[Correction: MWS chimed in in the comments to correct my misapprehension of his current attitude toward podcasting, which is considerably more complex than the paragraph above makes it seem. My apologies for inadvertently misrepresenting him.]

The two of them are generation one podiobookers who appeared in the space hot on the heels of the three founders, and seeing them throw in the towel has a lot of other creators wondering: “Are we all just being idiots giving stuff away for free?” And it’s got a lot of fans wondering “What’s going to happen now? Are all my favorite writers going to give up?”

The Gospel of Free has been pinging around the internet for a while now, it’s even got its own official book. There are folks in the fiction space - like Doctorow and Sigler - that have made it the cornerstone of their publicity strategy and turn a consistent profit at it. The use of free content in career building is a well-established promotional strategy, but it’s a difficult tool to use, and suffers from the reductio ad absurdum that most people hear when they first encounter the message, no matter how subtly it’s preached: “If you build it, they will come.”

So if I just put my stuff on the web I’ll find an audience? Well, no. You might find an audience, if you get yourself seen by the right people (and by “right people” I mean people who are prone to telling everybody they know about their latest new and great thing). You might even find a good audience - but you have to bear in mind, “Free” doesn’t mean what you think it does.

Let’s take what I do for free (well, free to my audience): I use a segment of my professional time as a writer and as a sound engineer to produce full-cast audiodbooks. I pay for this - billing my professional time out at normal rates, and factoring in what I pay my actors in trade (whether they’ve collected on it or not), my cost (not including what I should be paying the author) is in the neighborhood of $10-15k. Now, am I out of pocket that much? No. I do go out of pocket a little bit, but not a lot - however, that’s all time stripped out of my life that I could be billing at that kind of rate. If you’ve wondered why I do less in the way of publicity than some other podiobooks authors, now you know - the time is my main expense, and I have a life and a business. I intend, eventually, to have my writing income make up a greater-than-fifty-percent share of my household budget, but I’m not there yet. I’m nowhere near. This is what is called a loss-leader.

In business terms, a loss-leader is the bait on the hook - the hook is what gets the audience to spend money. Matching the right bait to the right hook and fishing in the right water is a learned skill set, and it relies somewhat on how fast one learns from experience, how lucky one is, and (in the writing game) how good a lawyer one is and/or has. There’s a reason more than 75% of authors wash out of the game after their first book contract runs out, and why only a minuscule percentage of people with authorial ambitions ever get even that far - being a good writer is not the same as being a successful author. It’s even possible to be a successful author without being a good writer (for example, Dan Brown), but I wouldn’t bank on it and I know damn few successful authors who would, particularly over the term of a career. Craft does matter - it’s just not all that matters.

If podcasting is your loss leader, what’s your endgame? If all you’re trying to do is get your voice heard, podcasting or blogging your novel is a perfectly fine idea. If you’re looking to get published, it might help, or it might be a distraction or a detriment, depending on your approach and a host of other variables. If you’re looking to build a sustainable long term career as a professional author, it’s time for you to stop and think about a few things before you go into podcasting:

1) What will podcasting give me?
2) What is my professional time worth - and if I were to bill myself for this, how much of a loss will I be taking?
3) What kind of author do I want to be?
4) Why do I think “getting published” is a worthwhile goal?

Why should you stop to think about these things? Because I guarantee you that your answers to at least one of those questions is wrong enough to set you up for some serious disappointment.

What will podcasting give me?
Podcasting will, if you stick with it and actually produce a decent product with broad enough appeal, give you an audience ranging anywhere from a few hundred to maybe twenty thousand regular listeners. If you’re very innovative in evangelizing your product beyond the established fiction podosphere, your chances for good numbers go up. If you host in a high visibility place like Podiobooks and leave your content there for a few years, your numbers will climb over time due to the long tail effect.

Podcasting may also help you learn the market in terms of audience. This is the primary reason I started fiction podcasting: Market research. I was looking to find out what kind of people would enjoy the stories that I’m interested in writing, so that I could figure out how to find and deliver to that market that, in the long term (and I’m talking about a time scale of decades) I will be able to consistently turn a profit on. Notice I said “stories”, not “books” - that will become important later.

Podcasting may give you a creative community - this isn’t something I was looking for, but I have made some friends through the process as well as more than a few good business contacts that have been helpful along the way.

Podcasting (if you’re good at it) will win you respect and accolades as well as the adoration of at least a few fans along the way, and this feels really good. Just remember that, as encouraging as it can be, it’s a limited kind of street cred. Audience tastes change, and what they love about you today they may hate about you tomorrow. Glory feels wonderful, even in small doses, and can put an extra bit of shine on a life well lived, but it will never make up for insecurity or the need for the kind of relationships you can only have with people who really know you.

Podcasting may give you pleasure - if you enjoy the process and enjoy interacting with people, it’s something that you might like even as a hobby.

But unless you are supremely lucky and very canny, there is something podcasting will not deliver: a paycheck of any substance. If you’re expecting to be have your audio audience put you on the bestseller list once you get that book deal, good luck to you. A few people have pulled it off. Those people are, without exception, people that - by chance or by cleverness - wrote exactly to market. They were selling stories that resonated perfectly (or at least well enough) with the public that a larger-than-average segment of their fan base wanted to own a physical copy, and the same larger-than-average segment went out of their way to pimp the shit out of the books to their friends, family, and strangers who might not even own iPods. A few others have pulled it off by their books being noticed on a site like Podiobooks, and subsequently selling film options.

If you want your book to perform well enough to get to your next contract, you need a publishing house that will throw its weight behind you, a print run that is realistically scaled to your book’s performance, and a property that is going to sell in the current market. If you don’t have at least the latter two of these three things, then (again) good luck to you. You’re going to need it.

How Much Is My Time Worth?

I hate to sound like a schoolmarm (or worse), but time that you’re podcasting is time that you’re not doing four other things, all of which are arguably more important. It’s time you’re not making money at whatever your profession is, it’s time you’re not spending with friends and family building the memories that make life with living, it’s time that you’re not learning, and it’s time that you’re not writing.

If you intend to write fiction for any significant fraction of your life, you need to be doing all of those things. You have to write to grow as a writer, and you have to make money to be able to live while you’re writing. But if you have a life that isn’t worth living - say, a life without significant relationships or learning and enrichment - then it’s highly unlikely that you’re going to have anything interesting to write about (and you may be too depressed to write about anything at all, except stories about depression).

Every hour you spend podcasting is billable time - somebody’s paying for it, and it isn’t always just you. Don’t cheat on your mental accounting sheet - There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Even in a down economy, your time has a dollar value attached to it - figure out what that value is, and then keep track of what you’re spending. If nothing else, being aware of the cost will help you keep from feeling cheated at the far end if you wind up not getting a good return on your investment, because you’ll be spending on purpose.

What Kind of Author Do I Want To Be?

If you’ve been in and around the writing business for any length of time, you’ve heard the old saw “you can’t make a living as a writer unless you’re in the top 1%.” This bit of conventional wisdom is what lies behind the blockbuster mentality on the part of authors: you want to have a brand name, you want to be the biggest thing ever, and you must relentlessly self-promote (the blockbuster mentality of some publishing houses is another animal entirely, and Charles Stross and Dean Wesley Smith have both covered it very well on their blogs recently).

If you’ve heard that and are still intent on trying, then you are either mind-numbingly stupid, a heroically-minded risk junkie, a hobbyist, or someone who actually has a clue about business and doesn’t listen to the conventional wisdom of creative people (in which case, good for you).

So you want to be the next Dan Brown or Stephanie Meyer? You’d be better off going to Vegas - that kind of trend really is a game of chance, and depends largely (though not entirely) on unforeseeable market forces. That said, there is a whole swath of writers who make a living on their names, which they worked very hard to establish, and who aren’t blockbusters (and yes, Scott Sigler is one of them. He might be a blockbuster by our standards, and his ambition is to be the next Stephen King, but by broader market standards he’s a respectable front-lister, and there’s nothing at all wrong with that).

But blockbusting is not the only way to win this game, and here’s why:

Most authors who make a living at it don’t make a living on their book advances. Oh, the advances help, but they’re not even close to the whole pie. Subsidiary rights sales, foreign rights, royalties from the long tail, article sales, and commissioned work for other commercial ventures (such as being tapped to do a Star Trek or a Dragonlance novel) make up a large part of the income flow, with investments helping keep the rent paid during lean years. These authors generally (though not always) sit solidly on the mid-list, and some of them write under a variety of names for different markets. I know and have known (personally) at least a score of authors who make their living with their words, and the two qualities that distinguish them from the authors I know who haven’t been able to pull it off are: 1) insufferable, bloody-minded perseverance, and 2) continual growth in craft and breadth. In other words, these authors actually treat it like a career, rather than a brass ring.

The truth is that most people who get counted as “authors” in surveys of author incomes are people who publish a single book, or who have a book they haven’t sold. They’re not career writers. They don’t count screenwriters, ad copy writers, stage play writers, or other such folks. In other words, this bit of conventional wisdom is horse shit because it counts every dilettante, aspiring amateur, and washout as an “author.” Authors such people may be, but professionals they ain’t. Some of them will become professionals (I must hasten to add, I’m on this tier — I’m not prolific enough or churning enough cash enough yet to be called a professional, but I’m heading deliberately in that direction) - others are hobbyists. I daresay that if such a survey were taken of all the auto mechanics in the world, with hobbyists and people that change their own oil counted with the same weight as ASE certificate holders, the numbers for auto mechanics wouldn’t be dissimilar to what we hear about with writing.

If you’re looking to do this for a living, writing is a professional business (i.e. a business that relies on being an expert in a particular domain), with all the problems that implies: It relies on individual expertise, a broad skillset, at least a vague awareness of market dynamics, a certain legal acumen, the ability to adapt to contingency, a high tolerance for risk and uncertainty, and a little bit of luck. You know, just like any other non-franchise business.

Why Do I think Getting Published is a Worthwhile Goal?

More than any other question, the answer to this gets to the heart of the matter for an author who is thinking of podcasting their work, because in answering this you’re probably going to answer a significant portion of all the other questions.

My answer to this one is simple: It’s a step on the road. I got a huge thrill with my first short story sale - now, after only a couple more, it’s an exercise in contract negotiations and another tick on the scorecard. It’s fun and exciting, but it’s not the life-affirming experience that the first sale was. Why? Because my sights are on the next set of goalposts, and I need to get to those so I can see the next set, and so on.

But my self-worth is not wrapped up in this. This is business. If I can’t make it work one way I’ll make it work another, and if, in the end, I turn out not to have the chops, I’ll shift my focus and continue writing as a hobby to whatever extent I can justify it. Yes, I am one of those rare people who will write no matter what - it’s the reason I’m making a go of turning it into a profession. But that doesn’t mean that everything I do will be available for free. Some things will, some things won’t - just like, right now, some things are and some things aren’t. My time is billable hourly, and my free stuff is there so that I can 1) build my audience, and 2) learn how to navigate in my marketplace(s). It’s an investment I’m making because it seems sound to me - I know what it costs, and for me the price is right.

Is the price right for you? Think hard about it. I daresay there will always be hobbyists in the podcast fiction space, but if you’re a pro or an aspiring pro, look at it as a business investment. It’s not a magic bullet, and it’s not a shortcut. Even podcasting’s biggest success, Scott Sigler, doesn’t see it as either of those things. Scott needed a platform to prove that there was a market for cross-genre horror, so he essentially invented one. His focus now is on figuring out where the next place to grow his audience is, and what books will be best to write next. There’s a reason he’s made this work, and it goes a lot deeper than “he writes in a popular genre” (although that also is very important).

Wrapping It Up

The Gospel of Free is a pernicious little meme that’s burned out some talented people and seriously burned others, but it’s not a new one. Every get rich quick scheme, every investment bubble, every motivational speaker that comes along has the same basic blend of bullshit and wisdom: “Look at this new thing - it’s no-lose! Look at its merits! Imagine how much you could do with this!” Network marketing, real estate flipping, dot com stocks - there’s always something, and it nearly always takes a pretty clever idea and isolates it from all good business sense.

Don’t fall for it. Free has always been with us, and it’s always been good business when done right. New tools, new media, and new toys are great, but excitement about the opportunities they present can easily obscure the most basic thing about business: supply and demand must meet, and they must trade. If they don’t, then at best what you’ve got is a rewarding hobby, and at worst you’re in a financial disaster. There is no such things as a fast buck except at the craps table, and there is never any such thing as a free lunch.

Me? I’m in this for the long haul. I’m building a business, with all the risk that implies. Right now, my business model includes podcasting. Will it in three years? It depends on what happens between now and then.

So, in sum, my advice to other writers and podcasters, for what it’s worth: Podcast what you will. Keep track of what it’s costing you. Cut your losses if it’s not returning what you need for it to be worthwhile. Above all, don’t buy the bullshit that motivational speakers and other sharks shovel. Celebrity status might be useful, but it’s like Monopoly money: not negotiable currency outside of the small circles that generate it.

For fans of mine and other’s podcast fiction: remember that while this is free to you, it’s not free for us. Your feedback, your cash in the tip jar, and your evangelism are much appreciated. We podcast authors know that we’re being wasteful and reckless - and not all of us will stay in this space forever. For now, I at least am getting what I want out of the bargain, and I do enjoy entertaining you all.

For everyone reading, remember: Life is precious. Don’t forget to enjoy whatever it is you’re doing, and treasure the memories it gives you. Treat your time like an investment, and savor what you buy with it. In the end, the moments are the only thing we have to make a life out of.

It’s been two years since I started putting my fiction out into the aether through podcasts, selling stories, and otherwise subjecting the universe to my…shall we say “colorful” mental meanderings. My readers and listeners have been good enough to send me feedback throughout the endeavor, which is excellent market research as well as great motivation to keep on.

If there is a single topic – beyond “you cliffhangering bastard” – that I get hit with most, it’s about how I deal with sex in my stories. There are the occasional “that’s really hot” comment, but more often there are the complaints, such as “I can’t stop listening, but do you really have to have so much sex/homosexuality/eroticism/etc.?” I find it fairly ironic, in these post-Heinlein days populated by paranormal romance, vampire erotica masquerading as everyday fiction, and abstinence porn, that treating sex merely as a normal part of life could raise so many hackles, but there you are.

More interesting than that, though, is how little I hear complaints about the violence, which is every bit as unflinching (or, in the words of one reviewer, clinical), as the sexual content. There are moments in Predestination or The Man In The Rain which turn my stomach
reading them, and yet they pass with relatively few comments compared to, for example, the sex scene between Joss and Cassy toward the end of Predestination or pretty much anything in Down From Ten.

As an American, I’ve been hearing about the double-standard between sex and violence most of my life – over the last two years I’ve been able to see it in action through my audience and through the eyes of non-American colleagues such as Philippa Ballantine, who once quipped to me: “On American TV sure, we’ll show murder and mayhem, but God forbid you show a boob!”

We all know this, right? Or at least we’ve heard it before. Most Americans ignore it in one fashion or another. Toward the conservative end of the cultural spectrum it can even look like a good thing: Robert M. Price once told me in an interview that he found Hostel powerful because it shows that the trivialization of sex through pornography and prostitution leads directly to slavery and torture (he’s not alone in this assertion – there’s a broad coalition of feminist and fundamentalist philosophers who share the same general conclusion, though their core values otherwise differ).

Normally I keep my trap shut about things like this, unless someone asks me about it directly, because it’s the kind of topic on which people tend to be partisan. That changed this week, though, when I watched through a TV series called Harper’s Island – a nice little mystery thriller made for CBS last year. The premise is simple – it’s Ten Little Indians done in the style of a slasher film, and it’s remarkably effective. It’s effective, well-executed (no pun intended), and deeply twisted.

I had a lot of fun watching it until it occurred to me, sometime in the middle of the series, that this was done for broadcast TV – not cable, not satellite or premium channels, but broadcast. This series which features the kind of gore that, even today, would earn it a hard R rating in the theater, was broadcast on American TV.

You know, American TV, where three frames of breast exposure is enough to cause a national crisis? Where Bono saying “fuck” on an awards show costs the network hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines? Where the word “piss” is bleeped out of Mythbusters episodes that air on cable? America, the land of the free that banned Carlin from the radio? The America that is so culturally brittle that it can’t stand the freedom of speech enshrined in its own constitution for fear of what might happen to the children?

There was a time not too long ago when you could expect the similar levels of sex, violence, and “bad” language on TV. Quality adult programming required a wink and a nod sometimes, but a good writer could do it – and recently there’s been a flowering of really good adult entertainment as broadcast has had to compete with cable and the Internet. It was censorship, and appalling, but there at least seemed to be a consistency about it – a sense that some level of intensity (about anything) was for adults, and thus not okay for broadcast where anyone of tender years might be watching.

Now, the situation seems to be changing, and in a bad way. Harper’s Island features some of the most grisly violence I’ve seen this side of a slasher film – done well enough to make the makeup artist part of my brain goggle in wonder, to be sure – frosted by a sense of calculating sadism and paranoia worthy of the villains (or heroes) of Thomas Harris. It’s not an exploration of violence, it’s merely a thrill-ride, and a remarkably effective and occasionally nauseating one.

Does it feature the kind of language people might use when being stalked by a serial killer? Does it show anything sexual beyond the briefest acknowledgments that its characters have some kind of sexuality? Of course not! Children might be watching.

Growing up as I did on the cultural right wing, I long considered the American double-standard to be harmless and quaint. I understood the fears that lay behind it, even though I thought they were ridiculous. I chuckled at the amount of effort certain groups put into the mind games behind sexual purity, and the money they waste on meaningless political and cultural campaigns. I thought it was understandable, and maybe silly, but not really harmful.

It took seeing Harper’s Island to realize how much my views have changed. The cultural conservative picture of sex, and the double-standard it dictates isn’t just quaint, silly, or something that can be condescendingly shrugged off as the product of too much insularity. It’s an insidious, destructive lie that is now so baldfaced that we can watch dismemberment on prime-time broadcast while anthropology documentaries censor tribal nudity (I kid you not).

A basic part of adulthood is the ability to deal with the world as it really is. Every social creature – including every human – has sex organs, sexual appetites, and sexual inclinations. The bonding impulse is as foundational to life as the need for food. Everyone touches, everyone eats, everyone dies, and virtually everyone has orgasms. To pretend otherwise is unbecoming the dignity of an adult.

It’s also genocidal. That’s because there is, after all, a link between sex and death and violence. The lack of willingness to deal realistically with sex is something that endangers the lives millions of people every day. In the age of AIDS, the price of childish delusion and the illusory comfort it brings can be measured by a metric once used exclusively for strategic warfare: Megadeaths.

I have a very high violence tolerance. I believe that violence in art and entertainment can be life-affirming and useful as it caters to our visceral natures. It helps us cope with the prospect of death. Violence can even be a social good (though such circumstances are far fewer than they once were). It can help us feel keenly alive in ways that we in civil society can’t access in any other way without harming those around us. But in no way is it more life-affirming than our primary bonding impulses, or touch and pleasure, or the difficulties of love and friendship.

And now, Episode 4 of Free Will and Other Compulsions. Story So Far by Steve Riekiberg, host of Geek Cred.

Cast this week (in order of appearance):
Nathan Lowell as Senator William Shelley
Miss Kalendar as Ali Hartman
Kitty Nic’Iaian as Fugitive and The Answering Service
Andrea Fender as The Moon Girl
Michael Lemonjello as The Fish Man
Mark Smith as The Jet Pack Man

And now, Episode 18, in which Sarah knows the rules for life, Edelle gets a hug, and Jeremiah gets religion.

This episode’s Story So far by author Blake Charlton, bumper by uberfan Mildred Cady.

Enjoy!

