Also, for angriest, I would like to make today blog-your-thoughts-on-dr-horrible-day!

What?

I dunno about you non-Australian folks, but a major tendency in small press in this country seems to be burnout; editors, publishers, etc. You're lucky if you get ten good years out of them.

What's the answer? Is there an answer? Is it just a natural cycle and it's a good thing that we old fuckers get off the treadmill and let the young radicals take the reigns?

So I recently finished reading Jack Dann's follow up to his award winning Dreaming Down Under, entitled Dreaming Again.

I wasn't quite the fan of the first collection that a lot of people were, although it's a long time since I read it, so I wasn't sure what to expect with the new collection.

My first impression, on scanning the contents, was that, as a snapshot of the local writing scene, it didn't seem particularly representative of the writers who dominate the scene. There are a lot of novelists here contributing short stuff, and as a profile of some of our more successful authors the contents list is quite accurate. But a lot of the big names among the recent short-story scene are absent; Deb Biancotti, Ben Peek, Anna Tambour, Cat Sparks, Paul Haines, Brendan Duffy, Steph Campisi, Tansy Rayner Roberts. As a result, the snapshot has a bit of a dated feel to me, only partly compensated by the inclusion of some new authors, skewed quite dramatically toward those who attended Dann's year at Clarion South. There are a couple of exceptions; it was good to see Trent Jamieson in there. But a quick glance over the contents page had me thinking it would be hard to find a *less* representative snapshot of the local scene at short story level.

So much for preconceptions. But none of that matters, really. When it comes to the crunch, the anthology will earn its strips not by how representative a snapshot it is, but by the quality of the work contained within.

So how did it stand up?

Well, I dug it. Let's get one thing straight; this is a list of (mostly) professional authors and all of them are capable of turning out some fine prose, and of coming up with good ideas. All of them are capable of strong world-building and believable characterisation. The anthology stands up very well in terms of overall consistency.

In terms of highlights, well, it's difficult to decide on a yardstick. There are thirty-five stories here. What's a good percentage of standouts? I listed seven stories over at lastshortstory, which yeah is only one in five, but by the same token, that's well above your average anthology. And it's well worth the thirty buck price of entry for those seven stories alone. I'm sure less jaded readers will find many more favourites :-)

The standouts for me (with links to my reviews at LSS):

Empire... Simon Brown
Neverland Blues... Adam Browne
Heere Be Monsters... John Birmingham
The Constant Past... Sean McMullen
Twilight in Caeli-Amur... Rjurik Davidson
The New Deal... Trent Jamieson
The Last Great House of Isla Tortuga... Peter M. Ball

As you can see, the stories that worked for me were generally from the newer writers rather than the novelists dipping into shorts, and for that reason I wonder if the collection would have been stronger with inclusions from Biancotti, Peek, Haines, Campisi etc. But that's speculation.

As it is, it's well worth your money. It may not be a snapshot of the scene, but it's nevertheless a professional and at times inspirational collection of tales.

Some days I wonder if reading too much is turning me into a monster where I am able to enjoy less and less, and where I'll reach the point where one day I'll never be able to enjoy anything ever again...

And while it's a nice backdrop to writing to have read so much, some days all the voices threaten to choke out any spark of an idea I may have....

Who am I kidding? I don't have *ideas*!

Hopefully a little space will remedy these things...

I was thinking but finding it difficult to put into words... there's something oddly similar about the kind of central character voice that *doesn't* grab me; whether it's a new writer or someone in the pros. And the closest thing I can describe it as is this:

There are a lot of stories where the central character seems not to exist as a real person, but where they exist instead as a vehicle, a hazy kind of gesture toward the characters in other stories, most often hard-boiled detective novels or nostalgic science fiction from decades gone past. Where the character seems to do anything *but* live and breathe, where there is an agreed nod between author and reader, as if to say, "We know this guy, right? I don't gotta say any more?"

And the writer can then get on with their clever idea or their science or their plot twists.

Which is all very nice for other people, but for me... I don't want to read about that guy....

I dunno... this is very vague... maybe one day I'll be able to elucidate just who this guy is more clearly...

"In memory tests, people confidently 'recognise' sentences they never saw if they are paraphrases of sentences they did see"

Steven Pinker, How the Mind Works

Dunno about you other states but there's a cold that's doing the rounds up here in the so-called "sunshine state" that seems to hang around for weeks on end... I'm well tired of being sick I tells ya!

Brain is like mush and every time I stand up I need a sit down.

Bad for productivity... I'm used to polite colds that go away after a day or two...

I also lost my voice... those of you who have heard me sing will know what a loss this is to the world! I am the sort of person that sings a lot in day-to-day life, so I have been constantly starting to sing, only to be greeted by the sound of a goat dancing on a cheese grater...

Anyway, I am behind with everything, but perhaps less so than last week, so that's something...

This week the spread on our Doglike sandwich is Lisa A. Koosis's delightful tale; The Pastapocalypse!

Get it down yer gullet!

So is it wrong if I feel like listening to a CD in the other room with the CD player, and I think to myself  "Well, I could go dig it out of the box, OR I have the album on my computer and a bundle of blank cds sitting beside me..."

Just sayin'...

I really like the clip for teenagersintokyo's new song Very Vampyr. You can find it on youtube.

I'm not sure why exactly; all it is is just the band playing, but for some reason it really captures for me the excitement and energy of a new band. It reminds me of the early clips of New Order... again, largely just the band playing their instruments, yet somehow, because of that, full of potential and vibrancy.

It's a good clip...

I've read a half-dozen different reactions to Dr Horrible around the place, and there seems to be a common theme of annoyance at the lack of happy ending...

(spoilers follow... )

On a more general level, I have never really understood the kind of meta-fictional desire that viewers or readers have to have things turn out the way they would like. To me, the interplay and frustration of audience desire being undercut is part of what gives a piece its realism. And conflict. And what makes me moved. Sure, I might *want* such-and-such a pair of characters to get together. I might *want* such-and-such a person to survive. But that doesn't mean that the piece in question will be more powerful, emotionally, if that happens.

And ultimately, that power, that emotional resonance, is what I want from a piece. I don't *want* art to try to smooth over the rough edges, to pretend that the world is a simple black-and-white place where we can expect our desires to be fulfilled. I like art to offer me hope, though it's not expected, but when it does I want it to be hope tinted with realism. I want victories, when they come, to be hard-won. And I want losses to occur too, not just when they're deserved. Because that's what makes me believe in it.

So I understand the *desire* that audiences have that a plot might develop in a certain way, that a certain ending might occur. I have my own desires in that regard. What I don't understand is the anger or frustration when the ending they desire doesn't occur. To me, that's part of the game, that's part of art. The moment all stories develop the way I want them to is the moment all conflict disappears and I may as well turn off.

In regard to this particular story, I read the ending as a kind of wish-fulfillment, fantasy rather than reality, on Dr Horrible's part, as he plays out his anger and frustration. But even if we interpret it literally, my interpretation of it is this: that Dr Horrible misses his chance at redemption. For me, what that hinges on is not the moment where the gun explodes, or the moment Penny dies, but the moment *after* that; where Dr Horrible has the chance either to understand or not understand Penny and her life. Despite comments elsewhere, I see Penny as the strongest character in the piece. She knows what she believes in, what she stands for. And up until that moment, Horrible has teetered on a knife-edge, between "getting" her, and her compassion, on the one hand, and letting his desire *for& her overwhelm the his own sense of compassion, on the other. The whole piece hinges on that conflict, for me. I think that seeing the central conflict as being whether Horrible and Penny get together misses the point. The conflict lies in whether his selfishness or his compassion will win out.

Penny's death is the result of the former winning out, at least momentarily... his attack on Hammer is the result of his despair leading to selfishness and his putting his desire *for* her above respect for her values. If he truly understood and respected her, he would not have acted that way. And *after* her death, he has a clear choice, a moment where he is capable of either understanding that, of giving her death some meaning by taking on her causes, her beliefs, her compassion for other human beings as his own, to show that he actually understands and respects who she is, or retreating into selfishness out of hurt, of using her, reducing her to the status of an object, whose "loss" motivates and justifies his own future cruelties.

I think Whedon could have showed him making either choice; one would have risked romanticism, the other risks cynicism. But if we take the piece *as a whole* I think that the downbeat ending doesn't justify Horrble's choice; it's clearly an empty and bitter direction to take, and there's no sense of it being fulfilling. To me, the piece as a whole argues a case for Penny's character, the only decent person truly on display here, and offers a critique of the ways in which gentleness and compassion are so easily outshone by "heroes" and "villains"... and how easily the narratives of desire; financial or romantic, allow us to overlook the real meaning offered by such courageous lives.

I dunno, it's just my opinion. It doesn't mean anything.

Just finished watching the three episodes of Dr Horrible's Sing-a-Long Blog...

At the risk of sounding like a sheep, let me tell you... I thought it rocked.

Check it out.

Everytime there's a public apology for something the media asks the victims the same stupid question: "Does this apology make up for the suffering you endured?"

Of course it doesn't! That's not the point. Public apologies are a gesture toward reconciliation and recognition of wrongdoing. They're a nice thing, but wtf do people think? Is someone gonna turn around one of these days and say "yes"?

Media: Does the Pope's apology make up for the years of sexual abuse you suffered?
Victim: (thinks)... Um... Yes. Yes. I think it does.

Media: Does the company's apology make up for your daughter's death?
Victim's parent: Mmm.. yeah. Yeah I think we're over it now. I think we can call it even from here and move on.

Media: Does this apology finally mean you can lay the ghost of the massacre to rest?
Victim: Oh yeah, that's well behind me now! If anything, it's too much. I feel like *I* owe *them*!

Stupid, stupid media!

Ben's Top Ten, 17 July 1988


1. What About Love?... Heart
2. That Was Yesterday... Foreigner
3. You Little Thief... Feargal Sharkey
4. I Just Died in Your Arms Tonight... Cutting Crew
5. Like China... Phil Collins
6. There'll Be Sad Songs... Billy Ocean
7. There's More to Love Than Boy Meets Girl... Communards
8. Can't Fight This Feeling... REO Speedwagon
9. I Want to Wake Up... Pet Shop Boys
10. C Minor... Communards

Yes, clearly at this stage of my development I was being torn between old man rock and gay disco...

So apparently my rageaholism was the precursor to another cold! I'm so sick of being sick!

This time I can't even talk without sounding like a thirteen year old boy going through puberty... made answering phones all day great fun!

I plan to sleep for a gazillion hours...

Speaking of idiots, Bush has decided to continue his War on Women by strip funding from clinics where abortions are performed if they discriminate by hiring only those doctors who are willing to perform abortions. Note too that the definition of abortion is grotesquely huge, but that's beside the point. The point is it continues Bush's decade-long drive to deny women safe abortion or safe sexual practices.

The use of the word discrimination here is an absurd parody. Surely discrimination is a necessary part of any job interview. Hospitals should discriminate against those who have no medical training. Sporting teams should discriminate against people like myself who are lazy and can't be bothered doing laps. Childcare centres should discriminate against those who hate children. And centres that perform abortions should, ferfucksake, be able to discriminate against those who have moral objections to letting women have control of their own bodies.

Idiocy.

I hate it when people say they don't believe in gay marriage because "marriage is a union between a man and a woman".

What the fuck sort of circular argument uses the existence of a prejudice as the justification for itself???

That's like saying "I'd like to promote workplace equality, but I can't because good jobs traditionally go to white people."

Or that we'd like to have gender equality, but "the kitchen is traditionally a place for a woman".

We *get* what tradition is!! Ferfucksake. We *know* what marriage traditionally is. The point is that it's fucking stupid!

Why am I living in a country where this *stupid* *stupid* argument is allowed to pass as a political position. When exactly did the ant-people creep in and steal everybody's brains??

Just askin'.

Stttttuuuuuuupid everything!

It's all stupid!

Grumble...

Is it just me who has an inherent distrust of people who don't find the Simpsons funny?

I mean, don't get me wrong... I'm sure that such people can still be like, nice people. If you don't find the Simpsons funny I'll still do my best to keep an open mind, and maybe we can be friends despite that... it's all good...

But the rest of you... don't you guys think? There's something... weird... about people that don't find the Simpsons funny? It's like... how? I mean how do you communicate with somebody on that basis? All the reliable baseline assumptions we make when communcating have to go out the window... how do their brains operate?? What do they think "funny" things are???

It's all very disturbing and unsettling... in an X-Files kinda way.... like, is that The Clue?

I may be going out on a limb here.... are they aliens?

Ahem. Sorry. Humour is subjective. Everyone is free to their own opinion. Go about your business...

Those of you who know me know I am a mostly mild-mannered individual. However, this week everything in the world is *pissing me off*!!

Not sure why...

In particular, I bought some downloads from the official Manic Street Preachers online store, and was told they had been despatched two weeks ago... despatched? What does that mean? They're downloads! Plus I got charged shipping... shipping whatthe?

This is what you get for tryin' to do things nice and legal!

Five query emails later and nobody has replied to tell me what is going on... their website lists three working days for (local) delivery of hard copy orders...

Grrr...arrggh...

I know... I don't *need* more music... but it's the principle...