diary of an Endorphin Junkie

One of the prevailing arguments in favor of fan-run Science Fiction conventions is that you are a member, a participant in the convention. This is in contrast to the ticket to attend principle of media corp-run promotional conventions. I have generally found value in this difference over the years, and have campaigned to bring more and more people into fandom over the years.

In the last 10 years this has dried up, with more and more friends choosing Comicon and other media conventions over fan-run events. After the utter and complete failure of Helsinki’s Worldcon to prepare for, or care about its membership I am finally forced to understand why. The definition of success for Worldcon no longer matches with any definition of success I understand. Let me explain:( Read the rest of this entry » )

A friend of mine, the award-winning author Jay Lake died yesterday. I spent most of yesterday mourning, and watching as people all over the world came together to share their experiences with Jay. It was truly amazing to see how many lives he had touched, how many people felt loss at his passing. However, it also showed us how Jay achieved something I believe truly new, only possible with recent technology advancement. Jay built personal connections on a global scale, in a sense massively parallel Interactions in Real Time.( Read the rest of this entry » )

Recently we have seen renewed fervor in what is clearly a multi-generational discussion: “Have you read the classics?” I’ve seen some very odd conclusions about what this request is.

A request that someone read a book, or “the classics” for whatever value of “classics” the speaker intends, is a request for the other person to gain the same vocabulary/basis/perspective as the speaker so that a common base for communication can occur.

I think all of us have made this request of another constantly. I can’t tell you how many times a friend and I have agreed to put aside a debate until each of us has read some book or set of books that the other recommends. Phrased as a request in the pursuit of knowledge, this is a great way to participate in an enlightening conversation.

The problem occurs when one person rejects another person, their beliefs, or their tastes based on lack of sharing a common base. Excluding academic discussion of a tightly constrained period or style, this is utter nonsense. People should read what they enjoy, and what they enjoy is not a basis for an attack on the value of, well, anything.

Many people of a certain age had a limited amount of Science Fiction available to us to read. It is very likely that two people aged between 40 and 80 years old who grew up inside the United States and read science fiction are familiar with, if not deeply so, the Science Fiction available in libraries and for sale during that period. So yeah, we all knew about Heinlein regardless of whether or not we liked Robert and Virginia’s work.

Two people who are currently in their twenties could easily be reading twice as much Science Fiction as we did and yet have zero common basis. They could be entirely unaware of not just each others favorite authors, but each others genre identity entirely. I think this is fantastic. I am ecstatic that it has grown this much. It’s time for fandom to grow with them.

I do not feel that anyone must share my basis in Science Fiction with me. I do not feel that opinions from a different basis are any less valid. We are not The Borg. If we are going to use genre references, I think fandom is more like Babylon 5 — a place where you might sit down with a cup of your favorite poison, and just about anything could walk up to your table and say Hi. And it just might be the best conversation you’ll have that day.

I absolutely laugh in the face of any who attempt to stop and draw a line to define fandom as a safe space for only their kind. Keep standing there and some interesting new species will pave over you.

Today we saw a conversation we see far too often, about some nasty men who harass women on the Internet. They aren’t speaking their opinion, they are attacking women. It’s reprehensible behavior, and it needs to stop. And it needs to stop now. I am shamed that we allow this behavior in our society, and I wish I could do more to stop it.
( Read the rest of this entry » )

This post is not going to deal with how or why Night Shade collapsed, nor is it going to deal with the choices that authors have to make dealing with the purchasers. I really don’t know anything about either of these, and what little has reached me I read in the same places you have. I am writing this post about something different–what we in the community lose in this transaction.
( Read the rest of this entry » )

So I’ve gotten a few e-mails from Demand Progress and others claiming that HR 1981 is the new SOPA and asking us to fight this. Claims like “A direct assault on Internet users” have been made. So I went and took a look at this bill, and from what I can see there is no basis for this claim. In fact, from my years of experience working in the industry this legislation is badly needed, and will be greatly appreciated by nearly everyone. The claims being made by Demand Progress and the ACLU are completely off base.

Yes, SOPA was bad. SOPA had hundreds of unintended consequences. This bill isn’t SOPA. This bill doesn’t assault any legitimate Internet user. In fact, this bill is something we should be calling our representatives and asking them to support. And unlike these unsubstantiated claims, I’m going to show you in explicit detail why.
( Read the rest of this entry » )