Marginalia

[coalescent]

Today's assortment:

A meme via andrewducker: look at my icons and tell me which, if any, you like best, and why.

A fascinating post by Matthew Cheney on teaching Neal Gaiman's American Gods to High School students.

A somewhat melancholy article in the Independent, on the effects of writing for posterity but publishing for nowA charming story (less than 500

Comments

[ex_susumu64]

I prefer my own Saddam icon, so I vote for Algebraist too.

[swisstone]

There is rightness and wrongness in what Strahan writes. I agree that there's reward in looking af the sf diaspora into the mainstream, and the way in which this manifests itself. Where I think he's wrong, and badly wrong, is in the notion that this should supersede the study of sf history, or of the study of sf as a separate field. Frankly, I can't see study of the one can proceed without study of the other. One cannot understand the sf diaspora without understanding sf's history. To eliminate the origins of the diaspora, and look only at its effects, means that study will never rise above the naive. As Cicero rightly said, "If you do not know where you come from, you will always be a child."

[coalescent]

I may be misreading his post, but my impression was that he was talking about priorities, not absolutes. As in, sure, the history of sf is important, but too many people are studying that, and too few studying what's going on right now.

[swisstone]

That's not what he says, though: "those of us who are fascinated with science fiction and who are committed to helping the centre hold, to defining things and to arguing about the central importance of some kind of core sf are wrong ... The task we should be attempting is to describe the literary diaspora ..." That's pretty clearly saying that you shouldn't do the former, you should do the latter.

[coalescent]

I see your point--basically, I agree with you that we need to look inward and outward--but I'm still not convinced Strahan meant anything stronger. I mean, on one level, for instance, his point about not trying to define a 'core sf' is obviously true; there just isn't such a thing, so it would be a counterproductive activity.

Maybe I should go and ask him. :)

[kittynic]

I think I'd have to go for this one:

[kittynic]

That should be "you're" and of course you can get through all those books if you are a fast reader and don't do anythng else for the rest of the year.

[coalescent]

and don't do anythng else for the rest of the year.

Ah, there's the rub ...

[kittynic]

You mean you want to have a life as well...?

[storme]

The space elevator icon makes me happy.

[coalescent]

Ah, but do you know which story it's a reference to ...? :)

(Admittedly it's a slightly oblique reference, but it's still a reference.)

[kittynic]

I seem to remember a story with a giant elevator that reaches up to the stars but goes nowhere so the people fall off the end.

I can't remember the name of it though.

[storme]

No, but since it's presumably the tower of babel, I still find it amusing as a space elevator.

If you mention the story and I know it I will probably be sad for missing the reference.

[blzblack]

I think Strahan was talking more about what editors should be doing in assembling anthologies than what writers should be doing.

[coalescent]

I agree--he's talking about those who write about sf, Noon's piece is more relevant to those who write sf. But there's a relationship between their points, I think.

[blzblack]

Noon's comments are funny in that I'd just had a discussion with another Clarion grad--different year--whose classmates were also opposed to complex narratives. I don't think the problem is limited to Britain.