My wife texted me from downstairs to make sure I got a picture of the sunset tonight. Good call (or, uh, text).
Welcome to June.
My wife texted me from downstairs to make sure I got a picture of the sunset tonight. Good call (or, uh, text).
Welcome to June.
Bob Defendi is a gamer who knows what it’s like to be trapped in a bad game session. But as the writer of Death by Cliché, Defendi decides to take that bad game session one step farther. It’s a big step. And it goes straight down.
Mel Brooks said. “Tragedy is when I stub my toe. Comedy is when you fall into an open manhole and die.” The dark truth of comedy is that in every comedic situation, someone feels pain. Sad clowns have been a staple for far longer than people have been stapling clowns. Humor is a joyful, shining light, but it only shines because something burns.
Too morbid? How about this:
“You enter a room lit by flaming brassieres.”
Death by Cliché started with this image. A group of mature, experienced gamers gathered around a game table in a local store with a theoretically post-pubescent kid running the game. As the word “brassieres” spills from his mouth the adults exchange glances, and their stomachs sink. They know that they just sat down to play the worst game of their lives.
There’s a game designer at the table, however, and he is there to save them. He has turned his passion for games into a career, and he’s discovered that anyone who thinks work is a four letter word has a damn-poor vocabulary for swearing. There’s a dichotomy to the old axiom of “do what you love,” because turning your passion into a career irrevocably alters your perceptions of the form.
Did I mention that this is a true story?
You see, I once received a call from the marketing department of a major game company. A kid they knew to be a looney was about to demo their brand new game at a local game store. They knew it was going to be a train wreck. My job was simple: Go to the store, assess the game, and likely stage a coup because a bad game is far worse than no game, and they didn’t want complaints of “epic fail” to cost them the Salt Lake City market on the eve of a new release. I remember thinking that my worst case scenario would be to simply end the game and send everyone home before things got too ugly.
Here’s where it stops being a true story, and starts being a story filled with truth.
Our hero cannot have an easy out. He must be trapped, and so I, Bob Defendi set out to trap the semi-fictional Bob Damico in the worst game of all time. I would transform my—err I mean HIS—greatest love into the very embodiment of Hell.
That meant I’d have to kill him. The department of ironic punishments owns your sorry ass now.
Death by Cliché is about terrible storytelling. It’s about a man with deep knowledge of the form riding a train wreck like an Alanis Morrisette cover of an Ozzy Osborne song. It had to be painful enough to be funny, and funny enough to leave readers begging for more. It had to have the structural integrity of Buckminster Fuller’s bath house, built on a foundation of buckwheat pancakes.
Clichés are painful. They’re terrible. Under almost no circumstances do you want to let them into your story. You certainly don’t want to fill your story to the brink with them. You absolutely, positively don’t want to build the entire story on the bones of clichés and on the blood of bad storytelling.
Because that way lies madness.
And you really don’t want everyone to buy a copy, so you’re forced to do it all over again in a sequel.
Or maybe all of that is hindsight. Maybe I had no grand plans. Maybe I wanted to name a character Bob and start the book like this:
“Authors who write their own chapter quotes should be shot.”
Then shoot him in the head.
Death by Cliché: Amazon
In the future, we will have space travel and transporters and tribbles… but will we have a robust and coherent economic system? And if so, what will it look like and how will it actually function? These are the questions that Manu Saadia has asked, and in his book Trekonomics, attempts to answer.
As you may have heard by now, Star Trek turns 50 this year. Over the past 50 years it has become an integral part of our lives. It is a signpost in popular culture, a legit, iconic piece of Americana.
As a result, everything has been written about Star Trek. You’ve got books on the physics of Star Trek, the religions of Star Trek, the philosophy of Star Trek (my favorite: The Wrath of Kant), Trek fandom, Gene Roddenberry William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, etc, etc. Star Trek is a literary genre in and of itself.
I’ve read a lot of these books over the years. After all, I am a dedicated fan. Yet, I couldn’t find a book about the economics of Star Trek. For some bizarre reason that crucial aspect of Trek, perhaps its most singular, had not been covered. To paraphrase the other franchise, this was the book I was looking for.
So there it is. Plumbing. That’s the big idea behind Trekonomics. Plumbing. You can’t see plumbing, you take it for granted, you barely notice it. Yet plumbing is absolutely essential to life in modern society, real or imagined. Economics is the plumbing of Star Trek as much as it is the plumbing of our world. It is what gives them both their unique, distinctive shapes. It is what makes them work.