Twitter is a mischievous little meme. On that innocent network yesterday, I noticed fellow podcast novelist, and fabulous debate opponent Scott Roche say of science and religion: “the two are examining different things.”

Naturally, being unable to keep my mouth shut on religion, sex, or politics (this is, by the by, why I never stay long on the east coast - I have to leave quickly before I’m shot for violating public decency laws), I retorted immediately saying: “Science and religion can not meaningfully be said to be examining different things.” Hello, fundamental conflict (and, consequently, hellooooo blog content)!

On Scott’s blog he wondered whether we were operating on different definitions of religion, so was kind enough to define religion as “a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices” that, in his estimation, addresses only things that do not belong in the natural world. In other words, religion deals with spirits, gods, angels, demons, and any other supernatural beings which may or may not exist, and its purpose is to put us in touch with whatever we believe about the supernatural.

Science, he goes on to argue, deals with that which exists in the natural world and is (at least in theory) measurable. It is the method by which we divine how one thing is related to another.

Scott’s division of labor between science and religion seems to me to accurately reflect how most people think about the issue, and even on the basis of this postulated Non-Overlapping Magesteria (pace Stephen J. Gould).* History does not reflect this view - it is actually a relatively recent definition arising form the intellectual ferment of the late nineteenth century - so on the face of it I find it suspicious. Frankly, it looks to me like an epistemic** dodge than a genuine description of historical reality - but I’ll leave that aside for now, simply because one of the realities of history is that words do change definitions. I may get back to the history of science and religion in a later post, but for now, I’ll stick to the current situation, and whether or not it matches the definitions Scott proposes.

Sticking strictly to the current state of the world, I think Scott’s argument fails in two important respects.

First, in a practical respect, religion currently serves a number of functions that have only a tangential relationship to the supernatural. It propounds a theory of human nature, and it provides a cosmogony (a set of metaphysical beliefs about things within the universe such as the ultimate nature of reality, the origin and destiny of life, the universe, and everything, the construction of consciousness). It also serves as a platform from which to make pronouncements about morality, relationships, and human flourishing. On every one of these points, religions differ among themselves as to the nature of their claims and functions, but most religions are concerned with most of these areas, and some religions concern themselves with all of them.

Taking them in no particular order, the fields of knowledge and understanding which religion currently claims authority are now well within the purview of the following sciences:

On every score, scientific research confirms some points of religious dogma and contradicts other areas, forcing religions to adapt by either synchronizing or radicalizing on any given point (which, by the by, is why theologians exist – to cope with the discrepancy between received doctrine and contemporary reality).

Continuing in the practical vein for a moment, religion also provides social cohesion and cultural continuity for a large number of people on this planet, including a dependable power structure. On these final two practical points, as well as on issues of morality, religion’s focus is very much on the things of this world (and, often, on securing and/or maintaining power – sometimes political, sometimes military, sometimes interpersonal, and sometimes cultural – in this world). The hegemonic ambitions, large and small, are justified by appeal to the supernatural, but are always, in practice, concerned with controlling the behavior of beings in the temporal world.

Second, on a basic philosophical level, if a supernatural world actually has an intercourse (either perpetual and ever present, as in Hinduism, or incidental and historical as in the monotheisms), then it is at least in principle accessible to natural science at the point of intercourse, and therefore science and religion are both aiming once again for the same territory.

Thus, in both the practical and the philosophical cases, religion and science are very much fighting over the same territory. The nature of this conflict is missed by religious liberals, who have inherited the syncretic mindset and tend to read their scriptures with modern cosmopolitan glasses that retrojects their late, quasi-deistic conception of God back onto times with a far more definite and robust theology. Nonetheless, push hard enough and in the right place, and you’ll find the points at which even liberal religion is on the defensive in the face of scientific inquiry. Need it be this way? That’s a topic for a future blog post, but I can tell you it has not always been this way. Once upon a time in the west, the natural sciences were seen as the handmaiden of theology rather than the other way around.

So, to wrap up, I’m confident in standing by my tweet which opened this conversation. Although religions can (and often do) preserve wisdom worth paying attention to, and often raise questions worth investigating, they are in almost no sense concerned with different things. Now, it may be possible to create a religion that is completely immune to territorial impingement from science forever, but it would not then be legitimate to argue that religion as a phenomenon was free from such a conflict.

Besides, I daresay that a religion which made no claims about reality, made no demands on its patrons, promised no rewards (temporal, eternal, or existential), and said nothing substantive about human nature would maintain a hold on parishioners for very long. Don’t believe me? Look at the thin attendance of liberal protestant churches compared to moderate and conservative ones.

Back to you, Scott!

*magisteria meaning “area of authority”
**epistemic meaning “having to do with one’s theory of knowledge” - in this case, an epistemic dodge is redefining what one means by “knowledge” in order to get around a problem with what one considers “true”

Buried Alive In The Blues is the story of Irene, a widow who finds herself trapped by a months-long rainstorm that’s drowning the world, but she doesn’t care, because she’s got a pass to see the best blues band in the world play at an old speakeasy in the neighboring town. But when the bass starts thumping and the lights hit the stage, she realizes she may get more than she bargained for - but that’s okay, because the blues are worth it.

If you haven’t heard the story and would like to, you can find it here. Definitely not work safe, it contains explicit sexual situations and a heavy dollop of the blues, Buried Alive is a southern gothic romance that will keep you guessing right up to the end.

I’ll keep you all posted on publication dates for the anthology!

First, the coolest biomedical news this year: Synthetic arteries have arrived.

Second, some really cool news on dog evolution from two fronts. There’s an article discussing the stray dogs in Moscow, and what selection pressures have done to them over the last 100 years. Then there’s the new BBC documentary on how dogs shaped human development, and vice versa - and answers the question “Are dogs smarter than Chimpanzees?” Check out the video here .

Finally, the single most mind-blowing introduction to Chaos Theory I’ve seen or read. Goes into the history, the development, and the implications of the most radically disturbing area of mathematics ever to come around. See it here and prepare to be astounded.

Enjoy! And stay tuned in the next few days for new episodes!

And now, Episode 3 of Free Will and Other Compulsions. Story So Far by Blake Charlton - find his book Spellwright, forthcoming from TOR at his home page.

Cast this week (in order of appearance):

Miss Kalendar as Ali Hartman
Stephanie Sawyer as Cassy Orinthal
Kitty Nic’Iaian as Fugitive and The Answering Service
Kim The Comic Book Goddess as Val

And now, Episode 17, in which Kevin and Jeremiah explore the uses for Vasaline, and Gerd has a secret.
Story So far by J.R. Murcodk of V&A Shipping.

Enjoy!

You that listen here regularly know Tee from his starring role as Amos in Down From Ten, or perhaps you heard his voice as Marian’s boss in Predestination or from the Predestination exit interview, but the story of Tee Morris is quite a bit more colorful. Tee invented podcast fiction, co-founded podiobooks.com, and is thus created the industry which launched the careers of myself, Chris Lester, Philippa Ballantine, Nathan Lowell, Scott Sigler, Christiana Ellis, Mur Lafferty, Nobilis Reed, and many others. He’s also directly helped many of us, and many others, with encouragement, advice, and lending his voice to our worlds. He’s also become a good friend to many of us, apart from a professional association.

Odd as it sounds, there are three things in this modern world that are more expensive than any other - being born, dying, and death. Natalie Morris’s death was sudden and unexpected, but it has left Tee with a raft of expenses he must meet immediately, and this as an unexpectedly single parent. Because of this, I have a special request for you - if you were planning on sending me a tip in the next week or three, send it to Tee instead.

Below you’ll find a widget for the chip-in account that Philippa Ballantine has started to help get Tee and Sonic Boom through the crisis time to calmer waters. Please click on it and toss a couple bucks in if at all you can.

Happy Christmas, everyone!

Sometime in November, new cast member Andrea Fender (playing the as yet unnamed “moon girl”) contacted Dan after her first recording session and said something along the lines of “That was fun! Let’s do some more!”

Since Dan didn’t have any more of Free Will written at the time, it was decided that a holiday themed poetry reading, to be posted on Christmas eve, like a Christmas present, would be just fantastic.

Which is just what they did.

Directed by: Andrea Fender

Performed by:
Andrea Fender
Dan Sawyer

Works performed:
The Ballad of Blasphemous Bill - Robert Service
The Cremation of Sam McGee - Robert Service
A Visit from St. Nicholas - Clement Clarke Moore

Music used:
Jingle Bells
Carol of Bells
Away in a Manger ]]> http://jdsawyer.net/2009/12/24/special-christmas-episode-goes-live/feed/ http://jdsawyer.net/2009/12/07/hormones-as-neurotransmitters/ http://jdsawyer.net/2009/12/07/hormones-as-neurotransmitters/#comments Mon, 07 Dec 2009 16:00:49 +0000 admin http://jdsawyer.net/?p=794 For those of you not following along, in the current book of The Antithesis Progression, one character is using a hormone cocktail on another as a chemical leash. I’ve gotten some questions about what these weaponized chemicals are supposed to accomplish, how they’re supposed to work, and whether they’re a good choice for the purposes described in the story, so I thought I’d give you guys a peak behind the research curtain.

At the end of Predestination we learned that Joss had dosed Ali with Oxytocin - in Free Will we learned that he’s also giving her Vasopressin. The hormones are described as “weaponized,” but we haven’t gotten a lot of solid details on what that means yet.

Basically, Oxytocin is a hormone which, when acting as a neurotransmitter, increases trust and social risk taking behavior between people, with the most profound effects being felt between strangers and/or people who don’t know each other well (though, of course, some people simply are born insensitive to these effects). Vasopressin is a hormone that, when acting as a neurotransmitter, increases aggression towards non-bonded others (the effects are stronger in men than in women, and in men it also acts as a bonding-reward circuit, an effect which has not been documented in women).

A cocktail of these two hormones, administered across the blood-brain barrier rather than intravenously, will have the dual effect of increasing the formation of groups and loyalty, and of increasing the subject’s suspicion towards those in the outgroup.

These effects are short-term - a single hit of these hormones degrades in a few minutes. In order to have sustained effects one of three things must happen: 1) the body must be fooled into creating its own supply of bonding hormones (through sustained sexual and/or social interaction), 2) memories formed while under the influence of the hormones must be positive and persistent, providing a foundation for later trust-based behavior, 3) a delivery mechanism that will keep the levels of these neurotransmitters at the desired level (this latest is impossible right now, but the success of other time-release and dosage-self-regulating drugs make positing of this for 129 years from now a very safe bet to place on the table, futurism-wise).

It’s also worth noting that these two hormones can be hugely dangerous when used in high doses as drugs. Oxytocin is used to stimulate labor, for example, and Vasopressin is a blood pressure regulator which, in large doses, can keep a heart beating during hemorrhage but has a lot of nasty side-effects in the cardiovascular system under prolonged exposure. However, in the Central Nervous System, acting as neurotransmitters, these hormones have well-documented, profound (but subtle) effects at small doses. These effects are fairly well known in psychiatric circles, and I’m banking on the notion that they will become a staple for psy-ops and con artists when better delivery systems are developed - in the Antithesis universe, this is exactly the case.

The following is a short lecture (29 minute video) from Paul Zak, the founder of the field of neuroeconomics who did the some of the seminal research in this area.

For the super-geeky among you, here are some more papers on research in this area:
How could MDMA (ecstasy) help anxiety disorders? A neurobiological rationale
Brain basis of early parent-infant interactions: psychology, physiology, and in vivo functional neuroimaging studies.
Oxytocin, a mediator of anti-stress, well-being, social interaction, growth and healing
Dopaminergic-neuropeptide interactions in the social brain.
Neurotransmitters and peptides: whispered secrets and public announcements.
Opposite effects of oxytocin and vasopressin on the emotional expression of the fear response
Effect of arginine vasopressin and oxytocin on acetylcholine-stimulation of corticosteroid and catecholamine secretion from the rat adrenal gland perfused in situ.

And now, Episode 16, in which Katy teaches a class, Amos has a fan club, and Gerd gets a sore throat.
Story So far by Mur Lafferty of more things than I can ever hope to name.

Enjoy!

And now, Episode 2 of Free Will and Other Compulsions. Story So Far by J.R. Murdock - find his books at Podiobooks.

Cast this week (in order of appearance):
Andrea Fender as The Moon Girl
Michael Lemonjello as Search Party Leader
Mark Smith as The Third Search Party Member
Miss Kalendar as Ali Hartman
Derek Moore as Jim Hartman
Stephanie Sawyer as Cassy Orinthal
George Chlentzos as Douglas Reeves
Kim The Comic Book Goddess as Val

The dictionary defines terrorism as “the systematic use of terror as a means of coercion”. In political terms, terrorism is is characterized by non-strategic but politically-motivated violence conducted against civilians. When used by an outside or revolutionary force, it is an attempt to destabilize or undermine a regime, culture, or system by eroding the trust that makes the system works. It can also be used by a sitting government against its political enemies, in which case it’s generally called “tyranny” or “totalitarianism” depending on the degree to which it is practiced.

That’s it. That’s what terrorism is. Intimidation, harassment, or political wrangling isn’t terrorism. Expulsion for running afoul of academic standards isn’t “terrorization.” Civilians who die while caught in the crossfire of a war are not “victims of terror/terrorism.”

And, most importantly, soldiers and representatives of a military or political authority are not victims of terrorism. They’ve run afoul of another phenomenon that we have a perfectly good term for: they are casualties of guerrilla warfare.

Guerrilla war is war conducted by military irregulars against strategic and military targets. Oklahoma City Bombing? Conducted by a revolutionary against a government building housing paramilitary administration in revenge for earlier actions by that paramilitary organization — that’s guerrilla warfare. Ditto for the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, and the RPG attack on my friend’s tent during the Iraq war (don’t worry, he was outside watching a movie at the time).

Then there are a whole slew of things domestically that are neither terrorism or guerrilla war, but get called “terrorism” by pundits and public officials and radicals. A peaceful protest at a WTO event isn’t terrorism, it’s dissent. When that protest turns violent (as they frequently do) it’s not terrorism, it is either a riot (if it’s spontaneous escalation) or it’s a revolutionary attack that rides the line of guerrilla warfare but usually doesn’t qualify, as it’s not well organized enough. Columbine wasn’t terrorism, it was a killing spree (there was no political motive). Fort Hood still seems up in the air - it might have been a guerrilla attack with substantial collateral damage, or it might have been a killing spree (but it wasn’t terrorism by any classical definition).

These categorizations can sound pretty meaningless - or worse, callous - because they are all ways of saying “people got killed/hurt for no very good reason.” But they are important because they all point to fundamental moral issues about violence. When we don’t make such distinctions, we lose the ability to make ethical distinctions between necessary violence and gratuitous violence. This distinction makes the difference between murder, manslaughter, and self defense. It also makes the difference between police work and police brutality, between crime and treason, between warfare and war crimes, and between disagreement and terrorism.

And, of course, in the grey areas where the categories overlap, there is lots of room for exploring moral ambiguities through fiction.

To conclude, I quote the immortal words of George Carlin:
“Please pay attention to the language we’ve all agreed on.”

To tide you guys over this week, and for those of you who might not have heard it, here’s the show where Philippa Ballantine, Chris Lester, and I podjacked Podioracket. Much silliness ensued — enjoy!

• 1: Download and print these bookmarks.
• 2: Cut along the dotted lines.
• 3: Take to your local libraries and bookstores.
• 4: Leaving a stack near the checkout gets you one point. Put a bunch inside books by Robert A. Heinlein, Stephen R. Donaldson, Philip K. Dick, George R. R. Martin, and Charles Stross for two points. (Do be sure to respect local laws and private property rights).
• Take photos of each instance of bookmark distribution.
• Email photos of your nefarious deeds to me at dan at jdsawyer.net.
• Each point will count as one entry of your name in the hat - so repeat as often as you wish to enter before December 20th.

The winner will be drawn December 21st.
Prize: Robert Jordan’s Wheel of Time 2009 Memorial Calender, full of gorgeous artwork.

Here’s your chance to double-dip. Check out Digital Magic and Metamor City for their versions of this same contest. Everyone who enters all three contests will automatically be entered into a second drawing - the prize this time being a package of local edible goodies from San Francisco and New Zealand!

And now, Episode 15, in which Jeremiah gets snowed, Edelle gets curious, and Amos reveals the truth.
Story So far by Jennifer Hudock of Polyamory Weekly

Episode 16 coming this weekend - I hope.

What to look for: Blog posts containing printable PDF bookmarks at Digital Magic, Metamor City, and Literary Abominations.

What you can win: A free book, maybe two or three! (Prize details for each contest will be available at each author’s website).

Your Mission:

• Download and print the bookmarks
• Cut along the dotted lines
• Take to your local libraries and bookstores
• Leave a set near the checkout (1 pt for a stack) or put a stack inside of similar books (2 pts ea - Philippa, Chris, and Dan will each provide a list of authors to target)
• Take photos of each instance of bookmark distribution
• Send photo(s) to the author
• Each point will count as one entry of your name in the hat - so repeat as often as you wish to enter before December 20th.

Winners will be drawn December 21st.

Anyone who enters all three contests will have their names automatically entered into a second drawing - this time for a basket of tasty treats from San Francisco and New Zealand!

Philippa Ballantine’s DIGITAL MAGIC, J. Daniel Sawyer’s FREE WILL AND OTHER COMPULSIONS, and Chris Lester’s METAMOR CITY SEASON 2 have been unleashed upon the world. You’ve heard the first episodes, now talk to the authors. We will all be live on Talkshoe this evening, 6pm PST, taking your calls and chewing the scenery. Contests will be had — prizes will be given — insanity will rule the day.
Here’s the timeline for the rest of the Triple Threat (so far):

Thursday, 11/12/09:

6 PM Pacific Time: Dan Sawyer & Pip Ballantine begin the LIVE Triple Threat Launchcast event at TalkShoe <–link leads to the show.
8 PM Pacific Time (est.): Chris Lester joins the Launchcast.

The Launchcast will include…
* Live call-ins from fans
* Trivia contests
* Prize giveaways
* Sneak peeks at the upcoming podcast seasons

Sunday, 11/22/09:

7 PM Pacific Time: Chris Lester, Dan Sawyer, Kitty Nic’Iaian and Gail Carriger record the first feedback show of the new season of Metamor City! Send in your responses to the new episodes and we’ll include them in the show.

It’s all on- so hope you can join us!

(some text pilfered from Philippa Ballantine)

And now, Episode 1 of Free Will and Other Compulsions.

Cast this week (in order of appearance):
Stephanie Sawyer as Cassy Orinthal
Kim The Comic Book Goddess as Val
Mark Smith as Nineveh Docking Control

Part three of three of the live call-in show that launched Down From Ten — this one plays almost like a Reprobates Hour episode on the history of the podcast novel. A change of pace from the previous episodes, and a very interesting one.

Featuring the voices of Georg Chlentzos and Miss Kalendar

Want to see the artwork? Click here (NSFW)

Download Subscribe

Part two of the live call-in show we did for the launch of Down From Ten, in which we take your calls, talk about the craft of writing and podcasting, and argue about what makes for a good story. We also take more saucy calls from listeners.

Part one of the live call-in show we did for the launch of Down From Ten, in which Tee Morris impersonates John Woo, Chris Lester gets flogged live on mic, we learn the story of Philippa Ballantine’s questionable ancestry, and we take a number of saucy calls from listeners.

And now, Episode 14, in which Jeremiah notices, Sarah remembers, and Gerd does some heavy lifting.
Story So far by Cunning Minx of Polyamory Weekly

Episode 15 coming this weekend.

