How programming made me a better writer

          I'm learning Python. Most people are. 'Learn to code', they said. So here we are. What I didn't expect is how learning a digital language would help me wield the analog ones.
          As Stephen King explained in his 2000 partial autobiography 'On Writing', putting words on the page amounts to "telepathy, of course." You take an abstract thought or emotion in your head, you express it using words and syntax. You then offer these words to others for them to use to reconstruct that thought or emotion in their own heads. Do it right, and telepathy it is. More importantly, it is also coding.
          When you code, you learn to define things in the right order so that the computer will not be confused. You learn to build your code in modules that connect together, to link sections of your code to others so that they may effect recall, influence each other and work together to deliver the experience that you are aiming for. Much of this is also true in fiction.
          What coding really helps you do as a writer is structure your story, down to the sentences. When you write with coding in mind, you keep things clear for your audience. This makes sure to avoid what Alfred Hitchcock defined as "one of the fatal things (...) to have a mind that is confused. Otherwise the audience won’t emote." Coding connects you to emotions. How about that?
          Another thing that coding forces you to do is to take the big picture into account. You can't just start writing code and discover your program as you go, which is how a lot of fiction is written. I believe this takes tremendous time and effort, which could be spent more productively on planning and structure. Coding must be planned from beginning to end in order to function properly. If you plan your story in the same way, taking into account how each portion of it, or scene, connects to the others, in the right order, in the right way, then I believe your story will improve drastically. Big picture before details, and pennies will take care of themselves.
          Now, everyone has their own technique that works for them. This must be respected. However, one can also consider alternatives along the way. By being open to new solutions, you might just find an aspect of the craft that eluded you thus far. And when you do, it will make you a better writer.
          Coding is a language. Learning to code is learning to speak to a computer. Since computers are starting to become intelligent, shouldn't we all consider how coding can help us communicate better with each other?
          Feel free to comment on this at your leisure. I look forward to your thoughts.

WESTWORLD and the robotic gene

Watching the pilot episode of the incredible HBO series WESTWORLD yesterday made me ponder our relationship with machines. It's complex, deep and interdependent. In many ways, it is human. In many others, it's artificial. But artificial and real can co-exist.

My latest novel BLUE GENE explores the internal conflict that springs from having a randomly occurring synthetic gene alter a teenager's brain and morph it into a biosynthetic blend of man and machine. It's hard to trust something that you don't understand, but when that something is inside your head, well, you don't have many places to turn to.

Trust and faith are interconnected in that sense. Trust ends where faith begins. You choose to believe in something that you don't necessarily trust, since you can't fully comprehend its ramifications. You develop faith as a need to trust something that implicitly doesn't provide any evidence to do so. You believe, because you choose to. Others may choose differently. Machines are no different.

In WESTWORLD, the machines are the ones we empathise with due to the treatment they suffer at the hands of us humans. In BLUE GENE, I tried to inject a sense of doubt about whom to feel deepest empathy for. A young boy finds himself turned into a half-breed, a combination of organic and synthetic brain tissue that gives him abilities that he doesn't want and attention that he doesn't seek. A highly advanced android offers to help him reach his full potential while covertly coveting his hybrid cortex, eager to become human himself. Who is right? Are we still the dominant species if we are no longer the most powerful one?

There are already products and solutions available to merge your body with machine appendages and enhancements. This postulates that our definition of humanity lies not in our body but in our mind, and most importantly in the seat of our consciousness. This means that a synthetic robot with a human brain would still be human. Robocop is no longer a fantasy, more like a long term plan.

Could we fall in love with a machine? I believe so since, when we are feeling vulnerable, we remain so eager to believe that the faked emotional response we see in others is true, despite all evidence to the contrary. Finding this response in a robot would surely let us develop feelings for the things, and behave accordingly. Some people love cats, don't they? Same thing.

I believe in machines. I believe that they will pull us forward, away from the Middle Ages, the Industrial Age and the Information Age, into the Intelligence Age. We will focus on intellectual pursuits, striving to outdo and outrun artificial thought. Our physical activity will be delegated to machines, leaving us free to explore virtual realms. We will push our consciousness farther than ever before. We will learn from machines as they learn from us. We will compare creative achievements with them, seeing them as artistic voices akin to our own. We will forge this path together.

And it will be... synthetically beautiful.