text:
December 11, 2021 / Mark W. Tiedemann / Leave a comment
In light of the last few years, the question bites. Indulge me in a venting plea.
In my experience, limited though it is, I have found that the better read a person is, the more likely they will be to cope with reality, to defend against the twisting delights of both conspiracy theory and pseudoscience, and to be less vulnerable to charlatanry.
Not always. Some deceptions come wrapped in marvelous packages that can appeal to the puzzle-solver in us all and present as aesthetically compelling. In my own life I have followed white rabbits in tweed down a number of holes, some part of me convinced that truth lay in some hidden recess along the way.
I have been relegated to many sidelines since childhood because of reading, sidelines which at the time seemed harsh and unfair, but in retrospect were actually relatively safe places. Time and space are necessary for a mind to develop. Exposure to stimulating material does not work its magic immediately, sometimes not even soon, but eventually all those books and stories and articles result in a set of pathways and memories and organizing concepts that allow for the skills to deal with what may otherwise be just confusion.
No, let me be more definite—"may" has little to do with it. People who read, in my experience, are generally more present, more conscious, more adaptable than people who only watch and subsequently go through life skimming a surface which too often becomes a mirror and allows them to ignore what is beneath. In fact, those surface presentations often depend on not knowing what underlies them, may actively resist analysis, and with few exceptions deceive by suggesting there is nothing more.
Not all. But it is also true that those not intended to deceive largely depend on an audience that reads to reveal their full meaning.
There are many studies about the physiological and cognitive benefits of reading, especially fiction. Here's one. There is an increases in synaptic structure associated with regular reading. Memory improves. Your brain responds by providing better tools.
Then, of course, you have to apply the tools. For me, this makes fiction and, in a similar way, history indispensable. Reading other kinds of books, while important in many ways, can leave you unaware of irony, of conflict, or paradox, all of which are fundamental to the so-called Human Condition. We read novels to grapple with the contradictions of being human. We read fiction because in doing so we learn the value of Other Minds attempting to do this thing we all own as a birthright—-living.
Occasionally we see a nod to this in popular entertainment. In the tv series Castle, Detective Becket is presented as an exceptional and gifted detective. In the first episode we hear from one of her colleagues that he likes "a simple Jack killed Jill over Bill" rather than the "freaky" ones. Becket responds, "Oh, but the freaky ones require more." And then she challenges them: "Don't you guys read?" As the series progresses we can see that she just brings more to the game and in that first episode the difference is made explicit.
We undervalue reading, often while making a big deal about it. Writers become celebrities, usually once one or more of their books is made into a film. And their fans may well read everything they publish, but that's not beneficial reading. Like anything else, if you do not expand your horizons, complicate your diet, move out of your comfort zone, you end up trapped in a self-referential, reaffirming loop that grows nothing.
We must read so our apprehension of the world is less frightening, amenable to recognition, and manageable. So that people are not so alien and culture not so forbidding. Certainly someone can read a great deal and still be unable to decipher the world, but I believe such people to be a minority, and most of us benefit from the increased clarity that comes from an ongoing encounter with Other Minds.
The greatest benefit comes from a catholic indulgence: read widely, daily—fiction, science, history, philosophy, memoir—because at some point you will find it all reinforcing, that insights gained in one place can be enriched and enlivened by another source. And somewhere along the way, we may find that we are no longer easily fooled.
The most valuable ability of late would seem to be this, the awareness to not be fooled.
I make no prediction that a sudden upsurge of deep reading would solve our problems. Humans can be contradictory, perverse creatures. But it seems obvious that an illiterate populace is an easily-tricked, easily swayed populace. Given that those who are invested in people watching their shallow offerings rather than go off somewhere to read are generally those who would sell us shiny bits that delight and fail, it would be a good strategy to take up books and stop being led like myopic sheep.
But I have a rather more personal reason for urging people to set aside whatever prejudices they acquired in primary and secondary schools that turned them against reading-for-pleasure. When I set a book aside, as one must, and go out into the world, I would like to have meaningful contact with other people, and ignorance is a depressing barrier to that.
Why read? To be more. To hopefully be yourself. And possibly to be free.
Seeking Meaning In Sand
October 24, 2021 October 26, 2021 / Mark W. Tiedemann / Leave a comment
I have not yet seen the new film version of Dune. I may write about it after I do, although it is not the entire story. What I am interested in here is the ongoing obsession with the novel. This will be the third cinematic iteration. Famously, there are two uncompleted versions, one by Jodowrosky and another by Ridley Scott. We know how far the former came because there is a fascinating documentary about it, but as for Scott's version there are mainly rumors and statements that he wanted to do one. Personally, I would have been interested to see that one—I very much like Ridley Scott's palette: even those of his films that don't quite work for other reasons I find wonderful to look at—and in some ways he has perhaps played around the edges of it through his Alien franchise. (The first film starts on a world that might have been Arakkis, the second is evocative of Gede Prime, the others keep returning to desert worlds, in theme if not setting. And Ripley becomes a kind of ghola as she is resurrected again and again.)
What is it about the original novel that compels the ongoing obsession, not only of filmmakers, but of fans? (There would be no funding for the films if the audience were not so large and committed. That speaks to the book.)
The history of the novel is something of a publishing legend, like other groundbreaking books. Multiple rejections, ultimate publication, often in a limited way, and a growing audience over years. Dune was famously rejected something like 27 times before finally being taken up by a publisher better known for automobile manuals.
It was, however, serialized in one of the top science fiction magazines, Analog, so dedicated SF readers were the first to encounter it, and doubtless formed the primary audience. I remember reading the ACE paperback from the late Sixties. Its impact on me was almost too large to detail.
I was used to science fiction novels being under 200 pages—average then was 160. From the Golden Age forward you rarely found one more than 250 pages. Stranger In A Strange Land by Robert A. Heinlein was an outlier at 408 in its first hardcover incarnation. So here I find this massive book more like the so called classics I'd been reading—Dickens, Dumas, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy—crammed into the cover of a mass market paperback which included a glossary and indexes, explanatory material (every bit as fictional as the main narrative). It felt important. I was 14, it was dense, I struggled through it. (It led to a profound teaching moment in how to read which I've written about elsewhere.) I could feel my horizons expand, even though at the basic level of story it was no more or less fascinating than most other good science fiction novels I had read. But it opened possibilities for narrative depth.
A handful of other novels came out around that time that exploded the confines of the thriller-format SF had been kept to—John Brunner's Stand On Zanzibar and The Sheep Look Up; Robert A. Heinlein's The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress; Ursula K. Le Guin's The Dispossessed and The Left Hand Of Darkness; and the coming rage for trilogies (many of which were single narratives published economically in three volumes). By the mid-Seventies publishing had changed to accommodate a new idea of what an SF novel could be, including expanded length to include what has become known as World Building (a technique which in some instances supplanted more important aspects of fiction). Not all by itself, but certainly as a point of history, Dune helped make this possible by creating a market for fuller expositions and more detailed construction. This alone might make it significant.
But that alone would not have made it a perennial seller, almost constantly in print ever since. If Frank Herbert had written nothing else, Dune would have made his career.
It was followed up by two more—Dune Messiah and Children of Dune—completing a cycle. That first trilogy stands as a unified work. The second two books are plot-driven indulgences, but not superfluous. The second trilogy…publishing had discovered by then that science fiction could be best-selling fiction and a frenzy of large advances and high-profile publications mark the late Seventies and early Eighties. Herbert's publisher enabled him to indulge himself with a second trilogy that often leaves people puzzled. But it kept the spotlight on the primary work.
David Lynch's movie enlarged the audience again. That film, by a director with a certain reputation for examining the macabre oddnesses of humanity, is a spectacular curiosity. It is a mixed bag of brilliance and weird choices.
Then came a modestly-budgeted miniseries on the SyFy Channel, which went on to include the second two novels. It did a much better job of telling Herbert's story. The chief complaints seem to be the results of that budget (and that Sting did not reprise the role of Feyd Rautha). It gets dismissed too readily, as if the world were waiting for the "real" cinema treatment.
Which we now, by all accounts, have.
As I say, I have not seen it yet. I want to address the book and its seeming tenacity.
One of the things Herbert did was lace his tale with wise-sounding profundities in the form of aphorisms and epigrams. Each chapter starts with a quote from some serious work by the presumed chronicler of the hero's life. They sound like quotes from works like the I Ching or SunTzu's Art of War. This was not a new trick when Herbert did it, but he was particularly adept at it in this book. It is a far future in which, presumably, philosophy has transformed along with everything else. The quasi-feudal politics and economics are given a veneer of newness this way, as if to signal that while it looks like something one would find in the 12th Century, it is not quite the same thing, but you have to take the author's word for it, because it is the future. The quotes set an aesthetic tone that, among other things, allows us to assume something else is going on instead of just the same old historical thing. In science fiction, veneers matter—they work like orchestrations in a symphony, selecting the right instrument for the right phrase, coloring it. (Veneers should never be mistaken for the story or the theme, which is something unobservant critics do all the time.)
Seriousness established, every significant decision becomes inhabited by purpose, meaning, resonance, and a justification that raises the level of what we read almost to that of destiny, certainly of mythmaking. With this, the writing itself need not be spectacular, just functional.
There are passages in Dune that are breathtaking in what they describe. The ecological aspects of the novel, while in some ways absurd in terms of actual science, take on the same immanence as anything the actors possess. In a way, Dune is one of the first terraforming novels, embracing the idea that human action can transform an entire world. (A couple of years later, we see much more of this, often more pointedly, as in works like Le Guin's The Word For World Is Forest—again, the novel opens up a field of possibilities, or at least prepares an audience for more of the same.)
