01: Introduction and Overview |MP3|
02: Foundation by Isaac Asimov (1 of 2) |MP3|
03: Foundation by Isaac Asimov (2 of 2) |MP3|
04: Foundation And Empire by Isaac Asimov |MP3|
05: Second Foundation by Isaac Asimov |MP3|
06: Brave New World by Aldous Huxley (1 of 2) |MP3|
07: Brave New World by Aldous Huxley (2 of 2) |MP3|
08: The Left Hand Of Darkness by Ursula K. Le Guin (1 of 2) |MP3|
09: The Left Hand Of Darkness by Ursula K. Le Guin (2 of 2) |MP3|
10: The Uplift War by David Brin (1 of 2) |MP3|
11: The Uplift War by David Brin (2 of 2) |MP3|
12: Darwin's Radio by Greg Bear (1 of 2) |MP3|
13: Darwin's Radio by Greg Bear (2 of 2) |MP3|
14: How to write your essays |MP3|
15: Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card (1 of 2) |MP3|
16: Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card (1 of 2) |MP3|
17: The Forever War by Joe Haldeman (1 of 2)|MP3|
18: The Forever War by Joe Haldeman (2 of 2)|MP3|
19: Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep? by Philip K. Dick (1 of 2) |MP3|
20: Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep? by Philip K. Dick (2 of 2) |MP3|
21: The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress by Robert A. Heinlein (1 of 3) |MP3|
22: The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress by Robert A. Heinlein (2 of 3) |MP3|
23: The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress by Robert A. Heinlein (3 of 3) |MP3|
24: Neuromancer by William Gibson (1 of 2) |MP3|
25: Neuromancer by William Gibson (2 of 2) |MP3|
26: On free will [based on Isaac Asimov's Foundation trilogy] (1 of 2) |MP3|
27: On free will [based on Aldous Huxley's Brave New World] (2 of 2) |MP3|
28: The Dispossessed by Ursula K. Le Guin (1 of 2) |MP3|
29: The Dispossessed by Ursula K. Le Guin (2 of 2) |MP3|
30: Spin by Robert Charles Wilson (1 of 2) |MP3|
31: Spin by Robert Charles Wilson (2 of 2) |MP3|
32: The Gods Themselves by Isaac Asimov (1 of 2) |MP3|
33: The Gods Themselves by Isaac Asimov (1 of 2) |MP3|
You can subscribe to the podcast via this feed:
http://www.courtneybrown.com/classes/scifi/mp3/cb_SciFiPoliticsClass1.xml
Showing posts with label science-fiction. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science-fiction. Show all posts
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Science Fiction and Politics Lecture
I never knew there was a Political Science course entitled Science Fiction and Politics in Emory University but I was browsing through SFF Audio and I found Professor Courtney Brown's Spring 2007 lecture on the topic. Haven't gotten around to listening to them but here it is:
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
How Jules Verne Got Butchered in (European) English
Adam Roberts of Guardian Unlimited talks about how he was shocked that Jules Verne wasn't translated accurately:
But when I checked the 1877 translation against the original my heart sank. It was garbage. On almost every page the English translator, whoever he, or she, was (their name is not recorded), collapsed Verne's actual dialogue into a condensed summary, missed out sentences or whole paragraphs. She or he messed up the technical aspects of the book. She or he was evidently much more anti-Semitic than Verne, and tended to translate what were in the original fairly neutral phrases such as "...said Isaac Hakkabut" with idioms such as "...said the repulsive old Jew." And at one point in the novel she or he simply omitted an entire chapter (number 30) - quite a long one, too - presumably because she or he wasn't interested in, or couldn't be bothered to, turn it into English.
Rendezvous with Rama
From SF Signal:
Having never read the book, I don't know what I'm seeing. But it looks cool. Alas, it's one of those movies that will never be made.
Having never read the book, I don't know what I'm seeing. But it looks cool. Alas, it's one of those movies that will never be made.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Early Christmas?
One of the stories that I really, really loved was The Merchant and the Alchemist's Gate by Ted Chiang, which the LitCritters discussed last weekend. It's the type of story that made me look for the author's other works. So if anyone has a credit card and want to give me an early Christmas present, you can buy me a copy of Stories of Your Life and Others.Anyway, if you want a sample of his fiction, you can check out these links (ripped off from Wikipedia):
Monday, September 10, 2007
The Dichotomy of The Pursuit of Knowledge
One would think that education and knowledge should be the primary goals of civilization but looking back on our culture and literature, that's not always the case--or the lesson we teach our children.
In one extreme, we have our Lovecraftian horrors, the idea that there are some things "man was not made to know". Yet in Western literature, this idea did not begin with Lovecraft but draws on from something much older: The Bible. As a child, I always wondered why The Tree of Knowledge would be the source of sin. Wasn't knowledge a good thing? Scholars might argue that's not the moral of the story, that Adam and Eve were punished not for gaining knowledge but because they gave in to the temptation of the serpent. Yet I think the story in Genesis has insinuated into our minds that to be knowledgeable means to lose one's innocence (and in many ways, losing our innocence is one of the ways to learn more about the world). A faint echo of this is the idea of contentment. I often hear the phrase "if it ain't broken, don't fix it" yet this clearly goes against the idea of innovation. As archaic as this mentality might seem, it's prevalent in the present. On one hand, there'll be the people who'll claim that science ruined us all and that corrupt research gave birth to the likes of the Atom bomb, even as they benefit from the comforts of nuclear technology. On the other hand, there'll be the type that are more selective, perhaps agreeing to better health care but disagreeing when it comes to the topics of stem cell research, cloning, or mapping the human genome.
