What do you think?
Rate this book
Oral Argument
We’re thrilled to have the opportunity to publish internationally bestselling author Kim Stanley Robinson’s first stand-alone short story in 25 years.
In it, we get a glimpse of a very green future through the lens of a Supreme Court transcript.
In it, we get a glimpse of a very green future through the lens of a Supreme Court transcript.
16 pages, ebook
First published December 7, 2015
About the author
Kim Stanley Robinson
234 books7,008 followersKim Stanley Robinson is an American science fiction writer. He has published 22 novels and numerous short stories and is best known for his Mars trilogy. His work has been translated into 24 languages. Many of his novels and stories have ecological, cultural, and political themes and feature scientists as heroes. Robinson has won numerous awards, including the Hugo Award for Best Novel, the Nebula Award for Best Novel and the World Fantasy Award. The Atlantic has called Robinson's work "the gold standard of realistic, and highly literary, science-fiction writing." According to an article in The New Yorker, Robinson is "generally acknowledged as one of the greatest living science-fiction writers."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews
February 6, 2018
“Oral Argument” is a stand-alone SF short story by well-known author Kim Stanley Robinson, amusingly presented as the transcript of one lawyer’s oral argument presentation to the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS).
He’s repeatedly interrupted with questions from the justices, but the story doesn’t include their questions or comments, only the lawyer’s responses. It’s a humorous story, but with serious undertones.
It begins with some rather dry and difficult to comprehend discussion by the lawyer of biochemical DNA engineering (a cursory review disclosed that biobricks and plasmid backbones are, in fact, actual genetic engineering concepts, but that’s as far as I cared to delve into the underlying science). The story became more interesting when it finally discloses exactly what the SCOTUS argument — and the once-patented technology — was about, and why the government is so exercised about this technology’s effects on the economy.
In the end this story devolved into a criticism of our legal and judicial system, as the lawyer repeatedly throws back into the court’s face positions that the justices have taken in other cases. As a lawyer, I found it diverting that the lawyer’s critique of the court’s position has its roots in real-life present-day Supreme Court opinions, although one could certainly argue that those positions were over-simplified by Robinson for the sake of making his point.
**spoilerish scientific discussion below**
Additionally (and disappointingly!), scientists believe that enabling humans to photosynthesize actually wouldn’t be particularly helpful as a food or energy source. Synthetic biologist Christina Agapakis has been quoted as saying, “Animals need a lot of energy, and moving at all doesn’t really jive well with photosynthesis. If you imagine a person who had to get all of their energy from the sun, they’d have to be very still. Then, they’d need a high surface area, with leafy protrusions. At that point, the person’s a tree.” Still, it’s an intriguing concept (maybe someday scientists will discover ways to magnify the power of photosynthesis...), and I enjoyed this story despite its flaws.
Free online at Tor.com.
Art credit: Ann Telnaes.
He’s repeatedly interrupted with questions from the justices, but the story doesn’t include their questions or comments, only the lawyer’s responses. It’s a humorous story, but with serious undertones.
It begins with some rather dry and difficult to comprehend discussion by the lawyer of biochemical DNA engineering (a cursory review disclosed that biobricks and plasmid backbones are, in fact, actual genetic engineering concepts, but that’s as far as I cared to delve into the underlying science). The story became more interesting when it finally discloses exactly what the SCOTUS argument — and the once-patented technology — was about, and why the government is so exercised about this technology’s effects on the economy.
In the end this story devolved into a criticism of our legal and judicial system, as the lawyer repeatedly throws back into the court’s face positions that the justices have taken in other cases. As a lawyer, I found it diverting that the lawyer’s critique of the court’s position has its roots in real-life present-day Supreme Court opinions, although one could certainly argue that those positions were over-simplified by Robinson for the sake of making his point.
**spoilerish scientific discussion below**
Additionally (and disappointingly!), scientists believe that enabling humans to photosynthesize actually wouldn’t be particularly helpful as a food or energy source. Synthetic biologist Christina Agapakis has been quoted as saying, “Animals need a lot of energy, and moving at all doesn’t really jive well with photosynthesis. If you imagine a person who had to get all of their energy from the sun, they’d have to be very still. Then, they’d need a high surface area, with leafy protrusions. At that point, the person’s a tree.” Still, it’s an intriguing concept (maybe someday scientists will discover ways to magnify the power of photosynthesis...), and I enjoyed this story despite its flaws.
Free online at Tor.com.
