Book Giveaway: Num8ers Winners!

The giveaway is over. The winners are:

• Carraka
• Blogicious
• Andrew Parsons

All of you have an email or message of some sort from me asking for your address (you know, so I can send you the book).

Congrats!

If I Had a Spaceship...

...with faster-than-light capability, without all the time paradoxes and other realistic nonsense that eventually ruined the fantasy of the science fiction pulps; if I had that, where would I go?

I would head to every star that could sustain life, each with a reasonable habitable zone where planets might arise, or where we know planets already exist. Why? To answer, once and for all, the age old question: are we alone in the universe? Because, hey, if you've got an FTL ship and you don't have to worry about time dilation, fuel (a problem for current propulsion models), and so on; if you've got that, then why not head out on a 30 second trip to Alpha Centauri and see a binary star close up for the first time ever, looking for that one little planet that might very well put truth to the words of countless science fiction authors who have proposed life around our binary cousin and in the universe (trinary, if you want to get darn specific)? Why not see the check every potentially habitable rock for signs of intelligent life and come back with an answer, laying to rest Fermi's Paradox and establishing into law (or modifying) Drake's equation?

That sounds like a fantastic way to spend a few days in an FTL spaceship to me. What about you?

So, if you had a spaceship with faster-than-light capability, minus all the negatives typically associated with a realistic vision of FTL, where would you go and why?

The West, Science Fiction, and No Future

Over at Genreville (on the Publisher Weekly's blog), Josh Jasper asks a very intriguing question:

Perhaps the future really belongs to people who’re hungry for it, not the ones who take it for granted. Does western culture take the future for granted these days, whereas rising cultures don’t?

I think this really depends on who you talk to. Scientists, by and large, would likely take the future very seriously, and many geeks and technology-oriented individuals consistently display their love of the present and the future of the industry (in technology, of course, thinking about the future in logical terms is quite impossible, since the industry is shifting so rapidly that one can't be expected to keep up).

But scientists, geeks, and technology-oriented people are not the majority of the population in the West. They're a minority; a fairly vocal minority (at least it seems so in the 21st century), but a minority nonetheless. Most of America (and other Western countries, I would assume) is fairly introverted, and I don't mean that in a negative way. Most of us have to be, particularly now in this difficult recession. The future of things like space travel (kind of a thing of the past, really) holds no weight in a culture struggling to keep jobs, find jobs, pay bills, survive, and be happy (whatever that might entail).

I think the issue here isn't that we take the future for granted, but that most of us (obviously not myself) see no value in much of what Jasper is talking about. Yes, it has value. Absolutely. I would be a lying scumbag if I said that the future of space travel (near future) has no value, or that people aren't excited about the futures of medical technology. The problem seems to be that, in the west, so much of our daily lives don't feel as though they are influenced by the things that used to be the future or by what will eventually be our future. We don't make an A to B connection between, say, the guy who predicted the cell phone in a science fiction novel or movie to the product itself. We benefit, most certainly, but the connection is not made explicit in our daily lives. This is a particular problem with space travel, as mentioned earlier, because as much as space travel is wonderful and has taught us so much about the universe, our planet, and even ourselves and our fellow critters, most people down on the ground and outside of the scientific and technology-oriented communities don't see the benefit.

And, countries that are now getting into the technology world seem more excited because, in that initial boom, it is exciting. When the Internet first started exploding in households, that was a big deal in the United States. Same with the car, the cell phone, and so on. But normality eventually reduces that to, well, normality. We take for granted such things because the value decreases with the increase of acceptance in culture.

How does this translate into written science fiction (something Jasper brings up as clear separation between the West--who seems more focused on near future dystopia and far future impossibilities--and the non-West--with a focus on the excitement of the technological revolution)? Well, you could argue that all the problems I've discussed above have led to a public disinterest in that excitement. Space travel isn't exciting to most. It's mundane at best, and worthless at the worst (I disagree, but that's me, and I'm not in that community of naysayers and for-granted-takers). The technological revolution is, in a way, over for us, and thinking about a future where we're doing basically what has already been done, just on a grander scale, isn't necessarily appealing or exciting. The future is, perhaps, mundane in the West for those who fail to see its value in their daily lives (not because they're stupid, but because we have done a piss poor job of instilling that love and excitement one needs to make light of the present).

So, certainly we take the future for granted (I'm intentionally conflating the future and the present here). In some ways, that's a bad thing. How do we get that back into our culture and our science fiction (it's there, just marginalized)? I don't know. I'm not sure we can, at least not on the scale that would make for meaningful change. The inevitable future of cultural consciousness, at least as I see it, is that every country eventually reaches the point of mundanity about the future. For now, the non-West is booming with excitement because, well, to finally get your own space ship in space or to do all these new, futuristic technological wonders that you've yet to do (even though others have) is exciting. Wouldn't it be exciting if tomorrow was the first time the United States put a man into space, or that someone had thought of the idea in a book and it was the first time for us, ever? Of course! But that's not us. We've done it already, and the future/present isn't offering something tangible for the masses to demonstrate that there's still something to be that excited about.

But, enough about what I think. What about you?

Healthcare, My Thoughts, and My Resolution

Most of you are probably well aware of the fact that the healthcare reform bill passed and has been officially signed by President Obama. I am both very happy about this, and also very nervous. There are some understandable questions about the bill, and while I would like to pretend that critics, including myself, actually understand what the bill will do on the wide-scale, such a thought is really nothing more than an illusion. Very few probably know how the bill operates on the wide-scale, and I'm hesitant to listen to people who have spent the last year plus misinforming the public about the bill in an effort to scare them into opposing it.

That said, I do hope that, on a wide-scale, the bill functions well enough, with little need for significant revision. I'm nervous because it's an enormous undertaking and something that, obviously, is remarkably contentious in this country. We'll see what the year looks like when everything is in place.

For the record, if it isn't already clear, I have always been for healthcare reform, but on a much grander scale. I honestly think we should have kept the public option on the original bill, but at least this is a step in the right direction.

Now, for my resolution, which is only indirectly related to the healthcare bill:

I've noticed over the last few months that I have been consuming an abnormal amount of garbage in the form of soda and related things. So, as an experiment, I am going to cut out all soda consumption from my diet for 30 days, starting today. I'll be cutting out other junk foods as well (namely candy bars, though I will splurged once in a while).

Part of this is because I have been eating too much crap; part of this is because I want to see what happens to my body. If I have a heart attack, you'll all be the second to know (since I'll be the first).

Wish me luck!

Genre Labels: Are They Reductive?

A friend and I were having a discussion about The Famished Road by Ben Okri, a Nigerian novel with particularly obvious fantastic elements, and he thought that by labeling the novel as fantasy, I was being reductive. I'll try to recollect much of the discussion here, but I'm sure I'll leave out some salient point that I can't remember.

Okri's novel is about a young boy who is, in certain African religious traditions, a spirit child who has decided to finally live in the real world, rather than be born, die, and return to the spirit world. However, this boy never fully separates from the spirit realm into the real world, the result of which is that he can see and is influenced by all manner of spirit creatures (from ghosts to really strange humanoid beings to manifestations of nature's spirits).

For me, this is very clearly a fantasy. The elements are all there. As far as I know, the novel does not posit that the boy is delusional, but takes very seriously the fact that he is a spirit child. In saying it's fantasy, however, I'm not at all saying that it isn't something else too. My friend, however, thinks that the label somehow leaves out those other elements (and he did, at one point, cite things like politics, etc. as part of what gets left out of the fantasy label).

For me, however, the label "fantasy" encompasses a wide range of fantastic literatures and can include all manner of plot elements, whether they be political or romantic. Fantasy isn't reductive, for me, because when we say "this is fantasy," we're not saying that the novel is only about dragons or spirits or the fantastic, just that an element, or the prime component, of that novel allows it to fit within the fantasy genre. I see fantasy as a very wide and open genre, stretching from literary to pulpy, Tolkien-esque to urban, etc.

So, I'm going to ask you. Do you think that labeling things as fantasy is reductive? Could the same argument be made about science fiction, romance, mystery, etc.? Let me know in the comments!

The Confused Term: "Stealth Worldbuilding"

What exactly is so stealth about standalone fantasy novels set in the same world? Am I missing some crucial point, or am I the only one who thinks that if you take a few minutes to do your homework or are an attentive reader, it would be obvious that a bunch of standalone novels are all set in the same world? And if it's not obvious, then wouldn't it seem clear that one of three things is happening: 1) the author never intended for there to be additional novels in that world, and, so, came up with a connection to make things interesting; 2) the author had ideas to do such a thing, but never to that level; 3) there was prompting for the connecting factors to come about?

