theferrett: (Meazel)

As you’ll remember, I was supposed to start live-writing my new novel for you tonight.  And I shall write it for you!

Just on Monday instead.  (But no worries, I’ll still write for four weeks, so you won’t miss a day.)

The reasoning’s twofold: first of all, I always forget how long writing the opening chapter to a novel takes, and thanks to me oversleeping I only have about an hour to write tonight.  (Figuring out how to set all the factors up is possibly my least favorite part of writing a novel.)  Ideally, I want at least two or three hours so I can bang my head against the keyboard until I come up with something good.

And secondly, quite honestly, watching the fallout from the Brexit vote is stressing me out to the point where I’m having problems switching gears to an equally-stressful opening chapter.  Though this eventually swells into a magical musical Ragnarok, the heroine of this book starts in dire, nonmagical economic straits – $8.10 in her pocket, living on the streets, begging to wash dishes – and emotionally, I need a day or two to switch into that headspace comfortably.

So.  If you have any money left after a global economic collapse, and can donate $10, then you can read about how to watch me live-write my new novel (along with blog posts detailing the techniques I’m using) here.  It’s a pretty cheap writing workshop, all told.  And it starts Monday, when I’ll have a lot of time to discover just who this new heroine of mine is.

(And to give her a name. Which I haven’t done yet.  Wondering if I can get away with “Melody.”)

Cross-posted from Ferrett's Real Blog.

theferrett: (Meazel)

I do not expect to change anyone’s minds during an Internet debate.  Most people show up with pre-configured opinions and won’t be budged.

That’s not the same as Internet arguments – or political arguments in general – being useless, however.

I’ve had my mind changed in Internet clashes – I’ve come around to more nuanced positions on consent, I’ve gotten some radical education on trans issues, I’ve moderated my stances on gun control, often during some very flameworthy discussions on the topic.

Here’s the trick:

I rarely changed my mind during the argument itself.

I think what folks are looking for when they want to prove the worth of Internet arguments is the courtroom trial confession, where someone crumbles weeping on the stand and admits they’re wrong before all the world.   They want someone to change their mind in mid-thread, acknowledging their reasoning is a sham, and to roll over to the new side.

On the rare occasions that happens, it’s worthy of a viral screenshot.

No, what generally happens is that someone who seems intelligent scores a few significant hits during an argument, and friends I respect are on this person’s side, and while I’m too caught up in the moment to really acknowledge the hit was scored – in that sense, I’m often caught up in the wussy Internet equivalent of berserker rage, where you can shrug off critical hits and keep flaming – I’ll sometimes settle back later and go, “What I said didn’t seem right.”

I’m now sensitized.

And over the next few months, whenever the topic comes up again, I approach it with a little more curiosity, that concern I might have gotten something wrong, and a year later I’ve incorporated some new facts and my position has been modified.

At that point, I generally don’t even remember where the argument started that first made me go “Hmmm.”  I don’t go back to the people who were yelling at me to tell them “GREAT SUCCESS.”  In many cases, I still loathe those people for being mean.

But that argument has changed my mind.

And yeah, that’s not everyone, or even the majority of people!  But I’ve seen debates I’ve started play a part in changing other people’s minds.  I know some people reading me thought strongly that polyamory never worked, and years later, they’re hesitant to say that.  I’ve watched people who used to be against me on political sides slowly ally with me.  Sometimes, rarely, they even credit me…. but I wouldn’t blame them if they didn’t remember we’d once crossed swords, or didn’t want to admit I had a part in it, because I know there’s some folks who put the tip of the chisel in who I’m still pissy at.

But I wouldn’t be out here writing essays if it was useless.  I don’t like howling emptily into the wind, nor do I like singing to the choir 24/7.  (Though I’ll be honest, it’s nice to sing along occasionally.)

And no, it doesn’t happen all that often.  It’s like panning for gold; lots of water, lots of grit, hardly any gold.  (And the percentage success on random idiots searching strangers, looking for a fight on Twitter is even worse.  That, I’d advise is so low as to not be worth it.)

But as I’ve mentioned, if it only works 1% of the time, 1% differences are enough to swing elections.  I get it if you don’t want to go to the effort of debating, as it’s stressful for the conflict-avoidant, but…

Don’t lose yourself in snark.  It’s tempting to write all that heat off as bullshit, but the fact is that gay marriage is accepted in this country when it wasn’t ten years ago.  Ten years is a small time.  Some significant percentage of  people who once went, “God, why should the gays get married?” turned around and said “All right,” which means that minds can be changed.

It is hardly ever a pleasant process.  And as noted, you hardly ever get anyone who flips their position wholesale.  You hardly ever get anyone admitting error in the heat of the moment.  Hell, the majority of people won’t ever admit an error period.

But some do.  That’s why it’s worth it. That small percentage of people who listen are worth their Internet weight in gold.

That’s why I keep discussing.  You don’t have to; as noted, some days it’s more work than I’d like.  But don’t just shrug and say “It never works.”

It works sometimes.  And given how difficult it is to change anyone’s mind on anything, sometimes is enough.

Cross-posted from Ferrett's Real Blog.

theferrett: (Meazel)

So I’m sketching out my next novel – you know, the one I’m live-writing for charity, please please donate, plug ends now – and I’m up against a weird stumbling block:

I’m writing a girl protagonist.

Which is a weird issue for me.  I don’t have a problem writing female characters – my two most popular stories involve an adolescent girl growing up in a space, and a teenaged girl caught in a time loop as she tries to rescue her terrorist brother – but most of my female characters are the no-nonsense, tough-as-nails sort.  My co-protagonist Valentine dresses up in a lot of frilly dresses, but she’s also very alpha and confrontational.

Yet this novel calls for a more ephemeral sort of woman, a Stevie Nicks sort with a hippieish streak at the center, and I’m like, “Okay, how do I do that?”

What I’m realizing is that I’m intersecting two issues here, and both of them are only tangentially about women.

The first revolves around ask culture versus guess culture – and all of my female protagonists have been very ask culture.  If they have an emotional need, they’ve got no shame in collaring someone and saying, “Hey, gimme.”  They experience no embarrassment about being turned down for something they asked for, and they’re not afraid to ruffle feathers.

Which is interesting, because what I realize I’m trying to write is not a girl per se, but a prototypically “nice” person, i.e., someone who values harmony and other people’s feelings equally to their own concerns (if not higher).  In guess culture, the whole point is that you never outright ask for what you want, because you don’t want to embarrass both of you by forcing someone to refuse you. Women are more traditionally groomed to be that sort of person, often because the cost of open confrontation for women is a lot higher, but that’s not a female problem per se.  There are prototypically “nice” men, too.

And honestly, “nice” isn’t hard to write.  What I’m struggling with is how to make the nice person a protagonist who’s initially proactive in their lives against heavy external suppression.  I’m currently reading Naomi Novik’s UPROOTED, which has a very sweet and caring protagonist early on – but the structure of the novel is how that character goes from passivity to power, and she literally has to be kidnapped to a tower with a wizard before anything happens.

I’m not looking for a “spunky” protagonist who gets roped into an adventure she didn’t go looking for, but rather a very sweet person who goes out and grabs adventures with both hands and yet is not the oft-clueless Manic Pixie Dream Girl.

I want a driving force.

So what I realize I’m having trouble with is understanding how a smart and ambitious guess culture person does anything.  I’m too New York, and all the artists I’ve known have been bite-your-face-off sorta people, and I’m trying to internalize how they actually function when they can’t just bellow, “This is what I want.”

Particularly since this lead character is a musician, and part of any artist’s struggle is sliding that foot in the door.

Then I’m trying to figure out how that intersects with a concern with for looking good for other people.  Valentine dresses very extravagantly in the ‘Mancer series, but you’ll note that she often sticks out like a sore thumb; she dresses because it makes her feel sexy, not other people.

And here’s the issue: as I’ve talked about before, my mind often tells me that something is important to this plot without actually explaining why.  Currently, my subconscious is telling me very strongly that this character dresses well because she’s hoping to impress others, which reveals something vital about her character that I don’t know yet, but when I do understand why she’s that way then I’ll understand.

Let’s quote the They Might Be Giants song again, children: “I already know the ending; it’s the part that makes your face implode.  I don’t know what makes your face implode, but that’s the way the movie ends.”

So in addition to being nice, I’m also trying to get my headspace into someone who dresses well largely to project a socially-approved image, which is… not something I’ve ever done.   Or largely experienced.  And I know men certainly do it (I can point to any number of guys who dress up for the club), and I know that women who dress to fit in also often get a sense of personal satisfaction out of it as well. 

But I’m trying to figure the distress of someone who, at various points in the novel, won’t be able to dress appropriately – and to express that concern without turning her into stereotypically idiotic ZOMG FUCK THESE DINOSAURS WHAT ABOUT MY HEEEEEEELS woman from Jurassic World.

