Doctor Who 60th anniversary (REUPLOAD)

We have just passed the 60th anniversary of Dr Who. I found this upload by @Wearerofthecheese, which uses the 'Soon I'll be 60 years old' song. It made me cry so, you can probably label me a fan of Dr. Who. I'll own it.

I have a deep fondness for this show that started when I was a child, and have many happy memories of watching it on TV. It's hard to describe the impact of Dr Who and or the Daleks when it first appeared on TV.

So, when people dump on the show I tend to bristle.

Edited highlights. Link to full comments.

So. I’ve been watching Doctor Who lately…

And despite its popularity and acclaim. The writing is kind of atrocious?

The show is constantly changing its own established rules.

The Doctor can’t change fixed points in time until he can.

He can’t visit a point in time twice until he can.

The level of technobabble is off the fucking charts.

Speaking of the doctor talking. God does he fucking love to talk and the bad guys just let him do it.

Speaking of the villains. The show clearly wants us to take them seriously. But also makes them really silly at the same time.

The Doctor himself is such an uninteresting protagonist.

Not saying the show is not creative.

What do you guys think?

My Reply

Arguably, one can make a case that a show with time travel, and the nature of the Doctor (an entity that can feel time), can remake the rules just because every-time he gets out of the TARDIS he's in a new time-line.

Some time-lines have fixed points, some do not. Some you can visit the same point twice, or arguably the second time you visit is not actually the same place, because it's a different time-line.

As for the Doctor's non-stop talking, words have power. It's the equivalent of knowing the secret name trope in stories with magic.

As for the scariness of any monster, the point is that Doctor Who shows us that overcoming fear is the way you beat monsters.

The show is all metaphors.

I got a lot of positive feedback for the post, so again sharing just because I can, and because I like Dr Who.

NB: Had to re-upload this, because YouTube was playing stupid buggers with the original poster.

And as this looses the comments, I've posted it below from anonymous:

Or... just show to em THIS FLIC ;-P

Rowan Atkinson is Doctor Who | Comic Relief - YouTube

And if they STILL wouldn't get it -- throw em out of TARDIS. ;-P 

Doctor Who 60th anniversary

We have just passed the 60th anniversary of Dr Who. I found this upload by @Wearerofthecheese, which uses the 'Soon I'll be 60 years old' song. It made me cry so, you can probably label me a fan of Dr. Who. I'll own it.

I have a deep fondness for this show that started when I was a child, and have many happy memories of watching it on TV. It's hard to describe the impact of Dr Who and or the Daleks when it first appeared on TV.

So, when people dump on the show I tend to bristle.

Edited highlights. Link to full comments.

So. I’ve been watching Doctor Who lately…

And despite its popularity and acclaim. The writing is kind of atrocious?

The show is constantly changing its own established rules.

The Doctor can’t change fixed points in time until he can.

He can’t visit a point in time twice until he can.

The level of technobabble is off the fucking charts.

Speaking of the doctor talking. God does he fucking love to talk and the bad guys just let him do it.

Speaking of the villains. The show clearly wants us to take them seriously. But also makes them really silly at the same time.

The Doctor himself is such an uninteresting protagonist.

Not saying the show is not creative.

What do you guys think?

My Reply

Arguably, one can make a case that a show with time travel, and the nature of the Doctor (an entity that can feel time), can remake the rules just because every-time he gets out of the TARDIS he's in a new time-line.

Some time-lines have fixed points, some do not. Some you can visit the same point twice, or arguably the second time you visit is not actually the same place, because it's a different time-line.

As for the Doctor's non-stop talking, words have power. It's the equivalent of knowing the secret name trope in stories with magic.

As for the scariness of any monster, the point is that Doctor Who shows us that overcoming fear is the way you beat monsters.

The show is all metaphors.

I got a lot of positive feedback for the post, so again sharing just because I can, and because I like Dr Who.

