An interview with Annie Neugebauer on LitReactor here.
Science fiction short stories and novels.
An interview with Annie Neugebauer on LitReactor here.
Delighted to receive a copy of the Russian version of Dark Eden. (Literal translation of the Russian title: In the Darkness of Eden). So, crossing my fingers that Google Translate doesn’t let me down. let me just say:
Дорогие российские читатели, Добро пожаловать в Эдем!
It’s just over 3 weeks until the release of Daughter of Eden on 6th October and I’m very excited about it. It feels like the countdown to Christmas, even though I already know what’s in the package.
The Eden books are a trilogy, but not quite in the usual sense of a continuous narrative stretching across three books. Dark Eden very much stands on its own, while the other two books are set some two centuries on, but only ten years apart from one another, and with a couple of the same characters.
A very perceptive review of Dark Eden appeared just a couple of weeks ago in Omni (or, more accurately, I suppose, a review that perceived the things that I wanted people to perceive in it): you can read it here. The reviewer says: ‘Possibly the most important theme in Dark Eden (even more so than an unreliable protagonist and his growth on an alien world) is the discussion about how narrative binds communities and guides people,’ and that was certainly my intention.
I thought it would be interesting, in Mother of Eden and Daughter of Eden respectively to describe two communities, each one bound together and guided by (or even trapped by) its own particular version of the events described in Dark Eden. And then, in this final book, to throw in a new event that calls both versions into question.
Very pleased that I will be at Waterstone’s in Liverpool on 26th October at 6.30.
So I now have three events to mark the launching of Daughter of Eden. A couple more and I’ll be thinking of getting one of those tour date T-shirts made. (You know? Chris Beckett, Daughter of Eden Tour, Autumn 2016…)
Anyway the dates are as follows. Click for more details. You need to book for both the Waterstone’s events.
My son was playing old David Bowie tracks recently and one of them was ‘Oh You Pretty Things,’ from Hunky Dory, an album which I adored and must have listened to thousands of times in my teens. ‘Pretty Things’ is a paeon to a new generation shouldering aside a stale old one:
Look at your children
See their faces in golden rays
Don’t kid yourself they belong to you
They’re the start of a coming race…
You gotta make way for the homo superior
It was a common theme in the late 60s and 70s. See Joni Mitchell’s lovely ‘Woodstock,’ for instance, or Jefferson Airplane’s ‘Volunteers’ (‘…One generation got old/One generation got soul…’) But as I listened to it, it struck me with a mixture of sadness and wry amusement that the generation Bowie was thinking of were the Baby Boomers, the very people, now at the threshold of old age, who many in a new generation are blaming for the current dire state of the world.
I’m very pleased that my short story ‘Monsters’, first published in Interzone way back in 2003, will be appearing, in very distinguished company, in the Headland anthology, published by Edge Hill University Press to mark 10 years of the Edge Hill Prize. The Edge Hill Prize is the UK’s main prize for single author collections of stories (of any genre) and winning it for my collection, The Turing Test, was a huge breakthrough in my writing career.
Although it’s not the story that people most often mention when they read The Turing Test, ‘Monsters’ is a personal favourite of mine, perhaps because, although autobiographical elements are present in almost all my fiction, they are particularly to the fore here in this story about how writers both use and are held back by their demons, and about a poet’s emotionally stifling relationship with his mother.
Here’s the blurb about me and the story on the Edge Hill website.
As I mentioned before, I voted ‘remain’ in the UK’s recent referendum, but I am growing very tired of what now I think of as the Brexit Eeyores: the weary, ‘I know better’ voices predicting economic calamity, lamenting that a vote was ever held on a matter that ordinary people couldn’t be expected to understand, and dismissing ‘leave’ voters as some combination of ignorant, uneducated, racist, or gullible. I am sometimes reminded of white Rhodesians telling each other how they always knew the country would go to the dogs if the Africans were given the vote.
One can argue about the merits or otherwise of referendums, but if we were only allowed to vote on matters of which we possessed expert knowledge, then most of us wouldn’t be permitted to vote at all. General elections usually hinge on economic policy and the management of public services, after all, both of which are highly complex and technical matters. The fact is that, in a democracy, those who possess expertise have to persuade the rest of us that they understand what our concerns are, and have a plan that will help to address them. You can’t just say, ‘we know better than you do what’s good for you, so do as you’re told.’
The key thing here is that, even though all the established political parties, almost all economists, and the great majority of business leaders, supported the ‘remain’ cause, the majority of the electorate decided to ignore them. That’s quite a consensus to go against! Why did it happen? Presumably it is because that wide range of eminent people failed to convince 17,000,000 voters that their concerns were being heard or being addressed. Dismissing those seventeen million voters as thick, or racist or gullible dupes will not help them with that feeling of not being heard. And if that feeling isn’t addressed, we really are in for some difficult times.
