Monthly Archives: July 2012

Fear of the unknown

News of the day: I have author copies of

This proves it IS possible to get them before a book is released and not, necessarily, 3 months later if at all. And to the right address too. That’s the first time in about twenty. I hope it is a trend starting, not a fluke.

I’ve always been more curious about the unknown than afraid. Still, I accept the comfort of familiarity, and the idea that something nasty might be out there, beyond the circle of lamplight.

I’m of the kind who would go and look, because I’d infinitely rather find out what it was and deal with it than shiver in my little piece of known. The one thing you can absolutely guarantee is I would not stick my head in the ground and pretend that if I can’t see it, it can’t see me.

I would have guessed a relentless curiosity and anything but stick your head in the ground would be the defining trait of sf/fantasy writers. I would think, by definition almost, we’d be the one group of people who would want to know everything, even if it was nasty.

Now I belong a fairly large group of sf/fantasy writers. Someone sounded off about a problem they’d had on facebook in terms which were less than flattering about Christians, lumping them all into the right wing, and to my ear, implying such people were all racist homophobes. Well, everyone is entitled their opinions. And everyone is entitled to disagree with those. I might not agree with either side, but I’ll defend to the death your right to sound off about them, and I personally don’t care what religion, orientation, or skin color you have. I don’t even care where you sit politically. I might argue with you, but my own ‘politics’ come down to thinking about issues and making up my mind. I don’t let others do my thinking for me, which means I’ve never really sat in any camp and try to be reasonably tolerant about most viewpoints, especially in public. Actually, if anything cooks my goose it is intolerance. Back where I grew up this was called – and this may seem odd to modern Americans, but wouldn’t back in history – liberal thinking.

I’m, I suppose, a statistician of sorts. Fisheries science is about half biology and half really esoteric statistical modelling which is pretty close to fantasy really. So I tend to think of things in terms of probabilities and numbers.

Given a healthy society(or fish population), any reasonably sized subgroup in that society will more or less mirror the demographics of the group, unless there are major reasons why not. For instance if you sample all the fish in one large rock-pool it will contain most of same fish as in all rock pools on that coast (with some of the rare ones not being represented or found there but not typically) and, unless there is some good reason in roughly the same proportions.

Now, sometimes there are very good reasons why this is not so. Reasons that make sense. Reasons which are logical and understandable. And sometimes the proportions show there is a difference, and either there is no discernible reason, or the reason is just plain dumb, or is historical or no longer relevant, or is because you’re taking a snapshot at a point in time. Sometimes they show a real underlying problem that is fixable, or getting worse. One thing they don’t really do is any harm to individuals, unless those individuals benefit by the odd proportions being maintained. But for example, you’re a good doctor, and a Sikh, and the proportions of Sikh’s in the general population 2% and the proportion of Sikh doctors is 5%… well, the world needs good doctors, and obviously that culture encourages children in that direction. Every now and again the figures will show up something that bears thinking about. An obvious thing would be say the number of women on Company Boards. If it doesn’t remotely resemble the 50% that it should be by natural reflection, you need to take some thought to why not, and look at things like the historical numbers (let’s say it was 0, then 5 then 15… you could see it was changing with time and work out what is happening).

Without looking at the numbers, at the stats, and then working out why they are what they are, you will remain ignorant. Blind to all sorts of things. Opportunities. Problems. Dangers. Money.
Getting those numbers is a way of finding out what the unknown is. The point is, without some kind of survey and rigorous thinking statistical analysis… What’s out there is unknown. You may think you know, but really you’re guessing. And any guess that your subgroup does not reflect the overall demographic to some extent, is just dumb (unless you KNOW it doesn’t for some reason, and even then, you’re actually guessing aren’t you? Not logical. Not clever.)

So for instance, this group of readers will be self-selected and not really reflect the demographic make-up of the internet audience. But I’d be a lot stupider than I am to assume that this group would be a ‘safe’ place to badmouth for example ‘Hispanic’ people or ‘Same-sex couples’ without knowing the probability that they’re part of the audience. If I’d surveyed the audience and knew that my audience were abnormal demographically and I wanted that on my permanent record (which the internet is) and I wanted to, I could, if I was that daft and unpleasant and felt that way, do that. But otherwise… it would be a stupid thing to do.

And here is the point: we, the writers of sf/fantasy, should in broad terms more or less reflect the demographic make-up of our audience. I’m not suggesting, or even hinting that a writer has to be green and a practicer of the Ying-tong faith to write characters who are green Ying-tongers. Stupid idea. Completely off the wall stupid. But let’s be real here, if green Ying-tongers read, the probabilities show that 1: (A certain number of them), will want to write.

