The SWTXPCA Conference: Day Two (Conference Day Three)(Updated)
The second day at the SWTXPCA proved to be one hell of a long day. I’m going to split it all up by sections, since a lot happened. PanelsAnother big day for panels; I spent most of the day visiting the science fiction folks, rather than doing what a true academic does by filling his head with things from various other departments. Here are some highlights:–Witnessed a curious paper on the issues of balance and eco-feminism in LeGuin’s A Wizard of Earthsea, with a particular focus on what you might call an “Eastern influence” (yin/yang). There was some talk about the destruction of the self ego, too, but I didn’t press further on that.–Had the pleasure of hearing a short version of the history of Steampunk and its rise to popularity. I knew most of what was discussed before, but it was nice to hear a little deeper discussion about it. I asked the author how she would situate the figure of the “punk” in her assessment of Steampunk, but she seemed to agree with most that the punk postfix is primarilyy meaningless.–I saw a really fantastic presentation that analyzed various forms of imagery within the movie A.I. I would have liked to see the paper taken further, but I really enjoyed how the presenter incorporated video into his presentation. It worked very well and was quite beautiful.–I also attended a panel on Darwinism, which included a lot of discussion of Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde. One of the panelists showed some hilarious clips from old adaptations of the book; we had a good laugh.–The keynote speaker was a fellow named Adilifu Nama from the University of California, Riverside. He’s the author of an interesting book called Black Space: Imagining Race in Science Fiction Film. His speech wasn’t so much about his book than about how academics in the field of popular culture can go about reaching out to the general public to bring them into the discussion and put academic work more into the public sphere. It was a very interesting argument. I plan to purchase his book soon.–The day came to a close shortly after I attended a really interesting panel about science fiction and history. One particularly curious panel involved a critique of the belief that Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings is racist and, thus, an indicator of the author’s racism. I wasn’t aware that such things were being said, but I guess the world is a strange place, right? Evening Movie Showing: Once More, With Feeling (Buffy) and Dr. Horrible’s Sing Along BlogI had never seen either of the aforementioned musicals. Everyone tells me Dr. Horrible is amazing, and, to be honest, I think that’s an understatement. The Buffy episode aside (equally as entertaining, I think), Dr. Horrible is all kinds of brilliant. The cast is amazingly perfect, the music is memorable and fantastic, the singing is actually on par with most Broadway musicals I have seen/heard, and the story is both funny and tragic, in all the right ways. If you haven’t seen it, do…please. I feel like it changed my life. That said, “Once More, With Feeling” is also quite fantastic, although I think it works more as a gimmick episode than as a legitimate musical. The music is sometimes so-so, and obviously the actors are not always particularly strong singers. It’s more a “fan” thing than anything else. Don’t get me wrong; I loved the musical episode and will continue to do so for years to come. Probably the most entertaining aspect of seeing these two films back-to-back is having the pleasure of being a part of an audience that is deeply connected to what is being displayed. Pretty much everyone sang along; it was like going to the Rocky Horror Picture Show, but without transvestites. Additions to the New Reading List–A Wizard of Earthsea by Ursula K. LeGuin–Phenomenology of the Mind by Hegel–Barrow (on machines/humans/etc.)–R.U.R.–Crashing the Gates of Insight–Kelheffer (on Steampunk)–Leviathan by Scott Westerfeld–Aviator/Aviatrix (concept)–Astrofuturism by Kilgore–A.I. (watch)–Moon Watchers (watch/read)–Travels in Hyperreality by Umberto Eco–Contact (watch)–Cocoon 2 (watch)–John Moffet (on extraterrestrials)–Close Encounters of the Third Kind (watch)–Valis by Philip K. Dick–Solaris by Stanislaw Lem–Pearl White–Child Loving by James Kincaid–Black Space: Imagining Race in Science Fiction Film by Adilifu Nama–Necronomicon (H. R. Giger)–Pushing Daisies (watch) And that’s it. Hope you all had a good day!
The SWTXPCA Conference: Day One (Addendum)
I forgot to mention that I had the opportunity to see the most excellent Mexican science fiction film called Sleep Dealer. If you haven’t seen it, you should. It’s certainly not a perfect movie (the ending is kind of silly), but I think it is one of the best foreign SF films currently in existence, and it definitely questions a lot of the problems of the world we live in today, as all SF should. And that’s all I have to say on that. More updates to come!
