Harlan Ellison and Prince flee the internet, which somehow survives without them

The internet died last week. At least, that's the message coming from Harlan Ellison and Prince, two controversy-loving artists who evidently couldn't stomach how social media makes it impossible to totally control their online image.

Harlan started the fun last Tuesday after reading this rather innocuous article on io9 about his current book sale. I've read through the article twice and can't see what pushed Harlan over the edge; perhaps it was one of the comments to the article (such as the commenter who said, "What is the current bid for Harlan to stand and yell at you for 15 minutes?")

In response, Harlan posted on his website forum that "I've finally had as much of the internet as I can bear. The 'news site' ... has actualized my worst dread nightmare of web involvement. I just gotta get the hell away from this awful thing. ... I abominate the public footprint being left for me by caitiff like the journalistically-knobheaded toddlers whose names are emblazoned on their editorial side-bar."

Because of the extremely dated design of Harlan's website forum, it is impossible to directly link to his comment. However, his words about how "I abominate the public footprint being left for me" does suggest his problem with the internet is that he can't control his online image.

The same thing popped up last week with the artist again known as Prince, who stated "The internet's completely over. I don't see why I should give my new music to iTunes or anyone else. They won't pay me an advance for it and then they get angry when they can't get it."

Obviously Prince has issues with the new ways people are purchasing music online, but I can't help but wonder if like Harlan Ellison, Prince's true issue is how social media has changed the dynamic around managing your own image. Both Harlan and Prince came of age when artists began receiving more media coverage for their persona than their artistic works. This isn't to say that Harlan and Prince aren't great artists--they are. But they have also cultivated their controversial image for maximum effect. The dust jackets to one of Harlan's books claimed he was "possibly the most contentious person on Earth," while Prince wrote the word "slave" on his cheek to protest being trapped in a contract with Warner Brother after the company paid him an unbelievably large amount of money to, well, be trapped in a contract with them.

But hey, controversy was good to these two artists and for decades they used it to promote their artistic works. But now the established order has broken. Instead of being able to create and manage controversy on your own terms, that pesky social media allows anyone to pick at your life and work. If you squeeze someone's breast on stage during the Hugo Awards ceremony, people will post the video online and rip you a new one. If someone isn't pleased with your archaic view of the internet, they can pick apart your opinion while the entire world watches in glee.

Please tell me how this can be anything but good?

The irony is that both Harlan Ellison and Prince were originally enfant terribles fighting the far-too conventional artistic establishment. Now they are the very establishment they once fought against--aging artists who don't like how the internet and social media gives millions of people the ability to criticize them.

Please don't mistake my criticism. I love the best examples of Harlan's writings and Prince's music. I have purchased a number of Harlan's books and Prince's albums, and if they release new works I might purchase even more.

But the days of micro-managing your controversies to raise your artistic profile are over. If you do something controversial, yes, the online world will notice. But you can't manage how people will react. People might as easily applaud as laugh or scream at you.

This doesn't mean controversy no longer sells. Of course it does. But if you light a fire in today's online world it can easily come back to burn you. And I suspect that is what Harlan Ellison and Prince hate about today's interconnected reality.

The genre film flop-o-meter: Christopher Nolan's Inception

So I thought I'd start predicting how certain science fiction and fantasy films will do at the box office. No real reason for this except I enjoy genre films and how they've become vital to Hollywood's well-being. Doubt this last fact? Simply look at the top grossing movies of all time and try to imagine that list without genre films.

The first film on my list is Christopher Nolan's Inception, set for a July 16th release. I've long been a fan of Nolan's works as are most critics and movie lovers, all of whom are already lining up to kiss this film's celluloid ass. None of this is surprising given Nolan's excellent record with high quality films like The Prestige and Memento.

But that said, this film will be a major flop at the box office. And I don't say that simply because Leonardo DiCaprio made his stupid comment that people don't like science fiction films "because we have a hard time investing in worlds that are too far detached from what we know." Yeah Leo, that's why that list of all-time highest grossing films is filled with nothing but SF and fantasy epics.

No, the bigger problem is that this film deals with dreams, a tough subject for directors to touch without losing their ability to make a watchable film. I mean, even the great Akira Kurosawa couldn't do it with his Dreams.

