Author! Author!

Sunday, February 22, 2009

Mand suggested that a post of author recommendations might be a good idea. So here's a non-exhaustive list in no particular order.

  • China Mieville. Start with King Rat and work your way into Perdido Street Station. It's fantasy-steampunkishness for grown-ups.
  • Jon Courtney Grimwood has done some fascinating sci-fi, some alternate history world building, and is well worth a look. My own favourites include Remix and Red Robe.
  • Robert Rankin is the master of Far Fetched Fiction, a man who has turned an evening in a pub with your esoteric mates into a collection of novels. He deserves a lot more attention. And money.
  • Joe Haldeman wrote The Forever War which is a Must Read, one of those rare books that everyone should read regardless of whether you like science fiction. It's a superb example of a really human story in a scifi setting that uses the genre to excellent effect whilst never really betraying the human elements of the story. The rest of his work is equally interesting.
  • Robert A. Heinlein seems, in many of his novels, to be an arch conservative. But over the years I have come to appreciate him as a teacher. I often get the impression that he wrote books that said "here's my idea, now argue against me". Particularly important are Starship Troopers and Stranger in a Strange Land, which use science fiction as a way to make points about the responsibilities of citizenship and the ways in which we treat relationships.
  • John Sladek wrote some of the darkest, funniest novels I have ever read. Humour does not come blacker, or more twisted, and he was a very under-rated author. If you can find Tik Tok buy it, read it, enjoy it, then collect the rest of whatever you can find in print. He'd been dead since 2000, so it's really a race against time to grab what you can before it all goes out of print.
  • Tom Holt is another great British comic-novelist, but once you've sampled something like Flying Dutch go on to read Olympiad and his earlier, serious works. Tom Holt is also One Of The Good Guys.
  • Jasper Fforde is another of Britain's crop of humourists, but one bursting with strange and entertaining ideas. His books come with DVD extras, which you can find on the website.
  • David Gemmell was a fantasy author, an excellent spinner of tales, and wrote some of the best heroic fantasy since Tolkein. Read Legend and tell me I'm wrong.
  • Thomas M. Disch was identified as a leading light of the New Wave, a movement I really enjoyed. Alas, he too has been taken from us but he leaves a legacy of excellent and challenging fiction.
  • Terry Pratchett is a lot more than just a humourist. The most recent batch of Discworld books demonstrates that. There's more to Going Postal and Making Money, or Monstrous Regiment than fantasy laffs and funny dialog, and the joy of the Discworld series is that, start to finish, it's a timeline of a style and form.
  • Alfred Bester is another terribly important writer that people don't seem to have heard of, which is a shame. He's really good, and terribly clever.
  • Christopher Priest is someone else who should be read. A lot. A lot more.
And this is now leaning on the long side for a blog post. Who have I left out? Everyone else. People like David Brin and Neil Gaiman, like Arthur C Clarke and Ray Bradbury, like Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle, Robert Anton Wilson, Charles Stross and David Langford. I left out Michael Moorcock (but that's OK because this list is a sort of tribute to passages in the Cornelius novels, I'll slip a Hawkwind reference in soon) and C.S. Lewis, I omitted E.E. "Doc" Smith and completely missed Greg Bear, Ben Bova, Neal Stephenson, William Gibson and Bruce Sterling, which is as unforgivable as missing H.G. Wells, Isaac Asimov, Jules Verne and Mary Gentle .

In fact, I've entirely failed to cover so many it's almost criminal. So remind me who I have missed and who is worth reading. Genre or not. It's what the comments are for, really. And here we stop, because lists are like roads - if you let them, they go ever, ever on.

Read more...

Hurm

Friday, February 20, 2009

I have of late, and wherefore I know not, lost all urge to visit Facebook, post on Outpost Wrinklie or go much of anywhere else other than assorted blogs.

I don't really have all that much to say at the moment.
Nor am I in much of a mood to wade through a dozen threads of sameness.

So why do I feel like a bad person because of it?

Read more...

Invaders Must Die!

I bought a CD. I was inspired to buy the CD because I haven't in aaaaages. Alas, it was not by an exciting new band.

It was The Prodigy.

And this is the world's worst music review.

