So, as you know, my darling Alyx's wonderful first novel Indigo Springs is out. Canadians can buy it here, Americans here, Australians here, and Britons here.

It's such a good book. If you think you'd like it (and you can afford it), I would be so grateful if you'd buy it, and even more grateful if you liked it and then told your friends about it. I think everyone on my friends list is either a writer, or has writers in their family or among their friends. You all know how important sales are, and you know how word of mouth can affect sales. Alyx has been grinding for years to get to this point, and she has so many good books in her. Whether those books will ever see print depends completely on numbers in a balance sheet.

Thanks darlings!

http://www.kith.org/journals/jed/2009/11/07/12518.html

Have you ever written fiction in which the protagonist doesn't have a name, and/or in which the protagonist's name doesn't appear?

If so, I'm curious about what led to that choice. Did you have a particular reason or goal? For example, were you trying to distance the character from the reader? Were you trying to let the reader see themselves as the character? Did you want the character to feel archetypal? Did you want to emphasize the character's role rather than their personhood? Were you trying to obscure the character's identity and/or what kind of a person or being they were? Did it just feel right? Was it an experiment? An accident?

Also, what approach did you take to avoiding the name? Did you call the protagonist "the man" or "the woman" or "the old queen" or "the man in yellow"? Did you use a job title? Did you just use pronouns? Were you calling attention to the lack of name, or trying to be subtle about it? Did the character have a name in your head? Did the lack of a name make you-as-writer more invested in the character, less invested, neither?

(You don't need to answer those questions one at a time; just tell me anything you want to say about your nameless character(s).)

I'm also curious about the other side: how do any of you (whether writers or not) react as readers to nameless protagonists?

In my experience reading submissions, I think I often find it kind of annoying when a protagonist is nameless. (Or even, though this is a different thing, when the protagonist is referred to only by epithets and pronouns in the first few paragraphs and then is given a name.) But sometimes it works. And sometimes I don't even notice it. And there's certainly a long tradition of nameless protagonists; a lot of fairy tales have them, for example.

So I don't mean to suggest that it's inherently bad. Just thinking about what kinds of effects it can have, and about when it's a good idea and when it isn't. Discussion welcome.

http://www.kith.org/journals/jed/2009/11/07/12517.html

Another news video segment showing soldiers returning home to their kids, this one from Christmas 2007. The narration is kinda goofy, but the clips themselves are heartwarming.

Thanks to Andrew Sullivan for the links.

she said that you have been carrying on cranky. I looked up the word ‘cranky’. It said ‘grouchy’. I looked up ‘grouchy’, it said ‘crotchety’. No wonder you have such an eccentric culture, none of your words have their own meaning. You have to look up one word to understand another. It never ends. -- Delenn And The Rock Cried Out, No Hiding Place

Thank you, Mr. Pratchett for elaborating on the term "crabby". I can't help wondering if the syndrome of Crabby leads to a manifestation of cranky-grouchy-crotchety, etc.

www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427326.000-terry-pratchett-fighting-to-keep-the-fantasy-alive.html

Apologies for the earworm, but how could I resist?

Via Sociological Images, these maps show how much of the Earth has been colonized.

There's a map showing every road in the world, and every railroad, and all the navigable rivers. The road one is particularly cool, because the parts of the world that aren't settled stand out really starkly -- mostly deserts, but you can also see the Amazon.

Then they pull all together:

Considering all of these modes of transportation and the type of terrain, the New Scientist calculated how long it would take, from everywhere on the planet, to get to a city of 50,000 people or more [by land or sea]... They estimate that less than 10% of the world is more than two days from the nearest city. The most remote place, they calculate, is the Tibetan plateau.

The full-size maps are on the New Scientist site and are very worth looking at. You can also see maps of other things, like shipping lanes, and some interesting detail blow-ups.

http://www.kith.org/journals/jed/2009/11/06/12515.html

A month ago, my brother posted about his meeting a Samoan soldier returning home to try to help out after the village where she grew up was destroyed by the tsunami and earthquake.

Today, I came across a link to a video (unrelated to the above except thematically) involving a soldier's unexpected return home.

