But I Digress | Star Wars Into Darkness

If I see one more article purporting to contain exclusive news about the latest director, actor or other talent NOT involved in Star Wars: Episode VII, I swear I'm going to swear off the internet.

Admittedly I've never been a huge Star Wars fan. For me, it was Star Trek all the way. And though a love for one of the above doesn't necessarily preclude some fondness for the other, I tend to think these things are set in stone when one's stone is still soft — which is to say when you're young.

As a kid, in an odd intermingling of idiocy and innocence, I imagined the people who made Pepsi and Coca-Cola hated one another, and thus, the people who drank one soft drink had nothing to do with the enemy beverage. The same went for Snickers and Mars bars, fast food from McDonalds versus Burger King, and Star Wars vis-a-vis Star Trek.

I was a Coca-Cola kid. I also enjoyed Snickers, McDonalds and Star Trek. I dutifully avoided the other in each of these fields, with sometimes fundamentalist fervour, such that even now I have mixed feelings about Mars bars. Seriously, why no nuts?

In any event, then came the realisation that Star Wars fandom was essentially inextricable from the friends I found myself making, so I gave the original trilogy a shot. I gave it a couple, at that. But each time, I came out of the experience as cold as I'd gone in. The films seemed cartoonish to me. Simplistic, and sometimes silly. 

This is particularly rich coming from a Trekkie, isn't it? Believe you me, I'm well aware!

But back to the matter at hand: feeling my years even at age 11, I concluded that I should have sat down with Star Wars sooner. Because by the time I did, it was too late. I was new to double digits, but still too old for A New Hope.

I felt this way because Star Trek had my heart. There was just no room at the inn for another love. And I dare say it's still fully booked.

So the news of three more Star Wars movies leaves me... unmoved. I don't doubt that this is huge for some of you. But do we really need to blog about the infinite number of directors that don't plan to direct Episode VII? Each and every actor that may or may not return to reprise their roles?

No.

Tell you what, though. Star Trek Into Darkness looks fantastic. :D

I was going to see The Hobbit at the cinema this Christmas one way or the other, but the recent news that the IMAX print of it comes complete with nine minutes of the Star Trek sequel, has me reconsidering my mixed feelings about movies on those massive screens.

So where do you folks fall? Are you die-hard Star Wars fans, or Trekkies like yours truly? More to my meanderings, is there anyone out there who'll swear by both series?

Opinionated Speculations | Snob vs. Blog

So I had this whole other post all but good to go, then Mr Mark Charan Newton - author of The Legends of the Red Sun and The Lucan Drakenfeld Mysteries, which I'm awfully excited about - twittered a link to an article from The Guardian. The headline sorta says it all:

BOOK BLOGGERS ARE HARMING LITERATURE,

WARNS BOOKER PRIZE HEAD JUDGE

So proclaimeth Peter Stothard, lamenting the end of an era in his eyes. Specifically the era of literary criticism... because of bloggers. Because we're idiots and amateurs all!

This is nonsense, obviously. Then again, as one such charlatan, I would say that, wouldn't I?

If you haven't already, off you pop: read Alison Flood's interview in its entirety here — and give the comments a gloss if you have the time to. That's where the actual debate is taking place, after all... though it seems to me somewhat one-sided.

That said, it's easy to see why so many are railing against Stothard's comments. Essentially, his argument is that literary critics are in a sense superhuman; in their knowledge and understanding, in their wit and insight, literary critics, according to Stothard, stand apart and indeed above the opinion of the uninformed, unedited and one presumes unwashed that you and I number amongst. In this way the chair of the Booker Prize momentarily lowers himself to give us the bath we clearly dearly need.

Normal people, in other words, don't know what's good for them. Only literary critics do. Thus we should all shut up.

What whole-hogwash!

Or is it?

This may prove an unpopular opinion, but beneath Stothard's snobbery, I wonder if there isn't a glimmer of sense in his sentiments. Because there is a difference between bloggers and literary critics, isn't there? I don't believe it's half so simple as this old blowhard would have it - that one presents an argument whilst all the other has is an opinion - yet there is a split somewhere, surely.

I mean... take me. You all know I write for a fair few sites outside of The Speculative Scotsman, including Strange Horizons and The Science Fiction Foundation, but I certainly don't consider myself a literary critic, and I sincerely doubt many other bloggers would describe themselves thus.

Though please, feel free to disagree.

So there is, least as I see it, a difference. It's hardly killing literature, as per Stothard's discriminatory silliness, but it is changing it. Unrecognisably in certain respects.

