The other day, I had the Olympics on, and NBC was showing the team synchronized swimming event (I know, but no other channels were carrying any Olympic coverage, so I was stuck with that). I was not paying a whole lot of attention, when my 10 year old son came upstairs from the basement and asked what I was watching. "The Olympics" I said. He studied the screen for about ten seconds of the Spanish women whipping their legs about in the air, and pronounced "That isn't a sport."
There has been a lot of controversy this Olympics about subjective sports. Of course, there is always a lot of controversy about them - that seems to be inherent to such endeavors. And the Olympics seem to breed these silly things: synchronized diving appears to be the most recent. The silly nature of a lot of these sports has spawned reactions, such as the "Real Medal Count" tallies in the media, and within the sports themselves, ever desperate attempts to somehow make the scoring systems less subjective and open to abuse.
The list of purely subjective sports in the Olympics is long, and getting longer. The original, 1896 Olympics only had one: gymnastics. All the others appear to have descended, in some way from gymnastics (like diving, developed when gymnasts practicing their routines would dive into water). A possibly incomplete count of those currently in the Olympics is: Gymnastics, diving, rhythmic gymnastics, figure skating, ice dancing, dressage, synchronized swimming, >synchronized diving, half pipe snowboarding and other freestyle skiing or snowboarding events. Further, there are several subjective sports knocking on the door, trying to get in are such things as ballroom dancing, skateboarding, and other "X games" type events. So, what is a sport?
One may ask, as an initial question, why does it matter? Shouldn't we just decide if something is a good competition and add it to the roster? Well, the IOC doesn't see things that way. The IOC has imposed limits on how many sports can be in the Olympics - no more than 28 sports for a total of no more than 301 events, and a limit of 10,500 athletes. These definitions are not always adhered to - the 10,500 athlete limit has been ignored for the most part, and the definition of what a single "sport" is is so loose as to be meaningless (for example, synchronized swimming is part of aquatics, which means that to get rid of it, using the IOC rules, you would have to eliminate the swimming races as well, which is silly; rhythmic gymnastics is also protected, by being part of the "gymnastics" sport). But the 301 even limit is pretty much strictly adhered to. The upshot of this is that to add a sport, one has to get rid of an existing sport. So, if you want rugby, or golf, or now, baseball, you have to axe something that is currently on the roster.
This is stupid. The mammoth stupidity of this sort of "limit" is simply almost indescribable. It does a good job of demonstrating the paucity of the IOCs vision of the Olympics. Rather than providing a world stage for sports, they simply want to have a select few so the games will be "manageable". The given reason for the limits is this: the games are expensive to run, and adding more events means that poor cities in poor countries won't have a shot at hosting the games. Okay, that could be a problem. On the other hand, there are numerous ways of overcoming this without putting an artificial limit on inclusion. (How did they come up with the limit you ask? It appears that they simply decided to freeze the Olympics in place as they were when they made the decision. Good thing they didn't freeze it in 1896, then we'd have nothing but track and field, cycling, fencing, gymnastics, shooting, swimming, tennis, weightlifting, and wrestling). For example, allow cities or smaller countries to submit joint bids, the Beijing Olympics weren't really held entirely within Beijing anyway. But no. We have to limit the games, so we can have sports beg to stay. And really, if rhythmic gymnastics is in the Olympics, why isn't ballroom dancing in? What makes it distinctively different so that one is a sport and one is not?
Further, it is my opinion that many of the sports, like rhythmic gymnastics and synchronized swimming cheapen the games and devalue the medals earned in events like the marathon and the triathlon. A friend of mine has what could be called the "make-up" standard, which is this: if it would be unthinkable to compete in an event without your make-up, then the event isn't a sport. And while I disagree with the standard, that, to me, sums up why these events devalue the objective athletic competitions. When you are concerned with how pretty you are when competing, then you aren't an athlete (and, in my opinion, most of the so-called athletes who are in such sports are far less attractive than those in the objective sports: Kerri Walsh, Misty May-Treanor, Muna Lee and so on are all much more attractive to my eyes).
So, finally, what is a sport? In my opinion, the definition of what is not a sport boils down to this: if any part of the sport is dependent upon whether you have pointed your toes, straightened your arms completely, or kept your legs together properly, then you aren't competing in a sport. Yes, I know, this eliminates pretty much all of the subjective sports, and that's the point. Pointy toes are not sports. What is that I hear from the peanut gallery? These are difficult and require lots of skill? Sure they do. I won't argue with you there. But it takes more than effort and skill to make something a sport. Here are some other activities that require either effort or skill, or both: ballet dancing, construction work, guitar playing, ditch digging, chess, and auto repair. None of them are sports. Neither is diving. Things can be hard and not be a sport. Deal with it.
Some people have come up with the "real medal count", eliminating what they believe are the subjective sports - and have tossed out boxing, tae kwon do, judo and wrestling too. I disagree with that assessment because I believe those sports can be salvaged. Yes, boxing and tae kwon do have had significant scoring controversies (and those questioning the scoring in those events are, in my opinion, justified), but if fencing can come up with a neutral electronic scoring system, then those sports can too. Wrestling and judo are a harder call, because there is no way to come up with an electronic scoring system for them, but they have objective rules concerning what should and should not score, so I think they could be handled fairly, and thus get to stay on a probationary basis.
If I were somehow made king of the world, I would dump all the "pointy-toe" sports from the Olympics. Synchronized swimming? Gone. Diving? No more. Half-pipe? See ya. And so on. I would be magnanimous - artistic gymnasts and divers in individual events in previous Olympic contests can keep their medals. Medals earned by synchronized swimmers, synchronized divers, rhythmic gymnasts and so on? I'd revoke all of those retroactively. But that's just me. And it's unlikely that I will ever be king of the world.
But the serious note is this: The IOC has created an artificial situation with an arbitrary limit. Then it has added obnoxiously corrupt subjective sports in the Olympics and kept out things like rugby (and kicked out baseball) because of that artificial standard. Are these really the guys who should be running the centerpiece world sporting event? I don't think so.
Biased Opinions Home
Monday, August 25, 2008
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Biased Opinion - Olympic Fraud and Disillusionment
I love the Olympics. At least I used to. I'm not so sure any more.
I like baseball, but pretty much only to the extent that I will play it if the opportunity arises (and in that case, I'm usually playing softball, not baseball), or to the extent that I am participating in a fantasy baseball league. I will watch football or basketball, but usually only if the Hoos are playing. But ever since I was a kid watching guys run around a track in Montreal, or slide down a bobsled run in Innsbruck, I've always felt the allure of Olympic sports. They always seemed to have a different aura about them - perhaps it was just that they happened only once every four years, as opposed to the hum-drum regularity of professional sports games. perhaps it was that the sports were so varied and different. I don't know.
I remember watching the Lake Placid Olympics and noticing the first wedge of hypocrisy in the rules - athletes from western nations were held to a strict amateur code, usually struggling to make ends meet, while athletes from behind the Iron Curtain were, essentially, professionals paid for their athletic skills. I remember asking my father about this, and it was one of the first questions I posed that he had no answer for. It wasn't his fault. He didn't make the rules. He couldn't be expected to justify their stupidity.
But, looking back, that was the first real indication I can remember that the IOC was a corrupt and ineffectual organization. Things like the allegations of corruption surrounding the original Salt Lake City bids and the skating judging fiasco, the allegations of gambling influence at the Seoul games, the doping scandals that have grown every games, and the mess that gymnastics always is simply make this clearer with every scandal.
And now it is pretty clear that the Chinese gymnastics federation cheated by using ineligible gymnasts, specifically He Kexin, Deng Lilin, and Yang Yilen. Whether you agree with the age limit rules or not, violating them and using ineligible athletes is cheating. The evidence of this cheating keeps piling up. And the response from the IOC on this simply confirms, once and for all, that the IOC, and possibly the modern Olympics, are past their sell by date.
The first thing about this scandal is that it is clear that the Chinese government is really not good at covering their tracks. I'm guessing that they are so used to controlling the media, and having their pronouncements accepted at face value that they have simply been unable to comprehend that some people would go back and double check what they said. They certainly didn't expect people to go onto their websites and dig up older versions of their published materials to contradict the official line.
However, the Chinese have had a willing accomplice to their fraud in the IOC. First, the IOC tried to sweep it under the rug and hoped it would go away. That might have worked thirty years ago when media outlets were few, and a week old sports story would fade off the wire. But now? Not a chance. Then the IOC tried to dodge responsibility saying that it was up to the gymnastics federation to decide (which makes one wonder what the IOC actually exists for, if it isn't to run and police the Olympic games). Then it decided to use the silliest investigative technique one could imagine:
Policeman: Hello, did you rob that bank over there? I have two witnesses that say it was you and videotape of you pointing a gun at the bank teller.
Masked man: No, it wasn't me. I had an appointment elsewhere. I'll go get my date book and let you look at it, umm, tomorrow.
Policeman: That's good enough for me. As long as your documents say otherwise, that videotape must be some sort of mistake.
Silly, isn't it? But that's basically the nature of the IOC investigation. Now, the IOC has made noises about "not wanting to offend the Chinese", but that just seems to illustrate the inherent corruption here. If the Chinese didn't manipulate their gymnasts' ages, then they wouldn't be offended - most athletes from other countries have been extraordinarily open about things like testing, many even volunteering for additional tests just to demonstrate their innocence and willingness to cooperate. But China? To even suggest that the Chinese might have cheated, even with piles of evidence that they did, is somehow too insulting to consider. And that's because the IOC is desperate to pretend that there are no problems with the Beijing games because, I think, they have been stung by the very legitimate criticism that Beijing should have never been awarded the games to begin with.
