Saturday, April 26, 2008

Unholy Domain Praised by Top Book Review Site


BookPleasures.com is one of the top book review sites on the net, so I was thrilled with the following review:

For those who read Dan's first novel, "Peacemaker" this will be a must read sequel. For others, it will be a good introduction to Dan's excellent writing skills and an invitation to go and get Peacemaker and look forward to a sequel to Unholy Domain.

Dianne Morgan continues her stop-at-nothing attempts to take control of the whole world through her Domain and is being opposed by an equally ruthless opponent Adam Jordan. Adam tries to mold common man's aversion to technology after the bitter experience with Peacemaker (a ghastly malevolent computer program that was intended to shut down all internet systems and give Dianne power over the world but which was aborted albeit with a huge loss of people and property) into a religious cult and he too stops at nothing to gain control over people (that is the aim of all power hungry people isn't it?). David Brown, son of Ray Brown, a colleague of Dianne is the hero in this sequel, which takes off where Peacemaker ends and we know what happened to Ray Brown in this book. But new readers need not worry since the story is self-standing without reading Peacemaker.

The story is excellently written and the style is as usual gripping. The editing and printing are again excellent. All in all, an excellent read and we are kept anticipating the release of Dan's sequel to Unholy Domain to know what happened to David Brown and to Adam Jordan, whom Dianne succeeds in capturing and whose religious cult is more or less broken thanks to some brilliant technological successes of Sentinel, the next generation Artificial Intelligence System developed by Domain.

Dan's books are disturbing because what he describes is possible and plausible with today's technology. So, if you are either a technophile or a technophobe, read Unholy Domain.


Wednesday, April 23, 2008

The Elements of a Great Thriller


Every once in a while you read a novel or see a movie that keeps you glued to the story with such excitement that you can't turn away until you know how it turns out. Everything is moving so fast, and you're so swept up in rapidly unfolding events that you don't dare leave the story for even a moment. The tension builds; you feel every jolt until a breathtaking climax leaves you exhausted.

That, my friend, is a thriller.

How did that movie grab you by the neck and take control? Why that novel and not a hundred other novels?

There isn't a simple answer. There never is when you're examining a work of art. I don't pretend to know all the secrets of a great thriller, but I've learned a few things I'll share with you.

The first and most important ingredient is emotion. If you don't feel the story in your gut, it's not a thriller. And not just any type of emotion. A great romance can break your heart, but that's not the emotion that fuels a thriller. Not that romance can't be part of a thriller, but it's not the what's-going-to- happen-next excitement of a thriller.

A great thriller builds up to an emotional high that lifts you up and takes you along for the ride. Consider Rick Deckard "retiring" androids in Blade Runner or Clarice Starling hunting Buffalo Bill in Silence of the Lambs. At first we tag along with Rick or Clarice, then gradually bond with them and feel every emotion they experience. They are both vulnerable, flawed characters, but we can feel for them, and ultimately, feel with them. Their highs and lows become ours.

A great thriller is unpredictable going forward and completely logical looking backward. Who would have guessed that a creature would burst out of a guy's chest in Alien? Or that the FBI agent in charge of the investigation would be the killer in The Poet? On the other hand, as you look back, it's believable that this alien creature could be so dangerous or that the FBI agent was the killer.

The plot also features deadlines. If they don't capture the villain soon, something terrible --- an assassination, a virus outbreak, a nuclear explosion - is going to take place. You can almost hear the clock ticking. Or is that your pulse?

A great villain is a necessary part of a first-rate thriller. Perhaps a charming psychopath such as Dr. Hannibal Lecter from Silence of the Lambs or megalomaniac Dianne Morgan from Unholy Domain. The villain must be more than a match for the protagonist, who battles overwhelming odds while in constant danger. A great villain will stir feelings of hatred, fear, revulsion and maybe a little admiration in the reader or moviegoer.

The setting and all the action must be believable. For example, if the action takes place in a specific locale, then all the details (streets, landmarks, major buildings) had better be correct. If bad writing forces the reader to stop believing, then all the air comes out of the story.

And, of course, there is the climax. It must be exciting, unpredictable, resolve the major issues and yet remain consistent with the storyline. Fatal Attraction and Jaws have terrific climaxes that bring the story to a thrilling conclusion.

So that's it --- a few insights as to what makes a great thriller. Difficult to describe, but when you see one, you know it.


About the Author:Dan Ronco is a writer of technology thrillers and near future science fiction. PeaceMaker, his first novel, was published in 2004 and his second, Unholy Domain, will be released March, 2008. Dan mixes visionary ideas with a touch of romance and humor. Learn more about Dan at http://www.danronco.com/

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

A New Golden Age of Science Fiction is Approaching



We live in a wonderful age. Heinlein, Asimov and Clarke would have given anything to experience the brave new world just coming into focus. Robotics, artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, genetics, and more --- yes, it’s all coming true, the wonders science fiction writers have imagined for all these many decades.

It’s great to be alive and writing science fiction. We have unprecedented opportunities to expand our intellect, our imagination and our writing skill, but it requires hard work. There is so much science to learn and so much technology to study, much more so than our idols had to absorb three or four decades earlier. Quite a challenge, quite an opportunity.

Today’s science fiction writer must gain a broad understanding of the areas of science bordering his stories, and a deeper knowledge in fields critical to his work. For example, I try to keep up to date on what’s developing in genetics and artificial intelligence, two fields featured in my novels.

A modern science fiction writer must focus on the timeframe and world (the setting) of her stories. Paradoxically, stories set in the near future generally require more research than those set centuries in the future. Why? A story set twenty years from now must be based upon – or at least not violate --- science as we understand it today. Even though life may be incredibly different, it can’t verge into unrealistic concepts (for the near future) such as teleportation, spaceships ferrying passengers to distant planets, and the like. The science fiction writer must understand generally accepted scientific forecasts for twenty years from now and maintain her story elements within that domain. Otherwise, she leaves science fiction and edges into pseudo-science fiction (generally termed crap), possibly even fantasy.

Science fiction writers also have a greater opportunity to exercise their talents than traditional mainstream writers, who are mired in the present. Worse yet, they seem to take pride in an ignorance of science. This limits story plots and character development to the same old same old. Mainstream writers call it realism; I call it repetition.

Don’t feed me the same old plots over and over again. Look to science, look to technology to provide new angles, new thoughts.

The next couple of decades should become a golden age of science fiction. Science is accelerating into an uncertain future. For example, in genetics and genetic engineering, just think of the possibilities we have to delve into our innermost characteristics. Think of the moral, legal, societal and technical ramifications if science can seize control of the development of human beings. New plots, new characterizations, new settings are possible. All the mainstream story lines are available, multiplied by a multitude of scientific possibilities.

However, the strength of science fiction is also its weakness. Yes, there are many opportunities to be new and different, but these opportunities come with a price: the very newness of these situations make them difficult to write effectively. Where we may be familiar with a mainstream storyline, we have little familiar ground to stand upon for science fiction. Each author is on his own, taking what he can from conventional storytelling, but relying upon his judgment in the new areas. The results might be compelling, but they may also be simple-minded.

We are on our own. I like the opportunity, and I’ll let the readers judge the results.

Saturday, April 12, 2008

#1 Amazon Reviewer rates Unholy Domain Five Stars


I am pleased to report Unholy Domain was rated five stars by Harriet Klausner, Amazon’s top reviewer. This is the latest of a series of favorable comments from authors, reviewers and readers. Unholy Domain delivers all the excitement of a technological thriller while also delving into provocative themes: the bioethics of genetic engineering, the question of what limit (if any) should be placed on technology, the problem of reconciling faith in God and respect for his creation with the technological promises of artificial intelligence, and the age-old issue of family ties and the loyalty of a son to his father.

Following is Ms. Klausner’s complete review:

In 2012, the PeaceMaker virus destroyed the Internet; causing pandemic catastrophes as so much of the world was tied to cyber space with millions dead as a consequence. Over the next decade since this debacle destroyed the global economy, the government has banned the development of new technology outside of what the Feds create. The Technos strongly object to the taboo while the Church of Natural Humans want all technology outlawed.

The Domain has developed new illegal technology with the intention of a coup d’etat to take control of the government; the Church wants to expand its hold on the government. These two groups are ready to take their cold war hot. At the same time David Brown, the son of software guru Ray Brown, the person universally blamed for unleashing PeaceMaker, wants to prove his dad is innocent of these charges. He does not care one iota about the power struggle.

The second PeaceMaker tale (see THE PEACEMAKER) is an exciting follow-up warning to the premise that the destruction of the Internet will lead to many direct deaths and a global collapse exponentially worse than that of the Great Depression. The story line is fast-paced, filled with plenty of action as David (apropos first name) is a human sharing space with two five hundred pound battling gorillas. Although the rampart sexism seems unnecessarily comical and ergo out of place UNHOLY DOMAIN is an entertaining futuristic cautionary thriller.

Harriet Klausner

Friday, April 11, 2008

Are Women Evolving into Male Roles?

My two novels are set slightly into the future: PeaceMaker in 2012 and Unholy Domain in 2022. In the initial planning for these novels, I researched trends in technology and Western culture, with the objective to make the settings realistic. I tested this research against a lifetime of observation, and solicited feedback from reviewers and writers. What I discovered led me to create a balance of power between the sexes in PeaceMaker, while Unholy Domain is dominated by strong females.

It became clear, at least to me, that the two genders were moving toward each other in world view, attitude and actions. Women were becoming more like men and men more like women (but that’s a subject for another time). I don’t claim this is a conclusion based upon rigorous scientific procedures, but however informal, it makes sense to me.

When men think about women, we always focus first on appearance, so let’s start there. Is she pretty? Not too heavy, but with plenty of curves? Soft, pure face of an angel? Those are the questions we asked thirty years ago, and we still ask them today, but the women have changed.

Today’s females are bigger and more athletic than previous generations. Go to any workout facility and what do you see? Plenty of women. And not just doing aerobics, either. Pumping iron, pushups, building their strength against all manner of exercise machines. They’re dropping baby fat and showing off lean, hard muscles. Not that they are becoming bodybuilders (although some do), but they are not the women of your mother’s generation either.

Drive around town and you’ll certainly come across a jogger. What’s the gender most of the time? And she’s probably setting a fast pace, too.

Muscles are no longer solely a masculine domain. Check out the ladies playing basketball or tennis, let alone the boxers. Not a wimp in the bunch. Title IX has opened the door for women to excel at sports, and they are succeeding. You want to see Serena Williams or Mary Pierce getting ready to serve a cannonball at you? I don’t. That doesn’t mean today’s women aren’t as beautiful or sexy as previous generations. I think they look better, actually, with their lean, athletic figures.

Okay, they look different, but what about their attitudes? The way they lead their lives?
Back in the fifties, college was primarily a man’s domain. Now the majority of underclasspeople (did I get that right?) are women. Women mature more rapidly than men and do better in their studies. They graduate at a higher rate and move into the professions. Some would say they’ve swarmed into the professions, shouldering men out the door as they pushed in. A guy risks getting trampled if he holds a door open.

Women start most of the small businesses in North America. Bet you didn’t know that. A few decades ago, if you called your doctor, your lawyer or your accountant, a masculine voice came over the line. Not any longer. It’s more likely the voice will be pitched higher and smoother.
My profession has gone the same way. Most readers and writers seem to be women, at least from what I can see. Pick up a novel at random and the author’s name usually begins with Karin or Nancy or … you get the picture. There are still a lot of us guys turning out thrillers and science fiction, but that’s changing, too.

Remember how, a couple of generations ago, women would spend much of their time searching for a man to marry? When all they wanted was a home, a child and a good husband to take care of them? Well, today’s gals are in no rush to get married. They have options. They think the way guys think. Date, have fun, get some action but don’t rush into marriage. Get the career started, then, maybe, think about family. And keep working. It’s a significant break with the past.

Why have women done so well? Attitude and opportunity. Fifty years ago women were locked out of many of the opportunities men enjoyed, but that’s changed now. With a few exceptions, such as really dangerous or heavy physical work, women can do anything a man can do. And women have just as much determination, courage and brains as men. Combine that with sexuality and they can get where they want to go, maybe with more options than men. Actually, as I think about it, we men are outgunned.

You know, as I look this stuff over, it seems to be generally positive. Yeah, the women are becoming more like men, but that’s better for them and for the guys, too. But there’s a negative side.

When a woman starts a business, she has to work like crazy to make it successful. If she’s a single Mom, what happens to her children? Daycare is usually okay, but it’s not the same as having a full-time mother. If she’s married, the man will pick up some of the slack, right? He’ll try, but remember, he’s got his career, too. And there aren’t many stay-at-home Dads. We discovered that society doesn’t respect a guy who relies upon his wife to be the bread winner.

There are more women in prison than ever before. Just like men, some aggressive, the rules-don’t-apply-to-me women take what they want. White collar crime, violence, sexual predators, the whole nine yards. And what’s going on with these female teachers who seduce their high school, even grammar school, students? This rarely happened way back when. Damn!

Too many women are waiting too long to get married. They’re going out to the bars, drinking, flirting, having sex with any guy that appeals to them. Wait, this was supposed to be a negative. Sorry about that.

Anyway, I think you get the idea. Women are becoming more masculine in Western society, and it seems to be working out, but there have been bumps in the road. And a few potholes. Quite a few.

And so, as I outlined my novels, I decided that the female characters would not be crammed into the stereotypes found in many stories. Take Dianne Morgan, the most dominant character to emerge from my novels. She’s the real mover and shaker, the person driving the action across both books. Dianne is the CEO of a giant software company, a single mother and a self-made billionaire. Sexy, sometimes tender and very determined. On the other hand, she’s violent, erratic, and trusts no one. Fits the description of a masculine villain, doesn’t she (except for the single mother part)?

Dianne is an example — maybe a bit extreme — of today’s alpha woman. With three male partners, she grows a business from startup to giant corporation. She uses all the weapons nature provided to become CEO of the world’s largest software maker. Ray Brown is her key acquisition, a brilliant software engineer who has developed an intelligent operating system that understands the spoken language. Just like the computer in Star Trek. She knows all other software will be made obsolete, so she recruits Ray, then seduces him. He’s married, but business is business. Ray becomes an alcoholic, loses his family, winds up in rehab, but what the hell, Dianne has the software. She actually cares for him, but first things first.

Okay, I admit it, I’m trying to get a rise out of you. I’ve enjoyed thinking about women becoming more like men, and I’d like to hear what you think.

Check out this stunning video trailer for Unholy Domain.

Wednesday, April 9, 2008

Book Review: Prayers for the Assassin



RATING ****

Prayers for the Assassin is a 496 page paperback near-future thriller by Robert Ferrigno published 2006.

Here's the essential problem --- the foundation of the story isn't believable. Ferrigno bases his plot on the idea that the world believes that a nuclear attack on New York City, Washington, DC and Mecca in 2015 is the work of Israeli agents. As a result, most of the USA converts to Islam, with a group of the southern states breaking away to form a Christian nation.

It doesn't ring true. A novelist, particularly someone writing speculative fiction, asks his readers to suspend disbelief, but he has to present a realistic premise. Why would anyone believe that Israel, which depends on America for its survival, would attack US cities and then throw in Mecca for good measure? And even if you believed Israelis were responsible for the attack, why would you lose your faith and convert to Islam?

Nevertheless, I ignored this ridiculous concept and kept reading. The action is set in 2040. Sarah Dougan, a respected historian, isn't convinced it was an Israeli attack, so she begins to dig into the story. When the Old One, the mysterious Muslin actually responsible for the attack, learns of Sarah's investigation, he hires Darwin, a deadly assassin, to take care of Sarah. With the assistance of Rakkim Epps, her secret lover, Sarah races to uncover the true terrorist while Darwin murders just about everyone she contacts.

Once I pushed aside the premise, I found a gripping thriller that kept my interest. Ferrigno should be commended for a balanced portrayal of Islam; even depicting Sarah and Rakkim as moderate Muslims.

Overall, Prayers for the Assassin is a pretty good near-future thriller.

Tuesday, April 8, 2008

Blade Runner Remains a Dark Window to the Future


I watched the Director’s Cut of Blade Runner last night, and, you know, it’s still compelling and relevant. The movie, now a modern classic, provides insights regarding unrestrained capitalism, industrial technologies and most importantly, what it means to be human. If anything, it has grown in status over the years.

Blade Runner, released in 1982, was based upon Philip K. Dick’s brilliant 1968 novel, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. Although sharing common themes, the movie is substantially different, and in my opinion, even better than the compelling Dick novel.

The movie is built around the concept of replicants, which are androids virtually indistinguishable from humans. Their makers, the Tyrell Corporation, live by the motto “more human than humans." Yet, the replicants are basically slave laborers, forced to do the jobs humans don’t want.

The replicants are stronger, more agile and possibly more intelligent than humans. The first replicants were manufactured without memories, so they were much less sophisticated than humans. Later models, however, were given false childhood memories, so their emotions developed along human lines. As the replicants acquired experience and additional memories, they developed a sense of self. This led to a desire for freedom, and from time to time, groups of replicants revolted and killed their human slave masters. Because humanity worried about a large scale revolt, the replicants were manufactured with only a four year lifespan. In addition, they were used for difficult or dangerous tasks off world, and banned from coming to earth. Any replicants on earth were hunted by specialized police officers called blade runners, tracked down and “retired.”

Eco-disaster is the other main theme. In the novel, the ecosystem has been destroyed by war, but in the movie, unrestrained capitalism and the resultant pollution seems to be the culprit. Virtually all the animals and plants on Earth have died out, replaced by synthetics. Owning a live animal is only for the rich; most people purchase synthetic animals. Los Angeles is pictured as dark and constantly raining, a victim of unrestrained human industries.

In the movie, world weary blade runner Rick Deckard is pulled out of retirement to hunt a group of four rogue replicants. The replicants seek to escape from their four year death sentences, and their leader Roy Batty confronts Dr. Eldon Tyrell, the creator of the replicants. However, Tyrell claims that he can’t lengthen their lifespan, and Batty, his hopes crushed, murders Tyrell.

Replicants may be uncovered by the Voight-Kampff machine, which is similar to a lie detector. Deckard tests the machine on Rachael, an advanced type of replicant, who is so human-like, she almost evades detection. In fact, Rachael doesn’t know she’s not human --- she has been loaded with memories of her childhood --- and she is crushed when Deckard reveals the truth. Deckard, in turn, feels empathy for her, a strange emotion for a man who retires replicants. He begins to realize humans and replicants have much in common; the replicants are not mere machines.

One by one, the replicants are retired, until only Batty remains of the original four. Deckard tracks him down, but in a thrilling confrontation, Batty turns the tables and has Deckard at his mercy. Batty spares Deckard and then runs out of time --- his four years have expired.

Deckard is now convinced the replicants are sentient beings equivalent to humans. He has fallen in love with Rachael, and she returns his emotion. The film ends with the two of them leaving his apartment, hoping to escape the blade runner that will inevitably come after them. Not a happy ending, but a hopeful one.

Blade Runner drew me into that gritty world of Los Angeles like few movies ever have. I was there with Deckard, Batty and the rest, experiencing the hopelessness of their lives, hoping this was not the future of our country. Blade Runner suggests that we are destined to be the victims of our own primitive emotions. Not only do we reject the replicant’s humanity, we reject our own. But Blade Runner leaves us with a sliver of hope. If Deckard and Batty can come to terms with each other’s humanity, if Deckard and Rachel can fall in love, maybe we can discover our compassion after all.

Sunday, April 6, 2008

Is Science Compatible with Religion: Discussion Issues

Some things just don't mend. Well into the twenty-first century, we're still facing the same old problem: conflict between religion and science. Most of the conflict is verbal, often quite heated, but at least the faithful and secular sides aren't violent. Much more serious is the warfare between open, democratic societies and the Islamic fundamentalists who hate us.

What's going on here?

Well, whatever it is, it's been going on for centuries. An old song that just keeps playing, even though nobody likes the tune. For example, there's the old standby of evolution versus creationism. Seems like that argument has been with us forever.

Even though we can't resolve the old issues, new ones keep piling on. A good one (well, not really a good one) is the issue of homosexuality. Scientists have concluded that homosexuality is a completely natural sexual orientation occurring in a small minority, caused mainly by genetics. On the other hand, religious conservatives believe that it is an unnatural, sinful state chosen by or taught to the individual.

How do you bridge that gap?

And then there are the emerging issues, the ones just beginning to come into view. These may be the most difficult of all. In Unholy Domain, I attempt to describe the oncoming issue of artificial intelligence versus natural humanity. Pay attention to Adam Jordan, the First Minister of the Church of Natural Humans, speaking to his congregation in 2022:

"Listen carefully to what Lucifer says," Jordan said, his voice cracking. He swallowed, watching the faithful, his passion pressed to the limit. He took a breath, then another. "He offers this bargain: through technology, he will restore our civilization to a greater level of material riches. In order to gain this wealth, you must allow the Technos to create artificial beings, godless abominations that will rule the earth. But even that is just a step along the path to an even viler future. The elements of our human bodies and minds are to be replaced, step by step, with synthetic genes and artificial components. Humans are to evolve into a new species. Technological Man they call it."

"Never," cried a female voice among the believers. Others echoed her cry."Now why is the Devil doing this?" Jordan asked. "Why?" He paused, looking across the crowd. "The reason is simple, yet horrible beyond belief. In this secular world, your soul is your link to God. When the Devil replaces aspects of your humanity with artificial components, he weakens your connection to the Lord. When he inserts a synthetic gene into your body, he disrupts God's plan. At some point, as your humanity shrinks and the artificiality grows, the link to the Lord will be severed. And when the Devil destroys that link, it's gone forever."

Maybe a touch dramatic, but Unholy Domain provides a glimpse of what's just around the corner. It's not pretty, but if we prepare for the conflict, we can mitigate it.

Maybe.

Discussion questions

1. Should we enhance capabilities such as intelligence, athletic ability, beauty or health through gene manipulation or artificial components? If so, who gets the enhancements?

2. Should human cloning be permitted?

3. Should an intelligent robot have the same rights as a human?

4. Does God care if we evolve into a new species?

5. Should we allow artificial intelligence to approach and possibly surpass human intelligence?

Saturday, April 5, 2008

Book Review: Empire by Orson Scott Card

Write What You Know ... Or Know What You Write

Orson Scott Card is a prolific and talented writer of science fiction, and has deservedly gained a legion of fans. With Empire, he left science fiction to write a futuristic thriller, which is a very different animal.

Empire had to be written according to the guidelines for a thriller, and the results were mixed.A futuristic thriller must be consistent with current social and technology trends while making a plausible projection into the future, the story must unfold at a fast pace, the lead characters must be strong and dangerous, there should be plenty of action and suspense, and it must be (pardon the phrase) fair and balanced. OSC succeeds to varying degrees in most areas.

Empire postulates that partisanship between the political Right and Left has gone much too far, leading to the beginning of a new American civil war. An interesting theme, and OSC moves the story along at a good pace with plenty of action. The characters are realistic, if a little too familiar. The giant, robotic-like weapons, however, are pretty standard stuff; more imaginative weapons would have energized the storytelling.

The critical flaw is that the story is not fair and balanced; the conservatives wear the white hats while the liberals are almost all black hat dudes. This is exactly the kind of packaging that OSC warns us against. Nobody has a monopoly on the truth, and we are all mixtures of wholesome and unattractive characteristics and beliefs.

Readers can enjoy a story that doesn't precisely fit their view of life if they feel the author has presented a balanced perspective. Empire failed here. For me, this flaw dragged down a pretty good futuristic thriller to the level of a made for TV movie.

BattleStar Galactica: Unique Science Fiction

In my opinion, three science fiction television series stand head and shoulders above all the rest: StarTrek (the original and all its derivatives), Babylon 5, and Battlestar Galactica. Firefly had potential to join this elite group, but was much too short-lived. Since the final season of Battlestar has just begun, I decided to focus there.

The current Battlestar Galactica is a superb science fiction series. No, that’s too weak a statement, let me amend it. Battlestar Galactica may be the best dramatic show on the tube, regardless of genre. In 2006, BG won the Peabody Award, a first for the SciFi Channel. Time Magazine called it one of the top shows on television and described it as “a ripping sci-fi allegory of the war on terror, complete with religious fundamentalists, sleeper cells, civil liberties crackdowns and even a prisoner torture scandal.”

The current BG premiered in 2003 as a miniseries, loosely based on a show of the same name that ran on television in the late seventies. While the original was a popcorn series, the current BG deals with real issues in times of war. This article introduces the show to those who are not regular viewers, and then describes the difficult issues the series addresses.

The story begins with a devastating attack by intelligent androids (Cylons) that wipes out almost the entire human race except for a few hundred soldiers who escape on Battlestar Galactica, an aging but still powerful military spaceship, and somewhat fewer than fifty thousand civilians in a rag tag collection of ships. BG protects the civilians from the Cylons, who are determined to complete the elimination of humanity. The objective of the humans is to evade the Ceylons and find the mythical planet Earth, which has great religious significance to them. To review the series year by year, check out this article.

The primary characters are Commander William Adama (Edward James Almos), the disciplined, unrelenting military leader; President Laura Roslin (Mary McDonnell), the pragmatic, newly elected civilian who becomes increasingly devout and charismatic during the journey; and Kara “Starbuck” Thrace (Katee Sackhoff), a loud, immature but expert Viper pilot who may have a “special destiny” in the search for Earth. The most interesting character is Gaius Baltar, brilliantly portrayed by James Callis, a scientist with a genius level intellect, but also arrogant, untrustworthy and sexually promiscuous.

I’d like to explore the way torture of the enemy was depicted on the show, and how that relates to our war with the forces of terror. Is it permissible to torture under certain circumstances, but not others? And what is torture, anyway?

The episode which really sticks in my mind is “Flesh and Bone,” where the humans have captured Leoben, a Cylon who has planted a nuclear bomb somewhere in the fleet, which he claims will explode in nine hours. Starbuck has responsibility for the interrogation, and she is told to do whatever she needs to do to locate the bomb. After all, the Cylons aren’t human.

Starbuck is brutal; the guards beat and waterboard Leoben, but he doesn’t crack. Roselin joins the interrogation and stops the harsh treatment. Apparently trusting Roselin, Leoben admits that the bomb was a hoax, a bad move. With nothing to fear, Roselin has him flushed out an airlock into space. He was too dangerous, in her opinion, to keep alive. Starbuck has misgivings about their actions, and she prays for the Cylon.

This episode reminds me of the war between the western nations and the Islamic fundamentalists. Consider this situation: we have captured an Al Qaeda leader and searched his computer, where we found a plan to explode a bomb (not nuclear) in an American city, but the plan does not name the specific city or the time the bomb is set to go off. You are asked to interrogate him, but you fail to obtain the necessary information. Then you’re told that the President has authorized waterboarding, even though legally it is a form of torture. Would you do it?

The prisoner says he knows nothing about a bomb, except for what is described in the plan. He claims the computer was just delivered to him yesterday. Is it permissible to torture a prisoner when you don’t know for sure if he has the information? On the other hand, when will you ever know for sure? If you torture him, are you any better than your enemies? But do you allow a bomb to kill hundreds of people rather than torture the truth from your prisoner? And anyway, is waterboarding really torture? It doesn’t cause any permanent damage, right?

I know where I stand on this; the bastard is going to get wet! Where do you stand?

For additional science fiction articles, videos and book reviews, visit my website.