In which we do a quick (ha) awards round up and squee about the Swancon that was.

News

We wanted you to read this review and be appalled
An issue to be addressed that we want more women reviewed … but not like that.
(but then they edited the review out from under us, so you can be appalled by that instead)

Hugo nominees have been released.

Ditmar, Tin Duck & other Australian award winners (including us!)

Wanted to draw attention to when Tansy won the Atheling and Grant Stone as MC said she was the first woman (invisibility of women)

1979 – Susan Wood, “Women and Science Fiction”, Algol 33, 1978
2007 – Justine Larbalestier for Daughters of Earth: Feminist Science Fiction in the Twentieth Century
2009 – Kim Wilkins, for “Popular genres and the Australian literary community: the case of fantasy fiction”
2010 – Helen Merrick for The Secret Feminist Cabal: a cultural history of science fiction feminisms (Aqueduct Press)

Please send feedback to us at galacticsuburbia@gmail.com, follow us on Twitter at @galacticsuburbs, check out Galactic Suburbia Podcast on Facebook and don’t forget to leave a review on iTunes if you love us!

Except that, in response to a single commenter on their list who objected to the use of “rape as vengeance” in a scene in the book, the people behind the Bitch list reread the book and decided to remove it from the list, along with two others that had received complaints.

Several authors and readers, including Margo herself, have objected to this over Twitter. Some tweets have included:

@margolanagan Can’t quite believe this, but Bitch Magazine appear to have caved in and REMOVED TM from their 100 books list. http://tinyurl.com/4jx2qgd

@sarahockler: Your job is not to protect us from literature. Help us discover it. Engage us in conversation & debate. #bitchplease #speakloudly

(PS: the hashtag is awesome, guys, until you click it and realise how many people use the same hashtag WITHOUT IRONY. Ick.)

Scott Westerfeld, Maureen Johnson, Justine Larbalestier and Diana Peterfreund have all requested that their books be removed from the list, in protest to the removal of Tender Morsels.

It really surprises and disappoints me that Bitch Magazine were so lacking in belief in their original choices that they caved and removed these books at the first hint of controversy, rather than letting them stand and allowing discussion about these books to continue. I find it a little boggling that “moral ambiguity” is presented here as a negative, instead of the sort of thing that literature is supposed to do.

I commented on the removal myself:

I am really disappointed in the decision to remove Margo Lanagan’s Tender Morsels from your list. This is a sophisticated, complex piece of fantasy fiction which deals with the psychological recovery of an abuse victim, and how this affects both her own view of the world and how she parents her daughters – indeed, how abuse can have a knock-on effect into the next generation. It has a great deal to say about the traditional roles of women in the history of fairy tales and fantasy fiction, and is absolutely a book to recommend to young, mature feminist readers.

This is a very skewed, shallow reading of one of the most important fantasy novels of the decade.

The reasons given for the books removed seems to have been through worry that the titles were not quite feminist enough, which suggests a really problematic attitude to feminist literature: that only books which contain 100% feminist theme count, perhaps? An awful lot of excellent, important feminist literature is also problematic. Most really crunchy books are, in one way or another.

I really like Diana Peterfreund’s comment about “safely feminist list”. The books chosen to replace those withdrawn are very safe choices: a Diana Wynne Jones, a Robin McKinley, and a John Marsden. All really great books, and yet none of them have as much to say as Tender Morsels.

Tender Morsels is a hard book, a difficult book, and it simply drips with moral ambiguity. If you don’t think it belongs on a YA recommended reading list, that’s your choice, but don’t be brave enough to put it on there, and then flick it off the second someone remembers that there are some icky bits in it.

UPDATE: There are some amazing comments over at that list and they’re just getting better.

I follow up this topic with Strong Books Make Strong Girls.

EPISODE 23

In which we greet a brand new year with discussion about digital media, awards, books, feminism, feedback, more books, anti-heroes, gender roles and take a look at what to look forward to in 2011.

News

Follow up on the Jewish fantasy discussion by Rachel Swirsky

Locus to go digital with issue #600

Launch of the Cascadia Subduction Zone, new critical zine with focus on women’s work

The i09 Power List: 20 people who rocked SF & Fantasy in 2010

Carl Brandon Awards: Hiromi Goto and Justine Larbalestier

Hugo nominations open – last year’s members of Aussiecon 4, don’t forget you’re eligible to nominate!

Feedback: Kaia, Kathryn & Thoraiya

What Culture Have we Consumed?
[AND what culture are we most looking forward to consuming in 2011?]

Alisa: Fringe Season 3, Dexter Season 4, Being Erica (ep 1), Nurse Jackie, How I Met Your Mother, reading Managing Death
Looking forward to: LSS 2011

Alex: Zombies vs Unicorns, ed. Larbalestier and Black; Factotum, book 3 of Monster Blood Tattoo, by DM Cornish; Dervish House, Ian McDonald; The Killing Thing, Kate Wilhelm; Surface Detail, Iain M Banks.
Looking forward to: Blue Remembered Earth (probably), by Alastair Reynolds; books 2&3 of The Creature Court, Tansy Rayner Roberts; the 2011 Women in SF Book Club; Bold as Love sequence (Gwyneth Jones); Twelve Planets (from Twelfth Planet Press).

Tansy: Wiped, Richard Molesworth; The Doctor Who Christmas Special! The Gene Thieves & the Norma, Ascendant, Diana Peterfreund, Big Finish Podcast
Looking forward to: Doctor Who and Fringe (SHOCK, I know), Sherlock, Torchwood, The Demon’s Surrender by Sarah Rees Brennan, Burn Bright by M. de Pierres.

Please send feedback to us at galacticsuburbia@gmail.com, follow us on Twitter at @galacticsuburbs, check out Galactic Suburbia Podcast on Facebook and don’t forget to leave a review on iTunes if you love us!

SHOW NOTES:

Consider yourself warned. This is an incredibly spoilery discussion of LIAR by Justine Larbalestier. It’s not a little bit spoilery. It’s a LOT spoilery. And if you don’t believe us that this is the kind of book that you really truly don’t want to be spoiled for, consider the facts:
1) We invented the Galactic Spoilerific Book Club purely to discuss this book
2) We actually feel a bit uncomfortable even mentioning how much you don’t want to be spoiled for this book, because that in itself might mess with your reading experience
3) You trust us, right?
If on the other hand you have read LIAR by Justine Larbalestier, come on by and listen to us flap our hands as we try to articulate just what’s going on in this book.

Also, stretching back into the mists of time before Galactic Suburbia existed (hard to imagine, I know) check out Alex, Alisa and Tansy podcasting back in 2008 with our friend Kathryn, on the (then) entire bibliography of works by Justine. Yes, it’s a Larbalestpalooza!

In essence, Zombies V. Unicorns is an anthology about prejudice. Unicorns and zombies are both fantasy tropes which tend to provoke strong reactions in people – of a yuchhhh variety. Apart from a few notable exceptions, I’ve generally been in Camp Zombies and Unicorns Both Suck, which makes this anthology extra useful as it’s a book for people who thought they hated one, the other or both, which is full of great, vibrant stories designed to make you change your mind.

Having said all that, counting the seven stories I really liked out of the anthology, I have four unicorns to three zombies, and three out of my top four are farting rainbows. Unicorns for the win!

One of the most enjoyable aspects of the anthology is the editorial voices, who bicker and bitch their way through the story notes, and mock each other’s choices. It’s great fun to read, though I was very cranky that one of their amusing interchanges spoiled a twist element from Margo Lanagan’s story. Don’t read the intro note to hers until after the story itself!

My favourites:

Alaya Dawn Johnson’s “Love Will Tear Us Apart” was a gut-wrenching story of fear and love, showing the point of view of a zombie with brains (not the edible kind), and how a functional, intelligent zombie might be very like a serial killer. Icky, powerful stuff, with a strong thread of unrequited love which got under my skin.

Margo Lanagan’s “A Thousand Flowers” looks at the medieval tradition of unicorn stories, and tells a tale of courtly love and a disgraced, pregnant lady through the eyes of three different narrators. It’s a beautifully written piece that unfolds slowly.

Diana Peterfreund’s “The Care and Feeding of Your Baby Unicorn” comes from the same world as her novels Rampant and Ascendant, and the story “Errant” which appeared in Kiss Me Deadly. In this, she tells the story of Wen, a girl with unicorn-hunting heritage whose family refused to let her go to be trained properly in Rome, thanks to their religious beliefs. Wen is charged to care for a helpless infant unicorn at a time when her whole town is being terrorised by a larger, deadlier example of the species. Caring for the unicorn means lying to her family and possibly rearing a monster who will turn on her… it’s a powerful, page-turning character story, and I was disappointed when it came to an end.

Meg Cabot’s “Princess Prettypants” makes fun of the kind of unicorn any right-thinking hipster loves to hate – up to and including rainbow-coloured farts! It’s a very cool teen story about friendship and loyalty and bad choices. Those of you who were angry and frustrated at the recent don’t-sext-your-boyfriend-or-we’ll-shame-you ad campaign will enjoy a particular aspect of this story, in which one girl and her unicorn help a friend to get revenge against a badly behaved dude at a party.

I also really enjoyed Naomi Novik’s “Purity Test,” Maureen Johnson’s “Children of the Revolution” and Scott Westerfeld’s “Innoculata.”

Not only do I recommend this book heartily to fans of good YA spec fic, regardless of their opinions of zombies and unicorns, I recommend you buy it in hardcover. It’s not that expensive, and the production is gorgeous.

There have been many clever things on the internet this week.

Random Alex reviews the Secret Feminist Cabal, a book so excellent that it reduces me to happy flappy arm movements and little actual critical response.

Very smart article about a very smart woman who has written about the myth of the perceived gender gap, and how girls and boys don’t actually have different kinds of brains, we just think they do because people keep saying VERY LOUDLY how different boys and girls are.

An interesting round up of the average & generally-desired word lengths for different kinds of novels.

Cat Valente announces a special Arab-Muslim issue of Apex and calls for submissions from writers.

Scalzi gives advice for balancing stay-at-home parenting with writing.

A great post about Aussiecon from the POV of a newbie – I particularly loved his description of the convention centre:

In practice, the majority of meetings seemed to take place between people travelling on opposing escalators. They would laugh, touch hands and issue forlorn promises to catch up later as they were whisked apart by the remorseless grind of technology. I was amazed at the foresight of the organisers, selecting a site that provided such a brilliant metaphor for the science fiction dystopia.

Maureen Johnson responds to the ‘boys need more boy books’ debate with a brilliant, heartfelt post about the long history of girls having to read and appreciate male authors.

I’ve been enjoying Jo Walton’s re-read posts over the last couple of months, and in this case she reads and compares Robin McKinley’s two Beauty and the Beast novels: Beauty, and Rose Daughter. These are two of my favourite books, so it was interesting to read her thoughts on them, and on the strange phenomenon of an author telling the same story twice.

Finally, Karen Healey is doing a reviewathon today to fundraise for a relief fund in Christchurch. At current count she will be reviewing flat out for eight hours, but we can make it longer by donating to the cause! If nothing else it should be a very entertaining day, and I’m one of the guest reviewers she has roped in to help. I reviewed all my favourite Roman things!

For once I’m just putting up one answer! Though as usual, struggling not to put up one of my own!

Other Days of the Book Meme:

Day 01 – A book series you wish had gone on longer OR a book series you wish would just freaking end already (or both!)
Day 02 – A book or series you wish more people were reading and talking about
Day 03 – The best book you’ve read in the last 12 months
Day 04 – Your favorite book or series ever
Day 05 – A book or series you hate
Day 06 – Favorite book of your favorite series OR your favorite book of all time
Day 07 – Least favorite plot device employed by way too many books you actually enjoyed otherwise
Day 08 – A book everyone should read at least once
Day 09 – Best scene ever
Day 10 – A book you thought you wouldn’t like but ended up loving
Day 11 – A book that disappointed you
Day 12 – A book or series of books you’ve read more than five times
Day 13 – Favorite childhood book OR current favorite YA book (or both!)
Day 14 – Favorite character in a book (of any sex or gender)
Day 15 – Your “comfort” book
Day 16 – Favorite poem or collection of poetry
Day 17 – Favorite story or collection of stories (short stories, novellas, novelettes, etc.)
Day 18 – Favorite beginning scene in a book
Day 19 – Favorite book cover (bonus points for posting an image!)
Day 20 – Favorite kiss
Day 21 – Favorite romantic/sexual relationship (including asexual romantic relationships)
Day 22 – Favorite non-sexual relationship (including asexual romantic relationships)
Day 23 – Most annoying character ever
Day 24 – Best quote from a novel
Day 25 – Any five books from your “to be read” stack
Day 26 – OMG WTF? OR most irritating/awful/annoying book ending
Day 27 – If a book contains ______, you will always read it (and a book or books that contain it)!
Day 28 – First favorite book or series obsession
Day 29 – Saddest character death OR best/most satisfying character death (or both!)
Day 30 – What book are you reading right now?

Amelia’s first zomromcom novel The Loving Dead sounds all kinds of awesome and if I hadn’t already pre-ordered it, I would be doing so on the strength of this podcast! The discussion of Kelly Link’s influence on how zombie stories can be told was also really interesting. Also the most recent zombie contingency plan I read was in a Glee fanfic. They get around!

The gang discuss the growing divide in the scene between short and long fiction as one is increasingly published by small/independent presses and the other by mass market. While I agree with this discussion in the main, I do think it should be pointed out that the one area this seems to not be true (and is becoming less true if that makes sense) is YA. I’ve been saying for the last couple of years that some of the most interesting work in spec fic seems to be coming out of the YA field. I’ve also noticed more and more mass market short fiction collections emerging from that field – they might have trashy titles and seem to be mostly about vampires, zombies, boyfriends and prom dates, but they are also featuring some of the most respected writers in the field, such as Holly Black, Libba Bray, the Larbalesterfelds, and so on. I see these books popping up in places like the local Big W (the closest thing Australia has to a Wal-Mart, I think) and can never resist picking them up, because even though sometimes they will have a bunch of cheeseball Buffy wannabe tales in them, there is almost certain to be a couple of real gems, and even the average stories are a lot more readable to me than the contents of an average issue of F&SF.

This is particularly noteworthy, I think, considering the massmarket paperback release of Kelly Link’s YA collection, Pretty Monsters. I’ve seen it a few places and didn’t buy it because I knew I had all the stories, but since then the very existence of that book has (quite appropriately) been eating my brain, to the point that I know next time I go into town I am going to pick it up. It’s a freaking Kelly Link book, and seeing it on bookshelves in my home town instead of having to order a pretty hardback from Small Beer Press is all kinds of awesome. I regularly lend out her first two collections, and I know that this is a book I will regularly press into people’s hands. So yes, I’m going to be buying it.

I’m actually completely in the mood to reread Kelly Link’s body of work, and not just because of Gary Wolfe reminding me how awesome Magic For Beginners was.

Another point of interest was the discussion stemming from the MindMeld, and Jonathan’s question as to how to discuss the accepted history of the SF field without being horribly sexist by definition (my paraphrase). I always find it odd when default white males such as the quoted Mike Resnick use the ‘history was just like that, I don’t have to think beyond it’ argument in defence of why some books are classics.

No book/story is a classic just because. It’s a classic because people loved it and talked about it and it was published and reprinted and talked about… and that’s fine. But the thing about history is, it isn’t a stagnant thing. History changes. If you want to talk about what books you loved when you were 15 or what books everyone thought were the most significant contributors to the field fifty years ago, that’s awesome, but be aware that this is what you are doing.

We don’t teach Australian history the same way we did ten years ago, or twenty years ago, or a hundred years ago. History doesn’t stay the same. It changes to adapt to new perspectives, to a broadening of priorities, and it is never ever ever a case of right vs. wrong. History is what we remember, and a huge part of that is choice. This is particularly the case in the history of literature, when the question of what is good or bad, important or indifferent, is shaped by personal taste. In the case of the history of science fiction, it was shaped by a number of choices, and many of those choices were shaped by ingrained and systematic forms of sexism and racism, and trying to ignore that in the same way it has been ignored in previous decades is becoming more and more problematic.

For a long time, there was one mainstream history of science fiction (the Gernsback continuum) which was quite rigidly defended, and a few more specific sub-histories that took on ‘special’ themes or interests (the Tiptree Award continuum being one of these, probably several others named after Shirley Jackson and Carl Brandon, and you get the general idea…) and now we’re at a time when a younger generation is pretty much demanding that all of the histories be pushed together and possibly reinvented to catch up to the 21st century literary priorities, and it is understandably challenging to some people who are used to never looking beyond the goggles of their comfy Gernsback continuum.

I’m sure at this point Jonathan is expecting me to shout at him! But I’d actually like to say how pleased I am that he is talking about how complicated this dialogue is, as the parameters and expectations change and the ground shifts from under our feet. The dialogue has fractured, and it is changing, and that’s okay, we can all be here to hold each other’s hands through the bumpy parts of the ride. It’s good to acknowledge how problematic and difficult the dialogue can be at times, as long as that isn’t used as an excuse to halt the conversation, or to steer the conversation back to the parameters. I’d much rather hear someone say “I don’t know how to talk about this now” than “let’s keep having the same dialogue we’ve been having for the last 30 years in exactly the same way.”

I really enjoyed the part of the discussion where Amelia talked about how words like ‘must read’ and ‘important’ are so very off-putting, and I also enjoyed that that the group delved into a pretty good definition of ‘important’ as far as SF books/canon is concerned – that is, how much influence those works have on works currently being written. It certainly sparks all sorts of thoughts about what classic books are more and indeed less relevant now than they were twenty of thirty years ago!

All in all I am finding the discussions “from the back deck” rather crunchy and thought provoking!

Or was it just me?

I’ve always been remotely fascinated by Lost, actually, mostly because the first season was a phenomenon that I missed out on entirely, and the waves of disappointment started coming in round about the first episode of season two, and there were so many comparisons to the ways in which X Files both failed and succeeded, and yet… the show kept going. For six years.

And for most of those six years, the two kinds of sayers (doom and nay) have been gleefully reporting that, you know, it was never going to end well. Seriously. It was going to disappoint. All of you who love it? DOOMED to be disappointed.

Now the episode has screened the reports are in, and it’s a mixture of wailing, gritted teeth, WTF, disappointment, and even a few ‘well I liked it actually’s sneaking in here and there. Opinions seem to be divided, depending on expectations – those who never wanted explanations for every event are certainly the happiest! I’ve been fascinated to read the various viewer responses, despite having little to no investment in the show itself.

Then there was Battlestar Galactica, a show which veered so rapidly between awesome and fail, which I was entirely in the thick of, and determined to like despite all those wails and moans about how it ended, and… yes. I was burned. Deeply. I liked many parts of it that others hated, gritted my teeth over the Biblical imagery because, hey, it was written on the tin, but ultimately couldn’t forgive it for the treatment of female characters.

However many problems I had with the BSG finale, though, it was satisfying kind of in the way that eating burnt toast with lots of butter is satisfying. Once you’re done, at least it’s over.

Endings have been on my mind a lot lately. I bet you can’t guess why.

The trouble with discussing endings is that there are usually going to be people reading who don’t know how it ends, and thus will be spoiled, and spoiling endings is pretty much The Worst Thing Ever on the internet.

I’ll let you in on a little secret: sometimes I like to be spoiled. It eases the stress. My first fandom and TV love was Doctor Who, and I watched it in entirely the wrong order, and read programme guides, and knew roughly what I was getting into every single time. It didn’t harm my enjoyment a bit. On the other hand, I will never quite forgive myself for compulsively reading transcripts of Buffy Season 3 before the season aired, and thus completely wrecking (or at least altering) my experience of watching it.

Sometimes spoiling is the most effective way of explaining why a story is good. We were talking on Galactic Suburbia recently about how the whole point about Justine Larbalestier’s Liar is that it’s best read knowing as little as possible about the story, except for the premise. The trouble with this is that it’s hard to explain why, beyond the premise, some people should TOTALLY READ THIS BOOK, without spoiling it. Blake’s 7 is another one, where most people start out by telling you the end because the end is one of the main selling points of the show to viewers who might otherwise be dubious about “BBC science fiction full of anti-heroes made in the 70′s”.

The end of both versions of Life on Mars has been much discussed – the UK version being a fascinatingly complex and yet annoyingly mundane resolution (which would have been better if it hadn’t been billed as a mystery surprise in the credits – the whole point of the show was not in fact the unfolding of a mystery surprise), and the US version becoming a laughing stock faster than anyone can say “really, they cancelled it already?”

I have a confession to make. I got myself spoiled for the final of Ashes to Ashes. I don’t know if this is a good or bad thing. I will still watch the third season with great enjoyment, because I’m not there for the mystery resolution. I think I feel better for knowing. At the same time, I am desperately trying to avoid spoilers for this season of Doctor Who, simply because I do have such great trust in Moffat and I want to see what he offers us.

Even if he did end Press Gang the way he did. That bastard.

Buffy ended well. Xena ended well. Both had powerful, significant, meaningful and completely epic finales, which made statements about the show as a whole, and about the most important characters within said show.

Ending a series brings more weight of expectation than ending a movie, or a single standalone novel. There are more ends to tie up. More things to be said. You can understand how Tolkien ended up ending Lord of the Rings with a veritable parade of endings, which took up a disproportionate chunk of the final volume. David Eddings had similar tendencies, and again, you can see why. Readers and viewers who follow a series have put in a greater commitment than one-off consumers. They deserve a certain degree of closure, even if the results might not be what they are hoping for, and getting that balance is a very, very tricky thing to do.

Diana Wynne Jones, one of my favourite writers, always seemed to end her books about a chapter too soon. I wonder if that’s actually better than adding a chapter too many?

It would be nice, considering how long this blog post is, if I had a meaningful paragraph to end it with. But I think I’ll quit while I’m ahead.

(NOTE: can any commenters please put specific spoiler alerts if referring to details of particular endings? We don’t want to break the internet)

Check out our show notes below!

News

Nebula Awards winners

Asimov’s and Analong Reader Poll Results

The Wesleyan Anthology of Science Fiction releases table of contents

Also there was controversy & discussion on the web recently about the table of contents of Before They Were Giants:
Tansy’s post
Alisa’s post

Aurealis Awards live again, much to everyone’s relief.

Will Online Magazines End the Eternal Slugfest Between Genre and Literary Fiction? — Jason Sanford @ Sf Signal

Angry Robot announces new podcast series hosted by Mur Lafferty and featuring our own Kaaron Warren in August

What have we been reading/listening to?

Alex: Unseen Academicals, Terry Pratchett; The James Tiptree Award Anthology 1, from 2003 (my picks: Geoff Ryman’s “Birth Days;” Carol Emshwiller’s “Boys”, Ursula le Guin on “Genre,” Ruth Nestvold’s “Looking through lace”); David Eddings, Pawn of Prophecy…

Jonathan: Under Heaven, Guy Gavriel Kay; Kraken, China Mieville, Ship Breaker, Paolo Bacigalupi

Alisa: Liar, Buffy Vols 1 -4

Tansy: The White Cat, Holly Black; A Book of Endings, Deborah Biancotti, Girl Genius Vol 9; listening to Fablecroft reviewing podcast

Pet Subject – Anthologies!

*everyone says anthologies don’t sell but they’re still on the shelves, if in smaller numbers than the olden days. What makes an anthology marketable in 2010?
*What makes us pick up an anthology to read, or choose one from the stack?
*What is the purpose of the Best Of? Is there a competitiveness between the different Best Of editors/books?
*What’s your dream anthology?

Feedback etc: galacticsuburbia@gmail.com