As I say, I’m not an expert but here is one of the best analyses I’ve read recently of what’s going on behind the Brexit vote here and the rise of the likes of Donald Trump.
I was interested in this article asking whether meritocracy in the UK is a sham. I live in Cambridge and for a time I used go and write in the Cambridge University Library (I was eligible for a library card at the time as a member of staff of Cambridge’s other, marginally less famous, university: Anglia Ruskin). I got into the habit of working in the cafe there -I find a background hum of voices more conducive to writing than absolute silence- and I can tell you that I could go all day without seeing a single black face, or hearing a single regional accent. There’d be some foreigners, but the British people in there, students and academics, were almost all white and almost all spoke with the distinctive accent, somehow both languid and gushing, of the English private school system. (I myself was no exception btw: I too am white, I too went to private school.) That tells you quite a lot, I think, about the extent to which we live in a meritocracy!
What we do live in, though, is a society which sees being a meritocracy as a desireable goal, a society which, when it talks about equality, talks about equality of opportunity, about removing the obstacles that prevent gifted people from poor backgrounds from achieving their potential. There’s not a lot of talk about people whose talents are not exceptional, people who are not especially bright, people who are of average or below average ability, even though this group, by definition, includes more than half of the population.
Equality of opportunity is desireable, but it’s not sufficient, a point made in the article by the former Labour leader, Ed Milliband (someone who I never thought I’d look back on with some degree of nostalgia!). A meritocracy, per se, would not necessarily be good society. In fact, thinking about it now, I’d go as far as to say that, if I was designing a society in which the power of an elite was to be permenantly entrenched, I’d make it a meritocracy, and give it an excellent universal educational system, designed to ensure that anyone with above average ability, from whatever background, could be identified from an early age and channelled to a position in society commensurate with those abilities, and that anyone particularly gifted could be co-opted into the elite. That way the elite could be constantly strengthened, while working class communities would be continuously deprived of those who would otherwise have been their natural leaders and spokespeople.
Then again, perhaps, I’m being unfair? On reflection, I suppose that what would moderate such a society, and make it more humane, would be that the elite would contain many people who had memories of, and family connections with, the rest of society, whereas the more stratified system we have now means that many or most of those people I overheard in the University library, may never really have known anyone from outside of their own class.
A couple of events are lined up now to mark the publication of Daughter of Eden in October (Oct 6th: London, Oct 25th: Birmingham.) I’ve already written two more books to follow it: the first a collection of new short stories (non-SF for a change), the second a new novel, set in North America in a hundred years time. Right now, though, I’m really looking to seeing the final Eden book out there.
It seems to be a pattern with me that I faff around with a novel for several months, struggling to find my way into it. And then suddenly something will click, and the novel kind of writes itself. The faffing generally involves a lot of pacing around, eating stuff from the fridge, frittering time on the internet, and spending whole days writing stuff that I know in the evening I won’t be keeping. But I haven’t yet found a reliable way of short-circuiting it.
The turning point for Daughter of Eden was when I decided to abandon the alternating narrator approach used in the other two Eden books, and have one character tell the whole story, relying on hearsay for events she wasn’t present at. The sole narrator, and main protagonist is Angie Redlantern, who appeared at the beginning of Mother of Eden as Starlight Brooking’s best friend. Daughter of Eden centres on Angie’s own adventures after the departure of Starlight.
Once I’d made my mind up to settle down behind Angie’s eyes, the story really started to flow. Angie is a very different kind of protagonist from John Redlantern in Dark Eden, or Starlight in Mother of Eden, and I enjoyed seeing Eden from her perspective. She is a much quieter, more unassuming, gentler figure, her confidence set back by growing up with what people in her part of Eden call a ‘batface’ (i.e. cleft palate/harelip). At the beginning of the book she is living a very humble life: a ‘low person’ , as the Davidfolk call it, right down at the bottom of the pecking order. The big things happen to other people.
But suddenly, she finds herself dealing with huge, cataclysmic events: more cataclysmic than anything in the other two books. I enjoyed watching her grow, while human society on Eden turned itself inside out all around her.
Science fiction is usually set in the future. It’s true that quite often it is only nominally the future -much science fiction is set in worlds that are no more plausible as a depiction of a real future than, say, Arthurian romances are plausible as depictions of a real past- but even so, one of the functions that SF performs is providing an imaginative way of thinking about where we may be headed.
An SF writer must primarily be a story-teller, though. There has to be tension and jeopardy in the imagined world, in order to generate a story. Fictional utopias, worlds where all humanity’s problems have been solved, are notoriously screamingly dull. (Which sometimes makes me wonder if we would really even want to live in a utopian society, or whether, like David Bowie’s Saviour Machine, we’d feel compelled to destroy it in order to get away from the tedium of it all?) It’s much easier to set an interesting story in a dystopia, or at least in a world which is at least as flawed as the present, and I’m not sure its even possible to set an interesting novel in a utopia unless the utopian society is placed under some kind of external threat ( as in Huxley’s Island, or Le Guin’s The Dispossessed).
I mention all this because I like to read about positive developments that might improve things in the future, and as someone who writes about the future (and worries about it, as we all do), I always feel that I’d like to disseminate what I read, but in fact it is very hard to do so through the medium of SF. I think maybe I just need to accept that non-fiction is a better medium for writing about such things.
The Switch (by Chris Goodall) is a very readable book about the hopeful possibilities arising from the fact that solar power is becoming cheaper year on year, to the point where it will soon be a much more cost-effective source of energy than fossil fuels. Early solar panels cost many thousands of dollars per watt of power,but ‘by the mid 1970s the figure had fallen to $100 a watt. Now the cost is about 50 cents and the decline still continues’ and ‘in the sunnier parts of the world, photovoltaics already offer electricity at lower total cost than other forms of power’. Even in more northerly countries, PV [photovoltaics] is dramatically reducing in cost: ‘In Britain the dramatic fall in the price of solar panels has already pushed PV almost to cost parity with planned gas-fired power stations’. And ‘because PV is so utterly reliable and almost maintenance-free, it is a perfect investment for pension funds seeking consistent yearly returns for the thirty-five years of a panel’s life.’
But there’s an obvious problem with PV which is that sunlight isn’t constant and can’t be turned on and off to meet demand. Actually no other source of power can be turned on and off at will like that without at least some cost, but clearly PV doesn’t work at all in the night, generates power in the middle of the day whether it is needed or not, and generates less power when the sky clouds over, even if more is actually needed during those times. Most of the book is therefore about developments around the world aimed at addressing this problem, which the author sees as eminently surmountable.
There are a number of layers to this. One is to manage demand more effectively. There are already schemes whereby companies are paid to enter into an agreement to cut energy use at short notice when there is a spike in demand, which can often be done without affecting productivity. For example, a papermill produces pulp and stores it, and then turns the pulp into paper. Provided there is a sufficient store of pulp, pulp-making can be paused at any point, without reducing the overall output of the mill. In the same way domestic fridges and freezers can be turned off for short periods without ill-effect and chargers for electric vehicles can be set to stop charging at periods of peak demand, and resume charging at periods of lower demand.
Another way is to store the energy. Pumped storage – that is: using surplus power to pump water uphill, and then allowing that water to flow down through a turbine to generate power at times of energy shortage- has been the main means of doing this on a large scale, but there are a limited number of suitable sites for this. There are also new solar powerstations being built which, instead of using PV, concentrate solar energy to generate heat that can be used to power turbines even when the sun is down (Morocco has made a big commitment to this approach and is currently developing the largest such scheme in the world). Increasingly though, large-scale storage in batteries is becoming an option, because batteries are reducing in cost year on year, much like PV, albeit not quite so quickly. In countries where there is steady sun throughout the year, this book suggests, a combination of PV and banks of batteries may on their own be able to provide sufficient power for household use.
However in countries with long, relatively dark winters, batteries will not be sufficient. The later chapters of this book explore emergent technologies, not yet as far advanced as PV or batteries, which can use surplus power to synthesise fuels, by extracting hydrogen from water and combining it with carbon dioxide to make methane or ethanol. One of the attractive things about this approach is that there is an existing infrastructure of storage tanks and pipelines which are currently used for fossil fuels, as well as gas powerstations that could equally well run on synthesised fuel. The book describes a range of different approaches being taken around the world towards mimicking what plants do naturally, using sunlight to make fuel, and doing so on a commercial scale.
I couldn’t make a novel out of all this -perhaps some people could, but I couldn’t- and yet it is a fascinating story. I guess the truth is that the really creative people here are not story-tellers who imagine worlds, but the scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs and politicians, who actually make things happen in the real world that we all inhabit. I know that a lot of people would argue that the rate of change towards these new technologies is still far too slow to tackle climate change, but that’s a question about political will. The political choice to shift away from fossil fuels is only even theoretically possible if viable alternatives are available. The encouraging story this book tells is that they are, and getting more viable all the time. The other encouraging point -and I’m simply not qualified to judge how realistic it is- is that a time is arriving where market forces themselves, regardless of politics, will pull us in the direction of solar power and power storage, and away from fossil fuels.