Maybe on Earth, Maybe in the Future...

Microorganisms As Pets

Andy — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 21:40:10 +0000

The Tardigotchi combines an alife avatar (gotchi) with a real microbiological organism (tardigrade) to create a new kind of pet. Physically it has “three main components: (1) a portable sphere,” which includes a microOLED display of the avatar and a biosphere for the tardigrade, “that can be carried around by an owner; (2) a docking station,” for feeding and recharging of batteries; ”and (3) software that runs on a PC.” The docking station also “[places] it within Bluetooth/USB proximity of a PC.”

The interaction between the user and the pet mirrors the virtual relationship of Tamagotchis, hence the name. Interaction involves the avatar, as a visual representation of the tardigrade, with the user interpreting the different animations to meet the tardigrade’s needs. As you can see in the video above, the user presses a button to feed the tardigrade after receiving the message from the avatar’s animation and placing it in the docking station. In addition, the Tardigotchi can receive messages, sent by the user, from Facebook or e-mail which triggers an incandescent light to turn on to warm the tardigrade’s enclosure.

Even though the Tardigotchi functions as an artwork, it serves as an interesting experiment in future pet relationships. Especially since tardigrades can survive in the vacuum of space, where “some specimens even recovered after combined exposure to space vacuum and solar radiation,” which makes for a perfect pet for interplanetary travelers. Not to mention that, their ability to survive in space brings up questions of if an organism could travel through space on a comet or how various lifeforms on our own planet might have arrived here (including our primordial ancestors).

This makes for an interesting idea for science fiction to explore, both the questions presented above and the changing relationships between human and microorganism.

Unity

Andy — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 06:34:03 +0000

A good story includes many things, such as an engaging plot, complex developed characters, well written prose, etc. I have studied many techniques of writing for years (starting with writing workshops when I attended middle school) and for some reason, almost all of the people who helped me with writing never mentioned a need for unity. Certainly, they mentioned that scenes in a story needed to make sense for the plot, but here I refer to unity as something deeper than that. I never really noticed it until I analyzed Philip K. Dick’s A Scanner Darkly. At that time, I had read it several times trying to discern why it felt so perfect. Then it hit me: every scene, every moment, linked back to the central theme of the story. It felt very tightly-knit and interconnected. Dick did not waste any time doing anything other than furthering the plot and providing insight into the characters. Absolutely nothing felt out-of-place or unnecessary. Every tiny detail seemed integral, to the point where if one removed a segment of it the entire story would cease to exist.

A lot of the books I have read in the past do not hold up well to this. A fourth of the content of those stories seemed unnecessary. Some scenes could easily have disappeared and the core of the story would remain mostly the same. Often, when reading such scenes, I lost interest in the story because it seemed as though such scenes served as filler. Sometimes a scene, usually fight scenes, only remained in the final draft because they sounded cool. Yet deep down they did not advance anything or aid the rest of the story anyway.

Working on my current novel-in-progress has revealed to me similar errors in my own writing. Not so much that some scenes had no true purpose, but that I had scenes that did provide insight into the characters. Yet they did not link back up with the core theme of the story. I had to seriously rethink everything and write down what I really wanted to accomplish with the story. For my current story, the central element of the story consists of a conflict that remains largely behind the scenes until it reveals itself at the end. The seemingly unrelated activities of the characters absolutely had to connect back to this element for the whole thing to seem like a single story. The actions of the characters needed to work to make this element inevitably appear at the conclusion. The characters never show an awareness of this element, because it truly does remain behind the scenes not only to the reader but to the people in the story as well. For example, this resembles the awareness an average person, living in a suburb in the midwest of America, has about the genocides in Africa. They acknowledge that genocides have occurred there (probably from hearing it on the news), but do not think about it much in their daily lives. Same case with my characters in my current story.

To create a connection there, I arranged the story so that the characters unknowingly have an involvement in this hidden element. Emphasis on involvement, because it simply would not make any sense if the characters had nothing to do with the theme of a story. It works best when everything weaves in and out of each other, creating a mesh of sorts. Remember: tight-knit. Inseparable. Similar to the details and elements of reality, it would not remain the same without each other.

I apologize if this does not seem entirely coherent. I did not want to give away any spoilers of my story, which made even discussing this difficult. Not to mention the difficulty of writing in E-Prime, which feels very contrary to the sentence structure I instinctually think with (which I hope to eventually dismantle and allow for more flexibility in thought syntax). I also feel very tired since I have midterms this week and the next. I just wanted to convey something interesting that I have thought about recently.

