A Quick Note: The Silence and Caribbean Science Fiction

Readers of the blog will have noticed my silence for the last week and a half (with the exception of a handful of posts).  This is entirely intentional, and I think you all deserve an explanation.

The reason:  I am working on my MA Thesis at this very moment (draft #1), which is due at 11:59 (and 59s) PM on the 31st (less than two days now).  Needless to say, it has been excruciatingly difficult.  I do expect to return on the 1st.  No joke.  I have posts.  I will be posting.  That's two more days.  You can handle that, right?

For those curious about the about-ness of this paper, you'll be pleased to know that I'm going to bore you with my rough abstract for the Eaton Conference, which I will be presenting at in February of next year:

Merry Christmas Everyone!

Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night (and morning/day)!

May your holidays be happy and full of tasty food and other nice things.

The Skiffy and Fanty Show #29 is Live (Christmas Torture Cinema: Santa Claus Conquers the Martians)!

Our final episode of the year is very special.  It's a Christmas edition of our Torture Cinema feature!  This week we're reviewing Santa Claus Conquers the Martians, a movie that I think is simply one of the worst films ever made.  Jen, obviously, disagrees with me.  Tune in to hear what we have to say about the film.

Our question of the week is as follows:

What is your favorite holiday movie?

Oh, and our intro music is different this time around.  Special, even.  If you know the lyrics, sing along!

Thanks for listening.  The show will be back next year.  Version 2.0!

Politics: A Critique Deconstructed (Part Three)

(Part One and Part Two)

The third and final part of my long-winded political nonsense is here.  You can read the post that I am responding to here.

Now for part three:


VIII.  Creationism
No matter what you call it, it's not a scientific theory.  It's religion.  Creationism/intelligent design has never become a scientific theory, since nothing, short of theoretical/experimental physics, becomes a theory in science without following the scientific method (and I have a huge problem with theoretical physics using the term "theory" for every crackpot hypothesis that proposes an answer to life, the universe, and everything).  This means that evolution has gone from a hypothesis (a guess or a series of guesses based on evidence) to a theory (an established scientific fact) by means of providing evidence (mountains of it) and proving its case time and time again

5 Traits of Highly Successful Sci Fi Authors (Guest Post by Edward Stern)

Readers enjoy science fiction because of the varied worlds of which the genre consists. Sci-fi can mean almost anything. Imagination is endless, and the more imaginative an author is, oftentimes the more readers cherish their work.

However, there are definitely some common strands in the genre as a whole, and certainly some commonalities amongst its most successful authors. Highly successful science fiction authors like Ray Bradbury or Philip K. Dick all share traits in their works that make them so well received. When writing your own pieces, incorporate these 5 traits of highly successful sci-fi authors to make a particularly marketable piece, no matter where your ideas take you:

Christmas Gifts For 2010: Favorite SF/F Films/Shows for 2010 (and Some Extras)

2010 has actually been a fairly decent year for science fiction and fantasy film.  True, there have been some stinkers (like The Last Airbender, Caprica, Clash of the Titans, Dollhouse, and Prince of Persia), but the whole year hasn't been a bust.  A number of great movies have hit the theaters (and DVD) and there's still hope for the field in the years to come.

With that in mind, I give you my Christmas SF/F film selections for 2010 (with a non-SF title and some just-out-on-DVD titles tossed in for good measure; in no particular order)(after the fold):

The Skiffy and Fanty Show #28b (An Interview w/ Celine Kiernan) and Charity Note

First things first:  The author of Publetariat is having an awful year financially, medically, and personally; if you can spare a couple bucks over the holidays, you'd be doing someone a great deal of good.  You can read about what has happened and donate here.

Episode 28b contains the last half of the interview with Celine Kiernan, author of The Poison Throne, and a new question of the week:

Did you like the first season of The Walking Dead?

Feel free to check out the page for the episode to listen to the show and leave your response to the question of the week.

Thanks for listening!