And, in many ways, that's the fundamental issue here. The IOC should have known better. Getting a big prize doesn't make a police state become more open, more liberal, and more tolerant. Getting a big prize just legitimizes a police state and gives it a platform to engage in propaganda. It did in 1938, it did in 1980, and it did in 2008. The Chinese government, rather than opening up and becoming more tolerant, has used the "security" concerns of the games to crack down in Tibet, arrest thousands of people, and basically tighten up security and suppress dissent. The Chinese prettied up Beijing for the games, and tried to combat their horrific pollution, but essentially this amounted to building a giant Potemkin village for the television cameras. And the IOC looks like the corrupt, clueless gang that they actually are. To me, it highlights the true ineffectiveness of the IOC - they don't dare offend anyone, because they, like an abused child who craves the abusers love, they are desperate for countries like China to "be part of the Olympic movement". And China knows this, so they make veiled threats, effectively acting like a spoiled child on the playground who threatens to take his ball and go home unless he can break the rules. But scandals like this only serve to show that the "Olympic movement" is hollow and meaningless
As an aside, can we finally put the whole "Eastern harmony with nature" thing to rest? It should be clear to anyone who paid any attention to the run up to the games that China is a cesspit with levels of pollution almost incomprehensible to Americans. I remember watching one of the bike races, and having the commentators note that although it had rained and cut down on the humidity, the rain was so polluted that it made the roads oily and slick. Think about that for a moment. Then think about how the Chinese banned half the cars in Beijing from driving, closed down dozens of factories, and had to desperately scrub rivers to get them clean enough for boating events. If that's the result of Eastern wisdom, spare me any of that kind of advice.
If the IOC were a real organization, with a real concern for the Olympics, they would aggressively pursue the allegations that the Chinese cheated and used ineligible athletes. If the Chinese didn't, then they will have done their job, and China will be vindicated and the world will be assured that the Olympics are well-run. If China did field ineligible athletes, then a drastic solution will have to be found - because falsifying several passports and birth certificates is not an athlete cheating, but rather an organized conspiracy to cheat by an entire sporting federation. (By the way, doesn't it seem pathetic that China would feel the need to cheat to win. It makes the Chinese sporting federation look childish and insecure that they would do something like this). The only solution is to punish the entire federation. It would not be enough to strip the ineligible athletes of their medals, for the same reason that it isn't enough to simply have monopolists or those who defraud the government pay simple damages (and instead they pay treble damages). The only real sanction that would achieve the effect of showing the IOC isn't a weak and toothless caretaker of the Olympics would be to strip all Chinese gymnasts at the 2008 games of their medals, and ban China from international gymnastics competition until after the 2012 games. Effectively, this would be the equivalent of the NCAA giving a corrupt football program the "death penalty".
It won't happen, of course. Rogge will make noises about fairness. He will dissemble in public. The IOC will accept forged documents from the Chinese. And the IOC will declare that no cheating occurred. And then they will wonder why people aren't enthused about the games any more.
Biased Opinions Home
I like baseball, but pretty much only to the extent that I will play it if the opportunity arises (and in that case, I'm usually playing softball, not baseball), or to the extent that I am participating in a fantasy baseball league. I will watch football or basketball, but usually only if the Hoos are playing. But ever since I was a kid watching guys run around a track in Montreal, or slide down a bobsled run in Innsbruck, I've always felt the allure of Olympic sports. They always seemed to have a different aura about them - perhaps it was just that they happened only once every four years, as opposed to the hum-drum regularity of professional sports games. perhaps it was that the sports were so varied and different. I don't know.
I remember watching the Lake Placid Olympics and noticing the first wedge of hypocrisy in the rules - athletes from western nations were held to a strict amateur code, usually struggling to make ends meet, while athletes from behind the Iron Curtain were, essentially, professionals paid for their athletic skills. I remember asking my father about this, and it was one of the first questions I posed that he had no answer for. It wasn't his fault. He didn't make the rules. He couldn't be expected to justify their stupidity.
But, looking back, that was the first real indication I can remember that the IOC was a corrupt and ineffectual organization. Things like the allegations of corruption surrounding the original Salt Lake City bids and the skating judging fiasco, the allegations of gambling influence at the Seoul games, the doping scandals that have grown every games, and the mess that gymnastics always is simply make this clearer with every scandal.
And now it is pretty clear that the Chinese gymnastics federation cheated by using ineligible gymnasts, specifically He Kexin, Deng Lilin, and Yang Yilen. Whether you agree with the age limit rules or not, violating them and using ineligible athletes is cheating. The evidence of this cheating keeps piling up. And the response from the IOC on this simply confirms, once and for all, that the IOC, and possibly the modern Olympics, are past their sell by date.
The first thing about this scandal is that it is clear that the Chinese government is really not good at covering their tracks. I'm guessing that they are so used to controlling the media, and having their pronouncements accepted at face value that they have simply been unable to comprehend that some people would go back and double check what they said. They certainly didn't expect people to go onto their websites and dig up older versions of their published materials to contradict the official line.
However, the Chinese have had a willing accomplice to their fraud in the IOC. First, the IOC tried to sweep it under the rug and hoped it would go away. That might have worked thirty years ago when media outlets were few, and a week old sports story would fade off the wire. But now? Not a chance. Then the IOC tried to dodge responsibility saying that it was up to the gymnastics federation to decide (which makes one wonder what the IOC actually exists for, if it isn't to run and police the Olympic games). Then it decided to use the silliest investigative technique one could imagine:
Policeman: Hello, did you rob that bank over there? I have two witnesses that say it was you and videotape of you pointing a gun at the bank teller.
Masked man: No, it wasn't me. I had an appointment elsewhere. I'll go get my date book and let you look at it, umm, tomorrow.
Policeman: That's good enough for me. As long as your documents say otherwise, that videotape must be some sort of mistake.
Silly, isn't it? But that's basically the nature of the IOC investigation. Now, the IOC has made noises about "not wanting to offend the Chinese", but that just seems to illustrate the inherent corruption here. If the Chinese didn't manipulate their gymnasts' ages, then they wouldn't be offended - most athletes from other countries have been extraordinarily open about things like testing, many even volunteering for additional tests just to demonstrate their innocence and willingness to cooperate. But China? To even suggest that the Chinese might have cheated, even with piles of evidence that they did, is somehow too insulting to consider. And that's because the IOC is desperate to pretend that there are no problems with the Beijing games because, I think, they have been stung by the very legitimate criticism that Beijing should have never been awarded the games to begin with.
And, in many ways, that's the fundamental issue here. The IOC should have known better. Getting a big prize doesn't make a police state become more open, more liberal, and more tolerant. Getting a big prize just legitimizes a police state and gives it a platform to engage in propaganda. It did in 1938, it did in 1980, and it did in 2008. The Chinese government, rather than opening up and becoming more tolerant, has used the "security" concerns of the games to crack down in Tibet, arrest thousands of people, and basically tighten up security and suppress dissent. The Chinese prettied up Beijing for the games, and tried to combat their horrific pollution, but essentially this amounted to building a giant Potemkin village for the television cameras. And the IOC looks like the corrupt, clueless gang that they actually are. To me, it highlights the true ineffectiveness of the IOC - they don't dare offend anyone, because they, like an abused child who craves the abusers love, they are desperate for countries like China to "be part of the Olympic movement". And China knows this, so they make veiled threats, effectively acting like a spoiled child on the playground who threatens to take his ball and go home unless he can break the rules. But scandals like this only serve to show that the "Olympic movement" is hollow and meaningless
As an aside, can we finally put the whole "Eastern harmony with nature" thing to rest? It should be clear to anyone who paid any attention to the run up to the games that China is a cesspit with levels of pollution almost incomprehensible to Americans. I remember watching one of the bike races, and having the commentators note that although it had rained and cut down on the humidity, the rain was so polluted that it made the roads oily and slick. Think about that for a moment. Then think about how the Chinese banned half the cars in Beijing from driving, closed down dozens of factories, and had to desperately scrub rivers to get them clean enough for boating events. If that's the result of Eastern wisdom, spare me any of that kind of advice.
If the IOC were a real organization, with a real concern for the Olympics, they would aggressively pursue the allegations that the Chinese cheated and used ineligible athletes. If the Chinese didn't, then they will have done their job, and China will be vindicated and the world will be assured that the Olympics are well-run. If China did field ineligible athletes, then a drastic solution will have to be found - because falsifying several passports and birth certificates is not an athlete cheating, but rather an organized conspiracy to cheat by an entire sporting federation. (By the way, doesn't it seem pathetic that China would feel the need to cheat to win. It makes the Chinese sporting federation look childish and insecure that they would do something like this). The only solution is to punish the entire federation. It would not be enough to strip the ineligible athletes of their medals, for the same reason that it isn't enough to simply have monopolists or those who defraud the government pay simple damages (and instead they pay treble damages). The only real sanction that would achieve the effect of showing the IOC isn't a weak and toothless caretaker of the Olympics would be to strip all Chinese gymnasts at the 2008 games of their medals, and ban China from international gymnastics competition until after the 2012 games. Effectively, this would be the equivalent of the NCAA giving a corrupt football program the "death penalty".
It won't happen, of course. Rogge will make noises about fairness. He will dissemble in public. The IOC will accept forged documents from the Chinese. And the IOC will declare that no cheating occurred. And then they will wonder why people aren't enthused about the games any more.
Biased Opinions Home
Monday, August 18, 2008
2008 Mythopoeic Award Nominees
Comments: Under the rules of the Mythopoeic Awards works of scholarship in both the Inklings Studies category and Myth and Fantasy Studies category are eligible for a period of three years after they have been published. This means that works can, and often are, nominated to the final list several years in a row. Given this regular recurrence of titles on the finalist lists, I am convinced that this rule exists to make sure that there is a reasonably fleshed out set of finalist lists every year, as otherwise it would seem that there would be a paucity of nominees, especially in the Inklings Studies category.
Best Adult Fantasy Literature
Orphan's Tales series (In the Night Garden and In the Cities of Coin and Spice) by Catherynne M. Valente
Other Nominees:
Chronicles of Chaos series (Orphans of Chaos, Fugitives of Chaos, and Titans of Chaos) by John C. Wright
In the Forest of Forgetting by Theodora GossThe New Moon's Arms by Nalo Hopkinson
Ysabel by Guy Gavriel Kay
Best Children's Fantasy Literature
Harry Potter series (Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows) by J.K. Rowling
Other Nominees:
Dussie by Nancy Springer
The New Policeman by Kate ThompsonSkulduggery Pleasant by Derek Landy
Modern Tale of Faerie series (Tithe: A Modern Faerie Tale, Valiant: A Modern Tale of Faerie, and Ironside: A Modern Faery's Tale) by Holly Black
Scholarship Award in Inklings Studies
The Company They Keep: C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien as Writers in Community by Diana Pavlac Glyer, appendix by David Bratman
Other Nominees:
The History of the Hobbit (Part One, Mr Baggins and Part Two, Return to Bag-End by John D. Rateliff
Interrupted Music: The Making of Tolkien's Mythology by Verlyn FliegerPerilous Realms: Celtic and Norse in Tolkien's Middle-Earth by Marjorie Burns
The Ring of Words: Tolkien and the Oxford English Dictionary by Peter Gilliver, Jeremy Marshall, and Edmund Weiner
Myth and Fantasy Studies
The Shadow-Walkers: Jacob Grimm's Mythology of the Monstrous edited by T.A. Shippey
Other Nominees:
Four British Fantasists: Place and Culture in the Children's Fantasies of Penelope Lively, Alan Garner, Diana Wynne Jones, and Susan Cooper by Charles Butler
From Asgard to Valhalla: The Remarkable History of the Norse Myths by Heather O'Donoghue
The Lure of the Vampire: Gender, Fiction and Fandom from Bram Stoker to Buffy by Milly Williamson
Oz in Perspective: Magic and Myth in the Frank L. Baum Books by Richard Carl Tuerk
Go to previous year's nominees: 2007
Go to subsequent year's nominees: 2009
Book Award Reviews Home
Saturday, August 9, 2008
2008 Hugo Award Finalists
Comments: In 2008, the alternate history novel The Yiddish Policeman's Union won the Hugo Award for Best Novel. The novel, which posits that the United States established a refuge for Jews fleeing Europe in Alaska in 1941, has no science fiction element other than the changed course of history. I like alternate history, and writers like Harry Turtledove are among my favorite authors, but alternate history, without more, is simply not science fiction. And it seems like a shame to waste an award aimed at honoring science fiction and fantasy upon a book that is simply not within those genres. I don't dislike The Yiddish Policeman's Union, I just don't think it should have won the Hugo Award over the various actual science fiction novels that were nominated against it.
In other categories, a Neil Gaiman property returned to the Hugo winner's circle as the movie adaptation of Stardust won the Best Long Form Dramatic Presentation category, and Doctor Who continued its domination of the Short Form category with a win for its episode Blink. Doctor Who dominated the category, garnering a second nomination for its two part story Human Nature and The Family of Blood, while the Doctor Who spin-off Torchwood took up one of the remaining three nomination slots with its episode Captain Jack Harkness. I've said this before, but having a single property dominate an award category the way Doctor Who has dominated the Short Form Dramatic Presentation Hugo is not healthy, either for the award, or for televised science fiction.
Best Novel
The Yiddish Policemen's Union by Michael Chabon
Other Finalists:
Brasyl by Ian McDonald
Halting State by Charles Stross
The Last Colony by John Scalzi
Rollback by Robert J. Sawyer
Best Novella
All Seated on the Ground by Connie Willis
Other Finalists:
The Fountain of Age by Nancy Kress
Memorare by Gene Wolfe
Recovering Apollo 8 by Kristine Kathryn Rusch
Stars Seen Through Stone by Lucius Shepard
Best Novelette
The Merchant and the Alchemist's Gate by Ted Chiang
Other Finalists:
The Cambist and Lord Iron: A Fairy Tale of Economics by Daniel Abraham
Dark Integers by Greg Egan
Finisterra by David Moles
Glory by Greg Egan
Best Short Story
Tideline by Elizabeth Bear
Other Finalists:
Distant Replay by Mike Resnick
Last Contact by Stephen Baxter
A Small Room in Koboldtown by Michael Swanwick
Who's Afraid of Wolf 359? by Ken MacLeod
Best Nonfiction, Related, or Reference Work
Brave New Words: The Oxford Dictionary of Science Fiction by Jeff Prucher
Other Finalists:
The Arrival by Shaun Tan
Breakfast in the Ruins: Science Fiction in the Last Millennium by Barry N. Malzberg
The Company They Keep: C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien as Writers in Community by Diana Pavlac Glyer
Emshwiller: Infinity x Two by Luis OrtizBest Dramatic Presentation: Long Form
Stardust
Other Finalists:
Enchanted
The Golden Compass
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
Heroes, Season 1
Best Dramatic Presentation: Short Form
Doctor Who: Blink
Other Finalists:
Battlestar Galactica: Razor
Doctor Who: Human Nature and The Family of Blood
Star Trek New Voyages: World Enough and Time
Torchwood: Captain Jack Harkness
Best Professional Editor: Short Form
Gordon van Gelder
Other Finalists:
Ellen Datlow
Stanley Schmidt
Jonathan Strahan
Sheila Williams
Best Professional Editor: Long Form
David G. Hartwell
Other Finalists:
Lou Anders
Ginjer Buchanan
Patrick Nielsen Hayden
Beth Meacham
Best Professional Artist
Stephan Martiniere
Other Finalists:
Bob Eggleton
Phil Foglio
John Harris
John Picacio
Shaun Tan
Best Semi-Prozine
Locus edited by Charles N. Brown, Kirsten Gong-Wong, and Liza Groen Trombi
Other Finalists:
Ansible edited by Dave Langford
Helix SF edited by William Sanders and Lawrence Watt-Evans
Interzone edited by Andy Cox
The New York Review of Science Fiction edited by Kathryn Cramer, Kristine Dikeman, David G. Hartwell, and Kevin J. Maroney
Best Fanzine
File 770 edited by Mike Glyer
Other Finalists:
Argentus edited by Steven H Silver
Challenger edited by Guy H. Lillian, III
Drink Tank edited by Chris Garcia
Plokta edited by Steve Davies, Alison Scott, and Mike Scott
Best Fan Writer
Other Finalists:
Chris Garcia
Dave Langford
Cheryl Morgan
Steven H Silver
Best Fan Artist
Brad Foster
Other Finalists:
Teddy Harvia
Sue Mason
Steve Stiles
Taral Wayne
John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer
Mary Robinette Kowal
Other Finalists:
Joe Abercrombie
Jon Armstrong
David Anthony Durham
David Louis Edelman
Scott Lynch
What Are the Hugo Awards?
Go to previous year's finalists: 2007
Go to subsequent year's finalists: 2009
2008 Hugo Longlist Book Award Reviews Home
Saturday, June 21, 2008
2008 Locus Award Nominees
Comments: One of the more difficult things to do is to write something about every annual set of award nominees for the major genre fiction awards that I am tracking on this blog. This difficulty is compounded by the fact that in many cases I haven't read many of the books on the list - reading and reviewing all of these books being the point of this blog after all. As a result, sometimes I simply don't have anything to say about a set of nominees. And this is one of those times.
Best Science Fiction Novel
Winner:
1. The Yiddish Policemen's Union by Michael Chabon
Other Nominees:
2. Spook Country by William Gibson
3. Halting State by Charles Stross
4. Brasyl by Ian McDonald
5. The Accidental Time Machine by Joe Haldeman
6. Axis by Robert Charles Wilson
7. Black Man (aka Thirteen) by Richard Morgan
8. The Execution Channel by Ken MacLeod
9. Ha'penny by Jo Walton
10. Sixty Days and Counting by Kim Stanley Robinson
11. Undertow by Elizabeth Bear
12. Mainspring by Jay Lake
13. Queen of Candesce by Karl Schroeder
14. The Sons of Heaven by Kage Baker
15. The Prefect by Alastair Reynolds
16. Bad Monkeys by Matt Ruff
17. Shelter by Susan Palwick
18. HARM by Brian W. Aldiss
19. In War Times by Kathleen Ann Goonan
20. Engineer Trilogy (Devices and Desires, Evil for Evil, The Escapement) by K.J. Parker
21. The Last Colony by John Scalzi22. Conqueror by Stephen Baxter
23. Till Human Voices Wake Us by Mark Budz
Best Fantasy Novel
Winner:
1. Making Money by Terry Pratchett
Other Nominees:
2. Ysabel by Guy Gavriel Kay
3. Pirate Freedom by Gene Wolfe
4. Territory by Emma Bull
5. Endless Things by John Crowley
6. The White Tyger by Paul Park
7. Softspoken by Lucius Shepard
8. Ink by Hal Duncan
9. Orphan's Tales: In the Cities of Coin and Spice by Catherynne M. Valente
10. Whiskey and Water by Elizabeth Bear
11. The New Moon's Arms by Nalo Hopkinson
12. A Betrayal in Winter by Daniel Abraham
13. The Secret History of Moscow by Ekaterina Sedia
14. Titans of Chaos by John C. Wright
15. Daughter of Hounds by CaitlÃn R. Kiernan
16. The Spiral Labyrinth by Matthew Hughes
17. The Name of the Wind by Patrick Rothfuss
18. Blood Engines by T.A. Pratt
19. Bone Song by John Meaney
Best Young Adult Book
Winner:
1. Un Lun Dun by China Miéville
Other Nominees:
2. Powers by Ursula K. Le Guin
3. The H-Bomb Girl by Stephen Baxter
4. Extras by Scott Westerfeld
5. Magic's Child by Justine Larbalestier
6. Ironside by Holly Black
7. The Shadow Speaker by Nnedi Okorafor-Mbachu
8. Skin Hunger by Kathleen Duey
9. Book of a Thousand Days by Shannon Hale
10. Verdigris Deep (aka Well Witched) by Frances Hardinge
11. The Dream Quake (aka Dreamquake) by Elizabeth Knox
12. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows by J.K. Rowling
Best First Novel
Winner:
1. Heart-Shaped Box by Joe Hill
Other Nominees:
2. The Name of the Wind by Patrick Rothfuss
3. Flora Segunda by Ysabeau S. Wilce
4. One for Sorrow by Christopher Barzak
5. City of Bones by Cassandra Clare
6. Grey by Jon Armstrong
7. The Sword-Edged Blonde by Alex Bledsoe
8. Breakfast with the One You Love by Eliot Fintushel
9. Wicked Lovely by Melissa Marr
10. Maledicte by Lane Robins
Best Novella
Winner:
1. After the Siege by Cory Doctorow
Other Nominees:
2. Memorare by Gene Wolfe
3. All Seated on the Ground by Connie Willis4. Stars Seen through Stone by Lucius Shepard
5. Muse of Fire by Dan Simmons
6. The Master Miller's Tale by Ian R. MacLeod
7. Fountain of Age by Nancy Kress
8. Illyria by Elizabeth Hand
9. Recovering Apollo 8 by Kristine Kathryn Rusch
10. The Emperor and the Maula by Robert Silverberg
11. Dagger Key by Lucius Shepard
12. Hormiga Canyon by Rudy Rucker and Bruce Sterling
13. Dead Money by Lucius Shepard
14. The Lees of Laughter's End by Steven Erikson
15. The Game by Diana Wynne Jones
16. Awakening by Judith Berman
17. Of Love and Other Monsters by Vandana Singh
18. Womb of Every World by Walter Jon Williams
Best Novelette
Winner:
1. The Witch's Headstone by Neil Gaiman
Other Nominees:
2. The Merchant and the Alchemist's Gate by Ted Chiang
3. Dark Integers by Greg Egan
4. We Never Talk About My Brother by Peter S. Beagle
5. Trunk and Disorderly by Charles Stross
6. Wikiworld by Paul Di Filippo
7. The Cambist and Lord Iron: A Fairy Tale of Economics by Daniel Abraham
8. Urdumheim by Michael Swanwick
9. Cryptic Coloration by Elizabeth Bear
10. The Magic Animal by Gene Wolfe
11. Kiosk by Bruce Sterling
12. Glory by Greg Egan
13. Against the Current by Robert Silverberg
14. Winter's Wife by Elizabeth Hand (reviewed in Errantry: Strange Stories)
15. Light by Kelly Link
16. Hellfire at Twilight by Kage Baker
17. The Skysailor's Tale by Michael Swanwick
18. Finisterra by David Moles
19. The Constable of Abal by Kelly Link
20. A Diorama of the Infernal Regions, or The Devil's Ninth Question by Andy Duncan
21. The Surgeon's Tale by Jeff VanderMeer and Cat Rambo
22. An Ocean is a Snowflake, Four Billion Miles Away by John Barnes
23. The Bone Man by Frederic S. Durbin
24. Holly and Iron by Garth Nix
25. The Sky is Large and the Earth is Small by Chris Roberson
26. Dance of Shadows by Fred Chappell
27. The Evolution of Trickster Stories Among the Dogs of North Park After the Change by Kij Johnson
28. The Forest by Laird Barron29. Safeguard by Nancy Kress
30. Wizard's Six by Alex Irvine
31. Princess Lucinda and the Hound of the Moon by Theodora Goss
32. Crossing the Seven by Jay Lake
Best Short Story
Winner:
1. A Small Room in Koboldtown by Michael Swanwick
Other Nominees:
2. The Last and Only, or, Mr. Moscowitz Becomes French by Peter S. Beagle
3. Who's Afraid of Wolf 359? by Ken MacLeod4. Tideline by Elizabeth Bear
5. Last Contact by Stephen Baxter
6. Unique Chicken Goes in Reverse by Andy Duncan
7. Art of War by Nancy Kress
8. Jesus Christ, Reanimator by Ken MacLeod
9. The Dreaming Wind by Jeffrey Ford
10. Pirates of the Somali Coast by Terry Bisson
11. Barrens Dancing by Peter S. Beagle
12. The Third Bear by Jeff VanderMeer
13. The Drowned Life by Jeffrey Ford
14. Always by Karen Joy Fowler
15. Artifice and Intelligence by Tim Pratt
16. Magic with Thirteen-Year-Old Boys by Robert Reed
17. Among Strangers by Pat Cadigan
18. Orm the Beautiful by Elizabeth Bear
19. Mrs. Zeno's Paradox by Ellen Klages
20. Verthandi's Ring by Ian McDonald
21. The Ruby Incomparable by Kage Baker
22. Memoir of a Deer Woman by M. Rickert
23. Osama Phone Home by David Marusek
24. Stone and the Librarian by William Browning Spencer
25. Sanjeev and Robotwallah by Ian McDonald
26. The Manticore Spell by Jeffrey Ford
27. Holiday by M. Rickert
28. (tie) The Lost Boy: A Reporter at Large by Maureen F. McHugh
(tie) Under the Bottom of the Lake by Jeffrey Ford
30. Three Days of Rain by Holly Phillips
31. Soul Case by Nalo Hopkinson
32. By Fools Like Me by Nancy Kress
33. Singing of Mount Abora by Theodora Goss
34. Fragrant Goddess by Paul Park
35. The Lustration by Bruce Sterling
36. Electric Rains by Kathleen Ann Goonan
37. A Plain Tale from Our Hills by Bruce Sterling
38. Graduation Afternoon by Stephen King
39. Clockmaker's Requiem by Barth Anderson
40. Catherine and the Satyr by Theodora Goss
41. Molly and the Red Hat by Benjamin Rosenbaum
42. C-Rock City by Jay Lake and Greg Van Eekhout
Best Collection
Winner:
1. The Winds of Marble Arch and Other Stories by Connie Willis
Other Nominees:
2. The Jack Vance Treasury by Jack Vance
3. Overclocked by Cory Doctorow4. The Dog Said Bow-Wow by Michael Swanwick
5. Things Will Never Be the Same: Selected Short Fiction 1980-2005 by Howard Waldrop
6. New Amsterdam by Elizabeth Bear7. Gods and Pawns by Kage Baker
8. Ascendancies: The Best of Bruce Sterling by Bruce Sterling
9. Dagger Key and Other Stories by Lucius Shepard
10. Portable Childhoods by Ellen Klages
11. The Nail and the Oracle: The Complete Stories of Theodore Sturgeon, Volume XI by Theodore Sturgeon
12. Hart & Boot & Other Stories by Tim Pratt13. Getting to Know You by David Marusek
14. Past Magic by Ian R. MacLeod
15. The Imago Sequence and Other Stories by Laird Barron
16. The Fate of Mice by Susan Palwick
17. Dangerous Space by Kelley Eskridge
18. The Guild of Xenolinguists by Sheila Finch
19. The Girl Who Loved Animals and Other Stories by Bruce McAllister
20. Rynemonn by Terry Dowling
Best Anthology
Winner:
1. The New Space Opera edited by Gardner Dozois and Jonathan Strahan
Other Nominees:
2. The Year's Best Science Fiction: Twenty-Fourth Annual Collection edited by Gardner Dozois
3. The Coyote Road: Trickster Tales edited by Ellen Datlow and Terri Windling
4. The Year's Best Fantasy and Horror 2007: Twentieth Annual Collection edited by Ellen Datlow, Kelly Link, and Gavin J. Grant
5. The Best of Lady Churchill's Rosebud Wristlet edited by Kelly Link and Gavin J. Grant
6. Wizards edited by Jack Dann and Gardner Dozois7. Logorrhea edited by John Klima
8. Eclipse One: New Fantasy and Science Fiction edited by Jonathan Strahan
9. Fast Forward 1: Future Fiction from the Cutting Edge edited by Lou Anders
10. Inferno edited by Ellen Datlow
11. Year's Best SF 12 edited by David G. Hartwell and Kathryn Cramer
12. The Solaris Book of New Science Fiction edited by George Mann
13. Rewired: The Post-Cyberpunk Anthology edited by James Patrick Kelly and John Kessel
14. The Best Science Fiction and Fantasy of the Year Volume One edited by Jonathan Strahan
15. Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine 30th Anniversary Anthology edited by Sheila Williams
16. Best Short Novels: 2007 edited by Jonathan Strahan17. The SFWA European Hall of Fame edited by James Morrow and Kathryn Morrow
18. The Best of the Best, Volume 2: 20 Years of the Best Short Science Fiction Novels edited by Gardner Dozois
19. Year's Best Fantasy 7 edited by David G. Hartwell and Kathryn Cramer
20. The Mammoth Book of Best New Horror: Volume Eighteen edited by Stephen Jones
21. Worlds Apart: An Anthology of Russian Fantasy and Science Fiction edited by Alexander Levitsky
22. Fantasy: The Best of the Year: 2007 Edition edited by Rich Horton23. Science Fiction: The Best of the Year: 2007 Edition edited by Rich Horton
Best Nonfiction, Related, or Reference Book
Winner:
1. Breakfast in the Ruins by Barry N. Malzberg
Other Nominees:
2. Brave New Words: The Oxford Dictionary of Science Fiction edited by Jeff Prucher
3. The Country You Have Never Seen by Joanna Russ
4. Gateways to Forever: The Story of the Science-Fiction Magazines from 1970 to 1980 by Mike Ashley
5. Shadows of the New Sun: Wolfe on Writing/Writers on Wolfe by Peter Wright6. Sides by Peter Straub
