Brian Bieniowski, Associate Editor

bienowski_big.jpg

Brian Bieniowski is the Associate Editor for Asimov’s Science Fiction magazine and the owner of ambientreview.com. He lives in New Jersey with his wife Bianca. We talked about the future, about ways of living your life, about ambient music and about the end of the world. My interview questions have been removed.

My visions of the future generally concern my own life; its supreme smallness, the drop-in-the-ocean mentality I try to live my life by. I think only a little about the future of mankind, aside from fanciful daydreams, or the stories and dramas of the future I read. I have goals and hopes for my life, but I do try to take things as slowly and meaningfully, on the daily level, as possible. I am a wholehearted believer in personal responsibility for my choices and actions. I try to live intuitively, but not in a haphazard fashion—spontaneous living, but not frivolous, you might say. I feel no responsibility for things like cities, or the future of humanity, though. These things get along fine without me, and will continue well after I’m gone.

I don’t particularly like cities, and it’s why I don’t live in one. I took responsibility by living near the city, but not within it, though it caused me certain hardships, considering my profession. I don’t regret the decision at all.

I started working from home a few days a week recently. My father-in-law came over today and said, "Do your submitters know you are reading their stories on the living room floor, with a cup of coffee, and no shoes?" Well, now they do. I’m in the city three days a week, which is one train ride both ways, lasting under an hour. I walk to work every morning, both in New Jersey and New York City. The train is my bridge between two pretty walks. The City walk is smellier, though. New York has its beauties, there’s no question, but I do find myself constantly comparing it to less crowded and less developed areas.

I love the artist who works in relative obscurity, despite fickle public tastes/opinions. Harold Budd, John Crowley, R.A. Lafferty, Brian Eno, Robert Rich, Moebius—they pursue (or pursued when alive) avenues that are purely their own. I believe that one must press his or her own way in this life, that one must not become a slave to influences, that a person must make his or her own life an example of how things can be done, even if nobody notices, perhaps especially because nobody notices.

One of my favorite quotes ever is by Peter Christopherson from the groups Throbbing Gristle and Coil: "I reckon it’s probably better not to think about anybody in 'heroic' terms at all, but just be polite and, if possible, interesting to all the people you meet. Just treat everyone with the same generosity of spirit, and chances are they will do likewise."

I look at SF as a visionary literature of potentials. SF says, "If humans can get their mess straight, look at what they can do!" It makes men and women consider their best potentials and attempt to achieve them.

I think people who grew up reading SF, who matured through the reading of SF, and who felt a certain way when they read what they experienced as the classics, also feel the drive to engender that feeling in others. By writing their own stories, they’re making attempts at spreading the virus. Still others want immortality within the small pond of the SF world. It’s like Hollywood, but smaller, nerdier, more socially uncomfortable. Of course, I mean that in the best possible way.

I think SF functions like a muse for would-be scientists. Isaac Asimov wrote about robots, some brainy kid loved the stories and went into robotics. It really seems to be just that simple, sometimes. The science and the fiction influence each other in turn; it’s a two-way street. SF gets credit for presaging scientific advancements, and it certainly has, but I think it’s more from the shotgun approach to futurism. Look at classic SF that featured robots, Scientology, cold-fusion powered cities, and hyper-drives. Three of those four concepts are currently bullshit (though the last two are, at the time of writing, unlikely possibilities). If that SF-gypsy fortune-teller told me I was going to get hit by a milk truck tomorrow, I’d take my chances on the street.

Reviewing ambient music can be hard, especially the more formlessly droning releases. Sometimes I feel myself sinking into flowery, descriptive BS as I’m writing. I write the reviews in such a way that the reader can skip the middle paragraph, which consists of winded, pretentious mumbo-jumbo. Funny thing is, my own non-critical writing is nothing like my reviews—I tend to write quite sparely. I’m not altogether pleased with the reviews; I feel as though writing about the music cheapens it, and the writing itself reflects that cheapening. The music is sometimes so free of connotation that I resort to using the same few words repeatedly to describe what only the music itself can express. And, of course, in reading my own reviews, I see the limits of my own writing. It’s still a learning process for me. I’ll quit reviewing one day, perhaps in the next year or two. I’ll hit a dead end with it, that’s for certain.

I feel ambient is the music you turn to when all else seems too fat and unbearable with connotation.

When I consider the end of everything, my life seems brief, and the urge to make the most of that brevity is at its most severe. Humans tend to put connotations on everything, and I love the idea of a world that simply is, without bothering with why. When we’re gone, all of our vulgar constructs, physical and theoretical, are going with us. Good riddance, perhaps. One of my college professors accused me of being anti-intellectual, and to this day I cannot decide whether it was an insult or a compliment.

My vision of the end of life is not unique. I imagine that we will all die off somehow, whether it be through our own stupidity or climactic/astronomical disaster (provided we find no way to leave Earth and colonize other planets). If we do not wreck the place first, the Earth will continue as a constantly roiling, teeming mass of raw life without us, until the Sun finally decides to die. The Universe will continue to whirl, perhaps aimlessly, and we will have been nothing but a footnote of infinity; a short cry in the dark. I can think of nothing more beautiful.


- Interview by K. Thor Jensen

Email This Entry


Comments (18) [rss]

Thorrrrrrrrrrrrrr

last place I thought I'd see you man, but whatever. keep up the awesomeness

WHO ARE YOU? WHO WHO? WHO WHO?

user-pic

it says there are three comments, but only two are registering here- i wonder why the number is wrong. maybe b/c we haven't used the comments script on interview that much i just didn't notice it before.

I miss the Q & A format. We have short attention spans here so it's easy to sift through the interview in a quick and comprehensive manner

Well, you've got a week of this to deal with and then whoever comes up next can bring back the Q&As if they like. I told you I'd be doing something a little different, and this is definitely a reaction to the Krucoff style, where I thought people were kind of being railroaded down certain paths of answering in a certain mode. But that's just me.

user-pic

I am wondering if the first comment is the trackback from Gothamist?

Your reaction to "the Krucoff style" needs some tweaking. If the reader doesn't know what questions were asked, he/she has no context with which to decipher the answers. Instead of making the interview clearer, you've relegated it to a discursive sucession of "I think..." vignettes sans transitions. And that criticism only deals with the readability aspect. Your theory that removing the questions prevents an interviewee from "being railroaded down certain paths" defies logic, I'm afraid. Just because you remove the questions when you put the interview up on the site, doesn't mean that said interviewee felt unencumbered when answering. Does it?

Sure, and that's a good point, and one I did worry about when deciding to go down this route. I suppose clarity wasn't my essential goal in this - I rather wanted to present a portrait of a person who I find interesting as unencumbered a way as possible, even if unencumbered by context - to allow them to create their own singular context. Not the easiest (or best) idea, sure, but one I found interesting enough to try - and you're right, I did certainly try to steer subjects in directions I personally find interesting - what interviewer doesn't? - but my desire in removing questions was more for the reader - to absent myself as much as possible from the result of this process. Whether it's a success or a failure is yet to be determined, but I wanted to give it a try. Thanks for reading and thanks for your well-thought-out points.

user-pic

i think kthor's style is more than occasionally awesome. it makes the point that the interviewee is the subject of the piece- not the interviewer. it boils things down to their essence- perfect.

Point taken. I see where you're coming from, and — in that case — I guess it works. You've definitely removed the interviewer from the spotlight of the interview, which is good (see the Todd Barry interview). Maybe you'll start a new trend: "Larry King Live" will just be "Live" with a person of status next to an empty chair, explaining his/her thoughts and observations.

"I suppose clarity wasn't my essential goal in this"

Well, you've succeeded.

Oh wait I get it -- the interviewer is absent from the interview, because he's in the next room feeding off all the comments that people leave and responding to all of them and talking about the interview style as opposed to the content or something else. Wow, subtle joke!

Heh, I'd rather be talking about the content - I think Brian is an amazing writer with a really beautiful, placid mode of thinking that I find really inspiring. Agree? Disagree?

Also with the responding: whoa, am I ever bored at work.

See, that's why I never particularly liked comments on the interview posts. People should always feel free to speak their mind but they rarely talked about the interviewee and when they did it got nasty and questioned their "worthiness" as a subject. A more appropriate place for that stuff is the Gothamist Forum.

That said, Brian has some fascinating views on life! I always imagined the end of the world would be like the opening credits of the original Space Ghost cartoon where the moon cracked in half and tidal waves destroyed life on earth. Or something like that.

user-pic

I'm enjoying this new krucoff-free feature. Keep it up.

Hey, you're thinking of "Thundarr, the Barbarian"! The moon cracking was my favorite part of the whole opening.

Thanks everyone, for your comments (even if they aren't about the interview, per se), and to K. Thor, for asking me to take part in the first place.

Good to see a fellow Garfield Bulldog gettin' it on in the blogosphere. Thor and I were struggling admins in the silicon alley back in the day. The innerweb is one incestuous place, and I love it. Cheers, Jensen! Best Legs '94, if you can believe it.

this new format is excellent in giving us a snapshot of their brains (the subjects) but just keep it simple so that we can ignore the mumble jumble in the middle as well.

Post a comment (Comment Policy)

Tips

Get your daily dose of New York first thing in the morning from our weekday newsletter, now in beta.

About Gothamist

Gothamist is a website about New York. More

Editor: Jen Chung
Publisher: Jake Dobkin

Newsmap

newsmap.jpg

Contribute

Latest Tip:

too bad gothamist is the only site on the www to view while at work I love the ads - it pays for wh
[more]

Latest Photo:

Subscribe

Use an RSS reader to stay up to date with the latest news and posts from Gothamist.

All Our RSS

Follow us