(1) SPEAKING OF FREE SCROLLS. R. Graeme Cameron will start a “SciFi Fiction Magazine” for Canadian writers if his GoFundMe appeal generates $1,500. Issues will be a free read.
When I was a teenager I decided I wanted to be a Science Fiction Writer. Fifty years later I’m a curmudgeonly pensioner who never sold a darn thing, not one novel, not one story. Del Rey books rejected one of my novels with the comment “We don’t like your main character and we don’t think anyone else will either.”
As a life-long beginning writer I know your pain. Always dreaming of that first sale. That’s why I’m starting up POLAR BOREAL, a Canadian SF&F fiction magazine actively encouraging beginning Canadian writers to submit short stories (3,000 words or less) and/or poems. The magazine will be free to anyone who wants to download it, yet all contributors will be paid on acceptance (if I can get the money) at one cent a word for short stories and $10 per poem.
(2) THE CLASSICS. Alexander Dane makes it sound like every day is Black Friday…
(3) NOT EGGSACTLY SURE. TV Guide promises “The 15 Coolest Easter Eggs from Star Wars: The Force Awakens”. SPOILER WARNING, naturally, but my question is – how many of these are really Easter Eggs as opposed to simple casting reveals? Do I not understand what an Easter Egg is? Straighten me out here….
(4) WILD GUESS. Umm, maybe look at the MidAmeriCon II committee list and use the contact information?
Does anyone know how I can get in touch with a 2016 #Hugoawards ceremony administrator?
— Wesley Chu (@wes_chu) January 15, 2016
(5) HOW AUTHORS DON’T GET PAID. Philip Pullman has resigned as Patron of the Oxford Literary Festival the organization has announced. The reason is very simple.
Our President, Philip Pullman, has resigned as a Patron of Oxford Literary Festival because they do not pay authors.
He explained his decision:
My position as President of the Society of Authors, which has been campaigning for fair payment for speakers at literary festivals, sat rather awkwardly with my position as Patron of the Oxford Literary Festival, because (despite urging from me and others over the years) it does not pay speakers. So I thought it was time I resigned as a Patron of the OLF.
The principle is very simple: a festival pays the people who supply the marquees, it pays the printers who print the brochure, it pays the rent for the lecture-halls and other places, it pays the people who run the administration and the publicity, it pays for the electricity it uses, it pays for the drinks and dinners it lays on: why is it that the authors, the very people at the centre of the whole thing, the only reason customers come along and buy their tickets in the first place, are the only ones who are expected to work for nothing?
(6) I SEE BY YOUR OUTFIT. Y-3 creates spacesuits for Virgin Galactic pilots on world’s first commercial space flights
(7) BUGS, MISTER RICO! The newly-christened “Las Vegas of ants” is visible on Google Earth.
Not far from the Grand Canyon, near a landmark called Vulcan’s Throne, the ground is dotted with strange, barren circles, visible from orbit.
Evidence of an alien encounter? Nope. The likely culprit is actually ants — a lot of them. So many that the scientists who discovered them are referring to the area as “the Las Vegas of ants.”
Physicist Amelia Carolina Sparavigna, a specialist in image processing and satellite imagery analysis at the Polytechnic University of Turin in Italy, noticed the bizarre polka- dot features while studying the dimensions of the Grand Canyon rim in Google Earth.
(8) VOX DAY COLLECTIBLES. Vox Day devoted a post to Camestros Felapton’s “Hugo”/Lego “Sad Larry” trading card.
While they, apparently, are occupied with making Lego figures of us. It seems that is what they do when they are not obsessing over what they think we are thinking. Even in light of how poorly they anticipated me last time, it’s mildly amusing to see that they still don’t understand my perspective at all.
The Dread Ilk commenters, however, were more concerned that Vox get a “Hugo” trading card of his own, so Felapton reassured them in “Vox links to the Larry pic” —
Vox appeared in an earlier post and has a new figure in a couple of days – with a flaming sword no less!
So it looks like we won’t get to riff off Lucy’s “Was Beethoven ever on a bubblegum card?” after all.
(9) GRABTHAR’S HAMMER OF LOVING CORRECTION. Steve Davidson’s self-imposed moratorium on writing about Sad Puppies at Amazing Stories has ended in the only way it could. Here are a few salient paragraphs.
In moving forward, I believe it is important that the message sent last year be reinforced this year. We’ve already seen at least one author declaring that begging for votes is no longer a problem. If we do not want that mindset to take hold, we will continue to repudiate slate voting this year.
Fans who discover a loophole in the voting rules don’t seek personal advantage – they bring it to the attention of other fans and make proposals at the business meeting and generally use their new found knowledge for the benefit of the whole. (Or, if unhappy with the process, they go off and do their own thing, which is then rewarded or ignored based on the merit of the accomplishment, not a tally of internet one upsmanship points.) Hugo voting actions this year should send that message. Therefore –
I will be nominating and voting for the Hugo Awards this year in the same way I voted last year: I’ll read and watch and listen to everything I can on the final ballot, will vote my conscience and will make sure that any work that appears on a slate (a voting list with a political agenda behind it) will be below No Award and off the ballot.
(10) RATINGS TIME. Gregory N. Hullender of Rocket Stack Rank says:
We analyzed all the RSR data to come up with a list for Best Editor (short form) Hugo nominations.
We construct several different lists, using different assumptions, and urge fans to use our data to make their own lists, so I don’t think this amounts to a slate.
This should be fun reading for anyone who’s really into short fiction, since I don’t believe anyone has ever done this kind of analysis before.
If anyone feels to the contrary — there are any slate-like tendencies in play here — please share your analysis.
(11) WE ALL DREAM IN GOLD. Since we always try to cover Guillermo del Toro’s doings on File 770 whenever we can, John King Tarpinian was disgustipated (I think that’s the technical term) that I overlooked this golden opportunity in my post about the 2016 Oscar nominations.
Academy President Cheryl Boone Isaacs, Guillermo del Toro, John Krasinski and Ang Lee will announce the 88th Academy Awards® nominations in all 24 Oscar® categories at a special two-part live news conference on Thursday…
(12) SHRUNKEN HEADS. Cass R. Sunstein at Bloomberg News breaks down “How Facebook Makes Us Dumber”.
Why does misinformation spread so quickly on the social media? Why doesn’t it get corrected? When the truth is so easy to find, why do people accept falsehoods?
A new study focusing on Facebook users provides strong evidence that the explanation is confirmation bias: people’s tendency to seek out information that confirms their beliefs, and to ignore contrary information.
I thought so. Or is it just confirmation bias at work if I agree that Facebook lowers my IQ?
(13) FOREVER DIFFERENT. Tobias Carroll checked with “28 Authors on the Books That Changed Their Lives”. The New York Magazine article has contributions from SF authors Elizabeth Hand, Ken Liu, Cathrynne M. Valente, Kelly Link, Jeff VanderMeer, and Jo Walton, among others.
Maria Dahvana Headley, author of Magonia and The Year of Yes “This question is both easy and difficult! I grew up a very rural and very gluttonous reader, in Idaho, about ten miles outside a town of 500 people. Essentially, I spent my reading childhood playing with other people’s imaginary friends, and I’ve grown into the kind of writer who does the same thing. So, in that regard, everything I’ve ever read has been life-changing. The first massive Rock My World book, though, was Toni Morrison’s Beloved, which I read when I was 17. Not only was I clueless about race in America at that point, coming from where I came from, I was also clueless about living female genius writers. I didn’t know there were any. Up to that point, I’d read almost entirely white men. KA-BAM. I got blasted out of the universe of dead white boys, and into something much more magnificent. Morrison’s way of flawlessly entwining her haunting with her history left me dazzled, sobbing, and bewildered. Morrison is obviously a genre-leaping master of style, and reading her not only made me aware of what was possible as a writer, it led me to all of the poets, songwriters, playwrights, and librettists who continue to influence my work today.”
(14) BOWIE AND SF. Jason Heller’s Pitchfork article “Anthems for the Moon: David Bowie’s Sci-Fi Explorations” is one more list of SF parallels and influences on Bowie’s work. Moorcock, Heinlein, Bradbury, Dick, Burgess, and others are mentioned.
In its celebration of androgyny, glam also lined up with Ursula K. Le Guin’s visionary 1969 novel The Left Hand of Darkness, which takes place on an alien planet where transitions between genders are as routine as any other biological process—a concept that certainly resonates with Bowie’s aesthetic. “Androgynous sexuality and extraterrestrial origin seemed to have provided two different points of identification for Bowie fans,” notes Philip Auslander in Performing Glam Rock: Gender and Theatricality in Popular Music. “Whereas some were taken with his womanliness, others were struck by his spaciness.”
(15) MARS MUSIC I. Matthew Johnson adds another number to that award-winning musical, The Martian.
(With apologies to David Bowie)
Hello, I feel I have to remind
You that you kind of left me behind
Is there life on Mars?
Four years alone could be a slog
I guess I ought to keep a log
Is there life on Mars?
On Mars a man dies by his wits
He even has to science his shit
Is there life on Mars?
The greatest scientist on the planet
I can plant it and grow it and can it
Is there life on Mars?
Disco hell is kind of groovy
Matt Damon plays me in the movie
Is there life on Mars?
Four years is a long time to be alone
There might be a new Game of Thrones when I’m done
Is there life on Mars?
(16) MARS MUSIC II. And Seth Gordon likewise swings and sways to a melody in his head…
As I walk through the valley with the sand so red
I take a look at my suit and realize that I’m not dead
’Cause I’ve been science-ing this shit for so long that
Even Houston thinks that my ass is gone…
[Thanks to Bret Grandrath, Rob Thornton, John King Tarpinian, Will R., and Nick Mamatas for some of these stories. Title credit goes to File 770 contributing editor of the day Hampus Eckerman.]
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
@Christian Brunschen:
I am reminded of the “Journal of Irreproducible Results”.
@Peace Is My Middle Name:
Yes, the Journal of Irreproducible Results
which covers a lot of similar ground.
There’s also Improbable Research, which published in its Annals one of my favourite talks (paper, slides):
@Greg Hullender: what I would like to know, when it comes to editors, is simply who was responsible for editing what. (And, fair play to you, you’re helping me get this sort of information, so, well, thanks for that.)
One thing I don’t particularly need, though, is a statistical breakdown – like, for instance, a popularity-ranked list – of how many other people might also have liked the things I liked/the editors who edited those things. I mean, it’s irrelevant, really, isn’t it? (From my position, watching the shadows on the walls of Plato’s cave.) For all I know, everyone who’s contributed to your rankings has terrible taste. (Kidding! Only kidding!)
If I’m planning to make my own decisions, having some idea of what other people’s decisions might be… is irrelevant at best, and may have a chilling effect on my own choices at worst. I can’t pretend to be immune to peer pressure, and if everyone else is saying that Kenelm Q. Hagisborough III deserves a Hugo for his work on Transneptunian Moonlets Monthly, I may be tempted to go with the flow.
Now, obviously, if Hagisborough is wildly popular and Transneptunian Moonlets Monthly is the “in” periodical to be published in, there’s going to be a lot of general chatter recommending them… but general chatter is one thing; a popularity-ranked list, with percentages and statistics and all sorts, seems more authoritative than just fans talking about something. And the appearance of an authoritative list – I’m sure it’s not your actual intention to be authoritative – but the mere appearance of one, in this context, is something to avoid.
John C. Wright wishes people regarded him as a Ruthless Evil Lord of Evil.
He’s a Renfield of Evil, a lickspittle to his leaders, who pay no attention to his opinions and do whatever they choose, with him insisting they’re supporting what he thinks even when they flat-out contradict it.
One of the short form editors I’m going to nominate is David Longhorn of Supernatural Tales. My reasons are that I like the way the magazine is put together, attractive and with signs of care, and (this is surprisingly rare) attention to assembling stories that complement each other in each issue. Plus the stories themselves are consistently an interesting lot, frequently off-the-beaten-track, though only one made my best of year list. Not only is it a pleasure to read this magazine, but when I was looking up information about Longhorn, I found authors saying that he was great to work with.
Supernatural Tales is a small publication that completely flew under the radar of the reviewers that RSR chose to collate; and it’s not the kind of thing most of them would be interested in anyway. Plus I made my decision on other grounds than just the aggregate of the ratings I gave its stories (and I did rate them, either two, one, or no stars).
I disagree with the contention, which the RSR post calls an “oft-heard claim”, that Best Editor (Short) is, let alone should be, equivalent to “Best Prozine”. Prozines can pay enough to attract established, proven authors, and to have their pick of a very wide pool of submissions; this almost inevitably increases their number of well-reviewed stories. I do think it would be fair, when considering editors of prozines, to evaluate how well their choices live up to the expected standard of quality. Budget also affects how much staff a magazine has for things like design, and for that reason I’d hold a prozine up to a particularly high standard (not that my standards for others are low). All sorts of factors go into good editing; I’d give prozine editors credit for the managerial skills needed to run a large operation.
I’m not a pixel plucker, I’m a pixel plucker’s son.
I’m only plucking pixels ’til the pixel plucker’s done.
@Steve Wright One thing I don’t particularly need, though, is a statistical breakdown – like, for instance, a popularity-ranked list – of how many other people might also have liked the things I liked/the editors who edited those things. I mean, it’s irrelevant, really, isn’t it? (From my position, watching the shadows on the walls of Plato’s cave.) For all I know, everyone who’s contributed to your rankings has terrible taste. (Kidding! Only kidding!)
Exactly. I’d love to see a single table with a list of who edited X and acquired Y to be published in the year we are voting. That would help me a lot to see it in aggregate.
I guess for me slate is a verb, if that makes sense? It’s not the listing or ordering or criteria that make it a slate, it’s how much influence it has on the outcome of the nominations.
Sad Puppies “reccomendation list(s)” is almost certainly going to be a slate, because 300 some-odd people will probably nominate on that basis. We’ve seen them do it before, and I doubt that change of terminology is going to change that. That’s what really distorts the process.
If the final ballot and longlist come out and the Puppy picks didn’t make them, then it really was a recommendation list, and I will be okay with it.
We don’t know yet what effect RSR will have. If it has a similar effect on the nominations as the slate(s) did this year, I’m going to think of it as a slate.
I am confident that the motives of the people organizing and participating in RSR are good. They don’t want to be kingmakers, or give nominations to their buddies, the way Torgersen and Correia obviously did. They want to publicize SFF that fans enjoy and admire. I have zero problem with their motives. I think the method that makes it useable as a slate may need a bit of re-evaluation, but whether that’s the case will depend on the outcome of the nominations.
In my opinion changes to RSR that made it less useable as a slate would make it better–I love the idea of using it to find stories I will like and to understand better the connections between stories and editors, for example. I’m just not sure how to do that without ranking them.
Question: Does Nightmare qualify as a semiprozine? What does it mean that it’s the “sister publication” to Lightspeed which is now pro?
@Ghostbird
I’m not sure I’d call it self-aware, but the writing in the Golden Oecumene trilogy was witty in a way that evoked Jack Vance without descending into pastiche.
I couldn’t handle the first novel in that series. This was a while ago, so my memory isn’t clear, but the narrator seemed pretentious and full of himself. It’s on my Kindle, TBR at some point in the future, because of last year’s kerfuffle. I’m interested in Somewhither but am unwilling to in any way financially support any of Beale’s endeavors (I say Beale not VD because VD is a persona, a persona Beale created and has used with malice), so I’m almost hoping it gets nominated and appears in the packet.
======================
Currently reading Graydon Saunders’ “The March North” and very much enjoying it. Shades of Glen Cook in the subject, the humor, and worldwise, and it’s written in a sparse, very show-don’t-tell style. It’s very easy to miss important details if you don’t read carefully. I suspect I’ll want to re-read this later, but am going to move on to the next one first, as it’s Hugo-eligible. Of course, that assumes the whole thing doesn’t break down into gibbering incoherence or a political screed regarding the true definition of the word “creek” or somesuch.
The one movie for sure going on my Hugo noms for BDP – Long is When Marnie Was There. I am waffling about the other four as I enjoyed many things this year in spite of hardly visiting a movie theater. If you haven’t seen this movie, please do so. I saw the Japanese version with subtitles but I understand that Haillie Statfield voices the protagonist in the dubbed version.
For BDP – Short – there are too many good shows for SF geeks now (especially those who like superheroes) so I’m having a hard time whittling my list down. I only get to watch about an hour or 90 minutes of TV per day so I don’t even get to watch most of the shows. You have to be pretty choosy this way. Do I give up this show, that I loved but is in a slump, to try this other show? I’m not complaining though. These things go in waves. In a few more years, we might be back to mostly nighttime soaps, or police procedurals, etc.
@Tasha: I went to cognitive therapy for a bit after being hit by a truck because I thought it was bad to not remember stuff.
Well, exactly! No one BRAGS about that. Everyone tries to keep it from showing — I’m sure we all know older people who use various stratagems and confabulations to hide that their memory isn’t what it used to be. People take courses and play brain training games to get better at memory. Only JCW is PROUD of forgetting people he’s interacted with/actually met IRL. He’s also repeating himself a lot, which you wouldn’t expect from one of the finest writers today. So… is he lying or just confused? We know he’s confused about the purpose of Worldcon, the Hugos, and fandom in general.
Were I Mr. Hartwell, I’d be perusing JCW’s contract pretty darn carefully. That’s certainly slander or libel against his good character. If it isn’t breach of contract, it ought to be. Or at least DH should hand off editing JCW to someone else, what with the web of trust irrevocably broken and such. I mean, not that I’m actually WISHING JCW on someone… sorry, putative other Tor editor faced with the Renfield of Evil (TM Kurt Busiek).
I didn’t know he’d had a massive heart attack. That’ll change a person, for sure, and make them concerned with their immortal soul. Did he convert before or after? Heinlein got kinda weird in a different way with his blocked carotid artery.
(10) If RSR would issue their list in alphabetical order, it would cease to have the appearance of a slate. Boom. Done. And more widely useful, IMO.
@Cat: Prozines (paper or online) and anthologies always list their editor somewhere up front. That’s how I know who to vote for in Editor/Short. I liked this year’s F&SF, so he gets one; ditto Lightspeed. I’ve actually got that category full!
Now Editor/Long is one the Hugos should probably think about dropping. Very few books put the name of the editor in them (some do in tiny type on the copyright page), so nobody knows who at the publisher actually did the work.
@cmm: I’m probably putting Agent Carter in Long, because it was obviously planned (and even advertised!) as one mini-series, a whole thingy just broken into several parts like DD and JJ are. Plus I have plenty of nominations of clearly individual TV episodes for Short (2 Person of Interest, SHIELD, Supergirl, Expanse etc.). Beyond “Martian”, TFA, and “Avengers 2”, I don’t feel strongly enough about any movies. Although I might double-nominate the AC pilot. Because Peggy. I’m already penciling her in for my Helsinki nomination.
But if I can recommend only one TV episode, it’s Person of Interest “If-Then-Else”. If I can recommend only two, add PoI “YHWH”.
@RHFemme: I haven’t heard much chatter about it either here in the Anglosphere. And I’m in no hurry to read it. The slump that often happens with the middle book of a trilogy, 3BP as a one-off, or a bad translation? We’ll have to see. Although the sausage-fest can’t be changed by the translator.
I am fine with commie sodomists as long as everyone’s consenting adults. I’ve always been amused by the facts that a) sodomy includes oral sex, not just anal like the right-wingers like to pretend (when it was still illegal in Georgia, we went to Worldcon in Atlanta and many married hetero couples vowed to break the law right thurr in the Hyatt) and b) the true sin of Sodom was inhospitality to strangers and general rapeyness — not teh ghey.
BDP long so far I’m going for Jessica Jones, The Martian, The Force Awakens, Inside Out, and maybe Sense8 or Daredevil.
BDP short I only have Sense8 episode 4, What’s Going On, which I thought was great on a few levels, not the least of which was featuring one of my least favorite songs from the 90s and making it work. Sense8 has a lot of issues, IMO, but it was still pretty good, all told.
@Kurt Busiek: My god. Renfield of Evil is brilliant. So apt for JCW.
BDP Short: Kung Fury.
Nothing more needed.
@Vasha
I’m afraid that the Semiprozine directory lists Nightmare as pro.
Lurkertype
Isn’t it comforting to know little has changed since then among some loud people and our civilization? Or Not but at least some of us are trying to be more hospitable and not rapey
On Best Editor Short, I don’t think that choosing great stories is the prime metric. I’m just as interested in editors who choose consistently good stories. There simply aren’t enough great stories around to fill every mag or anthology, so the meat and potatoes of an issue is just as important. Having one great story surrounded by several DNFs is a fail for me.
For me on Best Editor Short it’s the consistency of good stories as well as finding new authors. Is each issue/anthology a good blend and up to the theme. Does it have different voices or do the stories all sound the same? Are they challenging the authors to do something new and different not just imitate the past? Are they helping authors grow?
Looking at my list I ask a lot from an editor. Many whom aren’t making a living but do the job out of love.
Thanks @Mark for helping me clarify why I’m having so many problems with this category.
Re (12); I think the most revealing moment recently on facebook was when I put up one of the manymemes about “Don’t post things blindly, fact check and make sure they’re for real” and the first comment agreeing and enthusing about how skepticism is healthy … came from someone who posts items from naturalnews and other anti-vaccine / “There’s a Big Pharma Conspiracy” sites on a regular basis. (And despite believing in evolution and climate change, posts things on other topics from sites that take Intelligent Design* or climate denial as part of their base assumptions without considering that the source is tainted.)
Of course, it then turns into practice on when it is and is not suitable to bite my tongue…
*I’ve become more careful about using the word Creationism for anti-evolution and pro-Biblical Truth since learning that in some circles, Creationism means suggesting a Higher Power had any part in any bit of the universe at all, even if one believes the Higher Power simply set up the rules and let evolution and physics do the rest. And thus condemning Creationism casually tars a number of intelligent and scientific minded people who also have a faith. This is admittedly mostly used by Young-Earth types as a gotcha, but I hurt someone in the “Believes in God but understands Science” camp unintentionally once because of it.
[Typing on phone on a beach 🙂 it is cold]
Just finushed watching tv series of Jonathon Strange & Mr Norrell the other night. Highly recommend. Like the biok takes time to warm up but v good.
Havent seen Jessica Jones yet though
@Mark: Well then, “Queers Destroy Horror” guest editor Wendy N. Wagner may deserve a nomination, aside from the redoubtable editor-in-chief John Joseph Adams. They’re both past winners.
@Tasha Turner
We can’t separate edited from acquired, because that data doesn’t seem to be available, but is this about what you’re looking for?
http://www.rocketstackrank.com/2016/01/2015-short-fiction-editor-list.html
This is a lot like the lists that the magazines show at the end of the year when they invite readers to vote for their favorites. I haven’t found such lists useful, though. When I see a story, I don’t always remember it from the title alone. I need to see the little blurbs (and sometimes even the “spoiler” mini-reviews”) before I’m sure I recall the story.
I want to echo StevefromOttawa’s comment on RSR: the problem for me is that RSR has this pretense of objectivity, as if by analyzing a selection of subjective opinions, you will end up with a list of what are statistically and objectively the “best” editors. But in effect, this is subjective and exclusive. The pro mags get reviewed more often because they have existed longer and get bigger names, so of course they get more recommendations; this may mean that they’re better, or it might mean that’s what reviewers get assigned to read. The result is that smaller or newer magazines and their editors are simply left out of consideration. To my mind that’s, first off, dismissing a lot of potentially interesting work, and second, you end up with a self-reinforcing cycle in which you only review the “best” magazines, which are “best” because they get all the reviews. And the resulting list is almost entirely predictable, recognizing mostly the same people who have gotten recognition in the past.
Kurt’s been a speechwriter for proper lords of evil like Kang and Ultron, after all….
Reviews are fun, but they have nothing to do with Hugo-voting. I would count every vote as its on review. If the only object is to create some kind of list of seeded favourites for betting on, then RSR might be on the right way.
Random reading thoughts:
I’m about 2/3 through Europe in Autumn and I’m having a lot of trouble getting invested in the story or the characters. There are frequent chronological jumps that made the first half of the novel feel like a series of interconnected short stories. And unfortunately this means the main impression I’ve gotten of Rudi is that he’s not terribly bright and not terribly good at his job.
I just hit a scene where Ehqv unf orra qehttrq naq noqhpgrq ol Oevgvfu Vagryyvtrapr, jub gryyf uvz gung gur Pbherhef ner gelvat gb xvyy uvz. Ur pna’g vzntvar nalguvat fb urvabhf gung jbhyq znxr Prageny jnag gb xvyy bar bs gurve bja. Guvf, vzzrqvngryl nsgre ur hfrf uvf rzretrapl pbqr cuenfr gb pbagnpg Prageny, va beqre gb nfx gurz gb uryc uvf sngure nf ur qrpynerf gur Cnex na vaqrcraqrag cbyvgl.
Abj gung’f znlor abg urvabhf rabhtu gb xvyy bire, ohg V jbhyq jntre gung gurer ner frireny crbcyr va Prageny jub guvax, “bu, *gung* nffubyr” rirel gvzr Ehqv’f anzr pbzrf hc.
I will finish the book, because I have hope that things can be explained to my satisfaction. But I feel like the structure of the novel robs the story of momentum
@Hampus Eckerman:
I was not previously aware of Kung Fury; but I am now. And I think that everyone should take the half hour that it takes to watch – it’s available on Youtube – and … reach their own conclusion. I must admit though that I consider it half an hour well spent 🙂
@Greg Hullender
Not really.
I want list of anthologies/magazines/books after an editor
So you’d have editor name & then a list of all the works they’d worked on that year. The list would look more like below:
Editor
Magazine issue, date
Stories title, author, date, blurb
Magazine issue, date
Stories title, author, date, blurb
Anthology name, date
Stories title, author, date, blurb
Editor
Magazine issue, date
Stories title, author, date, blurb
Magazine issue, date
Stories title, author, date, blurb
Anthology name, date
Stories title, author, date, blurb
ETA: there should be indents for above at Magazine/Anthology and again at Stories
Kung Fury is endorsed by persons of glittering and jewel-like discernment. (And also by me.)
Re: John C. Wright’s writing.
The heart attack (followed by his conversion from atheism to Catholicism)?
My first encounter with Wright was his “Golden Oecumene” trilogy which has a mighty first volume (“The Golden Age”*) . The next two books of the trilogy didn’t quite live up to its promise but were still excellent.
I didn’t read any of his fiction again until last year’s Hugos. The contrast was astounding; it’s like he’d been afflicted with Brain-eater Syndrome.
*I am now afraid to go back & re-read it.
I should also mention the editor list I suggest above should be in alphabetical order either by first or last name of editor. I waited too long and edit window closed.
Confession: I pay RSR no heed whatsoever. I don’t think I’ve ever clicked over there. But man, people seem very invested today in telling them what they should and shouldn’t publish.
Steve Wright on January 15, 2016 at 10:56 am said:
So something like this:
http://www.rocketstackrank.com/2016/01/2015-short-fiction-editor-list.html
Again, are you
that’s useful?
We aim to please. 🙂 It’s just hard to please everyone . . .
@Jim Henley
Oh, we welcome the feedback. We can’t act on all of it, but it’s nice that people cared enough to give us constructive feedback.
Jim Henley said:
Well, this post does specifically ask for opinions. Can’t blame people for answering.
Google answers questions.
JCW conversion to Catholicism & heart attack
Version from 2008 Philosophy, Evidence, and Faith: The Conversion of John C. Wright On Easter 2008, the renowned sci-fi writer John C. Wright entered the Catholic Church after a lifetime of atheism.
Version from 2011 A Question I Never Tire of Answering
I’m not sure why one account says “2 days” and the other says “3 days”. Almost all the other accounts I saw when I did a quick Google search show “2 days” from when he prayed until the heart attack in 2008.
Switching to me
I personally can attest to writing skills as well as reasoning skills decreasing after the brain has had damage. These are part of cognitive skills. I know my writing is miles below what it was before the car accident. What I used to be able to say in a sentence can now take me a page or more.
Whether this is why JCWs fiction and blogging is what it is today I can’t comment.
It will be interesting to see what dramatic performances end up on the Puppy Slate. I’m looking for things like the Wheel of Time pilot to show up there. Of course, if they slate things like Star Wars or Fury Road, then they aren’t providing alternatives.
@Petréa Mitchell:
Fair enough!
Greg Hullender: Oh, we welcome the feedback. We can’t act on all of it, but it’s nice that people cared enough to give us constructive feedback.
You just choose to ignore and not engage with any feedback which doesn’t suit your purposes. 😐
@ULTRAGOTHA – My love for Mad Max: Fury Road – and I really do love it – is because of its core philosophy. The cars, the music, the setting, the acting, and the narrative arc are all things I found compelling, but what elevated the movie for me was its many stranded story of hope and defiance.
Thanks for the reminder to watch Kung Fury. I meant to the last time it was brought up and was interrupted about 30 seconds in and never went back (memory issues don’t require accidents or heart attacks).
And…I find myself really uncomfortable with the discussion of possible reasons for the differences in John C. Wright’s writing over the years. I would feel uncomfortable if the discussion was about a mental illness and how it might have impacted him and it appears I feel the same when the speculation is about a connection between physical illness and written output.
Not saying anyone should stop, just that the subject is making me queasy.
My biggest issue with Hugo nominations (aside from my complete and irritable certainty that the hatchet piece on pedophilia within the SFF community will be on the ballot) is in the category of Best Editor Long form. I know there’s history and enough people felt strongly enough for reasons that it’s been a category for awhile, but it seems to require specialized knowledge that I do not have.
Greg Hullender: Oh, we welcome the feedback. We can’t act on all of it, but it’s nice that people cared enough to give us constructive feedback.
Another thought: instead of the number ranking put reviewer names. To me that’s much more helpful than how many – who.
Next year or possibly as an update:
Links to each reviewers’ reason behind why they think each of their chosen editor(s) belongs on the list & the works they’ve reviewed by the editor. This would be useful as I can then learn what they feel that edior’s strong points are, read their reviews, and go check the stories out to make my own decision. This way you are giving me more than data points in the final post. People are likely to link to this post and bring in new readers and this will help them get caught up.
I might also call it Our favorite editors rather than the Best editors so you are making it clear that it’s subjective right from the start. I know the category is best editor but you can say Our favorites for best short editor. I’m not sure I’m getting my point across- stupid truck. Don’t get hit by 18-wheel trucks is my advice.
(6) The Youtube title is “Y-3 creates spacesuits for Virgin Galactic pilots on world’s first commercial space flights.” Really?
As far as I can tell, the garments in the Y-3 video appear to be flight suits, but not space suits. I don’t see seals, helmets, hoses, couplings, or gloves. The crewman’s neck and hands are protruding from the coverall. So “space suit” is a misleading term to apply. Apparently Virgin Galactic is trusting the pressurized cabin to work perfectly (as airliners do).
Other companies have recently been working a new generation of intra-vehicular activity (IVA) pressure suits for the hoped-for market of suborbital tourism. Final Frontier Design is one example. NASA, too, has been sponsoring work on new IVA and extra-vehicular suit, with an eye on new missions far from the Earth.
But these guys? They might be willing to travel. But they don’t have a space suit.
Cheryl S. on January 15, 2016 at 4:26 pm said:
Thank you (and the rest) for your answers. I will mull whether to watch it again.
Ditto, in spades.
@Lee Whiteside: you mean the pilot that showed at 3 AM on a channel nobody gets, of which the head of the channel didn’t know about, with two dudes in a house for 10 minutes?
Yeah, that there was some real quality. About as quality as many of last year’s Puppy entries, to be fair — and at least it had correct grammar.
The MRA’s, often fellow-travelers with Puppies, didn’t like “Fury Road”, so we’ll see if the groups part company there.
I thought Jim was referring to responses like JJ’s last couple of contributions, which imo, have been attacking the man not the ball.
From the conversation here it sounds like RSR is doing a Rotton Tomatos type ranking. I can see how this could be useful in a number of contexts, and savvy enough to recognise that the film with the highest “freshness” rating doesn’t always win an Oscar.
I won’t continue participating in the discussion which led me to post links to JCW’s conversion/heart attack. I’m sorry for making people uncomfortable.
I hope I have not caused John C. Wright any hurt by doing so. I’m sorry if I did.
It was not appropriate as I dislike when others diagnose people over the Internet. I’ve criticized people for doing so which makes my participating in the conversation hypocritical.
I will continue to work harder on my commenting behavior. Steps I’ll take include:
1. Thinking more before posting.
2. Asking myself how I’d feel if someone were saying this about me.
3. How will other filers & lurkers feel about what I’m posting?
I hope people can forgive me for this mistake*.
*true apology formula:
Admit wrong
Say sorry
Include plan for improving
Ask forgiveness
I think it is sufficient to say that JCW was once a moderately promising writer, and that he has not only failed to deliver on that promise, he has regressed considerably in this regard. The reasons for this development are not as important as the fact that it happened.
Tintinaus: JJ’s last couple of contributions, which imo, have been attacking the man not the ball.
I am attacking Mr Hullender’s repeated failures on this blog over the last few months to address the very valid concerns expressed by other commenters when he has engaged in inappropriate posts.
This is not the same as attacking Mr Hullender himself — unless one considers pointing out how this failure to engage reflects a general lack of integrity, a personal “attack”. If so, I would say this is a valid one.
Apart from Brian Z. and the other Puppies who post here from time to time, no one else here behaves in that way. It would be very nice to see Mr Hullender step up to the plate for a change, instead of doing his usual runner from the thread whenever he’s challenged.
JJ,
Look up at what Tasha said above. Even after what seemed like a relatively harmless convo about JCW, when some voiced concern she apologies and said she would try to do better.
Whenever you are challenged on your behaviour you rationalise it away. You were needlessly abrupt and to my mind bordering in outright rude. Everyone else was able to have a conversation but you tried to turn it into a confrontation. You have every right to say your piece, but you go beyond that. Getting in Mr Hullender’s face demanding answers you know he probably won’t give is lacking in courtesy to someone who is always courteous when here, especially considering there seems to be a difference of opinion amongst the regulars that you could examine and debate.
And don’t compare Mr Hullender to Brian Z. He has behaved nothing like Brian and the other Puppies.