Did you know that Chinook Phase is out?

 

Or at least, the first chunk of it is out! You can read the first 13 chapters, with a new one coming every week, on my Patreon or my Substack - and on Patreon, they're all free! (So far!)

That said, if you fall in love and want to kick a couple of dollars my way, that would be amazing.

What is Chinook Phase, you ask?

Well, it's the first novel in my cozy academia trilogy, a love-letter to my home town and university. Set in the early 2010s, it follows the multiple interwoven stories of a group of friends and frenemies, trying to sort out their love lives and friendships - and you know, maybe getting stabbed, drunk, or stalking each other along the way.

Follow Natalie, Charlotte, Kyla, Amanda, Rachel, and Greg through mishaps, heartbreaks, and disasters. Come for the gossip, stay for the friends-to-lovers and "I can make him worse" villain couple.

Check out the beautiful new face for the first novel!

SHE'S SO BEAUTIFUL! Amazing work by Rachel A Rosen, Renaissance woman extraordinaire. Get your covers from her!

Anyway, so, catch my first Prairie Weather posts on Patreon or Substack!

***

Creation of this project was made possible in part by the generous funding of the Canada Council for the Arts, and the author gratefully acknowledges their contribution.

***

A writer and artist, Michelle Browne lives in southern AB with xer family and their cats. She is currently working on the next books in her series, other people's manuscripts, knitting, jewelry-making, and drinking as much tea as humanly possible. Find xer all over the internet: *Website * Amazon * Substack * Patreon * Ko-fi * Instagram * Bluesky * Mastodon * Tumblr * Medium * OG Blog * Facebook

So, I Forgot to Mention - My Book is Out!

 This is a short one, because I just got back home from the book launch at Analog Books here in Lethbridge - a fantastic independent bookstore that everyone should check out. 

It was small, just myself and a few friends, but the bookstore was open a bit late tonight and I did a little reading for people! I also served up this delicious pineapple cake, in a vegan version (we used an egg substitute). 

Photo by Liza Fleischmann. My dumb ass forgot to take a picture.

But you're not just here for the (virtual) pineapple cake and apple cider - you're here for the book. 

As mentioned, The Meaning Wars Omnibus is finally out - not only in ebook form, but also as a paperback and a hardcover! 

It's exclusively on Amazon right now, for KDP and promotion reasons, but I may change that if people speak up. (Amazon really likes to lock authors down with exclusivity, sadly.) 

I'm so proud of how this turned out, and Kateryna Kyselova did a bang-up job on the cover! Christy Foster was of tremendous help on the formatting. You couldn't go wrong by hiring either of them. 

I have a few blog articles on the backburner, but my biggest priority right now is actually my NaNoWriMo project - Monsters and Fools. That's right - it's taken ten years, but I'm planning to release the long, long-awaited sequel to The Underlighters in spring! 

Look, it took a long time to figure out the plot...but I finally got it done. Stay tuned to this space for more updates on what I'm doing - when I get time for 'em, that is. This has been one crazy year so far...

***

Michelle Browne is a sci fi/fantasy writer and editor. She lives in Lethbridge, AB with her partners-in-crime and their cats. Her days revolve around freelance editing, knitting, jewelry, and learning too much. She is currently working on other people’s manuscripts, the next books in her series, and drinking as much tea as humanly possible.

Find her all over the internet: * OG Blog * Mailing list * Magpie Editing * Amazon * * Tumblr * Facebook * Medium * Twitter * Instagram * Paypal.me * Ko-fi

Love Me Like You Hate Me

 Saddle up, kids, because the Magpie is mad about a video on the internet again. Content warnings apply for discussions of sexual assault, consent, queer stuff, and a whole plethora of different types of prejudice and phobias.

As readers of my articles and general members of my social sphere may know already, I'm a big proponent of sex work advocacy. I find the area interesting, it's sometimes ethically fraught and complex, and it's one in which a lot of marginalized oppressions and issues dovetail together. There's a ton of societal prejudice involved as well. So when I see discussions about sex work - which are related to issues of drug decriminalisation, police abolition and reform, and prison abolition and reform as well - I perk up. 

This time, however, I was about to be very disappointed.

Don't trust the character witnesses

 Let's start by talking about two of the figures alluded to in the video. There was a controversy surrounding much-maligned influencer Belle Delphine's use of bondage and a gag in a photoshoot that appeared on her Twitter. Personally, many of Belle Delphine's "scandalous" activities don't bother me in the least. They're one of the best things about her. I agree that she's hilarious and clever - but stealing other sex workers' nudes is absolutely not okay. in addition to just being theft of someone else's hard work, it's a huge violation of privacy. 

That being said, people subscribing to her who complained about sexual photo content featuring a kink are absolutely baffling. They have the option to unfollow her, and not consent to things. If someone is explicitly a sexually-focused adult content creator, being upset when they stray outside certain norms seems stupifyingly naive and entitled. Content warnings aren't a bad practice - but when a certain type of content is a normal part of someone's output, it seems disingenuous to be shocked. After all, this is not just another Disney starlet turned provocateuse we're talking about - it's someone who explicitly makes, well, explicit content. 

Hot girls want respect 

In relation to the sex industry, erotic content, and the like, discussions of the nature of sex work and its inherent morality in the context of exploitative systems often crop up. However, these discussions usually occur about sex workers rather than with them - a prime example being Hot Girls Wanted.

   Actual sex workers HATED Hot Girls Wanted because the production mistreated the same people it was trying to "save". It doxxed sex workers and included a ton of footage without their consent. 