Which is part of my stupid writer-brain.  It wants to stretch, to write a type of character I’ve never written before, and of course it’s the sort of person who I have seen a lot but never known that well.  And what I want to do is write someone realistic, not a cobbled-together bunch of personality traits, and so trying to import all the necessary libraries for this character to function is going to be tricksy, tricksy, tricksy.

And I suspect, sadly, that I know what will happen – it’s what happened with Flex.  I remember writing 50,000 words on Flex before finally getting to That One Scene With The Buzzsects, and going, “Oh, hey, I’ve written half a novel, how can I be meeting my protagonist for the first time?” Yet, in fact, I didn’t really know who he was until he first touched that Broach.

So I suspect that I’m going to have to write a lot of words before I connect with this as-of-now nameless character.  And I’m going to have to reshade a lot of conversations after I finally clamber inside her head and understand what makes her her, but goddamn if I am not hoping to avoid all that bullshit and just get her right on the first draft.

The issue is that I don’t want a stereotypical anything.  Despite the title, I want to move beyond “feminine” as a descriptor – as honestly, it’s sort of an insulting shorthand – and shift into the place I get to with my best characters, which is knowing them so well that I have a hard time condensing their personalities down for marketing purposes.  I’m trying to figure out how this person works so that “feminine” is merely one of several things that could be said to describe her, and I want to do it before I start the novel.

Probably won’t happen, though.  I start live-writing the novel Friday.  As mentioned, $10 will get you an entry to watch a man who’s written nine novels flail his way through the tenth.

As also mentioned, sometimes I write essays that point towards a wise and noble conclusion; other times I’m just sort of flailing and discussing difficulties.  This isn’t a wise conclusion.  It’s just a bunch of concerns I’m noting before I launch into this novel.

Let’s hope I can figure out how this works before then.


Cross-posted from Ferrett's Real Blog.

theferrett: (Meazel)

“How can I be sure my partner won’t leave me?”

If there’s a Poly Greatest Hits album, that track is #3, right after the smash hit “How Do You Deal With Jealousy?” and everyone’s favorite poly anthem, “You Can’t Be In Love With More Than One Person.”

But I won’t lie. Partners leaving happens all the time when people open up their relationships.

Fortunately, my wife gave me some great advice for that one.

See, back when my wife and I were on the verge of getting divorced – a divorce, I should add, that had zippo to do with polyamory, as we were monogamous at the time – we fought.

We fought every moment of every day, because we had to. We had so many goddamned issues to deal with! I was too insecure! Gini hid her emotions! We kept slamming ultimatums onto the table and then walking them back!

God, we were two inept carpenters trying to patch a leaky boat in a storm. All of our interactions were about Fixing The Relationship – and to this day, the words “The Relationship” make both of us shudder, because The Relationship became this huge ongoing chore that we were eternally battling to repair. There wasn’t a conversation we had that didn’t eventually metastasize into some problem with The Relationship.

Eventually, Gini lost her shit at me.

“Can’t we just go out somewhere?” she cried. “Have a dinner! See a movie! Forget all of the reasons we’re not getting along, and try to remember why we fucking liked one another once?!?”

“That won’t work!” I cried back. “We need to fix The Relationship first!”

We did need to fix The Relationship, it was true. But at that point, after having spent the better part of a year constantly fighting, we’d sort of forgotten why we wanted The Relationship. We were together largely because we’d gotten married and moved in together, lashed to each other by a combination of stubbornness and logistics.

What we needed to do was to remember why we liked each other.

We had a leaky boat, and a storm. But what we actually needed was a dinner and a movie and some sexy cuddlings afterwards that gave us a lighthouse on the shore. That was what we were heading towards.

That’s how you handle your partner leaving.

It’s counterintuitive, sure, but what I see a lot in the early days of polyamory is too much struggling to keep The Relationship among the other, newer lovers, and too few reminders of the tremendous love you’ve actually got at the core.

What happens is that they go out on a date with someone new, have a great time, and come back to discover their old partner’s a wretched mess. And then they go out for drinks and dinner with the old partner, and the old partner spends the entire time moping, asking plaintively if they’re really having a good time, they just feel so insecure these days…

…let’s talk about The Relationship.

(If I sound a bit harsh here, I assure you: I am this person.)

And slowly but surely, the old relationship transforms into this leaky boat with no lighthouse, just a lot of work to keep this pitching, yawing boat afloat, and they wonder “Wait, why am I stuck on Leaky Boat when there’s a wonderful yacht over there?”

And the problem is that the wonderful yacht is, in truth, often just as leaky as the boat you just left – you just haven’t been asked to do any patchwork on it yet. You’ll see a lot of partners swimming from boat to boat, continually astonished that whoah, this boat is a fixer-upper too.

As someone who tilts towards the “neurotic” end of the spectrum, I am not saying never to talk about The Relationship. Sometimes, you’re insecure when your partner goes out, and you need to talk about it. Sometimes you gotta do the heavy work of patching a leak before it capsizes the relationship.

But what I often see beginning poly couples do is getting so wrapped around the axle of “What if they leave me?” – spending so much time comparing everything they do to this new person, they forget to reserve time to do the wonderful experiences that only they can provide for each other.

Truth is, your partner started dating you because they saw something wondrous in you – and the trick to most successful poly relationships is making that homecoming feel more like a joy than a chore.

You have to talk, sure. You have to negotiate, sure. Don’t eat your feelings. But don’t make my idiot mistake and forget to also go out for dinner and a movie and some sexy cuddles along the way, because once your relationship turns into The Relationship, it’s awful hard to keep it afloat.

Cross-posted from Ferrett's Real Blog.

theferrett: (Meazel)

ME (thinking to myself): The appointment was at 9:15, now it’s 10:00 and the doctor’s not even here yet, what kind of asshole doesn’t bother to show up when he has patients waiting?

RECEPTIONIST: Excuse me!  All of you here?  The doctor’s not showing up until 11:00….

ME (grumbling): Asshole.

RECEPTIONIST: …because he had an emergency heart patient on the other side of town and the patient is finally stabilized.

ME: Okay, maybe there’s a reason doctors aren’t always on time.

Cross-posted from Ferrett's Real Blog.

theferrett: (Meazel)

So as you may remember, starting Friday, I’ll be live-writing my next novel to raise funds for the Clarion Writers’ Workshop.

But here’s a Professional Writers’ Secret: You gotta juggle multiple projects.  So while I’m writing my next novel, I’ll be giving beta readers time to digest my last novel, Savor Station, so when I finish my Write-A-Thon I can launch myself directly into revisions.  And I’m looking for about seven to ten people to beta-read for me and give me feedback.

(Why seven to ten?  Because I’d like four to five people, and generally I find that you hit about 60% on getting beta readers to get back to you in time.)

Now, y’all should know that saying “I’m really good at proofreading” pretty much excludes you from a lot of writers’ beta circles, including mine.  I’m going to mangle all the prose anyway before I’m done, and assuming I sell it to a publisher when it’s done, we’ll have professional copyeditors and proofreaders sniffing this sucker like a hound dog.  Flagging misspelled words and minor grammatical errors is, actually, a hindrance.

No, what I want are the sorts of people who can tell me four separate things cogently:

•         The things that confuse you (“Why would $character do that?” or “Why did this technology not work this way?”)
•         The things that throw you out of the story (“Character wouldn’t do THAT!” or “Factually, that’s so wrong!”)
•         The things that give you ass-creep (“I got bored here”)
•         All the things that make you pump the fist (“This moment was truly awesome, and unless I tell you how awesome it is, you might cut this part out in edits”)

So if you think you can do all that in five weeks (or, preferably, way less), do me a favor and email me at with the header “FERRETT, I WOULD LIKE TO BETA-READ YOUR SOUP.”  This comes with the great reward of being name-checked in the acknowledgements, if this eventually sells, and the arguable reward of knowingly going “Oh, God, I read it, that was crap” if it doesn’t sell.  I may get filled up on people, but if I do, I’ll put you on the list for the next revision, if there is one.  (I think this one’s close.)

Cross-posted from Ferrett's Real Blog.

theferrett: (Meazel)

Today, I am the proud author of three books: Flex, which Barnes and Noble picked as one of their top 25 sci-fi books of 2015, its sequel The Flux, and its soon-to-be-released finale to the trilogy, Fix.  I’ve had over thirty short stories published, for cash, and I’ve been nominated for the Nebula Award for my novella Sauerkraut Station.

Yet on this day in 2008, I had been writing for twenty years and had almost nothing published.

What unlocked this potential for me? The Clarion Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers’ Workshop.  That’s where I (and seventeen other students) had our stories critiqued until we learned how to write at a professional level.

I’d like to thank them… but more importantly, I’d like to show you some of what the Clarion experience is like.

Because here’s the deal: Clarion needs money.  So to fund-raise, each year they hold a write-a-thon, getting authors to write to raise money.

In a week, I’ll start writing my next novel: The Song That Shapes the World, a novel I am currently describing as “Pitch Perfect with magic.”  It’s a crazy-ass tale involving the shadow world of Backstage, where the best performers in the multiverse battle to create the song that guides humanity: hope, fear, despair, anger.  It involves dragon-riding cello players, dubstep warriors, and a scrappy femme protagonist from Earth who wasn’t meant to be here.

