The Fractals in a Starry Night or Art + Math = Reality

 Starry Starry Night by Shadoweddancer on deviantArt

Starry Night by Vincent van Gogh

One of the things I enjoy about post-impressionist art is the way it conveys such a feeling of reality, often without looking 'real' at all.  The colors can be bright, the paint heavy with thick brush strokes, and the angles strange and unexpected.  Yet the art conveys emotion that rings true to the subject matter - the feeling of what is depicted - and it is far more 'real' than a camera could ever catch.  

There are many questions about van Gogh and his paintings.  What was the source of the altered 'vision' that allowed for his striking art - was it genius, or a mix of that and something like an illness, affecting the way he painted?  For example, it has been suggested that the swirls and halos in 'Starry Night' may have been a result of mental illness, toxins, epilepsy, or other factors.  Was this curling, glowing world to some extent what he was really seeing?

When I think about fractals, I imagine that van Gogh was seeing far more accurately and 'realistically' than we might at first imagine.

As you know from my previous posts 'Art Imitates Life' and 'Fact, Fiction, and Fractals,' I am captivated by fractals and fractal art.  In spite of years of formal math education, I am still amazed at how we have developed this tool (language) called math, that can describe the world both so comprehensively and so creatively.  When we use math to describe nature we find systems and patterns repeating in strange ways, and yet they seem so recognizable to us, because they are all around and a part of our everyday experience.

Clouds and clusters of stars are both phenomena that share a certain fractal nature.  They possess self-similar (same on all scales), repeating, complex patterns.  Galactic gas and dust are distributed in a manner that is both self-similar and hierarchical.  It is from this material that new stars are born, already clustered in ways that match the original fractal nature of the gas cloud.  Investigating how the fractals change with time gives scientists insight into how stars are formed and how they evolve. [1]  Clouds possess a wide variety of shapes and forms - bumps, curves, swirls, blobs, and filigree - that together form complex, repeating patterns.  Some of these can be modeled very accurately with the right kind of mathematical fractal.  Such models are then used to help both weather prediction and climate modeling. [2]   

The fractal swirls in 'Shadoweddancer's' Starry Starry Night seem strangely familiar.  Of course they bring to mind the piece of art that they honor, but they also reflect the subject of the painting - the night sky itself.  After all, a mix of stars and clouds would have many intriguing fractal patterns laced within one another.  As I look at this fractal art, I imagine I see stars and galaxies glowing through a patchy gauze of clouds.  It is certainly a spectacular night, with clusters of stars and the band of our Milky Way galaxy flowing through the scene.

The similarity to 'Starry Night' is striking to me.  It makes me imagine that van Gogh's painter's eye saw into the patterns of the evening sky and represented them in a way that only a fractal could really imitate.  A stretch?  Probably, but there is no denying the fractals found all around us, and the amazing works they inspire.  I know it motivates me to look for more of the 'hidden fractals' that abound in our environment, both in nature and in art.  And I will continue to imagine that the genius of some artists (and mathematicians) is the ability to see into the patterns of reality in ways that the rest of us overlook.

Image Credits and References:

Starry Starry Night appears with the generous permission of the artist, Shadoweddancer on deviantArt.  "Van Gogh is one of my favorite artists.  This is a tribute to his Starry Starry Night, which I think is one of his most recognizable works and my favorite."

Starry Night by Vincent van Gogh is from Wikimedia Commons, public domain.

[1] Sanchez and Alfaro, 2010, Galaxy Astrophysics, arXiv:1011.1374 [astro-ph.GA], Cornell University Library, http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.1374
[2] van den Heuvel et al. 2012, JGR Atmospheres, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/1999JD900972/abstract

Fun at TusCon in Tucson - Or Why Cons are Cool

I'm embarrassed to say I've been to very few Cons, even though I've been an avid fan of science fiction, fantasy, and horror since I was a wee child.  Cons seemed kinda scary for some reason.  Even as someone to whom they are directly targeted, I always felt like I wouldn't really fit in.  This is of course nonsense, but I do sometimes think a lot of nonsense.

