Posts Tagged ‘SF’

Recommended: WALL-​​E

Posted on:

Do you remem­ber that Disney CG film Dinosaurs? It’s orig­i­nal con­cept involved a fea­ture length movie with ani­mals that only emoted, and never spoke.  Having always been a big fan of com­puter ani­ma­tion, I was excited at the early rumors of the film.  Unfortunately, Disney execs got involved and the result was the talky-​​travesty that we even­tu­ally saw.  Okay, so maybe “trav­esty” is a strong word.  It wasn’t a bad film– It just failed to live up to it’s poten­tial as a work that stretched the bound­aries of its format.

WALL-​​E suc­ceeds in many, many ways, but the most fas­ci­nat­ing aspect for me was the extent to which Pixar relied on non­ver­bal com­mu­ni­ca­tion to con­vey the story.  I have a strong feel­ing that in prepa­ra­tion for this film, the ani­ma­tors watched reels and reels of silent com­edy films; Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin espe­cially.  Watch the move­ments of WALL-​​E, and I think you will see some of the exag­ger­ated man­ner­isms of those silent film stars.  Wall-​​E is all angles, but angles that can change their com­po­si­tion to one another, so he meets the basic prin­ci­ples of com­puter char­ac­ter ani­ma­ton estab­lished by John Lasseter so many years ago with Luxo.  He can squash and stretch.

(This review con­tains spoilers.)

Continue read­ing ›

The Strange Horizons fund drive, with member card art by me

Posted on:

Strange Horizons, one of the internet’s longest run­ning pro­fes­sional online spec­u­la­tive fic­tion mag­a­zines, is com­pletely funded by dona­tions from read­ers like you and me.  They con­sis­tently pub­lish award-​​winning, inter­est­ing work.  Without our help, they would not be able to do so.

Donors receive prizes and gifts in addi­tion to a nifty mem­ber­ship card with art­work by a dif­fer­ent artist each year.  This year,  the editor-​​in-​​chief approached me about doing a pho­to­graph for the mem­ber­ship card.  I have given them a Roundbottom–style image called “The Dissection.”  It looks exactly like it sounds.  The only way you can See that image in all its glory is to donate to Strange Horizons!  If you’re a Roundbottom com­pletest, send money now.

This is, by the way, the “secret” image and pho­to­shoot that I was refer­ring to a while back.  I’m very happy with the way it turned out.  In case you’re won­der­ing, the beau­ti­ful model is my wife.  The woman hold­ing the scalpel is just some per­son I dragged in off the street for the shoot. I kid!    You can catch a glimpse of the image over on the 2008 fund drive page.  Go check it out and let me know what you think.  I’ve had it on my desk­top as wall­pa­per for weeks, and I really dig it.

Speaking of Desktop Wallpaper…

Is that some­thing any of you would be inter­ested in me mak­ing from some of my pho­tog­ra­phy?  If you want wall­pa­per, just let me know what image and what res­o­lu­tion, and I will make it for you and post it on the site.  I’ll prob­a­bly include my name and site URL in the lower right hand cor­ner, just as  a lit­tle bit of adver­tis­ing for me, but leave it oth­er­wise unadorned.   Post your thoughts in the com­ments, or email me directly.

Five Unconventional Zine Model Ideas

Posted on:

The Dream Zine?

I hear what you’re think­ing, “You mean your dream mag­a­zine wasn’t the Fortean Bureau?” At the time, it was every­thing I could make it be with the con­straints (finan­cial, con­tent, for­mat) I worked under. And even though the mag­a­zine is on semi-​​permanent hia­tus, I still fol­low the pub­lish­ing side of ‘zines, and I’m still com­ing up with ideas for what I would do dif­fer­ently the next time. Here are a few of the ideas that I can’t stop think­ing about and wanted to share with you and see what you think. Many of them shake up the way things work now in a fun­da­men­tal way. Don’t take these ideas as to be an assault on the old ways, your favorite mag­a­zines, or your favorite writ­ers. These are thought exper­i­ments and can’t do you any harm.

