Rejection: Nobody Gives a Crap About Compsagnathus
Well, got another one. Probably my fault, actually, since I accidentally submitted the wrong piece to the magazine that this one was meant to go to. So be it. Anywho!
Well, got another one. Probably my fault, actually, since I accidentally submitted the wrong piece to the magazine that this one was meant to go to. So be it. Anywho!
Many of you are aware that during the 2007-08 academic school year I took an independent study course on Philip K. Dick. I read three of his novels, a whole bunch of his short stories, and a good bit of non-fiction and biographical material. One of those novels was Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Most of you know this novel as the basis for Blade Runner, and I would recommend you get into the novel if you haven’t already, because it is certainly a far different experience–more deeply rooted in psychological issues. Reading this novel for the second time in an academic setting has brought something to my attention I find rather curious. Page 171 of the Del Rey/Ballantine 1996 edition of the book has a line that says: “He entered the elevator and together they moved nearer to god.” The sentence itself is not necessarily too impressive. It’s being metaphorical about the action of going upwards–and you could certainly interpret it on a deeper level (such as the fact that the elevator leads Deckard to the roof, which is a location where much of Deckard’s problems arise–Polokov and the goat incident)–but there’s something wrong with it. God is spelled with a lower-cased G. I am well aware that this could just be a typo, except that this spelling shows up in more than just this location and this book. Surely the copy editors didn’t make the same mistake over and over? With this in mind I thought it would be interesting to try to unpack this spelling. Since we’re not talking about “a god” or “the gods” it is clear that Dick is trying to make some sort of allusion to the Christian God. But making it lower-cased does something to the sentence that is really difficult to describe. What exactly could he mean by “god” rather than “God”? Why would Dick leave it lower-cased? Those who may be familiar with Philip Kindred Dick are probably well aware that he was a deeply spiritual person. I would say spiritual because it is really difficult to pin him down to a specific religion. Dick was specifically interested in the spiritual and psychological aspects of the mind. Taking this into account I have to wonder why he chose to leave God lower-cased. Perhaps it was to lessen the effect of what God stands for. Or, perhaps what Dick is doing is attempting to portray in the actual writing a sense of the spiritual loss or reassignment of a dying Earth. This is a future dystopic Earth that has replaced Christianity with Mercerism, a religion with no god or gods, but with the shared experience of a brutal journey–Mercer’s. This shared experience, coupled with the technological impact of the mood organ, is a crippled version of the Christian drive to embody Jesus’s sacrifices, because the success of the experience does not constitute any sort of awakening or rise to a higher plane, even psychologically. When Deckard actually experiences Mercer’s journey, there is no drastic change in his person. In fact, change seems to be dominated by the androids, more than anything else (and I’ll probably talk about this subject later). The problem in asking what the purpose of “god” is in Dick’s text is that we cannot know what he was thinking while writing it–not fully, anyway. Our glimpses into his mind are just that: glimpses. Trying to understand completely what he meant by devaluing the traditional capitalization of God leaves us with little to work with. But perhaps I’ve touched on it here. Maybe the use of “god” is, in fact, connected to the hopelessness of Earth, as if to say that God has abandoned the planet and its remaining people. But again, I’m not sure. I’m going to toss this out to all of you. What do you all think it could mean? Have you seen this used before and in which context? Or am I reading too much into this and it is nothing more than a typo that pops up all over his work?
Yup another. Not much to say, just mentioning the rejection. Anyone else getting any rejections this week?
I’m a huge fan of Octavia Butler’s work, as she is certainly one of the best science fiction writers to have lived. Here is a selection of clips from a panel she did several years back that I found rather interesting. Enjoy:
I’ve been mulling over this idea for a while, but finally have decided to put it together. Since I am a fan of the small press I’ve decided to offer free image advertising to any small press AND a free text link in my blog roll. There are separate requirements for these two forms. To get a link in my blog roll all you have to do is fit the following: You’re a speculative fiction (science fiction, fantasy, horror, magical realism, and related) press that at least publishes something other than erotica (if you publish erotica, but also publish non-erotica, that’s fine). This means that any small press can get a free text link in my blog roll, which makes it easy for me to find you all, because there are so many small presses out there. However, if you want an image ad, you need to fit the following guidelines: You pay your authors OR Your publications send proceeds to charities AND You publish non-erotica and are a speculative fiction (science fiction, fantasy, horror, magical realism, and related) press (if you publish some erotica, that’s okay) Here’s how it will work: Send an email to arconna[at]yahoo[dot]com telling me who you are with an image for your ad attached (no larger than 234 x 60). Ads must not be animated (they’re annoying, sorry). Ads must not contain pornographic images, nudity, foul language, or excessive gore. Ads will run for a month only, and then you have to renew, unless there is nothing to take your slot. Ad spaces are first come first serve beginning on the 1st of every month. This means that you may not permanently have the space, but must go back into the line on the first so another press can get a shot. Since it’s free, I think that’s fair. To get an idea of how it will work, here is an example:Joe, Jim, Jane, and Jill are all small presses. Joe and Jane send me an ad first, followed shortly after by Jim and Jill. During Month One, Joe and Jane will have an ad displayed, and during Month Two Jim and Jill will have an ad displayed. Joe and Jane may renew their ad for Month Three if they so desire, in which case they will show up once more in Month Three, unless someone else came along before them to claim the slot. Hopefully this makes sense. In any case, if you are interested and are a small press, feel free to send me an email to arconna[at]yahoo[dot]com letting me know. This is completely free, so it’s a great opportunity for some free advertising. Thanks. (This post may change in the future as I fine tune things, but for now, I think that’s fair. If you are a small press or an author published by a small press, please spread the word about this. It’s free advertising to help support the little guy.)
It’s unfortunate that this trailer is fan made and not a collection of early production shots for what could be one of the best superhero movies ever made. Nathan Fillion as the Green Lantern is, well, the perfect fit. If they pick anyone else to play Hal Jordan (a.k.a the Green Lantern, or one of them, at least), which they likely will, then I will be sorely disappoint. In any case, here is the video: Special thanks to SF Signal for bringing this video to my attention.