Nicola Griffith's Blog, page 83

Charis Books is a jewel

Charis Books last night was a real homecoming. The store, in many ways, looked the same: bright, warm, cheerful. Feminist posters on the walls, smiling staff.
When I saw Linda Bryant, it was just like 1989 again. I would have recognised her anywhere. She was running the store when I first arrived: the store where I saw my first author reading, met Dorothy Allison, Ursula Le Guin, Sarah Schulman, Alice Walker, Minne Bruce Pratt and and countless others. Some of those women I now call my friends. And all because of Charis.
There's video of last night's event. I've no idea when or where it will be posted but if I find out, I'll let you know. Meanwhile, go buy a book from a bookstore celebrating it's 40th Anniversary on Saturday. (There's a party! Go tho their website if you want more. I'm typing this in an airport lounge from an iPad so hunting-seeking-linking not currently my forte.) Order online, order by phone, better still, go in person. I guarantee you'll have a good time!
Meanwhile, I'll leave you with this photo. (There were a zillion people there even though you can't see them in this pic.) Hope to see some of you in DC. Or Boston. Or St Louis...
photo by Kelley Eskridge

Tonight: Charis Books in Atlanta, 7:30 pm

When I first moved to this country it was to Atlanta. The first bookshop I went to was Charis. It's where I saw my very first author reading, where I met Dorothy Allison, and Ursula Le Guin. It's a special place--and celebrating its 40th birthday. I can't wait to see it again. I hope you'll come, too. I can promise you a warm and wonderful evening.

Wednesday 5 November
Atlanta, GA
Charis Books and More
7:30 - 8:30 pm
FREE - suggested donation of $5 to help Charis celebrate 40 years

Today I start the 11-day paperback tour

Today Kelley and I get on a plane and head east for a bunch of readings and signings. Here's the schedule:

Wednesday 5 November
Atlanta, GA
Charis Books and More
7:30 - 8:30 pm
FREE - but suggested donation of $5

Thurs 6 - Sat 8 November
Arlington, VA
World Fantasy Convention
A panel and mass-autographing on Friday, lots of bar-time...
REGISTRATION REQUIRED

Sunday 9 November
Washington, DC
Kramer Books & Afterwords Cafe
7:00 - 8:00 pm
FREE - Also, it has a bar...

Monday 10 November
Boston, MA
Porter Square Books
7:00 - 8:00 pm
FREE

Friday 14 November
St Louis, MO
Left Bank Books
7:00 - 8:00 pm
FREE - and there will be beer...

Do come and say hello. It will be a blast—so bring your friends. In fact, bring your family, bring your dog, bring everyone you've ever met :) We both love to talk to people, so the more the merrier! Most of the places know me and what I like so I'm guessing there will be libations available at most stops. Party!

Etymology and insult

From: Larry
Well, this is excellent timing. I read and fully understood and agreed with your "Lame is so gay" post. And I've long been aware about the pejorative use of saying something sucks, though I'm less certain about "sucky." I'm always willing to change my speech if people, especially marginalized groups, feel offended by it, although I know I'll probably continue to slip up. 
The Right always asks "how far are we going to go with this political correctness?" and I always put this down to the arrogance of those who are unwilling to acknowledge their own power and privilege and the way they can hurt others. 
However, I've finally found an example that I think does go too far. It was shared on the Facebook site Garret's GIFs to the World, but I can't tell if the original post came from Tumblr or where, or whether it was serious or meant to be a send-up of politically correct speech. The link is below, but the gist of it is, we should never use the word "bad" because it is a shortening of the Old English word for hermaphrodite. It doesn't mention the word, but Oxford has it "possibly representing old English baeddel, 'hermaphrodite, womanish man'." 
Since this is right in your wheelhouse, I thought I'd ask you, should we take this seriously? Is anyone actually being harmed by this word? (And again, it's entirely possible that I've been taken in by a poster attempting mocking humor.) How dormant does the original meaning of a word have to be before it can be used without harm? For instance, 20 or 30 years ago, no way could I say the word "queer" in any context. Now I can say "my friends in the queer community" and offend no one, except maybe extreme right wingers.
Curious to hear your thoughts.