Do not trust people in the rescue industry or who talk about "human trafficking" in hushed tones, but focus on the 13% of sex trafficking rather than the other agricultural and domestic labour trafficking that comprises the majority of the market. Jones particularly shaped the narrative to fit that kind of "sex is empowerment, but uh-oh, girls are over their heads" perspective that anti-sex work rescue organizations tend to push. It's condescending and disrespectful to the adult people participating.

 

I'm not saying that there aren't nuances to this, but the fact remains that the majority of people actually abused in sex work tend to be people of colour, often trans or queer youths, or those with disabilities or mental and physical health issues - or a combination of the above. And even then, what we should be doing is not "registering" or "legalizing" sex work - which tends to involve barriers for the very poorest people trying to survive on it - but should be decriminalizing it and providing access to health clinics and other resources.

   Now, with that said, let's talk about the broader issue of consent and perceived exploitation - especially in reference to the video's comment section. 

Talking first matters

 

The fact that people don't know the difference between BDSM and abuse is really disturbing. BDSM is not abuse because by definition, consent is involved. Abuse happens without consent. If someone wants something, and asks for it, that's so drastically different from a guy choking a girl without asking. (Note that the video references only straight-facing or female-male interactions, ignoring the long history of association between queerness and kink; something that I'll get to in a second.) Broadly, the lack of understanding of female, afab, and other genders' roles in their own pleasure is kind of disturbing. And after all, someone doesn't need to know about BDSM to treat a woman badly. 

Of course it's absurd to penalise people for enjoying "vanilla" sex - that shouldn't be insulted either. We can have both acceptance of kink and non-heterosexual or unconventional sex, while leaving plenty of room for "normal" sex. The fact that all of this is a shifting target, that "normalcy" changes anyway, should not be ignored either. But as usual, people are a lot madder at some teenage girls on Tiktok for normalizing something than they are at men for exploiting miscommunications or not saying things in the first place. And besides - it's not like Tiktok invented mainstream kink.

Fifty Shades of Are You Kidding

The fact that the video blatantly ignores or forgets the existence of the hyper-marketed Fifty Shades series, which - for all its many, many faults - mainstreamed the concept of pornography for women, especially kinky pornography, is stupifying. I realise the creator is 22, but even if she somehow didn't know that the international series existed, it would be hard to search BDSM without the series cropping up somewhere in the Google results. 

 It's certainly frustrating to see people blame young girls and women simultaneously for their ignorance and for role-modelling bad behaviour. But this begs the question - at what point are people allowed to stop being treated as potential role models? That can stifle self-expression. 

There's also a subtler problem, not mentioned in the video but discussed in the comments - the fact that kink isn't just a thing played with by straight or straight-facing couples. Kink and BDSM have deep roots in the LGBTQ+ community. 

Acceptable queerness

The comments on the video mention the relationship between kink and Pride events as well, with many readers expressing disgust or discomfort with "children seeing that sort of thing." Others countered that Pride wasn't about catering to straight people's families. All of this, however, avoids a brass tacks discussion: what specific kinks and displays were people finding offensive? 

People alluded to seeing leashes and bondage harnesses, and mentioned nudity - but full-on nudity would indecent exposure anyway. As radical a position as I often take, I'm fine with saying that people should cover their genitals in public. That seems like a pretty reasonable stance. 

I checked in with other friends who've seen a few Prides over the years, and they mentioned that the worst they've seen were a few leather daddies - men in chaps, harnesses, and that sort of thing; maybe bottoms that were too tight. I've seen some rope harnesses here and there, but never actual nudity at parades. 

Here's the thing. Online adverts, movies, side banners, game ads particularly - any of these display women in sexually provocative gear on a regular basis. But because it's catered towards a straight male gaze, it passes without comment. I have never had a problem with sexual advertising, but I do have a big problem with the double standard for queer folks and non-gender conforming presentations. Things that wouldn't draw a second glance if a hot blonde woman wore them, when transposed onto other bodies, are suddenly shocking and appalling and not fit for children.

It is also interesting that of the people who've been caught performing non-normative kink acts in public, all of them were straight or straight-facing couples. Queer couples aren't even allowed to get married in every country, meaning that they're usually deprived of marriage-locked social system benefits, including things like seeing one's partner at the hospital during a health emergency. Marriage isn't just a cutesy conformist luxury - it represents an access to certain rights. Because LGBTQ+ couples are tolerated in many countries, but only just, and persecuted or criminalised in many others, it's perhaps unsurprising that all of the people inflicting their kinks on the public outside of Pride events are overwhelmingly straight-facing or straight and white. 

What's the takeaway? 

Lecturing the person getting choked unexpectedly for not talking about what they're into is victim-blaming. There is no way to be a good enough person to avoid aggression. The problem is the person performing that aggression in the first place. 

And once again - why are we policing women, or afab people and queers, rather than demanding that men be the ones to learn how to talk about kink? Why are guys not getting consent before they choke someone?

***

Michelle Browne is a sci fi/fantasy writer and editor. She lives in Lethbridge, AB with her partner-in-crime and their cats. Her days revolve around freelance editing, knitting, jewelry, and learning too much. She is currently working on other people’s manuscripts, the next books in her series, and drinking as much tea as humanly possible.

Find her all over the internet: * OG Blog * Mailing list * Magpie Editing * Amazon * Medium * Twitter * Instagram * Facebook * Tumblr * Paypal.me * Ko-fi

Hey Queers, What the &$%#

Hello hello!

Well, it's Pride month, and I'm feeling a little feisty and punchy.

