Tim: Average sleep? Hard to say. Probably about 4-5 hours. I’m in the process of writing a blog post about my crazy hours–calling it: The Grind! And like I say, I’m still reading, just mostly novels from writers I dig. And yes, of course, I’m watching a few of the better programs, e.g. GoT!

This interview also made me wonder if I don’t spend too much time reading online (blogs and sports). I’m starting to quantify the time I will spend reading the local sports articles as time away from other tasks, but cutting out reading blogs too? I guess it just makes you realize how many things you could cut out of your day in order to fit writing in. Notice he didn’t say anything about Fringe or Game of Thrones (the show). Wait, what am I doing here? Gotta go, thanks again!

To start, it’s well written. No matter what others may complain about, anyone who has read a lot can tell good prose from trash, and this isn’t trash.

The characters are deep and multidimensional. They are all very believable (whether you like them or not), and feel like real people, not what people ought to be when they discover they have magical powers.
That, I think, is a key trait to this book. Most think that because a character has magic, they should be off going on adventures, making the world a better place, and all around doing amazing things. Grossman doesn’t do that. He makes characters like most people would be if they had magic. More or less the same. They still have the same faults, work ethics, and social inhibitions. They are more likely to act like normal twenty-one year olds and go out drinking than to go around saving the planet. They retain the human tendency to never be satisfied with what they have (the main character in particular suffers from this).

These are still real people, and real people don’t always go flying off to the nearest adventure. Adventure does eventually find them, but this is a story about people as much as it is about magic.

If you read books from other genres where a prerequisite isn’t for something to be blowing up or being wonderfully magical in every scene, you may really enjoy this. I think the key reason people dislike it is because they were focusing too much on the magic. This book is NOT Harry Potter. it will not always give you that feeling of bewilderment and wonder (though it sometimes will). Neither will it always give you a strong, honorable main character that you can comfortably share a conscious with. Not every scene will be an adrenaline spiking life or death situation.

If you can live with that, I wholeheartedly recommend The Magicians as your next read. Its the best book I’ve read in a long while.

I’m not sure I would characterize it as “taking risks” though. I think it’s more the practice of critical thinking, applied to world building – challenge everything.

As for writing, I’ve discovered that skipping past the boring parts will help you take more risks. You need to keep the plots moving and nothing helps more than throwing a monkey wrench in the gears

When in doubt, make your character’s life hell.

But…I like the idea that we can win through to a brighter tomorrow, even if it nullifies some of the beauty of the works created today.

The books I was talking about were the Sherlock Holmes Gaslight books from EDGE. They include Gaslight Grimoire, Gaslight Grotesque, and Gaslight Arcanum. More information at the Edge website: http://www.edgewebsite.com/

I also mentioned my novels in the Veins Cycle from Fantasist Enterprises. More information here: http://fantasistent.com/shop/fantasy-books/

Hope this helps.

Lawrence C. Connolly

http://bryanthomasschmidt.net/2011/12/21/12-reads-of-christmas-2011-personal-years-best/

When the “camera” is over the shoulder of the character and close enough to hear their thoughts, moral relativism is very common. It’s simply because in developing a compelling character around which to hang a story, you need the internal conflicts uncertainties and flaws to make the story move along and retain interest. Also, in this style of writing, massive success can only really be understood through the lens of the prospect of abject failure – the victory in the character’s eyes, as part of the character’s arc, trumps the larger, more abstract moral question. The attitude of the writer in this instance can only really affect the tuning of the character (jaded, but not evil; bad to the bone; shining knight) and how powerful the story will be as a result.

The other option is a more omniscient view. The character is polarising the morals and ethics of those around him by his very actions and existence. You have greater scope to suggest that there *is* a right way, that there definitely is a wrong way too and the story tells of the progress of the character from one to the other.

