World in the Satin Bag

AmazonFail: Another Company Being Stupid

It’s apparently been going on for a few weeks, but it’s only just exploded in epic proportions in the blogosphere in the last day or so (as far as I know). What is it? I’ll give you the short version: Amazon essentially changed he way they list books on their best seller’s list, search feature, and the site in general, by removing sales information (specifically ranks) from books deemed to be “adult.” They apparently wanted to make it so “adult” books could not end up on the best seller’s list (and other reasons, I’m sure). Only, Amazon has seemingly gone off the deep end by removing sales ranks from a heck of a lot of books that are not only not adult at all (at least not compared to the stuff they’ve been letting through, such as American Psycho), but happen to have LGBT (lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender) themes or characters (a good example of how stupid this is can be found here, where a non-fiction book was cut off, while a violent, bloody fiction book was not). So, Twitter and the blogosphere (and all sorts of online news agencies) are throwing a fit over this, and rightly so (one fellow has even written an open letter to Amazon about the whole ordeal).  Yes, there are a lot of links in that sentence–to highlight the enormity of this, I assure you.  Amazon has apparently blamed this on a glitch in the system, but most are calling B.S. on that, and rightly so. I was shocked when I first heard about it this morning. I don’t know if this whole ordeal was done with any malicious intent; it probably wasn’t. Maybe it was a glitch after all, but you’d think a company as big and influential as Amazon would have tested this thing before implementing it, or at least took the notices sent to them by angry customers seriously when this all began. I’m going to keep this post short primarily because it seems like Amazon is going to fix the problem. If things don’t improve, I think we can all begin to speculate on why Amazon is pandering to the whims of the religious right. Right now, it doesn’t seem like there is much more to say other than pointing to the rants and angry posts of others. Am I upset by this? Yes, actually. Amazon better get its act together soon or they could end up with a hell storm on their doorstep. We’ll see what happens in the next week. Anyone out there have any thoughts? Feel free to leave a comment!