I'm a proud part of the Queer Sci Fi group on Facebook, and as many readers will know, I'm no stranger to writing about queer characters.

I was talking to a mentor of mine about something recently, and my dander's up. The problem is this. The lesbian stigma is absolutely real, and a problem. When seeking out books about queer characters, readers say they want f/f couples. But m/m books outsell f/f books handily, and so do stories with m/f 'straight' couples. (For those unacquainted, 'm/m' is 'male/male', 'f/f' is 'female/female', and yes, I realise that's very gender binary, but that's the industry right now.)

If a book has the most carefully designed and well-blurbed cover it can, and has all its marketing data lined up, at some point, this comes down to readers. It's no coincidence that m/m books on Queer Sci Fi make up the majority of titles.

As my mentor said,

#1. Go to teh LGBT subcat bestseller list- tally how many titles are which "branch" of LGBT. You can also just look at the LGBT subcats and note how many more MM titles there are than basically all the others combined.

I don't have an analytical article today - merely an admonishment and a call to arms. If you are a queer person who has publicly asked for f/f lit in the past, or even just privately wanted to read it - put your money where your mouth is! This year, seek out books about queer women. You can still buy m/m, I'm not going to tell anyone to stop doing something they like, but please support diversity within the LGBTIAPQ/QUILTPBAG community.

It's not that f/f books are 'too special' or 'too good' for mainstream readers. I know a lot of people - even people who have mainstream sexual and gender identities - who like stories about ladies in love. It would seem that although lesbians still get that ol 'pornographic' stigma, presentation of lady-lady or femme-femme love has not hit the mainstream.

So here's my request - whether you are an ally or a QUILTPBAG person, please share, talk about, and read f/f fiction this year. It will help those of us who love the stories get more of them, and push back against the unintentional but ingrained misogyny of the publishing industry.

***

Thanks for returning to the nest. Leave a comment and say hi! I want to hear from you. Keep up with the new releases by getting on the mailing list. Buy my books on Amazon, and keep up with me on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, and the original blog. This is the one and only SciFiMagpie, over and out!

Why I Bailed on Activism

Hello hello!

As those who follow my Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr antics may have noticed, I've really pulled back on content about human rights issues.

What the hell?

The problem is, I started to buy into a fallacy that plagues both conservative and left-leaning activists - being right is more important than making people happy. I definitely did this when I was younger, and hadn't yet learned argument mediation skills; as I've aged through the last ten years or so, I've learned that being right only feels good for so long.

Of course, that doesn't mean that bending over backwards to make people happy, the strategy I lived by in my early teens, is particularly wise, either. But for me, personally, as a person who was supporting activists and trying to spread word about certain ideas, it was too easy to lean on the comfort of moral superiority. I saw a lot of people I looked up to doing that, for one thing. As well, there's a really uncomfortable habit that people in radical left circles share with radical right circles - withholding affection and attention until the person interacting with them abides by certain behavioral patterns. If one is a teacher's pet, i.e. a person vulnerable to authority figures, it's very easy to become obedient or toe a party line, even when personal ideas may start to conflict with that.

Even the 'good people' aren't always...good. 

I've seen a surprising number of people - most white, but some people of colour as well - engage in really interesting rhetorical backflips in order to stay in line with others. For instance, being an activist but refusing to educate well-intentioned people under any circumstances. Education can be exhausting, but it's also the point of raising awareness. And yes, sometimes demands for education are used passive-aggressively, but leaning on facts and basic information can still result in productive conversations.

Another thing I've noticed is a tendency to focus on either guilt performance theatre or deliberately ignoring areas of non-disadvantage. So, a person who is genderqueer and asexual and from a middle-class background might underline their sexuality and gender identity, but avoid talking about finances or their own white privilege. Alternately, they might bemoan their own lack of "wokeness" and limitations imposed by said background.

Power structures and dynamics in such conversations can be complex at the best of times, and there are countless articles on how to navigate them. I do think communication issues and awareness of personal circumstances and limitations are important, but the hostility, defeatism, and pessimism of social activism really started to get to me.

It's funny, but sometimes it seems as though people are happy to slap down trigger and content warnings for things that affect them, but not willing to abide by the same requests when brought forward by others. I have a large number of now former friends who claim to be sensitive, motivated by change, and proactive in mental health issues, but who were all too happy to weaponize triggers when it served their purpose in an argument. Can't deal with an article on a given day? Clearly you're not that committed to The Cause, or endorsing prejudice against a certain group. Can't make a commitment because of a mental health issue? Citing your own depression is ableist!

You can probably see how that takes a toll on someone, or at least, on me.

Source

Bad social dynamics, the breakdown 

A comment can be a misstep in one case and highly offensive in another. When it comes to interacting with other people, situational cues are better than hard and fast rules. Since I've returned to giving people the benefit of the doubt, I've been able to make more inroads with discussions, and I certainly don't lose nights of sleep or cry over something that led to an argument.

One of the things I like about environmental activism is that there are clearer goals. Things can be measured. With social activism, sometimes people would look at a win and go, "this isn't enough". For a person with my background and mental issues, that turned out to be really toxic. I started focusing on negativity and terribleness too often, found myself stuck in endless argument loops that didn't seem to have a clear answer or solution, and sometimes, ended up on the sharp end of attacks when my own mental health issues meant I couldn't be perfectly objective about something.

 Beating oneself up accomplishes nothing, and being around people who encourage self-flagellation as an outlet for guilt is toxic. Constant pessimism is not realism, it's a bad habit of mental health. That's not to say that optimism is required at all times, or that people should sit down and shut up - but if all we do is punch sideways and downwards, what's the point of all this?