Give Clarion ten dollars, and I’ll let you watch me write the opening chapters.

No, it’s more than that: I’ll write the chapters, and I’ll write a blog entry detailing the techniques I’m using, the things I know I’ll have to fix on the second draft, the errors I made yesterday that I’m scratching out and writing today.  I’ll do this for four weeks, and that’s the meat of it: the opening chapters are so critical, where most writers fail, so you’ll get to watch me agonize and dissect and perfect.

All for a minimum of ten bucks.

I’ll be doing this, as I’ve done for years now, at the Clarion Echo LiveJournal community – which, once you donate your shekels, I’ll give you access to.  Sorry I can’t use 2016 technology, but the Clarion Echo also has all of my past Clarion Write-a-Thons – so once you join, you can scan back to see the novels and stories I wrote and/or revised then, including the first-draft opening chapters of my novel Flex and my unpublished novel The Upterlife.

Even if you’re not interested in being a writer yourself, you’ll get a look at some wild fiction and a DVD commentary track on the author’s process, done with my usual blogly flair.  If you’re a fan of my work, you get to see a very advance preview of my next novel for $10.

I think that’s a preeeeetty good bargain.

So How’s This Work?  
Step #1: Donate at least $10 to the Clarion Foundation.  More is good if you can spare it.  You don’t have to donate in my name or anything, because honestly, their Write-a-Thon webpage forms are dreadful.

Step #2: If you don’t already have one, create a LiveJournal account.  Rejoice in this feeling of web page time-travel, as one suspects there’s not a lot of new LJ accounts created!

Step #3: Email with your Clarion receipt and your LiveJournal handle, with a header of “HEY FERRETT LET ME IN.”  I’ll do the mystical LJ gestures to get you access.

Step #4: Wait until next Friday, when I start to write this novel.  Expect angsting and teeth-gnashing.  Openings are hard, mang.

Step #5: While you’re waiting, may I gently suggest sharing this blog post somewhere to spread the word?

So anyway!  Here we are!  Me, and a crazy-ass novel I’m about to unleash to keep the Clarion Workshop alive!

Join me!

Cross-posted from Ferrett's Real Blog.

theferrett: (Meazel)

Yesterday, I said this:

“Being poly and kinky, yet cis and straight, is a weird space. It’s like, I’m not QUILTBAG in any way, but I’m still on the fringe somewhere.”

I should have clarified (but then again, it was a Tweet): I’m not on the fringes of the LGBT/QUILTBAG experience, and I think it’s important to clarify that I’m not. In the wake of the Pulse nightclub shooting, we had a spate of white cisdudes feeling upset for some reason that they couldn’t feel personally included in a horrific mass murder, trying to erase the gayness to make this into a universal assault that they could participate in.

One wonders if they show up at strangers’ funerals to proclaim, “This is a tragedy for me, as I was also a human!”

Look. It’s okay for you to be upset at an atrocity without having to mark yourselves as a participant. You can mourn deeply without nudging your way to the front of the procession.

(You can also argue, as I know people will, that I’m stereotyping cis white dudes, but of the fifteen or so comments/posts I saw trying to hijack the discussion, all of them were dudes, and of the ones who seemed to have an ethnicity – which is hard to tell on FB/Fet/Twitter – all were cis and white. So, you know, one has to wonder whether it’s endemic to the community, or a sampling error.

(So if you’re a frothing white cisdude, you might wanna take a moment to ponder that your stereotypical behavior is currently perceived by many minorities as “melts down the minute the conversation does not center around them,” and take a moment to ponder whether you’re actually behaving in the way that people say you’re behaving. Because one of the things that triggers white cisdudes fastest, in my experience, is labelling them as “white cisdudes,” because good Lord a lot of y’all really get angry when someone labels you – even if that description is actually, literally, factually accurate.)

Anyway. The QUILTBAG experience is one that I don’t experience, and it would be wrong to say that I do. I think part of being a decent human being is recognizing that there are certain experiences that are not truly universal, and trying to tune into those aspects are significant.

Which goes beyond QUILTBAG. I don’t know what it’s like to grow up Muslim, or Southern, or female, and I think that attempting to translate your experiences to go, “Oh, yeah, I get what you’ve been through, it’s just like what happened to me!” is like those idiots who come up to you at a funeral for your beloved relative dying and go, “I know just what it’s like to lose someone you love, my cat died.”

Sometimes, you just have to leave people to their own space and acknowledge that there are overlaps, but it’s not the same.

Yet there are overlaps.

As someone who’s polyamorous and kinky, I’m also at the fringes of society in some ways. Being openly out affects the jobs I can take. As someone who’s poly, I’m an uncomfortable representative for everyone else who’s poly in the world. (And though my relationship with my wife is rock-solid, there’s always that worry in the back of our heads that if we divorced, we’d then be held up as proof that this poly shit doesn’t work.)

As someone who’s kinky, there’s stuff I’m not comfortable talking about in public sometimes, as people tend to misunderstand, and I’m often a little nervous that some day a great spotlight will shine down upon me – in the form of greater media attention than I’ve ever received – and the stuff I do completely consensually will be reviled.

And there’s that overlap, so I feel what happened at PULSE very clearly. Kink clubs have not been the traditional targets of maniacs (mainly because they’re often the bastions of straight white folks), but if someone shot up a kink convention or a dungeon, I’d feel that so personally that it gives me shivers now. I’ve seen mothers lose their kids for liking to be tied up, even if there was nothing sexual about it. I’ve seen folks lose their jobs for being outed as dominants.

And as usual, I have two sorts of essays: those where I wrap things up neatly in a big bow and tell you about the wise conclusion I’ve come to, and those where I just sort of toss all the balls in the air and shrug.

I’m shrugging.

I’m not going to try to hijack the experience of QUILTBAG folks, but I’m also hard-pressed to say that there aren’t areas that are very similar. I don’t want to be the white cis person who comes in to make it all about me, but there are also places that poly and kinky overlaps with gay and bi and trans, and I think we can strengthen ourselves as a community by uniting those experiences properly, even if it’s only as a way to crack open the window wide enough to peer in and go, “Yeah, I get it.”

Because anything that increases empathy is good. Anything that increases solidarity is good. But anything that erases someone’s unique identity, particularly at a time of mourning, is bad, and that’s a delicate line that I’m never quite sure how to handle properly.

And it’s just out there. It’s messy. You don’t want to be that person at the funeral. But you also can acknowledge, if only internally, that this small facet of yours lines up with someone else’s, and do something good with it without inadvertently weaponizing it.

That’s all.

(And before someone complains, and I know they will – as a cis straight dude, yes, I absolutely believe there are central experiences to that experience that are unique to them… Particularly during dating, where I often feel that people don’t have a whole lot of sympathy for guys who are trying, although schmuckily, to figure out how to get intimacy in a world where frankly, so many men are trying to date women that it’s a larger problem than people often admit to stand out in the crowd. But that’s something I’ve discussed before, and will doubtless attempt to do so again.)

Cross-posted from Ferrett's Real Blog.

theferrett: (Meazel)

I’ve never walked down the street and wondered if someone was gonna chuck a brick at my head because I looked Muslim-like.

I’ve never gone to a high school where I worried about some maniac charging in through the door to shoot me and my friends dead.

I’ve never hugged my partner in public and had to worry if I was holding them too close, because some idiot might take a baseball bat to us if he saw queers being affectionate.

I’ve never had to scan a parking lot at night before I walked to my car because some douche might rape me.  I’ve never had to measure my drinking because if I passed out, someone might rape me.

Hell, I’ve never had a bad poly experience.  My friends were all tolerant, and cool with it.  My mother and father are supportive, if a bit baffled.  I’ve never had a family member tell me what a pervert I am and how I’m going to hell.

The truth is, a lot of bad shit happens to other people that I have never experienced directly.  I can’t get it, deep down.  I can make mushy parallels, understand these things *happen*, but I can’t really understand what it’s like for the seven hundredth time to say “I’m from San Francisco” and have some person squint at my Asian features and go, “…but where are you from?”

Whole worlds are cut off from me.  I have it pretty good, in many ways.  I don’t get the full experience.

But you know what I can do?

I can fucking listen.

Cross-posted from Ferrett's Real Blog.

theferrett: (Meazel)

If you think your assault rifle will keep you safe when the government comes for you, you have not paid attention to the drones and missile strikes in the Middle East.  Got news for you, punkie; if there’s a serious go-to-town revolution against the government, you’re not going to be the bold revolutionary, you’re going to be a satellite-targeted crater in the fucking street.

Technology’s moved on.  Your revolution will mostly consist of IEDs and hiding, if it comes to that.

People say we can’t change gun culture in America – there’s too many guns, and too many people with guns.

You know what else everybody used to do?

We fucking smoked.