Common Themes/Motifs

Andy — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 04:43:17 +0000

(On board the magical meme train) This meme involves discussing the common themes/motifs in my writing. A difficult thing, for me, to come up with answers for. If anyone examined my past writing and my current writing, they would probably assume two different people had written them. Even my current work, if you separated comedy from my more serious science fiction, you would also get the impression of two different writers. I think that I must have two different voices, as a writer, depending on the subject matter of a story. So I must split up my themes/motifs as such.

For science fiction:

Control and powerlessness
Competition
Isolation or perceived isolation
Altered states of consciousness
The emergence of consciousness
Other/alien perspective (in the sense of being inhumanly strange or an incomprehensible mindset to humans)
Identity and loss of identity (not identity theft, but more like a metamorphosis of personality/self-identity)

For comedy:

Helplessness or overwhelming odds
Utter absurdity or randomness in situations
Incompetence
Inversion (turning a concept inside out)
Unexpected outcomes

I cannot think of anything else right now.

Reading Meme

Andy — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 02:20:37 +0000

Reading something frivolous? Or something serious?
It depends on the book, really. If I think a book sounds interesting, regardless of seeming frivolous or serious, I will read it.
Paperbacks? Or hardcovers?
Paperbacks, hands down. I have a hard time carrying around hardcovers, especially since I have to carry textbooks frequently. I also prefer the feel of paperbacks. They feel more comfortable in my hands since the pages and cover feel soft and flexible.
Fiction? Or Nonfiction?
For fun I tend to read both equally. For nonfiction, I prefer to read scientific studies of things because I mostly read it for research purposes (or furthering my knowledge). I probably read more nonfiction than fiction, mostly because my studies in school require reading tons of textbooks or articles.
Poetry? Or Prose?
Prose, although I like poetry too. Usually I prefer reading poetry about science fictional themes (especially post-apocalyptic). I do not read very much poetry however. I should remedy this.
Biographies? Or Autobiographies?
Neither really. I will only read them for a class.
History? Or Historical Fiction?
History, unless you have some comedic historical fiction. I like alternate history fiction, like steampunk or something similar. When reading history, I tend to prefer books/articles about past technology or social norms.
Series? Or Stand-alones?
Stand-alones mostly. I usually like to breeze through several different books in the span of a few weeks, so by the time I get the next book in a series I often forget what happened previously. I prefer each book to have an ending (with ambiguity allowed) that at least gives you a sense that a chapter closed on something. I do not need all loose ends to tie up at the end, just enough that the reader feels satisfied by the end.
Classics? Or best-sellers?
So long as the story sounds interesting, I will read it. I have no preference other than that, really.
Lurid, fruity prose? Or straight-forward, basic prose?
Straight-forward basic prose like Hemingway’s, but I do not require that everything I read fall into this category. If I did, I would have a very limited reading list. However, I tend to dislike books that use too many unnecessary words — words that sound too pretentious and seem like obvious attempts to impress critics.
Plots? Or Stream-of-Consciousness?
Anything interesting, I will read, but I mostly like well thought out plots.
Long books? Or Short?
Does not matter.
Illustrated? Or Non-illustrated?
Non-illustrated. I would rather paint pictures of a story in my mind than have them handed to me.
Borrowed? Or Owned?
Owned. I owe many libraries too much money for all the books I never gave back.
New? Or Used?
Doesn’t matter usually, except some used books feel weird. Slightly slimy like the bars in a bus from too many hands (with germs) touching it (and doing who knows what else). I do not like books that after opening them you feel as though you need to wash your hands.

Print Will Become Extinct?

Andy — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 06:25:37 +0000

I have no doubt that eventually print will become extinct, but merely as a medium. Just like how we abandoned writing on stone tablets and turned out sights to different media. I do not consider this a bad thing, because I never lamented the obsolescence of stone tablets. We never abandoned words, we merely wrote them down in a different way. While I enjoy holding a book, I feel sorry for the trees that died for the book’s blank pages (this always baffled me, such a waste of resources!). Although the environment might not benefit from the obsolescence of printed material, it will signal a step towards the future. People often mistake my reverent interest in futuristic affairs as envisioning a positive (or negative in their opinion) future. I do not consider the future as something we can classify as positive or negative. I do not consider anything inherently positive or negative.