I just spent a happy 30 minutes fossicking about with the OED and various glossaries online. I think you could argue that there's room for doubt about the etymology. Here's what the OED has to say on the matter:

Prof. Zupitza...sees in bad-de...the ME repr. of OE bǣddel ‘homo utriusque generis, hermaphrodita'...and the derivative bǣdling 'effeminate fellow, womanish man...' [...] this is free from the many historical and phonetic difficulties of the derivation proposed by Sarrazin who, comparing the etymology of madde, mad, earlier amd(de:—OE. ᵹemǽded, would refer badde to OE ᵹebǽded, ᵹebǽdd, 'forced, oppressed,' with a sense of (...) 'miserable, wretched, despicable, worthless' 

If we apply Occam's Razor then, yes, we should go with the first one: it's cleaner and more elegant. But, frankly, I would much rather believe it wasn't true. So I looked around some more and stumbled across the fact that bǣdan, which is a verb that means to constrain, to incite, to compel—which is very similar to the meaning ᵹebæded, 'forced, oppressed'. And quite divorced from gender. So I'll plump for that.

While etymology is interesting (etymology is always interesting! see, for example, the comments on this post), the question, "Is anyone actually being harmed by this word?", is the heart of the matter.
Etymology matters in terms of how words make people feel only if those words drag those connotations with them. So, for example, I've talked about the word wife, and how I feel about it. And I've talked about flesh, and why the word, for me, is paired with the notion of corruption (as in swine flesh) rather than, say, sex. But in this case I would say, on balance, that bǣdling goes too far back to have any relevance. At least for most of us, most of the time. I'm guessing if you're a newly-minted Anglo-Saxonist, and trans or genderqueer or queer or a serious ally of any of the above, you might occasionally resent the word. Otherwise, no. A millennium is a long time. Today's use of the word bad doesn't as far as I'm aware generally bring with it gendered overtones (except when talking about women being bad, which I'd argue has slightly different connotations).
For those few who do feel personally offended by the word, then I suggest two possible courses of action. One, tell those who are close to you to to not be surprised if you occasionally get bent out of shape when they use the word, and why. And, two, consider thinking of bad as a reclaimed word—much as today dyke and queer are reclaimed: so perhaps bad equals transgressive, deliberately, admirably so. Channel George Thorogood.

When it comes down to it, though, I think it's important to listen to someone who says: That word upsets me, and here's why. And to then make up our own minds about how to use the information. But first, listen. So I want to hear others' thoughts on this.

Tonight: Elliott Bay Books, 7 pm

Tonight I'll be at Elliott Bay Books in Seattle, at 7 pm, to read from Hild , sign your copies, talk (and talk and talk—I love this stuff!) and maybe drink beer. It will be totally fab. We've got sex, we've got violence, we might even have a bit of Hild II. Join us!

Future Hild?

From: Terry

I have been blown away by reading "Hild" - and re-reading it many times since this July - and have built up a stack of copies for Xmas presents too.

I have put it on our book club's list but I am writing to ask what the date is for UK publication of the paperback. At the moment "Hild" is in our schedule for April next year.

I'm also looking forward, ravenously, to Volume 2: it is heart-wringing to imagine the future for Cian and Hild. I love - among many other features - the way you foreshadow Hild's leanings towards a community of women long before she becomes an abbess, and your use of background sound [birdsong, the noise of a stream,] to convey the silence that falls between characters when a thing cannot be said, and your use of smell to set a scene or mood. It underlines the intense awareness of the natural world of a character and a culture where life is largely lived outdoors, where noone smokes nor ever has, and...

Anyway, thank you for Hild, now and in the future!

The US paperback came out on Tuesday (October 28). The UK paperback is scheduled for July 9, 2015. I'm guessing it's possible to get it shipped from abroad; they've already had to reprint the export paperback, so I know it's out there and doing relatively well in places like Australia.