Art credit: Ann Telnaes.
August 25, 2017
Quite interesting subject, but the novelty and beauty of this short story was the interesting approach on the narrative, seeing just one side of the dialogue and having to imagine the other party's lines.
March 25, 2016
No, I don’t know where they are. But if I did, that would be a matter of attorney-client privilege.
Spokesperson confidentiality, yes. Like protecting my sources. That’s what I meant to say.
I do know what contempt of court means, yes. I brought my toothbrush.
No, I’m happy to answer any questions you have. Really.
One sided transcript of oral questioning at the Supreme Court. Started out promising, but ceased to be a story and became grandstanding about politics. I gather the author does not appreciate the way Citizens United v. FEC was decided by the US Supreme Court. I gather also that the author has no grip on how the Supreme Court works; I believe this type of hearing would actually be held by Congress. I also gather that the author has a rather remarkably poor grasp of economics. Anyway, I'm throwing this one in the avoid pile. A rare disappointment from Tor.
Spokesperson confidentiality, yes. Like protecting my sources. That’s what I meant to say.
I do know what contempt of court means, yes. I brought my toothbrush.
No, I’m happy to answer any questions you have. Really.
One sided transcript of oral questioning at the Supreme Court. Started out promising, but ceased to be a story and became grandstanding about politics. I gather the author does not appreciate the way Citizens United v. FEC was decided by the US Supreme Court. I gather also that the author has no grip on how the Supreme Court works; I believe this type of hearing would actually be held by Congress. I also gather that the author has a rather remarkably poor grasp of economics. Anyway, I'm throwing this one in the avoid pile. A rare disappointment from Tor.
March 24, 2016
A transcription of a special hearing in a Supreme Court. Witty, funny and unusual, the narration is somewhat unexpected – questions from the judge are missing, only the lawyer’s answers are presented. KSR never disappoints.
You can enjoy it here: http://www.tor.com/2015/12/07/oral-ar...
You can enjoy it here: http://www.tor.com/2015/12/07/oral-ar...
January 1, 2016
An amusing and imaginative short.
June 22, 2020
A nice little story by Kim Stanley Robinson, about a lawyer defending a certain group of people who strive for a greener economy and lifestyle. The questions by the Court were omitted, so you only get to read the answers, which are also critical about how courts in the USA (seem to) work.
Free to read on Tor.com, click here to access it.
For a more detailed review, I'll just link to Tadiana's: see here.
Free to read on Tor.com, click here to access it.
For a more detailed review, I'll just link to Tadiana's: see here.
November 24, 2023
Critique of SCOTUS in here feels even more relevant, 8yrs later…
April 3, 2017
Kim Stanley Robinson describes a very green future indeed. Interestingly, he works out a science fiction concept I first encountered when reading about the neohumans in The Possibility of an Island, and I think maybe the neohumans in Oryx and Crake used it too. But I like KSR's version best, in the old stories it was always something that could only be bred into future generations, but KSR realizes there's actually an ancient technique that might allow any old human to incorporate one of nature's greatest innovations into their body. The economic consequences of such an act are also explored and found to be quite uplifting.
December 21, 2015
A one sided legal conversation that starts off kind of interesting, becomes rather smug, devolves into blatant sociopolitical commentary, and finishes extremely smug.
http://www.tor.com/2015/12/07/oral-ar...
http://www.tor.com/2015/12/07/oral-ar...
Read
March 16, 2016Una muy interesante historia de ciencia ficción escrita en forma de transcripción de una declaración de un juicio.
March 16, 2016
2.5/5.0
Shelved as 'coletâneas-coletados'
February 3, 2024Li aqui, marquei lido aqui: Some of the Best from Tor.com, 2015 edition.
Sabe que uma vez eu escrevi um conto bem nesse formatinho: uma conversa entre duas pessoas, mas a gente só lia uma das partes. Mas sobre a história em si, eu gostei mas quase que não gostei. Achei interessante a ideia de pessoas fazendo fotossíntese, mas às vezes acho que alguns autores vão muito longe pensando nas consequências dos argumentos das histórias. Claro que se acontecesse de verdade talvez seriam coisas a considerar, mas eu particularmente não estou muito interessada em consequências tão calcadas na realidade.
Sabe que uma vez eu escrevi um conto bem nesse formatinho: uma conversa entre duas pessoas, mas a gente só lia uma das partes. Mas sobre a história em si, eu gostei mas quase que não gostei. Achei interessante a ideia de pessoas fazendo fotossíntese, mas às vezes acho que alguns autores vão muito longe pensando nas consequências dos argumentos das histórias. Claro que se acontecesse de verdade talvez seriam coisas a considerar, mas eu particularmente não estou muito interessada em consequências tão calcadas na realidade.
October 22, 2018
This would make for a great black mirror episode.
November 4, 2021
Three stars only bc so short
October 18, 2016
Great little read for the lawyer in you.
May 13, 2016
Fictional voices emulate the voices of many forms: journals, letters, notes, scientific treatises etc. As the title implies, this vignette is an oral argument to a court case and a one-sided one at that, as they are.
The lawyer is cagey about his representation of his clients that aren't present and surprisingly familiar and increasingly sassy with the justice trying the case. It's through the lawyer's interrupted argument that the judge's comments can be reasonably puzzled out.
The case involves a patent sought and later rejected for a human experiment in photosynthetic tattooing. Barely any of the science fiction undertones to the nature of the case comes to light in the argument. Nor do the ramifications of the experimenting that has landed the case in court, though the lawyer admits that deaths have occurred. The lawyer keeps his argument on the legal standing of the patent providing precious little story.
This tale appears in The Best Science Fiction and Fantasy of the Year, Volume 10 edited by Jonathan Strahan. I received this new anthology from Netgalley.
The lawyer is cagey about his representation of his clients that aren't present and surprisingly familiar and increasingly sassy with the justice trying the case. It's through the lawyer's interrupted argument that the judge's comments can be reasonably puzzled out.
The case involves a patent sought and later rejected for a human experiment in photosynthetic tattooing. Barely any of the science fiction undertones to the nature of the case comes to light in the argument. Nor do the ramifications of the experimenting that has landed the case in court, though the lawyer admits that deaths have occurred. The lawyer keeps his argument on the legal standing of the patent providing precious little story.
This tale appears in The Best Science Fiction and Fantasy of the Year, Volume 10 edited by Jonathan Strahan. I received this new anthology from Netgalley.
December 8, 2015
This story didn't work for me. It's supposed to be a one-sided Supreme Court transcript, but it in no way read like one. And the core idea fell flat for me, because my recollection is that the actual energy requirements are such that photosynthesis alone cannot provide them, and the story did nothing to address that question.
December 25, 2015
"What it comes down to is that my sometime clients, using nothing but synthetic parts found in the Registry of Standard Biological Parts, created photosynthesizing human cells." Very funny and thoughtful, with something to say about the current financial situation/crisis. Michael Hudson will love it.
January 21, 2016
An excellent thought provoking story. Exactly what science fiction should be all about. If this is indeed the author's first short story for 25 years, we have been missing a lot of good fiction over the years!
April 4, 2016
A short sci-fi story and a political commentary, set in a not too far future. It is a fictional transcript of a supreme court case, and I will not say more to avoid spoilers. Humorous and well-written, this is probably one of the best stories I have read so far this year.
May 29, 2016
Fun short story by my favorite science fiction author. A brief tale involving patent law and biotechnology, what could be better! :). I'm assuming this will tie into his next novel coming out in 2017.
December 7, 2015
3.5
It was really interesting and I found that the idea behind it was great. However I thinl tthat it was too short, even for a short fiction. Maybe that's because I don't read a lot of it.
It was really interesting and I found that the idea behind it was great. However I thinl tthat it was too short, even for a short fiction. Maybe that's because I don't read a lot of it.
February 26, 2016
Fascinating idea of a future where people can photosynthesize through the use of chloroplast tattoos, and the economic trouble that causes. The execution was fun, but a little gimmicky for me.
December 18, 2015
There's a decent story here, but the format of it just didn't work for me.
November 13, 2016
Cute story in the form of a very funny Supreme Court transcript, in which a lawyer argues for the continued use of photosynthetic tattoos. don't let any of the previous sentence throw you, this is a very funny entertaining and enlightening story.
May 24, 2019
Oral Argument is a one-sided tale, told only by the voice of the lawyer arguing in front of the Supreme Court. The reader does not hear any of the statements or questions of the justices, and are only guided through the story by the lawyer's argument and responses. He's representing a firm that has successfully bioengineered photosynthesizing human cells. There's the technical explanation of the what and how and where, followed by some political and ecological jabs at the legal system. Overall, it's a cool story told in a fun way. Enjoyable!
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews