Posted by Lis Riba at 12:01 AM

I love you very, very, very much and wish you all the best and nothing but the best.

Posted by Lis Riba at 4:25 PM

I've got a whole stack of serious scholarly nonfiction out from the libraries^* that I want to delve into sometime, but I'm just not in the headspace for it now. Which, in some respects, feels like a shame, but there you go. I suspect I may just give up on them all for now and return them to the library to free them up for other readers.

Instead, I got in a mood to reread some of my old familiar favorites^†.

So, last night I started and over lunch I finished The Silver metal lover by Tanith Lee. It's such a beautiful story.

Among other thoughts occurring during this reread, I find myself wondering how well Orlando Bloom can sing and play musical instruments. Because somehow, I think his current physical appearance (with face makeup and hair dye) would work for the gentle, romantic character of Silver. If I knew anything about Photoshop, I'd try changing his skintone and hairstyle to see how he'd look.

I'm also growing increasingly nervous about the sequel Tanith Lee is writing. When The Princess bride was released to theaters, I was in high school and a fan of the book. After having been burned with bad movie adaptations to other beloved stories (Disney's Black cauldron particularly in mind), I purposely avoided the film and all press related to it. I didn't want the visuals to ruin my experience with the book. And it wasn't until years later that friends at college convinced me it was worth watching.

Two years ago, I read Tanith Lee's Wolf tower. And I liked it so much, I immediately went out and found the sequels she had written several years later. And somehow, I thought the later books ruined what was so special about the original. Spoiler for Tanith Lee's Claidi series (highlight to read): The original book was about an orphaned slave girl who manages to strike out on her own and achieve happiness/greatness. In the later books, (1) it turns out she's not a nobody, but is the secret child of somebody great and (2) many of her earlier adventures weren't her own doing, but had been manipulated from afar. I felt those revelations undercut the character. I really didn't like it.

I find The Silver metal lover just so perfect as-is that I'm worried Metallic love (as it's now being called) will somehow sully it.

I know I had other thoughts while reading the story, but they've all escaped me at the moment.

Expecting I'd finish The Silver metal lover quickly, I also brought War for the oaks along to work. I may read one or two more of these favorites before striking out among all the new titles recommended at Boskone.

^*Library books to come back to: Food: a culinary history, Reading Harry Potter: critical essays & Eating right in the Renaissance

^†Favorite books (current list, as enumerated in November 2002; My earlier list, in August included comments on why these titles and what they have in common ):

• Emma Bull, War for the oaks
• Orson Scott Card, Enchantment
• Colleen Doran, A Distant soil: Vol. 1 Vol. 2 Vol. 3
• Neil Gaiman & Terry Pratchett, Good omens
• Tanya Huff, The Fire's stone
• Tanith Lee, The Silver metal lover
• Melissa Scott & Lisa Barnett, The Armor of light

And aren't the covers so pretty? (click any of them for a larger picture)

So, have you read any/many of these books? Any you particularly like or don't like? Any other books by these authors you wish to mention? Any other similar books you wish to recommend? Anything at all you'd like to write about these or any other books? I'm bored. Write me...

Posted by Lis Riba at 10:55 AM

It appears I'm just in a mood to post short and silly things at the moment.

Somebody left a copy of the Weekly World News in the lunchroom yesterday, and to relieve stress, several of us were reading and giggling.

Major article on a U.S. soldier who found a functional genie lamp among Saddam's possessions. ("We now know how he hid his WMDs!") I don't believe it though. If it had said something like "the soldier in question could not be reached, but we left messages at his private tropical island..." maybe I would've bought it, but allegedly he accidentally summoned the genie and then just turned it over to his superiors. And no reports that the superior officers were enjoying tropical getaways or that the war miraculously ended or anything like that. So I can't buy it.

More interesting was the story that Pope John Paul II, to combat PR problems due to recent scandals in the priesthood, was going to clone important notables from Church history -- saints and early popes. Aside from the illogical nature of the story given the the Catholic Church's opposition to cloning, I can't help thinking of what a racket the relics trade was. And I'm suddenly trying to envision an SF story in which people start cloning from Church relics. I can almost imagine this bizarre assembly of anonymous nobodies, chickens and maybe even one or two authentic saints (if they clone enough relics -- but they would only be one-in-a-thousand or fewer).

Posted by Lis Riba at 9:40 AM

Well, I had been looking for this statistic, but Atrios found it:

Pop Quiz

Fill in the blank.

In 1958, nine years before the Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that miscegenation laws were unconstitutional, Gallup polled people about interracial marriages.

_____% of Whites opposed them.


no cheating.

I'll provide the answer at the end of the post, because I'm rather psyched by another story he posted this morning. Chicago may follow San Francisco's lead in issuing same-sex marriage licenses. County Clerk David Orr said he's open to a San Francisco-style protest if a consensus can be built, and Mayor Daley said he would have "no problem" if he did so.

And now for the answer to the question above:

Yet more proof that "majority rules" should carry little weight where basic rights are concerned.

Posted by Lis Riba at 5:11 PM

Back in June, when the hot gay rights issue was Lawrence v. Texas, I wrote several posts suggesting this could be a no-win situation for the President. Attack the ruling too strongly, and risk alienating the centrists who don't approve of blatant bigotry. But act too weak and piss off the virulently homophobic base who want action.

Today, President Bush spoke out that he's "troubled" by recent actions in Massachusetts & San Francisco. Laura Bush says she considers it "a very, very shocking issue." But that's still just talk.

Get a load of this exchange in today's White House press briefing:

Q The President has said he is closely following what's happening in San Francisco and repeated his statements about being troubled and so forth. I still don't understand, what is it that has to happen for the President to do something other than express his displeasure?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, one, we've talked about from the very beginning when this issue arose, because some activist judges were seeking to redefine marriage, that this is a serious matter. The President believes very strongly in protecting and defending the sanctity of marriage. He has made it very clear that he is committed to doing what is legally necessary to protect and defend the sanctity of marriage. He believes very strongly that marriage is a sacred institution between a man and woman. And he recognizes that people may disagree on this issue, and he certainly believes it's important to respect individuals and -- in that process.

But the President is closely looking at these events as they unfold. You have the events unfolding in Massachusetts, with the activist judges seeking to redefine marriage. You have events he talked about earlier today going in San Francisco, where licenses are being issued despite -- or without regard for the law in California. There are some that ignoring the law by taking actions in California. And so the President is troubled by these events, and he is concerned about the direction some of these events are headed.

Q When you keep saying he's troubled and you say he wants to defend it, it's not quite clear at what point the President thinks his intervention is necessary. What combination of events requires his intervention?

MR. McCLELLAN: This is an issue where he believes it's important to stand on principle. He has always believed that marriage is a fundamental, enduring institution of our society, and that marriage is between a man and a woman. And while he believes it's important to treat everybody with dignity and respect, he also believes it's important to do what is necessary to protect the sanctity of marriage. And so we are continuing to look at these events very closely. Obviously, if the President comes to any further decision on this, then he will have more to say at that point.

Q No, I understand the decision hasn't been made yet. But I'm just trying to figure out -- you say the President is determined to defend the sanctity, and that he thinks it's a very serious issue. I'm just trying to figure out what it is that would require presidential intervention. You've got bills in the Congress, you've got judges working on it. What would the President -- what could he do?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, what he said -- well, he said -- he has said that if necessary he would be prepared to look to the constitutional process, because that may be the only -- or that would be the only alternative available if activist judges continue to redefine marriage.

Q But what makes that necessary? Does this have to go up through the court system? Is that what he's waiting for?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we're continuing to monitor events. You've got a legislature in Massachusetts that has been looking at this issue. You've got officials in California speaking out against what is going on in one particular city there.

In other words, the president is talking a good game, but isn't doing diddly-squat.

Later in the briefing, McClellan repeats his assertion that "this is an issue of principle. This is an issue that he feels very strongly about. And it's taking a principled stand to protect and defend the sanctity of marriage. That's what this is about. Marriage is a fundamental, enduring institution of this country. And the President is committed to protecting it."

But as seems to be typical for this president, that commitment doesn't have anything behind it. At least, not until after the election.

Posted by Lis Riba at 1:22 PM

No, I'm not writing about the FunnyCats video again.

