Untitled Post

Here is a blog that I discovered (well, actually Sean discovered it) that seems kind of interesting, and here are the author’s musings on the Statehood Quarters now that two-fifths of them have been issued. I agree with him that the Connecticut quarter is the best thus far, although I also love the Virginia design (the ships landing at Jamestown), the Tennessee design (musical instruments, in keeping with Nashville’s country scene and the Memphis blues scene), New Hampshire’s quarter (the “Old Man of the Mountain”), and the Vermont design (maple trees being tapped for syrup). I, too, find it odd that many of the states seem to be taking a “safe way out” by putting their state outline on their quarter, but in my own state’s defense, New York actually put a relief map of the state on the quarter, with a line cutting through the state demarking the Hudson River/Erie Canal. We didn’t just go for a simple outline, like our neighbors in Pennsylvania did.

By the way, will the District of Columbia get a quarter?

Share This Post

Untitled Post

A few miscellaneous links collected from some weekend Websurfing:

:: This article, from the New York Times, is about the current prevalence of fantasy films and the mainstream acceptance of fantasy that the glut of these films demonstrates. (Registration with the NYT is required to read their online content, but the registration process is quick and free.)

:: The MSN article about last week’s discovery of an apparently Jupiter-like planet in another solar system.

:: An intriguing new blog about food in New York City.

:: One blogger’s experiment with twenty-one consecutive days of posting about the front-page content of People Magazine‘s website.

Share This Post

Untitled Post

IMAGE OF THE WEEK





Freestyle motocross rider Caleb Wyatt, failing in one of his attempts to land a successful backflip.

I was checking baseball standings and whatnot online, and I saw this headline: “First motocross backflip completed”. Saying to myself, “Now there’s something I should have a look at”, I followed the link to the story and found this picture of one of Wyatt’s unsuccessful attempts at this particular feat. I know nothing whatsoever about the world of motocross, but I couldn’t resist a picture of a guy and a bike flying through the air toward a large pile of dirt.

(Click on the image for the article, which also contains a video clip.)

Share This Post

Untitled Post

It’s that time of year again: when the “Year’s Best” of short fiction begin appearing. The first of these, Year’s Best SF 7 edited by David Hartwell, is out now. Hartwell’s Year’s Best Fantasy 2 should appear sometime soon as well. Hartwell’s is one of the two big “Year’s Best” series; the others being Gardner Dozois’s annual The Year’s Best Science Fiction (the nineteenth annual edition of which will arrive in July) and my favorite, The Year’s Best Fantasy and Horror, edited by Terri Windling and Ellen Datlow (the fifteenth of which should appear in August). These four books provide the best annual snapshot of the state of speculative and dark fiction in general — plus they yield tons of good reading.

Share This Post

Untitled Post

Sean posted a link to an interesting story about one possible means of future Martian exploration: a flying-wing style glider that would coast about the Martian atmosphere, landing in scientifically-interesting places and dropping small, mechanized experiments to the ground below. The article can be found here. I’m interested in two things about this project: first, is the Martian atmosphere sufficiently thick for the flying wing to generate enough lift to fly? And secondly, what will be done about the violent sandstorms that frequently wrack the Martian surface?

Share This Post

Untitled Post

(WARNING: The following is in direct violation of my “No Politics” policy.)

The nice thing about self-imposed policies, like my “no political discussion here” rule, is that I can violate it whenever I wish, pretty much with impunity. The occasion today is this interesting article in which Eric Raymond details the top ten reasons why he is not a liberal and the top ten reasons why he is not a conservative. I disagree with a lot of the assertions here (primarily the ones about liberals), but the one that really gives me pause is Number Nine, his assessment of Bill Clinton. In Raymond’s words:

“Sociopathic liar, perjurer, sexual predator. There was nothing but a sucking narcissistic vacuum where his principles should have been. Liberals worship him.” (italics mine)

There’s a lot to process here, and I’m not going to comment on all of it. Clinton is an amazingly dishonest man, but frankly that’s to be expected. Honesty in politics has never been in large supply. The legal question of whether or not he actually committed perjury is simply not as clear-cut as many would like to believe. And I have difficulty calling Clinton a “sexual predator”, especially given the shenanigans that a depressingly large number of Catholic priests have apparently been perpetrating. Clinton’s morality, with regard to marital fidelity, is certainly questionable (“nonexistent” might be a better term), but using such hyperbole as “predatory” to characterize behavior that was, in every instance, committed between two consensual (if stupid) adults seems to minimize the amount of outrage we can therefore claim for the pedophile priests and such. But that isn’t what gives me pause here, either. It’s Raymond’s last clause: “Liberals worship him.”

