• Charlie Jane Anders of science fiction megasite io9 has just published an interview with me. I dig the title: MultiReal Is Your Dot-Com Nightmare Writ Large. Topics covered include my progress on writing Geosynchron, whether there are any good trilogy closers, how MultiReal technology really works, and whether there are Natch and Jara “shippers” out there. (Yeah, I had to go look it up too.) In case you’ve forgotten, io9 are the lovely, lovely folks who gave MultiReal a glowing review and named the book one of their top SF novels of 2008.
• Meanwhile, Joseph Mallozzi, writer and executive producer for TV’s Stargate SG-1 and Stargate: Atlantis, has been hosting a discussion about Infoquake on his blog. But this ain’t just any ol’ blog book chat. Joe’s blog attracts an incredibly devoted fan base, with dozens of people participating in the discussion and asking detailed questions. I’ve now got all the questions in one big Word document. Joe will be publishing another post with all of my answers soon. In the meantime, read Joe’s original review, the first book discussion round-up, and the second book discussion round-up. Make sure to browse through the comments on each article.
• Finally, SF Signal has published another of its famed Mind Meld columns, this one on the topic “Who Are Your Literary Influences in the Ongoing Conversation of Science Fiction?” Not only did I contribute a few paragraphs (scroll to the bottom), but so did Mike Resnick, Tobias Buckell, Peter Watts, Paul Di Filippo, Jay Lake, Sean Williams, Paul Levinson, S. Andrew Swann, Stephen Hunt, Minister Faust, Julie E. Czerneda, and David Levine. Whew! I listed my two biggest SF influences as Frank Herbert and William Gibson, which should come as no surprise to anyone.

What is scientific accuracy anyway? Not only do scientists freely admit they don’t know everything, but they often speculate much the way that science fiction does. These days, talk of the metaverse, time travel, and alternate realities isn’t just geekspeak at an SF convention; it’s freely bandied about in respected scientific journals. I read a treatise not too long ago by a guy who put forth a rather convincing argument that we’re actually living in the Matrix…

So we have no obligation to be true to some static definition of scientific accuracy. That being said… black people have no obligation to avoid naming their kids Amos and Andy either. But it doesn’t hurt to have a little sensitivity about it, if only to avoid bringing up offensive and inaccurate stereotypes from the past.

Seeing it on the screen, I’m not so sure how confident I feel about the “Amos and Andy” portion of my response, or at least my wording of it. But it’s out there now, so nothing I can do about it. Go read my full answer on SF Signal.

Responses to the question of whether we have an obligation to scientific accuracy run from “no, absolutely not” (Bear) to “yes, if only to avoid pissing off your scientist reader” (Latner) to something I didn’t quite understand regarding Paul Feyerabend and anarchy in science (Roberts).

Overall, John of SF Signal seems to have enjoyed the anthology, though Michael Moorcock’s Jerry Cornelius story seems to have dragged the whole thing down for him. Unfortunately, he didn’t particularly care for “Mathralon” either, stating that “the text’s meta-observation… seems to break the editorial representation that was created, leaving it in a no-man’s land between fiction and essay.” Nevertheless, he goes on to say that “Edelman’s prose is otherwise engaging and swift, and the situation that is ultimately outlined (the dangers of putting all your eggs in one basket) is a worthy premise.” He gives the story (and indeed the whole book) 3 stars out of 5.

Oh well. As William Shakespeare said in King Lear (or maybe it was Henry V?), “In such a method doth the cookie crumble.” At least SF Signal hasn’t caught on to George Mann’s nefarious scheme to capitualize on the George Clooney/Steven Soderbergh movie in a desperate attempt to shovel books down the throats of unsuspecting bookstore patrons by putting “Solaris” in the title. So far only this guy seems to have noticed.

Quick excerpt from my response:

From a publishing perspective, series are absolutely not a barrier to gaining new readership. And there’s a simple reason why: more books on the shelves equals more bookstore real estate devoted to the author, which equals more of a chance that the author’s books will attract the attention of a potential reader. Once you’ve caught a reader’s interest, it’s easy enough for them to find the earlier books online, or (gasp!) special order them from the information counter.

You can also find responses from my editor Lou Anders, my pal Chris Roberson, my buddy John Joseph Adams, and a blogger named Joe Sherry who I don’t know from (John Joseph) Adam(s) but seems like a nice fellow. In fact, he linked to my website from his blog Adventures in Reading, so he must be a nice fellow. (And I’m happy to return the favor.)

But even more important, the Internet has allowed me to keep in touch with readers during the (too long) break between novels. Before the prevalence of websites and blogs, the only way for newer SF authors to keep their name in the public eye was to write gobs of short stories and spend a lot of time on the con circuit. Now I can have an ongoing one-on-one dialog with readers through the blogosphere and social networking sites, and keep them posted on news of my next book.

In addition to my response, you can also read responses to the same question from fellow authors Matthew Jarpe and Tobias Buckell, my editor Lou Anders, and book marketing expert Andrew Wheeler.