Tuesday, 23 May 2017

Joy Cancer, by Lily Markova - 4.5 Stars

I tend to read Lily Markova books in one sitting because they’re so heart-wrenchingly cool. This one, the only one I hadn’t got to yet, took two sessions. Hmm. I guess that sets it below the level of The Loneliest Whale but a first book equalling the standard of a third would be expecting a lot. I didn’t pick this up and read it for a long while because I thought it was about someone dying of cancer, which it isn’t. Joy Cancer actually turns out to be the main character’s name, odd choice, so that’s one abysmal chasm of depression avoided.

Lily’s books up to this date have not been about everyday artificial candyfloss meaningless like dating, consumerism and cars; they’ve been oblique insights into the human condition, often first person philosophy from an observer with wide eyes for both the world of today and the shadowy internal that’s ubiquitous and timeless. Markova’s tales run through the Id (the now desires – I am thirsty) to the Ego (satisfying the desire in a socially responsible way) to the Superego (morality, right and wrong), then, amazingly, spin off into a new classification around the meaning of life and need for existence that disconnects from what an individual person might want. Some people think it’s about friendship, which it isn’t. Some think this is a writer caught in a spider’s web of her own mind and she can’t fathom it. Every one of her books exceeds Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, drifts up, finds rarefied air and loses sight of crowds on the ground who pace their lives by sales, news and their pointless meal times. Lily doesn’t seem to view the world like a human being looking up, she sees it in the way that an ethereal spirit looking down might, lost in time. How can she have this much life experience already? I want to hypnotically regress Lily to see what she was before – probably Buddha, possibly drunk.

This is not her best book, probably a four and a half stars job, but it’s unusual, original and timeless. This author is like a new instrument in the philharmonic, a new sound after all these hundreds of years, but wise and worthy at the same time. Can a library of the classics be complete without something by Lily Markova?

“I just – in order to write something worthy, I have to be unhappy, but when I start writing, it makes me feel so happy I can’t write anything worthy any more, and that makes me feel so unhappy, but not unhappy enough to write something worthy.” This sounds like a shallow and pretentious line that’s unrepresentative of the main body of the manuscript but I think it’s the author talking, not the character, which is why she hasn’t phrased it to her usual effortless high standard. The author says many of the characters hold views opposite to her own but the character Joy’s predilection for ending it all and her melancholy must be the author’s.

Do you know what this reminds me of?

We Real Cool, by Gwendolyn Brooks, 1917 – 2000

We real cool. We
Left school. We

Lurk late. We
Strike straight. We

Sing sin. We
Thin gin. We

Jazz June. We
Die soon.

Monday, 22 May 2017

The Turtle Problem, by J.M. Harte - 3 Stars

This is an interesting short story, penned in a handful of pages. It explores the situation of someone suffering a senseless tragedy, having nothing to lose and then directing all that negativity into doing something amazing. What’s happened to the central character is italicised, so you can’t confuse it with the story that develops in response to that. Fair dinkum, it’s a good tale.

“Turtles all the way down” is from an anecdote where someone has drawn their own conclusion about evolution, i.e. it didn’t happen. They suggested instead that we stand on our ancestor who stands on their ancestor “all the way down”. To where? Well, this short story describes no point of origin if the two ends of the chain can be linked into a loop via time travel.

The author probably thinks that the second half of this story and twist is an original idea and deserves stars for imagination but I have to break the news that it isn’t. Sorry about that. I suggest they’ve independently thought of something but another writer had got there long before them. Douglas Adams wrote this same idea twice, with three endings, in Dirk Gently’s Holistic Detective Agency (1987) and even before that in the superbly contrived Doctor Who episode City of Death (1979; starring Tom Baker, recommended, and at 16 million viewers the most watched Doctor Who episode on first UK broadcast ever). In the Douglas Adams versions, either two or three people travel back in a time machine to the moment when life began on this planet and they inadvertently start it off themselves by discarding 1 x half eaten cheese sandwich and 2 x exploding space ships. Essentially, we or resident aliens go back to witness the origin of life on Earth and end up introducing DNA and starting it off ourselves, creating a “turtles all the way down” oroboros infinity loop. Three people going back in a time machine and releasing biological samples is more of the same.

