mathrimony

Jul. 1st, 2011 12:39 pm
adelaidesean: (wedding 1)
On Monday, the wonderful Amanda returns from Canada, where she's been on a rather inconveniently timed research trip. Our schedules are often like this: she's home while I'm away, then I'm home while she's away. Sometimes we overlap for a few days, home or abroad, and that's always nice--but do jetlagged days really count as days, or are they just wistful dreams of far-off normality?

Anyway, we worked out this morning that in total we've spent just two weeks out of the last eleven together. And that, on anyone's calculator, is a rather sad result. So extra excitement for Monday. Roll out the champagne and hold all calls! At last my heart will be where my home is.
adelaidesean: (flight to mars)
If there’s one thing reading two decades of New Scientist has taught me --

and which it seems that either scientists keep forgetting or science journalists still think is newsworthy )

--it’s that the universe is always more interesting than we expected.

And that is completely brilliant.

five links

Dec. 19th, 2009 11:17 am
adelaidesean: (gedosenki A)
I'm juggling two projects at once this weekend, which always hurts my brain.  Here are some recent happenings: If I hear one more Christmas carol, I swear I might have to kill someone.  Unless it's this one, of course:
adelaidesean: (south park)
Amanda is reading again for the Adelaide Festival Awards for Literature, which means we get to take a quick survey of what blurbs have been offering in the last two years of Australian literature.

Family secrets are perennial, of course, along with small country towns, fractious siblings and romantic blasts from the pasts. Some things will never change.

This year a newcomer to the field has leapt out at us.

“loss and survival, friendship, love” (Swimming, Enza Gandolfo)
“loss, death and grief” (Headlong, Susan Varga)
“love, family and loss” (A History of the Great War, Peter McConnell)
“love, loss and hope” (Pescador’s Wake, Katherine Johnson)
“love, loss and learning” (The Rainy Season, Myfanwy Jones)
“love and loss” (Fugitive Blue, Claire Thomas)
“love and loss” (The Nature of Ice, Robyn Mundy)
“love, loss and grieving” (I Dream of Magda, Stefan Laszczuk)
“loss, and the search for home” (The Daughters of Moab, Kim Westwood)
“love, loss” (Wanting, Richard Flanagan)

Could there be something in the air, or is a thesaurus simply in order?
adelaidesean: (dalek & kylie)
I’m very excited to be holding a copy of 50 Voices of Disbelief: Why We Are Atheists, a collection of essays edited by Russell Blackford and Udo Schuklenk featuring such luminaries as Michael Shermer, James Randi, A. C. Grayling, Joe Haldeman, Jack Dann, Susan Blackmore, Gregs Benford & Egan, and many, many more. Including me. Woohoo!

I posted a while back about my piece “Doctor Who and the Legacy of Rationalism” (Rassilon/Rationalism--geddit?) in which I dissect several old stories to demonstrate how watching them led me away from the idea of god, rather than towards it as several recent evangelists suggested it ought to go. Researching it gave me a great excuse to go back and read some of the novelisations mouldering away on my top shelf. They remain as fun as ever.

The essay and the book are out now. Paperback is listed at US$29.95, which is a bargain compared to the hardback (US$89.95) and money well spent at any price. It’s published by the very respectable Wiley-Blackwell. The gorgeous cover is below. Tell your godless heathen friends!

adelaidesean: (pirate)
Amazon has done a very bad thing by stripping GBLT titles from their sales ranks on the grounds of these titles being "too adult" to reflect the interests of their wider audience. WTF? When you start protecting society from books like Lady Chatterly's Lover and Oranges Are Not the Only Fruit and Dead Girls The Dictionary of Homophobia: A Global History of Gay & Lesbian Experience you're really barking up the wrong frigging tree.

Astropolis seems to be exempt, but I believe that's more a reflection of my fame (or lack thereof) than the series' content. How long until someone notices that my books aren't just about big things blowing up against a starry backdrop and in fact contain transgender characters and homosexual sex and "Amazon rank" it? I want that sales figure to remain right where it is, thanks. It's so close to 666,666!

