San Francisco, 2:58 AM
Tue Dec 22
25 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
Editor-in-Chief:
Annalee Newitz |
News Editor:
Charlie Jane Anders |
Associate Editor:
Meredith Woerner |
Assistant Editor:
Lauren Davis |
Weekend Editor:
Graeme McMillan |
Contributors:
Joshua Glenn
Stephen Goldmeier |
Ed Grabianowski |
Austin Grossman
Paul Hogan |
Lauren Davis |
Chris Hsiang |
Lynn Peril |
Ann VanderMeer
Alasdair Wilkins |
Graphic Designer:
Stephanie Fox |
Interns:
Tim Barribeau |
Julia Carusillo |
Alex Eichler |
Cyriaque Lamar |
Caitlin Petrakovitz |
Mary Ratliff |
Josh Snyder |
My GOD, I hate this kind of feminist biotopia nonsense. These "new societies" living in perfect harmony with the environment would last just as long as the first influenza outbreak. If they lasted even that long. A horde of thugs from the nearest city-center armed with clubs made from street-signs and parking meters would slaughter or enslave the whole lot of them in a week's time. #yearoftheflood
@Derek Pegritz: I think the point wasn't that perfect harmony happened after the Flood things when pear shaped and they had to learn how to survive and utilize the skills they learned from their old days. #yearoftheflood
I was pretty disappointed. I couldn't stand how Ren was sloppily retconned into Jimmie's life. (actually, the whole character of Ren was annoying) I could see involving Glenn with the Gardeners and exploring how their their ideas (the waterless flood) would have influenced his decision to, you know, destroy humanity, but Atwood shied away from that and instead focused on Ren's inexplicable lifelong crush on Jimmie.
In the end, I finished it just to finish it. I didn't really care about any of these characters and the end was a little to "neat" for me (hey, welcome to the end of the world, how convenient that we all know each other). Which is a shame because Oryx and Crake is one of my favorite books and I'm a huge Atwood fan, Cat's Eye and The Blind Assassin are also favorites. #yearoftheflood
@Fate'sBitch: I was in the same boat. I love Atwood, Oryx and Crake is my favorite of hers, but I didn't like this one as much. The relationships between the characters in general rang false, in my opinion. In Oryx and Crake, relationships like Crake and Jimmy's snippy-but-affectionate co-dependency and Jimmy's maybe-one-sided obsession with Oryx felt authentic and intense. In The Year of the Flood, I felt like the only reason these characters were connected was because they were all briefly mentioned in the last book. Ren's crush especially was dull--maybe it was supposed to mirror Jimmy's long-lived pining for Oryx, but it just felt tagged on. #yearoftheflood
@Fate'sBitch: These were pretty much my thoughts too. The Year of the Flood felt more like fanfiction than a continuation or companion piece to Oryx and Crake. I also felt there was a lot less "science" this time around. The concepts from the first book, though "fanciful," were at least interesting and well-developed. This time around, it just felt like a re-hash of what was mentioned previously.
I also agree about not really connecting with the characters. I didn't find them all that engaging and I wasn't invested in what would happen to them. #yearoftheflood
Just a small quibble: they're always called Gardeners, but the actual name is God's Gardeners.
And to call the science in a work of science-fiction "fanciful at best" seems weirdly derogatory? Unless there is some definite template on what exactly a lion/lamb hybrid would look like? I mean, what other option is there but to imagine the science of the future? #yearoftheflood
@Pope John Peeps II: I'm no scientist, but to me, the science in Oryx and Crake and The Year of the Flood didn't seem that implausible (well...maaaaybe the neon herpes in Oryx and Crake, but who knows?). It seemed to be in the general vein of what current scientists and corporations are looking into. I also wonder if that's why Atwood has called her work "speculative fiction" instead of "science fiction." Maybe she feels that science fiction features only purely fictional science? #yearoftheflood
@englishmajorennui: Well, she's given a bunch of interviews on that subject, so I don't think anynoe has to repeat any of what she has said. Just go Bing it! hahah. microsoft. nice try. #yearoftheflood
@englishmajorennui: Nah, she's just always had a derogetory view of science fiction. Robert J. Sawyer's commented on it once or twice. And just so I don't get pegged as a bandwagon jumper, I've been reading Sawyer for 11-12 years now.
