PS and apropos of nothing, but since you're presumably in a good mood could you clear up one thing about Red Tree?
I'm assuming the individual/entity/creature publicly known (in the book's universe) as Constance Hopkins was the same individual/entity/creature who stayed with the main character?
I don't think it's cheating to let us know that much. It's information that the editor character would have had access to simply by investigating the publicly-known Constance's movements, and if the main character had claimed she had been there, the police would certainly have questioned her and she would have had to account for herself. I really want to know if it was the public Constance, an imposter, or all in the main character's head.
PPS, sorry if this is something you've been asked before.
but since you're presumably in a good mood could you clear up one thing about Red Tree?
Wait. I'm in a good mood?
I'm assuming the individual/entity/creature publicly known (in the book's universe) as Constance Hopkins was the same individual/entity/creature who stayed with the main character?
Um...this is a good example of the sort of question I don't answer. Sorry.
I don't think it's cheating to let us know that much.
Yes, it is.
the police would certainly have questioned her and she would have had to account for herself.
Everybody lies. Even to the cops. Add to that the possibility, which you may or may not have considered, that the author of the ms. was the editor herself. Or a ghost writer she hired to aid in a lit hoax. Or me....
I just noticed the cover art for _Blood Oranges_ up on Amazon. Is that final? ... Is this the one Penguin flubbed? (And if this subject's going to angry up the blood, please ignore my comment and move on.)
Yep. That's the final cover. You should have seen the SHITTY original. This is totally different and a vast improvement. That's even the actual Providence skyline, looking north from the Point Street Bridge. This is a cover I may not love, but it fits the book, and it could have been infinitely worse.
The problem is that the movement of mundane SF seeks to be prescriptive
Which seems to me to be an arse end about way to write stories. The whole "mundane SF" strikes me as an intellectual exercise more than anything else. Especially if you start out wanting to follow the expressed "rules".
Like you said, I'll keep my Dune and Arthur C. Clarke thank you very much.
Also, seems like such a life-sucking term. We're still talking about fiction after all. Imagine mundane fantasy or mundane horror.
Which seems to me to be an arse end about way to write stories.
Yup.
The whole "mundane SF" strikes me as an intellectual exercise more than anything else. Especially if you start out wanting to follow the expressed "rules".
Were it that, it would be harmless. But it wants to change SF. It looks at everything before it as naive and condemns those who would follow earlier sorts of SF as "nostalgic." Which, here, seems to be a Bad Word.
Also, seems like such a life-sucking term. We're still talking about fiction after all. Imagine mundane fantasy or mundane horror.
Were it that, it would be harmless. But it wants to change SF. It looks at everything before it as naive and condemns those who would follow earlier sorts of SF as "nostalgic." Which, here, seems to be a Bad Word.
True, the whole "One sub-genre to rule them all" mentality is arch at best, and rather disturbing at worst.
Against a Dark Background features the entirely awesome Lazy Gun, which thumbs its nose at the laws of physics at every opportunity. It even weighs more upside down than rightside up.
Comments 32
Reply
Thank you.
Reply
I'm assuming the individual/entity/creature publicly known (in the book's universe) as Constance Hopkins was the same individual/entity/creature who stayed with the main character?
I don't think it's cheating to let us know that much. It's information that the editor character would have had access to simply by investigating the publicly-known Constance's movements, and if the main character had claimed she had been there, the police would certainly have questioned her and she would have had to account for herself. I really want to know if it was the public Constance, an imposter, or all in the main character's head.
PPS, sorry if this is something you've been asked before.
Reply
Wait. I'm in a good mood?
I'm assuming the individual/entity/creature publicly known (in the book's universe) as Constance Hopkins was the same individual/entity/creature who stayed with the main character?
Um...this is a good example of the sort of question I don't answer. Sorry.
I don't think it's cheating to let us know that much.
Yes, it is.
the police would certainly have questioned her and she would have had to account for herself.
Everybody lies. Even to the cops. Add to that the possibility, which you may or may not have considered, that the author of the ms. was the editor herself. Or a ghost writer she hired to aid in a lit hoax. Or me....
Reply
Reply
No, I can't.
Reply
Reply
Er...I should go look. No one tells me shit.
Reply
Yep. That's the final cover. You should have seen the SHITTY original. This is totally different and a vast improvement. That's even the actual Providence skyline, looking north from the Point Street Bridge. This is a cover I may not love, but it fits the book, and it could have been infinitely worse.
Reply
Does the Cuervo help? If so I'll keep it in mind for my next deadline.
Reply
Which seems to me to be an arse end about way to write stories.
The whole "mundane SF" strikes me as an intellectual exercise more than anything else. Especially if you start out wanting to follow the expressed "rules".
Like you said, I'll keep my Dune and Arthur C. Clarke thank you very much.
Also, seems like such a life-sucking term. We're still talking about fiction after all. Imagine mundane fantasy or mundane horror.
Reply
Which seems to me to be an arse end about way to write stories.
Yup.
The whole "mundane SF" strikes me as an intellectual exercise more than anything else. Especially if you start out wanting to follow the expressed "rules".
Were it that, it would be harmless. But it wants to change SF. It looks at everything before it as naive and condemns those who would follow earlier sorts of SF as "nostalgic." Which, here, seems to be a Bad Word.
Also, seems like such a life-sucking term. We're still talking about fiction after all. Imagine mundane fantasy or mundane horror.
Yup.
Reply
True, the whole "One sub-genre to rule them all" mentality is arch at best, and rather disturbing at worst.
Reply
Wait for it...
Yup.
Reply
Reply
I shall have to look it up.
If I only I could convince myself I should game less and read more.
Reply
Leave a comment