7. Icons of Horror and the Supernatural: An Encyclopedia of Our Worst Nightmares edited by S.T. Joshi
8. Anne McCaffrey: A Life with Dragons by Robin Roberts9. Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia by Brian Stableford
10. Hugo Gernsback and the Century of Science Fiction by Gary Westfahl
11. The Cultural Influences of William Gibson, the "Father" of Cyberpunk Science Fiction edited by Carl B. Yoke and Carol L. Robinson
Best Art Book
Winner:
1. The Arrival by Shaun Tan
Other Nominees:
2. Spectrum 14: The Best in Contemporary Fantastic Art edited by Cathy Fenner and Arnie Fenner
3. Emshwiller: Infinity x Two edited by Luis Ortiz
4. Dreamscape: The Best of Imaginary Realism edited by Claus Brusen and Marcel Salome
5. Mervyn Peake: The Man and His Art compiled by Sebastian Peake and Alison Eldred, edited by G. Peter Winnington
6. Fantasy Art Now: The Very Best in Contemporary Fantasy Art & Illustration edited by Martin McKenna
7. Beowulf: A Tale of Blood, Heat, and Ashes retold by Nicky Raven, illustrated by John Howe
8. Worlds of Amano by Yoshitaka Amano9. The Adventuress by Audrey Niffenegger
10. Women: Motifs and Variations by Rafal Olbinski
Best Editor
Winner:
1. Ellen Datlow
Other Nominees:
2. Gardner Dozois
3. Gordon van Gelder
4. David G. Hartwell
5. Patrick Nielsen Hayden
6. Jim Baen
7. Jonathan Strahan
8. Gavin Grant and Kelly Link
9. Lou Anders
10. Sheila Williams
11. Jeff VanderMeer
12. Terri Windling
13. Peter Crowther
14. Teresa Nielsen Hayden
15. Stanley Schmidt
16. Robert Silverberg
17. Stephen Jones
18. Shawna McCarthy
19. Beth Meacham
20. Martin H. Greenberg
21. Toni Weisskopf
22. Ginjer Buchanan
23. Sharyn November
24. William K. Schafer
25. Betsy Wollheim
26. Andy Cox
27. Susan Marie Groppi
28. Deborah Layne and Jay Lake
29. Juliet Ulman
30. Betsy Mitchell
Best Magazine
Winner:
1. Fantasy & Science Fiction
Other Nominees:
2. Asimov's
3. Analog
4. Lady Churchill's Rosebud Wristlet
5. Subterranean
6. Interzone
7. Realms of Fantasy
8. Jim Baen's Universe
9. Strange Horizons
10. The New York Review of Science Fiction
11. Weird Tales
12. Postscripts
13. Ansible
14. Clarkesworld Magazine
15. SF Site
16. Fantasy Magazine
17. SF Weekly
18. Cemetery Dance
19. Electric Velocipede
20. Black Gate
21. SFRevu
22. Internet Review of Science Fiction
23. Talebones
Best Book Publisher or Imprint
Winner:
1. Tor
Other Nominees:
2. Subterranean Press
3. Night Shade Books
4. Baen
5. Bantam Spectra
6. Ace
7. DAW
8. Del Rey
9. Gollancz
10. Pyr
11. PS Publishing
12. Small Beer Press
13. Golden Gryphon
14. Tachyon
15. Eos
16. Roc
17. Orbit
18. NESFA Press
19. Firebird
20. St. Martin's
21. MonkeyBrain
22. SF Book Club
23. Arkham House
24. Meisha Merlin
25. Prime
26. Luna
27. Wheatland
Best Artist
Winner:
1. Charles Vess
Other Nominees:
2. Michael Whelan
3. Shaun Tan
4. John Picacio
5. Stephan Martiniere
6. Bob Eggleton
7. Dave McKean
8. Donato Giancola
9. John Jude Palencar
10. Kinuko Y. Craft
11. Jim Burns
12. Thomas Canty
13. Yoshitaka Amano
14. J.K. Potter
15. Frank Wu
16. Leo Dillon and Diane Dillon
17. Frank Frazetta
18. Clive Barker
19. Boris Vallejo
20. Vincent Di Fate
21. Tom Kidd
22. Michael Kaluta
23. Paul Kidby
24. David Cherry
25. Don Maitz
26. Luis Royo
27. Brom
28. Les Edwards
29. Julie Bell
30. Stephen Youll
Go to previous year's nominees: 2007
Go to subsequent year's nominees: 2009
Book Award Reviews Home
Monday, June 16, 2008
Random Thought - Magazines
I'm usually a fairly forward leaning guy. I grew up with computers in the house, I think it is a travesty that we aren't farming the oceans like in The Deep Range, and that there is really no excuse for abandoning the moon after Apollo and so on. But in some ways, I think I'm a dinosaur. While sending in a subscription for Realms of Fantasy today, I realized that one of those areas is definitely magazines.
One thing that is certain is that magazine readership is on the decline. Magazine subscriptions are down. The print magazine business has been on the decline for quite a while, certainly it is much smaller now than it was in the 1940s and 1950s. Dozens of magazine titles have gone out of business, and almost all of the others have seen their volumes decline precipitously.
And yet, I subscribe to and read seven different magazines: The Economist, National Geographic, Science News, Locus, Fantasy & Science Fiction, Analog Science Fiction and Fact, and Asimov's Science Fiction. As of today, with the addition of Realms of Fantasy, the total is up to eight. Note that not only do I subscribe to them, I said "and read" - I think this is important. I know a lot of people who subscribe to one or another magazine and never read the issues. I used to subscribe to the daily Washington Post, but I realized I never read it, so I discontinued it.
But still, eight magazine subscriptions. Crunch, crunch, crunch. Can you hear the crashing footsteps of a dinosaur?
Random Thoughts Home
One thing that is certain is that magazine readership is on the decline. Magazine subscriptions are down. The print magazine business has been on the decline for quite a while, certainly it is much smaller now than it was in the 1940s and 1950s. Dozens of magazine titles have gone out of business, and almost all of the others have seen their volumes decline precipitously.
And yet, I subscribe to and read seven different magazines: The Economist, National Geographic, Science News, Locus, Fantasy & Science Fiction, Analog Science Fiction and Fact, and Asimov's Science Fiction. As of today, with the addition of Realms of Fantasy, the total is up to eight. Note that not only do I subscribe to them, I said "and read" - I think this is important. I know a lot of people who subscribe to one or another magazine and never read the issues. I used to subscribe to the daily Washington Post, but I realized I never read it, so I discontinued it.
But still, eight magazine subscriptions. Crunch, crunch, crunch. Can you hear the crashing footsteps of a dinosaur?
Random Thoughts Home
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Biased Opinion - No Squid Faced Aliens Need Apply
Following up on my last entry, I decided to put together a short list of science fiction that doesn't meet Margaret Atwood's definition of science fiction. If you recall, according to her, Oryx and Crake isn't science fiction because it has "no intergalactic space travel, no teleportation, no Martians". To expand on her statements, apparently science fiction is "when you have rockets and chemicals". Also, according to Ms. Atwood, science fiction is about "talking squids in outer space". It certainly isn't about a dystopian future in which religious zealots have taken over the U.S. government and forced women into concubinage (like her other science fiction story, The Handmaid's Tale, winner of the Arthur C. Clarke Award).
All of which is pretty much just a list of reasons why some writers should never be allowed to give interviews, because they will just embarrass themselves by exposing their ignorance.
But, just for fun, I figured I'd come up with a list of books that are clearly science fiction, but that manage to avoid these elements. But, just to see how far I can push the definition, I decided to make the terms a little more restrictive than even Ms. Atwood does.
1. No intergalactic space travel. This definition wouldn't actually exclude many science fiction books at all, primarily because there aren't all that many stories featuring intergalactic space travel; that is, space travel between galaxies. David Brin's second Uplift series has travel between galaxies, as does E.E. "Doc" Smith's Lensman series (read review), but not many others do. Even Isaac Asmiov's Foundation series (read review) and Frank Herbert's Dune series, which feature galaxy spanning empires don't have intergalactic space travel. I think Ms. Atwood meant to say interstellar or interplanetary space travel (or maybe even just space travel at all, but that prevents people from writing about stuff that people have actually done, so that is probably too restrictive). Just for grins, I'll say that she meant interplanetary space travel, and exclude from my list anything that involves travel between planets, stars, or galaxies.
2. No teleportation. This actually doesn't exclude much of anything. Very few science fiction works actually involve teleportation. Alfred Bester's The Stars My Destination gets eliminated from my list by this restriction, as does a fair amount of Larry Niven's Known Space books, since they include teleportation plates. Some relatively minor works like Jumper also have teleportation. On the whole, though, unless you think Star Trek with its transporters is the core of science fiction, not many works actually feature this element.
3. No Martians. This specific definition doesn't affect many science fiction works either, since comparatively few feature actual Martians. Robert A. Heinlein's Red Planet, and Podkayne of Mars feature Martians, as does Isaac Asimov's David Starr, Space Ranger. Of course, a lot of older pulp stories like Burrough's Barsoom series feature Martians too. But let's not limit ourselves to Martians, let's exclude from my list all books that involve aliens - that is - all books that feature intelligent life from planets other than Earth. That certainly takes care of any books involving "talking squids in outer space". To tell the truth, I'm not sure how many science fiction stories actually feature talking squids, maybe The Human Pets of Mars, or maybe War of the Worlds would qualify, but the list of books with that specific element seems to be pretty small.
I've also decided to not list science fiction short stories, or else the list would become ridiculously long without really even having to try - The Roads Must Roll, The Nine Billion Names of God, If This Goes On-, Coventry, and so on just seem to be too much like absurdly low-hanging fruit. So, what sort of list do we have once we exclude interplanetary space travel, teleportation, and aliens from our list? Quite a bit actually.
(Side note: I make no claims as to the quality of any particular work listed here. I also don't pretend that this is anything like a comprehensive list of books that are science fiction, but don't have the elements that Ms. Atwood thinks characterize the genre. This is simply an off the top of my head list of books that I remember that meet the stated criteria. I'm sure that any number of people could easily add works I forgot to this list.)
Without further ado, here's the list, arranged by author, in no particular order.
Robert A. Heinlein: The Door Into Summer, I Will Fear No Evil, Farnham's Freehold, and Sixth Column (also titled The Day After Tomorrow)
Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle: Lucifer's Hammer, Inferno, and Oath of Fealty
Larry Niven and Steven Barnes: Dream Park, The California Voodoo Game (read review), and The Barsoom Project
Arthur C. Clarke: The Ghost from the Grand Banks
Brian Aldiss: Greybeard
Ray Bradbury: Fahrenheit 451
Richard Cowper: The Road to Corlay, A Dream of Kinship, and A Tapestry of Time
William Gibson: Neuromancer, Mona Lisa Overdrive, and Count Zero
Robert Sheckley: Immortality, Inc.
Alfred Bester: The Demolished Man (read review)
Daniel Keyes: Flowers for Algernon
John Varley: Millennium
Russell Hoban: Riddley Walker
H.G. Wells: The Invisible Man, and The Island of Dr. Moreau
Aldous Huxley: Brave New World
Yevgeny Zamyatin: We
Robert Mason: Weapon
Nancy Kress: Beggars in Spain
John Brunner: Stand on Zanzibar
David Brin: Earth and The Postman
Greg Egan: Permutation City
Michael Crichton: Jurassic Park, The Lost World, Prey, and The Andromeda Strain
Andre Norton: No Night Without Stars
I could go on and on, but I figure this is enough to prove my point. Science fiction gets along just fine without space travel, aliens, and teleportation. In point of fact, many of the most influential works of science fiction feature none of these elements, and yet, somehow, despite Ms. Atwood's claims, they remain science fiction.
As does a story about a dystopian future that deals extensively with the results of genetic engineering. She can twist, dodge, and play semantic games all she wants, but Ms. Atwood has written two books that are clearly science fiction, whether she wants to admit it or not.
Biased Opinions Home
All of which is pretty much just a list of reasons why some writers should never be allowed to give interviews, because they will just embarrass themselves by exposing their ignorance.
But, just for fun, I figured I'd come up with a list of books that are clearly science fiction, but that manage to avoid these elements. But, just to see how far I can push the definition, I decided to make the terms a little more restrictive than even Ms. Atwood does.
1. No intergalactic space travel. This definition wouldn't actually exclude many science fiction books at all, primarily because there aren't all that many stories featuring intergalactic space travel; that is, space travel between galaxies. David Brin's second Uplift series has travel between galaxies, as does E.E. "Doc" Smith's Lensman series (read review), but not many others do. Even Isaac Asmiov's Foundation series (read review) and Frank Herbert's Dune series, which feature galaxy spanning empires don't have intergalactic space travel. I think Ms. Atwood meant to say interstellar or interplanetary space travel (or maybe even just space travel at all, but that prevents people from writing about stuff that people have actually done, so that is probably too restrictive). Just for grins, I'll say that she meant interplanetary space travel, and exclude from my list anything that involves travel between planets, stars, or galaxies.
2. No teleportation. This actually doesn't exclude much of anything. Very few science fiction works actually involve teleportation. Alfred Bester's The Stars My Destination gets eliminated from my list by this restriction, as does a fair amount of Larry Niven's Known Space books, since they include teleportation plates. Some relatively minor works like Jumper also have teleportation. On the whole, though, unless you think Star Trek with its transporters is the core of science fiction, not many works actually feature this element.
3. No Martians. This specific definition doesn't affect many science fiction works either, since comparatively few feature actual Martians. Robert A. Heinlein's Red Planet, and Podkayne of Mars feature Martians, as does Isaac Asimov's David Starr, Space Ranger. Of course, a lot of older pulp stories like Burrough's Barsoom series feature Martians too. But let's not limit ourselves to Martians, let's exclude from my list all books that involve aliens - that is - all books that feature intelligent life from planets other than Earth. That certainly takes care of any books involving "talking squids in outer space". To tell the truth, I'm not sure how many science fiction stories actually feature talking squids, maybe The Human Pets of Mars, or maybe War of the Worlds would qualify, but the list of books with that specific element seems to be pretty small.
I've also decided to not list science fiction short stories, or else the list would become ridiculously long without really even having to try - The Roads Must Roll, The Nine Billion Names of God, If This Goes On-, Coventry, and so on just seem to be too much like absurdly low-hanging fruit. So, what sort of list do we have once we exclude interplanetary space travel, teleportation, and aliens from our list? Quite a bit actually.
(Side note: I make no claims as to the quality of any particular work listed here. I also don't pretend that this is anything like a comprehensive list of books that are science fiction, but don't have the elements that Ms. Atwood thinks characterize the genre. This is simply an off the top of my head list of books that I remember that meet the stated criteria. I'm sure that any number of people could easily add works I forgot to this list.)
Without further ado, here's the list, arranged by author, in no particular order.
Robert A. Heinlein: The Door Into Summer, I Will Fear No Evil, Farnham's Freehold, and Sixth Column (also titled The Day After Tomorrow)
Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle: Lucifer's Hammer, Inferno, and Oath of Fealty
Larry Niven and Steven Barnes: Dream Park, The California Voodoo Game (read review), and The Barsoom Project
Arthur C. Clarke: The Ghost from the Grand Banks
Brian Aldiss: Greybeard
Ray Bradbury: Fahrenheit 451
Richard Cowper: The Road to Corlay, A Dream of Kinship, and A Tapestry of Time
William Gibson: Neuromancer, Mona Lisa Overdrive, and Count Zero
Robert Sheckley: Immortality, Inc.
Alfred Bester: The Demolished Man (read review)
Daniel Keyes: Flowers for Algernon
John Varley: Millennium
Russell Hoban: Riddley Walker
H.G. Wells: The Invisible Man, and The Island of Dr. Moreau
Aldous Huxley: Brave New World
Yevgeny Zamyatin: We
Robert Mason: Weapon
Nancy Kress: Beggars in Spain
John Brunner: Stand on Zanzibar
David Brin: Earth and The Postman
Greg Egan: Permutation City
Michael Crichton: Jurassic Park, The Lost World, Prey, and The Andromeda Strain
Andre Norton: No Night Without Stars
I could go on and on, but I figure this is enough to prove my point. Science fiction gets along just fine without space travel, aliens, and teleportation. In point of fact, many of the most influential works of science fiction feature none of these elements, and yet, somehow, despite Ms. Atwood's claims, they remain science fiction.
As does a story about a dystopian future that deals extensively with the results of genetic engineering. She can twist, dodge, and play semantic games all she wants, but Ms. Atwood has written two books that are clearly science fiction, whether she wants to admit it or not.
Biased Opinions Home
Biased Opinion - Been a While
Well, it's been a while since I updated this. I blame fantasy baseball - I got talked into rejoining the Internet Simulated Baseball League (which I had left several years ago) and, since I don't do much of anything halfway, I spent a lot of time researching for the league auction and setting my roster and so on. That is now back to a moderate time waster for me now though, I just have to make sure to get my games in on time for the rest of the season.
Onward.
I have found it amusing recently to read about the various "serious" authors who have, to their horror, discovered that they have written science fiction, and then seen their frantic attempts to explain that their books are not actually science fiction. Actually, let me rephrase that: their ludicrous, unconvincing, and incredibly juvenile attempts to explain that their books are not science fiction.
The most famous would be Margaret Atwood. She's written not one, but two works of science fiction: The Handmaid's Tale (for which she won a, gasp, science fiction award), and Oryx and Crake. However, despite the fact that Oryx and Crake is about a dystopian future with a plot that heavily features the results of widespread genetic engineering, according to Ms. Atwood, it isn't science fiction. In her words it "is a speculative fiction, not a science fiction proper." Apparently this is because, "it contains no intergalactic space travel, no teleportation, no Martians." That's about as convincing as saying that the thing I'm wearing on my upper body isn't a shirt, because it is red, and shirts are blue. It is the sort of semantic dodge that only a child would consider sensible, and it is really unworthy of someone who is capable of writing publishable fiction.
I suppose I could be more charitable and assume that Ms. Atwood simply hasn't actually read much science fiction, and thus doesn't know that her definition of the term makes no sense. That makes her seem a little less childish, but it instead results in the conclusion that Ms. Atwood is simply poorly educated on the subject. In other words, she is a writer who simply doesn't know anything about the genre she has written in. This is just one of the more obvious examples of writers and critics doing everything in their power to explain how a work written by one of the "literati" that is clearly science-fiction (or fantasy) really isn't.
For example, P.D. James' Children of Men, about a future in which women have lost the ability to have children, according to the New York Times, apparently isn't science fiction. it is, "a trenchant analysis of politics and power that speaks urgently to this social moment". Which apparently means it, by definition, cannot be a work of science fiction. I suppose one could also say that the movie Chariots of Fire isn't about people who are competitive runners, but that it is about people who "move their legs really fast while trying to go around a track faster than anyone else." It would make about as much sense.
The list goes on. Apparently Douglas Adams didn't write science fiction, he wrote books that happened to be about space and time. Steven Fry, who used time travel in one of his novels, never wrote a science fiction novel either. The common theme is that these authors simply define science fiction as "something other than what I wrote" using some of the most transparently poorly thought out semantic dodges I have ever seen.
