SF fans and science nerds generally ought to be familiar with the concept of time dilation, where the closer you get to the speed of light the more time slows down for you subjectively. You emerge from your space capsule after a few months to discover decades have gone by on Earth, and Nirvana and Faith No More are now on "classic rock" stations. The hell.
I'm noticing a similar time-dilation phenomenon with my novel manuscripts. No, not the inexplicable presence of Faith No More (that said, Angel Dust is a MASSIVELY underappreciated disc; everyone was just pissed because they didn't get another "Epic" and Mike Patton turned out to be sublimely weirder than anyone could have guessed). More like, the closer I get to the end of the book, the longer it seems to take to produce anything. I must be within 10,000-15,000 words of the end of Always Outnumbered, Never Outgunned, if even that much, and it feels like a single sentence takes me about three weeks of typing.Read more
Earlier I wrote about my skepticism in re how reading is purported to promote empathy. Not because I hate reading — I love it to wicked death — or because I think empathy is a bad idea, but because I dislike applying either romanticism or cynicism to discussions of human nature.Read more
No one is immune to mythologizing or self-mythologizing. The mythologies woven by artists about themselves and their trades are no more immune to being punctured or deflated than any other. Sometimes I think the only people who can let the (hot) air out of such things are other artists, because it's only from inside that a valid and accepted criticism of such things can be launched. Nobody would pay attention to a thing Stephen Hawking said about literature — or, at the very least, they wouldn't think he had as valid a point as, oh, Tibor Fischer.
This is my warmup to saying something that might well get me drummed out of the Creators' Union, but here goes.Read more
My friend Steven Savage is the most ruthlessly efficient person I've ever met. This is no denigration; I wish more people had his kind of man-month-isms. He is experimenting with how to apply Agile methods to his own life, a way to figure out what kinds of tasks can be accomplished efficiently in a given timeframe. For those of you who don't follow the latest and greatest in time-management trends, there's a lot more to it, but that's the basics.
One thing Steven blogged about recently was what time frame is suited to chopping up one's life. His base timeframe for things is monthly, because a lot of things in his life tend to recur with that period — professional meetups, for instance — which he can subdivide a little further into two-week blocks. That got me thinking about the timeframes for most of what I do, and how to slice them up.Read more
That Nile Rodgers interview, man. So much to mine out.
In the old days, Rodgers said, "we have to overcome all of those [technical] problems that the equiment gave us, and the net benefit of overcoming all of those variables was an artistic statements in and of itself."
This is a slice of something from that interview I've chomped out before — the idea that, as Nile put it, "the old restrictions in technology forced us to do things right." There's a danger to romanticizing that idea — just because you've made things hard on yourself doesn't mean the experience automatically "builds character" or what have you — but there's a grain of truth there.Read more
For some strange and wondrous reason, the Nile Rodgers interview in Behind the Glass has proven to be an endless source of wisdom for me. At one point he talks about complementary dynamics in a song, and how analogies can be drawn between those things and, say, food: "I think of weight and substance, and I understand flavors and ingredients and textures and how to work with sweet and sour, hot and cold, funky and smooth."
Notions like this tend to wash around in my head and attach themselves to all kinds of things. The other day, they attached themselves to the idea of the cast of characters present in a story. The implications should be obvious: you don't want everyone in the story to be the same way, because a) you can't tell anyone apart and b) that's boring. But c), the differences need to be more than cosmetic. Not just in the sense of physical makeup or even personality, but outlook, attitude to life, methodology of living.Read more
One of the things that bugged me about Buddhism (Zen and otherwise) when I first ran into it was something that is typically encapsulated with the following formulation: The past, the present, and the future are all unknowable. You only know about the past through traces left behind, and those aren't really the past; they're traces left by the past. Likewise, you only know about the present by way of your tiny perceptions of your tiny slice of it. And the future — who knows about the future?Read more
Wish him and his well while it's still possible. Twitter seems the easiest way.
“Tramps” director Adam Leon once said something in an interview that I will never forget. While talking about his gritty debut film “Gimme the Loot,” about two young graffiti writers wanting to tag a New York City landmark, Leon said that his goal was making someone’s favorite movie of the year. That’s quite a novel idea that only interesting filmmakers could accomplish — to make something that speaks to a viewer so directly, it essentially fulfills what they need, what they've been yearning to see.
I like the idea of making someone's favorite something, even if that someone is only yourself (or maybe one other person).Read more
For the last eight months, serial entrepreneur Bryan Johnson has conducted an experiment: He invites a small group of the smartest people he knows to dinner and asks them what they think needs to happen to reach their vision of an ideal world by 2050. The answers–from solving the climate crisis to curing cancer–never focus on improving human intelligence. But Johnson, who has committed $100 million of his own money to develop a wildly ambitious “neural prosthetic” that would essentially be able to reprogram the brain, believes that making humans smarter is key to helping solve every other problem.
First of all: what do we mean by "smarter"? Most people seem to think "smarter" means "I have more facts at my command", but here we are in 2017 walking around with always-connected supercomputers in our pockets and the sum total of human knowledge one Google search away, and even many "smart" people still don't know the difference between "equity" and "equality". Don't even ask what the dumb ones don't know!
Any discussion of augmenting anything needs to be opened up with a discussion of what that thing actually is before we try to "augment" or "improve" it. It's not as if we aren't doing that work; it's that such work is agonizingly slow and difficult, and a lot of what we thought we knew about the brain, about intelligence, about human behavior, etc. has been shown to be misguided, or flat-out wrong, or just plain incoherent. I still run into people who analogize brains and computers, even though a digital computer is an entirely inapposite analogy for a brain — but there's been little incentive to disabuse people of that delusion.Read more