Hild and Cian? Their futures are unfurling as I type. But I can tell you: all is well. At first. But it's history, so things fall apart for a bunch of characters, and there's nothing I can do about that. Some of them (even my favourites, sigh) are just plain doomed. Some, of course, will live relatively happily for a long time. You can either read some history books (or peek at Wikipedia—it can occasionally be rather good) or you can wait for Hild II.

Meanwhile, I'm delighted that you like the way I've written the world, because that continues. It can be very odd, though, to live in two worlds at once: the 7th and the 21st centuries. And I find myself resisting some of the trends most historians have taken for granted, e.g. the growing Pauline/misogynist attitude towards women. Hild will resist, too. But for news on how successful she believes herself to be, well, you'll have to read the book...

Halloween with Hild at Elliott Bay Book Company, Seattle

When all the ghouls and ghosties are cruising the streets, at 7 pm Friday 31st October, come and join me at the Elliott Bay Book Company for an evening of Hild . I'll be telling you all about the girl and then woman who, 1400 years ago, crammed more spine-tingling experience into her life than we can imagine. Er, except I did, so, hey, forget I said that.

She led an action-packed life: sex, death, grief, joy, terror, exaltation and occasionally exasperation, all before breakfast. Sometimes literally. (Cough.)

And if you're very, very good (or give me enough beer, or amuse me sufficiently, or all three) I might read the tiniest bit of the beginning of Hild II. But might and tiny are the operative words because, well, spoilers...

HILD paperback is here

  Out today. Available everywhere. But I particularly want to recommend these Seattle stores:
Seattle Mystery BookshopPhinney BooksThird Place BooksIsland BooksUniversity BookstoreThe Elliott Bay Book CompanyEagle Harbor Book CoQueen Anne Book CompanySecret Garden BooksAnd as I'll be at the following stores in the next couple of weeks (for the full tour info, see the Appearances page), it would be kind of cool if you bought from them, too:
Charis Books and MoreKramerbooks and Afterwords CafePorter Square BooksLeft Bank BooksBut if none of those appeal, I also have a list of independents recommended by readers, with all the giant online retailers thrown in.

To whet your appetite, here's the page of all things Hild, with interviews, reviews, info, maps, and miscellany. Enjoy!

Hild on the big screen?

I think Hild is going to go down as my favorite read this year! Guess I will read it again next year:) And would love to see it on a big screen. Any chance of that ever happening?

Late last year, three or four weeks after the book came out, it was optioned for an enormous sum of money. The producer is well known, respected as one of the kings of literary-novel-to-film adaptation. We had a deal—a hard-negotiated deal memo; I'd had extensive phone conversations with the producer about writers and general story parameters; I'd got a contract which I sent back for minor revisions—and then, poof, the producer lost his mind and just vanished. Gone. No one knew where he was and there were rumours of him firing half his company.

It was awful: the film/tv rights were tied up but there was no money and no communication at all from the producer. I'd turned down two other offers once the deal was—as I thought—done. But then...nothing. And more nothing. My agents talked about suing him. I didn't want that—but I did want out of the limbo I was in. It took months to sort out, but now it's officially over, and (a) I can talk about it, (b) we'll be trying again soon, probably when the paperback's been out a couple of weeks.

I think, all in all, I'd like either a sequence of high-production-value films with the addition of lots of CGI and motion-capture stuff (I can't think how else to give continuity to the actor playing Hild—she goes from age 3 to 66 over the course of the books; I don't think anyone's ever done that). But I could also see it as a premium cable series.

But this setting and story will be a challenge to realise on screen. Oh, not the world per se (HBO and Game of Thrones have shown that amazing world-building is possible, set- and art-production-wise) but the sheer pace and breadth of cultural change inherent in the story. It would require absolutely top-notch writing, and acting, and directing, all produced by someone who is utterly committed to the whole arc. (I'd hate to see done to Hild what happened to Patrick O'Brian's Aubrey/Maturin novels.) And it wouldn't be cheap. So: a lot of barriers. But, yes, one day I think we'll see it on screen.

Who would play Hild? I've always liked Saorsie Ronan for the part. I believed her in Hanna. My cousin, Clare Higgins, would have made a brilliant Breguswith but sadly I think we now might need someone younger.
But who should play the other parts? I don't know. What do you think?

