Showing posts with label science-fiction. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science-fiction. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 26, 2026

REVIEW: The Faith of Beasts (The Captive’s War #2) by James S.A. Corey (3-stars)

In The Faith of Beasts, James S. A. Corey continues the story of humans absorbed into the Carryx empire, a vast, indifferent system that does not see them as people but as biological resources to be sorted, assigned, and made useful. The Carryx believe themselves to be the smartest species that has ever existed, and their bureaucracy reflects that confidence: enormous, impersonal, and uninterested in the needs or perspectives of any other species. Humans must adapt to Carryx expectations, learn to be useful, and hide any attempt to build or maintain culture if it impedes with anything that is useful to the Carryx. Within this setting, the book raises questions about how culture survives under constraint, how family or community function when continuity is fragile, how sex and gender operate across species with radically different embodiments, and how the Carryx themselves might relate to other hives beyond the one we see. I'll examine how those questions shape the book’s understanding of survival inside an extractive system.

Although the humans experience disorientation around time, this is not something the Carryx impose intentionally. The Carryx have their own planet, their own (artificial) sunlight cycles, and their own internal logic. Humans are simply placed inside a system that was never designed for them. The result is a continuous background condition: the humans cannot reliably track days or seasons (few of them have views out windows). The narrative never confirms whether the humans have been captive for a year, or ten, or forty. However, we do know that the humans are mostly past reproductive age by the time we get to the second book because the Carryx expect the humans to be a "self sustaining" population - if they die out, they are no use. The humans have no idea if the Carryx have imprisoned other humans, destroyed all other humans, or if they are the last humans in existence. They agree to set up a project to grow human babies in a lab. Babies still take nine months to gestate, but beyond that biological fact, time becomes a blur. This is simply the texture of captivity. When you are absorbed into someone else’s world, you lose the reference points that once told you who you were and how long you had been that person whether you are a human in the Carryx world, or the Spy absorbing multiple humans and their memories and also living in the Carryx world (much like a Russian doll).

Inside that disorientation, the book’s most compelling work is in how it treats culture as something that must be rebuilt quietly and carefully. Dafydd realizes that the lab‑grown babies will have no inherited culture unless the humans create one. The real danger is that the next generation will grow up culturally blank, shaped entirely by Carryx expectations. At the same time, the humans begin to understand the Carryx not through translation devices but through cultural analysis. A choreographer, initially furious at being assigned to menial work, becomes essential once someone points out that if the Carryx communicate through posture and movement, then someone trained in movement is exactly the person who can interpret them. That insight opens the door to understanding the soft Lothar’s “grooming” behavior and eventually the Deep Lothar’s overhead communication network -- the silent but apparently intimate system the Carryx use to pass and discard information. These moments show humans learning to read an alien species from the inside out, using the tools of culture rather than technology.

Family appears in the book as the smallest unit of continuity. It is not treated sentimentally, and the narrative does not rely on a “save the baby” melodrama. Instead, (chosen) family or community becomes the structure through which meaning is transmitted when everything else is unstable. The fear is not that humans will go extinct biologically; it is that the next generation will grow up without any human culture at all and will believe that this slavery is the way things have always been. The human captives somewhat reluctantly begin to coalesce around this sense of purpose to create a culture and future for these new humans born in captivity.

This connects the book to other works that explore continuity under pressure: Old Man’s War, where memory of family and loved ones center identity when bodies are interchangeable; Mickey7, where clones are replaceable but relationships are not; Xenogenesis / Lilith’s Brood, where the human family is dismantled because it resists assimilation; The Handmaid’s Tale, where reproduction becomes a political battleground; Foundation, where the Genetic Dynasty tries and fails to manufacture family; and Murderbot, where personhood emerges through chosen relationships. Across these works, family is the mechanism that carries meaning when systems treat bodies as tools.

