Thursday, June 28, 2018
All That Glitters...
"All That Glitters" is a mere 1000 words long and features the most original story idea I've ever had. It's available now in the July issue of Bards and Sages Quarterly.
As the title suggests, it's not gold. But it has other merits. Keep your mind on the money, and the money on your mind...
(Edit: the link now takes you to the Amazon page for the issue)
Sunday, June 3, 2018
"Don" and the perils of accidental plagiarism
I'm very proud to have my short story "Don" in the June edition of Andromeda Spaceways. The original version of the story was drafted almost three years ago, and was inspired by the research I did into wind energy generation as a high school debate coach, as well as my lifelong fondness for the Broadway musical "Man of La Mancha". The story retells Don Quixote as the story of a rogue climatologist, and offers a sci-fi take on his struggle against the windmills.
It was a fun story to write. Any author learns to love the moment at which they find themselves in possession of a wholly original idea--those visits from the muse are few and far between, and inspire a white-hot burst of writing energy as one pours the idea out onto paper.
So the story emerged, and was revised, and revised again, and submitted, and submitted again, as stories are. I never doubted it would land somewhere; the idea was just too much fun not to see print.
And then, about six months after writing the story, I ran across this XKCD cartoon:
Huh. Well, that's...awkward.
This provoked no small amount of disappointment in me (NOOOOO! MY ORIGINAL IDEAAAAA!!!) as well as a mini-crisis of conscience. Because my inspirations for the story, and my research into its plot points, were exactly as I said.
But, on the other hand...I do read XKCD on occasion. And this strip tracks the plot of the story pretty closely. While I had no specific recollection of reading this particular strip, it seems very likely to me that it influenced me when I wrote the story, at least at a subconscious level. Which raises the question: is it possible to be a plagiarist without intending to be one?
I've served as a reviewer of other people's stories at a couple of sites, and I occasionally run across examples of plot points or even character names which I've run into previously in mass-market fiction. I'm not talking about Tolkein pastiches, so much; I'm referring more to things like referring to your main character as "the Bloodless," ala Patrick Rothfuss. And researching the issue, I discovered it happens to professional authors fairly frequently--and that some of them go so far as to avoid reading within their genre for fear of "idea contamination."
I have, in the past, re-read an old favorite only to find a section of text that's suspiciously close to something I've written myself--I've inadvertently taken copy from Douglas Adams, Terry Pratchett, Harry Turtledove, and others. Whenever I've come across an instance of this, I've removed the relevant text from my own work. Using another author's words, intentionally or unintentionally, is plagiarism, full stop.
Story and plot concepts fall into a more ambiguous space. For instance: both my YA novel Axis of Eternity and my short story "Monsters in Heaven" involve an extraplanetary afterlife not altogether dissimilar to the one Phillip Jose Farmer explored in his Riverworld novels. AoE also involves a plot concept which had been previously explored by Ivan Stang, inventor of the Church of the SubGenius, and which I later discovered as the central concept of still another author's story in Broadswords and Blasters. Where this sort of thing is concerned, I think some allowance has to be made for good faith on the part of the author, provided that he or she is acknowledging his or her influences and giving credit where it's due. And there's also going to be some instances of two different people just having the same idea. Great minds think alike, and occasionally, even my mind meanders into those realms normally reserved for the truly talented.
In the end, I elected not to kill the story, and the editors, having been made aware of the issue, elected not to kill it either. I do think, though, that it's appropriate to give xkcd's Randall Patrick Munroe a shout-out and a thank you for his subliminal inspiration. His stuff is so great that it ends up making my stuff better. And if he's reading this, I hope he won't have me killed.
Tuesday, May 15, 2018
*erilous *rincesses
CBAY Books has just released its latest anthology for
middle-grade readers, *erilous *rincesses. As the title would suggest, it’s
themed around stories in which the *rincess is the source of the danger as o**osed
to the victim thereof. Readers who love heroines with agency will find no
shortage of them herein, ranging from fairy-tale ty*es to modern s*ies. My *articular
favorites from the anthology are “Aurora in the Dreaming,” Alison Ching’s
account of Slee*ing Beauty’s secret adventure, and Madeleine Smoot’s “Redem*tion,”
which successfully marries the flavor of a children’s classic to altogether
original content.