[In honor of her new book Soulless, which impressed me with its groundedness in the Victorian world, I asked author Gail Carriger to blog about the art of finding good research sources for Steampunk writing. This is her contribution - thank you very much, Ms. Carriger! -JDS]

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: nothing beats primary sources. I hate to be a traitor to the Author Guild’s justifiable objection to the Google Book settlement, but Google books does already have a number of good primary sources from the 1800s available.

* One of my personal favorites, with recipes and other interesting tidbits about domestic management in 1876, is Things a Lady Would Like to Know

* Floote’s Medical Common Sense is another wonderful resource for a historical perspective on the Victorian attitude towards medical science, not to mention a window into scientific, social, and psychological theory. This is an American classic (if non-fiction can be called such).

There are other useful primary sources as well, that you might be able to order through Amazon or a rare books dealer. My two favorites are:

* Baedeker, Karl. 1896. Baedeker’s’s London and its Environs. (or any Baedeker’s dated to the Victorian era) for maps, railroad time tables, popular museums and visitors areas, not to mention names of shops, clubs, restaurants, news papers and more.

* Edwards, Amelia B. 1877. A Thousand Miles Up the Nile. For language and the Victorian adventurer abroad feel.

As for secondary sources, what you need may depend upon what you’re writing. I write comedy of manners, so my needs reflect this more pedestrian interest level, someone with a more military bent probably has a different list. Never the less, I find myself constantly reaching for the following:

* Pool, Daniel. 1993. What Jane Austen Ate and Charles Dickens Knew. For the basics.

* Cunnington, C. Willett. 1990. English Women’s Clothing in the Nineteenth Century. For anything to do with women’s clothing

* Flanders, Judith. 2003. The Victorian House. For domestic life questions. The information is not well structured, but it is there.

* Farwell, Byron. 1972 Queen Victoria’s Little Wars. For the quickest insight into the Empire Building mentality and military history of the age.

Aside from Wikipeda, which can be an okay place to start, there are some good, if not particularly well organized, research tools dedicated to the Victorians online as well.

* By far the biggest and the best is the Victorian Web which is a great spiderweb of all sorts of useful information

* The Victorian Dictionary offers up primary newspaper articles on different topics

And here are a few interesting individual offerings online.

* Victorian Slag Dictionary

* Victorian Etiquette

* The Illustrated London News (starting in 1842)

* Victorian servants

* The Ladies Journal

* Godey’s Lady’s Book

* Naval Ships of Victorian times

* Nick Names of Cavalry regiments

* Some ways to tie a cravat

* La Mode Illustree LiveJournal group

Other tips:

* If you have a DVR or Tivo trigger in keywords pertaining to your topic of interest. You never know what the history channel might be dealing with next. It will at least give you a jumping off point.

* Watch BBC costume dramas, and or, rent the DVD and check out the extras, they often have interviews with historical experts.

* Having a really hard time answering a research question? Cold call a local university history department. Experts love to talk about their expertise, perhaps there is someone in the history department you can ask. They may at least give you a book or article to read.

Lastly, of course you can keep an eye on my website, I often put up bits and bobs I’ve discovered around the net.

And now, Episode 13, in which Gerd makes a discovery, Katy makes a point, and Amos reveals a dark secret.
Bumper by Brian D. Clay, author of The Kingdom Crisis.

Episode 14 coming sometime in the next 5 days

And now, Episode 12, in which Amos has a nightmare, Jeremiah has fridge issues, and Sarah sings a song.
Story So Far by Helen E. H. Madden of Heat Flash Erotica.

No aftershow this week — but lots of news next time. Episode 13 coming next weekend.

And now, Episode 11, in which Sarah puts her foot down, Amos has a secret, and the shadows have an agenda.
Bumper by Chooch and Viv of Into The Blender. Story So Far by Rhonda Carpenter of Podioracket and Mark of a Druid.

Episode 12 coming next weekend.

— — — —
Earlier this year a brilliant Vancouver surgeon, Dr. Andresz Busczowski,
helped Hugo- and Nebula-winning science fiction writer and zero-gravity
dancer/choreographer Jeanne Robinson beat back a rare and virulent form of
biliary cancer. But it¹s so rare even he can¹t say how much time heŒs bought
her, how soon it might recur‹and her latest blood tests have been so
discouraging they¹ve now decided she needs to start chemotherapy as soon as
possible. Besides the prescription drugs to counteract the chemotherapy, she
needs special therapies and supplements, counseling, and extensive diet and
lifestyle changes, to reduce her stress level and the strain on her liver to
as close to zero as possible. All those things are expensive…and like many
artists today Jeanne and her writer husband Spider Robinson were already
running on fumes financially.

But Jeanne, a Soto Zen monk, has been spreading love and kindness in all
directions for a long time. So her Buddhist sangha in Vancouver, her
neighbors on Bowen Island, and friends as far away as Florida have all
spontaneously come together to raise funds to help keep her around as long
as possible. Your participation is welcomed. A Bowen benefit concert, ³WE
DREAM FOR JEANNE,² will be held at Cates Hill Chapel at 7:30 PM on Friday
Sept 18 details here; goods or services can be donated for eBay auction by
contacting Jan Schroeder at , and PayPal donations
can be sent to this website.

You can read Jeanne¹s recent blog entry, The Third Act, to get a sense of
how she¹s feeling at this link.

Jeanne and Spider both warmly appreciate your help, support, prayers or just
good thoughts. So does one of the newest visitors to this planet: their
first grandchild, Marisa Alegria da Silva. (seen at Jeanne’s blogsite.)
=====================

And now, Episode 10, in which Edelle and Carol compete for the poetry prize, Amos has an opinion, and Katy has a secret.
Bumper by Beq of Metamor City. Story So Far by composer Danny Schade of his own demented, but delightful, domain.

Episode 11 coming this weekend.

Now, a month and a bit on, after much labor and much laughter, I am pleased to present all of you with the world debut of the first chapter of Gail Carriger’s Soulless in full-cast audiobook format (complete with music, soundFX, and soundscaping). This sample offers you a taste of the romp you’ll be in for when you read the book.

You can pre-order Soulless from Amazon, and read Ms. Carriger’s ever-entertaining blog as well.

Cast (in order of appearance)
Angela Vernon as The Narrator
Chris Lester as The Unexpected Vampire
Miss Kalendar as Alexia Tarrabotti
George Chlentzos as Lord Conal Maccon
J. Daniel Sawyer as Professor Lyall

Directed by J. Daniel Sawyer
Produced by ArtisticWhispers Productions

Download Subscribe

Finally back on the air after a number of major tech problems which I’ll detail next week.

And now, Episode 9, Jeremiah has a secret, in which Sarah makes a discovery, and Amos gets an irresistable urge.
Bumper by Wander Wolf of WNDR Radio. Story So Far by Abbie Hilton of The Prophet of Panamindorah Podcast.

Episode 10 coming this weekend.

Anyway, Brian has this to say about the words of your humble narrator:

“The current novel Down from Ten which has been describe as The Shinning meets “Clue” is a great story and the cast is doing an outstanding job. Warning – it is an in-flight podcast so when you catch up with the episodes you will be dealing with “cliffhangers”!

Though it is his other podcast novel I really wanted to mention, The Antithesis Progression: Predestination and Other Games of Chance, first the title is just plain awesome, I am aware that for the sake of “selling” the novel the title will be tweaked to be more approachable, which is only sensible; however, the Lit geek in me states firmly that the title is perfect and should be left alone. Okay, that said the title isn’t the only awesome thing here. The story is fantastic, driven by a cast of characters with powerful agendas that makes this space – spy – political – thriller come to life unlike any other podcast novel I have listened to. Take the time to check it out.

Something to keep in mind both novels are definitely for adults, not kid or office safe content.”

Thank you Brian, for the review. Those of you who don’t read Brian’s blog, it’s worth a gander. Check it out.

Finally back on the air after a number of major tech problems which I’ll detail next week.

And now, Episode 8, in which Katy has an opinion, Jeremiah has a problem, and Carol has a plan.
Story So Far by Miss Kalendar of Brass Needles.

Episode 9 and 10 coming next weekend.

In an article on Beliefnet this week, Michael Ruse argues that the “new atheists” are a “bloody disaster.” He argues using a mixture of caricatures, complaints, and criticisms, so before I go into why I think the man is full of organic fertilizer on the broader issues, I will address the salient ones:

[Cut for opinionated rantings that might irritate some readers]

Caricatures:
1) “…the “new atheists” - people who are aggressively pro-science, especially pro-Darwinism, and violently anti-religion of all kinds, especially Christianity but happy to include Islam and the rest.”

Among the “new atheists” he names Dawkins, Dennet, Hitchens, P.Z. Meyers, and Jerry Coyne. Notably absent from this list is the movement’s galvanizing voice, Sam Harris, whose book The End of Faith busted the market wide open for everyone else. Harris is familiar with a number of religions, and in The End of Faith and in his lectures at the Beyond Belief symposiums makes nuanced arguments about the relative merits and demerits of different religions and different flavors of different religions, all while insisting that faith must no longer be socially sacrosanct. He argues that not all false ideas are equally destructive, and it may be that not all religious ideas are equally false, but that it is dishonest, dangerous, and foolhardy to continue to behave as if religious ideas are especially immune from criticism when compared to political, moral, ethical, economic, philosophical, scientific, or artistic ideas. His arguments may have problems – anthropologist Scott Atran has given them an extensive critique – but they do not fit the brush Ruse is painting with in the slightest.

A call to level the intellectual playing field by practicing what Harris calls “conversational intolerance” of religious ideas is the central program of the New Atheists. It’s what Dawkins, Dennet, and Hitchens explicitly advocate, and it’s what Meyers and Coyne deliberately practice. Dawkins frames it as “let’s have an argument.” Dennet frames it as “let’s break the spell that makes religious ideas specially immune from criticism.” Meyers desecrates communion wafers and pulls other provocative stunts to raise discussion and demonstrate that, when it comes to inquiry, nothing is sacred.

The charge that the New Atheists are violently anti-religion is, to put it frankly, a lie. None are in favor of any form of violence towards religion – all advocate argument. Nor is it true that their ire falls especially on Christianity. While Dawkins and Dennet talk about Christianity more than any other religion, neither says that “Christianity is the worst” – quite the contrary. In both cases, being raised in Christian environments, they focus on it simply because they are more familiar with Christian history and theology than they are with, say, Confucianism. On the other hand, Hitchens and Harris are familiar with a variety of western and non-western religions and single out Islam and some of the other more easterly religions out for more severe criticism than they level at Christianity.

Ruse is engaging in well-poisoning on this one. Shame on him.

2) “Francis Collins has been incurring their hatred…since Collins is a devout Christian.”

Ruse is here referring to the controversy over the recent appointment of Francis Collins, former head of the Human Genome Project, as head of the National Institutes of Health, but Ruse’s characterization of the controversy is disingenuous. As the head of the NIH, Collins will have influence in areas where he has a dogmatic ax to grind: embryonic stem cell research. At no time that I’ve seen (granting that the web is a big place and I can’t be everywhere at once) have any of the New Atheists impugned Dr. Collins’ scientific credentials, even when directly attacking some of the less scientific things he’s said in print. Check out Michael Shermer’s blog entry on the topic for a quick, representative summary. The question at issue is not Collin’s credentials, and it’s not Collins’ religion. It’s whether his non-rational dogmatic commitments compromise his ability to do the job of overseeing research budgets, and it’s every bit as legitimate a question as asking whether a Quaker or a Jain is an appropriate pick for Secretary of Defense.

Complaints:
1) Ruse complains that the “new atheists” are terribly mean to him – meaner than they are to the religious folks.

To be perfectly frank, I think Ruse’s complaint that the New Atheists have insulted him in their writings is more than a little childish, and also more than a little hypocritical.
First, as demonstrated by the depths he sinks to in this essay, he’s not above reckless and dishonest ad hominem attacks himself – complaining that someone is mean when you’re dishing it right back and worse is gradeschool behavior.
Second, he doesn’t publicly hold the people in the creationist community he considers friends (Gish, Dembski, Johnson) who are even ruder in print and in public (see Dembski’s nasty little cartoon about the Judge in the Dover case for an example).

It should also go without mentioning that, in the war of ideas, people can and do say very aggressive, hard things while telling the truth as they see it. This is an adult world, and Ruse should have learned at University that science and philosophy are not disciplines for the timid.

That said, let’s put this complaint in context, and consider the charges that the “new atheists” level against the priesthood(s). Religious leaders are, according to Dawkins and Hitchens, “child abusers” for their promotion of the doctrine of hell and of infant circumcision. Hitchens further characterizes the Catholic Church’s youth outreach activities as “No Child’s Behind Left.” They all accuse Imams of fostering an environment that might lead us to nuclear war, and Dispensationalist Christians of breathlessly searching for a silver lining (i.e. The Rapture) in the prospect of Manhattan going up in a mushroom cloud.
Whether these accusations are defensible or not is not at issue here. What is at issue is that Ruse evidently thinks a book review calling his ideas “so nonsensical that only an intellectual could believe them,” a book calling his condescending attitude towards religion “appeasement,” and a blogger labeling him “a clueless gobshite” is worse than being called a pedophile, a child abuser, a genocidal warmonger, and a fanatic.

I must say, his semiotic score-keeping system mystifies me.

2) Ruse complains that the New Atheists are mean to him because he doesn’t think all believers are evil or stupid, and that science and religion do not have to clash.

If Ruse honestly believes this is the source of the invective he’s found himself on the receiving end of, he is sorely mistaken. The book Jerry Coyne reviewed is stunning both in its ambitious scope and, more importantly, in its lack of intellectual rigor. The book in question, Can A Darwinian Be A Christian? might be a worthy subject for a book, but Ruse’s method in the book is blinkered toward both religion and with science. Its methods and hermeneutic are only applicable to a very small minority of Western Liberal Protestants and Catholics – the rest of the religious universe (including well over 80% of the world’s Christian population) is unaddressed by his argument, which tries to show the God-of-the-Gaps as the starting point for making Christianity and evolutionary biology mutually reinforcing.

Contrast this with a religious scientist that the New Atheists do not attack, Ken Miller. A conservative Catholic teaching at Brown University, Miller is the author of Finding Darwin’s God, perhaps the most nuanced and well-argued defense of theistic evolution ever written. In his book and arguments, he refuses to give short shrift to science in order to give comfort and shelter to his doctrines, and does not engage in the normal “God of the Gaps” or “NOMA” nonsense. He is an unapologetically religious man who has the courage of his convictions, both religiously and scientifically, and is very much respected by both his peers and his adversaries for that fact.

Criticisms:
1)“Their treatment of the religious viewpoint it pathetic to the point of non-being.”

Unfortunately, with the exception of singling out Dawkins for being philosophically simplistic (a criticism that is, to my mind, pretty near the mark), Ruse provides nothing to back up this assertion. He certainly doesn’t engage any of the arguments offered up in the New Atheist books, nor does he seem to notice that the “new atheists” are in dialogue with believers. The notion that the New Atheists are boxing with a straw man is belied by the fact that believers in Islam and Christianity overwhelmingly pay lip service to scriptural inerrancy, prophetic infallibility, and a whole slate of other doctrines that the New Atheists are aggressively attacking.
Judging by his comments about Christianity in other contexts, it seems that Ruse considers as straw manning arguments that do not engage liberal theologians such as Bultmann, Tillich, et. al. These men are eloquent writers, and theologically subtle, but such men hold a position in the borderlands between religion and atheism, being held to their religion by personal spiritual experience but utterly unable to defend with argument a single doctrine, not even the existence of God. They are of interest to the academy, but not of much interest to the average pew-sitter. When it comes to the culture war, they are largely irrelevant.

Dennet, of course, isn’t engaging in this kind of argument anyway. He raises questions about how religion got the way it is, how it might have served an adaptive function, what is it that, if we discover parts of it are false, should we hold on to and learn from?

P.Z. Meyers and Jerry Coyne are interested in scientific education and intellectual rigor in that field, and make precious few forays into arguments against religion except when directly addressing the Intelligent Design crowd.

Harris and Hitchens are the only two left, and both have come under a goodly amount of fire for generating more heat than light. However, Ruse’s notion that they are philosophically naive or religiously uninformed is bogus – that they differ in outlook from him is certain, but disagreement does not idiots make. In The End of Faith, Harris articulates an entire epistemology that dialogues with Kant, Bacon, Descartes, addresses postmodernism, and takes heavy account of Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper.
Hitchens, on the other hand, is highly conversant with all of the great socialist thinkers, and references many of them directly in his book, as well as A.J. Ayer, C.S. Lewis, Bertrand Russel, and many others that would take too long to list here. There may be places where their arguments are sloppy or just plain wrong, but to dismiss the entire crowd as “poor quality,” “pathetic,” “a disservice to scholarship,” and “knowing nothing” of the subject matter is calumnious.

2) “The new atheists are doing terrible damage to the fight to keep Creationism out of schools.” Ruse develops this further, saying that “if science generally and Darwinism specifically implies that God does not exists, then teaching science generally and Darwinism specifically runs smack up against the First Amendment.” He goes on to say “This is the claim of the new atheists.”

Ruse again proves himself aptly named by gracing his audience with a rhetorical ruse. Taking these items in reverse order, the new atheists do not say that science generally and Darwinism specifically imply that God does not exist. The closest you can come, other than statements of personal conversion moments (such as when Christopher Hitchens relates his childhood revelation that our eyes are adapted to the environment and not vice versa, or Dawkins’ lack of ability to comprehend how someone can believe in a god that would ordain a bloodthirsty process like evolution), is Dennet’s observation in Darwin’s Dangerous Idea that the idea of natural selection acts as a universal acid, dissolving away our common-sense notion that things are designed from the top down rather than the bottom up.

Now, that may imply that the God promulgated by religion is less likely than not, but let’s not confuse weak implication with necessary conclusion.

Secondly, Ruse is manifestly wrong on the question of Constitutional law. Children are exposed to facts in school which contravene their religious heritage all the time. From Galileo onward, the western world has been inundated with facts that strongly imply that some religious doctrine or another is false, from the corruptible heavens to the expanding universe, from the realization that species can go extinct to the discovery of geologic strata, from the atomic theory of matter to the heliocentric solar system expanding universe, from the discovery of female gametes to neurologically embodied mind, from plate tectonics to ancestral genetics to evolutionary theory.
We forget now, because we don’t realize how profoundly these scientific discoveries affected the doctrinal development of different religions – we assume that the religions we have today are as they always were. But that’s not the case. Each one of the above accepted scientific paradigms either threatened to unseat or completely obliterated at least one accepted religious doctrine that was, at the time, considered fundamental to the faith of Christians, Mormons, Muslims, and/or Jews. The Constitution does not protect believers from inconvenient facts in a government-run school, it protects everyone from proselytization by anyone representing the government. Saying “The Grand Canyon was formed by geological forces over millions of years” is not a religious dogma, even though it specifically gives the lie to the Genesis creation and flood accounts and, if the evidence is followed down the geologic column, eventually calls into question the foundations doctrines such as original sin and biblical inerrancy.

This criticism, the ultimate point of Ruse’s entire essay, also turns out to be wrong on both the facts and the logic, and thus the whole of his article amounts to little more than vacuous grandstanding.

For myself, the thing I find most disturbing about Ruse’s little diatribe is the lack of intellectual honesty (the same problem I have with Gould’s NOMA nonsense). The epistemology Ruse espouses in this article is highly unethical, as his strategy (again, like NOMA) is a bait-and-switch con game with believers. Does this sound unfair? How else can you describe someone who says “We must not tell people that Darwinism implies that there is no God, because it endangers science teaching.” [paraphrased]. If Darwinism does imply that God doesn’t exist, then telling religious folk that “only a few cranks think that” is a lie. If Darwinism does not imply that God does not exist, then all that need be done is argue with the people who say that it does. In neither case is it necessary for an honest person to perpetrate a confidence trick upon people whom he’s trying to sway to his side.

In the article, he also conflates two disparate concerns. First, the scientific:
While what people believe about the universe is their own business - I certainly have my own weird handful of notions - if one wants to play in the science classroom one must adhere *at least* to the doctrine of falsifiability. Thus far, all creationist hypotheses have proved false on every testable point. This is true of even the strong version of Intelligent Design, known as irreducible complexity, whose original examples of irreducible complexity (the immune system, the bacterial flagella, etc.) have since been proved reducible, thus falsifying the hypothesis.

Of course, the weak version of ID (“There must be some designer somewhere out there”) doesn’t make a falsifiable claim, which makes it a philosophy without even an hypothesis. It is not even bad science. To quote Wolfgang Pauli, it’s “not even wrong.”

Second among Ruse’s conflated issues is the sociological:
People love their pet beliefs, particularly when it comes to notions about creation or design, which most people erroneously conflate with metaphysical notions of purpose. Fortunately, affection doesn’t give one the right to have their beliefs coddled in a science classroom, nor should it. Science has always, and (so long as it continues to progress) will always be a philosophically and theologically unsettling enterprise - not just for the religious, but for all of society. As our data about the universe changes, our ethics, philosophy, beliefs, laws, and values change in reaction to it. Sometimes it’s subtle – sometimes it’s hugely traumatic. In neither case may one claim an exemption from coping with that fact because it conflicts with something someone taught in a church or read in a holy book.

The argument over the teaching of evolution is one of four major arguments now brewing that effect the whole of the scientific endeavor. The others are neurology, biogenetic research (particularly, but not exclusively, on human embryonic stem cells), and nanotechnology. All three of these fields profoundly threaten a variety of doctrines from a variety of religions in ways at least as profound as evolutionary theory does - and all of them are indispensable in dealing with climate, famine, pollution, disease, and a host of other engineering challenges that either loom on the horizon or are already with us. Ruse’s strategy of accommodationism didn’t work in the last 50 years of the 20th century - it seems that a different set of tactics are needed. Direct confrontation and argument is a more honest and, quite possibly, a much more productive mode of engagement in the culture wars of all sorts than is ingratiation.

In every form it has been hitherto proposed, creationism is either a falsified hypothesis, a con game, or an assertion without any content. We scientifically literate folk should treat our adversaries in this culture war with the dignity that they’re due as adult human beings and be clear that, in so many words, we’re fairly certain that they’re full of shit. It is both dishonest and insulting to pat them on the head and point at the sandbox in the corner and say “over there we have a little room for your theology, and we promise not to wreck your sandcastles – at least not today.”

Of course, there are different levels of pugilistic engagement – P.Z. is a provocateur, and proud of it. So be it – the world needs people like that, lest we all get so afraid of offending someone else that we lose our willingness to participate in the arena of ideas. A free culture needs its assholes like a pond needs water.

Friends arguing philosophy over beer in a pub have the option to be kind – that’s the kind of forum I participate in at Apologia, and I’m proud to do it. But friends don’t generally take kindly to being treated like children by their peers, and there is a difference between kindness and mealy-mouthed passive aggression; practicing the latter in a friendly conversation might well get you snubbed at the next get-together, because it displays both cowardice and condescension.

However, intellectual pugilists in the arena of ideas do not have the option of sparing the feelings of the other side. It is possible for one side to be completely wrong on a given issue, and in such circumstances, seeking a middle ground is dishonest. So, I say “Hooray” for the new atheists, and wish more people, especially those who think they’re assholes, would actually read them. I’ve known more than a few Christians (including very conservative ones) who find the new atheists refreshingly honest and who can make common cause with them in the matter of intellectual ethics, even as they disagree completely on matters of theology, morality, politics, et.al.

Let us stop honoring opinions as sacred, and instead honor those who are willing to have an argument - regardless of what they believe.
And let’s honor them by informing ourselves and actually engaging the argument, rather than complaining that they don’t like us.

*** Appendix ***

In the comments below, Todd Stark points out a basic dichotomy of approaches to intellectual arguments - how some see them as a fight, while others see them as a conversation. He’s right about this, but his comments point up that I wasn’t clear enough about the basic premise from which I was operating.

I don’t think “argument” equates to “fight” - but then, I also don’t think “adversary” equates with “enemy.” There is a place for the friendly conversation (for example, Apologia). There’s also a place for the boxing match. Both are an argument, defined well by Michael Palin in the Monty Python sketch “An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.” It’s not “the automatic gainsaying of something the other person says,” neither is it abuse. In such a sense, both are conversation, fraught with all the normal difficulties you point up in conversations.

In other words, The fact that open societies exist shows that people can be pragmatic about their irreconcilable differences. Argument separates the substance of the opinion from the person holding it for the purposes of understanding - you may think I’m batshit crazy for thinking it’s worthwhile to have humans living on mars, and I might think you’re batshit crazy for reading a horoscope, but I know from arguing about those things with you that you’re ethical in the way that you think, so we can still have a business relationship, or a friendship.

I think the whole reason to have an argument is to ferret out the substantive differences from the semantic ones, whether that argument is friendly or adversarial, the basic structure remains: I’ll stack my facts and logic up, you stack up yours, and we’ll critique each other.

Some particularly colorful arguments, particularly those between public intellectuals like Ruse and Meyers (or William Dembski and anybody, or Christopher Hitchens and anybody), can contain abuse, but if abuse is the entire argument, then there’s nothing to see. My objection to Ruse’s paper is that it consists of very few facts (almost all of them wrong), with the balance spent abusing his opponents while complaining that they abuse him. He has jumped into the boxing ring and is complaining that he’s getting hit, which seems, to me, childish.

Thanks for the comment and the constructive criticism, Todd!

—Also check out the responses to Ruse by two of his targets. Jerry Coyne’s reaction is here. P.Z. Meyers’ reaction is here.

Here is the first promo for Down From Ten. Please post it everywhere! Your podcasts, blogs, parent’s car windows, door of city hall, etc.

And now, Episode 6, in which the plot thickens.

Episode 7 coming this weekend.

To backtrack, I just finished reading Gail Carriger’s debut novel Soulless, now available for preorder from Amazon and scheduled for release this October. An unusual genre mash-up that the author aptly describes as “Urbane Fantasy,” it combines fantasy, paranormal, romance, horror, mystery, steampunk, and Victorian comedy of manners in the same way one might expect of a veteran chef blending Chinese, Italian, and California flavor palates for a lark at a summer barbecue that is to say, the result is unexpected, surprising, delightful, and brings one up a bit short. Or, it would, if it weren’t for one of the best opening paragraphs I’ve read in a long time. The first chapter flies by fast enough that it’s not until the narrator pauses for breath in chapter two that the reader is left to puzzle over the curiosities of, say, a perfectly ordinary-seeming spinster with a weighted brass parasol encountering an unexpected vampire while having tea at a soirée. The fact that she easily dispatches said vampire, which lisps terribly and can’t seem to keep his fangs up when he touches her, resulting in a scene that positively screams “Buffy, you’re a poseur.” Alexia Tarabotti isn’t a vampire hunter or an angsty teenage girl, and her story is a cut or five above Whedonesque kitschy cuteness.

To backtrack further, Soulless follows the adventures of one Alexia Tarabotti, an independently minded Victorian spinster in her own special kind of hell. That variety of hell is, aptly enough, called “home,” where she lives with her two much younger, much less Italian sisters and a mother that can’t seem to utter three words without being dreadfully boorish or uselessly boring. To compensate for her unfortunate circumstances, Alexia enjoys hobnobbing with flamboyant vampires, needling the local werewolves, resenting her friend Ivy’s taste in hats, and reading until her socks turn blue.

Ms. Carriger makes a great use of romance formula - taking the basic template and subverting it well enough that, even when you know what *must* be coming, it’s often a genuine surprise when it arrives. She also presents the reader with the Victorian world as seen by the social-climbing London middle class. Normally, I find this angle on the Victorian world both suffocating and tiresome, but in this case it works to great effect. As this class historically subsisted on a worldview that was, in large part, fantasy, this turns out to be an apt basis for a novel in which Werewolves are responsible for the British Regimental structure and the Queen has a Shadow Cabinet made up of supernatural advisors.

Which leads me to my favorite thing about the book: it takes itself seriously. I mean this in the sense that there is a flawless internal integrity to the world, the characters, their attitudes, and the action. Far too often with period fantasy or romance (or drama, for that matter), the author delivers cosplay instead of integrity - that is to say, the characters act like contemporary people affecting period manners and forms, but without a genuine period-restricted worldview. As a history nut, this is a make-or-break issue for me - I’m hypercritical about it and will sooner put down a book with poor historical integrity than waste the precious moments of my life reading something by a careless author who can’t be bothered to get it right in the milieu they’ve chosen. Ms. Carriger’s world passes this test with flying colors, even as she works in dozens of sly nods to Austin, Wodehouse, Douglas Adams, and all manner of geeky trivia.

Alas, nothing is perfect, and the one thing about Soulless that kept me frustrated was the world building. This alternate London is a marvelous place, filled up to the corners with an intriguing social structure - and we get only the barest taste of it. It’s quite obvious that Ms. Carriger has done her homework and likely has a voluminous stack of notebooks on the minutiae of her world on a shelf next to her notorious hat collection (which I trust is far more tasteful than a certain hat collection on display in the book), and yet she shows us little enough that I found myself irritated that the book had the temerity to end after a mere 350 pages. Then again, perhaps this is what sequels are for, and the sequel is due out in March.

In sum, Soulless is an unusually strong showing for a first novel, for a comedy of manners, and indeed for a paranormal romance. In blending these with its other genres it manages to achieve what very few novels in any tradition do: it creates a strong enough sense of itself to stand out from the background noise in its genre. This book is something special, a paean to and gentle satire of the Victorian delight with frivolity, witty to the end. The closing author’s note in my ARC mentions the influence of Wodehouse and Austin on the style of Soulless, and while both have noticeable echoes in the author’s voice, I don’t think either does it justice. As good as Wodehouse is, and as iconic as Austin has become, Soulless is not properly a successor to either. It is something better. It is instead, if you will forgive the phrase, a very Wilde excursion.

Click on the paypal link to pre-order your poster!

(In the event that we do not receive the minimum order quantity by January 1st, 2010, we will refund your paypal order.)

And now, Episode 5, in which Jeremiah finds his place, Edelle makes breakfast, Gerd and Sarah make music, Kevin fails his dress code exam, and the snows begin in earnest. Bumper by uberfan Mildred Cady. Story So Far by Chris Lester, who plays Jeremiah and is master of his own universe of .

Episode 6 coming tomorrow.

Beginning in December, we will be working together on a Steampunk YA novel set in San Francisco, about a pair of young troublemakers who just can’t seem to stop fighting about a car, or the strange monsters that come out at night, or the steampunk world they keep stumbling into, or…well, that’s for you to find out, isn’t it? And find out you will, either through podcast or through print, when Philippa Ballantine and J. Daniel Sawyer present The Auto Motive sometime in 2010.

It’s going to be so much fun!

Predestination is a parsec finalist. Officially we’re up for “Best New Speculative Fiction Podcaster/Team,” and, while it’s only *one* of the nominations I was hoping for, if i had to pick only one this would probably be it. Why’s that? Well, this one has the advantage of being a shared award. I don’t know how many physical awards they give out, but if they give out multiples one is definitely going to Danny Schade, whose music made the world complete.

Thank you — all of you — for a hell of a first year doing this. Next year is, I hope, going to be even more exciting — I’ve gots me some plans!

Hello everyone —

Due to circumstances beyond my control, Down From Ten is not going to be posting until next week, when we should have two episodes up. In lieu of that, I’m bringing you the much-anticipated preview for Book 2 of the Antithesis Progression: Free Will and other Compulsions

And now, Episode 4, in which Kevin takes a dip, Katy talks to a dip, Carol dances, Amos takes a walk, and the plot thickens. Bumper by Miss Kalendar of Brass Needles, who plays Sarah in Down From Ten. Story So Far by Gail Carriger. Check out Gail Carriger’s new book, Soullessat Amazon.

First, the appearances. You can find me on recent episodes of Podioracket, The Dead Robots Society, and doing voice work as the German Army in Philippa Ballantine’s Weather Child. You can also hear my fantasy story Buried Alive In The Blues, for which I also did some of the voice work, on the excellent (if racy) anthology series Erotica A La Carte.

For those of you who enjoy my Open Source madness will be pleased to hear that there are new LinuxJournal articles - one is a review of the Indamixx portable recording studio, and the other, which hasn’t yet published, is a review of OpenGear’s new KVM management console. I’m currently stalking a couple more regular writing gigs, so if the internet gods smile upon me, you may be seeing quite a lot more out of me in this vein in the coming months.

Podcast monkeys, you may have noticed the new buttons on the right side of the page - each podcast feed now has an iTunes one-click subscription link, as well as the normal RSS buttons. There’s also now an Uberfeed, which will give you everything I podcast (except Apologia, which you can get here).

You also may have noticed that I’m now podcasting my new novel Down From Ten. This is a comedic country house mystery with elements of romance, horror, and science fiction around the edges - it’s a change of gears from The Antithesis Progression. It’s also listed on iTunes now, so if you’re listening and enjoying it, please leave a review and tell your friends.

I’m also the subject of, and participant in dialog to, a blog series about the doctrinal foundations of Christianity by Scott Roche on the Spiritual Tramp blog. If you like my arguments on Apologia, you’ll definitely find this one entertaining.

I’ve also recorded MORE Reprobates Hour episodes, which, along with all the other special features I have on my hard drive, I’ll hopefully start spooling out here again this month.

As far as writing projects go, Free Will is picking up steam and is now officially on schedule for a November release. I’m also working on a couple more secret projects, which hopefully I’ll have news about soon here.

Finally, I hope to have some good news on sales in the next couple weeks, so watch this space!

And now, Episode 3. Bumper by Mark Smith of Buffy, Between The Lines. Story So Far by Philippa Ballantine.

And now, Episode 2. Bumper by Steve Reikiberg of Geek Cred, Story So Far by Kitty Nic’Iaian.

Well, boys and girls, here it is. No fanfare, I’m saving that for a bit later. For now, just enjoy: episode 1 of Down From Ten.

For Predestination, I’ve been nominated for:
Best Speculative Fiction Story (Novel Form)
Best Audio Drama (Long Form including Independents)
Best New Speculative Fiction Podcaster/Team

And for Sculpting God, I’ve been nominated for:
Best Speculative Fiction Story (Short Form)
Best Audio Drama (Short Form including Independents)
Best Speculative Fiction Magazine or Anthology Podcast

There’s obviously a lot of genre bending that I’m doing between fiction/drama, so that may work against me. Who knows? The only down side of this is that I have to send in samples, which is one more thing on my overlong to-do list. Even so…

Being nominated for the Parsecs f*cking rocks! Thanks guys, you are all fabulous!
-Dan

This one features Miss Kalendar along with Chris Lester and Kitty Nic’Iaian.

This is part two of the final round of Dealing In. Part three will be coming next week. You guys rock!

In this episode, we deal with some very particular and intelligent criticisms of Predestination voiced by Paul Fischer and Michael Spence.

-Dan

This one features Miss Kalendar along with Chris Lester and Kitty Nic’Iaian.

This is it, folks, the final round of Dealing In before we get to Down From Ten. We toast the successful conclusion of Predestination and look forward. Some info on Down From Ten here, as well as some very involved conversations about the themes of Predestination, the possible interaction of quantum mechanics and consciousness, and the nature of trust. Not to mention a LOT of laughs, some inside information on what I’m like as a director, and lots of other stuff. This is one of three episodes in this final Dealing In saga — 61 minutes of audio goodness here. Enjoy!!!
-Dan

Part 2 of the Richard Carrier is now live. We continue our conversation about science in the ancient world, discuss the works and missteps of Rodney Stark and his theory of the scientific revolution, read and discuss ancient documents germaine to the topic, and talk about the reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire. Hera Flea returns with more Reprobates News, and Danny Schade continues to supply additional questions and commentary.

Next time, in about two weeks, we’ll talk to Cory Doctorow about DRM, Freedom, Surveilance, and Linux.

Enjoy!

In other news, I’ve engaged the services of Gabrielle Harbowy for editing Down From Ten, in order to whip it into shape for the podcast.

I’ll be blogging the con as I go, though depending on wi-fi access I might not be able to post the blogs till next week. Hope you all have an excellent Memorial Day, regardless of whether your weekend brings you Balticon, BayCon, or barbecues.

New Reprobates — and remastered Predestination episodes - will post next week.

Which is what this post is about. Christiana Ellis’ hysterical send up of epic fantasy, Nina Kimberley the Merciless is now available on Amazon.com. I *LOVE* this book — very clever, loads of fun, and written with a genuine literacy that’s very refreshing in any kind of Fantasy, let alone comedic fantasy. Download the ebook here to read on your computer or portable reader, subscribe to the podcast here, and support the author’s print debut by heading over to Amazon and buying today.

What kind of insanity have I wrought? What does it take to do something like this?

What’s next on my plate? What does Tee Morris’s pubic hair have to do with podcasting?

Give it a listen and find out as Tee Morris roasts and interviews me on this special one-hour retrospective on Predestination and look forward to Free Will and Down From Ten.

Thank you all for listening all these long months.

Here you are, all you wonderful listeners — a sneak preview of Down From Ten. Enjoy — and please distribute widely!

It’s been a long time! Before my life was swallowed by the podcast of my novel Predestination and Other Games of Chance, I recorded quite a bit for Reprobates Hour. So now, to kick off part 2 of Season 3, Richard Carrier returns to talk about science in the ancient world. We discuss the works and missteps of Rodney Stark and his theory of the scientific revolution, we talk about the amazing and usually forgotten scientific and technological discoveries and innovations in the ancient world, and have a lot of fun along the way. In this first of three episodes, we talk about science in the Greek world. Next week, we talk about the Roman world. Hope you enjoy!

The Reprobates are back in town — spread the word!

Check out the details here. Come out with me and celebrate the successful completion of the Predestination podcast, and also the launch of Seth Harwood’s Jack Wakes Up! ]]> http://jdsawyer.net/2009/05/06/predestination-wrap-party-pub-crawl/feed/ http://jdsawyer.net/2009/05/05/bonus-content-jack-wakes-up-pdf/ http://jdsawyer.net/2009/05/05/bonus-content-jack-wakes-up-pdf/#comments Tue, 05 May 2009 08:52:14 +0000 admin http://jdsawyer.net/?p=469 My friend Seth Harwood has his mainstream debut with his book Jack Wakes Up today, coming out from an imprint of Crown, the same publisher that picked up Scott Sigler. Some of you may not know his book, a modern-day noir thriller that is equal parts James M. Caine and Scott Turow, so I thought I’d introduce you with this PDF preview of the first three chapters of Jack Wakes Up.

Download it, read it, and then go to your local bookstore and buy a copy. It’s a fun read, and there’s enough in there to tickle your lit geek bones till you turn the final page. If you’re not convinced about it, check out my review of the book.

Here we are, everyone. The final episode. The guy that got me into this whole thing, Scott Sigler brings us the final Story So Far. Be sure to stay tuned for the end matter — there is new music and a surprise at the end!

Thank you all for listening — it’s been an honor and a pleasure to torture entertain you.

Cast this week (in order of appearance):
Steven H. Wilson as Voleish and Percy Scott
Stephanie Sawyer as Cassy Orinthal
George Chlentzos as Douglas Reeves
Brian Levy as Jim Hartman
Erin Balabanian as Alyssa Hartman

The Climactic episode of Predestination clocking in at 37mins. This is easily the most acoustically complex episode of the series, with more kick-ss original music by Danny Schade. P.G. Holyfield joins the cast, too!