Some say that hand-in-hand with the extinction of print goes the death of novels (and short stories, etc). I have heard that the rising level of stupidity, along with the rising popularity of visual media will eventually destroy all other forms of entertainment. I do not hold this view. I agree that human stupidity rises (and spreads) exponentially. Everyday I see firsthand the rising human stupidity. I see it in my ‘peers’ (if I can even call them that), who show an increased disrespect for learning (yet admit that they need to learn something in order to acquire a profession). These people do not willingly learn anything. They complain of having to write a one page essay or having to ever take a test. Attending class seems like a great inconvenience to them. When they attend, if they attend, they do not show the professor any respect and never pay much attention to the lectures. And they wonder (and complain at great length) why they failed the class (or test, or assignment).

Unfortunately when anyone looks at my generation, they only see these people. It harms my reputation as an upstanding student. It does not help that my appearance often seems rebellious (only if you look at people judgmentally and from an obsolete worldview). So I get lumped in with such people, and sneered at by old ladies (and you thought old ladies acted nice). And people on the Internet write statements such as this:

“Your great-grandparents could read Latin. Your grandparents could read Hemingway. Your parents could read Dune. You could read to the end of this post. Yor chldrn wnt evn bothr w tht mch.” — Daveina, commenting on “Are the Novel’s Days Numbered?”

Well, I never knew my great-grandparents, but I doubt they could read Latin. They never went to college. My grandparents also did not attend college. My remaining grandmother asks other people to form opinions for her (not even joking). She never read Hemingway. My father did read Dune. I have read Hemingway, almost all of Shakespeare’s known plays, and countless other classic novels. Of course, I consist of a minority (in more ways than just literary cred) and all of my accomplishments mean nothing statistically. Yet if even a handful of people like me still exist in the future (and we have existed throughout the course of humanity) literature will continue. We will give up our literature only when we need something to fuel the fire to keep us from freezing to death. And only after contemplating it for a very long time. If print becomes extinct, we will read the next great novels (and re-read the classics) on our computers or whatever we have on hand.

If, for some reason, literature gets wiped out due to a totalitarian government who need to keep the population dumb, then we cannot do much about that (other than rioting). I can actually name a few people who might want this to happen, but I would rather not name them. Just in case they do gain power, regulate content on the Internet, and decide to hold my statements against me. I like to plan ahead.

Without Boundaries

Andy — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 11:47:59 +0000

What if we lived in a world where information cost nothing (monetarily)? What if we had the capacity to learn everything, to easily tap into the wealth of the world’s collective knowledge? Does it sound like a utopia? To me it does and the thought of such a world fills me with unsurpassed happiness. Of course, utopias seem unrealistic and this case has its downsides. If we did live in a world where access to information seemed without boundaries, where would our concept of privacy fit in? I suppose in a situation of free information, privacy would not factor in. Everyone would know everything about you. All of your embarrassing secrets and everything you even try to forget.

At first I felt slightly disturbed by this. I want a world without any boundaries, yet I still felt uncomfortable about people seeing every side to me. In the past I had a difficulty with lies, they slipped out unintentionally and I felt awful about lying to my friends. Later I realized that if I lied about one aspect of my life to one group of people, it would spread virulently through all aspects of my life and to everyone I knew. I learned to eliminate all lies and now seem brutally honest to people. I still feel quite embarrassed over the things I did not admit to. I actually moved several states away to escape that sort of thing (I have moved back since then, though). Anyway, instantly thinking about all of those secrets I keep made me feel horrified.

Then I calmed down and thought about it. An ideal world would not have lies, people would act and speak honestly. There seemed no reason for secrets in such a world, so what would we have to hide then? Yet to reach that world, we would have to start making progress now. We would have to accept everything about ourselves, all of those things we hide from ourselves as well as others. Break down those barriers! It only restricts our mental evolution (as individuals and as collectives). Perhaps we can find a benefit in abolishing privacy (first in our own minds, then move on from there). By shedding all of our mental barriers that keep people from looking inside, we stand there naked for all to see. Yes, this feels frightening at first and for a long time, but eventually we realize that we wasted half of our lives in hiding. What do we gain from privacy? People find a way in all the time. No matter what firewall you install, someone will find a way in.

Of course, before we accomplish any of this, we must eliminate judgement from society. By that I mean judging others for their actions, such as discriminating against former prostitutes (or whatever, fill in the blank with anything someone would find immoral). Why must we treat people badly for doing something we might not agree with? So long as they do not hurt others, what harm does it cause to you? Obviously departure from value judgements will take a considerable amount of time. I do not really expect any of this to become a reality (at least the positive parts). It just seems very interesting.

As a writer, I look for a lot of ideas such as this one. I use this information to build a fictional world centered around ideas I find. From there I get an interesting background for a story, perhaps it even becomes an aspect of the central plot.

This idea came from reading this post at Cyberpunk Hero.

Turning to E-Prime

Andy — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 21:48:21 +0000

I have decided to take up writing in E-Prime, which means that I will not use any form of “to be”. That means the following words I will eliminate from my future writing (as best I can): “is”, “was”, “be”, “being”, “been”, and “am”. I must say that this project has proved quite challenging, but not impossible. Writing in E-Prime makes you rethink everything you want to say. The end result usually sounds a lot better than it did in standard English.

Prior to converting to E-Prime, I had trouble editing my class essays. Somehow I find editing someone else’s work easier than editing my own work. So I picked something interesting and experimental such as converting to E-Prime. It forces me to examine my sentences closely and abandon excess words.

For anyone that knows me this sort of behavior comes as no surprise. During high school after one English teacher told me to eliminate the use of contractions from my academic papers, I took it upon myself to eliminate all contractions from my writing. I admit, occasionally I slip up and use a few, but only in blog posts or informal everyday speech. You will never find a contraction in any of my stories. With the exception of character dialogue because I deliberately use them there to make their speech sound natural. If I want a character to sound more intelligent than the other characters (like a scientist or professor), then I also eliminate contractions from their speech.

So far I feel that the incorporation of E-Prime and the elimination of contractions has strengthened my writing. At least it has greatly improved my academic papers. I will look out now for more interesting ways to improve my writing. If anyone has any suggestions, please let me know.

Writing Meme

Andy — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 01:10:43 +0000

Your genre(s): Science fiction, specifically cyberpunk.

How many books are you working on now: One right now, there are two others waiting patiently off to the side.

Are you a linear or chunk writer: Linear, because that’s just the way my brain works.

The POV you’re partial to: Third omni is what I mostly write in. I’ve only done first person perspective with a few short stories.

The Tense you use: Past tense always. I only ever use present tense when writing my outlines or notes or whatever.

The theme that keeps cropping up in your books: Lack of control, loss of identity, epic destruction.

How many days a week do you write: Maybe two or three a week. I’d write more, but I have a lot of other work to do like class assignments.

What time of day do you get your best writing done: Usually at late at night. Any other time of the day I lack 100% clarity or am too busy.

Who are your mentors: William Gibson, Raymond Chandler, and Philip K. Dick.

My favorite authors to read: See above.

Another Meme

Andy — Fri, 01 May 2009 20:11:04 +0000

1) What author do you own the most books by?
J.K Rowling, because I mostly stick to trilogies so she beats all of them out. Admittedly I stopped reading halfway through the fifth book. I’ll get around to finishing… eventually.

2) What book do you own the most copies of?
I only keep one copy of any book, any extras I give away as gifts.

3) Did it bother you that both those questions ended with prepositions?
I managed to remain calm.

4) What fictional character are you secretly in love with?
I’m not in love with any character at the moment.

5) What book have you read the most times in your life (excluding picture books read to children)?
1984 by George Orwell, I’ve read it about four times so far.

6) What was your favorite book when you were ten years old?
I can’t really remember. I liked a lot of books, so I probably didn’t have one favorite.

7) What is the worst book you’ve read in the past year?
I don’t usually read books that I know I won’t like, so I’ve never encountered a book I did not like (I’ve got a pretty good screening process).

What is the best book you’ve read in the past year?
Hm, Accelerando by Charles Stross was quite good (but not nearly as good as Glasshouse).

9) Who deserves to win the next Nobel Prize for Literature?
I don’t know really.

10) What book would you most like to see made into a movie?
Glasshouse by Charles Stross, for sure, but only if it was done properly and absolutely true to the book.

11) What book would you least like to see made into a movie?
Beloved by Toni Morrison, but they already made it into a movie (and see how well that turned out). It’s impossible, just impossible to translate into visual media.

12) Describe your weirdest dream involving a writer, book, or literary character.
I don’t usually have dreams that involve writers or books or literary characters. The only thing close to this is that dream I had about the crew of Firefly. All of my other dreams are usually original weird stuff.

13) What is the most lowbrow book you’ve read as an adult?
Can’t say I’ve read anything I would consider ‘lowbrow’.

14) What is the most difficult book you’ve ever read?
Accelerando gave me a lot of frustration because it jumped around a lot (in terms of main characters and story settings).

