Early Superhero Movies and TV Series

By Carl Slaughter: Hollywood was quick to adapt early comic book superheroes to the big screen, beginning in the late 30s and early 40s.  Superheroes are notoriously difficult to adapt without camp and corn.  In contrast to sci fi/fantasy, live action superhero TV shows have not endured, Smallville excepting.  My favorite is the second Green Hornet.  The scriptwriters and actors do the superhero genre ultra straight and ultra serious.

Captain Marvel movie series (1941)

 

Original Green Hornet TV series (1940)

 

Green Hornet Strikes Again movie series (1941):

 

Green Hornet TV series (1966)

 

Phantom movie series (1943)

 

Captain America movie series (1944)

 

Batman movie (1943)

 

Batman and Robin movie (1949)

Actors Union Rules Change Forces Sci-Fest LA Into Hiatus

Sci-Fest LA, which has brought science fiction to the Los Angeles stage for the past three years, has been forced to skip 2017. Founding Producers Micheal Blaha, Lee Costello, and David Dean Bottrell announced on Facebook:

As some of you may know, in 2015, Actors Equity Association (the union for professional stage actors) took the unprecedented step of discontinuing the Los Angeles 99-Seat Theatre Plan — an agreement that had been in place for over 30 years. The plan had allowed LA-based Equity members to perform for free in small, 99-seat theatres in order to showcase their talents. Although the local Los Angeles membership of Equity waged a very strong campaign to reverse the decision, the national council of Equity overruled them. A lawsuit was subsequently brought against the union by a group of well-known actors including Emmy-winner, Ed Asner, but a few weeks ago, the suit was dismissed by federal judge in Los Angeles. As a result, the 99-Seat plan officially comes to an end as of today, December 15, 2016.

This means no professional stage actor in Los Angeles can appear in a 99-Seat theatre without being paid minimum wage for every hour of work, including rehearsals, tech rehearsals, and performances. Under the former 99-Seat plan, Sci-Fest LA (which uses 45-60 actors each year) paid each actor a small “per-show” stipend. The producers say they say they are unable to meet the new demands.

Consequently, Sci-Fest LA: The Los Angeles Science Fiction One-Act Play Festival will be going on hiatus for 2017.

There remains a possibility that Sci-Fest LA may co-produce a full-length Sci-Fi themed stage play in conjunction with a well-established, “membership” theatre company in LA that is currently exempt from the Equity salary requirements.

In the meantime, Sci-Fest LA will continue presenting its two sf writing contests, the Roswell Award and the Tomorrow Award.

Neil Clarke Reveals Choices For The Best Science Fiction of the Year

bsofty2-600

Neil Clarke’s Best Science Fiction of the Year Volume 2 will feature these stories from 2016:

Table of Contents

  • “The Visitor from Taured” by Ian R. MacLeod (Asimov’s, September 2016)
  • “Extraction Request” by Rich Larson (Clarkesworld, January 2016)
  • “A Good Home” by Karin Lowachee (Lightspeed, June 2016)
  • “Prodigal” by Gord Sellar (Analog, December 2016)
  • “Ten Days” by Nina Allan (Now We Are Ten, edited by Ian Whates)
  • “Terminal” by Lavie Tidhar (Tor.com, April 2016)
  • “Panic City” by Madeline Ashby (CyberWorld, edited by Jason Heller and Joshua Viola)
  • “Last Gods” by Sam J. Miller (Drowned Worlds, edited by Jonathana Strahan)
  • “HigherWorks” by Gregory Norman Bossert (Asimov’s, December 2016)
  • “A Strange Loop” by T.R. Napper (Interzone, January/February 2016)
  • “Night Journey of the Dragon-Horse” by Xia Jia (Invisible Planets, edited by Ken Liu)
  • “Pearl” by Aliette de Bodard (The Starlit Wood, edited by Dominik Parisien and Navah Wolfe)
  • “The Metal Demimonde” by Nick Wolven (Analog, June 2016)
  • “The Iron Tactician” by Alastair Reynolds (Newcon Press)
  • “The Mighty Slinger” by Tobias S. Buckell and Karen Lord (Bridging Infinity, edited by Jonathana Strahan)
  • “They All Have One Breath” by Karl Bunker (Asimov’s, December 2016)
  • “Sooner or Later Everything Falls Into the Sea” by Sarah Pinsker (Lightspeed, February 2016)
  • “And Then, One Day, the Air was Full of Voices” by Margaret Ronald (Clarkesworld, June 2016)
  • “The Three Lives of Sonata James” by Lettie Prell (Tor.com, October 2016)
  • “The Charge and the Storm” by An Owomoyela (Asimov’s, February 2016)
  • “Parables of Infinity” by Robert Reed (Bridging Infinity, edited by Jonathana Strahan)
  • “Ten Poems for the Mossums, One for the Man” by Suzanne Palmer (Asimov’s, July 2016)
  • “You Make Pattaya” by Rich Larson (Interzone, November/December 2016)
  • “Number Nine Moon” by Alex Irvine (F&SF, January/February 2016)
  • “Things with Beards” by Sam J. Miller (Clarkesworld, June 2016)
  • “Dispatches from the Cradle: The Hermit—Forty-Eight Hours in the Sea of Massachusetts” by Ken Liu (Drowned Worlds, edited by Jonathana Strahan)
  • “Touring with the Alien” by Carolyn Ives Gilman (Clarkesworld, April 2016)

Greg Hullender has updated the Rocket Stack Rank “2016 Best SF/F Anthologies” page and passed along his count of the stories that multiple editors picked for their year’s best volumes.

  • “The Visitor from Taured,” by Ian R. Macleod, and “Things with Beards,” by Sam J. Miller, are the only two stories to appear in all four anthologies. [Clarke, Dozois, Horton, Strahan]
  • Three other stories arguably got 4-way approval when you include stories the anthologists recommended during the year. (Horton and Dozois both review short fiction for Locus Magazine.)
  • “Touring with the Alien,” by Carolyn Ives Gilman, and “Terminal,” by Lavie Tidhar, appeared in all but Horton’s anthology, but Horton recommended both works in his Locus Magazine column.
  • “Number Nine Moon,” by Alex Irvine only appeared in Strahan and Clarke’s anthologies but Dozois and Horton both recommended it in their Locus Magazine columns.

Patten To Launch Anthology at Further Confusion

Dogs of War, edited by Fred Patten, is launching at Further Confusion 2017 in San Jose, California over the January 12-16 five-day weekend.

Dogs of War is an all-original anthology of 23 short stories and novelettes of anthropomorphic animals (not just dogs) in military scenarios, from battle action to boot camps, on land, at sea, and in space.  This is designed to appeal to both s-f & fantasy fans, and fans of military s-f.

From a rabbit army’s training camp, to a human army turned into wolves, praying mantises in spacesuits, rattlesnake troops, prejudice against uplifted rat sailors, multi-tailed fox warrior priestesses, and more; these are stories for your imagination and enjoyment.

Contents

  • Nosy and Wolf, by Ken McGregor
  • After Their Kind, by Taylor Harbin
  • Succession, by Devin Hallsworth
  • Two If By Sea, by Field T. Mouse
  • The Queens’ Confederate Space Marines, by Elizabeth McCoy
  • The Loving Children, by Bill McCormick
  • Strike, But Hear Me, by Jefferson P. Swycaffer
  • End of Ages, by BanWynn Oakshadow
  • Shells On The Beach, by Tom Mullins
  • Cross of Valor Reception for the Raccoon, Tanner Williams, Declassified Transcript, by John Kulp
  • Last Man Standing, by Frances Pauli
  • Hunter’s Fall, by Angela Oliver
  • Old Regimes, by Gullwolf
  • The Shrine War, by Alan Loewen
  • The Monster in the Mist, by Madison Keller
  • Wolves in Winter, by Searska GrayRaven
  • The Third Variety, by Rob Baird
  • The Best and Worst of Worlds, by Mary E. Lowd
  • Tooth, Claw and Fang, by Stephen Coughlan
  • Sacrifice, by J. N. Wolfe
  • War of Attrition, by Lisa Timpf
  • Fathers to Sons, by MikasiWolf
  • Hoodies and Horses, by Michael D. Winkle

The book can be pre-ordered from FurPlanet Productions. It will be for sale on the FurPlanet online catalogue after the convention. Price:  $19.95.  455 pages.  Wraparound cover by Teagan Gavet.

perf5.500x8.500.indd

Court Delivers Another Setback to Axanar

star_trek_axanar_u_s_s_korolev_wallpaper_2_by_stourangeau-d6thmbiU.S. District Court Judge R. Gary Klausner on January 3 denied the motions for summary judgment by defendant Alec Peters of Axanar and plaintiffs CBS/Paramount, saying the issue of “subjective substantial similarity” needs to be decided by a jury. However, the judge ruled that the Axanar production company can’t claim fair use, and that there is an “objective substantial similarity” between the Axanar works and the studios’ copyrighted Star Trek works.

(Read the full decision here.)

Applying the law’s four-factor test, the court rejected Axanar’s claim that material it has drawn from the Star Trek universe is protected by the fair use doctrine. (Citations omitted.)

1. Purpose and Character of the Infringing Use

The first factor is “the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.” 17 U.S.C. § 107(1). This factor asks “whether and to what extent the new work is transformative,” in other words, whether the new work “adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning, or message,” or merely “supplant[s] the original.”

Defendants intentionally use or reference many elements similar to those in the Star Trek Copyrighted Works to stay true to Star Trek canon down to excruciating details. Viewed as a whole, the Axanar Works do not have “a further purpose or different character, altering the [Star Trek Copyrighted Works] with new expression, meaning, or message.”

On the other hand, Defendants want the Axanar Works to supplant the Star Trek Copyrighted Works. Peters “was interested in creating alternative ways for fans to view Star Trek.” He wanted to create “a whole new way that fans can get the content they want, by funding it themselves.” The Axanar Works are not transformative.

But the inquiry does not end here. An integral part of the first factor is determining “whether [the infringing] use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.” 17 U.S.C. § 107(1)

…Here, it is undisputed that the Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs for a license.

It is undisputed that Peters hoped to derive non-monetary benefits, for example, other job opportunities, from the Axanar Works…. The Axanar Works are commercial.

Defendants argue that the Axanar Works are not commercial because they are, and will be, distributed for free. This argument is unpersuasive because, even though Defendants do not profit directly from distributing the works, “common experience suggests that [Defendants] stood to gain at least indirect commercial benefit from the [viewership] boost which [they] had reason to hope would (and in fact did) result from the” Axanar Works. The successful fundraising campaign leveraging the popularity of Prelude is an example of such indirect benefit.

Defendants also argue that the Axanar Works are transformative because they are mockumentaries – fictions presented in a documentary form – a form of parody according to Wikipedia. For the purposes of copyright law, however, parody must use some elements of a prior work to create a new work that criticizes the substance or style of the prior work.…

Here, the Court has difficulty discerning from the Axanar Works any criticism of the Star Trek Copyrighted Works. This is not surprising since Defendants set out to create films that stay faithful to the Star Trek canon and appeal to Star Trek fans.

Thus, the Court finds that the first factor weighs in favor of Plaintiffs.

2. Nature of Copyrighted Work

The second factor, “the nature of the copyrighted work,” also weighs in favor of Plaintiffs. …The creativity in these Works and their status as published works are not disputed. They are the type of works that are given broad copyright protections.

3. Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Used

The third factor is “the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole.” 17 U.S.C. § 107(3).

While it is difficult to quantify the amount of the portion used in relation to the Star Trek Copyrighted Works as a whole since “the portion” involves many recurring elements in the Star Trek universe and the Star Trek Copyrighted Works are numerous, it is fair to say that elements of the Star Trek Copyrighted Works pervade the Axanar Works. For example, every scene involving a Klingon or a Vulcan can conjure up Star Trek in the minds of fans. The same is true of Federation spaceships, Klingon battlecruisers, transporters, phasers, and so on. The elements from the Star Trek Copyrighted Works that Defendants use are qualitatively important because they give the Axanar Works the Star Trek feel and enable Defendants to stay true to the Star Trek canon. Thus, the third factor weighs in favor of Plaintiffs as well.

4. Effect of the Use upon the Potential Market

The fourth factor is “the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.” 17 U.S.C. § 107(4).

Here, the prequel depicted in the Axanar Works is the kind of potential derivatives Plaintiffs “would in general develop or license others to develop.” Id. Plaintiffs have already developed a 2003 novel and licensed a role-playing game based at least in part on Garth of Izar and the Battle of Axanar from one episode of The Original Series….

Defendants’ attempt to treat the Battle of Axanar as a private little war is unpersuasive.

Defendants further argue that there is no evidence that the Axanar Works have acted as market substitutes to the Star Trek Copyrighted Works. However, this lack of evidence is understandable given the nature of the existing Axanar Works. Prelude is intended as a promotional piece to the feature-length Axanar Motion Picture. Prelude in that sense cannot be a market substitute of Star Trek television series or motion pictures, just as a trailer does not substitute for a feature-length film. The Axanar Motion Picture has not yet been made or released and its script is not yet released. Hence it cannot have any market impact. On the other hand, Defendants have successfully raised over a million dollars from Star Trek fans at Defendants’ prompting of funding the Axanar projects instead of “dumping hundreds or thousands of dollars a year on . . . cable channels” on which the Star Trek Copyrighted Works are shown. Peters “was interested in creating alternative ways for fans to view Star Trek” – the way to Eden perhaps. He wanted to create “a whole new way that fans can get the content they want, by funding it themselves.” Defendants used “a fully-professional crew – many of whom have worked on Star Trek itself – [to] ensure Axanar will be the quality of Star Trek that all fans want to see.” Peters also sought to distribute the Axanar Works on Netflix.… Defendants promoted an August 2015 draft of the script “the best Star Trek movie script ever!” on their Facebook page. Under these facts, Defendants evidently intend for their work to effectively function as a market substitution to the Star Trek Copyrighted Works. There is little doubt that “unrestricted and widespread conduct of the sort engaged in by [Defendants] would result in a substantially adverse impact [of market substitution] for the [Star Trek Copyrighted Works].”

…Thus, the Court finds that the fourth factor also weighs in favor of Plaintiffs.

Alec Peters as Axanar's Garth of Izar .

Alec Peters as Axanar’s Garth of Izar .

Defendant Alec Peters has released an official response to the decision:

This morning, Judge Klausner made a ruling that the case will go to Jury Trial to determine if Axanar is “substantially similar” to the CBS copyrighted works. If it is, then the jury will have to find if the infringement is “willful” or “non-willful”, and Judge Klausner already stated that “Peters’ actions demonstrate a respect for Plaintiffs’ intellectual property that makes a finding of willfulness on summary judgement inappropriate.” If the jury does not find “substantial similarity” then the case will be dismissed.

Depending on the outcome of the trial, Axanar may choose to appeal the verdict to the Ninth Circuit, where Erin Ranahan is 5-0. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is also known to favor artist rights.

So the story of Axanar continues…

More Reading: Carlos Pedraza of Axamonitor ends his excellent post about the decision by identifying all the judge’s subtle Star Trek quotes and references.

Review of “Dr. Seuss’ How the Grinch Stole Christmas – The Musical”

grinch-logo

By Martin Morse Wooster: I saw Dr. Seuss’ How The Grinch Stole Christmas!—The Musical last night at the National Theatre in Washington.  From the musical’s website and Wikipedia, I learned that this musical has been around since 1994 and has played in 41 other cities in the U.S. before it showed up in Washington.  The production I saw played in Cleveland last week.

The book is by Timothy Mason and the music by Mel Marvin.  I never heard of either of them but they’re both pretty experienced and Marvin did the score for a version of Elmer Gantry a few years ago.  But both Mason and Marvin realize the two songs from the ‘60s TV special in this production, with music by Albert Hague and lyrics by Dr. Seuss, are better than anything they came up with, so we heard “You’re a Mean One, Mr. Grinch” twice, the second time in a sing-along version.

You know the plot.  The citizens of Whoville are looking forward to Christmas when they can get lots of stuff and eat many sugary treats.  Then that mean Grinch shows up and steals all their stuff.  But why?  Deprived childhood? Acid reflux? The answer here is that the Grinch is tired of all the noise the Whovians make.  At that point I started cheering the Grinch on.

I especially cheered on the Grinch when Cindy-Lou Who showed up to play the perky pre-teen who should have been in Annie, but ended up here.  “Oh no,” says the Grinch.

“Here comes a ballad!” Cindy-Lou Who then gets to sing two more songs, and we could feel her perkiness in the balcony.

The costumes and set design were excellent, and Philip Bryan was suitably malevolent as the Grinch.  Bob Lauder was almost as good as Thurl Ravenscroft in singing “You’re a Mean One, Mr. Grinch” but I never understood why he played a dog.  Danielle Guilbot played Cindy-Lou Who, and no doubt her agent is looking for touring productions of Annie that need tykes.  There were a dozen other Whovians but I can’t remember anything about them except their Pepto Bismol-pink costumes.

Dr. Seuss’s How The Grinch Stole Christmas!—The Musical was all right and more entertaining than the movie with Jim Carrey.  But I don’t need to see it again.

ComicMix Moves For Dismissal of Seuss Lawsuit

oh-the-places-youll-boldly-go

File 770 reported in September a crowdsourced appeal for funds to publish Oh, The Places You’ll Boldly Go!, featuring the writing of David Gerrold, the art of Ty Templeton, and the editorial skills of ComicMix’s Glenn Hauman.

While the Kickstarter was in progress, Dr. Seuss Enterprises (DSE) objected, claiming that the project infringed their copyright on Dr. Seuss’ Oh the Places You’ll Go! They filed suit for damages on November 10 in Dr. Seuss Enterprises vs. David Gerrold, et al.

Now ComicMix’s Haumann reports his attorneys have filed a motion to dismiss the Dr. Seuss lawsuit on the grounds that Oh, The Places You’ll Boldly Go! constitutes fair use of any elements of Dr. Seuss books protected by copyright or trademark law.

A GeekNation article by Michael Hinman summarizes the contacts between DSE and ComicMix prior to the lawsuit:

Even at the start of the campaign, ComicMix acknowledged there could be problems moving forward with the book project, telling potential donors “there may be some people who believe that this might be in violation of their intellectual property rights. And we may have to spend time and money proving it to people in black robes. And we may even lose that.”

Just before the crowdfunding campaign was completed, raising nearly $30,000, Dr. Seuss Enterprises made a copyright claim to Kickstarter, forcing the company to remove the campaign and freeze the funds. That prompted an angry letter from ComicMix attorney Booth just before Halloween.

In that letter, Booth demanded the Seuss people to reinstate the campaign, especially since Kansas City-based Andrews McMeel Publishing had agreed to publish the book, and rush it for a Christmas release.

“Also anticipating Christmas sales, one vendor ordered 5,000 copies of the book as long as printing and shipping are completed by Nov. 11, but ComicMix expects to lose that order because, thanks to your notice, Kickstarter is withholding all $29,575 that the campaign raised, so ComicMix cannot use that money to cover the printing costs as intended.”

ComicMix’s response to the suit and its motion to dismiss are analyzed by Janet Gershen-Siegel at Semantic Shenanigans (“Seuss v. Gerrold, et al – Getting the Ball Rolling”). Her post includes links to copies of all the defense’s filings.

The Memo of Points and Authorities filed with the court outlines the defense’s arguments for dismissal. Here are two excerpts illustrating their main justifications. The memo itself also contains highly-detailed narrative comparisons showing the differences between the original work and ComicMix’s takeoff.

Introduction: Oh, the Uses Seuss Sues!

Defendant ComicMix LLC (“ComicMix”) respectfully moves the Court for an order dismissing this matter for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), on the grounds that ComicMix’s allegedly infringing book constitutes fair use of any elements of Dr. Seuss books protected by copyright or trademark law.

This case presents a simple question: May an author’s estate use the courts to stymie publication of a book that makes critical, parodic use of the author’s books? On the facts alleged, the answer must be no. The Copyright Act, the Lanham Act and the First Amendment fully protect ComicMix’s right to comment and build on Dr. Seuss’ works. The law does not place his beloved books above parody, beyond critical commentary, or past the reach of cultural transformation and nominative use….

Copyright law limits the scope of DSE’s claims.

DSE alleges that Boldly infringes its copyrights to Go!’s title, “story arc,” and characters and illustrations from Go!, Horton Hears a Who, How the Grinch Stole Christmas! (“Grinch”), The Lorax, and The Sneetches and Other Stories. Doc. 1 ¶ 26. Yet copyright covers few of those elements, and Boldly infringes none….

DSE declines to identify any such well-delineated character, leaving its allegation of character “misappropriation” wholly speculative. No character in Go! meets this standard. The one character to appear more than once (except perhaps some elephants, who do not reappear in Boldly) is the protagonist, a walking cipher. The boy has no name or dialogue and few distinguishing characteristics beyond his yellow knit-cap and onesie. This lightly sketched everyman lacks the “distinctive character traits” required to be protectable by copyright. Towle, 802 F.3d at 1020.  Further, Boldly does not copy any Dr. Seuss character or its traits. In the boy’s place is the Enterprise’s captain, wearing the uniform of Star Trek commanding officers (a gold shirt with an arrowhead insignia over the left breast, and black trousers) or a spacesuit, or on one page, a green tunic like Captain Kirk sometimes wore. His spiky, adult hairstyle is not covered by a child’s knit-cap. Boldly’s wholly distinct characters do not infringe on any protectable character trait of the original. Nor does Boldly infringe on Go!’s simple, episodic storyline. See RJN Ex. 6. In Go!, the boy decides to leave town. He joins a balloon race, taking the lead before getting stuck in a tree. He lands in a “Slump,” comes to a place with unmarked streets, and has a hard time deciding where to turn. In confusion, he races down the road to “The Waiting Place,” where “everyone is just waiting.” He escapes to watch a musical performance by a “Boom Band”, then to join a parade of banner-flying elephants, and then to play on a convoluted ball-field. His athletic skill makes him world-famous, but he is again left all alone to face more scary things. Copyright does not protect the general plot line of an adventurer persevering as he faces both emotional and physical highs and lows. “The copyright of a story covers what is new and novel in it.” Bradbury v. CBS, 287 F.2d 478, 485 (9th Cir. 1961). “General plot lines are not protected by copyright law.” Cavalier v. Random House, Inc., 297 F.3d 815, 823 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal citations omitted). “Familiar stock scenes and themes that are staples of literature are not protected.” Id.

Any story element in Go! that is not too generic to warrant copyright protection is not copied in Boldly, which depicts no confusing streets, balloon races, Slump, Waiting Place, music, elephants, or parades. The Go! boy’s one idiosyncrasy, a talent for playing an unusual multi-player sport, also does not recur in Boldly. Instead, Boldly is filled with allusions to episodes of the original Star Trek series. Any similarities between the plot lines of Boldly and Go! are generic and unprotectable.

The judge has allowed the plaintiff until January 19 to file its opposition to the motion to dismiss. Thereafter, ComicMix will have three weeks to file any reply. And the judge set a hearing for March 16, 2017.

Uncanny Magazine Issue 14 Launches January 3

uncanny-janfeb17_issue14_coversmall

The fourteenth issue of the 2016 Hugo Award-winning Uncanny Magazine will be available on January 3.

The entire contents can be purchased in the eBook version on the day of release from Weightless Books, Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Google Play, and Kobo.

Uncanny’s free online content will be released in two stages, half on January 3 and half on February 7.

EBook subscriptions are available from Weightless Books and Amazon. They also take support on Patreon. For more information, please check out uncannymagazine.com or follow Uncanny at https://twitter.com/UncannyMagazine or https://www.facebook.com/uncannymagazine.

Uncanny Magazine Issue 14 Table of Contents

Cover

  • John Picacio- “El Arpa”

Editorial

  • The Uncanny Valley

Fiction

  • Sam J. Miller- “Bodies Stacked Like Firewood” (1/3)
  • A. Merc Rustad- “Monster Girls Don’t Cry” (1/3)
  • Cassandra Khaw- “Goddess, Worm” (1/3)
  • Maria Dahvana Headley- “The Thule Stowaway” (2/7)
  • Theodora Goss- “To Budapest, with Love” (2/7)
  • Tansy Rayner Roberts- “Some Cupids Kill With Arrows” (2/7)

Reprint

  • Ann Leckie- “The Unknown God” (2/7)

Nonfiction

  • Mark Oshiro- Inferior Beasts (1/3)
  • Natalie Luhrs- “Why You Should Read Romance” (1/3)
  • Delilah S. Dawson- “I Have Never Not Been an Object” (2/7) Angel Cruz- “Blood of the Revolution: On Filipina Writers and Aswang” (2/7)

Poetry

  • Carlos Hernandez- “In Lieu of the Stories My Santera Abuela Should Have Told Me Herself, This Poem” (1/3)
  • Nin Harris- “Jean-Luc, Future Ghost” (1/3)
  • Nicasio Andres Reed- “Except Thou Bless Me” (2/7)

Interviews

  • A. Merc Rustad by Julia Rios (1/3)
  • Maria Dahvana Headley by Julia Rios (2/7)

Podcast 14A (1/3)

  • Story- Sam J. Miller- “Bodies Stacked Like Firewood” (As read by Erika Ensign)
  • Poem- Carlos Hernandez- “In Lieu of the Stories My Santera Abuela
  • Should Have Told Me Herself, This Poem” (As read by Amal El-Mohtar)
  • Interview- Sam J. Miller by Julia Rios

Podcast 14B (2/7)

  • Story- Theodora Goss- “To Budapest, with Love” (As read by Amal El-Mohtar)
  • Story- Tansy Rayner Roberts- “Some Cupids Kill With Arrows” (As read by Erika Ensign)
  • Poem- Nicasio Andres Reed- “Except Thou Bless Me” (As read by Erika Ensign)
  • Interview- Theodora Goss by Julia Rios