On the other extreme is the idea that we should embrace knowledge unconditionally. I forgot which SF author I was reading at the time (I think it was Isaac Asimov) but he said that the reason we fear something is because it remains in the realm of the unknown. Once we dispel the mystery, we begin to understand and with that understanding comes acceptance instead of "irrational" fear. I think in many ways, this is a hard idea to accept. Perhaps the influence of the other mentality is stronger than we think and an unconditional acceptance of knowledge is beyond our comprehension. In the same way that we want to know where money came from when it's offered to us (be it our boss, our relative, or a complete stranger), we also want to find out where certain pieces of information comes from (Was it from the Russians? The Iraqis? The Chinese?) and perhaps more importantly, where it'll lead to (which is impossible because that's the point of research and application). Some people fear that military intervention might lead to the next Atom bomb but many fail to realize that most of our present comforts can be traced to military research and development, everything from the microwave to the Internet. Religion is another subject matter that is hard-pressed when it comes to the accumulation of knowledge for many fear that with better understanding of the universe comes less faith and devotion. (I find it interesting that even the most scientific and modern of countries still have a "national" religion. Perhaps the fear of religious fanatics is unfounded, that even as we come to accept the theories of Darwinism, there'll always be room for the Creation myth.) Even philosophy takes a hit and while Douglas Adams jokes around that the discovery of whether there truly is a God or not marks the end of philosophy and dialogue, in a world where everything is certain and factual, is there still room for debate? Not that the latter should matter. There are those after all who believe that the accumulation of knowledge will never end, that for every question answered, several new questions pop up. If that's truly the case, one can't help but wonder whether there's a point in research. If all we have left and more questions and more mysteries, what's the point of discovery? Will we never reach the end? But I think that is too much of an oversimplification. Awareness that the sun is the center of the Solar System might not have changed life for the common man directly but it certainly has paved the way for the exploration of space and artificial constructs like satellites and the transmission of radio waves.
Literature I think will tackle this idea in one of two ways. Horror movies and novels tend to stick to the realm of the unknown, that awareness gives birth to buried horrors. Science Fiction, more often than not, uses curiosity as a tool for salvation. (In many ways, the science fiction movie is related more to horror than actual science fiction. Robots gone berserker and aliens on a warpath are trademarks of the genre. Movies like Contact are the exception rather than the norm. Even concept movies like Gattaca tend to be dystopian and bleak.) That's not to say science can't be used for evil ends. The reality is, knowledge is just like any other tool. In irresponsible or misguided hands, it can wreak much havoc. In the hands of a master artisan, it can be used for good. But most people in my experience don't take note or forget that fact. They label knowledge--and science--as a blanket moral (whether good or bad) instead of making a judgment based on the people involved in the research or the corporation funding them. Just look at people's approach at nuclear technology. Ever since Chernobyl, people have grown to fear nuclear power. That's not to say nuclear power is full-proof but there are certainly fail-safes which can be applied to make it a safer and more efficient power source. But rather than ask who's managing the power plant or where it's situated, people's blanket reactions are a loud cry of denouncement.
Perhaps one thing people overlook is that with knowledge comes the burden of responsibility. Irregardless of how smart you are (or how not smart you think you are), everyone in my opinion is charged with making the most of what they know, whether it's seeking further knowledge or making the right choices based on their current state of mind. Perhaps the most pathetic of excuses one can hear from somebody is not that they are ignorant but that they are unaware of their ignorance.
In one extreme, we have our Lovecraftian horrors, the idea that there are some things "man was not made to know". Yet in Western literature, this idea did not begin with Lovecraft but draws on from something much older: The Bible. As a child, I always wondered why The Tree of Knowledge would be the source of sin. Wasn't knowledge a good thing? Scholars might argue that's not the moral of the story, that Adam and Eve were punished not for gaining knowledge but because they gave in to the temptation of the serpent. Yet I think the story in Genesis has insinuated into our minds that to be knowledgeable means to lose one's innocence (and in many ways, losing our innocence is one of the ways to learn more about the world). A faint echo of this is the idea of contentment. I often hear the phrase "if it ain't broken, don't fix it" yet this clearly goes against the idea of innovation. As archaic as this mentality might seem, it's prevalent in the present. On one hand, there'll be the people who'll claim that science ruined us all and that corrupt research gave birth to the likes of the Atom bomb, even as they benefit from the comforts of nuclear technology. On the other hand, there'll be the type that are more selective, perhaps agreeing to better health care but disagreeing when it comes to the topics of stem cell research, cloning, or mapping the human genome.
On the other extreme is the idea that we should embrace knowledge unconditionally. I forgot which SF author I was reading at the time (I think it was Isaac Asimov) but he said that the reason we fear something is because it remains in the realm of the unknown. Once we dispel the mystery, we begin to understand and with that understanding comes acceptance instead of "irrational" fear. I think in many ways, this is a hard idea to accept. Perhaps the influence of the other mentality is stronger than we think and an unconditional acceptance of knowledge is beyond our comprehension. In the same way that we want to know where money came from when it's offered to us (be it our boss, our relative, or a complete stranger), we also want to find out where certain pieces of information comes from (Was it from the Russians? The Iraqis? The Chinese?) and perhaps more importantly, where it'll lead to (which is impossible because that's the point of research and application). Some people fear that military intervention might lead to the next Atom bomb but many fail to realize that most of our present comforts can be traced to military research and development, everything from the microwave to the Internet. Religion is another subject matter that is hard-pressed when it comes to the accumulation of knowledge for many fear that with better understanding of the universe comes less faith and devotion. (I find it interesting that even the most scientific and modern of countries still have a "national" religion. Perhaps the fear of religious fanatics is unfounded, that even as we come to accept the theories of Darwinism, there'll always be room for the Creation myth.) Even philosophy takes a hit and while Douglas Adams jokes around that the discovery of whether there truly is a God or not marks the end of philosophy and dialogue, in a world where everything is certain and factual, is there still room for debate? Not that the latter should matter. There are those after all who believe that the accumulation of knowledge will never end, that for every question answered, several new questions pop up. If that's truly the case, one can't help but wonder whether there's a point in research. If all we have left and more questions and more mysteries, what's the point of discovery? Will we never reach the end? But I think that is too much of an oversimplification. Awareness that the sun is the center of the Solar System might not have changed life for the common man directly but it certainly has paved the way for the exploration of space and artificial constructs like satellites and the transmission of radio waves.
Literature I think will tackle this idea in one of two ways. Horror movies and novels tend to stick to the realm of the unknown, that awareness gives birth to buried horrors. Science Fiction, more often than not, uses curiosity as a tool for salvation. (In many ways, the science fiction movie is related more to horror than actual science fiction. Robots gone berserker and aliens on a warpath are trademarks of the genre. Movies like Contact are the exception rather than the norm. Even concept movies like Gattaca tend to be dystopian and bleak.) That's not to say science can't be used for evil ends. The reality is, knowledge is just like any other tool. In irresponsible or misguided hands, it can wreak much havoc. In the hands of a master artisan, it can be used for good. But most people in my experience don't take note or forget that fact. They label knowledge--and science--as a blanket moral (whether good or bad) instead of making a judgment based on the people involved in the research or the corporation funding them. Just look at people's approach at nuclear technology. Ever since Chernobyl, people have grown to fear nuclear power. That's not to say nuclear power is full-proof but there are certainly fail-safes which can be applied to make it a safer and more efficient power source. But rather than ask who's managing the power plant or where it's situated, people's blanket reactions are a loud cry of denouncement.
