Trivia Question of the Day

As I understand it, titles like 'sir,' 'lord,' and 'dr' can be collectively described as honorifics. What's the collective description for supplemental letters like 'MSc,' or 'PhD'? Are they still honorifics, or something else?

Poll Analysis

So I was waiting for brassyn and korovyov_x to cast their votes and give yesterday's poll at least a semblance of balance, but it appears they're not going to, so here's the current top ten:

1. Dune, by Frank Herbert (25)
2. Ringworld, by Larry Niven (23)
3. Rendezvous with Rama, by Arthur C Clarke (22)
4. Flowers for Algernon, by Daniel Keyes (18)
5. The Left Hand of Darkness, by Ursula K LeGuin (17)
6. The Forever War, by Joe Haldeman (15)
7. The Dispossessed, by Ursula K LeGuin (15)
8. The Gods Themselves, by Isaac Asimov (13)
9. Babel-17, by Samuel R Delaney (9)
10. A Time of Changes, by Robert Silverberg (6)

The poll sample was an amalgamation of the winners of the Nebula award for best SF novel 1965-1975, and the Pulitzer Prize for fiction 1965-1977 (because there were ties for the Nebula, that works out to 12 entrants from each award). The poll was inspired by something Pat Cadigan said at the Oxford Street Borders' SF group meeting on monday evening: That nobody remembers who won the Pulitzer in 1967, but everybody remembers who won the Hugo.

On one level, as snowking pointed out, this is trivial - SF fans being the type of people they are, obviously they're going to remember this sort of thing. On another, however, if you look at the winners - look at the list above - you see a decent SF reading list. Those books aren't just remembered because they're Nebula winners and we're trivia geeks, they're remembered because they're damn fine books and each of them has a place in the history of the genre.

So then I wondered two things: One, whether these books were known outside the genre; and two, whether the Pulitzer was as accurate a barometer for the quality of the genre it measured - if I wanted to know what the great books of the 60s and 70s were, could I go and look at the Pulitzer winners? Hence, the poll - which, yes, was deliberately phrased so that if you've heard of Dune but don't think it's an important book, you could ignore it. Unfortunately, the poll sample is somewhat biased, being composed as it is of my friends list. It's not surprising that the SF books came out top by such an enormous margin. On the other hand, my friends list isn't that genre-insulated and I might suggest that three Pulitzer-winners with zero votes and a further four with one vote apiece is telling; heck, I only recognise half the authors on that list, never mind specific titles.

Anyone got any other comments? I went for Nebulas rather than Hugos since it seemed fairer to compare like with like (Hugos being voted on by SF fans, rather than decided with a panel), and I went for the oldest available Nebulas to gain the maximum possible historical perspective. What I'd really like to know, and what the poll doesn't really tell me, is which of those books are generally best-known - discarding Dune, which would win for obvious film-related reasons. If you gave the poll to Joe Public, would Le Guin and Haldeman still rate as highly as they did here? I'd like to think so.

(As an addendum, I've missed out on the Larry Niven thing entirely. I don't think I've ever read anything by the man, mostly because it wasn't in my Dad's SF collection when I was thirteen. So whilst I'm aware of Ringworld, I wasn't expecting it to place quite so highly...)

Imprint Thoughts

All of the poll-related above is somewhat tangential to the main thrust of the meeting on monday, which was to talk about the closure of Earthlight, Simon & Schuster's SF/F imprint. A couple of other thoughts occured to me whilst I was there:

- SF/F makes up 10% of UK paperback book sales. This is the first time I've heard a concrete figure from a reputable source.

- Of the authors affected by the closure (basically the home-grown ones; the international authors published by Earthlight probably aren't going anywhere anytime soon) it happens that there aren't that many I'm personally that fussed about; basically, Ian McDonald, Jon Courtenay Grimwood and Christopher Priest (and he, at least, has already found a new home). Which is more of a reflection on the fact that...

- People don't choose books by imprint (with a couple of exceptions, such as the SF Masterworks). del_c suggested that as readers mature they go from choosing books on the basis of covers to choosing on the basis of authors to choosing on the basis of reviews, and I think by and large that's true. What's the importance of having a specific SF/F imprint, then? I don't know much about publishing, so it was interesting to hear people talk about this sort of thing. The greatest impact seems to be in marketing - having someone sympathetic to push your books. Assimilate SF/F into the main line, and you risk occurences like the fiasco seen with The Separation (Chris Priest had an amusing anecdote about this: After the book was published (with zero promotion as a mainstream novel), it was reviewed in Locus. Eventually, this made its way to his editor, at which point he received an email asking 'why didn't you tell me this was science fiction?!'). Perhaps it's telling that nobody mentioned what to me is the obvious fourth way that (at least SF) readers can choose authors - by regularly reading short fiction magazines. Anyway, this eventually lead to a discussion of...

- The insularity of genre readers - of any genre. It was generally agreed to be a Bad Thing that people stick to one type of book, but I don't know; it seems to me (and I think I've said this before) that given the choice between reading widely and reading deeply, I'd rather read deeply. The reason I don't read much 'mainstream' is not because I don't want to read mainstream, it's because I do want to read SF. I wonder if mainstream readers would say the same about SF or crime? Maybe there's still a balance to be struck.

Freestylin'

Radiohead are gonna love this:

The interactive interface of the di player is the most exciting and innovative feature of di technology. Listeners can now customise and interact with their favourite songs.

The depth of interaction i.e. how much the consumer can play around with the music, is decided by the artist during the editing process. The diEditor lets the artist decide on exactly what can be changed by the consumer and by how much it can be changed.

There are four main levels of interaction. The first level of interaction is fairly mild: the listener can choose between several different versions of the final track. The fourth level on the other hand is quite extreme: the listener can do live mixing of all the different component parts of the music.

Unfortunately, I can't get the demo to work.

(Via alphagalileo.)

My Therapy Buddy

Spotted by one of my colleagues at the American Psychological Association Annual Convention: My Therapy Buddy.

MTB is a transitional object, in the form of a personal companion primarily designed for the internalization of various maternal-like functions which are considered to be the building blocks of our psychic structure. It’s a wonderfully soft and huggable friend that offers great tactile contact, and provides soothing and comforting words which are beneficial to one’s emotional well being.

I'm torn between laughing and wanting one.