Ilikai

We dined for Christmas Eve on the 30th floor restaurant of the Ilikai Hotel, Sarento’s, with an impressive view of the harbor below (not such a direct view of Waikiki Beach itself). As usual with such places, the view was more impressive than the food, though the food was OK.

This morning we’re checking out of our condo (where we’re required to do all the bedlinen laundry before we leave) then poking about for a few hours until it’s time to board our cruise. We’re doing a 7-day cruise among the islands, from here at Oahu, to Maui, the Big Island, Kauai, and then back to Oahu on 1/1/11.

Waimea, Oahu

Today was relaxing on the beach or in the room, then setting off on a day trip to the north side of Oahu, the surfing towns of Hale’iwa and Waimea. There was a torrential downpour along the way, for about 15 minutes. The surf was not impressive; swimmers and a couple surfers were out there, but it was not a prime day. Then, dinner at the Ihilani, where baby tigerhead sharks swim in the garden pools. Tomorrow, Pearl Harbor, maybe, if we can get the boys up in time.

Makaha

I am in Hawaii this morning, on Oahu, first day of a 10-day vacation with my partner and his two sons. I expect to keep up daily posts on the site (beginning with an update to the Awards Index, actually finished a couple days ago) and email, though inevitably some of the less-urgent emails are bound to accumulate in the inbox over the that period of time.

I was in Honolulu a bit over 10 years ago, for that year’s Westercon, hosted at a nice Sheraton right on Waikiki beach. I was even looking forward to re-visiting the fabulous 30th-floor restaurant in that hotel, but just learned this morning, while planning out today’s itinerary, that the restaurant no longer exists, in the process of being turned into a lounge. Oh well. Other places and experiences await.

E-Complexity

I spent a while this evening backing up and upgrading a couple of the Locus blogs that are hosted by WordPress, which has been alerting me of the need to upgrade to their latest version for a few weeks now.

What struck me as I followed the recommended steps for doing this, was how detailed and complex the instructions were. There were half a dozen detailed options for backing up the WordPress database, all involving apps I had never heard of. Well, not entirely — I did recognize one, and managed to find in the dashboard of the administrator login provided by our hosting service that corresponded to one of their suggested options (i.e. ‘phpMyAdmin’).

Yes yes, I know that there are many many web admins and gurus who understand these details and options backwards and forwards, and compared to them I am a neophyte, or dilettante, about such matters… even though, in the context of Locus editors, I’m supposedly the web/internet authority.

But my thoughts about this is are in a broader context — taking a wider perspective.

50 or 60 years ago, where did all this energy to create complex systems go?

What were the folks who build elaborate internet protocols nowadays doing 50 or 60 years ago?

Building hot rods? Radio kits? What?

Were there equivalent complex systems those decades ago? Or has the expansion of technology enabled easily built complex system unlike anything possible in past eras?

World Fantasy Con Panels

There were a number of panel discussions at World Fantasy Con, last weekend in Columbus, Ohio, worth describing.

Friday at 2p.m. was the topic of “Art and Commerce”, with Gordon Van Gelder, Nancy Kress, Tom Doherty, and Ginjer Buchanan. Each was invited to state which team they favored. Tom said, “both”. Nancy disagreed. Tom’s position was that the best books sell the best…eventually; quality endures, while the bestsellers of yore are forgotten. Maybe so, said Nancy, but why does Danielle Steele sell so well? She actually read one, and still doesn’t know. She gave examples of how commercial considerations come before artistic ones: how agents advise that fantasy is easier to place, these days, than SF; how her novel Dogs was rejected by three publishers (including Tor!) on the grounds that it would upset dog lovers. No one challenged the obvious “everyone knows” that most bestsellers are not the same books as those most critically acclaimed. The discussion veered toward how the reputations of writers can wax and wane over time, for unpredictable reasons — Philip K. Dick, a success only after his death; Somserset Maughm, whose reputation is now inexplicably in eclipse.

I heard most of an interview with Guest of Honor David G. Hartwell, who spoke frankly about his lifelong intention of influencing the whole SF and fantasy field. He recounted his history with Whispers, with the World Fantasy Con itself, and its awards; as a collator for Locus way back, and his discussions with Charles Brown about how to improve the field. He talked about the effort that went into editing the just-published Heinlein biography (after another Tor editor passed on it, as too big a chore to edit), and how in a sense this is a book he was destined to edit. And he talked about singing “Teen Angel”, a song that is apparently his signature, late-night-con-party song — which somehow I have never heard him sing. (I guess I don’t stay up that late for those kinds of parties.)

Then a panel on the influence of Jorge Luis Borges, or specifically, “What We Swiped from Jorge Luis Borges”, with Ted Chiang, Jeffrey Ford, Darrell Schweitzer, Dora Goss, and John Kessel. They cited their favorite stories — “The Aleph”, “The Library of Babel”, et al — and discussed how Borges’ background wasn’t the 19th century literary canon, but rather writers we now recognize as precursors of SF and fantasy — Carroll, Stevenson, Wells, Kipling, Dunsany. Chiang told how his story “Exhalation” was inspired by “The Library of Babel”, to the degree that it describes a self-contained universe without trying to “explain” it. Ford admired Borges’ compression, and recursiveness; Kessel, his boldness. Schweitzer revealed a Borges Cthulhu mythos story. An audience member discussed how the available English translations of Borges are all lacking to some degree.

Then at 5 p.m. — it was a full afternoon — was a panel on “Critical Theory and Its Discontents”, with Gary K. Wolfe, Karen Burnham, Christopher Rowe, Calie Voorhis (a writer), and Edward Schneider (an agent). Karen outed herself as a scientist/engineer, and pointed out how the term “theory” is used differently in the arts than in the sciences — among other things, in the sciences, “theories” can (in principle) be disproven. Whereas, as the panelists went on to discuss, different literary theories are useful in particular domains, but if applicable everywhere, lose their usefulness. They discussed the problem of teaching to theory, of handing students theory instead of deriving theories from novels and stories — or I should say, texts — and dropped the names of several SF/fantasy writers who consciously use critical theory to structure or inform their works — Jeff VanderMeer, China Miéville, Adam Roberts, Ursula K. Le Guin, Jim Hines, M. John Harrison, John Clute, Mary Gentle. And they mentioned a couple books on critical theory that I’m inclined to look up myself, especially Terry Eagleton’s Literary Theory.

Saturday at 1 p.m. was the obligatory “Best of the Year” panel, with Jonathan Strahan, Ellen Datlow, Gardner Dozois, Paula Guran, and Kathryn Cramer. They did rounds of reciting their favorites titles of the year — of 2010, that is — novels, a few anthologies, lots of short fiction. The most repeated novel titles were Guy Gavriel Kay’s Under Heaven, Peter Straub’s A Dark Matter, China Miéville’s Kraken, Nnedi Okorafor’s Who Fears Death, and Ian Tregillis’ first novel Bitter Seeds. Other first novels mentioned were those by N.K. Jemisin, Karen Lord, Mary Robinette Kowal, Anthony Huso, and Amelia Beamer; other novels mentioned were those by Joe Hill, Richard Kadrey, Holly Black, Charles Stross, Terry Pratchett, Gene Wolfe, Ken Scholes, Steve Erikson, and Justin Cronin. And lots of short fiction titles were mentioned — too many to write down.

At 4 p.m. was a panel on “The Moral Distance Between the Author and the Work”, with Scott Edelman, Eric Flint, Nancy Kress, Kathryn Cramer, Paul Witcover, and Jack Skillingstead. Do we reject the work if we disapprove of the author, or artist? A handy example was immediately cited — the disinvitation by WisCon of author Elizabeth Moon, following her blog posting about Muslims. The panelists generally agreed that you *should* separate the author and the work, but distinguished that from whether one *can* or *must* do so (Scott Edelman parsed this). They gave examples of the silliness of demanding boycotts based on this or that — Catholics wanted the film Cleopatra boycotted, because Elizabeth Taylor was having an affair with a man not her husband. More interestingly they discussed examples of how it can be difficult to appreciate a work once learning about its author, whether it’s seeing an author behave like a jerk at a convention, or from what one learns about her unsavory politics. Nancy Kress distinguished between those who would prevent everyone from accessing a work, e.g. banning Harry Potter from libraries, and the obligation of parents to shield their children from certain harmful influences (though the panel didn’t explore this gray area any further). And the panel ended with Nancy Kress’ outrage for Eric Flint’s unapologetic admission that he had edited James H. Schmitz’s stories, for reprinting recently by Baen Books, to remove anachronistic passages such as excessive descriptions of cigarette smoking…

And the final notable panel I attended, at 5 p.m., was about “Authors and Ideas”, with Ellen Kushner, Lee Modesitt, Jason Sanford, Tim Powers, S.M. Stirling, and Guy Gavriel Kay. The theme was a variation of the previous panel’s, though not as provocative. Yes, good fiction can’t help but be infused by its author’s beliefs, to the extent that default beliefs of one’s background or culture aren’t even ackowledged or challenged — Stirling made the point that most aliens in SF are less alien than the Japanese. Or one’s great-great-great-great-grandparents. And Kay observed that writing fiction is, potentially, about creating characters who have different beliefs than the author.

Sunday was, of course, the World Fantasy Awards banquet, which went smoothly, and after that the traditional judges panel, at which Gary K. Wolfe, Greg Ketter, Jim Minz, and Jurge Snoeren (fifth judge Kelly Link was not in attendance) discussed some of the process and difficulties, or lack thereof, in this year’s judging process.

The weekend ended on a high note for me personally; I managed to tag along with a dinner group that included Peter and Susan Straub, Jonathan Strahan, Gary K. Wolfe, Francesca Myman, and Alisa Krasnostein, and dined with them at a very good Italian restaurant up the street called Martini; after that, most of us gathered first in the bar, then up in Amelia Beamer’s room, where Ellen Klages, Ellen Datlow, Walter Jon Williams, and others held court. Bringing a bottle of Scotch (Ardbeg) helped. I got the day’s Locus Online post (the TOC for the November issue of the magazine) posted very late that day.

World Fantasy Con, Columbus OH

I am indeed at this year’s World Fantasy Convention, in Columbus, Ohio; I arrived Wednesday evening, and will be here through Monday morning. It’s a good thing I had no dinner invitation this evening (not that this was likely), or I might not have gotten my daily post for the website done today — the latest Magazines and Websites page, just posted a few minutes ago.

The site for this year’s convention — Columbus, Ohio — is still not an obvious location for a fantasy convention; the most relevant aspect is that the city was the home of James Thurber, the noted American humorist, though not for fantastic themes. At a glance, from my hotel room on the 18th floor, Columbus looks like many another Midwestern city, with its tight concentration of downtown high-rises surrounded by miles of industrial suburbs.

The convention is hosted in the Hyatt Regency Hotel and the adjacent Greater Columbus Convention Center; the facilities are entirely adequate, with a handy food court in the convention center. There is a substantial dealers room, with mostly book dealers, and a decent art show, though I can’t say that much of the fantasy art there appeals to me.

I’ve attended many of the discussion panels, and will post notes about them next time. After years of attending cons, the subjects of convention panels aren’t the attractions — they tend to recycle — rather, what attracts are the the panelists; but between the subjects and the panelists, there were several worth noting (–next time). In addition, a benefit of attending conventions is to meet in person people you’ve only dealt with via email or online; and this year I met Stephen Haffner and (‘the’) John DeNardo, and that was worthwhile. More on the panels tomorrow.

I joined an interesting dinner group last night, Friday night, consisting of Farah Mendlesohn, Karen Burnham, and a group of others, for a stroll down to Barley’s Brewing Company, where we ate burgers and drank beer (and gin and tonics) and talked about the Elizabeth Moon kerfuffle. Otherwise my meals have been uneventful.

I might also mention that I attended the annual Locus Foundation meeting, Friday morning, where were discussed finances, plans for the Foundation, which will acquire ownership of the magazine shortly, and plans for the future. There are several imminent changes scheduled to coincide with the 600th, January 2011, issue of Locus Magazine, that will be announced soon.

Considering Issues

I was cleaning up the homepage today and decided to build a reverse-chronological thread backwards of ‘previous posts’, analogous to the links on io9.com or Tor.com that lead to URLs like “http://www.tor.com/?page=2″. (Parts of Locus Online are automated via WordPress and have such links; the main part of the site, including the homepage, is hand-built and manually maintained, with only feeds from the News and Roundtable blogs automated.)

I arranged the previous posts by month, on fixed pages, so that the bottom of the homepage now offers links to archives for September, August, and so on. (I should note that there have been, all along, pages that archive posts by group — reviews, monitor listings, etc. — just not all together in one chronological stream.)

The division by month is somewhat arbitrary, but it aligns with the magazine publication. And it recalls the debate a while back about the distinction, if there is one, between magazines and websites, and how to distinguish between websites that use the issue model, with content posted once a month typically, or the blog model, with continuous posting every day. (On a technical note, I debated how to handle hybrids like Lightspeed in the database where I compile descriptions for the magazines/websites page. Lightspeed does come in issues, but releases parts of each issue weekly, so demands attention more often than monthly. I decided to create a single database entry for each Lightspeed issue, and update that one entry thoughout the month, rather than create a new entry for each week’s posts. You can see that in the descriptions of Lightspeed on those pages, and in how many links it creates on the associated Directory page.)

What struck me in compiling the Locus Online archive pages today, and in tracking the numerous online ‘zines lately, is the difference in volume among them. If you gather a month’s worth of Locus Online posts onto a single page, you get something that looks like this: September 2010. That’s moderately impressive as an “issue’s” worth of material, if I do say so myself — acknowledging of course that 1/3 or so of the posts are material derived from the magazine, while the many News posts (put out by Locus HQ in Oakland) don’t show up in this view at all.

Gather up a month’s posts from Tor.com or io9.com and it would be even more substantial. At the other extreme, it’s remarkable that *most* of the online fiction ‘zines, I would say, publish noticeably less material than the average print mag, per issue or per year. Most online fiction ‘zines publish a couple stories per issue, perhaps four, over the course of a month; those with more than that, like Subterranean or Flurb, publish less frequently. This would be more obvious if everything was in print, in physical form. Seen on the web, volume is less apparent, and what impresses is the design of the site — and of course the quality of the material — more than the volume.

\\

Update Saturday 9 Oct 2010 — On the September index page I’ve tipped in the entire list of News blog posts from that month, replacing the link to the blog archive. I’ll do this on the other pages, and similar lists for the Roundtable posts, presently.

Edit Comments

One of my regular tasks as administrator of this site is to moderate comments to the various WordPress blogs — News, Reviews, Perspectives, Roundtable, and my own personal Views from Medina Road. All comments submitted to the blogs are held pending an email sent to me to either approve or disapprove their posting. The disapprove options include ‘spam’ and ‘trash’. There are also options for ‘reply’, ‘quick edit’, and ‘edit’, though I’ve never used those.

I mention this to explain first, why some comments submitted by users don’t appear on the site for some hours — that is, because I’m away from locusmag email during the workday (I have a dayjob; running this site is an afterhours task), and don’t see these comment emails until evening (or the next morning, for those submitted overnight US west coast time).

Alas, spammers attack blog posts with fields for comments. A few weeks ago I tried solving the persistent spam submissions by restricting commentators to those who could log in to WordPress. Unfortunately, this seemed to block many legitimate commentators, which in retrospect explains why, as I remarked in On Mixed Marriages, there hadn’t been any comments to a Perspectives post by Gary Westfahl. So… I removed the restriction and became resigned to dealing with the many approval emails from spammers every day. This continues.

The second reason I mention this is that I can’t resist noting that there is a persistent spammer, who submits comments — consisting of dozens of links to various international sites with suffixes such as cz.cc and iz.nu, and whose title (do not Google this) is aeroriJeots — to a certain Cory Doctorow column called “Persistence Pays Parasites”…

Well, they are indeed persistent, but I spend a few minutes every day trying to assure that their persistence does not pay.

That’s all for tonight.

Butterflies are free to fly

I am reading Jonathan Franzen’s Freedom, in part as something completely different from anything else I’ve been trying to keep up with lately, and in part because it is a current, topical book, recently released and still under discussion in the blogosphere and, frankly, to some extent the act of reading any book isn’t just to improve or inform one’s mind with the essential goodness of a particular text, but rather to participate in the cultural assimilation, via reaction and discussion (online, these days), of how a significant new book is received.

I am about half-way through.

I will say this: It is engrossing. It is a ‘realistic’, contemporary, story about the members of Minnesota family, and it cannily switches perspectives, from one family member to the next, to give a kaleidoscopic perspective. It explores the relationships of the family members, in psychologically astute detail; almost to the point of clinical examination, but never less than fascinating and, as I said, engrossing.

As a reader of science fiction (and, sometimes, fantasy), I can’t help but reflect, as I often do on reading literary novels, on what the point of any work of fiction is. Literary mavens routinely dismiss SF/F on the basis that its works contain no real characters, and thus cannot be comprehended, as being too abstract.

It would be easy to react to literary novels, this Franzen in particular, as being entirely too self-absorbed. It is all about its characters. So what? Any person, any character, contains multitudes; fine. Is there any larger meaning? That larger meaning is generally what SF/fantasy is after.

I’m half-way through, and there are suggestions of larger perspectives — namely, issues of overpopulation and global warming. I suspect these are abstract issues, incidental in the context, not really what the book is after. If anything, the larger issue is suggested by the title — the issue of how any person lives their life, finds meaning in their life amidst the infinite possibilities inherent in the concept of freedom. With so many ways to choose how to live one’s life, how does one make it meaningful?

But I might well be reading into it more than is there; or missing the point. I’ll say more once I’ve finished.

Drilling Down the Inbox; Hugo Results

The most effective way to do so — as, for instance, after a long weekend of relative inattention, when 600 or 700 emails have accumulated in 3 or 4 days, not to mention the backlog of another couple hundred — is, as I’ve concluded today, to sort the inbox by subject. Magically, irrelevant items become clustered, and are easily deletable. It also helps to be a tad woozy with cold medication; decisions become easier.

I’m sorry I was unable to attend Worldcon in Melbourne, but I’ve been fascinated to see reactions to the Hugo Awards results, mostly via comments in a couple Yahoo groups that I subscribe to, and then by inspecting the voting report [pdf] with the ranked results and lists of nominees that didn’t make the final ballot…

Remarkable that Bacigalupi and Miéville were tied from the beginning, diverged a bit in subsequent steps, then tied again at the end.

In the screenplay, er, dramatic presentation long form, category, Avatar placed last.

David G. Hartwell withdrew his Best Editor, Long Form nomination, a generous gesture.

Sad to see that Jonathan Strahan led in the Best Editor, Short form category through several rounds, losing ground only as voters who preferred Stanley Schmidt and Sheila Williams were eliminated and their 2nd/3rd/4th place votes were counted, ending up with Ellen Datlow’s win. (Something roughly similar happened, as I recall, when Locus Online was nominated for Best Website in 2005, and lost to Ellen’s Sci Fiction by…. one vote.)

I’m personally please to see that the home-continent advantage held for Shaun Tan, who won for Best Artist.

Congratulations to Clarkesworld for its Best Semiprozine win, though of course I’d have been pleased to see Locus win; but Locus has won many times before and can’t feel too badly about losing this year (though it was Charles N. Brown’s last nomination). It is curious, however, that last year’s winner, Weird Tales ended up only in 4th place this year; I don’t know how the differing voting constituencies, of conventions on different continents, might have affected the results.

The most commentary I read on the newsgroups concerned the Best Fanzine winner — last year it was Electric Velocipede, which many felt wasn’t really a fanzine; this year it was StarShipSofa, a podcast site, which many feel isn’t really a fanzine. And which did in fact campaign for a Hugo, itself a contentious issue.

There is always the question of how informed voters really are. Did those who voted for Frederik Pohl as Best Fan Writer — however fascinating his writing at The Way the Future Blogs has been — respond to the celebrity of his name, or were they as familiar with the other nominees and make a completely informed decision? Similar questions can be asked about every category. (How many voters in the Best Novel category read all of the nominees?)

As administrator of the SF Awards Index, these issues fascinate me, but only in an abstract way. I don’t take any awards results too seriously, or rather, I take them seriously for what they are, but not because any of them are in any sense a scientific poll. It would be fascinating if such a poll could actually be done.