However, the story is still okay and it also gives a light touch treatment to the way in which we think about our origins, which it handles by exploring the question with a cast representing the approaches we apply to the big questions of life: A scientist, a priest and an undirected human crushed by the sadness of existence. Two of the three think they know the answers and in the end all three find a way to reconcile to a shared understanding of reality. The big picture unfolds, life unfurls and the cheese sandwich of causality disperses its biological contamination that one day will become what we quite like to think of as J.M. Harte and Douglas Adams. Two great minds think alike, perhaps, but I would guess that if life on Earth started like this it wouldn’t be scientific or religious imagination that discovered it, it would be a writer of entertaining fiction.

Reading and reviewing soon

I've read and reviewed 38 books so far this year but I'm still snowed under and declining most new review requests. I can't take teen books, romance or anything with less than ten percent sci-fi content, so please direct that elsewhere and I also need to make a policy about whether I accept further books from the same authors.


This is the current review request list in order of when they hit the virtual mat:
The Battle for Darracia (trilogy - I've finished Book 1 and half of Book 2, pg 259), Nomad, The Retroactivist, Understanding the Stars, Starship Samudram, Coping with Death and Destruction, Love in the Robot Dawn, Adam's Stepsons, The Old Man and the Princess, The Eye of Nefertiti, Last Voyage of the Vengeferth, Bug in the System, The New Anki Legacies, The Perihelion; and The Thieves of Nottica, Bernie and the Wizards, The Happy Chip, The Twisted Galaxy; and The Wolfe Experiment.

I add reviews in these places, so come bookmark me or add a comment if you're passing:

https://medium.com/@havingfaith
http://www.librarything.com/profile/HavingFaith
https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/62676140-faith-jones
https://havingfaithbookblog.blogspot.co.uk/
Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk as BookBloggers

Sunday, 21 May 2017

Double Helix Tempest, by R Patricia Wayne - 3 Stars

This is a sci-fi saga rather than an ordinary novel. It’s very, very long (think LOTR, War and Peace) and it is intended to deliver a planet load of detail and characterization. The planet in question is Mars, in the future of course, after civilisation on Earth has been lost to an Armageddon and contact with its colonies on other planets in the solar system has been cut away.
 
The Martian colonists are managed by a government of scientists and the wealthy, factors which go hand in hand there, but that government is overseen by an aristocratic hereditary regent who is supposed to act as a check and balance to keep them grounded, to stop them oppressing the poor neighbourhoods. With ambition and a bit of killing, someone’s trying to buck the system and remove the safeguards on power. People are people, no matter where they are in the Solar System. Then again, maybe that’s what you’re supposed to think is happening. It’s time to begin the investigation.
 
A core theme in this book is that of the sex ratio. Following generations of genetic engineering, 95% of the population of Mars are female and only some of the 5% males are fertile. Nearly all of the population are slender blondes, so much so that they have no idea what the human race is supposed to look like, i.e. diverse genetic and racial variation. This story isn’t intended to be a comment on that issue but it does show us how BORING a life like that would be. Another subject it opens up is the lesbian life, which is normalised in this because there’s clearly very little alternative. There are sex clubs, naked people, lots of mentions of girl-girl crushes, plenty of panties and in the end that sounds a bit samey too.
 
On my mobile screen in the Kindle app, this ran to 1,464 pages (I think the paperback was about 882), so that took me a few long days and late evenings to finish. A lengthy book is fine if it has an equivalent amount of strong drama, action and complexity to pack in or at least plants solid islands of drama along a chain. My personal view was that this tale drifted in places and I do wonder if everyone who starts reading this genuinely completes it without skipping forward. I read every page, the only fair way if you’re going to comment on an author’s hard work, but even I was tempted. For example, there’s a good bit around page 1,200 where an assassinated woman leaves a message to her daughter, not quite “Obi-Wan, you are our only hope” but similarly full of trust, fear and tension. Could the same story could have been told faster than that, say in 450 pages? Would it have been more dramatic with less time for the steam to escape? That’s an opinion and there would be a range of views over this as some readers prefer an epic, so lucky them because there’s even some neo-Roman influences dropped in at the end which suggests there’s at least another fifty percent of this fantasy world yet to be developed (Part 2 pending).
 