(Calling it that kind of spoils the surprise, but I think the video comes across as kind of ominous if you don't know that's what's happening.)

Edited a few hours later to add: here's a news story providing more context for that video. It happened back in June, when Air Force Master Sgt. Joseph Myers came home just in time for his daughter's last day of fourth grade.

Here's a news clip with the same scene filmed from a different angle. And another site has a slightly extended version of the first video. Good stuff.

http://www.kith.org/journals/jed/2009/11/06/12514.html

Referendum 71, approving strong "marriage in all but name" domestic partnerships in Washington state, looks likely to pass. There's been some interesting analysis this morning:

First, the opposition still hopes to win. There are likely a couple hundred thousand ballots still to be counted, because (as I understand it) Washington voters could postmark mail-in ballots as late as Tuesday. So in theory, yes, the Reject side could still win; somewhere on the order of a third to a quarter of the votes aren't in yet.

However, it's expected that about half of those remaining votes will come from King County, the most populous county in the state, where Seattle is; and the voting so far from that county has run two-to-one in favor of R-71. And although most of the more rural counties in the state have been opposed, they haven't been 100% opposed. It's still all speculation at this point, but things are looking pretty good.

One thing that I'm not thrilled about is that the margin isn't bigger. At the moment it's 52% in favor. That's great, and I'll take any margin, no matter how small. But this isn't a marriage-equality bill. This is enhancing existing domestic partnership laws. It's confirming what the legislature and governor have already set up: equal rights without the word "marriage." It's exactly what a lot of people who are uncomfortable with the idea of same-sex marriage say they want. Why would anyone be opposed to it?

There are a variety of arguments that could be made against R-71, but in my view most of them boil down to two things:

• It's a stepping stone, a gateway drug, a slippery slope, to same-sex marriage. Fair enough; I'm sure that many R-71 proponents would like it to becoming a stepping-stone to marriage. But, y'know, this argument can be made against anything that recognizes LGBT civil rights in any way. Give those queer people rights, and they might start getting uppity!
• The real key point: opposition to homosexuality. The people who are opposed to marriage-equality measures elsewhere can hide their homophobia behind sanctimonious lies—"We're of course not prejudiced, but think how awful it will be if Teh Gay is taught in schools! to children! and poor God-fearing Christian folk will be hounded for their beliefs and made to perform gay weddings or risk jail—or worse!" But when domestic partnerships are the issue, it's hard to come up with arguments that even sound like they're not homophobic. "We're not anti-gay, of course not; we just don't think Those People should have any legal rights, because that might imply that the State considers them to be people!"

(There are, of course, a few other arguments. For example, there's the whole thing about how people who aren't really in committed relationships will pretend to be involved with each other in order to sneakily get benefits. THE HORROR! It's a smokescreen, of course, but I suppose that that one does manage a façade of rationality.)

Anyway. So there's a kind of negative-sounding News Tribune article that says that R-71 supporters didn't really do all that much; that the reason R-71 seems likely to win is that opponents didn't present strong arguments. I may be reading too much into the article, but it reads to me like they're saying that there were strong arguments out there to be made, and if only opponents had been more on the ball, this wouldn't be happening. On the contrary, my feeling is that opponents failed to make strong arguments because there really aren't any strong opposition arguments to be made; the basic argument is OMG TEH GAY!!!!!

And the sad thing to me is that that argument appears to have worked for about 48% of those who voted.

However, the comments to that article make a really good point, which is explained in more detail in a Pam's House Blend article: "almost every Washington county shows an increase in pro-equality voting." In particular:

The last time Washington voters had the opportunity to ratify a pro-equality law at the polls was in 1997. Initiative to the People 677 proposed an employment non-discrimination law. The ballot title read Shall discrimination based on sexual orientation be prohibited in employment, employment agency, and union membership practices, without requiring employee partner benefits or preferential treatment?

The measure was rejected 59.7% to 40.3%. Contrary to the current image of the Puget Sound area of Washington as progressive, not one single county—not even Seattle's home of King County—voted to approve I-677. [...] But the truly stunning statistic is that the rate of ballot measure approval increased between 1997 and 2009 in all but one county.

