Author:
"Character soon reaches the street and turns toward the castle."

Character:
No.

Author:
What do you mean no? You've found out there is no other direction. Now start up for the castle --

Character:
I am not going to that frigging castle!

Author:
Do you know how long I've been setting this moment up? That castle has been in your dreams --

Warning: Do not read in an environment where falling off your chair laughing helplessly might have adverse consequences, eg, on high girders, post martial rows, in traditional libraries, or any other place where Humour is Prohibited by Order of the Management. You Have Been Warned.
posted by Anonymous at 22:46   permalink comment? e-mail lynda@okalrel.org 2 comments

 
I read Marc Renaud's preface to the "Knowledge Council" document of SSHRC today, and was surprised by a thrill of excitement over something unrelated to my reason for reading it. The following quotation sums up why:

"But, it is not scientific knowledge or technological know-how that will enable use to preserve civilization for our grandchildren and theirs. Most of what we need in these domains we already have. Our problem, as a civilization, is one of values, of economic and political priorities and of social organization."

My reaction was a big, joyful "YES!" Followed by relief and amazement that other people in the world really do get that, as well.

In my youth I was an advocate of science as the solution to mankind's problems, in the naive belief it would be used by wise heads for the best possible reasons. I now think human nature is what we need to understand, warts and all, if we are to avoid preventable disasters. Universities are exactly the sorts of places that are meant to think about such things on behalf of the rest of us. But I had rather assumed, given the weight of evidence that washes over one in the average day, that even academics are becoming too obsessed with success that comes with cash rewards to be much help in addressing the most critical questions of our times. Reading the preface of the SHHRC report, entitled "We Know How to Shape Our Future So What's Stopping Us", was a boost for the hard beset optimist in me that likes to imagine I am not the only one who realizes there isn't much point winning if all you win is a world ruined by short-sighted greed.

I try to make people think about these questions, in my own small way, through my science fiction. (The link http://okalrel.org/contest/themes.htm explains).
posted by Lynda at 11:24   permalink comment? e-mail lynda@okalrel.org 0 comments

 

This book is truly, simply put, amazing. Set in the universe of Okal Rel, I found myself awestruck and lured in by the meticulously thought-out galaxy and characters.

Oh, the characters! Electric, brilliant characters, both unique and full of life, they grab hold of your affection (and sometimes hatred) and don?t let go.

And of course, to accompany all this, is a wonderful plot, brimming with adventure, seductive romance, politics and more then the characters? fair share of hardships.

Plus, as an extra bonus, the universe is open to fans! Enthusiasts can write novellas set in the Okal Rel universe and get a chance to work with the author, Lynda Williams, herself!

This is indeed one of my favourite books of all time! Okal Rel is a whole new, wonderful universe and will get the reverence it truly deserves.
posted by Anonymous at 16:37   permalink comment? e-mail lynda@okalrel.org 1 comments

 
Jeff Carver posted about this guide on SFCanada, earlier this month. I decided it is a reference I wanted to have available somewhere that I could find it readily. So it's here. It might be of interest to those of you who do writing workshops, as well.
The URL is http://www.writesf.com.
posted by Lynda at 06:50   permalink comment? e-mail lynda@okalrel.org 0 comments

 

Fellow author Celu Amberston asked me to re-cast my part of a discussion concerning the definition of science fiction that took place on SFCanda some months back. I believe there was a deadline involved that I may have missed :-( but now I have it done, I thought I would share it here, at least. And if she can still use it for the original purpose intended, I'll update to point Reality Skimming readers in Celu's direction.

Many attempts to define science fiction miss the point by latching onto something much too concrete as the core defining principle. This approach leads to unproductive debates about the difference between science fiction and fantasy, because it overlooks a unity of purpose that transcends both variations of the genre. Take, for example, the idea that science fiction must proceed from a plausible extrapolation of known science: the favored definition of the optimistic, golden age of science fiction. This idea is rooted in a period, following World War II, when science was both feared for the evidence of its destructive power and worshipped as the means to solve mankind?s ills. One way or the other, it was mightily empowering, and we hadn?t figured out, yet, that greater power was only going to bump the problems intrinsic to human nature up a level in terms of impact, not smooth out the challenges. The current popularity of fantasy over science fiction, often raised by panelists at cons, is a by-product of our collective disillusionment. Todorov defined the literature of the fantastic in an equally narrow way, in the 1970s, when he identified the key element as a state of ambiguity with regard to whether or not the supernatural accounts for events, or they can be explained in naturalistic terms. This definition, while useful as a tool for analysis, is likewise much too narrow to be useful in getting at what it is that causes science fiction and fantasy to occupy the same intellectual terrain so frequently, despite attempts to draw boundaries between them. Science Fiction and fantasy, taken as one genre, is the literature that conjectures about ?what if? questions, and uses the outcome as a thought experiment in which human nature is the test subject. When fantasy asks: ?What if individuals had magic powers?, it often reaches the same conclusions or explores the same issues that hard science fiction does when it substitutes: ?What if science empowered us to something we cannot do now.? Looked at from the ?What if? perspective, the difference between science fiction and fantasy is merely instrumental: some authors use science to construct their ?what if? scenarios and some prefer magic or the supernatural. This approach does not prevent someone from finding one or the other choice of instrument more meaningful. But it does have the virtue of stressing that what really matters, in both cases, is how characters behave. Bibliography John W. Campbell, Jr. Introduction, Analog 6, Garden City, New York, 1966. Todorov 1973 : Todorov, T., The fantastic; a structural approach to a literary genre, (translated from the French by Richard Howard). Cleveland, Press of Case Western Reserve University, 1973.