But the characters are hard to relate to—this is a story about archetypes and aristocrats in conflict with emperors and churches. The ordinary people get lost amid the giant legs of the SF manifestations of Greek Heroes. We read this novel for the plot and world and the political revelations. We become engaged because this is in important ways a Lawrence of Arabia story—one toxically mixed with Faust. We read it because we are aware that gods and deserts change the world.
We read it because, as well, we are enamored of the idea of Enlightenment in a Pill.
Herbert was always working in the fields of mind-altering drugs—possibly his best and most relatable novel in this vein is The Santarroga Barrier—and with Melange, the Spice, he created the ultimate in mind-expanding temptations. Its use gives humanity (and others) the universe. Time and space can be brought to heel with it. Visions, prophecies, and clarity are on offer. But it is the ultimate Faustian bargain, for its loss will destroy everything.
It is aptly named. Melange, a mixture of often incongruous elements. A mess, if you will, but messes can evoke wonder, even seem beautiful.
At the heart of this Faustian conundrum are the Fremen, patterned after the Bedu of the Middle East. They are trapped on a world with profoundly limited resources and must be kept that way for the benefit of the rest of the universe. Not quite slaves, but certainly not masters of their own world. Freeing them courts disaster—because part of that freedom entails remaking their world, making it wet. Water, though, is poison to the giant worms that produce the Spice.
Trap after trap after trap populates the novel. Disaster looms. The plot compels.
And of course the relevance to our reality could not be plainer. The teetering sets of balances, all of them with ethical pitfalls, allow Dune to remain trenchant, relevant, challenging. Added to this is the clear connection to the Greek tragedians (especially in the second trilogy—I suggest boning up on Aeschylus and Euripedes before trying them) which gives the book its ongoing frustration of clear, ethical resolution. (And cleverly he took the possibility of building machines that might aid people in their problem-solving off the table, by outlawing thinking machines. It's all on us and what we bring to the game.)
A final thread woven through the book that seems to make it constantly popular is that it is a coming-of-age story that contains a biting critique of privilege. Whatever Paul might want to be for himself, he is born into a web of expectations that impose their demands from all sides, making any choice he might make impossible outside of a constructed destiny. The adolescent struggling to make sense of the world and find a way to live in it, thinking if only he were god and could command everything to be rational or at least amenable. Paul's tragedy is that he in fact can become god—and then discovering that this is no solution, either.
How well this new movie deals with all this, I look forward to seeing. For the moment I simply wanted to examine some of the reasons this novel continues to find audiences and why so many filmmakers are drawn to it. The elements it contains transcend the limitations from which it suffers. But whatever the case, this is a novel that allows readers to find meaning—whether that meaning is in the novel or not.
2020 and Reading for Purpose
January 1, 2021 January 1, 2021 / Mark W. Tiedemann / Leave a comment
In a year that felt more like some surreal historical melodrama that ought to be safely turned into a documentary rather than something to cling to the future like a belly-full of bad booze, what we read may have been one of the most important choices we were able to make. Our lives constrained by a pandemic, we may have lived more vicariously than ever before, but we also dealt with the world as a landscape of impending doom in ways that perhaps our parents and grandparents may have in different ways, but was unique in the manner of it collision with reality and ignorance.
I think it fair to say that never before has so much information, understanding, and intellectual resource been so available to so many and yet rejected in turn to such a degree as to challenge one's sanity. It seemed like the more we knew, the more concrete things we could say about so many things, the more too many people flat-out denied those very things that might have made the world a better place. Watching and listening to the news day to day was an agony of frustration.
So we—some of us—turned to reading for answers as well as escape. Answers to try to make sense of things, escape to give us the spiritual resources to cope with what we learned and what we saw.
I read, cover to cover, 63 books in 2020.
What science fiction I read was related mainly to the reading group I host. I read a lot of history, political philosophy, mysteries. I did not quite finish a rather excellent biography of John Maynard Keynes, which has proven to be a timely work that throws light on the history that brought us to where we are now. Zachary Carter's The Price of Peace should, I suggest, be read with Binyamin Appelbaum's The Economists' Hour. Between them they illuminate the 20th century struggle with finding our way through the morass of slogans, competing theories, political opportunists, and national identities that seem to rely on the 19th Century concepts of poverty, property, and progress to justify a kind of fearful reluctance to simply adapt.
Along with these, Shawn Otto's The War On Science is history of the anti-intellectualism in America that has dogged us since the beginning and has resulted now in a precarious moment in which the knowledge we derive from sound scientific practice has never been more necessary to our survival while living in a time when more people refuse to acknowledge anything outside their own concepts and prejudices. Along with this, a somewhat more theoretical but complimentary work is Why Trust Science? by Naomi Oseskes.
It would seem that our greatest enemy remains ignorance. Demagogues and con artists have become far more adept at manipulating and defrauding us in greater numbers than ever before and the only defense is our ability to reason, to sort through and measure and recognize nonsense, especially when it seems enriching, empowering, and edifying. Everything has taken on an urgency that strips us of time and room to judge, to assess, to think through. Decisions must be made now, while the offer lasts, don't be late, get yours now.
In this struggle, the only thing that we can personally do is equip ourselves with the wide gaze of grounded perspective. History, economics, philosophy. They can appear daunting. But you only have to pick a book and start. It accrues. In time, something seemingly so removed from our present experience as Jill Lepore's The Name of War, about King Phillip's War, which set the pattern for the European conquest of America, takes on currency in the here and now. Speaking of Jill Lepore, her newest, If Then, about the forgotten Simulmatics Incorporated and its effect on American (and global) politics is an eye-opening expose of how we managed to corrupt our political systems with introduction of demographic analysis, ad-agency thinking, and datamining.
Economics, history…what about philosophy?
Outside specialized texts, I believe one cannot do better than good science fiction. Mary Robinette Kowal's latest in her Lady Astronaut series, Relentless Moon, offers some surprising relevancy to the present as well as a terrific yarn set in an alternate history. Annalee Newitz's Future of Another Timeline is a rumination on choice as well as a good time-travel story. Blackfish City by Sam J. Miller examines near-future global changes and the consequences of corporate capitalism disguised cleverly as a quest/revenge/rescue narrative.
I've been reading aloud to my partner for a while now. We did John Scalzi's most recent trilogy, starting with The Collapsing Empire. His approach is in some ways perhaps "irreverent" but once you get past that surface facility, it's a first-class trilogy.
Possibly the most beautiful writing I encountered this year was Robert MacFarlane's Underland. He's a naturalist/explorer whose previous work has been concerned with climbing mountains and related landscapes. In this he went down. In a magnificent rumination on ecologies and the underground, both natural and artificial, he has written beautifully about a world we ignore to our peril.
Alex Ross, music critic for the New York Times, whose previous book The Rest Is Noise, about music and 20th Century history, is wonderful, has published his intricate study of Wager and the impact he had on, well, everything. Wagnerism in some senses is an expression of the often-unacknowledged influence of art on politics and identity. Ross examines how Wagner became the focal point for movements and countermovements up till the present with his outsized presence in film scores. An aspect of history that deserves a bit more attention.
I have my to-be-read pile already building for 2021. It includes several books that I hope will help me ride the unpredictable currents of our ongoing struggle with the world. But never more strongly do I feel that the encounter with other minds through the agency of the written word is one of our best tools for managing and emerging from darkness. We have such a wealth of resource. I look around at the world and cannot help but feel that if more people simply read more and more widely, things would begin to resolve. Never before have we had it thrown in our faces with such force the costs of ignorance.
Here is wishing you all a safe and aspirational year. Read on, read well.
2018 and Reading Lists
January 5, 2019 January 5, 2019 / Mark W. Tiedemann / 2 Comments
I saw a great many lists in social media this past year. "One Hundred Books to Read Before You Die," "Only a Genius Has Read 10 of These," "The Best SF Books Ever." Clickbait, certainly, but some of them were amusing and even added some titles to my Must Find list.
By and large, such things are amusing at best, rarely instructional, and often mind-numbingly dumb. Especially those derived from on-line polls, where instead A Book, whole series end up included, and no one is vetting for obvious errors. (Shakespeare did not write novels.) Not to say lists aren't useful. One was published—as a real paper book—this year that I find really interesting. 1000 Books To Read Before You Die, by James Mustich. Part of a series of books with the same general idea. What sets this apart is that the books included really are remarkable and the list comes with excellent precis and commentary about why you should read them, plus ancillary articles on the authors and their other work. In other words, this would be a good text to use to create course work for literature. (Before you ask, I've read around 250 of them. There are many I've never even heard of. Anyone working their way through this would be very well read by the end.)
All this prompted me to wonder—again—why we read in the first place. Harold Bloom has probably addressed this question as much if not more than anyone else and he warned that we should never presume to read for Self Improvement (at least not in a moral sense) mainly because, I assume, we can point to some rather well-versed monsters who clearly benefited not at all from extensive reading. But then he will argue that self-improvement is one of the chief by-products of deep reading. He sees it as a side-effect, though, because—again, I assume—you have to develop to a certain degree before you can decode what books offer. To me, it's kind of a chicken-and-egg question because the two go along in lockstep so often.
But self-improvement comes to people who rarely read and others who read widely and extensively and find no lessons or edification in it and in the end I suppose it's what you read as much as how well you read it.
