Ben Peek's Blog, page 28
March 21, 2012
March 20, 2012
Have You Read Above/Below?
Have you read Above/Below?
No?
You should.
"Continues to press the nerd pleasure centers of my brain."
--John Scalzi.
"Cleverly and at times beautifully written."
--Not If You Were the Last Short Story.
"An old fashioned flip book... An interesting concept... Overt politics in SF, making a clear statement... Highly recommended."
--The Writer and the Critic.
"The stories concern diplomatic visits between the cities, and the terrible misunderstandings between the two, exacerbated by the ill-treatment of the ground people by the cities above, and in particular by the illnesses that doom those below to early deaths... interesting, with affecting main characters."
--Locus.
"Above/Below is an admirable, entertaining and successful work that adds up to more than the sum of its parts. Its authors, Ben Peek and Stephanie Campisi, have done more than produce excellent novellas in their own right (although they have done that too) – they have produced an elegant composite novel which can, as I think I have shown, be read in any order."
--ASiF.
"It's not everyday after all that we come across a book like The Griffin and Sabine trilogy or City of Saints and Madmen: The Book of Ambergris in which the medium or the storytelling technique changes everything. Above/Below is one such book and I say that not just because of the format but due to the quality of the writing as well. While short and immediate, one could spend a long time analyzing the book, poring over the details, debating the politics of the setting, and analyzing the nuances of Campisi and Peek's technique. They're compelling novelettes in their own right but together, a must-read novel for any reader--genre or otherwise--and is easily one of my favorites for 2011."
--Bibliophile Stalker.
And if you would like to see some reader responses, the goodreads Above/Below page has half a dozen or so reviews on it.
Buy the book from the publisher, here.
Or, as an ebook, here.
Or on kindle, here.
No?
You should.
"Continues to press the nerd pleasure centers of my brain."
--John Scalzi.
"Cleverly and at times beautifully written."
--Not If You Were the Last Short Story.
"An old fashioned flip book... An interesting concept... Overt politics in SF, making a clear statement... Highly recommended."
--The Writer and the Critic.
"The stories concern diplomatic visits between the cities, and the terrible misunderstandings between the two, exacerbated by the ill-treatment of the ground people by the cities above, and in particular by the illnesses that doom those below to early deaths... interesting, with affecting main characters."
--Locus.
"Above/Below is an admirable, entertaining and successful work that adds up to more than the sum of its parts. Its authors, Ben Peek and Stephanie Campisi, have done more than produce excellent novellas in their own right (although they have done that too) – they have produced an elegant composite novel which can, as I think I have shown, be read in any order."
--ASiF.
"It's not everyday after all that we come across a book like The Griffin and Sabine trilogy or City of Saints and Madmen: The Book of Ambergris in which the medium or the storytelling technique changes everything. Above/Below is one such book and I say that not just because of the format but due to the quality of the writing as well. While short and immediate, one could spend a long time analyzing the book, poring over the details, debating the politics of the setting, and analyzing the nuances of Campisi and Peek's technique. They're compelling novelettes in their own right but together, a must-read novel for any reader--genre or otherwise--and is easily one of my favorites for 2011."
--Bibliophile Stalker.
And if you would like to see some reader responses, the goodreads Above/Below page has half a dozen or so reviews on it.
Buy the book from the publisher, here.
Or, as an ebook, here.
Or on kindle, here.
March 19, 2012
The Rum Diary
I saw the Rum Diary last week.
Based off an early Hunter S. Thompson novel that was unpublished until found again by, reportedly, Johnny Depp, and one that I could just never get into, despite a few attempts. I love Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, and I recently read and loved On the Campaign Trail '72, but Thompson was a patchy writer and The Rum Diary revealed more of that than anything else to me. But, the film. The film looked interesting. The trail suggested that it might be funny. I figured I'd give it a go and see how it turned out.
Mostly, the film is a failure, and I figure this is due, partly, because of the deviation from the original material, and making the film an ode to Hunter S. Thompson, using the main character as a vehicle to essentially chronicle the birth of the gonzo journalist, or at least the birth of a socially aware one. Perhaps the Rum Diary is, in fact, this, but I like to think that Thompson did not do that. I could be wrong, however. Either way: the film opens with Paul Kemp awaking in a hotel in Puerto Rico, about to start a job as a freelance writing at a suffering newspaper. There, he encounters Sala, a photographer, and others, and some encounters happen, a social awareness is born, and so on and so forth. It's a pretty flat affair for the most part, though it has a few funny moments, and I was engaged enough.
Perhaps the strangest thing about the film, however, is how it deliberately attempts to echo Terry Gilliam's Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. Depp's Kemp is a more restrained version of his Thompson in that film, and Michael Rispoli's Sala is a earlier version of Benico del Toro's lawyer. While that does make for interesting viewing upon occasion, the biggest problem is that Gilliam's film was not really very good, either, and so by echoing a film that never succeeds, The Rum Diary, despite everyone in it, and despite their various levels of talent, is doomed to be unsuccessful from the start.
March 15, 2012
The Ditmars
Hello, hello, gather around. Yes, gather, gather: it's that time of the year again.
Time, I say!
Time, to create your own controversy!
That's right ladies and gentlemen and those who wish to be known as neither, listen to me as I talk very quickly to you. The time is upon us, we cannot pause. The Ditmar Nominations are open and you and your friends must be prepared!
Now listen, listen closely:
With the Ditmar Nominations open, you and your friends can create a force for good or a force for evil, without the unnecessary and large tax burdens that befall large multinational and evil corporations. Did I say evil? Did I suggest you could be could good? Well, lies, lies and slander. You will be evil! Get used to it! If you win a lot, you will be called A Destructive Influence on Literature, aka Mr or Mrs Grand Evil.
My advice: Get a t-shirt printed with the word Evil on it. That way there will be no confusion at the award ceremony.
Now, you may think that I am not taking this serious, and I say, I say, what kind of words are those? I am advising on how to be a prospective winner of greatness. A t-shirt with the word evil is how you deal with those who slander you. That's how you deal with this kind of business. In fact, get a shirt made not just for you, but for your friends.
Fear not!
The cost will be low.
You will be able to afford banners, even. Being Evil in the Ditmars is not an expensive endevour. While many may suggest that it involves block voting, secret backroom handshakes, and the promises of virginal boys and girls to be served to you in a room of such decadence that the word velvet does not begin to describe it all... well, such suggestions are fanciful. With your friends, with homeless men and women, with teenagers who need booze money, you can organise a ballot in your favour. Evil is cheap! Evil is easy! Don't let people tell you it is hard work, for it is not, it is not, I assure you.
Evil is easy, that is its attraction.
But do not mistake ease for no effort. If you wait until after the ballots, after the awards are actually given and then complain, that is not evil. That is sloth. That is what the good lord has warned us against and you must be vigilant!
Go now!
Go organise yourself!
Form secret groups with secret handshakes! Make private email lists! Whisper into the ears of those you do not respect! Prey on the weak! Promise t-shirts and drinks in a bar in a hotel you don't frequent!
Prepare yourself for evil.
For the Ditmar Awards!
For Controversy!
FOR A T-SHIRT!
Link.
Time, I say!
Time, to create your own controversy!
That's right ladies and gentlemen and those who wish to be known as neither, listen to me as I talk very quickly to you. The time is upon us, we cannot pause. The Ditmar Nominations are open and you and your friends must be prepared!
Now listen, listen closely:
With the Ditmar Nominations open, you and your friends can create a force for good or a force for evil, without the unnecessary and large tax burdens that befall large multinational and evil corporations. Did I say evil? Did I suggest you could be could good? Well, lies, lies and slander. You will be evil! Get used to it! If you win a lot, you will be called A Destructive Influence on Literature, aka Mr or Mrs Grand Evil.
My advice: Get a t-shirt printed with the word Evil on it. That way there will be no confusion at the award ceremony.
Now, you may think that I am not taking this serious, and I say, I say, what kind of words are those? I am advising on how to be a prospective winner of greatness. A t-shirt with the word evil is how you deal with those who slander you. That's how you deal with this kind of business. In fact, get a shirt made not just for you, but for your friends.
Fear not!
The cost will be low.
You will be able to afford banners, even. Being Evil in the Ditmars is not an expensive endevour. While many may suggest that it involves block voting, secret backroom handshakes, and the promises of virginal boys and girls to be served to you in a room of such decadence that the word velvet does not begin to describe it all... well, such suggestions are fanciful. With your friends, with homeless men and women, with teenagers who need booze money, you can organise a ballot in your favour. Evil is cheap! Evil is easy! Don't let people tell you it is hard work, for it is not, it is not, I assure you.
Evil is easy, that is its attraction.
But do not mistake ease for no effort. If you wait until after the ballots, after the awards are actually given and then complain, that is not evil. That is sloth. That is what the good lord has warned us against and you must be vigilant!
Go now!
Go organise yourself!
Form secret groups with secret handshakes! Make private email lists! Whisper into the ears of those you do not respect! Prey on the weak! Promise t-shirts and drinks in a bar in a hotel you don't frequent!
Prepare yourself for evil.
For the Ditmar Awards!
For Controversy!
FOR A T-SHIRT!
Link.
March 14, 2012
800, 000 Is A Very Large Number.
Here's something disturbing:
Link.
CSIRO senior research scientist Dr Paul Fraser says the amount of carbon in the atmosphere has reached 390 parts per million.
"We find no evidence going back 800,000 years of CO2 levels above 300 parts per million," he said.
Dr Breganza says the pace of climate change is alarming.
"In the geological history of earth, global changes of this magnitude happen very rarely," he said.
The report says the projected increases in temperature will lead to floods, droughts, and extreme cyclones.
And it says global sea levels continued to rise, with the CSIRO putting them at 210 millimetres higher than they were in 1880.
Dr Braganza hopes the report will convince people the climate is warming and that the pace of change is worrying.
"Global changes of this magnitude happen very rarely. They happen when asteroids strike, they happen when there's planetary volcanic activity," he said.
"They're happening now because we're digging up fossil fuels and basically burning them all. And we're doing that very, very rapidly.
"And that transition system has a lot of unknowns in it, a lot of nasty surprises."
Link.
March 13, 2012
An Indulgence
The one time poet laureate, Andrew Motion, has written a sequel to Treasure Island entitled Silver, which will be released in August.
I have nothing against Motion, personally, but I must admit I sighed when I read this. It really is comparable to remakes in film, to prequels and sequels of films decades old, and is just another part of the remake generation of artists that I feel we've created and nurtured by allowing them to publish and film and print these half franchised creations. I feel, when I see something like this, that there is a slight on the creativity of the person working the sequel, that they are indulging in a childish indulgence, allowing themselves to create without applying to themselves the strict attention to detail and creativity that creation requires. In short, they are lazy in their intent and their ability.
Still, I suppose now I can write Huck Finn Goes to Hell and make millions.
I have nothing against Motion, personally, but I must admit I sighed when I read this. It really is comparable to remakes in film, to prequels and sequels of films decades old, and is just another part of the remake generation of artists that I feel we've created and nurtured by allowing them to publish and film and print these half franchised creations. I feel, when I see something like this, that there is a slight on the creativity of the person working the sequel, that they are indulging in a childish indulgence, allowing themselves to create without applying to themselves the strict attention to detail and creativity that creation requires. In short, they are lazy in their intent and their ability.
Still, I suppose now I can write Huck Finn Goes to Hell and make millions.
March 7, 2012
The Grand Scheme
My girlfriend's books arrived on Monday and, since then, we have been busy organising everything by the Grand Shelving Scheme. That, if you haven't read the previous entries, is where we shelve authors by their date of birth.
It's been a nice thing to do, despite the sorrow of the last few days. I've learned some fine things about authors, including Patricia Cornwell's obsession with Jack the Ripper and Walter Sickert, including the full page ads she took out after publishing a book claiming to solve the identity of the killer, and the 31 paintings of Sickert she owns (one that she is reported to have destroyed in search of DNA). On top of that, she also has a habit of donating to the Republican Party! There's this cool picture of Zane Grey, which I link for you. Ellery Queen was two cousins who used the same pen name, but the name stopped being used when one of them died. The scientist R. Buckminster Fuller, who, I might add, wrote terrible poetry, lived in poverty in his early thirties.
Ah, I never grow tired of learning these little things. On top of that, there's now complete sets of Coetzee, Atwood, Calvino, and Proust in French in the place, each of them lining the shelves in a number of boxes that the movers compared to a Minister that they had once moved.
March 6, 2012
Memorial Service
Today wasn't quite here, that's how I'm playing it.
In case you haven't seen it, the details on the Paul Haines memorial have been put up by Jules, his wife.
In case you haven't seen it, the details on the Paul Haines memorial have been put up by Jules, his wife.
A Memorial Service will be held for Paul on:
Saturday 10th March, 1pm
382 Waterfall Gully Road, Rosebud
Light refreshments to be served afterward
In lieu of flowers, donations can be made on the day to The Gawler Foundation
Parking strictly on the street.
A private cremation will be held for his immediate family on Friday.
*Please bear in mind that it is a long weekend in Australia this weekend so accommodation on The Mornington Peninsula should be planned as soon as possible.
March 5, 2012
Paul Haines
This morning, my friend Paul Haines died after a long battle with cancer.
It was not unexpected, but it remains incredibly sad. Despite myself, I had hoped for news otherwise. I liked Haines. Everyone I knew liked him, and the loss is great, very much so. We all have to feel that now, for in death, it becomes the experience of those alive, their loss, their grief, that is felt. For Haines, the long struggle is over.
Over the weekend, I read 'Wives', one of Haines' last pieces, a large novella that was rightfully well spoken of by a number of people. Set in an Australian outback crumbling to drought, poverty, and a huge gender imbalance, 'Wives' is everything that Haines' body of work had promised: dark, satirical, powerful. It follows a young man, Jimbo, as the cousin he loves moves away, and he and his friends search for a woman and happiness. Haines' Jimbo is at the centre of the piece, a character always on the verge of self conscious realisation of what he is doing, his seething resentment and anger dulling his acknowledgment of his life, from the way he treats women, his future, and the relationships of his family around him. As the story unfolds, Jimbo's anger seeps through the story, and Haines winds him tighter and tighter, leaving him for the moment where he will break, where violence will erupt from him. Yet, even here, at the climax of the story, Haines doesn't relent, and he plays the hand Jimbo has been dealt to the final card.
It is, I think, one of the finest pieces of speculative fiction to come out of Australia in the last decade. Constructed from the mythology of the Australian male, laced with the racial and gender issues that lurk throughout the nation, and a use of Australian slang that is entirely uncommerical and unwanted in today's market, 'Wives' is a triumph, a dark, satirical piece that could very well be called the centre of Paul Haines' body of work.
Man, I am going to miss you, Haines.
***
I interviewed Haines twice. The first time was in 2005, when I interviewed a lot of Australian authors. Then, Haines was just getting his name, emerging on the scene after the first Clarion in Queensland.
The second time was in 2010. Haines had a second collection out, a third on the way, and he was fighting cancer, even then. I was never real happy with all the interviews I did back in 2005--due to their nature, you never had a chance to get any real depth out of them--and Haines was always more interesting than that short part he got, and so, I asked him if he wanted to have another tilt. I still don't think the interview does him justice, and perhaps this is why I only ever did three.
Paul Haines, 2010.
***
You can buy Haines' collections, still. In many ways I am talking about his work here because, if you don't know him, then this is all you will know of him now--and it is the work he left behind, what we have to share with those who did not know him.
But if you knew him...
Years ago, Haines tossed me an invite to the private music file share, Oink, about six months before the Police raided the UK, I believe, and shutdown the offices. I always imagined them raiding his house for all his illegal objects and chuckled, while wondering about mine. Of course, what came out of that was the discovery that a large portion of the people using it were musicians. I guess the writers didn't number enough to be noted. We shared a publisher in Prime Books and would swap stories about the experience, though his was much worse than mine. We'd talk about books and music and movies. Occasionally, we'd gossip. Sometimes, I wrote to him about a story I read of his, or he mine, or he asked me to critique something he had written. He would always tell me he appreciated my feedback on his own fiction, because I was 'such a hard taskmaster'.
And I always thought that he didn't need to hear anything I said.
Goodbye, Paul.
It was not unexpected, but it remains incredibly sad. Despite myself, I had hoped for news otherwise. I liked Haines. Everyone I knew liked him, and the loss is great, very much so. We all have to feel that now, for in death, it becomes the experience of those alive, their loss, their grief, that is felt. For Haines, the long struggle is over.
Over the weekend, I read 'Wives', one of Haines' last pieces, a large novella that was rightfully well spoken of by a number of people. Set in an Australian outback crumbling to drought, poverty, and a huge gender imbalance, 'Wives' is everything that Haines' body of work had promised: dark, satirical, powerful. It follows a young man, Jimbo, as the cousin he loves moves away, and he and his friends search for a woman and happiness. Haines' Jimbo is at the centre of the piece, a character always on the verge of self conscious realisation of what he is doing, his seething resentment and anger dulling his acknowledgment of his life, from the way he treats women, his future, and the relationships of his family around him. As the story unfolds, Jimbo's anger seeps through the story, and Haines winds him tighter and tighter, leaving him for the moment where he will break, where violence will erupt from him. Yet, even here, at the climax of the story, Haines doesn't relent, and he plays the hand Jimbo has been dealt to the final card.
It is, I think, one of the finest pieces of speculative fiction to come out of Australia in the last decade. Constructed from the mythology of the Australian male, laced with the racial and gender issues that lurk throughout the nation, and a use of Australian slang that is entirely uncommerical and unwanted in today's market, 'Wives' is a triumph, a dark, satirical piece that could very well be called the centre of Paul Haines' body of work.
Man, I am going to miss you, Haines.
***
I interviewed Haines twice. The first time was in 2005, when I interviewed a lot of Australian authors. Then, Haines was just getting his name, emerging on the scene after the first Clarion in Queensland.
The second time was in 2010. Haines had a second collection out, a third on the way, and he was fighting cancer, even then. I was never real happy with all the interviews I did back in 2005--due to their nature, you never had a chance to get any real depth out of them--and Haines was always more interesting than that short part he got, and so, I asked him if he wanted to have another tilt. I still don't think the interview does him justice, and perhaps this is why I only ever did three.
Paul Haines, 2010.
***
You can buy Haines' collections, still. In many ways I am talking about his work here because, if you don't know him, then this is all you will know of him now--and it is the work he left behind, what we have to share with those who did not know him.
But if you knew him...
Years ago, Haines tossed me an invite to the private music file share, Oink, about six months before the Police raided the UK, I believe, and shutdown the offices. I always imagined them raiding his house for all his illegal objects and chuckled, while wondering about mine. Of course, what came out of that was the discovery that a large portion of the people using it were musicians. I guess the writers didn't number enough to be noted. We shared a publisher in Prime Books and would swap stories about the experience, though his was much worse than mine. We'd talk about books and music and movies. Occasionally, we'd gossip. Sometimes, I wrote to him about a story I read of his, or he mine, or he asked me to critique something he had written. He would always tell me he appreciated my feedback on his own fiction, because I was 'such a hard taskmaster'.
And I always thought that he didn't need to hear anything I said.
Goodbye, Paul.
March 2, 2012
After Birth Abortion: A Response to the Essay by Alberto Guibilini and Francesca Minerva
I read an essay today in the Journal of Medical Ethics trying to discuss the morals of killing new born babies under the term After-Birth Abortion.
It's a tough read, and you have to step back from it to see the real, fundamental flaws in it.
On a first reading, the essay does a terrible number on abortion, euthanasia, and various research into stem cells and embryos, and undoubtedly, this essay will be quoted to support people who have stances against those things. Alberto Guibilini and Francesca Minerva do a terrible job of arguing their point cleanly, or clearly, and fail to present if they are positioning their idea on a legal, ethical, or medical basis. For example, when they make the point that, "medical professionals have recognised the need for guidelines about cases in which death seems to be in the best interest of the child. In The Netherlands, for instance, the Groningen Protocol (2002) allows to actively terminate the life of 'infants with a hopeless prognosis who experience what parents and medical experts deem to be unbearable suffering'" they're on an interesting, solid ground, but they soon deviate into elements of economics and mental fitness that at the base of it, become an argument for Eugenics.
Their argument ultimately becomes that if you don't meet what society claims is a healthy child, either through mental or physical disability, then the parent ought to be able to terminate the life of their newly born child because, in these first hours or days of life, the child has not yet formed a personality or a set of goals. The essay makes a point of saying that people with down syndrome have, through research, been found to be happy by and large--but, there is also the truth that those with down syndrome are prone to disease and do cost a lot of money. But, with the argument presented by the authors, there is the hint, the suggestion that these people are not fit to be in society, that they are an unnecessary burden, a weight that a healthy and strong society does not need. When the pair begin arguing that mothers who don't feel they can economically or emotionally provide for a healthy child, much less a mentally ill one, they begin to skid off into a whole series of questions that they don't begin to raise or answer, on just who or what decides what is economically viable and emotionally stable to do so. Nor do they even begin to address self responsibility and societal responsibility.
That's the problem with this essay. Don't let the angry baby killing thing lead you in the wrong direction. The essay is not well argued, it's not well thought out, and it's doing an active disservice to pro-choice. Which, given that it is an essay about the ethics of killing a newborn child and names it 'after birth abortion' could very well be its purpose.
Failing to bring a new person into existence cannot be compared with the wrong caused by procuring the death of an existing person. The reason is that, unlike the case of death of an existing person, failing to bring a new person into existence does not prevent anyone from accomplishing any of her future aims. However, this consideration entails a much stronger idea than the one according to which severely handicapped children should be euthanised. If the death of a newborn is not wrongful to her on the grounds that she cannot have formed any aim that she is prevented from accomplishing, then it should also be permissible to practise an after-birth abortion on a healthy newborn too, given that she has not formed any aim yet.
There are two reasons which, taken together, justify this claim:
The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus, that is, neither can be considered a 'person' in a morally relevant sense.
It is not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense.
We are going to justify these two points in the following two sections.
It's a tough read, and you have to step back from it to see the real, fundamental flaws in it.
On a first reading, the essay does a terrible number on abortion, euthanasia, and various research into stem cells and embryos, and undoubtedly, this essay will be quoted to support people who have stances against those things. Alberto Guibilini and Francesca Minerva do a terrible job of arguing their point cleanly, or clearly, and fail to present if they are positioning their idea on a legal, ethical, or medical basis. For example, when they make the point that, "medical professionals have recognised the need for guidelines about cases in which death seems to be in the best interest of the child. In The Netherlands, for instance, the Groningen Protocol (2002) allows to actively terminate the life of 'infants with a hopeless prognosis who experience what parents and medical experts deem to be unbearable suffering'" they're on an interesting, solid ground, but they soon deviate into elements of economics and mental fitness that at the base of it, become an argument for Eugenics.
Their argument ultimately becomes that if you don't meet what society claims is a healthy child, either through mental or physical disability, then the parent ought to be able to terminate the life of their newly born child because, in these first hours or days of life, the child has not yet formed a personality or a set of goals. The essay makes a point of saying that people with down syndrome have, through research, been found to be happy by and large--but, there is also the truth that those with down syndrome are prone to disease and do cost a lot of money. But, with the argument presented by the authors, there is the hint, the suggestion that these people are not fit to be in society, that they are an unnecessary burden, a weight that a healthy and strong society does not need. When the pair begin arguing that mothers who don't feel they can economically or emotionally provide for a healthy child, much less a mentally ill one, they begin to skid off into a whole series of questions that they don't begin to raise or answer, on just who or what decides what is economically viable and emotionally stable to do so. Nor do they even begin to address self responsibility and societal responsibility.
That's the problem with this essay. Don't let the angry baby killing thing lead you in the wrong direction. The essay is not well argued, it's not well thought out, and it's doing an active disservice to pro-choice. Which, given that it is an essay about the ethics of killing a newborn child and names it 'after birth abortion' could very well be its purpose.