Perhaps one thing people overlook is that with knowledge comes the burden of responsibility. Irregardless of how smart you are (or how not smart you think you are), everyone in my opinion is charged with making the most of what they know, whether it's seeking further knowledge or making the right choices based on their current state of mind. Perhaps the most pathetic of excuses one can hear from somebody is not that they are ignorant but that they are unaware of their ignorance.
Friday, September 07, 2007
10 Underrated Sci-Fi Anime
Even to this very day, most people still have the preconception that anime is a genre rather than a medium. Just like any other vehicle for storytelling, anime has various genres and here's my personal list of underrated science fiction anime (and there's a point where I just want to go mainstream and mention various super robot shows or go mainstream with Gatchaman or Yamato). What would your list be like?
- Legend of Galactic Heroes -- Adapted from the novel of the same name, epic space opera with a cast of thousands doesn't get any better than this. Also the clash between democracy and dictatorship.
- Mobile Suit Gundam -- More than just about boys and their robots, Gundam actually tackles several themes such as politics, prejudice, and even psionics.
- Ulysses 31 -- Anyone remember this old "cartoon"? While perhaps not the cream of the crop, it does mimic Odysseus's journey in the sense that it was quite tragic.
- Ginga Sengoku Gunyūden Rai (a.k.a. Thunder Jet) - Anthropomorphs aside, Ginga Sengoku Gunyūden Rai is this cross between space opera and heroic fantasy. You won't come out smarter for watching it but then again the same can be said for Star Wars.
- Monster - While perhaps not as tight as I'd want it to be, Monster is one of the more compelling mundane science fiction drama that tackles the question of morality.
- Serial Experiments Lain -- Makes more sense than watching the X-Files with cyberpunk themes to boot.
- Tokumu Sentai Shinesman -- Hey, I never said all of these titles had to be serious! What happens when you mix a campy sentai series with a businessman theme? You get Shinesman complete with "Business Card Cutter!" weapons and color schemes like Sepia or Moss Green. (I have, by the way, never seen the show.)
- Giant Robo (OAV) - More than just a retro release, Giant Robo has that unique sci-fi twist at the end that makes it all the more tragic.
- Paranoia Agent - Director Satoshi Kon is this cross between William Gibson and George Orwell and Paranoia Agent is as disturbing as it is a commentary on our consumerist present. It also transforms one of the cuddliest creatures (second only perhaps to Gremlins) into an object of fear and dread.
- Windaria - Maybe I'm cheating. Some people consider Windaria more fantasy than science fiction. But movie nonetheless narrates the clash of two kingdoms, of two lovers, each from two different worlds and the tragedy that war brings.
EXPEDITIONS: The 1st Philippine Graphic Fiction Awards Compilation
From Fully Booked Online
COMING SOON!
The long-awaited book compilation of the winning entries from the 1st Philippine Graphic Fiction Awards will be launched by end-November at Fully Booked Bonifacio High Street, together with the awarding ceremony of the 2nd Philippine Graphic Fiction competition with Neil Gaiman as co-presentor!
Entitled, "EXPEDITIONS" the book will compose two parts: Prose Fiction and Comics.
EXPEDITIONS Fiction features the winning stories, "The God Equation," "A Strange Map of Time," "The Great Philippine Space Mission," "The Omega Project," and "Atha" as well as selected short listed works. EXPEDITIONS Comics will showcase the winning "Hika Girl," " SPLAT!," "Defiant: The Battle of Mactan," and "Dusk" along with selected short-listed entries.
As promised, the Foreword is written by Neil Gaiman, with the cover art by Leinil Francis Yu.
Details on the book launch will be announced soon.
Monday, September 03, 2007
The 2nd Philippine Graphic/Fiction Awards
I apparently missed it last week but here's the plug from Fully Booked's website:
Award-winning author Neil Gaiman and Fully Booked present:
The 2nd Philippine Graphic/Fiction Awards!
Calling all Filipino writers, artists, and just about anyone with a wild imagination! Neil Gaiman wants YOU to join this nationwide writing competition to seek out excellent work in two categories: comics and prose fiction.
The contest starts on September 1 and deadline of submission of entries is on October 31, 2007.
Over P300,000 in prizes, including P100,000 grand prize for the first place winners!
COMIC BOOK WRITING CONTEST:
1st Prize - P100,000
2nd Prize - P30,000
3rd Prize - P15,000
SCIENCE FICTION/FANTASY/HORROR WRITING CONTEST:
1st Prize - P100,000
2nd Prize - P30,000
3rd Prize - P15,000
Sunday, September 02, 2007
Shelving Books by Genre/Series and Pseudonyms
Visiting the book fair (which is honestly more of a book bazaar), one of the exhibitors I really disliked was Powerbooks. Not really apprehension but more of an inconvenience. The books weren't arranged by genre but rather by author. Whether you're fantasy, romance, horror, or general fiction, you were all lumped into the set of shelves. Which is fine if you have a small collection of books but not quite appropriate when you have dozens of shelves arranged in that way and a finite amount of time to browse through the books. Thankfully, this arrangement only applies to the book fair and not to their other branches. But what I do find peculiar at various bookstores to a lesser extent is how some books in a particular genre (in my personal experience, fantasy/science fiction) aren't shelved by series but by author. Troy Denning authoring a Forgotten Realms novel might be in the opposite side as R.A. Salvatore or Ed Greenwood, even if they're part of the same series. The same goes for other books penned by different authors but sharing the same world such as Thieves World or Conan. Or it might be a special reprint edition such as the SF Masterwork series or the Fantasy Masterwork series. It's convenient to have them in one area, arranged by series, instead of simply by author name. Personally, I prefer a mixed compromise between the two, a shelf being arranged by series (i.e. one area has all the Dragonlance novels, another area all the Lankhmar books) and then the rest of the shelf arranged by author (but hopefully the books of the author are arranged according to book chronology instead of alphabetically--in mysteries for example, having the top row of the shelf being occupied by Agatha Christie's Ms. Marple series instead of mixing it up with Poirot and Parker Pyne).
