Eccentric Flower:200907/Lets Have Some Links
From Eccentric Flower
Let's Have Some Links
It would be desirable to separate the journal into the ranty part and the webloggish part if only they didn't so often overlap. For example, I had said to myself, "After I put up 'Amphetamine' I will put up a page of nice crisp refreshing links" - each of which I had on a tab in my browser, waiting for me to link them. And now that I look at those links I realize: They are crabby links. Angry links. Links that made me think nasty thoughts when I saw them.
What we have here is a failure of the watertight compartments.
Still, they're good links even if my reaction to them is not, and we badly need a change of pace from the previous, yes? So here they are.
I shall attempt to exercise brevity in my hateful reactions.
1. Here's an article on how, contrary to grumbling from such sources as this journal, we may actually be experiencing a sort of Renaissance in writing due to all these newfangled thangs like Twitter:
My reaction: You can probably guess whether I agree with her premise or not. (Hint: I believe that one day historians will mark this era as the point where we began to collectively lose all standards of written composition or content.)
2. Fireworks war goes horribly bad.
My reaction: What really gets me is that even as this tremendous explosion is taking place, the idiots on the other side of the river are still firing shots at regular intervals. The only real problem with this incident is that there was not nearly enough of a Darwinian penalty for these morons. No one dead? No one in the burn ward? Clearly not enough evolution took place here.
3. John Scalzi on a minor abomination:
My reaction: Maybe Scalzi saying it will actually make someone sit up and take note, but he's said it before and it didn't work, so I don't think there's much hope. Personally, the only chance in hell that I will ever have a F/SF story in a pay publication is if this particular door opens, since sending a story electronically is low-impact enough that I can usually manage to do it before the postpartum glow wears off. [EDIT: But I am neglecting the field. See my comments to Mrissa below.]
4. Album covers in Rubik's Cubes.
My reaction: You'd think there would be no way I could possibly have a negative reaction about something this innocuous, fun, and visually interesting ... but my first thought was "God, some people have way too much time on their hands," so you'd be wrong.
5. OK, an absolutely non-cranky link. Yay!
OMG I know so many people who could use a ChibiPC to do this sort of interpretation.
Including me!
Do you think the SF/F mags do that as a barrier to entry? That is, if they make you go to the effort of finding a big envelope and go to the post office to find the right postage, you're more committed to writing that some wanker who never leaves his mother's basement and can spam every slush pile in creation.
I think e-mail specifically and computers generally have improved writing overall. I write socially much more than I did before e-mail, and computers make my writing infinitely better because I can rewrite so easily.
-- 18:41, 6 July 2009 (BST)
Mrissa: I have a confession to make. I am not really as up on other pro publications that take e-subs as I should be. I became aware of that when reading Scalzi's comments and hearing mention of several publications I had never heard of. This is the peril of being a writer who no longer reads very much of the genre he allegedly writes in.
Also, as long as I'm being relentlessly honest - I tend to fixate on shiny objects. For years I focused overmuch on getting a story into F&SF (Analog seemed too hard-SF oriented, even if I did once get a lovely rejection letter from Stanley Schmidt, and Asimov's was out of bounds until Dozois retired.) Then I focused too much on getting a story into Strange Horizons. I'm going to try to make myself more aware of the possibilities forthwith - although, frankly, at this point the problem is more the lack of short, easily encapsulated story ideas than places to send them to.
Robert: Absolutely, but permit me to quote the Scalzi article again:
As for your latter point, my personal feeling is that while the online-writing revolution has improved the writing of people who already knew how to write decently, it has also let in huge hordes of people who can't write for squat (but often think they can). I feel the disadvantages of the lowering of the bar far outweigh the compositional advantages of the medium.
-- 19:21, 6 July 2009 (BST)
See, that's what I get for not following the link!
I agree that the internet has given idiots a platform, but where we differ is that I think the increased quality in signal (among pre-net good writers and in terms of getting news -- Twitters from Iran anyone?) outweighs the increase in noise.
-- 19:30, 6 July 2009 (BST)
but my first thought was "God, some people have way too much time on their hands,"...
Speaking of, have you seen this? It's one of the reasons I'm so glad I'm no longer in public service.
May it lighten your day. The end cracked me up. Sorta wish they'd used Hex, as well.
-- 21:14, 6 July 2009 (BST)
I equate Twitter with the telegraph -- requiring you to send a message in as few words as possible. The telegraph didn't screw up our writing skills, so why would Twitter?
-- 22:23, 6 July 2009 (BST)
"I can't help but feel that you're abusing our customer service policy."
Thanks, Bunny, that was great.
-- 23:11, 6 July 2009 (BST)
Mrissa:
Do you have anything against the other pro publications that accept e-subs? Baen's Universe, for example, or Fantasy?
Also, you're totally right that the former "Big Three" aren't taking notice--Van Gelder made a snarky remark about how he doesn't take e-subs just so that John Scalzi calls them irrelevant, which, y'know, completely misses the point of *why* Scalzi was doing that.
-- 18:31, 6 July 2009 (BST)