The human colony on the planet Argo has long explored and exploited the technology left behind by an extinct alien race. But then an archaeology team accidentally activates a terrible weapon... Read More.
Praise for Star Dragon
"Seldom does a storytelling talent come along as potent and fully mature as Mike Brotherton. His complex characters take you on a voyage that is both fiercely credible and astonishingly imaginative. This is Science Fiction."
-- David Brin
"Star Dragon is terrific fare, offering readers a fusion of hard science and grand adventure."
-- Locus Magazine
"Star Dragon is steeped in cosmology, the physics of interstellar travel, exobiology, artificial intelligence, bioscience. Brotherton, author of many scientific articles in refereed journals, has written a dramatic, provocative, utterly convincing hard science sf novel that includes an ironic twist that fans will love."
-- Booklist starred review
"Readers hungry for the thought-provoking extrapolation and rigorous technical detail of old-fashioned hard SF are sure to enjoy astronomer Brotherton's first novel."
-- Publishers Weekly
"Mike Brotherton, himself a trained astrophysicist, combines the technical acuity and ingenuity of Robert Forward with the ironic, postmodern stance and style of M. John Harrison. In this, his debut novel, those twin talents unite to produce a work that is involving on any number of levels. It's just about all you could ask for in a hardcore SF adventure."
-- Paul di Fillippo, SCI-FI.COM
The Ten Best Modern Monster Movies and Why SyFy Movies Suck
December 15th, 2010
By monster, I’m talking generally about non-human, non-supernatural creatures that want to kill you and/or eat you, so this excludes vampires, werewolves, Freddy Kruger, and the like. I’m really biased toward giant monsters, or alien creatures from under the water or from outer space, although it’s hard to draw the line on these. By modern, I’m talking about 1970s or so and onward, after there were movie ratings. For classic monster movies, pre-1970, I think the clear winners are Godzilla and King Kong, with a few other honorable mentions. There are some other lists of monster movies out there like this one, but I don’t like most of them for one reason or another.
For my list, I can only include movies I’ve seen, and would love to hear suggestions of other worthy contenders (for instance, is Q: The Winged Serpent good? Let me know!). Here’s my list, and I’ll follow up with some commentary on why SyFy monster movies fail.
Cloverfield felt like how a 21st Century Godzilla film should be. I liked it. The Godzilla remake, not so much, and it misses the list.
Tremors. This is an underrated movie. One of my favorites. Underground monsters…beware the graboids!
The Host. Just rewatched this yesterday, which sparked my interest in writing this post. Why aren’t there more quality monster movies made?
King Kong (Peter Jackson remake). I almost left this one off, because frankly I was irritated by what I consider a lot of distracting flaws in this version. Parts are really awesome, however, so here it is.
Alien and Aliens. Not quite in the giant category, except for the mama in the second film. But goddamn scary monsters coming to get you for sure, right Newt? Monsters exist. Don’t watch these clips if you haven’t seen the movies.
Jaws. OK, not really a monster I guess, except in the sense that it is a big Great White, and it’s behavior is monstrous. A really classic monster movie, however.
John Carpenter’s The Thing. I was a little hesitant to include this one, as it’s a sneaky monster most of the time rather than a big beastie to run from or fight head on. But hell, it’s an awesome monster movie.
Pitch Black. It could be argued that Riddick is the monster in this move, who is redeemed, but the creatures that only come out at night are pretty good. Maybe not Aliens level, but I like this movie as a monster movie.
Reign of Fire. Dragon rule is cool. This movie makes little sense as science fiction, but as a monster movie it’s great, and a few individual scenes sparkle.
Jurassic Park could be a contender, but it never quite felt like a monster movie to me. Let’s give it an honorable mention. Monsters vs. Aliens…let’s skip the comedy and kiddie stuff.
OK, about SyFy. First, let me say that growing up as a kid I waited all week for Saturday night when “Creature Feature” would come on and I’d get my fix of a new (to me anyway) monster movie. A lot of dumb godzilla movies were ingested that way…but I was a kid and loved them. SyFy’s monster of the week type movies promised to be a 21st century version of those, and we’ve learned a lot about movie making and special effects since then.
Why then, even taking into consideration their low budgets, do SyFy movies suck ass so hard?
I know a little bit about these movies. I’ve had a couple of friends who’ve written scripts that were produced. I was really sick a few months ago and watched about 6 of them in a row, and about ten over three days. My whole body hurt and I couldn’t think, so they were almost tolerable.
Above and beyond the usual problems of low-budget movies (e.g. poor acting), there seems to be some consistent problem between the directing and the CGI. I mean, I like the ideas of a lot of these films when I see the advertisements, and I’ve liked the set-ups, and some of the acting has actually been pretty good or at least appropriate. But we get to the part where the monster makes its appearance, and it suddenly feels like a bad video game, the modern equivalent to the guy in the rubber Godzilla suit — except it’s not even that entertaining somehow. All the tension, emotion, and fear just vanishes instantly. The suspension of disbelief drops me on my ass.
Whoever is involved in doing these scenes needs to go to film school, or at least study how it was done before computers existed. Old school directors would have killed for the resources of SyFy and done some amazing scenes. SyFy phones it in from the Sega Genesis.
That might give the wrong impression. It’s not the quality of the CGI, it’s the acting/directing/editing/blocking/etc of the scenes with the CGI. Look, the Host uses a CGI critter that is clearly shown in many scenes. Those scenes blow away SyFy by orders of magnitude. Maybe someone with more experience about movie making could articulate what’s bothering me, but it bothers me a great deal.
It just might be the issue of suspension of disbelief. The CGI scenes look too fake, and are not shot in the same style as other scenes. I’m one who can go with the flow with some bad FX (I’m a long-time Dr. Who fan), but they just do it sooooo badly. Argh.
Follow Up on Martin Gaskell’s Lawsuit of the University of Kentucky
December 14th, 2010
I’ve had some time to read more about what is going on and think I’m getting a clearer picture. Let me restate the basic issue with greater understanding than I did before.