P.S.:  You can listen to the first half of the interview here.

Politics: A Critique Deconstructed (Part Two)

(See Part One here.)

Part Two

IV. Global Warming Ain't Real

The title of this section basically sums up Wrighton's argument.  Of course, he has no citations, so I have no idea where he is hearing about all the lies.  I suspect FOX News, but that's because that network is sort of like McCain:  really happy to talk about what supports his opinion, but suddenly screaming "BIAS" when something doesn't.

Finish him!

As for global warming evidence:  a handful of bumps doesn't prove something wrong.  Facts speak for themselves.  Well, unless you think National Geographic and NASA are making it all up.  Just like they did with the Moon Landing, right?

V.  Racism Against the Whites

Christmas Gifts For 2010: Favorite SF/F Reads in 2010

I've already done a podcasting kit for authors and like-minded individuals, but no discussion of Christmas gifts in the SF/F world should leave out books and magazines.  So, below are my favorite reads for 2010 (so far, anyway, what with there being another 15 days left).

Here goes:

Christmas Gifts For 2010: A Podcasting Kit For Authors/Editors/etc.

Christmas is almost here and one thing every SF/F author needs is the the ability to do interviews and online discussions without sounding like they've been living in a broken WW2 submarine in the Mariana Trench.  Well, having spent a good portion of the year doing The Skiffy and Fanty Show, I have a good idea what would make the perfect podcasting gift for any author, editor, or blogger.  And the best thing about the Podcasting Kit below is that it can all be used for a variety of things other than podcasting.

So, without further delay, here is my podcasting kit for authors and other creative individuals:

Politics: A Critique Deconstructed (Part One)

I've been critiqued!  On politics, if the title of this post didn't make that obvious.  Stephen Wrighton of KrashPad has written in response to my post in September on what it would take for Republicans to earn my vote, and according to Law One of the Internet, I am going to respond (Law One, if you didn't know, is as follows:  "If someone is wrong on the Internet, you must correct them").  I'm going to make this a series of three posts, though, since what I've written is quite extensive and, thus, too damn large for one single post.

Part One

The first thing to do is throw out the stuff that I don't think needs to be addressed at length.  There are certainly things to be said about how Wrighton shortens my list--namely, that he unfairly reduces my list to talking points, which is not what I initially offered--but what I want to focus on are the real meat and potatoes of his post, which I will take down methodically below.

I.  Political Slurs
I am always amused by the way political discussions are often reduced to single terms as if the terms themselves represent a negative.  In the case of Wrighton, he refers to my thoughts as being "leftist" and "liberal," both of which have been used by politicians (specifically those opposed to the imaginary picture of "leftists" and "liberals" they have in their heads) to destroy the credibility of the "enemy."  The problem?  Doing so is a clear attempt to avoid dealing with what is actually being said.  Wrighton, of course, does try to address my points, but by starting out with references to political negatives, he immediately colors what follows in his post.

What isn't asked when someone says "liberal" or "leftist" is whether what is being identified by those terms is actually right.  There are no absolutes in politics.  People from any of the "sides" are not infallible, nor are they wrong all the time.  Being "liberal" doesn't mean one is necessarily wrong.  Nor is being "conservative."  But we'll get into that a bit another day, since there is much more to say.

II.  The Economy
Wrighton responds to my call for a change in Republican economic policies (which you can read at the link above) by saying the following:

First, the economic policy. It's a great thing, to believe that the government can be some grand equalizer, sharing out wealth and handing out bags of gold and food to everyone who stops by. But, that's an unsustainable form of growth. Government can not create wealth. It cannot create jobs, and it cannot do anything but take money from those who do create wealth and jobs, and hand it out to others. Typically and traditionally, we call those who take things they have not earned thieves, and those who wait with open hands for handouts beggars, yet when Congress is involved, we call them the Taxman and Welfare Recipients. But, in a sense, he is right, in that we do not need an economic policy revolving around extending Bush-era tax cuts. After all, those did not go nearly far enough. Instead, we need to cut taxes even more, and do away with un-Constitutional programs and departments. Taxes and Government spending only removes capital resources from out economy.

