© 2003-2006 David Moles
Chrononautic Log |
May 29, 2005L’affaire Campbell12:52 PM, Sunday, May 29, 2005
|
| Comments (7) |
May 28, 2005Moderation in all things: Liveblogging the sex panel9:20 AM, Saturday, May 28, 2005I wasn’t going to do this, but I just want to note that we’re fifteen minutes into this panel and the alleged moderator is still talking. The other panelists have been allowed to say, literally, no more than their names. Ah, moderation. Update: 10:20. Still talking. Update: 10:27 — Okay, Ben’s getting to talk now. Update: 10:35— I wish I could type half as fast as Ben can talk. At least I can capture this book recommendation: Raising Cain: Protecting the Emotional Life of Boys, Dan Kindlon & Michael Thompson. “Even inside feminist discourse, there’s often this thing about protecting women — this baseline idea that women are fragile. It’s interesting to me that it’s a relatively radical thing to talk about men being fragile.” Update: 10:37 — Ian’s turn: “I have never actually seen ‘friends with benefits’ lumped with domestic violence before.” “Whenever I run across things like ‘all X are Y’ I start to itch.” “I’m a member of the SM community in Seattle, I see a lot of things that are really concerning, I talk to the people involved and they’ve negotiated whatever they need to negotiate . . . in that community, the idea of consent is really important — if you’re doing something and the neighbors call the cops, and you need to explain something, you really need to have that stuff worked out ahead of time.” “Men, taken as a group, act violently towards everybody — of course, as a person of color, I think white people, taken as a group, act violently towards everybody.” “I certainly think that boys and men are a good place to start in terms of avoiding rape . . . [But] I don’t think that useful, nuanced conversations about privilege can happen while only talking about one privilege at a time.” Update: 10:46 — Joe is channeling Anne Harris, suggesting talking about the cultural construction of maleness. “One of the ways I think of my work is translating radical feminism to males.” “How do we teach that explicit consent is hot, and not ‘not hot.’” Update: 10:47 — Mary Anne: “I’m interested in the next generation of the problem. I’ve mostly dated sensitive New Age guys. They’re really well trained, they’re inculcated with this. They’re really paranoid, really scared that anything they might do that’s the least bit pushy might be rape, or lead to rape . . . I’d like to hear the panel address that, and also, this question of . . . it feels to me like feminism has appropriated a lot of the traditional male virtues, such as strength, the ability to take care of yourself, the ability to take care of others. I think that’s great. But at the same time I wonder what men are left with. How are the sensitive new age guys defining themselves, how do they navigate that?” Ben: “Going from a perspective of ‘what’s to work on?’ to this perfect prince — and how frustrating this was for her — how my inability to stand up for myself is what led to the end of the relationship . . . This story’s also the story of a series of women taking me in hand and going, um, no . . . Okay, I need to make people do what I want . . . then you renounce that power, and you’re left with no power, and that's not really very interesting for anybody . . . It has a lot to do with trusting the power of the other person, that I need to be neither dominant nor protective . . . that I didn't need to give in just because I needed to be gallant.” Mary Anne: “The problem with gallant is that it assumes power in the same way.” Ian: “The standard sort of redneck white guy response to feminism: They’re taking my power away — is correct. That’s something that needs to be kept in the forefront — there needs to be a conversation about empowerment rather than over-powerment. Without that, there’s not going to be buy-in . . . there’s not going to be movement, or there’s only going to be movement among us sensitive new age guys . . . or those of us who like getting laid enough to hang out where women are empowered enough that we can get laid a lot . . . . In order to be empowered, people need to be able to say yes and they need to be able to say no. ‘Not right now’ can mean not right now, and not never . . . it can mean ‘Ask me later’ and not ‘Not you, not ever.’ Freedom is the ability to choose, and anything less isn’t the world I want to live in.” Joe: “Nice guys haven’t reproduced . . . The boys in the world I go into do not see options for masculinity.” Update: 11:03 — Ben: There’s an easy heuristic to tell if you’re asking in a way that people can say no — they sometimes say no. Ian: “Men are expected to make the first move . . . and that’s a power disadvantage. I never make the first move, and that's a stance I’ve taken — of course it helps that I’m good looking. I don’t know if my standard would work for everybody. For most people . . . the real situation is, if I want to get laid, I have to make the first move, I have to risk rejection — and everybody really likes to risk rejection. . . . Feelings are facts. Remedial sex education problematizes anger. Sometimes anger is a problem, somtimes anger means someone has violated your boundaries. It’s not always a case of ‘I feel afraid, but I can’t feel afraid, because I’m a boy, I have to feel angry because anger is a safe emotion.’” Ben: “There’s this thing, whether it’s cultural or biological, boys like things to be loud and fast and go boom . . . There’s a distinction between two kinds of violence, and they're conflated. As a kid, I was never very violent . . . then as an adult I started playing rugby, and I really liked hitting people . . . you really need to distinguish between violence ‘overriding someone’s boundaries without consent’ and the dictionary definition . . . you look at the dictionary definition of violence and a lot of it’s about being loud and sudden.” Ian: “There need to be many models — there needs to be a continutity of models.” Ben: “It’s interesting that women can talk much more easily about whether and when and how they like or don’t like sex. With men . . . if you’re not able to say no to something, you’re not really able to say yes either. There’s so much at stake for men. Men’s attention is often not so much on having sex as on having done her.” Update: 11:20 — Audience member: “It is much harder to take hold of someone’s hand than it is to make a pass at them.” [wiscon]
|
Epicity6:33 AM, Saturday, May 28, 2005Susan and I are pleased to announce the table of contents for Twenty Epics.
|
May 25, 2005For those who missed the first announcement10:40 AM, Wednesday, May 25, 2005. . . buried as it was by the e-piracy dust-up: both Part One and Part Two of “Planet of the Amazon Women” are now on line, just in time for WisCon.
|
May 24, 2005Solipsistic hallucinations and calls to action, or: if it's incredible, it must be mainstream1:14 PM, Tuesday, May 24, 2005If it’s Tuesday, it must be time to bring up Margaret Atwood. Okay, normally, I wouldn’t want to bring up Margaret Atwood twice in the same month, but this little Valve piece, “The Canadian SF ‘Canon’ and the Vexing Case of Margaret Atwood,” by Miriam Jones, says some kind of interesting things along the way. Atwood’s plot relies too much on the actions of individuals. This was no doubt her intent: to create characters who are impelled to disrupt the mass consensus under which they live. However, in credible contemporary science fiction — as distinguished from space opera or adventure stories — the world is neither saved, nor destroyed, by isolated hero(ine)s or mad scientists. In this novel, not only do individual actions have irreversible global consequences, but individual actions in a social vacuum. It is more a solipsistic hallucination than a call to action, no matter how many books about the ecology Atwood recommends on the McClelland and Steward Website. Ah, those hallmarks of the mainstream, the isolated hero(ine) and mad scientist. Where would we be without them? (Fight amongst yourselves.) Update: Replaced link to Valve version with link to Ms. Jones’ blog version, on account of the Valve discussion on the article having apparently degenerated into an argument over who’s misquoted Stanislaw Lem and who’s insulted the memory of Philip K. Dick.
|
I got yer differánce right here10:40 AM, Tuesday, May 24, 2005
You scored as Postmodernist. Postmodernism is the belief in complete open interpretation. You see the universe as a collection of information with varying ways of putting it together. There is no absolute truth for you; even the most hardened facts are open to interpretation. Meaning relies on context and even the language you use to describe things should be subject to analysis.
What is Your World View? (corrected...again)
|
| Comments (6) |
May 23, 2005Star Wars III capsule review9:27 AM, Monday, May 23, 2005Wow. I thought I knew Lucas couldn’t write, but apparently I had no idea. I don’t think I’ve ever seen or read anything so relentlessly, brutally, avoidably stupid. And the fight scenes were lame.
|
May 20, 2005Funniest thing I hope never to see7:58 AM, Friday, May 20, 2005Editors are on the corners with signs that say “WILL EDIT YOUR ‘WILL WORK FOR FOOD’ SIGN FOR FOOD.” (His sinking ship metaphor is a lot more biting than my coastal town metaphor, BTW.)
|
May 19, 2005Allegory of the coastal town10:32 AM, Thursday, May 19, 2005The sea level is rising. We all know this. Some day, maybe not this year, maybe not next year, but some day soon, in the lifetimes of many of us, the waves will overtop the sea wall, the dikes will burst, and our town, this beautiful town, once the wonder of the coast, will finally be swept away. Some of us, the elders of the town, have lived here all their lives. They’ve seen the other coastal towns go under, one by one; they’ve traveled, some of them, to the rich inland cities and found no welcome there for our people. They are in no hurry to die, but if they must die, they would rather die here, in the town they helped build, the town where they once prospered, that has sheltered and supported them all their lives. For others, the town’s young people, the town is already lost to us in our minds — not unmourned, not unregretted, but lost, nevertheless. We have known since we were children that it would be in our time that the ocean would come. We have never dreamed, as some of our elders have, that by some miracle the wonders of the old town would be restored. We have no wish to die here. We would rather build a new town on higher ground — smaller, no doubt; meaner, perhaps, by the standards of our elders; but a place where we can raise our children, and perhaps tell them stories of the grand coastal town that gave our people birth. But now our elders would set us to filling sandbags, would take the timber we need to build our new town and use it to shore up the levees, would ask us to stand with them and plug the holes in the dikes with our fingers when we should be carrying our children to safety. All to add a few more years to the life of the town that all of us, young people and elders alike, know cannot be saved.
|
May 18, 2005Old news that maybe should be new again1:30 PM, Wednesday, May 18, 2005Pirating copyrighted etext on Usenet and elsewhere is going to happen more and more, for the same reasons that everyday folks make audio cassettes from vinyl LPs and audio CDs, and videocassette copies of store-bought videotapes. Partly it’s greed; partly it’s annoyance over retail prices; partly it’s the desire to Share Cool Stuff (a motivation usually underrated by the victims of this kind of small-time hand-level piracy). Instantly going to Defcon One over it and claiming it’s morally tantamount to mugging little old ladies in the street will make it kind of difficult to move forward from that position when it doesn’t work. In the 1970s, the record industry shrieked that “home taping is killing music.” It’s hard for ordinary folks to avoid noticing that music didn’t die. But the record industry’s credibility on the subject wasn’t exactly enhanced. — Patrick Nielsen Hayden (from alt.binaries.ebooks, quoted by Cory)
|
Curse you, Robert Silverberg!12:13 PM, Wednesday, May 18, 2005You have stolen the spot in the Locus Awards finals that was rightfully ours!
|
May 17, 2005Guiltless genocide (updated)5:24 PM, Tuesday, May 17, 2005Excellent article on Ender’s Game by John Kessel. Ethical philosophy isn’t something I’m all that interested in (though I do sometimes find it entertaining) — I always have trouble figuring out the axioms people are arguing from. But Kessel’s analysis of what Card does in that book, and how, is brilliant. (Updated nowhere in particular — or everywhere — since I kept changing my mind about what I wanted to say.) Essay questions (choose one, or set your own):
|
Helpful translation from Mr. DeNiro11:03 AM, Tuesday, May 17, 2005Over at his new Goblin Mercantile Exchange, Alan translates part of SFWA’s “ePiracy FAQ” Morally . . . O’ course ’tis a problem if ye take somethin’ fer free that ye’re supposed t’ pay fer. Be seein’ below fer all th’ harms this causes. Quality . . . Th’ thin’ be, ye canna trust that a gentleman-o’-fortuned work be really what th’ author wrote. We’re nay jus’ talkin’ typos here (which can be quite annoyin’, dependin’ how badly th’ story has been mangled), but worse: Buccanneers ben documented as changin’ works t’ match the’r philosophies(!). I’m not sure what I think of “gentleman of fortune” as a verb, but hopefully this clarifies things.
|
May 16, 2005“My work here is done,” or, more on causality1:08 PM, Monday, May 16, 2005Okay, on continuity in fiction, mostly. (But from my position as a fiction writer and therefore a seeker of plausibility more than of truth, it seems to be very much the same thing.) From an excellent essay from Todd Seavey: And then, naturally, we have the highly efficient way that normal people [as opposed, in this essay, to geeks like ourselves —Ed.] reconcile continuity errors: ignoring them. I can see a certain sensibility in this approach, but somehow I have more admiration for people like my friend Ali Kokmen (who majored in Modern Culture and Media back in our Brown University days), who is so attentive to continuity issues that he once wrote a long, thoughtful e-mail to friends about apparent contradictions in a Muppet TV special featuring Elmo. (Elmo time-traveled into his own past yet did not encounter himself. Does that mean his past self was destroyed? Temporarily displaced? Fused with the Elmo from the present? Why do the writers seem unconcerned about the existential can of worms opened up by Elmo’s cavalier toying with the timestream?) Ali once said that he felt great pride, after years of telling his wife Michelle about DC Comics’ system of parallel timelines (Earth-1, Earth-2, etc.), when the two of them watched an episode of The Odd Couple together and Michelle, on realizing that the episode contained an explanation for Oscar and Felix’s first meeting that contradicted the explanation given in a previous episode, said that the newer episode must take place on “Earth-2.” Ali beamed, “My work here is done.” Update: See also this hilarious bit from John Holbo over at the Valve: Extra bonus point question: compare and contrast the situation of classicists, with all these new Oxyrhynchus texts come to light, with the Episode 3 situation. In both cases the situation is technology and effects driven. The classicists use “multi-spectral imaging,” the Star Wars people rely on special image effects, too. Who is happier, fans or scholars?
|
Stuff this poll (updated, again)11:36 AM, Monday, May 16, 2005Well, not really. But if you’re in SFWA, and you got Andrew Burt’s push poll about Amazon’s “Search Inside the Book” feature in your mailbox last week, and you haven’t answered it yet, read this before you do. For example, one questions asking how much of a work one would want to have accessible to Amazon browsers is phrased this way: "What percent would you want blocked of your work to prevent piracy?" I'm not a professional pollster, but I know a push poll question when I see it, and I don't like it any more when it comes from SFWA than when it comes from a political party. My response to the poll, incidentally, was that I wanted all of the book available for Amazon shoppers to browse. I want this for many reasons, not the least of which is simply parity of shopping experience to bookstores, where one can go up to the bookshelves, crack open a book, and read as much of it as one wants to see if one is interested in making a purchase. As it happens, I don't buy very many books online because I can't open the book and see the text, and with new writers especially, I'm not going to buy without checking out the book first. Bingo. Thank you, Mr. Scalzi. Via Tim. In fact, let’s quote Tim, too: I’ll just add this note, for the vast majority of SF writers who worry about their books being pirated: Yeah, you wish. You wish there was such a demand for your work that people were pirating it in sufficient numbers to affect your sales. You wish there were hordes of unscrupulous people ready to cash in on the vast crowds clamoring hungrily for your book, and that there was sufficient demand for your works for pirates to turn a profit on it. The more I think about this, the more irritated I get. In fact, I’m sufficiently irritated that I’m going to go order a Creative Commies T-shirt right this minute. Why is it that people whose stuff no one would want to pirate are the most obsessed with piracy? Update: See also Cory. I’m sure Mr. Burt is a great guy and all, but I’m glad he didn’t win his SFWA presidential bid. Update #2: Charlie Stross puts it well, if bluntly, on sff . private . sfwa . electronic-piracy, in a thread responding to Ben: The fact of the matter is, once we sell our wares we lose all say over what happens to them. We can't control whether a reader buys a copy at full price in a bookstore, shoplifts it, or buys it for ten cents when it’s remaindered. We can’t control whether they like the book, hate it, or use it as toilet paper. It’s out of our hands. We profit no more from the honestly-bought copy in the second-hand store than the shoplifted copy or the pirated ebook — so why don’t we declare a jihad against second-hand bookstores? Bluntly, we don’t do that (or declare war on libraries, for that matter) because we grew up with them and we recognize their utility to ourselves both as readers and as writers trying to reach new eyeballs. This is why I believe the whole fuss over Amazon and Google is a storm in a teacup — indeed, getting worked up about them is counter-productive because it alienates customers, makes us look like idiots, and primes people to ignore us if or when a REAL threat to our income emerges. Yes, digital lowers the bar and makes piracy easier, so there’s an argument to be made that, e.g., emailing somebody an e-text is different, maybe in some fundamental way, from lending them a book. But I can’t help noticing that it seems like those of us with Interthing-related day jobs, who you’d think would understand that, often seem to be among the least sympathetic to that argument . . . Update #3: Also, further down the thread, Ben: Excepting King and Rowling, I expect we all have plenty of new potential readers to win. I think what we should be worried about in the brave new electronic world is not the spectre of it being suddenly much easier to pirate . . . it's that of it becoming suddenly much harder to browse. Somehow this all seems like it’s coming from the same psychology that led the voting poor of Alabama to vote down a tax increase for the rich.
|
Quantum theodynamics10:51 AM, Monday, May 16, 2005Seen on the web: “It has been conjectured that further symmetry breaking will lead to a God in Six Persons, which have tentatively been named Bereshith, Tetragrammaton, Incarnatus, Agape, Pentecost, and Paracletus.” (Comment by “Carlos,” attached to Cherubim and Seraphim, Falling Down Before Thee, John & Belle.) I don’t know why this cracks me up, but it does.
|
Live veiled Amazons10:04 AM, Monday, May 16, 2005Part One of “Planet of the Amazon Women” is live on Strange Horizons. I had the idea for this one a long time ago, but it took me ten or a dozen years to become the sort of person who could write it. I’m pretty happy with the result. Expect a lot more in this universe, if all goes well.
|
May 13, 2005Tempting2:21 PM, Friday, May 13, 2005From John Scalzi, some real Jesus bumper stickers. Unrelated note: How come *.blogspot.com goes down so freakin’ often? Doesn’t Google own them now, frchrissake?
|
Blunt vs. Pointy, Part 2 (Updated)8:05 AM, Friday, May 13, 2005Update: Some additional suggestions:
I’m going to use this as a scratchpad, and put together a reading (and maybe film) list to hand out at the weapons panel. Thoughts so far:
Um . . . you’d think I’d be able to come up with more Japanese stuff, wouldn’t you? (I guess I’m too lazy to try to learn it any other way than with a sword in my hand.) As I think of more stuff, I’ll try to post it in comments. Additions welcome.
|
May 12, 2005“On any given day, I can’t decide whether the U.S. Senate is supine or prone.”12:34 PM, Thursday, May 12, 2005From the It would be funny if it weren’t so depressing dept.: You know, Wolfowitz, who if nothing, if not smart, would understand this, but Bush is truly a Trotskyite, a believer in permanent revolution. We have never had one as a president before. He wouldn’t understand that, but Wolfowitz would. He truly is. And he’s doing it — what he thinks he has to do, the revolutions he has to create, without any information, without any — without an ability to absorb information that’s counter to what he wants to hear. And so, I don’t know where you are when you have a man with as much power as he controls and as much ability to do something. I don’t know how we can get at him. — Seymour Hersh, speaking at UIUC Follow the link to find out just how fucked-up said information counter to what he wants to hear is.
|
Message good, comma splice bad10:14 AM, Thursday, May 12, 2005And the capitalization’s not too hot, either. *Sigh*.
|
| Comments (2) |
May 11, 2005Causality violation as a technical term in distributed systems programming4:51 PM, Wednesday, May 11, 2005Who knew? A causality violation occurs when a message ordering problem results in one host taking an action based on information that another host has not yet received. In this case P2 is trying to invoke a method on P1, because P2 thinks that P1 has Obj. In designing systems, we assume that any action a host takes may be affected by any message it has previously received. As a result, we would consider the situation above to be a potential causality violation, even if the message from P2 to P1 turned out to be completely independent of the messages that it received. Colloquially, we don't distinguish between potential causality violations and causality violations that have real consequences. Instead we call them both causality violations — even if the messages turn out to be independent. (Gregory Kesden, lecture notes for CS 15-612, Distributed Systems, Carnegie-Mellon, Lecture 3.) It gets funnier: Student Question: Couldn’t we just make it the responsibility of the invoking process to check with the target process first, before trying to invoke the method on the remote object? Answer: I’m glad you asked. This is an outstanding opportunity to mention the time-honored distrbuted systems principle, “It is easier to move a problem in a distributed system than it is to actually fix it.” . . . This is also a good opportunity to mention another famous principle in the design of distributed systems, the ostrich principle. The ostrich is famous for burying its head in the sand. This technique is also frequently used in distributed systems. Sometimes particularly unlikely or obscure problems are allowed to remain in a design. This is particularly true if the cost of the resulting failure is low enough. The bottom line is that implementing a perfect distributed system may involve additional overhead that, in the aggregate, will result in a greater loss in productivity than the rare occurance of an unlikely error state. There has got to be a way to use those ideas to deal with spacetime causality violation in my gonzo space opera. [Side note: “Planet of the Amazon Women” (excerpt here), my first published story set in the gonzo space opera’s universe, will be going live on Strange Horizons next week. I like to think of it as: Ammonite and “Biographical Notes to ‘A Discourse on the Nature of Causality, with Air-Planes’ by Benjamin Rosenbaum” go out on double-date with Roadside Picnic and “Hinterlands.”]
|
May 10, 2005Four Beats With Five4:51 PM, Tuesday, May 10, 2005Wow. I love* experimental fiction, and yet this is so not what I love about it: Never mind that this is precisely what most experimental fiction is attempting to accomplish: to draw attention away from the immediate “content” a novel or story is expected to contain, like a vessel its liquid, and to focus some of the reader’s attention on the vessel itself — better yet, to demonstrate that content only exists according to the shape of the container, the latter, after all, contributing the “art” to the art of fiction. More than anything else, experimental fiction works to remind the reader that fiction can be artful in this way, that it is more than a way to pass the time or give one’s emotional receptors a little exercise. (Daniel Green, via Scott Esposito, via Chris Rowe, via Gwenda Bond — God, I love the Web! ) I read this, and — after I filter out the contempt for emotion and the contempt for the passing of time — two things come to mind.
There is a point of view that says that the highest form of art is art that is not about anything — irreducible art — art for its own sake — Walter Pater — condition of music — all that. I’m okay with that. I don’t necessarily feel that way myself, but I don’t have a problem with it. Just — Lose the damn lyrics. Don’t pretend to have both form and content when all you’ve got is form. I know Mr. Green isn’t arguing for writing without content. But he does seem to be arguing that the point of experimental fiction is to elevate I don’t think that’s true at all. But I suppose it’s entirely possible that this is exactly what, as Mr. Green says, most experimental fiction is attempting to accomplish. If that’s true, I think it’s not art. I think it’s, at best, an amusing technical exercise. Its logical end point is the equivalent, in fiction, of “Four Beats With Five’; of music meant, as they say in the Berkeley composition department, “to be seen and not heard.” Fiction written not for readers but for writers and critics. Which would be a cryin’ shame. Because there’s no reason on God’s green earth why form and content have to work at cross-purposes, except that writers — experimental writers who sacrifice content for form, and bestselling hacks who sacrifice form for content, alike — have educated readers to think that way. The purpose of a work of fiction is not to demonstrate lyrical or technical virtuosity. Nor is it to acquaint the reader with a series of bald but made-up facts. Nor even to involve the reader in an imaginary emotional landscape. The purpose of a work of fiction is to engage all the reader’s faculties — not just the heart or the head or the eyes, but all of them, or at any rate as many of them as possible — in order to do something, some nebulous third thing — to (paraphrasing Eco) generate interpretations, to (paraphrasing Kundera) discover what only fiction can discover. What, exactly, that thing is, depends on the work, and the writer, and the reader. But I think it takes form and content to get there. If it doesn’t, then don’t just do a half-assed job on the other one — get rid of it. And if you’re going to have both, then it’s stupid to pit them against each other. * (plenty of)
|
Nothing so much as mincing poetry1:13 PM, Tuesday, May 10, 2005I’m trying to be good and talk about the Strange Horizons speculative poetry symposium, Part One and Part Two, over there rather than over here. Please join, since I know a lot of you know more about this stuff than I do. (Don’t make me use my blog, man.)
|
Is Pan Macmillan on crack?1:03 PM, Tuesday, May 10, 2005Viz., this. Maybe they should just call the program PublishUK. (Via Eugie Foster, Tangent Online.)
|
May 6, 2005Open call for blunt instruments and sharp pointy things5:11 PM, Friday, May 6, 2005So, my Wiscon schedule includes the following item:
Meet the Weapons Demo (Writing SF&F: The Craft) A follow-up to a combat panel that discussed various weapons that show up primarily in fantasy, but also SF (short on actual data about the effects of phasers and the like, unfortunately), this panel, ideally, assists audience members to write more accurate/realistic fight scenes without having to train with a weapons master. Brief demos on a number of weapons that show up in SF&F are provided (to see how they work, what they are designed to do, and what they aren’t). A chance follows for the audience to, again, see the weapons up close and personal. There’s only two of us on it, me and S.N. Arly, who I haven’t met. Ms. Arly seems to be coming from Minnesota and hopefully will have a trunkload of stuff, but all I’ve got is my iaito. Anyone have any dangerous items they can bring? Or want to join the panel? Then there’s my other program item, immediately following a tough act.
A Reading at Midnight (Readings) James P. Roberts, David Robert Moles, Sharman Horwood, James Frenkel I thought I had a pattern figured out, but since it involves Jameses and Robertses it doesn’t explain Ms. Horwood. Anyway, I was kind of planning on a pirate story for Ben’s proposed pirate reading, but it’s a long way from done and without the looming pirate deadline I’d be surprised if I finish it. Might just read from “Planet of the Amazon Women”, since it’ll have just gone up on Strange Horizons, and since it’s WisCon. Any other suggestions? I have to admit, whatever happens I doubt I’ll be able to match the Pretty Butlers of Roanoke.
|
For those of you telling INS horror stories last week...11:12 AM, Friday, May 6, 2005. . . and for the rest of you, too, Canadian Stephen Notley (now resident in Seattle — or so his web site says) brings you: TN-1 Terror!
|
May 5, 2005Wicked Flash clock4:15 PM, Thursday, May 5, 2005I don’t know why I’ve never thought of this interface before. Now if only there was one with switchable timezones and parallel Islamic, Jewish, and Mayan calendars . . .
|
More not really about Galbraith4:12 PM, Thursday, May 5, 2005Actually, last time wasn’t really about Galbraith; this time isn’t really about Husserl, Heidegger, and Freud. How curious that teachers who permit into the curriculum the most experimental fiction are aggressively defensive when it comes to literature which demands as much or more: the writings, namely, of great speculative thinkers like Marx, Husserl, Heidegger, Freud . . . I call it ‘literature’ not only to make a polemical point but from the conviction that each thinker draws on and in turn generates a text milieu of his own, so that it is not a matter of ‘knowing’ Derrida or Heidegger but of reading and steeping oneself in a corpus of critical, philosophical and literary texts which they incorporate and revise. [Geoffrey Hartman, quoted by A. Cephalous] Yes. I know Einstein, to the extent that you can know Einstein without knowing tensor calculus. But Foucault, say? Foucault I merely appreciate.
|
May 4, 2005About a dozen randomly selected stories that the “State of Short Fiction” panel might not call slipstream and that don’t have any SFnal or fantastical intrusions but that I like and that I think feel kinda slipstreamy3:21 PM, Wednesday, May 4, 2005
|
Glasgow nights1:43 PM, Wednesday, May 4, 2005After some dithering I finally decided ¡al diablo, el sentido común!* and booked myself an extra couple of days in Glasgow. I should be arriving Thursday night and leaving Monday morning, via London, probably by train. * That should probably be in Gaelic, but I don’t speak Gaelic. And I just like saying sentido común.
|
May 3, 2005I want my 20th-century schizoid art3:40 PM, Tuesday, May 3, 2005When, exactly, did “slipstream” stop meaning a kind of writing which simply makes you feel very strange; the way that living in the late twentieth century makes you feel, if you are a person of a certain sensibility [Bruce Sterling, Catscan 5] and start meaning stories that feel a bit like magical realism . . . [that] make the familiar strange — by taking a familiar context and disturbing it with SFnal / fantastical intrusions [Rich Horton, quoted in Asimov’s] ? ’Cause that seems to be what it means now. And it’s not cutting it for me.
|