Marie Brennan's Blog, page 223
September 17, 2011
ridiculous costumes for your weekend entertainment
Picked these up from
![[info]](https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/hostedimages/1380451598i/2033940.gif)
wshaffer
: the "national costumes" from the Miss Universe beauty pageant.
2009: "This is in no way safe for dial-up, or for your sense of a just and rational universe."
2010: "Since I have a different criteria than the judges of the pageant - they enjoy 'bras that look like eyeballs' and I enjoy 'Icelandic schoolmarm' - I wasn't sure exactly how to go about picking a winner of my own."
2011: "For some reason, there is a large Miss Universe contingent that forgets, every year, that this contest is coming up, and they make their costumes the night before. This year it was elevated to an art form of sucking, to the point that many of them walked the entire stage with an earnest expression of 'What the Fuck, Seriously.'"
Warning: not drink-safe. Clear the keyboard area of all hazards before clicking through.
wshaffer
: the "national costumes" from the Miss Universe beauty pageant.2009: "This is in no way safe for dial-up, or for your sense of a just and rational universe."
2010: "Since I have a different criteria than the judges of the pageant - they enjoy 'bras that look like eyeballs' and I enjoy 'Icelandic schoolmarm' - I wasn't sure exactly how to go about picking a winner of my own."
2011: "For some reason, there is a large Miss Universe contingent that forgets, every year, that this contest is coming up, and they make their costumes the night before. This year it was elevated to an art form of sucking, to the point that many of them walked the entire stage with an earnest expression of 'What the Fuck, Seriously.'"
Warning: not drink-safe. Clear the keyboard area of all hazards before clicking through.
September 16, 2011
The month, on SF Novelists...
Those who would like an insight into my research process should head over to the SF Novelists site, where I speak in defense of Wikipedia.
Usual drill: comments here are closed, go comment over there instead, no account required, but first-time commenters will have to be fished out of the moderation queue, so please be patient.
Usual drill: comments here are closed, go comment over there instead, no account required, but first-time commenters will have to be fished out of the moderation queue, so please be patient.
The DWJ Project: Puss in Boots
Another slight entry. (I almost combined it with the post on Yes, Dear, but decided to keep all the books in separate posts, for the sake of organization.)
This is a straight-up retelling of the "Puss in Boots" tale, with no particular alteration that I could spot. My copy, which I think was produced for World Book Day, has some nice running illustrated borders at the top and bottom, and small images of the characters scattered throughout. It's moderately attractive, and so if you want to own a copy of this story, and prefer Diana Wynne Jones' style to Perrault's (which, really, why wouldn't you), then it's worth having.
This is a straight-up retelling of the "Puss in Boots" tale, with no particular alteration that I could spot. My copy, which I think was produced for World Book Day, has some nice running illustrated borders at the top and bottom, and small images of the characters scattered throughout. It's moderately attractive, and so if you want to own a copy of this story, and prefer Diana Wynne Jones' style to Perrault's (which, really, why wouldn't you), then it's worth having.
The DWJ Project: Yes, Dear
Not much to say about this one. It is, to the best of my knowledge, the only straight-up picture book Diana Wynne Jones ever wrote. That being a genre I'm almost completely ignorant of, I'm more or less completely unqualified to judge whether this one's any good.
The story, such as it is, concerns a girl who finds a magic leaf, but nobody in her family will believe her about it. The artwork is pleasing enough. If you have a small person in your acquaintance and you want to get them started on DWJ as early as possible, you might have use for this book; otherwise, it's far too slight to really be appreciated in the same way as her other work.
The story, such as it is, concerns a girl who finds a magic leaf, but nobody in her family will believe her about it. The artwork is pleasing enough. If you have a small person in your acquaintance and you want to get them started on DWJ as early as possible, you might have use for this book; otherwise, it's far too slight to really be appreciated in the same way as her other work.
September 15, 2011
Followup on "Say Yes to Gay YA"
A few days ago, I linked to a piece by Rachel Manija Brown and Sherwood Smith about an agent's request that they remove or straighten a gay protagonist from their book.
Their article didn't name the agent or the agency, but today Joanna Stampfel-Volpe at Nancy Coffey Literary & Media Representation came forward (on a site hosted by agent Colleen Lindsay [edit: former agent]) to say that she is the one in question, and furthermore, that "there is nothing in that article concerning our response to their manuscript that is true."