America used to be a goddamned chimney, my friends, with something like 80% of people lighting up.  We had Fred Flintstone and Barney goddamned Rubble shilling Winston cigarettes to kids.  We had a massive corporation covering up the truth of what happened to smokers, a government thoroughly in Big Tobacco’s pocket.  We had a nation of addicts, literal addicts, because remember that quitting smoking is only slightly less difficult than quitting goddamned heroin.

And yet now smoking’s a small segment of American culture.  It exists – just as, I suspect and would hope, gun owners would continue to exist after some massive, effective, gun legislation – but it’s now a thing where, for good or for bad, we massively flipped the switch.

You know where that all started?

The official link between cigarettes and cancer.

If you’ll note, the Center for Disease Control doesn’t even *collect* statistics on gun use.  That’s been shut down by Senators in the hands of the NRA, so we can’t even get data on what effects guns have.

So if you want to change things, that’s where I’d start: write your Senator to tell them that you want a special wing of the CDC to collect gun data.  Make it as immunized from politics as any government agency can be, which is to say poorly, but *get the fucking data*.

And if you want to tell us we can’t change things, well, a generation of kids who have largely grown up not chain-smoking would like to inform you that big changes can happen, if you want them to happen.

While I do love Igor Volsky calling out the lame “Thoughts and prayers” from politicians who are deep in the NRA’s pocket, I really hate it when people say, “Wow, if we only raised $2,500, *we* could buy a Senator!”

It’s not just money.  The money’s the grease, but the heavy piston action is the voters the NRA can round up.

If you want to beat the NRA, the sad truth is that a significant amount of you will have to become a one-issue voter, the exact opposite of the way a lot of NRA fanatics are now.

So.  A gay nightclub.

It’s amazing how many conservative pundits are erasing the “gay” portion from this narrative, as though that somehow didn’t matter.

Gay clubs are safe spaces.  As a straight person, have you ever held hands with your date in public and thought, “I could be beaten to death for this?”  Well, your gay and bisexual friends have.

Walking into a club like this is telling gay people, “We can destroy your happiness anywhere.”  Don’t pretend that doesn’t fucking exist.  Don’t pretend that somehow, gay people lead a life mostly like ours because gay marriage passed.

It’s still a goddamned dangerous time to be gay in America.  It’s getting better.  But you still risk shit like this.

This wasn’t “a nightclub.”  It was a statement.  And some asshole with a gun made a counter-statement, so don’t you fucking twist the story to make it seem like it could be any straight person.

So.  Islam.

A bunch of my conservative friends have reminded me, quite cogently, that a lot of Islam virulently hates homosexuality, and if we let everyone in from the Middle East into America then we’d be back to stoning, and how can we claim to be acting wisely and compassionately towards gays when Islam itself hates the homosexual?

Which is true.  You look at polls, and Muslims are largely intolerant of gay culture.

Non-American Muslims.

Open up the polls for American Muslims, and it turns out they’re more likely to be in favor of gay marriage than Evangelist Christians.

It’s almost like, I dunno, being a part of American culture influences people’s viewpoints or something.

And if that was true, then maaaaaybe the worst thing you could do would be to stigmatize Muslims so that they *didn’t* feel like a part of American culture, to conflate every Muslim as “foreign,” and alienate them so that they don’t feel any attachment to the country they live in.

Huh.  Maybe it’s your attitude that’s fostering terrorism.

And while I’m at it, my worst conservative friends only bring up Islam when they’re talking about what homo-hating bastards these folks are, selling the “THEY’RE ALL OUT TO KILL YOUUUUU!” line as though literally every Muslim would slit a gay’s throat and rape a woman whenever they could.

And keep in mind: I don’t deny there are serious fucking cultural issues going on.  If you, say, take in thousands of refugees from a culture that doesn’t respect women or the QUILTBAG train, well, you’re going to have some serious issues getting these people on-board.  It’s not going to go smoothly, and one of the serious liberal critiques I will aim is the way that liberals hand-wave those issues.  Integration’s a serious bitch, my friends, and it’s often a messy compromise you make to save the lives of innocent people who’d otherwise get ground to meat in a war zone.

That said, here’s the thing:

I’ll accept Islam as a monstrous, monotone religion of purest hatred…

If you claim all of these untagged Christian shooters and apply the same logic to Christianity.

Because that’s the magic, you know.  White guy does it?  Unhinged.  We don’t own him.  He was acting on his own, no matter how many friends he talked to online.  White religious guy does it?  Well, that’s not Christianity, how dare you label us!

The great thing about being white and of the dominant religion is that your shooters never count.  Those guys?  Well, we know they’re unhinged.  Were they talking to other hateful people?  A splinter sect, they aren’t real.  No matter how many Biblical nutbags run and gun, that never touches the core religion that we like.

So a brown guy shot up a crowd.  That is, and continues to be, and will never not be, terrible.  But he’s 2% of all mass shootings.

The other 98% are white guys, some percentage of whom were seriously religious.  Claim them.  Apply the same logic to the religions you think are acceptable.  Then we’ll talk.

Until then, well, yeah, ISIS is a huge fucking problem, but Islam is a huge fucking religion, and every huge fucking religion has its fringe elements that you have to deal with.

(And if you want to talk about what Islam does globally, go back to the last point about what it does in America.)

Lastly, as someone who suffers from mental health issues, please remember that not every bipolar or depressed person shoots people.  In fact, most of us don’t.

I’m not one of those people who’ll tell you that a guy who shoots up a club isn’t crazy.  He is.  But like Islam and Christianity, “crazy” covers a wide variety of issues, and conflating insanity with mass shooting is a bad thing to do for those who do suffer.

Cross-posted from Ferrett's Real Blog.

theferrett: (Meazel)

So the wise among you will remember this tattoo from December:

Family Star Wars tattoo

That, my friends, is a Star Wars tattoo, which my wife and I got because we met in a Star Wars chat room.

We met in a Star Wars chat room because I had seen Star Wars well over seventy times in the theater.  In fact, I saw Star Wars fifty-seven and a half times before I was thirteen.

And that was, you youngsters, in the days before your fancy-schmancy DVDs or VHS tapes or even reruns existed.  Back in the day, if you wanted to see a movie and you were a young kid, you had to bug a relative into taking you.

I bugged my relatives fifty-seven and a half times.

The half was, I am only semi-ashamed to say, when I got my grandparents to take me.  They’d misread the matinee as 12:30 instead of 1:30, so we showed up an hour early, so Little Ferrett somehow convinced them to go into the theater early, watch the Death Star Trench Run, and then watch the entire movie again.

It is safe to say that Teeny Ferrett was a relative-bugging machine.  Imagine the challenge of convincing a relative, who has almost certainly seen Star Wars with you at least once because, well, hardly anyone has that big a family, and then saying, “Uh, hey, I know we’ve done this twice before and you know I’ve seen this movie forty times, but…

“…could we do it again?”

So my Star Wars bugging game was on fleek.

But the title of this entry was about my Mom’s horrible secret, which I only discovered when she arrived this Thursday and she told me how much she’d enjoyed The Force Awakens, and…

She should probably see Star Wars.


Let me repeat that:

My mother

had never seen

Star Wars.

Which, if you think about it, showcases my mother’s sheer manipulative genius.  Can you imagine what it took to not only withstand the pleadings of an iron-willed kid who would not shut up about this movie, but quietly maneuver every other relative to see this damn movie without once having to go yourself?

Jesus Christ, Machiavelli probably would have broken down at some point and said, “All right, I’ll go.”

Yet my Mom danced among the requests for my entire childhood, only now thinking, “Maybe it’s time.”

So we showed her last night.  She was sleepy, and having an allergic attack, but we got to the Death Star escape and she said, “PAUSE THIS MOVIE, I GOTTA PEE.”

She didn’t wanna miss a minute.

So she liked it.  Which is good.  Because as my friend Angie said, it’s so hard to rehome mothers once they get to that age.

Cross-posted from Ferrett's Real Blog.

theferrett: (Meazel)

So when I get back from Greece, I’m going to talk frankly about how many units my books Flex and The Flux sold.

There’s just one problem:

I don’t know whether that number is actually an impressive number.

The problem with publishing is that a) nobody wants to share their failures, and b) the successes push the top of the scale so much that it skews your vision.  Okay, if you sell 100,000 copies of your novel, you’ve done pretty well.

Yet what do good midlist sales numbers look like?

…somewhere between 100,000 copies and zero.   I guess.  Hardly anyone discusses the mid-range numbers, making it difficult to say what an author can, or should, expect.

So here’s where I ask my fellow authors: how many copies of your book did you sell?  If you made a blog post, or know of a blog post that discusses units (and not total dollars made), point me to that blog post.  (I know about Kameron Hurley’s brave revelation of her own sales numbers, but everyone else I’m happy to listen to.)

If you’re willing to share your numbers personally, identifying yourself and your book sales in public, email me at  (Telling me when it was published, if you’re self-published, and the average prices you sold it for will be a part of the equation, if’n you could share.)