But that’s not what you’re interested in. You want to know what happens, and I can’t even ask you provocative questions because it might give something away. So, without further ado, the climax of Predestination.

Story So Far this week by Miss Kalendar of Brass Needles.

Cast this week (in order of appearance):
Stephanie Sawyer as Cassy Orinthal
George Chlentzos as Douglas Reeves
Erin Balabanian as Alyssa Hartman
Brian Levy as Jim Hartman
Kitty NicIaian as Fugitive and The Spaceport Announcer
P.G. Holyfield as Docking Controller

Part 2 of the final Dealing In (well, the final one before the end of the book) is here! This time we banted with listener voicemails, talk about sex scenes and DOOM!, and laugh ourselves silly. A little treat to tide you over for till tomorrow, when the last episodes of Predestination drop!

Kitty Nic’Iaian and Chris Lester join, once again. Enjoy!

If you enjoy world religions, are wondering where science fiction can go from here, or are curious about transhumanism or The Singularity, you’ll find something to entertain you and possibly get your dander up here.

Enjoy!

Part 1 of the final Dealing In (well, the final one before the end of the book) is here! This week’s serves up a mountain of your emails on a range of topics including:

Old Europe
Bastiat’s Principle
Buried Alive In The Blues
Steampunk (Van Der Meer, Broadmore, Carriger)
Soulless by Gail Carriger
The Red Panda and Black Jack Justice — Decoder Ring Theater
Heather Welliver
The basics behind stereo imaging
McCarthyism and Bill Shelley
Flight of the Conchords “The Humans Are Dead”
Easter Eggs in Predestination
First Gulf War
Xanatos gambits and bounded perspective
Is stealth technology in space possible?
Chicken Scissors
Tom Lehrer
Man Love in Metamor City and on Erotica A La Carte
Scott Sigler’s The Crypt
Angels Unawares

Kitty Nic’Iaian and Chris Lester join, once again. Enjoy!

Luna is rioting - Jade and Voleish are navigating their own ways through it. Meanwhile, Nineveh sleeps uneasily - in the calm before the storm, what small movements will change the course of the storm? The second transhumanist in our cast of characters is revealed - if you pay attention.

J.C. Hutchins, author of Personal Effects: Dark Art, brings us The Story So Far.

Cast this week (in order of appearance):
Stephanie Sawyer as Cassy Orinthal
Lorien Wheeler as Jade Orin
Steven H. Wilson as Voleish
Kitty NicIaian as The Computer
Christiana Ellis as The Protester
Justin McComber as The Shopkeeper
Michael Lemonjello as Xylar
Jonathan Sawyer as Furgeson

Joss may be able to hold his own against Doug Reeves, but will he be able to stand up under Doug, Ali, Jim, and Cassy all cross-examining him? And what does Cassy need to finally make up her mind about where she stands? This episode features more new music by Danny Schade, another cliffhanger and an unexpected appearance by a character we haven’t seen in a while. Enjoy!

Mur Lafferty , author and host of some of my favorite podcasts ever brings us The Story So Far.

Cast this week (in order of appearance):
George Chlentzoz as Douglas Reeves
Erin Ballibanian as Ali
Stephanie Sawyer as Cassy Orinthal
Brian Levy as Jim
Shannon Holden as The Air Traffic Controller

Chris Lester interviews composer Danny Schade about the music for Predestination, his creative process, and the nuts and bolts of collaborative composing. Author J. Daniel Sawyer joins the fun. An informative must-listen for podcast producers and music aficionados.

Enjoy!

On this second half of episode seven of Dealing In, Gail Carriger sings the DOOM! song, the quartet gets musically adventurous, Chris Lester gets so tipsy he can’t follow the jokes, and we handle all your voicemail. If you thought the first half was zany — you ain’t heard nothin’ yet!

Topics Mentioned
Espionage, Classified information, and its effect on families
Lois McMaster Bujold
Dolphinsex.com
Cocaine
Space Sickness
Space Toilets
NSA Surveilance
Death By Man Love
Erotica A La Carte
Buried Alive in The Blues
Criminal assault charges

On this episode of Dealing In, Gail Carriger brings a touch of prurient Victorian wit to the proceedings, while Chris Lester gets re-acquainted with scotch and Kitty Nic’Iaian reminds us all why she’s around: To keep the rest of us in line!

Topics Mentioned
Prophets of Panimendorah
The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere
Metamor City
Gail Carriger’s Soulless
Down From Ten
Transhumanism
Winnipeg
The Red Panda
Furries
Body Modification
God’s Army: A Dark Day in Paradise
CERN
The Large Hadron Collider
Has the LHC destroyed the world yet?

And the countdown continues. After this one there are only four left. This week, some BIG reveals about a couple of our characters. Joss, Cassy, Doug, Ali, and Jim pick up right where we left them at Phalanx, at the moment of Joss’s betrayal - but theirs is not the only story with fireworks. Back on Luna, Percy attends to some unfinished business. This episode features more new music by Danny Schade, another cliffhanger and an unexpected appearance by a character we haven’t seen in a while. Enjoy!

Steve Riekiberg , host of Geek Cred brings us The Story So Far.

Cast this week (in order of appearance):
George Chlentzoz as Douglas Reeves
Erin Ballibanian as Ali
Stephanie Sawyer as Cassy Orinthal
Steven H. Wilson as Percy Scott
Kitty Nic’Iaian as The Spaceport Announcer

Well, now that the series is well underway, it’s time for a new promo. Any of you listening, please put this on your feed. Siva will fail to destroy you if you do

This promo features Joss Kyle, and is the first of a series of character-based promos I have planned. Enjoy!

Here we go. This episode kicks off with Ali and Jim arriving on Nineveh, and ends on yet another cliffhanger. All the main characters are now in one place — will all hell break loose? Find out. This episode features new music by Danny Schade, as well as his cameo and probably the cruelest cliffhanger to date. Enjoy!

Michael Lemonjello, our very own Xylar (and just about everyone else I need on short notice), brings us the Story So Far.

Cast this week (in order of appearance):
Danny Schade as The Pilot
Kitty Nic’Iaian as The Spaceport Announcer
Brian Levy as Jim
Erin Ballibanian as Ali
Stephanie Sawyer as Cassy Orinthal
George Chlentzoz as Douglas Reeves

Larry Bushey, Host of the Going Linux Podcast, brings us the Story So Far.

Cast this week (in order of appearance):
Robin Hathaway as Marian Shelley
Tee Morris as Brandon
Kimi Alexander as Ashan
Amy Gahran as Ined
Stephanie Sawyer as Cassy Orinthal
Philippa Ballantine as Brittany Hydra
Steven H. Wilson as Percy Scott
Chris Lester as Greg Singh
Shannon Holden as Ophelia
Michael Lemonjello as Xylar

Marian Shelley emerges from her convalesence to discover whether or not she can actually face the world after what she’s lived through. On Luna, Brittany runs into an unusual character, while on Nineveh Joss gets a not-quite-unexpected visitor.

Larry Bushey, Host of the Going Linux Podcast, brings us the Story So Far.

Cast this week (in order of appearance):
Robin Hathaway as Marian Shelley
Tee Morris as Brandon
Kimi Alexander as Ashan
Amy Gahran as Ined
Stephanie Sawyer as Cassy Orinthal
Philippa Ballantine as Brittany Hydra
Steven H. Wilson as Percy Scott
Chris Lester as Greg Singh
Shannon Holden as Ophelia
Michael Lemonjello as Xylar

Hey everyone, the final half of episode six of is here. Chris, Kitty and I plow through the rest of the piled-up mountain of feedback for the story through Episode Seventeen. This one’s an hour and fifteen minutes long. My cohorts and I deal with more worldbuilding questions, the issue of Fan Fiction, how terrorism and tyranny are related, and, and we take on the most spoliery listener question so far. Enjoy!

Topics Mentioned:
Caleb Carr’s The Alienist and his nonfiction book The Lessons of Terror book on Terrorism
Down From Ten
The Metamor City Podcast
J. Michael Straczynski
Digital Magic by Philippa Ballantine
09.09.09
The unsustainable nature of totalitarianism.
Sculpting God’s “Lilith”

Literacy is like heroin - it’s habit-forming. The more people try out the habit, the more likely they are to retain it. Exposure to books breeds consumption of books, which is good, because the act of reading requires deliberate commitment. This is important to keep in mind, particularly for those who wish to arrest the publishing industry’s current implosion before it becomes more like the razing of Carthage than the decline of the British Empire.

Despite its pretensions to the contrary, publishing is a business. The novel, the newspaper, the short story, and the magazine were all shaped to fit market niches, not vice versa. Eventually, somewhere along the line, the people who actually produce and polish the content (i.e. the writers, editors, and publishers) have to get paid.

We writers – and the publishing companies that once made a tidy profit off our work – don’t have a divine right to exist. If there’s no market, we go away.

ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY IS A LOSING GAME

The artificial scarcity strategies that media companies have (unsuccessfully) employed to preserve their markets won’t work for books, even in theory. All DRM is laughably easy to crack or circumvent. Also much DRM strips both content creators and consumers of their rights. Readers, like music fans before them, won’t put up with that. They will pirate instead.
While publishers try to create market scarcity by fiat, writers are trying to stay alive — and readers are trying to figure out how to find the books they want. In the struggle to limit readers’ ability to read the books they pay for, publishers (like the movie and music industries before them) are cutting their own throats, because readers (unlike movie and music fans) have ALWAYS been able to go elsewhere to get what they want. It’s perfectly possible for almost anyone in the western world to read for a lifetime without ever paying a dime for the privilege. That’s been true ever since Andrew Carnegie started endowing libraries.

Therefore, the game for book publishers is different than it is for music or film publishers. People like to search favorite books for quotes. They expect to be able to excerpt passages. They prefer books that are always available. While DRM doesn’t work well for relatively disposable entertainment like pop music and movies, it doesn’t stand a chance in the world of publishing. No copy protection scheme could possibly work, and no reader will endure draconian limits placed on her for long.

LIBRARY AS PUSHER

Public libraries might be a contained threat for now – but increasingly they are going online like a monster version of Google Books. How can our culture survive that? Authors’ copyrights will be shot, our revenue streams will dry up, and the whole literary establishment of the western world will…

..Oh, wait. I’m sorry, for a moment there I thought I was a record company executive.

But seriously, what of freely available books online? If everything is on Google Books, isn’t our business model blown?

No. Google Books merely samples sections of books – a drug pusher’s trick, wonderful for whetting the reader’s appetite. Our libraries should do the same thing, and go one step further:

Let people rent online access to books.

If someone wants to read a book online — or maintain access to one for a research project, or just have an old favorite at the ready wherever there’s wifi — let him pay a dollar for a week, or $2 for two weeks, or $10 for lifetime access. Let him read it on his Kindle or his Mobi or his laptop or his iPhone. And let it remain on the library’s server accessible only with his library card account.

This approach benefits both authors and publishers by providing a new revenue stream for themselves and for libraries. It creates a new market segment without gerrymandering artificial scarcity. And it does all this without curtailing the existing rights of readers, who may still walk into a library and check out the book, or buy the book in a bookstore.

It might also boost e-book sales: creating a niche market among travelers and others who want access to a broad catalog while away from the ‘net, and who will accept draconian restrictions in exchange.

Of course, there will always be a segment of the literate market who won’t actually read. For a variety of reasons, some readers will always gravitate towards audiobooks. Well, libraries could rent out streaming audiobooks. They could even promote print books with audio samples – call it a “gateway drug” strategy.

The audio sampling method is a proven success. A number of novelists (myself included) are already cultivating new markets by giving away audiobook versions with resounding success. Scott Sigler, the front-runner in this new game, hit the NYT Bestseller list for a print book he’s also giving away online in audio form. His strategy is enough like a drug dealer’s that his fans call themselves “junkies.”

THE END OF THE BEGINNING

Saving its market won’t be enough to save book publishers — but it will help them survive long enough to fix their other massive internal operational problems. Between print-on-demand, e-books, and Google Book Search, we have the opportunity to grow- the literate market share from its current historic lows, rather than letting it continue to shrink.

If we’re going to do this we must adapt to the market rather than try to strong-arm it into standing still for us. Tom Lehrer had it right for heroin, but he could have been talking about literacy, too. Remember the less on of the Old Dope Peddler:

He gives the kids free samples
Because he knows full well
That today’s young, innocent faces
Will be tomorrow’s clientèle.

Between planets, stuck on a ship with Doug Reeves, can Cassy hold it together long enough to make it to Nineveh?

Christiana Ellis, author of Nina Kimberly the Merciless, brings us the Story So Far.

Cast this week (in order of appearance):

Stephanie Sawyer as Cassy Orinthal

George Chlentzos as Douglas Reeves

Brittany is back, doing her best to hold things together in the wake of a national emergency during Cassy’s absence. Meanwhile, Doug sorts through his options while Joss secures some insurance for himself.

Brittany is back, doing her best to hold things together in the wake of a national emergency during Cassy’s absence. Meanwhile, Doug sorts through his options while Joss secures some insurance for himself.

P.C. Haring, author of Cybrosis, brings us the Story So Far.

Cast this week (in order of appearance):

Michael Lemonjello as Alphonse and Xylar

Lynx Crowe as Trent Alcock

Elizabeth Rossi as Charis Chandlay

Philippa Ballantine as Brittany Hydra

Kitty Nic’Iaian as The Computer

Heya Everyone, episode six of dealing in is here. Due to my long absence a LOT of feedback had piled up. This one’s an hour long, and it’s part one of two or three. My cohorts and I deal with an epic email from a former drunk emailer, now sober, we talk Marxist social theory, and we take on some very probing listener questions and some of the most creative death threats yet. Enjoy!

Topics Mentioned:
Trucker Rich
Cybrosis
Into The Blender podcast
The Polyschizmatic Reprobates Hour
The Metamor City Podcast
J. Michael Straczynski
Digital Magic by Philippa Ballantine
09.09.09
Altered Carbon by Richard Morgan
Gail Carriger’s new novel Soulless
Death By Cliché by Bob Defendi

While Jim and Ali chase down their job on Mars, their employer, Mr. Douglas Reeves, lays his plans for the future of the Lunar resistance.

Philippa Ballantine, author of Weather Child, brings us the Story So Far. This week’s in-show promo is for her new book.

If you’re in the San Francisco Area, join myself, Chris Lester, Seth Harwood, and Scott Sigler at the House of Shields for drinks and discussion at 5pm on Sat the 21st. You can find more info and directions here.

Cast this week (in order of appearance):

Erin Balabanian as Alysaa Hartman

Brian Levy as Jim Hartman

George Chlentzos as Douglas Reeves

Lorien Wheeler as Jade Orin

Percy Scott has some loose ends to tie up, which Joss Kyle has some plans to lay. Neither of them is aware of Bill Shelley’s plans, or how they’re about to make a splash in a big way. Then again, neither does his one-time friend and mentor, Douglas Reeves..

Christiana Ellis join our cast tonight as a pinch hitter. Kitty Nic’iaian, the co-producer of Antithesis also known as Hera Flea of The Polyschizmatic Reprobates Hour, brings us the Story So Far.

This week’s in-show promo is for Scott Sigler and Seth Harwood’s Author Boot Camp. Use the code “Scott1″ when registering to get over $100 off the registration price.

Cast this week (in order of appearance):

Steven H. Wilson as Percy Scott

Chris Lester as Greg Singh

George Chlentzos as Douglas Reeves

Lynx Crowe as Trent Alcock

Christianna Ellis as Charis Chandlay

Kitty Nic’Iaian as the Junior Senator from Massachusetts

Nathan Lowell as Senator Wilhelm Shelley

With Cassy and Joss now suspicious of one another, and the Hartmans at each other’s throats on Mars, the powderkeg is primed. Tonight, the first spark falls.

Kim the Comic Book Goddess and Heather Welliver join our cast tonight, while Dalya Massachi of of Writing for Community Success brings us the Story So Far.

This week’s in-show promo is for The Leviathan Chronicles.

Cast this week (in order of appearance):

Stephanie Sawyer as Cassy Orinthal

Kim The Comic Book Goddess as Val

Brian Levy as Jim

Erin Balabanian as Ali

Heather Welliver as Shayna Takahashi

Lorien Wheeler as Jade

Heya Everyone -

Between flying kiwis, killer throat ailments, and hard drive corruption, January has been a rough month for Antithesis and for all of you I left hanging on that awful cliffhanger. However, take heart! There is good news.

-Dan

The first book in the series, Predestination, deals with rigged poker games. Do you play? What did you learn from personal experiences that played a key role in creating scenarios in your book?

I’m actually pretty rusty, but at the time I wrote the first draft I played a lot, and had been playing for years. I got started when I was about ten, when an uncle of mine who was a low-level diplomat explained the nature of his job to me by saying “If you know how to play poker, and you know how to play chess, then you have the basic skills it takes to do diplomacy.” I was the kind of kid that viewed that sort of statement as a challenge, so within about two months I had a regular poker game going in my garage with my siblings and other neighborhood kids - we played for M&Ms or other types of kid-gold because we weren’t allowed to play for money. I kept on playing right through college on a daily-to-monthly basis, but since college it’s been hard to find people willing to play for stakes I can afford.

Read the rest here!

Part two of the Sex Roundtable is here. This time, Chris Lester is hosting it on his feed over at Metamor City and we’re running it concurrently here. Consequently, this one’s got his opening credits on it instead of mine. This episode picks up the discussion pretty much where we left off, give or take a bathroom break, and concentrates a little more on sex in Metamor City, but there’s still plenty of sauciness and chatter about Predestination to keep all of you who aren’t listening to both shows interested.

Look for part 3 soon!

We take a break from the constant sex talk to go over the latest feedback and…oh, yeah…talk about sex a bit. And geekiness. And all other manner of insanity. Stay tuned at the end where we announce the winner of the iTunes review contest.

Enjoy!

P.S. My illness has settled into my chest, so still no recording. Damn you, Lester!!!

This year, particularly the second half, has seen a lot of people turn very pessimistic about, well, everything. Yeah, the economy’s slowing down. Yeah, people like me are scrambling just to make ends meet - when money goes slow everywhere, it hits the arts hard. And yeah, some things just sucked. But you know what? Today’s “awful” is a hell of a lot better than “great” was when my grandparents were growing up. Despite environmental problems, terrorists, crooked investment bankers, and crookeder politicians (yes, in all parties), I’m living in a time when “five-percent unemployment” is really bad. When I was a kid in the early 80s, that would have been music to everyone’s ears. Ditto for crime, poverty, war casualty, plague death, and violence figures almost everywhere on Earth (though some of us are a lot luckier than others, through no merit of our own).

So, yeah, 2008 might have been a scary year. But as I look back at the global “Big Picture” there aren’t a lot of things that are truly scary in the long run - not like there were twenty, fifty, or eighty years ago - not to mention longer ago than that.

On a personal level, it’s been a mixed year, but as I was drawing up this list I can’t help but be staggered by how far the scales tip towards the wonderful. Click on the link to read my self-indulgent recap.

The Bad or Bittersweet

In May of 2001 I started preproduction on a film I’ve spent the intervening years working on. Hunting Kestral, a science fiction action film set in the universe of Antithesis, was officially retired from the active projects list. Of all the things I’ve done in my life, this project has to be the most important so far. I met people I still work with to this day, I learned the meat of the different trades I now call my career, and the process irrevocably altered the story and universe of Antithesis. Perhaps most importantly, I spent some of the most rewarding months of my life to that point in the company of actors who taught me far more about life than I ever thought I’d learn at the age of 24. Unfortunately, I had to admit that on this one I bit off way more than I can reasonably hope to finish chewing in the foreseeable future, so the dream of doing a professional level live-action independent film is something I have to set aside for now. I’m planning on a post-show article on it sometime in January.