Science Fiction: Gatekeeping, Fandom & Genre Stagnation

Caught this, and I have opinions, which are probably not fair given this guy is doing an informal video talk about his opinions. Here's the reply I left.

I'm going to have to go away and think about this. While a lot of the points raised are worth discussing, I found some of the conclusions weak. For example, Sci-Fi as a term, coined by Forrest J. Ackerman, who arguably was the first high profile SF media fan as opposed to SF literature fan.

I used to rankle at SF being called Sci-Fi or skiffy, but nowadays I don't think it really matters because any negative implications from the term have long been overcome by the ubiquity of SF as a genre. Looking down on the term says more about the person looking down on it than the genre; namely intellectual snobbery.

And that's my problem with gatekeepers for what is essentially something that no longer makes any sense in the world as it is now, as compared to the 1930s, the evolution through the genre from the 1940s and 50s, to the new wave of the sixties and early 70s etc.

I tend to agree that fantasy encompassing sword and sorcery, epic fantasy and the such is not trying to emulate the sense of wonder that SF achieves when at its best. And as you say, revolutionary ideas are different to the evolution of tropes.

However, placing publishing as gatekeepers who are upholding the traditions of the genre doesn't stand up to scrutiny. An equally convincing argument can be made that they've held back the genre because their goals are to make profits, not evolve the genre per se. And, I agree these are not mutually contradictory goals, but the evidence is in product on the shelves.

Also, writers like Kristine Kathryn Rusch are self-published, yet also featured in traditional magazines (she is a Hugo award winner back in the 1990s), and the problem is rather diminishment of publishing from corporate buyouts. If anything one can argue that despite the criticism of self-publishing as being slapdash, this is the only area where a writer can write what they want, rather than write to market.

Of course, I would concede that a large number of self-published writers will write to market, but this has always been the case. It is a feature of capitalism, not a bug. As such, there's room for all fiction to reach the market, but the problem I fear you're actually railing against is how to sort out the wheat from the chaff.

That's a problem that I have no answer to, except that broad sweeping generalizations about self-publishing, and arguing from what one prefers has led to the arguments we see in social media. The vastness of cultural products, their accessibility, and becoming jaded from a glut of books to read only leads to a cul-de-sac of refined taste, and and as such becomes largely inaccessible to the general book reader.

TL;DR: There's room for revolutionary stories and re-framed retelling's of old stories.

SF Furore Part 3: Standing on the Shoulders of Giants

Start left to right, top to bottom: Isaac Asimov, Robert A. Heinlein, Arthur C. Clarke, Cordwainer Smith, A. E. van Vogt, H. P. Lovecraft, and Robert E. Howard; all favourites of mine.

Continuing my dive into the rage that is SF fandom.

Hey, look! A buzzy, angry hornets' nest! What could possibly go wrong if I jam my face into it!(Or: why the "science fiction canon" is already dead and people should just let it fucking die, already) from John Scalzi Twitter feed, link to his blog.

Yes but no, but maybe... 

Okay, let me clarify. 

Yes; because I agree that there's no need for readers to read the past, but without knowing the past it can be hard to understand the present.

No; because writers stand on the shoulders of those who came before. Readers read stories that are in dialogue with the past. So, no one has to read Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, though I think she wrote Gothic Horror, which is not SF. However, her work speaks to the human condition.

Maybe; because, this is all just opinion, which is fine, but it's just opinion about things that one can't actually control. Furthermore, starting arguments by creating unnecessary confrontations will lead nowhere good.

I don't require everyone to share my views.

I don't shun people who have views antithetical to mine. That doesn't mean I go out of my way to socialize with them either, only that I recognize that other people's opinions are different to mine, and are not my concern.

I see the root of these confrontations as having stemmed from our cultures economy creating technology that has outgrown our ability to cope with the stress it generates. So, I get why that can be threatening, especially if one feels disempowered, or disenfranchised, these are strong emotional triggers.

