- Aqueduct Press has a new blog (lj feed); posts so far include Nancy Jane Moore on the resurgence of feminist science fiction, conversations with Nisi Shawl and Lesley Hall, and a heads-up that L. Timmel Duchamp will (probably) be discussing Karen Koy Fowler’s story “Always” (April/May Asimov’s) in the near-ish future.
- Lots of good stuff over at the Litblog Co-op this week, including Alan DeNiro on why he writes about spaceships, and Matt Cheney on several of the stories in Skinny-Dipping in the Lake of the Dead: “If I Leap“, “Child Assassin“, and the title story
- Maureen McHugh’s plea for strangeness in sf
- Mely’s belated thoughts on the cultural appropriation panel from Wiscon 30
- “In this blizzard of commentary, from blogosphere to talk radio, it’s odd to discover that literary prizes now stand out as a surprisingly reliable guide“
- The genesis of The Yiddish Policemen’s Union. And I think this review even beats out that piece on Jim Crace for OTT as-others-see-us-ness: “Michael Chabon has spent considerable energy trying to drag the decaying corpse of genre fiction out of the shallow grave where writers of serious literature abandoned it.”
- The birth of the fantastic
- Reviews in The Guardian: M. John Harrison on Chuck Palahniuk’s Rant; Carrie O’Grady on Lionel Shriver’s The Post-Birthday World; Kamila Shamsie on Helen Oyeyemi’s The Opposite House; and Josh Lacey on China Mieville’s Un Lun Dun (“for science-fiction fans who don’t mind the lack of characterisation, Un Lun Dun should provide lots of fun”)
- Speaking of Lionel Shriver, here she is writing about reviewing. Or perhaps, more accurately, angsting about reviewing
- Why are most artists liberal?
- And finally: how to (not) talk to girls on buses
-
Follow
Following
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
vector-bsfa.com 
Hearing all this talk of the new Chabon release makes me a little sad…
A year ago, I would have been thrilled and probably obtained an advanced reading copy. He’s been my “favorite” author since I first read his debut novel THE MYSTERIES OF PITTSBURGH back in the early 90s.
But I can no longer support the work of an author who has no regard for the story and characters that put him on the literary map.
In case you haven’t heard, there’s a film version of MOP coming out later this year… Written and directed by the guy who brought us DODGEBALL, in which he’s CHANGED 85% of Chabon’s original story.
And the sad part is… Michael Chabon himself APPROVED of the script!
WHY would he do this? I can only think of one possible answer: $$
If you are a Chabon fan, esp MOP, I suggest you do NOT see this movie. You will be sadly disappointed at the COMPLETE removal of the gay character, Arthur Lecomte, and the fabrication of a romantic love triangle between Art Bechstein, Jane Bellwether, and a bi-sexual Cleveland Arning.
And really, what is MOP without the presence of Phlox Lombardi? Alas, she’s barely in it.
FranQ, I’m guessing you’re the same person who posted a similar comment on my post re this at the Big Blog of Cheese, a groupblog which I, Niall, and a cast of several keep going in our idle moments. So yes, I at least had heard this, (and assume Niall had too) and think on the face of it that the removal of Arthur is a bad decision. But I can’t bring myself to get as angry about it as you evidently are. I will probably go to see the movie, out of curiosity as much as anything (and Peter Sarsgaard is great casting as Cleveland). And I will continue reading Chabon’s books, if they continue to be as good as MOP, and Kavalier & Clay, and The Final Solution – and, indeed, The YIddish Policeman’s Union.