In addition, the budget for this film is in excess of $200 million. Are you kidding me? None of Nolan's non-Batman films have made that much, with two--The Prestige and Insomnia--grossing just over $100 million. And Leo is hardly a box office draw anymore--that ship sank with Titanic.

My prediction is that this will be a good SF film which the critics will love, but which doesn't find a large audience because of its subject matter. Since Christopher Nolan is still Hollywood's golden boy and is working on another Batman movie, studios will overlook losing their shirts on this film. But that won't change the fact that Inception will be a flop.

On the learning tool that is genre gossip

So I'm working on my novel when an email pops up from a writer I know. Said writer is in fits because his publisher has yet again pushed back the release date of his first novel. Naturally I sympathized. I also suggested the writer raise this issue in public. Maybe airing this delay will cause the publisher to stop jerking my friend around.

My friend was horrified at the suggestion. "I could be blacklisted," he says. "You know how it is."

Unfortunately, I do.

What my friend means is that word spreads easily in the genre world. There are things we discuss publicly and things we whisper in secluded conversations. And may the literary gods help the writer who mixes up their public and private comments.

Among the items we're not supposed to discuss in public: Juicy details about which publishers and editors rip off authors. Spicy tales of affairs and betrayals between writers who maintain a public facade that all is well. Inside details about the financial well-being of magazines which sit on our stories for years. All of this is kept private--until the gossip snowballs into a force which can't be ignored. Likewise, a few brave writers may finally mention the issue in public after deciding the risks to their career are offset by the need for others to know.

The funny thing is that the need to gossip is one of the basic drives of humanity precisely because gossip is both the most inaccurate AND most accurate of information sources. Only a fool totally trusts gossip. Only a fool totally ignores it.

At a convention last year, I listened to a famous science fiction author discuss working with genre editors. He mentioned one editor who'd been forced out of a high-profile position by that editor's publisher. I was shocked to learn the details on why this had happened and told the author he ought to write about this so others knew how poorly the editor had been treated. The author looked at me with a waning smile as if I was a newbie who didn't understand the publishing and genre worlds. And at that moment maybe I was acting like one.

Often this genre gossip needs to be publicly aired, such as when it deals with publishers who take advantage of writers. Such wrongs only take place when there is a wall of silence around the publisher's actions. By way of example, I mention the recent revelations about Night Shade Books. Personally, I love Night Shade Books. In my opinion they are one of the best genre presses around. So imagine my surprise to discover they have generated a good deal of bad will among the authors they publish. While there are always two sides to every story--and I hope Night Shade straightens this out soon--the interesting fact is how many of the writers involved discussed this issue among themselves before it became public.

In short, it can pay for writers to listen to genre gossip.

My point is that to succeed as a genre writer you need access to more than simply the public information. Go to conventions and talk to writers and editors. Listen to the conversations. Read the posts in closed discussion groups. You'll learn more genre gossip than you ever knew existed. A lot of it will be crap. But some of it might help you succeed as a writer.

How literary journals can scream "Hey, we're irrelevant!"

So the literary journal Tin House has announced that under their new submission policy, "Unsolicited submissions must be accompanied by a receipt for a hardcover or paperback from a real-life bookstore." What's that, you say? There's no bookstore in your area or you prefer digital books. Well don't worry--the editors will also accept grovelling from authors explaining "why he or she cannot go to his or her neighborhood bookstore, why he or she prefers digital reads, what device, and why" if it is done in a literarily acceptable manner.

As Tin House editor Rob Spillman explained, "We believe that there are more people who want to be published in literary magazines and small presses than there are people buying these magazines and books. This program is not meant as the solution. There is no one solution."

Actually, there is a solution. It's called finding a better way to connect your books with the people who want to buy them. Instead of equating the purchase of digital books with people not purchasing books at all, find a way to reach the growing audience for e-books. And while I love in-person bookstores, the simple truth is there's not a brick and mortar bookstore in everyone's community. That's one reason why online bookstores have done so well of late.

I totally understand the dynamic behind Tin House's submission push. And if writers aren't also readers, then they damn well won't make it as a writer. But to pretend that digital books and online bookstores are on the same level as people not buying books, well, all that screams is that your literary journal has found itself on the road to being irrelevant in our digital age--and doesn't know how to chart a new course.

