Hey guys,

Music to Write By: “Superman’s Dead” by Our Lady Peace.

Still in moving mode, so this will be another brief one.

Cormac McCarthy’s “The Road” has just won the 2007 Pulitzer Prize for fiction. I talked about this novel in a previous post. Basically, I said the book was really good, but I objected to McCarthy abusing the English language and grammar in general to appear more literary.

So the most prestigious award in the world (barring, perhaps the Man Booker Prize) has honoured McCarthy. Having read a few Pulitzer Award winning novels like House Made of Dawn by N. Scott Momaday and The English Patient by Michael Ondaatje, I can tell you that often books are picked, not for merit, but because they add something to the tapestry of English Literature. If you follow the link, you’ll see that House Made of Dawn was honoured because it was written by a Native American author about the plight of Native Americans. The book is experiemental, switching from 1st to 3rd to 2nd person POV. Is it well written? Well, it’s competent, but not on the order of “Regeneration” by Pat Barker or The Life of Pi by Yann Martel, both Booker Prize winners.

Is this the case with The Road? Was it honoured for successful experimentation rather than a beautiful story? I don’t think so. McCarthy has mastered the sympathetic character in his protagonist “the man” (never named). The book is stunning in the depth of emotion you feel for its characters. The guy is a talented author.

Still, the Pulitzer commitee doesn’t honour authors simply for writing a great story. They obviously thought McCarthy’s book added something to English Literature and I agree. Though I despise the grammatical trickery McCarthy chose to use, he got the literary community to notice a sci-fi novel. The book has done a lot for the genre. He should be congratulated.

Hey guys,

I’m in the midst of moving into a two bedroom apartment with my girlfriend right now and most of my current residence is in boxes so I’ll have to keep this short.

Like nearly every writer, I read a lot. Right now, my reading choices are especially focused on top-notch writers so I thought I’d list them here and tell you why I’m reading them.

“The Road” by Cormac McCarthy. What can I say? This is the first even vaguely sci-fi novel to make Opera’s Book Club, which is where I want to be someday (get picked and you automatically sell 3 million books).

“Rainbow’s End” by Verner Vinge. Anyone know how to pronounce this guy’s name? I’m reading him because everybody I’ve met raves about him and he’s won two hugos. The main character in Rainbow’s End is definately NOT sympathetic, so it’s a good exercise in writing a story where everyone hates the protag but still wants to keep reading.

“The Scar” by China Mieville. I’m reading this because the guy’s prose is beautiful, and this is the area of my own writing that I feel could use the most improvement. It’s awfully slow going though. Note to self: Try to find that balance between good writing and good storytelling.

“Old Man’s War” by John Scalzi. The guy’s got a great blog and can promote the hell out of this one. I’m reading this so that if it comes up in conversation (and with the Whatever’s publicity machine in full tilt, it may well) I’ll know what I’m talking about. Scalzi’s book has great dialogue which is another skill I’m always trying to improve.

Best of the Year’s Best Sci-fiction and Fantasy (?) edited by Gardner Dozois. Sorry about the garbled title, the book is packed away cause of the move. This one is a no brainer. Since I’m focusing on the short fiction market right now I’d better read the best.

Best Sci-Fiction stories from 1924-1964 editing by Robert Silverberg (again garbled title). Same reasons as above. I notice it contains the story “Mimzy Were the Borogroves” which was just turned into the feature film “The Last Mimzy”. A lot of these stories are public domain. Coincedence?

That’s about it for me. What books are you reading and why? Shoot me a line!

Hey guys,

Music to write by: “Renegades of Funk“ by Rage Against the Machine

There has been a lot of buzz around the blogosphere recently about Copyright, so I thought I’d throw a few of my own ideas into the mix.

Cory Doctorow recently issued a call for writers to write a reply to SF novelist Mark Helprin’s call in the NYT for copyright to be extended eternally. I think it’s obvious to most writers that this is a Bad Idea. For an illustration of why this is so, crafted better than I ever could, read Melancholy Elephants by Spider Robinson.

Personally I cannot imagine a world of eternal copyright (although it would drastically cut down on the number of Bad News Bears rip offs that come out year after year). Imagine if you could no longer write about feuding families and star-crossed lovers because Shakespeare already did that? Or shipwrecks? Or gunfights at high noon? This is extreme, but you see what I mean.

On another note, due to the advent of POD technologies, Simon & Schuster has modified their boilerplate contract so that the rights to a book they purchase never revert back to the author (even if the book goes off market, or doesn’t sell any copies). They’ll own your book. Think of it. They could take your book off the market, not sell it ANYWHERE (even Amazon), and you could NEVER get it back. Ridiculous. Read SFWA’s response to this policy here.

Lastly, I just thought I’d throw this out there because it’s interesting. Landi Guidetti was recently sued for copyright violation for downloading 4 songs over the USC network. One of Cory’s students interviewed him. It’s damn interesting. Have a look.

What are your thoughts on Copyright? As authors, this is near and dear to our hearts. We make our livings on it. But technology is gradually rendering it obsolete. Or is it? How do you think technology will affect us?

Hey guys,

Music to write by: “In My Head“ by The Queens of the Stone Age

Seeing as how I was recently accused of libel by a reader(actually, liable… but see the comments of the post ), I thought I’d pass along this handy-dandy link to the Legal Guide for Bloggers sent to me by Stephen Smethurst of ABlueStar fame.

Most interesting to our discussion was the section on Online Defamation Law. According to the site, in order to prove libel, the accuser must establish the following four points.

