Rocket Scientist

Someone reminded me of something.  I write here a great deal about my dream: to write.  I can’t remember a time when I didn’t want to write.  But there are a lot of things I dreamed of and not all of them involve writing.

I’m not whining.  I’ve got a lot to be thankful for and I’m pretty happy.  But there are aspects about the way I grew up that sadden me.  I always loved singing.  I had a good ear and an excellent memory, but I lived with a parent who didn’t want to hear it and made no bones about not wanting to hear it.  “If you can’t sound like Karen Carpenter, I don’t want to hear you.”  Well, I didn’t.  I was, all unknowing, a soprano and though I pushed my range down nearly an octave below middle C, I was never going to sound like Karen Carpenter.

As you might guess, I grew up very self-conscious about my singing voice.  Taking choir wasn’t an option; I was “the smart child” (which was patently ridiculous - all of my siblings are brilliant), so high school was predetermined: 4 years of science, math, English, etc.  Nothing fun fun.

So, when I went to college and tested out of chemistry, I had available hours and nothing I had to take.  So, I took choir.  I had to try out with the head of the music department.  I was scared to death.  At the end of the tryout, the Department head told me two things I never forgot: “Don’t let anyone tell you you can’t sing,” and “Pick any choir group you want.”  I took them both as compliments.  Engineering physics doesn’t provide many free hours, so my window of opportunity closed soon.

After (actually during) college, I married someone who was as unappreciative of my singing voice as my mother had been.  So I stopped singing, largely, except when I was alone.

Until my daughter was born.  And then I sang with her and she loved to sing.  I was worried though that, as I was all but untrained, I might teach her the wrong way to sing.  So, finally, I took lessons.  My teacher was a retired opera teacher who told me, over the phone, that he wasn’t looking for a long term student.  Well, I was a mother with a small child.  I didn’t plan on being a long term student.

He told me right away that I was a dramatic soprano.  News to me, since I had always thought I was an alto.  “Well,” he said, “You hit the high C just now.”  I did?  I never did learn to sight read.

After two months, I thanked him for ensuring I had the basics in what I thought was the last lesson.  “You’re leaving?” he asked incredulously.

“Well, you didn’t want a long term student.”

“But that was before I heard you sing!”  And then he offered to teach me for free (which I refused).  He hated that I was “too old” to start a singing career and encouraged me to try out for the Houston Opera Choir after I’d been training with him less than three months.  Again, I considered all this complimentary. Although I did take more lessons from him, divorce, life, his illnesses, all conspired to bring them to an end.

It may sound like unmitigated bragging, but I have a point here.  I will never go pro singing, but I will also never let anyone take my singing from me again.  I can’t stress how important that is.

And, though I couldn’t undo the directions I had taken earlier in my life, my daughter has also shown considerable skill and expertise with regards to singing.  And I’m so proud of her, but also so pleased that she has the opportunity to do something with it, that it isn’t an avenue denied her.

You can hear/see her sing (ages 12-13) here, here and here.  Fabulous, isn’t she?

There are few gifts a mother can have that mean more than the ability to undo mistakes from her own childhood for her own children.

I’ve been given a lot of food for thought with the books I’ve just read, some very pertinent to my own writing.  Not to change my characters or the story itself, but in how to present them more effectively.

Since I know my own characters, I suspect it might be one of my failings that my introductions sometimes leave something to be desired.

And, of course, I still am missing a title.

But I also noted something and it reminded me of something I don’t want to do, one of those no-nos peculiar to science fiction and fantasy.  Let’s face, a book with shapeshifters (like mine) or vampires is going to have some scientific holes.  It might have sound science in other portions, but there will be some things that are likely, um, don’t make sense from science as we know it.

So, to all those aspiring speculative writers out there, if you’re dealing with something that doesn’t make sense from a science standpoint, don’t take the trouble to fake pseudo-scientific nonsense in the middle of the book.  It serves no purpose.  It’s tempting, I know.  I actually struggled a bit to explain how my shapeshifters’ mass changes radically.  It doesn’t work.  So, I’m going to not explain it, perhaps pointedly.  And explain in detail the many real scientific details that surround that wee little anomaly.

But, at least for me, nothing wrenches me out of a story like scientific nonsense especially if it’s not necessary.  For instance, in Breaking Dawn, the last of the Twilight series, the doctor vampire notes that vampires have 25 pairs of chromosomes and the werewolves have 24, as opposed to the 23 pairs of a normal human.  OK, tell me how being infected with vampire venom (the way vampires are made) causes you to grow 4 new chromosomes?  Mutate existing chromosomes, sure, but grow new ones?  Ditto for the spirit connection - people combine with wolves (dogs have 78 chromosomes) and we end up with one other chromosome pair, according to the good doctor.  Somehow, combining these shapeshifters with regular people (who only have 23 pairs) produces more with 24 pairs (instead of the reality: 23 pairs and unmatched chromosome or, more likely, a nonviable offspring).  Or that one with 23 pairs combining with one with 25 pairs results in a child with 24 pairs.

Um, no.  And it’s embarrassingly silly to say so.  If you have two unattached chromosomes from unmatched pairs, it doesn’t make an extra pair and it undermines a medical practitioner to say so with a straight face.  Describing these as mutated genes would have been much more believable and saved someone with a modicum of knowledge, readily gleaned from high school biology, from being wrenched from the story.

Now, science isn’t the only way to do so.  When one reads a historical novel or even a novel that touches on historical facts, reading where the author has thrown in something gratuitously (as is often done) that happens to be wrong can wrench a knowledgeable reader from the story, which is why I can’t read Tom Clancy.

Did I mention that my shapeshifters can’t breed among themselves?  They have a dominant gene that, like a manx cat, will kill the fetus if there are two of those genes.  But it doesn’t help my mass anomaly.