In context of this discussion, George R.R. Martin writes often in the first style; you may find his character’s distasteful or morally repugnant, be annoyed when they succeed through immoral means, but you can never deny that his characters are truthful to their own morality. They may doubt, they may change and grow, but the Jaimes, the Roberts, the Littlefingers of the story all follow their internal logic, their own guiding road to their “good” outcome. They are aware of their failings, but interesting, functioning characters who nonetheless behave as well as they can in the circumstances they find themselves in.

Lord of the Rings is very much of the second style, as the book is concerned with the world more than the characters themselves. You see the good and evil, the purity and the corruption playing out in many struggles across the simply polarised battlegrounds. However, should the book have been written in the Game of Thrones style, you have so many of the same things happening. Boromir, Saruman, Gandalf, Frodo, Aragorn, Denethor and Elrond all believe that their actions are justly motivated, for the good of their peoples for the most part. Taken as part of a character novel and contrasted only against each other they would all be as varied and morally ambiguous as the actors in Martin’s tale.

I don’t think moral ambiguity is a reflection of the times at all. People still understand that Shining Knights are good and Evil Sorcerors are bad, but in a field of literature where the viewpoints are so closely tied in with character at the moment, the stories told of these tales are simply less engaging than those told of more complicated, more truthful characters, even if they do occasionally err. From a third person limited point of view, in my opinion, there is less to relate to in a paragon on goodness than the story of the drunk who risks his life to run into a burning building.

If the style changes, maybe the moral standpoint will do too.

But anyway, my point in this as I said before is that moral abiguity as a sole tapesty from which to tell stories leaves me lacking. I think there is room for it. I live in a world of grays myself. But I think there’s always an overarching moral tapestry at work. And I don’t think that requires a dominant religious faith. At the same time, I also believe examining those things is important as part of storytelling, not necessarily in every book. But I certainly don’t want to see stories which ignore it continue to be the dominant form.

Sam: I know a lot about othering and it is a risk but it can be avoided as well with smart writing and still have the moral arc I’m talking about. As for Hollywood, I am talking literature not movies. But Hollywood, as one who worked and lived there for a number of years, does as much to perpetuate moral ambiguity and promote that as anyplace else.

However, language like this: “I do want to know who should win; who is on the right side” reveals what is dangerous about moralistic storytelling. Accepting an author’s constructions comes with their biases and their narratives. It also establishes an “us vs them” mentality, supports othering, and limits understanding. Moral stories favor a dominant narrative and serve to simplify, which reduces critical response and leads to passive consumption of media.

One might interpret the popularity of ambiguous stories as culture’s method of accepting America’s blunders abroad as well as our declining global position. Ambiguous stories force me to level out what I think is moral, or what I would do in a situation.

And on the topic of Song of Fire and Ice, there are a group of characters I’ve been rooting for since the beginning (Jon, Arya) but there are others that I’ve come around to like (Jaime) or dislike (Jorah). I think that’s the best part of Game of Thrones, and is one of my favorite aspects of any story: when I’m convinced to change my opinion of a character.

Finally, I don’t think there’s any shortage of moral stories. The vast majority of Hollywood movies are moral stories, with simple messages about relationships and success. Books allow for more depth and dynamism, thus they naturally gravitate to gray characters and story arcs.

(It was inevitable I’d show up )

I think the reasons that moral ambiguity has gained resonance and has almost become the “default mode” is twofold:

–Our current culture and society makes moral ambiguous characters and situations more appealing

–Moral characters have been done so simplistically “Lawful stupid” that they have turned off lots of readers.

Any chance we can get that list of books you talked about? Some of them sound really interesting, but I had trouble getting the titles and/or author names. Thanks!

-Chris

I would go so far as to say that for people who do not believe in an abstract morality imposed upon the cosmos by either a philosophy or a deity, books which follow this stark morality are less palatable. If an author portrays their struggle between good and evil as “real” rather than just a belief held by their characters, then it is easy to be catapulted out our suspension of disbelief, for the rationalist reader.

Obviously, there is room in literature for both. But I do think that moral ambiguity of this sort is capable (though not enough on its own) of creating more thematically complex novels. And complex themes can make for rewarding books.

My two cents: When creating fantastic creatures or aliens from another world, authors must develop their morality, and we, as readers, must accept that such morality may be very different from our own. While something may be wrong from our perspective (and from the perspective of most), such may not be the case in an alien culture. Thus, science fiction provides an avenue to be outside ourselves and to contemplate moralities we hadn’t considered.

I agree with just about everything being said here. Characters should be who they are and what their stories (and the overall story) demands. I don’t read authors who write books that are downers. I don’t want to feel depressed after reading something because there was no true hero, no man or woman who sought something greater, whatever that may be. But I don’t necessarily expect fiction to inspire me to greater ideals, either. I like a dark story; I dislike a story complete devoid of hope or meaning.

Besides, shades of gray go well in a medium that reveals so much of the internal life of its characters.

Even in my own books there’s plenty of moral ambiguity. It’s hard to avoid it when you’re writing about the Victorian period simply because the people of that era who held power approached everything with a sense of divine “rightness”. Those stuffed shirts are ripe for puncturing—especially in modern era filled with people arguing on the internet. .

That said, where I do agree with you is in the question of moral relativism and and underlying philosophy of existence. I think there’s been a tendency in some books to avoid the discussion of the higher moral issues and simply claim that underneath it all there’s nothing but blackness waiting to swallow us all up.Then even the gods become simply cruel puppet masters in a cosmic game of survival of the meanest. Once you enter into that world every death is an admission of failure, and there is no cost too high in the service of victory.

It’s not fun for me to read those books because it posits a world where existence itself is an ultimately a futile endeavor, and we’re all ultimately playing out a highly complicated version of kill or be killed. And you also get heroes who simply mope about looking for a way to end up on the side of the guys with the biggest swords.

Still, it’s not fair to lump them all together. I adore the worlds where the characters are fighting to go beyond nihilism and discover a reason for living beyond the simple pain and suffering. That’s one of the reasons I enjoy Abnett’s 40K fiction, as well as Bacigalupi’s and Richard K. Morgan’s works. I’d also argue that it’s the core of many of China Mieville’s books.

George RR Martin’s books skirt the edge of that. It often seems that the characters who are the most cynical and self-serving are the most rewarded, while those who believe are not only punished, but spend their last moments discovering that their entire life was a futile pursuit. But he’s also a master at giving us the tiny moments that reveal there may be more to life than fighting and suffering.

The danger of over doing it is very real, though. As you said, there is good and bad in the world. If we blend the line too much between the two we risk losing any sense of purpose our lives have. And although I enjoy the darker stories–because I like major internal conflicts in my characters–I too grow tired of how prevalent nihilism is becoming in modern America. Really it’s just sad to live life believing there is no purpose. The purpose is to better ourselves; this ought to be a daily struggle and goal for everyone.

Give me characters who face tough moral choices–some can even fail–but give me a protagonist who chooses wisely. Would have been a shame had Indiana Jones sipped from the jewel-encrusted cup because he had a bit of a greedy side to him.

At the risk of making myself seem as middle-aged as i am, one of the seminal novels of my post-adolescence was Gibson’s “Neuromancer”, a book that almost singlehandedly created the postmodern nihilist tone that’s come to define a lot of speculative fiction since. But for me, “Neuromancer” remains Gibson’s best book because in the end, the beautiful bleakness he crafts is the means, not the end.

“Hate,” Case said. “Who do I hate? You tell me.”
“Who do you love?” the Finn’s voice asked.

By any token, Case is a textbook antihero — but his dramatic journey uses the negative as fuel to forge a tangible core of positive character story. “Neuromancer”, like all the best F&SF — like all the best books, period — uses the darkness outside to bring the light inside into sharper relief.

While I think that your comments regarding the use of stereotyping to portray race are pretty fair, I would point out (in the author’s defence) that it wasn’t a crass approach to writing the other, just an inefficient one. There was research done, there was thought put into the portrayal of the characters, but both were evidently influenced by the nature of the sources he read. I agree that there is little substitute for first-hand experience, and I’m not sure what opportunities he had to get some, but ultimately while language is part of character it will be the character as a whole that will have to be assessed to find out if Mr. Milazzo has successfully written the ‘other’.

PS. Thanks for the link.

Keep up the great work on the podcast. Thanks!

For some authors KS makes sense. These are the indie authors who, for whatever reason, already don’t have their books up at other outlets. I don’t know why authors do this, but I know there are authors out there who do. In which case, KS has no real downside.

Other authors may want to try it out for awhile, particularly if they don’t have many sales outside Amazon. It may make sense for one title, but not another. Up to the author. But no one is “forcing” them to participate.

Personally, I chose not to participate. I want my titles to have the widest possible distribution, aside from the fact that I generally don’t approve of exclusives. (Unless SciFi Book Club wants an exclusive on the hardcover edition of my book. In that case, I am totally on board. Email me, please!)

I also don’t like the payment arragement. If they want to offer up a straight royalty, it might make more sense. But I don’t like the “pot” and I won’t participate in a program that encourages that model.

And that’s my choice. No one is forcing me to do anything.

People need to keep in mind that Amazon, like all publishers, is a business. They are not in the business of making friends with authors. They are in the business of growing their market share and making money long term. (Please see Kris Rusch’s recent article on traditional publishers and their suppliers for a more detailed insight. http://www.kriswrites.com)

Amazon is not evil, nor are they the indie author’s best friend. They’re a business. They distribute books. I supply books, as a business. End of relationship. If I don’t like their model, I can go elsewhere. Hell, I have one story that I don’t distribute through Amazon because they won’t let me sell it for free from the get-go, and I have chosen not to make any money from that story. Therefore, even though I would get more exposure via Amazon, and even though I’ve gotten two of my other stories to show up for free, I don’t “sell” that story with them.

(Note: I sell my novel for $4.99, and short stories for $0.99, and have a few freebies so people can see if they like my writing. Plus I give away a new free story every Halloween, because I like to. My novel sells. My short stories sell. There is no race to the bottom unless you choose to participate.)

Also, I disagree with the freaking-out about KS titles getting extra ranking. So what? I don’t worry about my ranking. I sell copies of my works every month, through many different channels. That’s all I care about. The ranking system is too fluid to lose sleep over. Besides, Amazon SHOULD pimp its partners. Just like a publisher can buy co-op at a bookstore, these authors are essentially buying co-op with Amazon. That’s just business, and frankly, doesn’t effect my sales one way or the other. Someone else’s success does not diminish my sales. Hell, if I’m lucky, one of those best-sellers will be an “also viewed” for my book or something.

In short: worry less, write more. That’s how an indie author will succeed in this biz.

More Cover Pr0n:Lou Anders is sharing a very cool promo card from artist Dave Seely.The British cover of Bad Monkeys. [via Torque Control] Interviews and Profiles:Adventures in SciFi Publishing interviews James Patrick Kelly and Matthew Wayne Selznick….

Interviews and ProfilesLocus interviews Charlie Stross.Jonathan Strahan chats with Gary K. Wolfe (podcast). The Book Show interviews Neil Gaiman (podcast).If You’re Just Joining Us interviews Douglas Lain (podcast).Adventures in SciFi Publishing inter…

Mr. Milazzo obviously isn’t familiar with the culture he’s trying to represent since he apparently had to get all of his information from books about Black people and how they talk. He could have watched episodes of The Wire or just gone out and talked to people and asked “How do kids talk these days? I’m writing a book and trying to make the dialogue sound authentic.” I’m sure the bank teller speaking jive appreciated his efforts. Regardless of their socioeconomic background, not all Black people speak Ebonics nor do they all believe in loas and voodoo.