At this point, it is useful to pause on Lilith’s Brood, because it sits very close to what Corey is doing and also very far from it. The Oankali, like the Carryx, see humans primarily as a resource: a set of genes, traits, and capacities that can be folded into their own long project. They are also convinced they know better than humans what should happen to humanity. But where the Oankali frame this as a “trade” — your genes and autonomy in exchange for survival and transformation — the Carryx do not bother with that language. There is no pretense of mutual benefit, no narrative of uplift. The Carryx do not ask whether humans consent to being used; they do not even recognize humans as people in the same sense they recognize themselves. That difference makes the Carryx feel colder than the Oankali, even though both operate from the assumption that their own perspective is the only one that matters.

This connects to a broader point about survival inside an extractive system. Nothing expands forever — not populations, not cultures, not civilizations. When fiction fixates on continuity or the next generation, it is rarely just about biology. It is about meaning. It is about the fear that whatever we are — our culture, our values, our sense of self — will not survive the pressures we are living under. In The Faith of Beasts, the Carryx are not trying to erase humans; they are trying to extract value from them. Humans are sorted, assigned, and used according to Carryx priorities. The danger is not extinction but absorption and becoming nothing more than a resource within someone else’s system.

In some ways, the Carryx bureaucracy reads like capitalism taken to its logical, pan‑galactic extreme — an all‑consuming, efficiency‑driven, extraction‑oriented system that treats every species as raw material. Not malicious, not sadistic, just utterly convinced of its own rightness and its own superiority and entirely goal focused: eliminate the Deathless Enemy. Everything else is incidental, including the lives, cultures, and histories of other peoples, even entire planetary ecosystems. The Carryx do not torment; they optimize. They do not rule through fear; they rule through process. Their indifference is the horror, not their intent.

It has the same cold logic as a market that expands until it touches everything, and then keeps expanding because it cannot imagine doing anything else. At the same time, there is something of Brazil in the Carryx world: the scale, the indifference, the way the machinery of the system becomes more real than the people inside it. The Carryx don’t torment humans; they simply don’t notice them except as inputs. The nightmare isn’t cruelty - it’s bureaucracy without limit, purpose, or external check.

The Carryx also maintain order within their own ranks through ritualized maiming. If a Carryx offends or violates protocol, an arm is broken — swiftly, without ceremony, and without lingering attention. It is not cruelty; it is procedure. Characters notice the scar tissue and hardened bands on the arms of various Carryx, physical records of past reprimands. The speed and indifference of these punishments underline how the Carryx understand discipline: not as moral correction, but as a mechanical adjustment to keep the system functioning. Even their own bodies are treated as tools to be corrected when they deviate.

Human sexuality in the book is fluid and unremarkable. Jessyn talks about relationships with men and women. Several men have had romantic and sexual relationships with each other. None of this is treated as unusual. And yet the narrative voice remains committed to a binary gender framework that feels out of place against that backdrop. Characters are still described with "he or she," even in contexts where "they" would be the obvious choice, especially in a future where bodies can be modified, inhabited, or entirely replaced. The world of the story contains species that can change sex, a Swarm that can transition across bodies, and multiple peoples with different forms of individuality — yet the prose itself stays anchored to a binary that feels outdated for 2026, let alone a far-future setting.

The Carryx push further than human fluidity. The subjugator-librarian is explicitly described as having been female, having had children, and then giving that up to take on her current role. Sex, for the Carryx, is functional and mutable, something they can change when their social position requires it. The Swarm goes further still. It does not just inhabit bodies; it reshapes them. It transitions from Jellit to Else to Clae, altering physical form over a few days with enough calories. It is effectively a transsexual, pansexual, and panspecies entity, capable of becoming almost anyone.

And yet, the Swarm never attempts to inhabit a Carryx body, even though the Carryx are not telepathically linked and such an infiltration might reveal far more than taking over humans. We know from Livesuit that the nanites are human created technology, originally designed to interface with human physiology and cognition. Surely the humans responsible for that technology had other species in captivity. If they were willing to use it on humans why not develop nanites to occupy other species and improve their spying and intelligence-gathering and end this neverending conflict sooner? The book does not explain why the Swarm limits itself to humans, and that absence stands out in a story so concerned with knowledge, power, and survival. This ties directly into the identity questions in books like Old Man’s War and Mickey7: if memory can be copied and bodies replaced, what exactly is the “you” that survives? If the Swarm is a copy of the memories of the humans it has assimilated, who is the Swarm? Does the Swarm have an identity?

The question of personhood also runs through the way the Carryx and the Swarm are written. The Carryx do not pretend to uplift humans; they sort, assign, and use. Dafydd becomes the collaborator who believes he is buying humans time, and he is not wrong, but it is unsettling to watch him internalize Carryx logic. When he breaks a man’s arm to prevent a work stoppage, he is not being gratuitously cruel; he is accurately predicting what the Carryx would do and trying to forestall something worse. The Carryx even ask him about the human soul. They have never observed evidence of one. Dafydd explains it as a cultural idea meant to comfort people afraid of death, and the Carryx dismiss it as irrelevant. To them, humans are biological machines with interesting problem‑solving capabilities.

The narrative point of view reinforces the limits of what can be known. The book uses a selective omniscient perspective. We get insight into the Carryx, the humans, and the Swarm — but not into the Lothar, the Deep Lothar, or the other species in the Carryx empire. We learn a great deal about Carryx hive politics — the Sovran, the daughter‑challenges, the bureaucratic logic— because the narrator lets us see it. The humans, however, do not know any of this. They are interpreting behavior from the outside, and captivity means living inside a system whose rules you cannot see. Meanwhile, the Lothar remain opaque. We do not know how they think or organize themselves. The Deep Lothar are even more mysterious. The same goes for the rest of the species the Carryx have absorbed. The humans are surrounded by other peoples, but they do not share language, culture, or history. They are all trapped in the same empire, but not together.

The Carryx themselves invite comparison to a supercolony, but with important differences. Dafydd eventually realizes that the palace world might not be the original hive. The Sovran they are dealing with could be a daughter who flew off and formed a splinter hive. This implies there may be other Carryx colonies, other Sovrans, other hive structures operating elsewhere in the galaxy. The structure echoes the Argentine ant supercolony that runs up the Pacific coast, where ants from different nests recognize each other as kin and cooperate, while ants from other species are treated as enemies. The Carryx succession system complicates that analogy: queens kill or are killed by their daughters. That raises questions the book never answers. What happens when two Carryx hives encounter each other? If queens fight to the death within a lineage, does that logic extend to unrelated Sovrans? Would two hives merge? Would they battle? Would they even recognize each other as kin? Do they already communicate across hives in ways the humans never see? The possibility of multiple hives -- each with its own Sovran, its own history, its own daughter‑line -- makes the Carryx feel less like a monolith and more like a fractal empire whose true shape is still hidden.

The Swarm sits at the intersection of all of these questions. It was supposed to be a weapon, but once it begins living among the humans, it becomes something else. It shifts bodies, expresses preferences, and pushes back when Dafydd tries to control it. It is not just a tool, and that is precisely the problem. The humans want it to be a weapon. The Carryx want it to be a threat they can contain. The Swarm wants something neither side fully understands. This ambiguity connects to the identity questions raised in Corey’s story “Livesuit,” where assimilation and memory continuity blur the line between person and instrument.

What stays with me is not just the brutality of the Carryx system, but the range of responses to it. Some species simply go with the flow — like the snail‑creature who watches a planet‑killing aurora and finds it "interesting" rather than devastating. Humans, by contrast, keep trying to make meaning inside the machinery. Jessyn and Garral build alliances, connect with human children and a soldier left behind on a planet victimized by a recent Carryx attack. On the palace world, Dafydd and the Deep Lothar conduct a low‑key trust experiment by typing messages into a floating word processor and never hitting "send," while the humans talk about songs and ethics for babies born in captivity. Rickar has a conversation with a subset of the Swarm that makes clear it has its own agenda, even as some parts of it are losing the thread of the human memories it carries. And then Rickar dies. The book gives him a memorial. I didn't grieve him.

