch up.
• Clonepod: “Old Folk’s Home”, by John Kratman, read by Bruce McDonald. If stuff happening in space thrills you, you’ll get your fill. For me, the title says it all.
• The Drabblecast: Main feature “Half-Sneeze Johnny”, by Kurt Kirchmeier, has a gritty style and a the kind of twist that only seems obvious after the fact — the only kind of twist that most stories can still hope to pull off, I guess. I have a soft spot for stories about people who are reluctant to sneeze in public.
• Weird Tales: J.M. McDermott launches Weird Tales new “One-Minute Weird Tales” series with the short-short-short story-as-slideshow, “The Botanist’s Wife”. The kind of story I like to read again, backwards.

 
And finally… I’m not yet sure what Hooting Yard is, exactly (other than a website and podcast from the exemplary Frank Key), but it’s some kind of wonderful.
 

 
This work by Benjamin Carnys is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0.

Astonishing, Margret Hofheinz-Döring, 1964 (© Peter Mauch / Galerie Brigitte Mauch Göppingen)

Welcome! This is the first of my new series of posts reviewing recent free online fiction. By review I mean “make brief comment upon”, and by recent I mean “in the last week or so”.

This series will have a name: Libertas in Silico, which is almost-Latin for “freedom within the silicon”. (The major error in the translation is a historical accident which I have little desire to oppose.)

So, without further ado…
 

 
TOP PICK!

Clonepod: “Outside Chance”, by Matthew Johnson, read by Leslie Ann Moore. In an uncertain world, time-traveling “forecasters” scope out the wonders and terrors of the future, but it’s what they don’t bring back to “now” that makes all the difference. Professional-quality audio SF from a podcast run by kids? You betcha — it’s not just good (for their age), it’s good (period).
 

 
‘Zines:

• Strange Horizons: “Just after Midnight”, by Christie Skipper Ritchotte. Short-short with an intimate perspective on a disease-ravaged dystopia. Doesn’t give much away, but worth the quick read.
• Fantasy Magazine: “A Spell For Twelve Brothers”, by Erzebet Yellowboy. A re-imagining of the Brothers Grimm fairy tale, “The Six Swans”. I’m not convinced that the revised ending is an improvement, but the salacious double entendres of the opening scene do add a little spice.

 
Podcasts:

• Escape Pod: “Navy Brat”, by Kay Kenyon, read by Dani Cutler. A generation ship story, with a strong start and some nice speculative flourishes, but it’s main novelty is that’s it’s a Young Adult generation ship story. Billed also as military SF, but it’s not a central theme.
• PodCastle: “Dead Languages”, by Merrie Haskell, read by M.K. Hobson. Begins as a feminist commentary on Buffy the Vampire Slayer, or perhaps a commentary on a feminist commentary on BtVS, but takes a turn somewhere and ditches any such pretense. Well read by M.K. Hobson; I really enjoyed the start but it eventually lost me. Also, a “PodCastle Miniature”: All Flee the Vocab. Quiz, by Kristine Dikeman, read by Alasdair Stuart. Fun and clever, and for 300 words/3 minutes, surprisingly meaty.
• The Drabblecast: Trifecta V (various). Three stories for the price of one (that price being, um, free). All very weird but not much to shout about; the theme of this Trifecta seemed to be, “Taking tired old conceits to disturbing new extremes”. “Strange Love”, by Suzanne Vincent, read by Steve Anderson, is a decent aliens-among-us-but-ick! tale, with extra ick! (though Steve Anderson’s narration does my head in, again). “Cookie?”, by Jim Bernheimer, read by Norm Sherman, is a rather twisted child-communes-with-spirits story. “Forbidden Love”, by Ian Fossberg, read by Jesse Thorn, adds a brief epilogue to the antics of a familiar character but I was left wondering, why?

 
Next time… At the very least, more from PodCastle and Well Told Tales’ I Killed Awesome Man.