But, real diversity means tolerating ideas antithetical to your own; arguing against them not with emotional outbursts, but reason. By all means, emotions will drive the discourse, but don't let emotions overrule reason.

SF Furore Part 2: Defending the Indefensible

I'm gonna go ahead and say this for the cheap seats: What's the necessity for the Retro Hugos again...? It's not as if these titles don't already dominate discourse making it difficult for us newbies to ever achieve 'classic' status. Because I'm tired of racists and bigots. from Tade Thompson's Twitter feed.

Well... my first response to seeing this Tweet was:

We're all tired of opinionated people who think that their opinions are more important than being kind to others.

By-the-by Tade, if you're chasing classic status, I suggest you'd be better off writing another story. I would also add, that if any writer thinks they're work is worthy of being labeled a 'classic,' it will become so on its merits.

It's also well to remember that all great writers were once 'newbies.'

Also, it's almost impossible to discuss the topic of 'classic' works of the past, when people who are offended by them label the creators as racist and bigots. Any discussion becomes mired in controversy, because the topic is seen as defending the indefensible.

However, hold on a moment, here's my take.

I know the movement started by calling out 'recent' problematical writers, editors, and artists (and by recent anything with the last century), but I've got to ask, when are we going to stop? Also, worth asking, what makes anyone qualified to cancel artists, and or the people who like that artists work, which only leads too more questions?

But if you cancel creators who offend you, who gets canceled next?

And, when does the 'cancel movement' stop? By this I mean, both when as in how long the canceling goes on, and when as in the historical cut-off date.

What those promoting cancel culture seem to have forgotten, is that labeling past SF authors as racists and bigots, by suppressing their work, is the first step of turning people into 'things.'

I would also argue that this is made worse by those who support the labeling living people who like older works as racists and fascists too. I mean, labeling people as things is arguably what leads to bigotry.

This may sound a touch polemical, but I would argue is even worse, because the dead no longer care, whereas the living do. Think back to the Puritans as one example where their desire to cancel the culture of their time led nowhere good.

And one more thing, Tade; the Hugo's didn't come into existence until 1953, and if you think that SF didn't start before that date, then you're sorely deluded.

SF Furore Part 1: The 2020 Hugo's

Jeanette Ng would cancel both of the men here, and anyone reading their work.

Another year has passed. Another set of Hugo's have been won. And another row has broken out in fandom. What a surprise. Not!

For those who aren't up on the history of science fiction, let's just say that the roots of SF, as a genre, began circa 1921 (give or take), as a way of justifying literature that wasn't aimed at improving the reader, but rather providing some entertainment.

Exciting stories featuring new technology.

Hugo Gernsback coined the term "scientifiction*," for scientific based fiction, which later became science fiction. Or, as Forrest J. Ackerman later called it, Sci-Fi.

The SF genre started in the pulps as mere "entertainment," that has arguably evolved over the years into a literature that examines the impact of technology on the human condition.

Arguably, because a genre is just a marketing category. Whether or not stories have to comment on the human condition versus just being entertaining is arguable; an opinion, not a fact.

A reminder, last year Jeanette Ng won The Campbell Award for best new author, which I commented here, resulting in it being renamed The Astounding Award (technically not a Hugo, but awarded at the Hugo ceremony).

This years row is over various faults like: how dare George R. R. Martin's mispronounce authors names; the time that the virtual award ceremony ran with his waffle; then the final straw, GRRM mentioning the names of people who won this years Retro Hugo awards, promoting their importance to the genre, despite having been deemed unmentionable, after Jeanette Ng canceled them.

Arguments over these issues that have been all across SF&F social media.

Comments from both SF&F fans and professionals, commentary that frankly beggars belief. It's like children calling each other names in the playground, except these people aren't children, and an an awful lot of them want to cancel writers who they find problematical.

Please don't get me wrong on this, one has to face the fact that neither were nice men, but what they brought to the world has value beyond their faults.

Both of Lovecraft's parents died while confined in a psychiatric hospital, and as a child he had chorea minor, and later what appears to have been atypical depression. He also died at age 46; health outcomes back then were poor, and today we know that both genetics and the environment can affect how people grow up to become who they are.

None of which forgives his bigotry.

But, to deny his contribution to SF&F for being a bad person is just plain wrong.  He wrote within a modern tradition of existential nihilism, explored the delusions of living in an anthropomorphic universe, and addressed mankind's insignificance in the cosmic scheme of things.

Creating the Mythos alone, argues that Lovecraft's influence transcends his feet of clay. That and the fact that he is still being discussed till this day, inspiring writers to create cosmic horror, says it all.

Campbell's contribution to SF&F are twofold: he wrote (Who Goes There, which became the film The Thing); and his editorship of Astounding Magazine.

He died at the age of 61, which would now be considered young. And I couldn't help but notice that his pictures show him smoking. We now know that smoking affects the respiratory system, and blood circulation to the brain.

I mention this, because as Charlie Stross once observed, isn't it funny how men of a certain age tend to have changes of personality from health issues (high blood pressure). Again, none of this forgives his bigotry but, those times were not our times.

Things were different then. To deny that Campbell totally reshaped the genre, transforming SF from its Pulp roots into a discussion of how technology will affect the human condition, and cancel him, is again just wrong.

By all means have an opinion. But stating opinions to generate arguments, which are not facts, is pointless. 

One doesn't need to subscribe to the values of creators to see that their creations add to the richness of the human condition. Not withstanding the fact that both Campbell and Lovecraft were both crazy nut jobs, men with feet of clay, doesn't mean the good they did should be thrown out with the bad.

Jeanette Ng, and those who support canceling people are doing more damage to the genre than either Lovecraft or Campbell.

NB: *1915 according to Pulp Librarian @PulpLibrarian

#OtherOpinionsAreNotMyConcern

Do Not Cause People to Panic

 

Words fail me, which is a thing I grapple with. This post is me grappling with with the current social media fire sale: where reasonable people dismiss any feedback that contradicts their beliefs and opinions.

When objections are dismissed, it makes it impossible to discuss the topic outside of the "box" it is framed in; some examples:

You're not arguing in good faith.

You give yourself away as having ill intent.

This is not up for discussion (it has all been discussed before, your views are unwelcome, detrimental to the cause).

Then actual labeling people as objects (you're racist, you're a fascists etc.).

This is all part and parcel of confrontation. However, confrontation can be positive or negative. Negative confrontations start from assuming the other person is behaving badly.

I will listen to responses. I recognize that I am very assertive, so please feel free to call me out if:

I cause people to panic.

I treat people as objects.

So this post is me owning my understanding by processing my thoughts into words.

I want people to talk with me about SF fandom or larger societal issues. Therefore, I want confrontations on social media around SF fandom or the larger society to be positive.

Problem

Let's start with current problem du jour: Black Lives Matter.

Seems like a harmless enough statement, but how often have you heard, All Lives Matter?

How do you respond? Is it:

Of course all lives matter, or

This isn't about white people, but black people dying at the hands of white cops or white Americans murdering Blacks as part of systemic institutionalized racism.

If it's the first and a person has responded with the second response what happens next? My guess is a retort, often indicative of "what did I do wrong?" or very broadly panic, from being told they're at fault.

I have lost count of the number of times I've seen this happen, escalating the confrontation into an argument? Then I see people start rolling out the objections I listed at the beginning of the post.

Is it common for the confrontation to end in a positive result? Let me define the minimum level for a positive result:

Come to a common ground or agree to disagree in a polite and civil exchange.

I find the answer to this question is generally "no" which has driven me to write this post.

Let me start by laying out my assumptions and process.

Assumptions & Process

I start with positive assumptions, because we all have implicit assumptions and bias, so make them positive.

