A Curious Statistical Anomaly

A great way to start the day, we overslept. We didn’t manage to get down to the Dealers’ Room until almost 11am. It opened at 10am. I missed a panel that I was really looking forward to at 10 also. Oh, well it happens and we really, really, needed the sleep. (My poison ivy is back–and that’s another story.)

12 (noon) Fantasists as Modern Philologists. Faye Ringel (L), Greer Gilman, Sonya Taaffe, Debra Doyle. Philologists believe that the study of an ancient language is inseparable from the study of its classic texts in their historical and cultural contexts–that understanding a language, the people who spoke it, and the stories they told in it are ultimately the same thing; there is no doing one without the others. It strikes us that this fascination with the interplay between language, culture, and story, is reflected in the works of some of the best writers of fantasy, beginning of course with Tolkien, himself a philologist of renown. Who are these writers? How do their works reflect this attitude even when they’re not actually inventing the languages of their imagined societies?

All the panelists had an amazing array of information to share. The topic ranged over how Tolkien actually went back to basics to discover (not create) the languages as they would have been if they existed. A slightly different distinction than having invented a language — he rediscovered the languages instead.

We speak words and words have power and thus create images in our mind — we “bespell” the world, creating it with words. There was a wonderful bit quoted from one of Ursula K. LeGuin’s books between Ged and his magician teacher about how an object can be changed by changing its true name, but that such a change would radically change the nature of the world itself and should never be done.

There was a lot more — language in a story should be consistent with the character, the world, and the story. My brain was full after this one.

1:00 pm “Are You Writing a Sequel?” Walter H. Hunt, Beth Bernobich, Suzy McKee Charnas, Michael J. Daley (L), Ellen Kushner, Judith Moffett, Sarah Beth Durst, Paul Haggerty. Readers love them. Editors want them–sometimes. What do writers think about them? When do they think of them: before during, or after work on the first book? How do they think of them: all planned out or a grope in the dark? What’s the difference between a sequel and a series? Our panelists will answer these and the questions that naturally follow them.

I really wanted to sit on this as it’s only the second panel Paul’s been on. He was the only non-published author. As a reviewer, he more or less represented the reader on the panel.

The panelists discussed their books, the first and succeeding ones. Whether they knew from book one that there would be a second or not. The problem is that once the first one is written and published the second has to deal with what happened in the first book (while some authors have done a ‘do over’ it’s not advised). So, if you know there will be a sequel, you can write accordingly, making a follow-on book a bit easier to write.

There was some disagreement on whether there was a difference between sequels and series. Moving on, the audience and most of the panel agreed that the most successful follow-ons are those in which the characters grow and change based on what has happened to them before in the book(s).

Well, it’s sort of granted that I should break in here. I was honored to be asked to sit in on this panel, and it was a great deal of fun, despite the rather large number of participants. When Michael Daley was pitching the idea to me during the summer, we thought there would just be three of us. Then when we arrived the other day, we find that there will be eight. Oops! Slight change in plans. But I think it went really well. The conversation zipped back and forth across the table, with no single person hogging the spot light. And with the experience of the authors from seasoned professionals to relative newcomers, to one lone, non-published (but with 10 chapters written!) reviewer, I think a solid array of opinions were espoused. And, I think I managed not to embarrass myself. Okay, back to Gayle …

Then back to the table to help out. Met a lot of folks and talked about SFRevu, the convention, and books.

3:00 pm Gatekeepers to the World of Letters. Michael J. Daley, Nancy Werlin, Charles Oberndorf (M), Sarah Beth Durst, Cassandra Clare, Judith Berman. “[The book is] the oldest and the first mass medium. And it’s the one that requires the most training to access. Novels, particularly, require serious cultural training…I make black marks on a white surface and someone else in another location looks at them and interprets them and sees a spaceship or whatever. It’s magic.”–William Gibson. We know that YA writers take very seriously their responsibility to tell young readers stories that reflect what they feel is true of life. How aware are they of their responsibility for training young readers in the magic Gibson speaks of? What kinds of stories cultivate lifelong readers?

The authors said they write the stories they want to write and the publisher supplies the labels of lower YA, middle YA, upper YA, or whatever. Mostly the labels have to do with the age of the protagonist.

