Summer Beer Bad Beer

I don't dislike beer; only I don't like it enough to blog about it. I like expensive Belgian beers that are delicious. Sadly I don't get to drink them as much as I'd like. When I do get to imbibe, my favorite cheap, regular ass beer is Fat Tire made my The New Belgian Company, a brewery out of Colorado. It's a Belgian styled beer.

It's not great, but it is really good. It's not Leffe, or a Trappist ale, but the price tag also reflects these facts. In addition to Fat Tire they make a summer beer called Skinny Dip (it is much like Magic Hat Number Nines summer beer). So how is this summer beer made? Well, it's tricky…

They take the beer you enjoy, pour half of it out, and fill the rest o the bottle with water; no seriously that's what they do… Some how the light watery aspect of summer dilutes all points you previously enjoyed and make you question your purchase. How is such a practice acceptable?

I find the trend very odd, and altogether evil. Anyone else experienced similar atrocities with a favored beer?

Non-Fiction and Fun (Or the lack there of…)

Speak, Memory by Vladimir Nabokov, A Brief History of TIme by Stephen Hawking Ph.D., Fantasy Freaks and Gaming Geeks by Ethan Gilsdorf and Structural Power and the Construction of Markets: The Case of Rhythm and Blues by Timothy J. Dowd Ph.D., an article published in Comparative Social Research, Volume 21: of all of these, I think I enjoyed the latter the most.

I don't read a lot of non-fiction so perhaps I don't know what to look for to judge it's merits and faults, but in terms of what was the most fun, or what would I recommend to someone else, I have to go with Gilsdorf. If you make it through the free online preview without laughing, then I doubt our reading interest will ever coincide. I wish I'd taken notes while reading the Hawking, my retention would then have been much higher. I should have known that Nabokov would be the most cerebral and intellectual of the bunch with his command and elegant mastery of the English language. As for beautiful writing, Nabokov again wins in terms of prose and sheer creativity in presentation of a memoir. (I still think the, 'best' bit of writing within Speak, Memory was Nabokov's 'review' of the work at the end. It is much like the forward to Lolita except greatly expanded.)

I think non-fiction has some form of reader engagement that is, at the present, foreign to me. I can't say I ever, 'got into' any of these books except for the Dowd article--which covers a subject that I knew going into would have great immediate interest to me. Perhaps I'm going about things incorrectly and I need to follow some sort of primer as to how best enjoy non-fiction, and as always, I'm open to suggestions, but at the moment, I'm at a loss to see how book stores stay in business carrying as little fiction as they do. How does non-fiction sell as much as it does?

What am I missing? Why is the fiction market so tiny and yet that is what holds all my reading interest outside of academic writing concerning sociology? I once heard that the average person reads seventy pages in a book and then puts it down forever. If that statistic took into account non-fiction I kinda understand. I'd love to know further details of that study. To all the non-fiction lovers out there, I'm not hating, but have you heard of Arturo Perez-Reverte, John Connolly or a host of other I-have-read-everything-by-this-person-ever writers?

I've never been in with the 'in crowd' and I don't take the side of the minority 'just because,' but I'm missing (or have missed) the point when it comes to most non-fiction.

Save your nice for Valentine's Day

Or Mother's Day, your anniversary, or a significant others' birthday, etc. Because anything you do on a day that is not mandated to be special by the Hallmark calendar is a wasted effort. Naturally, I'm addressing a solely male audience here. (Is there any expectation of a woman to do anything for a man on Valentine's? The answer is no, if you are unsure. Is that lack due to male feelings of indifference or society telling us, 'Valentine's is a woman's holiday.")

I'm speaking from personal experience and to further drive home my feelings on the matter neither of the aggrieved women I have in mind are shallow people. They just wanted what they felt was due to them on their 'special days.' The random acts of kindness in the world seem to be dying out with good reason. Strangers in our lives seem to appreciate such acts more so than people we know and live with. Don't plan a big romantic night out or call to say, 'I love you' unless it is one of those days you are supposed to do so. If there is nothing special about Tuesday night, don't make anything special out of it. That would be cursory.

However, if you do make a big to do on a special day, well then, it means something. To any of my fellow 'good guys' out there who have been slighted for not doing the right thing on the right day, or to any who have nothing but apathy for perceived sentimental offenses, do not despair. I have the remedy.

One jigger or rum ( look here, and here for suggestions ) one jigger of pineapple juice, half a jigger of strawberry schnapps. Ice a tumble and a healthy does of lime juice. It cures all pains and ails... for a little while.

To any offended, make yourself the above libation and in all possible ways, relax.

Fan Involvement in the Creative Process

I'm going to tread over thinly veiled ice in what's to follow so if you choose to keep reading, walk softly. There's a growing trend of author interaction with their fans that seems to be the new way of things in publishing. It's good, and for the most part, free marketing. On the whole I don't have a problem with it. Until it comes to fan interaction with an author.

To what degree do writer's need to listen to the voice of their fans? Readers are entitled to their opinions, and they often list all the things they want to see included in a writer's next story. They dictate what they see as a writer's strengths and weaknesses and what they should focus on in their writing. I personally don't think there is any obligation on the writer's part to listen to what is said and there should be no expectation from reader's that their opinions are being given any consideration.

This seems to be crossing a line to me. A writer is entitled to writer whatever story they want. Sometimes they get lucky and other people like it, sometimes not. I can only hope author's take these fan suggestions with a boulder-sized grain of salt, because I don't want to read published fan fiction crafted by the pen of, "Author X."

Fan service is just that. It does not need to be bound and published by Simon and Schuster. Writers, and to expand on the definition of the word, "artist" don't do their work for their fans. Does anyone really think that John Irvine cared if people read or liked Until I Find you? Sure, his feelings may have been hurt if it got crappy reviews and the book bombed at retail, but it was a book that he--as the creator--had to get off his chest and he did so to satisfy himself. The same is true for Beethoven or Michangelo or any other, 'artist' of your choosing.

I once read a book by my favorite author and hated it. From start to finish, I didn't have anything positive to say. It was because of what I deemed a bad book from a writer that I thought so highly of and expected so much from that led me to think, "I can do better than this," and start writing myself.

Input is one thing, and well made suggestions/criticisms are always appreciated, but to see some of the commentary today on author websites, "You betrayed me!" and so on is nauseating. I don't think fans can be betrayed; let down, sure but that's the extent of it. No writer is obligated to write works that will please fans of their previous efforts. (Don't even get me started on pseudonyms.) It's not as if there aren't a few thousand other books published in a year that you might enjoy, times the thousands of other books for all the previous years that publishing has been around.

It seems I've adopted my 'rant' voice. Perhaps that what is to come in the internet age: an endless cycle of complaints in varying degrees of expression.

Shaking hands and signing books at a reading is all well and good, but I don't think that any creative process is collaborative, and so I do get a little bit nervous when see running commentary from a writer to their fans. It seems to me if you don't want to read a story that's written there's plenty of other material out there that may be of interest to you. And if we lived in a different age, a time long out of human memory know as, 'twenty years ago', complainers wouldn't even have had a vehicle to voice their disgust.

Oh, wait a minute… I guess that last bit goes for me too.

Oddities in female writing

I've been reading a lot of fiction, both short stories and novel length material, by women authors the second half of the year. Perhaps it's the sample of material I've read, but I've noticed some peculiarities about women authors.

Excluding the 'classics' and period works, the contemporary ones I've read come across as very forward. This is not necessarily a bad thing. It struck me as strange that very rarely do women want to make love, rather they hurry up to the four-letter word variations. They tolerate the men in their world, but truly have no use for them. To my surprise, the vast majority of the substantial men in the sample of books I read seem to have very strong homosexual tendencies if they aren't outright gay. And there is nothing wrong with that, but it has been cliched unto my sample of reading to see a story with a strong, independent female lead and an average Joe, best friend male who happens to gay.

I've never claimed to understand the female mind, but apparently I have even less of a clue than I originally supposed.

Oh, yeah, and the antagonist is always male. Always. Because men are bad. I'm looking forward to broadening my reading by female authors to see how long these queer quarks hold true. Octavia Butler, Margaret Atwood, Ursula K. LeGuin, A.S. Byatt, and Cathrynne Valente are in the immediate future.

The Limits of my Genre Interest

I started, and put down, Anathem by Neal Stephenson last night. I gave it my best shot, but after two hundred pages there was nothing to keep me interested.

Two things about this book jumped out at me. The first was the "Note to the Reader" written by the author. It was essentially a set of guidelines on how to read this particular book. The inclusion of such a message is when I felt the first tendrils of dislike latching onto my put-this-book-down gene. Those used to reading speculative fiction and figuring things out were encouraged to skip over the message, and so I did. It was the inclusion of the message to the benefit of everyone else that worried me.

How exclusive is such a message? How elite is a book such as Anathem that a reader unaccustomed to reading science fiction may need, 'assistance' in getting through. If such assistance is needed, what is to be said for 'enjoyment?'

Perhaps, readers unaccustomed to the argot, history, and personalities within the world of classical music and politics concerning Western Europe during both World Wars shouldn't read The Spanish Bow by Andromeda Romano-Lax. Or perhaps it is a testament to the Romano-Lax's writing that a neophyte in all those areas can read, understand, and enjoy the book with out the need of an outside reference. (The Spanish Bow, is a purely random example, the first book I saw, when glancing at the books shelf.)

The second issue I had with Anathem was the inclusion of a glossary. The first book that I can recall reading that included a glossary of terms was The Eye of the World, by Robert Jordan. I also remember not knowing the glossary was there until I finished the book and was left wondering what the last twenty pages were. I didn't use the glossary. I read the book in a few short days and was able to keep all the information straight in my mind, and furthermore, there was nothing foreign presented that I was unable to figure out with context.

Is there a better way to detach your reader from the story you are telling then by making them rely on a glossary of terms? It is particularly frustrating when a standard English word is re-assigned a definition at the whim of the author. Gene Wolfe has a particular gift for what people often perceive to be the art of "making words up." But he relies on context, an astute reader, a multitude of world language idioms to make himself clear; not a glossary.

I think this is one of the reasons I tend to walk softly upon hardcore sci-fi and fantasy. If you're going to invite me into your world, make sure the primer is thin and readily understandable. In short I felt there was a learning curve to merely open the book. Perhaps, I'm not cunning enough to enjoy what was given, but for me, the price of admission was too high.

After all that, I can't bring myself to part with this book. I'll give it another try sometime down the line, and perhaps have a wholly different experience and resend my current sentiments expressed here. But for now, this is strike one...

Short Story Poseurs

I've made it a point to read short stories this year and it has been an effort that I have greatly enjoyed. However, one aspect of short story anthologies that I have been running into that really bothers me is novel excerpts posing as short stories.

Sometimes this is unavoidable. A writer writes a piece, finishes it, and it turns out to be of 'short story length' only to expand upon it at a later time and develop the work into a novel. But the blatant inclusion of the these not-short-stories in the hopes of getting readers to purchase a collection on the off chance they only want to read author 'X' is offensive, and will probably turn reader off from reading more short stories in the long run when they see author 'X's' new novel out; now with eighty percent more of the short story you already enjoyed for twice the price sandwiched between chapter nine and eleven.

If you want to publish a collection of related novel excerpts, then do so and market them as such, but don't mislead and imply that an excerpt and a short story are one and the same. Very few of these novel excerpts can stand well on their own, hence the reason they are novels. From the editors stand point it looks good to put "Neil Gaiman's" name or whomever on the cover. As a reader, it pisses me off and I feel it does damage to the collection as a whole. Anyone care to call me out with a contrary argument?

Tangent: the spelling of the word poseur gave--and still gives--me a bit of trouble. It seems 'poser' is totally wrong yet completely acceptable. Which really makes me wonder about 'y'all,' a third person plural contraction that is found in an large number of languages yet is frowned upon in English as improper 'southern grammar.' As a southerner I'm offended and as an American speaking English (armour, honour) I'm confused. Latin retention seems a bit arbitrary, archaic for the hell-of-it, and wholly unneeded.

Semantically confused, and hating all you posers…

Chad.

Fantasy by Another Name

A few things have come to my attention while reading The Yiddish Policemen's Union by Michael Chabon. The most obvious is that he is amazing and pretty much on my 'just buy it' list assuming this book is indicative of the rest of his work. (Sometimes I feel he is trying a bit too hard, especially when it comes to humor, but all-in-all, it's really good stuff.) The second issue that comes to mind is the genre of the book it self. I'll be the first to say, genre doesn't matter to me. I've said many a time before that good writing is good writing is good writing and genre doesn't play into it. But I do find it interesting how marketing departments put their spin on a book that is deemed to have mass market appeal even if the book in question is in an 'unsuitable' genre.

Alternate history, contemporary fantasy, or any other term that will be used in the future is all just a cover. It's misleading to readers. I don't see how it could be an offense to author: call a spade a spade and put the book on the fantasy self.

There is a good deal of modern fiction that contains strong fantasy elements. Sometimes I feel if publishers want the work to be successful or perhaps respectable in the eyes of the literary elite (NYT reviewers, book award committees and such) that there is a need to obscure a books true roots if it comes from a speculative genre. Neil Gaiman, Stephen King, Chabon and others are almost never billed as speculative fiction, or derivative, and almost always their books are branded, "A Novel" on the cover. As if such a designation is a cover all gesture that establishes legitimacy by way of disowning ugly origins.

"A Novel, by Author X," read: something greater than mere fantasy...

What I'd really like to consider is whether or not the industry is correct in their efforts with these particular books. Perhaps it does lead to increased sales, wider cross-over appeal, and higher recognition for a writer that is greater than the genre in question. But if all of this is the case, then I wonder why isn't all speculative fiction presented in the same light as the afore mentioned writers.

This is not to say all speculative fiction writers are as good as Chabon, but lesser writers have sold more, and better writers have won awards and respect while gaining virtually no sales. What is good for the goose aught to be good for the gaggle, right?

The Institution of Dry Cleaning

Forty-two extra long, athletic cut it isn't a common measurement if you are a male looking to purchase a suit. All things considered, pants are easy, but a coat or even a shirt can present a significant problem. The breadth of my shoulders--more specifically the measurement across my chest--is an anomaly in the fashion world.

So when I finally find something that fits, which is an effort that most people-women in particular--will never fully appreciate, the cleaning of this particular garments present some internal problems.

Who do you trust when it comes to taking care of your can't-just-walk-into-a-store-and-take-another-one-off-the-rack-should-something-go-wrong article of clothing? I spend money on the suit and alterations, and a good deal of time in an effort to find nicer clothing that both fits and is affordable. Then I'm supposed to give some guy I don't know all of ten bucks and trust him not to mess the summation of all my shopping efforts in a weeks time at the cleaners.

I'd like to think I'm doing something wrong. I have to be skipping a step somewhere. Surely there is more to the process, some research I should be doing a on specific cleaner and what qualifies them to handle my clothes, a liability waiver at least.

What of those with their bespoke Savile Row apparel? Do they take there thousand dollar clothing back to the tailor when they need it cleaned?

I'd be grateful to any that can shed some light on this topic for me. What am I missing?

The Meaning of Well Read

There are a great wealth of blogs that talk about books and there are even more readers. 'Well read' is a phrase that is thrown around by anyone who thinks they read more than the average person.

What does it mean to be well read?

How does one become well read? Do you have to read the complete works of Beckett, Proust, and Camus? Does it mean you have to read as many works by women as men? In as many other languages as in English?

Perhaps it means you have to read in all genres and time periods of literary history. Is there a list of books that make one well read? What of the reader that endlessly devours romance novels or biographies and nothing else; as opposed to the reader that picks and chooses from all genres but reads at a much slower rate; are either well read?

Are there benefits to achieving the status? Do these perceived benefits have any practical application; could they be gleaned in any other way?

I'd love to call out a select few pretentious literary bloggers out there for their answers, but I've never been one for name calling.

So what in your mind makes someone well read and what--if any--is the value of such an achievement?

Women's Fiction

In these sometimes tense times of gender equality I feel I can be pretty direct. What is women's fiction; is it solely for women? Is the name strictly a ‘buyers beware’ to any man’s hand that may have strayed so far as to pick up the book and turn it over? I still stand on my feeling that good writing is good writing and a change of genre or perceived audience will not affect the quality of the words on the page. However, the previous statement being true, why would anyone trying to sell books limit the potential readership with such an explicit genre appellation?

This issue of women's fiction has been bothering me for quite some time. It is the only fiction genre designation that I know of that is not only branded by the publisher but done so in general accordance with the author. Many a non general ‘fiction’ author would love their books to be sold with the mass market epithet “A Novel” coming after the title as opposed to being put on the fantasy or mystery shelf. I know a few authors (none of whom I”ll call out) who recently lead a panel discussion at a writers club meeting that covered many things. When the topic of women's fiction came about I found myself growing irritable with the pregnancy of woeful ignorance; either in myself or the panel.

Is there such a thing as men’s fiction? I’ll wage a legitimate answer that there is, and I can’t over stress the seriousness of my attempt. After you’ve read it with with earnest consideration (and a more open-minded than it’s worth) then, tell me how absurd it is.

* * * * *
Men’s literature (or Men! Books! Read! as the marketing branch of the publishing world would have us call it) is always an energetic story with excess testosterone and alpha males doing terribly interesting things in most Michael-Bay-type of manner. Female leads are absurd given the genre and any female characters are bound to be helpless idiots and at all times displaying generous amounts of cleavage. Rarely amusing or light hearted these stories resemble the steaks me like to eat: bloody, gritty with little seasoning and no time for side items like vegetables. Men’s fiction is about men’s issues for a male readership; women would have a very hard time identifying with the subject matter of family, relationships and blowing stuff up. While the subject matter often crosses genres it always has commercial appeal and the characters are often attempting to overcome both a personal and external adversity.

Although men’s fiction often incorporates grave situations such as poverty, divorce, abuse, and host of other social struggles, it can also explore positive aspects within a mans life: such as guns, swords, sports, sex, gluttony and video games. Sanguine soaked fantasy and sci-fi are an integral part of Men’s fiction although the content is mature enough and well-developed that it sets itself apart from other genre classifications. Generally speaking, Men’s fiction often delves into deeper, more serious conflicts and utilizes a more poetic literary writing style than standard fiction that would be deemed appropriate of both genders.

Chad Hull the prolific author of numerous bestsellers of Men’s fiction including: The Man Book, Why Elves and Fairies are Gay, Go F*** yourself, and Tit Hooker is the ideal author of Men’s Fiction. His forthcoming novel detailing the heartbreak of a car--lovingly restored for five tender years before being totaled in a horrific accident involving no insurance and a culprit that couldn’t speak English--Steel Dump is due out this winter.

* * * * *
So… seriously. What is women’s fiction? Are those the books Nicolas Sparks writes? Is Anna Karenina the archetype of the genre? Is there such a thing as Men’s fiction? If so, what is it? If not, why?

Reading more than one book at a time

I am a one-track-mind person. I can multitask, but given the option I’d rather dedicate myself wholly to one project and then move on upon completion. The same is true for my reading habits. I know of people that can juggle three, four, or more books at a time; still keep things straight and enjoy doing so.

I don’t think I’m capable of this feat. If I start to lose interest in one book and pick up another chances are slim to none that I’m gonna go back and finish the one that is now officially boring in my mind.

Perhaps if it was four books in four different genres I could manage to keep things straight, but even then if one of them was really good I think I’d stay with it until it was over; thereby possibly not doing justice to the other three.

So, all of you multi-book-reading-at-one-time types: how do you do it? Are there benefits that I’m missing out on? Do you feel you finish all started novels in a timely fashion? Is it worth the effort?

Commemoration of Dotage

Why do we celebrate birthdays? I understand the need of keeping track of age but it is the party--the recognition--that I am calling out specifically. Particularly when we are past the age of twenty-one where anything truly “substantial” happens, what’s the point in celebration?

A celebration of the accomplishments made in a year or significant events seem more relevant to me in terms of having a party. It’s not exactly as if birthdays are exclusive or rare: everyone has one, once a year, and while it’s true that we don’t all live to the same age is there anyone out there who is truly so happy to be forty that they feel the need to have a party about it? To the best of my knowledge the sentiment of getting older is vastly different to a five year old and a twenty-nine year old.

Most parties are for a unique accomplishment: winning the Pulitzer Prize, elected President of your country, or a special academic achievement, but any old regular nobody can, and usually does, celebrate their birthday like it’s something special.

Perhaps I’m odd.

Oh yeah, happy belated birthday to my blog. I guess I’ll call a few friends and go out for the evening...

Cheers!