gay and lesbian fiction
aalv...@spectra.net
Blithe House Quarterly : queer fiction lives here
URL: http://www.blithe.com/
"*The* journal, online or off, for gay short fiction. Blithe House
Quarterly is one of the best literary sites on the Internet. Period." --
42opus.com
** A GLAAD Media Award Nominee **
Blithe House Quarterly invites you to browse
its Summer 2004 edition (Volume 8, Number 3)
The Chicago Issue
featuring
Dave Awl
James Bovan
Kurt Heintz
Deb R. Lewis
Karen Lee Osborne
K.R. Randen
Gerard Wozek
and Yvonne Zipter
edited by Gregg Shapiro and Aldo Alvarez
executive editor and publisher: Aldo Alvarez
** Winner of the Encyclopaedia Britannica's Internet Guide Award **
"Internet-based fiction journals have become a significant force in
publishing, especially for serious short fiction. In Web-only lit
journals such as Blithe House Quarterly, the short-story form is alive
and clicking."
-- Baltimore City Paper
"Setting the quality bar [for gay and lesbian writing] is the phenomenal
site Blithe House Quarterly. It's awash in awards and rightly so. Of all
gay and lesbian sites, Blithe House is the golden child, the
one to be entered in the Literature Olympics. None of the stories needs
special cosseting as our fiction. Be skeptical and go see the site!"
-- Gay & Lesbian On Line, 3rd Edition
"The central publishing arm of new queer fiction."
-- OUT Magazine on Blithe House Quarterly
Blithe House Quarterly : queer fiction lives here
URL: http://www.blithe.com/
Dan Goodman
aalv...@spectra.net wrote in news:hlGLc.142039$JR4.138629@attbi_s54:
> PLEASE POST, PUBLISH, BLOG AND/OR FORWARD!
>
> Blithe House Quarterly : queer fiction lives here
> URL: http://www.blithe.com/
>
> "*The* journal, online or off, for gay short fiction. Blithe House
> Quarterly is one of the best literary sites on the Internet. Period." --
> 42opus.com
Bugger off.
At least, till what you have to say includes 1) "We publish science
fiction/fantasy" and "We pay for stories."
--
Dan Goodman
Journal http://dsgood.blogspot.com or
http://www.livejournal.com/users/dsgood/
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
Dorothy J Heydt
Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> wrote:
>[posted and mailed]
>
>aalv...@spectra.net wrote in news:hlGLc.142039$JR4.138629@attbi_s54:
>
>> PLEASE POST, PUBLISH, BLOG AND/OR FORWARD!
>>
>> Blithe House Quarterly : queer fiction lives here
>> URL: http://www.blithe.com/
>>
>> "*The* journal, online or off, for gay short fiction. Blithe House
>> Quarterly is one of the best literary sites on the Internet. Period." --
>> 42opus.com
>
>Bugger off.
>
>At least, till what you have to say includes 1) "We publish science
>fiction/fantasy" and "We pay for stories."
Weren't these the guys (generically speaking) who posted here a
while back and someone suggested it might've been because they
mistook the 'sf' for "San Francisco"?
And of course the two categories can overlap; the question is
whether they would publish fiction that lived in the overlap, or
whether they would insist on fiction that was queer but not the
least bit weird.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
Julian Flood
"Dorothy J Heydt" < wrote
> And of course the two categories can overlap; the question is
> whether they would publish fiction that lived in the overlap, or
> whether they would insist on fiction that was queer but not the
> least bit weird.
Have this flower. Have this _bunch_ of flowers.
JF
Dan Goodman
>
> Weren't these the guys (generically speaking) who posted here a
> while back and someone suggested it might've been because they
> mistook the 'sf' for "San Francisco"?
I believe so.
Then there are the people who post Canadian political bilge to mn.general;
seems they assume mn.* means Manitoba, when it actually means Minnesota.
And I think Canadian-oriented newsgroups with ca.* in their names get
California political bilge.
The newsgroup alt.culture.ny-upstate used to (maybe still does) get posts
from people who wanted tickets to the David Letterman show. It always
seemed to be that particular show; never any of the other TV shows produced
in New York City.
James Nicoll
Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> wrote:
>
>Then there are the people who post Canadian political bilge to mn.general;
>seems they assume mn.* means Manitoba, when it actually means Minnesota.
I am shocked, sir, shocked and outraged that you would refer
to the fascinating world of Canadian politics, with its revolutions
called on account of beer, psychic dogs, and divorce-with-bed-rights
seperatism as bilge. Don't we rate 'cautionary tale' at least?
>And I think Canadian-oriented newsgroups with ca.* in their names get
>California political bilge.
Oh, that's just Americans conceding that the West Coast should
be Canadian run.
--
Take the piston rings out of my stomach, And the cylinders out of my brain
Extract from my liver the crankshaft, And assemble the engine again!
[from 'The Dying Aviator']
Lucy Kemnitzer
to have said:
>In article <Xns952E6CFFCC3...@209.98.13.60>,
>Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> wrote:
>>
>>Then there are the people who post Canadian political bilge to mn.general;
>>seems they assume mn.* means Manitoba, when it actually means Minnesota.
>
> I am shocked, sir, shocked and outraged that you would refer
>to the fascinating world of Canadian politics, with its revolutions
>called on account of beer, psychic dogs, and divorce-with-bed-rights
>seperatism as bilge. Don't we rate 'cautionary tale' at least?
>
>>And I think Canadian-oriented newsgroups with ca.* in their names get
>>California political bilge.
>
> Oh, that's just Americans conceding that the West Coast should
>be Canadian run.
Now _that's_ an idea. It could hardly be worse.
Arnie called the Democratic legislators "girlie men" last week for not
supporting his budget (which increases the state debt by a huge amount
and also has provisions in it to screw entitlements later that Arnie
doesn't have the courage to screw this year). And then he refused to
apologize. He didn't even say "It was a joke, okay?"
An exercise: in a legislature made up of a complete cross-section
(though not proportional) of Californians, who is _most_ derogated by
a term like that?
Lucy Kemnitzer, still
http://www.baymoon.com/~ritaxis
http://www.livejournal.com/users/ritaxismom
Dan Goodman
> On 22 Jul 2004 12:51:36 -0400, jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) seems
> to have said:
>
>>Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Then there are the people who post Canadian political bilge to
>>>mn.general; seems they assume mn.* means Manitoba, when it actually
>>>means Minnesota.
>>
>> I am shocked, sir, shocked and outraged that you would refer
>>to the fascinating world of Canadian politics, with its revolutions
>>called on account of beer, psychic dogs, and divorce-with-bed-rights
>>seperatism as bilge. Don't we rate 'cautionary tale' at least?
>>
>>>And I think Canadian-oriented newsgroups with ca.* in their names get
>>>California political bilge.
>>
>> Oh, that's just Americans conceding that the West Coast should
>>be Canadian run.
>
> Now _that's_ an idea. It could hardly be worse.
From what little I know of Canadian politics -- don't count on it.
Pat Bowne
"Lucy Kemnitzer" <rit...@cruzio.com> wrote
jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) seems
> to have said:
>
> > Oh, that's just Americans conceding that the West Coast should
> >be Canadian run.
>
>
> Now _that's_ an idea. It could hardly be worse.
The Wisconsin state government is setting up a system to allow citizens to
buy their drugs from Canada. In essence, we're importing healthcare policies
from Canada because we can't get ones we like from this country.
Pat
Brian Pickrell
>
> Arnie called the Democratic legislators "girlie men" last week for not
> supporting his budget (which increases the state debt by a huge amount
> and also has provisions in it to screw entitlements later that Arnie
> doesn't have the courage to screw this year). And then he refused to
> apologize. He didn't even say "It was a joke, okay?"
>
> An exercise: in a legislature made up of a complete cross-section
> (though not proportional) of Californians, who is _most_ derogated by
> a term like that?
>
It's never that easy in California, is it? 42% of the Democratic
legislators are girls, and 18% of the remainder *campaigned* as girlie
men.
Lucy Kemnitzer
seems to have said:
What exactly do _you_ mean by girlie men?
Or is there a joke in here I don't get?
Arnie seems to mean "somebody I can derogate and get away with it."
This, by the way, is my _beloved_ assemblyman:
http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a27/
He really is a cool guy. He is honest, intelligent, principled, and
yet cooperative: he works with the opposition without losing his
priorities. And his politics are what we call "good."
And he goes to the NAACP-Central Labor Council Labor Day Picnic, and
he scores well in the labor history trivia contest.
And, of course, he went to UCSC at the same time as the nice fellow.
Warrick M. Locke
rit...@cruzio.com says...
> On 23 Jul 2004 23:03:54 -0700, bobth...@brandx.net (Brian Pickrell)
> seems to have said:
>
> >Lucy Kemnitzer <rit...@cruzio.com> wrote in message
> >
> >>
> >> Arnie called the Democratic legislators "girlie men" last week for not
> >> supporting his budget (which increases the state debt by a huge amount
> >> and also has provisions in it to screw entitlements later that Arnie
> >> doesn't have the courage to screw this year). And then he refused to
> >> apologize. He didn't even say "It was a joke, okay?"
> >>
> >> An exercise: in a legislature made up of a complete cross-section
> >> (though not proportional) of Californians, who is _most_ derogated by
> >> a term like that?
> >>
> >
> >It's never that easy in California, is it? 42% of the Democratic
> >legislators are girls, and 18% of the remainder *campaigned* as girlie
> >men.
>
>
> What exactly do _you_ mean by girlie men?
>
> Or is there a joke in here I don't get?
Yes. (From Saturday Night Live, and more self-deprecating than externally
insulting.)
Did a wonderful job of getting the ill-tempered and humor-impaired to out
themselves, too.
Regards,
Ric
Dan Goodman
1) You mean the _other_ ill-tempered.
2) Competent governors realize they have to work with the legislature.
Lucy Kemnitzer
Okay, so tell me what it is? I'm television-impaired.
And are you saying that it is ill-tempered and humor-impaired to
object to the governor of my state using language clearly meant to
insult, to refer to the legislature?
Marilee J. Layman
<rit...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>On 23 Jul 2004 23:03:54 -0700, bobth...@brandx.net (Brian Pickrell)
>seems to have said:
>
>>Lucy Kemnitzer <rit...@cruzio.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>
>>> Arnie called the Democratic legislators "girlie men" last week for not
>>> supporting his budget (which increases the state debt by a huge amount
>>> and also has provisions in it to screw entitlements later that Arnie
>>> doesn't have the courage to screw this year). And then he refused to
>>> apologize. He didn't even say "It was a joke, okay?"
>>>
>>> An exercise: in a legislature made up of a complete cross-section
>>> (though not proportional) of Californians, who is _most_ derogated by
>>> a term like that?