And if green Ying-tongers make up 10% of the population and read, and are of normal intelligence and education… and you have none being published, you have one of three situations. 1)They’re actually not reading. 2)They’re deliberately being excluded. 3)there is some other reason preventing them either reading or writing (if the group has a religious injunction against writing, or reading anything that is not the book of Ying-tong, or prayers to Ying and Tong for example. It’s big, obvious stuff. There is no space for subtlety here.)

Now you can break this up into genres, fiction, non-fiction, whatever. But it is very valuable to both the writers and particularly the publishers… if their goal is to sell as many books as possible. For authors, if taken at narrow, short term self-centered focus, there is less benefit… for example it tells you where there is a probable hole – and many of us fit multiple demographic ID’s, we’ve just chosen to focus on one. Say the author whose parents are Ying-tong and Atheist… who considers themselves neither really, but went along with mummy’s Atheism, but in looking at the demographic of Horror writers, finds Atheists are there in 50% – way above their representation in the population, there is some value in the author claiming his Ying-tong roots. The only other advantage, of course, to writers would be that sooner-or-later the fact that your group leaves out Ying-tongers or whatever, will come out. If it is Ying-tongers themselves who find this out, Ying-tong publishing will probably spring up, and it is likely they’d declare the rest of the industry bigots (rightly or wrongly) biased against the Ying-tong faith, and hurt the authors and their publishers. If the authors did the stats, or the publishers did, and started asking why their were no Ying-tonger writers, it’s pretty hard to hold it against them. It would be tried of course, but most people have good a BS meter. It’s admittedly of less short term value to authors than it is to publishers.

Taking a broader, longer term point of view, a society that loses part of its potential – be that as writers, or readers, or women being educated – is hamstringing itself. Sooner or later that is going make life worse for everyone, including those who were on the ‘winning’ demographic. For writers of course it’s a no-lose situation really. While they may be getting a few readers from chunks of the demographic that they don’t have anything in common with, they don’t have to lose that — it really means there is much bigger pie. And a bigger pie means a bigger industry, and you’re more likely to find enough readers to keep you afloat.

Yes: you might see publishing of other things – or authors who write say sparkly vampires from from LDS point of view – do very well. But those readers are not ones you’ve lost. They’re ones you probably never had, and may now get. But yes, people or cultures you don’t like might benefit. Or not.

Now I know I came from a odd subculture, that group ‘white’ South Africans who actually always opposed a system of government designed to favor them. Yes, they were always there, long before the ‘oppressed’ started organizing. Of course, to me, this is a noble, honorable thing to do. It’s the right thing to do. I am biased, yes. It runs parallel to the concept of ‘I disagree absolutely with what you want to say, but I’ll fight to the death for your right to say it. It means if you see your worst enemy, that you dislike/ distrust/ hate with an ancestral hatred is getting a raw deal at your expense… you’ll try and give them a lift up, even if you can’t stand them and know their first act is going to be to spit at you, and try to get you down. You’ll still pick the bastards up, and stand clear. Which is pretty damn dumb too, I suppose. It has a long tradition, and was I’d guess it originally from ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you,’ and has had centuries of history in western civilization. You might – if you were me – say it was one of the things that drives civilization forward.

Which brings me back, full circle, to the comments that started me thinking down this track… I thought, either the demographics of this group are totally out of whack with the demographics of the main reading population, or someone hasn’t thought about this. The chances are she’s offending a large chunk of those reading her comment… or not. So I suggested a strictly anonymous survey – run through something like Survey Monkey (which so long as you didn’t make the survey publicly accessible would give you a good handle on some basic data without cross referencing)- which would give us a handle on the demographics of a group that I though broadly representative of sf/fantasy writers. Ask the same demographic questions as the census and other generally available population stats (such as electoral data). Such a thing have to be 1)Anonymous, 2)be voluntary 3 )have a broad general buy-in, to be worth while. Look, whatever it showed I am a weird outlier – Flinders Island has a low probability of having an author of any description. So basically it’s of no short term ‘benefit’ to me. I was just curious, and naturally assumed in my profession, everyone is.

I was amazed and perplexed by the response. You’d have thought I suggested a baby-killing with a spot necrophiliac bestiality thrown in by the general stunned silence. Two people out of a couple of hundred thought it might possibly have some merit. Not enough to say ‘yeah we should do this’ but not ‘nay’. The most curious ones to me were those who said it would ‘divisive’. I was rather gobsmacked by this, as they’re – shall we say, not secretive about their own rather extreme religious, political, gender, orientation points of view – not in the group or in public. Outspoken would be more accurate. So… knowing who you spoke to would divide you from them? Making assumptions, which are almost certainly partially wrong is… better? I didn’t get this, but didn’t see any sense in arguing.

I tried briefly to argue the idea, but rapidly decided the cake wasn’t worth the candle, shrugged and walked away. It needed real buy-in, and I wasn’t getting it. I think people are needlessly suspicious about this sort of thing. I don’t understand why, unless you’re exploiting some kind of false perception. And it’s a waste of effort to do so: You can avoid it… briefly. But basically the internet is a vast data repository. If the traditionally published Sf/fantasy writers actually matter in 10 years time — someone will compile the stats. They’d be less accurate, but we’ll know how many are between 50-60 or 20-30. We’ll know their gender, we’ll know their orientation. We’ll know if they are religious, and if so, what religion. We’ll know if they ever supported a political point of view or party. We’ll know what race they feel they are and what country or state they come from. Short of staying in a hole, and posting manuscripts snail-mail, this is public domain data and data-mining tools are getting better and better. You simply cannot hide as a statistic, even if you succeed as an individual.

I thought it would be fascinating and tell us a lot about ourselves. I guess I was the only one. But in reality I suspect it won’t matter and won’t be worth doing, because let’s face it, self-publishing WILL be demographically representative of readers. And I suspect these folk will just be in a little area of that. Not divided, of course…

reposted in Mad Genius club


Filed under Uncategorized


So what goes into a good dose of invisibility?

It’s the stock-in-trade of countless fantasy and not a few sf books and stories. But what is it? I got into a discussion over at the vision list and replied in such a fashion that I thought worth repeating here.

One of the posters said “The problem with invisibility is that it also makes you totally blind. Since your eyes’ photoreceptors work by light impacting on them and triggering an electrical response in the nerves, an invisible eye would allow the light to pass right through, thus rendering the photoreceptors useless. An invisible person is also blind”

Hmm. Only for certain values of ‘invisible’ Only if you conflate entirely transparent with invisible.

Let’s start by defining just what we mean by invisibility

πŸ™‚ I assumed – seeing as the discussion is of the physics of making something which should in plain sight that we were all referring to the physics definition of transparent (as opposed to translucent) which would be to allow the unreflected passage of at least certain wavelengths of the EM spectrum (although this would still permit refraction). Something which is perfectly transparent to the EM frequencies we humans see, would de facto be invisible, and many glass doors which are walked into prove we find this to be true. Your contention that the invisible eye would allow light to pass through it would seem to indicate that this is type of ‘invisibility’ to which you referred. However, this is only a small part of the set of possible reasons a human wearing an invisibility ring could remain unseen. One would have to start with what sight is, what was being seen and by whom. What sight is, is a translation to an image of a message transmitted by the nervous system to the brain from photoreceptors in the eye. What being seen is largely reflected light (as most humans don’t appear to emit much visible light, the luminaries of sf excluded) which passes through air (or possibly liquid) to the photoreceptor. That reflected light has bounced off the skin hair and/or clothing of the visible person. To create a situation (purely for the purposes of writing about it, natch) in which the person is unseen, the simplest is to coat that human in writerum (or even just give them a small part-time ring of it) and to have the person trying to see them (in order to pay outstanding royalties or turn in monies) in traditional publishing industry. This has been proven to render the parties owed money invisible and de facto non-existent for years, and always for months. However, in the absence of writerum paint, we could start with each of the steps. Firstly the simplest is the brain where something like a SEP field can make the image rendered invisible. In slightly more technical terms we can force the brain to lie to itself. This is possible by physics and or magic, which could be the same thing. It’s also possible by psychology, which could not. Then there are the nerves and photoreceptors themselves. There are possible ways of interfering with these to make them carry false information, or remove information. Then there is the medium through which the reflected light is transmitted, which could be affected in various ways – some of which could effect light traveling in one direction differently to to the other (thereby making the human who is invisible able to see but not be seen). Simple distortion of light transmission would make it impossible to see anything let alone the invisible person. Then there is the surface of the ‘invisible’ person or object which has to reflect light so that it may accurately be seen. Both chameleon and scattering effects could be used to varying degrees of effective. So could illusionary effects – ‘that’s not a person it’s a bush’. So could transparency (which would leave the the invisible person blind).

And those are just a few possibilities. Then we get onto dimensionality and size… And bankerbunkum which can make unexplained billions just appear in said banksta’s accounts, and they have NO idea how that happened.

Or we could just say ‘what make fire?’ “Aha, MAGIC.” ‘Same thing make invisible’. πŸ™‚


Filed under Uncategorized