Sam Sykes's Blog, page 21

Black Halo Countdown: Two

Yes!  I can count!

Our countdown to the release of Black Halo: The Aeons' Gate Book Two: Aeon Harder continues!  Right here!  Right now!  I asked for questions last time and got kind of a buttload of them, on the blog, on the emails, on the twitters and one guy who drove past me and screamed something out the window before he crashed violently, killing dozens.

So, you know, things just got a little intense.

Anyway, I am going to answer these questions in an attempt to titillate and tolerate and maybe tantalize your palettes.  But I never said I wouldn't be coy about it.

Bryan writes…

By the end of it have we met all the POV characters or will the 3rd book add more?

I'm not quite as adept as George Martin at planning vast schemes.  I never rule out the possibility that one character or another might have something to say that requires us to get into their heads for a moment.

Erik Mallows Edwards writes…

I don't have a question, and hard-candy rots teeth.

But…  congratulations to you Sam all the same.  That's it really.  As promisied I'll give it a go, and can you really, do much better than that?

Aw, thanks, Eric!  And while you don't have a question, I do have an answer for you.  Yes, I can do better, but only if you were a girl with low self-esteem who played the acoustic guitar.

…it's a complicated plan.

Rick writes…

Well, you see I have this thing for Kataria. Will any artwork be included in "Black Halo". Nothing weird going on here understand, but inquiring minds need to know.

Pre-orders from Amazon say only paperbacks are available. I want to get a hardcover, first, first and signed to match my copy of "Tome of the Undergates". Where do I go?

I don't know if she goes for round-ears.  We are updating the Lost Pages with some new artwork very soon, though.  I would keep an eye out for it, were I you.

As for hardcovers?  Pyr tends to only do paperbacks.  So you might have to wait a bit to get a matching hardcover from Gollancz in the UK in a few months.

Felicity writes…

Do we get to find out what happened to the dragonmen and Gariath history?

Yes.

Dave writes…

Here's two question for you – is someone going to push themselves in between Lenk and Kataria?

and

was it easier with Black Halo in terms of writing the book (compared to Tome)?

At least three.

and

I don't know, really.  The need to be clever has sort of diminished with Black Halo, to the point that I can kind of just flex my muscles and do whatever the heck I want to.  As Bryan noted in his comment, the prose has really gotten stronger this time around.  I suppose improvement is simply inevitable.

Mundanename asks…

Does Gariath have a higher or lower body count in BLACK HALO?

Gariath has really entered his artistic phase in Black Halo. He feels less of a need to be part of the machine, you know?  Rejection of corporate values 'n what not.  This time, it's about the killing, but it's really about the killing, man.

Mundanename presses his luck and asks again…

Will we learn more about the mechanics of magic in BLACK HALO?

Dreadaeleon will teach you more than you ever possibly wanted to know about it.

Jerome writes…

Loincloths?

Loincloths.

The Nevada Police Department writes…

You don't really think you're going to get away with it, do you, Sykes?

So, anyway, hope this piqued your curiosity or at least wasted your time!

Let's all hold hands as we wait for the inevitable.

Black Halo Countdown: Three

Did you guys know Black Halo is out in four days?

How in the hell did that happen?  You think you know a month and then it comes out and pulls this shit on you.  March, you're a loose cannon.  Turn in your gun and your badge.

Let's celebrate by counting down together, shall we?  Every day, we'll do a post in which we discuss something Black Halo related.

Look!  Here's Black Halo's first review at Floor to Ceiling Books.

I'll level with you: it's like 5:00 AM and I'm tired from paddling Ari Marmell and wishing I could paddle someone else.  Do me a favor and ask me a Black Halo related question, something you've always wanted to know, anything from what's going to happen to who's going to be in it to "will they ever kiss?"

Do it.

Come on.

If you do, I'm-a give you a lollipop.

Our Bodies, Our Elves

Here is some news for you.

Porno Kitsch has done a pretty fly interview with me in which they asked some fairly tough questions (and in which I get to face the infamous "is this a D&D game gone wrong story" question).  Check out Parts One and Two here.

Ari "Mammaries" Marmell and I are going head-to-head for the next week over at Babel Clash.  Come watch the magic and mystery.

Please keep an eye on Amanda Rutter's blog, since she's been helping to organize a donation/charity auction for relief effort to Japan which many of us fine authors will be contributing to.