Which liberals would those be?

I have read a great deal of liberal commentary on Clinton, both during and after his Presidency. This includes authors like Molly Ivins, Joe Klein, Helen Thomas, Michael Moore, George Stephanopolous, Michael Kinsley, the editorial department of The New York Times, and so on. Many of these commentators defended Clinton against what they saw to be personally motivated attacks on him, up to and including the impeachment trial; many of them argue that Clinton accomplished a fair number of substantive goals while in office; many of them are thankful that he was able to block many of the Republican more draconian measures and policy goals once that party took control of Congress in 1994; and many of them admire Clinton’s political skill and ability to survive setbacks that would have crippled other presidents. If that were the only tone present in these people’s writings — and to my mind, these people constitute much of the prevailing opinion amongst the American left — then Raymond’s charge that “liberals worship Bill Clinton” might be well-taken.

But that’s not the only tone present. Also notable is a keen sense of disappointment in Clinton, both as President and as a man. Just about every liberal commentator and writer I’ve ever encountered has expressed sadness that Clinton achieved much of his success by relentlessly moving to the center, in many cases co-opting issues that had for years been safe, Republican issues. They are disappointed by Clinton’s pro-death penalty stance. They are disappointed that Clinton’s work on the environment basically amounted to creating a large number of national monuments by using the Antiquities Act, and they suspect that he did this more to gall the Republicans and frustrate his successor than out of any real concern for the environment. They are disappointed that Clinton allowed the Kyoto protocols to twist in the wind. They are disappointed in his bungling of the health care plan. They are disappointed in Clinton’s renegging on many of his original campaign promises, most notably his backtracking on gays in the military. They were keenly disappointed by his version of welfare reform. They were galled when Clinton turned his back on the liberal base and instead adopted the “triangulation” strategy formed by Dick Morris, a man who is not near-and-dear to anyone of a liberal persuasion. They were disillusioned when the last two-and-a-half years of Clinton’s Presidency was consumed with the spectacle of impeachment and a disgraced President trying to salvage something of a historical legacy. It was liberal dissatisfaction with the Clinton years that made Ralph Nader a force to be reckoned with in 2000. If liberals really worshipped Clinton, Al Gore would be in the White House.

As far as I can tell, the prevailing liberal view on Bill Clinton is this: “He did OK, and if he hadn’t been there things might have been a lot worse, but he could have done so much more.” That, frankly, doesn’t sound like “worship” to me. If you want to see “worship”, look at the conservative love affair with Ronald Reagan. As far as I know, no liberal has suggested putting Clinton on Mount Rushmore — a suggestion which has seriously been advanced on Reagan’s behalf. No liberal has said of Clinton, “The nation owes this man a debt that it can never repay” — which Rush Limbaugh has said of Reagan. Liberal books on Clinton tend to be almost apologetic; contrast that with the fauning tone of Peggy Noonan’s When Character Was King: A Story of Ronald Reagan.

William Jefferson Clinton is many things, but an object of “liberal worship” is not one of them.

Share This Post

Untitled Post

I woke up this morning, and it came to me in a flash, as if my subconscious mind had been processing this particular problem for a day or two. The revelation?

They omitted Say Anything!!!

Yes, I’m still stuck on the AFI’s Top 100 Movie Romances, the subject of earlier comment by me. I promise to get off this rut eventually, but I now believe that Say Anything has to be the most egregious omission from The List. After all, it’s nothing more than the finest teen romance ever filmed, capturing perfectly the awkwardness of first love and the uncertainty of life after high school and teen angst and all the rest of it. One of the greatest romantic images of all time, from any movie, has to be Lloyd Dobler (John Cusack) holding the boom box aloft, Peter Gabriel’s “In Your Eyes” blaring for Diane Court (Ione Skye) to hear. Roger Ebert even saw fit to name Say Anything in his biweekly “The Great Movies” column (read that article here).

That should be my final word on the matter. Until, of course, another film occurs to me like a bolt from the blue. (Seven Brides For Seven Brothers? The Music Man? How about Shrek? Oh, somebody, make it stop….)

Share This Post

Untitled Post

I’ve added a permanent link (see “Other Shores” at left) to a Webzine called The Infinite Matrix. In the words of the zine, this is “a journal for people who love science fiction as a literature of ideas”. They carry fiction, reviews, and a daily journal by SF author (noted for his cyberpunk novels and stories) Bruce Sterling. Check it out.

Share This Post

Untitled Post

Military Science Fiction is a potent and growing sub-genre of SF in general these days. Prominent authors of military SF are John Ringo, Eric Flint, David Drake, and David Weber. Military SF is just that: SF stories generally involving violent, bloody wars fought by grunt soldiers wearing immense spacesuits that would dwarf Darth Vader’s and weilding blaster-cannons the size of bazookas against horrible, detestable alien enemies. This isn’t Space Opera, a la Star Wars or Lensmen; think of Starship Troopers. The focus in military SF tends to be on how a military unit would function in a futuristic war, with futuristic weaponry; tactics are paramount and a badge of honor among authors of this type of SF is how clearly they can write a very complex battle. I actually don’t read much military SF; I find that a little of it goes quite a long way. I did enjoy On Basilisk Station, the first of David Weber’s series of novels detailing the adventures of Captain Honor Harrington (initials HH….not unlike another famous literary Captain, albeit a seafaring one), even though Weber’s characterizations aren’t very complex and he demonstrated a strange tendency to break off in the middle of a fairly tense action-filled sequence to provide a lengthy infodump of some sort. Military SF is related to Space Opera, but it doesn’t tend to have the galactic scope, the grand sense of wonder, and the Eternal-Battle-of-Good-Versus-Evil thing that attracts me so strongly to Space Opera. But Military SF is very popular these days.

The book I finished yesterday, The Forever War by Joe Haldeman, can be considered military SF, but having been initially published in 1975 (with portions appearing three years prior to that in Analog), it is quite different from the military SF of today. Haldeman’s book is told first-person by William Mandella, who at the outset is a Private in a military strike force that is training for a war that has just begun against the Taurans, a race of beings encountered in a system a number of lightyears from Earth. The enemy is extremely distant, and some might not even consider them much of a threat, but the war goes on — and on and on, for years and years. Also complicating things is the nature of space travel itself: transit between star systems is accomplished via “collapsar jumps”, which accelerate the ships to something like .9c (nine-tenths of the speed of light), meaning that the soldiers spend years moving from one battle to the next — while, in keeping with relativity, the time progressing from their perspective is measurable only in weeks. The effect is that when the soldiers finally do get their chance to return home, they are returning to a home that has changed drastically from the one they left, a home which doesn’t welcome them with open arms (or even welcome them at all). The Forever War, then, becomes a SF-based allegory on the American experience in Viet Nam.

Private Mandella gets to know his comrades only by very broad strokes, and many of them are killed horribly and in ways that are surprising for their timing and mundane nature. He rarely has any idea (and thus, neither do we) of the military strategy at work behind the actions of the troops, and he at times suspects that there is no strategy per se, other than “Lose no more territory than has already been lost”. Haldeman also employs his science very well: in addition to time marching on for Earth while grinding to a near halt for the soldiers, he makes us realize that this same fact of spacetime means that the enemy and the humans may at times be fighting with one side or the other at a clear advantage. In this way Haldeman captures the uncertainty that made the Viet Nam War so harrowing for the soldiers who fought it, that feeling that one not only knows when the enemy may attack but where he may attack from. During the military scenes there is a constant sense that the Taurans may arrive at any second, and they often do.

Equally effective are the scenes on Earth, when Mandella returns home after his service is up. He discovers what seems to him a world gone mad. The Earth that Haldeman shows us is rather dystopic, but what is interesting isn’t so much the Earth as Haldeman shows it as Mandella’s response to that Earth, as he attempts to carve out a niche where he can live his life and, maybe, enjoy love.

The Forever War suffers a bit in its third act, which felt a bit perfunctory. Mandella is re-drafted into service, this time as a commanding officer. I think that Haldeman is trying to show that the war was just as choatic and horrible for commanders as it was for the “grunts”. A bit of this comes through, and the trials-and-tribulations that Mandella experiences in his first command post — for which he really isn’t cut out — are interesting, but this part of the book still seems to be striving too hard toward the massive Final Battle, which is almost obligatory in stories like this. Haldeman’s ending, too, seems a bit too easy and a bit too happy after such a harrowing book. But it does work, though, being based as it is squarely on the science that forms the basis of Haldeman’s entire enterprise. Even though I’m not sure if things should work out the way they do, I’m glad that they do.

The Forever War is a very impressive work.

Share This Post

Untitled Post

In my post yesterday about the AFI’s top 100 romantic films, I commented that I found it bizarre that Jennifer Love Hewitt provided commentary on the listed films that starred Audrey Hepburn. I have now been informed that Miss Hewitt played Miss Hepburn herself in a biopic recently, which probably explains it. OK, but I still think it’s weird — not unlike that ABC interview with Bill Clinton (while he was President) that was conducted by Leonardo DiCaprio. But I concede that it’s not completely inexplicable.(Thanks for the tip, Meg!)

Share This Post