I was reading the last print issue of Dragon magazine and they have a featured entitled Unsolved Mysteries of D&D. There, they explain the author names Richard Awlinson and T.H. Lain (the latter I knew from a D&D article on the Wizards of the Coast site) are pseudonyms for several writers--the former for the Shadowdale trilogy set in Forgotten Realms and the latter D&D's iconic series. They state that the reason for doing so is so that the books get lumped in the same area of the shelf (and in the case of Richard "All-in-One" Awlinson, revealed the original authors in subsequent reprints). Of course this isn't the only application of collective ghost writers using pseudonyms. I always wondered how prolific Franklin W. Dixon could be writing all those Hardy Boys books (and the same applies for Carolyn Keene and Nancy Drew). It was a mixed surprise later on when I found out they were in actuality written by several different writers. And in many ways, I think the reason for adopting those pseudonyms isn't just to shelve the books in the same area but to give readers the illusion that they were all written by this one great author.
I was reading the last print issue of Dragon magazine and they have a featured entitled Unsolved Mysteries of D&D. There, they explain the author names Richard Awlinson and T.H. Lain (the latter I knew from a D&D article on the Wizards of the Coast site) are pseudonyms for several writers--the former for the Shadowdale trilogy set in Forgotten Realms and the latter D&D's iconic series. They state that the reason for doing so is so that the books get lumped in the same area of the shelf (and in the case of Richard "All-in-One" Awlinson, revealed the original authors in subsequent reprints). Of course this isn't the only application of collective ghost writers using pseudonyms. I always wondered how prolific Franklin W. Dixon could be writing all those Hardy Boys books (and the same applies for Carolyn Keene and Nancy Drew). It was a mixed surprise later on when I found out they were in actuality written by several different writers. And in many ways, I think the reason for adopting those pseudonyms isn't just to shelve the books in the same area but to give readers the illusion that they were all written by this one great author.
Firefly/Serenity Documentary
From SF Signal
Done the Impossible is a documentary on Firefly/Serenity fans. If you want to get a sneak peak (actually if I'm not mistaken, the whole movie is up minus the DVD special features), it's up at the recently-debuted Sci-Fi-London.TV.
Done the Impossible is a documentary on Firefly/Serenity fans. If you want to get a sneak peak (actually if I'm not mistaken, the whole movie is up minus the DVD special features), it's up at the recently-debuted Sci-Fi-London.TV.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Reading Preferences
While I’m a fan of both science fiction and fantasy, I consider myself more of the latter. Perhaps this distinction makes itself more pronounced when it comes to my reading preferences, especially when it comes to the “classics”. When it comes to fantasy, I honestly abhor J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis, instead preferring George R. R. Martin and Philip Pullman respectively. In many ways, I’m more modern when it comes to fantasy and generally aware of the upcoming writers in the field (and the intrigues that surround them). Science fiction, on the other hand, is the complete opposite. I don’t think I can really name a modern science fiction author aside from those that were still writing back in the “golden era” of science fiction: Arthur C. Clarke, William Gibson, Greg Bear. When I speak of science fiction works that I read and enjoy, I instantly go for the well-known classics such as Philip K. Dick, Isaac Asimov, and Alfred Bester.
I think this strange tug of war between “classical literature” and “modern literature” is becoming more and more essential in genre fiction. Because as much as the critics might dismiss genre fiction, those familiar with the field know that there’s growth and evolution in those specific genres. Modern horror for example has veered away (and sometimes revisits) the likes of H.P. Lovecraft and Ira Levin. More than one fantasy has veered away from Tolkienesque worlds or even the trilogy packaging, instead opting for shorter or even longer, more dramatic works. Science fiction I think has drifted from conceptual science fiction and political science fiction but has slowly moved into the field of hard science fiction (a fact made possible that the present is indeed the science fiction of three decades ago). I’m sure there are also other developments in genres I’m not quite familiar with but the fact is, there’s really much growth and evolution happening. I won’t even delve into interstitial fiction, speculative fiction, and other types of fiction that fuses, combines, and remixes various genres.
And at the end of the day, today’s modern genre will become tomorrow’s classics. Authors like Kelly Link and Jeffrey Ford and Jeff Vandermeer seem poised to take the spot when we talk of literary fantasy for example. George R. R. Martin, Robert Jordan, and Steven Erikson have redefined epic fantasy. No one really knows what to make of China Mieville but he’ll certainly be nominated for a spot somewhere. And then there’s the fan-favorite Neil Gaiman, the same author who gave us the dark Coraline, the urban American Gods, and my latest bet, Interworld.
I can’t help how readers three generations from now will look at these authors. Will there be disdain or appreciation? What new writing styles will rise and dethrone these uncrowned kings of genre?
I think this strange tug of war between “classical literature” and “modern literature” is becoming more and more essential in genre fiction. Because as much as the critics might dismiss genre fiction, those familiar with the field know that there’s growth and evolution in those specific genres. Modern horror for example has veered away (and sometimes revisits) the likes of H.P. Lovecraft and Ira Levin. More than one fantasy has veered away from Tolkienesque worlds or even the trilogy packaging, instead opting for shorter or even longer, more dramatic works. Science fiction I think has drifted from conceptual science fiction and political science fiction but has slowly moved into the field of hard science fiction (a fact made possible that the present is indeed the science fiction of three decades ago). I’m sure there are also other developments in genres I’m not quite familiar with but the fact is, there’s really much growth and evolution happening. I won’t even delve into interstitial fiction, speculative fiction, and other types of fiction that fuses, combines, and remixes various genres.
And at the end of the day, today’s modern genre will become tomorrow’s classics. Authors like Kelly Link and Jeffrey Ford and Jeff Vandermeer seem poised to take the spot when we talk of literary fantasy for example. George R. R. Martin, Robert Jordan, and Steven Erikson have redefined epic fantasy. No one really knows what to make of China Mieville but he’ll certainly be nominated for a spot somewhere. And then there’s the fan-favorite Neil Gaiman, the same author who gave us the dark Coraline, the urban American Gods, and my latest bet, Interworld.
I can’t help how readers three generations from now will look at these authors. Will there be disdain or appreciation? What new writing styles will rise and dethrone these uncrowned kings of genre?
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Podcasts Weekly 2007/08/23
In the strange way my mind works, Wade Rockett made a comment to my plug and it got me thinking: is there a site that compiles the various Podcasts? I'm not talking about iTunes in which you're subscribed to Podcasts but more like SF Signal or even Enworld in which they have a regular list of links and a brief description of them pertaining to their particular field... except it's podcasts.
For example, if I were to summarize this week's podcasts, it'd go something like this (of course in no way am I an expert in Podcasting):
Writing/Fiction:
For example, if I were to summarize this week's podcasts, it'd go something like this (of course in no way am I an expert in Podcasting):
Writing/Fiction:
- Rick Kleffel of The Agony Column interviews William Gibson and talks about his new book, Spook Country.
- The Penguin Podcast likewise has an interview with William Gibson (from SF Signal).
- EDIT: More Gibson at Boing Boing (from SF Signal)..
- Ben Vincent from Storytellers Unplugged talks about critique groups and how it's helped him (and not helped him) write.
- Mur Lafferty of I Should Be Writing gives us his regular dose.
- The Survival Guide to Writing Fantasy breaks from its norm with Flash Gordon.
- Writers Talking discuss setting up schedules and rituals.
- Writing for Pay has part 2 with Wolfgang Baur who talks about a different kind of self-publishing.
- Gamer Radio Zero at Gleemax gives us the inside scoop about 4th Ed as he talks with some of the game's designers.
- The Tome gives us the initial announcement of 4th Ed during GenCon.
- Dave Noonan and Mike Mearls at the D&D Podcast talk about 4th Ed without discussing the mechanics of the game.
- Writing for Pay has part 2 with Wolfgang Baur who talks more about Open Design, Kobold Quarterly, and breaking into the gaming industry.
- As expected, more 4th Ed coverage from Pulp Gamer as they interview Scott Rouse and Bill Slavicsek.
Monday, August 20, 2007
Politics and Religion in Fiction
They say that when you want to strike a conversation with a stranger, avoid topics concerning politics or religion: it’s unlikely you’ll both agree and what would have been a friendly chit-chat turns into a heated debate. However, I do think those two factors are quite integral to us as human beings, and they easily shape our psyche and paradigm of the world—which in turn influence what we read and how we interpret them.
Take for example George Orwell’s Animal Farm or even 1984. Why do we easily consider them classics but not the likes of Mein Kampf? I do think modern readers are biased towards texts that are more sympathetic to their political beliefs and in my case and in the case of the West, that usually means democratic ideals more than communist philosophies (of course to be fair to Communism, I think the flaw isn’t necessarily in the intent but rather in the execution in which it presupposes altruism in our leaders and our citizens, while Democracy pre-supposes self-interest).
As a SF&F fan, living in a conservative country and family can be trying, whether you’re Catholic or even Christian. Reading any book that incorporates magic is easily assumed to be evil, just as reading any text that has a pantheon of deities or even the lack of one. It also seems unfair that you can’t have evil antagonists in your fiction to be considered wholesome: you can’t have demons or devils as they are perceived as corrupting forces by zealots. Something as benign as Harry Potter is perceived as blasphemous for the sole reason that the main character uses magic. Don’t even get me started with playing games like Dungeons & Dragons. Just because there’s a demon or a devil in the Monster Manual, some fanatics think that the point of the game is to worship them when in fact it’s not—gamers are out to kill demons and devils (and hopefully loot their bodies and plunder their wealth). Perhaps it wouldn’t be so bad if people were consistent but we can be blind to our own prejudices. The same condemners who are defiant at something like Lord of the Rings praise books like Chronicles of Narnia despite the fact that Tolkien and Lewis were friends, or the fact that the latter work also has protagonists using magic. There’s even an author who was ostracized by his mother for the sake of religion because his latest novel has a protagonist who was a lesbian but she didn’t seem to have a qualm with the previous protagonists who were murderers (and even if being gay was a sin, I’d choose the former over the latter any day). I also remember seeing the Left Behind series in our church’s bookstore and for a good time, that series occupied a good chunk of shelf space in the fiction section of the local bookstore although why it was there and not in the SF&F section (in which it could have easily fit in) I can’t imagine why (actually I can: it’s marketing).
In many ways, it begs the question: is good writing nonetheless good writing irregardless of your political or religious beliefs? Is it even possible to judge writing solely on the basis of writing alone, stripped of any morality or political ideology? Better yet, should literature exist in a vacuum? As much as I’m tempted to stick with an objective truth, that’s simply not the case in the real world. We compare not just with what’s been written before and in the present but similarly how it affects us. If I were to write Neuromancer today for example, it wouldn’t be well received considering it was written two decades ago by William Gibson (or the fact that Philip K Dick wrote Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? before that). And in many ways, Pattern Recognition has more resonance with today’s readers than Neuromancer because of the ideas and concepts the former tackles that wasn’t necessarily evident to the public in the 80’s but a definite hallmark of the 21st century (similarly, if Neuromancer had been published a decade earlier, would it have been as well received?).
When it comes to politics and religion, I do think the two play an integral role in what we deem as good reading. Shakespeare for example wouldn’t resonate so strongly if he didn’t tackle the human condition (and isn’t that why critic Harold Bloom loves him so much?). The Bible is popular not necessarily because of its skillful writing (Psalms and Proverbs aside) but rather due to the hope and ideas it conveys (and if there’s any lyrical prose in the Bible, a lot of it has probably been lost in the translation which has taken a more functional form—just look at the Peter and “rock” pun which probably only scholars would understand). An example closer to home is science fiction. More so than any genre, a lot of readers come to science fiction for its ideas and concepts that typically revolve around politics, religion, or both. Just look at what we consider classics: Flowers for Algernon, Fahrenheit 451, or The Giver. They’re science fiction books not necessarily for the science but because they talk about the human condition, the political landscape of their times, the attempt at finding an utopia (and I think utopian societies are the nigh-unreachable goals of any political system or religious belief—the tragedy of the Knights of the Round Table was that it was a political system that espouses equality in a feudal society and isn’t heaven or Elysium or nirvana the perfect society we’re all looking for that religion conveniently provides?).
Even authors aren’t immune. The Wizard of Earthsea trilogy for example is a beautiful series on the literal level but Ursula K le Guin went about ret-conning the events that took place in the first three books in her sequels because she took offense at what she had written—the newer Earthsea books are definitely a reflection of her new political and religious outlook. Terry Goodkind, on the other hand, was fiercely political when he was writing the middle of the Sword of Truth series and was attempting the fantasy equivalent of Animal Farm (at that point, I dropped Goodkind because his propaganda came at the price of moving the story forward).
That’s not to say that books should be moralistic or worse, didactic, in order for them to be classics or good reads but rather I do think that society’s hierarchy of values certainly plays a significant role in how we read books and better yet, how we react to them. Gulliver’s Travels for example probably wouldn’t have been considered a classic if it wasn’t such a political allegory for its time. It’s the same reason why the church is reacting so strongly towards The Da Vinci Code (and why the masses got caught up in it the first place) even if at the end of the day, the story wasn’t originally intended as counter-propaganda more than a storytelling vehicle. Book banning and censorship is another example of society’s attempt to revise their political and religious belief, as if the political incorrectness of the authors that have gone before them are reflective of their current society: negroes instead of African Americans, Indians instead of Native Americans. And not surprisingly, some modern readers do react so strongly to such bodies of work that simply used the language of its time and reflective of its current society. That’s not to say that these complaints are justified but the heart of the argument can be traced to one’s ideologies and why these books were placed in the canon in the first place.
I think one fact that we readers can take comfort in is that fiction is so highly-prized that such issues can come about: we care enough about the books we read that we want to revise them or failing that, censor or outright ban them. Works of fiction is given the same treatment and focus as we would history books, even if the former claims to be lies while the latter truth. I think that on a subconscious level, people are aware that history is about as subjective as fiction, albeit with more research. And at the end of the day, what character in fiction is devoid of politics or religion, even if these political and religious beliefs are fictional (i.e. psychohistory in Foundation). Perhaps those facts make fiction resonate so strongly to the reader even if the story is something as simple as Humpty Dumpty (I was tempted to use Jack and Jill but I’m sure the feminists would find a way to condemn/praise the portrayal of Jill or simply the title itself—just goes to show that we can read politics/religion into anything).
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Selling RPG Books (and Books in a Series)
Here in the Philippines, RPG books like Dungeons & Dragons have baffled bookstores (and even some comic and gaming shops). Even as a gamer myself, I have problems pinning down exactly what category RPGs should fall under. Are they fiction? Well, some parts of an RPG book might have fiction but by no means is there a huge narrative, just excerpts. Is it nonfiction? Well, depends on your expectations. If you expect RPG books to be accurately historical based on the real world, they’re not. But they do have histories and geographical notes of fictional worlds. In many ways, they’re also meta as they address the reader and often distinguish between the real world and its make-believe setting.
Now for most bookstores and retailers, books are units that need to be moved. The only distinction they’ll make between The Da Vinci Code and Neuromancer is that the former sells more (in the Philippines) in comparison to the latter and attempt to acquire books more like the former in hopes of moving stock. Which isn’t necessarily wrong mind you but can become finicky when it comes to novels that are serials or part of a series.
When I mention books that are serials or part of a series, I’m really talking about two kinds of books. One are stand-alone books. Harry Potter is an example of one. It has seven books in the series yet I can honestly read any book in any order (although of course to maximize understand and enjoyment, you read them in a specific order) nor do I need to have read the previous book in order to grasp the current story. In this case, whether the bookstore stocks book one or book seven of the series doesn’t really matter—as far as the bookstore is concerned, they think it’ll sell. If you see bookstores stocking the entire series of Harry Potter, I don’t think (but obviously this is a presumption as I am not privy to any bookstore’s strategies) it’s because they think readers will be baffled if you read book seven without reading book one but rather because they can sell you books one to seven instead of just a single book. In many ways, books in a series can be simpler than say, a stand-alone novel like The Da Vinci code because it has a built-in system as to what are other “similar” books.
Of course the series system of books isn’t perfect. Trips to the local bookstore show that every SF&F section has a Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance section. Now as much as literary fans might bash those two derivative series’, the fact of the matter is that those kinds of books sell. Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance are really popular, at least to the mainstream SF&F crowd. The mistake of bookstores however is that while they know the series is popular, they don’t know which specific books in the series are popular. Because as much as there’s good, fun novels in those series, there’s also a ton of mediocre and bad ones. I’d also like to point out that the number of books in both series is almost approaching two hundred. I can probably say that a reading fan’s preference will probably be only an eighth of that number and that’s a kind estimate. To be fair, that observation is a generalization on my part. I’ve seen National Bookstore blindly acquire Dragonlance titles that are horrible and didn’t stock any of the good ones. On the other hand, I’ve seen what I presume to be is the manager of A Different Bookstore in Eastwood give a prospective customer an entire lecture on R.A. Salvatore’s Forgotten Realms novels so there are exceptions to the norm. (And I think it’s the independent bookstores who’ve managed to distinguish between their customer’s tastes, something that will eventually be lost in bigger bookstore chains unless they have a diligent book buyer or passionate customer service department.)
The other type of series is those that hinge upon books that have preceded and succeeded it. Basically, it’s the novels that leave you hanging. A couple of “recommended reading” in SF&F are these kinds of books and it’s not immediately obvious that these books have sequels. At least that was what I felt when I read Neuromancer and The Cat Who Walks Through Walls. It made me wonder whether I was just stupid (a fact) or if there was something I just missed (apparently, I missed out that “hey, I have sequels and you need to read them”). Epic fantasy is also symptomatic of this. I think book one of the Wheel of Time could stand well on its own but not so for the rest of the books. Either that or it simply has a weird, non-traditional pacing. In other words, these books not only lack a satisfying ending if read independently but they also don’t have a cohesive beginning. The best way to read Lord of the Rings for example is by going through Fellowship of the Ring first followed by The Two Towers and finally Return of the King. Anything else will leave you bored or flabbergasted. So common sense would dictate that bookstores should stock the entire series, not just one book in the series arbitrarily (and not even the first book at that). But I’ve seen it happen—The Two Towers gets stocked at National Bookstore with none of its two companions in sight. Return of the King only shows up six months later and by then, The Two Towers is gone. Or how many times have you visited the bookstore hoping to get into a new series such as The Song of Ice and Fire only to find out that book one is missing? Thankfully these days, bookstores are slightly smarter about it (the movies help, not just in encouraging them to stock the books but to actually research on them; I also think healthy competition is another factor) but that’s not always case. And the fact of the matter is, they don’t need to be—such a method will still sell. I’ve heard stories of bibliophiles buying The Two Towers anyway even if the bookstore isn’t stocking Fellowship of the Ring. They’ll either wait for it to pop up some place else or borrow from a friend or library. And in many ways, that’s what’s fun about book shopping here in this country—they’re hard to collect and it gives you a sense of accomplishment when you’ve actually accomplished it, especially when you’re ransacking different bookstores or buying them pre-owned. My Thomas Covenant books were independent purchases at Book Sale over the course of a few months but hey, I got the series didn’t I? Bibliophiles aren’t always interested in just the literature, sometimes they answer a natural human impulse: the art of collecting (which is evident not just in stamp collecting but in fetishes or more addictive pastimes such as trading cards and Collectible Card Games). The other, less-benevolent reason is that sometimes, people buy them simply because they’re there and no alternative is in sight. I remember back before independent bookstores started popping up, I ended up owning five dozen Dragonlance books simply because those were the only fantasy material being stocked in the bookstore and I was desperate for fantasy reading.
