While we wait for the release of the five-disc ultimate-fanboy-edition of Blade Runner, BoingBoing has posted a link to an interview with director Ridley Scott on the "final" version of the film. Final? We shall see!

Addendum (September 30, 2007): Fred Kaplan, at The New York Times, on the restored edition. Here there be spoilers.

Posted by: Fred Kiesche at 11:53 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 61 words, total size 1 kb.

Lobachevsky alone has looked on Beauty bare.
She curves in here, she curves in here.
She curves out there.

Her parallel clefts come together to tease
In un-callipygianous-wise;
With fewer than one hundred eighty degrees
Her glorious triangle lies.

Her double-trumpet symmetry Riemann did not court-
His tastes to simpler-curvedness, the buxom Teuton sort!
An ellipse is fine for as far as it goes,
But modesty, away!
If I'm going to see Beauty without her clothes
Give me hyperbolas any old day.

The world is curves, I've heard it said,
And straightway in it nothing lies.
This then my wish, before I'm dead:
To look through Lobachevsky's eyes.

(Roger Zelazny, Doorways in the Sand)

Posted by: Fred Kiesche at 11:08 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 116 words, total size 1 kb.

Omnibus review can now be found here.

Posted by: Fred Kiesche at 12:55 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 15 words, total size 1 kb.

(Let's try posting this a third time!)

It's that time of the month again. The time for Dave Langford to illuminate the field of science fiction with Issue #242 of Ansible.

And, as always, it is interesting to see how those outside look at the field:

Arthur C. Clarke gets short shrift in Crunch Time: How Everyday Life is Killing the Future (2007) by Mike Hanley and Adrian Monck. 'Here in spades is the incurable optimism of the science fiction writer,' they write, and then quote 'Isaac Asimov's Three Laws of Technology', including 'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.' Our reporter John Bark wonders whether Professor Monck (Head of the Faculty of Journalism and Publishing at City University, London) teaches his students that 'Any sufficiently famous Science Fiction writer is indistinguishable from any other.'

Jeanette Winterson's The Stone Gods is not sf, because: 'I hate science fiction. But good writers about science, such as Jim Crace and Margaret Atwood, are great. They take on science because it's crucial to our world, and they use language to give energy to ideas. Others just borrow from science and it ends up like the emperor's new clothes, with no understanding of the material. But you shouldn't fake it because science is too important, it's the basis for our lives. I expect a lot more science in fiction because science is so rich.' (New Scientist, 25 August) What is so particularly non-sciencefictional about this science novel? From The Bookseller: 'Billie Crusoe flees an authoritarian society in the company of a highly evolved robot of the species Robo sapiens, to join the perilous voyage to a new Blue Planet, a pristine place of apparently infinite possibilities. [...] Another part of the book is set in Wreck City, a no-go zone peopled by outcasts and casualties post 3-War, a conflict which has ravaged the world.' Winterson explains: 'This part of the book is far from fantasy [...] Everything in that part of the book has been written about scientifically already, it's very near.' [MKS via CB] Her next book will be equally unsciencefictional: 'It's called Robot Love and it's for kids. A girl builds a multi-gendered robot, which then kills her parents because it sees them mistreat her, so they both go on the run. I'm fascinated by artificial intelligence and where it will lead. These robots couldn't build anything as bad as us -- so why would they keep us?' [YH] What sf author could have imagined such novel concepts?

Posted by: Fred Kiesche at 06:33 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 417 words, total size 3 kb.