So we've come a long way in the past twelve years.

And a blog entry on the Post-Intelligencer website makes clear how much work and community support went into trying to get R-71 approved. There's a lot of good and heartwarming stuff in that entry.

And here are the two things noted in that entry that make R-71 not only an important victory but a historic one:

First, if I'm reading the WA Secretary of State's referendum stats page correctly, R-71 (if approved) will be only the 7th referendum ever approved by WA voters; the other 28 referendum measures that have made it to the ballot have failed. (The blog entry I linked to above says R-71 would be the 6th to be approved; I'm not sure where the discrepancy lies.) So R-71 was facing an uphill battle simply by virtue of being a referendum measure.

And second, and perhaps most importantly:

"An LGBT referendum has never [before] been approved by voters anywhere in the United States."

. . . I'm not entirely sure what exactly the parameters are for that statement. The AP confirms that it's "the first time any state's voters have approved a gay equality measure at the ballot box," but I'm having a hard time finding more detailed info about what kinds of measures are included in that statistic. Still, whatever the definition, it's a nice first; and if nothing else, it makes it a little bit harder for the antis to fall back on the "let the people decide" argument.

Which reminds me to note that of course R-71 should never have been on the ballot in the first place. Minority rights simply should not be subject to popular vote. But given that it was on the ballot, I'm very glad that it seems likely to pass.

http://www.kith.org/journals/jed/2009/11/06/12512.html

I was watching various websites Tuesday night as the Maine results came in. It was looking good for defeating Question 1 for quite a while, but then came a whole lot of Yes votes from the rural areas.

I don't have anything smart or useful to say. By most accounts, Mainers did a good job of running the No campaign; they included actual gay and lesbian people (with kids!) in their TV ads, just like some of us wanted the No on 8 campaign to do in California; they heavily out-fundraised the opposition, both in total dollars and in number of Mainers contributing; the turnout was much higher than expected (and the expectation had been that a high turnout would be good for the No on 1 side). And yet, the lies of the Yes camp won the day.

It makes me sad and angry and disheartened.

There were some bits of good news for the GLBT cause from other places. For example:

• Kalamazoo, Michigan, passed an anti-discrimination ordinance protecting LGBT people, by a huge margin.
• In Chapel Hill, North Carolina, openly gay man Mark Kleinschmidt was elected mayor. (Okay, Chapel Hill is a well-known liberal haven, so maybe this isn't a big surprise. But still pleasing.)
• In Washington State, Referendum 71 seems to be leaning toward approval. The counting won't likely be final for another couple days, and it's too close to be absolutely certain right now, but it's looking like a possibility. See the Seattle Times map for a view of which counties are voting which way. An article posted Thursday afternoon suggests that at this point the Approve side's lead may be insurmountable. I'm keeping my fingers crossed.
• Even though pro-marriage-equality NJ governor Jon Corzine was defeated in the election, he says that he'll sign a marriage equality bill before he leaves office if the legislature sends him one. (His newly elected successor is opposed to marriage equality.) I have no idea how likely that is to happen, but it sounds at least possible.
• In NY, Gov. Paterson is once again talking about getting the state Senate to vote on same-sex marriage. Might or might not happen, might or might not win. But again there's a chance.
• Last week, Obama finally lifted the ban on travel to the US by HIV-positive people. I was appalled when I first heard about this ban a couple years ago; I'm very glad that Obama has acted to end it. Quote from Obama: "If we want to be a global leader in combating H.I.V./AIDS, we need to act like it."

So it hasn't been all bad news lately. Still, the defeat in Maine hurts.

The difference between Yes and No votes was about 6%. At the rate public opinion seems to be changing, I'm guessing that four or five years from now, marriage equality supporters will be in the majority there. But that's small comfort here and now.

But I hate to end on a downer note. So I'll close with quote from a Boston Globe article:

"Here we are in a civil rights struggle," said Mary Bonauto, an attorney with Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders in Boston. "What do we do in a civil rights struggle? We pick ourselves up and we stay the course."