So, then…to business.

Hi.  It's a post about writing today.  One that you might find useful, though.  It occurs to me that we discuss the technical aspects of writing and getting published frequently, but we don't always think about the mental and emotional aspects.  This, I feel, is slightly dishonest of me, since those aspects are the ones I was least prepared for when I became published and I'd not want to wish the same mental torture I put myself through on anyone…well, maybe some people.  All those people should stop reading here.

I don't know if anyone's noticed, but it can be remarkably easy to get burned out on social media.  Part of this reason, of course, is that becoming overwhelmed is simply inevitable when everyone is talking about similar things all the time.  I think for those of us in the writing profession, though, there's another aspect to it, one that can swiftly morph from burn out to resentment and outright loathing.

Envy.

It gets easier, but it never gets easy.

I've probably brought up this quote, that Joe Abercrombie once said to me, more than any other piece of advice I've ever been given.  And there's good reason for this: it's astonishingly true.  Getting published is difficult, sure, but being published can be a whole different animal.  If you've ever attended a writing workshop or panel, you'll probably have heard that the internet changed everything about being a writer.  Having become a writer by the time the internet was ensconced firmly in most peoples' lives, I couldn't really say as to how much has changed, but I can tell you this.

It's very easy to get personally involved with someone halfway across the world when you can talk to them in real-time.  It's easier for authors and readers, I think, because the art form is inherently personal: something written is something offered personally by the author and the reader connects with the author on a personal level.  That's what makes it work.  That's also what lends the relationship a degree of personal investment and all the emotions that come from it.

My editor Lou Anders once suggested that there are people out there that can admire an author and, at the same time, resent him for occupying space they feel they're entitled to (I'm horribly paraphrasing this, he said it much more eloquently).  This isn't a broad, sweeping accusation, but I suspect there might be a ring of truth to it.

Largely because I've often felt it.

As I said, it's remarkably easy to look at another author's stellar reviews or awards or work or twitter followers or comments on their blog post or just the fact that someone said just the right word to them that you wish someone would say to you.  It can be pretty intimidating to see it and fear tends to begin the spiral.  The reactions go from "how am I going to compete with that" to "what makes him so special" to "I deserve it more."

This can quickly lead to the resentment I mentioned earlier, where you find yourself irritated to hear of their success or to read their tweets or just to see them eat lunch because how dare they eat a burrito when you're languishing under their oppressive heel!

Probably the worst about it?  It's totally natural.  You're not a freak for having felt that twinge of envy, that pang of resentment, that stroke of intimidation that has made you quiver in your computer chair.  And you're not a tramp for wanting attention, wanting people to look at you, wanting people to notice your writing.

But these are products of the art, things that will come to you when you write the best book you possibly can and hone it as much as you can. Everything you want will come from all that you should want: to tell your story.

The envy, the resentment, the intimidation are largely useless things because they all spawn from a largely useless emotion: fear.  It's one I revile and one I frequently find myself wallowing in.  And it all starts with that fear that you're not good enough to break into this competition and compete with the big dogs, woof woof.

And yet, it's there, at the top of the spiral, where we tend to go wrong.

Writing isn't really a competition.

There are awards, online polls, the occasional blog that asks you to cut open a goat and see who will be the true champion writer of whatever.  These are fine for people who are interested in them, but they don't change the fact that there is no such thing as a reader who will only read one book.  No one has ever looked at Tome of the Undergates and The Hundred Thousand Kingdoms and said: "Well, shit, whichever one I don't read now I'm going to ignore for the rest of my life, because that's hardcore, baby."  And if there are people who've done that, they probably weren't going to read your stuff, anyway.

And there will be people for whom your stuff just doesn't work.  That's fine, too.  It's something you get to deal with.  It sucks, of course, but "sucks" is not a really earth-shattering verb.

Because "sucks" does not take away from the art.  "Sucks" does not change the fact that it's the story you wanted to write.  "Sucks" does not mean you'll swear off writing forever.  "Sucks" means that it sucks that this person didn't dig your stuff.  Maybe they'll like whatever you do next.  Maybe they won't.  But the people who will are the people you should keep in touch with.

I'm kind of writing this for myself, primarily, just to reassure myself that it's not all that I make it out to be.  I succumb to these emotions frequently.  I'm getting better at it, of course.  If you can take something away from this, so much the better.

And we end the same place we began: social media.  Don't look at it with fear and revulsion.  Don't look at other authors as challenges to be topped.  Don't look at people as commodities that either contribute or decrease your success.  And don't view success as being in limited quantity.

These are numbers.

If you were good with numbers, you'd probably be doing something that paid better.

Sam Sykes Wastes Your Time

So, this is pretty much just here to remind you that I will be at the Tucson Festival of Books this impending Saturday (and maybe Sunday).

Will there be copies of BLACK HALO THERE?  AVAILABLE A WHOLE TWO GODDAMN WEEKS AHEAD OF THE NORMAL RELEASE DATE?!

I DON'T EVEN FUCKING KNOW!

Seriously, though, Maryelizabeth Hart from the fantastic Mysterious Galaxy Bookstore told me she was on it, doggone it, but it's still uncertain.  There will, of course, be copies of Tome of the Undergates available and everyone will basically want to get stuff signed or be punched square in the noodle.

…you know, it occurs to me that I rarely actually talk about myself on this blog.  Most of the posts tend to be focused around the philosophy and ethics of the craft (I call it "the craft" because I sometimes feel I'm not a pretentious enough tool), but very little about the actual workings of what I'm doing.

Part of this is because I don't usually talk about myself in conversations that don't involve bench pressing, how many people I've seduced or my radical views of manatees and their slow and subtle erosion of our civil liberties.  Another part is that I'm just not sure what authors usually talk about when it comes to blogging about their own work and thus, I'm not too sure what should be here.

More chatter about the plot, maybe?  What you can expect from the next book?  A weekly column in which Kataria gives you poorly-thought-out and poorlier-spelt relationship/hunting advice?

I guess, as ever, I shirk all responsibility and turn it to you, the viewers.  Is there anything you'd like to see?  Any questions you'd like me to answer?  I know I come off as extremely intimidating, what with my gruff demeanor and warpaint and my shrine of smooth, spherical objects arranged in a precise, almost ritualistic octagon around a framed picture of Blake Charlton that is signed "To Chestie, avec l'amour."  But I really do like it when people talk to me.

I crave it.

That said, there's something slightly more useful I want to bring to your attention.

I really need to update the links page, since I have thus far discovered some really good webcomics like Unsounded and Cheap Thrills and, probably one of my new favorites: Manly Guys Doing Manly Things.  It's a really interesting concept: the world of video games frequently produces hyper-macho, uber-masculine male protagonists that are just too badass to function in normal society and need help reintegrating into civilization.  This is a really good comic.

What's even better, though, is that the author, Coela Squid, actually knows a thing or two about writing.  Take this blog post here, where the oft-misused and always-overused term "Mary Sue" is discussed and covered along with the driving concepts behind character motivations, relatability and likeability.  It's very much worth a read and I will just weep tears of blood if you don't.

Anyway, that's it for now.

Oh!  Hey!  Also, I'll be at Norwescon next month!  How in the hell!  Come see me or I will come see you.

Nude.

Which one of us?

Let's find out together.

Bonnie Tyler is Forever Waiting

The problem with people who use terms like "nihilist fantasy" is that there tends to be a fairly good point frequently buried under a mountain of shit that inevitably turns into the most bizarre paranoia ever spewed about fantasy.  That point tends to get lost, because who wants to wade through shit to get it?

Me.

I do.

And I did.

Beneath all the buzzwords, the namedropping and the contempt for youth, there is an actual point to the idea that fantasy should not be a vehicle for negativity.  It's an idea that's been tossed around a bit on a few Facebook posts (that eventually became kind of looney, and I'm lazy, so I won't go hunting them down to link) that fantasy needs…well, to be fantastic.

A hero, a monster and a quest, the theory goes, is what's needed.  There's something about these traits that makes fantasy what it is, something that protagonist, antagonist and conflict lack.  Something loftier, perhaps: the kind of qualities a hero has that we can aspire to, the kind of villainies that a monster has that can make us fear, the kind of weight a quest has that makes it so much more than the tension of a guy and a girl staring at each other, thinking.

