Fellow Travellers

In the past, I've done huge wrap-ups of panels, and I burn out after two or three write-ups. So I'm trying something different. Here's a wrap-up of all the panels I attended, with only a few sentences about each. Got questions (or comments if you were at some of these)? Ask away, and I'll answer.

Friday:

The Nature of Evil in Horror Fiction: Great panel featuring a number of theories by folks like Clute and Schweitzer. Clute noted the idea of evil as a "vacancy," of morality, as well as in physical spaces (he noted that we were in a hotel, near a mall, on a ring road, all of which symbolize vacancies. Laird Barron noted that evil can't be witnessed without outside context, and that evil usually forms from conflicts of intent (both indicating that those who commit evil rarely recognize themselves as evil). Works cited were numerous, and included Peter Straub, Cormac McCarthy, Faust, Lovecraft, Woody Allen, and more. Chip Delaney, from the audience, suggested that people "do nice things in the world for the same reason that you masturbate," which may be the best rephrasing of Ayn Rand I've ever heard.

The Year in Novels. Featuring Paul Witcover, Graham Sleight, Ernest Lilley, Charles Brown, and Shira Lipkin (woohoo!). Lots and lots of talk about great (and not-so-great) works from 2008, with a little bit about 2009. I didn't take extensive notes here, but Brown had a handout that some folks got (I came in late, though).

Interfictions 2 Reading. Yet another panel with shadesong! Yay! More importantly, every single piece read (and there were excerpts from ten pieces, I think) was awesome. Some were from Interfictions 1, as well. Reminder: You can pre-order the book now!

How I Wrote The Orphan’s Tales, by Catherynne Valente. I knew much (but not nearly all) of the backstory here, and yuki_onna is as good a storyteller when telling her own story (or the story behind her books, as it were) as when she writes her novels.

How Do We Choose What We Read? This was an ill-defined, but interesting panel featuring Michael Bishop, Pulitzer Prize-winning critic Michael Dirda, and a number of other interesting panelists. Wish I'd had my computer with me to take notes, but there was good discussion of early influences, perception of genre, and other fun stuff.

Meet the Pros(e) party. A giant crowded clusterfuck. If you're as introverted as me, you'll hate this with a screaming vengeance. If the room had been twice as big, the idea itself was great, though, giving each pro a sticker sheet with a sentence they've chosen from their own work on it, and the pros giving them out to folks (or trading with each other). And there was cake.

Saturday:

Notes on the Superhero. The first part of John Clute's paper on the Count of Monte Cristo as a proto-superhero, focusing mainly on the ties to Superman, but with some good Q&A about Batman (with the focus on both of them in their '30s incarnations, not the present day, of course).

How I wrote Enclave, by Kit Reed. In this case, it was, essentially, "the life of Kit Reed," as there wasn't quite as much backstory directly relevant to this book. But it was a great panel, and Reed is a nifty speaker and person (and graciously signed my copy of the book).

The Killers Inside Us: In many ways a sequel to the Nature of Evil panel. This focused explicitly on psychosis in literature (and in film/tv, by extension). There was some discussion, of course, of whether evil existed, but most of the focus was on the fact that psycopaths are made, bit by bit, and that they offer many, many warning signs, both items overlooked in slashers in general. I also learned that Barry Longyear went to school with Gary Heidnik. Also, at some point, I wrote down the phrase, "the truth of coherence as opposed to the truth of correspondence," on a notecard, quoting someone either in the room or on the panel. I really should have brought a laptop to capture context.

Novels of Advocacy vs Novels of Recognition. Another ill-defined panel, but also fun. Lots of discussion of Canadian and US differences in approaching novels, as well as of writers like Heinlein (I was so glad to hear a panelist -- I want to say it was Ken Houghton -- call the end of The Roads Must Roll "Bullshit"). The question of a negative advocacy (did I mention that Paolo Bacigalupi was on the panel) was mentioned, as was the idea that the line between recognition/advocacy doesn't exist.

Liz Hand Reading: Liz read from the upcoming novella, "The Maiden Flight of McCauley‘s Bellerophon." It was, not surprisingly, wonderful

Kirk Poland Bad Prose Tournament of Champions. I'm not used to seeing Yves not finish in the top two. Some awful, awful stuff. Loved it. At one point, I snarked audibly in reaction to a passage in which the "author" claimed that no one, not even the editor, was reading the book, but only emilytheslayer, I think, heard the name of the publisher at whom I snarked.

Sunday:

Future of magazines 1: Print
Future of magazines 2: Online: These panels were back-to-back, and placed in way too small a room (why the hell they weren't in one of the Salon rooms is beyond me). I know that ckd took good notes, so expect actual quotes and stuff from him. As for me, I enjoyed the discussion, got some useful information, found some snarkworthy moments, and had fun.

Broad Universe Reading: The second reading I attended featuring shadesong! It was another huge group, but the stuff read was all wonderful, and I want to track much of it down.

