IGMS Issue 44 (22 page)

This is why I get annoyed when people say that
50 Shades of Gray
or
Twilight
are "bad" books.
I
certainly didn't like
50 Shades
, but who the hell am I to say that it's bad? Art is like sex, if it isn't hurting anyone, you've no call to cast aspersions at it.

SCHWEITZER:
So, tell me how the Shadow Ops series started. That's been your big breakthrough so far, it would seem.

COLE:
Nerds do the same thing everywhere we go - asking the "what if?" questions that are the core of genre fiction. I was working at the Pentagon at the time, and I was amazed by how tightly regulated everything was. There was a rule for everything, from how to brush your teeth, to how to write an email. I realized that this was necessary. Billions of dollars in taxpayer resources and the power of deadly force cannot be subject to the whim of individuals. But humans aren't binary. We are chaotic and unpredictable, and that's the best of us. There's no way a web of rules, no matter how complex, can do justice by every single special case. We see this in our own criminal justice system. I don't know much, but I know this: There is
no
 way
any
government would ever allow anything powerful enough to unseat it to exist, unless it was tightly held and regulated. This is certainly what would happen if magic existed. The recent showdown over Net Neutrality is a great example of this. People don't allow powerful things to just exist on their own with open/free use for all. Someone, sooner or later, usually the government, will step in to take ownership.

If magic existed, that's exactly what would happen to it. And if I was going to explore the bureaucracy that would grow up to regulate magic, and the people impacted by that infrastructure, the military was the best place to do it.

SCHWEITZER:
For one thing, I think you might be exaggerating that
Under the Skin
is one of the most critically acclaimed SF films of all time. I confess I had never heard of it. The Wikipedia synopsis does not make it sound at all interesting. I note that its nomination in the category of Best Limited Release/Direct-to-Video film for the prestigious
Fangoria
Chainsaw Award is listed as "pending," but it did not exactly get any Oscars. But seriously, this may be a case where the film had more appeal to people who are ignorant of SF than the genre audience. Either that or they are just hot for Scarlett Johansson.

Sure, art is subjective, but there must be some standards somewhere.

COLE:
That's a slippery slope. No hard metrical "standard" for excellence in the arts has ever been found, despite art being pretty much as old as human sentience. The judgment of art remains hopelessly and utterly subjective, and I really view it as my personal responsibility not to judge it. I'm more than happy to offer my opinion, but I never say that a thing is "good" or "bad." This is true of my own work. I think it's vitally important that there is no "wrong" way to read a novel. A person takes from a story what they take from a story. Once you've written something and released it into the world, you surrender control of the experience to the audience. And
all
experiences are valid.

SCHWEITZER:
As for the Shadow Ops series, you are doubtless one of the first people exploring the military approach to the supernatural. Well, one does think of that outfit Riley worked for on
Buffy the Vampire Slayer,
but you go into more detail. How would the rigidities of the military approach (a regulation for everything) work when applied to something as unpredictable and nebulous as magic?

COLE:
It's sometimes said that I've created a new subgenre in military fantasy, but the truth is that there are a lot of other authors who have been doing it before me (and better). Naomi Novik's Temeraire series (if you haven't read it, you must, it's fantastic) imagines the Napoleonic wars fought with a dragon-mounted aerial corps. The protagonist is a Navy Captain who winds up lateralling into air service, and it is most definitely a very, very military story. Another good example is
The Heroes
, by Joe Abercrombie, which was a major influence in my third novel,
Breach Zone
. The Heroes is a minute dissection of a single battle, taking place over just a few days. The conflict and the belligerents are the heart of the story, it is most definitely organized warfare, and it is most definitely a fantasy.

I think I might be able to lay claim to the idea of
contemporary
military fantasy, but Weston Ochse's
SEAL Team 666
came out just a few months after
Control Point
. With publication dates that close together, you know that the ideas were conceived separately. It takes
waaaay
too long to get a book to market to say that mine influenced his. Tom Doyle now has
American Craftsmen
, and Ian Tregellis has done a few books for Tor mining a similar vein. And that's all fine. It's a big tent. The more, the merrier.

As for the second part of your question, the idea of structure and rote is largely a myth, even in the military. The old adage "no plan survives contact with the enemy" is an extremely inadequate way of describing the military's inability to bring order to chaos. We have a rule for absolutely everything, and many of them are patently ridiculous in the face of the sheer variety of possible scenarios. A great example of this is the intelligence community's approach to information classification. The disclosure of
secret
information would cause "serious" damage to national security. The disclosure of
top secret
 information would cause "exceptionally grave" damage. What does that even mean? Who decides what's serious and what's exceptionally grave? How do you measure it? Where's the line? The answer is: nobody knows. It's as subjective as our opinions on art.

So much of military regulation is aimed at making people feel more comfortable with uncertainty without actually reducing uncertainty. This is the paradox I tried to capture in my depiction of magical regulations.

SCHWEITZER:
What do you look for in a good military story? What tells you right away that this author knows what he/she is talking about? What are the common mistakes?

COLE:
I recently wrote a blog post on this very topic here -
http://mykecole.com/blog/2015/02/nobody-owns-the-military-experience
. I believe very strongly that military engagements and militaries impact
all
segments of society. War affects far more noncombatants than it does combatants, and has tectonic impacts to cultures, economies, and the physical environment. Nobody owns the military experience, and your experience is every bit as "military" as mine is. The only difference is perspective.

I don't look for good military stories, I just look for good stories. The things that people fret the most over: gear specifications, issues of rank, protocol and uniform, how orders are issued and followed, are almost always the things that matter the least and are the most easily forgiven. Stories are, in the end, about people, and getting the people right in their all their intricacies is the most critical part of storytelling, military or otherwise.

SCHWEITZER:
By way of the military and magic, allegedly some years ago the military was studying psi, to see if clairvoyants could locate Russian missiles or whatever. If any of that actually worked, that would be military magic, wouldn't it? Do you ever hear of anyone taking that sort of thing seriously?

COLE:
If I did, it would have been classified, and to discuss it publicly would mean jail time.

It's funny, when I first wrote
Latent
(what later became
Control Point
) I originally had Mentamancy as a magical school. It allowed what we traditionally term "psionic" powers (the ability to read minds and control thoughts). I wound up abandoning it, as it was so powerful that it completely upset my plot. Characters couldn't plot and scheme when they could read one another's minds, and conflict was utterly sapped when all you had to do was just plant a suggestion to control behavior.

Jeff Vandermeer does this very well with his treatment of hypnosis to create an unreliable narrator in his Southern Reach trilogy. I couldn't pull it off in my own work.

SCHWEITZER:
On a somewhat different matter, there are a lot of complaints these days that the SF publishing industry is plowing the same furrows over and over again, selling books to the same readers, rather than reaching out to newer - and younger - ones. I know you have some ideas about how to correct this. Care to expand on that?

COLE:
Actually, my ideas for reaching out to newer and younger readers is more in the arena of fan-run cons, which I see as sclerotic and aging out. These ideas aren't new: The first is the current hard drive toward transforming cons from an old-boys club that tolerated sexual harassment into a safe space for all attendees. The second is moving away from the old panel model, in which 4-5 (and sometimes, unfortunately, more) "pros" in the field sit at a table and discuss some obscure topic with questions at the end. There will always be a place for this, but it has less and less appeal to younger audiences, and it's critical that new ways to engage fandom be found.

The best example of this are the cons that are doing well (growing attendance, greater national and international recognition as a genre focal point) - namely: the Comic Cons and DragonCon. I'd argue that Confusion in Detroit is an example of a fan run con that is doing well, and I think a large part of this is due to the corporate sponsorship from Subterranean Press.

All of these cons have one thing in common: They offer alternatives to the old panel model. Panels are still a part of what they do, but it's just a part, and lots of the panels move off the simple discussion/Q&A format - like Sam Sykes' Author Batsu game at PHXCC, or the Author D&D Game at Confusion, or the huge and vibrant show floors at the Comic Cons. I saw a panel led/audience participation Cards Against Humanity game that I thought was absolutely brilliant. Careful curation and attention to detail in programming and a focus on getting guests who are
relevant
to what is
currently
hot in genre is super important. Too many of the older fan-run cons have their focus fixed firmly in the rearview. Some attention to the classics will always have a place, but it's not going to attract newer and more vibrant audiences.

As for publishing, I think it's doing what it can contentwise. I think the current crop of editors is working hard to find new and vital voices, and commissioning works with different tones. The whole "grimdark" movement that I've found so captivating is a product of a hunger for bleaker, more "honest" fantasy take. I also think that the closer integration of different storytelling mediums (film, TV, videogames and literature) is benefitting all. It's a great time for the genre creatively.

But that doesn't change the fact that publishing is getting its ass handed to it from a business perspective. The problem in publishing is all in the business model, in how they organize and work and sell their product, not in the product itself. The insistence on DRM, the failure to sell digital copies direct to audiences, the wacky idea of digital "territory," the failure to provide digital licenses free with paper copies of books, the list goes on and on and on. The fact remains that publishers are large, corporate entities, and big ships turn slowly. There are a lot of great people working hard to adapt publishing to changes in audience/marketplace, but it takes time. I just hope it happens fast enough to keep the industry vital.

SCHWEITZER:
What's DRM?

COLE:
DRM stands for Digital Rights Management, a system that "locks" an electronic file to a specific platform, preventing it from being copied and read on multiple devices. DRM supposedly keeps your Kindle eBook from being read on a device other than your Kindle or from being copied and distributed for free over the Internet.

The problem is that DRM doesn't work. Google "Crack DRM" and you will find
hundreds
of articles that tell you how to circumvent it in just a few simple steps. Despite this, publishers insist on cleaving to it, even though it patently violates consumer rights (when you buy something, you can do whatever the heck you want with it. It's
yours
), and has been shown to do nothing to stem illegal copying/distribution of copyrighted works.

SCHWEITZER:
Is
it such a good time for creativity right now? I see so many publishers turning out the same thing over and over again, distribution reduced to a monopoly through Barnes & Noble, and, worse yet, so many newer writers (some of them worthy) just giving up on the conventional publishing approach and opting for self-publication, as if the whole New York publishing scene is just an obstacle to be bypassed somehow. What I am afraid of is that the latter-day equivalent of
The Left Hand of Darkness
is going to wind up self-published and nobody will ever discover it.

COLE:
I think it is a good time for creativity insofar as the democratization of content distribution through self-publishing means that there's a much wider range of work available. I recently read a WereHedgehog Erotica novel, and we all know what a sensation
The Haunted Vagina
turned out to be. Look, that stuff doesn't float my boat, but it does for some people, and it's great that there are distribution platforms to get this stuff out there so that the people who want it can find it and consume it.

But the downside of this is a poor signal-to-noise ratio. Curation
is
important, and it is really, really hard to separate wheat from chaff as the number of titles proliferate. Reader review systems that we have in Goodreads and on Amazon are notoriously unreliable (i.e. "the book arrived Tom Doyle now has
American Craftsmen
days after the shipping invoice said it would arrive - 1 star"), and a lot of self-published work is drek. Editors do sometimes functions as the notorious "gatekeepers" they're often accused of being, but the fact remains that they are, by and large, people with decades of experience spotting and massaging great stories and ensuring that the when you pick up a book under the Del Rey, Ace/Roc or Tor label, you've got a much better chance of reading a story that's going to be professional grade.