Nina Munteanu Discusses SF and Women with the Globe and Mail

Deirdre Kelly, reporter for the Globe and Mail interviewed Nina Munteanu and two other SF authors (Marie Bilodeau and Madeline Ashby) in an article entitled “Authors push science beyond the lab into fiction and fantasy” (Feb 25, 2013).

The article provided a well-rounded perspective on storytelling from the minds of three women science fiction and fantasy writers in Canada.

Here’s an excerpt:

Writing about women’s issues at the same time as exploring the new, and often speculative, frontiers of science is what distinguishes Ms. Ashby and [Nina Munteanu and Marie Bilodeau] from their male counterparts.

“Female writers seem to use characters or social concepts as the foundation to their stories and then build worlds around them, whereas male writers tend to create worlds and technologies first,” says full-time author and professional storyteller Marie Bilodeau, the Ottawa-based author of the Destiny series of space fantasy novels, among other works, including science fiction. “Hard science fiction explores scientific concepts and is most often written by males while soft science-fiction, or science-fiction with a strong social focus, is written more by females.”

These are risky divisions implying, perhaps, that one approach is better than another.

It is why Nina Munteanu, a practicing scientist with degrees in freshwater science and aquatic biology who is the author of The Splintered Universe Trilogy, among other futurist [and hard science fiction] books [like Darwin’s Paradox], wants to believe that gender differences in science fiction ought to be irrelevant.

“In terms of what good science fiction does – examining humanity and our journey in life through our relationship with the unknown – I see little difference between gender representations,” explains the former Simon Fraser university instructor and [Douglas College] lab [instructor] who today resides in Toronto.

“Science fiction is the literature of consequence exploring large issues faced by humankind.”

Yet in all her books, among them the recently released [fantasy] The Last Summoner, Ms. Munteanu, born in Granby, Que., … puts women front and centre as a way of telling stories of relevance to women.

“Speaking for myself, and for the other women I know who read science fiction, the need is for good stories featuring intelligent women who are directed in some way to make a difference in the world,” says Ms. Munteanu, who describes science fiction as a literature of allegory and metaphor. “Their heroism may manifest itself through co-operation and leadership in community, which is different from their die-hard male counterparts who want to tackle the world on their own. Science fiction provides a new paradigm for heroism and a new definition of hero as it balances technology and science with human issues and needs.”

Post Script:

With all due respect to Marie, master storyteller and good friend, I disagree with her prognosis of hard and soft science fiction as related to male and female writers—and readers. It’s not that simple (and she may not have meant it that way and might have elaborated if given room, which there wasn’t—if that’s the case, I apologize to Marie, but I’m commenting on what’s written in the article only). If we were to entertain the stereotype, then, yes, that would be the case: men write idea-driven stories and women write character-driven stories. But when it comes to science fiction, and SF authors, this is far too simple and a dangerous assumption—as most stereotypes are.

If you visit the online Globe & Mail article, you’ll find several rather unsavory (even childish) comments, challenging some of the simplified ideas suggested in this article. The truth of the matter is that we belong to a continuum, in fact in all matters, including gender and certainly gender-related thought. Science fiction, by virtue of its exploration of “the Large or Unknown” must evolve naturally from idea/premise to character; not the other way around.

If I were to look at my own work as an example, I have written romantic SF (Collision with Paradise, The Cypol), which certainly fits the stereotype. But even these stories would not be the stories they are if I hadn’t first created and explored the premise and dilemma related to idea. I conducted scientific research into AI, robotics, habitable worlds, jungle ecosystems, and Atlantean mythos, etc.) in order to fully explore the premise. My characters evolved from this process; not the other way around. So, Genevieve’s character—her yearnings, faults, weaknesses and victories—realized themselves organically through the story promise based on larger global issues and ideas.

The same can be said for the young vivacious baroness Viviann of my fantasy The Last Summoner and hard-boiled space cop Rhea Hawke in my science fiction space thriller The Splintered Universe Trilogy or data handler Julie Crane in my hard science fiction duology Darwin’s Paradox and Angel of Chaos.

Characters always play a role in realizing the larger issues of theme. In science fiction, these are almost always related to the impact of and our relationship with science and technology. That is why I call Collision and Cypol romantic science fiction, not SF romance. The difference is that the SF part isn’t just thrown in as exotic setting (like in so many romances); it is an integral part of the story theme. This is why good SF must spring from idea and premise, not character (unless character and premise are the same thing—wink).

So, in Darwin’s Paradox, which explores humanity’s relationship and co-evolution with technology and Nature, the theme of our tenuous co-evolution with Nature and technology is realized through the premise of an intelligent virus melding with a community of machine intelligence. Story is achieved through the main character who is largely marginalized (an introverted veemeld who can speak to machines in her head) who wishes she was “normal” but distrusts her community. She romanticizes but feels uncomfortable with Nature.

Where do women SF writers differ from men SF writers? Really? I think it lies mostly in how we portray our characters, particularly our women protagonists. That is where readers will see the most difference. And where we, as writers, have the opportunity to build a new paradigm for heroism.

So, in Darwin’s Paradox Julie, who is a loner, must learn to trust and rely on her community of machines, other people and even the virus to overcome negative forces. Even the negative forces, overseen by a female, by the way, are not so much vanquished and destroyed as educated and influenced to change. This is the purview of the woman. To teach. To guide. To nurture. To show compassion and forgiveness. To yield, even.  

When I sign Darwin’s Paradox for readers, my tagline is usually evolution through cooperation, in honor of my personal hero, microbiologist Lynn Margulis. Margulis endured over twenty years of censure from aggressive male scientists for her incredible theory of cooperation between a parasite and host (endosymbiosis), which created the prokaryotic cell. I think it’s high time that heroism—like Darwin’s Theory—be redefined. It’s up to us, through story.

“Science fiction is traditionally a more male-oriented genre,” says Marie in the Globe & Mail article. “It’s both harder to find acceptance as a woman writer and also more freeing because there are so few of us around. It’s still pioneering territory with a lot of space for women’s voices and visions to grow and be heard.”

“The best part about writing science fiction,” Marie adds, “is showing different ways of being without having your characters struggle to gain rights. Invented worlds can host a social landscape where debated rights in this world—such as gay marriage, abortion and euthanasia—are just a fact of life.”

I couldn’t agree with you more, Marie. Let the stories begin…

Nina Munteanu is an ecologist and internationally published author of novels, short stories and essays. She coaches writers and teaches writing at George Brown College and the University of Toronto. For more about Nina’s coaching & workshops visit www.ninamunteanu.me. Visit www.ninamunteanu.ca for more about her writing.

The Face of a Hero: Hero Meme

In a previous post about “A Portrait of the Artist as a Real Hero” I defined a real altruist as Nature’s Real Hero and described the Vervet Monkey as an example. In literature and in the “hero’s journey”, the hero is defined as the altruist, willing to sacrifice herself for the sake of the greater good.

I've written several posts on altruism, the altruist (the true definition of the hero) and the hero, including:

Altruism at the Heart of True Happiness
Gaia vs. Medea: A Case for Altruism
What Altruism in Animals Can Teach Us About Ourselves
The Samaritan Paradox Revisited: The Karma Ran Over the Dogma
Our Obsession with Ownership
Is James Bond an Altruist? – part 2
A Hero’s Journey: the Journey
The Hero’s Journey: Archetypes

The altruist is often not noticed or recognized. The real altruist is undervalued or mistaken for something else. The Real Hero is often misunderstood, feared, and ridiculed or exiled for being different. S/he must often walk a lonely path. Yet the hero shines in the dark face of adversity. They are a bright beacon of hope, leading us through the dark forest of evil or confusion toward a better life and a better world. Not only does the hero reflect our very best selves in times of crises, but they are our catalysts for change and evolution, our inspirational sources. While we may ridicule them in one breath as brazen, foolish or impetuous, or even threatening, we strive to be them, to emulate their qualities and follow in their noble footsteps. Heroes can be mentors, catalysts, and heralds of change. They educate us, challenge us—particularly our complacency and apathy—and they ultimately inspire us. Heroes bring us back to our humanity and show us what we can be.

In any case, it got me thinking about who my heroes are and who your heroes are. So, I created this meme in honor of our heroes:

The Hero Meme:

Here’s how it’s played: those of you who have been tagged are encouraged to name FIVE HEROES in your life with a brief explanation of why they deserve this recognition. Then you need to tag five to ten other bloggers to name their heroes. You and anyone you tag should 1) link to the source post (this one) and 2) to the blog or the person that tagged you (if it’s me then you only need to link here once).

First I’ll give you my personal hero picks. Then I’ll give you my choice of 10 blog-heroes that I’ve tagged to further this worthwhile meme. Even if I haven’t tagged you, I’d love to hear from you. Who are YOUR heroes?

Here are eight of my heroes; each demonstrates to me several important aspects of heroism and altruism:

The Vervet Monkey: Commonly living in groups or “troops” of 20 or more, the Vervet possesses the “rudiments of language”. Altruistic Vervets give alarm calls to warn their group of invading leopards, snakes, and eagles. In doing so, they attract attention to themselves, increasing their chance of being attacked. Because of their being known to destroy crops in Kenya, they have been classified as vermin in South Africa and were shot without a permit until 2003. I honor these courageous and noble creatures. They are the ultimate altruist and ultimate hero: prepared to risk their life for others.