[Another edit: Joanna Stampfel-Volpe is speaking on behalf of the agency, but herself is not the agent involved in the incident. I apologize for the misreading, which managed to persist through me reading not only her post, but a vast number of comments on bothrachelmanija and sartorias's journals. Ironically, I'd have less editing to do if I'd stuck with my original draft, where I started out referring to "the agent," without a name. But then I decided that if I was doing the authors the courtesy of calling them by name, I should do the same for the agent. My error, and I am editing the remainder of this entry to fix it.]
Brown and Smith stand by their original article.
So this has just turned into a case of "they said, she said." Which has, naturally, made many people leap to conclusions on one side or the other: "Oh, I knew that story sounded fishy from the start; clearly the agent is telling the truth" or "the agent is a lying homophobic liar." Since it's doubtful anybody has a recording of the phone call where all of this went down, actual proof is hard to come by. I do think, however, that it's possible to apply logic and draw at least a few tentative conclusions.
First of all, Brown and Smith didn't name the agent or agency, and specifically said they didn't want this to be a witch-hunt against one person; lots of other people have come forward with stories of similar things happening to them, and the statistics on queer representation in YA support the idea that publishing has a problem with non-straight characters (and non-"mainstream" characters in other respects, too: non-white, disabled, etc). The overwhelming focus of their post was to call out for agents, editors, readers, and writers to try and reduce the barriers against diversity in the genre.
Stampfel-Volpe chose -- presumably with the permission of The Agent In Question (hereafter TAIQ) -- to identify the agency publicly, and both she and Lindsay spend most of their focus on TAIQ and the writers, rather than the larger issue; they accuse Brown and Smith of "exploiting" her. They do call for general diversity as well, but in the end, you can kind of play bingo with that post; for example, Lindsay says TAIQ is a friend of hers, and not a homophobe. Note that the post on Genreville explicitly said TAIQ may or may not entertain personal feelings of homophobia; Brown and Smith don't have any basis for judging that. You don't have to hate gay people to contribute to the ways in which they get silenced. It can happen even if you like them, because that's how institutionalized prejudice works.
Second, there's the question of why the agency responded publicly. Apparently rumours have been flying behind the scenes, people asking whether TAIQ was the one. There was nothing in the original post, or any public follow-up that I've seen, which could possibly have produced those rumours. This creates two immediate possibilities: first, either Brown or Smith gossiped privately before Stampfel-Volpe took it public, or second, that other people have had similar experiences with TAIQ, and speculated based on those experiences.
We can't answer this one; tracing those rumours to their origin is a lost cause. But as a data point, I offer up this: nowhere, publicly or privately, have I seen Brown and Smith provide a single detail, other than that it was a female agent at an agency that has repped a bestselling YA dystopia, that could have given away TAIQ's identity. (And yes, I have plenty of evidence to back up both those claims.) This doesn't disprove the gossip theory, but it does give a data point against it. As for the other, I have no evidence either way. I'm open to other possibilities as well.
Finally -- as some people have noted on Stampfel-Volpe's post -- there may be a middle ground here. As I said before, institutionalized prejudice works in less-than-obvious ways. It's possible the conversation could have been phrased in a way that TAIQ did not see as reinforcing homophobia, which nevertheless could be heard that way. Without the exact words, we can't judge for ourselves. But I will say, for my own part, that I have a hard time believing this was, from the agent's side, purely an issue of craft, and not of the marketability of queerness. If the pov in question "didn't contribute to the actual plot" (Stampfel-Volpe's words), then how could that be solved by making him straight? If she didn't actually suggest making him straight -- if that's a misinterpretation -- then how could Brown and Smith have subsequently heard anything that could be misconstrued as "if this turns into a series, later on you can show that he's gay"? And how could the misunderstanding have persisted past Brown saying his sexuality was a moral issue she would not back down from?
Looking at it logically . . . the only thing I can conclude is that either Brown and Smith are outright lying -- maybe as a publicity stunt, because they haven't yet found representation for the book (as various people have begun to accuse them of, over on the agent's rebuttal post) -- or the agency is trying to do very inept damage control for an incident that was, in its outlines if not every detail, more or less like the Genreville post describes. As you can probably guess from my analysis above, my money is on the latter. Is that based partly on personal knowledge of one side and not the other? Sure. I know the authors; I don't know the agent. I judge them to both be experienced professionals unlikely to manufacture a hissy fit because one particular book hasn't sold yet. But even without the evidence I've seen and you haven't: one side was careful not to make this personal, and the other side was not. One side offered summaries of what both parties said in the conversation; the other omitted the authors' responses from their summary. Heck, one side had two people involved, and the other had only one. I know people's opinions can reinforce each other, but there had to have been a moment where Brown and Smith spoke to each other after the phone call to share their opinions. I've heard nothing to suggest either of them started off by saying "I'm not sure that's what she meant," and was eventually talked around to the other's interpretation. If their interpretations matched up from the start, that's at least a minor form of fact-checking.
When all's said and done, though, my real conclusion: go read the Genreville post again. Skip the parts about the agent; read the parts about the difficulty in getting non-straight, non-white, non-"mainstream" characters through the filter of authors' brains, agents' judgement calls, editors' purchasing power, bookstores' support, and readers' inclinations, all the way to the public eye. That, more than any one book or agent or incident, is the part that matters.
Their article didn't name the agent or the agency, but today Joanna Stampfel-Volpe at Nancy Coffey Literary & Media Representation came forward (on a site hosted by agent Colleen Lindsay [edit: former agent]) to say that she is the one in question, and furthermore, that "there is nothing in that article concerning our response to their manuscript that is true."
[Another edit: Joanna Stampfel-Volpe is speaking on behalf of the agency, but herself is not the agent involved in the incident. I apologize for the misreading, which managed to persist through me reading not only her post, but a vast number of comments on both
rachelmanija and sartorias's journals. Ironically, I'd have less editing to do if I'd stuck with my original draft, where I started out referring to "the agent," without a name. But then I decided that if I was doing the authors the courtesy of calling them by name, I should do the same for the agent. My error, and I am editing the remainder of this entry to fix it.]Brown and Smith stand by their original article.
So this has just turned into a case of "they said, she said." Which has, naturally, made many people leap to conclusions on one side or the other: "Oh, I knew that story sounded fishy from the start; clearly the agent is telling the truth" or "the agent is a lying homophobic liar." Since it's doubtful anybody has a recording of the phone call where all of this went down, actual proof is hard to come by. I do think, however, that it's possible to apply logic and draw at least a few tentative conclusions.
First of all, Brown and Smith didn't name the agent or agency, and specifically said they didn't want this to be a witch-hunt against one person; lots of other people have come forward with stories of similar things happening to them, and the statistics on queer representation in YA support the idea that publishing has a problem with non-straight characters (and non-"mainstream" characters in other respects, too: non-white, disabled, etc). The overwhelming focus of their post was to call out for agents, editors, readers, and writers to try and reduce the barriers against diversity in the genre.
Stampfel-Volpe chose -- presumably with the permission of The Agent In Question (hereafter TAIQ) -- to identify the agency publicly, and both she and Lindsay spend most of their focus on TAIQ and the writers, rather than the larger issue; they accuse Brown and Smith of "exploiting" her. They do call for general diversity as well, but in the end, you can kind of play bingo with that post; for example, Lindsay says TAIQ is a friend of hers, and not a homophobe. Note that the post on Genreville explicitly said TAIQ may or may not entertain personal feelings of homophobia; Brown and Smith don't have any basis for judging that. You don't have to hate gay people to contribute to the ways in which they get silenced. It can happen even if you like them, because that's how institutionalized prejudice works.
Second, there's the question of why the agency responded publicly. Apparently rumours have been flying behind the scenes, people asking whether TAIQ was the one. There was nothing in the original post, or any public follow-up that I've seen, which could possibly have produced those rumours. This creates two immediate possibilities: first, either Brown or Smith gossiped privately before Stampfel-Volpe took it public, or second, that other people have had similar experiences with TAIQ, and speculated based on those experiences.
We can't answer this one; tracing those rumours to their origin is a lost cause. But as a data point, I offer up this: nowhere, publicly or privately, have I seen Brown and Smith provide a single detail, other than that it was a female agent at an agency that has repped a bestselling YA dystopia, that could have given away TAIQ's identity. (And yes, I have plenty of evidence to back up both those claims.) This doesn't disprove the gossip theory, but it does give a data point against it. As for the other, I have no evidence either way. I'm open to other possibilities as well.
Finally -- as some people have noted on Stampfel-Volpe's post -- there may be a middle ground here. As I said before, institutionalized prejudice works in less-than-obvious ways. It's possible the conversation could have been phrased in a way that TAIQ did not see as reinforcing homophobia, which nevertheless could be heard that way. Without the exact words, we can't judge for ourselves. But I will say, for my own part, that I have a hard time believing this was, from the agent's side, purely an issue of craft, and not of the marketability of queerness. If the pov in question "didn't contribute to the actual plot" (Stampfel-Volpe's words), then how could that be solved by making him straight? If she didn't actually suggest making him straight -- if that's a misinterpretation -- then how could Brown and Smith have subsequently heard anything that could be misconstrued as "if this turns into a series, later on you can show that he's gay"? And how could the misunderstanding have persisted past Brown saying his sexuality was a moral issue she would not back down from?
Looking at it logically . . . the only thing I can conclude is that either Brown and Smith are outright lying -- maybe as a publicity stunt, because they haven't yet found representation for the book (as various people have begun to accuse them of, over on the agent's rebuttal post) -- or the agency is trying to do very inept damage control for an incident that was, in its outlines if not every detail, more or less like the Genreville post describes. As you can probably guess from my analysis above, my money is on the latter. Is that based partly on personal knowledge of one side and not the other? Sure. I know the authors; I don't know the agent. I judge them to both be experienced professionals unlikely to manufacture a hissy fit because one particular book hasn't sold yet. But even without the evidence I've seen and you haven't: one side was careful not to make this personal, and the other side was not. One side offered summaries of what both parties said in the conversation; the other omitted the authors' responses from their summary. Heck, one side had two people involved, and the other had only one. I know people's opinions can reinforce each other, but there had to have been a moment where Brown and Smith spoke to each other after the phone call to share their opinions. I've heard nothing to suggest either of them started off by saying "I'm not sure that's what she meant," and was eventually talked around to the other's interpretation. If their interpretations matched up from the start, that's at least a minor form of fact-checking.
When all's said and done, though, my real conclusion: go read the Genreville post again. Skip the parts about the agent; read the parts about the difficulty in getting non-straight, non-white, non-"mainstream" characters through the filter of authors' brains, agents' judgement calls, editors' purchasing power, bookstores' support, and readers' inclinations, all the way to the public eye. That, more than any one book or agent or incident, is the part that matters.
I promised to post it ages ago . . . .
. . . so here it is at last, my costume from Sirens last year:
This was for both the masquerade ball at the end of the conference, and the A Star Shall Fall launch party beforehand. I described it as "non-specifically Lune," in that it's her colors and an Elizabethan style, but not me trying to actually dress as her.
(The other person in the photo, incidentally, was one of my two frontrunners for winner of the costume contest, until somebody solved my problem by mentioning that she was staff and therefore ineligible. Alas, I can't seem to find a shot of the actual winner, who dressed as an aspen fairy, and was gorgeous. But the one you see there -- her armor! It's made from a cut-up-basketball! And she brought a RAPIER!!! <swoon>)
So yeah. That was my costume. I paid somebody to make it for me; I've had the fabric and design planned for ages, but never had the time (nor quite the gumption) to attempt something that difficult. This, my friends, is why god invented SCA costumers. :-)
Now I just need to find more excuses to wear it . . . .
This was for both the masquerade ball at the end of the conference, and the A Star Shall Fall launch party beforehand. I described it as "non-specifically Lune," in that it's her colors and an Elizabethan style, but not me trying to actually dress as her.
(The other person in the photo, incidentally, was one of my two frontrunners for winner of the costume contest, until somebody solved my problem by mentioning that she was staff and therefore ineligible. Alas, I can't seem to find a shot of the actual winner, who dressed as an aspen fairy, and was gorgeous. But the one you see there -- her armor! It's made from a cut-up-basketball! And she brought a RAPIER!!! <swoon>)
So yeah. That was my costume. I paid somebody to make it for me; I've had the fabric and design planned for ages, but never had the time (nor quite the gumption) to attempt something that difficult. This, my friends, is why god invented SCA costumers. :-)
Now I just need to find more excuses to wear it . . . .
September 13, 2011
Strange Horizons fund drive
Strange Horizons
is conducting its annual fund drive (which is a major component of how they can afford to pay their authors pro rates). If you donate, you'll be eligible to win one of a number of nifty prizes; that list there is only the tip of the iceberg, with more being added throughout the month. (Including, yes, a few of my own books. :-) But they're the least of what's on offer.)
SH publishes a lot of high-quality short fiction, so go forth and donate!
SH publishes a lot of high-quality short fiction, so go forth and donate!
September 12, 2011
Yes to Gay YA
Rachel Manija Brown (
rachelmanija
) and Sherwood Smith (
sartorias
) have an important essay up at Publishers Weekly, Say Yes to Gay YA, where they recount how an agent offered them representation for a YA novel on the condition that they either straighten a gay point-of-view character, or remove him from the book entirely.
You can read the details there, as well as suggestions for how to put an end to this kind of thing. You can do the same on Rachel's journal, if you prefer LJ, but the PW post includes a mechanism for posting anonymously, if you'd prefer that. They're particularly interested in hearing from any authors who have experienced similar pushback from agents or editors, so as to explore just how widespread the problem is. The reader-side viewpoint is also valuable, to help prove there is an audience for these books.
If you're on Twitter, the hashtag is #YesGayYA.
rachelmanija
) and Sherwood Smith (
sartorias
) have an important essay up at Publishers Weekly, Say Yes to Gay YA, where they recount how an agent offered them representation for a YA novel on the condition that they either straighten a gay point-of-view character, or remove him from the book entirely.You can read the details there, as well as suggestions for how to put an end to this kind of thing. You can do the same on Rachel's journal, if you prefer LJ, but the PW post includes a mechanism for posting anonymously, if you'd prefer that. They're particularly interested in hearing from any authors who have experienced similar pushback from agents or editors, so as to explore just how widespread the problem is. The reader-side viewpoint is also valuable, to help prove there is an audience for these books.
If you're on Twitter, the hashtag is #YesGayYA.
September 10, 2011
Books read, August 2011
A bit belated, but that's better than forgetting entirely, right?
Mixed Magics: Four Tales of Chrestomanci, Diana Wynne Jones. Discussed elsewhere.
The Pinhoe Egg, Diana Wynne Jones. Discussed elsewhere.
Pyramids, Terry Pratchett. In which Pratchett sets his sights on ancient Egypt. I quite liked this one; I once took a class on Egyptology, which gave me enough context to snicker a lot at some of the jokes in here. And Teppic landed pretty squarely in the zone of "all the sexy parts of being an assassin" (primarily his competence, which I'm a sucker for no matter what skill-set it applies to) "with none of the bad parts" (i.e. actually murdering people). It's kind of a cheat, narratively speaking, but I liked him enough that I didn't mind.
Yes, Dear, Diana Wynne Jones. Er, not actually discussed elsewhere: I read this right before leaving for Japan, and didn't get around to posting about it. I'll remedy that soon.
Puss in Boots, Diana Wynne Jones. See above.
The Hundred Thousand Kingdoms, N.K. Jemisin. I generally find having gods as actual characters in a fantasy novel to be a bad idea, because they end up seeming like powerful but extremely petty humans. This was not the case here, which pleased me greatly: Nahadoth's mutable nature was very well-played. I wish I'd engaged more with Yeine, though. Too much of what happened, especially at the climax, was the result of other people's decisions and actions; I prefer a more active protagonist. But the novel laid an engaging enough foundation for the world and its mythological underpinnings that I'm interested in reading the next book, which follows a different character.
The Last Colony, John Scalzi. It's been long enough since I read Old Man's War and The Ghost Brigades that I know it undermined my reading of this one a little bit, but I still enjoyed it (if not as much as the first one). In particular, I am very very glad about the way it ended. There are certain things about the setup that have bothered me from the start, and it was very satisfying to see the story go "yeah, those things are a problem. How's about we do something to change that." These are mostly rollicking SF, but there's thought underneath the rollicking, too.
New Spring, Robert Jordan. Discussed elsewhere.
The Order of the Stick: Snips, Snails and Dragon Tales, Rich Burlew. This is a good book for people who are already fans of the comic, and not so much for people who don't know it at all, because it's basically a DVD of special features: the original strips from Dragon, classic stories retold by the PCs (Canterbury Tales-style, sort of), the long-awaited 4th edition parody, etc. I enjoyed it greatly.
The Girl Who Circumnavigated Fairyland in a Ship of Her Own Making, Catherynne M. Valente. This is, of course, the book Cat Valente wrote as a crowdfunded website project, and subsequently sold to a publisher. If you want the whimsy of Alice in Wonderland with a bit more meat on its bones, of you were always ticked about the way Lewis didn't seem to care what being yanked in and out of Narnia would do to the Pevensies, this might be up your alley. I did have to read it in short bursts, though, rather than devouring it in one go, because otherwise I suspected I would get weary of its style. (Whimsy is not generally my cup of tea. I enjoyed this example of it, but I had to pace myself.)
Mixed Magics: Four Tales of Chrestomanci, Diana Wynne Jones. Discussed elsewhere.
The Pinhoe Egg, Diana Wynne Jones. Discussed elsewhere.
Pyramids, Terry Pratchett. In which Pratchett sets his sights on ancient Egypt. I quite liked this one; I once took a class on Egyptology, which gave me enough context to snicker a lot at some of the jokes in here. And Teppic landed pretty squarely in the zone of "all the sexy parts of being an assassin" (primarily his competence, which I'm a sucker for no matter what skill-set it applies to) "with none of the bad parts" (i.e. actually murdering people). It's kind of a cheat, narratively speaking, but I liked him enough that I didn't mind.
Yes, Dear, Diana Wynne Jones. Er, not actually discussed elsewhere: I read this right before leaving for Japan, and didn't get around to posting about it. I'll remedy that soon.
Puss in Boots, Diana Wynne Jones. See above.
The Hundred Thousand Kingdoms, N.K. Jemisin. I generally find having gods as actual characters in a fantasy novel to be a bad idea, because they end up seeming like powerful but extremely petty humans. This was not the case here, which pleased me greatly: Nahadoth's mutable nature was very well-played. I wish I'd engaged more with Yeine, though. Too much of what happened, especially at the climax, was the result of other people's decisions and actions; I prefer a more active protagonist. But the novel laid an engaging enough foundation for the world and its mythological underpinnings that I'm interested in reading the next book, which follows a different character.
The Last Colony, John Scalzi. It's been long enough since I read Old Man's War and The Ghost Brigades that I know it undermined my reading of this one a little bit, but I still enjoyed it (if not as much as the first one). In particular, I am very very glad about the way it ended. There are certain things about the setup that have bothered me from the start, and it was very satisfying to see the story go "yeah, those things are a problem. How's about we do something to change that." These are mostly rollicking SF, but there's thought underneath the rollicking, too.
New Spring, Robert Jordan. Discussed elsewhere.
The Order of the Stick: Snips, Snails and Dragon Tales, Rich Burlew. This is a good book for people who are already fans of the comic, and not so much for people who don't know it at all, because it's basically a DVD of special features: the original strips from Dragon, classic stories retold by the PCs (Canterbury Tales-style, sort of), the long-awaited 4th edition parody, etc. I enjoyed it greatly.
The Girl Who Circumnavigated Fairyland in a Ship of Her Own Making, Catherynne M. Valente. This is, of course, the book Cat Valente wrote as a crowdfunded website project, and subsequently sold to a publisher. If you want the whimsy of Alice in Wonderland with a bit more meat on its bones, of you were always ticked about the way Lewis didn't seem to care what being yanked in and out of Narnia would do to the Pevensies, this might be up your alley. I did have to read it in short bursts, though, rather than devouring it in one go, because otherwise I suspected I would get weary of its style. (Whimsy is not generally my cup of tea. I enjoyed this example of it, but I had to pace myself.)
one more
I forgot to put Unhallowed Metropolis on the list! (I never owned the book, which is why I overlooked it.)
Man, that was a fun game; I'm sorry that moving out to California cut my involvement short. Our GM told us our characters should be from the East End. I don't think he expected us to make the most illiterate, amoral, disease-ridden group of PCs known to gaming history -- but wow, did it produce a fun dynamic.
Man, that was a fun game; I'm sorry that moving out to California cut my involvement short. Our GM told us our characters should be from the East End. I don't think he expected us to make the most illiterate, amoral, disease-ridden group of PCs known to gaming history -- but wow, did it produce a fun dynamic.