We all know that there is no money in Star Trek’s 24th century. But it goes far beyond that: in the Federation there is neither hunger, poverty nor any of the economic challenges and rewards that make our 21st century lives so interesting. In Trek’s world, what British economist John Maynard Keynes called the “economic problem,” the necessity to work to sustain ourselves, has simply gone the way of the dodo.
In the book I examine three questions: first, how does economics actually function in Star Trek’s universe? Second: is Trekonomics internally consistent? And thirdly, is it even remotely possible or is Star Trek just another cheesy SJW communist Kumbaya in space?
The C- or the S- words are the elephant in the room when it comes to Trek. Let’s dispose of that once and for all. No, Star Trek is not a communist utopia in space. It is not communist (or socialist) because communism was an economic and political response to Keynes’ economic question – how to best organize and distribute scarce resources. In an over-abundant world such as Star Trek’s, a post-scarcity world, the issue of ownership is moot. It’s very much like Iain Banks’ Culture. Why would you want to own the means of production when the value of the things you produce has converged to zero? Or, in other words, when a replicator can make any gizmo at will, there’s very little point in trying to corner the market on gizmos. Besides, there are much more rewarding things to do with your existence – mapping stellar gaseous anomalies, studying new life and new civilizations, being the captain of the flagship, boldly going etc…
To my great surprise, Star Trek’s economic ideas are remarkably consistent. The show does not break much of what we currently know of economics. Furthermore, it turns out that elements of Star Trek’s speculative political arrangements already exist in our own world – namely, the practice of making some technologies and services free and available to all without restriction, as public goods (think Wikipedia or the GPS). This strongly suggests that post-scarcity is as much a political decision as it is a matter of technological progress. That being said, as Paul Krugman wryly observed at NY Comic Con, what may hold us back on our way to a Trek-like utopia is the human propensity to remain stubbornly unhappy.
Speaking of unhappiness – throughout the years, whenever I got depressed I would usually sit down and watch a few episodes of Star Trek so as to get transported to a better and happier future. Star Trek always had a therapeutic, reparative, function in my life. But not just that: I am the kind of guy whose marriage vows were ‘live long and prosper,’ and who inserted ‘live long and prosper’ in his son’s birth announcement. While I do not usually cosplay, you could say I am a Trekker for life.
This book is a love letter to Trek, if a bit on the wonkish side. It is an attempt to demonstrate that Star Trek’s optimism, so often derided if not summarily dismissed, rests largely on its economic premise; and that said economic premise is the opposite of naive or crazy. I believe that Star Trek truly fulfills philosopher John Rawls’ famous thought experiment on the veil of ignorance: what kind of society would you design if you did not know in advance what would be your place or position in that society? Chances are it would look like the Federation’s utopia, sans the spaceships and the aliens.
That is the value of Star Trek in our world. That is why it has endured for 50 years. That is why it still matters today. Live long and prosper, indeed.
In which we had a lovely time at Wiscon. I hope your Memorial Day weekend has been a fine one, and that (here in the US), you give a moment to ponder on those whom Memorial Day is meant to honor.
As we here in the US head into the Memorial Day weekend, here is a stack of books and ARCs for your delight and perusal. Anything here speak to you? Tell me in the comments!
There’s a lake here.
In other news, hello, Madison (and Wiscon)! I’m enjoying you so far.
For today’s Big Idea, Camille Griep goes all the way back to the Trojan War for inspiration with her new novel New Charity Blues — and picks up the story of two characters you might not expect.
“The danger on the rocks has surely past,” sang Steely Dan’s Becker and Fagen in “Home at Last,” a paean to Odysseus’ homecoming. “Still I remain tied to the mast.” From songs to poetry to fiction, retelling old stories isn’t a novel concept … or is it? (I apologize, really. Please put the tomatoes down.)
The empty spaces in fairy tales, myth, and folklore insatiably lure some writers, and I’m no exception. We’ve wallowed in the untold tales of Oz, the fleshing out of King Arthur, and the exploration of the Grimm’s Ever Afters. (Heck, I even wrote one of the latter.) With New Charity Blues, I knew I wanted to look a little deeper in the Old Story pile. Though the Trojan War and its fallout has received beautiful and innovative treatments from Madeline Miller’s Song of Achilles to Margaret Atwood’s The Penelopiad, there were two stories I thought needed a further look: those of Cressida and Cassandra.