All agreed that the writer needs to, at the beginning of the book, give the reader the clues as to how to read the story and that goes for all books whether for younger readers or adults. That good writing is good writing and that most bad YA is written by those “writing for children” as opposed to those writing to tell a story. That an agenda does not make a good book if you start with the moral or the agenda. That the story is what drives everything even though you may have a theme running through the book.

Never write down to the readers and never forget the stories are key to keeping anyone reading.

Then it was back to the Dealer’s Room until it closed at 6pm. Finally, food. We drove to the mall and its food court — good solid food at reasonable prices. Then we walked through the mall top floor and bottom after eating to walk out the kinks. Finally, back to our room for an early night. We’re across the hall from the con suite and it’s not too noisy but it does mean there is the siren call of munchies and drinks all evening.

Today is the first full day of programming. So, here we go….

11 am Over the Hills in Farah’s Way: Four Categories of Fantasy: Gregory Frost (L), Ellen Asher, Greer Gilman, Sarah Micklem, John Clute. Every Readercon attendee is urged to pick up and devour a copy of Farah Mendlesohn’s Rhetoric of Fantasy, in which she describes four types of fantasy distinguished by the relationship of the protagonists, and hence the reader, to the fantasy world. In the portal-quest fantasy (The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe or Lord of the Rings), the protagonists leave their mundane world and cross through to the fantastic, and the protagonists and reader discover and understand the new world together. In the immersive fantasy (Perdido Street Station or The Iron Dragon’s Daughter), the fantastic is presented without comment or explanation as the norm for both the protagonist and reader. The intrusion fantasy (Dracula or most of Lovecraft’s short fiction) is in many ways the opposite of the portal-quest: the fantastic enters the ordinary world, where it is met by awe, shock, amazement, or the like. (Most intrusion fantasies are horror, but there are interesting exceptions.) In the liminal fantasy (Hope Mirrlee’s Lud-in-the-Mist or Little, Big) there might be an intrusion into the ordinary world, but the reader is disoriented, estranged, or challenged by the casualness with which the protagonists accept the intrusion or by their doubt of its reality. We’ll discuss the usefulness of the taxonomy and look at each of the categories, highlighting the most interesting of Mendlesohn’s insights.

The pocket program had a different title but I made it to the panel anyway. I’ve read about one-third of Farah’s book. What I’ve learned from reading so far is that it stops me and makes me think of the fantasy I’ve read and whether most of what I’ve read can be placed in one of her categories. The panel talked about the misfits or outliers to this division. However, John Clute mentioned that all ideas are wrong because you can always find things that don’t fit or don’t fit well, but that an idea that throws light on the subject and is a starting point for discussion and classification is always worth while (I’m paraphrasing so this is my interpretation of what he said). These four ways that the fantastic come into a story are not vertical divisions by more layers or talking points about how the fantastic interacts with the reader and/or the protagonists.

Whether you agree with the four divisions or not, it is a way to think about fantasy and thus talk about it critically. I really think if you haven’t read the book, do yourself a favor and get it because it will have an impact on how you, as a reader, will relate to and think about fantasy.

12:00 (noon) Generation Dark: Holly Black (L), Nick Mamatas, M.M. Buckner, Cassandra Clare, Don D’Ammassa, Nathan Ballingrud. There’s some anecdotal evidence that the readership for horror and dark fantasy is younger than the readership for the rest of the field, and this shifting demographic is also reflected in our guest list. To what extent is the boom in young writers and readers of dark fantasy a reflection of the darkness of the times? And to what extent are we simply seeing the first generation to grow up with horror as a successful commercial genre and Stephen King as an icon? What other factors are in play?

I found this panel interesting and there was a lot more audience participation. Basically, (my impression was) the youth of today are not newly discovering the dark, all people at times of transition look for the dark in themselves and young people transitioning to adulthood do the same in all eras. The difference is that there seems to be so much more available now with the Twilight series, Buffy, paranormal romance, etc. One phrase I liked is “V.C. Andrews is H.P. Lovecraft for girls.”

The anecdotal evidence turned out to be that because China Mieville brought in a much younger crowd as a guest of honor, young people must like horror and dark fantasy. Laughing commenced and the phrase “anecdotal evidence” became something of a catch phrase.