My own contribution is “The *rincess and the *.” Fans of
modern *hilosophy are well aware that the language we use not only reflects our
reality, but also creates it in many ways. In the Kingdom of Lexico, that’s
even truer than elsewhere. When *rincess Mynda determines that a *articular
letter of the al*habet (I won’t say which one) is the source of all her nation’s
*roblems, she engages in a *articularly aggressive form of s*eech-*olicing
which *roduces disastrous consequences for all involved—and is forced into a
des*erate scheme to undo her handiwork.
More than that I dare not say, exce*t that I have seldom had
more fun writing a story, and less fun editing one.
Monday, March 26, 2018
Ayn Rand for Gay Teens
There’s no Hollywood trope that’s further from reality than
the “hero teacher” story. Movies love
the idea of a Jaime Escalante or a Joe Clark dropping out of a clear blue sky
and turning around a classroom or building full of troubled youth. Teachers—myself included—know better. We’re useful and helpful people, and we need
to be competent or better for a school to be the best version of itself. But any school that achieves anything does so
because its STUDENTS are heroes. Every
high-achieving school I’ve ever been involved with (and I’ve been part of
several) has risen on the tide of its students’ drive and talent.
Ayn Rand’s Atlas
Shrugged is…well, it’s many
things, isn’t it? An astonishing break
with the moral orthodoxy of its day, for one.
Prone to interminable passages of purple prose, for another. One of the more interesting things about
Atlas Shrugged, for me, is its transgressive attitude towards labor relations. It asks the question: what if capital went on strike, as opposed to labor?
Rand posits that the people putting in the important work all along aren’t
necessarily the people you’d assumed.
But she also posits a unique strike strategy. Rand’s “men of the mind” don’t march with
placards; they aren’t directly defiant in any way. Instead, they disappear into the
woodwork. They stop innovating. They remove themselves from the occupations
in which they have talent and do menial labor, working only with their
muscles. They aren’t noncompliant,
they’re hyper-compliant. In enacting this strategy, they reveal how
important their volunteerism has been all along.
As a teacher, I’ve often wondered what would happen if the uncelebrated
innovators responsible for a high school’s success—the students--implemented
Rand’s strategy. What would happen if a group of kids decided their efforts were
being taken for granted, and took an educational approach based on the idea of
doing exactly what was required of them and nothing more? In truth, this is every teacher’s
nightmare. The power of students is in
many ways invisible to them; they have no idea just how little authority over
their behavior teachers really have, how much of our power is a function of
willing partnership. With the events
surrounding the Stoneman Douglas shootings, students are awakening to the
realities of how much power they actually hold.
If anyone ever successfully organizes them as a unified block…
I knew early on, when I made the transition to short
stories, that I would at some point make an attempt to rewrite Atlas Shrugged
as a story of teen rebellion. The final product, enhanced by romantic and science fiction twists, is
“Been There, Done That,” which you can read in this quarter’s issue of TheColored Lens. I generally workshop my
stories with other writers before seeking to have them published, and edit
based on the suggestions I’m given.
Among these beta readers, BTDT is by far my best-received story. I hope you’ll enjoy it as well.
Saturday, March 17, 2018
The Love of Craft: An Appreciation of Cirsova #5
New Pulp has no flagship. No Admiral on Earth could keep
these particular frigates from sailing joyously off in whatever direction they
please. But…if New Pulp DID have a flagship, it would probably be Cirsova. Under P. Alexander’s
leadership, the magazine has acquired a wide enough following to lock down a
Hugo nomination, and will soon publish its seventh issue.
Issue #5 is seen by many as a particular bright spot for Cirsova, with stories nominated for both
the Planetary and Ursa Major awards.
Recognizing the opportunity to achieve a wider readership, the editors
elected to make the issue free via Amazon for a week. I like New Pulp, for the most part. I like free things even more. I jumped at the
chance.
Cirsova #5 is divided
more or less evenly between standard tales of pulp adventure and a thematically
linked series of stories from Misha Burnett’s “Eldritch Earth” universe. The editor describes the concept as a sort of
Lovecraft-Burroughs fusion: the setting
is the Earth during the Triassic era, at the tail end of its occupation by
squamous alien entities who have not yet retreated to their slumber beneath the
glaciers. The Great Race are still hanging around their back porches, where
they shake their pseudopods irascibly at the kids in their yards, while various subject races of their
creation squabble for control of the primordial world. One of those subject
races is humanity, and it’s on that basis that the writers seek to wed the “sword
and planet” heroic fiction concept to the Lovecraftian milieu.
I struggle with this idea, and Mr. Alexander’s own notes
at the outset of the issue anticipate my objection:
“I have found cause
for gripe about a lot of fiction that’s labelled ‘Lovecraftian’—the biggest
being that it is not particularly Lovecraftian at all. To a large extent,
‘Lovecraftian’ falls into the same rut as Steampunk, only instead of gluing
gears to everything, it’s tentacles.”
This begs the question:
what IS Lovecraftian fiction? For
me, the defining characteristic is a cosmic horror born of the sudden
realization that humanity is not, in fact, at the top of the food chain;
indeed, that from a universal perspective, we’re not even insects. Lovecraft posits that entities exist whose
motives are not exactly malevolent, but so far beyond our understanding that to
even encounter them is a sanity-shattering experience.
Bluntly, I don’t know that this leaves much room for the
heroic. I don’t think Lovecraft’s
stories would have been improved if Randolph Carter had been handed an SMG and
he’d started mowing down shoggoths. New
Pulp is a celebration of human ability and potential. Lovecraft’s message is “your abilities are
irrelevant in a cosmic context, and you are potentially something’s dinner.” I don’t think, in short, that heroic fiction
can be made Lovecraftian by gluing some tentacles to it.
All the stories of Cirsova
#5 are well-written on a line-by-line level, but there are times when the conceptual
tensions show. The stories work least well when they try to transplant Robert
E. Howard to the Triassic, with brawny iron-age heroes mowing down scads of
enemy henchmen and advancing towards boss fights. Additionally, the whole Eldritch Earth
concept is still in an early stage developmentally, and as with other such
experiments (notably Baen’s Grantville) there are times when the authors
involved seem to be proceeding from fundamentally incompatible concepts of how
the story’s world works. I can just about
buy that humanity was designed as a slave race by Mind Flayers, but what’s up
with all these other late-Pleistocene mammals popping up all over the place? The horses?
The dogs? The tapirs? Or even Cretaceous critters such as birds,
for that matter? These aren’t story-killers, but they’re anti-atmospheric and destructive of reader immersion, and
the Eldritch Earth stories will become more fun for readers once the authorial
community leaves the tropes of iron-age Earth behind.
Now, all that aside, there is some damned good stuff in
here. In fact, in spite of my conceptual
misgivings, the Eldritch Earth stuff is as a whole the better half of the
issue. Three stories in particular stood
out to me. My favorite is actually not
one of the two award nominees; rather, I’d opt for the Eldritch Earth creator’s
own contribution, IN THE GLOAMING O MY DARLING by Misha Burnett. Burnett’s tale
is, for me, the most Lovecraftian of the bunch, in the sense that it places its
two young protagonists in a helpless position at the mercy of alien enemies
with inhuman agendas. The pathos of their situation is well-conveyed; both
characters pop as individual personalities and earn the audience’s rooting interest.
In addition to being a skilled crafter of characters, Burnett shows a
willingness to abandon the conventions of heroic fantasy when doing so serves
the story.
Schuyler Hernstrom decidedly does not abandon the conventions of heroic fantasy. But why the hell
would we want him to? Some people are
just right for their role, and Hernstrom is unmistakably right as an author of New Pulp.
The Planetary Award-nominated THE FIRST AMERICAN is a story born of a
genuinely brilliant twist on the Eldritch Earth formula, the nature of which is
foreshadowed in the title. Unmistakably Barsoomian in its approach, the story
is action-focused in the extreme, the plot not so much advanced in stages as
shot out of a cannon. And only a fool
would wish it to be otherwise. In the passages above, I’ve been dismissive of
the “slaughter henchmen en route to the boss” formula, but damnit, we NEED that
sort of story sometimes, and there’s a huge difference between seeing that sort
of story done well and seeing it done badly.
Hernstrom does it so well that I worry he may have been born seventy
years too late to find his audience. Hernstrom is potentially the
paradigm-defining author of New Pulp.
I was also a big fan of S.H. Mansouri’s Ursa Major-nominated
BEYOND THE GREAT DIVIDE, the title of which describes the author’s daring
decision to adopt the perspective of the insectile Slagborn, one of humanity’s
rival races. Looking at humanity through
segmented eyes, Mansouri successfully conveys a very Lovecraftian sense of
human fragility and impossible odds, but succeeds nonetheless in conveying a
sense of hope. In particular I respect Mansouri’s judgment in rejecting the
obvious authorial decisions—rather than going with the “hive mind” concept, he
adopts a more interesting perspective that fuses individual identity with
collective reasoning, and rather than rejecting emotional influences on his
perspective characters, he permits them to be influenced by them in insidious
ways, with full awareness, as if anger were a drug.
Cirsova #5 is,
above all else, a reminder of what wonderful days these are to be an author and
a reader. Even five years ago, these authors would have been scrambling to
shape their unique visions to a corporate audience, and those who enjoy their
work would have been subsisting on inferior scraps from other sources.
Technology truly has proven liberating for both creators and their audiences.
Here’s hoping that Cirsova’s still
around to scratch its readers pulp itch for a long, long time.
Tuesday, March 13, 2018
The Sneetches of Sexuality
"The Book That Turned Me Gay," a story which could well prove career-ending for me, is up at The Overcast. Podcaster JS Arquin absolutely crushes the narration, providing wonderful character distinction and a narrative spirit entirely faithful to my vision of the story. There's also an audio postscript to the story, narrated directly by me, which 1. explains why I wrote it, and 2. demonstrates that I really, really need to buy a new mic.
In that postscript, I reference the situation at the library at the school which employs me. The real world version of the story has no villains, and certainly no counterpart to Weston Munsch. The school library--er, the "learning commons"--is in capable hands, and everybody involved, from administration on down, is operating from understandable motives. But I make no apologies for being bothered by it. I'll always push back against the sentiment that a high school can be made a better place by having fewer books around. God bless librarians, Little Free and otherwise.
A secondary theme of the piece, which I don't discuss in my postscript, is the fundamental futility of wondering why people develop same sex attraction. There's a bizarre maze of arguments and agendas wrapped up in the question. Progressives who believe in virtually no prenatal component to cognition, who would be desperately offended by the assertion that other aspects of character or ability are largely determined in the womb, suddenly assert that non-traditional sexual orientations are ENTIRELY prenatal--that kids are "born this way" and that environment plays no part at all. Meanwhile, conservatives who believe that government is utterly incapable in every other area of human life suddenly convince themselves that government affirmation is the key to civic virtue, and moreover, that gay kids can be trained like dogs. These intellectual contortions are amusing. The problem is the idea that it's necessary to make these arguments in order to justify or dejustify homosexual orientation or behavior.
But it isn't necessary. The question of where sexual attraction comes from is immaterial. Nobody else has the right to tell you who to love. This is equally true in a world in which nature makes people gay, in which God makes people gay, in which people become gay because it's fashionable, or in which aliens are creating homosexuals as a labor force to build landing strips outside Des Moines. The question "why are people this way" blinds us to the more important question of "what should we do," the answer to which is, "treat people with respect regardless of how they use their genitals." We make it more complicated than it ought to be.
The other question which readers will ask is: who the hell am I, a straight white guy, to write about gay kids? The short answer to which is: a human with an interest in the welfare of other humans, which is all the qualification I need.
A somewhat longer answer: I'm a believer in imaginative empathy. I believe that fiction can help us to appreciate the humanity of people who may not be exactly like us in terms of ethnicity, income level, or sexual orientation. I recognize that representations of experiences that aren't our own are likely to be imperfect, but I don't think that's a good reason not to write. If our identities are defined intersectionally, then NOBODY'S experience is like our own, and memoir becomes the only legitimate form of creative expression. The fear of imperfect representation is valuable if it causes us to try to write more accurately, but poisonous if it keeps us from writing at all.
For this reason, I choose to take risks. I imagine life from the perspective of people who aren't me--women, LGBTQ individuals, Congolese child soldiers. I research as thoroughly as possible and check my work, when I can, with people whose lived experiences are similar to those of my characters. And then I turn the work loose, and subject it, and myself, to judgment.
This week I re-read A Wrinkle in Time in anticipation of the movie. I was struck, as I did so, at the utter fearlessness of Madeleine L'Engle. She opens the book with "It was a dark and stormy night."--the exact line Charles Schultz has Snoopy use when he's up on his doghouse being a hack writer. L'Engle's characters are colorful in ways which other writers wouldn't dare, sometimes successfully (Charles Wallace and Meg) and sometimes less so (has any human being in history ever spoken the way Calvin O'Keefe does in this book?). She ladles the Christianity and the techno-magic on in heaping helpings, and dares the reader to disbelieve.
I'm no Madeleine L'Engle. I can't match her writing chops or purity of spirit. But I can try to be more like her. I can choose to write without shame, and to set aside my fear of judgment in order to tell my stories.
And I do so choose.
In that postscript, I reference the situation at the library at the school which employs me. The real world version of the story has no villains, and certainly no counterpart to Weston Munsch. The school library--er, the "learning commons"--is in capable hands, and everybody involved, from administration on down, is operating from understandable motives. But I make no apologies for being bothered by it. I'll always push back against the sentiment that a high school can be made a better place by having fewer books around. God bless librarians, Little Free and otherwise.
A secondary theme of the piece, which I don't discuss in my postscript, is the fundamental futility of wondering why people develop same sex attraction. There's a bizarre maze of arguments and agendas wrapped up in the question. Progressives who believe in virtually no prenatal component to cognition, who would be desperately offended by the assertion that other aspects of character or ability are largely determined in the womb, suddenly assert that non-traditional sexual orientations are ENTIRELY prenatal--that kids are "born this way" and that environment plays no part at all. Meanwhile, conservatives who believe that government is utterly incapable in every other area of human life suddenly convince themselves that government affirmation is the key to civic virtue, and moreover, that gay kids can be trained like dogs. These intellectual contortions are amusing. The problem is the idea that it's necessary to make these arguments in order to justify or dejustify homosexual orientation or behavior.
But it isn't necessary. The question of where sexual attraction comes from is immaterial. Nobody else has the right to tell you who to love. This is equally true in a world in which nature makes people gay, in which God makes people gay, in which people become gay because it's fashionable, or in which aliens are creating homosexuals as a labor force to build landing strips outside Des Moines. The question "why are people this way" blinds us to the more important question of "what should we do," the answer to which is, "treat people with respect regardless of how they use their genitals." We make it more complicated than it ought to be.
The other question which readers will ask is: who the hell am I, a straight white guy, to write about gay kids? The short answer to which is: a human with an interest in the welfare of other humans, which is all the qualification I need.
A somewhat longer answer: I'm a believer in imaginative empathy. I believe that fiction can help us to appreciate the humanity of people who may not be exactly like us in terms of ethnicity, income level, or sexual orientation. I recognize that representations of experiences that aren't our own are likely to be imperfect, but I don't think that's a good reason not to write. If our identities are defined intersectionally, then NOBODY'S experience is like our own, and memoir becomes the only legitimate form of creative expression. The fear of imperfect representation is valuable if it causes us to try to write more accurately, but poisonous if it keeps us from writing at all.
For this reason, I choose to take risks. I imagine life from the perspective of people who aren't me--women, LGBTQ individuals, Congolese child soldiers. I research as thoroughly as possible and check my work, when I can, with people whose lived experiences are similar to those of my characters. And then I turn the work loose, and subject it, and myself, to judgment.
This week I re-read A Wrinkle in Time in anticipation of the movie. I was struck, as I did so, at the utter fearlessness of Madeleine L'Engle. She opens the book with "It was a dark and stormy night."--the exact line Charles Schultz has Snoopy use when he's up on his doghouse being a hack writer. L'Engle's characters are colorful in ways which other writers wouldn't dare, sometimes successfully (Charles Wallace and Meg) and sometimes less so (has any human being in history ever spoken the way Calvin O'Keefe does in this book?). She ladles the Christianity and the techno-magic on in heaping helpings, and dares the reader to disbelieve.
I'm no Madeleine L'Engle. I can't match her writing chops or purity of spirit. But I can try to be more like her. I can choose to write without shame, and to set aside my fear of judgment in order to tell my stories.
And I do so choose.
Tuesday, March 6, 2018
Giving you the Finger
Greetings, readers of The Arcanist. I promise that, despite that story, I'm not a horrible person (or a horrible anything else). Plenty of more cheerful stories are linked in the banner at right. And I've got another one on the market that has an adorable baby goat in it, so there's that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)