On the Clarke Awards - Round Two

Last year at about this time I decided to try and read the Clarke Award short list.

It was partly a desire to keep current with the best, or at least the currently well regarded in Science Fiction. Partly it was an attempt to find some new authors.

It began and ended with the End Specialist by Drew Magarey, perhaps the worst book I have ever read.* Not even the fact that the book title is a superb innuendo involving an Edinburgh Massage Parlour can make me think anything but ill of that book.


So, I’m a little more circumspect about repeating the experiment. However, looking at some of the chat about short lists for various awards they seem of a much higher standard this year.  No Christopher Priestly writing blogs in vain. Nothing on the list by anyone called Drew.  In the powerful words of D’ream, Party Up the World.

So, I’m going to give it a go again this year.



*If I ever met Drew Magarey or his publisher I’m going to ask for my money back.

On Doctor Who and The Rings of A Rush Job (Woah, woah, the Rings of A Rush Job.)

I really didn’t much care for last Saturday’s episode of Doctor Who, The Rings of Somewhere Or Other.

I didn’t much understand what was going on and by the time I did I realised I didn’t care.

I think the root cause of the problem with this episode and I think with much of recent Doctor Who, is that too much story was compressed into too few minutes.

We get about 15 minutes of why the Leaf is important.  15 minutes of meeting the little girl, Merry or Mary or Merv or whatever. I didn’t have long enough to work out how to pronounce her name. Then 15 minutes of the Doctor break dancing in front of the Giant Pumpkin.   Mixed in with this is a bit of wandering about (or wondering aloud), a bit where the owner of the most useful space and time ship in the Universe hires a space pedalo, a Coldplay concert and some bits of persuading Clara Osama Oswald the Wonderful Woman of Oz to come for a ride in the TARDIS. Then the Leaf is deployed and the Giant Pumpkin chokes on its own petard. And for the first time since we met Ozzy the bastards haven’t killed her. Stay awake at the back, this may be Significant. Or a Continuity Error.  Or Both.

I think it would have worked better as part of a series made up of 26 episodes divided into 6-8 stories of 3-4 episodes each.  The way it used to be done.

So how would I have handled this.

I’d have shifted this story further back into the current series.  I’ve only just met Orville and most of the times I’ve met her she’s ended up dead and been someone else (or was she?) So a story that turns on her emotional connection to an artefact of her past needs to build up that past. Then place the past firmly in the context of the present of someone I care about. Then succeed in making the artefact emblematic of something important. Admirable features of Clara are influenced by the loss of her mother at young age and the Leaf is a solid connection to her family and the lost promise of that family. It reminds her to nurture those less fortunate than herself. Then I’d care about a Leaf. Otherwise, it’s just a leaf.

By shifting this story further back in episode list I’d have had time to get to know Clarissa at my own pace instead of having her importance and the back story of the Leaf thrust in my face.  A few stories where she seems like a decent person with some particular interests.  A bit more time to let her fondness for work where she cares for small motherless children flow across the screen. But also, some more time for her not just to be an orphan who likes orphans except when she’s dead. Or when her being dead isn’t important enough to keep happening.

This is the most important Leaf in the Universe.  Is it? Show me don’t tell me and all that.  So perhaps a situation in a previous story where Miss Bow makes what appears to be an irrational decision to preserve the book and the Leaf from a fire or a Dalek. (About time we had a Dalek, not enough of them in my opinion.) A scene a few episode later where Beau Peep is uncharacteristically distracted whilst looking at the Leaf.  Generally, big up the leaf so it becomes the Leaf.

Then I’d start on the back story.  There would have been some space and time to show the history that makes the Leaf important. Probably some relatives. Not sure how I’d have woven this in but I’ve given myself plenty of room with perhaps 4 mini-story arcs and about 15 45-minute episodes to go at.  I’d find a way.  It would be Amazing!

So I arrive at episode 1 of the Rings of Mos Eisely with the audience already thinking “I like that Betty Boo lass. She does seem inordinately fond of that Leaf. Still I suppose her poor dead mum and all that.“  Bit of an extended opening shot of the Rings. They are Amazing. We’ve paid for the SFX team to go on the CGI course, might as well get the benefit and it’ll save having to pay Matt Smith to say “Wow, isn’t it Amazing!” if I show you how amazing it is.  He charges extra for that and quite rightly too. Then I can spend a good half an episode wondering around the market place (which was very enjoyable) with a red herring plot, a sub-plot or part of a longer story arc plot as a driver for being there. Perhaps the Silence or the Silents or Silus or whoever they were could be involved.   I could have shown the peaceful nature of the civilisation. Built up the social structures. Enjoyed a bit of the genuinely lovely singing. Introduced the quirks of paying for things with things of emotional value and left the audience to mull that over at their own pace. A little hint that all is not well in the Land of Oz. Then introduce the Merry Hobbit, sorry the little girl (just a little girl, not The Little Girl ™ , or indeed A Little Girl, don’t you know you can get them in six-packs now.)  Oh, I wonder why that little girl is so agitated in what appears to be such a peaceful yet vibrant civilisation. Add in a little bit of apprehension about the Elder God. End on a cliff hanger when the quite scary Black Guards corner Betty Page and Merv.

1. Episode 2 – the running about episode.  Clare and Jolly spend quite a bit of time running away from the Black Guards. A bit of rather nice singing. They seek refuge with some figure of authority, who being a figure of authority in a peaceful, vibrant culture much like our own but with more singing is certainly duty bound to take a keen interest in the suffering of a defenceless young person seeking sanctuary and someone to believe that she really is in danger.  Que Surprise and Dismay when said authority figure just hands her over to the Black Guards. Nice singing. Nice Singing. Doctor Cox and Claire Oiseau get to do some running about trying to find Marvin. Perhaps Smudger could use his sonic screwdriver to open a stubborn door or maybe not. He probably needs to save the battery so he can use it re-light ITER or repair the oxygen system on Apollo 13. There could be some singing behind the door. Acquire Space Pedalo, if you insist, and ride off through the Olympic Rings to the MacGuffin Asteroid to the Rescue (Gee, those CGI courses were really money well spent. ) End on a cliff hanger when the Doctor and What’s Her Name find their way to the centre of temple complex to find Mhari about to be force fed to an alarm clock.

Episode 3. Quick recap. We’re on an asteroid in Space full of aliens. It’s Amazing but because we can’t afford to pay Matt Smith to tell you we’ve used some CGI and rubber to show you. Here’s one we made earlier. Peter Purvis, I thank you.  Doctor Zhiviago, Clare Balding and Mike from Mike and Mechanics are in Deadly Peril ™ with at least one of them about to be fed to some soul eating Elder God that in no way resembles the Giant Pumpkin. A sound track by Harry Christophers and the Sixteen with additional music by Tenacious D fills our ears and souls. Those of us who still have souls that is.  Doctor Che Guevara gives a speech about how you shouldn’t eat little girls, even if you are Maurice Chevalier, it’s just not good enough, can’t you hear the signing (que Scotland giving it “Can you hear the Elder God of Darkness sing? No! NO! Can you hear the Elder God of Darkness Sing No! NO!” )  The Elder God of Darkness gets its tax affairs sorted out and basically swats Smith to the ground.  Smith changes into a fez but it’s no good. The Giant Pumpkin has him on the ropes and it looks bad for the Boy Wonder. He counters with a lot of memories that are somehow, don’t ask me how, turned into food or possibly Euros (no really, please don’t ask me how). It’s not enough. The Pumpkin just licks its lips. It’s going to eat everything.  Eliza steps right up to the plate and holds up the Leaf. She explains to the Dark Pumpkin that seeing as her mum only lived about as long as most people in recorded history lived and that’s a bit unfair could it go away now thanks. The Giant Pumpkin is Stunned, Staggered and Amazed. We realise, with a cheeky shuggle of the Bow Tie of Ironic Awesome that Herr Doctor Professor was just stalling for time whilst Thingamyjig found the right page in her book and produced the Leaf.  The Giant Pumpkin retires, wounded.  As it does so its features briefly resemble Withnail. Or Do They?

Dum de dum, dum de dum dewooooooo!

I’d have arrived at the end of that last episode feeling that a niggle that I’d been worried about for a few months – what’s going to happen with this Leaf you keep showing me -  has been resolved.  I’d have had time to learn how to pronounce Merry’s name and remember Clara’s.  Good, which I have seen try to be good, would have triumphed over Evil, which I had seen refuse to turn from the Dark Side. Moral Ambiguity would have been seen from both sides too and people would have made choices.
Instead I got to follow Matt Smith at jogging pace whilst he shouted “Look. Leaf. Mother. Look There. Amazing. Leaf. Over There!” at me.
Perhaps the Giant Pumpkin is a metaphor for a script team too greedy to digest their stories properly.

On the Chote Unit

I was asked for my opinion on this piece.

http://fistfulofeuros.net/afoe/everything-will-be-fine-in-just-one-chote-unit/

Which is basically saying that our current economic forecasts assume we’ll return to our long run trend of economic growth soonish but that the reality might be that the trend no longer applies because things have changed.

So a couple of questions.

Is there a trend? If so what is it?

And what has been making the trend what it is?

If there was a trend is it a fair assumption that it will continue or has something changed?

I think there is a trend.  You can see it in the long term average of UK (or other GDP) figures.  An article by Chris Dillow looks at UK GDP with a  rolling 20 year average (trying to remove some of the noise). Even those proposing the end of growth think there is a trend growth rate, or rather there was a trend.

Looks to be about 2% per annum.  Which broadly means that over the course of a working life you can expect your standard of living to double even if you never get a promotion and just basically turn up.

So, I think there is / was a trend and I think it’s about 2% and it’s been about that for as long as anyone has been counting. (This itself might be a problem, we weren’t counting before the trend was 2%.)

So what’s driving the trend.

Classically, three elements. The amount of labour in productive employment, the amount of capital applied to that labour and technology, which is some measure of the quality of labour, capital and output.

Since the industrial revolution we’ve seen increases in population. Probably since before the industrial revolution and going back to the agricultural revolution of the generations before. Over that time we’ve seen changes in working hours, life expectancy, the borders of the UK retirement ages and gender based participation in the measured economy.  The UK population has increased from about 16m in 1801 to about 60m in 2005. Generally speaking the amount of hours worked in the British economy has increased since 1800.

Over that time the amount of capital applied to that labour has increased. We have more roads, looms, drills and spades then we did in 1800.

The quality of that capital and the quality of the organisation of labour and the quality of the outputs of all that work are better.  Iphones versus semaphore.  Antibiotics versus hoping for the best.  Over the last 200 years or so we’ve seen many waves of innovation in production methods and products. Our production technologies have found ways to apply chemical energy to do work or to allow less human supervision of labour or intervention in processes.  The amount of work a person can do has increased hugely since 1800.  And all the new things we can do that we couldn’t do for any money in 1800.  Or 1900 or 1950. Or 2000.

So, more labour, more productive and producing better stuff and that’s been how things have been for the last 200-250 years or so.

So what happens now for the next hundred or so years?

Globally I don’t think we can expect to see populations increasing by the about double every hundred years we’ve seen. Unless we have the same kind of radical increase in food production we saw in the 1750’s and later with the application of chemical fertilizers, transport infrastructure and pest control. (There are some sound suggestions that in fact we’ve taken more out of our agricultural industries than they can provide in the long term and food production might start to decrease in the West). Also, we’ll all have to live in some pretty dense cities. Where is that radical change in food production coming from and is it enough to offset some of the negative factors we might be seeing in agriculture?


