Unfun, Unfunny Morning
21. Sep, 2009 
6 Comments
In just a bit I have to get back to stupid crap like importing databases and editing cfg files, rather than doing fun stuff like continuing to update COF (which I’m pretty sure is going to include a re-integration of the Classic SF Channel), but first I had to get the morning reads in, which starts with email, usually includes TLTSNBN and finishes off with Google Reader and the many side paths that takes me on.
SFSignal pointed me to Maxim magazine’s Star Wars flowchart, which is pretty bad if one were to take it seriously (tho I can’t really complain too much about Maxim, they did pay me a $2/word rate once a bunch of years ago). One of the problems with the chart is an endless loop right there at the top, but what got me thinking was a comment that noted that some folks don’t appreciate the dissing of the prequels.
Which popped this thought into my head: if we numbered the series correctly, there would be no doubt about what one thinks of the prequels. And they ought to be numbered thusly:
-3 Phantom, -2 Clones, -1 Sith, 0 Star Wars, 1 Empire, ? Return
~~~
Don’t forget this coming Thursday, the 24th. Flash Forward debuts.
And, though I am very reluctant to promote anything that is touched by SkYFY, Stargate Universe is coming at us on October 2nd. I’m (kind of) eager to see what the mind of Scalzi – who gave us octagenerian space marines – has done with this franchise.
~~~
Josh over at PW gets a bit miffed about yet more R/G-fail.
Me – I’m getting a little miffed at the stridency from otherwise intelligent and articulate individuals. Most messages delivered in absolutes fail to convert or even cause engender thinking the second the reader runs into an absolute they think doesn’t apply to them: “They’re not interested in overcoming oppression; they’re dedicated to being defensive. And they’re defensive because they’re afraid of accusations of bigotry,”
Reader: “I’m not afraid of accusations of bigotry because I’m not a bigot” – end of interest and involvement.
Sans the editorial perspectives that a work will only include authors of a particular group for whatever reason – justified or not – or a personal viewpoint that no member of some other particular group produces work worthy of inclusion (in other words, two deliberate forms of exclusion that are most likely very uncommon as well as two forms of exclusion that are probably not ‘curable’) we are left with (mostly, probably) innocent acts of omission which are curable, if they are addressed at the proper time and in the correct (positive) manner.
Once the bad book is in print, all one can do is point and scream. Maybe the editor will determine to do better the next time; more likely they will find a hole and attempt to snipe back, or try to pull it in after themselves. One could consider such a victory, but it is a pyrrhic one. We’ve probably lost an editor.
One can produce anti-answers in the form of a book that specifically includes the previously excluded group – good for raising levels of awareness to some degree, but open itself to accusations of ‘reverse discrimination’ and such does not advance the dialogue.
As always, the focus really needs to be on eduction ahead of time. Less stridency and finger-pointing, more positive awareness-making.
I’ve got a review of an issue of Analog to finish up, followed by the next two Haikasoru releases. After that the decks are cleared, so I will be seeking out a novel by a POC author, or an under-represented gender author, or some other representative member of a loosely-defined group that is not receiving as much attention as white/male/hetero authors are.
I’m open to and seeking suggestions.
PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO MY FEED
“I’m (kind of) eager to see what the mind of Scalzi – who gave us octagenerian space marines – has done with this franchise.”
No offense to John, but he’s just a consultant; that means he gives notes; he’s not remotely the main creative force. But I’m sure his notes were excellent, and with luck the producers and writers paid attention.
As someone who is very fond of SG-1 as popcorn (which, like almost all sf shows, started out finding its way slowly in the first season, but got better and better), and mildly liked SG Atlantis, which was yet more uneven, I’m cautiously hopeful about SGU, which has some major talent with Robert Carlyle. Let’s hope the new situation can make for some fresh and good writing.
I’m going to miss Amanda Tapping and Michael Shanks, in particular, although I liked all of the gang at SG-1.
Not stuff to provoke any thought; never remotely original sf; but generally fun popcorn, once they found their legs.
My favorite comparison of SG-1 video moments is in this post.
And one very brief comment.
“…but open itself to accusations of ‘reverse discrimination’ ”
Yes, but those are always definitionally idiotic. Minorities and majorities, oppressed and oppressor, are not mirror images.
And all authors not selected for an anthology suffer by not being included.
Those straight white, able-bodied, males who feel oppressed by “reverse discrimination” have no clue what a sea of privilege they swim in.
I agree, Gary, BUT:
As we’ve seen from what passes for political discourse these days, ANY “flaw” on the liberal side of the argument is seized upon, inflated, engorged, pumped full of red meat-juice, distorted by any number of talking heads willing to sell their souls for a quarter and ginned up so as to make enough noise to drown out any sensible discussion going on.
I can really only think of three effective counter-strategies: get just as strident and noisy, shift the debate to an area where the other side is vulnerable or flip the patience-of-job switch.
All of them take time, resources and an audience willing to listen. I think it’s much better in the long run to save the ammunition for yourself, rather than to willingly hand it over to them’s what’s gonna shoot it back.
PS: will be implementing a “comments editing” plugin relatively soon. (Pretty much right after the paintball website is back up and I get the ad plugins working properly over here again)
“SFSignal pointed me to Maxim magazine’s Star Wars flowchart, which is pretty bad if one were to take it seriously ”
Setting aside that it’s addressed only to males (It’s Maxim, so big surprise), I thought it was somewhat funny, myself. What did you think was so bad about it (if not the point that it’s addressed only to males)?
One doesn’t have to agree with all the opinions/conclusions/assumptions (I don’t) to find something funny in it. But humor is, of course, subjective.
“As we’ve seen from what passes for political discourse these days, ANY ‘flaw’ on the liberal side of the argument is seized upon, inflated, engorged, pumped full of red meat-juice, distorted by any number of talking heads willing to sell their souls for a quarter and ginned up so as to make enough noise to drown out any sensible discussion going on.”
You’re using passive voice here to generalize about, and disparage, anyone who disagrees with you, who are claiming to speak for “the liberal side of the argument” — as if there were one such consensus view.
Whatever the issue, either of these approaches is going to guarantee a heated Fail, let alone combining them.
“I can really only think of three effective counter-strategies: get just as strident and noisy, shift the debate to an area where the other side is vulnerable or flip the patience-of-job switch.”
I don’t recommend getting involved in discussions in the political blogosphere, or anywhere, with two out of three of these approaches.