My first website, Blenderwars, which had for years been a vibrant hobbyist community, finally died. It was a long time coming, but last May I finally gave in to the inevitable and pulled the plug. We were online from 1999 to 2008, hitting our peak of half a million page views per month in 2002. Some of the folks I met through there have gone on to work with me on various film projects, and have proved to be excellent people all the way down the line.

A lot of death touched my life this year, both first and second degree. I’d say I could have done without it, but the truth is that I’ve lived an unusually long time without someone close to me dying - I was expecting it sooner or later. Needless to say, I’d have preferred “later.”

My nonfiction publishing momentum slowed down in the second half of the year as a result of my podcasting endeavors.

The Unfinished
Filmed and have nearly finished (finally) a short film called “Lights Out” for Project Obsidian. Early 2009 will see its completion. Better late than never.

Began writing The Auto Motive, a steampunk young-adult urban fantasy novel. It’s got a ways to go, but it’s rocking.

Sculpting God: Bedtime Stories For Adults is half done - the final half will see the light of day in mid-2009.

The Good
Saw eight friends and acquaintances get book deals.

Made my first fiction sale: My steampunk story “Cold Duty” went simultaneously to Steampod and ClonePod and did very well among fans of both podcasts.

Finished and garnered publisher interest in book one of the Antithesis series. Plotted, outlined, and roughed out the remainder of the series.

Podcasted the first 15 episodes of the 27 episode audio version of Antithesis, Book 1: Predestination and Other Games of Chance with full cast, full production sound, and an original score.

Did my first professional publicity events.

Wrote a 6 hour miniseries for Canadian TV. The deal fell through, so the script is now in the process of novelization. The resulting novel, Down From Ten, is now 25% done.

Finished Season 2 of The Polyschizmatic Reprobates Hour. Recorded Season 3, and it is now half edited.

Garnered my first cover story in a magazine.

Interviewed (either for podcast or for publication) Michael ShermerM, Cory Doctorow, Elizabeth Pisani, Tee Morris, Richard Carrier, Philippa Ballantine, J.C. Hutchins, Seth Harwood, and Mur Lafferty.

Apologia, a show I participate in, got picked up for radio distribution.

Got to hang out at the Googleplex.

Technically this and the next item both belong in “unfinished,” but they’re here because they are undeniably good. First, I had great fun doing some very satisfying photo shoots with both new models and old, and made serious progress on bringing the long term Sophi and Logos projects together.

Hit BayCon and SteamCon with my friends, and got to moderate a few panels along the way.

Discovered Twitter.

So many other memorable moments of wonderfulness I can’t even begin to enumerate them.

Final word count for the year, including novels, short stories, screenplays, articles, and non-trivial blog posts: ~350,000

Parting Thoughts for 2008

From my very limited perspective on the world, I wouldn’t trade this year for any other. 2008 saw a lot of reconnection with old friends, strengthening of connections with new friends, and meeting more fascinating and decent people than I dare to count - some of them well on the way to becoming close friends. It’s been an emotionally intense year, much moreso than I expected. This time last year I said that 2007 was my best year so far, but I think 2008 surpassed it handsomely, despite the heartbreaks and hardships which I’m sure none of you want to read about here.

For all of you who’ve touched my life this year - friends, fans, colleagues, and fellow travelers - from the bottom of my heart, thank you.

The chapter ends, and always on a cliffhanger. There is only one question:
“What happens next?”

Tonight we see what happens to Cassy when she follow Doug Reeves into the church, and then we go Nineveh where Joss hosts the first annual Phalanx Poker Tournament, with contestants and spectators from throughout the colonies. What could possibly go wrong?

Kitty Nic’Iaian, co-producer of Predestination and the voice of Reprobates’ News announcer Hera-Flea daughter of Hera-Tick, brings us the Story So Far this week.

This week’s in-show promo is for The Seventh Son Trilogy, by J.C. Hutchins.

Cast this week (in order of appearance):

Stephanie Sawyer as Cassy Orinthal

Steven H. Wilson as Percy Scott

Michael Spence as the deputy

The Prof as the gambler

Download Subscribe
Chris Lester, who plays Rison on Antithesis and is the author/producer of the Metamor City Podcast, joins Kitty Nic’Iaian and myself for drinks and carousing as we go through the feedback you’ve all sent in since last week. This one’s a must listen.

Mentioned at length is the unparalleled Nathan Lowell, who plays our own Bill Shelley. Find his audiobooks here.

Finally, be sure to check out the t-shirts gradually filling up the swag store. Now you can proclaim your membership in the Resistance, and proudly!

This is an excerpt from the feedback show I did with Chris Lester for The Metamor City Podcast. Alcohol, chocolate, and Kitty Nic’Iaian conspire with Chris and I to answer one of Chris’s emails from a heterosexual female listener who complained that her orientation was not being well represented in Metamor City. This lead to a discussion of how Chris and I each deal with gender identity and sexual orientation in our novels, and the reasons that we’ve chosen to approach these topics in the way we have.

As I mentioned, this is a small piece of a larger conversation that will be available soon on the Metamor City feed. I hope you enjoy!

This is a rabbit trail that Chris Lester and I went down at the end of recording Dealing In, Episode 3. It’s about 25 mins long and pretty heady, so I decided to break it off so you can take it in smaller chunks. It followed right on the heels of the end of that episode, so you can just pick the conversation up here, if you like. For those of you interested in Chris’s and my opposing views on what religion is good for, and how it effected the development of Western thought, you’ve come to the right place.

I hope you enjoy!

Cold Duty: Selected Readings from the Diary of a Gelusian Repairman is the tale of a stable boy who gets caught working on a steam engine, which lights off an adventure in the big city and a 100-years too early scientific and technological revolution. Steampunk memoir - and a tale very close to my heart. If you haven’t heard it yet, I hope you’ll give it a listen.

This is a full-cast, full-production podcast novel. Danny Schade wrote the original score, and you’ll find many other familiar voices here: Philippa Ballantine, J.C. Hutchins, Chris Lester, Steven H. Wilson, and many other gifted voices from across the podosphere have helped bring this story to life.

You’re already a Junkie. Now, join The Resistance. This is more crack for your ears. Subscribe here.

Enjoy!
-Dan Sawyer

What makes the Lunar colony work? The docks, that’s what. And tonight, that’s where we’re going, following Cassy on her investigation of the enigma that is Scott Walters and trying to piece together the clues to what’s really going on inside her own organization.

It’s a long one this week again - 45 minutes - with new characters and new aspects of the world that will, hopefully, hold your attention at least through the end of the episode.

Heather Welliver, host of Grailwolf’s Geek Lifer and vocalist for the Pieces podcast, brings us the Story So Far this week.

This week’s in-show promo is for I Should Be Writing, THE go-to podcast for beginning authors hosted by the erudite, funny, and straight-talking Mur Lafferty. If you entertain any literary ambitions, her podcast is the place to start.

Cast this week (in order of appearance):

Steven H. Wilson as William Ellison

Chris Lester as Rison

Download Subscribe
The new feedback episode is live - and all of you guys rock. A fun time inside, along with TWO contest announcements for your chances to win free Antithesis swag. Take a listen!

Also, for those of you interested in my photos from Steam Powered (a.k.a. Steamcon), click here.

Losing the ability to play is one of the more tragic things that can happen to a person. It’s at the root of a lot of the unhappiness in the world I’ve seen, and (from personal observation) it comes in play heavily during quarter-life and midlife crises.

The TED video below talks about the evolving state of play with regards to play, learning, economic innovation, and human flourishing. It’s worth the 18 minutes. Trust me

This week, we follow Jim to the commune of the Children of Light, while Ali makes a decision about the future of the business.

It’s a long one this week - 40 minutes - I hope it makes up for my protracted absence due to post-convention illness. Watch my blog in the coming weeks for posts about my time at Steamcon a.k.a. Steam Powered, and other fun things coming up here very soon. I’m back in the swing of things, and intend to keep swinging. Thank you all so much for your supportive emails - they’ve been much appreciated.

Feedback show this week - a thanksgiving present for you.

Michael Spence, author and anthology editor, brings us the Story So Far this week.

This week’s in-show promo is for Erotica A La Carte, Phillipa Ballantine’s current foray into the racy and disturbing. Excellent stuff she’s producing over there - definitely worth a listen.

Cast this week (in order of appearance):

Brian Levy as Jim Hartman

Steven H. Wilson as William Ellison

Renee Wilson as Marjorie

Erin Ballibanian as Alyssa Hartman

Jacqueline Novogratz discusses markets and foreign aid and underclass empowerment in Africa.  Worth every second.

First article: Time Magazine reports on the neurogenic cause of the age-related decline of reflexes.

The cool thing about it is, the more we know about this stuff, the more of it we’re going to be able to fix.

Here’s what this means for you all, my loyal readers:

I’m going to fix and drop Episode 13 of Antithesis tomorrow, probably late, assuming the congestion clears.

I’ll start blogging again, with reports from SteamCon and some other interesting updates, later this week.

The feedback episode will record Wed and drop on Thurs or Fri, after which I’ll slide back into my regular production schedule.

I have a backlog of other blog posts to write, particularly more from the Steampunk Education series and the Entitlement Mentality series.  Those I’ll be hammering out between commissioned articles (which I now have a backlog of).

Soon, very soon, a calender will be available for purchase featuring my fine art photography.  There will be two versions available - one worksafe and one definitely not.

So, if the Creeks don’t rise, I’m now back in circulation.  Thank you all for your well wishes.

-Dan

This week, we delve deeper into the mystery of Senator Shelley’s relationship with the resistance movement and then skip across the solar system to Mars, where we find the Hartmans…or what’s left of them.

I’m going to be at Steamcon, sitting on two panels and waxing eloquent about Victorian Sci&Tech and Multimedia Production.

Nobilis from Nobilis Erotica, one of the giants of fiction podcasting, brings us the Story So Far this week.

This week’s in-show promo is for Geek Pantheon, a podcast for comic book, science fiction, and fantasy junkies with a twisted sense of humor.

Cast this week (in order of appearance):

Stephanie Sawyer as Cassy Orinthal

Nathan Lowell as Senator Bill Shelley

Brian Levy as Jim Hartman

Erin Ballibanian as Alyssa Hartman

Kitty Nic’Iaian as The Newscaster and The Computer

Scientific knowledge has progressed astoundingly fast since most of the current party political alliances were formed seventy years ago, and that pace has accelerated since the last medium-sized realignment thirty years ago.  The lessons of history in that same period of time are also momentous - if anyone actually cares to look at them.  And most don’t.  This creates a problem.

I’ve had a lot of fun this election year tweaking my left-wing and right-wing friends by telling them I’m voting ‘No’ for President this year.  “It’s the most important election of the last fifty years!” they tell me “You must participate.”  They may be right - it could be a hugely important election, which is precisely why I’m not voting for either major party candidate of for either of the two big minor party candidates.

You see, I’m sick to the teeth of Democrats claiming the mantle of science while ignoring economics any time the findings of that discipline contradict the New Deal Keynsianism that infects the party.  I’m sick of Republicans being in favor of “free markets” when they bail out failing businesses.  I’m sick of both parties claiming that they are forward looking when their major alliances are built on late-1960s political expediency.  I’m sick of the Libertarians pretending that anarchy and liberty can co-exist in a meaningful way, and I’m sick of the Greens claiming that opposing GMO crops and technological advance while embracing pseudo-Marxist economic policies are the key to an environmentally viable future.

In 1862, in his address before Congress, Abraham Lincoln called “Bullshit” on the way partisan politics were polarizing the north on the issues surrounding the Civil War.  He said: “The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present.”  The same is true today.  Thirty years ago, “left-winger” David Brin and “right-winger” Ronald Bailey could never be seen as allies, and yet now, while they have some minor quibbling disagreements on taxation policy and public research funding and other minor points here and there, both are in fundamental agreement on issues of science, technology, trade policy, environmental concerns, human morality, reproductive technology, and civil rights.  The same kind of shift has occurred everywhere, as the facts of the world have shifted beneath the complacent, religious devotion of people to their political parties.

It used to be that you could marry theocrats to conservatives who loved traditional freedoms, because both were opposed to social change that seemed too rapid for the country to handle.  That kind of alliance doesn’t work anymore, because the country has adapted to the rapid rate of change while preserving its heritage of individualism.

It used to be that you could bring Left-wing Malthusians together with humanist scientists over environmental concerns.  But as science shows that the only way towards responsible environmental stewardship is technological innovation on a grand scale rather than a scaling back of industry, that alliance becomes just as inviable.

There is a political divide in America.  But it’s not between the “left” and the “right.”  It’s not even between the Keynsians and the Hayekians, although that argument will remain very important for decades to come.  No, the divide is fundamentally between those who see humans as a legitimate part of the natural world and those who do not.

Those who do not see humans as a viable part of nature tend to see them instead as either a blight upon nature or the rulers of nature, but they agree that science and technology are fundamentally tools by which humans exercise dominion over nature.  They may not agree on abortion, but they do agree about genetic engineering.  They may not agree about tax policies, but they do agree that taxation should be a tool of social engineering.  They may not agree on the ultimate destiny of humanity, but they do agree that a peaceful society must be fairly ideologically uniform.  And, militarist or peacenik, they also tend towards cultural and economic isolationism.

Meanwhile, those who do see humans as a legitimate part of nature form a group that is generally favorable towards both technological advance and environmental stewardship.  Favorable towards both a peaceful world and economic freedom.  Opposed towards both the enforced repression of minorities and towards the prescriptive Newspeak that comes from the New Right and the New Left.  And, militarist or peacenik, this group tends towards a policy of active international engagement on cultural and economic levels.  This natural alliance might find internal division over issues such as gun rights, or minimum wage, but those differences are minor compared to the differences in parties of the past.

This political realignment has been in progress for some time now, and it may take quite a while for it to conclude.  But personally, I’m sick of participating in a quadripolar political game that is fifty years out of step with the fundamental facts of the world.  Since I live in California I have the luxury of my vote not counting no matter what I do, so this year I’m taking advantage of it to make my point.

Whichever way you vote, take time to consider the fundamentals of your political philosophy.  Dig down below your policy positions, figure out what really matters to you.  Examine your positions and values critically, and see if they really line up.  See if they line up with the candidate you support.  Don’t just vote out of habit.

As for me, this year I really am voting “No.”  On everything.

This recent opinion piece on abortion illustrates the point nicely, although the language is very religious and the whole essay is shot-through with magical thinking.  Even removing those magical elements, the view articulated there holds true even for many Republicans whose worldview is primarily secular (yes, they really do exist).

Of course, this view of abortion doesn’t just rest on religious authority, it claims to be rooted in a clear understanding of history and to take seriously the view that if we mess around with our biology we are playing God (a job we’re not qualified for).  A zygote is a living organism that, if left alone, will develop into a human, therefore abortion ends a human life, therefore it must be murder, and any ethical gerymandering to the contrary can’t change that fundamental fact.  Ditto for stem cell research, which destroys human embryos, or for hybrid experimental cloning, and for dozens of other biotech research techniques.

At first blush, that seems to be a pretty solid rooting in biology - but it’s not.  A true ethical grounding in biology has to contend with a few other facts that make the connections between point A and point B very tendentious.

The first problem is evolution: All life is made from the same stuff, and human life on a biological level is in no way distinctive. Human nature and human biology are subject to the same selective pressures as the rest of the biosphere, plus the internally imposed selective pressures of human culture.  It’s not impossible to make a case for human exceptionalism (I’m a human exceptionalist myself), but it’s not axiomatic.

The second problem is embryology: only somewhere between 25% and 60% of all zygotes become viable pregnancies, and 8% of those that do fail to make it to term without any intervention.  Not every conception results in a life - and most wouldn’t even if medical abortion were never discovered.  George Carlin had it right:  If life begins at conception, then every sexually active woman who’s had at least three periods is a serial killer.

The third problem is technology:  Since the conception of a zygote creates a life, and if that life is seen to have value because it is a potential human being, then technology poses a new and frightening problem.  A zygote has only a minority potential of surviving to birth - and so does a clone.  Although cloning tech is still in its infancy, it is now possible to artificially split embryos in vitro, making every IVF procedure the potential ancestor of countless offspring in one generation.  More importantly, it is now possible to take the genetic material from an adult skin cell and implant it in the nucleus of an ovum, throw a few hormonal switches, and have a viable zygote.  With this the reality, every time I scratch my arm I’ve engaged in a holocaust of potential human beings.

The fourth problem is medical:  We now know beyond any doubt that the seat of human consciousness is the central nervous system (i.e. the brain).  You can argue about souls all you want - whether there is a ghost operating the machine or whether we are all machine - but the machine does not operate at all without a brain.  Before the 22nd week of gestation, there isn’t enough of a brain there to operate the machine.  Any ghost that may exist can’t have moved in yet. Citation.

These four problems are not the only problems with Republican attitudes towards biotech.  There’s also the question of those who die from potentially curable diseases if research is suppressed - are their lives worth less than, or more than, the lives of potentially viable zygotes and blastocysts?

Banning pre-viability abortions, banning biotech procedures, or banning government funding of either will neither reduce the number of murders in the world, nor will it reduce eugenics.  It will not further respect for human life - in fact, as demonstrated in the book Freakanomics, an abundance of unwanted children leads directly to an increase in violent crime and a lessening of the social value of human life.  Therefore here, as with the Democratic equation of "mitigate global warming by reducing energy consumption," the policy prescriptions will not - and can never - achieve the aims they are meant to achieve.  And yet right-wing Republicans and abortion, just like left-wing Democrats and global warming, the prescriptions themselves are a matter of doctrine, not of reason, and it’s a damn shame.

Join me for my concluding thoughts on the whole topic in Part 3

William James hit a lot closer to the truth when he spotted that Americans are a fundamentally religious bunch.  We don’t usually like to think of ourselves that way - even most of us who are religious in a traditional sense tend to pride ourselves on being independent, pragmatic thinkers.  We like science - we really do - but most of us don’t really know what science is, and this is where we get into trouble.  Even our scientists often mistake ideology for science.

Looking at things through a scientific lens (that is, a perspective that is empirically grounded), one would expect political philosophy among scientfically-minded folk to change as the experience of history and the accumulation of knowldege schools us in the ways of the world.  That doesn’t mean that all political opnion should converge on a common conclusion: It’s quite possible, through differences in priority order, for clear-thinking people to disagree on what particular actions should follow from a given and agreed-upon body of knowledge (and that kind of disagreement is healthy). However, this isn’t what happens in today’s America.

Douglas Adams nailed the way politically-minded folk tend to think in Dirk Gently’s Holistic Detective Agency, where a main character talks about a computer program that helps people make decisions.  It doesn’t work forward from problem to solution, instead it allows the user to chose his desired solution (for example, owning a Porche when he can’t afford the payments) and then work backwards to the present situation, creating a bulletproof logical scenario that nobody can shoot down (not even the financing director at the Porche dealership).  This is not goal-oriented thinking and planning, it’s maturbatory self-justification, and it’s pretty much de rigeur politics.  Perhaps that’s just human nature - but here’s where it gets tragic and irritating.

The 21st century has seen the cementing of a very strange dynamic in American politics,  whereby each side of the political discussion picks its own facts and tries to ignore the rest.

For example, if you don’t like second-hand smoke you’ve got a custom-made political movement already on your side.  All you have to do to fight alongside them is pretend that studies showing an actual elevated disease risk through continued exposure over a long period of time actually mean that anyone anywhere who smells second-hand smoke is being poisoned.  It’s really easy, all you have to do is ignore the single most basic law of biochemistry: The dosage makes the poison.

