Empire of Dreams and Miracles 142
| Empire of Dreams and Miracles | |
| author | Orson Scott Card and Keith Olexa |
| pages | 262 paperback |
| publisher | Phobos Books |
| rating | 9 out of 10 |
| reviewer | czarneki |
| ISBN | 097200260X |
| summary | A good science fiction anthology of new authors who write well |
I'm a regular reader of the sci-fi magazines, and I have to say, the stories in this collection are so much better than 95% of what gets published in those magazines. Maybe it's because the big-circulation magazines are so desperate for readership that they prefer to publish only stories from well-known authors, and many of them seem to use the short-story format only as a place to dump ideas that just don't quite make it into novels. The unknown authors in this anthology, on the other hand, seem to come up with fresh ideas and take pains to craft good short stories around them. This is probably what OSC is referring to when he writes in the foreword to the collection that in order "to find deep novelty, readers of science fiction must find new writers as well as new tales from old friends."
Okay, enough of that. What are the stories like? There's a lot here that Slashdot readers would find provocative and interesting. My favorite in the collection is "Twenty-Two Buttons" (my first reaction when I saw this title was: On a mouse or keyboard? Alas, that's not the sort of buttons we are talking about). The story takes place in a future where pollution, crime, and lawlessness have turned the Outside into a myth, and people spend all of their time inside their houses. They manage to go to work and school, find friends and lovers, and have contact with people outside the family only through the Net (ok, ok, so some of us already are living that way, but still), which is heavily censored and monitored by the government -- in fact, the story implies that the dangerousness of the Outside is exaggerated in order to justify the government's control over the Net (draw your own paranoid analogies with the present). This has some fascinating consequences. For example, children make play dates over the Net and rely on VR projections to learn to socialize. Families meet each other through a kind of Net dating service for whole families, and though two families may be from opposite ends of the continent, they manage to sit down "together" to have dinner, the VR screen going down the middle of the table. (I actually kind of wish that were true. Why should I be stuck with the people who happen to have moved in next to me?) Since physically moving yourself and your possessions from one place to another is so expensive, once you are married you are pretty much truly stuck. The main character in the story had an affair over the Net because he connected with the woman he could only touch through the mediation of technology so much better than his wife, but when the affair was discovered he was too afraid of the Outside to join the other woman. In the end the other woman did in fact leave the protected life on the Net and go Outside, and she tantalizingly sent him the buttons from her blouse, inviting him to "come out and play." (The actual story is so much better than my crappy summary, sorry.) This is the story in the collection with the most un-sci-fi-ish prose style, but it actually works really well.
"Carthaginian Rose" is based on an idea from Ray Kurzweil's Age of Spiritual Machines. Basically, the idea is that we'll soon (as in within 30 years) be able to scan people's brains into computers powerful enough to simulate neural activities -- and instant immortality! The scanning technology initially will be kind of crude, and so we might need to do it destructively on some people to try it out (Kurzweil speculated that a person facing imminent death may volunteer to be the first test subject). The story takes this idea and speculates on what kind of person that first volunteer would be and how someone might be driven to happily, willingly, and even work hard at being destructively scanned.
The title story, "Empire of Dreams and Miracles," is probably the craziest story of the bunch. It involves a future so far off that people literally kill for sport (the victims are then brought back to life). The entertainment industry is centered around competition among the killer-artists to bring the most pleasure and novelty to each kill, and the psychology of a culture with no real death but a lot of colorful imitations of it is described with a great deal of detail and imagination. The images are eye-popping and they come at you one after another, giving you almost no time to absorb each one (so you end up feeling a little like the sensation-saturated inhabitants of this future). The fascination with violence, death, and the sexual energies in both can be seen as a satire of our own world or just really good mood setting.
"Who Lived in a Shoe" is about alien house hunting. For any slashdot readers who have looked for a dwelling the story will resonate. It's a funny, light piece that is less sci-fi than fantasy. Some of the houses that the main characters visit on their search may well appeal to the crowd here. This story shows the wide range and styles in this collection.
There are eight other stories in the collection, ranging from Twilight Zone-like horror to cosmology-as-religion. There are space stations and artificial intelligences, social commentary as well as pure fantasy. All of the stories are well-written short stories, not aborted attempts at novels or sketches that go nowhere. OSC wrote an introduction to each story and it's interesting to get his take on each.
To be sure, sometimes the writing in these stories is not as polished as one could wish, but you see that kind of roughness even in the mass-circulation magazines. After all, we are talking about sci-fi here, not the Atlantic Monthly. All in all, given the diverse range of ideas, characters, and styles in this collection and the fact that these are all fresh, new talents in the field, this is my second favorite short fiction anthology for the year (it was my first favorite anthology until Ted Chiang's Stories of Your Life -- you just can't argue with all those Nebulas).
You can purchase Empire of Dreams and Miracles from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
O' Happy Day for the Authors (Score:4, Funny)
Where are the religious science fiction writers? (Score:2, Troll)
In the first story mentioned, "Twenty Two Buttons", a Catholic would laugh. Sorry, you can't get a consecrated host over the Net, a priest has to perform the miracle of Transubstiation, and you must get the host in person, after saying the secret Catholic password. So, Catholics would still need face to face meeting, sorry d00d.
The other story "Carthaginian Rose" completely ignores the existence of an immortal soul. You can't transfer a soul into a machine (Tracy Kidder's tome notwithstanding). Sorry, patently absurd.
I wish science fiction writers would think a little bit more about the world in which they inhabit, not everyone one is an introverted self hating geeek.
Re:Where are the religious science fiction writers (Score:4, Insightful)
Adrew Greeley [amazon.com] (a Catholic priest) has writen some science fiction. One that I've read is: Final Planet [amazon.com].
I suspect that your not so much interested in religious science fiction writers as much as science fiction writers religious in the same way you are
Re:Where are the religious science fiction writers (Score:2, Informative)
In regards to the question of the immortal soul, why exactly can't a soul be transferred to a machine? Strictly speaking, the human body is a machine; its simply biological rather than mechanical.
Re:Where are the religious science fiction writers (Score:1)
Re:Where are the religious science fiction writers (Score:1)
This really goes back to the Soul a.k.a. Ghost in the Ghost in the Shell anime movie, and new TV series.
For those you havn't seen it. The series takes place in the future. People are able to get cyborg parts, and even transfer their Ghost (soul) into a mechanical body. The movie is very well done and has great animation, and if you find the story vagley interesting you should pickup the manga (illustrated novel). It goes into a lot more detail and has many things that were cut from the movie.
The issue I see with transfering your soul to a machine is that if it's just data could it not be replicated and then you have a double? Are both serperate souls or two parts of one? If it is two part of a single soul are you responsible for what your other part does? Hmm.. an interesting defence for O.J.... "It wasn't me, it was a copy of me because I'm a cyborg.
Re:Where are the religious science fiction writers (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Where are the religious science fiction writer (Score:2, Interesting)
I haven't been able to find any reference for this, and sadly, unless Terry Bisson knows, it might be quite lost. The book was apparently completed by Bisson after Miller died, and there is on reading it, a slightly gummy feeling of amalgamation; I can't quite tell whether it was rewoven altogether from the author's notes, or merely brushed up and missing chapters/sections added.
More significantly, I wish I could tell whether the book, in general, was written shortly after, or perhaps 15 or 20 years after Canticle and left in some musty cabinet not to be discovered until after his passing; it would be illuminating to see which of the changes in writing style and theme resulted from Miller's changes in perspective over time, and what, was in fact Bisson.
It's even possible (from my reading) that the entire book was simply one chapter of Canticle that got left out of the original, or which the author might have written some time afterward, and not a stand-alone book, which Bisson felt he had to expand out to make it publishable.
The story itself is a minor historical footnote in the history of the Church after the flame deluge; as were nearly all of the stories from the original, and to me, its as breathtaking as any one of the earlier parts, but still doesn't feel like a Novel in its own right.
All of the previous is speculation; most of the reviews that I've seen assume it was a separate book written by Miller in the 1990s, and handed specifically to Bisson on his deathbed. I haven't found any of Bisson's words on the matter, if anyone here does know, I'd really love to hear.
Re: Re:Where are the religious science fiction wri (Score:3, Informative)
In Terry Bisson's own words [sff.net]:
Re:Where are the religious science fiction writers (Score:2)
Re:Where are the religious science fiction writers (Score:2)
Howard Fast has written science fiction from a Buddhist perspective.
Zelazny (Score:2)
Re:Where are the religious science fiction writers (Score:3, Funny)
not everyone one is an introverted self hating geeek
You are right. Some of us are not catholic.
Re:Where are the religious science fiction writers (Score:1)
You are right. Some of us are not catholic.
As an introverted, self-hating geek, I resent the implication that I'm Catholic.
Re:Where are ... Troll here. (Score:3, Funny)
No, they're a bunch of self-loathing sinners.
They were one-hit wonders. Their great work was called "The Holy Bible".
Maybe between Virgin Birth, Immaculate Conception, Ressurection, Eternal Life, "the body of christ", in addition to the magical transformation of "one who has disagreed" to "the most supreme evil being in the universe" ala Lucifer, they've said all they wanted to say. You've still got all the sex, rape, genocide, and talking to other-wordly beings, too.
--mandi
Re:Where are the religious science fiction writers (Score:2, Insightful)
BTW, not trying to nitpick, I make spelling and grammar mistakes all the time but where you said "...patently absurd." Did you mean "blatantly" absurd or so absurd that it could be patented?
Re:Where are the religious science fiction writers (Score:1)
Back to the dictionary for you
Re:Where are the religious science fiction writers (Score:1)
I was not trying to nitpick and the smart ass tone most
It always difficult get the right tone across text based communication.
Re:Where are the religious science fiction writers (Score:2)
Seriously though, there are tons of scientists that are also religious, I know that and I have no problem with that (though I'm glad I don't have to reconcile an internal belief system like religion with an in depth knowledge of cold hard science).
Fact is that the SF audience usually prefers to read stories that make one (or maybe two or so) assumptions about the way the future could develop and that religion is mostly trying to find its roots in the past rather than the present. There is some SF set in the past but not much and it usually stays miles away from any interference with religious characters or times.