Reprint of "Here We Are, Falling Through Shadows" in Apex Magazine

ApexMagJuly2010I haven't been blogging lately due to the novel I'm working on, but I wanted to let people know my short story "Here We Are, Falling Through Shadows" has been reprinted in the July 2010 issue of Apex Magazine.

Apex is a great magazine which successfully made the transition from print to online just over a year ago. Their editions are available on their website and in various ebook editions, including for the Kindle. This is the second reprint of mine Apex has published; both stories were originally published in Interzone.

This is the last issue of Apex Magazine under the helm of fiction editor Jason Sizemore. As Jason noted on their website, starting with the next issue Catherynne M. Valente will be charting the magazine's fictional course. Best of luck to Catherynne, and thanks to Jason for all the hard work he's put into Apex Magazine over the years.

Slow blogging ahead

Here's the problem: I have a novel to finish. Since I have a limited amount of time to devote to writing, the novel has decided to grab my neck tight and choke the living daylights out of me until it is finished.

As such, the novel informs me I can't spend any more time blogging. However, since Twitter and Facebook don't take up as much time as this blog, I'll still post items to those accounts.

So if anyone wonders in the coming months why there are so few posts on this blog, blame the novel.

What I'm going into debt for

Okay, only a little bit of debt. But here's what I've ordered lately:

  • StarShipSofa's The Captain's Logs. This is the first book I've purchased through Lulu, and I must admit how impressed I am. From a design and printing point of view, it is impossible to tell this from book from any trade paperback released by a major publisher. More importantly, these transcripts of early SSS podcasts are a blast to read. I loved the Harlan Ellison episode, and am looking forward to reading more in the coming days. This is a must buy for anyone who wants to stay current on the ever-changing science fiction scene.
     
  • Realms of Fantasy. I didn't renew my subscription to RoF when it expired last year because, to be honest, I was irritated with the magazine. It pained me that RoF often felt like an advertisement for every major fantasy film coming down the line because they gave said films their cover space. I also didn't appreciate their response to Fishboob Fail 2009. However, I continued buying the magazine from the bookstore and, now that they've settled in with their new publisher, I'm quite impressed with their work. The last few issues have been great, and remind me of how RoF used to be. Add in their need for more subscribers and I decided to go ahead and resubscribe.

Why science fiction predictions hold back the genre

Science fiction sucks at predicting the future.

There. I've said it. Sliced that painful boil off my robot helper's shiny metal ass. Except it's 2010 and I don't have a robot helper. Instead, I'm still cleaning my house with my own hands. Raising my kids without an android nanny. Wasting time stuck in traffic instead of commuting with my own jetpack.

Nine years ago there were a spate of articles about how the future predicted in Arthur C. Clarke's 2001 failed to come true. Pan-Am was history instead of flying space shuttles, while moon bases and manned trips to other planets were mere dreams. And homicidal Artificial Intelligences? Forget AIs going on a murderous rampage--scientists were still working on getting AIs to navigate through mazes.

As I mentioned recently when Charles Tan interviewed me, science fiction's overall track record on predictions is pretty bad despite the genre describing a number of technological advances before they happened. One famous example is when Robert Heinlein wrote about waterbeds in his novels, leaving the 1960 inventor of an actual waterbed unable to patent his creation. Another example is John Campbell's Astounding Stories publishing the story "Deadline" by Cleve Cartmill in 1944. The story described how an atomic bomb would work--a full year before the first actual atomic explosion. Other technologies predicted by science fiction include scuba diving, digital books, space ships, and geosynchronous satellites.

But while science fiction has made a number of correct predictions, the genre strikes out far more of the time with its technological extrapolations. I mean, crack open any major SF novel from the genre's Golden Age and you will be swept away by flying cars, infallible lie detectors, and nuclear bombs which fit inside your mouth--and that's without mentioning examples of purely bad science like Campbell's love affair with the Dean Drive! More importantly, the genre has missed most of the major trends of the last half century, including the Civil Rights, Equal Rights and Decolonization movements, the Green Revolution, the creation of the Internet, the end of the Cold War, the beginnings of an information economy, and the slow speed at which humanity is reaching into space.