The mistake count was very small, e.g. “would shoot” instead of “wouldn’t shoot” at one point, otherwise pretty clear. In case you don’t like it, there were a lot of women swearing, Cs and Fs, but I doubt anyone would be offended as it’s commonplace now and who can tell if this would be any different in the future? The Ranger characters are supposed to be common grunts and you’d expect their speech to reflect that but the characters of apparently higher social worth swear just as often. Spot the difference?
 
That’s it really, a heavy book and a light review. It was a reasonable story and explored an interesting angle of “What would it be like if…” but I think it would have been more engaging if it had been edited down a little, a lot, and in the next book in the series I hope the other colonies aren’t quite so un-diverse and girly. The Kill Bill-style rebel with the katana was fun though and I hope she gets a run in the next book to shake things up.

Saturday, 20 May 2017

Revolting, by Mick Hulme - 5 Stars

This book is for people who are looking for answers and understanding about how we are controlled today and what decisions we can still take to influence what happens to us, after a long trend toward public disempowerment. You may wonder why is it that the institution of the European Union is beyond any possible doubt the most hated organisation in the world from a British perspective and has been every single day since 1993. What did they do that was so bad? Why is it that every Prime Minister of the UK from 1993 until 2016 has sided with EU domination and set themselves against the majority will of their own population? Although its first fan Ted Heath (paedophile) predated membership of the EU and Tony Blair (alleged war criminal) wasn’t squeaky clean either, why would an act like signing the Maastricht Treaty by John Major, exactly replicating the action of Quisling, seem to be rational, common sense and for the good of the people to an educated national leader? I think that why leaders and political parties believed this course was right and the public were wrong can be answered, as can the question of why they ignored majority public opinion for so long. I think it can also be understood why it was reacted against so decisively by the population when they got their only chance to be heard in their 23 years of membership.
 
An important issue to consider is that of revolt itself. What does it look like? We have modern systems such as democracy and the law so our disagreements can be solved without any violence. When an institution like the EU overrules your law and cancels democratic decision making, leaving no lawful way to oppose it, do you really think that’s safe? Does anyone want the situation where the only way for your country to become a democracy and for the majority to be listened to is over dead bodies? Seriously? We need a civilised way to protest safely and lawfully, which was what the referendum was. If the referendum is overruled or staged again until they get a different result, a very serious and dangerous problem will exist, which I hope no one thinks is a good idea.
 
Over the last few years I’d come to most of the same conclusions as the author without any guidance, so Revolting was always going to be an easy sell as I understood most of the problems already, from a UK perspective, although the concern should be common to all EU populations. An author told me that a Conservative candidate and niece of a former well known cabinet minister in conversation with them had said to their face “What’s so special about democracy anyway?” – and they wished they’d taped it. As I come from what should be a traditional conservative background, it troubles me to know the professional party has diverged so far from what I thought were conservative core values. I am confident that people from traditional Labour backgrounds think the same. What has happened to these politicians? Why did they stop representing us and go to work for a foreign regime? This dangerous thought, “What’s so special about democracy anyway?”, isn’t confined to one party, as Labour, Liberal and Conservative policy since 1993 has been identical: The UK must be ruled by a government that no one has ever voted for, based in a different country. This must be imposed, against the will of the population. Indeed Hillary Clinton said the United Kingdom cannot be a democracy because our choices are different [to those of the US]. Bitch.
 
I hope you don’t mind but I’m in a mood to hijack this book review and add to what the author has said. I would define democracy as when the members of your highest law making government have been elected, voted for by someone, anyone at all. By this definition, all EU member countries cancelled democracy in 1993, as the European Commission proposes and makes our laws. Their directives pass into national law without even being debated, which is totalitarian.
 
The questions the people face became: Is that a problem or is it ok, if it’s more efficient? Have we been left with any lawful options to stop unelected government if it gets bad? If cancelling democracy is a problem for you and all democratic and legal methods of reversing it have also been blocked, IF the majority of the population feel the same about this, should they succumb quietly or should they take an opportunity to revolt? When you’re not a Marxist and you’re asking questions like that, isn’t it a sign you’ve been pushed too far?
 
This is a powerful book, whether you are aware of this stuff or not, written by a fair-minded journalist and composed in a very readable and accessible way. It is a balanced assessment but because it has been written about a problem that disgusts the public, it will naturally look bad for the established order of politicians. This book logs the institution of the European Union’s systemic bypass and nullification of democratic representation for the people of Europe everywhere except at the state/local level. National law is over-ruled automatically by EU legislation as it is superior. It’s all true. The unification of the continent under a single unelected body has been the goal of dictators through the ages and, in the institution of the EU, this has finally been achieved. Hurrah?
 
Here’s how I understand what’s going on, i.e. the reason why national leaders and the European Union thought it was right to do, what went wrong and why becoming democracies instead is the correct solution.
 
The EU was designed to bring the benefits of Group Theory and to provide the most efficient political form of population control (the path of least resistance to getting things done).
 
In Group Theory, what’s best for the individual (originally survival etc.) is not necessarily what’s best for the average member of the group. People might prioritise their own needs and think that being an individual is their optimal strategy (seen by others as selfish, ignorant and backward) or they can submit themselves to a group/society (optimal strategy for the average member of the group, which is seen as enlightened and progressive). “The good of the many outweighs the good of the one” (Spock), the collective economy (Marx). This is reasonable and makes good sense. With the EU so far?
 
Too many selfish individuals will crash the group, so that’s a threat and these people have to be stigmatised as uneducated and backward, to encourage compliance, which is a catch-all to be used even when the group’s opponents are clever and selfishness was not their motivation. Stigmatising people unfairly is like doing a bad thing for the right reason, to make the group cohesive. The idea of allegiance to nation and culture has to be painted as similarly negative, associated with racial prejudice, because when people have been conditioned to believe in something alternative to the supra-national group, they have to understand this is no longer available. The old flags must go in the bin or people won’t believe in the need for a skin graft over the top of their healthy skin. Preferably, they apply it and don’t even ask. It’s all about means to an end, optimal strategy for the new group over the individual. Still supporting the EU?
 
However, the leaders of the group (a sub-set) soon realise their own optimal strategy is to run the group for their personal benefit (exploit the mindlessly submissive followers and keep the group going, so they can keep unelected power and loot more for themselves over a longer period). Being a group member but not simultaneously being a member of the leadership set is no longer optimal at all, as the population only work to ensure the leadership set are enriched, retain unchallenged power and aren’t required to pay any taxes on their income. The population of Europe have then become the only threat to the leadership set’s lifestyle and taking the necessary action to exclude the public from decision making and remove their influence on appointments and retentions becomes the leadership of the group’s priority. Still supportive, or are you wavering?
 
Ordinary members of a group who realise they are being exploited under undisguised parasitical leadership (the intelligent members will notice first) naturally end their support for the group because the system is broken and again believe the selfish strategy is optimal, which it now is for the majority of the public. The leadership set stigmatize them with illogical connections (anyone who believes in elected government, equality and freedom must be a racist, fascist and ignorant – does that sound familiar?). This only works for a while because it’s unconvincing and people see through it, the group then crashes. That’s independence. The leadership set then moan and blame the rebellion for being ignorant and selfish, which is exactly what they themselves were doing on a larger scale. The leadership set has made group strategy sub-optimal to individual strategy for the average member by their own greed (you are a victim of the EU, unless you're one of them). This is what the EU has become today as it and most of the Western world has entered the final stage of decline and fall according to Lieutenant-General Sir John Bagot Glubb’s classic book The Fate of Empires: Decadence and Corruption.
 
In summary, for group theory to work across the EU, it is essential to remove representative democracy in Europe. The public must be disconnected from decision making.
 
To institute the most efficient political form of population control (least resistance to getting things done), you can imagine it would be difficult to agree on anything unanimously and take all countries down the same path if at the individual or national level anyone had any say in what happened and could oppose it. For supra-national decision making to work efficiently and quickly across many regions without exceptions, decisions must be imposed without the possibility of opposition. To put this system in place, again done for the good of the group, it was essential for the EU design to remove representative democracy from Europe.
 
Have you changed your perception? Can you understand why the public think they’ve lost something?
 
In the UK, elitist politics is where a small minority of people, who usually define themselves as intellectual liberals, come to the conclusion that their beliefs are right. They then impose their decisions on everyone and treat the general population's opinion (the majority contrary view) as irrelevant, primitive and to be ignored. They see the public having the vote as the main problem in society, so work to disempower millions and millions of people, for their own good. The political elitists started with a liberal and enlightened intention but have moved full circle and become oppressive, anti-democratic and dictatorial. Anti-human-rights, from open minded to narrow minded and then just plain wrong. They wonder, amazed, why anyone would disagree and resist as they and their small circle of the blessed are ideologically faultless. To do so would be (insert stigmatizing insult word here), as words are soon all they'll have left to use in their epic fight against the humans.
 
The 500,000,000 citizens of the EU have no way at all to appoint or remove any member of their senior government, the European Commission. In contrast, the European Parliament does not propose or enact laws and is simply intended to be a distraction from where the power of law creation is held and allowing people think they’ve voted for something.
 
This book describes “implied approval”, the way the organisation takes away our freedom in stages under their self-serving assumption that you agree to give up your rights unless you openly state otherwise – and then they allow no possible opportunity, democratic or legal, for you to make that contrary statement.
 
There is a positive conclusion that I reached after finishing this book which has given me real hope for the future. The thing is, I’m pretty sure I don’t share the author’s political affiliation and might even be his diametric opposite as I quite like capitalism and think incentive to try harder works, yet I found I agree with almost every point he’s made about democracy, the EU’s actions and the public rejection of their control in this book. Think about this: If the Left and Right, who previously accused each other spitefully of being Marxists and Thatcherites, can completely agree on this most essential of all political issues, the importance of being a Democracy, and unite against a common enemy to demand its return, doesn’t that suggest they are correct? The struggle between Left and Right or between social classes has been put on hold to save something more essential: Freedom. There are just two sides now, today, those who want to live in a democracy vs those who don’t.
 
Tony Benn advised that when you meet the powerful, ask these five questions to see if they are right for you. Here they are, with answers added for the role of a member of the European Commission:
 
WHAT POWER HAVE YOU GOT?
Absolute power. I can make any law I like over you and apply it without fear of opposition. If I make a law, it over-rules the law of your country. My court will consider your objection and will always rule in favour of me.
 
WHERE DID YOU GET IT FROM?
I took it without your approval. I was not elected and your population were never asked if they wanted to convert to this system. I am not answerable to any national leader.
 
IN WHOSE INTERESTS DO YOU EXERCISE IT?
In the interests of the leadership set of the EU. I do not represent the people or nations of the EU.
 
TO WHOM ARE YOU ACCOUNTABLE?
No one. There is no electorate. I have the same powers as a king and rule by royal prerogative.
 
HOW CAN WE GET RID OF YOU?
Ha ha. You can’t. There is no legal or democratic way to remove me from power. You can only try to remove me by breaking the law; and then you will be arrested. Terrorists are always wrong, so we will all call you that if you take this course. What a good idea! If a single person ever tries anything violent, even if they have been left with no other recourse, any future member of the public who gets caught saying they think that politicians should be elected to their jobs can be arrested as a terrorist sympathiser. If you want to replace a European Union Commissioner, you can forget it now.
 