For instance, folks tend to attribute Fifty Shades of Grey's mega-success to the phenomenon of self-publishing, but let's not kid ourselves: without word of mouth - without many millions of us contributing to that word of mouth, by blogging amongst other things - it would have come to nothing. In this case, literary critics can't be blamed. They had next to nothing to do with it.

And perhaps that's emblematic of what's really bothering Stothard. Because in ages past, literary critics did dominate. And now they do not. Now they're made to share the limelight with mere mortals.

How awful!

Smash Hits | Not The Psychic Scotsman

Local interest (at least for me) meets mad science in this report from Medical Express, by way of Salon Futura's Cheryl Morgan.

Did you know scientists at the University of Glasgow have figured out how to read minds? Apparently by decoding the patterns of certain brainwaves, some odds and sods about the Institute of Neuroscience & Psychology have figured out which patterns represent which emotions, in a series of experiments which equate to expensive games of join the dots with value-added electroencephalography.

For instance, take a gander at this here beast:

What this remarkable news means is that now, after centuries of ignorance, scientists will finally be able to tell whether you find this here Jack Russell adorable, or terrifying.

They will be able to do this... eventually. Probably.

Let's all of us say it at once: God love Scotch science! :)

All kidding aside, this could very well be important-ish news, in due course. Mostly I was just looking for an excuse to post that puppy picture. Because the internet can never have enough puppies, am I right?

Or is it the other way round?

***


Source: Medical Express

Cover Identity | The Flames, They Are A-Flooding

In a shockingly fast reaction to yesterday's GRRMblings - among a long and storied history of other such posts, of course - it seems George R. R. Martin and his Stateside publisher Bantam have agreed to unceremoniously kill A Song of Ice and Fire dead.

Many shall mourn - because damn it all, George, you promised us at least two more books! How very dare you?

Some shall celebrate - for at last, an end!

But invariably, others shall discuss poop, and sexing.

So all is as it should be. :I

Thanks to the Yeti What Stomps for the huge scoop, and congrats too to his significant other Jennifer for winning the design contract on the preliminary cover art represented above. Quite the big break there!

Do stay tuned for the UK cover of A Flood of Flames...

...any minute now.

###

Source: Stomping on Yeti

Playing The Fool

Would you believe me if I said to you, today I killed a man?

No?

Well, it was worth a shot.

How about if I told you the release date of A Dance With Dragons had been brought forward a fortnight?

Yeah. As if.

I'm all swings and roundabouts on April Fool's Day. On the one hand, what a complete and utter waste of time it is. Every single story that breaks you have to take with a grain of salt, and some years, some pretty big news gets buried in all the nonsense.

On the other: fun, games, glee.

Oh how I wish that new Angry Robot Imprint were real...

But scrolling through all the jokes in my RSS reader this morning - the good, the bad and the butt-ugly - I wasn't taken in by a one, and I got to wondering, have we reached boiling point on April Fools' Day pranks? Because I can't for the life of me remember when I was last made a fool of, so much as made to wish it were the 2nd already, what with the widespread silliness.

So do tell: when was the last time an April Fools' Day prank got the better of you?

And please, feel free to wax reminiscent... remind me of the good old days, when the grass was greener and the other side wasn't just a Chillis song. What the best trick you ever fell for? What was the worst?

"The SFF Blogosphere Ain't What It Used To Be"

Here is something interesting someone said.

Like Pat - oh would that I could be just a little more like Pat - I had hoped to say something interesting about the interesting thing someone said. But since many of you are also interesting, and interested in interesting things, I figured you might have something interesting to say about the interesting thing aforementioned.

In lieu of my saying anything interesting at all. You know.

*ducks*

Woe Is Team Edward

This just in!

Team Edward, it seems, have lost.

Whilst idly browsing Baby Names World a little while ago - you must promise not to ask me why; it's altogether not what you think - I came across some rather surprising statistics. Apparently, the most popular girl's name for the year 2009, and thus the most popular name of the year?

Bella.

22,067 times last year, a new baby girl came into the world and its originators, presumably Twilight-obsessed new parents, deemed it wise to name it after you-know-who.

Furthermore, the most popular boy's name in that same period... turns out to be Jacob. I kid you not. 20,858 kids born in 2009 alone are now crawling around the floor of the world, named, alas, after a sexy werewolf. Never mind that Jacob's quite a nice name - and perhaps Lost had something to do with this one, too. Or am I kidding myself?

Which leaves only Edward. Poor, misbegotten Edward. He comes in 248th overall, with only 2952 infants named in his dubious honour. Can't say I saw that coming. For goodness sake, more boys were named Maxwell!

Where did Team Edward go so wrong, I wonder? Honestly, I have no idea. Did Edward turn out to be a creepy old man wearing a teenager's face - the better to perv on Bella with - in the end? Was that it?