Jamie Todd Rubin's Blog, page 368
December 17, 2010
Economics
I've never gotten economics. It's one of those subjects which my simple brain isn't designed to handle. Economists are like mystics in my mind. I mention this as a preface to what follows because you have to know where I'm coming from. Yes, I took an economics class back in college. No, I didn't do well in it. (D+ and that was after reading the text book cover-to-cover and attending every lecture.)
I am confused by the new tax deal. Or perhaps, more accurately, I am confused by the motives behind it. From what I do understand, it extends the tax cuts put in place by Bush for another 2 years. It extends those tax cuts for everyone, regardless of how much money you make. Taxes aren't going down for anyone, they are just not going back up to where they were. Presumably, this means that people will have more money in their paychecks than they would have if the bill was not passed.
So here are my thoughts on these economic matters:
Save, spend, or…? What is it exactly that we are supposed to do with this "extra" money that we will have in 2011? I realize that we can do with it whatever we want, but certainly the federal government had something in mind. My guess is that we are supposed to spend this money and therefore further stimulate the economy. But according to the folks at CreditCards.com, the average American household carries $15,788 in credit card debt at an average interest rate of 14.35%. So wouldn't it make sense to pay down some of that debt, as opposed to save or spent the "extra" money? Getting rid of that debt at those high interest rates could ultimately result in more money in each paycheck, since a big hunk of it wouldn't be going to credit debt, right?
Allowing the tax cuts to expire isn't really a tax increase. I understand that politics is all about framing the issue and those supporting the new tax deal have made it clear that a vote against it is a vote for tax increases. But strictly speaking, it is not a tax increase, but merely restoring income taxes to the levels they were at prior to Bush cutting them. Do people really believe that taxes can continue to be cut without ever going up?
Corporations and governments face budget cuts, why not people? If the tax bill did not pass, people's taxes would go up next year meaning they would have less money in their paycheck than they had this year. Another way to look at this is a budget cut. Families have budgets (or should, it seems to me). Knowing ahead of time that you'll have less money to spend in the coming year is like knowing that your budget is going to be cut, and people can (or should) plan accordingly. The problem is, I think, people don't want to cut their spending in proportion to the money they take home. They don't want to switch to a cheaper data plan, or cancel cable television for the year, or put off buying the new flat panel TV. In short, people don't want to–
Make sacrifices. Despite phrases like "tough economic times" and "worst economy since the great depression", people don't seem to want to make sacrifices in the style of living they have become accustomed to. People don't want to make cuts in things like cable, or televisions, or iPads or new cars. People generally seem unwilling to make these sacrifices. But if you go without a vacation for the year; or if you put off buying a new car; or if you stop buying name brands for the year, those savings can add up. Sure, you make a sacrifice, but presumably, so is everyone else and the money that could have been used to maintain the tax cuts can be used for things like paying down the debt and improving government services–like education, for instance.
But what about people who are already at their limit? If the tax bill didn't pass, there would many people who wouldn't be able to pay their bills, and have nothing left to sacrifice. They wouldn't be able to pay their mortgage, or would have to decide between paying tuition or paying for health insurance. We need to be sure that we can help those most in need but there is no easy way to do this because even people who make a lot of money will come out of the woodwork claiming, ridiculously, that they are in need, too. Perhaps an exception could be made for people in these circumstances. The sacrifices of others would allow these people to continue at a lower tax rate while everyone else's is returned to what it was before the Bush tax cuts. But that probably isn't realistic. People these day seem too selfish for this kind of altruism.
What's the big deal about the middle class? If I were cynical, the only important thing about the "middle class" is that they are the largest voting base out there. That is because that almost everyone thinks of themselves as middle class. (I suspect that is why subclasses evolved in the first place, so that some people will say "lower-middle" while others say "upper-middle".) Saying that you are going to extend tax cuts to the middle class is a political way of saying you are going to extend tax cuts to just about everyone. And everyone who gets a tax cut is therefore defined as middle-class going forward, which is right where they want to be.
Is this really just some kind of accepted bribery? Okay, the real cynic in me has to ask this question. Because Americans tend to be issue voters and rarely see the big picture, is an extension of the tax cut really nothing more than a bribe for votes. "I'll let you keep an extra $3,000 dollars in your paychecks next year, if you vote for me in 2012." And by "me" I mean anyone who voted for the bill, Democrat, Republican, or Independent. It's a kind of quid pro quo that is accepted at face value.