Doctor Lynn Margulis: This scientist had the courage to challenge the current scientific hegemony, based on what she felt and knew was true, and persisted with her theory of endosymbiosis despite being ridiculed by the “ruling” scientific community. She endured two decades of censure only to see her theory finally accepted and reported in every text book on biology. Certain “greats” were compelled to retract their censure, which she accepted with grace and forgiveness. I draw inspiration from this courageous and persevering scientist in pursuit of the truth.

Victor Frankl: Gentle spirit, psychologist and founder of existential logo-therapy, Frankl endured and survived the atrocities of Auschwitz with incredible grace and equanimity. He wrote the profound book “Man’s Search for Meaning” which contained these stirring words: That which is to give light must first endure burning. Frankl referenced Nietzsche, "he who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how," when he argued that what made the difference between those who survived and those who did not was not the intensity of their suffering, but whether or not they retained meaning and purpose in their lives. Amid the degradation and abject misery of a concentration camp, Frankl was able to exercise the most important freedom of all—the freedom to determine one's own attitude and spiritual well-being. Said Frankl, “love is the ultimate and the highest goal to which man can aspire…The salvation of man is through love and in love.” I honor his deep courage and his merciful compassion for those who tormented him with undue cruelty.

A.E. Whittall: My high school English teacher, who had the courage to be different and led a new movement in English instruction that challenged students like no other teacher had before. He “pushed” me and every other student toward achievements previously unimagined. He did this through his passionate treatment of writing and literature and by creating an even-playing field of mutual respect. He challenged us to think and to challenge him back by courageously offering his own vulnerability and passion. He inspired, cajoled and compelled, openly sharing his heart, his mind, and his spirit. I admire his courageous devotion to opening our minds and hearts toward ultimate expression.

Nikola Tesla:  Tesla was a humble genius, intense mystic and gentle spirit whose indomitable faith against all odds carried him through the many hardships and actions of betrayal and brutal jealousy that he endured with grace throughout his career as scientist and inventor (he insisted that he was not so much an inventor as a discoverer of ideas gifted to him in flashes of light). His many achievements include alternating current, wireless communication, the electric motor, lasers and radar, x-rays, neon, robotics, remote control, the expansion of ballistics, nuclear physics and theoretical physics, cellular technology, and even tactical space-warfare. Tesla was a rare breed of scientist/engineer, one who intuited his discoveries and inventions. And one who was also a poet, a philosopher, an appreciator of fine music, a linguist [he was fluent in eight languages], and a connoisseur of food and drink. He was also a humanitarian and loved animals.



Tesla was a selfless, giving and nonjudgmental spirit of incredible integrity who practiced altruism in his constant attempts to better the world. Despite the cynical and greedy actions of others around him, Tesla prevailed in his faith in humanity until he passed away, a pauper and generally unrecognized by the scientific community. This distinguished, sincere and modest altruist demonstrated great generosity in continually bestowing his gifts of genius to the world.


 

My Brother: When we were children, he protected me without dominating me, loved me unconditionally (for who and what I was), believed in me, respected me and knew just how to tease me (to get my goat!). At ease with himself, he is quietly assertive, has a wonderful sense of humor, and remains a strong advocate for justice and fairness. I forgive him for calling me an alien (well, that’s what I am, after all…) and “runt”... well, I was that too…

His Holiness the Dalai Lama:  His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama embodies harmony, ethics and happiness among all peoples. This past April, I participated in a conference in Zurich, Switzerland, on altruism and compassion in economics with His Holiness. I watched in awe as he guided each of the scientists and economists with a humble wisdom toward a common resolution. Delivered with his signature smile and laughter, the Dalai Lama disarmed conflict and promoted the joining of spirits toward true altruistic thought. His belief in and devotion to kindness, compassion and love on the planet is inspirational.

Karen Mason: Publisher, advocate, advisor, mystic and so much more, Karen is a gentle spirit who delivered me a dream by showing me an unfailing faith to achieve it. Karen’s undying optimism and indomitable faith against all odds has carried her through much that would have beaten others into defeat—and each time she prevailed with grace and compassion. Karen is a humanitarian and healer with an empathic gift with animals, a Kabbalist, accomplished musician, gifted cryptologist and linguist [she is fluent in six languages including Ancient Hebrew), and connoisseur of food and drink. Intelligent, wise and incredibly accomplished in art, communications and technology, she has demonstrated in all her actions a heroic quality that most of us can only strive to achieve: a truly selfless, giving and nonjudgmental spirit of incredible integrity who practices altruism in its most pure form. She is my ultimate inspiration for living a life of faith, genuine kindness, joy and continued wonder. Karen is a beautiful spirit who I am honored to call my friend and mentor.

Here are the blog heroes I’ve tagged:

Kathleen Maher, the Diary of a Heretic
Bob Kingsley, Somerset Bob's Place
Jean Luc Picard, Captain Picard's Journal
Heather Dugan, Footsteps
Princess Haiku, Princess Haiku
Dcr, DCR Blogs
Manchild, When Least Expected
Jennifer Rahn, Random Synaptic Transfers
Lynda Williams, Reality Skimming
Toulouse LeTrek, Toulouse LeTrek

Nina Munteanu is an ecologist and internationally published author of novels, short stories and essays. She coaches writers and teaches writing at George Brown College and the University of Toronto. For more about Nina’s coaching & workshops visit www.ninamunteanu.me. Visit www.ninamunteanu.ca for more about her writing.

The Samaritan Paradox Revisited: The Karma Ran Over the Dogma

Scientists have long puzzled why in a so-called “survival of the fittest Darwinian world” perfect strangers “paradoxically” volunteer to help others even when such aid may come at some cost to themselves.

Scientists and philosophers from the fifth century to the present day (e.g., Augustine of Hippo, Michal de Montaigne, Thomas Henry Huxley and Richard Dawkins to name a few) have contended that humankind’s goodness is just a veneer over a morality that is rotten and self-serving at its core. Some suggest that no act of “unsolicited pro-sociality” (“other-regarding preferences”) can be characterized as wholly unselfish. There is always something to be gained from the act, they insist, even if it is only to “feel good”.

In the Primiere January 2005 issue of Scientific American Mind, Ernst Fehr and Suzann-Viola Renninger published an article entitled “The Samaritan Paradox” that discussed experiments they conducted with University of Zurich students. In April of 2010, I had the opportunity to hear Fehr recount his experiments at the Mind and Life Conference attended by the Dalai Lama in Zurich and his position had not changed.

Briefly, the experiments investigated student’s reactions to “cheaters”, in which participants rewarded cooperation and punished those who defected, even when it was costly to do so. Researchers defined the latter action as true altruism, based on the apparent “sacrificial” nature of the punisher’s actions. Is the act of punishment true altruistic behavior, though? This strikes me as being more tit-for-tat, what many term “reciprocal altruism”, and the result of one who has followed the rules of engagement and feels righteous outrage. I contend that the punisher’s motivation arose from “self” rather than out of “selflessness”; it reminds me of the peeved “sandbox” attitude: “If I have to do it, then you have to as well.”

In his 1976 book, The Selfish Gene, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins challenged readers “to teach generosity and altruism, because we are all born selfish.” He argued that, “We are survival machines—robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes.” This argument promotes the notion that altruism is nothing more than disguised egoism, that philanthropy is less the expression of love than the cool calculation of the entrepreneur seeking future profit by clever public relations: something akin to the tit-for-tat fair-play “altruism” displayed by the university students of Fehr and Renninger's experiments.

Fehr and Renninger disagreed with Dawkins’s cold conclusion about humanity and suggested that their experiments provided evidence that humans may be born with the potential to be selfless, that “our genes even guide us toward such behavior”. While I don’t think their experiments have shown this, I do agree with their assertion (but based on other evidence).

However, Fehr and co-researchers—rightly or wrongly—went on to state in their article that “a body of evidence supports the notion that Homo sapiens is the only species capable of strong altruism.” This was based, they said, on a significant number of laboratory experiments conducted by economists and social scientists from a new branch of research they called “experimental economics”. I must question this conclusion when absolutely no evidence for this was presented in their article (which focused entirely on human experiments), nor did they provide sufficient documentation for defining “strong altruism” on what is surely a continuum. The article opened with a similar unsubstantiated statement (“humans alone extend altruism beyond kin, frequently helping perfect strangers for no obvious reason.”) The conclusion that animal altruism starts and ends with kin was not proven, nor is it, in my opinion, an accurate assertion. Several anthropologists argue that morality and true altruism are qualities limited to humans as a result of learned behavior and cultural ethics. I found the experiments upon which they based their conclusions less than convincing and ironically came full circle with the cynicism of the Dawkins camp.

Why do we feel the need to exclude the rest of the animal world from this beautiful (and divine) trait, so much so, that researchers make grand claims based on limited to faulty experiments and in other cases overlook other evidence? This, particularly when a significant body of evidence exists to prove otherwise (see my previous post entitled “What Altruism in Animals Can Teach Us About Ourselves”, where I do provide evidence and examples from various researchers).

What are we afraid of?

While I find growing arguments for human innate virtue heartening, I wonder with dismay at our continued exclusionary viewpoint. Why must humans be continually viewed as separate from the rest of the planet? If we’re good then why must we be the only ones that are good? It isn’t a contest…

The authors ended their article with this statement: “In an age of enlightenment and secularization, scientists such as Charles Darwin shocked contemporaries when they questioned the special status of human beings and attempted to classify them on a continuum with all other species. Humans were stripped of all that was godlike. Today biology is restoring to them something of that former exalted position. Our species is apparently the only one with a genetic makeup that promotes selflessness and true altruistic behavior.” (italics are mine).

It is important for us to recognize that ALL life is capable of true altruism, not just humans. Itt is time that we recognize the virtue of the entire planet. It’s time we respect the complex ecological network that is Gaia, and our place in it, if we—and the planet—are to survive. We can be special without it being at the expense of other beings. Surely we are big enough—and special enough—for that.

Several years ago I read an interesting article by acclaimed science author Greg Bear. I knew I was hooked when he ended his first paragraph with: “the touting of one view of evolution, the so-called neo-Darwinian redaction, and its unique labeling as "scientific," and the contrasting of that view with only one other view, Creationism, rankled me.” Here’s what Bear says and it's really all about self-limiting perception:

The "selfish gene" is certainly a valid concept in some instances, but not in the vast majority. Rather, because genes rely on interaction with many other genes-hundreds in some cases-to be effective, they are less like competitive rogues than tame office-workers. The "social gene" becomes a better model. And in fact the social aspects of the genome have been championed for decades by brave molecular biologists and geneticists, including Lynn Margulis.

Altruism in societies [not just human societies] is well demonstrated, and rationally quite defensible. That genes operate in their own societies, and that species both compete and collaborate in those larger societies called ecosystems, functioning as nodes in an extended neural net, makes … cooperation and altruism far more tractable.

…I do not think that we can any longer support random mutation as the sole cause or even the major cause of variation. Darwin himself deliberately avoided subscribing to chance as the sole cause of variation, thus leaving the actual cause to be discovered in the future. Later generations leaped in well before the facts were available, and cemented the hypothesis, slowing the pace of biological discovery by actively discouraging alternatives…

The paucity of hypotheses in biological science may be something of an intellectual crime, perpetrated by academics protecting their own fiefdoms against assault by barbarian unbelievers-hardly an atmosphere in which to raise and tutor new generations of biologists.

These bills are now coming due... "Emergent properties," "complexity," and other buzzwords arouse my suspicions because they could serve to hide our ignorance of the basic processes at work in cells, organisms, and throughout nature-processes very similar to the processes in our own brains. These processes involve the encoding of information in morphologically based neural networks, where the "neural nodes" can range from genes to organisms in a species to species in ecosystems, and the use of that information to alter patterns, structure and behavior.

…A key question is whether genetic processes are formally describable, as some systems biologists believe, or more closely related to natural languages, as some computer programmers believe.

Information theory will be a rich lode for the exploration of all these topics…We know the brain works. We know that ants and bees cooperate to solve problems beyond the individual. We know that bacteria form complex communities, social groupings, as in biofilms, to take advantage of resources or face environmental challenges. Community interaction and problem-solving seems to be a key behavior in nature, as important as competition.

What most researchers are seeing, around the world, is this: Too few genes, too much interaction, too much intergenomic activity, and rapid adaptation, much of it, perhaps most of it, highly regulated and organized…There may indeed be teleological and intelligently directed evolution… DNA itself may be creative, and in its own way, goal-seeking and problem-solving.

What does any of this have to do with altruism and shared altruism in all life? Read again and this time look outward, beyond the limits of your traditional learning.

Greg Bear is a New York Times bestselling author of more than thirty books such as Darwin’s Radio, Quantico, Vitals, Blood Music, the Forge of God, and Mariposa. Bear has served on political and scientific action committees and has advised Microsoft Corporation, the U.S. Army, the CIA, Sandia National Laboratories, Callison Architecture, Inc., Homeland Security, and other groups and agencies.

Nina Munteanu is an ecologist and internationally published author of novels, short stories and essays. She coaches writers and teaches writing at George Brown College and the University of Toronto. For more about Nina’s coaching & workshops visit www.ninamunteanu.me. Visit www.ninamunteanu.ca for more about her writing.