As a practical note, since this has come to my attention as a Real Thing, no one—no one—should presume to be a writer unless they love reading and do a lot of it. I've encountered several people with pretensions to write novels who never read anything. Firstly, what motivates them if they don't like books? Fame? Money? Secondly, they have no grasp of the mechanics, much less the purpose, of writing a novel. I have seen the attempts. They do not get it. At all. But arrogantly assume it's no big deal. This wouldn't be a problem but for the ease of self-publishing. Before you think to commit something to paper (or electrons) find out what it is you're attempting. Read, lest you inflict on others your vacuous incapacity for empathy, art, meaning….or, I assume, the hard work.
Mr. Bloom aside, I do believe deep, regular, and diverse reading improves. The exposure to ideas alone has an effect. Reading requires that we open parts of ourselves to new understandings. There have been numerous studies to indicate that the capacity for empathy alone is enlarged through engagement with characters not of our own group and being vulnerable to change is certainly an aspect of engagement.
I've been reading for as long as I can remember. Books have simply always been there. I can't imagine a world without them could possibly be worth living in. If that's a species of chauvinism, so be it.
2018 was a good year for self-improvement, if any was to be had.
I became acquainted for the first time with MFK Fisher. I've known of her for decades, but I don't read food writing. She was more than that and in the course of researching a novel, I read her Map of Another Town, which is about her time in Provençe in the mid-20th Century. Loving portraits of two towns, one of them Aix-en-Provençe, which was the town I wanted to research. Other than a sense of atmosphere and smidgen of history, it did not give me what I wanted, but perhaps what I needed. She was a fine, fine writer, and I recommend it.
As well, in the same vein, I read Maria Fairweather's biography of Madame De Staël, which, along with the much older Herrold biography, gave me pretty much all I needed in terms of when and where and with whom.
Memoir is another genre I do not read often, but I found a delightful one. Daniel Mendelsohn's An Odyssey. It recounts the author's year when his father audited his course on Homer's work. Moving, thorough, with some surprise revelations about Homer as well as the frustrations of paths not chosen.
This was also a year for reading things I should have read decades ago. In this case, That Hideous Strength, by C.S. Lewis. Ostensibly the third volume of his so-called Space Trilogy, which began with Out of the Silent Planet (recommended unreservedly) and continued with Perelandra (cannot recommend). I kept bouncing off this third volume, probably because I'd had such a disappointing experience with the second, but I sat myself down this year and plowed through. I'm glad I did. The book is about the struggle between genuine progress and sham progress and how, because the latter can look so appealing, we hand over our moral capacity to people who have no comprehension of what it means to be humanly caring. There are some marvelous scenes in it, and although I didn't find the underlying True King stuff to my taste (as with much of Lewis, he tried to make everything about the Return of some pure King ala Christ) it was a fine examination of how we lose things without knowing why.
Others in the vein were all rereads. I reread Roger Zelazny's Lord of Light, Neal Stephenson's The Diamond Age, Conan Doyle's A Study In Scarlet, and Pat Cadigan'a Dirty Work. I do not reread, mainly because I read slowly and I have so much to yet read that taking the time to reread seems…
Well, I'm wrong about that. I don't know if it's going to change, but I read Jo Walton's An Informal History of the Hugo Awards, which is wonderful, a great trip through a history of science fiction that I recall a good part of as a series of encounters with new books. This really is worth a read, because she not only goes over the books that made the ballot (including the Nebula ballot, when that began) but discusses what else was published at the time that might have made the lists instead. It's surprising and informative and a pleasure, but the talk about how many times she and others reread a given book made me squirm rather self-consciously.
But this reading out loud thing we've embarked on has been a joy. We have indulged primarily in Kerry Greenwood's Miss Fisher Murder Mysteries series and have dramatized our way through all but two of them now. They are fun, a bit daring, well-researched, and easy to read aloud—unless you're trying to do the accents properly, which is impossible but I try. Set in Australia in the 1920s, Miss Phryne Fisher is a very modern woman with a knack for solving crimes. We saw the tv series first, which is a delight of adaptation.
One set of books I wish we had done this way is Martha Wells' Murderbot series, published in four brief volumes by Tor.com. They are told from the viewpoint of a security robot/cyborg who/that has hacked its own governor module. It is independent, can make its own decisions. What does it do? Downloads entertainment media to watch. Of course, it gets drawn into protecting a group of humans which leads into investigating corporate malfeasance which leads into more nasty stuff, which is all an annoying distraction from its programs. These are terrific and I was sorry to put the last one down.
In my humble opinion we are possibly in the midst of a new vitality in science fiction. I'm seeing fantasy writers suddenly turning out SF—and very good SF—a reverse of the situation for the last few decades. Mary Robinette Kowal's Lady Astronaut novels, The Calculating Stars and The Fated Sky are excellent. Good SF, a great central character, an alternate history scenario that makes perfect sense, and done with rigor and humor to leaven the grim main storyline.
My friend Daryl Gregory published Spoonbenders last year and I can't recommend it enough for anyone looking for the indefinable. I've been telling people that it's a combination of the X-Files and The Sting. Daryl writes humor with the best of them, which can be especially effective nestled within a serious plot.
Other speculative fiction delights: Six Wakes by Mur Lafferty (one of the better locked-room mysteries, nested within a fascinating SFnal conceit); The Fifth Season, N.K. Jemisin's tour-de-force which kicked off a few years of drama within the SF/F community; The Strange Bird by Jeff Vandermeer; Binti, by Nnedi Okorafor; and the short but affecting Time Was by Ian McDonald.
One of the best SF novels I had the immense pleasure of reading was John Kessel's The Moon and the Other, which is an examination of utopic constructs. Set on the moon, it follows the vicissitudes of a feminist enclave vying for independence on a believably fraught luna colonized by a number of competing systems. The social and personal dynamics are complex and delicately portrayed. I thought it one of the finest novels of its kind I've ever read.
Not science fiction per se but inescapably SFnal was Alec Nevala-Lee's excellent biography of John W. Campbell Jr. Astounding. For anyone wishing to understand the formative years of this thing called science fiction (and here I mean what we mean when we point at something—say, Star Trek or Arrival—and say the words, not the academically problematic ur texts that might establish prior examples and possible launch points), this is a must-read. Many myths and legends surround this man, this magazine, these writers, and Nevala-Lee does a surpassing fine job of revealing the facts and placing all these people in context.
I also read, for the first time, Malka Older's Infomocracy. I will read the rest of the trilogy based on this novel, which is a page-turning political exegesis on alternative democratic systems and their possible pitfalls.
Finally, Charlie Jane Ander's forthcoming The City In The Middle of the Night. Excellent. It releases in February. This is a major novel by a major talent. I'll do a fuller review later.
A smattering of other SF works:
Netherspace by Lane & Foster; The Sky Is Yours by Chandler Klang Smith; Tomorrow by Damian Dibben; The City of Lost Fortunes by Bryan Camp; The Million by Karl Schroeder; Avengers of the Moon by Allen Steele; Noumenon by Marina Lostetter. All recommended.
I read Charles C. Mann's Wizard and Prophet, which is a science biography of Norman Borlaug and William Vogt, the two men who pretty much defined the conflict between two schools of thought about environment and sustainability in the 20th Century. Borlaug was the developer of super grains, applying technological approaches to increased yields to feed more people, while Vogt was an ardent believer in austerity and cutting back and reducing populations. What might have been achieved had these two men somehow found it possible to work together we will never know. Vogt identified Borlaug as an enemy almost from the minute they met and history has been as it is.
Stephen Pinker's Enlightenment Now is a weighty argument on behalf of the Enlightenment as a foundation for going forward. It is a hopeful book, anodyne for the fraught political times in which we live, if a bit more optimistic than might be creditable. Set it against Tim Marshall's Prisoners of Geography and realities balance the optimism.
I'm finding a forceful new set of voices in support of scientific rationalism and a concern over facts muscling its way back onto the main stage of public discourse. We have labored in a soup of vacuous postmodern hand-waving for the last four decades so that now the very moral relativism decried by the Right as liberal softheadedness is now used by the Right to claim victory against Reason and Progress. Perhaps this move from fantasy back to science fiction is an indicator that people are growing tired of mystical pabulum and want something concrete to hold onto.
In any case, these are some of the books that caught my attention this year. We'll see what 2019 brings.
Purity In Fiction (or, Jonathan Franzen's Latest Attempt At…Something)
November 26, 2018 December 24, 2018 / Mark W. Tiedemann / 1 Comment
The most recent entry in the annals of attempted applied snobbery came recently from Jonathan Franzen, who, while certainly a gifted prose stylist, seems bent on making himself into the grumpiest white literary snob on the planet.
Disclaimer: I have read Mr. Franzen's essays. I have tried to read his fiction, but quite honestly found nothing much of particular interest. A cross, perhaps, between Dickens and Roth, with leanings toward Russo and Gardner. I admit to having been seriously put off by his antics back when Oprah Winfrey tried to draft him into her popular reading group series.
I also admit that I've never been quite sure what to make of all that. Till now.
He has offered Ten Rules For Novelist's. By the tenth you realize you are being lectured by someone who wishes to be regarded one way, suspects he may be regarded another way, but is afraid he is not being regarded at all, at least not as any kind of exemplar or Wise Head With Priceless Advice. His "rules" suffer from the curse of the "lit'rary." Distilled, it would seem he's telling us that "if you don't write like me, or try to write like me, you're wasting your time and destroying the culture simultaneously."
Others have weighed in on the problematic nature of these. It may seem self-serving to tilt at lawn ornaments with pretensions to windmill-ness, but frankly, I already know I'm not paid much attention to and nothing I say here will do anything for a career I do not have.
I am, however, much irked by this kind of thing. It's disingenuous in it's effect if not intent (how would I know how much of this he really believes?). By that I mean, it is not a set of rules to help aspiring writers, it is a set of reasons for not being a writer. Latent within these is the unspoken belief that, whoever you are, You Are Not Worthy.
Having said that, there are a couple of these I sort of agree with. Not, mind you, as proscriptions, but as matters of personal taste. Number 4, for instance: Write in third person unless a really distinctive first-person voice offers itself irresistibly.
I default to third-person because I tend to be a bit put off by first-person. To me, First Person is terribly artificial. No one goes through life narrating what they do. (Granted, all tenses, with regard to How People Actually Live, are artificial. Telling a story is an artifice, a Made Thing. Any "naturalness" to it all is part of the Art. It's a seduction, convincing a reader to subsume his/her consciousness to the dictates of the narrative so that it feels natural.) Yes, once in a while, a story requires a different voice, even a different tense, because the writer is trying for a different effect. You make these choices for effect. You want the reader to go to a certain place in a specific way.
So while I agree with Rule # 4, I think Franzen phrased it in a way that tries to make it seem less of a matter of technique and more something that emerges from the zeitgeist. In other words, it's a dodgy, deceptive way to say it.
There are too many little aphorisms and unexamined heuristics connected to writing that, if taken at face value, deter rather than aid the aspiring writer. We do not need more of them. For instance, Rule 1: The reader is a friend, not an adversary, not a spectator.
Yeah…so? How is this a rule? An observation, yes, but in what way does this constitute necessary advice? And frankly, it's not always true, nor is it even internally true. A "reader" is a stranger you hope to make a friend, of sorts, but they need convincing. Especially if you intend telling them hard truths, which seems to be what Mr. Franzen's literary aim is. They will be, however briefly, a kind of adversary. And let's face it, all art is initially a spectacle—requiring an audience, which is comprised of spectators. Many will stay for one game and never come back. They are not your friends. But they watched. As they read, they may shift often between these three conditions, and the adroit writer may wish them to do exactly that, because each state allows for different effects, which transfer aesthesis in different ways. (And, really, James Joyce treated his potential audience not only as adversaries but occasionally as an angry mob with pitchforks—and by so doing created manifold aesthetic effects that are essential to the ongoing value of his works.)
Rather than go through them all, let me take the three "rules" I find most egregious. Numbers 2, 5, and 8.
Rule # 2: Fiction that isn't an author's personal adventure into the frightening or the unknown isn't worth writing for anything but money.
I actually know what he's trying to say here, but he said it in such a way as to betray the aristocratic self-image he wishes to convey and ends up doing disservice not only to a great deal of fictive output but reifies the academic nonsense about the nature of actually Writing For A Living.
What this is, firstly, is a variation on the Write What You Know, one of those aforementioned aphorisms that are less than useless. It seems to mean write only what you yourself have gone out into the world and experienced first-hand and even then be careful because you probably don't know it as well as you think you do and in that case do another story about a writer suffering the self-doubt of the underappreciated. (Rules 5 and 8 underscore this, by the way.)
Secondly, it's essentially claiming that writing, true writing, the pure quill, as it were, can only be done by the Elect. It's a priesthood and defined by suffering and, often, by accidental success. I find it remarkable how many times we have been treated to lectures about the sordidness of writing for money from writers who have a Lot Of It. In other words, they are successful enough that they are offered platforms from which to tell the rest of us that we should just give it up.
Writing is, perhaps, a calling of sorts, but in its commission it is a craft and if one intends to do it as a vocation—which, in this instance, means having the opportunity to do as one's primary activity—then you do it for pay. Otherwise, two things—you starve or no one ever hears of you because you choose not to starve and take a job that prevents you from writing all the time. (I can hear the rejoinder—"well, if no one wants to buy your work in sufficient quantity, then it must be inferior"—which both ignores the realities of the market and exhibits hypocrisy at the same time.)
Most of us never get the opportunity to make this our living. We get paid poorly, distributed badly, and rarely get recognized outside our own little patch. To have someone whose books regularly debut on best seller lists tell us that writing for money is somehow disreputable and sullies our work is the height of snobbery.
Rule # 5: When information becomes free and universally accessible, voluminous research for a novel is devalued along with it.
What does that actually mean? When I do a great deal of research to make my work sing with verisimilitude and I find that my readers know enough to appreciate what I have done, it increases the value of that work. Again, this is snobbery, based on the assumption that the True Novelist has the time and resources to do something the rest of us can't do.
The only thing that a novelist can do that the hoi polloi can't is tell a story that moves people. They can know or have access to everything the writer knows and has learned and yet the one thing they will still not be able to do is tell that writer's story.*
But that rule offers a glimpse into the requirements of the priesthood. When you can go to the library and look up the secret handshake of the order, the value of joining that order—or, more pertinently, living in awe of that order—diminishes.
But people still might go to the temple for the pleasure of the spectacle. So make it good spectacle.
Rule # 5 is a bizarre kind of anti-intellectual classist elitism. And a rule for what? Hiding information from people so you can look more impressive?
Rule # 8: It's doubtful that anyone with an Internet connection at his workplace is writing good fiction.
This is a kind of corollary to #5 and suffers the same flawed reasoning.
This is of a species with the whole "the novel is dead" nonsense someone brings up every so often. The last time it came up, it was obvious that the Novel being obited was the Great American Novel Written By A White Male. It ignored women, nonwhite writers, and genre.
(Oh, genre! My ghod, what a smear upon the face of Great Literary Art!)
I said above that I have read Mr. Franzen's essays. I have dipped into his fiction. He is quite a good writer. I concede he can write a scene and turn out a fine sentence. In his fiction, he writes about things in a way that I can find no traction. He might be saying some things I would be moved by, but his approach leaves me cold. For this reader, he commits the one unforgivable sin—he is uninteresting.
He also seems to lead with an expectation that he will be disappointed. In us, in the universe, in himself. His essays exhibit a glumness that becomes, after a while, a drag on my psyche.
These rules suggest an answer. He seems really to believe he should be regarded in ways that he fears he is not—and probably isn't. The nonsense with Oprah led me to see him as pretentious and these rules have convinced me. The regard of the general public moved on in the latter half of the 20th Century as the balkanization of fiction categories multiplied and the position of Great Writer as Conscience of the Culture sort of dissipated.
But that doesn't mean regard for novels diminished, nor does it mean the value of those novels has lessened, it only means that no one group can dictate the Standard Model of Significant Fiction anymore. The podium has, in fact, expanded, and the work that constitutes what is most worthy now includes things the Pure Writer seems to feel is beneath them.
*I just realized, rereading this (12/24/18) that this implicitly conflates "information" with Truth. which is a complete misapprehension of the nature of what a writer does. We do not merely convey information (the thing which, if everyone has access to it, becomes devalued) but process our encounter with reality and reconfigure it into some kind of truth-telling, which is, while perhaps dependent on information, not the same thing as simple information.
Strange Inversions
May 31, 2017 June 1, 2017 / Mark W. Tiedemann / Leave a comment
Jeff Vandermeer has been mining the hills of what for a time was called New Weird for years. His Veniss Underground stories are exemplars of the power of the oblique, the odd, the displaced, the exotic in service to demonstrating one of the principle delights of science fiction, namely that setting is character. His newest novel is another example of how landscape transforms imagination and redirects the focus of our self-reflection.
The City—unnamed, unlocated, but somehow American for all its desolate ambiguity—has been reduced to the condition of decimated near-abandonment. We are told the entire world has undergone a series of collapses and that this city is representative of most of it. Those remaining pick over what is left, and there would seem to be plenty. But there is a constant danger, the looming presence of Mord, a giant bear that can fly. It tortures the landscape and the survivors, eats indiscriminately, slams about remaking the skyline according to no discernible plan. Mord is just a great big bear with no table manners. And that uncanny ability to fly.
Rachel is a seasoned scavenger who finds it useful to shadow Mord. One never knows what good salvage one might find in his wake. The risks have been worth it in the past. As the novel opens, though, she has made a find that will reshape everything she thought she understood about the world she inhabits. It is an odd bit of biotech, a blob attached to Mord's hide, just large enough to find and still fit inside her pocket. It is, in its indefinable way, attractive. She describes it sometimes as a vase that occasionally has wings. She calls it Borne and brings it back to her domicile, the Balcony Cliffs, where she lives a not altogether unpleasant life with her lover, Wick, who is some kind of biotech engineer. Wick immediately dislikes Borne, wants to take it to dismantle to see how it works, but Rachel refuses. This creates the first real conflict between them, which grows worse as Wick begins to see Borne as a threat.
Because Borne is changing. Growing, certainly, but also acquiring new traits. Rachel discovers one day that it can talk. She hides this fact from Wick. As Borne continues to grow and change, she continues to try to hide its capacities from Wick, but Wick is not fooled.
Into this comes new threats. There are factions in the City, vying for power, control, advantage, in a game that feels purposeful but ultimately has little point. There is Mord, of course, raw power, incontestable, frightening. There is also the Magician, another human who may or may not have been a colleague of Wick's back when he worked for the Company, whose facility still stands, still functions, and had much to do with the destruction that befell the city. There is the Company itself, which continues to exert an influence albeit of an almost subterranean kind. Once it had been the power in the city, but since the general collapse, both locally and globally, it persists because at least it seems to possess structure.
And Wick, after a fashion, because he is a node of stability in the chaos. He makes things people will trade for, that people need, although his ability to do so is diminishing because the resources he needs, which Rachel is so adept at finding, are dwindling. As they do and his production shrinks, their danger increases.
Borne is a fey factor, an unknown in all this, and Rachel finds her attachment to it both comforting and unnerving. Her attachment to Wick is of a different kind and, for all the stress on it, more secure than she comprehends.
It is a curiously compelling story. It reveals, offers insight, confers meaning, even when it is unclear what underlies all the struggle. Rachel's inability to give Borne up resonates, as does Wick's well-reasoned suspicions of it. The disturbing changes in Borne unsettle in a perversely familiar way. And Mord just scares us with his unpredictable rages and the offshoots of his savage personality which appear to do murder to what remains of order and humanity in this landscape, which as we continue on, feels ever more like somewhere we've been before, if only we could remember…
Borne as creation bothers us and intrigues us and somehow we understand that it—he—is not really our enemy. This is confirmed in the novel, but that confirmation is not what brings this to the forefront of our myth-responsive memory. Borne takes in everything—literally eats reality—and excretes nothing. Just grows. But he should, because we sense what Borne is. Borne is incomplete. Borne requires…
Comparisons are never one to one, rough at best, but then originality is not served by direct corollaries. Something that is "just like" something else may have novelty but it does little to feed the desire of new truths and fresh perspectives. Nevertheless, they are potent when done well, and this is done well.
Wick—in this instance, an obscure form of Wizard—is in some sense the creator of all that Rachel moves through. He worked for the Company until he was expelled, and when we learn finally all that he may have created his place becomes clear in Rachel's universe. He protects her more than she knows because he is responsible for so much, in a way a master narrator. He cannot ultimately protect her from herself, and that is where the elements of this marvelous piece of clock-work aligning and arranging come together.
As borrowings go, Alice Through the Looking Glass will suffice. There's even a mirror. But that landscape—collapsing, reforming, surprising, terrible and amazing—is what we find when our illusions are outgrown as we persist in living within the precincts of an imagination that will not yield to new possibilities and the stronger forms of mature dreams. The child must be reborn into a bolder reality, and if in that reality bears cannot actually fly, well, there are other wonders to sustain us.
Future Infernal
February 22, 2017 February 22, 2017 / Mark W. Tiedemann / Leave a comment
Samuel R. Delany Jr. has been publishing science fiction since 1962, with the novel The Jewels of Aptor, which can be read as either post-apocalyptic SF or as a quest fantasy. The complexity and range of his work consistently expanded until it reached an apparent apotheosis in the 1974 novel Dhalgren, a massive work that supports comparisons to Joyce, Pynchon, and Gaddis.
The novel immediately following Dhalgren, while strikingly different, is a similarly impressive advance over previous examples of a given format and exhibits no retreat from the ambitious expansion of possibility which has characterized each entry of Delany's œuvre.
In an essay, Delany writes: "I feel the science-fictional enterprise is richer than the enterprise of mundane fiction. It is richer through its extended repertoire of sentences, its consequent greater range of possible incident, and through its more varied field of rhetorical and syntagmatic organization." from the Triton Journal.
In the recently released volume one of his journals, we find this series of observations:
"Mainstream fiction today is onanistic and defeatist. SF is the literature that posits man is changing. Mainstream is the literature that posits he cannot change. Science fiction is the only heroic fiction left today; it's the only fiction today that admits there is a solution to its problems. Mainstream fiction is like looking in a mirror; SF is like looking through a door. SF has liberated the content of fiction the way Proust and Joyce liberated language."
This last was written in the early Sixties and reflects the state of the art at that time. And yet, when observing contemporary fiction, clearly something of a reaction to the state of the art at that time has manifested in the growing use of science fiction in what we call mainstream literature—indeed, how much outright SF is now being published as mainstream.
When considering the advent of a novel like Trouble On Triton (published originally as simply Triton as one of Frederik Pohl's selections at Bantam Books) when it came out in 1976, the above observations cast a revealing light on what Delany was doing and gives us an idea of how radical it was to both mainstream readers and science fiction readers.Because the novel is an exercise is parried expectations.
What I mean by that is, upon first encountering the novel it would appear to be a story about a future war waged between Earth and the outer settlements of the solar system, specifically artificial habitats both free in space or in enclosed environments on th many moons of the gas giants. We are in a future that has seen widespread expansion of human presence throughout the solar system. Tensions are mounting and diplomacy is failing. War would appear to be inevitable.
What we find instead is a story told from inside the head of Bron Helstrom, an inhabitant of a sprawling city on Triton, the moon of Neptune, who is from the start almost wholly absorbed in his own status as "a reasonably happy man" trying to find his way in the vibrantly polymorphous society in which he has chosen to live. The narrative is carried by the minutiae of Bron's problems, ambitions, insecurities, and attempts at codification that are at turns compellingly familiar, frustrating, thoroughly alien, and ultimately revealing of the problems of boundaries in a milieu that seems to offer almost none to any behavior. By the time we realize that it is Bron's perceptions and what amounts to his petty concerns that comprise the main focus of the narrative, we're caught within the web of a new social structure based on technological and cultural assumptions continually in a state of flux. It is that state of flux—the continual calling-into-question of assumptions based on common experience—that is the principle æsthetic aim of the novel. It is, in essence, about finding our way in one of the possible futures toward which we may be heading.
Which is nothing new in science fiction. Utopias abound. In fact, the subtitle of Delany's novel addresses exactly that body of work: An Ambiguous Heterotopia.
Delany was in dialogue with another novel, Ursula K. Le Guin's The Dispossessed, An Ambiguous Utopia In that work, the limits of the presumptive utopian enterprise are examined with reference to the impact on the individual who may not fit well with programmatic solutions. Delany turned this inside out by giving us an examination of the impact on an individual of an almost complete absence of such solutions who may well need them in order to have any reliable sense of self.
"Heterotopia" is a term from Foucault, meaning essentially "Other Place" or "Place Of Differences"—as opposed to Utopia, which basically means No Place. The society in which Bron bounces from one thing to another in search of a state of being is very much a place of differences. In many ways, it is a libertarian paradise. "What should I do?" is at every turn answered with "What do you want to do?"
Which is a problem for Bron, who, as the novel develops, needs the structure of expectations, boundaries, an accepted standard imposed. From the first two sentences the potential problem is revealed. "He had been living at the men's co-op (Serpent's House) six months now. This one had been working out well."
Delany has written critically of how the nature of a science fictional sentence is distinct in its intent and impact from a "normal" sentence. For instance, he uses the sentence from Heinlein's Beyond This Horizon—"The door dilated"—as an example of how such sentences pry apart expectations and illuminate far more than the action described. That in those three words the implications of what the entire world beyond that door may be like. The more you examine it the more you realize you are not in literary Kansas anymore. Similarly, his opening image in Trouble On Triton serves multiple purposes., some of them very science-fictional. Men's co-op suggests a social structure at odds with our present set of givens. The follow-up sentence tell us there are others like it because he had been living in this one for six months and it was "working out well," which says he's been in others and they didn't. "Serpent's House" flags the unreliability of the situation—serpents are traditionally linked with deception—but also with the possible mythic foundations of what may follow. But on a personal level, it signals at once that Bron is looking for something that, in fact, "works well" and he has moved—possibly many times—in order to find it. As events unfold, we learn how very true these initial surmises are.
And yet the two sentences seem otherwise innocuous. Introductory furniture.
We learn that Bron is an immigrant. He was born on Mars and lived there into adulthood. He was employed as a male prostitute, a career he has exchanged for the more esoteric one of metalogician. Metalogic is a discipline of solution-finding, problem-solving, anticipatory management. Bron's coworkers think he is very good at it, which becomes an interesting point along the way because he personally would seem unsuited to such a disciplined "seat of the pants" approach to life.
It would be a simpler reading to see Bron as a mediocre man trying to find satisfaction in a society of high-achieving, multi-expressive near-geniuses, but in truth Bron is in many ways not medicore. But he constantly compares himself to others and not in a healthy competitive way. His obsession with people as "types" and the ongoing discourse throughout the book about how people fall into them shows a desperate need to know where he stands in a society that seems thoroughly uninterested in that kind of question.
Bron is walled off in a continual diagnostic loop that never resolves. He moves from place to place, changes externalities all the time, and always comes back to the same ground state of dissatisfaction. Which actually makes him ideal for his chosen profession even though he is incapable of internalizing its benefits.
He meets The Spike, a writer/actor who produces microtheater, seeming spontaneous (though highly choreographed) mini-events. Bron is drawn into one, becomes enthralled by her, and pursues her for the length of the novel as if she is somehow a solution to his personal dilemmas.
During this, war does break out with Earth. There is a battle which catches everyone on Triton by surprise—the artificial gravity is cut for a fraction of a second—and in the chaos following Bron briefly emerges from his cocoon. He joins, more or less as a tourist, a diplomatic mission to Earth. While there he is arrested and tortured and, when the authorities realize that he doesn't actually know anything, is tossed back to his group, a few of whom have died under similar circumstances. On returning to Triton, the war ramps up and—
Earth loses.
Bron becomes even more obsessed with "solving" himself.
What makes this novel fascinating as science fiction is the play of environment and psychology that depicts a potentially unique approach to self-analysis and the problem of personal acculturation. Bron applies techniques of analyses that are certainly based in neurotic self-sabotage, but he is also attempting to recast himself constantly in a new image. He is not trapped within the limits of his society but trapped by its apparent limitlessness. There are no walls against which he is beating to escape. It is that there are, in essence, no walls and he wants there to be. But he doesn't seem to have even the language in this future place to define what it is he seeks.
We have here what so many critics of SF have long argued that the form cannot support—a deeply nuanced character study of the psychology of alienation in a society wherein the standards for belonging are so loosely defined that the nature of such alienation itself constitutes a pathological conundrum.
Along the way, Delany gives as a master class on malleability, which is one of the chief pleasures of science fiction.
The world, the politics, the analyses of economics and the scientific bases of the technologies, all are laid in with a masterful skill. This is a Different Place. That, too, is one of the chief pleasures of the form.
Bron is a prismatic character. It might seem odd and perverse to pick such a flawed and emotionally dysfunctional lens through which to examine this world, but what better way to truly look at something than by way of someone who is out of harmony with it all and even lacks sympathy with its putative benefits.
Trouble On Triton (and I believe is was shortened to Triton on original publication to avoid confusion with the earlier novel by Alan E.Nourse, Trouble On Titan—SF was a much smaller world then) is both strikingly different than its predecessor, Dhalgren, but within its scope is every bit as challenging. The Wesleyen Press edition includes an essay by Kathy Acker who makes the case for this novel being another in Delany's riffs on the myth of Orpheus. I have a different read on that. If there is a mythic character underlying this, I believe it is Hephaestus. He was often an outsider, his own group threw him out a time or two, and he was a metalurgist, someone all about the malleability of form.
Urban Character
October 5, 2016 / Mark W. Tiedemann / Leave a comment
After a number of extraordinary novels, one thing is clear about China Mieville's work: he loves cities.
New Crobuzon, Embassytown, London, Beszel/Ul Qoma—each distinctive, layered, multifaceted, richly alive, and impossible to map as any living being's soul, these remarkable urban spaces center, anchor, and frame the human (and not human) people who inhabit them. Consequently, the revelations of their interactions acquire architectonic depth fully evocative of the qualities of amazement, wonder, and dismay good science fiction should produce.
But each is unique, a character unto itself. Likewise in his new novel, The Last Days of New Paris, which gives us a Nazi occupied Paris that has swallowed its conquerors in the very decadence their ideology sought to suppress by supplanting it with their own.
In the early days of the occupation, a young American schooled the occult symbolist morphologies of Crowley and company infiltrates to find the enclave of French Surrealists holed up in city center. He finds them ensconced in a kind of internal exile, playing at resistance by ignoring the Nazis and pretending they are the gatekeepers and caretakers of the essential Paris. Breton, Varo, Lamba, others. The American has brought a device–Americans have always been good at devices—which, in one frenetic evening, manages to capture the surrealist essence of these imagineers and store. The "battery" is conceivably a tremendous weapon with which to fight the Nazis, but it is stolen, and then in at the end of a series of tragic inevitabilities, explodes, unleashing the transformative power it contains on the very fabric of Paris.
Which becomes a living, shifting, mutating landscape of surrealist manifs, blind alleys, cavernous enclaves, cul-d-sacs, and psychic traps and pitfalls. The most effective fighters are those who navigate this landscape, understand at least what is happening if not how, and can tap into the indeterminate loyalties of the now living architecture.
The actions shifts between 1941 and 1950, a year in this universe wherein the Nazis are still in Paris and, presumably, in a large portion of Europe, and the war continues. Events are building toward some kind of a climax, with the Nazis attempting the manufacture their own manifs. They lack the necessary turn of mind, though, and all their attempts are stillborn or ruinously self-destructive. But they doggedly continue until it seems hell itself feels threatened by their machinations.
The novel itself is riddled with Surrealist quotes, riffs, nods, and inspirations. This is an alternate history built on the notion that imagination and art can be as brutally decisive in waras any martial technology—but that the deployment of such visions must be done with care. The Nazis used symbols and a dark vision of æsthetic insistence to drive their machine. It can be argued that they failed because they did not fully understand either the power of imagery or the way in which human imagination will never be yolked to serve a purely nihilist aim. The humanitarian drives that confronted them and stopped them in our reality are kin to the bizarre visions which in Mieville's skilled renderings shackled the Nazis to a fight that could not be finished, certainly not in their favor. The climax and denouement are equally decisive and inconclusive, as it should be.
But the tour through this externalized, foregrounded metaphor of a city is a brilliant odyssey through the power of human imagination.
Cannibale Verité
July 3, 2016 July 5, 2016 / Mark W. Tiedemann / 4 Comments
Stories live inside stories. Like Matryoshki dolls, they nest inside each other. The walls are permeable, the delineations indistinct, and viscera moves from one to another to another, and so, osmotically, verisimilitude emerges with reference and resonance. We recognize the truth of stories because they remind. Even when we've never heard that particular story before, the lexical and symbolic soup, sometimes called culture, we swim in makes certain elements part and parcel of what we recognize as truth.
Fiction depends on this mantle of story sediment. The better a writer understands the essential reality of the material, the more potent the experience is for the reader. The more we identify with character, connect with setting, and surrender to the flow of the narrative, the more substantive is the story and the truer it feels.
It's a risky thing for a writer to make the nesting itself part of the story, to show the workings of narrative baldly, like pulling away the curtains on the machinery of the narrative and make it one of the surface elements. Like a magician explaining the trick as it is being performed, the only thing that can save the experience from the failure of banality is if the exposition of form enhances the total experience.
For example, Kea Wilson's new novel, We Eat Our Own, from the first line exposes its inner workings and makes us complicit in the construction of the experience. The second-person present tense is like a set of instructions. She not only is telling the character what is happening but she is showing us how the inevitable accrues and acquires momentum.
Frightening momentum, in this case.
A young actor, struggling, in 1979, accepts a role in a film being shot in the Columbian rainforest. It's an Italian horror film, being made by a director with a long list of credits and a certain reputation. This is his first film done on location. Our actor is a last-minute addition because the first American actor they hired would not even get on the plane after reading the script. The director needs an American, preferably an unknown.
In a fine stroke, Wilson keeps the actor's name from us, eventually referring to him only by his character name. Already we are descending into the caverns of nested narratives. Like Dante who got lost in a dark wood and found his way into Hell, our actor takes the part and gets lost in a dense forest. And because of the way Wilson has chosen to tell her story, not only are we privy to the hell into which he descends, we know how he's going and are powerless to prevent it. In fact, we don't want to prevent it, because we are hungry to know what he does when he realizes where he is.
It's not all told this way. There are third person stretches, past tense, present tense, and a heady dance of omniscient viewpoint throughout. All of which serves to bring us, layer by layer, into the central theme that carries through the novel like humidity or mosquitoes. Wilson is exploring the way in which we feed on each other. Indeed, how we depend on a kind of food chain of the soul in order to know not only who we are but what we ought to do and where we need to be. For some, those who have a tenuous grasp on self-knowledge to begin with, the cannibalism can take on aspects of gluttony, draped in byzantine rituals designed to keep us blind to our own dysfunctions.
Like our actor, who asked repeatedly to be shown pages, a script, told what his character is supposed to be doing and, most importantly, why—but is repeatedly refused, and in fact looked upon with annoyance because he needs to know. He doesn't. But it's not just his part in this bizarre movie (which involves cannibalism, of course) of which he is ignorant. He has no clue about much of anything.
The assembled production company, cut off from civilization (because a phone line has yet to be run to the town outside of which they're shooting), stumbles and reels through the whims and impulses of the director, who seems to have a clear idea what he wants but won't tell anyone what it is. (At one point, during a trial, being asked to defend his film and the risks he took with his people, he demands"Did it frighten you?")
Into the mix we discover a group of young revolutionaries set up nearby. They are involved in kidnapping and extortion and have an arrangement with a drug cartel. They need money to fund their grandiose dreams of overthrowing the government and instituting a Marxist state. Maybe.
More layers, more stories, all intersecting, bleeding through each other, fertilizing, polluting, transforming. Reading Wilson's prose is like listening to freeform jazz, where everything reaches a point of apparent chaos and then, with startling precision, comes together to create a very precise, rich effect.
Fake deaths, real deaths, soul death, murder, suicide, and the headlong pursuit of a path chosen because, in the end, it seemed like the path available, work hand in glove with the revealed structure of the book to drag us into it in such a way that recognizing an essential aspect of human nature—or our nature—is impossible to avoid. Wilson shows us the costs of not knowing and the painful necessity of making choices n the face of too little information and too much expectation. Of ourselves and others.
I said this is a new novel. It is also, impressively, a first novel. It does not feel like a first novel. It feels like the mature work of someone who understands human nature and sees how the structures we inhabit prompt choices often tragic and surreal.
In the end, that question lingers: did it frighten you?
It's about humans on the edge, making art and chaos.
Yes, it did.
Dextrous Brilliance
March 20, 2016 March 21, 2016 / Mark W. Tiedemann / 1 Comment
Most of us doubtless have gaps in our reading histories. Books we ought to have read simply because. Long delayed for a variety of reasons, sometimes forgotten, and occasionally remembered in awkward conversations including a surprised "What do you mean, you haven't read that?" Shuffle of mental feet, chagrin, a shrug. Never got around to it.
I have finally gotten around to The Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K. Le Guin.
There is a danger in so late an experience. One cannot escape, depending on one's circles, commentary, opinion, even spoilers. Over time a book like this acquires the stature and dimension of the impossibly fine. I remember finally, after hearing about it for over a decade, seeing Citizen Kane. The hype perhaps poisoned the experience. As fine a piece of film making as I can admit it to be, I have yet to watch it without falling asleep. So it is with some trepidation that I approach works long missed and oft told about.
Occasionally one finds the hype lacking. No one ever managed to convey to me just how good this book is. The Left Hand of Darkness, had Le Guin written nothing else afterward—and she did, oh, yes, she did!—would have fixed her importance and justified her reputation. I have rarely had so many moments of having to step back from the page in order to absorb and appreciate what I had just read.
It is a durable, ubiquitous, specious metaphor, that one about veneer (or paint, or pliofilm, or whatever) hiding the nobler reality beneath. It can conceal a dozen fallacies at once. One of the most dangerous is the implication that civilization, being artificial, is unnatural: that it is the opposite of primitiveness…Of course there is no veneer, the process is one of growth, and primitiveness and civilization are degrees of the same thing. If civilization has an opposite, it is war.
How apt, I thought, reflecting on our present social and political climate, of the layered and interminable arguments over culture and religion and rightness. (It is, perhaps, the most obvious metaphor that she places the light on the left.)
Le Guin manages to sum intent and meaning and value and hand us back an open-ended equation. The story is that of an envoy from an interstellar association, Le Guin's Ekumen, to a long isolated former colony of humans, Gethen, also known as Winter. The isolation has been so long that space travel is forgotten and evolution (or perhaps an intentional genetic experiment) has created a different biology for these humans—they are neither male nor female, and yet are both, sex emerging only during kemmer, then sublimating after. One person can be father and mother to several children. As a consequence, their sense of identity is not sex-linked.
Yet they are human. Into this, Genly Ai, what we would see as a "normal" man, must navigate, learn, and offer and, hopefully, facilitate admission to and alliance with the Ekumen. Among people who find it nearly impossible to believe that he is what he claims. Of course, there is the ship in which he arrived and, more, his evident biological distinction.
As he lives among the people of one of the larger nation-states (which itself is a less concrete concept on Winter than we might be used to) he is taken in hand by the prime minister of Karhide, Lord Estraven. The soul of the novel is their relationship, which swaps ends throughout, from trust and distrust, alliance, treason, and finally friendship. Their relationship is the personal, visceral manifestation of the multi-layered metaphor for civilization Le Guin offers throughout.
There is politicking, intrigue, danger. There is marvel and revelation and epiphany. It is a complete experience (although, in terms of fiction and drama, there is no sex, even as it is a topic much present as a kind of harmonic overtone, and this is curiously satisfying) and is one of the single best examples of why science fiction is absolutely capable of being Literary. I do not wish to detail the plot. Here, plot serves to prepare us for the Key Moment, the sudden understanding, the revelatory nexus. Le Guin is giving us a lesson in perception and preconception.
This is something science fiction can do extremely well, especially in the hands of a master, the Conceptual Turn. We believe we see one thing when, it transpires, we did not see it clearly if at all until the mirror falls and we gaze upon a clarifying distortion. Here, is a question of dialogue. But it is further a question of where we stand when dialogue begins. An further still, a question of whether we will turn to the light or to the dark when we choose where to stand. And so on. Genly Ai and Lord Estraven learn how to talk to each other throughout the book and while it might seem this is not very exciting stuff, it is riveting because we recognize them even as they swap places and the familiar becomes the alien, and finally the alien becomes ourself. This is a novel that reads us as we read it.
I am glad for all those times I failed to pick this book up. I do not believe I had the wit to see it. I may not now, but I do have the wit to understand that there is much here I do not yet understand, and the confidence to be content with that, because I know it will be there to find when I am ready. At the end, we see—hopefully—that we are all strangers to each other and the value we offer is in the learning. That the precise degree with which we fear the alien is equal to the degree of ignorance we indulge about ourselves.


When Simon Dorrat arrived as Toyota Australia's new business intelligence manager four years ago, he was presented with a set of old tools for producing a suite of basic reports. Luckily, Dorrat's own kitchen renovation taught him how to get business intelligence back on track for the company.
Speaking at Gartner's Business Intelligence and Information Management summit in Sydney this week, Dorrat said that the company's IT department was rapidly losing credibility due to the fact that business intelligence projects were taking too long to deliver. Even worse, he said, once they were delivered, they often didn't meet the needs of the company due to the time that had passed in the development phase.
"The problem with that was that [business intelligence] projects tended to be big. They tended to cost a lot of money and take up a lot of time," Dorrat said.
"Because of the length of [project development] time, requirements would often be out of date or irrelevant by the time we delivered. That could have been 12 months from the time it signed off. This led to a lot of frustration in the business part and the IT department [lost] a lot of credibility."
As a result, departments started to go outside of the IT department, and build their own business intelligence databases in Microsoft Excel and Access. Dorrat said that while it was encouraging to see different departments taking initiative, the databases often weren't built to scale out when they started sharing them across the organisation.
Dorrat decided it was time for a change, and started asking the company's different business units what they wanted from their own business intelligence reports. It wasn't long before problems began to emerge with the company's existing waterfall development model, particularly with communication breakdowns between teams.
"The main message I got when I went around and asked people about the service they were getting was that it took too long, cost too much and was missing key functionality. There were a number of repeating issues," he said of the meetings.
It was then that Dorrat started thinking about his kitchen renovation.
"I really had no idea where to start [with a kitchen]. I spent a lot of time in the kitchen, cooked every night and made sandwiches for my kids every night, so knew I wanted to get it right. I wanted something easy to clean, that had more room. That was about all I knew," he said.
Dorrat said that he knew vaguely what he wanted but had no idea where to start on the finer details of the renovation, so he consulted two different experts about the best way to install the new kitchen. The experts let him experiment with ideas in a practical way, telling him what would work and what wouldn't as he considered what he wanted the bench tops made out of, what type of colour scheme would work, whether a range hood would suit the design and so on.
"I couldn't have thought of that just off the top of my head," he said of the renovation, "but by being able to actually play with it, visualise it, with something concrete, that made all the difference and I ended up with a really good kitchen that I'm happy with."
Dorrat started applying this lesson to Toyota's business intelligence unit and came up with a new project delivery model that involved more user engagement prior to construction while delivering on projects faster and more efficiently.
In the new framework, Dorrat introduced new planning mechanisms to lay down exactly what the user wanted and expected from a new product. Project teams and senior management are brought in at the ground level so that every level of the business understands what the project would deliver, before a rough prototype was displayed days later.
The business intelligence teams held hands-on meetings with project teams in the design phase, which sees them moving components around on whiteboards to drive interactivity and really flesh out what users want.
"The response from the business is that their eyes light up. This is what they have been complaining about. In the old way, [IT] never talked to [users] about the system, [they'd] only see it 10 months later.
"We're letting them drive the conversation, and we guide them step by step using prototypes and mock-ups," he said, in the same way that his renovator showed him exactly how to get the most out of his new kitchen.


text:
Jessica McLean
About Jessica McLean
Kitty Hawk, NC
What's the sound of a feeling? The answer is the epitome of the songs that Jessica McLean gives life to. The lyrical content and sweet essence that Jessica lends to each and every composition emanates from the story of her young 25 years. The human soul longs for things higher, warmer and purer and the gift that Jessica gives from the stage and on disc provide fuel for this need. Designed to Dream, Jessica's freshman album focuses on just that. While seeking the where's and why's of life, Jessica found plain truths to difficult questions and has intertwined the answers in verse. Jessica was born in Hampton, VA and now resides in the coastal town of Kitty Hawk, NC. She is married to Nic McLean, director of numerous evangelical surf films, including "Noah's Arc". With influences such as "Jewel" and "Bethany Dillon", Jessica's collection of songs on Designed to Dream features rich and elegant vocals laced with personal pieces from Jessica dreams and life ambitions. Her first and foremost dedication is to her Lord and family and it shows throughout this album. Jessica's passion and the transformation that each self-written song receives when she begins to write, flows together to bring forth a treasury that reaches every part of the human heart. Her love for the Lord and people are bound together and is apparent throughout her live performances. Having shared the stage with the David Crowder Band, By the Tree, and the Newsboys has given her a platform of a variety of listening hosts. With a smile that causes the wind to "stand still", she captivates her audiences and gives them something to "live on" with. Bound together with a promise, Jessica and husband Nic have dedicated their young life to the ministry of serving the world of surfers worldwide. Being a surfer-girl at heart herself, Jessica has devoted a large portion of her "musicanary" heart to this avenue. Jessica has been featured in Foam Magazine, Today's Christian Woman, The Christian Pulse and Brio Magazine to name a few. Her unique sound and mission has also brought her to the attention of NuSpring Records(Nashville,TN). Jessica's song "Again" will be featured in Nuspring's major release Underground Sound(EMI/NuSpring)set to release MAy 27th. Having won numerous Artist Ovation contests, to include a VH-1 Song of the Year, Keith has acknowledged that Jessica has the unique potential to make a mark in this industry without changing her heart's desire. This desire is purely to entertain, encourage and provide the truth to people that seek it. Jessica is living her dream, shining like a star and carrying the light into darkness. Having been designed to dream, she wants to share this blueprint with you! Written by: Sue Ross- sue@indieheaven.com
Follow Jessica McLean on
www.jessicamclean....
www.nuspringrecords....

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Q: How to Design a UI in razor view / MVC4 I'm very very very brand new to MVC. I have a basic knowledge of ASP.NET. I'm just started learning MVC. I am having a tough time designing a UI. So please help me to design a page in MVC4. I'm used to drag-and-drop based UI building components but not this HTML based designing a page.
Can you please help me to design a page in Razor View?

A: I believe you find it difficult because you are focusing on the wrong thing. You don't design a page in Razor, you design a page in html/css, the classical way, THEN you add some razor code for data.
For example, copy _Layout.cshtml to Layout.html, modify it to your heart content. Put the CSS and JS scripts back as you would normally do in HTML, use your favorite tool. Once you are done, copy and paste back the razor stuff for JS and CSS, et voila !
If you don't already have a tool for HTML design, you may want to download Microsoft Expression 4 free version: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=36179
Hope this helps,
Bernard

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Agricultural labourers perform simple and routine tasks as part of agriculture, forestry and fishery production processes. Their jobs include, for example, routine tasks associated with crop production, livestock rearing, maintenance of gardens and parks, and the conservation of forests. Occupations in this group include, for example, crop and livestock farm labourers, horticultural and forestry labourers, and fishery labourers. Read more about this occupation in our Analytical highlight.
In 2017, agricultural labourers accounted for 0.73% in the total employment in EU.
The total employment in this occupation reached 1,677,698.
During the period 2012-2017, the number of people employed as agricultural labourers in EU changed by -8.87%.
In the period 2016-2030, employment for agricultural labourers in EU is projected to change by 14.20%.


text:
Newly Qualified Architect The company: An opportunity has become available for a...
Clifton Gray, Manchester
Which way now? How will we share knowledge, create new ideas and...
Bruntwood expands office move incentive scheme
Simon Donohue
Commercial property landlord Bruntwood is offering one-month contracts and office rents starting at £95 a month in the next phase of its marketing activity in Liverpool.
The terms are an extension to Bruntwood's existing Move for Free offer, which involves Bruntwood covering the removal costs of businesses relocating to one of its nine properties across the city, as well as providing rent-free periods and free office design services.
Bruntwood says it has seen inquiries increase 83% year-on-year since launching the scheme in May. Its Liverpool properties include Cotton Exchange, The Plaza and Oriel Chambers.
Colin Sinclair, director of property marketing at Bruntwood, said: "When we introduced Move for Free earlier this year, we hoped it would be an innovative way to help Liverpool-based businesses realise their growth potential without the hassle or expense normally associated with moving, and that has proven to be the case.
"The level of take-up has been extremely encouraging and has led to us securing an additional 23 deals in the city centre and north Liverpool in less than six months.
"However, we felt there was still something else we could offer in terms of flexibility, so we have moved to ensure the needs of every type of business are catered for by offering more affordable terms under Move for Free Plus.
"By offering terms as short as a month and offices from only £95 a month we are doing even more to help start-ups and growing small and medium sized businesses to succeed."


text:
The Sociology of Religious Organisations
In the sociology of religion, there are no strict boundaries between churches, sects and cults. Instead, religious organisations are positioned on a scale, with the amount of tension between the group and its surrounding society as the determining factor. A few key concepts of this approach are explained in this article.
Even though there are no strict boundaries, there are strict definitions. Stark & Bainbridge (1987, p. 124) provided the following set:
A church is a conventional religious organisation;
A sect movement is a deviant religious organisation with traditional beliefs and practices;
A cult movement is a deviant religious organisation with novel beliefs and practices;
Deviance is departure from the norms of a culture in such a way as to incur the imposition of extraordinary costs from those who maintain the culture.
Mormonism started as a restorationist Christian sect movement, focused primarily on the organisational issue of finding "the true church". The traditional Christian churches were rejected, but their beliefs and practices were initially maintained. Pretty soon, however, Joseph Smith began introducing many novel beliefs and practices. These were not novel in themselves but to traditional Christianity, causing Mormonism to transform from a sect to a cult movement.
But deviance, as used in the definition above, is not strictly a theological phenomenon. Belonging to a deviant religion such as Mormonism also comes at a social cost – social acceptance, friendships and participation. This was most pronounced in the 19th century, when Mormonism was in a constant state of conflict with its neighbours, culminating in the complete (though short-lived) withdrawal from American society in the isolated territory of Utah.
Today, Mormonism is no longer geographically isolated but still deviant from the societies it operates in. In most parts of the world, for instance, Mormons cannot participate in basic social exchanges such as having a cup of tea with a neighbour, sharing a drink after work, or spending time with friends over the weekend, without constantly having to establish, or even defend their deviance from socially accepted behaviour. As will be shown below, this lack of participation is measurable.
Given that society imposes high costs on membership of a deviant cult, why are people still attracted to such movements? The answer is that these costs are relative. To a person with few social bonds with the larger society, the cost of joining is relatively low because he has little to lose, whereas the potential benefits of belonging to a new community are relatively high. Stark & Bainbridge identify three states which reduce the cost of joining a cult (pp. 205-218):
Tension is a psychological concept signifying a state of unhappiness resulting from strong, unmet desires. Millennialism, the idea that God will intervene in a corrupt society and make everything right, is one expression of this.
Deprivation is having less than others (in terms of possessions, but also power, influence, freedom, status, etc.).
Strain is caused by contradictions between the individual and his sociocultural environment. These occur when a person or group has ideas about how things "ought to be" which deviate from the societal values. People who perceive such contradictions as flaws of society are attracted to cult movements which reinforce their beliefs and prescribe a specific set of rules to live accordingly, regardless of society's cultural norms.
It is sometimes argued that in Utah and the Mormon Corridor, the social cost of being a Mormon is relatively low because Mormonism is the dominant religion there, and should be considered a church rather than a sect or a cult in this region. From a sociological perspective, this requires the Mormon Corridor to be a completely closed social network, a society of its own (Stark & Bainbridge 1987, p. 61).
With the advent of the internet and social media, this hypothesis can be tested in new ways. In 2010, blogger Peter Warden published the following chart, based on an analysis of 210 million Facebook profiles:
Warden's analysis showed that the Mormon Corridor, or "Mormonia" as he dubbed it, is noticeably isolated due to the fact that Mormons have almost no social ties or interests outside their own community (at least as far as can be gleaned from Facebook). While Mormonism may be considered a church in this limited geographical area, it remains a highly deviant cult movement in relation to the rest of American culture, and indeed the rest of the world.


As many of you know, I suffered a severe concussion over the summer. I'm still working out the issues. The good news is that, for the most part, my creative stream of imagery returned. Early last week, a new story idea flooded my brain, demanding attention, and looking for a way out.
Much to my girlfriend's chagrin, I write the story, searching for every opportunity to get it out of my head and written down.
Within the past week, I've written approximately 40,000 words. Little by little, the words get out but the pressure to finish remains. Right now, I have such a clear understanding of where the story needs to go, that any delay stresses me that I might forget.
Alas, I keep on writing and beg forgiveness of my girlfriend who needs me.
This is Richard Verry, writing to you during a break in the action. Now, back to my writing.


This is a vQmod™ which allows you to use product options to modify it's dimensions, just as you would with price, points or weight. You can modify the dimensions based on addition (+), subtraction (-), multiplication (*), or equal to (=).
You will find this a useful companion to any shipping modules which use product dimensions to get rate quotes, such as Qphoria's UPS Deluxe addon.


text:
20 Years Discovering New Species in the Great Smoky Mountains
Marbled Salamander. Photo by Kevin Hutcheson
Compleat Naturalist
By Hal and Laura Mahan
"To save biodiversity, it is necessary to obey the precautionary principle in the treatment of Earth's natural ecosystems, and to do so strictly. Hold fast until we, scientists and the public alike, know much more about them. Proceed carefully—study, discuss, plan. Give the rest of Earth's life a chance." ~E.O. Wilson
An inventory is going on, and brand new kinds of organisms are being discovered right here in the Western North Carolina mountains! It is hard to imagine that here in the heavily-populated eastern US, where the first American universities had their start 300 plus years ago, the most visited national park and perhaps most studied national park in our country—Great Smoky Mountains National Park— would still harbor species that are unknown to science.
For nearly 20 years, a massive effort has been underway to inventory all of the organisms that live in the Smokies. As of the time of this publication, a little more than 19,000 species have been documented. This number includes 983 new species (previously unknown to science!), and 9,189 species that are new to the Park.
The organization coordinating this massive project is known as Discover Life in America (DLIA), and the project is the All Taxa Biodiversity Inventory, or ATBI. (A "taxon" is a group of organisms. "All Taxa" refers to the fact that no types of organisms will be left out of the survey.)
The ATBI in the Smokies is the largest sustained natural history inventory in the United States, and one of the largest in the world, partly based on the impressive number of people who have been involved, including hundreds of scientists, university students, teachers and citizen volunteers. Similar efforts are now shooting up in other locations both here in the US and around the world.
The Inventory is more than just a list. The ATBI provides Park managers and scientists with basic information that is extremely important when making management decisions about our precious natural resources. The Inventory also provides baseline data so that it can be determined when and how changes might be occurring.
"To preserve our living resources, it is crucial to understand what life exists," says DLIA executive director, Todd Witcher. "Great Smoky Mountains National Park is one of the largest protected areas in the region and is a critical enclave of suitable habitats for an estimated 60–80,000 species of life—providing refuge in the face of development pressures and global climate change."
In April, DLIA is holding two family-friendly bioblitzes incorporating field collection, specimen identification and education sessions. The annual fundraiser, the Salamander Ball, will be held September 24 at the Knoxville Zoo. Learn more at dlia.org or follow DLIA on Facebook.
Laura and Hal Mahan are owners of The Compleat Naturalist, located at 2 Brook Street in the Historic Biltmore Village. To learn more, visit compleatnaturalist.com or call 828.274.5430.
Celebrating the 20th Anniversary of Gorges State Park
Conservation: Ecusta Trail
Give Yourself a Break and Leave the Leaves
Conserving Carolina White Squirrel Hiking Challenge 5
On A Personal Note: William David
Twelve Mile Project