Yr Projections

5 years:
Practically everyone will have a smartphone and be constantly glued to some kind of technological device. Younger kids might have an MP3 player, but likely from age 12 upwards it'll be a phone they're glued to. People will want to be constantly connected to the internet or communicating with friends. Productivity will go down because no one can retain an attention span long enough to do it and there will be issues with trying to stop people from being so obsessive about it at work. Media news channels will be even more divided and people only watch the channel that depicts their political view of events, creating an even greater disconnect between different parties. The bias is not even subtle but actually obvious and people are easily blissfully unaware or aware but don't care because the bias matches their own. Both will think they're right and they're the only way and compromise will seem impossible, especially since no group is willing. The news will have lots of on-screen effects and graphics they can use to convey information, but most of it will be wasted on false data if used at all. Newscasters play the role of propaganda, trying to further convince viewers their bias is the right one and he only one.

15 years:
Phones will be starting to be replaced with computers in between the size of a smartphone and an ipad that just happen to have a phone feature, but it will likely be the least used feature of the device. There will be more electronic cars than before which are starting to gain some acceptance, but there will still be a sect that is hell-bent on keeping their gas-guzzling car, even though gas prices will be high. Some countries will be very modern and "green", with everything changed to be environmentally friend, while others (such as likely the US) have not really adapted or changed at all. Because some refuse to help make things better, conditions do not improve as much as others would like and those in denial use it as further evidence to prove their point ("You changed, but nothing's improved, so we were right in the first place not to do anything!") Those who've been trying will get upset about this and it will create dissonance between countries across the world, all of whom are trying to convince each other that they're right and the other wrong. Everyone is very much on edge.

50 years:
Those in denial of the world's problems have finally begun to dwindle thanks to old age taking its toll. There had been another world war, but by now the world is starting to recover. The countries which had been in the "denial" category before are starting to turn things around and the world is sharing a very enthusiastic spirit to change things. Things are looking better.  The media has been reinvented - to remove the partisan bias, people have been removed from the telling of news system. Now all media is portrayed through videos, infographics, or strict data and fact. There is still people who report and write stories, but they are no longer mainstream. Everyone uses electric cars and we are far less dependent on oil, with it now only be used in areas which have yet to adapt but are in process of it.

Starship Titanic

I'd played the game Starship Titanic when I was younger and was very excited to listen to the radio story. It was hilarious, which is to be expected. After all, it's in the same tone as Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy, which has the same quirky and fun narration. The characters all have good dialog and are fun to listen to.

I think one of my favorite parts was when the earthlings couldn't recall which planet was theirs and their navigator then proceeds to excuse himself quietly to the bathroom so he can bang his head repeatedly on the wall haha. I also like how they kind of poke fun at things you expect to happen by calling itself out on it (such as the "you might be wondering how she figured this out, but its really all rather complicated, so just accept and trust that she did"). It's just witty writing, told very well, and fun all around.

Seventh Voyage

I tried reading Clockwork Orange, but I just couldn't get into it or follow it at all (tried the audiobook too, but same problem). So since I didn't get far in there at all, I ended up reading a short story instead - Stanislaw Lem's Seventh Voyage.

I found the story to be pretty entertaining, and a rather ridiculous tale that at times was very complicated, but really the absurdity added to the humor of it. I liked how even when all of versions of him were together they still only argued and couldn't fix the ship, and it ended up being fixed by two children - at least, that's supposedly what happened. I really liked the last line and felt it was quite appropriate to the tone of the story. ("But that is how people are; they'll willingly give credence to the most far-fetched drivel, but not to the simple truth, which is precisely what I have presented here.")

It was a fun read. I saw Margarete Atwood was listed for this week as well. I'd read The Handmaid's Tale in the past and I remember liking it, though my memory on it is a bit fuzzy now since that was many years ago. I like her style of writing and was tempted to read the other listed, but I didn't have much time for reading this week and it looked to be rather long. Ah well.

I look forward to the readings for next week though haha!

Bloodchild

This week I read Bloodchild by Octavia Butler. It was good, but really creepy. I had a hard time reading the scene with Lomas because it was really disturbing and grossed me out (so I no doubt understand Gan's predicament). It was good though, and definitely an interesting concept. Still really disturbing though. Don't really have that much else to say at the moment...will probably write more after class.

Johnny Mnemonic

I was going to read William Gibson's Neuromancer, but I didn't get very far and couldn't stand reading a whole book in that format (the formatting, it buuurns! I need page indents and proper formatting!)...So I read Johnny Mnemonic instead because even though it was in the same formatting, at least it was shorter and more tolerable. Except there were unfortunately numerous typos which were distracting and annoying. (this is exactly why I don't download books to read on the computer)

I didn't really care for the story that much as I didn't really get it.  I thought the main characters were really boring and dull. They didn't have very unique or interesting personalities at all - nothing that really made them interesting. The story moved along, but didn't have a feeling of having accomplished much. The cyborg dolphin was...interesting. And I gave I shall give props for creativity on that one.

But I did learn that apparently my definition of cyberpunk has been completely, horribly wrong for all these years. I don't know why, but for some reason I always associated "cyberpunk" with "badass female characters who are a cyborg/robot". Since that is apparently not a requirement to cyberpunk, I now haven't a clue how cyberpunk is different that regular sci-fi. Is it just because of cyborgs? Or other modifications? Is the Cassandra Kresnov trilogoy I read this year still cyberpunk like I thought it was? I don't know anymore...I'm so confused at what the definition is. It doesn't seem that different than the rest of sci-fi anymore.

Babel-17

I read Samuel Daleny's Babel-17 this week and, well, I didn't particularly enjoy it. I had a lot of trouble getting into the story. The premise was interesting, but the way it was written had lots of ups and downs - sometimes I'd be into it, and sometimes I'd find myself quickly skimming. I found some parts to be rather confusing written and many parts felt strangely abrupt. There were quite a few parts where I felt they were just written to get from A to B to C, which needless to say, didn't make them enjoyable, convincing, or engaging to read.

Many of the characters I felt were rather...bland. Or I should say, your typical sci-fi heroes. Your leader with a skill she doesn't quite understand and she's a genius, the tight-knit/family crew situation, the rambunctious loudmouths...they all felt very familiar. Even Butcher, who of the crew was the one I liked the most, was kind of the typical dark crew mate with an unknown past. I supposed I liked Ryda's doctor too; he was alright, though like the others, not really remarkable in any memorable way.

Actually, the character I liked the most was Danil D. Appleby. Yes. The customs officer who gets referred to by his name a whole four times in the book. You would think after his being inspired by Ryda and her crew he'd be referenced to by name more frequently to give him more of his new identity...but no. He still remains as 'the customs officer'. I was kind of bummed reading the beginning scenes with him simply because I knew he was not important and would soon go away to be not seen again. I figured this based on his lack of a name identity and that he didn't have the same sci-fi hero personalities as the others. He was a quieter, shier character, which I think is what made him more interesting to me - there don't seem to be many of them in the sci-fi I've seen, at least not as main characters. And I think when they get thrown into dangerous situations, they can be just as interesting, so its a shame.

Ryda's telepathic moments of extremely long paragraphs were sudden and confusing, the end was not that surprising or interesting...so overall, I wasn't impressed. But I admit bias as I'm not a fan of most sci-fi.

Tryst in Time

I was interested in reading The Stars My Destination, but I didn't get around to it...I just didn't really feel like reading this week either. I did manage to read the short story Tryst in Time, however.

I admit I was not very enthralled with it at all. But in general I tend to find many sci-fi stories a bit boring, especially when they feel they have to explain to me how some new technology works, which usually isn't at all relevant to the story and is above my understanding anyway. I suppose I read too much fantasy where you just roll with the accepted fact there is magic and I want this mentality in sci-fi too - don't explain to me how it works, I'll just take your word for it that it does what you say somehow.

That said, I feel my experiences with sci-fi short stories tend to all be the same and this one didn't feel any different. I can't help but get this vibe that its trying to tell me something deep and meaningful or somehow symbolic, but I honestly just don't get it at all. The set-up seems simple enough, things happen, and the end is strangely and mysteriously cryptic. I didn't really understand why he kept encountering the same girl through time, and I didn't understand where they were in the end - the end of time? the beginning? All I know is I'm once again thinking, "I think I there was some kind of metaphor here, but I have no idea what I was supposed to get." There really isn't anything else I think I can say.