Steven Lyle Jordan's Blog, page 12

The Malaise

A week after I released Defiance of the Concorde, I took a peek at the sales reports… and was incredibly disheartened by the sad response of my work.  It put me in a malaise that I’ve felt before; I’ve never had good sales of my books, no matter the subject or my efforts to promote it.

When I mentioned this on an author promotion site, I was asked by two posters what I did to market my book.  After a few days to collect myself, I wrote:

So, what have I been doing? Well, there’s spending time on sci-fi related Facebook pages and web forums for the past 2 decades (presently a member of 18 FB pages), where I participate in discussions, occasionally start them, post articles from my blog, and occasionally promote a book where I am allowed;

There’s my blog, on which I discuss matters of science and science fiction, as well as my books, and which has been around for 15+ years in one form or another;

There’s been direct marketing of the Kestral series on FB, Twitter and my blog, starting with a rewrite and repackaging of the first book, which I offered to readers for free for 6 months;

There’s the Mailchimp newsletter, promoting the blog and the books, and in which I offered the free book with sign-ups, and encouraged my readers to forward to their friends (they did not);

There’s Read an Ebook Week, in which I have supported and created graphics for Rita Toews and the REBW website for over 5 years;

There’s the mailing list which I built during a Read an Ebook Week promotion, in which I offered free ebooks and built a group of free book downloaders of about 180, but who, by and large, never bought any for-sale books;

There’s at least half a dozen agent queries over the past 20 years, of which I’ve gotten 0 replies;

There’s the 5-year effort to cultivate more prominent names in SF to my blog and FB page, hoping to get some cross-promo or at least buzz going, as suggested by this site, 20BooksTo50K, and others (never got a one);

There’s the snazzy new covers, created by myself for the re-released books since I can’t afford pro artists;

There’s the rewrites and edits, done by myself (since I also can’t afford an editor);

There’s beta readers on two books, none of which generated comments to improve the book, and only one of which generated reviews on Amazon (which resulted in no sales);

There’s the contests entered, occasionally winning something, which likewise never created a buzz;

There were the 2 conventions that I attended as a speaker–likewise, no buzz;

And all the things that I couldn’t do beyond those listed above, because I have a day job and bills.

Hope that helps. (It obviously didn’t help me.)

After I wrote all this, I stopped, reread it, and realized I could only come to one conclusion:  I am, and have always been, a completely incompetent independent author, because I cannot sell my books.  After putting a few thousand hours in, conceptualizing, outlining, writing, editing and rewriting, proofing, formatting for production, cover creating, marketing, delivery to multiple channels, and promotion of my book… I was rewarded in my debut week with fewer sales than I have fingers on my hands.  I was painfully reminded that I will never have the friends, connections, savvy, money, time or, hell, even the inclination to do all the things I’d apparently need to do to sell my books and make—honestly—a fraction of what I earn on my day job.

Of course, I’d come to that conclusion years ago… this was not news.  It simply is what it is.  But unlike past realizations, I’ve finally come to accept it.

So what now, after releasing another novel that has, as usual, utterly failed as a product?  Well, you can assume there won’t be any more novels.  You can also assume that any plans I had to update and re-release any existing novels are now off.

But you can also assume I’ve come to these decisions before.  And in the past, I’ve reversed these decisions after a time.  I’ve gotten over my malaise.  I’ve kept believing next time would be different.  Why?  Because I’m a moron.

So there’s probably nothing to worry about.  I’ll probably get over it and write another book.

Yeah.  Probably.  Eventually.

And who knows?  Maybe I’ll make more sales than I can count on two hands.  I may even get to use my thumbs.

Whatever.

The Return of Captain Kestral

July 1, 2018 marks the return of Captain Carolyn Kestral and the release of her new adventure, Defiance of the Concorde.  It’s officially the second story in the Kestral Voyages books, taking place after Race to Deep Abignon and before The Lens (which is currently in the process of being revised and re-released later in 2018).  Defiance of the Concorde and Race to Deep Abignon are available as ebooks and, for the first time, in paperback editions through Amazon’s partnership with Createspace.  And as much as I prefer reading ebooks, even I have to say that the paperbacks look good!

