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."
This follows in the great tradition of the old print anthologies of SF Stories. Hopefully this will lead to more interest in SF and writing in general. Perhaps we can return to the glory days of SciFi.
Another way to support independant sci-fi is to listen to Escape Pod, the weekly science-fiction podcast magazine.
I'm not involved in this project, but I have been a frequent donor. I think EP is a very important project. To some extent, the sci-fi and fantasy genres are dominated by the feature film, the novel and the long-running series. The traditional vehicle for short stories, magazines, have a dwindling readership, and do not have the distribution that they once had at their peak.
EP seeks to create an audience, and perhaps one day a market for short, original science-fiction stories. I think this is a very noble and important cause.
Please tune in. I hope you enjoy it. You can find it listed on all good podcast directories.
Orson Scott Card's Intergalactic Medicine Show, a science fiction / fantasy webzine, went online just yesterday. Card, the editor-in-chief, wants to have his server stress tested.
SIG: TAKE OFF EVERY 'CAPTAIN'!!
Card, the editor-in-chief, has stayed true to his ideals: quality stories, author's rights, and trust in people's honesty.
Pffft. Leave it to a Mormon to actually implement a business model that respects the work's creator...
(I just spent last week in SLC. Can't say I agree with a lot of their views, but they are a very nice bunch of people.)
Be a real patriot: Question authority. Think for yourself. Formulate your own conclusions.
Ok, so Orson Scott Card is a great author... but how is this groundbreaking? There are numerous webzines that publish quality stories, out there...
Try Duotrope's digest to find them.
Daniel
Carpe Diem
Card, the editor-in-chief, has stayed true to his ideals: quality stories, author's rights, and trust in people's honesty...
...and flagrant homophobia.
I used to be a big enders game fan and thought OSC was the king until i read things from the like peter f hamilton, greg bear and ian m banks etc The nights dawn trilogy makes enders game look like fan-fiction
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.
Card's site actually looks like a real magazine.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
Uhhh.... no. My PayPal account was frozen when I sold something on eBay and there was a dispute between myself and the buyer. Both PayPal and eBay ruled in my favor (this was before eBay bought PayPal) but then in sour grapes that the arbitration didn't go his way, the buyer did a reverse charge on his credit card, PayPal told me to pay up or they freeze my account. And this is despite the fact that they ruled in my favor. I told them which layer of Dante's Infero to go and will NEVER use PayPal ever again.
that's just it though. ender's game was not great. it was incredibly two dimensional, shallow, and telegraphed everything light years away. osc took a fad of the times (video games) and wrote a story around it. thing is, it was already a cliche by the time he had got to it. it's way, way cliche now.
he did know his target audience though -- angsty teens. ender's game appeals strongly to teens, because it's a story about getting ultimate revenge on bullies. what angsty bullied teen doesn't love a story like that?
oh and before you accuse me of dissing ender's game "just because you don't like his politics" -- i read ender's game and concluded it was mediocre fluff about a decade before I ever discovered osc was an asshat - or anything else about him for that matter. osc's political views have zero bearing on my conclusion ender's game is doggie poo.
there are many, many SF stories which are "great". ender's game is not one of them.
Want to read more free/cheap sci-fi and fantasy?
Strange Horizons - a weekly e-magazine, donation-supported.
Futurismic - a monthly e-magazine (focused on futuristic stories and articles about future technology), also donation-supported.
I've been reading both of these for a few months now, and the stories are great! I'm planning to donate in their fund drives, because I think the quality is superb.
Have you read the Moderation Guidelines Addendum?
From the /. article summary: "Card wants your stories and art, not your copyright."
Ummm, not to question the great slashdot editors, but this is *standard practice* for lit magazines, both in print and online. The author USUALLY retains the copyright for published work. Nothing unique here.
Also, most print lit magazines only purchase first serial rights and/or some type of one-time anthology rights. Card's magazine purchases EVERYTHING, all rights, for an entire year. This agreement is actually worse for writers than what most publications offer.
As for having all rights (except online rights, which they keep forever!!) returned to the author after a year, this seems great... except when you consider:
a) for many print/web literary publications, rights return to the author immediately after publication.
b) that the author won't be able to sell the story very easily if it's appeared in another magazine before. Editors want FIRST serial rights, so they can provide readers with unique, never-read-before content. When rights are returned to the author after a year, the author's not going to be able to do much with them, except for maybe putting the story in a print anthology.
Sorry slashdot editors, but this looks like a not-so-hot deal for authors.
Writerati
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.
Disagreeing with someone's politics is not always a reason to not read their works (though invariably people add their on spin on any story they write ,which could make it less enjoyable for an opposing view point) ,However I would not pay for any services he provides or books he writes ,due to the fact he may use the money to lobby . I don't want to fund people with views like that .
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
Now, if by some mistake of birth, you should happen to be a member of that sect and decide you don't want to be affiliated with it anymore, prepare for the onslaught.
After my wife and I decided we'd had enough, we had nonstop unwanted calls and visits by guys in dark suits. Each and every time they came to our door we told them that we weren't interested, weren't coming back and that we wanted the harassment to stop. The bishop even told us that it was his "ecclesiastical duty" to continue the unwanted calls and visits until we wrote a letter resigning our membership. WTF??
After we wrote the letter, and they wouldn't accept an email, then the vicious rumors started and our Mormon friends stopped talking to us. It may be all smiles going in, but it's all daggers going out.
Yeah, nice folks. Love 'em to death.
And I just counted that I have 14 books by OSC on the shelf next to my elbow. So sad. I even met OSC twice at book fairs.
Recently I read some right-wing lunatic, post-9/11 columns by him. No attempt at reasoning, only 'must follow the leader; dissent is treason' kind of diatribe. That's when I noticed that he is an authoritarian.
Did you notice that in his books, democracies are the weaklings and loosers, and the strong (or shrewd) win? And what's with this fascination with genocide?
Fight Frist Psoting!
Browse Slashdot with 'Newest First'!
If you just want to read/look at scifi stories and art, Elfwood http://www.elfwood.com/ is much easier to access, and it's free. And at the spin-off sites like Elftown http://www.elftown.com/ and Writersco http://www.writersco.com/ you can have a much more intime conversations with or between the writers and artists. But there are also some pretty bad amateurs there, but many see that as a feature, not a bug.
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".
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.)
Freedom of speech means you don't even have to churn out second rate overblown sci-fi to have this right. "Bash, discredit, and spread hate" is your spin on what he is doing, others have other opinions.
Of course, on Slashdot, your opinion is the only Approved opinion, and all others should be mercilessly suppressed. Oh, well, unless they also produce some decent fiction, then maybe we'll consider tolerating it...
How can this be modded informative? References to this article and others come up EVERY TIME Card is mentioned in a /. article. What is interesting is that people are so ready to discount anything a person does if their political/ideological/religous views differ from them. I am really finding it difficult to see the relevance of Card's "insane rightwing religious" fantatisism to the fact that he is putting out a quarterly Sci-Fi magazine.
And they don't go to extreme lenghts to try to convert you. Once it's clear that you're not interested they leave you alone.
That's probably because they'll just convert you post-mortem.
But they sure are a lot nicer than Jehova's Witnesses.
You can't take the sky from me...
There's definitly something amazing about the short story format. It is particularly well-suited to sci-fi, as can be evidenced by the beginnings of the genre in Amazing Stories, etc, and thousands of issues of Omni and Asimov's Science Fiction that continue to publish great fiction. And there's something wonderful about holding the latest issue in your hand, taking it with you on the bus, reading it cover to cover, one story at a time.
It's great that Orson Scott Card is doing his own magazine! I've read some anthologies that he's edited, and they were very good. However, I'd really love to order this in PRINT, if I could, or head over to the magazine store to pick up the latest issue.
As much as we'd like websites to take over the print market, I just don't see it happening. I still want a piece of paper in my hand when it comes to reading. Even if it was on one of those nice new paper-like LCD screens, I can't imagine it would be an equal experience to holding a book in your hand. I think it's not resolution that is the defining factor here. It is something about the permanence of ink on paper that wins me over. When I finish reading a great story, I never want to lose it. I want to put it on my shelf so I know where it is. The harddrive is such a volatile place to store memories that you don't want to lose...
You should have called him an insane rightwing racist homophobe. Then you would have ben modded Informative. :-\
Orson Scott Card is a great writer, but he's also an insane rightwing religious fanatic.
I think he's neither.
He's a writer who's done some good work, and he's a right-wing believer, but I don't think he's great, nor is he a fanatic as far as I've seen.
The last I read of his was the "Worthing Saga", which featured a race of ubermen recognised by their blue eyes... yeah, er, that's nice Orson, reeeeal nice.
You can't take the sky from me...
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.
BUY USED BOOKS.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
Disclaimer: I'm an adept of "do whatever the fuck you please, as long as it's in the privacy of your home, and between consenting adults". I'm not opposed to your being gay, or whatever else you want to be. This time however, I'll basically also add "but fucking _keep_ it to the privacy of your own home, and leave the rest of us out of it already, because I'm already tired of the 'waah, you're a nazi if you don't support us' guilt-tripping."
So where should I start? He's a "rightwing religious fanatic"? Well, how about you support that claim? Because in that article you linked to, I've seen him actually argue his point of view without needing to base it on "God said it's wrong". So how the heck is it religious fanatism? He bases his argument on some things that are technically true, too. Things like:
1. That it's a redefinition of the word "marriage" to mean something it never meant before. It's true. Marriage always meant something involving a man and a woman. Anything else is an extension of the meaning. Now you may argue that it's a logical extension, and that it doesn't do anyone any harm, and we can even aggree on that. But an extension it is.
2. That you did have the exact same rights as heterosexual people, including, yes, the right to a heterosexual marriage. It may not be the kind of right you wanted, but technically you had the same rights. (Same as technically if homosexual marriage is allowed, heterosexuals have that right too. They might not want to exert that right, but they have it.) What you wanted was a _new_ right, that noone else had. Again, it may be a logical one, or one that doesn't harm anyone, and we can even aggree there, but it _is_ a new one.
3. Passing laws and granting new rights is a privilege of congress, not of a judge legislating from the bench. The courts of law are the branch that should apply the existing laws, not the ones that make new ones as they see fit. Separation of powers in the state is there for a reason, and let's keep it that way.
So how about you address those, if you really wish to discuss that, instead of reaching for the canned "insane rightwing religious fanatic" ad-hominem? (And if not, why did you bring it up?)
Because it seems to me like all three are technically right. Again, I'm not opposed to your getting that right. Makes sense to me. But the bullshit verbal fallacies (i.e., a whole argument based on redefining what a word means), ad-hominems, and endless guilt-tripping attempts based on those verbal falkacies, _are_ starting to get my goat. If you want to make your case, make it logically already, and not by fallacies. Verbal, ad-hominem, guilt by association (e.g., don't read his books because he's one of the homophobes), or otherwise. Or in other words, ffs, be honest for a start: if you want a new right, say just that, don't pretend someone was denying you something everyone else had.
And judging from the page you linked to, basically that's the same thing that Orson Scott Card was having a problem with too: that verbal fallacy involved. Hence the Humpty Dumpty reference. Can't even say I blame him for getting annoyed at hearing the same fallacy over and over again.
And you know what? It might even make your cause a lot of good to be honest for a change, and make a logical case instead of the whole "waah, I'm a victim" guilt trip. A lot of us couldn't care less what you do in your home. Sure, marry another guy, if that makes you happy. But if you act like an attention-whore, attention you'll get. And sometimes of the annoyed kind. If you scream the same fallacy (i.e., lie) again at people often enough, you've just insulted their intelligence and you've just lost their sympathy. Yes, the average human might be an idiot, but if you keep treating him like one and make your whole argument based on word-plays, he'll catch on to it. Just something to consider.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Yes. Hitler was a marvelous painter, and we should praise his creativity. Maybe put up a statue, or contribute to a memorial fund in his name.
You can't mod me down for this. Godwin's Law must be followed.
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
That's probably because they'll just convert you post-mortem.
In the interest of accuracy, Mormons don't believe that baptizing the dead by proxy "converts" them. Rather, it merely provides the baptismal ordinance for those who decide of their own free will to convert. For those who don't want the baptism, it has no effect. Even some of those who do decide they want the baptism may not be able to make use of it, because acceptance of Christ in the afterlife is only an option for those who did not have a chance to accept Him and be properly baptized during their lives. Those that had a chance, and blew it, probably don't get another even if someone does the baptism for them.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.