I don't assume malice when thoughtlessness is always a better explanation. I assume people are well-meaning with good intentions, and at worst just ill informed. I'm open to feedback that defines the problem with my response.

I don't respond when I'm angry, because emotions should serve me, not control me.

I analyze all behaviours through my core profession: cognitive behavioural therapy. This means I look at thoughts, feelings, and actions.

What's Happening?

Black Lives Matter is a simple slogan meant to encourage rapport and empathy for those who have been killed.

So when I reply, All Lives Matter; I'm giving feedback. If my feedback is denied, by telling me I'm wrong, then what has happened is a confrontation.

My problem with it, and most slogans, is simple: it automatically excludes rather than includes, which is fine – if that's the aim – but here it seems to me to be contrary to the goal.

What has happened is a failure of the slogan to communicate what was intended.

Positive Confrontation

If you were a person who came to me for therapy, and told me that every time you used a particular phrase you got a negative response, despite your good intentions, I would say words to the effect:

"How long will you need to be convinced that this isn't working out as you planned?"

I'll add a caveat here, people often do things repeatedly expecting a different result next time, and on occasion it's not what's being said but how it's said.

Then I would explore with my client a way of saying what they want to say more effectively.

So let me repeat, the sentiment behind a slogan may well have good intentions and still fail; if so, functionally, it becomes a poor slogan.

Then, assuming you want to create understanding, when confronted by answers you don't like, or cause you to become angry, instead of challenging the statement, ask them to help you understand their answer. 

If your response includes any of these assumptions:

They're not arguing in good faith; They have ill intent; This is not up for discussion (it has all been discussed before, their views are wrong); or you label them with a slur such as racist, or fascist.

Stop. All that has happened is that the slogans has generated negative feedback. When a slogan generates negative feedback, a reappraisal is required.

You have to ask yourself is that what you want? Keep it SMART and remember KISS:

Specific.          Keep

Measurable     It

Achievable      Short and

Realistic          Simple.

Time frame.

This post is an example of me asking people to help me understand what benefit is there from making well intentioned statements that generate conflict.

Understand that people's behaviours are in response to yours. Understanding them means taking feedback, and owning the responsibility for failure to communicate. If you wish to succeed, it starts with listening.

Remember my goal is to either to come to a common understanding or to agree to disagree in a polite and civil exchange.

I will listen to your feedback of this post because I take ownership of what I say.

Terms & Conditions Apply

You can't control what other people do.  You are not responsible for other people's feelings.  The best anybody can do... is be a positive influence.

Dwelling on the past injustices won't make things better. Accept what has happened and move forward.

TL;DR:

When confronting a statement be polite and civil. State what your issue is, what you want, and check with the other person that they've understood you.

Note: The title of this piece is an allusion to the fact that "free speech" doesn't mean you can shout "fire" in a crowded theatre, which should also provide context to why I labeled the current social media wars a "fire sale." 

Edited to Add

The Power of Positive Confrontation: The Skills You Need to Know to Handle Conflicts at Work, at Home, and in Life by Barbara Pachter & Susan McGee

 One of many books on managing conflict.

Pronoun's Progress

I'm a lifelong science fiction fan and reader. As a writer I now study and practice writing and I was thinking about Isaac Asimov who posited that there were three types of SF stories.

Adventure: Man invents car, gets into a car chase with a villain.
Gadget: Man invents car, holds lecture on how it works.
Social: Man invents car, gets stuck in traffic in the suburbs.

It is to the last type of story that inspired today's post.

One of the few things that's unique to the SF genre is working out the unintended consequences of any new technology or changes in cultural mores etc.. Asimov himself wrote about mobile phones in his robot novels, which I've mentioned before, had a scene where a character apologizes that he can't speak as he's in a public space.

Oh, if only that were true, huh!?

So who would have predicted pronoun choice as a sociocultural prediction? I know some authors wrote about variant genders, or the ability to change sex, but who would've thought that this would lead to people introducing themselves with a declaration of their preferred gender?

Not me. Yet here we are.

I had to go away and think about this, have been mulling it over for several years. At one level I'm bothered by people declaring their gender pronouns, but on the other hand I'm a boring old fart and the times they are a changing. I generally predisposed to accept changes if they are for the better.

I mean, you'd be crazy not to. Amirite? Hah!

So while I may not be in the habit of declaring my preferred pronoun, I'm cool with it.

Of course if pushed my instinctual reaction would be, you're smart, figure it out. Yeah, guess I've gotta work on being more agreeable. However, an exchange I had with a friend who suggested, fucker, you fucker as the new go to pronoun, which I should've seen coming.

So, the unintended consequences of social change may lead to unintended outcomes, and therefore one should be careful what you wish for. The future's bright and stranger than you can imagine.

Dead Authors Dinner Party

 

The other night I awoke thinking about which dead authors I would like to talk to.

The first one would be Isaac Asimov. Having my bum pinched by him would be a small price to pay for talking to the man who aroused my interest in science. Besides it's apparent that he was a damaged person whose neuroses impacted him, if I could go back and offer him therapy, who knows how it may have changed him.

After that it would Robert A. Heinlein, the first science fiction author whose books I bought as a lonely child, to pass the time during a wet summer holiday in Ilfracombe, where my family went every year (BTW: William Shatner's comment about Ilfracombe makes me laugh). He was a survivor of tuberculosis and a life long stammerer.

Arthur C. Clarke, who I saw once and met at a one day convention in London, back when it was possible to meet authors at really tiny events. It would be nice to sit down and talk to the man who has probably inspired my writing the most. The pillars in my Gate Walker series are a homage to the Monoliths of 2001. Another author who struggled with prejudice.

After that, A. E. van Vogt would be the next author I would've liked to have met and talked to. Much derided by Damon Knight, which destroyed van Vogt's reputation, his story The Black Destroyer, which I read in The Voyage of the Space Beagle, stands as a testament to how wrong Damon was.

Then Cordwainer Smith, pseudonym of Paul Linebarger. Gosh, I imagine a great discourse ranging from his Godfather Sun Yat-sen to his work in American intelligence, psychological warfare, and perhaps even talking about his experiences with psychotherapy.

Also Robert E. Howard, along with Novalyne Price. I would admit that the temptation to do couple therapy with them, and help Howard with his depression would be a thing. Imagine if they'd married, and he had lived.

Finally, H. P. Lovecraft and Sonia Greene, again this would be one of those situations where I would be tempted to do couple counseling, and help the very damaged Lovecraft with his crippling neuroses to live a happier life.

Sweet dreams are made of this.

PS: A takeaway from this is that all the authors I admire were products of their time and damaged in some way or another.

Just Another Furore in Fandom

Jeanette Ng made a statement at this years Worldcon when receiving her award for best new writer. I stand by her right to say whatever she pleases.

But while Jeanette Ng can say whatever the hell she wants, she is responsible for what she says.

John W. Campbell was a bad father of modem science fiction. The Hugo awards named after Hugo Gernsback, likewise. I don't disagree that both men were horrible. The more I read history the more I find that it's filled with unpleasant people.

Take other historical figures, like Freud for example, who is considered the father of psychology and psychotherapy. To say he's a bad dad is a humerous understatement.

Alfred Noble is another historical figure who is probably known for the award named after him. He was no angel.

They all share the fact that their lives cast a shadow cast over the prizes named after them.

History is full of people who had views that it would make any conversation with them difficult. But, in the bigger scheme of things, they're all low hanging fruit of unpleasantness.
 
Because there's very little in this world that's completely black or white.

All prizes have value that is greater than who or what they are named after. The Campbell Award is important because of who it has been awarded to, not because it's named after John W. Campbell.

As an SF fan I've read countless stories where people's opinions are used to sway public opinion. A recent example is a season one episode of The Orville in the episode called Majority Rule about the effects of a democracy run by upvoting/downvoting.

The current trend in fandom to create mobs is not something to be admired. The conversations that have followed her statement have done nothing but fuel the divisiveness and hate in fandom.

I think this very bad thing.

Cultural Appropriation

 
Another week of churn on the internet over cultural appropriation, which just beggars belief.  It makes me want to say to all parties on both sides of the debate, tone it down, because what's happening is not discussion but flame-wars across the social media.  Wars where no one takes prisoners and you eat your wounded.

I get we should not use other peoples culture to mock, shame, or abuse people.

However, I can't help think that the worst case of cultural appropriation is the use of political correctness, the roots of which lie in Soviet era censorship, and during the 1970s was a term that was used ironically against orthodox thinking.  Now we live in a world Orwell's Big Brother would be proud of, where we don't learn from history, because we've forgotten history.

I'm all for politeness and civility, and to those that think there comes a time when one has to get angry or get their inner Hulk on, I say far better the injustices of living in a land under the rule of law than one without.  Why, because a smack in the mouth often offends.

Besides, what is culture, how do you measure how much you own, and who actually controls it?

I would argue cultural appropriation is neither good nor bad, but rather what happens when we live in an inter-connected multicultural world.  In short, don't treat people as things and enjoy eating curry's, tacos and wearing sombreros, which is just the Mexican word for hat that again can be traced back through history: the Spanish introduced them to Mexico and the wide-brimmed hat can be traced back to Mongolian horsemen.

And given this is a writing blog about fiction, remember that there are no new ideas isn't just about story tropes.  It also describes societies throughout recorded history, which is the equivalent of the metaphor that writers stand on shoulders of the giants who came before them.  We are not single points in the space-time continuum, but the product of something that can be traced back to beginning of the universe.  We are all, as Carl Sagan said, made of starstuff.

TL;DR: cultural appropriation is, to paraphrase the social anthropologist Piers Vitebsky, part of the human condition.

En Passant

I have been a bit distracted by a combination of work and life.  Last weekend was full on archery with Saturday mornings practice being followed a whole day of shooting on Monday, which can be read on my other blog when I post it up.

I was also very busy time at my job, which left me feeling drained.  So, after work on Wednesday, I walked over to Orcs Nest and bought the latest copy of Miniature Wargames & Battlegames magazine, and at the same time bought a Star Wars X-Wing Punisher miniature (Imperial super bomber), which was appropriate as it was May the Fourth.

I don't really do the Star Wars Day thing, mostly because I forget and in this case far too focused on work.

When I got home I read on Twitter that Gene Wolfe had equated the term Sci-Fi as equivalent to a racial slur beginning with the letter N.  I'm boggled by this, and you really couldn't make this shit up and have anyone believe you if you wrote it.  I'm not as old as Gene Wolfe, but I'm old enough to be older than a large portion of SF fandom and I can't see the point of getting wound up by the term Sci-Fi, which was coined by Forrest J Ackerman in 1954, which was before I was born, so it's been around a long, long time.

Some people get sniffy about using Sci-Fi and some even prefer to use the term Speculative Fiction over Science Fiction, but at the end of the day it's down to personal choice, and I don't think that anyone has a leg to stand on if they compare the term Sci-Fi with a racial slur; at best it's over egging the argument, at worst it's downright offensive.

Colour me miffed.

Thursday was shopping and today I just took it easy and opened my new Star Wars miniature and re-organized how I numbered both my Imperial and Rebel Forces.  These things are important you know!  Anyway, it was fun unpacking all the bits & pieces, fitting the flight dial together and sorting out all the tokens and packing them away in order for when I next get to play.

So another week with no writing done – well apart from doing blog entries and compiling stuff for another article for Galactic Journey's blog.