Skip to main content

Tomorrow's Parties (SF) - Jonathan Strahan (Ed) ****

I've read several of MIT Press's science fiction short story series 'Twelve Tomorrows' (for example, the original Twelve Tomorrows book and Make Shift), and this is probably the best of the lot. 

The stories here are described as featuring 'life in the Anthropocene'. Strictly, this is just the era when humans have had a significant impact on the environment, but has mostly been taken as life following catastrophic climate change. Despite this dystopian context, the idea (hence the 'parties' of the title) was to 'take rational optimism as a moral imperative, or at least a pragmatic alternative to despair.'

I'm not sure that rational optimism is the prevailing emotion, but there are a couple of excellent stories here, plus two more that have superb ideas, despite being heavily flawed. There are probably only two clunkers, one of which was so boring I had to give up on - but that's par for the course in an SF story collection.

The real standouts for me were Daryl Gregory's Once Upon a Future in the West and Saad Z. Hossain's The Ferryman. The first, set in a wildfire-dominated American West beautifully ties together a number of apparently unconnected threads (though I did slightly worried that the writer would be sued by Tom Hanks) and portrays an all too imaginable dystopian future. The Ferryman has a very different setting -  Bangladesh or India - and explores an area of existence that is all too often ignored. It also has a truly surprising ending.

The two stories I mentioned with superb ideas despite flaws in the plots were the first two in the book, Drone Pilates of Silicon Valley by Meg Elison and Down and Out in Exile Park by Tade Thompson. Both have fascinating tech/bio-tech components to the story. The first is beautifully engaging, while the second has a wonderfully imaginative setting. What let both down for me was their naive political stance, broadly along the lines of 'capitalism evil; anarchy is the way forward'. 

At one point, Down and Out had me laughing out loud when Thompson envisages a parliament where any citizen can speak, surely a recipe for drowning in nothing ever being decided - it made me wonder if he's ever actually been to a meeting involving normal people. What's particularly amusing is that we are told 'Competence means you get listened to and your opinion is weighted in your area of expertise.' But how in an anarchist society can you possibly measure expertise? (There's also an inconsistency where we are told 'anybody over sixteen can attend, comment, and vote' but later quotes 'a vocal fifteen-year-old' in the parliament - but then it is anarchy...)

Something I was a bit disappointed by was that there are only ten stories here, some far too long. It would have been good to have had more of a mix of length and a few more stories. That whole 'twelve tomorrows' framework is a bit restrictive anyway, but also it's a shame that two of the slots were wasted with an interview and the somewhat pretentious justification of the artist involved - these could have been ancillary to a full twelve stories.

Overall, though, a suitably imaginative and thought-provoking collection to show why this is such a good idea from MIT Press.

Paperback:   
Kindle 
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg - See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Laws of Thought - Tom Griffiths *****

In giving us a history of attempts to explain our thinking abilities, Tom Griffiths demonstrates an excellent ability to pitch information just right for the informed general reader.  We begin with Aristotelian logic and the way Boole and others transformed it into a kind of arithmetic before a first introduction of computing and theories of language. Griffiths covers a surprising amount of ground - we don't just get, for instance, the obvious figures of Turing, von Neumann and Shannon, but the interaction between the computing pioneers and those concerned with trying to understand the way we think - for example in the work of Jerome Bruner, of whom I confess I'd never heard.  This would prove to be the case with a whole host of people who have made interesting contributions to the understanding of human thought processes. Sometimes their theories were contradictory - this isn't an easy field to successfully observe - but always they were interesting. But for me, at least, ...

The AI Paradox - Virginia Dignum ****

This is a really important book in the way that Virginia Dignum highlights various ways we can misunderstand AI and its abilities using a series of paradoxes. However, I need to say up front that I'm giving it four stars for the ideas: unfortunately the writing is not great. It reads more like a government report than anything vaguely readable - it really should have co-authored with a professional writer to make it accessible. Even so, I'm recommending it: like some government reports it's significant enough to make it necessary to wade through the bureaucrat speak. Why paradoxes? Dignum identifies two ways we can think about paradoxes (oddly I wrote about paradoxes recently , but with three definitions): a logical paradox such as 'this statement is false', or a paradoxical truth such as 'less is more' - the second of which seems a better to fit to the use here.  We are then presented with eight paradoxes, each of which gives some insights into aspects of t...

Einstein's Fridge - Paul Sen ****

In Einstein's Fridge (interesting factoid: this is at least the third popular science book to be named after Einstein's not particularly exciting refrigerator), Paul Sen has taken on a scary challenge. As Jim Al-Khalili made clear in his excellent The World According to Physics , our physical understanding of reality rests on three pillars: relativity, quantum theory and thermodynamics. But there is no doubt that the third of these, the topic of Sen's book, is a hard sell. While it's true that these are the three pillars of physics, from the point of view of making interesting popular science, the first two might be considered pillars of gold and platinum, while the third is a pillar of salt. Relativity and quantum theory are very much of the twentieth century. They are exciting and sometimes downright weird and wonderful. Thermodynamics, by contrast, has a very Victorian feel and, well, is uninspiring. Luckily, though, thermodynamics is important enough, lying behind ...