>>>
>>
>>It's never that easy in California, is it? 42% of the Democratic
>>legislators are girls, and 18% of the remainder *campaigned* as girlie
>>men.
>
>
>What exactly do _you_ mean by girlie men?
Who knows what Pickrell means? But Arnold is using it from a set of
long-ago Saturday Night Live sketches of stupid musclemen which
implied that "girly-men" are gay. (I'm surprised he uses it, it
*does* come from a stupid character -- more muscles than brains -- but
maybe he's not smart enough to realize that.)
--
Marilee J. Layman
Brian M. Scott
<rit...@cruzio.com> wrote in
<news:1tv4g0tgcrpj43llf...@4ax.com> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
So am I, but I recognize this one. Saturday Night Live used
to have a takeoff on Arnie in which two of the regulars
played the roles of bodybuilders/trainers trying to motivate
couch potatoes. Having padded themselves up in a bad
imitation of muscularity, they would strut forth and
introduce themselves in Schwarzeneggerisch accents:
Hans: I am Hans.
Franz: And I am Franz.
Both: And we are here ... to PUMP you UP!!
They would go on to insult 'girlie men' who didn't live up
to their ideal of muscularity.
[...]
Brian
Dorothy J Heydt
Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>
>So am I, but I recognize this one. Saturday Night Live used
>to have a takeoff on Arnie in which two of the regulars
>played the roles of bodybuilders/trainers trying to motivate
>couch potatoes. Having padded themselves up in a bad
>imitation of muscularity, they would strut forth and
>introduce themselves in Schwarzeneggerisch accents:
>
>Hans: I am Hans.
>Franz: And I am Franz.
>Both: And we are here ... to PUMP you UP!!
>
>They would go on to insult 'girlie men' who didn't live up
>to their ideal of muscularity.
OOhhhhhhhhhhhhh. *Now* I understand a sequence of similar kind
in the computer game _Toonstruck_. Plot of the kind you can
guess: human imported from real world into toon world, with
Christopher Lloyd as the human and ... hell, what's his name ...
<searches> Tim Curry as a really excellent bad guy. Haven't
played it in years; I wonder if it would run on my current
system?
(Oh yes, and Ben Stein as Lloyd's RW boss.)
Dorothy J Heydt
Marilee J. Layman <mjla...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>Who knows what Pickrell means? But Arnold is using it from a set of
>long-ago Saturday Night Live sketches of stupid musclemen which
>implied that "girly-men" are gay. (I'm surprised he uses it, it
>*does* come from a stupid character -- more muscles than brains -- but
>maybe he's not smart enough to realize that.)
As pointed out elsethread, it's from a SNL routine satirizing
*him* from back when he was just a sort of actor.
Lucy Kemnitzer
I will take this opportunity to point out that when Arnie was "just
sort of an actor" my father warned me to be wary of him, because he
was power-hungry and reactionary and about to go into politics, and
his ambitions her every high.
I've taken to begging my father not to predict things.
Dorothy J Heydt
Lucy Kemnitzer <rit...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 18:12:20 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>Heydt) seems to have said:
>
>>In article <eq75g050iaudiiku7...@4ax.com>,
>>Marilee J. Layman <mjla...@erols.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Who knows what Pickrell means? But Arnold is using it from a set of
>>>long-ago Saturday Night Live sketches of stupid musclemen which
>>>implied that "girly-men" are gay. (I'm surprised he uses it, it
>>>*does* come from a stupid character -- more muscles than brains -- but
>>>maybe he's not smart enough to realize that.)
>>
>>As pointed out elsethread, it's from a SNL routine satirizing
>>*him* from back when he was just a sort of actor.
>
>
>I will take this opportunity to point out that when Arnie was "just
>sort of an actor" my father warned me to be wary of him, because he
>was power-hungry and reactionary and about to go into politics, and
>his ambitions her every high.
Is that "were very high"?
And yet the other Republicans think he isn't reactionary
*enough*. I have no opinions of Schwarzenegger yet. I'm going
to wait a few years.
J.Pascal
Wasn't the skit making fun of Arnie in the first place?
I mean, why else the accent?
-Julie
Dorothy J Heydt
J.Pascal <ju...@pascal.org> wrote:
>
>Wasn't the skit making fun of Arnie in the first place?
>I mean, why else the accent?
Yes, it was. Schwarzenegger was making fun of himself. Best
thing I've heard about him so far. (Except of course that his
fellow Republicans consider him a cuckoo's chick.)
Brian Pickrell
> And are you saying that it is ill-tempered and humor-impaired to
> object to the governor of my state using language clearly meant to
> insult, to refer to the legislature?
I don't think he is. But it sounds like you're volunteering it yourself.
Lucy Kemnitzer
seems to have said:
His words. I was asking who he was referring to.
The members of this forum have gone round and round the issue of how
the powerful use "just kidding" to invalidate and derail the
opposition, and what a cowardly, nasty piece of business it is. I
don't agree that he ws making fun of himself -- I think it was much
more calculated than that -- that he knew he could get away with it
because people would think he was being so self-deprecating, and in
the meantime, he's sowed these little associations and these little
divisive, belittling comments, and he's legitimized the further use of
derogatory language.
And anybody who objects is just a humorless old sourpuss -- what do
you expect?
As writers, we have a lot to learn from actual politicians.
Warrick M. Locke
rit...@cruzio.com says...
> On 24 Jul 2004 16:31:58 -0700, bobth...@brandx.net (Brian Pickrell)
> seems to have said:
>
> >Lucy Kemnitzer <rit...@cruzio.com> wrote in message
> >
> >
> >> And are you saying that it is ill-tempered and humor-impaired to
> >> object to the governor of my state using language clearly meant to
> >> insult, to refer to the legislature?
> >
> >I don't think he is. But it sounds like you're volunteering it yourself.
>
>
> His words. I was asking who he was referring to.
>
> The members of this forum have gone round and round the issue of how
> the powerful use "just kidding" to invalidate and derail the
> opposition, and what a cowardly, nasty piece of business it is. I
> don't agree that he ws making fun of himself -- I think it was much
> more calculated than that -- that he knew he could get away with it
> because people would think he was being so self-deprecating, and in
> the meantime, he's sowed these little associations and these little
> divisive, belittling comments, and he's legitimized the further use of
> derogatory language.
>
> And anybody who objects is just a humorless old sourpuss -- what do
> you expect?
Well, the non-humor-impaired have a perfect strategy available: respond
with an equally amusing insult. In this case, several lines from various
recent programs, especially _Queer Eye for the Straight Guy_, occur more
or less immediately. (I'm not good at thinking of them on the spot; this
is one reason I'm not a politician.) Equal and opposite actions cancel,
and the debate moves forward.
Pompously bewailing the tewwible howwible insult suffered by the poo'
widdle mithtweated fellowth just makes the insulter's point, as here.
Regards,
Ric
Warrick M. Locke
says...
the California House, but the word "disfunctional" occurs as a euphemism
for the Assembly as a whole.
Regards,
Ric
Brian M. Scott
<warl...@mesh.net> wrote in
<news:MPG.1b6cdd1df...@news.mesh.net> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
> In article <7n16g01bc1hq4c5h3...@4ax.com>,
> rit...@cruzio.com says...
[...]
>> The members of this forum have gone round and round the issue of how
>> the powerful use "just kidding" to invalidate and derail the
>> opposition, and what a cowardly, nasty piece of business it is. I
>> don't agree that he ws making fun of himself -- I think it was much
>> more calculated than that -- that he knew he could get away with it
>> because people would think he was being so self-deprecating, and in
>> the meantime, he's sowed these little associations and these little
>> divisive, belittling comments, and he's legitimized the further use of
>> derogatory language.
>> And anybody who objects is just a humorless old sourpuss -- what do
>> you expect?
> Well, the non-humor-impaired have a perfect strategy available: respond
> with an equally amusing insult.
One can be non-humor-impaired and not find the insult
particularly funny in context; one might, for instance, be
odd enough to think that insults -- or at least purely ad
hominem insults with no political content -- ought to have
no place in political discourse no matter who delivers them
and who the target is.
[...]
> Pompously bewailing the tewwible howwible insult suffered by the poo'
> widdle mithtweated fellowth just makes the insulter's point, as here.
I haven't really seen anyone here doing so. There's a
considerable difference between straightforwardly
complaining that one's governor is cleverly nasty and
'[p]ompously bewailing ... fellowth'.
Brian
Marilee J. Layman
Um, yes. That doesn't change what I said.
--
Marilee J. Layman
Dan Goodman
> His words. I was asking who he was referring to.
>
> The members of this forum have gone round and round the issue of how
> the powerful use "just kidding" to invalidate and derail the
> opposition, and what a cowardly, nasty piece of business it is. I
> don't agree that he ws making fun of himself -- I think it was much
> more calculated than that -- that he knew he could get away with it
> because people would think he was being so self-deprecating, and in
> the meantime, he's sowed these little associations and these little
> divisive, belittling comments, and he's legitimized the further use of
> derogatory language.
And he's decreased his chances of getting cooperation from legislators.
> And anybody who objects is just a humorless old sourpuss -- what do
> you expect?
>
> As writers, we have a lot to learn from actual politicians.
1) What not to do if you need cooperation from people.
2) How not to advertise effectively. Example: When Rudy Boschwitz tried
to get his MN Senate seat back from Paul Wellstone, he hired someone
who'd worked on Al D'Amato's NY Senate campaign. Boschwitz concentrated
on making sure voters knew that Wellstone was a *yuck* liberal.
The percentage of Minnesota voters who didn't already know that Wellstone
was a liberal was perhaps a shade higher than the percentage of year-
round Florida residents who own snowblowers, or the percentage of
Alaskans who grow their own oranges.
Oh -- and D'Amato lost his next election, which suggests that his formula
for winning wasn't perfect even for his own state.
3) The perils of not keeping up with consumer preference changes.
Dan Goodman
>>
> That depends on having a competent legislature.
No, it doesn't. Examples: New York State, currently. Texas, for the last
forty or fifty years. (Possibly longer.)
Lucy Kemnitzer
<warl...@mesh.net> seems to have said:
At this point, I have the sudden, astonishing revelation that you have
no more intention of carrying on a real discussion than my governor
does. Okay -- you can keep on making juvenile comments, including the
baby-talk mocking, over in your corner, and I'll go find a grownup to
talk to.
David Langford
wrote:
[re A. Schwarzenegger]
>I will take this opportunity to point out that when Arnie was "just
>sort of an actor" my father warned me to be wary of him, because he
>was power-hungry and reactionary and about to go into politics, and
>his ambitions her every high.
>
>I've taken to begging my father not to predict things.
John Sladek had similar feelings about having referred, in a satirical sf
novel published in 1970, to "President Reagan".
Dave
--
David Langford
ans...@cix.co.uk | http://www.ansible.co.uk/
Latest book: =Different Kinds of Darkness= (collection, Cosmos, 2004)
Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)
> Pompously bewailing the tewwible howwible insult suffered by the poo'
> widdle mithtweated fellowth just makes the insulter's point, as here.
Hm.
As a rebuttal to the concern that certain objections will be dismissed
out of hand and generally belittled, this lacks a certain something.
--
Darkhawk - H. A. Nicoll - http://aelfhame.net/~darkhawk/
They are one person, they are two alone
They are three together, they are for each other
- "Helplessly Hoping", Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young
Warrick M. Locke
rit...@cruzio.com says...
The process is called "banter." It consists of an exchange of frivolous
or amusing insults. In exchanges among close friends the humor in the
insults may not be apparent to a non-involved observer.
Among people of goodwill who are not close friends, the opening salvo of
a round of banter is a statement which is both itself amusing and
reflective upon the maker of the statement. The responder is expected to
"come back" with something equivalent. If both participants are clever
the exchange may be quite extended and result in hilarity for both the
participants and the audience.
A round of banter ends
1. When it is interrupted, in which case the score is a draw;
2. When everyone concerned breaks up laughing, in which case the last
insulter scores a few points; or,
3. When one of the participants demonstrates wounding and stamps off in a
huff, in which case the huffer loses big.
Banter is a common activity among the more intelligent of those of us
among the Great Unwashed out here in the arid wastes of Flyover Country.
It is the Redneck Hick equivalent of the erudite wordplay-exchanges that
are so common here. There are people who are not good at it; they
typically will respond with something lame, and are thereafter excused
from the game as a rule, but the attempt to respond in kind is a cultural
requirement even if the responder can't hold up his end of the exchange.
(I fall squarely in the middle of that demographic.) It is a mark of
extreme cleverness to be able to defuse a genuine insult by initiating a
round of banter rather than a round of fisticuffs.
Gov. Schwartzenegger is a highly skilled and talented banterer (so is
George W. Bush.) His statement was an invitation to a round of banter,
and as such contained an expectation of intelligence, cleverness, and
goodwill among the people to whom it was addressed. The response he got
contradicted those expectations, and among those who understand and
appreciate clever banter it constituted a major loss of face for the
members of the California Legislature.
Regards,
Ric
Warrick M. Locke
says...
> Warrick M. Locke <warl...@mesh.net> wrote in
> >> 2) Competent governors realize they have to work with the legislature.
> >>
> > That depends on having a competent legislature.
>
> No, it doesn't. Examples: New York State, currently. Texas, for the last
> forty or fifty years. (Possibly longer.)
>
contains provisions specifically designed to produce a Legislature that
is not "competent" in the professional-politician sense you use the word.
Regards,
Ric
Pat Bowne
"Warrick M. Locke" <warl...@mesh.net> wrote
>
> A round of banter ends
> 1. When it is interrupted, in which case the score is a draw;
> 2. When everyone concerned breaks up laughing, in which case the last
> insulter scores a few points; or,
> 3. When one of the participants demonstrates wounding and stamps off in a
> huff, in which case the huffer loses big.
You mean, the person left on the field prefers to assume that the huffer has
lost big. The actual winner is decided by the audience, and they usually
don't bother telling either participant.
Pat
Julia Jones
<ans...@cix.co.uk> writes
>On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 11:35:33 -0700, Lucy Kemnitzer <rit...@cruzio.com>
>wrote:
>
>[re A. Schwarzenegger]
>
>>I will take this opportunity to point out that when Arnie was "just
>>sort of an actor" my father warned me to be wary of him, because he
>>was power-hungry and reactionary and about to go into politics, and
>>his ambitions her every high.
>>
>>I've taken to begging my father not to predict things.
>
>John Sladek had similar feelings about having referred, in a satirical sf
>novel published in 1970, to "President Reagan".
>
looks as if I started writing it on September the 12th that year.
(Currently prodding it and wondering whether it's worth sending it out
for another go...)
--
Julia Jones
"We are English of Borg. Your language will be assimilated."
James Nicoll
Julia Jones <julia...@jajones.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <mco6g0dgdn5ikr52j...@4ax.com>, David Langford
><ans...@cix.co.uk> writes
>>On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 11:35:33 -0700, Lucy Kemnitzer <rit...@cruzio.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>[re A. Schwarzenegger]
>>
>>>I will take this opportunity to point out that when Arnie was "just
>>>sort of an actor" my father warned me to be wary of him, because he
>>>was power-hungry and reactionary and about to go into politics, and
>>>his ambitions her every high.
>>>
>>>I've taken to begging my father not to predict things.
>>
>>John Sladek had similar feelings about having referred, in a satirical sf
>>novel published in 1970, to "President Reagan".
>>
>I have similar feelings about a story I wrote in Feb/Mar 2001 which now
>looks as if I started writing it on September the 12th that year.
>
attack on the UK, written before 2001 but published after 9/11 as I
recall, where the date of the attack works out to be September
10, 2001.
--
Take the piston rings out of my stomach, And the cylinders out of my brain
Extract from my liver the crankshaft, And assemble the engine again!
[from 'The Dying Aviator']
Lucy Kemnitzer
I see the problem here. Ric was engaging in banter all along. I
wasn't. One of the uses of banter that I was talking about, of
course, is to switch a serious discussion into one that can't go
anywhere because it has been reduced to banter. In this situation it
only served to annoy me slightly, but when it's done in public life or
business by people in positions of relative power, it increases the
power difference, and tends to delegitimize the opposition.
In this case, of course, there is no such power differential -- we're
just equal posters in an environment where nobody can gain anything.
But I am surprised that Ric could find any justification for thinking
that the conversation was of the banter variety. I mean, there were
no markers in my posts for anything other than an expression of
annoyance and an analysis of the annoying thing.
But, considering that in a response to another person, he said that
civil behavior on the part of the governor depends on a "comptetent
legislature," I don't think that his banter is free of political
content or intent. So it's not even honest.
Dan Goodman
> In article <Xns9531F66242B...@209.98.13.60>,
> dsg...@visi.com says...
>> Warrick M. Locke <warl...@mesh.net> wrote in
>> >> 2) Competent governors realize they have to work with the
>> >> legislature.
>> >>
>> > That depends on having a competent legislature.
>>
>> No, it doesn't. Examples: New York State, currently. Texas, for
>> the last forty or fifty years. (Possibly longer.)
>>
> Add roughly a century to your time estimate. The Texas Constitution
> contains provisions specifically designed to produce a Legislature
> that is not "competent" in the professional-politician sense you use
> the word.
In recent times, its members have not seemed to be competent in any sense.
Except, perhaps, as kleptocrats.
Brian Pickrell
> At this point, I have the sudden, astonishing revelation that you have
> no more intention of carrying on a real discussion than my governor
> does. Okay -- you can keep on making juvenile comments, including the
> baby-talk mocking, over in your corner, and I'll go find a grownup to
> talk to.
Lucy's right. This sort of juvenile name-calling has no place in a
serious, adult discussion of the girly-man issue.
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
<warl...@mesh.net> wrote:
snip
>The process is called "banter." It consists of an exchange of frivolous
>or amusing insults. In exchanges among close friends the humor in the
>insults may not be apparent to a non-involved observer.
>
>Among people of goodwill who are not close friends, the opening salvo of
>a round of banter is a statement which is both itself amusing and
>reflective upon the maker of the statement. The responder is expected to
>"come back" with something equivalent. If both participants are clever
>the exchange may be quite extended and result in hilarity for both the
>participants and the audience.
This assumes that both participants are willingly engaged in the
banter process. When one person begins a round of banter, despite
indications from the other party that they are not interested, then it
becomes bullying rather than banter.
jrw
Catja Pafort
> Julia Jones <julia...@jajones.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >I have similar feelings about a story I wrote in Feb/Mar 2001 which now
> >looks as if I started writing it on September the 12th that year.
> >
> There's a book about the foiling of a significant terrorist
> attack on the UK, written before 2001 but published after 9/11 as I
> recall, where the date of the attack works out to be September
> 10, 2001.
An on September 10 I finished reading a novel by Nelson deMille which
included Arab terrorists highjacking planes and wrecking havoc.
I might have been the only person on the planet who was shocked, but not
surprised.
Catja
Warrick M. Locke
rit...@cruzio.com says...
::shrug:: To drag this somewhat back within the remit of a group devoted
to discussion of the writing of SF, I find it expedient from time to time
to point out one or another aspect of the fact that there are aliens
among you -- sophonts whose biochemistry is compatible in the highest
degree, but whose mentation, customs, folkways, and mores bear little if
any resemblance to those of a leftist University professor of some fuzzy
study, e.g. Political Science. By the stated rules of Cultural Relativism
they should, of course, be considered equally valuable, but the actual
workings of the system instead postulate that all cultures are the same
as the culture of Berkeley, if only the perverse bastards would admit it
and quit screwing around, and all conclusions are reached on that basis.
Some fieldwork might be indicated, and it can be done without any major
support gear -- not even a breathing mask, let alone a spaceship. The
said aliens are not really all that scary, and in their simpleminded way
can be quite welcoming to the genuine inquirer. Many people have spent
long periods in their company with no worse lingering effects than an
inexplicable fondness for some of the aliens' cult objects, such as
firearms or "light" beer.
A person who sees in Gov. Schwartzenegger's remark nothing but
unforgivable insult, refusing to consider discussion of anything other
than whether simple removal from office is sufficient punishment or
flogging and salting must be added, and then goes on to write stories
presuming to depict the attitudes and culture of single-sexed humanoids
or tentacled methane-breathers in a low-gee environment, is making
assumptions that in my view are unwarranted. If you can't apprehend the
social practices of the denizens of Alta, Mississippi, the Q'Ortz of
Alpheratz Nine are bound to be a trifle difficult.
Regards,
Ric
Pat Bowne
> to discussion of the writing of SF, I find it expedient from time to time
> to point out one or another aspect of the fact that there are aliens
> among you -- sophonts whose biochemistry is compatible in the highest
> degree, but whose mentation, customs, folkways, and mores bear little if
> any resemblance to those of a leftist University professor of some fuzzy
> study, e.g. Political Science.
I didn't realize unskillful banter constituted a telling blow in the
political arena -- oh wait, that's what this thread was about in the first
place, wasn't it?
Pat
Richard D. Latham
< snip discussion of the Texas legislature's competency. >
> In recent times, its members have not seemed to be competent in any sense.
> Except, perhaps, as kleptocrats.
>
Dan, perhaps kleptocracy doesn't mean what I and dictionary.com think
it means, but ...
I think the somewhat obtuse point Ric was making is that the Texas
legislature is only in session for 60 days, every other year, modulo
special sessions, which only the governer can call.
The authors of the Texas Constitution did this "with malice
aforethought".