What am I thankful for?

A great deal.  I have three beautiful, sweet and intelligent children, each with distinct and unique personalities.

I have a good and hopefully secure job where I am not only able to do work I am proud of (and do well), but also have the luxury of being allowed to be honest in a very political world.  I’ve worked for a lot of companies who did their best, but felt constrained not to “rock the boat” or tell those their customers what they didn’t want to hear, even if it wasn’t true.  That’s something I find impossible to reconcile with my ethics and I’m very grateful I’m not in a position to choose between my conscience or my livelihood.

I have a house that fared fairly well through Ike, though there was considerably flooding right down the street.  And, as I was insured, I’ll be able to repair the small leftovers without hardship.

Everyone in my immediate family is healthy and happy.

I am married to my true soulmate, against all the odds.  I don’t know how I managed that, but I’m eternally grateful for a man who not only makes my heart stop, but who sees me and sees someone beautiful.

And, though my life is very full, I still haven’t lost the opportunity to pursue the dream, the profession I’ve wanted and dreamed of since I was kid younger than my teenage daughter.  I haven’t given up telling stories and there’s something magical about holding on to the dream.

Whether this is Thanksgiving for you or just another day, here’s hoping you are still chasing your dream as well.

Happy Thanksgiving!

So, about Twilight… [Spoilers for the books may be here]

I liked the movie.  Not in the gushy, teenage way and I don’t lust after teenage boys (only remember lusting over one and I married him already).  But it intrigued me sufficiently to want to read the books.

Which is where I’ve been the past three days.  Reading some 2200 pages of “teenage” vampire story.  So, what did I think?  I liked it.  I found it thought-provoking and was genuinely charmed by Edward, in fact, completely.  (Edward’s considerable absence in New Moon put it on my least favorite of the books for me).  I liked Bella, too.  Clearly, Stephenie Meyers is a character writer and, believe me, that’s my favorite kind of writer.  There is also a noticeable (and sarcastic) sense of humor evident.  And the ending of the series was tidy; I like that.  All good things.

There were some attitudes and reactions, though, necessary to keep the plot in the direction wanted, that didn’t make much sense. Also, I’m not certain these books needed to be as long as they were.  There was a lot of repetition.  But I considered those relatively minor issues and, for the whole, these are among the most entertaining and charming novels I’ve read in this age category.  And, remember, vampires don’t, as a general rule, strike me as sexy.  Well, Edward has changed my mind.

On a side note, I’d read in a review that Edward’s self-control was intended as an analog for abstinence for premarital sex.  As much as I’m not an advocate for teenage sex, I have to say I don’t think this will help that cause if, indeed, that was the intent.  First, as Edward is close to 100 years old, he’s not really a teenager so the comparison kind of falls apart (he seriously depends on his years of experience).  He looks 17, but he’s not.  Secondly, Bella has effectively no self-control from a sexual standpoint.  Not to seem critical, but I think it’s unlikely for girls to expect teenage males to be the responsible ones; no matter how one slices it, biology will always leave girls with the most to lose.  Encouraging this mindset is unlikely to be good for precluding teenage sex (and I suspect many more girls than boys read these books).  Lastly, this is three full books of intense sexual tension.  Not a healthy way to discourage sex for teens.  I don’t object to the books, but wanted to point out my view on that.

So, having finished these, I have asked myself why I found these so damn appealing, particularly the character of Edward.  I am charmed by the distinct honesty, goodness and selflessness in many of the characters, how well they work together.  But, primarily I think, I am a sucker for protective men and Edward might get the award for the most protective character of all times.  Yes, I find that romantic.  So, yes, Ms. Meyers managed to make a truly sexy vampire, in my opinion.

And I give Stephenie Meyers kudos for doing so without making without making Bella helpless or a loser.

For reasons unknown, I received The Rock Star Award on Nov. 23rd from Davida at Glue 4 Families (discussing family related issues). I’m touched and honored..

Apparently, I’m to state eight interesting fachttp://rocketscientist.today.com/files/2008/11/rockstarnx1.jpgts about myself, so here goes.

1. My father was the oldest of twelve. I’m the oldest of seven. And I have three children (and will not be having more). At least we’re moving down..

2. We have an odd blood type trend going in my family. My father was A, my mother O. Both grandfathers A, both grandmothers O. I am A and I have been married twice: in both cases, my husband was type O.

3. I am descended from Elizabeth, daughter of Edward I of England. Being of that line, makes me a direct descendant of not only William the Conqueror but also Alfred the Great.

4. I am missing the lip of bone that keeps my kneecap from slipping out of place (congenitally). Believe me, this is a very inconvenient circumstance.

5. I have written (or cowritten) and presented a total of six technical papers, five in the last five years. All of the last five were presented at the first three conferences for the International Association for the Advancement of Space Safety in Nice, France, Chicago, IL and Rome, Italy respectively. IAASS is the only professional organization that I have been a member of for so long.

6. I really am a rocket scientist, not that I design rockets specifically, but that I have been intimately involved in designing and certifying space hardware for nearly 20 years.

7. I skipped eighth grade.

8. I not only write speculative fiction, I believe in magic and psychic power.

And here are my choices for never-miss blogs because they ROCK:

David Rochester

flitting

First Door on the Left

Gumby the Cat

I Do Things

Meteor Watch

Planck’s Post

Shakespearemom

My daughter did something today she’s never done before.  She read some of my fiction.  Oh, not the children’s stories or poems I wrote for her when she was a small girl and read to her aloud.  She read a short story, one I wrote when I was not much older than she is now.