World in the Satin Bag

Red Dwarf: Back to Earth

WARNING: Huge spoiler alerts and ranting ahead. I was nervously awaiting RD:BTE. I wanted it to be great but expected it to be shocking. Then I saw the adverts and thought it’d be even worse than that. Then I watched the first episode, and thought maybe it was okay. Then I watched the second and refused to watch the third. Luckily, my friend convinced me to give it another shot, and I watched the whole thing back-to-back and it (almost) worked. But then again, it almost completely failed too. Here’s why. 1. Audiences were initially shocked at the crew. Where were Kochanski and Holly? Why was Rimmer a hologram again? Kochanski and Holly’s absences were explained, and became explicitly clear by the end of the mini-series, so I got over that. Also, it’s understandable why Rimmer was a hologram. He was the only crew member stuck on the decaying ship in the original reality at the end of series eight. Everyone else had crossed into the mirror universe. It’s feasible to imagine Rimmer died with the crew, although it doesn’t explain how he became hardlight (the hardlight drive was developed after Red Dwarf was built and left the solar system) or has memories of the events the previous hologrammatic Arnold Rimmer had (unless, somehow, Holly has updated his memory and personality files based on the logs of Red Dwarf and Starbug from the past few years). 2. Pace. Put simply, in part one there was none. As an episode, it felt entirely like build-up for something else. There were a few good jokes, but they were too sparse, and the CGI sets were too obtrusive. But I hate CGI in general, because I believe it lacks the fullness, body and texture of models and physical structures. Indeed, the whole thing feels like a movie chopped into three parts, because the pacing is slow and the narrative wallows and wanders a bit. It never feels it’s going anywhere or is in any rush to do so, until the last 15 mins of episode three. 3. Episode 2. This was scary stuff on first viewing. ‘What, the whole of Red Dwarf was a *fucking* dream?’ (Well, actually, it was a TV series, and the characters have escaped the TV programme to enter the real world.) This was the same metafictional plot of The League of Gentlemen, and it didn’t work for that franchise either. Luckily, episode three redeems the series, but you’d be forgiven for switching off in a rage. I was so appalled I wanted to cry. 4. Coronation Street. When Lister arrives on Coronation Street (which actor Craig Charles currently appears in), I groaned. This was the worst kind of cross-merchandising, self-referential bullshit I could think of, I thought. I cringed and winced and wanted to die. But my friend had spoiled the ending (thankfully), so I could take a deep breath and watch it, knowing it would soon be over. What saved the entired trio of episodes was the last half of episode three. We discover, thankfully, that this is a reworking of Back to Reality. We should’ve guessed from the title and the squid, right? But apparently we didn’t (not all of us, or at least, not right away). It makes sense, though, since Back to Reality was voted fans’ favourite ever episode. And here’s the big spoiler: the squid was a female despair squid (a ‘joy’ squid), whose own ink is the opposite of the male’s. Instead of inspiring despair, it creates joyous hallucinations where all the dreamer’s desires come true. So in this world Kochanski is still with us and even when Lister realises he’s in a hallucination, he initially decides to die with Kochanski in the dreamworld. It’s only when he realises Kochanski is still alive, and Kryten staged her death to hide the fact she dumped him, that he eventually decides he can win the real Kochanski back and leaves the dream world. Apparently, all four of the heroes have an immunity to the ink from their previous encounter with the squid, which allows them a degree of agency and awareness in the dream, and thus the ability to wake up. Of course, for Rimmer to have this immunity, Holly was either a very clever computer, who altered Rimmer’s hardlight ‘biology’ to account for his experiences, or he’s the same Rimmer who left to become Ace in ‘Stoke Me a Clipper’. The Blade Runner references were nice but blatant, although far preferable to the Coronation Street ones and the scenes where Lister and co find their own Red Dward TV show DVDs. The dialogue was less infantile than series eight, though not as sharp as series six (perhaps more like series seven). The special effects were neither here or nor there. So overall it wasn’t too bad. Two thirds of it were annoying at first, but the final revelation is interesting, if not original. Especially when Kryten reveals that the reality of their hallucination has, because of multiverse theory, become real. Effectively there is a new universe where people believe Red Dwarf is a TV show, which is actually not quite real itself (i.e., our world is born of their hallucination and theirs is the ‘real’ world). This salvages some of the more awkward moments, and the gags soften the blow somewhat along the way. Obviously, it’s a far cry from the excellent comedy of previous series, and continues the tread into comedy drama over sit com territory, but it’s not as bad as I initially thought. Furthermore, it does show promise that Doug Naylor has some really great plot twists in his head, albeit ones that rely on hackneyed stories in the first place. I would have preferred something more daring, but whatever. A mixed bag, but worth a watch when it comes out on DVD (most likely in an unedited film-length version, which would be much better).

World in the Satin Bag

Science Fiction For Non-Readers?

This is one of those questions that has me really stumped. I know there have been posts on the net about this subject, but I can’t say whether it has ever been answered. Often times when this question is asked science fiction fans blurt out a load of typical names and novels; rarely are these suggestions actually good ones (primarily because they’re good suggestions for folks interested in expanding their horizons in the genre rather than for folks who have never liked the genre in the first place). In thinking about this, I think it’s fair to say that non-readers fall into two categories: Literary ReadersFolks who primarily read literary fiction or have particularly sophisticated tastes as far as literature is concerned.  This group tends to hold general disdain for literature that focuses on plot rather than characters or style (and specifically all genre fiction and popular literary forms). Popular Fiction ReadersThink anyone who reads the stuff on the best seller’s list, but who have avoided science fiction or fantasy for whatever reason.  Sometimes these sorts of readers have little book clubs and what not where they discuss Dan Brown and other such authors. I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to get the second group to read SF.  They’ve probably already read a handful of SF books and don’t realize it.  Popular fiction readers often read folks like Stephen King or Dean Koontz or Michael Crichton (the latter two have written a bunch of SF novels).  If they only read romance novels, it’s not that much of a stretch to lead them to paranormal/SF romance or particularly romance-based SF tales. The first group, however, is the hard one.  How do we get people who literally believe that science fiction is trash to read it?  Do we point them to Isaac Asimov or Arthur C. Clarke?  This is the problem.  When we start making suggestions for non-readers, we often point to classic SF or even popular SF as if the popularity of the title will actually matter.  But most of the titles we automatically suggest are not going to get these folks to read SF.  Period.  It will only serve to reinforce the idea that SF is trash.  This isn’t because SF is actually trash; it’s because this particular group of readers considers considers SF to be so. So what do we do?  How do we get these folks to even consider SF?  Do we point to 1984 and Margaret Atwood?  What other books are there other than those in the canon (which isn’t that many books anyway)?  I don’t know.  I don’t think there is an easy way through to this group; there are only a handful of books that they’d willingly read (and probably already have), and SF is not exactly rich with stylistically aware prose (in the sense that popular-styles are replaced with more complicated ones). Do any of you have suggestions?  How would you get through to this group?  Can we get through to this group, or is it hopeless?

