There's a new piece in Wired on the late Gary Gygax. For you non-gamer folk, Gygax was the creator of Dungeons & Dragons. Mark Stricherz of GetReligion comments on the end of the article, which mentions Gygax's religious beliefs. Apparently towards the end of his life he came to believe in some sort of Creator, as well as in prayer.
In the GetReligion comments section, a person says that Gygax was actually one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and that the religious turn wasn't anything new. Perhaps the Wired article is wrong, or perhaps Gygax at some point left the J-dubs and then later adopted revised religious beliefs.
Personally, I'd find it hard to believe that Gygax was a JW in good standing when he was working on D&D. My impression is that the wave of apprehension and outright hysteria about devil-worship and D&D in conservative evangelical circles quickly jumped social barriers to affect many JWs. (Except they called it "demonism." The same thing happened with Smurfs: there was a frantic purge of all Smurf-related objects. Later it happened with Harry Potter.) When I was growing up as a JW (in the '80s and '90s) there was still a lot of suspicion surrounding role-playing games and, to a lesser extent, fantasy stories that included magic. I managed to evade these prohibitions, and I knew at least one adult JW who was into fantasy and gaming. But I never did play D&D proper, and I remember tensing up when friend and I were questioned by a circuit overseer (something like a travelling bishop) about role-playing games. We managed to make them sound like harmless fun. I think.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Spiritual characters in science fiction
In movies and TV, that is. Beliefnet's got a top ten list. I'm not all that familiar with the TV characters, but that's because I don't watch TV.
I am, however, going to get caught up with this new Doctor Who series everyone's been talking about. Soon.
I am, however, going to get caught up with this new Doctor Who series everyone's been talking about. Soon.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Jews and Judaism in science fiction
There's a site devoted to the topic here. Also, in this article Jeff Berkwits of the San Diego Jewish Journal talks with some Jewish sf authors and discusses some Jewish themes.
Friday, May 09, 2008
Tidbits
1. Rose, over at Refracted Light, has reviewed Jay Lake's Mainspring. She objects to the crazy monkey sex section (take that, search engines!), which did strike me as one of the weaker parts of the book, because it was somewhat gratuitous. And yes, you should take "monkey" literally - there is an intelligent apewoman involved. It reminded me of the interspecies stuff in one of the Ringworld books.
2. I finally got around to watching Sunshine. I didn't like it as much as Gabriel did. It had many striking visual moments, some interesting ideas, and I generally liked the actors.* But it couldn't seem to make up its mind: should it be a thoughtful, innovative sf film, with an indie vibe? You know, something off the beaten track. Or should it aim to be the stereotypical, nonsensical Hollywood blockbuster action movie featuring the painfully hackneyed villain who just won't die? The first half chose the first option, but the second half devolved into a clash between the indie vibe and the blockbuster. The blockbuster kept winning out until finally I reached the heckling, eye-rolling stage. I wished the sun would die, just so the movie would be over. But check out the well-written SF Gospel review, which points out some of the intriguing aspects of the film.
*Nice to see some real ethnic diversity, including the psychologist played by Cliff Curtis. Though (as usual) the white characters survived longer than the non-white ones. Sigh. It's like non-white characters are redshirts.
2. I finally got around to watching Sunshine. I didn't like it as much as Gabriel did. It had many striking visual moments, some interesting ideas, and I generally liked the actors.* But it couldn't seem to make up its mind: should it be a thoughtful, innovative sf film, with an indie vibe? You know, something off the beaten track. Or should it aim to be the stereotypical, nonsensical Hollywood blockbuster action movie featuring the painfully hackneyed villain who just won't die? The first half chose the first option, but the second half devolved into a clash between the indie vibe and the blockbuster. The blockbuster kept winning out until finally I reached the heckling, eye-rolling stage. I wished the sun would die, just so the movie would be over. But check out the well-written SF Gospel review, which points out some of the intriguing aspects of the film.
*Nice to see some real ethnic diversity, including the psychologist played by Cliff Curtis. Though (as usual) the white characters survived longer than the non-white ones. Sigh. It's like non-white characters are redshirts.
Planet Narnia
I've been hearing about this book for awhile, but didn't know if it was worth mentioning. Today, however, after coming across yet another favourable reaction I thought I should post about it. It is:
Planet Narnia: The Seven Heavens in the Imagination of C.S. Lewis, by Michael Ward. Published by Oxford University Press, in 2008.
Basically, Ward thinks that Lewis' seven Narnia books match up to the seven planets (in the medieval schema) and the symbols associated with them. He argues that Lewis did this on purpose, drawing on his deep knowledge of medieval and Renaissance literature.
