It’s out and it’s semi-intense. This week we talk about upcoming movies, some stupid things being done to libraries, stupid male gamers, and some gender issues in the SF/F reviewing community. Feel free to check out the episode and let us know what you think. The question of the week will be up on Friday!
Sometimes I think people who post independent productions online, even if they are fake (like the video below), should be running Hollywood. I mean, who wouldn’t want to see a T.V. show based on the Harry Potter universe! I sure as hell would want to see The Aurors made real. Wouldn’t you? Here’s the video (after the fold): What did I tell you? Awesome, right?
It has a monster of a title, but it’s so geeky and wonderful you have to watch it. I love it when classical instrumentalists do their own renditions of video games. It shows immense respect for the source material (the music and the games) and it’s just plain old fun. Here’s the video (after the fold; pay attention to the middle bit — very clever): Awesome, no? Thanks for John Ottinger of Grasping for the Wind for the original discovery!
Another poll down with some very interesting results. Here’s what you all had to say: 50% of you said they will hurt authors. 0% of you said maybe. 50% of you said no. That’s a very interesting divide. People are very sure of themselves. I’m one of those sure people. I think the $0.99 ebook will hurt authors, but not because it will hurt publishers. My problem with the $0.99 ebook is that it limits the ability for authors to make a living off their work and further erodes the potential for midlist authors (however you want to define that category in this new digital age) to fit within that “living writers” group. Midlist authors have been well served by digital publishing, particularly as it pertains to self-publishing. Being able to make 70% on a $2.99 book means they make a lot more money than they would with some traditional publishers provided they maintain that “midlist” status. That’s a good thing. Let the big fellas handle the bestselling authors and let the smaller guys take their work to the digital stream to make a living too. Maybe the $0.99 ebook will prove beneficial for midlist authors. I certainly hope so. Their numbers might go up, they might end up making more money in the long run, and so on. But if not, what we’ll end up with is a new price-point that consumers will demand. There’s nothing wrong with a demand, but part of the reason for keeping ebooks reasonably priced (in both directions) is to set a standard for consumers that is good for everyone else too. I don’t much care for the agency model in terms of its implementation, but it does give publishers more control over their properties. Amazon’s ebook model gives many writers more control over theirs (sort of). All these models are useful, and need to be played with, manipulated, changed, and so on until we come up with something that is good for everyone. I don’t think the $0.99 ebook is necessarily a good thing for everyone. It’s good for a few, sure. Amanda Hocking and others are bringing in huge sales and money from using that model. But they are a minority that will always exist. The rest will have to contend with increasing their sales by quite a bit to reach the same monetary level as before. But, again, I could be very wrong. I hope I’m wrong. $0.99 ebooks are far more likely to sell than $7 ones. Let’s hope what is happening right now turns out for the best. What are your extended thoughts on this issue?
Readers will remember Kate DiCamillo as the author of the adorable Tale of Despereaux, which was turned into a computer animated film in 2008 (which I had the pleasure of seeing and enjoying). The Magician’s Elephant is a less expansive narrative, but one which attempts to reach into the heart of the human condition through the figure of the child. It is a story which looks at the moral complications of lies, the power of loyalty, and the desire and safety found in the family unit (even if that unit is broken). The Magician’s Elephant is about Peter Augustus Duchene, a young boy who has lost his entire family and who has been adopted by an ill and disgruntled soldier (Vilna Lutz) who wants Peter to grow up to be just like him. But when Peter spends Vilna’s grocery money on a fortuneteller, he learns an amazing truth: his sister is alive and an elephant will lead the way. A series of strange events soon follows and Peter begins to question everything, uncovering the lies about his life and his family. DiCamillo makes me wish I had children. The Magician’s Elephant lends itself well to parental voice acting because it has such a large cast of characters: Peter, Vilna, Adele, the Elephant (you read that right), the Magician, Leo, and several more. Each character, remarkably, has his or her own storyline, though some get more attention than others for obvious reasons. The plethora of characters adds a certain charm to the story, since it allows DiCamillo to move temporarily away from the dark family-oriented narrative of Peter into the odd-ness of her world and its eccentric cast. The novel never truly escapes from darkness, though, resting firmly in dark comedy territory. The darkness is perhaps why I found the book so interesting. Setting aside Peter’s orphan status, the novel is rife with trauma-induced mental illness. Vilna is a broken soldier who still thinks he’s part of the army, crying out as if experiencing flashbacks from a war we’re never really told about. The Magician and Madam LaVaughn have been reduced to the repetition of the same grief-stricken routine by the trauma of the Elephant’s entry into the world. Some readers may find the darkness overwhelming, but I think the effect it has on the closure of the narrative is more powerful than would the excavation of everything but Peter’s story. The intersection of all of these other stories and traumas makes the ending a fascinating (almost cathartic) experience (though, in all honesty, I think there were too many secondary characters, some of which weren’t given the attention they deserved). A good deal of the trauma is also attached to an underlying didacticism in the narrative, which I found interesting not because there were messages to be found and learned in The Magician’s Elephant, but because the perspective through which these moralistic moments are derived is that of a child (Peter). There aren’t any grand moments in which adult characters tell the young protagonist that X is wrong and that they must learn a lesson (except when DiCamillo wants to show how some of the adults are hypocrites). As a story for kids, I think The Magician’s Elephant is a fantastic read. While the story is dark, there are plenty of humorous moments. The quirkiness of the plot and characters doesn’t get in the way of the story, though, which is something some chapter books fall prey to. Instead, The Magician’s Elephant is a wonderful story about the power of family, friends, forgiveness, and compassion, with an interesting cast of characters and a strong plot. It’s definitely something to read with your kids (if you have them) or to read on your own. If you’d like to learn more about DiCamillo and her novels, check out her website. The Magician’s Elephant is available pretty much everywhere books are sold.
It’s been a while since I have been excited about a kung fu movie, but this one looks pretty damn awesome. Detective Dee has great style, can be described vaguely as Chinese steampunk, and takes itself seriously enough to contain some good acting. What more could you ask for? See the trailer for yourself (after the fold): See? Awesome, right?