Play With the Creative Commons: The Story Factory

Many writ­ers have released con­tent under the Creative Commons license, giv­ing explicit per­mis­sion for the kind of shar­ing that can­not be stopped thanks to the real­i­ties of the web. I think we’ve gen­er­ally reached a point where most non-​​Luddites accept the web for what it is. Many of us are hop­ing there will still yet be a way to give away con­tent online and still make some money with­out being famous in the first place. But that’s another topic for another time. I want to talk about the other types of Creative Commons licenses as a foun­da­tion for a dif­fer­ent kind of magazine.

The idea here is to pub­lish work, and pay very well for it, under the stip­u­la­tion that it must be released under a cre­ative com­mons license that allows for com­mer­cial deriv­a­tives. Essentially– pay authors to open source a story entirely. That’s step one.

And in an acknowl­edg­ment that the line between writ­ers and fans has blurred, in step two, you solicit sub­mis­sions that are built with the open source tools pro­vided by your core writer. Each pub­lish­ing cycle, you have one new open-​​source piece, and the pre­vi­ous month’s deriv­a­tive works. If you want, use the orig­i­nal author to help select the issue’s sec­ondary wave content.

Step three, once a year, you accept sub­mis­sions that are deriv­a­tive from every­thing from the pre­vi­ous year, which includes all second-​​wave works too (which were required to be released under share-​​a-​​like licenses as well). So, you end up with the orig­i­nal, the first wave of deriv­a­tive works, and then a third wave of deriv­a­tive works that can draw from all of the above. Essentially, a CC-​​licensed enforced shared world process, paid for by the mag­a­zine. Creating a form of legal fan fic­tion, but with the gate­way of an edi­tor to ensure qual­ity. Authors can always play in the worlds they cre­ated, but they open those worlds up from the start for oth­ers too.

Underlying all of this is link­ing tech­nol­ogy that threads the sto­ries together on the site, mak­ing it easy to find related con­tent. Wind this sucker up, and watch it go. Sell adver­tis­ing as your rev­enue model, maybe. Or pos­si­bly use the fund drive model.

User-​​Selected Content: The Mob

Digg is a social web­site that selects its con­tent by user con­sen­sus. Each mem­ber of the site can dig or bury a story, and these cause con­tent to rise to the front page, where it is seen by hun­dreds of thou­sands of read­ers. Take this model and apply it to the pub­lish­ing of a zine, with some modifications.

First of all, you have an edi­to­r­ial board that applies loose stan­dards, weed­ing out the truly awful stuff. The work above a very basic level of com­pe­tency is paid a small fee, say $10, and held for fur­ther con­sid­er­a­tion, with a max­i­mum limit set.

Create a mem­bers only, password-​​protected area for your core fan­dom. They pay a small yearly fee to have priv­i­leged access to con­tent. Then you dump the incom­ing slush pile into the hop­per and your core fans go to town, rank­ing and rat­ing the sto­ries, ulti­mately, giv­ing it a thumbs up or a thumbs down. At the end of a pub­lish­ing cycle, you take the best-​​rated sto­ries, and you pay them a larger fee, and then you reject the rest.

Some pub­lish­ers will argue that being taken to the sec­ond level of con­sid­er­a­tion will con­sti­tute being pub­lished. An adopter of this model should remain neu­tral on the issue, say­ing that this assess­ment is up to the indi­vid­ual mag­a­zines. Your rec­om­men­da­tion would be–send your work as a last resort, if this is a con­cern you have. The details will fall out over time, and other edi­tors will decide how they feel about work that’s been through your system.

Go Really Multimedia: The Soup

Let’s face it. You auto­mat­i­cally limit your audi­ence by focus­ing on genre lit­er­a­ture. The web allows you to pub­lish any infor­ma­tion at all. Take advan­tage of that. Publish comics, videos, ani­ma­tions, Flash games, illus­tra­tions, audio plays. Publish all of it, and most impor­tantly, don’t sec­tion every­thing off into lit­tle ghet­tos. The illus­tra­tions are not sec­ondary to the sto­ries. Everything is pre­sented on an equal foot­ing. It’s all spec­u­la­tive art.

Accept reprints here. You prob­a­bly can’t afford to demand exclu­sive rights in per­pe­tu­ity from the video mak­ers or illus­tra­tors, and your best work is going to be stuff that’s been out on the web already. The value of your zine is not its exclu­siv­ity but in the way it aggre­gates the best con­tent together. A one-​​stop shop for all the SF things you like. There’s a wealth of artists work­ing in a vari­ety of medi­ums, and the peo­ple that are fans of each one of these medi­ums could poten­tially be brought together under one roof, and then you could see more cross-​​pollination. Video watch­ers occa­sion­ally read­ing a story, maybe? A lot of genre fans don’t even know genre mag­a­zines exist. Bring those peo­ple in with the other con­tent and expose them to great con­tent. It’s a win for everybody.