Look, it's like a Greatest Hits album without actually being a compilation of The Prodigy's greatest hits. It might be a distillation of what made The Prodigy really good. The smart reviewers and people who know about this sort of music will tell you that things have moved on since Fat of the Land and this sort of thing is a bit...old news. On the other hand it's very definitely The Prodigy, and it's really good. You can tell, because I bought it. I don't like this kind of music, in general, but there's something about Liam, Keith et al that keeps me fascinated and entertained, dammit, and I really can't say that about many other bands.

Dave Grohl apparently guest-drums on Run With The Wolves, not that I could tell (because I have the musical talent of a wellington boot with tinitus).

But, look, I sampled a couple of the tracks prior to buying and liked what I heard. Then I listened to the whole thing. Twice. It made my head bounce and I smiled a lot.

Plus, I love the title. So, to sum up: it's The Prodigy, only moreso, and if you like that sort of thing then you'll definitely like this. And if you don't, then you probably won't. But if you aren't sure and the last thing you heard from this lot was Firestarter then you should find a way to listen to some of it because you might end up smiling, bouncing your head around and buying the CD.

Now, if you'll excuse me I want to go back and listen to Run With The Wolves again. I'm not entirely sure what Keith is going on about, but I can't get the drums out of my head.

Read more...

Technical Hitches

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

I got myself a copy of Ubuntu 8.10, because it was free (and I like that in an operating system).

I tested it, booting Ubuntu from CD, and my aging PC was suddenly given a new lease of life. I can see why people like Linux. I had a scoot around, loved the fact that it seemed simple and responsive, and tried to get online. Nope. Fail.

Boot to Windows XP. Read the help forums. Oh bugger.

It seems that Ubuntu has issues with older wireless cards and the only internet connection I have is wifi. I don't have a choice about that; in this complex it's wifi or nothing. So I read some more.

I've got an older Broadcom card, which is perfectly servicable under Windows but isn't supported by the Ubuntu kernel. There are workarounds, however. I have investigated some. It's been a while since I last used a command line for anything important but it's not intimidating, it's just a pain in the bum to do. So after much reading, it turns out that in order to make this work I need to find drivers, extract vital bits of them, tarball them, rebuild them, run them up a flagpole and dance the Charleston on the night of the full moon.

I am now officially intimidated, but I go ahead and repartition my drive, install Ubuntu and have a bit of a think.

The pain is that with the card offline in Ubuntu I need to keep switching back and forward to Windows in order to research things and spend any time online. I can't get WINE, the Ubuntu windows emulator, because I need to be online to download it and install it. I also don't appear to be terribly good at sorting out documents without links.

So this leads me to a couple of conclusions.

1: I have some learning to do. I reckon that if I can master this it'll be the most challenging thing I have done in ages and if it works I have a lovely Ubuntu partition to play with.

2: The Open Source community is full of really intelligent people. Some of them have brains that are big. I, on the other hand, am a total n00b and the thought bothers me a bit.

3: I should have waited until I was somewhere with an ethernet connection in order to do this. Then wifi wouldn't be an issue.

4: When I go to the UK, I will be buying a laptop and installing Ubuntu, so I either need to get this right now or else sacrifice the wifi capability of said future lappy. And I don't see a point in doing that.

In the end, Ubuntu is going to force me to learn it anyway. It's not like Windows, which does so many things for you that it causes brain atrophy, and it's not as forgiving an environment as Windows, so this isn't going to be easy, but I refuse to be beaten. At some point in the near future there will be a victory post from the Ubuntu partition and I will sing the praises of the software, but between now and then there's going to be a lot of reading.

Read more...

Insomnia TV again

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

No actual insomnia was involved, just the President's Day weekend and some time to settle back and watch a few shows.

Fringe becomes more interesting as time goes on. In the last episode, we find out why Olivia was kidnapped and given a spinal-tap, and Walter reveals that he made a teleporter but never used it because it does something hideous to those who use it. We learn a bit more about The Pattern and the group known as ZFT.

Remember Doctor Who? Remember The Army of Ghosts, and the ill-fated experiments atop the Torchwood tower? Remember The Doctor's awful warning about what happens when universes collide? Yeah. But subtler.

The show is successfully wading into X-Files territory, but in a much less mythos-bound manner than the X-Files did. It's probably going to build into something along similar lines to the backstory which Lost glories in, but since there's very little to catch up on at the moment, it's a good time to get involved with Fringe.