The author of the post linked above talks about Terry Pratchett as a good, high-profile example. The problem? Of all the people you could point to, Pratchett is the least "stealth" about his worldbuilding for anyone who writes standalone fantasy novels. Why? Because none of his novels are de facto standalones when they have the enormous Discworld title printed on the cover. You know right from the start that this book is in Discworld. No stealth about it. There's no secret moment where you can go "oh, yeah, that's another part of Discworld and I totally didn't know." His books are clearly labeled as part of the same world.

The rest of the examples seem to suffer from the same problem. Shouldn't it be obvious that if the worlds have the same names, then they are the same worlds, and thus no longer being sneaky about it? And if the names aren't obvious, how exactly does that make the worldbuilding stealthy? The author is still building a world, and very obviously so, populated with characters and cultures. The only thing that seems to support the term is that some years down the line, books you didn't think were linked suddenly are. But that's not a new thing in fantasy. That's been happening for standalone novels and series for decades (maybe even the better part of the last 100 years). Half the time it's not even a stealth technique; that would imply intention from the start of a particular set of independent novels.

Readers like to have this fantasy that all writers have a grand plan in their heads, but the truth of the matter is that most writers don't (not in the sense that we're talking about here). Some writers write a standalone book, find out it worked out well, and are prompted by their publisher to write another one, maybe as a sequel or as a new addition to the world, or decide to write another one for the thrill of it. Some writers have a little bit of the plan in mind, but didn't expect, twenty years down the line, that they'd be writing the one book that put all the pieces together. Few writers have that enormous plan already set up (though some undoubtedly do).

So, I reiterate: what exactly is stealth about all of this?

The Nature of Existence: An Insane Prospect of Knowledge

I've been reading a book called Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments For God Just Don't Add Up by John Allen Paulos. One particularly potent quote caught my attention, but not in the way you might expect:

[W]hy did He create the particular natural laws that He did? If He did it arbitrarily for no reason at all, there is then something that is not subject to natural law. The chain of natural law is broken, and so we might as well take the most general natural laws themselves, rather than God, as the arbitrary final "Because." On the other hand, if He had a reason for issuing the particular laws that He did (say, to bring about the best possible universe), then God Himself is subject to pre-existing constraints, standards, and laws. In this case, too, there's not much point to introducing Him as an intermediary in the first place. (8)

What interests me about this quote isn't that Paulos is essentially arguing that God is an arbitrary selection for our origins, but that the very nature of existence as we know it, whether one accepts God or not, is fundamentally unknowable. We desperately try to grasp at why anything exists at all, both in science and in religion, but ultimately, we don't know, and probably never will. Belief, no matter how strongly you hold it within yourself, is always already a broken system, because it can never make firm its inherent hopefulness that it is correct. You can never "know" that God exists, nor can you ever "know" that he doesn't exist, any more than you can "know" the theoretical first cause (which Paulos discusses in-depth a few pages earlier) in any terms whatsoever. Why? Because the moment you establish the first cause, there are always going to be questions about what caused it. Causation is inevitably endless, infinite in its possibilities.

And what is so important about this? I think part of why we are such a religious species is precisely because it offers comfort for us in being able to claim that we know how it all began. We never read the theoretical endpoint and realize that there is no answer for why anything exists, let alone ourselves, because the curiosity that would lead to what I would call the insanity of eternity is stopped by the phrase "God did it." I don't meant that as a slight here (though I've certainly used it as such elsewhere). If anything can be said to be glorious and wonderful about religion, it is that it has, in various forms throughout our existence, laid to rest that most fundamental and terrifying of questions: why do we exist?

I think that is the problem for me as a non-religious (if not atheist) individual. I cannot accept the God hypothesis precisely because I need to know what is beyond that, what brings the Creator into existence or, if the Creator doesn't exist, what brought that initial spark into being, and so on. Curiosity consumes me in this pursuit, as it does many who question reality, existence, and our place in the cosmos, religious or otherwise. Just getting to the theoretical endpoint is, for me, one of the most terrifying things humanity can ever attempt to achieve. I'll explain why.

When (if) we reach that endpoint--and I use "theoretical" for this term precisely because the eternal is without a true endpoint--we may very well come to a series of revelations about what we understand about the universe:

(i) That everything began for no reason whatsoever, and that every atom is nothing more than a cosmic accident in which there are no answers, no comforts, and no truths that can be ascertained. The very idea that existence "just is," for no apparent reason, without cause or obvious meaning, is something that terrifies me. I am not terrified of existence being meaningless; I'm terrified of the moment at which we come to understand that existence is nothing, because we can always create our own meaning in existence.