Only letting them meet for 2 months out of every 24 was expected to
minimize the opportunities of establishing "A government characterized
by rampant greed and corruption." ( the dictionary.com defination of
kleptocracy ).
"No man's liberty or property is safe when the legislature is in
session", as the saying goes.
Now I can see that people whose fundamental political outlook is that
"the government does things _for_ you" might see this as a defect.
Those of us on "the government does things _to_ you" side of the
virtual aisle consider this a feature.
--
#include <disclaimer.std> /* I don't speak for IBM ... */
/* Heck, I don't even speak for myself */
/* Don't believe me ? Ask my wife :-) */
Richard D. Latham lat...@us.ibm.com
Brandon
Catja Pafort wrote:
The premiere episode of the short-lived FOX series "The Lone
Gunmen" (a spin-off from "The X-Files") revolved around an
attempt to take over a passenger liner by remote control and
fly it into the World Trade Center. It aired in April 2001.
Brian Pickrell
> On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 09:35:33 -0500, "Pat Bowne" <pbo...@execpc.com>
> seems to have said:
>
> >
> >"Warrick M. Locke" <warl...@mesh.net> wrote
> >
> >>
> >> A round of banter ends
> >> 1. When it is interrupted, in which case the score is a draw;
> >> 2. When everyone concerned breaks up laughing, in which case the last
> >> insulter scores a few points; or,
> >> 3. When one of the participants demonstrates wounding and stamps off in a
> >> huff, in which case the huffer loses big.
> >
>
> I see the problem here. [third nasty,
> name-calling tirade in a row on why nobody should be allowed
> to joke in a political discussion...]
Face it, Lucy, you _are_ ill-tempered and humor-impaired. You've done
about everything you can do to prove it in this thread.
> So it's not even honest.
>
> Lucy Kemnitzer, still
> http://www.baymoon.com/~ritaxis
> http://www.livejournal.com/users/ritaxismom
Ric, I don't know why you're still even trying to be polite. Lucy
deserves to be made fun of--she's behaving disgracefully.
Dan Goodman
> Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> writes:
>
> < snip discussion of the Texas legislature's competency. >
>
>> In recent times, its members have not seemed to be competent in any
>> sense. Except, perhaps, as kleptocrats.
>>
> Dan, perhaps kleptocracy doesn't mean what I and dictionary.com think
> it means, but ...
It means "government by thieves". The meaning dictionary.com gives is
too mild.
> I think the somewhat obtuse point Ric was making is that the Texas
> legislature is only in session for 60 days, every other year, modulo
> special sessions, which only the governer can call.
Yes, I'm aware that Ric has confused personal incompetence with
institutional incompetence.
>From the evidence I've seen, the members of the Texas legislature are
personally incompetent. As in "I would not entrust Jimmy Carter and his
merry band with the task of snake control in Ireland."
> The authors of the Texas Constitution did this "with malice
> aforethought".
>
> Only letting them meet for 2 months out of every 24 was expected to
> minimize the opportunities of establishing "A government characterized
> by rampant greed and corruption." ( the dictionary.com defination of
> kleptocracy ).
And how many months a year is the governor limited to?
Limiting the legislature this way only works to keep government in check
if 1) the legislature is the entire state government -- no separate
governor or other executive, no
separate civil service, no separate judiciary, no state police force
except the legislators and their servants (and/or the organized militia
-- with no fulltime officers)......
David Friedman
bobth...@brandx.net (Brian Pickrell) wrote:
> Face it, Lucy, you _are_ ill-tempered and humor-impaired. You've done
> about everything you can do to prove it in this thread.
I haven't been following this thread, but I would have said that the
thread Lucy and I have been involved in provides evidence of the
opposite, at least so far as temper is concerned--there hasn't been much
humor from either of us.
--
Remove NOSPAM to email
Also remove .invalid
www.daviddfriedman.com
J.Pascal
> Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> writes:
>
> < snip discussion of the Texas legislature's competency. >
>
> > In recent times, its members have not seemed to be competent in any sense.
> > Except, perhaps, as kleptocrats.
> >
>
> Dan, perhaps kleptocracy doesn't mean what I and dictionary.com think
> it means, but ...
>
> I think the somewhat obtuse point Ric was making is that the Texas
> legislature is only in session for 60 days, every other year, modulo
> special sessions, which only the governer can call.
I hear the most interesting rumors, having just moved to
New Mexico, that when a special session is called, depending
on the agenda, the governor has had to use road blocks to
keep the legislators from escaping.
I didn't quite catch the "why" of it all, just the fact
that holing up in Albuquerque has been done in the past.
> The authors of the Texas Constitution did this "with malice
> aforethought".
Another rumor that I'm assured is true, is that each
legislative session begins with a vote to stay in the
Union or not. Which is another "with malice
aforethought" part of the constitution.
(As foreign countries go, I can't complain, at least
the natives speak English and the road signs make sense.)
-Julie
Brian Pickrell
> In article <eed75299.04072...@posting.google.com>,
> bobth...@brandx.net (Brian Pickrell) wrote:
>
> > Face it, Lucy, you _are_ ill-tempered and humor-impaired. You've done
> > about everything you can do to prove it in this thread.
>
> I haven't been following this thread, but I would have said that the
> thread Lucy and I have been involved in provides evidence of the
> opposite, at least so far as temper is concerned--there hasn't been much
> humor from either of us.
It wouldn't be the first time someone's acted completely differently
from one thread to another, would it?
Dan Goodman
> lat...@us.ibm.com (Richard D. Latham) wrote in message
>> Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> writes:
>>
>> I think the somewhat obtuse point Ric was making is that the Texas
>> legislature is only in session for 60 days, every other year, modulo
>> special sessions, which only the governer can call.
>
> I hear the most interesting rumors, having just moved to New Mexico,
> that when a special session is called, depending on the agenda, the
> governor has had to use road blocks to keep the legislators from
> escaping.
>
> I didn't quite catch the "why" of it all, just the fact that holing up
> in Albuquerque has been done in the past.
A quorum is needed for certain purposes. If the Democratic legislators
aren't in attendance (Democrats being the minority party), certain
legislation can't be passed. Therefore, if they go elsewhere in Texas,
they may be tracked down and forced to be in the chamber when the
legislation is put up for a vote. But if they go across a state line,
they can't be forced to show up.
Warrick M. Locke
says...
> ju...@pascal.org (J.Pascal) wrote in
>
> > lat...@us.ibm.com (Richard D. Latham) wrote in message
> >> Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> writes:
> >>
> >> I think the somewhat obtuse point Ric was making is that the Texas
> >> legislature is only in session for 60 days, every other year, modulo
> >> special sessions, which only the governer can call.
> >
> > I hear the most interesting rumors, having just moved to New Mexico,
> > that when a special session is called, depending on the agenda, the
> > governor has had to use road blocks to keep the legislators from
> > escaping.
> >
> > I didn't quite catch the "why" of it all, just the fact that holing up
> > in Albuquerque has been done in the past.
>
> A quorum is needed for certain purposes. If the Democratic legislators
> aren't in attendance (Democrats being the minority party), certain
> legislation can't be passed. Therefore, if they go elsewhere in Texas,
> they may be tracked down and forced to be in the chamber when the
> legislation is put up for a vote. But if they go across a state line,
> they can't be forced to show up.
>
>
Texas Rangers have "pursuit" jurisdiction in the adjoining States and
those portions of Colorado which were once the Republic, i.e. south of
the Arkansas and east of the Rio Bravo/Grande. (Albuquerque was once in
Texas, at least according to the maps drawn in 1835 or so.) As a
practical matter, this access depends on cooperation from the State
involved, routine in things like chasing horse thieves (which still
happens, quite a lot in fact) but not when it gets political.
The most recent incident -- which was over redistricting; the Democrats,
having become the minority party, were strongly resisting alteration of
their carefully-gerrymandered districts in favor of Republican
gerrymanders -- involved both Oklahoma and New Mexico. Oklahoma
cooperated with the Rangers, who brought the legislators home. New Mexico
did not, which extended the furore over several special sessions. And a
good time was had by all, particularly the Democratic refugee
legislators, who got to be on teevee a lot and enjoyed it enormously.
The fact that many, on both sides, were echoing Harlan Ellison's thoughts
on seeing Agnew was acknowledged but never acted on. Hey, things are
settling down -- it's been *decades* since State officials shot one
another to settle quarrels. The blood-sport aspect is getting quite muted
nowadays. Almost civilized, in fact.
Advice to writers: do not attempt to use Texas State government as it
actually is in SF. Remember, fiction has to be plausible.
Regards,
Ric
Chris Dollin
> Lucy Kemnitzer <rit...@cruzio.com> wrote in message
> news:<o5o7g0tvk61od5afm...@4ax.com>...
>> On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 09:35:33 -0500, "Pat Bowne" <pbo...@execpc.com>
>> seems to have said:
>>
>> >
>> >"Warrick M. Locke" <warl...@mesh.net> wrote
>> >
>> >>
>> >> A round of banter ends
>> >> 1. When it is interrupted, in which case the score is a draw;
>> >> 2. When everyone concerned breaks up laughing, in which case the last
>> >> insulter scores a few points; or,
>> >> 3. When one of the participants demonstrates wounding and stamps off
>> >> in a huff, in which case the huffer loses big.
>> >
>
>>
>> I see the problem here. [third nasty,
>> name-calling tirade in a row on why nobody should be allowed
>> to joke in a political discussion...]
You've messed up your quoting, making it look as though Lucy said
the [] stuff. If one reads the [] as what *you* said, it turns out
that what Lucy *actually* said is none of nasty, name-calling, or a
tirade. You just don't agree with it.
> Ric, I don't know why you're still even trying to be polite. Lucy
> deserves to be made fun of--she's behaving disgracefully.
You're a fine one to talk about someone "behaving disgracefully".
--
Hedgehog
C FAQ's at: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/by-newsgroup/comp/comp.lang.c.html
http://www.electric-hedgehog.net/reviews/2003-03-merlin-conspiracy.html
Lucy Kemnitzer
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nospam.com> seems to have said:
>In article <eed75299.04072...@posting.google.com>,
> bobth...@brandx.net (Brian Pickrell) wrote:
>
>> Face it, Lucy, you _are_ ill-tempered and humor-impaired. You've done
>> about everything you can do to prove it in this thread.
>
>I haven't been following this thread, but I would have said that the
>thread Lucy and I have been involved in provides evidence of the
>opposite, at least so far as temper is concerned--there hasn't been much
>humor from either of us.
Brian thinks I'm a meanie because I insist on taking the governor of
our state seriously and at his word. And because I became impatient
with Ric after he insulted me, and declined to carry on the
conversation any further.
It's possible to disagree with a person without insulting them, but
not everyone has learned the knack.
It's also possible to make jokes with people without insulting them.