Source

 

This blog post won't be good enough for some people, and may be a huge disappointment. And that's okay. But for the rest, know that I'm still on your side, on what I'm pretty sure is the right side of history as well. But I've been wrong a few times, and learned to move on, and I hope that other people who find themselves exhausted by the world will take comfort in this.

The thing is, I haven't changed any of my perspectives. In the world of writing, I will still be pursuing representation and fairness. I will write protagonists of colour, of queerness, and with mental health issues, and they will be protagonists rather than sassy supporting characters or tragic tokens. I believe in a better, fairer world. But I have also realised that, as my friend and mentor Katie de Long put it, I can't light myself on fire to keep others warm.

In any case, I have Black romance novels to edit, Afropunk beauty articles to share, and novels to write. I have fellow writers to support, friends to encourage, and other stuff to do. I've been trying to save the world too long, and now I've got to save myself.

***

Thanks for returning to the nest. Leave a comment and say hi! I want to hear from you. Keep up with the new releases by getting on the mailing list. Buy my books on Amazon, and keep up with me on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, and the original blog. This is the one and only SciFiMagpie, over and out!

Writing Sucks: It's Okay to Hate Your Art Sometimes

Hello hello!

Now, all the writers I know can anticipate what I'm about to say, but for those who prefer consuming media to making it, it may be a surprise. Art sucks. It's not just that drawing symmetrical eyes is difficult. Sure, there are fandom politics to deal with, as a recent ridiculous blow up in the Steven Universe fandom demonstrated. But sometimes, writing a storyline is just plain brutal.

A good example of this is The Underlighters. Sure, I enjoyed writing it, but sometimes, I didn't. I just had to write it. Same goes for After the Garden. Both of those books have scenes that were just emotionally hard to write. I won't include any spoilers, because of course, I'd prefer that you buy and read them for yourselves, but people who've already read one or both will probably know what I'm talking about.

But why is writing--or art in general--so hard? Well, there are basically three reasons. 

Writing and art can be tedious 

Art takes time. Right now, I'm working on a new productivity method--fifty words a day, fiction or blog, no matter what. My birthday? Halloween? Christmas? Doesn't matter. I will still have to write fifty words, at a minimum, that day. Sometimes I blow past this goal and write five hundred or even two thousand words, and sometimes, I just barely squeak by with the two or three sentences required to make my goal.

I tried higher word counts, and all that did was frustrate me. I tried a 'no zero' method, and that just resulted in a surprising number of zero productivity days. Something about fifty words a day really motivates me. A close pal of mine sets writing time limits. Chuck Wendig recommends three hundred and fifty words per day. Stephen King, as many people know, writes about two thousand words per day (link). I spoke to Emmie Mears recently, and they tend to write several thousand words per day over a very short span, then take long breaks. The point is, you might have to fiddle with your personal minimum, but finding it is the key to productivity.

I used to wait for inspiration, but when it didn't show up, I was lost, and I let my readers down. The funny thing is, once I get the engine going, the muse tends to hop in the car and participate the way I wanted her to in the first place. Using my new limit, I've been able to finish a first draft of The Meaning Wars, the long-awaited third book in the series of the same name.  Which brings me to...

Writing and art can be technically difficult and intricate 

OH GOD, SEQUELS. The writers are nodding and biting their lips and gnashing their teeth right now (hopefully not at the same time, because ow). Readers may be shrugging in confusion. The thing is, in addition to the famous "soggy middle" syndrome, there's a lot of stuff to handle in a sequel.

For The Meaning Wars, I had to advance and entwine character narratives, but I also had to introduce a huge new source of tension. How would my war be fought? It took me a long time to accept that I'm just not a boots-on-the-grouund military sci fi writer, and that traditional ways of describing combat and conflict wouldn't do the trick. Instead, I listened to the news and worked on chapters until the lightning bolt hit.

When I realised that I would have to use legislation and small details to convey the sense of oppression, fear, and restriction my characters would face, I got stuck again. How in the nine Hells was I going to do that without a lot of annoying exposition? Then I realised that even though I was writing in the third person, I could use epistolary techniques like news reports, letters and messages, and announcements or broadcasts. From there, it got a lot easier. I just had to think about specific, frustrating restrictions from the real world, and model obstacles accordingly.

Still, I will be working on book four soon, and after that, Monsters and Fools - the final book in The Nightmare Cycle (see above re: the Underlighters). I'm scared as hell of that sequel because the same problems will be presenting, and I have even more connective tissue to lay down! But I'm still here, still writing a blog post about it, and still refusing to give up. 

Writing can be emotionally demanding and exhausting

One of the projects I recently finished, Bad Things that Happen to Girls, was absolutely brutal. I've been pretty open about having mental illnesses, but referencing feelings from my turbulent youth and early adulthood was very taxing. The story isn't literally biographical, but it's got emotionally autobiographical elements, and that was hard enough. Some of the more vicious scenes of emotional abuse really took it out of me, and you don't even want to know how hard the ending was. But I'd been working on the story since 2006. It had gone through two full rewrites as I struggled to nail down the timeline and events, and then I had to get it edited. Compressing the timeline and wrestling the elements into place was bad enough, but the subject matter left me curled up on the couch more than a few times.

But I'd do it again in a heartbeat. I am so glad I've released these stories into the world, and I have so many more waiting to be set free. I will be in pain, frustrated, swearing, or just slogging away at a blog post in the future, and I can't wait. It's not that suffering makes you an artist--it's that being an artist makes you suffer. Creation can be gruelling and frustrating. And that's okay.