And even if you’re not willing to say on the record, email me what you’ve sold and I’ll put you as an anonymous data point.

(And yes, I know you can look up Nielsen BookScan ratings, but that’s not an accurate total because it leaves out all ebooks and many many bookstores.  Everyone’s numbers on there are off by at least a third these days, maybe more.  Currently, BookScan is planted firmly in the “better’n nothing” camp.)

As a former book buyer, numbers always fascinate me.  This is a lot like Tobias Buckell’s author advance survey in that it’s a starting point for authors to know what the business is actually like.  Ultimately, I’ll compile a Google Sheets of numbers so there’s some better idea of what unit sales look like…

With the caveat that, having talked to several industry professionals, what matters for traditional publishers is not raw units, but beating your projections.  Smaller publishers are profitable on smaller print-runs, and what’s a big hit at a mid-level press might be a disappointment at a major press.  If you sold 100,000 units but the publisher printed 500,000 copies, you’re in the doghouse.

In any case, we’ve had some good studies on author advances and writing income, but raw book unit sales haven’t  been something I’ve seen talked about – at least when we’re not talking JK Rowling numbers.

If you want to share, let’s see how much data we can compile.

Cross-posted from Ferrett's Real Blog.

theferrett: (Meazel)

Attacking Trump has a lot of problems, but one of the main one is that Donald’s wrong for the Presidency in so many ways that watching the media go after him is like watching a small kid chasing chickens – he runs after one, notices another getting away, runs after that.  He says too many outrageous things, and it destroys the news cycle because they’re just getting hooked on one when something else too delicious to leave on the ground comes up.

So if I was in charge of the Democratic “Take Down Donald” Campaign, I’d announce a schedule:

Every two weeks, from now until the election, we will be discussing a new and entirely different way that Donald Trump is unfit for the Presidency.

And I’d focus on that with a series of commercials, the same commercials, aired as many times as humanly possible, homing in on just one of Donald’s many flaws.  (I’d also call him Donald.)   That would be what Hillary discusses in her campaign speeches, what I’d instruct other Democrats to focus in on, our social media targets.

So for two weeks, all we’d talk about is Trump University and what a rip-off it was, bringing out all the knives to bear, and discussing the delicious paradox of whether Donald knew he was extorting people for a degree that he knew was worthless, or whether he was just happy to walk away from it when it wasn’t what he wanted, and if so, is that what he’ll do to America when he plasters the Trump brand over the Oval Office?

Two weeks of shots.  Get that in there as much as possible.  Like a little television arc.

Then switch.  Don’t map out the schedule in advance; be flexible.  But if you do it right, people will wonder what’s coming next.  It’ll be like spoilers for a movie – “I heard the next Donald Doofiness will be his lack of international knowledge.”  “No, I hear it’s the accusations of him abusing his wife!” “No, I hear it’s his shameful treatment of veterans!” “It’s that he’s not even really a billionaire!” – with forums lighting up and suggestions made and his opponents getting furious.

Donald’s really good at pivoting away whenever someone starts to gain ground.  So nail him down.  Play his own game.  Make it all about what he can’t do, and refuse to be lured away from that.

It’s what Democrats have been traditionally crappy at anyway, so might as well learn on a big target, amiright?

Cross-posted from Ferrett's Real Blog.

theferrett: (Meazel)

On Friday, I’m going on vacation to Greece and Turkey and Italy for ten days. This will be a lovely cruise, and if it’s anything like last time, I’m going to get a lot of reading done.

So thanks to my new Kindle, I’ve stockpiled lots of books!  In case you’re wondering what I’ve been hearing good things about, here’s the list of books I’m taking with me:

  • Joe Hill’s THE FIREMAN, which I am currently 65% through and thoroughly enjoying, as I have all of Joe Hill’s books;
  • Will McIntosh’s LOVE MINUS EIGHTY, because his DEFENDERS was one of the best books I read in 2015 and SOFT APOCALYPSE was sad  and moving (even if it didn’t really have much of an ending), and I’m told this is his best work;
  • Seanan McGuire’s EVERY HEART A DOORWAY, as I love the idea of a grown-up Narnia and I love Seanan’s works;
  • Ransom Riggs’ MISS PEREGRINE’S HOME FOR PECULIAR CHILDREN, as Bart Calendar won’t shut up about it and people have kept comparing bits of it to my own book THE FLUX (which, no, the Peregrine Institute was pure coincidental naming);
  • Cassie Alexander’s DARK INK TATTOO, because she writes good smut and she has promised me tattoo smut in this tome;
  • Claudia Gray’s LOST STARS, as everyone tells me it’s the best new Star Wars book, and also my daughter won’t shut up about it;
  • Delilah Dawson’s HIT, because I enjoy a female hitman paying off her credit cards as much as anyone else;
  • Richard Hacker’s THE ULTIMATE CIGAR BOOK, since if I’m smoking them occasionally I feel I should know the history, and the only other book I read a) talked about the hurricanes of 1994 as though they were recent history, and b) taught me lies that the guys at the cigar store easily dismissed;
  • Siddharta Mukherjee’s THE GENE: AN INTIMATE HISTORY, which Ken Liu recommended and the opening chapter detailing a man’s struggle with his entire family going insane hooked me.

Now.  Despite all that, there’s room for one more book here.  I read fast, and I’ll be trapped on a plane for hours, and cruise ship expeditions involve a lot of travel time as we drive endlessly to my destination.  (Not that I expect to read all of these books – though I read five on my Italy trip – but I want a wide variety in what I do read.)

So.  What I’m looking for is one final book recommendation.  Something published in the last two years, something that’s not the first book in a series, and something light.  (No dense books; time has proven I can’t read them on vacation.)

The books I’ve raved about to people lately have been Scott Hawkin’s LIBRARY AT MOUNT CHAR, Charlie Jane Anders’ ALL THE BIRDS IN THE SKY, Dan Wells’ JOHN CLEAVER series, and of course Rae Carson’s THE GIRL OF FIRE AND THORNS.

If you have a book that fits all those criteria, suggest away!  I may have read it.  But then we can geek out about it!

Cross-posted from Ferrett's Real Blog.

theferrett: (Meazel)

Look, Bernie supporters: you’re not only losing, but you sound terrifyingly like Republicans arguing not to pull out of Iraq.

You’re ignoring the math to leap to a conclusion you want to be true instead of looking at what’s actually happening.

You’re yelling about the unfair process of getting nominated as though the establishment somehow sprung these complicated rules upon Bernie midway through the process, as opposed the path to nomination being mostly known when he started his campaign.

You’re claiming “The media was against us!” exactly like the Republicans did with Iraq, as if the newspapers owed you popularity.  The media always has a storyline it’s spinning; your challenge is to come up with a better story that they buy into, not to yell and froth.

And worst of all, too many of you are pulling the sad Republican bullshit that anyone who doesn’t support you in this endeavor are not real Americans, or at the very least to be side-eyed thoroughly because somehow they hate real change.  You’re pulling the sad Republican bullshit that if people don’t support Bernie, it’s because they’re idiots who don’t know any better.

Look, guys. I’m a Bernie fan, and judging from this season’s political donations, I’m at least $240 more for Bernie ($20 a month for a year) than I am for Hillary (an ice-cold zero).  If you want to change the process?  That’s awesome.

But the Democratic party should be the alternative to the Republican party’s math-blinkered nature, and you do that by acknowledging facts.  Black voters didn’t go for Bernie?  Rather than yelling at them that HEY BERNIE’S GREAT at random POC, why not investigate their fears and work to counteract them?  Or learn from the ways that Bernie bobbled the black vote this year (as was my fear he’d do way back in July of last year) and figure out how to build better grass roots the next time?

And y’all terrify me when you’re like, “Bernie’s the better candidate!”   Well, he’s gotten less votes almost everywhere that counts- though unlike Hillary, he’s improved in his results as time’s gone on.  In terms of sheer numbers, it’s Hillary by a landslide.

Y’all terrify me when you say, “Hillary’s been so mean to Bernie!”  God, have you ever watched one fucking Republican attack ad?  Hillary’s gone after Bernie with lily-white gloves on.  She has not exposed one knuckle.  Wanna see what the nastiness will look like?  Here, read the nasty stuff that nobody’s unloaded on him yet because the Republicans have been secretly hoping he’ll be the candidate.

That’s what a hatchet job would look like.

And in that sense, sure Bernie’s beating Trump.  Because nobody’s gone after Bernie yet.  Maybe he can pull it off, maybe he can’t, but read that set of attack ads ready to go and see whether Bernie’s popularity has been truly tested; it hasn’t.

Be honest with yourselves and stop buying into your own goddamned hype.

And if you want to say, “Electing Trump would send a lesson to the Democratic party that they need to shape up!”, well, I want you to ask yourself a vital question first:

In 2000, Gore moved to the right to pick up votes, then Nader split the vote, and Bush got elected instead of Gore.  (Full disclosure: I voted for Nader, and I blame Gore for alienating voters.)