There are obvious issues with this, of course.  Heroic qualities can remove the protagonist too far from reality, denying us the chance to relate to him.  Villainous properties can make a monster a shallow and boring and, if we can't relate to the monster, then we don't know why he's a threat aside from the fact that the author told us so, in which case we're removed from the story and it feels hollow.  And dropping the One Ring into Mount Doom is not something someone experiences as much as a guy and a girl staring at each other, thinking, thus making the stakes for the latter frequently higher.

But then there's the other end of the spectrum: the idea that fantasy is just like reality and that it's a good vehicle for exploring how utterly shitty humanity can be.  In the name of relatability and reality, we have grit, and in the name of grit we have a lot of really depressing instances where people never rise above their shit and frequently sink down further into it.  War is everywhere and everyone is dying, there are no goodly kings and fair princesses since all the politicians use people like pawns to murder each other, the sex is loveless and the romance is completely gone and at the end, you don't so much not feel the warm fuzzies as you feel pretty crappy.

There's obvious issues with this, too.  Portraying something as unrelentingly bleak and despairing where there simply are no good people, and if there are, they're too stupid or just fated to get fucked over time and again is as unrealistic and shallow a conflict as one where all the Good People are always happy and beautiful and all the Bad People live underground because that's where they belong.  A conflict in which no one wins and everyone ends up shittier than where they begin can often feel like a talk with Lie Bot: meaningless, empty, designed just to make you feel bad.

So, which is right?  Well, as impotent an answer as it is: no one is.

In my opinion, conflict is up and down, give and take.  We need to see the protagonist succeed and the antagonist succeed from time to time to keep things interesting.  And we need to be able to relate to both of them so that we're invested in their successes and failures, hence why I tend to lean away from the idea of traditional "good must always win and evil must always wear black armor" fantasy, since it tends to discourage relatability in the name of escapism/tradition.

And yet, at the same time, I believe in magic words and I believe in love.  I want the hero to succeed in some way.  I want the villain to be taken down, after a huge fight.  I want my talking magical creatures and ancient worlds and my heroes and my monsters.  I want fantastic stuff and I don't read to feel like shit.

Tome of the Undergates is gritty, sure, but it has love, it has inspiration, it has wonder and poetry and tropes alongside the grittiness and the stomping in of groins and the despair and sorrow.  I wanted that.  I can't see how you can have one without the other.  The real thing I don't want to do is have it all clear-cut and easy to figure out.  I don't want love at first sight and I don't want villains to wring their hands and cackle.  But I don't want Lenk drinking himself to death in a pile of his own filth as he gently strokes a blood-soaked picture of Kataria, wondering how it all came to this.

I guess, at the end, the best answer I can give is that the ideal end to this is conflict.

See, all art, by its very nature, makes a statement about humanity.  How loud and how convincing a statement it makes, of course, is up to the author.  If the hero ends in a puddle of his own shit, the statement is still loud.  If the hero gets the girl/boy and becomes king, the statement is still there.  This is why, in general, we don't like stories where there is no struggle, no conflict and the hero ends up exactly where he was.  The statement is something akin to shuffling your feet, clearing your throat and going "uh…I don't think manatees are completely worthless, no."

But here's the thing: which of them makes the bigger statement?

So, as ashamed as I am to take such a weak stance, I'm really not sure what the right answer is.  Maybe there is none.  Maybe that's the statement.  Either way, that's why I wrote this and that's why I'm opening it up to you.

Shit-holes or cloud-nines, people?

Free Cake Inside

So, a bunch of neat stuff to read today.  If you really love me, you'll read them all.  If you don't, I will probably paint a picture in my own feces, using the tears coming from my wracking sobs to dilute between the various shades of brown, that I will later put on your porch and set fire to while standing in the background holding a boombox over my head playing Chris Dane Owens' smash hit of nothing Shine on Me. The picture was of a happy little turtle.  He's on fire now.  I hope you're satisfied.

FIRST read my latest article for the BSC Review in which I impotently rage against a genre much more popular than my own and try to disguise it as constructive and witty insight into its flaws.

NOW read this: HEY, BLACK HALO IS OUT THIS MONTH!

What are you doing to prepare for its release?  Are you organizing mud wrestling matches to help young people who could barely afford their thongs to afford the book?  Are you camping the bookshelves well in advance, for fear that a greasy, glasses-wearing fellow known only as "The Hustle" will come and buy all the copies (because he totally will)?  Are you threatening other authors to keep their grubby little hands away from my precious shelf space?

It's important to do these things, really, as book sales rely on fair trades and mature agreements by all…that we must destroy if we are to assume the mantle of leadership.

Now have a look at THIS. My boy Mark Charan Newton brings up an excellent discussion on race and sexuality in fantasy, noting the conservativism of the genre.  The comments are all well worth reading and I wanted to weigh in only with this:

I don't attribute to malice what I can attribute to fear.  I sometimes wonder if aspiring authors sometimes follow trends or patterns (such as white, straight males with white, straight male problems) out of a fear of not being able to make it on their own ideas.  It's a valid fear, as we've seen some bestsellers display a rather ho hum amount of originality or expansiveness.  But recall that fear is easily justified by calling it respect for tradition and I've frequently railed against the ridiculousness of that.  And recall that fear is anathema to art.

If you want to write something that goes against the mold, don't be afraid.  If you want to write something that defies genre patterns, don't fear to do it.  The only people who will resent you for it are the ones that weren't going to read you, anyway.

AND FINALLY, I will be at the TUCSON FESTIVAL OF BOOKS (March 12-13th) next week.  Holy shit!  Hosted on the University of Arizona Campus, I'll be hanging out at the Mysterious Galaxy Booth (#249-#251, though I will be kind of hard to miss, striding amongst the tiny creatures like a colossus).

Will they be selling copies of Black Halo?

They sure as shit will try.

If not, stop on by.  Shoot the shit.  Tell me I'm pretty.  I will sign your books with great vigor and possibly ink.

Okay, good.

We have that settled.

Now go get yourself some spinach.  You've earned it.

Sam Sykes Hates You

I think, if I have a least favorite word of 2011, it's "genre."  Or specifically, "the genre."

Set down your pitchforks, I don't mean it like that.  "That" being the sense of a hooty-tooty fresh-and-fruity critic of mainstream fiction, all clad in his wire-frame glasses and turtleneck sweater in his professional shot against a white background next to his bio that involves the words "degree in literature" and "in the pants," vomiting a little in his mouth when he says the word "genre."  No.  I don't think "genre" is a dirty word.

Rather, I think it's getting slightly too revered.  It's becoming my least favorite phrase in the sense that we can't seem to have a conversation about a book without involving "the genre."  Is steampunk good or is it not part of "the genre"?  Is "the genre" being destroyed by the nihilism of today?  What is the work of today doing for "the genre"?  Is my author more "the genre" than your author?  How can I best feed "the genre"?

I write genre fiction.  Specifically, I write fantasy fiction.  I write fantasy fiction because I like to write fantasy fiction.  I like exploring new worlds, meeting new peoples, finding out how things work on a world not my own.  I wrote a book in which a dragonman beat the tar out of a wizard and fought the urge to urinate him.  I wrote a character that uses the phrase "round-ear."  I don't say I'm writing objectivist morality.  I don't scoff at the notion that I write fantasy.  I don't mind being called a nerd.  Some of my favorite authors write fantasy.  Some don't.  I am a fantasy writer.

And I don't really care about "the genre."

It's a pair of words.  It's not a pillar.  A book is art.  A book is not not art if it is or it isn't part of "the genre."  A book does not have to exist for the good of "the genre."  A book exists on its own merits.  An author probably did not write a story for what it contributes to "the genre."  An author probably wrote it because he or she wanted to tell that story.  A reader probably does not read a book because it's essential reading for "the genre."  A reader probably read it because they wanted to.

"Because I wanted to" is a good phrase.  It's what drives the writing and the speculation.  It's what makes you want to read it.  Not dedication, not loyalty, not for essential reading.  You either want to do it, or you do not.  What other authors did, what other readers are saying, what bloggers are blogging or what reviews say does not really factor into it.  It all comes down to "because I wanted to."

It's a good phrase.

But it's not my favorite of 2011.

I think "fearless" might be.  Or maybe "fuck."  The two are pretty intertwined.

Rejection is a part of art.  It's not part of the creation, as creation based on rejection tends to be (but isn't always) flimsy and unfounded.  But rejection is important in that it sets us apart and makes our work unique.  Most of that comes after the book is published, of course, but it can factor in prior and during the creation, as well.  And that's where "fuck" comes in.

Fuck the influences, fuck the traditions, fuck the hallmarks.  Fuck the way things are done.  Fuck the things that tell you what to write.  Fuck the definition of what is and isn't genre, true genre or the genre.  Fuck the cries for more of the same.  Fuck the laments that there isn't another Established Author Name Here.  Fuck not reading something because it's outside your comfort zone.  Fuck not writing something because it's never been done.  Fuck everything.

And, as I said "fearless" and "fuck are intertwined…

Don't be afraid of the influences, don't be afraid of the traditions, don't be afraid of the hallmarks; they aren't yours.  Don't be afraid of protocol; you don't have to follow it.  Don't be afraid of things that tell you what to write; they aren't writing it.  Don't be afraid of the definition of the genre; your work will occupy its own space.  Don't be afraid of people crying for the same thing they've always read; you aren't writing for them.  Don't be afraid of reading and writing outside of your comfort zone; you're never at a loss for having experimented.  Don't be afraid of anything.

If you choose to fuck this blog, that's great, too.  If you choose to honor the traditions or fly in their face, do that, too.  If you choose to write an epic Tolkienist fantasy with vivid hill descriptions and great feasting, do so.  If you choose to write a story about steampunk romance that goes in the face of everything, do that.  If you choose to to write something that we haven't even thought of and you're sure no one will like but you, then do it.

Just make sure you chose to do it.

Because no one can write it but you.

The Greatest Contest

You were offered a way out.  You were warned.  I told you I'd return, surfing on a wave of angels, swinging the Hammer of God and riding a chariot drawn by a hundred feral supermodels.  And I have come, to sit in judgment of the living, and to hand down my divine authority to tell you which.

WHICH ENTRIES RECEIVE THE COVETED ARCs OF BLACK HALO

ROUND ONE: ONE GOOD REASON

I got a lot of submissions, actually, and I am so pleased that everyone chipped in with their adoration.  Let's have a look through some of my favorites, non?

Travis writes…

I am the most deservingest of this holy-ier than though ARC fest that is "Black Halo". The undying love that I feel for it brings me warmth to my soul and a longing that I cannot bare much longer. I must know that it is mine!! My heart is pure sir and yours is significantly more so with this kind offering. And if I don't win… I will punch YOU in the butt!

Ah, yes.  Passion.  Vigor.  Threats.  This is surely a good one.  But is it as good as…

Tyner?!

Brother Sam,

The following are all reasons you should send me the ARC.

1.  I dispense handy advice on Crazy Women, as I've dealt with more than my fair share.

2.  I can bench press you.

3.  You never read my damned book, so you owe me! Dammit!  ARRGGHH!

An appeal to guilt?!  How devious!  Also, it's not a bad method, since Tyner is actually a good friend of mine and a hugely talented writer (if he had a website, I would cram it down your throats that you might choke on it and weep bitter tears for the love that you can never know from his bosom).

Kerwin writes…

i should get this ARC because i am a Capricorn, and really, what else needs to be said?

Unfortunately, I am a Taurus and thus am too stubborn to yield my precious ARC to a filthy, philandering Capricorn…or, wait, am I a Virgo now…or some shit?

And a very special message from Griffin…

You owe this to me. I am special. Not short bus special, but special in that I am entitled to your ARC.

Why, you might ask?

Because I said so. The non-short bus special have no need to explain themselves to others, certainly not to those who owe them everything. We don't pay our fair share, ever, and expect you to cover for us. Why should this silly 'contest' be any different, really?

Send it to me, or I will use my specialness to whine about your complete refusal to recognize how important my special-ness is. Soon after, you will have a great many un-special moments suffering the slings and arrows of people who think they're special and that they know best for the genre you write in.

If, however, you decide to acknowledge my special with an ARC, I will deign to slobber upon your name, heaping my special praise on your goody-goody goodness and, dare I say it, super specialness. Non-short-bus-super-specialness.

Ultimately, since none of you sent in naked pictures of yourselves to make this easiest, the winning entry was chosen with…

I recently looked up your website hoping to come across some information on when your next book would be released and I saw something that made my heart skip a beat, FREE ARCs!   As I do not have a camera that can upload pictures to my computer, or a scanner to showcase my lack of drawing talent, I must resort to listing why I deserve to have advanced access to a book that I have been eagerly awaiting.

1:  The first book was awesome.

2:  With the latest Dresden Files books' release date being pushed back to late July I will need something      to read in early spring.

3:  I am no longer able to get ARCs from my local library.

4:  I want it.

5:  I donated a kidney and all I got for it was a lousy t-shirt and six weeks of pain.

6:  I am running out of books to read.

7:  You've made me want to play D&D.

8:  I have no job and can't afford anything other than free entertainment.

9:  I will post gratuitous praise about it wherever you choose.

10: I lent my copy of your first book out to three friends and two of them bought their own copy.  So that $50 in your wallet is from me in a way, buy yourself something nice, you deserve it.

Sir, you have touched me in a tender area and given me money.  While you make me feel like a whore, the ARC is yours.

SILENCE.

It is time…

ROUND TWO: MAKE THIS FACE

I had THREE entries for this.  Let us behold…BRYAN.

Not bad.  Not bad at all.

Does Jared challenge this?

Not bad!  Not bad at all!  I think we have a…wait…wait, what is this?  What is that on the horizon?  Is that…

…mother of God.

SUCCESS TO YOU, SIR.

FINAL ROUND: DRAW THIS DOG

This one was difficult.  Very difficult, yes.  Also, very troubling, in that it made me betray the one vow I swore I never would: to give away four ARCs instead of three.

Yes, I was going to keep one for myself, but I think once you see these, you'll understand why that must change.  The first entries were good.

Olivia sent in this artsy piece…

Indeed?  The best?  Rene begs to differ…

This would be a pretty awesome contender…save that Rene actually works for PYR, MY PUBLISHER, HOW DARE YOU PROFANE THIS SACRED WEBSITE WITH YOUR HEATHENRY!  OUT, OUT!

That leaves it to my two favorite entries, the ones that made me give up my extra ARC because they were both far too good to go unrewarded.  Because…because…well, just look.

Amazing.

Simply amazing.

Look at the use of lines.  The contours, the colors.  Note how the eyes really reflect my power over pugs and my relentless thirst for compliments.  Yes, this is an excellent piece, to be better complimented by…

Yes!  Yes!  A thousand times yes!  How does such artistry remain on the mortal plane?  How does God look upon this and not keep from weeping Himself?  How is there not a museum dedicated to this?

Congratulations to both of you.  You are both awarded ARCs.  I hope you choke on them.

And to you all: thank you for participating.  Thank you for your courage and your conviction.  I'll be running another giveaway with my Gollancz ARCs, so please stay tuned!

Love.

Peace.

Sykes.

Housekeeping, Housekeeping

Hey, jerkwads!  This is just a little somethin' somethin' to let you know about various ins and outs.

You remember the ARC Giveaway, right?  I'm selecting winners NEXT WEEK, so if you want one, please get your entries in right away!

Give Me One Good Reason: Give me one good reason why you deserve this ARC.  Fifteen people have entered.

Draw This Dog: Draw this dog.  Most creative wins an ARC.  Four people have entered.

Make This Face: Imitate Patrick Rothfuss.  Most creative wins an ARC.  Three people have entered.  PRIME REAL ESTATE FOR BUILDING YOUR HOUSE OF WIN.

Please, please, please get your entries in this weekend!  If not, I cannot guarantee your safety!

MOVING ON.

Here, look at this new Thor Trailer (as hosted by my friend Saxon Bullock at his site, The Schizopolitan).  Despite the fact that I have actually marched under a banner holding Natalie Portman's likeness and killed in her name, I am not the most thrilled about this.  Why?

Look at the trailer and tell me if anything at all looks like anything but what you would expect in a superhero movie.

AND JUST FOR KICKS.

One more sneak preview of the Lost Pages.  You guys remember the netherlings, don't you?

She looks cute!  Maybe you could go shopping for carcasses together?

Kill Your Grandparents

Here, look at this.

I don't want to waste a crapload of time on discussing the points in this post, since their most professional support comes from an archaic ethos and amazingly selective reasoning.  For more in-depth discussion, you can see Joe Abercrombie's response or Adam Whitehead's, both of which have made strong arguments against the article and whom I pretty much agree with.  Amanda took this shit and used it as fertilizer to make a patch of daisies in this entry.

The reasons we're not going to discuss the points offered here are twofold.  As previously suggested, there's no actual logic behind this post.  It's a man citing his opinion (which is not the worst opinion to cite) and supporting it with various No True Scotsman fallacies and tossing out vague buzzwords in the hopes that people will (and, if you don't value your sanity enough to avoid checking the comments section, you'll see that many do) agree with them.  Beyond that, though, it boils down to an issue in fantasy that I've mentioned before and that I feel is worth bringing up here again.

Behold, the Tolbert Principle:

Every argument about fantasy begins and ends the same way.

It starts with the issue at hand, in this case: the idea that certain fantasy series are going beyond the pale in terms of negativity and bleak hopelessness in the name of being edgy.  This is not where the problem lies.  In fact, this issue has been brought up before, most notably (or, because I was too lazy to look up anyone else's opinion on the subject and mine matters the most anyway by virtue of the fact that I am the tallest person ever) by me in this post I did for Grasping For the Wind.  In the interests of summarizing: yes, it's a valid concern that we're pushing unrealistic darkness onto fantasy for the sake of naming ourselves edgy (anyone who has read Abercrombie, though, will probably realize that the darkness and despair fits what he's trying to do with his work).

It's past that point that we begin to see problems.  Name Dropping follows, in which we cite people who may or may not have anything to do with the work in question and who may or may not have been striving for the same tone, mood or theme that the work in question is.  Name Dropping is important, since it actually does establish valid comparison and example where applicable. Italicized for emphasis because, all too often, that part goes out the window and the argument becomes a battle of fantasy Pokemon, with people throwing out names as though Jules Verne could be summoned up from the dead, use Thundershock and strike down Robert E. Howard, thus earning the coveted Cerulean Badge and advancing to the next gym.

From that point, the argument usually boils down one of two ways, the leftmost one being the one we are discussing: too often we use the works of past authors as a means of justifying our lack of progress and this article exemplifies this perfectly.  Today, people are rejecting Joe Abercrombie because he doesn't have the True Mythic Power of an Evolved Tolkien.  Tomorrow, we're rejecting Blake Charlton because his Tackle isn't as effective as Joe Abercrombie's Earthquake.

The metaphor has been so tortured that he has renounced his faith and converted, so let me get to the meat of the matter.

The fact that we use so many names as a means of justifying our unwillingness to accept new ideas and embrace stagnation doesn't point to a flaw with the people who used them.  There is still plenty to learn, good and bad, from Tolkien.  Howard influences the genre, still.  But neither of them controls it.  Nor should they.  We shouldn't be looking for "the next Tolkien."  We shouldn't even be looking for the person who comes the closest to Tolkien.  That cheapens his work, cheapens the work of authors he's being compared to and cheapens the genre as a whole when we think there is only one story to tell.

It would be amazingly easy if I could point to this article and say "this. This is the problem with all fantasy."  But I cannot.  This article is not the voice of fantasy collectively choosing to regress.  This is a man who is scared of new things voicing his opinion.  Fantasy readers are, as a whole, open-minded enough and wholesome enough that this is not the biggest of problems we have facing us.  But at the same time, it happens enough that it's worth talking about.

Every time we say "he's no George R.R. Martin," we're doing it.  Every time we say "why can't you be more like Tolkien," we're doing it.  Every time we say "I was really looking for something more dark swords and sorcery with a twist of new weird with a strong undercurrent rooted in epic fantasy, but this is really more fantasy romance/fantasy allegory with strong tones of the optimistic epic and prophecy as foretold by Salzman" we do it.

…okay, so I'm the only one who's ever actually said that, but the point remains: we cannot use names as a means of justifying fear.  If anything, fearless should be our watchword.

As writers, we should not feel bound by traditions and terrified of stepping outside the territories paved by previous authors.

As readers, we should not feel obligated to dislike anything that takes us outside of our comfort zone or takes us into new situations that we're not always prepared to deal with.

We will try to fly.  Sometimes, we will take wing.  Sometimes, we will crash.  But this being a genre based on "what if," when we crash, we will do so fantastically and we will use the smoldering ruin and charred corpses as  a take-off point for the next one.

And every time you feel the need to regress and retreat, go click on that link.  Go read that article.  Go read the comments.  Find the one where someone suggests that women and their "desire for debasement" have ruined fantasy.

And think "that could be me."