Contest for science fiction/fantasy writers

Tor UK, an imprint of Macmillan Publishers Limited, is holding a contest, War of the Words, to find the next big thing in SFF. That's science fiction and fantasy, for the uninitiated, but if you didn't know that, this blog post probably isn't for you anyway. ;o)



You need to have a completed manuscript in the 80-150K range, plus a full synopsis (they still haven't defined what they mean by that, but I'm guessing that 1-2 page deal isn't going to cut it). You have until August 20 to submit the synopsis and the first three chapters.

We had a rather lengthy discussion on the contract terms over at A Dribble of Ink and have more or less come to the conclusion that it would be a decent contract. Victoria Strauss of Writers Beware has given it her Imprimatur in a private email too, so go ahead, send in your opus. There's no entry fee, so what have you got to lose?

Join my Twibe

I know, that sounds totally pathetic. But I am not responsible for the way people name these things. Twibe = a twitter tribe. A twibe is a good way to have a focused, on-going Twitter conversation. In this case, a conversation about Christian fantasy.

If you're on Twitter, go to http://www.twibes.com/group/ChristianFantasy and click to join. Then you'll be able to read the Twibe posts. Now this is not just an amalgamation of all posts by all members. It will only include tweets by members that contain the keywords CF or fantasy. If you post directly from the Twibe website, you can choose to have it appear only on Twibes and not in your Twitter feed, if you're concerned about flooding your timeline with too many tweets on the same subject.

So, in short, the Twibes website will monitor the tweets by members and post all those that contain the keywords. Members go to the Twibes website to follow the conversation. Sort of like a mini-forum.

So come join us.

Digital Dragon Magazine

There's a new kid on the Christian speculative fiction block. Digital Dragon has launched its inaugural issue, so click on over if you'd like a look at some free fiction. If you're thinking of contributing, they are not a paying market.

I've only read one of the stories and it was decent. I do note that the copy-editing could be a little more rigorous, but I'm kind of anal that way. I still think spelling mistakes look amateurish.

But draw your own conclusions as to the quality of the stories. I haven't read enough to have a firm opinion.

Which fantasy writer are you?

I don't usually do online quizzes, but sometimes one comes along that I just can't resist. I mean, I just HAD to find out which fantasy writer I was like, right?

Ursula K Le Guin (b. 1929)

31 High-Brow, -9 Violent, -19 Experimental and 4 Cynical!



Congratulations! You are High-Brow, Peaceful, Traditional and Cynical! These concepts are defined below.

Ursula Kroeber Le Guin is definitely one of the most celebrated science fiction and fantasy writers of all times. Her most famous fantasy work to date is the Earthsea suite of novels and short stories, in which Le Guin created not only one of the most believable societies in fantasy fiction, but also managed to describe a school for wizards almost three decades before Harry Potter. Although often categorized as written for young adults, these books have entertained and challenged readers of all ages since their publication.

Le Guin is no stranger to literary experiments (see for example Always Coming Home(1985)), but much of her story-telling is quite traditional. In fact, she makes a point of returning to older forms of story-telling, which, at her best, enables her to create something akin to myth. One shouldn't confuse myth with faerytale, though. Nothing is ever simplified in Le Guin's world, as she relentlessly explores ethical problems and the moral choices that her characters must make, as must we all. While being one of those writers who will allow you to escape to imaginary worlds, she is also one who will prompt you to return to your actual life, perhaps a little wiser than you used to be.

I was positively popping my suspenders with pride. Then they added:

You are also a lot like Susan Cooper.

If you want some action, try Michael Moorcock.

If you'd like a challenge, try your exact opposite, C S Lewis.

Hold on just a minute! What are they talking about, Lewis is my opposite? I LOVE Lewis.

I am hurt, deeply hurt.

But you know, you really know, you want to try it, don't you?

Thanks to Grasping for the Wind for pointing me in the direction of the quiz.

The Restorer - The Sword of Lyric - a book review

The Restorer is a Christian fantasy by Sharon Hinck and represents a bit of a departure for the author, who had been better known for her women's fiction.

Susan Mitchell is a stay-at-home mother of four whose life is disappearing under a grey blanket of depression. Her husband builds her a private space in the attic where she can get away from family demands. It works too well, as she finds herself whisked away in the mother of all electrical storms to another world. She learns - to the horror of all concerned - that she is a Restorer to the People of the Verses. Neither she nor the People have much confidence in her, but the signs are unmistakable.

Three reasons you might like this book
1. A portal story that centers around a suburban housewife who must learn to be so much more. Yes, there are some cliched tropes here, but choosing such an unusual protagonist helped to refresh them. The skepticism on both sides was also an interesting twist. Susan's struggle to grow into the role and the mistakes she makes are really the center of this story and ring quite true to life.

2. Hinck likes twists. When you think you see where things are going, you get side-swiped.

3. There is a sweetness of spirit that pervades The Restorer which I suspect is typical of Hinck. (I haven't read any of her other books yet.) The authorial voice that shines through makes me think that the author would be a wonderful friend.

Three reasons you might not like this book
1. My biggest beef is the frequency of "telling" as opposed to "showing". In other words, Hinck is constantly explaining things to the reader, rather than letting us discover them for ourselves. A quick example: "For the first day or so I was comforted by their presence. After a while I felt claustrophobic." We don't get to participate in these emotions, we are just told about them. Or she will deliver her conclusions, without letting us see how she arrived at them. It could have been a much more powerful story if Hinck had trusted her readers to get it, instead of telling them what to get.

2. I wasn't always sold on the believability factor. One major twist left Susan stunned with disbelief. Me too. Unlike her, I never bought it.

3. It's explicitly Christian. If that is an automatic turn-off for you, you would be turned off. Mind you, it's not a book that tries to convert the reader, as it is written to a Christian audience and is more concerned with the walk of faith than it is with persuading non-believers. Of course, for the intended audience, this is a selling point rather than a turn-off.

Three sentences from page 33

A shudder ran through me. "Mark," I whispered, "where are you?" The thought of Mark - who always squashed the scary bugs in our house and defended me against relentless insurance agents or dishonest repairmen - did me in.

(It was a pleasure to watch her grow out of her wimpiness.)

Other reviews
Title Trakk
Novel Reviews
Grasping for the Wind

His Majesty's Dragon - a book review

Everything I had read about Naomi Novik's Temeraire series sounded intriguing, so when I discovered that Del Rey was making a number of books available as free downloads, I jumped on the chance to check it out.

In the Temeraire series, we go back to the Napoleonic Wars, with one major difference. Significant parts of the war are being fought in the skies on dragonback, with captains and flight crews clambering on the rigging. Dragons are intelligent - depending on the species, sometimes more intelligent than people - and bond for life with their captains.

The story opens as Captain Will Laurence of the British Navy discovers with horror that the French warship he has just captured is carrying a dragon egg on the verge of hatching. There is no trained aviator on board to bond with the hatchling, something that has to be done before the first feeding. Lots are drawn, a young man is chosen, but the dragonet has different ideas and Laurence watches his career crumble around him. Whether he will or no, he is now an aviator.

Three reasons you might like this book
1. You like historical novels and/or historical fantasy. Other than the Dragon Corps, this is a carefully done bit of history, with the attitudes and social conditions mirroring the actual historical period.

2. The relationship between Temeraire the dragon and Will Laurence is the core of this story and it is very nicely drawn. Imagine a man and his dog story, when the "dog" is not only intensely loyal, but has a razor-sharp intelligence and can fly. That gives you a bit of an idea. But just a bit. It was enthralling. And I so envied Laurence.

3. Laurence is an interesting protagonist. He is conservative, but will think outside the box when the situation warrants. He makes mistakes, but recognizes them and makes the necessary changes. He's an honourable man, trying to do the honourable thing, even when the personal cost is very high.

Three reasons you might not like this book
1. You're like me and get bored by action scenes. Especially when they are in three dimensions. I read most of this book in a state of acute interest, in spite of the fact it was on a computer screen, but my interest started to flag in the final chapters and the big battle scene. Action tends to bore me, especially when it requires a lot of visualization. Of course, if you're an action fan, you'd have an entirely different take on this matter.

2. You don't like anything that smacks of fantasy or alternate history. You have my deepest sympathies. I personally loved the sense of wonder that pervaded this book - oh wait! I was supposed to be giving reasons for NOT liking the book. Can you tell I am having problems with this side of the argument?

3. Ummm, there's got to be something else. You think that dragons are diabolical, despite the fact that dragons don't really exist and are therefore whatever the storyteller makes them to be. But set your mind at rest. These dragons are not diabolical, but a part of the natural world. There is even a dragon expert, publishing his scholarly works on the particularities of each species. A charming appendix offers excerpts and illustrations from his book. No demons here, sorry.

Three lines from page 33

Thunder did not frighten him, nor lightning; “What makes it?” he only asked, and was disappointed when Laurence could offer him no answer. “We could go and see,” he suggested, partly unfolding his wings again, and taking a step towards the stern railing. Laurence started with alarm; Temeraire had made no further attempts to fly since the first day, being more preoccupied with eating, and though they had enlarged the harness three times, they had never exchanged the chain for a heavier one.

And might I add in passing, that I think this is brilliant marketing on the part of Del Rey. If I understand correctly, all the books make available for download (just for one month, so rush over if you want your free copy) are the first volume of a series. Great way to get a reader hooked and make them want to buy the rest of the series. I am a great believer in free samples as the most honest form of advertising, so I'm all in favour. Nothing will persuade me to buy an unknown author faster than a good excerpt.


Technorati tags: His Majesty's Dragon, Naomi Novik

Richard Dawkins is a religious fanatic

And in case you need convincing, he has now joined the ranks of those who condemn Harry Potter, without having read a word. He feels so strongly about the issue, he's stepping down from his position at Oxford to write a book about the pernicious and abusive nature of fantasy. Unless, of course, it's Pullman's Golden Compass, which he can't help loving because of its anti-religious slant.

To be fair to the professor, he says he's not sure about the pernicious influence of fantasy, but everything else he says in the article seems to indicate his mind is pretty well made up. He will, of course, "also set out to demolish the Judeo-Christian myth."

He was on a roll, and just couldn't stop at throwing rocks at fantasy:

Do not ever call a child a Muslim child or a Christian child – that is a form of child abuse because a young child is too young to know what its views are about the cosmos or morality.

It is evil to describe a child as a Muslim child or a Christian child. I think labelling children is child abuse and I think there is a very heavy issue, for example, about teaching about hell and torturing their minds with hell.

It's a form of child abuse, even worse than physical child abuse. I wouldn't want to teach a young child, a terrifyingly young child, about hell when he dies, as it's as bad as many forms of physical abuse.

(Note the emotive words: evil, abuse, torturing, terrifyingly. Makes me wonder how I survived my childhood. Also makes me wonder how he feels about teaching children about the danger of stepping in front of moving cars. That's pretty terrifying too. Is it abusive to make children fear the consequences? I can still remember pictures from those driver ed films.)

As far as I can tell, he fits the fill-in-the-blank template of a religious extremist. Anybody care to dispute it?

For what it's worth, I do think there is a profound difference between a convinced believer and a religious extremist.

Hat tip to Jeffrey Overstreet.


Technorati tags: Richard Dawkins, Religious extremism