Way back in the olden days when I was in college, I remember one of my favorite professors marveling at length at how a certain car company could be so stupid as to name their sedan a Cressida. “Hey,” I thought to myself, in a fit of tacit cowardice. “It wasn’t her fault she had to fend for herself in the Greek’s camp. Who knows, maybe those cars are scrappy and reliable?” Honestly, though, I had no idea. My family bought American, and I could only dream my moldy LeBaron into a vehicle that didn’t slurp up a bottle of power steering fluid a day.
Not too long after that, the same honors lit class read “Cassandra,” by Robinson Jeffers. “Poor bitch, be wise,” warns the poet. Though Jeffers was commiserating with the Seer in the piece, I recalled leaving class incensed at the injustice of it all. Cassandra never gets to rub her rightness in anyone’s face, never gets to say I told you so. Instead, she gets myriad odes to her supposed mental state. Suffering insanity or not, the girl was right. And I wanted to hear a story where someone had to say, “Holy Horsenoodles! We should have listened to her!”
New Charity Blues puts a magnifying glass over the perspectives of Cressida (Syd) and Cassandra (Cas), but to do so, I needed to significantly quiet the violence (the magic of trial and error revealed that one can only kill so many characters per chapter unless one has a four letter monogram). To tell the story of the two women required an allegorical war, and to tell a contemporary version of that conflict, I needed an apocalypse. I chose to enter the story after a pandemic has swept the (unnamed) country, introducing Syd amid the ruins of a city crippled by lack of water and Cas atop a desert-turned-verdant paradise.
Ripping inspiration from the headlines usually my bag, though in my case, I admit there might be a bit of subconscious passive aggression in New Charity’s water-rags-to-reservoir-riches tale. Growing up in the dry foothills of Eastern Montana, waiting for the trundle of the water truck so that I could take a shower, I might admit to a certain glee in giving the city girls the short end of the cistern measuring stick for once. Regardless, New Charity has the water the City needs. And they aren’t sharing.
As with so many wars, the resentments between the two communities run long and deep. Syd left with her mother for the city at 14 to become a dancer, leaving her small town beginnings and her friends behind for the bright lights. Her father, who had been slated to join them, found he could not and chose New Charity over her family. Readers meet Syd six years later, and she’s plenty jaded, having lost her mother, her city, her career, and her purpose. When a letter arrives with the news her father has died, a final door shuts on a possible reconciliation for all that hurt. The letter, however, contains an opportunity: a way in to the gated bastion of all things painful in her past. On a mission, Syd arrives in a New Charity much changed from her childhood, though some things have stayed the same.
Syd notices that her childhood friends, Seers Cas Willis and her twin, Len, are the same “perpetual whirlwind” they’ve always been. But while Len is fumbling his way into adulthood despite his insulated environs, Cas is reticent to even think about who she wants to be – her mother treats her like a baby, her father uses her a fortune-telling political puppet, and her brothers use her as a reliable sidekick. When Cas foresees Syd’s arrival, she’s relieved. That is, until she accidentally learns more about Syd’s father’s death; it calls into question the magic of which she and her brother are the last keepers.
And here is the crux of the big idea: Syd wants to turn the water back on and save her beloved City, but hits a snag when she learns the repercussions of her plan. Cas wants to prove her town isn’t the monster Syd is painting it as, but cannot seem to convince herself the more she learns and reflects. Their friendship grows, changes, and prevails, even as the conflict escalates via tiny decisions – ones made for all the right reasons resulting in all the wrong outcomes.
Syd’s search to find peace with herself and the people around her will hopefully allow her to fight back against her literary reputation of inconstancy. Cas’s awakening to the wider world around her will challenge perceptions of her poetic forbear’s naïve hysteria. Their stories could be told a thousand times more, and with any luck, they will be.
Before I head out to Wiscon, here are today’s new books and ARCs that have come to the Scalzi Compound. What here calls to you? Tell me in the comments!
Things! About me!
1. This weekend I’m at Wiscon in Madison, Wisconsin. However, aside from “Sign Out,” the mass signing event the convention holds, I’m not on any programming. Why not? Because I didn’t want to be and didn’t volunteer for any. Sometimes I just hang out! So, if you’re going to Wiscon this weekend and want to say hello to me, you’re in luck (likewise, if you have a book for me to sign at Sign Out).
2. This May I’ve been in a “semi-hiatus” state to get work done on the books I’m writing, and the good news is it’s been useful! The bad news is the books aren’t done, so I’m going to go ahead and extend the semi-hiatus, probably through June. The other good news in this case is that are 13 Big Idea pieces scheduled for June, so between them, sunset pictures and cat pics (and yes, the occasional political rant from me) you should be fine for another month.
3. Really happy about the positive response to The Collapsing Empire reveal on Tuesday. This is just a heads up that there will be other reveals coming up soon as well. Yes! I have not been idle! Uh, mostly. So, you know. Stay tuned.
“What price fame?” You’ve heard the phrase before, no doubt, but with her novel Roses and Rot, author Kat Howard puts a spin on it that you’ve probably not experienced before. Here she is to explain it.
My debut novel, Roses and Rot, is an extremely loose retelling of the “Tam Lin” ballad. Loose enough that I usually call it a riff, not a retelling – I took some of the pieces I liked, tossed others, switched some around. But my favorite part – the part that led to the big idea that led to the writing of the novel, well, that’s gone.
Let me explain.
It comes out in the original ballad that the young and handsome Tam Lin is in trouble because he has been stolen away by the Queen of the Fairies. Sounds like a good deal, right? Well, not exactly:
And pleasant is the fairy land,
But, an eerie tale to tell,
Ay at the end of seven years,
We pay a tiend to hell,
I am sae fair and fu o flesh,
I’m feard it be mysel.
(Text from Child Ballad 39A)
And I was fascinated by this idea – the idea that somehow, somewhere in the past, something had happened to put Fairy in a sort of vassal relationship to Hell. I love this tiny piece of the ballad, but as much as I wrestled with the idea, the connection between Hell and Fairy is something I haven’t figured out it. And no matter how hard I tried to wedge anything Hell-related into early drafts of what became Roses and Rot, it didn’t work. So I had to let it go. But that didn’t mean I had to let everything go.
In the ballad, Tam Lin has no great desire to go to Hell. And so he asks his lover, Janet, to save him so he doesn’t wind up paying the tithe that Fairy owes.
Roses and Rot as it is now came out of thinking about that. About thinking about what kind of relationships were strong enough that you could ask someone to rescue you from Hell – which was, in the ballad, a difficult and dangerous task. And about what would happen if the person who was chosen for that sort of sacrifice actually wanted to go.
Hell is easily avoided if it looks like Hell. And Imogen and Marin, the two sisters at the heart of Roses and Rot, grew up in a situation that gave them a pretty good idea of what Hell looks like. They’ve spent their lives doing everything they could to make sure they got out, but it’s never quite worked. Their Hell took the form of a person, their abusive mother, and she keeps tracking them down, keeps sliding back into their lives.
But what happens if there’s something that happens after going to Hell, and that something looks like magic, like a gift, like everything you’ve ever wanted, handed to you on a plate? What if this after (or its equivalent, since Hell as a place isn’t in Roses and Rot) looked so good, there is a competition to go to Hell?
Here’s the deal. I’ll offer it to you: You get success, guaranteed, absolute top of the charts, your name lives forever, sort of success. But first, you spend seven years in a place that’s not very nice. That might in fact be so bad you could think of it as an equivalent of Hell. Oh, and not everyone who goes makes it back out alive.
Do you take the bargain?
Imogen and Marin are two young women who’ve already been through Hell once, and they’ve gotten themselves out the other side of it. They’re both artists – Imogen a writer and Marin a dancer. They’ve worked hard, made sacrifices. What’s being offered is everything they’ve ever wanted. And there’s only one spot.
Death’s a risk that might seem acceptable to you if you grew up somewhere that felt like Hell, and paying the tithe would be your guarantee that you would be safe in the future. It might also be an acceptable risk if you’re an ambitious artist, close enough to see success, but not quite close enough to securely grab it. But your death might not be an acceptable risk for someone who loves you. They might not be able to just stand back and watch you go. They might decide to save you, even if you don’t want to be saved. Even if saving you means making sure that you don’t get everything you’ve ever wanted.
Roses and Rot began as an idea about why you might send someone to Hell. It turned into a story about why you might have to save someone from walking into it on their own.
All the details are over on Tor.com, right now.
“But Scaaaaaaalzzzi, clicking through is sooooooooo much woooooooooork!”
Oh, fine. Here.
Cover artist? Sparth, aka Nicolas Bouvier, whose work will be familiar to you if you, you know, play video games at all.
But seriously, go over to that Tor.com link for more details.
Some very fine stuff here today. What is calling to you from the stack? Tell me in the comments!
Yup, that’s a nice one.
It’s another all-Baen Books day for new books. Why? Because Baen keeps sending me a ton of books, that’s why! Tell me what here in this pile looks interesting to you.
(Disclosure: Black Tide Rising (out 6/7) features a short story co-written by me and Dave Klecha.)
Question in email:
You’ve been pretty quiet about the Hugos this year so far. Now that voting is open on the finalist list, do you have anything to add?
Not really? I mean, after the initial bit of freakout, everything seems to have settled down, hasn’t it? The Puppy attempt to troll the Hugos this year consists of three categories: a) Stuff that was going to get nominated anyway, b) Stuff from people they classify as “SJWs” that they nicked off the Locus Recommended List, c) Their own stuff. My response to each category is, a) no credit, b) nice you can read someone else’s list, c) hmmm, well, this is still basically mostly shit, isn’t it? And I’ll likely vote accordingly. But it hardly seems getting much worked up about.
The only other thing to add about the Pups is that at least this year we can dispense with the polite fiction that their trolling the list is about anything other than trolling; there’s no ideological battle here, it’s just assholes trying to make other people unhappy. Which is what it was last year, too, mind you, but this year there’s no quasi-political fig leaf on it. Assholes gonna asshole, and that’s the size of it.
I do note there is a push to disqualify these trolls from the ballot. My thoughts on that: One, it’s too late for this year, the ballot is what the ballot is. Since at least a couple things on the ballot go out of their way to trash me, I think my opinion here carries a little weight (I, uh, won’t be ranking those very highly, I will note).
Two, moving forward, in a general sense I don’t have a problem with declaring ballots with obvious slating on them invalid, because slating is bullshit and contrary to the intent of the awards. That said, the Worldcon needs to make that declaration well ahead of the nomination process (along with the notation that its rulings on the matter are final and not open to debate), and it needs to make sure anti-slating rules are applied no matter who is attempting to slate. I’m also of the mind that if anti-slating procedures like E Pluribus Hugo and 4/6 are ratified and effective, then best to let them do the work.
Bear in mind that no amount of rule tweaking will keep specific bullshit off the finalist lists. There has always been stuff on the final ballots that have made people wonder “how the Hell did that get there?” The goal is to make sure that bullshit is there because people actually liked it, not because they had marching orders from the sort of sad waste of skin who has nothing better to do with his or her life than futz with the Hugo ballots.
From my own personal point of view, this year there’s enough on the Hugo ballot in most categories that I would be happy to give a rocket to, and in relatively few categories where there’s not, well, that’s what “No Award” is for. Which means, no offense to George RR Martin and a couple of other folks whom I admire, I hardly think the Hugos are wrecked, this year or permanently. There’s good stuff in there. Let’s reward it. Twenty years from now, no one will remember the silly bullshit or the assholes who spewed it, but they might remember the good stuff we chose to honor. That’s how the award is supposed to work.
Here is Athena looking toward the future (and, more prosaically, in the direction of our mailbox, but even so).
This end of the school year will bring some pretty big changes for Athena. Today is the last day of school, so technically speaking, Athena is now what they call a “rising senior.” But practically speaking, she’s done with high school. She has only one more required class between her and graduation, and she will be taking that, along with other courses, at the local community college next year. The local CC has an arrangement with the high school for students in just this sort of situation, which is nice. But it also means that Athena’s no longer going to school here in town.
Which is a pretty big deal. She’s been at the local school since kindergarten — the building houses elementary, middle and high school all in the same building — so her moving on from there is, in a very real way, a signal break from her childhood. I’m for it, in the sense that I think a year at the local community college will be useful for her both academically and in terms of her getting used to the rhythms of college before she goes off to a four-year school. But still. Changes. And more changes to come.
In any event — off into summer we go.
Bernie Sanders is not going to be president, nor is he going to be the Democratic candidate for President of the United States. To date, he has won fewer electoral contests, pledged delegates and total votes than Hillary Clinton, and in each of these cases the margins aren’t close. While it is technically possible for Sanders to close the gap with Clinton in the nine contests remaining, from a practical point of view it’s impossible. In order to pull ahead in pledged delegates, Sanders would have to win something like 70% of all remaining delegates; given that he is substantially behind in polling in California and New Jersey, the two largest remaining contests, this is extremely unlikely.
Even when Sanders wins, he doesn’t win by enough — his win in Oregon, for example, netted him only nine pledged delegates over Clinton, which leaves her 272 delegates ahead. To be clear, and as I’ve said before, Hillary Clinton doesn’t have to win any more states to win the Democratic nomination for President of the United States; all she has to do is not lose too widely. If Sanders could win all nine remaining contests — which he won’t — Clinton would still end up with an overall larger number of pledged delegates and votes, so long as the contests were close enough, close enough in this case being a margin less than 68% – 32%.
Bernie Sanders is not going to going to be president, nor is he going to be the Democratic candidate for President of the United States. I know it. Clinton knows it. Most disinterested observers know it. Sanders himself almost certainly knows it, because he is not a stupid man. He’s being beaten, fair and square, in contests, pledged delegates and vote counts, even before things like superdelegates are added into the mix. The only people who don’t seem to know it are some of Sanders’ supporters.
Or, to be more accurate, a number of Sanders’ supporters are aware he’s losing, but are under the impression that the reason he’s losing is because of nefarious action and the game being “rigged,” rather than, simply, he’s won fewer contests, pledged delegates and overall votes than Hillary Clinton. Why? Because apparently these supporters just really really really want Sanders to win, and because he isn’t ahead there has to be something else at play than more Democratic primary voters preferring Hillary Clinton to their man.
This is not to say Clinton hasn’t been the preferred candidate of the Democratic establishment all along; she clearly has been. But then again, Jeb Bush was the preferred candidate of the Republican establishment this cycle, and look where that got him. You can be the preferred candidate and still have things go south. Heck, Clinton was the establishment candidate of 2008, too — she took her campaign into June, just like Sanders plans to, and still lost, to Barack Obama. Being the establishment candidate doesn’t mean much if at the end of the day someone else wins more contests, delegates and total votes than you do.
Sanders has won fewer contests, pledged delegates and overall votes than Clinton and has done so consistently since the start of the primary season; Clinton’s been ahead in all three since February 20 and the Nevada caucus, unless you think there was some skullduggery involved there (re: this nonsense), in which case she’s been ahead since February 27. It is pretty much impossible that Clinton won’t come into the Democratic convention in Philadelphia with more pledged delegates and total votes than Sanders. Sanders’ team and his supporters are floating the idea that at the convention they will try to dislodge the superdelegates currently declared for Clinton to bring them to their side and win the candidacy that way. But this would require the superdelegates to ignore the fact that Hillary Clinton was the clearly the preferred candidate of both the overall Democratic primary voters, and won more pledged delegates than Sanders. Why would they do that? Why should they do that?
The answer for a number of Sanders supporters seems to be, basically, well, because we really really really want it, and we should get what we want. And I guess it’s nice that you really really want something, but, look: Sanders has won fewer contests, pledged delegates and overall votes than Clinton, and we don’t always get what we really really want, and sometimes you just have to suck it up and be a goddamned grown up about that fact.
And then you start thinking, well, if I can’t have this thing I really, really want, what can I have? At this point, truculent Sanders supporters, either you can have someone in the White House who voted with your preferred candidate 93% of the time when they were both in the Senate, and who generally wants most of the same things your candidate wants (albeit in slightly more establishment ways), or you can have Donald Trump, who isn’t the buffoon you think he is (or, more accurately, isn’t just the buffoon you think he is), who just released a list of potential Supreme Court candidates that reads like a wish list for the reactionary right, and who will soon have the entire apparatus of the GOP chugging away for him because the GOP would rather be in the White House with an ignorant, racist buffoon than not be in the White House at all. And while I suppose a number of you would rather be “principled” and say, my guy or let it all burn, my friends, it will indeed all burn, and you will be trapped in the fire with the rest of us.
(Yes, you can also go third party, and vote for either Jill Stein of the Green Party or Gary Johnson in the Libertarian Party, etc. Have fun! But if it gets to October and the polls are depressingly close, let the specter of Ralph Nader remind you that third party votes offered primarily for protest have consequences in our political system. Yes, that sucks. Doesn’t change the fact.)
In 2008, right around this time in the election cycle, I wrote a piece about how Hillary Clinton, who was clearly not going to be the Democratic candidate that time around, but whose team and followers were thinking of certain parliamentary calisthenics which will sound familiar to Sanders supporters right about now, should let it go. She didn’t listen, of course; she slogged on through to June. Here in 2016, Bernie Sanders is not going to be the Democratic candidate, either. He, too, should let it go. I don’t expect him to listen, either. But this time the people I want to listen are his more fevered followers. Guys, you have to get ready for him not to win. He might win concessions in the platform, which would be groovy. But that’s as far as it’s going to go. He’s not going to be president, and he’s not going to be the Democratic candidate.
And when all is said and done, there will still be the general election. It’s going to be Clinton versus Trump. You’re going to have to decide what you really want for the next four years at least. It’s going to matter what you choose. Not just for yourself but for everyone else.
Sure, Arthur Conan Doyle once killed off Sherlock Holmes, but it took Paul Cornell to do terrible things to his ghost. He does it in Who Killed Sherlock Holmes? and today in his Big Idea, he explains why he thought this might be such a great plan.
The big idea behind Who Killed Sherlock Holmes? came into being in my head like a line of dominoes falling, as soon as I’d thought of the title. In the London of my Shadow Police novels, ghosts are people, either real or fictional, who are remembered by the collective minds of every Londoner, alive and dead. They’re not quite sentient. They’re only perceptible by those, like my modern Metropolitan Police officer protagonists, who’ve been gifted (or cursed) with ‘The Sight’, the ability to see London’s magic and monsters. They’re tied to the locations where they’re expected to be. So of course in that world there’s a Sherlock Holmes, and of course he’d be found at 221b Baker Street, which is, as in reality, a Holmes Museum.
Except when my heroes encounter him, he’s face down, with a ceremonial dagger through him. Because my guys somehow working alongside how the ghost of Holmes would be, in my world, with him like a hologram, unable to deduce anything, only half there… well, why are they meeting him in the first place? It’s not even interesting, it’s a side issue, a tourist attraction for them, but… if he was dead…
Holmes’ body remains ghostly, intangible, fluttering in appearance between every version of him there ever was. The deer stalker, featuring so often, is a bit more solid on his varying head. So Detective Inspector Quill, Lisa Ross, and undercovers Costain and Sefton have to work out not only why he was killed, but what it means, even, to murder a ghost. Is his ‘death’ linked to the three different productions of Sherlock Holmes which are all being filmed in London at once, leading to ‘Sherlockmania’ in the capital? (And allowing me to indulge in a bit of fond satire of all the modern Holmes brands.) Is the killing linked to whoever is committing the crimes from the Conan Doyle stories, in order, at their original London locations?
All of that filled itself in as I began to work at the central idea, and figure out what kind of a puzzle I needed this time round. I wanted it be a proper whodunit, and an astute reader is, I think, able to play along. One enormous coincidence between the locations I’d already established for the series and the Holmes canon made me leap around in delight at synchronicity at play in the world.
The case also had to allow my characters to at least begin to deal with the traumatic and terrible things that happened to them in the previous book. (Or, actually, mostly, not deal.) This is the third novel in the series which began with London Falling, but I was determined, given the popularity of the subject matter, that it be entirely accessible to new readers. If you join us here, you’ll be brought swiftly up to speed with the lives of our put-upon coppers, trying to deal with a supernatural only they’re aware of, without mentors, magical skills or special items, using only their training and an Ops Board.
The Shadow Police novels are known for their big twists, and this one is as twisty as either of the previous entries, I hope. At the end of the chapter which sets up the crime scene, an ‘orgy of evidence’ with eccentric clues scattered around Holmes’ rooms, Detective Sergeant Costain can only turn to his colleagues and say ‘mate… the game is afoot‘.
Today I received the 2016 Governor’s Award for Arts in Ohio, in the category of Individual Artist (along with Janice Lessman Moss, who is a fiber artist), and the award came in the form of some very striking prints of flowers, made by Paula Wilmot Kraus, each chosen with specific intent for the particular recipient. Mine, for example, was of poppies, which look sort of otherworldly. It was a lovely gift, given during a lovely lunch and ceremony.
I had been genuinely surprised to be given the award, since in the history of the award, which stretches back a couple of decades at least, it was only very rarely given to a writer, and never before to one who specialized in science fiction. So I was delighted to received it and very happy the Ohio Arts Council decided to go a bit into left field for the choice. And of course it’s nice to be recognized by one’s state for what one does, which in my case is to sit in an office in the tiny rural town of Bradford and write about the whole rest of the universe.
Thanks, folks. It’s deeply appreciated.
For my birthday my excellent friend Regan procured for me a Qwerkywriter keyboard, which is designed to mimic the look and clicky-clicky feel of an old school typewriter keyboard while still giving you the functionality of a modern computer keyboard. People have asked me to give a report on the thing, and I’ve been using it for a day now, which is enough time for me to give you some first impressions of it.
First off, you should all know that I am not the best person to vouch for how it feels compared to an actual typewriter, since the last time I used an actual typewriter for anything was freshman year in high school, when I typed just fast enough on a manual typewriter (25 words a minute) to be excused from a compulsory typing class. Since then all my writing, creative or otherwise, has been done on a computer. So while I can appreciate the old-school aesthetic of the Qwerkywriter, which is indeed endearing as promised, for those of you who were hoping for a report on whether this would offer a 1:1 experience to a Smith-Corona or IBM Selectric, I’m afraid I can’t help you there.
That said, I do have a frame of reference with manual computer keyboards, i.e., the older keyboards where there was a full and distinct “click” with each key depression. And as for those, well, yeah, this does the trick. The keys are clicky and clattery and for the folks who really get off on that sort of sensuously tactile experience when they type, this is probably going to ping their pleasure centers pretty hard.
For the record, I’m not someone who needs my keyboard to make a huge amount of noise, nor do I really care too much about the tactility and travel of the keys — I’ve spent too much time on laptops for that. But I do find the travel and clackery of the keys pleasant enough, and the noise does vaguely remind me of my days in a newsroom, which is a nice sense memory.
In terms of the physical aspects of the keyboard, it’s reasonably solidly built; the chassis of the keyboard is metal, as are the keytops (the mechanical aspects of the keys appear to be plastic). The keys are slightly wiggly at the top but the underportions are solidly placed into the base. The height of the base and of the keys put them at a substantial height off your desk, so if you’re used to a low profile keyboard, as I am, this will take a little getting used to and you should probably make adjustments to how you sit and type to make sure your wrists don’t suffer any undue strain (note this would be the case with any keyboard different from what you usually use; this is not a specific complaint against the Qwerkywriter). The keys are not backlit, so if that’s an important thing to you — and it is for me — be aware of that.
I type reasonably quickly (and idiosyncratically) and the keyboard had no problems keeping up with me; at the moment I’m typing slower on it than on my usual keyboard, and making more errors, but that seems more to do with me having to get used to the keyboard than anything with the keyboard itself. The Qwerkywriter connects via Bluetooth and does a pretty good job with it. I was able to connect with my Android tablet (shown in the picture above) and also to my desktop computer without any problems at all, and haven’t had any connectivity issues of note. The makers of the keyboard say that once it’s charged it can type for months before recharging, which I can’t speak to yet. Obviously it seems to be chugging along just fine.
Criticisms? A couple. One, the return bar is functional (whack it and your cursor drops a line, or you can program it for other functionality), but it really is an affectation, especially if like me you’ve never really spent any time on a typewriter. Also, because I’m not used to a metal bar being on my keyboard, my hand runs into it a lot, which I find vaguely annoying. If you’re a true touch typist who puts your hands like you’re supposed to, maybe this won’t be a problem. The base also has a fake roller bar in it, which is cute but otherwise inessential.
There’s a slot in the back for you to place a tablet or phone in, which is great (see above), but leads me to another complaint, which is not about the Qwerkywriter but is about mobile word processing apps, namely, that at this point they still don’t have some basic functionality (for example, neither Microsoft’s Office online version or Google’s Docs mobile app have the option to set a ruler on your document; Apple’s Pages does but I’m not usually working on the Apple side of things), which for me right now limits the usefulness of the tablet/keyboard setup. Your mileage, quite obviously, may vary on this (you may not have the need/desire to very specifically format as I do).
Also, for gamers, I’m not entirely sure that this is a fantastic keyboard for that. On one hand it is mechanical, which many gamers like, but on the other hand it is Bluetooth rather than directly wired, which introduces lag, and also given the key shapes, I sense a lot of opportunity for flubbed key presses.
Finally, and this is just me, but I sort of question whether I would take it out into public. It’s certainly portable (the keyboard is just under three pounds) but it’s also a little… I don’t know, precious? It’s one thing to bring a laptop into a coffee shop. It’s another thing to bring your Qwerkywriter, chunk it down, slip your tablet into the back, and clack away while you chug your soy latte. I feel like the hipster police will burst through the door in their skinny jeans and haul you away.
At home, it feels indulgent and (yes) just quirky enough to be fun. Out in the world, it might come across as oh my God look at me I am a really real writer as you can tell by my important clicky sounds. Again, I’m fully willing to admit this is a personal hang-up; I have a well-known bias against writing in public areas anyway. So take this as you will. You might be happy to be out in public with this, you shameless hipster, you.
My personal neuroses notwithstanding, the Qwerkywriter seems like a solid, pretty and enjoyable mechanical keyboard which I can recommend if you like the basic feature set of mechanical keyboards and also enjoy the old-school typewriter aesthetic. Be aware that you will be paying a premium for that aesthetic — these things are currently going for $350 — but if you’re down with that, go for it and have a ball.
(A link to the Qwerkywriter site, by the way; the other links above were to the ThinkGeek sales page.)