The Sarah Connor Chronicles returns with a very interesting episode; we were left with Sarah and Riley's lives hanging by threads, uncertain who would live or die, and not at all sure how to react to those developments. The show undercuts one set of tensions by sidelining Riley and concentrating on Sarah. I suppose that's fair, she's the one the show is named after.

Sarah has some trust issues, as you might expect, so the episode focusses on giving her someone she needs to trust - after being shot, Sarah escapes her hospital bed, kidnaps a doctor at gunpoint and then demands that the doctor treat her injury. To complicate matters, she's seeing John Connor's father - Kyle Reese, the soldier the adult John sent back to protect his mother in the original Terminator. Reese seems to represent the rational and more trusting part of Sarah Connor, which died right along with him at the end of the first movie. As Sarah connects with the woman she has kidnapped, the events of the first two movies are related in dialog - but not in exposition, it's nice to see - leading the doctor to assume that Sarah is the victim of an abusive relationship. This is subtle, well done, and nicely played by the cast.

Meanwhile, Sarah and the doctor are hunted by a cop, played by Connor Trinneer whom I last saw blowing himself up in Enterprise. His character seems very experienced, competent, intelligtent and in control. It's only when we reach the denoumont that we find out all is not as it seems, and there's a nice little sting in the tale.

The sub-plots - Riley being co-erced into tempting John away from his Terminator bodyguard, and the ongoing efforts of Agent Ellis to teach an A.I. (which looks increasingly like a nascent SkyNet) morality, are present and correct. The latter enjoys the considerable charms of Shirely Manson who, in this episode, gets to committ a little mayhem and delivers another porcelain performance - chilling, inhuman and yet somehow sensual. Manson has considerable charisma; when she's on screen, it's hard not to watch her.

Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles is well worth finding and watching.

Dollhouse is Joss Whedon's latest and proceeds from an interesting premise. Take a person and wipe their personality and memories. You would then be free to implant any other personality or set of memories on them, turning them into anyone with any skillset.

You might think that this would be prime government conspiracy fodder, but Whedon sets The Dollhouse up as an illegal commercial enterprise instead. Eliza Dushku is our lead, a character called Echo who is recruited by the Dollhouse with the promise that after five years of service all her past problems will be made to go away.

The next time we see her, she's been transformed into someone's perfect date for the express purpose of finding out how much fun can be had in a weekend.

Should we be comfortable with this? Echo, as far as we can see, is a slave. Between Engagements she's well looked after and cared for, but by the end of the show we see her being put away in what's essentially a box. The moral ambiguity is flagged early on; one of the characters is a former cop who is cautioned against engaging in heroics - Engagements happen on a strictly professional basis - but the Dollhouse reduces the people it sends out to the status of puppets and commodities. Without a personality imprint to motivate her, Echo is a cipher and nothing more.

The idea of someone acquiring skills and/or memories to make them essentially a different person isn't new - see also Joe 90 and The Pretender for variations on the theme - but Dollhouse is the first time we've been asked to take a look at the morality of programming people and changing identities. The opening episode is engaging enough, but doesn't deliver a big enough punch to hook a big audience. Eliza Dushku's performance alone - and this is a great role for her because week to week she's going to be able to showcase her versatility - is worth watching but again, it's not enough to make this a hit. I hope it gets to run a full season, I don't think it will be back for a second, I desperately hope I'm wrong.

Incidentally, none of these are a patch on Being Human.

I'd write about Heroes but I want to see another episode before I comment.

For those who are wondering how I manage to watch this stuff without the benefit of a TV, I've signed up with a service called Hulu which uses adverts to support itself and has a decent back-catalog of material, including agreements to show new material (like Fringe, The Sarah Connor Chronicles, Battlestar Galactica and Heroes) for a limited time starting the day or week after they are broadcast. There are the usual buffering issues, which you'll find on any online service of this nature, but it's simple to use and easy to navigate. So I thought it was worth a plug, because some of the content might be available to UK users. Someone let me know if it's been Geo-Locked.

Read more...

Awesome Thought of the Week

Monday, February 9, 2009

Not being a Christian, this would never have occurred to me, but it did occur to Becca and she passed it on.

In the Bible, John 1:1 says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

- which might argue that all of creation is a text, and that those of us who have been trained to examine texts might be in a rather more startling position than we had previously believed.

If the universe is a text, if it can be approached as a text and understood as a text, then it can be interpreted and changed like a text.

