Breakaway at Fantasy Hotlist

Pat's only issue in his review of Breakaway is the lack of closure. Seriously Pat? When is there closure in the second book of a trilogy? But it's a cool review!

Don Imus

Until very recently I'd never heard of Don Imus. Clearly he said something stupid. But the recent controversy has led to articles like this one that annoy me.

Everyone in this article makes a great song and dance about sexism, when it seems clear to me the issue is racism. Sure, there's sexism IN the racism, like one of those Russian doll thingys, but it's secondary.

Secondly, there's a lot of complaining about how the male patricarchy of sports coverage is oppressing women's sports. Everyone who has followed women's sports, and is honest, knows that while there's some truth to this, it's also largely irrelevant. Women's sports don't struggle because men don't support it, women's sports struggle because women don't support it. Most female highschool basketballers can't name more than one or two WNBA players, if that. The coverage is available, they just don't care. This is politically unpalatable for many, but blaming something else doesn't help the problem.

Thirdly, you get quotes like this,

"It used to be that female athletes were portrayed as wholesome, All-American girls," Kane says. "Now you get female athletes in GQ, Playboy and the Swimsuit issue. The result of it is coverage that is very damaging - that trivializes and marginalizes women athletes because it does not give them the respect they deserve as competent athletes."

What a crock. It presupposes that old feminist myth that there's something inherantly degrading about female sexuality. Which actually does female athletes a huge disservice, because male athletes don't have to deal with this nonsense. How much does a top footballer get paid for doing a deodorant commercial with his shirt off? Does his obvious sex appeal demean him as an athlete? Of couse not. And here's the real double standard -- people who make this argument are actually engaging in sexism, the sexism that supposes that male sexuality is uplifting and empowering for men, while female sexuality is a ball and chain about every woman's neck. His sexuality is natural, hers is perverse. Who are these people, the Taliban?

It's about function. The things that make a man athletic are also what pop culture considers sexy -- shoulders, chest, biceps, etc. Women haven't been so lucky, and that means that while for men being athletic and sexy go naturally together, for women, they don't. This is the single biggest problem in getting girls to play sports -- the fear that it'll make them unsexy, by making them unfeminine. Function is masculine. Female sexuality is supposed to be ornamental, not functional. Women too, in some cultures... and occassionally this one.

To change this, you have to get more people, especially young people, to associate female sex appeal with function. Thus, having female athletes displaying their sexuality, and proving to all that function and sex appeal do go together in women (and does it ever!), actually helps. Imagine if the dominant pop-culture association was that female sexuality meant actually being good at stuff. Instead of looking like a half-starved stick insect on smack, and about as useful, like most of the world's models. But you can't change body image by hiding bodies. It's crazy to think you can. What is gender about, if not bodies and sex? And how useful is it for young women to be frightened or ashamed of either or both? It's like trying to seperate the waves from the sea.

Breakaway at Monsters and Critics

A review of Breakaway at Monsters and Critics, where the reviewer (appropriately named Sandy) concludes,

"The seat-of-the-pants climax is satisfying while setting up the next installment. Full of political intrigue, personal revelations and rapid-fire action, this is sci-fi at its best. The plot is complex, yet it is the personal issues that rise to the forefront and force readers to examine what makes one truly human."

Breakaway at Bookgasm

Today's best phrase from Ryun Patterson's review of Breakaway at Bookgasm -- 'delicately brutal'. I like that.

Update: And on second thought, I should point out that despite Ryun's guess, Ari Ruben doesn't look much like me! (I'm reminded of the early drawings of Luke Skywalker before the release of Star Wars, where he was a bearded guy with a striking resemblance to George Lucas). If anyone really wants to know who Ari Ruben looks like in my mind, it's the actor Adam Goldberg. Whose photo I won't post here for people who want to keep their own mental image of Ari, but if you want to know, Google him.

300

I just saw 300. It's pretty good I guess, for what it is. Although it really is just one glorified battle sequence with character only thrown in for colour. So it's not really my kind of film, but I couldn't say it was a bad film by any means, and some of it was downright cool.

I don't have a problem with the makers glorifying Sparta... the movie is just pure propoganda, but I think that's the point. It's the tale of the 300 as the Spartans would have told it, were the Spartans still around today, and mastering special effects and rock soundtracks. It's like a fishing story of the one that got away, where the fish multiplies in size many times in the telling. If you just accept that it's a campfire tale in that spirit, the propogandistic feel isn't a problem.

Besides which, I'm glad the Spartans inspired the Greeks to eventually win. The Spartans weren't 'good guys', necessarily, but for the purposes of that historical clash, I think they were definately 'the good guys'. What they did is worth a song, drink and a movie or two.

C+ on Scifi.com

Here’s a review of Breakaway on scifi.com by Cynthia Ward. It’s not a great review, but then I’ve been spoiled by good reviews, so some criticism was always coming. I’m not going to argue with any reviewer -- they’re all entitled to their opinion, and I honestly don’t mind the criticism... but I am interested in what I feel reviewers miss. And if reviews can’t be used as starting points for calm discussion, there’s not much point in having them. There’s no actual spoilers, I think, but if you’d rather discover some of these details by reading the book first, then that might be a good idea!

A few nitpicks -- Sandy is not the ‘only’ self aware GI (what does ‘self aware’ mean anyway?), she’s not ‘new’ to friendships with humans, nor is she ‘new’ to fear and hatred. America is not a ‘nonentity’ back on Earth (Killswitch mentions this briefly), it’s just another large powerful nation among many. It just happens that Callay is predominantly settled by ‘Indian Ocean Rim’ nations... which is neither a good nor a bad thing, just an interesting thing. Furthermore, the Federation isn’t ‘dominated by Asian colonists’, it’s more that the human race is dominated by Asians. A bit more than half, at last count. Of course, it’s the future, so it could change again... but let’s just say I’ve always found the Star Trek universe odd in that it claims to represent a human future where there’s no discrimination and everyone is equal, yet where are the Asians? And no, Sulu and Harry Kim don’t count, they’re both American. I keep hoping for a Chinese or Indian Star Trek one day, made for local audiences, just to see how they treat the token ‘white’ crewmember.

I can always tell when I’m about to get an average-or-worse review when a reviewer talks about ‘too much political detail’. Some people like this stuff, and others don’t. I think the CK series is actually fairly pared-down, politically speaking. It’s not particularly realistic for humanity to have split, but only in two directions. But it’s a simplicity I introduced to more clearly illustrate the ideological divide between Federation and League, over advanced biotech, artificial people, and thus the future of the human race. It’s also not particularly realistic, politically speaking, for one single issue to dominate the future political environment to that extent, but again, it serves the purpose of storytelling.

It could have been enormously more complex, had I wanted it to. Just pick up a paper (if you’re the kind of person who does that) and count the issues. I’m studying a Bachelor of International Relations at the moment, including a course on American Politics... and for dramatic example, the West Wing has been running for God knows how many seasons now, screening over a hundred densely-packed hours of drama, and has still barely scratched the surface of American political complexity.

I write about ‘soft’ sciences more than hard. I think I’m pretty good at it, I’ve always understood politics pretty instinctively. I realise the mechanics aren’t very interesting to any but politics nerds, any more than the mechanics of physics aren’t that interesting to anyone except physicists. It’s what those mechanics do that makes for exciting drama. Physics leads to stars exploding, asteroids colliding with earth, the potential for wormholes to alternate dimensions, etc. And politics can lead to wars, assassinations, intrigues, Machiavellian plotting... all exciting stuff to write about. So that’s what I do. If it’s complex, that’s because politics always is, and being somewhat good at this stuff, I have to represent it with some degree of credibility. Some people no doubt complain that Benford, Bear etc are too complex with their physics, but that’s the nature of the beast. Some readers find it entertaining, and others don’t, and writers can’t really help that, save to write what they know as best they can.

And the cool thing about SF (or the thing I always loved about it, at least) is that the good stuff is more than just pure entertainment, it’s actually about something important. ‘Soft’ science, meaning politics, sociology, economics, etc, is the science of understanding human civilisation. But if you don’t pay the details some respect, it’s not really about anything, and it loses its main SF appeal.

Cynthia also speculates that I might be packing lots of visual detail into my sentences because I’m trying to emulate William Gibson. Well, if I was striving to emulate any cyberpunk novelists, I guess it probably would be him, because he’s the only one I’ve read! Which just tells you I’m not that influenced by the cyberpunk literary genre... and of Gibson, I’ve only read Neuromancer, and didn’t particularly like it.

The CK series has lots of sensory detail because it’s largely from Sandy’s perspective, and Sandy’s brain processes ten times the information load of a normal human. That’s what I’ve tried to capture, other people can judge whether successfully or not, but it’s certainly not to try and imitate another style. Sandy could spend ages watching an insect crawl on a leaf. She has a vast attention span, and finds sensory details fascinating. I guess we all would, if we could hear the insect’s footsteps, and count a thousand shades of refracted colour off its shell. The same skills that make Sandy so lethal in combat also give her a love of sunsets and classical music. It’s just one of those ironies.

Cynthia then mentions that I don’t explore the ‘are androids human?’ theme, as though that were a bad thing. I got tired of that theme long before I tried watching ten minutes of ‘Bicentennial Man’ the movie on TV, and had to change channels (I can imagine Sandy discovering that movie late one night, and making retching noises all through it). Sandy has no doubt that she’s human. And that, for her, is that. And who’s to argue with her? The idea being conveyed here is that humanity is a philosophical notion, or a state of mind. You’re human if you think you are, and to the extent that we take humanity to mean something good, we should judge those who wish to claim the mantle of humanity by their deeds, not their appearance, or the nature of their physical composition. The whole question of 'are androids human?' is the kind of question that presupposes the questioner is not an android. If you were an android, you might find the question silly, because even if your answer was 'no', what difference would it make if you determine to judge people by their actions and nothing more? A good person, making a positive contribution to society, is a good thing, surely, which renders the entire question of classification irrelevant. Sandy doesn't understand why more people don't get it.

Cynthia finds Sandy’s ‘ass kicking’ to be a drama killer, because those of lesser abilities don’t stand a chance against her. Again, that’s intentional, because the drama of the story lies as much on the moral plane as the physical. We know Sandy can kick anyone’s butt (anyone who’s not a high-designation GI themself)... the drama then becomes ‘should she?’ And for what reasons? I’ve always found that drama much more gripping, because that’s the drama of moral choices. The other drama is the drama of a Rambo movie, where we know the bad guys deserve it, and Rambo has no moral crisis about blowing them away -- the only drama lies in whether he has enough ammunition, and can be quick enough on the trigger. Sandy’s trying to figure out what her role is, not just in Callayan society, but in the universe. She was created to be a killing machine, but she’d like to be something more. It’s an existential issue for her, and she’s struggling to figure it all out. She could kill pretty much anyone she liked... but the question is ‘what would it cost her? And could she live with herself afterwards?’ So again, for the reader, the question is really whether you find these moral crises gripping or not.

Lastly, there’s Sandy and Vanessa’s relationship, sexually speaking. I don’t want to go into too much detail for fear of spoilers with Killswitch coming up. But I had a conversation with a female friend (who may recognise herself if she’s reading this!) after she’d read Crossover, who said the only thing she didn’t buy about Sandy as a character was why she wasn’t bisexual too. Because, in my friend’s opinion, all women were that far away (extends forefinger and thumb to narrow margin) from hot girl-girl action, and if Sandy was raised outside of today’s societal norms and restrictions, she’d probably be ‘bi’ as well. Let’s just say there’s a range of female opinion here on what constitutes a 'lesbian cliche'.

Vanessa flirts with Sandy because Vanessa would. Vanessa’s very comfortable being bisexual, and it’s a joke between friends (women certainly seem to be less hung up about this than men, though what culture would be like in five hundred years I couldn’t say). It’s not Vanessa’s way to pretend something doesn’t exist, because that becomes a strained ‘issue’, which can hurt a friendship, and Vanessa’s personal skills are (usually) too good for that. And even less so for Sandy, because Sandy hasn’t been culturalised to know what’s supposed to be embarrassing and what isn’t, so she’s got no idea of dos and don’ts... which is one thing Vanessa loves about having her for a friend, because it makes her very honest.

Sandy’s fascination with lesbian sexuality isn’t like that of your average heterosexual man at all, because she doesn’t get off on it. Sandy’s just fascinated by everything, sexuality in particular, because this is life, and Sandy’s determined to explore life to the full. As she says in the book, she’d happily have sex with Vanessa just for the experience (and to do Vanessa a favour) except that she’s emotionally astute enough (barely) to understand that could be very damaging for Vanessa. Because Sandy, (whatever my esteemed friend says!) is straight as an arrow. Wishes she wasn’t, but she is, and just doesn’t dig girls like that. But she's intrigued that her best friend does, and wants to explore that intrigue as far as a platonic friendship can take it.

Don D'Ammassa reviews Breakaway

Here. Scroll to the bottom. Or otherwise, I'll just post it here.

Breakaway by Joel Shepherd, Pyr, 4/07, $15, ISBN 1-59102-540-5

The second adventure of Cassandra Kresnov, android, takes place on the planet Callay, where she has found a place for herself after defending the current government from its enemies. Although the planetary ruler values her advice, there are some who distrust her, at least in part because of what she is. The planetary population is also divided on a major political issue, is considering withdrawing from an interstellar confederation, and the uncertainty is intensified by terrorist attacks, political intrigues, and espionage. That also provides cover for Cassandra’s enemies, who look upon her as a dangerous outsider. A well constructed planetary adventure story with plausible political maneuvering. This was previously published in Australia in 2003.

Talking to Tyrants

So Nancy Pelosi was in Syria recently, and the White House is upset about it. Well, leaving aside that they're right to be for political reasons (the executive runs foreign policy, not the legislature) it raises the other, broader question -- should democratic powers talk to undemocratic ones?

I think it depends on what you want, and what you expect to come from it. The problem with undemocratic or tyrannical regimes is that they tend to view power as a zero-sum game. In other words, power to them means 'I win, you lose', or 'you win, I lose'. It does not mean, and never will mean 'let's put our differences aside and work for the greater good', or even the much-loved 'win win scenario'. Because this is the nature of such regimes. Hitler did not share power. Stalin did not. Saddam did not, and Bashar al-Asad of Syria will not. Why not?

Because within a rigid, authoritarian power structure, there is no mechanism for power sharing.

In this sense, tyrants like Asad are actually correct in their judgement. If you're going to run an authoritarian system, you have to run it properly, and that means stamping out dissent. There's a long list of authoritarian political models that collapsed as soon as they began to tolerate dissent -- the USSR after Gorbachev, Iran after the Shah began loosening his grip at America's behest, most recently the Ukraine, before that Serbia, etc. Once you let political pluralism get its foot in the door, that's it, and the collapse is on. This no-tolerance attitude to alternative power structures naturally extends to foreign policy too, and while Nancy Pelosi might not know this, Bashar al-Asad certainly does. For him, there is no happy, peaceful accomodation to be made with America, Israel, democratic Lebanon or least of all democratic Iraq, just as there is no peaceful accomodation to be made toward his regime's critics within Syria. Either he wins and they lose, or vice-versa. He knows very well that successful democracy in Lebanon and Iraq will eventually destroy his regime, just as democracy in Damascus would.

Just as the mullahs in Iran know that political pluralism in Iran will surely destroy their's. The Iranian mullahs aren't scared of American force, they're scared of MTV, blue jeans and Playboy. They know that liberal culture is constantly attacking their rigid system, as surely as smart bombs can attack their military installations -- except that where bombs may only serve to unite the population behind the mullahs, liberal culture will pull them apart. In this era of globalisation, autocratic regimes everywhere are under constant assault from liberal ideas. The leaders of these regimes understand that these attacks can destroy them, and fight back accordingly. Autocracy and liberalism may have coexisted in previous eras, but with globalisation that's changing, with one system automatically seeking to destroy the other, either from without or within. The two systems just don't mix any longer, and that's a big part of the current turmoil in the mid-east today.

And that's the problem of negotiating with a guy like Asad. Sure, he may grant short-term concessions to buy time for his next attack, but in the long term, he'll always be the west's enemy because he knows very well that any success for the west in his region will spell destruction for his regime. North Korea's another great example -- I think the Bush Administration was probably right to sign their most recent deal, since it's a good thing to take North Korea out of the nuclear loop to isolate Iran even further, but I can't imagine anyone in the White House believes there's any chance that the North Koreans will stick to it out of simple good faith. American liberalism is like a toxic disease to the North Korean regime, one sniff could be fatal. They don't make peace with America because they can't, not if they want their regime to survive in its present, ideologically pure form.

Sadly, Pelosi and co don't seem to realise the brutal realities of power half as well as the tyrants do. So again, should western nations talk to Syria? Sure, but only if we're aware of all of the above, and aren't kidding ourselves. Threats are 'talking'... but threats can be made by back channels, where most 'talks' between the west and nations like Syria go on. In that sense, we already are talking, just out of sight, and not very politely. What Pelosi is suggesting is 'Let's be friends!' And 'Let's put all this behind us!'

The worst bit is, she doesn't seem to understand why the proposition is so ludicrous. A regime like Syria, by its very nature, is in a perpetual state of low-level war against America. It's not that it chose that state of war, and can subsequently be talked out of it -- it's that being what it is, IT HAD NO OTHER CHOICE. You can't talk a hyena into being more like a lion. Yes, the Syrian people are very friendly, it's a fascinating civilisation, I'd personally love to visit one day. But that has absolutely nothing to do with Syria's political position vis-a-vis America, and it's alarming that Pelosi should seem to imply otherwise, with her photo-ops with friendly locals in the streets of Damascus. The differences that matter are political, not cultural. And until Syria begins to transform itself politically, I can't see that there's much the White House can talk about with them beyond the current threats and warnings.

SF Crows Nest Reviews Breakaway

Tomas L Martin of SF Crows Nest has reviewed Breakaway, in which he concludes,

''Breakaway' is a definite improvement on 'Crossover', which while great didn't make the political divisions nearly as clearly. The adding of complexity to the non-military side of things compliments the fantastic characterisation and action to create what is an extremely well rounded novel. Recommended.'

But of course he says a whole bunch of stuff before that, so go read it!

Breakaway on Amazon

Amazon's website informs me that Breakaway is now in stock. My author copies haven't arrived yet though. Curse that Pacific Ocean!