Publish and Fund Alternate Reality Games: The Metaverse

I’ve nat­tered on about ARGs in the past. Some of the genre’s best writ­ers are mak­ing a par­tial liv­ing writ­ing for really big bud­get ARG games for com­pa­nies like Microsoft or the Beijing Olympics. There’s no rea­son we can’t take the gen­eral model here and build a mag­a­zine around it, except that they are gen­er­ally mas­sive undertakings.

So limit their scope. Think of the pre-​​existing ARGs as nov­els in scope. Take the con­cept and bring the expe­ri­ence down to one that can be played out in a few hours, or a month, here and there. As a pub­lisher, you would pro­vide tools to facil­i­tate the cre­ation, as well as edi­to­r­ial guid­ance. Perhaps a social net­work­ing tool to encour­age ARG mak­ers with dif­fer­ent skillsets to col­lab­o­rate and cre­ate the projects. Once projects are com­pleted, they are then sub­mit­ted for review. You can choose to pay for the project and run it as your con­tent, or not. If not, the team can take their game and pub­li­cize it themselves.

I leave the fund­ing model as an exer­cise for the reader, because I don’t have a clue.

Help the Fans Put their Money Where their Mouth is: The Rocket-​​shaped Piggy Bank

A com­mon com­plaint among fans is that they can’t find the work that they want to read. So build a mag­a­zine that uses basic eco­nom­ics to deter­mine which authors you pub­lish. Underlying it is a social net­work­ing tool that allows fans to find other fans with com­mon autho­r­ial inter­ests. Coalitions can be formed, and a data­base of work­ing SF authors is pro­vided. Authors can take con­trol of their pro­files and pro­vide infor­ma­tion to the fans–but the main idea here is to say “here’s what I need to do what you want.”

Inspired by the site Fundable, you take the basic idea of group fundrais­ing that doesn’t take any money until the goal is met, and you make it pos­si­ble for fans to pool resources and directly con­tract with authors to write sto­ries. At least at first, the fundrais­ers prob­a­bly shouldn’t be able to require any­thing spe­cific about the work other than its author, but it’s pos­si­ble that you could open up the model so that a group could offer boun­ties on sto­ries with ele­ments they like. For instance, The Coalition For More Robots raises $500 in pledged dona­tions for a story fea­tur­ing the kind of robots Asimov used to write about. The Coalition must elect edi­to­r­ial lead­ers. These lead­ers then receive offers from authors and choose whether or not to accept them as meet­ing their fund require­ments. The sys­tem would han­dle all the money side of things in addi­ton to the social net­work­ing aspects.

Part of your job as an edi­tor would partly be con­tact­ing the authors who have funds raised request­ing work from them and let­ting them know your site exists. Most SF writ­ers have some access to the web, so this would be easy with at least a cer­tain tier of writer. I have a feel­ing that the kinds of funds we would see would be directed at much big­ger name authors, like Martin, King, etc. Those may present dif­fi­cul­ties. You would have to develop a black­list of authors who would not take com­mis­sion work from the site for any amount of money, maybe, but even with­out it, nobody is under any oblig­a­tion to accept the com­mis­sions that the site helps organize.

In Conclusion

Some of the above, per­haps all of them, would fail. There are cer­tainly prob­lems with each one that I haven’t gone into here. I may pos­si­bly expand on each of these ideas in future posts, exam­in­ing how they might suc­ceed, or not, and pay­ing atten­tion to what kinds of fund­ing mod­els could keep them run­ning. And hey, if you want to launch a busi­ness based on any of these, just give me an oppor­tu­nity to invest early on, that’s all I ask.

What do you think? Do any of them spark your imag­i­na­tion? What is your dream zine?