So off I went to TusCon 40, primarily to give one of the talks in the science track, and to sit on a writing panel about rewriting/editing.  Since they were on separate days I ended up being there for most of the Con.  It started Friday afternoon, which I missed, because I was having dinner at a friend's house.  But Saturday morning came, and with it my talk.  I hung out to hear about the outer planet satellites from David Williams, and to hear about the Chelyabinsk impact from Carl Hergenrother and Vishnu Reddy.  My talk was "Do Extraterrestrials Really Need Water."  I had a good audience, about 30 people, and some good questions and discussion afterwards.

Then I sat down with one of my colleagues and another person who was a writer and a filmmaker to have lunch and chat about asteroids and such.  That was a great deal of fun, and a good way to stretch one's brain.

But then I had the evening open, and sat around wondering what to do.  Well, I was exhausted, so figured I could go get a nap.  But then I noted that one of the 'art demos' in the art room was paper quilling.  I've been doing paper quilling since I was nine, and couldn't pass up the opportunity to sit for an hour twirling paper.  This was fun, and ended up being almost two hours long, sitting with ten other crafters who unlike me had never tried quilling before.

After that it was time for the masquerade, or the costume contest.  This was also enjoyable, both to see some really great costumes, and to laugh a bit at how completely over the top some of them were.  One favorite was a person dressed up as "2nd Level Fighter" who had an arrow through his neck.  But my 'most liked' was a version of Merida from Disney's Brave, who unfortunately didn't win, but them's the breaks.

The next day dawned, and I needed to entertain myself before my own writing panel at noon.  So I headed over to the movie room to see a screening of "Heavy Metal."  You may recall in my post about "Top Ten Cult Movie Favorites: Horror" I have "Heavy Metal" listed as number five.  Yes, I have it in horror.  I watched it again at the Con and did not change my mind.  That is some gory, scary stuff.  There is of course the humor, sci-fi, and fantasy in there, too.  But overall, the feeling watching the film is one of unease.  And a few of the animated shorts that make up the film are so horrific they skew the whole movie.  Anyway, I was one of only three people watching "Heavy Metal" at 9:30am, but I suppose that's the nature of a Con.

I then took myself on over to the room with the writing panels and sat in on one about writing as both a profession and a hobby, and the overlap of doing things for fun and for profit, both.  That was an interesting panel, since many of the writers had conflicting feelings about how their writing ran into all the other areas of their lives.  Some quotes from that panel were, "Any creative person is always working," "We are the heroes and villains, we are our own best source material," and "When we write science fiction, we are no longer innocent to the nature of stories; as a professional we lose a certain innocence."  People drew the line between hobby and profession not only by if money was being earned, but also by how much time the endeavor took up in any week.

Then was the panel I was on with rewriting and editing.  I've mentioned it before and so won't go into details, but there was definitely a sense overall that rewriting is where the story is truly made.  That that is the point at which the crafting takes place.  I think I'll write up a blog post about my own ideas and experiences from rewriting; there was plenty to talk about.

I spent the next block of time hanging out in the dealers room, buying a book or two, leafing through old paperbacks, checking out some of the art, and basically relaxing.  There was a lot of creative stuff on display, even for such a small con.

By then things were beginning to wrap up, but not before I got to head back to the video room to see number nine on my cult movie horror list, "The Trilogy of Terror" with Karen Black.  I had not seen that movie for at least twenty years.  The first two were no longer scary at all, but that Zuni doll still has some of it's old horror.  Even when it looks like she is being attacked by a plastic doll (which she is) there is enough blood and screaming to get your hackles up.  Then of course the great ending, with all the teeth and all that.  Yeah.  Good times.

So all in all, I'd say success.  I particularly enjoyed giving the science presentation, and am looking forward to offering the talk at other Cons.  Have to start sniffing around and see who is interested ...

Image Credits:  Top, logo for TusCon 40; middle and bottom, my own photos from the Con.

November is Nuts - From Cons to Composition to Comets

Comet ISON

November is nuts.  This one moreso than any previous November because both NaNoWriMo and the Tucson Science Fiction Convention overlapped.  This was the first time I'd been to a TusCon, and even though I had to spend a lot of time working on my science presentation for that venue, I still refused to give up on my yearly encounter with NaNo.  Which means I am way, way behind 'composing' my latest novel.  (In this case, the third in the 'Voidspace' trilogy).  I am writing this at the airport, taking a break from NaNo noveling.