Many have been curious about what the rewrites involved… and what’s been taking me so long!  Well, most of the rewrites have been editing text, or fleshing out some concepts and dialogue from the original books.  Better descriptions of characters and their mannerisms help to make the Mary‘s crew—Mark O’Bannon, Sarander Fi, Tirri Riza and Angel Shakra—as well as peripheral characters more interesting.  The edits have added another dimension to the stories.  (And there’s always that typo you can’t believe you missed in five editing passes…)

I’ve also updated Kestral’s world: The stories take place within the Orion Arm of the Milky Way, a clearer and more realistic description of the part of the galaxy that humans and their genetically-altered cousins have colonized.  As for the military branch where Kestral got her start, it is now known as the Guard… and the organization of human worlds define themselves as the Fraternity.  Names have been changed from their originals, frankly, just because they sound better. (I mean, did anyone else cringe at the sound of the “Oan Galarchy”?  Or was it really just me?)  And last but not least, the virus that triggered Kestral’s change of career is now called Venom, which still has that nice, lethal ring to it…

And much has stayed the same: The same galaxy of terraformed planets and the baseline- and genetically-altered-humans colonizing them; the same Mary, the star-going freighter that serves as home to Kestral and her crew; the same adventures and dangers; and the same humanity, whose worst enemy is, as always, itself.

[image error]

You might also notice, from the Kestral I cover and the descriptions in both books, that Carolyn Kestral herself has changed in appearance: Still as striking as ever, but now with long, brunette hair and the slight caste of a Pacific Islander.  I did this to better fit the changes in modern and projected worldwide population and racial developments… but I also think it’s time for women who aren’t the same old European surrogates to see some science fiction action!

So, better stories, better characters… and better covers!  I mean, seriously… the best covers I’ve ever done, with versions optimized for the ebooks and the paperbacks… I’m so proud of them.  And between the covers, the content has been arranged according to the changing preferences of modern audiences, to give a better reading experience.  Put it all together, and you have 5-star (hint-hint) product quality.

So, that’s the word on the new books.  You can get more information on both books, including purchase links when they are available, on the Kestral Voyages page.  I hope you can’t wait to get your hands on them.  And tell your friends.  And tell them to tell their friends.  And give me a legitimate shot at fame and fortune (well, fortune, anyway)… so I have the incentive to write more of them.

Margot Kidder wasn’t my Lois Lane

The world mourns the loss of actress Margot Kidder, taken from us at only 69.  As the announcements made clear to anyone, she was best known for her role of Lois Lane in 1978’s Superman: The Movie and its sequels.  I adored the first movie when it came out, just like so many others; I thought it was an exciting and beautiful production.

So I’ve tried to allow a sufficient amount of time to pass, in order to respectfully say: Alas, I have never thought of Margot Kidder, as so many have described her, as the “iconic” Lois Lane.  Please let me clarify that this is in no way a reflection of Kidder’s acting ability; it is a personal dissatisfaction with the role she was given, which I was never fond of, and an icon that was born in a very different era.

[image error]There have been a lot, a lot, A LOT of Lois Lanes over the years; Google it sometime, and even die-hard Superman fans may be surprised at those they’ve forgotten.  When Superman first appeared in Action comics, Lois Lane was more than just a female reporter: She was one of the original super-feminists.  Probably born at roughly the time women earned the right to vote, Lois was the kind of woman who was not only good at her job, but she was clearly convinced that she was better at it than any man.  She was apparently the only female reporter at the Planet, at a time when most women were housewives and few had attained better than secretarial roles in American business.

And you could tell from Lois’ actions how self-assured, to the point of arrogance, she was.  She would ignore the advice of men, and the orders of her boss, to go and do what she wanted.  Sometimes that got her into trouble, but other than thanking Superman for inevitably getting her out of it, she never considered whether her actions had been ill-concieved in the first place… even if someone, including Superman, had specifically told her not to do it.

You had the impression that the reason she never guessed Clark Kent was Superman was… she never really looked at him.  Or any man, for that matter.  Men were all essentially beneath her notice.

[image error]This attitude continued through the years and many iterations of the Superman cast, right into the sixties: Lois was the ultra-feminist of the early twentieth century, smoking cigars with the boys, proving herself an equal or superior to everyone in the room.  If she got in trouble, well, only Superman could get her out of it.  And that was the original source of her attraction to Superman: She was convinced that he was the only man actually worthy of her.

Over the years, Lois would change from the sufferagette feminist to the Julia Steinham feminist, flaunting her beauty while emphasizing her brains.  The Lois of the sixties comics also started to get obsessive about Superman, and briefly became a True Romance damsel doing anything she could to win Superman’s hand.  But even then, she was convinced of her innate superiority and worthiness to be Superman’s bride.

[image error]But when we got to 1978’s Superman: The Movie, the various and constantly-juggled writing teams, starting with Mario Puzo and ending with director Richard Donner, crafted two-dimensional comic book caricatures instead of more realistic characters.  Lois received perhaps the most striking change of all the popular characters of the Superman mythos: Her feminista had been severely curtailed, and her superiority was watered down by camp incompetence.  Sure, she thought she deserved a Pulitzer… but she could barely spell the word.  She did the “city beat,” but judging from the movie’s dialog snippets, like calling out to Jimmy Olsen to get the spelling of “bloodletting,” her writing was apparently sensationalist trash.  And she wasn’t acting so much dismissive of everyone else, as she was too distracted to notice anyone else.  The feminist had been de-fanged, and a barely-competent 70’s working girl/stereotypical love interest remained.

All of this doesn’t quite make her a Valley Girl… but it sure isn’t the strong, rightfully-assured feminist that was the traditional Lois.  The movie Lois was not as strong or capable as she pretended to be, and approached Superman as just another beefcake to infatuate over. When she got the chance to interview him, her questions were embarrassingly lightweight; they were barely above first date questions (which, judging by her nightgown, is exactly what she thought it was).  The ace reporter was reduced to being a crushing fangirl, and it wasn’t Lois’ best look.

[image error]And in the movie, when Superman flew her around Metropolis and Kidder’s voiceover recited “Can you read my mind?” I might have been cringing because it was a corny bit… or maybe because I was sure her mind was filled with nothing but the many sexual positions she wanted to try out with him…

When I watched Kidder’s Lois, I felt cheated out of the woman who not only knew her superior worth, but who would understand why a man like Superman should drool over her: Her strength of will and abilities made her worthy of a super man.  I wished they’d made Lois more capable, more arrogant, more independent, more curious about the origins of Superman, and more dismissive of Clark as one more bumbling farmboy to push out of her way.

[image error]The superior and deservedly-self-assured Lois was revived for the animated series The Superman Adventures, years later… the ultra-feminist was back, new and improved.  This Lois still belittled Clark, giving him the nickname “Smallville” just to mess with him… but there was less malice involved, more poking fun at a big farmboy than at a Man.  This Lois was also brave enough to pursue stories, even if she hadn’t been given them… but she was also free of the whims of traditional male writers who tried to rein in her feminism with bouts of weakness or stupidity, making her less prone to becoming a damsel in distress and an object for Superman to save before he vanquishes the bad guys.  Since then, many other strong Loises have appeared in various movies and TV series; but for me, the animated character voiced by Dana Delany became the modern ideal of Lois Lane that I prefer to this day.

Again I reiterate that I see this as the fault of the movie’s writers and directors, not of Kidder or her acting abilities.  They chose to make caricatures out of all their primary and secondary characters—including the comically-bumbling Clark Kent that, admittedly, Christopher Reeve pulled off so well—and unlike Reeve’s Clark, I never thought Kidder’s Lois, nor most of the other caricatures, worked well at all.  But maybe I’m seeing her through a lens tarnished with age, a lens that hasn’t been changed since the original Superman appeared.

To be fair, there’s a lot about that original Superman that makes little or no sense in the modern era.  Maybe Lois’ ultra-feminist streak is one of them.  Maybe it’s okay now to depict Lois, not as a feminist, but as a just plain jerk, like any man can be.  But if it’s okay to depict an alien who looks just like a human, running around in a circus strongman’s union suit, flying through space, lifting ocean liners like they’re 2-by-4s and seeing radio waves… why couldn’t we have had an ultra-feminist Lois Lane in 1978?  Imagine what that Superman: The Movie would’ve looked like.

[image error]

Cars and the cult of stupid

The latest entries in the ongoing saga of stupid people ruining things for everyone else is being discussed in the automobile industry right now.

[image error]Start. Stop. Says so right there.

Hot on the heels of the latest crash incident by someone who thinks driver-assist cars are ready to fully drive themselves (and plowed into the back of a truck), comes a CNN Money report that tells of dozens of people who have been injured or killed because they didn’t remember to turn off their cars.  The cars all had keyless entry systems, and the hapless victims apparently didn’t understand that they have to use the keyless entry buttons to turn the car off when they’re done driving.

This, despite the fact that the concept of turning your device off has gone hand-in-hand with the concept of turning it on since the history of switches.  Seriously, who (other than kids) never ever turn things off?  And why are we letting people like that drive?

This is yet another example of the fact that driving a car in the US should not be something that everyone gets to do… because a lot of people are, quite simply, too stupid to do it safely.  It’s also an example of the desperate need in this country to revamp our driver education system to take into account the changes that have developed over the recent decades with car technology, personal technology, traffic, automated systems, and cultural shifts.

I commute to work every day, like a lot of people.  And every day, I struggle to keep myself safe around:

People who pay more attention to their cellphones than to the quarter-ton guided missiles they, and everyone around them, are driving;
People who can’t manage to stay between the lines in their lanes;
People who struggle with turns (because they won’t put their phones down);
People who don’t understand the concept of “right-of-way,” the central concept of American driving;
People, new to this country, who can’t read the signs around them or don’t know what they mean;
People who don’t even slow down for stop signs at intersections;
People who stop in the middle of busy roads to pick up or discharge passengers;
People who assume that the absence of police is a de-facto okay to travel 25 miles over the speed limit;
and on, and on.

[image error]Just last week, I witnessed two drivers approaching a 4-way stop from opposite directions, who didn’t even slow down as they blew through the intersection at full speed within about 3 seconds of each other.  Had any car been traversing that intersection, they would’ve been hit (and at that speed, quite possibly killed) by drivers who clearly were too distracted to know where they were.  I had been about to turn through that intersection, and my wife was with me…so that possibly dead driver and passenger could easily have been us.  This also happened, only a block away, two weeks previous… and again, I was about to enter the intersection.  A few seconds faster and I would’ve been T-boned and (if I was lucky) on my way to a hospital.  It used to be that I saw bad driving behavior like this once in a blue moon; now it pretty much happens in front of me every few days.

Commercials often make fun of these distracted drivers, and gleefully show the little fender-benders they get into.  The reality is that distracted drivers maim and kill other drivers, passengers and pedestrians on a horribly regular basis.  And after such incidents, few of them get jail time… most pay a fine with a credit card… then their insurance company buys them another car.

American roads are too dangerous to handle this kind of BS.  But since we don’t seem to be able to take cars off the roads, or prevent stupidity, we should be doing the next best thing: Taking driving out of the hands of people.

[image error]

We need to be doing everything we can to fund, encourage and cooperate with efforts to turn our roads into the domain of self-driving vehicles and connected traffic systems.  Automating our vehicles means putting in systems that are faster than humans in sensing and reaction time, interconnected and therefore prescient about what other vehicles are about to do, and intelligently tied to roadway and traffic systems to monitor proper and improper driving on the roads.

Automation is getting incredibly close to being able to do the driving for us; we need to aggressively fund better sensory equipment, better-programmed driving systems and improved obstacle identification and avoidance systems, to reach a point where the possibility of an automated vehicle striking anything is all but unheard-of.

As our population gets older, more distracted, less familiar with our road systems, and just plain stupid, cars and trucks must step up and relieve the burden of the dangerous act of driving from us.  It’s the only way to keep Americans mobile and safe on our crazy, congested roads.

Avatars replace people for promotion

[image error]An article in Wired caught my eye the other day, starting with a PR-based feud between two people who don’t exist.

The article described online “influencers,” which happen to be CGI creations: Lil’ Miquela and Bermuda, avatars with their own Instragram pages, who are usually seen posing in fashionable clothing or maybe posing with celebrities or other icons.  Although (supposedly) these avatars haven’t begun making money as paid models yet, the article suggests that it may be just around the corner.

Personally, I hadn’t realized that this was going on (I’m not an Instagram user, so this was well outside of my radar).  But it makes perfect sense, especially from the article’s point of view: Create a digital model, accept money from an advertiser to model their clothing, sit in their cars, appear in their hotels and hot-spots, whatever, that a live model can do; but have total control over that digital character, which means you don’t have to worry about them doing something stupid in public, or criticizing a client in a drunken stupor, or getting caught in a career-ending sexual escapade.  The perfect model-slave is born… erm, generated.

[image error]When I first saw the image of Lil’ Miquela pictured here, I immediately knew it was a CGI model.  Supposedly, some people may not be as discerning as I am, especially if the image is seen on a smallish phone screen.  But it’s pretty good for a CGI model that didn’t come from a Hollywood effects studio.

There are supposedly still legal questions about who gets paid—or fined—for the digital model’s activities, pro and con.  For instance, if an avatar posts hate-speech that encourages an illegal act, can the avatar be blamed?  The ones who created the avatar?  Or the ones who provided the hate-speech for it?  But really, most of that should be obvious: I mean, if Mickey Mouse used hate speech, everyone would be at Disney’s door, not Mickey’s.  If an avatar is owned by a company that creates everything that the avatar says and does, the company is fully liable for the actions of the avatar.

This reminded the Wired author about a Robin Wright movie, The Congress, in which Wright, playing herself, tried to sell a digital copy of herself for advertising purposes (which, naturally, goes horribly wrong).  But I immediately thought of a movie that predated The Congress by over 30 years, and this episode by 35 years.

[image error]In 1981, the ever-prescient Michael Crichton gave us Looker, a movie that depicted a company applying the latest in computer-generated commercials, art, and avatars, to make irresistible promos, commercials and models.  The computers took real images and massaged them digitally in order to make them perfect models for selling products.  And in true Crichton fashion, the company was then killing the models in order to use their avatars in perpetuity.

Looker was in some ways satirizing the commercial industry’s intense efforts to control every bit of their ads, and the modeling industry’s efforts to make models more and more perfect for those ads.  But it also presented us with computers so adept at digital manipulation that the audience wouldn’t be able to tell the real models from the fakes.  Just as I commented about Runaway, another Crichton flick, low budgets and some sad acting by the non-leads contributed to a lackluster movie; but if remade today with big studio money, the movie could be a smash hit by virtue of its straight-outta-the-headlines concept.

And not long after, in 1983, writer-artist Howard Chaykin gave us American Flagg!, a comic series about an actor in 2131 who found himself replaced by a digital character on his own TV show, and had to enlist as a peace officer to make a living afterward.  We never actually see his avatar-replacement, but supposedly no one can tell the difference.

[image error]We haven’t reached the verisimilitude of perfect CGI… yet.  But if you saw Blade Runner 2049 and the scene where a CGI Rachel confronts Deckard, you know that we’re pretty damned close (at least when unlimited studio money is available to throw at the problem).  But the funny thing is that it hardly matters whether it’s real or fake… to the audience.  The key is in how well they model or depict the various things that the public likes to do; and if they do that well, as Lil’ Miquela, Bermuda and others apparently do, the public has already demonstrated that it’s more than willing to suspend any disbelief and buy the products they sell.

So we probably are around the corner from digital avatar-models—who will be harder and harder to tell from the real thing every day—winning endorsement contracts for their creators and becoming well-known models in any media.  They’ll be selling products with their flawless looks, creating the media sensations that are precisely scripted for them… and perhaps becoming never-ageing stand-ins for real people, making money for the originals while they hang at the beach and get old and fat.

 

Sidelined by Moore’s Law

Once upon a time, I wrote a story that had as a major plotpoint an advanced computer.  This computer was faster, smarter and had more memory capacity than any modern computer.  I published the book.  And life was good.

But three years later, I looked at the book and realized that its highly advanced capabilities weren’t that far advanced from the modern computers that had developed in those three years in the real world.  Mildly embarrassed, I rewrote the book and updated the specs of my supercomputer to be significantly faster than the computers of that day.

Two years later, I discovered that computers had again advanced so quickly as to have almost matched the supercomputer in my story.  I dutifully updated my story again, to stay ahead of the computer curve.

Three years later, modern computers had almost caught up with my story again.  Finally seeing the electrons on the wall, I took the book out of circulation.  I had been soundly defeated by Moore’s Law, the surprisingly accurate statement by Gordon Moore that computer capabilities would double roughly every 2 years.

[image error]Many writers of science fiction have discovered that futuristic elements of their stories sometimes get lapped by modern life, often depending on how far into the future their story is set.  Those who have set their stories just a few years into the future experience this lapping more often than others… but it can even happen in stories set hundreds or thousands of years into the future, when a writer doesn’t take into account some little bit of technology that becomes a huge game-changer, sometimes sabotaging their story irrevocably.  I finally understood that it hadn’t been wise to base a major element of my book on such a rapidly-moving target as computer capability.

[image error]In case you’re curious, the book was entitled Factory Orbit.  (Yes, it needs an updated cover, too.  Shut up.)  Over the years I’ve given thought to rewriting the book, as I think the main premise, the privately-built orbital factory and R&D facility, is still a good one; it’s the details that need to be revised, which means a new storyline, tweaks to the characters and new motivations/action/arcs.  Really, we’re not talking about a revised book, but a brand new one, with a radically different plot, focus and outcome.

I’d come to that conclusion when I was looking at the story as the basis for a possible TV series.  Series require either a long-term or open-ended overall plot, to allow it to run for the requisite number of episodes/seasons to make it viable.  The series project is no longer in play, but the same story strategems could be carried over to the new book.

Once I finish updating the Kestral series (which should be done by end of 2018), rewriting Factory Orbit is high on my list of next projects to tackle.  I’ve even started to assemble elements that I want to include in the new book, when I have moments between Kestral revisions.

I don’t expect this to be a swift process.  But hopefully, when I’m done with the new book, I won’t be rewriting it again; it will be able to stand on its own and age gracefully.

Get Your eBook Cover here

Okay… I knew that Rita Toews, creator and longtime promoter of Read an Ebook Week (it’s already past, but go read one anyway) and someone I’ve collaborated with on website design, had also taken on another gig: Designing and producing book covers for those many ebook writers that she came in contact with.  But in all that time, I hadn’t checked out any of her cover work. Until now.

[image error]

Rita, who recently did me a solid, sent me the link to the Your eBook Cover site, and I instantly wanted to pass it on to any other authors who are looking for covers at great prices.  Rita creates 2-D and 3-D cover images for your promotional use.  Her covers are high-resolution, great for print-on-demand (POD) covers, and have appeared on products created in Createspace.  Her style is not highly elaborate or digitally detailed, but stylish, clean, easy to read and designed to fit the subject matter; her cover art has made Finalist status in Epic’s Ariana eBook Cover Art Awards, and she has a number of glowing recommendations from her customers.

The Portfolio page has plenty of examples of Rita’s stellar work, in multiple genres, fiction and non-fiction.  I was immediately struck by how approachable the covers are: I see so many books, especially in the science fiction or fantasy genres, that are so ornate and overly-detailed that they make me work to figure out what’s going on; or present me with such generic images (oh look, a bare-chested guy or half-naked girl posing in front of a castle… again) that I really don’t care what’s inside.  Rita’s covers were refreshingly clear and engaging, and have a high quality that I wish half of my covers had (I’m trying to get better… I swear).

So, if you or a writer you know is looking for quality book covers, I recommend Your eBook Cover for your ebook and POD cover needs.

2001: The greatest odyssey

Many of you who are fans of science fiction know that 2018 marks the 50th anniversary of 2001: A Space Odyssey.  Despite its age, 2001 has become so iconic and renowned that it seems enough ink has been used in writing about it to fill space itself; so I’m not going to add to the attempts to describe, analyse, dissemble or review this incredible movie.  Instead, I want to weave a bunch of electrons describing what this movie has meant to me, personally.

[image error]When 2001 was released, I was only 8 years old; and at that age, I not only didn’t know much about science fiction, I didn’t know about much at all.  But I had seen my first episodes of Star Trek (during its prime-time run), The Twilight Zone and Lost in Space.  I was also reading adventure novels about characters like Doc Savage and Perry Rhodan and, as the years advanced, moving on to my first science fiction novels.

By the time I was 15, I was an avid science fiction fan, and thanks to movies on television, uncounted books in used bookstores, and Star Trek‘s non-stop syndicated run, I was interested not only in current SF, but in the SF books, TV shows and movies of the past.  I was also fascinated by special effects; optical and physical tricks that had been developed over the years that made SF movies and TV shows come alive.  By that time, 2001 had already achieved legendary status among SF movies, and I’d already read (and loved) Arthur C. Clarke’s novelization, which he wrote concurrently with Kubrick’s movie production.

I finally had the chance to see the movie when it returned to Washington, DC’s Uptown Theater; it had earned the promo “the ultimate trip” by then, and though I was aware that it was supposed to be a drug reference for the pop culture, I was much more interested in seeing how well Clarke’s story translated to, and how good those vaunted effects looked on, the big screen.

[image error]The first showing was more than magic to me: Stanley Kubrick’s avant-garde filming style, his use of classical music and choirs, the amazing sets, the incredible effects work of Douglas Trumbull, and of course Arthur C. Clarke’s story, created a unique and entrancing experience that left me speechless.  This was one of the first SF movies I’d seen outside of tiny television screens, and as such, it burned itself into my memory as one of my first science fiction-related experiences.

When most science fiction I’d seen or read at the time had been colorful adventures or (let’s face it) monster stories, 2001 was perhaps the first intelligent SF movie I’d seen.  More than just cool or exciting, 2001 was mind-blowing, a story spanning millions of years and telling the story of how mysterious alien devices somehow taught early man to use tools, later led him into space and, finally, evolved an astronaut into a new being, the Starchild, who would watch over Earth.  Though some of the episodes of Star Trek and The Twilight Zone had been heady and intellectual, the sheer scope of 2001‘s story was leagues ahead of any television production I’d seen.

[image error]

Visually, 2001 was (and still is) gorgeous.  The combination of the physical sets and costumes, and the model effects, created a vista of space, and the experiences of living and working in it, that were so far ahead of any other movies or TV shows as to be laughable.  For the first time, I felt like I was seeing a realistic, believable example of what it would be like to fly spacecraft in zero gravity, to live in modules rotating to produce artificial gravity, to eat pre-packaged foods (and to use zero-gee toilets!).  I also enjoyed the cool satisfaction of the silence of space, the lack of stars whizzing by as if only a few yards away, the significant distances suggested by the journey through the Solar System.  Thanks to Douglas Trumbull’s mastery of effects work, the sheer void and expanse of space, as well as the intricate ballet of space flight, was being shown to me for the first time.

[image error]And it’s hard to articulate the physical effects, some of them relatively simple in execution but incredibly impactful, that brought the “reality” of zero-gee existence to the fore: A pen floating in a passenger cabin; a stewardess carefully walking a circular portal until she was completely upside-down to the audience; astronauts seemingly walking in a zero-gee corridor, descending to a rotating module that allowed them to work, sleep and jog around its circumference.  Though I’d read about these physically-rotating sets and other effects when I was 15, it was quite an experience seeing them in action for the first time.  Again, they gave a verisimilitude to 2001 that no other movie or TV show had given me by then.

[image error]2001 was the first movie to prove to me that science fiction could look accurate, be smart, and still present an incredibly rich and fascinating story to its audience.  It helped to draw me in to more intelligent SF, at a time when SF movies were starting to more severely warn us about the consequences of our global actions, and that helped hone my interest in more intelligent stories like Soylent Green and ZPG.

Even at 50 years old, to me it remains the high water mark in intelligent SF movies that an embarrassingly few other movies have come close to reaching since.  2001 was instrumental in securing my ongoing interest in science fiction, both in print and on the small and big screen.  And it inspires me personally to write more intelligent SF novels, stories that don’t just entertain, but make the reader think about the world and our present’s impact on the future.

What a shame it is, therefore, that the success of Star Wars a decade later would so completely outperform intelligent SF movies as to make them almost unmarketable… and they hadn’t been that popular before then.  The Star Wars media and marketing juggernaut has cast a long shadow that still chills serious SF media, and more’s the pity; for a single movie like 2001 has more impact than a hundred Star Wars-type movies.  And it frustrates me that, for every movie with the high quality and intelligence of a 2001, Solaris, Contact or Arrival, we get a hundred mindless shoot-em-ups with goofy aliens and prepubescent morals; the sci-fi mindset of the 1940s, cheap beer regurgitated endlessly until it’s hard to remember the taste of a well-crafted liquor like 2001.

2001: A Space Odyssey will always be iconic to me: The big screen representation of the best, most intelligent, highest quality of science fiction; an artistic and visual tour de force; and an inspiration to create more than sci-fi pablum.  2001 set me on the greatest odyssey: That of applying my own artistic talents in the discovery and celebration of the science fiction genre; an odyssey that I’ve enjoyed for a half-century (and counting).

In searching for iconic images for this post, I discovered that there were so many iconic moments in 2001 that it was hard to choose between them.  So, in addition to the images above, enjoy these as well:

[image error]

[image error]

[image error]

[image error]

[image error]

[image error]

[image error]

Bitcoin financing the future

Bitcoin, and other digital currencies, are doing their damndest to shake up the world’s financial systems.  Their ability for individuals to make money via computer transactions is so unlike the traditional ways of making money—governments trading rare metals and printing daily use currency—that organizations and authorities are either trying to find ways of restricting its reach, or trying to cash in.

At this early stage of the game, it’s hard to say what the ultimate outcome of this new way to make money will be.  But instead of fighting the rise of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, we should be looking at useful ways that have been found to apply them beyond personal wealth: Cryptocurrencies might just be a great way to finance programs that aren’t getting the love they deserve from governments and financial institutions.

[image error]Cryptocurrencies make money by offering up computational time on individual computers, computer networks or server networks, to a user like a laboratory that needs to crunch astronomically-large numbers but that doesn’t have access to a supercomputer to do the job.  In exchange for providing access to these networked computers, the users pay the computer or server owners a small sum in cryptocurrency.  Basically, organization A is paying computer owner B for the use of B’s computers.  And as organizations C, D, E, F, G and H start using those computers, B can make more money from more clients and eventually see a decent profit.

This simple arrangement has created a system wherein anyone with one or more computers can profit off of allowing someone else to use their hardware for remote computation (a process known as “mining”).

There are drawbacks: Most notably, that these computers and server farms run on a constant diet of electricity, which in most cases isn’t free, and may be robbing energy from other needy systems and people; and where servers are being powered by old energy technology such as oil, they may also be contributing to a small but significant rise in pollution.  And there’s also the issue that this wealth isn’t considered “valid” by many governments and organizations, making it hard to actually transfer and use the wealth beyond limited venues.  But hopefully these and other problems can be solved soon.  And if so, the value of cryptocurrencies might start to approach and even equal that of government-sanctioned currencies worldwide.

[image error]Now, how could that be useful?  Well, imagine a group that sets up a server farm to mine for bitcoin (which I use here to represent any cryptocurrency), and uses their bitcoin profits to finance the daily operations of a homeless shelter.  Shelters often get the short end of financing from local governments (which is a travesty in itself); but the proceeds from a successful bitcoin-mining operation could potentially be enough to keep the shelter running and filled with needed supplies.

And what other services often get minimal public funding, whether it’s due to political or social unpopularity, inefficiency or obscurity?  Food programs?  Employment assistance and insurance?  Assistance for the poor or elderly?  Potentially any of these services, and many more, could partially or even totally fund themselves through the ownership of a large-enough bitcoin-mining server farm.

[image error]Some bitcoin-mining organizations already offer ways to apply their clients’ bitcoin profits to certain charities; the amounts collected have been relatively small so far, but in time could grow to be significant donations.  They are the start of the trend of financing real-world efforts through cryptocurrencies.  And as we approach an era of increased automation thinning out job opportunities, and we start looking at programs like Universal Basic Income and other social services-based programs to alleviate the public’s burdens, bitcoin-dedicated computers and server farms could provide the revenue to pay for these services.

[image error]Really, we’re talking about a reorganization of the world’s wealth, allowing organizations and individuals to make their own money instead of asking for funding or charity from others.  The resultant change in how we finance personal and social systems would be world-shaking.  And not that there’s anything wrong with growing personal wealth… but providing revenue for needed public services sounds like a practical, noble and desirable reason to want cryptocurrencies and systems like data-mining to not only succeed, but thrive.

AI needs to be taught, not just programmed

An article on Politico describes a unique feature in Google Translate: It apparently assigns genders to certain occupations, assuming that, for instance, doctors are male and nurses are female.  In addition, a ProPublica investigation two years ago found that software used to predict inmates’ likelihood of being a high risk for recidivism was nearly twice as likely to be inaccurate when assessing African-American inmates versus white inmates.  And many of us have heard about the 2015 scandal when Google’s photo-recognition software tagged a group of dark-skinned African men as “gorillas.”

As Artificial Intelligence is being applied to identifying objects and people, providing descriptions and assuring accessibility, we’re seeing more and more of this kind of thing.  Pundits are quick to use words like “racism” and “sexism” when these things happen… but it’s important to realize that this is purely for sensationalist value, and isn’t really what’s happening at all.

[image error]Computers aren’t people; they’re machines that crunch numbers to arrive at solutions.  Even the smartest AI is just a machine that crunches huge amounts of numbers.  So, when software tags doctors as being most likely male, it is going by the data it has stored, indicating that the vast majority of doctors in its databases are male.

And the Google AI that identified a bunch of men as gorillas was using what data it had to match up the figures it saw, and it turned out it was not responsive enough to be able to tell the difference between men and gorillas.  The result isn’t racist… it’s embarassing as all hell, but it’s not racist.  The AI didn’t call these men gorillas because it had been taught that African men are the same as apes.

[image error]

These are not deliberate, derogatory or malevolent acts perpetrated by these machines, these are errors caused by a lack of comprehensive programming.  In this way, you have to compare these AI systems to 5-year-old children: They’ve learned a lot, but they don’t know everything… and quite a lot has to be passed on to them, with explanation and in proper context, so they understand and know in the future what to look for to identify these lessons.

As an example, a 5-year-old girl growing up in an African-American household may hear the “N” word applied casually and non-threateningly to friends or family around her.  One day, she’s with her parent at a store, sees a boy she knows from school, and maybe she addresses him with the “N” word in a friendly fashion.  Problem is, the other boy is Asian.  And his father is standing right next to him.

The parents understand what just happened, but the children probably do not.  Now it’s the job of the girl’s parent to explain the context of the “N” word, where it is and is not proper to use it, and by the way, apologize to the other father, who may have to explain to his son why what the girl said was wrong.

Once the girl understands the context of the “N” word, she will know where to use (and not use) it.  She may decide it’s not proper to use at all, or maybe she’ll use it only with people she hears using it themselves.  But without context, she doesn’t build the right pathways of understanding that she needs to make the right choices.

The Google AI that mis-identified the African men did not have the information (maybe just enough visual resolution) it needed to be able to distinguish them from another animal.  And it certainly hadn’t had a few hundred years of racist history explained to it, so it wouldn’t have known that its unfortunate choice of animal would be so highly shocking and insulting to society at large, possibly prompting it to look closer for telltale signs that it might not be identifying them properly.  (For instance, the fact that Gorillas rarely wear clothing.)

Unfortunately, just about every AI system is designed, programmed and taught privately, by its owner institutions, and “in the dark” related to other AIs.  These institutions mean well, but they also often omit things that they either don’t think are relevant, or don’t think of at all, in order to accomplish their chosen goals.  And we now see the results of this method: Data, but not enough context to truly understand.

[image error]Our daily lives, the input of our families, our societies and our educational institutions provide humans with this data and context.  Once armed, we rarely (intentionally) make the mistakes that these AI have made.  This is why there needs to be a universal training system for AI, used to provide the education and context they need to make common decisions.

As we move forward with AI development, we need to also develop this universal (and constantly reviewed and updating)  training matrix, a set of data and context not dissimilar to the life lessons a child receives from school and home, to be loaded into every AI regardless of intention or purpose.  And every AI should be tested in a standardized format, to make sure they’ve absorbed the data and context of its programming, and can function as a true intelligence.

Only in this way can we effectively and consistently remove the sort of errors that are common to AIs and 5-year-olds, and incidentally, make them better people and AIs going forward.