Quoth Soli: I've heard some C93 fans didn't like it for some reason, though.
Yeah, but it's astonishingly easy to piss off C93 fans; being a Current fan myself, I was rather dismayed to learn this. I mean, some of those guys are still torqued that the new albums don't sound like Dog's Blood Rising any more.
I'm not sure what it is that makes this particular fandom take themselves so deadly seriously; I don't get the impression David Tibet does. I suspect it's the elitism that comes with a niche interest.
Anyway, very nice to meet a fellow Apocalyptic Folk fan in these parts. My own point of entry (heh) for Coil was Horse Rotorvator, by way of C93's "The Seven Seals..." and the many references there. If nothing else, I'm looking forward to EHR to see how all that artistic cross-pollination worked behind the scenes as well.
Now in circulation in my Currently-Reading pile are Courtney Crumrin in the Twilight Kingdom, DWJ's Deep Secret, Pagels' The Gnostic Gospels, and K.J. Bishop's The Etched City. I'm also (slowly) going through one of my rereads of Imajica, a reliable nightstand fixture (though heaven only knows what it's doing to my dreams).
I started Jonathan Strange back in October, but it seems to be on hold for a while until I can really give it some attention. What I've read so far is a delight, though.
Soli - How is England's Hidden Reverse? I'm still waiting for Amazon to decide whether or not the paperback version exists yet so they can send me one, but I've been looking forward to it. It's going to be very weird reading with John Balance so recently dead.
This slide show reflects pretty accurately the spirit of bipartisan conciliation I'm filled with these days. Make sure you have the sound on to hear the soundtrack by Jim's Big Ego. (It is, however, emphatically NSFW.)
Patrick, apparently a lot of aging punks have the same idea.
The big powerful guilds didn't like him, but they liked him in power a lot more than they liked the idea of someone from a rival guild in the Oblong Office. Besides, Lord Vetinari represented stability. It was a cold and clinical kind of stability, but part of his genius was the discovery that stability was what people wanted more than anything else.
He'd said to Vimes once, in this very room, standing at this very window: "They think they want good government and justice for all, Vimes, yet what is it they really crave, deep in their hearts? Only that things go on as normal and tomorrow is pretty much like today."
Emphasis mine. I've been thinking about that book an awful lot lately.
In the last year-and-a-bit I've spent as a frequent reader of Nielsen Hayden blogs, the discussions here have caused me to reconsider a lot of my own reactionary prejudices about Christianity and centrism. (And editors, while we're at it.) If the Nielsen Haydens can inspire a clove-smoking Unitarian quasi-anarchist like me to be nicer about churchgoing folk, to consider that conservatism has ideas worth redeeming, to realize that I don't have to agree with all my fellow-travellers to work toward the same ends... well, I think some of the words Andy's using do not mean what he thinks they mean.
And why is it that when a liberal gets publicly torqued about something that they're concerned or passionate about, they're a "fanatic?" Are we not supposed to get angry just because we're the voice of inclusivity? It doesn't make sense. When the opinionated are demonized, only the demonic will have opinions. Or something.
John Scalzi, you are my fucking hero.
If John Kerry was the last best hope for the Republic, the only thing between us and ruin, then maybe it wasn't worth saving in the first place. I don't believe that, though. And neither do you.
This is not The End. This isn't even the beginning of the end. This is a setback and a loss and a terrible disappointment. But until they actually put me in the oven, I intend to live as though this is my goddamn country too. It still is, last time I looked. "The days have gone down in the West," but there are a lot of battles still worth fighting.
Yes, a majority of Americans are ignorant, or misguided, or scared, or just plain dumb - a pretty narrow majority. Remember, all you who have spent the last four years being firebrands and rabble-rousers and beacons of progressive thought: nearly half the country was with you last night. Don't you fucking dare turn your back on them now. It wasn't enough to win, but I bet it's enough to do something else, now. This is a smart bunch. I bet someone can think of something.
Remember, America's had empire before. We beat them back then, and we didn't even have the internet. We can do it again. "Tell it to Vaclav Havel," indeed.
Forth Eorlingas! Death! Death! Death! Death! Death!