15) What is the most obscure Shakespeare play you’ve seen?
All the ones I’ve seen were rather straightforward and not at all obscure, although I’m sure there are ones out there.

16) What is the biggest or most embarrassing gap in your reading?
Bruce Sterling, I guess. I’ll get around to his stuff, eventually. I haven’t read nearly enough of Ray Bradbury or Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. than I’d like to admit.

17) What is your favorite novel?
I have so many favorites, it’s too difficult to pick just one.

18) Who is your favorite writer?
Like I stated above for novels, I like so many writers that I can’t just pick one. Can I have a top 100 with everyone matched equally?

19) Who is the most overrated writer alive today?
I’d tell you, but I don’t want to get killed in my sleep at the hands of their fan base.

20) What is your desert island book?
The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy series by Douglas Adams. It will keep me entertained for quite a bit of time.

21) And… what are you reading right now?
Too many books at once. On my reading list (which I’m cautiously wading through) is: the last few pages of Accelerando, Count Zero by William Gibson, Havemercy by Jaida Jones and Danielle Bennett, Infoquake by David Louis Edelman, and Cryptonomicon by Neal Stephenson. I should be able to finish by January.

Fixing Plot Holes

Andy — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 01:30:02 +0000

So I’ve been doing tons of extensive planning for my novel-to-be, Prodigy, and have been successful with fixing a lot of plot holes. I still have a few unanswered questions that plague me and I’m searching blindly for a plausible answer to them. First off is the reason for the motive of my pseudo-villain, Max. It’s easy to brush off his motives with a simple assumption that “everyone wants power,” but why does Max want it? What aspects of his personality and life has led him to desire power? I’ve tried asking these questions of myself, such as ‘why would I want power?,’ but the problem is that I’m not Max so I would want it for very different reasons. It’s difficult to figure out his reasons, so I’m sort of stuck in that regard. In the early drafts of Prodigy, Max was merely vindictive, but now I’m not so sure that concept accurately sums up his actions and reasons. I’ve got another plot hole to work out, which deals with some sort of worship between characters — the details of which, I cannot say at this time (classified information).

I’ve been making my pseudo-villain a lot more dark and cruel, which would serve to draw readers into the trap of considering him a ‘villain’. Yet Max is not a villain in the traditional sense of the word, unless you are just labeling characters based on personal opinions. For the sake of the story, he isn’t. In fact, I don’t think there are any real villains in the story. Certainly there are a lot of corrupt, self-centered, and violent characters, but for the most part they are considered normal (especially since the city is full of them). With the exception of Max, it seems that he is being treated as a criminal when his actions are not much different than, say, the CEO of Omni Industries who kills off the competition as well as other things (which are classified). And then there is Eight, who is a lot more capable of violence than any of the others, and yet is never considered (by the other characters) as being villainous — maybe towards the end they start to realize the error of their logic, but by then it’s too late.

So I think that the concept of villainy actually is a personal opinion that varies from person to person. A mass murderer might not consider themself a villain, whereas ‘moral’ individuals in society might think otherwise. But these conclusions are not ground in fact, but opinions and laws passed by society. Yet in a society where corruption and corporate espionage (with assassinations of rival companies) are considered normal, then who would they consider villains? So I come to the conclusion that anyone who goes against what we want can be considered a villain. What we want in others varies depending on who you are, so the term could be applied to anyone really. This is why I never liked clear-cut definitions or roles of villain and hero. I preferred anti-heroes because they felt more real to me, and anti-villains who were a lot more difficult to quickly condemn. Max’s actions are justified (well, not in the beginning of the story), but are still quite horrible at least to our standards (and the standards that live only on legal documents in Prodigy‘s society).

Yet the question of why Max ultimately chooses his actions eludes me. Sure he is megalomaniacal and would therefore want as much power as possible, but with the turn of events it makes things harder for him to be merely acting on those desires. He isn’t in the same sort of control he started out with and his life is on the line. Some of his actions are self-defense, but the others aren’t and those are the ones I’m having the most difficulty explaining the reasoning behind. If you were obsessed with power, but on the run from people who want you dead (and can easily kill you) and you had the opportunity to obtain some form of power (not the same type of power as before, but that’s classified*), would you still go for it even if there was a slim chance you could obtain it? Would just the obsession be enough to drive you?

There is a lot more turmoil with this plot hole than I’m willing to divulge, but essentially that’s the gist of it. And note*: by classified, I mean that I can’t discuss any possible spoilers.