A short one for today. Well, they all have extensive comments. More tomorrow.
A review of Tad Williams' The Dirty Streets of Heaven. Of light interest to the WIP. And Geauga Library has 2 copies. Yeah! With multiple holds on each. Boo. (although yeah for Tad Williams). Have I mentioned how much I love my librarians? But note to self, wave is coming, must get writing.
Chuck Wendig discusses a post genre future. There's a lot to chew on in there, and as a writer I basically agree with him. However, IMHO, genre isn't there for writers, it's a marketing tool for readers to get what they want. It sure can be arbitrary, especially when you get into the weeds of what is urban, suburban, exurban fantasy, etc. And then you have even the larger questions of what is fantasy and what is science fiction and just where does dark fantasy tip over into horror. But look at it from the reader's side, the vast majority of which aren't paying attention to the navel gazing going on in the internets. How do they find the next book to plop $25 or $8 down on the counter and get a day or weeks worth of enjoyable entertainment. As writers we are voracious readers (or should be), and we'll even break down the plot points of the description of the breakfast cereal we're eating that morning. But I don't think most readers really care. The ones writers most often interact with do, but that's a very small minority of the reading population. Most of them are thinking, "You know, I really liked (book/author), I'd like more of that" even if they also read widely. Genre markers and cover art help them find new books. Can we say that's a bad thing? I think what Chuck is really against is the feedback loop that can create.
Locus Magazine publishes some excepts from their interview with John Scalzi. John says that humor in SF is a great taboo and that Douglas Adams pretty well hit the target so hard, it's not been worth while to publish humor in SF after the MIRV strike of the Hitchhiker's Guides impacted. I think he's pretty much on the mark. I can't tell you how many people I've talked to that wish they could do what Mr. Adams did, even in honor of him. :: raises hand :: It's damn hard. There are SF/F books with humor in them, but not many that have humor as their goal. Also as someone trying to write one, it was a conscious decision to tilt it in favor of fantasy (although it wasn't a hard decision). But John is also smart on a whole range of issues, so I suggest reading it. I'll need to get to my library to read the whole thing.
"U.S.… Judge… said that should (indicted for fraud running a psychic/spiritual advisor service) Marks get hired, he felt the online company had sufficient safeguards in place to ensure that Marks doesn’t engage in fraudulent activity and that it would be constructive for her to engage in 'lawful employment' while working toward an online GED." While it sounds like this judge is all wacky, just because you disagree with the profession as a whole doesn't preclude the judge from stopping her working. The case against her isn't for working as a psychic, but extorting money from clients. That we may think she's doing the same thing for another service, in the eyes of the law it is different. If people pay for a "reading" and then receive that "reading" (bogus or not), that's commerce. If we want to outlaw that, where do we draw the line? Financial planners, business consultants, psychologists (note, all of those professions have their detractors)? (Grokked from Matt Staggs)
Alligator Quotient: They haven't had their third coffee. Yet.