Marginalia

[coalescent]

I'm off to Worldcon tomorrow. eeeeeeWorldcon! If you're there, feel free to say hi. I'll be back home on Tuesday evening. I'll probably be posting between now and then via the futurephone, but reading access might be limited. In the meantime, The Scotsman previews the con and The Herald talks to Chris Priest and Geoff Ryman. [both via Locus]

When a speech therapist goes to an sf convention [via someone on sdn's journal]

A great conversation between Yoshio Kobayashi, Christopher Barzak and K. Bird Lincoln at Strange Horizons.

Some fiction: the first chapter of Double Vision by Tricia Sullivan; CommComm by George Saunders; and Peter Watts' backlist.

The rise of Shoujo and how it's caught the US comics industry on the hop. [via coffee_and_ink]

What happened at this year's Romance Writers of America Awards. [via fjm]

I have never played anything quite like this. There's a non-RPG version as well. [via Penny Arcade]

The September issue of The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction includes Kelly Link's wonderful novella 'Magic for Beginners'. This means you should buy it. In addition, Robert J Killheffer's review column considers the UK/US divide. John Scalzi comments, matociquala comments on his comments (here) and sartorias comments on them both.

Just in case you think Kelly Link is not for you, Bluejack reviews 'Magic for Beginners' at the Internet Review of SF. He also muses about bias in the numbers of books by men and women that get reviewed on sf sites. Currently, the pile of review copies available for Strange Horizons leans strongly in the male direction. I've got a list of things I'm going to try to get hold of to help balance that (books by Elizabeth Bear, Judith Berman, L Timmel Duchamp, Carol Emshwiller, Gwyneth Jones, Margo Lanagan, Kelly Link, Maureen McHugh, Justina Robson, Tricia Sullivan, Cathrynne M Valente, Kate Wilhelm, and Liz Williams, although to be fair I'd be chasing all of those no matter what) but more suggestions are welcomed. I'm looking for forthcoming, new, or relatively recent books.

Comments

[demona-hw.livejournal.com]

Isn't all Shoujo crap, though? I'd rather the daughters of the nation were reading about Giant Robots and people exploding from the inside, myself.

[talvalin.livejournal.com]

What I find interesting is that a lot of men read shoujo too. I tried it and it simply didn't appeal to me. Giant robots are clearly better.

[kalorlo.livejournal.com]

How about shoujo giant robots? They do exist (Escaflowne). It really depends on what you tried, tbh, because it's a *huge* category.

[communicator.livejournal.com]

Robots - presumably giant ones

http://www.superdickery.com/seduction/31.html

[kalorlo.livejournal.com]

Nah, it's not all crap. *waves Utena flag*
It just has a tendency to be more romance-driven (though there's plenty of that in some of the Giant Robot manga too...)

Done badly it's just sickly, but there's some really really good stuff out there. And CLAMP. Mmmm, CLAMP.

[communicator.livejournal.com]

My daughter is a massive fan of a manga series called 'Fruits Basket' (?) and yesterday she spent the whole day with her friends watching the DVD of an anime spin off. The writer of that article is quite right - there's a massive female market out there, and only the Japanese are making anything for them.

[kalorlo.livejournal.com]

I love Fruits Basket. It jumps from incredibly sweet and cute to very dark and angsty and back again on a regular basis.

[itchyfidget.livejournal.com]

The Scotsman previews the con

You hear that, Harrison? You're a member of 'the science fiction community' ;oP

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

And proud of it! Well, ok, most of it.

[itchyfidget.livejournal.com]

But you're not part of fandom.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

"Science fiction fandom" is a subset of "science fiction community", not a synonym for it. People who read or write or edit or publish or write about sf might can be members of the community but not members of fandom. Personally, I self-identify as a member of both, but with the caveat that my local (in the memetic, not geographical, sense) fandom doesn't have much in common with traditional fandom. Clear? :p

[itchyfidget.livejournal.com]

So you read science fiction ... right?

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

It's been known. :)

[itchyfidget.livejournal.com]

Huh. So ... do you, like, watch Star Trek?

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

I think the serious point is that I would never tell someone they're a member of fandom just because they read sf. I think that has to be a self-identification, because most of the time being in fandom isn't actually about sf, it's about being in fandom. On the other hand, if you talk about a community, you're talking about the social group that thinks of itself as fandom and all the other people as well, and that's a useful thing to be able to do.

[itchyfidget.livejournal.com]

I think the serious point is that I would never tell someone they're a member of fandom just because they read sf.

Oh god no, neither would I. I was just throwing your words back at you from the other day. For fun.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Oh, I know. And I understand where Tim's coming from when he says that what I'm saying sounds like doublethink. On one level, it is semantic nit-picking of the highest order: I am a fan of sf, I am not a member of Fandom, I am part of the Third Row and part of the sf community. But I do think the idea that there's one monolithic social group to which everyone who wants to talk and think about must belong is a damaging one, and puts off people who would otherwise really enjoy something like Worldcon.

[itchyfidget.livejournal.com]

I have an interest in science fiction.
You are a fan.
He attends Star Trek conventions.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Yes, Minister. :p

[itchyfidget.livejournal.com]

... but people who are outside it are always going to perceive it as being monolithic anyway. So really, subcategorisation is just to make you guys feel better about yourselves ;P

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

*shrug* Maybe. But part of it is also that a lot of the people in Fandom would like to think of themselves as the defining part of the sf community, and I'm loathe to let them have their way. :p

[danmilburn.livejournal.com]

Not necessarily, but I think the problem Niall's having is that for everyone except him, 'fandom' is a far more encompassing term than he wants it to be.

I mean from where I'm sitting, that he is a part of SF fandom is so glaringly obvious that pondering whether he is or isn't is an utterly redundant exercise. They may be other people who are also part of the fandom with whom he feels he has little in common, but that does not mean you're not both part of it, just as there are plenty of people at the Buffy cons I've been to I have nothing in common with but to deny that we're all there because we're part of Buffy fandom would be, well, stupid.

I would add that if this kind of nitpicking is meant to make the 'SF community' more inclusive, he might find it has quite the opposite effect..

[despotliz.livejournal.com]

I mean from where I'm sitting, that he is a part of SF fandom is so glaringly obvious that pondering whether he is or isn't is an utterly redundant exercise.

You are clearly sitting in the seat of RIGHTHEADEDNESS today, Mr Milburn!

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

just as there are plenty of people at the Buffy cons I've been to I have nothing in common with but to deny that we're all there because we're part of Buffy fandom would be, well, stupid.

But 'Buffy fandom' and 'sf fandom' are not comparable entities. 'TV fandom' and 'sf fandom' would be comparable. If you generalise the logic of Buffy fandom to the expression 'foo fandom', then I am part of, for instance, third row fandom, lit fandom, Angel fandom, etc. I am not part of, say, filk fandom. And I'm not part of fandom fandom, which is to say I'm not part of the group that is fannish about fandom. The problem is that within 'sf fandom', 'fandom fandom' just calls itself 'fandom'.

I agree that this is stupid.

[itchyfidget.livejournal.com]

The problem is that within 'sf fandom', 'fandom fandom' just calls itself 'fandom'.

I got to this bit and just completely lost it. Apparently I've read the word 'fandom' enough times today for it to have become both meaningless and terribly, terribly funny.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't worry; much the same thing happened to me when I was writing it. :)

It's not easy being a pedant, you know.

[itchyfidget.livejournal.com]

Nobody knows how you suffer.

[itchyfidget.livejournal.com]

I would add that if this kind of nitpicking is meant to make the 'SF community' more inclusive, he might find it has quite the opposite effect.

Indeed. One of the reasons I drifted away from fandom was its - to me - massively irritating obsession with metafandom.

[veggiesu.livejournal.com]

I feel that someone ought to mention cake around about now.


CAKE

[kittynic]

Is that of the chocolate or cheese variety?

[veggiesu.livejournal.com]

Either is good :-)

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

But chocolate is best.

[veggiesu.livejournal.com]

Chocolate cheesecake?

[kittynic]

Vanilla or lemon cheesecake.

Chocolate is best as a double chocolate fudge goo cake.

[kittynic]

I want cheesecake now. :-/

[veggiesu.livejournal.com]

Have a cookie

[kittynic]

But I want cheesecake. How is a cookie going to help?

[veggiesu.livejournal.com]

Don't shun the Papal cookies... or I'll have to send Liz The Enforcer round.

[kittynic]

I wasn't shunning the cookies. They're just not cheesecake.

Besides what's the Enforcer going to do against SniperKitty?

[veggiesu.livejournal.com]

I would hesitate to reveal The Enforcer's methods in public... she might hurt me.

SniperKitty is cute.

[kittynic]

Cuteness wins!

[ninebelow.livejournal.com]

Clear?

Crystal. Down with fandom!

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

"They are a dying people. We should let them pass."

More seriously, where do you draw the line? Liz is more fannish than me and I'm more fannish than you. I think all that needs to be done away with is the myth of Fandom, the idea that it's somehow privileged. It's just one more cluster of like-minded people, like Angel fans or Iain Banks fans, and just because you like sf doesn't mean you have consider yourself a part of it.

[despotliz.livejournal.com]

Liz is more fannish than me and I'm more fannish than you.

From your point of view maybe. From my point of view, the fact that you write for fanzines and are Reviews Editor of Strange Horizons and a future editor of Vector and a member of the SF Foundation and write for Interzone makes you more fannish than me, because I just have a vague interest in fan history and like to read old fanzines. :)

[kalorlo.livejournal.com]

And you're definitely both more fannish than me, which I define by actually being involved in fandom. The editing and writing puts Niall way up there :)

Substitute "fan activities" for fandom, if you prefer :)

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

I'm under the impression that, strictly speaking, most of those things don't qualify as fan activity, even though I am a fan and they are my activities. Martin writes for the NYRSF; I don't know whether you'd agree or not on whether that's a fannish thing to do. I would say that the most fannish things I do are the fanzine writing and going to the ton.

But anyway, the basic point is that it's a continuum. There are more fannish people than me, there are less fannish people than me. So sadly it gets quite hard to destroy fandom. :)

[sdn.livejournal.com]

i publish a lot of female authors. this makes me very happy.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Feel free to send us review copies. :)

[veggiesu.livejournal.com]

The game is fun :-) The speech therapy article is fascinating. I think that the idea that many of the differences are due to effectively thinking and speaking in "written" English is a good (if perhaps partial) explanation. Not just in terms of *some* fannish people being less socialised but more well-read than others; but also becuase many of these people will, like many of us, communicate through written media far more than others do. The differences in computer-mediated relationships to "off-line" ones always fascinates me (I think I mentioned this, at least partially, on Monday evening).