There are a lot of fairly obvious untruths here:

1. The government can and does create jobs.  Millions of them, actually (that link is for State and local governments).  We can argue about whether these are "good" jobs, but the fact remains that most of these jobs would not exist without the government (note also that most of the jobs created are for the public good).
2. The government can and does create wealth.  World War Two.  Look it up.  One of the largest federal spending periods in history (because of the war) and the result from 1940 to 1948?  An increase in personal income, massive job creation, and so forth.  And we seemed to have come out of that quite well considering...
3. There seems to be an assumption here that people who benefit from tax dollars, such as unemployed people, poor people, and so on, are beggars.  Or perhaps Wrighton is just talking about the massive debt owned by the fed.  Either way, the first is a lie and the second is oversimplified.  People who ask for help from the government are just asking for what they paid their taxes for (unemployment benefits and so on are paid for in our taxes dollars).  There's a lot more to say about this point, but that would take all week.  (To be fair, some people don't pay taxes, and some people do get more back than they put in--though the government makes interest on the money paid in--but anyone who is legally employed pays into the unemployment pool.)
4. Wrighton assumes that cutting taxes more than they are already will actually do something beneficial for the economy.  The interesting thing?  History proves otherwise.  Trickle-down economics has never worked the way people wish it did.  If companies were willing to take the massive profits they pull in from what they sell to everyone else and trickle that down to, well, everyone else, then America would not have as much unemployment as it did pre-Recession.  The reality?  The tax cuts and Bush's various other policies have actually drastically increased the gap between the rich and the poor.  Median income has remained the same for those in the bottom 40%, while the top 10% have actually acquired more wealth than they ever had before (close to 70% of all wealth in the country).  Where is the trickling happening?

There are also a few differences to mention here.  The first is that the government is not like a thief.  A thief uses the things s/he steals for personal gain, while the government uses the money they acquire from taxes in order to serve the public good.  That includes maintaining forces to protect the nation from outside attacks, and to protect ordinary citizens from lawbreakers.  While the government doesn't always get its spending right, the main objective of the government's spending, with reasonable exception, is to serve the public good.

Now, I don't want to make it seem like I'm suggesting Obama's policies are the best for the country.  There very well might be a better idea out there, but trickle-down economics isn't the better idea for the majority of Americans.  In fact, that's pretty much the worst idea for anyone who isn't in the top 10%.

III.  The Gays (*insert ooglies sound here*)

As someone who has a personal connection to the Gay Rights Movement and an academic interest in it, I am always amused by falsehoods and discriminatory arguments made against homosexuals.  I don't know Wrighton personally, but based on the language found in the following quote, it's hard to see him as one who isn't using the same discriminatory rhetoric found in anti-LGBT groups across the country:

There should be no difference, from the Government's point of view, between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Yet, that does not mean that two men (or two women) need to be married. There is strong scientific evidence that a two-parent (male/female) nuclear family is the best form to raise children. That is the purpose for which society supports the concept of marriage, and thus two people of the same sex don't need to be in that type of recognized union. Much the same way that the government does not need to recognize when someone marries their dog.

Well, nothing like having people you care about compared to dogs, right?  Oh, I imagine that wasn't what Wrighton intended, but the fact that this particular point ends on a discussion of marrying one's dog is hard to avoid.  Why bestiality is related to homosexual relationships is beyond me.  This would be like comparing love of one's car to love of one's child, with the exception that neither of these leads to illegal activities (usually, anyway).

But where to start?  First, whether someone "needs" to get married is completely irrelevant.  Nobody "needs" to get married.  Nobody "needs" to own a Toyota either.  In fact, there are very few things that people actually "need" (food, water, and shelter pretty much sums it up).  It's not about needs, but about what is right.  The fact of the matter is that marriage is being treated as a religious institution, which isn't a problem unless there are legal benefits for such an institution (which there are).  But let's drop that for now.  Instead, let's talk about the fact that the system in which marriage is placed isn't even consistent.  For example, why is it that heterosexual atheists are allowed to get a marriage license and participate in the union (benefits and all), while homosexuals cannot?  Atheists are not religious, and, thus, are not bound by "religious law."  The law has no qualms granting marriages to atheists, since the law does contain a secular component to marriages (one does not have to be married in a church or by a priest to actually be married).  Homosexuals, as such, should be equally as capable of participating in the legal form of marriage based on the secular nature of the system (even if you ignore the 1st Amendment).

But they are denied on all grounds for religious reasons, which would make marriage--if we go back to the religious thing for a second--a religious institution, and not a legal one.  In this case, there is an either/or.  Marriage either is a secular institution that allows for certain people to participate in religious terms, or it is a religious institution only.  If we're talking about the former, then very few groups can, legally, be excluded from marriage; if we're talking about the latter, however, then all legal benefits for marriage must be removed, since it violates the secularity of the government.  (Oh, and there are good reasons for this secularity.  But we'll get into that later.)

As for the other points:

1. Very few credible studies suggest that heterosexual couples are better for kids than homosexual couples, and when such studies arise, they suggest that the problem isn't that they are raised differently, but that discrimination from outside groups has significant influence on the psychological well-being of the children.  Again, we've gone from dealing with the problem to displacing that onto something else.  Regardless, the evidence seems to be in favor of homosexuals.  In fact, a number of recent and older studies prove that homosexuals can be just as good, if not better parents that heterosexuals (which is sad news for me, being hetero).  Sadly, most statements and research that argues against homosexual parenting are from religious institutions or groups with clear political agendas.  When the APA considers homosexual parenting pretty much a-ok, you've pretty much lost the battle.
2. It's about loving families, not patriarchally preserved ones.

That should do it for part one.  Part two will be up a couple days.

Video Found: Elysium Teaser (Neill Blomkamp)

Rumor has it that the following video is part of the viral marketing campaign for Neill Blomkamp's upcoming
Elysium (a science fiction film).  This would be the second teaser to appear in video form in the last two months (unless I've missed anything).  I've included both videos in this post.

First, the videos (after the fold):

The Skiffy and Fanty Show #28a (An Interview w/ Celine Kiernan)

We're hitting it hard with the interviews these days. This week, Celine Kiernan, author of The Poison Throne, The Crowded Shadows, and The Rebel Prince, joins us for a discussion about her books, fantasy, her work in the film animation world, and the publishing industry.

Check it out.  Feel free to leave a comment letting us know what you think.

Poll Results: What is a good length for a weekly podcast?

Well, you responded to our call for opinions, and the results are as follows:

• 67% said that 20 minutes was a good length.
• 16.5% said that 30 minutes was a good length.
• 0% said that 45 minutes was a good length.
• 16.5% said "other."

We've pretty much decided that 20-30 minutes is the cap for most on a weekly so.  As such, all future episodes for The Skiffy and Fanty Show (with the exception of today's episode) will be within that range.  That's our goal, anyway.

Thanks for voting!  A new poll will be up later today.

Brief Thoughts on Space Battleship Yamato

The live-action adaptation of Space Battleship Yamato hit theaters in Japan on Dec. 1st, and if the video below is any indication, the film is all kinds of awesome.  Hopefully U.S. theaters will be smart and bring this one to us before the end of January, but I highly doubt that will happen.

Before I talk about my more sophisticated thoughts about SBY, I think you all should watch the trailer and the brief clip from the film:

Science Fiction and Reptiles: A Very Strange Email, Updates, and a Question

(There are two sections for this post.  The first is about SF and reptiles and the second is on updates about what I'm up to and a question that I'd appreciate answers for.)

I. Science Fiction and Reptiles
I'm hazarding a guess that the following email is a joke, since the author's name is Warren Peece (i.e. War and Peace).  The content, however, is interesting enough to approach.

Here's the email:

Is it my imagination or are there a lot of lizard stories out there?
I just read a really creepy and sexy piece, but insightful and funny,
where the protagonist goes from starting out as comet and ends up
reptilian!
Pretty terrific - it's called "Modern Malice"
Just curoius,
Warren

I've never heard of the story referenced in the email, but there have been a few lizard-related

A Random Amusing Thing Involving Lizards

Lizard shadow puppets.  (After the fold.)

The Skiffy and Fanty Show #27 is Live! (An Interview w/ Alden Bell)

Our latest episode is an interview with Alden Bell, author of The Reapers Are the Angels (a literary zombie novel that you really should check out).

You can stream the episode or download it here.

P.S.: There's also a blooper reel on the same page, in case you want to hear what we sound like when we screw up.

What Genre Books Are You Looking Forward To?

The title pretty much says it all.  I want to know which science fiction, fantasy, horror, crime, mystery, etc. books you're looking forward to, whether coming this month, the first quarter of 2011, or at any point in the next year.

Let me know in the comments.  Or, if you like, you can respond to the tweet I left on Twitter.

Alan Moore, Science Fiction, and America (Part One: A Little History)

Alan Moore is perhaps best known for his graphic novel work--Watchmen, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and V For Vendetta, too name a few.  His most recent venture, Dodgem Logic, is an underground magazine which seems to be about as quirky as they come (I might get myself an issue for the hell of it over Christmas break).  Issue #4 is of particular interest to fans of science fiction.  In it, Moore has an article about science fiction in America that makes a number of interesting points about why science fiction seems to be a particularly prevalent mode of literary discourse in American literature.  It's not a secret that the U.S. has been one of the top producers of science fiction (broadly defined), though the United Kingdom was certainly one of the first to build up a steady SF readership (according to my understanding of SF history).  Moore, however, argues that America is unique largely because of how it attempts to represent itself to other nations.  I'll talk about that in my next post, since it relates directly to the intimate connection that Moore seems to set up between America and its propensity for science fiction stories.  For now, though, it is necessary to disentangle a few problems with Moore's initial logic, since it sets the foundation for how Moore thinks about America and science fiction.

Moore beings his discussion with this:

Brandon Sanderson: New Fantasy Titles Coming Soon!

For those of you who are fans of Brandon Sanderson, he's got two more books in the pipeline (according to Tor)!  (And, yes, I realize I'm not the only one throwing this information out there).

Here's the press release:

Movie Review: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part One

It's finally here: the first part of the official end of the Harry Potter series. The books have long since passed, but fans that need their Harry Potter fix still have two movies left with which to indulge themselves. And the fans seem to know it if box office numbers have anything to say on the matter. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (part one) pulled in $125 million in the U.S. on its first weekend alone, and over $200 million extra internationally, smashing the franchise record of $102 million domestically for Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. That number is nothing to scoff at either, especially considering the controversy over the splitting of the final book into two films. Fans of the books often wondered how they were going to pull off The Deathly Hallows back when we all thought there was only going to be one movie; the book, after all, is 784 pages long, and as much as the filmmakers have cut from previous books, doing so for The Deathly Hallows is incredibly tricky considering the number of plotlines needed to fulfill the agenda set up in The Half-blood Prince.

For that reason alone, The Deathly Hallows (part one) is perhaps the closest an HP film has come to the original source material since the original two films (directed by Chris Columbus). Couple with the two movie split, this is a huge gamble. If you're going to split a movie in half, you have to justify that by creating a complete narrative that avoids leaving the audience with a cliffhanger, but is also open enough to warrant seeing the final installment. The Deathly Hallows (part one) comes close to meeting this task, though knowing whether the film is truly effective depends on what happens in the final half of the sequence. Still, what The Deathly Hallows (part one) offers