The Skiffy and Fanty Show #25 is Live!

Another episode is up, folks!  If you like the show, let us know.  Episode 25 is all about the crazy things happening in the world (some of them, anyway).  So tune in and enjoy.

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

I told you I'd have another poll soon enough.  Since this poll is in connection with the poll we will be running tomorrow on the website for The Skiffy and Fanty Show, your answers will actually be both informative and helpful.  And all you have to do is click your mouse a couple of times (or type a short comment).

The poll question is:  what is a good length for a weekly podcast?

You can find the poll on the left sidebar.  There are five options:  20 min., 30 min., 45 min., 1 hr., and other.  If you select other, we'd appreciate it if you'd leave a comment somewhere letting us know the length you'd suggest.

So vote away!

The Production of Canon: A Pointless Argument?

An amusing discussion took place last week in one of my classes (the SF/utopia one).  We were talking about Tom Moylan's Scrapes of Untainted Sky and Luckhurst's Science Fiction and how Luckhurst's one-page claim about the awful practice of canon production in key theoretical texts (Suvin's Metamorphoses of Science Fiction, Carl Freedman's Critical Theory and Science Fiction, and Moylan's book) sets itself up as a contradiction.  For Luckhurst (and this is based on reading one page from his book), the aforementioned authors are participating in political games:  Suvin in a game of the literary elite; Freedman in an equally problematic project; and Moylan in utopian readings of SF.  He views these authors as having agendas that "reflect back the 'reader-critic's cherished political dispositions'" (9) and argues that SF studies needs to be open to examinations and discussions of Pulp Era and Golden Age SF.  Since even Luckhurst is participating in canon production--even though he is attempting to open up the critical framework of SF studies to more texts than Suvin and others have been willing to address--the contradiction should be readily apparent.

Luckhurst's solution is a good one (in my opinion).  Since I've already written about the inside vs. the outside in SF criticism, it seems prudent to point out that political agendas play a crucial role in forming theoretical and critical texts.  It also seems prudent to suggest that one can't escape from political readings.  But can one escape from the project of canon production?

That is the question that I am concerned with here (and one that I was concerned with during

Science Fiction Criticism: Inside vs. Outside

One of my colleagues recently asked me what I thought about the academic texts on science fiction we had been reading over the semester.  Specifically, she was curious about my opinion on the inside and the outside, and who, more or less, has the "right" to comment upon the genre.  Before I get into that, I need to explain what I mean by the inside and the outside.

There are two kinds of science fiction critics (or maybe more than two, but I'm only dealing with two for this post):  the critic who grew up in the "community" and transitioned into academia (the inside) and the non-fan who, by some twist of fate, perhaps, came to the genre having never had much interest in it before (the outside). The latter group might be comprised of fans, or it might not, but the first group most definitely is a fan-based critical circle, since the impetus for shifting to academia as a "science fiction critic" has everything to do with their experience with the genre.

In principle, I have no problem with the outside.  They are just as capable of talking about the

The Skiffy and Fanty Show #24 is Live!

And we're talking about bad genre movies again.  This time we take on the 2004 horror flick, Creep.  You can check out the episode here (stream and download).

Oh, and our question of the week is:  what is your favorite zombie movie and why?  So don't forget to leave your answer over at our podcast site.

Until next week!

Poll Results: Do you stop reading authors whose political beliefs you vehemently disagree with?

Another poll down, and the results are rather interesting:

• 18.75% of you said "yes."
• 43.75% of you said "sometimes."
• 37.5% of you said "no."

What does this tell me?  That I need to ask another question.  If most of you continue reading authors whose politics you disagree with (given that the largest group--the "sometimes" group--still reads some of the authors they disagree with), then the big question is related to how you continue reading them.  That'll be in the new poll.

As to my thoughts on the question (in case you didn't see my response in the comments section many days ago): I have stopped reading a number of authors whose work I can no longer separate from their politics.  In almost all cases where I vehemently disagree with an author, I've simply stopped reading.  To be fair, though, there aren't that many authors who ended up in the "no read" pile.  Most authors I can't stand personally still end up on my reading list, but I have found better ways to avoid giving them my support politically (such as not buying their work).

But I'm going to save that for the next poll (coming soon).

The eBook-haters Meme (SF Signal)

SF Signal recently posted a little meme about eBooks, and I've obviously decided to drag it over here for your entertainment.  Obviously, I'm not much of an eBook hater anymore, since I own a Barnes & Noble Nook, but there are still things I don't like about eBooks, thus giving me some right to actually talk about them here.  Feel free to keep it going by posting it to your blog, leaving a comment on the SF Signal thread, or leaving a comment here.

1. Have you ever tried reading an eBook? If so, on what device?
   Yes, I have.  I've tried reading eBooks on my computer and on a Barnes & Noble Nook.
   
2. What's your single main reason for not reading eBooks?
   I like physical books more than digital ones.  That's a fairly simple reason that doesn't need more of an explanation, I suppose.
   
3. Are there any other reasons you don't usually read eBooks?
   Plenty.  They usually cost more than I'm willing to pay ($6 is my cut-off price, and that's pushing it for me).  They're often formatted poorly, and DRM makes it hard for me to edit the file so it is correct (I only read full justified text, because ragged margins make me feel like I'm reading a paper I need to grade).  That pretty much sums up my apprehension.
   
4. What would it take to get you to read eBooks?
   I'm going to read this question to say "read more eBooks," since I already read some eBooks.  To get me to read more, they would have to be priced better, formatted better, and generally more appealing than regular books.  I would also need software that makes highlighting and making notes easier, which is not something I can do in a Nook.  Right now, I use the Nook for fun reading only.  Lastly, I would need a better search engine for finding books that are released by actual publishers, since I am not willing to spend even $0.99 on a book by a self-publisher (sorry, folks, but I can't do it).
   
5. What do you think is a fair price for an eBook?
   I'm going to answer this by saying what I think is fair in general, rather than to me personally.  I don't think any eBook should be over $7.99 when the hardcover is the only copy out, and it should get progressively cheaper as newer formats are released (sort of like the agency model, I suppose).  So, the prices would drop to $5.99 alongside trade paperback, and $3.99 alongside mass market.  Again, I'm not willing to pay over $6, but I'm even less likely to pay $6 for an eBook that has a mass market edition.  Why?  Because I'd rather run to the store and get the real book for a little extra.  Real books smell nice and fell good on your fingers.

There you go.  To be fair, I really like my Nook, and I do like reading books on there.  I'm less against eBooks than I am against the crappy eBook practices by publishers.  I understand them, but it's a big leap to go from "understanding" to "I'm on your side."

So, what about you?