An (Incomplete) Survey of Current Genre Magazine Covers

Posted on:

Paul Raven made a com­ment today on his blog com­par­ing the art­work on a cou­ple of dif­fer­ent mag­a­zine cov­ers. Warren Ellis has recently been on about cover design as well. So I thought today, I’d look at the lat­est batch of cov­ers for every mag­a­zine I could remem­ber, and write some gen­er­al­ized thoughts on the design. I’m a self-​​taught designer, so take my com­ments and crit­i­cisms with a grain of salt.

Continue read­ing ›

On The Popularity of Steampunk

Posted on:
New generation iPodsImage via Wikipedia

Does the New York Times arti­cle on Steampunk mean the genre/​fashion craze has made the high water mark and will begin to recede from here? What is the shelf-​​life of an aes­thetic move­ment, and for that mat­ter, what is the soci­o­log­i­cal force behind this par­tic­u­lar movement?

It’s a Stylistic Rebellion

Particularly as an aes­thetic move­ment, steam­punk is pop­u­lar pri­mar­ily with an under 30 set. This is a gen­er­a­tion that has rarely owned hand-​​crafted objects. Our con­sumer goods have been mass man­u­fac­tured, extruded plas­tic blocks. Aesthetic appeal was rarely a con­sid­er­a­tion, and even if it was, each prod­uct was exactly iden­ti­cal to the other. You could try and stand out through your par­tic­u­lar fash­ion sense and con­sumer good choices, but more often than not, you ended up look­ing like a thou­sand others.

Steampunk is a mid­dle fin­ger to the iPod, but it’s also a blown kiss. This move­ment says, “yes” to tech­nol­ogy and sci­ence, but also “does it have to look so anti­sep­tic?” The design aes­thetic of Apple appeals to many, as evi­denced by their stock prices, but it’s some­what repul­sive to oth­ers. And for a gen­er­a­tion who has rarely owned hand-​​crafted objects, the attrac­tion of tak­ing some­thing and mod­i­fy­ing it, craft­ing it, until it is yours and unique–is very strong. The Victorian period was not the last time things were made by hand, but it’s an aes­thetic dis­tantly enough removed from the mod­ern that it feels dif­fer­ent, more so than the 40s, 50s, 60s, etc. Steampunk is brown and brass, in con­trast to the whites and blacks of mod­ern design. It’s metal and wood, not plas­tic. It’s lace, not lycra.

It is also a call­back to a period when objects looked exactly as if they were capa­ble of what they could do. A square block of plas­tic does not con­vey its abil­ity to com­mu­ni­cate over vast dis­tances. There’s noth­ing inher­ently com­mu­nica­tive about it’s shape. A steam­punk ray gun, on the other hand, can­not be con­fused for much of any­thing else. Technology then was cruder, but you could tell what some­thing did by look­ing at it. You could see the inner work­ings, and those inner work­ings were much eas­ier to under­stand. I think most peo­ple feel they could learn to put watch pieces together. Not very many believe they could learn to man­u­fac­ture cir­cuit boards.

Has it peaked?

Unless you’re invested semi-​​professionally in the pop­u­lar­ity of the genre as I am, then this ques­tion doesn’t prob­a­bly mat­ter to you. Having spent most of my spring prepar­ing a series of images and sto­ry­lines that draw heav­ily from this aes­thetic, I am a lit­tle con­cerned that the pop­u­lar­ity of steam­punk is about to peak, if it hasn’t already. If the activ­ity on the steam­fash­ion group on Livejournal is any indi­ca­tion, pop­u­lar­ity has already begun to wane. I recently rejoined this group, and I have found that posts to it are increas­ingly infre­quent. Now it may just be that every­one is too busy mak­ing things, but I sus­pect some have already moved on to other fix­a­tions. After all, you could make a strong case that the fashion-​​aspect of steam­punk evolved out of Goth cul­ture, and so it’s not unrea­son­able to believe that it will con­tinue to evolve and frac­ture off into other sub-​​cultures. We already have terms like clock­punk and dieselpunk, even if these terms don’t have the same trac­tion in the zeit­geist that steam­punk has right now.

The nice thing about a genre and an aes­thetic that is based heav­ily on a his­tor­i­cal period is, it prob­a­bly never really goes out of fash­ion. There will always be some small sub­set of fans inter­ested in the time period. Let’s face it: steam­punk is freak­ing cool, and it’s going to take some­thing pretty dras­tic to change that. Even if that does change, it’s not like being uncool has ever stopped fans from lik­ing something.