This recent adventure started in October, since I had to spend time getting my science talk pulled together.  And worrying about it on the side, which is a pursuit unto itself.  This meant no prep for NaNo this year.  I was also giving two different versions of the same talk - one for the science institute I call home, and the other for the Con.  And THEN I was also invited to be on a writing panel at the Con.  Wow.  Fun, but a lot of work to get it all done. 

So November started, I traveled to Tucson, gave the firs talk, and then the second.  I am very, very happy to say both went well.  I received a lot of positive feedback from both talks, and generated a lot of questions and good discussion at the Con.  I have to admit I was a little surprised, since I had intentionally taken myself out of my comfort zone and talked about a topic upon which I have done very little study - astrobiology.  I'll be posting a review of the material in another blog post.  Can't really get the whole feel of the talk down unless I post a youtube performance, and I am definitely not going there.  :)

The panel was sort of 'eh'.  I enjoyed the panels I attended but the one I was on was too 'combative.'  It's the first time I've been a member of a writing panel instead of a science panel, and I was disconcerted by how there was no structure.  The panel chair said he would poll the panel with questions, but by the time things would have gotten to me, we were on whole 'nother subject or question.  Once or twice I sort of wedged myself into the conversation so I could make a quick comment or two, but for the most part felt unneeded and superfluous.  Still, it was a very good experience for me.  There always has to be a first writing panel, and it was good to have something of a learning experience.  Hopefully next time it will be a smaller panel with a more definite structure.  They are probably all very different from one Con to the next, and even one subject to the next.

Certainly giving the science talk was my cup runneth over, so I maybe I should focus my efforts on that area when offering my services at a Con.

And of course, one cannot forget that we have Comet ISON in our skies right now, screaming it's way towards the sun.  For the moment, it appears that ISON will survive its close approach with our star.  But it is always possible for a comet, especially one like this, to disintegrate completely as it endures both the heat and the flux of particles.  It might get quite bright, might stay mostly the same, might disintegrate - it's definitely worth watching to see how things evolve.

More posts to come with details about TusCon, my astrobiology talk, and naturally, NaNoWriMo.

Image Credit:  Photographer Michael Jäger via Sky and Telescope Magazine

Mixing Science with Your Art, Planetary Style

"The Artist's Universe" - IAAA

Being both a lover of science and art, I find few things as enjoyable as an art exhibit that includes scientifically inspired pieces.  Planetary landscapes are so evocative - it isn't surprising that a number of planetary scientists are also artists, recording their visions of other worlds not just through their research, but through art.  

"Yelland and Ino"

The exhibit is sponsored by the International Association of Astronomical Artists, and was organized by scientist and space artist Dan Durda.  The IAAA website states "Space art serves the most basic function of fine art, that of inspiration. It directs our focus toward the space frontier, where human destiny inevitably lies."  More than twenty artists contributed thirty four pieces of art to the exhibit in a variety of media including pastels, watercolors, oils, and digital creations.  Some of the art has a traditional 'space art' feeling, while other art moves in a different direction, using unusual materials and perspectives.   

"Jovian Atmosphere"

The piece "Yelland and Ino" by Monica Aiello caught my attention immediately, being so accurate at depicting a planetary surface and so aesthetically pleasing at the same time.  A close examination reveals that this is not a painting at all, but a creation of fiber and acrylic.  The cracks in the surface are created by yarns and threads in straight and arcuate forms.  The whole is covered with a clear acrylic that mimics the icy surface of the satellite.

"Titan's Southern Summer"

I enjoyed Marilynn Flynn's "Titan's Southern Summer" for a number of reasons, one being the depiction of a canyon so like the desert southwest that I adore.  But this is a frozen world of methane and ethane, with a tilted Saturn high in the murky sky. 

One of the few pieces depicting alien life is Dan Durda's "Jovian Atmosphere."  These jellyfish-like creatures remind me of the classic idea of 'floaters' and 'sinkers' in a giant planet's atmosphere.  Many of these pieces have land and sky-scapes inspired by views of our home planet, then translated to appropriate contexts in the rest of the solar system, or universe at large.

The exhibit in question, called "The Artist's Universe" is on display at the annual AAS Division for Planetary Sciences meeting, held this year in Denver, Colorado.  So while the scientists peruse poster presentations of the latest scientific results, they can also stop by the exhibit, and take a moment to remember why we all do this science stuff in the first place. 

Because it is amazing, cool, and amazing.  And very cool.

Image Credits:  Marilynn Flynn, Dan Durda, and Monica Aiello - Space Artists.  IAAA.

Musing About The Talisman Universe

A recent round of the board game Talisman has me obsessing over the game ... again. This is one of those games that seems to polarize people - either you love it or hate it. I conducted a very small and quite unscientific survey to determine what it is about Talisman that is so very appealing, or for many, quite the opposite.

First of all, if you haven't played the game it is worth the time to check it out. No really. A geeky friend (like me) might be hiding a copy. Looking at the box top for the most recent (fourth) edition, you can tell you are going to be in for a good time. You can see a variety of characters attacking a dragon (or perhaps being attacked by a dragon) that is guarding a crown. Naturally, this is completely atypical of how the game play actually feels, and there is no dragon guarding the crown. Still, you can see the fighter being all fightery, the magic users casting spells, the thief ignoring all of this and trying to get the crown on the sly, and the assassin sneaking up to stab the thief in the back. And the sorceress, I think, is there with huge bubbling pot of some potion in one arm and her staff in the other. It can't be easy having to go into combat with a caldron as a a key part of one's melee strategy.

The first version was printed oh, so very long ago, and ended up having a plethora of add on modules, cards, characters, and more.  The setting for the game is a sort of high fantasy realm where encounters on the board can increase or decrease your statistics, such as strength, craft, and number of lives.  Needless to say, when you are out of lives, well, you are out.  (Unless you go ahead and start a new character and jump back in.)  The art from the original game was quirky, whimsical, occasionally silly, and the source of about a million inside jokes in my family.  Of particular note was the art for the "toad" card.  Much more ignominious than getting killed to death in this game is being turned into a toad ("toaded" as we say) by a witch.  The toad card had a rather outraged and startled expression that was certainly apt.

The thief is in for a serious surprise, here.

It became hard to have all the expansion modules open at once without say, three tables and a sizable part of the floor available.  It was so big that you might spend an entire game poking through the Talisman universe and never encounter another player.  The expansions included a tower to the ultimate dragon battle, a catacombs, a full blow up of the one City tile into a new whole board, and a sort of outland futuristic board with strange worlds, aliens, radiation, and bizarre new artifacts.  I'm sure I am forgetting something, because there was so very much.
 
In more recent times, the game was rebooted without all the expansions (as I said, it is now up to a fourth edition) and this one seems to have the charm of the original without quite so much of the crazy.  Although I really liked the crazy.  It is hard to explain how crazy the game could get, actually.  Each of those old expansions added an entire new piece of board space.  Little words to wander around in.  I'd forget there was an objective to the game and get lost in exploring and seeing what cool stuff I could find.  Getting distracted was a good way to lose, but I always had fun. It was a wonderful romp through all kinds of speculative goodness - fantasy, horror, and even a bit of sci-fi thrown in for the canonical good measure.

This new version is more palatable to those of my friends and family who do not have an affinity for the game, in general.  But by more palatable I mean they will play under extreme duress, instead of not at all.  Alright, I can see that any game that regularly goes over two hours can be a drain.  When you have more than three people playing Talisman, you can probably guarantee a three hour play time or longer, unless someone has a whip and a timer.  But there are many involved strategy games that have long play times that are not as divisive as Talisman.  So I'm tabling the play time as "problematic, but not a show stopper."

So what is?  My survey suggests that the unguided nature of the game - without specific benchmarks on the way to the final objective - is the real issue.  The game moves forward in a very free form fashion.  You can move in either direction on the board, wandering wherever you want, encountering the spaces of the board themselves or drawing cards.  Over and over and over.  The point is to get yourself tough enough with increased stats and/or great stuff and/or followers and definitely a mule early on or you can't carry all that stuff so you can fight your way to the center, grab the Crown of Command, and basically command all the other players to die off.

The sorceress is about to splash
some stew or something on
this dragon.  Note toad.

In addition, there is a random element to the game that means you might lose your nice high stats, or some of your followers, or - flying spaghetti monster forbid - you could lose your mule which is carrying all your stuff.  This means you can spend the entire game getting nice and buff, only to have it all taken away at the last, most heartbreaking moment.  I sort of like this aspect, since I like the fact that anyone can win the game.  You don't know however many turns in advance that you have no chance at all.  There is always a chance.