A lot of you are unhappy with Obama.  But Obama was literally the lesson that the Democrats learned from losing massively in 2000.

So do you honestly think electing Trump, someone massively unstable, is going to create someone notably better than Obama?

Bonus question, but not one you should ignore: Do you think “creating the better Democratic party” was worth the economic collapse and wars we got from eight years of George Bush?  Because that’s really your argument, isn’t it?  If we fuck over America, we’ll create a better and more resilient party!  And maybe you conclude that’s true.  But you should also ask yourselves whether that triumphant party will have to spend eight years picking up debris.

And if you’re frustrated by Bernie over Hillary, well… I am too.  Welcome to the long and stories Democratic tradition of “Picking the person they think is electable” over “The person who people actually like,” which leads to horrific fiascoes of Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry.  I too wish the Democrats would learn the lesson that they should nominate the person who gets folks the most riled up, as opposed to choosing the person who is least objectionable.

But they do.  Maybe you can change that.  Please.  Try.

That said, you Hillary supporters?

First off, if you’re saying “The Republicans shouldn’t cave to Trump!” and yelling for Bernie to step down at the same time, you’re hypocrites.  Bernie Sanders isn’t stepping down in part because he feels he’s not being heard in the Democratic party, and he knows darned well that the only way to force policy change is to swing enough power to get a seat at the table.  This is the sort of cold-eyed realism you’d probably cheer if it was Hillary using her leverage to make changes.

If he steps down too soon, he doesn’t get what he wants.  And he wants to be influential.  That’s what politicians do.  If Hillary wants his votes, she’s gonna have to make concessions to Bernie.

And the people who are all outraged that Bernie Sanders wanted to debate with Trump?  Every time I hear them speaking, they sound as though Bernie and Trump’s debate will be them getting together over beers and bitching affably about Hillary.  “Women, amiright?”

No.  Bernie and Trump are both outsider candidates, but Trump and Bernie are wildly at odds on all sorts of issues, particularly those of economic hardship.  The reason some Bernie bros can believe there’s no real difference between Bernie and Trump is because Bernie and Trump haven’t battled.  And Donald Trump is a big windy bag of lies, but I’m pretty sure when Bernie goes “We need to raise taxes on people like you,” Trump is not going to shrug and say, “Well, yeah, I need to have 90% of my income taken away, like all millionaires!”

Trump won’t debate Bernie because he knows he benefits from Bernie Bros conflating their policies.  (He also knows that being snide to Bernie, as he always is during debates, will alienate potential crossover votes from Bernie.)  If it did happen, suddenly it’d put the stark differences for the candidates into place and people wouldn’t be able to switch votes as easily.

It’d be a massive win for the Democratic party if it happened, which is why I’m 90% sure it won’t.  (Though this election season, I’m loathe to put firm bets on anything.)

Eventually, Bernie’s going to have to side with someone.  When he does, he’s going to bring voters with him.  And that guy, unless I’m radically misreading Bernie, is not going to be Trump.

(But again, hey, this election season, amiright?)

Cross-posted from Ferrett's Real Blog.

theferrett: (Meazel)

So this weekend, a gorilla had to be shot because a four-year-old kid found its way into the gorilla’s enclosure.  (If you want details on “Why didn’t they tranquilize the gorilla instead of murdering it?”, read this Facebook note from a zookeeper; the upshot was that shooting darts into a gorilla is not an insta-knockout, and would probably piss off the kid-holding gorilla majorly before it passed out.)

And I have two thoughts on that one:

First off, there’s a lot of people calling for the parents’ heads on a stick – which I probably would have before I had kids.  I used to hear these tales of parents losing their kids at malls and sniff, “God, how did they lose track of their own children?”

Now I go, “My God, how do we not lose more kids?”

Kids have zero survival instincts.  They run away and don’t look back.  And in a vacuum, you could be a perfect guard to jail this irrational critter inside a cage of pure protection, but when you’re out and about you have to pay for the clothes you just bought or hold the elevator door for someone or even adjust your other kid’s diapers.

When you go to do that, sometimes the kid darts off into traffic because they saw a bug and Christ that is scary.

And I’m not saying that the parents weren’t negligent, because I don’t know all the facts about this, but it’s also possible the kid vanished and the parents were looking frantically for him while all this happened.

Maybe it is a case of stupid parents.  It could also equally easily be a case of “accidents happen with kids.”  And it sucks, but that’s the way the universe currently works: some parents have their kids squirm away into an elevator and are lucky enough to have a friendly face guiding the kid back to safety, other parents have their kids squirm away and fall into an open elevator shaft.

It’s possible these were slacker parents who raised an ill-disciplined kid; it’s equally possible the parents just had the worst possible outcome for the tragically common situation of Runaway Kid.

In the absence of better knowledge – and I’m sure news stories will fill in more details over the oncoming weeks – I’ll try to opt for kindness.

That said, an online friend of mine said, “I’m sorry, but I value the life of a four-year-old more than I do a gorilla.”

I’m sorry, but I don’t.

Look, man.  These gorillas are endangered.   As the zookeeper in the Facebook says, you put these gorillas out into the wild and they get poached.  I’m told there’s not enough of these gorillas left to fill a 747, and the zoo’s one of the few places left that can hold them safely.

Either way this went down, kid or gorilla, it was going to be a tragedy where a living creature who didn’t understand what was happening got killed for reasons that weren’t its fault.  And even though I am a human, I’m cold-eyed enough to say, “While I spent the weekend with an adorable almost-four-year-old girl who I adore, there are literally millions of four-year-old humans – while we’re down to a handful of gorillas because, as a race, we’d rather strangle an entire species than risk one human.

“And while I love children, if it’s down to one kid against a dwindling species, I choose the species.”

I suspect that’s a really unpopular thing for me to say, but this is a Kobayashi Maru of dilemmas: you have to 100% kill an endangered gorilla, or risk killing a child (as the gorilla might have gotten bored dragging the kid around and let the child go).  It’s gonna be horrid either way.  And I’m not saying we shouldn’t kill mountain lions running lose in human territories, or let our daughters be dragged off by rabid dogs.  Human lives matter.

I’m just of the opinion that at this point, if some human gets into the enclosure with all the endangered animals, the priority should be saving the endangered animal.  Because it’s not the animal’s fault, either.  And what they need to protected from are dumbasses like us.

Cross-posted from Ferrett's Real Blog.

theferrett: (Meazel)

A few weeks ago, I asked people who host kink parties how they’d deal with one guest claiming that another guest was under investigation by the police for sexual crimes.* And I’d say about 75% of the respondents said some variant on:

“Well, I’d talk to both sides and see who sounded more reasonable to me.”

Now, let’s set some opening criteria here by invoking the nerdiest possibly comparison: The Kobayashi Maru.

In Star Trek, there’s a training mission called the Kobayashi Maru, which puts Starfleet cadets into an unwinnable situation to see how they deal with defeat. (Kirk won, but only by reprogramming the computer to allow a victory.)

People do not like unwinnable scenarios. People like to think that their tactics have no down sides, and once they’ve decided on a course of action, they have this funny habit of shrugging aside the costs of doing business as somehow not being harmful.

My point in these writings on public spaces is that no matter what you choose, your choice carries the risk of harming someone innocent.

Ban people based entirely on hearsay accusation? Well, false reports do exist, and even if you act discreetly – because remember, you don’t have to tell someone why you’ve banned them from a private event – you still risk ostracizing an innocent who’s been targeted by a malicious person.

Ban people based entirely on whether the law has taken action? That’s got two problems: first, the sexual offender registry is notable for sweeping up teenagers who’ve accidentally had sex with someone a year too young, and second, have you noticed the humiliation that rape victims have to go through on the stand in order to get a 7% conviction rate? The court system is designed, as I’ve noted in the past, to make it very hard to convict – and for good reason! – but “not being convicted in court” does not mean that someone is harmless.

And you know what I feel the result of “We’ll just talk to them and see” is?

That you should stop fucking being surprised when yet another charming predator turns out to be a serial offender.

“I’ll determine who’s guilty based on who feels right to me” is as decent a method as any other, but you give up your right to go “HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN?” when hey, the person who’s very convincing turns out to merely be a great liar.

Because what you do in situations like that is to send a clear message: If you want to get away with abuse, make sure you’re likable. And the top-tier predators are smart. They figure out really quickly that “doing favors for other people” is a great way of incurring likeability, and they learn how to spin stories to gaslight other people, and they’re smart enough not to victimize every person but to only target a precious few.

And that’s not even counting the charming folks who’ve gone all rock star and have come, quietly, to believe that they’re such studs in the community that every person desires them. These folks can do serious damage – not because they’re trying to be evil, but because they’re like “Hey, if I’ve got her tied up, the last five people liked it when I stuck my fingers inside of them without warning, so this is sure to please!”