That points to a structural tension the series hasn't fully resolved. The selective omniscient narrator pulls you up to the system level — the Sovran's politics, the daughter-challenges, the cold logic of Carryx bureaucracy — while keeping you at arm's length from the characters who are supposed to make you feel the cost of that system. Ironically, the Carryx sections often land harder than the human ones, because the narrator actually lets you inside Carryx logic. The humans get less of that treatment. Their arcs — managing illness, discovering love — are legible and earned, but they illustrate the book's themes more than they surprise you with who these people turn out to be. The worldbuilding is meticulous. The universe the series constructs is genuinely strange and worth thinking about. But a third book will need to find a way to make you inhabit these characters rather than just witness what happens to them.

A note on Murderbot: Martha Wells achieves what this series is reaching for by the simplest possible means — locking you inside a consciousness that is funny, defensive, unexpectedly tender, and working things out in real time. You don't observe Murderbot surviving. You survive with it. That difference turns out to matter enormously.


Further Reading

  • Captive's War wiki project on GitHub-- https://github.com/JonathanGupton/captive_war/tree/master

  • Old Man’s War — John Scalzi

  • Mickey7 — Edward Ashton

  • Lilith’s Brood (Xenogenesis Trilogy) — Octavia E. Butler

  • The Handmaid’s Tale — Margaret Atwood

  • Foundation (especially the Genetic Dynasty arc) — Isaac Asimov

  • The Murderbot Diaries — Martha Wells

  • Livesuit (short story) — James S. A. Corey

REVIEW: The Faith of Beasts (The Captive’s War #2) by James S.A. Corey
RATING: 3-stars

Friday, May 15, 2026

Hugo Nominees: Mickey-17 vs Superman

I watched both Mickey‑17 and Superman (2025) because they’re Hugo nominees. I never would have watched Superman otherwise, and after this I’ll probably keep avoiding the franchise. Mickey‑17 at least felt like it had something interesting going on.

One of the things I appreciated about Mickey‑17 is how it handles identity in a way that lines up with what I’ve been thinking about since reading Old Man’s War and writing that earlier post about cyborgs and memory uploads. Old Man’s War raises the question of whether someone is still the same person after their body dies and their memories get transferred into a new one. The characters themselves start to wonder about it — and the story never really resolves it. Their world treats memory like a file you can copy into a new body and call it continuity, even though the cracks are obvious.

Mickey‑17 doesn’t gloss over those cracks. It leans into them. Mickey‑18 isn’t Mickey‑17. He’s similar, but he’s also more aggressive, more cynical, more fed up with the colony. He reacts differently because he is different. That’s the whole point: copying memories and experiences doesn’t preserve the person. It just preserves the data. The continuity of consciousness is gone.

What makes this even sharper is how the colony treats the Expendables. They’re commodities. They’re infrastructure. They’re bodies the system can use up because it has decided those bodies don’t count the same way other bodies do. It’s the same pattern I’ve noticed in other stories — Murderbot, Old Man’s War, The Handmaid’s Tale — where some people are treated as infinitely renewable resources and others are treated as irreplaceable. In Mickey‑17, the colony needs the fiction that each new Mickey is “the same person” to justify killing him over and over. But the moment Mickey‑17 and Mickey‑18 exist at the same time, the whole system collapses. You can’t pretend they’re interchangeable when they’re standing next to each other arguing.

Nasha is the only one who seems to understand that. She treats Mickey like a person, not a curiosity. Everyone else just wants to ask him what it feels like to die, as if his subjective experience is some kind of novelty item they get to poke at. Nasha is the one who recognizes his personhood, and that’s why she defends him the way she does. She sees the human being the colony refuses to acknowledge.

Even Mickey‑18, with all his sharper edges, still has a moral code. He’s not just “the angry version.” He’s a person with his own perspective, shaped by the gaps in his memories and the circumstances of his awakening. And he makes a choice that protects Mickey‑17 and Nasha, not because he’s programmed to do so, not because he’s a copy acting out a script, but because he recognizes their humanity. He’s not a defective version. He’s not a spare part. He’s a person making a decision.

That’s what made Mickey‑17 work for me. It actually takes its own premise seriously. It doesn’t pretend that memory equals identity. It doesn’t pretend that you can kill someone and reboot them and call it the same life. It doesn’t treat the philosophical questions like window dressing. It builds the story around them.

Then there’s Superman (2025), which I had to force myself to finish. I paused it, went to bed, and came back the next day because I felt obligated to get through it for the Hugos. I spent half the movie wondering how Lex Luthor convinced so many people to go along with his ridiculous plans — pocket universes, portals, “cities I care about,” whatever that was supposed to mean. And then I saw the endless credits list and thought: all these people worked on this, and this is the result.

There was one moment in Superman (2025) that actually worked for me, and it was Lois interviewing Clark as Superman. She’s the only person in the entire film who seems to understand that “I prevented a war” is not automatically a heroic statement. Her immediate pushback — basically, “Did you? Or did you just decide your assessment was the only one that mattered?” — was the only time the movie acknowledged that Superman acting unilaterally is not automatically noble.

It’s not like he was stopping a giant meteor from taking a chunk out of the Earth and throwing it off orbit. He was intervening in a geopolitical situation with actual governments, actual people, and actual consequences. Lois is the only one who raises the obvious question: who gave him the authority to decide what counts as “preventing” something? That scene had more moral clarity in thirty seconds than the rest of the movie had in two hours.

And honestly, that one exchange just made the rest of the film’s worldbuilding problems stand out even more. If the movie had followed that thread — the one where Superman’s unilateral actions have political, ethical, and human consequences — it might have had something to say. Instead, it went right back to portals, pocket universes, collapsing skyscrapers, and people cheering while their city falls apart.

The worldbuilding is a mess. If you’re going to make up fake countries and fake cities, why keep “United States” at all? And obviously Mexico exists because someone mentions a burrito. It’s inconsistent in a way that makes the whole setting feel flimsy. Metropolis is supposed to be a major American city, but Mr. Terrific and the newspaper editor are basically the only Black characters. It just adds to the sense that the world is a cardboard backdrop.

The destruction scenes are even worse. Entire skyscrapers collapse and people are somehow cheerful. A building ripped in half is a demolition site, not something you push back together like a broken toy. Mr. Terrific “closing the rift imperfectly” and Superman staring at mismatched cracks like it’s a minor cosmetic issue is absurd. That building is condemned. The whole city should be traumatized. Instead, the movie treats it like a quirky workplace disagreement.

The xenophobia subplot, trying to make Superman look bad for being an "alien," has no emotional weight. The movie doesn’t build a world where that fear makes sense. It doesn’t build a world at all. It just gestures at themes without doing any of the work.

By the end, Superman is apologizing to Mr. Terrific for pointing out that a cracked building isn't lined up, and I’m sitting there thinking: you should all be apologizing for the entire movie.

Mickey‑17 gave me characters who felt like people, not props. It took its own ideas seriously. It understood the same thing Old Man’s War hints at but never commits to: that identity isn’t something you can copy‑paste. Superman (2025) couldn’t even keep its own world consistent. One respected my time. The other made me hit pause and go to bed.

Wednesday, May 13, 2026

REVIEW: The Space Cat by Nnedi Okorafor and Tana Ford (4.5 stars)

 This is my first year as a Hugo voter and my first time attending Worldcon. I genuinely had no idea I was even eligible to vote until this year, so diving into the voter packet has been a mix of surprise, delight, and a little bit of “why didn’t I do this sooner.” One of the best parts of the whole experience has been discovering works I might never have picked up on my own, and The Space Cat is exactly that kind of discovery. I’m so grateful the creators made it available in the packet.

The book is a fantastic set of stories about a wild lynx‑point Siamese who travels with his family to Nigeria for the year and ends up saving the world from alien invaders. He’s also secretly an alien himself, and his orange space‑cat friend—who he adores—turns out to be his sister. It’s whimsical, heartfelt, and visually rich in a way that a lot of reviewers seem to have missed. People who complained that the story “wasn’t complex enough” were clearly reading only the text and not the art, because the art is doing so much of the emotional and narrative work.

The depiction of kitten zoomies alone deserves an award. Periwinkle’s first day in the house, running nonstop in frantic loops, mapping every corner and surface, is exactly what my mom’s cat Paddy did when we brought him home. It’s so accurate it’s almost documentary. And the hot sauce incident is hilarious in the most cat‑true way possible: the bold investigation, the instant regret, and then the offended look that somehow blames the universe for allowing hot sauce to exist.

The alien plot is playful and unsettling at the same time. The glowing blue plant‑creatures that mimic plants during the day and take over human minds is a clear nod to "Invasion of the Body Snatchers." The final battle where geckos, dogs, owls, and cats all band together is chaotic and charming. It’s a story about cooperation, identity, and belonging, told through expressive art and tight, efficient writing.

For me, this is easily a four‑ or five‑star work. It succeeds on its own terms: visually sophisticated, emotionally resonant, culturally grounded, and genuinely funny. As a first‑time Hugo voter, finding something this joyful and well‑crafted in the packet feels like exactly what the Hugo process is meant to do—surface stories that deserve more attention than they get.


Friday, January 16, 2026

REVIEW: "Platform Decay" by Martha Wells (5 stars)

Just over two years ago, I discovered — and promptly devoured — Martha Wells’ Murderbot Diaries. The series hooked me with its unusual protagonist: a part‑organic, part‑mechanical security construct who has hacked its governor module and claimed its own autonomy. Calling itself “Murderbot,” it’s a hyper‑competent multitasker who can monitor a dozen threats while binge‑watching future‑space telenovelas. As a relatively “new” human, Murderbot has a complicated relationship with emotions, and the series tracks its gradual, often funny, often touching evolution as it figures out what it means to be a person, make friends, and navigate feelings it never asked for. It’s no surprise that many readers see Murderbot as a stand‑in for teenagers, neurodivergent folks, or anyone who has ever felt out of sync with the world.

If you’re new to the series — or if you’ve only watched the Apple TV+ adaptation — there’s still time to catch up. At its core, Murderbot’s story is a sequence of adventures that double as a coming‑into‑personhood narrative. It has an intrinsic sense of fairness, a habit of pulling information from wildly diverse sources (especially pop culture), and a growing awareness of the political structures around it. One of the series’ ongoing themes is the tension between the hyper‑capitalist “Corporation Rim” and the more egalitarian societies struggling to exist outside its reach.

Platform Decay, the eighth installment, can absolutely stand alone. Wells gives new readers enough grounding to understand who Murderbot is, what it can do, and why its freedom is precarious.

This time, the action unfolds on a massive rotating space station shaped like a torus, orbiting a planet that has been strip‑mined into ruin. (If you’re not familiar with torus habitats, the Stanford Torus page on Wikipedia has great visuals.) The station itself is one of the book’s delights: Wells avoids the trap of “video‑game level design” by giving each subdivision its own history, socioeconomic profile, and architectural logic.

The plot centers on Murderbot and its fellow SecUnit, Three — a newer model who has been free for far less time — as they attempt to rescue their friends from Preservation. These friends, all brown and all from a non‑Rim world, have been illegally detained by Corporation operatives and are being processed for indentured servitude (or worse). The parallels to the past year of ICE overreach in the U.S. are unmistakable. Wells doesn’t soften the critique; she uses the sci‑fi frame to make the injustice sharper, not more distant.

While Murderbot can hack security systems, forge credentials, and erase itself from surveillance feeds without breaking a sweat, its real challenge is blending in. Much of the book’s humor comes from its attempts to navigate the crush of humanity on the torus, including installing movement‑assist modules so it can walk more like a natural‑born human. The resulting journey has a bit of Tintin energy — lots of transit systems, lots of motion, lots of chaotic detours — all described with Wells’ signature dry wit.

There’s plenty of action: rescuing friends, evading capture, investigating reports of a “rogue SecUnit” (which turns out to be Three making some questionable choices out of boredom), and dealing with wealthy, entitled kids who have turned piracy into a hobbyist “smash and grab.” Through it all, Murderbot remains Murderbot — trying to minimize harm when possible, but taking undeniable satisfaction in dealing decisively with people who insist on being terrible. At one point, it does all this with a kindergartener attached to it like a barnacle, which is exactly the kind of chaotic tenderness that makes this series work.

