joelshepherd.com

Cassandra Kresnov in Mass Market

2008-11-11T15:04:00.002+10:30

The Cassandra Kresnov Trilogy is now being released by Pyr in a mass market format. (that's a 'regular' paperback for all you non-publishing lingo types). This is Pyr's first foray into mass market, which is very cool for them, because it shows it's possible for a smaller publisher to enter the market, and grow larger. Where they'll be in another few years, who can tell?

Buncha Stuff

2008-01-06T14:28:00.000+10:30

Here's some reviews I haven't got around to posting up yet.

Firstly, at SF Signal, a nice review continuing theme that Cassandra Kresnov should be a movie. Been hearing that a bit lately. Incidently (or maybe not) I'm currently working on the screenplay.

Bookgasm ties Breakaway and Killswitch in the top five books of 2007.

Pat's Fantasy Hotlist also lists Killswitch in the 'year's best'.

There's also two interviews, firstly with Scifi Wire, and secondly with The World's Biggest Bookstore

There's also the BookSwede, who reviews Crossover... always nice to see people going back to the first book.

Life

2007-11-23T01:15:00.001+10:30

In the interest of supporting the cool TV shows that deserve the support, I'll put in my vote for Life as the best new TV show I've seen this year, easily. Anyone who likes NCIS should like it because the emphasis on likeable, quirky characters is similar... but Life craps all over NCIS (though I'll always have a soft spot for it, just for the characters).

'Life' has my kind of characters -- outsiders who've been through hard times and see the world from another perspective. It doesn't hit the mark all the time, but when it does, the writing manages to be funny, poignant and philosophically intriguing, all without ever once overstepping the line and showing off. It's got the brains and style of the great literary novel, but it's still proud to show the world that at heart, it's a fun paperback thriller. That's not an easy combination to pull off.

It's not Law and Order, which is good -- 'Law and Order' was always too procedural for me, pays scant attention to its characters, and dramatically is all tip and no iceberg. 'Life', if it doesn't sound too much like the cliche, is all about the journey (and I'm sure that line made it into the show's pitch to the network execs). Charlie Crews is quite possibly the oddest major character I've seen on a prime time show. Newly out of prison, he gazes at the world with childlike wonder, plays games with things that most people don't find funny, and asks rhetorical questions no one else can answer. I love that he got a huge multi-million dollar compensation payout, and still wants to be a cop, and not just because he's searching for whoever framed him. I love that he finds mundane things so fascinating. And I love Damian Lewis's slightly amazed deadpan delivery. I think Charlie Crews might just be the least boring man on TV.

The other characters are cool too, especially his partner Dani... watch it, and see.

Killswitch on Monsters and Critics

2007-11-16T16:39:00.000+10:30

Here's a review of Killswitch on Monsters and Critics.

'Definitely a satisfying conclusion to the trilogy with enough wiggle room for more to come from this series that serves up social commentary with military action in equal doses.'

Fantasy Book Critic Interview

2007-11-14T20:02:00.000+10:30

Robert Thompson at Fantasy Book Critic asks me a bunch of questions about a bunch of stuff. I reckon this is probably the best bunch of questions I've been asked before, and I had fun answering, so check it out.

Cassandra Kresnov Giveaway

2007-11-04T12:47:00.000+10:30

Rob at Fantasy Book Critic is giving away the wonderful prize of the full set of Cassandra Kresnov novels. And all you need to do is pledge the soul of your first newborn.

Killswitch on SciFi.com

2007-11-04T12:40:00.000+10:30

The SciFi Channel's website has a review of Killswitch up. I shouldn't complain when a review gives me a B- on a highly trafficked website, but I do occasionally wonder if the reviewer read the same book I wrote. Oh well, vive la diversite...

Killswitch Chapters

2007-11-01T14:49:00.000+10:30

Pyr has put the first couple of chapters of Killswitch up on their website.

Killswitch on SF Crowsnest

2007-11-01T14:43:00.000+10:30

Here's a review of Killswitch on SF Crowsnest by Tomas L Martin. Curiously enough, he seems to think it's the weakest of the trilogy, which would make him probably the first person I've heard who thinks so. Not to dump on his opinions at all -- I'm just happy that he liked Crossover and Breakaway so much.

Killswitch on the Fantasy Hotlist

2007-10-23T18:10:00.000+09:30

Here's Pat's review of Killswitch on the Fantasy Hotlist, where he says;

'The characterization is probably my favorite aspect of this trilogy. Cassandra's moral awakening has been a fascinating facet to follow thus far, and I like how the author raises a number of philosophical issues through her character. Those moments are interwoven almost seamlessly into the plotlines, which is no small feat'

Killswitch on Don D'Ammassa

2007-10-09T13:24:00.001+09:30

And here's a review on Don D'Ammassa's website, where he says in part, 'Easily the best of the three. I hope there’s more on their way. Most novels with this general background get caught up in the military content and forget about the characters. Shepherd manages to keep everything in balance.'

Well I don't know about 'easily', but most people seem to think Killswitch is the best.

Killswitch on Publishers Weekly

2007-10-09T13:16:00.000+09:30

Hey all, well Killswitch is out in a month, so I guess I'll have to start blogging again. Why did I stop? Got a little boring, truth be told. But I'll try and keep up with reviews and other work related stuff.

Firstly, here's Publishers Weekly's Review, which I'll link to here, but I'll also post below in full, so you don't have to scroll down the page.

'The tense third Cassandra Kresnov novel (after Breakaway) further develops the series' intriguing far-future setting. Cdr. Cassandra “Sandy” Kresnov, a “GI” genetically engineered to be a crack soldier and spy, is now second-in-command of the Callayan Defense Force: a tough job, especially now that President Neiland has nearly succeeded in making Callay's capital city, Tanusha, into the new Federation capital. Earth doesn't look kindly on this upstart world taking away its last claim to fame, and loyalists from the Federation Fleet have occupied Callay's space stations. With dock workers refusing to service Fleet ships and civil war threatening to break out, the last thing Sandy needs is to be targeted for death. She suspects someone has infiltrated Callay's security forces, but even as she struggles to uncover the spy, a rogue GI similar enough to be her sister appears, testing Sandy to the limit. Robert Ludlum meets Elizabeth Moon in this classic military SF adventure, buoyed by Shepherd's knack for balancing crisp action with characters you can really root for.'

Sasha on Specusphere

2007-07-11T20:02:00.002+09:30

Here's a review of Sasha, by my buddy Donna Marie Hanson, on the internet speculative fiction magazine Specusphere.

I like this bit;

'Shepherd has deftly tackled the conquest of ideas that comes with religious fervour and conversion. He does not make judgements about the religious beliefs within the story; rather he looks at the right and wrong of destroying a culture and a way of life that is unique.'

Because nothing kills any religious plotline faster than a didactic author shoving personal beliefs down your throat...

Sasha Reviews at Infinitas Bookshop

2007-07-07T03:00:00.000+09:30

Here are a couple of nice short reviews of Sasha at the Infinitas Bookshop website.

Breakaway on SFFWorld

2007-07-07T02:52:00.001+09:30

Rob H Bedford writes:

Joel Shepherd’s electric heroine, Cassandra “Sandy” Kresnov, continues her thrill-ride of a life in the author’s second novel, Breakaway. Shepherd picks up her story shortly after the events of Crossover, and the story doesn’t miss a beat. If anything the beat gets turned up a few notches.

Check it out.

Andromeda Spaceways Review

2007-06-24T12:42:00.000+09:30

Here's a review of Sasha from Andromeda Spaceways.

Sasha

2007-06-19T17:35:00.001+09:30

Introducing Sasha. Here she is, out in Australia from July with Hachette Livre, hopefully to follow elsewhere at a later date.

The most immediate question I get asked is 'why switch from SF to fantasy?'

The answer is that I'm not really 'switching' anything. I write primarily about aspects of human civilisation that interest me. If this happens in the future, it'll be SF. If it happens in the past, it'll be fantasy. I've nearly finished the third book in the series, there's one more to go, then I'll be back to SF for a while, as I have some more future ideas I'd like to write. Where after that, I don't know, but the quality of character and story always interested me far more than the tropes of genre.

I think anyone who liked Cassandra Kresnov will like Sasha. Both heroic characters, for sure, but very different personalities. Sandy's very cool, but Sasha's a troublemaker. One day I'll have an argument with myself about who was more fun to write. Right now I can't decide.

Breakaway at Fantasy Hotlist

2007-04-22T17:46:00.000+09:30

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

2007-04-22T17:45:00.000+09:30

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

2007-04-18T23:19:00.000+09:30

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

2007-04-14T01:03:00.000+09:30

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

2007-04-12T22:28:00.000+09:30

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

2007-04-12T21:24:00.000+09:30

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

2007-04-10T17:29:00.000+09:30

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

2007-04-07T17:32:00.000+09:30

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.