The same kind of dynamic goes for nuclear power, or carbon dioxide, or private property rights, or environmental regulation, or evolutionary theory, or lowering the drinking age.  You can pick a side, and find a custom made political machine ready to spin reality in the direction you’re already sympathetic to.

This election year is a fun exercise in spotting this kind of thing, because we have one candidate (Obama) who’s deliberately positioning himself as the pro-science guy, in opposition to the Bush administration and the McCain candidacy.  He supports NASA.  He supports stem cells.  He’s on record saying that he doesn’t think blastocysts are human beings.  He even (in opposition to major blocks of his own party) supports Nuclear power.  He positions himself as a pragmatic man who intends to implement real-world solutions, over/against the fuzzy thinking of his opponent.

On the other hand, we have another candidate (McCain), who has picked a running mate specifically to appeal to the rural romantic consitutency of the country.  He talks about freedom and saving the economy, and he’s running with someone who speaks in tongues, thinks humanity begins at conception, and thinks the Earth was created in six days not-too-long-ago.

On the face of it, it seems like a pretty clear choice for anyone who cares about science.  On one hand you have a guy who cares about going to Mars - on the other hand you have a guy who thinks a planetarium projector is an “overpriced overhead projector” akin to a futuristic SharpVision.

I wish it were that simple, but it’s not.  The curious political alignment of the early 21st century has produced an environment where each party has become very good at spotting pseudoscience and antiscience bullshit in the other party, but can’t smell it in their own even when it’s shoved up their nose.  Here are two examples, one from each party’s list of pet issues, to illustrate my point.

Democrats, for example, tend to assume a straight-line cause-and-effect relationship between the scientific fact “CO2 is a greenhouse gas, whose concentrations are rising rapidly, and this drove most of the climate change in the 20th century” and the policy conclusion “we must conserve energy in order to prevent as much damage to the bioshpere as possible.”  But no such obvious relationship exists.  You can make a case for such a relationship, but in order to do it you have to ignore another whole field of science: economics.

Without getting too technical, economics is the study of the monetary, social, and political systems that result from human interaction in a given set of conditions.  As with most social sciences it’s a contingent and contextual field, but the thing that sets it apart from most other “soft” sciences is its quantifiability.  Economic phenomena can be measured, and based on the measurements falsifiable predictions can be made, and over time, a more coherent picture of how the economic world works has been built from earlier theories and ideologies that have been subjected to testing in real-world laboratories.

Energy conservation is a fun economic study, because there’s one thing that energy conservation always results in: net energy usage increases.  That’s because as demand for energy for a particular application falls, due to more efficient technologies, the money and resources previously devoted to that task get freed up.  When that happens, any or all of three things happens: money previously spent on a small number of energy-intensive activities gets spent on a larger number of less energy-intensive activitie. 2) task which used to be too expensive for a segment of the populationn (because they couldn’t afford the energy costs) become accessible, due to increases in efficiency and consequent lower costs of operation.  3) a short-term collective decline in demand results in a short term drop in energy prices, as supply exceeds demand on the market.  Any of these three eventualities leads to a net increase in energy usage - all three operating together leads to large net increases in energy usage, even while the per-application energy usage and costs fall through the floor.  If you’re an environmentally conscious person who wants to reduce greenhouse emmissions and pollution, you’re not going to achieve your goal through mandating more efficient technologies, or promoting a cap-and-trade carbon scheme, or encouraging energy conservation among the hoi polloi.  Those measures will instead reliably lead to higher and higher levels of net energy consumption - both per capita and in aggregate.

Continued in Part 2

For those of you who haven’t stumbled upon this conference yet, here’ s a brief history:

The Beyond Belief Conferences started three years ago in response to the culture wars arising from the new era of jihad, the resurgence in American religiosity, the wars over science in school, and the so-called “New Atheist” movement.  Meeting at the Salk Institute, a number of America’s (and Europe’s) top scientists joined in a three day interdisciplinary conference entitled Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, and the Future of Reason. At the conference, it became clear that the split between the antireligious and the generically secular scientists drove as deeply as does the cultural divide between fundamentalists and mainstream believers.  However, one thing that seemed unanimous was that the future of the West depends upon a culture-wide renewal of scientific inquiry and thinking.

Year two’s conference was entitled Beyond Belief: Enlightenment 2.0 and focused upon the different kinds of relationships people have with science.  It got really interesting as several speakers on economics presented their recent research and different attendees talked about the entrenchment of their own political biases and how it effects the way that they cope with different scientific disciplines.

This year, the conference is entitled Beyond Belief 3: Candles in the Dark in honor of the late Carl Sagan’s final book The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark.  Specifically, the conference gets its focus this year from the following paragraph from the introduction to Demon-Haunted World:

“Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking. I have a foreboding of an America in my children’s or grandchildren’s time — when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness.”

Written in 1996, that quite seems remarkably prescient today - even if Sagan’s views on economics were outdated and somewhat simplistic (an argument for another time), the notion of a technocracy where only an elite knows anything about how the technology works, where the common person is swallowed in superstition, and where all dissent is centered around marginal (and, frankly, stupid) issues like “Should we post the Ten Commandments in our courthouses?” and “Did he have sex with that woman?” and “Why do I have to pay money to see a doctor?” is both chilling and familiar.  After all, such issues do distract us from debating issues that might actually effect how we make account of ourselves in terms of preserving and furthering liberty and prosperity, intelligently engaging holy wars without and within, limiting nuclear proliferation, and creating alliances that decrease the incentives for warfare.

I can’t speak yet to how year three is, because I’m about to start watching them this afternoon as they become available on Google Video.  However, there are a number of reasons why you should take the time to watch it (as well as the previous two conferences):

1) It is easy to think of the scientific community as an ivory tower free from the concerns of the real world.  The truth is far more radical: scientific inquiry has advanced to the point where very few things that we discover fail to have a direct bearing on how day-to-day life unfolds.  The reach of this phenomenon is astounding.  It also gives the lie to postmodernist claims that scientific knowledge is a fictional construct designed to serve white male power structures.

2) If ever you’ve thought that “scientists say xxx” is a meaningful statement, you need to watch these conferences.  These are the best and brightest minds in the English-speaking world, and they disagree violently on a number of important issues.  As an exercise in critical thinking, watching the conferences is fabulous, as you sit through lectures, presentations, panel discussions, and sometimes shouting matches, you see how prone even the best among us is to the tug of ideologically-driven magical thinking, and how frightening integrating new discoveries can be.  There is very little in the way of consensus science practiced here - the constant call from the audience is “show me the evidence.”

3) On the flip side, all of you who keep hearing about The Secret or What the Bleep Do We Know?or the “Intelligent Design” philosophy (no, it’s not a theory, by admission of its proponents at the Dover Trial - read the transcripts) and think that scientific controversy means that there’s support for your claims, you’d do well to give this a watch too.  “Controversy” doesn’t mean “a theory in crisis” any more than “consensus” means “it is proven.”  Reality is far subtler, and you won’t get a better baptism by fire than watching scientific conferences where such things are discussed.

4) The best reason I can think of to watch it:  You’re curious.  You want to learn about the world, but it’s too big and you don’t know where to start.  Well, start here.  These scientists are witty, intelligent folks, many of them have excellent senses of humor, and very little of what gets discussed is dry.  And, dammit, it’s *fun.*

And on the topic of this year’s election, economic meltdown, and other things: as I look out over the blogosphere, I see a lot of party-line thinking.  In a world as complicated as ours, under an Republican President AND a Democratic Congress with some of the worst records in history, party-line thinking doesn’t cut it.  If you continue to go to your party and your partisan activist groups as your primary source of truth, you’re asking for trouble.

You know how the Intelligent Design folks say “teach the controversy?”  Well, if you’re a curious person, or you’re a politically or socially active person, then you damn well better understand the controversies you care about - and that means reading the other guy’s newspapers and blogs.  A climate skeptic?  You’d better be reading RealClimate.org.  A Global Warming believer?  When was the last time you read ClimateAudit.org?  A bioconservative or a transhumanist?  Have you read Kurzweil, Bailey, Fukiyama, and the Report of The President’s Committee on Bioethics?  Not every issue has two sides - and some issues have ten sides, but if you’re feeding your brain on only the stuff you find agreeable, you don’t have an informed opinion.  So, if you’re of voting age and you have a pet issue, and you can’t articulate the controversy from an opposing point of view (in language that the opposition would find agreeable) then, frankly, you probably don’t understand the issues you care about well enough to vote on them, and we’d all be better off if you stayed home.

You want to be informed and involved?  Well, then, have a Candle, and maybe it can help you get an Election.  If not, you can still have a lot of fun with the Candle.

I’m going to be at Steamcon, sitting on two panels and waxing eloquent about Victorian Sci&Tech and Multimedia Production.

Kimi from TaleChasing, author and podcaster, brings us the Story So Far this week.

Cast this week (in order of appearance):

Stephanie Sawyer as Cassy Orinthal

Phillipa Ballantine as Brittany Hydra

George Chlentzos as Douglas Reeves

Lorien Wheeler as Jade Orin

Nathan Lowell as Senator Bill Shelley

Michael Lemonjello as The Barkeep

For this weekend’s foray into steampunkiness, I ordered my outfit for Steamcon.  It should be quite dapper.

Now, on to Steamboy.

At first blush, this is a gorgeous film.  The artwork is fabulous, the sense of form and movement is spectacular.  I’m not actually a big anime fan, but the previews made this movie look gorgeous - a cut above the usual anime standard in terms of visuals and in terms of story, and “Anime Steampunk” seemed a combination just weird enough to be interesting.  Besides, these were the guys who did Akira, which was gorgeous.

As the film got rolling, I began to think that Anime Steampunk was a more sensible combination than I thought at first.  If there’s one thing that Anime is spectacular with, it’s rendering scenery, and the Victorian London setting, complete with steam-powered giant power plants, gave this film a rich, palpable atmosphere from frame one.  Inasmuch as Steampunk is a style, this film must be a perfect example.

The first act of the film was very promising, beginning with a provocative teaser about mineral water miners and moving straight into the story of a young boy - the oldest son of the Steam family - who wishes he could be off sharing adventures in engineering and scientific discovery with his father and grandfather, both of whom are great inventors.

Like The Rocketeer, this film sits in the retro-scifi corner of steampunk, where speculation is made upon technologies known to exist at the time, and Steamboy does a good job of sitting in that genre.  The corners of the world are filled up by background (and sometimes foreground) elements of the world of the time - wanted posters for Jack The Ripper, a piece of the plot featuring the crystal palace of the Great Exposition.  Sure, the two events weren’t quite contemporaneous, but they still tickle the cockles of a history geek’s heart.  The historical flavor is a little bit tongue-in-cheek, dotting its landscape with family names like “Steam” and character names like Scarlet O’Hara and Robert Stephenson (both meant to evoke the flavor of the era rather than stand in for the historical or fictional personages), and this added to the charm of the first act.

Now, you may be asking yourself why I keep referring to the first act?

The reason is that the first act presents a glorious film opening, filled with well-realized characters inhabiting a well-developed world.  At the end of the first act, the writers even go in for a bit of intellectual sophistication, explaining the film’s McGuffin in very sharp, intelligent, layman-accessible language that is for the most part fully compatible with the mechanics and operations of steam power (so long as you ignore a couple little thermodynamics issues which are, honestly, very minor).

The story takes a hard left turn into idiocy at the beginning of the second act, and from there it’s all down hill.  By the end of act three the film’s initial glory is largely lost, and aside from a few really creative moments and ideas the viewer is mostly left with a large, steaming pile of incoherent dog shit.  If you’ve been reading this blog or listening to my podcasts for any appreciable length of time, you’ll recognize this as an uncharacteristically disparaging statement, so let me explain:

The central point around the story turns is the destructive uses of science.  Essentially, there is an evil, warmongering charitable foundation which funds research in order to keep the defense contractor that created the foundation in business.  The Steam family has been retained by them to create the ultimate steam-power capacitor, something that allows for unimaginably high pressures.  The Steam family inventors laughably believe that the purpose of this research is to create a children’s theme park to bring delight and happiness to all children, and when this turns out to be only the tip of a larger industrial iceberg, Father Steam decides to sabotage the project, while Son Steam decides to carry on.  Grandson Steam, at the age of about 10, winds up being the moral arbiter of this conflict.

During the course of the film we, the unfortunate viewers, are subjected to long-winded idiotic preachments that hammer home the following points:

All profit motives are evil (in so many words)

Trackless steam engines operating as battle tanks will mean the end of the idyllic, non-exploitative Victorian civilization.

The true purpose of science is to make the world peaceful by making children happy.

True science cannot coexist with any kind of business interests.

And endless rehashings of that sort from one angle or another.

Please bear in mind that we’re not talking about one or two stray lines, or ideas being floated for consideration, we are talking about pages of dialog of Grandfather Steam ranting to Grandson Steam.  To reinforce the point, midway through the third act the O’Hara corporation deploys steam-powered cybermen to terrorize, maim, and kill everyone at the Great Exposition (because, as we all know, technologists are so evil that they can’t let a little thing like having the greatest military in the world shoot them out of the sky stand in the way of securing a military contract with the Grand Sultan of Arabia).

You think that’s bad?  I promise, I’m being kind.  Everything that this film started out with in terms of craft and intellectual sophistication get pissed away in the second and third act in an attempt to create the perfect lesson in Marxism for first graders (complete with the triumph of the steam-powered children’s amusement park at the end).  It’s an insulting, stupid, depressing piece of crap - and all the more ironic for coming out of the wealthiest film studio in Japan, a nation of technocrats.

I’ve made no secret that I have no great love for either Marxism or Merchantilism, that I think they’re both destructive ideologies that are, in the end, highly destructive to both individuals and culture.  That doesn’t mean that these ideas shouldn’t be discussed, or even encouraged, in films.  A number of my favorite films have a strong anti-capitalist and/or anti-technological flavor (Blade Runner chief among them, but certainly not standing alone).  But the difference between Steamboy and intelligent treatments of the same subject matter is as broad as the difference between Michael Parenti and Michael Moore.  The socialist and progressive traditions in Victorian and Edwardian culture gave shelter to ideas that turned out to be deeply destructive (Eugenics and the Temperence movement chief among them), but it also achieved noble articulation from the pens of thinkers and authors such as H.G. Wells, Betrand Russel, and Jules Verne, who understood the complexities of a developing industrial society and had genuine concern for both the plight of the underclasses and the dispensation of the enormous industrial power that humanity suddenly possessed.

Steamboy is well within the Victorian intellectual tradition in its starry-eyed idealism about science for the sake of science, and in its distrust of capitalism.  However its articulation of these concepts is heavy handed, moronic, insulting, and embarrassing.  That its writers were so incompetent that they had to preach in platitudes rather than unfolding their ideas through dramatic narratives is the classic hallmark of all self-important bad art.

What’s the first thing you learn in creative writing class?  Show, don’t tell.

Steamboy is a failure on every artistic level for this reason.  But damn, the first twenty minutes sure are a feast for the geek in me.

As for the steampunky goodness.  Today, I’m watching The Brother’s Grimm .

I’m typing as I go along, but not posting until I’m done with the film. Overall, it’s a strange blend of the very good, the irritating, and the really dumb.  Let’s start with the good:

The concept is very, very clever.  The eponymous Brothers Grimm, hard pressed for cash, parlay their knowledge of Bavarian folklore into a career as ghostbusting con artists.  This works pretty well until the Napoleonic army decides to co-opt their skills to eliminate superstition in a difficult-to-conquer village.

In the course of their adventures, where they encounter real enchantment, the story skillfully weaves together the grimmest of Grimm with very well-timed references to the rest of the mythological and medieval worlds.  It’s not just Rapunzel here, it’s The Lady of Shallot .  It’s the wicked queen from Snow White .  It’s Jack in the Beanstalk and Red Riding Hood and Hansel and Gretal. It’s chalk full of echoes of the Countess Elizabeth Bathory.  It’s Alice in Wonderland .  There are shamanic rituals underlying it all - from licking the toad to participate in the wisdom of the forest spirits (originated because of the hallucinogenic excretions on the skins of some frogs), to the Corn King rituals, to the Sacred Kingship, to the Pied Piper.  This movie is neck-deep in multiple layers of melded mythologies that marry magnificently, while still preserving the original notions that underlay them.  The author of this screenplay didn’t just lift the surface of the old stories, he plumbed the guts of them, too.

In a lot of ways it’s a perfect monomythologist’s fable, beautifully rendered, and lots of fun.  It *almost* gets to be a faerie tale in its own rite, but it falls short of other recent masterpieces like Pan’s Labrynth, in part because it doesn’t take the integrity of its own universe seriously.

Gilliam, naturally, makes amazing, glorious use of the grotesque - and like the old faerie stories, he takes the grotesque realities of the everyday and gives them the odd prod and twist here and there to bring out the inherent horror implicit in a world where life depends upon death to continue.  Although Peter Jackson and Guillermo Del Toro do give Gilliam a run for his money, I don’t think anybody does this better at the moment - certainly not Tim Burton, who currently is the only other serious contender for the directorial title of "Master of the Fantasy Macabre."  Where Burton’s works are slick, well packaged angsty goth bullshit, Gilliam (and his latter-day acolytes Jackson and Del Toro) knows how to get at the heart of terror and darkness.  He actually understands why the Romantics (like Shelley, Byron, and Poe) put terror on the same level as rapture in their reckoning of the sublime.

The bad:

As is probably to be expected with Gilliam, the film has its rather irritating and none-too-subtle subtext.  His glory days of the Trilogy of Man (Time Bandits , Brazil, Baron Münchhausen ), and The Fisher King , seem forgotten here.  He’s carried forward his reflexive anti-modernism, his concerns about the mechanized world draining people of humanity until they have to enter the land of magic in order to find their love of life once again.  It’s an old trope, and one of the most effective ones out there.  If you want to read up on some  of its history, check out The Golden Bough on "The Sacred Kingship" (come to think about it, there’s a good Wikipedia article on the subject too).  But where once his films were complicated, this one is pretty simplistic.  The bad guys are the ones with machines, the fools are all skeptical thinkers, scientifically minded - and he lays it on pretty damn thick, to the point where just about any scene the skeptical general shows up, he’s torturing some poor sod with Rube Goldberg versions of kitchen appliances.

It’s not the attitude I object to - although I’m definitely a modernist, I enjoy quite a lot of art that turns on romanticism or critiquing modernity.  It’s more that I know Gilliam to be capable of so much better.  I’m thinking particularly of the battle at the end of Time Bandits here, where when the bandits bring war machines from all ages against Satan and then can’t make them work against him.  When one complains "I can’t control them!"  Satan replies "Of course not, you stupid man, I control them."  The blend of camp humor and relentless critique of every sort of authority (parental, governmental, divine, infernal, military, social, intellectual) make that obvious, throwaway joke truly chilling.

Throughout The Brothers Grimm I found myself wishing for that old Gilliam, the one who really was a punk in the classical sense, pushing back against all prescriptions that oppress the soul of man rather than one who uses tropes he helped create in order to pick on obvious, boring kinds of authority and orthodoxy.  In short, there’s nothing truly challenging in this film - it’s all attitude and no substance.  More "steam" than "punk."

In the end, we have in The Brothers Grimm a simplistic, even dishonest, casting of the conflict between modernism and primitivism, and it fails to satisfy the itches it scratches.

The stupid:

There are a lot of little false steps here and there.  For example, I know Steampunk works by melding modern sensibilities, but a 19th century German - even one from the city - would not vomit at the sight of a rabbit being skinned (though I have to give kudos to Gilliam for using a real rabbit). They wouldn’t panic at the sight of beetles.  There’s a lot in this movie that they might plausibly have found offputting - but I’m sorry, those ain’t among them.  Over and over again, the movie is put off-pace by little sour notes like these.