Special thanks to Emmie Mears, Chuck Wendig, and Delilah Dawson, as well as Sarah Dimento and Katie de Long, for letting me peruse their brains!

***

Thanks for returning to the nest. Leave a comment and say hi! I want to hear from you. Keep up with the new releases by getting on the mailing list. Buy my books on Amazon, and keep up with me on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, and the original blog. This is the one and only SciFiMagpie, over and out!

Political Correctness Is Not Your Friend

Hello hello!

Content warning: I use some pretty harsh language in this one, so if racism is triggering for you, be prepared or maybe skip this one for the sake of your mental health.

So, for a very long time, something has been sitting awry with me. People on my side of the political and rights spectrum--those who accept the reality of and want to fight social, racially based, gender-based, and ability-based inequality--keep using this phrase, "politically correct", as though it's a good thing.

Source. Where would a discussion on language be without this meme?

Why is this happening? 

Well, it started because a bunch of idiot white male comedians (that doesn't have to be a redundancy) started using the idea of being "politically incorrect" as an excuse to be sexist, racist, homophobic, and say whatever else was on their mind. This started happening because they were quoting George Carlin--a guy who fought hard against network censors.

Those of us who remember the 90s remember what political correctness meant--not just the positive benefits of avoiding racial and gendered slurs, but also the far less positive effect of not talking about controversial things. Political correctness does not mean uplifting people, it means avoiding controversy and offending people. It means painting over historically inaccurate racism--like say, the portrayal of Egyptians as white people--by casting lots of white people, so you won't "offend" anyone whose idea of Egyptian gods involves white skin. 

Not sure that's the case? Ask Google. 

po·lit·i·cal·ly cor·rect

pəˌlidək(ə)lē kəˈrekt/

adjective

adjective: politically correct; adjective: politically incorrect; adjective: incorrect

1. exhibiting (or failing to exhibit) political correctness.

   "it is not politically correct to laugh at speech impediments"

   synonyms:

   unoffensive, nondiscriminatory, unbiased, neutral, appropriate,nonpartisan; informalPC "the true meaning may be clouded by his politically correct language"

   antonyms:

   offensive

Wait, what? 

Political correctness means including black characters but never talking about racism, and having female scientists without touching on sexism. It means painting the world in an even, flat beige--not offending people, but also avoiding the rough edges of stories.

Political correctness is not about fighting discrimination, it's about avoiding offense in a way that does not fight or counteract the ruling power structures. It does not mean that being carelessly offensive, and a sloppy drunk on the stage, makes you some sort of warrior defending free speech--no matter what certain comedians and GamerGate subscribers would have one believe. Shouting slurs for the sake of shock and awe is basically the adult version of a toddler repeating swear words to get a rise out of her mother. It startles grandparents and embarrasses her mother--but is far from an actual conversation about, say, the history of farting in art, which is a valid and interesting topic.

Source. I wasn't just talking out of my ass. 

What does that mean for movies, TV, and books? 

I was talking with a friend on Facebook about old Western movies, and he shared some very interesting observations.

"Honestly there are some rather obvious divides with portrayals of the tribes, even going back to the old Westerns.

Because there's a lot of "ugh kill the white man" but there's also a fair amount of "uh, we screwed them y'know? If I were them I'd be angry too."

There were even a few films that had Native American heroes fighting white guys trying to screw them more. These were, of course, really rare. But weirdly one of the more notable ones starred Robert Taylor, who was pretty conservative."

[...]

"...But it says something that to get positive portrayals of native americans you often do need to check out (some, not all) of the Westerns around. Some of them had problems and were tone deaf in some ways, but they were also often very honest about the validity of the anger of the Native American at their treatment. It's hard to even get an angry Lou Diamond Phillips in Young Guns screaming about his family's murder these days in most of Hollywood. Which tends to be very positive but also very "uh no, let's not talk about this" about such issues."

This really struck a chord with me, and I remembered what it was about "political correctness" that had always bothered me. On one hand, we should not be throwing around slurs and insults in some ham-fisted and thin ploy to "reclaim" them, but on the other hand, we shouldn't force non-white, non-male, non-able characters to be model minorities. First Nations people have a right to be angry, and for us to acknowledge that anger.

That doesn't mean all First Nations people should be angry drunks or 'savage warriors', or that black characters should be former thieves or gangsters. It means that characters should talk about differing experiences, such as being pulled over for speeding while they were driving at the limit, and having the sherriff size them up, worrying that he was going to raid their car, while the dude just gloried in his power over the driver's helplessness.

That also means that the burden is on those of us who create stories, especially writers, to do our research and make an effort to talk about racism honestly. Not just "as white ambassadors", as is so often the case, but as allies and advocates. Perhaps more importantly, it means supporting non-white content creators, and learning when to listen rather than lead.

So what can we do? 

Well, instead of rallying around political correctness, call our enemies by their names: racism, sexism, homophobia, cissexism, and ableism--among other things. We can fight discrimination and racism without forcing people to be comfortable, but also without throwing survivors and vulnerable people under the bus. That's why content warnings are fine. Let people know that Deadpool's movie includes sex and violence, and make it rated R--don't make a watered down, PG-13 version so that 'everyone will be happy'. Let Harley Quinn fall for the Joker and leave him for a healthier relationship, rather than just "almost kissing him" like Anna with Hans in Frozen. 

Political correctness is about comfort, but there's no reason not to have it both ways. Embrace the ugliness of a real discussion about racialized violence or disadvantages felt by First Nations people, but don't refer to the same people as--just typing this makes me cringe in disgust--"drunk Injuns". We can stop permitting people's use of slurs while still demanding complex, nuanced, authentic stories.

Seek out stories by First Nations, Latino/a/x, Desi, black, and Asian writers. When you want to relax, reach for more than another Star Wars movie--throw on that random Korean drama you'd been planning to watch. Read blog posts by writers of colour, and see if the people on a list of creative work catch your eye. Throw money at Kickstarters and IndieGoGo and Patreon projects like this one. Paranormal queer romance? Uh, yeah! Or what about this one? 

Fixing the system isn't quite as hard as we've led ourselves to believe. Be respectful and prepare to be uncomfortable. That's all it's going to take.

***

Thanks for returning to the nest. Leave a comment and say hi! I want to hear from you. Keep up with the new releases by getting on the mailing list. Buy my books on Amazon, and keep up with me on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, and the original blog. This is the one and only SciFiMagpie, over and out! 

Breaking News: Cover Reveals! New Releases! A Street Team!

Hello hello!

So it's been a while since this happened, but I finally have a post that's related to--gasp--my writing and work. Nic Wilson is a cool science fiction writer whose work has been on my blog a couple of times, and perhaps unsurprisingly, we've become pretty good friends. We even teamed up to write a book. Katie de Long, collaborator and instigator, was also involved. Together, we crafted exactly what you'd expect.

Buy the thing here! 

Execution above or extinction below... 

Survival is hard enough in the poverty-stricken streets of the Lower Blocks, and this woman is far from the first to flee the Engineers who oversee the City. But now Christine's a target: hunted by the aristocracy, her future uncertain, and past laid bare. And a person with Christine's powers can't afford to be caught. 

Humanity built the Foundation to elevate themselves from the poisoned earth, but Christine and Ilsa must choose whether to descend to hell below, or remain in hell above.


Please note, Euphoria/Dysphoria contains a lesbian romance, graphic violence, and some disturbing material. It is intended for mature readers.


But that's not all. After the Garden will also be launching soon.

Memories of another life and lover guide her, but are they even hers? She is a Bearer—keeper of past lifetimes and gifted with strange talents. Ember must find her answers away from safe Longquan Village, snared instead in the sensuality and dangers of The City. Hidden among spider farmers and slaves, prostitutes and weavers, a nest of people like her are waiting.

A powerful man outside The City raises his forces, determined to hunt down the ‘demons’ who could taint his followers. Threatened from without and within, can the Bearers even trust each other? 

And there's still more. A couple of blog tours will be coming up in the next few months to celebrate the launches of these books, and you know what that means--Rafflecopters! Swag and loot! Not only will I have some signed paperbacks, I'll have things like exclusive book-based jewelry, both featuring cover art and jewelry I've created, bookmarks, and even weirder bits of loot! Sure, some of it will be on offer for contests, but street team members will have special perks. In addition to the treasures, you can count on cover previews, snippets, advance notice of sales and new releases, and superb ways to waste your time on Facebook at work with other fans!

Curious? All you need to do is click here. Once I see that you've requested to join, you'll be in!

***

Thanks for dropping by the nest once again. Leave your comments, rebuttals, and vehement agreements below. Don't miss any of the phuquerie. Find Michelle on Twitter, Facebook, and on Tumblr, and find her work on Amazon. Check back on the blog to see when one of the irregular posts has careened onto your feed. This is the one and only SciFiMagpie, over and out! 

Breaking News; The Underlighters

Hello hello!

So, I've been talking to a few people about this book, and just, the reactions...I can't even...





I mean, intellectually I knew that representation was important because people need to see themselves in books and on screen...but the impact on actual human beings is just...it's earthshaking. The reaction from some people at hearing that someone cared about putting queers, people of colour, and physically challenged people in a book...well. The gif is there for a tongue-in-cheek attempt to cover the heartwrenching feelings. I expected mild interest; I didn't expect slightly teary notes of gratitude. I really didn't expect to be cutting onions myself.

So yeah. Expect my books to be loaded with actual human beings, not just the minority of white straight people that we paradoxically see on TV most of the time. I'd resolved to do it anyway...but now that I know how much it means to people? Consider it set in stone. (Hope this doesn't bite me later. I'll do my best for it not to, though.)

Here's Underlighters again, of course.

And here are some books involving diverse characters (by diverse authors, too) that have shaken my worldview. These are all the ebook editions--because I want you to go shopping but I don't want to break your wallet.

Neon Lights (ZigZag Claybourne) http://www.amazon.com/Neon-Lights-Zig-Zag-Claybourne-ebook/dp/B004UH0ORI

Whores (Nic Wilson) http://www.amazon.com/Whores-intended-factual-account-gender-ebook/dp/B009FLCJ18

Ghost in the Machine (Corinne Kilgore) http://www.amazon.com/Ghost-Machine-Corwint-Central-Agent-ebook/dp/B009UFHA0O

Brown Girl in the Ring (Nalo Hopkinson) http://www.amazon.com/Brown-Girl-Ring-Nalo-Hopkinson-ebook/dp/B00AG0P5VS

Wolf at the Door (J Damask) aka blackwolfchng​ http://www.amazon.com/Wolf-Door-The-Adventures-Volume/dp/9810713258

On the same note...I'm reading "The Night Circus" by Morgenstern right now. I want to love it, but apparently Tumblr has just broken me, period. I like it, don't get me wrong, but it's the 19th century (and early 20th century) and it's a circus with no damn black people and one Asian; our main characters are basically all straight, too. Considering that the book makes a point of showing that these characters are people who don't quite fit in society, I'm annoyed. It's well-written and all that (though in third-person present tense, which I dislike), but where the hell is the diversity?

