Category Archives: rant

In Defense of Tolkien

18 Replies

In case you’ve missed it, a science fiction and fantasy writer of some small critical acclaim (he won a Nebula a while back and has taught at a high end writer’s workshop) has made statements saying Tolkien was racist.  His evidence?  Orcs, according to this writer, represent black people.

Personally, I think it’s racist to compare orcs to any race.  This is fantasy, and there are a number of races in Tolkien’s works.  Hobbits, elves, humans, dwarves.  What ethnic group are they supposed to represent?

I think part of this is an attempt to drum up publicity because he as a new collection out.  (I’m not going tell you who he is because I don’t want to give him any publicity.)  Remember, this is a writer of some critical acclaim.  In other words, he hasn’t published any novels and isn’t making a living from his writing.

I know it’s fashionable to attack the giants of the genre.  It’s how you get a seat at the cool kids’ table.  Personally, considering who some of the cook kids in the field are, I have no desire to sit at their table.

I do feel an urge to reread Tolkien, and the holiday break is coming.  Tolkien is one of the masters of the form, and one who will be remembered long after many of the so called cool kids will be long forgotten.

 

You’re Offended?

16 Replies

I’m gonna rant.

There was a post the other day that I’m not going to link to because I don’t want to give the site the clicks.  Fortunately someone archived it.

TL;DR version:

The author, one Matt Mikalatos, laments that rereading a childhood favorite (The Once and Future King by T. H. White) didn’t live up to his expectations, specifically there were some things said that he found to be racially insensitive.  I’ve never read the book, so I can’t say for sure.  He’s specific enough that I’m willing to give him the benefit of doubt. Continue reading →

Ruminations of the Relevancy of Being “Relevant”

14 Replies

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “relevant” as “having significant and demonstrable bearing on the matter at hand” and “having social relevance”.  Just so we’re on the same page, relevance is defined as “practical and especially social applicability” and “the ability to retrieve material that satisfies the needs of the user”.

Anne McCaffrey Photo: Edmond Ross/ Random House

Why, I’m sure you’re asking, am I quoting the dictionary?  Well, Monday on the interwebz, one side of a conversation was showing up in my Twitter feed.  I’ve been trying to stay off Twitter these days because it’s a time sink, and I don’t have much time to sink.  What caught my attention was a quoted tweet from a person in the conversation whom I don’t follow.  The statement was “I’d recommend broadening your horizons.  Anything written in the last 15 years is more relevant than McCaffery’s entire oeuvre”.

Some context, and no, I’m not going to name the person who said that.  My intention is not to engage in personal attacks but to challenge the mindset behind the words because it’s pretty widespread.  Seems someone somewhere declared this week Space Opera Week.  Tor dot com is posting a number of essays on that theme.  There was one post that brought out the old saw about women haven’t traditionally written space opera, and the few that have, well, they wrote it from a man’s perspective, horror of horrors.  Brackett and Moore, in other words.

Certain parties responded.  Conversations ensued.  Anne McCaffrey’s name was brought up.  The statement above was made.

Let that sink in.  Yes, you heard it right.  Someone said that anything written in the last 15 years was more relevant than Anne Freakin’ McCaffrey’s entire oeuvre. Continue reading →

In Defense of Romance

13 Replies

What?  Yes, of course that’s a click-bait title.  It worked, didn’t it?  You’re here, aren’t you?

This is not the type of lice hunting romance I’m in favor of.

There’s been some changes recently to how authors can categorize their works when uploading them on Amazon.  Amazon has implemented the following restriction:  Do not add books from any Romance category to these categories: Science Fiction & Fantasy, Children’s.

(Children’s? Who puts romance in a children’s book? What the hell is wrong with some of you people?)

And of course the butt-hurt has been epic.  A casual scroll through the comments quickly revealed some of the women who write “blended” novels will be putting them in the science fiction and/or fantasy sections rather than the romance section (which is where they probably belong).

But that’s okay.  I don’t get my recommendations for what I read from Amazon very often.  Usually it’s from people whose taste I know aligns with mine.

They want to write and read that stuff, that’s their business, and I have no problem with their doing so.  As long as they don’t scold me for not reading it or invade my space with it, we’ll be fine.

Here’s the type of romance I’m advocating: Continue reading →

Thoughts on Dell Magazines Publication Schedule Change and the Role of Short Fiction

16 Replies

AFF_JanFeb2016_400x580This isn’t any breaking news, just something I’ve been ruminating about lately.  Back in November, Dell magazines announced that their four fiction magazines would be going to a bimonthly schedule.  Those magazines, in case you’re unaware, are Analog, Asimov’s, Ellery Queen, and Alfred Hitchcock.

