Linkblogging For 16/03/10
Firstly, an update on Print PEP! for those who are wondering why it’s taken so long:
Simply, my Scribus problems escalated – at some point a system update replaced a load of my fonts with similarly-named ones, and confused it enough that I didn’t just have to redo the last 15 pages and add in a missed line from Plok’s article, but had to redo the lot – and not only redo it, but try to redo it so it still looked more-or-less like what I’d done the first time. I should be getting – soonish – the proof copy though. This *WON’T* happen with PEP! 2, so expect the print copy of that not long after the print copy of PEP! 1…
Anyway, links…
Millennium gives a very thorough look at the Lib Dem Conference, while Jennie, who isn’t named Sue no matter what her latest subtitle thinks, has the first in a series of posts on why you should vote Lib Dem.
(I’ve actually taken two weeks off in April/May – a week for sleep and reading, to try to overcome my current exhaustion, and a week for non-stop pre-election campaigning for any cause I can find – Lib Dem, No2ID, Hope Not Hate, whatever…)
Double Articulation is back, and Jim has reposted this, on Steve Gerber’s Thing…
George Monbiot thinks if we name more plants and animals, we might think twice about making them go extinct.
James Graham absolutely eviscerates a recent Fabian leaflet over on the Social Liberal Forum.
LessWrong have a very good piece on ‘undiscriminating skepticism‘ – which sums up a lot of my problems with a lot of the darlings of the ‘new atheism’ very well.
And some of Ronald Searle’s drawings as a court artist in the trials of John Bodkin Adams and Adolf Eichmann.
A Terrible Idea I Need Talking Out Of
It’s Zom’s fault.
In the comments to my Doctor Who Pop-Drama post he wrote:
Andrew, I’ve been thinking about heroic hyping the X-Men pretty much all year, but have been put off by the horrible facts of Morrison’s experience on the book. In conversation with Amy yesterday it occurred to me that, fuck it, we should go further and write something that fits our vision for the title. Mine our thinking to its core so that whatever we find doesn’t look sue-able and get that bad boy out there into the world – I can guarantee it won’t smell like any other superhero comic (as long as we can get the right artist!). I think you should do the same with this. You have the passion, the skill and the vision. Write a better Dr Who, call it something else, and sell it.
Should we form a pact?
And I have been unable to think of anything else since. In particular, I’ve recently realised that I have a setting in my head. Unfortunately, the setting is derivative.
Put bluntly, since I read Richard’s article in PEP! – and more recently the Faction Paradox books – I’ve realised that I’ve got my own ‘monomyth’ in my head, a combination of Jack Kirby, Grant Morrison and Doctor Who. An entire fictional universe, with a war between Gods that has disrupted time and causality, of which Final Crisis and the Time War are both echoes…
I have some *GREAT* ideas, but using that as a backdrop would be steering close to the boundaries of fanfic. Frankly, if I write this thing (which isn’t – quite – the Doctor Who revamp I wrote about, but is a different thing sort-of connected to it), in my head it will be happening in the same fictional universe as Seven Soldiers and Genesis Of The Daleks and …Of The City Of The Saved and a lot of other mutually-incompatible stories I love. It will never *mention* any connection with them, but I’ll know it’s there.
So, should I do it? Should I write this novel? Please say no…
Andrew’s Book Club 4: Dead Romance by Lawrence Miles
The more I read of Miles the more convinced I become that he is to science fiction novels what Grant Morrison is to comics.
Miles is clearly influenced by Morrison, in much the same way the Morrison himself is influenced by Alan Moore – I recently read a message board thread in which a fan had written to Miles asking if he’d ever read Doom Patrol, to which the reply was just ‘how do you think I learned to write like that?’ – but he has his own style, one far more suited to novels. (Miles is also as abrasive and – quite often – irritating in his public persona as Morrison was twenty years ago, when for a long time I wouldn’t read his comics because his interviews put me off. I was eleven at the time, so can probably be forgiven)
The problem is, much as Morrison does most of his work using the mythology he grew up with – superheroes – as the basis for his stories, Miles uses Doctor Who, which limits his readership enormously.
The TV spin-off novel is not somewhere where one naturally looks for literary merit, and if TV spin-off novels are often poor, then spin-offs of those spin-offs could be expected to be truly horrible, full of terrible writing and fannish in-jokes, aimed at only the most insanely obsessive completist.
So when people hear that Dead Romance is a book originally written for the New Adventures, a series that started off as Doctor Who spin-off novels before continuing on based on a supporting character when they lost the Doctor Who license; that it doesn’t even feature that supporting character but a new character who is possibly connected to her in an initially-unspecified way; and that this edition of the novel is a reprint as a semi-apocryphal part of the Faction Paradox series, a series of novels that span off from *another*, unconnected, line of Doctor Who books, one might forgive them for assuming it was illiterate dribble fit only for consumption by Ian Levine.
In fact this is one of the most interesting and intelligent SF novels I’ve read in a long time. If, as Millennium’s Daddy Richard once said to me, The Book Of The War is the BBC/Doctor Who version of The Invisibles’ ITC serials, Dead Romance is volume 4 of Zenith, seen through a filter of Doctor Who rather than old British adventure comics, and written by Kurt Vonnegut.
In fact, the Vonnegut comparison is very valid. There’s a similar fascination here with the actual physical page, the actual text itself, the same slightly distanced tone, the same ‘big picture’ view of human beings as being only (or possibly less than) their component parts, the same slightly non-linear, rambling structure. It came as no surprise to me to find an interview with Miles (and quite a fascinating one) speaking of Vonnegut as one of the few writers he admired – one of the few who was trying to actually *write*, rather than put films onto the page.
And you could read this without having ever heard of Doctor Who and come away without ever knowing it was connected to something else. It’s just a science fiction (or really science fantasy) novel. The few elements from the Who ‘mythos’ included are so radically reworked that someone who didn’t know where they came from would think the influence was Lovecraft or Philip K. Dick rather than Doctor Who.
Apparently Dead Romance is regarded as in some way an ‘experimental’ novel by fans of the Doctor Who novels. This says *far* more about the Doctor Who novels (which can roughly be split into four groups – those by hacks who’d worked on the TV show and needed a quick pay cheque, those by fans who wanted to answer all the continuity questions they’d been bothered by, those by fans who wanted to show that Doctor Who was really grown up adult entertainment by mentioning bare ladies and the spliffs and the young persons’ rock and roll music, and those by people who could actually write and wanted to do something interesting. Sometimes these categories overlapped.)
The ‘experimental’ nature of Dead Romance only extends as far as Miles doing things like having a slightly unreliable narrator, having the story be told in a discursive manner rather than a strictly linear one – in short, the things I would think of as being basic for anyone who wants to do actual *good writing* rather than just being interested in the plot and ideas. Certainly, the writing is no more ‘experimental’ than, say, anything in PEP!, and a lot less ‘experimental’ than Sean’s piece… it’s on the level of a rock band who know how to play a diminished seventh or minor sixth chord, rather than being Stockhausen. It’s sad that fans of Doctor Who – a programme that at its best was all about pushing boundaries and experimenting – could be so illiterate (there’s really no other word for it) that they’d see this as experimental (which is not to say that all, or even most, Doctor Who fans are that illiterate – this often topped polls of the best books in the New Adventures series – but enough are that it’s saddening).
And while this book is full of SF Big Ideas, it’s not really *about* them. Rather, it’s about the changing of the sixties to the seventies, the death of the spirit of optimism in popular culture, the Manson murders, growing older, the way Britain fictionalises and romanticises its past, both the Victorian and Swinging London eras. It’s about serial killers, and fantasy lives, and about the aching sense some of us have that the world we’re living in simply isn’t as interesting as the one we were promised. It’s about how fundamentally shallow much of the Sixties’ counterculture was. It’s about Bobby Fuller and Jack The Ripper and people who create their own pick-n-mix spirituality. It’s about identity.
In his introduction, Miles refers to this book as The Spy Who Loved Me of the New Adventures line (the book, not the film), and this is a very apt comparison. It’s an intriguing example of how you can turn pop-culture mythology into genuine art. It’s not the greatest novel of all time or anything, but it’s a *very good* novel, and that’s *FAR* more than anyone would have the right to expect of it, and it’s very sad that its existence is only known to a subgroup within a subgroup within Doctor Who fandom, rather than Miles’ work being as mainstream as, say, Iain Banks (with whose work this shares a number of characteristics. Miles is better).
As the original novel was rather short, the reprint is rounded out with a few other pieces. There’s Miles’ introduction (“The original Dead Romance had commas in places where commas should never be, and anyone who knows me will know that I’d rather have an editor give a story a happy ending than let him fiddle with the punctuation.”), a rather lovely short story called “Toy Story” which *is* set firmly enough in Doctor Who continuity that it won’t make much sense to non-fans, an essay on the way the universe of the Faction Paradox works (containing a number of ridiculously good ideas) and a beautiful short story called Grass, unconnected in any obvious way to any of the other material, but *well* worth reading.
At this point, having read three books in the range, I am now convinced that the Faction Paradox range of books is the best multi-author fictional universe I’ve ever read. I would suggest that anyone who enjoys my blog – or who enjoyed PEP! 1 – would almost certainly enjoy these books, and I plan to purchase the rest – and the audios – as fast as my credit card will allow. You don’t need to be a Doctor Who fan to enjoy them, any more than you need to have been a Charlton comics fan to enjoy Watchmen, and I think it’s a real shame that, partly because of their origin and partly because of the abrasive persona of the main writer, they’re not reaching a mass audience.
The Faction Paradox books can all be purchased from Mad Norwegian (who publish all but one of them). I recommend just buying the lot…
ABC (Andrew’s Book Club) 3 – 13 Things That Don’t Make Sense by Michael Brooks
Don’t worry, this isn’t only the third new-to-me book I read this year – between the last of these posts and this one I also read five other books I’d not read before (as well as usual rereads, comics etc) but I’m planning on submitting some writing to the series that they are connected to (part of the reason for reading them) so don’t want to review them here. I’ve also just picked up a few more books (it’s payday) so over the next couple of days expect posts on Dead Romance by Lawrence Miles and The People’s Manifesto by Mark Thomas.
13 Things That Don’t Make Sense by Michael Brook is one of the most interesting – and recommendable – pop-science books I’ve read in a long time (and I read a lot of pop-science books).
One of the things that worries me about the New Atheism and the Rationalist movement is its attitude to what Charles Fort referred to as Damned Data. A lot (by no means all) of the media representatives of this movement seem to regard disagreement with the current scientific consensus as being heresy – which seems to me to be a fundamentally unscientific attitude. (Richard Dawkins, for example, has condemned a creationist documentary that interviewed him under false pretences and re-edited the footage in ways he disagreed with, but he did exactly the same to Rupert Sheldrake. I happen to think that Sheldrake is wrong, but one should still use intellectually honest arguments, even against those who *are* wrong…)
(Which is not to say the majority of such disagreements aren’t cranks and quackery – they are. But some are very far from that. I *MUST* at some point get round to blogging about orthomolecular medicine, for example…)
Brooks, a consultant to New Scientist, takes the opposite – and to me, more scientific – approach here, by looking at anomalous results – the places where our theories and the data don’t quite match up.
Opening with a quote from Isaac Asimov – “The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds most discoveries, is not ‘Eureka!’ but ‘that’s funny…’” – Brooks takes us on a tour through most of the major scientific disciplines and looks at what we *don’t* know. He divides this into thirteen ‘things that don’t make sense’ as follows:
The Missing Universe – he looks at ‘dark matter’, ‘dark energy’, and various not-yet-accepted physical theories that do away with these concepts.
The Pioneer Anomaly – the Pioneer probes, sent out in the 1970s, are now thousands of miles away from where the theory of Relativity says they should be.
Varying Constants – the growing evidence that the ‘universal constants’ used to be different.
Cold Fusion – the growing body of evidence that suggests Pons and Fleischmann found *something* – maybe not cold fusion, but *something* – in their career-ending experiments.
Life – why have we not yet been able to synthesise life from elementary chemicals?
Viking – the Viking probe found evidence of life on Mars – one of the experiments that it ran gave *exactly* the result predicted if there were living organisms in the Martian soil. This has never been followed up on.
The WOW! Signal – a brief (sub-second) signal that looks very much like the work of intelligent life, but has never been repeated.
A Giant Virus – a virus found in Bradford that appears to be an evolutionary ‘missing link’ (sorry for the term) between bacteria and viruses.
Death – why *do* we die? Can it be stopped?
Sex – why all the current evolutionary explanations for sex fall down.
Free Will – scientific evidence that it doesn’t exist, and what this might mean for society.
The Placebo Effect – the evidence that it’s much stronger than thought when it comes to depression and pain, but has *no effect whatsoever* when it comes to physical problems, and what this means for the current medical orthodoxy of double-blind placebo-controlled trials.
And most controversially of all, Homeopathy – he shows that there is a *tiny* bit of evidence that a *small* proportion of homeopathic ‘medicines’ might actually work, and some suggested physical mechanisms for this, even while clearly showing that most of it is the nonsense we all accept it to be.
Looking through this list, some of it is probably explicable by experimental error or outright fraud (my guess is that the evidence for homeopathy falls into that category), but at least some of these things will radically rewrite parts of our understanding of the universe.
But the good thing about this book is that even when he’s talking about these things, Brooks is *NOT* doing it in a new-agey, ‘there are things that science will never understand, wisdom of the ancients’ kind of way. He is motivated by an excitement in discovery, and in the scientific method. For him, the idea that there are things we don’t know, or things we’ve got wrong, is not a threat, and it’s better to waste time on a wild goose chase occasionally in order to find something genuinely revolutionary than to dismiss out-of-hand any anomalous data or wild hypotheses.
My guess is that at least seven or eight of the things talked about in this book will turn out to be wild-goose chases of that nature, but that among the others is an account of someone who in a century will be spoken of in the way we now speak of Einstein, Darwin or Newton (or at least Crick or Watson or Curie or Pauling).
This has fired up my imagination far more than most books of its ilk, and as long as you accept (as Brooks clearly states) that the stuff talked about in it is the very opposite of ‘established fact’, I can guarantee it will be a fascinating read for anyone interested in science.
PEPlans!
I know the paper copy of PEP! 1 has not yet come out (due to EBKAC problems at my end – it will be out within a couple of weeks), but plans are well underway for PEP! issue two.
A short list of what’s been proposed for the issue – bear in mind that *NONE* of this is confirmed yet, life gets in the way, people’s plans change etc…
Alix Mortimer on ‘the neutering of political personalities’
David ‘Vibrational Match’ Allison, with what promises to be another standout piece, on “80s Transformers comics, Morrison’s Zoids, various Transformers and Pixar movies, All Star Superman, Joe the Barbarian, maybe Oh Fuck I’m 40 [the Richard Herring show]” and *possibly* a second piece, on ” The Prisoner, Jack Kirby’s Mister Miracle and Prisoner comics, Morrison ‘s Mister Miracle, and Seven Soldiers #1.” if he has time to write both (unlikely, but here’s hoping…)
Debi ‘Innerbrat’ Linton on prehistoric animals that sound like band names
Holly on The Clangers and rugby.
Gavin Robinson on ” how gender ideology is a lie that makes itself true.”
Richard “Millennium’s Daddy Richard” Flowers on Babylon 5 and/or Zoids
A comic by Wesley Osam on band names that sound like prehistoric monsters.
Along with possible contributions by Gavin Burrows, Alex Wilcock and Bill ‘Pillock’ Ritchie.
I’ll be contributing at least three, possibly four bits – an article on Cerebus, one on the Beach Boys’ Smile, and possibly one on Seven Soldiers. I’ll also be doing introductions to everything, in the form of a surrealist play entitled “Rassilon And Omega Are Dead (Or, Waiting For The Other)”.
PEP! 2 – the magazine for people interested in interesting stuff – will be out in May…
My Letter to Lords Razzal and Clement-Jones #debill
Written because I get just as angry when Lib Dems act in illiberal and undemocratic ways as when anyone else does…
I am writing, as a longtime member of the Liberal Democrats (and someone whose wife is employed by the party) to ask you to reconsider your amendment to the Digital Economy Bill.
This bill, even as it stands, is a significant threat to liberty (and is in my view opposed to everything our party is meant to stand for), but your amendment would make it significantly worse. The wording is broad enough that it could, for example, lead to, say, the site blogger.com being made inaccessible – many blogs on that site host copyrighted material, but a far larger number, the overwhelming majority, are devoted to entirely innocent or even beneficial material.
At the moment, the majority of the most popular uses of the internet are for so-called ‘user-generated content’ – sites like Facebook, or YouTube, or Twitter, or blog sites. All of these would be affected by your amendment, and would quite likely have to shut down.
As with any prohibitionist measure, this will not even have the intended effect. It will drive such sharing underground, but not stamp it out – I can right now think of half a dozen ways in which already-existing technology could circumvent such bans for anyone who was sufficiently motivated – while making it significantly more difficult for anyone who wants to use those sites for their intended, legitimate, purposes.


3 comments