Sorry to give you two rants in a row, not to mention another petition, but I do think this is very important. Again, cancelling your account with this company may make more difference than a petition and flag-waving. Please consider it, for the sake of a sane world.
adelaidesean: (pirate)
There's an email going around from Dymocks to subscribers to its Booklovers program. It's calling for people to sign a petition encouraging the Productivity Commission to lift restrictions on book imports into Australia. If you think (like me) that this will cripple the Australian book industry and marginalise Australian writers even further than they already are, and if you're discomfited (like me) by the thought of protests occurring outside Dymocks stores (holding innocent staff accountable for decisions made much higher up the chain), can I suggest you unsubscribe from Booklovers program instead (if you're a member) and perhaps send an email explaining why? If subscribers drop by a significant amount, the bosses will recognise the loss of goodwill for what it is (a potential loss of sales) and may feel the pinch more directly.

Spread the meme. This is important.

(If you don't know what on Earth I'm talking about, have a gander at the Australian Society of Authors site. It'll fill you in.)

ETA: the email to direct your protest regarding the mailout is members (at) dymocks.com.au.

ETA: sign a counter-petition at Australian for Australian Books!

ETA: see the comments for some points to raise if anyone asks what exactly we're complaining about.

ETA: or, even better, let Garth Nix and Justine Larbalestier explain it far better than I ever could.
adelaidesean: (pirate)
Last week, Boing Boing featured a post offering public speaking advice for anyone forced to bite that particular bullet.

Now I know full well that, given a choice, most writers would never come out of the garret, but as that choice doesn't really exist any more, taking note of this kind of thing is important. If you haven't done it yet, you'll probably be forced to one day, so best to read and absorb as much as possible from the people who did it and survived. Which is everyone, of course. No one ever died from public speaking, did they? (Please, [livejournal.com profile] catsparx, don't tell me otherwise!)

I just want to add one other thing to the excellent (not exhaustive) list on the other end of those links. It's really a couple of things rolled into one, but they're connected.

The first half is: know your place. By that I mean, find out in advance what's expected of you so you can get the second part right: do your damnedest to deliver. In other words, do exactly what's required, no more and no less. If you're chairing, don't assume you're also a participant. If you're reading, don't go long. Prepare as required. That kind of thing. Obvious, really--so obvious that it boggles my mind how many people screw it up.

Going long, in particular, is a classic newbie mistake that pros will hate you for, because a true pro will never do it. They work hard not to, and so should you. Practice what you've prepared at least twice, and time it accurately both times. Have a watch or clock in line of sight during your performance. Stop your reading in mid-flow if it's obvious you're going to go too far over. Speaking twice as long as other program participants is never acceptable, no matter how good you think you're being. Break this one simple rule and everyone in the audience will curse you. Curse you, I say!

(Can you tell this happened to me recently?)

Anyway, this isn't aimed at anyone in particular, and I apologise for making so many sweeping generalisations. Some pros do make these mistakes, and some newbies are already good at it. This is just a rant thrown out into the collective unconscious (please, make it stop!) with apologies to anyone who had to sit through my overlong efforts way back in the day.
adelaidesean: (Default)
adelaidesean: (destination: prague)
No spoilers, I promise. Just wanted to say that Steven Moffatt managed to fit more ideas, world-building, character development, plot, and genuine scares into half a story than the rest of this season of Doctor Who combined. He has such a skill for teasing iconic images--zombie kids with gas-mask faces, murderous statues, and now shadows--out of clever SFnal ideas, thereby pleasing both sides of my brain while blowing it at the same time. I'm sure those qualities will bleed into the show as a whole, once he's producer. The sooner he takes over, the better.

Imho, of course.
adelaidesean: (pirate)
A recent article by Chuck Brooks in Brisbane's Courier-Mail raised the ire of writers there and interstate.

It's not online so I can't link to it, but his rant was inspired by the One Book Many Brisbanes anthology, and the gist of it was that arts funding is a waste of public resources.

The most excellent Gary Kemble wrote a terrific rebuttal which appeared in the paper today (he posts it to his blog here) and I'm told that my less elegant response (below the cut) may have appeared too.

This is an issue I thought long-resolved in the public consciousness. Depressing to see it making a comeback.

Until Chuck Brooks can guarantee that our culture will be richer for keeping to itself the paltry amount of money it spends on grants rather than helping those aspiring to an artistic career that might benefit us all, I strongly advise him to keep his opinions to himself. )
adelaidesean: (Wig)
Dan Rubinstein of OUT magazine recently interviewed me for their transgender issue. Why? Because Saturn Returns features a male character "reborn" into a woman body, and the third book plays with his gender even more overtly. The piece didn't make the print version, alas, but has appeared on-line.

Here's the link to Dan's final version, and below the cut is the full interview, which runs over two thousand words.

7) Is there anything that a real transgendered person could learn from your character's struggle, as far as learning about identity goes? )

Icon courtesy of Nick Stathopoulos.
adelaidesean: (pirate)
If you're interested in reading more about the woes of Adelaide Writers' Week, Stephen Orr has written a wonderful piece for ABC news. Wander by and leave a comment. It will be read.

Also, I'll be on ABC radio this afternoon saying much the same thing.

As Stephen says: "Frankly, I'd rather be writing my fiction than opinion pieces, but some things can't go unsaid, that's the whole point of being a writer."

ETA: Here's the version of the piece on Articulate, where comments can be left.

aww, fwiw

Mar. 5th, 2008 01:09 pm
adelaidesean: (pirate)
(This post was supposed to air before Sunday, but I was distracted by deadlines, cold viruses, etc.)

For those who don't already know, I've decided not to attend Adelaide Writers' Week this year. Some of the reasons behind this decision are professional (writers should be paid at or near ASA rates, for instance, especially by publicly funded organisations) and some are personal. These problems have been weighing heavily on me in recent years, and it's with a mixture of frustration and irritation that I've finally come to accept that there's probably nothing I can do about them, except be elsewhere.

Note that I'm not asking anyone to join me in my sad, one-person boycott. Note also that I'm not speaking with my SA Writers' Centre hat on (or any of the other hats I occasionally wear). I'm just a writer who's become so disillusioned and disheartened by my behind-the-scenes experiences with AWW that I no long enjoy the event itself. I'll be happier at home, getting some work done. Not even the chance of bumping into William McInnes can make me change my mind.

So if anyone's in town March 2-7 and would like to catch up, we'll have to find somewhere else to do it. Luckily, there are plenty of choices! I highly recommend Thea Tea Shop, which makes the best Taiwanese vegetarian food I've ever tasted. Yum.

finally

Feb. 13th, 2008 08:33 am
adelaidesean: (sorry)
I keep having to remind myself not to be embarrassed about being an Australian any more.

Rudd's little speech this morning helps:

Sorry. )
adelaidesean: (pirate)
It's been a tough year for the SFWA. On top of everything, it's now short of recommendations for the Nebula Awards--which may have gone a little bit wobbly on their wheels in recent years but are still among the field's most respected awards.

If you're a member, you would've received the call to vote via email this morning. If you're a member like me, you probably haven't read nearly enough to consider yourself able to vote, and that makes you feel vaguely guilty. Well, I'm considering shucking off that guilt and voting anyway. If enough of us do the same, all our misinformed opinions will mash together to form some kind of uber-gestalt, and the correct result will pop out of its black box like magic.

Below is a list of the works I've enjoyed this year (not counting the works already on the existing list (here)). I'm not 100% sure any more how the rules of the Nebulas work, but I'm going to vote anyway. You can vote for them as well (here), if you're short on inspiration, or you can suggest titles I might not have thought of. Note that I'm not trying to kick-start a bloc-vote. I'm just trying to get things moving. Only one member in five is recommending works for the ballot at the moment. The field has long been too big for any one person to keep in touch with, so we need put our faith in our collective unconscious and vote regardless. This is democracy in action.

Ragamuffin by Tobias S Buckell (novel)
Plague Year by Jeff Carlson (novel)
Darkspace by Marianne de Pierres (novel)
"WikiWorld" by Paul di Filippo (novelette)
Bright of the Sky by Kay Kenyon (novel)
Mainspring by Jay Lake (novel)
Magic's Child by Justine Larbalestier (Andre Norton)
The Darkness Within by Jason Nahrung (novel)
Lady Friday by Garth Nix (Andre Norton)
Set the Seas on Fire by Chris Roberson (novel)
The Name of the Wind by Patrick Rothfuss (novel)
"Kiosk" by Bruce Sterling (novella)
Extras by Scott Westerfeld (Andre Norton)
"Julian: A Christmas Story" by Robert Charles Wilson (novella)
Battlestar Galatica: "Razor" (script)
Doctor Who: "Blink" (script)

I really wish I'd had time to read or watch more. There are bound to have been excellent and worthy works out there that I just haven't seen. Still, better a list than none at all. (And while I'm in the mood to plug, I would be remiss not to mention that my own Saturn Returns and Cenotaxis are eligible too, for the novel and novella categories respectively. Just a reminder, which you should feel free to ignore at will. :-)

As of this moment, there are insufficient recommendations to make a full ballot. So get cracking! Spread the word if you're not a member yourself. The deadline is the end of this year. That doesn't give us long to keep this fine tradition alive. What, after all, are we going to argue and bitch about if the Nebulas die?
adelaidesean: (squid)
Our handsome new Prime Minister has just created two awards for literature, one for fiction and one for non-fiction. They will be the third most lucrative in the world (after the International IMPAC Dublin Literary award (£100,000) and the Man Booker (£50,000)), coming in tax-free at AU$100,000 each.

Sounds good? Maybe, maybe not.

Here's an oped I wrote for ABC Online. All comments welcome, but I encourage you to post your opinions on the ABC where they'll be more visible.

(With thanks to Gary Kemble for guiding this little rant into existence, to Cristen Tilley for the title, to Jeremy Fisher of the ASA, Barbara Wiesner of the SA Writers' Centre, and Sue Hill and Fiona Lange of The Big Book Club for double-checking my facts, and to Garth Nix, Chris Lawson, Stephen Dedman and Deb Biancotti for letting me steal their best ideas.)
adelaidesean: (pirate)
Two reviews of Danny Boyle's new movie "Sunshine" (by Grant Watson and Marcus Chown) and Lucius Shepard's recent rant have convinced me to commit to something I've been inching up on for a while now.

From this moment henceforth, I refuse to see a serious science fiction movie (i.e. one we're supposed to take seriously, rather than, say, Fantastic Four) in which scientific knowledge and the people employed in the pursuit thereof are needlessly treated badly.

In other words, I'm boycotting science fiction movies that contain overtly crap science unless there's some kind of pay-off for putting up with it.

I don't think I'm being unreasonable. Is it so wrong to want movie-physics (say) to bear at least a passing resemblance to the physics surrounding us in our everyday lives? Or to wish that scientists were rounded characters, with the same depth of being that other characters in the movie enjoy? Failing both of these, could we at least have something else in exchange? Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind explored powerful and thought-provoking themes through extraordinary direction and performances. Armageddon (like so many others in its league) did not.

I'm amazed that we settle for anything else. No one would watch a thriller that wasn't thrilling or a romantic comedy with unlikeable leads. A movie set in post-war Italy wouldn't include the Grand Canyon and icebergs just because the director felt like it. Why should the relationship between science and science fiction be any different? There's enough sense-of-wonder to be had out there without getting things so terribly, terribly wrong--and good special effects are the standard now, not the major drawcard they used to be.

Movies that let me down this way drive me mad. Since I don't want to be mad, I'm going to stop supporting the Big Dumb SF Blockbuster industry. No one in Hollywood will notice, I'm sure, but I'll feel better for it.
adelaidesean: (It)
People continue to talk up and make movies of the work of Philip K. Dick, but no one ever mentions my favourite novel from his large and uneven oeuvre: Maze of Death, which I like not just because it marries a dated but still interesting take on religion with Dick's unique knack for naming things, but also because it's Agatha Christie's And Then There Were None on acid.

The scene in which the surviving characters confront a mysterious building and each mis-reads a sign above its main entrance--in their own unique way--is one of my favourites in SF literature.

The day they make a movie of this book, I'll be torn between dancing in the streets and weeping (the latter because, given Hollywood's track-record in this area, it'll probably be shite).

Profile

adelaidesean: (Default)
adelaidesean

February 2025

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
232425262728 

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 7th, 2025 05:22 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios