Slashdot Mirror
Card's Intergalactic Medicine Show
grammar fascist writes "Orson Scott Card's Intergalactic Medicine Show, a science fiction / fantasy webzine, went online just yesterday. Card, the editor-in-chief, has stayed true to his ideals: quality stories, author's rights, and trust in people's honesty. New stories are released quarterly, with new column installments added monthly to the current issue. New art is created for each story. There isn't even an attempt at draconian content control. Writers and artists give exclusive rights for one year - after that, limited rights. Card wants your stories and art, not your copyrights. I've finished the first issue now, and the stories are great. "Eviction Notice" made me cry, and I laughed out loud at "Loose in the Wires." I paid my $2.50 initially to support the business model, but the stories themselves are worth it."
So you'd have to say that Tom Cruise never put out an enjoyable movie, that you never sang along to a Michael Jackson song in the 80s, that OJ simpson wasn't a great football player. People are different, some of the most talented are flawed.
What there's no room for in the 21st century are the black/white reactionary actions you espouse. If you disagree with Card's politics, fine. If you don't want to buy or even keep his books, fine. But stating that there's no room for "animals" like him? Way to paint yourself into that extremist corner and lose any validity for your argument. Try formulating an argument, support it with facts, and allow your reader to determine whether this is someone they want to support.
Also, in the "Submissions" section..
We pay 6 cents a word up to $500. Stories can be longer, but the word rate drops with increasing length to always yield a total of $500.
With this payment we buy exclusive rights in any language or any medium throughout the world for one year from date of first publication in the magazine, and nonexclusive electronic and/or online rights in any language in perpetuity. We also buy nonexclusive print and audio rights throughout the world and in all languages for inclusion in multi-author anthologies based on the magazine, for which you will receive a pro rata share of the authors' share of advances and royalties, to be reported and paid when reports and payments are received by us from the publisher (or, if we are the publisher, every six months after one year after publication, if there are any earnings to report).
Though these rights are not outrageous, they are by no means extraordinary. In fact, they are more restrictive than your average magazine rights - usually they don't restrict your right to publish in other media for a year, like this does (eg, according to this you are not allowed to sell your story to any anthology for a year from the publication date...).
So essentially, whereas magazines normally only buy first rights (the rights to be the first to publish the story), this one wants to be the only one for at least a year. Respect for the author's rights? Really?
Daniel
Carpe Diem
I'm surprised anyone tries to pin Genghis Khan down using a modern political spectrum. After all, the man implemented the largest (and misguided) conservation projects known to man, by attempting to restore most of Asia to its natural Mongolian grasslands (in part by laying waste to cities and farmland). And arguing whether Genghis Khan was reactionary or not depends on your point of view. He certainly greatly upset the prior order.
OSC also is very active compared to other SFF writers in teaching the next generation to write. He's taught creative writing classes (and he's much more qualified than most who teach those usually worthless classes). He's written a book on how to write SFF, and a book on characterization. And, believe it or not, both books have solid advice...I taught myself how to write before I picked up his books on characterization and SFF, and I pretty much was nodding, going, "Yes, this is right...I do that already...yep, he's got it right..." What I had learned independantly on my own was confirmed in them. They're the only books on writing I've read so far that actually know what they're talking about...I've laughed a few others out the window for being absurdly incorrect on a lot of points.
I have the feeling that the new webzine is just another step in making a high-quality market for the next generation of writers. I wouldn't be surprised if this turned into the next, oh, I don't know...Azimov's, or something like Marion Zimmer Bradley's anthologies, or other SFF 'zine that was backed by a highly talented author, back in the "Good 'ol days".
You mean like equal protection under the law for the way they happen to be born? Or did you mean to marry who they want because they love that person?
When people talk about the political goals of a group they usually mean that they don't want that group to have the same rights as they do.
Take your pick. The anti-slavery groups, womens suffrage, womens rights, the people in these groups were denouced at one time or another (and to some extent still are) because these groups wanted the same rights for their members as the rest of the people had (usually white men).
exhibiting lewd behavior on "gay pride" day you're branded a homophobe.
So it's okay when heterosexual women flash their breasts (lewd behavior) during Mardi Gras or get felt up by their studmuffin while sitting on the park bench.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Have you actually ever read his work? Lots of fascinating ideas in there. Some are getting dated...ie, in Ender's Game there's a scene where Ender fools the other kids by basically signing up for a second account and IMing everyone, and while that stuff didn't exist when the book was written, it's common nowdays so probably doesn't have the same effect as it did not 10 years ago...but others are still interesting.
His feuding brothers are getting annoying, though. For some reason half of his brothers like to hate the other halfs' guts. But that's another topic alltogether...
and inane social commentary
Well, I find it nice that he's so involved with his community. Perhaps you find contributing to community inane, but I respect it.
The man is a racist homophobic bigot
Racist? Obviously you've never read his stuff. As for homophobic...perhaps, I don't like his opinions there myself. I don't think he's a bigot, though. A bigot is someone who never considers anyone else's view. I think he's someone who has thought about it, and has chosen his path, much like I've considered things, and I've chosen my path. Not everyone who is not all for gay rights or who supports Bush is a narrow-minded bigot, as much as I'd like to jump on that bandwagon myself and say they are. (wouldn't that be a form of bigotry itself?)
who deserves scorn and scrutiny
In that order? The scorn before the scrutiny? ::grin:: Perhaps reverse that...take a good look at what he's saying, then decide if you want to scorn everything, or not.
I'm not saying everyone should lovy-dovy-love him, just that I've found in my own following of his columns that he has more interesting, worthwhile ideas than not, and I've found I respect someone who contributes to his communties--SFF literature, and his local hometown--more than someone who bitches and complains but doesn't try to pitch in to help in their own communities. I do find his views on homosexuality to be a shame, though. And Bush. Bleh. I don't read his political columns anymore, because I know I don't agree.
(Heh, I'm such a moderate...damned because I'm not left-wing enough, damned because I'm not right-wing enough.)
While I disagree with Orson Scott Card's politics, it is very unfair to call him "an insane rightwing religious fanatic" (although I suppose that nowadays in our big brother world anyone who doesn't have absolute unquestioning faith in what is "politically correct" is some sort of "dangerous extremist").
The Taliban are religious fanatics. Pat Roberson is a religious fanatic. Orson Scott Card is not a religious fanatic, he is someone who simply has views that differ with yours.
At one time in the Western world it was considered enlightened to have free an open discussion amoung people with differing views. You respected those you disagreed with, if they respected you, even if you had political disagreements. Even if there was NO ONE who would argue a certain point of view, someone would be the "devil's advocate", and argue that point of view - because to not expose yourself to a certain point was considered the height of ignorance!
How low we have sunk, to where one questions the sanity of anyone who disagrees with them, and will not have anything to do with them... and now, increasingly they want to throw people who disagree with them in prison, or at least make it illegal for them to speak in public.