Anyway, thank you all for your love of my book. Y'all need to go shopping and check out those authors.

*****

Thanks for dropping by the nest once again. Don't miss any of the phuquerie. Find Michelle on Twitter, Facebook, and on Tumblr, and find her work onAmazon. Check back on the blog to see when one of the irregular posts has careened onto your feed. This is the one and only SciFiMagpie, over and out! 

Love Hurts: Why Modern Romantic Comedies Inevitably Suck

Hello hello!

Time for more thinky bits. I know y'all love it when I analyse things, and for a change, I'm going to focus on something I hate instead of something I love. Namely: modern romantic comedies. 

Why do I hate them, personally? Sure, I'm a cis (that is, 'happy with my born sexual identity') white female, but I always preferred action and explosions for a dumb flick over something a couple of chocolates and a frilly bow short of estrogen poisoning. Romcoms, like the ones that proliferated in the 90s, are an insult to intelligence, the characters are shallow...well, I could go on about the whys, and I'm about to. It's not that I don't like love stories--I do, in fact, and often write a bit of romance into my plots. 

What may surprise you, then, is that I absolutely love Jane Austen. I've touched on this before, as well as my abiding love for the Brontes. In fact, I'm fond of a lot of 19th century literature, and a bit of an Anglophile (although I love French and Russian literature from the same era to exactly the same extent). So--how, you ask, can I like the original queen of the genre's writings, and race to Netflix and the internet whenever I hear that Pride and Prejudice or another Austen work has been adapted or re-adapted? Shouldn't I be shrivelling up like a salted slug at the mere thought of romance? 

I was watching a few reviews tonight on ThatGuyWithTheGlasses.com, a favourite site, when the answer hit me: modern romantic comedies totally deserve my ire because they're broken, and have been for years. Many serious romances are also pretty phuqued, but it's the comedies that are really boiled dry, and I finally know why. 

A brief note before I get into things--I'm going to focus on what I know, which is confined to English-language romances, mostly American and Hollywood-based. The issues I bring up may not be relevant or fit for a critique of Chinese, Indian, African, or other international romantic comedy films (which, unfortunately, I haven't had a chance to see many of), and certainly not the far more intelligent romantic comedies I've occasionally seen coming out of Europe.  I'd love to see some of the romances and romantic comedies of other countries, so if you have recommendations, please mention them in the comments. 

Source. It's only romantic because there are no nocturnal predators. In neolithic times they would have been so dead. 

A bit of background (pink background)

Just in case you've been fortuitous enough to escape one of the many lackluster rom-coms that have come out in the last couple of decades, let me save you a bit of work. From Meg Ryan to Julia Roberts to Katherine Hegel, we've had a number of stars make their careers based on rom-coms. Sex and the City milked an entire series of movies and a TB--I mean, TV--show from it, and there have been many other TV shows as well. From the 1980s to the 2000's, an absolute rash of films powered by these and lesser stars came out to appeal to pink-wearing period-suffering female cliches everywhere. 

The formula

The formula is simple: man and woman meet. Man and woman fight, often because they are competing over something. Man and woman may also be longterm friends who suddenly realise they're perfect for each other. Token love interests crop up to add complications. Woman's friends do girly things. Man's friends make misogynistic remarks. Man and woman are attracted to each other and sometimes sleep together. Awkwardness/personality faults/some contrived competition drives a wedge between them. It appears all is lost, but then a last minute save of some sort (usually the man's apology and rarely the woman's) fixes all. Harmony is restored and the couple dwells blissfully in ForeverDatingLand. 

It tends to be loaded with cliches and very poor. The movies are also notoriously repetitive. And yet, older versions of the same story are often charming, or at least bearable, for all their faults. Modern romantic comedies, like 500 Days of Summer and Kissing Jessica Stein, are also starting to move in a different direction. 

I'm ignoring the escapist side of things, such as the fact that romcoms and romances usually feature wealthy and attractive people that the audience wishes they could be/knock boots with, for the simple reason that most media has something of a fantasy element to it. I can't use magic or ride a steam-powered horse in real life, either, so that vicarious element averages into other genres as well. 

Source. As we all know, this is how people dressed in the 19th century. At all times.

Let's drop the history. 

The problem with romantic comedies, compared to their source material, is a temporal and societal one. Back in the days of Austen and her contemporaries, firm and rigid social rules determined the fate of women in the middle and upper class. Fail to follow them, and exile and disgrace--the sort that could ruin a family financially and socially--inevitably occurred. A woman's marriage meant everything, determining not only her own future and that of her children, but influencing that of her family, as well. Marrying for love wasn't really that common--one married for duty and love was supposed to develop. The rise of the middle class and the Industrial Revolution changed things, making people more prosperous, and cultural shifts led to a greater emphasis on freedom of expression. 

It's no coincidence that the many women in factories and even in the upper classes started to get uppity. The beginnings of women's rights and suffrage started here; dragging women into the workforce and out of the countryside changed everything. 

These societal clashes were very important in romantic books of the time, too. Tess of the D'Urbervilles is a fine example of a woman helpless to and aware of the dis-empowerment forced by her social class. Mansfield Park, one of my favourites, is all about the inequality within a household. Of course, Jane Eyre is another prime example of the same, as is Wuthering Heights (which is also about faeries and changelings, by the way. I should post about that for you guys some time). If you ended up at a disadvantage or made a simple misstep, boom, that was it. For the rest of your life. It provided a lot of tension, and because the issues are serious, the books resound with us to this day.