Think on.

Read more...

Books vs Internet/Digital text

I was reading the dotLife blog, over on the BBC website, at lunchtime, and the question was asked: Do you still read books?

Of course I do. I post there as Dark Side of the Goon (an online name which happily combines the geniuses of Spike Milligan and Roger Waters). Here's what I said:

The book still has advantages over electronics.

For example, if I decide to read in the bath, I can. If I drop the paperback, I'm out a tenner. If I drop a Kindle, it's a lot harder to replace.

Books don't have batteries. They work in power cuts and in places where there wasn't any power to begin with.

They don't overheat. A publisher will never send one out with a faulty battery that explodes. You don't have to worry about a book getting a virus or just failing to work altogether for no obvious reason (unless you're the author).

Your book will never decide to update itself and then autonomously restart when you're in the middle of something important. It won't go "bing!" at you because it suddenly doesn't like the page you've arrived at. And no matter how many times you riffle through the index, it will not surprise you with porn as the result of what you assumed was a perfectly innocent search. Unless it was that sort of book to start with.

Also, books are more or less DRM-proof. I bought a book, I own the book. I can always write things in the margins if I feel like it.

We're coded for books, programmed for them. No matter how digital we go, books are part of the language. The police will never .doc a criminal. At the trial, the judge will never throw the .pdf at him. Being brought to Kindle has some rather Inquisitorial associations and you'll never place a bet with a .txtmaker.

I think the book is probably safe for now.

Read more...

Bothersome

Sunday, February 8, 2009

I'm attempting an exorcism.

I have been stuck in the same job for three years. Doing the same things. This is anathema to me. I have attempted to extend my role in every possible direction, taking on the things that other people don't want to do, pushing the envelope as much as I can in line with the stated vision for my job title. But enough is enough, I wanted some new challenges and a chance to learn new things. So I applied for a similar job with a different department, because it would give me new people to hang out with and infovore off.

The interview did not go well. When I described my current role and what I had done with it, the interviewer recoiled and told me that the job he was offering was nowhere near that complex or demanding, that I would be bored and never challenged and that, essentially, I was too smart to do the job.

Which would be a lovely compliment if the job wasn't also a promotion AND a pay rise.

So, essentially, some cow-eyed numpty with less responsibility than me, with less brain than me, with a less complex understanding of the company than me, gets better paid and better opportunity to be promoted.

I don't quite understand the logic there.

Never mind. It's just a job. I need to write more and make that my career instead.

Read more...

It's been a while...

I had two days with no internet connection, thanks to dodgy wifi.
It was the router. Not my router - I don't have a router - it was the router for the back half of the complex. I am House-like in my ability to diagnose small networking issues.

Sans internet, I have been reading and catching up on a few things. Also, I have reformatted my MP3 player and added new stuff.

All in all, a busy couple of days.

I have read: Women in the Middle Ages by Frances and Joseph Gies.

I have a series of their books, which I find really easy to read. They have an engaging style; in this case they focus on a series of women from the 900s to the 1500s, taking a look at the lives of women from queens to peasants and covering all the variations in between. Margery Kempe pops up - my favourite religious nutter - because as well as representing women who make their spirituality their lives she was also quite the entrepreneur at a time when women were not supposed to be. F&J also rely quite heavily on material culled from primary source docs, which is always a favourite thing of mine in a history text, and they have a way of finding the small joys involved in people's lives. They also explain quite a lot about where all their information comes from, so you get a decent picture of how it all worked.

The end result is a clear picture that what we think we know about women from 960 onwards is probably wrong. It turns out that although the male chroniclers of the times might have tried to downplay women, they were as important and involved in the world then as they are now.

I have been watching: All kinds of things.

I got the Shakespeare Retold DVD set (thanks Becca!) and have consumed it. After having watched most of it - there are four plays in the set and I have seen three - I wrote some stuff about it intending to put it up on this here blog as one post. Instead, edited highlights.

Like everyone else in the UK my first exposure to Shakespeare was at school and, like everyone else, I found his plays hard going. At first.
After seeing Star Wars, it was actually hard to imagine a world without special effects that could bring the imaginings of the writer to life, but after reading Julius Caeser and Henry V, I realised what it was that Shakespeare was doing. The man had no technology to wow the crowds, no special effects to bring his scenes to life - all he had were words. So he used them.