World in the Satin Bag

A Fun Fantasy Quiz

(Found over at Fantasy Book Reviews) 1) Lord of the Rings: Movies or books?In all honesty, I prefer the movies. I respect the books for what they are, but I hate reading them. The movies managed to take an exceedingly dull story and bring it to life. I’ll always take the movies over the books. 2) Dragonlance or Forgotten Realms?Dragonlance. I never got into the Forgotten Realms stuff. 3) Online bookstores or physical (local) bookstores?Depends on the situation. If I’m buying books for school, I’ll use Amazon. If I’m buying books for myself, I prefer physical stores because I get to actually touch the books and see them in real life. You can learn a lot about a book by actually touching it with your fingers (or smelling it). 4) Hardcover or paperback?This depends too. I prefer hardback to trade paperback, primarily because the latter has a tendency to end up bent or in shoddy shape. But I prefer mass market paperback to hardback because I can get three mass markets for the price of one hardback. Seems logical, right? 5) Secondary World or Real World?Hmm. Now this is a hard one. I don’t think I can properly answer this. Are science fiction worlds representative of the real world? Or are they secondary? Or neither? If neither, then I’d have to say I prefer secondary worlds, even though I do happen to enjoy a lot of contemporary fantasy that takes place in our own world. If the real world is meant to be science fiction, then I prefer that to the other. It’s a bit of a dilemma. Well, there you go! Feel free to answer the questions in the comments or turn this into a meme and write a blog post!

World in the Satin Bag

Show Review: Dollhouse (Final Comments)

I’ve officially tuned out on Dollhouse. I was initially incredibly excited about the show. I thought the concept was brilliant and that it had a lot of potential. Then the first episode came out. It was good, I thought, and at least established the characters, but nothing special. Then episode two failed to add anything new to the series, and shortly after than we were left with episodes three and four, which provided some interesting side plots, but stuck us with the mostly uninteresting Echo. And that’s when I tuned out. Granted, I am terribly picky about my TV shows. The problem with Dollhouse is that it fails to do what great shows like BSG have done: tell a good story. Dollhouse essentially doesn’t have a story. True, the subplots were building up to make it seem like there was a lot of interesting things ahead, but instead of focusing on those stories, Dollhouse focused on Echo, who, after one episode, is essentially the most uninteresting and useless character. If she’s become more interesting after episode four, wonderful, but I’m not going to waste any more time watching, because Dollhouse had the chance to get me interested and wasted it on four episodes where nothing happens. I simply don’t care about Echo. I really don’t. Her character is utterly pointless and not enough time is afforded to characters who deserve more. Someone said (possibly Whedon or a producer) that you should stick with the show until episode seven to give it a good chance, but quite honestly if you can’t keep me entertained past episode two, what point is there for me? I’m making an investment of my time (an hour each episode) and blowing seven hours on a show that I don’t find all that great to begin with seems relatively pointless to me. So, I suppose the question is: what do you all think of the show? Are any of you still watching? Do you think it should be canceled?

World in the Satin Bag

Meme: The Guardian List of Best SF/F

Peggy over at Biology in Science Fiction brought to my attention this meme of the Guardian’s list of 149 best science fiction and fantasy novels. Being the good little bookworm, I decided to join in on the fun: 1. Douglas Adams: The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy (1979)2. Brian W Aldiss: Non-Stop (1958)3. Isaac Asimov: Foundation (1951)4. Margaret Atwood: The Blind Assassin (2000)5. Margaret Atwood: The Handmaid’s Tale (1985)6. Paul Auster: In the Country of Last Things (1987)7. J.G. Ballard: The Drowned World (1962)8. J.G. Ballard: Crash (1973)9. J.G. Ballard: Millennium People (2003)10. Iain Banks: The Wasp Factory (1984)11. Iain M Banks: Consider Phlebas (1987)12. Clive Barker: Weaveworld (1987)13. Nicola Barker: Darkmans (2007)14. Stephen Baxter: The Time Ships (1995)15. Greg Bear: Darwin’s Radio (1999)16. William Beckford: Vathek (1786)17. Alfred Bester: The Stars My Destination (1956)18. Ray Bradbury: Fahrenheit 451 (1953)19. Poppy Z Brite: Lost Souls (1992)20. Charles Brockden Brown: Wieland (1798)21. Algis Budrys: Rogue Moon (1960)22. Mikhail Bulgakov: The Master and Margarita (1966)23. Edward Bulwer-Lytton: The Coming Race (1871)24. Anthony Burgess: A Clockwork Orange (1960)25. Anthony Burgess: The End of the World News (1982)26. Edgar Rice Burroughs: A Princess of Mars (1912)27. William Burroughs: Naked Lunch (1959)28. Octavia Butler: Kindred (1979)29. Samuel Butler: Erewhon (1872)30. Italo Calvino: The Baron in the Trees (1957)31. Ramsey Campbell: The Influence (1988)32. Lewis Carroll: Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland (1865)33. Lewis Carroll: Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There (1871)34. Angela Carter: Nights at the Circus (1984)35. Angela Carter: The Passion of New Eve (1977)36. Michael Chabon: The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay (2000)37. Arthur C Clarke: Childhood’s End (1953)38. GK Chesterton: The Man Who Was Thursday (1908)39. Susanna Clarke: Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell (2004)40. Michael G Coney: Hello Summer, Goodbye (1975)41. Douglas Coupland: Girlfriend in a Coma (1998)42. Mark Danielewski: House of Leaves (2000)43. Marie Darrieussecq: Pig Tales (1996)44. Samuel R Delany: The Einstein Intersection (1967)45. Philip K Dick: Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (1968)46. Philip K Dick: The Man in the High Castle (1962)47. Thomas M Disch: Camp Concentration (1968)48. Umberto Eco: Foucault’s Pendulum (1988)49. Michel Faber: Under the Skin (2000)50. John Fowles: The Magus (1966)51. Neil Gaiman: American Gods (2001)52. Alan Garner: Red Shift (1973)53. William Gibson: Neuromancer (1984)54. Charlotte Perkins Gilman: Herland (1915)55. William Golding: Lord of the Flies (1954)56. Joe Haldeman: The Forever War (1974)57. M John Harrison: Light (2002)58. Nathaniel Hawthorne: The House of the Seven Gables (1851)59. Robert A Heinlein: Stranger in a Strange Land (1961)60. Frank Herbert: Dune (1965)61. Hermann Hesse: The Glass Bead Game (1943)62. Russell Hoban: Riddley Walker (1980)63. James Hogg: The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner (1824)64. Michel Houellebecq: Atomised (1998)65. Aldous Huxley: Brave New World (1932)66. Kazuo Ishiguro: The Unconsoled (1995)67. Shirley Jackson: The Haunting of Hill House (1959)68. Henry James: The Turn of the Screw (1898)69. PD James: The Children of Men (1992)70. Richard Jefferies: After London; Or, Wild England (1885)71. Gwyneth Jones: Bold as Love (2001)72. Franz Kafka: The Trial (1925)73. Daniel Keyes: Flowers for Algernon (1966)74. Stephen King: The Shining (1977)75. Marghanita Laski: The Victorian Chaise-longue (1953)76. CS Lewis: The Chronicles of Narnia (1950-56) (not all of them)77. Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu: Uncle Silas (1864)78. Stanislaw Lem: Solaris (1961)79. Ursula K Le Guin: The Earthsea series (1968-1990)80. Ursula K Le Guin: The Left Hand of Darkness (1969)81. Doris Lessing: Memoirs of a Survivor (1974)82. MG Lewis: The Monk (1796)83. David Lindsay: A Voyage to Arcturus (1920)84. Ken MacLeod: The Night Sessions (2008)85. Hilary Mantel: Beyond Black (2005)86. Michael Marshall Smith: Only Forward (1994)87. Richard Matheson: I Am Legend (1954)88. Charles Maturin: Melmoth the Wanderer (1820)89. Patrick McCabe: The Butcher Boy (1992)90. Cormac McCarthy: The Road (2006)91. Jed Mercurio: Ascent (2007)92. China Miéville: The Scar (2002)93. Andrew Miller: Ingenious Pain (1997)94. Walter M Miller Jr: A Canticle for Leibowitz (1960)95. David Mitchell: Cloud Atlas (2004)96. Michael Moorcock: Mother London (1988)97. William Morris: News From Nowhere (1890)98. Toni Morrison: Beloved (1987)99. Haruki Murakami: The Wind-up Bird Chronicle (1995)100. Vladimir Nabokov: Ada or Ardor (1969)101. Audrey Niffenegger: The Time Traveler’s Wife (2003)102. Larry Niven: Ringworld (1970)103. Jeff Noon: Vurt (1993) (part of it)104. Flann O’Brien: The Third Policeman (1967)105. Ben Okri: The Famished Road (1991)106. George Orwell: Nineteen Eighty-four (1949)107. Chuck Palahniuk: Fight Club (1996)108. Thomas Love Peacock: Nightmare Abbey (1818)109. Mervyn Peake: Titus Groan (1946)110. Frederik Pohl & CM Kornbluth: The Space Merchants (1953)111. John Cowper Powys: A Glastonbury Romance (1932)112. Terry Pratchett: The Discworld series (1983- ) (A few of them)113. Christopher Priest: The Prestige (1995)114. Philip Pullman: His Dark Materials (1995-2000)115. François Rabelais: Gargantua and Pantagruel (1532-34)116. Ann Radcliffe: The Mysteries of Udolpho (1794)117. Alastair Reynolds: Revelation Space (2000)118. Kim Stanley Robinson: The Years of Rice and Salt (2002)119. JK Rowling: Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone (1997)120. Geoff Ryman: Air (2005)121. Salman Rushdie: The Satanic Verses (1988)122. Joanna Russ: The Female Man (1975)123. Antoine de Sainte-Exupéry: The Little Prince (1943)124. José Saramago: Blindness (1995)125. Will Self: How the Dead Live (2000)126. Mary Shelley: Frankenstein (1818)127. Dan Simmons: Hyperion (1989)128. Olaf Stapledon: Star Maker (1937)129. Neal Stephenson: Snow Crash (1992)130. Robert Louis Stevenson: The Strange Case of Doctor Jekyll and Mr Hyde (1886)131. Bram Stoker: Dracula (1897)132. Rupert Thomson: The Insult (1996)133. JRR Tolkien: The Hobbit (1937)134. JRR Tolkien: The Lord of the Rings (1954-55)135. Mark Twain: A Connecticut Yankee at King Arthur’s Court (1889)136. Kurt Vonnegut: Sirens of Titan (1959)137. Horace Walpole: The Castle of Otranto (1764)138. Robert Walser: Institute Benjamenta (1909)139. Sylvia Townsend Warner: Lolly Willowes (1926)140. Sarah Waters: Affinity (1999)141. HG Wells: The Time Machine (1895)142. HG Wells: The War of the Worlds (1898)143. TH White: The Sword in the Stone (1938)144. Angus Wilson: The Old Men at the Zoo (1961)145. Gene Wolfe: The Book of the New Sun (1980-83)146. Virginia Woolf: Orlando (1928)147. John Wyndham: Day of the Triffids (1951)148. John Wyndham: The Midwich Cuckoos (1957)149. Yevgeny Zamyatin: We (1924) And another list where I did poorly!  Twenty novels from this list (well, twenty three if you count

Scroll to Top