When you ask them? They’ll be confident, poised, sure that this was just a misunderstanding. They’ll be Very Concerned, just enough to ensure that you get the impression they’re a good person –

– and then the flip side of the “Who feels right to me?” test comes in, because not only are you disproportionately rewarding people who are charming, but you’re disproportionately punishing people who are traumatized in ways you think are unseemly.

Because not everyone’s a convincing victim. There’s a scene in the movie Spotlight, where reporters find a guy who’s on a crusade against molesting priests – and this guy is stuttering, and alternately brutally nasty and then cringingly apologetic to the reporters. He’s literally got folders full of sketchy evidence that he hands out to anyone who asks.

He looks like a complete nut case. The problem is, he is a complete nut case – but that’s because the abuse made him unhinged. He didn’t react well to being betrayed by an authority figure he idolized, and as a result he’s not together enough to present himself as being convincing.

And like him, lots of legitimate victims are angry, and appear vindictive, because shit, if someone hurt you or someone you loved, wouldn’t you want them not to get away with it?

Being violated is like grief: there’s a script you’re supposed to follow when someone you love dies, complete with weeping at the coffin and clutching loved ones for support, but everyone reacts in different ways. Some people go for isolation. Some people get nasty. Some people run away to drugs or sex.

That doesn’t mean they’re not in pain. It just means they’re not following the script.

So what happens when you adopt the “Who feels right?” means that you reward socially adept people and punish those who don’t follow the “good victim” script. And as such, when another superstar turns out to have a rotting underbelly, you shouldn’t really be too shocked.

Our community, largely, rewards these behaviors.

Now, at this point I anticipate a lot of rage and people shouting, “Well, I’m not a trained investigator! Yet you’re telling me not to necessarily trust the court system, and you’re telling me not to automatically believe the victim, so what do you want me to do?”

I want you to acknowledge the path you’ve chosen has drawbacks.

I want you to be aware of the failure modes of your choice, and to be prepared to walk things back when something hits those failure states.

I want you to admit fallibility.

Look. When I say, “My preference is to believe the victim, in the absence of better evidence,” I do so knowing full well that some percentage of victims make false accusations. And were I running an event, I’d be prepared for the eventuality of uncovering a false accuser, and ready to potentially undo a ban based on new evidence.

If you talk to people to see whether they feel right to you, I’m asking you to recognize that you’re not trained at this, and that manipulators can abuse your system just as off-the-script victims can fuzz your senses, and to be ready to try as best you can to correct for that liability.

If you only ban court-convincted people, acknowledge that the court is not a perfect method of safety – it’s the best way we have to administer justice, but “justice” and “safety” are not always linked.

This is the Con-Bayashi Maru. There’s no perfect solution. And what you do in a time of imperfect solution is to acknowledge the failure modes and try your best to apply workarounds whenever you can.

That’s all.
* – The actual investigation was for possession of child pornography, and there was some discussion of whether having child porn was a bannable offense or whether even “being an active child molester” was reason to bar someone from a party, but most people seemed to take this specific instance as a more general “What do we do when someone comes to us with serious hearsay?” Some may have altered their answers if it had been a case of, say, rape, which is a failure state *I* heartily acknowledge.

Cross-posted from Ferrett's Real Blog.

theferrett: (Meazel)

Do I have to give a spoiler alert for something that was broadcast across headlines yesterday?  Well, in case you were sleeping, Marvel made a big change to Captain America yesterday, and in case you don’t know I’m giving you until the end of this sentence to get out.



All right.  So the latest issue of Captain America: Steve Rogers #1 retcons events so that Steve Rogers has been a Hydra agent all along.  That’s right: Captain America is, and has always been, Hydra’s greatest asset.

I told my wife Gini about that and she said, flatly, “No.”  And left the room.

Which was pretty much the Internet’s reaction.  Never before have I seen so much hatred heaped on a comic book’s decision.  But the #1 response to the hatred from turning, you know, one of Marvel’s greatest sources of moral certainty into a secret supervillain was this:

“Hey, we don’t know where this is going, wait for the whole story to come out before criticizing.”

Except there’s two reasons why that reasoning of “Why you should wait” is blatantly wrong.

First off, we probably do know where it’s going.  Long-time comics fans have seen a lot of stunning changes to major characters – The Spidey we love is a clone! Superman’s two zappy twins! Batman’s been crippled, and Azrael’s taken over!  Charles Xavier’s turned evil, Magneto’s turned good! – and we know ultimately there’s one of three options here:

Option #1: This becomes the new status quo, now and forever, which means we’re absolutely right to hate it as much as our initial gut reaction tells us to, or:

Option #2: As is more likely, this will be the new status quo for about three to five years, as long as editorial stubbornness holds out against the fans’ desires, and eventually we’ll see an awkward year-long storyline where this is all undone and this becomes That Awkward Storyline That Most People Would Like To Forget About Except That Hipster Writers Keep Reverting To This When They’re Out Of Ideas.

Option #3: As is even more likely, the plan is that this is all a dream!  Cap has had hidden memories implanted by Hydra!  It’s an alternate-universe introduction to the Evil Captain America that the real Cap will ultimately fight to show him what he could have become if he wasn’t so awesome!  It’s the Cosmic Cube warping history!  But whatever happens, it’s not real, it’s a bubble universe that passes at some point and hey, okay, sure, thanks for playing.

(And if it is #3, then fuck the Marvel Editorial Team for getting out there in TIME Magazine and USA Today and convincing the fans by saying, “Oh, no, this is really how it is.”  Lying to mislead us didn’t work out for JJ Abrams in Star Trek II, and it would be similarly icky here.)

So it’s possible that the team has some new trick up their sleeve, one we’ve never seen before in eighty years of comics stunts, but it’s highly unlikely.  Chances are very good that what we’re reacting to is entirely valid.  Because turning Marvel’s paragon of moral certainty into a compromised spy is either a really ham-handed insult to Kirby and Simon and Schuster’s legacy (remember,  two Jews literally created Captain America because they wanted to have the strength to punch out twenty-five Nazis), or it’s the exact sort of shoddy linkbait PR technique that was done largely for shock effect.  (We’ll get to “What if I’m wrong?” in a moment.)

But let’s be honest: Anti-heroes are lazy fucking writing.

Anyone can write a character who is morally compromised.  The storylines come quick and easy when you have a hero who does the wrong thing periodically – when they get backed into a moral corner, fuck it, they murder somebody and mourn!  Oh, it’s easy!  They get to do whatever they want!

The reason Captain America and Superman are hard to write is because creating adventures for a hero who must a) retain the high moral ground, b) be challenged, and c) win is, as Tailsteak once said, like writing a haiku.  Yes, it’s hard to do that and make it interesting.  That’s the point.  That’s why Captain America is iconic when thousands of other similar heroes have failed – he’s one of the most heroic heroes ever.

Compromising his moral identity makes it a lot easier to tell stories about him, in the same sense that playing football gets a lot easier when a player carries a submachine gun onto the field.  Maybe there’s still some strategy, but it’s not football any more.   Writing a Captain America story involves finding the real tensions that tempt even a paragon to shave a few moral corners, putting enough pressure on that you can’t possibly see how he’ll get out of it, and then watching him do it.

The reason Marvel did this is because they know this isn’t how Captain America isn’t supposed to be, and yet either they see “Taking the thing away that made Captain America interesting” as a positive achievement – which is bad – or they’re willing to burn fans’ good will towards Captain America to generate cheap publicity over an event they know they’ll have to erase, which is even worse.

But!  My own personal objections aside, let’s say that the team has found some way to thread the needle, and this new Captain America will become utterly amazing down the line.  It’s happened.  I was violently against bringing Barry Allen back in the Flash, back when Barry Allen had died to make a noble sacrifice for the world and Wally West had taken over for eight years – but damn if Mark Waid didn’t turn that into one of the greatest Flash storylines ever.

So let’s say it’s going to get good.  Really good.

Should people judge the story by this first issue?

Fuck yes we should.

Look, part of art is knowing where the reader’s going to pause, and manipulating that expectation to be satisfying.  One of the reasons the world is glued to Game of Thrones is because yes, it’s good for binge-watching – but the creators know that for many, the experience of GoT is tuning in once a week and waiting in anticipation for what happens next.

They set up their cliffhangers very carefully, because they know that most of their viewers’ expectations are shaped by when this chapter ends.

Narrative is governed by tempo.  If a dear friend came up to you and told you, “I have a cancer problem,” and then disappeared for a week, leaving you to stew and wonder what had gone wrong, you’d be furious when they came back and said, “I was born in July!  I hate my astrological sign! Ha ha!”  But that joke, cheap and stupid as it is, might work if you gave them a second’s pause before dropping the punchline.

Writing is about rhythm.  It’s about satisfying all the audiences that might watch this – LOST and X-Files were very satisfying to people who watched it chapter by chapter, but in the end they couldn’t pull together a coherent storyline, and that’s the opposite failure, and it’s just as bad.

So it’s not wrong to judge a story by how it’s satisfying in the short term.  This is how it’s initially told.  Marvel knows that at some point, this first issue of Captain America would stop and then people would have reactions to it that determined whether they bought the next issue.  That’s how the biz works.