So while it's nice SF correctly predicted the waterbed, the genre failed to predict the sexual revolution which made people want waterbeds. And while SF predicted the atomic bomb, the genre fizzled when it came to accurately describing how those bombs would affect future generations (i.e., the Cold War and the fact that since their initial use during WWII nuclear weapons haven't been used in another war).

So when people tell me science fiction is about predicting the future, I want to laugh. But the good news is that the genre's failure at predicting the future need not be that big a deal.

Here's why: Instead of being about predicting the future, I see science fiction as humanity’s dream of the future. How we go about creating our future. How we go about surviving and processing the incredible changes facing us and dealing with the consequences of such change.  Seen from this point of view, science fiction has the potential to be the most vibrant of all literary genres because it deals with the issues and concerns which are of vital importance to today's world. The most successful science fiction stories have always been written and read from this point of view, instead of merely predicting an accurate future.

In many ways, the idea that science fiction is about predicting the future is a remnant of the genre's past. During the 1940s and '50s, genre promoters pitched SF as a way to inspire and teach people about science and technology. And during the era of Sputnik and atomic bomb beauty pageants, perhaps this was the correct thing to do.

But that time is long past. And while few writers and readers within the genre give more than lip service to science fiction being solely about predicting the future, the problem is that outside the genre the general public still believes literary science fiction is mainly about predictions. Why is this bad? Because it turns potential readers off the genre before they even open a book. After all, why would anyone want to read a genre about predicting the future when said genre repeatedly failed to predict the world we now live in?

Ironically, you don't see this problem with the visual representations of science fiction. When the public blows the hell out of everything in the Halo universe or sees the Millennium Falcon fly across the screen, few believe these are actual predictions of the future. Instead, the public sees SF films and games as a fun escape. As a dream of the future they can enjoy today.

But ask the general public to read a SF novel and you'll get at best a shrug, and at worst a dismissal of the entire genre.

Yes, there are plenty of reasons why so few people read science fiction, including the insular nature of the genre's fiction and the wrong-headed stereotype that SF remains the reading material of adolescent males. But I believe another reason people turn away from science fiction is fallout from the decades of promoting SF as a predictor of the future. After seeing so many of the genre's predictions fail to come true, the general reading public simply doesn't trust science fiction literature to tell them something new. They're unwilling to take a chance on investing their limited time in reading a SF book.

So my solution--stop pretending science fiction can predict the future.

A few words and pictures about the BP oil spill

My view on what we've
done to the Gulf of Mexico.
The sign is a "no swimming"
warning due to the oil.
Giving BP the finger

My family just returned from a week-long vacation to Gulf Shores, Alabama, where we saw first-hand the BP oil spill. When the oil nears the shore, the air burns as if you're breathing lighter fluid, literally making you sick. At times the oil looks like scattered drops of congealed blood in the water. In other places it is a thick coating of tar and muck. And if you think the damage being done to the environment is limited to heart-wrenching scenes of oil-black pelicans and dolphins, multiple that by the hundreds of thousands of animals and plants you don't see in this rich ecosystem. It will be decades before the Gulf recovers from this crime.

As a native son of the South, I've spent many summers on the Gulf Coast, so this spill has emotionally hit me hard. We'd planned our trip for months and even after the oil hit we refused to cancel the vacation. Part of this was pure stubbornness--we refused to stay away from a place we love. But our other desire was to witness the pain humans are causing to this beautiful ecosystem, and to make sure our kids see the damage in person so they will always remember.

Oil and natural gas rigs
litter the Alabama coast.
Oil and gas rigs litter the Alabama coast

In many ways we were fortunate.We stayed on Fort Morgan Road, which by some quirk of fortune was one of the few beaches in Alabama not hit by oil. We also left the area the very day an even heavier oil started washing ashore. So while we did witness the damage being done by the worst oil spill in U.S. history, it wasn't as bad as it could have been.

How much worse can it get? The oil is moving in giant waves along the coast, with the main spill remaining offshore and underwater. This means the oil can keep coming in day after day, limiting the ability to clean affected areas. And if a hurricane hits, all bets are off. The storm surge alone could devastate inland marshes with toxic petroleum-based chemicals, while the wind could aerosol the oil, letting hundreds of thousands of people breathe it in.

A ship lays oil boom as
people enjoy the last days
of a pristine beach.
Shipboom

I can't begin to express how angry I am about this spill. When I say my family was fortunate, I don't simply mean that for the most part we were able to enjoy our vacation. We were fortunate because we were able to leave the Gulf and return to a home which isn't covered in oil.The people living on the Gulf can't simply pack their belongings and leave their lives behind until the cleanup is finished. The oil has already shut down a vast swath of the Gulf economy, and BP isn't anywhere near to compensating people for their lost jobs and opportunities.

There is no easy answer to the spill at this point. And while BP is responsible for the spill, don't pretend this same event couldn't have been caused by the other oil companies. They've all taken the same short cuts with producing oil, and they have all benefited from a decades-long belief that the only good government regulations are regulations which are either dead or dying. We are now paying the painful price for this short-sighted view.

I hope the government and individual lawsuits destroy BP as a warning to other companies which play with our shared lives. And the next time someone says government needs to stop over-regulating companies, punch that person in the face as you gently explain that regulations are needed when the risk of business-as-usual is what happened in the Gulf.

One of many piles of
trash bags packed with
oil-soaked debris.
Oiltrash
A wall of sand being built
on Dauphin Island in an
attempt to keep out the oil.
Wallsand

But most of all, I hope this disaster pushes people into finally understanding the damage which can result from the little choices we all make.

At my core I'm an optimist. I believe humans continually try to change for the better. So my fingers are crossed that we will work to prevent this from ever happening again. Otherwise, history will repeat itself, and a generation from now my kids will be bringing their families to the Gulf Coast to see a tragically updated version of the worst oil spill in U.S. history.
 

Note: Thanks to my great wife Jennifer for taking these photos.

My early picks for the best stories of the year

I've been way lazy on mentioning the stories which have caught my attention this year. Here is a preliminary list of stories I consider among the best of 2010. Obviously I'll be adding to this list as the year goes on.

  • "A History of Terraforming" by Robert Reed, Asimov's July 2010. An epic storytelling feat. Will definitely make my Nebula Award short-list as one of the best novellas of the year.
     
  • "Stone Wall Truth" by Caroline Yoachim, Asimov's Feb. 2010. In this far-future tale, a technology people no longer understand allows prisoners to be literally cut open and exposed to the truth of who they are. A beautifully spun tale of politics and life, and a perfect example of SciFi Strange.
     
  • "In the Harsh Glow of its Incandescent Beauty" by Mercurio D. Rivera, Interzone 226. A continuation of Rivera's "Longing for Langalana" story about an alien species deeply in love with humanity. A fascinating idea backed up by great storytelling.
     
  • "A Passion For Art" by David D. Levine, Interzone 228. A disturbing tale about where an obsessive passion for art leads if your passion shines through selfish eyes.
     
  • "The Crocodiles" by Steven Popkes, F&SF May/June 2010. An even more disturbing tale combining the Nazis, the Holocaust, and zombies. The story is repulsive yet refuses to let you go. Do not expect happiness here, but do expect an amazing read.
     
  • Ship Breaker by Paolo Bacigalupi. After winning the Nebula Award for The Windup Girl, Bacigalupi returns with a young adult novel that's among the year's best. As with Bacigalupi's adult fiction, this novel of an not-so-happy future is compelling and full of sympathetic characters the reader quickly falls in love with.

2010 Young Writers Award

Young Writers Online is an online community dedicated to supporting young writers. If you are a young person considering a literary career, this site is a great place to immerse yourself in feedback, information, and the ins and outs of wordsmithing.

The site has now announced their first annual Young Writers Award, which will be judged by yours truly. The award is open to poets, short fiction writers, and novelists--the only requirements are that the writer must be under age 21 and be an active member of Young Writers Online. The prize is $250.

For complete information on submitting for the award, please see their website. The deadline to submit is Sept. 1st, 2010.

Nebula Awards interview with me

Over on the Nebula Awards website, Charles Tan has published an in-depth interview with me.

So what do I babble about? Well, in addition to discussing my Nebula nominated novella "Sublimation Angels," I explore what science fiction truly is--"humanity's dream of the future"--along with the many events and technologies the genre has failed to accurately predict. I also touch on such fun subjects as how literary fiction has abdicated its role in understanding large-scale societal issues.

Many thanks to Charles for conducting the interview.

When the New York Times becomes merely another blog

The other day I wrote about a New York Times article which described doctors taking the copyright to their patients' web postings as a means of preventing online criticism. Thanks to everyone who linked to or wrote about the issue, including Cory Doctorow at Boing Boing and Thomas Gideon at The Command Line.

After I wrote that post and Boing Boing linked to it, an interesting thing happened: Someone at The New York Times rewrote the article. Here is the original section of the article I quoted:

"The group Medical Justice, which helps protect doctors from meritless malpractice suits, advises its members to have patients sign an agreement that gives the doctor copyright over a Web posting if the patient mentions the doctor or practice."

After attention was brought to that article, here is how the Times rewrote it:

"The group Medical Justice, which helps protect doctors from meritless malpractice suits, advises its members to have patients sign an agreement that gives doctors more control over what patients post online."

As I mentioned in an update to my original post, obviously that's a big difference.

It's worth noting that while the article I quoted from was dated June 1, 2010, it was actually published mid-morning on March May 31 (corrected, per comment below) on the NY Times website. That's where I originally read the article and what prompted my post about it. The next day, the print edition of the Times contained the article with the second version of the quote. Obviously someone was upset with the first version and demanded a change.

If the Times made a mistake by printing the first version, then a change would be warranted. However, they have given no explanation for the change or even run a simple correction notice. I have written to the Times' public editor Clark Hoyt about this matter but have heard no response.

While my journalism days were limited to editing a small newspaper in the South (The Tuskegee News), if I had tried doing what the Times has done here I'd have been fired. It doesn't matter if the Times made this change before their print edition hit the streets--they published a news article on their website, where it sat for at least 8 hours in the form I originally read. To then change the article without a notice is not only poor journalism, it calls into question the standards of the supposed newspaper of record. It also makes me suspect the original article is correct and that the Times accidentally revealed the trade secret to Medical Justice's "tool" for dealing with online criticism.

I have been faithfully reading the Times for two decades, and I hope they will explain this change. Otherwise they will have demonstrated that they are merely a fancy blog, willing to change and rewrite their reporting depending on which way the wind blows. And hell, that might even be an insult to blogs. After all, there are many bloggers out there who wouldn't rewrite their posts without an explanation.

Winners of the 2010 Million Writers Award

This year's Million Writers Award is now complete. The winners are:

First Place (Overall winner): "Hospitality" by Summer Block (from Wheelhouse Magazine)
Runner Up: "Eros, Philia, Agape" by Rachel Swirsky (from Tor.com)
Honorable mention (third place): "Ditch" by Eric Beetner (PDF download, from Thuglit)

Thanks to everyone who took part in this year's award, whether by voting, reading, or nominating stories. To see the complete vote breakdown, go here.

Thanks to our generous donors, this year the prizes are:

  • First place: $400, plus the $100 ThinkGeek gift certificate and a one-year Greatest Uncommon Denominator subscription;
  • Runner-up: $200, plus PDFs of GUD magazine;
  • Honorable mention (third place): $50, plus PDFs of GUD magazine.

Congrats to all the winners. I'll be contacting you shortly about prize distribution. For more information on the award, please see the main Million Writers Award page.

Go to the doctor, lose the copyright to your writings

Today's New York Times has an interesting article about people being sued for critiquing businesses online. Most of the article deals with those crap-filed strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs), but what really caught my eye is an item on page 2 halfway down the article. To quote:

"The group Medical Justice, which helps protect doctors from meritless malpractice suits, advises its members to have patients sign an agreement that gives the doctor copyright over a Web posting if the patient mentions the doctor or practice." (See update at bottom for more on this quote.)

Are you freaking kidding me? As a writer, I have a good bit of interest in protecting the copyrights to my works. And now if I go to my doctor I might be asked to sign over my copyright to the M.D.! Hell no!

According to a page on the Medical Justice website, it appears the NY Times article is correct. While the Medical Justice website doesn't publicly state that doctors should take the copyright from people, the site does say that their "solution" means that "Patients are free to post online. In the rare event the feedback is not constructive, doctors have a tool to address fictional or slanderous posts."

