Novelists tell that piece of truth hidden at the bottom of every lie. To a psychoanalyst it is not so important whether you tell the truth or a lie because lies are as interesting, eloquent, and revealing as any claimed truth…I prefer to stay with the truths I find in writers who present themselves as the most bold-faced liars. My goal in writing ‘If on a Winter’s Night a Traveler’, a novel entirely based on fantasy, was to find in this way a truth that I would have not been able to find otherwise.
Link

I’m pleased (ecstatic really) to announce that one of my stories is being published in this month’s edition of Apex Magazine. The story is entitled Recipe Collecting in the Asteroid Belt, and I’m extremely proud to have it published in such a premier publication.
Please enjoy! It’s available for Kindle/Nook/pdf.
Image
Link
Happy 140th, Sci-Fi.
And in a fascinating, related article (especially when checking out all the men’s fashion at the Royal Wedding yesterday):
http://io9.com/#!5780430/an-appreciation-of-lord-bulwer+lytton
The Unusual Thing
Recently, I’ve been trying my hand at long-form improv twith guidance from the experts at the Upright Citizen’s Brigade (NYC division).
As a student in script analysis, I remember learning that a good opening scene would encapsulate the entire story. The conflict, the stakes, the tone—it was all there from the curtain, if you only had the skills to decode it.
Of course, that was script analysis, not script synthesis. As a writer, independent of medium, it is a daunting task to compose an opener that condenses the conflict into a moment and make it dramatically interesting.
When I signed up for improv classes, I never suspected they’d be such a valuable tool to address that process.
In improv, the unusual thing, that initial moment when the status quo is disrupted, becomes the story. Okay, so it’s hella difficult, but in the moment that comes from a misunderstood line, an unexpected reaction, an intriguing idea, lightning strikes—what the hell is happening? The game is afoot, and if you’re smart enough, the scene is scene is practically written for you.
Example: You dive out on stage and shout “They’re shelling us!” In your head it’s a WWI trench scene. Except your partner dives next to you and says, “Why do they keep throwing turtles at us?!” Now you’re off and running. Your opener is over. It’s a war story, which is not the unusual thing (as it could be in a WWI coming of age story), but that animals are being used as weaponry is unexpected by everyone.
As a writer, I’m rarely struck with an opening. More often it’s an idea, or a climax. The beginning is composed outside of the lightning and thus it bears the pressure of being composed to accomplish something.
In improv, it’s the opposite. Stepping out, there is no middle, no progression, no end. The first moment that there’s a laugh or shock, a nidus is created for all that follows—a battle against a zoo, a pet store rivalry, the Planet of the Turtles movie that should have been. It could be any of those, but the choices would be guided by the level of stakes already chosen. People in an Armageddon behave differently than those in a small business rivalry. The beauty is largely this: by the time the unusual thing has happened, often so many choices have already been made that the decisions are in the past, not the future.
I would have expected that the simplicity of this process would make a scene less compelling, however in capable hands that is rarely the case. In fact, it is the opposite. It’s us amateurs, trying too hard to write a clever scene that we’re simultaneously acting out to pay attention to the seed crystal of spontaneous creation.
Of course, it might be quite difficult (and wholly unsatisfying to everyone involved) to write a novel live…
Image
Beware the Dream Killers!
I’m a space nerd.
When I was thirteen I went to Space Academy in Huntsville, AL, (NB Space Camp was just what they called the kiddie camp, for us teens it was Space Academy). I remember the hope that maybe, just maybe, if an astronaut got sick, they’d call on one of us to take his place. That didn’t happen.
What actually happened was stranger: my bunkmates were huge The Little Mermaid fans and having never seen the movie, I was inducted into the cult of Menken by unending choruses of “Les poissons, les poissons!” I went to get an education about the shuttle and left with the lyrics to Under the Sea.
Space ignites the imagination and some dreams won’t be extinguished easily. In 2002, I attended NASA’s Aerospace Medicine clerkship. I’d contend that there is no better way to learn physiology than to learn about a body in an abnormal physical environment. Puking when you burp? Moving forward feels like diving? Face swelling up? It all makes sense, but only when you really understand how the body works on Earth.
I started to think: hmmm, maybe I should try to become an astronaut. After med school, I’d probably need a mechanical engineering degree and start doing triathlons weekly, but it could be done. I bought the Star Trek concept of “the final frontier.” I blew off concerns that a Mars trip would be dangerous (psychologically or by radiation). I wanted to conquer the unexplored, the daunting, the harrowing.
What killed the dream? The only thing that could kill something that exciting: the really, really mundane. Dreams of rocketing into space and exploring distant worlds thrive on the abnormal, the special. They must remain separate from the dull and the ordinary. Unfortunately, education makes the unknown known. Beware learning, for it can kill the special.
After a month at NASA, living in space became decidedly not sexy. For bureaucratic reasons, it is extremely loud, to the point that hearing a co-astronaut (never mind accents and different languages) can be nightmarishly challenging. In practice, space pharmacology is more DIY than you’d ever expect for pilots of a billion dollar enterprise. Panel-wiping is a full-time job on the ISS to keep the slime growth in check. And when you’re not up there, being an astronaut sounded decidedly like a job.
They say a little learning is a dangerous thing, and when it came to space, I wish I’d remained ignorant. God speed, Endeavour. I hope you get home safely. I will be watching, just from a distance.
Image

Straight out of The Raw Shark Texts.
Image

Perfection, anyone? Why not?
We are ambivalent about performance enhancing drugs. Not just illicit kinds, but even those that reduce sadness, anxiety, or tolerate reality more effectively. Of course there are those people that are too eager to take medications, classifying every twinge into a disorder that demands a google-able treatment, but by and large, as a psychiatrist, I see the opposite. People want to be “better,” however that may be defined, while skipping reliance on a therapist or medication.
Skip B, go directly to F. If only that were possible.
I was interested that this theme is reflected by two recent entries into the neurothriller sci-fi genre—Limitless (the Bradley Cooper movie) and Harmony (the Project Itoh novel, and winner of the PKD 2010 Special Citation). Both of these works wrestle with a basic question: to accept or eschew technology that allows for betterment?
In Limitless, Cooper’s schlub is transformed into the uber-renaissance man through a mind-altering pill. The movie is that surprisingly rare occurrence when good casting, performance, script and cinematography collaborate to tell a story. Tension builds though toward the end of the movie: the character is soooo much cooler on drugs, we don’t want the schlub back. Faced with this dilemma, what ending to give? A “just say no to drugs” ending is disappointing, but a “drugs are cool” ending feels morally…what? Cheating? Illegal? Dangerous? Or just wrong? I’ll avoid spoiling.

Harmony is a journey that starts with a health totalitarianism and ends with the question of whether imperfect health (and mentality) isn’t the very essence of humanity. The world built, and the choices Itoh made, explore discomfort with government mandated-health and biological improvements in decision-making. In a world where perfection is possible, choice is the true essence of humanity.
While Limitless glorifies the quest for betterment through pharmacology, Harmony warns against it. Yet, they share a similar message: control is more important than health, perhaps more valuable than life itself.
There seems to be no argument that we’re perfect. Clearly, we all accept that we’re being beta-tested, and there’s room for improvement. However, we will accept technology-assisted upgrades as long as no one’s addicted (or can be your own dealer), and no one mandates the upgrade.
Perhaps the universal human experience isn’t the longing for happiness or immortality, but primarily the desire for control. In which case, as we increasingly enter a world of technological advances, whom will we ever trust enough to accept them?