I opened the Pseudo-Elizabethan Place Name Generator and thought "China Mieville, you are so busted."
(And then I copy-and-pasted a bunch of the good ones, because you never know.)
bellatrys: ...the world is made more delightful by cool monikers - several people said that, that say, to see the name Rincewind as a posting handle brings a smile, and a twinge of envy: Why didn't I think of that first? There are lots of those, names with puns, ObRefs, wordgames. Or curiousity, as to what story is behind a name that holds a tale in it.
For myself, I think that people have much in common with cats, in the matter of Names.
Yes, yes, yes. This is what I think I was trying to say, and would have if I was smarter and could write gooder.
Xopher: ...using a different name helps the transition into the sacred and/or magical space.
I think you've hit on something in re. the ubiquitousness of Internet handles.
No, online isn't another "world," but it is another space, and I think many people recognize it - whether they'd use the word or not - as "magical." (To most of us, the forces that drive it might as well be sorcery. The accumulated knowledge of the world at your fingertips qualifies, I'd say, for "sufficiently advanced.")
Entering this space touches the same instinct as stepping into a magic circle - you don't come as you are. You put on a fictionsuit that makes you worthy of the endeavor, and you don't give just anyone your True Name. And after all, what right does Joe Johnson have to wander the strange roads and unveil the mysteries of Cyberspace? Ah, but Wizzard2100...
(And also, leaving the question of legal identities aside, how many online handles really conceal more than they reveal?)
Kathryn Cramer: I would like to think that in 2004 we are all too smart to believe that taking on an alias can do much to improve our lives.
I'm not so prepared to make judgments on what human beings are "too smart" for. As convincing an argument could be made that we ought to be too smart to keep playing dress-up and speaking poetry to invisible people, but I'm not persuaded that those activities do more harm than good. We're getting into the territory of mistaking a preference for a virtue; what has no value for you may be a source of great comfort and inspiration for someone else.
None of which solves the problem of the very real harm people can do when they hide behind a persona. I don't know if there's a good answer for this. I'm just not convinced that trying to stigmatize anonymity does anything to address it at all.
It seems to me that "anonymity" and "responsibility" are no more opposite poles on the same axis than "communism" and "democracy" - nor does the presence of one lead inevitably to the collapse of the other. The fact that this has often happened in the past is good reason to proceed with caution and mindfulness, but not, I think, cause enough to abandon the concept altogether.
In "sad wannabe-writer," "alcoholic" is of course implied.
Beth Meacham: The sucking up thing was a joke, in case I wasn't sufficiently clear.
(Because I post under my real name here, see. And it's an accusation that gets made every so often by some hostile asshat, especially on Making Light. And since the NHs don't know me from Adam, and from time to time I chime in on the threads about writing, and one might assume... Um, well, it all seemed terribly funny last night.)
Jon, I expect that shall happen any day now.
(As if. With my work ethic, I'll be lucky if I get named Bitch-King of Angstmar. Still, a man's reach, &c, &c.)
You don't, Jon! That's the beauty of it. All you have to do is be clever enough to make it obvious you could write one. And then the Prominent Editors from the Big Publishing House will say Damn, you sure have a way with words, have you maybe written a novel? and you say Well, I've been thinking about it and they say Great, here's a big advance! See how easy it is?
That's the way it works. Everyone knows that.
Waitaminnit. I thought the only people who used their real names around here were sad wannabe-writers shamelessly toadying to the Nielsen Haydens in the hopes of getting their bad fat fantasy novels published.
I mean, come on. That's obvious, right?
I can't help but think of the punchline to the story Neil Gaiman tells in the introduction to The Dream-Cycle of H.P. Lovecraft, of artist Dave Carson a little the worse for drink, counterpointing a rather heady and erudite HPL panel discussion: "F**k all that. I love H.P. Lovecraft because I just like drawing monsters."
Bildungsroman and boarding-school tales my pasty geek arse. F**k all that; I read Harry Potter 'cause it's got wizards in it. Now tell me again what the "true" appeal is?
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2004 | 18 |
Total: 18 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Electrolite by Dan Layman-Kennedy:
Show all comments by Dan Layman-Kennedy.