There was also some anecdotal evidence supplied by the audience that many young people (young teens) don’t know who Stephen King is. Also that young people seem to read a lot of paranormal romance. And that it was the nature of youth to rebel and rebellion often causes them to go and look at the dark within themselves and in the world.

3:00 pm The Critical Review: Griffin, Gorgon, or Sphinx? David G. Hartwell, Elizabeth Hand, Gary K. Wolfe (L), Farah Mendlesohn, John Clute. The book review and the critical literary study serve fundamentally different purposes. Yet SF book reviews have frequently contained valuable critical insights: it’s hard to avoid having them if you’re a perceptive reader, and hard to leave them out of a review. We’ll look at the history and techniques of the critical review and assess just how comfortably the two components have gotten along. What does the continued practice of the hybrid form say about the nature of the reading experience and the way we talk about books.

David Hartwell started out when asked about the difference between reviews and critical study, said that reviews are for people who haven’t read the book and want to figure out if they’d like it and critical studies are for people who have read the book. Most of the panel thought that was too limiting (I agree with him). John Clute said he doesn’t care if he gives away the ending because he’s talking about the shape of the book/narrative and you need the ending to see the full shape. Elizabeth Hand said as a reader she always reads the ending first but as a reviewer she reads front to back to give the full experience and surprise of the ending for the reviews. All agreed that reviews/critical studies should be entertaining and enjoyable in themselves.

Then there was some discussion of the growing trend for reviews to be entertainment in and of themselves and books being chosen just as jumping off points to write and entertaining review, usually negative, about the book. Following this the panel members discussed reviewing or reviewers with agendas.

John Clute said that reviewers are essentially essayist and and reviews should have the shape of an essay. Then there was a discussion of word length, essays, protocols, and formats for reviews.

A consensus was reached that reviews should be pleasurable to read in themselves whether or not you intend to read the book. Interesting thought. I still believe that there is a difference between reviewing for people who are trying to figure out if they’ll enjoy a book than writing for people who have read the book who are looking to learn more about the structure and narrative techniques used to create the reading experience.

4:00 pm Objects in a Room May be Scarier Than They Appear. Delia Sherman (L), John Clute, Kit Reed, Lucy Corin, Paul Tremblay. “The description in crime fiction of domestic interiors, furnishings and possessions…is often crucial to the plot. In Agatha Cristie, for example, we can be confident that almost any domestic article mentioned, however commonplace, will provide a clue, either true or false.”–P.D. James. Objects in a room in SF or fantasy are clues to the world-building, while in much contemporary fiction they are class and status markers and hence clues to character. What about the objects in a room (and by extension the entire described environment) in a horror or slipstream story? How often are they clues, and clues to what? Or is the very cluelessness of the environment part of what creates the horror or facilitates the slippage.

The discussion circled round the need for all elements in a story to serve the character(s) or the plot. Everything (objects, character,  and plot) join together to form an organic whole. Less is usually more. Write and describe everything you want and then, for every item, ask if it is needed.  If you can’t think of at least two reasons to keep it, take it out. You want everything to be there for a reason not to be set decoration.

Bad horror is usually recognized by adjectival barrages — lacking true description. The best horror has no metaphors.

7:00 pm Waking Up Sober Next to a Story Idea. Kay Kenyon, Jennifer Pelland, Jeffrey A. Carver (L), Paolo Bacigalupi, David Anthony Durham, Allan Steele. Really, it seemed absolutely beautiful once upon a time. Now that you’ve had intimate knowledge of it (say, midway through the novel), you can see all the less-than-flattering sides. You may even wonder, What the hell was I thinking? How do you recover enthusiasm for the work? Now that you see the flaws, how do you begin the process of fixing them?

The trick, said the panel, is recognizing when to stop and give up, put the story on ice for later, or simply toss it out. Consensus was that all writers need a bullet-proof, unshakable, bullshit detector. Sometimes you may know the beginning and the end, but not the middle, sometimes the middle and the end but don’t know where to start — the trick it to connect them anyway. Do you barrel thorough anyway or give it up?