And finally… “Adventuring Party Politics: The Campaign is Getting Ugly”, by somehedgehog. The US presidential election Dungeons and Dragons campaign. How can you resist?
 

 
This work by Benjamin Carnys is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0.

I’m working on a little plan to bring regular updates about free online fiction to this blog.

There are a host of venues providing all or some of their content for free on the web, in formats including traditional text, podcasted audio and multimedia, interactive websites. There’s a lot going around, of all shapes and sizes, and I want to keep track of it myself so why not here?

I already follow most free science fiction and fantasy sites I can find with RSS (with Page2RSS for those ‘zines which have an inexplicable aversion to RSS), and I’ll add whichever others I can find. Those stories that I get a chance to read/listen to/experience I’ll (very) briefly review.

In the spirit of freedom, I’ll also be licensing these posts under a Creative Commons license, probably BY-NC-ND (requiring attribution, not permitting commercial use or derivative works).

Watch this space…

I’m as enraptured by the US presidential lottery as the next red blooded European (yes, we’re watching, don’t stuff it up), but I reserve my most fevered adulation for FiveThirtyEight.com. It’s the election poll aggregation, analysis and discussion blog to end all election poll aggregation, analysis and discussion blogs.

Oh dear god(s), is it good. The discussion of the latest polls has brains, which is a nice change from the non-analysis of most regular news outlets; e.g. from today:

The best number for McCain comes from the daily sample in the Research 2000 tracking poll, which showed McCain down by just 6 points in interviewing conducted yesterday. I say ‘just’ because the R2K poll has generally had pretty good numbers for Obama and it’s been a couple of weeks since McCain was as close as 6 points. Small sample size caveats apply.

There are also summaries of polls, simulations of election outcomes and probabilities of Obama or McCain wins. Currently FiveThirtyEight.com has the election going to Obama in 94.3% of simulations; it hardly seems possible that McCain’s chances are only about 1-in-20, but what do I know? Another brilliant regular feature is the “On the Road” series of posts about each of the states and the activities of the candidates campaigns in each state. The small but detectable pro-Obama bias doesn’t hurt, and if it’s not for you then at least it doesn’t obviously creep into their poll analysis.

I’ve got FiveThirtyEight.com in my news aggregator and will be watching it like a hawk ’til November 4, and probably a while longer.

I’ve been making a major push these last few weeks to make the most of both my day job and the time I have for writing. I am just realizing today how much it is taking out of me.

I’ve been getting tension headaches the last couple of days, and I don’t seem to be able to get enough sleep, even when I seem to be getting enough sleep. I’ve crashed, suddenly, from being pretty happy about everything to being tired, stressed and discontented.

My reaction, this evening, was a sudden desire to go to the gym. That’s so unusual for me that it prompted this blog post. (I’m not anti-exercise, it just isn’t something that I’m usually very motivated to do.)

I think my problem is that I haven’t stopped in any meaningful way in the past two weeks. If I’m not working or writing, I’m thinking about working or writing. It’s not something I haven’t done before, but this time it seems particularly ill-favoured.

I’m OK, but it’s time to take a few days off.

From xkcd, a pretty good idea. I often find it helpful to have my writing read back to me, and yes, I often conclude that I’m a moron.

OK, OK, I suppose it could be worse.

What's not to love?

Thanks to Tony Sidaway for pointing out Nobel Prize-winner Harry Kroto’s comment in the Guardian, in which he takes the opportunity to respond to the swinging pendulum of public opinion. The majority view now appears to be that Michael Reiss was unfairly (and even foolishly) pushed from his post as Director of Science Education at the Royal Society, a view with which Kroto takes issue. (I discussed my views on the original story previously: here, here and here.)

Kroto is defending, more or less, the statements he was quoted as making when the whole fiasco first broke; that is, that Michael Reiss was always an unsuitable choice for the Royal Society post, and that this issue must be vigourously defended as part of the struggle to save the Enlightenment from the forces of ignorance. I can’t see that he’s done much to further his cause.

It seems to me that Kroto has made a couple of substantial errors of reasoning. First, the question of whether high school teachers can ever have any sort of conversation about creationism with students in class is not a scientific question. No one in this debacle has really been discussing or questioning the science, honestly or otherwise. (Maybe some would take issue with that claim, but to do so would be a big step beyond Kroto’s current position.) This is despite the media’s desire to paint it that way.

To my mind, and surely I’m not the only one, this is a pedagogical issue, on which teachers would be foolish not to consult both scientists (who can provide the most reliable science) and religious educators (who are better qualified to provide guidance on the views of the students in question). Science education has a number of roles to play in society, but the original question was not “What should we teach?”, but “How should we teach?” I can’t see that Kroto has offered much if anything of significance on that second question, regardless of his qualifications to comment on the former.

Kroto’s second error, and the main thesis of the piece, is that religious views are somehow — dare I caricature it, magically — incompatible with “honest scientific discussion” simply because religious people “accept unfound [sic] dogma as having fundamental significance”. His comment later that he does “not have a particularly big problem with scientists who may have some personal mystical beliefs” did not do much to shake my feeling that what he means to say in this piece is that religious scientists are not, in fact, scientists at all. I have difficulty imagining a reasoned view that is incompatible with the idea that a scientist is simply a person who does science, so it seems to me that Kroto is unreasoning in his condemnation of religious belief as incompatible with “honest scientific discussion”.

That’s my main objection to Kroto’s arguments — that at best he’s misunderstanding the problem, so his proffered solution is simply out of place. But a few of his comments make me feel that it’s worse than that. First, he advances the view that “only those questions that can be … subjected to detailed disinterested examination, and when so subjected reveal unequivocally and ubiquitously accepted data, [are] significant.” It’s not entirely clear here whether Kroto is advocating a logical positivist view of science, but it seems fair to characterise his statement as reflecting the attitude that if a question can’t be tested, in principle, then it is unworthy of any consideration. I’d be surprised if Harry Kroto wants to be the one to explain this directly to high school students, particularly those who Michael Reiss was talking about: those who have been taught otherwise at home and might be trying to come to terms with the radically different point of view presented in science classes. I’m sure Kroto sees himself in a rather different role. But since we are talking about these high school students (or should be) I can’t see the relevance of his comments to the problem at hand.

I was also struck by one of Kroto’s asides, discussing the suitability of an ordained minister for such a position in the Royal Society as Michael Reiss held:

An ordained minister must have accepted that there was a creator (presumably more intelligent than he is?) thus many of us (maybe 90% of FRSs) cannot see how such a person can pontificate on how to tackle this fundamentally unresolvable conflict at the science/religion interface

Apart from the 90% statistic (curiously, lacking a citation in an otherwise well-referenced piece; presumably the editors added the other references?), I was amused by how much the first statement in parentheses sounds like an ontological argument for the existence of God — in reverse, naturally.

St Anselm supposed that since anything of which nothing greater could be conceived would not be itself if it did not exist, that thing, indeed God, must therefore exist. In the undertones of Kroto’s little aside — that an ordained minister must accept the existence of a creator, “(presumably more intelligent than he is?)” — I can almost hear a stereotypically arrogant, ivory tower scientist attempting the Reverse St Anselm Manoeuvre: arguing that because he or she cannot conceive of anything more intelligent than himself or herself, God cannot exist.

Except — and I mean this without irony — I don’t believe in the existence of stereotypically arrogant, ivory tower scientists.

For another source of commentary try the Nature.com blog, The Great Beyond, which makes an excellent comment on the about-face of the newspapers on this issue.

Quasi-update: By chance, I just learned that Harry Kroto’s comments first appeared a few days ago on Homo economicus’ weblog. This text seems largely identical to the Guardian piece.