Debate Fares Better Than Expected

Why talk about the debate here? Much of character is about subtext, and there is some interesting subtext in the debate that never got explored on the programs I watched or read about that I'll go into here.

The only way to assess the debate fairly is to step away from partisanship. If you're partisan, please don't read. You'll only get upset when I challenge your party favorite. I do have some bias, true, having decided for whom to cast my vote, yet being independent of either party, I feel free to break with that decision, especially if I hear something that contradicts my news sources which have a slight bias in favor of Kerry. That said, I hold no animosity toward Bush--a position necessary for anyone wanting to discuss the issues rationally and weigh the campaigners' statements.

I was surprised at the split screen, showing candidates' expressions as the other talked. I liked the procedure but thought it was prohibited by the rules of no response shots. It was nice to see when the candidates expressed disapproval. Bush expressed his grimly while Kerry was often stoic but sometimes seemed a little smug. Bush lost a point for being a little too eager to respond a time or two, wanting to pick up immediately when Kerry stopped. Although I may have been distracted at the moment not to notice, Kerry might have as well--the way the transcript reads.

Two polls showed Kerry leading in the "win" category although I thought it a draw overall, which surprised me. Prior to the debate I expected Kerry to come out on top with a handful of zingers--on the main debate, I agree with McCain that there were no zingers, but on one tangent, Kerry did land one that I haven't heard any place weight on--perhaps for good reason.

Post-debate discussion at ABC was more slanted toward Kerry in their approach. NBC had little bias, asking great questions, but I didn't much care for their implied approach of seeing Kerry as the underdog going in.

Jim Lehrer asked good, sharp questions. The transcript can be found here.

Neither candidate answered the first two questions. In fact Lehrer had to ask some questions twice. Instead, both wanted to get their main messages out, A.S.A.P. Lehrer ought to have just said, "Gobbledy-gook?" to let the candidates air opinions until they were ready to roll with the questions.

Lehrer: Do you believe you could do a better job than President Bush in preventing another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States?

Kerry proceeded to describe how he would have handled Iraq. It may be that Kerry did answer the question, implying that handling Iraq well will prevent another terrorist attack here in the U.S. Kerry claimed to bring in a more international alliance into Iraq although NBC quite rightly asked how he could when several nations said they would not go in. He made vague the mention of more preparations for Iraq elections, but not what. His best point was "reaching out to the muslim world." How he would do this, he did not say, but at one point he did suggest that people look at his plan outlined at JohnKerry.com.

Bush trotted out his list of success stories like Libya and friends.

Lehrer: Do you believe the election of Senator Kerry on November the 2nd would increase the chances of the U.S. being hit by another 9/11-type terrorist attack?

Bush didn't answer this, but he did seem honest about the hardships on the American soldier in Iraq. Kerry trotted out his list of military supporters and said he thought he would have done a better job at getting bin Laden: "The president relied on Afghan warlords and he outsourced that job too."

Lehrer: [asking Kerry to explain a vague statement earlier] What colossal misjudgments, in your opinion, has President Bush made in these areas?

Kerry mentions Bush's campaign promise to use war as a last resort, alliance was not international, Hussein was not as dangerous as bin Laden, and no more inspections. The first two are good points, and the third is a good point but hindsight is 20/20. The fourth point on inspections is problematic. I'm not sure what happened to the scandal with the oil for food program. The U.N. had no plans to enforce Iraq violations. So for my money, we ought to have been more worried about how perpetual sanctions would affect the average citizens of Iraq. Perhaps for some, there was a vested interest in keeping sanctions in place.

Bush came up with a surprise for me: "My opponent looked at the same intelligence I looked at and declared in 2002 that Saddam Hussein was a grave threat." I didn't know that. So that takes away Kerry's thunder on comparing Hussein to bin Laden. Bush raised a good point about Hussein's continued deception (apparently perceived) of inspections. And the inspections had been going on for about a decade.

Lehrer: What about Senator Kerry's point, the comparison he drew between the priorities of going after Osama bin Laden and going after Saddam Hussein?

Bush made a good point--"we can do both"--and a bad verbal slip. He mixed up Hussein and bin Laden, seemingly admitting Kerry's point.

Kerry pointed out a lack of a plan for Iraq after war, cast doubt on our ability to do both by pointing that troops had to be diverted from Afghanistan (although a general should verify whether this diversion prevented our capture of bin Laden). Another good point was about families having to buy "state-of-the-art body gear" for their sons. Why should that be? Nobody pointed out Kerry's verbal slip--at least I hope it was a slip: "we got weapons of mass destruction crossing the border [of Iraq presumably from context] every single day." Does he believe WMD are still out there?

Lehrer: [politely rephrasing his first question] As president, what would you do, specifically, in addition to or differently to increase the homeland security of the United States than what President Bush is doing?

Kerry said increasing cops, firehouses, better tunnels and bridges, and inspections at ports.

Bush said he has increased border patrol, changed FBI's priorities toward the threat of terrorism, and made a offense as important as defense. Bush touted the Patriot Act.

Here opponents seemed to want to talk about taxes.

Lehrer: What criteria would you use to determine when to start bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq?

Bush said when Iraq had control of its country. A free Iraq does wonderful things for security in Middle East and U.S. NBC reported that Bush's figure of 100,000 Iraq security forces was off by almost half due to having to turn some candidates away, presumably operatives of the opposition.

Kerry did not mention his exit strategy although he has campaigned on this issue. Presumably, it's at his website, but I didn't find it with an admittedly cursory look. A search function might be helpful. He talked about bringing in more allies and the need to be more vigilant about guarding sensitive areas in Iraq: "We didn't guard the nuclear facilities. We didn't guard the foreign office, where you might have found information about weapons of mass destruction. We didn't guard the borders." I've already pointed out a similar interesting statement two questions above.

Lehrer: [Comparing Kerry's experiences of Vietnam to Iraq] Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake?

Kerry: No. Saddam was a threat, but a series of things should have happened before entering the war. Bush should have listened to his Army chief of staff about more troops and to Secretary General Kofi Annan when he offered the United Nations.

Bush mentions the Iraq war was more than just unilateral with 30 nations involved. Kerry says that their involvement is not nearly that of ours, but then when isn't UN forces mostly composed of the U.S.? Which is not to denigrate the UN's involvement which would be more of a show of unanimity.

Throughout Bush brought up the worry of sending a variety of mixed messages. I don't think Kerry has mixed agendas, but I must admit thinking that he had changed his mind. I suspect this comes from tailoring your message to specific groups that later get broadcast to the general public. I don't think the flip-flopping allegation stuck well in this debate.

Lehrer: [to Bush] You have said there was a, quote, "miscalculation," of what the conditions would be in post-war Iraq. What was the miscalculation, and how did it happen?

This didn't get the candidates to say much of interest except what I said about Kerry's assessment of alliances in the question above, moved up for comparison.

Lehrer: You've repeatedly accused President Bush -- not here tonight, but elsewhere before -- of not telling the truth about Iraq, essentially of lying to the American people about Iraq. Give us some examples of what you consider to be his not telling the truth.

Kerry repeats his message from the question about "the priorities of going after Osama bin Laden and going after Saddam Hussein." Bush did do some interesting turning the tables on the question--giving no new information, but reversing the question so that Bush does not think that Kerry was misleading on whether we should go into the war in Iraq. The transcript reads as though maybe Kerry had tried to rebut Bush a little early, but I may have been distracted to notice as it played out on screen. Either that or Lehrer had assumed Bush was finished before he was.

Lehrer: Has the war in Iraq been worth the cost of American lives, 1,052 as of today?

Bush and later Kerry both turned this potentially difficult question into a touchy feely one about nobility and sacrifice. I was a little worried about Kerry's response regarding faster training for Iraqi security. I'd heard some experts suggest that their security hadn't been getting enough training. I liked the ring of his statement "it is vital for us not to confuse the war, ever, with the warriors," which I take to mean we the people taking our frustrations with the war out on the troops as happened with Vietnam although I could be mistaken. But it had a ring that rolled around in my head for a minute.

Lehrer: [to Kerry, perhaps returning the favor of asking the same question he put to Bush] Can you give us specifics, in terms of a scenario, time lines, et cetera, for ending major U.S. military involvement in Iraq?

Kerry: "I didn't say I would bring troops out in six months. I said, if we do the things that I've set out and we are successful, we could begin to draw the troops down in six months." I liked how Kerry suggested we let the Iraqis know we have no long term designs on Iraq, but I'm not sure this is an impression that can be erased by any reassurance of an invader, no matter how well intentioned. He pointed out the design of bases giving the wrong impression to some. Departing a little, he said we ought "not back off of the Fallujahs." I've heard some Iraqis wanting swift action taken on this issue, but others wanted more diplomacy.

The only new point Bush made worth mentioning was "One of his campaign people alleged that Prime Minister Allawi was like a puppet." The Kerry campaign probably ought to keep its mitts on Bush and his campaign and away from people Kerry may have to work with.

Lehrer: [to Bush but follows up with a similar question to Kerry] Does the Iraq experience make it more likely or less likely that you would take the United States into another preemptive military action?

Both agreed that it may be important for the security of the nation. Otherwise, not much here except two moments of being less candid:

Bush: "When I was running -- when we had the debate in 2000, never dreamt I'd be doing that. " I was under the impression that that was one of the priorities of his administration--to curtail the fear of Saddam's determination to develop WMD.

Kerry: Bush "just said, 'The enemy attacked us.' " I didn't find where Bush said this.