1) a publication to one other than the person defamed;
2) a false statement of fact;
3) that is understood as
a. being of and concerning the plaintiff; and
b. tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff.
4)If the plaintiff is a public figure, he or she must also prove actual malice.

Seeing as how the person accusing me is a public figure, they would have to prove that I intended actual malice against them… and they are also a friend, so its plain that malice wasn’t involved. I heart the law!

Now, I’ve said before that everything I post on the blog is simply my opinion, but is that a legal defense? According to the site:

No — … merely labeling a statement as your “opinion” does not make it so. Courts look at whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact. (A verifiable fact is one capable of being proven true or false.) This is determined in light of the context of the statement. A few courts have said that statements made in the context of an Internet bulletin board or chat room are highly likely to be opinions or hyperbole, but they do look at the remark in context to see if it’s likely to be seen as a true, even if controversial, opinion (“I really hate George Lucas’ new movie”) rather than an assertion of fact dressed up as an opinion (“It’s my opinion that Trinity is the hacker who broke into the IRS database”).

So I must, in future, be a liddle more careful. Just to be perfectly clear though, I believe that Trinity was the hacker who broke into the IRS database.

You’ll notice that this blog makes extensive use of large block quotes (like the ones above). Can I do this? Um. Here’s another block quote:

What is fair use?

There are no hard and fast rules for fair use (and anyone who tells you that a set number of words or percentage of a work is “fair” is talking about guidelines, not the law). The Copyright Act sets out four factors for courts to look at (17 U.S.C. § 107):

1) The purpose and character of the use. Transformative uses are favored over mere copying. Non-commercial uses are also more likely fair.

2) The nature of the copyrighted work. Is the original factual in nature or fiction? Published or unpublished? Creative and unpublished works get more protection under copyright, while using factual material is more often fair use.

3) The amount and substantiality of the portion used. Copying nearly all of a work, or copying its “heart” is less likely to be fair.

4) The effect on the market or potential market. This factor is often held to be the most important in the analysis, and it applies even if the original is given away for free. If you use the copied work in a way that substitutes for the original in the market, it’s unlikely to be a fair use; uses that serve a different audience or purpose are more likely fair. Linking to the original may also help to diminish the substitution effect. Note that criticism or parody that has the side effect of reducing a market may be fair because of its transformative character. In other words, if your criticism of a product is so powerful that people stop buying the product, that doesn’t count as having an “effect on the market for the work” under copyright law.

The rest of the article is Highly Recommended Reading.

So now you know. And knowing is half the battle. Go Joe!

Hey guys,

Music to write by: “Love in an Elevator“ by Aerosmith

So I finished The Neverending Story by Michael Ende*in record time on my vacation and found myself in O’Hare airport with nothing to read. The only thing even faintly sci-fi in the pitiful bookstore I visited was Cormac McCarthy’s The Road.

I picked it up because it’s the story of a man and a boy walking across a post-apocalyptic America in search of the world’s last canned food. Two things about this appealed to me. Another member of my writing group, Andrew LeBlanc, is writing a screenplay called “High Nuclear Noon on the Radiation Range” which is a similar and yet disturbingly different idea, and Oprah actually picked it for her book club. Which, in theory, should give the rest of us genre writers hope.

It doesn’t.

Judging from the writing, McCarthy is one of those pretentious literary authors who believe that the english language is their bitch. Commas have been deemed irrevalent. Contractions like can’t and don’t have had their apostrophes amputated (but, interestingly enough, “it’s” still has its punctuation (I’ll riff on this in the comments if anyone prompts me)). Mercifully, dialogue is given its own line (but no quotes). Even the lowly sentence isn’t spared. Check out some of these gems…

Deep stone flutes where the water dripped and sang.

Until they stood in a great stone room where lay a black and ancient lake.

Its bowels, its beating heart. (okay, I lied, there are SOME commas but they’re as rare as a virgin on Hollywood Boulevard.)

Now, I’m an English minor, and thus, I was forced to read such literary excrement as James Joyce’s Potrait of an Artist as a Young Man, and To the Lighthouse by Virginia Woolf. Normal humans don’t like these books. In fact, both were self-published. Even my lit prof, whose job it is to like Joyce, claimed that Joyce’s third book, Finnegan’s Wake was basically unreadable. You need to reach a certain level of pretentiousness before you can get into these books, and thankfully I haven’t hit that point yet.

Now, I’m not saying that McCarthy’s book is horrible. It’s a pain to read because of the above issues, but it’s actually quite well written. My objection is that he’s trying to artificially make his book literary by using these parlour tricks. He’s saying, “Look at me, I’m so good that you can like the book even though it’s a pain to read.” There’s a certain segment of the literary community that will like the book simply because of these parlour tricks. In my opinion, the book gained absolutely nothing from these stylistic indulgences.

I’ve said this before about Joyce’s work, and I’ll say it again about McCarthy’s. A great writer should be able to write masterpieces without resorting to Stupid Pet Tricks. Sure, break the rules if it adds to the work. In The Road, they don’t. McCarthy’s tactic is a cheap trick to get attention from the literary community. Unfortunately, it seems to have worked.

*The Neverending Story, the novel, is much, much better than the movie. The movie only covered the first third of the book, and the rest of the book is truly awesome. For instance, Bastain ends up raising an army and attacking Atreyu. The Ivory Tower is burnt to the ground. Many of the books true life lessons are contained in the last part of the book. It’s for kids for sure, but adults will love it. Highly suggested reading.