SF/F Commentary

SF/F Commentary

A Fantastical Fantasy Conversation w/ the Girlfriend

If anyone wonders if my creative juices are still flowing, you’d only need to sneak in on some of the conversations I have with my girlfriend.  I say “conversations,” but really these are long, surreal rambles I launch at her, which she finds amusing. This is one such conversation: Me: Would you prefer I court you in the old English way? I need to get a cool steampunk pocketwatch… That way, while we’re on a strolle, I could pull it out and say, “Hmm. My dear, it is half past seven. It’s mighty late and it will be quite chill soon. Shall I escort you home?”  And you’ll say, “Why Reginald, that’s a capital idea!”  And we’ll walk home and I’ll bid you good night and bow and gently kiss your hand, and you’ll scurry up to your room and I’ll look up to your window and you’ll flick on the light and lean out and blow me a kiss. And then I’ll walk with my cane and top hat down the snowy street whistling. Her: *laughs*  Me: Good. It’s settled.  I have this fear that you’ve copied every single bizarre fit of imagination I’ve had with you in the chat or on Skype or whatever and that you’ll one day publish them as part of your memoirs.  The book will be called: In the Shadow of Greatness — Life as the Wife of a Mad Literary Genius.  Her: Ha, that’s a good idea!  Me: Or perhaps the title would be: The Anti-Teakettle Diaries: How One Woman Survived an Eccentric Writer for 75 Years. It’d be an instant hit.  But you’re the reclusive type, so you’d refuse the call from Oprah to be on her show. And reporters from The Guardian and some new paper called The Flickerfist Quarterly will pile outside our door hoping to catch a glimpse of you on your way to work, perhaps for a quote.  But you’ll be old, so they’ll look at you with respect and fear, because nobody knows what an old person will do. And you’ll scurry off to your little shop, called Tinkers and Pages Magical Emporium of Tinker Toys and Books.  Her: *laughs*  Me: You won’t make any money at the shop. Mostly, you just sit around winding up the little toys and giggling. And once in a while, a kid will come up with his parent and buy some cool thing, like a wind-up pheasant pirate or a rotating fobblefig. And then you’ll go home, walking as you usually do with your little cane, and the reporters will be there, as if they’ve never left, waiting to take more pictures.  And you’ll never say a word. Only walk inside, put on the kettle for your hot cocoa, and read a book, which you’ll forget about when you fall asleep in your chair with old BBC re-runs on the tele. Somewhere in the basement is me. Trapped in a giant typewriter.  The End.  *long pause*  I should put all that in a blog post…   Her: You should. And here we are.  With a blog post… Thoughts?

SF/F Commentary

Video Found: Nightmare Before Christmas Portal 2 Parody

The folks behind Portal 2 (and the fans who love it) are a weird bunch. Clever. But weird. Take this, for example: Brilliant? You betcha. But damned creepy. I’d even go so far as to say the Portal 2 version of “This is Halloween” (changed to “This is Aperture”) is infinitely creepier and more relevant than ever. After all: what’s more terrifying than a collective of singing evil robots trying to convince you that you’re both safe and unsafe at the same time? Then again…there’s cake…

SF/F Commentary

SandF #85 (Interview w/ Myke Cole) is Live!

The latest episode of The Skiffy and Fanty Show is yet another reason why we’re totally awesome.  No, we don’t have an ego.  Promise. #85 should be fairly obvious based on the title.  Myke Cole comes on the show to talk about Shadow Ops:  Control Point, his latest novel, and topics such as:  the military, the fantasy genre, sexy romances, random pop-culture references, and much more! Here it is.  Listen or nothing bad will happen to you.

SF/F Commentary

Video Found: Muppets Respond to FOX News (Hilarious)

I’m not even going to preface this with anything on than this sentence, which is a sort of preface.  Just watch: Possibly the clever take-down of FOX News ever.  Even Jon Stewart could not have reached the wonder that is this moment, and that’s saying a lot…because Stewart is a real person.

SF/F Commentary

Genre Walking 2012: Results from 2011 and the New Goal

You remember that walking/jogging pledge I made with Jason Sanford and other authors?  It’s on again.  If you want to walk with me, all you have to do is enter your miles do the form located here. As for last year’s results:  I got a little lazy in recording my miles, but I’m pretty sure I met my 200-mile goal, or thereabouts.  The last month or two of the semester were so busy that I didn’t get as much walking done as I wanted to.  But that’s okay.  2012 is a new year, right? That brings my to this year’s pledge! I will not only walk 300 miles this year (an easy enough goal, I think), but I am also going to lose 25 lbs. at the minimum.  I will weigh myself tomorrow so you all know where I’m starting from. The more of you who join and urge me on, the better.  You should set your goals too.  Blog about it and put a link in the comments.  I’ll add it to this post!

SF/F Commentary

Crying “Censorship”: Why Getting Banned Isn’t Censorship

You’ll probably have noticed that a lot of crazy nonsense took place here and then migrated over here when Jen and I put our feet in piranha-infested waters.  This isn’t the first time Jen and I have played emotional bees and frolicked in the convoluted mess of gender politics.  But that’s not really the point of this post.  Rather, I’d like to use the aforementioned links as illustrative examples of my central point: Deleting a comment or banning a commenter on a private website is not censorship. Since Liz Bourke’s original post, a number of people have almost joyously proclaimed they have been censored when they were banned from Tor.com (or would be banned from The Skiffy and Fanty Show — one individual on Baen assumed we would delete anything he wrote simply because he would disagree with us; the comment is still there). Neither of these things, however, constitute censorship, in part because private spaces have specialized rules which determine what can and cannot be said.  If someone waltzes into your house and starts babbling at you about why Obama is a bad choice for President or Gingrich will repeal child labor laws, you have every right to remove that person from your home and prevent them from entering again.  This act is defended by the U.S. Constitution, by our laws, and by our social codes.  Few would call that censorship.  A house is a private space, inside which you make the rules for interaction (provided they follow the rules from the outside — no murdering in your house). The same concept applies to websites that are privately owned or run.*  Much like the privacy guaranteed in your home, you equally are guaranteed privacy on your website.  That means that you are able to determine who can and cannot see your posts, who can and cannot comment, and so on.  In fact, Google does much of this on its own by snagging spam comments from the aether and casting them to the dark abyss (the same with WordPress, etc.).  None of these acts are censorship, since nothing has been done to prevent you from being able to speak on the Internet.  Provided you still have a place to speak, your rights have not been violated.  You are entitled to your opinion and your voice, but not to a listening audience. Censorship on the web, thus, is rather tricky.  At what point does the removal of content become censorship?  I’m not sure there are any easy answers to this question.  Because the Internet is vast, if not nearly infinite, there are few boundaries to free speech in the U.S.  The tables turn when you go to a place like China, where hackers serve as police officers against online dissent, where content from main sources are removed from Google’s search database, and so on.  Is that censorship? I would argue that the distinction between personal space and censorship seems to follow this logic:  so long as the avenues of discussion remain open, your rights have not been infringed; so long as websites themselves are subject to removal without reasonable cause,** you’re looking at censorship. This seems like a relatively simple concept to understand, but plenty of people cry “censorship” anyway.  Perhaps they do so as an emotional reaction, or because they really believe that the 1st Amendment means you can say whatever you want wherever you want.  The truth is that private spaces come with limitations and rules, many of them unspoken.  Many websites don’t have comment policies, running instead on the tolerance levels of the owners.  Those tolerance levels will vary considerably. In other words, think of your website as a digital house.  If you have no problem letting anyone come in and say whatever they want, then good for you.  But if you want to limit discussions or focus them, doing so in your own space means you’re simply taking control of your house.  And if we’re being honest, most of us have house rules that we expect others to follow (and house rules we set for ourselves when we visit other people’s homes).  The difference between a house and the Internet, however, is that the Internet guarantees anonymity and/or distance.  Bravery is necessarily an attending element. ——————————————- *I don’t know whether censorship applies to government websites, though there aren’t many government websites with comment threads, as far as I can remember. **For example, I wouldn’t consider the removal of a website that shares pirated files (not links, but files) as censorship, since free speech does not extend to violating the law.

Scroll to Top