The truth is–for me–I'd be fine paying more taxes next year (I won't say "happy") if it meant that my little boy would have a more economically sound future–and economically sound government. Because when all is said an done, this tax bill simply defers the inevitable. The government is adding to its credit card debt and since we all make up the government ("of the people, by the people, for the people") we will eventually have to pay that debt. And if we don't pay it our children will, or our grandchildren, or suffer the consequences. That's not what I want to see for my little boy, and so I would have accepted a resumption of the previous tax levels with what grace I could muster, knowing that I would be helping to close the government deficit, not increase it.
But like I said, Americans generally don't look at the big picture. We can barely think to the next paycheck let alone the next generation.
I imagine there will be people who criticize this position as typical of one party or another. (I am a life-long Democrat, but to be honest, even I am not certain what party these economic opinions of mine represent.) But in my mind, they are the most rational opinions one can hold while looking at the big picture. People may not be willing to make sacrifices for their fellow citizens. But have we gotten to the point where we are not willing to make sacrifices for our own future–and our children's future–either?
Carl, Isaac, and Martin
14 years ago today, I began reading Carl Sagan's book, The Demon-Haunted World, after reading an excerpt of it in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN. Three days later, I learned that Sagan had died and it was a sad day for me and for the cause of science and rationality as a whole. I wrote about this a few years ago, but I was thinking about it this morning, especially in light of my recent post on Isaac Asimov's science essays.
Isaac Asimov, Carl Sagan, and Martin Gardner formed a kind of intellectual triad for me, people who I admired for many reasons, but especially for their promotion and defense of reason, rationality and science in an increasingly scientifically-illiterate world. (Stephen Jay Gould and James Randi formed a kind of second tier to this list as well.) It's rather depressing to think that of the five men, only one of them (Randi) lives on. It's even sadder to me when I realize that there really hasn't been anyone of equal intellectual courage to take up their fight.
January 12 talk on science fiction at the Arlington Writers Group
On January 12, I will be giving a talk on science fiction for members of the Arlington Writers Group. This is the first time I'll be doing something like this and I am both excited and nervous about it. We critique stories every other week. On the alternate weeks, we have some kind of discussion or talk. In the past (before I was a member) people have given talks on other genres (Romance, for example). These talks are supposed to be designed to give people an idea of what the genre is about, especially those who are not familiar with it. My talk is blurbed as follows:
Celebrated science fiction writer and group member Jamie Todd Rubin will lead a discussion of his favorite genre.
We'll examine the history of science fiction writing, the tenets of the genre, and Jamie will introduce us to some favorite works by authors we may know. He'll also introduce us to writers in the field we've maybe never heard of.
And no, I did not write the blurb. Our Fearless Leader deserves credit for that.
I have a rough idea for my talk and I'm beginning to shape it up. My biggest concern is making the talk interesting, even to those who don't know anything about science fiction–or better yet, those who don't really like the genre for one reason or another. We'll see how it goes.
And we may even have a Special Guest in attendance for the event…
If any of my science fiction friends (particularly those who have given talks on the subject before) have advice for me, I would be in your debt and very much appreciate your wisdom.
December 16, 2010
(Almost) Everything I learned about science I learned from Isaac Asimov
Two nights ago I braved the bitterly cold weather to check the mail. When I got outside, I looked up into a midnight blue sky, crystal clear in the cold air with stars shimmering brightly, and immediately saw a meteor disintegrate in the upper atmosphere. I remembered then that it was about the time of the Germinid meteor shower. I craned my neck back hoping to catch sight of another meteor, but that was it, the only one I saw. I was too cold to stand out there looking any longer. I ran to the mailbox, grabbed the mail, and came back into the warm house, stamping the cold out of my feet.
Looking up into that night sky reminded me of the sense of wonder that I felt when I looked up into a similar sky three decades earlier and realized for the first time that those lights in the sky I was seeing were actually distant suns, and that some of them were even planets. I was six or seven at the time. My parents bought me a telescope and I frustrated the librarians of the Franklin Township Public Library by repeatedly checking out the same book over and over again, The Nine Planets by Franklyn Mansfield Branley. It was my introduction to science.
I never learned about the Germinid meteor shower in any of my schooling. Instead, I learned about it and about meteor showers in general through Isaac Asimov's science essays that appeared monthly in The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction. The first of Asimov's science essays appeared in the November 1958 issue (of which I happen to posses a copy).
Those monthly science columns continued unabated for 399 consecutive months. (And eventually, Isaac's wife, Janet, put together a 400th column after his death.) The essays were collected in more than two dozen books. The columns themselves ranged through all realms of science, and occasionally into philosophy and humanities. They were written in Asimov's familiar colloquial style, making it easy for anyone to approach even arcane subjects. I devoured every one of those essays and it is from those essays that I truly believe that I learned nearly everything I know about science today.
Don't get me wrong: I did learn some science in school. Prior to junior high school, I have little memory of any specific science lessons. In high school, I took AP biology, chemistry (for some reason the AP version was not offered), and AP physics. In biology, I learned about things like the Krebs cycle and the basics of genetics and inheritance, and cellular anatomy. This was essentially rote memorization and despite being an "advanced placement" class, I was more or less taking the teacher's word on these things. From Isaac Asimov, I learned much more. I learned, for instance, how the Krebs cycle was discovered, which fixed it much more clearly in my mind. I learned the fascinating story of Gregor Mendel and how he discovered the laws of inheritance and how they were then lost to science for another generation.
In high school chemistry (and later, in college general and organic chemistry), I memorized the periodic table and was taught how to balance chemical formulas. Isaac Asimov taught me how Dmitri Mendeleev developed the period table and how he predicted the properties of elements long before they were ever discovered. The insights this gave me into chemistry went far beyond anything I learned in my formal classes. In his essay "Life's Bottleneck" (F&SF, April 1959) he taught me biochemistry in a way that showed the precarious balance of nature and how remarkable it was that just the right conditions existed to support life.
I grew to love physics when I took AP physics in high school with Dr. Goldman, who was one of the few good explainers of science I've run into. Still, while I learned equations for light and magnetism in his class, Isaac Asimov made such subjects come to life in a practical way for me with essays like "The Bridge of the Gods" (F&SF, March 1975) about rainbows, refraction and light, and his essay "Four Hundred Octaves" (F&SF, June 1982) on the physics of light. He was the Great Explainer and it was from essays like "The Man Who Massed the Earth" (F&SF, September 1969) that I learned that science was a continually evolving thing. It's one thing to learn that the Earth weighs 5.9×10^24 kilograms. It's something else to learn just how scientists figured that out. The former I learned in school; the latter I learned from Isaac Asimov.
Asimov's essays taught me not only the hows and whys of science, they taught me the history of science. Taken together, anyone who reads all 399 F&SF science essays can't miss certain patterns in logic and reasoning, can't miss the evolution of thought and experiment. The essays taught me that scientists were real men and women. Essays like "The Isaac Winner's" (July 1963) highlighted the triumphs of some of the most remarkable scientists of all time. Other essays taught me that even scientists can make mistakes, can be wrong, and that a whole premise of the scientific method is to look for holes in theories, and to revise hypotheses as new data is accumulated.
Occasionally, Asimov's science essayed ventured into the truly remarkable (in my opinion). His essay, "I'm Looking Over a Four-Leaf Clover" (F&SF, September 1966) was a remarkably original (at the time) approach to cosmology. His essays like "The Height of Up" (F&SF, October 1959) looked at how far away things could be and asked if there were limits. He had other essays that looked at the smallest possible sizes, or the hottest possible temperature.
His essays on math and numbers fixed certain concepts more firmly in my mind than any trigonometry or algebra class ever did. His essay "Exclamation Point!" (F&SF, 1965) taught me factorials in a far better way than any of my math teachers. Essays like "The Ultimate Split of the Second" and "The Week Excuse" (F&SF, June 1972) taught me about time and calendars in an original an vivid way.
Sometimes, Asimov's essays ventured out from the realm of pure science and in most of these cases, the results were among some of the best nonfiction writing I've encountered. His essay "Thinking About Thinking" (F&SF, January 1975) talked about the value (or lack thereof) of intelligence tests. His essay, "Crowded!" introduced me to the population problem. And one of his most remarkable essays, "The Ancient and the Ultimate" (F&SF, January 1973) looked at the evolution of books.
Reading his essays on quasars and lunar eclipses and the tallest mountains and longest rivers sparked my imagination and my sense of wonder about the universe and probably have as much to do with my love of science fiction as his science fiction does. It was from Isaac Asimov that I learned things like the square-cube law, transfinite math, and compound math, things never covered in any of my high school textbooks.
Today, only a few of these essays are truly dated. Some facts have changed because science evolves, but the core is still valid and the history that these essays provides is an invaluable tool for understanding the cumulative nature of science. Seven of these early essays were never put into any collections, and there were six or seven that Asimov wrote before his death that have not, to my knowledge, been collected either. Perhaps I am a lone voice in the wilderness here, but I think it's high time that a newly reissued compendium of all of Isaac Asimov's F&SF science essays be put together and re-released. There is an audience of millions of school-aged children who are not getting adequate science educations out there and such a reissue could provide them (especially those curious ones) the additional nourishment they are lacking. And besides, there are any number of adults who might be interested in such a reissue as well.
There are some good science writers out there today, but none of them, in my opinion, come close to capturing full sweep of science, history, and sense of wonder that the Good Doctor did for more than thirty years in his essays in F&SF. When I say that I learned nearly everything I know about science from Isaac Asimov, I am not kidding.
Shouldn't we make this knowledge available to kids (and grownups) today?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitri_Mendeleev
December 15, 2010
My upcoming writing projects
I now have my writing projects scheduled out through February 2011 (I think). They are all short fiction and for those interested they are:
Story #8 for 2010: finishing up (and cutting) my first attempt at a (humorous) zombie story (although the word zombie is never used). I'm hoping to get a draft of this completed by the end of the weekend.
Story #9 for 2010: this one is hard to describe, but let's call it a near-future technophile/technophobe story with what I think is a fairly clever title. I've got three or four scenes written so far and I'm hoping to finish this one up while on vacation.
Story #1 for 2011: My first novella in quite some time. I'm cannibalizing the first part of my NaNoWriMo novel, rewriting it, cutting it from 34,000 to around 20,000 words for what I think will be a fun and exciting space opera. I'm aiming to have this one finished by the end of January.
Story #2 for 2011: A science fiction mystery a la Jack McDevitt involving what I think is a very cool mystery and an even cooler resolution to the mystery. I'm hoping to have this one wrapped up by the end of February.
In the meantime, I still have 3 stories out at various markets and I think all three of stories are pretty good ones. They are also 3 distinct genres: one is a straight mystery; another is a fantasy; and the third is a science fiction mystery. Two of the three stories have been out for a very long time and I expect to hear back on them soon. What I will add is that I think I have a better chance than at any time in the past at selling not just one of these, but all three, as they represent the culmination of a lot of practice on my part and I think they are good efforts, especially the science fiction mystery which is among one of the best stories I've written so far, in my opinion.
Tenetative convention schedule for 2011
As I mentioned in my previous post, here is my tentative convention schedule for 2011. Obviously this can change, but this is where I am planning on being:
RavenCon (Richmond, VA), April 8-10
Nebula Awards Weekend (Washington, DC), May 19-22
Balticon (Baltimore, MD), May 27-30
Readercon (Burlington, MA), July 14-17
Capclave (Rockville, MD), October 14-16
I still have yet to attend either a WorldCon or a World Fantasy Convention but the timing for each of these doesn't work for me this year. I do plan on being at Chicon in 2012. I am also going to try to make it to the SFWA Author & Editors reception again in 2011, if I can manage it.
Writing goals for 2011
While there are still 16 days left in 2010, I thought now would be a good time to get my writing goals for 2011 down on paper. A number of factors have influenced the goals for 2011:
My goals for 2010 were very aggressive
I realized that I am not yet ready to write novels
I had some incremental successes with short fiction this year
I won't write up the final review of my progress (my "annual report") for 2010 until the year is over. I still have some stories out and there is still a chance those stories can sell (or be rejected) before the end of the year.
2011 will be a Year of Short Fiction for me. If I had to craft a mission statement for the year, it would be as follows:
To become better recognized as a writer of quality science fiction stories; someone to keep an eye on.
With that as my mission statement, here are my writing goals for 2011:
1. Make 3 short fiction sales to professional markets
In 2010, my goal was to make 5 story sales, 3 of which were to be to professional markets. This was an unrealistic goal, but it set a baseline for me and after a year with this goal, I think that 3 short fiction sales to professional markets is much more reasonable, especially after my sale to Analog. I do feel like the quality of my stories have been improving and by focusing on short fiction this year, I hope to improve further. Here are some of the ways that I plan to do this:
Write 12 new stories in 2011. I need a bit of a stretch goal and this is it. I will likely finish 2010 having written 8 or 9 new stories, far better than anything I have done in the past. 12 stories isn't too much of a stretch because I also spent an entire month of 2010 writing 61,000 words of a novel. Replace that time with more story writing and I think this is a challenging, but achievable objective. This also means I can pace things at roughly 1 new story each month which helps for planning purposes and sets a somewhat arbitrary deadline for each story to keep me focused. And for me, a month is generally enough time to produce a story of modest length.
Aim for 30 submissions. This is less than a third of what I aimed for in 2010, but what I aimed for in 2010 was not set realistically. For one thing, I didn't consider response times. But I am also hoping that as the quality of my stories improve, they will have to see fewer markets before they are accepted. I made 24 submissions in 2010 and so 30 seems like a reasonable increase. And 3 sales means a 10% hit rate. Also, there have been new markets introduced in 2010 that should becoming "professional" markets in 2011–places like Lightspeed, Redstone, and Daily SF, for instance.
Continue to improve the quality of the stories I write. I feel like my stories are getting better and practice makes perfect. But I hope to improve in other ways as well. I hope to receive more editorial feedback on stories and learn from that. And I will continue to submit stories for critique to the Arlington Writers Group and to my first readers in hopes of getting more feedback and learning from that as well. Finally, I plan on making more of an effort to read more short fiction as it appears than I currently read.
2. Earn at least 1 positive review for a published story
Since my overall mission is to become better recognized as a short fiction writer to keep an eye on, it would make sense that I'd hope to earn at least 1 positive review for my published fiction. This, however, is almost entirely out of my hand and is thus a very tricky goal to meet. Nevertheless, if I can continue to improve the quality of my writing and my stories, then it seems like a positive review is inevitable. But I sure would like to see one in 2011.
3. Attend at least 1 convention as a partipant
I managed to attend 2 conventions and one social function related to the science fiction world in 2010. In all of these–with the possible exception of the SFWA Author & Editor reception–I attended as a fan. And as I have stated elsewhere on this blog, I still think of myself as a fan first and a writer second, but in the coming year, I'd like the science fiction world to begin to recognize me more as a writer and to that end, I feel as if I need to increase my participation in the machinery of science fiction. One of the things that I can do is to try to attend a convention as a participant, on who sits on panels or gives readings.
I have already sent a request to be a participant at one convention in 2011 and I am waiting to hear back.
I plan on attending at least 5 science fiction events in 2011, which I will detail in a subsequent post and for one or two of these events I will also attempt to participate as a panelist.
The trick here is that, once again, this is largely outside of my control. I can send email messages and offer myself as a potential participant and panelist, but if I have not yet really made a name for myself in the field, than, well, why should I be picked, quite frankly. Attending a convention as a panelist, therefore, is more a barometer to my growing renown in our small field. (So that a future goal in years to come might be to be invited to participate in one or more conventions–as opposed to begging.)
4. Continue to expand and enhance my network
Aside from writing stories, the one other area that I have full control over is marketing myself and expanding my network. Last year, my objectives in this area included attending more conventions and attempting to participate more in the machinery of the science fiction world. I think I made some good strides, but I think some of those objectives were not specific and focused enough. In 2011 I am aiming for more specific things:
Triple the traffic to my website by providing more relevant content, more frequently. This means more content about science fiction and writing. It means getting some external recognition of the stuff that I post, either through science fiction news sites or Twitter retweets, or word of mouth. I'm not looking to become John Scalzi's Whatever, but if I can go from an average of 35 hits/day to an average of 100 hits/day, I think that will be a good sign of success in this endeavor.
Attend more science fiction events. I mentioned this above. I attended 3 events in 2010 and I plan on attending at least 5 in 2011 (and at least one as a participant). I'll be posting about this later on.
Become more involved with SFWA. I am now a full active member of Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America. I have been a volunteer for more than a year, but I would like to look for ways to become more involved, especially if they line up with some of my other goals and objectives.
Pay it forward. That is a tenant of the science fiction world. I have been extremely fortunate to have people who have–out of nothing more than the kindness of their hearts–help propel my career as a science fiction writer forward. If I had the opportunity to do the same for others–especially new writers, I would love to be able to do this.
Establishing goals at the beginning of the year is important. If I hadn't done it last year, I don't think I would have written nearly as much as I did, which would have kept me from the practice I needed to continue to improve my craft and may very well have meant being rejected from Analog instead of selling a story there. Of course, the goals for last year were unrealistic, but I've learned from that, too, and I hope I have set more realistic goals for this year. (And I should learn from these and set even better goals in 2012.)
I am very comfortable with the notion of focusing the entire year on short fiction, improving my skills there, and making a name for myself in that arena. I love short fiction. I recognize that most people cannot come close to making a living as a writer of short science fiction, but I am not trying to make a living at it. I am trying to write quality stories that entertain people and maybe make them think–the kind of stories that I love to read.
December 14, 2010
High-five!
The Little Man loves giving high-fives. I suppose this is true of any little boy. When we were at his Parents Night last week, he went around the entire circle of people until each and every one of them had given him a high-five. You see, once you ask for a high-five from the Little Man, it won't stop until he is certain that everyone within his sight has also gotten a high-five. Really it's rather sweet.
But the most hilarious example came last night, and although this will sound made-up, I assure you that it is not. Some background: one of the Little Man's newer words is "baby", which he pronounces as "bobby". If he sees a baby, he will point and say, "Bobby!" If he sees himself–say, in a photograph–he will do the same thing.
So last night we were up in the master bathroom. The Little Man had done something particularly amusing and I turned to him, picked him up and said, "High-five!" He got a big smile on his face and proceeded to produce a most excellent example of a high-five. He then immediately looked around, as is his wont, to see if there was anyone else he could high-five.
But you're ahead of me. He caught a glimpse of himself in the mirror, leaned out over the sink and give his reflection a most excellent high-five, a look of pure, gleeful satisfaction on his face as he did.
I could barely contain my laughter and nearly stumbled down the stairs as I rushed to the kitchen to report the incident to Kelly.
Falls Church tops Nation in Median Income and Ratio of College Grads
I came across this story in the Falls Church News-Press today. We live in Falls Church (although technically not the City of Falls Church). I wouldn't think of Falls Church as a place with the highest median income or the highest ratio of college grads, but what do I know; we've only lived here just over a year.
When connected is too connected
I hate to bring this up again, but it's been happening more and more and I just don't completely understand it. Just about every time I go into the men's room at work and someone else happens to be in there, that someone else happens also to be busy on their mobile device. At first, you could hear the soft clicking keys of a BlackBerry emanated from within a stall (in and among other sounds). That someone can't even go to the can without having to read and reply to email messages is a bit disturbing. But it is at least somewhat understandable. I mean, you're sitting there right, your hands a free and you've got a few moments on your hand. Why not?
But then, I walked into the men's room the other day and found myself standing at the urinal beside a fellow who was texting or IMing and emailing on his BlackBerry at the urinal next to me. He was doing this with two hands, unashamed, while emptying his bladder. Some might call this multitasking. But come on, I mean there is a line right? There is a point at which the IM or the text message or the email can wait the 60 seconds or so it takes to relieve yourself. No text message is so urgent that it must be coterminous with expulsion of the morning coffee, right? This is the part that I just don't get. This is the part that seems to me to be too connected. And I wonder if this is just a guy thing. Do women find the same thing going on in their restrooms? (Granted, women don't have urinals in their restrooms, but those BlackBerry keyboards are surprisingly noisy. My guess would be that they do not do this–at least not as frequently.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got to run to the john. Someone just texted me and I've got two more emails to reply to.