This is also a learned skill.
Dan Goodman
> Advice to writers: do not attempt to use Texas State government as it
> actually is in SF. Remember, fiction has to be plausible.
H. Beam Piper and John J. McGuire did indeed make up their own Texas
state government (actually, not in Texas) for _A Planet For Texans_.
Other places in the US have their own peculiarities.
Item: Minneapolis city council elections are officially nonpartisan --
but most candidates run with party labels. (Currently, most of the
council members are Democrats -- officially, Democratic-Farmer-Labor --
with two Greens and one independent. Minneapolis is not strong
Republican territory.)
Item: Chicago officially has the Weak Mayor system of city government.
But usually, the mayor runs everything.
Cally Soukup
> Item: Chicago officially has the Weak Mayor system of city government.
> But usually, the mayor runs everything.
Except during the "Council Wars" era of Harold Washington's tenure.
--
"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend
to the death your right to say it." -- Beatrice Hall
Cally Soukup sou...@pobox.com
Warrick M. Locke
says...
> Warrick M. Locke <warl...@mesh.net> wrote in
> news:MPG.1b6f9fd17...@news.mesh.net:
>
> > Advice to writers: do not attempt to use Texas State government as it
> > actually is in SF. Remember, fiction has to be plausible.
>
> H. Beam Piper and John J. McGuire did indeed make up their own Texas
> state government (actually, not in Texas) for _A Planet For Texans_.
The government in _A Planet for Texans_ is quite different from that of
the existing Texas. It was a nice try, as one might expect from Piper (I
wasn't aware McGuire was involved; the novella I've seen doesn't have his
name on it) but isn't _nearly_ weird enough to compare favorably.
> Other places in the US have their own peculiarities.
>
> Item: Minneapolis city council elections are officially nonpartisan --
> but most candidates run with party labels. (Currently, most of the
> council members are Democrats -- officially, Democratic-Farmer-Labor --
> with two Greens and one independent. Minneapolis is not strong
> Republican territory.)
>
> Item: Chicago officially has the Weak Mayor system of city government.
> But usually, the mayor runs everything.
And then there's Louisiana, a State which makes Texans grateful for the
sanity and regularity of their Government :-)
Regards,
Ric
Warrick M. Locke
rit...@cruzio.com says...
> On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 11:40:30 -0700, David Friedman
> <dd...@daviddfriedman.nospam.com> seems to have said:
>
> >In article <eed75299.04072...@posting.google.com>,
> > bobth...@brandx.net (Brian Pickrell) wrote:
> >
> >> Face it, Lucy, you _are_ ill-tempered and humor-impaired. You've done
> >> about everything you can do to prove it in this thread.
> >
> >I haven't been following this thread, but I would have said that the
> >thread Lucy and I have been involved in provides evidence of the
> >opposite, at least so far as temper is concerned--there hasn't been much
> >humor from either of us.
>
>
> Brian thinks I'm a meanie because I insist on taking the governor of
> our state seriously and at his word. And because I became impatient
> with Ric after he insulted me, and declined to carry on the
> conversation any further.
>
> It's possible to disagree with a person without insulting them, but
> not everyone has learned the knack.
You don't seem concerned in my case, feeling free to insult me and the
people I like/admire and getting horribly miffed when I attempt to return
the favor in a fairly mild way. I'm perfectly capable of direct insult
when I put my mind to it, but generally allow the RCOB moment to pass
before posting here; if you're insulted by something I say, take it as a
pointer to something I think you're doing wrong, or that I have taken
some offense to.
I'm curious. What, precisely, did you find insulting?
Regards,
Ric
Dan Goodman
> Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> wrote in article
>
>> Item: Chicago officially has the Weak Mayor system of city
>> government. But usually, the mayor runs everything.
>
> Except during the "Council Wars" era of Harold Washington's tenure.
>
I did say "usually".
Cally Soukup
> Cally Soukup <sou...@pobox.com> wrote in
>> Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> wrote in article
>>
>>> Item: Chicago officially has the Weak Mayor system of city
>>> government. But usually, the mayor runs everything.
>>
>> Except during the "Council Wars" era of Harold Washington's tenure.
>>
> I did say "usually".
Yes you did. And I provided an example.
SAMK
> Item: Chicago officially has the Weak Mayor system of city government.
> But usually, the mayor runs everything.
Only if the Mayor knows how to play the game properly. Take a look
at the bunch of losers between the Messrs. Daley to see how not
to do it.
SAMK
Brian Pickrell
> Brian Pickrell wrote:
>
> > Lucy Kemnitzer <rit...@cruzio.com> wrote in message
> > news:<o5o7g0tvk61od5afm...@4ax.com>...
> >>
> >> I see the problem here. [third nasty,
> >> name-calling tirade in a row on why nobody should be allowed
> >> to joke in a political discussion...]
>
> You've messed up your quoting, making it look as though Lucy said
> the [] stuff. If one reads the [] as what *you* said, it turns out
> that what Lucy *actually* said is none of nasty, name-calling, or a
> tirade. You just don't agree with it.
No, it actually turns out that I'm right and you're wrong. hth.
>
> > Ric, I don't know why you're still even trying to be polite. Lucy
> > deserves to be made fun of--she's behaving disgracefully.
>
> You're a fine one to talk about someone "behaving disgracefully".
Who are you?
Brian Pickrell
> On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 11:40:30 -0700, David Friedman
> <dd...@daviddfriedman.nospam.com> seems to have said:
>
> >In article <eed75299.04072...@posting.google.com>,
> > bobth...@brandx.net (Brian Pickrell) wrote:
> >
> >> Face it, Lucy, you _are_ ill-tempered and humor-impaired. You've done
> >> about everything you can do to prove it in this thread.
> >
> >I haven't been following this thread, but I would have said that the
> >thread Lucy and I have been involved in provides evidence of the
> >opposite, at least so far as temper is concerned--there hasn't been much
> >humor from either of us.
>
>
> Brian thinks I'm a meanie because I insist on taking the governor of
> our state seriously and at his word. And because I became impatient
> with Ric after he insulted me, and declined to carry on the
> conversation any further.
>
No, I think you're a lamer because you pitched a four-day
net.hissy.fit at Ric for no good reason, and every time he tried to
come back with a gracious response you dumped on him some more. Also
because your "argument" consisted of a long series of deliberate
misconstruals that are (should be) more embarrassing to the author
than to the person being flamed.
And I still don't know how you define four days of trying to get in
the last word as either "impatient" or "declined to carry on the
Brian M. Scott
<warl...@mesh.net> wrote in
<news:MPG.1b70a4323...@news.mesh.net> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
[...]
> I'm curious. What, precisely, did you find insulting?
She awweady towd oo.
Brian
Charlie Stross
as <jdni...@panix.com> declared:
>>>>I've taken to begging my father not to predict things.
>>>
>>>John Sladek had similar feelings about having referred, in a satirical sf
>>>novel published in 1970, to "President Reagan".
>>>
>>I have similar feelings about a story I wrote in Feb/Mar 2001 which now
>>looks as if I started writing it on September the 12th that year.
>>
> There's a book about the foiling of a significant terrorist
> attack on the UK, written before 2001 but published after 9/11 as I
> recall, where the date of the attack works out to be September
> 10, 2001.
Ahem.
I wrote THE ATROCITY ARCHIVE in 1999-2000. Sent it to Paul Fraser at
Spectrum SF, who decided (in early 2001) to serialize it.
Some time in October, he emailed me, to say, "Charlie, about that cell
of evil terrorist bad-guys who're plotting a really spectacular atrocity
in the United States, um, do you think you can maybe come up with
somebody a bit less close to the bone than Osama bin Laden and Al
Qaida?"
-- Charlie
Charlie Stross
> In article <mo34g097n9tulb4d6...@4ax.com>,
> rit...@cruzio.com says...
>>
>> What exactly do _you_ mean by girlie men?
>>
>> Or is there a joke in here I don't get?
>
> Yes. (From Saturday Night Live, and more self-deprecating than externally
> insulting.)
>
> Did a wonderful job of getting the ill-tempered and humor-impaired to out
> themselves, too.
Well, I *assume* Saturday Night Live is some kind of TV show.
To which I need to add: Schwartzenegger is supposed to be astute, and
probably more aware of the international implications of his speech than
most American politicians. And SNL appears to be sufficiently well-known
in the US that lots of people in the US realized this was a joke. But
*outside* the USA, where SNL is not common currency ...
Let's just hope Arnie doesn't intend to follow in Henry Kissinger's
footsteps, okay? Because here in the UK it was reported as straight
homophobia, and it'll take a lot of explaining to shift that.
(Next time I do a space opera I'm going to keep this one in mind:
politician in polity (a) makes jokey reference to famous sketch from
comedy show which is mistaken in polity (b) for a declaration of war ...)
-- Charlie
Warrick M. Locke
b.s...@csuohio.edu says...
Ah. ::shrug:: So the basic assertion is that she's allowed to insult and
denigrate (can I still use that word?) me and my culture in whatever
terms her fancy may dictate, but if I reply in the same currency she's
entitled to blow a hissy and stomp off accusing me of "insensitivity."
So long as the ground rules are clear.
Regards,
Ric
Warrick M. Locke
> Stoned koala bears drooled eucalyptus spittle in awe
> as <warl...@mesh.net> declared:
>
> > In article <mo34g097n9tulb4d6...@4ax.com>,
> > rit...@cruzio.com says...
> >>
> >> What exactly do _you_ mean by girlie men?
> >>
> >> Or is there a joke in here I don't get?
> >
> > Yes. (From Saturday Night Live, and more self-deprecating than externally
> > insulting.)
> >
> > Did a wonderful job of getting the ill-tempered and humor-impaired to out
> > themselves, too.
>
> Well, I *assume* Saturday Night Live is some kind of TV show.
>
> To which I need to add: Schwartzenegger is supposed to be astute, and
> probably more aware of the international implications of his speech than
> most American politicians. And SNL appears to be sufficiently well-known
> in the US that lots of people in the US realized this was a joke. But
> *outside* the USA, where SNL is not common currency ...
>
> Let's just hope Arnie doesn't intend to follow in Henry Kissinger's
> footsteps, okay? Because here in the UK it was reported as straight
> homophobia, and it'll take a lot of explaining to shift that.
I doubt anyone will bother. It's increasingly not worth the effort.
"When someone says something you don't understand, ask him what it
means." If the general attitude were to attribute basic decency and good
fellowship to Gov. Schwarzenegger even though one might disagree with
him, the response would be questioning: what did he mean by that? -- and
the answer would soon be forthcoming. It isn't particularly obscure.
Since the default is to assume that all Americans, and particularly
Republicans, are vile and vicious to start with because they were notably
cruel to the gentle, kind, and generous rulers of the Soviet Union a few
years ago, the response you describe is about what might be expected.
