Polarized Politics and How Republicans Can Earn My Vote

If the title didn't give it away, I'm stepping into politics again.  Paying attention to the news makes one intimately aware of just how polarized the political process in the United States has become; this isn't anything new, but it is something that I think we should be highlighting more and more when we try to talk about politics.  We're victims to it--the political process.  Even when we attempt (by "we" I mean a good portion of "everyone") to engage in "fair" politics, we inevitably are sucked into polarized rhetoric or thought processes:  namely, the "us vs. them" mentality that so defines American politics today.

But while I say the above with all seriousness, I do think there is a fundamental problem with viewing polarized politics as inherently negative.  The problem in the U.S. isn't necessarily that there is an unfair level of polarization which creates its two primary parties, but that the view of the political element here has been one that limits itself only to the "us vs. them" and not to the real question that needs to be asked:  if we must choose a side, which side is the one offering a solution?

Regardless of what we might think about the solutions proposed by Democrats, the fact of the

The Problem With "Great" Science Fiction

Twitter is abuzz today with an io9 article called "What are the ingredients for great science fiction?"  I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by this, since many of us in the SF community are constantly amused, obsessed, and/or perplexed by the attempt to define the "great" in the title.  On some level, it's probably good for us to be always conscious of the evaluative quality of what we read; after all, what we consider to be wondrous is inevitably what we will try to peddle to others, because, deep down, we want them to experience the same feeling, however unexplainable, that we did when reading a "great" book.

On another level, however, I think we often forget that the "great" in the title is both relative and problematic.  How do we define what is and is not a "great" SF book?  When it comes to literature--or any creative project, for that matter--there are no hard-set definitions; there can't be precisely because to provide perfect, exception-less definitions is to imply that literature cannot change, that it is hopelessly standardized into a set group of features and objects.  Science fiction can never be that.  We've had the arguments over what "is" and "is not" science fiction before, here

Haul of Books 2010: Stuff For Me v.24 (Derrida Edition)

I have a few more lovely books for school that I want to let you all know about, although it occurs to me that these may be of even less interest to most of you than they are to me, since they're not even genre-based.  But  who am I to say what you're all interested in, right?

This edition rounds up almost all of the remaining books for my schoolwork.  There are still a handful of lingering books here or there, which I'll throw up here in a future edition, but I won't know what those are for a few more weeks (my science fiction/utopia course has four weeks of "you'll all decide what we're reading").

Here's the image:

A Brief Linking to the Manifesto of No-Consequence

I'm contemplating whether I want to say something more about this fellow's counter-boycott against those who have condemned Elizabeth Moon over her recent comments on Islam (you can read what I've had to say about consumer activism in relation to literature here).  The level of hypocrisy, intellectual vacuity (the argument of no-consequence, specifically), and repetition of fallacious arguments is alarming, particularly considering that I've agreed with the author of the post in the past on issues related to what he calls the "fail community."  The fact that he can't separate the truly awful from the misunderstood or mistaken is mind boggling to me.

So, I'm going to throw the link to all of you for now.  Read the comments if you dare.  Maybe I'll talk about it.  There's certainly plenty to be said about the rhetoric being forced there, but I don't know if I have the stomach for it right now.  Elizabeth Moon's misguided and incredibly problematic rant is enough to swallow from the SF community at the moment.

What do you think?

Future Plans: A List

I've been thinking about things I'd like to do on this blog over the next few months (or year) and decided to write up a list for your perusal.  Some of these things are pretty much set in stone, and others are flexible.  If you have suggestions for things you'd like to see on this blog, please let me know.  I'm always open to suggestions, whether of the "we want more of that" or the "you haven't done this" variety.

Update:  I added some things to the list which I had previously forgotten.

Here's the list:

The Skiffy and Fanty Show #18 is Live!

We're back, again! Surprised? You shouldn't be, because it's a weekly show, after all. This week we bring back Torture Cinema for a second edition and talk about one of the most awful science fiction films ever made. There's also a little talk about new genre-movies hitting your local theater.

Prepare yourself. Bad things are about to happen to your brain...

You can find episode eighteen here. I hope you enjoy the episode. It's full of laughs!

The First Amendment: The Separation of Author and Work

There has been a lot of talk recently over the problem of the separation of an author from his or her work, and this has largely been so because of some rather alarming words written by Elizabeth Moon on Muslims and citizenship (in the U.S.).  Bloggers, such as Gav over at NextRead, among others, have wondered whether we should separate the author from the work, or whether what an author writes should always be read within the context of what they think on a personal level (which, oddly enough, is discovered through what they write).  My only problem with this discussion is that it avoids dealing with the other side of the divide; namely, the economic one and its relation to politics.  But we'll get to that second part in a minute.

In a lot of cases, it is easy to separate the author from the work, particularly when the author is channeling a particular kind of idea or character.  If an author is pro-gay rights, but writes a book