I think that the fact that I was looking at a bunch of these semantic dodges at the same time I was looking at some material debunking a host of creationist claims about the origins of life brought home to me that the "literati" really are a lot like creationists. Because they can't teach creationism in public schools (because it is religion, and not science), its advocates have tried to use the semantic dodge of calling their theories "intelligent design". Of course, they fool no one (in point of fact, when tested in court, "intelligent design" has been correctly determined to simply be creationism renamed). Similarly, authors like Ms. Atwood don't fool anyone with their silly semantic arguments. A shovel is still a shovel, even if you call it an "human powered earth moving tool". Trying to argue that the shovel is, in fact, not a shovel based upon this sort of renaming would just make someone look ridiculous.
And, in the end, all the people who posture, protest, and deny that what they have produced is actually science fiction but "an examination of the impact of technology on humans in the future" or some such semantic nonsense - all they really do is make themselves look ridiculous. We aren't fooled. No one is. In the end, they only expose their own prejudices and lack of education.
Biased Opinions Home
Onward.
I have found it amusing recently to read about the various "serious" authors who have, to their horror, discovered that they have written science fiction, and then seen their frantic attempts to explain that their books are not actually science fiction. Actually, let me rephrase that: their ludicrous, unconvincing, and incredibly juvenile attempts to explain that their books are not science fiction.
The most famous would be Margaret Atwood. She's written not one, but two works of science fiction: The Handmaid's Tale (for which she won a, gasp, science fiction award), and Oryx and Crake. However, despite the fact that Oryx and Crake is about a dystopian future with a plot that heavily features the results of widespread genetic engineering, according to Ms. Atwood, it isn't science fiction. In her words it "is a speculative fiction, not a science fiction proper." Apparently this is because, "it contains no intergalactic space travel, no teleportation, no Martians." That's about as convincing as saying that the thing I'm wearing on my upper body isn't a shirt, because it is red, and shirts are blue. It is the sort of semantic dodge that only a child would consider sensible, and it is really unworthy of someone who is capable of writing publishable fiction.
I suppose I could be more charitable and assume that Ms. Atwood simply hasn't actually read much science fiction, and thus doesn't know that her definition of the term makes no sense. That makes her seem a little less childish, but it instead results in the conclusion that Ms. Atwood is simply poorly educated on the subject. In other words, she is a writer who simply doesn't know anything about the genre she has written in. This is just one of the more obvious examples of writers and critics doing everything in their power to explain how a work written by one of the "literati" that is clearly science-fiction (or fantasy) really isn't.
For example, P.D. James' Children of Men, about a future in which women have lost the ability to have children, according to the New York Times, apparently isn't science fiction. it is, "a trenchant analysis of politics and power that speaks urgently to this social moment". Which apparently means it, by definition, cannot be a work of science fiction. I suppose one could also say that the movie Chariots of Fire isn't about people who are competitive runners, but that it is about people who "move their legs really fast while trying to go around a track faster than anyone else." It would make about as much sense.
The list goes on. Apparently Douglas Adams didn't write science fiction, he wrote books that happened to be about space and time. Steven Fry, who used time travel in one of his novels, never wrote a science fiction novel either. The common theme is that these authors simply define science fiction as "something other than what I wrote" using some of the most transparently poorly thought out semantic dodges I have ever seen.
I think that the fact that I was looking at a bunch of these semantic dodges at the same time I was looking at some material debunking a host of creationist claims about the origins of life brought home to me that the "literati" really are a lot like creationists. Because they can't teach creationism in public schools (because it is religion, and not science), its advocates have tried to use the semantic dodge of calling their theories "intelligent design". Of course, they fool no one (in point of fact, when tested in court, "intelligent design" has been correctly determined to simply be creationism renamed). Similarly, authors like Ms. Atwood don't fool anyone with their silly semantic arguments. A shovel is still a shovel, even if you call it an "human powered earth moving tool". Trying to argue that the shovel is, in fact, not a shovel based upon this sort of renaming would just make someone look ridiculous.
And, in the end, all the people who posture, protest, and deny that what they have produced is actually science fiction but "an examination of the impact of technology on humans in the future" or some such semantic nonsense - all they really do is make themselves look ridiculous. We aren't fooled. No one is. In the end, they only expose their own prejudices and lack of education.
Biased Opinions Home
Saturday, April 26, 2008
2008 Nebula Award Nominees
Comments: The 2008 Nebula Awards were more or less as uninteresting as the 2007 Nebula awards had been, with nominations for and wins by the books and authors that one would expect to win. Even the win for Best Script that Pan's Labyrinth earned is only surprising because it managed to beat a Doctor Who episode for the prize. No single person received more than one nomination. None of the winners were undeserving, in fact, the very predictable nature of the ballots this year is because all of the winners were deserving selections. The very uninteresting nature of this year's array of ballots and winners is probably the most interesting thing about it. Even in terms of gender equality 2008 was a fairly ordinary year, with women nominated for, and winning a decent share of the awards. I don't know why 2008 turned out to be so bland, perhaps the SFWA is simply becoming predictable, but the fact remains that it did.
Best Novel
The Yiddish Policemen's Union by Michael Chabon
Other Nominees:
The Accidental Time Machine by Joe Haldeman
The New Moon's Arms by Nalo Hopkinson
Odyssey by Jack McDevitt
Ragamuffin by Tobias S. Buckell
Best Novella
Fountain of Age by Nancy Kress
Other Nominees:
Awakening by Judith Berman
The Helper and His Hero by Matt Hughes
Kiosk by Bruce Sterling
Memorare by Gene Wolfe
Stars Seen through Stone by Lucius Shepard
Best Novelette
The Merchant and the Alchemist's Gate by Ted Chiang
Other Nominees:
Child, Maiden, Mother, Crone by Terry Bramlett
The Children's Crusade by Robin Wayne Bailey
The Evolution of Trickster Stories Among the Dogs Of North Park After the Change by Kij Johnson
The Fiddler of Bayou Teche by Delia ShermanPol Pot's Beautiful Daughter (Fantasy) by Geoff Ryman
Safeguard by Nancy Kress
Best Short Story
Always by Karen Joy Fowler
Other Nominees:
Captive Girl by Jennifer Pelland
Pride by Mary A. Turzillo
The Story of Love by Vera Nazarian
Titanium Mike Saves the Day by David D. Levine
Unique Chicken Goes In Reverse by Andy Duncan
Best Script
Pan's Labyrinth by Guillermo del Toro
Other Nominees:
Children of Men by Alfonso Cuaron, Timothy J. Sexton, David Arata, Mark Fergus, and Hawk Ostby
Doctor Who: Blink by Steven Moffat
The Prestige by Christopher Nolan and Jonathan Nolan (based on the novel by Christopher Priest)
Star Trek - New Voyages: World Enough and Time by Marc Scott Zicree and Michael Reaves
V for Vendetta by Larry Wachowski and Andy WachowskiAndre Norton Award
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows by J.K. Rowling
Other Nominees:
Flora Segunda by Ysabeau S. Wilce
Into the Wild by Sarah Beth Durst
The Lion Hunter by Elizabeth Wein
The Shadow Speaker by Nnedi Okorafor-Mbachu
The True Meaning of Smekday by Adam Rex
Vintage: A Ghost Story by Steve Berman
Ray Bradbury Award
Joss Weedon
Other Nominees:
None
Go to previous year's nominees: 2007
Go to subsequent year's nominees: 2009
Book Award Reviews Home
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Biased Opinion - Taxes
So, it is political season, and it is starting to hit Virginia in earnest. Campaign ads are all over the television and radio, we have gotten campaign calls pretty much every day for a while now and so on. And, of course, I watched the candidates lie a lot.
If you didn't gather this before, in my my day job I work for a federal agency as a fiscal law attorney. Most people look at me when I tell them that with this puzzled look on their face wondering what the heck that means. Basically, my job is to advise people who I work with concerning the legalities of spending that portion of federal money allocated to our agency. I also look at the budget when it is being developed in order to see if there is anything we need to know about ahead of time, or think we need to ask Congress to change for various reasons. Although not strictly necessary for my job, this has also given me some contact with the tax code that brings the revenue in to the government.
Knowing this, I am never surprised when candidates for federal office display a shocking ignorance of the federal budget when they talk about what they intend to do in office. When people running for Congress or the Senate for the first time do this, I usually excuse it and figure they might learn if and when they get there. But when candidates for the nomination for President, who have served in the Congress and are touting their experience or their skill in managing legislation do this, I worry. It comes down to this: Passing the various appropriations bills is almost always the most important thing that Congress accomplishes in most years. In some years it is the only important thing Congress accomplishes.
More often, I worry about silly tax code pronouncements. Usually they talk about providing a "middle-class tax cut", because that sounds nice and egalitarian, and everyone pretty much universally thinks it is a good idea (because the vast majority of people in the country think that they are middle-class, and any middle-class tax cut will, by definition, apply to them). The problem is that such pronouncements are usually little more than lies.
The problem is that for just about any income tax cut, the bulk of the benefits will go to the very highest income earners, almost by default. The secret to income taxes in this country is that the wealthy pay almost all of them. The top 50% of income earners pay about 97% of the income taxes. The top 5% of income earners pay about 57% of the income taxes. The top 1% of income earners pay about 37% of the income taxes. Even if you define "middle-class" as being income earners between the 50th percentile and the 95th percentile, they only pay about 40% of the total income taxes paid. This reality makes it very difficult to create a tax cut that doesn't end up with most of the benefits accruing to the top of the income barrel - because that's where most of the money comes from. This, of course, gets people up in arms about how the tax cuts which were sold as being for the middle-class have ended up in the hands of the wealthy.
Now, this isn't a call for reducing taxes on the "wealthy", and I am not making any assessment as to how much taxes should be overall. But the reality is that after deductions and adjustments, the typical middle-class family probably only pays 4-5% of their income in income taxes as it is. There just aren't a lot of ways to drive that number down. If a politician was really serious about a middle-class tax cut, he'd look at some of the other taxes everyone pays, taxes that hit middle-class (and lower-class) individuals harder than their wealthy counterparts. The social security tax is "capped", meaning that if you make a lot of money, there comes a point where you can stop paying more into the system. The social security tax is also about 6% paid by the employee and 6% "paid" by the employer (and the reality is that the employee effectively pays the tax, he just doesn't know it), which is a much higher rate than most people end up paying in income taxes. That would be a place that the burden could be shifted "up" and the burden placed more squarely on higher income earners. It would also be a perfect place to reduce taxes on the middle-class. Of course, it would be political suicide for anyone to propose this - social security is called the third rail of American politics for a reason.
The federal government also taxes a lot of things directly at the point of sale as excise taxes. The most obvious is gas - every gallon of gas sold nets the government 18 cents (24 cents for every gallon of diesel sold). This is a lot more per gallon than the oil companies make in profit on that same gas. While the income tax is designed to be progressive, an excise tax like this is regressive - in other words, it hits those with lower income more, since it is a flat amount of money that has to be paid any time a gallon of gas is purchased. Any politician that was truly serious about reducing the tax burden on the middle-class would reduce the gas tax. Although they are taxes imposed by the states, the various sales taxes are also regressive - if a presidential candidate came up with a way to reduce the burden these sales taxes impose I would be impressed (on the converse, I was amazed when Clinton proposed a national value added tax, a hugely regressive type of tax; the proposal was, thankfully, widely ridiculed, and soundly rejected). Property taxes are also imposed by the states, and mostly hit middle-class homeowners, although you can take a credit on your income taxes.
So, the upshot of my rambling is that I have yet to see a candidate who actually has proposed any kind of tax system that will change the tax burden on the middle-class in a meaningful way. Ever. In any election. As long as they keep tinkering with the income tax system as their exclusive playing field, I don't think anyone ever will.
Biased Opinions Home
If you didn't gather this before, in my my day job I work for a federal agency as a fiscal law attorney. Most people look at me when I tell them that with this puzzled look on their face wondering what the heck that means. Basically, my job is to advise people who I work with concerning the legalities of spending that portion of federal money allocated to our agency. I also look at the budget when it is being developed in order to see if there is anything we need to know about ahead of time, or think we need to ask Congress to change for various reasons. Although not strictly necessary for my job, this has also given me some contact with the tax code that brings the revenue in to the government.
Knowing this, I am never surprised when candidates for federal office display a shocking ignorance of the federal budget when they talk about what they intend to do in office. When people running for Congress or the Senate for the first time do this, I usually excuse it and figure they might learn if and when they get there. But when candidates for the nomination for President, who have served in the Congress and are touting their experience or their skill in managing legislation do this, I worry. It comes down to this: Passing the various appropriations bills is almost always the most important thing that Congress accomplishes in most years. In some years it is the only important thing Congress accomplishes.
More often, I worry about silly tax code pronouncements. Usually they talk about providing a "middle-class tax cut", because that sounds nice and egalitarian, and everyone pretty much universally thinks it is a good idea (because the vast majority of people in the country think that they are middle-class, and any middle-class tax cut will, by definition, apply to them). The problem is that such pronouncements are usually little more than lies.
The problem is that for just about any income tax cut, the bulk of the benefits will go to the very highest income earners, almost by default. The secret to income taxes in this country is that the wealthy pay almost all of them. The top 50% of income earners pay about 97% of the income taxes. The top 5% of income earners pay about 57% of the income taxes. The top 1% of income earners pay about 37% of the income taxes. Even if you define "middle-class" as being income earners between the 50th percentile and the 95th percentile, they only pay about 40% of the total income taxes paid. This reality makes it very difficult to create a tax cut that doesn't end up with most of the benefits accruing to the top of the income barrel - because that's where most of the money comes from. This, of course, gets people up in arms about how the tax cuts which were sold as being for the middle-class have ended up in the hands of the wealthy.
Now, this isn't a call for reducing taxes on the "wealthy", and I am not making any assessment as to how much taxes should be overall. But the reality is that after deductions and adjustments, the typical middle-class family probably only pays 4-5% of their income in income taxes as it is. There just aren't a lot of ways to drive that number down. If a politician was really serious about a middle-class tax cut, he'd look at some of the other taxes everyone pays, taxes that hit middle-class (and lower-class) individuals harder than their wealthy counterparts. The social security tax is "capped", meaning that if you make a lot of money, there comes a point where you can stop paying more into the system. The social security tax is also about 6% paid by the employee and 6% "paid" by the employer (and the reality is that the employee effectively pays the tax, he just doesn't know it), which is a much higher rate than most people end up paying in income taxes. That would be a place that the burden could be shifted "up" and the burden placed more squarely on higher income earners. It would also be a perfect place to reduce taxes on the middle-class. Of course, it would be political suicide for anyone to propose this - social security is called the third rail of American politics for a reason.
The federal government also taxes a lot of things directly at the point of sale as excise taxes. The most obvious is gas - every gallon of gas sold nets the government 18 cents (24 cents for every gallon of diesel sold). This is a lot more per gallon than the oil companies make in profit on that same gas. While the income tax is designed to be progressive, an excise tax like this is regressive - in other words, it hits those with lower income more, since it is a flat amount of money that has to be paid any time a gallon of gas is purchased. Any politician that was truly serious about reducing the tax burden on the middle-class would reduce the gas tax. Although they are taxes imposed by the states, the various sales taxes are also regressive - if a presidential candidate came up with a way to reduce the burden these sales taxes impose I would be impressed (on the converse, I was amazed when Clinton proposed a national value added tax, a hugely regressive type of tax; the proposal was, thankfully, widely ridiculed, and soundly rejected). Property taxes are also imposed by the states, and mostly hit middle-class homeowners, although you can take a credit on your income taxes.
So, the upshot of my rambling is that I have yet to see a candidate who actually has proposed any kind of tax system that will change the tax burden on the middle-class in a meaningful way. Ever. In any election. As long as they keep tinkering with the income tax system as their exclusive playing field, I don't think anyone ever will.
Biased Opinions Home
Monday, February 4, 2008
Random Thought - Superbowl Sunday
So we watched the Superbowl today. I didn't really care who won, and I've never been one of those guys who can watch football for its own sake. My father can watch football all weekend, no matter who is playing, no matter if he cares who wins or not. Often, he is just hoping to see a "good game", which really means a "close game". I just can't. A game between two teams I don't care about is usually pretty much boring as far as I am concerned. So why did I sit down with my family, tune the TV to the Superbowl, and leave it on all the way through?
I suppose people do it for the commercials, and this year some of the commercials were funny, but that's probably not enough. Mostly, we did it because it was an excuse to have friends over, cook a bunch of food that was unhealthy, and talk all evening. Shrimp, sausage, and chicken gumbo, homemade dip, and homemade doughnuts were on the menu. Our neighbors are Giants fans, and my son's teacher is too (so he was pulling for them too), but we mostly ignored the game and did other stuff.
So why is it that we, like so many other people, need an excuse to get together with neighbors and friends and do sociable things together? Why is it that we only have parties around holidays like Christmas and New Year's, or the Superbowl? Why do we never just say "Hey, let's have a party next week"? I don't know. Maybe we should change that.
Random Thoughts Home
I suppose people do it for the commercials, and this year some of the commercials were funny, but that's probably not enough. Mostly, we did it because it was an excuse to have friends over, cook a bunch of food that was unhealthy, and talk all evening. Shrimp, sausage, and chicken gumbo, homemade dip, and homemade doughnuts were on the menu. Our neighbors are Giants fans, and my son's teacher is too (so he was pulling for them too), but we mostly ignored the game and did other stuff.
So why is it that we, like so many other people, need an excuse to get together with neighbors and friends and do sociable things together? Why is it that we only have parties around holidays like Christmas and New Year's, or the Superbowl? Why do we never just say "Hey, let's have a party next week"? I don't know. Maybe we should change that.
Random Thoughts Home
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Getting Started
Well, this is my first entry here. I predict that over time having a blog will be a headache and a burden. I'll suffer from writer's block. I'll probably post things I wish I hadn't. To top it off, almost nobody will probably ever read this.
So, why am I bothering?
Mostly to push myself to actually do what I've said I wanted to do for several years.
I have been a speculative fiction fan for most of my life. Science-fiction, fantasy, alternate history, historical fiction, and so on have always been on my bookshelf. That's not the limit of my interests though - I have books on politics, classics, books about law, history, and science piled up too. I go through books at a rapid pace - and there is always something else I want to read.
But I have always wanted to write myself. So, the basic thrust of this blog will be me keeping a record of my attempts to put thoughts on paper and get them published while balancing those efforts with my family and my work. I read that Stephen King once advised someone who asked him how to be a writer that he should "read five hours a day, and write five hours a day". I don't think I can hope to do either of those right now, but if I can aim to do each two hours a day, I think that would be a start.
"I cannot live without books" - Thomas Jefferson
Home
So, why am I bothering?
Mostly to push myself to actually do what I've said I wanted to do for several years.
I have been a speculative fiction fan for most of my life. Science-fiction, fantasy, alternate history, historical fiction, and so on have always been on my bookshelf. That's not the limit of my interests though - I have books on politics, classics, books about law, history, and science piled up too. I go through books at a rapid pace - and there is always something else I want to read.
But I have always wanted to write myself. So, the basic thrust of this blog will be me keeping a record of my attempts to put thoughts on paper and get them published while balancing those efforts with my family and my work. I read that Stephen King once advised someone who asked him how to be a writer that he should "read five hours a day, and write five hours a day". I don't think I can hope to do either of those right now, but if I can aim to do each two hours a day, I think that would be a start.
"I cannot live without books" - Thomas Jefferson
Home
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)