It seems that most of the time if you’re stuck it’s because you lost the heart/essence/theme of the story. Once you find it again, write it down in two sentences or so because it will keep you focused and hopefully avoid another wall. You always need to keep the WHY of the story in mind.

They agreed that the worse thing is when you can see the story and know the potential but you know you can’t live up to the potential — you just can’t pull it off because you lack the skill at this point, but you’re the one who has to do it.

They all mentioned how key a significant other or spouse who believes in you when you’re in the depths of despair can be to keep you believing in yourself. Each told stories of when they hit the wall and lost the heart of a story and had to strive to find it again or just give up and go on.

I’d hoped to go to another panel on writing essays but unfortunately, I needed to eat supper before all the eateries around the hotel closed for the evening. So, food and drink were in order.

Once fed and watered, we ventured to the Meet The Pro(se) party.  This is the standard Friday night Big Event at Readercon, where, in an informal setting, everyone gets to mingle and talk.  We schmoozed for about a hour, taking a few pictures here, chatting there, being witty and engaging throughout.

But now it’s time to finish writing up this report and getting to sleep.  Tomorrow is another busy day.

Today has just been about the longest day I’ve had in a while. Up at 6am to finish packing the car, packing our bags, pick projects/books to take with me, and to get on the road by 9am. We also had to make sure the garden was watered, all the garbage out of the house and ready for Friday pick up, and so on and so on. Ern was riding up with us and once he arrived, it was time to hit the road. We pulled out of the drive at 9am — planning paid off.

The trip up was pretty uneventful. No accidents (lots of signs of them and signs warning of delays but I guess we actually were just after the clean up — so no problem). We made quite a few stops for coffee breaks, bathroom breaks (me), and just to stretch our legs. Remember, we’ve got about 20 tons of books packed into this Honda CRV. I’m exaggerating but it felt like 20 tons when you were trying to go uphill in traffic. With all the stops, it took us a bit longer than expected to get here to the Burlington Marriott. We’d planned on arriving at 7pm and got in about 8pm. Luckily, we still managed to get here in time to get our stuff into the Dealer’s Room — though we’ll get set up tomorrow. We’re just too tired.

But lo, there is programming tonight. We’re too late for Opening Ceremonies but by the time we check in and get our bags to our room (and boy that bed looks comfy), we just have time to get to a 9pm talk/discussion.

9PM Every Critic His Own Aristotle: The Languages of Writers, Critics, Academics, and Fans. Gary K. Wolfe with discussion by John Clute, F. Brett Cox, Paul Di Filippo, et al. Talk/Discussion (60 min.). Writers of SF and fantasy criticism feel free to invent their own terminology in addition to that traditionally used in mainstream literary studies. And this new terminology has seldom been portable among the multiple communities that talk about SF–writers, reviewers (both inside and outside the field), academics (ditto), and fans (including fan scholars). Wolfe will discuss the communities and their relationships to one another. Is there hope for developing a coherent dialogue among these groups, and eventually a unified language?

I’d read this discussion/talk description on the website and really wanted to go to this one. I’m so glad we made it. I just wish I was brain-lagged by 13 hours in a car on the highway. I took notes. Now that I’m in our room writing this post and looking at my notes, I’m finding them similar to those wonderfully intelligent and creative notes that one makes with the pen and paper by the bedside when you awake in the wee hours with a brilliant insight. I have no clue what these hen-scratching were meant to convey — but never fear I’ll try my best to dredge up something (but this is from my faulty brain and you all should have been here because this talk/discussion was brilliant).

Wolfe led off talking about the gazillion of definitions of science fiction that are out there. He’s broken them down into three types: functional definitions, rhetorical definitions, and theoretical definitions. Under functional he mentioned David Hartwell’s definition in the Year’s Best… that (paraphrase here) science fiction is what a chronic reader would recognize as science fiction.

It seems that all definitions work if they make the continuing discussion of science fiction easier because it gives a frame of reference in which to determine what is in and what is out. There was also a discussion of definitions, classifications, and context. Terms were mentioned that I hope to look up later and learn more about such as: thought experiments as opposed to extrapolations (some extrapolations are not SF), cognitive estrangement (there was a lot of agreement that this term was going to be a very useful one) — this is where my notes become incoherent….

Basically, it is believed (by me if no one else) that we need a nomenclature that is common for discussion. It seems that academics do not often cite non-academic papers and thus the work done by reviewers and fans may have covered the field and made some significant progress in developing a common language but that academics (unless they are also fans or reviewers or critics) may not be aware of it. Many of the audience cited the problem of researchers being discouraged from looking at sources outside academic journals.

Since several of the people in the audience and officially in the discussion have an academic background the topic was interesting because of their belief that a common language for discussion would benefit the genre as a whole.

It’s my belief that if there is a common nomenclature for discussion and for placing works within the context of the genre, then it may be easier to discuss the text and how well it fulfills it promise or contract with the reader, the fan, and/or critic.

Today was spent getting things ready for driving up to Readercon. I printed off the signs for the book table. I bookmarked some articles to read later. We cleaned out the car, found the thing-gummy for attaching to the roof rack to hold extra stuff, and got the bookcases for the table out of storage. Then we went through the boxes and got the lids on them to protect the books when we stack the boxes.

But before all that we finished planting the rest of the tomato plants in the garden. We’d been trying to get the garden in all week. The salad garden isn’t ready for picking yet but we’ve already gotten some Roma tomatoes out of one plant. The taste of home grown is so different from store bought (and safer too).

Now, all that needs to be done is to pack our stuff and electronics. Tomorrow, we get up at 0’dark 30, shower, dress, eat breakfast, finish packing the car, then hit the post office, CVS (some antihistamines to help keep the poison ivy from coming back), and the bank. Luckily, all the stops are on the way so it shouldn’t slow us down much.

I even managed to get some spinning time in along with everything else.

I usually start my day out reading Amazon Daily’s entries. Today there was one about Starbucks new drink the Vivanno — Banana Chocolate and you can have a shot of espresso added. The writer gave it good marks and it sounded interesting. Didn’t think much more about it, that is until we stopped for coffee on the way home from the doc’s.

There we were in Starbucks and feeling adventurous I order a Vivanno, the Banana Chocolate with a shot of espresso. So, here’s the good and the not so good.

Good: It contains a banana which is really good for you. There’s no gritty taste from the whey powder. It doesn’t give you brain freeze like the Frappaccino does. The texture is really nice on the tongue — I sort of imagine it would be like silk if you wanted to actually taste/lick silk but why would you ….

Not so good: There’s no taste. It has a hint of banana, even less of a hint of chocolate and I couldn’t taste the espresso at all. My husband, the coffee hater, took a sip and yucked about the coffee taste. But I really didn’t taste anything. It had less taste than cream of wheat (and I like cream of wheat). It was super bland. I expected it to be banana-chocolate and sort of hoped more chocolate than banana but it wasn’t either.

So, all in all nice temperature, nice texture, filling. But absolutely little to no taste to it as far as my taste buds could tell — perhaps they were out on a break but I finally gave up and threw out 1/3 of it because that stuff they give you before a lower G.I. series has much more flavor than this stuff (at least to me).

Notice all the caveats and IMHOs — I wanted to really like it. I’m disappointed and I won’t order it again. But on the other hand, I love their Iced Caramel Macchiato (this is my new summer favorite).

My first skein of yarn so far. As I said in an earlier post, it’s about 329 yards. Haven’t done the w.p.i. yet. But, it looks to me like sock yarn-ish. I ended up doing 3-ply.

Here’s a photo of the spool before plying.

After plying (which I forgot to take a photo of….sigh), I put it up on the niddy-noddy as I took it off the spool.

I started another spool of singles tonight. So far, I’m spinning some every day. I took a look at the one pound ball of top and I’ve hardly made a dent. I really don’t think I’m going to finish it off by the 27th. But as long as I get in the habit of spinning again, it will be a success for me.

I’ve also got to decide if I’ll do the next batch as 3-ply again or do a 2-ply. Decisions, decisions. I’m leaning towards 2-ply right now but I may change my mind and do one more 3-ply for the warm winter socks and then do the rest of the wool in 2-ply for a lace something-or-other later. Hmmmm… what do you think?

Just a few odds and ends (some political ranting so you may want to skip.  If you’re a Republican, you’re not going to be happy.  Come back tomorrow instead.  If you want to object to what I’ve said … don’t.  These are my opinions and it’s my blog.):

• Finished my spool of thread. Plied it as 3-ply using Navaho plying. Turns out to be close to sock or light weight. I’ll figure the wraps per inch later. I ended up with about 329 yards. Just need to get it off the niddy-noddy and wash and skein it. Then start on the next spool.
• I can’t believe that our congress critters actually voted to give the telecoms immunity for performing illegal taps on American citizens at the behest of the Shrub without a warrant. Obama voted for the bill. I’ll still vote for him for Pres because I certainly won’t vote for a Republican. I’m trying to maintain the illusion that somehow someone will stand up for the America that we used to have. You know, the one with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Of course our current White House sitter seems to think they are quaint little documents that don’t apply to him or his administration BUT they used to mean something to the people of this country and to the people of the world. Now, we have no honor or standing since we’ve violated most of the treaties we’ve signed, tortured people, hired others to torture people, and spied upon our own citizens just because…well because the W.H. sitter wanted to.
• At least one person in Congress wants to do the right thing. He’s trying to get Congress to impeach the Shrub. Congress can impeach a Pres for having a sex with a consenting adult but we can’t manage to impeach a person who lies to Congress, lies to the American people, violates the Constitution of this Country, ignores the rights and freedoms of the citizenry, and the laws of the land, and gets thousands of American killed in a war that he lied to start. Just where is our honor and integrity — does American even have any left anymore?
• And what do people care about? Not the fact that we’re losing our rights and freedoms and our country is being dismantled around us? No, they paying more attention to the sound bites about religion, patriotism, and safety. I think it was said best that “those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one”.
• Okay, I’m grumpy. I want to live in the country that I grew up in again. I want my Congress critters to do the right things because it is the right thing to do … not because it will get them more pac money or elected next time. If you do the right thing for the right reason and because it is just and needed and for the betterment of all Americans — it will eventually be found that you are a patriot. Wrapping oneself in the flag, as far as I can see is a sure sign that one is NOT a patriot (just look at the current administration — I don’t think based on their statements to the press that they have even read our Constitution or our Bill of Rights).
• As a side note, security theater doesn’t make you safer. It just means that it takes longer to go anywhere or do anything. Entertaining as it may be to watch everyone line up and take off their shoes, it doesn’t make any flight any safer than it was before they made us take off our shoes.
• Did you know that deer will eat onions? I didn’t but one actually came into our garden and dug up our onions and ate them. So, beware there is a deer with really bad breath out there in Maryland somewhere.
• Why do gas prices always go up when there is a holiday when nothing else has changed? Why does gas go up when oil per barrel prices go up but they never go down when they drop?
• Why is the price of American oil the same as for foreign oil.  The pundits keep saying the price of oil is up because of Iran’s threats, or fighting in Nigeria, or whatever.  Is oil in Alaska threatened by Iran or Nigeria?  Why isn’t American pumped oil cheaper?  Oh yeah, because the oil companies have the God given right to make as much money as possible, regardless of how much it hurts America.  Why the hell doesn’t the government claim National Security when our National Security is actually really threatened?  Oh yeah, because the Shrub’s family all make their money off oil.  Silly me.
• Just where is the government funding for actual alternative energy? Why don’t people get rebates that actually would help them add solar panels to their roofs or windmills to their yards? Why do hybrids cost so much more than a gas guzzler?
• Did you know that if everyone took just one bag to the grocery store rather than using a plastic bag it would help save our environment, landfills, and oil? Just one bag not used every week for every person who goes shopping. Amazing how one person CAN make a difference.
• Can you believe that some people believe that Intelligent Design is actually a scientific theory? It’s a religious doctrine folks, not science. It should be taught, if taught at all, in a philosophy class, not in a science classroom. Science is the study of facts, testing what actually happened against what you thought would happen and adjusting. Adjusting facts to fit a belief is not science, it’s wishful thinking. Belief doesn’t have to make sense but science does or things fall apart.  Evolution is a FACT.  It’s observable and measurable.  It’s called a theory because scientists still haven’t worked out enough of the details to warrant changing the name.  “Theory” is a scientific term, with a scientific definition.  Twisting it to match a non-scientific usage doesn’t  change reality.  Evolution is a fact whether you want to call it a Law, Theory, Hypothosis, or Marmoset.
• Life is difficult. Things don’t always work out the way we want them too. It’s not always fair but it is the way it is. They only thing we can do is the best we can each day, living our lives as if this is all we got.  We should be the best person we can because we care about our family, our neighbors, and our fellow human beings and the planet we live on. If there is more (and there may or may not be depending on your beliefs) then living the best life you can, can not hurt your chances for a better afterlife either.