And they chose to go for shock value.

Which is, I should mention, fine.  I don’t agree with this artistic decision, but they have the right to go for shlocky shock, just as DC had the right to turn Batman vs Superman into a grit-fest.  But they set the tone for a storyline that people appear to be roundly rejecting, and you know what?

If I write a shitty first chapter to my next novel (coming out in September, I remind you!), it is not wrong for you to conclude, “Wow, I won’t like the rest of this book.”

Your conclusion might be wrong.  Plenty of stories start out slow and build to brilliant endings.  (I infamously had to make five running starts at Dune before I got hooked.)

But if you fail to read the rest of the book with the shitty opening chapter, that’s not a failure on the reader’s part.  That’s a failure on the author’s part in drawing you in.  Or it’s a marketing failure on the publisher’s part by giving you a cover promising shiny space unicorns and giving you an opening chapter with gritty military violence.  Or it’s just a generic failure that’s really nobody’s fault because hey, the greatest epic poetry ever written won’t appeal to someone who hates poems.

But it’s not a failure on your part, because reading should not be an experience in “Who can chew this tin foil the longest.”

If you don’t like it, leave when you’ve had your fill.

Maybe this storyline is going somewhere unexpected and wondrous.  But by presenting that first issue as they did, Marvel and crew set up an expectation that either a) this is pretty damn disrespectful to Kirby’s legacy, or b) this is the kind of tawdry stunt-PR crap that’s destroying comics.

Would I know how to fix this error in the first comic?  No.  That would depend on knowing where they are going with this.  And even then, it’d be hella-tricky.  But as I said, it’s not the reader’s job to make it easy on the writer.

And Marvel knew this would cause a shitstorm.  It’s why they had stories ready to go in major media outlets.  I don’t feel all that sorry for the hatred they’re enduring, because they had to know this was part of the cost of doing business.  They’re not surprised, they’re braced, and they’re hoping this generates new sales.  I can’t feel all that bad for someone who purposely triggered a barrage of social media.  (Especially when the writer of this storyline seems to be sniggering at the rage trollishly on Twitter, but Twitter’s a remarkably hard place to read strangers’ state of mind.)

And in my heart of hearts, I hope that I’m as wrong as I was when Mark Waid brought back the Flash. I stopped reading after that first “Barry Allen is back!” issue, and later picked up the back issues when someone told me that wow, this was way better than he’d thought, and even if it was ultimately option #3 on the Menu Of Grand Comics History Changes, it was perhaps the best Option #3 that anyone ever did.

So I’ll hope this is a good story, in time.

But I’ll also argue that when they’ve only given you this issue to ponder for the next month, it’s not wrong to base your decision to dislike it upon literally everything they’ve presented to you.

Oh, and one last thing about the guy who wrote this storyline:

Cross-posted from Ferrett's Real Blog.

theferrett: (Meazel)

Here’s the thing nobody denies: speaking out helps other people. Every time a gay person comes out, they help normalize “being gay” for other people. Every time a depressed person speaks openly about their struggle, they help to reduce the stigma of a crippling condition they didn’t ask to have. Every time someone smacks down racist or sexist talk in public, they help send the message that that kind of talk is not cool.

What few people mention is that those discussions help other people but may harm you.

We’ve all heard about the kid who came out as gay and his family disowned him. Someone openly admitting their mental health struggles can be passed over for promotions at work because, well, they’re crazy. Yelling at your friends for racist or sexist language can cost you friends – and it’s all well to go “Well, those aren’t the kinds of friends you should have!”, but that’s scant consolation when you’re lonely.

Speaking out hurts.

And yet there’s often this liberal narrative that good people burst out of the closet, muscles rippling, while these sad poisoned Gollum-like people stay within. If your game store is full of homophobic assholes, a good person would charge in there like a bull, call them on all their shit, face them down mano a mano until they bent underneath your herculean will!

What kind of weak asshole would just choose not to play at that store?

But here’s the truth: Speaking out helps other people, but protecting yourself is also a priority.

This does not make you a bad person.

Look: I’m openly polyamorous… now. But my wife and I were poly for several years before we acknowledged it on the Internets, and I’m not ashamed to say that we kept that shiz under wraps because we had two teenaged daughters who lived with their biological father. Maybe he’d be cool with our open marriage, or maybe he’d decide this was time to go to court to get the kids out of the hands of those perverts.

We had to weigh our desire to speak out against the very real cost of maybe not getting summer visits with our kids.

I don’t regret that choice one fucking bit. I regret not speaking out, of course. But in the end, it’s nice to do good by giving poly workshops and helping other poly couples feel represented and sharing my experiences… but I wouldn’t be able to do any of that anyway if I wasn’t able to talk to my kids, as I’d be too miserable to function.

Likewise, not everyone has the energy to fight grand battles at their schools or family meals or game stores – or even if they do, they don’t have the energy to fight every battle that comes along, because shit, you can grind yourself to dust grappling with every microaggression, and is it really worth the progress you’ll make if you destroy yourself along the way?

It’s not wrong to pick your battles. It’s not wrong to prioritize your own survival over forging paths for other people’s future benefits. You should fight wherever you can, of course, and don’t make the closeted gay Republican mistake of trashing your own people to fit in, but…

In the end, any good movement is about finding compassion. And we should celebrate the people who fight the good battles, because they make headway. But those stories all too often end like Christ Himself did, with some poor schmuck dying horribly and a weeping family and a legacy that only kicks into play years after the pain and the survivors have faded.

And your movement should be understanding enough to not view you as a soldier to be shot up in the front lines, but as a human with needs who deserves as much love and support as anyone else.

Your activism can be part-time, when you have the strength to do it. Not every combatant can be a warrior on the front lines; there should be room for guerrilla tactics, and spies, and even noncombatants who occasionally lend hugs to the people who need them.

You have to protect yourself so you can fight whenever you can, in whatever way you can. You might not be up for every battle. You might, in fact, be totally unable to fight some battles because you know that losing your kids or your parents or your social group is not something you can afford to do right now.

That’s okay. Protecting yourself does not make you a bad person.  Find the places where you can afford to make change, but don’t beat yourself up for not being able to be as “bold” as other people, because part of this journey is in finding your own strengths and learning how you can contribute even with the very real compromises that everyone has to make.

Just don’t give up.

Cross-posted from Ferrett's Real Blog.

theferrett: (Meazel)

So I’m looking to do another book tour in the fall to promote the final book in the ‘Mancer series, Fix. Last year, I hit Cleveland, New York, Boston, San Francisco, San Diego, Seattle, and Portland: this year, I’m hoping to add a couple more stops, because apparently I dislike this whole “rest” thing.

That said, I had people saying, “Come sign at my town!” – and while I love showin’ up places, remember that this book tour is on my dime. It’s not really a book tour, where publishers pay for my hotel and plane fare – it’s more like a book vacation, where hey, I have a few weeks to go new places and visit friends, so why not anchor a big swingy trip with bookstore appearances?

So if you’d like me to show up in your town this September/October, it involves some mild legwork:

1) Find me a contact at a bookstore who wants me to come there.
Simply saying, “Oh, $BOOKSTORE exists!” is not enough, sadly. When I planned my first book tour, about half the stores I called rejected me. And even now that I have people at Angry Robot to do the legwork for me (thanks, Mike Underwood, whose Kickstarter is running even as we speak!), I’d prefer not to ask them to do all the gruntwork of cold-calling a bookstore to have them go, “Who? Oh, fuck, no.”

So if you’d like me to come, give me a name of someone who’s happy to have an author there.

2) Unless that bookstore is willing to pay for me to go out there, said bookstore should be within a night’s driving distance of Cleveland, Ohio.
Hey. If you want to pay me to come to Australia? I will go, man. For any reason. “Ferrett, come to Europe and don’t sell books, just do that funny little dance you do.” I’ll be putting on my tap shoes before you finish that sentence.

That said, as noted, this is a vacation, and while I’d love to fly to Austin or Las Vegas, I’ve got a limited budget. I’ll literally go anywhere if you’re willing to pay my travel expenses, but otherwise I can reasonably drive six to eight hours before I collapse.

(This also applies for convention appearances. People ask if I’ll give polyamory talks at their convention. I absolutely will! But I need to not lose money getting out there and back, so if you can fly me somewhere, email me at and we’ll talk details.)

3) Uh, Actually, That’s It.
So if you can do those things, lemme know, we’ll talk it over. Otherwise, maybe some day I’ll hit your town – I’d love to! I like doing signings and visiting new cities and meeting people and buying too many books at indie shops! This shiz is fun for me!

And, you know, I hope you enjoy the book, too. Which I am putting the final edits on this week. Wish me luck!

Cross-posted from Ferrett's Real Blog.


theferrett: (Default)

June 2016

    1 2 34
1213 14 15 16 1718
19 20 21 22 23 2425


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 27th, 2016 09:21 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios