November songs

My November mix went something like this:

  1. “Iowa (Traveling III)” by Dar Williams
  2. “Lost Highway” by Willie Nelson
  3. “There’s Hope for You” by William Elliot Whitmore
  4. “Pantry” by Lyle Lovett
  5. “Blue Skies” by Young Republic
  6. “This Year” by the Mountain Goats
  7. “Don’t Change” by INXS
  8. “B.O.B. (Bombs Over Baghdad)” by Outkast
  9. “Brother Sport” by Animal Collective
  10. “Two Weeks” by Grizzly Bear
  11. “Stupid in Love” by Rihanna
  12. “Ramalama (Bang Bang)” by Róisín Murphy
  13. “Sugarfoot” by Black Joe Lewis & the Honeybears
  14. “East of Woodstock, West of Vietnam” by Tom Russell
  15. “We’re Not Gonna Take It” by Hellsongs
  16. “Stuck Inside of Mobile (with the Memphis Blues Again)” by Pat Guadangno & Tired Horses
  17. “Hell” by Tegan and Sara
  18. “Toenail Moon” by Wee Hairy Beasties
  19. “Over at the Frankenstein Place” from The Rocky Horror Picture Show
  20. “My Body’s a Zombie for You” by Dead Man’s Bones

I’m always open to one-for-one mix trades.

Monday various

  • I watched George Romero’s The Crazies this weekend. While it was interesting, I think I like the movie that John Seavey describes more than the one I actually saw:

    It’s not a particularly cheerful movie; this is Romero at his most nihilistic, during the Vietnam era, suggesting that maybe insanity is endemic to the human condition and if we really were being driven mad, we might not notice the difference. But it’s also clever, tense, and filled with some haunting and evocative imagery, and it has some good acting from the principals. I recommend it.

    Still, I can’t in all honesty not recommend the film. It’s maybe not Romero at his very best or most polished, but it’s never uninteresting.

    I wish I could say the same about the trailer for the remake, which looks a lot more like just a generic zombie movie.

  • You stay classy, Gore Vidal. [via]
  • “Beaten stiff competition”? Oh, I see what you did there, you naughty thing. Who’s the best Bad Sex writer now?
  • “Come to New York: your chances of getting killed here have gone down significantly!” [via
  • And finally, speaking of New York… [via]

Science fiction vs. fantasy

Ask any writer or fan to define science fiction (or fantasy) — and lord knows, people have asked — you’ll get a lot of contradictory and only sometimes helpful answers. Here are just some that have been sitting around in my saved links for awhile:

“Science fiction writers don’t admit magic, they don’t admit UFOs even, but they accept as given these two magical properties [time travel and travel that exceeds the speed of light, so that, in a sense, even their science fiction is built on fantasy.” Robert J. Sawyer

“Magic gets to break the laws of nature. Science doesn’t. And that goes for science-fiction, too: It might do things that aren’t currently possible, but as soon as it starts breaking the laws of physics it has stepped out of science and into fantasy.” – Mary Robinette Kowal

“The failure mode of science fiction is NOT ‘fantasy,’ it is ‘bad science fiction.'” – John Scalzi

“…the term ‘science fiction’ is a misnomer, that trying to get two enthusiasts to agree on a definition of it leads only to bloody knuckles; that better labels have been devised (Heinlein’s suggestion, ‘speculative fiction,’ is the best, I think), but that we’re stuck with this one; and that it will do us no particular harm if we remember that, like ‘The Saturday Evening Post,’ it means what we point to when we say it.” – Damon Knight

“What can not be defined are genres. You can’t define poetry, the novel, tragedy, pornography, comics… and you cannot define academic criticism either. Now, you can describe all of them in perfectly useful ways. You can describe them so people can recognize them. So that particular provisional job that you have to do can get done. You just can not specify their necessary and sufficient conditions. So there are no root examples, no borderline cases. With different descriptions, different borderlines come into being. I think the genre or at least genre criticism, might take a major step forward if it simply threw out the term ‘definition.’ The term ‘description,’ would do perfectly well. The point is, if someone asks you, ‘How would you “describe” science fiction,’ the proper answer is: ‘For what particular purpose do you want this description?’ This is not the mood in which the question ‘How do you define sf?’ gets asked.” – Samuel R. Delaney

##

Meanwhile, Gerry Canavan is co-editing a Special Issue on SF, Fantasy, and Myth for Duke University Press, at least partly on where these definitions overlap and/or contradict one another.

As I’ve noted before, I usually find strict definitions of fantasy and science fiction (or any genre) pretty limiting. I think I most like what Delaney says above.