Children's F&SF Coffeeklatch: This was a coffeeklatch organized by Tui and Kari Sutherland. The former writes YA books, used to edit them, and is one of the four people writing the Warriors series (and lives in Watertown!), and the latter is an editor at Harpercollins. The group consisted of fans and pros, but we all snarked equally at Twilight. Lots of discussions of book packaging groups, cutting-edge stuff, and, of course, Hunger Games :-)

I'll post a second post with discussion of the people and social elements of the con later, but I wanted to get this stuff down before I got caught up in work this week.

The new Fairyland chapter is up!

Chapter Five: The House Without Warning

As the two of them travel along, I shall take a moment’s pause, as is my right. For it deserves remarking that if one is to obtain a monstrous companion, a Wyvern—or a Wyverary—is really a top-notch choice. Firstly, they rarely tire, and their gait is remarkably even, considering the poultry-like disposition of their feet. Secondly, when they do tire, they snore, and no ravening bandit would dare to come near. Thirdly, being French in origin, they have highly refined tastes and are unlikely to seek out unsavory things to eat, such as knights’ gallbladders or maidens’ bones. They much prefer a vat or two of truffles, a flock of geese, and a lake of wine, and they will certainly share. Lastly, their mating seasons are brief and infrequent, and the chances of experiencing one of them is so small as to be beyond the notice of any native guidebook, or indeed the concern of any small girl with brown hair who might be utterly innocent of such things. Truly, it hardly bears mentioning.

There is also a lovely new necklace from qotcpcf  in the Fairyland Museum.

Please do read--some of you have said you didn't want to read without donating. That's not how it works! It's up for free, for everyone to read, whether they donate or not. Obviously, donations are awesome and without them there would be no Fairyland. But the whole model is that donations from a portion of the readership pays for the story for all. Please read it, even if you never, ever donate. If you can, throw a few dollars in. If you can't, or aren't inclined, just sit back and come to Fairyland with me. We'll have such a time, I promise.

(Photo credit: Abby and Tori)

Had a grand time last week with New York sirens Abby & Tori, who swept in from the Metropolis and lured me into the woods to assist with their film project, The Hunt for Good Americans. I was asked to play a messenger from beyond named Agent Wheelsworth, which required me to compose and recite some light verse as well as ride my highwheel about the nearby beech forest.

Abby and Tori's vision is quite playful, as they dress in flamboyant getups that reflect the themes of their various "chapters". The use of color in this particular scene was vibrant, and the dialogue was a kind of musical speech, much like The Umbrellas of Cherbourg.

(No, I did not sing my lines--I can't carry a tune to save my life, and I would have mortified myself in the attempt. Honor would have demanded that I fill my shoes with stones afterwards, and walk stoically into the river.)

While they were filming their parts, I wandered off to do some birding, as they sang in the distance. The effect was quite lovely, as if some arty water nymphs emerged from the nearby river, donned frocks of flowers, and decided to have a go at showbiz. Absolutely delightful.

Then came the time for me to make a hash of things. They first filmed me riding my highwheel through the woods, which was easy enough--but then I had to act in a couple scenes. Abby and Tori are natural performers, but I confess to being a bit timid when it comes to such things. I did my best to keep pace with the girls, so as not to disappoint (I had to cover my ears on playback, because I despise my voice so). I thought my silly poem about my bicycle was quite fun, though; I included some Chihuahhuas and bananas for good measure.

After we were done shooting I gave an impromptu rant about the patch of edible cinnabar chanterelles I'd found by the river, obsessed hermit that I am. Having such colorful visitors did me some good, actually, as I needed to be drawn out of the woodsy-mossy shell I've ensconced myself in of late.

(I kind of like how I look like a rumpled old duffer in the first photo.)



Thank you for including me in your adventures, ladies. And good luck with the film!

Hello everyone,
I’ve been reading the requirements to the entrants for library school and have noticed that a lot of them say that they require a 2.8 or 3.0 in the last 60 credits. Does this mean they don’t look at your first 60 credits or do they just assume that they were good since you were taking easier classes?
In my case I have above a 3.0 in my last 60 but my first 60 are really low, like 2.2. I do well in my major classes just not in obscure classes that I know I’ll never need again. Will this hurt me? Will my last 60 be the most important? My combined gpa will probably be around 2.7 which is why I like them concentrating on just the last 60.

Thanks

Hi!  I have recently decided to change my education goals and have just started looking into a library science career.  What undergrad degree has been the most helpful (mine is chemistry at the moment)? I have no experience working in a library what would be a good position to go after now with no degree??  Thank you for your advice!

Recorded it off of Sci-Fi (and yeah, I've go intention of using another name for this network). Caught it on Tivo last week. It's basically Fringe Lite meets Special Unit 2, but that's okay, so far. It's basically a fun sci-fi adventure show, with good cast chemistry, and that's enough to keep me watching for a few weeks to see how it turns out. And Saul Rubinek is wonderful and steals every scene he's in.

A few casting items of note:

It's got Sarah/Juliet from Season 2 of Slings and Arrows in the lead!

(Incidentally, at $30 for all three seasons, there's no excuse for not owning Slings and Arrows, and it's simply one of the best shows ever to air.)

And CCH Pounder is, for all intents and purposes, playing Amanda Waller again!

Also, two actress who play nuns in the upcoming film Orphan are in this (Pounder and Genelle Williams).

There is something vaguely creepy about early-morning thunderstorms. Just sayin'.

Let's try a new feature out here on this LiveJournal. Basically, I'm going to throw out a koan out there and I'd like for you to interpret it as you wish.

Now, I'm not sure how regular this feature will be, but I'm willing to give it a go. Guess it depends on how popular it is.

Recently, one of my friends told me he was going through tough times. It was time for him to be strong. He asked for some advice, which is odd considering the sort of advice I give.

Nonetheless, I shared with him the following koan:

"Strength does not come from being strong.
Strength comes from being weak."

How would you interpret this koan? Also, where do you think strength comes from, my fine readers?

http://www.hrwiki.org/wiki/imaginary

Strong Bad Email: imaginary watch

Today was a day for spontaneous good dialogue at my house.  For example:

Me:  I'm taking a mental health day tomorrow.
Karen:  Oh.  I hope it works.

Or--

James:  (yells a warning to Buster Keaton as he's watching a DVD)
Me:  You know, he can't hear you.
James:  I know.  Because it's a silent movie.

And, while Karen was showing Natalie (12) her baby pictures as James and I are waiting to start Buffy, she shows Natalie a picture of the first time she ever had chocolate cake.

Me:  A loss of innocence.
James:  They should do that for vampires.  Take a picture of their first taste of human blood.
Me:  (pinching invisible cheeks) oh, isn't he cute?  isn't he a cute vampire?
James:  I'll bet he'd be mortified.

Living with people.  It can be entertaining.

We introduced Natalie to Buffy tonight.  Season 1.  First three episodes.  Since Natalie is extremely fashion conscious, it made me aware of how long ago season 1 was filmed.  Eg:  In the Harvest, Buffy is walking around in the sewers and a rat runs in front of her foot.

Natalie:  Ew!
Me:  The square-toed boots?
Natalie:  Yes!  (beat) Well, and the rat.

This was a really, really good Readercon. There will be a post tomorrow. First I am going to sleep.

But the wind blew and the sun shone too and the corn grew tall.

THE CAKE WAS NOT A LIE.
It was in fact real and tasty marble cake with chocolate ganache.
Thank you, Michelle!
Nor were the strawberries, chili, veggies, or salsa a lie.  NOM.  I love my near in-laws.  Not only did they feed everyone, they made their living room and dining room into the perfect chilled out concert space, since the deck was wet from the afternoon monsoon and hail storm.

Setlist:
Extraordinary Machine (cover, Fiona Apple)
Wendy On Board
Girl in the Garden (capo 6, usually capo 5)
Ravens in the Library
Red-handed Jill
Tough Titty Cupcakes
Seafaring Satyr
Handfast Blessing (half-step up)
Lady Vagabond

(break)

The Drowning
Firefly (cover, Martha Tilston)
Snow Cherries From France (cover, Tori Amos)
To My Valentine (Captain Ron's new favorite song.  See sooj glow)
Green-eyed Sue/Sue's Jig
LGPA Alma Mater
Shipful of Monsters

(cake!)

This show was brought to you by the "Immunitea" that Robbie gifted us.  The more of it I drank, the better I felt.  It had a great positive effect on the quality of my performance today, I believe.  I woke up with a scratchy throat this morning and honestly wasn't sure what kind of show I would be able to give today--the third in a row this weekend.  I was singing very carefully for the first few songs, but by "Handfast Blessing," I felt quite well.  I really think it was the tea, combined with my taking it easy for most of the afternoon (omnisti  love, thank you for setting everything up for me and for figuring out the furniture with Mom and Dad.) and the sweet energy of my small audience this evening.  Robbie, the entire box of tea that you sent us has made all the difference in our quality of life on the road; thank you SO much.

In other news, I have a Mike update at last.  omnisti's brother Mike Wiley, of the bone marrow transplant and leukemia close calls, my own big brother by association, is teaching guitar again.  This means he's playing, making a bit of money, getting out of the house, and that he has his groove back.  My heart soars. 

Tomorrow we drive.  Life is beautiful.
Thank you, Colorado.  I will miss you, as always, especially in light of the sweet glimpse you've given me of this gorgeous Front Range summer.

Hey,
I’ve been reading the requirements to the entrants for library school and have noticed that a lot of them say that they require a 2.8 or 3.0 in the last 60 credits. Does this mean they don’t look at your first 60 credits or do they just assume that they were good since you were taking easier classes?
In my case I have above a 3.0 in my last 60 but my first 60 are really low, like 2.3. I do well in my major classes just not in obscure classes that I know I’ll never need again. Will this hurt me? Well okay, of course it will look bad but how are they looking at my first 60 credits? Will my last 60 be the most important?

Thanks