I happen to be familiar with East Saint Louis and I know a lot of people from that area and none of them speak Ebonics. In fact, none of my Black friends speak Ebonics and instead find it very offensive. I understand what he’s trying to do, I understand how he feels it makes his character more authentic. Instead, he is perpetuating yet another stereotype about a group of people that he’s obviously not familiar with. He’s also alienating a lot of people who might otherwise give his books a try.

I’m going to recommend checking http://welcomewhitefolks.blogspot.com/ which has several posts about race and publishing. For the record, yes, I’m Black and no, I don’t speak Ebonics. Never have, never will. I have nothing against writing about other races, but I do object to using lame stereotypes. I wish Mr Milazzo success in his career but I for one will not be reading Picking up the Ghost.

Otherwise, I have enjoyed all of your other podcasts and hope you continue with the good work.

[...] r of mentions and positioning of items within a book are likely to be difficult [...]…

Interviews & ProfilesDeus Ex Machinatio profiles Chuck Wendig.Midnight Echo 6 (David Conyers) interviews Jo Anderton.Alt Hist interviews Ian Sales.Novy Interviews Matt Forbeck.Adventures in SciFi Publishing interviews John Jarrold and Tone Milazzo.Loc…

Instead, I think what we need to do is develop a degree of tolerance for these less desirable aspects of the classic literature. If I can’t appreciate a story where the science isn’t cutting edge, or the characters don’t all share my worldview, that’s a problem with me and not with the story. But if a story is genuinely racist or sexist or whatever in a way that I feel is wrong, then maybe I should skip that one, even if it is considered to be a classic. After all, if a story doesn’t speak to something inside of me, is it really worth reading?

Orson Scott Card once said that all literature is essentially the culture talking back to itself. There’s something about a good story that’s universal in any age, but certain stories are going to speak to us more than others. Why, then, should we cling to a static list, or wait for an authority to tell us what is a “classic” and what is not? Why not sample everything widely, approaching the literature with an open mind while at the same time bringing ourselves to the stories we read, and compile our own personal list of the best books from which to draw our influence?

Interviews and ProfilesGrasping for the Wind (Bryan Thomas Schmidt) SFFWRTCHT: A Chat With Author-RPG Designer Ari Marmell. Black Gate (Bill Ward) Interviews James L. Sutter, Part Three.Suvudu (Matt Staggs) interviews Michael Reaves.Fantasy Magazine (J…

This is about banning words, or criticizing a story. This is including objects in the setting that couldn’t possibly exist, or terminology from specific Earth history that doesn’t fit. The idea is to help a writer avoid words that might ruin a readers immersion in the story. If you are trying to present a coherent fantasy world that’s not Earth, then more work to avoid breaking immersion will definitely help.

Many great fantasy authors have created their own history and worlds complete with languages and anachronisms unique to that story. I love it when they do this, because it just draws you in and cements the setting. Other authors don’t do this and it shows.

If, as an author, you are trying to preserve the illusion of your fantasy world, then a little research and forethought can turn a good story into a great one. The point is that these fantasy worlds should be different to Earth, and every time they are not, it throws us out of the story.

Interviews and ProfilesThe Guardian (Tom Lamont) profiles Alan Moore. comicbookGRRRL Alan Moore. [via The Cultural Gutter] Adventures in SciFi Publishing interviews David Bischoff (podcast). Suvudu (Matt Staggs) interviews James Shepherd-Barron (podcas…

Interviews & ProfilesAdventures in SciFi Publishing interviews N.K. Jemisin.At Scalzi’s Big Idea: Delia Sherman.Gav Reads interviews Ann & Jeff Vandermeer.Omnivoracious interviews Paul Kemp, Kimberly Pauley, and Bruce R. Cordell.Mur Lafferty i…

Interviews and ProfilesTor.com (Peter Orullian) interviews Jacqueline Carey (part 2) (video). SFWA (John Ottinger III) interviews Paolo Bacigalupi.Lightspeed Magazine (Robyn Lupo) interviews John Crowley.The SFFWRTCHT Interview: Author-RPG Creator Matt…

Isaac Asimov’s first Astounding story, “Trends,” (July 1939) is about popular opposition to space travel. It bucked the tide of those stories that just assumed everyone would be happy with going to the moon. His most famous Golden Age story, “Nightfall” (September 1941) was a story in which scientists could not solve the problem that would ultimately destroy their civilization. L. Ron Hubbard’s “Final Blackout” (April, May, June, 1940)–a serial that was barely science fiction–is about a war-ravaged Europe and a nameless Lieutenant just struggling to keep his tattered company alive. Alfred Bester’s “Adam and No Eve” (September 1941) was one of the first post-apocalypse stories. Joseph Kelleam’s wonderful story, “Rust” is about the death of the last 3 robots (the last three intelligences of any kind) on earth. These stories appear in just the first 3 years of the “Golden Age” and don’t even include the much darker stories that appeared in Astounding’s companion magazine, Unknown.

We pick and choose our examples, consciously or not, when we say that all stories in the Golden Age are golden and all stories today are dark. There are plenty of “positive” stories being published today. I think of stories like Jack McDevitt’s Alex Benedict novels. Robert J. Sawyer’s Rollback. Joe Haldeman’s The Accidental Time Traveler. And there are equally good dark stories, like Connie Willis’s Blackout/All Clear or Stephen King’s 11/22/63.

The difference between now and the Golden Age is twofold: the audience today remembers very few of the stories published back then. And there is a vastly larger amount of fiction being published today. What percolates to the top is the darker fiction, but that’s because it is what people want to read. And it makes for a vicious cycle. It becomes a trend. But that’s all it is, in my opinion, nothing more. Now, just as in the Golden Age, there is darker fiction and lighter fiction in fairly equal measure.

It is completely misguided to criticize a story because its world doesn’t follow the same rules and historical precedents set in our world. If it did, to the high degree you require, then it WOULD be our world.

Hay bales and pants and ice cream or whatever you’re waiting to spring on people as anachronisms are embedded in the general suspension of belief. This is why characters can speak English. It’s why dragons can exist.

Furthermore, it is pedantry, pure and simple, to ban words because they’re tied to the real world. Our language is tied inextricably with our history and culture, and it’s ridiculous to expect fantasy stories set in a secondary world to use supposed anachronism-free words. There are no such things.

Interviews & ProfilesCivilian Reader interviews Gav Thorpe.MTV interviews Lev Grossman.New Notes from Coode Street features Jonathan Strahan and Gary K. Wolfe.The Qwillery interviews Rob Ziegler.Suvudu interviews William Schafer.SFX interviews intervie…

I truly don’t get how anyone enjoyed this book. I know a lot of people who did, but I just don’t get it. The whole book can be summed up this way: If you are a whiny, unhappy person, magic will not change that … it’ll just turn you into a whiny, unhappy person who can do magic.

If you want to read a book with a whiny, unhappy protagonist, then this is the book for you. For one thing, Quentin’s life *is* roses. He doesn’t have a bad life. It’s all rather good, in fact … except that he continues to be unsatisfied. By the time (well into the book) when anything interesting happens from a plot standpoint, I was so utterly disgusted with the main character that it was painful to continue reading. Still, I hoped that he would change and become more compelling … but he really never did.

This angst-filled approach is the only original thing about the novel, and it’s original in an unenjoyable way. Every other aspect of the novel is explicitly based on other classical fiction – most notably Narnia and Harry Potter, but with other callouts thrown in.

Interviews and ProfilesWeird Fiction Review interviews Margo Lanagan. The World SF Blog interviews Sayuri Ueda. Sffworld.com interviews Ann and Jeff VanderMeer.Chuck Wendig interviews Matt Forbeck.Adventures in SciFi Publishing interviews Steven Erikso…

My most recent (and I have another one coming soon) review for the site was actually based on an electronic ARC that the publisher sent me. Angry Robot Books, when they launched made a big push to get advanced electronic copies in the hands of bloggers. There’s a lot of electronic review copies out there, but obviously it’s not the norm yet.

Also, whenever we talk about eBooks replacing print books I always wonder about the statistics of people that are actually reading more because of eBooks. I kind of wonder if a future that’s 80% eBooks might have a larger number of print books than you’d assume based on current book sales. Just a thought.

“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”

The white knight is less exciting to read in third person limited, because it’s often fairly apparent how he will react according to his moral compass, his code of honour, or the laws of the land. Making the story third person omniscient gives you the full hero treatment; rousing speeches seem less self-indulgent, the world is swirling around and the character with it so you can set up the confrontations, create the anticipation and watch the character in his element.

So maybe as the fashion changes, the characters do too… just putting it out there.

I’m a product of my time. I do appreciate the darker tales. George R.R. Martin, Joe Abercrombie, Scott Lynch… these are the authors I choose to read (don’t get much sci fi in). However, when a story ends just as depressing as it started, or even more so, I come away from it feeling cheated. Yes, bad things happen in life. Yes, people get hurt for no reason. But this doesn’t mean all events in the human existence are this way. People still love, dream, and achieve even in bad times. For me, the most powerful stories are the ones that drag you through the gutter, and then lift you up out of the filth and corruption to show you a better way. Not because this type of story is the most true to life, (not for me anyway, I’ve lived a pretty happy, sorrow-free life) but because it shows us both ends of the spectrum, and how we can become better despite having all the odds stacked against us.

So yes, there is a need for heroes that are good, for stories that uplift. I want to see more of these. But if an author can combine the good and the bad, have that opposition in all things that is so true and necessary to life, and still manage to pull off the happy ending, I think their tale will be one of the greats, and will be remembered and cherished for generations to come.

This is a creative choice made by editorial teams and authors throughout the field, driven by the need to appear to be relevant and intellectual and be praised by their peers (and also a hangover from the New Wave), not because it is factually accurate.

I remember reading a comment by an author (I cannot remember exactly who) who noted (paraphrasing here) that it is EASY to remind us that the world is dark and dangerous and that evil exists…what takes real courage is illuminating us with hope and showing the potential for good in all of us.

I think the dystopian point of view is due in part to the times we live in…but also due to a true lack of perspective: We have ALWAYS lived in frightening, unsettled times. Now we have global warming and terrorism and the potential for an energy crisis and looming ecological collapse.

50 years ago we had the Cold War and mutually assured destruction. 100 years ago we had almost annual European wars that eventually led to WWI, virulent diseases that could wipe out 1/4 of the population, pervasive poverty and malnutrition, the excesses of rapid industrialization. 150 years ago it was a war that ripped the nation apart and killed millions in addition to the good old standards of disease, poverty, malnutrition, natural disaster…and on back through the dawn of time.

And dominating all of these eras was the mythology present in most of the world’s dominant religions that the end was nigh, Judgment Day and The End could happen at any moment…

There have ALWAYS been dire threats to be afraid of. There have always been things that MIGHT happen that could be the end for our civilization…and yet we survived. We dared to dream and hope and keep moving forward.

We chose to be better than our worst fears.

We made it to the Moon a generation ago…now we can’t even get out of low orbit. Not because we can’t. It’s because we choose not to.

Science fiction needs to teach us to soar again..to dream and to hope…to reach for the stars.

– Bill Smith
http://www.BillSmithBooks.com, http://www.OutlawGalaxy.com

Interviews & ProfilesAdventures in SciFi Publishing interviews Simon Royle.Psdtuts+ interviews artist Designer Gianluigi Di Giacomo. NewsStar Trek Online Going Free-to-Play in January 2012.Mathematicians Calculate 10 Trillion Digits, twice the prev…

Interviews and ProfilesNisi Shawl interviews Hiromi Goto (PDF). Galactic Suburbia Episode 46 (podcast).Small Beer Podcast interviews Michael J. DeLuca.The Agony Column interviews Nick Mamatas (podcast).Terri Windling profiles Jessie M. King.SFFWRTCHT i…