My novel The Deep And Shining Dark (Book One of the Marek Series) was released last Friday! It's currently available as an ebook from various retailers; the print version will be out in September.
In the last ten days or so I've had a birthday, seen Hamilton, seen The Last Jedi for a second time, and got another couple of episodes of Black Sails in. All of these things are excellent and I heartily recommend them. (More Hamilton London tickets going on sale at the start of next week!)
(TLJ spoilers upcoming.)
The Last Jedi was, I think, better the second time around, because I was less anxious about Were They Going To Fuck This Up and could get on with enjoying it. And with spotting the bits and pieces I missed last time. Like the books in the drawer in the Falcon at the end; and, close to the start, Luke saying irritably to Rey, "What, did you think I was going to march out with a laser sword and face down the First Order single-handed?". The final scene with Luke and Kylo Ren -- and the cut at the end to Rey, the real Last Jedi -- was even more epic second time around. I still think it was a smidge too long, but I enjoyed all of it regardless.
And now I'm about to have a virtual film night watch of Rock of Ages. I feel in need of popcorn 🙂
I went to a panel at Worldcon on the morality of generation ships, and have been thinking about it since.
(I'm also going to take this opportunity to recommend this Jo Walton story set on a generation ship, which is great and has something to say about choice and decisions.)
So, the question under discussion at the panel was: is it morally acceptable to board a generation ship (i.e. a ship that people will live on for multiple generations on their way to another planet), given that you are not just making a decision for yourself, but for your future children, grandchildren, etc etc. The two main categories of moral problem that the panel identified were:
- the risk of the voyage itself;
- the lack of choice for every generation after the one that gets on the ship in the first place.
The 'risk' issue seems reasonably strong. It's very unlikely that anyone would have a really clear idea of what the planet was like that they were going to. If you're using a generation ship at all, then you probably don't have any other form of fast travel, so any information that exists about the planet will be scanty, very out of date, or most likely both. (See Kim Stanley Robinson's Aurora, which is also great.) So it's not at all a reliable bet that your descendants will truly be able to settle where they're headed to, even if it looks good from here.
There are also the risks of the voyage itself, including but not limited to radiation issues, the possibility of running into something else, and the likelihood that the ship will genuinely be able to maintain a workable ecological system. We don't have good on-Earth comparisons for small closed systems; what experiments have been conducted have been very short-term and not terribly promising. What about the social dynamics? What are the risks of, say, a totalitarian system arising? If the risks on Earth are very high, or humans on Earth are facing imminent disaster, then this might be an acceptable trade-off, but how high is 'very high' and how disastrous does a disaster have to be? Does it need to be Earth-wide? If your current home is, for example, sinking under rising waters, and you know that any alternative will mean becoming a refugee in poor circumstances -- how much risk is 'reasonable' to accept then?
Which brings us on to the issue of 'choice'. One could argue that a kid living in a refugee camp without enough food or warm clothes has, notionally, some future 'choice' or 'opportunity' to escape that. A child on a generation ship is stuck there.
But why is "can't leave generation ship" morally different from "can't leave Earth"? Which is of course a situation into which all children are currently born and which we do not consider morally problematic. And how realistic is the 'choice' that the average Earth-born child has? This was where I thought that the Worldcon panel fell down a bit. They threw the word "choice" around a lot but didn't at all interrogate what realistic "choice" is available to which children in which situation on Earth. There are many kids born without very many realistic 'choices'; children who are unlikely to go more than a few miles beyond where they were born, children whose projected lifespan is short, children whose lives are likely to be very difficult. How different is that, in reality, from a generation ship? In fact, if the generation ship does work, it might be a better life than on Earth: guaranteed food, shelter, and useful work (making the ship run).
The panel talked about limiting the choices of children born on the moon, because they might not be able to go back and live on Earth -- but why is Earth necessarily better than the moon, or Mars, or the asteroid belt? Why isn't it immoral of us to have children who are stuck down here in the gravity well?
More generally: we're constantly making choices for our children, and through them for generations beyond; we're constantly giving them some chances and removing other options, every decision we make. Is that immoral? It's not avoidable, however much privilege you have, although most certainly more privilege generally means more options.
Would I get on a generation ship? Well. Not without a really good perusal of the specs. But I'm not convinced that it's immoral to do so.
In two weeks I will be off to Helsinki for Worldcon 75! About which I am very excited.
I am also in some programme items, so if you're going & any of these are of interest, come along:
- "Why Have School Systems Not Kept Up With the Changes In Technology? -- Sandy, Nick Falkner, Carl, Juliet Kemp (I guess I am the non-school person on this)
- "Polyamorous Relationships in Fiction" -- Tim Susman, Juliet Kemp, Elizabeth Bear, Jean Johnson, Sara Norja
- Stitch & Bitch -- the tag says I am "moderator" but I figure that just means "person who will definitely actually be there to welcome people".
- Beyond the Dystopia -- Juliet Kemp (moderator), Tom D Wright, Vincent Docherty, Taiyo Fujii, Tiina Raevaara (I was on an Eastercon panel on this and it was great, so looking forward to revisiting).
Now I need to start making some notes so I will have something to say...
Their current stories are worth a read, too.
Tales of the Civil War, another City of the Saved anthology, is available to buy now and shipping in physical form now-or-very-shortly! It's edited by Philip Purser-Hallard and contains stories by Kara Dennison, Kelly Hale, Louise Dennis, Helen Angove, Selina Lock, and me.
For a taster, try Kara Dennison reading part of her story, 'The Tale of Sir Hedwyn'.
My copy hasn't come through yet but I am greatly looking forward to everyone's stories.
Forthcoming later this year: another City of the Saved anthology from Obverse Books, Tales Of The Civil War. Featuring a story from me, alongside other excellent people:
"War has come to the City of the Saved. Once immune from harm, the resurrected Citizens of the universe find themselves once again most terribly fragile – and just as in the universe, too many of them now strive to take advantage of the fact.
In this unfamiliar City, the resurrected must revive the long-forgotten skills of their original lives. Knights, courtiers, detectives, killers, nurses, adventurers, spies: the afterlives of all will be irrevocably changed by the Civil War.
"These are their tales.
* *The Tale of Sir Hedwyn* by Kara Dennison
* *The Age of Meeting Ourselves Again* by Kelly Hale
* *The Queen of Clubs* by Louise Sellers
* *To Die by the Sword* by Helen Angove
* *Just Passing Through* by Juliet Kemp
* *Angels on a Hoverbike* by Selina Lock
* *Interlude from a Civil War* by Philip Purser-Hallard"
Note: these are not books that I am recommending personally, because I haven't read any of them yet. They are instead books that other people at the con talked about sufficiently enthusiastically that I now want to read them. Some of them are on my (now much larger) to-read pile, either in dead tree form or electronically; some aren't yet.
First up: two people I know had book launch parties at the con! David L. Clements released his collection of short stories, 'Disturbed Universes' (from NewCon Press); and Siobhan McVeigh has a story in the collection 'Existence is Elsewhere' from Elsewhen Press (scroll right down for buying options). I heard various of the authors reading extracts from their stories in this book at the launch and they all sounded great.
The rest of my recs are from the Feminist Fantasy panel:
- Jo Walton 'Lifelode' (annoyingly, it seems to be out of print, and expensive second-hand)
- The Chinese myth series Dream of Red Mansions
- Elizabeth Gouge (note that not all of her books are fantasy)
- Octavia Butler 'The Wild Sea'
- Someone mentioned the Green Knowe series of children's books, which are sort-of historical fantasy. I read them as a child (a long time ago now) but am now minded to have a look for them the next time I'm in the library and see how they've held up.
- Tanith Lee
- Lois McMaster Bujold 'Paladin of Souls' -- I have read this one and it is GREAT. Very strongly recommended.
- Kate Elliott -- both fiction and non-fiction. (Just looked at her post about her own books/series and am now wondering how I missed all of this for this long. Looks great!)
- Mary Stewart -- Merlin trilogy
- Andre Norton 'Year of the Unicorn'. (I should probably have read this already...) (but I haven't, so.)
To enlarge your (my) reading list further, E. G. Cosh (who was on a panel with me and is v cool) has a recs post too.