@Pope John Peeps II: Again, as I said before, it wouldn't matter if Atwood hadn't said stuff like "my book isn't science fiction because it's about things that could actually happen." #yearoftheflood
@Wookie1972: Once an author tries to present their work as some sort of prophecy of an inevitable dystopia my interest begins to wane. There's a reason there isn't a section in the bookstore called "Fiction...FOR NOW!!1!" #yearoftheflood
@Pope John Peeps II: The science in both books is appallingly bad. There is a good reason why Atwood refuses to be called a science fiction writer. She doesn't give a crap about science, or scientific realism. All of the science in this novel and in Oryx and Crake were purely intended as symbolism.
I know some people get wrapped up in what they perceive as Atwood's anti-science bias, so I thought I'd share this quotation from an interview with her from oryxandcrake.co.uk. Atwood comes from a family of scientists.
"Please don't make the mistake of thinking that Oryx and Crake is anti-science. Science is a way of knowing, and a tool. Like all ways of knowing and tools, it can be turned to bad uses. And it can be bought and sold, and it often is. But it is not in itself bad. Like electricity, it's neutral."
That said, I didn't feel this book has the impact of Oryx and Crake, which is one of my favorites. Spoiler alert: the ambiguity at the end of Oryx and Crake was very powerful, and while this new novel ends similarly, I didn't like what it did to the first book's ending. #yearoftheflood
Recently BP discovered a huge deposit of oil under the Gulf of Mexico containing tens of billions of barrels of oil. The catch? It's seven miles down. You'd have to develop new technology to create a seven-mile drill, but that's just what they've done.
The upside: to paraphrase one scientist on the project, "I don't believe in peak oil, only peak technology."
The downside: it's not cheap, and no, you can't make it viable for $1.50 a gallon.
The other upside: the fact that you can't do it cheap will (hopefully) make other forms of energy seem more attractive.
This idea that we'll wake up one morning to find the oil tap has run dry is an easy myth to scare ourselves into action, but reality will be much more complicated than Mad Max. (Though probably not as bad-ass.) #dystopia
Look folks, here's the thing. Anybody out there not think the oil companies are greedy? Anyone?
If peak oil was imminent, they'd be hoarding and price-gouging. You can really, really, count on it. The only reason not to hoard and price-gouge is if you think there's still too much lead-time before the prime hoard/gouge era, and you don't want to make alternatives economically feasible too soon.
Besides, Peak Oil being a "crisis" is pretty much 100% myth. It'll hurt the economy some, and that's about it. There's still plenty of coal around (no, really, centuries worth). Coal can not only be used for many of the fuel/energy purposes of petroleum, it can also be made into petroleum. The process become economically viable around $4-$5 per gallon. We already know that gasoline prices like that don't cause the end of civilization, since Europe pays a lot more, and all it means is that only rich people can have cars that aren't crappy little shitboxes.
So, no end of civilization, no end of plastics feedstocks, no need to worry, really.
If you're really desperate to worry about Peak Oil, about the only rational way is to worry about environmental impact. Regular oil is way cleaner than coal and synthetic oil.
-Kle. #dystopia
Too expensive to drive? Here in the US, I bet you could get $10 a gallon for gas with no appreciable decrease in traffic. It's a big country and for all the noise about concentrated population, most people live far enough from the workplace that they are dependent on the automobile. My commute is 8 - 15 miles. Shorter than many, but not practical in the midwest winter.
@Dr Emilio Lizardo: Considering the shifts in behavior that we saw last year with $4/gallon gas and $140 bbl oil, I'm certain that we'll see more dramatic and sustained shifts with $10 gas, such as: more fuel efficient cars and other vehicles, more use of public transit, more cycling, and living patterns and land use that support those behaviors. #dystopia
@AusJeb: Perhaps in the cities. Like most others in the suburbs, I can not live without my car. I can not earn a living without it. There is no bus that goes anywhere near my home or office. I live approximately 5 miles from the nearest grocery store - a long walk, especially with several bags of groceries or in 10 degree weather or in rain/snow. The traffic in my area has only increased in the 10 years I have been here. There were no changes in behaviour that I could see when gas was $4/gallon last year. I'll pay what they ask or I will have to move and it would have to get awfully bad for that to happen. If I had to move, I likely would not be the only one so I would take a substantial loss - possibly tens of thousands of dollars so I would have to derive a huge financial benefit in terms of gas savings to consider it. A more fuel efficient car only goes so far - cutting my gas consumption by 250 gallons a year (which would mean doubling my mpg) at $4 a gallon only saves $1000. The premium on a hybrid is more than that.