Or, to put it another way:

We're gonna keep on walking proudly

Keep on walking proudly

Keep on walking proudly

Never turning back</p>

Never turning back.

http://www.kith.org/journals/jed/2009/11/05/12500.html

As noted previously, I skipped Friday at World Fantasy entirely.

( Longish con report )

(Wrote most of this about four days ago, didn't manage to post it 'til now.)

Title: Nightmares
Fandom: FFX-2
Rating: PG-13 (for mentions of violence)
Wordcount: 100
Pairings: Paine/Nooj
Spoilers: For Nooj's story
Notes: Written for the Alphabet fic meme (which is still almost wide open), to lassarina's prompt, which was "S: Solid, Paine/Nooj". The first true drabble I've written in a long time. I always forget what a satisfying challenge it can be to write to a strict word count. Also the first P/N story I've finished in awhile. It's always nice to get back to them.


( Sometimes Nooj startles himself awake... )

Just checked the weather for Moscow. It is hovering around 0C (-2C right now).

eeeeeeeeeeeeee!

I cannot hardly wait. Better get that suitcase shut.

The outcome of the election in Maine is proof positive that we should not be making decisions regarding people's civil rights at the ballot box.

Take it away, Melissa McEwan:

Historically, we have depended on the courts to make decisions about the application of constitutional guarantees in spite of popular opinion, and they have repeatedly secured protections for marginalised groups decades before Congress and state legislatures, which more closely track public opinion, would have done. John Rogers once noted that "when the supreme court struck down the bans against interracial marriage in 1968 through Virginia v Loving, 72% of Americans were against interracial marriage. As a matter of fact, approval of interracial marriage in the US didn't cross the positive threshold until – sweet God – 1991".

That's exactly 30 years after our current president was born to an interracial couple.[1]

Waiting for the whole of society to be on board with granting equal rights to everyone is simply not in our collective best interest.

[1] And now, almost 20 years later, we have a justice of the peace who resigned rather than perform interracial marriages. Which just goes to show that prejudice against interracial couples is hardly dead. It isn't even hiding very well.

Attitudes do change. I have even seen them changing over my adulthood, to the point where a Washington state initiative legalizing strong civil unions is barely a blip on the national news radar. Remember when Vermont created civil unions and threw the entire nation into a tizzy? That was in 2000. Not even 10 years ago. So the tide will turn, eventually. We're seeing them in motion now. But (to switch metaphors) would the door even have started to open if judges -- first in Vermont, then in Massachusetts -- hadn't forced it a few cracks? Would Jim Crow laws ever have been defeated by popular vote? Guaranteeing our rights is what the court system is for. We should let it do its job.

Ikon's LiveJournal is now a memorial.

Objectively, a good thing, to be sure. And yet I am a mass of mixed feelings right now. I guess acceptance is a slow process.

Stayed home sick from work today. Perhaps that's why I didn't remember until after noon that today was Election Day. I considered dragging myself off the couch and away from my Gilmore Girls DVDs to go vote on the half-dozen stupid local propositions on the ballot (nothing statewide for us this year, and all the city officials were running unopposed), but ultimately I decided against it, mostly because I hadn't prepared myself on the issues at all. I only knew what one of the propositions was even about, hardly an informed voter making thoughtful decisions about the future of my city. Not that I delude myself that most of my fellow citizens are. But I like to hold myself to a standard, at least.

It looks like they're all passing, and as far as I can tell, there's nothing egregiously stupid, so that's something.

Speaking of egregiously stupid... as of this writing, Question 1, the Maine initiative that would block the legalization of same-sex marriage, is too close to call. On the other hand, things are looking good in Washington, which may be poised to create domestic partnerships at the ballot box for the first time ever. I'm not ready to get excited yet, though; I'm afraid I got too badly burned last year. We'll wait, and we'll see.

(The song that was playing as I was writing the title down was "Hope Fails" from the Return of the King soundtrack; before I finished typing, the next song came on, and it was "Beautiful Day" by U2. Perhaps iTunes is trying to tell me something...)

http://www.kith.org/journals/jed/2009/11/03/12507.html

Mainer, Catholic, and Vietnam vet Paul Redicker spoke in favor of marriage equality at the Maine marriage hearings in August. (If you can't see the embedded video below, then follow that link to view it at YouTube.)

Meant to post this days ago, but forgot, and then couldn't find it this morning when I was posting my previous entry. Thanks to Louise of Pam's House Blend for posting the video.

The video doesn't appear to be getting a lot of traffic, so I'm gonna post a partial transcript of it here in hopes of raising its profile a little:

[...] I'm terrified to be here at this microphone, but I'm sure glad to see [so] many people interested in an issue that's so important.

[...]

I'm just a normal Maine citizen. I may've served a couple tours in Vietnam fighting for things I thought were right, I might feel that freedom and rights are more important to us than anything in the world. [...] I guess there's nothing special in that, because I think everybody else does too. [...]

I thought that those of us that shared all these rights that people fought and died for wanted everybody to share them. [...]

[...W]hen I was in Vietnam fighting, I had brothers and sisters over there fighting at my shoulder that would be considered second-class citizens today because of the Don't Tell Don't Ask policy. That's a different story, it's a different fight. But yet I feel that if you think that everybody should have equal rights, then they should have equal rights. [...]

I'm sorta like a bear up here, kinda protecting my cubs. See, I have two daughters, one straight, one gay. One is gonna fulfill her lifelong dream this summer to be married on my lawn. The other one, unfortunately, because of her nature, she can't, in this state, yet. But I'm sure she will one day, because Maine's moving along in the right direction, I believe.

My gay child has a partner that she loves and is committed to. We love her. Anybody who met this lady would love her.

[...]

Some feel that same-sex marriage is like a prize, you know, you take it away, or give it. [...] It's not. It's a right. It's not a privilege, it's a right.

Rights belong to everybody. [...]

http://www.kith.org/journals/jed/2009/11/03/12506.html

In both Maine and Washington, turnout may well be the deciding factor for the future of state recognition of same-sex relationships.

If you live in Maine and can legally vote, please go vote NO on Question 1 to protect marriage equality.

If you live in Washington state and can legally vote, please go vote APPROVE on Referendum 71 to protect strong domestic partnerships and full legal rights for same-sex couples.

http://www.kith.org/journals/jed/2009/11/03/12505.html

Alexander the Great and the Terrible, Horrible, No-Good Very Bad Day (thanks to David W for the link!).

Opening paragraph:

I left the battle with blood in my helmet and now there's blood in my hair and when I got out of my armor this afternoon I tripped on a dead solder and by mistake I dropped my sword in the catapult while the thing was launching and I could tell it was going to be a terrible, horrible, no good very bad day.

http://www.kith.org/journals/jed/2009/11/03/12503.html

I've now seen three episodes of FlashForward. So far, I'd say it's an interesting show; not brilliant, but intriguing.

(I haven't yet read the Robert J. Sawyer novel that it's based on.)

Here are four reasons that some of y'all might be interested:

• Joseph Fiennes (Shakespeare in Shakespeare in Love) as FBI agent Mark Benford, the show's main protagonist. (With an American accent.)
• John Cho (Sulu in the new Star Trek movie; Harold Lee in the Harold & Kumar movies) as FBI agent Demetri Noh, Benford's partner.
• Gina Torres (Zoe from Firefly/Serenity) as Felicia Wedeck, the wife of the FBI agents' boss. (I've only seen the first three episodes, and she didn't appear 'til episode three; I don't know whether that was a guest thing or a recurring role.)
• Gabrielle Union (Isis from Bring It On) as Zoey Andata, Agent Noh's fiancee.

. . . I was thinking that there are a surprising number of characters of color in the show, but after further investigation, I'm not so sure. Most of the main characters are white; there are several characters of color in the supporting cast (including the three mentioned above, two black FBI agents, and Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security Anastasia Markham), but I'm not sure how many of those are recurring characters.

Unrelated side note: I was amused in the first few minutes of the first episode to see that there are main characters with the surnames Benford and Varley. (I was half-hoping, half-fearing that there would be a bunch more characters with the same names as sf writers, but so far that hasn't happened.)