Future Library (Margaret Atwood, Denizen #1)

A library is growing in Norway.

The Future Library is a time-capsule project, of sorts. A thousand trees were planted in a Norwegian forest this summer, to be harvested in a century's time. Every year until the day of the reaping, a different author will be invited to contribute a story to this library. The catch? The story will remain unread until these trees are made into the paper on which these works will be printed. The writers who contribute towards the beginning of the century won't likely live to see their books published. And that's sort of the point. In a hundred years, none of the originators of the project will be around to see its completion.

It'll be interesting to see what authors end up participating. It takes a certain sort of writer to produce a work that will likely be published posthumously, and to be happy with having completed it, without any notion of where it might stand in public opinion or among literary critics. It's fitting that the first contributor to the Future Library is Margaret Atwood; a science fiction writer is likely to agree with the notion of art as time capsule for future generations.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/sep/05/margaret-atwood-new-work-unseen-century-future-library

Her story about the "lost" Haida manuscript in the above Guardian article is particularly apt. Who knows how language might change in a century? We certainly think differently than our ancestors did in the early 1900s. We find references to iceboxes and horse-drawn carriages archaic, for example, and there are many words that have disappeared from common usage in the past hundred years. It begs the question of whether authors who are consciously writing for the future, without the preconditions of a contemporary readership, would choose to write differently. To what extent, after all, does art demand and audience?

I am reminded (as I often am) of the Percy Shelley poem "Ozymandias," as well as of Faulkner's Nobel acceptance speech. The Future Library seems simultaneously an endeavour without ego and perhaps the greatest projection of self-preservation instinct an author can have.

I suppose we'll have to wait and see.

The Guardian: Beijing Pilots Recycle-to-Ride Public Transit Program

This seems like a clever idea and incentive structure to address a very specific recycling problem, that of discarded plastic bottles, which cumulatively represent a significant threat to the environment (see the Great Pacific Garbage Patch):

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jul/04/beijing-recycling-banks-subway-bottles

One of the crucial elements of any mass behavioral shift is the incentive structure. Unfortunately, the average human being's sense of morality or duty doesn't stand up well to repeat inconvenience, if the inconvenience in question doesn't tangibly benefit him. (People are generally willing to perform isolated acts of kindness or charity, even if against greater obstacles, in large part because these incidents seem out of the ordinary and don't connote repeat obligation.)

This system set in motion in Beijing has two obvious advantages. One is the instantaneous reward mechanism: the recycled bottles are converted to currency at the station, and the currency can be immediately used to ride the subway. It doesn't require the average person to go out of their way or alter their routine; it can be as simple as recycling your empty water bottle at the end of the day as you head home, or taking your recycling to the subway station in the morning when you leave for work.

The second is that it also incentivizes the transit authority (and thereby the municipal government) to more aggressively promote recycling. Prior to the implementation of this infrastructure, the transit authority would only be motivated to encourage recycling for environmental reasons; citizens' recycling benefited the PET recycling industry, but not the government. Now, because the transit authority would be earning money through this new program (funds which presumably help pay for operation and maintenance of the subway system), there is a direct incentive for the government to encourage recycling.

Obviously, there are some kinks to be ironed out, such as ensuring that the machines themselves operated efficiently and that the bottles collected would be processed at an acceptable environmental standard. As a collection mechanism, however, this seems like a great idea to promote environmentalism that also makes economic sense. I can't wait for the MTA to install some bottle-recyclers of its own; perhaps this would also reduce the number of track fire delays (usually caused by trash thrown onto subway tracks).

R.I.P. Ray Bradbury

He died this week (on the 5th). The New York Times obituary:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/07/books/ray-bradbury-popularizer-of-science-fiction-dies-at-91.html?_r=1&ref=arts&gwh=DAB304701677810DA93A673A1510F1D2

I first learned of it from Neil Gaiman's blog, actually. He was tapped to write a tribute piece in The Guardian, and he paints a beautiful portrait of this science fiction maestro:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/jun/06/ray-bradbury-neil-gaiman-appreciation

We all knew that Bradbury was a pioneer of the genre. We all admired his skill, his imagination, his understanding of human nature. This reveals a side of him that, sadly, many of us never encountered -- the genuine, kind human being. People like that are precious.

Here's another:
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120608-meeting-the-master-ray-bradbury

I love his devotion to the book as an object (something I'm more than a little afraid that e-readers will kill off), especially seeing as he was a science fiction writer. (I have an e-reader, but I feel the same way about books, which increasingly makes me appear a troglodyte among my peers.) I love his enthusiasm. And of course, as Gaiman so eloquently depicted it, his kindness.

Rest in peace, Mr. Bradbury.

Ten Rules for Writing Fiction

Writers share their personal sets of ten(ish) rules for writing fiction:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/feb/20/ten-rules-for-writing-fiction-part-one

It is rather interesting that the rules are so different for each author. This is a pretty hard-hitting list (Neil Gaiman, Margaret Atwood, Geoff Dyer, &c.). Goes to show that it doesn't really matter how you write, as long as you do it well.