Kerry did make a good point: "Thirty-five to forty countries in the world had a greater capability of making weapons at the moment the president invaded than Saddam Hussein. And while he's been diverted..., North Korea's gotten nuclear weapons and the world is more dangerous. Iran is moving toward nuclear weapons and the world is more dangerous."

Lehrer: Do you believe that diplomacy and sanctions can resolve the nuclear problems with North Korea and Iran?

Bush: Multilateral talks
Kerry: Multi- AND bilateral talks
Bush: Bilateral talks will let North Korea walk away from the multilateral table.
Kerry: No, it won't.

I wondered why sanctions and diplomacy couldn't have worked for Iraq as well, but then it had gone through a decade of such.

Lehrer: neither one of you or anyone else connected with your campaigns or your administration that I can find has discussed the possibility of sending in troops.

Kerry: Army is overstretched, but we can offer logistical support.
Bush: Impose sanctions and U.S. is leading donor of aid.

Here's something much of the media isn't talking about: Kerry spoke of increasing active duty and special forces but enrollment I'd heard was down. Bush in his closing statement said he wanted only an all-volunteer army. Does that mean that Kerry would require a draft and not Bush? or that Kerry believes an active ad campaign for more troops for the young will be productive? Or is Bush not being realistic about military need for troops?

Lehrer: Are there also underlying character issues that you believe, that you believe are serious enough to deny Senator Kerry the job as commander in chief of the United States?

Here comes Kerry's unexpected zinger. Bush really relaxed during this question that he let his guard down to say something that Kerry capitalized upon. Is it important? It will depend upon the woman.

Bush was generous with Kerry's character as a soldier (unlike one analyst at ABC said, Bush has had kind words for Kerry before), as a father, and as a politician although he disagreed with his policies. (I think he was hoping for a laugh from the audience, but they were silent as instructed although Kerry did grin when Bush said, "I won't hold it against him that he went to Yale.") The character criticism was a repetition of the mixed messages mentioned above.

Kerry was also kind. Although he only specifically mentioned admiring Bush's wife, he admitted chuckling with(?) his daughters. Kerry's criticism was of Bush's certainty, to which Bush responds that certainty coupled with tactics that shift as necessary.

The zinger?

BUSH: I'm trying to put a leash on them.
KERRY: I've learned not to do that.

This was a joke although what Bush wanted to put a metaphorical leash on his daughters for is unclear. If you watch the footage, you see Bush's humor and relaxation evaporate. What women will load into this statement could be telling. Some will dismiss it as a joke, some will hold on to it as a gender-charged issue. But I think it does show a difference in both's parenting styles. What does that mean? This little unguarded moment may tell more than most of the rest of the debate. But I would hate to hear people make too much of it one way or another.

Lehrer: If you are elected president, what will you take to that office thinking is the single most serious threat to the national security to the United States?

Kerry had absolutely no hesitation on this response: nuclear proliferation--although he did later include WMD to match Bush's more general concern. He's worried about Russia's weapons falling into terrorist hands and our developing bunker busters which also use some nuclear material although it is supposed to be somehow more focused in effect. There was an article on this Popular Mechanics (or Popular Science?).

Bush said WMD in the hands of terrorists and that missle defense was necessary.

Lehrer: Did you misjudge [President Putin and Russia] or... do you feel that what he is doing in the name of antiterrorism by changing some democratic processes is OK?

Both oppose. Bush commends Putin for being a valuable ally against terrorism. Kerry seemed a little more critical and tails back off into his position on North Korea. (I forget whether this was repetition or his wanting to get a word back in on the subject.)


A final criticism of both debaters is that sometimes a sentence was all that was needed to rebut, especially after already having had one rebuttal. I suspect both these guys as students would fill all white space offered for their essay questions. Sometimes the succinct, well-put sentence is worth more than watering it down with other words. Since it is an oral medium, it may pay to repeat the statement once if the debater felt it necessary.

discuss this post at our messageboard


The Once and Future Films of Genre

Michael A. Burstein is looking for the names of future movies you've made up for use in a story. He started the discussion here--however, I would debate his final choice although it is to some degree a personal matter (a matter which helps characterize).

The F&SF had several authors naming movies they think classics or could be classics, which also has commentary on why. I can't believe I missed listing A Clockwork Orange in my list of genre classics though I'm not so sure about the rest of her list (maybe Close Encounters of the Third Kind). I immediately dismissed Friesner's choice of Asimov robot novels, but on second thought, realized that as a series of sequels the robot-detective novels might develop a following as did PKD novels.