Instead, I find myself laughing at this paragraph from today's Mark Morford column about slippery-slope arguments against same-sex marriage:

You know, just like how giving blacks the right to own their own land meant we had to give the same rights to house plants and power tools, or how granting women the right to vote meant it was a slippery slope until we gave suffrage to feral cats and sea slugs and rusty hubcaps.

[via Atrios]

To be fair, I did once try to register my cat as my spousal equivalent for employer benefits before I dated Ian. However, I'll point out that I did so on April Fool's Day. [And even though the regulations didn't explicitly specify partners had to be human, she still didn't qualify. Besides, the health plans didn't list any veterinarians for primary care providers anyway.]

Posted by Lis Riba at 11:05 AM

For all the heat and nastiness directed towards them, I have to say I'm very impressed by the U.S. and British postal systems.

Saturday morning, I mailed a birthday gift to a friend in the UK. Though her birthday was yesterday, I couldn't ship it any sooner, since I wanted the authors' autographs at Boskone. I mailed it at the mid-tier pricepoint, in a method that was supposed to take 3-5 business days, and just told her to expect the gift before the end of the week.

She received it yesterday, on her birthday, even though I dropped it in the mail on a Saturday and Monday was a U.S. holiday.

I am impressed.
[And online package tracking is cool; but I wish it specified which time zone it was using. (I submitted a request on that.)]

Posted by Lis Riba at 9:45 AM

The blogosphere today is full of stories about Democrat Chandler's win over Republican Kerr in the Kentucky Congressional race yesterday.

Many bloggers are treating this as a referendum on the current administration, which, in many ways, it was. Kerr was tying her election campaign closely to Bush & Cheney & Hastert & Delay. [Julia and Rivka have some older details on how explicitly they were making that connection] And she got trounced. In a state which Bush won by a 15% margin in 2000!

Tangentially related to this, I saw a very interesting point in an article in The Hill last week that I've been meaning to share, and this seems like the place to post it:

“There’s no longer talk about the president having coattails,” said a conservative lawmaker. “This is Congress worrying about whether the president is going to get reelected, not the president worrying about Congress getting reelected.”

Yesterday's Newsday went further:

Norman Ornstein, an analyst for Washington's American Enterprise Institute, says Republican lawmakers are growing nervous that Bush's troubles might spill into House and Senate races in the fall. "There was an anticipation that Bush would bring coattails," he said. "Now there's concern about negative coattails ... There is a fear that if Bush becomes not a leader but a drag, it could work against them."

Based upon their comments and writings, Bush is ticking off his base, although this hasn't been reflected in poll numbers yet.

There's no cause for complacency on either side... the race has already gotten nasty and it's over 250 days until the election.

Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy night!

Posted by Lis Riba at 7:40 AM

I read last night the story that a federal prosecutor is filing a whistleblower suit against John Ashcroft for "gross mismanagement" on the war on terror.

But Josh Marshall noticed a telling detail near the bottom of the story:

Convertino also accused Justice officials of intentionally divulging the name of one of his confidential terrorism informants (CI) to retaliate against him.

The leak put the informant at grave risk, forced him to flee the United States and "interfered with the ability of the United States to obtain information from the CI about current and future terrorist activities," the suit alleges.

Sound familiar?

Is this administration crazy, or just Plame vengeful?

Posted by Lis Riba at 7:35 AM

From this morning's Washington Post:

A newly arrived Republican appointee has pulled references to sexual orientation discrimination off an agency Internet site where government employees can learn about their rights in the workplace.

The Web pages at the Office of Special Counsel, an independent agency whose mission is to protect whistleblowers and other federal employees from retribution, has removed references to sexual orientation from a discrimination complaint form, training slides, a brochure titled "Your Rights as a Federal Employee" and other documents.

Scott J. Bloch, the agency head, said he ordered the material removed because of uncertainty over whether a provision of civil service law applies to federal workers who claim unfair treatment because they are gay, bisexual or heterosexual.

"It is wrong to discriminate against any federal employee, or any employee, based on discrimination," Bloch said. But, he added, "it is wrong for me, as a federal government official, to extend my jurisdiction beyond what Congress gives me in the actual interpretation of the statutes."

At issue is the meaning of a few lines of a civil service law that bans discrimination against employees and job applicants "on the basis of conduct which does not adversely affect the performance of the employee or applicant."

Bloch said he took the references to sexual orientation bias off the agency Web site because he was not clear about the office's policy and legal interpretation of the provision. He said he did not think it appropriate to leave the references on the site -- "to have my stamp of approval" -- while he reviews the matter.

The provision usually has been interpreted to mean that a worker's off-duty behavior cannot be used as a justification for dismissal, demotion or discipline unless it hampers job performance or interferes with the work of others.

That has been the stance at the Office of Personnel Management, which oversees the government's workplace policies, for at least two decades. The OPM Web site continues to advise employees that bias based on sexual orientation is unlawful and informs them that complaints may be filed at the Office of Special Counsel.
<snip>
Colleen M. Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, said she was especially concerned because Bloch removed an agency news release posted last year describing an investigation at the Internal Revenue Service that found an IRS supervisor denied a job to an applicant because he was gay.

"Removal of this press release, in particular, seems to signal a deliberate decision to obscure the history of OSC's enforcement actions," Kelley said. Her union represents about 98,000 IRS workers.

As a general rule, most federal employees take complaints of sexual discrimination or harassment to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. During the Clinton administration, the Office of Special Counsel added sexual orientation discrimination to its list of prohibited personnel practices.

Elaine Kaplan, who served as the Clinton administration's special counsel, said references were added to complaint forms and training materials as part of an overhaul of the agency's information and outreach efforts.
<snip>
In 1998, President Bill Clinton issued an executive order, which President Bush has not rescinded, saying it is unlawful to discriminate against employees based on their sexual orientation, Kaplan said. The order focused attention on the need to provide greater education to employees, she said.

"It is a matter of great concern that -- as its first step -- the new leadership of OSC is sanitizing all of agency's public statements, including the complaint form and its educational materials for the purpose of removing references to sexual orientation discrimination," Kaplan said.

There's more in the article.

Posted by Lis Riba at 7:10 PM

[Trying to write a few short posts to keep my feed below 150k after this afternoon's length con report. Unfortunately, it looks like LJ is currently choking on my feed, since it promises it will next check my feed three hours ago...]

Thursday morning, I pointed to a White House gaggle transcript on Talking Points that couldn't be found on the official White House website. Josh Marshall clarifies.

Later that same day, I wrote about content-based cuts in closed captioning. Neil Gaiman adds one more way this change is harmful for ideas the administration nominally advocates: "The censorship of these shows ... prevents deaf and hard of hearing parents from making informed decisions on appropriate programming for their children." (NAD)

Posted by Lis Riba at 6:50 PM

I am moderately amused by a pair of links in the current Drudge Report:

1. He's still flogging the now-discredited story about Kerry's alleged affair, even though everybody remotely involved has denied it. According to blogs, Limbaugh is still talking about it, suggesting the Democrats got to her or something...
2. Immediately adjacent to those links is an article headlined "Limbaugh asks appeals court for privacy on medical records"

So, Limbaugh's own privacy deserves protection, but not that of this woman and her family who are being dragged through the mud?

As he sows, so shall he reap?

Posted by Lis Riba at 5:16 PM

[For the chronological view of the con, begin with part one and part two]

Ian got home insanely late Saturday night, so he decided it would be better to just pull an all-nighter before the last day of the con, because if he did go to sleep, he'd miss the rest of the day's events. This led to some amusement later in the afternoon, but also meant I got to all but the earliest morning panel that I wanted to attend:

11:00 am: Historical Myths at the Root of SF & F
Science fiction and fantasy are embedded in our historical past, and frequently use historical settings and events (how many times has the Roman Empire fallen in SF?) But not all of the seams being mined are historical, and many are based more on historical legends and popular cultural stories than on what really happened. For example, consider the misunderstood scientist-inventor; the Inquisition (& the Gallileo myth); etc. To what extent do SF & Fantasy really base their worlds on the real one?
Lisa A. Barnett, Solomon Davidoff, Esther Friesner, Ellen Kushner, Peter Weston

1:00 pm: The Dreaded Mary Sue
Could it be the most useful literary concept of our Me Millennium? We'll discuss myriad examples, from fanfic, flicks, and major SF works that should be ashamed of themselves. You see, in the classic Mary Sue story, a character happens to be amazingly like the author, except said MS is incredibly more attractive, accomplished, and most of all accepted nay beloved than anybody outside of a blatant wish fulfillment fant-- oh.
Teresa Nielsen Hayden

2:00 pm: Twenty Panels in an Hour
Using patented ThoughtSquasher compression technology, the seasoned "Sunday Funny Sunday" crew whips through 20 complete panel topics (not including this one) in 50 minutes or less, just because they can. Warning: do not apply directly to brain.
Michael A. Burstein, Keith R. A. DeCandido, Bob Devney (m), Leigh Grossman

Following that roller-coaster, Ian decided to wander and I sat in on the gripe session panel. I didn't really have that much to say. Sparked some discussion on ideas for Saturday night programming.

Upon leaving the panel, I got to meet an out-of-towner I only knew through LJ . By this time, Ian was definitely fading. I briefly dragged him to the bookstore I found, and then drove him home, listening to Ellen Kushner's Sound & Spirit. He went straight to bed, and after trying briefly to read, I decided to join him.

And that's the end of my con experience, probably far more detailed than anyone but me will find interesting, but partly written for my own benefit.

Book lists:

• Free books from Del-Rey: The Briar King, The Speed of dark, Steel Helix, The Steerswoman's road
• Book mentioned in the program: The Apocalypse door
• As seen advertised on the freebie table:
  • Looks interesting: A new Harry Turtledove anthology, The First heroes: new tales of the Bronze Age (Amazon link)
  • Scary stuff: postcards advertising the Klingon Language Institute's GhilghameS and Much ado about nothing -- both presented in the "original Klingon" [According to their website, the Shakespeare Restoration Project is working on Macbeth next...]
• Books seen in the dealer's room that I want to read but valiantly resisted spending money upon: Kissing frogs by Laura Marie Altom and Bartimaeus Trilogy Book One: The Amulet of Samarkand by Jonathan Stroud
• Books mentioned in panels follow the descriptions of those panels

And that's all she wrote.

Posted by Lis Riba at 5:12 PM

[Continued from part one]

It took a while to drag Ian out of bed on Saturday morning, and unhappily I missed the start of the noon panel I desperately wanted to attend.

12:00 noon: Why Not the War of 1812? What Turning Points Are Alternate History Writers Missing?
The South wins at Gettysburg and thus wins the Civil War. Hitler overruns Britain, and Germany wins World War II. There are a lot of common turning points in alternate history. But there are also a lot of key moments in history that are overlooked. (As an example: on a dark night in the Mediterranean, Nelson's fleet -- out looking for the French who they knew were abroad -- passed within a couple of miles of Napoleon and his troop ships headed for Egypt. Had Nelson spotted Napoleon -- then merely a rising military star -- there would never have been an Emperor Napoleon. But nobody seems to have written an alternate history based on this.) The panel discusses some of the great turning points that haven't been explored.
Ellen Asher, James Cambias, Peter J. Heck, Shane Tourtellotte

At 1 PM, we attended yet another installment of Michael F. Flynn's popular Return of How to Lie With Statistics. As you can probably tell from the title, he has run many similar panels at previous conventions. Flynn is extremely entertaining and chatty, and the audience was in a rather punchy mood, so I doubt we covered a third of his intended material. Pity.

At 2, Ian went to a panel on bird intelligence. The description didn't really grab me, so I wandered a bit. I noticed Tammy Pierce walking down the hall, chatting with one teenager, surrounded and trailed by a gaggle of girls. It feels heartening (as far as encouraging young readers), and oh so adorable to see. Eventually I wandered into the consuite. I mentioned this to one of the volunteers who mentioned that Sunday's Tea with Tammy (a Kaffeklatsch specifically for teens) was so successful last year (people buying single-day admissions specifically to meet her) that they've added more YA programming on Sundays to give such kids more reason to stay at the con. [See Ian's comments for more on where this could lead.]

I also had a wonderful (but too brief) conversation with the Bursteins on Shakespeare, partly in response to Bard In Boston. [FYI, here's my detailed description of the Shakespeare panel at Arisia and the book I mentioned was King James and the History of Homosexuality, which is available thru the BPL.]

2:30, I wanted to see Tom Veal's Who Wrote Shakespeare?. Largely a history and takedown of the Baconian and Oxenfordian claims. Not much I didn't know, but I wish I had more chance to chat with the speaker afterwards and hear more on his credentials.

I was mildly interested in a few of the 3pm panels, but Ian had to leave for work at 3:30, so I hung out with him until he had to go.
At 4 o'clock, I attended Fading or Holding Their Own: Comics Today, which ended up focusing a great deal on graphic novels in libraries. When one of the panelists invited people to share comments about good comic shops, my hand shot up (as did another Brandesian I noticed in the audience). Though the topic drifted before we could respond, panelist Daniel Dern praised Outer Limits in Waltham as an exemplar of the field -- and the two of us (along with somebody else) applauded our approval. It's a good store. We all recommend it.

Though I was tempted by the Esther Friesner/Keith DeCandido Literary Beer at 5pm, I suddenly realized the evening before that while I had Melissa Scott's autograph on my copies of Armor of light (yes I have two -- both the Baen paperback and NESFA Press hardcover editions), I didn't have co-author Lisa Barnett's. So I went to their autographing session. And while I was there, I gave them the URL to my Marlowe in modern fiction booklist and chatted with them briefly.

And after that... Unfortunately, Boskone didn't really have much scheduled for Saturday evening. Maybe because it was Valentine's Day or something, but there were few panels and little else to do. I wandered and browsed in the dealers room until it closed. Overheard a few dealers complaining that times were tight, sales were down this con, and maybe two major conventions in Boston a month apart isn't the best of ideas anymore. ["It's been over a decade; maybe they should settle their differences and reunite." I know that's not going to happen, but it may be a sentiment worth noting.] I felt somewhat bad about not buying more from the dealer room myself, but my times are tight as well...

I got in a mood for cheap Chinese food, and left the convention grounds heading towards Allston. Along the way, I discovered Commonwealth Books, which I wrote up earlier.

After dinner, there still wasn't much going on. I caught the end of the NESFA award ceremony, wandered up to the consuite for a conversation with another friend I see too seldom. Interesting observation -- in certain ways, convention panels are less satisfying than online discussions. Because of the limits of physicality, not everybody gets to speak, tangents often have to get cut off, sometimes a few people can monopolize the discussion... Whereas there's much more room for discussions to branch and be more inclusive and take as much time and space as the participants warrant in asynchronous online fora.

It was getting late and I was fading fast, and if I didn't need to coordinate with Ian (who had the car keys), I probably would've gone straight home. Then my friend reminded me that I could always take the T and leave Ian the car. I went to Ian's workplace and asked to leave him a message (they let me actually go down to the bar to see him), caught the last commuter rail of the evening, and was home by midnight and in bed by 12:15.

And there was evening and there was morning...
     and one more post for the final day of the con

Posted by Lis Riba at 5:04 PM

Sorry for the delay; I took too many notes during panels...

Ian called me at work late Friday afternoon saying he missed his train into work, which enabled me to get to the con much earlier than otherwise. As such, I actually managed to find a metered parking space near Ian's workplace, rather than having to pay for a garage at all. Cool beans.

After registering, I wandered over to the con suite, just in time to hear somebody announce it was Jane Yolen's 65th birthday. People brought out a cake and everybody in the room sang the birthday song, and it was very pleasantly done.

I must praise the con for responding promptly to a potential scheduling conflict. After they posted the preliminary program, Kate Nepveu noticed that "Alexander and the Wizard: Mixing Fantasy and History" and "Worldbuilding in Historical Fiction" -- two panels which would both appeal to a similar audience -- were scheduled opposite one another. She contacted them on this, and they moved the latter item an hour later. Considering some of the audience questions in the latter panel, I wasn't the only person to attend both. And, I suppose this means I can't defer discussing these two panels any longer, since I've reached this point in my chronological narrative...

7:00 pm: Alexander and the Wizard: Mixing Fantasy and History
Historical fantasy is a popular subgenre of both fantasy and historical fiction. How does good historical fantasy strike a balance? Is it best to stick mostly to history, limiting the fantasy element? How much fantasy can you work in and in what way?
Esther Friesner, Melissa Scott, Delia Sherman