Media & Contact
Why did you write a fantasy trilogy about the environment?
by Hans M Hirschi | Sep 11, 2019 | Life, People, Politics, Writing
Few topics engage the young generations as much as the threats to our own future
I never really reflected on what The Golden One would be about. As so very often, the inspiration came from within. And even though I began work on the book months before our local heroine Greta Thunberg first began her climate strike, she and the hundreds of thousands of kids who've followed suit, are excellent examples of how today's teens and young adults are really engaged in the struggle to preserve our future, much as the young during the eighties fought against the threat of a nuclear war in Europe.
Our planet, our only future
The final installation of the Golden One will be out 9/19.
It's easy to dismiss children. What do they know? It was how I was raised, how I was treated by the adult world growing up in the seventies and early eighties. My words, my views of the world weren't worth considering. Listen to my interview on the WROTE Podcast to hear more about this like of reasoning.
I think that experience has taught me to never ever make that mistake myself. I try to take our own son's views very seriously. This is not to say that he rules our house. But my husband and I pride ourselves in allowing him to have a say in our family planning, be it dinner, vacation plans, etc.
When you read sci-fi books or watch TV, you might think there are countless other worlds out there for us to reach. And make no mistake, there are! The problem is that we simply can't reach them. Not now. And even if we were to invent Star Trek's warp engines, and even if we would be able to build the amazing starships, how do you get ten plus billion people off one place and onto another? I for one wouldn't want to make the choices of the disaster movie "2012". Remember that? The four arks launched from the highlands of Tibet? Every ticket one billion Euros?
No, even as a sci-fi and fantasy author, all of that is either too far-fetched or simply too cynical. I am on the side of our children: we need to save the planet we have, this beautiful blue orb, spinning around our son, sol. And make no mistake, fixing our environmental issues isn't about life on Earth, that will most likely prevail in some shape or form for billions of years to come. This is about the life currently inhabiting this planet, and it just so happens to include the one species we refer to as homo sapiens sapiens.
How does The Golden One trilogy accomplish this?
Without spoiling the ending of the final book, which is due to hit bookstores next week, The Golden One–Reckoning will provide hope. I want readers, from young teens to youthful retirees to feel empowered by the actions of Jason and his friends. It's never too late to act. Resistance is not futile. But I also think that an important lesson is this: don't expect someone else to do the work. We all must do our part, and we can't wait and see. Time's too precious.
We see that already in book one, Blooming, when we first meet Jason. The unique point of view of these young heroes clashes with that of the adult world, where order is paramount. They seem to act rashly, according to the adults. I'd say their actions are timely, expedited by the threats to their home town. Their success is theirs alone, but even the adult world profits, as unaware as they seem to be of it. I think the message is clear and without spelling it out here, I think readers of all ages will understand.
You know, I'm not sure that humanity is really threatened by global warming. I know this may seem preposterous a claim, but just like the four arks in 2012, I think that there will always be people rich enough to be able to afford themselves a sanctuary where they might be able to survive the hottest weather or the fallout from a nuclear winter. There's e.g. a reason why so many ultra-rich have invested in property in the remote southern island of New Zealand.
Yet for someone who doesn't own billions, that is a cynical way of thinking. Already we see the effects all around the globe. Water is scarce in places such as Cape Town or Chennai. Rising sea levels risk making megalopoli all around the world uninhabitable, from rich Miami to poor Dhaka. Imagine hundreds of millions of people having to flee for their lives.
May my own country's history serve a reminder
Refugees at the border in Melilla. European border fence in Africa.
Now picture Europe 2015 as a measly million refugees fled Syria. Four years later, populists across Europe and the US are still riding the waves those refugees gave rise to, from Trump to Brexit, Hungary and Italy, to name a few. If one million people caused such a stir, how will this planet handle refugees numbering hundreds of millions, a billion people even? It's not hard to foresee closed, very hard borders everywhere, people storming against barb wired fences and "beautiful" tall walls, and from there, things will quickly deteriorate, and knowing my own species, the use of nuclear weapons cannot be entirely dismissed.
Once upon a time, Sweden was a poor country. In the mid-nineteenth century, people were starving. Dying. And they left. Over a million Swedes sought their luck in the west, in the promised land, at a time when there were no walls, long before "maga" became a hashtag and a rallying cry for a desplorable despot. That was a sizeable portion of a quickly growing population. If a quarter of the population (1900) left their country, imagine if a quarter of the population in threatened countries suddenly began to move in Asia, Africa, and South America. It doesn't paint a pretty picture.
The Golden One–Reckoning
This is where my books come in, not because it stops that wave of people from moving. Not because it will stop half our animal and plant species from going extinct. No, that is not what the book is about. The story is to provide hope, and a sense of "can do!" Because unlike the world of books, there will be no golden butterflies, no shapeshifters and no space ships to save us. We have to do this ourselves, and my money is on the young generations who have not yet become complacent by the creature comforts of adult life.
I'm very proud that this story will be out next Thursday, and I hope it finds many hopeful readers. Pre-orders for Reckoning are available for the ebook now on Amazon and elsewhere, and ebook, paperback, and the audiobook will all be available September 19. If you're new to this trilogy, please check out books one, Blooming, and two, Deceit before you embark on the final leg of this epic journey.
Let the conversation begin, let's save Earth!
The many pitfalls of language
by Hans M Hirschi | Aug 8, 2019 | Blog, Equality, Life, People, Politics
Language: a writer's tool is constantly evolving
When language fails
As a writer, I am aware of the raw power of my tool. As a linguist, I am also aware of how many of the world's languages have evolved from common ancestors, how they are related and how the meaning of the same word can differ from one sister language to another. Language is extremely complex, and the more you learn, the more you know, the easier it becomes to get lost in language, to make mistakes and realizing just how little you actually know.
Just last week I was made aware, in a most humiliating way, that an expression used in the blurbs of one of my books had offended a group of people. I was given a proper dress-down, in public, which led me to withdraw that particular book from the table where I was selling it along with my other work. Seems that both the sensitivity readers (which we'd used, despite the accuser's assumption of the contrary), the publisher, editor, and this author had completely missed it. I won't go into details here, but oddly, when discussing this with fellow authors and members of the affected group/minority, everyone was puzzled and wondered how else to express oneself today, to be politically correct and not offending anyone.
Always evolving
Languages evolve, all the time. There are many examples in history and from literature where the most highly acclaimed books include wording that is no longer considered okay. We no longer use "nigger" or "negro" to describe blacks or Africans, which is a good thing. African American is the term used if you're in the US but is of little help to describe black people from other parts of the world. But when Astrid Lindgren wrote her Pippi books back in the 1960s, it was perfectly okay to write that Pippi's father was "negerkung" (negro king.) In recent editions, the term has been replaced. This is probably the most famous example in terms of language evolving, but there are literally thousands of expressions that have changed, be it for people with disabilities (or function variations as may be more modern), people from within the LGBTQ community, etc.
Lost in translation: politics, philosophy, religion & culture make things complex
As a member of the LGBTQ community, I am a member of a minority, and I've always been acutely aware of how I'm labeled by society. Often times words also carry a political notion, a belief held by the speaker. After Chernobyl, people who were fighting against the use of this particular way to generate power were, in German anyway, always speaking of atomic power, and the slogan "Atomkraft, Nein Danke!" became a household term. The proponents of nuclear power did not use atomic power. They call it nuclear power. Neither terms were "offensive" to anyone. They simply indicated a political belief. There are many similar examples of words and expressions who carry a philosophical belief within the word: capitalism vs. free enterprise, sexual orientation vs sexual preference, etc.
Words carry political beliefs
Then there are differences across cultures, which make many of the words which are used across languages dangerous pitfalls. Even within a given language family, a word that carries a connotation in one country may not be viewed the same way elsewhere. The word black is one such example, where it may be deemed acceptable in some flavors of English, but might get you stares if you use it in the U.S.
You might also remember the time when the Swedish chairman of BP was criticized for using the term "little people" in a White House press conference. While a perfectly acceptable term in Swedish, translated ad verbatim to English it becomes offensive. What he meant was "ordinary, regular people like you and I."
How we view history changes
To make matters even more complex, we are, as a people, really bad at looking at history through the lens of the time. I've just returned from Washington, DC, where I also visited the National Archives Museum where the original Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution are on display. When you read these documents and you read things like "We the people…" or "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." yet are aware that this did not apply to everybody. "People" and "all men" did not include Native Americans, Africans or Asians. Because if you believe in slavery it makes no sense to assume that Africans were entitled to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" because clearly, they were not. Men, back then, obviously also did not apply to women.
Did not apply to blacks, women, Asians or Natives.
However, today, we look at these words and we can feel pride in the accomplishment of the founding fathers, even if we're Korean, Sudanese or German, and decisions rendered by the Supreme Court of the U.S. has updated the interpretation of the meaning of these words over time. It just so happens that the probably biggest struggle within said court these days is in the interpretation of the constitution: as a document in time, or to read it literally, or if you prefer, a liberal or a conservative interpretation.
Labeling a group of people, labeling "me"
Language evolves, all the time. Would it not, we'd all still be speaking a proto-human language we don't even remember. Latin would not have evolved into Italian, French, Spanish, etc., and Germanic into German, Scandinavian and English. So that's a good thing. We also introduce new words, we share them across languages and cultures and make new words our own.
It's a good thing that we no longer use words like "nigger", "cripple" or "faggot", as the negative connotations are painful reminders to members of said communities of a painful past. And language continues to evolve: it's better to say transgender than transsexual, as the trans experience isn't primarily about people's sexuality but more about their gender, we talk about marriage equality rather than "gay marriage" because a marriage is a marriage, it has no sexual/romantic orientation.
For most people, all of this is way above their heads, and they're not really affected by the terminology used within a certain community, and how groups try to improve on language to make it more inclusive and less offensive, divisive. For older generations, much of this may pass them by. However, when words and expressions are used that are hurtful, the consequences can be dire, and we can observe this in our everyday lives. Ten years ago, gender fluidity and trans people were not discussed in mainstream society. The language was very CIS, except for the affected people. Therefore, for most people, meeting members of the trans community can be an interesting and frightful experience, as it not only challenges the language they speak but also some of the very fundamental core foundations of their education and the two sexes: male and female. Migration challenges other long-held beliefs.
Political correctness and the backlash of the Trumpian era
For some, things have clearly gone too far and they push back. Migration is used as a term to lump together people who come to our countries for very different reasons. No longer is a distinction made between refugees and economic immigrants, it's all equally bad. And in our strive to create a label that fits just us, we make it a perfect pitfall to be offended, for how is a stranger to know if you want to be addressed as Mr., Mrs., Ms. or Miss. Or something else entirely? How are we to know if you are bisexual or pansexual? Oftentimes, terms are used interchangeably and what means something to one person, has different connotations to someone else.
This may be controversial but sometimes I feel we have gone too far. We are too easily offended. And some people have begun to push back. To mislabel something doesn't necessarily make a person a "bigot" or "racist" or whatever. They may simply not be familiar with the latest developments in the language. Trust me, it's easy to get things wrong. When I first moved to the US in the eighties we used a "bathroom" to go potty, these days it's "restroom" (although given American toilets, they're anything but restful with their lack of privacy, but that's another story.) In India, people still go to the toilet, in English.
The drive for political correctness sometimes feels like a provocation. And we are quick to accuse, prosecute and judge people for using the wrong words. The judgment can be harsh, particularly in this social media day and age where the action often precedes contemplation and thought. And I feel that some people have begun to push back. And as I've mentioned above, language is becoming political, but not always. But when someone talks about "gay marriage", I for one assume they're not supportive of the concept of marriage equality. But an I be certain?
The benefit of the doubt
Here's the thing. Our societies have become very black and white in our political discourse, and we seem to have a hard time to accept dissenting views and opinions. There is less and less discourse in society about where we should head, how to overcome the challenges of our time. Instead, driven by 140 characters, we simplify and shorten. It's not necessarily beneficial to being respectful to one another. Trying to do the right thing can be frightening and intimidating and a friend of mine recently said that the fear of saying the wrong thing has led him to avoid public discussions/settings. That's a shame.
What about we give each other the benefit of the doubt? What if we were to assume that most people are NOT trying to offend us, denigrate us, insult us. So when they use a term we find offensive, don't lash out, forgive and educate. Tell them how you'd like to be addressed, politely. Chances are, they'll be grateful, i.e. if you do it with a smile and non-judgemental way. I often feel that we usually use the opposite approach: we're offended, we judge and keep a grudge and the message gets lost, simply because the wrong word was used. I think we could all be helped if we calmed things down a bit, in the interest of communication and understanding.
I know that my own language is far from perfect, regardless of which one I use. I'm also aware that being multilingual increases my potential for making mistakes. I beg your forgiveness and oversight for any words used mistakenly.
Remember: you may not have the power to choose the words used to describe you, but you have the power to choose how to respond.
What is your take? Do you think we should tackle this dilemma? What is the best way to help people use the least offensive and most inclusive language? Feel free to use the comment section.
When the lines between reality and fiction blur…
by Hans M Hirschi | Aug 1, 2019 | Blog, Books, Life, Politics
It's happening right now, in a way we never thought possible…
I read the strangest article (in Swedish) in one of my regular newspapers, about pop stars, models and social media influencers that don't exist. Think about that for a moment. There are artificially created people on Instagram and elsewhere, with photorealistic imagery that do not exist. Yet they have millions and millions of followers, some of them even publish songs. And at the same time, we have politicians all over the globe who lie more frequently than they tell the truth and accuse everybody who doesn't agree with them to lie and label any news outlet who disagrees with them as fake news. And no, Donald Trump isn't the only one. "Fake news" has become a thing for far too many politicians in every corner of the world. He simply "perfected" the act. Fake news is no longer about news which is incorrect, fake news is news you don't like. What a fundamental shift in connotation, in just three years.
Fake people, fake lives, lies, and truth interchangeable, how are we as ordinary human beings going to survive this? How will we, as humanity, be able to overcome the threats to the very core of our society if we keep blurring the lines between reality and fiction, imagination and deception?
Not a new idea, or concept
I'm not the first person to think about this. And smarter people than I have been trying to show us possible outcomes for decades. Picture the Terminator and the threat of what AI could do to humanity. Or worse, The Matrix. These movies were all pre-Internet, and pre-virtual/augmented reality. I saw another flick called Player One a few months ago, which is a movie that actually does take place knowing where we are today, and it painted a bleak picture, too, albeit with a happy ending.
I've also read articles littered with examples of so-called "deep fakes", of YouTube or news cast-style videos that were completely fake, with "real" people saying things they've never said. With our current level of technology, you can interchange Mother Teresa and Adolf Hitler, although that doesn't really achieve much for anybody. However, what if say you could have a candidate for the 2020 Presidential campaign say something untoward? And what about someone who's actually said something untoward being able to completely deny it? Even though the latter happens already.
It's on the radio, it's got to be true!
Many years ago, I was actively engaged in public access radio, which is a great way for ordinary people to express their opinions on FM-radio. More than once I encountered people who would complain about things said there, particularly if it was from someone who was from a rival political party or ethnic groups. Oddly, when I reminded them that it was our remit to transmit our own opinions, not state facts, I would often hear "but it's on the radio!" as if the mere fact that they heard in through an FM-receiver somehow made whatever statement be the truth. I am afraid that we all suffer from that mentality, a little, and it's enhanced when we hear it on TV, or from one of our elected officials, even though, these days, we can't really trust anything we hear. We all have to double-check the facts.
Add to this the fact that more and more of us live our lives on social media, that people mourn the deception of so-called "friends" online, people they've never even met. How can anyone trust a complete stranger whose words you read on your computer screen, without the infliction of the tone of voice? Need I remind you of how quickly we descend into trolling when we think we're alone and anonymous? It's so easy to hurt people online, and it's so simple to create misunderstandings when you don't really know the person on the other end, do not understand what personality they have. Suddenly, the most innocent joke turns into the vilest of offenses and we "block" that someone, never to speak to them again. Virtually anything can create an online shitstorm. All among people who don't know each other, not really.
Forget to like a friend's post and you've begun your journey to forget them…
Then you have the algorithms of the various social media engines who ruthlessly serve you what is in their best interest, not what is in yours. Forget to like your friends umpteenth cat meme and they will slowly but surely wither away from your stream (and–sadly–your consciousness) replaced by advertisements for things you incidentally said to Alexa, Cordana or whatever other assistants you're using or searches made or click-bait you couldn't resist. We are manipulated online and it's getting almost impossible to resist the allure of the almighty algorithm. Don't believe me? Go have a look at what your interests are on Facebook, based on the site's ad-settings on your profile. It's not only a good idea to detox those hundreds (!) of "interests" every now and then, but some also provide a clue as to how the algorithms work and more than a handful of headshakes as to how stupid they actually are. No AI out there, yet!
Combine all of the above and you have a toxic cocktail. And as an author and creator of fiction, I wonder. Will I still be needed in the future? Will anyone still read my stories? My books? I do not know. If we start to live the fiction and use our personal lives to escape the harsh reality of this world, will fiction be there to bring us back to reality, after a long hard day in Escapia? Or will we become completely superfluous, no longer necessary since our own chosen realities surpass anything fiction could ever hope to offer? A world where every human is the main character in their own story, and we all walk through the streets with our 3D goggles on, eating at Klingon restaurants, being served by people we don't look at, servers who think they're serving us to the Minotaur of their own reality. Meanwhile, the puppet masters sit in their mansions enjoying the spectacle we're making of ourselves.
Where will we be in a few years?
I don't have the answer to any of my questions, but I worry. I wonder if humanity is equipped for the future we're setting ourselves up for, or will we, given climate change and the potential for human conflict inherently part of it, be the end of ourselves long before we reach the full potential of that future?
What do you think? Feel free to comment and discuss.
Buy an audiobook
Cover Reveal: Anna and the Lost Zorn
Opus XXVII has a title…
Writer, keep to your last! Why a publisher's great tip is troubling me
Happy Holidays! A letter to my readers
An evolving writing process. Making a better writer?