what you see here are panelists in the middle of a waking nightmare.

they have just realized that they have been volunteered for a subject in which they have no particular interest or topical knowledge. this is the panel on new directions in space opera, and no one has actually read a space opera in the last ten years. aaron de orive made a passing reference to the resurgence of this particular subgenre, but only because he began the discussion by quoting the wikipedia. 60 minutes of noodling over the definition of space opera followed. last year, at this exact same panel, charles stross neatly sidestepped that particular issue by defining space opera as any book that could reasonably have an exploding spaceship on the cover.

iain banks was mentioned by an audience member, but the panelists declined to comment. charles stross’s name wouldn’t have come up at all if i hadn’t asked the panel to comment on stross’s contention from last year that contemporary english space opera was a reaction against the cultural regression of early examples of the form. hey, it was the only question i could think of.

i commend the panel however on making the best out of their situation. james hogan deserves special recognition for a performance of wit and verve. he gets two gold stars for the pun "barbarella of seville." remember, it’s not what you know, but how amusing you can be while not knowing it that counts.

but why all the hostility against the term ‘space opera’? this reporter tends to agree with jessica reisman’s comment: "it’s such a lovely term." let’s call it a surreal oxy-moron, like ‘chick magnet’ or ‘pineapple smoothie.’