>
> (Next time I do a space opera I'm going to keep this one in mind:
> politician in polity (a) makes jokey reference to famous sketch from
> comedy show which is mistaken in polity (b) for a declaration of war ...)
And of course that will depend on Polity B having already demonized A to
the point where such a thing is credible. The correct place to start
would be Reagan's "launch in five minutes" remark, made in the present-
day political atmosphere.
Regards,
Ric
[who still hasn't found _Iron Sunrise_ in the bookstore. Is it supposed
to be here already? I want it.]
Brian M. Scott
<warl...@mesh.net> wrote in
<news:MPG.1b72134da...@news.mesh.net> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
>> [...]
>> She awweady towd oo.
No. You're the one applying a double standard. Lucy told
you perfectly straightforwardly that she thinks that her
governor intended an insult and knowingly took advantage of
a situation that would give him the cover of apparently
making a self-deprecating joke. Whether she's right or not,
there is no insult or denigration of *you* in that judgement
(unless you're really Arnold S. in disguise). Your response
was the post with the baby-talk, and it *was* insulting.
Brian
Charlie Stross
as <warl...@mesh.net> declared:
> "When someone says something you don't understand, ask him what it
> means." If the general attitude were to attribute basic decency and good
> fellowship to Gov. Schwarzenegger even though one might disagree with
> him, the response would be questioning: what did he mean by that? -- and
> the answer would soon be forthcoming. It isn't particularly obscure.
> Since the default is to assume that all Americans,
ITYM "politicians".
>and particularly
> Republicans, are vile and vicious to start with
After the remarkable spectacle in 2000 -- you may remember *Cuba*
offering to send election observers to ensure a fair recount? -- there
might be some grounds for the latter.
Seriously, the point stands. "So, Herr Hitler, when you spoke about
needing lots of lebensraum in the east, what *did* you mean?"
"Well, I, er, that is to say I'm moving house and I want my new living
room to be really big and have a nice east-facing aspect so it's bright
and sunny in the morning! That's all I meant. Bright and sunny in the
morning and backlit in the afternoon so that when my SS panzer divisions
parade past they'll see me back-lit with a halo. Or something like
that."
One rather cruel law of politics is that if you go into politics you
will be judged harshly for what you said when you didn't think anyone
(especially in the opposition) was listening.
>> (Next time I do a space opera I'm going to keep this one in mind:
>> politician in polity (a) makes jokey reference to famous sketch from
>> comedy show which is mistaken in polity (b) for a declaration of war ...)
>
> And of course that will depend on Polity B having already demonized A to
> the point where such a thing is credible. The correct place to start
> would be Reagan's "launch in five minutes" remark, made in the present-
> day political atmosphere.
Oh yes. Black comedy of errors territory ...
> Regards,
> Ric
> [who still hasn't found _Iron Sunrise_ in the bookstore. Is it supposed
> to be here already? I want it.]
It's been out in the US since the beginning of the month; checked Amazon
lately? (UK edition isn't due out until February.)
-- Charlie
David Friedman
Charlie Stross <cha...@antipope.org> wrote:
> After the remarkable spectacle in 2000 -- you may remember *Cuba*
> offering to send election observers to ensure a fair recount? -- there
> might be some grounds for the latter.
What strikes me about that snippet is that it sounds as you though think
Cuba offering to send election observers is evidence that there was
something wrong with the election. Given that Cuba is a one party
dictatorship unlikely to be motivated by benevolent feelings towards the
U.S. or a love of democracy, doesn't the fact that it was the country
that made the offer imply that it was simply propaganda, providing no
evidence at all of what actually happened in Florida?
I don't know how carefully you followed the situation, but I suspect
that your confidence about what happened and what should have happened
reveals more about attitudes in the circles you move in than about the
election. I'm not an expert on it, but the one person I know who is, a
federal judge and very independent minded intellectual with a long
history of saying unfashionable things in print--the reason he is
unlikely to ever be on the Supreme Court--concluded that the outcome was
correct, although he disagreed with the SC's reasoning.
Julia Jones
Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nospam.com> writes
>In article <0ismt1-...@antipope.org>,
> Charlie Stross <cha...@antipope.org> wrote:
>
>> After the remarkable spectacle in 2000 -- you may remember *Cuba*
>> offering to send election observers to ensure a fair recount? -- there
>> might be some grounds for the latter.
>
>What strikes me about that snippet is that it sounds as you though think
>Cuba offering to send election observers is evidence that there was
>something wrong with the election. Given that Cuba is a one party
>dictatorship unlikely to be motivated by benevolent feelings towards the
>U.S. or a love of democracy, doesn't the fact that it was the country
>that made the offer imply that it was simply propaganda, providing no
>evidence at all of what actually happened in Florida?
>
understand the point they were making. It was a propaganda gesture
intended to get a laugh, but one that would not have been worth making
had there not been credible evidence of attempts to interfere with the
ballot.
(I'm still deriving low amusement from the total irrelevance of the
subject line to the thread as it now is.)
--
Julia Jones
"We are English of Borg. Your language will be assimilated."
Tim S
You mean it wouldn't be the first time a person has found some subjects and
people more annoying than others?
Er ... indeed, no. It wouldn't.
Tim
Thomas Lindgren
Charlie Stross <cha...@antipope.org> writes:
> Let's just hope Arnie doesn't intend to follow in Henry Kissinger's
> footsteps, okay? Because here in the UK it was reported as straight
> homophobia, and it'll take a lot of explaining to shift that.
Geez. Let's hope he sends the indignant ones a letter to the
editor.
"SIR - All right, enough talk! All we wanna to do is ... Pump! You! Up!
Sincerely,
Hans & Franz
Office of Gov. Schwarzenegger, etc"
Sincerely,
Thomas
--
Thomas Lindgren
"It's becoming popular? It must be in decline." -- Isaiah Berlin
Charlie Stross
>>> After the remarkable spectacle in 2000 -- you may remember *Cuba*
>>> offering to send election observers to ensure a fair recount? -- there
>>> might be some grounds for the latter.
>>
>>What strikes me about that snippet is that it sounds as you though think
>>Cuba offering to send election observers is evidence that there was
>>something wrong with the election.
...
> It's more the fact that the Cuban government thought that people would
> understand the point they were making. It was a propaganda gesture
> intended to get a laugh, but one that would not have been worth making
> had there not been credible evidence of attempts to interfere with the
> ballot.
Right on the nail.
(Propaganda is always at its most effective when it raises a belly
laugh; po-faced ideological indoctrination is far less efficient, and
three-minute-hates don't work on everybody. But humour -- even when
you're the target -- gets through.)
If the Florida business had happened in Zimbabwe, nobody would have been
surprised.
-- Charlie
Eric Jarvis
Actually you'll find that a fair amount of "electoral manipulation"
happens in most elections in the UK too. For instance there is a LOT of
doubt about the validity of a large number of proxy votes cast in marginal
constituencies in the last election the Tories won. To the extent that
some estimates give a hung parliament ha the majority of them been
declared fraudulent. Hwoever the courts decided, in the cases that were
taken up, that they weren't proven to have been obtained by deception
(despite several people stating that they had never agreed to vote by
proxy and a few instances where the voter had died before the forms were
signed), mostly they weren't challenged. It's not easy to get clear proof
of electoral fraud and once a party organisation steps over the line, if
they've got supporters in the right places it's very hard for outsiders to
do anything about it.
What's unusual about Florida is the idea that a single election in a
single state is entirely responsible for the result. That's the bit I
don't buy, along with the idea that the Democrats had entirely clean
hands.
I've run election campaigns in the UK, and I know how easy it would be to
"get a little edge". However I've not only had returning officers who were
beyond reproach in their impartiality (except perhaps when it came to the
NF and in one case the Lib Dems when they started playing fast and loose
with the rules at the same time as running a viciously racist campaign)
and I've never been in a position where it REALLY mattered, so I've never
been tempted. However I know how it can be done, and I've heard plenty of
reports of electoral fraud happening in the UK (from all parties).
Bush won. What was different was that it was a close thing, I suspect it
was actually only as dodgy as is usually the case. It's just that nobody
cares if it's a landslide pr if it was the loser who got caught bending
the rules.
OTOH I think the Cuban thing was one of the funniest things any government
has ever said as an official statement, and I'm extremely grateful to
whoever came up with it. International politics needs more jokes and less
belligerence.
--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
we don't need to make things idiot-proof,
we need to make idiots thing-proof
David Friedman
Julia Jones <julia...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> In message <ddfr-4AFC5D.0...@news.isp.giganews.com>, David
> Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nospam.com> writes
> >In article <0ismt1-...@antipope.org>,
> > Charlie Stross <cha...@antipope.org> wrote:
> >
> >> After the remarkable spectacle in 2000 -- you may remember *Cuba*
> >> offering to send election observers to ensure a fair recount? -- there
> >> might be some grounds for the latter.
> >
> >What strikes me about that snippet is that it sounds as you though think
> >Cuba offering to send election observers is evidence that there was
> >something wrong with the election. Given that Cuba is a one party
> >dictatorship unlikely to be motivated by benevolent feelings towards the
> >U.S. or a love of democracy, doesn't the fact that it was the country
> >that made the offer imply that it was simply propaganda, providing no
> >evidence at all of what actually happened in Florida?
> >
> It's more the fact that the Cuban government thought that people would
> understand the point they were making. It was a propaganda gesture
> intended to get a laugh, but one that would not have been worth making
> had there not been credible evidence of attempts to interfere with the
> ballot.
Where "credible evidence" means "evidence some people were able to
believe." Clearly there was that--as suggested by Charlie's post. But a
lot less evidence than in quite a lot of other U.S. elections.
David Friedman
Pat Bowne
"David Friedman" <dd...@daviddfriedman.nospam.com> wrote
>
> Where "credible evidence" means "evidence some people were able to
> believe." Clearly there was that--as suggested by Charlie's post. But a
> lot less evidence than in quite a lot of other U.S. elections.
It seemed pretty clear, once the Miami Herald finished the recount, that
Bush had won. And that would have been clear a lot sooner if he hadn't so
desperately fought against the recount.
IMO, a politician who tries to stop a recount is in the same league as a
drug company that refuses to publish the results of research on their
product. Who are we to second-guess them, if they think they have something
to hide?
Pat
Julia Jones
<cha...@antipope.org> writes
I've just been revising my short story in the light of the comments I
got with the Weird Tales rejection last year. It's a different scenario
(essentially hijacking a nuclear waste train and taking it into London),
but it's still uncannily, unpleasantly akin to the fate of Flight 93,
complete with comments about the hijackers' attitude to their hostages,
and the difficulty of preventing terrorism when the terrorists are
prepared to wait years for the right opportunity. Re-reading it was a
chilling experience.
And I think it's going to be impossible to sell, because nobody is going
to believe it didn't come out of that tragedy.
Dan Goodman
> I've just been revising my short story in the light of the comments I
> got with the Weird Tales rejection last year. It's a different scenario
> (essentially hijacking a nuclear waste train and taking it into London),
> but it's still uncannily, unpleasantly akin to the fate of Flight 93,
> complete with comments about the hijackers' attitude to their hostages,
> and the difficulty of preventing terrorism when the terrorists are
> prepared to wait years for the right opportunity. Re-reading it was a
> chilling experience.
>
Hmm -- what about terrorists willing to wait decades or centuries? With
most of the intervening time spent in coldsleep, of course.
Eric Jarvis
Even if you haven;t written it in there it will be there in the reader's
mind. So the question is whether there's a way to add something so that it
becomes background not foreground.
--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Brooks Moses
[on the Governor of California, and "girly-men" comments]
> And are you saying that it is ill-tempered and humor-impaired to
> object to the governor of my state using language clearly meant to
> insult, to refer to the legislature?
I was talking about this with someone from the UK last week, and he had
what I thought was rather an interesting take on the matter. His
opinion was that one of the strengths of the UK's parlimentary culture
was that the members were very free with insults towards each other, and
with saying when they thought someone was being cowardly or suchlike in
no uncertain terms -- and that it was a weakness of the US culture that
something as relatively innocuous as this was such a major deal. (I'm
still not at all sure whether I agree with him on that.)
Aside from issues of whether or not one agrees with this, I would think
that whether it is appropriate for a governor to use "language clearly
meant to insult" in referring to the legislature is very much
culture-dependent, and that California's culture is almost certainly at
some approximation of the end of the scale. Certainly it's not
something that is inherently objectionable, unless one is willing to
consider whole parlimentary cultures objectionable.
- Brooks
--
The "bmoses-nospam" address is valid; no unmunging needed.
Zeborah
> I was talking about this with someone from the UK last week, and he had
> what I thought was rather an interesting take on the matter. His
> opinion was that one of the strengths of the UK's parlimentary culture
> was that the members were very free with insults towards each other, and
> with saying when they thought someone was being cowardly or suchlike in
> no uncertain terms -- and that it was a weakness of the US culture that
> something as relatively innocuous as this was such a major deal. (I'm
> still not at all sure whether I agree with him on that.)
Chap walks into a pub in, I forget, let's call it Alabama, and sees Bush
on TV. "That's one big horse's ass," he says, and gets decked. Cut the
joke short, he says, "What, is this Bush country?"
"No," he's told, "this is horse country."
---
The fuss is not about the _politicians_ being insulted.
Zeborah
Reginald Bautista
"Warrick M. Locke" <warl...@mesh.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b6c252d7...@news.mesh.net...> > On 23 Jul 2004 23:03:54 -0700, bobth...@brandx.net (Brian Pickrell)> > >> Arnie called the Democratic legislators "girlie men" last week for
not
> > >> supporting his budget (which increases the state debt by a huge
amount
> > >> and also has provisions in it to screw entitlements later that Arnie
> > >> doesn't have the courage to screw this year). And then he refused to
> > >> apologize. He didn't even say "It was a joke, okay?"
> > >>
> > >> An exercise: in a legislature made up of a complete cross-section
> > >> (though not proportional) of Californians, who is _most_ derogated
by
> > >> a term like that?
> > >>
> > >
> > >It's never that easy in California, is it? 42% of the Democratic
> > >legislators are girls, and 18% of the remainder *campaigned* as girlie
> > >men.
> >
> >
> > What exactly do _you_ mean by girlie men?
> >
> > Or is there a joke in here I don't get?
>
> Yes. (From Saturday Night Live, and more self-deprecating than externally
> insulting.)
>
> Did a wonderful job of getting the ill-tempered and humor-impaired to out
> themselves, too.
>
> Ric
I realize I'm jumping in here about a week after the fact, but I could not
let this one pass.
Arnie clearly did not intend his "girlie-man" comment to be
self-deprecating. He has made that very clear in his comments since he
originally made the statement.
He intended it as an insult. The original comedy routine from SNL was
making fun of people who are so narrow-minded as to think that being strong
makes you a man, and being weak makes you a woman. The folks at SNL were
satirizing those folks because they thought it was a stupid position to
take, and now Arnie has proven that their choice of two characters based on
him as the mouthpieces of their satire was right on by actually using that
insult. If you go back and watch the routine, they are clearly poking fun
at the stereotype that men must be physically strong and women -- excuse me,
"girlies," are physically weak. They are also poking fun at the stereotype
that weak men must be homosexual, having other characteristics of "girlies."
The term "girlie-man" is offensive to women, it's offensive to homosexual
men. The whole point of the SNL satire was that the assumptions behind the
term "girlie-man" were so stupid that only a moron who thinks only of
muscles would even use the term.
And now Arnie is showing his misogyny and his true feelings on homosexuality
by thinking it's okay to use that term. I was actually starting to like him
politically until he did that. He deserves every bit of scorn that the
media has heaped on him since he made that comment.
The people he said were "girlie-men" were Democrats that he accused of
bowing to the wishes of special interests. But in California, the
Republican party seems to have the lead (although a slight one) in that
regard. His choice of phrase was ill-considered, and his choice of target
was reminiscent of the biblical story of the person who pointed out the
splinter in another person's eye while ignoring the plank in his own.
When I saw the subject of this thread, I was hoping I would see a good
discussion about gay and lesbian characters in science fiction and fantasy.
There are plenty of positive and interesting portrayals of homosexual and
bisexual characters like the main character (and a few others) in the sf
novel _Songbird_ by Orson Scott Card and the main character in Robin Wayne
Bailey's fantasy novel _Shadowdance_. And there are even science fiction
novels where elements of gender are key to the entire plot, such as the
under-rated _Dark Water's Embrace_ and _Speaking Stones_ by Stephen Leigh.
But instead of that discussion, I get someone actually trying to defend a
sexist and homophobic comment by an actor-turned-politician. Remind me
again why I read this newsgroup? :-/
Reggie
Zeborah
> When I saw the subject of this thread, I was hoping I would see a good
> discussion about gay and lesbian characters in science fiction and
> fantasy. There are plenty of positive and interesting portrayals of
> homosexual and bisexual characters like the main character (and a few
> others) in the sf novel _Songbird_ by Orson Scott Card and the main
> character in Robin Wayne Bailey's fantasy novel _Shadowdance_. And there
> are even science fiction novels where elements of gender are key to the
> entire plot, such as the under-rated _Dark Water's Embrace_ and _Speaking
> Stones_ by Stephen Leigh. But instead of that discussion, I get someone
> actually trying to defend a sexist and homophobic comment by an
> actor-turned-politician. Remind me again why I read this newsgroup? :-/
You pick up some excellent examples of how your villains might actually
seriously believe some things that make absolute and utter nonsense to
you?
I was pondering last night how weird the dynamics would feel if I
randomly swapped genders of my protag and his girlfriend. Now I think
I'll also ponder how weird the dynamics would feel if I randomly changed
only one of their genders. This is good bathtime pondering material, I
think.
For background in the Darn Book, I decided that "heterosexual" would
mean "sexually attracted to people of other (sentient) species". I
didn't get a chance to milk that for nearly all it's worth,
unfortunately.
Zeborah
Lucy Kemnitzer
<rbau...@kc.rr.com> seems to have said:
in another person's eye while ignoring the plank in his own.
>
>When I saw the subject of this thread, I was hoping I would see a good
>discussion about gay and lesbian characters in science fiction and fantasy.
It started out as a promotional post by -- was it Blythe House? and
it drifted, drifted, drifted, and this drift was partly my fault.
Someone made a comment about spam being misdirected to or from
California vs. Canada, and someone else suggested that maybe someone
thought that California had become part of Canada, and I said it could
hardly be a worse situation, because of the ruckus with our Governor.
ANd the rest, as they say, is history.
>There are plenty of positive and interesting portrayals of homosexual and
>bisexual characters like the main character (and a few others) in the sf
>novel _Songbird_ by Orson Scott Card and the main character in Robin Wayne
>Bailey's fantasy novel _Shadowdance_. And there are even science fiction
>novels where elements of gender are key to the entire plot, such as the
>under-rated _Dark Water's Embrace_ and _Speaking Stones_ by Stephen Leigh.
>But instead of that discussion, I get someone actually trying to defend a
>sexist and homophobic comment by an actor-turned-politician. Remind me
>again why I read this newsgroup? :-/
What, you did this without mentioning anything by Melissa Scott?
Warning: spoilers for _Songbird._
'
But, seriously, I think the novel _Songbird_ is deeply icky and is one
of the two reasons I won't read Card anymore (the other is that the
Alvin Maker books are utterly, inutterably unreadable from the first
page on, and they do go on). Tell me why, again, the central
character gets to hideously torture and murder a whole bunch of people
_and_ retain his spotless virgin innocence? And why the monster who
arranged it gets to find redemption in his sexless but highly
eroticized love, while the nice guy who didn't do a thing wrong but
fall in love with him has to cause him horrible pain _just by geting
him phyusically aroused_ and therefore must kill himself in remorse?
Ick ick ick ick.
Lucy Kemnitzer, still
http://www.baymoon.com/~ritaxis
http://www.livejournal.com/users/ritaxismom
Julia Jones
<w...@ericjarvis.co.uk> writes
>>
>> I've just been revising my short story in the light of the comments I
>> got with the Weird Tales rejection last year. It's a different scenario
>> (essentially hijacking a nuclear waste train and taking it into London),
>> but it's still uncannily, unpleasantly akin to the fate of Flight 93,
>> complete with comments about the hijackers' attitude to their hostages,
>> and the difficulty of preventing terrorism when the terrorists are
>> prepared to wait years for the right opportunity. Re-reading it was a
>> chilling experience.
>>
>> And I think it's going to be impossible to sell, because nobody is going
>> to believe it didn't come out of that tragedy.
>>
>
>Even if you haven;t written it in there it will be there in the reader's
>mind. So the question is whether there's a way to add something so that it
>becomes background not foreground.
It's an 800 word short, which makes it a tad difficult. Anyway, it's
just gone off to Glimmer Train, where it can sit for four months not
bothering me before acquiring its next rejection. I think I might bounce
it off my friend the Creative Writing lecturer and ask her if she knows
any suitable UK markets - she'd actually have a much better idea of that
than I would.
Changing the subject back to the alleged subject of the thread, the gay
porn in space series is now a trilogy and is moving publisher. Sadly
this is to another ebook publisher rather than to dead trees, although
an ebook publisher where it will be a better match for the rest of the
catalogue. I mention this because a) there is a complaint elsewhere in
the thread about the mismatch between thread subject and actual content,
b) one or two people have mentioned an interest in the series. :-) It's
an American publisher, which resulted in a certain amount of screaming
from Predatrix when I casually mentioned that there will be a certain
amount of translating into merkin required of us. Part of the point of
the series is that it's *British* gay porn in space, complete with a
hero who likes to listen to Morning Service on Radio 4. I'm not sure how
one translates that concept into merkin. Or indeed the mileage we got
out of the other hero not wishing to tell his Welsh Methodist parents
that he's getting married in a CofE church.
--
Julia Jones
"The Syndicate" is changing publishers - and there's a new book. Volume 3
coming soon from Loose Id. Details and free sample chapters at
http://www.julesjones.com/fiction/syndicate/syndicate.htm
Dan Goodman
> When I saw the subject of this thread, I was hoping I would see a good
> discussion about gay and lesbian characters in science fiction and
> fantasy. There are plenty of positive and interesting portrayals of
> homosexual and bisexual characters like the main character (and a few
> others) in the sf novel _Songbird_ by Orson Scott Card
I suspect Card won't be writing such characters in future. Go to Google
Groups, search rec.arts.sf.written for "Orson Scott Card" and "marriage".
> and the main
> character in Robin Wayne Bailey's fantasy novel _Shadowdance_. And
> there are even science fiction novels where elements of gender are key
> to the entire plot, such as the under-rated _Dark Water's Embrace_ and
> _Speaking Stones_ by Stephen Leigh. But instead of that discussion, I
> get someone actually trying to defend a sexist and homophobic comment
> by an actor-turned-politician. Remind me again why I read this
> newsgroup? :-/
I recommend Lois McMaster Bujold's _Ethan of Athos_.
Actually, the discussion you want is more likely to be found in
rec.arts.sf.written -- which deals with stuff already written and
published.
Things better discussed here include: 1) How do I, a homosexual, write
believably about a majority-homosexual society? 2) How do I, a
heterosexual, write believably about a majority-homosexual society? 3)
How do I, a bisexual, write believably about a society in
which the majority is filthy perverts only interested in one sex?
Marilee J. Layman
>There are plenty of positive and interesting portrayals of homosexual and
>bisexual characters like the main character (and a few others) in the sf
>novel _Songbird_ by Orson Scott Card and the main character in Robin Wayne
>Bailey's fantasy novel _Shadowdance_. And there are even science fiction
>novels where elements of gender are key to the entire plot, such as the
>under-rated _Dark Water's Embrace_ and _Speaking Stones_ by Stephen Leigh.
Have you read Melissa Scott?
--
Marilee J. Layman
G.W. Bush says "results count!"
That's why I'm voting for Kerry.
Marilee J. Layman
<rit...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>Warning: spoilers for _Songbird._
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>'
>But, seriously, I think the novel _Songbird_ is deeply icky and is one
>of the two reasons I won't read Card anymore (the other is that the
>Alvin Maker books are utterly, inutterably unreadable from the first
>page on, and they do go on). Tell me why, again, the central
>character gets to hideously torture and murder a whole bunch of people
>_and_ retain his spotless virgin innocence? And why the monster who
>arranged it gets to find redemption in his sexless but highly
>eroticized love, while the nice guy who didn't do a thing wrong but
>fall in love with him has to cause him horrible pain _just by geting
>him phyusically aroused_ and therefore must kill himself in remorse?
>
>Ick ick ick ick.
Yeah, my feelings about that book are very similar. I wonder, since
Card is anti-gay, if this was his way of saying "See? They're all bad
people."
Reginald Bautista
homosexual and bisexual characters in science fiction and fantasy.
Lucy replied:
> What, you did this without mentioning anything by Melissa Scott?
I've never read anything by her, but since both you and Marilee mentioned
her, I probably will now. Where is a good place to start? (And please,
nobody answer "Your local library")
>
> Warning: spoilers for _Songbird._
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> '
> But, seriously, I think the novel _Songbird_ is deeply icky and is one
> of the two reasons I won't read Card anymore (the other is that the
> Alvin Maker books are utterly, inutterably unreadable from the first
> page on, and they do go on). Tell me why, again, the central
> character gets to hideously torture and murder a whole bunch of people
> _and_ retain his spotless virgin innocence? And why the monster who
> arranged it gets to find redemption in his sexless but highly
> eroticized love, while the nice guy who didn't do a thing wrong but
> fall in love with him has to cause him horrible pain _just by geting
> him phyusically aroused_ and therefore must kill himself in remorse?
Hmm, when you put it that way... Actually, I read it when it first hit
paperback, and I don't remember it being as bad as you make it sound. But
maybe it's time for me to read it again. I'm certainly a more critical
reader now that even just a couple of years ago.
Reggie
Lucy Kemnitzer
<mjla...@erols.com> seems to have said:
>On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 00:22:19 GMT, "Reginald Bautista"
><rbau...@kc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>There are plenty of positive and interesting portrayals of homosexual and
>>bisexual characters like the main character (and a few others) in the sf
>>novel _Songbird_ by Orson Scott Card and the main character in Robin Wayne
>>Bailey's fantasy novel _Shadowdance_. And there are even science fiction
>>novels where elements of gender are key to the entire plot, such as the
>>under-rated _Dark Water's Embrace_ and _Speaking Stones_ by Stephen Leigh.
>
>Have you read Melissa Scott?
Sister!
I _adore_ Melissa Scott.
And one of the reasons I like to brag on my kid (17 now) is she's the
kind of daughter who brings her mother _The Kindly Ones_ for a
birthday present . . .
Oh, and also, as always, _China Mountain Zhang_.
Thing is when we're beyond having to scrape for _positive_ portrayals
and we're ready for just _interesting_ ones, these books will still be
exciting to read.
oh, and I guess I can't mention _Esperanza Highway_ because it's still
not published.
Reginald Bautista
"Dan Goodman" <dsg...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9537E5510FF...@209.98.13.60...
> "Reginald Bautista" <rbau...@kc.rr.com> wrote in
>
> > When I saw the subject of this thread, I was hoping I would see a good
> > discussion about gay and lesbian characters in science fiction and
> > fantasy. There are plenty of positive and interesting portrayals of
> > homosexual and bisexual characters like the main character (and a few
> > others) in the sf novel _Songbird_ by Orson Scott Card
>
> I suspect Card won't be writing such characters in future. Go to Google
> Groups, search rec.arts.sf.written for "Orson Scott Card" and "marriage".
Wow. And the really scary thing is, in one of his weekly columns mentioned
there, he refers to himself as a moderate Democrat. I know staunch
Republicans who aren't as far to the right as some of the things in those
columns. And some of his novels (his early ones, anyway) seem to preach the
exact opposite of what he says in his columns. That was a real eye-opener
Thanks for posting it.
[snip]
> I recommend Lois McMaster Bujold's _Ethan of Athos_.
I tried to read one of her "Vorkosigan" novels once, and just couldn't get
into it. I handed it off to my wife and she quit after about two and a half
pages. But I'll go to the library and give _Ethan_ a try, at least.
> Actually, the discussion you want is more likely to be found in
> rec.arts.sf.written -- which deals with stuff already written and
> published.
>
> Things better discussed here include: 1) How do I, a homosexual, write
> believably about a majority-homosexual society? 2) How do I, a
> heterosexual, write believably about a majority-homosexual society? 3)
> How do I, a bisexual, write believably about a society in
> which the majority is filthy perverts only interested in one sex?
Point taken. But what I was really getting at is that this newgroup has
more "thread creep" than I've ever seen, and I have seen some spectacular
thread creep before. In fact, I've been responsible for some of it myself.
Sometimes I just can't stay on topic. That makes writing fiction awfully
interesting... :-)
Reggie
Eric Jarvis
>
> When I saw the subject of this thread, I was hoping I would see a good
> discussion about gay and lesbian characters in science fiction and fantasy.
> There are plenty of positive and interesting portrayals of homosexual and
> bisexual characters like the main character (and a few others) in the sf
> novel _Songbird_ by Orson Scott Card and the main character in Robin Wayne
> Bailey's fantasy novel _Shadowdance_. And there are even science fiction
> novels where elements of gender are key to the entire plot, such as the
> under-rated _Dark Water's Embrace_ and _Speaking Stones_ by Stephen Leigh.
> But instead of that discussion, I get someone actually trying to defend a
> sexist and homophobic comment by an actor-turned-politician. Remind me
> again why I read this newsgroup? :-/
>
You missed out Stars In My Pocket Like Grains Of Sand (by Delany), where
the sexual equation is made even more complex by having two genders and
two species. It's flawed in a lot of ways, but extraordinarily thought
provoking.
Then there's Escape Plans by Gwyneth Jones which has several lesbian
relationships at the heart of the plot IIRC. I'n not sure if Geoff Ryman's
Lust counts as sf, and I haven't finished it yet.
It's actually something written sf is ahead of the game on, even if screen
sf has barely dared look at the idea at all.
Eric Jarvis
>
> Things better discussed here include: 1) How do I, a homosexual, write
> believably about a majority-homosexual society? 2) How do I, a
> heterosexual, write believably about a majority-homosexual society? 3)
> How do I, a bisexual, write believably about a society in
> which the majority is filthy perverts only interested in one sex?
>
Same answer for all three. Ask somebody who knows. :)
What I've always said to playwrights who said they couldn't write female,
male, gay, black or whatever characters because they didn;t know about
being female, male, gay, black or whatever. "What would you do to find out
how to write a character that is a doctor, or a policeman, or anything
else that you aren't?"
Of course there are a some authors who write all main characters as white,
male, het, university lecturers, but it's Ray that's sf not Malcolm.
It is actually an interesting pint, at precisely what stage do you need to
go beyond conjecture and empathy and actually get direct information?
Eric Jarvis
>
> It's an 800 word short, which makes it a tad difficult. Anyway, it's
> just gone off to Glimmer Train, where it can sit for four months not
> bothering me before acquiring its next rejection.
>
They were very positive in the rejection they gave me, and quite
quick (6 weeks) though I've nothing sitting around that looks like their
sort of thing that isn't worth submitting to somewhere that pays better.
:)
Mary Gentle
rbau...@kc.rr.com (Reginald Bautista) wrote:
[...]
> But what I was really getting at is that this newgroup has
> more "thread creep" than I've ever seen,
'Writers' = 'no such thing as "thread creep",' that's why.
You're looking at a newsgroup full of people to whom the phrase "oh, I'll
certainly never need _that_ on some distant day in the future" does not
have a lot of meaning . . . :-)
Fortunately, though, that means there's not a huge amount of
thread-repeat, in general -- start the same topic off in two months, and a
whole different take on the subject tends to sneak out of the woodwork.
Which has its advantages.
Mary
Most recently published:
1610: A SUNDIAL IN A GRAVE, novel, Orion UK, hc & tpb
CARTOMANCY, short story collection, Orion UK, pb