"Sucky" a homophobic slur?

From: Victoria

As my journey to be more a sensitive/less hurtful individual continues, I notice that more and more words are offensive to many different marginalized/oppressed groups of individuals. It is easy to ignore these hurtful words if one surrounds themselves with only heteronormative people. Thankfully, I have been introduced to a diverse group of people and had to the chance to engage in dialogues which have made me realize that language is meaningful. I do have to admit, I just read your article "Lame is so gay — a rant." The logic you use to assert that lame is an offensive word makes perfect sense to me. One thing I do not understand, however, is your use of the word "sucky"as a potential synonym for the word "lame" which you say should not be used. This is the second time I have read an article claiming that lame is an offensive word, followed by using "sucky" as an adjective that one should use to describe a situation that they find to be uncool, or whatever. From my understanding, "sucky" is actually a homophobic slur, which originated to debase gay men who performed oral sex…or "sucked" penis. So…sucky is actually just as hurtful of a term. I just wanted to bring that to your attention because I’ve noticed several bloggers arguing against the word lame, while suggesting one swap out that word with another homophobic offensive term. What do you make of this? 

I'm sorry for offending any reader by using sucky in any way that could be construed as homophobic. It was entirely unintentional. But I'll do my best to not make the same mistake again.
What follows is not an excuse—clearly I've upset some people; that's on me; I apologise—but it is an exploration of word use.

I grew up in England, where as a child sucky could refer to, among other things, a bog that sucks you down; an early and mid-20th-C school playtime taunt, "Oh, sucks to you!" which might, in turn, come from either sucking air at the bottom of a glass instead of squash—coming up empty, in other words—or being the runt of the farmyard litter and so sucking on the dirtiest or most inconvenient teat. And so on.

But by the time I was in my teens I understood it also as a reference to fellatio, mainly of the straight variety. Before one of my first radio interviews in this country, in 1995, at an NPR affiliate in Portland, OR, Kelley reminded me: This country has strict rules about certain words (she gave me the usual list) so don't use them! As it would be dumb to use words that would get the interview scrubbed, I agreed. And so when I answered a question about something that, normally, I would describe as "a load of shit" I said, instead, "It sucks." And the interviewer flinched and looked at her producer, who, after a pause, shrugged; Kelley sighed.

We talked about it afterwards. I came away three things. One, you can push the letter of the law where necessary. Two, sometimes it's really not necessary; in the same position now I would use a less inflammatory word, like rubbish. Three, at the time, less than 20 years ago, it sucks, or sucky, was not a queer pejorative.

Obviously language use changes. And, just as obviously, I don't always keep up.

Realising I haven't kept up makes me defensive. When I first read your email I thought, Huh. Just fucking typical: a perfectly gender neutral word is now all about Teh Menz and what they do to each other. Then I laughed at myself for the idiotic response. 

I'm guessing we all go through some version of this, though: to feel vulnerable about being corrected in public and getting cross as a result. It's a human failing. I am absolutely not above it (sigh). But I've been an idiot a lot in my life, and it no longer worries me; I tend to get over it fast. However, understanding of that vulnerable-to-defensive-to-angry reaction is something that informs my own approach when bracing someone about a word that they think is perfectly harmless. It's the reason that I try to speak in informational and impersonal mode rather than being accusatory. (Try being the operative word: I have failed spectacularly on occasion.) Good people tend to feel bad about hurting others through their own ignorance. They also feel bad when they think that someone believes they hurt another knowingly. So I try not to provoke that response. I want people to be their best selves, not their defensive worst.

Having said all that, you did it very nicely: carefully, respectfully, and unapologetically. You're the first person to talk to me about this. I hear you: Some people now, here, today think/feel that sucky is a homophobic slur, and so its use upsets them. Just as lame used as a pejorative pisses me off.

So I'll delete sucky from the list and I'll try to remember not to use it. Please feel free to remind me if I slip—because I probably will; new habits can be hard to integrate. But, again, I apologise to any I've upset by using the term.

Thanks for letting me know.