Overall impression:

Though the "punk" part of steampunk here is more juvenile than a lot of Gilliam’s previous work, the style is beautiful (as his work always is) and the story is engaging.  The acting is wonderful - good enough to cover the deficiencies in the script and make for a fun evening.  In many ways, this film is what Sleepy Hollow should have been - clever, engaging, full of fun culture references and with a proper understanding of its source mythology, rather than a thinly veiled Freudian/neopagan evangelism tract with nothing below its sexy surface.  It also helps that the source material  - the myths collected by The Brothers Grimm - honestly were pagan folklore from a superstitious world, rather than a satire making fun of superstition (as the original The Legend of Sleepy Hollow was).  It’s the author in me - I hate remakes that plunder, rape, and pervert the original story to make a preachy point exactly contrary to the story they’re attempting to "present."  Burton is worse at this than Disney.  Gilliam has the decency to respect his source material, and the result is watchable fun with beatiful moments, but not his best work.

Next up on the Stempunk menu: The Japanese Anime film Steamboy

So, this week, in between evaluating the Trinity Indamixx (initial impressions - favorable but with caveats), which I’m blogging on right now using an external keyboard (I could seriously get addicted to this thing), I learn all about Steampunk Films!

But back to the steampunkiness.  I really enjoyed Phillip Pullman’s His Dark Materials trilogy. Yeah, I know, I know.  It’s preachy and shallow and far too didactic for anyone’s own good.  You know what?  So was Narnia, but most of the people that go around slagging Pullman off are Christians who are blind to how preachy and simplistic Narnia is, while they find Pullman’s universe frightening and subversive.

The fact is that the books were preachy, but they were hardly shallow.  They were gloriously imaginative, and they were appropriately geared for preteens (which, if you don’t remember from the books you read as a kid, means heavy-handedness is important.  This is a demographic that’s exploring big ideas in a big way, for the first time).  Like the Narnia books, these stories deal with big ideas in a bold, almost tacky way.  Unlike Narnia, Pullman waited to write his saga until he was a mature author, so his stories are better, his metaphors more sophisticated, and his style more consistent.  The other thing that bears mentioning is that Materials is actually a fully developed fantasy, while Narnia is, by Lewis’ own admission, a hybrid of allegory and beast fable.  Because of this, the worst of Materials compares well with the best of Narnia, from an adult perspective.  From a child’s perspective, both are packed with wonder and terror and the glory of life in the finest coming-of-age tradition.

But I digress…

For the movie, they sanitized the idealogical content for mass audiences, but they did not neuter it.  There’s still a goodly amount here to engender a lot of discussion.  Visually, the film’s a stunner.  Given the production team I should have expected that, but honestly I’m surprised.  Steampunk in all the right ways, the world is gloriously visualized.  The depth of the grandeur in the world really comes through.  The adaptation is well-penned, the acting above par, and - best of all for my purposes - it’s deeply immersive.  The particle physics, the alethiometer, the daemons, the bears, the dirigibles, the brass machinery, mostly plausibly rendered with just a touch of the fantastic.  Also, for my purposes, it was a good place to start.  It’s shot through with the steampunk ethos of individualism, distrust for authority, ubermenschen, and situational ethics.

It’s a damn shame that small minded bigoted activists like the ones at the American Family Association managed to propagandize this film out of business.  It would have been great to see the rest of these films - now I daresay they will never be produced.  More than that, watching these films next to the Narnia films would have given a lot of opportunity for children to explore the big questions both series raise in unique ways.  And, where Materials is concerned, since the entire conceit of the story relies upon particle physics and string theory, it could be a great conversation starter for other big ideas full of wonder.

So, there we are.  Steampunk education part 1 complete.  Part two coming soon!

This week, we meet the Lunar dancer Brittany Hydra, and we finally get to see what’s underneath Cassy Orinthal’s skin.

I’m going to be at Steamcon, sitting on two panels and waxing eloquent about Victorian Sci&Tech and Multimedia Production.

Phillipa Ballantine, author of the sumptuous Chasing The Bard brings us the Story So Far this week, as well as joining the cast as the indomitable dancer Brittany Hydra.

Cast this week (in order of appearance):

Stephanie Sawyer as Cassy Orinthal

Phillipa Ballantine as Brittany Hydra

Promo: The Arbiter Chronicles: Contents Under Pressure

I will be on the following panels:

Engines of Empire: Real Science and Gadgets of Victorian Times - Saturday 1:30-2:30

and

Steampunk Multi-Media: Steamy film, photo, audio and more - Saturday 3-4

Come along, join the party - it promises to be a hell of a debut con!

To start with, on Saturday night, I joined Chris Lester and Seth Harwood at a delightful pub in Berkeley, CA called Jupiter.  Between my fans, Seth’s fans, and Chris’ fans, we had about a dozen fans show up and the conversations went long, long, long into the night.  Servicable food, great drinks, and even better banter - arguing about philosophy, talking future projects, discussing the finer points of history, religion, ethics, mythology, brains, and just about everything else.

After about 11 the bar got way too loud to hear people shouting across the table, so we adjourned across the street to a lovely gelato joint for more gabbing, loitering, and generally diserputable behavior.  It was a great time, I met some fabulous people, got some new listeners, and then wound up sneaking into someone’s hot tub to skinny dip at the…oh, right.  Sorry - that’s a different story.

Sunday morning came around like a smashing mirror.  I’m rather gifted in the sense that I don’t need alcohol to give me a hangover, I get one naturally from the sun.  That fusion reactor and I have a rather unsteady relationship, so if it suddenly goes out, you’ll know who finally sunk a Q-ball into the center pocket.  Anyhow, I dragged my lazy keester out of bed and stumbled along to Silicon to attend a panel about self-promotion for new authors hosted by an editor who currently has Antithesis on his desk.

After the panel, he pulled me aside and told me that I could expect to hear back from him on the book soon (hooray!), but that irrespective of whether he wanted it I needed to do two things: 1) change the series title, and 2) rewrite the synopsis.

Regarding the title, it seems that “Antithesis” is a word that sends people looking for their dictionary much more often than it makes people think of forces in conflict, rebellions, and contradictions.  It also is, for some reason, a good title for an RPG (a fact I found out on my own as I handed out cards for the podcast over the last week - - everyone thought it was a new RPG rather than a novel or a podcast, but not for a thriller.  I suspected that the title was a bit cumbersome and would need a change, but I’m stumped as to what to change it to.  Current candidates are “The Gods of our Children” and “And We Surveyed…” — if you have an opinion or a suggestion please leave a comment below.

As far as the synopsis, the particular issue is that it sounds too generic.  This is my problem with synopses in general - they’re not ad copy, they’re supposed to be a sweeping description of the plot progression.  Unfortunately, in a spy novel or any political story, there’s pretty much a formula that you’re tweaking: bad politicians, good politicians, crime lords, spies, someone who’s being framed/chased, someone who knows too much — let’s be honest, it’s all been done before, and done over, for a hundred and fifty years now (or longer, if you start with Hamlet).  Like mysteries, what sets a thriller apart is not the trappings of the plot, it’s the richness of the setting, the depth of the characters, the style of execution.

So, knowing this, I got a couple friends who HAVE sold novels before (and thus, presumably, have a handle on how to write a good synopsis) and who read - and enjoyed - Predestination.  The result was this very run-of-the-mill synopsis that technically fulfills all the requirements of a synopsis, and yet manages to make Predestination sound like every spy novel, political thriller, and science fiction novel ever written.  Obviously, the way we all approached it is wrong.  So, my second question for all of you reading, particularly if you’ve sold a novel or worked as an agent or editor:  What do you *really* want out of a synopsis, particularly for a charater-driven story?  It seems to me that a blow-by-blow plot synopsis (like I delivered) is not well suited to give a feel for the work.

Anyhow, that’s the weekend - a whole lot of great, a little bit of frustration, and some new challenges to chase down.  This week, I’m rendering out the final FX shots for my short film Lights Out, which is destined for J.C. Hutchins’ Obsidian project, and hoping I can make the deadline.  It’s all in the hands of the CPU gods now!

This week, Jim discovers an unexpected welcome on Mars, while Joss comes into a piece of information he’s been searching for that could change everything — if, that is, he can trust the courier.

Don’t forget about the meet&greet on October 4th! If you’re in the SF Bay Area, come to Jupiter’s in Berkeley, on Shattuck near University, for a meet and greet with myself, Chris Lester, and Seth Harwood. It’s going to be a fun evening, and I’ll have some freebies for those who attend. Find all the details at the Eventful posting, here.

J.C. Hutchins, author of the adrenaline-packed 7th Son trilogy, brings us the Story So Far this week.

Cast this week (in order of appearance):

Steven H. Wilson as Percy Scott

Brian Levy as Jim Hartman

Renee Wilson as Marjorie

Michael Lemonjello as The Barkeep

The last of the late episodes for a while, I trust. Here we find the aftermath of the mugging in the restroom, and we finally catch up with Ali and Jim.

Robin Hathaway again steals the show, but Nathan Lowell gives her a good run for her money. The host of Astral Audio, Alan Sale, also joins us in *two* very colorful parts.

Don’t forget about the meet&greet on October 4th! If you’re in the SF Bay Area, come to Jupiter’s in Berkeley, on Shattuck near University, for a meet and greet with myself, Chris Lester, and Seth Harwood. It’s going to be a fun evening, and I’ll have some freebies for those who attend. Find all the details at the Eventful posting, here.

This week, Rhonda Carpenter, a buddy of mine from the podiobooks Ning community and the author of The Mark of the Druid, a historical fantasy that premiered yesterday on Podiobooks, brings us the Story So Far.

Cast this week (in order of appearance):

Steven H. Wilson as Percy Scott

Allan Sale as Scott Walters and One Eyed Jack

Robin Hathaway as Marian Shelley

Erin Ballibanian as Ali Hartman

Shannon Holden as Elizabeth Shelley

Nathan Lowell as Senator Bill Shelley

Have a listen here:

The second is a departure from the usual format. The theists at the roundtable decided to play a game called “Stump the Atheists.” Essentially, us on the secular side of the table stood for the firing squad while the believers asked probing questions, trying to find the cracks in our worldviews and philosophies. You can listen to that one here.

If you want to interact with us on the panel, please post feedback to the Apologia blog.

Late again. The extra recording time to get ahead is taking its toll, but I’m getting some more help behind the mic here, so all is not lost.

This week’s episode is very violent and upsetting - no kidding. If you’re a Sigler fan, you’ll feel right at home. Whatever you do, don’t listen to this one with the kids in the room.

Kudos once again to Robin Hathaway and Steven H. Wilson for their breathtaking performances this week.

Don’t forget about the meet&greet on October 4th! If you’re in the SF Bay Area, come to Jupiter’s in Berkeley, on Shattuck near University, for a meet and greet with myself, Chris Lester, and Seth Harwood. It’s going to be a fun evening, and I’ll have some freebies for those who attend.

This week, we find out what Percy’s assignment was, and how he manages to carry it out without Marian being any the wiser, and then we follow the beginnings of the ripples from his assignment as they touch Washington and Luna City.

This week, our composer Danny Schade - also of the Reason-Driven Podcast and Apologia brings us the Story So Far.

Cast this week (in order of appearance):

Robin Hathaway as Marian Shelley

Steven H. Wilson as Percy Scott

Nathan Lowell as Senator Bill Shelley

Kitty Nic’Iaian as The Computer Voice

Are you doing anything on October 4th? If not, and you’re in the SF Bay Area, come to Jupiter’s in Berkeley, on Shattuck near University, for a meet and greet with myself, Chris Lester, and Seth Harwood. It’s going to be a fun evening, and I’ll have some freebies for those who attend.

As for this terribly late episode? Better Nate than Lever, I always say. Stay tuned for the show banter at the end of the show for other news about the series.

This week, we join back up with Percy and Marian, and with Joss, and we find out more about who Cassy is, and what her life is like when she’s not capturing and seducing defectors. Not to be missed!

This week, the estimable Nathan Lowell, author of the excellent Golden Age of the Solar Clipper science fiction series available on Podiobooks.com joins the cast as the inscrutable Senator Bill Shelley.

Chris Lester, the author of the Metamor City series, brings us the Story So Far this week. I haven’t - and won’t - ask someone to do the Story So Far if I don’t like their work, but Chris is one of those whose work isn’t just good, it’s fantastic. A really potent blend of dark fantasy, noir detective, science fiction, and deep character drama, he’s a thorough thinker with a keen eye for human nature, and his stories hold a very effective mirror up to the audience. I’ve yet to hear one of his stories that doesn’t seduce from minute one, and transform by story’s end. His stuff isn’t for the timid, but it is very striking.
Cast this week (in order of appearance):

Robin Hathaway as Marian Shelley

Steven H. Wilson as Percy Scott

Nathan Lowell as Senator Bill Shelley

Stephanie Sawyer as Cassy Orinthal

Lorien Wheeler as Jade Orin

Kitty Nic’Iaian as The Spaceport Announcer

Suffice it to say that psychoses are back in full swing, and it’s a beautiful thing.

Okay, I know, it’s late again. I’m really trying to get ahead on these and they keep kicking my ass, as real life bears down on top of me. Hopefully, next week will actually be on time.

This week, we find out what happens to Joss after he escapes the Hartmans, learn about oranges in the sky, and meet a couple new characters as the camera pulls back and we get to see more and more of the universe our characters inhabit. Turn down the lights, lean back, and enjoy!

This week, the incomparable Seth Harwood, author of the excellent Jack Palms crime novel series, the spinoff Young Junius, the short story series A Long Way From Disney, and the host of CrimeWav, brings us The Story So Far as only he can.

Cast this week (in order of appearance):
Robin Hathaway as Marian Shelley

Stephanie Sawyer as Cassy Orinthal

Michael Lemonjello as Hakim and The Second Drunk

Kitty Nic’Iaian as The woman in the bar

George Chlentzos as Doug Reeves

Playing For Keeps is different. Mighty Mur has delivered The writing is smart, the characters are well drawn and have surprising depth, and she sneaks in the thought-provoking concepts in sophisticated, subtle ways, teasing the moral, ethical, philosophical, and emotional implications of her universe out one thread at a time. It’s the kind of book that is a good, fun read the first time through, and then you find yourself turning it over again in your mind a week or two later, until you decide to go back and read it again to find out what it was that you missed. Something hooked your subconscious, and you don’t know what. Playing on three levels: the superhero story, but delightfully satirized, the human story of social rejects getting revenge, and the philosophical level where the reader is invited to ponder what simple concepts that we encounter ever day - such as ownership and respect - really mean when you dig down into them, Playing for Keeps delivers depth and challenge wrapped up in pink spandex. Funny as hell, witty like Wilde, and filled with cliffhangers from start to finish, this is one book you shouldn’t allow yourself to miss.

Mur’s making her run on Amazon today - - not tomorrow, as I mistakenly said in the latest Antithesis episode — so if you can order today, do so. If you can’t, do order as soon as you’re able. This is one talent that the world deserves to discover, and pushing her out into the limelight with her first novel here is a big step towards that discovery.

Tonight, after a bit of a delay, we wrap up Part 1 of Predestination. What happens at the poker game between Joss and Ali? Will Jim and Ali take him down, or will he manage to escape with his skin? More importantly, who really is the better poker player? And what role, if any, will Cassy Orinthal play? Strap in - this is an action packed episode that’ll leave you itching for more.

This week, the erudite Zachary Moore, scientist and host of Evolution 101 and Apolgia brings us The Story So Far.

Cast this week (in order of appearance):

Brian Levy as Jim

Erin Ballibanian as Ali

Kitty Nic’Iaian as Spaceport Announcer and Computer Voice

Well, now that the series is well underway, it’s time for a new promo. Any of you listening, please put this on your feed. Siva will fail to destroy you if you do

This promo features Joss Kyle, and is the first of a series of character-based promos I have planned. Enjoy!

Lisa Paul, in the comments, delivered a round bitch-slap to me for missing the obvious possibility that the following faux-pas could be an attempt to emulate the Brooklynite coloquialism “S/he was robbed” and convey their accent.  She could be right.  However…I like my take on it better ;).  Can anyone confirm whether the author of the MSNBC story is from Brookly?

—original story follows—

Nastia Liukin had a bad day yesterday at the Olympics. Not only did she lose the gold due to a scoring decision, she’s the occasion for MSNBC, one of the more prestigious news sites on the internet, deciding to dump English in favor of LOLCAT-speak.

You heard it here first, guys. According to this page, Nastia Luikin “wuz” robbed. And she wuzn’t just robbed once, she “wuz robbed” twice. Once in paragraph two’s lead sentence, which says “It seems that she wuz robbed,” [sic] and once in paragraph three, which restates the imperative as a teasing question: “Wuz Luikin robbed?”

LOLspeak hits MSNBC

It’s one thing when a blogger does it - people who are on the net all day sometimes reflexively revert to IM shorthand or lolcat-ese. Dumb, but excusable. It’s quite another when a professional news organization (one of the biggest in the world), includes this kind of juvenile idiocy in their news reporting. I guess that an eighth grade reading level isn’t low enough anymore for some press corporations - they’re changing their writing standards to “Eighth grade Instant-Messaging level.”

Now, by the time you read this, somebody over in the editorial department of MSNBC might have gotten a fucking dictionary out or, you know, USED A SPELLCHECKER on their page and caught the review. If not, let’s not tell them, ok? Let’s just spread this meme *everywhere.* Let’s embarrass the hell out of them. Let’s get everyone so hopping mad about it that maybe, just maybe, people will look to see if a journalist, an editor, or a copy editor can spell before they’re hired. Maybe we’ll even get lucky and schools will start requiring (and encouraging) that students demonstrate basic traffic-sign level literacy before promoting them up the academic ladder to be with their friends.

This week, the multitalented Steven H. Wilson, author, director, and star of The Arbiter Chronicles, joins us this week for a painfully brief one-line performance introducing one of our major characters. He’ll be back, and back, and back over the coming weeks in a number of different roles. If you haven’t found his series yet, check it out - and also check out his book Taken Liberty, available on Amazon and in a tamer version on podiobooks.com. He writes like the love child of D.C. Fontanna and Robert A. Heinlein; his stories are light and entertaining with a well-hidden but very sharp, serrated philosophical edge.

Cast this week (in order of appearance):

Steven H. Wilson

Erin Ballibanian as Ali

Brian Levy as Jim

Stephanie J. Sawyer as Cassy

Kitty Nic’Iaian as Airport announcer

Uber-Nemesis Tee Morris is with us this week, bringing us The Story So Far. If you didn’t do so already, check out his book The Case of the Pitcher’s Pendant at Amazon.com and buy or listen to his previous books at Amazon and Podiobooks. This is the guy that invented the podcast audiobook - without him, the rest of us wouldn’t be here.

Finally, what would the episode be without our capable cast?

Erin Ballibanian as Ali

Brian Levy as Jim

Buy

Digital Magic

and

The Case of the Pitcher’s Pendant

To kick off the Antithesis series, I’m bringing you a story that’s just at the edge of what Sculpting God normally deals with. Still a bedtime story for adults, this one tells the story of Mondu, a pawnbroker on a nature preserve in the Amazon rainforest, and a customer who walks into his store and turns his life upside down. When you’re looking for excitement, or an escape from boredom, be careful what you wish for. You might get The Man In The Rain.

Bonus Content coming to the feed soon..
Antithesis series and have waited patiently. So now, I give you the debut of Predestination and Other Games of Chance, along with a promo to put on your own feeds. Please distribute widely…