If you're going to be slapped around the face by the power of language, there are few better ways to do it than with Shakespeare.

Shakespeare Retold gives you another way to look at the Bard. Like many of the great writers in the English language - well, like many of the great writers - he tells a story. In the Shakespeare Retold series, the writers have the unenviable task of throwing away the language (for the most part) and working with the characters and structure of the plays, modernising them, bringing them firmly into the 21st century and making them accessible to an audience that might not have that love of language.

It is not an enviable task. Shakespeare is still The Man.

What this collection of short films does is reaffirm that his plays stand the test of time; they can be translated, updated, re-written and the structure remains sound, the stories remain entertaining and vital. Hollywood is still strip-mining The Bard for ideas and occasionally his plays appear in unexpected forms, as teen comedies, as buddy movies. It's rare these days to see a Shakespeare being told in the original form, but it doesn't matter because do what we may, the stories refuse to lay down and die.

McBeth, for example, no longer has a castle and there are no Scottish kings here. Instead James MacAvoy plays Joe McBeth the chef, a Michelin starred chef toiling in the kitchen of the restaraunt owning celebrity chef Duncan. Duncan is king of his domain, right enough, but it's McBeth who puts him there and keeps him there. The terrible, awful downward spiral of Joe McBeth makes compelling viewing; from brilliance to ambition to murder, to his tortured guilty fall, the story is as relentless as a war drum. That all of this takes place in a kitchen and draws us into a world of TV chefs and the very finest cuisine while still being visceral and powerful is a tribute to the cast and writer, but you can't ignore the production team. There's a lot of shadow around; MCBeth emerges from darkness like some predatory fish breaking the surface of a moonlit sea. The contrasts between the stark, steel kitchen and those times when McBeth and his wife are alone, when the lighting becomes soft and subtle, are wonderful. The camera takes every opportunity to showcase MacAvoy, who gives a wonderfully physical performance without falling to the temptation to chew the scenery. It's compelling stuff, and very much recommended.

A Midsummer Night's Dream has adaptation issues. The play is about love, magic and faeries, and it's set in Athens. So the adaptation plants it firmly in Center Parks, keeps both the magic and the faeries and sticks closely enough to the events and characters that if you know the play you'll see clearly that the writer kept all the important bits, although he played with a couple of characters. Peter Quince and Bottom, notably, have changed. Here we get Johnny Vegas as Bottom; gone is the bombastic man full of his own importance and certain of his rather uncertain talents and instead he is replaced with a classic of British culture - the comedic Northern Loser. Peter Quince, on the other hand, takes on the role of arrogant blowhard. It works, largely thanks to casting Vegas and (the bloke from the Fast Show who played Monkfish). Demetrius and Hermia, Helena and Lysander remain unaltered, although Bill Paterson and Imelda Staunton get to play a rather older Theseus and Hippolita who have already been married for some years and are on the edge of splitting up. Oberon and Titania quarrel, but over who's in charge rather than an Indian page boy, and Puck is...

...well, Puck is Dean Lennox Kelly. It's a rather more modern Puck than we're used to but DLK unviels the core of the character. Puck is a mischievous creature, and the core of mischief is malice. Puck torments humans because they are stupid and easy to mess with. He loves it. At one point, as Oberon attempts to get things set right, he warns Puck that no one is to get hurt. The result of Puck's machinations is a brawl. DLK turns to the camera and with a smile says
"Oberon's got this 'no one gets hurt' thing going, but I wanted to see a punch-up and you wanted to see a punch up..and, come on!"
He's also a big user of natural recreational chemicals, commenting at one point that his night has been far too busy and he's "off to pick a load of mushrooms, have a big brew-up and get a bit of a wobble on", which accounts for his inability to get things right. He also, as in the play, gets the last word, commenting
"You might be offended. Some people get offended, no reason. If you were offended, I can come round to your place and sort you out. I'm not lying."
If it weren't for the pleasant smile on DLK's face, if not for his slightly fuzzy, slightly dazed Rave Casualty demeanour, you might feel threatened. You should feel threatened. Puck's a bastard.

I still need to watch Much Ado About Nothing and The Taming of the Shrew, so more on that score when I get to them.

...and...more, generally, later.

Read more...

Just so you know...

I don't know what this bit is for. Perhaps I should give it a purpose?

  © Free Blogger Templates Columnus by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP