Peter Hodges

I’m pleased to welcome Jack Campbell, author of the The Lost Fleet series, here to Peter Hodges.com for a short chat about his fiction, his personal philosophy, and the craft of writing science fiction. If you’re interested in a short biography and a complete bibliography, please visit his Web site.

We’ll start today with questions directly related to the The Lost Fleet and move toward the other items on next Friday, March 7. As always, comments are encouraged!

Continue Reading »

What!?!

It’s true. States spend millions every year just to keep their prisons running. In fact, the AP reports:

Four states - Vermont, Michigan, Oregon and Connecticut - now spend more on corrections than they do on higher education, the report said.

Four states in the union spend more on housing criminals than they do on colleges and universities. Maybe that’s the problem! Why we spend anything above and beyond shelter, basic food, and security is beyond me.

A Vermont Senator agrees:

“These sad facts reflect a very distorted set of national priorities,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont, referring to the full report. “Perhaps, if we adequately invested in our children and in education, kids who now grow up to be criminals could become productive workers and taxpayers.”

Particularly disturbing is the element of race that is mentioned prominently in the article. I wonder, though, if we were to take race out of the equation and look at the economic origin of the offenders (i.e. how many come from families below the poverty line, etc.) would we see some interesting data? Would we find that the economic history of an offender (or repeat offender) was a more reliable indicator of their likelihood to serve time in prison? I think even playing the race card in an article such as this is insulting to the African-Americans in this country who are hard workers and who are paying taxes.

The deeper problem is the perception of prison. At this point, you have free cable TV, internet access, a nice library, and a weight room as a prisoner. Maybe if our prisons were a bit more Turkish we wouldn’t have the problems that we do. It certainly looks as though incarceration isn’t serving as a reliable deterrent to crime. Making jail time less comfortable may be the answer to a long-term fix for the swelling population of inmates.  Reintroducing the requirement of hard labor while serving time could also benefit the state by saving money on road crews, highway construction groups, and landscapers. Why pay illegal immigrants (at least in Texas) to do this work when we have 171,790 idle hands?

For a short-term fix, I can’t say that I like the answers that Texas and Kansas have found, but at least it seems to reduce the strain somewhat. Personally, I think Texas has the right answer as one of the leaders of capital punishment in the nation. It is a pity that it is not used often enough nor is it publicized enough to serve as a true deterrent for would-be offenders.

They are releasing a third Starship Troopers movie. The trailer is available here. The bugs look terrible, the ship combat looks like something I could do with plastic models and a handycam, and the campy satire of the original continues into this one.

Someone please stab me in the eye with an icepick because it is preferable to thinking that Sony and its team of inept gore fiends could do any more to piss on the Hugo award-winning novel by Robert A. Heinlein. The first movie, directed by Paul Verhoeven, was an unmitigated disaster that completely missed the point(s) of the original novel. The most crucial piece of science fiction in the book, powered armor, was conspicuously absent. I suppose Verhoeven felt that he could replace powered armor with naked female flesh. Perhaps, he thought, I would be so distracted by Dina Meyer’s breasts that I wouldn’t notice want an abysmal pile of steaming elephant dung his movie was. He was wrong. (They were much too small.)

I knew that Sony had released a direct-to-DVD sequel. I ignored it, and hoped the beloved Grand Master ignored it, too. To see that “they” are now plotting a third movie, and then to have the nerve to say that it is more true to the novel than before, is simply astounding. It’s not enough that they have destroyed the credibility of the work with a generation of teens who won’t bother to read the book, they have to keep milking a non-existent franchise in the hopes that big insects, blood, and boobies are enough to sate the baser elements of the science fiction crowd.

(If you can’t tell, I’m a little riled up at the possibility.)

Jolene Blalock, she of the collagen-filled lips and the dubious pedigree of stardom from her limited run on Star Trek: Enterprise will star in the film. Casper Van Dien, who played Johnnie Rico in the first movie, will reprise his role. Apparently he must be hungry; I haven’t seen him in anything else lately, so he might as well do another stint as a prettyboy in a poorly tailored uniform to buy some ramen noodles. Can’t someone find this guy a teen soap opera to star so that he’ll quit making bad science fiction movies?

It is for this reason that science fiction as a genre gets so little respect. Why can’t some of the more literary works be turned in to decent film? Why can’t more shows be like the new BSG or Firefly?

Count me out for this one.

• After much trepidation, I have instructed my illustrious marketing director to add a Paypal “Donate” button to the bottom right hand of my sidebar. Kate keeps 100% of the proceeds as compensation for her time and effort for the site. I get nothing from the donations. We are able to pay hosting costs for the site out of pocket (for now), so these potential microtransactions are a means to reward a diligent artist (Kate) for her work. You don’t have to donate, nor is this a test to see if a subscription model for our podcasts will work. The podcasts will remain free. If you feel as though they have been worthwhile entertainment and you’d like to contribute, then please do so. You’ll make Kate smile.
• Our author interview with Lee Stephen was a great success. We’re going to try and make this a periodic Friday activity. Over the next two Fridays, we have Jack Campbell, author of The Lost Fleet series talking with us, and in two weeks, we have the delightfully witty Patrick Rothfuss, author of The Name of the Wind, answering our foolish questions. I would encourage everyone to stop by and see what these two professionals have to say about life, writing, and their great characters. Pat’s interview coincides with the release of The Name of the Wind in paperback. If you’re too cheap to spring for a hardcover, go to your local bookseller on April 1st (that’s not a joke) to get your copy. If you don’t buy this book, armies of angry baboons will visit your house with poo-filled snowballs. It won’t be pretty.
• I’d like everyone to explore MilSciFi.com when they have an idle moment. Mike McPhail has put together a great site featuring reviews, interviews, and what looks to be an interesting RPG. In fact, he has edited an anthology that has much of the hot talent in military science fiction called Breach the Hull. I’ll be reading this in the near future and reporting on its juicy goodness.
• Are you ever curious if the books that you read as an impressionable teen stand the test of time? To answer this question, we’re going to start a weekly round-table discussion of science fiction classics here on Peter Hodges.com. Our first featured book will be Isaac Asimov’s Foundation. I have a few participants signed up already, but if you’d like to join the roundtable discussion, please comment here or drop me an email.  I’ll be sending a final list with a chapter schedule once I have everyone’s name. We’ll do our best to cover the “deep” topics of the book as well as trying to have a little fun. Look for a new tab to appear in the menu at the bottom of the header image in the near future.
• We’ve done a Wordpress upgrade here on the site, so if you see something broken, drop me an email. You’ll notice that the site no longer changes colors on refresh (Who really liked the non-blue theme, anyway?), and that there are two “buttons” at the upper right of every post. If you find that you’d prefer to not see the sidebar, one of them gets rid of it. If you’ve already read a post (or, God forbid, you find one offensive) the other button will hide everything but the post title.

Let’s get something straight before I launch into the review. I have always said that Hayden Christiansen was poorly directed by George Lucas in Episodes Two and Three of Star Wars. I maligned George Lucas in that statement. The simple truth is that Hayden has all of the on-screen charisma of a log of seasoned oak. If you want a wooden, emtionless performance with virtually no sense of urgency, then he’s your guy.

Jumper begins with an interesting premise, roughly based on the novel by Stephen Gould. There are certain individuals throughout the world who can teleport with an effort of their will, but only if they’ve seen the place before. (At least, the movie makes it appear that you can only teleport where you’ve been before, but there are some curious scenes in which this may not be the case.) A young high school student, outcast by his friends and verbally abused by his father, learns the scope of his talent when he falls through some rotten ice into a swiftly flowing river. Near drowning, he teleports himself to a public library. In a montage of scenes, he runs away from home, robs several banks, and ages ten years to become a wealthy, New York playboy who funds his lifestyle with visits to bank vaults around the world.

What follows is a somewhat confusing story involving a shadowy group of people called “Paladins” who want to kill those who can teleport (Jumpers) because they fear their power. Led by Samuel Jackson, the Paladins are faceless, nearly nameless quasi-villains that could have been played as well by cardboard cut-outs. Their motivations for hunting and killing jumpers is paper-thin and hard to swallow. Jackson is poorly used here, his role not much more than a glorified cameo that lets him sport an eerie white hair cut.

Rachel Bilson is introduced as a high-school sweet heart turned mature love interest that is used mainly as a plot device. Her character is interesting only for her girl-next-door sensuality and the warmth that her effervescent personality lends to an otherwise superfluous role. Her performance falls flat in the face of one incredible situation after the other. Wide-eyed sincerity and a flirty demeanor will only carry you so far in a science fiction movie with delusions of grandeur.

The action sequences are entertaining; the abilities of the Jumpers to use objects in their environment as weapons and their ability to build momentum through multiple jumps provides for some jaw-dropping special effects. This movie is also unquestionably a Doug Liman film. He is acquiring a visual style that is easily recognizable (The Bourne movies, Mr. and Mrs. Smith), much like Michael Bay or Jerry Bruckheimer.

For a plot with so much potential, I was disappointed with the implementation. Better choices for the main character and a script doctor would have gone a long way toward making this movie a must-see. I could have also done with more explanation as to why Paladins and Jumpers are at war–perhaps even a prologue that shows the conflict from the past that provides some context for their mutual hatred. As the movie stands, I would wait for iTunes or DVD to catch this one. There’s nothing that would compel you to see the movie in theaters.

We’ve been featured on Podcast.com! Under the main article, there is a selection of podcasts, and we happen to be on the top left of the list. You can click on the bigger picture, but dang, we’ve already seen some great traffic from this site and I’m hoping perhaps one day, I’ll actually get paid for the work I do!

Go Pete!

I promised a report on Boskone, but it took a bit for me to put my notes together into something I wanted to talk about.

First of all, the con this year didn’t have as many valuable panels for an aspiring writer. In fact, although I attended sessions for most of the day on Saturday, I found that most of the information I was gleaning was anecdotal in nature and not practical, as it had been in years past.

Perhaps the best session that I attended was the one that that asked a tough question about military science fiction: i.e. is this sub-genre little better than “war porn?” The implication, of course, is that we are all voyeurs watching the death and destruction of humans, aliens, and equipment with a sort of malevolent glee without the work having any literary or redeeming value. I thought that the panel, which included David Weber (of Honor Harrington fame) did an admirable job of defining true military science fiction and differentiating it from “war porn.” Following Weber’s lead, the panel defined true, military science fiction to have literary value if:

• The human cost and the human consequences are elevated above the glory of war for war’s sake
• More than just the bad guys get killed
• Collateral damage is realistic and appropriate to story/setting
• Characters come through combat changed by their experiences
• Justification for war and/or combat is provided

Weber also had an very compelling anecdote. I’ll retell it in my own words, but please note that this story is completely his:

Weber knew a colonel who said that the second worst moment as a combat officer was holding a nineteen year old boy in your arms as he died. You’ve trained for an operation; you’ve rehearsed it a thousand times. Everything has gone perfectly, yet a boy lays in your arms and takes his last breath. Weber asked the colonel what the worst moment was, if that was the second worst. The colonel’s reply: “Realizing that this was the job that I was born to do.”

The room was quiet for a moment after that comment. His point was that any military fiction that captures that aspect of humanity during and after combat succeeds in achieving literary merit. It shows the rest of us who do not have that common experience what the price of war means in the things that matter most…human lives.

The rest of the conference was entertaining enough, but I found that session to be the one most worthy of a write-up.

Boston is a pretty town, but difficult to navigate if you’re not a native. For a Texas boy, public transit is a chancy way to travel, and walking to a restaurant in twenty degree weather seems a little iffy. (Has it even been twenty degrees in Dallas this year? I don’t think so.) I flew Northwest through Memphis both coming and going, and of the four legs of the flight, three were delayed (two for mechanical problems on the plane). I suppose being delayed for mechanical problems is better than an engine falling off the plane in mid-flight, but the cantankerous part of me wondered if the Northwest mechanics had a preventive maintenance schedule.

Airport security was annoying as usual. I take secret pleasure in making the TSA ask me to do things. I never take my laptop out of the bag, nor do I remove my shoes. I make them ask, and then I make them tell me why I have to do it. Most of the time, I get a pretty humorless response. At other times, I get moved to the side for additional screening (This is a process I find particularly amusing because it makes them get off their swivel chair and actually work! I also get to lecture them about Nazi Germany, Stalinism, and our constitution), but this time, I got a detailed answer from a well-meaning TSA staffer that told me how I could hide explosives in my shoes. I didn’t bother to mention to him that me and ten of my chemist friends could bring 3.3 ounces of “liquid” on a plane and cause serious damage, yet be within the arbitrary rules set by a bureaucrat with a brother-in-law in congress. I made my eyes appropriately large, looked frightened, and wondered if my mockery was lost on the poor tool of tyranny in front of me. Apparently it was.