That tool? Likely a DMCA takedown notice. If a patient has signed over the copyright to their online writings to their doctor, all the doctor has to do is flash that signed document to the offending website and the nasty words will be removed. No lawsuit and no fuss, at least for the doctor.

Medical Justice and the doctors using this copyright grab will likely defend their actions by saying it only applies when someone mentions their doctor or practice in their online writings. But I doubt the legal document which transfers copyright is that specific. For example, the Medical Justice website states their "solution" gives doctors a way to "address fictional or slanderous posts."

Fictional? Does this mean that if my novel includes a doctor as a character then my real doctor can claim that novel's copyright? Could be. After all, if the legal document addresses fictional posts, then the doctor could claim that the character is really him. Plenty of people have sued fiction writers for similar reasons, and if your doctor has a form giving him your copyright ... well, you get the idea.

Perhaps that is far-fetched. But the simple truth is that signing over the copyright to your writings is a bad idea for any writer--especially when you are not being paid to do so and must do it to receive medical care.

I hope writers raise a stink about this. Because if Medical Justice and doctors' groups succeed in making this copyright form the standard for receiving medical care, you better believe other professional groups and businesses will soon do the same. And if that happens, all bets are off for both freedom of speech and the ability of writers to own the copyrights to their works.

UPDATE: Around 11:00 pm tonight I noticed the NY Times had changed the quote I referenced above. Their article now reads:

"The group Medical Justice, which helps protect doctors from meritless malpractice suits, advises its members to have patients sign an agreement that gives doctors more control over what patients post online."

Obviously that's a big difference. I looked for a correction notice but they haven't posted one. I'm kicking myself for not having copied the original article. However, others noticed this same quote, including The Legal Satyricon and this blog, which posted the original article. If the NY Times misquoted Medical Justice, they need to run a correction, not simply change the article without notice. I'm also wondering if the NY Times accidentally revealed the trade secret to Medical Justice's "tool" for dealing with online criticism. Either way, it is still disturbing that doctors would do this to limit their patients' free speech--whether or not copyright is involved. But until I hear why the NY Times changed their information, I'm sticking with my original reading of the article.

UPDATE 2: I have written a longer post about the Times making this change without a correction notice or explanation. This is extremely poor journalism on their part.

Million Writers Award short list

Don't forget the public vote for the storySouth Million Writers Award ends at 11:59 pm Eastern time on May 31, 2010. To vote, go here.

When I posted the ten stories people are voting on, I didn't have time to post my expanded short list of stories. These are the stories from the 2009 Million Writers Award notable stories which caught my eye but didn't quite make my top ten. Thanks to the several people who reminded me about posting these selections.

Million Writers Award short list

Anderbo
http://www.anderbo.com/

Barrelhouse
http://www.barrelhousemag.com

Cha: An Asian Literary Journal
http://www.asiancha.com/

Chiaroscuro (ChiZine): Treatments of Light and Shade in Words
http://chizine.com

Eclectica Magazine
http://www.eclectica.org

The Edge of Propinquity
http://www.edgeofpropinquity.net

Fantasy Magazine
http://www.fantasy-magazine.com/

A Fly in Amber
http://www.aflyinamber.net/

Front Porch Journal
http://www.frontporchjournal.com

Guernica Magazine
http://www.guernicamag.com

JMWW
http://jmww.150m.com

Joyland
http://www.joyland.ca

Necessary Fiction
http://www.necessaryfiction.com

Plots with Guns
http://www.plotswithguns.com

Prick of the Spindle
http://www.prickofthespindle.com/

SFReader.com
http://sfreader.com

storySouth
http://www.storysouth.com

Strange Horizons
http://www.strangehorizons.com

Thoughtcrime Experiments
http://thoughtcrime.crummy.com

Toasted Cheese
http://tclj.toasted-cheese.com/

A junk shot of assorted news

A few items of note:

  • Don't forget we're now in the final days of the storySouth Million Writers Award public vote. All writers and readers are welcome to take part in the voting, which lasts until 11:59 pm Eastern time on May 31, 2010.
     