Tens of millions of suburbanites in this country are in the same situation. #dystopia
@Jeremy Tapsell: Well either one is good news. If we are living our lives indoors addicted to watching entertainment on floor to ceiling monitors we won't need as much gas, and if there's enough gas to use it for burning books the shortage can't be that bad. On the other hand if it's a Mad Max future, there will be lots of books to read because if oil is that scarce no one is going to waste it burning books. #dystopia
I know Patton Oswalt made fun of his crummy hometown movie critic for pointing it out, but I always did wonder: If refined gasoline was so hard to come by in the Mad Max universe, then where did Humongous and his army find the wherewithal to go tear-assing around the place? #dystopia
@lightninglouie: What we didn't see is that when there wasn't anyone around to intimidate and steal fuel from, they were riding bicycles and maybe a moped here and there. Wez and his blonde buddy on a tandem or Humongous riding his favorite recumbent didn't quite have the same effect as roaring V8 musclecars, so when gas was at stake they rolled out the big machines.
I am not in any way saying that we shouldn't worry about peak oil, but I will say that it won't be the end of civilization. This may sound like delaying the inevitable, but there's still lots of coal (where most of the U.S. electricity still comes from, not oil) and natural gas. The U.S. alone has recoverable natural gas resources to supply itself for 100 years at current levels of consumption. At the current extraction rate, the entire planet has about 132 years of coal. Assuming increased consumption, about 56 years. I'd hope that hitting peak oil would give us the kick in the pants to go after wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, and nuclear power options aggressively while coal and natural gas keep our civilization going. They're not the cleanest things in the world, but we're getting better in those areas, too. #dystopia
@Turlough: The worry, to my mind, is not that we won't find alternate forms of fuel, but that we won't be able to produce abundant plastic material anymore. That's become extremely important for us here in the West, and I haven't heard a good alternative from any sector as of yet. #dystopia
The current rise in the price of oil has nothing to do with oil and everything to do with the dollar. Oil is priced in dollars internationally. The dollar is losing value because of the Obama administration's spending policies and the Federal Reserve's interest rate policies. Thus, the price of oil is going up because the value of the dollar is in free fall. #dystopia
@Franklin Harris: That's idiotic. There's price fluctuations in a commodity, and then there's the basic availability of a commodity. Oil as a material will eventually run out. Maybe in 50 years, maybe in 250. But when it starts to, we have to be prepared. #dystopia
@Pope John Peeps II: That has nothing to do with what is currently going on with the price of oil, which has nothing to do with supply and even nothing to do with speculation about future supply. This is a short-term spike that has everything to do with the devaluation of the dollar. It's exactly why there is a lot of talk (especially in China) of dropping the dollar as the world's reserve currency, however unlikely that is to actually happen anytime soon. #dystopia
Fortunately, we're discovering massive reserves of natural gas. Not quite as flexible as oil, but cleaner and usable it in cars, etc. with existing technology.
You may remember Boone Picken's proposal to switch to a natural gas economy last year. The US could be self-sufficient with a combination of natural gas, nuclear and renewable resources in fairly short order. Then, if you're willing to clean up coal...
Remind me of this energy provoked social break down again in 100 years or so.
(PS, oil prices are ticking up due to the dollar is taking it in the shorts -- those staggering deficits remember? -- rather than any sudden change in availability.) #dystopia
Look at what remains of your gallant scouts. Why? Because you're selfish! You hoard your gasoline.
Now, my prisoners say you plan to take your gasoline out of the Wasteland. You sent them out this morning to find a vehicle. A rig big enough to haul that fat tank of gas.
11/12/09
11/13/09
11/12/09
I was pretty disappointed. I couldn't stand how Ren was sloppily retconned into Jimmie's life. (actually, the whole character of Ren was annoying) I could see involving Glenn with the Gardeners and exploring how their their ideas (the waterless flood) would have influenced his decision to, you know, destroy humanity, but Atwood shied away from that and instead focused on Ren's inexplicable lifelong crush on Jimmie.
In the end, I finished it just to finish it. I didn't really care about any of these characters and the end was a little to "neat" for me (hey, welcome to the end of the world, how convenient that we all know each other). Which is a shame because Oryx and Crake is one of my favorite books and I'm a huge Atwood fan, Cat's Eye and The Blind Assassin are also favorites. #yearoftheflood
11/12/09
11/12/09
I also agree about not really connecting with the characters. I didn't find them all that engaging and I wasn't invested in what would happen to them. #yearoftheflood
11/12/09
11/12/09
And to call the science in a work of science-fiction "fanciful at best" seems weirdly derogatory? Unless there is some definite template on what exactly a lion/lamb hybrid would look like? I mean, what other option is there but to imagine the science of the future? #yearoftheflood
11/12/09
11/12/09
11/12/09
11/12/09
11/12/09
11/12/09
11/12/09
@Pope John Peeps II: I'm thinking a lion/lamb hybrid would be sort of like this... #yearoftheflood
11/12/09
11/12/09
"Please don't make the mistake of thinking that Oryx and Crake is anti-science. Science is a way of knowing, and a tool. Like all ways of knowing and tools, it can be turned to bad uses. And it can be bought and sold, and it often is. But it is not in itself bad. Like electricity, it's neutral."
That said, I didn't feel this book has the impact of Oryx and Crake, which is one of my favorites. Spoiler alert: the ambiguity at the end of Oryx and Crake was very powerful, and while this new novel ends similarly, I didn't like what it did to the first book's ending. #yearoftheflood
11/12/09
11/13/09
10/28/09
Ahem... Blood Car. #dystopia
10/28/09
The upside: to paraphrase one scientist on the project, "I don't believe in peak oil, only peak technology."
The downside: it's not cheap, and no, you can't make it viable for $1.50 a gallon.
The other upside: the fact that you can't do it cheap will (hopefully) make other forms of energy seem more attractive.
This idea that we'll wake up one morning to find the oil tap has run dry is an easy myth to scare ourselves into action, but reality will be much more complicated than Mad Max. (Though probably not as bad-ass.) #dystopia
10/28/09
If peak oil was imminent, they'd be hoarding and price-gouging. You can really, really, count on it. The only reason not to hoard and price-gouge is if you think there's still too much lead-time before the prime hoard/gouge era, and you don't want to make alternatives economically feasible too soon.
Besides, Peak Oil being a "crisis" is pretty much 100% myth. It'll hurt the economy some, and that's about it. There's still plenty of coal around (no, really, centuries worth). Coal can not only be used for many of the fuel/energy purposes of petroleum, it can also be made into petroleum. The process become economically viable around $4-$5 per gallon. We already know that gasoline prices like that don't cause the end of civilization, since Europe pays a lot more, and all it means is that only rich people can have cars that aren't crappy little shitboxes.
So, no end of civilization, no end of plastics feedstocks, no need to worry, really.
If you're really desperate to worry about Peak Oil, about the only rational way is to worry about environmental impact. Regular oil is way cleaner than coal and synthetic oil.
-Kle. #dystopia
10/27/09
10/28/09
10/28/09
Tens of millions of suburbanites in this country are in the same situation. #dystopia
10/27/09
I is confus-ed. #dystopia
10/27/09
10/27/09
10/27/09
10/27/09
10/27/09
10/28/09
10/27/09
10/27/09
10/27/09
10/27/09
11/02/09
10/27/09
[www.technologyreview.com] (There's much more to be discovered offshore in the Gulf, BTW)
You may remember Boone Picken's proposal to switch to a natural gas economy last year. The US could be self-sufficient with a combination of natural gas, nuclear and renewable resources in fairly short order. Then, if you're willing to clean up coal...
Remind me of this energy provoked social break down again in 100 years or so.
(PS, oil prices are ticking up due to the dollar is taking it in the shorts -- those staggering deficits remember? -- rather than any sudden change in availability.) #dystopia
10/27/09
Again you have made me unleash my dogs of war.
Look at what remains of your gallant scouts. Why? Because you're selfish! You hoard your gasoline.
Now, my prisoners say you plan to take your gasoline out of the Wasteland. You sent them out this morning to find a vehicle. A rig big enough to haul that fat tank of gas.
What a puny plan! #dystopia
10/27/09