(ii) That if there is a God, he is spawned from the same meaningless nothing that permeates the cosmic ether. God must have a cause just as anything must have a cause. God is empty, a metaphor that, should he exist, tries to make meaning out of nothingness, and succeeds in only bringing us back to that nothing.

(iii) That contemplating existence in concrete, clear, and significant terms, outside of the realm of base answers (i.e. "God did it" or "It just is") means coming to terms with limitations, with voids, and with the eternal. It is knowing that we cannot know, even if we do know, as abstract and absurd as that may sound. To make that more clear: imagine knowing that existence began as a whiff of quantum fluctuations, and that we can finally say for certain that that was the theoretical endpoint. There still would be the unanswerable question, even in knowing the endpoint, and that question could never be answered, no matter our determination and ability. The eternal is both part of existence and what makes existence incommensurable.

No wonder we have spent our short time on this planet trying to understand these things through metaphor, invention, and belief in the supernatural. Comfort in thinking we know lets us ignore our own limitations.

But am I thinking in too negative of terms about this? Is questioning existence and explaining it away as incommensurable and fundamentally a downer too problematic for its own good? How would you think of existence without creating an unknowable endpoint? I don't know. Maybe existence is supposed to be unknowable, or maybe it's a question we're supposed to spend our cosmic lives trying to answer, only to get nowhere at all for a purpose we can't quite comprehend until it's too late.

I don't know.

The Near Future May Be Quiet(er)

My second semester as a graduate student at the University of Florida is coming to a close, and that means I have a lot of things to do: papers, papers, papers, and grading. If things get rather silent around here, it's because I'm busy as heck. Don't worry. I'm not leaving forever (school ends at the end of April), just don't expect massive amounts of posting over the next few weeks.

And don't forget to enter to win a copy of Rachel Ward's Num8ers here!

Help Make "Other Worlds" Magazine Happen: Vote!

I think this idea deserves its own post, because it's downright awesome. John Klima, the editor of the excellent Electric Velocipede, is trying to win a $25,000 Pepsi grant in order to produce Other Worlds Magazine, a science fiction magazine dedicated to representing underrepresented cultures!

Here are the details:

The "Other Worlds" project will work to bring in both an audience and a creative element from cultures that are not currently represented in traditional science fiction venues.

There have been a number of instances in the past few years where publications and award nominees have been comprised of white males, which has angered a lot of people. This publication will work as a showcase of all the talent that is out there and not getting in front of readers' eyes for a variety of reasons. Some of those reasons include publishers looking to work with existing prominent writers (who are traditionally white males and require less promotional investment) and the fact that new writers aren't sending stories to publishers whose table of contents do not represent their culture.

The money from this grant would be used to get the magazine started so that it could continue for many years to come.

So what are you waiting for? Vote!

Book Review Up: This World We Live In by Susan Beth Pfeffer

I've finished my review of the third novel in Pfeffer's young adult post-disaster series. A fantastic read yet again. I'm hopeful for more in the series now that the ending of this particularly book leaves the door wide open for a hell of a lot of narrative possibilities. We'll see. You can read my review here. If you haven't read her novels before, you really should. She's a fantastic writer.

CSN Bookcases: The Bookcase and the Review (Plus Video)

So, you all remember a long time ago when I mentioned that I was reviewing a bookcase for CSN Bookcases? Well, I've finally got my bookcase built and settled into its new place in my apartment. Now I'm going to talk about it and review it, but not without a little silliness on my part.

The bookcase I received for review was the ORE 4 Tier Book Shelf in Black (R597-4). It's a medium-sized metal shelf with an open back, breathing shelves, and open sides. The shelf came in a fabulously bubbled-wrapped cardboard box that could probably be used as a flotation device if the Great Flood ever hits my part of Florida. I feel very reassured about my safety now. See for yourself:
I have no doubt that it would float even with the materials for the shelf inside. I say this in jest because I find it humorous. The good news is that my shelf wouldn't have experienced the full brunt of the surely brutal treatment UPS would have given it.

Before I get into my review of the actual product, I have, for your viewing pleasure, a silly video I made of the assembly process. Watch at your own risk (and if you're the kind of person who stops watching movies at the credits, I've intentionally put things in the credits and after to entice you). Enjoy:

Now that that's over with, I'll get right to the review of the shelf and CSN Bookstores.

The Shelf
The ORE 4 Tier Book Shelf is remarkably simple to put together. It comes with all the tools you need (a little Allen wrench) and a single page for the instructions. The instructions aren't confusing either. They're very simple and straightforward. I only occasionally hit a snag when a screw wouldn't catch properly, but, for the most part, assembly was a cinch. This is probably its most practical feature.

