Obviously, their story is developing along definite lines. There was little or no hint of this in the 'cut' version of DEATH'S HEAD which went to press with GMP, but already, in the restored version, you can get a glimpse of what's in store. These characters think and feel; they have hopes, dreams and dreads. I'd like to see them in plotlines which allow them to explore what they want, what they don't want ... what they can achieve, and why. In STOPOVER there are some very clear indications that the characters themselves are changing — and god knows, you'd expect them to. No real, live human being would go through what they endure, and do it all the time, and not be changed by it. (That's the kind of crapola that happens on network television with tedious regularity. In last week's episode, the hero went limping offscreen behind the end credits with his leg in plaster. This week's episode starts with him water skiing or running down a suspect. Fine and dandy on TV, but anyone who's ever had a broken leg knows that months have gone by between the bone getting busted and the physio telling you it's okay to go sprinting on asphalt. I do understand that TV shows have to conform to a 'status quo' format. I'm not knocking them for it. But it's hardly realistic ... and nor would we want our escapist TV shows to be realistic.)

Oddly enough, the one time a show has tried to be realistic in recent years, viewers didn't like it: Torchwood is full of characters who are rapidly coming unglued. Their cheese is slipping off their crackers, to quote Hawkeye Pierce. Given the work they do, I do believe they'd be halfway around the bend in six months, and the show does a good job of depicting this! Mind you, there's the other side to this problem. It's what you could call the 'Uncle Donald syndrome.' In your nightmare, you're aboard the Titanic., and it's sinking, and you race to the bridge to discover the captain's Donald Duck. Seriously, think about it: the fate of the world, the future of the human race, custody of incredible alien technolgy, is in the hands of people who are rapidly going bonkers. Oooooh, dear.

But I digress! Sorry. Approaching the NARC stories, I had a decision to make. Were the characters going to be locked into the status quo of a TV format? Or were they going to develop realistically? I chose to take the second path, and I think it's worked very well. The characters were already rich in the restored DEATH'S HEAD. By APHELION, they're human. No other word for it. I like them human. I like the romance they share.

Speaking of which, I saw an odd — and to my mind, silly — feature on some internet site in the last couple of months. Someone was insisting that romance, love, would be gone in another century, replaced by sexual encounters. The reasoning was that the higher the level of technology we enjoy, the more it drives us apart. One day, it will be prohibitively expensive for most hetero couples to raise kids: the population problem in the first world will fix itself, because folks can't afford to breed. At the same time, though, they'll be able to afford VR hadware, and the software to feed into their brains, and it's perfectly true, virtual kids don't whine, stink, come home drunk and pregnant, and absorbe all your cash. VR will assuage the parenting urge, and then the romantic urge ... we'll take our vacations in VR, because gasoline is $25 a liter. And we'll become alienated from our fellow humans because real people (warts and all) can't possibly match up to the standards of VR digitoids. The day arrives when we don't fancy real people as partners, and can't be bothered with the rigmarole of romance. As a species, we cut to the chase. Bump into someone, have sex fast, and skeedaddle. You have to admit, it's a thought-provoking scenario. It might be worth a novel, though I have to admit, if I were writing it, it would be about two guys discovering love in a society where everyone else is VR-blinded. (Maybe their VR machines broke down and they had to ... gasp! ... listen to the wind and watch the ocean, till they could get to the store for new ones!)

(Do I think romance will be gone by the twenty-fourth century? I think the game will be played differently, but I don't think a couple more centuries will change (much) an area of humanity which has changed only slowly in a thousand years. (To be clear, here, I'm not talking about the legalities of inheritance, or arranged marriages, or suttee, or women being burned at the stake for wearing trousers! None of that is about romance. My point is that when two people are attracted, and have the time and opportunity to fall in love, those feelings haven't changed.) Four hundred years from now ...? I'd have to hope people will be free to love whom they like, how they like. That's the next major change. And it's slow in coming. A few countries allow gay marriage; a lot more are still dangerous turf for gays. Long before technology renders romance extinct, one would hope that the freedom to fall in love has come along at last! We, today, have the illusion of that freedom, but I think John 'Captain Jack' Barrowman nailed it, in his response to a question fired at him by some journalist or other. Asked if he and his partner were married, he said no, and added, 'Why would I accept marriage from an institution that hates me?' He makes a good point, and here's the rub: church and government are being forced to go in directions they really don't want to. The general population is polled, gay marriage (or at the very least civil partnership) is ratified at the most diplomatic level ... politicians and priests have no choice but to allow it. But they don't like it. The Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard, said on public radio that gay marriage would not be happening in this country during his tenure, because in his mind 'marriage' is something that exists between a man and a woman. And there's no answer to that ... well, there is, but it involves a federal election, and the opportunity to vote somebody in who can see past the rime of ages. After which you hope and pray that the same PM who signed the gay marriage bill doesn't run up a monstrous national debt, get us into a religious war with Indonesia, and fill this country with cheap/dirty nuclear power stations. What a trade-off that would be, and half the population would be asking if it was worth it! Gosh, ain't politics grand?)

Where would I like Jarrat and Stone to go ...? Well, the answer to this is in my mind, in great detail, but I'm keeping it to myself for the moment. A lot depends on well-received APHELION is. In the end, it's all down to readers! On that note, I'll close here and urge you to download the sample chapters and enjoy!