What we will see is large numbers of people moving off the land, away from subsistence farming to cities to work in manufacturing and services. We’re already seeing this, not just in China and India but in Africa too. Here in the UK, and Europe generally, we’ve already done that and we’re pretty crowded. We don’t get a surge of new workers streaming out of the fields towards the mills. We do have some projections for healthy population growth in the UK over the coming decades. The ONS estimates about 5m people living in the UK by 2020. But a lot of these people are either coming from somewhere else in Europe or the children of people who came from somewhere else..  Given the global nature of the economy and the fact that much of the population increase are immigrants I don’t think these extra people create much of an additional market.  That’s helpful in terms of total UK GDP and helps with some of the shared expense of running our country (like paying Iain Duncan Smith £56 per week). We also have quite a lot of people exiting the labour market by retiring and living for a while after they stop work. Some additional people helps but it doesn’t do much for per capita GDP unless it creates opportunites for sharing infrastructure. How much is the beneficial effect of sharing national infrastructure costs with 5 million more people? Do these people still turn up if our economy isn’t growing at 2% per year?


Similarly, we have a bit of a global problem with energy.  With a global population that has at first grown and is now growing richer we face a bit of a shortage of easy to come by energy. (This ignores the side effect that our most readily usable form of easy to come by energy is causing our climate to change in complex but not good ways.)  Where is the radical change in energy production coming from that allows us to provide cheap, clean and low carbon energy to billions of people?

We might be able to piggy back some more on industrialisation in the not-West. How much of their industrialisation rubs off on us? Will we see lots of cheaper goods and services and will they want to buy our expensive goods and services?

We seem to have a bit of a dearth of investment opportunities in the West. (Clearly the workers have failed liberal capitalism once again by not being worth investing in.) Is it worth applying any more capital to UK workers over the next few decades?  Well maybe, but not if you have access to much faster growing economies in Asia and Africa. Why bother buying a Brit a new ergonomic spade to replace her current one when you can buy the ergonomic spade for a Tanzanian who currently doesn’t have any spades? Or a Romanian?  So less new capital applied to UK workers which means that our productivity doesn’t improve. In general.  For areas where there are growth opportunites linked to economic growth in the developing world there are investments to be made. There are several new or re-born whisky stills in Scotland.

So, things are looking not so great for economic growth in the UK over the coming decades. Our population is growing but I’m not sure it’s that helpful. Eventually we run out of land and food to grow or to buy. Same with energy.  Other places in the world are more attractive places to invest. We can expect our relative productivity advantage to be eroded over the coming decades until it’s worth investing in factories and railways and bridges again.

This is on top of some pretty hefty difficulties with public and private debt.

So things look like they may be a little ropey in the UK for the next ten years or so.

What about the longer term future?  Will we see a large, broad range of new production technologies making us more efficient and new products making our lives better?  Well, that’s the trillion dollar question. We don’t appear to be in the beginning period of a Kondratief Cycle, but then you never do until you find that you were.  There appear to be lots of technologies that might make radical improvements to our productive or our products but they might also turn out to be marginal.  (Although I find it heartening to remember that in about 20 years 6 billion will be supporting marginal technological improvements rather than the 600m who have been doing so for the last hundred years.) All the new bits of technology might all work really well together or they might not.  We might find there are so many opportunities applying existing technology to the developing world over the next 20-30 years that new stuff doesn’t get as much of a look in. We have a specfic problem with energy, not so much the amount of energy that is accessable but the amount of energy we need to put in to get out the energy that’s either lying around underground or falling newly minted from the sky and consequently the amount left over to do other stuff.

So, it’s really difficult to tell.

To address the specific critisism of the Chote Unit, that everything will be okay once things go back to normal but there is no evidence that the old normal is the new normal I say, well fair enough, there’s not much evidence that the new normal isn’t the same as the old normal.  This is essentially a question about technological innovation. We appear to be playing out the last few industrial revolutions. At least here in the West.  We might be about to enter another round.  If we are it’s likely to be more impressive than the preceding waves of industrial innovation. Every day I see reports of new or improved technologies that might collectively make a big difference to how we make and do things. Or they might not. Difficult to tell.

So that’s where I am. It’s difficult to tell.  Prospects for the UK for the next few years, maybe five, maybe ten, look poor. But we might find a boost from trading with developing economies and we might find the next industrial revolution takes off sooner rather than latter.