It has a few caveats (most about the chapter on writers, which strikes the reviewer as catty) but it’s largely positive:

…there is a lot of good information in here, particularly on working as a freelancer. It’s not the bookkeeping/regular office hours/writing good book proposals sort of information, but more getting across the point that editors for popular science magazines don’t have time to deal with your artistic neuroses — and they don’t have to. If you’re going to be a professional, then be a professional, which means producing what you’ve agreed to produce when you’ve agreed to produce it, without histrionics and of good quality. That’s how you get more work so you can actually be a professional writer.

That’s a pretty square-on assessment from my view.

And now the book’s gotten two more reviews, frankly, than I expected it would get. Nice that the reviews have been generally positive so far.

Some editor at Wikipedia has posted the following notice up on the Wikipedia article about me:

This article or section needs sources or references that appear in credible, third-party publications. Alone, primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of the article are not sufficient for an accurate encyclopedia article. Please include more appropriate citations from reliable sources.

As it happens, I can attest that as of 4:28 pm EST, February 11, 2007, every bit of fact in the Wikipedia entry about me is correct. I should know, because I’m me. According to this note, however, I am apparently not a credible source for my own life, which is an assertion that I can’t decide whether to be amused or offended by. Bear in mind that the vast majority of third party sources (i.e., those Wikipedia would apparently deem as providing “appropriate citations”) get their information about me from me. Referencing third party sources won’t make the article any more accurate when those sources are all relying on me for their information.

Maybe, just to confuse Wikipedia, I’ll start lying to all my interviewers, while keeping perfectly accurate information here on my personal site. I suspect the heads of certain editors at Wikipedia would pop right off. How do you like your officious love of pointless bureaucracy now?!? Bwa ha ha ha hah ha!

In any event: No, in fact, my Wikipedia article doesn’t need additional sources or references. It’s accurate. Or was, the moment I wrote this. Someone should put in the “Trivia” section of my article that I find pointlessly fussy Wikipedia editors highly annoying. Because that would be accurate, too.

I regret to say that due to a combination of family and business commitments, neither Krissy nor I will be attending Wiscon this year. This bums us out because a) Wiscon is awesome, b) A lot of our friends will be there and c) Kelly Link is a guest of honor this year and we wanted to be there for that. But it just doesn’t look like it’s in the cards. There’s always next year.

I’ll still be at Penguicon and the Heinlein Centennial. I’ve nothing scheduled after that convention-wise for 2007, although I expect that will probably change over time.

In response to a couple of e-mail requests, here’s what the current background looks like when you can see the full picture. It’s a picture of my house, taken in October of 2005. For a larger version, click on the picture itself.

Isn’t Ohio lovely? And cheap, too! You know you want to live here.

Two months ago, I reported that I was getting about 2,000 comment spam messages a day. Today, the number is closer to 3,000 a day. Ah, the march of progress.

(Note: this is not an appeal for help, or an excuse for another of you WordPress zombies to try to get me to switch. You’ll note that you don’t see 3k spam messages a day. And honestly, the only real way for me to get rid of comment spam is to get rid of comments. Which I’m not planning to do.)