At first I thought this was just another highly speculative literary-conspiracy-theory book, but, as I said, it's been getting good reviews - such as this one by Tom Shippey. It sounds like Ward's theory brings out all sorts of interesting details and associations in the Narnia books. And even if the theory is ultimately faulty, it sounds like his book is still a rewarding read.
John Wilson writes:
We can imagine the reaction of the sort of Christians who have gone into a frenzy over Harry Potter. Astrology! But what Ward has discovered is entirely consistent with Lewis' Christian humanism. The imaginative worldview embodied in the medieval lore of the planets speaks to something fundamental in our experience; it is not to be rejected but rather baptized, made harmonious with the underlying Christian vision that governs Narnia.
The Mars Hill Audio Journal has done an hour-long interview with Ward, which is available here.
Planet Narnia: The Seven Heavens in the Imagination of C.S. Lewis, by Michael Ward. Published by Oxford University Press, in 2008.
Basically, Ward thinks that Lewis' seven Narnia books match up to the seven planets (in the medieval schema) and the symbols associated with them. He argues that Lewis did this on purpose, drawing on his deep knowledge of medieval and Renaissance literature.
At first I thought this was just another highly speculative literary-conspiracy-theory book, but, as I said, it's been getting good reviews - such as this one by Tom Shippey. It sounds like Ward's theory brings out all sorts of interesting details and associations in the Narnia books. And even if the theory is ultimately faulty, it sounds like his book is still a rewarding read.
John Wilson writes:
We can imagine the reaction of the sort of Christians who have gone into a frenzy over Harry Potter. Astrology! But what Ward has discovered is entirely consistent with Lewis' Christian humanism. The imaginative worldview embodied in the medieval lore of the planets speaks to something fundamental in our experience; it is not to be rejected but rather baptized, made harmonious with the underlying Christian vision that governs Narnia.
The Mars Hill Audio Journal has done an hour-long interview with Ward, which is available here.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Sounds like science fiction?
N. T. Wright, the biblical scholar and Anglican bishop, has put a new book out (by my estimates Wright publishes a new book every single day). Wright has long argued that, in the biblical view, resurrection and "afterlife" are very material affairs, and that otherworldly ideas about spirits or "The Rapture" are misguided. This idea isn't particularly new, of course, but Wright's background as a scholar enables him to read and discuss the relevant texts very closely. Apparently this book consists of lectures on this topic.
I happened to come across a review and I noticed this paragraph:
Reflecting on the notion of “reigning” in texts like Rom 5:17 and 1 Cor 6:2, Wright says that the renewal of the cosmos will leave “plenty to be done, entire new projects to undertake...the garden will need to be tended once more and the animals renamed.” He admits that these are “only images”; yet they serve as “true signposts to a future reality—a reality to which most Christians give little or no thought.” Still, tending gardens in a transformed universe comes close to sounding like science fiction.
Of course it does! And there's nothing wrong with that. In fact, it's a compliment! Particularly in light of this later snippet:
Origen, the great 3rd-century thinker and Scripture scholar, let his imagination roam when he thought about what might await human beings after death. For him, it would involve ongoing seminars where he could learn more about cosmology and the nature of the stars.
Heaven should include ongoing astronomy and cosmology seminars? Not everybody's cup of tea, perhaps, but it sounds good to me.
I happened to come across a review and I noticed this paragraph:
Reflecting on the notion of “reigning” in texts like Rom 5:17 and 1 Cor 6:2, Wright says that the renewal of the cosmos will leave “plenty to be done, entire new projects to undertake...the garden will need to be tended once more and the animals renamed.” He admits that these are “only images”; yet they serve as “true signposts to a future reality—a reality to which most Christians give little or no thought.” Still, tending gardens in a transformed universe comes close to sounding like science fiction.
Of course it does! And there's nothing wrong with that. In fact, it's a compliment! Particularly in light of this later snippet:
Origen, the great 3rd-century thinker and Scripture scholar, let his imagination roam when he thought about what might await human beings after death. For him, it would involve ongoing seminars where he could learn more about cosmology and the nature of the stars.
Heaven should include ongoing astronomy and cosmology seminars? Not everybody's cup of tea, perhaps, but it sounds good to me.
Monday, May 05, 2008
Islam & Science Fiction
Here's a site that collects information about Islam & science fiction. It discusses Islam's portrayal in sf books and movies, sf written by Muslims, and related topics. I think it was put together by Mohammad Aurangzeb Ahmad.
Moderate views
I just wanted to share a few links that I found encouraging, because they display a moderate thoughtfulness on the topic of science & religion:
Matthew C. Nisbet's area of expertise seems to be the way science is communicated to the general public, and the ways in which a supportive public environment can be created for the pursuit and funding of science. He's an atheist, but he thinks that the promotion of the "eternal warfare of science & religion" mythos will be harmful to the flourishing of science. Here he adds some of his own thoughts to those of Frances Collins, and over here he posts about a new study which examined the religious affiliations of professors in the natural and social scientists.