Jonathan Carroll:

Winter's Tale (Mark Helprin)
Dreams of Leaving (Rupert Thompson)
Mister Touch (Malcolm Bosse)
The Watcher (Charles Maclean)
The Easter House (David Rhodes)
Sinai Tapestry (Edward Whittemore)
Von Bek (Michael Moorcock)
Let's Put the Future Behind Us (Jack Womack)
The Child Garden (Geoff Ryman)

Kathi Maio:

The Day the Earth Stood Still
Invasion of the Body Snatchers
A Clockwork Orange
Close Encounters of the Third Kind
Adventures of Bukaroo Banzai
Edward Scissorhands
Truly Madly Deeply

James Morrow:

A Warm Reception in L.A.
Bad Luck Blackie
Minnie the Moocher
Before the Law
My Neighbor Totoro
The Fabulous World of Jules Verne

Esther M. Friesner

Dune (requests a remake before it was remade)
The Silver Metal Lover
A Boy and His Dog
Dragon Singer
Wyrd Sisters
A Canticle fo rLeibowitz
The Caves of Steel
Flowers for Algernon
Time Enough for Love
one of Spider Robinson's Callahan's series

Ursula K. Le Guin:

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep (emphatically not Blade Runner)
maybe The Man in the High Castle
The Left Hand of Darkness
The Moon and the Sun (McIntyre)
The Faded Sun (Cherryh)
The First Men on the Moon (Wells)

John Kessel:

The Star My Destination
The Man in the High Castle
The Left Hand of Darkness
The Book of the New Sun
Red Mars
A Canticle for Leibowitz
All You Zombies (Heinlein)
Sarah Canary (Fowler)
Think Like a Dinosaur
Gun, with Occasional Music
Corrupting Dr. Nice

Howard Waldrop (well, you should probably read the issue since he made all of these up; they're all meant as jokes, but I do think That Bright Pink Light holds promise--recreating the life of PKD):

What's It All About?
Nobody Kicks Earth!
That Bright Pink Light
Go Ask Tip
Of Time and the Miskatonic (aka. Play Miskatonic for Me)

discuss this post at our messageboard


Introductions: Gilliam Introduces Fellini's 8 1/2

I love introductions. I hate introductions. I love introductions because I get introduced to someone new or introduced to a new facet of that someone whom I may have already been introduced to.

I hate introductions because I rarely feel like I'm getting introduced. I want to get a feel for the face behind the face, the man behind the name.

I recently read Ray Bradbury's introduction to his Illustrated Man collection: profound and inspirational, yes, but perhaps it's been too long since he met his collection on intimate terms for introductions to extend beyond the courteous--although asking for more than profound and inspirational is too much to ask.

Ben Marcus takes a personal side route in his introduction of the Anchor anthology. Personal anecdotes can provide deeper insight into the work at hand if it also shows how the introducer responded to the work. In fact, an introduction almost must be personal--or else why should we care if we don't know what made the introducer care? Yet, while there are some passages worth cutting out and pasting to your monitor, the anecdote is anecdotal.

A better introduction might have been carved out of the Marcus interview material in Bomb, mixing the more informative parts, discarding the less informative, which may be more of a fault of the interviewer than the interviewee. In a magazine about the arts, we want to know about the art--and only the personal as it relates to and impinges upon the arts. Perhaps Marcus or his interviewer feels differently.

More telling about introductions is that I had picked up the anthology in the bookstore, browsed, and moved on. It didn't seem to offer much new--that is, until I read the interview in Bomb. It may be I've been spoiled by introductions by Dozois and Hartwell and Norton anthologies. If I'm going to plunk money down for a reprint of various artists, I want to why you chose those artists and those particular works.

Terry Gilliam does the perfect introduction to Fellini's film, 8 1/2. We get a feel for what Fellini may have been up to overall as well as in particular scenes, for how Fellini may have approached it, and for how it fits into the artist's oevre, taking account of certain criticisms of the artist. (However, Fellini's bullwhip against women comes within a dream--an irony that Fellini cannot even control women in his fantasies.)

What I love most about the introduction is something all artists and critics should keep in mind--a theme similar to what Fellini was trying to convey within the film:
"8 1/2 is Fellini's movie that sticks most with me. It may not even be my favorite movie. There may be others that I like more. But it's the one that struck such a deep chord, that was so truthful and lingering that it's the one I will always refer back to. Even when Fellini falls on his face--and he's done it a few times with his films--there are always moments in them that will stand up against anything else out there, and they're the things... that I remember. They're little bits of shrapnel that go in at moments of sheer clarity and brilliance and magic. He's left more bits of shrapnel in my brain than most people have."

discuss this post at our messageboard


Vera Nazarian on types of online Criticism (or ranting)

Vera Nazarian has has some interesting commentary over at Anna Tambour's on the ethics of criticism and on how different moods can change what a reader or viewer wants. I tried to codify why we want what we want earlier and hope to codify more thoroughly and specifically tonight or tomorrow.

Sometimes all we do want is guilty pleasure--it's true. But I will contend with this statement briefly since it indicates a degree of relativity that I do not subscribe to:

I have not seen the latest popular hate object of the erudite online critics, "Van Helsing," but I bet I’d enjoy it. So what?
Stories have to do what they are aiming to do well. That means a consistency of artistic purpose (even if that artistic purpose is lowbrow entertainment). My brother and I enjoyed a horribly acted, cardboard-characterized, straight-to-DVD movie called Epoch simply because it had some fascinating sense of wonder pulled by an interesting plot. My bro rented the second in the series and told me not to bother. It didn't have anything worth watching. I trust his judgement. Why should I? Bro watches mostly for entertainment and emotional involvement. He does not have the vocabulary to critique a movie and, like the rest of my family, couldn't give two farts about what the critics think, yet he still sensed a bad movie. How did he know it was bad? Because he's watched and read enough stories to sense a good one from a bad. Criteria do exist for critiquing every sort of story there is. There's a reason why, which as I mentioned above, I'll go into later.

Van Helsing is enjoyable in a brainless sort of way, but it fails in character consistency. Lucius Shepard captures much of my sentiment except with more vigor than I might have stated it. Compare this to the Frankenstein Legacy collection, which apparently inspired Van Helsing's director Stephen Sommers and which I, too, was much taken by as a whole. The wonderful humor of, say, Bela Lugosi's character, Igor, springs out of Igor--not injected into his mouth by the narrator. If you don't mind the spell of transport being subconsciously broken by auctorial interjections, by all means go forth and enjoy Van Helsing. Since I plan to review this in full for SF Site, I'll save much of my argument for that time. But to encapsulate the pivotal problem with fully enjoying Van Helsing even guiltily is that the characters are inconsistent.

discuss this post at our messageboard


Clarion West Successes: Margo, Sanders & Woodworth

I learned from Jonathan Strahan's blog that award-winning Clarion West classmate, Margo Lanagan, will soon have her new collection published, Black Juice, her first published in the U.S. Moreover, the lead story is already slated to appear in the Datlow's Year's Best Fantasy and Horror. Huzzah! Thorough background info on Lanagan can be found in the SF Site review and interview I did last year for her collection White Time.

Another award-winning Clarion West classmate, Stephen Woodworth, just had his first novel published, Though Violet Eyes. I only read and critiqued the first half, but it's a swashbuckler that only fails to utilize western genre (horror, mystery, fantasy, and science fiction are all represented), but it does take place in part in the West and who knows? Maybe John Wayne struts into the second half.

Finally, classmate and academic Joe Sutliff Sanders' story "Beholden" which appeared in Say... Why Aren't We Crying? has found a strange resonance with real life.

discuss this post at our messageboard


Free and Freedom

Tobias Buckell points out a Wired article that is amazed that something freely available on the internet can still generate money. Simple: If you want a paper copy and don't want to print it out yourself, you pay for someone else to do it for you more efficiently and aesthetically. The Baen model has already been proven successful, and Cory Doctorow followed suit (1, 2, 3 times), so why are people still amazed? More power to them. (My sincere apologies to the publishing ethics of Harlan Ellison.)

Anne Rice defends her novel on Amazon.com. I defend her defense: Writers should be able to respond in kind to reviewers--especially to those who are cruel and/or logically impaired. However, I did have a problem with this part of her argument:

"[T]he sheer outrageous stupidity of many things you've said here that actually touches my proletarian and Democratic soul.... You are interrogating this text from the wrong perspective. Indeed, you aren't even reading it.... I'm justifiably proud of being read by intellectual giants and waitresses in trailer parks, in fact, I love it, but who in the world are you?"
We should probably avoid critiquing the writer but focus on the writing, instead (whether the writer be Anne Rice or reviewer). Still, even with the logical faux pas, the controversy piques my curiosity, as I'm sure it will for others. So responding may increase sales, in addition to blood pressures.

discuss this post at our messageboard

Other News Items

Geoff Ryman's Air just arrived from Amazon.com. It was expected last year, if memory serves, but delayed from publication. It is an expansion of his F&SF story, "Have Not Have," which was subsequently reprinted in Dozois' Year's Best SF.

Matt Peckham weighed in on Sky Captain with "wonderful schmaltzy fun, nothing less, nothing more."

Gabe has apparently finished a novel but has closed s1ngularity.net as a market. More info here and new blog here.

Brutarian Quarterly closed as a professional paying market. Too bad. It looked like the old Pulphouse. This was announced on the RumorMill.org, but it is no longer user friendly to navigate.

Army tops ESPN.com's Bottom 10: "After dropping last week's Pillow Fight with Houston, the two-time defending Bottom 10 champs have lost 17 straight." But you may have to be a college football fan to appreciate.

discuss this post at our messageboard


The Movement of the Arts: Temporary Disability Offers Insight into Capability of Story

Emerging from the fog of life, one gains insight on navigating the fog of literature. Since the fog is a labyrinth where committing a word--any word--to the page seems the ultimate in hubris, the act of the ego actually admitting its owner's humanity, I sought immediate escape from the maze of self into literature (sometimes books, sometimes movies, but usually various dramatizations on BBC 4 or 7--by the way, Douglas Adams' Dr. Who program now "animated" is back online as are new episodes continuing The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series which just began today).

1. Transport

This is the most primary tool of literature: the wheel, the body with opposable thumbs. No doubt to the surprise of both camps, I place both language and plot here. Language allows reader immediate access into the transport while plot involves us with being transported. Language is the mood it casts us into through word choice for sound and feelings conveyed through the charge of connotation. Without language, it's hard to muck through to find the plot. Without plot, it's hard to stay interested in language. Both can also be embroiled in the creation of art but are more reliably the mechanisms which get us there.

The majority of readers only want to be transported, to be entertained, so most movies and novels dwell happily in this territory. Here they can bask in the limelight for a year, maybe, and fade from memory. Matthew Cheney says we're entertained by different things. Maybe so to a degree. But then, I doubt that it was mistake to describe plot in terms interchangable with sexual intercourse since the body in conjugal movement is a literary discourse of interest to most humans.

2. Believability or Rightness of Transport

This is the heart, the fire in the belly, the fuel that burns and drives the wheels, the circulation system that delivers energy to the body. Can we believe the reality of these characters and setting and plot? How well rendered are they? This includes conjuring the right image as well as the telling gesture or object or observation or the sense of wonder.

Some might place imagery in the above category, but language as meant above refers to style while language used here is focused on the evocative because these may exist in opposition, competing for priority as the text demands. The language of image requires specificity, whereas the language of style may require that a less exact but more mood-conjuring term. I'll get to specifics soon, analyzing the results of Jay Lake's character description contest.

For more discerning fans of art, this is the most crucial tool: This is what they mean when they talk about art. It's hard to dispute. Myself, I hate to put emphasis on any one tool, lest another fall into disuse; but when I decide whether or not to invest valuable beer money in art, the heart of the work has to be probed. I'm willing to buy art that mostly plays with the mind (Borges), but I also want to feel. It is a mistake to think that this is all a work needs: Without transport, the believability stagnates; without thought, it is forgotten.

3. Transport to Thought

If plot is transport away from ourselves, the primary or cohesive art brings us back to ourselves, transformed--if only transformed back into the people and beliefs we were, albeit enlightened about that existence. Art is the mind, the thought, the nervous system, the thing(s) we dwell on after the last page is turned. By dwelling in thought after the last page, the story lives on as neurons align to form pathways to secure such thought, and invariably is passed on to others so that the thought can be discussed--for or against.

Critics sometimes look only for this factor, passing up both the transport and the heart of a work, praising dull, dead, and thoroughly dessicated prose without recognizing the need for the other tools of art. If the reader can't be transported away from himself, how can he come back? If the reader can't care about the character and his world, why should he dwell there?


No work of art walks on all three legs, equally. Even my favorite, John Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men cannot be seen as a paragon of style--although it is presumably a crossbreed of the play and the novel. Shakespeare's Hamlet, too, as close to perfect as a work of art may have flaws invisible over the distance of time.

Most weigh more in sone category or another. I, Robot has little style, much plot, much thought, and some rightness. 21 Grams has much style, much plot, some thought, and much rightness. Sky Captain has much style, much plot, little thought, and some rightness. Federico Fellini's 8 1/2 has much style, some plot, much thought, much rightness.

Breaking apart stories in this way makes it easier to see whether one can measure one work of art against another. If two novels weigh heavily on plot or thought or rightness, they can be equitably be compared.

discuss this post at our messageboard


A Month of Sunday Links

Ireland is Atlantis [the library of Alexandria, however, is not in Ireland]

NY Times on alternate history and Philip Roth on Philip Roth's alternate history [Guardian profile of Roth, excerpt from new novel]

Waldrop and Person on Sky Captain

Resource for poets [Jeffrey Bahr]

Making Light has an interesting post, dispelling famous myths of publishing.

China Mieville and Stephen Leigh on world-building.

Sherwood Smith almost always has posts of interest: on wit, prologues, reader contract, and science (via quoting George Eliot. Needless to say, I'm not in full agreement on science--if it can enlighten our experience, why not use it? We rightfully fear a straight-jacket, but too many fear what can be known. Science can be a useful tool to illumine what we do know--a jumping-off point to destinations unknown but perhaps knowable).

British scientists pick favorite SF writers.

A post on narrative over character [?]. Dan Green offers a similar ideal but asks why not allow the authors freedom to write their own brands of fiction.

Margaret Atwood interview

Stephaney at Maud Newton on Tom Robbins' manifesto of literary happiness [excerpted from Harper's]

Maud deals NY Times' interviewer, Deborah Solomon, a slap for literary arrogance. The interviewer probes the poet laureate's reading deficiencies in European poetry--surely, we all have deficiencies--but Ted Kooser has a great response at the end. Sadly, the interview isn't worth much as she never peers into the work of the poet himself. Strangely apropos, NPR's humorist Brian McConnachie asks, "What if the poet laureate had to go through Senate confirmations?"

Legal answers regarding blogging defamation

Chicha [& friends] on MFAs

Ben Marcus' new anthology: McGrath review and complaint of McGrath review

Quercus has an interesting business model for an anthology series. I proposed one like it last year when I was brainstorming various methods for financing an anthology. I suspect one will need a large advertising capital to cover the bases, nonetheless, to get it off the ground; hence I abandoned it. But do check it out. You may want to subscribe and help support the short fiction industry--well, the British short SF industry, anyway: Steve Aylett, Mary Gentle, John Courtenay Grimwood, Geoff Ryman, Rob Holdstock, Daniel Kaysen, Tanith Lee, Liz Williams, Jay Caselberg, Adam Roberts, Mark Roberts.

* * *

Posted novels and stories online:

Jonathan Safran Foer's Borges-esque "The Sixth Borough" of Manhatten Island [fyi, excerpt from a Borges biography & book cover designs for books mentioned in Borges' stories but never existed in the real world]

M. John Harrison's "Tourism"

D.F. Lewis is providing many of his previously published stories online (if you haven't seen his small press anthologies, nemonymous, you're missing out. These are the most gorgeous publications I can remember seeing. Please buy them so that he can make more. Email editor directly: bfitzworth@yahoo.co.uk).

Elizabeth Bear's novel, All The Windwracked Stars

Winner of the BBC End of Story contest [to finish a work by Joanne Harris]

Jim Munroe's An Opening Act of Unspeakable Evil (a novel published by No Media Kings, now being published in blog entries)

Jason Erik Lundberg is following Jay Lake's model of writing vignettes around unusual words of the English language (no doubt due to matching initials in their appellations--har har).

* * *

Links on language:

Slang from British program, The Office.

Russian translator also needs help with British slang.

Online Etymology Dictionary (Yes! Thanks to St. Sinthe for this link that I've been yearning for--also, the link provider has an interesting look at the word "mauve")

Scottish idioms

* * *

discuss this post at our messageboard

News from Geoff Ryman

Geoff Ryman, one of the genre's more multinational globetrotters, has visited Cambodia for an extended period and dipped into their artistic culture, the results of which will be aired via live feed by Resonance FM from 7:00 to 8:30 PM ( 2:00 PM EST,11:00 AM PST) and in London on 104.4 FM. It will be repeated the following Tuesday at 9:30 AM (1:30 AM PST).

Also, Ryman's novel, Was, has been converted into a play set to premiere in Dayton, Ohio on the 14th of October. Of the play, Ryman writes:
"[T]he daft tunes are very melodic[.] Dorothy goes crazy very gracefully and there is a great gay love song, Lucky Day. Nothing like the book, which is exactly how it should be."
discuss this post at our messageboard


Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow

Good pulpy fun. Often, previews compact the only worthwhile moments of the film. Not so this time. The preview [other clips also available] made it look terribly flat with an unimaginative story and cheesiness maximized (especially that eye patch), but Angelina Jolie fit right into the scheme of things. Reverse the commentary by Ty Burr at Boston Globe and you'll have my sentiments. Burr appears to have missed the humorous caprice.

Most reviewers are quite rightly impressed by the CGI--the setting was well rendered, evoking this late 1930s ideal. Burr's complaints--"derivative" and "a hit parade of cliffhanger cliches"--indicate he failed to understand what the title or preview we're trying to tell him. This is a retro-film updating the old film serials popular in my father's generation. In fact, I was hoping for more of the little moments evoking the era's emblematic nuances apart from what it brought to life so well: the architecture of the robots and sundry scientific equipment, the apparel and hairstyles, even the little radio waves and the sound of robots' lasers piped directly from War of the Worlds. Charming--all of it.

However, the plot and characters weren't quite period enough for me. Not that I minded the sexual scenarios (tame and only vaguely sexual), but the plot events themselves--while never dull--didn't quite ring the familiar peal of that cinematic period.

Gwenyth Paltrow's character comes closest to being a leading heroine of the era--with that flavor of spunk that attains a coy sexiness without resorting to blatant sexuality and is rarely found in our present day. Angelina Jolie doesn't deliver anything memorably, yet it is rendered capably--perhaps closer to the leading male role than Jude Law although I cannot point why except maybe Law does not have a classic masculinity in his appeal. Still, the sexual tension between Law and Paltrow works.

On the other hand--please pardon the blasphemy, O, children of the serial generation--the plot and characters fare better than most serials. To avoid spoiling the plot of a film that largely hinges upon such revelations, here's the background scenario that begins the story with a bang: Scientists have gone missing, giant robots are attacking Metropolis, and the plucky reporter, Polly Perkins [Paltrow], has a mysterious rendevous at Radio City Hall with a man who has a secret to divulge.

Allison Benedikt of Metromix and Roger Ebert of Chicago Sun-Times both hold similar sentiments. Ebert, however, gives too much plot away for my taste.

The movie site appears to have a free game online to download.

discuss this post at our messageboard


Fog of War

Great DVD on one of our nation's biggest controversies. Go see. One complaint: one of the deleted scenes ought to have been in the final movie to help bolster one theme--wherein McNamara first learns about the need to know the path that brings us (or them) to where we (they) are--specifically, the war between Japan and China. McNamara, who had apparently been dubbed the über-villain of Vietnam at the time, gets documented support for his talking Kennedy and Johnson down from its intensity (though as you'll hear in the links below, many wonder why he didn't do more or speak out--probably a generational difference (see theme mentioned above)). There are some areas that he won't go into, presumably areas of speculation on what should have really been done. He seems reluctant to even speculate on what Kennedy might have done. Still the question is raised: By not talking about certain sensitive issues, is he avoiding opining on the impossible? or concealing a deeper yet unrevealed guilt? Damned if you do, damned if you don't, filmmaker Errol Morris helpfully supplies to his interviewee.

Morris had a series of interviews with various NPR programs: Day to Day, All Things Considered, and Fresh Air (in order of increasing depth also commentary by Judy Muller).

The film had some great quotes writers may want for stories:

"What one can criticize is that the human race prior to that time and today has not really grappled with what are, I'll call it, 'The Rules of War.'"

"How much evil must we do in order to do good?"

"What 'The Fog of War' means is war is so complex it's beyond the ability of the human mind to comprehend all the variables."
discuss this post at our messageboard



Jay Lake, newly crowned Campbell award winner (I think it was the swim suit competition) is having a contest for best one-line character description.

discuss this post at our messageboard


Hitler and Hell

Apologies for the silence. Discussing a new kind of SF elsewhere. Intelligent discussion with bright folk.


I finally watched Hellboy which stars Ron Perlman, who also acted in one of my favorite SF films, a French film called The City of Lost Children.

Hellboy strikes my soft spot: superhero films. They're my soap operas, my bon bons, my guilty pleasure. The DVD has some cool extras, too, including background behind characters and objects from the original Hellboy comics (or sequential art) as well as animated shorts, the first written by Dr. Seuss: Gerald McBoing Boing, the boy who cannot speak but only makes noises. The best of the series for me was when McBoing Boing is abducted to the Planet Moo, which of course assumes all earthlings speak with boings and aroogas.

My complaints about Hellboy would have been minor--not enough different monsters (come on, Hell, you can come up with more than a red monkey boy, large squid, and an overabundance of hell hounds); of all the monsters from hell only the good guy, the red monkey boy, is impervious to fire, etc.--except, as chance would have it, I watched another movie next to it: Blindspot: Hitler's Secretary. Hellboy does the usual demonizing of the Nazi party that we have all grown accustomed to, but the Nazi "reality" (perhaps "delusion" might be a better term) marred the literal demonizing of the Nazis.

There are two perspectives on demonizing: 1) demonizing allows us to say that there are times when moral ambiguity ought not to be allowed, 2) demonizing obscures the fact that we could all become "demons." I'm not sure which is best although I'd probably lean more toward the latter, more realistic perspective.

Traudl Junge was Hitler's Secretary for most of the war, up until Hitler's suicide. Junge is incredibly forthright about her feelings toward her employer, whom she saw at the time as a father figure. She expresses verbal misgivings about working for the man, but it is not until she comes upon the final days of the bunker that her sixty-year-old emotions break through: when the fate of children of loyal Nazis is sealed by the parents fearful of what the new order in Germany might bring. Hitler apparently had promulgated the fear that the Russian victors would castrate the men and rape the women.

Every moment is fascinating, but not terribly enthralling to watch the mostly expressionless face (a few pictures of the bunker and characters mentioned, especially Junge as a young lady, would have made a nice relief) until Junge approaches the final days of Nazism. The only variety the film gives is using a technique similar to the documentary on Jacques Derrida, filming Derrida watch and comment on himself in the documentary.

But only occassionally does this technique here provide insight as Junge thinks to mention new material she had not thought to say in the earlier interview. Her face is still expressionless, spiced only with a puff on a cigarette. The emotional peak occurs at the end as we learn that only years after the war when she saw a memorial for a girl her own age who was killed for standing up to Hitler, did she realize the youth was no excuse for naïvety and as we learn that, before the film was finished, Junge was only now learning to forgive herself.

discuss this post at our messageboard