End of rants and odd thoughts. I’ve just had a bad day — I really, really should not listen to news anymore — it only depresses me and makes me think less of my fellow humans. When did the bottom line become the ultimate goal in life. I always thought it was to be the kind of person that other people wouldn’t mind spending time with or knowing.  But then again that’s just me.

Just got back from the Saturday shopping and found my Readercon schedule in my email. Here’s what I’m going to be involved in. Of course, we’re arriving on Thursday early evening hopefully in time to get our table set up in the Dealer’s Room. SFRevu usually has a table at Readercon and we’d love to have your stop by and say “Hello!”.

The discussions I’ve been put on sound like they could be very interesting.  I’m already gathering some thoughts together.  [But with my brain function lately once I’m there I’m simply hoping all my ideas don’t fall out my ear while I’m sleeping and get smashed into my pillow.  This has been, so far, a very bad migraine month but I have hope of things getting better.]  My schedule:

Sunday 12:00 Noon, RI: Discussion (60 min.)

You Got Spec Fic in My Romance! (And Vice Versa!) Victoria Janssen (L) with Nina Harper, Mary Kay Kare, Terry McGarry, Gayle Surrette, Nancy Werlin, …

One of the hottest romance sub-genres at the moment is paranormal, which encompasses everything from vampires to valkyries, werewolves to gargoyles, men who are cursed and women who carry demons on their skin. Many of the more recent paranormals, such as those by Patricia Briggs and Eileen Wilks, arguably have more fantasy than romance. Is paranormal “true” speculative fiction? How often do readers cross genres? Are paranormal romances and speculative fiction showing cross-genre pollination in their content?

Sunday 2:00 PM, ME/ CT: Talk / Discussion (60 min.) Magic and Myth in Human Culture and Fantastic Fiction. Judith Berman and Sarah Micklem with discussion by Andrea Hairston, Elaine Isaak, Michaela Roessner, Sarah Smith, Gayle Surrette, Sonya Taaffe, Ann Tonsor Zeddies, et al

Within our cultures, humans create consensus views of what is real and what is not, and these views are both explanations and operational (curses, oracles; germs, electricity). The modern scientific model of reality excludes the beliefs and experiences of many people around the world, not to mention in most of human history. How do we, as writers, step outside our own worldview to create imaginary cultures in which magic is a fact of life? Berman will talk about anthropological understandings of magic and myth, and issues of authenticity and appropriation, while Micklem will share some sources, primary and anthropological, that influenced her own fiction.

This means we’ll be staying on Sunday later than we usually do. We’re planning to stop and visit my son in Providence, RI on the way home — having dinner there and then heading out for Maryland. We’ll either drive straight through or stop somewhere on the way home to get some sleep. (Seems as you get older it’s a bit harder to drive all night after a day of excitement and adventure.)

I love going to Readercon.  It’s got to be one of my favorite literary conventions.  As usual, I’ll be blogging each day of the convention here.  In August, there will be an overview report of the convention and a link to the daily blog on these pages.  So, if you’re interested in Readercon — check these pages from July 17 – 20.

Tour de Fleece:  This month I’m also taking part in Tour de Fleece and with the car full of books for the Dealers’ Room there is no room for my wheel.  One of my goals was to spin every day.  So, I plan to bring a drop spindle and continue to work on some sock yarn with that so I can meet the “spin every day goal”.   My secondary goal was to spin up a one pound ball of variegated green wool top.  I don’t think I’m going to make it since it’s started spinning up as lace weight and it’s going to look absolutely beautiful when done but there’s no way I’ll ever get a one pound ball of it spun by July 27th especially with several days away from the wheel.