  • Pindeldyboz, one of the best literary journals of recent memory, is coming to an end. After publishing a beautiful print edition for several years, and an amazing online edition which (emphasis added) published over 1200 stories by more than 600 authors, the editors have decided to pack things in on the journal's 10th anniversary. Pindeldyboz was named the Best Online Publication in the 2003 storySouth Million Writers Award and has had works reprinted in Best American Non-Required Reading, New Stories From the South, Best American Fantasy, and many other anthologies. Thanks to Whitney Pastorek and the other Pindeldyboz editors for giving us so many great stories to read!
     
  • In case you missed my English language review of Paolo Bacigalupi's The Windup Girl, here's the same review in Romanian. Thanks to the Romanian Science Fiction & Fantasy Society for translating and reprinting the review.
     
  • Over at Suite 101, author Colin Harvey reviews the new issue of Interzone. He says my novelette "Plague Birds" is "breath-taking in its audacity ... a story to remind jaded reviewers why they fell in love with SF in the first place." Wow! Many thanks to Colin for the kind words.
     
  • Over at the Fantastic Reviews Blog, Aaron Hughes highly recommends my  "A Twenty-First Century Fairy Love Story" from Tales of the Unanticipated, issue 30. Again, many thanks!

A personal rejection letter, sent to the literary journal which took 6 years to reject my story

Dear Pretentious Literary Journal:

I was pretty naive six years ago, believing that publishing my fiction in your journal was a desirable thing. I mean, you have a circulation of barely 1,000 printed copies, the majority of which no doubt sit "archived" in your editorial offices alongside your mighty slush pile. Still, I was once young and bright-eyed and figured that if only you'd bestow an acceptance upon my grovelling head I would immediately be thrust into the stratosphere of literary superstardom.

Well, you'll be happy to hear I recently received your form rejection for that submission. Such bold, daring use of scissors and decades old xerox technology. I especially liked how you scratched out "Dear author" and wrote in my name with a blue pen. And since this was a form rejection mailed SIX YEARS after the submission was sent in, I deeply appreciate your apology for taking so long to respond (or as you put it, "the very protracted review of your piece"). And kudos for the comment about having truly wanted to publish my story ... until circumstances dictated otherwise. I'm sure the hundreds of other authors whose stories you've sat upon all these years, and who received this same form rejection, thrilled like I did at your overly sincere words.

But the funny thing is that in the last six years my view on publishing has changed. My experience editing storySouth and running their Million Writers Award for best online fiction made me realize there is no point in wasting my time submitting to second-tier literary journals like yourself. You say you publish 1000 copies twice a year? Well, many online journals receive that many readers every day. You don't even have a proper website so people can order copies of your journal. What is with that?

I considered electronically scratching out the "Pretentious Literary Journal" term above and writing in your real name.   But in the end, I decided against it.  Because the truth is, you don't need a rejection letter from me.  Your behind-the-times attitudes and inability to handle such a simple process as a slush pile means you have already set yourself up for the ultimate rejection--failure.  It has been years since I've seen a copy of your literary journal in a bookstore. It's been longer than that since I've heard anyone mention a story, or poem, or essay published in your pages. You have made yourself obsolete. You have rejected yourself better than I ever could.

Truth be told, I'd long ago given up on that submission and assumed it went to the great shredder in the sky. So thanks for sending me the form rejection six years late.  It made me laugh.  It made me realize why I long ago stopped submitting to places like you.

Still, I wish you the best in your future publishing experiences. But somehow, I don't think you'll like what the future brings.

Sincerely,

Jason Sanford

Happiness is a full mailbox

Happiness truly is a full mailbox, both virtually and in real life. I arrived home to find the snail box full of fun stuff, including Interzone 228 with my story "Plague Birds" inside. I also received my Nebula Award Nominee lapel pin and certificate--thanks to the every-wonderful Eugie Foster for sending it my way. Can I wear the Nebula pin with everything, or just on special occasions?

I also received the Progress Report 2 for the 2010 World Fantasy Con. They have things well in hand, with what looks like more than 400 people already registered. If you're thinking about going, I'd suggest registering soon. Last year's WFC ran out of registration spots and I wouldn't be surprised to see the same thing happen again.

As for the virtual mailbox, I received a nice note from Daily s-Press that they'd highlighted my Nebula-nominated novella "Sublimation Angels." Many thanks. Daily s-Press showcases "innovative writers and publishers" and is always worth checking out.