Visually, this particular shelf has one thing going for it, and one thing going against it. First: while the screws are black like the rest of the shelf, they are slightly noticeable on the outside of the supports. I'm not sure how this could be improved for future versions, but if you are more interested in the kinds of shelves where the connections are not visible, this one might not be for you. Second: despite the noticeability of the screws, the shelf does look quite nice, especially with books on it (though I may be a tad biased here). I've actually raised the shelf off the floor with a set of plastic bed-frame raisers, which creates a bit of space underneath the shelf and provides significantly more support (this particular shelf is a tad top heavy, so you shouldn't put your biggest books on top if you can help it).

All in all, I'm much more satisfied with this shelf than I was with the annoying mylar contraption currently holding a large quantity of my books. For one, this shelf doesn't start bowing the second you put something on it, unlike mylar shelves. It also isn't easy to break. The bars that act as supports for the shelves can bend, but because they are made of metal, they don't do so easily. I've had a lot of books sitting on this thing for about a week and there is almost no bowing at all.

I'd recommend this particular shelf to anyone who is on a budget, but doesn't want to buy crap. I can't speak to the quality of other ORE products, but in terms of holding up to punishment, this particular ORE does so just fine. That, to me, is more important than how a shelf looks. Some of the mylar ones have a nice look to them (artificial though they may be), but they fall apart when put to the test of a few dozen books. The ORE 4 Tier would also be a good fit for college students (you know, for all those college books we're supposed to be reading).

CSN Bookcases
I've said a few things about these guys before. I'll unfortunately be repeating myself a bit here. So be it.

CSN is really a fantastic place if you're looking for furniture. They don't have everything, but they do have a very wide selection of shelves, tables, sofas, etc. And they have reasonable prices. Every time I look around for stuff I'd like to eventually put in my apartment I find things that are either the same price as on Amazon or Walmart, or cheaper (sometimes by as much as $30)(no, they aren't cheaper or the same price all the time, but no store ever is).

What makes them better than other websites, however, is that the price you see is the price you pay. Shipping is already factored in, so you already know from the start how much you're going to have to pay. This isn't true of Amazon or Walmart, who sometimes hide the shipping costs or won't tell you until you get to the checkout section. CSN doesn't do that.

I don't think much more needs to be said: good prices, great selection, and straight forward pricing. All good things in my book.

So, thanks CSN for offering me a free shelf. I expect I'll be doing business with you in the future (I have my eyes on a futon and a desk).

In case all of you reading this haven't seen the final product, here it is (with books!):

Pyr's 5th Anniversary Essay Contest

This popped up in my email this morning and I thought I should share:

Pyr Celebrates 5th Anniversary With Essay Contest
Grand Prize Winner Embarks on a 'Pyr and Dragons Adventure'

Amherst, NY -- To celebrate their 5th anniversary, Pyr, the science fiction and fantasy imprint of Prometheus Books, will sponsor a contest that incorporates things they hold dear: creative and powerful writing, a passion for reading genre fiction, and this year's special number, five.

For their Pyr and Dragons Adventure 5th Anniversary Contest, Pyr invites readers and fans to submit a short essay on the theme: Five reasons why science fiction and fantasy is important to you.

Eligibility requirements follow*. Any essay submissions that do not meet these guidelines will be disqualified:
Entrants must reside in the Continental United States and be at least 21 years of age.
Essays must be no longer than 1500 words.
Essays must be emailed to publicity@prometheusbooks.com as a Word document attachment, with the subject line "Pyr and Dragons Adventure Essay Submission."
The body of the submission email must clearly identify the entrant's full name, address (within the Continental United States), phone number and email address.
All submissions must be received between April 1, 2010 and June 1, 2010.
*For complete list of rules and regulations see http://www.pyrsf.com.

All eligible essays will be read and reviewed by publishing staff at Prometheus Books. Not all of these preliminary readers will be science fiction and fantasy fans, so outstanding essays will likely be those that pique their interest in the genre and make them want to read it too. The top twenty-five essays as determined by these industry professionals will be read by Pyr Editorial Director Lou Anders, who will select the top three.

The writer of the Third Place essay will win a commemorative Pyr 5th anniversary keepsake and five complimentary books of their choice from the Pyr catalog.

The writer of the Second Place essay will win a complete set of Pyr books as published by the contest end date of June 1, 2010 (one copy of each title, without duplicating those that appear in more than one binding) and a commemorative Pyr 5th anniversary keepsake.

The Grand Prize Winner will embark on a "Pyr and Dragons Adventure" that includes*:
A round-trip flight to Atlanta, GA during Dragon*Con, one of the largest multi-media, popular culture conventions focusing on science fiction and fantasy, gaming, comics, literature, art, music, and film in the US. Dragon*Con 2010 will be held September 3 - 6, 2010 (Labor Day weekend).
Two nights hotel accommodation in Atlanta, GA, Sept. 3 and 4, 2010.
Dragon*Con membership/entry badge.
Dinner with Special Pyr Author Guests and Pyr Editorial Director Lou Anders-details to be announced!
The grand prize winning essay will be posted at the Pyr-o-mania blog, and may be promoted by the publisher by other means, including but not limited to their other blogs, websites, e-newsletters and social networking pages.

Prometheus Books-a provocative, progressive and independent publisher of nonfiction since 1969-launched Pyr in March 2005 to complement its strength in popular science. The imprint rather quickly earned acclaim, awards, and loyal fans, including Pulitzer Prize-winning author Junot Díaz, who called Pyr "the imprint to beat in the science fiction and fantasy fields."

With an emphasis on quality, Pyr helped to introduce readers to some authors then little-known in the U.S., such as John Meaney, Ian McDonald, Joel Shepherd, Justina Robson, and Joe Abercrombie. Pyr has also published such established authors as Mike Resnick, Robert Silverberg and Michael Moorcock. Pyr Editorial Director Lou Anders has been nominated for the Hugo Award for Best Editor Long Form for three consecutive years. In 2009, Prometheus Books and Pyr launched a major e-book initiative, with titles available on Kindle and programs with many different e-reader platforms in the works. In 2010, in addition to celebrating its five-year anniversary, Pyr will publish its 100th title.

# # #

For a complete list of contest rules and regulations see http://www.pyrsf.com.

So, who's going to enter? I'm considering it.

Book Review Up: Ray in Reverse by Daniel Wallace

Another review up over at SQT's blog (not a book for children this time, though). The novel is by the same guy who wrote Big Fish, and it's fantastic. You can read the review here.

Book Review Up: Runt Farm (Clovis Escapes) by Amanda Lorenzo and Mark Evan Walker

Another book review from me, this time for a book for children (6-10). Not sure if it's of interest to any of you reading this, but if you've got kids, it might be worth looking at.

Have you read anything interesting as of late?

Video Found: Academy Award Winning Trailer (For a Movie That Doesn't Exist)

By far one of the funniest, most brilliant movie spoofs I have ever seen. Just...watch:

Love it!

Video Found: Orbit Books and the Making of a Book Cover

Thanks to NextRead for discovering this fast-paced look at how book covers are made today. Without further delay, here it is (after the fold):

I find it fascinating how so much is done with small, almost insignificant motion (lots of poking around in there). I'd love to see something like this done at normal speed.

Book Giveaway: Num8ers by Rachel Ward

Guess what? I have three copies of Num8ers by Rachel Ward to give away to three lucky readers! See the bottom of the post for details on how to enter and earn extra entries (it's easy, so don't fret). First things first, the book:

Ever since she was child, Jem has kept a secret: Whenever she meets someone new, no matter who, as soon as she looks into their eyes, a number pops into her head. That number is a date: the date they will die. Burdened with such awful awareness, Jem avoids relationships. Until she meets Spider, another outsider, and takes a chance. The two plan a trip to the city. But while waiting to ride the Eye ferris wheel, Jem is terrified to see that all the other tourists in line flash the same number. Today's number. Today's date. Terrorists are going to attack London . Jem’s world is about to explode!

If you'd like to learn more about the book and the author (and read the first chapter), check out its Scholastic webpage.

Here's the book trailer:

How to enter:
Leave a comment below. If you do not have your email attached to your Blogger account (or don't have a Blogger account), then please leave me a way to contact you in your comment. Contest is only open to U.S. residents (sorry folks, but I don't have control over that). Contest closes at 12 PM (EST) on March 22nd. Winners will be announced within a day or two.

Ways to get extra entries (+1 for each; provide a link or a note as appropriate):
--Tweet this giveaway
--Blog about this giveaway
--Subscribe (or already be subscribed) to my blog (links on the left sidebar at the top)
--Stumble this giveaway
--Become a fan of the WISB fan page (or already be a fan)

Good luck!

Question: If you were going to teach a class on fantasy literature, what would you cover?

That's a big question. I've always wanted to design an introductory course on science fiction or fantasy (doing both at the same time would be impossible). Selecting texts, however, is always a problem for any genre-specific course. Where do you start? Where do you end? Which movements do you represent or ignore? Do you risk bringing in texts that few people have heard of in the hope of trying to show the true breadth of the fantasy genre, or do you keep it simple and recognizable, at risk of being a little dull or cliche?

Now, I'm no expert on designing literature courses, primarily because I'm a fairly new educator. That said, if I were to devise an introductory sixteen week college course on fantasy literature, it would look something like the following:

Novels, etc. (in order by movement or period)
The Epic of Gilgamesh (pretty much the earliest fantasy text in existence) -- Between 20th and 16th Centuries B.C.E.
The Odyssey by Homer (if any text has been integral to the creation of the modern fantasy genre, it is this one) -- 8th Century B.C.E.
Phantastes by George MacDonald (1858) OR Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll (1865)(either of these texts would be a great introduction to the trend of secondary-world fantasy we are so familiar with today)
The Metamorphosis and Other Stories by Franz Kafka (a lot of classic must-reads for early weird and magical realist writing here) -- 1916-19
The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien (because you have to have it, even if you don't want to) -- 1954-55
Duncton Wood by William Horwood (by far one of the best animal fantasies ever written, but without all the swords and things) -- 1980
The Shadow of the Torturer by Gene Wolfe (a unique and powerful fantasy story worth reading and discussing) -- 1986
Ship of Magic by Robin Hobb (a great book for discussing social dynamics and issues of gender) -- 1999
The House of the Stag by Kage Baker (an excellent modern fantasy tale with a wonderful fairytale twist) -- 2008

Note: I would argue that The Epic of Gilgamesh, Beowulf, and The Odyssey are interchangeable. It really doesn't matter where you start, because you can talk about all three of these texts without putting all of them on the curriculum. It really depends on personal tastes. Personally, I think the ones I selected for the list are more accessible for a more general audience; Beowulf can be a very difficult text for some folks.

I would also recommend shoving The Rings of the Nibelung by Richard Wagner immediately prior to The Lord of the Rings if there is space and time for it; it represents one of the most obvious precursors to Tolkien's greatest works. You could even show the last act of the opera if you're so inclined.

Critical Texts:
The Fantastic by Tzvetan Todorov (offers a provocative theoretical approach to literature and the fantastic) -- 1973
Fantasy: The Literature of Subversion by Rosemary Jackson (another interesting theoretical text that would do some good for engaging with the novels above) -- 1981
Rhetorics of Fantasy by Farah Mendlesohn (possibly one of the best critical texts to be written in the last ten years) -- 2008

Note: Likely the texts in this section would be read in excerpts as supplements to the fiction reading. There are also essays I'd put in here that aren't directly related to fantasy as supplements to specific themes and texts.

I don't know if I'd show movies in such a course. There are a lot of films worth considering. For example, instead of reading The Lord of the Rings, you could having movie nights to watch the films (which I think are better than the books anyway). There are a lot of other interesting films to consider, such as: The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, Legend, or The Fountain.

Looking above, it's clear that I'm leaving out a lot of movements and genres--New Weird, Young Adult Fantasy, Urban Fantasy, and others. It's inevitable, though.

So, any thoughts?

Webstore Review: Deep Discount

I recently decided to purchase a DVD from a different company than Amazon in an attempt to save money. When it comes to stuff I want, but don't actually need, saving a little bit of money makes the purchase a little more sensible for me. So, I headed over to Google and discovered Deep Discount. Upon entry, I discovered that it would cost me roughly $6 more to purchase Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog on DVD from Amazon than it would cost me to get the same thing from Deep Discount--we'll get to the why in a minute. After a little research on the Better Business Bureau and Google, I decided to give Deep Discount a shot. All I would lose if things went south was a little bit of money (about $7.50).

Now, the best thing about Deep Discount is that its prices are, generally speaking, cheap, and include shipping into the cost. They carry many of the same items as Amazon (no used items that I can see, though) and generally have either equal or lower prices than the online retail giant (unless there is a sale). They carry DVDs, CDs, books, and a number of other items, much like Amazon, and the navigation is easy to follow and clean.

They also take great care of their items when shipping them. My DVD came in a protective plastic object that, while weird looking and certainly unexpected (I thought I was getting medical waste rather than fun stuff), did prevent the DVD from being banged up and jostled around. I've had a few DVDs get popped out of the little holder thing through Amazon. As a customer, I was quite happy.

I was going to say that there were a few problems with Deep Discount (possibly slow shipping, which have been complaints lodged against it online), but looking back, I don't think I had many problems at all. There was a weird moment where I was sent to some sort of poll or sponsor thing, but even that proved to be meaningless in the long run. So, while the shipping wasn't quite as fast as Amazon (in my experience), though not unreasonable (about 11 days), my experience overall was satisfactory. That's good in my book.

I'd recommend giving Deep Discount a shot if you're interested in saving a few bucks.

P.S.: Out of curiosity, has anyone reading this ever used Deep Discount before? What was your experience with them like?

Pentagon Shootings: A Quick Thought On "Crazy"

(If you don't know what is going on, here's the quick version: John Patrick Bedell showed up at the Pentagon with guns and opened fire on security at the security checkpoint prior to entry. Recent news indicates that he held particularly negative views of the U.S. government, to the point of questioning whether the Government was involved in 9/11. That's the story reduced even more so than the media is reducing it. The aforementioned most recent news is what I'd like to discuss briefly here.)

Here's my problem with the whole Pentagon ordeal:
As much as it is desirable to reduce every domestic terrorist and political dissenter (violent or otherwise) in this country to being "quacks" or "downright insane," doing so is not only adding legitimacy to a belief system desperately craving it, but also doing the opposite of what any civilized country should be doing. Bedell is one of a minority of people who believe something is true based on a handful of legitimate inaccuracies. It makes little sense to reduce the movement to insanity without doing the necessary empirical work to ascertain whether there is a modicum of truth to what they worry about day in and day out. His writing speaks for itself, actually:

This organization, like so many murderous governments throughout history, would see the sacrifice of thousands of its citizens, in an event such as the September 11 attacks, as a small cost in order to perpetuate its barbaric control

The question to be asked is: What if he's right? His dismissal as domestic lune is an attempt to circumvent the hard work needed to be done. The problem with America, to me, is that it is so unwilling to consider that the "American Dream" is a facade; we can't fathom it precisely because the idea of imagining this country (and our reality) as imperfect, perhaps even violently so, is not in the country's best interest (and certainly not in the best interest of anyone who might be responsible for the manipulations, lies, and violence that do exist (without any doubt)). Fear has become a crutch, in a way. We're conditioned to avoid that which is imparted on us as fearful. Thus, we avoid things like Marxism and Socialism and any ideas expressed therein precisely because of the fear conditioning associated with those things (never mind that we're practically a socialist nation already, what with all our much-loved social programs funded entirely by tax dollars roaming around out there).

In this case, we're being conditioned to fear an unfavorable idea, precisely because of its new association with violence and anger. The conditioning may not be obvious (and it may even be fairly light), but instead of trying to understand why Bedell did what he did, we're shoving him off as the lune. His unfavorable ideas are not worth considering, even if he shares them with many others who are not violent. Why are we so afraid to find the truth? Likewise, why do we fear thinking for ourselves? Acceptance of something should come after careful research. Otherwise, we're part and parcel of a process of elimination by dogma--the unfavorable ideas are dismissed, while the ideas that sit in line with our core beliefs are applauded for their audacity to exist. Something is wrong here (in society and in the Pentagon shootings).

Am I the only one that is bothered by the immediate assignation of a negative descriptor (not associated with action) to a man who has committed horrible crimes (for a good cause, in his assessment)? I want your opinions on this in the comments section.

To clarify: I am not suggesting that Mr. Bedell's actions are somehow justified, but it goes without saying that instead of reducing dissenters and violent people like Bedell as nuts simply because they believe in conspiracy theories, we should be trying to understand why they believe what they do and either address its empirical reality in a positive or negative light as necessary (i.e. if a legitimate concern is given, maybe we should address it culturally or governmentally; right now it seems like we're simply affirming what Bedell has said about the government in reducing him to the lune).

Video Found: The Poetry of Reality (Symphony of Science)

I'm seriously reconsidering my career choice right now. Absolutely beautiful. Enjoy:

Question For Readers: Audio Rants -- Yay or Nay?

I was thinking about this earlier today in response to a book I received in the mail (a good response), and I want to test the waters by asking all of you how interested you would be in the following venture:

The occasional rant in audio form, followed by a question. I would say that these would be focused to literature (specifically, science fiction and fantasy), but there may be topics that come up that deserve rant treatment. The runtime would be well under 10 minutes (most likely under five). Think of them as a podcast, but super short and without much in terms of catchy jingles and the like (not that there's something wrong with catchy jingles).

Thoughs? Opinions?