Then in 2016, when the EU had never been as popular in the UK, the Prime Minister permitted a referendum to ask for the very first time (after 33 years inside) whether people wanted to be part of it. He only did that because he was sure the answer would be Yes, if he threatened people enough with consequences. The answer was ‘No’. The establishment thought that asking the question had been an expensive mistake, rather than joining the EU itself being the expensive mistake, and, as in Ireland (2009), they began looking for ways to reverse it.
 
The EU believes that the scourge of populism must be removed by design from Europe. Unfortunately, democracy and populism are the same thing. It doesn’t matter if you’re from the Left, Right or the Middle, if you want to live in a democracy, in the EU’s and the political establishment’s eyes, that’s utterly REVOLTING.

Thursday, 18 May 2017

Wormholes, by Dennis Meredith - 4 Stars

This is a solidly compiled adventure that explores an old theoretical physics model (then science fiction concept) in an entertaining way, with medium paced storytelling, and it then presents a good twist that the reader almost certainly wouldn’t have thought of on their own. I wouldn’t say this book was extraordinary throughout or the only source you ever need to learn about wormholes but I would strongly recommend the author send it to several the main sci-fi archive collections in the world because this may be the first time anyone has put the next step of concept development included here into fiction (I might be incorrect but this isn’t something I can check quickly, so add a comment if you’ve seen the following before). Specifically, this book presents passing through a wormhole, disengaging the Earth end and then steering it from the other end to potentially explore previously inaccessible reaches of our own galaxy. With no inertia, the limits of physical speed would melt and travel distance would no longer be governed by the human life span because you’d only begin travelling through after the wormhole had got there. Count me in please (packs towel and satchel).

As a fictional work on wormholes, this story includes everything the layperson would look for to cover that subject and, importantly, it doesn’t ape other wormhole influences (Pratchett’s The Long Earth, the TV show Sliders, Stargate, Deep Space 9 etc) so the reader is getting something fresh and dare I say it more realistic with this. There are things which are necessarily alike, such as casting two well educated scientist characters: a radical thinker man (similar roles were Dr Fox Mulder in X-Files and Professor Daniel Jackson in Stargate) and a bright, independent woman (e.g. Dr Ellie Sattler in Jurassic Park) but I can’t imagine dim or unscientific people would be the first humans to bring such a phenomenon as this under control, so of course it would be people of this type. Dimensionally, I’ve just looked at myself out of the corner of my eye but it probably won’t happen.

In this, the arrival of the wormholes is made as realistic as possible, the leading characters then being drawn together and pulled in, if you’ll forgive a pun. There’s nothing supernatural about this story as it is all published and accepted physics, with the possible exception of magnetic containment working but more on that quibble below. Although the events are arguably US-centred, the author develops the idea at a global level and I think avoids the trap of whenever anything visits Earth it always lands in Central Park and wants to meet the same person (not my leader, thanks).

The author also has a good line in non-terrestrial animal design, avoiding the childish trap of imagining aliens as fitting the standard terrestrial vertebrate pattern (head on top, four limbs, rib cage, central spinal axis), which exists because Earthlings all share a common ancestor – which would not be in common with non-terrestrial life. The author is also correct when he says that any astrophysicist or physicist you ask can tell you there are other dimensions that the ones we see. Mathematically, that’s correct and we can model multi-dimensional shapes with data visualization to get our heads around the idea; add a length scale, add breadth, add height and then add another at a right angle to those. Easier that going around Hyde Park Corner on a moped.

The writing flaws were fairly marginal. I think I just spotted one spelling mistake (it’s/its) in this long book, so that’s pretty amazing by modern standards, i.e. to have a smooth read.

On the mechanical side my flow of consciousness travels into deep, intangible places and I might be badly wrong and tripping over my own brain stem but I don’t think that in our four dimensional reality (length, breadth, height and time) within the two standard physical models, that we could influence a wormhole’s geographical boundary/horizon position using magnetism (or the strong or weak nuclear force) unless it did not involve a separate universe dimension. In other words, yes I’m a nerd, but to use the author’s method of describing dimensions at right angles to our own: If you label our dimensions a, b, c and d and a wormhole opens to another dimension of e, f, g and h, the physical laws are only compatible if it is in another part of our own Universe (folded space) and the Newtonian and quantum settings match exactly (the same settings for physical conditions in separate universes is billions to one). Then again, the settings which allow life to exist in this universe are also fine-tuned to an improbability of a similar magnitude (don’t use the word design, don’t go there). If I’m correct (I could knock on a door at this university to find out if that’s possible, but I owe too many favours already) the scientist characters should conclude that if you can move the diameter of the aperture or the hole’s location with anything, showing the same physical settings across the boundary – even if you’re only testing magnetism, that indicates an immensely high probability that the wormhole must exist within the same universe as us (the other end is far away?). So, why go to the other end to steer it within our Universe if you can do the same thing from this end? If the wormhole is connected from ours to an alternative pocket universe or unique set of dimensions, the framework should collapse instantly (revert to one side, mutual exclusivity). Even if it didn’t collapse, the odds say life there would be impossible (too hot, too cold, matter too dispersed, atoms not holding together, elements not existing…) and any matter coming through would change state because the forces pushing and pulling it have changed.

I know I'm asking for trouble here because I sense the author has a scientific background but I can't help myself when the ball is rolling. I guess what I mean is, is this an extra dimensional wormhole structure which connects two areas of the same universe in which the same laws apply (I think so) or is it an extra dimensional wormhole structure that connects our universe to different universes where different laws apply (I don’t think that works)?

A related problem (okay, same problem, different application) is the rescue mission: A second wormhole is used to reach people stranded by the first. I can’t see any reason why the second wormhole would open in the same universe at all, let alone in any realistic proximity to the end of the first wormhole. Even if it formed comparatively very close, e.g. one solar system away, without a map of the other side it would be hard to bring the two together. If their dimensions are somehow linked to ours, geographical point position in 3D won’t obey quantum superposition rules over in dimension number 2, I think, although that assumes the small scale and large scale will obey the same laws over there (when they don’t here). If it works, in proximal space, this also suggests that the Earth system is rubbing up at right angles against (the same) other area of our own Universe, i.e. that the three dimensional topographic plane has folded and we’re meeting the same place on the other side, two close points here, two close points there – which would explain the rescue hole appearing nearby although I think I’ve said the same thing in four different ways. Congratulations me. So, the author is right, I don’t have to snog a beardy postgrad physicist and I’m free to cool my aching head down in this bucket of water. Whoosh, slosh, splosh and on to the next book.

Wednesday, 17 May 2017

Summertime and the giving is easy - courtesy of Jean Lowe Carlson

Jean Carlson would like everyone to know: "There are two really fantastic giveaways going on, ending 31st May and 31st July, that you might be interested in. One is a summer reading medley of all genres and that will have 4 big winners for a ton of fun prizes as well as audiobooks. The other is a sci-fi/fantasy promotion that will last halfway through the summer, where the reader will get 52 great SFF paperbacks from new and established authors."

Here are the details Jean has sent about both:

http://www.colbyrrice.com/giveaways/kindle-echo-kindle-fire-hd-audiobook-e-book-lot-summer-giveaway/- "Win a Kindle Fire, an Amazon Echo, free Audiobooks and tons of great ebooks! Not only are there 4 big winners, but everyone will win an ebook. Plus, share it on social media and earn up to 20 extra entries to win. Ends May 31st.

e Kindles? Love paperbacks? Then this is the giveaway for you! 52 great fantasy and sci-fi reads - one for each week of the entire year! Includes both indie titles and famous authors like Patrick Rothfuss, Stephen King, Neil Gaiman and more! Only one heaping big winner. Ends July 31st.

Become a part of the magic! Join my Launch Team and get advance free copies!"

Get my epic fantasy Blackmark for FREE when you join my Newsletter.
Jean's books at Amazon - Audiobooks on Audible
Jean Lowe Carlson
Fantasy Fiction and Audiobook Narration