Now let me return to RPG books: neither method will really satisfy RPG book buyers. I’ve seen National Bookstore stock a D&D adventure and that’s the only D&D book they had. Obviously, it won’t sell because that adventure book doesn’t have the rules on how to run the game. For that, you need The Player’s Handbook, The Dungeon Master’s Guide, and The Monster’s Manual. The first teaches players how to play the game while the latter two are for game masters, the people who run the game (they pretty much act like the computer, giving the game its narrative and form and challenge). The publisher, Wizards of the Coast, knows this. In fact, these three books are their best-selling merchandise. Yet they continue to release supplements month after month. What most bookstores and retailers don’t realize is that these supplements and adventures aren’t just there to sell, they’re there to plug the three books needed to play the game. I buy almost every D&D supplement that comes out but I’m the exception rather than the norm. Most people will selectively buy supplements. The only consistent books they bought are the three I mentioned. And that’s the heart of the problem I think. Bookstores are working on a different paradigm. They think that by stocking the latest supplements, they’ll sell D&D books when that’s not really the case. The supplements are there to drive up the sales of the big three but unfortunately, the big three aren’t always being stocked.
When it comes to RPG books, I think the paradigm that they should be operating is more like a console system and games. Console systems are game machines like the X-Box 360, the Sony Playstation 3, and the Nintendo Wii. When a third party game publisher produces a game, their maximum quantity will be the number of units sold of the console system. Nintendo for example won’t be selling 1 million units of the game Wii Sports if they only sold half as many Nintendo Wii’s. Wii Sports at best should stock as many Nintendo Wii’s sold (thankfully for the company, the latter is a really, really high number). I'm not saying that's a hard and fast rule but it's really no surprise that one of the reasons Atari eventually crashed in the 80's was because it produced more games than consoles sold. D&D books operate on a similar level: you won’t sell more supplements than the number of Player’s Handbook you’ve sold for example. And that fact is an entirely different business paradigm, at least one that most bookstores aren't used to.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Warren Ellis on Philip K. Dick
Now I don't consider myself a well-versed SF reader (I'm more of fantasy) but I have read (and enjoyed) Philip K Dick. I'm also familiar with Warren Ellis and his comics work so it's interesting for me to read about the latter's take on the former in what he describes as "the Philip K Dick condition" over at SuicideGirls:
Which is as good a way as any to understand Philip Dick and the 21st Century. What makes Philip Dick more relevant to today is not necessarily the quality of his fantasy, but the complexity of it. And him. Philip Dick was as much an anti-hero as any of his characters. He's a counter-cultural hero whose personality was forged in the fifties, not the sixties. He was a champion of the drug culture who attempted to sell out friends and acquaintances to the FBI. He saw into people, but knew himself not at all. This is a guy who took speed every day for years, and then was told by a doctor that his liver was so fantastically efficient that it processed out any drugs in his system before they had a chance to affect his central nervous system. To which he replied, well, I guess that explains why I like to take speed before I go to bed. The only writer on earth who'd write for ninety-six hours straight and then pass out on the office floor due to the placebo effect.
Thursday, August 09, 2007
The SF Comic That Could Have Been
From SF Signal:
Pulp Faction has an article on Gully Foyle: The Best Science-Fiction Comic You'll Never Read:
Pulp Faction has an article on Gully Foyle: The Best Science-Fiction Comic You'll Never Read:
When the first installment of Bester’s novel, originally titled Tiger! Tiger!, but renamed The Stars My Destination (at the suggestion of his editor, H.L. Gold) appeared in the October 1956 issue of Galaxy magazine, it electrified readers everywhere.
Yet even Bester couldn’t have guessed just how much impact it would have on an avid 27 year-old science-fiction fan, living on the other side of the world.
For Reg Pitt, a writer and artist living in Sydney, Australia, The Stars My Destination was much more than an entertaining, thought-provoking novel.
“As soon as I read that first issue [of Galaxy], I was dying to read the rest of the book – and I became a lifelong fan of Alfred Bester, there and then.”
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Best Books of 2006
Or at least those based on Amazon's sales. Here's the list for science fiction and fantasy:
- The Stolen Child: A Novel by Keith Donohue
- Phantom: Chainfire Trilogy, Part 2 (Sword of Truth, Book 10) by Terry Goodkind
- Micah (Anita Blake, Vampire Hunter: Book 13) by Laurell K. Hamilton
- Danse Macabre (Anita Blake Vampire Hunter: Book 14) by Laurell K. Hamilton
- A Fistful of Charms (Rachel Morgan, Book 4) by Kim Harrison
- Definitely Dead (Southern Vampire Mysteries, Book 6) by Charlaine Harris
- Moon Called (Mercy Thompson Series, Book 1) by Patricia Briggs
- Hunters of Dune by Brian Herbert
- Old Man's War by John Scalzi
- His Majesty's Dragon (Temeraire, Book 1) by Naomi Novik
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
World Building
The concept of world building usually comes into play in science-fiction and fantasy because well, most world building in realist stories are based on the real world (that's not to say realist writers don't have to do some world building... they do, they just don't have to describe what an automobile is when they mention it in their stories for example). Of course having said that, I think as a reader, I don't want to see world building in novels. I'm there for the stories after all.
Now let me clarify that statement. When I say I don't want to see world building in stories, I don't mean there's no world building at all. What that simply means is that the world building happens in the background, not shoved down our throats. For example, Lord of the Rings has world building but it takes place as part of the story. The same goes for the Belgariad and the Mallorean. The Silmarillion and the Rivan Codex, on the other hand, are books about the world (and in the case of the latter, more or less the series's bible). They don't make interesting reading in themselves, unless you're a fan of their respective series. I don't think anyone would enjoy reading Rivan Codex for example without reading the Belgariad first (of course like all things, there will be exceptions). As a writer however, I'm curious about these kinds of stuff, but at the end of the day, world building isn't something I'd give to a typical reader (even a genre reader). The most world-building I've read in an actual novel is probably the first chapter in The Stars My Destination. The rest of the book quickly shifts to the actual narrative after that, however, so I'm okay with it.
Now RPG books, on the other hand, are different. There are basically two reasons why people buy RPG books: they either buy it for the game system, or they buy it for the world building. I mean I used to have the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting at home and currently the Eberron Campaign Setting and a good chunk of the books are about histories and geographical descriptions and cultures of fictitious worlds. When I bought those books, I knew this was what I was buying. And while I derive pleasure from reading these fictional facts, it's only because I know they're a means to an end and that I'll subvert them for my own narrative or campaign. The closest thing I have to a narrative in those books are the histories but everything else, I'm thinking "how do I use this in my game?" and it's because of those kinds of thoughts that I find them interesting and useful.
At the end of the day, it's about finding the right tool for the right job. World building in fiction? Not so much. World building in gaming? Bring it on!
Now let me clarify that statement. When I say I don't want to see world building in stories, I don't mean there's no world building at all. What that simply means is that the world building happens in the background, not shoved down our throats. For example, Lord of the Rings has world building but it takes place as part of the story. The same goes for the Belgariad and the Mallorean. The Silmarillion and the Rivan Codex, on the other hand, are books about the world (and in the case of the latter, more or less the series's bible). They don't make interesting reading in themselves, unless you're a fan of their respective series. I don't think anyone would enjoy reading Rivan Codex for example without reading the Belgariad first (of course like all things, there will be exceptions). As a writer however, I'm curious about these kinds of stuff, but at the end of the day, world building isn't something I'd give to a typical reader (even a genre reader). The most world-building I've read in an actual novel is probably the first chapter in The Stars My Destination. The rest of the book quickly shifts to the actual narrative after that, however, so I'm okay with it.
Now RPG books, on the other hand, are different. There are basically two reasons why people buy RPG books: they either buy it for the game system, or they buy it for the world building. I mean I used to have the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting at home and currently the Eberron Campaign Setting and a good chunk of the books are about histories and geographical descriptions and cultures of fictitious worlds. When I bought those books, I knew this was what I was buying. And while I derive pleasure from reading these fictional facts, it's only because I know they're a means to an end and that I'll subvert them for my own narrative or campaign. The closest thing I have to a narrative in those books are the histories but everything else, I'm thinking "how do I use this in my game?" and it's because of those kinds of thoughts that I find them interesting and useful.
At the end of the day, it's about finding the right tool for the right job. World building in fiction? Not so much. World building in gaming? Bring it on!
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Farewell Earth
What I find interesting about Legend of Galactic Heroes is that it's a sci-fi series that's not Earth-centric. In fact, it's the reverse--Earth is a regression of who we were and the cult behind the planet are no better than terrorists (and I couldn't help myself at the pun of terrorists and Terraists).
A lot of science fiction is Earth-centric or that we take pride in the fact that we come from planet Earth: Star Trek, Babylon 5, Doctor Who, various works of Robert Heinlein, and even Asimov's Foundation series looks kindly at the planet (although it is not the center of his stories).
And then there are series's in which Earth is neutral and doesn't really come into play such as Star Wars or Dune, or it's wrecked from the start such as in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy or Titan A.E. (can't believe I'm mentioning that horrible movie).
A lot of science fiction is Earth-centric or that we take pride in the fact that we come from planet Earth: Star Trek, Babylon 5, Doctor Who, various works of Robert Heinlein, and even Asimov's Foundation series looks kindly at the planet (although it is not the center of his stories).
And then there are series's in which Earth is neutral and doesn't really come into play such as Star Wars or Dune, or it's wrecked from the start such as in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy or Titan A.E. (can't believe I'm mentioning that horrible movie).
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Starship Troopers
Giyenah wrote on the Read or Die weblog her top ten Literary Cosplay Wishlist. Number one, Juan "Johnny" Rico, reminded me about my impressions of Starship Troopers.
I didn't watch the movie in the theater but I do remember seeing clips of it from TV (which means I didn't see it in its entirety and was watching a local broadcast of it). I was a big fan, however, of the animated series (and so far, a lot of friends loved it too).
It was only later on that I got to read the book. Now the differences between the novel and the movie are huge, they're worlds apart. As far as I'm concerned, they only have three things in common: the concept of super-powered armor for military use, the aliens (and not so much even then... the movie/cartoon showed a wider variety of alien scum), and the names of the characters.
In the novel, Johnny Rico is the only protagonist. The story is told from his point of view. The rest of the cast, really, are minor characters. Most of them either die or get transferred in a few chapters or so. Except for a few, their personalities don't even match. But coming from watching the animated series, it was nice seeing those names--I had mental images of the minor characters that helped me remember them (even if they weren't true) when I see their name pop up. And in many ways, I think that's what helped me enjoy the book more. But as I said, the two texts, the novel and the book, are entirely different animals that you could read/watch one and not get spoiled by what happens in the other.
I didn't watch the movie in the theater but I do remember seeing clips of it from TV (which means I didn't see it in its entirety and was watching a local broadcast of it). I was a big fan, however, of the animated series (and so far, a lot of friends loved it too).
It was only later on that I got to read the book. Now the differences between the novel and the movie are huge, they're worlds apart. As far as I'm concerned, they only have three things in common: the concept of super-powered armor for military use, the aliens (and not so much even then... the movie/cartoon showed a wider variety of alien scum), and the names of the characters.
In the novel, Johnny Rico is the only protagonist. The story is told from his point of view. The rest of the cast, really, are minor characters. Most of them either die or get transferred in a few chapters or so. Except for a few, their personalities don't even match. But coming from watching the animated series, it was nice seeing those names--I had mental images of the minor characters that helped me remember them (even if they weren't true) when I see their name pop up. And in many ways, I think that's what helped me enjoy the book more. But as I said, the two texts, the novel and the book, are entirely different animals that you could read/watch one and not get spoiled by what happens in the other.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)