Martin Gaskell is an astronomer in my subfield, and a pretty good one, and someone I consider a friend. He’s also pretty religious and has been writing and speaking about the relationship between science and religion for some time.
A few years ago, it seems he was forced out of his faculty position at the University of Nebraska. I am fuzzy about some of the details there. What I read yesterday some places suggested that he was finding ways of circumventing his teaching duties in favor of research. I know Martin told me 5-6 years ago that the astronomers had taken on extra voluntary teaching to offer more astronomy courses, and that the physics-dominated department was also moving away from astronomy in general. So, I don’t know these details for sure, although they’re likely relevant in the sense that he’s had some history of problems that led to his job search in 2006-2007.
He was up for a job at the University of Kentucky for observatory director. Their observatory is not a research facility, but a facility for education and public outreach. A PhD level scientist like Martin, with 30 years experience and a hundred publications, was overkill. So, he’s either overqualified or superman here. Kentucky wound up hiring someone with only a masters degree whom they already knew well and had been working in the department supporting classroom demonstrations and the like. He’s apparently been doing a good job in the position.
I’m also kind of surprised Martin would even apply for this job, or be happy if he got it, as it’s not a research position at all. More about that coming below.
So, according to some of the depositions and things I’ve read, Martin didn’t get the job offer for several possible reasons, one of which is related to his religious beliefs but perhaps only indirectly. Here were the two main reasons:
1. Martin is a high-powered astronomer who might neglect his observatory director duties in favor of doing research. Maybe he would do a minimally acceptable job as observatory director, but why not hire someone with a background better matched to the job who will do it with enthusiasm?
2. Martin has a track record of writing and speaking about the relationships between religion and science. No problem there, per se, except that his track record is pretty weak concerning evolution in particular, and his positions may be construed as supporting some form of creationism. Given that this is a public outreach job, in a city near a Creation Museum, perhaps it is not wise to hire someone who will be seen as less than bulletproof as a scientist and send the wrong message about the University, and who may in fact speak about evolution during the course of his job activities?
There is more to support the concerns in point 2. Martin apparently gave a talk at Kentucky in 1997 about religion and science. Apparently the talk was primarily good science, but did include more doubts about evolution than an astronomer should articulate, and in the follow-up Q&A there was a testy exchange. Apparently Martin said things that gave a number of people the impression he was some version of a creationist. His writings online (see last post) do seem to indicate that in the realm of evolution he wants to bend science to include supernatural elements, a form of intelligent design. Intelligent design was a movement, well, designed, to disguise creationism enough to get it into schools. Very few supporters of intelligent design, maybe none, are not religious and using the arguments to support their religious beliefs. In any case, intelligent design is not a scientific theory, there is essentially no serious research involving intelligent design, it isn’t scientific, and it does undermine science (in my opinion).
I have to say I’d hire Martin in an instant as a research astronomer, and probably wouldn’t in a job to communicate science to the public, school kids, etc., because I wouldn’t trust him to be fair about what’s good science and what isn’t. That, to me, is the issue, not his religion.
And that seems to be the issue among the astronomers hiring at Kentucky, too, except not everyone there sees that distinction. Some believe, or were concerned, that not hiring him based on point 2 was religious discrimination, and left a paper trail (email anyway) to that effect. Some just didn’t want to hire a high-powered researcher for the position.
We’ll see what the jury thinks. I have a hard time believing that they’ll be likely to have a jury with enough science literacy to follow the case well. I’m also having a hard time imagining Martin, and several of my friends at Kentucky, all going to court to testify over this stuff.
Rejected Astronomer Suing University of Kentucky over Religious Discrmination
December 14th, 2010
I was going to write about something else today, but saw this story about Martin Gaskell, a friend of mine. There’s also a blurb at the Chronicle of Higher Education with a few really interesting comments. Atheist blogger PZ Meyers has a post about the story, most of which I agree with, frankly, but I will say a few things here.
So apparently the crux of the matter is that Martin is being allowed to sue the University of Kentucky for not hiring him as an Observatory Director back in 2007 on the basis of religious discrimination. Martin is pretty religious, a point brought home to me when I was sitting with him at a restaurant in Shaghai one time, and some little girls came over to us to practice their English. He started to tell them about his church and to teach them a Christian song. Made me a little nervous — not only because I’m an atheist but because China in the 1990s wasn’t very friendly about missionary activity and I was a young grad student on one of my first international trips.
I have a number of things I’d like to say to put this in perspective.
First, I have been blogging about hiring astronomers and how hard it is to land a job of any sort at any level (see here and here). There are lots of great people out there looking for good jobs, and chances are Kentucky had a large number of qualified candidates and a significant number of candidates they liked a lot. Religion is one of those topics that candidates do not have to speak about, and cannot be asked about unless they bring it up themselves. Personally, I have religious colleagues I value and respect as scientists, and Martin is one of them.
Martin likely was a leading candidate for the job. He’s a really good astronomer in my subfield of quasars, and has over 100 refereed publications, including prestigious journals like Nature. “The” leading candidate, I don’t know.
The specific issue that came up seems to be a talk he gives to the public concerning science and Genesis. Contentious topic, perhaps. Let me give what is likely Martin’s side, from a comment by “galileo” at the Chronicle:
Actually, Gaskell has never said that he thinks evolution “has major flaws.†This was a misrepresentation of his views first appearing in a newspaper article about his case. Gaskell is an astronomer who, in a lecture largely about modern cosmology surveyed about a dozen interpretations of Genesis I and how they may or may not be reconciled with modern science. He noted that there “are significant scientific problems in evolutionary theory,†as there are in most areas of science. Pointing out that there are “scientific problems†in any scientific field is hardly the same thing as saying the the reigning theoretical framework of that field has “major flaws.†“Problems†are not “flaws.†In the same lecture Gaskell repeatedly voiced his acceptance of evolution and his belief that “creationism†is “very bad scientifically.†That some at the University of Kentucky interpreted his views as “creationist†says more about their own lack of intellectual depth than it says anything about Gaskell.
I wouldn’t be surprised if this was Martin anonymously commenting. If this comment is correct, he might have enough of a case to warrant the judge’s ruling to let it go to court. But, I do have some issues. Talking about “problems” vs. “flaws” is kind of splitting hairs — his audience is the public, likely the religious public interested in putting some science in their religion. Science has nothing to do with religion, and is inconsistent with many, many, many statements in the Bible, so there’s something underhanded about this sort of presentation. Questioning the basic notions of evolution in any way is probably not wise with this audience, as many will come across with the wrong idea, even if couched in a lot of caveats against creationism. To too many, intelligent design isn’t creationism, and leads them to some intellectually weird places. Anyway, have a look yourself:
I’m afraid I do kind of have a problem. He’s gone to an awful lot of effort to support the Bible with science, which seems like a terrible idea to me from several perspectives. He seems to be supporting intelligent design, which is not scientific and is a form of creationism as usually expressed.
On the other hand, maybe Martin is the kind of scientist to bring anti-science Christians to “see the light,” so to speak, especially in a place like Kentucky that sports a a Creationist museum.
I know several astronomers at Kentucky, and know that they know Martin pretty well, and I wonder if they’d have even put him on a short list if this was going to be an issue.
I would put this conflation of religion and science under the heading of “intangible issues” if I were on the hiring committee. Martin has made it an issue by giving public talks on the issue, and would have to speak very carefully to make sure he was not seen as a strong intelligent design (ID) proponent and hence lacking some level scientific credibility. There’s having a religion, and there’s misapplying science to justify belief. The former should be protected. The second, not so much, as it potentially speaks to a lack of scientific acumen, presumably something you want in the successful job candidate.
That issue alone, I believe, could justifiably make a hiring committee uncomfortable enough to go with another similarly strong candidate. And there may have been stronger candidates, making this much ado about nothing. It’s a bit arrogant of Martin to assume he was the leading candidate by a large enough margin for him to be suing now, unless he had inside information. God, what a mess.
I know how hard I’ve worked on our most recent hire, and how much effort we as department invested in trying to make the best hire we could. I’d be kind of mad to be second-guessed by a candidate who got serious consideration yet passed over. I’m sure Martin could have done a good job at Kentucky, but without seeing and interviewing all the applicants, I’m loathe to second-guess the hiring committee myself. In any event, the issue doesn’t seem to be Martin’s religious beliefs but how he may be perceived based on his public talks. Martin is for sure not some Young Earth Creationist, but perception can trump reality.
The courts have ruled in the past that Intelligent Design is not science but creationism recast. Being concerned about the university and department getting bad press for having one of their own scientists out there potentially being perceived as a creationist is, I think, a legitimate concern, if it even came into play at all. Well, I guess the court will decide again in Martin’s case.
Other opinions?
UPDATE: I’ve been reading more. There’s apparently a lot more information out there (for instance issues about why he left Nebraska that sound problematic). And all the depositions and legal documents are posted by the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). More complicated… It looks like he was by far the strongest candidate based on who they hired (someone with 3 publications), although there might be a case that Martin was overqualified. Apparently biology did raise a stink, and Martin’s position on some of the issues above did have an effect on some of the members of the hiring committee. I don’t think it was a case of religious discrimination, but of discrimination against someone who was viewed as promoting the misuse and abuse of science in support of Intelligent Design, and if that’s the case, I don’t really have a big problem with it. Sorry, Martin. You’re a good man and a good scientist, but let’s not muddy the waters for the public, especially when it comes to areas outside your expertise.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Wow. Reading the depositions…just found out one of my other friends/colleagues is a UFO believer. I need to stop reading these…
Nine Tips for Success on the On-Campus Interview for Faculty Jobs
December 10th, 2010
I recently posted some thoughts and advice for landing a faculty job. I didn’t mention much about what to do, and not do, on the actual live interview short-listed candidates get. I’ll try to stay general, but my expertise is based on experiences on both sides of the process in the field of astronomy and physics. I did six interviews when I was in the job market, and have seen at least a dozen as a faculty member.
Usually the top 2-5 candidates will be invited for an on-campus visit, to interview 1-2 days. This takes a lot of the department’s time and costs thousands of dollars. That’s a small investment in order to make an informed decision about a colleague who may be around for 30+ years, but still a big deal in terms of departmental budgets and busy schedules.
During the on-campus interview, the candidate will get to meet the other faculty, students, office staff, and relevant deans or other officials who may be interested in the hire (e.g., VPs of research). The visits always include a presentation of some sort, usually a research seminar, but could also include teaching a class, presenting a research plan and budget (e.g. justifying a start-up package), or some combination of these. It’s a pretty grueling couple of days, bracketed by travel, that has high stakes: landing a job or not.
I’ve thought a lot about this, for when I was the job seeker, and a lot more when I was sitting in faculty meetings voting to rank our candidates. I’ve seen some candidates who were impossible to hire after their interview, and some who nailed it and pushed themselves to the top of the list. Here’s a list of tips based on what I’ve noticed.
1. Before the visit, ask this key question of the department chair or your primary departmental contact. Who is the audience for my seminar? Consider this information very carefully in crafting your presentation. Don’t just use your default talk. Let me explain. For astronomy jobs, there are often physicists in the audience without a lot of background in astronomy. Likewise, there may be a lot of undergraduates in the audience, or others without strong expertise in your subfield. Some of these people may be deciding whether or not to vote for you, and you should avoid as much jargon and assumptions about background as possible. Many times these talks serve as an opportunity to judge your potential as a teacher, so starting clear and basic is a must.
2. Plan your talk to be five minutes less than your allotted time, and be sure you know exactly what that allotment is. Sounds simple, but I have seen at least two faculty candidates totally destroy their chances based on this alone. They had 50 minutes, and talked for over an hour and a half, with a dwindling and pissed off audience toward the end. Also, given the stakes here, faculty tend to ask a lot more questions than during run-of-the-mill seminars, and the talks tend to run a little long anyway. This tip really must be followed or you risk doom.
3. Ask to have at least half an hour of free time to be scheduled before your talk. This lets you check technical issues, which can sabotage or delay a talk. This lets you review your talk before you give it. This lets you make last minute changes to your talk in case you’ve learned anything important during your visit you didn’t know before you prepared at home.
4. Put your best foot forward but be yourself. This is a matter of style and personality, really. You should have some, and try to be social and connect. I’ve seen candidates so worried about making a mistake that they wind up reserved, distant, and that counts against them. Again, the job is for decades and both sides should be striving to connect and figure out if they’re comfortable. Being scared or nervous is natural, but don’t let it drive you into a turtle shell. Similarly, if more formal attire isn’t your thing, you might get away with skipping it as academia is not usually very formal, but ask first. Even in a laid-back department you might need to meet a dean who might care (although to be honest, the dean is going to follow the department’s recommendations in most cases). I’ve seen the advice given not to drink if offered the opportunity, but I think that’s off base; decline if you’re not a drinker, but if you are accept, keep it in moderation, and don’t miss the opportunity to connect with other faculty who may have mutual interests in beer, wine, or liquor. Don’t ever lie about anything, but put positive spin on anything that might sound less than enthusiastic or a good fit to the job.
5. If you really want a job, be enthusiastic and tell the people interviewing you and tell them why! This is one of those intangibles that can have an impact. I’m probably more sensitive to it being in Wyoming, a place that is a dream for some, but not the first choice of many. I’m told back in the 1990s we had some folks hired that didn’t quite take — a few years and they were looking for new jobs. I had a brief bout of that myself after my divorce when I was reconsidering a lot of things. It’s kind of stupid in a way, since it can be presumed that anyone interviewing is interested in taking the job, but a visit goes both ways and a candidate can lose interest, too. Someone who really wants to be in the department for decades and shows it is likely to be a better and more dedicated colleague that someone who feels like they’re settling. Corollary: ask about the local housing market. This is something folks already planning to accept a job offer will ask about, and uncertain folks usually won’t. Follow-up your visit with a friendly email continuing to express your enthusiasm.
6. Don’t be afraid and ask tough questions. I recall feeling uncertain about broaching some subjects like salary, start-up, teaching loads and release, tenure expectations, internal politics, etc. Now, salary and start-up are things to be negotiated, if possible, after an offer is extended, but you want to know something about what to expect before facing an offer. Keep in mind that the department is probably your ally on these matters, as higher amounts will reflect a higher value for the department from the administration authorizing the expense. On the matter of departmental politics and any department-specific issues you may become aware of, it’s better to ask before you take the job than figure things out later. I’ve known departments with horrible feuds, incompetent or evil office staff, an excess of deadwood (post-tenure faculty who do the minimum and bring down the energy and enthusiasm), and other things you want to know about.
7. Don’t ignore the students and office staff. They’re part of the reality of a job, too, even if they don’t get to vote on who gets hired. And they may well be solicited by for their opinions by those who do.
8. Be prepared for inappropriate questions, and don’t take them personally. There’s a whole list of things that candidates aren’t supposed to be asked. For instance, about spouses, kids, religion, and anything else that might be a reason someone might discriminate against someone. I’ve seen situations where a faculty member has explicitly asked “what is your religion?” or “are you married?” In the cases I’ve seen, it’s just been faculty clueless about the rules (way common unfortunately) trying to be helpful about churches, job opportunities for spouses, and the like. It hasn’t been bigots looking to rule someone out, or an attempt to ferret out potential hiring problems like a spouse who might be resistant to moving, although I’m sure this sort of thing sometimes happens. Don’t be shocked, but be ready with what you consider an appropriate and friendly response without being alienating.
9. Be prepared for appropriate questions and practice answers in advance. There are a lot of books out there, and websites, too, that talk about standard interview questions and good answers. Here’s one. Now, few faculty members will ask the classic job interview type questions. They don’t do this often and don’t prepare to do it, frankly. It’ll be more freeform, but a lot of classic questions will come up. Like, “What is your research about?” “Where did you get your PhD?” “Where are you from?” You can give one or two word answers to these questions, but that’s boring and won’t make a connection. Have some standard responses that are interesting and personal and go beyond the exchange of information. You want the people interviewing you to connect with you and feel positive about you as someone they’d want around for years to come.
OK, that’s the stuff that comes to mind today. A lot of this may seem obvious, but after seeing a number of folks interview, and flubbing a few things on my own interviews, I take little for granted any more.
I’m likely to write one more post on this general topic in the future, about what to do when you get an offer, which is something few people get much experience doing. I don’t have a lot here myself, but have some advice I think is good.
Your Tax Dollars at Work: Science Fiction Stories Online Inspired by Launch Pad
December 4th, 2010
I’ve been able to get funding from NASA and the National Science Foundation to support my efforts to educate and inspire through science fiction. One example is the anthology of astronomy-oriented short stories Diamonds in the Sky. Another is the Launch Pad Astronomy Workshop for Writers, which is a one week crash course in the summer that fills heads with astronomy.
The idea behind Launch Pad is that there will be more stories out there with astronomy featured, and that the astronomy will be more or less correct. It’s hard to quanitfy the impact, although I will be trying to do that in the future. Ideally one or more of the writers will hit it big with a movie or tv series that really gives astronomy the spotlight, reaching millions, teaching them things, and inspiring future scientists.
Anyway, I found out about two stories online this week I wanted to point out.
The first is by Launch Pad participant and Hugo-winning writer David Levine, featuring a mystery of astronomical proportions: Finding Joan.
Joan put a hand into the beam of her headlamp, carefully inspecting the white LED light on her pale, pale palm. Was it fading already? She checked her fanny pack to be sure she had a spare battery.
Sometimes she thought it would be easier to do her foraging during the day. But going out by night not only avoided the need for heavy protective clothing, it was less disturbing. At night she couldn’t see the roiling brown sky, or the blackened shells of burned-out buildings, or the bleached and crumbling remains of billboards and road signs…
The second is by new writer Dylan Fox who was inspired by Rachel Swirsky’s blogging of Launch Pad last summer. Check out Buckets of Light. It’s a story about black holes that explores the interplay between observation and theory and ends with a really cool image. Some discussion of the science issues on the comments section there, too, which could be quibbled about in some ways (e.g., some of the astronomer’s explanations to a child in the story).
Henry Maur’s job was to observe a black hole called ANZ-7461, and he kept a guilty secret.
ANZ-7461, being a black hole, couldn’t be observed directly. There was a red dwarf star called 2X4B-523-P orbiting it, and Henry could watch the plasma being sucked from the star into an accretion disk. He could take readings of the x-rays and gamma-rays coming form the space where ANZ-7461 was, and he could watch 2X4B-523-P appear to be warped, twisted and duplicated as it passed behind ANZ-7461…
When I talk about hard science fiction, I mean stories in which science is central to the story, doesn’t smell too much like magic, and actually rests on quantitative standards. Astronomy and physics are my background, so they’re my bias, but there’s been a lot of great hard science fiction involving the biological sciences as well.
What I want to bring up today is not anything about why the gender disparity exists among the folks writing science fiction, but whether or not readers care.
I recently discovered that some female friends of mine who write hard science fiction have either been asked by publishers to use pen names that are not gender specific or are male (e.g., initials, or outright male names), or have gotten mail or seen reader comments from people who were actually mad when they found out that an author was a female. The first item just indicates that publishers, particularly marketing departments, think that there are a lot of readers like the one mentioned in the second item. Are there?
A big chunk of my library is hard science fiction, and it’s skewed toward male writers because a larger fraction of hard science fiction is written by men. It doesn’t make it any more balanced when I go out and buy a bunch more books by those authors (e.g., Greg Benford, Joe Haldeman, Isaac Asimov, Larry Niven, etc.) and those individuals take up entire shelves, although there’s a big space dominated by Nancy Kress as well. I’ve never consciously considered not buying a science fiction novel because of the gender of the author. These days my buying is usually based on reviews, how cool the premise sounds, and more and more often if I’ve met the author and like them and/or find them especially interesting. I wind up buying a lot of books by friends, and luckily I’m friends with some really good writers, male and female.
I wonder though… Do the marketers know something I don’t know? Are there a lot of hard science fiction readers who strongly prefer their authors to be male? And even if this was true in in the past, how true is it today?
My blog here probably isn’t the most scientfic place to figure this out, but many people who come here probably do read hard science fiction. Here’s an opportunity to have an anonymous poll. If you read hard science fiction, take a minute to take the poll, please. Thanks!
Loading ...
In my link above, and comments there, there are recommendations of some hard science fiction novels by women writers. Be encouraged to check some of them out if you’ve been on a steady diet of the guys.
I’d like to think the gender of the author doesn’t matter, that the marketers are making a mistake and in turn hiding potential role models from girls interested in doing science and writing hard science fiction. But maybe I’m guilty of wishful thinking. Science is about getting at the truth, whether or not it’s the answer you would like to see, so let’s find out.
If you know of research into this topic, please leave a comment and point at it. Thanks!
Who the crap knows what aliens are going to be like? I don’t, but let me imagine that aliens who have the longevity and technology to learn about us will be rational and not arbitrary in the same ways that we are. Here are things I suspect they won’t understand, and might even believe to be ridiculous about humans.
1. We value our physical athletes more than our scientists and other innovative thinkers.
2. We value our musicians more than our scientists and other innovative thinkers.
3. We value our pundits more than our scientists and other innovative thinkers.
Fox News host Glenn Beck
4. We value our politicians more than our scientists and other innovative thinkers.
House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio flashes a thumbs-up after addressing an Election Night gathering hosted by the National Republican Congressional Committee at the Grand Hyatt hotel in Washington Nov. 2, 2010.
(Credit: AP Photo)
5. We value our spiritual leaders more than our scientists and other innovative thinkers.
Popes titles = 666 See this below
6. We value our comedians more than our scientists and other innovative thinkers.
Thoughts and Advice about Landing Faculty Jobs in Astronomy
November 24th, 2010
We’re in what I hope is the home stretch of a faculty search for a tenure-track astronomer to join our Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Wyoming. I probably should have posted something a couple of weeks ago after the first couple stages of the process were complete, or wait until it’s all over, but I can post again if that makes sense later.
We advertised our job where everyone does, the American Astronomical Society job register. Here’s the ad:
Tenure Track Faculty Position in Astronomy University of Wyoming Department of Physics and Astronomy, #3905 Laramie, WY 82071
Attention: Chair, Faculty Search Committee Email Inquiries: Mike Brotherton (mbrother@uwyo.edu)
The Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Wyoming is seeking highly qualified candidates for an assistant professorship in astronomy beginning the fall semester of 2011. Our research facilities include a 2.3 m optical/infrared telescope (WIRO), a 24 inch telescope (Red Buttes Observatory), and the NCAR-Wyoming Supercomputing Center. The successful candidate should demonstrate commitment to teaching and ability to develop a vigorous funded research program that involves graduate and undergraduate students. Minimum requirements: a Ph.D in physics, astronomy, or closely related subject, plus two years post-doctoral experience. For full consideration, applications should be received no later than October 15, 2010. Additional information about the Department is available at http://faraday.uwyo.edu . Applications or inquiries should be addressed to Chair, Faculty Search Committee, at the above address. Completed applications will include a vita, three letters of reference, and statements of teaching philosophy and research interests. Persons seeking admission, employment or access to programs of the University of Wyoming shall be considered without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation or political belief. The University of Wyoming is committed to diversity and endorses principles of affirmative action. We acknowledge that diversity enriches and sustains our scholarship and promotes equal access to our educational mission. We seek and welcome applications from individuals of all backgrounds, experiences and perspectives.
In hindsight, given some of the inquiries I received, we should have clarified a few things. For instance, our teaching load for research-active faculty is one course a semester. Several people asked how specifically we would evaluate candidates, and unfortunately that’s difficult to clearly articulate. I’ll say some things about this below.
I can’t get too specific about some things, but I can talk about the process in general and how our procedure goes, and provide advice for people looking for a job. I didn’t know as much as I should have when I was applying for faculty jobs, and the same is true of many applicants out there now.
A couple of years ago I wrote about the Academic Ponzi Scheme and how it was getting hard for astronomy PhDs to land tenure-track jobs, no matter how good they were, their pedigrees, etc. And my current experience is driving that home. We had “only” some 60 applicants for the single opening, which is probably a smaller number than some more prestigious universities in more populated parts of the country. Not everyone wants to live in Laramie, Wyoming (and as the temperature is 0 degrees outside with high winds and blowing snow, I understand that perspective). On the other hand, there are those who prefer to live in small towns, like the mountains, and are interested in research universities that also value teaching.
Of our applicants, about 10-15 were from outside the U.S., primarily Europe. We has less than 10 female applicants, significantly fewer than might be expected from the fractions of women in post-doc positions in astronomy (it was something like 22% in 2003, and I’d expect it to be higher now, so we only got about half as many female applicants as I would have assumed based on the demographics). It could just be small number statistics, but it was disappointing. As far as we could tell, there were no historically underrepresented minorities. I hope having Neil de Grasse Tyson out there as a very visible role model will help boost that figure in the future.
Of the original 60, we discussed 25 applications at some depth that seemed to be strong and interesting after our first reading. We spent a long day discussing and weeding that 25 down to 11 for phone interviews. We wanted to get that down to ten, but we couldn’t. The pool was very impressive. We tossed out Hubble and Einstein fellows, applicants with good track records for bringing in grant money, people I’d thought for sure we’d interview when I first read their file. It was really hard and we gave them very close attention and serious consideration.
This is not just a matter of figuring out who came from the most prestigious university, who has published the most papers, who works on the sexiest topic, who has the most grant money already… Being a professor is a multi-faceted career and besides showing ability in a number of areas, they also have to look like a good fit to the department and its needs.
You have to realize that we’re going to be as picky as hell because we’re looking to bring in a colleague to work with us for the next several decades, ideally. No one cares more about this that the other professors in the department and we’re going to take the problem very seriously. If we screw up, we’ve made our situation, and that of our students and colleagues, worse for many years to come. If we do it well, we make everything better for years to come.
We did Skype interviews with our “long” short list of 11, and I have to say almost all of them were as impressive in live conversation as they were on paper and after another long day, I didn’t think we could narrow it down. Luckily, or perhaps we’re better at evaluating people than I had assumed, the committee had a lot of agreement ranking the list and whittling the number down for four on-campus interviews (that still took several hours). We’re in the middle of the on-campus now. We hope to have made a hire by the end of the year.
This is getting long, and I’m still being really general. Let me get to some specific advice.
First, do contact someone for more information before submitting an application. There may be some information that won’t show up in the ad (e.g., internal politics that could affect who is hired, specific departmental needs, etc.). Also, it shows a high level of interest in the position and will permit the application to be better tailored.
Next, write a good cover letter. Say specifically who you are and why you’d be a good fit for the position. That could be a fit in terms of subject area, match to available facilities, match to items given in the job ad, etc. If you tell the committee, they don’t have to puzzle it out. It’s your chance to set a narrative. If there’s additional information that might be relevant, mention it here (e.g., ties to the location or institution that the hiring committee may not know). Consider giving some numbers up front, like publications and grants, rather than making the committee count items off a CV.
Make sure you include all the requested documents! We had a couple of strong applicants who didn’t supply teaching statements. With all but a few exceptions, applicants wrote thoughtful teaching statements and we appreciated it. Not including one may be an oversight, but it’s too easy to read as an indication of disinterest in teaching or sloppiness.
The above also applies to letters of recommendation. We didn’t get three from everyone. Four is okay usually, but only one or two can be a problem. We had a couple of strong applicants with no letters, and were forced to toss them out. You really have to ask your recommendors early and remind them before every deadline, and make things as easy as possible. The letter writers should be people who know you well, and preferably more senior in the field. More senior people are more often experienced at letter writing and know what makes a good letter, while being unlikely to write one that will sink an application. I should do a post sometime on just this one thing alone. Until you’ve read hundreds of these, you just don’t know.
It’s common to be asked for a statement of research interests, but rare that you’ll be told details about how to do this. There’s no right answer, but short and simple is better than long and detailed in my opinion. But not too short and simple, of course! Most of the time there won’t be anyone on the committee who is an expert in your subfield, so don’t get too specific! You can do that when you get a chance to interview on campus. You just need to be specific enough that people have confidence that you know what you’re talking about and are working in an interesting area. When I put together my applications nearly a decade ago, I had a one-page summary of my interests, plus an additional 5-6 pages with more details.
It’s a harsh fact of life that numbers count. Sometimes bright young scientists don’t get close consideration simply because they don’t publish at the rate that their more competitive peers do. I look for a publication rate that is at least as high as the applicant would need to sustain as a professor in order to get tenure without sweating it too much. One of the other big issues for tenure is grantsmanship. Evidence of being able to bring in grant money counts for a lot. Someone who can’t is going to have trouble funding students or post-docs and is going to struggle to get tenure.
There’s a whole bunch of intangibles that are hard to quantify in the process, too. You want to present evidence that you’re truly interested in the position, that you’d get along with your new colleagues, and that they’d get along with you. No one wants to work with a sourpuss, or someone whose philosophy of science/life/etc., is contrary to everyone else in a negative way. In our case, we specifically ask candidates how they think they’d like working in a small department joined with physics, and how they’d like living in a small mountain town. Their reactions give us an impression and it gets factored in. If you’re a candidate in this position, you shouldn’t lie, but do put your best foot forward.
Now that I’m on the hiring side, I can enjoy how strong the applicant pool is in astronomy. I’ve really been quite impressed by the applicants and wish we could hire more than one of them. I’m sympathetic, too, how difficult and time-consuming the process is for them. When I was in the market, I interviewed at six different places, and that took quite an effort.
In the end, we’re looking to be made better by a new faculty member, and to help make them better by giving them a supportive base of operations and resources for success. It should be a win-win in the end. Failure is a disaster for both sides. Everyone should be honest, but sell themselves at the same time. It’s more important to get the best match rather than the best person, and the applicant pool is deep enough these days that the best match is likely a very strong candidate who can be successful.
After we’ve made a hire, I may comment more on the issues of the on-campus interview and negotiating an offer. I’ve been through that on both sides and it’s the one area where even top candidates may stumble as it’s hard to get a lot of experience with that unless you’re a fantastic candidate and also lucky.
I know some of this has been pretty general. Please do leave a comment if you’re interested in me elaborating on something. I can’t be too specific about real searches I’ve been involved with, but I can probably provide hypothetical examples.
The State of Science Fiction and Fantasy: Urban Steam
November 6th, 2010
When I was a kid (yeah, I’m feeling like an old fart today), science fiction was Arthur C. Clarke’s Rendezvous with Rama, Joe Haldeman’s The Forever War, and Frederick Pohl’s Gateway. Asimov still had his robots running around, even if Heinlein’s efforts seemed less about space travel and more about making it with his mother. On the fantasy side, which I also read a lot of, Lord of the Rings was lord and king, while derivative but more accessible versions like The Sword of Shannara by Terry Brooks were prominently displayed everywhere. It was space on one side, and medieval style quest fantasies on the other.
When I go to cons or bookstores these days, it’s quite a different story. There weren’t a lot of book sellers at the most recent con I attended, but the ones that were there had limited selections both on the science fiction side and on the fantasy side.
This will come as news to few out there, but on the science fiction side steampunk has started it’s engines and seems to be dominant. I’ve read very few books I’d consider steampunk, although a few have steampunk elements (e.g. the excellent Diamond Age by Neil Stephenson). There are plenty of lists out there to get started. Here’s one. Here’s another. Yet another.
I DON’T LIKE VICTORIAN STYLE AND SETTING! I’ll endure it once in a while, but I never go, “Oh boy, Victorians!” I will recognize and enjoy a good story IN SPITE of these elements. I will not seek them out for it. Maybe I had to read one too many books like Pride and Prejudice or something, but I got turned off to a culture that has such artificial social constructs. And old technology? OLD. I want NEW. The Diamond Age may have had Victorian elements, but they got consumed by the changing world in that book just like they did in ours.
OK, this is threatening to become a rant. Maybe I’ll do some more reading of some of the “best of” steampunk and come back to this topic again, either with a title like “Why I Hate Steampunk” or “Learning to Love Steampunk.”
The dominant fantasy trend of urban fantasy has been obvious more longer, and it seems to slay immediately most competition. I’ve probably read more urban fantasy than steampunk. I view it as easy, escapist reading, similar to how I viewed more traditional fantasy reading. With a few notable exceptions like Glimpses by Lew Shiner, Replay by Ken Grimwood, or A Wizard of Earthsea by Ursula K. LeGuin, I haven’t regularly found in fantasy life-changing works. I have found great entertainment and hours of excitement, plenty to be worth the price of admission. Like steampunk, there are plenty of lists of must-reads in urban fantasy. Here’s one. Here’s another. A third. Be warned: these come not in novels, but in series of novels. Twilight is probably the most currently obvious one.
I like both, but love neither. I hate to let myself fall prey to age and failing to move to the next great thing when the thing is obviously great, but…are these obviously great?
I think steampunk is a fad, and will resume niche status at some point.
I think urban fantasy is here to stay, although it may evolve somewhat. I’ve always been shocked that people haven’t tired of vampires. Werewolves and zombies, and hunters of all three, also seem to be proof against time.
OK, sure, you can still find science fiction set in the future, in space, with robots that don’t run on steam. It’s just a little harder. And you can still find plenty of quest fantasies, usually with dragons on the cover (nearly as proof against time as vampires), but they’re harder to find, too.
Well, if ballroom dancing can come back to be hugely popular, I suppose anything can. I just hope that when spaceships are again shooting into hyperspace more regularly, disco isn’t the theme music.
How to Deal with the Irrational: The Wisdom of Sitcoms
November 5th, 2010
I was relaxing last night after my talk, after a dinner party at the University President’s house, and was catching 30 Rock, one of the more clever sitcoms out there in an age of the declining sitcom.
One of the characters (Liz Lemon played by Tina Fey) had a problem with her father, and her efforts to reason with him were proving fruitless. She went to her boss (played by Alec Baldwin) who immediately told her something like, “He’s irrational. You don’t use reason with irrational people. You use fear.”
I had something akin to an epiphany. I’ve been beating myself over the head for years trying to reason with people who believe in irrational things, who don’t trust science, who think that the Earth is 6000 years old or that carbon dioxide isn’t a greenhouse gas. I’ve typed out thousands of words of carefully reasoned arguments supported by citations, and been rebuffed with nary a cogent response. I’ve lost sleep infuriated about how some people could be so obtuse, and clueless about how to educate them.
Is it really this simple?
Is it really this hopeless for reason?
I don’t like to think so, but the last decade of elections and political commericals sure have used fear more than reason, and fear has consistently won with a few rare exceptions.
Am I selling out if I switch from reason to fear when dealing with people who don’t respond to reason? Will I feel dirty? Will it even work?
Top Ten Science-Based Movies (that won’t insult your intelligence too much, even if you’re a scientist!)
November 4th, 2010
I’m giving a university talk today “Science in the Movies.” I decided I wanted to be able to leave the audience with a list of good science-based movies to watch, whether science fiction or not. I not only want the science as good as possible, I want to see a realistic and generally positive portrayal of science in them. That means no arrogant scientists playing god to their doom (e.g., Frankenstein, Jurassic Park), no wussy guys in lab coats and glasses who play second fiddle to a less intelligent but courageous hero (e.g. Stargate, Armageddon — which wouldn’t qualify on other grounds), etc.
So here’s my top ten, labeled “good” in no particular order.
The Good:
2001: A Space Odyssey. Too slow for many younger viewers, unfortunately, but it gets the science right. The sequel 2010 isn’t bad either.
Apollo 13. The weightless scenes were shot in the “vomit comet” for perfectly realistic “special effects.” A true story, and a testament to NASA in its glory days.
October Sky. A nice adaptation of Homer Hickam’s autobiographical book Rocket Boys.
Contact. Based on Carl Sagan’s science fiction novel, it features a female scientist who actually says things and does things like a scientist would.
Destination Moon. It’s dated now, but really awesome for 1950. I particularly love the Woody Woodpecker cartoon used to educate the audience about how rockets work, something necessary at the time.
The Dish. An Australian radio telescope is used to relay signals from Apollo 11. A nice glimpse into what astronomy is like. The Arrival also deserves some honorable mention here.
Inherit the Wind. A gripping, well acted film about the Scopes Monkey Trial that lays out a convincing case for evolution, which has only been strengthened since.
Real Genius. I’m not sure that all the science in the movie is perfect, but a lot is, at least conceptually, and it catches the spirit of curiosity and fun that many scientists possess.
Primer. If we give the movie its premise of time travel, you get a nice portrayal of experimentation and a smart plot.
Manhattan Project. Smart kids and science fairs, plus nuclear weapons.
Those are the good ones. There are a handful of others that could make a longer list, and a number of films on my “to see” list that are supposed to be good. I’ve probably skimped on the biological sciences, where I feel less qualified. Any more suggestions?
If I were to continue to the traditional classes of the “bad” and the “ugly” here they are:
The Bad:
Almost every other movie ever made that relies on “science” for plot points or includes “scientist” characters.
The Ugly:
Armageddon
The Core
The occasional super stinker from the SyFy channel, like that one about the black hole eating St. Louis from a few years ago? Ugh!
I plan to write some essays based on a few points in the talk that I’ve been thinking about a lot and want to play up some more. Which will probably be reminiscent of some past posts, but hopefully sharper and more useful.
I got an email from a professor I know. I know a lot of professors, and I won’t say who or where, but this should be more broadly known:
This past week I helped grade midterm exams for Calculus I…One of the problems involved an astronaut on the lunar surface throwing a rock vertically into the air. The height of the rock, in meters, was explicitly given: s(t) = (*)t – 0.8t^2 where t is the time in seconds, and an explicit initial velocity (*) was given. The last part of the problem asked for the acceleration due to gravity on the moon. I was hoping that students could differentiate twice and answer -1.6 m/sec^2 (or more reasonably 1.6 m/sec^2). However about 12 students (at least one in each class, writing the exam in different rooms) answered that “the acceleration is 0 because the moon has no gravity”.
This is reminiscent of the “Heavy Boots” story I first saw on usenet 20 years ago. I don’t know if it’s true, but it is unfortunately plausible.
There are misconceptions out there that can make smart people sound stupid. The truly smart person ferrets these things out and fixes them in their own head. I have misconceptions, and because I write this blog sometimes they come out (e.g., thinking that Catholics actually believe what their church tells them about contraception, because I naively expect people to be self-consistent). I’d rather get it right than keep believing something that isn’t true, but it’s hard work.
It’s easy to simply lament that our education is bad, that people are stupid…it’s harder to do something about it.
I do. I don’t just whine about it on the internet. I teach introductory astronomy to non-science majors, created Launch Pad, edited Diamonds in the Sky, give public talks, etc. I’m giving an exam next week that covers surface gravity and the moon, among other things. I’ll ask a question about this “no gravity on the moon” and see how well I did. Unfortunately I don’t have a pre-test, but maybe I’ll do one next semester. When talking about Galileo, Newton, and laws of motion, I did show this video, which is way cool:
My students, at least the ones who came to class that day, ought to remember. Seeing a video can shake a misconception loose in a way that just talking about it cannot, likewise seeing a video portraying something incorrectly can build or lock-in a misconception like cement (e.g., what an “asteroid field” looks like, as in Empire Strikes Back). That’s one reason I care about getting science in books and movies right.
Some of this stuff is small and funny, like a secretary who sent out an email advising us where to find newly installed recycling “bends.” Some of this stuff, however, leads to public opposition to science, bad policy, and more. Misconceptions about sex can lead to unwanted pregnancy, STDs, and death. Misconceptions about… There’s a long list of things like this. Sometimes it’s funny, but sometimes it’s very serious, and it’s hard to know where to draw the line.
Next time you hear someone say something you think is wrong, correct them, politely and casually. Smart people can handle it. But try to be absolutely sure that the misconception is theirs, and not yours. That’s having integrity.
Loading ...
House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio flashes a thumbs-up after addressing an Election Night gathering hosted by the National Republican Congressional Committee at the Grand Hyatt hotel in Washington Nov. 2, 2010.
![[Neil+deGrasse+Tyson.jpg]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_qQaAGeEr8Xk/SYrxd1FaykI/AAAAAAAAATo/nn5-WXaF0LQ/s1600/Neil%2BdeGrasse%2BTyson.jpg)
