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."
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.
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
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.
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.
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.