Up until a few years ago I picked them up on the newsstand since I didn’t like how the USPS tended to tear things up.  (I learned this because F&SF wasn’t always available on the newsstand, so I had and still have a print subscription.  My copy came today, partially accordianized.)  When digital subscriptions became available, I switched over.  (Shelf space had a lot to do with it as well.)

Now, instead of ten issues per year, two of them double, the magazines will have six 208 page double issues.  The current schedule already contained two double issues.  I can remember when Analog published thirteen issues a year, two of them double issues IIRC.  But then I’m a dinosaur.  Sheila Williams, editor of Asimov’s, has said this will allow them to add 16 pages more than their current double issues as well as holding subscription prices steady.  I suspect cost more than anything is behind this move. Continue reading →

Frm Crcl Jrk t Clstr Fck

See what I did with the title of this post?  No, it’s not a typo.  Nor have I been drinking.  It’s called disemvoweling.  Clever, isn’t it?

No.  No, it’s not clever at all.  In fact, it’s pretty juvenile.  But it’s a favorite tactic of some people when they don’t agree with comments on their blog posts.  I guess it’s supposed to make the person doing the disemvoweling look smart or something.  Mostly it makes them look they’re afraid to engage in a conversation.

Many of the same people who engage in this practice are some of the same ones who’ve been having a hissy fit for the last six months over the Hugo Awards.  Which should tell you all you need to know about the maturity level of disemvoweling.

For those of you who haven’t been paying attention, just fell off a turnip truck, or have a life, here’s a quick recap.  This is of course my interpretation.  It’s going to be long, so consider yourself warned. Continue reading →

Geez Lou-eez, Will the Stupidity Never Stop?

4 Replies

idiot klubSo there’s this idiot individual who wrote this piece for The Guardian calling for a year in which no new books by men be published, only books by women.  (If you read through the entire piece, I suggest you invest in a platter of cheese first.  It will go well with all the whine.)  And I thought the Tempest in a Chamberpot proposal was ridiculous.

Apparently she’s really serious.  Continue reading →

The “Reading Only X Writers for a Year” Challenge…

7 Replies

…or Just When You Thought the Stooopid Couldn’t Burn Any Worse Than it Already Does.

I wasn’t going to post anything after today’s Trigger Warning.  I’ve got three reviews to write, plus a ton of reading to get caught up on, not to mention the second set of exams that I haven’t started grading.  So what did I do tonight?

finger-shaking-scoldI got sidetracked by a number of things, with the highlight being the latest fisking (read it, it’s brilliant) by Larry Correia of K. Tempest Bradford’s challenge to only read approved writers for a year.  Approved being defined as what she thinks you should read, of course.

Or rather in this case, what she thinks you shouldn’t.  That would be books by straight, white, cisgendered males.  Finger lady there doesn’t think you should read books by authors who fall into this demographic.  Because badthink or something.  You’ll notice that the book she’s holding up is by Neil Gaiman, while the T-shirt she’s wearing is Dr. Who, some episodes of which were written by Neil Gaiman.  (What is it with these people and Gaiman lately, anyway?)

Bite my ass, lady.  Who are you to tell me what to read or not read?  I’ll read what I damn well like and make no apologies to anyone.  Certainly not to the likes of you.

Here’s my challenge.  It’s twofold.  First, I’m challenging myself to read interesting, exciting, entertaining books by writers who gender, race, religion, etc., I don’t give a rat’s red ass about.  Second, I’m going to challenge myself not to read any books by outspoken SJWs who want to indoctrinate me in goodthink more than they want to entertain me.  That would include authors like…what was her name again?…the finger lady up there.

And don’t raise your scolding finger to me, Bradford.  I might raise my middle ones in response.

Trigger Warnings

4 Replies

Neil GaimanI’ve been buried under exams that should have already been need to be graded, so things have been a little quiet.  I might post a report about ConDFW in the next day or so if I can clear some stuff off my desk.  But I saw something I couldn’t pass by.

Neil Gaiman has a new short story collection out entitled Trigger Warning.  Now the term comes academic feminist theory.  It basically means that what follows could trigger some post traumatic reaction.  That’s not quite the context that Gaiman is using the word, which he apparently talks about in his introduction.

This has drawn the ire of at least one of the SJW thought police.  This particular individual published a post the other day in which she took Gaiman to task for using the term in a way in which she did not approve.  You see, Gaiman is an important figure, and he has the ability to alter the conversation.  This is a bad thing because he’s altering it a way in which this self-righteous self appointed arbiter of word usage doesn’t approve. Continue reading →