And ultimately, Platform Decay is less about whether Murderbot will succeed — long‑time readers know the mission will get done — and more about how it gets there. The pleasure of this installment is in the movement, the worldbuilding, the character beats, and the messy, funny, deeply human moments along the way. After so much fast‑paced action, the ending feels a bit anticlimactic, but that’s because the real payoff is the journey itself.

REVIEW: "Platform Decay" by Martha Wells

RATING: 5 stars

Thanks to TOR and NetGalley for the ARC. The book is due out in May 2026.

Monday, January 12, 2026

TIL: Anyone Can Vote in the Hugo Awards — Come Join Me in LA!

Every once in a while, you stumble across a piece of writing that completely changes how you see a community you’ve been part of for years. That happened to me this week when I read Molly Templeton’s fantastic Reactor column about the Hugo Awards and the World Science Fiction Convention (Worldcon).

Like a lot of lifelong SFF readers, I always assumed the Hugos were something distant—decided by insiders, professionals, or some mysterious academy. Molly’s piece made it crystal clear: anyone can nominate and vote in the Hugo Awards. All you have to do is become a supporting member of this year’s Worldcon. That’s it. No secret handshake. No gatekeeping. Just a $50 supporting membership and a love of science fiction and fantasy.

And honestly? I’m thrilled.

I immediately signed up for LACon V, this year’s Worldcon in Los Angeles, and that means I’m officially a Hugo Awards voter and nominator for 2026. I can’t wait to dive into the nomination process, explore new works, and participate in shaping the conversation around the genre I love.

If you’ve ever wanted a more direct way to support the books, stories, creators, and ideas that matter to you, this is it. The deadline to register as a supporting member is January 31, and Molly’s article walks through the whole process clearly and encouragingly.

Read Molly Templeton’s article here: https://reactormag.com/anyone-can-vote-in-the-hugo-awards-and-heres-how/

Register for LACon V (in person or supporting): https://www.lacon.org/register/

If you decide to join, let me know—I’d love to have more friends and fellow readers along for the ride (and not just literally - I'll be driving there from the SF Bay Area if you want to carpool). Whether you’re nominating novels, short fiction, podcasts, art, or dramatic presentations, your voice genuinely matters. A single nomination can make a difference.

See you (hopefully!) in LA—and in the Hugo voter packet.

Thursday, August 07, 2025

REVIEW: A Door Into Ocean (Elysium Cycle, #1) by Joan Slonczewski (4-stars)

 A Door Into Ocean is a dense but thought-provoking exploration of nonviolent resistance, ecological ethics, and the politics of identity. The Sharers of Shora represent a kind of “best case scenario” for a society built on consent, cooperation, and harmony with nature. Their refusal to engage in violence isn’t passive—it’s strategic, deeply philosophical, and rooted in a radically different understanding of life and death.

One of the most compelling aspects of the book is the subtle role of propaganda and bidirectional “othering.” The Valans arrive on Shora with rigid beliefs shaped by The Patriarch’s rule—beliefs about gender, reproduction, and social hierarchy (like the “stone sign” system). They question whether the Sharers are even human, while the Sharers grapple with the same question about the Valans. This mutual alienation underscores how deeply political systems shape perceptions of humanity.

Slonczewski also introduces fascinating technological metaphors: the Sharers’ gene-editing capabilities challenge conventional ideas of scientific authority, and the “Click Flies” and “webs” eerily anticipate modern social media and peer-to-peer activism—reminding me of movements like the Arab Spring.

While the themes are rich, the prose can be overwhelming. I often felt the book could have benefited from tighter editing. Still, the glimpses into the larger galactic strategy—like The Patriarch’s manipulation of planetary conflicts and his threat to destroy any planet that initiates genocide—add a layer of tension and scale that’s both chilling and intriguing.

© Jennifer R Clark. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. You may share and adapt this content with proper attribution.