5 Reasons Why SF/​F Author Websites should be (more) standards-​​based

Posted on:

I am often asked to com­ment on the web designs of friends and asso­ciates. It’s a tricky sit­u­a­tion for me. Regardless of the visual design, which is usu­ally fine, often, I find prob­lems under­neath the hood that are dif­fi­cult to explain. What I find are sites designed with tables-​​based lay­outs, using older HTML tech­niques. Today, I’d like to make the case for why you should dis­card that old way of design and move to standards-​​compliant design.

1. Accessibility

A web design done with stan­dards in mind is broadly acces­si­ble. I have noticed that the SF/​F fan­dom is par­tic­u­larly accept­ing of those with hand­i­caps and dis­abil­i­ties, but many SF-​​related web­sites do not take these fans into con­sid­er­a­tion. A prop­erly designed web site takes makes allowances for the use of screen read­ers and other acces­si­bil­ity tools. Tables based designs make a mess of this. Accessibility is a small part of standards-​​based designs, based on the num­ber of peo­ple that it effects. But do you really want to run the risk of alien­at­ing any poten­tial fans?

A graphical depiction of a very simple css documentImage via Wikipedia

2. Ease of Maintenance

With css/​xhtml-​​based designs, the con­tent is sep­a­rated (mostly) from the pre­sen­ta­tion. Here’s what this means: say you have a new book com­ing out that you want to pro­mote. If your site is built with old tech­niques, updat­ing your design involves a com­plete tear­down and rebuild. However, if your site has been built with stan­dards, you could sim­ply replace the stylesheet and have an entirely new design that reflects your pri­mary project. In gen­eral, these web­sites are very easy to make changes for, as far as pre­sen­ta­tion is con­cerned. Don’t like that link color? Edit the CSS, and it’ll change across the site.

3. SEO Implications

A standards-​​based design takes search engine opti­miza­tion into account straight away. Proper page struc­ture, even if it is not per­ceived by humans using browsers, will be picked up by index­ing ser­vices. Building your site with stan­dards in mind does not auto­mat­i­cally mean higher rank­ings, but it cer­tainly helps.

4. Less Bandwidth Intense

Standards-​​based designs are lean and quick. CSS is down­loaded once, whereas in the old way, the pre­sen­ta­tion would be down­loaded over and over again. Your file sizes are all-​​around smaller, which means a faster web­site, and hap­pier visitors.

5. Your web­site is like the cover of a book.

A standards-​​based design can look good or it can look bad. But more often than not, they look pretty good. Your web­site is like a book cover. Whether you know it or not, poten­tial read­ers are eval­u­at­ing whether or not to pick up your work based on your web­site. They may not even know it–it may just be sub­con­cious. But good design facil­i­tates the pre­sen­ta­tion of infor­ma­tion, and you are in the busi­ness of sell­ing that. Your web­site should reflect a level of pro­fes­sion­al­ism at least on par to the cover design of your books. Don’t com­mit a sin on the level of the SFWA web­site, please.

Afterword

Despite all this, I am not a stan­dard­sista. Sometimes to sat­isfy the desires of your client, you need to bend the stan­dards a lit­tle, and I still sleep okay when I have to do so. Like any­thing, you can go over­board with the idea of standards-​​based design. But in gen­eral, the above are some very good rea­sons for hir­ing a pro­fes­sional designer who is famil­iar with stan­dards to pro­vide your site–or if you are a do-​​it-​​yourself-​​er, pick­ing up some books on XHTML and CSS. This is the part where I plug me. You already know I do web design, but if you’re inter­ested in learn­ing more about my client process, visit my free­lance infor­ma­tion page.

RSS Awareness Day: How are SF zines doing?

Posted on:

Today is RSS Awareness Day. I usu­ally don’t put much stock in these arbi­trary aware­ness days, but RSS has changed the way I think about infor­ma­tion fun­da­men­tally, so I thought I’d talk a lit­tle bit about that today, with a focus on how zines have adopted the tech­nol­ogy, or not.

What is RSS?

RSS stands for Really Simple Syndication. In prac­tice, RSS involves a feed and a feed reader. Think of these com­po­nents as like a web­page, and a browser (except that feed read­ers can work in browsers, and feeds syn­di­cate the con­tent of web­sites, but let’s not go there just yet). The feed reader parses the con­tent of RSS feeds and presents them in a for­mat that you and I can read. The RSS feed is gen­er­ally made up of a form of XML, and is a sin­gle file con­tain­ing all the recent updates to a web­site, gen­er­ally the blog stuff. RSS feeds are the under­ly­ing tech­nol­ogy in pod­cast­ing as well.

In sim­ple terms, RSS feeds allow you to aggre­gate con­tent from a bunch of dif­fer­ent web­sites, keep­ing track of new con­tent, with­out hav­ing to visit the web­sites them­selves. There is more that can and will be done with the tech, but right now, this is the pri­mary use.

Why I Love RSS

I have a men­tal ill­ness that man­i­fests itself in an intense fear that some­where, some­thing is hap­pen­ing on the inter­net that is cool, and I am not read­ing about it. My RSS reader is my med­ica­tion, and I take an hourly dose. If not more.

Prior to using feed read­ers, I had a blog roll, and I would man­u­ally click through the links, check­ing each web­site one after another. I’d get to the end of the list and start over again. Ostensibly, my feed reader (Google Reader being my drug of choice) saves me time by col­lect­ing new entries from all these sites, sort­ing them, and allow­ing me to treat them more like email than web­sites. Each post comes in as a sep­a­rate item, and I mark them as read or unread, and can sort them into dif­fer­ent fold­ers for organizing.

Up until a few months ago, I was sub­scribed to nearly 300 feeds on sub­jects rang­ing from biol­ogy to web design. I real­ized that all this infor­ma­tion was over­whelm­ing me, so I stepped it down to half of that. Most of what I removed were sci­ence fic­tion related feeds. I real­ized, at a cer­tain point, that not every­one in the field had some­thing to say about the genre that I was inter­ested in.

Despite the abil­ity to become over­whelmed, I still love RSS because it does pro­vide effi­ciency in some­thing I would be doing anyway–trying to keep track of a mil­lion things. It brings me con­stant sources of new infor­ma­tion, and on a good, day I learn a dozen new things that prove use­ful in the long run. Many of the links that I blog (and that blog­ging fea­ture is cur­rently not work­ing and I do not know why. Paul Raven, could you shoot me an email with your deli­cious set­tings? Somehow, I’ve got mine wrong) come from my feeds.

Speculative Fiction and RSS

One of the last things I did before clos­ing up shop at the Fortean Bureau was to move the site to a con­tent man­age­ment sys­tem and pro­vide an RSS feed. I don’t know if I was the first to do this–probably not–but there’s still spo­radic adop­tion espe­cially among the ‘zines.

Online Zines I read with RSS Feeds

Magazines I read that DO NOT have RSS Feeds that I can find

My point being, if you are an online mag­a­zine pub­lisher in this day and age, you need to adopt RSS as a mar­ket­ing tool if for no other rea­son. RSS reminds me to check these sites. The ones with­out, I am more likely to for­get about, unless, iron­i­cally, some­one else in my feeds men­tions the new con­tent. You don’t even have to syn­di­cate the full text of the short sto­ries for me. Just a title and author (please, please include author in your feed infor­ma­tion. Fantasy doesn’t do this, and I think it’s prob­lem­atic. It looks like the author of every story is “Sean”) is suf­fi­cient to func­tion as a reminder. It’s like a newslet­ter noti­fi­ca­tion, only less obnox­ious (why, I am not sure. I guess because you only ever get RSS from what you set up for, so there’s no such thing as RSS spam).

If you have a blog, you have a feed

As to the rest of us, if you’re using any of the com­mon blog­ging ser­vices, you’re almost cer­tainly serv­ing up a feed some­where. Ask your­self if your design dis­plays the RSS feed promi­nently enough that inter­ested par­ties can sub­scribe. Those of us who use Firefox have it easy. Firefox auto­mat­i­cally detects whether a site has a feed and dis­plays an orange icon in the address bar of the browser, but only if the RSS feed is prop­erly indi­cated in the header of the html doc­u­ment. Some sites have feeds, but fail to put that link in the header tem­plate, so we have to hunt the page for the link. You lose poten­tial read­ers the longer they go with­out find­ing it. And yes, I know that my new design doesn’t have an RSS Link fea­tured promi­nently. I’m ter­ri­ble at tak­ing my own advice, but I am going to offer a very detailed RSS side­bar in the future, allow­ing peo­ple to sub­scribe to par­tic­u­lar types of infor­ma­tion that I write about seper­ately. It’s com­ing soon.

RSS: It’s not just for posts anymore

RSS feeds have gained some inter­est­ing new tools and uses recently. Yahoo Pipes allows any­one to mash up var­i­ous RSS feeds and cre­ate new types of con­tent. Blog man­age­ment sys­tems like WordPress now offer RSS feeds for indi­vid­ual posts, so that you can fol­low the com­ment dis­cus­sions. RSS use is grow­ing. It could stand to be a bit eas­ier, as mash​able​.com wrote recently, but it’s a tech­nol­ogy that is going to stay around for the forsee­able future. It really does save time. If you’re not already using a Reader, I highly sug­gest you con­sider one. And if you’re not pro­vid­ing an RSS feed of your con­tent, you’re miss­ing out on readers.

Recommended Reading: The Wreck of the Grampus by Jeremy Adam Smith

Posted on:

Lone Star Stories — The Wreck of the Grampus by Jeremy Adam Smith

Do you under­stand the story, you machine? If there is an intrin­sic design to the uni­verse, human­ity has not been able to find it. We must make our own, and so are most fully human when in sit­u­a­tions that are wholly artificial.”

Picking some­thing from this story to quote was not easy. This is one of the best, if not the best sci­ence fic­tion story I have read this year. It has senswunda note after senswunda note–a ver­i­ta­ble senswunda orches­tra. It has robots and deep philo­soph­i­cal ques­tions and giant under­sea crea­tures. Believable human char­ac­ters, deeply human in their ways, and some deeply strange. This is a future that does not leave me cold like many post-​​singularity sto­ries do, which are so com­mon these days. In those sto­ries, you can almost feel the sil­i­con wrapped around you. Not here. There’s so much I want to say, so many sur­pris­ing bits, but I don’t want to spoil it for anyone.

I think it’s absolutely fan­tas­tic, and the author, Jeremy Adam Smith, and Eric Marin, the edi­tor and pub­lisher, should have as many kudos I can throw at them. This is damned good sci­ence fic­tion. Read it. Let me know what you think. Let the edi­tor and author know.

My only prob­lem is, the author’s name is Jeremy. I can’t stand that name!

The Addictive Properties of Creative Work

Posted on:

As I enter a phase of high pro­duc­tiv­ity, I am reminded of the par­al­lels I detect between the way I inter­act with my cre­ativ­ity and the effect of addic­tive drugs (as I have read, any­way. I’ve never taken any, unless you count xanax.)

Acts of cre­ativ­ity bring on an emo­tional and energy high while I am in the act, but after the work is done, that high dis­solves rapidly and often becomes a full on energy crash. Novelists call it the post-​​book blues, I think? I get the post-​​Flickr upload blues. I won­der if chem­i­cally, the act of cre­ation oper­ates in a sim­i­lar effect–or is it really just the zen state that we enter when we act with­out thought, when we are in the “zone” that has the high/​crash/​addictive prop­er­ties. It’s a bit of a chicken-​​or-​​egg prob­lem in that context.

I find that the best way to keep from crash­ing after a project is to roll imme­di­ately into a new one. Finish a pho­to­shoot, process it, upload it, bask in the awe­some com­ments of my blog read­ers, and at least do 20–30 min­utes on the next thing. The bask­ing part, the pos­i­tive feed­back, is part of the addic­tive­ness as well, and the part I don’t man­age as well. It stretches out the high, I think, and car­ries the good feel­ings from the cre­ation onward longer. After I post new pic­tures, I have a hard time leav­ing the com­puter, and not refresh­ing Flickr and check­ing my email 10 times an hour. I find myself crav­ing that injec­tion of warmth, and as it peters off, as all things do, then I get cranky and low. I’m try­ing to value feed­back a lit­tle less, but given that my self-​​esteem is tied in some ways to the exter­nal per­cep­tion of me, it’s not an easy thing to do. “Awesome image/​story/​website” are the phrases that boost my self-​​confidence more than almost any­thing else. I’m try­ing to change that, but that’s another sub­ject entirely.

Do any of you have this prob­lem of the post-​​work crash? How do you deal with it? What are your cop­ing strategies?