(again, there are some exceptions here).
This alone precludes many would be religious people from writing SF because they would not be able or willing to solidly separate belief from assumption. If you can believe in an all powerful deity that creates whole universes in a couple of days and you and all your predecessors as an afterthought you probably don't need much more in the fiction department anyway.
A miracle is a very easy way out of any kind of situation, and the various religions have all kinds of history that testifies to their using just that in order to get themselves out of hairy stuff. (and persecution if that failed).
Re:Where are the religious science fiction writers (Score:2)
See, this is your problem...you see science as cold and hard. Science is, of course, warm and cuddly!
Re:Where are the religious science fiction writers (Score:2)
> Seriously though, there are tons of scientists that are also religious
That goes uncontested, though it would be interesting to know whether there are any productive scientists who are religious fanatics.
> Fact is that the SF audience usually prefers to read stories that make one (or maybe two or so) assumptions about the way the future could develop and that religion is mostly trying to find its roots in the past rather than the present. There is some SF set in the past but not much and it usually stays miles away from any interference with religious characters or times. (again, there are some exceptions here).
Religion appears frequently in Jack Vance's SF. Almost aways as the butt of satire, though.
Re:Where are the religious science fiction writers (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not really sure what your definition of fanatic is, but every few years, a poll is done to measure religious attitudes among scientists. The Washington Post had a story on it quite a while back...here are some highlights that should let you make up your own mind...
These contemporary researchers found that about four in 10 randomly selected scientists two years ago professed belief "in a personal God," almost exactly the same proportion as in 1916, Bishop reported.
One key result from the current study to a question that wasn't asked in 1916: More than half - 55 percent - endorsed the Darwinian view that "humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process."
Bishop notes, however, that "a surprisingly large percentage (40 percent) subscribed to the 'theistic evolutionist' idea that 'humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including humankind's creation.'" Only 5 percent endorsed a creationist view that God created humans "pretty much in their present form at one time within the past 10,000 years."
(Emphasis added by me)
Original Washington Post Article [washingtonpost.com]
And that 5 percent... (Score:2)
"Only 5 percent endorsed a creationist view that God created humans 'pretty much in their present form at one time within the past 10,000 years.'"
Re:And that 5 percent... (Score:2)
Quoth Indiana Jones:
"it is not the search for Truth, it is the search for Fact."
Re:And that 5 percent... (Score:2)
I know the common belief around here is that Christians consist only of fundamentalists who use Scripture as their sole source of knowledge, but really, some of us are quite conversant in scientific fields (not to mention some of us are true geeks who know that real OS's end in *nix
You should read some of Polkinghorne's books. You can find his info here [polkinghorne.org].
Re:Where are the religious science fiction writers (Score:2)
Re:Where are the religious science fiction writers (Score:4, Informative)
Um, what, exactly, does an immortal soul do? Name something that it provides, or function it performs, or some means that it makes its presence felt.
Damage to the brain damages self and consciousness in fundamental ways. People who suffer some kinds of strokes lose half their world, literally. They lose, for example, the concept of 'left'. They only eat half of what's on their plates. Ask them to imagine walking down their street, they only describe the houses on the right. Ask them to mentally "turn around", and they forget the houses they just described and start talking about the ones on the other side of the street.
Look up Broca's and Wernicke's Aphasia [washington.edu]. People with Broca's aphasia can understand language, but can't speak. Damage another part of the brain, and you get Wernicke's aphasia, where they can speak, but can't understand. They speak in "word salad". They don't even realize they aren't making sense. Put two of them together and they'll have a whole conversation of nonsense.
The more you read up on neurological problems, the weirder it gets. (Almost any book by Oliver Sacks is good for this.) I don't know of an intellectual faculty that can't be damaged, if not eliminated, by damage to the brain.
If there is a soul, what can it do? Moreover, how can whatever's left after my brain is gone be called "me" in any real sense? Why should I care what happens to the soul when I die? All my memories, emotions, and consciousness seem tied up in my brain.
"To believe that consciousness can survive the wreck of the brain is like believing that 70 mph can survive the wreck of the car." - Frank Zindler
(This leads to a whole different problem with 'transmigrating' to a machine - that might be a perfect copy of me, but I would still be dead. But that's separate from any 'immortal soul' speculation.)
(Sorry, misspelled link) (Score:2)
Re:Where are the religious science fiction writers (Score:1)
People very often confuse the King James Bible term "soul" for the concept of "spirit". Spirit is really the part that people mean when they talk about a non-quantifiable part of a human being. The part that they believe is associated with a person but not accounted for in the brain. I, for one, believe it exists, but that is a matter of faith not science.
Re:Where are the religious science fiction writers (Score:2)
"What is Jazz? Man, if you have to ask you'll never understand."
- Louis Armstrong
Re:Where are the religious science fiction writers (Score:2)
Well, since I don't think the immortal soul exists, that's just fine by me. Of course, I bet you'd be one of the people who'd be all about turning uploaded people off and wiping their programs because they're not really people since they don't have an immortal soul. They be the newest group of people to suffer horribly under the gentle ministrations of those who don't consider them 'human'.
Sounds like the basis of a good SF story about religious nuts who get their jollies torturing virtual people. Would stand up to be the first in line to stand up to push the buttons to cause these people 'virtual' pain so you could watch them scream? After all, they have no souls, and can't really be in pain. It's just entertainment.
Re:Where are the religious science fiction writers (Score:2)
An AI shouldn't "suffer" at all when it's shut down or deleted. It might not be moral or humane to do so, but the AI doesn't suffer, it simply stops existing.
Sounds like the basis of a good SF story about religious nuts who get their jollies torturing virtual people. Would stand up to be the first in line to stand up to push the buttons to cause these people 'virtual' pain so you could watch them scream? After all, they have no souls, and can't really be in pain. It's just entertainment.
You're talking about sadists, not religious people.
Religous folks only enjoy pain when it's a sign of someone growing. A sinner showing pain at their sins is an improvement upon the sinner who does not, as they're one step closer on the road to not-sinning.
The folk who actually enjoy torture, in my experience, have been very, very non-religious. After all, if it's not a sin and they can't be harmed for it, why not?
The late, venerable Dr. A (Score:2)
Of course now Dr. A put his religion to the Ultimate Test some years ago.
Much of Frank Herbert Sr's work was religiously steeped, as was Phillip Jose Farmer's. I've never actually read any of it, but I get the impression that in contrast, L. Ron Hubbard's science fiction is strictly secular. (Let's not go further on this one, please.)
Re:The late, venerable Dr. A (Score:1)
Re:The late, venerable Dr. A (Score:1)
-Erwos
Re:The late, venerable Dr. A (Score:1)
The worst thing that I can say about him is that he died way too young. True, he was pretty old when he died, but we need more people like him.
religious nut (Score:1)
a) The catholic church may change its rites
b) Future generations may have a different concept of the soul - preferably xml compatible.
Science Fiction isn't about maintainig orthodoxy. Get on with it.
Re:Where are the religious science fiction writers (Score:2)
> The other story "Carthaginian Rose" completely ignores the existence of an immortal soul. You can't transfer a soul into a machine (Tracy Kidder's tome notwithstanding). Sorry, patently absurd.
I don't see much evidence that you can put a soul into a body, either. Did you have some evidence that one is possible and the other isn't?
Re:Where are the religious science fiction writers (Score:2)
Hmmm... not, however, quite so absurd as the idea of an intangible, immortal soul.
Re:Where are the religious science fiction writers (Score:1)
This book is pretty much pure sci-fi. A good jumpstart into the series, but has little to no religious content. It's also about to be a movie! [corona.bc.ca]
With the collaboration with Gentry Lee, this book introduces many religious themes. But not much.
Last of the collaborated works.
Rumour has it that A.C.C doesn't feel comfortable with the religious angles that Gentry Lee wanted to take, so make this the last of the collaborative books. And hands over the Rama reigns for Gentry Lee to continue in his own style.
Gentry Lee is now free to express his version of Sci-Fi meets Religion in the Rama universe.
This is the last book in the Rama series and also one of the more controversal ones as far as comments go on Amazon.
Rama the novel Rama the movie Rama the Tolietpaper (Score:1)
Sorry could find a direct link in a store.
Theology of Transubstantiation (Score:2, Interesting)
Just as priests can officiate private masses (as monastic priests will often do), there is nothing really preventing "tele-sacraments". Many masses are already broadcast to different buildings or rooms when the physical facilities are not enough to accomodate everyone of the Church community in the same physical presence. People have received the eucharist in their homes for more than a millenium when they were too ill or infirm to make it to the public Mass.
As a Catholic theologian, I can easily see Catholic practice shaping itself to fit in a world as described in "Twenty Two Buttons." I certainly wouldn't invite such a world, or such changes to the practice of sacraments in the Church, but it is not laughable.
As for the issue of transferring an immortal soul to a machine, I'm not clear on what theological grounds you are making such an assertion.
The body is the vessel of the sacred soul, and both body and soul are resurrected in the rapture. I won't question that human bodies are sacred.
Nonetheless, there are theological accomodations already for people who have incomplete bodies -- either from birth or from accident. A person with an artificial heart or without legs won't be left behind during the resurrection simple because their physical body is incomplete. In the resurrection we will all have bodies in the image and likeness of God, as Adam and Eve were in Eden. Who is to say that there can't be a transfer of one's consciousness and soul to a machine in a medical emergency? How is this different from someone who has had a heart transplant, or who gets artificial limbs?
Impossible?
The Catholic Church is all about the celebration of the impossible.
God became a regular man. Ridiculous.
God died. Absurd.
The dead God came back from the dead. Impossible.
This incarnation, death, and resurrection is played out again in a substantial way every day through the sacraments. Laughable.
These are the tenets of Catholicism.
Re:Where are the religious science fiction writers (Score:1)
Re:Where are the religious science fiction writers (Score:2)
That "secret Catholic password" might be the tip over into the "false catholic" catagory--or he might just be referring to a part of the ceremony that's not on the handouts.
Re:Where are the religious science fiction writers (Score:1)
Maybe the church was Reformatted Geek Orthodox?Times change. (Perhaps a consecrated cookie?)
Re:Where are the religious science fiction writers (Score:2)
Masamune Shirow manages to combine hardboiled SWAT action with solid discussions of human spirituality, in a tale of postapocalyptic utopia that is anything but typical of the genre. Pick up Appleseed wherever fine comics are sold!
If you can see the religion in Card's works, you should have no problem finding it in the Culture novels of Iain M. Banks. Fair warning, though: Banks comes at it from the opposite direction.HTH. HAND!
Re:Where are the religious science fiction writers (Score:2)
In any case, look for "Least of my Brethren" by Michael Stackpole, it's Catholic Science Fiction.
Not that I'm Catholic or Christian or even religious at all, I just remember that you made this post and it was an interesting story after all.
Interesting stories, and a magazine comment (Score:4, Insightful)
As for the prime magazine comment, I think it's hard to break into the field because there is such a flood of junk that the editors do tend to give preference to those authors they have some reason to think can write a decent story.
I ran a semi-professional magazine (Radius) for a while, and while the funding was difficult, what really drove me out of the business was having to read through the slush pile. I'd get about 200 stories a month, and often would find only one or two that I could get all the way through. I can only imagine the headaches that the editors of "Asimov's" or "Analog" must get.
FWIW...
"Pedigree"? Excuse me? (Score:3, Insightful)
So getting some movie and TV people involved in a SF anthology qualifies as a "pedigree"? Can somebody explain the logic there? Why not get a horse trainer involved, or a skilled carpenter? They're equally relevant.
At least Card's for real. He hasn't written a line worth reading in years, but that doesn't mean his critical faculties have necessarily withered.
But listen here, listen: When people on Slashdot mistake TV drivel for SF, people who can read and write roll their eyes just like everybody else on Slashdot does when some jackass on CNN refers to a virus as a "computer bug".
Besides, even if Star Trek/Star Wars people were somehow names worth giving a damn about, so what? Their presence tells us nothing about the text. When you hire somebody to do cover art, you write a conctact and you send him a check when you see the deliverables. These guys do art for a living. If your money's green, they'll work for anybody.
The only people relevant to the quality of the thing are the people who wrote the stories and the editor who chose them. The rest is just marketing bullshit. Which Slashdot prides takes pride in ignoring. Ha ha ha.
Re:"Pedigree"? Excuse me? (Score:1)
Re:Then don't worry about it. (Score:1)
Are you saying, in your delightfully obscene post, that the writing of Orson Scott Card, a popular and respected author (first to win both Hugo and Nebula awards two years in a row, IIRC), is "pigshit", and his admirers fools?
And in conclusion, I might point out that your argument that "The fact that you think you're right doesn't prove that you are right" applies to my post as well as to yours.
What high standards! (Score:2)
My! You certainly have raised the bar for fiction! Good as the best 5% of science fiction magazine stories, you say!
Geez, that's just embarrassing.
Card's agenda (Score:2, Interesting)
He is an amazing storyteller but:
I don't like it when SF is used as a platform for pro-life/creationist crap.
By choosing SF as a 'genre' I assume that I can stay clear from writers with agendas like that, and I think that this can be qualified as 'false flag' deployment.
Of course writers are free to do so but then I'd rather send my cash somewhere else to support writers that have their feet a little more on the ground.
Next thing we know there will be SF without evolution and SF with 7 day creation bits in it.
Re:Card's agenda (Score:4, Insightful)
Fair enough. I, in turn, don't like it when it's used as a platform for atheist or pantheist crap, which tends to occur far more often.
Re:Card's agenda (Score:1, Insightful)
There is a reason the genre is name *Science* Fiction. SciFi authors tend to use current technological - the science part - barriers or trends and think them along a few hundred or thousand of years, to generate a semi-believable scenario, hence the greater ratio of atheist "crap" as you put it.
That's no to say that SciFi authors don't, can't or shouldn't take moral/ethic stances, but these certainly do not need to spring from creationism. There is no scientific basis for creationism, so don't expect most SciFi books to promote this view.
Mkay?
Re:Card's agenda (Score:4, Funny)
You're exactly right. The atheist crap has got to go. The rest of the atheist stuff should stay, however.
-B
Re:Card's agenda (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyone else getting sick of O.S.C. milking the Enders series?
Re:Card's agenda (Score:1)
> Anyone else getting sick of O.S.C. milking the Enders series?
FWIW, I got sick of the histrionics and melodrama. I haven't even been bothering to see what new titles he comes out with since reading some of the Ender and Maker stuff.
The Ender short story was interesting, but beyond that I've never understood why he has such an avid fan base.
Re:Card's agenda (Score:1)
Re:Card's agenda (Score:4, Interesting)
You contradict yourself. You say that writers are free to add it in there right after you say that doing so feels like them being dishonest.
I am torn between creationism and natural selection (took a great class in Evolution at Cornell University), and I am a fan of OSC. In a lot of his books he does hint at a sense of ethics, but I have yet to see him pull strongly for a creationist's standpoint in any of his books.
In addition, by picking up a book I feel that I am opening myself up to the ethics of the author. I recently read "Just for Fun" (Linus's autobiography). Do you think that he would leave out his ethics surrounding the open-source movement?
I gladly welcome any author adding his or her ethics and beliefs into a story. It is fiction. Just because I am reading it does not mean that I have to believe it. And almost any good fiction book, SciFi or not, is going to have ethical questions and decisions. They book would not be any good without them.
"Cryptnomicon" - is it alright to take money from drug lords and other criminals to start a business that will provide something that will benifit the common man once it gets up and going?
Fiction works on a "suspension of beliefs" idea. If you are unable to suspend your belief in natural selection for one book, I feel sorry for you.
Re:Card's agenda (Score:2)
That's what I meant with false flag.
It would be like me writing a book that is extremely supportive of say evolution and then to market it as a religious commentary.
As some other poster already noted I do appreciate Card being up front about it, that at least makes it easier to see things for what they really are. Some other writers (notably Gentry Lee) have a way of slipping in their agenda that is a little less obvious (but even more irritating because of that).
In science-fiction I expect science as it is generally accepted today as a basis, otherwise
we might as well call it just fiction... you
*are* allowed to extrapolate into the future but you are not allowed to try to rewrite history to fit your personal beliefs.
I think those are fairly well established ground rules for the genre, and have been so since the 60's or so when SF really started to pick up steam, and Card stomps all over that and I think that's why he should not be labelling his stuff as SF.
For those that comment on me not liking books you are welcome to come and inspect my bookcases
Re:Card's agenda (Score:1)
2) Your category of "Religious Books" would be huge in any bookstore (unless you broke the store in half and had "Religious SciFi" and "Religious Cookbooks" on one side and "SciFi" and "Cookbooks" on the other).
3) I really do not want to get into a creationist vs. natural selection debate, but your very use of the word "evolution" leads me to believe you do not know too much about the debate in question and, therefore, all of the controvery surrounding it. The comment about an author's ability to "rewrite history to fit your personal beliefs" is even more telling. Creationist vs. natural selection (which are the two sides of the debate, much more than creationist vs. evolution) is debating different ways of looking *at the exact same historic evidence.* They are different interpretations of the same scientific evidence. Saying one is more correct than the other, or saying that it has more foundation in scientific evidence is simply incorrect - saying evolution through natural selection occurs is a belief just as much as creationist is. There is evidence in both sides (neither has enough to prove itself without doubt), and neither side has enough evidence to disprove the other side.
You speak of your large library. I would recommend adding a few others that try to give both sides of the evolution debate (or at least read a couple of more science-based creationist books, since you have probably have a good idea of the natural selection side of things). Try to be objective about the evidence and the theories.
If you are truly objective, I think you will end up like myself - unwilling to make a call based soley on the scientific evidence.
So what does that mean for our SciFi writers? They can use either theory easily, since whichever they go with is unproven and, more importantly, impossible to disprove currently.
Re:Card's agenda (Score:1)
Re:Card's agenda (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Card's agenda (Score:1)
Simply because the views do not correspond with your view on life, does not necessarily mean that the writing, or story is somehow less worthy to be read.
Not reading a book because you have religious objections to it (and dont say that because your an athiest you cant have religious objections, everyone beleives in some reason for living) doesnt make the book any less worthwhile to read.
An author that writes a good character is a GOOD author, if you read Pastwatch: A Redemption of Christopher Columbus, you will find a book where none of the ideas of creationism are supported, but ideals of humanity, and the good of humanity are, you get to know EVERY character like you could walk up and talk to them, and know what they were thinking, and its all mixed in with some very sci-fi ideas, but never truly science fiction in the way that there are big battling robots in the sky (though i do like those too).
Card writes from the peoples perspective, and that is who you get to know in his books. He has a range of characters, and not all of them may share a common religious beleif, yes mostly people that hold the basic christian ethic triumph, but they do in a great many books anyway, if it depreciates the book then thats from a personal readers perspective. All the books I read from card center less around the sci fi, but more around the interactions with the world in which the characters live in, a world that may or may not have huge sci-fi aspects.
Think about the worthing saga for example, card went into a world where people could psuedo live forever, must have had huge spaceships with unimaginable technology, and people with psychic powers.
Yet did he go the general sci fi route, and show how cool the ships were, describe the 100 gun super buzz cool leet destroyer of doom? No he went in about the interactions of people, and reactions of people of a planet that had none of the cool, l33t technology of sci fi.
If that isnt your cup of tea... then it isnt, but it is no reason to bash the author for how he writes his stories.
I dont bash Willy Dietz because he focuses on the other end of the objective, i read it because its good military sci fi, I do not critisize the book because it seems to make religion pointless, or guarentees an almost mortality while ignoring the ethical problems of the actions taken. I still enjoy the book, because IN CONTEXT it is good
Buzz OUT
Re:Card's agenda (Score:2)
1) You don't appreciate books. I wonder if there's anything on your bookshelf other than "Das Kapital" and "Little Red Book" - after all, what is the point of the book unless it pushes YOUR ideology?
Most of us like Sci-Fi (or any other creative work) for its worth, not for the ideology.
I equally well enjoy Eric Flint (despite being nearly 180% opposite him in political views - which are VERY srongly present in his books, especially "1632"), "Harry Potter" with its... err... "paganist witchcraft", and RAH's "Stranger in a strange land".
None of these makes me worse as far as it concerns my being politically conservative, or Jewish (both RAH and Potter are equally bad ideologically, from "proper" religious POV for me).
2) You are immature. the "pro-killing" (what, don't like to be labeled derisively?) camp does not benefit from proponents who call their opposition's ideas "crap".
Also, i'd love to hear an explanation of "obvious creationist agenda" in OSC... i'm on Book 4 of Ender's series, and aside from immortal soul, can't find any religious agenda in any of the books.
As for SF with 7 day creation in it, i believe the original one was called "Torah". It was pretty scientific for its day, and according to your views definintely "fiction". A very old book. Quite popular too, i've been told
-DVK
Re:Card's agenda (Score:2)
I'm probably going to be the last guy to read Harry Potter so I'll just pass on that, stranger in a strange land was very powerful stuff.
regarding pro life/pro killing:
I don't mind being labelled derisively, you just act as comes naturally I guess. I do have an opinion, but being of the wrong gender I recognise that it is not going to be an informed one.
I can however see good points in the arguments of lots of 'pro killing' people that do have an informed opinion (as in being female), and also some good points in those 'pro life' (females as well). For now my own personal view is that only those that are actively confronted with the situation have enough information to make the call and the rest should be as supportive of them as is possible WHATEVER THEY CHOOSE.
The people with the loudest voices in this debate are usually the ones that do NOT happen to be involved with the real issues.
Oh, and the torah isn't SF either, it is fiction pure and simple
As for Heinlein I think the man was way ahead of his time in many ways, and it will be years into the future that we will finally be able to appreciate just how far that was.
Re:Card's agenda (Score:2)
I don't like it when SF is used as a platform for pro-life/creationist crap.
It's his viewpoint. He can't write from anyone else's. You can't expect an intensely religious guy to just switch that part of himself off when he sits down to write. A lot of his stuff is still quite good. In spite of? Because of? Your call.
You've got to hand it to Card in one way at least. He's not subtle about it. He's not trying to sneak it in the back door. If it's there, it's right there out in the open.
Re:Card's agenda (Score:2)
I stopped reading stuff associated with OSC because of his obvious creationist agenda, and his less than subtle hints about what is right and what is wrong in his view of things.
I stopped reading him because stopped having anything interesting to say (I think Ender's Game is overrated).
I don't remember reading anything overtly creationist in his writings, though I do remember some LDS overtones. Come to think of it, doesn't the Book of Mormon come off as a really bad fantasy epic? (oh great, now the Mormons are going to hate me...)
Re:Card's agenda (Score:2)
So what? Get over it. (Score:1)
Next thing we know there will be SF without evolution and SF with 7 day creation bits in it.
You should read Inferno by Niven and Pournelle. The premise (hard SF generally starts with an assumption about how the physical world works, and then proceeds to explore its implications) is that God is quite real, and Hell, as described by Dante, is quite real as well. The novel proceeds to explore the implications thereof. This is called "hard science fiction".
I have no doubt that there is good hard SF out there starting with just the assumptions you mention, and doing something genuinely interesting and worthwhile with them. Hey, what about Heinlein's Job? If I recall correctly, it makes just those very assumptions (among others), and it's not a bad book at all. Of course, Heinlein didn't believe a word of that stuff: He just chose it as an arbitrary assumption about reality which looked like he could wring a good story out of it.
As an atheist of long standing and firm conviction, I'd love to see a good writer do some serious hard SF starting with the assumption that Genesis is a dead-accurate historical document. It's an interesting assumption. It's a fun idea. Somebody with some verve and imagination could do a lot with it. Of course, as is always the case with SF, the reader is required to have some imagination of his own. Sorry about that. Have you tried romance novels?
You've probably watched a lot of Star Trek and gotten the idea that SF is horse-opera with lasers, a time-killer for idiots. Well, that's not true of any SF worth reading. Star Trek is crap; it's the Donnie and Marie show with rubber masks. The good stuff is about ideas as well as about character, neither of which have ever gotten in the door over at Star Trek Franchise HQ. Their business is to sell soap and Pepsi. You're demanding an unchallenging regurgitation of things you're already familiar with and comfortable with. You want the same old answers on a tape loop, not a box of new questions. Well, that's boring. Deadly, deadly boring.
If you drop the paranoia and accept the fact that there's much entertainment in any good mind playing interesting and unexpected games with any reasonably self-consistent idea, you may someday start to develop an understanding of what SF is about.
But I hope you'll forgive me if I don't hold my breath.
Card can't be that fanatical a creationist... (Score:1)
Krauss is one of the few good scientists willing to take the time to go around speaking against creationism and "Intelligent Design." He's debated, written op-eds for the NYT on the subject, and more. There are quite a few links to editorials he's written on the subject over at his website.
Krauss is darn funny about it too.
100 Science Fiction Books (Score:5, Informative)
Re:100 Science Fiction Books (Score:2)
My next seriously planned reading might be "Finnegan's Wake". I tried to check it out of the library, but they don't have it. They do however have "Ulysses", so whether I try that is a matter of timing. Prior to that I think I'm going to reread "Dragonflight", only this time with my daughter.
One of my biggest, "Pleeze make a movie of this!" wishes is "Way Station". IMHO it resonates with our times, and would be reasonable to produce.
A while back I went on a bit of an AE van Vogh collecting spree, so I have "Space Beagle" and started it, but haven't gone further because it looked too formulaic.
I've read Nova, by Delany, and started on Triton, but it reminded me of Nova, and I wasn't that fond of the style, at least at the time. In that vein I passed on Dhalgren.
I read a different series by Moorcock, and his rampant espousal of socialism and condemnation of capitalism turned me off to his works. HG Wells was much more subtle about it, and therefore tolerable.
Re:100 Science Fiction Books (Score:1)
Re:100 Science Fiction Books (Score:2)
delanyum (Score:2)
Re: 100 Science Fiction Books (Score:2)
<Votes to have all those awful Jules Verne books nuked in favour of The Reality Dysfunction [amazon.co.uk] and Greg Bear's Queen of Angels [amazon.co.uk]>
Re: 100 Science Fiction Books (Score:1)
Goes to show that the quality of a book can be determined by the importance of bological functions you are willing to postpone...
sci-fi anthology section...? (Score:2)
yeah... right next to the "toys are possessed by magic and go on a rampage in Los Angeles" section...
This is Jim Shooter's new venture (Score:4, Interesting)
Shooter is a very skilled editor, and a very good writer in his own right, altough his authoritary style made a lot of enemies at the time.
One can find more info and a biography here. [phobosweb.com]
Alvin Maker (Score:1)
Re:Alvin Maker (Score:2)
Re:Alvin Maker (Score:1)
I've read it (Score:2, Informative)
I'm more interested to see if Shadow Puppets is going to be any better than the last junk he's pushed out based on Ender's Game universe.
Cheaper at Amazon: $10.47 [amazon.com] [associate]
Re:I've read it (Score:1)
Empire of Dreams (Score:1)
Here are some other books by Orson Scott Card:
[amazon.com]
Shadow Puppets
[amazon.com]
Ender's Game
[amazon.com]
Sarah
Note: Affiliate links
Re:Empire of Dreams (Score:1)
Re:Empire of Dreams (Score:1)
Table of contents (Score:1)
(I've been reading Slashdot too long. When I saw the title "Eula Makes Up Her Mind" my first thought was that the story was about a Microsoft click-through license that had somehow attained sentience. shiver.)
Table of contents:
Foreword: The Unknown Possibilities of Existence By Lawrence M. Krauss
Introduction By Orson Scott Card
"They Go Bump" - David Barr Kirtley
"Twenty-Two Buttons" - Rebecca Carmi
"The Hanged Man, the Lovers and the Fool" - Justin Stanchfield
"Empire of Dreams and Miracles" - James Maxey
"The Messiah" - Carl Frederick
"Eula Makes Up Her Mind" - Daniel Conover
"Carthaginian Rose" - Ken Liu
"Rippers" - Chris Leonard
"The Compromise" - Rick Sabian
"Who Lived in a Shoe" - Andrew Rey
"The Prize" - David Barr Kirtley
"Great Theme Prisons of the World" - Carl Frederick
The Phobos Fiction Contest
About the Authors
About the Judges
Re: Where are the religious science fiction write (Score:2)
If I had mod points today, I would have marked the post troll. To me the above is akin to saying "flying pigs can't possibly break the sound barrier. That's absurd."
More Doug Chiang (Score:2)
Sounds very similar to a Golden Age short story (Score:2)
Does anyone remember this story? Anyone know what it was called, or who wrote it?
-Graham
Re:Sounds very similar to a Golden Age short story (Score:1, Informative)
ORA:CLE (Score:2)
The main role is an expert in Chinese history who earns a living doing teleconsulting. There is a worldwide net with micropayments. There are very often tele-elections and referendums on lots of issues.
See _Bowling for Columbine_ re: crime FUD (Score:1)
He also interviews some Canadians. See, Canada has lots of guns, easily available, and very little gun violence. And people don't lock their doors in Canada. A typical interview with a typical Canadian woman (from memory):
"Do you lock your doors at night?"
"No."
"Has anything bad happened?"
"Not really. People have come into my house and vandalized it while I was asleep."
"And you still don't lock your doors?"
"No."
"Is there anything you're afraid of?"
[laughs] "Not really, no."
Quite a contrast from American mindset! Yes, America may be heading for the world of 22 Buttons, but it's quite unnecessary. We let our media scare us. He quoted a very interesting statistic. In some recent time period, gun murders were down 30%, reporting up 600%--or something like that; I clearly remember the 600.
Chris
Doth protest too much? (Score:1)
I don't because those ads help support Slashdot. (I do kill DoubleClick ads, but that's over privacy issues.)
YOU FAIL IT! (Score:1)