Big deal, you might be thinking.  Most kids support their parent’s creative endeavors.  What’s so special?  Well, and those of you with teenagers back me up, teenagers are different.  My daughter and I are both avid readers, but she’d rather walk through fire than read a book I recommended.  I’m a square and I don’t understand how kids are today (believe me, she’s told me).  We both like reading speculative, fiction, involving magic or the supernatural, but she couldn’t like anything I like.  We both like a sense of humor, but we couldn’t like the same books.  I was OK with that (well, sort of).

But I couldn’t get her to read the work I do, the stories or novels I write.  I’d print it out, she’d “lose” it or be distracted and it would evaporate.  So I gave up.

Then, my friend, sister and I started a writer’s forum.  My daughter, who writes dark but very gifted poetry, wanted to join and get reviews on her own work.  I said she could, but she had to read everyone else’s work and give her honest opinion.  I would do the same on this forum.

She agreed.

And so, yesterday, she read a story.  And she told me it touched her, it nearly made her cry, that it meant something to her.  Her comment, posted in the forum, made it clear that she got what I was trying to convey, that it had truly touched her.  She asked me to print it out so she could show her friends.  She told me I needed to get it published.  She drew me an illustration for it.

If I never get published again as a fiction writer or sell my novels, I will still have been a success.

If I become a great writer and fulfill my every dream in that regard, it won’t mean more to me than that one statement from my daughter: “It touched me.”

Oh, and by the way, since today I insist on spreading hope, here’s today’s Sinfest.

Tomorrow, I’m going to be exposed to some speculative fiction myself.  My daughter, who is a huge fan of the Twilight series, is taking me to see the movie.  She has all but worn out her copies of all four books and is anxious that I am intrigued by this.

Now, I have to admit two things: (a) first, most of the teenagery books my daughter reads, I can’t stand.  What seems like perfectly natural dialogue to her is like fingernails on a chalkboard to me, not because it’s not the way teenagers talk, but because it is.  I feel the same listening to teenagers talk amongst themselves.  (b) Vampires don’t interest me much.  In fact, I can’t recall a vampire story I ever found compelling.

For anyone with teenagers, I don’t think I have to explain the teenager speak issue.  As for the vampires, sorry, I don’t find draining blood all that sexy.  Immortality sounds boring in the extreme and, hey, I like sunsets.  I think part of my disdain is that, especially recently, people have worked too hard to make them protagonists because so many find them romantic.  OK, not sure why they’re romantic, but I either find them fangless, if they’re too protagonisty, or slimy if they’re not.  Anne Rice’s vampire from Interview with a Vampire I actually found whiny.  I wanted, about halfway through the book, to tell him to stop whining and hit a tanning booth.

I was, in fact, telling my husband that I thought it was too hard to make vampires protagonists without making them stupid when he told me it was easy.  He’ll be putting that together himself to prove his point.  And I’ll get a chance to see what has made my daughter so excited.  No, I haven’t read the books yet.  After tomorrow, I’ll see if I should.

Oh, and I’ll see if there is a vampire scenario that works for me because, well, it’s a challenge.

For those of us that grew up on Star Trek, combining sex and science fiction is par for the course.  Sick, you say? (Well, maybe not my friends).  Um, no, it’s natural.  Several reasons come to mind.

First of all, sex is a natural thing, especially for passionate characters.  And why wouldn’t one want passionate characters?  I don’t mean erotica, though I don’t discount it either.  I mean people (of any race/species/even artificial individuals) that care about what they’re doing and how they’re growing are passionate.  All that emotion is a fertile environment (if you’ll excuse the pun) for sex.

Secondly, sexual relations are an excellent barometer for general attitudes.  Just as the way people regard interracial marriage is a good barometer for racism, how people regard different, nontraditional, or interspecies sexual relations can say a great deal about how people really regard people who are different.  Since many speculative fiction stories highlight issues in today’s culture, this is a great way to bring it to light.

But part of it is just regular people’s natural curiosity, from wondering (and you know they wonder now) about sex in zero g, to speculating about aliens and sex.  It’s only a little stretch to wonder how far different two humanoids would have to be to still have enjoyable sex or how different they would have to be before being truly weirded out.  Or what kind of sexual rituals and notions one could really explore.

Let’s face it, imagination-wise, we’ve come along way since Kirk made it with a green chick.

(This topic brought to you from the mind of my husband who coughed it up when I requested a topic.  Quel surprise.)

And now, on a different note, I want to talk about something completely different: WALL-E.

Yes, I saw it in the theatres, but I loved it.  Loved it. So, Lee got it for me for my birthday.

Oh, not for the science.  Let’s face it, the level of garbage and filth on the planet surface was excessive.  And the notion that a luxury liner could go off and survive with sufficient supplies for centuries when it was only supposed to be less than ten years, is completely unreasonable.

It doesn’t matter.  There are only a few movie companies that can make robots absolutely endearing.  Pixar is clearly one of them.  WALL-E is so endearing, so charming, so absolutely convincing as an individual (much more so than most of the “people”), I’d follow him anywhere he led.  The expressions and body language were completely believable and readable.  The sound engineers did a masterful job bringing WALL-E to empathetic life.  Heck, they made a cockroach completely loveable.

So, what does this have to do with science?  Well, computer generated movies are big science, big technology.  But to do this, to bring WALL-E and EVE and all the rest to vibrant life, they needed something else: an exceptional understanding of how people act, sound, react, think, even dream, all to convey on screen so that the viewer falls a little bit in love with WALL-E.

That ability, to take something clearly not human, something completely new and foreign, and make it something familiar, endearing, approachable.  Well, there’s a goal for any writer of speculative fiction.  The bar’s pretty high, but I know what I’m shooting for now.

So, I’ve discussed Heaven and Hell , or my lack of belief in either.

It seems the next logical thing to discuss is my belief in “God”.  Since I’m not shy, I shall.  However, I remind you that, just because I discuss my own beliefs does not mean I reject or sneer at other beliefs.  These are just mine.

In my mind, what God is is not as important as what He isn’t.  I believe in a deity that is tolerant, understanding, forgiving, who loves all humans equally, a God who is not disturbed except by people hurting each other unnecessarily.  And that’s it.

I don’t know (or care) if God is a he or she or if there are series of them, a conglomerate, even an entity that created “us” (or shaped the natural forces of creation - either way) and left us to our own devices.  I don’t know if he’s associated with any of the famous prophets that have lived and initiated religions: Buddha, Mohamed, Jesus Christ, Abraham, but I would not be surprised if they all touched on some of the truth.  How much, well…

What I seriously don’t think God is is petty, tyrannical, egocentric, vindictive, intolerant.  I don’t think he (she/they) care what belief system someone has (or if) nor do they condone horrific behavior in someone who professes to a particular religion.  I don’t think he answers every prayer.  I don’t think, actually, that he interferes with us, at least not anymore, like a parent that has done what he could to prepare his children and then left them to fend for themselves.  If he does get involved, it is only once in a while, when it serves the greater good.

I can’t imagine any reasonable deity that would allow “righteous” people to hurt/kill others but would turn his (her/their) on people that do good but don’t follow a particular religion.

That doesn’t mean that I tell anyone what to believe.  Many have tried to convince me to that I’m wrong, that I risk “hell” if I don’t change the way I view things.  Too bad.  I would go to hell rather than give a petty tyrant God the satisfaction of my worship.

Good thing for me, I don’t believe it’s going to be an issue.

Yesterday, I included an email forward in my post so that I could talk about what heaven couldn’t be to me: exclusionary.  Nor could I wrap my mind about the concept that a good person could be thrilled at the notion of spending eternity in heaven when everyone who saw life differently, had a different religion, or, in fact, failed to meet the “appropriate” level of sinning was existing in unending torment.

I mentioned at the time that I didn’t believe in Heaven or Hell and I meant it.  But, since I think it makes an interesting topic for discussion, I will tell you what I do believe.  Before I do, mind you, note that I have no intention of “converting” anyone to my way of thinking.  I’m perfectly happy with a belief system of one.  If you want to believe in little green men from Alpha Centauri, go right ahead.  Ditto if Jesus, Buddha, or Osiris is your God.  I’m cool with it.

So, why don’t I believe in Heaven or Hell?  Because they don’t make sense to me.  I mean, what’s the point?  A vacation-land for all eternity - eternity’s a hell of a long time to kick back and do nothing and what a waste?  What would be the point of sending us here to learn, to prove ourselves only to spend the rest of eternity retired?

And hell is even stupider.  Tormenting people who failed for eternity.  To what purpose?  It’s not like you can work your way back from Hell.  And Satan snatching up souls to beat out God.  What for?  He get a discount coupon at Starbucks if he gets so many souls?  WTF?

Look at the world around you, and the glorious and logical world of nature.  Everything has a purpose and is part of the system.  Everything performs a function.  Nothing is wasted.  Now, am I the only one that sees the disconnect?

I guess my view on it is sort of Buddhist/Hindi crossed with a video game.  Nature loves to recycle.  You live this life, hopefully learning something, hopefully becoming the best you can be.  If you die before figuring it out, you start “the level” over again.  You’re supposed to grow, to become what whatever deity there is sees as your potential before moving on (and I’ll leave my view of the deity for another time).  Once you pull it off, find your enlightenment and live in a way that makes the world a better place, hurting no one unnecessarily - your soul moves on to whatever level comes next.

So I’m not expecting a vacation when I’m through here, but a new struggle, a different test, perhaps a different lesson, a new proving ground.  It may not be this life or the next, but I do believe I’m learning.  I will beat this level and move on to the next.

And, when we’ve beaten every level and grown up to a mature soul, Heaven then?  Pshaw!  Why would you help craft something incredible to put it on the shelf?  And why would you go through so many lives, learning so much, to not put it to use.  I don’t know what my future holds for me, but I sure as heck intend to be useful.

Next time: My view on “God” - which is just as different.  Probably.

Something I rarely do is post an email forward. It’s almost impossible to trace them down and give credit and this is not an exception. But, I have a reason for putting up this up, and I’ll explain afterwards.

            A man and his dog were walking along a road. The man was enjoying the scenery, when it suddenly occurred to him that he was dead. He remembered dying, and that the dog walking beside him hadbeen dead for years. He wondered where the road was leading them.
After a while, they came to a high, white stone wall along oneside of the road. It looked like fine marble. At the top of a long hill, it was broken by a tall arch that glowed in the sunlight.
When he was standing before it he saw a magnificent gate in the arch that looked like mother-of-pearl, and the street that led to the gate looked like pure gold.  He and the dog walked toward the gate, and as he got closer, he saw a man at a desk to one side.

When he was close enough, he called out, ‘Excuse me, where arewe?’
‘This is Heaven, sir,’ the man answered.
‘Wow! Would you happen to have some water?’ the man asked.
‘Of course, sir. Come right in, and I’ll have some ice water brought right up.’
The man gestured, and the gate began to open.
‘Can my friend,’ gesturing toward his dog, ‘come in, too?’ the traveler asked.
‘I’m sorry, sir, but we don’t accept pets.’
The man thought a moment and then turned back toward the road and continued the way he had been going with his dog.
After another long walk, and at the top of another long hill, he came to a dirt road leading through a farm gate that looked as if it had never been closed. There was no fence.
As he approached the gate, he saw a man inside, leaning against a tree and reading a book..
‘Excuse me!’ he called to the man. ‘Do you have any water?’
‘Yeah, sure, there’s a pump over there, come on in.’
‘How about my friend here?’ the traveler gestured to the dog.
‘There should be a bowl by the pump.’
They went through the gate, and sure enough, there was an old-fashioned hand pump with a bowl beside it.
The traveler filled the water bowl and took a long drink himself, then he gave some to the dog.
When they were full, he and the dog walked back toward the man who was standing by the tree.
‘What do you call this place?’ the traveler asked.
‘This is Heaven,’ he answered.

‘Well, that’s confusing,’ the traveler said. ‘The man down the road said that was Heaven, too.’
‘Oh, you mean the place with the gold street and pearly gates?  Nope. That’s hell.’
‘Doesn’t it make you mad for them to use your name like that?’
‘No, we’re just happy that they screen out the folks who would leave their best friends behind.’

Now, why did I do that? I have to be honest, I don’t believe in Heaven or Hell. Seriously.

But, it got me to thinking and that’s the kind of thing I like to spread around. Let us postulate, for entertainment value, that Heaven and Hell did exist. I personally think this sort of set up is perfect. Not just because many animals have souls (duh!), but because this could be the perfect way to differentiate between someone worthy to go to Heaven or Hell.

Think about it.

You walk up to the “Pearly Gates” and meet St. Peter (as far as you know). If, after the description of Heaven (streets of gold, no worries or stress ever, wonderful and perfect in every way, etc) you still wanted to go in (and I find that hard to believe, but we’ll say that sounds good to ya). So, St. Peter starts going to through a screening list. You a Muslim? You a Pagan? You a homosexual? You ever have an abortion? Would you have supported your teenage daughter if she wanted one? Etc. etc. You say no (presumably) to it all, and Peter says, “Well, I can see you’re a righteous person. Come on in.”

Would you go in? Before asking “What if I’d said yes to any of that?” If you’d gone in, no questions asked, I think you’d deserve the Hell you got (and, by the way, the boredom of that just as it described would be Hell to me, too).

Why in hell would heaven be exclusionary? And, if it was, is it where you’d want to be? I think this is one of the aspects of organized religions, particularly the Middle Eastern originating ones (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) that I have the hardest time understanding.

What kind of butthead thinks that sounds like Heaven?

A respected friend of mine, Ruth Dickson, who wrote this hilarious book, made an observation on my post regarding critical thinking the other day (this is its Gather incarnation, complete with the comments). She was noting that the problem wasn’t that people wanted to have all the answers, but that they didn’t have any questions.

I had to ask myself how sad that was. After all, curiosity is natural, isn’t it? Kids come with it, at least all the kids I’ve ever known. In order for them to carry it through life, you just have to keep from squelching it. They want to learn, they want to know more, they’re up to their eyeballs in questions. So, that begs the question, what kills it for them? What changes so that they stop asking questions and stick fingers in their ears with “lalalala” when something that challenges their outlook on life comes along? Where do we lose them?

I had suggested that the level of critical thinking was dropping but another well-respected critical thinker I know, Nippy Katz, commented that he didn’t think the level had actually dropped but that it actually remains constant. I can’t say whether that’s true, but I can’t say that it’s not. I’ve only lived now (at least that I can remember - I don’t have an issue with the idea of reincarnation) and I’m dependent on what history has recorded for times before. One could make a good argument that any creative/critical thinking would be among the things recorded and, therefore, give a skewed view of the world back then.

What do you think? Is it becoming more scarce? Do you know why, if you think it’s changing? Or, if it’s always been here, what makes it seem like it’s becoming a rarity? I have an idea that perhaps that perception is tied to whether the culture, government, media or policy is being driven by the thinkers or by the parroters. Tell me what you think.

Yesterday, I bemoaned the lack of critical thinking, in normal life, in politics, even in science and technology.  We seem to be stuck in neutral, too afraid to do the kind of pushing the envelope that made technology as we know it today, possible (with the possible exception of computers and entertainment like movies and video, etc).  Where is today’s von Braun?  Where is today’s Tesla?  Where is today’s George Washington Carver?  Or, if they’re out there, why can’t we hear them? *Sigh*

But I like to take these kinds of musing and explain why they’re important to my writing.  ‘Cause it’s my blog and I can. So, any way, why is critical thinking important in writing fiction?  OK, I’m pretty sure none of *my* readers would ask such an asinine question, but let’s pretend someone did.

Two answers.  One, just because critical thinkers are rare in real life doesn’t mean your protagonists have to be mindless drones.  Make ‘em think.  Make ‘em solve problems.  Make ‘em do things differently.  I like to think of smart and creative protagonists as a public service, or at least they will be if I ever publish them.  (I hate marketing.)  But also, why would I want a stupid protagonist?  I want to like my characters and that means they’re going to have to challenge the status quo and grow and figure stuff out.  Otherwise, I’ll be bored.  They might even do stuff I wouldn’t or take stances I wouldn’t because, well, they’re living in a different world I am.  A critical thinker works with the reality he has.  They have different rules, and they might even follow them.  But, knowing any characters I cough up, they are likely to be pains in the butt like myself, and they’ll be challenging any traditions that no longer work for them.

But more than infusing my characters with critical thinking, I need to use it myself.  Because I, believe it or not, am not infallible.  I love my characters and the worlds I create, but, sometimes, for whatever reason, it doesn’t always fall together like it should or the word choice is bad or a plot twist is a wee bit too twisted.  Given that it’s mine, though, I might not observe it, even when I’m looking for problems.  That’s why I (a) work with my husband on writing who doesn’t hesitate to tell me when something is garbage, (b) have a cadre of exceptional readers who are fantastic because they’ll tell me when something’s wrong as readily as they’ll tell me when something’s right.

But I have to be open enough to listen, to think, to evaluate and, as is often necessary, to fix what’s broken. Writers who give their work to others to review expecting nothing but unmitigated praise don’t get it.  Yeah, it’s great they like it, but what makes your work the best is getting a read through by someone critical and looking for flaws.  If praise is all you want, by all means find rabid fans that are slavishly devoted if you can make complete sentences.  But if it matters if your work is good, get someone who respects you enough to tell you when it’s not.  And then listen.

Your work will thank you.

It occurs to me that the ability to think critically is becoming a rare talent.  I say this, not just because the number of scientists and technically adept graduates is continuing to dwindle or that a plethora of people touted as “experts” spout nonsense nearly all the time and no one calls them on it.  Though those are clearly bad signs.  Perhaps the most telling sign is that when clear data and factual evidence is put forward that demonstrates that the nonsense is, indeed, fetid and smelly, clearly originating from the southbound end of a northbound creature with a high fiber diet, their fervent fans just put their fingers in their ears and go “lalalala.”

That completely floors me.  Willful ignorance, apart from being irritating to any thinking person, and destructive to many (not the least of which is the ignoramus himself), is a dangerous sign.  It makes me think of the Dark Ages when Galileo is doing his best to convince the “lala-ers” of his day or of the regular folk of Nazi Germany who turned blank eyes on the invading Allies, genuinely ignorant of the horrors that went on over the hill at Auschwitz because they wanted so much not to know.  I can give you a hundred political examples, but either you’ve already figured them out or you have wax on your fingertips already.

But it’s everywhere.  From the need for directions on suppositories gently reminding one that they are not to be taken orally to the folks screaming about the global warming myth when shown pictures of an almost ice-free mountain that wore a glacier for the past millennium.

Even where I work, I’m amazed how rare that quality of looking at things skeptically really is.  I like to think I’m fairly bright, but I don’t think I’m head and shoulders above all the people I work with.  I mean, this is an advanced industry - isn’t it?  And yet, I’m continuously surprised and disturbed, when I make comments on a review package or suggest a different direction, how often no one has had the thought before or how confused people often are of something that doesn’t fit neatly into an established pattern.  I mean, is original thinking so unusual, so rare?  And, if so, what does that say about our prospects?

I’m opinionated so I often get involved in discussions on several topics.  Almost invariably, someone will stand up and make hard and fast statements with nothing to support them.  “Such and such is a fact, obviously.”  Is it?  Why?  And they sputter or attack personally or, if you’re lucky, cough up links/sources that lead to articles that are clearly either readily disproved nonsense or to articles that say nothing anywhere near as definitively as they stated them.  “Facts” and something being “proven” are very specific. Facts are not formed by absence of evidence because absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence.  They are not formed by stating something positively and repeating itvery loudly and very often.  They are not, sadly, accompanied by chapter and verse of the Bible.

At best, such opinions are nothing more than that and, in my opinion, this world would be a better place if more people could discern the difference between their opinion and fact.  If you’ve been given data, check it out.  If you haven’t, do your own research.  Question everyone, those that disagree with you and, especially, those that do.  Back up your own opinions where you can and, where you can’t, remember they are nothing more than opinions - and be prepared to change them if data comes along that shows you were wrong. And, yes, I’ve been wrong. But I try not to be wrong twice.

Oh, well, there’s hope for us as long a snopes.com and the few remaining skeptical thinkers (and you know who you are) keep questioning and probing and refusing to accept anything at face value.  After all, when this particular patch of the Dark Ages recedes, someone will need us.

On a completely different note, what the heck every happened to being able to find graph paper, I mean hard-working, actually useful graph paper?  I’m needing to do some interpolation on a function that needs to be on log-log paper in order to be interpolated properly.  Easy to get, right?  I mean, this is the town next to the Johnson Space Center, filled to the gills with brainy technical types.  Now, I might not find this at the grocery store, but surely a place that supplies office supplies…

So I tried.  No log-log paper.  No engineering pads.  Just an isometric grid and the standard grid paper in 8.5×11 inches (no real drafting paper at all).  No single log graph paper.  Hitting several stores netted me no success.

Fortunately, for my task, I found a website that had what I needed. Stupid that I had to, though.

Now, I used log-log and single log paper even in high school and it was used frequently in college.  Don’t they teach kids to use it any more?  Aren’t there other engineers or scientists in this town?

Now, I am depressed.  It’s all I needed to know, but didn’t want to, about the state of technical education in this area.

So, a world-conquering scientist is somewhat unprecedented and they seem ill-suited to do so later.  Mindless violence doesn’t make a great deal of sense, but could a “mad scientist” do terrible things and, if so, under what circumstances?

The answer is, of course, yes, a scientist can do terrible things.  They are not superhuman or without flaw.  They are generally prone to the same failings as the rest of the world and have had more than their fair share of a few of them.  Dr. .Mengele is a case in point, a “researcher” using his science as an excuse to fulfill psychopathic tendencies.  I hesitate to call him a researcher turned madman but suspect, rather that he was a madman who happened to be a scientist in an environment where he was encouraged to indulge his most depraved tastes.  But, however I slice it, he was a villain and a scientist.

What else?

Well, scientists could be and have been coerced or bribed to do contribute to terrible technology.  Coercion could be direct and overwhelming compulsion - like direct threats of harm to self or family - or it could be just a tenuous threat where the scientist believes that he would put himself at risk if he refused to cooperate.  Bribery can, of course, be monetary, but it can also be a dream or research held out as an incentive to get a scientist to do something else.  An example of this sort of thing (probably aspects of both bribery and coercion) is von Braun, a man dedicated to the notion of space travel (which he helped to bring to fruition in the US), but also responsible for devastating rocket weaponry in support of Nazi Germany.

Or a scientist could work toward a dream or a cause he or she really believed in, and, in doing so, contribute to something horrible.  For example: the Manhattan Project.  Whether nuclear weapons were justified in World War II or not, most, if not all, of those that developed them believed that the development was necessary if only to ensure the US had the weapon before Germany and/or Japan.  Interestingly enough, those same scientists were among the most vocal in their disapproval of the use of nuclear weapons.  Even today, scientists may have the highest percentage of anti-nuclear weapon folks outside of Japan, but that’s a genie that we’ve never managed to put back in its bottle.

It is not impossible, of course, that a scientist would become enamored with a cause (the cause could even be a good one) and do something heinous.  Additionally, a scientist could create something that could be readily misused in a terrible way.  It’s happened.  Although scientists are generally taught to think critically, many are experts in one field and - forgive me - idiots in other fields, but not necessarily cognizant of that deficiency.  Many scientists are prone to egoism and that could readily be manipulated.  Many are gullible at least outside their area of expertise.  Let’s face it, they have weaknesses

But, in none of these situations do we find a stand-alone scientist destroying the world.  A psychopath can cause damage, but he’s unlikely to have the kind of influence to do horrible things outside a small sphere of influence.  Or science and scientists can be used by someone unscrupulous or even someone principled to do horrible things.  But the scientist is unlikely to be calling the shots or be directly responsible for the result of his labors.

Science is a field with built in ethics, where scientists deliberately criticize each other in order to ensure what we say makes sense and fits the data, that it’s good.  Science is a field where critical thinking goes hand in hand with success, which all but negates many thoughtless kinds of violence or mayhem.  It promotes education, the antithesis of those that like to control people.  We know we’re fallible, hence our own checks and balances and, generally, no one scientist does it all alone, limiting the influence of a bad apple.  We’re arrogant and sometimes slow to adapt to change.  We are intransigent when we feel we’re right.  But then, we have the data.

Most of us aren’t in it for the money (haha! like someone goes into science for glory or money - or, if they do - that they were thinking clearly).  Most of us want to make the world better with what we do.  We’re not omniscient and we’re not without flaw, but we try, as a whole, to contribute with a minimal profit motive.

That mad scientist out to destroy the world, well, I don’t see it.

And that means, however prevalent you might find him (or her) in comics books and other speculative fiction, you are quite unlikely to find it in any of mine.  If I were you, I’d avoid it, too.  I’d also remember that we’re not out to scare you, in our white coats; we’re just doing the best we can.

So, if history doesn’t provide an example of the quintessential, nay almost cliché, “mad scientist,” why is this such a prevalent character?  Well, just because it hasn’t happened in the past, who’s to say it couldn’t?

I won’t say it *couldn’t*, but I won’t say it’s likely.  Here’s why.

The number one reason people want to rule the world is to control people and, through them, resources, power, wealth.  The most effective way of controlling people is to (a) limit their education, (b) limit/control the information that reaches them and, if possible, (c) manipulate emotions (which can be helped by (a) and (b)).  You can control people with force, but force requires a large number of people using, well, force.  How do you get these henchmen?  Money or you control them through methods a-c.

The problem with methods a-c is that they are the antithesis of what a scientist is.  Scientists, real scientists, want an educated public, one that understands what the mean when they say something.  People who are clueless about science, rather than embracing scientific conclusions, are suspicious and eager to discount those things they can’t understand.  In other words, an ignorant public would work against a scientist as well as being against everything he stands for.

But what about the money aspect a la Lex Luthor, for example?  There are scientists/engineers that got rich creating something useful or helpful, or designing software or videogames.  But, while there are handful of these, it is much more likely for technical expertise to be hired by more business oriented folks where the technical expertise gets perks and the business folks get ridiculously rich.  Most of those programmers and the like that did get rich, sold off their assets for a bundle and then tried to figure out ways to spend their money.  Methods tried generally tend toward foolish waste and/or philanthropy, as opposed to trying to leverage more money or they reinvest that money into something they believe in, like green technologies or space.  Bill Gates can program, but he is more a businessman than a software person, and, in either case, a scientist he is not.  Actually, if you want to get rich, engineering/software is the way to go.  Scientists that have made money hand over fist are all but unheard of unless they made their money in something besides, uh, science.

So, if a scientist is not going to control the world, what if he just wants to destroy it?  Well, that’s not impossible.  But really, when has anyone really tried to destroy the world just ‘cause?  When terrible things have been done, it has either been done with the idea of furthering an agenda (no matter how insane that agenda might be) or it has been thoughtlessly destructive like Timothy McVeigh.  I can’t think of a motive for a scientist to be thoughtlessly destructive.

But the other…perhaps that’s more food for thought.  And I’ll be thinking about it for part 3.

Have you ever wondered what the effect of acceptance of science and technology upon a society?  Probably not.  For many it’s transparent and part of the background.  Or you say to yourself, we accept it enough with our cell phones and high definition TV.  But acceptance of science is more than accepting of the convenience that goes with it, though there were times when society didn’t even accept that.  But apparently, trust does not come with accepting the boons.

However, as a writer of speculative fiction, and a scientist/engineer, I have rather a more pointed interest.  There is a recurring theme, actually, in speculative fiction of the evil scientist, mad with power and eager to take over the world.  He or she lusts for more power or information or more something and, amoral, will destroy anything in his or her path in order to obtain it.  This is probably so popular in fiction because regular run of the mill people believe it, believe, absolutely, that it is religion more than anything that allows for ethical behavior.  With that belief, they often accept the corollary that science, as religion’s anathema, is amoral and is, in fact, incompatible with personal faith.

Is it true?

Aside from the latter being frequently false, in my opinion, I believe the former is also false.  Religion is not required for morality and I believe that the characteristics and rigors required by science make the “mad scientist” character almost noncredible.   Why do I think so?

Well, what does history say?

I can think of several instances when the religion was directly or indirectly the cause of pain: Salem witch trials, Spanish Inquisition, a large number of particularly gruesome wars.  Even today it is a factor in wars if only as a rationale and can be readily wielded to drive a wedge between one group of human beings and another, even if there is no other reason.  This isn’t to say that religion in inherently evil.  Far from it, for there are - yes, folks, there are  - good things religion has done too, even as far back as the Dark Ages.  However, religion, by definition, requires faith and looks to people for direction (since God is generally not directly available for consultation).  It is also a very emotional thing, appealing to the heart primarily rather than the mind.  Unfortunately, people more interested in control and power can use these characteristics to manipulate people with hatred, with fear, with words of intolerance, even when all of those go against the tenets of the base religion.

Note, however, this is not an indictment of religious people.  There are any number of people with strong belief systems that will not be swayed to do evil things and, frequently, they provide as much relief to these situations as they can.  An example lay in those as those religious people who worked the Underground Railroad and fought for abolition even as others were preaching in defense of slavery.

But this isn’t about religion.  So, when has science done something similar?  I’ve heard Nazi Germany and Hiroshima laid on the plate as proof of the mad scientist concept, proof that they have done as much damage.  Except neither of those situation were driven by science; science was, at worst, an enabler.  But that’s a far cry from scientists getting mad with power and taking over the world.  Hitler was not a scientist but a clever manipulator, mad for control and apparently a hatred for Jews and other easily marginalized groups.  That does not excuse all the scientists that helped him, though one could make a case that some worked with little other choice.  Others, like Mengele, can not be excused or even explained and will be a blight and an embarrassment for the scientific profession for some time.  But he wasn’t trying to rule the world, just the corner he’d made into a nightmare.

Nor do I think it reasonable to hold the misuse of science by others, those that crave power or wealth, as science gone mad.  Historically, conquering groups (including religiously led groups) have always used technology without hesitation, even against those who had little or no defense against it, but it hasn’t been the scientists who determined the use.  It is the person who pulls the trigger who must bear responsibility.  And while science has allowed more effective ways of hurting people, it has also provided considerably to the health, education, and well-being of people through medicine and hygiene, plumbing and irrigation, air conditioning and information technology.  Just as religion has provided comfort to people despite some ugly bits of history.

So, what’s my point?

Today’s point is that history doesn’t provide a ready example of the kind of villain so popular in comics and literature.  That isn’t the only reason I don’t buy into this image, and I have more to say, but I think I’ll save it for tomorrow.

Our new President-elect and the different statewide referendums against gay marriage got me to thinking. Actually, it doesn’t take much; I like thinking. See, I’m like completely colorblind (race-wise) and have been since childhood, in fact, ever as far as I know. Couple reasons for this, not the least of which is the logical way my mind processes things (like why I never smoked. High school friends ask, “Hey, want a smoke?” I respond, with perfect sincerity. “Inhale smoke. On purpose?” - my lack of popularity is probably pretty easy to explain by now.). Why treat any human being different based on something as unimportant as race?

But it occurs to me that there might be some other factors. One of them could be my interest as a youth in science fiction. Think about it. Growing up on Star Trek (the real one) and Heinlein and other science fiction tales, where races of sentient beings extend beyond human, where marriage can be considerably more complex than the standard here, why would someone being dark or tall or oddly hued or mixed race or anything else throw one. Remember, Kirk made it with a green girl. Everything we see in reality is relatively tame by comparison.

It should probably not surprise you, kind reader, that I favor any human being having the right to choose their own life partner. I feel very strongly about a separation of church and state and I’m at a loss as to why people think they have the right to vote away the rights of others. When I’ve discussed this on gather, where I often discuss many of the things I rarely discuss here, I was challenged if we allowed this, what was to stop incest or polygamy?

What indeed? My line is and has always been: consenting adults choosing a lifetime companion hurts no one. Incest has two problems, the genetic one and the fact that, in general, incest involves an adult and a child.  I sure as heck don’t condone that, but there are cases where everyone involved is an adult.  As for the inbreeding and reinforcement of bad alleles, but steps can be taken to preclude harm. Why, then, must it be precluded automatically if we meet those criteria?

Polygamy/polyandry has a similar problem.  The examples we currently see can involve underage girls, pushed by parents, oppressed by men, or situations where one spouse secretly has more than one household.  But does it have to be that way?  If a group of consenting adults are so close they consider themselves a family, where everyone is cognizant and agreeable to the situation, where’s the harm?  The key for me is consenting and adults.

I do read a lot of older and/or classic novels. There’s a tendency to think they’re all clean and filled with regular marriages. Well, not so much. It wasn’t that long ago when first cousins often married and infidelity was considered standard operating procedure.

Then there is science fiction and fantasy.  I think back to The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress by Robert Heinlein with its polyandries and line and clan marriages. Heinlein was nothing if not unconventional and many books included “marriage contracts” of a limited duration and creative marriages. It didn’t faze me. Star Trek, as mentioned, has half-breeds and all kinds of race interactions, none of which cause me the slightest hiccup. One of my favorite series of books of all time are those in the Liaden series by Sharon Lee and Steve Miller (which I highly recommend) where matters of race and the mixing of said race are repeatedly a topic, where marriages are nominally contracts and “life-mate” means something special. Other books I’ve read and movies I’ve seen blur the lines frequently. J.D. Robb (aka Nora Roberts) mixes heterosexual and homosexual relationships almost indiscriminately and includes people of all shapes, sizes and proclivities. Actually, the kinds of books I read frequently challenge what’s “normal.” I presume some people like that sense of difference, but, for me, I feel at home. Apparently my “normal” is a little different than many.

Now that I’ve thought about it, it occurs to me, I’m not sure if I’m open-minded because of the books I read or if I read the books I do because I’m open-minded. But I do believe, absolutely, that the world would be a better place if we would stop getting worked up on things that other people do that don’t hurt anyone and could be tolerant of people that might be just a little bit different.