The final aspect of the game that seems to rankle the unbelievers is the rules.  There are not actually too many rules, but the complexity of the game means that they are always being checked and rechecked.  Then when you realize there is no official ruling for the situation you are in, you either have to make up a new house rule, or take a break from the game to go surf the intarwebs for possible solutions, or at least other people's house rules.  Yes, you guessed it, I kind of like this.  I enjoy when strange situations come up and we have to deal by a sort of community vote on what "makes sense" or what goes with the spirit of the rules, or what seems fair, or whatever will keep the game going.

So there is my Talisman game breakdown.  It's a game I love and long to play, while others whom I know want to play pretty much anything else.  At all.  Please.

What's your take?  Have a talisman experience to share?

Image Credit:  Me and my Talisman game.

On Failing in Games and Going Back for More

I read a provocative gaming article over at The New Inquiry called Born to Lose by author Christian Brown.  It is about the inherent ability of gaming to give the player the true experience of failure in a very lifelike fashion. (Actually, it's about a lot more than that, go give a read, I'll wait here.)  Brown notes that this feature of games is distinct from movies or books - "We can let the protagonist lose and force them to try again. The cycle of dying and starting the level over forces players to empathize with the character who toils in spite of certain failure."  Brown goes on to say that in some games "... the difference between “winning” and “losing” is obliterated ... we are forced to confront the personal experiences of the characters involved." 

As an avid gamer, I found this article to be really interesting.  This is unquestionably a feature that draws me to this kind of gaming - it requires determination and resiliency to continue when you've already died a million times, and when you are not even sure you are doing the right thing.  No matter how hard you try, there is no guarantee things will turn out well. 

For example (Spoiler Alert - Dragon Age II) there is a scene late in Dragon Age II where one of your party members (Anders) appears from nowhere, rants a bit about his personal crusade, and then blows up a very important building with a lot of people in it.  That action forces you to choose between two sides, instead of finding a way to forge a peace.  The first time I played the game I actually screamed in pain and outrage.  Both because the guy blew up a church, and because the character had taken my options from me.  Feeling indignant and betrayed, I played the game several times trying to get the "good" ending where I was able to make peace between the sides.

If you know the game you know that ending does not exist.  Anders always appears and always blows up the Chantry.  I was stunned when I realized this really was the conclusion - that the game was written so that so many of your choices become moot.  In spite of this, I kept on playing the game.  I played it even knowing the ending, just for the experience of really exploring all the moral ground and ideas the game offered.  Had the ending been more black and white, I doubt I would have spent the time.

I feel similarly, although less strongly about Mass Effect (Spoiler Alert - Mass Effect 3).  This is a game in which you become quite invested.  First of all, as the author of the above mentioned article notes, you can become quite empathetic to a character that has died and come back a million times, through three entire games.  Some battles take a dozen tries, especially when the game is on harder difficulty settings.  Then there is the ambiguous ending to the whole series.  Three choices are offered - none of them good.  The canonical "best" choice is one where you force a change on every person in the entire galaxy without their consent.  Yet, I was not as impacted as I was by Dragon Age II.  I simply didn't feel the characters had enough life of their own, and the final choice was too divorced from every other choice made in the game.

Other games I've played have toyed with this concept.  Say like the Fable Series (Spoiler Alert - Fable 2 and 3.)  Fable 2 has three endings, one patently evil, but two that are good and bad in different ways.  The first has you saving everyone, but losing your family and truly beloved dog that has been with you the whole game.  The second has you saving the family and dog, but losing everyone else.  Fable 3 puts you in a position where - unless you play very well - your nicey-nice decisions can leave you without the resources to defeat the final onslaught of bad guys.

These were nice twists, and I enjoyed the tension.  But to really get it "right" - like how I feel about Dragon Age II - a game has to have a suite of characters with deep motivations and personalities, it needs to be very internally consistent, and it needs to make you feel as though you just might be able to win.  You have to have this sense that if only you'd made that one certain choice, it all would have come out differently.  This hearkens back to the article that got me thinking about all this, where the author says, " ... let us experience trying to unravel the betrayals and corruption ourselves and letting us fail and fail again. Letting loss and failure sluice over the viewer until they know there is nothing else that could be done."

For some reason, this works at creating a truly compelling gaming experience.  Well, at least it does for me.  Gives me a hankering to play Dragon Age II again.  Surely I can save the world this time, right?

J.A. Grier

Image Credit - photoxpress.com

Matching Your Story to the Perfect Market

Finding a good home for your story can be a challenge.  Doing a good job when looking for the right home can mean saving a lot of time and grief for everyone involved.  In the end, a good match means happiness for writers, readers, and editors. 

1.  Know the Genre of your Piece
This seems easy at first, but genres can merge and blend.  Additionally, the publishing world is always coming up with new genres and sub-genres.  Do you know the basic definitions for your genres?  What makes a story a sci-fi story?  What are the types of fantasy?  How much romance makes for a Romance?  What is Slipstream?  After you've identified the genre(s) and sub-genre(s) of your piece, consider the style or tone in which it was written.  Perhaps it is humorous, surreal, dark, technical or some combination.  It may be helpful to write out the words that fit your story to have on hand as you are considering markets.  As an example, a recent story I finished has the "classification" Horror, Monster, Apocalyptic, Romance, Dark Humor. 

2.  Find the Markets 
You are probably already reading many of the publications in which you'd like your work to appear.  Finding new markets is petty straightforward, since most in our genres are listed with either ralan.com (free) or duotrope.com (charges a yearly fee).  I've also found markets by checking out the tables at various conferences, looking at the publication history of stories in anthologies, and looking at author bios for where they have previously been published.

3.  Know the Markets
You probably know the publications you read pretty well.  You know the tones, genres, styles, and subjects they like to publish.  Do the same for other markets that interest you.  The best way to familiarize yourself with a publication is to buy a copy and read it.  Online journals make this part of the research very straightforward, since the material is right there for the reading.  You also protect yourself this way - you might reconsider submitting to a publication where the stories have a lot of typos and grammar mistakes.

4.  Follow the Guidelines
Read the guidelines for each publication carefully.  The submission guidelines probably have details about what the journal is looking to publish.  There may be special issues, themes, or anthologies open for submission, individually or at the same time.

5.  Know the Editors
Check the "about" page of any journal, and find the editors.  Do some research on them.  See where they have published, for example.  This can be challenging, since not all publications make it clear who will be handling your submission.  Still, if the Editor-in-Chief is known to dislike vampire stories, it is probably a waste of time to submit them to the mag, even if the mag does not specifically prohibit vampire stories.  Keep an eye out for editor's notes or interviews.  For example, Duotrope has posted some interviews with editors that give a bit more insight into what they are seeking. 

6.  Other Issues
Along with concerns about genre and content are issues related to compensation and rights.  Some markets pay more than others.  Some markets buy more rights than others.  Be sure you know what obligations you incur whenever you submit piece of writing.  Such concerns may have you choose one market over another, as a better home for your work.

And there is it.  Hopefully these suggestions will help us both identify good homes for our stories.  Of course, the submission process itself is the food for an entirely different blog post.

Image Credit:  Magazines, photoxpress.com

Reviews - To Tell the Truth, Or Not

So one thing I am certainly slacking on is reviews of the publications I read.  I had told myself at the beginning of the year that I wanted to post more reviews.  I enjoy reviewing poetry and stories, I want to give a boost to the publications I read, and I like learning more about authors in the field.

BUT, and here is the but - what happens when something you read is perhaps not terribly impressive, or even (gasp) maybe something you don't actually like at all? 

I've often held back from reviewing material because I can't give it an honest two thumbs up.  Being a very modestly published writer and poet myself, I am sensitive to the fact that not everything I've written is composed of gorgeous and stunning prose with fascinating characters and a plot no one's ever conceived before.  I understand that it can be rough getting any exposure at all for one's writing, and then getting a ho-hum or even negative review would be disheartening.  Still, I would vastly prefer being reviewed in a constructive fashion that would allow me to improve, rather than to receive no notice at all.

But what has ended up happening is this sort of double standard - if I know someone is a well established, best-seller-type author, I write reviews that offer a 'What I Liked' and 'What I Didn't Like' sort of thing.  For authors that (seem to me to be) newer or are looking for exposure - I don't tend to write anything because I don't want to be dishonest or discouraging.  (After all, there are few pieces that are so universally fabulous that a review will be utterly positive.)

Wait.  Did you catch that?  So I am not writing about the people and publications that need it the most.  This conundrum needs a solution.  I'd like to spend more time on lesser known authors and smaller publications than anything else, but that's not what I'm doing.  Mostly out of fear.  I don't want to discourage or upset another writer, and I don't want to damage the reputation of a publication.  And I don't really know where I'm being a bit overly sensitive, and where I'm being really just the right amount of sensitive.

So what to do?  Well, research, naturally, being the geek that I am.  I just read a pile of posts on how to do online reviews of fiction, poetry, etc.  Many point out that one shouldn't be 'cruel' and that all criticism should be 'positive' - which is obvious enough.  But no one addresses the issue of how to write up honest reviews of newer writers and smaller pubs that actually help to boost those people, rather than bring them down.   (Maybe this means I should figure how how, and then write that post, hmmm?)

Oh, and by honest review I mean the bad with the good.  I could just write reviews about 'What I Liked' and leave the rest out.  But then someone might read an issue based on my review, not like the issue, and think my reviews are pretty useless.  Which they would be.

So what is your opinion, and your experience, with writing and receiving honest reviews?  Would you prefer an honest review of your work to no review at all?  How do you like to see critical comments framed?  Do you have a set of guidelines you follow when doing reviews, a creed, a statement of intent or some such?

Send some thoughts my way.  This is your chance to chime in - since I'll probably plow ahead with reviews to the best of my ability, and your stuff might be in there, ya know ...

Image Credit - photoxpress.com

Vonnie Winslow Crist and When Opportunity Knocks

Vonnie Winslow Crist

I've been neglecting the blog in a most woeful fashion.  Didn't even get that last poetry post up.  But to make up for it, I've some tidbits of wisdom from speculative fiction writer and poet Vonnie Winslow Crist. 

Vonnie was the guest speaker at my local writers club meeting this last Thursday, and entertained us all for an hour with anecdotes from her career and practical insight into writing and publishing.  Her works include:  Essential Fables and River of Stars, both poetry collections from Lite Circle Books, fantasy novel The Enchanted Skean - Book 1 of the Chronicles of Lifthrasir from Mockingbird Lane Press, as well as The Greener Forest and Owl Light, collections of short stories and more from Cold Moon Press.  She has also edited much, volunteered much, and produced many columns and articles.  Her talk was titled "Be Ready When Opportunity Knocks and How to Find Those Hidden Opportunities."

Her first piece of advice is to always be writing.  She underscores the fact that you can't respond to any publishing opportunity unless you have appropriate work ready to go.  Keeping a backlog of poems, stories, and manuscripts means you have something in your pocket when you see a notice, hear a rumor, or find a great contest - and the deadline is coming up fast - like tomorrow.  Don't stop writing as you wait to see if your entry wins or if your submission is accepted.  Write something new while you wait.

Along with 'always be writing' is keep improving.  Vonnie points out that every piece of writing we do, no matter how brief, helps us improve our craft.  She emphasizes the importance of finding a critique group, and making sure it is one where all the members have the same level of writing expertise.  Read articles, magazines and books about the craft.  For fiction writers she recommends The First Five Pages by Noah Lukeman.  You might want to take workshops, courses, or even go back to school (as she did) and earn an advanced degree in writing!

Vonnie suggests we be creative about finding publication "homes" for our work.  She reads the bios of other writers to see where they've been published, and checks out directory style websites appropriate for our genre (I happen to use ralan.com and duotrope.com)  Don't neglect local outlets such as newsletters and bulletins, and keep an eye open for anthologies in your genre.  You can't underestimate the library, either.  Use your community (below) as a source of information on unique places to publish.

She emphasizes the importance of staying connected with the community.  This includes other writers, editors, and publishers.  Staying connected can mean:  attending writers' conferences, joining societies, attending conventions, volunteering to edit pieces or write articles, helping out with local meetings, etc.  Some of these opportunities will cost money and others will be free labor at first, but all can have payoffs down the line.

Vonnie points out that one opportunity can lead to another, so leverage opportunities.  For example, she won a poetry chapbook contest, and used that as the means to get a publisher interested in a full sized book of poetry.

Finally, she says, "When you see an opening, jump!  You can't fear rejection - say 'Yes' then work hard."

Actually, she said a great deal more, but you'll have to be lucky enough to catch her in person for the whole talk, and to enjoy her entertaining style.

Image Credit:  Vonnie Winslow Crist from her website.