Say what? What do you mean by 'broken'?

The problem is--and here, I admit I'm conflating romances and romcoms a bit--modern stakes just aren't the same. The older books generally tend to have real antagonists, and a better understanding of human nature. Even when modern comedies are rather good, they still avoid the really uncomfortable issues implied or explicitly explored in older works. Instead, they play contemporary issues for drama to an exaggerated extent (hello, Nicholas Sparks), rely on illnesses, or make mountains out of molehills. 

Women had little to do except marry up. Now that we have careers and independence and enough money to be wasteful, or almost enough, the issues that made earlier works so urgent are basically gone. Things that would have been social death in a previous era are now mere inconveniences at worst, and that makes the social awkwardness in movies feel forced at best and terribly shallow and annoying at worst. We're allowed to talk, albeit poorly, about uncomfortable subjects now, and to really appreciate the stakes in a previous era's romance, one must understand that openness was verboten. Sex is usually offscreen, or goofy, or perfected for romantic comedies, and is almost never raunchy or kinky in a realistic way. 

In addition to easy fixes and simple solutions, romcoms skim over real emotional issues and avoid long term repercussions, focusing to psychotic exclusion of reality on the gratification of the romance. While a lot of women who read Austen kind of ignore this, the appeal in her books is that everything has repercussions and that all the small actions are followed up on later. The romances determine the women's life paths, and their interactions with other characters all pay off. The overarching human stories--somewhat touched on--that involved things not at all related to the LOVE STORY actually threw it into greater focus. People remember Elizabeth's sisters as much as they remember Elizabeth and Darcy, and there's a reason for that. 

Modern stuff has simply recycled the formulas used previously without understanding why they work. From the rote formulas, they copied the stories' details and took diligent notes, but failed to get across the soul of the story and the real conflict. Simply, they're a mix of unrealistic and unhealthy ideas with a fatal dose of anachronism. That's why they suck, empirically speaking.

Source. This would accurately reflect the fact that romance isn't a tidy affair.

How do we fix it? 

For starters, diversity would be nice. White people inevitably and sickeningly dominate the romantic scene. My Big Fat Greek Wedding explored culture clashing, and was reasonably smart and fun, but we need a lot more of that--preferably without condescending racist subtext. Adjusting the expectations for the female and male lead--such as the male lead's generally useless career and role--is also needed. 

Fortunately for us, the industry is starting to respond to the fact that romantic comedies are kind of a dead market. Only 19 of the hundreds of films coming out in 2013 are romances, and of the comedies, only a couple are remotely romantic. Having realised that chicks like guns and action and plots as much as guys do, the market is finally dead. We're still dealing with poor representation of women in action movies and mostly whitewashed casts, and with the majority of films (even from feminist Joss Whedon) failing the Beschdel test ( a) two female named characters b) talk to each other c) about something other than a man), the death of romcoms hasn't done much on its own to move us forward.

Interestingly, Twilight and 50 Shades of Grey, much as I have previously mocked both, have helped us get away from traditional romcoms, replacing them--and much of romance--with paranormal romance and BDSM and more erotic fiction. It's a somewhat lateral move, but the fact that women are more comfortable with these decidedly less passive and more aggressive displays of sexuality is probably a good thing. They still play into the same cliches as their predecessors, though, for the most part, so the real effect of the shift has yet to be seen.  

So, in summary of things to fix--a plot that deviates from the classics and gives female characters some agency, and gives men actual desires and feelings (rather than making them wish-fulfillment machines) would be great. Also, more lesbians and more gay men who don't just do hair or interior decorating or serve as hetero women's pets. Everything focuses on people between the ages of sixteen and thirtysomething, with a few rare exceptions, so we could stand to see a few more (dignified) comedies and films about middle-aged and old people. Queering up the joint would be a lot of fun, but anything not dealing with hetero white people usually gets confined to film festivals. Glee, of all things, and other media, are sloooowly bridging the gaps between 'alt' sexuality and 'normal' sexuality (can you see me wincing over the internet?) but we still have a long way to go. 

Fortunately, a few of these films do exist, so you can still cuddle up with a love story and you won't absolutely have to turn your brain off. 

Source. Those candles and rose petals should be used, not just sit there for decoration. You can do some fun things with a little hot wax... 

My recommendations 

I like my romances to be more complex and dark, as well as to have a lot more context and content than your average Harlequin in film or TV form. Here's a mixed list of a few of the romantic movies I've seen and liked. 


1) One of the best romances I've ever seen has to be Be With Me, a Malaysian mostly-silent film about intertwining storylines that's truly beautiful and moving. 

2) Across the Universe also earned points from me for not only having a stunning visual design, but addressing human flaws, multiple sexual issues, identity, and the ugly side of the 60s in a nicely stylised way. 

3) Mambo Italiano was an uncomfortable but memorable and realistic little Canadian comedy about an Italian-Canadian boy who has to deal with being gay and a painfully funny emergence from the closet. 

They're available on the internet and Netflix, so go enjoy them when you have a moment. 

*****

Thanks for dropping by the nest once again. Don't miss any of the good kind of crazy. Find me on Twitter, Facebook, and on Tumblr. Watch out for my fantasy-themed spring: interviews with fantasy authors, content related to fantasy films and reviews, and some political commentary--the phuquerie you've come to expect from me. Keep checking back to see those surprise posts, too. This is your darling SciFiMagpie, over and out!