posted by Lynda at 06:24   permalink comment? e-mail lynda@okalrel.org 0 comments

 

"The Lorel Experiment" was an interesting introduction to the Okal Rel universe, as I had never read any of the other Okal Rel stories. "The Lorel Experiment" provided some interesting food for thought regarding the ethics of human genetic manipulation. The view of a world divided over self-evolved children was a interesting reflection of the reality (at least here in North America) of the limitations placed on science by either ethical or religious sources. I liked where the story went, and I liked the characters. What about Dr. Lorel and Dr. Fox? It seemed like they could have been developed more, but I guess the novella is not the best form for doing so. In fact, I could see all of these short chapters as viable novels with the characters developed more thoroughly. This story will be interesting for those readers who have already read "Throne Price" or other Okal Rel novels, and I am interested in finding out what happens to humanity in the distant Okal Rel future.

Four stars out of five.

by Keith Tedford (reproduced with permission)

posted by Lynda at 06:43   permalink comment? e-mail lynda@okalrel.org 0 comments

 

Pleased by the following item in this week's edition of FOREWORD Magazine.

Released in April 2005, Under the Radar for the first time took the measure of the $14.2 billion of annual revenues of the 63,000 publishers with annual revenues of less than $50 million. How much of this sum will add to the present $28 billion industry sales metric is yet to be seen. Book Industry TRENDS 2006 will incorporate this data annually for the first time. BISG ANNOUNCES LANDMARK USED BOOK STUDY in in FOREWORD THIS WEEK 10.05.05

Of course, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the "big guys" in the fiction world (and sci fi in particular) are the "little guys" from the point of view of the publishing industry in general, since "$50 million or less" a year in revenues is a pretty hefty threshhold. But the item still suggests that increased activity by (relatively) smaller publishers is starting to register.

PS: As anyone who looks at Lynda Reads from time to time is aware, I love good books no matter who publishes them. I merely view the increase in smaller publishers as a healthy and natural change given the advent of enabling technologies and the diversity of the authors and readers in the world.

posted by Lynda at 14:12   permalink comment? e-mail lynda@okalrel.org 0 comments

 

At Cascadia Con, I won a copy of L. Timmel Duchamp's book of short stories Love's Body, Dancing in Time, and have been enjoying it enough to look her up on the web. Today I read an essay on her website that helped me put my finger on what irks me so much about the fad for goods guys losing in horrible, pointless ways and everyone's best nature being proved misguided in the face of well motived greed, fanaticism or rapaciousness. If you object to work of that kind, cynics like to sneer and say it is more "realistic" as if the promotion of ugly truths was sufficient to make something good art. To object at all labels one as a silly Pollyanna or emotional weakling. Bullshit. To value what deserves to be valued in the face of defeat deserves, at the very least, to be beautiful and hopeful in the sense that Duchamp describes it, below. Not pitied for being wrong-headed or simply a 'yuk yuk' for the crowd who want to identify with the winners, quick, no matter what they stand for. This is about the heart and soul of art. No one should have to apologize for caring about that.

The beauty and power of life and hope don't come easy. I never find them in the slick, easy endings that slide down like the cola that leaves my mouth cloyed and thirsty afterward. Hope cannot be found by shutting one's eyes to what hurts, by pretending that history simply doesn't matter. For without the courage of acknowledging what we can't (and shouldn't have to) bear, "hope" is but a mirage of an oasis without substance. ©1998 L.Timmel Duchamp in What Makes Fiction Hopeful

posted by Lynda at 08:17   permalink comment? e-mail lynda@okalrel.org 0 comments