The SWTXPCA Conference: Day One (Conference Day Two)
What a great way to begin a conference. The SWTXPCA Conference (31st Annual) began on Wednesday, but, due to my school schedule and other obligations, I couldn’t leave for Albuquerque until the first day of the conference. Silly me for thinking that airline travel would go smoothly. To start things off, my flight was canceled and nobody at U.S. Airways told me until I arrived to check my bags at the lovely Gainesville airport. Thankfully, they shoved me onto a different flight, which had one less change, and no airline switching. That meant that my professional early arrival (two hours before my flight) ended up being an extra two hours. But, I made it to Albuquerque at around midnight and proceeded to put the finishing touches on my paper, since I had to present it at 8 in the morning (apparently it’s a great idea to put Battlestar Galactica at the ass-end of the morning). The presentation, however, went well. There were four of us, and when all was done and over with, there were a lot of questions and folks seemed generally receptive to my argument. Mixing Philip K. Dick with Battlestar Galactica really opens the discussion and I received some excellent suggests for how to take the research further (such as looking deeper into the cosmopolitan or rhizomatic figure–for non-academics, that means a person who is kind of between spaces/worlds, such as Helo from BSG). After that, I attended several other panels and had the pleasure of hearing some amazing papers. One in particular by a student from Lakehead University up in Canada dealt with how Futurama’s future representation is, in the end, still a reaffirmation of (American) patriarchy–a fascinating paper indeed. Pretty much every panel I attended had something fascinating going on, from discussing the problems of race in Battlestar Galactica (now I can’t think of Duala as removed from the “magical negro” trope), to a humorous, but serious look at the apparent rules to surviving the apocalypse (post-event), to representations of religion and homosexuality in 20th century young adult literature and the idea of “girly culture,” to a very fun look at Whedon’s various universes, which included an interesting discussion of the frontier “myth” in Firefly and Serenity. Needless to say, I learned a lot the first day, and feel very much like I’m at the equivalent of an academic version of a science fiction convention (with the exception being that not everything being discussed is science fiction). The only thing I wish they had more of was academic booksellers; there were several fairly important sellers at the convention, but it would have been nice to see it extended to other companies (like Routledge or Wesleyan) and to wider subjects (much of what was available focused entirely upon popular culture things; I would have liked to see some inclusion of theory that has been used in popular culture, though). I did purchase two interesting books, however: –Twain and Freud on the Human Race: Parallels on Personality, Politics, and Religion by Abraham Kupersmith–The Cinema of Mamoru Oshii: Fantasy, Technology, and Politics by Dani Cavallaro In closing out this discussion of the first day, I’ll leave you with my new reading/watching list:–Foucault and Gramsci (on the hegemonic principle)–John Locke and Schumaker (on personal identity)–Peter Singer (on suffering, which I’ve read before)–Crip Theory (or Crypt Theory)–Slave of the Thirst by Tom Holland–Herland–Jericho–Jeremiah–Zombieland–Third Space Feminism–The Cyborg Manifesto by Donna Haraway–Sandoval (on cyber-identity)–Newly Born Women by Helene Cixous–Futurama–Strange Days–The History of Sexuality by Michel Foucault–The Fatal Environment And that’s it from me for today!
Suspending Disbelief While Writing Fantasy (Harder Than It Sounds)
I may have talked about this before (in passing), but I wanted to bring the subject up again, and in a little more depth. And then I’m going to ask a question. I’ve been struggling as of late with writing fantasy. While I love the genre, I can’t seem to get past the third or fourth chapter in any fantasy novel I try to write (and from my reading statistics over the last few years, I apparently have read more fantasy than science fiction, as shocking as that may sound). The problem? Every time I start a fantasy idea (mostly in novel form), I end up burning out, not because of the usual (I’m bored of the story or characters), but because I cannot suspend my own disbelief in terms of the “cliches.” I have no problem doing this while reading, though, and this poses a bizarre dilemma. How exactly can I write in a genre I enjoy if I can’t get past my own nagging guilt that I’m “telling the same story all over again?” Other authors do it (and let’s face it, most of them aren’t writing anything “original” at all, because that’s not really what fantasy is about). I read it. I love it. And I rarely dislike fantasy if the writer can pull off the cliches with grace (meaning they write in a way that makes the cliches irrelevant). I don’t know if that’s my problem. Am I graceless when it comes to fantasy? Maybe. When I write fantasy I get a good twenty or thirty pages into the story (maybe even 50) before I tell myself “I’ve seen this before” and lose interest. No, I’m not consciously trying to copy others (in fact, the novel I was working on for a while, Watchtower, had what I thought was a fairly unique use of old ideas developed outside of fantasy and then shoved into the middle of it for what the genre offered to the story). I may be doing this unconsciously, and, if so, I wonder if that is also a problem all fantasy writers (published or otherwise) deal with on a regular basis. On the flip side, what makes it easier to suspend disbelief while reading fantasy (again, in terms of the cliches) than while writing it? Is there a switch that needs to be turned on somewhere in my head? So, I’ll ask those of you who are writers (published or otherwise) what you do, or would suggest I do, to get past this? Is this a normal nagging thing for all writers of fantasy?
2010: Looking Back and Looking Forward (Resolutions)
Well, it’s the New Year, and things are gearing up to be rather exciting for 2010. I’m going to be changing a lot of things (on this blog, in my writing life, and in my personal life), for one, and, as I mentioned here, I’m going to be quite busy. But, a good way to look forward is to start by looking back, which is exactly what I’m going to do here. Last year I set several goals for myself in the form of a resolution. How did I do? Well, let’s see: Write 200,000 words — 153,424. I didn’t quite make it, obviously. Edit 200,000 words — 124,461. Again, didn’t make it. Submit 26 new short stories by Dec. 31 — Well, I only have eighteen stories submitted right now, and a few of those were submitted during 2008. Still, it’s not like I didn’t try. I have at least six stories in the final edit phase and another twenty nearly done. So, I was close. Reach a total of 20 stories in the submission queue — I think I actually hit this at one point. I have a couple stories that I have since put to the side because I don’t feel comfortable with them being out there at the moment. Get published — I actually came close. I received a rewrite request not too long ago and all I’m doing now is waiting for the specifics. So, technically if I rewrite the piece and it gets accepted, it will happen in 2010, but it was a process that began in 2009. I’ve also had a bunch of near misses this year. So close. This year, my resolutions are going to be a big different: Write 150,000 words Finish either 20 new short stories OR one of my science fiction novels-in-progress Read at least a book a week (not for school) That’s it. I want 2010 to be fairly simple. No unreasonable goals. No crazy things that can get in the way of my academic work (I’m trying to build a career, after all). Three very simple, hopefully easy writing/reading goals. What about you? What are your writing/reading resolutions for 2010?
Newton Talks: What makes a good book blogger?
Mark Charan Newton recently had an curious post about what makes a good book blogger. Being a book blogger myself (sorta), I thought it would be interesting to give my two cents on his proposed guidelines. 1) There are bloggers who use the right tools, and those who are tools (i.e. reasonable vs. unreasonable expectations) I completely agree with Newton here. Don’t get uppity about a book if you read something outside your comfort zone and don’t get what you usually like. As he says “don’t approach an entertaining romp expecting philosophical ramblings if it isn’t meant to be one. I wouldn’t say ‘I don’t like beer on account that it’s not whiskey,’ would I?” That’s absolutely true. I rarely read outside of the SF/F genres, so this isn’t usually a problem for me. Occasionally a book surprises me by being about something I never expected. Usually that’s a good thing, though, and I mention it as such in my reviews (such as my recent review of Kage Baker’s The Empress of Mars). 2) Slow and steady. (i.e. slow books/fast books are not bad books) I disagree with this point only because it’s too simple. Sometimes a slow book is a bad book (and vice versa for fast books). Sometimes pace has everything to do with it (not always, but sometimes). However, as a reviewer, I bring up pace because I write reviews to tell people what “I” liked, not necessarily what they like (I have no idea what you folks would like, because I’m not in your heads). If I don’t like stories that take 200 pages to get to the meat, then I’ll bring that up. Maybe someone else will like stories like that, and, as the old adage goes, all publicity is good publicity (mostly). 3) Prose & style. (i.e. books usually don’t “improve” in style by the end; you just get used to it) I’ll agree with Newton here only because I can’t recall ever having the experience of feeling like the latter half of a book was better written than the first half. Have any of you had that experience? 4) The synopsis should remain on the back of the book. (i.e. don’t describe the back of the book for your review) I completely agree. There are people who do this? I usually write short, concise reviews where I say something about my experience with the book from the start, then say what the book is about, and then go a little deeper into my experience with the book after (for a few paragraphs). I’m not a “literary reviewer,” though, and I have yet to write a book report for a review. That’s crap you expect to do in third grade. 5) Reviewers who are also writers (of the unpublished variety). (i.e. don’t play the “well, if I had written this, I would have done this” card) Again, there are people who do this? What kind of asshat writes a review telling everyone how he would have written the book? That’s absurd. I get that many people feel that they can do better, but unless you’ve actually been legitimately published numerous times and received every literary award available, it seems rude, at best, to say “I could have done this better” in a review. I sure as hell have never done this. 6) You can’t love every novel. Another point I agree with completely. I don’t love everything I read. Some books I hate with a passion. Others are okay. Some are damned good, and a few are brilliant. Any reviewer who loves everything he or she reads either has very low standards or doesn’t really read anything. That said, there are reviewers out there who only review the books they like. I think those folks should be very open about that, though, so as not to mislead their readers. If you never finish the books you don’t like, and, thus, never review them, then you should say as such. 7) Edit thyself. I agree with this one too. I think more bloggers could edit their work. Now, when I say that, I mean that I’m sick of reading bloggers who can’t use proper punctuation (even on a rudimentary level) or capitalize their “I”s, or what have you. There are too many out there and you’d be surprised how many of them get upset if you point out where they have made mistakes (which is usually everywhere). Hell, I’ve been having a little fun with a fellow recently who can barely string a sentence together, let alone say anything remotely intelligent. I try to edit myself, but I also am not the kind of person who is going to edit my blog the same way I edit my fiction. It’s not because I don’t like my blog, but because if I did that you’d never hear from me. You all still want to hear from me, right? I’ve had the occasional error (or maybe more than occasional), but I do try to fix them and edit my posts before I post them. I assume it has worked out, right? You all should check out Newton’s post, though, and read all of the stuff he has to say. He makes a lot of valid points and if any of you are considering being reviewers, even just for fun, his post is definitely worth checking out. On the other hand, based on what’s been written here, what do you all think?