So, yeah, I’ll be at VCon tomorrow in the morning and afternoon. If you’ll be there too, I’ll be the dorky guy who likes sci-fi and video games. You can’t miss me. Seriously, though, i’ll be checking e-mail all day due to the wonder that is the iPhone. So e-mail me and I’ll come say hi!
For everyone else, this is 100 YouTube hits in four minutes. How many do you recognize?
I was recently interviewed by the lovely and talented Silvia Moreno-Garcia over at Innsmouth Free Press regarding my stint at Clarion West and Writers of the Future. I was extremely pleased to do the interview, first off because Silvia’s a friend, and a fellow Vancouverite, but also because I’m excited by the concept behind Innsmouth Free Press.
From their website:
Innsmouth Free Press is a fictional newspaper publishing faux news in a Lovecraftian/Cthulhu Mythos universe, as well as original short fiction stories. We also feature some of Lovecraft’s classic tales.
My own fiction has, of late, been inspired by the Lovecraftian Mythos. It feels like a rejection of the popular “god as just a dude with super powers” theme that’s emerged recently. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve read my share of Forgotten Realms/Dragonlance novels and loved them, but if you want to write outside of media fiction, you should steer clear of their ideas too, and the “gods as suped-up characters” is really their thing.
To Lovecraft, gods and demons were alien to our universe, and thus, by definition, beyond comprehension. The divine beings who show up in my fiction are closer to the one described in Nancy Kress’ award winning short story “Trinity” than an old guy in a beard–that is to say, creatures of such immense power that we are as beyond Their notice as an ant is to us. Or an amoeba.
Innsmouth has also been publishing some of my favourite spec fic personalities, from Campbell Award Winner Mary Robinette Kowal in their latest issue, to editor/writer Nick Mamatas in their debut. With such big names anchoring each issue, expect great things from this little magazine.
I wrote a posting called “Lame Responses to Rejected Stories” a couple of days ago that has caused way more angst than I expected from a 102 word posting. The problem arose from my choice of articles to which to link.
First, a little framing.
Nick Mamatas used to be the slush editor at Clarkesworld Magazine, one of the highest paying, and in my opinion, most literary of the pro magazines. It’s been one of my top markets to submit to for quite some time, and guided much of my professional development as a writer. Nick used to give personal and detailed feedback to every single submission, which was one of the main reasons I subbed to it.
Upon receiving one particularly positive rejection, I started a thread on SFReader “bragging” about it, since I felt like I was getting close to cracking the market. The thread quickly evolved from “congrats on the positive feedback” to “your feedback was much more positive than mine” to “Mamatas is a jerk”.
Several writers shared particularly caustic remarks that Nick had made about their stories and writing in general, and then in response to a posting where I said that I thought Jeff Vandermeer’s “Third Bear” was an excellent tale, Chris wrote this:
it seems like you’re saying that since he was a World Fantasy Award winner he wrote a great tale and it was accepted by Clarkesworld. I have a different take on it–I think that because he is a World Fantasy Award winner, that got his mediocre tale into Clarkesworld. I seriously doubt if a no-name submitted this story it would have been accepted
Nick Mamatas had been following the thread, or it might have come to him through a Google Alert or whatever, but he commented on his blog:
I enjoyed this thread about me, especially the thirteenth item, which complains about my acquisition practices by complaining about two stories I did not acquire — Sean Wallace acquires for the “prominent author” slot. Also hot, a later item in which it is declared that the story in question was only acquired because the author and I are friends. Finally, we get to the bit where someone says, inevitably, “I seriously doubt if a no-name submitted this story it would have been accepted…”
That’s probably where it should have ended. Mamatas is a guy who you tangle with at your own peril. Witness his dismantling of Luke Jackson, the guy who posted the rejection letter he received from Helix that sparked the whole William Sanders controversy, AND his dismantling of Sanders in the same controversy. Yeah, that’s right, he took apart two of the major players in the same controversy. I could post several more links where he has exposed hypocrisy or hidden biases quite definitively, but let’s just say he’s the Zorro of verbal sparring and leave it at that.
Chris ended up taking on Mamatas, and the results weren’t very flattering for anyone, as you can see from the link.
When I wrote my posting and wanted to link to an example of Mamatas’ zeal for verbal sparring and lack of filtering, I recalled that thread and found the link. I most certainly did NOT link to it to hurt Chris in any way, who is a writer I’ve known from SFReader for years. Once again, I linked to it to illustrate “Going Mamatas on someone”, and not to state that Chris’ response to a rejection was lame.
HOWEVER, as a result of my linking to that article, someone added an anonymous comment to that thread attacking Nick, who, as you might have guessed, is a dude I greatly admire. Anonymous comments are just cowardly. It’s worse than gossiping behind someone’s back, because it’s very public. Seriously, if you have something to say to someone, either have some balls and sign your name to it, or keep your mouth shut. End of story.
After all, Chris might have posted anonymously, but in the text of his comments, he identified himself. Chris is a writer who has balls. And you have to respect that.
This… this defies imagination. There are six pages of people laughing at this poor guy. At least he’s a good sport about it!
In my “money always flows towards the writer” post, I said that if your odds of winning a contest was 1% you had a good chance of winning over 100 tries. A few people took issue with that in the comments so I thought I’d explain the logic here with a fun example:
Your neighbour has two kids. One of them shows up at your door and it’s a girl. What are the odds that the other one is a boy? 50/50 right? R-O-N-G, wrong. It’s 66%. Wanna see why?
These are the possible combination of the sexes of your neighbours kids:
Boy Boy
Boy Girl
Girl Boy
Girl Girl
In our example, one of them is a girl, we know that, so the first one can’t be true. That leaves the other three. In two of them, the other one is a boy. So the odds are 66%.
Now, people say that the sexes of the two kids aren’t related to each other, and here is where we make an important distinction. If I’d said: The oldest one show up at your door and it’s a girl, then the odds would in fact be 50% that the other one is a boy, because at that point, these are the possible combinations.
Girl Girl
Girl Boy
See how that works? 50% chance.
Don’t believe me? You can test this quite easily at home with a couple of coin flip. Flip a coin three times. These are the possible combinations of flips.
H H H
H H T
H T H
T H H
H T T
T H T
T T H
T T T
In only one of those do you NOT get tails, right? So what are your odds of getting all heads? 1/8.
However, if you ask what are the chances of you NEXT flip being heads, it’ll be 50%. Every time.