The study itself is interesting. It indicates that such professors are less likely to be religious than the average population (52% reported no religious affiliation) but the reasons for this were quite complex and had less to do with abstract beliefs that you might expect - well, actually, that won't surprise anyone who has studied the sociology of religion. Among other things, the scholars argue that people from religious backgrounds tend to retain some sort of religious identity when they become scientists. It turns out the scientists studied are a little different from the general population, where older people are more likely to be (traditionally) religious than young people:
"RAAS data reveal that younger scientists are more likely to believe in God than older scientists, and more likely to report attending religious services over the past year. "If this holds throughout the career life-course for this cohort of academic scientists," Ecklund says, "it could indicate an overall shift in attitudes toward religion among those in the academy."
Another finding is that students from non-religious households tend to 'self-select' for advanced scientific training. This may indeed reflect a conflict between religious and scientific ways of thinking, but it should be remembered that this also has to do with intellectual (or anti-intellectual!) traditions and economic class. Different religious backgrounds are usually linked to different educational outcomes - some groups strongly encourage university training, have a highly educated constituency, and also tend to be more wealthy. If I remember correctly Jews, Episcopalians, Quakers, and Unitarian Universalists tend to be statistically over-represented in academia. And I can say that my own Jehovah's Witness upbringing (insular, working class/lower-middle class and creationist) very strongly discouraged advanced training in the natural or social sciences.*
Anyways, back to the links. Physicist Chad Orzel is an "apathetic agnostic" but he doesn't much like the eternal warfare model either. He's got a list of recent news links on science and religion here (which is where I got the Nisbet links from), and here he posts about the views of his thesis advisor, William Phillips.
Phillips is an interesting figure: a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and a Methodist. He's got an autobiography here. He's also one of the founding members of the International Society for Science & Religion.
And here's the interview with Frances Collins, which Nisbet mentions above. One thing I noticed is the role history plays in Collins' understanding of science and religion- knowing what Augustine, and Galileo, and B.B. Warfield (and maybe Ramanujan!) actually said about these questions helps put them in perspective. Much of the furor is driven by events in our current political and cultural milieu, so regardless of our personal opinions, it helps to take a step back.
(Thanks to Aka for pointing out the Orzel links.)
*This probably has something to do with my own post-JW attraction to Quaker and Anglican/Episcopalian communities.
Matthew C. Nisbet's area of expertise seems to be the way science is communicated to the general public, and the ways in which a supportive public environment can be created for the pursuit and funding of science. He's an atheist, but he thinks that the promotion of the "eternal warfare of science & religion" mythos will be harmful to the flourishing of science. Here he adds some of his own thoughts to those of Frances Collins, and over here he posts about a new study which examined the religious affiliations of professors in the natural and social scientists.
The study itself is interesting. It indicates that such professors are less likely to be religious than the average population (52% reported no religious affiliation) but the reasons for this were quite complex and had less to do with abstract beliefs that you might expect - well, actually, that won't surprise anyone who has studied the sociology of religion. Among other things, the scholars argue that people from religious backgrounds tend to retain some sort of religious identity when they become scientists. It turns out the scientists studied are a little different from the general population, where older people are more likely to be (traditionally) religious than young people:
"RAAS data reveal that younger scientists are more likely to believe in God than older scientists, and more likely to report attending religious services over the past year. "If this holds throughout the career life-course for this cohort of academic scientists," Ecklund says, "it could indicate an overall shift in attitudes toward religion among those in the academy."
Another finding is that students from non-religious households tend to 'self-select' for advanced scientific training. This may indeed reflect a conflict between religious and scientific ways of thinking, but it should be remembered that this also has to do with intellectual (or anti-intellectual!) traditions and economic class. Different religious backgrounds are usually linked to different educational outcomes - some groups strongly encourage university training, have a highly educated constituency, and also tend to be more wealthy. If I remember correctly Jews, Episcopalians, Quakers, and Unitarian Universalists tend to be statistically over-represented in academia. And I can say that my own Jehovah's Witness upbringing (insular, working class/lower-middle class and creationist) very strongly discouraged advanced training in the natural or social sciences.*
Anyways, back to the links. Physicist Chad Orzel is an "apathetic agnostic" but he doesn't much like the eternal warfare model either. He's got a list of recent news links on science and religion here (which is where I got the Nisbet links from), and here he posts about the views of his thesis advisor, William Phillips.
Phillips is an interesting figure: a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and a Methodist. He's got an autobiography here. He's also one of the founding members of the International Society for Science & Religion.
And here's the interview with Frances Collins, which Nisbet mentions above. One thing I noticed is the role history plays in Collins' understanding of science and religion- knowing what Augustine, and Galileo, and B.B. Warfield (and maybe Ramanujan!) actually said about these questions helps put them in perspective. Much of the furor is driven by events in our current political and cultural milieu, so regardless of our personal opinions, it helps to take a step back.
(Thanks to Aka for pointing out the Orzel links.)
*This probably has something to do with my own post-JW attraction to Quaker and Anglican/Episcopalian communities.
Friday, May 02, 2008
Something More by Paul Cornell
Check out this review of Paul Cornell's Something More. Of particular interest are these tidbits about the plot:
The Reverend Jane Bruce is a chaplain of the Reformed Church of England - reformed in the sense that shortly before the GEC a rogue vicar discovered that electromagnetic fields directly stimulate a certain area of the brain, one of which at least is partly responsible for religious visions and sensations; so the RCoE uses voltmeters and evocative neurochemicals called 'greens' in its daily rituals.
...
But Cornell has much bigger plans than simply scaring us, because then Something More turns (as the title of chapter 44 says) into 'A Mad Sort of C.S. Lewis Thing'. There isn't much more that can be said about the final quarter of the book without spoiling much of the first three-quarters.
I'm pretty sure "A Mad Sort of C.S. Lewis Thing" implies some sort of theological twist. Unless it simply involves a talking lion, or a discourse on Renaissance literature.
Cornell is best known for his work on Doctor Who (he's even been nominated for a Hugo), but he's a prolific guy. I've mentioned his British Summertime before: it's a strange book that puts some intriguing spins on certain New Testament symbols. (The longer I think about them the more intriguing and relevant they seem.)
His Wikipedia entry has recently been edited to read:
In an interview on the Doctor Who: DWO Whocast, Cornell stated that this entry in Wikipedia described him as "both a Christian and a pagan," which he has chosen not to correct as it illustrates his sympathies for the pagan world. He then goes on to state that he is an Anglican but is very "Low Church, almost a Calvinist," and this is partly because he doesn't enjoy hymns.
The Reverend Jane Bruce is a chaplain of the Reformed Church of England - reformed in the sense that shortly before the GEC a rogue vicar discovered that electromagnetic fields directly stimulate a certain area of the brain, one of which at least is partly responsible for religious visions and sensations; so the RCoE uses voltmeters and evocative neurochemicals called 'greens' in its daily rituals.
...
But Cornell has much bigger plans than simply scaring us, because then Something More turns (as the title of chapter 44 says) into 'A Mad Sort of C.S. Lewis Thing'. There isn't much more that can be said about the final quarter of the book without spoiling much of the first three-quarters.
I'm pretty sure "A Mad Sort of C.S. Lewis Thing" implies some sort of theological twist. Unless it simply involves a talking lion, or a discourse on Renaissance literature.
Cornell is best known for his work on Doctor Who (he's even been nominated for a Hugo), but he's a prolific guy. I've mentioned his British Summertime before: it's a strange book that puts some intriguing spins on certain New Testament symbols. (The longer I think about them the more intriguing and relevant they seem.)
His Wikipedia entry has recently been edited to read:
In an interview on the Doctor Who: DWO Whocast, Cornell stated that this entry in Wikipedia described him as "both a Christian and a pagan," which he has chosen not to correct as it illustrates his sympathies for the pagan world. He then goes on to state that he is an Anglican but is very "Low Church, almost a Calvinist," and this is partly because he doesn't enjoy hymns.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Dark Space, etc.
Aka recently pointed out this book review, written by R. J. Burgess. It begins thusly:
It's surprising how rarely a true God shows up in science fiction. For a genre so fascinated by the mysteries of the universe, SF often seems reluctant to speculate about the existence of a great almighty. Classic novels such as C.S. Lewis's Space Trilogy or Olaf Stapledon's Star Maker aside, God-like entities seem, more often than not, to be viewed as bad Star Trek clichés, as though the genre insists on denigrating such beings to the status of highly advanced aliens or artificial intelligences.
It's good then to see that Dark Space, the fourth novel by Australian writer Marianne de Pierres, is one of those rare examples of SF that sits firmly in the "taking God seriously" camp. The Sole entity at the heart of this galaxy-spanning series is a great big MacGuffin of a deity that is thrust at us from the very first page as being something so utterly unique and alien that it can only be classified as a god.
That first paragraph reminds me a bit of Gene Wolfe's The Book of the Long Sun. It introduces a pantheon of active gods and goddesses and reveals that they are artificial intelligences. But the pantheon also includes a "minor" god, the Outsider, who turns out to be a whole lot "bigger" and more mysterious. (And there are alien deities in the following Short Sun trilogy.)
God is generally not very easy to incorporate into a work of fiction, not as a character in any usual sense. Once you start to delineate and explain and provide motives, it's no longer God at all, at least not in a transcendant capital-G sense.
Anyways, in other (vaguely related) news, here's an interesting quote I came across today from Karen Armstrong:
Yes, once I'd stopped prancing and posturing around on TV, where I was expected to have an inflammatory opinion and to let people have it. All this was pure egotism. I did some early television programs and expressed my secularism very cleverly. I'm slightly down on cleverness, which can be fun and witty at a dinner party and I enjoy that as much as anybody else. But it can be superficial. Once my television career had folded, I was left on my own with these texts. There was nobody to exclaim derisively about the irrationality of a Greek Orthodox text or the stupidity of a certain Jewish mysticism. I began to read them like poetry, which is what theology is. It's poetry. It's an attempt to express the inexpressible. It needs quiet. You can't read a Rilke sonnet at a party. Sometimes a poem can live in your head for a long time until its meaning is finally revealed. And if you try and grasp that meaning prematurely, you can distort the poem for yourself. And because I'd been cast out from the media world, and was living in a world of silence and solitude, the texts and I started to have a different relationship.
It's surprising how rarely a true God shows up in science fiction. For a genre so fascinated by the mysteries of the universe, SF often seems reluctant to speculate about the existence of a great almighty. Classic novels such as C.S. Lewis's Space Trilogy or Olaf Stapledon's Star Maker aside, God-like entities seem, more often than not, to be viewed as bad Star Trek clichés, as though the genre insists on denigrating such beings to the status of highly advanced aliens or artificial intelligences.
It's good then to see that Dark Space, the fourth novel by Australian writer Marianne de Pierres, is one of those rare examples of SF that sits firmly in the "taking God seriously" camp. The Sole entity at the heart of this galaxy-spanning series is a great big MacGuffin of a deity that is thrust at us from the very first page as being something so utterly unique and alien that it can only be classified as a god.
That first paragraph reminds me a bit of Gene Wolfe's The Book of the Long Sun. It introduces a pantheon of active gods and goddesses and reveals that they are artificial intelligences. But the pantheon also includes a "minor" god, the Outsider, who turns out to be a whole lot "bigger" and more mysterious. (And there are alien deities in the following Short Sun trilogy.)
God is generally not very easy to incorporate into a work of fiction, not as a character in any usual sense. Once you start to delineate and explain and provide motives, it's no longer God at all, at least not in a transcendant capital-G sense.
Anyways, in other (vaguely related) news, here's an interesting quote I came across today from Karen Armstrong:
Yes, once I'd stopped prancing and posturing around on TV, where I was expected to have an inflammatory opinion and to let people have it. All this was pure egotism. I did some early television programs and expressed my secularism very cleverly. I'm slightly down on cleverness, which can be fun and witty at a dinner party and I enjoy that as much as anybody else. But it can be superficial. Once my television career had folded, I was left on my own with these texts. There was nobody to exclaim derisively about the irrationality of a Greek Orthodox text or the stupidity of a certain Jewish mysticism. I began to read them like poetry, which is what theology is. It's poetry. It's an attempt to express the inexpressible. It needs quiet. You can't read a Rilke sonnet at a party. Sometimes a poem can live in your head for a long time until its meaning is finally revealed. And if you try and grasp that meaning prematurely, you can distort the poem for yourself. And because I'd been cast out from the media world, and was living in a world of silence and solitude, the texts and I started to have a different relationship.
Monday, April 07, 2008
Book & author index
There's a link on the sidebar, under "Books" entitled Science fiction, fantasy and faith. That'll take you to an Amazon.com website where I've indexed books relevant to this blog. I don't expect anyone to necessarily buy these books through Amazon - it's just a useful way of gathering information about them, plus Amazon supplies brief descriptions. I up-date it periodically.
Currently the list of authors contains:
Michael Bishop - James Blish - G.K. Chesterton - Paul Cornell - D.M. Cornish - Philip K. Dick - Michael Flynn - Zenna Henderson - Robert Jordan - Jay Lake - Madeleine L'Engle - C.S. Lewis - Louise Marley - Walter M. Miller, Jr. - Elizabeth Moon - Susan Palwick - Katherine Paterson - Tim Powers - J.K. Rowling - Mary Doria Russell - Cordwainer Smith - J.R.R. Tolkien - Kathy Tyers - Charles Williams - Connie Willis - Gene Wolfe - John C. Wright.
There are other category pages, like Little-known Worthies, Quakers, and Literary SF/F.
Not every book is strictly science fiction or fantasy. There's a lot of variety. Some of the books have been included because the author is a religious person; in other cases the books contain religious imagery while the authors themselves does not practice any particular religion. And so forth.
Currently the list of authors contains:
Michael Bishop - James Blish - G.K. Chesterton - Paul Cornell - D.M. Cornish - Philip K. Dick - Michael Flynn - Zenna Henderson - Robert Jordan - Jay Lake - Madeleine L'Engle - C.S. Lewis - Louise Marley - Walter M. Miller, Jr. - Elizabeth Moon - Susan Palwick - Katherine Paterson - Tim Powers - J.K. Rowling - Mary Doria Russell - Cordwainer Smith - J.R.R. Tolkien - Kathy Tyers - Charles Williams - Connie Willis - Gene Wolfe - John C. Wright.
There are other category pages, like Little-known Worthies, Quakers, and Literary SF/F.
Not every book is strictly science fiction or fantasy. There's a lot of variety. Some of the books have been included because the author is a religious person; in other cases the books contain religious imagery while the authors themselves does not practice any particular religion. And so forth.
Friday, April 04, 2008
Shea on sf
Indefatigable Catholic blogger Mark Shea has written a new column about Catholicism and science fiction, mentioning Gene Wolfe, Michael Flynn, John C. Wright, and others.
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Bishop on sf
Michael Bishop talks about science fiction and The Sparrow:
Even so, my experience has been that readers who dislike science fiction, who would never willingly challenge themselves with the best that the field has to offer, will devour a fine sf work by accident and then baldly declare that it could not possibly be science fiction because they don’t like science fiction. Fairly recently, in fact, a young woman I know, a fellow resident of Pine Mountain, read The Sparrow by Mary Doria Russell and proclaimed it a life-altering masterwork. But she vigorously denied my claim that she had read an excellent example of what a science-fiction novelist can do when she brings the full arsenal of her thought and literary skill to bear.
It just can’t be science fiction, my acquaintance said; it deals with religious issues, theological matters, matters that matter. Yes, I said, it’s about a Jesuit priest who travels to another planet. There, two sentient species, one alarmingly akin to kangaroos, have a weird codependency that the priest fails to fathom until the stronger species mutilates him for his egocentric obtuseness, and he spirals off into madness and a heart-rending loss of faith. Clearly, I told my friend, this novel is a simple but exotic variation on the Mitford series by Jan Karon. She didn’t find this amusing, but I found her denial of the science-fictionality of The Sparrow not only off-putting but as obtuse as the cluelessness of the novel’s priest, with the added black mark that she insistently willed her obtuseness. An additional irony: This woman claimed that The Sparrow had deepened and enriched her nascent Catholicism, and it had done so, she felt sure, because Mary Doria Russell’s own Catholicism pervaded every character and plot twist. But, as I know from a brief meeting with Ms. Russell, she is an ardent convert to Judaism.
from a self-interview at his website.
One does still run into this alarmed rejection of the science fiction label. It has become a fairly meaningless label, to be sure, but I'm not entirely sure why it generates hostility. As Bishop says in that self-interview, for some people it does seem to contain "the subtextual editorial comment, 'Science fiction is spaced-out kiddy lit for losers and nerds.'" So you get literati insisting surprisingly vehemently that The Road, or Oryx & Crake, or The Time-Traveller's Wife are NOT science fiction, because that would of course mean they were thinly-disguised science reporting/loserish wish-fulfillment, written poorly by science nerds for other science nerds. And when a literary author does put out a book like Oryx & Crake, sf authors huff and puff about how it's just rehashing material that science fiction did thirty years ago, and did better. I think it's just dumb tribalism and wish everyone could get over it, though I don't think they will. As Bishop points out, the way your books are presented and received does have important implications for how much money and/or prestige you earn.
Even so, my experience has been that readers who dislike science fiction, who would never willingly challenge themselves with the best that the field has to offer, will devour a fine sf work by accident and then baldly declare that it could not possibly be science fiction because they don’t like science fiction. Fairly recently, in fact, a young woman I know, a fellow resident of Pine Mountain, read The Sparrow by Mary Doria Russell and proclaimed it a life-altering masterwork. But she vigorously denied my claim that she had read an excellent example of what a science-fiction novelist can do when she brings the full arsenal of her thought and literary skill to bear.
It just can’t be science fiction, my acquaintance said; it deals with religious issues, theological matters, matters that matter. Yes, I said, it’s about a Jesuit priest who travels to another planet. There, two sentient species, one alarmingly akin to kangaroos, have a weird codependency that the priest fails to fathom until the stronger species mutilates him for his egocentric obtuseness, and he spirals off into madness and a heart-rending loss of faith. Clearly, I told my friend, this novel is a simple but exotic variation on the Mitford series by Jan Karon. She didn’t find this amusing, but I found her denial of the science-fictionality of The Sparrow not only off-putting but as obtuse as the cluelessness of the novel’s priest, with the added black mark that she insistently willed her obtuseness. An additional irony: This woman claimed that The Sparrow had deepened and enriched her nascent Catholicism, and it had done so, she felt sure, because Mary Doria Russell’s own Catholicism pervaded every character and plot twist. But, as I know from a brief meeting with Ms. Russell, she is an ardent convert to Judaism.
from a self-interview at his website.
One does still run into this alarmed rejection of the science fiction label. It has become a fairly meaningless label, to be sure, but I'm not entirely sure why it generates hostility. As Bishop says in that self-interview, for some people it does seem to contain "the subtextual editorial comment, 'Science fiction is spaced-out kiddy lit for losers and nerds.'" So you get literati insisting surprisingly vehemently that The Road, or Oryx & Crake, or The Time-Traveller's Wife are NOT science fiction, because that would of course mean they were thinly-disguised science reporting/loserish wish-fulfillment, written poorly by science nerds for other science nerds. And when a literary author does put out a book like Oryx & Crake, sf authors huff and puff about how it's just rehashing material that science fiction did thirty years ago, and did better. I think it's just dumb tribalism and wish everyone could get over it, though I don't think they will. As Bishop points out, the way your books are presented and received does have important implications for how much money and/or prestige you earn.
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
An Evil Guest
You can now pre-order Gene Wolfe's latest book from Amazon. It's scheduled to be out on September 16th.
Also, a deluxe version of The Book of the New Sun is coming out. Learn more here.
On to Mars
This just in! Virgin and Google team up to colonize Mars!!
Or not. Happy April Fool's Day.
Though the idea's time may come. I think the point of the joke is to get people thinking.
I liked this part:
"Here's the Virgle Pioneer pitch: Things will get better. Eventually. Sure, the work will be hard, the broadband rates low, the commodes decidedly open source, and yes, your life might be extinguished in a fiery instant of catastrophic technological malfunction. But your enriched descendants will appreciate your sacrifice, which should render worthwhile your choice to spend the rest of your (perhaps radically foreshortened) life in deprivation and uncertainty."
Or not. Happy April Fool's Day.
Though the idea's time may come. I think the point of the joke is to get people thinking.
I liked this part:
"Here's the Virgle Pioneer pitch: Things will get better. Eventually. Sure, the work will be hard, the broadband rates low, the commodes decidedly open source, and yes, your life might be extinguished in a fiery instant of catastrophic technological malfunction. But your enriched descendants will appreciate your sacrifice, which should render worthwhile your choice to spend the rest of your (perhaps radically foreshortened) life in deprivation and uncertainty."
Friday, March 28, 2008
Michael A. Burstein
Through the discussion over at SF Signal I learned that sf writer Michael A. Burstein is an Orthodox Jew.
His story "Sanctuary" is about a Catholic priest, a pregnant alien, and, well, sanctuary! The first part is available online. It opens with a quote from Jesuit astronomer Guy Consolmagno.
A collection of his stories is coming out in September, entitled I Remember the Future. The subtitle is "The Award Nominated Stories of Michael A. Burstein." Burstein has been nominated for many Hugo awards but has not yet won any.
His story "Sanctuary" is about a Catholic priest, a pregnant alien, and, well, sanctuary! The first part is available online. It opens with a quote from Jesuit astronomer Guy Consolmagno.
A collection of his stories is coming out in September, entitled I Remember the Future. The subtitle is "The Award Nominated Stories of Michael A. Burstein." Burstein has been nominated for many Hugo awards but has not yet won any.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Ancient tech
Build your own personal Stonehenge*, using just rocks and branches!
And while you're at it, you could make your own Shroud of Turin imitation!
(That second one is fairly old news, but it's still good stuff. And he's added more information to the FAQs over time.)
*That wasn't an intentional pun but it does remind me of this.
And while you're at it, you could make your own Shroud of Turin imitation!
(That second one is fairly old news, but it's still good stuff. And he's added more information to the FAQs over time.)
*That wasn't an intentional pun but it does remind me of this.
David Martin on science, religion, and sociology
Martin is an esteemed British sociologist of religion and an Anglican priest. In 2005 he gave a lecture on the question: Does the Advance of Science Mean Secularization? He thinks that, historically speaking, the answer has been "For the most part, no" and explores the many other factors that affect how religious or secularized a society is. The sociology of religion is a fascinating and very complex topic. The lecture displays Martin's dry British-academic wit and vast learning.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
A must read on sf/f and religion
Hurry on over to SF Signal to a new discussion on the question:
Is Science Fiction Antithetical to Religion?
The question as a whole is: "Two of the most highly regarded fantasy authors - Tolkien and Lewis - were also Christians, whereas the fathers of science fiction were atheists, and SF itself, it could be argued, grew out of Darwinism and other notions of deep time. Is science fiction antithetical to religion?"
The participants are sf writers, critics and commentators: Mike Resnick, Lou Anders, Ben Bova, Gabriel McKee, Jay Lake, James Wallace Harris, Carl Vincent, Adam Roberts, Larry Niven, Andrew Wheeler, Michael A. Burstein, D.G.D. Davidson, L.E. Modesitt, Jr., John C. Wright, and James Morrow. Along the way some identify as atheists, others as religious, and still others don't say, choosing instead to focus on the question.
I'm deeply impressed by the maturity and nuance of the responses. Nobody argues that science fiction is, has been, or must be, automatically antithetical to religion. Many different aspects of the question are discussed. Some respondents do grind their favourite axes a little, but they mostly stay on track. Quite a few interesting treatments of religion are listed, and the names of a number of sf authors who are personally religious are mentioned.
This kind of thoughtful, balanced discussion is very encouraging to me.
Many thanks to Aka for pointing this out!
Is Science Fiction Antithetical to Religion?
The question as a whole is: "Two of the most highly regarded fantasy authors - Tolkien and Lewis - were also Christians, whereas the fathers of science fiction were atheists, and SF itself, it could be argued, grew out of Darwinism and other notions of deep time. Is science fiction antithetical to religion?"
The participants are sf writers, critics and commentators: Mike Resnick, Lou Anders, Ben Bova, Gabriel McKee, Jay Lake, James Wallace Harris, Carl Vincent, Adam Roberts, Larry Niven, Andrew Wheeler, Michael A. Burstein, D.G.D. Davidson, L.E. Modesitt, Jr., John C. Wright, and James Morrow. Along the way some identify as atheists, others as religious, and still others don't say, choosing instead to focus on the question.
I'm deeply impressed by the maturity and nuance of the responses. Nobody argues that science fiction is, has been, or must be, automatically antithetical to religion. Many different aspects of the question are discussed. Some respondents do grind their favourite axes a little, but they mostly stay on track. Quite a few interesting treatments of religion are listed, and the names of a number of sf authors who are personally religious are mentioned.
This kind of thoughtful, balanced discussion is very encouraging to me.
Many thanks to Aka for pointing this out!
Friday, March 14, 2008
The Blogger's Complaint
Or at least one of them. I'm irritated by novel titles that use this format:
The [Profession/Position/Identity]'s [Relative]
Say, for example:
The Time Traveler's Wife
Over the past five or six years I've come across far too many books that march in tight fashionable lockstep title-conformity. The first few were fine, but after awhile they multiplied and it became more and more precious and pretentious. Maybe the publishers are saying "Look, this is a good book, but if we change the title to this vaguely post-modern literary-sounding format that stresses relationships we'll make an extra $50K." I came across yet another one in the new books section at the library today, and felt like tossing it out the window. I'd thought the trend was over.
Let me just make some random ones up to illustrate what I'm talking about - though I'm sure that some of these are real titles:
The Butcher's Daughter
The Assassin's Son
The Beekeeper's Niece
The Dictator's Friend
The Spy's Nephew
The Traitor's Lover
The Diplomat's Wife
The Musician's Uncle
The President's Husband
The Astronaut's Wife
The Torturer's Daughter
The Transvestite's Son
The Explorer's Great-Aunt
The Grandmother's Monk
The Writer's Second Cousin
The Magician's Apprentice
The Killer's Aquaintance
The Nephew's Uncle
The Niece's Journeyman Locksmith
The Hearing Impaired Lesbian Farmer's Adoptive Maternal Grandfather's Second Cousin
The [Profession/Position/Identity]'s [Relative]
Say, for example:
The Time Traveler's Wife
Over the past five or six years I've come across far too many books that march in tight fashionable lockstep title-conformity. The first few were fine, but after awhile they multiplied and it became more and more precious and pretentious. Maybe the publishers are saying "Look, this is a good book, but if we change the title to this vaguely post-modern literary-sounding format that stresses relationships we'll make an extra $50K." I came across yet another one in the new books section at the library today, and felt like tossing it out the window. I'd thought the trend was over.
Let me just make some random ones up to illustrate what I'm talking about - though I'm sure that some of these are real titles:
The Butcher's Daughter
The Assassin's Son
The Beekeeper's Niece
The Dictator's Friend
The Spy's Nephew
The Traitor's Lover
The Diplomat's Wife
The Musician's Uncle
The President's Husband
The Astronaut's Wife
The Torturer's Daughter
The Transvestite's Son
The Explorer's Great-Aunt
The Grandmother's Monk
The Writer's Second Cousin
The Magician's Apprentice
The Killer's Aquaintance
The Nephew's Uncle
The Niece's Journeyman Locksmith
The Hearing Impaired Lesbian Farmer's Adoptive Maternal Grandfather's Second Cousin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
